Sunday, May 14, 2006

Sex! Scandal! Spectator!

1. SEX!
There is no such thing as too much sex on a blog. Human beings love sex, which is why there are 6 billion of us on the planet. So anytime the subject presents itself -- as when Ben Domenech was accused of plagiarizing a column about Britney Spears -- I try to jump on it. (THIS JUST IN: Britney Spears! George Clooney! NEKKID! (Hat tip: Don Surber, who always beats me to the good stuff. GreatDirty minds think alike. Some just think fasterdirtier.)

One of my pet peeves is the accusation that conservatives are anti-sex. This is particularly galling to me because I am a father of six -- my pro-sex credentials should be beyond dispute.

Such evidence is, however, irrelevant to those who arrogate to themselves the "pro-sex" label. In fact, it would be more accurate to call them "Pro-Reckless Promiscuity" or "Pro-Sociopathic Deviance." (Given their recent activism, one is tempted to call them the "Any-Hole-But the-Right-One Lobby"). But since their chief aim is to win the allegiance and corrupt the morals of the young, they call themselves "pro-sex," thus suggesting to hormonally-supercharged youth that anyone who tells them to keep their britches on is "anti-sex."

The May issue of Touchstone magazine (which also has its own blog) carries an article by Paul Cella III called "Birth Patrol." Sadly, the article is not yet available online, but Cella brilliantly rebukes those who are "pro-sex," but anti-procreation.

One of Cella's targets is Mark Morford, a columnist for the San Francisco Chronicle (surprise!) who -- in reaction to a news article about an Arkansas woman who gave birth to her 16th child last year -- delivered himself of a particularly hideous and insulting expression of the Culture of Death:
[I]t is exactly this kind of weird pathological protofamily breeding-happy gluttony that's making the world groan and cry and recoil, contributing to vicious overpopulation rates and unrepentant economic strain and a bitter moral warpage resulting from a massive viral outbreak of homophobic neo-Christians across our troubled and Bush-ravaged land. ...
[I]t's actually painful to imagine the logistics, the toll on Michelle Duggar's body, the ravages it has endured to give birth to roughly one child per year for nearly two decades, and you cannot help but wonder about her body and its various biological and sexual ... no, no, it is not for this space to visualize frighteningly capacious vaginal dimensions.
"Frighteningly capacious"? Why is Mr. Morford frightened? (Paging Dr. Freud!)

As a father of six -- I did mention that, didn't I? -- I can assure Mr. Morford that this aspect of abundant fecundity has never frightened me in the least. Only an immature person suffering from a deep-seated sense of sexual inadequacy (Dr. Sigmund Freud! Please pick up the red phone in the lobby! Paging Dr. Freud ....) would fear himself incapable of meeting the challenges, and enjoying the opportunities, presented by such "capacious ... dimensions." One suspects that Mr. Morford has a shortage ... of imagination, at least.

"Be fruitful and multiply" is a divine commandment, without asterisks or caveats. Why is it that those who deny the Creator do not act upon their Darwinian faith? One might expect that the Darwinists, who think themselves so superior to us Bible-thumping hillbillies, would wish to improve the gene pool by fostering their own large broods. Alas, no. We Red-State hillbillies are outbreeding the Blue-State sophisticates by a significant margin, as noted recently by Phillip Longman and Steve Sailer, inter alia.

But back to Mr. Morford and his loathing of the vagina (... this is an emergency! Dr. Freud, please ...), which is apparently unlimited. He also hates Christian virgins.
The superiority of virginity myth, it is a massive, underreported disaster. It is a ridiculous and exhausting misconception that must be eradicated like a cancer. Perhaps French philosopher Voltaire said it best, nearly 300 years ago: "It is one of the great superstitions of the human mind to have imagined that virginity could be a virtue." So true.
Which is another way of asking, Don't we have it exactly backward? Shouldn't one's overall happiness -- physical, marital or otherwise -- be directly equated with exceptional amounts of sexual training and education and awareness? Is such positively libidinous education not a recipe for health and well-being and long-term marital satisfaction?
Well, well. It seems that whether vaginas are virginal or "frighteningly capacious," they are equally odious to Mr. Morford. Are we surprised?

As for "exceptional amounts of sexual training and education and awareness," what's wrong with a little on-the-job training, some spontaneity, improvisation and experimentation? Why leap to the assumption that one cannot perform the necessary feat without classroom instruction? (I'm recalling a Monty Python scene: "Give her a kiss, boy!")

Speaking only for myself, I believe I managed things quite well on the first try, and do not think myself unique in having eventually mastered it without benefit of professional instruction. As there were already more than 200 million Americans by the time anyone suggested instituting "comprehensive sexuality education" in our public schools, it seems obvious that most of us — though perhaps not Mr. Morford — can figure out for ourselves how to insert Tab A into Slot B.

At any rate, I am grateful to Paul Cella (whose has his own blog) for calling my attention to Mr. Morford's heterophobic, anti-natalist misogyny. I've long been skeptical of Freudian theories of sexuality, but Mr. Morford's word-association exercises might cause me to reconsider.

Oh, and here's another good sex column, in case you just can't get enough.

Want to get a link from us? Be like Don. Nearly every scandal on Don's list of favorites is covered, or at least mentioned, in DONKEY CONS. But since, as a rule, our standard was criminal conviction -- or pleading guilty, etc. -- as proof of malfeasance, the alleged Jefferson-Hemings affair didn't make the cut for the book.

Since the central question of the book is distinct partisan differences in terms of scandal, when we got to the "sex" chapter -- did I mention "sex" again? -- the decision was made to narrow the focus down to presidential sex. What we found was this: Three of the last four Democratic presidents (JFK, LBJ & Clinton) have been compulsive, reckless and habitual horndogs. We're talking philandering on a grand scale. The last Republican with a comparable zipper problem was the loathsome Warren G. Harding, some 80 years ago.

Among Democratic presidents since WWII, Truman and Carter have been -- so far as is known -- faithful husbands. The same is true of Republicans Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan. Various accusations (or mere rumors) of affairs by other recent GOP presidents have never approached the profligate and shameless womanizing of Kennedy, Johnson and Clinton.

Some have tried to make a scandal of Reagan's divorce from his first wife, Jane Wyman, in the sense that most conservative Christians do not approve of divorce and remarriage. But this is merely an early example of the familiar "family values hypocrite" trick that Democrats have been using for more than a quarter-century now. The idea is because the GOP and its conservative supporters publicly support the traditional family, therefore any deviation from that norm -- e.g., Newt Gingrich's divorces, Alan Keyes' lesbian daughter, etc. -- is a horrible scandal, the moral equivalent of Chappaquiddick. Democrats do this, of course, because they themselves are actively and openly hostile to traditional morality, and thus can never be accused of similar hypocrisy.

Adultery is wrong, and is evidence of bad character. Good men throughout history have sometimes succumbed to such temptation, but this does not excuse either the sin or the sinner. I agree with Ross Perot who, in explaining why he did not tolerate womanizing by executives of his corporation, said, "If a man's own wife can't trust him, why should I?" Cheating on one's wife is an act of dishonesty and betrayal. The Monica Lewinskys of this world are fools and sluts, but the married men who involve themselves in such affairs are far, far worse.

Our item last week about Harry Reid's corrupt protege got linked Friday on the American Spectator blog. (Thank you, Quin Hilyer.) We've added the American Spectator Online to the blogroll, and would urge everyone to check it out. When it comes to exposing Democratic scandals, the Spectator made itself legendary during the Clinton era, and its editor in chief, R. Emmett "Bob" Tyrrell, Jr., is himself legendary in Washington. The Spectator's site is excellent, especially the Washington Prowler column.


Just checked Site Meter and discovered (you guessed it) we're getting visitors who are searching for sex blogs. Guess I might as well tell them about Vilmar's Chick of the Week, huh?

By the way, Nancy: I suggested to Vilmar that he should consider you for the "Chick of the Week" honor -- I vote for the big-haired 1991 teen Catfish Queen reject -- but he said he'd first need your permission.

Man, you know it's spring when there's sex all over the blogosphere. Via a feminist blog, I discovered an article from the Other Paper that poses the question: Female sexual aggression -- good idea or bad idea? Bad idea. (I'm thinking the "free milk and a cow" factor might be implicated here.) Also, comment from Salon.

Via the same feminist site, we learn that Germany is now committing genocide against itself. I imagine the feminist blog babes are going to freak completely out when they discover they've been linked here, especially when they learn that I consider feminism a totalitarian ideology.

DONKEY CONS: Rave review
DONKEY CONS: Another rave review
DONKEY CONS: Yet ANOTHER rave review
DONKEY CONS: Vilmar loves it!
DONKEY CONS: WorldNetDaily loves it!
About the book
DONKEY CONS: On Capitol Hill