Monday, 29 May 2017

The Myth of "Sexual Harassment" and its Lie

Modern western culture talks about 'sexual harassment', that is "unwanted sexual advances". There has been much sceptism to sexual harassment laws, and resistance to its definition of 'sexual harassment'. And rightly so.

Much debate has centred around what is an 'unwanted sexual advance' or unwanted sexual contact', understandably out of a concern of false allegations of sexual harassment which can totally destroy an accused' livelihood. Any decent and rational person, in the very least, would be concerned. Anyone who knows of the vagueness of 'sexual harassment', a concept defined at the total mercy of the accuser, usually a woman, would rightly be concerned.

What 'sexual harassment' is refers to 'unwanted' sexual advance or contact. It is as such, a human-made concept. From the Christian perspective, the Bible does not use the term 'harassment' in relation to sexual matters, or any matter. Neither does it talk about sex as 'wanted' or 'unwanted'.

The whole concept of 'sexual harassment' is based on half-truths and lies. It is true that there are lewd people out there, including women, who seek to be lewd. Lewd people ooze in lust at people, full of the desire to sexually possess people they are not married to, and almost always do not want to marry, but only to engage in a 'one-night stand' with. Such lewdness is sin.

However, since the sexual revolution of the 1960's, the concept of lewdness has been gone from the minds of the masses, except only in relation to the most explicit and sexually vulgar lyrics. Apart from that, people do not even know what is sexual morality, owing to the rejection of the Christian sexual ethic. Sexual boundaries which made it clear that sexual intercourse was only for between a husband and wife was almost totally obliterated in society.

As such, sexual boundaries are no longer clear. Anyone can just engage in sexual intercourse with anyone. Such would logically lead to total confusion, to say the least about who one can engage in intercourse with or not. This provided the groundwork for the concept of 'consent', which could now be justified, and thus made to be 'needed', since sex was no longer with a husband and wife who had agreed to, by their marriage vows, give their bodies to each other:

Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband.
The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife.
Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency.

(1 Corinthians 7:3-5).

Consent was not really needed, but made to be 'needed' because of the sexual revolution.

This happened as soon as marriage because secularised, where a civil marriage could be sought, instead of a Christian one, where a spouse can divorce just because of anger, hurt, upset or dissatisfaction. In Australia, the first civil celebrant was appointed by the government in 1973. The Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) which legalised no-fault divorce was passed in 1975, only two years after the appointment of the first civil celebrant. 

It is no coincidence that secular marriage and no-fault divorce were legalised around the same time, during the 1970's, the heyday of the 'sexual revolution'. The whole concept of civil celebrancy is full of the spirit of rebellion. To even marry without seeking God as to who to marry is itself a sin, as marriage is God's Creation, and He, not man, is the one who joins people:

Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder (Matthew 19:6).

What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder
(Mark 10:9).

As a result of marriage and sex being separated from each other, and each being perverted, the "need" for 'consent' was needed to protect sexual integrity of persons. The whole "need" for 'consent' is itself a manifestation of sexual immorality, and the perversion of marriage and sex, in particular, the rejection of proper God-given sexual boundaries.

So, it is because of all the perverse 'sexual freedom' in modern western society, which provided the justification for the concept of 'sexual harassment'. It is a concept which is at its heart, based on the idea that the rightness or wrongness is sexual intercourse between persons is determined by whether it is 'wanted' or 'unwanted'. This is totally against the Biblical sexual ethic, which is that the rightness of sexual intercourse is determined by whether it is within marriage, to given generously and lovingly by husband and wife to each other.

Thus, the whole concept of whether sex is wanted or unwanted is sinful in itself. The whole movement behind 'sexual harassment' is really a political agenda seeking to push for "bodily autonomy", in particular, "women's bodily autonomy".