The Politics of Sex

By Sara

I lost my virginity at a 4-hour hooker motel in Bushwick, Brooklyn during a rainstorm at 3am. It was actually meant as a casual escape from a breakdancing party where I did not feel I fit in. Before I knew what I was doing, I was leaning close to the bright-red ear of my then-boyfriend and whispering that I thought tonight was the night. He grabbed my hand and we left without saying goodbye. And the rest is history.

But I digress. From what, I’m not sure.

I guess what I’m trying to say is, yeah, it’s a wild story and it was, actually, a very wild night, but we were safe (well, as safe as you can be in Bushwick). We used condoms. And to me, that’s all that matters.

I feel like the current trend is to act overtly sexual and then be really, really embarrassed about the actual act. It’s okay for 10-year-olds to wear lip gloss and bikinis, but it’s not okay to talk about sex itself.

The act of sex is intimate and, hopefully, loving. It’s natural. It’s necessary. Why are we so freaked out?

And why, seriously, why are we letting this affect our politics?

Elliot Spitzer was doing some pretty great things before this whole hooker scandal. While I agree that what he did was morally reprehensible (and I really do), it does not in any way tell us what kind of governor he is. Well, was. Yes, he was hypocritical. Yes, he was unfaithful. But politically, he was doing a great job. Why should he resign for something completely unrelated to politics?

On an almost opposite note, we take Hillary Clinton and we make her into this chaste prude. We call her ice queen, we crack jokes about her husband’s infidelity. We want her to have a little more femininity, a little more sex. Again, Clinton’s campaign has been one long roll of suck, but that has nothing to do with her sex life.

So which is it, America? More sex or less? Why must we be so puritanical that we demand an exact measure of sexual tension, no more, no less, from not only our citizens and our celebrities, but from our politicians?