With the nomination of Alito to the Supreme Court, George W. Bush has shown that he's willing to play into the hands of the hard-line minority in this country and to limit women's autonomy.
For the last 20 years Republicans have chipped away at reproductive freedom, trying to send us backwards to the restrictive sexual mores of the 19th century. Pro-choice activists have answered back (as they should) that it's not about sex. It's about autonomy, and having the right to make decisions about one's own body.
If that's what we believe, it's time to put our money where our mouths are and show them that we're willing to prioritize our desire for autonomy over our desire for sex (as well as over men's desires and supposed claims on us).
It's time to exercise The Lysistrata Option.
It's not just about overturning Roe v. Wade, although that will be the first target. It's also about
Griswold v. Connecticut and the privacy zone that was created in that decision. It's about letting pharmacists deny women their legal birth control prescriptions if they don't have a gold ring on the fourth finger of the left hand -- or maybe even if they do. It's about allowing doctors to neglect to counsel rape victims about the availability of emergency contraception. And as we've seen recently, it's about denying girls access to a vaccine that could keep them from getting cancer -- simply because that cancer happens to affect the reproductive organs.
This malevolent trend has to be stopped now and stopped cold.
What is The Lysistrata Option?
From the Theatre Database:
The women of Athens, led by Lysistrata and supported by female delegates from the other states of Hellas, determine to take matters into their own hands and force the men to stop the War. They meet in solemn conclave, and Lysistrata expounds her scheme, the rigorous application to husbands and lovers of a self-denying ordinance--"we must refrain from the male altogether." Every wife and mistress is to refuse all sexual favours whatsoever, till the men have come to terms of peace. In cases where the women must yield 'par force majeure,' then it is to be with an ill grace and in such a way as to afford the minimum of gratification to their partner; they are to be passive and take no more part in the amorous game than they are absolutely obliged to...
...After no little demure, this plan of campaign is adopted, and the assembled women take a solemn oath to observe the compact faithfully.
I define here a Lysistrata Option for the latter years of the Bush Regime:
Until Alito's nomination is defeated and a moderate nominated to the Supreme Court we must 'refrain from the male altogether'.
In the event that Alito ends up on the Supreme Court, until Congress acts to provide a positive guarantee of unrestricted access to contraception and reasonably broad access to abortion, we must 'refrain from the male altogether'.
We must demonstrate to our husbands and boyfriends the only method that will allow us to keep our autonomy in a world where reproductive choice is restricted.
- If abortion and contraception become unavailable, we will say (agreeing sweetly with the conservatives in the best white mutiny fashion) the only way to avoid the consequences of sex is Abstinence.
- We hope (we will say, sweetly) they understand that it is not that we would not LIKE to have sex with them, but that we are not free to do so under the new terms of society that our leaders are attempting with this nomination to dictate to us.
- The only way to change that situation (we will say, sweetly) is for us all, men and women, to work together to take control of our society back from leaders who would deny us reproductive choice.
How many of our husbands and boyfriends will say in answer: "Fine. I'll take the chance. I'll play Baby Roulette with you because I've gotten used to unrestricted, worry-free sex and I can't give it up now, no matter the consequences"? Probably a few. But we must hold fast to our convictions and deny them. How many of our boyfriends will say "Fine. I'll marry you today so that any sex we have conforms to the fundamentalist worldview." Maybe a few. But we must observe the compact faithfully and preserve our autonomy.
In the end, when we hold this gun of deprivation long enough to the heads that really do the thinking, we will triumph, and reproductive choice will be secure.
Isn't this just playing into the conservatives' desire to keep us all from enjoying sex?
Having restricted birth control and abortion options is going to keep us from enjoying sex as we normally would, anyway. We'll always be wondering and worrying, unless we're in a privileged position of some kind. Exercising the Lysistrata Option puts sexual deprivation to an active and principled use, and it goes far beyond the repercussions the conservatives intend. They intend for the absence of birth control options to affect only women, especially poor women, and to change only women's lives. The Lysistrata Option is a fine example of the Law of Unintended Consequences. But we have to make those consequences happen and enforce them.
Won't this lead to more date rape and marital rape?
Possibly for some. But we are in a time of war, a war on our autonomy. Some will enter the battle and be injured. Each of us will take the best precautions she can to prevent such consequences, we will support and protect each other, and in the words of Lysistrata, when all else fails: In cases where the women must yield 'par force majeure,' then it is to be with an ill grace and in such a way as to afford the minimum of gratification to their partner...
My boyfriend/husband and I are both progressives. Can't we just have sex anyway?
In a word: NO. The Lysistrata Option will not work without your participation. See, your boyfriend/husband may pay lip service to the idea of reproductive freedom -- he might think it's OK for Democrats to give up on Roe for a time to win over more social conservatives, for instance -- or he may believe in it on a sort of passive level. But does he really understand what your happy, progressive, modern American relationship would become if the reproductive choice options we take for granted were not there?
You probably were together for a while and you both worked and built up your resources to be ready to have kids (if you're so inclined). That wouldn't be an option. A baby could come along at any time, ready or no. He'd always have to wear a condom (no moaning and groaning about how it doesn't "feel good" allowed). And if the condom failed, oops, you'd have a baby. He'd be partly responsible for its care even if you both didn't want it or didn't feel ready. If condoms were unavailable, you'd have to put the chill on any sexual activity, or oops, you'd have a baby. If you were married and you just didn't want a baby right now, you'd either stop having sex after you had the number of kids you wanted, or you'd be charting those safe days and hoping for a miracle, and if the miracle didn't happen, oops...
You get it? Even in your happy progressive relationship, the whole dynamic would change. Sex would be Russian roulette unless you didn't mind having baby after baby after baby.
Are you nuts? I can't go without sex!
Would you rather go without sex temporarily, or without choice forever? That's what it comes down to.