Blogs and Stories
The GOP Doesn't Understand Sex
Bristol Palin's new abstinence campaign shines a light on the Republican Party's unhealthy attitude about sex and desire.
The first time I ever heard about oral sex was during the Lewinsky scandal. Mostly, I remember being confused by President Clinton’s response—“It depends on what the meaning of ‘is’ is.” When it comes to sex, politicians face all sorts of double standards: who is allowed to have sex with whom, what constitutes sex, and whether it’s appropriate, to name a few. Candie’s Foundation’s announcement that they were partnering with Bristol Palin to promote an abstinence-only campaign has caused me to reflect on my own experiences as a political daughter, and the role sex plays in defining the Republican Party.
Let me get something straight: Bristol Palin, as an 18-year-old adult, is free to make her own choices and decide how she wants her life to unfold. But for whatever reasons, the American public and media remain overly engrossed in our politicians’ sex lives and, as in this case, those of their families. There’s an especially unhealthy attitude among conservatives. Daughters of Republican politicians aren’t expected to have sex, let alone enjoy it—as if there were some strange chastity belt automatically attached to us female offspring. God forbid anyone talk realistically about life experiences and natural, sexual instincts. Nope, the answer is always abstinence.
The worst sexual double standard in politics right now is that too many subconsciously believe Republican women are void of sexual desire altogether.
This is something I know about firsthand. During my father’s 2000 presidential campaign, a reporter asked how he would feel if I became pregnant and wanted an abortion. He answered that it would be my choice, sending shockwaves throughout the party (because for the GOP there is only one answer, and obviously Senator McCain’s daughter shouldn’t be engaging in sex ever). I’d like to thank that reporter for single-handedly putting me through years of trying to reconcile the fact that when it comes to politics, no matter what you do or who you are, everything is fair game.
But seriously, here was a father, delicately navigating a question about his teenage daughter and being true to the kind of father he had always been, and the Republican Party was outraged. It didn’t matter that my parents raised me to know that, regardless of the mistakes I might make, they would allow me the dignity and courage to make my own choices. That’s the kind of trust my parents have always placed in their children—yet the GOP still needed to get involved and have a say in what I did with my body.
Here’s what I’ve never understood about the party: its resistance to discussing better access to birth control. As a Republican, I am pro-life. But using birth control and having an abortion are not the same at all. Actually, the best way to prevent abortions is to educate people about birth control and make it widely and easily accessible. True, abstinence is the only way to fully prevent pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases. Still, the problem with abstinence-only education is that it does not make teenagers and young adults more knowledgeable about all the issues they face if or when they have sex—physically and emotionally.
The key, honestly, is communication between parents and children. At the end of the day, the worst thing parents can do is raise children who are not prepared for the situations they may encounter, especially when they’re not planned. (For anyone who remembers their teen years, you know what I mean.) Unfortunately, Republicans typically don’t like to discuss or deal with things they think are wrong or immoral. And that’s a huge mistake. If we can’t discuss birth control in addition to abstinence, and in a nonjudgmental way, kids will continue to make bad choices for lack of having access to informed, safe options. Not everyone shares the same beliefs, and more importantly, people don’t always react the same way to their circumstances. Which is why it is so important to encourage honest, open communication about the realities of sex within the party at large, and more specifically, between parents and their children.
I have a 17-year-old sister who is not much older than I was when that reporter asked my father the hypothetical abortion question. I am the role model I want her to have: If or when she chooses to have sex is entirely up to her, but I want to be sure she knows being curious about sex is natural, and what is important is to be educated about safety. Perhaps the worst sexual double standard in politics right now is that too many subconsciously believe Republican women are void of sexual desire altogether, never mind its consequences. A friend of mine, whose father is also a conservative politician, used to joke it would be easier for her be a lesbian because then there would be no risk of getting pregnant and having a resulting scandal.
I have always found this joke incredibly sad—for both of us. Because the GOP continues to struggle with open communication about serious issues most people deal with rationally, and on a regular basis. Unless we learn how to integrate that kind of discussion, our party will continue its descent into irrelevance. We live in a big world, one where you can contract a lifelong STD, have an unplanned pregnancy, or get date-raped, just to name a few of the dangers associated with sex. We should prepare our kids for it, realistically. Then they might be more apt to make the right choices when they live in it themselves. Bottom line: Honesty isn’t a liberal or conservative issue. It’s a human one. The sooner we realize that, the better off we’ll be.
Meghan McCain is originally from Phoenix. She graduated from Columbia University in 2007. She previously wrote for Newsweek magazine and created the website mccainblogette.com.
The Right Dumps Carrie
Jacob Bernstein is a senior reporter at The Daily Beast. Previously, he was a features writer at WWD and W Magazine. He has also written for New York magazine, Paper, and The Huffington Post.
Sarah Drops the Act
Tina Brown is the founder and editor-in-chief of The Daily Beast. She is the author of the 2007 New York Times best seller The Diana Chronicles. Brown is the former editor of Tatler, Vanity Fair, The New Yorker, and Talk magazines and host of CNBC's Topic A with Tina Brown.
Palin's Gold Mine
Duff McDonald is a contributing editor at New York magazine and a former contributing editor at Condé Nast Portfolio. His book, Last Man Standing, about Jamie Dimon, chairman and CEO of JPMorgan Chase, was published by Simon & Schuster in October.
Do Sex Tapes Matter?
Meghan McCain is a columnist for The Daily Beast. Originally from Phoenix, she graduated from Columbia University in 2007. She is a New York Times bestselling children's author, previously wrote for Newsweek magazine, and created the Web site mccainblogette.com.
Hillary and Sarah's Common Theme
Meghan McCain is a columnist for The Daily Beast. Originally from Phoenix, she graduated from Columbia University in 2007. She is a New York Times bestselling children's author, previously wrote for Newsweek magazine, and created the Web site mccainblogette.com.
Joe's No Traitor
Meghan McCain is a columnist for The Daily Beast. Originally from Phoenix, she graduated from Columbia University in 2007. She is a New York Times bestselling children's author, previously wrote for Newsweek magazine, and created the Web site mccainblogette.com.
Wow, great job McCain....thanks for being honest about a subject that most people shy away from. I bet Bristol wouldn't have gotten herself into her situation had she been sat down by her mother and talked to about sex in the way your parents obviously did with you.
That is not a bet. I have two children that were given regular education and explanation about sex and how its positively up to them to make absolutely sure that if they were going to engage in sexual experimentation, they were protected. They knew from an early are(12, 13 years old) where babies came from and what caused them. We encouraged both of them to refrain from sexual activity until after they finished school, but we didn't lock them up either.
One, the oldest, came home after the first semester of her second year of college, pregnant and the young man that was the sperm donor wasn't interested in her condition. After all, he had his career to think about and he, nor his family, could let something like getting a poor dumb girl pregnant interfere with his future. The boy has never bother to try to find out how his 17 year old son is doing.
The second daughter came home before her first semester was even finished, pregnant. You would think that if lightning struck your older sister you would get the message. Maybe she was high on drugs or alcohol at the time. She just finished graduating from college last year. Her 12 year old son has never been asked about.
BTW, we have two younger daughters that are a little wiser than the two older ones. They have finished college and one is married and neither has any children yet.
The point here is, you can talk to them and give them all the education you can and they still make poor choices, even when they know what the consequences could be.
To me, its always going to be a personal decision made by the individual and it always will be. I just hope that every young woman that is contemplating having sex remember that that person she is about to share her body with isn't concerned about her getting pregnant, he's more concerned about himself.
guys: use condoms.
girls: get on the pill if it suits you.
condom pill = pretty darn safe = no need to debate any longer.
Throughout most of the 19th century, the minimum age of consent for sexual intercourse in many of the states was 10 years old. In Delaware it was seven; as late as 1930 twelve states allowed boys as young as 14 and girls as young as 12 to marry with parental consent.
The world has changed. The transition between childhood and adulthood is much longer today than it was less than one hundred years ago, when a boy proved himself a man when he could shoulder and share adult hardships, risks, and responsibility working side by side with his father in the fields. By the time he was a seasoned seventeen or eighteen, he was ready to start his own family. A girl became a woman by the time she reached childbearing age; fourteen or fifteen was often considered old enough to marry. The transition from childhood to adulthood was so short that adolescence---at least as the distinct stage of life we now consider it---hardly existed.
Today the traditional determinations of adulthood---the establishment of occupation and family---are routinely postponed until after college. With the period of childhood innocence seeming shorter and shorter, we've created a new ten-or-twelve-or-more-years-long designation, a no-man's land (or no-woman's land) we term adolescence. Over the past fifty-years or so, this new limbo-land life stage has become an extended period of awkward uncertainty.
We have stretched adolescence further than anytime in history. We are fighting, nature and hormones. We think we can succeed by recommending abstinence and saying don't do as I do but do as I say. It will not work.
The pill has its drawbacks too! Some people are allergic to condoms and they do sometimes break....
I wouldn't end the debate just yet.
As a nation we make a bigger political fuss about these kinds of private issues than anywhere else in the world. We have a higher drug use rate and more abortions per capita than pretty much any other first world nation.
I think Meghans right its all this unrealistic handling of the situation that drives a wedge between kids lacking the experience and those who should be sharing their experiences with them.
@SunStreak
I agree there are a whole lot of idiot guys out there. I think the whole messed up mentality comes a lot from isolation though. If your a douche surrounded by other douches its harder to notice your errors. When I was in school in Germany there seemed to a better connection between the kids around me as well as between them and there parents, could have been just that group though. At any rate their abortion rate is 1/4 ours even though statistically (according to trojan condoms study) they have just as much sex as we do. Maybe it has to do with religion/ethics classes in school and the fact that contraceptives are free from the government health care for minors. They also have mandatory abortion counseling which talks about alternatives and abortion is not possible after the third month of pregnancy.
Wayfarin: ridiculously over simplified. Condoms are a must, but the Pill for women is not something you can just shove down their throats. It's not a Tylenol, it has some pretty hefty hormones that not every woman is going to be willing to take.
I'm all about proactive education and open-mindedness and think that sex is horrifically demonized in our country, but going from one narrow-minded end of the spectrum to the other isn't the answer.
sunstreak, certainly your example shows that talking to your kids is not a cure-all, but it is far better than not talking to them. No matter what, the kids (or adults in your kid's cases - college age is over 18) have to make their own decisions. The important thing is communication and that the kids can count on their parents to help them no matter what they do. The real issue McCain skipped is how many parents throw the pregnant daughter out, or force the decision about what to do next.
The other thing McCain did not point out is the double standard from the GOP. When Bristol's pregnancy was announced just before the convention, the GOP all suddenly got non-judgmental about it. Can you imagine if Biden's daughter were pregnant out of wedlock???
Of course it's always going to come down to individual choice. Thems the "facts of life" just as surely as the "birds and the bees."
But the more educated kids are the greater the _likelihood_ that they will make informed choices. It's no guarantee, when have their ever been guarantees in life?
It's all about playing the odds, and when it comes to unwanted pregnancies at young ages, "abstinence only" simply fails across the board. There's some evidence that "abstinence only" education increases the likelihood, by a small margin, of abstinence. If that's the yardstick I guess you could say the programs are successful. But if the yardstick is preventing teen pregnancies and venereal diseases then "abstinence only" fails dramatically.
Oh my god SunStreak-you refer to your 17 year old grandson as the result of a lightning strike and the inception of your 12 year old son as a possible consequence of being high on drugs or alcohol.
How about you just let go of all that bitterness you have about the choices two of your daughters made and see it for what it really is-the opportunity for you to have two beautiful young men in your life to teach you what it's all about-love. Absolute pure love given to you in the package of two baby boys and their brave, beautiful mothers. Or maybe you're worried about how you believe your daughters' choices made you look as a mother......
@trendsforlife: Bristol's mother was pregnant before she married Bristol's father. This is not a secret to anyone who can count to nine, reinforced by the fact that the wedding was unannounced, with no family members in attendance, at town hall, with strangers dragged in from an old folks' home as witnesses.
But rather than talk about her own premarital pregnancy, Palin has chosen to pillory her own daughter on the post of her ambitions -- the same way she hid behind her six-year-old (in a failed attempt) to avoid being booed at a hockey game opener in late 2008.
That's Bristol's example. a woman who was herself a complete failure at abstinence, now pretending that abstinence works. Bristol should never have been put in this position BY HER MOTHER, just as Meghan McCain's sexual and reproductive future should never have been dragged into her father's campaign by the press. At least Meghan's dad was loyal to her -- for a day. What Ms. McCain doesn't mention above is that her dad got slapped around all day by the religious right, and retracted his statement in favor of her making her own choices BEFORE THE DAY WAS OVER.
Abstinence is about sexism, about making girls and only girls take creepy "purity pledges" to their fathers and wear rings Daddy puts on their finger. The abstinence movement has no similar mother-son events.
And abstinence is about pretending rape never happens. All kids, even the tiny fraction who manage to maintain abstinence, need to know about birth control and infection control, because all kids - boys as well as girls - are at risk of rape. They need to know what to do the morning after. In fact, given their movement's revolting insistence on "purity," they need to know that there IS a morning after for them; that they are still good and whole people after sex, forced or not.
You know, I don't think this is a republican problem. I think it's a problem inherent in the political media-sphere. Possibly even wider than that. Remember the "wardrobe malfunction" -- entirely out of proportion to reality. There's sexually forthright advertising, prime-time network television, and you can't navigate the web without hitting hardcore porn. We can't keep being "shocked" by sex, and we can't pretend to shelter kids. We're just not living in the fifties anymore, and everyone knows it. But in the political sphere there's still this bizarre alternate reality.
Let's hope this sensible young woman will be sharing her astute and sensible observations and experiences with her peer group, not to mention other Republicans. Hey maybe if we are lucky SHE will one day run for president?? If so, that might make me actually vote Republican. Thank you, Megan.
I really doubt if Bristol could have even spoken to her mother openly about sex education as her mother doesn't believe in it and to her and the other Christians the only answer is to abstain as it is 100% safe, this way they don't have to worry about getting pregnant/morning after pills/abortion and all the other sins they keep worrying about. I wish that they could tell their sons the same thing, they wouldn't as the boys just would have laughed in their faces. Meghan McCain is right as Republicans like to have their women pure and skinny. They are just not realistic and cause a lot of pain in their thinking.
Meghan~
Politically I tend to fall just left of center; I rarely agree with republican/conservative (nor for that matter those loony ultra-leftwing/liberal/democrat) view points. However, I have found you to be a refreshing voice for the republican/conservative view point and find myself agreeing with you more often than not.
You are the rare conservative who makes me stop and listen. Your writings demonstrate how little difference there is between the majority of conservatives/liberals once we leave our idealogical strongholds.
Keep up the good work.
Meghan McCain .... the GOP would be smart to dump Rush and have her as their voice .... as a lifelong dem I hope they stay with Rush ... I would like her to come over to the dems
Leastman said:
"I would like her to come over to the dems"
==============================
I think a lot of Republicans would like to see Meghan McCain go over to the Dems also. After all, according to her, she only joined the Republican Party as a Father's Day gift to her dad. Yes, that's making a mature choice. Let's see... What do I give a dad who has everything? Hmmmm. Oh wait, I know. I'll join his political party!
It's really kind of funny... Meghan is trying way too hard to be controversial. And she really needs to work on losing the Valley Girl tone when she talks... That sing-song tone that has her sentences ending in a higher note making a simple statement sound like a question.
Maybe Meghan will consider joining the Democratic Party as a gift to the Republican Party... Father's Day is coming soon. :)
Jetsetter, if that day comes, you should complete the picture and throw a party no one will come to like a Real Republican would.
Well put! It is astonishing that the ProLifers completely ignore the fact that birth control is the answer. If there was better birth control plus access to it then there would be no need for abortions in the first place. Women do not enjoy getting them. No one should have to go through that.It is another way of blaming women for sex. It takes two to have it. Why is it never focused on the male population? Even if women practice birth control, most men still pressure women to not use condoms. WHat happened to protecting against disease too?
When I was young I had a girlfriend who at a young age was very sexually active though I was not. I took the time to educate myself on the risks and used my sexual curiosity as a tool to learn rather than experiment. Men aren't always the instigators of sexual activity and I've noticed more and more young women have learned to use their sexuality as a tool to get what they want. I believe that this is caused by a common double standard in the way women and sexuality are viewed in todays culture. For example Hillary Clinton's critics often commented on her looks and her choice of clothing most notably her iconic pantsuits rather than debating her on policy where as Sara Palin (who is built like a model) was often described as a strong intellegent woman dispite her inability to answer simple questions in many interviews. With sex being an undertone of almost everything in the media it's easy for young hormone filled teens to want to know what they're missing out on and feel like there's a party going on that they weren't invited to or banned from. The truth is sex isn't that great and if people openly talk to their kids about it and tell them it's overrated, ask them how they'd feel if they caught an std and having to drop their pants infront of the doctor so they can get cured (assuming it's a currable one), and remind them that if they get their girlfriend pregnant (or get pregnant) that the rest of their life over no friends, no money, no parties, no life. When you put reality into a blunt strait farward way like that it sinks in far more than any sex ed class ever could.
I liked your article a whole lot, but I think there's unfortunately a deeper problem for the GOP, especially about an issue as conservatively volatile as sex. Two of the virtues of conservatism is the preservation of tradition, and the natural side effect to that, fear of the new (many would recast that in a more positive light).
For many of the leaders in the party the sexual revolution of the 60s and 70s simply never happened. Even of those born after that era, many still believe in the viability of the 1950s TV home, with the ominous two twin beds that the parents slept in as the ideal. While, most of us who study the era agree that this image is a complete myth; it is still a fiction that has been so romanticized as a place in our historical memory that it shapes the current reality.
The GOP, and I think you get at towards the end, must detach itself from conservatism because in an age of fast pace growth adaptability and openness, the very adjectives that run perpendicular to conservatism, have become keys to success in both the economic world as well as the personal one.
Here's wishing you the best of luck!
This comment has been removed by The Daily Beast's editors.
Saw you on Colbert. Thought I'd check out your article. I agree that it will do the party well to be a little more centered on social issues. It was stuff like that that chased me out of partisanship. I hope to see more people in the future coming in with your outlook. I may one day put an R back on my registration.
This comment has been removed by The Daily Beast's editors.
If you have nothing substantive to add to the discussion, do not type.
Talking about someone's looks when they are trying to engage in thoughtful discourse makes YOU look superficial and vapid.
Here, here, read the article and make an educated response to it, otherwise don't speak, Meghan looks great!
joymars is concerned about chemical abuse and Mcains health. thats thoughtful.
also. the republicans depend on votes from the hipocritical evangelical taliban base. the church folks are still fighting the 60s hippie wars against "free love" - ***anti-abortion has been a fake debate all along*** to distract from condom use. the church folks fear that education and easy access to condoms means sexual anarchy - and the hippies won.
Concerned about chemical abuse? It looks more like throwing wild accusations around to me.
This comment has been removed by The Daily Beast's editors.
Oh for Pete's sake, what on earth does her photo and weight have to do with anything?
joymars must be impaired in some way...of course, that might be a bit obvious in my thinking.
joymars, I must agree with hithere3, if you have nothing to say then just stay away. You may not like Meghan, for whatever reason, but she is one of the best, down-to-earth, common sense speaking Republicans that I know. Her beliefs, and ideas are like a breath of fresh air. And this is coming from a very liberal Democrat!
"joymars
I didn't even read this blog. I tend to think Megan is a bit obvious in her thinking."
So, IOW, you got on a political blog, found a post written by a woman and decided that what she had to say wasn't important, but her appearance is open for debate.
Sexist much?
You're commenting on her photo, nitpicking her weight (as though you can really tell what it is from a photo posted on the web), casting aspersions about drug abuse, and insulting her mother's appearance. All without bothering to read the blog. That's some nerve.
I don't need to read her blog. I've slogged through a few of them to know how young she is. She's also riding this self-concocted media show in which she's the Repugnantan who is really a Democrat at heart. We are supposedly to be left breathless wondering what she really thinks, what she'll say again. It's great theater -- for people her age and for privately self-disgusted Repugs who are trying to sort out their own political embarrassment.
That happens to be Meghan's old photo from her blog, "McCainBlogette." It was practically her logo. She looks fantastic in it, and looks fantastic still.
That blog was very popular during the election, and it was really terrific. I'm surprised you didn't recognize the photo... it's the photo of her that seems to be most iconic across the internet.
Not that it has any bearing on the content her writing, which often needs more depth and insight, I think that Ms. McCain (and Mrs. McCain) are both beautiful women.
I also don't think you know very much about weight loss.
Joymars,
Get a life.
joy-
I didn't read
That much into
Your comments.
Just an observation on
Your part
What's the BFD?
Here here! Thank you for talking about we ALL need to be honest in our discourse about such a sensitive subject.
"Bottom line: honesty isn't a liberal or conservative issue. It's a human one. The sooner we realize that, the better off we'll be."
Truth.
The problem conservative Republicans are having with regard to abstinence is an inability to distinguish between public health policy and parenting.
Public health policy is a sort of safety net: "If all hell breaks loose, we are going to make sure kids don't get pregnant and/or venereal diseases." Parenting is what's supposed to guide kids so they never fall in the first place.
American conservatives conflate public health policy and parenting, which has two consequences, both negative: (1) it results in bad public health policy, e.g. abstinence-only education, and (2) it really offends those of us who are not Christian conservatives.
It's cool if Christian conservatives want to teach their kids abstinence is the only way. But public health policy should be about what's good for society as a whole, not what's good for Christian conservatives.
Republicans want women not to have a choice whether to keep their baby or not. They don't think that women should be capable of moral agency on this issue. To them, women are machines for reproduction that they own.
Meghan.
Meghan. WTF OVER?????
Why in the HELL do you continue to be a Republican?
It's like buying a Dodge and expecting Honda reliability and efficiency,
you can keep bitching that the Dodge just won't hold up
BUT trying to turn it into a Honda won't make it so.
So.... Ditch the Dodge and by a Honda...
Of course they ( G.O.P. ) are clueless, a bunch of OLD, WHITE,CONSERVATIVE,CLOSETED,CRUSTY,
OUT OF TOUCH,HYPOCRITICAL wing nuts are
not part of the 21st century and you continue to plead for them to
"Come of age" and join the 21st century.
As long as yahoo's like Limbaugh ( three times married ) run the party there is no hope.
One can only imagine what Limbaugh's take on SEX is, now there's a CREEPY thought.
Why don't you ask Rove,, he seems interested in YOU...
Since when does Rush Limbaugh run anything? He voices his opinion just like you're doing - just more intelligently (rather or not its a valid argument). People chose to listen to him. Meghan is fighting for the core beliefs of the republican party and trying to trim the outdated ideas. At its' core the republican party stands for fiscal restraint, individual responsibility, smaller government, lower taxes, international human rights and a stronger national security. Those are all things she's trying to get us to concentrate on as conservatives. Not outdated social issues like gay marriage, abortion and things of this nature. BTW I've owned a Honda and a Dodge and my dodge was a lot more reliable and cheaper to repair :-)
R U joking?.
"At its' core the republican party stands for fiscal restraint, individual responsibility, smaller government, lower taxes, international human rights and a stronger national security".
Fiscal Restraint? Really, When?.
Individual Responsibility. PLEASE.......
Smaller Government?. To the G.O.P. smaller government gives subsidies to BIG BUSINESS, cuts regulation for air and water safety, kills consumer protections, etc in the name of so called smaller government. Yes smaller government for Corporate America while it snoops and tramples on the rest of us.
Lower taxes. You are correct, to the top 1%.
International Human rights. Ask an Iraqi ( 60,000 dead ). Ask an Afgani. Ask any of the so called "Enemy Combatants" that have been tortured, sent to black sites , Ask those who were @ AbuGarib prison and abused, Ask someone from Darfur. Hell ask someone form the US Armed forces about their rights, sent off to an Illegal war on a lie.....
You are giving the usual "Talking Points" without backing it up.
George Bush is not the GOP. You're just spitting out opinions like I am - so lets not try not get into fact bashing. Lets however evaluate the current situation. For example republicans have been fighting large mis allocations of our current "stimulus bill". A good example of this would be handing Chrysler 27 billion dollars of tax payers money - then having them go in to bankruptcy. The money should have been sent elsewhere and they should have been allowed to have their inevitable bankruptcy. You have a president up there nationalizing banks, auto makers and eventually health care. How the hell can you say that's not an expansion of government? At the tax payers cost. I don't know about you but I've never really seen the government run the government very well - so its scary to think of them running the economy.
As for international human rights. I date an Iraqi Kurd - who's family is thrilled about the war in Iraq b/c they were being slaughtered by the thousands. We don't torture people you're a joke. The worst thing they did is dunk their head under water. Regardless of why we went in a lot of good has been done there. You are harping on an old point of contention and not looking at the positives. A dictator (who practiced genocide) is gone, a democracy is being born and we may finally have a stable companion in the region. Illegal war? Are you kidding Democrats and Republicans all voted in favor of the invasion. Maybe you were too busy drinking the kool aid to remember that.
It's hard to be a party that attempts to promote individual responsibility when they also promote abstaining completely from sex. It's a mixed message. Either you want people to take responsibility for their own actions and make an informed decision ( about sex in this case ), or you want to play 'Daddy knows best' and simply tell them which decision to make ( abstinence ).
I know that some would argue that they are presenting and promoting abstinence as a choice. The way in which this message is presented to its target audience makes it seem like the *only acceptable* choice.
Meghan is not your typical Republican, that much is statistically certain. Unless more people like her stand up within the Republican party, she may find herself standing alone on all but a few issues.
This is no longer the big tent inclusive party of Reagan.
The fact that people deny that water boarding a person is torture is one of the most glaringly ignorant things I've ever heard.
First, waterboarding is already illegal under United States law (hence all the memo brouhaha). It's illegal under the Geneva Conventions, under the Torture Act, under the Detainee Treatment Act, and it violates the Constitution. The nation's top military lawyers and legal experts have condemned waterboarding as torture. On top of all that, the United States prosecuted Japanese officers for engaging in waterboarding after World War II. This is not some obscure idea, it's a fact.
Second, if waterboarding wasn't a form of torture then why would people be grasping at straws to rationalize the behavior based on perceived results instead of the ethical rational for it? It's simple, it's because there isn't one.
You didn't bother trying to counter muddog's points because he's right. "George Bush is not the GOP" just doesn't cut it as a response.
If you think waterboarding is dunking someone's head under water, my husband (who has been waterboard) would like you to stop by our house and try it out. If you haven't done it, you have no right to describe it.
"Since when does Rush Limbaugh run anything?"
Since RNC chairman Michael Steele was pressured into apologizing to Rush and his rabid followers for denouncing him and for even suggesting that the GOP break free of the far right's stranglehold on its policy and power.
"Republican National Committee Chairman" may be an official title and the official seat of power, but when you expose a talk-radio juggernaut for the hateful reactionary that he is, and his Dittohead disciples - who make up a sizable amount of Republicans - force you to apologize for those comments, it's been made painfully clear that you're not really calling the shots in the GOP.
mattW323.
I am not stating "Opinion", if you think that is indeed the case then please by all means state your case with FACTS.
The G.O.P. has NEVER been about fiscal responsibility, again give me an example other than some peace meal tid bits taken out of the stimulus package. Obama is taking action because he was left a pile of SH*&T.
Yes, the Iraqi Kurds were killed when the 1st BUSH left them to die after they were asked to rise up against Sadam, so once again a Bush killed more Iraqi's. If you are that concerned about human rights then I would assume you think we should be in Somalia, Darfur, North Korea, Saudi Arabia. Yemen, China, Tibet, Congo etc etc etc..... Spare me the Republican's empathy for Human right, that BS.
Water Boarding is "Dunking your head under water", really?. Then I suggest you try it to prove that it is, just that......
Democrats did vote for military action, that is why I did not vote for Hillary, but @ least most of them have admitted it was mistake and will not make it again. Unlike Cheney, Bush and their ilk who still think it was a "Good Idea".
I am harping on an old point of contention??????......
Where is the stability in Iraq?. It is not better now then under Sadam, we killed tens of thousands for WMD errr I mean NO WMD>
I could on but...
I agree with muddog. The idea that the modern Republican party has EVER been about fiscal restraint is a myth completely contradicted by the facts. The Rep party-line response to the facts now is to try and blame it all on Bush and say he isn't what the parties about, but do you really count on people being that ignorant of history? Reagan and the first Bush were just as bad. The Dems are accused by the Reps of being the "tax and spend" party" and I actually agree with that criticism. But the Reps are, and long have been, the "debt and spend" party. That's why the party has zero credibility when it keeps condemning spending now as saddling future generations with debt. Reps have been doing that for 30 years. A vast majority of our debt was created by Republicans and they only got "religion" against debt when they stopped being the ones dictating what the debt was being spent on. In fact, even their half-hearted attempt at an alternative to the stimulus bill would have created almost as much debt, just in the form of more welfare for private corporations (and only modestly improved the situation to average taxpayers). The moment the Reps are in power again, all this talk of being anti-debt will fade again.
The honest reality is both national parties are obsessed with special interest spending, and long have been. The difference is Dems spend on social programs that benefit the Union-class and the disenfranchised and Reps spend on giving breaks to corporations and making military industrial complex corporations vastly wealthy. In this regard, both parties suck, frankly. But from a moral perspective, if the federal government is going to rob me of my earnings and waste them on special interests either way, I'd rather see it benefit the little guy than the shareholders or Exxon and Halliburton. And at least, historically speaking (this special financial crisis aside), modern Democratic presidents have on balance spent less than their Republican peers and have placed more priority on balancing budgets and reducing (however token against the total) the debt. No modern Republican president has ever cared about reducing the debt. So as someone who would really prefer a true fiscally conservative party, I'll take my chances with the Dems, thank you.
the profits of companies like halliburton and exxon dont go to share holders anymore. they are looted by the ceos and their criminal henchmen and hidden on offshore banks. something the republicans defend as "free market" - you'd think the fiscal conservatives republican or the law and order republicans would be against base criminality. nope.
plus the abstinance moralizing reeks of hipocracy when the repubicans hold fund raisers in strip clubs.
Muddog
R U joking? You rattle off talking points with no backup and accuse Matt of it. Across the board tax cuts are not the top 1%. Freeing countries of despots advances human rights. Abu Garib is a single speck of dirt in a body of work. The War was not illegal. The war was based on more than just WMDs. Enemy combatants that do not follow Geneva conventions are not entitled to be protected by them, not to mention US Constitutional rights. Snoops and tramples - ever deal with the IRS when a Democrat is in office. I am still waiting for the first name of a US citizen whose rights were violated by the Bush Administration. Now that I think about it ... I do recall people talking on cell phones being rounded up and being tortured for information regarding international phone calls. Fiscal Responsibility - It was Republicans in Congress (congress controls spending) that balanced the budget - was it not?
This issue should be discussed openly. It doesn't matter which party we come from. I found that people who go to church often don't think that their little Johnnie or Susie are having sex at all. We know that isn't true. I have come to the conclusion that you teach your kids abstinence but if you don't think you can handle that come to me and I will take you to the doctor to get you protection to prevent unwanted births. Parents need to get with the program and stop having their heads in the sand. I don't want my child having sex but I know he/she will. I talk with my child about everything. I don't hide anything if they have a question about sex. Now am no experienced in sex. I married late in life and had only 1 partner and I married him. If I don't have the answer my child is looking for I go and find it. It is important that kids know that bed hopping isn't what acceptable either.
Just because the GOP wants Abstinance only taught in the Public School system doesn't mean that the GOP is clueless on sex. It means that the GOP beleives that the government does a lousy job at teaching values. I don't want my kids attempting to learn values from a the piss poor public schools. I'll teach them about condoms, birth control, and other methods, as well as the morality of the subject at home.
Look, the reality is, kids are going to have sex.
That's life.
We can be mature adults and deal with it.
Or we can be idiots and rant and rave about abstinence.
The Dutch have mandatory sex ed in their public schools and they give out free birth control.
We have all this abstinence silliness.
Guess who has the lower teen pregnancy rate?
I live in a city that has, for more than twenty five years, been in the top five for per capita teen pregnancies and teen STD's. Guess what is taught in the shcool system here? Abstinence only.
Why should anyone change what is so obviously working so very well? (sarcasm intended)
Why should honest, frank discussions about sex and sexuality include things like natural drives, birth control, and abstinence?
After all, not talking about it openly has gotten us this far.
Megan, apart from the very last line of this piece, I have to say this is about the worst thing you have ever written.
Who are you? Are you a Republican who is trying to learn how to identify with your age and your desires? Or are you a whole person who is trying really, really hard to continue to identify as a Republican.
It's confusing and sad.
I think you might be smart, but the apron strings are so strong and so tight you seem to be unable to speak for yourself, even though you keep screaming that you are.
@rlord49: I think she is very smart. Right now she identifies as a Republican. She has certain ideas about the party, mostly stemming from her experience as the daughter of a Republican senator. This is a vastly different experience and idea of what Republicans stand for ( and what they actually do ) than most of us have.
Personally I'm curious to see how she develops. I think she has great moral courage, and I'm wondering if this will lead her to play a role in reforming her current party, or creating/joining a new one
The reality of the moment is, the core principles that she shares in common with her party ( individual responsibility, fiscal responsibility, smaller government ) are exactly the areas in which Republicans have continuously failed, despite their angry rhetoric to the contrary.
When a politician uses his/her family as part of the campaign, even if its just appearing on stage with him/her, the family should expect scrutiny. Otherwise, the media/press isn't doing its job, really. They aren't supposed to be a PR effort for the politician, showing photos of the family smiling and looking happy and wholesome, a testimonial to the politician. I don't think the media does enough questioning about the families. How long has John Murtha's nephew been raking in loot before the media got on it?
hithere - That's the best summation I've read as yet. I've never been able to see past the BS to the core of republican thinking. But you almost make them seem reasonable. I don't agree with them, but now can at least see where they're coming from. Now can you clarify how a party that is so against the "nanny" government in health care and workers rights feels able to be the arbitrator in so called morals issues.
Personally i think sex should be kept private, with that said, I think sex is like smoking, the more you smoke the more you smoke.
Whether it is because it is thrilling or momentarily satisfying is hard to say.
The idea that a person is just going do a little, or take a little drag, doesn't work.
So a person who tries to not smoke has to stay away from other smokers, so it might be like that with sex, you will have to lock yourself up away from attractive people. Then, if you are not in a couple you have to deal with explaining why you are or aren't gay, not that you happen to be abstaining.
This is the key point of your entire writing, and you hit it right on the head: "Unfortunately, Republicans typically don't like to discuss or deal with things they think are wrong or immoral." The entire conservative message about sex is, "If you do it outside marriage, then it's evil and you deserve what you get, end of discussion." This is the attitude of avoidance that permeates not only their moral attitudes but many others. They believe if you declare something wrong or evil then you can simply ignore trying to deal with it, because it's already been dealt with.
The fact is, far, far more people are having sex outside of marriage despite their admonishment, and not all of them think it is wrong and yet, much like the issue with gay marriage, there's no place in the party for "those" people. Thus, we don't have to deal with unmarried sex, pregnancy, and diseases, because they're wrong. We don't have to deal with gay marriage, because it's wrong.
In a similar bent, they've been labeled the party of "no" for that very reason -- do you agree with the policy? NO! Do you agree with this bill? NO! Do you have any ideas on how to solve it? NO!
As someone said the other day, to become viable and meaningful again, the Republicans have to take the viewpoint of generating ideas, solutions, and plans for handling any and ALL circumstances, right or wrong, moral or immoral, party-line or opposing standpoint. Only then will people see some true future in it, as opposed to a cranky toddler stamping his foot and tossing a temper tantrum because he didn't get his way.
Excellent post.
Nathan-
Your post
Reminded me
Of something I read
Earlier this evening
So I'll put it up for you.
The Republicans have taken a position as consistent as it is negative. You know
their record: On urban renewal- stall it. On low-rent public housing- kill it. On moderate
income private housing- bury it. On aid for public schools- block it. On aid for hospitals-
reduce it. On mass transportation- ignore it. On control of stream pollution- abandon it.
On air pollution control- study it. On alleviating juvenile delinquency- research it.
President John F. Kennedy 1960
Guess they
Were having trouble
Generating ideas
Back then too.
Sorry about the way
This went up.
Nothing like
The way I typed it.
If it works - tax it.
If it fails - subsidize it.
If it fails after you subsidize it - double down.
If it demonstrates individual accomplishment - punish it.
If it demonstrates individual failure - blame it on the accomplishers.
If it fails - cuddle it.
If it is communist - embrace it
If it is capitalist - destroy it.
- Me
Doggie-
Ideology
Is a thinkers
Prison.
-Me
Here are our ideas:
Personal responsibility and morality
Small government
Low taxes
Strong defense
Personal freedom (Liberty)
Government policies that acknowledge that unfettered capitalism leads to the most robust economic growth.
What are yours?
Who is "our" in your laundry list?
The current Republicans? 2 out of 6
The Republicans of the past? 3-4 out of 6
The Libertarians? 4 out of 6
Democrats? 3 out of 6
Or do you represent some new party or organizatrion?
You left out Apple pie and Mom
StyleDoggie - that means you are pro-choice right?
Hardrain, the 'our' is Conservatism. Navadog, no, pro-life - which of those principles makes you think pro-abortion, individual freedom? Not over someone else's life.
Your list sounded like your views are more Libertarian then of the social conservative minded since you did not emphasize their usual concerns.
I understand your pro-life stance, but if you believe in personal freedom then you are would not condone consensual sex between adults would you?
@StyleDoggie -- Most of those I could agree with if any of the current Republicans actually practiced those traditional, Republican ideals, but they don't. Hence, I feel there's no future for them in the current landscape. I think this is what Meghann is going for -- moving back to applying the traditional Republican viewpoints instead of what's been bastardized since. If they truly did that, I'd find myself a lot more on the fence than on the left like I am now, I can tell you that much.
Meghan you are spot on once again. I've always felt that education is the best answer to most problems. It is really stupid on the part of parents just to not admit that their teenagers can be sexual creatures. Parents need to feel obligated to supplement whatever sex ed their kids are getting in highschool. Without openness and education the situation with STDs and teen pregnancy will just spiral out of control. Like with so many other facets of life, humans need to be given as much factual information as possible, and then they can make the best choice for them.
Thank you Meghan for showing the world that you have common sense. It is obvious that your parents have done a great job raising you. P.S. I still think you are secretly a democrat.
Sarah Palin, in her video, often appears to be flirting, sort of the way beauty queens do in a pageant, and at the same time they appear to be anti sex, I don't like that at all. People should be respecting other people's privacy and accept a person's sexual situation should be private.
That is where the men again have the advantage, they are called Mr. no matter what.
Actually, Ms. is pretty common these days.
Great Blog. The GOP needs stop acting less holier than thou and more human. Maybe then they wouldn't get caught in so many sex scandels themselves.
I completely agree with your assessment of how Republicans, in general, view sex. I think my teen years would have been a lot less confusing and stressful had my conservative parents been more open with me about the facts. It's a shame we, as a country, hold onto these outdated notions that if we ignore it, or restrict it as much as possible, then everything will be alright. How foolish!
Keep up the great writing! And on a completely different matter, your twitter feed keeps me entertained at work. You rock!
confused -- Thank you. :) My unscholarly opinion is that the aversion to/embrace of top-down government control among conservative Republicans is classic hypocrisy. They don't want other people's rules to apply to them, but they'd be overjoyed to see other people forced to abide by their rules.
Hi Meghan, I'm a Democrat but I love your tweets and blogs and your spunk. Frankly I think you are really a Democrat and are fighting it. Why do you still stubbornly identify with the Republican Party when you seem to disagree with so much of what they support? Also I am interested in your views on teaching kids self-pleasuring as a part of sex ed.
Best wishes
I generally find Meghan to be an intelligent and critical thinker, which is refreshing in a Republican. However, while she is criticizing the GOP's tendency to blanket young Republican women with expectations of chastity and purity, she commits the same fallacy of lock-step Republican thinking. She actually says "As a Republican, I am pro-life." If she replaced "Republican" with "Christian," than I would understand. You can't get frustrated over the GOP's complete submission to conservative Christian values, and then display the same inability to separate your religion from your political affiliation. Disappointing.
I so agree with you. Are all Republicans pro-life or anti-choice? I thought she wanted the party to be inclusive. Also the word prolife is misleading! Who isn't to life? I don't think anyone is pro-abortion! Most of us who are pro-choice think this is a personal issue that a woman should decide. The government should not have control of a womans body and right to choose.
I was also disapponted when McCain said as a Republican , she is pro-life! She just put up another barrier implying if you are pro-choice, you can't be in her Republican party. Hmmmm...I agree..disappointing.
I agree. The one thing that I am disappointed about with Meghan is her pro-life stance.
I would like to see Meghan clarify her opinion on abortion. She said on Larry King that she is Pro-Life but she isn't going to judge what other people do with their bodies....umm...doesn't that mean she is pro-choice???
Actually, one can be prolife and prochoice all at the same time. It's quite easy. Be pro life for yourself. If you somehow end up with an unwanted pregnancy, you decide that based upon your beliefs, and your upbringing, that you will go ahead with the pregnancy and have the baby. If you decide to not keep the baby, there is always adoption. The pro choice option comes in where you are not going to dictate your beliefs onto others.
In short - pro life because you would never have an abortion yourself, but pro choice in that you wouldn't prevent someone else from having that option.
1.) Your opening paragraph makes me feel very very old.
2.) I would no sooner ask a politician about attitudes towards sex than I would ask a stripper on how he/she would handle a massive trade deficit brought on by a country who manipulates its currency.
As a bleeding-heart liberal, I must say first that I'm so glad that you're doing what you're doing. What fun is a dying GOP for a liberal? I'd much rather have a logical, common-sense party to be opposite mine than the part of the GOP that's dying a sad death. I'm glad you're around, Meghan, and I'm glad that you're writing.
I LOVE this piece, and I commend you for your bravery in writing it. This is the kind of common ground that both sides are claiming doesn't exist. This, here, is where both sides can work together. I agree with a lot of what you said.
The one sticking point for me is this sentence:
"We live in a big world, one where you can contract a life-long STD, have an unplanned pregnancy, or get date-raped, just to name a few of the dangerous results of having sex."
Maybe it wasn't your intention and it's just one of those sentences that's awkward to structure, but as written, it reads as though you believe that date or acquaintance rape happens because someone decides to have sex. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt here and assume awkward sentence construction, but can you explain where you were going with the date/acquaintance rape reference?
I'll give Meghan the benefit of the doubt regarding intent while mentioning date rape. I do, however, feel like I need to point out that anyone who has ever experienced "date rape" knows that it's "real" rape, and that has nothing to do with sex, and everything to do with violence and power over the victim.
I see what you're saying. I think its an oddly constructed sentence. Read into the spirit of what she was trying to say. She was pointing out the dangerous nature of our world.
In a world with such multifaceted and complex problems, it doesn't make sense to apply hard and fast rules.
Replace "can" with "could" and insert "possible" between "the" and "dangerous", and, there, problem solved. I'll give her the benefit of the doubt and call this a grammatical slip-up.
Meghan, thank you for having a rational conversation about this issue. The GOP has consistently tried to control a person's sex life through the use of the law. They tied federal money for schools up with abstinence only programs while at the same time advocating for the criminalization of abortion to take away an option for women who have had unplanned pregnancies. Rather than giving women the information and funding needed to prevent unplanned pregnancies, they silenced educators and took away funding for contraceptives. In four years at my college, I watched the price of birth control go from $5 a pill back to $30. And why was this? Because I shouldn't have sex (even with my HUSBAND!) until I am ready to have a baby. Just as Meghan says, they don't want me to have sex to ENJOY it, they only want me to have sex in order to engage in my function as a BABY MACHINE. No thank you. I will have a baby when I want one, when I feel I am physically, emotionally, and financially ready. But women aren't the only targets of the anti-sex conservatives. They lost the debate over the anti-sodomy laws, so the GOP then sought to ban gay-marriage. What hapenned to limited governmental interference? It seems to me the GOP wants to interfere in the most intimate areas of a person's life, their sexual experiences.
In response to others who question Ms. McCain's stance on abortion, I feel I have the same stance. It is entirely possible to be pro-life and pro-choice at the same time. I would never personally have an abortion, but when it comes down to it, it is wrong for a government to force a woman to bring a pregnancy to term, to go through the labor and delivery, and to deal with all the consequences that are related to having a child. I support organizations who seek to end abortions by emotionally and financially helping women who face this tough decision, but I do not support the criminalization of abortions. If the GOP stance was really based on the consequences that abortion has for the unborn baby, this should be an easy issue to reach a middle ground----increase funding and education for contraceptives. Every non-medically related abortion is the result of an unplanned pregnancy, afterall, and European countries who have engaged in social campaigns encouraging contraceptives have seen abortions at all time lows despite liberal abortion laws. Alternatively, countries in Africa and Latin America with the highest abortion rates have the strictest anti-abortion laws. I couldn't agree more that this is a HUMAN, and not a political issue. Good for you for pointing this out, Meghan! I'm a good Dem, but I would vote for you if you ran for office!
Thank you.
As a first time user, your comment has been submitted for review. It can take anywhere from a few hours to a day or two for your comment to be reviewed, depending on the time of week and the volume of comments we receive.
Please log in to leave comments.