Where Do You Draw the Line when it comes to Basic Needs?

I’ve just blocked a former girlfriend from texting me. We had gotten along well enough and then Singapore’s Covid-19 circuit breaker measures came in. I could not keep in touch and then for reasons best known to her, she thought it was appropriate to send my daughter inappropriate messages. The kid told her to stop and after running into her, I told her to stop harassing the kid. Despite that, she persisted in sending me messages about how she would invite my daughter to her office for drinks and would come to the house to meet the kid. At that point, both the kid and I thought enough was enough and so she was blocked.

I’m made to think of this incident because of the recent arrest of Ghislaine Maxwell on the charge of providing underage sex-slaves to the disgraced financier, Jeffrey Epstein. As well as being excessively rich and having a preference for young girls, Mr. Epstein and Ms. Maxwell (I’m old enough to remember the yacht that was named after her) counted the rich and influential, including the current Occupant of the White House and the Duke of York, as part of their social circle.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/lisettevoytko/2020/07/21/heres-every-time-donald-trump-and-ghislaine-maxwell-have-been-photographed-together/#66f4691a183d 

The case of Mr. Epstein and his associates raises one of the oldest and most common issues faced by people all over the world – namely the issues of sex, power and money and in the pursuit of sex, power and money, are there any issues of where we draw the line.

As I’ve confessed in previous postings, I’m a self-professed cad. I hate the idea of being exclusive to anyone (a case of why stick to one when there are so many) and I can’t help to look at the nubile things that walk past me when I’m in the office area (Singapore’s financial district). Looking at a woman’s body and being able to enjoy a woman’s body is like getting to look at a piece of art and enjoying a tasty meal at the same time

My only defense to saying everything that I’ve just said is that I’m probably no different from most heterosexual men. The need to get laid is one of the few recognized human needs that transcends race, religion and so on (as a Jewish architect said – “My dick isn’t racist”).

However, human nature is such that the simple male need to release sperm is complicated. While the male brain is wired to release sperm, the female brain is wired to ensure that any offspring she produces are well taken care of. Hence, while men look for nubile young things, women tend to look for signs of strength and stability or as my mother would argue – you want the guy who will be hanging around once the kid comes out. Hence, the history of the human sexual experience has been about women trading their bodies in return for men providing for the well being of them and their families. In prehistoric times, this meant the guys who got laid were inevitably those who could bring home the biggest share of the kill.  These days, it inevitably means the guys who earn big bucks.

It is socially acceptable and many cases a status symbol for an older man to have a much younger companion. Say what you like about Donald Trump but having Melania by his side has not harmed his social standing. By comparison, Emanuel Marcon gets a few funny looks for the fact that he married a much older woman and has stepchildren who are his age. My Uncle Richard, who was a cad of the highest order, used to tell me, “No such thing as a good-looking woman over 25 and make sure your next wife is half your age.”

It’s even more acceptable in Asia, where levels of poverty are high. Asia’s red-light districts are filled with young girls hopping to escape poverty and a girl who marries a much older (and often Western) man is considered a hero for finding a route out of poverty for her family.
I get the attraction trade off here. Which man doesn’t want to wake up next to a hot bod? Which woman wants to reject the guy who can provide a good home for her? As an old friend used to say of Prince Charles, “What man kicks out a beautiful blonde for an old hag?”

Yes, I get the attraction and the trade-off. Yet, despite that I also believe that there have to be limits. There needs to be mutual respect and both parties need to be able to able to understand what they’re getting into.  Hence, I get repulsed when I hear of a “trade in children.”

I take myself as an example. As I get older, I notice physical attraction more and the issue of “age-appropriate” seems to matter less. My main defense is usually, I’m not the first 40 plus something to look at young nubile things with a certain amount of lust.

Yet, I remind myself that I am first and foremost a father of a young woman and my initial thoughts always go back to the question of who do I want her to find in life. If she’s meant to find love and happiness with an older man, then I won’t stop it but do I want her to be the plaything of an old man? The answer is clearly no and that always brings me back to normalcy. I become conscious that my behavior might affect her perceptions on what a man should be. Hence, while I might find a younger girl attractive at a glance, I remember that I’m dad before anything else.

Mr. Epstein, the Occupant and the Duke crossed a line in their pursuit of young, underage girls. There’s something not quite right about people with power, money and influence using children for their own needs. I understand the need to get laid, I’ve been guilty of succumbing to that need on too many occasions. However, a line has to be drawn and people who have said no and are unable to give consent should be protected with the full extent of the law.

When David Became Goliath

Just received an op-ed from the New York Times in my email. The story is entitled “Tech Goliaths Act Like Davids,” and the main thrust of the story is that the tech giants like Google, Apple, Facebook, Uber and so on have become the corporate bullies that they once fought against. The story can be found at:

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/22/technology/big-tech-underdogs.html

If one studies history, one will notice that this isn’t a new story. History is filled with examples of young, vibrant revolutionaries who fought to overthrow an overbearing power and once they had succeeded, they proceeded to behave as the power that they overthrew.

As an ethnic Chinese, I think of Mao, who lead a peasant army to overthrow a corrupt regime that was oppressing the poor. However, once in power, the communist proceeded to enforce an iron grip on power and proved to be as nasty if not more so than the nationalist that they overthrew. There are other examples. In the Middle East, there’s the example of Naser who overthrew a corrupt and repressive monarchy, only to replace it with another form of dictatorship that has stifled progress.

I think of Singapore, the country that has been my home for the last two decades. We’ve been run by the same party since our independence in 1965. While the party has delivered prosperity and done well by the citizens for the most part, they’ve moved a long way, as in a very long way, from the party that was a plucky upstart fighting to rid us from the yoke of colonial rule and later race-based politics of the Malaysian Federation. The part that once wrote a national pledge of “Regardless of Race, Language or Religion,” now stresses the fact that “The population is not ready for a non-Chinese Prime Minister,” and delightfully uses every trick in the book to ensure that it wins more than 60 percent of available seats in parliament (it remains an achievement for our rag-tag opposition to contest let alone win seats).

Why is this the case? The answer is as simple as this fact – power is exceedingly addictive. The people who get power tend not to want to lose it. Young idealist who become revolutionaries to get rid of entrenched powers becoming the very entrenched powers that they overthrew. This remains true in business and politics.

Some systems have found a way to survive this. In America, the political system was designed to limit the damage a bad leader could do. Presidents have to share power with Congress and a Supreme Court and much of the power over citizens is devolved to local governments. Furthermore, Presidents are limited to two terms of four years. Thus, you only put up with an incompetent leader for eight years at the most and no individual has to chance to hang on for years until they get drunk and senile with power.

This system works in America because there’s a reverence to the constitution and laws and there’s a press to keep the powers that be on its toes. In places that don’t have this, there is a real danger that the man in charge can merely change the laws. China is a case in point. Prior to President Xi’s ascension, it was understood that a generation of leaders would step down after a decade. While China didn’t have elections, it had some form of leadership renewal. Unfortunately, this is no longer the case and one cannot assume that President Xi, may enjoy his power a little too much, even at the risk of the wealth that the Chinese people have grown used to.

The same is true in business. The story in dynamic economies is that of plucky start-ups with a bright idea or a new technology taking on and taking market share from established firms. The problem is that once the start-ups become big firms with deep pockets, the game no longer becomes about coming up with new products that delight consumers but about enhancing market share and getting consumers to continue buying what you’ve been selling them. As I was once told, “Big firms don’t innovate, they just buy small firms that do.”

While the dangers of minimal competition for businesses are less obvious than that for political leaders, they are non the less very present. Businesses that become too interested in their market position tend to forget that consumers can find and will find alternatives. I think of Singapore’s media scene, which could not accept competition and kept peddling the myth that Singapore was too small for media competition. The established media powers were so busy defending their turf that they failed to see people moving away from printed newspapers and terrestrial television. They even got the government onto their side in branding online media as “anti-establishment.” There was one small problem. Consumers stopped reading newspapers and the advertisers noticed. Singapore Press Holdings (SPH) has had to diversify into old folks’ homes to keep shareholders happy and more recently had to suffer the indignity of being kicked off the stock exchange index.

Successful big firms are the ones that find a way of growing big but keeping their units running like start up enterprises. Big law firms are trying to do that, working as a big unit in the centre for things like branding and HR policy but getting their respective practices to compete for business like sole proprietorships. In theory this should prevent the groups from becoming immune to market forces.

The other factor for businesses is law. Laws that prevent companies from becoming monopolies should be made stronger.

Let’s go back to tech as an example. Microsoft was once a start-up that had a clear goal of having a desktop on every desk running its software. It became a monopoly and defended it tooth and nail. Unfortunately, Microsoft was late into the internet and thus lost ground to Google. Microsoft has only become a dynamic player under its current CEO, Satya Nadella, who moved it away from defending its old business market.

Limits on power are not just good for consumers or voters. They are actually good for incumbents as it keeps them on their toes and forces people to innovate. The Goliaths of the day should remember that they had their best victories as Davids and trying to crush today’s Davids will only lead to them sharing the fate of Goliath.