Search Box

Thursday, September 27, 2018

Sexual politics

The nation's attention has been riveted by the Brett Kavanaugh nomination saga, which we'll probably never know the truth about with absolute certainty. Most people's opinions on the matter seem to fall along political lines. Yet politics ought not to bear on the veracity of what may or may not have happened in a suburban bedroom over 30 years ago.

It's certainly possible Ford is telling the truth and Kavanaugh did lay on top of her and try to remove her bathing suit while in high school. The soft-faced Kavanaugh does not appear the sort of overbearing, high testosterone, aggressive guy you'd normally associate with such behavior. But, looks can be deceiving.

In any case, the Kavanaugh situation is not the point of this post. The point is that sex, by its very nature, is an awkward, messy business rife with the potential for blunders, embarrassment, hurt feelings, misinterpretation, insecurity, frustration, and regret.

And, the circumstances surrounding such first time encounters are often sodden with alcohol.

So the politicization of sex is fraught with the potential for misleading tropes and willful misinterpretation.

Consider the idea of an "unwanted sexual advance." That could just be a shy guy who at the end of a date timidly leans forward for a goodnight kiss, and the girl pulls back. Voila, an "unwanted sexual advance." If you want to view it in that light.

You may have heard of "regret rape," when a woman who willingly has intercourse later regrets it, often because the man never phoned her again, so decides to file rape charges.

In a sane world, it would be the filing of those charges, not the sex, which would be regarded as a possible crime.

One of the current battlecries is, "No always means no." You're not supposed to say this, but in reality, it doesn't always mean that. Sometimes it just means "I want to preserve my self-image as a good girl, but if you keep trying, I'll probably give in."

Or, it can mean, "I want you to think me more chaste than I actually am, since you make good money and seem like a good prospect for marriage."

Or, "I love the way you keep coming at me, it validates my attractiveness!"

If these interpretations didn't have a basis in reality, the word "coy" wouldn't be in the dictionary. To deny that some women play these games is simply to be blind to human nature -- in all its wondrous diversity.

Of course, there are times when "no" does mean no. No man is justified in using physical force to overpower a woman. But persistence, or an advance, are not the same as assault, and some of the accusations -- and effectively, convictions -- of the #MeToo era have conflated the two.

There's another basic contradiction which is a little hard to reconcile: who, for the past decade, has been the number one fictional sex object for women? The hero of Fifty Shades of Grey. Would Christian Grey have passed a Senate confirmation hearing? Seems doubtful.

Especially if he'd been nominated by Donald Trump.

It's telling that the men who most vociferously condemn aggressively heterosexual men fall into two main categories.

Some are homosexuals, like Ronan Farrow, who's made his name by exposing the predatory nature of certain men. Or Barack Obama, who did his best to institute kangaroo courts to combat the "campus rape epidemic."

It's hard not to think that the reason they are so vociferously condemnative of heterosexuals is because they have no sense of the types of games some -- not all, but some -- women play. There may be a little resentment against heterosexual men in general at work there as well.

And some are heroic defenders of feminism like Eric Schneiderman, the New York State Attorney General from 2011 to 2018, who in February 2018 brought a civil rights lawsuit against the Weinstein Company for failing to protect its employees from sexual harassment. Turned out his righteousness rang a little hollow.

In fact Harvey Weinstein himself, before his downfall, had long presented himself as a strong supporter of women in the film industry.

As Asia Argento found out, posing as Joan of Arc comes with its own set of risks.

This is not to say there aren't men, like Harvey Weinstein or Bill Cosby or Bill Clinton, who belong in jail.

Certainly, trying to force yourself on a girl the way Christine Blasey Ford claimed Brett Kavanaugh did would be shameful. But in the world most of us grew up in, not going for sex can result in social shaming as well. How many high school boys have you known who boasted of their virginity? (Though Brett Kavanaugh seems to have been reduced to that.)

To ignore the intrinsic awkwardness of sex, especially among the young and inexperienced, is to set an impossible standard for most men to follow.

Which may, of course, be the entire point of weaponizing #MeToo. To the Left, the beauty of this movement may be that there will always be something to hang someone with.

If there isn't, you can always just make something up. After all, as the feminists say, "I believe women."

But the idea that possession of a vagina confers credibility is as ridiculous as thinking that possession of a penis does the same. (Imagine the silliness of a t-shirt which stated, "I believe men." And, imagine the outrage with which such would be greeted.)

What's most wrong with the politicization of sex is that it ignores the very nature of sex: the physical attraction, the flirtation, the double meanings, the conversational subtexts, the messiness of it all. And most importantly it ignores the hesitancy and awkwardness, or conversely, the pushiness sometimes required for it to happen. And it ignores the forbidden fruit appeal sex can sometimes have, as well as the nature of arousal.

Most men, while having -- or attempting to have -- sex, have thoughts like the following going through their brains: "Look at those beautiful, perky little nipples....that ass is so cute...Yes, she's really juicy!.....Mmm, that feels good."

Apologies for the graphic content. But for sex to occur, these have to be the types of thoughts going through a male mind.

Here, by contrast, are some thoughts that don't go through men's minds at such times:

"Hmm, I wonder what Gloria Allred will make of this situation in a few months."

"Do third wave feminists approve of spanking?"

"Was I perhaps a touch too aggressive in my initial approach?"

"Is there any chance if I don't phone this woman back there might be repercussions?"

Were these the thoughts consuming men every time such situations arose, arousal would not occur, and the human race would come grinding to a halt.

To make someone's history of awkward teenage groping the crucible upon which suitability for higher office is to be determined is to open up a Pandora's Box of recriminations, petty revenge, half-truths, and outright lies. And it means willfully ignoring human nature.

That no public figure is willing to point this out because they are afraid of becoming the mob's next target shows just how out of control the mob has gotten.

A few decades ago, school administrators used to warn their students that whatever they did in high school would go on their "permanent record." This warning subsequently turned into a sort of joke, and the excessive seriousness with which it was taken was looked back upon with a sort of mirthful regret.

Funny thing, those warnings turned out to be true.


Anonymous said...

Welcome back, missed your commentaary

John Craig said...

Anon --
Thank you, but I'm not really "back." Just sporadically.

Anonymous said...

This is all political theater, brought to us by the globalist (socialist) Democratic party. Feinstein is a snake, as are many in the Senate and Congress, both parties. I just hope a red wave hits during the midterm elections. The accuser, Ford, has connections to the CIA. The media fails to reveal facts about the accuser, but then again, the msm is doing it's job by keeping the masses deceived.

- birdie

John Craig said...

Birdie --
Exactly. And this is the same crowd who refused to listen to anything Juanita Broaddrick had to say, and scoffed at Bill Clinton's various other victims. What was it that James Carville famously said about Paula Jones? "No telling what you'll find if you drag a hundred dollar bill through a trailer park." Etc, etc.

Anonymous said...

Nice job John, I see you're in top form.
Let me raise one issue: Looking at population figures there doesn't appear to be much danger that "the human race would come grinding to a halt." It seems to me the potential impact on population is an excellent reason to support the politicizing of sex.
BTW - while you've been quiet over the last few months have you by any chance given any reconsideration to your views on Trump?

Bob J

John Craig said...

Bob J --
Thank you. I was speaking hyperbolically about the human race coming to a halt, don't think there's any danger of that happening, was more just making a point about th nature of males, what they do and don't think about when the possibility of sex arises.

I've never been a fan of Trump's personality. I've known guys like that personally, and couldn't stand them. Narcissistic personalities demand obeisance, can't take criticism, overestimate themselves on every front, and are in general unpleasant to be around. And those traits all describe our President.

However, I still support Trump politically. And frankly, I think it's great that he's been pressing for better trade deals with Mexico, Canada, Europe, and China. China in particular has been taking advantage of us in all sorts of ways for decades, and thank goodness, we finally have a President who's doing something about it. The one area where he's changed his tune since the campaign is on his stance toward Syria, and that's disappointing (I suspect the chemical weapons attacks were a false flag operation). But he's been sort of cornered/manipulated on that front because of the whole Russia/collusion thing, and the whole Mideast situation is sort of Byzantine to begin with.

But overall, he seems to have stuck more to his campaign promises more than any other recent President.

Anonymous said...


Bob J

John Craig said...

Bob J --
Yes, that's a little weird. But I think it's all part of Trump's negotiating tactics, which include both insults and compliments; I've heard that's a good way to get people to accede to your wishes, as you condition them to want your compliments rather than your insults. Whether it works, who knows. (Though it did seem to work with Trudeau, Canada basically knuckled under this morning to give the US trade negotiators what they wanted.) I just hope those tactics work with China.

Anonymous said...

Welcome back John! I've really missed your posts. The only thing I want to say is that looking back to when I was a teen I really regret not having been molested or assaulted by a woman! Looking forward to more posts anyway. Brian

John Craig said...

Brian --
Thank you very much. (Though I'll probably only post sporadically in the future.)

Ha, you're not the only one. There've been a lot of headlines recently about female schoolteachers (some of whom are decidedly good-looking) having sex with their male students, and whenever the subject comes up among guys I know, about 90% of them respond with "Where were they when I was young?" or some similar sentiment.

Anonymous said...

Oh so we need your approval to comment ?
Where to begin
Interesting fodder and food for thought
Don't you think so much of what the news say is important for us to know is just a ruse so we don't pay attention to what really goes on?
I'm hoping this is so because we as a nation have been reduced to being adolescents
You are a thoughtful and eloquent writer
Who knew

John Craig said...

Anon --
The blogger having approval on all comments is pretty much standard practice. (I pretty much publish all comments, no matter how insulting to me, as long as they're relevant to the topic.

Yes, I'm sure that's true about reducing our attention spans essentially being used against us. At the moment we are effectively helping starve millions of Yemenites, but somehow that doesn't make the news. Instead our attention is focused on whether Brett Kavanaugh lay on top of a girl at a high school party 35 years ago and tried to remove her bathing suit. And whether he drank while in college.

Thanks, I guess, for the left-handed compliment.

Anonymous said...

I don't know much about Kavanaugh, but I did see this pic on my facebook wall:

The ignorance in this picture rustled my jimmies.

One of the key traits, something that is a clinical feature of sociopathy is unnaturally low levels of anxiety or none. Hillary, wherever she was in the picture, was not acting "cool" or whatever, not like some Tibetan monk dude. There is a thing when people act "cool" or "brave" for real. Hilary is not that.

This bias, is just frustrating to no end, you can see them bullying people and using their neuroses in their reaction as "proof" of their guilt.


John Craig said...

Ga --
Agree completely. A normal person, when accused, may act "guilty" even when he's not; a sociopath will act innocent when he's not.

Plus those pictures were obviously cherry-picked. There are plenty of pictures of Hillary looking less than cool, and there are pictures of Kavanaugh looking calm. And, as I recall, those Benghazi hearings are where Hillary had that tantrum in which she semi-yelled, "What, at this point, difference does it make?!"

Also, everyone seemed to feel that Ford's testimony was credible because she was crying during part of it, but I don't see that as necessarily proof of anything. I don't know enough about her to say one way or the other whether she's a sociopath, but one of their stocks in trade is the ability to cry on command. Plus, that bit about her having coached her friend to pass a lie detector test makes me wonder. (But again, I don't know enough to say one way or the other.)

Anonymous said...

It's a fact that Ford came from a CIA family, herself also having worked for the CIA (at Stanford). The CIA developed the MK Ultra mind control program. This Ford lady could be a grown up victim of the program, being "activated" by the globalists to participate in this sham sexual assault charade against the judge. It was a stall and delay tactic used by the Dems. To me, Ford was not believable. Her lies and the girlish sounding voice made me suspect that she could been assigned this role. Q mentioned this as well during his/her latest drop. Praying medic who decodes the Q drops had a Q shared video of Nancy Pelosi describing this Democratic tactic, used against opponents. The Dems are all about keeping their power, using any means possible. They're twisted.

- birdie

John Craig said...

Birdie --
I agree, it smelled like "stall and delay" from the start.

I hadn't realized Ford came from a CIA family.

GT said...

I found Dr Ford and the overall Democratic gamesmanship fascinating

She was not at all what I excepted as I found her character lacking Alpha. I would except a highly degreed person to have more drive and confidence

She came across to me as a total "beta" that lives a sheltered life - I think birdie nailed it with the "little girl voice" and dementor. She almost seemed that she was trying really heard to please the authoritarian figures around her. I saw a couple of expressions of "did I do good" on her face. It would be interesting to see old video of Ford talking to see if the voice she was using during the hearing was her normal voice or the Michael Jackson kid type voice

I did not get a sociopathic vibe from her as I did not feel that she was trying to manipulate her way out of a situation by changing her story slightly based on the questions. I did not catch her making something up on the spot to make a question fit her narrative. Of course I could be totally wrong as I do understand that now some of her statements are being called into question such as her fear of flying when she fly's all the time - need for two front doors due to anxiety when she may have rented out a room and used the second front door more for renters / office space.

I still think the real mastermind behind bringing Dr Ford to the public - and a person who I feel does have a sociopathic vibe - is Dianne Feinstein

Feinstein sat on the allegation for months - but she wasn't really setting on the info she was looking for confirmation of the allegations. If she would have had the confirmation right away she would have presented it. Instead she had to come up with a plan to use the allegations to smear and stall. She got her plan rolling then she stepped back and made comments such as "I have no way of knowing if Dr Ford is telling the truth that is why I turned it over to the FBI" and "NO matter the outcome of the allegations, I am voting no based on Brett's ability as a Judge only". She was able to gets this smear and delay tactic going while setting herself up as a person of high character.

Feinstein - or someone in her circle- leaked the info to the press kicking off the smear and forcing Ford to come forward. In the end I think Feinstein lost control of the monster she created by allowing the last "victim" to come forward with the allegations of gang rape - once the allegations of the gang rape fell apart it weakened the narrative and turn off the general public.

John Craig said...

GT --
Agree completely about Feinstein. She was manipulative, and dishonest. And yes, it was almost good to see Swetnick come forward, her lack of credibility definitely hurt their overall cause. She ended up walking her own claims back, but by then it was too late.

Don't know what to think about Ford, though. It's possible she was telling the truth, it's possible she made an honest mistake, and it's possible she was lying and motivated by political reasons. That little girl persona may have just been an act, and don't forget, it emerged that she had coached a friend on how to pass a lie detector test, which makes the results of her own such test a little more suspect.

Anonymous said...

I never understood why certain incidents, real or alleged, gather more attention and spread like fire, reaching the front pages, dragging on, but others don't.

A familiar example is why some politicians are targeted for scandals when others are greater of even worse ones. In this Kavanaugh case, it's obvious there is bias, yet this may happen to lesser known ones and not others. In Thailand, a bit back, the son of the person in charge or one of the creators of the formula, not sure, of Red Bull ran over someone in his car. He got off free, and the news didn't make it outside the country. Butt other stories of less weight spread.

If you take violence, the Texas Church shooter never seemed to make the front pages for a fraction of the time Loughner or Rodger did. I can't even remember that guys name.

If you ask someone to name Lanza or Mateen they could, but does anyone know about "Kevin Janson Neal" is? I don't, I just went to wikipedia 15 seconds ago and chose a name at random, some 44 year old guy, never saw his name hit the news in Asia or on the front page of Reddit.

For "heroes", everyone can name Oskar Schindler in the west, people are familiar with John Rabe in China. Can anyone name Bernhard Arp Sindberg? Danish man who saved 6,000 in China.

Historical events, news events, certain people. What we get to learn about is at the mercy of chance, bias, and other things. I think the driving motivation of finding out about someone or some event is not just based on predictable factors. You can sometimes write a "guns, germs, steel" or "the bell curve" explanation but there too many exceptions that show determinism has its limits in being absolute in some areas. And GG&S has plenty of flaws the undo the proposed theories, even people on the left criticized it.

Whoever Kavanaugh is, the fact there are people who have been confirmed, not just accused, of doing far worse than whatever has been said about Kavanaugh, yet they are not just merely let off the hook by the public, but never known about for no clear reason says something about how hard it is to ignore that the alleged crime is not the real matter if it feels like the attention is unnaturally high.


John Craig said...

Ga --
It usually, but not always, has to do with whether the scandal follows The Narrative that the press wants us to believe in. Recently, in the US, there's been a huge amount of publicity about white women who've called the police on innocent blacks. This hardly seems worthy of front page coverage, when there are murders that don't make the front page; but it does fit The Narrative that racist whites are oppressing innocent blacks.

Some of it also has to do with the sensationalism of the scandal; and sometimes it seems to be, as you say, random. I did hear of that Red Bull scion killing someone with his car in Thailand, btw, but you're right in that it got less publicity here than it would have had it involved an American. Of course, that's a factor too, people are simply more interested in their own countrymen.

You're right, Devin Patrick Kelley, the Texas church shooter, got way less publicity than some others. That may have to do with the sense that some media people have about certain shootings that "that could have been us, or our children." When Eliot Rodgers killed some UCSB students, when Stephen Paddock killed 58 people in Las Vegas, it was easy for the media types to imagine that it could have been them or their loved ones being shot. They couldn't imagine that about a rural church shooting in Texas, so, less interest.

Anonymous said...

Great points and explanations, since im poor at understanding people, you helped give me context i can use in the future.

John Craig said...

Thank you Ga.