Bad Behavior and Explanations

The news lately has been full of stories of  famous or at least well known men having behaved badly sexually toward women (and sometimes boys or other men)  by  actions including vulgar and unwanted solicitations, insulting inducement, harassment, intimidation, bullying, or even assault or rape.

Some religious and social conservatives have blamed this on people’s abandoning traditional notions of proper sexual behavior  - such as the disapproval of sexual activity before or outside of marriage, the condemnation of homosexuality as sinful, the particular importance of female virginity at the time of marriage, and the general view of sexual interest and behavior  as part of humanity’s lower nature  -   starting with the so-called sexual revolution of the 1960s and getting worse ever since.  To them there is a natural progression from  more liberal attitudes on sexuality   to Weinstein, Spacey, and Lauer.  Yet there is no necessary or observable connection.  It is quite possible to think that people do not need the approval of the government or a church for their sexual activities, that homosexuals are not sinners, that  virginity up to marriage is not important, and that sex is a fine thing and still disapprove of and refrain from coercing or harassing  anyone sexually. Many people do  so, while many people with strict traditional beliefs are guilty of these things.  The argument seems to say more about a historical thread of hostility to sexuality in Christianity than about anything really occurring. It calls to mind both Mencken’s definition of a puritan and the old quote about a person having been taught  that sex is the most bestial and degrading of human activities, and one must save it for one the person he loves most in the world.

Some leftist feminists have put the blame on masculinity – not some  men’s hubris, indecency, or lack of honor, but on masculinity itself. This makes even less sense than what the social conservatives are saying. There are plenty of strong, masculine men  who restrict their romantic attentions and activities to women who are receptive to them, do not assume all women fall into that category, and behave as gentlemen.  There are plenty of wimps who are harassers or worse.  (It is fair to note that it is likely  neither Al Franken nor Kevin Spacey nor Matt Lauer, to cite some prominent examples, would be seen by most people as an exemplar of masculinity.)  This argument seems to say more about a thread of neurotic man hating in leftist feminism than about anything really occurring.  It also serves to support the viewpoint of some rude stereotypes and crude jokes about leftist feminists. 

There are, however, some simple and obvious observations to help explain what has gone on.   Successful phonies are good at fooling people and often can do so for a long time. Unethical people will tend to do what they think they can get away with.  When they get  some power and authority, they will tend to think they can get away with a good deal.  Fame  does not make trash any less trashy or scum any less scummy.  People sometimes tolerate more than they should from people they fear or think can be of benefit to them. That covers a lot of it. 

Republicans Need to Get Serious

There is still a political controversy over a plank in the platform of the Republicans in Texas endorsing so-called therapies intended to change homosexuals into heterosexuals. It is not clear to me what the Republicans had in mind with this plank. Some say they were merely affirming a person’s right to choose. Others say they were advocating such therapies and supporting their use on unwilling adolescents. What is clear to me is that they were not using their heads when they did it. There is a very nearly zero probability of the Texas legislature outlawing these practices, and they must have known that. So why burden their platform with something which was unnecessary and likely to offend homosexuals?

I believe the actions, plans, and policies of the Obama administration are a serious threat to the freedom and safety of Americans and must be resisted and reversed, starting with the elections  this November. The Republicans in Texas claim to believe this also, yet seem to have trouble seeing what it should mean in terms of action, as their conduct in this example  illustrates.

While many homosexuals may be leftists committed to Obama and the Democrats, many others of both genders are concerned, freedom loving, patriotic Americans who are dismayed by what is going on with this administration and might be more willing  to support the Republicans if the Republicans would stop insulting them.  If we really are in a crisis, that is not too much to ask of the social conservatives. They would not have to change their beliefs or prejudices. They would only have to learn to welcome allies in the important struggle wherever they could find them  and realize that if the place is on fire, the social and cultural controversies (all of them, not just the ones concerning homosexuality) are less important at the moment than putting the flames out.

Libertarians certainly have done that for  the social conservatives. Many of us will hold our noses in November and vote for some really remarkable Republican yahoos, because we believe that the threats we face are real and serious, and that those who oppose them need to make common cause to overcome them.   A great man was quoted as saying it well in a situation far more dangerous than the one we face: “we must all hang together, or, assuredly,  we shall all hang separately.” He meant it literally. We have the luxury of facing the alternative only figuratively, but leaving Obama and company unchecked will be bad enough. Surely the homosexual baiting and all the rest can wait at least until the imminent threat has passed.