Anti-Sex Christine O'Donnell is Nothing New

We've all known women like this, right? The ones so disappointed that sex didn't lead immediately to Cinderella/June Cleaver nirvana that they turned into anti-sex scolds.

The really dangerously insane ones are the deliberately sexy ones, like O'Donnell. She's constantly sending the message: "See this, boys? You can't have it." I actually do believe that she's never masturbated, or at least not competently, because if she'd ever had DIY multiple orgasms, she couldn't inveigh against them with a straight face.

But it's worse than that, and not funny at all. As emptywheel at Firedoglake explains, O'Donnell's just the latest twist on the older-than-dirt conservative campaign against female sexual freedom:

I know Democrats are thrilled that Chris Coons, the Democratic candidate for Senate in Delaware, will be running against the kook Christine O’Donnell.

But I’m a little troubled by the treatment of O’Donnell’s anti-masturbation stance as just one more kooky proposal.

It’s not.

Rather, it’s the logical extension of the conservative assault on reproductive freedom. Sure, most conservative efforts to regulate reproduction are targeted exclusively at women (not even on their doctors). Because they bear wombs, after all, it’s a lot easier to regulate and politicize the sexual conduct of women.

But the logic is always the same–and it’s precisely the “logic” O’Donnell gave for her opposition to masturbation. (And, incidentally, the same logic the Prop 8 defenders used in their case in San Francisco.) It’s about ensuring that all sexual enjoyment–all of it–is tied to procreation within marriage.

So while she may be a nut, she’s really only advocating for the same oppressive treatment of men as mainstream Republicans advocate for women of child-bearing age.

Remember the bumper sticker of a few years ago? "Will somebody please blow George Bush so we can impeach him?"

We could make a similar plea for O'Donnell, but we probably wouldn't get any takers for that, either.