No, they want to control her behavior.
I don’t understand why a party thinks “end sex for fun” is a vote-winning platform. It’s literally one of the most natural instincts and drives of human psyche.
You might as well try to win votes on a platform of, “Stop making food taste delicious. It’s about NUTRITION, not enjoyment!”
They don’t think the rules will apply to them, only to THOSE people.
For example I have two cousins, both non-white immigrants, and former illegal immigrants at that. One was legalized via an amnesty, the other by a sham marriage.
Both of them are virulently anti immigrant and carp on about how a society cannot survive being overwhelmed by “outsiders”
They both think that white supremacy and anti-immigration forces they support have a secret “out clause” for them, because they are “good people”.
One of them is as outraged when I said that I thought $100k in tax evasion is ten times worse than $10k in welfare fraud. Because now he’s in the tax evasion business, while his welfare fraud days are 40 years in the past.
God, I hope so.
That’s the part of the OP’s cite that has my eyes just spinning around. On one team, Rufo sez that it’s “natural, normal and good” that “the point of sex is to create children”.
On the opposing team, Rufo complains about the “dysfunction” of “single-mother households”: i.e., a subset of the people for whom sex did create children, which could have been prevented by effective birth control.
It’s a Catch-22: if you do use birth control then you’re blamed for not supporting the “true purpose” of sex as procreation, and if you don’t use birth control and you procreate then you’re blamed for “poverty, crime and dysfunction”.
If you were to implement the anti-immigration and anti-sex policies, aren’t you more likely to breed your society into a genetic cul-de-sac and getting overwhelmed?
Yeah, well traditionally you have abstinence until marriage, which marriage lasts until death except in very rare circumstances.
~Max
He’s out of his mind. It’s obvious that the purpose of PiV sex is to create an orgasm. Men who are doing it right (by striving for a good time for their partner) maximize their opportunities for more PiV sex.
That would be Mary Harrington, who is British, speaking at a 2023 panel hosted by the Heritage Foundation called “Reactionary Feminism: Sex and the Market” (follow link for full video, tweet below). What can I say, it’s a think tank. They don’t work without some diversity of viewpoints.
~Max
Why would feminists support “returning the consequentiality to sex”?! 
Most of the biological consequences of sex fall on women, and financial consequences fall on men only when government is willing to impose them (child support).
Which brings me to a broader point: this is part and parcel of the rightwing/reactionary mania for returning consequentiality almost everywhere it’s been reduced. Radical deregulation, elimination of any form of welfare, bleeding of public education funding, etc. is at its heart uncivilized. People who worship the ideas of “every man for himself!” and “sink or swim!” even as they reap the benefits of civilization. Who repeatedly proclaim “We can’t afford to ______!” as they sit in comfortable homes and amass fortunes, and would rather government/society spend a million in the effort to make sure someone “undeserving” doesn’t get a thousand.
Civilization almost by definition IS the effort to reduce consequentiality, from storing up grain to reduce the consequences of crop failure onward. Bankruptcy is more civilized than debtors’ prison. Hospitals are more civilized than rampant epidemic. Unemployment payments are more civilized than starvation or desperate crime. Seatbelts are more civilized than hurtling through windshields. Birth control available to women as they choose is more civilized than unwanted pregnancies.
It’s called “racial hygiene”.
As to the “overwhelmed” part, that’s what strict immigration control and a robust nuclear arsenal is for.
I wish I were kidding.
The irony is that by most reports people are actually having LESS sex today, in 2024, than they used to. Why can be debated.
Which end?
Note everything the follows is sarcastic bullshit and doesn’t reflect the views of the poster.
Wimmens will have sex only if they are bad, in which case they deserve to be punished by having a baby. Also having a baby might encourage them to find a man, and fulfill their true purpose of catering to his every need.
If they were good women their partners wouldn’t have left them. They get what they deserved.
Speaking of contradiction how about those Evangelistc speakers who say thing like,
“My mother was 16 years old when she got pregnant and if she had gotten an abortion I wouldn’t be here talking to you today. Thanks for having me, mom!. -applause-”
Well Mr. evangelist if you mother hadn’t had sex at age 16 you wouldn’t be here today either. You should really be thanking her for that, and perhaps encourage your daughters to follow her example.
If men masturbating is bad because it’s wasting seed. And if women masturbating doesn’t waste anything but a little time and moisture. Does that mean that it’s okay for women to masturbate?
I know that, biblically, it isn’t adultery unless the woman is married.
A thread on The Dope referencing a political movement to “End Recreational Sex!” gets 36 replies.
We’re getting old, folks! 
The as long as they don’t get uppity or take actions that adversely affect the men, the bible doesn’t actually say too much about what women do since they don’t really count as people. For example not only is there no prohibition against masturbation, there is nothing against Lesbianism either.Its only bad if a man lies with another man.
I can’t find the article now but I recently read that the need for sex workers spikes during political conventions (republicans and democrats). So much so that it apparently overwhelms the local sex work industry for a few days.
Which is to say that conservative politicians thinking sex should only be for procreation is laughable.
I haven’t been replying, but I’ve been reading the responses furiously!