Tony Abbott Talks About Sex...

Tony Abbott wants his 3 daughters to preserve their virginity until they are married. Well, this is what he said in an interview with the "Women's Weekly" magazine, and the storm is brewing nicely in the tea cup. Some are in uproar, saying that Abbott should keep his opinions on women's sexuality to himself, and that his comments are just another example of his Catholic conservatism being inappropriately expressed in the public and political realm. Others are wondering what the fuss is all about. "What else would Tony Abbott want for his daughters?" they ask, challenging politicians from all parties and religious backgrounds to come clean on their own views, (which they assume are the same as or similar to his). This might free him up from the specific criticisms that are being leveled at him - but probably not...

I wonder had a non-religious politician had expressed the same views, would they have received the same criticisms or attention? (of course, it helps that he is the Opposition Leader)... But everyone knows that Tony Abbot is "religious" and "conservative" - he has these labels reapplied in the newspapers every time he opens his mouth. His view on virginity would be a common view expressed by religious people of many persuasions. The hope he expressed for his daughters would be a hope shared with many parent - both religious and non-religious. As an editorial in The Australian pointed out, "You don't have to be a Christian to believe that sex before marriage is wrong..." (but if you are a Christian, or religious, and you believe this, and God forbid, express it, then you'd better watch out)...

One of the comments in The Australian today was interesting. In Lauren Wilson's article, "Making a Gift of Yourself", she refers to Julia Gillard's response to Abbott's comments. She writes, "Gillard declared Mr Abbott had 'confirmed the worst fears' about his conservative social views, virginity became shorthand for questioning his fitness to rule a liberal secular Australia."

So, does having Christian views on personal behaviour exclude you from being able to carry out a political role in Australia? Can you have Christian views, but not express them? Is that okay? Can you have personal views on an issue, express them, but not push them in your political role? Is any of this possible and/or permissable?

We have two political leaders who have clearly and plainly identified themselves as Christian people. We'd better hope that it's okay for our leaders to be Christians and to be politicians or even Prime Ministers, because that is the choice we face in the election coming up later this year.

I wonder what Kevin Rudd thinks about the virginity of his daughter, or do I...? Rudd might be a bit smarter than Abbott, and he might keep this opinion to himself so as to avoid the criticism. It is a shame that he might feel he has to. Lucky for him that he had a Julia Gillard on his team. She was probably more than happy to respond on his behalf... :)

Shalom...

Sex, Lies and Politics

Much has been written over the last week or so about John Della Bosca’s extra-marital affair. For those not up on such things, JDB was the NSW health minister and it was revealed the other week that he had been having an affair with a younger woman. I think he has since resigned as a result of the situation, although he was not asked to do so, and some say he should not have had to. He is certainly not the first politician to have been caught out in this area. It seems to me that two of the big inter-related questions of the week have been, “Is it any of our business?” and “What does it matter?”

The first question deals with whether a politician’s private life is any of our business; and the second question deals with whether it matters that politicians express dubious personal values and virtues, given that we voted them in not to not have private affairs, but to manage our public affairs (sorry, I couldn’t help it...).

Over the weekend, there have been a few good articles in The Weekend Australian that have highlighted these questions. Two of these are:

• "Off Limits or Public Interest?" by Lenore Taylor
  
• "Experts Split Over Sex Revelations" by Caroline Overington

One of the underlying questions for me in relation to thinking through the questions above is, “What is politics?” If politics is simply the management of the economy or the development of infrastructure for productivity etc, then it might be fair to argue that as long as politicians are delivering the goods in these areas, then they can do what they like, and with whom, between the sheets, on the kitchen table or in the back seat of the car. But what if politics is more than that? What if it has to do with shaping the culture of the society, promoting positive values and encouraging citizens to be the best humans they can possibly be? If this was the case, wouldn’t politicians then be expected to be the “exemplars” (the embodied examples) of those values and cultural hopes; and the drivers of a more positive picture of what “the common good” could mean?

I know this sounds naive, but I am not alone in wishing that this was the case. In the recent BBC “Reith Lectures” series, Professor Michael Sandel delivered four lectures on "A New Citizenship". It was a fascinating series and I listened to these lectures over and over again. Professor Sandel proposed that religion and morality needed to be invited back into the centre of civic life, so that a new conception of “the common good” could be developed and realised. He said that he fully expected there to be robust discussions, debates and disagreements as a result of such a course of action, but that it was necessary to avoid a colourless, and perhaps dangerous society ensuing. He said that governments tended to reduce discussion and debates on important civic issues to economic terms because it was easier to avoid the complexity of these kinds of discussions by hiding behind the safety of economic arguments.

What would the role of politicians then be in this process? All Professor Sandel would say on this is that he would expect more from our politicians in such a system. And I agree. I think we can and should expect more from both our politicians and our political system. We should not allow the quality of our civic life to be reduced in any way, particularly by those who we have been voted in to drive, promote and protect it. To a degree, we get what we expect.

I say, “Expect more!”

Shalom...

No Kissing Please, We're Christians...

My mother sent me this. I'm not sure what she's trying to say to me (surely she knows I've kissed Megan by now. After all, we are married with two kids)...

Anyway, Sy Rogers, a Christian speaker who specialises in talking about sexuality, has come out and made a statement about kissing. Apparently, he said that single young people shouldn't kiss, because it could lead to sex outside of marriage. The news headlines have read, "Kissing is bad"; "Kissing leads to sex"; "No Kissing please, we're Christians" etc etc... You can have a look at the newspaper story by clicking here and you can check out how the "This Afternoon" show ran their segment by clicking here.

It is not unusual for Christians to make statements about chastity (IE - no sex before marriage). This would be a pretty standard Christian line to take. Nor is it unusual for Christians to be wary of where the first, then second, then third steps of the sexual escalator could take them. But Rogers takes this a step further than most have by suggesting that there should not even be kissing before marriage. His idea is that if you're not going to finish off the ride (so to speak), then why get on the escalator at all. The media had a bit of fun with this. This is not surprising. For them, Rogers' comments are yet another example of an out-of-touch Christian, spruiking their crazy, out-moded ideas into a world that has well-and-truly moved on. "No kissing" would not remotely reflect the general community standard in this area and this is reflected in the street interviews in the "This Afternoon" show's segment.

So, what do you think? Has Sy gone too far, or is he onto something for those who are trying to keep themselves "chastised"? Has he made a fool of himself or is he being made fun of because he is talking up "God stuff" out there in the world and people just don't want to hear it?

I'm interested in your thoughts...

Shalom...

Let’s Talk About Sex

It is entirely possible that Australia doesn’t need even one more word written or printed on the “Matthew Johns sex scandal that has rocked Australia and the NRL”… but here goes anyway…

For the past week, Australia has been talking about sex. We have been talking about it on TV and in the newspapers, we have been talking about it at home and at work, and we’ve been talking about it at the footy and at the shops. And what interesting conversations they have been. The two issues that stick in my mind are firstly, the importance of consent when it comes to sex (and what consent actually means); and secondly, the appropriateness of group sex.

So, what does consent in sex mean? Does consent mean only that someone hasn’t said no, or more that they have given their clear yes? It seems to me that sex and our sexuality is too precious a part of our own personhood and existence to not be sure in any way that all parties have agreed to be involved as a bare minimum standard! Maybe the deeper question is actually what is sex and what does it mean to the people involved? I wonder if people who go out on a Saturday night looking for sex in a place where they know there will be drinks, maybe drugs and footballers, have a high opinion of the preciousness of sex beyond how it felt, how long it lasted and who it was with. Can a low view of sex lead anywhere but eventually to pain, tears and dissatisfaction?

Regardless of what sex means for people, it is clear that the community is rallying around the idea that people need to be sure consent has been given, and not even footballers will be off the hook when it comes to the community’s mediocre standard on this. But will it be enough to stop dodgy sexual practices in football circles? As Phil Gould said on the Footy Show last week, the NRL has had multiple “wake up calls” in relation to its warped sexual culture but the incidents of sexual conquest and degradation continues. A judge recently accused a footballer of another code of thinking that he was some kind of Titan, beyond the law and the standards of behaviour that others in the community were expected to live by. My goodness, could it be true that there are hundreds of footballers of various codes out there moving through the world with that kind of attitude, particularly towards women? It is literally a time to "lock up your daughters"!

Group sex has not in my memory had such negative press, even though it has probably never been a mainstream or approved practice by many people in the community - more something that might be tittered about in a conversation or put up in a movie as some kind of rare , mountain top sexual experience for the sexual kings and queens among us. But as Phil Gould said (Yes, I know... I can’t believe I’ve quoted him once, yet twice. But I must admit I was quietly impressed by some of the things he did say on the Footy Show), as soon as a few footy blokes walked into the room that night, it was going to end in tears. Even Vossy backed up the idea that group sex would be considered by many to be a practice not looked highly upon by the majority of people in society. (Thank God for football commentators - is there nothing they don't know?)...

Another media commentator encouraged readers to imagine the scene of up to a dozen men in a dark room gathered around their team mates while they watched others having sex, masturbating, lining up to have their turn with one lone 19 year old girl. I must admit, to me it was a powerful picture of degradation of both women and sex itself. Did she say no? Did she feel like she could in that situation? Who had the power in that room? And whose responsibility was it to make sure that things were okay for her?

“Just say NO!” – good luck in that situation…

The Bible talks about sex as being something precious for people to share in a marriage relationship, and deviations from this don’t mix well with the magic and power of sex, and are against God’s intentions for it. Many Christians would see sex as something special to be shared with their life partner, something that is designed to give pleasure to the other person, in the context of their love for each other. At its core is the love and respect of the other person; their wellbeing and their pleasure. So, while the community is discussing the values of consent and questioning the appropriateness of group sex, there are some deeper questions, considerations and opinions that could be thrown into the mix to lead the conversation down deeper paths.

These have been good discussions to have, but we have a long way to go…

Shalom

To view the Four Corners report, click here . To view the A Current Affair report, click here . To view The Footy Show report, click here .

ABC Q&A - Religion, Sex and Politics

Last night, the ABC's Q&A show was entitled, "Religion, Sex and Politics" and was a very interesting watch. If you missed it and want to find out what it was all about, you can click here and get to the page where both the podcast and transcript are there for your edification.

Topics covered are alcohol use and young people, the St Mary's Catholic church situation (Father Kennedy is one of the guests), the church and sexuality and the Obama administration. I won't comment any further, I'll just bring the show and the episode to your attention. If anyone wants to chat about it, then feel free to add a comment to this post.

Shalom...