Anyone else disturbed by this police-sex witch-hunt going on right now? The timing is interesting, in that it comes out now, when the Government is hurting over it's bungling attempt to inflict an anti-smacking bill on the population. Then Helen's out there calling for more women to come forward.
Now, before any one jumps on me for this post, I don't condone what went on at the time. It sounds truly horrible and predatory. But - it was the eighties guys. Work hard, play hard mentality as one police guy on Newstalk ZB said yesterday. Strangely enough, that exact phrase was given to me as the culture of the workplace I joined as a late teen back in that period of time.
So, rather than focusing on how bad the police apparently were at the time, let's instead stand back a bit and think about how the eighties were in general. I don't believe that it was just the police engaging in this type of behaviour, but with the police it was more reprehensible given their position of authority over the population. Just like it was with pederast priests earlier.
Instead, let's think about this as a result of sexual liberation. Liberalise the conventions around what is considered appropriate sexual behaviour (think back to the free-love that came out of the sixties and seventies) and then what is the result - an increase in sexual predators across all spectrums of society.
But now that all of this has occurred in the past, doesn't everyone think it's all terribly convenient for the Labour Government - who most likely were those in power at the time these sexual antics were in play.
Contrast all of this with the sexual purity movement that has hit NZ, where young girls are encouraged to remain chaste (virgins for the unenlightened) until marriage, and fathers are encouraged to protect their daughters in this endeavour. I noticed two letters to the editor on this subject in today's Dom Post - one from a man who didn't want this sort of thing in NZ and one from a woman who was all for it.
I wouldn't be surprised if men in greater numbers were against women waiting for marriage to have sex. Men are more likely to go out hunting for sex, while as women tend to want love and engage in sex to get that love. I'm generalising though, I know there are many men who want love and vice-versa.
Which got me thinking - would all these young women in the eighties have become the targets of sexual predators in the police had they been adamant that they would save themselves for marriage? In a society where that was the norm, the predatory men would have known that had they gone after chaste women that their fathers would have raised hell, and the police hierarchy would have come down hard on them for any such action. But instead, the hierarchy were most likely men that were old enough to have been raised during the free-love sixties and seventies sexual "liberation", so may have thought nothing of policemen going after young girls.
Women like Helen Clark are guilty as sin in this. Sexual liberation is a part of her manifesto and has been for decades. To come out now, all concerned about the police sex scandal, is a denial of her role in setting up the whole sorry situation to begin with. And without a doubt, totally hypocritical. But then, what else do we expect from Labour politicians. Certainly not any sort of desire to actually fix things up. Instead this will give Helen an excuse to increase the powers of government.
Now, before any one jumps on me for this post, I don't condone what went on at the time. It sounds truly horrible and predatory. But - it was the eighties guys. Work hard, play hard mentality as one police guy on Newstalk ZB said yesterday. Strangely enough, that exact phrase was given to me as the culture of the workplace I joined as a late teen back in that period of time.
So, rather than focusing on how bad the police apparently were at the time, let's instead stand back a bit and think about how the eighties were in general. I don't believe that it was just the police engaging in this type of behaviour, but with the police it was more reprehensible given their position of authority over the population. Just like it was with pederast priests earlier.
Instead, let's think about this as a result of sexual liberation. Liberalise the conventions around what is considered appropriate sexual behaviour (think back to the free-love that came out of the sixties and seventies) and then what is the result - an increase in sexual predators across all spectrums of society.
But now that all of this has occurred in the past, doesn't everyone think it's all terribly convenient for the Labour Government - who most likely were those in power at the time these sexual antics were in play.
Contrast all of this with the sexual purity movement that has hit NZ, where young girls are encouraged to remain chaste (virgins for the unenlightened) until marriage, and fathers are encouraged to protect their daughters in this endeavour. I noticed two letters to the editor on this subject in today's Dom Post - one from a man who didn't want this sort of thing in NZ and one from a woman who was all for it.
I wouldn't be surprised if men in greater numbers were against women waiting for marriage to have sex. Men are more likely to go out hunting for sex, while as women tend to want love and engage in sex to get that love. I'm generalising though, I know there are many men who want love and vice-versa.
Which got me thinking - would all these young women in the eighties have become the targets of sexual predators in the police had they been adamant that they would save themselves for marriage? In a society where that was the norm, the predatory men would have known that had they gone after chaste women that their fathers would have raised hell, and the police hierarchy would have come down hard on them for any such action. But instead, the hierarchy were most likely men that were old enough to have been raised during the free-love sixties and seventies sexual "liberation", so may have thought nothing of policemen going after young girls.
Women like Helen Clark are guilty as sin in this. Sexual liberation is a part of her manifesto and has been for decades. To come out now, all concerned about the police sex scandal, is a denial of her role in setting up the whole sorry situation to begin with. And without a doubt, totally hypocritical. But then, what else do we expect from Labour politicians. Certainly not any sort of desire to actually fix things up. Instead this will give Helen an excuse to increase the powers of government.
you'll get no stick from me.
ReplyDeleteI expressed similar sentiments last Sunday.
There is a double standard operating here that you can drive a truck through.
Andrei, I think it one of those things that needs to be explained in a multitude of different ways for people to get it.
ReplyDeleteI was listening to the radio today, and the talkshow host wanted to know if people thought he was old fashioned for thinking that 14 year old girls ought not to be having sex with 19 year old men. It wasn't so much the gap he was thinking about, but moreso the immaturity of the girl. Alot of people phoned up and agreed with him.
I found it really interesting, because back in my day which wasn't that long ago, 14 year olds were not supposed to be having sex, period. But it didn't take long before 15 was an acceptable age for a girl to lose her virginity. That was in the late 80's. From about '85, onwards, things went downhill really quickly.
1. Since when is the private sexual practice of a police officer a matter of public interest?
ReplyDelete2. Didn't we stop equating moral rectitude to sexual purity?
3. Didn't we stop beleiving in morals?
4. In that case, by what commonly accepted moral standard does the Prime Minister judge this activity as "depraved"?
5. Why stop at the Police? What about the sexual conduct of Judges? Crown Prosecutors? Surgeons? Airline pilots?
6. Who will investigate sexual purity? Who will juge depravity? The Cheka?
7. Never thought I'd see it, but have the interferring secular liberals tied themselves into a prim neo-Victorian knot?
I dunno ... with something like this ... it would be nice to delimit said excess in time & 'bury it' historically. In fact probably essential in respect to limiting damage, improving confidence in the police... so I'm surprised this hasn't been pursued with greater vigour.
ReplyDeleteThat it was finite in time is, however, very unlikely.That the behaviour was an artefact of the time in respect to newly realised sexual freedoms is simply incorrect - such behaviour was never acceptable. My understanding is that it occurred as an abuse of a 'power relationship,' because they could do it & with relative impunity. The burgeoning drug culture at the time more set the scene ... so many 'proper,' middle class, educated & being educated kids picked up with a bit of dope, or accused of having such - earnestly/desperately wanting to avoid arrest, conviction, publicity,humiliation - a very vulnerable population ... & this extremely vulnerable group has remained to this day.
& as for respect ... on the way home I was following a police car for about 2k. Two cars going in the opposite direction had arms out the windows giving the guy the fingers ... not very nice.
I'm not sure what to make of the way Clark is blathering on about this report. If she's talking about the fact that cops could do with a code of conduct that proscribes sex with people they have a professional relationship with, in similar fashion to doctors, then fine. But she generally gives the impression that she finds sex disgusting full stop. How that revulsion would be intended to transfer over into police behaviour isn't obvious.
ReplyDelete"...would all these young women in the eighties have become the targets of sexual predators in the police had they been adamant that they would save themselves for marriage?" In the same sense that my car would never have been stolen if I had been adamant that I'd never own a car. However, the fault lay with the car thief, not with me.
Any increase in freedom is accompanied by exploiters of that freedom for their own unpleasant ends. It isn't a good argument for decreasing freedom. My experience of 70s sexual liberation was that young men now had to get to grips with the concept that women were no longer willing to be considered as valuable property to be passed on from father to husband, but were now fellow citizens with the same rights as us. It's exactly the kind of blokey throwbacks that end up in the police who can't cope with that concept and still see women who aren't "chaste" as creatures to be exploited.
My experience of 70s sexual liberation was that young men now had to get to grips with the concept that women were no longer willing to be considered as valuable property to be passed on from father to husband, but were now fellow citizens with the same rights as us
ReplyDeleteThe trouble is Milt you have bought into the feminist/lefist version of what marriage is.
Try looking at it from a Christian perspective for a change and it looks a whole lot different.
Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the Church. (Ephesians 5:25)
And here is St. John Chrysostom - On Marriage and Family Life based on this text.
Hmmm, as someone pointed out in a letter to the Herald, there does seem to be a kind of double standard operating where you have councils giving permission for 'boobs on bikes' and 'gay' parades (and didn't a council even support one financially?).
ReplyDeleteThese seem to attract thousands of people. Then we complain about the increase in rapes and sexual attacks and increased sexual permissiveness even in groups like the police. There even seems to be an increase in dodgy radio ads promoting massage parlours and sex shops.
I brought this up at work the other day during smoko and the boss kind of poo-pooed the idea when he said he saw an interview on TV with an elderly woman whose 12 year old grandson had gone to see the 'boobs' parade. The boss said she looked like the kind of woman to be prudish and was rather surprised when she said it would be good for her grandson to see. The boss laughed and said, 'good on her!'.
I resisted the urge to ask whether the boss would give his permission if this same 12 year old boy asked out the boss's 13 year old daughter the next day.
That reminds me of a joke Fletch:
ReplyDeleteMeet the Fokkers
"Women like Helen Clark are guilty as sin in this. Sexual liberation is a part of her manifesto and has been for decades. To come out now, all concerned about the police sex scandal, is a denial of her role in setting up the whole sorry situation to begin with."
ReplyDeleteAgree entirely.
And be careful about talking about police in the generic sense. I am sure it was only a select few members or certain stations. My Dad was a cop through the 70's, 80's & 90's and he worked in Rotorua in the 80's (we lived there). He knew nothing of any of this. Thankfully Dame Margaret Bazley didn't come knocking on his door!
PM Said
ReplyDelete""...would all these young women in the eighties have become the targets of sexual predators in the police had they been adamant that they would save themselves for marriage?" In the same sense that my car would never have been stolen if I had been adamant that I'd never own a car. However, the fault lay with the car thief, not with me."
You seems to imply that you could never guarantee the safety of your car from possible theft and therefore a women who hasn't had sex can not guarantee the safety of her virginity. Give women some respect for goodness sake and see that they can guarantee the safety of their virginity apart from uninvited and forced impositions. You can only call the person a car thief if they take something you were trying to take reasonable care of. In the society then (and now), there is no guarantee that the person always takes reasonable care of something that should be of great worth to them.