Of course, as Historiann points out, it all goes back to a very old trope of controlling women’s sexuality as a way of preserving (patriarchal) order. And the specific way it’s being done in 21st century America is through the religious right’s uncanny ability to co-opt every discourse related to women’s health and reproduction, usually through the lens of “freedom of religion” which obviously is a concept they understand not at all. But of course they *do* understand it, and they are deliberately making an effort – largely successful from what I can tell – to change the definition of what that means.

Natalie de Lage does not even appear in Isenberg’s biography. (The letter was written in 1804, when Burr was Vice President and the women were twenty-something, married, and living in South Carolina). Theodosia’s biographer, Richard N. Cote, describes Natalie as a ten year old aristocrat emigre from Revolutionary France who arrived in New York in 1793 and was given refuge, with her governess, in (one of) Burr’s houses. Natalie and Theodosia grew up to remain best friends for life, although Burr seems to have often chidingly held Natalie up as an unattainable example for Theo to live up to. Cote describes Burr as having taken a “somewhat lascivious interest” in Natalie, into her adult life.

Cote also treats Burr a lot more harshly than Isenberg does for his apparent compulsive sharing with Theo of the graphic details of his European sexual escapades.
Isenberg, if I understand her account correctly, seems to see this as a refreshing example of a post-puritan (Burr’s grandfather was the legendary theologian Jonathan Edwards), pre-Victorian feminist guy willing to relate to his adult daughter the same way he might have to a son named Theodore. Cote sees a lot more weirdness if not pathology in it, in what sometimes almost seems to be an anachronistic Freudian manner.

None of this greatly clarifies the meaning of the word “slut” in Burr’s usage, but it jumped out at me in the coincidental context of Limbaugh’s vile savaging of Fluke. The political cultures of the Early Republic and the (Late Afternoon Empire?) seem interestingly convergent, give or take the availability of Twitter accounts.

On that note, I don’t share your surprise that contraception has been dragged into our modern kulturkampfen. (I share your disgust, of course, but not your surprise!) I think the reasons for this are twofold:

1. Modern conservativism’s real problem with the 1960s was focused on their disgust for the Warren court (all those “impeach Earl Warren” bumperstickers?) and Brown v. Board of education. It was the movement that was bravely against the Civil Rights movement–just read what the National Review was publishing in the 1950s and 1960s. But Martin Luther King is now a modern secular saint, and the liberal vision for civil society won out, so now even conservatives have to pretend to have been in favor of MLK & his movement. Even they can’t own their own true past when it comes to civil rights. The one part of the 1960s that it’s still OK to be against is feminism, gay liberation, and in general stuff about liberty, sexuality, and the body when it comes to women and gays (principally gay marriage, contraception, and abortion.) To be fair, the school prayer decision was also very energizing for the conservative movement, but we don’t see conservatives continuing to pound on that they way they’re pounding on women’s & gay sexuality issues.

2. The choice of focusing conservative ressentiment on women’s bodies and gay bodies has a long and rich history in the modern west. For example, the one thing that united both European Protestants and Catholics in the Reformation era and the age of religious wars was the fact that if women were less slutty and men were in more control of their own households, everything would be better. (This is when we see greater prosecution of prostitutes as well as the expulsion of women’s religious orders from Protestant cities and nations.) We see the same focus on women’s behavior, in particular women’s sexual behavior, around the eras of the American and French Revolutions, too. Gay panic also has a rich history in the past century in counterrevolutionary periods in recent U.S. history: against the lavender menace in the 1920s, after WWII when McCarthyism focused on gays as well as communists, etc.

So, the pushback against merely 46 years of settled law isn’t so surprising when we take the long view. Of course, that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be outraged. My guess is that every generation will have to fight their battles for contraception and other issues pertaining to liberty and women’s sexuality. It’s interesting to note the timing of all of this: The Griswold decision is nearly 47 years old–it’s menopausal. Fertile women are going to have to pick up the standard and make the arguments all over again. But then, that’s been one of the major subthemes of this blog over the past four years: the Groundhog Day nature of women’s history!

LOL*sob*!

I’m in an argument elsewhere on whether it would work to just say to Rush et all, yes, I am having a lot of sex with a lot of different guys, deal with it.

Them: to say that would have an effect.

Me: they are so insane that this tactic would just open you up to having more mud slung.

Them: Just keep showing them you don’t take it as mud.

Do you think that would work in reality?