Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

No one could have predicted…

Accused of treason; bitches about the ratings. I am in awe.

I’d hate to be the candidate who lost to this guy.

Optimism opens the door to great things.

A thin legal pretext to veneer over their personal religious and political desires

This fight is for everything.

Too often we hand the biggest microphones to the cynics and the critics who delight in declaring failure.

Republicans are radicals, not conservatives.

The republican caucus is already covering themselves with something, and it’s not glory.

I did not have this on my fuck 2022 bingo card.

Accountability, motherfuckers.

An almost top 10,000 blog!

Fuck the extremist election deniers. What’s money for if not for keeping them out of office?

Do not shrug your shoulders and accept the normalization of untruths.

A democracy can’t function when people can’t distinguish facts from lies.

My years-long effort to drive family and friends away has really paid off this year.

Red lights blinking on democracy’s dashboard

They fucked up the fucking up of the fuckup!

Sitting here in limbo waiting for the dice to roll

Sadly, there is no cure for stupid.

This really is a full service blog.

Republicans don’t want a speaker to lead them; they want a hostage.

And now I have baud making fun of me. this day can’t get worse.

Republicans are the party of chaos and catastrophe.

You are here: Home / If you can’t beat ’em

If you can’t beat ’em

by | 42 Comments

This post is in: 

I’ve read something like this on Daily Dish a few times over the past few weeks…could it possibly be true?

Now, O’Donnell is not proposing to criminalize wanking – but not because, in an ideal world, it shouldn’t be illegal. She, like Robbie George, chief theocon, only opposes criminalization of wanking because it would be absurdly impractical and unenforceable. They have only a prudential and not a principled opposition to criminalizing masturbation in modern America. So they rely on those things they can practically enforce, like preventing any public acknowledgment of same-sex marriage, or, not so long ago, arresting gay couples for private acts in their own bedrooms.

Is there any evidence that Robert George and O’Donnell have thought about (but ultimately rejected) enforcing anti-wanking laws? I only sort of know who Robert George is, so I am not an expert on this.

How do the Reasonoids feel about all of this?

Reader Interactions

42Comments

  2. 2.

    Tonal Crow

    If O’Donnell has any objections to criminalizing masturbation, I expect they’d arise from the political difficulty of accomplishing the task and the blowback likely to result from the attempt.

    As with most Republicans, neither principle nor prudence will deter her from offering up the most retrograde of anti-liberty proposals. The only restraint will be the potential political costs.

  4. 4.

    GambitRF

    Wait, since when does the tea party allow politicians to oppose ideas on the grounds of real world practicality? When has the tea party ever stopped to ask “does this really make sense”?

  5. 5.

    Martin

    And Sully thinks that Kos is shrill by calling them the American Taliban, when in fact they want to do precisely what the Taliban did, they just don’t know how to actually implement it. Yeah, that makes them entirely different animals. Sheesh.

  6. 6.

    kdaug

    Same line of prosecutorial logic that posits that if an abortion is illegal, should not the woman who gets one be charged with a first-degree murder-for-hire?

    At a certain point, one has to step back from the ideological fray and project what the potential consequences of dogmatic dictates would be if fully embraced. (Note: some people are incapable of this step).

  8. 8.

    Derelict

    How to the Reasonoids feel? Well, I’m certain they can overlook massive government intrusion into what is the ultimate private act. After all, the alternative is a Democrat–and we know what THAT means!

    As Roy put it so well, “Libertarian–for when you need an extra syllable for conservative.”

  9. 9.

    Brachiator

    How do the Reasonoids feel about all of this?

    Does this mean that libertarian intellectual masturbation would be banned? Whatever would become of them?

    More seriously, the over concern about potential anti-wanking laws is sterile, a dead end, an empty hand. O’Donnell’s mindset would lead to all birth control and anti-AIDS efforts, both here and abroad, limited to preaching abstinence. No condom distribution, certainly not the pill or any other form of birth control. If a state wanted to return to the days in which even married couples could not legally obtain birth control, O’Donnell would be for it. Because only procreative sex is holy sex. I bet you. Someone should ask her in an interview.

    Sound farfetched? Who knew that anyone would ever suggest that we withhold birthright citizenship from some people?

  10. 10.

    someguy

    @General Stuck:

    Then who will be the Al Capone of masturbation?

    Political blog operators. They provide a safe place where people can go, enjoy fantasies, and jerk off all day.

  11. 11.

    beltane

    I’m surprised none of these fundies have suggested that cameras be installed in the bedroom of every American so their wetsuit clad pastors can properly monitor the activities carried out there. Any sexual activity other than spousal rape for the purpose of procreation would be punishable by a public stoning.

    By the way, Christine O’Donnell’s religious zeal makes me suspect that her love of Jesus is not quite chaste. Does she fantasize about what her savior is packing under his ample robes?

  12. 12.

    Brachiator

    Political blog operators. They provide a safe place where people can go, enjoy fantasies, and jerk off all day.

    Jerkeasies?

  13. 13.

    DougJ is the business and economics editor for Balloon Juice.

    @Martin:

    And Sully thinks that Kos is shrill by calling them the American Taliban, when in fact they want to do precisely what the Taliban did, they just don’t know how to actually implement it.

    Very good point.

  14. 14.

    trollhattan

    Can Peewee Herman get a Fox poli-commenter gig for the duration of the campaign?

    “I know you are, but what am I?”

  15. 15.

    jrg

    And Sully thinks that Kos is shrill by calling them the American Taliban, when in fact they want to do precisely what the Taliban did, they just don’t know how to actually implement it.

    Yep. Am I the only one who remembers the bill in Utah designed to punish women for miscarriages?

    Sully is naive. He really doesn’t get how fucking crazy these people are.

  17. 17.

    Joe Beese

    When Clinton’s Surgeon General said masturbation was good, he fired her for it. How is that meaningfully different than O’Donnell saying masturbation is bad?

  18. 18.

    Midnight Marauder

    Is there any evidence that Robert George and O’Donnell have thought about (but ultimately rejected) enforcing anti-wanking laws? I only sort of know who Robert George is, so I am not an expert on this.

    All of her comments on the issue are just gibberish, like this one:

    I know many physical virgins who are not sexually pure. I know many virgins who are into pornography or who are “doing everything but” with their boyfriends. On the flip side, I know many non-virgins who live beautiful, holy, pure lives through the power of Christ’s blood.
    __
    Another disagreeable point about abstinence is that it does not transcend into marriage, yet our call to purity does. Married couples, especially, are called to sexual purity. When a married person uses pornography, or is unfaithful, it compromises not just his (or her) purity, but also compromises the spouse’s purity. As a church, we need to teach a higher standard than abstinence. We need to preach a righteous lifestyle.

  19. 19.

    Midnight Marauder

    @Joe Beese:

    When Clinton’s Surgeon General said masturbation was good, he fired her for it. How is that meaningfully different than O’Donnell saying masturbation is bad?

    You are an idiot.

  21. 21.

    Loneoak

    @General Stuck:

    I don’t know who will be the Al Capone of wanking, but I certainly intend to be the Robin Hood of wanking.

    When wanking is outlawed, only outlaws will be wankers!

  22. 22.

    Ripley

    What, you’re afraid of urinal and shower cams? If you’re not doing anything wrong (to yourself), you have nothing to fear.

  24. 24.

    Jager

    @DougJ is the business and economics editor for Balloon Juice.:

    Implementation is easy, first two steps:

    1. Squads of religious “policemen” roaming the streets and neighborhoods dishing out punishment to all sorts of evil-doers on the spot! Teenage couple holding hands a mild clubbing, two same sex teens holding hands, beat them to a pulp.

    2. Start up an East German style system of informants, when the religious police find out a 13 year boy is whipping it off in his bedroom, they barge in and beat his skinny ass bloody.

  25. 25.

    Bob L

    So how is O’Donnell going to take it when some Senator gravely says to her proposed anti-wanking bill “Mam, this is a difficult topic to get a grip on, perhaps you can help me with this?.” I mean the senate will have a field day with this. Not the way I would want to go down in US history.

  27. 27.

    Chyron HR

    @Joe Beese:

    When Clinton’s Surgeon General said masturbation was good, he fired her for it. How is that meaningfully different than O’Donnell saying masturbation is bad?

    You make a good point, Joe. I think I can speak on behalf of all the Balloon Juice readership when I say that we aren’t going to vote for Bill Clinton this year, either.

  29. 29.

    Mark S.

    @Midnight Marauder:

    Quoth Palin the Younger:

    Married couples, especially, are called to sexual purity. When a married person uses pornography, or is unfaithful, it compromises not just his (or her) purity, but also compromises the spouse’s purity.

    I know most religious discussions of sex are pure nonsense, but I had never heard this one before. I didn’t realize you could be responsible for your spouse’s infidelity.

  30. 30.

    Cat Lady

    Love the post title. Beat It would work, also too.

    What would be the evidence of wanking? Would there be dog hand sniffers stationed outside every door? Trash pickers with DNA analyzers? How would that ever fucking work?

  32. 32.

    Steve J.

    Bork and Scalia think that the State can prohibit married couples from using contraception, so why can’t O’Donnell and other Fundies want to make it illegal?

  33. 33.

    LindaH

    If this loony gets elected, I predict a run on dildos and vibrators, or at least there should be a run on them. Get em while they’re still legal!

  34. 34.

    slag

    If these people are so against wanking, you’d think they would do it less often themselves. Or at least do it in places more private than in the news media.

  37. 37.

    SiubhanDuinne

    Thread title made me laugh.

    Well, not laugh so much as chuckle in this sort of knowing, dirty way I have.

  40. 40.

    Midnight Marauder

    @Mark S.:

    I know most religious discussions of sex are pure nonsense, but I had never heard this one before. I didn’t realize you could be responsible for your spouse’s infidelity.

    Inception.

    @arguingwithsignposts:

    As a church, we need to teach a higher standard than abstinence. We need to preach a righteous lifestyle.

    WTF does that even mean?

    I don’t know, but this is what comes up if you do a Google image search for “righteous lifestyle.”

    I really hope it’s something like that.

    +5

  42. 42.

    RobNYNY1957

    Justice Scalia, in his Lawrence dissent, worried that overturning sodomy laws would make it impossible to criminalize masturbation (in addition a lot of other things):

    http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-102.ZD.html

    State laws against bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication, bestiality, and obscenity are likewise sustainable only in light of Bowers’ validation of laws based on moral choices. Every single one of these laws is called into question by today’s decision; the Court makes no effort to cabin the scope of its decision to exclude them from its holding.

    It seems that his awful prediction has come true.

Comments are closed.