“About people like Weinstein and the casting couch and all of that,” she says, “I have a confession. In my day, if you went up to a guy’s hotel room, you knew exactly why you were going and in those days it was consensual. Times were different,”
Rather what my basic – base perhaps – analysis has been all along.
Leave aside what should be. The actual problem here is that we did have a set of rules. No matter how good or bad they were, a set of rules that all knew and which were abided by at that cost of social ostracism if they weren’t. Note again, this is not to say that they were good – or bad – rules. Just that they existed and were known.
Those rules are now in flux. We’ve a number of claims about what the new rules should be. And we’ve most certainly not come to a general societal agreement about what these new ones are.
Which is what the general problem is.
Now, to get back to what the rules should be. I go for capitalism and free markets because that’s, to my mind, the best way of dealing with and harnessing people as they actually are. Sure, socialism sounds fun, us all working altruistically for some greater good, it’s just that homo sapiens sapiens doesn’t do that. Socialism is for some other species, bees, ants maybe.
Rules about sex? Think that whatever the rules are should run with what human nature is. Sure, constrain the bad bits – as markets constrain the greed of capitalism – and promote the good. And entirely willing to agree that effective contraception/DNA tests etc change what the rules need to be even as they’ve not changed a couple of hundred thousand years of how we got here.
So, for example, virginity just ain’t what it used to be. And isn’t as we can all observe out there. But that people will trade what they’ve got for what they want hasn’t gone away – just as an example.