When consent isn’t enough

Societal expectations of casual sex ignore how many people feel about sex.

© Dave DuBay

David French, writing for the conservative National Review, muses that the inevitable moment for #MeToo has arrived—an “uncomfortable” sexual encounter has been labeled sexual assault. French says this reveals “the defects of modern sexuality.”

He has no interest in defending comedian Aziz Ansari: “Under no circumstances should a man treat Grace the way Ansari treated her. It was wrong. Full stop.”

But our culture sexualizes too many things, French goes on to say, including first dates. Yet, “human beings have a desperate need for a sexual morality that transcends consent.” More specifically,

Even if men and women reject Christian morality and believe that waiting for marriage is a bridge too far, the decision to delay sex until well after the formation of a healthy relationship will protect people from an immense amount of heartbreak.

As old fashioned as this may sound, there needs to be a wider discussion of French’s point. Not sexualizing everyday situations doesn’t mean stigmatizing casual sex—everyone has the right to live their life as they choose. But society’s acceptance of casual sex has morphed into the expectation of casual sex.

The so-called sexual revolution involved many things, and the birth control pill tops the list. The pill enabled women to have sex with much less fear of pregnancy, even to the point where some women declared that they could have sex like men—casually, promiscuously, and without emotional attachment. Never mind that such a view promotes one dimensional stereotypes about men. It also ignores the emotional aspect of sex.

Since the 1960s, pop culture’s portrayal of sex has in many way become more unrealistic. Did people today grow up thinking that they should engage in casual sex like TV stars? Did the absence of emotional repercussions on the silver screen lead people to think there would be no emotional fallout from having sex with a relative stranger?

And do women and men experience this differently? Sociologist David Buss found that although women and men engage in casual sex about as often, women are much more likely to regret it afterwards.  This is true cross culturally, and for lesbians. Buss notes that this seems to involve more than just culture.

This, of course, contradicts the popular progressive claim that biology plays no role with gender, though you’d be hard pressed to find a neuroscientist or biologist who agrees. This doesn’t mean that biological determinism is true, or that culture plays no role. But it does mean that we need to consider the big picture.

For men modern society values quantity—the number of notches on his belt. And as we’ve seen with all the allegations of sexual assault, this can have serious consequences.

In the Washington Post, Elizabeth Bruenig writes that,

Sex is a domain so intimate and personal that more harm can be done than in most social situations, and that given that heightened capacity for harm, we should expect people to operate with greater conscientiousness, concern and care in that domain than in others.

She concludes that, “Demanding an expansion of empathy and responsibility when it comes to sex isn’t regressive.”

I would add that empathy and responsibility should be reciprocal. The initiator should be looking for signs that the advances are unwelcome. And in the absence of coercion or impairment, regret after consent is the responsibility of the person who feels regretful.

Fixing our culture is going to take a while. We can begin by educating young people that what they’ve learned about sex from pop culture is often not the way sex is in the real world. Some people are fine with casual sex but others are not, and there is a gender difference which is at least partially biologically influenced.

And we can encourage realistic expectations, such as the assumption that one’s dating partner sees things as casual unless stated otherwise. That means examining our feelings about casual sex, and if need be setting boundaries from the get go such as the old social norm of not going to someone’s apartment on the first few dates, or explicitly telling someone that sex outside of a relationship is not an option.

But individuals can’t go it alone. We need wider cultural support for people who choose these “old fashioned” norms. Pop culture will need to play a leading role.

Advertisements

How the GOP Shot Itself In the Foot

The Republican Party is being hijacked by a bigoted demagogue because the Republican establishment fell asleep at the wheel.

Let’s take a trip back in time when Democrats were more racist than Republicans. Though Barry Goldwater and five other Republican senators voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 21 Democratic senators voted against civil rights.

Goldwater didn’t think government had the right to tell businesses what to do. And though Goldwater opposed the Ku Klux Klan, a lightbulb went off in the KKK’s head. White racists realized that arguments about limited government and states rights generated more public support than explicitly racist arguments did.

The South had been solidly Democratic since the Civil War because it was the Republican Party that defeated the Confederacy, abolished slavery, and were early champions of civil rights legislation. Back then, Republicans were more popular in the North. Still, Democratic President Lyndon B. Johnson got the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 passed despite immense opposition from Southern Democrats.

Johnson remarked that the Democratic Party had lost the South. And in the 1968 presidential campaign this was too good of an opportunity for Republican candidate Richard Nixon to pass up. Today, thanks to Nixon’s Southern strategy, Southern whites are predominantly Republican.

But the Republican establishment seemed to think it could get the votes of right wing extremists down South without ceding control of the GOP to them. Meanwhile, Republicans like Rush Limbaugh, Bill O’Reilly, and others used the airwaves to spread an extreme right wing message to workers throughout the country who were devastated over the replacement of good paying manufacturing jobs with low paying service and retails jobs.

The Southern strategy also meant courting evangelical Christians. In 1994 Goldwater supposedly said, “Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the [Republican] party, and they’re sure trying to do so, it’s going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me.”

Soon the racism that had been directed at African-Americans became generalized xenophobia reminiscent of the nativist “Know Nothing” party of the 19th century. Today, Muslims, Mexicans, and women are also major targets.

Donald Trump’s populist presidential campaign is the culmination of this, and it shows that the Republican establishment has lost control of the party. Ronald Reagan belonged to the Republican establishment, though he courted the extreme right. George W. Bush was born into the Republican establishment, but he felt more at home among right wing populists. That is, Bush had a foot in both worlds. But the last two Republican candidates for president (John McCain and Mitt Romney) were establishment Republicans, and both lost badly.

The Republican establishment has run out of steam, but right wing populists are energized.

Still, Trump has received only 37% of Republican primary votes – a plurality, not a majority. In the general election against Hillary Clinton, Trump is anticipated to lose by a similar margin.

Also notable is that Trump’s support is highest among older voters. He has very few supporters under 30. I’ve written before about the Republican Party’s aging and therefore shrinking voter base. It’ll take another 20 or 30 years before today’s 20-somethings are in their voting prime and the older, more conservative voting block is no longer politically significant. Between now and then we can expect more disarray from the GOP as it faces an identity crisis in a changing world.

 

Why I Support Expanding the Civil Rights Act to Include LGBTQI Rights

What do we do when rights conflict? It’s a tough question.

Freedom of religion and equal protection under the law are two of our most important rights. And though most Americans agree that a government official has a responsibility to uphold the law even if her personal religious beliefs don’t agree with equal protection under the law, private business is a more difficult question.

Recently, a Muslim flight attendant refused to serve alcohol to a customer because of her Islamic beliefs. She’s not discriminating against someone who wants a beer, however, because she doesn’t want to serve alcohol to anyone. Besides, the airline could have another flight attendant serve the beer.

But florists and bakers who refuse to provide service at a gay wedding are discriminating because they would gladly serve a heterosexual wedding.

Most libertarians and liberals agree that a government official can’t refuse a marriage license. They often disagree about why, however. And they disagree about whether a florist can refuse service for a lesbian wedding.

Whether to expand the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is a fight we’ll soon see in Congress. The law prohibits discrimination based on race, religion, sex, etc. Religious belief is not an exemption. But the law doesn’t protect LGBTQI people. In response, Congressman David Cicilline (a Democrat from Rhode Island) has introduced the Equality Act (H.R. 3185) to expand the law.

Libertarians are all about the individual’s right to do as she chooses so long as she respects the equal rights of others. But while liberals are also concerned about individual rights, their primary focus is fighting oppression.

Libertarians also oppose oppression. However, they opposed the Civil Rights Act in 1964, and its expansion today, because they think business owners have a right to do with their private property as they choose. The free market will reduce discrimination because people will choose not to patronize businesses that discriminates.

If only life were that simple.

Conservatives oppose civil rights as well, but for different reasons. Right-wing politics is primarily focused on government support for traditional values with liberty pertaining to economics, gun ownership, and religion.

I do have three notable disagreements with liberals, however. One is that I don’t support going beyond equality under the law with government programs to ensure equality of outcome, which is social engineering.

I also have concerns about the rigid division of people into groups that are either oppressed, oppressors, or privileged (not directly oppressing others, but benefiting from unfair advantages). Such a view frequently denies that privileged groups face significant issues that need to be addressed. And it often denies that derogatory and simplistic attitudes by women against men is sexism, by minorities against whites is racism, and so on. This can enable and excuse certain types of bigotry.

Finally, I don’t share liberalism’s negative view of capitalism. But neither do I share the libertarian view that we don’t need regulations because a truly free market will clean up the environment and private charities will provide for the elderly, the disabled, and poor children.

Besides, a functioning economy is supported by legal protections for businesses such as limited liability, contract enforcement, and protection of private property (including police and fire protection).

Like many Americans, I don’t fit neatly into a particular political category. But I support expanding the Civil Rights Act to include LGBTQI individuals because I don’t think equality under the law exists if businesses are allowed to discriminate. Further, the law would extend the principles already established under the Civil Rights Act.

But what about a business owner whose religious beliefs conflict with gay marriage? A baker is not granting religious approval to a gay marriage by baking a cake. And a business (a “public accommodation”) has a responsibility to the public because it receives the state’s protections as noted above.

I think important exemptions, though, include churches and other religious institutions, as well as clergy who don’t want to perform a same sex wedding ceremony or give it religious sanction, and religiously oriented businesses even if they’re not a church as such.

Lack of Diversity in Social Science Research

In college, friends majoring in biology told me I should switch majors because social science isn’t real science. It’s too subjective. Your personal biases will cloud the data.

They had a point. But researchers from a wide array of backgrounds can question each other’s assumptions, which can mitigate personal bias somewhat. Over the past 50 years universities have done a laudable job of trying to encourage more women and minorities to enter white male dominated fields. And while fields such as physics still lack diversity, 60% of biology degrees go to women, and psychology has an even larger number of women.

But contrarians say we’ve overlooked something. What about political diversity? Yet, academia has spent the past half century trying to purge conservatives, or even those who are not die hard liberals.

Does social psychology really prove that conservatives are unethical dullards? Can we trust the objectivity of a field that has almost no non-liberals? (Non-liberal because not every alternative viewpoint is conservative, or even libertarian.) Imagine for a moment that almost all social scientists were evangelical Christians, and their research found that atheists really are nasty people. Would you think something is amiss?

Jonathan Haidt writes that a century ago, the social sciences were almost evenly split between liberals and conservatives. But the gap started to widen, slowly at first, but then rapidly after 1990. Today, the ratio of liberals to conservatives is almost 14 to 1.

Unchecked biases degrade the quality and validity of research. Chief among these biases are negative presuppositions and confirmation bias (failing to critically examine or search for contradictory evidence for something you already believe). This can lead to “mischaracteriz[ing] liberals and conservatives alike.”

This doesn’t affect most aspects of social science research, such as personality theory or the psychology of decision making. But these biases are notable with areas of liberal concern, such as sex and gender, race, inequality, and moral and political psychology. And it can leave unexamined areas outside of liberalism’s concerns.

In the social sciences, the narrative of liberal progress is like water to a fish – it’s everywhere but often goes unnoticed. But this can lead to misinterpretation of non-liberal value statements. For example, social scientists might label someone unethical for not siding with a coworker who has filed a sexual harassment claim. But without someone to question the assumption of misogyny, the judgment of moral inferiority is unexamined.

In a previous post I wrote about a friend who received a sexual harassment complaint for using the phrase “OMG.” I think her claim was frivolous. My reasons are that I think a person is innocent until proven guilty (and the burden of proof is on her), and her failure to present any evidence other than her personal opinion is not sufficient evidence. But my perspective contradicts the liberal notion that an alleged victim must always be believed. This is not misogyny, however. Due process is a human right.

Too often people present statistics from dubious sources or which lack context, often arguing that numbers don’t lie. But numbers do lie. Ever made a math error? And too often someone will cite one study as if that seals the case, failing to question the researcher’s methodology, possible biases, and (most of all) failing to understand that studies must be replicated numerous times before being accepted as true.

Social science has a significant blind spot, and any research findings with political implications should be approached with a healthy dose of skepticism.

Liberals Against Free Speech (But Not Me)

Left leaning students started the free speech movement at the University of California, Berkeley in the 1960s and faced opposition from conservative administrators who didn’t like what the students had to say. As a child in the 1980s I remember conservative campaigns to ban books that conservatives felt promoted liberal ideals.

But somewhere along the line liberals lost their way. Many liberals still support free speech, but today the anti-free speech crowd has as many liberals as conservatives. And this is a problem because liberals control the nation’s universities and have a big voice in mainstream media. That’s the verdict Kirsten Powers delivers in The Silencing: How the Left is Killing Free Speech.

The liberal response often focuses on Powers rather than her arguments: She’s not a real liberal. As an (oppositional) commentator on Fox News she’s been brainwashed by her conservative colleagues. She’s a bubble headed blonde. (Which is totally not sexist when a liberal says it.) Also, she’s a Christian, which makes her conservative on one issue: abortion. Ergo, she hates gays and lesbians.

Well, not really. She’s pro-gay marriage. But liberal commentators use the same strategy as Fox News: people won’t question what they want to believe, even when the logic is so strained it could be a comedy skit. After all, some of the same people who scoff at Fox News often watch MSNBC and fail to see the irony.

Like many book titles, The Silencing is melodramatic. Today, you can’t assume that a pro-free speech individual is liberal, or that a pro-censorship person is conservative. And for all the liberal attempts to silence others (mainly on social media and college campuses), they’re (thankfully) having little success.

Perhaps The Bullying would have been a more accurate title. Professor Laura Kipnis was brought up on Title IX charges for writing against trigger warnings and “sexual paranoia” on college campuses. Though her accusers framed exposure to dissenting opinions as harassment, in reality they were harassing Kipnis by hauling her before a board without representation and without a prior verbal or written description of the exact charges against her.

Eventually Kipnis was exonerated. But this was an inquisition, pure and simple. No different from what right winger Joseph McCarthy did in the 1950s. Novelist Judy Blume also compared today’s liberal censorship to yesterday’s right wing censorship.

The experience of professors such as Dr. Janice Fiamengo, her lecture interrupted by students determined to silence her, is increasingly common. A Sun News (Canada) interview with Fiamengo illustrates the authoritarian approach that is increasingly common on college campuses. Fiamengo was going to deliver a lecture questioning the claim that the Western world is a rape culture (that North American and European culture tacitly promote and condone rape). To campus liberals, however, the existence of rape culture is to be believed and not questioned.

Which reminds me of 8th and 9th grade, when I attended a school run by the evangelical and Pentecostal Assembly of God church. Much of what they taught was to be believed and not questioned. But thankfully, there are groups such as FIRE (the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education), which act as a watchdog group and advocates for free speech at universities.

I no longer call myself a liberal, not because my views on civil liberties have changed (though economically I can’t say I agree with either Democrats or Republicans, who are both corporatist but in different ways). But I remain anti-authoritarian, pro-civil liberties (including free speech, that guarantee that you will be offended at some point), and skeptical of ideological excess.

Messin’ With Texas

I’ve never been to Texas, though I hope to visit someday. You can’t help but hear a lot about it. Being the second largest state, Texas has a huge impact on everything from presidential elections to textbooks.

And Texas is growing fast. The US Census claims the overall Texas population will grow by 6.7 million people over the next 15 years to 33.3 million, but the state of Texas believes it could be more.

And it’s not just a booming population – it’s a shifting population. Today, 80% of Texans identify as white, though this drops to 44% for non-Hispanic whites. Those who identify as Hispanic or Latino are 38% of Texas’s population.

But Looming Boom: Texas Through 2030 by Texas A&M University shows that in just a few years Hispanics will overtake non-Hispanic whites (table 2). By 2030 half of all Texans might be Hispanic. And unlike the northeast, Texas will remain a younger state.

Because younger and Hispanic voters are more likely to vote Democratic, liberals have hopes of Turning Texas Blue.

This is overly optimistic, however, because Anglos are more likely than Hispanics to vote. And Hispanics are a younger demographic, meaning less of the population is of voting age. Besides, Hispanics are a more diverse group than some might realize – they’re more conservative than Anglo Democrats.

That is, Anglo Texans are solidly Republican which makes Democratic inroads difficult. But the GOP may find it easier to appeal to conservative Hispanics – though this will require softening the Republican attitude toward immigration.

We won’t see any change in Texan voting patterns in the 2016 presidential election. And while there probably won’t be much of a shift in 2020’s election, wonks looking at the fine print may notice a glitch in the Matrix.

Even in 2024 most Texans will likely vote for a Republican president because Anglo voter turnout will probably still exceed Hispanic voter turnout.

But the 2028 election should be interesting. I’m guessing that by then Texas will be purple, meaning it will be a swing state like Florida and Ohio are now. This means Republicans can still carry Texas in 2028, but they’ll have to work harder.

Beyond 2028, Texas will probably remain purple, but it will never be Massachusetts or California.

Is Gamergate Conservative or Liberal?

Opponents say GamerGate has a conservative agenda. And though GamerGate supporters often deny that they are conservatives, the conservative media has mostly supported the movement.

Allum Bokhari, however, says his research shows that most GamerGate supporters are liberal.

In brief, GamerGate is the claim by video game enthusiasts that the gaming media is corrupt. But opponents of GamerGate accuse supporters of misogyny and online harassment.

I’m not interested in engaging that debate, and as a non-gamer I know little about it. I’m interested in the question: Might GamerGate be a symptom of a larger issue?

Bokhari’s research finds that GamerGate supporters overwhelmingly favor gay marriage and abortion rights. They endorse women’s rights as well, but disagree that America is a rape culture. But GamerGate supporters also oppose popular social justice activist tactics such as censorship, witch hunts, and “call-out culture.”

Here’s the twist: Although almost three-quarters of GamerGate supporters identify with the left or political center, almost half of those on the left identify as left-libertarian rather than liberal.

The divide, then, is between establishment liberals and libertarian liberals. Libertarianism is usually associated with conservatives, though this is only true with economic issues. Left libertarians are more concerned with social freedom, however, and often are fine with regulated rather than pure free market capitalism.

More importantly, left libertarianism has a different foundational philosophy than establishment liberalism.

Establishment liberalism focuses on oppression as the primary political issue (often called “Cultural Marxism” by critics). This viewpoint not only claims that capitalism is destructive, but it extends this narrative, interpreting most things in terms of this group oppressing that group. As such, the power of dominant groups must be diminished while oppressed groups must be lifted up to create a level playing field. Critics often describe specific measures as social engineering, and allege that it represents a soft, manipulative type of authoritarianism.

But the individual is primary for left libertarians. For example, left libertarians support gay marriage because of individual rights, but are less interested in the oppression narrative. Critics of the libertarian viewpoint say it ignores the suffering of social injustice, fails to acknowledge the moral duty to rectify oppression, and will lead to the atomization of society. For example, left libertarians often oppose affirmative action as coercive and discriminatory, while establishment liberals strongly support affirmative action as necessary to compensate for white, cis-male, heterosexual privilege.

While it’s clear that conservatives have lost the culture wars – Roe v Wade is not going to be overturned, and gay marriage will only gain more states – the war isn’t over because the two main camps on the left, which were united in defeating the common conservative enemy, have now turned on each other.

And those conservatives who accept their defeat are making the best of the situation by allying with liberal individualists and against the so-called “Cultural Marxists.”

Establishment liberals have enormous power on college campuses, and within the Democratic Party and the media. Meanwhile, Republicans are still holding on, but their failure to attract Millennials means their demographic clock is ticking.

Where will this lead? My guess is that this rift will continue, but control of the Democratic Party will remain with establishment liberals. Meanwhile, Republicans will suffer increasing defeats in the 2020s as their aging voter base shrinks. The few young Republicans remaining will be economically conservative but socially libertarian. To survive, Republicans will woo left libertarians who previously voted Democratic, thus making the GOP less socially conservative. The elders in the Republican Party won’t like this, but as 2030 approaches they’ll be too small in number to matter.