The Myth of Anti-sex Conservatism
When approached to write a sex column, I jumped at the chance. I love pondering and discussing sex and body issues. Sure, I may have been the only would-be sex columnist in history to run the idea by her pastor before going for it, but I see no conflict between writing about sex and being a Christian.
Many people do, however, see a conflict. They think that sex columns should have only one function: doling out prurient advice to degenerate freaks. I, on the other hand, think the answer to every question in Dan Savage’s column should be SEEK PROFESSIONAL HELP.
Not being a furry* or into watersports** doesn’t mean you don’t like sex. But that is exactly what sexual liberals say about conservatives.
In March, Mike Littwin* wrote a column in the Rocky Mountain News that began: “I think I finally get it. It isn’t just gay sex they don’t like. It’s all sex. It’s not just teen sex. It’s adult sex. It’s sex outside of marriage, inside of marriage, outside the house, inside the house, under the covers, over the covers, 4 feet over the covers. It’s sex leading to bestiality. And, yes, it’s sex without involving even a single act of cross-species necking.”
Christina Page writes in her book How the Pro-Choice Movement Saved America that pro-lifers aren’t just opposed to abortion but “they are against sex and the sex lives the vast majority of Americans enjoy.”
The San Francisco Chronicle’s Mark Morford wrote a pre-2004 election column titled, “No Sex Please, We’re Republicans.” The teaser line said, “Right now, to be sexually attuned and kinky is to be part of the anti-Bush revolution.” Liberal writer Heather Wokusch wrote that the religiosity of males in the Bush administration precluded their doing the nasty. And former ACLU national director Ira Glasser used to give speeches where he claimed that conservative Christians “don’t like sex or don’t want to admit they do.”
Libertarians are no better. A writer at Reason’s blog mocked religious conservatives for supporting an anti-sex-trafficking bill, saying they weren’t concerned about human rights but opposed to “sex for any purpose other than producing a gurgling mini-conservative.”
I am a libertarian. I believe people should be free to do what they want so long as they don’t infringe on anyone else’s life, liberty, or property. But more than a few of my fellow ideologues became libertarians solely because they’re gay, drug users, or God-haters. These people adopted the philosophy to justify their personal issues. Libertines more than libertarians, they have a visceral
reaction against people who exercise moral restraint.
(But really, does any group ooze sexual immaturity more than libertarians? I am ashamed to say that not one, not two, but five libertarian suitors — one female, of course — tried to seduce me by telling me I was their Dominique Francon. Sure, I too thought that Fountainhead sex scene was totally hot — when I was sixteen. At that age, I also liked to turn off the lights and burn a candle while listening to Sisters of Mercy.)
The point is, just because someone is sexually conservative doesn’t mean they are asexual or opposed to sex for pleasure.
Yet the successful refutation of this ad hominem attack seems only to tee up another baseless accusation: Anyone who dares to criticize looser sexual mores must somehow derive their opposition to free love from their own deep-seated repression.
Well, guess what? A philosophical objection to bestiality doesn’t mean your feelings for the family Shih-Tzu go beyond the occasional tummy rub.
If I were to write that all gay men are that way because they had an absent father and an overbearing mother, the understandable response would be to accuse me of being unfair. Yet, somehow it’s okay to say that people oppose abortion because they aren’t getting any.
That’s just stupid. As much as our respective egos would love to think we’re unique in experiencing the heights of sexual pleasure, the fact is that all people, more or less, enjoy sex. (The Ramones being the main exception: “I don’t like sex and drugs / I don’t like waterbugs.”)
What we’re fighting about, then, is not enjoyment of sex but, rather, a sexual ethic. And since the data rather consistently suggest that those with traditional sexual morality have more satisfactory sex lives, it’s high time liberals shut up about conservatives’ anti-pleasure principles.
It’s not all the left’s fault that they don’t understand conservative sexual ethics. If a conservative wants to know how a liberal thinks — about culture, economics, or foreign policy, whatever — all they have to do is watch an hour of television. They will get fairly well-developed explanations. But what if a liberal wants to know how a conservative thinks? They’re screwed. All they get from television is crude Daily Show caricatures. And all they get from most books and magazines is more of the same: phony experts offering what-Martians-are-really-like guesswork on the alien conservative species.
So permit me to share a bit about the sexual ethics of religious adherents, conservatives, pro-lifers, and others on the right end of the political spectrum.
First and foremost: discretion. People of a conservative bent are just as likely to enjoy sex tremendously. But they don’t think their sex lives are improved or validated by a public airing on MTV. Sexual conservatives do not tell others about every sexual position they’ve tried out. Andrew Sullivan wrote recently about his love of discretion, but he used the word to mean “lying about infidelity to preserve a false harmony.”
“Monogamy is very hard for men, straight or gay, and if one partner falters occasionally (and I don’t mean regularly), sometimes discretion is perfectly acceptable,” Sullivan said.
Conservatives on the other hand are more appreciative of how difficult integrity and honor are to uphold. They at least know enough to avoid being cute about the importance of honesty and, you know, the “mono” part of monogamy. A good thing, too. Studies show that men who are divorced are twice as likely to have committed infidelity as those who aren’t divorced. So the Sully model — if anyone was wondering — might not be the best to follow, especially if you’re HIV-positive.
Which brings us to the issue of respect, a key component of a fulfilling sex life. Conservatives uphold respect for one’s own body, respect for one’s mate’s body, and even respect for a future spouse.
The fact is that while some liberals like to claim that the height of excitement is cosplay*** and swinging, these actions are often ways of avoiding intimacy. Rather than connecting with another person and revealing vulnerabilities over a lifetime, this point of view supposes that one X-fueled night can be the ultimate sexual experience. What happens when such peccadilloes are oversold?
You feel empty. You value yourself less, and you value your partner less.
This is why, contrary to belief, marriage often enables a fulfilling sex life. The realization that you’ve made a commitment to someone, and you can’t simply walk away, forces you to treat your partner with the same level of respect you wish to be shown. While marriage doesn’t always live up to this ideal, it’s at least built around the right archetype.
Many on the left accuse those on the right of opposing any sexual act that doesn’t result in procreation. That’s blatantly untrue. However, the conservative ethic does recognize where babies come from. That’s why conservatives support monogamous, committed relationships where children are a consideration, if not a goal. Conservatives understand that no matter how much feminists want to pretend otherwise, bearing children before the age of 45 is best for mother and child. So putting notch #124 in the bedpost at the 20th high school reunion is not considered virtuous.
This consideration of the natural course of events comes from a belief in the sanctity of the body. Not worship of the body, where the temple is prepped with boob jobs and genitalia is waxed to look prepubescent. Rather, the conservative ethic believes that bodies are not just vessels through which souls achieve their desires. Bodies were designed for higher purposes, such as procreation, but also for simpler ones, including giving your partner pleasure without endangering their health.
Filmmaker Jay Corcoran’s latest documentary explores the crystal meth scene among gays. He suggests that men with low self-esteem use the drug to overcome their shame and insecurities and that drug use increases through peer pressure. Not only do users face appalling rates of sexually transmitted disease, they find the habit difficult to break because sex off of the drug creates too
much anxiety.
Which brings us to temperance. The conservative sexual ethic says that committed, monogamous couples should have a healthy amount of sex. The unattached life may be glorified as a haven for sexual freedom, but the fact is that most nights are extremely lonely and angst-ridden. Meanwhile people in monogamous relationships are more than twice as likely as single people to have sex at least once a week. Temperance also means restraint. No, not handcuffs, rope, or duct tape. Those
on the right end of the moral spectrum do not lack imagination — they simply discipline themselves. They ask whether a given sexual act is proper or well-timed.
It doesn’t take much thought to realize that without some reasonable guidelines, sex is a moral minefield as destructive as anything in the human condition. The good news is that with some discipline and respect for your chosen partner, sex can be mind-blowing. So if taking things slowly, naturally, intimately and ending up more sexually satisfied as a result means conservatives don’t like sex, then call me Russell Kirk.
* You don’t want to know.
** You really don’t want to know.
*** Cosplay, short for costume play, is an organized form of role-playing in which prospective partners dress up as cartoon characters and remain in character while they try to bed each
other. Okay, maybe you didn’t want to know that either.
Mollie Ziegler is a writer in Washington.
*CORRECTION: Mr. Littwin’s first name is Mike, not Mark as initially rendered. We regret the error.
7 Comments - add your own
R.J. Lehmann — August 7, 2006 at 10:48 pm
Ms. Ziegler characterizes as a “blatantly untrue” leftist-stoked slander the accusation that some on the right oppose any sexual act that does not lead to procreation. Yet, I’ve known and know personally a good number of conservatives who not only would declare forthrightly that this is PRECISELY what they believe, but that this is what their faith compels them to believe. And the Biblical support for such a belief is considerable — God smote Onan not, as his name would suggest, for jerking off, but for pulling out. And Onan’s crime was committed within the sanctum of a marital chamber, so it was not for profligate fornicating that he was punished.
If Ms. Ziegler’s contention is that she has never met a conservative who takes that passage seriously, I’ll take her word for it. If it’s that no such conservatives exist, then I can certainly introduce her to living, breathing exceptions to her theory.
That those on the left are apt to hurl unfair bromides at those on right, I wouldn’t dispute at all. But either Ms. Ziegler is letting a little bit of hyperbole get her nose out of joint, or she’s setting up a strawman. I assure you the number of liberals who actually believe that all conservatives are opposed to all sex is vanishingly small.
Meanwhile, the number of conservatives who react in a kneejerk fashion to all public discussion about sex, or public presentation of sexually themed material, is large enough to make the underlying stereotype of the prudish con, well, close enough for government work.
So what “myth,” exactly, has Ms. Ziegler dispelled here? Many conservatives DO oppose sex in the public sphere, which is the context in which such discussions usually arise. And some conservatives do, really and truly, oppose sex that isn’t undertaken for procreation. Are conservatives who do feel this way well-served by pretending they don’t exist? I doubt they feel they have anything to apologize for in their beliefs.
C. Camargo — August 9, 2006 at 1:14 pm
From what I gather, the myth of the liberal libertine is as ubiquitous as that of the conservative sex-hater. Many of the liberals I know are in long-term, committed relationships, and even though a number chooses to have casual sexual encounters on occasion, it is hardly ever what most seek exclusively, with the exception of a notable few. Saying that conservatives hate sex is unwarranted and mostly mistaken, though I think Mr. Lehmann’s comment stands.
The real difference, as most moderate liberals will admit, is that conservatives tend to take the side of repression, with abstinence education that does not teach about contraceptives and STD prevention, offers misleading information about sexual practices and reliability of condoms, preventing teenage girls from getting HPV vaccines, and encouraging virginity pledges that don’t keep teens from having sex in ways other than vaginal, thus preventing pregnancy but increasing risk of STD transmission for teens who weren’t properly oriented with regards to the risks.
As Ms. Ziegler shows us, both stereotypes have their grain of truth. I have no doubt that casual sex is frequently used to shy away from actual intimacy, and that furries can be pathologically delusional, but what exactly does temperance entail? I’m certain that the moral discipline the lady discusses would allow for positions other than missionary, but is oral sex a mine in the moral minefield of sex? Are textile fetishes alright? Light bondage or role-playing? Where do you draw the line between being creative in bed and being a deviant? Is it when practices get ‘weird’, like with watersports or handcuffs? What exactly is morally wrong for a couple in a long-term, committed relationship to do when it’s consensual and will bring both partners pleasure? What ARE reasonable guidelines? I think a clarification is in order.
Carly Rose — August 14, 2006 at 5:40 pm
I don’t think Ms. Ziegler was addressing guidelines of actual sexual practices at all. The point was that most conservatives don’t think that information needs to be public. Sex is personal, between participants and does not need to be held up to some public model of acceptability.
Kerry Howley — August 18, 2006 at 9:46 am
My comment (quoted in the piece) was unmistakably in jest, and prompted by the Concerned Women for America’s support for an anti-prostitution bill masquerading as sex-trafficking legislation. It was targeted at a single politically active group that has made “end promiscuity!” its cri de coeur and the impure female its target. Most of the other proof Zeigler musters seems to be of the same ilk: facetious riffs on rigid, traditionalist conceptions of sexuality.
From this rather flaccid body of evidence, we arrive at the following conclusion: ALL lefties think conservatives are anti-sex. No generalizations there! But as for our straw man… It’s hard to see how an actual thinking person would come to the conclusion that all conservatives oppose intercourse. At the very least, we’ve all had the displeasure of being hit on by hormonal GOP-types, which would tend to dispel any such notions.
You’d think Zeigler’s next move, having struck at The Left for stereotyping The Right, would be to illuminate the rich variation in conservative sex lives. Instead, she outlines a conservative sexual ethic we’re to assume all conservatives share. It’s hard to argue, though, because unnamed “studies show” it’s the best thing going. Most bizarre of all is her completely gratuitous mention of Andrew Sullivan’s HIV status in her criticism of what she perceives to be his sexual ethic. How profoundly offensive.
The sense of intolerance here — to use Zeigler’s word for the incomparable joy of missionary position in a monogamous heterosexual relationship governed by traditional gender norms within the bounds of church-and-state-sanctioned marriage — is mind-blowing.
Mollie — August 22, 2006 at 2:23 pm
Kerry,
Let’s begin with the positive: I love your use of the word flaccid.
On to the rest: The full sentence from your blog post, which articulated a position seen time and time again in Reason, was: “Or one might take a moment to ponder yesterday’s gathering of anti-trafficking enthusiasts — which includes groups I’ve never known to take any kind of stand on human rights issues, but are sure to fire off a few press releases every time someone, somewhere is having sex for any purpose other than producing a gurgling mini-conservative.” I noted that you were mocking these folks, so I think I characterized it fairly.
However, you have to concede that the humour which you want to use as a defense is based on mocking prudes, or people you assume to be prudes. So it does not contradict my point.
Further, I never made a blanket generalization about the Left except, maybe, to state that there is a general lack of understanding about the conservative sexual ethic. So I didn’t, as you state, create a straw man. Rather, I cited a few examples of a trend that many note (and you confirm in your last graph of your comment).
And since the whole point of the article was about how sexually conservative folks appreciate discretion, I would hardly then follow that up with a cataloguing of sexual variation, obviously.
About my, uh, “profoundly offensive” note. I write that a man who developed HIV-positive status through promiscuous behavior he continues to advocate might not be the best person to take advice on discretion. It’s not profoundly offensive. It’s not gratuitous. It’s not bizarre. It’s common sense.
And on to your final graph:
“The sense of intolerance here — to use Zeigler’s word for the incomparable joy of missionary position in a monogamous heterosexual relationship governed by traditional gender norms within the bounds of church-and-state-sanctioned marriage — is mind-blowing.”
The construction of your sentence makes me a bit uncertain about what you’re trying to say. But to deride the conservative sexual ethic in the manner you chose to (the ‘missionary position’? Oh Kerry . . .) does confirm my point rather nicely.
J-Money — August 22, 2006 at 2:33 pm
Well, now that you mention it, Kerry, children sold into sexual slavery IS actually kinda funny if you think about it. Oh, wait. No, it’s not. Well, regardless, can you believe that Concerned Women for America bunch? What a bunch of Puritans!
You can’t have it both ways. You can’t say, “I was only joking” while simultaneously using CWA’s opposition to children being sold into a life of sexual bondage as an example of conservative prudery.
You’re either being dishonest, or at best, unfunny. I’m inclined to think you’re doing both.
Kerry Howley — August 24, 2006 at 1:32 pm
J-Money,
As I stated in the post, the bill had very little to do with sex trafficking. Trafficking is a profoundly misunderstood issue precisely because conservatives (like those at CWA) cynically conflate slavery (involuntary) and prostitution (voluntary). The bill in question was an anti-prostitution bill. It was aimed at commercial sex work — something people who believe in markets and self-autonomy ought to at least consider supporting.
Mollie,
In that last graf, I was speaking to your intolerance for sexual diversity. You’re upset about perceived derision of what you call the conservative sexual ethic. I don’t think anything so homogenous exists, but I’m curious why you then feel so free to deride more liberal ideas about sexual pleasure. Your position seems to be that it’s perfectly appropriate to tear down the personal choices of others — unless they happen to be choices of which you approve. Nights not spent cultivating a traditional relationship are “lonely and angst-ridden”? Come on now. Surely the republic can survive more sexual pluralism than this.