Bricker, I’m surprised by your analogy of the woman on a leash. I would have expected you to agree with the general teaching of your church that some acts, especially some sexual practices, even if consensual, are inconsistent with the dignity of human beings and therefore immoral. (Not to confuse the issue with the RCC’s pronouncements on which specific practices this teaching applies to–in any case I doubt there is specific canon law on dog leashes in public BDSM roleplaying) I certainly don’t think consensual acts like wearing a leash in public should be criminalized. I would be very cautious even in applying social pressure against it or expressing too strong a disapproval without knowing all the private facts. But my personal moral judgment would be that anyone who had a desire to treat a woman like a subservient dog is very likely to be a morally abhorrent person.
(It may be that the act itself is not immoral, if for example, the person holding the leash believed that treating a willing partner that way was a prophylactic against giving in to even more base desires, but that would only mitigate, not change, my judgment of the person’s character. Likewise, the person acting as the master may in fact be performing a service for the submissive partner without regard to his own desires. Neither of these contingencies seems particularly relevant to the Trump case.)
That’s not the only way your statement that consent, even after the fact, fails morally. You’ve indirectly almost acknowledged the insufficiency of ex post facto consent by positing that Trump and Hawkins have a longstanding friendship including such banter, such that Trump had reason to believe that her apparent protestations were joking rather than sincere. Of course, you don’t know this to be the case. You don’t even have any evidence for it. All you have is your observation of your (male) cousins and their bantering relationship, which you perceive to be similar. Others have said their experience shows the behavior to be more consistent with that of abuse victims and their abusers.
Even if you are correct, I find such behavior in a professional setting or on a public stage (or both) highly inappropriate. This is not a mere difference in culture between industries, as you allege. I won’t continue this line of reasoning here, but I will follow up if you don’t understand or agree how tolerating this type of behavior in those settings, even when consented to, leads to very bad outcomes.
But forget that minor digression. For the sake of argument, let us take Hawkins at her word that she consented to Trump’s behavior, even though her actions at the time seemed to communicate otherwise. But let us also take Trump at his word that he intended to humiliate her. And let us take you at your word that her mental consent is all that matters in deciding whether Trump’s behavior was disgusting or he did “nothing wrong.”
By this light, Trump tried to sexually assault her. He failed, only because he happened to pick a woman so used to abuse, so lacking in self-regard, that she considered his public sexual humiliation of her “respectful” (or, I suppose it is possible, so strong and confident and self-possessed that his attempts at humiliation were so much water off a duck’s back). Even so, she held up her arm to block him. Even so, she turned away. What more ought she have done had she wished to dissuade him? Trump knew anyone in that position would feel pressure to acquiesce whether or not they consented. He disregarded her protest and got lucky that she only protested for show (or unlucky since he wanted to abuse her, per this hypothesis).
Ignore how unlikely you might find this. (Though you’ve admitted that Trump has committed disgusting acts at other times. Surely you admit that sometimes people claim to have consented when they either did not or lacked the agency to do so.) Do you really believe that this behavior is just fine, as long as she goes along with it? Is this what you teach you children?
I’ll be frank. The position you stated is abhorrent. If you actually believe it, you are a disgusting monster. I’ve treated it with kid gloves and argued with it at great length here because I have gained tremendous respect for you reading your posts regularly over 17 years. But that respect doesn’t change the fact that what you have said in this thread sickens me. The fact that you have had time to consider it and have instead continued to dig in deeper surprises and saddens me.