“Condoleezza Rice released a coarse anti-Russian statement. This is because she is a single woman who has no children. She loses her reason because of her late single status. Nature takes it all….Such women are very rough. They are all workaholics, public workaholics. They can be happy only when they are talked and written about everywhere: “Oh, Condoleezza, what a remarkable woman, what a charming Afro-American lady! How well she can play the piano and speak Russian! What a courageous, tough and strong female she is!

“This is the only way to satisfy her needs of a female. She derives pleasure from it. If she has no man by her side at her age, he will never appear. Even if she had a whole selection of men to choose from she would stay single because her soul and heart have hardened. Like Napoleon, Genghis Khan, Tamerlane, or Alexander the Great of Macedon Ms. Rice needs to fight and release tough public statements in global scale. She needs to be on top of the world.

“This is really scary. Ms. Rice’s personal complexes affect the entire field of international politics. This is an irritating factor for everyone, especially for the East and the Islamic world. When they look at her, they go mad.

“Condoleezza Rice needs a company of soldiers. She needs to be taken to barracks where she would be satisfied.”

While calling for the military gang-rape of the U.S. Secretary of State seems rather harsh, I agree with Zhirinovsky that the sexual psyches of political figures are bound to affect their styles, behaviors and even their politics. Our sexuality is not just an isolated part of ourselves; it is the basis of our drive to do things beyond simple survival. Sex affects all aspects of life and work.

For the most part, I abhor Condoleeza’s politics, because she serves as handmaiden to the arrogant, chickenhawk, perverse policies of her boss, the Prez. But in terms of her sexuality, I have to be fair. Yes, she’s single, but that doesn’t mean she’s celibate. I certainly wasn’t celibate when I was single, and chances are that Condi isn’t either. Chances are she’s just very discreet. She could be a lesbian and not wish to reveal this due to the anti-gay politics of her bosses. She could also have a secret lover, perhaps even Dubya himself, as has often been whispered. Either of these possibilities would make her a hypocrite, but not desperately “unsatisfied” as Zhirinovsky accuses her of being.

But what if Zhirinovsky is right? What if Condi is celibate, as well as somewhat anorexic (her extreme thinness makes one wonder)? Certainly, when some (most?) people are sexually celibate, their inevitable frustration can spill over into their professional lives, as we have seen, all too tragically, in the many cases of Catholic priests, forced to practice celibacy, who molested children in their care. Condi could be lashing out at men in power, as well as whole nations of innocents, because she is a hopelessly lonely woman.

But even if this were the case, I wouldn’t support Zhirinovsky’s call for requiring all major politicians to be married. After all, being married is no indication of a satisfying sex life. Many husbands – and wives – are sleeping on the couch.

It would be nice if we could somehow decree that every holder of public office must have an active, reasonably fulfilling sex life. The problem is that if we were to credibly collect this information, we’d have to seriously infringe upon sexual privacy rights.

But just think, what if we as a society encouraged our politicians to speak as positively of their sexual experiences as we expect them to speak of their faith? Politicians – including Condoleeza Rice – are always talking about how devout they are, how they prayed for this or that, or went to this or that church, temple or mosque. It’s all just meaningless santimonious squawking. They might as well tell us how many orgasms they had last night and with whom they had sex. Actually, that would be a LOT more meaningful.