Saturday, April 28, 2018

According to Will Wilkinson, violent protests on campus aren't a threat to free speech, but this girl's graduation photo is.

A couple weeks ago, I got into a discussion on a thread with long-time Facebook friend and now NY Times commentator, Will Wilkinson about this "controversial" graduation photo taken by University of Tennessee-Chattanooga student Brenna Spencer:



On Twitter/Facebook, Wilkinson wrote:



We'll come back to this issue in a lot more detail in a moment, but first I want to set the stage.

Will Wilkinson is the VP of Policy Research at the Niskanen Center, a relatively new DC-based think tank that styles itself as "libertarian" but tends to advocate policies and ideas that are anything but.

They've also been blasted for publishing or re-publishing studies and reports that are of shockingly poor quality, including recently one by Jeffrey Sachs which claimed that "liberals" were more likely to be victims of firings based on political speech than "conservatives".

There were two major problems with Sachs' report that should have been immediately obvious.

1) It failed to take into account the massive disparity in the raw number of liberal vs. conservative college professors.

According to a September 2016 study by Mitchell Langbert, Anthony J. Quain, and Daniel B. Klein which looked at the voter registration data for 7,243 history, law, economics, journalism, and psychology faculty and found that just 314 had registered as Republican, while 3,623 were registered Democrats which puts the overall ratio at about 11.5:1.

They go on to note:
"The D:R ratios for the five fields were: Economics 4.5:1, History 33.5:1, Journalism/Communications 20.0:1, Law 8.6:1, and Psychology 17.4:1. The results indicate that D:R ratios have increased since 2004, and the age profile suggests that in the future they will be even higher. We provide a breakdown by department at each university. The data support the established finding that D:R ratios are highest at the apex of disciplinary pyramids, that is, at the most prestigious departments."
So naturally, any study that purports to describe the frequency with which problems are happening to a given population should at the very least take into account massive differences in population size rather than providing raw numbers.

If the question is who is more likely to be fired for speaking their mind, then it's pretty important that we're comparing the groups of people on a per capita basis.

Sachs didn't do that, and Niskanen didn't care.

2) As another friend, history professor Phil Magness pointed out, at least 3 of the cases of liberals supposedly being fired for political speech were misrepresented -- and they were huge, well-known cases, so a more in-depth review of Sachs report would be likely to uncover more padding.

Quoting Phil:
1. The database claims that Ward Churchill was fired for "unpatriotic" speech. This is not true. Churchill was actually fired for research misconduct following the discovery that he had engaged in plagiarism and the fabrication of evidence in his published academic work.

2. The database claims that Melissa Click was fired for being "anti-conservative." Also not true. Click was fired after being indicted for physically assaulting a student on campus.

3. The database claims Kevin Allred was fired for making "anti-white" political tweets. He was actually fired for a series of tweets in which he threatened mass shootings and running Trump supporters over with his car. Threatening violence would seem to fall well outside of the protections of free speech or academic freedom.

I would argue that all three of these terminations were justified for reasons unrelated to "free speech."
I think most people would agree with Phil on this, I'd be willing to be that if we looked even more closely at the examples presented by Sachs, we'd find a larger pattern of misrepresenting cases - and that this tendency would not be random.

But Wilkinson used this study to back up a previous claim recently made by the Niskanen Center that there was no free speech "crisis" on college campuses.

In spite of the fact that progressives significantly out-number any non-progressive voices on college campuses in every discipline and in some cases as much as 20:1, and in spite of the fact that there are now dozens of cases of large mobs of progressive students and faculty members shouting down conservative speakers and several instances of professors using or supporting the use of violence such as with Melissa Click and more recently with Randa Jarrar calling for the use of literal terrorism in order to support her agenda, according to Wilkinson, it's the conservatives who are the real threat to free speech.

And of course, this all plays back into his reaction to Brenna Spencer's graduation photo.

Wilkinson accuses Spencer - as a white, Trump-supporting conservative in the South - of playing the victim when she is, in fact, the oppressor.

I found this to be a particularly ridiculous reaction for several reasons, not least of which being that I don't see anything remotely wrong with Brenna Spencer's photo to begin with, and posited that the only way you'd think of it as a free speech-chilling threat of any kind is if you believe that regardless of context, the mere sight of a gun would be terrifying to her fellow classmates.

I find this to be an especially odd claim to make in a state like Tennessee, because most of the students attending the University of Tennessee-Chattanooga probably grew up around guns and regardless of their general political leanings are likely far more familiar with firearms and rural culture than students at most universities.

Even now, I find it hard to imagine a scenario in which I should have ever even seen or known about this photo. When I graduated high school, as a drummer, I took several graduation photos with drums in various configurations... I look at Spencer's photo as basically the same thing, because I'm not an emotional child who faints at the sight of a gun.

So I asked whether or not it just might be possible that far from trying to be a provocateur, Brenna Spencer was actually, genuinely trying to positively express a value - in this case gun ownership - that she felt was under attack.

I further noted that this photograph was taken/shared after we'd already been subjected to two months of national "conversation" stemming from the school shooting at Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, FL. Following weeks of seeing nothing but people like David Hogg calling the NRA "terrorists", and demanding legislation that would curtail the rights of gun-owners, it's not that much of a stretch to imagine someone like Brenna Spencer feeling defensive about her right to bear arms and if you understand that, you should be able to understand why she might want to express her views publicly as she was exiting college.

In fact, this seems to me like the most obvious and clear motivation for Spencer to take and distribute the image.

She did not seem to be deliberately "triggering" progressives as Wilkinson asserted, and furthermore, if an image like this is enough to trigger other students and offend or upset them, that just seems like evidence that those students were way too thin-skinned to begin with.

Wilkinson responded to my comments with a long statement told from his experience teaching in Tennessee. Subsequently, I was challenged by another person on the thread to reply to it. Thus... What follows is Wilkinson's comment, intercut with my public response.

It's quite long, so here's the abstract:

While I think Will makes some decent points in the abstract, this specific case does not remotely demonstrate what he thinks it does, there are plenty of alternative ways to look at this specific case, he rests his core points on a lot of really shaky conceptual arguments, and in the end he resorts to arrogant moral grandstanding.

With that said... Here we go:
Will: "Many, many, many universities are state schools in conservative states and draw tons of conservative students, who come from places more conservative than the town the school is in, and way more conservative than the ethos of the school itself. But these members of the state's politically and culturally dominant class feel entitled to institutions as conservative as the ethos of the state they dominate, and totally ridiculously feel that the fact that they aren't makes them victims of prejudice."
Me: This may be true in some instances, but seems like a total misreading of the photo in question, wherein the girl is actually part of a group of people that tend to be marginalized and attacked constantly by all the dominant cultural institutions: Media, (National) Politics, Entertainment, and Academia.
Will: "Campuses are places where members of traditionally victimized and marginalized classes feel relatively safe demanding equal recognition and protection of their rights as persons and citizens, which members of the dominant class invariably finds threatening."
Me: Ok, to the first part, but... I think a citation is definitely needed for the "members of the dominant class invariably find[ing] this to be threatening", since quite a large number - possibly even the majority - of the "dominant class" is vocally supportive of providing that equal recognition and equal protection of rights.

This isn't 1961.
Will: "The more effective egalitarian demands are likely to be (at elite schools, because the graduates stand a chance of actually wielding influence) the more threatening the dominant group finds it."
Me: Again, citation needed.

The dominant group at literally all the "elite schools" ARE in favor of these egalitarian demands. And to call a lot of the demands in question "egalitarian" is, itself, a bold claim. Please explain to me how what happened to the Christakis or Weinsteins is an example of egalitarianism, or to Charles Murray, or to Christina Hoff Sommers, and on and on and on... And that's before we get to any of the actually inflammatory speakers that were disinvited like Milo, etc.

To the contrary, many of these demands seem to seek special class protections which go far beyond a situation where everyone is actually equal.

And they have majority popular and institutional support in the places where these things are mostly in play.

Translation: The people who are rejecting this stuff or who are pushing back are rarely if ever the "dominant" group, unless you think that social conditions and attitudes are identical to what they were 50-60 years ago.
Will: "Casting the people asking for equality as oppressors who victimize the class they are dominated by is a venerable trick to protect traditional power relations by inverting the direction of and responsibility for injustice."
Me: Ok.

Two points... First: 20 year old girls aren't responsible for historical oppression, and, second: How is the photo cited an example of this even if they were?
Will: "It's a way of not only denying actual injustice, but of deepening it by implying that forward moral progress requires that the the dominant class resist and roll back the subordinate classes' effective political power."
Me: Again, how is the photo cited in any way representative of this problem?

If you want to talk about the history of gun rights, it was the pro *control* side that used power to oppress minorities. Or had we all forgotten the push to regulate guns as a response to the Black Panthers?
Will: "At schools like UTC, the black kids have grandparents who suffered through Jim Crow. The idea that it can be literally physically dangerous to challenge white people is drilled into them, because it is true."
Me: I'd buy that this can be true for some people, but I've lived all over the United States and made friends with all kinds of people and see absolutely no evidence from my experiences that this is true for the majority or en masse.

Are we not living in the same world where Kanye West used his time at the Grammy's to say that then President Bush hates black people?
Will: "When a white kid in my class insisted that northern Africa "isn't real Africa" -- we were doing the Aeneid and I was emphasizing the African roots of Western civilization -- the black kids (who were VERY engaged by the idea that West tradition is partly African) literally started looking down, or acting slightly distracted, as if they weren't listening and didn't notice anything had been said."
Me: That's a sad story. Still not sure what it has to do with the photo used as an example of the phenomenon in question.
Will: "But they heard and knew exactly what that kid was saying: that *their* ancestors are outsiders to the Western tradition, and have no claim to the dignity and civilization of Alexandria and Cleopatra. Nobody said a peep. Why not?"
Me: Because it's awkward? Because they're insecure college kids in what's probably a 101 class? Because the specific kid who spoke up was convincing or more socially dominant? Because they partly agree or have been taught a similar idea, in that typically Egypt and Libya are seen as a somewhat more Middle East and not "African"? Because Will did not sufficiently create an environment in his class that invites these kinds of challenges?

I'm normally inclined to take the first-person account at face value, but it's not like there aren't other explanations beyond the one that fits exactly into Will's pre-existing ideology.
Will: "Well, this young lady's picture is a nice illustration. Her people (white Republicans) run Tennessee, the whole damn thing, except for the bigger cities, like Nashville and Memphis and Chattanooga, and even these places are run by relatively conservative white people. White people in Tennessee make the laws and they enforce them."
Me: Finally, we're getting to how the photo comes into play... But already he's tying it to stuff that this girl has zero connection to or control over.
Will: "Now, Donald Trump is a populist who relentlessly associates whiteness with Americanness and non-whiteness with marginal or non-Americanness, communicating pretty clearly that non-urban white people are entitled to protect their outsized share of power. That's the core of his message."
Me: Per Washington Post's article: Mostly black neighborhoods voted more Republican in 2016 than in 2012'
"That red line for white neighborhoods is very important and bolsters the focus on white voters after the 2016 election. But that blue line, showing more heavily black neighborhoods voting more Republican than in 2012, has been under-recognized.

There are two reasons this might have happened. The first is a change in support among black voters that favors the Republican. The second is a decrease in black turnout, meaning that the white voters in those neighborhoods who were more likely to back Trump carried more weight in the results."
In other words, while voter turn out was down, the black voters that remained weren't uniformly turned off by Trump. I don't generally ask (or care) how my friends vote, but anecdotally, I have multiple black friends who were sympathetic to (if not voted for) Trump, including a couple very close friends.

Where Will sees Trump as relentlessly associating whiteness with Americanness, it's possible that other people saw Trump as unifying an idea of "Americanness" against foreignness and the joint fears of economic competition and terrorism?

My view is that people tend to see what they want to see with Trump. But I'll accept Will's point for the sake of argument. Still not sure what it has to do with the photo.
Will: "So here's this privileged college-student member of Tennessee's dominant political faction in a Trump shirt with a gun in her waistband. What's displaying the gun *about*? It's not *wrong* to say "pride in the exercise of a constitutional right." But it's just monumentally dense to leave it there."
Me: Is it, though?

Trump and "big picture" stuff that college professors tend to see that no one else cares about aside, we've just spent the last 2 months living through a non-stop media barrage of anti-gun, anti-2nd Amendment voices at the national level.

Nearly the entire tenor of the "national conversation" around guns consists of reporters and anti-gun people routinely calling pro-gun people child murderers and blaming corruption (as opposed to a sincere opposition) and corporate lobbying for the fact that AR-15s have not been banned yet.

If this girl is graduating college now, then she's just spent her entire semester listening to people tell her she's a bad person for being a gun owner.

Perhaps that has more to do with her post than the 2016 election of Donald Trump?

Perhaps she got tired of seeing David Hogg's face every time she fired up Facebook or Twitter?

Who knows, right?
Will: "This young woman is in the heart of a decent-sized historically segregated southern city next to the lovely glassy, art museum flashing a handgun. Even outside the context of a Trump shirt, the gun is a straight-up threat to those who would challenge the inequities of the status quo power structure."
Me: This is straight-up nonsense. Childish nonsense. I'll go into detail in a different comment if necessary, but I think it's the dumbest part of this whole post.

[EDITORIAL NOTE: Expanding on this point, this part of Wilkinson's long comment is the dumbest, most childish part of his whole claim because it assumes that the presence of an inanimate object as held by a 21-year-old white college student is inherently threatening regardless of context. Under this assumption, basically anytime a white person holds a gun for any reason - at the range, at a shooting competition, in a movie, whatever - they're a symbol of racist power struggles dating back centuries.

Worse still, this infantilizes minorities to an extreme degree, asserting that all this historical baggage is dredged up in people at the mere sight of a firearm. This is nothing more than the bigotry of low expectations, and it's made doubly tragic by the fact that Wilkinson is in charge of teaching students.

As had I said earlier in the overall thread, anyone who thinks that should join me at QuickShot or Stoddard's Range in Atlanta, where the majority of patrons and staff are black. In my experience, people in the South are far more familiar with, and thus comfortable with, firearms. The result is that they do not feel "threatened" by non-threatening situations like that which is clearly the case in Brenna Spencers graduation photo.

Anyone threatened by that photo would be among the most fragile, weak-willed people I've ever encountered, and unlike Wilkinson, I don't believe that "People of Color" are inherently that fragile.]
Will: "(Go watch an hour of NRA TV videos if you don't believe that this is what's up.)"
Me: Not one single gun-owner I know or have talked to has shared with me an "NRA-TV" post as a justification for their rights. Not once. And I know a LOT of gun owners & Second Amendment supporters.

The NRA is loud, but as far as I can tell, the only reason they "represent" anyone is because they get headlines and airtime from hyperventilating reporters who see them as the enemy.

[And once again, this doesn't have anything to do with Brenna Spencer]
Will: "But she's also correctly confident that her heavily cultivated whiteness and femininity defuse the sense of threat (that's what Dana Loesch is for), which is why she can do something that really would put one of her black male classmates at risk of being murdered by the police."
Me: Murdered by the police at a photoshoot? For college graduation photos? Black kids take photos with guns a lot. Will's stretching like taffy on this point.

Take Antonia Okafor, for instance:




And Antonia is hardly alone. You might remember this infamous photo from a few years back.



Will doesn't seem to be able to differentiate between the dangers of a kid displaying a gun while interacting with a cop in any kind of situation where that could actually be construed as a threat, and the context of taking what are essentially props to a private photo shoot.

Fortunately, I've worked as a photographer and video producer for a long time and I can differentiate between the two.

It's actually not that hard, though, so I'm not sure why a supposed academic is struggling with it.
Will: "A black kid about to graduate college would NEVER do this because they're literally NOT FREE to do it without imperiling their freedom and safety."
Again... Wrong. Good prose, but wrong. See above.
Will: "But she is free to do it, because she is a well-to-do white southern lady, and does. It is an ostentatious display of unequal power, unequal protection of basic rights, and a signal of the willingness to use violence to protect these inequalities, but winkingly portrayed as an underdog's plucky act of defiance against injustice."
It's definitely easier for pretty girls to get away with stuff like this. I don't suppose we want to get into a conversation about male privilege, here, but anyway.... Wow.

[Wilkinson's just made Brenna Spencer the representative for the entire history of power and oppression in the South. Poor miss Spencer is now the poster girl for white power and inequality, and her photo (scroll up to the top if you forgot which one we're talking about, I won't blame you given the hyperbole on display here) is a symbol of violence in defense of her people's oppressive regime.

At this point, I've got nothing left for Wilkinson's point but sarcasm and contempt.]
Will: "If you think this sort of thing doesn't carry over to campuses in places like Chattanooga and make students fearful of freely speaking their minds, you're wrong."
I don't think I am.
Will: "If you don't think the point of "political correctness" is to resist this fear and create a sense of safety for people who have less power, you're wrong."
Yeah, again... I don't think I am.
Will: "And if you think that the expression-chilling effects of PC on campus is worse than the expression-chilling effects of ongoing invidious inequalities in basic rights and effective political power, as illustrated in this photo, you're wrong."
Definitely not wrong on this.
Will: "And if you look at this photo and say, "I don't see the problem," you're part of the problem."
Blow it out your ass, Will.



Reading through Will's comments again, you'll note that my patience runs out the more he resorts to moral grandstanding and starts accusing people (me) of malicious intentions.

After way too many years of having these kinds of conversations, I've come to realize that people who do that have little intelligent to add. When you rest your argument on trying to paint your opponent as evil, rather than on solid logic built on factual premises, you're skipping past the hard part of thinking and going right to rationalizing your pre-existing beliefs instead.

Increasingly, I get the impression that this basically defines Wilkinson and the Niskanen Center in general.

Today, when challenged on the Jeffrey Sachs report on Phil Magness' thread, Wilkinson had no response to his critics (many whom were much more successful academics) other than a snarky dismissal.



I guess this is what we're reduced to.

To the broader point, if your evidence for the claim that the real "threat" to free speech is coming from conservatives like Brenna Spencer, because of photos like this, you are not engaging in a serious argument. If your evidence for the idea that progressives are more frequently fired for their political speech is riddled with basic errors, and your claim that there isn't really a free speech "crisis" ignores basically everything that's going on at colleges & universities around the country or relies on quibbles over the definition of "crisis", you might be engaging in motivated reasoning.

And if your response to your critics is to be dismissive or call them bad people, your arrogance is out of control.

Sunday, November 19, 2017

Communicating Consent


What is consent?


I'm sure this will come as a shock to some, but in spite of all my white male privilege, I've spent a great deal of time thinking about this question over the past 20 years.

But ever since the Harvey Weinstein, #MeToo dam broke and Hollywood started eating itself alive with accusations of non-consensual sexual conduct -- and as that spills out into other parts of society -- I've been thinking a lot more about what consent really is and how people give their consent in actual practice.

And look, I know what you're thinking:
"C'mon, that's easy! Consent is when a person consciously approves or gives their permission to whatever actions or situations are going on."
True enough. Gold star.

That's a simple enough definition, and of course, consent is actually the most essential basis to my own ethical philosophy. Although people often don't talk about it this way, consent is baked into libertarian ideas at their absolute core. 

My own philosophical journey literally began by asking myself the question, "Who owns me?" and subsequently, "Is it possible to rightfully own or control other people?" 

These are the kinds of questions that many people sort of flippantly think have obvious answers, but once you really think through what it means to say, "No one can rightfully control another person without their consent", you end up challenging a lot of presumptions about the role of government along the way -- which is how I ended up where I am now. 

But in reality, while everybody quickly rejects the idea of chattel slavery, most people don't actually believe that individuals have rightful ownership over themselves and their property in any principled or meaningful sense. 

At best, most people think that they (typically expressed through politics & government) get quite a bit of say over what individuals can do with their lives. 

This is what the community overpowering
the individual looks like.
Historically, this touches almost everything about a person -- from where they can live, to what they can do with their property, to what careers they're allowed (ie. licensed) to have, and until incredibly recently even who they're allowed to marry and what they're allowed to do in the bedroom. Your choices aren't really you're own to make, regardless of how little real impact they have on anyone else beyond mere aesthetics. 

They're subject to the whim of the committee. 

In today's world, almost everything individuals do is controlled in one way or another by other people -- via the state. And this control is exerted against the consent of individuals all the time. But because it's done through the auspices of government and the political process, most people accept these things as legitimate.

That's what makes libertarian philosophy different from other political philosophies.

The essence of individual liberty as a basis for ethics says that every individual is the rightful owner over their own mind, body, and (legitimately acquired) property, and as such everything that happens with respect to human interaction should be voluntary -- read: consensual.

Anything else is a crime.

Without consent, touching becomes assault; sex becomes rape; property transfer becomes theft... Even murder is distinguished from suicide on the basis of the lack of consent.

Other ethical philosophies see the idea of "harm" as central to whether or not certain certain behaviors are allowed. 

Take John Stuart Mill, for example.


I disagree.

For me, virtually the entire means of assessing whether or not something should be considered a crime depends uniquely on whether the people involved consented to their interactions.

The extent of "harm" as it would be externally defined doesn't even really enter into whether or not something is a crime at all... Though it does play a large role in my understanding of how severe something is once established as a genuine crime.

The reason for this is because "harm", in and of itself, is highly subjective and can take place within a consensual context. It can also be accidental or created in situations where there is no acting moral agent. MMA fighers get harmed participating in the sport; fans of BDSM can get bruised and scratched during sex; anyone in a relationship can come away with painful emotional scars... But all those things happen within the context of consent.

Additionally, plenty of harmful things happen to people every day that don't involve moral agency -- accidents, acts of god, etc. A crime requires a criminal, and the lightning bolt that struck my house this summer can't be arrested and tried for property damage.

Point is, harm alone isn't enough to render something a crime, but human agency coupled with the lack of consent is.

In short... In my political philosophy, consent is everything.

Of course, one odd thing about this for me is that once I came to this conclusion, I started noticing that most people are shockingly inconsistent about what they care about with respect to consent. Consent is seen as vitally, outrageously important in some contexts -- ie. sexuality -- yet it's completely ignored in others. 

For example, imagine someone doesn't consent to paying taxes or sending young people off to die in war...  No one cares.

This intrigues me.

We treat sexual consent as uniquely, almost preternaturally sacrosanct such that even the slightest unwanted sight of a nude body part (even if it's just a representation in a photo or a cartoon) is tantamount to PTSD-inducing assault that should never be experienced by unsuspecting children or adults.

Yet we think of consent in so many other kinds of interactions as optional at best, often depending solely on the whims of the majority. Why?

I have some thoughts on this involving both religious puritanism and evolutionary history, but I'll leave you to ponder that question while we move on to a bigger, more important (yet deceptively difficult) one:

How do you actually know when someone has given you their consent?


Now that we've established how important gaining consent is, let's go deeper. How do we actually get people's consent in the real world?

Don't worry, I already hear your casual dismissals... 
"Well that's easy! They say yes out loud, dummy. And if they don't, then you take it as a no!" 
So many people think this is obvious and the only thing you need to know, that there are hundreds of memes on the internet about it.


But...... Is this really as obvious as you think it is?

In most of your day-to-day interactions, do people verbally tell you when they consent to your interactions with them? Do you tell others when you approve or disapprove of what they're doing?

If someone at work asks you if it's cool if they borrow your stapler, do you say "Yes, you have my permission to borrow the stapler"? Or do you, perhaps, say nothing and offer a nod or even something so subtle as a fleeting glance of approval.

When you're out to the bar with your buddies, and one of them says "Who wants another round!?", do you always say "I do, please provide me with another beer!" or perhaps do you sometimes say nothing and merely hold up your empty glass? Maybe you don't even do any more than make eye contact and smile.

When meeting a new person, do you ask people before you go for a handshake, a hug, or a kiss on the cheek? Or... Are your actions defined by a much more complex interplay between cultural customs, body language, and your ability to recognize facial expressions?

The fact is, a great deal of human communication is non-verbal. 

It's difficult to say precisely how much, of course, but according to Dr. Albert Mehrabian (author of "Silent Messages" and some of the seminal work on the subject in the 1970s), just 7% of human communication is fully verbal, 38% is non-verbal (tone and volume of voice, intonation, etc.) and as much as 55% is purely visual, ie. body language.

Follow-up studies by Michael Argyle (Bodily Communication, 1988) have suggested that non-verbal cues can communicate 4.3 times as much as speech in certain contexts.

I'm not going to get too bogged down in the percentages here, but it's important to understand that interpersonal communication involves a huge amount of non-verbal context. As a film-maker, I rely heavily on my understanding of how tone and body-language (among other things) affect the viewer's perception of a message.

But here's the thing... Like everything else we communicate with each other, consent is frequently given or refused non-verbally, especially in informal or personal situations.

Businesses overcome the nebulous nature of non-verbal consent by drafting explicit contracts and hiring lawyers to write up complex documents outlining the terms of various agreements as well as the costs for violating those terms. Formalized rules of decorum and courtship that apply in certain high society settings (see also: anything by Jane Austen) can also help overcome uncertainty in these situations... But if we're being honest with ourselves, this simply doesn't make sense in most situations.

A perfect example of this phenomenon happened this week.

I was standing outside a venue of an event talking to a friend about non-verbal communication and some of the other thoughts that led to this blog-post while he was smoking a cigarette. And as if solely to give me a perfect example of how people actually communicate with each other, his girlfriend -- standing next to us, but engaged in a totally separate conversation with another person -- silently reached out her hand towards the cigarette that was in his.

Without even breaking eye-contact with me, my friend handed her the cigarette. She took a drag and passed it back to him just as quickly.

She made a non-verbal request (ie. "Can I have the cigarette?") and he replied ("Yes"). She made her intentions known and he gave his consent. Not a single word was spoken, nor did either of them turn to actually look at each other in the process.

Yet........... It could not have been clearer in context. That kind of context is really what matters here, and it's the biggest part of the conversation that's completely tossed aside when we act like people will just verbally express themselves all the time. They won't, and we shouldn't expect them to. 

And therein lies the rub.

Sexual consent and non-verbal communication


Here's where this conversation is going to take a challenging turn. Prepare yourself.

I know I'm going to be radically (and I suspect deliberately) misunderstood by an awful lot of people on this part, but I'm wading in to these shark-infested waters anyway.

For a litany of unavoidable, good, and a few puritanically stupid reasons, people care way more about sexual consent than they do about consent in virtually any other situation. The recent explosion of accusations against powerful figures in Hollywood and elsewhere is a pretty good example of this. 

And as someone who sees ethics almost entirely through the lens of consent, many of the allegations that have come out in the last several weeks have been seriously horrifying.

I've read a ton of thoroughly disgusting stories about Harvey Weinstein and his interactions with women which are crystal clear in their moral depravity. Lupita Nyong'o's description of her experiences were particularly terrible, but there have been dozens of such accounts at this point.

There's little room for confusion in most of them and so it's incredible to see a lot of these crimes coming to light (albeit often way too late to do anything about them legally). However, I wanted to highlight Lupita's story because for the purpose of this essay on the nature of communication, I think her example is also highly instructive.

Unlike many of the other victims of these sexual assaults and rapes, Lupita repeatedly and pointedly told Harvey Weinstein "no" at several stages throughout their interactions. She didn't leave it up to non-verbal cues to convey what she wanted and thus eliminated much of the potential for miscommunication. 

She says:
"Before long, he said he wanted to take off his pants. I told him not to do that and informed him that it would make me extremely uncomfortable. He got up anyway to do so and I headed for the door, saying that I was not at all comfortable with that."
Gross.

We'll sort of come back to all this at the end, but I seriously applaud Lupita for doing this. Most women, it seems, are not nearly so direct or clear with men in these situations.

But here's the part where you'll hate me...

Contrast Lupita's actions with some of the accounts of comedian Louis CK's exhibitionist masturbation fixation. 

The first story in the NY Times article about his multiple sexual assaults of various women is about Julia Wolov and Dana Goodman, a comedy duo who accepted Louis CK's invitation to his hotel room after their show at the Aspen Comedy Festival in 2002.

The report describes the invitation as one with the stated intention of "hanging out" late at night for a "nightcap" after all the bars had closed (let's say after 1:00am). This isn't exactly uncommon in the world of entertainment and the NY Times claims that at least to Goodman & Wolov, CK's "intentions seemed collegial". 

And look... I obviously wasn't there, so it's hard to say... But a late-night drinking session in a hotel room with a successful/famous comedian who's made his living making references to his own sexual proclivities and masturbation habits should provide at least some context as to what Louis' real intentions likely were, shouldn't it?

What's more, the account of the situation goes on to say that when Louis CK asked (also important) to take out his penis, the women laughed and gave him a thumbs-up (apparently assuming that it wasn't a serious question) instead of saying "No".

And then, Louis CK proceeded to get naked and masturbate in front of them... Which I don't really feel like anyone who's seen his shows should be that surprised by.

I mean.................. Have you seen his stand-up?


Apologies to my comedian friends, but in general, they're just not normal people.

I provide all this as an example because, according to the reports I've read, it seems like there were a LOT of non-verbal/contextual miscommunications on both sides and I think that perhaps instead of (or perhaps in addition to) making Louis CK our momentary whipping boy, we could take a moment to reflect on this stuff a bit more thoughtfully.

Again, I understand that I'm supposed to think of everything as if there's only ever a victim and an oppressor and there's a big bold line in between and all this stuff is always super obvious. But a lot of life really doesn't fit into that small a box. 

It seems that Louis CK wasn't totally clear about his intentions for inviting the women to his room, I assume because he at least is socially aware enough to know that most women would unequivocally say no if he was that direct or asked out of any other context and would refuse to join him in a private space if they knew he just wanted to get naked and jerk off in front of them.

But simultaneously, by accepting a late night invitation to "hang out" and party with alcohol (and, I'd be willing to bet, stronger substances) in Louis' room, and by laughing and continuing to keep things light instead of expressing their disgust at the question Louis asked, the women may have miscommunicated their desires as well.

And please... Before you cry "victim blaming!", I am not making this point to say that these women were "at fault". They weren't.

The onus is fundamentally on the Louis CK as the initiator to get permission to move forward, and it's fair to think that the weirder or more complicated the request, the more explicit that permission should be. That is, again, why business people sign contracts. Implicit consent and trust in those relationships is not enough to confirm that all parties are on the same page. BDSM people often write contracts with each other as well, to solve the same kinds of problems.

But I do think we should actually consider how everyone involved in a situation like this communicated their preferences, and not just assume that the miscommunication is intrinsically the fault of the man or that there aren't multiple potentially valid viewpoints in play.

Louis wasn't as big a name as he is today, but he was still pretty successful at the time, and if I had to, I'd bet that he's also tried this trick with many, many women over the years. I'd also bet that most of the time, it's worked.

And reading between the lines a bit in his public "apology", it's not even clear that Louis knows what he really did wrong. He accepts that he made people uncomfortable in his apology, but he mainly chalked it up to taking advantage of his success and fame:
"...what I learned later in life, too late, is that when you have power over another person, asking them to look at your dick isn't a question. It's a predicament for them. The power I had over these women is that they admired me. And I wielded that power irresponsibly."
His assertion here is that simply because he was "admired", he had power over these people.

But man... That line bothers me a lot. I'm really not convinced that we should be so quick to take that line of reasoning at face value.

Firstly, it's smug as hell... But it's also a bit disconcerting, considering that for men not blessed to be in roughly the top 1% of physical attractiveness, the primary means we all have of attracting sexual and romantic partners is through demonstrating our fitness in other ways -- ie. attaining wealth or social status, demonstrating skill and charisma through creativity or humor, etc.

If using your social status to gain access to sexual opportunities is tantamount to sexual misconduct or assault, the vast majority of humanity is metaphorically -- and very much not literally -- screwed.

Permit me at this moment a brief tangent on...

The reality of human sexual selection


Consider this super-fun bit of data from OK Cupid:



This graph depicts a near 1:1 correlation between OK Cupid users' ratings of other members' looks and their personalities.

What's that mean, you ask?

It means that most of us are totally lying to ourselves when we say that looks don't matter, and that we are able to detach our views of a person's ideas and behavior from how hot they are. It's not exactly a mind-blowing observation, but in addition to better pay; more friends; and higher levels of personal happiness it's one more area where physically attractive people gain an automatic advantage in life.

Attractiveness drives our beliefs about a person's non-physical attributes like personality.

The hotter someone is, the more people will also believe that they're beautiful on the inside. Some of you will scream "Correlation isn't causation!" at this point, but given all the other evidence surrounding this kind of stuff, I'm pretty comfortable saying that in this case it absolutely is. 

If you're hot, people like you more, they trust you more, and they rate everything about you more positively. Sorry, less-attractive people... Beauty-privilege is real.

But that's not all... Here's something else to wrap your brain around. 

According to data from Tinder:
"...a man of average attractiveness can only expect to be liked by slightly less than 1% of females (0.87%). This equates to 1 “like” for every 115 females. The good news is that if you are only getting liked by a few girls on Tinder you shouldn’t take it personally. You aren’t necessarily unattractive. You can be of above average attractiveness and still only get liked by a few percent of women on Tinder. The bad news is that if you aren’t in the very upper echelons of Tinder wealth (i.e. attractiveness) you aren’t likely to have much success using Tinder. You would probably be better off just going to a bar or joining some coed recreational sports team."
The accompanying chart is a little disheartening.


Really stop and think about this for a moment... Unless you're one of the most physically attractive people alive (particularly as a man, but this is also true to a lesser degree for women), you are competing with an immense number of people for excruciatingly few potential sexual partners. As per the chart above, men are at an incredible disadvantage in this regard.

And as a result, men have developed various coping mechanisms to deal with this inequity -- some considerably more successful than others.

Generally speaking, men tend to differentiate themselves by becoming useful -- they struggle to get ahead in their careers and earn larger salaries than other men or do more meaningful/important work. But some also employ strategies of making themselves more attractive through more creative pursuits like humor (ie. making women laugh) and other showcasing other demonstrable skills such as playing music. Other men may differentiate themselves by demonstrating physical skills through sports, dancing, or perhaps hunting and fishing.

There's a fairly clear evolutionary basis for all of this.

And it's in line with the one idea that that I think Men's Rights people get exactly right: male objectification.

While women are indeed often seen as "sex objects", men are just as frequently seen as "success objects". That is, if women's purpose is to be sexy and have babies, men's purpose is to work hard and provide for those babies (see also: "Men as Success Objects and Women as Sex Objects: A Study of Personal Advertisements" by Simon Davis)

Both forms of objectification come with costs and benefits, but for some reason we're only really allowed to talk about the one that affects women.

Anyway... The bigger problem here is that for some men, becoming successful or demonstrating flashy, creative attributes is just not a viable option. Thus, we have a percentage of men incapable of presenting their value to women in more constructive ways who instead adopt strategies of simply being more aggressive, cat-calling, and chasing women down on the street, etc. 

These are (some of) the men to watch out for, and it goes without saying that most women are turned off and often even scared or intimidated by that approach.

Personally, as someone who's nowhere near the top 1% of male attractiveness, I have had to rely on my intelligence, sense of humor, and a number of creative skills -- all of which I eventually turned into a relatively successful career -- in order to attract women. And even with that, things were still really difficult when I was in the dating pool. 

Unsurprisingly, my success with dating apps like OK Cupid was negligible at best.

If, like me, you need to rely on your wit and intellect to attract women, and women only "swipe right" on the most attractive men, there's just no way to make that system work to your advantage unless you simply lie about what you look like and post fake pictures of yourself -- which of course, some women & men absolutely do.

The point of all this is that developing and demonstrating quality personality traits and other skills is quite literally the only thing most men can do to overcome the desperate disadvantage of not being physically attractive.

That is to say... I really think Louis CK is wrong.

The problem is not that he had "power" over these women simply because he was successful and was therefore "admired" by them. Yes, it gives him an advantage that other men don't have in attracting sexual partners, but it doesn't rob them of their ability to consent.

To say that is giving CK an out he doesn't deserve. Plus it infantilizes the women involved and it turns a positive aspect of sexual competition into a negative.

And going back to the beginning of this section, think about this:

(Pratt, Hemsworth, Pine, Evans... take your pick!) 
If being attractive were all it takes to create a power imbalance capable of rendering genuine consent impossible -- and thus create a criminal sexual situation -- then we should be looking a lot more closely at physical attractiveness. We'd have to look at the sexy Chris's of the world and say that every time they've hooked up with anyone should be considered sexual assault or rape because their incredible good looks give them a far more significant "power" over women than Louis CK could ever dream of possessing.

But it gets worse.

If we're going to do that, then we would also be forced to start asking questions about the nature of consent as it applied to men in the face of exceptionally attractive women... And you really don't want to go down that rabbit hole.

Women have vastly more power in the sexual selection process than men (see also: Tinder data...  and blatantly obvious reality).

Given that fact, surely someone like Scarlett Johansson would be constantly "abusing her power" by sleeping with men less attractive than she was (say, anyone below Ryan Reynolds), because under the same exact logic, her sheer beauty would easily influence their decision to say yes to whatever she wanted sexually, no matter how blissfully weird it might be. Hell, she'd be abusing men by even asking them for platonic favors given how few would have the fortitude to resist in exchange for even a shot at getting to be around her.

Ironically, nobody will ever do this because as a species we struggle to even imagine that good looking people could do anything wrong, but I hope everyone can see why the whole idea is ridiculous.

Genuine power imbalances that are built into a relationship (ie. teacher/student; adult/child; employer/employee; etc.) absolutely can and should be understood to distort the nature of consent and in many cases these imbalances can even make legitimate consent impossible. 

But if we start considering the mere fact of being incredibly successful (or incredibly beautiful) as a consent-destroying problem of power dynamics, then we're' building a philosophical house of cards that will quickly lead to the conclusion that every interaction between people is involuntary and can never be anything else.

That said... This does seem to be an actual goal of a lot of the SJW crowd, which sees every aspect of humanity through the lens of oppressor and oppressed, but this line of thinking is lunacy. It is, in part, how some 3rd-Wave "Radical" Feminists have come to the bizarre conclusion that all heterosexual intercourse is "rape" (warning: don't click that link if you value your sanity).

Anyway... Intelligent definitions are really important here. 

If you want the idea of a power imbalances to be a meaningful barrier to legitimate consent -- and you should -- then it can't refer to all differences of social status or attractiveness. 

So... No........ 

Louis CK's relative success is not why was wrong to pull out his penis and masturbate in front of various women. The problem isn't that because of his fame and hilarious jokes, he was just sooooo damn irresistible to women that they couldn't say no. That's just arrogant garbage. If he had genuine power over those women -- if he was their boss, or if there was some evidence that he used his success to threaten or punish them, then maybe. But I don't think that was really at issue here.

Consent was possible in Louis CK's case(s). He just didn't really bother to make sure he had it with anybody before getting naked. 

THAT is what he did wrong. 

However... Returning to the issue of miscommunications, I'm about to dig deeper on an even more difficult and controversial question:

What if Louis CK genuinely thought he did have Goodman & Wolov's consent?


Yeah, I know. You're already cracking your knuckles, ready to fire off a killer comment or Tweet letting everyone know how terrible I am and that "you're literally shaking" with rage at the idea that I'd even consider the question at all.

Do what you gotta do, but I'm going to ask the question anyway, and here's why.

My reading of CK's apology letter suggests that at the time, he thought that by asking for their permission to masturbate in front of them and through the women's reactions to that question (laughing, staying in the room), he believed he had gotten their consent.

Quote (with emphasis):
"These stories are true. At the time, I said to myself that what I did was okay because I never showed a woman my dick without asking first, which is also true."
But of course, he didn't have their consent and acknowledges (or comes close to acknowledging) that later on. 

I'm speculating a bit here, but I suspect that the way Goodman & Wolov describe the situation is very different from what was going on in CK's head at the time. To them, their laughter and inaction came from a place of shock, confusion, awkwardness, and dismay.

That makes sense, of course. It's a perfectly common reaction to such a bizarre and awkward situation.

But what if that reaction -- in the context of already having accepted CK's invitation to a private party with him in his hotel room -- inadvertently miscommunicated their consent? 

Seriously... Is that really so impossible?

For shame, yo.
One thing I've observed from several recent conversations is that a lot of people simply see Louis CK's sexual proclivities themselves as highly taboo. Masturbating in front of women is, by its own nature, disgusting. And for a lot of people I've talked to, that's all they really need to know. Anybody who would want to do that is clearly a sex-pervert who should be considered a criminal.

But what if we try to take our own judgments out of the equation?

Here's what I come up with. You ready?

The ugly truth is, I think it's actually fairly plausible that CK never intended to hurt anyone, but rather simply (but very seriously) misread the situation he was in. 

Furthermore, I think it's quite possible that this may have happened in part due to intoxication (lower inhibitions and deadened ability to read non-verbal cues), and also because he had may have been in many similar (perhaps more clearly consensual) versions of that situation before. Perhaps dozens of times over several years.

I don't think I'm going out on a particularly flimsy limb to suggest that Louis CK has asked many other women to participate in his masturbatory exhibitionism.

Beyond all that, consider that he asked Goodman & Wolov if he could do it, and (according to their own statements) they laughed and allowed him to proceed without stopping him until he'd concluded on his own. To that end, I think that the women did themselves a tremendous disservice by not immediately and clearly expressing their discomfort and disgust the way Lupita Nyong'o did with Weinstein.

So yeah, my bet is that Louis CK probably did think he had their consent. 

However... I also don't get the impression that Louis CK actually cared that much about whether or not the women were uncomfortable or what they wanted in that situation. Especially if it's true that he immediately started disrobing after asking the question and nothing else took place in between. 

That alone would put him far into the wrong in this situation, regardless of any avoidable miscommunication caused by the women.

But for the sake of argument, ask yourself this: 

What if Louis CK genuinely thought he had attained the women's consent? Does that matter? Would it make you think differently about the situation? Does the idea of Louis' guilt become more complicated if that's true?

Is there any room for confusion or nuance in these situations or is the end result all that matters?

A lot of people I'm seeing out there seem to think that the answer to this question is a resounding, unequivocal "no"... It doesn't matter that Louis CK (or any of the long list of other men accused of sexual misconduct) may have believed he had gotten consent for his actions.

As long as there are women saying they didn't consent after the fact, there is just no room for gray.

And that brings me to why I'm using Louis CK as an example right now. We all want to believe that we'd never make the same mistakes he made, but I think that's pretty damn easy to say when it's not your private failings being publicly flogged.

Social media outrage is as easy to participate in as it is disingenuous... But the brutal truth is....

Sex & relationships are confusing!


This is probably going to be the least popular thing I'm going to say on a post filled with highly unpopular thoughts... But I think that the reality of human relationships is that they're messy as hell and social and sexual situations are positively filled with major opportunities for miscommunication and confusion.

And these things are not the exclusive fault of men. Or women.

None of us are any good at this at all, and sometimes when we get it wrong, we can really hurt people.

Going back through what I've written here so far, I hope you see a method to my madness. Most of human communication is non-verbal. Consent or rejection of consent is conveyed in tons of different ways and context matters a great deal. Men also face tremendously bad odds at finding sexual partners.

A smile and a gentle touch, or a person just moving a little closer to you can indicate consent, even when nobody says the word "yes"... Just as a grimace and folded arms or a bit of distancing body language can indicate a lack of consent even if no one says the word "no".

We all send mixed signals all the time for conscious and subconscious reasons, and what somebody thinks you're communicating may not be what you really mean and vice versa. Communication experts often talk about how important it is to align your verbal statements with the non-verbal ones -- ie. making sure that your body language and your facial expressions line up with what you want someone to hear you saying. 

One of my favorite examples of body language hangs in massive scale at the NY Times bureau office in Washington, DC.

"The Johnson Treatment", George Tames (NY Times)

I'm sure Lyndon Johnson had a lot to say to Sen. Theodore F. Greene out loud in this moment... But if he had said nothing at all, his intent to intimidate could not be more clear. 

Anyone who thinks that every interpersonal interaction must be accompanied by a verbal yes or no simply doesn't have a realistic view of how human beings actually communicate with each other. And as such, anyone who says that the only instance where someone should proceed with a sexual advance is where they get a direct statement of consent (or a written contract as some universities are attempting to institute), is at best supremely naive, or worse, a charlatan looking for someone to sue.

We're not going to suddenly and radically alter the way people convey their intent to one another. And we shouldn't want to.

It might be true that universal verbal consent would make things more direct and clear (but this isn't obvious given how much tone, inflection and body language play into people's understanding of verbal cues), but apart from being an unrealistic expectation that will never actually happen in the majority of human interactions, it would also introduce an element of formality to relationships that can make things considerably more awkward and inorganic during the most tentative and critical stages of any new relationship.

How many of you have been involved with people who refused to even say the word "boyfriend" or "girlfriend" out loud for months, worried that just the words themselves would convey too much baggage even though they'll date and sleep with you exclusively anyway?

Formalizing relationships... Talking about them consciously and directly... Makes them real. And in my experience, that's even more uncomfortable for people than saying nothing and letting things run their course more naturally. I think a really difficult truth that some folks are going to have to come to terms with here is that most people aren't actually that comfortable being totally verbal or direct all the time.

Among other things, it exposes their insecurities.

But all this inevitable non-verbal communication comes with a cost, and that cost is potential misunderstandings and confusion.


Speaking for myself, I've never remotely considered exposing myself to someone the way that Louis CK or Weinstein have done, but I've certainly radically misread situations with romantic prospects plenty of times in the past. 

Here's a partial accounting:
  • I've leaned in for a kiss or gone for a hug that wasn't reciprocated or wanted. 
  • I've been in several situations where I believed that women were interested in me romantically based on their actions (or my perception of their actions) when in fact, they were just trying to be nice or get something from me. 
  • I've taken women out on incredibly expensive dates thinking they were interested, only to find out that they were never interested to begin with and my efforts just came off as trying too hard.
  • I've been deliberately tricked into believing that a girl I had a crush on liked me, because her friends thought it would be funny. High school was so great.
  • I've been in highly intimate situations where it seemed like things were leading to sex, then with no warning or reason they weren't (exceptionally frustrating), then after a while they were again. Awkward and mystifying.
  • I've been in situations where I've spent all night flirting with women thinking of them as potential longer-term partners, and that flirtation has even led to something physical, but then as quickly as a day later they were gone from my life -- disinterested in anything more. 
  • I've even dated people for weeks or months at a time who all but disappeared the minute something more emotionally serious materialized between us.
  • I've been devastated by breakups and deeply hurt by people who didn't reciprocate my feelings the way I expected them to, and I've been totally crushed by women who left me to wonder why things fell apart. 
  • I had the supreme misfortune of confessing my love for someone who, minutes later on the very same night, told me me that she was moving out of the country with a boyfriend who I didn't think was as serious. Big news all around!
  • And.... Ya know... I've been cheated on by someone I genuinely thought I was going to marry. That hurt... A lot.
And while I've handled most of those moments in my life pretty well, I handled a few of the others really poorly. Embarrassingly so in a few cases.

Those who know me, or who have read to this point in this book-length blogpost should understand that I'm someone who is often compelled to keep digging and trying to understand things long after the point I should have stopped -- and that has definitely carried over into dealing with the pain and confusion of a broken heart after a break-up.

The bigger point is that in those cases where my actions hurt someone else, that was never my intent nor even on my radar at the time... Just as I give most of the women who have hurt me by miscommunicating their interests the benefit of the doubt and assume that they didn't do it deliberately (unless I know for a fact they did... which has happened).

Some of these problems were my fault. Some of them were the woman's fault. But the vast majority were just a complicated mixture of bad communication, lack of clarity, misunderstandings and irrational action borne of insecurity, desire, pain, or fear.

Looking back on my dating life, it's mostly a goddamn mess with the occasional bright spot and continued to be so right up until the point where my best girl friend finally took the initiative to express her romantic interest in me and became my best girlfriend

But the thing is, I don't know anyone who can't say the same thing... And that's because...........

ALL of this is confusing as hell.


I know for a fact that I'm not alone in all of this.

Signals get crossed all the time, and the result is a blur of intentions and desires that are sometimes highly contradictory or rapidly shift from moment to moment. It's easy to think that these situations are easy and that consent is binary and obvious -- yes or no -- but in truth, most romantic situations are way more complex than that. 

And by the way... OF COURSE THEY ARE!

We all totally suck at knowing what we actually want, and sexual situations are tremendously difficult because they're imbued with all kinds of social implications and greater meaning that can't be fully known in advance by anybody involved. All this stuff is built on quicksand -- a constantly shifting foundation that lives and breathes and can come together or fall apart with the slightest breeze. 

This all brings me to...

What we should be "teaching men" (and women):


I repeatedly hear women claim that sexual assault and rapes would be ended if only we "taught men not to rape". This is, to put it bluntly, one of the dumbest things I've ever heard.

We already teach men not to rape!

I've been a male in the United States for over 34 years. I've never been anything else. I grew up with men. I have deep personal friendships with other men from all walks of life. Not a single person I have ever met in my life has been confused about the idea that rape is wrong. I can promise you this. 

And as a society we treat rapists and accused rapists incredibly severely, in spite of all the claims to the contrary. 

Men convicted of rape face some of the harshest prison sentences, and in prison, the only people other prisoners treat worse than adult rapists are child rapists -- who are routinely beaten and even killed in jail.

Rape and sexual assault is also the go-to crime for (lazy) dramatists looking to generate immediate hatred for a villain in a story. 

There's a screenwriting principle from Blake Snyder called "Save the Cat", which is basically a story-teller's way of showcasing a protagonist's good qualities in a simple, easy-to-understand way. The guy who saves a cat stuck in a tree (or any comparable benevolent act) is immediately seen as the hero. A good guy. I think a corollary for villains could just as easily be called "rape the girl"... There are tons of examples of this in films.

And that works because most people see rape as worse and more viscerally evil even than murder.

So this idea that we live in a society where men think it's ok to rape women because they were taught the wrong things is... frankly... complete bullshit.

Sorry, feminists. No.

Most men already know that rape and sexual assault is wrong. And the ones that don't aren't going to get the memo from a guidance counselor's pamphlet. Nor are the prime targets for what I am about to say next. If you think sexual assault and rape is cool, the rest of this post is not going to be useful to you because you're simply not interested in consent in any form.

But that still leaves us with a mess of confusion and issues that still need to be unpacked. What is it that we do need to teach men to reduce situations where people fail to gain consent in their social interactions?

The biggest thing we need to teach people is...

How to communicate with each other.


After many conversations, I've come to realize that the majority of men have no clue what women experience, and yet the vast majority of women also have absolutely no clue how difficult it actually is to be an average male vying for female attention. I'm going to be generalizing a lot here, so note that if aspects don't apply to you or there are extraneous circumstances that don't seem to apply... They probably don't.

Men -- including me -- don't usually appreciate or understand the way their advances come across.

At the same time, many of the things women are frequently annoyed by -- being constantly hit on, catcalled, and whatnot -- are, in my view, a nearly direct result of the incredible imbalance in sexual selection.

Again, go revisit that OK Cupid and Tinder data.

Men of average attractiveness on Tinder are getting 1 like for every 115 women they approach. The odds are wildly out of their favor and it's not even close. So they experiment and take as many chances as they can. For a lot of people, this means hitting on a lot of women in the hopes that just one will like them back.

Or................. It means resigning oneself to a life without sex or love. The stakes really are that high.

But they have no idea how to talk to women effectively, and to make maters even worse, some of the attempts at attracting sexual partners that work with one woman may not work with anyone else. So it's hard to even learn how to approach dating and sexual situations more successfully in general even when you have some successes. It's not like the lessons you learn with one person will necessarily even translate to the next relationship.

Add to all this the issue of non-verbal communication and miscommunication and you have a situation positively primed for men and women to misread situations and hurt each other unintentionally... and even without malicious intent (which is a different conversation) a percentage of these mistakes still end up being very serious. 

So... What do we do?

One man's opinion and all, but... I really think we need to teach EVERYONE how to read social cues and get better at understanding body language, facial expressions, and tone of voice.

I thought about adding links to more resources on understanding body language,
tone of voice, and other aspects of this issue, but it's not something I think you can
actually learn by reading. Get off the computer, look up from your phone, and
talk to people.

We all need to get vastly better at communicating with each other, and to do that, we need to be honest about how that communication takes place. Signing "consent contracts" and stopping in the middle of a passionate moment to have a rational, fully informed conversation about what's ok and what's not, are not likely.

It just isn't.

Men need to learn how to bypass the awkward, off-putting trial and error in dating and get actionable, quality advice on how to approach women early on in their lives so that the inevitable miscommunications don't turn into crimes. I'm not a proponent of PUAs or "The Game", but I've come to sort of appreciate that what Neil Strauss was trying to do with that book was help men understand some of these things and stop flailing about like idiots.

If we could get something like that that didn't also end up being a guide-book for sleazebags, that would be great.

But women also need to understand that most men are not very good at this and quite a lot of the time things they perceive of as intense or threatening really aren't. They need to understand and try to empathize with the fact that this stuff is enormously challenging for most men, and the odds are fantastically against them... Especially if they aren't extremely physically attractive -- which, by the way, we all should also note affects the way we interpret the same actions from different people.

Also... What women may perceive as intentional or malicious behavior by men is sometimes men desperately trying anything they can to procreate (even if the end result isn't babies) and not to end up alone.

As a result, just as men need to learn to be considerably better at reading signals, listening to what women are saying, and slowing down/stopping when they start picking up on discomfort... Women need to align their words and non-verbal messages to communicate their interests, desires, and their consent or dissent far more clearly than they often do. If something makes you uncomfortable, express that in the moment.

Don't wait until later and don't just ghost the men in your life when they do something weird.

Situational awareness is also critical, and that's a common thread with a lot of these stories as well. When a man invites a woman to his home or hotel room in the middle of the night instead of a mid-day lunch at a crowded restaurant, that's usually a signal that you should pay attention to.
But in the end, this all comes down to genuine empathy.

As much as possible, we all need to be a hell of a lot better at not only communicating with each other... We ALSO have to try to see the situation from other people's perspectives, and not rush to anger or accusation when something happens that we don't like.

No matter who initiates the encounter, we all have to listen more, assume less, be more patient, and more cautious... But the we also have to have the guts to talk to people when they do stuff we don't like instead of saying nothing in the moment and Tweeting about them later.

Far from enabling more non-consensual interactions, these two things in conjunction -- more communication plus more leniency & empathy --  will help us establish a clearer, brighter line between serious cases of malicious, intentional sexual assault, harassment, and rape and awkward or hurtful interactions borne of misunderstanding.

That's the only way most of us idiots are going to learn how to be better, and until this happens, a lot of people are going to hurt each other unintentionally.

Consent is critically important to every aspect of life... But if you don't actually communicate it clearly, we're going to be stuck with more shitty situations like we've seen in the news for the last several weeks.

Saturday, August 6, 2016

MOVIE REVIEW: Suicide Squad [SPOILERS]

Okay.

Suicide Squad review time, and there will be blood.

I'm going to warn you up front. I'm kind of pissed... and there will be spoilers here. I just don't care, this movie was a goddamn mess.

It's so bad, I really don't know where to begin.

The first act is an unmitigated disaster. Every single character introduction is severely botched. It's some of the clumsiest, worst writing I've ever seen in any film. It's so lazy, in fact, that writer/director David Ayer just created a template and used exactly the same system for everyone.

It's the epitome of formulaic.

We meet Deadshot in his prison cell. Cue cliched pop music. Amanda Waller literally tells us what he can do. We cut to a flashback of him doing what he does. We cut back to Waller explaining his weak-ass "emotional" backstory. Then we see another flashback of him getting arrested by Batman and sent to the prison he's in now.

We meet Harley Quinn in her prison cell. Cue cliched pop music. Amanda Waller literally tells us what she can do. We cut to a flashback of her doing what she does. We cut back to Waller explaining more backstory. Then we see another flashback of her getting arrested by batman and sent to the prison she's in now.

We meet Killer Croc in his prison cell. Cue cliched pop music... You get the idea.

There's zero finesse. No artfulness. No thoughtfulness. It's all just ineptly stated exposition followed immediately by a visualization of that exposition in a sequence that serves no purpose other than to repeat what we just heard. It happens for almost every character we meet and there are a lot of characters in this movie.

It's one of the worst violations of the "show, don't tell" principle in film-making I've ever seen.

And what's even more frustrating is that the movie misses every major opportunity to use these character introductions to build suspense or actually lay the groundwork for what could have been dramatic reveals later on.

For example, as Amanda Waller is explaining Diablo to her Department of Defense dinner guests, she references his fire-controlling abilities by saying something to the effect of:
"You should see the security footage, it's incredible."
Now... Smarter and better film-makers might have just left a line like that as a tease - suggestively letting us know that he is a character capable of amazing things that we haven't seen yet. That way, those amazing abilities could be revealed to us later in the film - perhaps in the third act when more firepower (pun intended) is actually called for.

Inexplicably, this movie doesn't do that kind of thing at all.

Instead, Ayer follows Waller's little joke by immediately cutting to the aforementioned security footage which shows us exactly what he can do. So when it's finally time for him to show the extent of his raw power to the the rest of the group in the key moment, it falls completely flat... Because it's not a surprise or spectacle to marvel at.

This is particularly a shame because Diablo is one of the most interesting characters in the movie - a superhuman gangland king turned pacifist, satisfied with spending his remaining life in prison as atonement.

But ya know what? That's not even the worst character introduction.

Not 10 seconds after Katana - a fundamentally useless character whose role could have been cut out entirely with no impact on the film - first appears on screen, we're treated to a ludicrously irrelevant flashback of her battling the Yakuza in Japan as an explanation for why she's a little late to the mission, and when we return to the scene from that trip down memory lane, Rick Flag follows that up with some poorly worded line about how her husband was killed and his soul lives in her sword to explain even more of her backstory to everyone else.

It's all just straight-out spoken exposition that doesn't even serve a purpose to the overall story.

And I get it... It's hard to introduce so many characters. There are a ton in this movie. The actual "Suicide Squad" (which, by the way, is a phrase literally used in the film) itself consists of:
  • Deadshot (Will Smith)
  • Harley Quinn (Margot Robbie)
  • Killer Croc (Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje)
  • Diablo (Jay Hernandez)
  • Captain Boomerang (Jai Courtney)
  • Slipknot (Adam Beach)
  • Katana (Karen Fukuhara)
  • Rick Flag (Joel Kinnaman)
  • and Enchantress (Cara Delevingne) before she goes off the chain
Plus we have Amanda Waller (Viola Davis), Batman (mainly played by Ben Affleck's stunt double), Enchantress's brother Incubus (Alain Chanoine), and a shockingly forgettable Joker (Jared Leto).


These characters aren't all necessary, but I get why some of their stories would need to be rushed. That's not the problem. The problem is that it doesn't seem like anybody at DC even bothered to try to deal with introducing these characters intelligently.

And it doesn't really get any better.

Once we meet them, their motivations are incredibly inconsistent and none of them is particularly believable as a villain or a bad guy. Keep in mind that this is supposed to be a movie about murderers and thieves whose only connection to each other is a ruthless government agent who has them all by the balls. They're only working together because Waller will literally blow their heads off if they don't. At the very least, what this should mean is that the core tension (and even the comedy) in the film should come from the fact that these people can't get it together as a team. But strangely, that never seems to be a big problem for them.

They all seem to like each other right away, and they actually have far fewer problems with team dynamics than The Avengers.

In fact, I would argue that Suicide Squad actually goes way out of its way to paint each of these characters as sympathetic. Even Killer Croc - who, in the comics is a brutal, monstrous cannibal who tears people apart - is mostly shown as a misunderstood misfit who got abused by people calling him a freak as a child. Waller claims that these are the "worst of the worst", but I've personally met people I was more afraid of.

Meanwhile, the plot makes absolutely no sense.

It's genuinely not worth going into much detail about that. You already know what you really need to know anyway - imprisoned bad guys are recruited by a nefarious government operative to undertake an insane mission and save the world.

The big unsurprising twist (again, spoilers) is that Enchantress - an archeologist named June, possessed by an evil 6,000 year old witch - is only "good" because her magical heart is controlled by Waller, who threatens to destroy the witch if she doesn't work for her. When that goes predictably awry, Enchantress reanimates her brother Incubus by releasing his soul from a bottle and having him possess some random businessman in a train-station and together, they shoot a mysterious blue light of the variety we've now seen a hundred times up into the sky that opens a portal to some other dimension which will do........ something.

WoooooOOOooo... Bluuuuue liiiiiiiights!
I honestly still have no idea what the actual threat is.

When Incubus comes back to life, Enchantress tells him that humans no longer worship them as gods and that now, they worship machines. So, she says, they will build a machine... But as far as I can tell, at no point during the rest of the film do they attempt to build anything remotely resembling a "machine".

Even if they had done what they said they were going to do, I find it hard to imagine a more boring premise.

Worse still, while the villains' powers and motivation are thin and poorly established, it is at least clear that Enchantress and Incubus are wildly more powerful than the entire Suicide Squad team. So much so, that the only way they actually lose is by completely forgetting to use most of their abilities for no reason at all.

What if all the characters just showed up like this? Then
we could learn more about them throughout the rest of the
movie...
In a better movie, we'd have seen two hours of bad guys struggling to work together, trying to escape and abandon the mission, and fighting amongst themselves. We'd have seen a group of selfish people who have no interest in saving the world fail to execute their mission and find themselves in an increasingly dangerous meat grinder. They would have to make the impossible choice between getting obliterated by the villain, getting their heads blown off by Waller, or killing each other. We should be entering the third act with a disjointed group whose only hope is to use their individual skills as part of a team to win.

In a better movie, the characters would just wake up in a creepy room like Carey Elwes in Saw - all mystery and no context. Then we'd get to know who they are by their own actions, slowly and subtly throughout the rest of the story. They would build relationships with each other over time, not just decide randomly that they're one big family for no reason.

In a better movie, complex themes about the nature of good and evil, the humanity of criminals, and the nefariousness of secret government agencies might be explored.

But we didn't get a better movie. We got a frustratingly terrible movie which I was genuinely tempted to walk out of several times.

Just watch this. It's actually good.
When I got home, I put on DC's excellent animated Suicide Squad movie, "Assault on Arkham", just to wash the taste out of my mouth - and sure enough, every aspect of that film is superior to this one at half the run-time. If this movie had just been a live-action version of that script, it would have been an infinitely higher quality film to what I just saw.

What DC is doing with their cinematic universe is completely unconscionable at this point.

Like Man of Steel and Batman v Superman, Suicide Squad is a movie that (mostly) looks good. It's got a fantastic core cast who all seem really well suited to their various roles. There are good beats and moments here and there - including a couple in this film where I actually chuckled or smiled. It's even got an overall premise that few other movies and certainly no recent comic book movies have had, which should make it a fresh take on the genre in the same way that Guardians of the Galaxy or Deadpool offered more originality.

There was so much potential here and yet again, DC has squandered their opportunity with terrible writing and poor direction.

I'm done. The next one does not get the benefit of the doubt.