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.
