Home / Politics / Rudy Giuliani on How Men Talk
Print Friendly and PDF

Rudy Giuliani on How Men Talk

Written by Gary North on October 15, 2016

Rudy Giuliani is some sort of advisor/counselor/apologist for Trump. They are both in trouble.

He told Jake Tapper: “Men, at times, talk like that.”

Tapper said he had never heard anything like this. Neither have I.

Trump is 70 years old. I am 74. We are not quite the same generation, but we are close. Giuliani is in between: 72. Let me assure you: their experience is not my experience.

I begin with a simple thesis: how boys talk about girls at age 15 will shape how they talk about women for the rest of their lives.


The 1960’s through the summer of 1964 were really an extension of 1955-59. The teenage etiquette of the late 1950’s still prevailed. (I date the arrival of “the sixties” with the free speech movement at the University of California, Berkeley, in the fall of 1964. The arrival of the Beatles the previous February was noisy but harmless.)

They were sexually inexperienced. Those who weren’t — and I never knew one — did not talk about their “exploits.” The rest of us would not have believed them. “What makes you special?”

OK, maybe in the “bad boys” crowd there were experienced boys. But I had no contact with them.

In the circles I ran in, meaning college-bound males, we were interested in college-bound girls. In my grade level, the popular girls were smart (verifiable), articulate (verifiable), and chaste (assumed). They were not pushovers in the classroom or outside the classroom. They were class acts — mostly classier than us bumbling males. At best, we caught up in the senior year.

You may think: “That was a different era.” You would be correct. But it was Trump’s era, too.

The boys I knew kept their mouths shut about the girls they dated, other than to say a few platitudes about having a good time. They knew that word would get back to the girls if they bragged about conquests, real or imagined. Also, the rest of us would not have believed them. We would have said so.

As for laments about failed seductions, the universal response would have been: “What did you expect, dummy?” Unsaid would have been this: “Who does this guy think he is?”

When I went to college, I found exactly the same thing. There probably were more conquests, but men kept quiet about this. A man who sullied a woman’s reputation would have been universally regarded as a jerk.

I was not an undergraduate in the second half of the 1960’s. That was Trump’s generation. Maybe things were different from 1964-67, but I doubt it. There was a lot more promiscuity, but the question is this: “Did college males shoot their mouths off among their peers?” Better put: “Were they willing to let their comments get back to the women?” Bottom line: “Were they that stupid?” I doubt it.

And then there is this: Pareto’s distribution applied, then as now. About 20% of the men and women were getting 80% of the action. The circle of tale-bearers was small. The likelihood of salacious comments getting back to the women was dangerously high.

I will put it bluntly: men who shot their mouths off about their conquests or near-conquests were stupid, then as now. They were men without good judgment, good taste, or good opinions of women.

I am not nostalgic. I never have been. I agree with P. J. O’Rourke: “When you hear about the good old days, think ‘dentistry.'” I am rarely sentimental. But I make exceptions. The girls and young women I knew in high school and college are among the exceptions. The moral order today does not reinforce the etiquette of 1955-64. Young women are less protected. That is a pity.


The hypocrisy of the media is enormous. The adulterers in the White House go a long way back. Harding’s reputation collapsed posthumously because of Nan Briton’s book, The President’s Daughter. (DNA tests in 2015 verified it.) FDR got his daughter to pimp for him with Lucy Mercer the second time around. Kennedy had literal withdrawal symptoms — headaches — when his access to bimbos was restricted when Jackie was around. The press knew about Fiddle and Faddle. It was covered up. Johnson was insatiable. But it was kept quiet.

Then came chaste men: Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, and (so the story goes) Bush.

But ever since Gary Hart’s escapades on Monkey Business, the media have stopped covering up. Scandals sell papers. Then came Clinton’s bimbo eruptions. Newsweek spiked the Monica Lewinsy story, but Drudge blew the whistle. That made him.

These days, there is no place to hide. Yet we are still assured of this by liberals: “A politician’s sexual activities are private. They should not be used in evaluating his ability to lead.”

I think that’s hogwash. If a man cheats on his wife, he’ll cheat anyone. If he breaks a marriage vow, don’t trust his oath of office.

(For the rest of my article, click the link.)

Continue Reading on www.garynorth.com

Print Friendly and PDF

Posting Policy:
We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse. Read more.

Comments are closed.