Who Is Responsible?

I just had a conversation with a friend who is in a "Gender and Society" Business Writing class. (I know--it just makes you want to say, "huh?") Apparently the class is one part writing (in the six or seven weeks of the semester they've covered the important topics of cover letters and thank-you's) and three parts bickering about how poorly society, mainly American society, treats women.

As a note, my friend is female, and she is absolutely fed up with the class. One of the "class discussion" topics of late was whether or not a woman in a miniskirt and a neckline down to her navel bore any responsibility for her rape. The general consensus was that, no, the woman wasn't responsible. Nor was she responsible if she was drunk and walking down a dark alley at night.

Now, that's somewhat flippant of me to say, let's look at the issue a little closer. First of all, rape is committed by someone against someone. The one committing the rape is fully responsible for all his actions. Ultimately, he bears all legal consequences for his actions. But is there any blame that can be attached to the woman?

This is where the argument gets tricky, and where most people simply want to duck their heads and mumble, "Of course she's isn't *muttermuttermutter*..." The reason for this sheep-like response is because it isn't at all politically correct to attach any blame to a victim, and the reason it isn't politically correct is because it appears hurtful to the one who has already been cruelly wounded. There's certainly understanding to be had there, especially since rape victims often carry a deep sense of not only shame, but guilty, for their violation.

But simply because something is painful doesn't make it false. That's a fallacy we fall for too often these days. So let's consider the situation. A woman dresses provocatively and enters a dangerous situation. It could be a party at the local fraternity, where there will be alcohol in excess, possibly some drugs, and of those maybe some of the date-rape variety. Or it could be the proverbial dark alley in Manhattan. It doesn't matter. The potential rapist sees her, identifies her as a potential victim, starts scoping out the situation. He concocts a plan in his head on how to rape her, and then goes through with it.

Okay, so far everything seems to agree with the lack of culpability on part of the woman. However, there's a catch, and this falls back on solidarity, and the partial responsibility of the community for the sins of the individual. First, there is such a thing as the profile of a victim. If you examine rapists and other sex offenders, you'll find that there's a type of person, a list of descriptions, that makes a person more vulnerable than others.

Now, one of the things about dressing provocatively is that it is meant to arouse sexual desire. A woman might try to couch it in simply "looking attractive", but the reality is that flaunting the body in a sexual fashion is meant to boost the woman's ego when men start drooling over her. Never mind that such an attitude merely reduces the woman into a sex object (a living centerfold, as it were), and thus the attraction is hardly genuine, or even the sort the woman wants.

Next, people insist that rape is about "power", but that's a rather broad statement, almost empty of meaning until it is put into context. In general, rape is about making the rapist feel better through sexual means. Sometimes the sexual aspects of rape are almost incidental--such as the desire to degrade a woman through the violation of intimacy--but other times rape is very, very sexual. Date rape, for example, is about the victory of "scoring" with a girl, either by getting her too drunk to say either "yes" or "no" to sex, or by using a date rape drug so that's she unconscious at the time of the violation.

I make this distinction because there are some profiles that one cannot help. Sometimes a rapist is simply turned on by, say, little boys, regardless of dress or situation. But other aspects one can help. And this is where responsibility comes into play.

When a woman dress provocatively, or flirts outrageously, or anything that is sexually arousing, she tempts. Now, our modern society views behaving in such a fashion a good thing, a harmless thing, and thus nothing the woman should be blamed for. However, temptations exist for one purpose alone: to weaken the will. We pray "...and lead us not into temptation..." (or more literally "...put us not to the test...") because we know that temptation weakens the will, makes us more readily accept sinful behavior.

Thus a woman is culpable for as much temptation she provided. Granted, this culpability is by far less than the terrible crime committed against her, but that crime does not expunge her own guilt in the matter. She made herself temptation, she weakened wills around her, and thus pulled down a mountain on her head.

So yes, there is some responsibility on the part of the woman for her rape. But now the caution. That responsibility varies from situation to situation. Sometimes actions for which she would be held culpable in one circumstance is completely irrelevant to another circumstance. Dressing provocatively means little if the rapist attacks her simply because she's a woman who wandered nearby. On the other hand, if the rapist picked her out specifically because she was dressed provocatively (as more tends to be the case), then she bears some small blame for making herself a temptation.

For those who think is incredibly unfair, misogynistic, bigoted, or whatnot, you need to stop and think. Our actions affect others. Our behaviors can lead others to sin (lead, not force, mind you), or at least make others more susceptible to sin. Thus we bear some partial blame for those sins. That is part of being the social creatures we are. That is part of not living in a void.

Bristol Palin Says Abstinence 'Not Realistic at All'

Which just goes to show that reporters like to latch onto key phrases and ignore anything else a 'celebrity' might say to expound on the situation. Apparently Bristol Palin was interviewed about her pregnancy and her views on teenaged sex. She gave the view that teenagers should refrain from sex, but that abstinence is not realistic.

There are two things to be said about that. First, we can't simply accept that just because Sarah Palin's daughter said it, it must be the end of the story. Second, there is much to be said about "realistic expectations regarding abstinence." No, it is not realistic to expect that abstinence-only eduction will somehow keep teenagers from having sex, or that even those teenagers who want to abstain will never have pre-marital sex. The temptation is obviously present, and people will act on temptation. Premarital sex has been around practically since human beings first started having sex, no matter how strict laws have been against it.

On the other hand, this is not suddenly a blanket approval of promiscuity. Just because it is not realistic to assume that abstinence will happen does not mean that we have to put in safeguards to protect people from choosing to have sex. It does not mean that we shouldn't teach that abstinence is the best way to avoid pregnancy, STD's, and lives ruined from the callous treatment of the opposite sex that is so markedly present in our culture today. Rather, I find that it means that we shouldn't make the perfect the enemy of the good.

Really, the best thing of all would be teach people some theology of the body, and go from there.

Sexual Freedom Strikes Again

As society continues to press on its mindless chanting for sexual freedom and lambasting anyone who dares disagree as retrogressive and brainless religious, we have beautiful tales likes these:

Teen Accused of Blackmailing Fellow Students For Sex

and

Teen 'Sexters' Charged with Child Pornography.

So what are to make of these? Maybe we should have considered that our view of free sex, sex without consequence, and teenage sex would have led to these things. The first article, of course, is pretty heinous, and will receive a tut-tut because he was forcing fellow male students into having sex, thus violating the whole consensus thing.

It is actually the second article that worries me more. Some states make it illegal for minors to have sex with each other, but others don't. For those that don't, does it make sense to allow minors to have sex with each other, but not take naked pictures of each other? Heck does it make sense to forbid even a minor from taking a naked picture of herself, in that light?

The inevitable result, as I see it, is that eventually we start pulling down the barriers. Those kids that were prosecuted for child pornography will fight, and eventually interest groups will step in, and we'll have a court ruling that as long as the picture is of yourself, you can send it where you will. That will open the door for all kinds of leeway in child pornography cases, and we might see a fair amount of breakdown there. It might be that child porn is limited to preadolescence, and see we start seeing a plethora of junior high or high school girls submitting themselves to become amateur porn stars. And our ultimate situation grows much, much worse.

If we dare to ask, "Didn't anyone tell these kids not to do something like this?" we're immediately confronted with slogans like "teens will have sex anyway, so we just try to make it safe", and "do whatever you like, just be responsible about it" and so forth. We can't interfere because it is an invasion of privacy. Or an assault against sexual rights. Heck, if parents aren't supposed to be involved in whether or not a kid has an abortion, why should they be involved with sexual choices, up to and including texting friends with nude photos?

Slippery slope? More like an icy cliff. It will be interesting (and bone-chilling) to see where these cases end up.

Good News in AIDS Research

It seems scientists have developed a new killer T cell that is much improved in tracking down the HIV virus, even in infected cells where HIV tends to hide quite nicely.

Yet there are some questions to ask. While I'm all for developing a vaccine or cure, I have to wonder. How much would this treatment cost? Hopefully not much, but we're talking about genetically engineering white blood cells. I would almost think that they would have to be taken from the patient to avoid the immune system from battling the augmented T cells themselves.

I ask about cost for one reason alone. We funnel billions of dollars annually into AIDS research, AIDS awareness programs, AIDS treatment, and so on. And yet, AIDS would practically vanish from the world in a generation if those who had AIDS stopped having sex. And not having sex is free. I know that is highly impractical, and that there are other ways to contract AIDS than from sex, even ones that don't involve drug use with needles. Yet still I wonder just how much money is spent every year because we humans believe that it is more important to enjoy momentary physical pleasure than to stop the spread of this lethal disease.

The root of all sexual evil

At the very least, sex needs to be an act that is respectful and giving. But consider masturbation. Masturbation is inherently an act that says: I'm seeking sexual pleasure for my own benefit. This immediately turns us in the wrong direction, and if we keep doing it, we acquire the habit of seeking sexual pleasure for our own gratification. This can very easily transfer over to sex, so that sex then becomes an act of taking, rather than giving, and is only respectful as long as one is respecting the other's ability to give pleasure. In other words, masturbation sets the precedent of seeking personal gratification, which can easily become the use of others to reach that gratification. It could very well be that masturbation is the root of all the sexual dysfunction a person can encounter.

Reasons against contraception

In our world, it seems insane to speak out against contraception, yet I feel I must. For references, I will simply defer to www.pureloveclub.com. It is a Catholic site, but it has a list of references that are fairly useful.

1. Contraceptives don't stop pregnancies

What? Isn't that what contraceptives are for? Yet the answer should be obvious. No contraceptive is 100% effective. They do greatly decrease the chance of pregnancy, true. But consider the following scenario.

A. I have a 50% chance of becoming pregnant if I have unprotected sex. I have sex 0 times, and thus have a 0% chance of becoming pregnant.

B. I have a 1% chance of becoming pregnant if I have protected sex. I have sex once, I have a 1% chance of becoming pregnant. I have sex 10 times, I have about a 10% chance of becoming pregnant. I have sex 50 times, I have a 40% chance of becoming pregnant, and so on.

As the usage of contraceptives (with maybe the exception of the pill for hormonal regulation) almost automatically implies sex, and some sex quite often implies lots of sex, the conclusion is clear. Granted, these statistics don't cover all possibilities, but a nonzero chance of becoming pregnant from having protected sex once eventually because a significant nonzero chance of becoming pregnant when having sex numerous times.

Society proves this point. Since the legalization of contraception, unintended pregnancies skyrocketed. Recent downward trends in teen pregnancies are due entirely to teens abstaining from sex. When looking only at teens that are sexually active, the rates of teen pregnancies have actually increased.

2. Contraceptives don't prevent STDs

The reasoning here is quite similar. While contraceptives like condoms greatly reduce the chance of catching an STD from one sexual encounter, they fail to provide foolproof protection. Enough sexual encounters will raise the probability of catching STDs from unlikely to quite probable.

3. Contraceptives propagate the mentality of using people as objects

Consider the following analogy. Suppose I won't talk to you unless you have blond hair. Or, at the risk of sounding racist, suppose I won't sell you a drink unless you have white skin. It doesn't matter how you get your hair or skin the appropriate color. You could dye your hair or paint your body. Once you do, I'll deal with you. Until then, I won't.

Anyone with an ounce of sense will argue that in the above scenarios, I'm being unreasonable (and racist). And yet no one makes this connection with contraceptives. Here's the underlying principle:

If you have to alter the fundamental nature of a person to make them acceptable, you are treating that person as an object.

Contraceptives essentially state: "I can't accept my/your ability to conceive, so I'm going to change you so that you don't." Pretty straightforward, isn't it?

As for those of you who would object, saying, "But what if I don't mind being (or even want to be) used as an object?" I want you to just take 10 minutes and seriously reflect on that. And consider it in light of other cases of being used as an object (such as the absurd case of a doctor coming around to harvest all your organs while you are still alive and healthy).

4. People can control their urges. Expecting abstinence until marriage (or even lifelong) is reasonable.

Let's carry the objections to this one to their full conclusions. What this is saying is that we can't say no to sex. We have to get it, one way or another. (Sounds like an addiction, right?) So what happens when a man runs out on his endurance, absolutely has to have sex, and an eight-year-old boy walks by? By the reasoning of the objector, the fact that boy was raped is an unfortunate as if he had walked out in front of a semi. It is sad, and the boy was hurt or killed, but no one's to blame. He was just in the wrong place at the wrong time. Anyone who would object to this conclusion obviously believes we have the ability to control our sexual desires. Thus abstinence is hardly unreasonable.