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.
The problem here is NOT the unwanted advances for me, but the point where she states he said “you want that job, dont you” and I may have the wording wrong. up to that point, I agree, it is a moral issue only. After that point, there are far more issues. Still, I wonder… can we believe ANY of it.
This woman appears to be a serial pain in the butt:
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/282579/cain-camp-questions-bialeks-background-katrina-trinko
She’s involved in lawsuit after lawsuit, can’t hold down a job, twice filed for bankruptcy…
Plus she was with Gloria Allred.
Oh wait. Lord Rove says that lends credibility to the charges.
http://gop12.thehill.com/2011/11/rove-allred-adds-credibility-to.html
Never mind.
/litella
Rove is dead to me.
This stinks to high heavens. I cannot believe conservatives are not screaming about attacks like this, let alone joining in on attacking Herman Cain.
Our side is so lame maybe it deserves to loose.
If we’re going to use ‘inappropriate’ as a standard to judge candidates, then I would like it noted that IMHO, President Obama says something inappropriate Every Single Day He’s In Office.
I’d say every single hour, but there are probably hours that he doesn’t say anything.
It makes you wonder if some conservatives get involved in politics because it gives them a venue for moral preening, with any ideological concerns being of secondary importance.
Dan Riehl said this today:
My response:
Rove was still alive to you yesterday?
I believe the mention of her hugging him recently was more to say that apparently THEN she either didn’t have any hard feelings about the alleged behavior OR she was trolling for a reaction which would have had MORE impact than a 14 yr old allegation.
Me, I’m inclined to say that (depending on the physical contact) making a pass at a woman is NOT immoral or even much of a marital sin. (it indicates the marriage is in trouble but that may have a lot of other factors than a man’s morality.)
If he groped her as a prelude to more with the quid pro quo of a job? Yeah that’s NG. Perhaps SHE made the offer (you guys all know how a woman can say something wo putting it into words and thus allowing them to claim later that they really didn’t MEAN THAT). That’s NG as to Cain’s morality but not illegal. Not of it was illegal per se because there was no consummation and no job in return.
That I think this is a well orchestrated hit job? About 70/30 for.
Is Cain toast? Depends on what he says and how he handles this and if any other trash blows out of the dusty corners of the Loop.
Moral preening is part of it, but mostly it is an opportunistic attack.
No he was dead then too. But now he is even more dead.
“Unwanted advances”…?
Any advance that doesn’t result in at least second base is by definition unwanted. Don’t ask me how many I’ve committed. Hell, just when I was in college…
Perhaps one needs to narrow the definition of “our side”.
Via Legal Insurrection:
“She was fired from her job, and her boyfriend suggested she contact Cain in hopes he could help her find employment.”.
In this particular incident she was fired for falsely accusing her
boss of sexual harassment, a charge denied by co-workers, as well as
being pretty much a pain in the ass to work with.
“I remember her as a time-waster, and rabble-rouser. If she didn’t
get her way she cried about sexual harassment”. A former co-worker, a
female no less, emailed me. “She was trouble with a capital “T”. The
fact that she waited 13 years and never said a word not even during
Cain’s earlier forays into politics. She only now magically appears
because Cain is leading in some polls and proving a threat to Barack
Obama?
I would be interested in an elaboration of how exactly “more dead” works. I had been my impression that when oh say a “Mob Boss” shouted I want him DEAD,DEAD, DEAD the he was merely being repetitive due to the heat of the moment. It never occurred to me said “Mob Boss” actually meant to scream “I want him DEAD, DEADER, DEADEST.
“but there are probably hours that he doesn’t say anything.”
Perhaps when he sleeps.
I think of it more like Rove being a festering piece of road kill. He was dead at first, but was still fresh. Then he started to stink and bloat. Then the maggots started on him. I think he is currently in the maggot stage. He is currently a vector for spreading corruption and disease.
I want to see him turn into useful compost.
Hey, the media spent the bulk of Clinton’s term explaining to everyone why this crap doesn’t matter. And Eric “Bullets” Holder is testifying about a REAL scandal tomorrow, Fast and Furious. Ya know what? Until 200 Mexicans and an ATF agent come forward to say they were killed in Herman Cain’s hotel room, Fast and Furious is MUCH more important.
Joe: So your are hopeful of his ultimate redemption.
Maybe he was just mostly dead, like in The Princess Bride.
[…] Other McCain: ‘Unwanted Advances’: The Accuser is an attractive woman and we may assume that she has been the object of many […]
So in 2011, we seem to have the new standard:
A guy asks a gal on a date.
If the gal says, “Yes,” it’s all cool. It’s a “wanted advance.”
If the gal says, “No,” it’s sexual harassment. It’s an “unwanted advance.”
Beta and gamma males rejoice as it’ll be the gals who will have to take the risk of an unwanted advance.
“The problem here is NOT the unwanted advances for me…” The problem is there is still not one jot, tittle or iota of evidence any of this crap ACTUALLY HAPPENED, no matter how much we moralize about, either directly regarding Cain or more generally.
Lose sight of that fact and you lose the argument.
Don’t know if it’s legit but this blog says she’s being bad big bucks:
http://www.dividedstates.com/sharon-bialek-paid-undislcosed-amount-to-lie-about-herman-cain-sexual-harrasment-charge/
Still not overly impressed by the “there” there on these stories.
Someone has got to really point out how any of this really has any impact on being President. And while Cain doesn’t have the foreign policy chops that I’d prefer, let’s face a few facts here. Gingrich has spent the last 30 years doing nothing but working in government, running for office, being in office, getting paid to speak about policy, writing about policy or being paid to be a talking head on tv about government policy. After that length of time if Newt wasn’t any good at talking about policy I’d be surprised.
As for Mitt. He’s been running for President for the last 8 years now. So that he is doing well isn’t that big a surprise. What is a surprise is that he’s so crappy at running for President. You’d think he would have this crap down pat by now.
Ultimately the question is this: do we want professional policy wonks only as acceptable Presidents? Only those who are professional Presidential candidates need apply?
Because so far most of the Cain attacks haven’t really impressed me very much. I could go into a litany about liberal Democrats and their personal issues but there isn’t enough space on a single blog for that.
Agreed. 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.
The sheer ignorance being displayed throughout the internet over this situation, whether real or feigned, and of what constitutes evidence or even a fact, is simply terrifying.
God forbid I ever wind up facing a jury trial. I will make a point to my counself to excuse any potential juror who knows what a blog or Twitter is….
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9SPtEHPRBUc
My video contribution of the day! Helping Herman to Remember.
I am conservative, I am a woman, yet I have no respect to any woman who
goes in front of cameras, with publicity whore Gloria Allred to complain about
something happened 15 years ago. If that happened, did it really bother her? If
it really happened, really happened she must have enjoyed it. She would not have
been quiet for 15 years, and then go in front of cameras, at opportune moment,
to get publicity while trying to destroy one of the most publicized person, and then go on TV morning shows for more publicity. She
is either lying or she lacks character.
Hey if a dead possum or skunk can become useful compost, there is at least hope for Karl Rove. Of course Karl is more noxious than a rabid skunk.
Let me suggest that we shouldn’t be too quick to judge the Cain situation; it is fluid. Facts may come out about accusers, etc. Gloria Allred is not the most credible attorney.
No two circumstances are ever the same, but the American public has a way of sorting these things out: http://bit.ly/vpLob1
It seems that Rove was “so” dead that he has traveled all the way through the realm of the dead and returned to presently haunt us as one of the “undead.”
Now, nocturnally, we see him on television talk shows as one of those pasty faced types popularly termed “zombies.”
The only response to such types is: ——————– Lock and load!
She might have showed herself to him looking for a payoff. And if Cain did what he has been accused of, {which I don’t doubt} it would have been prudent for him to throw some money at her to make her comfortable going away.
Either way, more clumsiness from Cain and his campaign.
Yea, that’s accurate in a general fashion.
But you’re overlooking the fact that Cain was a married man, in which case his sexual overture wasn’t simply for fornication, but was for adultery.
Cain, it’s now rather clear, has repeatedly approached women to enter into adulterous encounters.
What a guy…………..
“Trouble with a capital “T”………..”
Yea, but guys with bimbo problems are the ones who usually have “troubles” with such women.
There are hundreds of thousands of women out there, slightly whacked, slightly psycho, “Fatal Attraction” types, and guys like Clinton are the ones who have run-ins with ’em.
And of course, a guy like Cain.
Cain clearly styled himself a “playa.’
He was “keeping it real.”
First paragraph is accurate, as far as it goes.
But to go ahead with Cain, all in the interests of taking a stand in some Alamo like moment, and then lose the election to an anti-American like Obama, is to place that principle, narrow as it is, above and over the wider and vaster interests of the United States of America and the citizens thereof.
So no, this is not the time to go tying yourself to that stake in the ground, this is not the time to go erecting barricades for that small battle.
RSM is out there blowing as hard as he can sounding charge.
When he should be sounding the recall.
WHERE is Cain’s wife, by the way.
Even Jim McGreevey’s wife was next to him, Cain’s wife is AWOL.
Somebody should be asking Cain’s wife whether their relationship is pockmarked by him playing around. Do they have “an arrangement?”
Dan responds:
I think Dan is being overly critical of Cain, but he raises some legitimate points. The primaries are for vetting candidates. And Cain should be vetted. That said, I am not going to help the media and the left conduct a kangaroo court proceeding followed by a summary execution of Cain.
I don’t think it’s humanly possible right now to be “overly critical” of Cain.
Cain has turned our nomination process into a three-ring circus.
He’s turned attention away from Obama’s baleful stewardship of our nation’s affairs and focused the media on one issue they love to get into: married Republicans pursuing other women.
He himself demanded answers from Perry, and rushed off to attack him long before an accurate report came out about the painted rock, now he, himself and his campaign, dodges specifics while lobbing grenades against those allegedly “behind” the story.
Did he meet with these women?
Did he bring some of them into his executive suite, or into his limo?
Did he arrange an upgrade for any young woman?
Did he ever make a sexual overture to women other than his wife?
Does his scheduling calender indicate he was in town when these supposed encounters went down?
These are the questions that need to be addressed and, so to speak, put to bed.
Reading about the directness and clumsiness of his approach to these women, ——— doesn’t the directness mirror image his campaign demeanor, and doesn’t the clumsiness mirror image his handling of the entire drama.
If the shoe fits……..
Karen Kraushaar currently serves as a communications director at the Inspector General’s Office of the Treasury Department, a position she has held since last year.
http://proteinwisdom.com/?p=31944
Hmmm.
Dm, if you don’t mind me asking, which candidate are you supporting?
I’m so sick of this woman already, and it hasn’t even been 24 hours. She strikes me as a woman on the make, an opportunist, a gold-digger. However, this Cain mess is relevant to the office of President. He’s not handling this well at all. He shouldn’t play the comedian here. These are serious allegations and he ought to address them seriously. I don’t believe this woman’s story, I find Gloria Allred’s involvement problematic, but I think it’s starting to look like Cain was a guy who liked to indulge his baser instincts while on the road. While he may never have actually sexually assaulted anyone (and this Bialek woman describes an act of aggression, an assault, not an ‘unwanted advance’), he’s starting to look like a guy who maybe did, maybe not with her, and maybe not as clumsily as she describes, but like there’s maybe a pattern of having a few drinks and turning into an asshat around women.
That said, this woman makes herself more and more unbelievable every time she opens her mouth — between the giggly presser yesterday, the feigned concern for Cain and his wife today, the too-tight-cut-too-low bubble-gum pink Barbie outfit today, the super bright, super shiny teeny-bopper lipgloss, the Farrah Fawcett flip, she just looks like an aging bimbo making a last, desperate grasp at riding some guy’s coattails to financial solvency.
He wants Zombie Rove to attack him so he can drive a pipe through his brain.
He’s just too polite to say it.
It was my understanding those records were sealed.
So it’s outrageous to say stuff about Cain, but okay to say stuff about his accusers?
If I believed all the stories and “facts” being released, then flirtatious to adulterous behavior would range from boorish to ungodly. But I don’t with respect to Cain right now.
Cain is being accused of all sorts of things, but verifiable facts clean of political smear are severely lacking. There’s all sorts of suggestion and innuendo to lead people to draw a conclusion, a conclusion perhaps unsavory sorts would like to plant in the public domain.
I consider it BS and a concerted smear campaign now. I won’t be piling on and furthering this nonsense based on speculation and dubious sources.
But as to my comment, yes, I did mean that in a general fashion. The mating ritual has gone on since the creation of DNA; but in civilized worlds, social pressures will mold behaviors in both predictable and unpredictable ways. I’m predicting the evolution of beta-male DNA which will revert back to the historical norm in due course.
She is finally traveling with him, but cancelled a scheduled interview with Greta.
There is usually some degree of consensual foreplay well before a guy gets around to trying to stick his hand up a woman’s skirt, and damn sure well before he gets around to trying to pull her face down on his crotch. The point being, even if what the woman said was true, her charges of harassment or unwanted advancement is obviously bogus on the face of it. She would have almost had to have done something to make him understandably believe his hand and her face were both heading down the path she seemed to lead him to.
Talking about moral preening and opportunistic attack, here’s Mitt!
Cain didn’t turn the campaign into a three ring circus, the MSM does that.
Are you saying that it was a bad thing for him have “demanded answers from Perry, and rushed off to attack him long before an accurate report came out”? If so, is it still a bad thing for you and others to do the same thing to Cain, or do two wrongs make a right?
No, Cain does not have to prove a negative or to help inflate this (possibly bogus) story, which is what Romney and others like you are asking him to do.
Dan Riehl does some good work here and there, but let’s face it, he ain’t the brightest bulb in the pack.