Sex vs. Political Correctness?

The Left has some reason to worry that the newfound solicitude for sexual propriety spread by #MeToo might overflow the traditional bounds of political-correctness-as-weapon.

No different from demands regarding race and identity politics generally, the strictures of political correctness concerning sex do not define rights and wrongs. Rather, they claim authority to suppress such evils as the powerful may impute to their enemies. They also serve the ruling class’s war against Western Civilization. But current demands for “sensitivity” for women’s sense of sexual self-worth, rather than merely enhancing the power of better-connected people over less-connected ones, might actually lead America to consider what proper or improper sexual behavior is.

Neither P.C.’s partisan nature nor its corrosion of our civilization are in doubt. Elsewhere, I showed that Communists originated the term to distinguish between the “correctness” of what serves the Party’s interest from that which is factually correct—and that the Party’s paramount long-term interest lies in overcoming the reality that human beings perceive through the senses and reason with the Party’s “correct” version thereof.

Antonio Gramsci (1891-1937), the most durably influential of Communist theoreticians, had argued that re-orienting the popular mind away from the cultural icons of Western Civilization would anchor the Party’s power to a cultural hegemony impossible to break. Gramsci’s argument is all too well rooted in modern thought since Machiavelli, and cultural destruction has been part of every revolutionary movement at least since the French Revolution.

The fundamental problem with cultural revolution is that it is easier to destroy cultures than to replace them. The end-states sought are inherently undefinable. Each and every revolutionary will have his own ideas of what is proper and improper, since those ideas must be bound up with the struggles of each for his own power. As the revolutionaries clash, incoherence is guaranteed. Beyond that, no matter what the revolutionaries do to disorient people, human nature’s magnetic needles always end up pointing people away from that which is merely politically correct.

Of all human nature’s aspects, sex is among the most intractable to political power. Soviet teaching (see Marx and Engels’ “The Origins of the Family”) and policy reflected the Marxist notion that humans are animals, and the sexes are equally self-interested. As Soviet family policy see-sawed, natural families were wrecked. Powerful males lorded over females, as it is in the animal world, and females then acted defensively or manipulatively toward men. Russia is not a happy place, and its population is declining.

Here and now, a New York Times op-ed by Daphne Merkin reflects the sense growing among erstwhile P.C. revolutionaries of the feminist kind that they have been on the wrong path. Their most immediate concern is ordinary partisanship. Merkin and her friends find it “troubling” that men such as “Garrison Keillor, Jonathan Schwartz, Ryan Lizza and Al Franken” have been hurt by accusations they regard as unspecific and unproven. OK. But logic then leads to asking what behavior it should take to disqualify even such worthy people. Political correctness has no answers. “Scattershot, life-destroying denunciations” are not enough. “Due process is nowhere to be found.”

At this point, Merkin steps onto the slippery slope to objectivity about right and wrong. “What is the difference between harassment and assault and ‘inappropriate conduct’?” she writes. “There is a disturbing lack of clarity about the terms being thrown around and a lack of distinction regarding what the spectrum of objectionable behavior really is.” From a P.C. standpoint, this is a doubly dangerous thought. Were any such standards to be formulated, they would protect ordinary people, even conservatives, as well as the Left’s favorites. More important, they would have to be based on law, positive or even natural. That would be the end of sex P.C. as a weapon.

In fact, Merkin seems to worry that massive denunciations of sexual harassment are encouraging women to think beyond contemporary American paradigms of sexual behavior. Complaining about being “objectified” as sex objects has led some to conclude that they should dress and act less provocatively. Who’d have thunk it? Others are objecting to nudity in the arts and advertising. Such thoughts might lead to concluding that modern thought about sex is the opposite of liberation.

After all, if “consent” alone is needed for sex to be ok, and nearly all in Weinstein’s, Clinton’s et al.’s harems consented, what’s the problem? Maybe Hugh Hefner’s “Playboy Philosophy” did not liberate women. Maybe women leading male sexual lives and equating dating with intercourse, like Bunnies, has not been good for anybody. Maybe that, and abortion on demand, liberated not the best in women but the worst in men. Maybe women and men have souls, and the mingling of their bodies brings forth yet other souls. But how can we think that nowadays?

We may never get to such thoughts. But the spreading realization that many of America’s most iconic men have been treating women badly is freeing some of human nature’s magnetic needles from the bonds of political correctness.

Content created by the Center for American Greatness, Inc. is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a significant audience. For licensing opportunities for our original content, please contact

Want news updates?

Sign up for our newsletter to stay up to date.

85 responses to “Sex vs. Political Correctness?

  • Fascinating analysis. On a related note, in a 1997 essay, Professor Mary Ann Glendon wrote: “For spare moments, when regime-threatening questions might come to mind, the oligarchs have authorized a modern form of bread and circuses, an array of new sexual freedoms to compensate for the loss of the most basic civil right of all: the right of self-government.”

    Diana West included Glendon’s point in her excellent book, The Death of the Grown-Up, which I covered in a 2012 piece at American Thinker:

    Hopefully the “spreading realization” of which you write that could free from the bonds of political correctness will also result in more eyes opened to the relationship of virtue, liberty, and self-governance:

  • Would that it were true.

    But it’s not. For to consciously and deliberately re-examine/question the beliefs which drove 2nd, 3rd, and 4th Wave Feminism and, more specifically, the Sexual Revolution (the poison pill so gleefully swallowed by the Revolutionaries, proud as punch of their zipless f***s) would be to shatter the foundations upon which today’s Cultural Morality & Progressive Self-Righteousness stands.

    So they won’t.

    And though they express, per Merkin’s essay, some hesitation — NOT, I hasten to add, about the “heinous sorts” (like Lauer) but only about the ‘good guy / progressive sorts’ (like Keillor, Franken, and Lizza) — it is little more than ‘pose struck’, a kind of intellectual voguing & virtue signaling just to indicate some minimal level of human concern for the victims strewn in the wake of this insanity.

    And insanity it is.

    It’s not simply, as Merkin notes, ” a disturbing lack of clarity about the terms being thrown around and a lack of distinction regarding what the spectrum of objectionable behavior really is.’ Rather she should say that the disturbing lack of clarity is entirely deliberate…and rooted not just in the sexual contretemps of recent days but at least as far back as the idiocies produced by Dworkin & MacKinnon in the 80’s & 90’s. “The normal f***,” wrote Dwokin, “by a normal man is taken to be an act of invasion and ownership undertaken in a mode of predation.” This same criminalization of normal human sexual expression carried all the way through to the infamous campus rape studies which informed both the Obama White House initiatives (“Not Alone”) and the horrendously false assertion, repeated endlessly, that 20% of all women are raped/ sexually assaulted during their years on campus. They’re not. The actual number per FBI & Clery runs NOT at 20%…not at 5% but at .05%.

    But if these lies were exposed…if we actually spent some time considering what is and is not ‘acceptable’ or ‘reasonable’ or ‘expected’ sexual behavior in a world of responsible adults… the band would stop playing; the media would melt away; careers would be ruined; and the entire #metoo / Campus Rape Industry would become extinct. If these questions were asked, even the hesitant ones like Merkin would have to go back and reexamine their kneejerk reactions to the Lauer debacle….to the Louis CK fiasco…. the Mattress Girl Silliness… even the Stanford Dumpster situation.

    Which, of course, is why they won’t be.

    Merkin asks, “What happened to women’s agency?” And she is absolutely right to ask but she goes not nearly far enough. Rather than ask “Where is it?”, she should loudly and firmly assert, “It’s Here! We have it! We’ve always had it! Of course we have it!” At least that’s what must be said and what we must believe if we believe anything at all about the entire Feminist Movement.

    But if we listen to the stories (even the Lauer & Louis CK stories)…if we examine the constraints assumed by all the Rape Epidemiologists when they generate their “1 in 5” fantasies….then women lack not simply agency, they lack any semblance of maturity. By those who push the “America is a Rape Culture” meme, women cannot be held accountable if….they had something to drink…. if they’ve voluntarily consumed drugs… if they’ve been subject to male persuasion (we all know how powerful that is!)… if they’ve been psychologically pressured by men or ‘threatened’ (as in, and I quote, the ‘threat to no longer love them”). Men, on the other hand, we’re told, are always responsible because…well… they’re men.

    This entire #metoo frenzy does not highlight male sexual behavior nearly as much as it higlights and emphasizes the degree to which women are enthusiastically embracing their own infantilization. When Matt Lauer says, “Take your blouse off” or Louis CK tells his guests he’s going to masturbate for them….what full-grown adult female would limply acquiesce when — in their hearts — they didn’t want to??? Who are these women (girls?) that they simply ‘follow male orders’ (even though they know it’s wrong)? Are these the people we want breaking glass ceilings? leading major organizations? setting national policy when all it takes to induce them to act against their own best interests is a male voice? (I picture the RCA dog!)

    And if it were really that idiotically simple, why on earth doesn’t Trump simply tell Pelosi: “Pass my Republican Health Care Bill!” (Perhaps he should buy her a beer first?)

    The truth is, full-grown women DON’T act like that. The truth is full-grown women ARE responsible. The truth is that human sexuality is a messy, complex thing filled with misunderstanding, miscommunication, misinterpretation, wishful thinking, hormonal lust, unrequited desire, and more than its fair share of stubbed toes, hurt feelings, and entirely unanticipated / unwanted / regretted outcomes which were still ENTIRELY VOLUNTARY.

    Grow-up, as Merkin said, this is real life!

    And if that acknowledgement were also joined by a dawning understanding that human sexuality carries with it, always, a transcendent significance well beyond ‘mutual itch scratching’ — well, so much the better!

    • Great post… although I can’t bring myself to listen to anything Merkin says on sexuality, knowing what “merkin” means.

      • Thanks!
        And yes, that same thought about ‘merkin’ also came to mind!

      • Explain why…in detail. Are you still playing God? Can you prove God does NOT exist? Don’t keep running away from me. Answer the question!

      • Nonexistence can not be “proven” – your question is unanswerable and stupid. Something that does not exist cannot leave evidence.

        Now, YOU prove your god exists. If it does, there should be evidence.

        YOU will run away from my challenge because you can’t present any evidence for your imaginary god.

        Finally, the fact that something cannot be proven, does not logically mean the opposite is validated. The inability to disprove god is NOT proof OF god.

      • Again, you claim ‘I say it doesn’t exist so, nyah, nyah na na nah!’ It is obviously a childish response to a simple question. How do you know God does not exist? What proof do you have? My FAITH says we are answerable to God. God is NOT answerable to us, otherwise what would be the point in believing in Him. I do not need to PROVE His existence as my FAITH does not require it. It is you who goes without faith that has the problem with God, not we believers. Your haughty attitude is of one who evidently knows better than us mere church goers and bible thumpers.

        Great…Share that undeniable proof. I’m right here. Just show me your proof. If you cannot find a logical/scientific proof God does NOT exist, man up, claim that to be the case and let us indulge
        in our faith without your intolerance and ridicule. Otherwise…STFU.

      • How do you know so much about what god wants and doesn’t want? You must be very special!

        On the one hand, you argue that god is a matter of faith, not evidence. Then, you demand that I provide evidence that god doesn’t exist. Are we dealing in evidence or faith – you can;t have it both ways?

        As anyone with a logical mind knows, it is not possible to prove nonexistence. So, your demand is stupid. It is easy, however, to prove existence of that which actually exists – it leaves evidence. Ergo, if you claim there is a god, the onus is on YOU to provide the evidence for it.

        So, you’re saying that faith is mindless – once again, you agree with The Hominid!

      • You do prove yourself to be a moron. Faith and science are the same thing yet you
        want me to prove faith with science. How
        can you do that? I have talked to
        God-well, He talked to me. I have felt
        Him move through me. You will just
        blithely claim gibberish and lies. Your
        opinion is like an azzhole. Everyone has
        one and they all stink. So you can mock
        that which you have no proof doesn’t exist, I do agree though that you are a

        I told you what I know and you will deny it
        anyway. What is the use of talking to a

      • Thinking is tough. Step slowly away from the ideas before you pull something.

  • Great essay. You have illustrated the illogic that lies at the heart of leftism permeating every iota of leftism and feminism. The feminists insist we are every bit as equal and strong as men. Women insanely insist upon working side by side as if we were men into some quite tough professions. Please, please spare me your gentlemanly acts of deference, hold no doors for us. Pull out no chairs. Do not help us with our wraps. … wait, wait, you men are too strong for us, you must remember to treat us with deference in sex. Chivalry required at the point of physical contact, but verboten at any other interaction. Sheesh. Just stupid and selfish. To quote Owen Benjamin, “Get God, get a baby, and shut up!”

    • You noticed Dr. Codevilla’s point where everything in the debate diverges.

      The communist elite simply deny the existence of the soul. This is the confirming point along the road to evil.

      • Could you present some of these souls so I might explore their properties?

      • Like I said, provide me with a couple so that I might do as you demand.

      • How stupid is that? If I do as you ask, I wouldn’t care what you
        think, I’d have my own proof. When it
        comes to matters of religion, we “religionists” as you like to call
        us, operate on FAITH. You atheists
        operate on pure science and logic. Faith
        does not need evidence to be employed.
        Science and logic do. So, Mr.
        Science, my FAITH says I have a soul.
        PROVE to me I do not, or as I said before…STFU.

      • So, you admit that you are irrational — you agree with The Hominid after all!

      • I agree you are a lying moron that cannot
        prove what he asserts is the truth.

    • Choosing to be a homemaker is a perfectly valid choice; one among many open to modern women.
      Young men who want a housewife should be able to discuss what they are looking for with a romantic interest and determine if that is mutally agreeable .


  • Traditional Christian sexual morality established very specific and easily understood rules for what was acceptable sexual behavior. Sexual Revolutionaries– largely sexually deviant malcontents, decided such rules, which conflicted with their desired perversities, must be smashed. Sympathetic Westetn culture, spiritually weakened and reeling from the horrors of two World Wars, a Holocuast, and unending violence in SE Asia, demurred.

    So, here we are, Christian sexual moralty has been rejected culturally, the deviants have claimed victory, yet very few are satisfied.

    • I assure you that I am very happy not to have had my first sexual encounter on my wedding night. I knew what I enjoyed and was very satisfied with the pleasure we gave and received from each other.

      • But what difference does a single person’s sexual satisfaction make? If marriage is to be lifelong, non-revocable, and the creation of a new FAMILY, the minute detail of what a person prefers sexually becomes quite moot indeed.

        This are the traditional sexual morality that kept Western culture tethered for centuries. It’s not all about what feels good. What is important is strong families. Today’s fracturing culture illustrates the need to return to such morality.

      • What? Tell you what — What you are talking about is completely subsuming individuals to your idea of what a society should be like…
        Sounds like a life of slavery to me. Or
        Patriarchy .

      • Actually, it’s called “being a decent human being” and understanding that there is more to life than orgasms. Pity that such thinking is lost on you.

        “Elevation of the individual” has gone too far when personal sexual needs are viewed as superior to the needs of your family, your culture. Harvey Weinstein personifies the logical extention of such thinking…and you have illustrated the core thesis of this piece exquisitely!

      • Agreed. Furthermore, what has been lost in the discussion is this. Society has always had “youthful indiscretions”, the occasional “affair”, etc. However, occasional rebellions against the norms are one thing. Society can survive those. Elimination of the norms, however, has been catastrophic. A decent person may violate the norms, feel shame, repent, and become a better person. Without the norms we are rudderless.

      • That’s again obvious — a society is DEFINED in large measure by its strictures. Have you ever seen a society without rules (laws)? I haven’t.

      • When America broke from Great Britain, it engaged in a radical departure from the “norms.” You’re full of baloney.

      • There is more to life than eating. There is more to life than working. There is more to life than education. There is more to life than wealth. I could go on all day. You post nice-sounding, feel-good blather.

      • Thinking objectively, patriarchy may be an efficient and adaptive form for society. Slavery worked well for much of societal history as well. Societies and moralities have taken many forms. There is no assurance that individualism or humanism or democracy will succeed. There is only what we, who are like minded and have the power to impose our will, agree upon.

      • Slavery still works well. The Muslim faith promotes it and the Democrat Obama administration was very supportive of all the African nations that sell blacks into slavery even now.

      • Do you have evidence to support your thesis?

        Who declares that “marriage is to be lifelong” if not the two (or more) INDIVIDUALS in the marriage?

        When has marriage been “nonrevocable”?

        The “family” is a transient arrangement – siblings ,ay or may not be added and kids grow up and go off to make their own way. Families take many forms and the “success” or “failure” of individuals is NOT tightly coupled to most of those various forms. In fact, parenting is trivial with respect to the genetic hand one is dealt.

        How are YOU so omniscient that YOU can declare what is “moot” or “irrelevant” for other people?

        What evidence do you have that “this” is the traditional sexual morality? What is your evidence that “this version of morality” – if it ever existed at all – kept Western culture “tethered and thriving for centuries”?

        All you do is make unsubstantiated, vague claims because it pleases you to “believe” them.

      • What percentage of human couples wait til wedding night to have sex? I’m guessing about 1% or less. And, I’m pretty sure that has been the case throughout history unless some pretty drastic enforcements were in effect.

        There is obviously an instinct (innate) among males of most mammalian species to try and ensure exclusivity of their matings so as to pass THEIR genes along rather than those of their cohorts. That instinct is the starting point for all the mystique and bullshiite surrounding sex. It gets very complicated very fast from there on.

    • This is what you get when you dig a little deeper. Culture is downstream from religion. Society’s problems with sex will only be solved by reinstating the law of chastity. There is no cultural shortcut.

  • I say back to Anthony Trollope. In “Cousin Henry” the heroine is too proud to accept her beau when she is poor, and he is too proud to ask when she is rich. What to do at the end when she is rich again? She goes over to his lodgings, plants herself in front of him and demands that he show her that he loves her. I tell you; those shrinking Victorian violets had some moves…

    • Say! Are you that Chris Chantrill who worked at a certain RWB many years ago? I always enjoyed our political discussions. Hope you are well!

      • @Pfredd. If you are still in Seattle, Google me and email. Let’s meet for coffee.

  • “Of all human nature’s aspects, sex is among the most intractable to political power.” Adam Weishaupt and his Illuminati would disagree, as well-documented by E. Michael Jones in Libido Dominandi: Sexual Liberation and Political Control through the Clinton presidency.

    • People’s opinions are NOT evidence of anything. Why can’t you quoters figure that out?

  • I never think of “political correctness” what ever it means. I think simply of good manners, respectful dialogue, constitutional rights applied to everyone, and fair, honest, common sense government. When the extremes of the political spectrum try to make “political correctness” either an offensive or defensive weapon, it tells me that they don’t think of what I think of.

    • You’re pretty self-absorbed, tom. The world does not revolve round you and what you think.

      • Apparently Hominid, you think that only you can post opinions, like your opinion that slavery was good for the world. So Hominid, you too seem quite self absorbed, but not in a good way.

      • You’re filthy liar – I never suggested that “slavery was good for the world.”

        You’re also dead wrong – at no point did I post my “opinions.”

      • Hominid, your reply to Irene Goodnight 4 hours ago – “Thinking objectively, patriarchy may be an efficient and adaptive form for society. Slavery worked well for much of societal history as well”

        Now maybe I should have cut and pasted this from your comments, but my post was accurate as to the meaning of your post. Now I could cut and paste any number of your posts that would prove you post a number of your opinions rather than facts (after all what is your first response to me but your opinion), but I let others go review you history.

      • Do you not understand the meaning of “Speaking objectively”? It means an unimpassioned, unbiased view of simple reality.

        That “slavery worked well for nations in the past” does not imply in any way whatsoever that I endorse slavery. It’s simply an observation of historical fact.

        You don’t know the difference between an opinion, an objective observation of fact, and a question.

        You’re a moron, an emotional basket case, and illiterate — and, THAT’s my opinion!

      • Calling me names won’t change what you said. Trying to nitpick about opinion and unbiased view of simply reality is nonsense. Again you admit that slavery worked well which means that is what you believe, and since most people throughout history (except maybe the slave owners) don’t believe that then it is not reality it is your judgement or in your words your opinion.

  • There’s unintentionally funny, and then there’s this column, which is unintentionally hilarious. Angelo, are you familiar with the pop-up ads that appear between your article and the comments section? Let’s see: Dental Implants. Luscious Asian Girls Want You To Love Them. Heart Attack Warning Signs. How To Start The New Year With An Attractive Asian Girl. That, my friend, is your audience. I’d say this subject is of academic or prurient interest only as far as they’re concerned. Gramsci my foot.

    • How funny. Of course, it didn’t pass through your brilliant mind that the ads popping up are doing so ON YOUR MACHINE–what I see is wholly different. And that, consequently, you may be the one fixated with facile Asian girls, and you just advertised it to everyone here. Just like every other leftist idiot, you have a knack for getting hoisted by your own petard. But I’m sure your momma says you’re special.

      • Since luscious Asian girls don’t offer themselves to me on any other website, I’d say it’s the website serving up the prurience. It is true that I travel in Asia a lot, so that my search engine is full of things like Mekong Estates, so I guess it’s possible that the website is adding my Asian browsing history to the subsisting old fart stuff.

  • Everything liberals do comes back and bites them, eventually; because liberalism is contradictory, stupid, inane, senseless, anti-scientific, baseless, ridiculous, morbid, and contrary to human nature.

    • In short, it’s reality inversion – one of the three core signs of the Liberal Psychotic Syndrome. Once you recognize that this syndrome is actual and diagnosable, you will understand the problem it poses for society and what to do about it.

  • ” Maybe women leading male sexual lives and equating dating with intercourse, like Bunnies, has not been good for anybody. Maybe that, and abortion on demand, liberated not the best in women but the worst in men. ”

    Abortion and promiscuity has released the worst in women as well. The entire sexual revolution is coming undone as liberal women get their payback. The reaction will not be good for them.

    • Abortion and promiscuity also encourages irresponsibility in men.

      • Never said it didn’t. Just added to the original statement.

      • Only to liberals picking nits.

        Everyone else with an IQ over 75 saw it instantly.

      • Ah, the immediate resort to baseless declarations regarding the IQ of someone you don’t know. The response of a stupid fool.

  • Why do these arts & humanities types confuse a vague, obfuscatory, pretentious style for lucid exposition? I think maybe they all are novelist wannabes.

      • Your comments are all the evidence that is needed of pure ignorance. Which is in great supply in Higher Education, where most are not even aware that there are two genders.

      • I am as arrogant as you are – I don’t claim to know the “truth” like you do, hypocrite. I don’t claim that “god moved through me” — bwahahahahaha!!!!

      • Accurate criticism is only insulting to the cowardly and weak-minded.

      • My comment was not directed at you, my friend, in case you were wondering.

  • I saw a headline today about a French woman film director saying that she would depict women’s bodies differently in the light of the Weinstein scandal and the #MeToo movement. It seemed to sum up succintly the depth and breadth of the stupidity and omniverous narcissism that has engulfed supposedly intelligent people now that we are freer to communicate our thoughts than we have ever been in the history of mankind – our ability to overthink things, come to dumb conclusions and then force them down everyone’s throat as if they were wisdom. I don’t know how this woman director intended to achieve her aim. Perhaps she wants to put all her actresses in burqas or to blindfold all men in the presence of women so that their profane gaze might not sully the female person. All this because of an American hysteria over some sexual misbehaviour – a lot of it ludicrously exaggerated – by some men. The female body is the most perfect thing in creation, each and every one of its curves and roundnesses magical to the male imagination as it has been programmed by nature. Without that male wonder, female beauty is meaningless in fact does not exist. A dog doesn’t love his mistress because he thinks she’s pretty. He loves her because she feeds him. It offends feminists that women are sex objects but women by their very nature are sex objects whether they are bus drivers or neurosurgeons. The point being missed is that they are not just sex objects but are also due the respect bus drivers and neurosurgeons and all human beings deserve. Most men understand this and behave accordingly. Only genetic engineering could create the male of the species, that feminists want, who sees women in purely asexual terms. It’s not going to happen, not least because most women would be horrified if it did because they love the irresistible interest that men take in them and the power it gives them. We don’t need to rethink the entire nature of the way in which men and women relate to each other because Harvey Weinstein is a brute. We need to keep a sense of proportion so that the sexes can remain the friends and mutual admirers they need to be.

    • If women don’t want to be viewed as sex objects, why do they wear masks and body enhancements so as to appear more sexually attractive?

      I laugh at the irony of a heavily made up, sexily clad TV “news personality” denouncing the objectification of women!

  • sex and politics don’t mix any better than sex and religion or politics and religion

Comments are closed.