Is it hypocrisy or what? The culture has been inundated with sex, sex, sex, and more increasingly so since the "sexual revolution" of the 1960's and 1970's. It can be easy to forget that until that time, even adultery was considered really bad by society at large, and was one of the worst things to be accused of if a divorce was involved. Of course, even divorce was much less common then than it is now.
But since that time, sex has become more and more openly part of our society. Years ago, it used to be that people might not kiss on the first date. Now, the question often is whether or not to have sex on the first date. The point is that talk about sex is much more open than it was a few decades ago.
So why should society be surprised that there seems to be an increase in the incidents of adults having sex with minors? Granted, maybe part of the situation is just that these incidents are being reported more often, but the point is that because of the situation, laws are enacted regulating when sex is OK and when its not.
It used to be a lot more simple when sex was reserved for marriage. Now, people's entire lives can be messed up because they have sex.
For example, I heard a report on the radio the other day (I'm sorry, I can't remember specifics, so I can't cite the source) that a female 30-something-year-old teacher had accepted some type of a plea bargain that included her having to register as a sex offender for the rest of her life because she had sex with a 17-year-old boy. Now, for some of the more odd circumstances about this.
The incident happened (from what I recall from the radio report) about two years prior to the plea agreement. That means that a one-time incident from 2 years earlier has caused this woman to be branded for life as a registered sex offender.
The other bizarre aspect of this entire situation is that the radio report said that the 17-year-old turned 18 just 4 days after the incident. In other words, if the incident had occurred 4 days later, no crime would have been committed, and this woman would have had no "sex offender" label attached to the rest of her life.
Is it just me, or does this seem ridiculous? This whole being called an adult at age 18 is basically just an arbitrary thing. Why is a person suddenly considered an adult at age 18? Why isn't it at age 17, or age 21? It's arbitrary.
Hormonally, puberty generally starts in the early teen years. And these teenagers are inundated with sexual messages throughout their teen years, but are expected to do nothing with their sexual urges. Oh -- I guess that society says it's OK for teens to follow their urges under certain circumstances. It's OK to masturbate. It's OK to have sex with another teen as long as safe-sex is practiced. But make sure that a 16-year-old doesn't have sex with a 19-year old, because then the 19-year-old can be considered a sex offender, and may be branded as such for life. But in some states, people can still get parental permission to get married in their mid-teen years, and if the parents OK it, a teenager can marry someone 10 years or more older, and then this is OK.
Do you see what I mean about some things being ridiculous? There are too many arbitrary rules instituted by people who in effect want to justify certain actions while controlling the lives of as many other people as possible through enacting more and more laws.
Perhaps what is needed is to go back to the basics. Sex has been designed by God to be experienced within the context of marriage. Perhaps if society would start from that premise, things would become less complicated and arbitrary.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
It's not you. It's totally ridiculous. Here is another one. Is Ricky REALLY a sex offender? Answer here www.cfcoklahoma.com
First, thanks for the response. Second, I just re-read my original post, and sorry for all of my TYPOS!
The Oklahoma case referred to in the comment is a perfect example of what I was talking about. Basically, government agencies get involved and things get worse in unexpected ways. Call it the law of unintended consequences.
But this is bound to happen when society makes laws based on arbitrary principles. There needs to be a higher principle involved than simply the whims of what human beings currently say the laws should be.
That's where basing laws on Godly standards comes in.
OK, Pete, I get what you are saying...
But the idea of basing laws on "Godly standards" is exactly what Al Queda is seeking... The problem is, everyone seems to have a diffrent version of what "Godly standards" are. For example, in the Old Testament, poligamy was accepted. And The New Testament does not prohibit it, except for "overseers" in the church. But ask most Christians about it and they will say it is immoral and against "Godly standards."
Catch my drift? Laws and morality are agreeded upon by members of each society based on where they view morality to be. To simply say we need to adopt "Godly standards" really doesn't say anything specific when speaking about our legal code... And specifics are where the game is played.
In my opinion, labeling this person as a sex offender is both just and appropriate. She took advantage of a student, exercising her authority in order to enact her fantasy. She need not be trusted in that situation ever again. The stakes are just to great and the consequences can never be undone.
BTW, you can always go back and edit your typos... :)
Heath, you basically pointed out the entire problem--unless there is something specific on which to base a society's laws, the laws are based on nothing more than human whims.
The fact is that difficult situations often make bad laws. Did the teacher in the Oklahoma case abuse her position? Quite possibly, but then again I don't know all the facts of the case, so I can't say for sure whether the situation occurred because there'd been a previous teacher-student relationship or whether these two people simply met apart from the school (I'll readily admit that I find the first scenario the far more likely one).
Would I think that this person would make a good teacher? Almost certainly not. At the same time, the whole thing seems kind of arbitrary to me since if the same act had happened just a few days later, no crime would have been committed.
Laws have to be based on something other than the current whims of society.
These sex offender laws certainly are not based on "truth."
Check out this link.
http://hrw.org/english/docs/2007/09/06/usdom16819.htm
Post a Comment