I'd like to say here and now, just in case it wasn't clear from the previous post that I'm not against waiting until marriage to have sex at all. Provided that it's actually a choice (some people are strong-willed/religious enough to do that) - a genuine choice and the person has sufficient awareness of contraception, diseases and their body parts to not do themselves any harm, then great. If they've found the right person and yadda, yadda, yadda, then more power to them. It is genuinely admirable.
That's just it though - when it's not a choice, but a cultural expectation, we're entering Whole Different Kettle-o'-Fish Land. All too often, it IS a cultural expectation, conveniently underpinned by misogyny. Worried that girls are getting pregnant too young? Hey! Don't get your knickers in a twist! You don't have to do anything as difficult as tell boys that they're just as responsible for the being that will be created. I mean, it's only 50% of their genetic material, and it's not like it's growing inside of THEM, right? Naaah, man, there's a much easier way to deal with it. Teach your girls to JUST SAY NO! Everyone knows they're the weaker sex anyway - you'd better drum it into them just to be safe.
I mean, girls are nothing but empty vessels, right? Shout that abstinence message right into their ears and it'll keep echoing delightfully around in their pretty little heads. They won't get pregnant, no sirree. They won't have sex.
... Except, as any fule kno, they will, because girls have desires too. Sometimes, even when they might not want to go 'all the way', a coercive boyfriend will tell them to do it 'if you love me', passing off a frankly galling selfishness that would have no place in REAL love under cover of emotional blackmail. Then, once they do, if they haven't used contraceps - that's right, up the spout! If they were told that 'abstinence is the only way,' then you can bet they're going to end up DOUBLY screwed.
Granted, the abstinence movement is bigger in the US than it is here, but there are things which make me think of it in this country too. Like this, for instance.
Why the flying fuck is The Times even giving this dumbfuck print-time, seriously? I was utterly UNsurprised to learn that the most prominent critic cited was affiliated with a religious body.
Simon Calvert, deputy director of the Christian Institute, attacked the leaflet, saying: “The idea that the government is telling families not to pass on their values [they're not... have you read the leaflet?] is outrageous.
“Preserving children’s innocence is a worthy goal. We would like to see more of that kind of language rather than this amoral approach where parents are encouraged to present their children with a smorgasbord of sexual activities and leave them to make up their own minds.”
Oh, Lord forbid that they should MAKE UP THEIR OWN MINDS! NOOOOOO! IT'LL BE SODOM AND GOMORRAH ALL OVER AGAIN, FORNICATING IN THE STREETS, RIVERS OF BLOOD...
(as opposed to the good ol' down-home repressed approach that some righteous Christians use to deal with their urges... Speaking of which, don't you just LOVE that the Pope not only didn't fire Cardinal Bernard Law, but transferred him, and then called for 'continuous prayer' to deal with the problem of paedophilia within the Church? Instead of like, y'know, doing something about it. Like firing those who do it, and recognising that it's PAEDOphilia - being attracted to children - NOT linked to those with "deep-seated homosexual tendencies" as the Supreme Morons put it).
It beggars belief. I mean that literally. It reduces belief to beggary for the many Christians out there who are not utter morons - like Derek_M.
Seriously dude, if that's how you think, you should be sterilising people, because as soon as a human being is born, they are equipped with a fully-functioning (in most cases) mind of their own. The whole thing that's meant to be 'divine' about humanity is that they can choose and judge for themselves, not blindly follow the call of biology as the rest of the Animal Kingdom does. Adulthood is about children learning to make up their own minds. So, what do you suggest we do? Kill 'em when they're 18? Sterilise everyone just to be safe?
I thought of the abstinence movement here because what screamed out at me were the LIES, LIES, LIES in what Christofascist (sorry, had an attack of 'teh internets' there) Calvert said here:
"Preserving children’s innocence is a worthy goal."
It is, my frothing moron, it is. Don't think the warm glow of a universally-accepted statement is going to get you off though, because, you see, it doesn't apply to you. You're just a meaning-twisting liar like so many others out there.
You don't give two hoots about children's innocence. You want to amend that phrase to read 'Ensuring children's ignorance is a worthy goal' because that's what you mean. If you're worried about children's innocence, start taking bad parents to task - and I mean in a genuinely productive way, not through something like 'continuous praying' (snicker).
I think Mr. Calvert needs to have a read of this, if you ask me. The Virgin Mary might've done alright, but let me remind you, Mr. Calvert, that she was carrying the Son of God. Little girls out there who get pregnant are not all carrying the Son of God (wouldn't that be interesting!) and little boys who pick themselves up a nice STI or twelve and learn nothing about respecting women in the process are not Joseph. They ain't going to be visited in no dream by no angel, telling them to stand by her because they'll get fried otherwise!
And if the stuff about Alfie Patten's mother spreading the story to make money is true, then your rant is even worse than useless. People need money to live, especially in a recession, and if God doesn't come through for them but pre-marital teenage sex does... whatcha gonna do about it, huh?
Given that he hasn't even read the leaflet (it doesn't forbid passing on your values, it encourages it. All it does is (quite sensibly) warn against moralising when it comes to sex), I don't think there's many a strip more to be tearing off him. AND - perhaps most tragic of all - he confuses sexual activities with teaching kids about contraception and STIs. Good God.
6 comments:
Wow that was one heck of a rant! First time visiting your blog and I love what I read.
The hypocrisy behind the whole 'keeping your children chaste' and then transferring a pedophile and 'praying' for him - is utterly despicable. They weren't even subtle about it!
"Different Kettle-o'-Fish Land" sounds like a strange and cursed realm. All those who seek it should beware.
Thank you. I am frequently accused of 'ranting' and I suppose I might as well just accept that that is what I am doing. :D
I know, but he's the Pope, eh? The only difference between him and Dubya is that the Pope thinking he has a direct line to heaven actually gets taken seriously by many. Sigh.
Rumbold: Indeed. It's a place for piracy of the worst kind.
Good stuff KJB, as always. You even managed to slip me in there and I'm flattered that I'm not seen as an utter moron. ;)
These asshats are dime a dozen over here. Any time somebody mentions sex-ed they show up with the slippery slopes and mouth foam. I believe it can pretty much be traced back to Augustine and his left over Manicheism. Augustine was obviously a very pious man of good intention but he let his own lusts and Gnostic tendencies cloud his judgment. He ended up teaching that the body was depraved and to enjoy sex was a sin. If I'm not mistaken he even went so far as to claim that the more one enjoyed the act that conceived a child, the more original sin was transmitted to the child.
Since the Western Church is the product of Augustine, his hatred of all things sexual became entrenched in Western civilization and remains to this day.
To think that abstinence only (which really ends up as ignorance only) education works is madness. In days gone by, perhaps but not now. There are very few of us who will abstain and it's best to teach kids how to be safe and smart if they choose to start porking each other.
I'm actually in favor of what I call "graphic sex-ed". This would contain copious close-ups of genitals with the various STDs. A few ganders at syphilitic wangs would go far in teaching a boy to keep his johnson tucked away. XD
Derek:
You're not a moron at all! :-D
Thank you, that was really interesting.
'...he let his own lusts and Gnostic tendencies cloud his judgement.'
What lusts were those, just out of curiosity?
And, I agree with you on the whole graphic sex-ed thing. I think kids need to be emotionally schooled as well; in particular, they must be told that the old 'if you loved me, you'd do it' chestnut is just not acceptable. The number of boys who still use that even now... God.
You're not a moron at all! :-D
I know some people that would disagree with that and I have my moments. X-p
Thank you, that was really interesting.
'...he let his own lusts and Gnostic tendencies cloud his judgement.'
What lusts were those, just out of curiosity?
He was promiscuous and a slave to his sexual passions in his youth. When he became a Manichean his view of sexuality was forever tarnished. Since the Manicheans believed that our souls were trapped in the corrupt flesh, anything of the body was inherently evil. Sexuality was seen as demonic and when Augustine converted to Christianity, he brought this baggage with him.
If you take a look at some Gnostic books like the Apocryphon of John, it is revealed that the universe was created by an ignorant and arrogant deity called the demiurge who trapped sparks of the divine in human bodies. Not only is sexuality demonized in these texts (especially female sexuality), the point is driven home by making references to the demiurge masturbating and having sex with Eve.
And, I agree with you on the whole graphic sex-ed thing. I think kids need to be emotionally schooled as well; in particular, they must be told that the old 'if you loved me, you'd do it' chestnut is just not acceptable. The number of boys who still use that even now... God.
That pisses me off just thinking about it. Most girls want a relationship and an emotional connection while most guys just want a notch on their belt. To abuse the emotions of a person like that is borderline criminal, in my opinion.
A horrible side effect of women being more free sexually is that the classic idea of women being the chaste ones has clashed hard with more modern ideas and now women are referred to as "pieces of ____" rather than human beings.
I don't think we will ever get to the point where men learn to control themselves and women are allowed to be more free while still retaining their inherent modesty.
Post a Comment