When it was announced that The Little Mermaid of 2023 would alter the lyrics of the 1989 original’s “Kiss the Girl,” two questions on consent arose — though their implications often went unexplored.

The first question related directly to the old song. “Yes, you want her,” the crab whispers to Prince Eric, who is on a romantic boat ride with the former mermaid Ariel. “Look at her, you know you do / Possible she wants you too / There is one way to ask her / It don’t take a word / Not a single word / Go on and kiss the girl.” This was changed to “Possible she wants you too / Use your words, boy, and ask her / If the time is right and the time is tonight / Go on and kiss the girl.” Boys can benefit from this (as can others), because framing a kiss as the “one way to ask” a girl if she “wants” you is backward. The kiss should come after there’s an understanding that you’re wanted. The change has some value and is, one must say after watching it, rather charming and humorous (“Use your words, boy” is incredible phrasing).

The second question is more muddled and interesting. Articles covering the lyrical change often drew attention to something else: in this scene, Ariel has already bargained away her voice. A writer for Glamour noted, without elaboration: “These lyrics suggest that Prince Eric doesn’t need Ariel’s verbal consent to kiss her, which of course he does, but there’s the slight issue of the fact that she cannot speak.” Insider wrote: “The song occurs during a point in the plot where Ariel has given up her speaking (and singing) voice for a pair of human legs, but the overall implication that Prince Eric should make a move on Ariel first and ask for consent later is likely troubling for some modern viewers.” A host of The View said, “With ‘Kiss the Girl,’ she gave her voice away so she could have legs, so I don’t know how she could talk… How do you consent if you can’t talk?,” to which a writer for CinemaBlend responded, “That’s very true… That would make it even worse for Prince Eric to kiss Ariel if she was literally in a position where she couldn’t speak up if she didn’t want to be kissed.” And so on (“Ariel’s voice is gone and she literally can’t offer verbal consent,” The Mary Sue).

This criticism may come from a noble place — affirmative statements are indeed valuable — but it has an odd implication. If verbal consent is always necessary, that precludes romance and sex for human beings who cannot speak. Selective mutism aside, there are various biological and neurological problems that can render someone voiceless. On the Left, we will race to be the most virtuous and woke, but this can sometimes erase or crush (other) marginalized people. These writers rush to say that “of course” Eric needs “Ariel’s verbal consent to kiss her,” and because she can’t speak it would be wrong for him to make an attempt. But unless one wants nonverbal people to never experience a kiss, unless we pretend such individuals have no agency, there needs to be room to demonstrate consent without verbal affirmation. There’s other linguistic forms like sign language and agreement in writing (which is often just a lame, whiny joke from the Right, but sometimes an actual thing), but also the nonverbal signals that sensible leftwing or liberal organizations and universities still point to when discussing safe sex. Moving closer, leaning in for the kiss, closing one’s eyes in anticipation, and so on. This is what Ariel does in the original film. She cannot speak, or use sign language, or in the moment write, but she is alive and has agency. As a writer for Jezebel put it: “Keep in mind that the plot leaves no question of Ariel’s consent. She huffs and puffs through the scene as Eric swerves her. It is her entire mission, in fact, to be kissed, as it will defeat Ursula’s curse and allow her to remain permanently human.” Actions can give consent.

Conversely, actions can revoke it, as when someone pulls away, lies inert, avoids eye contact, etc. This fact also points to the importance of not positioning affirmative, explicit statements (spoken, signed, or written) as the only way to consent. “Listening only for verbal signs of possible consent without paying attention to a person’s non-verbal cues is not a good way to determine consent either,” a sex ed organization once wrote. “For example, a person could say yes due to feeling pressured, and in a situation like that the verbal cue could be present alongside non-verbal signs of no consent.” Actions are just as important as words — they give consent, take it away, and even override affirmative statements. As Ursula once howled, “Don’t underestimate the importance of body language!” Actions can be misinterpreted, of course, in the same way an explicit Yes can be hollow. Romance and sex have to be navigated with care. (It goes almost without saying that intentional violations of nonverbal or verbal objections must be shown no mercy.)

Two ideas prompted this writing. First, the equating of an inability to speak with an inability to consent. It completely and obviously forgets a group of human beings. As if nonverbal people do not exist, have no agency, and can never enjoy love safely because they cannot literally say Yes. Second, there’s the drift away from what could be called sex realism. Framing the spoken, signed, or written word as the only way to actually consent marks anything else as nonconsensual. Is that realistic? Most human beings who have enjoyed a kiss or sex or anything in between would probably say No. They know pleasure and connection can be consensual without words. Even the most fervent Leftist is probably not, consistently, during every romantic encounter, saying “May I kiss you?” / “Kiss me”; “Can I touch you there?” / “Touch me here”; or “May I take this off?” / “Take this off” before the action occurs. I can offer no proof of this, of course, only the anecdotal — I date liberal and leftwing people, and nonverbal consent still seems to be standard practice. At times there is open communication about the big ones (“Are you ready for that?” / “Fuck me”), which is wonderful, but oftentimes you fall passionately into each other’s arms without any explicit statements, which is wonderful as well. Even those who have adopted a step-by-step, regular check-in approach to love probably take it seriously when with someone new, but let it fade when things advance into a relationship or marriage. On the one hand, this makes sense — you now know your person, what she likes, there’s trust and comfort, and so on. But on the other hand, it’s not fully clear why you shouldn’t continue to seek affirmative, explicit, linguistic agreement before taking any sort of action — if words are the only way to actually consent, what difference would it make if this is someone you met an hour ago or a husband of 30 years? Marital rape exists, partners can commit nonconsensual acts, consent can be violated. Perhaps some people actually do practice what they preach, not proceeding without a linguistic instruction or a positive response to an inquiry, regardless of whether they are with someone new or a longterm lover. Only they can condemn, without hypocrisy, other people for relying on nonverbal agreement. But all this is doubtful. More likely, people convey consent with their actions all the time. There’s performative demands on the internet, and then there’s how people actually behave when with someone they like.

Overall, it is a fine idea to modify lyrics to position a proper kiss as only coming after an understanding that such an act is desired. This understanding can be gained by simply asking, as the song urges; it is typically the clearest form of consent. But nonverbal communication also conveys this understanding. And acting on it is moral. To push nonverbal-spurred romance into the realm of the objectionable is to say nearly all human beings — mute or verbal, hookup or lifelong companion, male or female or nonbinary — are guilty of sexual violence. The spoken, signed, or written word cannot be the only way to agree to a kiss or sex. It may be valuable to encourage people to do this, especially kids and teens — the ones watching The Little Mermaid, after all — as they may be worse at perceiving or conveying nonverbal consent due to underdeveloped brains, worse impulse control, lack of experience and knowledge, etc. But romance without explicit statements can be consensual. Failure to procure them therefore can’t be castigated with any seriousness. The Little Mermaid of 2023 perhaps understands this — despite the new lyrics, Eric never actually asks Ariel if he can kiss her (she could have nodded). Like standard human beings, they lean in toward each other, their actions acknowledging their consent. The way most of us behave, after posting on the internet.

For more from the author, subscribe and follow or read his books.

Only one public university (system) in Missouri can offer PhDs. Only one can offer first-professional degrees in law (J.D.), medicine (M.D.), and more.

The University of Missouri and its supporters in the legislature have for decades maintained a monopoly on doctoral degrees. For a long time, only UM system schools could offer them.

For instance, in 2005, Missouri State University was banned from offering any doctoral, first-professional, or engineering programs unless it was in cooperation with Mizzou, which would be the degree-awarding institution. This was the price of then-Southwest Missouri State’s name change to Missouri State. The name for limits on growth, to protect Mizzou’s position as the state’s largest university and its “prestige.” Other laws barred or scared off other universities from offering the highest degrees.

In 2018, Missouri passed a law with some good changes, some bad. Universities were finally given a pathway to offer more doctoral degrees — like, say, a Doctorate in Education (Ed.D) — without going through Mizzou. But it was enshrined into law that “the University of Missouri shall be the only state college or university that may offer doctor of philosophy degrees or first-professional degrees, including dentistry, law, medicine, optometry, pharmacy, and veterinary medicine” (H.B. 1465, page 4). Further, engineering degrees and a few others must still go through Mizzou.

Impacted universities include Missouri State, Truman, Central Missouri, Southeast Missouri, Harris-Stowe, Lincoln, Missouri Southern, Missouri Western, and Northwest Missouri. Looking at their catalogues you find no doctoral programs, with a few exceptions, such as two at Central Missouri offered through Mizzou and Indiana State, and eight at Missouri State, with one through UMKC.

Proponents frame all this as eliminating costly duplicate programs and promoting cooperation. But by that reasoning, why should multiple universities offer the same bachelor’s degrees? The actual reasoning is obvious. A monopoly on doctoral degrees means more students and income for the UM system. At the expense of every other public university. At the expense of students, who may want to study elsewhere. And to the detriment of the state, which loses money to other states when students don’t get into Mizzou or a sister school, are priced out, or do not find the program they’re looking for — they have no choice but to go to graduate school in another state.

It’s high time Missouri legislators corrected this nonsense. Students, alumni, and everyday proponents of fairness and sanity should contact their legislators and those who serve the districts of affected universities. Then sign the petition.

[2025 Update: A bill has passed allowing MSU to offer any PhD except engineering; Mizzou’s monopoly over dentistry, law, medicine, optometry, engineering, and pharmacy remains intact.]

For more from the author, subscribe and follow or read his books.

George Orwell’s 1984 quickly introduces the reader to the three slogans of its fictional authoritarian government: war is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength. According to the common interpretations, these are not meant to be literal equivalents — to be at war is not to be at peace. Rather, as the novel suggests, they are propagandistic cause-effect relationships, tradeoffs. War, the State promises, will bring about peace. True freedom is found in slavery — if you submit to the Party, you will live a successful, comfortable, happy life. Ignorance, giving up personal and contrary ways of thinking, makes society stable, safe, united. The slogans present necessary evils, unpleasant means to noble ends: accepting war, slavery, and ignorance brings personal and national benefits. (The order reversal of the middle slogan is intriguing. We have, from the reader’s perspective, “bad is good,” “good is bad,” “bad is good.” Orwell chose not to pen “slavery is freedom,” which would have aligned with the others and made the “slavery brings freedom” interpretation even stronger. Still, any notion of “freedom bringing slavery” is difficult to reconcile with the other two, given that this propaganda is presenting terrible things as desirable. The Party isn’t going to tell citizens to watch out for slavery but embrace ignorance and war.) Winston Smith, of course, finds out the hard way what happens when war, slavery, and ignorance are not accepted.

In a time of rightwing attempts to overthrow free and fair elections, rising authoritarianism among the populace, and an American system too underdeveloped to handle anti-democratic threats like Trump, one can’t help but think of Orwell. We’ve seen in terrifying fashion how democracy requires the truth to survive, withering in ages of disinformation. Even language became concerning. Blatant falsities about an inauguration crowd size were infamously labeled “alternative facts,” not really doublethink, but reminiscent of how past facts were erased and replaced in the novel. Truth Social, a platform built for Trump and his lies, sounds uncomfortably like the Ministry of Truth, the propaganda division of Oceania whose pyramid-shaped building displays the Party’s three slogans. Of course, conservatives delight in noting that 1984 was a 1949 response to authoritarian socialism in the Soviet Union, and often whine about how woke cancel culture, COVID vaccines, masks, and lockdowns, or welfare and universal services represent the tyranny and submissive collectivity of which Orwell wrote. But they forget Orwell was a socialist who advocated for democratic socialism as frequently as he warned of communism, and they live in a strange world where every liberal (to say nothing of Leftist) policy or cultural shift warrants screams of 1984 but demagogic leaders, casual dismissals of legal and democratic norms, absurdities spewed for reasons of power, plots to ignore election results, violent attacks on the Capitol, authoritarian and nationalistic voters, and so on somehow are of little concern.

But clearly, while it may be most appropriate for the text, depending on one’s reading, the cause-effect interpretation of the slogans doesn’t best reflect our realities. (Though you do see hints of it at times. American war has long been framed as necessary for peace, even if it achieves the opposite, and other horrors.) A literal equivalent interpretation gets much closer. While it probably won’t be publicized and sloganeered in a cartoonish manner, authoritarianism appears to rely on parts of the populace living in parallel worlds. (The State would publicize tradeoffs and push you to accept them, but it would not advertise the fact that you believe falsities and contradictions.) Parallel worlds, built on conspiracy theories and lies, were of course a major reason German democracy collapsed in the 1930s. The Nazis blamed Jews and Communists for Germany’s problems, which justified Hitler’s dismantling of democratic processes and restriction of civil rights. This is how authoritarianism grows and triumphs. It is not that one part of the populace believes war is necessary for peace and another does not. One believes war is peace. It doesn’t realize or accept that it’s ignorant, enslaved, at war; it thinks it is peaceful, free, and strong (this is different from the novel, where everyone knows, for instance, that it is wartime, with news from the front broadcast everywhere; “Winston could not definitely remember a time when his country had not been at war”). One part of the population believes destroying democracy is saving it. That stealing an election prevents a stolen election. The armed mob that broke into the Capitol, the conservatives decrying mass voter fraud (60% of Republicans, nearly 40% of the nation, still believe the 2020 election was stolen), and even some of the politicians sustaining the lunacy…they believe democracy is in danger as sincerely as liberals (and moderates and sane conservatives). It must be protected from those cheating Democrats, fraudulent votes, bad voting machines. Their own reality. Such dupes are completely detached from quality standards of evidence and reason (why would you trust a bad documentary or an article on Breitbart over the conclusions of Republican-controlled, recounted states, Trump’s own Justice Department and Department of Homeland Security, and some 60 federal court cases?), but they think they’re saving democracy. When they’re actually cutting its throat.

For more from the author, subscribe and follow or read his books.

[2024 Update: MSU has joined CUSA and risen to FBS.]

Missouri State students and alumni have long been unhappy being stuck in the Missouri Valley Conference. Just look at the extremely active forums of Missouri State’s page on 247Sports.com, where you will find constant dreamers longing for a school of our size to move onward and upward.

Much of this centers around football. MSU basketball, baseball, and so on playing in a smaller, less-renowned D-I conference has never been ideal, but at least we can win conference championships and go on to compete for NCAA national titles. We have the chance to battle at the highest level. With football, we’re FCS, and have no such opportunity. Bears fans want to step up to the FBS. 

And the administration is starting to feel the vibe. In August 2021, athletics director Kyle Moats told the Springfield News-Leader, “We’re happy in the Valley” but wanted to have everything in place so that “if we ever got the offer, we’d be ready to go.” Ten years ago, you would have only gotten the first part of that quote.

A move to FBS is no pipe dream. Since 2000, 33 FCS schools have advanced: Massachusetts, Old Dominion, Appalachian State, Georgia Southern, and more. Before that were the likes of Boise State, UConn, Boston, and Marshall. Geographically, Missouri State is well-positioned to join the Sun Belt Conference, Conference USA, or the American Athletic Conference (the Mid-American Conference is also a possibility; Bears swimming and diving is already a member). While a Power 5 conference like the Big 12 or SEC won’t happen, at least for another century or two, MSU has good opportunities for advancement now.

But the university and its supporters must take crucial steps to encourage the necessary invite. We need, as Moats pointed out, upgrades to Plaster Stadium. We need to keep improving the fan experience. Supporters must keep donating through the Missouri State Foundation site and MSU’s GiveCampus page. We need to attend games of all sports, no matter how the season is going. The NCAA has attendance requirements for FBS schools, though enforcement does not appear strict these days. More importantly, studies show higher attendance increases the odds of victory. We need to win to be noticed. And if you can’t make a game, stream it on ESPN+, watch it on TV, etc. Show broadcasters you love the content. Do the little things to help enrollment, too. Buy a car decal, wear MSU gear, post on social media. It’s small acts carried out by tens of thousands of people that change the world.

The arguments against ditching The Valley have never outweighed the potential benefits. Bigger conferences can mean bigger costs, yes. Some wouldn’t want to see MSU fail in a bigger conference, or shift to one unfocused on basketball. This is all short-sighted thinking. The SBC, CUSA, or AAC is a gateway to a more excited fanbase, broader national exposure, a higher profile, increased revenue from enrollment and attendance gains and TV contracts, and so on. We’ll have good years and off years, but we already know we can compete at the highest level of any sport if we have the right pieces in place. University advancement is an upward spiral, but you have to start spinning. When MSU sports regularly play Navy, Rice, SMU, or App State, you’ll be glad you did.

This article originally appeared on Yahoo! and the Springfield News-Leader.

For more from the author, subscribe and follow or read his books.

There’s a delightful scene in Spiderman: Far From Home:

“You look really pretty,” Peter Parker tells MJ, his voice nearly shaking. They stand in a theatre as an orchestra warms up.

“And therefore I have value?” MJ replies, peering at her crush from the corner of her eye.

“No,” Peter says quickly. “No, that’s not what I meant at all, I was just…”

“I’m messing with you.” A devilish smile crosses her face. “Thank you. You look pretty, too.”

To me, the moment hints at the need to insulate love from politics. In my own experience and in conversations with others, I’ve come across the perhaps not-uncommon question of how, in an age when politics has ventured into (some would say infected or poisoned) every aspect of life, do partners prevent division and discomfort? There are probably various answers, because there are various combinations of human beings and ideologies, but I’ll focus on what interests me the most and what the above scene most closely speaks to: love on the Left.

For partnerships of Leftists, or liberals, or liberals and Leftists, political disagreements may be rare (perhaps less so for the latter). But arguments and tensions can arise even if you and your partner(s) fall on the same place on the spectrum, because we are all, nevertheless, individuals with unique perspectives who favor different reasoning, tactics, policies, and so on. If this has never happened to you in your current relationship, you’ve either found something splendidly exceptional or simply not given it enough time. I recently spoke to a friend, D, who is engaged to E. They are both liberals, but D is at times spoken to as if this wasn’t the case, as if an education is in order, even over things they essentially agree on but approach in slightly different ways. Arguments can ensue. For me personally, there exists plenty of fodder for disagreements with someone likeminded: I’m fiercely against a Democratic expansion of the Supreme Court, and have in other ways critiqued fellow Leftists. This is what nuanced, independent thinkers are supposed to do, but it can create those “Christ, my person isn’t a true believer” moments.

If partners choose to engage in political dialogue (more on that choice in a moment), it’s probably a fine idea for both to make a strong verbal commitment to give the other person the benefit of the doubt. That’s a rule that a scene from a silly superhero movie reminded me of. MJ offered this to Peter, while at the same time making a joke based in feminist criticism. She could have bit off his head in earnest. Had she been talking to a cat-caller on the street, a toxic stranger on the internet, a twit on Twitter, she probably would have. But this isn’t a nobody, it’s someone she likes. Her potential partner and relationship are thus insulated from politics. She assumes or believes that Peter doesn’t value her just for her looks. He isn’t made to represent the ugliness of men. There’s a grace extended to Peter that others may not get or deserve. Obviously, we tend to do this with people we know, like family and friends. We know they’re probably coming from a good place, they’ve earned that grace, and so on. (There may be a case to extend this mercy to all people, until compelled to retract it, among other solutions, in the interests of cooling the national temperature and keeping us from tearing each other to pieces, but we’ll leave that aside.)

But thinking and talking about all this, which we often fail to do, seems important. How do I protect my relationship from politics? Hey, could we give each other the benefit of the doubt? Arguments between likeminded significant others can be birthed or worsened by not assuming the best right from the start. Each person should suppose, for example, that an education is not in order. I call it seeing scaffolding beneath ideas. If your person posits a belief, whether too radical or reactionary, that shocks your conscience, your first instinct might be to argue, “That’s obviously wrong/terrible, due to Reasons 1, 2, 3, and 4.” You know, to bite your lover’s head off. But this isn’t some faceless idiot on the screen. Instead, assume they know those reasons already — because they probably do — and reached their conclusion anyway. Imagine that Reasons 1-4 are already there, the education is already there, forming the scaffolding to this other idea. Instead of immediately correcting them, ask them how they reached that perspective, given their understanding of Reasons 1-4 (if they’ve never heard of those, then proceed with an education). No progressive partner wants to be misrepresented, to hear that they only think this way because they don’t understand something, are a man and therefore think in dreadful male ways (like Peter and the joke), and so on: you think that because you’re a woman, white or black, straight or gay, poor or wealthy, too far Left or not far enough, not a true believer. Someone’s knowledge, beliefs, or identity-based perspective can be flawed, yes — suppose it’s not until proven otherwise. These things determine one’s mode of thought; suppose it’s in a positive way first. “Well, well, well, sounds like the straight white man wants to be shielded from critique!” God, yes. With your lover, I think it’s nice to be seen as a human being first. I certainly want to be seen as a human being before being seen as a man, for instance. I don’t want to represent or stand in for men in any fashion. A disgusting thought. Some will say that’s an attempt to stand apart from men to pretend my views aren’t impacted in negative ways by my maleness — to avoid the valid criticisms of maleness and thus myself. Perhaps so. But maybe others also wish to be seen as a human being before a woman, a human being before an African American, a human being before a Leftist. Because politics has engulfed everything, there are so few places left where this is possible. It may not be doable or even desirable to look at other people or all people in this way, but having one person to do it with is lovely. Or a few, for the polyamorous. It’s a tempting suggestion, to shield our love from politics, to transcend it in some way (Anne Hathaway, in an Interstellar line that was wildly inappropriate for her scientist character, said that love was the one thing that transcended time and space — ending with “politics” would have made more sense). One way of doing that is to assume the best in your partner, and see before you an individual beyond belief systems, beyond identity, beyond ignorance. Again, until forced to do otherwise. All this can be tough for Leftists and liberals, because we’re so often at each other’s throats, racing to be the most pure or woke, and so on. There exists little humility. We want to lecture, not listen. Debate, not discuss. It’s a habit that can bleed into relationships, but small changes can reduce unwanted tensions and conflict. (If it’s wanted, if it keeps things spicy, I apologize for wasting your time. Enjoy the make-up sex.)

I do not know if rightwing lovers experience comparable fights, but I imagine all this could be helpful to them as well. They have their own independent thinkers and failed true believers.

An even better way to protect your relationship from politics is to simply refuse to speak of such things. Purposefully avoid the disagreements. This may be best for those dating across the ideological divide (though offering the benefit of the doubt would still be best for the Right-Left pairings or groupings that choose to engage in discourse). This may be surprising, but this is generally my preferred method, whether I’m dating someone who thinks as I do or rather differently. (I of course have a proclivity for a partner who shares my values, but I have dated and probably still could date conservatives, if they were of the anti-Trump variety. Some people are too far removed from my beliefs to be of interest, which is natural. This article is not arguing one should stay with a partner who turns out to have terrible views or supports a terrible man. This is also why “respect each other’s views” is a guideline unworthy of mention. Apart from being too obvious, it at some point should not be done.) Perhaps it’s because so much of my work, writing, and reading has to do with politics. I would rather unplug and not discuss such things with a mate, nor with many close friends and family members. Though it happens every now and then. If partners together commit to making this a general policy, it can be quite successful. And why not? While I see the appeal of learning and growing with your person through meaningful discussion of the issues, it risks having something come between you, and having an oasis from the noise and nightmare sounds even better, just as loving your partner for who they are sounds much less stressful than trying to change them.

For more from the author, subscribe and follow or read his books.