Tuesday, November 28, 2017

Thoughts on the current sexual harassment imbroglio

I'm sure many of my readers have been alternately indignant, annoyed and amused by the unending series of accusations of sexual harassment that have come out of Hollywood, Washington D.C., and other hotbeds of power and influence.  Initially, I was cynical about them . . . but I've been thinking a great deal about the subject, trying to analyze my reaction in terms of the time in which I grew up, attitudes during that period, and how things have changed.  I thought you might be interested in the way I see things.  You're free to disagree, of course.  Perhaps we can get a useful discussion going in comments to this post.

In the 1960's and 1970's, the "flower power" generation embraced so-called "free love", aided by the sudden availability of truly effective contraception (i.e. "the pill").  Sex was now largely free of the risk of pregnancy, so that women could indulge in it without fear of conceiving an unwanted child.  Added to this, Hugh Hefner and others of his ilk propagated the idea of sex without love as a physical act devoid of moral or ethical issues, apart from the basic one of consent.  "If it feels good, do it!" became the mantra of a generation, and "situation ethics" largely replaced traditional morality in the popular consciousness.  Conservatives, of course, were outraged, and continue to be so.

The trouble is, there really was a double standard - it was just hidden from view.  The news media simply didn't report many of the scandals that today would blare at us from every outlet.  President John F. Kennedy was sexually promiscuous and an abuser of young women.  Rev. Martin Luther King was a serial adulterer, irrespective of his faith's condemnation of sex outside marriage - although his stature as a secular saint still leads his followers to actively condemn any attempt to report that fact.  I could cite innumerable examples from the period.  Suffice it to say that the rebellion against conventional morality was right when it accused the older generation(s) of hypocrisy.  To a very large extent, they were hypocrites.  They were pointing to the splinters in the younger generation's collective and individual eyes, while ignoring the planks in their own (cf. Matthew 7:1-5).

Growing up in the latter part of that generation, I, too, was exposed to the sexual turmoil of those years.  I was never all that promiscuous, but I certainly wasn't faithful to the Christian norm.  Almost all of us - men and women alike - postured, acted out, and sought to manipulate each other to get what we wanted.  We were no different than any generation before us, I dare say, although we were more free to act on our impulses.  Men wanted sex, and pretended to offer love and commitment to get it.  Women ultimately wanted love and commitment, and offered sex to get it.  In that respect, nothing's changed, even today.

What has changed now is the rise of feminism as a philosophy.  Whilst I believe that radical feminism is as much a disease as men who classify all women as "sluts" or "bitches", I think feminism has had one beneficial effect.  It's helped women realize that intellectually, they're the equals of men, and deserve to be recognized as such.  Sure, they have physical and emotional differences - and vive la difference, say I! - but the other side of their personalities had for too long been dismissed, even denigrated, by too many men.  I'm glad that's changed.

What we're now seeing is a refusal by women to kowtow any longer to men in powerful positions.  From time immemorial, men have used positions of power and influence to dominate women, aided by societies in which the status of women was maintained at an inferior level.  Initially this was, of course, based on physical differences;  men could hunt, gather and fight better than women because of their superior strength, and therefore demanded a superior position in the tribe or society because of that.  As societies moved from muscle dominance to mind dominance, the former retained its grip on culture for a very long time . . . but inevitably, that began to change.  The transformation is still in process.

I still have to fight vestiges of the "old way" in myself.  I was born and raised to a British couple who were raised in pre-World-War-II England, with its social class structure and norms.  My father expected, and demanded, to "wear the pants".  My mother surprised him - perhaps "shocked" would be a better word - by obtaining her doctorate at the same time he earned his, and demanded greater equality at home.  He bitterly resented this, and there were many very loud arguments between them.  We children were caught in the backlash, and our childhood was rather dysfunctional as a result - a fact still reflected in the relatively distant relationships between us as siblings.  I still have an instinctive expectation of "wearing the pants", partly due to my upbringing, partly due to having been born and raised in Africa, where the circumstances of life had led to a patriarchal attitude that still dominates there.  I've tried hard to overcome it, but I recognize that the root attitude is still lurking in my subconscious.  It takes effort to keep it contained.  (My wife helps!  She's American, not African, so we've had long discussions to understand and overcome our cultural differences.)

When I began reading accounts of Harvey Weinstein's peccadilloes in Hollywood, my initial reaction - and, I think, that of many men - was that the women concerned knew what they were letting themselves in for when they tried to break into that world.  The so-called "casting couch" has long been a metaphor for the entertainment industry.  However, I've taught myself to analyze my reactions . . . and I found myself in a quandary.  The fact that the "casting couch" environment exists does not mean that it's right.  I was, effectively, condoning by my tolerance something that my faith regards as gravely sinful.  That put me in an invidious position.  By not taking a stand against sin and wrongdoing, I was, in essence, giving it a free pass.

That's the quandary many men face today.  Too many of us have been raised in the expectation of "wearing the pants", just because we're male.  That no longer applies - and it's right that it shouldn't.  We no longer live in that sort of society.  If we encounter TEOTWAWKI, perhaps it will return . . . but until then, we're going to have to rethink our situation.  What's more, too many of us were raised in an environment where "free love" and "if it feels good, do it!" were the order of the day.  We were expected and encouraged to act on our impulses.  Some men even glory in the so-called "pickup artist" approach, which regards women as targets of opportunity.  However, love isn't free any more, and feeling good is not a reason to do "it".  Things have changed - but our attitudes, in most cases, have not.

I'm not saying that men are exclusively to blame for this situation.  Women, too, have to examine their attitudes and responses.  We've all seen incidents where women level accusations of sexual harassment, even rape, at a man, only to find them disproved when they landed up in court.  Others have not (yet) gone to court, but are dubious by virtue (you should pardon the expression) of a lack of credible and/or verifiable evidence (for example, Roy Moore).  Other women delight in "leading men on", only to scream "Rape!" when the man takes the invitation too far.  Their reaction ignores male psychology and biology.  They expect a man to behave like a woman in such a situation.  He won't - he'll behave like a man.  Some women even glory in flaunting their sexuality at men, but expecting them to still respect them as women (for example, the "slutwalk" phenomenon - contrast that with this, for example).  I have news for them.  If a woman dresses like a whore, most men are going to regard her as one.

We seem to be at a crossroads.  Older forms of sexual morality and social interaction are crumbling in the face of changing societal roles.  New forms have yet to evolve to replace them.  As a result, accusations are being leveled against people (of both sexes) who would angrily deny and reject them on the basis of the older moral and ethical standards in which they were raised.  Weinstein's exploitation of the "casting couch" has a long and storied history in Hollywood, and before that in other forms of entertainment all over the world.  Victorian attitudes towards men and women, hypocritical as they were, were not confined to England, but common in the New World as well.  How can we get past that history, and move on to something better?

I hope the current situation will lead both men and women, and those on all sides of the political equation, to reconsider who we are as human beings;  what our relationships with each other should be;  and where we should go from here.  This is as much a learning opportunity as it is a scandal.  I hope and pray we can use it to best effect.



Anonymous said...

Peter, I am sure you know that the Bible says a husband is to be the leader in his house and his wife is to obey him. This is not something to be "contained" it is scripture.

Ephesians 5:22-24

22 Wives, obey your husbands as you obey the Lord.

23 The husband is the head of the wife, just as Christ is the head of the church people. The church is his body and he saved it.

24 Wives should obey their husbands in everything, just as the church people obey Christ.

Peter said...

@Anonymous at 10:32 AM: That's all very well, but it ignores the reality that in the Bible, Divine revelation is mixed up with the worldly culture of the time. That's why slavery is condoned and even approved - something we would reject out of hand today. Biblical attitudes on husbands and wives have to be read with the cultural norms of the time in mind. It's by no means a given that they perfectly reflect the will of God, rather than those norms.

That's the problem with those who claim that every word in the Bible is inspired and, therefore, inerrant. It was never written in that way, and it contradicts itself in enough places that it's self-evident that such a claim is itself in error. Context is critical! Biblical theology is a fascinating study, one I've pursued for decades. I recommend it to any and every Christian, along with an open mind in pursuit of the truth.

Anonymous said...

Looking around at all the unhappiness, I can’t say that I agree that feminism was a good thing. I think it a mistake to discount the degree to which our emotions affect our thinking and actions—even those who are atypically logical otherwise. That is not to say that either sex is superior to the other, only that we are different, and our intelligences are generally better suited to different pursuits.

Women are not collectively happier for being in the work force. I believe this is due to biological tendencies that are inherent to women, as well as the fact that the promise of feminism, that you can have it all, is a lie. Feminism also gave us the vote, which if one were to observe the fruits of this action, is not a good thing. Women reliably vote to receive things from the state at the cost of all taxpayers. Having their cake, and eating it too without all the responsibility of making wise and better decisions. More power to the state, and look at what has happened to the family.

Feminism has also promised women that they can be 'liberated' sexually. And in doing so have perpetrated the greatest evil of all—convincing women to go against their own natures to murder the most vulnerable of our society for convenience. After all, everyone knows babies aren’t really alive, because they (waves scientific labels to for depersonalization and to silence pesky Conscience) aren’t people until they’re born. Because magic.

We live in a time when men are actively discouraged from being men, and women are actively encouraged to replace men. When both sexes are pressured and shamed into acting in opposition to their biological and, I would say, spiritual identities and our very natures. Reality has a way of course correcting, but I am sad at how much unnecessary suffering we inflict upon ourselves and others in the names of things that were only ever lies wrapped up in pretty packages.

August said...

It's worth remembering that the left explicitly seeks to live outside of us- or, probably more specifically, our rules. So, we cannot, generally speaking blame ourselves. Feminism is not a force for good- as evidence, we can see what is happening right now. Feminists have been in charge for my whole life. Apparently, the standard operating procedure was for sexual deviants is to say feminist things and donate large amounts of money to feminist candidates and feminist campaigns.
Meanwhile, they lie, and try to make normal behavior sound parasitic, yet for a rather obvious biological standpoint, a man looking to get married should be looking for a fertile young woman.
Additionally, what is their response to this situation? Basically to make every attempt to demonize us, and grab more power for themselves, despite the fact that they failed.
So, no, most of us aren't failing to condemn the sin, we are just sick and tired of willful sinners trying to legislate all sorts of environments permissive to sin and then they come around and try to meddle with us after somebody gets hurt.

HMS Defiant said...

You mapped out the argument much the way 16th century cartographers mapped out the world. Congrats.

You refer to some sort of "hypocrisy" and it ends up sounding very bad. Naughty! Don't do hyprocrisy!

What you see as the H word was the way the Western World dealt with human sexuality. In the West, men of birth were taught to be chivalrous towards women (albeit of the same class) but the norm was expected that gentlemen would treat ladies in a particular fashion and that ladies would respond to gentlemen in a particular fashion. See Jane Austen for cites. This is where you, et al, get the idea that there is some sort of "hypocrisy" in relations between males and females today. Cluebat! That was Ivanhoe, Maid Marrion, Jane Austen blah blah blah. It was fiction and not reality. See all the other global approaches to female equality and pedestal establishment as example.

Men acquire power by gaining power over others. Women acquire what they want by getting men to notice them.

Go on, NAME one famous woman, other then Queen Eliz the I, who did not exploit men to gain what she sought by using sex.

Those of us who grew up in the US know just how the game is played and is brought to fruition in High School. Girls want recognition at a primal level and boys want sex just like girls do.

Your mistake is thinking that men "exploit" these women. Who exactly trades sex for favors?

I was raised by a long dead standard for gentlemen that no longer exists. I'm OK with that. Cads were cads and women were mad for cads. That's OK. As the saying goes, I didn't want one of them anyway. I do know that most of the stuff released to the media by "women" who claim they were hit on by men is absolute crap. Women put up with that sort thing because they want access and they want to be just like men.

That they decide to regret it years later? I don't give a crap and obviously they didn't either, at the time.

My Take said...

I appreciate your thoughts on this and have always had a great deal of respect for your experiences and the way in which you have related them vis-à-vis the current culture. I also agree that in the not too distant past, women were indeed considered to be an inferior sex. But there is a difference between the way we think and this has had disastrous consequences as a result of the 19th amendment. (I would even be willing to argue these problems started when the franchise was given to any but landowners, however that must wait for another time). Women make decisions based upon the way they feel regardless of any practical considerations. This is why you see them staying in a relationship when even their very existence is threatened. They will even ignore their own children in some cases where another man (not the child’s father) becomes involved. I am not saying they all will do this, but how many men have you ever heard about acting this way? Yes, I will admit there are outliers, but the vast majority of these cases are of the female persuasion. Since this is true, how can we expect them to make the correct decisions concerning things like immigration? How could they possibly think they are capable of serving in a combat role in the military? Why is it important for a marine to be forced to march in high heels? What possible reason could be put forth for this action? Since it is the nature of men to want to nurture and protect them, do they not see the problems they cause when they insist on co-ed ship assignments? This does nothing but decrease our readiness and effectiveness in any area where group dynamics are tested. Based upon these few examples, (I could certainly give many more,) it is my conclusion that no matter how much we attempt to ignore these differences, we do so at our own peril. And because so few women actually see that these problems exist today because of our race for equality, is even more proof that for a sane and enduring people, we ought to rethink a few of our past decisions and perhaps make a few changes.

C. S. P. Schofield said...

"If a woman dresses like a whore, most men are going to regard her as one."

Or, to put it another way; "Sweetheart, it it ain't for sale, why are you advertising?"

A woman has a right to dress sexy in a bar and not be raped. I have a right to wear a confederate flag t-shirt and walk through Bedford-Stuy without getting mugged. But if I tried it, I would widely be considered an idiot, and for good reason.

Anonymous said...

HMS Defiant: Joan of Arc, Maria Theresa of Austria and Hungary, Dr. Elizabeth Blackwell, Queen Victoria of England, Caroline Herschel (de facto Astronomer Royal), Margaret of Tyrol (although sources vary on her), possibly the Rani of Jansi in India (again, source problem). Those are off the top of my head. If I were to get into some books, I could find more I suspect. Note that although Maria Theresa and Victoria did marry, they were queens in their own right and own name.


HMS Defiant said...


You win.

There are umpty billion women out there and you could name a handful and would have to check your library to find another one or two that didn't exploit men to gain what she sought by using sex.

Yours is the point.

As you know, people get twitterpated. I have it on the highest authority. For some damned reason, men like women. I'm sure if feminists give it their best effort for another 22,000 years, we'll get over it. OK, 5 years at this rate. OTOH, women, some, seem to like men so let's give feminists 10 years to stamp out affection between the sexes so we can all get along in a businesslikeandnonsexualtakeadvantage way.

Anonymous said...

Thank you for an insightful post Peter.

“If a woman dresses like a whore, most men are going to regard her as one.”

I agree wholeheartedly. There is a difference between dressing up, and advertising. Sure, a woman should be able to go out, dressed however she pleases, and not be assaulted – BUT, there are those men who see woman only as objects to possess. The see something they like and they try to take it. Would you walk around with your wallet sticking out? Of course not, you keep it protected. By the same logic, ladies, if you want to increase your odds of not being assaulted, don’t put yourselves in a position where he thinks you are advertising.

Let’s face it, from a woman’s perspective: men stop thinking with their brains when the “little mind” gets involved. Don’t lead him on, don’t give him ideas.

Looking at some of the comments I am saddened to see that some people actually believe, in this day and age, that I should not be permitted to work or vote simply based on my sex. Why? I am no less intelligent than the average male and am equally as capable of holding down a decent job.

I have survived over 50 years, nearly half of that without the support of a male or Uncle Sam. I do so because I know that if I don’t do, I will starve. I don’t ask to be judged as a woman, I ask to be judged as an intelligent, reasoning, creation of God - a human being.

Peter B said...

You seem much more sanguine than I am that Christians and Jews will never again be faced with the reality of being or owning slaves; both have historically been the reality for members of both religions in regimes run by pagans, Christians and Muslims. There are, for example, now slave markets not only in Libya but in three Turkish cities including Ankara, which is after all the capital of Turkey, a member of NATO.

To what extent does harm reduction impede control and abolition (injectable drugs, various other public health problems, slavery) and to what extent does a harm reduction approach prolong the problem even though it mitigates individual suffering?

In that sense, perhaps it is at least somewhat less bad that the scriptural and legal DNA is still there to be used when, sadly, the circumstances arise again.

One can always say "I would never buy a slave" but what if in some particular case it would be a rescue? Heinlein played with that one in Citzen of the Galaxy.

Feather Blade said...


There are umpty billion women out there and you could name a handful and would have to check your library to find another one or two that didn't exploit men to gain what she sought by using sex.

HMS: At the risk of butting into the conversation (and making the caveat that it's difficult to determine tone on the Internet - which means I don't know whether you are being sarcastic or sincere) and inappropriately assuming sarcasm in your response: You were the one who specified "one famous woman other than Elizabeth 1". And LittleRed1 not only met, but beat your challenge.

If you don't want people to beat your challenges, then you need to change how you phrase them.

If you were sincere, then I beg your pardon and withdraw my comment.

Sam L. said...

Given that most everyone has a smartphone that takes pictures (I don't; wife and kids do) these days, I have to wonder why some of the women who were walked in on by Harvey with li'l Harve hanging out, DIDN'T take a picture of him. Coulda done a world of good.

Anonymous said...

@undomesticatedfeline re: women voting: it isn’t personal to you. I’m a woman too. Even so, looking objectively at how reliably women vote Democrat, at what has happened to families as a result for women, IN GENERAL, using their vote to get aid from the state instead of relying on themselves or their families, women’s suffrage has had a lot of horrible unintended consequences.

While you and many other women are intelligent and can hold down a job, women as a bloc have not voted intelligently. They have traded freedom for security and vote for benefits while refusing to take personal responsibility. Look at the women saying, "My body, my choice." They are often the same women demanding free birth control. When women are willing to vote thoughtfully, rather than on the basis of emotion, and are willing to take full responsibility for themselves, then perhaps things would get better.

I don’t believe anyone has said you shouldn’t work. (Again, this isn’t about you personally, but women in general.) I just pointed out that being expected to join the work force hasn’t made women happier in general, but the opposite.

Able said...


As a man you are 'guilty' of doing what we all do, see women as somehow 'better', 'purer', 'nicer'. Funny how we can all easily accept a womans intellectual equality whilst glossing over her base nature equality.

What do I mean? I spent 30+ years in HM Forces before training as a Registered Nurse, guess where, and from whom, I experienced the rudest, lewdest and most unbelievably amoral speech and behaviour – from all those male squaddies and boots in barracks? Nope, from all those sweet, innocent 'ladies' on the ward. Whilst every year male colleagues and I were 'required' to attend “Sexual Harassment an Assault Prevention Seminars” where we were instructed/threatened that should we dare to do to a woman 'what women did to us on a daily basis' we would be fired and face prosecution. Clue! Women are no more nice, pure, innocent then men, and often very much worse since such behaviour by men is criticised by all, whilst in women (in their own circles) is positively lauded (and any fault is obviously the males by definition).

Why the double standards? Why not 'judge' women as harshly as you do men? Was there hypocrisy in covering up for a (relatively) few powerful men? Of course, but what about the considerably more common woman using her 'sexual wiles' and sleeping about to get position, money and power? (Why 'more' common? Whilst I suspect you have read of men acting thus, you probably weren't aware of many in your personal/professional life … and would have disliked and disparaged them if you did. But I can almost guarantee you have personal experience of a woman employed, promoted, given preferential treatment because of her willingness to 'flirt' or 'put-out'. No? Base behaviour by crude men is relatively rare, sexual manipulation by women is common from grade school onwards. Look to the stereotypes, why else would such a man be automatically seen as Shock! 'bad', whilst such a woman is seen as … Meh 'normal').


Able said...


You regularly see male teachers (rightly) castigated for 'relationships' with female students, but look at how even (allegedly sensible) men regard the opposite. The teenage boy is seen as 'wanting it', whilst the teenage girl is seen as some pure, innocent victim … have you met any teenage girls? Their proclivities, fixations and actions put any male teenagers 'rampant' behaviour in the shade … but they're still somehow 'pure'. Yeh right!

You state that “What we're now seeing is a refusal by women to kowtow ...”. It could equally be argued that “From time immemorial women have used their sexuality to manipulate men in positions of power and influence to achieve what they want, and to dominate other women. What we're seeing now is a realisation that with public opinion and a biased media and legal system women can do that even more effectively, and without cost”. (It's like the divorce bias, whereas previously a woman was required to offer something back in a relationship to receive provision/protection/etc. from a man, now she can have her cake and eat it, give up nothing and get it all. Now a woman can 'sleep her way to the top' and still come out 'pure as the driven snow').

You quite rightly thought that women exposed to Weinstein et all had some choice, agency, responsibility, so why suddenly say that intelligent, independent adults … aren't (you can't have it both ways). Was/is Weinstein et all reprehensible, amoral scum? Yes, but those women 'chose' to acquiesce to get what they wanted?

It is (as Glenn says) that “Chivalry was a two-way street. Men would provide for, protect and show respect for women … if women would notice, flirt, date and marry 'only' men who did so”. The failure of morality, and there plainly is one now, can be laid squarely (not exclusively but in the vast majority) at the feet of women who demand equality and respect … then go out and deliberately choose to 'associate' with the most disreputable' men, 'sell' themselves for money/position/power/or just because they feel like it … and then pretend they had no adult agency or alternative.

There's plenty of hypocrisy about alright. Just not quite where you indicated. (Not a personal criticism, we men seem hard-wired to see the best in women, excusing and ignoring 'the rest'. And women choose to pretend to see/admit only the best in themselves too).

(P.S. You cite your parents. I'll see you and raise you my Grandparents. Yes, he was, demanded and received, his status as Head of the household, which meant he went to work and then returned with his wage packet, which she then gave him his pocket-money out of, where he listened to her desires, considered and then gave her what she wanted if at all possible (usually giving up his wishes/wants and adding considerably to his workload in the process). Dominated, second-class, victim? Yeh right! And that situation was, I suspect, considerably more common than yours.

Were there poor, dominated, put-on wives? Yes, just as there were similar husbands, but in the main it was a matter of semantics, Head did not mean dictator, or often/mostly even the main beneficiary).

VFM #7916 said...

Indentured servants? Voluntary slavery according to contract?

It'll be an idea whose time has come, again, in the near future. Same way with classist social structures. Humans crave hierarchy and stability.

Patriarchy is the societal expression of biology, just as Traditionalism is the cultural expression of biology.

The hypocrisy you note in the 60's, how much of it was the result of the events 40 to 50 years before? From WW1, the roaring 20's, the Depression, WW2, or the commercialism begun in the 50's? Prohibition? All the shades of Marxism?

Humans have always faced adultery, sexual promiscuity, war, slavery, collapses. The reason why Patriarchy and Traditionalism did not fall out of use is that they provided that stability that humans need. It is an error of logic to think that "This time is different!" because it's not.

This is a passing age, and the next 20 years will bring radical change, creative (and Uncreative!) destruction, and events that rhyme with history.

The United States is nothing without its people, and by this I mean Western Civilized Heterosexual English Ancestry. They're the people who have created the science, philosophy, and infrastructure to hold the country in a common bond. They were racist, sexist, mysoginist, homophobic bigots to us, but what they created will be undone in the next 20 years.

Understand that there will not be a TEOTWAWKI moment, but a slow slide into chaos.
All because "If it feels good, do it!" and the destruction of the Patriarchy. It may be renewal; the good creative destruction where the cultural and spiritual dross of the last 70 years is burned away.

Even so, I'd prefer to not go through it.

Able said...


As informed as you are I'd guess you are aware of the many similar statistical reports that examine the male/female fiscal 'contributions' through their lifetimes (the most reported being the NZ version http://poseidon01.ssrn.com/delivery.php?ID=090103100025097122122126094007067127036021052020003021097012120098072089095111085067107009018111044039116068003097004015026018030078032034039077091118026099013066031049073020031090065068094025001007006027010113007015108030009112091123104067015022122&EXT=pdf).

They 'all' show that 'statistically' a woman will almost never during her lifetime actually contribute more than she consumes (from 45-59 she will contribute 'some' but at a much reduced rate compared to men). That 'on average' there a woman will have a lifetime net 'consumption' of $150000.

Consider Driving and Healthcare. As a woman, with much reduced risky behaviour as compared to men, you are considerably less likely to be in an accident and thus (rightly) receive lower insurance premiums. As a woman you will use and require Healthcare provision at a considerably higher rate than men …. and yet you will pay the same (or even less) for that provision. Here in The UK women use >80% of primary healthcare services (>67% of secondary, >87% tertiary) … and yet pay at exactly the same percentage rate from their earnings (which are significantly less over a lifetime) so they pay less (or more often than not, nothing) … for more.

Repeat that with social support, education, etc, and you 'will', despite working and supporting yourself independently have consumed many times more than a man in similar circumstances. No?

Those here who question a womans right to vote certainly aren't judging your 'personal' intellectual standing (or even all womens). Some raise issues regarding womans apparent penchant for 'block' voting. The very real effect of voting for benefits and services (without wondering just who is paying for them). In the main I'd suggest most who do so are in fact as against 'any' no-contributing citizen voting (no skin in the game).

It used to be, there and here, that only 'property owners' had the vote. Those who paid, chose how the money was spent. Both men and women voted, admittedly many more men than women due to how other factors affected society at the time, but the gender of the voter was, effectively, irrelevant. (The revisionist histories gloss over women in parliament and property-owning women in their haste to portray women as victims).

Now? Those who contribute the least (if anything) choose how to spent other peoples money. And yes, with the above data, one of the major 'blocks' guilty of that is … women.

So? Is it such a bad idea to question this patent unfairness, consider alternatives and remedies … in your opinion?

Just askin'

Peter said...

Friends, I think this discussion has wandered more than a little off topic. We're discussing (or, rather, I hoped we would discuss) the sexual exploitation of women (and/or of men), and how to react to it in the changing ethical and moral environment of society. Now I see politics, health care, contribution to society, and any number of other issues being thrown into the pot.

May I respectfully suggest that we focus on the issue at hand? There, we may be able to learn from each other. If the discussion wanders into any, all and sundry other areas, we'll get bogged down and never get to the point.

Just my $0.02 worth . . .

RustyGunner said...

I’ll leave the depth and scope for more thoughtful commenters and simply say that whereas I wear the pants in my house, my wife picks the pants out, and she keeps a pair of polka-dot bellbottoms for those times when I get stupid.

Quartermaster said...


“Men wanted sex, and pretended to offer love and commitment to get it.  Women ultimately wanted love and commitment, and offered sex to get it.  In that respect, nothing's changed, even today.”

If the men pretended, then they are no better than an animal. The normal exchange is sex in a committed covenant relationship. Anything outside of that is sinful.

Any woman that marries, then deprives her husband sexually is no better than a man running around. That is also sinful.

Biblical headship places the man at the head, and holds him responsible for the family. A woman that kicks against that isn't just making her home a hell hole, she is kicking against God, and that does not end well. We are seeing the long term results of such foolishness in western civilization, and the denouement is not far in the future.

“That's all very well, but it ignores the reality that in the Bible, Divine revelation is mixed up with the worldly culture of the time.”

A lot of the Old Testament is simply man's sinful ways exemplified. It isn't cultural, it's simply human nature, and fallen human nature is immutable. The only variation is the cultural filter.

On the other hand, Scriptures shows us God's way, and that way is not cultural. If you are going to hold otherwise, then you bear the burden of showing that God changes his mind. You'll have a very hard time with that since God says he does not.

“It was never written in that way, and it contradicts itself in enough places that it's self-evident that such a claim is itself in error.”

OK. Show us what is God's word and what is not. You may not think it was written that way, but the history of scripture itself, and those that passed it on, disagree with you quite strikingly.

The problem with mankind is expressed in one word – sin, which is “the” manifestation of the sinful nature of mankind. Neither men nor women are exempt. If you think so, then I refer to Able's experiences and ask the question, just why was Bathsheeba taking a bath on the roof where King David could see her?

Women have no compunction to using their sexuality to get what they desire, and if they don't get what they desire, or if they see an advantage to doing what has been done so explosively here of late, they will take everything down. It won't matter who is harmed in the process.

Able said...


Granted (hanging head in shame. Guilty as charged M'lud) … but there's a distinct problem even then.

It's very like the issue of rape (technically it is identical, coercive sex is rape). No right-thinking person could condone such, or do otherwise than support the victim, but … look at how the definition has been subtly at first, but now in ever increasing amounts expanded. When regret-sex, or simple fraudulent accusation, becomes rape it raises doubts about all accusations, and thus (probably intentionally) decreases the empathy we feel for the genuine victims and the vilification of the rapist … when everyone is a rapist, no-one is.

Here? Exploitation of women? How many can you say weren't co-dependent? Exploiting as much as being exploited? Going along to get ahead? (Unlike so many of those women the same people now baying for blood, dismissed and derided to date).

The losers? Genuine women who were victims of coercive assault. Those women, traumatised, now face the tacit undercurrent of “Yeh, but did you really agree as long as you 'got paid/promoted/the part' and now you're just mercenary/regretting it/were found out?”.

I wonder about your stated “changing ethical and moral environment of society” too. From my perspective I see little of such. Oh, plenty of cosmetic/semantic changes, and even more of the 'elite' demanding they be above any restrictions, but 'society as a whole'? Talk to some average teenagers and realise just how 'old-fashioned' their morals are (admittedly couched in terminology I cannot fathom being old). The loud-mouths ethics may have changed, but most people?

Neither the ethics nor the morals of society have changed sufficiently to warrant any real change in centuries-long consensus on 'how to deal' with such perpetrators (call me a fossil if you wish but I have no problem with slightly more old-fashioned and final sentences for those guilty of violent assault and rape). What has changed is only those ever seeking to redefine, and expand, what actually constitutes assault … and thus dilute any real victims chance at justice.

Just like crime in general, I suspect (except in certain very specific areas) sexual assault, coercive sex and exploitation is at an all-time low in our societies (elsewhere is same-old-same-old horror). What has changed is (like hurricane/mass shooting/etc. Frequency) just 'noteworthy' and exaggerated for media/political effect.

Responsibility, choice, burden of proof, punishment if, and only if, proven – same as it always was.

Glen Filthie said...

Fair enough Pastor - if we focus exclusively on the topic of sexual malfeasance in Hollywood, my response might be: whaddya expect from that den of vipers, perverts, and degenerates? Decency?


And you expect me to feel sorry for the women of Hollywood, who have been blatant sluts and sinners for three generations now?

If women were raped on the casting couch, they might have an argument. But when the producers make prostitution a term or condition of employment, and women accept it... that’s just day to day business in The Oldest Profession.

Things are easy when you have one side clearly wrong and one side right. It gets hairy when both sides are right. One of your readers above takes issue saying that women deserve the vote, that they deserve equality in family affairs and in the work place. My wife is a valid argument in support of that, she is one seriously capable lady. Another points out that empowered women vote for nanny govt, destroy their families, and insist on govt taking responsibility for their own irresponsible actions. My mom and mother in law are great examples of that too. Empowered women are pulling the roof down on us everywhere they come into power. Look at Hollywood - their ratings are tanking, box office sales are in decline, and for all their posturing in the heart of this bastion of liberalism and social justice...you have the asylum being run by the very pedos, predators and perverts they all claim to oppose.

I personally don’t care anymore; I’ve stocked up on beer, ammo and popcorn and I will watch the decline and fall of our civilization with interest.

urbane legend said...

Wasn't one of the points of feminism that women could be strong and independent, make their own decisions, control their own lives? How is it now that so many of these women claiming harassment belong to the feminist club?

As for the all the other questions, and since Anonymous brought up the Bible, this is the best rule for everything. Notice the word value:

Philippians 2:3-4 New International Version (NIV)

3 Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit. Rather, in humility value others above yourselves, 4 not looking to your own interests but each of you to the interests of the others.

McChuck said...

If the women considered the harassment unusual or unexpected, they would have reported it decades ago. Instead, they used their bodies to influence men (sat it isn't so!) to favor them over women who did not. Young women appear nude in films because they like the attention, they like getting paid, and men (and no few women) like to see them. If you are paid to strip in front of strangers, and participate in simulated (or not so simulated) sex scenes, why wouldn't the casting couch be appropriate? After all, the producer needs to know the qualifications and willingness to perform the roles of the actresses they intend to hire.

In other words, the casting couch is just part of casting tryouts and contract negotiations between the whores and pimps in Hollyweird.

Per Desteen said...

@ Peter

"That's all very well, but it ignores the reality that in the Bible, Divine revelation is mixed up with the worldly culture of the time"

You lost everything with this statement. Under the Aegis of this statement we can throw out Deuteronomy. That then allows incest, homosexuality, transgenederism, etc.

The bible may not be judged by cultures of the time, but by the principles stated without interpretation.

Otherwise when you add interpretation into the mix you get what we have today.
You can point to the New Testament and see that many rules changed from the OT, and that's fine, but that's divine revelation that can't be re-interpreted today to suit a culture.

Antibubba said...

Peter, you've certainly brought out the sludgy bottom of the Internet with this one!

HMS Defiant said...

To antibubba,

No, I don't think he did. I've reread the comments and nobody crossed the "he's a nazi" line.

You write about sexuality, love and marriage and you'll get guys that came home one day to find out their two timing ex has decided to divorce and take everything including the kids. It's really not something you walk away from unaffected. You tend to notice.

When exactly did it, in your mind, become 'sludgy bottom feeder' when discussing the topic of love and sex and male and female differences?

Sorry Peter, I'm unwilling to let it go by without comment, even at the end of the day.