Class war in the war on sex
Amanda at the brand new all, singing, all dancing Pandagon asks the question how much class war there is in the Republicans’ war on sex:
On the surface it seems odd that the party that mainly exists to protect the aristocracy?s wealth from us grubby peasants would embrace the War on Sex so enthusiastically. The obvious reason for it is to get some grubby peasants to vote?we may not have money, but we can force you to live like we tell you?but I tend to think there?s some philosophical consistency as well. Consider that non-procreative sex is pretty much one of the most fun things adults can do. And it?s available to poor people?which just has to bug the crap out of your average conservative, you know, the one that complains that welfare recipients are allowed to watch TV. To the pro-aristocratic mindset, fun like that should be a luxury purchased with cold, hard cash, like other indulgences like expensive wine or yachts. One might even suggest it devalues sex a little bit if just any old person can have it. So the interests, in this case, of the wealthy dovetail rather nicely with the neighbor-judgers.
Justice Scalia?s reaction to the NYU law student who asked him if he sodomizes his wife really drove this home for me. Scalia, after all, thinks that the government has every right to come bursting into your house and telling you how to fuck, but he clearly thinks that he does not have to disclose his private information to the citizens he works for. Scalia claims he doesn?t believe you have a right to privacy, but he seems to think he has a right to privacy. From a democratic viewpoint, this is intolerable. From an aristocratic viewpoint, it is the natural order?of course Scalia is not accountable to the peasants.