That many recently post pubescent Americans choose to not engage in sexual relations, gay, straight or whatever, until they feel mature enough to really decide what kind of importance they place on sex and how sexuality impacts their lives, is I think, a good thing. It should be encouraged. I don't think anybody should have a problem with it. I don't think anybody does.
It is likely that many chaste young people will feel pressure from either members of more sexually active peer groups in general or individual lustful suitors in particular, to engage in a greater level of sexual activity than they are comfortable with. This is unavoidable. These young people should not be put into a position of being coerced in any way into sexual activity. They should be free to join organized or informal support groups that eschew precocious sexuality, whether they are church, lodge, or other service organization affiliates. It should not be illegal for them to meet at public venues. They should not be forced to accept into their memberships, would be dog in the mangers, whose sexuality they consider deviant or in opposition to the proposition that chastity is a worthy goal. It should be recognized that there may be different support groups available to young people, whose ideas about what constitutes chastity, the motivations for it or the definition of acceptable sexual orientation, differ in the extreme. That's the way it should be.
To deny those who have attained puberty and for whatever reason, find that they are engaging in sexual acts, the right to knowledge about and access to, the most up to date and effective forms of both contraception and prophylaxis against STDs, is not an option. Parental permission has no place in this equation. Parents usually have until their child is twelve or thirteen and sometimes longer, to impart whatever it is they feel about this subject and influence the child's decision. That amount of time has to be enough. After that, it's not the parents who are fucking in the baseball dugout at the high school or engaging in oral sex in the back seat of a car. It's their child. The child has a right to know about the risks involved and how they can be mitigated. It's conceivable that a child could find him or herself trapped in a situation where sex is not even consensual, with an abusive family member or in a religious subculture where children are "married". The alternative to a situation like this, foster care, institutionalization and prosecution of parents, may seem untenable to the youth involved. They may feel they need to put up with the situation until they reach their majority and may freely leave. Covert contraceptive measures should be readily available through any contact with the medical or educational system in the outside World that the child may be exposed to and strictly confidential.
In a diverse society, where tolerance for the rights of all is observed, the question of abstinence should not be a major problem.
Religious fundamentalists are often too stupid, insular or caught up in belief systems which allow minimal personal cognitive activity, to respect the rights of others. Unfortunately in too many places, they control many local societal institutions. They do great damage and lack of insight and intellect prevents them from seeing it.
No comments:
Post a Comment