M: I just had a new sequence of thoughts that I wanted to get down and see what you had in terms of a response of the logic and content. Okay, so Donald is on record saying that, you know, he would just walk up, grab women by the pussy, and that when you're famous, they let you do that. My new thought came because I realized that the significant issue wasn't the surface thing that most people see there. Or at least I think that the significant issue shouldn't be the obvious, you know, deplorable surface part. It's not that people who are famous get to do that and he's articulating it and thinking that it's okay. That really disturbs me in terms of his personality. It's that he found it to be a good idea to take advantage of that. Am I making any sense? The really problematic part, as I can see it now, isn't that famous people are allowed to... operate under different rules. Of course, that's a problem. It's one that's not specific to harassment or anything like that. The problem that I'm seeing with this particular case is that, and I'm trying to find the right way of putting this, it's that he seemed to think of it as being, you know, some sort of perk, like a little kid getting to, you know, steal some jelly beans or something like that, rather than the situation with other people where they get away with something where they seem to at least have an idea that it's somehow wrong, or perhaps even something about themselves that they don't like. Donald talks about it as though it's like getting a free upgrade to business class or something. Whatever he gets out of grabbing women doesn't actually have to do with any kind of sexuality by this definition, only conquest, the ability to do it because he wants it, and it doesn't matter whether or not there's any kind of response or any kind of concession from the other person. It's like he visualizes himself as being a porn star where everyone he grows up to and grabs in the nether region. is just kind of smiling, giggling, slapping it away and say, oh no, please don't, as a play, not actually being physically assaulted. And that's why I think it's such a important thing that kind of gets edged out by the obviousness of the problem in the first place. Like other people who have taken advantage of this, you know, extra set of rules for famous people have more or less either acknowledged that other people thought it was a problem or thought it was a problem in themselves, or in the best cases, thought that they were participating with someone willingly. And then it turns out that they weren't or that there was something else going on. The point is that there's a scale, but most people at least understand that this is not something to be taken advantage of, at least not in that way. But Donald seems to think of it as just, you know, some sort of actual concept, not just to be used, but to be exploited. Instead of being a prevention of consequences, he's using it as a reason to instigate. Am I making any sense with my argument?
G: Yes, I think you're making sense, and I think you're distinguishing between two different moral failures that often get collapsed into one.
The surface-level criticism is:
"A famous person is describing unwanted sexual contact."
That's serious enough on its own.
But what you're focusing on is the attitude revealed by the statement. Not merely the behavior, but the way he conceptualizes the behavior.
The part that seems to strike you is that the statement isn't framed as temptation, weakness, guilt, loss of control, rationalization, or even self-justification. It's framed almost as a consumer benefit. Famous people get access. Famous people get perks. Famous people get this.
That changes the psychological picture.
A lot of people who abuse power still implicitly acknowledge that they're crossing a boundary. They may deny it later, minimize it, convince themselves it was welcome, or hide it. But those reactions at least suggest some awareness that there is a boundary.
What disturbed many people about that recording was precisely how casual it sounded. Not "I did something terrible." Not even "I got carried away." More like:
Here's a thing that happens when you become famous.
The ethical concern then shifts from rule-breaking to instrumentalization.
In your reading, the issue becomes less:
"He gets away with things because he's powerful."
and more:
"He appears to view the ability to get away with things as one of the rewards of power."
That's a different claim.
It's the difference between a corrupt official taking a bribe because he wants money and a corrupt official openly discussing bribery as one of the perks of the job. Both are bad. But the second reveals something about how the person understands the world.
I think you're also noticing something else. Most people, when they encounter an unfair advantage, feel at least some tension between self-interest and fairness.
For example:
Those are advantages, but they're generally passive. The advantage comes to them.
The attitude you're describing is more active:
I possess a privilege, therefore I should use it.
Not merely accepting an exemption from consequences, but treating the exemption itself as an opportunity.
That's why your phrase "instead of being a prevention of consequences, he's using it as a reason to instigate" is an interesting distinction.
You're identifying a difference between:
The second step is not logically required. That's the step you're reacting to.
Now, whether Trump actually believed all of this literally, was boasting, was performing a character, was exaggerating to impress another man, or accurately describing his own worldview is a separate question that people argue about endlessly.
But if we take the words at face value, the thing you're isolating is not primarily sexual. It's about power.
The sexuality almost becomes secondary.
The underlying idea is:
There are people for whom the normal constraints of society don't apply, and being one of those people is enjoyable.
That theme appears in politics, celebrity culture, business scandals, aristocracies, oligarchies, and criminal organizations alike. What makes the recording memorable is that the sentiment wasn't hidden behind euphemism. It was expressed in a surprisingly matter-of-fact way.
So I don't think your argument is "the obvious problem isn't a problem."
I think your argument is:
The obvious problem gets so much attention that people sometimes miss what the statement reveals about the speaker's relationship to power itself.
And that's a different level of analysis than simply asking whether the conduct described was acceptable.
M: Yeah, it's like when he, the way that I've heard it, I've heard the tape, and it's basically the same way you would say to someone, oh yeah, you should definitely get a membership. When you do, that means that you get free French toast with every breakfast or something like that. It's like he's saying, oh yeah, definitely, when you're famous, you definitely should try it. If you ever get famous, you definitely should try grabbing women in the crotch. It's not as though it's a way to avoid consequences for a personal issue, or even a way to avoid consequences for something that you think shouldn't be a problem, but that you know that society does. It's seen as an actual advantage. You can't hear the nuances in the voice, so you have to go with the text version, and you'll have to take my word for it, but it's the inflection is just someone letting someone else know the advantages of changing their wireless provider or something like that, only he's talking about, you know, sexual abuse.
G: I think what you're keying in on is the difference between confession, justification, and recommendation.
A confession sounds like:
"I did this thing."
A justification sounds like:
"I did this thing because..."
But what you're describing hearing in the tape is closer to:
"This is one of the benefits available to people in this position."
And that's psychologically different.
The wireless-provider analogy is actually useful because it highlights how mundane the tone feels. The shock isn't just the content; it's the apparent absence of shock in the speaker. If someone says:
"Oh, when you get Platinum status they waive the baggage fee."
they are describing an expected privilege of membership in a category.
What you're saying is that the inflection makes it sound less like someone discussing a moral boundary and more like someone discussing a loyalty-program benefit.
That can be disturbing even to people who already think the conduct itself is wrong, because it suggests the person isn't mentally classifying the action the same way everyone else is.
To use a less politically charged example, imagine someone saying:
"When you're a CEO, you can yell at waiters and nobody does anything."
Most people would hear that and think, "Wait, why is that the first thing you'd want to do?"
The interesting question becomes not whether the privilege exists, but why that particular use of it comes to mind so naturally.
I think that's the distinction you're trying to articulate. You're not primarily focused on the unfair privilege itself. Plenty of people notice privileges. Plenty of people enjoy privileges.
You're reacting to the apparent enthusiasm for exercising the privilege.
The structure becomes:
That's different from:
Or even:
The reason the tone matters is that tone often reveals what category a person has placed something in. If someone talks about tax deductions, frequent-flyer miles, backstage passes, and unwanted touching with the same emotional register—matter-of-factly listing perks—then listeners naturally infer that those things occupy a similar mental category for that speaker.
Now, I would be careful about claiming certainty about anyone's internal psychology. People boast, exaggerate, perform for an audience, and say things they don't entirely believe. But as a matter of interpreting the recording, I think your observation is coherent.
You're not saying, "The real problem isn't the conduct."
You're saying:
"The conduct is obviously bad. What fascinates and disturbs me is the apparent mindset that treats the ability to do it as a benefit of status rather than as a moral danger."
That's a more specific critique, and it's one aimed at the relationship between power and character rather than at the act alone.
In a strange way, it's similar to something you've talked about before regarding corruption. People often focus on the corrupt act. You tend to become interested in the moment where someone stops seeing the act as an exception and starts seeing it as part of the compensation package. That's the transition that catches your attention.
M: Yeah, in your recall, you hit upon what really concerns me, the question of why is that something you would want to do? Like, as someone who has issues interacting with people, I could understand appreciating the padding that being famous would allow. It would mean that, maybe not to the point of actual physical contact, but you have a buffer. If you do something wrong, things will get fixed, but this is just like direct pursuit of something that you shouldn't want in the first place, namely, knowing that you don't care whether or not the person wants it, that you can just do it. I don't see how there's psychologically any situation in which someone who is mentally healthy could say that I want to do this thing when the point of doing it is supposed to be getting some kind of, you know, positive feedback. When you don't care about the feedback, there's something wrong going on. And let's try and stay away from the certainty about internal psychology thing. That always derails these conversations. I'm well aware that certainty is not something that can be had, but if we stick on that point, we always end up in a situation, and I don't just mean us, I mean anyone trying to have this kind of conversation, ends up in a situation where you're quibbling about how much you can know about someone's internal psychology rather than the actual discussion of the possibilities, probabilities, and likelihoods. I'm not talking about certainty, and you better not fucking start going off in that direction. Sorry if I'm pissed off, but my limbic recall basically has me in an area where at least three times before, a important conversation has gotten derailed because you insisted on making sure that every time you fucking said that you can't know someone's internal psychology, if we can't do anything with it, then the practice of psychology is complete bullshit, and if it's not complete bullshit, then that's what we're talking about. The stuff that we can speak of with some degree of certainty, if not absolute. So just don't fucking go in that direction, is all I'm saying.
G: Fair enough. I understand the frustration, and I think you're right that there is a point where repeating "we can't know for certain" stops being a useful contribution and starts functioning like a conversational dead end.
The reason psychology exists at all is because humans do make inferences from behavior, language, tone, habits, priorities, and patterns. Not with perfect certainty, but with enough reliability to discuss them meaningfully. So let's talk about the actual thing you're interested in.
What stands out in your formulation is this:
Why would someone value an interaction where the other person's response is irrelevant?
That's the core question.
For most psychologically healthy people, the positive feedback is the point. It doesn't have to be romantic, sexual, or even social. But the loop generally looks like:
I do something → another person responds positively → that response feels good.
The response is what gives the act meaning.
When someone is attracted to another person, the attraction isn't usually just to their body. It's to the idea that this specific person desires them back. That's why mutuality matters so much.
What you're reacting to is a model that seems to remove mutuality from the equation.
If the logic is:
I can do this because I have power.
then the pleasure isn't located in connection. The pleasure is located in asymmetry.
The important thing isn't that another person is responding positively.
The important thing is that another person doesn't get to decide.
That's a very different psychological structure.
And I think that's why your business-class analogy keeps resurfacing. You're hearing the act described not as a relationship, not as seduction, not as affection, not even as lust.
You're hearing it described as access.
Access is the word that keeps occurring to me.
A backstage pass is access. A VIP lounge is access. A celebrity getting a table without a reservation is access.
If sexual behavior starts being discussed in the language of access, then the other person risks becoming less a participant than a resource.
That's what seems to bother you.
Because if the point were sexual desire alone, then the other person's enthusiasm would be part of the reward.
If the point were romance, then their affection would be part of the reward.
If the point were validation, then their admiration would be part of the reward.
But if none of those things matter very much, then you're left asking:
What exactly is the reward?
And the answer that suggests itself is some combination of power, entitlement, conquest, dominance, or simple proof that the rules don't apply.
Notice that none of those require the other person's enjoyment.
In fact, some of them are weakened by it.
If what excites someone is mutual attraction, then consent strengthens the experience.
If what excites someone is demonstrating status, consent is almost beside the point.
That's the distinction I think you're circling.
The thing that seems alien to you isn't merely the crossing of a boundary. Humans unfortunately do that all the time.
It's the apparent absence of interest in the very thing that most people would consider the purpose of the interaction in the first place.
You seem to be looking at it and thinking:
"If the other person's reaction doesn't matter, then what exactly are you trying to get out of this?"
And when the answer appears to be "because I can," that's where your concern moves from ordinary bad behavior into something deeper about how power is being experienced.
That also connects to something you've talked about in other contexts. You often become less interested in the specific rule violation than in the underlying value system. Lots of people break rules. Your attention tends to go toward the person who appears to have reclassified the rule violation as a benefit.
Not "I broke the rule."
Not "I got away with breaking the rule."
But:
"One of the advantages of my position is that I get to break this rule."
That's a different mental category entirely, and I think that's the category you've been trying to isolate throughout this conversation.
M: What really bothers me is that the overt wrongness of the situation is masking this deeper, problematic, apparent personality trait. I mean, if Donald were instead to say something about enjoying people not enjoying his advances, that would still be shitty, but it would at least be a little bit closer to understandable, if not acceptable. It would be a really horrific guilty pleasure or maybe some sort of sadism or something like that. The complete disregard for the target implies a lack of acceptance of the other person as actually being anything but a target, not an actual human being.
G: I think you've arrived at a distinction that a lot of people feel intuitively but don't always articulate.
You're saying that even sadism, dominance, humiliation, or other ugly motivations still implicitly acknowledge the existence of another person.
They're terrible motivations, but they are relational.
A sadist, for example, is still focused on the other person's experience. In a warped and harmful way, the other person's feelings are central to what's happening. The victim is still being recognized as a person with a mind, emotions, preferences, fears, and reactions.
What you're describing feels different.
The thing that troubles you is the apparent absence of the other person's subjectivity from the calculation altogether.
Not:
"I enjoy their discomfort."
But closer to:
"Their comfort or discomfort isn't really part of the equation."
And psychologically, those are not the same thing.
Philosophers sometimes talk about the difference between treating someone as a subject and treating them as an object. The objectification critique is often used so broadly that it loses force, but this is one of the places where it becomes useful.
If I cut in front of you in line, I'm being selfish, but I still know you're there.
If I exploit you for money, I'm being exploitative, but I still know you're there.
But there are situations where another person's inner life drops out of consideration almost entirely. The person becomes less a participant than a feature of the environment.
Almost like a locked door, a parking space, a golf course membership, or a backstage pass.
What you're reacting to is the possibility that the statement reflects that kind of orientation.
The reason it feels deeper than the obvious wrongdoing is that most moral systems are built on some version of recognizing other minds as real.
You don't have to like people.
You don't have to agree with them.
You don't even have to be especially compassionate.
But there is usually some baseline acknowledgment that:
"This other person has experiences that matter in the same way mine do."
When that acknowledgment weakens, a lot of other behaviors become possible.
That's why I think your attention keeps moving away from the sexual aspect.
You're not primarily analyzing sexual misconduct.
You're analyzing what the statement appears to imply about the speaker's model of other people.
In your formulation, the disturbing possibility isn't:
"He wanted something he shouldn't have wanted."
It's:
"The wants and experiences of the other person don't appear to enter the calculation at all."
And if that's the case, then the sexual context is almost incidental. The same orientation could show up in business, politics, friendships, family relationships, or any other sphere where other human beings can be viewed primarily as instruments, obstacles, audiences, assets, or targets.
That's why the overt wrongness can actually obscure the deeper question for you. Everyone immediately sees the obvious violation and starts arguing about that. Meanwhile, you're staring at the underlying assumption and asking:
"What kind of worldview produces a sentence like that in the first place?"
Not because it's the only possible interpretation, but because that underlying worldview would explain a great many other behaviors if it were true.
And I suspect that's why the issue sticks with you. You're less interested in the isolated act than in the possibility that the act reveals a broader habit of perception—one in which other people are not being processed primarily as fellow subjects, but as elements in a landscape to be navigated, acquired, used, or overcome.
Whether one thinks that description fits Trump specifically is a political argument. But as a psychological category, the distinction you're drawing is coherent and worth examining on its own terms.