Unwanted Intercourse with Ideology
This article ("Teenagers want sex — but a third get unwanted sex", The Age August 4, 2009) really makes me sad.
It is proof positive that today's youth have become the victims of their elders' ideologies.
The sex-ed "experts" believe it is a good and healthy thing for teenagers to have active sex lives early and without commitment. "Sex" is something to "get", something to aquire, something every teenager should "have", and the more you have the better life will be for you.
Yet, according to this article, "a third of high school students say they have experienced unwanted sex".
But even when the statistical reality stares them directly in their face, the experts will still come back with the reply: ‘‘For the most part, young people are having sex because they want to and they are enjoying it."
"For the most part"? "Enjoying it"? I put the expert who made that comment in the same league as Sandilands and the 2DayFM stunt.
The report tells us that for a whopping 33% of today's year 10, 11, and 12 students, sex has NOT been enjoyable. They have been forced to "have" it when they do not want to. That, dear reader, is non-consensual sex, aka "rape".
So, not "enjoyable", then. But of those who DO enjoy it, it can't even be said to be "for the most part". I'm just going by this article here, but the article reports that "overall, a quarter of year 10 students, and more than half of year 12 students, said they had had intercourse." Yet the figure "one third" is said to have been "one third" OF ALL STUDENTS, not "one third" of those who were sexually active. Since, then, this "one third" must be a subset of the "quarter"/"more than half" who "said they had had intercourse", that must mean that a majority of those who "had had intercourse" had experienced what is technically rape at some point in their short lives.
But our world continues to call good bad and bad good.
posted by Schütz @ 4:57 am
7 Comments
.JPG)
7 Comments:
And it is no surprise that the trendoid 'experts' are now trying to put out of business any education or welfare bodies that might propagate a different view. They are, as usual, utter hypocrites: what chance would a believing and practising Catholic have of getting and keeping a job in a Huperson Rights Commission, a department of wimmin's studies or the Victorian Law Reform Commission?
Biological paents are now regarded as the scum of the earth, and it's about time they reclaimed their rights - and that includes in the Catholic education system (or should that be 'Catholic' 'education'?) in which 'progressive' 'experts' have been treating parents for 40 years as if they were village idiots who had just walked out of a Paddy and Mick joke.
The gender divide was not quite clearly mentioned in that article either. I'm wondering if most of those who regretted their unwanted sexual encounters were girls, which is likely and should be thrown down the feet of those who think of such liberal sexuality as a feminist success story. The saddest aspect of today's disturbingly sexualized societies is that, whereas previous generations of women were abused as sexual objects against their will, today's generation of women have been manipulated into going along with it, often with the cooperation of their own parents.
Tom I do not disagree at all with what you have said,and i think you have hit the nail on the head by noting the difference between 'to do someone" ie the actions of lust as opposed to 'making love with ' which is meant to be about the most intimate part of the relationship between a man and a woman,hopefully who are married.
This report is the logical outcome of enlightenment thinking. Usually Luther is the one secularists thank for his 'standing on conscience' but his was framed within Scripture,whereas the enlightenment was an escape from moral absolutes ,and this report shows what happens when people cease believing in a God Who has set up those Moral absolutes ,and in the fact that they are sinners in need of repentance by trusting in Christ as their Saviour.
That's a good point about the gender differentiation with regard to "unwanted sex". If you are right, then it very much increases the overlapping percentage of young people who have a) had a "sexual experience", b) have had an "unwanted" sexual experience, and c) are female, to the point that the statistics would seem to indicate that a very, very high percentage of actively sexual young women have been abused in this way. Only looking at the original data would make clear whether this was so or not.
Of course the husband wife situation you described changes if it is "boyfriend/girlfriend"! The husband and wife have granted each other rights to each other's bodies. By the way, this also means that if the man is less interested as often happens later on in marriages, he ought to try to summon interest, just as the wife may have done earlier in the marriage.
In a boyfriend/girlfriend situation you have one person pushing the other person into immoral behavior. There is no promise of love and acceptance of the whole person as a person, no promise of permanence, no security, no promise that children that may result will be mutually raised and supported.
However I wouldn't apply the word rape to persuasion. Your distinction between inclination and consent is valid.
Susan Peterson
Sure. I agree that there;s a fundamental distinction between husband/wife and boyfriend/girlfriend relationships. I mentioned the husband/wife relationship to esxplore what exactly we could understand by “unwanted sex”. My point is that in a husband/wife relationship we can observe sexual encounters that, viewed in isolation, can be described as “unwanted”, and yet viewed in context they are certainly not rape, and they may in fact be healthy, help to build and sustain a solid, loving and giving relationship, etc. And, the distinction between husband/wife and boyfriend/girlfriend relationships notwithstanding, this can also be true in boyfriend/girlfriend relationships – unless we take the view that those relationships can only be about instant sexual gratification.
Ahh.. I see what you mean, and you are correct. Not all feminism is like this, and I should have said "radical feminism". True feminism doesn't go that way at all. Just look at the women of "Feminists for Life" whose ideals are better grounded on truth than the misled ideologies of radical feminism. It is to the latter who should really rethink where this is all going.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home