Daily Kos

The Defense of Whoopee Act: Protecting Your Right to Make Love to Your Sweetie

Thu Sep 06, 2007 at 07:01:45 AM PDT

If the Democrats were smart and interested in winning elections (I wish we had more empirical evidence for either), they would be jumping all over an opening conservatives have been handing them recently. One of the most successful wedge herrings of the last couple of decades for the Republicans has been abortion. But as anyone who has been paying attention (and this excludes the media) realizes, abortion is not about abortion.

Abortion is part of a cage and frame strategy designed to do two things, (1) focus all of the time, resources, and energy that would have going to advance and defend women's rights and tie it all up on this one issue, and (2) act as the tip of the sword in a movement that wants to place a radical evangelical Christian theology deep within our governmental structure.

What is interesting is that in trying to woo primary votes from the Republican conservative base, some of the contenders for the GOP's nomination have gotten sloppy and let another issue out of the cage, an issue that (1) clearly shows the game they've been playing and (2) is an issue they can easily get creamed on if only Dems had the nerve to take it to them.

The issue is contraception. Abortion is not about preserving life. As their advocacy of war and the death penalty and their hatred of the SCHIP program providing health insurance for children shows, they don't have a deep regard for life; what they do have is an odd paranoia about sex. Occasionally they'll be honest and argue that their really opposition is based on the bizarre concern that if abortion is legal, more people will have sex and it is this that must be stopped. Fornication is seen as a horrible pox on society and it is the making of whoopee that we must end in order to preserve decency and our way of life.

Of course, not only is this nonsense, but finding a reframing of this issue in an advantageous way is almost as easy as playing "spot the white guy" at the Republican National Convention. They see all sex not intended to impregnate as problematic. Of course, human sexuality is an incredibly complex thing and our sexuality finds expression for all sorts of reasons, some good and some not. But their opposition to the availability of contraception turns out to be a war on making love to your sweetie. Whether your sweetie is your spouse and you don't want more kids because you couldn't afford college for any more, whether you are in a long term-monogamous relationship and are thinking seriously about whether or even when marriage would be the right move, or if your partner happens to be of the same sex and these defenders of "values" are doing their best to discriminate against you by denying you civil rights, they want to make sure that your most tender and intimate moments do not happen.

If Democrats had it together, they would grab this issue and include it in every public appearance, every campaign speech, and on every talking head program. Bring forward a proposal to enshrine it in law, the Defense of Whoopee Act. When asked whether we really need a law, the talking point response, of course, is "In order to repel attacks by right-wing fundamentalists, we need a wall around making love, a whoopee cushion, if you will, to protect intimacy." All the Presidential candidates should sign onto a public promise to defend people's right to make love to their sweeties and challenge the Republicans to do the same.

It's a wedge to drive between libertarians and social conservatives, it's a winner with singles, young people, and pretty much anyone who loves someone or would like to. The ability to express our warmest, most caring feelings in the privacy of our own home with the person we love most in the world should be protected from government intrusion led by fundamentalists.

Crossposted at Philosophers' Playground

Tags: abortion, contraception, framing, sexuality (all tags) :: Previous Tag Versions

Permalink | 6 comments

  •  Maybe our generations version (7+ / 0-)

    of "Make Love Not War should be "Smart Sex Not Smart Bombs"

    The playground is open -- Philosophers' Playground: One part sandbox, one part soapbox

    by SteveG on Thu Sep 06, 2007 at 06:58:26 AM PDT

  •  Well, I agree but . .. (3+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    oldpro, Boston Boomer, ShawnGBR

    . .... I don't think the dems are going to pickup the issue because they are afraid of having Clinton thrown back at them.  As well, it is not only sex that the fundamentalists want to control, sex is a wedge like abortion.  If the christianists  can get the government to acceed sex, birth and death to their dogma, they will be well on their way to controlling the population at every level.  It is not really a religious issue for them because what they seek is not to persuade people to their religious view,(prostelization and conversion) but to conjoin dogma and government (theocracy).  The abortion issue, the gay issue, and the sexual morality issue are key to their intent because they are key to breaking the separation of church and state.  Once they break-through this barrier, they can get back to what they lost in the reformation, control of life and death, daily life.

  •  One question to ask any anti-choicer... (0+ / 0-)

    First, find out how long the person has been 'pro-Life'. Then you must ascertain, from their own mouth, that abortion should be "illegal" because it "is muuurder".

    Then ask them this one question:

    How long should the woman go to jail?

    Keep hammering them for an answer. After all, "muuurder" is indeed illegal. That's why we have prisons. So how long? How long will they send a woman like this to jail for?

    As soon as they start saying it's "something between her and her God" or she needs some help or maybe she just needs sympathy, say "even Horton was still a prisoner. How long? You've had this view for [number of years], surely with all the thought you've put into making this "illegal" you spent at least five seconds into considering what the correct punishment for the crime should be..."

    This is the one fundamental question that the 'Right to control women life' supporters, for all the noise they make, have not thought about.

    Because the moment they tell women how they, or their friends, or their daughters, will be locked away because they were unlucky enought to be attacked one night ...they will lose unless they managed to turn back Women's Suffrage.

    The nation can be made to produce a far higher standard of living for the masses of the people if only government is intelligent and energetic... (FDR, '37)

    by ShawnGBR on Thu Sep 06, 2007 at 08:07:25 AM PDT

  •  Love the fetus, hate the child (3+ / 0-)

    This is all about shame. Much like the Larry Craig incident, the Talibangelists think that they can shame people into acting like them. This is not 1950 and the stigma of being a single mother is minimal compared to then. Abortion and contraception are about letting a woman control her own body and not letting these Talibangelists tell them what to do.

Permalink | 6 comments