Tag: morality

Categories
culture

Promiscuity Culture is a War on Women

EoS

In a mere seven sentences, the latter part of this article exposes how a culture of promiscuity constitutes a real war on women in four points.

In work done by sociologist Paula England, more than half of college women surveyed reported feeling less respected by men after casual sex. Meanwhile, college men are less interested than women in a relationship both before and after sex. In addition, more women reported highly unsatisfying sexual encounters, often feeling that they were treated as sexual objects by the men involved.

Yet they continued to have casual sex anyway, because when the cost of sex is low, women feel enormous pressure to give in. Many men even expect this–so much so that survey data indicate 3-5 percent of college women are victims of rape or attempted rape every year.

Yet the victimization doesn’t end there. When contraception fails, whether after consensual casual sex or an alcohol-fueled dorm-rape, men turn to abortion as a way to mitigate their responsibility.

Let’s go beyond my initial “well, duh” reaction and explore the why behind and the implications coming from each of these points.

Continue reading “Promiscuity Culture is a War on Women”
Categories
culture

Living With Differences

In another case of starting to write a comment and discovering that the response would be a full-blown post, Frank wrote this excellent post about how we treat people who do things that run contrary to our values. He speaks of these things as differences, but I think it is important to recognize that while some of the situations are mere differences, many are cases where one party views the difference as a matter of moral importance. The reason that I think this is important is that I think that people act differently when they fear for their own moral standing than when the difference has no moral bearing.

There seem to be two main reasons why people shun or harshly treat others who are, or act, differently. One reason is that they fear the difference because they do not understand it, the other reason is that they fear that they will become different themselves if they do not repel those who exhibit the differences in question. In the first case, the solution is education regarding the difference so that there is no longer a need to fear. In the second case there are situations where quarrantine may be appropriate, such as with lepers in Biblical times.

With regards to issues that are perceived as having a moral bearing understanding of oneself might be the best way to differentiate between cases where acceptance is the proper course and times when quarrantine is the more desireable course. For many young people in the LDS culture there are two conflicting messages regarding interaction with those who are different – one is to be an example and befriend others, the second is to avoid the appearance of evil and steer clear of corrupting influences (which can easily be perceived as, or even turn into, shunning). If a person understands their own strengths and weaknesses they can decide when it is best to try to befriend someone who does something contrary to their values and when to avoid someone who would have a detrimental influence on them.

For example, if Person A smokes (to take a real, but hopefully non-political example) and Person B objects to smoking, Person B can decide whether to avoid Person A if Person B has enough self-awareness to know if they have any temptation to experiment with smoking. If Person B has such a propensity then they have good reason to stay away from Person A and others who smoke in order to address their own weakness (the weakness of Person B). If Person B has no inclination to experiment with smoking then they need not avoid Person A. Considering the medical effects of second-hand smoke, Person B may still choose to avoid person A while Person A is smoking but otherwise they may quite safely interact with Person A.

To put it another (generic) way, if we understand ourselves and seek to understand the differences that we encounter in others, we will be able to determine how dangerous those differences are to us personally and we will be able to treat others with respect while still protecting ourselves from those differences which play to our own weaknesses.

Categories
culture

Case for Absitnence

I was surprised as I read this Op-Ed piece in the New York Times by Caitlin Flanagan. I doubt it was her intent, but I found a very strong argument in favor of abstinence as the preferred attitude toward extra-marital sex. She argues that there is a double standard related to the burdens of teenage pregnancy that falls more heavily on girls than on boys.

. . . the last scene [of “Juno”] brought tears to my eyes. To see a young daughter, faced with the terrible fact of a pregnancy, unscathed by it and completely her old self again was magical.

And that’s why “Juno” is a fairy tale. As any woman who has ever chosen (or been forced) [to give a child up for adoption] can tell you, surrendering a baby whom you will never know comes with a steep and lifelong cost. Nor is an abortion psychologically or physically simple. It is an invasive and frightening procedure, and for some adolescent girls it constitutes part of their first gynecological exam. I know grown women who’ve wept bitterly after abortions, no matter how sound their decisions were. How much harder are these procedures for girls, whose moral and emotional universe is just taking shape?

Of course those who disapprove of abstinence education also want to prevent unwanted pregnancies. On that everyone is agreed. The problem that they ignore is the fundamental fact that the natural result of sexual activity is pregnancy. We can lower the chances, but we can’t eliminate them. Regardless of what they may wish, there are side effects to abortion as well.

It would be helpful for the pro-life groups to admit that their preference for adoption over abortion is not without side-effects either. The reality is that regardless of the course taken afterwards, the universal result of unwanted pregnancies is emotional pain and suffering for the mother if not for anyone else.

Ms. Flanagan wonders if there is a way to level the difference in the burdens between teenage fathers who can escape the consequences in many cases and teenage mothers who can’t. Even her own words seem to promise that the answer is no.

Pregnancy robs a teenager of her girlhood. This stark fact is one reason girls used to be so carefully guarded and protected — in a system that at once limited their horizons and safeguarded them from devastating consequences. The feminist historian Joan Jacobs Brumberg has written that “however prudish and ‘uptight’ the Victorians were, our ancestors had a deep commitment to girls.”

We, too, have a deep commitment to girls, and ours centers not on protecting their chastity, but on supporting their ability to compete with boys, to be free — perhaps for the first time in history — from the restraints that kept women from achieving on the same level. Now we have to ask ourselves this question: Does the full enfranchisement of girls depend on their being sexually liberated? And if it does, can we somehow change or diminish among the very young the trauma of pregnancy, the occasional result of even safe sex?

The trauma that will always accompany unwanted pregnancy has become more common as we first accept that “boys will be boys” and then we glorify that attitude, excusing (and demeaning) young men as being unable to control themselves. We have followed that moral irresponsibility by trying to teach our girls to be boys in adopting a callous attitude about sex. Sexual activity was never meant to be taken lightly which is why it was meant to be reserved for a marriage relationship. Any other relationship and it does not matter what precautions you take, you are flirting with the consequences of pregnancy and STDs.

This is why we must teach young women to guard themselves and we must teach young men to guard the young women they care about. This teaching is not meant to be done publicly. It should be undertaken within the setting of family. No other setting can ever be fully satisfactory for the intimacy of discussion that is warranted on this subject.