No sex, please, we're Republicans

December 3, 2004 3:25 AM

No sex, please, we're Republicans.At the dawn of a digitised, globalised millennium, these creeps want the clocks turned back to a time when the church held sway over our sexuality. They prefer us ignorant and terrified, alone in the dark, the better for them to control us through fear and guilt. Too bad for them that we live in the bright, vivid light of our incandescent dirty dreams.
posted by acrobat (64 comments total)

Please, acrobat, tell us what you think :( :( :(

Can't we just hump in peace?
posted by The God Complex at 3:50 AM on December 3, 2004

I'll still embarrassed that DeMent was elected for my state. *sniff* Why do people have to keep bring it up just as soon as I manage to block it out?
posted by Plinko at 4:03 AM on December 3, 2004

There will always be groups outraged or incensed by a particular art in a particular medium. For instance:

The Holy Virgin Mary
Passion of the Christ

One should remember the movie Kinsey is just a movie. Parts such as the interview between Liam Nesson as Kinsey and Kinsey's father are dramatic fiction.

The movie isn't going to be banned; the studio could cite the first amendment in two shakes. Personally, I wouldn't give the protesters the time of day.

All I can hope for, from Hollywood, is a movie better than the Chronicles of Riddick. Let us, in the least, hope for only that.
posted by Colloquial Collision at 4:03 AM on December 3, 2004

God (heh heh), I'll humor you. I think sex is great, libido is the most mysterious force in the universe, and no matter how much I think I know myself or how much experience I've gathered through the years, my sexuality will always surprise me. And yes, I believe we can talk about sex as much and as freely as we like. And that at the end, it's none of our business who fucks whom. Now, having sex, I would like to meet you first...
posted by acrobat at 4:10 AM on December 3, 2004

Condon's movie does a splendid job of recreating the quasi-Victorian sexual politics of a time when people scarcely knew what to do or feel about their ungovernable hard-ons and inexplicably moistened knickers.

scarcely knew?

There was increasing visibility of prostitution on the London streets and the Victorians were also conscious of the increasing demand of prostitutes.
posted by three blind mice at 4:10 AM on December 3, 2004

I predict this thread will degenerate into a referendum on liberal intolerance of radical right-wing Christo-fascist intolerance. One is the inexcusable arrogance of an elite who should be rounded up and put in camps, the other is the traditional values of people who have God over for poker every Tuesday night. Guess which is which.
posted by Reverend Mykeru at 4:11 AM on December 3, 2004

These are the same people that think sending their children to good Christian schools and teaching abstinence instead of sex ed will keep them celibate until marriage… sure…

When little Suzy comes home a week after her 15th birthday and tells daddy she is pregnant or worse yet has HIV, maybe he will open his eyes.

Ignorance is bliss... my ass
posted by hex1848 at 4:14 AM on December 3, 2004

When you spend a lifetime having people tell you to fuck off, no wonder sex is such a touchy topic...
posted by ElvisJesus at 4:18 AM on December 3, 2004

Tom Neven, calls the movie "rank propaganda for the sexual revolution and the homosexual agenda"

OK, this homosexual agenda. Can someone point me to a copy of it please? Is it a book? A magazine?
My gay friends just laugh at me when I ask, but if we are going to live in a nightmarish world run by those guys at the local bookshop and the coders who keep screwing up the software I use at work (is that part of the agenda too?) I want to know the ground rules.
posted by thatwhichfalls at 4:26 AM on December 3, 2004

or worse yet has HIV

This is why little Suzy needs to be educated about condoms and having an open, honest partner. Unless Suzy got HIV from an incompetent nurse via a blood transfusion; then there'll be hell to pay!
posted by Colloquial Collision at 4:27 AM on December 3, 2004

OK, this homosexual agenda. Can someone point me to a copy of it please? Is it a book?

It's a book.
posted by Colloquial Collision at 4:29 AM on December 3, 2004

"Kinsey's proper place is with Nazi doctor Josef Mengele," says Robert Knight of Concerned Women for America

FAG!
posted by WolfDaddy at 4:31 AM on December 3, 2004

The Homosexual Agenda
posted by kevinsp8 at 4:34 AM on December 3, 2004

> This is why little Suzy needs to be educated about condoms and having an
> open, honest partner.

Education is available. But predicating safe sex on having an open, honest partner is like predicating it on picking a blue diamond from the moon up off the sidewalk. That's why there's no such thing as safe sex. I actually like the requirement, though--teaching "don't have sex until you find an open, honest partner" (an open, honest teenager, remember, Suzy's 15) is the same as teaching abstinence.
posted by jfuller at 4:57 AM on December 3, 2004

Colloquial Collision - yes, well that is surely just black progaganda to make the forces of the anti-gay look stupid. If someone is going to such trouble to make opponents of the homosexual agenda look dumb as a sack of hammers, that gay agenda must be some pretty powerful stuff.

kevinsp8 - I know satire when I see it - no-one goes to the gym at 6am. You can't fool me.
posted by thatwhichfalls at 5:01 AM on December 3, 2004

jfuller: how about: "don't have sex until you find an open, honest partner, and use a condom anyway. And if you're maybe not so inclined, there's no rush, but it's best to know about how this stuff works than for us to try and scare you with lies."
posted by Space Coyote at 5:08 AM on December 3, 2004

"there's no such thing as safe sex"

Yay!! Now we all know that all sex is DANGEROUS. Thanks jfuller!!

But, how did I get here...?
posted by Irontom at 5:20 AM on December 3, 2004

Its not about the sex, its about the lying. (heard that before? :-) )

When will you ever learn?

For example, when the Republicans have a soiree, the prostitutes and the sex cable channels do a record business. But what makes it good for them is the lying, the hiding and such and keeps sex a "dirty" little secret. The's where all the fun is! Make it open, honest and acceptable and sex loses all its allure for these perverts.
posted by nofundy at 5:32 AM on December 3, 2004

"there's no such thing as safe sex"

There's no such thing as safe anything: you can be killed just walking down the street, or while taking a shower or even while you're fast asleep in bed: what is your point? Should we wrap everyone in cotton wool and admonish people merely for going about their daily lives?

And, of course, restricting information about sex will only make it safer, right?
posted by axon at 5:36 AM on December 3, 2004

Robert Peters of Morality in Media: "That's part of Kinsey's legacy: Aids, abortion, the high divorce rate, pornography."

Focus on the Family's film critic,Tom Neven, calls the movie "rank propaganda for the sexual revolution and the homosexual agenda".

Judith Reisman, who has waged a decades-long war against Kinsey's memory, refers to "a legacy of massive venereal disease, broken hearts and broken souls".

Who are these people? What makes them so bitter? Do they just need a good hump?

I guess they are all advocating a return to ignorance; if we didn't know the sexual thoughts, desires, attitudes of other people we wouldn't be so promiscuous. Of course as we saw in the Victorian links, this simply isn't true-- plenty of men were getting their rocks off. It was just young adults, women and gays who were left in the dark with unmet desires they didn't know what to do with. Thank God they didn't still have burning at the stake in the 50's, otherwise Kinsey might have gone up in smoke.

I truly believe that without Kinsey and a more open attitude towards sex, men still would have visited prostitutes, venereal disease (including HIV) would still be prevalent (probably more so-- because the infected parties would be shamed into silence) abortions would still be saught by desperate women, and pornography would still continue to be made and passed around-- as it has been since the dawn of mankind.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 5:44 AM on December 3, 2004

Folkes it is not about sex, it is about rolling around naked IN money.

Borrowed money.

The total national debt of the United States on a fully realized basis, inclusive of federal, state, county and local debt stood at a record $20.613 trillion (83.73% of said debt having been created from 1981-92 and from 2001 to present.)

Or its about buying toys that go BOOM! with the money.
posted by rough ashlar at 5:44 AM on December 3, 2004

jfuller: Education is available. But predicating safe driving on putting a safety belt and following traffic rules is like predicating it on picking a blue diamond from the moon up off the sidewalk. That's why there's no such thing as safe driving.

... Which is BTW a far more accurate (statistically speaking) statement.
posted by talos at 5:49 AM on December 3, 2004

More Republicans Satisfied With Sex Lives Than Democrats
posted by dhoyt at 5:53 AM on December 3, 2004

And by the way, reading the Amazon reviews for the book that Colloquial Collision linked to made me sick to my stomach (literally.)

the deliberate and well-funded plans (already well underway) to "homosexualize" America and punish those -- like Christians, Orthodox Jews and others who object to immoral behavior on religious grounds -- who refuse to go along.

You Gays cut that out! I don't want you punishing those sweet little Christians unless that's they specifically ask for it in the bedroom.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 5:56 AM on December 3, 2004

that's
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 5:58 AM on December 3, 2004

dhoyt: The poll is skewed:

When asked whether they had ever faked an orgasm, more Democrats (33 percent) than Republicans (26 percent) said they had.

Among the factors that impact the survey results is that more men identify themselves as Republicans and men are more likely to say they are sexually satisfied and enjoy sex "a great deal." Also, Democrats are more likely to be women; and the poll results show that women are more likely to fake orgasms.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 6:01 AM on December 3, 2004

More Republicans Satisfied With Sex Lives Than Democrats
posted by dhoyt at 5:53 AM PST on December 3


Keeping it "dirty" is keeping it satisfying. I hear wife swapping is very popular among this group. That and divorce.
posted by nofundy at 6:10 AM on December 3, 2004

"I love my dead gay son."
posted by bardic at 6:12 AM on December 3, 2004

I thought the homosexual agenda was:

1) Homosexuality
2) ????
3) Profit!

How my eyes have been opened!
posted by Remy at 6:24 AM on December 3, 2004

acrobat was quoting from the Guardian piece, not stating his/her own opinion (though that's not necessarily clear from the FPP).

I like the Guardian, but its haughty Brit leftism is not always tuned in to the reality on the ground in the States. That quote's a perfect example of that phenomenon.
posted by blucevalo at 6:29 AM on December 3, 2004

Forget the Homosexual Agenda, how do I get my hands on a copy of Jimmy Swaggert's Guide to Porno Mags and Ten Dollar Hookers?

Or would pointing out, again, that moralistic, kool-aid drinking Jesus jabberers are the worst hypocrites in this area just be beating a dead horse?

And would that be bestial S&M?

And if it is, how much you want to bet that Focus on the Family's Dr. James Dobson has it on VHS?
posted by Reverend Mykeru at 6:42 AM on December 3, 2004

"When asked whether they had ever faked an orgasm, more Democrats (33 percent) than Republicans (26 percent) said they had."

The other 74% of Republican women answered with "What's an orgasm?"
posted by mr_crash_davis at 6:45 AM on December 3, 2004

More Republicans Satisfied With Sex Lives Than Democrats

Yeah cause they are fucking the US.
posted by The Perfect Killer at 6:50 AM on December 3, 2004

mr_crash_davis always brings teh funny.
posted by bardic at 6:54 AM on December 3, 2004

Talos, it's good to see you back here again!

blucevalo: If I could write it better than the person at The Guardian, I would. As for the reality on the ground in the States, yeah, I see how much you Americans understand that. As for sex, it's universal. Let's hear it if you think otherwise.
posted by acrobat at 6:54 AM on December 3, 2004

Blucevale, unless I'm much mistaken, John Patterson – who's been writing film columns for The Grauniad for years – has lived in Los Angeles since the early 80s (he talked about it in a feature on LA and literature, if i recall).

Granted, whatever "reality on the ground" there might be in LA may be substantially different to the reality elsewhere, but to write off his piece (and especially one so on the money as this one) as "haughty Brit leftism" is doing a damn sharp and perceptive writer a serious disservice.
posted by Len at 7:12 AM on December 3, 2004

In terms of public health and just getting facts straight about sex, Kinsey's work was important, monumental even. But it's difficult not to feel at least somewhat ambivalent about some of the so-called sexual revolution.
posted by jonmc at 7:13 AM on December 3, 2004

Hrm, the article comes out with much bombast but few facts:

Before he published his work, Americans assumed that sex occurred only after marriage, that homosexuals and lesbians were demonic inverts, and that masturbation led directly to godless communism, hairy-handedness and imbecilised high-school quarterbacks drooling on their letterman jackets.

Actually, the 1890s and the 1920s could both be characterized as "sexual revolutions." For that matter, even the puritans back in the 17th century were well aware that marriage most frequently came somtime between pregnancy and childbirth. (New England marriage and birth records reveal that a large number of first briths occured within 6 months of the wedding.) It is tempting to portray Kinsey as a revolutionary. Sexual references and inuendo were a staple of popular music at the time. It is a fair bet that people got the double meaning behind Lets Do It and this Memphis Minnie lyric for example:

Won't you be my chauffeur
Won't you be my chauffeur
I wants him to drive me
I wants him to drive me downtown
Yes he drives so easy I can't turn him down

Talking to relatives who lived through the 40s and 50s, they were well aware of quite a bit of stuff going on in their small-city backyards from homosexuality, to infidelity, to wife-swapping parties. I think that what makes Kinsey shocking was that he presented this information without the usual kinds of moral judgements that went along with it.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 7:18 AM on December 3, 2004

Len: Granted, whatever "reality on the ground" there might be in LA may be substantially different to the reality elsewhere, but to write off his piece (and especially one so on the money as this one) as "haughty Brit leftism" is doing a damn sharp and perceptive writer a serious disservice.

Certainly he might be a sharp and perceptive writer. On the other hand, this is an editorial piece and where and how he spins his facts should be examined carefully. This should also be considered in looking at the movie as well.

jonmc: n terms of public health and just getting facts straight about sex, Kinsey's work was important, monumental even. But it's difficult not to feel at least somewhat ambivalent about some of the so-called sexual revolution.

This is interesting. One of my criticisms of the sexual revolution is that you really can't criticize the act of dressing up in Nazi Uniforms and spanking other people with bratwurst(*) without running afoul of the only real taboo left in sex postive circles: thou shalt not say, "your kink is not OK". It becomes really difficult to engage in any kind of a conversation about sexual ethics as a result.

(*) Only the bratwurst is poetic license.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 7:29 AM on December 3, 2004

It's not like Kinsey compelled people to these behaviours. He simply recorded what was already happening.
posted by raedyn at 7:43 AM on December 3, 2004

I really love this idea of the "homosexual agenda", as if there's some dark cabal of gay people plotting to make everybody into sinners. I really don't get where this kind of thinking comes from.

Of course, there is a real gay agenda, of a sort. That agenda just consists of millions of people trying to live there lives the way they want, and the greatest victory in the "gay agenda", will be showing the rest of the America that they're just regular people. Hopefully at that point people won't be too virulently reactionary to get that message.

Except for the leatherdaddies, of course. They're freaks.
posted by deafmute at 7:59 AM on December 3, 2004

On a sidenote... has anyone else here read "The Inner Circle" by T.C. Boyle?
posted by MikeMc at 8:07 AM on December 3, 2004

It's not like Kinsey compelled people to these behaviours. He simply recorded what was already happening.

That's sort of the weird contradiction. The article seems to be saying that Americans were completely clueless and repressed about sex, yet at the same time Kinsey's surveys show that Americans in those days were doing the same kinds of kinky shit we do now. People knew what was going on, they just didn't feel compelled to shout it from the rooftops.

It's great that Kinsey compiled all the facts, but like I said there's always the law of unexpected consequences. Frankness about sex has been replaced by empty-headed talk show exhibitionism, sexual freedom oftentimes degenerates into denigrating the sex act into no more than a body function, like pooping.

I certainly don't want to return to Victorian mores, by any stretch, but let's not pretend it's all upside.
posted by jonmc at 8:13 AM on December 3, 2004

raedyn, gets the gold star.

jonmc, I'd be curious to know which specific parts of the sexual revolution you regret so much. In my mind, the whole "sexual revolution" is a myth. BTW, what do you consider the official start of the revolution? Perhaps the Storming of Westpoint by the hippies?

What changed was not so much the sexual habits of the population but the way the media portrayed sex. It's important to keep this distinction in mind. And this changing of the media's attitude was not prompted by Kinsey, hippies, or any other "agitators." It was prompted by good old fashion US Dollars. Sex sells...really well. Looking back as early as the 1920's it's easy to see that Britney Spears was inevitable.

But in the end, I think we can safely blame all our modern woes on rock and roll.
posted by nixerman at 8:13 AM on December 3, 2004

nixerman: Almost everything that that Madonna did in the 90s, Mae West did in the 20s. Although West one-upped Madonna by spending a night in jail for writing, directing and performing in Sex, and inspiring a law that banned explicit discussion of homosexuality from the New York stage. Her gay-themed production The Drag was shown in New Jersey as a result.

I think that what we are seeing is more of a sexual evolution than a sexual revolution actually.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 8:31 AM on December 3, 2004

As reported by John Byrne today at "The Blue Lemur", an undercover journalist for Larry Flynt's Hustler magazine tracked debauchery at this summer's Republican National Convention after-events.

Hustler gave "Blue Lemur" permission to reprint detailed excerpts. The full article is only available in Hustler's print edition due out today.
posted by ericb at 8:50 AM on December 3, 2004

Why is it that every generation thinks they invented sex?

Because it's not something your parents every really describe adequately to you and comes as actually a pretty big surprise when you start doing it yourself. Wow, mom (or Dad) never told me it would feel this good...

So look, it's the same thing over and over, every generation discovers this great thing, experiments with it, talks about it, makes up new words for every aspect of it, explores variations on it, laughs about it, is certain no one else every really understands it as well as they do, and generally obsesses for the rest of their lives.

To me Kinsey's work is just another example of the continual round. Ok, he got real detailed about it, I salute his energy and focus at least.

But I hardly think anyone can rationally argue that the sexual revolution has been all good or no social costs have been incurred. I don't know for sure but suspect all we've done is exchanged one set of problems for another.
posted by scheptech at 9:01 AM on December 3, 2004

"this is an editorial piece and where and how he spins his facts should be examined carefully. This should also be considered in looking at the movie as well."

Definitely, KirkJobSluder. And yes, the 1890s and 1920s had their own sexual revolutions (for want of a better, or in fact meaningful term).

But – and nixerman also hit on this – it wasn't the habits, but their portrayal that changed; Kinsey simply laid everything bare (so to speak), and I think that's what Patterson is getting at. Normal people engaged in all kinds of sexual activity, from bog-standard humping of their bored partner to getting off on sticking their dick in the mashed potato, but Kinsey was really the first one to analyse this spectrum in full public view.
posted by Len at 9:01 AM on December 3, 2004

schecptech, which is why I say the "sexual revolution" is a myth. It's something conservatives came up with so they can imagine an idyllic "time before" when everything was peachy keen. Blaming things social ills teenage pregnancy on the "sexual revolution" and "extreme left agitators" is just nonsense. When you get down to it, the only real revolution was the one in the media and this was one driven purely by capitalist interests.

(What is also a bit amusing is, when you get down to it, Americans are still overly conservative about sex. A large part of the homophobia and the anti-gay marriage hysteria gripping the nation is, at its core, just an irrational drive to deny the reality of sex.)
posted by nixerman at 9:30 AM on December 3, 2004

The total national debt of the United States on a fully realized basis, inclusive of federal, state, county and local debt stood at a record $20.613 trillion (83.73% of said debt having been created from 1981-92 and from 2001 to present.)

rough ashlar, where do you get this information?

I'm not questioning you, quite the contrary - I'm hoping to have evidence to share with certain people in my life who exhibit tremendous political denial.

B.
posted by digibri at 9:39 AM on December 3, 2004

Americans are still overly conservative about sex.

nixerman, I beg to differ. When you consider that pornography is a $10 billion industry, it's not hard to see that while (some|most|all) Americans present a conservative image towards sexuality, it's most certainly a facade.
posted by Non Serviam at 10:15 AM on December 3, 2004

One day, were all going to just get high and fuck and, oh wait, what happened to the 1960s??? Where the fuck did that go?
posted by orange clock at 10:54 AM on December 3, 2004

Secret Life of Gravy:

The problem is that Judith Reisman's research stands up, and it won't really go away. You should see what she's uncovered about Kinsey's supposed "scientific" discoveries for yourself -- it is precisely as unpleasant as her decades- long crusade implies, and has not changed in substance or tone since her original findings concluded that Kinsey was a scientific fraud. Condon's film, little more than a PR attempt at reviving his drowning repuation, does little to honestly assess the special nature of his "scientific" method, which would have revealed exactly what Kinsey's papers themselves reveal. Reisman is merely reporting on the original source documents, and they are well worth your consideration.
posted by fedextruck at 11:34 AM on December 3, 2004

Cool article. Looks like an interesting movie. Good post.
posted by scarabic at 11:39 AM on December 3, 2004

MetaFilter: we live in the bright, vivid light of our incandescent dirty dreams.
posted by homunculus at 11:57 AM on December 3, 2004

Okay, I read about half of the articles on that Reisman page that fedextruck linked to. I guess I'm a little confused.

One. Virtually every article says 'he was a child-molesting monster' but then goes on to cite his homosexual experimentation or the affairs of his wife. Are these somehow connected?

Two. I saw the original documents and I found them disturbing for all the reasons that Reisman does. But there was a curious lack of context. Mabye I need to read the Kinsey report, but I can't tell if these kids were masturbating, being masturbated, asked about masterbating, etc. Those are pretty different scenarios and imply very different things. Does Reisman care? Or is she equally offended any way it happened.

Three. What the hell is that article about Bill O'Relly doing there?

Four. With the support of fellow advocates, including the radio personality Dr. Laura Schlessinger. Is that supposed to impress me? That woman is a foaming lunatic.

Five. Mr. Jones says that Kinsey erred in using the data, but Mr. Gathorne-Hardy calls it inevitable. "In a sort of way he was ruthless," he says, "and one could almost go as far as to say immoral, at least not conventionally moral. If someone had sexual information that was germane, Kinsey would use it." Ms. Riesman, for her part, says Kinsey's action should be regarded as a criminal matter. "When you rape children," she says, "it's still a crime. And if you solicit it and if you support it, it's still a crime."

So, wait. If he used data that a convicted child molester gave him, he's a child molester? WTF?

If she has a real case, I'd like to hear it. Has anyone stepped up and said they were molested by Kinsey? Are there parents who tried to take action against him? Because otherwise, this whole thing smells of bullshit.
posted by lumpenprole at 1:23 PM on December 3, 2004

fedextruck: The problem is that Judith Reisman's research stands up, and it won't really go away.

Actually, it doesn't and it should. Her claims of sexual molestation are based on a single table from Sexual Behavior in the Human Male. However, the source for that table appears to be from the diaries of a single person with an "omnivorous" sexuality. Not from actual experiments. Reisman is apparently aware of this herself. (Note, Sexual Behavior in the Human Male is not "original source documents.") At the outside edge, she claims more children were sexually abused at Indiana University than existed in Bloomington, Indiana during decade before Sexual Behavior was written.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 2:46 PM on December 3, 2004

An Alabama lawmaker who sought to ban gay marriages now wants to ban novels with gay characters from public libraries, including university libraries.
posted by swift at 2:46 PM on December 3, 2004

How can any sane person still bring themselves to vote for anyone remotely associated with the Republican party? These fuckers are crazy.
posted by Kleptophoria! at 4:02 PM on December 3, 2004

Hehe... fuckers...
posted by Kleptophoria! at 4:03 PM on December 3, 2004

Did Kinsey and Shere Hite ever get it on?
posted by aperture_priority at 4:22 PM on December 3, 2004

So, wait. If he used data that a convicted child molester gave him, he's a child molester? WTF?

It didn't say that, it said it's a crime. I can't speak definitively to the issue of whether Kinsey himself committed a crime, but this is generally what I've heard: he did seek out and obtain a great deal of information from many people with unusual sexual behaviors, including pedophiles.

Now, assuming these reports didn't come solely from people currently in prison or high-security mental facilities, one could assume that he promised them some sort of legal anonymity in return for this information. Since no formalized legal relationship (such as doctor-patient or lawyer-client) is really present, I think this could easily be considered conspiracy/aiding and abetting/whatever. Even if his results are valid/interesting/helpful, people today have a much stricter view of research ethics than they did in his day, and a great deal of criticism stems from that.
posted by dagnyscott at 4:30 PM on December 3, 2004

Jerry Falwell (sort of) admits homosexuality isn't a choice - when faced with tough questions from Chris Matthews. Link to transcript here via Wonkette.
posted by sophie at 5:05 AM on December 4, 2004

As a long-standing operative of the Evil Atheist Conspiracy, I officially invite the Homosexual Agenda to join forces with us.

Of course, once we take over the world together, we'll just have to fight it out amongst ourselves.

There can be only one...
posted by Ironwolf at 2:35 PM on December 4, 2004