The Weekly Screed (#671)

Is sex Republican?
By David Benjamin

MADISON, Wis. — After studying the sexual assault allegations by two women against Wisconsin state Rep. Bill Kramer, I can finally understand Missouri Congressman Todd Akin’s seemingly benighted views — blurted out last year — about “legitimate rape.” Evidently, Republicans like Kramer and Akin hold to the conviction that you can’t actually rape a woman who shares your politics.

Indeed, one woman mauled by Kramer after a 2011 GOP event called “Pints and Politics” outside a bar in Muskego, Wis., chose to drop charges out of loyalty to the Party. She only went public about the assault after Bill, this year, walked up to a lady lobbyist in Washington and shoved his hand up her skirt.

Hmm. Does this mean that the Muskego victim isn’t a Republican anymore?

Both parties have a history of sexual shenanigans, from Gary Hart and Donna Rice to David Vitter and the hookers who did stuff Mrs. Vitter wouldn’t do. But there seems to be a difference. Our naughty Democrats, and their scarlet women, still seem to be having a hot time in the old town — while the GOP is stuck in church, marching to the somber tune of the Family Research Council, Focus on the Family and other ultra-uptight outfits.

Your typical Democratic male, whether promiscuous or monogamous, doesn’t have to submit his sex life for Party review. The Party doesn’t declare that women ought to “submit” to men, either Biblically or politically. But, if a guy leans Republican, the Party’s prudes and preachers pounce. Suddenly, they’re all over him like, well… Bill Kramer. Suddenly, there are prohibitions and outreach, interventions and prayer breakfasts as far as the eye can see. Your loyal Republican has to spend a lot of time thinking about sex while not having it.

Ironically, some of our most abstentionist right-wingers, like Michelle Bachmann, Rick Santorum, Mitt Romney and Mormons in general — tend to breed like guppies. But, if you look into the GOP literature, this is achieved largely by using the hole-in-the-sheet method perfected centuries ago by ultra-Orthodox Jews and passed on to the Rev. Jonathan Edwards in a secret ecumenical meeting held in Salem, Massachusetts in 1757. This technique was actually adopted by the 2010 annual convention of the Iowa Tea Party Patriots for God. As a result, the Bed Bath & Beyond franchise in Des Moines has a permanent six-month backlog of orders for its line of “all-flannel, wash-and-wear neo-Hasidic bull’s-eye bed linens.”

Without saying so outright, the GOP’s real “war” is not the war on women imputed by Democrats, but — more basically — a war on sex (at least all the fun parts of it). This helps clarify, for instance, the pro-family GOP’s virulent aversion to gay marriage. It isn’t the “marriage” part or the prospect of a family with parents of the same gender that freaks Republicans the most. I know, because I’ve asked.

The problem is, when Republicans think of same-sex marriage, especially gay men, they can’t get past the “ick factor.”

I think all of us, really, can sympathize, if we remember back to when we learned about how sex is actually done. Most kids I know reacted by saying, “WHAT! No way! That’s how they DO it? My dad? My MOTHER? You’re lying, man!” Followed, usually, by visual aids, followed by: “Ew. Gross!”

Being a Democrat, I eventually warmed up to the idea.

Apparently, Republicans can’t quite outgrow that initial shock, which makes the oral/anal vision of gay sex all the more traumatic. This chronic revulsion helps explain an obvious Republican obsession with sex. More and more, the big issues that dominate GOP discourse — “one man-one woman,” abortion, contraception, embryonic stem cells, ultra-sound vaginal probes, anchor babies, the taxonomy of “legitimate rape,” “abstinence only,” single motherhood, home-schooling, the Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue — all pretty much circle back to sex, sex, sex.

Sexuality even colors right-wing thinking about racial justice and immigration policy. I mean, how many Republicans do you know who would not subscribe — at least privately — to the following (ideally spoken in a whisper) statement: “They think about it all the time, and they want our women.”

I think it would simplify U.S. politics immensely if the Republicans would come clean and admit that, for them, it’s all about nookie — and that, as a Party, they’re against it, period (except, of course, for procreative Hasid-style coitus at the peak of female ovulation, within the confines of Christian heterosexual marriage).

It’s not a new idea. In 1929, two social scientists named Thurber and White shook the very pillars of American fertility with their study, Is Sex Necessary?

Among the benefits of this daring political reform would be the protection of women from guys like Bill Kramer (who would probably switch parties). It would finally provide a statutory definition of “legitimate rape” — as any sort of sexual contact between a Democratic male and a Republican woman.
Republicans might initially fear that being the No-Sex Party will render them a permanent minority. But let’s face it. The only way to enforce this ideal is the “honor system” — which never works! Conservative men would end up having more sex, more competently, than ever before, and enjoying it again — at last — because of the thrill of sneaking around and hauling their ashes on the sly. Sex, revived as a taboo, would be dirty again. Sinners — for the sheer sake of sin — would flock to the GOP.

Best of all, an anti-sex GOP would have a chance to close the gender gap. It would attract a silent majority of disgusted middle-aged women — married to “sixty-second men” — who would just as soon their husbands skulk to the bathroom, by themselves, with a Victoria’s Secret catalog. I can hear these gals in bedrooms all across America, rolling over as they yank down their nighties:

“Not tonight, dear. I’m a Republican.”