Tea party (GOP) Senate candidate Christine O'Donnell lectures about the "evils of masturbation" causing "lust" and other nonsense.
With the results of the Delaware primary now revealed, it appears the Dems will have to take out another tea party poppet named Christine O'Donnell come November. This time it's a real looney who claims she's been everything from a "witch" (as per the highlighted segment shown on Bill Maher's Real Time last night, from his earlier 'Politically Incorrect' show) to a "feminist". This is more believable but barely, given her anti -masturbation stance and campaign (see attached image from the Rachel Maddow show where O'Donnel was featured on a clip going off on masturbation and its "ill effects")
See also:
Her original lecturing:
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/rachel-maddow-plays-christine-odonnell-90s-no-masturbation-mtv-interview/
Advice for her from Joy Behar a REAL feminist:
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brad-wilmouth/2010/09/15/joy-behar-christine-o-donnell-needs-watch-some-porn-and-get-some-tips
O'Donnell believes in a "fundamentalist" version of sexual "purity" that emphasizes thoughts and feelings as well as deeds, a view that resonates with many Americans - mostly fundie whackos. (One wonders whether these whackos attach chastity belts to their kids each night to ensure they don't spank the monkey!)
From the common sense of former U.S. Surgeon General Dr. Jocelyn C. Elders, who was thrust into the spotlight 15 years ago when she said, in response to a question at a U.N. AIDS conference, that it might be appropriate to teach young people about masturbation to keep them from engaging in riskier sexual behavior, we've come to nutballs like O'Donnell who want all masturbators labeled with shame for not adhering to her "purity" standards. (This screwball actually claims there are "physical virgins who are sexually impure" because they look at porn or frig themselves! What, is she nuts? )
Fortunately, there are Materialists -atheists who make up a significant percentage of the residual intelligentsia of the nation, who are prepared to call out loonies like O'Donnell.
In fact, Jocelyn Elders was quite correct in her original take though the timid, politically correct conservos couldn't take it. Here, it doesn't take a genius to realize that with precious few sexual options available (total abstinence is a total farce, given the dominance of teen hormones!) masturbation, henceforth referred to as self-stimulation- emerges as a useful choice in an era of spreading HIV-infection, sexually-transmitted diseases (STDs), rising teen pregnancy (rates have risen by 10% over each of the past 2 years) and the recent campaigns for teenagers to embrace virginity (abstinence) and ‘just say no’.
Thus, self-stimulation enters as a sensible option to sexual intercourse. Not ideal by any means, but better than catching an STD, or AIDS, or conceiving a child. Note that for a Materialist, abstinence is only applicable to intercourse. Absolute, total abstinence (i.e. from all sex) is regarded not only as impossibly utopian, but quite probably harmful[1] especially to teen males. In this regard a Materialist ethic offers pragmatic alternatives rather than no alternatives.
In terms of the purely physical issues, there's no demonstrable harm arising from self-stimulation, nor does it harm anyone else by definition. Moreover, once done in private (as is normally the case) it does not violate any civil laws. Hence, the Materialist regards it not only an innocuous act, but also a highly desirable alternative to casual intercourse with its inherent risk of HIV-infection, and unwanted pregnancies (which can lead to abortion). Clearly, all practical solutions to the problems of adolescent sexuality, including self-stimulation, merit attention. For a self-serving pseudo-sexual expert like Christine O'Donnell to take it off the table is a travesty, but then "blue-balled" adolescents who may have to go to an MD for a prostate -milking appears to be the least of our worries.
The other moral mandate from this bimbo is that all abortions be absolutely prohibited, even in cases of rape or incest. She and her despicable collaborators want the feds to exact harsh punishment, including long prison terms, for any woman impregnated by a rapist or via incest, who refuses to bring the parasite to term and hatch it. Never mind one can legitimately regard the pregnancy as a logical extension of the rape itself. Never mind she'd fill our prisons with tens of thousands of traumatized women who've already been brtualized, she wants to add even more....and at the behest of government.
So much for the "small government" mantra of the tea partyers! Seems like where legislating morality is concerned they're all for bigger government and the bigger the better (probably demanding more money for prisons than for schools, as if this country already doesn't lock up more people per capita than even Russia and China combined). They're quite prepared to call a halt to "big government spending" but when it comes to invading Americans' homes and bedrooms, telling them what they can watch and how they can get off - they're A-ok with Mama Gubmint taking care of matters. Not to mention telling women what they can and can't do with their bodies! Talk about a pack of damned hypocrites!
Dems, make sure you use all the vast film and video files on this lunatic to make sure that after Nov. 4th she is back to her basic condition of another street moralizer and crazy - as opposed to a Senator with the ability to forge and pass legislation!
[1] See, e.g. author Dorothy Baldwin's remarks in her monograph Understanding Male Sexual Health, Hippocrene Books, New York (1993), p. 46. She warns that unless teens and other males (with higher testosterone levels) regularly relieve themselves they will suffer from prostatitis and other conditions which will require medical intervention, often "prostate milking" - a painful and humiliating therapy that removes excess semen. There is also increasing evidence that those who relieve less frequently may be at significantly higher risk of prostate cancer.
Nice expose of this creepy nutso. Anytime someone gets so worked up and obsessive over 'purity' and self-sex it is a sure signal to be worried!
ReplyDeleteProbably the most virulent views against masturbating were those of Queen Victoria's surgeon, Sir James Paget, who once opined it is:
"so nasty a practice, an uncleanness, a filthiness forbidden by God and despised by men"
Of course, it's since been shown that Sir Paget is the primary suspect for the Jack the Ripper butcherings in Victorian London!So, I wouldn't take his words any more seriously than Ms. O'Donnell's. Crazies all think along the same lines.
On a similar note....
ReplyDeleteOne must consider the fundies are averse to the m-deed because of conflating it with the "sin of Onan" in their Bible. But again, they're grievously in error.
Onan's sin was in reality neither a form of contraception (coitus interruptus) or masturbation but rather an offense against the Hebrew law of succession. Wherein the nearest male relative of the deceased husband is obligated to fertilize the wife. He refused, spilled his seed, and was guilty.
This is why many biblical scholars are quick to point out the bible isn't any kind of history but a recording of ancient Hebrew rituals and tribal rites! As the Yale prof in the lecture link I inserted (to do with self-education) no sane Jew would ever expect a Gentile to refrain from eating pork....or getting circumcised. These are JEWISH customs-rites.
I suspect this false interpetation of the Onan passage is also what is probably responsible for engendering the masturbation bogey. Since from then, "spilling seed" was equated to "onanism" and onanism to masturbation.
The acceleration of this erroneous conflation was likely due to an English Puritan, and physician, named Bekkers. He wrote (in 1610) the polemic entitled "Onania or The Loathsome Sin Of Self-Pollution."
In that regrettable tract - which has been the bane of healthy sexual humans ever since, he enumerated a veritable compendium of maladies arising from masturbation or "self pollution". These included:
"Vomiting, nausea, weakening of the organs of breathing, coughing, hoarseness, back pain, lack of libido, paleness, thinness, pimples on face, loss of memory, attacks of rage, madness, idiocy, malapropism, epilepsy, nightly ejaculations, stiffness, fever, and finally suicide".
This codswallop was later revived by the likes of miscreants such as Anthony Comstock, notorious for his 'Comstock Act' and The New York Society for the Suppression of Vice'. I would wager that he and O'Donnell would make excellent 'bedfellows' in their cooperative suppression efforts!
On a similar note....
ReplyDeleteOne must consider the fundies are averse to the m-deed because of conflating it with the "sin of Onan" in their Bible. But again, they're grievously in error.
Onan's sin was in reality neither a form of contraception (coitus interruptus) or masturbation but rather an offense against the Hebrew law of succession. Wherein the nearest male relative of the deceased husband is obligated to fertilize the wife. He refused, spilled his seed, and was guilty.
This is why many biblical scholars are quick to point out the bible isn't any kind of history but a recording of ancient Hebrew rituals and tribal rites! As the Yale prof in the lecture link I inserted (to do with self-education) no sane Jew would ever expect a Gentile to refrain from eating pork....or getting circumcised. These are JEWISH customs-rites.
I suspect this false interpetation of the Onan passage is also what is probably responsible for engendering the masturbation bogey. Since from then, "spilling seed" was equated to "onanism" and onanism to masturbation.
The acceleration of this erroneous conflation was likely due to an English Puritan, and physician, named Bekkers. He wrote (in 1610) the polemic entitled "Onania or The Loathsome Sin Of Self-Pollution."
In that regrettable tract - which has been the bane of healthy sexual humans ever since, he enumerated a veritable compendium of maladies arising from masturbation or "self pollution". These included:
"Vomiting, nausea, weakening of the organs of breathing, coughing, hoarseness, back pain, lack of libido, paleness, thinness, pimples on face, loss of memory, attacks of rage, madness, idiocy, malapropism, epilepsy, nightly ejaculations, stiffness, fever, and finally suicide".
This codswallop was later revived by the likes of miscreants such as Anthony Comstock, notorious for his 'Comstock Act' and The New York Society for the Suppression of Vice'. I would wager that he and O'Donnell would make excellent 'bedfellows' in their cooperative suppression efforts!