‘Unwanted Advances’

Posted on | November 8, 2011 | 70 Comments

On Fox News this morning, Martha MacCallum interviewed The Accuser, who characterized Herman Cain’s behavior toward her as “unwanted advances,” rather than “sexual harassment.”

Professor Jacobson has said that Cain is accused of “attempted adultery” and, without regard for whether we believe The Accuser or not, it is important to stipulate that we are talking about an accusation which has not been proved in any legal sense. Rather than discuss the specifics of Herman Cain’s situation, let us seize this teachable moment to consider “unwanted advances” as a phenomenon.

Any sexual “advance” a man makes toward anyone other than his wife is a moral wrong — a sin, to use an old-fashioned word that doesn’t get used often enough these days.

In common parlance, to “hit on” a woman is wrong, without regard to whether the hitter succeeds or fails in his sinful effort. We are judging by a corrupt standard if we think a man, whether single or married, has committed no wrong when his “advance” toward a woman can be summarized in the hockey announcer’s phrase: “He shoots — he scores!”

The corrupt standard which finds no wrong in that score-keeping attitude toward sexual sin is often termed “consenting adults,” a legalism dating back a half-century, particularly the controversies surrounding Britain’s Sexual Offences Act of 1967, which legalized homosexual acts historically condemned under common law.

Law influences culture, and vice-versa, and the Cultural Revolution of the 1960s brought about a legal revolution that has in turn embedded itself in popular notions of right and wrong. Many people nowadays proclaim that we cannot pass moral judgment on sexual acts other than those that violate the law — except, of course, that the moral sense is intrinsic to human nature and people make judgments anyway, although folks in political life (including journalists) are generally careful not to express their moral sense in ways disapproved by the Arbiters of Acceptable Discourse.

The “consenting adults” standard having ensconced itself both in law and culture, the manner by which people obtain consent for sex (other than by standing in front of a minister and pledging “I do”) has become a cottage industry of sorts. There are many Web sites — including one that recently began advertising here — that specialize in arranging hook-ups. But I also consider the modern fitness industry an epiphenomenon of the Hook-Up Culture, as many people spend hours in the gym each week primarily to optimize their sexual attractiveness.

So, as The Accuser said on Fox News today, she wishes Herman Cain to admit that at times he has been “inappropriate with women.” The Accuser has described a particular incident and Cain has denied that any such incident occurred.

But what are we to make of that judgmental word “inappropriate”? We can all agree that if Cain did what The Accuser alleges he did, it was not merely inappropriate, but profoundly wrong and the Christians among us would say that such behavior would fall under the heading of sin.

That old-fashioned moral judgment, however, is very different than sayng that it is “inappropriate” for a married businessman to make an “unwanted advance” toward a woman seeking career assistance. And how does The Accuser describe her response to an unwanted advance?

“What are you doing? You know I have a boyfriend. This isn’t what I came here for.” She was offended, we might say, by Cain’s (alleged) advance because he (allegedly) assumed that her interest in him was of a sexual nature. The Accuser wants it to be known that she had no such interest. What was “inappropriate,” in this view, was Cain’s (alleged) misreading of her intentions.

The Accuser is an attractive woman and we may assume that she has been the object of many “unwanted advances” over the years, all but one of which she considered unworthy of a Manhattan press conference.

A New York Times headline characterizes the accusation against Cain as “lewd behavior,” but such behavior goes on all the time — yea, verily, even in New York! — without meriting a headline in the Times.

Saturday evening in the lobby bar of the Rennaisance Hotel after the “OccupyDC” riot, several of us were having refreshments when the subject of “sexual harassment” was discussed in jocular manner. Was one of the females at our table making “unwanted advances” with her “inappropriate” jokes? No, it certainly never crossed that line, because none of the men at the table were offended, and sexual harassment is an accusation that requires an accuser. Headline in the Chicago Sun Times:

Witness: Cain accuser hugged him
during Tea Party meeting a month ago

Lord, we are all doomed, if eyewitness testimony about a hug during a meeting is sufficient to condemn us. At least Judas gave Jesus a kiss.

Category: Culture, Election 2012, Herman Cain, Scandal, Sex

Comments

70 Responses to “‘Unwanted Advances’”

DaveO
November 8th, 2011 @ 4:25 pm

“Saturday evening in the lobby bar of the Rennaisance Hotel after the “OccupyDC” riot, several of us were having refreshments when the subject of “sexual harassment” was discussed in jocular manner. Was one of the females at our table making “unwanted advances” with her “inappropriate” jokes? No, it certainly never crossed that line, because none of the men at the table were offended, and sexual harassment is an accusation that requires an accuser.”

One would like to believe that is true, but it isn’t. Legal precedence allows the woman to wait up to at least 10 years before filing suit. At least. And even if she was the only one at the table making the jokes, the men and the venue are liable.

Never forget that Dems have enjoyed carte blanche in selecting America’s judiciary for 40 years.
McGehee
November 8th, 2011 @ 4:29 pm

If I’d been born 30 years later and was in college now, as luckless as I was then, I would’ve been expelled before I made it from the administration building to the bookstore.
Anonymous
November 8th, 2011 @ 4:35 pm

It’s okay to say stuff about his accuser once she’s spewed her nonsense.

Never start a fight, but always finish it.
DaveO
November 8th, 2011 @ 4:36 pm

Believe we’re seeing the death of morality as a metric in choosing our leaders. Fidelity to one woman/man used to equal fidelity to the Nation and office of the President. Now, because of Clinton, and Obama’s multiple gay outings, we know Democrats rejoice in the most sinful of men as their leaders. Unfortunately, to save the US of A and the potentially the world, social conservatives are being forced to decide whether they will require Christian morality in their President, or Larry Flynt.
Anonymous
November 8th, 2011 @ 4:37 pm

Let’s assume, for sake of argument, that this is in fact a bogus take down attempt . . .

We wouldn’t know who is responsible for initiating the take down, but it’s clear to me who stood to gain the most from it: Team Romney.

If it turns into a two man race between Romney and Cain, which was how it was shaping up two weeks ago, then Cain would have a big advantage with moderate-to-higher information primary voters, whereas Romney (who has high name recognition) would need to maintain his built-in advantage with low-information voters, most of whom had still never heard of Cain until this “scandal” erupted (and many of them still probably don’t know who he is).

The thing is, it might not even matter to many low-information voters if Cain is vindicated – as far as they’re concerned Cain is a “three ring circus” (see comment below), that’s all they’ll know about him. Moreover, cynical b-tards like Rove fully expect that a certain percentage of low-information voters will actually be turned off by Cain supposedly making unwanted advances on a white woman (Bialek). Assuming that this is a take down, the purpose in bringing Bialek forward was not strictly to corroborate the other stories, but to play mass psychological warfare, using a tactic Rovians like to call “optics.”

We have to ask ourselves how in the hell John freakin’ McCain won the 2012 nomination when no one we know voted for the guy.
Cain Accusers Coming Out Of Woodwork Like Termites « That Mr. G Guy's Blog
November 8th, 2011 @ 4:45 pm

[…] Stacy of The Other McCain has been keeping up with the story here, here and here. […]
Adjoran
November 8th, 2011 @ 4:49 pm

This woman is “unbelievable,” but Cain’s responses were believable?
Anonymous
November 8th, 2011 @ 5:00 pm

[supposed to be a response to Adjoran above]: I’m okay with people saying stuff about Cain, but if they make weak arguments in so doing, then it’s also okay to point out why those argument are weak.
Finrod Felagund
November 8th, 2011 @ 5:09 pm

By that standard, every man on the planet is guilty.

We have one (1) woman that’s deigned to show her face to actually make allegations against Herman Cain, a woman who was FIRED FOR LYING ABOUT SEXUAL HARASSMENT.

And you’re willing to be judge, jury, and executioner based on that.

Since you put so much stock in anonymous accusations (you did use the plural), a little bird told me that you fuck goats. Now disprove it.
Finrod Felagund
November 8th, 2011 @ 5:11 pm

If you’re going to run for the hills as soon as the battle gets tough, we don’t need you anyways.
Sarah
November 8th, 2011 @ 6:05 pm

And the current Miss thing lives in the same building as Axelrod. hmmm, indeed.
Joy W. McCann
November 8th, 2011 @ 6:45 pm

RSM: “In common parlance, to ‘hit on’ a woman is wrong, without regard to
whether the hitter succeeds or fails in his sinful effort. We are
judging by a corrupt standard if we think a man, whether single or
married, has committed no wrong when his ‘advance’ toward a woman can be
summarized in the hockey announcer’s phrase: ‘He shoots — he scores!'”

Some of them brag about it, even years later IYKWIMAITYD.
Anonymous
November 8th, 2011 @ 7:19 pm

I’ve never seen anyone so freakin’ happy to be interviewed about something so tragic…that woman is glowing like she’s radioactive. Geez!
Joe
November 8th, 2011 @ 7:39 pm

I am pretty sure I saw Rove with the herd of walkers on Walking Dead.
Joe
November 8th, 2011 @ 7:40 pm

But letting a Presidential candidate be destroyed by anonymous and opportunistic attacks without the slightest supporting evidence is also a threat to the nature of this Republic and needs to be fought.

From your lips to God’s ears.
Anonymous
November 8th, 2011 @ 8:07 pm

So college was educational in your case.
jwallin
November 8th, 2011 @ 8:12 pm

Quite true. The Progressives and the NOW gang have almost made it illegal to be a man. I don’t mean some boor who paws women all the time. I’m talking about what used to be common during high school and college in the ’60’s & ’70’s.

You went out with a girl over 16 and it was obvious if she was interested, you were at least going to kiss. Maybe 2nd base maybe more. Thing is, you didn’t usually KNOW how far you were going to get until YOU TRIED. If she pushed you (or your hand or whatever) away then a gentleman would back off and end the date.

What’s so immoral or harassing about that? women don’t and won’t walk around with signs saying who they’ll do and who they won’t and how far they’ll go and rightly so.

Only women with an agenda worry much about sexual harassment or make the claim over a simple pass.
ThePaganTemple
November 9th, 2011 @ 9:15 am

How many men do you know of who make the “unwanted” advance of trying to put a woman’s face on his crotch? Or even the “unwanted” advance of reaching up the skirt toward the cootchie? I don’t know where you come from, but where I’m from that is generally like maybe the fifth or sixth step at best, and when it gets to that phase there is generally no reason to believe that it would be an “unwanted advance”.
ThePaganTemple
November 9th, 2011 @ 9:17 am

She is radioactive. Her record is such if Cain were a democrat nobody in the media would take her seriously.
It’s Morning in Vanuatu Again : The Other McCain
November 10th, 2011 @ 2:22 pm

[…] and Truly F–ked’Nov. 8: HERMAN CAIN PRESS CONFERENCE UPDATE: Video, Headlines, ReactionNov. 8: ‘Unwanted Advances’Nov. 8: So … How Was Your […]