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.
This is what occurs within the post modernist,post structuralist paradigms and thus in a Post Christian world. People are not even left with the Judaeo-Christian culture anymore.
God is not dead,but Modern man’s morals are
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.
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.
Overall females were twice as likely as males to report that they had had unwanted sex. Futhermore they were more likely give as the reason “my partner thought I should” . By contrast, males who had had unwanted sex were more likely to give as the reason “too drunk”, “too high”or “my friends thought I should”.
(Respondents could give more than one answer, so that if you felt that the incident was attributable both to drink and to partner pressure, you could say so. Nevertheless females were more prone to blame partner pressure, with or without other factors, than were males.)
I’m not aware, incidentally, that “liberal sexuality is a feminist success story”. I think most feminists would assert that a woman who chooses to be sexually active should be free to behave accordingly, but I don’t think the view that one must choose to be sexually active in order to self-actualise, although widely held, is a distinctively feminist one.
In any event, the figures don’t mean that liberal sexuality isn’t a feminist success story. A feminist would say that they mean that unwanted sexual encounters are to some extent a phemoenon of women subjecting their own preferences to those of their partners , but it doesn’t tell us anything about women’s wanted sexual encounters. I think a feminist would argue that if women who choose to be sexually active are being pressuring into having sex that they don’t want, that indicates that feminism hasn’t advanced far enough, not that it has advanced too far.
When I mentioned that “liberal sexuality is a feminist success story”, I was being sarcastic. :-) Which is to say that that they would be wrong to consider the culture of licentiousness a success story. Even if they were completely in control of their sexual activity — and by this, I mean sexual promiscuity — this would *not* be a feminist success story, because, in my untutored opinion, sexual promiscuity is not feminine. I think that things got mixed up when 60s or 70s feminism was defined in masculine terms, whence comes the notion of multiple partners, one night stands, no commitments, etc.
So if feminists are trying to steer their way deliberately towards sexual licentiousness, and that being in male terms, it isn’t that they haven’t gone far enough. I think they’re headed in the wrong direction.
“When I mentioned that “liberal sexuality is a feminist success story”, I was being sarcastic. Which is to say that that they would be wrong to consider the culture of licentiousness a success story.”
Sure. But the sarcasm is pointless unless feminists do offer the “culture of licentiousness” as a succcess story. And, while some may, or may have in the past, I don’t think that is characteristic of feminism as a whole. And there are many feminist voices who see the pressures on women to be sexually active essentially on the terms that men stereotypically want as oppressive.
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.
It’s funny that we’ve managed to return ourselves to a practice of sexuality that Judaism/Christianity had been working against for a good 3-odd millennia. Looking at what Dennis Prager has written in Orthodoxy Today (http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles2/PragerHomosexuality.shtml) about the “sex is something to ‘get’ or to ‘have’ or to ‘do'”. It’s interesting that the Christian Anthropological view rejects this entirely, sex is not something to do, or to get, or to have (but instead we call it making love with). The object of ‘raping’ someone is the singular, one cannot ‘make love’ by oneself; rather making love it is something that a couple co-operate with.
I will make myself very unpopular but it needs to be said; this modern view of sex (which is not really modern at all, but goes a long way back) will undermine every sense of goodness that we have with regards sex, the sexual powers, and family and life. When sex is something you ‘do TO someone’ instead of you ‘do WITH someone’ all sorts of abberations will occur. First the general acceptance of homosexuality – and this is the most obvious for our culture is more or less there; but right behind this comes pedophilia, necrophilia, bestiality – I say this because once we view sex as something intrinsically separate from making love (i.e.: as something to get, or to have; casually and without commitment) then right behind that comes the follow up notion that sex does not have any connection with intimacy, love or gentleness.
Whats wrong with pedophilia, what’s wrong with bestiality? What’s wrong with these things if they are what I want? Why can’t I clone a child for myself to use as I please?
It is something truly wicked and terrible when we have a society that considers sex as recreation, completely and utterly distinct from love, family, and obligation. Our society is treading a terrible, terrible path.
In Peter Kreeft’s book “A Refutation of Moral Relativism”, he suggests much the same thing: that the modern social climate is almost entirely dictated by the sexual revolution. His argument runs basically that Divorce, which is spiraling out of control in modern societies is culturally linked with sex. That our society is addicted to sex, and will go so far as to break up the family unit to continue to feed that addiction. I find it a scary image.
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.
Well, one thing we can be certain of in our sex-obsessed society is that any report dealing with teenage sexual activity will be (a) sensationalised, and (b) misrepresented in the media.
What the report actually says is that about one-third of sexually active high school students (years 10 and 12 only were surveyed have ever had unwanted sex.
So that’t not one third of all students; it’s one-third of the sexually active ones.
And it’s not one-third saying that all or most of their sexual experiences were unwanted; it’s one third saying that they have had unwanted sex even once. When asked about the last time they had sex, 92% of students said that it was wanted. Far more sexually active students reported positive feelings about having sex –good, happy, fantastic, loved, etc – than negative feelings – regretful, upset, guilty, used, worried.
Nor is it fair to say that the students who had unwanted sex were raped. Rape is sex to which you do not consent, not sex which you do not want, and the distinction is very important. For a variety of reasons, we frequently consent to things that we don’t want.
I’m not saying that there is no problem here, or that we should be satisfied with things as they are. But we do not help matters by sensationalising things. It is simply not the case that most sexual experiences of young people are unwanted, and tantamount to rape. The truth is that sexually active young people speak very positively about their experience of sex. Most report that they have never had unwanted sex, and most of those who have had unwanted sex mostly have sex that they want.
The plan fact of human biology is that people in their late teens generally do want, quite badly, to have sex. We call this the libido. To the extent that they do have sex, therefore, we would expect that this is mostly because they want to, and the report bears this out.
If young people choose not to have sex, that choice will be based on other considerations – how they believe they ought to live, and to relate to one another, what they think the consequences and implications of sex are, etc. If we wish to change their sexual behaviour, this is where we need to influence them. I don’t think that we can hope to do this by pretending that the consequences of sex for them will generally be disastrously negative in the near term, because this actually isn’t the case and, once they realise this, they will feel lied to.
Thanks for the clarification, Perry. Do you have a link to the original report?
The clarification that the “one third” refers only to those students who have had a “sexual experience” certainly lowers the figure from what the reports seemed to indicate.
Nor was I trying to say that most sexual experiences of these youngsters was “unwanted”.
But, 33% is still a HUGE proportion, which means the incidence of “unwanted sex” is not incidental to an otherwise “enjoyable” experience. if any other sector of the community reported a incidence of 33% experience of “unwanted sex” (aka “rape”), wouldn’t there be some sort of Government enquiry?!
Instead, this elicits the response that we just need to do a bit more education into alcohol usage. The last thing we do is question the underlying ideology that young people having sexual intercourse apart of a committed and mature relationship is a good thing.
Do you have a link to the original report?
Here you go: http://www.latrobe.edu.au/arcshs/assets/downloads/reports/SSASH_2008_Final_Report.pdf
But, 33% is still a HUGE proportion, which means the incidence of “unwanted sex” is not incidental to an otherwise “enjoyable” experience. if any other sector of the community reported a incidence of 33% experience of “unwanted sex” (aka “rape”), wouldn’t there be some sort of Government enquiry?!
I think we’d need to know a bit more, to be honest. The question was whether respondents had ever “had sex when you didn’t want to”, and respondents understanding of that question would have been coloured by answers offered, e.g. “yes, because I was too drunk at the time”, “yes, because my partner thought I should”.
This raised the issue of what is meant by “wanted”. If Wife isn’t in the mood, as it were, but Husband is, and Wife tries to summon up enthusiasm because she wishes to gratify Husband or because She Knows He Has Needs, and is willing to subordinate preferences to his, has Wife had sex when she didn’t want to? And does the answer change if Wife and Husband become Girlfriend and Boyfriend?
Or if Girlfriend has drink taken, and as a result her inhibitions are lowered and she has sex while knowing that this is not a wise choice and is one she will regret, has she has sex when she didn’t want to?
I think part of the problem with the question is that it promtes the notion that sex is a matter of instant gratification, and that if a sex act isn’t immediately gratifying then it is problematic. But this is a depersonalised, dehumanised view of sex. We shouldn’t view sex acts as isolated phenomena; they are properly part of an ongoing relationship, and immediatel gratification is not really the point. “Unwanted sex” encompasses rape, but it also encompasses people who are unsure or conflicted about what they want, people dealing with sexual or psychological challenges, and people experiencing the ordinary ups and downs of a loving and giving conjugal relationship.
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.
There are 2 unrelated comments I’d like to make about this…
1) Last night on TV, they replayed the 1969 movie “The Prime of Miss Jean Brodie”. I watched it, not because I think it is a good movie, but for old time’s sake because I remembered seeing it in the 70’s. The thing that struck me from the vantage point of 40 years later is that movies like this demonstrate where this libertarianism started. It was considered daring and sophisticated in those far off days to talk about early, loveless and uncommitted sexual experiences, but the brutal effects of this behaviour is depressingly obvious today. I am a child of the 60’s and 70’s, and my generation has a lot to answer for.
2) My favourite atheist is Clive Hamilton. It is well worth reading his essay called “Rethinking Sexual Freedom” and you can see it on the web at
http://www.clivehamilton.net.au/cms/index.php?page=articles
Mr Hamilton says he is an atheist, but he is a clear thinker and appears to have no fear of considering religious ideas (he occasionally quotes Pope Benedict). The poor fellow makes himself deeply unpopular with many people because of some of the ideas he arrives at, but from what I have read by him, he deserves great respect for his unprejudiced thinking.