Are Men Perverts?

Women may disagree, but men have had to adapt and conform to the established norms and standards of society to a greater degree than have women. Men have had to force themselves to act totally in opposition to their natural tendencies with regard to sex, whereas women may simply behave the way nature intended.

Consider an experiment performed at a university in which males aged 18 to 24 were told to ask young women, whom they had never met, for sex. The men were supposed to find a female college student who was alone at the time, strike up a casual conversation about the weather, and then say something like, "I find you very attractive. Would you like to go to my room and have sex?"

In the experiment, 100 percent of the women refused the proposition. And, in fact, the vast majority of them not only refused to have sex, but also seemed insulted or annoyed at having been asked.

The next phase of the experiment reversed the roles. This time, the women were supposed to find a male student and strike up a casual conversation, ending with the same question. And this time, the results were quite different. Seventy percent of the men who were propositioned agreed to have sex. And the reaction of almost all the rest was not disgust. Most were apologetic. Some said things like, "I'm sorry, but I'm afraid my girlfriend might catch us," or, "I don't think I should because I'm kinda going with someone right now."

Why should the women have felt so insulted or annoyed at being asked the same question that didn't bother most men? Women might say the answer is because all men are jerks, or perverts. But that still begs the question, "why is that so?"

The real answer, of course, lies with evolution. In the earliest history of humankind, it was the male's responsibility to make sure the species was promulgated. It was the man's duty to successfully breed with as many females as possible. He was genetically inclined to reproduce with reckless abandon.

Females, on the other hand, were genetically predisposed to seek out the single male that she thought would give her the best and strongest children. And then, her job was to stay at home and raise her family. This behavior was not something she considered consciously; it was simply pre-programmed in her genes. Genetically, she was not interested in having many partners in rapid succession. She simply wanted the best man to get her pregnant, after which time she would refuse sex until she was ready for her next child. In prehistoric times, it was nature's way of making sure the species survived.

The social morés that exist in today's society more nearly reflect the attitude of the early cave women, that is, don't have casual sex with multiple partners, and be true to the one you're with for life. But the men of today still have that genetic predisposition to fertilize as many women as possible in the shortest amount of time.

For that reason, it is the men who have had to adapt their behavior and suppress their tendencies in order to conform to what society says is acceptable behavior. Women have had to change little. These are, of course, general tendencies. There are men who have no repressed sexual desires; as there are some women whose sex drive rivals any man's.

For the most part, every man that approaches a woman that he finds attractive, and then gets tongue-tied as he tries to compliment her or ask her out, and every man who behaves like a jerk, whistling and winking at women on the street; all they really want to do is simply go up to that woman and say, "Hey, babe, let's have sex." But how many women have ever had a man come up to them out of the blue and ask that question? Probably very few have.

So the men, although they may behave like perverts occasionally from a woman's perspective, are actually suppressing a lot more of their true sexual desires than the women give them credit for. Women, therefore, should not react as though all men are jerks or perverts when the men occasionally regress to an earlier era. Men are simply doing the best they can at repressing their natural genetic tendencies.

That certainly doesn't excuse a man for behaving poorly. It just means that women should try to understand a man's view of sex from a biological point of view, as men have been forced to understand, or at least reluctantly accept, the nature of women. After all, for both sexes, it's all in the genes.

Some Music Lasts Forever; Some shouldn't Last 10 Minutes

I don’t listen to radio very often. About the only time I listen to it is when my daughter turns it on in the car when she’s riding with me.

The reason I seldom listen to radio is because most of the stuff they play on it is pure garbage. There are a few decent tunes, but it’s like trying to dig through a pile of trash to find a quarter; it’s just not worth it.

Even though I don’t listen to much radio, I do listen to music a lot. Most of my music is downloaded from the Internet, so I can buy only the tracks off an album that I really like.

When it comes to music I have my own bias. Sometimes, you just know when you like a song, but don’t really know why. Most often, you don’t care to analyze why – if you like it, you like it.

However, with all due respect for their intelligence, I’m fairly certain that many teenagers decide what music is good by its popularity. It’s another “chicken-and-egg” conundrum. Is the music popular because it is good, or is it perceived as being good because the recording industry and radio stations have made it popular?

Granted, there is a lot of variety within popular music. Some of it is truly original, artful, and produced with talent and passion. Most of it, however, was poured straight from the rim of a mass-produced tin can.

Country music is going strong right now, even among young people. When I was in high school, I listened to Country, but it wasn’t “cool.” I had to listen to it clandestinely.

My daughter, who was once an avid country music fan, doesn’t listen to it much anymore. She had heard enough of it after she first heard the song, “Drugs or Jesus.”

And I stopped listening to the genre years ago. The domain of the once-great Don Williams, Glen Campbell, and Marty Robbins has become pathetic in its simplicity and lack of any form of artistic expression, except for the obligatory pronounced Texas drawl. It’s trite and humdrum.

And today’s Pop music isn’t any better. Most of it is overly simple and lacking in originality. A few Pop stars, such as Avril Lavigne and Mandy Moore, are talented and original, but they are the exceptions.

I also love the more mature music of Diana Krall and Norah Jones. But the radio airwaves don’t carry much of that kind of art. They carry hype. Hype is what sells and it’s what draws the younger crowd, the ones who buy most music, to the radio.

Physical appearance is also a bigger factor. How else could a young girl named Britney, who has a voice like Bart Simpson, make it to the top of the music charts? It certainly can’t be her musical talent.

One criterion I use to judge whether a piece of music is really good is its longevity. If it’s a song that is truly good, it will last forever.

Forty years ago, the Beatles recorded a song called “Yesterday.” It has become one of the most-played Pop songs in all history. The Eagle’s “Desperado” is another fine example of a song that will last forever.

About 300 years ago a man named Johann Pachelbel wrote a piece of music that he simply called “Canon in D Major.” Today Pachelbel’s Canon is one of the most often played pieces of music from any generation.

People can listen to talentless hype if they desire. But it is hard to argue with the longevity and appeal these artful tunes possess. It took real talent to create them.

It is difficult to imagine any one of the songs by Britney Spears, 50 Cent, Alan Jackson, or any Rap artist known to man keeping their popularity for 30 years, let alone 300.

Give Roberts Benefit of Doubt

As I and most everyone else expected, Pres. Bush nominated a solid conservative to replace Sandra Day O’Conner on the Supreme Court. And, in keeping with his persona of doing things his way, his choice was not a woman, as some had expected.

John Roberts is a rock solid conservative. But, unlike some of the other possibilities on Bush’s short list, he is, thankfully, not an activist. If his nomination is approved by the Senate, the big question that will eventually be answered is will he tip the balance on the High Court significantly toward the right?

Roberts grew up in Long Beach, a small town in Northwest Indiana along the shore of Lake Michigan. He graduated from a private school in LaPorte, Ind. So he grew up with solid Midwestern values.

He was a former clerk to William Rehnquist before he became Chief Justice. Roberts was also a Justice Department official under Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, and was appointed by the current president to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit two years ago. He was approved by the Senate for that position by voice vote.

But O’Conner was a moderate conservative. She was often the swing vote on major divisive issues such as abortion rights and affirmative action. She most recently was the swing vote on a decision that allowed a Texas courthouse to keep its monument of the Ten Commandments while denying a Kentucky court the right to hang a plaque of the same inside its lobby.

Roberts may not be so centrist. When he was solicitor general for the elder Bush, he spoke out against abortion rights, saying that Roe v. Wade should be overturned.

Advocates for Roberts say that he was only doing his job when he made that statement. It was made as a lawyer on behalf of his client, Bush.

Even Roberts later said, “Roe v. Wade is the settled law of the land.”

But as a conservative, one has to believe that Robert’s views on abortion and the former Supreme Court case that made it legal is similar to his former boss’s.

Still, one has to give Roberts credit. The Harvard graduate has impeccable credentials, is brilliant, and has remained largely free from controversy, although he has been a federal judge for only two years.

During those two years, he has not written any opinions that stand out as being reactionary. One might hope that he will adjudicate from a strictly legal and constitutional standpoint, not an ideological one.

Bush claims that’s one of the reasons he settled on Roberts. “John Roberts has devoted his entire professional life to the cause of justice and is widely admired for his intellect, his sound judgment and his personal decency,” Bush said.

Bush previously said that he wanted someone who would interpret the Constitution strictly and not try to legislate from the bench. During Robert’s short tenure as a federal judge, he seems so far to have opined without much legislative rhetoric.

But both his foes and his supporters are gearing up for a battle in the Senate. They have been raising funds is anticipation of a fight over confirmation and I don’t look for either side to disappoint.

And it is imperative that all Robert’s written opinions while on the bench be perused for any sign of advocacy. A judge’s job, especially one on the High Court, is to interpret the law and the Constitution from a neutral standpoint.

Justice Anthony Kennedy once wrote, “The First Amendment is often inconvenient. But that is beside the point.”

That is a good philosophy for all justices to keep in mind. The law of the land is supreme, regardless of how inconvenient it makes things or how distasteful it might be to some.

If Roberts is confirmed, as I’m sure he will be, I hope he keeps that in mind. The Constitution gave Congress powers to legislate, not the courts.