Somewhere hidden beneath the progressive rhetoric about sexual freedom, many women and men know that casual sex is predatory sex, whether the man or the woman--or both--are doing the stalking. Short of rape, many men on the prowl will do or say just about anything to convince a woman to have sex with them, especially if their intention is purely lustful. Wise parents have tried to convey this truism to their daughters with less and less success in recent decades.
People have known about sexual predation for thousands of years. It is the reason our great-grandparents chaperoned our grandparents. It is the reason women hid or ran away when armies invaded. It is the reason wise parents kept their daughters at home when the fleet came in and sailors went on liberty.
The failure of parents over the past century to enforce biblically based rules of sexual conduct has led to a drastic increase in single parenting today, among other unanticipated consequences of a relaxed morality. By ignoring rules of conduct that have been agreed upon and held up as aspirational goals for thousands of years, western culture has allowed lust to dominate sexual interactions at the expense of rules that were designed to perpetuate culture from one generation to the next.
In the past, if a man ignored a woman's qualms and enticed or coerced her to have sex against her better judgment he would be labeled a seducer or rapist. Parents taught their daughters to avoid such men so they would not become victims.
Today's western society has largely thrown over most sexual taboos in favor of "doing what comes naturally," which means letting lust rule without regard for anything but an orgasm.
Someone whose lust overwhelms all concerns about consequences, whether they be pregnancy, an STD or a rape charge, is not being natural unless we equate "natural" with the mating habits of praying mantises. (The female eats the male's head during copulation.)
Those on the Left embrace indiscriminate sexuality as if it were liberating when it actually enslaves a person to the least human part of their makeup. Even a secular atheist like Freud understood that delaying sexual gratification was necessary for a civil society. Casual sex is no recipe for commitment. And a steady diet of porn is no recipe for developing a capacity to relate to the opposite sex as anything more than a means to an orgasm.
When I was in college years ago taking an anthropology course, we were asked to write an essay on the incest taboo, which was considered a universal prohibition. That it was universal was proof to our professor that the incest taboo was an inherited trait. I argued in my essay that, to the contrary, if it were genetically inherited, why would we need a rule prohibiting it?
My argument then and now is that we don't have rules that proscribe behavior if that behavior is inherently repugnant. We have stop signs and moving violations because we are not inherently courteous or cautious. Similarly we have taboos, laws and commandments because we are not inherently law abiding, obedient or wise.