We Trust Rules to Protect Us... But Do They?
Excerpt from the third chapter of Coddled Children
"I got what I asked for and paid with regret."
In the last two excerpts I shared, two extremes were explored. One showed how radicalization grows when people are silenced and pushed to the margins. The other exposed how blind idealism fuels war while shutting down critical thought. Both stem from the same inaccurate assumption, the belief that ideology and rules can replace individual responsibility.
Now, we turn to another consequence of this mindset: how we approach sexual boundaries.
This is a complex and sensitive issue, one that requires deeper analysis. I will write a full article on it soon, but for now, I want to share my core perspective, one that is often overlooked in today’s discussions on sexual misconduct:
It takes two to tango.
In the ‘free’ West, we teach young girls and women that they are equal to men, that they can be anything, that they must claim their place in the world. Yet, when it comes to sexual encounters, women are suddenly framed as helpless and in need of protection. Responsibility shifts entirely to the other party. But does this really serve them? If we are equal in all aspects, should we not be equal in our sexual relationships too?
In my novel Coddled Children, I take an unfiltered look at what happens when personal responsibility is removed from the equation. No matter how many laws, rules, and measures we put in place to regulate sexuality, if we fail to teach young men and women how to set their own boundaries, things can still go terribly wrong.
We have created an intricate web of rules and policies designed to define acceptable sexual behavior. But do they truly protect us? Strict laws against rape and sexual assault are essential, yet rules alone do not prevent harm. They merely assign blame after the fact. The more we rely on regulations to shield us, the less we take responsibility for our own safety. And when people believe rules will protect them, they stop protecting themselves.
Consent is more than a legal checkbox; it requires real agency. If no one is taught how to say no, then consent itself loses all meaning. And if setting boundaries is never encouraged, how can we expect people to recognize when those boundaries are crossed?
If we look at high-profile sexual misconduct cases in recent years, the ‘perpetrator’ is often accused of taking advantage of a victim in a vulnerable position. But the question that is never asked is: how did the victim end up in that vulnerable position? Could it have been avoided with a little bit of foresight?
I come from a generation of women who understood that certain precautions were necessary. We knew not to get blackout drunk at a party if there was no one to look out for us. We knew not to accept drinks from strangers, not to get into a car with someone we didn’t trust, not to go to a secluded house or walk through a dark park alone. Some call that oppression in a patriarchal society. I call it common sense and self-preservation.
That is why I believe the phrase “mothers educate your sons” is misguided. No mother encourages her sons to take advantage of young women. A good mother teaches her son to respect his partner’s boundaries. But that only works if the partner is able to set those boundaries in the first place. Maybe we should be saying “fathers educate your daughters.” Teach them to value their own bodies and not to give themselves away lightly, even in a free society. That alone could prevent a great deal of suffering.
I will return with a more thorough analysis. For now, here’s an excerpt from the third chapter of Coddled Children, where Kitty is about to have her ‘experience of a lifetime.’
Kitty scrolls through the list of questions, her cheeks burning. Thankfully, she’s in her own cabin, where no one can see her.
They’re really not letting me wiggle out of this, I have to give them that.
Just a week after their last dynamo training, Sammy had already signed her up with intimacy coach Julie. Her session is in just four days.
She hasn’t spoken to Sammy since, only received a short message:
"Your session partner is Justin. Justin is an insanely hot PwP, who knows exactly what they're doing, and you shouldn’t hesitate to do whatever you feel like with them. Oh, and Justin is looking forward to it."
Yesterday, she got an email from intimacy coach Julie with an extensive questionnaire and the request to send it back in time. Now, after an exhausting dynamo training session followed by an endless day of dull conversations, Kitty finally has time to take a closer look at what she’s gotten herself into.
Half the terms on the list are completely unfamiliar to her.
Better not figure those out on the spot.
But she also has to specify where she does or doesn’t want to be touched. Nervously, she rubs her hands together.
How am I supposed to know if I’ve never done it before? No, I don’t want to get spanked or humiliated, but other than that...?
She exhales deeply, trying to recall Sammy’s stories. She regrets now that she never really paid attention. Out of secondhand embarrassment, sure, but mostly because she wasn’t interested.
She grimaces.
That was the old Kitty. The new Kitty is going to live. Enjoy. Do fun things. Sammy is right. Why should I keep worrying, and for whom? Let others deal with the mess!
She looks at the questions again. Does she want it soft, firm, or rough? She thinks of Sammy’s hilarious stories about pathetic, sloppy caresses and limp little willies. Apparently, those two go hand in hand.
Well, I don’t need to be handled with silk gloves either. It’s bad enough that I have no experience. I don’t need to come off as a prude on top of that.
She clicks on ‘firm’, closes the questionnaire, and sends it back to Julie.
If you find this valuable, please punch the like button! It helps me get a little more visibility in this endless sea of publications!
Voor mijn Nederlandse lezers: ik heb ook een Nederlandse substack waar ik dezelfde artikelen in de eigen taal publiceer. Klik hier om naar het Nederlandse artikel te gaan: