Men offer love in the hope of getting sex; women offer sex in the hope of getting love; both are cheated. (Richard J. Needham, The Wit and Wisdom of Richard Needham, 1977)
If there were no voices crying in the wilderness, how would you know there was a wilderness? (Subscripton slogan of The Canadian Forum, 1978)
There are two that follow: the first in response to the following paragraph and articles from The Canadians website, and the second follows from the topic Francois and I have been batting about, sex and boundary lines.
The First:
Exercising a Woman's Perogative to Change Her Mind
I wrote my last post on the topic yesterday; then Francois responded. This is A Response to Francois, on his comments (yesterday)about my post and his, on The Canadians websiteAn Opinion from the Distaff Side (by NJC) and Gay pride parade (by Francois). If you check, you'll see that we've been parrying and thrusting in a friendly way -- apparently not in agreement, but the more we write, the more I find we have much common ground. To quote Francois:
François' back! (C'mon, you're not really surprised.)
We both dislike the [gay] parade. Are we gonna get into a pissing contest about who hates it more?
You're pretty quick to lump all gays together. Do all heteros have sex with strangers they pick up at a bar? Are all heteros irresponsible enough to have unprotected sex? Do all heteros want to get married? Your statements are broad generalizations similar to "All blacks eat watermellon". C'mon now, get a clue.
I just could not let this go by without responding. Francois makes very intelligent, seemingly reasonable arguments -- ones which I have made to myself -- and yet, instinctively, I know something is wrong with how far we as a society have let liberalism as licence go. The following is what I have managed to work out for myself. Whether it resonates with anyone else, I hope someone will inform me; I await any responses.
First, to deal with this little comment, then on to my reasoning about societal boundary lines. "Get a clue" -- Is that an ad hominem attack and unworthy of you, Francois -- or a joke? I prefer to pretend it is the latter. Unfortunately, these "broad generalizations" Francois mentioned that I make are becoming all too true -- for heterosexuals, as well as homosexuals. To quote Francois, then to respond:
Do all heteros have sex with strangers they pick up at a bar? Are all heteros irresponsible enough to have unprotected sex?
I address this question below; there is a post on this very topic (Hooking Up: Casual Sex Without Commitment. When I read an article about students' current attitudes to sex, I was shocked. I don't have enough social contact, obviously, though I have heard students at university talking about their plans for the evening. "I'm going to go out and get drunk tonight." Not "have fun", or "meet girls" (or "guys") -- but "get drunk"? But this pales in relation to their casual attitudes to coupling. The article and my blog address this lack of boundaries in the conduct of what should be one of the most intense experiences of life -- of connecting at what should be more than a physical level with another human being, not simply scratching a mild itch. I digress. Back to Francois and yesterday's posts.
Give 'em an inch and they'll take an ell. I feel that most of us fit into this category only too easily. (Just look at how many lines we've wasted since the master gave us the opportuniity -- if you doubt me.) Making something illegal or maintaining social sanctions against something does not mean that some people will not step over the line--even a little--into illegality or flouting society's mores, but it does set an invisible line -- over which most people will not step; they will not go beyond the pale, so to speak. They may push against the barriers but they will stop, usually. The higher society places that bar or line--that is, the more society accepts as within the range of normal behaviour--the more people will exceed what is best for that society's health. It is in society's interest for its survival to keep that line or bar relatively low in order to minimize the effects of what is done by those who are compelled to cross the line -- no matter what.
Do you remember when dating and getting to first base meant internal argument about whether or not to allow him to kiss you -- or in your case, whether to try? Well, today, the bar is so high that anything goes -- and I cannot see this as healthy, any more than I see acceptance of the gay lifestyle, with its concomitant in-your-face flaunting of sexuality or the extremes of their bathhouse culture, as healthy. Society's disapproval of an activity in the interest of its own survival expressed through not legalizing that activity does not make it go away; it just reduces the number who will step over that society's invisible boundary delineating what is acceptable -- and what is not. I think it reduces the extremes of behaviour -- just as lowering the speed limit to less than what probably could be driven safely causes those who would go over any speed limit to be of less danger to others than if the limit had been set 20 kph higher.
To use another example, the parent who knows that every child must push at boundaries to grow as an individual, and therefore, would allow a little testing of the boundaries as normal on the part of a child -- that parent still makes certain the child is protected from going too far. The parent sets the bar low enough that a little dancing over the fence won't permanently damage the child -- and the parent is vigilant, and will step in at the first sign of real danger. Society needs to step in as a loving parent and stop the danger to its children -- now. Society is all of us who care as loving parents care!
The Second:
Hooking Up: Casual Sex Without Commitment
I couldn't believe this when I read it; I should have. No wonder we have dysfunctional children in dysfunctional or single parent families. There are consequences to the behaviour described here. I quote the article at length because I think it is important.
Young people appear to "hook up" with a friend for sex without commitment as easily as bobby soxers went out for a soda in the 1950s. . . . [Young] people may be losing valuable relating skills. . . .
"[when] things swing too far and become too cavalier . . . there's no emotional connection, there's this sense of emptiness."
There are no comparable Canadian data, but a 2001 national survey by the conservative Independent Women's Forum found 40 per cent of college women said they had experienced a hook-up, and one-in-10 reported having done so more than six times. A majority said hooking up made them feel desirable but they also reported it felt awkward.
Hooking up begins as early as high school and can include anything from just kissing to oral sex to intercourse, as a one-off or a series of encounters with the same person. Drinking is often involved.
Young people are targeted with a barrage of sexual images on music videos, television programs and movies. Casual sexual encounters have become an attractive alternative to full-time relationships for time-strapped young adults. . . .
"We're living in a world that's highly sexualized, watching videos that are essentially soft porn . . . .
As a school counsellor, he has seen high-school students gyrate against one another sexually at school dances with a succession of different partners. "Kids tend to copy those moves."
He said that leads to an urgency for instant gratification or titillation without personal commitment or investing in the social skills needed to grow emotionally.
"The difference between dating and hooking up is that young people aren't developing the skills to get to know others better on an intimate level, which helps them to get to know themselves better," he said. "I think it's worrisome."
. . . .[If] it's happening on a regular basis, it's got to lead to a certain emptiness because that sort of shallow connection can have a negative impact on how we value ourselves."
Corey Porter, 30, who counsels UBC students as a youth pastor for the Campus Crusade for Christ, . . . . said he tells them that sex with another person is more than just physical, even if it's called casual.
"Sex is a wonderful thing and every time you have sex, it's more than a physical thing, it's a spiritual thing, where you're giving a part of yourself to that person," he said.
"If you just sleep around, I would say the cost of that is higher than the momentary pleasure."
"We are so screwed up in our understanding of love," Porter said. "The movies make it look like such an easy thing."
He said that if you're reacting to sex-at-first-sight instead of getting to know the person, you're "going to build an emotional bond, not a character bond with that person.
My Commentary:
We have set the bar so high that anything goes and our society's individuals and families may not realize it yet, but there are consequences for themselves -- and for society's future. Read the whole article and the many comments from the students themselves. I would argue that we are seeing these consequences already.
Last night on television there was a report on a summer program in Toronto to teach inner city kids--those stuck in the city--to fish and to allow them some contact with nature at a swimming pool newly-stocked with farmed fish. 84% of these kids come from single family homes! Why is this the case? Where is the other parent and why do young people not realize that sex, casual or otherwise, has consequences -- sometimes emotional, sometimes called children -- who deserve two parents of the opposite sex so as to maximize each child's potential to develop what is best from both sexes.
I would say we've accepted just about every behaviour possible in society whether with heterosexual or homosexual activity and now the chickens have come home to roost.Liberalism has run amok! The lid is off Pandora's box -- and I doubt society can put the world's evils back in again. Surely, now we should look at what we have wrought with our misguided attempts not to criticize any behaviour--to be tolerant--and we should attempt to stem the headlong rush to total sexual abandon on the part of our young people. Or do these ideas put me simply so far outside--or behind--the mainstream that I am fossilized and should be relegated to a museum?
