Faith: Now that it’s finally over, one of the things that stood out the most to me when reflecting on this election were all of the (often ill-advised) comments politicians made about rape as it relates to abortion. One in particular, Rep. Roger Rivard’s “some girls rape easy” comment really got me thinking. It seems like all too often the anti-abortion movement accuses women of wanting to escape the consequences of casual sex—but isn’t opening yourself up to a potential rape charge just another consequence of casual sex? The guys who meet a girl, treat her right, and bring her home to their parents aren’t worried about this kind of thing—it’s the guys who are sleeping around that have to think about it. Where’s the rhetoric on that?
Erin: That rhetoric doesn’t exist. To acknowledge such a negative consequence would burst the illusion of casual, consequence-free sex. If casual sex opens the door to pregnancies or rape charges, what is the solution?
Faith: But we acknowledge that sex (casual or otherwise) has potential consequences for women, and we generally expect them to live with those consequences. Why don’t we have the same attitudes towards men? I think our culture needs to hold guys to a higher standard, as well as consider them more accountable for their actions.
Erin: I agree: Men and women should be held equally accountable for their sexual choices. (And in my mind, they are.) But the primarily private nature of sex enables partners to engage then split with no one knowing. It’s not like the consequences of getting in a car accident, when there are forms to complete and repairs to schedule and money to pay. If a man has casual sex and fails to stay involved with the consequences the woman faces, she would have to expose his shirking, and we, as society would have to “remind” him of his responsibilities.
Erin: No, we don’t. But this takes us back to the fallacy of casual sex. There is no such thing. Certainly there are many cases where sexual activity does not produce immediate consequences. But the potential for long-term ramifications cannot be completely avoided (unless one of the partners is infertile)—something the casual sex movement ignores. Once we open the conversation to obligations and responsibilities, people get uncomfortable. That sounds too much like rules and morals. And who is to decide what those will be?
Faith: It’s almost like you would have to approach sex with a commitment involving a socially ordained set of expectations, rights, and responsibilities… Oh, wait—that’s marriage. However, because of the shift we’re experiencing in cultural attitudes towards sex, we may find that another social institution evolves to govern casual sexual activity. Would that be necessary if we were all having committed, monogamous sex? No, but it looks like the people that are doing so have become increasingly the exception rather than the rule. Society still needs a mechanism to protect itself.
Erin: What is this newfangled thing of which you speak?! Marriage? Your deduction made me laugh—yes, marriage is the safeguard for the negative consequences of casual sex. I think the protection that marriage provides is part of its beauty. Christians would attribute this built-in covering to God who first instituted marriage. As society departs from God’s wisdom, maybe there should be some other regulation . . . registration with the county, perhaps? Licenses requiring participants to adhere to Casual Sex Guidelines? But then would people have to report every encounter? Oh my. That could get complicated. Let’s open it up for discussion with the CaPC crowd: How could our society hold both men and women to similar standards for casual sexual activity and its consequences?