Friend of Quadrant Mark Powell writes:
While officials in Bali have been busy threatening to prosecute those who engage in sex outside marriage, the University of Technology Sydney has pursued the opposite goal. Its administration wants to make sure students are instructed in explicit sexual material whether or not one consents to such an education.
The irony underlying this latest leftist scheme, is that under the guise of highlighting the importance of “consent” when one has sex, people are being exposed to depictions of sexual activity without their consent. What’s more, UTS is not alone in pursuing this approach. Sydney University has adopted a similar strategy. According to the UTS website:
Consent Matters training
Consent Matters is a compulsory online training about appropriate behaviour and positive intervention.
Every single staff and student will complete it once during their time at UTS to ensure that all members of our community have a shared understanding of healthy relationships and can help if they see unacceptable situations.
This training is one part of our program to reduce unwanted sexual behaviour and encourage healthy relationships.
Deadline for completion
The deadline for coursework students to complete Consent Matters training is the results release date of your first session at UTS.
Failure to complete Consent Matters
You will only be able to view your results if you have completed the four modules and received 100 per cent in the quiz at the end.
If you fail to do this, you will receive a Consent Matters sanction and will not be able to view your results.
To remove the sanction, complete the training and receive 100 per cent in the quiz. You may need to wait up to 72 hours for your results to appear.
I don’t know of anyone not currently in prison who thinks that sexual assault, let alone rape, is ever acceptable. But do we really need something like this to be made compulsory? It is socially “progressive” programs like this that border on the puritanical. Actually, that’s unfair to the Puritans. They never forced everyone in society to take a quiz before they could get their exam results.
Faculty and students that have already taken part in the training say that part of it involves viewing a house with ten bedrooms. The online viewer — or should that be ‘voyeur’? — then has to click on each bedroom and either hear / read explicit details of the sexual activity in each.
Unsurprisingly, seven of the ten examples involve same-sex couples. And all this time I thought the actual figure for homosexuality was the mythical 10 per cent.
One concerned academic, a Christian, showed their 18-year-old daughter who, after watching a part of the presentation commented, “This is misrepresenting young people as if we all take drugs, get drunk and go around having sex.” There was a time—not so long ago—when society was governed by shared values and social mores regarding sexuality. In particular, if you weren’t married then there was supposed to be no consent, at least, not culturally. This venerable tradition protected women in particular from being abused or taken advantage of.
Now it seems that in this age of anything goes, even with novel development of gay marriage, consent is as authoritarian as the radical gender theory that UTS also seeks to impose on it’s students.