An accident being widely reported in New Zealand media, and around the world, concerns a Kiwi tourist who almost died when her hand was severed while on a yacht in Coatia. The hand was reattached after a six hour operation. Two elements of this story really grabbed the media’s attention:
One, the story involved sex. The young woman was allegedly engaged in an act of passion when the sink she was resting on broke with a shard severing her hand during impact.
Two, the unfortunate woman’s partner left Croatia before the police could interview him.
So far the story is interesting, but not of concern to warrant repeating here. What did pique my interest was the follow up (see link below). Typically when the media gets a hold of a story that generates a high level of interest (and therefore newspaper sales or website hits), the journalist will look for anther angle. Perhaps contact some relatives or friends for a little more information and hopefully a comment.
In this instance, The Press tracked down a “female family member” for comment, as the woman’s father and brother had rushed to Croatia. Admitting that she hadn’t been in touch with the mother and that the victim hadn’t really spoken to anyone, this family member enlightened us with the following: Amy “would never put herself in that sort of a predicament. She’s a good Christian girl. I’ve known her all her life and she has strong principles. It doesn’t sound like Amy at all.”
Of course, it is entirely possible that Amy hadn’t been engaged in sex at all. The Croatian Times broke the story and cited “A policeman” as saying “It appears they were engaged in a passionate act in the bathroom where at some stage the sink broke – leaving a jagged edge that severed the woman’s hand when she fell to the floor.”
It is also entirely possible that the young woman had lived in London for two years and had never engaged in a sexual union. Perhaps the man who fled the country before being questioned was getting rough. We may never know.
What is of concern is that Amy would never allow herself to be in this predicament in the first place. What predicament? Was she doing something that was shameful or wrong? When I initially read the article, I didn’t question her morals or values. I was simply aghast at the immense pain she must have felt as a result of an incredibly unfortunate accident. My guess is, that this relative didn’t really know Amy. Not that the report is very clear. What was the concerned relative saying? Is she questioning whether Amy would be having sex? Or that she was having passionate sex? Or perhaps that she doesn’t like yachts?
It’s almost as if a “good Christian girl” with “strong principles” would never be engaged in pre-martial sex. Those sorts of behaviours belong to girls of other faiths or with no faith. Is that the implication? Marriage is a construct of modern society, but sex has been around since… well, since before we climbed down from the trees. It’s not a bad thing. It’s something we do. Something we are programmed to do. There are responsibilities and ramifications associated with the act. In this instance, Amy has done nothing wrong!
Now, let’s ask the important questions. Who was her partner for the evening and where is he now? Most importantly, what was his role and why did he leave the country? Was this an innocent accident or is there something more sinister at play?
Why are people concerning themselves with Amy’s values and principles?