Porn again.

January 14, 2012 3:05 PM

What's one thing the major GOP candidates can all agree on? Why, the need to be hard on porn, of course. Morality in Media (MIM, previously) recently revealed that presidential hopefuls Santorum, Romney, and Gingrich had all affirmed the group's drive for "enforcement of obscenity laws". And the multi-billion-dollar per year industry? Adult Video News responds to the campaign (nsfw ads).
posted by stinkycheese (61 comments total)

hard on porn

*snicker*
posted by joe lisboa at 3:06 PM on January 14, 2012 [25 favorites]

all of the explicit sexual content released by the adult entertainment industry contains only women who volunteer to appear in the material.

You now, porn, I'm with you on this fight, but let's steer away from making that kind of categorical claim.
posted by Navelgazer at 3:09 PM on January 14, 2012 [3 favorites]

Occupy My Pants
posted by Trurl at 3:09 PM on January 14, 2012 [1 favorite]

What's one thing the major GOP candidates can all agree on?

I don't think that is the position Stephen Corbert.

(and who decides who's a "major" candidate? The original source doesn't use the word "major" 2012: Santorum, Other GOP Candidates Vow to Ban Porn Only because all other problems have been solved, at least three Republicans still playing the primary field—Rick Santorum, Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich—have vowed to get “tough on porn.” )
posted by rough ashlar at 3:19 PM on January 14, 2012

CK vs. CAM
posted by wobh at 3:22 PM on January 14, 2012 [1 favorite]

In other news the GOP soon to be unveiled as the worlds largest users of porn.
posted by Artw at 3:23 PM on January 14, 2012 [4 favorites]

The original source doesn't use the word "major"

The phrase "major candidates" is used in the second link.
posted by stinkycheese at 3:30 PM on January 14, 2012

"major GOP candidates" that is.
posted by stinkycheese at 3:30 PM on January 14, 2012

The response isn't very well written. It starts out as a rebuttal, but gets super boring after about the 2nd paragraph.
posted by Brocktoon at 3:36 PM on January 14, 2012 [1 favorite]

and who decides who's a "major" candidate?

Ron Paul is not a major candidate, if that's what you're getting at.
posted by Lentrohamsanin at 3:38 PM on January 14, 2012 [8 favorites]

American Sharia!
posted by Tom-B at 3:44 PM on January 14, 2012 [1 favorite]

What's the Ron Paul position?
posted by Artw at 3:45 PM on January 14, 2012

The response isn't very well written. It starts out as a rebuttal, but gets super boring after about the 2nd paragraph.

To be fair, the adult industry isn't used to anyone paying attention to what they write after the first 90 seconds.
posted by dixiecupdrinking at 3:50 PM on January 14, 2012 [19 favorites]

What's the Ron Paul position?

Woman on top ... or on bottom ... after a mutually beneficial negotiation free from force or fraud.
posted by ZenMasterThis at 3:54 PM on January 14, 2012 [13 favorites]

What's the Ron Paul position?

Ron Paul only has sex in positions expressly authorized by the constitution.
posted by no regrets, coyote at 3:56 PM on January 14, 2012 [14 favorites]

But seriously, I don't know who's worse: The shameless, pandering whore candidates or their credulous supporters.
posted by ZenMasterThis at 3:59 PM on January 14, 2012

In other news the GOP soon to be unveiled as the worlds largest users of porn.

"Eight of the top 10 pornography consuming states gave their electoral votes to John McCain in last year's presidential election..." From here.

Hey wingnuts, if thy porn-watching, right-leaning eyes offend thee...
posted by fuse theorem at 4:01 PM on January 14, 2012

see, when republicans ramble about smaller government and then attempt to regulate everyone's personal business, I just ..
posted by ninjew at 4:07 PM on January 14, 2012 [4 favorites]

see, when republicans ramble about smaller government and then attempt to regulate everyone's personal business, I just ..

Don't know whether to laugh or cry? Yeah, me neither.
posted by Marisa Stole the Precious Thing at 4:10 PM on January 14, 2012 [1 favorite]

What's the Ron Paul position?

My guess is that the Federal government should do nothing, and that states should be allowed to do whatever they want.
posted by benito.strauss at 4:22 PM on January 14, 2012 [2 favorites]

Obama/McCain votes vs. subscriptions to online pornography
posted by Western Infidels at 4:24 PM on January 14, 2012 [8 favorites]

The battle against pornography will be long and hard.
posted by SPrintF at 4:27 PM on January 14, 2012 [3 favorites]

Obama voters know about tube sites and torrents, then?
posted by Seiten Taisei at 4:34 PM on January 14, 2012 [7 favorites]

But Internet pornography is my sex life! Obama may have won my vote.
posted by planet at 4:38 PM on January 14, 2012

What's the Ron Paul position?

I'd hazard a guess that as long as it is M/F of the same ethnicity he doesn't care, other than that who the hell knows. Libertarian-of-convenience
posted by edgeways at 4:43 PM on January 14, 2012 [1 favorite]

Ron Paul thinks government noninterference in voluntary associations is very important, so I doubt he'd support any government action against homosexual or interracial sex.
posted by planet at 4:49 PM on January 14, 2012

fuse theorem: ""Eight of the top 10 pornography consuming states gave their electoral votes to John McCain in last year's presidential election...""

That article is based on a "new nationwide study (pdf) of anonymised credit-card receipts from a major online adult entertainment provider". This only proves that republican voters are so stupid, they think you have to pay for porn on the internet.
posted by brundlefly at 5:48 PM on January 14, 2012 [4 favorites]

Ron Paul likes to be spanked with a copy of The Federalist Papers. He's just kinky that way. Don't ask me how I know this.
posted by TheWhiteSkull at 5:49 PM on January 14, 2012 [2 favorites]

I bet there would be no support for this if New Incognito Window hadn't been invented. Then again, I can't really see Newt using the internet unaided.
Picture Gingrich browsing porn - I dare ya
posted by the noob at 5:58 PM on January 14, 2012

I find Republican broadcasts obscene. Can Morality in Media do something about that?
posted by binturong at 6:04 PM on January 14, 2012

Ron Paul is not a major candidate, if that's what you're getting at.

He's won more votes than either Gingrich or Santorum. What was your definition of "major"?

You know, neither liberalism nor conservatism actually requires a divorce from reality.
posted by roystgnr at 6:27 PM on January 14, 2012

Jon Stewart criticized Lawrence O’Donnell for saying Ron Paul didn’t matter and Huntsman was “the real 2nd.” “No! You can’t!” Stewart boomed. “You’re not allowed to take Ron Paul out of this! That’s just physics! And you know, if you add two zeros to the end of Huntsman’s totals, he would have been in first by hundreds of thousands of votes, an unprecedented victory! Why is no one talking about this? Because it didn’t happen!”
posted by 445supermag at 6:37 PM on January 14, 2012

But seriously, I don't know who's worse: The shameless, pandering whore candidates or their credulous supporters.

I wondered that the other night, when Letterman asked McCain about increasing taxes on the wealthy and big business. McCain said the problem was big government and the audience clapped trained seals.
posted by bonobothegreat at 6:46 PM on January 14, 2012

I'm confident that Rule 34 will overcome any and all GOP candidates.
posted by VTX at 6:50 PM on January 14, 2012

I'm intrigued by the possibility that there might one day be a Porn Czar.
posted by Ritchie at 6:51 PM on January 14, 2012 [2 favorites]

I'm pretty sure that porn being illegal and illicit would only increase the number of GOP politicians whacking off to it.

You just KNOW that Rick Santorum has a folder bulging with stuff that makes Two Girls One Cup look like Finding Nemo.
posted by BitterOldPunk at 6:59 PM on January 14, 2012

Czar Dickolas the II?
posted by edgeways at 6:59 PM on January 14, 2012 [1 favorite]

the noob: "Picture Gingrich browsing porn - I dare ya"

Total cuckold fetish, obviously
posted by stet at 8:15 PM on January 14, 2012

Morality in Media (MIM)

If it wasn't nearly midnight local time, I'd already be forming a parody organization called Morality For Media (MFM). Motto: "Putting indecency on a roaring spit-roast."
posted by Tomorrowful at 8:35 PM on January 14, 2012 [1 favorite]

Picture Gingrich browsing porn - I dare ya

History ▶
January 2012 ▶
■ NewtGingrich.com
■ NewtGingrich.com
■ NewtGingrich.com
■ NewtGingrich.com
■ NewtGingrich.com/about
■ NewtGingrich.com
■ NewtGingrich.com
■ DailyKos.com
■ DailyKos.com/user/ConcernedDem
■ DailyKos.com
■ DailyKos.com
■ DailyKos.com
■ WhiteHouse.gov
■ BedBathandBeyond.com
■ NewtGingrich.com
■ NewtGingrich.com
■ NewtGingrich.com
■ boards.4chan.org/soc/
■ boards.4chan.org/soc/
■ boards.4chan.org/soc/
■ boards.4chan.org/soc/
■ boards.4chan.org/soc/
■ boards.4chan.org/soc/
■ NewtGingrich.com
■ NewtGingrich.com
■ YourAmateurPorn.com/search%=liberal
■ YourAmateurPorn.com/search%=hippy
■ YourAmateurPorn.com/search%=spanked%20senator
■ YourAmateurPorn.com/search%=CBT
■ NewtGingrich.com
■ NewtGingrich.com
■ CuckMeNow.org/home
■ CuckMeNow.org//?type=&page=2
■ CuckMeNow.org//?type=&page=3
■ CuckMeNow.org//?type=&page=4
■ CuckMeNow.org//?type=&page=5
■ CuckMeNow.org//?type=&page=6
■ CuckMeNow.org//?type=&page=7
■ NewtGingrich.com
■ NewtGingrich.com
■ 9gag.com
■ NewtGingrich.com
■ NewtGingrich.com
■ NewtGingrich.com
■ NewtGingrich.com
■ NewtGingrich.com
■ Facebook.com/petsociety

posted by Marisa Stole the Precious Thing at 8:45 PM on January 14, 2012 [24 favorites]

I find it interesting my automatic reaction to anti-porn activists is to try to claim that no content (as it's called nowadays) could have such an effect on humans as they say it does. It's just images, text, sounds, feelings. This comes from a naive viewpoint in my earlier days which, I suppose, took the fact of incorruptible personal integrity for granted—nothing could affect a rational human except the physical. (I was spared certain other simplistic worldviews, thank God, which also tend to afflict young men.) But clearly if advertising can be pernicious, if propaganda can be pernicious, if infotainment can be pernicious, then all sorts of "content" can be pernicious. Pornography has the capability of exerting harm. Likely not as much as the activists say, but I don't know for sure.

I also find it interesting that the justification for enlarging the scope of obscenity prosecution includes the prevention of "sexual exploitation" of women and children. This seems to me broadening the scope of obscenity, whose nidus improbitatis is an offense to the sense, taste, and good morals of the viewer. I know—scandale—a precept reappropriated to incongruous ends. But it marks unprincipled, or perhaps supra-principled, opposition.
posted by adoarns at 9:53 PM on January 14, 2012 [2 favorites]

Through a FAMiLY LEADER pledge both Rick Santorum and former candidate Michele Bachmann signed, the candidate promised to uphold “Humane protection of women and the innocent fruit of conjugal intimacy — our next generation of American children — from human trafficking, sexual slavery, seduction into promiscuity, and all forms of pornography and prostitution, infanticide, abortion and other types of coercion or stolen innocence."

I...just...what? The breadth and scale of these things are all out of whack. Although I guess if I thought that pornography caused infanticide, I'd see more reason to outlaw it.

(Heh. "Innocent fruit of conjugal intimacy.")

not really related, but why has Santorum picked up a following where Bachmann didn't, when they were both single-issue-far-religious-right candidates? Is it the lack of crazy eyes? Is it patriarchal fucks being more willing to vote for a dude?
posted by kagredon at 2:01 AM on January 15, 2012

The latter I think. Republican wingnuts like to flirt with the idea of voting for a female or Black candidate but once it becomes serious, there goes everybody not a white, middle aged rich dude.
posted by MartinWisse at 2:07 AM on January 15, 2012

idk retrogressive ideas on media/art sound p cool to me
posted by This, of course, alludes to you at 2:17 AM on January 15, 2012

I think these candidate are not being creative. Much of their male base likes porn. Even some of the ladies like it. So being against porn is not politically savvy. Instead, they should try to encourage True American porn;

Lady Liberty slowly unwrapped the flag, revealing her purple mountains majesty and her ample waves of grain. "I have the right to pursue happiness!", said Uncle Sam, caressing her with open arms negotiations. "Deregulate me!" she shouts, "let's enjoy free trade!" Sam advances, his destiny manifest, his flag pole erect...

posted by twoleftfeet at 2:32 AM on January 15, 2012 [5 favorites]

What was your definition of "major"?

Represents a meaningful amount of voters and/or monied interests, and could conceivably get elected president without a series of extremely unlikely events occurring. Besides Paul, Cain and Bachmann were also not major candidates this year, and Kucinich and Gravel were not major candidates in 2008. They may all say interesting (where interesting can be synonymous with "important", "horrifying", or "hilarious") things, but their actual impact on the short or long term direction of the country is infinitesimal if it exists at all.
posted by Lentrohamsanin at 5:26 AM on January 15, 2012

It's a gaping question if future presidents can get a majority of members in both houses to stand tall on this issue though.
posted by MuffinMan at 6:16 AM on January 15, 2012

Nevada prostitutes support Ron Paul
posted by Artw at 6:50 AM on January 15, 2012

"“Humane protection of women and the innocent fruit of conjugal intimacy — our next generation of American children — from human trafficking, sexual slavery, seduction into promiscuity, and all forms of pornography and prostitution, infanticide, abortion and other types of coercion or stolen innocence."

HA!! You know I'm concerned about exploitation, occupational hazards physical/emotional/psychological in the adult film and related sex industry occupations--- In addition I'm concerned about occupational hazards in any professions.

But these people make it so easy for the left-- who usually are the ones who would care about exploitation of working people-- to completely dismiss any negatives about the sex industry.

The republicans who want to ... giggle... get hard on porn while making these ridiculously obviously anti-sex statements that make no sense at all-- are about as effective as PETA making a porn site to induce compassion for animal welfare.

I.E. they basically make a better point FOR the sanity of pro-unregulated sex industry than the pro-unregulated sex industry people actually make decent arguments about why it's ethical. Frustrating. Hey, rebuplicans, can you stop trying to end exploitation of people's sexuality because you're making the idea of having concern about others welfare during sexual acts-or the selling of sexual acts- seem like a joke! Stop it!
posted by xarnop at 7:18 AM on January 15, 2012

adoarns, your earlier viewpoint is largely correct, given ~50 or so years of media and communication studies, where high minded professors basically posited that that the everyday viewer of mass media was little more than a sheep to be led around by the mass media. Thankfully, more recently, we've worked out that the audience isn't passive.

So yes, media messages might be pernicious, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the audiences for those messages are just going to take those messages onboard wholesale. For instance, I'm in Singapore atm, and was at a bbq with a bunch of mostly financial industry/ accountants the other night - there were many jokes about the government's attempt to use security fears as a way to control the population, and complaints about the way things are. Despite the government having a lot of control over what gets disseminated and communicted.

So yes, no doubt pornography can exert harm on particular groups, i.e teenagers that know no better etc, but don't discount the critical faculties of the population generally.
posted by Hello, I'm David McGahan at 7:57 AM on January 15, 2012

What's the Ron Paul position?

Cross your fingers and come from behind?
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 8:25 AM on January 15, 2012 [1 favorite]

I find the word "Santorum" obscene.
posted by ZenMasterThis at 8:27 AM on January 15, 2012

I similarly find it difficult to reconcile that the left is so quick to identify certain language as harmful, while in other contexts seems to take the position that content-in-itself is inviolable.
posted by cheburashka at 10:02 AM on January 15, 2012 [1 favorite]

I'm intrigued by the possibility that there might one day be a Porn Czar.

There was one, at least on the state level.
posted by Rangeboy at 10:39 AM on January 15, 2012

Ed Meese was porn czarish, kinda.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 11:03 AM on January 15, 2012

Ed Meese was porn czarish, kinda.

Click through to Messe's wiki page, and look at what "several public policy councils and think tanks" he belongs to. Someone apparently left a little surprise.
posted by Marisa Stole the Precious Thing at 11:20 AM on January 15, 2012

Heh. That's very clever.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 11:27 AM on January 15, 2012

Whoa.
posted by zarq at 12:09 PM on January 15, 2012

Looks like somebody (mefi's own burnmp3s?) already undid it.
posted by Lentrohamsanin at 12:38 PM on January 15, 2012

@Hello, I'm David McGahan:

You're absolutely right about critical faculties. The tendency is to treat the average intellect as it suits one's point, meaning inevitably political discourse gets an awful lot wrong about the average intellect. (And the word average here is a convenient placeholder, although perhaps not the most felicitious, for whatever meaningful fold or reduction operator one wishes to use to measure the cognitive capabilites of all people.)

I don't mean to suggest content harms people in straightforward or popularly-suggested ways. One powerful realization is that the proposition that content can harm does not entail the proposition that consuming minds are passive.

There may even be room for an interesting immunological metaphor in there, whereby one's defensive response to an irritant can cause symptomatic damage—but I haven't the stamina to finish it.
posted by adoarns at 12:39 PM on January 15, 2012

Looks like somebody (mefi's own burnmp3s?) already undid it.

Yeah that was me. Here's a link to the vandalized revision for lulz posterity.
posted by burnmp3s at 12:42 PM on January 15, 2012 [4 favorites]