General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWhen your opponent seeks to criminalize oral sex within marriage...
it is probably okay to run on that directly. No need for insinuations that he is 'too extreme'... you can actually say, "My opponent wants it to be a felony in Virginia for a married couple to engage in oral sex."
Because it happens to be true.
Ken Cucinelli is, in fact, seeking to restore the legality of Virginia's laws against "unnatural" sex acts that were struck down by the Supreme Court in 2003. (Lawrence v. Texas)
Terry McAuliffe, or whoever runs against Cucinelli, should be willing to spell that out.
There is a dynamic where your opponent is so offensively crazy that he gets a pass because his insanity is so offensive that it drags down anyone who even talks about it.
But I think we should own this issue... it is probably okay to take an affirmative stand for the right of married couples to have sex however they prefer.
Even in Virginia.
HappyMe
(20,277 posts)I guess they want to make Virginia - Not For Lovers.
What an idiot!
NightWatcher
(39,343 posts)Just as Santorum is ........?
randome
(34,845 posts)Cucinelli's opponent just needs to say, "My opponent wants the government to intrude on a married couple's sex lives."
That's better.
Hit them over the head with their own 'Keep the government out of our lives' mantra.
bemildred
(90,061 posts)Bigmack
(8,020 posts).... or maybe NOT wonder. Probably best to not even think about it.
Those people spend a lot of time talking about things like "man on dog" and some really deviant shit that has never crossed my mind... and I've been told my mind is relatively kinky.
KurtNYC
(14,549 posts)and got confused.
Raven
(13,889 posts)how this law would be enforced...Bedroom Police? I'd make fun of him.
ChairmanAgnostic
(28,017 posts)what would you expect?