Sex is something that is supposed to be a sacred gift given to humanity by the God of creation who designed it both for procreation and for pleasure between one man, one woman, united together for life in marriage.
However, the sin stained souls of the majority in our culture have mutated this good gift, perverting it in a wide variety of manners, including homosexuality, transgenderism, rape, sexual harassment, and more.
We’ve been exposed over the last few months to the reality of how big shots in Hollywood often use coercion and exploitation as a means of extracting sexual encounters from women and men in the entertainment industry, which is obviously problematic on many levels and the cases that are legitimate showcase how unacceptable such behavior can be and why it shouldn’t be tolerated.
So, how do feminists and radical liberals want to solve this situation and prevent sexual assault, rape, harassment, ect? Why, by requiring a signed contract before engaging in sex of course!
Somehow they seem to be unaware that there already is a contract that exists for this very purpose. It’s called marriage.
RT has more details:
A recent, politically-correct idea is the so-called “Consent Conscious Kit,” currently on sale in the US: a small bag with a condom, a pen, some breath mints, and a simple contract stating that both participants freely consent to a shared sexual act. The suggestion is that a couple ready to have sex either takes a photo holding in their hands the contract, or that they both date and sign it.
Yet, although the “Consent Conscious Kit” addresses a very real problem, it does it in a way which is not only silly but directly counter-productive – and why is that?
The underlying idea is how a sex act, if it to be cleansed of any suspicion of coercion, has to be declared, in advance, as a freely-made conscious decision of both participants – to put it in Lacanian terms, it has to be registered by the big Other, and inscribed into the symbolic order.
As such, the “Consent Conscious Kit” is just an extreme expression of an attitude that grows all around the US – for example, the state of California passed a law requiring all colleges that accept state funding to adopt policies requiring their students to obtain affirmative consent — which it defines as “affirmative, conscious, and voluntary agreement to engage in sexual activity” that is “ongoing” and not given when too drunk, before engaging in sexual activity, or else risk punishment for sexual assault.
So, rather than championing traditional marriage and the biblical view of masculinity and femininity, both of which would solve much of this issue, they would rather come up with something as absurd as a “sex contract?”
The Bible makes it clear that men and women are equal in worth and value before the eyes of God, though they are made differently and distinct from each other with specific roles they were made to fulfill.
What this means is, men and women who follow Christ will see each other with a deeply held respect as image bearers of God, desiring to honor one another in the marriage bed. The Scriptures command husbands to love their wives as Christ loves the church, giving Himself up for her, preferring his bride above himself.
When this is obeyed it eliminates abuses of the sexual relationship between men and women. Likewise, women are called to love and submit to their husbands. If both parties are preferring the other over themselves, mutual respect in sexual relations will be an automatic way of life.
It seems liberals and feminists are always barking up the wrong tree when it comes finding actual solutions to real problems.