As I've probably said on more than one occasion, conservative candidates are at a disadvantage in public debates. Democrats and/or secular progressives are uninhibited in saying whatever they think. They express the most outlandish views with impunity. By contrast, conservative candidates have to project sensitivity. To mix metaphors, they're constantly pulling their punches and walking on eggshells. They're afraid to say what needs to be said. They're afraid to challenge liberal assumptions. Liberals win by stipulating outlandish claims as indisputable, then proceeding to build on that false premise.
I don't necessarily blame conservative candidates for being so squeamish, because many voters are irrational. It's a tough environment to navigate. That's why those of us who aren't candidates need to challenge Democrats and/or secular progressives to be consistent.
A Supreme Court nominee has been accused of attempted rape when he was 17. How should that be morally assessed? That depends in large part on our moral frame of reference. Is that Christian ethics or secular ethics? Before I get to that I'd like to address two preliminary issues:
1. What's the difference between rape and attempted rape? Attempted rape is ambiguous. Consider two different scenarios:
i) A male intends to have sexual intercourse with a female against her will. He initiates the action, but for whatever reason, is unable to carry it through.
ii) A male at a drinking party gets sexually aggressive with a female to test her sexual receptivity. If she resists, he will back down.
In the case of (i), he was willing but unable. In the case of (ii), he was able but unwilling. In the case of (i), he tried and failed. In the case of (ii), he was in a position to physically overpower her, but relented. In the case of (ii), the overture was unsolicited, but whether he carried through with it was contingent on her consent. He didn't intend to have sexual intercourse against her will.
Are both these actions attempted rape? Is (ii) sexual assult or aggressive unsuccessful seduction? Is (i) failed rape while (ii) is failed seduction?
Up to a point, this is reversible. At a drinking party, a female might get sexually aggressive with a male to test his sexual receptivity. She can't physically overpower him, but her overture is unsolicited. She "forces" herself on him in the sense of forcing the issue, pressuring him to make a choice. Is that sexual assault or aggressive unsuccessful seduction?
Men can be the object of rape. That's common in prison.
It's possible for a woman to roofie a guy and perform sexual actions on him. Is that rape?
It's possible for a woman to sodomize a man if she incapacitates him and uses something like a mop handle. That's rape.
2. Another issue is the role of alcohol in relation to rape or attempted rape. There's a sense in which intoxication induces a state of diminished responsibility. And if both male and female are drunk, that lowers or erases the threshold for consent. Indeed, that's one reason some people get drunk in the first place: to remove sexual inhibitions.
That said, an agent can be morally responsible for inducing a state of diminished responsibility. If I drive to a tavern, I intend to drive back. If I get drunk, I'm making a choice, at the time I'm sober, which will severely impair my perception and reflexes. If I kill a cyclist or pedestrian when I'm under the influence, I'm culpable for inducing that condition.
However, there's a sense in which driving drunk is more brazen, more premeditated, than getting drunk at a party–where the objective is to create open up certain possibilities.
Moving along to the main point:
3. From a Christian standpoint, humans have animal bodies, albeit bodies designed for human minds. We have the ability to inflict physical or emotional harm on others. But we're supposed to exercise self-restraint out of consideration for the welfare of others.
In addition, standard Christian ethics regards fornication as a sin. That rules out rape, attempted rape, and seduction. Consensual as well as nonconsensual premarital sex. Not to mention extramarital sex.
Of course, secular progressives despise Christian ethics in general and Christian sexual ethics in particular. So what's their alternative?
4. From a secular standpoint, humans are libidinous monkeys with big brains. There are, moreover, evolutionary theories of rape. Combined with evolutionary ethics, what's the secular basis to condemn rape or attempted rape?
One response is that sometimes we have a duty to resist our natural impulses. But there are problems with that response:
i) How many times have you seen atheists say we don't need God to be moral because evolution can account for our moral instincts? But how can they simultaneously insist that we ought to suppress our evolutionary mores? Is evolutionary psychology a reliable source of morality or not?
ii) What's the standard an atheist relies on to differentiate good evolutionary mores from bad evolutionary mores?
5. Since sexual performance declines with age, isn't it reasonable, from a secular standpoint, for men to make the most of their short-lived sexual prime? Why should they turn down opportunities when their opportunities will diminish with the passage of time?
6. Sodomy and sadomasochism are more damaging than attempted rape. If attempted rape is so traumatic to the victim as to disqualify a candidate, why not sodomy or sadomasochism?
I feel bad for Kavanaugh because of the psychological damage that's already been done. What if he did attempt rape, but quickly grew out of it, and brissles at the memory? Would any leftist consider that as a reason to acquit him? What if he was guilty, and then asked for forgiveness? He'd need to ask forgiveness from the country, for crying out loud! so he's probably already doomed, either way.
ReplyDelete