At the second presidential debate, Donald Trump continued to glom onto the line that his lewd 2005 Access Hollywood hot mic comments were “locker room banter.” Indeed, soon after the release of the comments, Trump issued a statement declaring, “This was locker room banter,” and immediately pivoted to Bill Clinton’s behavior.
At some point in our adult lives, almost all of us have been exposed to or even engaged in some sort of locker room banter. It involves bragging about past sexual exploits or describing future imagined scenarios, often in the crudest of terms. However, it is not the vulgarity of Trump’s comments that should be the primary focus, but the underlying actions that he describes.
Trump’s strategy of defending behavior by repeating claims that at first glance seem reasonable, but have no underlying substance, has served him well. Trump and his surrogates have repeatedly (including in the second debate) declared that Trump will not release his taxes due to an ongoing IRS audit. But upon close examination, there are no significant consequences to releasing taxes during an audit that are avoided by waiting until after the audit is completed.
Similarly, on its face, Trump declaring his comments to be “locker room banter” focuses on the lewdness of the comments and steers the conversation toward discussion of language and away from the underlying actions. And since most adults have been exposed to such behavior, often by people who they like or at least socially tolerate and often in private conversations, Trump hopes that many will tolerate his behavior, seeing it as simple crudeness.
Lewdness, in and of itself, does not necessarily imply a greater immorality. For example, a husband may describe his marriage in the bawdiest of terms, but the underlying actions he describes may be those of a normal, healthy marriage. Moreover, “locker room banter” may be fantasy-based, such as describing imaginary future encounters. Again, such banter may be expressed in the crudest terms. However, such scenarios are often crude attempts at humor and typically not taken seriously.
Trump’s strategy is to characterize his hot mic comments as crude and fantasy-based, then seek forgiveness for engaging in behavior to which we have all been exposed. The strategy has the benefit of reinforcing the idea that he is not a career politician, but more like one of the masses.
However, just as he did with the audit canard, Trump’s declaration that his words were “locker room banter” is a smokescreen, and the debate moderators and Clinton generally played into his hands. In particular, the most attention has been placed on Trump’s crudest remark that, as a celebrity, women will let him “grab them by the p—y. You can do anything.” This has rightly been characterized as describing sexual assault and has generated a good deal of outrage. However, in the context of the conversation, it was a description, and likely a poor attempt at humor, of what Trump could do as a star. By placing such emphasis, the media’s attempt to create outrage has backfired and allowed Trump to take the position that the media are trying to paint him as a sexual predator based on his hyperbolic “locker room banter.” And without women coming forward declaring that Trump indeed had grabbed them in such a way, Trump’s defense will seem valid to many people.
What the media should be concentrating on are the actions that Trump described on the hot mic. Trump proudly declared, in detail and in the crudest of terms, that he sought out an adulterous relationship with a woman he knew to be married. He described his pursuit in crude physical terms, objectifying, by his purported actions, the woman as simply a thing to be conquered. The media should be asking questions such as, “Was your goal in taking her furniture shopping to have intercourse with her?”, “Why did you tell Billy Bush she was married?”, “Were you concerned about her marital well-being?”, and, “Were you in a relationship at the time you took the woman furniture shopping?” Answering (or not answering) such questions would further reveal the character of Trump and expose the “locker room banter” defense as shallow and inadequate. Even if Trump were to deny that he actually attempted to “move[] on her like a b—-,” it would open up a line of questioning as to what would compel a 59-year-old man to tell such stories. Was Trump seeking adoration from Billy Bush? Why would Trump want Billy Bush to believe Trump was sexually aggressive?
Similarly, Trump should be pressed on his other statement of past actions: “I just start kissing them. It’s like a magnet. Just kiss. I don’t even wait. And when you’re a star they let you do it.” Trump should be asked if it is moral for him to use his status as a billionaire celebrity to engage in physical contact with women regardless of their consent or whether or not they are intimidated into allowing such behavior.
Beyond the simple lewdness, Trump, in his 2005 Access Hollywood hot mic comments, reveals himself to be a man with serious character deficiencies who has used his celebrity and power to take advantage of women. However, by concentrating on the lewdness of his remarks instead of the underlying actions, much of the media are allowing Trump to portray himself as an everyman who occasionally slips into “locker room banter.”
