Sexcapades

The recent avalanche of sexual misconduct—mostly among the media and political class—has provoked much controversy and commentary over the past several months, along with many imploded careers that will take years of rehabilitation to repair, if it is even possible.  This comes a little more than 25 years after sexual harassment caught the public’s attention when Anita Hill accused Clarence Thomas of sexual harassment during his Supreme Court nomination hearings.   While Thomas was approved anyway, the shock waves triggered a major readjustment of social norms and legal approaches (“hostile work environment” became a thing).

Unfortunately, lots of different acts are being tossed together in a single bucket, and I fear an overreaction that threatens to morph into the New American Puritanism.  If what is going on in universities is any indication, we have much to fear.  Just as 9/11 may have caused an overcorrection manifested by the war in Iraq, we need to be aware or the risks and costs of an overcorrection to the sexual misdeeds of the media and political class.

I think it’s helpful, then, to break these things down into separate categories rather than lump them all together, because then it will be easier to discern the acts that should be scorned and punished by society and those that should not.  Social norms may be moving again, but it is important to keep in mind that every time they move to correct a perceived problem, costs are incurred and other problems are created, often unforeseen and unintended ones.

As a (near) libertarian, and someone that thinks that a little romance still has a place in our society, my starting point for sexual behavior is that of most other behaviors—so long as the actors are of majority age and are freely consenting without force or coercion, the things they do in private are nobody else’s business, but that brings me to the first category of misbehavior—the stupid.

The stupid.

No law will protect people against bad judgment, and social media and the internet has raised the cost of it.  It was, in fact, bad judgment that ultimately cleared the path to the election of Barack Obama as president.  In 2004, the divorce records of GOP opponent Jack Ryan were made public, and revealed that he liked to go to sex clubs and tried to talk his wife into engaging in public sex acts.   The publicity led to Ryan’s withdrawal from the race and Obama’s senatorial victory.   Ann Coulter at the time quipped, “It was the first time a politician was undone by a sex scandal that involved wanting to have sex with his own wife.”   Likewise, Congressman Joe Barton resigned after “revenge porn” pictures of him surfaced, although there were no allegations that any of this was nonconsensual.   I wrote a piece following the Ashley Madison website hack, where married people trolling for hookups were exposed.   This is an area in which I believe that we have entered into an area of the New American Puritanism.   In an era where social media, hacking, revenge porn, and surveillance cameras are obsequious, the best bet if you aspire to public life is to stick to sex only with your spouse, preferably missionary position only.

The coercive or threatening.

More reprehensible than the stupid is the coercive or acts that drift into battery or sexual assault.  It is most serious in the workplace where someone has either supervisory authority or otherwise has the power to affect a person’s career trajectory.  The crown prince of this type of sexual misbehavior was Bill Clinton, whose relationship with a young intern led to his impeachment, and there were other, more serious allegations leveled at him.   While Monica Lewinsky had reached the age of consent at the time, she was in the direct line of Clinton’s authority.     This makes any sexual relationship, I believe, presumptively coercive.    The majority of the recent scandals have been of this type-- Harvey Weinstein, John Conyers, Matt Lauer, Head of NPR Michael Oreskes, Roy Price at Amazon.    Al Franken also belongs in this category, although he initially attempted to move himself into the “stupid” category by calling it all a joke.

Over the past 30 years or so our social norms have moved.   While we all agree that the acts of louts such as Weinstein and Conyers are categorically unacceptable, the presumptive position that sexual relationships within lines of authority in the workplace are inherently coercive has, in some respects, imposed costs on our society and have actually been harmful to some women in some respects.

In the 1950’s, 60’s and into the 70’s, it was fairly common for men to marry their secretaries.  Our societal norms have now all but barred those unions.   But one of the trends that has exacerbated income inequality is the trend for people to marry at the same education level.   College grads marry college grads, and so on.  There is an effective barrier in place that prevents noncollege educated women from marrying “up,” and this, I believe, contributes to income inequality. 

The second cost to women comes in the form of denying them the opportunities to be mentored.  The majority of jobs in organizations that are at the seats of power or nearby are still held disproportionately by men.   Much of mentoring takes place outside work or in informal settings.   If men are at risk of attack from accusations, they will be more likely to take a Mike Pence approach (who will not have dinner with any woman other than his wife while alone).  Mentoring, for the most part, is a purely voluntary act.  The mentor often gets nothing out of it directly other than the psychic reward of helping a younger person achieve more in his or her career.    The safest course of action for a male executive is to simply not mentor women and not bother.  I have no hard data to support how pervasive this position is, but I have my suspicions about it.

The third cost is simply depriving people of opportunities to form pair bonds and marry.  We all know many people that initially met and grew fond of each other at work.   How better to get to know someone than work on a project together.  You learn a lot by seeing how someone reacts to stress and adversity and how they relate to other people.  I even know two former bank examiners that had have had a long, apparently happy, healthy marriage and raised very nice children, and that marriage grew out of an encounter at work, and somebody took the initiative, right?  If love and lust can blossom in the sterile hallways of a government regulator, they can take root anywhere.  If the risks and costs to interaction between people of different genders at the office are raised too high, these bonds simply will not occur, and there is a cost to that.

Underage.

The most severe punishment and reprobation must be reserved for those that commit sexual acts with children.   For the most part (although there have been some exceptions), our society does not take kindly to sexual interactions with children.   Most recently, Anthony Weiner was given a prison sentence for sexting with a minor when he knew of her minor status.  Former House Speaker Dennis Hastert sits in jail for paying hush money to a man he allegedly abused during his time as a wrestling coach.  Now, there are allegations against Metropolitan Opera conductor James Levine for abusing teens decades ago.  Yet Roy Moore may still win a senate seat and Robert Menendez still hangs onto his despite allegations of patronizing underage prostitutes. 

In another area of public life--- sports, sexual abuse of underage athletes appears to be more widespread than is commonly believed.   In Illinois, Rick Butler, a nationally recognized volleyball coach has had allegations leveled against him.   Olympic team doctor Larry Nassar abused Gabby Douglas and several other athletes.

We need to be vigilant about protecting our children and the strongest condemnation should be reserved for the perpetrators of acts against them.

The Problems That Remain.

Social Media and Technology

The author W. Somerset Maugham wrote decades ago, “My own belief is that there is hardly anyone whose sexual life, if it were broadcast, would not fill the world at large with surprise and horror.”  Today, social media provides the broadcasting mechanism that can make our secret behaviors go viral in an instant.  The proliferation of phones with cameras and film taking capability, along with surveillance cameras all over the place means that, for better or worse, one’s behavior may be under scrutiny always.   Retrieval of texts and emails is very easy (unless you wisely use Bleachbit. Right, Mrs. Clinton?).

As always, technology cuts both ways.  It can be an aid in establishing evidence.  Yet it has a dark side and can also threaten to be the enforcer of the New American Puritanism.  Hulk Hogan was able to kill Gawker for posting his sex tape, but that is rare.  And in Chicago, a teen committed suicide when school authorities threatened to put him on a sex offender list after he forwarded the audio of a sexual encounter with his girlfriend.  

Another deleterious aspect of technology is that it is depriving young people of learning crucial aspects of social norms and behaviors.  A friend of mine, who is a practicing pediatrician, chirped last summer that teen pregnancies and rates of STD transmission are down.  That is undoubtedly good news, but it is an unintended consequence of something more pernicious.  Young people are interacting and learning sexual behavior via smart phone, and not in person.   There is a subtle, delicate balance that needs to be learned about when a woman is receptive to a man’s advances, and in my generation, it began the first time you tried to hold hands or put your arm around a girl in the movie theater.   Girls and women emit a complex set of cues as to when it’s okay to persist a little and when it is not.   Boys and men need to understand that delicate dance and it is not possible to learn it via text messaging.

Proof and Evidence

Proof and evidence of sexual misconduct will remain a knotty area for a number of reasons, despite the proliferation of technology and social media.   This is especially the case when allegations are years, even decades old, and there is no physical evidence of any sort.   The alleged acts occur outside the light of day and victims are often reluctant to come forward immediately, especially when either there is a relationship that involves a disparity in power and entrustment (i.e. the Catholic Church and recent athletic scandals involving coaches), or alcohol.  

But false allegations are also common.   The case of Chicago Blackhawk Patrick Kane is instructive in that respect.  The media had already crucified him (in part, because of his prior known bad behavior), and even though there was physical evidence, it took months to clear him.   The Obama administration attempted to shift the burden of proof on college campuses by issuing its now infamous memo on the topic and created quite a mess.   It effectively empowered lots of women that had sex they regretted having to get men that spurned them thrown out of school by depriving them of normal due process, and now are facing a raft of lawsuits as a result. 

Human Nature

When the Garrison Keillor’s statement that “A world without sexual harassment would be a world without flirtation” surfaced, I was initially appalled.   But maybe it’s not as outrageous as it appears on the surface.  Many people I know entered into long relationships and marriages after the woman initially rebuffed the man’s advances, and the man had to show a little persistence until she finally gave in and started dating him.  We don’t always make spectacularly great first impressions.  Further, women often LIKE men that show a little persistence and gumption—it is a trait that is useful in many areas of life.   One only has to see the movie The Notebook and Ryan Gosling’s antics engages in to attract the attention of Rachel McAdams to see what I mean.  Most women think that film is a very romantic and touching film, yet Gosling’s same behavior would certainly be classified as “harassment” in many circles.   Laura Kipnis at Northwestern drew scorn and contempt when, at a workshop on sexual harassment asked, “How do you know if an advance is unwanted unless you try?”

There are behaviors that are unacceptable and should never be overlooked, especially in the workplace.  Yet when commentators like Stephen Marche in his recent op-ed “The Unexamined Brutality of the Male Libido,” condemns our entire gender and implores us to “accept our own monstrosity,” he fails to see that most men do not harass or coerce women sexually, that they treat women as equals, treat them with respect, and even reverence.   It’s this kind of hysterical and egregious overstatement that contributes little to the conversation.  

We absolutely should strive to be better human beings.  Men have an obligation to do a better job modeling behavior and teaching our sons how to respect women and where those sometimes subtle lines need to be drawn.   But if we overcorrect, we risk losing part of what makes us human, and risk turning our workplaces and communities into cold, sterile places, devoid of normal human interactions.   And this is occurring at a time when our technology and lifestyles are also driving us in that direction.

Former U.S. chess champion Bobby Fischer, the eccentric child prodigy said a lot of crazy things later in life.  But his last words on his deathbed were, “Nothing is so healing as the human touch.”

None of this should be taken to dismiss or minimize the behaviors of people like Franken, O’Reilly, or Conyers.   But we should think about Fischer’s final words, take care, and think through the complexities of human interaction carefully when moving the goalposts of social norms.