Sexual abuse and harassment: Do morals matter in politics?

By UYLESS BLACK

Special to The Press

What is sexual abuse? What is sexual annoyance? What is nonsexual flirtation? What is sexual flirtation? What is a sexual innuendo? What is a tap on the knee or shoulder? What are fingers on the knee or the shoulder that do not tap but remain there? What is a slight peck on the cheek? What is a prolonged peck? What is a brief hug? What is a prolonged hug? What is a distant hug? What is a close hug?

After reading the Time magazine article, after talking with friends and recounting my own experiences, I came to believe that many of the sexual abuse allegations in the Time article are true. But some are not; not in the sense of sexual predation that could destroy a career and life.

Sexual explorations

from both sexes

Most young people engage in some sort of sex. It may be flirting, foreplay, or the actual act of copulation. Who starts the process? Or rather, who should start the process? From my youth, it was a matter of awkward investigation on the part of the boy and the girl, maybe gradually leading to sex. But in those days, usually no actual sex took place; just clumsy groping.

During those youthful times, I was a lifeguard at a country club. After reading the Time article, I concluded that I could easily have been identified as being sexually harassed (pursued is a more accurate word) in those earlier days. Truth is, I welcomed the attention, and the idea of sexual exploitation was buried in the social milieu of those times, both from the male and female sides.

How many humans, female or male, do not want to think of themselves as being desirable? But recently, there has been exposed a cult of males who aggressively target females for harm, even death, because they believe they cannot manage to have sex with a woman. In the last few weeks, people (mostly females) have been killed because of the ineptitude and self-deprecation of these misguided men.

But what about the sane adults of today? How does one show interest without being tagged as sexist or an aggressor? An indirect: “Would you join me for a drink?” To a more direct: “I must say that I find you attractive.” To an explicit: “Lay down, I think I love you.” Or to the most direct, “I’m laying you anyway, regardless of your desires toward me.”

In the Time article, some of the men accused of sexual misconduct never touched the female accuser. One man was taken to task for using crude language. Yet there he is, listed with his picture in the gallery of 122 alleged sexual abusers. If this were an established criterion, Time’s list would include a lot of famous women, as well as millions of men.

Another man is on the list because he made “insensitive” and “offensive” comments to a woman. That was it, nothing else but language. But language itself can be a sexual weapon. It can traumatize a person. Yet in a loving milieu, that very same language can be one of tenderness. These words, these sentences, matter only in the context in which they are spoken.

One could make the argument that in situations such as those cited in the previous paragraphs, a substantial amount of collateral damage has been inflicted, as these men have lost their good name and all that goes with a good name.

But let us not lose our focus. There has been horrible physical damage inflicted on the women. Many men on the list did much more than curse or spout out sexual utterings. They inflicted mental (and sometimes) physical damage on their victims. For many of these men, their actions have brought forth comments from scores of women that back up the females’ contentions. These men are serial sexual predators and opportunists.

They have given up their rights to be treated with anything but contempt and isolation, especially those who took advantage of a work environment in which the victims were at the mercy of a powerful male. For these men: Hang ’em high so they are exposed. Not on a gallows with a rope, but on the gallows of social censure.

For some of the others, whose offenses were maybe not even offenses, but boorish, it might not be a bad idea to cut them some slack. Think carefully, reader. That population likely includes many of the male readers of this article.

It includes this writer. My inappropriate behavior never took place in the workplace. Nonetheless, in my youth, and being reared in a macho southwestern cowboy culture, I had to learn that a simple no meant just that.

More men should do the same. The recent assertions and revelations of respected and high-profile women will go a long way to address this problem.

What to make

of all this?

Regardless of the innocence or guilt of these 122 men, the question our society needs to ask itself is: What constitutes sexual abuse and harassment? Another question we should ask ourselves: Do sexual “rules” matter for our politicians? Perhaps these answers should come from Donald Trump.

But my statement about President Trump should be taken in the context of the following facts: President Eisenhower had a long affair with his secretary. President Kennedy had affairs with just about anybody who was nearby. Was Eisenhower or Kennedy hindered in their governance abilities because they “fooled around?” I could go on: President Roosevelt was long estranged from sexual intimacy with Eleanor in favor of his long-time lover.

Should we care about the sexual behavior of our leaders? Many have had affairs. If Mamie Eisenhower, Jacqueline Kennedy, Eleanor Roosevelt, and Melania Trump do not protest, should we?

Should our political agenda take place over our moral agenda? And whose moral agenda? Yours may be the same as mine, but likely, it will be different. Whose is correct?

Where do we draw the line? Should a line even be drawn? Many countries consider our concern about sexual peccadilloes to be inane.

Those are questions each of us should answer before we go to the polls. It is your call.

•••

Uyless Black is an author, researcher and frequent Press analyst and commentator. He and his wife, Holly, reside in Hayden.