For decades, women have been duped into devaluing the price of their intimacy. Now selfish men are getting their comeuppance.
For decades, women have been duped into devaluing the price of their intimacy. Now selfish men are getting their comeuppance.
L ast week, Dave Portnoy, founder of the Barstool Sports blog, released an “emergency press conference” on Twitter in response to the Dobbs decision overturning Roe v. Wade. He lamented that without guaranteed abortion access, the country is “going backwards.” He said he sees no other choice but “to vote for a moron like Biden because the Right is gonna put Supreme Court people in who are just ruining this country, taking basic rights away.”
I’ll leave it to one of my colleagues to settle the question whether Portnoy represents the “future of the conservative movement” (as has been suggested). What’s of more immediate interest is that the overturning of Roe could facilitate something of a crisis for the bro-choice movement.
Portnoy’s strong feelings about abortion are representative of men who pursue commitment-free sex and are thus beneficiaries of Roe. And some women seem to share these feelings. The other day, Vice President Kamala Harris said on CNN, “If you are a parent of sons, do think about what this means for the life of your son and what that will mean in terms of the choices he will have.”
Yes, do think. It’s long overdue.
The first time Portnoy appeared on my radar was in relation to his unfortunate MeToo episode. After Business Insider published a story in which women he’d slept with accused the blogger of becoming violent during sex, choking them, and filming them without permission, Portnoy posted a video on Twitter offering his side of the story. He denies any violence and says that everything that happened was “100 percent consensual.”
After examining the evidence, the nicest thing I have to say about Portnoy is that he isn’t a rapist.
That, of course, is a very low bar to clear. But Portnoy’s indignation went beyond countering accusations of criminality. It was clear he didn’t think he’d done anything wrong. He complained he was being “painted as a sexual deviant.” The word “deviant” simply means “departing from the usual or accepted standards.” It would be far better for everyone, including Dave Portnoy, if the behavior he so shamelessly recounted was considered deviant.
Matthew Walther, in describing the rise of Portnoyism and why it’s such a popular kind of politics, points to some of the causes it embraces, such as “the rights of male undergraduates to engage in fornication while intoxicated without fear of the Title IX mafia.” The Title IX mafia are indeed a menace, trampling on the due-process rights that everyone — including actual criminals — is entitled to. However, defending due-process rights ought not to be conflated with moral approval of particular behaviors. Men are not entitled to sex without “fear” of consequences. And not least because all sex has consequences — if not physical, then emotional and spiritual. Selfishness ought to be shameful.
The truth is that fear of unwanted responsibilities and social pressure are far more effective deterrents to sexual misbehavior than any kangaroo court or campaign of personal or political vindictiveness. The reason is that, per Kamala Harris, it requires thinking — the anticipation of mutual responsibility.
Consider the alternative we’ve lived with since the sexual revolution. In his posthumous Netflix special, Nothing Special, Norm Macdonald said ironically: “I remember telling the fellas in high school, ‘Guys, I think we’re making a big mistake by shaming the sluts. You see, here’s what is my concern. I feel if we shame them too much, they might stop becoming sluts.’”
Shame acted as a safeguard against behaviors that are both individually and socially destructive. This applied to both sexes. In addition to “slut-shaming,” there was also cad-shaming. Before the sexual revolution, the minimum offer required by society for a man to secure sex with a woman outside of wedlock was commitment. When sex resulted in pregnancy, society expected him to rise to the occasion and marry her. Her family would demand it — hence the term “shotgun wedding.” A man who failed to meet this expectation would be considered unmanly and immoral.
For decades, women have been duped into devaluing the price of their intimacy. Once, the default was to deny sex until a woman’s long-term interests had been guaranteed; then the default became to go along with it, bearing the full weight of the associated risks and responsibilities. Unsurprisingly, that has suited many men just fine. Now some women are reconsidering. Insider reports that, in response to the overturning of Roe, “some in Gen Z [are] reevaluating their relationship to sex, intimacy, and hookup culture.” Good.
We were told that a sexual ethic reliant on easily accessible contraception and abortion as a backstop would liberate women. What it’s done instead is liberate several generations of Portnoys. Now, the bro-choice movement is getting its comeuppance.