That's fine, I don't find your opinion offensive, it's just the typical PC party line. And that's really the crux of the matter isn't it? I've already said, twice, that if consent is revoked, the act should stop. Right? Right. There was no ambiguity about that, so let's lay off the "beyond decency" talk, shall we? The name of this forum is "Law, Ethics, and Psychotherapy". One way to view these different facets are as follows: Law = Can/Can't. Ethics = Should/Shouldn't. The can/can't dichotomy is really non-existent. You can revoke consent. That leaves us with the should/shouldn't discussion. That's where we're bumping heads. People seem to be under the impression that not only do they have the right to do anything they want, whenever they want, but they also seem to be under the (grossly mistaken) impression that others have to validate them, like them, respect them, and so forth. We have created a culture of victimhood in this country so profound that merely suggesting a person is responsible for themselves is seen as uncaring, harsh, or "beyond decency." It reminds me of when I tell people I am against the Death Penalty, on principle, and the usual response is "SO! You want murderers running free through the streets?!" The ridiculousness of this argument, I hope, is self-evident. I have a wife, I have a daughter. I do not want them to be victims of sexual assault. I also hope that my daughter will learn that she is responsible for herself. I want her to be smart, thoughtful, and strong. And I certainly don't expect her to call the government for protection every time she has a clumsy or awkward sexual encounter. May I ask how many couples you've worked with in your career? That's really my specialty, and I'm telling you straight-up: if we took the "politically correct" line as gospel, about 80% of the population would be, at one time or another, considered a sex offender.
Replies:
|
| Behavior OnLine Home Page | Disclaimer |
Copyright © 1996-2004 Behavior OnLine, Inc. All rights reserved.