Inappropriate Sexual Advances—Where is all this leading to and what is the solution?

Inappropriate Sexual Advances—Where is all this leading to and what is the solution?

Judging by the current headlines in the news there is suddenly a rash of inappropriate sexual advances, mostly by men. As usual, at least for me, issues of love and sex are rarely subject to logical analysis. Love and sex are driven by emotions, sex drives differ, preferred sexual acts differ, and any definition of love or ethical catagoration of love or particular sex acts which are consensual seems hopelessly mysterious. Baldwin seems to have summed it up best: “If you fall in love….you fall in love”. If it is the town idiot or the wrong color, or the wrong religion, or the wrong sex, there is nothing to be done about it. If one partner prefers a particular sex act and the other abhors it, logic or facts are not available to solve the dilemma. When well known people like Anthony Weiner (House of Representatives) and Brett Favre (Football Hall of Fame) send pictures of their penises to other women, it seems impossible that they do not know, when not in an aroused state, that is is absolutely stupid and risky to their reputation. But once aroused, they do it anyway. How risky depends on the person’s status in society.

Donald Trump, a wealthy and powerful person, probably can grab many women by the pussy when he gets the urge to do so, whereas the average person would more likely end up in court. In a broader sense, people who are the most attractive, or a celebrity, or a boss, or preacher of some sort, and so on, are more likely to get away with their ‘inappropriate’ behaviors. The least physically attractive someone is, the greater the risk to them for inappropriate sexual behavior. 

TV sitcoms, movies, the internet, nightclub atmospheres etc. use inappropriate sexual advances as entertainment or, if a chat room, a means to flirt. To make it more complicated, people vary in what kind of sexual advances are considered a ‘turn on’. Young people tend to dress to be sexually attractive but exactly what kind of responses they will tolerate to this attractiveness varies all over the place. When a ‘groupie’, or just an admiring fan tells an athletic star that they are looking for ‘some fun’, what exactly is that suppose to mean?  If they say, in some form or fashion, that “I am very sensual, you won’t be disappointed” and proceed to a hotel room just what consequently determines inappropriate sexual behavior once emotions take over? When a movie producer implies that an actor is more likely to get the role if they engage in sex and sex then ensues is that a nonconsensual act? Is that much different than telling a date “I will refrain from sex at your request but if I date you for a month I expect sex sometime within the month.” And the date says, “Ok’’. Is that forced or consensual? 

It just seems noteworthy that all these headlines about someone making inappropriate sexual comments or acts comes from celebrities of some sort. We learn in youth that most of the ‘sexual hanky-panky’ will originate from the the most popular echelon of students. These are the students most likely to engage in ‘inappropriate’ sexual advances because they are most likely to achieve the results they seek. Ugly Honschnivel better keep his hands and comments to himself. 

How do we stop movie producers from giving the acting role to someone who has been sexually cooperative?  We could make it a criminal activity for a producer to fondle, be personally forward to a person about sex, etc. But then what can be legally done if a producer meeting the 5 candidates for a role says to them. “You will not be personally approached in any way about any sexual interests on my part. If any of you desire to have sex with me you will have to approach me in private and it will be up to me to consider if I have any interest.”  All the producer has to do is mike him/herself as soon as one of the participants makes their pitch for sex. In which case how can the applicant make a case for sexual harassment? In which case what has changed? She wanted to get the role. She decided this would be one way to get it. She is on tape requesting the sex. Oh what a tangled web we weave when we get involved in love or sexual behaviors.

If you have little money or skills or career talent and yet are a very attractive male or female, you may decide to marry Ugly Honschnivel for the wealthy life style you could have the rest of your life, or maybe even figure after a few years you could demand a divorce and live happily ever after on the divorce settlement. How could we ever stop this? Probably we can’t. Were it not for his money Ugly Honschivel has essentially zero chance of marrying a beautiful personable female, about as much chance as he had going to the prom with the prom queen. Desperate for sex Honschnivel may find a willing prostitute and this consensual sex could get both arrested. Not a lot of logic to all of this is there?

In addition to all of the above, exactly what constitutes sexual harassment? If a talk show host greets a guest by a hug and kiss on the cheek and remarks how sexy she looks, no one considers this sexual harassment. But if a husband introduces his wife to a co-worker when they meet on the street for the first time he doesn’t expect the coworker to energetically hug his wife and kiss her on the cheek and remark how sexy she looks. 

As far as I know, attractive women are still subject to ‘catcalls’, unwanted comments such as “Hey pretty, we might make a good match” and so on. During all the debates about the rights of gays, many straight men declared they would be offended if a gay male ‘hit on’ them. Huh, are females just the tougher sex when it comes to being ‘hit on’? Many patrons in a bar late at night—male or female—would welcome certain other patrons to make an inappropriate comment or physical gesture of interest in them. Others, there simply with a friend, might have a fit—especially if it is Honschnivel. 

If we meet someone and all they want to talk about is sex in some way or another, is this grounds for sexual harassment? Suppose you are both inebriated in a bar and not sober enough to stifle inappropriate comments or behavior—can the next day one of them file sexual harassment charges now that they are sober? Or maybe wait until that person runs for office and then surface with these charges?

There is no point to any of the above except how do we succeed in making up rational rules about behaviors which are irrational (sex and love). A parent may be perfectly rational when they insist their son or daughter quit dating the town jerk, but can that be made a law? If no one is present on a date in which some person claims date rape, on what basis can anyone else make a decision? There was no one else there. 

I have no idea what percentage of people have been guilty of sexually inappropriate behavior at some time in their life, but if each of these instances resulted in loss of a job, or monetary settlement, or jail time this would generate a huge enforcement industry, let alone family breakups. If one marriage partner commits infidelity isn’t that solely a matter to be resolved by the married couple? The reason for, and nature of, the infidelity are all over the place. 

How can we insist inappropriate sexual behaviors are really, really, serious crimes and then elect politicians who have seemingly committed such acts or even almost elect them?  I guess we just say things like “Well, he has promised to reduce my taxes, so I will look the other way”. Trump once said that ‘I could murder someone and my base would ignore it.” Trump doesn’t always lie. His ethics is derived from unlimited unregulated capitalism. 

I prefer to write on topics where I can come to logical conclusions based on facts. The only fact here is that love and sex are all over the place based on emotional/cultural/situational factors. I guess maybe the lucky ones have little sexual drive and avoid romantic love altogether. Even here, this often is imposed on them. Poor ugly Honschnivel. 

Love and sex are probably the aspect of our lives which can create the most havoc in our personal lives. We all know people whose family relationships, careers, friendships, assault charges, court appearances, jail terms, financial status, and reputation all have been damaged by mis-matches in love, or compulsive sexual addictions, or unusual sexual acts. Some otherwise sane and good people sometimes shock everyone with a hidden sexual addiction. What is the appropriate form of action for a girlfriend who finds her boyfriend wants her to hang from the chandelier and fondle herself so he can get a strong orgasm? Just decline, or tell everyone she can to be sure they stay away from him, or file sexual harassment charges with the police?  Just where do we draw the line where something is harmless freakishness or a criminal act? Obviously if he puts a gun to her head for her to do this, or does bodily harm to her to try to make her do it, it becomes a criminal act. And so it goes with love and sex. Only humans have this wide range of sexual behaviors which have nothing to do with reproduction and everything to do with diversity in sexual behaviors.

We are collectively conflicted with all this. One minute we want punishment, the next minute we are laughing at the same situation as funny, which telling it, can make us the life of the party. We laugh like hell at stand-up comics or late show hosts/guests, whose sex jokes make up a good portion of their material, and then when we find out someone we know is doing just that, we feel they should be fired, or jailed, or fined, or exposed, and destroy their family situation, etc. 

It seems the real problem is that many of us never really know how to handle love and sex in any rational, logical way. So most of the time we either laugh or bristle with aimless anger. Like the good judge once said “I can’t define pornography but I know it when I see it.”  Well, that solves it for him, but the next person may see it differently. So whose opinion should prevail? Just as we sometimes laugh at matters of sex and love, God must too. But just why are humans saddled with all this? Why can’t we be like other animals—when the sex hormones are produced we just have sex in a very predictable way with the nearest candidates time after time until the hormones go away and we can go back to living our lives in a more logical and rational way? “Is that Harry chasing that ugly gal down the alley?  He must be in heat.” 

We could, I reckon, make pornography illegal, but that would just create another major underground industry like the marijuana industry or the illegal alcohol industry during prohibition. We could make infidelity illegal but does anyone really think that would stop it?  We could I reckon, make every partner sign a consent form for particular sex acts just before the sex takes place, but what if someone says they were drunk, or were threatened with physical violence or blackmailed, etc. Emotions are hard to regulate or control.

This musing has come up with zero solutions. I have no answers, history has had no answers—maybe there are no answers.  It seems all that is in the news today is terrorism, who sexually assaulted who, who sexually harassed who, and what nasty names has the President called who during the day or night? Stop the world. I want to get off. 

The Faux ‘tax reform’

The Faux ‘tax reform’

When Corporate tax rates go down from 35% to 20% where does the corporate money saved typically go? First, we need remember that some corporations like Trump Enterprises pay no taxes because of existing loopholes so they gain nothing. Hard to pay less than no taxes. The only salaries which usually are affected are the corporate executives who will probably limit themselves to between a 10-20% increase in salaries which are already in the millions. Then a portion of the saved money will go to increase dividends to their stock holders. The half of Americans who don’t own stocks will not get this dividend income. Since 81% of stock wealth is held by 10 percent of the population, the very wealthy can include this dividend increase as part of their huge tax cut included in the Republican Tax ‘Reform’ . Some of the money corporations save in taxes will go to reduce the cost of goods or services provided. But these goods and services, for the most part, are purchased by the affluent, so this is another way in which the affluent get financially helped. The poorest, with no money to buy anything but essentials, do not get to save anything from ‘bargains’. That new car with a $1000 dollars off means nothing to the poorest. 

Several things are rather certain here: None of this huge money being given to the wealthy will ever trickle down to those most in need of financial help. Any jobs created will be at non living wages because that keeps the bottom line down.  Few corporations will make any significant changes in employee salaries, pensions, health care, vacation time, or any other benefits. Lincoln made it rather clear back in his day that labor comes before capital and ought to be protected from capitalistic greed.  Today labor has little protections at all. Unions are weaker now than any time in the last 100 years. Minimum wages, had they just increased with the cost of living, would be $22/hr. Only families in which both parents work full time can possibly exist today on a minimum wage job.  42% of adults in this country don’t earn enough to even pay federal taxes, so this so called ‘tax reform’ does nothing for the poorest except cut their benefits so that the rich can continue to sequester more and more of our nation’s wealth. While modern medicine can do wonders to keep us living longer and healthier, there is a huge underbelly population who never have access to these wonders of medicine. In many of our urban, rural, or suburban ghettoes most people don’t go to the hospital except maybe to die—which is a somewhat exaggeration, but not much. Freebies in an emergency room don’t exactly get access to many expensive treatments. 

This ‘tax reform’ is the cruelest hoax ever foisted on those least able to defend themselves. To pull it off many middle class Americans will get some meaningless tax reductions and these will come at a cost of raising the national debt even further. For people like me, whose income mostly comes from shuffling papers around in sort of an investment poker game, the money coming in keeps growing exponentially, even though I have no real need for more money. My hermit-like existence with no expensive hobbies or expensive addictions (maybe writing and reading and walking, but these cost nothing) enables me to give away each year far more than I spend on myself, and still the money keeps rolling in. My tax rate, after all the deductions is well under 10% while the poor bastard who pushes a wheel barrel around all day pays more than twice the tax rate. I doubt Christ and all the other prophets founding different religions had this sort of thing in mind as an ethical goal. 

Of course this societal scam is going on globally, and if the least fortunate are dumb enough to put up with it,  well, this just matches the dumbness of the wealthy who think this scam will not implode our society and all their wealth with it. But it will—the wealthy are addicted to money, power, titles, etc. so they cannot ever feel enough wealth is enough. In the past, the wealthy were safely arrogant enough—like what can these less fortunate fools do about it? Just quarantine them off in urban, rural, or suburban ghettoes and let them kill each other off in the depraved environment in which they live in, or are growing up in. In theory every nation is responsible for the varied communities within their borders. But that hasn’t been true in America for a long time now. We just ward these despicables off out of sight and out of mind, and let them figure out a way to lift themselves up by their boot straps. 

What the wealthy and affluent, with all the good schools, good teachers, good health care, good job opportunities, sometimes good pensions, and safe neighborhoods, do not understand is that the less fortunate across the globe now have a weapon of mass destruction themselves—it’s called terrorism and is quickly becoming some sort of national sport everywhere. It is no shock anymore to pick up the paper——oops, that’s kind of rare anymore—or go on the internet and see terrorism occurring somewhere almost every day now. When society implodes the ‘have nots’ always win—with nothing to lose—while the have nots have all their property to protect. Eventually, not so distant now, riots will be roving riots controlled by gadgets which coordinate which community riots when and for how long. 

No country yet in which this sort of thing begins to happen, has been able to right itself. Almost every nation we have invaded the last fifty years and turned their country into rubble has ended up with thugs controlling neighborhoods until new thugs take over, and the process repeats itself in a positive feedback process. Anybody care to live in these ‘freed’ nations we once invaded like Iraq, Somalia, Iran, Syria, Haiti, and a whole slew of South American and African countries? Freedom for our victims is simply the freedom of nothing left to lose. When we say this kind of implosion cannot happen in America we just increase our level of stupidity. At a time when terrorism is growing exponentially we make it legal for all citizens to carry weapons of mass destruction. Can anyone imagine what our civil war would have been like if most of our citizens personally had weapons of mass destruction? Does anyone seriously think our country now with three huge minority populations of blacks, hispanics, and whites, with no group having a clear cut majority anymore, and a President who is energetically baiting each group to blame their economic situation on the other—that another civil war is not quite likely to happen? And this time it will not be uniformed troops on a battlefield, but roving bands of terrorists fighting the same kinds of battles we see being fought in Iraq, Syria, Egypt, Turkey, Somalia, Sudan, Columbia, Brazil, and so on. It is no longer like in the past, where one army wins, and the other army loses, and peace comes at last. No one wins in modern day societal implosions. Thugs rule the streets until new thugs take over and they rule until new thugs take over and no one’s life is worth much and often doesn’t last all that long. Remember when we thought that if we had enough bombs and military bases that no country or population would ever dare interfere with our helping hand? 

With an empire of military bases too expensive to maintain, and widespread neglect for the less fortunate in our own country, our national implosion will come from within, unless of course the emotionally disturbed Kim Jong-un and Donald Trump become emotionally unhinged and start heaving nuclear bombs around. Maybe that is our choice: nuclear holocaust or societal implosion with domestic terrorism. Well, not to be morbid, but I have my helium tank ready. Always be prepared. After all, we all die and the trick is to do so painlessly. Those who die young are a tragedy. When the old die, whether it be today, next week, next few years—is nit picking—it is not tragedy. The very act of being born sort of guarantees death will follow, sooner or later. Now that is realism.