I just read this article in SMH about how liberal parents are letting their teenage kids have sex only if they also get into a pseudo-marriage/de-facto relationship as well. So they can sleep together only if they come to family functions, are really committed to each other, and think they're going to spend the rest of their lives together. But the author says, this is robbing teenagers of their independence. Instead they should indulge in well planned hook-ups.
"Domesticity is all well and good, but save it for the right person. Don't confuse domesticity with morality. Hook-ups and sexual friendships can be dignified and ethical when indulged in sparingly, with mutual respect, with protection and not for the sake of being cool or keeping up. If you are young, guard your independence at least as much as you guard your virginity."
It's like the author thought, "Oh we have a problem with people getting too committed too soon." (Which I agree with.) So they decided the best solution is to just tell the teenagers to have sex without the commitment. God forbid that not having sex could be a solution. I'm plenty independent and I'm plenty fine without having sex. And I'm pretty sure I'm placing a much higher value on sex by waiting till marriage than anyone who advocates that hook-ups are a good alternative to over-committed sex. If sex is so important that it needs to be protected from liberal parents, family diners and messy break-ups, maybe it should also be so important that it needs to be protected from giving it out to anyone who's happy to sleep with you as long as they don't have to love you too.
No comments:
Post a Comment