A (President) Santorum Would Ban Hard Core Porn

Rick Santorum PortraitAliyah Shahid reports in the NY Daily News

Rick Santorum is declaring a war … on porn.

The Republican presidential candidate and staunch social conservative wants to ban hard-core pornography. He calls it “toxic to marriages and relationships” in a new statement posted on his official website.

“America is suffering a pandemic of harm from pornography,” the former Pennsylvania senator writes. “It contributes to misogyny and violence against women. It is a contributing factor to prostitution and sex trafficking.”

He demands a crackdown on the distribution of hardcore pornography on the Internet, in addition to material on cable/satellite TV, hotel/motel TV, retail shops and through the mail.

What qualifies as “hardcore” remains unclear. Santorum points to a “wealth of research” showing pornography causes “profound brain changes in both children and adults,” and rips President Obama for not doing enough.

Image: “A Portrait of Rick Santorum Made of Gay Porn Stills” via Jezebel

Read more: NY Daily News

, , , , ,

55 Responses to A (President) Santorum Would Ban Hard Core Porn

  1. m1kesa1m0ns March 20, 2012 at 3:14 pm #

    I suppose he’d also like me to dedicate each ejaculation to the new American Fatherland.

    Will masturbation become a capital offense?

    • 1captainhooker1 March 20, 2012 at 3:42 pm #

       God I hope so, because the protests would be glorious.

  2. Keith March 20, 2012 at 3:18 pm #

    Hahaha, Rick just realized he has to pretend to give a shit about women.

  3. JohnFrancisBittrich March 20, 2012 at 3:24 pm #

    Nixon tried this, too. His scientific studies turned up ZERO proof that pornography causes anyone to be more violent or hateful towards women, so the study was thrown out. Violent, hateful people exist and enjoy violent, hateful sexual fantasies, but the act of watching porn in and of itself hurts nobody.

    • Adamsshadow March 20, 2012 at 6:45 pm #

      Fuck things like double-blind studies and sober analysis: anti-porn crusaders have an interview Ted Bundy gave to James Dobson right before Bundy’s execution to prove their point.  Seriously, if Sen. Butt-Sex Byproduct (R-PA) hasn’t already used that bullshit incident to bolster his argument, I am predicting he will at some point.  Social conservatives love to play that whole thing up: “But porn is bad!  Ted Bundy said it was all porn’s fault that he brutally raped and murdered those women!  Why would a serial killer lie?”

       Am I wrong in calling this?  Has anyone else heard the fundies pull the Dobson-Bundy “talk” out of their sanctimonious asses?  Because if this becomes a real campaign talking point, I think Santorum will bring it up. 

      • Eric_D_Read March 29, 2012 at 1:06 pm #

        I don’t know if Bundy has enough of an enduring scare factor to make an effective campaign prop. Besides, the highest rates of porn use are found the most securely red states; so that plan of attack could backfire big time.

  4. Liam_McGonagle March 20, 2012 at 3:25 pm #

    But wouldn’t terrible economic prospects be the more likely killer of marriages and handmaiden to careers in street walking?  There are tons of studies correlating low marriage and birth rates over the last 4 years to the tanked economy.  So, I fail to see how putting hundreds of job-creating publishers out of business tackles this problem.

    Plus this spells the end of Santorum’s residuals from his own career in gay porn.

    • Hadrian999 March 20, 2012 at 3:45 pm #

       the more I think about it the more I believe Rick is actively trying lose but he is underestimating how reactionary the base is

      • Liam_McGonagle March 20, 2012 at 3:50 pm #

        You know, I feel caught totally offguard by the GOP’s apparent self-destruction.

        I guess I knew it was coming, on an intellectual level.  But it’d survived so much gross stupidity up ’til this point that I figured it had another 300 years left in it at least.

        And maybe it still does.  Maybe you’re correct, that the only purpose of these loony displays are to keep the crowd going, like at a WWF match.  If so, Santorum is just a propitiary sacrifice, to slake the blood thirst of the Gods of Political Kabuki.  But it sure is beginning to feel like The End.

        • Eric_D_Read March 20, 2012 at 5:25 pm #

          Liked for the WWF comparison, but I don’t think they’re self-destructing at all. Maybe for this presidential election, but I also suspect that’s all part of the act.

    • Hadrian999 March 20, 2012 at 4:29 pm #

       I always find it interesting that the free-market idea only applies to things the right likes. Things like Drugs, prostitution, pornography, sexuality, culture, and language must be violently controlled by a big powerful government, why not trust the great and mystical market forces that they claim will solve every problem imaginable. It shows just how much they believe in the personal liberty they are always talking about and how much they really want to limit governmental power.

      • Robert S March 20, 2012 at 4:40 pm #

        Very well said.  

      • Eric_D_Read March 20, 2012 at 4:47 pm #

        I don’t get that either. Especially when you figure how much of the republican base, and I mean the rank-and-file voter, loves drugs, casual sex, porn, and violent entertainment in their private lives.

        I get it with the jesus freaks. That’s their chief concern in life. But there are millions of people who don’t give a shit about religion or “family values” who consistently vote republican.

  5. Hadrian999 March 20, 2012 at 3:40 pm #

    pro christianity, pro-life, anti birth control………calling others out on misogyny

  6. 1captainhooker1 March 20, 2012 at 3:41 pm #

     “toxic to marriages and relationships”- really?  My wife and I have been together for 10 years, and after a lull in our physical relationship due to childbirth and plain ole exhaustion, watching a few old school pornographic films was just the creative spark we needed to regain our mojo. 

    Politicians need to stop projecting their personal fears and hangups on the rest of the population.

    • Robert S March 20, 2012 at 4:41 pm #

      I think he’s threatened by the guys in the movies.  Now, if he’s threatened by size or the fact that he can’t keep his eyes from wandering to them is an open question.  

    • Audio7 March 20, 2012 at 8:30 pm #

      TMI, dude.

  7. RONIN March 20, 2012 at 3:41 pm #

    He just lost my vote.

    • Mr Willow March 20, 2012 at 7:54 pm #

      He ever had it?

      • RONIN March 21, 2012 at 3:15 pm #

        No. I was being ironical.

  8. Robert S March 20, 2012 at 4:35 pm #

    Fortunately, we shouldn’t have to worry about this.  He needs 70% of the remaining delegates to win the nomination.  He’s not averaging anywhere near that.  And, on the off chance he pulls that off, Obama will wipe the floor with him.  

  9. Eric_D_Read March 20, 2012 at 4:40 pm #

    Fundiefeminist hybrids. That’s just great. 
    Strange times.

    • Jin The Ninja March 22, 2012 at 1:50 pm #

       he’s not a feminist, just very very repressed.

  10. David Pittman March 20, 2012 at 7:00 pm #

    That’s why it’s time for a third party in America.  Check out lemonparty.org It will only take a few seconds.

  11. Mythosopher March 20, 2012 at 7:37 pm #

    Interesting fact: Federal law and many state laws already bans the sale or distribution of hardcore porn. It’s still around because (1) there’s high demand; (2) prosecutors have better things to do; and (3) huge media interests (not just producers, but ISPs, cable providers, etc.) would be furious if the government actually tried to kill that cash cow.

    • Liam_McGonagle March 20, 2012 at 7:43 pm #

      I thought there was a highly subjective “community standard” or some such sort, that had to be applied in determining what meets the defnition of hardcore porn, and that courts just basically gave up enforcing it because it was too subjective and put too many economic interests from different jurisdictions at odds (as you say).

      • Hadrian999 March 20, 2012 at 10:25 pm #

         the history of porn laws in the U.S. is quite hilarious.
        at one time Ulysses was considered porn

  12. BuzzCoastin March 20, 2012 at 7:45 pm #

    in my experience
    anyone who is rabidly against something
    like porn, drugs, prostitution
    is secretly neck deep in the illicit activity
    feels guilty
    and hopes the law will free them of shame

    Sanscrotum is obviously addicted to porn
    and supports Communist China’s censorship ideals in the name of religion
    he’s pretty sick puppy

  13. Irish Potato Gun March 20, 2012 at 10:00 pm #

    Ok, you can ban porn, but you have to legal prostitution, deal?

    • JaceD March 21, 2012 at 2:02 am #

      You want legal prostitution AND porn? Move to New Zealand, we’re in no shortage of ether.

      • Lmnop_nis March 21, 2012 at 2:16 am #

        Yeah, but how are your STD stats?

        • JaceD March 21, 2012 at 2:38 am #

          STD? What is STD?

  14. DeepCough March 20, 2012 at 10:19 pm #

    Y’know what, I want a Santorum presidency, because I want Americans to see truth: that the paleoconservative religion espoused by polliticians like Rick Santorum will only promulgate further the production of pornography, the trade of prostitutes, the incidences of misogyny, the performance of back-alley abortions, the degradation of learning science in schools, the deterioration of communities due to disease: I want all of this to happen–and under a Rick Santorum presidency, it sure as fuck will–because that is what it’s going to take to get Americans to appreciate the sanity of SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE and to acknowledge the insanity of letting conniving, stalwart theocrats rule with a book full of allegory and metaphor from 2,000 years ago that they have barely read, and thereby, barely comprehend. I want Rick Santorumm to go down as the Republican Jimmy Carter; I want Rick Santorum to go down in history as the president that tried to pull the U.S. back into the Dark Ages with his overreaching and unconstitutional authority–because it’s gonna take that kind of civilizational trauma for Americans to embrace some measure of progress here in the 21st century.

    • Chase Robertson March 25, 2012 at 9:46 pm #

       Bush 2 said he was going to bring “bring back morality to the White House” (whatever that means) but once in office he realized he didn’t want all the trouble. Bush 2 and the republican establishment did nothing about abortion, prayer in schools, pornography or any thing else they love to get outraged over. Aside from the fact that the repubs have unpopular stands on many issues, they don’t want their guy in the White House to take the blame for actually doing any of those things.

  15. Cutie8grapes21 March 22, 2012 at 11:19 am #

    Wasn’t misogyny and violence against women being committed long before pornography? Furthermore, if there is any industry where women far outshine their male counterparts it is the porn industry. If he is so concerned with the state of affairs for women, how about addressing the fact that they tend to make less than men on average? 

    • Jin The Ninja March 22, 2012 at 1:51 pm #

       they make 70% of what men make in the same job. 

      • Cees Timmerman March 26, 2012 at 4:53 am #

        Except in porn, where they make much more than the men do.

        • Jin The Ninja March 26, 2012 at 11:45 am #

          an industry known for it’s strict ethical and moral standard.

          • Cees Timmerman March 28, 2012 at 1:08 pm #

            Morals are subjective, and humans judging humans because humans can’t be trusted to make good judgements is a paradox.

          • Jin The Ninja March 28, 2012 at 1:51 pm #

            Morality is subjective, ethics are more universal. If we are to use a purely legal or academic context, I would say the social and personal harm caused, is greater than the product produced. That is not a paradox, to empathise with people and deconstruct industrial practices that seek to harm them.

          • Cees Timmerman March 29, 2012 at 8:24 am #

            Please define “the social and personal harm caused” and compare it with the ethics of less-taboo jobs.

          • Jin The Ninja March 29, 2012 at 11:12 am #

            i`m not anti-porn, simply critical of its production, and will not be drawn into a pro / anti debate with you when that is simply not my position.

          • Cees Timmerman March 29, 2012 at 12:39 pm #

            Your view applies to any industry yet here you single out one with a sarcastic comment.

          • Jin The Ninja March 29, 2012 at 2:27 pm #

            i find the production of pornography to be deeply problematic( do i find it more problematic than other exploitative industries? NO.); however you are the one who raised it as an issue in the context of our discussion. As i said, i’m not anti porn, nor “pro” porn, i recognise sexuality and body sovereignty as paramount, but i am not going to feign indifference to the porn industry, when it is still one of many problemati ‘industries.’

          • Cees Timmerman March 30, 2012 at 3:36 am #

            I merely corrected your assumption that women make 70% what men do for the same job. You’re the one raising (undefined) issues here.

            There is nothing unjust or cruel about willingly having sex for money, just like i willingly sit and stare at a monitor for 40 hours a week for money.

          • Jin The Ninja April 8, 2012 at 3:14 am #

            Women do make 70% of what men make in most jobs. Porn is problematic for a variety of reasons, namely in the production of it- whether or not the content is objectionable is another issue.
            You  need to come back when you’ve explored some basic film theory- specifically in reference to gender and sexuality- because as it stands now, all you are doing is posturing for an indefensible (non) position instead of honestly acknowledging that porn can be ‘problematic’ and to assert so, is not the same as  blanketly condemning it as some kind of purely evil industry.

          • Cees Timmerman April 10, 2012 at 6:41 am #

            Why don’t you just acknowledge my points instead of offering vague distractions.

          • Jin The Ninja April 10, 2012 at 7:26 am #

            double post.

          • Jin The Ninja April 10, 2012 at 7:26 am #

            you’re so circular. you’re obfuscating. porn production has problems- for women, for men, for culture. it’s not an organic system- it is flawed. like i said, read something and come back when you’ve gained some perspective- because the only point that is obvious is that you have an issue with me having an issue with porn. that is totally juvenile.

          • Cees Timmerman April 11, 2012 at 3:40 am #

            You’re projecting. Like i said, your undefined problems apply to any job, not just porn. If a (possibly exhibitionist) couple decides to make extra money by taping and selling their bedroom escapades, then that’s fine by me. I will not let you drag me down with ad hominem.

          • Jin The Ninja April 11, 2012 at 4:11 am #

            what the F*CK are you talking about? i’m not talking about voyeurs- have no problem whatsever with the scenario you’ve posited. I was speaking to the STUDIO production of pornography. What am i projecting? You never said anything about my ‘problems.’ LOL. where are you getting this from?

          • Cees Timmerman March 28, 2012 at 1:09 pm #

            Also, it’s “its”.

          • Jin The Ninja March 28, 2012 at 1:51 pm #

            noted.

  16. Guest March 22, 2012 at 3:39 pm #

    …and the worst part is that this guy actually seems to believe what he says, every last freaking word of it.

  17. Schmucko March 24, 2012 at 10:12 pm #

    he is catholic opus dei, and wears a cilice
    kind of kink, like them whipping themselves
    also a knight of malta
    wonder if it has something to with reverse cowgirling

Leave a Reply