A recent Christine O’Donnell clip – there are many, that’s true – shows her claiming to be a celibate 30 year old and desiring for all unmarried people to stop – just stop – having sex. Atlanta Pastor Eddie Long – currently being accused by two men of sexual predation – reportedly had students at his LongFellows Youth Academy carry a card that listed “3 things that you could be doing instead of having sex.” I imagine several hypocritical evangelists and politicians would list: thinking about sex; and lying about sex as two such things.
Further, an uncountable number of these aforementioned evangelists and politicians, along with many broadcast pundits, perpetually proclaim how and why all kinds of people should avoid ever having sex.
What I am about to say will be seen as radical – and out of the mainstream, as so many talking heads like to say nowadays – only because the vast majority of humans on Earth who enjoy sex don’t bother to defend it. Sex is one of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, with food, water, sleep and shelter. How did religions ever latch on sex as the one to vilify for the purpose of manipulating and controlling a population?
Like food and shelter, sex is necessary for our species. Like Shelter, humans can survive without sex, although the existence is miserably Spartan. Like food, it has an enjoyable quotient. While too much of either can cause problems, in the right amounts – which differ for every person based on biology and various whims – both are pleasing. Conservatives and libertarians scream bloody murder when health nuts try to stop them from eating a certain kind of food, but applaud when religion fanatics try to stop people from having certain kinds of sex. (Yes, you prudes, there is more than one kind of sex, and most of your friends and neighbors, straight, gay, and bi are having many of them, although they are too timid or too respectful of your fragile psyche to tell you). Likewise liberals who think they know what’s best for others to eat (I include myself here), should give advice only when asked and otherwise mind their own business. If someone wants to eat 30 Ho Hos and 4 diet sodas with extra aspartame every breakfast, let them. If someone else wants to copulate with a consenting adult’s navel while hanging from a chandelier, the rest of us should mind our own business. Because, truth be told, we all eat and do some weird shit now and then.
When our so-called intellectual, spiritual and political leaders try to regulate the sexual habits of other people, we know what’s up. It’s a method of controlling people, of asserting a level of (mock) superiority over those to whom they otherwise can’t be superior. These are people who aren’t smarter or stronger or prettier than the average bear. They can’t command the fortunes of many as corporate CEO’s or military generals. All they can do is claim to be superior by their disdain for the masses.
If you are happy eating tofu and alfalfa, why should it bother you what everyone else is eating? If you are happy keeping your libido in a chest in the cellar, why should you concern yourself with others selling their chests?
Abstinence is stupid and pointless, like fasting. If abstaining or fasting makes some people feel better, fine. But no one should think they can convince the rest of us to follow suit. They may think they are making progress because we lie about what we do. We don’t stand up for ourselves because we are embarrassed about the junk we ate when no one was watching, and the stuff we did with our junk when too many were watching.
Haven’t we all seen our embarrassed co-worker in the supermarket checkout line with a gallon of neopolitan ice cream and double stuff Oreo cookies? It only raises our eyebrows when it’s that self-professed health food and fitness nut who keeps scolding you to follow his calorie-restricted diet. Likewise, I only take notice of someone’s reported perversion when it’s the guy or girl who remonstrates me to only have sexual relations thrice a year with my wife in the missionary position.
In and old vid from Scarborough Country, O’Donnell was asked, rhetorically, if she was “going to stop the whole country from having sex.” She replied: “Yeah.” She’s “chaste.” And that makes her better than you and me.
Further, an uncountable number of these aforementioned evangelists and politicians, along with many broadcast pundits, perpetually proclaim how and why all kinds of people should avoid ever having sex.
What I am about to say will be seen as radical – and out of the mainstream, as so many talking heads like to say nowadays – only because the vast majority of humans on Earth who enjoy sex don’t bother to defend it. Sex is one of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, with food, water, sleep and shelter. How did religions ever latch on sex as the one to vilify for the purpose of manipulating and controlling a population?
Like food and shelter, sex is necessary for our species. Like Shelter, humans can survive without sex, although the existence is miserably Spartan. Like food, it has an enjoyable quotient. While too much of either can cause problems, in the right amounts – which differ for every person based on biology and various whims – both are pleasing. Conservatives and libertarians scream bloody murder when health nuts try to stop them from eating a certain kind of food, but applaud when religion fanatics try to stop people from having certain kinds of sex. (Yes, you prudes, there is more than one kind of sex, and most of your friends and neighbors, straight, gay, and bi are having many of them, although they are too timid or too respectful of your fragile psyche to tell you). Likewise liberals who think they know what’s best for others to eat (I include myself here), should give advice only when asked and otherwise mind their own business. If someone wants to eat 30 Ho Hos and 4 diet sodas with extra aspartame every breakfast, let them. If someone else wants to copulate with a consenting adult’s navel while hanging from a chandelier, the rest of us should mind our own business. Because, truth be told, we all eat and do some weird shit now and then.
When our so-called intellectual, spiritual and political leaders try to regulate the sexual habits of other people, we know what’s up. It’s a method of controlling people, of asserting a level of (mock) superiority over those to whom they otherwise can’t be superior. These are people who aren’t smarter or stronger or prettier than the average bear. They can’t command the fortunes of many as corporate CEO’s or military generals. All they can do is claim to be superior by their disdain for the masses.
If you are happy eating tofu and alfalfa, why should it bother you what everyone else is eating? If you are happy keeping your libido in a chest in the cellar, why should you concern yourself with others selling their chests?
Abstinence is stupid and pointless, like fasting. If abstaining or fasting makes some people feel better, fine. But no one should think they can convince the rest of us to follow suit. They may think they are making progress because we lie about what we do. We don’t stand up for ourselves because we are embarrassed about the junk we ate when no one was watching, and the stuff we did with our junk when too many were watching.
Haven’t we all seen our embarrassed co-worker in the supermarket checkout line with a gallon of neopolitan ice cream and double stuff Oreo cookies? It only raises our eyebrows when it’s that self-professed health food and fitness nut who keeps scolding you to follow his calorie-restricted diet. Likewise, I only take notice of someone’s reported perversion when it’s the guy or girl who remonstrates me to only have sexual relations thrice a year with my wife in the missionary position.
In and old vid from Scarborough Country, O’Donnell was asked, rhetorically, if she was “going to stop the whole country from having sex.” She replied: “Yeah.” She’s “chaste.” And that makes her better than you and me.
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Kerry Lauerman
Joan Walsh
Salon.com
Comments
The real reason for the sex-negative attitude is in the patriarchal system. A man had to be sure his children were his, so his "wives" could only have sex with him. The whole concept of marriage is based on this. In Olden Times, women and children were possessions, chattel to be added to the man's wealth. All rules regarding sex are based on this concept. Nobody cared if people had gay affairs, they didn't count in the patriarchal system because they could not produce children. No gain, no pain.
It became apparent to The Powers That Be that they could control the men by telling them that the only valid sex act is the one that can lead to pregnancy. This little regulation is the one O'Donnell and her ilk seek to perpetuate. It's basic Roman Catholic dogma. It's the basis for many of the worst decisions made on this planet. Nothing but intercourse without contraception. Any other method for achieving orgasm is sinful. The point of this stupid exercise is the birth of more Roman Catholics.
When JFK was running for president, there was concern that he would answer to the Pope before he answered to the people. In O'Donnell's case, there's no doubt where her allegiance lies, and it's not to the United States of America.
A little less talk and a little more action. Where's Maslow, I'm in tough shape. Rated out of frustration!
Other than that, it scares me that her goal is to have a completely chaste nation. I didn't know that. Wow, that's just . . . wow.
Rated for a very well-written and direct post.
-R-