Unintended Consequences; Removing Morality from Sexuality
Melanie Phillips in the London Daily Mail observes:
The story of 13-year-old Alfie, who reportedly has become a father by 15-year-old Chantelle, is a fable for our tragically degraded times.
Most of the attention has focused upon Alfie, who looks about eight and doesn’t even understand the word ‘financial’. But while Alfie’s youth is exceptional, this situation is not.
Whether or not Alfie is the father of baby Maisie or whether that honour goes to one of Chantelle’s reputed other boyfriends, the fact is that the length and breadth of this country there are many Chantelles, having sex and often getting pregnant while under age.
Phillips points out what has long been a refrain in societies where liberal programs have taken hold; the unintended consequences of government intervention.
There has been a profound loss of the very notions of self-restraint and boundaries of behaviour, promoted from the top by narcissistic liberals and funded at the bottom by welfare benefits which cushion people from the consequences of their actions.
The liberal intelligentsia pushed the idea that the worst things in the world were stigma and shame. Illegitimacy was accordingly abolished, lone mothers provided with welfare benefits and any talk about the advantages to children from marriage and sexual continence was to be banned as ‘judgmental’.
With all constraints on behaviour vilified as ‘moralising’, sex became treated merely as a pleasurable pastime devoid of any spiritual dimension.
As parents careered through serial sexual partnerships, putting their own short-term desires first and effectively behaving like children, they no longer wanted to be bothered with taking responsibility for their own offspring and so started treating them as if they were grown-up.
This was massively reinforced by the approach to sex education and contraception by schools and public health professionals, who treated children as quasi-adults capable of making their own life choices.
What they actually needed, as all children do, was firm and consistent boundaries which taught them that sex was properly an adult activity.
Instead, they were taught to treat sex a bit like bungee-jumping or paragliding – to have fun doing it, but to take precautions to avoid getting hurt.
And, she notes, the only definition of "hurt" was "getting pregnant". Never mind the emotional or psychological harm that might be involved.
Read the whole thing. Seems the more sex education we have and the earlier it starts, the more stories like this that we get. Phillips’ article is a strong argument for the teaching of responsibility and its consequences rather than covering the world in bubble wrap.
Filed under: Abortion • Culture • Doug • Government • Liberal • Medicine
Like this post? Subscribe to my RSS feed and get loads more!
As parents careered through serial sexual partnerships, putting their own short-term desires first and effectively behaving like children, they no longer wanted to be bothered with taking responsibility for their own offspring and so started treating them as if they were grown-up.
Here again (as in the previous post) the author is positing a “liberal” position that does not exist, mostly.
Let’s look at statistics: Liberals are HOW much more likely than conservatives to have had “serial sexual partnerships”? What’s that? They aren’t any more likely to be on their second, third, fourth marriage than conservatives? In fact, some studies would suggest that evangelical Christians (would that translate to “conservative,” too?) have a higher divorce rate.
Regardless, I know of no studies or reports that suggest “liberals” promote serial sexual partnerships at a greater rate than conservatives. People would find these types of essays more believable if they weren’t so one-sided and partisan.
Anectdotally, my (so-called “liberal”) fellow church members are, to a person, wonderful parents and citizens, quite adult and responsible, thank you very much.
If this author wanted to write an essay promoting stable loving relationships and parenting, he should do so without making up facts to demonize one particular group of parents. As it is, such essays ought to be written off as hysterical pablum.
I think the point here is that governmental policies implemented by folks with liberal attitudes toward government aid and the family are reaping what they’ve sown, whether or not they intended to. Removing responsibility, in general, breeds irresponsibility.
My point is this: LIBERALS HAVE NOT REMOVED RESPONSIBILITIES! At least not any more than conservatives have.
[As an aside: Do you believe that removing the responsibility for drivers to maintain clean-running cars and safe driving practices breeds irresponsibility? Me too, but it’s not “liberals” that are removing those responsibilities.]
I’m suggesting that these are repeated strawmen arguments. Liberals are not arguing in favor of removing responsibilities.
Yes, it is true that “liberals” tend to argue against criminalizing and stigmatizing those who find themselves with child. Yes, we tend to be opposed to calling ANY children “illegitimate” (as if a creation of God could be illegitimate).
And yes, there are SOME liberals and conservatives alike who favor removing notions of morality from sexual practices, but I don’t think it is the norm on either side to do so.
There aren’t these critters running around that are called “liberals” who favor immorality and irresponsibility. It’s a myth. It’s mostly a cryptid, like Bigfoot or the fascist conservative.