Initially, I was elated.
Heard the news about Jack Ryan Monday, something about wife abuse surfacing in his divorce papers. Great! The Ds were already poised to take back a precious senate seat from the Rs in Illinois, this would just about clinch it. Didn't have time to read the whole story, didn't know exactly what the charges were.
Tuesday night I caught the local news. I was staying in Chicago, so it was the huge lead story. Some asshole newsmodel introduced it by saying that the divorce showed one thing quite clearly, that Jack Ryan was obsessed with having sex in public. Then I got the rest of the story. Three times in eight years, he dragged his wife to a swinger's club, tried to coax her to do the deed in a group setting.
Three times in eight years, that's an obsession? Three times in eight years? Especially when he never got to do it, so for him he was still working on the first time? What would constitute a mild curiosity?
And that's only if you believe every word of her version, her version in a legal battle where she was trying to make it sound as bad as humanly possible. The story always looks a little different when you get the other side.
It's a safe bet he had a group-sex fantasy, she didn't. Big freaking deal. We can't even tell whether he was really into that kind of stuff, sounds like he never got the chance to find out.
And this disqualifies a person for the U.S. Senate?
Half the men in the country have that fantasy, maybe three quarters. Having the guts to actually act one of your fantasies, that's disqualification for office? To refuse to be shackled by society's puritanical sensibility about how you should lead your sex life, and actually go out and explore a bit, discover what it is you really enjoy, find out a bit about who you are and how you want to live your life, that's a bad thing?
Are we ever going to escape our puritanical past? So we were founded by Puritans, can we get over it, please? The outcry from the media, and the mealey-mouthed Republicans, and yes a shitload of dems chiming in, too . . . Disgusting.
On Wednesday, even Slate ran a piece denouncing not just Ryan, but Republicans for refusing to denounce him. Good God. It was written by their chief political correspondent, William Saletan, and it's astounding.
Hadn't seen a soul coming to his defense all week until Salon posted its cover story by Lily Burana, asking, "Do the sex lives of our politicians have to be strictly vanilla?" Thank you. (No, is her emphatic reply, by the way.) Here's a little taste:
For such a sex-obsessed populace, Americans are oddly prudish when it comes to politics. We're always shocked, shocked to hear some libidinal blip from Washington. (Maybe because wonks and politicos look so unsexy, all neckties, immobile anchor-dude hair and pit-stained campaign trail button-downs. And those ladies in their serious suits. Bleah. It's the one uniform we haven't fetishized -- perhaps for good reason.)
And the bit that kills me about this story is the argument that it's really about degradation to his wife. Please. That is NOT what is causing the uproar. He may well have been a jerk to his wife--if we're to believe one side of the story as the whole story. Being a jerk sucks, but come on. Like the senate is not full of assholes who have been jerks to their wives. Nobody ever had a scandal about being a jerk to his wife. What a smokescreen.
And how much of a jerk was he? Three times in eight years? That may sound cold, but get real. Have you not been a jerk to your boyfriend/girlfriend/husband/wife three times in the last eight years? One year? I'm a jerk occasionally. I'm quite sure all my ex's could compile a list of jerkoff moments. I'm not proud of them, but I wouldn't expect them to get me drummed out of a senate race.
Burana's piece tackles that idea succinctly:
If this were the story of an abused or betrayed ex-wife, that would be one thing, a mark on Mr. Ryan's character that would be of some political merit. ("If that's how a politician treats his wife, how might he treat his constituents?") But Ms. Ryan has stated that neither she nor her son was physically harmed, she believes Mr. Ryan was faithful during their marriage, that he is "a good man, a loving father" and that she has "no doubt that he will make an excellent senator." Sounds like the sex-club fiasco was basically a case of incompatible taste, with some ham-handed clueless guy "encouragement" tossed in. Mr. Ryan was right to point out that he didn't break any laws, any vows or any Commandments. Sure, his oafish, coercive behavior (if allegations are true) could destroy a marriage. But should mere allegations of same destroy a career?
Exactly. If you happen to be dating this guy, the divorce papers might make you think twice about whether this is the guy for you. Number one, are you into that kinda stuff, and number two, is he the kind of dick who's going to try to trick you and coerce you into going along with shit you've told him your not in to? Serious questions for potential partners, no basis for electing a senator.
None of this was about his wife. It was all about the sex. Freaking Puritans.
