SEX…for lack of a better term…SELLS!
In the end, that’s what it comes down to, isn’t it? Sex is not just for shampoo and cars and beer. It sells candidates and political parties, too. Whenever someone starts talking about “social” issues, or “cultural” issues, or “religion”, usually it boils down to what that person thinks, politically–yes, politically–about sex. Who has it with who, when they have it, how they have it, and even why they have it.
Now before everyone starts shouting and throwing things, keep these two things in mind:
1) everyone that’s ever had a conversation with me about politics knows that “social issues” and “religion”, etc, are not the things that get me out of bed politically. I’m concerned with other things and thus, one could argue (regardless of my personal opinions) that I’m neutral on most of these issues…seriously.
2) I don’t want anyone to get the impression from any of the following that I believe the Government should have anything to say about how anyone conducts their personal lives. My overarching point is that they shouldn’t. Period.
All that being said, let me make a few comments about the two most recent dustups over…well…sex.
One was the Sandra Fluke nonsense where little miss (30 year old) law student at Georgetown raised all kinds of holy hell about not having access to free birth control provided by her university. Of course, everyone by now knows that she KNEW this going in, and, having been a “women’s rights” activist already, decided to attend Georgetown BECAUSE of this policy so she would have a chance to fight the good fight against it. No, that doesn’t make her a slut, but it makes her excessively disingenuous.
The premise here, regardless of how inappropriate Rush’s description of her intentions, is that we have a State that is mandating that employers/insurers grant FREE access to birth control so that women have the ability to have as much sex as they want without the consequences (well at least one particular one). Despite the fact that there were ZERO Social Conservatives out there clamoring to ban birth control, apparently not getting it for free is the equivalent of the Scarlet Letter.
A few Libertarians (Reason.com and the Humble Libertarian and I’m sure there were more) were smart enough to point out that “Reproductive Freedom” does not mean “Reproductive Justice,” meaning having the ability to use something does not mean that is has to be provided to you for free. (Otherwise, as I’ve said before, the Second Amendment would mean that every American must be provided with a gun and a lifetime supply of bullets…at birth).
But this still begs the question: Why is it so critical that the State protect a woman’s “right to choose” to have sex without risk of pregnancy? Well one argument on the “equality” front is that men don’t have to deal with the consequences like women do, so they can have as many sex partners as they want and, unless they’re Arnold Schwarzenegger in one of the worst movies ever, they’ll never get pregnant.
So what? So where is it written in the annals of Liberty, Freedom, and Equality, that women are the same as men sexually, and should by some right ordained by God have equal access to sex? Apparently, so “pursuit of happiness” translates as “as much sex as one wants without having to be burdened with the consequences of sex.” Therefore: free birth control. Dismissing the fact that there are TONS of other barriers other than simply gender that keep many Americans from having free and fair access to sex…For instance, should bald, fat, ugly guys form a PAC and demand equal access to sex?
The truth is that women statistically don’t WANT as many sex partners as men do. For more on this topic, I’d direct you to a documentary (part of a series of documentaries) on the “Nature vs. Nurture” question. A documentarian in Norway illustrates the innate insanity of the notion that there is no difference between men and women and it’s all about our evil, capitalist, paternalistic, male-driven culture that is just holding women back from their rights as horny humans. A few warnings: 1) there is a little nudity in the beginning (it’s a European documentary, what do you want me to do?, 2) it is mostly subtitled, and 3) it’s 40 minutes long (which one of those bothers you most says a LOT about you. ):
The documentarian doesn’t go into any of the more American themes of teenage pregnancy and number of kids born out of wedlock, etc, and the economic ramifications of such, and I won’t go into them here either. But it boggles my mind how much concern the “Social Far Left” (and that includes a LOT of Libertarians, albeit certainly not all) can put so much emphasis on “sexual freedom” as THE MOST FUNDAMENTAL MEASURE of liberty and choice, when every single version of Civilization in recorded history acknowledges that restraint and some level of sanctity regarding sex makes for a freer and more independent populace.
I can forgive the Liberal left, because they have no other mantle to put the refrain “freedom” than on the sexual one. Obviously they’re not concerned with freedom, especially freedom regarding healthcare, if they are dead set on FORCING employers and insurers to act as a go-between on birth control with policy holders. Removing middle men would make more sense.
However, I’m less forgiving of those who consider themselves freedom fighters constantly singing the same song of “reproductive freedom,” which actually means “freedom to have sex and NOT reproduce”. There is ZERO evidence that an increased “low risk” sex life leads to more happiness and independence (in women or men), and suffice it to say that promoting promiscuity is indeed THE LEAST productive activity in the battle to preserve our freedoms (unless, of course, you’re promoting promiscuity WITHOUT birth control…more freedom-loving Americans having babies wouldn’t be so bad ), and I wish that more Libertarians would stop to think how lucky they are to live in a society that has social norms which stigmatize promiscuity, because there are few successful civilizations that do not, and usually the removal of those norms results in downward slide of that civilization.
To illustrate this a bit, let’s take a look at the newly nominated Libertarian candidate for President, Gary Johnson’s site BEFORE he decided to run as a Libertarian:
And then take a look at it now:
His stances haven’t changed really at all, but he now has “Coalitions” on Poker, Marijuana, “Choice”, and “Marriage”…the positions he takes are fair positions, but there is little mystery that he’s positioned himself, and the Libertarian Party as a result, as the “cool” president who says, “Hey Dude, live and let live, as long as you’re not hurting anyone else!”
And let me preempt something here: The position that “He’s not PROMOTING these things, he’s just saying that Government shouldn’t prohibit it,” is a fair position, but it’s one that ignores human nature. If you looked at a candidate’s website that encouraged going to church every Sunday and “Family Values,” you wouldn’t say, “Well, they’re not really Christians, they’re just encouraging others to do that.” You would assume that they are representing themselves as a Christian family man. (Put another way: politically, there is a reason people cite their gun ownership and hunting prowess when bragging about their Second Amendment bonafides.)
And this brings us to the most current “Social” issue, and that’s Obama’s endorsement, non-endorsement, support of gay marriage. The funny thing is, on the substance of what he says, I agree with him: two people who love each other should be able to call themselves married, and whatever church wants to bless that union should be allowed to do it, other than that, the legal implications should be handled by the States? What does the left conclude from that?
First Gay President….really? Wait a minute. Hang on. Because Obama believes that two people, regardless of gender, should be able to legally tie themselves to each other financially and adopt and/or raise children together (he didn’t say that, explicitly , but that’s the implication, if we’re talking about rights….right?). So…how does that make him gay? Now, I know that Newsweek, the creator of this ridiculous cover and article don’t actually believe that he is or has become gay because of his support for gay marriage, any more than someone believed that Clinton’s “First Black President” title really make him black…but it begs the question: what is it about his support of gay marriage “equality” makes him supportive of gayness? Supporting legal equality doesn’t equal supporting the act of gay sex, does it? Well…YES…as we’ve already covered. It does. His stance, from those inside the gay community, is a blessing of gay sex. Look at the way Joe Biden (“boldly” mind you) expressed his support, “I am absolutely COMFORTABLE with men marrying men and women marrying women” He touched on the legal rights, but he began, with emphasis, on his all-important COMFORT level.
The dirty little secret here is that the “gay rights” movement is not looking for legal equality, they are looking for acceptance…and now they have it from the VP and from POTUS. It doesn’t matter that the President hasn’t moved the ball forward one iota on the issue, legally…what matters is he and the VP are COMFORTABLE, personally, with gay sex, and gay couples. By the same token, the Social Conservative right is NOT comfortable, therefore this stance of comfort is an abomination, despite the fact that he has an explicitly Tenth Amendment view of it legally, because he’s comfortable, he might as well be…the First Gay President.
And the media has spent COUNTLESS hours, days, weeks, and months on the issue of contraception, gay marriage, etc, while brushing through discussions of a $16Trillion deficit as just another day in Washington. The President is “making history” for expressing…comfort…with a certain sexual lifestyle which many are…let’s face it…not comfortable with.
Let me ask this, and think about this carefully:
If the President expressed support for adultery, open marriages and “swinging” without anything other than supporting it, and saying something along the lines of, “The States should work out all the legal details, but I think in General, it’s a travesty that fathers are often denied access to their children simply because they sought alternative physical attention outside the home. And further I think the American people should keep an open mind as to what constitutes a family. After all, my daughter seems to be OK with the idea” Would the left conclude that he was shedding archaic and stodgy paleoconservative norms and thus applaud his enlightened view of sexuality? Would the right conclude that he probably sleeps around? Maybe…maybe not, but my guess is the reaction would be different. Even though these types of activities are MORE common, and MORE a part of modern American life than homosexuality ever will be, it would be frowned upon. Otherwise, I suppose we’d see a cover on Time or Newsweek with Obama with a hot chick on each arm saying, “The First Philandering President.” (Sorry, Bill…you didn’t express “comfort” with it.) Then, Hugh Heffner would host a fundraiser and pull $30 million dollars from the “sex” industry. No? There is no philandering father lobby…so probably not.
“But hey, that’s different,” you say, “this a choice, homosexuals can’t choose who they are!” OK, what about a brother and sister…they didn’t choose their family…if they decide they want to be wed in holy matrimony, maybe after a couple failed marriages outside the family, should they be able to?
“NO! That’s CRAZY! You’re gross!” Why? So who is the high priest that’s making this decision of what social mores are expendable and which are not? (Again…no real “Incest Lobby” that I know of, and the odds of a “First Incestuous President” cover is pretty low. And yes, you’re right…pretty gross)
But what does sex have to do with legal rights? Who is fighting for the right to have sex? Are there sodomy laws being thrown at gay americans, and evil Christian judges sentencing them to life in prison for “deviant” behavior? No? So what does sex have to do with it? (Come to think it, even adultery is not a crime…it’ll cost you in a divorce settlement, though, so there are legal consequences).
Another one: If a future President Romney were to express that the FLDS (those Fundamental Mormons that live in a polygamist combine) in Texas is being unduly discriminated against and that if a community wants to live in these United States with multiple wives and the children raised to believe this is good, then does that pass the same test of defending “reproductive freedom” and “civil rights”? Would there be a “First Polygamist President” even though he’s not a polygamist, but is just looking out for the rights of people to live exactly as they please as long as they’re not hurting others? You betcha! Slightly different, mind you, because although it would still be on the cover of Time and Newsweek, the supporting article would be decidedly less glowing and supportive. The defenders of “sexual freedom” would clamp down like the Spanish Inquisition on steroids judging the familial and sexual deviance of such an abomination.
Why? Well…Romney is a Republican…that’s the main reason. OK…what if Obama supported Polygamy? It’s consistent…he’s neither gay nor is he polygamist, so the stance is basically the same. Neither of these scenarios is plausible is going to happen, though. NOONE is going to endorse polygamy on ANY grounds of sexual, personal, or intellectual freedom, because the FAMILY UNIT is still important…at least if you listen to politicians across the political spectrum it is.
So why is the entire political system wrapped up sex?
The truth is, the family unit IS STILL important. A civil society requires this institution more than it requires almost anything else to survive. But this institution HAS to survive on its own…Government, being limited in its ability to do anything without devolving into tyranny, CANNOT define, limit, or altar our sex lives. It will not, and should not. There is a reason why a monstrous percentage of elected officials are heterosexuals married with children. Anything else is the exception, not the rule. Even Obama, the Progressive that defines all modern Progressiveness CONSTANTLY touts his family accolades, and boy do they look lovely on camera.
So what does this mean? “Family” is about raising kids…and raising kids requires someone to have sex (my God, I hope THAT doesn’t change anytime really soon), and that requires the action of one man and one woman. That is the biological reality.
Rights? That is something else entirely. There is no right to get married, but given that there are barriers that gay couples have that heterosexual couples do not, I say, eliminate the barriers, but keep one thing in mind: siblings have the same barriers, a mother and daughter with stupid ex husbands or crackhead daughters-in-law have similar challenges of both inheritance and child-rearing. Widows who have moved in with a college roommate…fathers and godmothers…you name it.
There are a variety of situations which a “Civil Union” can help remedy, but do they have to act like they love each other as a “married” couple? Or put another way, do they HAVE to be having sex? Why is the State concerned with who loves each other and who is having sex? And why are we, the voters, concerned with it, and further why are we concerned with what our elected officials are “comfortable” with? Any solution should be a solution that takes sex off the table…otherwise, someone is acting as high priest of sexual properness.
So family values is really more about valuing family…valuing the ability of individuals to tie themselves into a community in whatever way they see fit and raise their children to be responsible and productive citizens. “Marriage” as a legal matter is simply a short cut…it is the norm, and it will remain the norm. Biology doesn’t lie. It is the default model of the family unit and it has been that way for countless hundreds and thousands of generations in a variety of civilizations all over this group. It is the human reality that cannot be dismissed as simply “cultural” without making some MONSTROUS sacrificing in civilizational security. That doesn’t mean that people should be denied equal “rights” to arrange their affairs differently based on their “preference” or simply circumstances, but it also doesn’t mean that we should just pretend that “marriage” is anything different than it ever has been.
We do not have to promote “reproductive freedom” nor do we have to promote “gay rights.” We certainly do not want to legislate it, and as a result of that we should refrain from making SUCH a big deal about it. The point that I’m trying to get across here is this: There is a distinct difference between telling the Government to stay out of our sex lives, and PROMOTING sex without consequences…we do not need to do the latter to accomplish the former.
And there is a big difference between having a belief that marriage is a sacred institution that Government can acknowledge as a legal shortcut to inheritance and child-rearing, and taking the stance that ANY accommodation to someone with a different preference or situation is somehow destroying the institution of marriage.
Those of us who consider ourselves fighters for freedom and limited government–and that includes those who think that saving the world from internet pornography is an important liberty issue, AND those that seem to think that touting the virtues of legalized prostitution is a critical liberty issue–need to step back and think about what our priorities are. We need to stop obsessing about sex all the time. It sells, but what are we selling? We’re not selling liberty and independence by selling sex. We’re selling our future down the road because someone has the same views about us on sex. We’re missing the chance to focus like a laser on the role of government, national debt, enumerated powers, free markets. These are the things that will save us from oblivion. No amount of “sexual freedom” “reproductive freedom”–or lack thereof–is going to get our country back to where it once was. The culture issues–and they are real–have to be solved by the culture, not the Government.
And for those of you who call yourselves “Progressive” or “Liberal” who have little or no interest in individual liberty, stop pretending that “reproductive justice” and “gay rights” is going to save you from the jackboots that you’re creating. It’s not hypocritical, really. It’s just childish. Either you care about individual liberty or you don’t (you don’t), so stop pretending like you do while sacrificing our freedom on the altar of “free love.” It just makes you look stupid. Your children (if you still believe in those…lest we overpopulate and lay waste to Mother Gaia) will not care that you stood for “sexual freedom” when the thought police comes and takes them away for not eating enough vegetables, or whatever shameless bit of eco-fascism you dream up to take the place of the religion you so despise.
All of you stop it…just stop it. There is just entirely too much at stake, and our freedoms are too important to make it all about sex.