Nothing has changed in the world in 50 years, save that three-letter word

I am pushing 60 (although people tell I don’t “look it”), and I’ve seen a lot of “changes,” although mainly in the means in which people interact with each other and the world; yes, there was a time when cell phones and personal computers did not exist. The issues themselves have largely not changed; watching the political humor of the old Laugh-In’s shows demonstrate that they were talking about the same damn things we are still talking about today, and we haven’t seemed to have gotten any closer to solutions to those issues. But one thing has changed—the attitude about that three-letter word: S-E-X. Apart from the silly stuff, most of what I viewed on the show as a kid was way over my grade level, and now I can see how “controversial”  Laugh-In’s subject matter was, and Richard Nixon even put pressure on NBC to eliminate political commentary he regarded as too derisive of his administration. Although much of the “sex” talk was in the form of innuendo, sometimes it went a little further than that, such as when Ruth Buzzi's old maid  Gladys Ormsby's caresses continued  from Marcelo Mastroianni's head down to somewhere beneath his waist, and his nervous bewilderment at this being shown on television was likely not "acting." Looking at it from the perspective of today’s network television, it was amazing the assumptions the show made about the average viewer’s "progressiveness" in accepting permissive content.

Being a cynical “observer” of the world and not a participant—i.e. a “loner—and not be subject to domestic disturbances arising when by someone close by may not like what I have to say, I have a tendency to nitpick for evidence of hypocrisy, and it is everywhere. Particularly concerning subjects surrounding that three-letter word. Take for instance a recent story I happened upon concerning the state of New York being pressured to change a current law that says a woman must be “involuntarily” intoxicated to be incapable of giving consent to sex. The law should be changed to say that a woman should also be allowed to claim that she is incapable of “consent” even if she is “voluntarily” intoxicated. As usual, this kind of expansive, vague definition allows for all kinds of mischief. 

Now, we can assume that when a female college student gets “wasted” at a frat party, then there is certainly some room for discussion here. On the other hand, whenever a working man or woman, especially when they are single, go to a bar in the expectation of meeting someone and if it is the “right” person have sex later on, the consumption of alcohol helps not just in initiating a social encounter, but getting one in the “mood.” But in this country where almost anything is “offensive” to those who want to be offended, at what point is a woman allowed to be too “tipsy” to be incapable of consent, even if she has technically give it? What about motivation? Maybe the sex was “bad” or she decided she didn’t like the guy after all, so she decided to wreck his life because, well, it isn’t her life.

And then there is a new book out called Search and Destroy: Inside the Campaign Against Brett Kavanaugh, in which Ryan Lovelace of the National Law Journal claims that accuser Christine Blasey Ford and her attorney and fellow feminist Debra Katz orchestrated the accusation of sexual assault against Kavanaugh during his Supreme Court confirmation hearings not because they thought they had a legitimate case against him, but because they hoped to put an “asterisk”—their own words—on any ruling he might make on Roe v. Wade. Sound familiar? Failing to sway senators even after tearful pleas to “save” Roe v. Wade by the likes of Eleanor Smeal (who was once quoted in USA Today as complaining about “racism against white women”), feminists attempted to derail Clarence Thomas’ nomination by cynically bringing forth Anita Hill’s bizarre charges at the last minute.  

To be perfectly frank I would have been perfectly pleased to have seen Kavanaugh or Thomas go down in flames—particularly Thomas, whose rulings are almost certainly based not on the absurd judicial philosophy he seems to have invented whole cloth, but out of personal vindictiveness  for being born black. But it is too easy to look at all of this with a cynical eye. Feminist philosophy seems to be as completely entangled with unfettered abortion as the NRA is concerning unfettered gun ownership. Roe v. Wade is no more in danger of being overturned than the Second Amendment is, at worst only nibbled at around the corners; even a conservative justice or two who might otherwise be inclined that way will not, in the end, be a party to ending it—it is simply too politically fraught. Any claims that this country is in a “post-racial” age after the election of Barack Obama should be put to rest, given that his election only threw gas on its smoldering embers of racial animus, and the white vote is certainly more volatile than the minority vote, which is more or less predictable. But when it comes to the white female vote, it serves no purpose for those on right to turn talk into action when they are playing with a “fire” they have no idea which direction the wind is going to blow.

But give feminists “credit”: they know if nothing else “works,” bringing a man’s reputation to ruin by bringing forth accusations of sexually inappropriate behavior has a better chance to do the trick. Unfortunately, as in the cases of Thomas and Kavanaugh, it rarely works when right-wing candidates are the target, even when a cynic wants the same end. The reason for this is because the powers-that-be also see the cynicism behind accusations that can’t be proved and have a clear political motivation.  On the other hand, accusations against liberal politicians are not afforded the same degree of cynicism because the accusers are seen as serving the cause of the political left; but if the accusation comes from the political right (as “benefited” Bill Clinton), they would also have also been seen in different light. 

And of course, accusations against Donald Trump just bounce off him like so many marshmallow brickbats; his accusers seem far more afraid of his (and his media supporters) juvenile disparagements than he is of ever facing their charges in court.