Wednesday, November 29, 2017

Not sure what to think.

Of late we're seeing in increasing number of men being outed for engaging in varying degrees of sexual misbehavior with women.   To be honest, there is a lot about this that I find troubling.

First, the fact that so many of these men have had long histories of this behavior which has been ignored, tolerated, joked about, and accepted.   Remember how everybody laughed off Ted Kennedy's drunken "waitress sandwich" incident?

Second, the fact that we've gone from that extreme, to the other where it's appropriate to fire someone at the first accusation. 

Third, the role that the culture plays in all of this.  Since the "Sexual revolution" there has been a push from the left to move sex away from something reserved for marriage and toward something that has minimal consequences.  Starting with "free love", the introduction of the birth control pill, the legalization of abortion, no fault divorce, movies and TV, 50 Shades of Gray, the ubiquity of free porn, and hook up culture.   The fact that all of these have been driven by folks who tend toward the left side of the political spectrum, is something that seems to be ignored, as is the fact that these things have contributed to what we're seeing now.

Fourth, while I understand the fact that these private companies have the ability to fire people at will, it seems a bit harsh and arbitrary to fire someone so quickly after an allegation.  It seems like a bit of an overreaction and an attempt to protect the company with little regard for the possible innocence of the one charged.

Fifth, it seems like we're lumping in an incredibly wide range of behavior and treating Keillor's touching with the same degree of seriousness as Weinstein's  harassment.  All the while, there's kind of been a pass for the Weiners' and Clinton's of the world and no one seems particularly bothered by the use of tax dollars to pay of the victims of various congressmen.  

Sixth, I can't for the life of me see how anyone can try to cast the prevalence of free  easily accessed porn as anything but a negative and to not see the connection between the Playboy mainstreaming of objectifying women purely for their physical/sexual attributes and how some men treat women. 

It seems like folks on the left have encouraged the migration of sex further and further away from marriage, then all of a sudden get overly moralistic when the consequences of those societal changes start to become too much.  

I'm not suggesting that the right isn't complicit in following the changes in society, just that virtually every change in the nature of sexual relations has come from the left and moved throughout society.

It still baffles me that the same folks who defended/excused Clinton, made snide jokes about Weinstein, and argue that porn and unfettered sex empowers women, bashed the crap out of Pence for going against the grain.  But even now, they would never admit that choosing to live by the Graham rule would have prevented much of what has everyone so worked up now.




6 comments:

Craig said...

Since 2015 “we’ve” spent 9 billion hours watching porn from one (pornhub)website. Can anyone seriously believe this is a)healthy, b) unrelated to the sudden uptick in sex perverts?

Craig said...

Just saw a star that claims 81% of HS boys don’t know what consent means as it relates to sexual activity. Once again, I can’t believe that the influence of a liberal, permissive society over the last 40 years and the prevalence of easily available porn don’t play a role.

Marshal Art said...

I've made similar points over the years. It seems so obvious. It is the same problem that has brought us all the strife over LGBT demands. Carnal pleasures have been at the root of it all, and there are far too many that have actually defended such things in one way or another.

Craig said...

It’s all about divorcing sex from consequences, responsibility, and attachments.

Craig said...

It’s hard to take this new moralizing from the left seriously when they’ve given a pass to all sorts of stuff for their politicians, they award movies that depict a gay man’s sexual relationship with an underage boy, and they’ve got folks on both sides of the spectrum trying to normalize lowering the age of consent.

Craig said...

Here is the clarification from the administration:

"Like other nations that have merit-based immigration, President Trump is fighting for permanent solutions that make our country stronger by WELCOMING THOSE WHO CAN CONTRIBUTE to our society"

The DEFENSE says that people from poorer nations made up of people with darker skin can't contribute in the way that people from whiter, richer European nations.

THAT is the problem, not using the word "shithole." In case you missed the point. And it IS speaking quite specifically about people, not nations. "Welcoming those who can contribute..." and the people who can contribute? White and wealthy Europeans. Those who can't? The brown people from Haiti, Latin America and Africa.

Don't be naive. Don't defend the indefensible.

But then, you all just don't get it.

Ask the many (well, several) conservatives who recognize the racism for what it is... Kristol, Ryan, etc.