So, what about Christine O’Donnell and masturbation, anyway?
Now if that’s not a provocative title, I don’t know what is.
At issue: a tape of O’Donnell from 1996 that opponents dredged up and which was then aired by Rachel Maddow on her MSNBC show. It features O’Donnell speaking out against masturbation, as part of an MTV program entitled “Sex in the 90s.” At the time she was president of a group called SALT, which lobbied “and focused on advocating chastity and other Christian values in the college-age generation.”
Take a look for yourself at the tape of the young (and 90s-coiffed) O’Donnell, and see what she was saying back then:
These may not be popular beliefs among voters. But they are certainly standard and not especially controversial stances for many of those who hold fundamentalist Christian views. The fact that they are considered ridiculous by so many opponents tells us how far our culture has departed from ideas that used to be fairly commonplace, and how little respect remains for that tradition.
There’s more. In an article written in 1998, O’Donnell made it clear that her focus was not on condemning or advocating certain specific sexual practices (loss of virginity vs. abstinence) so much as promoting and striving for a generally respectful and sacred attitude towards sex.
Funny that this article hasn’t gotten nearly as much publicity as the tape. Not surprising, though; it provides less fodder for gleeful mockery,
But why should anyone care what O’Donnell thought about masturbation in 1996 (I know, I know; it makes a great YouTube video)? After all, that was nearly a decade and a half ago, when O’Donnell was in her mid-twenties. Shouldn’t our interest be in her present positions, and only to the extent that they are likely to translate into public policy and political action?
O’Donnell is now forty-one years old. Fortunately, she has spoken up on the subject—although her many detractors probably won’t pay much attention or give what she says on the subject much credence:
These are questions from statements I made over 15 years ago. I was in my 20s and very excited and passionate about my newfound faith. But I can assure you, my faith has matured. And when I go to Washington D.C., it will be the Constitution on which I base all of my decisions, not my personal beliefs.”
Ah, but that’s so much more dull.
[ADDENDUM: I wonder what the left will do with this information: O’Donnell was promiscuous before she was chaste.]
Two can play the game, as shown by the title of an article Coons wrote.Chris Coons: The Making of a Bearded Marxist.”
You want to bring up the past, we will bring up the past. Joke or not, irony or not, he wrote it.
Where is the diversity crowd respecting this woman’s views? I think Americans are about fed up with liberalism and its fashionable thought policing.
This is an incredibly stupid move by the left.
Most people are worried about finding or keeping a job.
They are worried about whether they’ll be able to keep their house.
They are wondering whether they’ll have health insurance 3 years from now.
They’re worried whether some government entity is going to decide whether it is just too damn costly to keep granny around another year or two.
And they’re beginning to think that they’ll be lucky if they can retire at age 95 or so.
They really, really don’t care about a candidate’s stand on masturbation.
So…with Democrats, it’s called, “youthful indiscretion”. With Conservatives, it’s a deal-breaker? YMBFSM!
you work with what you have, not what you wish you have, and all they have is that.
There is a long Christian understanding that the effects on society of adultery are greater than the effects of secret lust, just as the effects on society of murder are greater than secret hatred. But there is also long teaching that rehearsing a behavior in one’s heart can lead to that behavior. Nor is that peculiar to Christians, as it is found in the Jewish scriptures as well. Jesus’s teaching is more radical, that you do damage to your soul even if the thought never fully flowers into action.
The milder claim, that thoughts are dangerous precursors to action, should not seem odd to liberals. It is the entire foundation of their accusations about hate speech leading to violence (even when the speech is not hate but mere disagreement) – and violent media, shooting sports, pretend weaponry, and sexual objectification come in for the same criticism as well. There are pockets of liberalism which decry competitive games, much of common humor, and gender stereotypical childhood play as well.
There are even nontheistic liberals would even go so far as to agree with Jesus’s more radical version that the thought itself is damaging – though they haven’t made that connection and would be disquieted if the source were pointed out.
The difference is they really believe those things are wrong. When you believe something is really wrong, you don’t want children rehearsing it. Not that nonbelievers don’t believe that adultery is wrong, but they are much more squishy on the issue, allowing many more exceptions and being much less likely to condemn it. (Unless they are the victim, of course.)
One can disagree that rehearsal actually does lead to behavior – I sidestep that very interesting discussion for the moment. But the irony, the inability to see that they do precisely the same thing they find ridiculous in O’Donnell’s old statements, is rather delicious.
If liberals ever develop self-knowledge, they will cease to exist.
…At the time she was president of a group [ironically] called SALT…
This shouldn’t be the gift that keeps on giving, please…
O’Donnell’s statements about masturbation are (or at least were when I was young) standard statements found in the Roman Catholic catechism for children and young people. There used to be nothing strange or controversial about such thinking in regular Roman Catholic homes, schools and churches.
Assistant Village Idiot above has provided the basic reason for the negative view Catholic clergy has about masturbation. What you do in thought is a rehearsal for later overt actions. In short, if you think about something long enough and often enough, you increase the probability that you will do it in actuality.
Since masturbation plays no role in decision-making in Congress, why should anyone bring this topic up as relevant to voting for O’Donnell? Why do attractive, articulate conservative women get pounded on by Democrats?
Do you know that for a fact?
Major village idiot above, Gloria, provided Roman Catholicism as a model for moral behavior, the same sect that has successfully steered media terminology on the coverage on child rape and torture as child “abuse” and who has elected as their vicar on earth a man who has willfully turned a blind eye to these horrors. I have news for you and your church; “abuse” is receiving two servings of steamed broccoli … … “What you do in thought is a rehearsal for later overt actions.” By what authority, or divine knowledge, do you presume this credulous statement? What you wish to conceal dear Gloria is that it’s a matter of a way of thinking, a process for deriving a decision. It’s not masturbation in and of itself, why would anyone young, old, today, or yesterday mount a campaign on something that is none of their business, it’s not a championing of individualism, individualism is about how the individual defines it, not some person, group, or otherwise. It is about opportunism, about being a religious entrepreneur, about scooping up gullible people and exploiting them. I’m giving O’Donnell a short term benefit of the doubt but not for long.
“”Why do attractive, articulate conservative women get pounded on by Democrats?””
Liberals can’t help themselves. Threat of pop culture ridicule got them to be such obedient little conformist. They really resent anyone who demonstrably possesses the courage to avoid it.
Nyomythus, The same scrutiny applied to secular teachers i suspect would prove Catholicism lightyears ahead in providing a safe environment for kids. You have virtually no perspective on such issues like most liberals. Which is the result of an anti Christian agenda being shoved down your throat and you kinda like it because such a narrative convieniently relieves you of any and all standards during your stay here.
nyomythus,
Gloria was not advocating for the Cathollic position. I am familiar with Gloria from her well thought out comments on other blogs and know she is not a Catholic. She was merely pointing out that O’Donnell’s thoughts were not anything out of the mainstream of Catholic thought. In other words, O’Donnell isn’t a religious nut.
It would appear that O’Donnell has accepted the view that our government is about the relationship between the people in this nation while religion is about one’s personal relationship with God. One’s religion can inform your judgments but in a democracy like the U.S. one has to recognize that there are people of many faiths and those of little or no faith that must all be represented. At least that’s my take.
It’s embarrassing in retrospect to have been videotaped saying the M word so many times (note how Rachel what’s-her-name at MSNBC carefully avoids saying it), but Christine’s earnestness is very appealing.
nyomythus – so far, everyone who has thought it clever online to make the obvious joke about my handle has turned out to be a wanker.
The simplest point would be that you have not read carefully what others, Gloria especially, has written. You have some preloaded rant that you wanted to regale us with whenever someone got near the topic.
Secondly, that you have an idiosyncratic definition of “abuse” as a mild word does not change its common meaning.
As for whether thought actually does lead to action, I had already stated that I was considering that a separate topic. It would be an interesting discussion to have – but not with you. There’s no point in writing for people who don’t bother to read.
If this hasn’t been mentioned, The Atlantic Monthly says O’Donnell “nailed” her first speech since her primary victory (you can see it on C-Span).
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2010/09/christine-odonnell-nails-her-first-major-speech-since-her-election/63188/
I don’t really care what she thinks about issues like this, but she was out there on TV talking about it, so it will be news. That is the way it works anymore. Nothing ever really goes away entirely. I was more bothered by her show with O’Reilly in 2007 and her statements about mice being implanted with fully developed human brains than I am about her views on masturbation.
The truth is O’Donnell has some baggage. People can get pissy with people like Rove for pointing out the obvious and suggesting she deal with it…but like at Maes in Colorado. You just never know what can come about people if they are not really vetted.
I also think that the problems that will really dog her will be related to her honesty and character…a lot of this social conservative stuff and off the cuff remarks won’t be her biggest liability.
One thing I learned after watching Obama win, speeches and messages are not all that matters. I think some folks on the right need to remember that when it comes to some of their own candidates.
Steve:
I am not a Democrat and I am not the left and I have no desire to pound Christine O’Donnell, but I do think that if she were 20 years older and 30 pounds heavier there would be a lot of people on her own side who would not consider her such an attractive candidate.
It is as if all the stuff about not paying her bills, lying in interviews, lying in law suits, tax liens, forclosures, claims of people bugging her phone and stalking her, and on and on just do not matter. It is all just people picking on poor little Christine. You can not play that victim card forever.
Like I said, I am not a liberal or a Democrat. O’Donnell is the one of the few Tea Party candidates that I have had a problem with..and I am surprised at how many people seem willing to just ignore these obvious issues or simply accuse anyone who does have a problem of being an apostate or a liberal.
56,000 people voted in that Delaware primary in a state with a population of about 880,000. They had every right to vote for whoever they wanted of course, but now it is the rest of Delaware’s turn and they might not be so willing to overlook all this stuff.
Terrye? Not sure if you’re addressing me but i’ll take a shot at a response. Three words. Cap and Trade.
I’ll take a personal baggage free marketer over a marxist ideologue any and every day of the week.
What’s the point of arguing about O’Donnell? Either you are for her (either rhetorically or practically, by sending money) or you are for Coons. There is no other choice.
We are reaching the point that Wretchard worried about, when the only question that matters is, “Which side are you on?”
Oblio;
That’s exactly right. The preliminary carping and vetting and voting is OVER. It’s time to get behind your chosen candidate–not in front, so she or he is tripping over dofus you–which is one of the points eloquently made by both Palin and O’Donnell last evening. Otherwise said, Terrye et al, are you going to be a candidate’s assets or silly distractions?
I acknowledge that we evangelicals may have confirmation bias on our assessment of this situation, but it seems to us that we have been good soldiers for a lot of years now, swallowing hard and supporting candidates we aren’t that fond of, for the good of the coalition. Now the shoe is on the other foot and I don’t like what I’m seeing.
That’s not to say that I know anything about O’Donnell and whether she is a worthy candidate and recipient of support for office. But I’m thinking that the threshold should be awfully high for Republicans who aren’t strong social conservatives to jump ship on this one.
“I’ll take a personal baggage free marketer over a marxist ideologue any and every day of the week.”
I second, third and fourth that!!!
“She’s a Witch! May we Burn Her?”
StevenH — you have the stats on that? Would you rather your child attend a public school or a private catholic school?
scrutiny applied to secular teachers i suspect would prove Catholicism lightyears ahead in providing a safe environment for kids.
Really? light years?
nyomythus – of course, you could have looked it up yourself, if you were actually interested in the answer, rather than merely trying to discredit groups you disagree with – but here goes.
http://www.catholicleague.org/research/abuse_in_social_context.htm
We’re playing whack-a-mole with nyo, folks. When he gets beaten down on any issue, he doesn’t acknowledge it, just switches to something else.
Just say God. 🙂
No one remembers their mother telling them they used to have to confess for having, “impure thoughts?” I sure do. Anyone who really thinks about it must understand that looking at porn and masturbating ain’t really being that faithful to one’s spouse. Unless, for some strange reason, the spouse doesn’t mind or actually likes it.
A friend posted the video on Facebook mocking O’Donnell’s statements on masturbation. Without watching it I thought, “Oh no, some wacko stuff, I’m sure.” Then I actually watched it and it is no different than what Dr. Laura says about the subject. The only reason it’s strange and “out there” is that we as a culture have gotten so far away from morals and what is best or right.
Just goes to show how much the secular left drives the culture. Look, if one is single, I don’t think masturbating is a big deal. I believe she was referring to the act for someone who is married or committed to someone else. Is it really so far out to say that getting “relief” by one’s self when one is in a committed relationship may not be a healthy thing 100% of the time?
What if O’Donnell was Muslim? Would Rachel Maddow make fun of her beliefs? Don’t think so. It’s okay to make fun of and ridicule the “stupid” Christian lady.