Conservative stance on porn

[ajitpd]

What is the official and/or typical American conservative stance on porn?

And yes, this is a serious question from someone who is not from and never has been in USA.

 

[Facetious]

I may concur or side with "conservatives" on many issues but at the end of each day I am a free willed spirit who doesn't much follow the dictates of any particular political ideology.

Sorry I couldn't help :o

 

[Jagger69]

I may concur or side with "conservatives" on many issues but at the end of each day I am a free willed spirit who doesn't much follow the dictates of any particular political ideology.

Sorry I couldn't help :o

LOL....I'd interpret that as an "I'll take the fifth amendment on that one". :1orglaugh

All kidding aside, no party has a monopoly on sexual malfeasance but it is the conservative claim to represent true American "family values" when there are oh-so-many examples that show quite the opposite to be true that makes a mockery of their condescending attitude about such things.

Glass houses....they're all around us. Let me know if you want a list of offenders.

 

[StanScratch]

Just before Clinton took office, a friend told me I had better hoard all of the porn I could, because Bill was going to make it illegal and take it all away.
A lot of irony in that statement, now that I look back on it.

 

[Facetious]

The 5th lol ! :hatsoff:


No, I just think that America, and the whole world for that matter would be a better place for everybody if we would only stop looking over our shoulders for the approval of this wing or thata wing, ya dig ?

Sure you do


Maybe I'm just an uninitiated libertarian, making my own rues as I go through life, I don't know. I do know that I loathe group think mentality as well as political authority figures who tell me that "I MUST do this or I must do that. .... ideologues, you know ?

 

[Hot Mega]

Do you mean their public stance, private stance or the infamous "wide stance"?:dunno:

 

[Rey C.]

It depends on what you mean by "conservative". A lot of people in the U.S. want to think of themselves as conservatives these days. But they're usually not clear on whether they're fiscal conservatives, social conservatives, both, neither... or they just want to be part of the kewl crowd by using that tag. It's kind of like buying a Harley and making believe that you're "real" biker.

Claiming to be a (real deal) social conservative and being into porn is like claiming to be Jewish, but enjoying a good ol' Hardee's ham & egg biscuit with a side of sausage gravy.

If a person claims to be one of the family values, born again, fundamentalist/Evangelical, social conservatives, this gives a decent glimpse into what their beliefs are (or should be):

Sen. Tom Coburn’s (R-Okla.) Chief of Staff:
‘All Pornography Is Homosexual Pornography’

One of the final events of the Values Voter Summit was a Saturday breakout session on “the new masculinity,” a wide-ranging topic that one speaker used to explain how any and all pornography could lead young people into homosexual lifestyles. That speaker was Sen. Tom Coburn’s (R-Okla.) chief of staff Michael Schwartz, a longtime conservative activist who has worked for the senator since 2005.

“Pornography is a blight,” Schwartz told an audience in a crowded room of the Omni Shoreham hotel. “It is a disaster. It is one of those silent diseases in our society that we haven’t been able to overcome very well. Now, I may be getting politically incorrect here. And it’s been a few years, but not that many, since I was closely associated with pre-adolescent boys, boys around 10 years of age. But it is my observation that boys of that age have less tolerance for homosexuality than just about any other class of people. They speak badly about homosexuality. And that’s because they don’t want to be that way. They don’t want to fall into it.”


Schwartz told the crowd about Jim Johnson, a friend of his who turned an old hotel into a hospice for gay men dying of AIDS. “One of the things he said to me,” said Schwartz, “that I think is an astonishingly insightful remark… he said ‘All pornography is homosexual pornography, because all pornography turns your sexual drive inwards.”

There were murmurs and gasps from the crowd. “Now, think about that,” said Schwartz. “And if you tell an 11-year-old boy about that, do you think he’s going to want to get a copy of Playboy? I’m pretty sure he’ll lose interest. That’s the last thing he wants! You know, that’s a good comment, it’s a good point, and it’s a good thing to teach young people.”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l8tQwtuzqpc&feature=player_embedded

 

[lurkingdirk]

does anyone have the clarence thomas interview on SNL about this?


In general, from my own experience (just that, don't read this as though I'm trying to state a national statistic here), Americans seem to be ideologically against porn, but large consumers.

 

[CunningStunts]

Depends on what your definition of "conservative" is... I believe as long as adults are in the movies and adults buy it, it's free people exercising their freedom.

 

[ajitpd]

Do you mean their public stance, private stance or the infamous "wide stance"?:dunno:

Of course, I mean public stance. I know about private stance since I am a regular visitor of FreeOnes Bulletin Board.

 

[~~whimsy~~]

Any red blooded human enjoys looking at a beautiful body!

Heck, I am sure even asexual and eunuchs get a spine tingle.

Conservammotive, littlecerebral, dumbocrat, repungentcan, whatever! We all love to look at beautiful people. Or, at least, who we find personally beautiful, we will admire.

I don't feel like getting into too much, I simply don't care, so I will leave it at the fact that people love looking at hot, sexy, gorgeous people! That is that!

 

[Rey C.]

Do you mean their public stance, private stance or the infamous "wide stance"?:dunno:

I missed that on the first read. :thumbsup: :rofl:

 

[ajitpd]

It depends on what you mean by "conservative". A lot of people in the U.S. want to think of themselves as conservatives these days. But they're usually not clear on whether they're fiscal conservatives, social conservatives, both, neither... or they just want to be part of the kewl crowd by using that tag. It's kind of like buying a Harley and making believe that you're "real" biker.

Now that might divert discussion from my original topic still here it goes.

My windows to American politics are Daily Show and The Colbert Report. In last three four episodes, Colbert has scathingly criticized fiscal conservatism and capitalism where he has pointed out the hypocrisy of social and religions conservatives and described how their social values and religion go out the window when it comes to money.

To me a fiscal conservative looks somewhat like this:

A person who makes enormous amounts of money without much effort but is quick to point out how everyone else is making free money without working, regardless of the ground economic facts.

Correct me if I am wrong.

The whole point is, to me, an outsider, all kinds of American conservatism, though often possessing contradicting notions, are confusingly overlapping each other.

 

[~~whimsy~~]

Someone says they like broccoli, another does not. Do they go around imposing their feelings about it to one another?

One likes to read horror novels another likes to read sci-fi thrillers. Do they go about headbutting each other?

One likes porn and the other doesn't. :dunno:

 

[jasonk282]

Now that might divert discussion from my original topic still here it goes.

My windows to American politics are Daily Show and The Colbert Report. In last three four episodes, Colbert has scathingly criticized fiscal conservatism and capitalism where he has pointed out the hypocrisy of social and religions conservatives and described how their social values and religion go out the window when it comes to money.

To me a fiscal conservative looks somewhat like this:

A person who makes enormous amounts of money without much effort but is quick to point out how everyone else is making free money without working, regardless of the ground economic facts.

Correct me if I am wrong.

The whole point is, to me, an outsider, all kinds of American conservatism, though often possessing contradicting notions, are confusingly overlapping each other.

I love both shows where Steward is a bit more journalistic than Colbert, but Colbert's staire is spot on.

I myself just changed from the Democratic party to the Republican party, I know what I can't stand and that is hypocritics(both parties have them). I would venture to say that American Conversativeism focuses more on personal responsbility than goverment handouts, but that's just how I see it.

 

[Facetious]

What's most important is that we maintain a balance of political powers, checks and balances as it were, but most ideologues won't go there because they put their "political potty"
(party, that is ) before their country and well.... that's a bummer.


"W i d e" Stance somebody mentioned ?
Minneapolis/ St Paul intl ?

No Way / Get outta here ! :thefinger

:angels:

 

[titsrock]

Do you mean their public stance, private stance or the infamous "wide stance"?:dunno:

Alright. This is the post of the month. :bowdown:

Now that might divert discussion from my original topic still here it goes.

My windows to American politics are Daily Show and The Colbert Report. In last three four episodes, Colbert has scathingly criticized fiscal conservatism and capitalism where he has pointed out the hypocrisy of social and religions conservatives and described how their social values and religion go out the window when it comes to money..

I can say that the Catholic Church in this country meets the social conservative hypocrisy in several areas--most obviously with annulment. If a person (say a political wannabe) writes a check to the church, PRESTO! you can have your annulment. This is a crystal clear example of selling your morals out for the dollar. I'm sure other kinds of Christianity are similar. Some, like Episcopalians, are more attuned to "contemporary norms."

Social Conservatives are quick to beat their chests and SCREAM at how other people should live their lives according to Christian morality, but when something, say, an unwanted pregnancy comes, then it's off to see the doctor quietly.

Porn is basically filmed fornication. Therefore, according to Social Conservatives, yes, it would be a sin.

 

[Rey C.]

To me a fiscal conservative looks somewhat like this:

A person who makes enormous amounts of money without much effort but is quick to point out how everyone else is making free money without working, regardless of the ground economic facts.

Correct me if I am wrong.

Well, that might describe some who claim to be fiscal conservatives. But basically fiscal conservatism is just the belief that (in this case) government should be fiscally responsible: do not spend more than is taken in, keep taxes low, don't waste taxpayer dollars on bureaucracy, etc. Some fiscal conservatives subscribe to supply side economic theory instead of Keynesian/demand side theory. Currently, there are very, very few people in the GOP leadership who even understand supply side theory in full. At best, many believe that cutting taxes (for select groups) meets the (minimum) requirements of being a supply sider. Here's the deal with that though. If you cut taxes, in the short term, government revenues will be less. The long term economic goals depend on the lower tax rates spurring economic growth in the medium to long term, which would (theoretically) produce greater tax revenues in the longer term. Done correctly, at the right point in an economic cycle, it does work. Misapplied, it's a disaster. But in the short term, to really make it work, one would have to ALSO cut spending to make up for the lost revenues. That's the part that the neocons and the Bushies didn't get. For every $1 cut in domestic spending, they wanted to spend $2 on some meaningless foreign expedition or military program.

At the end of the day, you can tell a fiscally responsible administration from one that is not. Just ask the question: is there a surplus? Odd as it may be, Clinton was pretty fiscally responsible = surplus. Duhbya Bush was a fucking disaster = deficit and near depression. And I suspect that Obama will be pretty (fiscally) disasterous as well. The main (fiscal) difference between Bush and Obama is, Duhbya wasted OUR money overseas (Iraq will end up costing us at least as much as the stimulus, if not more) and Obama will waste it domestically. Me, if it's going to get wasted anyway, I'd rather have it tossed about here.

The whole point is, to me, an outsider, all kinds of American conservatism, though often possessing contradicting notions, are confusingly overlapping each other.

The truth is, we Americans are basically full of shit a lot of the time... myself included. Very few people are able to avoid hypocrisy, at least some of the time.

Really good questions though. :thumbsup:

Say, if you wanna have some fun... if you ever come to America, or if the silly bitch ever makes it to your country, ask Sarah Palin how the Alaska Permanent Fund Dividend is not socialism, and ask her how she can claim to be a "fiscal conservative" when she placed a windfall profits tax on oil companies in Alaska... and distributed that money to the people. :wtf: Now just realize that such a question may cause her eyes to begin rolling around in her empty head , and she may begin twitching and winking... but it'll be OK. As long as she lands headfirst when she collapses from this hard line of gotcha questioning, she'll be fine. There's nothing in her head that can be easily damaged. Cause ya see, Sarah is a bullshitter too.

 

[meesterperfect]

It depends on what you mean by "conservative". A lot of people in the U.S. want to think of themselves as conservatives these days. But they're usually not clear on whether they're fiscal conservatives, social conservatives, both, neither... or they just want to be part of the kewl crowd by using that tag. It's kind of like buying a Harley and making believe that you're "real" biker.

Claiming to be a (real deal) social conservative and being into porn is like claiming to be Jewish, but enjoying a good ol' Hardee's ham & egg biscuit with a side of sausage gravy.

If a person claims to be one of the family values, born again, fundamentalist/Evangelical, social conservatives, this gives a decent glimpse into what their beliefs are (or should be):


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l8tQwtuzqpc&feature=player_embedded

I am about as conservative as one gets.
you know, work hard, earn , prosper, live good.
not work hard, get half of it robbed and wasted and given to others, suffer, watch every penny and be stressed out.
you are just completely off base in this post with your comparisons and generalizations.
mixing politics with religion, its just not accurate.
not all consrvatives, actually very few are born again, fundamentalist/Evangelical,
family values yes,which means we dont condome get drunk get high get laid get pregnant get someone else to pay for it.

the church is not as influencial in the republican party as people like to make it out to be.
on the other hand, the synagogue is a huge influence on the democratic.
but we cant talk about that, wouldnt be prudent.

 

[titsrock]

^
Meester, correct me if I'm wrong but isn't it the Repubs who are the ones that are abject pro-Israel and support Israel's "right to defend herself" and isn't it the Dems who want to consider Palestine and a 2 State Solution?