Time and again I am amazed at the drivel published in the Nexus. Mr. Begakis, your latest article was a disgusting display of evangelistic moralizing, condescension, logical fallacy and wanton ignorance. Hell, you even likened the logic of sex education to adultery. You appear confused; allow me to explain a few things…
First of all, rape is NOT sex. The fact that you seem to conflate the two, consciously or not, is disgusting. Furthermore, rape is not a direct consequence of living in the “immoral” environment the way you portray I.V.
Your tirade misses the inherent value of good sex education. Those who are more knowledgeable generally make sounder decisions. If I know how certain STIs work, I am much less likely to catch them from an intended partner. I can take steps to avoid getting a woman pregnant.
Given the confusion and experimentation that often comes with puberty (sexual animals indeed), such information is extremely valuable. And your call for a revival of abstinence education has one glaring problem: state and church-funded abstinence programs have produced record high levels of teen pregnancy and STIs in this country. Face it: Abstinence programs don’t work.
Finally, I take issue with your morality. Morals are like fingerprints; they are different for everyone. And most people are unwilling to subscribe to an old and increasingly unrealistic goal of putting off sex until marriage.
Please, get off your soapbox, can the “free love” rhetoric, join a monastery and stop talking about things you clearly don’t understand.
"rape is NOT sex"
And you’re accusing Mr. Begakis of logical fallacy and wanton ignorance? The word "sex" doesn’t imply a positive experience by definition.
And far too many people on this campus assume that sex is okay as long as it’s consensual and involves a condom. Thank heavens we have those sexual health interns to inform us that it’s possible to become pregnant from unprotected sex. The more you know!
Re: crrussell
Where in there does it say sex is positive by definition?
re: Wilbur WhatelyHow else is it possible to arrive at the conclusion that rape is not sex? When I say "positive" I’m not referring to degrees of pleasure, I’m referring to morals (right versus wrong). The author seems to dislike morality so I reduced it to positive versus negative, but I’m pretty sure everyone can at least agree that rape is wrong. What the author doesn’t want to do is make moral judgments on consensual forms of sex, so he evades morals by saying that rape isn’t sex: Sex is good, rape is bad; therefore rape is not sex. I’m… Read more »
Just curious…
Where do church sanctioned sexual activities, such as fist-fucking altar boys, fall on the morality scale?
Good question. Ask a Catholic. You don’t need to be Catholic, or religious for that matter, to have morals.
"You don’t need to be religious to have morals"
Nope, you certainly don’t. But it does take a very special kind of extremist, religious or otherwise, to state as a position that if I choose to have sex with a consensual partner within all the confines of the law, that act is morally reprehensible and should be lumped into the same category as incest and rape.
Nice TryIt’s never that simple. If the author is going to say that rape isn’t sex, what do we call all the acts that fall in between happy, rosy, consensual sex between two people in a relationship? Rape is almost never a violent crime…it’s usually date rape or cases where one member thought there was consent but the victim didn’t. What if it’s a case where an individual gave consent but probably wouldn’t have done so while sober? (pretty common in I.V.) That’s not rape but it’s also not what anyone would consider a healthy sexual encounter. All of these… Read more »