Men and women bear equal dignity as human beings.  But the men-in-women's-sports scandal is an elegant demonstration that the claim that men and women are just the same in doesn’t liberate women, but subjugates and abolishes them.

One could almost be grateful for the travesty of those men pretending to be women, because for those who have eyes to see, it makes the point clear.

Query from a reader in South Asia:

Recently I complimented a female friend who was wearing a Western style crop top which I found attractive.  I am wondering if my compliment was appropriate.  One reason for wondering is that today crop tops for females are viewed as within the bounds of decency, although this may have not been the case fifty years ago.

Reply:

I think your question unpacks into three questions.  One wouldn’t want to obsess over them, but it’s interesting to give them some thought -- not just because you are wondering whether your compliment was polite, but because your problem concerns the relationship of changing to unchanging things.  Whenever I teach about natural law, I find that people have a hard time with the idea that the application of a fixed standard is not necessarily fixed itself.  They tend to think either that the applications can’t change, or else, that if they can, there just aren’t any underlying standards.

Besides, decency is a slippery topic.  Needless to say, so is avoiding offense.

The first question.  Can standards of decency in clothing change over time?  Sure.  Needless to say, one should never wear clothing just to excite thoughts of sex.  Unfortunately, today many young women are encouraged to attract male attention not by being pretty, but by dressing in such a way as to arouse prurience, and quite a few men and women no longer understand the difference.  But what does count as sexually provocative?  At one period in my country, for a woman to show any part of her legs above her ankles would have been considered indecent.  Somewhat later, it was considered “daring,” but not quite indecent.  Today, the sight of some portion of leg is so common that no one gives a thought to a glimpse of leg.  Since it is no longer particularly provocative, it has become decent.

The second question.  Can such standards vary geographically?  Of course.  In some countries, clothing which exposes a woman’s midriff is considered attractive but not provocative; in others, it is considered quite indecent.  I grew up in an era when a woman of my country would never have considered showing her navel in everyday wear, and I am still uncomfortable with this style of dress.  However, my feelings are not the measure of all things.  Moreover, I would certainly not view it as pushing the boundaries of decency to dress in this way in a country in which it was customary, and I realize that the historical standards concerning the midriff are different in your country and in mine.  Of course there are all sorts of ways to show the midriff, and many degrees of exposure.  In a given place and time, one style of doing so may cross the line, but another may not.

The final question.  May one compliment a woman’s appearance?  Well, yes, but such norms too vary across time and place.  In my country these days, complimenting a woman’s appearance is like walking across a minefield, because it risks the presumption of prurient or even predatory intent.  That may not be the case in yours.

Depending on one’s culture, whether a compliment is considered appropriate also depends on who is complimenting whom -- on the nature of the relationship between them -- on their respective states of life -- on whether the compliment concerns the clothing, an accessory, or the body as expressed by the clothing -- on the part of the body which the clothing or accessory covers, suggests, or reveals -- on whether the compliment implies comparison between the charms of the person complimented and the charms of others -- on whether it is offered in public or in private, or in a formal or informal context – on whether one meets or avoids the eyes of the person complimented -- and on all sorts of other matters bearing on the inference of intent, such as voice tone and facial expression.  You wouldn’t want to leer, for instance.

Maintaining the presumption of innocence becomes nearly impossible in a hypersexualized culture.  At the present day, in my own country, whether a compliment is welcomed or rejected may even depend on the political views of the person who receives it!

Now doesn’t all that make everything easy?

P.S.  For less about what does change, and more about what doesn’t, I think you would be interested in the chapter on “The Meaning of Sexual Beauty” in my book On the Meaning of Sex.

Query:

C.S. Lewis said, "Friendship is unnecessary, like philosophy, like art, like the universe itself (for God did not need to create).  It has no survival value; rather it is one of those things which give value to survival."  This prompts me to ask you whether you believe beauty is "necessary" for life.  I am thinking that it’s technically not essential for survival, but still key to a good life.  Would you share your thoughts on this?

Reply:

I do think beauty is necessary for life, but to make my meaning clear, I had better make a few distinctions.

Sometimes when we say that having P is “necessary” for doing Q, we mean that we can’t do Q as well without P.  This is how we are speaking when we say that an automobile is “necessary” for getting to San Antonio.  Sure, we could walk there, but it would be slow and difficult.  Is beauty necessary for life in this sense?  Yes.  God has endowed us with such a powerful longing for beauty that if we are drowning in ugliness, we will probably be sad and listless even if we do stay alive.  We will not be living well.

On the other hand, sometimes when we say that having P is “necessary” for doing Q, we mean that we can’t do Q at all without P.  This is how we are speaking when we say that lungs are “necessary” for breathing.  Remove my lungs, and I die.  Is beauty necessary for life in that sense?  Probably not – yet in some cases it can be.  One can imagine a person who has no beauty whatsoever in his life, who finally becomes so listless that he stops eating and taking care of himself, so that he does die.

Your introduction of the expression “survival value” brings in another complication, though, because this expression too can be taken in two senses.

A person who asks whether beauty has “survival value” may mean, “Given that we are creatures who powerfully long for beauty, will we die without it?”  I’ve just answered that question above.  We probably won’t die without it, but we might.

But a person who asks whether beauty has “survival value” might instead mean something quite different.  He might be asking, “Can I explain the human longing for beauty in terms of adaptation, as Darwin would have explained it?  That is, would a creature which did long for beauty have a better shot at passing on its genes than a creature which didn’t long for it?”

And to that question, the answer is plainly “No.”  Consider a creature which desires only food, water, shelter, and a mate.  If it can get these things, it not only survives but thrives, and if it doesn’t get them, it dies.  Now consider a creature which not only desires food, water, shelter, and a mate, but also longs for beauty.  The conditions for its flourishing aren’t easier to achieve, but harder, because even if it does have the other four things, it still may not have beauty.

For this reason, one would expect a mere process of natural selection to work against the development of a general longing for beauty.  Yet here we are.

From a sheer biological perspective, this looks like a miracle.  The suggestion that creatures like us are merely the meaningless and purposeless result of a process which did not have us in mind is staggeringly implausible.

Elon Musk has many children with many women, some of them paid very large sums to bear them.  He says his purpose is to help stave off population decline due to falling birthrates.   A more likely motive is to multiply his own image.  It is a technological solution to depopulation, like a photocopying machine:  There aren't enough children, so get lots of women pregnant.

Needless to say, this is not kind to the children.  Human children need a mom and a dad, not a mom and a rich sperm donor.  The moral solution to depopulation would be to marry, have lots of children with one's wife, and encourage others to do likewise.

Earth's creatures have two ways to continue the species.  Some, like tapeworms, have huge numbers of offspring but invest little or no time in any of them. Most of the offspring die, but a small percentage of a huge number is still something.
Others, like humans, have a fairly small number of offspring compared with those others, but lavish a lot of personal care and attention on each one.  A far greater percentage of this much smaller number grow up and mature.

If only Mr. Musk would think less like a tapeworm and more like a human being.

Why do we keep finding ourselves at war?  Why can’t all nations agree to a rules-based international order?

The reason is that what the foreign policy establishment likes to call “rules-based international order” is something like a constitution without a government.  Since there is no overall authority to enforce the rules, the system gives the advantage to rogues, who exploit the reluctance of rule-following states to act against them.

Of course, even without an overall authority, likeminded states can act together to punish violations of the rules.  But reaching agreement to do so is difficult, and the difficulty goes beyond merely getting them to agree.  For how do you do away with the temptation to be a free rider?  If some states agree to enact sanctions, then other states will use the opportunity to cut a deal with the rogue.  In fact, even states which approve the sanctions in principle will be tempted to work around them quietly.

Besides, the goal of those who cherish the idea of a rules-based international order is predictability.  Everyone knows what everyone else will and won’t do under every condition.  So those who aren’t pleased with the status quo game the system, always walking right up to the line and putting their toes a quarter of an inch beyond it.  The temptation of the status quo states is to keep moving the line back.

Thus, without occasional resort to force, the so-called rules-based international order makes certain disruptions of international order more likely rather than less.  And that means less peace rather than more.