Once again, we read the newspaper, and once again we are shocked by what we read. I think that over the period of my newspaper and other news media attention paying I have learnt to never be shocked by what happens, disgusted yes, but shocked no. This was brought to my attention again today when I read the story about a 12 year old who was about to be giving birth, a child to her 15 year old boyfriend who lived with her and her mother and again when I read the story about the students who consider rape, not just ok, but the way to go about getting sex. I am going to discuss them both.
Note - there is a great deal of self censoring in the following because it pissed me off a lot and even still, I may get a bit violent.
Firstly the girl. The story (which can be read here) was told mostly because her father made a call to DOCS saying that this sort of thing was happening. DOCS replied that they had no power to do anything about it because they can't stop two children talking. I will say that in this case, DOCS did not repulse me as much as other players involved - DOCS are ruled by, not just bureaucrats, but also by people who are convinced that everyone needs as much freedom as they can get, which means that when an 11 year old falls pregnant, unless there was a 30 year old father, they aren't allowed to care. However, everyone else was most definitely repulsive. Including the people who have tied the hands of DOCS the way that they have. THIS IS AN ILLEGAL ACTION AND THEY HAVE DISALLOWED ANY LEGAL METHOD OF DEALING WITH IT. THIS IS GENERALLY REFERRED TO AS PARTICULARLY STUPID AND I VIEW IT AS AN DEPRAVITY.
While I freely admit I don't know the full circumstances, the father was absolutely wrong to leave it at that. I like that he told DOCS first, but when that avenue was exhausted, he gave up. This was completely ignoring his responsibilities as a Father. Again I will stress that I don't know the circumstance that he was in, whether he was disallowed by a restraining order or something, but still he should have done something more than outsourcing his responsibility, especially after that attempt failed.
The 15 year old 'live-in' boyfriend I would like to meet - he would quite possibly never walk again (say what you will about me). I actually don't know what to say about this because it's just so painfully stupid, irresponsible, disgusting, {insert your own descriptor/s here} - I would like to smack him in the face so hard that he can see the back of his neck. This is a boy who still doesn't really know what life is, he might have just got a job, he can't drive; he is still what we refer to as young and stupid, except that when we talk about young and stupid, we're usually talking about doing a couple of dumb things - this is chronic degeneracy. First of all, stick with someone your own age, no, three years isn't much in the grand scheme of things but when we're talking about someone who is still in primary school you're still (I would like to say f***head, but I won't, however, I can't think of any better words to use here). Secondly, grow a brain. and thirdly, if you don't want to consider either of these, learn how to use a condom - which isn't to say that I condone having to use one at your age.
The girl also needs to wake up and grow a brain. Yes it is hard to say no to something when you're 11, but it's harder to have to deal with the consequences when you're 12. Yes this sort of thing was commonplace back in the day, but that still doesn't give any justifiable excuse for it happening today.
The mother, who the two kids lived with is possibly the worst of the lot. By this happening under her roof, she condoned the actions of these barely pubescent kids. she can deny it as much as she wants, but by her not putting an end to, at the very least, the boys tenancy there and at a still possible stretch, his life, and then she should have been forbidding the relationship (acknowledged that this is quite hard to do in the 'enlightened' day and age). Yes I can talk about the father's responsibility, but the fact that he no longer lives there means that at least to some extent, she has taken his responsibility. Even if she shouldn't take that responsibility she still has her own there.
I'll just clarify some of what I said earlier. The girl (and the boy for that matter) are both minors. Technically someone having sex with a minor is defined as rape and it is punishable with long jail terms. I said that this was commonplace back in the day, but only with marriage; if it happened outside of marriage, either marriage would happen very quickly (not possible now without a judges permission - probably not forthcoming) or one of the parties would be killed in the town square.
Time to move on and take a few deep breaths before I bust some major artery or break something.
The other story (which can be read here), about the pro-rape students, I'm actually not sure which is worse. These are students - all male - who have probably grown up in rich families, gone to exclusive (read here high fee) schools and have been taught that they are paramount. They seem to believe that because their dad is some high-flying CEO and can buy them a lot of toys, that they are better than other people. These are the people who are convinced that no matter the circumstances, they are right and even if they are wrong, then daddy can bail them out by paying the right people. Most of this occurred at a college of USYD. I don't know what is worse, that there is the capability for this to happen at this college, or that when rapes actually do occur there that nothing is done about it. One reported case was that the college advisor had to find the master key to be able to stop a rape happening - which means that none of the other students (senior residents or otherwise) were doing anything about it and none of the on campus supervisors were doing anything about it; also the guy in question didn't get the hint when the advisor knocked on the door to ask what was happening, otherwise, he wouldn't have been there when he found the key.
They have defined themselves as "anti-consent" and joined a now shut facebook page called 'Define Statutory'. Ok then, here is my definition of Statutory Rape (because that's exactly what it is). She didn't say yes and you kept going. That is all it needs to be to be rape.
In terms of the players in this sordid state of affairs that disgust me, there are four. The students, the staff supervisors, the parents of the students and the makers of the facebook page that drew attention to this.
The students I don't think I have to say much about, and I won't, otherwise, something will be broken. I'm just going to leave it at grow a brain, get some sensibilities and a conscience, or alternatively, let me have a 'talk' to you that I can guarantee you won't consent to. Again, while this may have happened in the distant past, it occurred when you had captured your victim in battle and you desired to demean the entire enemy - if it happened outside of this, you were executed; so don't try to justify your actions.
The staff supervisors also acted abhorrently. Yes they are quoted as saying that it is "in every way at odds with what we are trying to achieve", but they hadn't done anything about it it prior to this happening. The fact that the resident advisor had to find the master key to be able to stop this happening doesn't speak very highly of your resolve to stop this happening. Yes, I will admit, you have gotten together with various groups including the police to set up a liquor accord which is some of the problem, but in this you haven't discussed sexual assault at all because it is "a delicate issue" because "the colleges are very closed communities". Closed communities just means that those who are in charge of enforcing rules need to do a better job of it because they are alone in it and this is something that hasn't happened as yet.
To the makers of the facebook page I will say the same thing that I said to the students and then add that inciting the actions is worse that committing them, especially if you wash your hands and say that you aren't at fault if someone else does something. Yes you are and you are more at fault.
And finally to the parents of the students, the ones who have brought their kids up in such a way that they think that this is fine. I have no doubt that when you find out about this you publicly condemn the actions of your kids, but that isn't all that is required. What is required is that prior to this happening you condemn the actions of those who perpetrate them, and condemn them with extreme prejudice. If your child thinks that these criminal acts (even if they weren't disgustingly abhorrent and bereft of humanity as well) are fine to commit, then you have failed in your duty as a parent, the main instiller of values in your child's life, and don't give me anything about that being the job of schools, if you're willing to outsource your parenting to schools, then give them your child completely and don't ask for him or her back.
EDIT: shortly after writing this, I noticed that NSW minister for women was "sickened" by this. All well and good, now do something about it.
Sorry about that, I just felt the need to break something.
Note - there is a great deal of self censoring in the following because it pissed me off a lot and even still, I may get a bit violent.
Firstly the girl. The story (which can be read here) was told mostly because her father made a call to DOCS saying that this sort of thing was happening. DOCS replied that they had no power to do anything about it because they can't stop two children talking. I will say that in this case, DOCS did not repulse me as much as other players involved - DOCS are ruled by, not just bureaucrats, but also by people who are convinced that everyone needs as much freedom as they can get, which means that when an 11 year old falls pregnant, unless there was a 30 year old father, they aren't allowed to care. However, everyone else was most definitely repulsive. Including the people who have tied the hands of DOCS the way that they have. THIS IS AN ILLEGAL ACTION AND THEY HAVE DISALLOWED ANY LEGAL METHOD OF DEALING WITH IT. THIS IS GENERALLY REFERRED TO AS PARTICULARLY STUPID AND I VIEW IT AS AN DEPRAVITY.
While I freely admit I don't know the full circumstances, the father was absolutely wrong to leave it at that. I like that he told DOCS first, but when that avenue was exhausted, he gave up. This was completely ignoring his responsibilities as a Father. Again I will stress that I don't know the circumstance that he was in, whether he was disallowed by a restraining order or something, but still he should have done something more than outsourcing his responsibility, especially after that attempt failed.
The 15 year old 'live-in' boyfriend I would like to meet - he would quite possibly never walk again (say what you will about me). I actually don't know what to say about this because it's just so painfully stupid, irresponsible, disgusting, {insert your own descriptor/s here} - I would like to smack him in the face so hard that he can see the back of his neck. This is a boy who still doesn't really know what life is, he might have just got a job, he can't drive; he is still what we refer to as young and stupid, except that when we talk about young and stupid, we're usually talking about doing a couple of dumb things - this is chronic degeneracy. First of all, stick with someone your own age, no, three years isn't much in the grand scheme of things but when we're talking about someone who is still in primary school you're still (I would like to say f***head, but I won't, however, I can't think of any better words to use here). Secondly, grow a brain. and thirdly, if you don't want to consider either of these, learn how to use a condom - which isn't to say that I condone having to use one at your age.
The girl also needs to wake up and grow a brain. Yes it is hard to say no to something when you're 11, but it's harder to have to deal with the consequences when you're 12. Yes this sort of thing was commonplace back in the day, but that still doesn't give any justifiable excuse for it happening today.
The mother, who the two kids lived with is possibly the worst of the lot. By this happening under her roof, she condoned the actions of these barely pubescent kids. she can deny it as much as she wants, but by her not putting an end to, at the very least, the boys tenancy there and at a still possible stretch, his life, and then she should have been forbidding the relationship (acknowledged that this is quite hard to do in the 'enlightened' day and age). Yes I can talk about the father's responsibility, but the fact that he no longer lives there means that at least to some extent, she has taken his responsibility. Even if she shouldn't take that responsibility she still has her own there.
I'll just clarify some of what I said earlier. The girl (and the boy for that matter) are both minors. Technically someone having sex with a minor is defined as rape and it is punishable with long jail terms. I said that this was commonplace back in the day, but only with marriage; if it happened outside of marriage, either marriage would happen very quickly (not possible now without a judges permission - probably not forthcoming) or one of the parties would be killed in the town square.
Time to move on and take a few deep breaths before I bust some major artery or break something.
The other story (which can be read here), about the pro-rape students, I'm actually not sure which is worse. These are students - all male - who have probably grown up in rich families, gone to exclusive (read here high fee) schools and have been taught that they are paramount. They seem to believe that because their dad is some high-flying CEO and can buy them a lot of toys, that they are better than other people. These are the people who are convinced that no matter the circumstances, they are right and even if they are wrong, then daddy can bail them out by paying the right people. Most of this occurred at a college of USYD. I don't know what is worse, that there is the capability for this to happen at this college, or that when rapes actually do occur there that nothing is done about it. One reported case was that the college advisor had to find the master key to be able to stop a rape happening - which means that none of the other students (senior residents or otherwise) were doing anything about it and none of the on campus supervisors were doing anything about it; also the guy in question didn't get the hint when the advisor knocked on the door to ask what was happening, otherwise, he wouldn't have been there when he found the key.
They have defined themselves as "anti-consent" and joined a now shut facebook page called 'Define Statutory'. Ok then, here is my definition of Statutory Rape (because that's exactly what it is). She didn't say yes and you kept going. That is all it needs to be to be rape.
In terms of the players in this sordid state of affairs that disgust me, there are four. The students, the staff supervisors, the parents of the students and the makers of the facebook page that drew attention to this.
The students I don't think I have to say much about, and I won't, otherwise, something will be broken. I'm just going to leave it at grow a brain, get some sensibilities and a conscience, or alternatively, let me have a 'talk' to you that I can guarantee you won't consent to. Again, while this may have happened in the distant past, it occurred when you had captured your victim in battle and you desired to demean the entire enemy - if it happened outside of this, you were executed; so don't try to justify your actions.
The staff supervisors also acted abhorrently. Yes they are quoted as saying that it is "in every way at odds with what we are trying to achieve", but they hadn't done anything about it it prior to this happening. The fact that the resident advisor had to find the master key to be able to stop this happening doesn't speak very highly of your resolve to stop this happening. Yes, I will admit, you have gotten together with various groups including the police to set up a liquor accord which is some of the problem, but in this you haven't discussed sexual assault at all because it is "a delicate issue" because "the colleges are very closed communities". Closed communities just means that those who are in charge of enforcing rules need to do a better job of it because they are alone in it and this is something that hasn't happened as yet.
To the makers of the facebook page I will say the same thing that I said to the students and then add that inciting the actions is worse that committing them, especially if you wash your hands and say that you aren't at fault if someone else does something. Yes you are and you are more at fault.
And finally to the parents of the students, the ones who have brought their kids up in such a way that they think that this is fine. I have no doubt that when you find out about this you publicly condemn the actions of your kids, but that isn't all that is required. What is required is that prior to this happening you condemn the actions of those who perpetrate them, and condemn them with extreme prejudice. If your child thinks that these criminal acts (even if they weren't disgustingly abhorrent and bereft of humanity as well) are fine to commit, then you have failed in your duty as a parent, the main instiller of values in your child's life, and don't give me anything about that being the job of schools, if you're willing to outsource your parenting to schools, then give them your child completely and don't ask for him or her back.
EDIT: shortly after writing this, I noticed that NSW minister for women was "sickened" by this. All well and good, now do something about it.
Sorry about that, I just felt the need to break something.
yeah wow, i didn't hear about this... soooo messed up!!!
ReplyDeleteThe other thing I found really shocking was one statement in an interview:
"I'm a Christian and against abortion but when I listened to what the doctors had to say I realised that it was the best way forward for my daughter," he said
from http://www.smh.com.au/national/father-praises-12yearold-mother-20091109-i4c8.html
so what was worse, dropping the situation, or his failure to watch over and discipline and teach and pray for his daughter properly? it's easy to blame this on DOCS and society (esp. our warped views of freedom) and such, but in the end it's kind of a blame shift like in Gen 3 (ie. in the end it's God's fault). Lets avoid that.
It's the girl, it's the guy (wow you got angry about the guy!!! :P ) and the parents. Why do Christian parents leave it to a fully depraved society (one that worships self and pleasure) to teach their kids about sex???
*obscure Old Testament references of the week*
Numbers 29
Deut 21:18-21 (note I'm not advocating death by stoning - a few things to remember (i) this is before Christ, (ii) this is Israel, (iii) they didn't have solitary confinement back then, (iv) 2 Peter 3:9. also see Romans 2, 6 and 7)
Proverbs 13:24, 29:17
*obscure New Testament reference*
Hebrews 12
GMann
I tried to avoid blaming DOCS because they get their hands tied and they are also expected to deal with a heap of stuff. I only blame society as far as they tie the hands of DOCS. Society in general has condemned most people involved.
ReplyDeleteAnd yep I did get angry at the guy. I think partly because I also am male and can therefore relate more with him than with her, because he was the older and therefore apparently more responsible of the pair, but I think also because too often the girl gets the blame. We often hear people trying to justify their rape by saying that "she wanted it" or "she dressed provocatively" or some other such ridiculousness. This gives the girl the blame, and as far as I was aware, it isn't rape if she wanted it.
And the answer to the final question, "Why do Christian parents leave it to a fully depraved society to teach their kids about sex?" I think it is for a few reasons. During the Victorian era where Christianity as we know it today started to emerge from both Catholicism and Anglicanism (which isn't to say that many catholics or anglicans aren't christian, I'm just talking about reformed christianity) and became its own entity, sex was more than a taboo subject, legs and skin were a taboo subject. People went out of their way to hide legs of any sort, including table and chair legs. This has meant that we view sex as dirty, meaning that we won't talk about it unless we are forced. Secondly and as a result of this, Christians in general don't know as much about sex than secular society and don't feel qualified to talk about it. And Thirdly, even if parents do, we are still bombarded daily with sexual imagery, innuendo, songs, and advertising. This means that anything that parents teach their kids will often get drowned out with a cacophony of people saying that it's fine, and as you say, with a society that worships self and pleasure, there are a lot of voices.