All Episodes
Previous Next
Sept. 14, 2018 - The Matt Walsh Show
21:48
Ep. 104 - Saving Sex For Marriage Solves Lots of Problems

Abstinence before marriage is not just a religious idea. It is a strategy that could solve or greatly reduce many of our most serious societal problems. Advocating “safe sex” has not solved anything. Maybe it’s time to rethink some things. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Brett Kavanaugh has been, I'm sure you've heard by now, Brett Kavanaugh has been accused of sexual assault or attempted sexual assault when he was 17 over three decades ago.
And, um...
The Democrats became aware of this accusation months ago, but have only coincidentally decided to come forward with it now, right before the confirmation is supposed to go through.
Just coincidentally, they decided at the very last minute to say, oh, hey, by the way, here's this thing.
Now, We'll get to the Democrats' role in all this in a second, but let's first take a look at the allegation itself.
I'll read, this is the allegation as reported by Fox News.
It says, the woman, Christine Ford, is a professor at Palo Alto University, according to the Washington Post, which published her account on Sunday.
Looking for the actual accusation.
Ford, a 51-year-old registered Democrat who has published in academic journals and trained students in clinical psychology, described the alleged incident on Sunday, saying it occurred at a Maryland teenage house gathering.
Ford claimed she headed upstairs to a bathroom when she was suddenly pushed onto a bed as rock and roll music blared.
However, Ford told the Post she did not recall exactly who owned the house, how she came to be at the house, or how the gathering was arranged.
She remembered only that the house was in Montgomery County near a country club and that the parents were not present.
Ford said she remembered that during one summer in the early 1980s, Kavanaugh and a friend, Mark Judge, were stumbling drunk and laughing maniacally, those are both quotes, when Kavanaugh pinned her to a bed and tried to forcibly remove her one-piece bathing suit as well as the clothes she was wearing.
According to Ford, Kavanaugh put his hand over her mouth when she attempted to scream.
I thought he might inadvertently kill me, said Ford, who works as a research psychologist He was trying to attack me and remove my clothing.
Ford claims she was able to escape to a bathroom and then outside of the house when Judge, Mark Judge, the other guy allegedly involved, jumped into the fray and sent everyone in the room, quote, tumbling.
Okay, now we're told that Ford...
The accuser, she told this story to a therapist in 2012, and the notes of that therapy session have been given to the Washington Post.
And she also passed an FBI lie detector test, and a lot of people are making a big deal out of that, that she passed a lie detector test.
Now, the fact that she told this to a therapist is potentially significant.
We'll get to that in a second.
The fact that she passed a lie detector test Doesn't tell you anything.
Because, number one, lie detector tests are junk science.
You know, the way people talk about lie detector tests, polygraph tests, it's as if people really think that it's literally a lie detector test.
Like, it can read your mind, and if you tell a lie, it says, well, that was a lie.
But that's, of course, not how it goes.
It reads certain body Signals, certain things that are going on with you physically, and then the person administering the test interprets that as being a sign of anxiety or nervousness, which is then interpreted as being a sign that you total lie.
So there's a lot of interpreting going on, and as I said, it's junk science.
Because here's the thing about a lie detector test.
Ironically, if you're really good at lying and you lie all the time, if you're a pathological liar, if you tell a lot of lies all the time, then you'll probably pass a lie detector test.
But if you're very honest and scrupulous, there's a very good chance that you'll fail the test.
So that's why you can't take this stuff seriously.
But Okay, so she told someone in 2012.
That is a new piece of information that is potentially significant, because that would seem to alleviate the concern that she just concocted this whole story now out of the blue.
Although... She didn't apparently name Kavanaugh in 2012, and her story has changed.
She said in 2012 that it was four guys who were involved.
Now she says it's two. That's a significant change.
We've just cut in half the number of attempted rapists, which is significant.
I mean, that proves that that would seem to indicate that there is a certain degree of unreliability in the story that we're being told.
Which doesn't necessarily mean that she's lying.
It could mean that she just really doesn't know exactly what happened.
Okay, so let me back up for a minute.
I'm going to just make a few general points about all this.
And just give you my perspective on it.
Number one. Going back to the Democrats, I want to be clear on one thing, that the Democrats are truly evil.
I mean, they are despicable, wicked, disgusting, satanic evil.
I mean, what we know about this, no matter who's lying, who isn't lying, no matter what happened, no matter what happened 35 years ago, here's what we know for sure.
That the Democrats involved here are scumbags.
We know that the Democrats are scumbags.
Whether Kavanaugh's a liar, whether Christine Ford's a liar, whatever else, we certainly know that the Democrat politicians involved with putting this allegation out there, they are scumbags.
Because they were contacted with the story months ago, but they held it.
They saved it until right before the confirmation so that they could cause maximum panic and prevent Republicans from confirming someone else.
So what they were concerned with, you know, they don't care about women.
They don't care about this woman. They don't care about women in general.
This is a transparent ploy on their part.
They are using this cynically and blatantly for their own benefit.
And they're scumbags either way because either they think that this allegation is not credible or In which case, they're scumbags for coming forward with it.
Or they think it is credible, in which case they're scumbags for holding on to it all this time.
So they're scumbags either way.
We know that. Number two.
When we first heard this story out of nowhere on Friday, I said that the allegations deserve to be dismissed out of hand if no additional evidence is provided for them.
Well, since then, we found out about the polygraph.
We found out about the therapist thing.
Now, I don't know if we would call that—that's not really evidence, okay?
That's not evidence against Brett Kavanaugh.
Evidence would be like an eyewitness that can corroborate her testimony.
But the only other eyewitness, Mark Judge, has already denied this.
So now it's two against one.
So I don't know if we could say that there's any evidence on her side.
However, the fact that she told this story or a version of it several years ago before Brett Kavanaugh was in the running for the Supreme Court That would seem to indicate that she probably isn't lying about the whole thing.
She may be even telling the truth, the entire truth, as she sees it.
That does not, however, mean that it happened exactly as she's telling it.
Maybe it did. Maybe it didn't.
But she's foggy on the details, and it happened a long time ago.
She doesn't remember when it happened.
She doesn't remember where it happened.
She doesn't remember how she ended up where she was.
So we've been given a very cloudy snapshot of an event that occurred somewhere in Montgomery County sometime in the early 80s.
I mean, that means we can't really say that this happened exactly as she said because she doesn't even know exactly how it happened or who was involved.
Even if she's not being dishonest.
So we don't even need to get into accusing her of lying, accusing Kavanaugh of lying.
Given the fact that this happened 35 years ago, allegedly, and that she's so cloudy about the details, there's a lot that isn't known.
Third point. Even some supporters of Kavanaugh are saying that, well, look, if this is true, then he lied about it.
And lying is a very serious thing, especially if he wants to be a Supreme Court justice.
And if he lied to the FBI during all those background checks that he's taken throughout his career, then that's reason enough.
Even their argument is, yeah, this happened three and a half decades ago, but the lying is much more recent.
And I agree, by the way, that if this did happen, and if he has been lying about it all this time, then that is disqualifying, clearly.
But hold on a second.
She says herself that Brett Kavanaugh was stumbling drunk.
Those are her words. So isn't it possible?
Isn't it even quite likely that if it did happen, he really doesn't remember this thing that happened when he was extremely inebriated as a teenager 35 years ago?
Isn't that very possible?
Isn't it possible that for 35 years this has all been to him a non-memory or, at best, a very hazy recollection of something happening at a party when he was drunk?
I mean, I think in order to call Kavanaugh a liar, You have to assume, A, that it happened, and B, that he remembers it happening, exactly as Ford says that it happened.
And I think both of those assumptions, especially the second, are dubious at best.
Number four, going back to the vagueness of these allegations, remember that she is unsure of some of the fundamental details, like when and where.
So she doesn't know when and where, but she knows who.
Well, she doesn't even know exactly who because she said four before, now she says two.
So that's a problem.
And also there are other details here that she, you know, how do we know that she's clear about some of the other details?
Details like she says that she was shoved into the bedroom.
She says that Kavanaugh put his hand over her mouth.
So in order to hold this against Kavanaugh, we have to assume that all this happened He remembers that it happened.
He's been lying about it.
And we also have to assume that she is absolutely 100% sure about those few details there.
That she's not misremembering them or she's not exaggerating them or inventing them.
I mean, all these different possibilities.
Because, hypothetically, if some sort of incident did happen, but she wasn't shoved into the bedroom, let's say she went into the bedroom willingly, With two drunk guys.
And the hand over the mouth thing never happened, right?
If you remove those two things from the situation, it starts to color everything a little bit differently.
So the point is, with something like this, every last detail is so important.
Yet we have a lot of, we have very, we have many very good reasons to doubt the details that we've been given.
Also, another point, I don't know, I mean, I've I don't know if anyone's asked her this yet, but was she herself drunk at this party?
Because she was at a house party with other teenagers.
The others were plastered, according to her.
So was she stone-cold sober or was she also drunk?
Because if she was, then that would obviously hinder her ability to remember what actually happened.
Fifth point I want to make.
Okay, let's assume for a minute that this did happen.
It did happen like she said it happened.
Let's assume that. Now, I don't think we can assume that.
Because as I said, we'd have to leap over some other very real possibilities.
That she's lying, that she's misremembering, that there's some combination of truth and fiction.
We'd have to skip over all of those to land on the assumption that it actually happened.
I don't think we can do that, but for a second, let's say that we do do that.
Let's say that we assume that it did happen.
Then we're left with another question.
I think it's an important question, and that is, should a man be denied a position because of a bad thing that he did while he was drunk as a high schooler 35 years ago?
It seems like there are a lot of people who are 100% sure that, well, yeah, of course!
I don't think it's so obvious.
Now, if it did happen, then it's a really bad thing.
This is not like knocking over mailboxes or egging somebody's house or even shoplifting a pack of gum from CDS, but So assuming that this is not part of a pattern of behavior, assuming that he hasn't continued doing these things, if he did do it at all, and there hasn't been any other women that have come forward to accuse him.
In fact, there have been 65 women that came forward to attest to his character.
So assuming that it was, you know, that this is not part of a pattern, then we have to ask ourselves, what should we do with the bad behavior of a 17-year-old guy 35 years ago?
This is where I know a lot of you will disagree, but I give a fair amount of leeway to people for indiscretions, even really bad indiscretions from their teenage years.
I just have trouble with the idea that a person's life and career should be destroyed because of the worst thing they did as a drunken kid decades ago.
And I also think that the vast majority of people setting that standard and defending it now would not be happy if it was applied to them.
Listen, I'm not saying that most people have sexual assaults in their background or attempted assaults.
I'm not saying that this kind of thing is, quote, normal for teenagers.
But... There are a lot of really bad things that teenagers can do to each other, a lot of different ways they can abuse each other.
And so there are a lot of people who have bad things from their teenage years in their past, even if it's nothing sexual, right?
So think about, let's just take a common example.
Think about a guy who Who was 15, 16 years old, whatever, and he was a vicious bully.
Let's say he bullied.
Let's say that there was one particular kid in school who he tormented and he bullied, even to the point of physically assaulting him.
Now, is that as bad as what Kavanaugh allegedly did?
Yeah, I mean, maybe.
I mean, it kind of depends, but that could be at least as bad.
And anyone who, you know, growing up was ever tormented by someone else in school to that extent, you know that this, I mean, this is the kind of thing that caused lasting psychological damage.
But I was like, just a terrible person as a teenager, just awful.
And then let's say they grow up, and so they've spent like twice as long being a decent person as they spent being a horrible teenager, or even longer than that.
Should we then go and dig up those skeletons decades later and use it against them?
That's the question. I'm uncomfortable with that.
Because teenagers can be extremely vicious, selfish, ruthless, dishonest, that doesn't excuse the behavior.
And that's not to say that all bad behavior as a teenager is to the same degree and it's not all equal, right?
But my point is that it's perfectly plausible that a person could be terrible as a teenager, just be a terrible person and do terrible things, but then turn into a decent, honest adult.
That's perfectly plausible.
It happens all the time. And if you understand the psychology of teenagers and all the things that go into it, you know, it's just, again, it's not an excuse.
It's just putting things into a certain context.
And then asking, to what extent, decades later, should you be held to account for things that you did as a kid?
The transition from teenagehood to adulthood is a transition where a person can really change, transform significantly.
A lot of people do. Most people do, hopefully.
So this is not the same thing as saying, That just because something happened a long time ago, that automatically means that you shouldn't be held responsible for it now.
Because if you're 55 years old and you did something terrible when you were 35, which is 20 years ago, that's a long time, but you were 35 years old.
So you were a grown adult at that point.
Or if you're 70 years old and you did something when you were 60 or in your 50s, yeah, you could say, well, that was two decades ago.
That was a decade ago. Yeah, but you were a grown person at that point.
I mean, you were completely, totally grown.
So, you could certainly argue, now, of course, people can have transformations even as adults, but most of the time, if you're a total scumbag at 35, then you're probably going to be a scumbag at 50.
And if you were a scumbag at 50, you're probably going to be a scumbag at 70, and so on and so on.
Now, there are exceptions, but in most cases, people's character and personality kind of solidify at a certain point, and then that's just how they are.
So that it's kind of rare that you would know somebody when they're 40 and they're a total scumbag, and then you don't see them for a while, and then you meet them again at 60, and they're completely changed, and everything is different about them.
That does happen. It's rare.
On the other hand, it's very common that you could know someone when they're 16 and then meet them again when they're 36 and say, wow, this is a totally different person.
Because it is a totally different person.
A person's character and personality has not set in, has not solidified at the age of 17 or 20 or even 25 these days.
So I just think you have to take that into consideration.
You have to allow for that reality when you're analyzing these sorts of situations.
So that's all. I mean, if you're looking at a guy now, and then you find out that 35 years ago when he was a kid, he did a really terrible thing, what bearing does that necessarily have on who he is now?
And remember that if, well, here's the sixth thing.
With all these things considered, I don't see how you could take this nomination away from Brett Kavanaugh.
And in fact, not only should it not be taken away, unless something changes, like between now and, I mean, unless there's some huge revelation, something significant changes.
But as it stands right now, I don't see how you could take this nomination away from Kavanaugh.
And in fact, I think it'd be a very, very, very dangerous precedent if you did.
Think about the precedent.
The precedent is that a guy at the last minute Can have an opportunity or position taken away from him based on unsubstantiated, uncorroborated accusations which have been vaguely transmitted from someone who can't even remember all the details, accusations dating back to when the person was a kid decades ago.
That, to me, is a very dangerous precedent.
And it's a precedent that a lot of the people that are setting that precedent, if it were applied to them, they would be not happy.
Even if they don't have sexual assaults or alleged attempted assaults in their background, they have things that they did when they were teenagers that now that it's 20 years later or 30 years later, If it was held against them or used as justification to take an opportunity from them, they would think it was the most unjust and unfair thing in the world.
I think that's the case for a lot of the people who now want this precedent to be set.
On the other hand, if the confirmation goes through, what's the precedent there?
Well, the precedent is that you can't come at the last minute with these unsubstantiated allegations from decades ago when the guy was a kid.
You know, you can't do that.
And that's a fine precedent.
That's a good precedent. That's what the precedent should be.
So unless something changes, unless something really serious changes, I think you just have to go through, push through this.
And if Republicans allow themselves to be beaten back, and they give up on Kavanaugh because of this, because they're scared away by it, I think that would be an enormous, enormous mistake.
Thanks for watching, everybody.
▲
Export Selection