But first, a bit of background information.
The race for the Senate in Virginia has been particularly nasty. Webb, seeking to unseat George Allen, went negative early on, accusing the Senator of various and sundry offenses, more often than not centering on Allen's character. This has resulted in Allen's fight for his political life, with each candidate trading barbs that only get more intense as time passes. The unsubstantiated charge that prompted Allen's latest offensive was when Webb claimed that Allen 'used a racial slur' some years ago while a college student.
Not surprisingly, the mainstream media took the story and ran with it, although there was no legitimate way of proving or disproving the allegation.
That lead to the present scuffle over the novels written by James Webb, which include graphic descriptions of the atrocities of war, specifically the War in Viet Nam, of which Webb is a veteran. One scene in particular describes an act of incest between a father and his four-year-old son. The two have oral sex.
Senator Allen claims that such descriptions come from a man who obviously has character issues of his own. That may or may not be true, depending on the internal motivation of the author to write about such things in a series of books that do not claim to be documentaries but NOVELS. After all, Webb may well be merely attempting to portray a scene he actually witnessed as a soldier, calling attention not only to the atrocities of war but to the horrific manner in which women and children are treated in different cultures, in this case, Viet Nam.
However, during a radio interview this morning on Washington Post Radio, Webb may well have inadvertently confirmed Allen's suspicions about his character. As Webb attempted to defend himself against criticism concerning the incestuous scene of oral sex in his novel, he quipped, 'It's not a sexual act.'
The fact that Webb writes about graphic, sexual, and abusive incidents in his novels may not necessarily be a reflection on his character, but the statement, 'It's not a sexual act,' certainly does.
Webb's attempt to claim that incestuous oral sex is not a sexual act is reminiscent of Bill Clinton's assertion that what he did with Monica Lewinski 'was not sexual.' Clinton, in a court of law, went to great lengths to attempt to explain how oral sex is not sex.
James Webb
Not surprisingly, defenders of Webb's statement, some of whom are in the Press, quickly explained that what Webb meant was that in that particular culture, oral sex between a father and his young son is not considered a sexual act, but rather, it is like some sort of rite of passage.
Does this mean, then, that when Islamic cultures conduct the gruesomely brutal act of female circumcision they are merely following cultural dictates and that there is no sexism or abuse inherent in such acts?
To a culture in southeast Asia that is rampant with child prostitution, child pornography, and other acts that civilized cultures recognize as barbaric, a thing like oral sex with a four year old may seem to be nothing more than routine. Civilized people know better.
And this is the root of Webb's problem. By stating, 'It's not a sexual act,' when referring to an act of alarming abuse in a country where such things are not only tolerated but encouraged, Webb has placed himself in a terrible predicament.
How is this defense of his book any different than a defense attorney for a rapist claiming, 'But, it wasn't a sexual act'? After all, we know that rapists are not normally driven by any voracious sexual desire but by power, rage, and a disdain for women. Does this mean, then, that their act of rape is any less a rape merely because of the motivation?
Thus, Webb's predicament is that there is no discernible, rational manner for him to explain his way out of this. Many a politician before him has crashed and burned in a campaign for making far less crucial misstatements. This particular statement, however, gives us a slight glimpse into the mindset of the candidate.
My hunch is that Webb has just insured his own defeat.
No comments:
Post a Comment