Fragments I

Sexuality

I started this recently but I have more questions than answers – both on this subject and others. In fact I've started a bunch of essays, but lack the patience to finish them. They contain ideas I haven't worked out, but the questions come rapidly and time is limited, so I leave it to you to work out the kinks, or whatever else you find. If you're interested. You can send me your take (if you want to) via “Comments” at the end. Sometimes they'll involve one subject and sometimes there'll be multiple subjects – like “Various Thoughts.” Not to worry, though. All will be named “Fragments” so you can decide to skip them if you choose.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Over the years the conversation has changed. When I was growing up, sex was a taboo subject but now it's part of normal conversation on the radio and television; in the media, the movies, the theater and even in political conversations.

And when I was growing up, no one talked about homosexuality; the group now designated as LGBTQ didn't exist. No one discussed ED or other sexual dysfunction. There was no such a thing as sexual dysphoria and transgender conduct. Either they were all well hidden or they didn't exist. It's now fashionable to introduce sexual issues at all possible times. The closet door is open and no holds are barred.

But in addition to discussing the joys of sex, there has been an upturn in the extent of talking about sex itself, and it's effects on society. Not only does this involve sexual preferences and practices, but also their misuse – especially in the past.

Men have always been men and I doubt that there has been a significant change in the number of rapes, although terminology my be different since the institution of marriage. It's reasonably certain that political affiliations don't affect the incidence. Whether you favor evolution or another mechanism, as the cause, but is the current flurry strictly a result of DNA?

And women have always been women. Lysistrata made it clear that divisions of power were not absolute. And Joan of Arc, various saints and courtesans, the Amazons, and what we can glean from a plethora of historic and literary works suggest that not very much has changed over the years apart from society's reaction to the situation, and the conversation.

In recent days there has been a spate or stories, accusations, allegations about sexual abuse, although there is no good definition of the term. Most of them relate to incidents that are said to have occurred decades ago, and are being reported now. Which raises two questions – why are they being reported in such an inflammatory manner, and why now – following the admissions of an admitted participant who was elected president, although prior presidential misbehavior usually went unpunished or was ignored or played down? Whether the confrontations occurred is not the issue. It's likely that's so in most (but not all) cases, though the recollection of detail may be faulty, or self-serving, or both. In days past the accusers would have been suspected of collaboration. It would have been assumed that the women were trading themselves for employment or other fiscal advantage and were complaining that they didn't get what they wanted, or they were somehow trying to shift the blame to someone else lest their families disown them.

When, and this probably applies to most cases, the accusations were factual, the delay may have resulted from fear of retaliation by the powerful man, or shame concerning the incident. The current slant of society places greater emphasis on the complaints and the likelihood of guilt on the accused. One accusation breeds many, primarily of actual incidents, which are usually remembered favorably and involve famous people – newsworthy ones with deep pockets. I discussed this situation before, but I'd look at the issue from a different perspective now.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Large number of allegations about sexual abuse (needs definition). (Slacks and drab outfits are satisfactory during the day but, more alluring outfits are used in romantic situations, though the women my claim that they are wearing what they like.) Allegations by a wide variety of men against both men and women years, and decades after the events cited are dealt with in other subsequent essay.

Why do women prefer enticing clothing but deny that it is men they want to entice?

Now Why, And Why Now? – “Justifications”

Societal, fear at the time, revenge, self-image, political, bandwagon, profit, fame

What constitutes “consensual?”

Calendars – cheesecake, beefcake

Whistles

Does it matter who says? – “nigger” or “bitch” – Is it permitted among some?

“I love it when you talk dirty” – Men and women”

At what point does dirty talk become an offense?

Sexuality

Men speech, women clothing –Both may incite “unwanted” contact.  Sages mandate tznius clothing by women so as not to incite their passions.  It was a problem then.

Some women state that a woman's search for sexuality is the same as a man's. Should an accusation against a woman rate the same headlines as on against a man? Should the penalties for the two sexes be the same?

Demand for equality despite DNA. Some women want to be the “same” as men irrespective of the differences. What should be the response to demands for equal salaries for those who want to choose their own work hours or have less experience on the job?

Sports handicaps – Should they persist or has Billie Jean King made equality legitimate and a 5' 2” woman should be welcomed into the NBA?

November 27, 2017

The Suspension Of Disbelief By The Public

Women Claim Plumber Fondled Them

Cheerleader Accuses Star Quarterback Of

Making Her Feel Uncomfortable

Drug Clerk Charged With Groping By 23 Women

Suppose those headlines appeared in the weekly editions of mid-west papers. Would the stories be covered by the major media?

Women Claim Senatorial Candidate Fondled Them When They Were Young

Intern Accuses President Of Bedding Her

Numerous Women Reveal Sexual Demands of Billionaire Producer

How about these from major east coast organs?

We're titillated by the fall of the mighty and not interested in the human faults of the poor. The truth of the accusations is irrelevant.

Why are charges like these leveled by so many so long after their occurrence? One possibility is that at the time of the incident they were fearful and intimidated. Their willing participation would not have been well received if others knew what happened. Another is that the facts are not as they claimed or that they were the initiators of the interaction which they describe inaccurately. Or maybe they never happened.

But that doesn't account for the frequency with which they are leveled, and the eagerness of those purported to be victims to talk about them. And there are times when the accusations come at politically sensitive times – like just before an election Is it significant additionally that charges are often labeled against those with deep pockets?

It's likely that much of what they claim is true. That, however, doesn't account for the flurry of accusations coming out now. (It should be noted that there are no convictions, only accusations, but the politicians and the media have already tried and convicted those accused and they have made clear to the public what their judgment should be.) There is no question that wrongdoers should be punished, but in most states (but not all), while there is no statute of limitations for rape and violent sex crimes, there is a limit for bringing charges against someone accused of a lesser offense and, decades past the time of commission of the alleged offense, there is no remaining evidence (if there ever was any) of the crime. It's “He said, she said,” and the accusation can only serve to embarrass the one accused – often during a political campaign – serve as the basis of monetary litigation whether justified or not, demonstrate the claimed victimhood and virtue of the accuser, or simply serve as a cry for attention.

In all likelihood men, and male DNA, have not changed in the past few million years or so. Men have always been the sexual aggressors (though sometimes women have consciously provoked that behavior – I'll deal with the more complete issue of the sexes in a future essay) and the question that arises is why, all of a sudden, there is a rash of complaints. It could be that societal norms and expectations have changed, or it could be a political tactic, but it has now become common, and fashionable, to claim sexual abuse by someone famous. And the pattern is to accept the accusation – with or without confirmatory evidence – and reject any denials.

Our society has become sympathetic to the cries of women. And, perhaps justifiably, sensitive to all their needs.

And the press and politicians are playing it for all it's worth.

November14, 2017

Men Are Men. Women Are Women.

Seems obvious, doesn't it? But not everyone accepts this formulation. It's the current view that people are what they consider themselves – what they think they are or what they want to be. DNA is not what they view as the deciding factor in the mix.

That's the mood of our society – actually of many societies. The watchword of the day is choice, and people are less inclined to be bound by existing scientific concepts or conventions that many associate with the past. It's not all bad but it raises some problems.

Evolution. We're divided into species, which are defined as groups that cannot fruitfully crossbreed. Perhaps they can produce offspring for a single generation, but not beyond. Survival and continuity of the species are important goals. Males and females of particular species are designed to procreate, though the offspring may have individual traits that vary from the “norm.” Homosexuality may occasionally occur but it is not ordinarily the “norm.” Most species are controlled by instinct and not by conscious choice. They don't make decisions based on intellect – not because they have none, but because the issue of sexual identity is not a part of their choice system as are meat and vegetables and territory, and safety.

We're human. We have a kind of intelligence that allows decision-making about a variety of things. And we can think about a lot, including who we “are.” “Who we 'are'” means that we can ponder our sexual identity as well as every other feature. And we can make decisions about that identity – decisions that we expect others to accept and, in recent years, decisions that we expect others to endorse. We no longer feel bound by the definitions and the expectations of the past. We now have LGBTQ (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transsexual, and queer people), and transgender as well, so identifying themselves and demanding support and understanding from all around them. And they maintain that theirs is not actually a life-style choice or a disease. They are born with the disposition to their sexual orientation. It's normal, and those who oppose it are bigots.

But “lower” species really show us the way. And the way is about survival of the species. In most instances the male has the responsibility for the survival of the present – protecting his family – while the female, by bearing children, provides for survival of the species into the future. In those animals we see pair-ups in male/female matings, and things seem to work out. “Boy-girl” relationships are usually dominant.

Only human beings, at least some of them, seem to question that course of action, and they are supported by those in society, the public opinion of their supporters, who promote free choice for all on all subjects. In their view everyone should be able to make whatever choices he/she/it wants. If someone deviates from what was the pattern until recently – that of humans as well as other species – it's our obligation to praise such action, not to criticize it. “Right” and “wrong” are better taught by the media than by parents and clergy. Any production or publication that does not feature, that and does not promote homosexuality and transgender identification, is viewed as sexist (much as a production that does not feature a mixed-race couple is racist).

I wonder if that “normal” condition existed in prehistoric times. If, as they say, it's a normal condition for them and they were born with it, we must assume that it's genetic and has been passed down for eons – millions of years, six thousand, or somewhere in between depending on your frame of reference.

And if it's genetic, if it derives from DNA, the response should be obvious: those who favor same-sex marriage should encourage it, but if you oppose same-sex marriage you should also encourage it. What better way to be sure that the responsible DNA doesn't get passed on to the next generation.

Win-win. They get what they want and those who don't favor that life-style choice – and it is a choice if we agree that when and where it was considered taboo there were fewer manifestations of that life-style – are likely to see the numbers going down. It may take a long time, but it may ultimately change societal fads and fashions.

Politics And Entertainment

I never thought I'd mention Snoopy, Neil deGrasse Tyson, and Neville Chamberlain in the same sentence. (Actually I never considered the possibility at all, positively or negatively.) But now I've done it, and I won't mention them by name again. I will, however, write about some of the things that tie them together in my mind. And, I assume, yours. After all, every day the world seems to be getting smaller, and nowadays “we're all connected” (see https://www.pinterest.com/pin/569846159070661982/ for source. There are better references but the URLs include the name of the originator). I don't mean the telephone or social media. And I'm not alluding to six degrees. Our ideas are connected as well.

When I was growing up I enjoyed reading the comics. And I've continued to do so, though some of the changes have been, in my view, unfortunate. Over the years I've enjoyed Mutt and Jeff, The Katzenjammer Kids, Li'l Abner, Dick Tracy, Peanuts, The Lone Ranger, Bloom County, and numerous others. They were distracting, and often funny. I was entertained by them. Some of them may still exist, but they're not in my paper.

And I liked the popular music of my youth. And the movies. So when I watched Kukla, Fran, and Ollie on our antediluvian Dumont it was because I found it entertaining. The same was true when I went to the theater or, on rare occasion, a dance performance. I went to be entertained – not lectured.

That, as the saying goes, was then. It was a time when “first down” in a football game referred to the playing of the game, not the “honor” of being the first to kneel during the National Anthem. Respect the National Anthem and the flag now and you must be a racist. We live now, sadly, in a time when everyone is likely to be opinionated and every opinion is loudly expressed or provocatively demonstrated.

I don't want to suggest that the arts have not always been political to some degree. Artists, like everyone else, have opinions, but it wasn't always as obvious and “in your face” as it is now. Pogo was certainly involved, but his politics were gentler than those in Doonesbury, where anti-Republican rants are standard fare. And popular music has always contained examples of comment on the society of the time (eg We're in the money) but they were friendly and humorous as opposed to the hip-hop and”folk songs” which are in vogue now. (Instrumental music, like Shostakovitch's To October and The Year 1917 also “comment” on political issues and society at least in the composer's mind, but lacking “lyrics” they don't intrude.)

What strikes me about all this is that we're now living in a time when the most important thing anyone can do is make a point. And there is no arguing with that point if you're not to become an outsider. Everything is subsumed under the general headings of diversity and free speech. Nothing can exist except by making obeisance to these social gods. There's no such thing as a sports event, for example, without a political view expressed. Failure to follow the fashion of the times is likely to cause one to be sent to Coventry. We may honor and require diversity, but we demand uniformity in all we support – uniformity in our allegiance to whatever is the current dogma.

It doesn't matter what that is. Whatever is discussed must contain some favorable mention of the “right” position. Archie, no matter the view of bigoted dissenters, had to die defending a gay man. The New York Times must find fault with President Trump irrespective of the subject of the article. Rap “songs” frequently promote sex and crime – especially against the police – and their words are viewed as poetry. Opposition to transgender activity is clearly a proof of prejudice – for that is not the preferred view – and displays of interracial relationships are de rigueur. And we're intolerant of anyone whose attitudes or words differ from ours. They're wrong and don't deserve to be heard.

Diplomats have a different perspective. While I may not agree with their goals and tactics in general, there is one tool that they use that can be productive – at least productive of what they are trying to achieve, which may be ill-advised. It is compartmentalization. They can separate issues, and not require that unrelated matters be mutually dependent. Comedy and dance don't have to be based on politics; there needn't be concurrence on all matters before there is agreement on one. They can agree to disagree, and they can politely listen to arguments that may not correspond to their own ideas. They disagree, but they learn – at least about the views of those they consider their enemies.

One of the big issues of our time is the existence of “safe spaces” which are designed to exclude anyone with an unwanted perspective. Safe spaces make sense. But the goal must be to exclude rhetoric, posturing, required uniformity, and anything that promotes the merging of unrelated issues. We need to bring back entertainment that is entertainment, not a vehicle for political ideology. And we need discussion that is more than the promotion of a political view that isn't incitement to riot or to silence the opposition or to cause believers to deface their symbols. That's not free speech. It's propaganda.

October 1, 2017

The Precoi

Slavery is slavery. How's that for tautology? But it helps if I describe what I view as slavery. And that is the condition when one individual is under the control of another. He has no free will. He makes no independent decisions. They're not his to make. Only his master decides what he is to do and what his fate is. In ancient Rome slavery was accompanied by the power of life and death, and in more recent examples it was sometimes accepted and sometimes rejected. But even when rejected it was often tolerated. The control was, for all intents and purposes, total.

Murder is murder. It doesn't matter if the victim is nine days old, nineteen years old, ninety-nine, or somewhere in between. Or beyond these numbers one way or another. Killing an innocent individual is considered murder in virtually all modern societies and it is banned – though, as with slavery, the ban is sometimes overlooked.

What about abortion? The Guttmacher Institute estimates that between 2011 and 2014 there were about 56 million abortions annually. That's a lot of humans who never experienced extrauterine life or any form of liberty. Until they were murdered, they were slaves. Of course such a formulation requires a better description of a human being. From my perspective, whatever is alive and has the potential for being a human being is a human being. Many will disagree with me, but that is my view and what I'll use for the remainder of this essay. I don't think there is much difference between a fetus that will be born later today and one born this morning. And if we go back days or weeks or months the same basic premise applies. “Jane Roe” (Norma McCorvey), the plaintiff in the Roe v Wade case (and its “poster child”) said later

I was sitting in O.R.'s offices when I noticed a fetal development poster. The progression was so obvious, the eyes were so sweet. It hurt my heart, just looking at them. I ran outside and finally, it dawned on me. 'Norma', I said to myself, 'They're right'. I had worked with pregnant women for years. I had been through three pregnancies and deliveries myself. I should have known. Yet something in that poster made me lose my breath. I kept seeing the picture of that tiny, 10-week-old embryo, and I said to myself, that's a baby! It's as if blinders just fell off my eyes and I suddenly understood the truth— that's a baby!

The Supreme Court may have decided one way, but Roe decided another. As did Mary Doe (Sandra Cano was “Doe” in Doe v Bolan, a case which also supported abortion, but was repudiated by Cano.)

Abortion is murder. However it's sanctioned by the courts. It's the law of the land. But perhaps the issue should rethought. There are approximately a million abortions in the United States each year. That's the official number. In all likelihood the count is much higher since some are reported as non-stigmatizing procedures such as diagnostic d and c, or given some other such non-political title. But that's not the issue. Each year we lose a million children who may have grown up to be scientists, musicians, writers, teachers, and all sorts of other things. With the aid of the medical profession, their parents murdered them.

Why do people choose to abort. Clearly the pregnancy is unwanted by at least one of the parents, almost invariably the mother. The pregnancy is usually unplanned, although there may after the fact consideration. And many occur among unmarried women.

The reasons patients gave for having an abortion underscored their understanding of the responsibilities of parenthood and family life. The three most common reasons—each cited by three-fourths of patients—were concern for or responsibility to other individuals; the inability to afford raising a child; and the belief that having a baby would interfere with work, school or the ability to care for dependents. Half said they did not want to be a single parent or were having problems with their husband or partner. Also from Guttmacher)

They seem like good reasons, but murder is murder. They wouldn't kill their two-year-old so they could provide for the fetus, so what makes the reverse acceptable? If there is concern over other responsibilities, consideration should have been given to contraception or abstention. Most adults know “the facts of life” and the relationship of coitus to pregnancy, and should have factored in that possibility in their behavior. And intercourse may not be the best way to deal with problems – with your partner or anyone else.

Not all sexual relations are voluntary and there may be a desire to be rid of the evidence and burden if pregnancy results. The goal is understandable but not the means. Another concern, especially among the unmarried, is that the father will deny any responsibility or help in the support and raising of the child.

No. Those are excuses. Abortion is the best solution some people have for an unwanted pregnancy – usually an avoidable pregnancy. There are many contraceptive medicines and devices available that will avoid the issue. But coitus is pleasurable. And, sadly, it is often spontaneous with relatively little consideration of the consequences, among the married and the single. Which is the basis for my proposal. (And it is a serious proposal. Not a satire.)

The inspiration for the proposal is the already existing and popular prenuptial agreement (a “prenup”). That agreement spells out the circumstances to be covered and the penalties for failure to do so. My specific suggestion is a “precoi,” a precoital agreement. Details would be spelled out on numbered one-page clearly-worded, understandable sheets that would list the date, names of the participants, and the obligation of the male to provide DNA if paternity is questioned, and monetary and psychological support if is shown to be the case. The extent of the support could be left to a judge or a panel. The document would be signed by both parties, and they would agree that abortion, murder, is not an option. Both would agree to take responsibility for such an action. (And the abortionist is equally guilty and should share their fate.)

A variety of beneficial effects can be anticipated from such a procedure (although some would argue on that point). First of all it would slow down an affair or a connection that is proceeding too rapidly. It gives both parties a few moments to think. Indeed, it may result in the decision not go further – and that would certainly lessen the number of abortions. The document, if available at a legal proceeding, would establish consent. Absence of the document might suggest consent and spontaneity (and finessing the document), although the same result might follow rape (and the absence of the document) or a questionable accusation (and its destruction). The need for the justice system to make that determination remains, although the absence of the slip, if not reported immediately, would be a consideration for the adjudicator.

The agreement would be a starting point if there is any need to establish paternity. The willingness to provide DNA, and its availability would be of great value in such an endeavor. The results of such testing would help in the establishment of both monetary responsibility if the child is alive, and guilt if there has been an abortion. (Whether this agreement, which was obtained for an entirely different purpose – monetary responsibility – from the decision to “terminate the pregnancy,” constitutes inadmissible self-incrimination would be decided by the judiciary.) If a father is not identified, society should support the mother rather than allowing her to have an abortion.

But the most important result of such a document would often be the avoidance of a murder, and the continued life of a human being. It is the responsibility of society to make life worth living, but society has no right to sanction the murder of an innocent party.

The document would have its greatest application when the participants aren't married, but there are times when even married couples decide that an abortion is necessary. That's a legal issue. Monetary responsibility, which is the focus of the agreement, is usually not in question. Nonetheless, this, or a similar agreement, should be considered.

Bottom line: abortion is murder. I've said it several times both because I believe it and because society apparently does not. That's the first principle to be established. And the obligation to provide a good life for the survivor comes close behind.

September 25, 2017

Various Thoughts XI

I've been reminded (most gently) that I sometimes get things wrong. It's something hard for me to admit since I've always seen myself as perfect. (But see “The Law Is An Ass,” June 18, 2017, Comments.) Oh well, the best I can be is close to perfect. In any event, I won't hesitate to inform you of what I consider (close to) the truth – my thoughts. Let's begin.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

I heard an interesting term today. Self abuse. It referred to damage which people may do to themselves, knowingly or not. No malice is buried in the term, despite the fact that we usually understand "abuse" to imply intentional harm inflicted by one person on another. Words morph. Language changes over time. Does it matter? If children stop understanding what "clockwise" means because all they see are digital listings of the time, there will certainly be another term to convey the same idea. Or will there be?

There have been many proposals over time that we establish some kind of panel to keep track, or even pass judgment, over new words and expressions in (American) English. Is that warranted? Will it work? Words (and the ones I choose are random) don't mean what they did when I was young. "Marriage," "cool," "gay," "liberal," and, in this instance, "abuse" had different connotations if not denotations. And both are at risk of being doomed? Words are losing their value. Is there anything we can do about it? And should we? I'm not suggesting that we stop the development of new words. Only that we don't forget what words used to mean.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

I'm an old-fashioned creep. When I was young, family entertainment included Father Knows Best and Leave It To Beaver. There was no cursing on TV, and sexual identities were certain. And we got to see June Cleaver, the ideal modern woman.

Times have changed. I'm a fan of Madam Secretary which, when I started watching, was fairly staid. In the past season we have seen an affair, an unplanned pregnancy, a man "coming out" as bisexual, as well as children who often "diss" their parents – at least the son does.

Now, on television and in the movies, cursing is routine and homosexual and LGBTQ themes are rife – disproportionate to the numbers in the live population. At least I hope so. Ditto what we used to call pornography. (Society seems not only to describe and illustrate what used to be viewed as "perversions," but to lionize them – to make them appear mainstream and desirable.) The Supreme Court (notwithstanding Justice Stewart) may view virtually all expression as free, but I'm not sure I agree. (They view all non-dangerous speech as allowable though we disagree about what is dangerous.) It seems to me that there should be limitations as to what we and our children should be exposed to. Not just warnings.

I don't consider myself an enemy of free speech, but parents should not have to read children's books before deciding their appropriateness for their offspring. Or is that unjustified censorship? Should there be some restrictions on freedom of expression or do we live in a world where, as Cole Porter put it, Anything Goes?

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Lemon flavoured custards, puddings and pies have been enjoyed since Mediaeval times, but meringue was perfected in the 17th century. Lemon meringue pie, as it is known today, is a 19th-century product. The earliest recorded recipe [for lemon meringue pie] was attributed to Alexander Frehse, a Swiss baker from Romandie. (Wikipedia)

I love lemon meringue pie, but I can't imagine how Alexander Frehse came up with the idea. More and more bizarre (in my not-so-humble opinion) combinations of flavors are being promoted – lemon and meringue are, however, not bizarre. What prompts chefs to come up with these recipes other than a desire to “wow” the public, impress the critics, and make money?

It's not just an American phenomenon. The idea of merging chocolate, hot peppers, and chicken is totally foreign to me and I've never tried chicken mole pablano. Neither have I any desire to do so. Talk about illegal immigrants. Perhaps I'm narrow minded but a charred steak is much more appealing. If you start with a tasty product you don't have to add or cover it with strange ingredients. Except, of course, to attract attention and money. I guess those are good reasons.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Time to turn off my brain.

Various Revelations/Ideas V

Boy am I arrogant. I viewed my ideas and the various thoughts I have as “revelations.” They're not, of course. Merely my uncertainties. That's the reason for the placement of “Ideas” along with “Revelations.” Next time around I'll drop the latter altogether but I thought I'd keep it for this transition piece – also, as usual, a hodge-podge of thoughts that I'm too lazy to convert into full essays.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

On the back page of the first section of yesterday's New York Times is an ad for the “Nest Learning Thermostat.” it reads: “Global warming is a lot of hot air.” That's true, but a little misleading. From the point of view of denotation it's absolutely correct, but “hot air” has a connotation – “false bluster” – that strikes me as totally inappropriate to the message of the ad which is

Today and every day, our mission at Nest is to create a home that takes care of the people inside it. And the world around it.

Sounds noble, but the debate is political as well as scientific, and mixing metaphors, or whatever Nest is doing, doesn't help. But it may sell thermostats. And, after all, that's the reason they invested in a full-page advertisement.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Also in yesterday's Times was a 35 column-inch (actually it was much larger when you add in the headlines and pictures) on the race for mayor of Omaha, Nebraska – a city of great importance to New Yorkers. Featured in the story were Heath Mello, the Democratic candidate, and Bernie Sanders who, though not a Democrat, involves himself greatly in Democratic politics and prides himself on his populist approach to party members. The article focused of abortion and the economy, two subjects of interest to Nebraska voters.

Interestingly, the article, which began on the front page of the Times (above the fold) neglected to mention the name of his opponent, Jean Stothert, Omaha's mayor, and the winner of the first round of the election. I suspect that in an article as long and as prominently placed as this one the editors could have found room to include this information for their readers.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

A final thought relates to Jewish law. A group large enough to pray together is called a minyan. It consists of ten male Jews above the age of thirteen. How this definition came about is not the point of my mental maunderings and I won't pursue it.

Imagine, though, a situation in which the rabbi walked into a synagogue and saw a woman sitting among the men. Her outfit was tznius (modest) and her sheitel (wig) lovely. All appeared to be in accordance with Jewish law. But she was sitting in the men's section and counting her and the rabbi there were ten. When questioned “she” insisted that she was a man by birth but identified more with women than men, and dressed accordingly. No surgery had been performed and “her” sex could be confirmed. No one else came.

Because of the requests to say Kaddish (a prayer in remembrance of the dead) a decision has to be made as to whether there is a minyan present. At most non-orthodox synagogues women are counted, if there is a requirement for a minyan at all. But not here and the question exists. Should the “woman” be counted? She is certainly a man and eligible according to law, but her dress suggests a rejection of her status. And the question of maris ayin ("appearance to the eye") has to be considered as well.

I suspect this idle thought has already been considered by those in the know but I'm not one or them. So, in the meanwhile, I can imagine.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

A few more IDEAS next time.

April 23, 2017

Rest In Peace

A few days ago, on the Op Ed page of the New York Times, there was a column by Gail Collins entitled The Senate Bathroom Angle. In it Ms. Collins related the tribulations of Maryland Senator Barbara Mikulski. (It will be soon be former senator, Mikulski having retired after four terms representing her state.) The senator bewailed the lack of adequate rest rooms for women in the Senate and the column's author, in fact, noted that “Almost every veteran woman legislator, in every level of government, has a story about the shortage of bathroom facilities at work.”

It's a valid criticism. When the original government was formulated, and when the government buildings were first designed, the idea of women in the government was not on the radar (and neither was radar). In relation to the particular situation, no one conceived of the idea that there might be a woman senator. So no rest rooms were included to meet the needs of a group of people that no one expected to exist. There were, of course, facilities ultimately constructed to serve senators' wives, and for tourists, but none for woman legislators. The public rooms, and the one meant for Senate wives, became the place for female senators to rest.

But with increasing numbers – about a fifth of all senators now are women, and it's likely to increase – a more fitting solution was necessary, and, in its wisdom, Congress authorized a rest room with two stalls to satisfy the women, and perhaps there will be more. Wait and see. But in the meantime, just wait.

It doesn't seem adequate, but perhaps it's excessive.

The same issue of the Times held an article entitled North Carolina Fails To Repeal Measure That Caused Boycotts. It lamented the fact that North Carolina didn't overturn legislation (H. B. 2) that “requires transgender people [and everyone else] in public buildings to use the bathroom that corresponds with the gender [sex] on their birth certificate.” It's a touchy subject.

Elsewhere in the article it notes “Chad Griffin, the president of the Human Rights Campaign, which opposed H. B. 2 and helped to organize the economic backlash to the law, said on Twitter that Mr. Berger's measure 'doubles down on discrimination … '” (Phil Berger is a state senator who had offered a compromise bill.) The Human Rights Campaign, which has, as its motto “Working for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Equal Rights,” had this to say about Senator Mikulski: Sen. Mikulski received a 100% rating on the HRC Scorecard for the 113th Congress. The scorecard rates members of Congress on their positions on LGBT-related legislation.

With the knowledge that Congress is a government institution, and is housed in public buildings, I cannot but wonder that the senator sought additional, and separate, rest room facilities for women. Senator Mikulski's support for LGBT positions in the past suggests that a better solution from her point of view would be an elimination of the entire notion of sex-limited rest room facilities, and I'm inclined to believe that even for Senators and Representatives there is no reason why “people in public buildings [should have to] use the bathroom that corresponds with the gender on their birth certificate.” Whether they're LGBT or not isn't the issue, and making it such is a disservice to the public that Congress serves.

It's a foreign concept I suppose, but shouldn't our representatives have to follow the same rules that they say should govern the rest of us?

Love And Marriage

It shouldn't be taken as cause and effect. It's just coincidence. My last essay dealt with the death sentence and this one with marriage. But there's no relationship between the two. At least not in this case. (The Gentleman doth protest too much, methinks? Nah. The essay is all true. And I consider being called a “Gentleman” an insult.)

Sex, love, and marriage. They're three very different states and acts, but there are also times when they're connected. The order of the three, however, – if, in fact, all apply in a particular instance – is quite variable. What used to be conventional, and is still often the case, is love, marriage, and sex (l/m/s).

The original pattern, which pre-existed any emotional or legal attachments, was sex. Period. It was practiced throughout the animal kingdom – usually, but not invariably – without any hint of monogamy. It was instinctual and enjoyable, and contributed to the survival of the species. And, prior to the institution of religion and secular law, unaccompanied sex was also the pattern among members of our species. (Unaccompanied by love or marriage. Wash your mind out with soap if you put another construction than that on my words.)

But homo sapiens became “civilized,” and adopted the trappings of a civilized society. And that society demanded formalization of the pattern and the creation of the family. (The pattern was formalized at least on paper – or pottery or parchment – however less “civilized” practices persisted off the books.) But that pattern (l/m/s) has withered as the polite rules of society have broken down. (It may have worked in my time – and it's still practiced by many – however it no longer seems to be the standard.) People are less “hung up” on the strictures that previous generations mouthed. The taboos of the past are gone. What used to be called “free love” – now simply termed “benefits” – is considered the norm. The incidence of “out-of-wedlock” babies and single parent families has risen rapidly in recent decades, and the rate of abortions has also grown in order to clean up the mess that our new morality encourages. Sexual mores (read: “more sex”) have changed, times have changed, and so have societal expectations.

A rabbi I heard (I can't remember who it was) pointed out the current pattern in American society (and, presumably, others as well), was l/s or s/l, and sometimes m. Pleasure and emotions take precedence over order and the future. In Orthodox Judaism, however, the pattern is the opposite – m/s/l – with marital stability most important and the raising of children a priority over the physical aspects of sex (at least in theory). It results from the disposition to arrange marriages – the province of the parents rather than the participants. Interestingly, divorce rates are lower than the norm and, by definition, so are single parent households. (The same, of course, is true in other cultures that favor arranged marriages.) Not all of the unions are happy or survive, but most do because the expectations of the participants are different from those of other wedded couples. Their commitment is to the marriage and the family, not as much to themselves. Of course the same can be said of many marriages based on love.

The idea of an arranged marriage, however, is anathema to the romantic notions which our society promotes. There's a lot to be said for love, but outside of movies, magazines, and fairy tales, it is, itself, a novelty. Actually movies, magazines, and romantic novels today are more reflective of the new concept of morality than the old. And television seems to be leading the way. Sex seems to be the focus of relationships, with love and marriage only secondary features. Freud would approve. The pleasure principle has triumphed over commitment.

I found the following on the web site of the American Psychological Association. It's adapted from the “Encyclopedia of Psychology.”

Marriage and divorce are both common experiences. In Western cultures, more than 90 percent of people marry by age 50. Healthy marriages are good for couples’ mental and physical health. They are also good for children; growing up in a happy home protects children from mental, physical, educational and social problems. However, about 40 to 50 percent of married couples in the United States divorce. The divorce rate for subsequent marriages is even higher.

(The point is often made that in a home where there is discord, it is better if the parents divorce rather than try to make a go of it for the sake of the children, who will be scarred by the environment in which they are raised. While there's much that can be said for that perspective, a union based on passion rather than pragmatism is more likely to fail and necessitate divorce.)

Robert Epstein, a Senior Research Psychologist at the American Institute for Behavioral Research and Technology reports:

“... feelings of love in arranged marriages tend to gradually increase as time goes on in the relationship, whereas in so called “love marriages,” where attraction is based on passionate emotions, a couple’s feelings for each other typically diminish by as much as fifty percent after only eighteen to twenty-four months of marriage.”

That's not so unexpected since in arranged marriages love was not a consideration prior to the union, whereas in marriages based on love – love often misrepresented in the media and in romanticized mythology and fairy tales – there's a lot of room for unmet expectations and dashed hopes. So if a marriage is based on unrealistic dreams rather than a commitment of a family, it's less likely to survive.

The primary component of a successful marriage is commitment. (My wife and I have been married over 55 years.) Love changes over time and, under the right circumstances, deepens. Finding the right mate based on passion and “love at first sight” is all too often a myth. Mr. Right is in her mind, and Ms. Right in his. Their commitment and cooperation are necessary, along with a reasonable of shared likes and dislikes.

Sex can be a nice bonus, but when it comes to marrying, sex is no substitute for real love – or for the wisdom of one's parents.

Next episode: “The Earth Moved” – At least the sidewalk.

Growing Down

                                                        

The states of our health and our well-being, have never been greater. And, to a very great degree, we have medical science to thank for that. That's what has happened with time, and there is every expectation that continued research will lead to further improvements. We have made childbirth – the continuation of our species – less hazardous, we've improved nutrition, conquered many diseases once believed to be incurable, lessened pain and other feared symptoms making the end of life more bearable for many, and advancements in care have increased our lifespans significantly.

But life could be better, and society as well, with some changes in our normal development, and it is in this area that I think medical research can have its greatest impact. Let me explain.

It's normal for a baby to soil himselfⁱ making extra work for his motherⁱⁱ who is trying to deal with the other children – her own and those over for a play date – who are running and screaming like wild animals.ⁱⁱⁱ In addition, as teenagers, it will be normal for them to know everything (ask them if you don't believe me) and to find fault with their parents and grandparents, who actually have greater knowledge along with experience and wisdom. Those in their twenties and thirties are likely to be physically stronger than those older or younger, with the elderly being especially frail.

And the same young and middle-aged adults can be expected to have prodigious appetites for everything, especially food and sex.^iv It's the time when most young women want to have children^v and there are always men eager to indulge them (and themselves). Once those children have completed their education and are out of the house and beginning their own families, and once the parents have recouped some of the expenses they incurred rearing the children, they're put out to pasture. It's harsh to characterize retirement that way, but many people consider it in those terms. And, sadly, that's the way it often is. As one of my friends put it, “anyone who considers these the 'golden years' must be young.” With them come aches and pains, memory loss, the loss of other capacities once dear, and loss of energy and strength to tarnish those years. Oh well, you can always look forward to dotage.

The various stages of life are described by many great writers. Over the years not much has changed in the order of things. But I suspect that with a little tinkering by our medical scientists, geneticists, biochemists, and their ilk, we could rearrange things a little.

For example, it would be a relief to mothers (and fathers, too) if babies weren't incontinent. They're likely to have that problem in their eighties or nineties (if they make it) anyway, so why not combine it all in that stage. And give the energy of children to that group of seniors so that we don't have to take care of them. In exchange perhaps we could take their wisdom and experience and give them to the teenagers so they can start to realize that they don't know everything. Soon enough, with the proper education to provide knowledge to accompany the wisdom, they may start acting like human beings. Meanwhile, with their energy levels reduced significantly, children will be easier to manage by overworked mothers. And possibly, if some of that energy could be transferred to fathers, they could help a little when they came home from work.^vi

We need to work on dad a little, too. In the first couple of decades of the marriage his energy at home seems to be focused, in large part, on mom and the bedroom. Mom often has mixed feelings about the whole thing because of the possibility of pregnancy and nursing in the middle of the night. Society has convinced her that she is a bad mother if she resorts to a bottle, so while dad can ignore the problem at two AM,^vii mom has to get up and feed the baby. The best solution is to lower the sexual appetites of the two – to put their peaks off until later in life. In the meantime they can get the rest^viii they need to help them through the day.

A good time to restore the urge to mom would be just after menopause. There would be no fear of an unwanted pregnancy that way.^ix Perhaps we should wait a little with dad just to be sure. Give mom the opportunity for a fling or two. Many of the men with sexually transmissible diseases will have died off, or become less of a risk, which will be of great benefit. But when dad does return to the field of battle it will be with less strength than he had a couple of decades earlier. In fact there's a good possibility^x he'll have ED by that time and have lost his ability, if not his interest, in becoming a dirty old man.

I'm sure you can think of other changes you'd make. It's a new science. But soon enough we'll have perfect specimens to clone. We're already working on designer babies so it's simply a matter of deciding what we want. And the alterations that I'm proposing would not only benefit the individual, but society as a whole.

There's a Nobel Prize waiting out there. Go for it.

Next episode: “Mom, Spinach, And The Supreme Court” – Food for thought.

i      I know that's not PC. Make it “herself or himself” or, if your grammar is faulty, “theirself.” And make appropriate changes when necessary in the remainder of the essay.

ii     Don't criticize me for sexual stereotyping. I'm simply recognizing reality, not prescribing what some members of society want to be the case.

iii     No slight on wild animals is intended.

iv     The appetite of teenagers for sex is also great, although fantasy is often more the issue than reality. A teenage boy (there I go again) however, is likely to indulge his huge appetite for food the moment it crosses his mind.

v      Leading, of course, to the situations described above.

vi     I'm stereotyping again.

vii    And four AM, and midnight, and whenever else it's necessary.

viii   I should have said “sleep.” “Rest” is subject to misinterpretation.

ix    It would be good for society as well. Fewer unwanted pregnancies would minimize the political problems, as well as the medical costs, of abortions.

x      A very good possibility for many wives. Anyway he's a pig and it serves him right.

Sex And The Single Cell

 

It all started with a single cell.ⁱ Life, I mean. And then, after a long time,ⁱⁱ we reached our (sub) species – Homo sapiens (sapiens).

The earliest cells were sexless. They were all pretty much the same. But as the cells divided so did the species, and ultimately there developed a system of reproduction based upon two different “types” within each species – a “male” and a “female.” Usually in the animal kingdom, but certainly not invariably, the two types occurred in different individuals. That's the way it is in humans, and weⁱⁱⁱ are grateful for it. Men are different from women. Oh! You noticed. Anyway, vive la différence!

Along the way patterns developed. The females bore the young and cared for them.^iv The males, who begot those young, generally hunted and provided sustenance for all. They usually retained the ability to father longer than the females retained their fertility, but the females typically outlived the males. And that's the way it is now. It's generally accepted, and “the way things are” among most species. It's the unquestioned pattern among lions, elephants, mice, and sheep, and many others. Only among humans is there a questioning of these roles. We're the only species that denigrates that difference^v and in which significant numbers of our members seek to possess the attributes of the other type. And in many ways^vi that's difficult or impossible. Because of evolution.

Men and women are different in terms of visible anatomy, and it's becoming clearer and clearer that we're wired differently. We have different hormonal systems, temperaments, emotions, and interests. Because we're wired differently, we think and act differently. Clearly, whatever the contribution of nurture and culture, there is a major component of difference that can be attributed to nature.^vii

But evolution occurs in many ways. While it's not completely clear how we got to this point, women now get more undergraduate and graduate degrees than men, they have higher salaries in some^viii age categories, they control most of consumer spending, and they've changed the nature of education. The classroom used to be faulted for teaching boys at the expense of girls, but it seems to be the other way now. And there's been a change in the language.^ix “He” used to be the default pronoun, but nowadays “they,”^x and often “she,” are finding their way into print and speech more and more often.^xi And, for a variety of reasons, distinctions between the sexes^xii are being played down or eliminated. Among others, unisex clothing, toilets, and hair-care establishments are common, and many schools and jobs that formerly were identified with one sex or the other are now “personed” equally, or now have more members of the group that once either shunned the positions or were shunned by them. Unisex has replaced unicell (with a long stop for two sexes along the way). In part this may be attributed to a changing of qualifications for membership which may or may not be appropriate. However other causes can be assumed as well. Some kind of evolution seems to be responsible for many of the changes. If that evolution is social or political, it is evolution nonetheless. Perhaps it represents the victory of brains over brawn, though to characterize the possessors of either of those qualities would be frowned upon in our current society.^xiii

Not that the changes are bad. There's no denying that males have used physical means to maintain their position in society and that females have been limited by their role as the bearers of children. But there are many, both men and women, who favor this situation – this division of responsibilities. Many men are flustered by competition for jobs by women, and many women resent the pressure to be childless or to have their husbands or other surrogates rear their children. To a great degree, evolution has conditioned us to be like our ancestors in this regard, whether we are speaking of humans or of humanity's predecessors.

One feature of the change cannot be explained adequately by evolution, however. That is the apparent increase in identification with a gender other than that determined biologically. It's not clear if this is a real change or reflects the greater visibility of those who would have been unknown in the past. The emergence of preferences for relationships between members of the same sex should not be discouraged, but it is obvious that such “matings” will not be reproductive ones.^xiv They will not contribute to survival of the species. ^xv

And language is an issue here as well as it is in other contexts. I used to view “marriage” in a particular way, and I think it's useful to retain the term with its traditional meaning. I'd rather use “union” or some other term for the coupling of individuals of the same sex. Perhaps a term can be invented to suit that purpose and make it unnecessary to blur the distinctions between the different forms of pairing. But I suspect that blurring is the aim, and my suggestion will not be acceptable to many. Moreover I can understand the need for “partner” when dealing with same-sex unions,^xvi but I am unable to comprehend the trend for its use between married couples of opposite sexes. In the past “husband” and “wife” served this function pretty well. Anyway, language evolves, and its changes, as well as the behavioral ones, are realities.

In any event, from my perspective, a few guidelines for the new society are in order. First of all, opportunities and rewards for men and women^xvii should be equal, but they should not be made to be equal. If there are valid reasons for particular requirements – such as anatomic or physiological reasons – they should not be changed, simply because a change is possible. If, for example, a certain amount of strength or intelligence is needed for a particular job, that requirement should not be eased in the service of “equality.”^xviii It is obvious that the setting of requirements will be a problem, and the choice of the those who set the rules will be a difficult issue. But that should not deter us from trying.

Choice should be available to all, in the form of contraceptives for those who want, and in the acceptance of “life-styles” of every conceivable^xix kind – choice is certainly preferable to pressure – however

People should not be forced into associations with those with whom they may feel uncomfortable, nor should they be belittled for their feelings.^xx

Individuals and families should be able to choose a “traditional” life or any other form without worrying about pressure from those who criticize their choice.^xxi A single “acceptable” option – with any other considered betrayal – removes any possibility of free will. One choice is no choice.

In order to increase the likelihood of equality, boys and girls should be taught separately, in settings and with techniques fitted to their style of learning. Neither should be held back because the methods are not suitable.

These guidelines would be a start. Women will still live longer than men and they will be healthier (and should have pension benefits and insurance costs which recognize these differences) but the changes required by a limiting society would be minimized. People want different things and the choice should be theirs, with no society norms that must be followed – assuming there is no harm to others.^xxii

But being equal is not the same as being identical. It's nice^xxiii to have men and women. The system seems to work, and it's a lot of fun.

Next episode “Sez Who?” – It's not what you say, it's how you say it.

 

i     At least for those who accept the idea of evolution. If you believe otherwise you will probably not agree, but that dispute is for another time.

ii    I won't involve myself in arguments about the precise number of years, but it's been a while.

iii    At least most of us.

iv     That's not true of the entire animal kingdom, but it's the rule among mammals.

v    It's interesting that we deny the differences of men and women while glorying in “multiculturalism” and magnifying the differences among other groups – sometimes inventing characteristics and distinctions for them which improve their image in comparison to our own.

vi    But not all.

vii   According to the (“feminist”) dogma, the differences between the sexes are primarily based on what we are taught – nurture – as opposed to nature. After all, more than 98% of the genes of the two sexes are the same. Of course more than 98% of a woman's genes are the same as those of a female chimpanzee, but that is a distraction from the “truth” of the nurture hypothesis.

viii   A minority to be sure.

ix    At least in English. I don't know what changes, if any, have occurred in other tongues.

x     My favorite example is the new expression, “To each their own.”

xi    One of my favorite expressions is “To each, their own.”

xii    We now call them “genders,” which is, itself, a change in the language.

xiii    Indeed, the carriers of culture, movies, television, and the like, make a point of putting women in roles intended to demonstrate their power – physical and professional.

xiv    Adoption is an option for these couples, but the reproduction is usually done by others. Even artificial insemination requires people of opposite sexes.

xv    The argument can be made that childless unions are preferable to world overpopulation and abortion, and that as such they have evolutionary value. The existence of homosexuality prior to such overpopulation weakens this argument.

xvi    And in situations where unmarried people are living together.

xvii    Whatever their sexual orientation.

xviii   I recall one production of “On The Town” in which a Japanese man had the role of guard at an American naval port during World War II. It was a victory of equal opportunity, race-blind casting and equality over reality.

xix    That's probably a bad word to choose.

xx    “Hate speech” is just as deplorable when aimed at those who are accused of using it. Sadly, we live in an age when freedom of speech is subject to political review and approval given only to those who say the “right” things and use the right euphemisms.

xxi    See previous note. Because freedom of speech allows people to say almost anything, it is inevitable that one group will fault the ways of another. There's no stopping that. But we must all realize that we can and should pursue our own way of life irrespective of those criticisms. Those who feel and express them are the ones with the problem.

xxii    Obviously some rules are necessary. Every society must set limits on the actions of its members. Murder and molestation, for example, must be addressed.

xxiii   In my view.