Given my role as the token feminist over on the Church for Men boards (see the links to the left), I really appreciated Henry's post about the need for balance when hyping a "more masculine" Christ.
I had a dream last night about a conversation with a family that had a lot of teen mothers - or mothers who'd been teens when they first became moms - and dating. In my dream, I said something like - dating has only been around for 50 or 60 years. Before that, a man wouldn't DARE ask a woman he respected to go anywhere alone with him. If he didn't expect to have a chaperon with them, or they weren't in a large group in a public place, it was like he was saying to her, "I think you're a ho." And if he didn't flat-out offer to pay her (such as with a "gift"), it was like he was saying, "I think you're a ho - and I'm cheap."
After I woke up, though, I remembered that Laura Ingalls was picked up from school and driven home - 12 miles! - by Almanzo Wilder. So maybe this wasn't a hard-and-fast rule.
Still, I think it's patently obvious (or should be) that along with rights come responsibilities. Yes, young women have the right to wear whatever they like (at least, as long as it's legal!) but at the same time, they - not their dates - have the responsibility to make sure that they do not place themselves in dangerous situations. You can only control your own actions. Sure, you can charge the guy with assault or rape or whatever after the incident - but wouldn't it be better if there WAS NO INCIDENT in the first place?
Be aware of your surroundings. The more privacy there is in an encounter, the greater the possiblity for danger.
Dust and Wind
20 minutes ago
0 comments:
Post a Comment