I haven’t blogged about the whole Secret Service international sexcapades, but this story is just another example of a topic that I really want some help on here. First the story, out of Napierville, Illinois (which, ironically is the home base of anti-gay extremist and sex-act obsessed Peter LaBarbera):
A suburban Chicago man caught driving 111 mph — nearly 70 mph over the speed limit he was passing through — offered up an unusual explanation for police questioning why he had the need for speed.
Zachary Ramirez, 21, of the 1400 block of Fairway Drive in Naperville, Ill., explained to police when he was pulled over early Sunday that he was in a hurry to “try to go have sex with a girl he liked,” the Chicago Sun-Times reports.
The dude also blew through a traffic light, and the police found some weed in his car. He was released on $200 bond, charged with reckless driving, the pot possession and disobeying both a stop sign and traffic light.
Anyway, my question — I need to hear from guys out there who will take it seriously — between the Secret Service booty calls and this, help me understand why “the little brain” for some guys seem to overpower the big brain way too often, ignoring basic common sense? I mean, I remember my monthly cycles all too well (had a hysterectomy not too long ago), and aside from bad cramps, some odd cravings, and perhaps some increased drive, my logical functions were not impaired in the ways this dude or the secret service guys were. I mean come on — can’t a porno rag and your hand do for “those special moments” to get by?
But seriously, it comes down to a stereotype largely left untouched when it comes to men and accommodation of a “natural” sex drive. Think about it — how often women are still publicly maligned for having menstrual cycles that allegedly make them “unstable” or unfit to do “X”, or god forbid, women have any sex drive or have a desire to have access to birth control in order to have sex? We’re still having this discussion and it’s 2012? It’s then an equally valid issue to discuss whether some men, particularly ones who are in powerful, decision-making positions don’t have very good judgment about accommodating their sex drive when it comes to professional matters.
If we consider what happens just in the public domain (this week, take the trial of John Edwards, as a reminder), time after time we see men making decisions based on their sex drive that defy reality, common sense or even self-preservation in terms of their job/position/marriage. Their major problem is not that they were engaging in such behavior, but that they got caught doing it/covering it up. Is the cover-up worse than the “crime” in matters like this? It usually becomes a discussion of public/private behavior, rather than any exploration of what drives men to do it and whether it represents a problem to be addressed — or not. Women have had their biological/hormonal alleged deficiencies laid out in the public square so often it’s seen as expected, even if offensive.
In the case of the Secret Service personnel, it will be interesting to see how their extracurricular activities are perceived during this investigation. Are they always considered “on the job” because of the importance of their positions and the security of the President and his entourage? Or is “blowing of steam” with strippers and sex workers an acceptable off-duty activity if superiors do the wink-and-nod? Honestly, I cannot fathom how the Secret Service will not (officially) see the uncovering of this matter as a huge security breach and conflict of interest. How can it know that dalliances with sex workers are not compromising security, particularly if there was a practice of taking them to purportedly secured hotels. It’s harder to imagine female agents taking part in that culture (never say never), but is this acceptable professional agent behavior on any level?