Newsletter: Opinion: Millennial sex and Gary Johnson trump Trump

Good morning. I’m Paul Thornton, The Times’ letters editor, and it is Saturday, Aug. 6, 2016. Donald Trump dominated the news this week once again, but he was knocked off his perch as the subject of the Opinion section’s most-viewed articles by much weightier matters.

Like the sex lives of millennials.

Good news, parents anxious over the “hookup culture” inhabited by their millennial children: On average, thirtysomethings and under have fewer sexual partners than members of any other generation over the last 60 years. According to a new study in the journal Archives of Sexual Behavior, millennials born in the 1990s are twice as likely to be sexually inactive in their early 20s as their parents were.

But Melissa Batchelor Warnke, an intern in The Times’ Opinion section, finds cause for concern:

The proffered reasons for millennial abstinence? A culture of overwork and an obsession with career status, a fear of becoming emotionally involved and losing control, an online-dating milieu that privileges physical appearance above all, anxieties surrounding consent, and an uptick in the use of libido-busting antidepressants.

I generally jump to the defense of millennials, not just because I am one, but because I even know some. It too often feels as though we’re reported on as an alien species: “I saw this strange person at the supermarket buying organic milk. He was ungrateful, stupid and has never worked a day in his life, if my personal inference from watching him hold the carton may be used as a categorical analysis of an entire generation, as it will be throughout this piece, and then again in the comments section.”

But if (and this is a big “if”) this is indeed how many millennials think about sex, relationships and other people — as productivity inhibitors — we're screwed, in all ways but the fun one...

Why is sex a necessary or good thing, given all these concerns?

It isn’t an absolute good. It’s only good if it’s a thing you want to do, if it’s an act that brings you fun or connection or pleasure. The problem isn’t that millennials are having less sex, but that many of their reasons reveal warped values and a fear-based approach to existence. Here’s a generation swearing off a life-affirming and life-creating act in record numbers, simply because they don’t know what to do with it.

Most people are rational actors, in so far as their fears are connected to their experiences. There are many anecdotal and quantitative indications that sex among millennials is a real landmine for hurt and misunderstanding. In some ways, this hurt is heightened by the advent of distancing technologies like Tinder and texting. But the challenge of navigating closeness with and care for others has always been a central human story.

Rather than forgoing sex, we can strive to be more creative and generous in our interpersonal relationships, whether they be sexual or otherwise. That starts by thinking deeply about what we want so that we can articulate it to another person. It continues by finding a receptive and respectful person or people to have sex with. It continues by being a receptive and respectful person. It ends never.

The emotional work that sex asks us to do is the same emotional work a life of growth requires. The decision to indefinitely avoid sexual relationships from a place of fear is deeply understandable. But it is also a decision to constrict the edges of one’s experience; it is a decision to disengage from that which induces greater vulnerability, and greater tenderness.

» Click here to read more.

Also ahead of Trump: Gary Johnson. The capital-L Libertarian presidential candidate recently sat down with The Times editorial board to discuss, among other things, the chances of his campaign becoming a spoiler in 2016: “There’s no question that a lot of that has to do with dissatisfaction with the two candidates. I've joked that if Mickey Mouse were the third name in one of these polls, Mickey would probably be at 30% because Mickey is a known commodity.” L.A. Times

Next up: Bernie Sanders. (Still waiting for Trump? Keep reading.) Hillary Clinton’s opponent-turned-ally tells his supporters to get behind the Democratic nominee because the alternative to her is far worse: “I understand that many of my supporters are disappointed by the final results of the nominating process, but being despondent and inactive is not going to improve anything. Going forward and continuing the struggle is what matters. And, in that struggle, the most immediate task we face is to defeat Donald Trump.” L.A. Times

And finally, Donald Trump. On the op-ed page, Justin Raimondo hits his hometown newspaper hard for being “so clearly in the tank for Hillary Clinton.” He says it is part of a larger trend this election: “This transparent bias is a national phenomenon, infecting both print and television media to such an extent that it has become almost impossible to separate coverage of the Trump campaign from attempts to tear it down. The media has long been accused of having a liberal slant, but in this cycle journalists seem to have cast themselves as defenders of the republic against what they see as a major threat, and in playing this role they’ve lost the ability to assess events rationally.” L.A. Times

Trump also took plenty of criticism this week. Two pieces from a certain Opinion newsletter writer address Trump’s alleged eagerness to use nuclear weapons and Republicans’ off-again, on-again embrace of their nominee. Conor Friedersdorf says why living in Los Angeles leads him to believe Trump’s narrative about an America in decline is “utterly bogus.” Early in the week, The Times’ editorial board called on top Republican officials to start repudiating their nominee; editorial writer Scott Martelle followed up that piece by asking, “What more does Donald Trump have to do before GOP leaders denounce him?” On the op-ed page, Richard L. Hasen considers a once-unimaginable scenario: “What if Trump drops out?”

Call this piece “Trump-adjacent,” to use real-estate terms: Victor Davis Hanson points to Europe’s refugee crisis and Donald Trump’s candidacy as two reminders that despite the best attempts of leftists, international borders still matter. “The truth is that formal borders do not create difference — they reflect it,” Hanson writes. L.A. Times

Reach me: paul.thornton@latimes.com