It's About Sex

By David Corn  July 12, 2022

A pro-choice protester at a rally in New York City on July 4, 2022. Lev Radin/AP

Mara Gay, the New York Times columnist, recently penned a perceptive article regarding the Dobbs decision that ended a woman’s constitutional right to an abortion. Underneath the headline “The Republican War on Sex,” she wrote, “One day I hope to become a mother. But for now, I have sex just because I like it. Sex is fun.” She pointed out that many religious fundamentalists who oppose abortion “are animated by an insatiable desire to punish women who have sex on our own terms and enjoy it.”

This is a core element of the battle over reproductive rights that we do not discuss enough: sex. In fact, though our culture and popular media are full of sex, we rarely talk about sex in straightforward terms. It’s fun (for many, if not most, people), and most Americans engage in sex more than once a month, according to one recent study. But it’s usually not part of the public discourse. (Do government officials ever promise voters more and better sex?) One obvious reason the protection of reproductive rights is so important is that people want to have sex for recreation, not procreation. Yet some Americans cannot stand this idea. They may have a theological objection. The Catholic Church insists sex should only occur with the intent to breed. The same holds true for evangelical Christians. Others might just find sex icky. A big chunk of the social turmoil of the 1960s involved sex. Though it seemed the so-called “sexual revolution” was ultimately won by advocates of sexual freedom, the anti-sex crowd never went away. And it is back and not just focused on abortion, as Justice Clarence Thomas showed in his concurring decision in Dobbs. These tyrannical puritans want to allow states once again to enact anti-sodomy laws and to restrict your right to obtain contraception. This is not just about assigning personhood to zygotes; this is about control.

The anti-sexers have been able to wage their war because sex remains taboo-ish. Can you think of a political candidate who has declared, “These fundamentalists want to stop you from having a good time enjoying sex, but I’m fighting to preserve your right to have sex without worrying about creating a kid”? No, the good-time sex that Mara Gay refers to is generally not addressed in our policy debates. Instead, we focus on—and fight over—rights and values. That’s certainly important, but this allows us to elide what these rights protect. It’s my hunch that folks who oppose recreational sex—and who want to deny others the freedom to seek this pleasure—are aided by the societal reticence to discuss sex openly.

Some time ago, I learned directly that the fear of sex was part of the motivation of fundamentalists. In the 1990s, I was one of the revolving guest hosts on the daily syndicated radio show of Patrick Buchanan, the pugnacious conservative commentator. The three-hour-long offering was structured similarly to CNN’s Crossfire, which Buchanan then co-hosted. Each hour had its own topic and a conservative-leaning guest and a liberal-ish one. Buchanan would grill the lefty, and I would debate the right-winger, and then the two of us would have some back-and-forth. It was exhausting to do this for three hours—with breaks for the news, weather, and commercials, we probably produced only 35 minutes or so of programming per hour—and though I found Buchanan’s tribalistic and demagogic politics despicable, he was an enjoyable sparring partner, and I had free rein to assail the dangerous and hateful notions of the right.

One day, the topic for an hour was the demand of an Irish American gay group to march in Boston’s St. Patrick’s Day parade. This was causing a ruckus in Beantown, with the parade organizers adamantly opposing the group’s participation. The conservative guest for this segment was the Reverend Lou Sheldon, an ardent antigay crusader who headed a religious right group called the Traditional Values Coalition. Sheldon frequently appeared on cable news and radio shows, expounding on the threat homosexuality supposedly posed to the United States and claiming gay and lesbian people were plotting to destroy the American family. After the predictable to-and-fro on the particulars regarding the St. Patrick’s Day parade, I switched gears and asked him a simple question: “Why do you care so much about what gay people do?” He stammered and said something about how they engage in wrongful conduct. “I don’t understand,” I said, pushing the point: “Why do you care about this more than a zoning issue in your town?” Again, he said something like, “What they’re doing is wrong.” Wrong? “What is it they’re doing that is wrong?” I said. I could sense Sheldon was becoming flustered. “It’s just wrong and unnatural,” he repeated. I kept pressing, “What is it that’s wrong?” We went around on this point, with an increasingly agitated Sheldon reiterating “it’s wrong” and me demanding to know what was “wrong.” Finally, an exasperated Sheldon exclaimed, “They take their ———— and put it in the ———— of other men.” The quick-in-her-seat producer managed to bleep out the words that might have caused a problem with the FCC.

I don’t remember my reply. I might not have said anything. The point was made. Sheldon was horrified at (or obsessed with) a particular sex act, and that seemed to be what was propelling his hatred of gay men. It was about the sex. Quite literally. Afterward, he told the show’s producer he would never appear on the program again if I were in the co-host chair. That was no big loss for me or the audience. (Eventually, a court order compelled the St. Patrick’s Day parade organizers to accept the group; the LGBT outfit marched and was met by smoke bombs, jeers, and thrown beer cans; and the organizers canceled a subsequent parade rather than allow the gay group to march again.)

Whenever there is a clash over gay rights, abortion, pornography, sexual education, same-sex marriage, or contraception, I always remember my special moment with Sheldon. Yes, it’s just one data point—but a revealing one. The fights over these subjects are fights over sex, why you have sex, and who (if anyone) gets to say what sex you can have and who you can have it with. Of course, with abortion, the direct target is women. But the war on sex extends beyond that. As Gay noted, American men must “recognize that their way of life is also under attack. Men also have sex for pleasure. This is not just a women’s issue.” Indeed, sex is a multi-gender issue. For many people, it’s part of the pursuit of happiness, and, once again, it must be fought for.

Got anything to say about this item—or anything else? Email me at ourland@motherjones.com.

Iran-Contra Flashback: The Day Reality Died

This tweet brought back memories:

If you look all the way to the right in that photo, about one-third down from the top, you will see an older fellow with glasses. That was the incomparable Pulitzer Prize–winning columnist Murray Kempton. I was sitting next to him that day and throughout the Iran-contra hearings held in the spring and summer of 1987. I am cropped out in this shot. It was a great honor to be adjacent to Kempton throughout the hearings and absorb his musings. He often appeared to nod off during the proceedings, but then he would jerk awake and utter a sharp-as-a-stiletto comment about the testimony that he appeared to have slept through. Subsequently, he would write a column that would stand as a da Vinci next to his fellow scribes’ finger-painting. Here's how he described one witness who worked as an operator for Oliver North: “Any man can be excused for serving the convenience of the hour by passing himself off as an idealist; but it seemed rather a pity that [Robert] Owen’s perceptions of his necessities had pressed him to cheat detached observers of the appreciation due the cynicism that is his saving grace.”

I’ve written in the past about what I learned about journalism covering the Iran-contra scandal. This photo reminds me of a particular lesson related to politics and media.

North was the big get of the joint House-Senate Iran-contra committee. A loyal servant of President Ronald Reagan, the White House aide had orchestrated the covert sale of weapons to the fundamentalist regime of Iran (looking to win the release of American hostages held in the Middle East) and had managed the White House’s secret war in Central America, where it was clandestinely funneling military assistance to the contra rebels fighting the leftist government of Nicaragua, despite Congress’ ban on such aid. Much of this seemed criminal, and as the mastermind, North was the big mystery man of the scandal that had prompted talk of impeachment. His testimony promised to be the most dramatic moment of the hearings. The whole country—or much of it—was watching.

After a defiant opening statement—in which North defended his actions, insisted he had always been following orders, and attacked Congress—he was questioned intensely about his skullduggery. To us reporters in the hearing room, he came across as shifty and disingenuous. His various misdeeds were highlighted. (He had lied to Congress, laundered money, destroyed evidence, and stolen and shredded classified documents to protect himself.) He was the true villain of the affair, and it looked as if the committee was nailing him.

At one of the first breaks, I left the committee room. The hallways adjacent to the room were full of technical people supplying the live television feed to various networks. “So how do you think he’s doing?” one of the techies asked me. They got him, I said, noting the committee was clearly demonstrating that North had engaged in multiple violations of the law and had lied and cheated his way through not one but two sleazy and arguably illegal covert operations. “He’s a fuckin’ hero,” the techie told me. “Just look at him. The country is going to love him.” Really? I thought. And about then, word started spreading that switchboards in congressional offices across Capitol Hill were lighting up with callers hailing North, denouncing the committee, and demanding that the senators and representatives stop harassing this great patriot. My techie pal was right.

I realized that I and other reporters in the room, who were sitting behind North and unable to see anything other than the back of his head, were listening to his exchanges with the committee. We weren’t watching them. On television, in his uniform, North, the ramrod Marine, was coming across as a hero to many who were viewing this spectacle in their homes. There he was, a handsome man of military bearing who claimed to be devoted to the cause of freedom, his voice catching when he talked about his efforts to save American hostages in the Mideast and beat back communism in the nation’s backyard, a righteous underdog up against the pompous politicians of Washington. His sincerity—and square jaw—filled the television screen when the camera zoomed in on him, with those rows of old men in suits looking down at (and on) him. The impressions of the moment overwhelmed the facts. A rather obvious notion struck me: Television trumps reality.

North was eventually convicted of three felonies: accepting an illegal gratuity, obstructing a congressional inquiry, and destroying evidence. But his convictions were overturned on a legal technicality. His criminality did not stop him from becoming a champion within the conservative movement. With the support of the Christian Coalition and other far-right outfits, he won the GOP senatorial nomination in Virginia in 1994 and narrowly lost to Democratic incumbent Sen. Chuck Robb. North started his own conservative organization that raised lots of loot. In 2018, he began a one-year term as president of the National Rifle Association—and subsequently engaged in a bitter clash with the group’s leadership that was part of the NRA’s recent mess of bankruptcy and lawsuits.

The tale of how North got the better of the Iran-contra committee is relevant these days, as the House select committee investigating the January 6 riot endeavors to avoid such pitfalls. Its members and staffs have wisely opted to limit witness testimony, staging live appearances only with witnesses who tell a compelling story (a Capitol Hill police officer who was beaten, Republican state officials who defied the Trumpian crusade to overturn the election, Cassidy Hutchinson, and others) and playing important snippets from depositions recorded with others. They clearly have organized the hearings with a TV audience in mind, even hiring a former ABC News executive to be the equivalent of a showrunner for these proceedings. Without clown-show Republicans, such as Rep. Jim Jordan, on the committee, the panel has been able to present an integrated and engaging account of January 6 and the preceding weeks. The North testimony is a reminder of how a congressional hearing can go wrong. The J6 hearings (so far) show how Congress can get it right.

Thought You Should Know

* The Supreme Court of Wisconsin issued a dangerous and disturbing ruling last week. Mark Joseph Stern of Slate described it well:

On Friday, the Wisconsin Supreme Court’s Republican majority outlawed ballot drop boxes by a 4–3 vote, abolishing a reform that had made voting easier and more accessible in the state. The lead opinion—authored by the notorious fringe-right reactionary Justice Rebecca Grassl Bradley—contains alarming language casting doubt on the legitimacy of Joe Biden’s 2020 victory. It also grants credence to the GOP’s collapsing “investigation” to prove that illegal votes put Biden over the top in Wisconsin. Without a shred of evidence, the court has thrown its weight behind a dangerous conspiracy theory that helped to fuel the Jan. 6 insurrection.

In its opinion, the court outrageously suggested that Biden was no better than various repressive autocrats who staged fake elections:

Throughout history, tyrants have claimed electoral victory via elections conducted in violation of governing law. For example, Saddam Hussein was reportedly elected in 2002 by a unanimous vote of all eligible voters in Iraq (11,445,638 people). Examples of such corruption are replete in history. In the 21st century, North Korean leader Kim Jong-un was elected in 2014 with 100% of the vote while his father, Kim Jong-il, previously won 99.9% of the vote. Former President of Cuba, Raul Castro, won 99.4% of the vote in 2008 while Syrian President Bashar al-Assad was elected with 97.6% of the vote in 2007.

This rhetoric affirms the baseless claims and worst suspicions of the Trump zombies and is a troubling indicator of how the top court in a key swing state is in the hands of extremists. That’s quite a problem, given that Republicans in Wisconsin (and elsewhere) are trying to pass laws to both restrict voting and grab control of the vote-counting system. Even worse, Trump cultists (and one of his lawyers) are now pushing a cockamamie plan to restore Trump to power if the GOP wins control of Congress in the midterm elections: encourage three states that voted for Biden to decertify their 2020 electoral votes and call on the new (Republican) Congress to overturn the results. Federal law and the Constitution don't allow for any of this. But imagine the chaos and conflict such an attempt would stir. With this decision, the Supreme Court in Wisconsin has demonstrated it just might entertain such a crazy and perilous scheme.

* There is good news (sort of) on the democracy crisis front. In Pennsylvania, the Republican state legislature passed a bill that would allow registered voters to serve as poll watchers in any precinct in the state. That’s not the good news. This was another scheme by Republicans to rig the electoral system. Under this measure—sponsored by state Sen. Doug Mastriano, the QAnonish, Big Lie champion and J6 protester who is the GOP gubernatorial nominee—partisan operatives could flood into targeted precincts to challenge voters and disrupt the process of voting and vote counting. The good news is that Democratic Gov. Tom Wolf vetoed the legislation. Its passage, though, is yet another sign of how Republicans are conniving to undermine the coming elections.

* When it comes to owning Fox News, Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg is a master. Look at how he smacked down (politely) this Fox host on Sunday:

He really ought to give lessons to other Democrats.

Read Recent Issues of Our Land

July 9, 2022: Why did the Atlantic enable Mitt Romney’s dangerous both-sidesism?; Dumbass Comment of the Week (Marjorie Taylor Greene, again); the Mailbag; MoxieCam™; and more.

July 2, 2022: Mark Meadows: one helluva liar; Dumbass Comment of the Week (Ali Alexander); the Mailbag; MoxieCam™; and more.

June 28, 2022: The lessons from the right’s 50-year-long crusade to limit the freedom of women; the end of Ozark; and more.

June 25, 2022: Hooray for the Trump Republicans who saved the nation—or not?; Dumbass Comment of the Week (Clarence Thomas); the Mailbag; MoxieCam™; and more.

June 21, 2022: Is Trump’s GOP getting even crazier?; George Carlin and the American Dream; Alexei Navalny’s nightmare; and more.

June 18, 2022: Is Elon Musk more dangerous than Peter Thiel?; Dumbass Comment of the Week (Lauren Boebert, again); the Mailbag; MoxieCam™; and more.

June 14, 2022: From Watergate to Trump: Does the system really work?; a thrilling performance by Paul McCartney; how The Staircase apprehends its viewers; and more.

June 11, 2022: In the room where it happened: covering the January 6 committee’s hearing; Dumbass Comment of the Week (Jesse Watters and others); my proudest moment in journalism; the Mailbag; MoxieCam™; and more.

June 7, 2022: Barack Obama was right about the gun clingers; Special Emergency Dumbass Comment of the Week (Louie Gohmert); Our Land in Photos; the perfection of Better Call Saul; the sublime new album from Wilco; and more.

Got suggestions, comments, complaints, tips related to any of the above, or anything else? Email me at ourland@motherjones.com.