Lisa Pryor, Tony Abbott, William Chidley and some tremendous bedroom philosophies ...

(Above: Bart and Tony Abbott - while the Bart is just a poster, as Matt Groenig makes out like a bandit, for the wild image of Abbott I'm indebted to this site, with the discreet black out reminding me once again how banning things or censoring images can make them seem more wildly exciting than the reality might actually be).

Making apologies for Tony Abbott seem to be de rigeur this week, as part of the fallout surrounding the 'like a virgin, for the very first time' grand tour and furore.

First there was Katharine Murphy, with The Monk might make sense. Now here's Lisa Pryor stepping up to the plate in Bedroom philosopher Abbott is entitled to his opinion on virginity, even if I can't quite recollect anyone actually saying Abbott isn't entitled to his opinion, just that it's a dumb one and politically dumb to express it at this point in time.

Never mind, after an extended bout of sympathy and understanding for Abbott and his bedroom philosophies, she arrives at this point:

Even if it is OK for Abbott to hold views which are not mainstream, even if it is OK for him to be a hypocrite, does having ideas which differ from the majority disqualify him from leading the country? Should voters refuse to vote for him solely because he holds personal views and a lifestyle which do not match their own?

You see, by an elaborate mish mash of logic, Pryor lands in a space where being an eccentric believer in saving yourself for marriage, like a virgin for the very first time, might be eccentric and ill-advised, but hey if it's your thing, it's your thing, and hypocrisy is okay, because after all, all of us are hypocrites, so what's a little hypocrisy, and who amongst us, dwelling in glass houses, should cast the first stone.

And then, since everything is meaningless, and all standards are relative and in a state of flux, just because a dingbat politician holds personal views and a lifestyle which doesn't match your own, what's that got to do with anything? Vote him in.

Oh yes, come on down the next polygamist scientologist you can find, you too can be an MP, and remember just because he holds personal views and a lifestyle not your own is no good reason not to vote for him (or her, as the case may be). (At least now I know how we ended up with Steve Fielding as a senator).

There's just one problem with this wonderful relativism, and that's Abbott's career of choice, which is to be a politician. Wanting to get swinging voters to swing his way.

As Peter Hartcher notes in Reassuring Rudd artfully morphs into Howard Lite, Abbott's willingness to give a truthful account of his views on sex also shows a willingness to shoot himself in the foot.

Labor expects that the ''tonal meta-message'' conveyed by Tony Abbott will be something like that of Latham. Aggressive, unpredictable, unsettling, perhaps even a little creepy with his well-publicised talk about female sexuality.

In the end, Abbott is entitled to be as much of a doofus as Pryor, but his business is the business of getting elected, and watching him spruik for the outer reaches of old fashioned Catholicism can only appeal to the loveably dysfunctional likes of a Pryor.

Because she's so inclusive, anybody can get a gig, perhaps even a Calathumpian, should such an exotic beast decide to stand for parliament. Because the alternative to diversity is too horrible to contemplate:

If it did, it would be a sad thing for our democracy, as it would also exclude the possibility of someone who was gay, childless or Hindu from ever attaining such a position. Suspecting that Catholics are out to convert the masses at every turn is no better than suspecting that gays are on a permanent recruitment drive or that childless politicians are incapable of understanding the concerns of parents.

Dearie me, what a conflationary silly billy. Of course the Catholics are out to convert the masses at every turn. It's part of their job description, it's part of their mission. After all, even the word gospel means the proclamation of the redemption offered by Christ. And just recently the Pope embarked on a bold and brave poaching manoeuvre, which left Anglicans reeling at its audacity (Pope in attempt to lure Anglicans to Catholic Church). You don't get to own the treasures of Rome without a consistent, concerted tithing campaign.

Still it's nice to know that Pryor is right up there with Bill Heffernan, reassuring us that Julia Gillard, despite being deliberately barren, can nonetheless understand the concerns of parents.

Of course Pryor has it both ways, sending up virginity lovers (personally I doubt whether the greatest gift is unco-ordinated and slightly bloodied sex), and Abbott as an out of the mainstream utopian thinker, who spent time training as a priest and who therefore clearly thinks abstinence can be a worthy ideal for men.

But in the meantime, while Abbott meanders down the byways of virgin thinking and trying to appeal to women voters via The Australian Women's Weekly, he's giving the pious conservative Howard-lite Chairman Rudd free kick after free kick. And to what avail?

So that lovers of diversity like Pryor can moon over him this week, before heading off to moon over the authentic tang some other eccentric next week.

Could it be William Chidley's turn?

The noble Chidley (above) is now forgotten, but his theories of 'limp dick' intercourse should be treasured in this country, as he was a genuine pioneer of original thinking, and perhaps should have been elected to parliament rather than being despatched to the madhouse:

In the third stage of his theory Chidley decided that the problem was not too much sex but erection itself. In this development he relied heavily on Acton, whom he praised for identifying the harmful results of sexual indulgence and criticised for not taking his insights far enough. Dr Acton’s book is full of the evils accruing to our present sexual coition”, he wrote. “Acton was “surprised at the improvement in his patients … when they abstained from coition. … Had he followed that up he would have made my discovery”. Chidley was most interested in Acton’s discussion of a major issue in nineteenth century sexual medicine: which was the key factor in the harm of sexual activity? Was it the shock of orgasm to the brain and nervous system, as predicted by the dominant nerve force theory of disease? Or was it the loss of semen from the system, as maintained by the fading but still influential humoral or Galenic paradigm? Acton inclined to the former view, thus giving Chidley the lead he needed to transform shock of orgasm into shock of coition, caused by the erect penis. It was perhaps only a small slide from Acton’s shock of orgasm (a nervous spasm affecting the male more severely than the female) to Chidley’s shock of coition (a vaguely defined event affecting both male and female equally) ... (here).

Ah yes, the ruinous shock of coition, and so the need to have sexual intercourse only for a couple of months a year, in spring, and then most importantly with a limp dick. As for the difficulty of men having erections, the whacky zany Victorians knew how to spot trouble:

Of all the claims made by Victorian specialists in male sexual problems, the one that seems most improbable to us is that men were troubled by erections. That some Victorians did find their erections a source of anxiety rather than pride, and actually sought means to discourage them, as though they were a malfunction like toothache, is a tribute to the doctors’ success in convincing the public that normal male sexuality was a chronic disease. (here).

If you're interested in Chidley, you can have jolly good fun by following the links above, which will also introduce you to the thinking of the Wroeites and the British Medical Association, under the rubric "Bizarre sex cults in nineteenth century Australia". There's also a shorter introduction to Chidley at the Australian Dictionary of Biography, here, while his time spruiking in the domain gets a mention here, along with other eccentrics like Bea Miles.

Not that this site is in any way suggesting that Tony Abbott or Lisa Pryor resemble William Chidley in any way.

It's just that we love sexual utopians and deviants and eccentrics, and at some point we'll get on to looking at Rosaleen Norton, witch of the cross, who managed to bring down Sir Eugene Goossens, the man who pushed the idea of an Opera House on Bennelong point.

Meantime, there are other juicy sexual tidbits to keep the salacious in good cheer.

It was particularly pleasing to see the issue of the Australian Classification Board banning small breasts in young women get such a run in Crikey - look under Has Australia really banned small breasts? and Sex Party scores big PR over small breasts - for the story and the links to the sites that really got the story going.

Unusually, the best action takes place in the comments section of the Has Australia really banned small breasts piece, where the befuddled thinking of Australians and the ACB and journalists on the matter of sex is a marvel to behold. We won't spoil your fun as you explore the depths, just marvel at the ways in Chairman Rudd's Australia the conservative push is on, and John Howard would be gobsmacked at being voted out, his policies stolen and turned into Labor party gold.

And while we're at it, we really would like to remind readers of the splendid initiative of Family First MP Dennis Hood, backed up by the able Michael Atkinson MP, in South Australia, which you can read about in Avert your eyes - R-rated DVD cover-up in South Australia:

R-RATED action movies such as Mad Max and Robocop will be placed alongside soft porn movies in South Australian shops, under new laws introduced last week.

Retailers without adults-only sections can display the DVDs only if their original covers are replaced by plain versions featuring simply the film title.

The laws, designed to prevent children from being exposed to disturbing or pornographic covers, have been condemned by distributors as "creeping conservatism" ...

... While movies such as 2009 comedy The Hangover - which features on its cover a picture of three men holding a baby - will be affected by the new laws, MA15+ films with covers showing scantily-clad women - such as Lesbian Vampire Killers - won't be.

Likewise, MA15+ film Saw - which depicts a bloody, severed foot on its cover - can still be freely displayed, while 2005 hit Fight Club - which features a photograph of Brad Pitt and Edward Norton - can't be.

Ah the spirit of William Chidley lives on in this fair land, aided and abetted by Chairman Rudd, Stephen Conroy, Michael Atkinson, Amanda Rishworth, Tony Abbott, and the splendid heresies of George Pell and the Jensenists.

All loon pond can do is suggest that, while it is summer - 'tis true, and 'tis a pity 'tis true - and so technically not spring, perhaps this is the weekend where you can try out Chidley's theory that the best, gentlest sex arises from a deflated penis ...

Now we stand by, waiting for Lisa Pryor's confirmation that bedroom philosopher Chidley is entitled to his opinion on sexual intercourse, and that his being dead should in no way inhibit a grateful nation voting him into parliament. With so many dead beats in the place, full of eccentric theories on how Australia should conduct its bedroom business, will anyone notice the difference?

(Below: oh okay and here's a plug for The Bedroom Philosopher, since today we're feeling so terribly postmodern).