Free-for-all

3
Have your say

pete Martin thinks that regulating “sexual entertainment” is a means of suppressing dissent and reducing levels of tolerance in society (Perspective, 3 July).

However his attempt at justifying sexual immorality by accusing those who are opposed to people paying to exploit other people’s bodies, as “buttoned up and repressive” falls under his own logic.

Does Mr Martin really want a “shame-free culture”? Would he not want people to be ashamed of sex crime, as defined by statute? Surely some morality is actually needed?

A moral free-for-all only ends up with the rich and powerful getting what they want, at the expense of the rest of us. Mr Martin sadly illustrates the confusion and anarchy that occurs when morality is reduced from the objective standard of God, to the subjective zeitgeist of whoever happens to have the power in society today.

David Robertson

St Peters Free Church 

St Peter Street, Dundee

Back to the top of the page