Spring Break
Sex should be consensual and harmless
Lance Webb, lwebb@smu.edu
Issue date: 4/18/07 Section: Opinion
- Page 1 of 1
Normally, I wouldn't respond to criticism that lacks merit of reason. It's not my duty nor my concern to make sure that everyone understands my statements. However, in a letter to the editor, published on April 11, Pastor McGuire dared to speak for me. It went like this: "According to Mr. Webb, a rape victim should expect her violator to receive no harsher a punishment than if he had punched her in the arm."
In response, I say "B.S.!" I said no such thing. Furthermore, my statements in the article "Premarital sex is like playing Scrabble" do not lead to such a stance. According to my original position taken in that article, sex is not a moral concern when it is "consensual and harmless." I also expressed a more general position which states, "Do what you want as long as it doesn't hurt anyone or impede on someone else's rights." That seems pretty straightforward. So, I don't see how rape equates to that notion of sex, as rape does hurt people and violates their rights.
Now, to contest Pastor McGuire's presumptions, I do not believe that "a rape victim should expect her violator to receive no harsher a punishment than if he had punched her in the arm." I believe that rape carries and should carry greater consequences (legal or otherwise) than regular assault because it damages the victim much more. Perhaps the physical damage is not necessarily greater than that of being "punched…in the arm." But, common sense and psychological studies show that the psychological damage of rape is devastating. Therefore, punishments are adjudicated according to the severity of the crime - according to the degree that the crime in question deprives the victim of his or her autonomy.
Also, I'd like to address an issue that may have caused Pastor McGuire's confusion. I do not believe sex to be meaningless. As stated in my April 3 article, "Sex means many different things to many different people." But even if I don't believe that there is a singular and universal meaning for sex, that doesn't mean that I believe that sex has no meaning or importance at all. By stating, "sex means many different things to many different people," I do not subscribe to a view that sex is meaningless or unimportant. All this means is I do not believe that society should adhere to a prescriptive norm of what sex means, or how people should go about it, as long as the sex is "consensual and harmless."
Keep that in mind, Pastor McGuire. Sing it to yourself, write it down, say it three times, do whatever you have to do to remember these words: "consensual and harmless." Then, if you still take issue with my original stance, we can discuss it.
Until then, stop putting words in my mouth.
About the writer:
Lance Webb is a sophomore philosophy and political science major. He can be reached at Lwebb@smu.edu.
In response, I say "B.S.!" I said no such thing. Furthermore, my statements in the article "Premarital sex is like playing Scrabble" do not lead to such a stance. According to my original position taken in that article, sex is not a moral concern when it is "consensual and harmless." I also expressed a more general position which states, "Do what you want as long as it doesn't hurt anyone or impede on someone else's rights." That seems pretty straightforward. So, I don't see how rape equates to that notion of sex, as rape does hurt people and violates their rights.
Now, to contest Pastor McGuire's presumptions, I do not believe that "a rape victim should expect her violator to receive no harsher a punishment than if he had punched her in the arm." I believe that rape carries and should carry greater consequences (legal or otherwise) than regular assault because it damages the victim much more. Perhaps the physical damage is not necessarily greater than that of being "punched…in the arm." But, common sense and psychological studies show that the psychological damage of rape is devastating. Therefore, punishments are adjudicated according to the severity of the crime - according to the degree that the crime in question deprives the victim of his or her autonomy.
Also, I'd like to address an issue that may have caused Pastor McGuire's confusion. I do not believe sex to be meaningless. As stated in my April 3 article, "Sex means many different things to many different people." But even if I don't believe that there is a singular and universal meaning for sex, that doesn't mean that I believe that sex has no meaning or importance at all. By stating, "sex means many different things to many different people," I do not subscribe to a view that sex is meaningless or unimportant. All this means is I do not believe that society should adhere to a prescriptive norm of what sex means, or how people should go about it, as long as the sex is "consensual and harmless."
Keep that in mind, Pastor McGuire. Sing it to yourself, write it down, say it three times, do whatever you have to do to remember these words: "consensual and harmless." Then, if you still take issue with my original stance, we can discuss it.
Until then, stop putting words in my mouth.
About the writer:
Lance Webb is a sophomore philosophy and political science major. He can be reached at Lwebb@smu.edu.
Be the first to comment on this story