Trump World Grab-Bag--A Collection

Thursday, May 7, 2015

If Santorum Enters the Race, It's Like I Get All the Hits

I wrote a bad blog-post a handful of years ago that has literally gotten me thousands of hits that I feel like I never exactly earned. See, I had a handful of people visit my blog for reasons of my regular handling of Rick Santorum as an anti-LGBT bigot, and one of the search options that seemed to come up was "santorum" + "blowjobs".

So, naturally, I wrote a blog post about whether former Senator Rick Santorum would outlaw blowjobs. At the moment, it felt like a very natural subject to write about. And really--does anyone want a person in office who would micromanage the sexual behavior of all the people, as if there was nothing better to do?  Is there any reason in the world why anyone would give a healthy solid number two about whether anyone was having an oral exam? Saying it until they're spraying it? Giving the gift of tongues?

In my world, given the fact that Santorum's unique imposition of a limit on sexy funtimes to nothing but hetero and missionary, which might even look askance at a wank, it seemed fit and meet to me to warn folks that Santorum might try to become the boss of your parts. Sure, he's anti-gay and anti-abortion. He's even anti-contraception. But if he's down on going down, shouldn't we all just pause? What the literal lack of fuck?

But, come May 27th, he's liable to announce. Now, I don't give a lot of credit to his viability as a candidate, his coming in second-ish last time around aside. He didn't camp out in Iowa; Huckabee, Carson, Cruz, and Paul can all make claims about their evangelical bona fides, and the Duggars have thrown his late-to-the party behind over for Rev. Huckabee.

Sure, he pretends he has foreign policy cred above the rest of the mix, and tries at the populism thing. But deep down, if he runs, I know I will get all the hits about whether Santorum would make blowjobs illegal. Because that is a plausible meme. Because people care. And he might could be thinking about just that.  It even might be the entire reason he is running, since he has not held office a while.

8 comments:

Big Bad Bald Bastard said...

Huckabee drank Santorum's milkshake. The religious right is not going to choose a Pennsylvania Catholic over an Arkansas Southern Baptist.

mikey said...

It's worth remembering - and reminding ourselves - during the Presidential campaign crazy season that no matter what the President believes or desires, he/she cannot make laws. He/she can propose legislation, but as you've probably noticed, very little actually passes our crippled and dysfunctional houses of congress...

Formerly Amherst said...

My dear Vixen, greetings and salutations.

Oddly enough, you are probably in a better position to explain Rick Santorum's sexual predispositions than most of your commenters.

Why would I make such an outrageous assertion?

Because you went to a Catholic university and presumably grew up Catholic before you started an illustrious career of rebellion against whatever all that represented to you.

I grew up as a nominal Protestant. And while Protestantism is a little Pat Boone-ish, it is also a very heterosexual scene. Ministers are looked at a little weird if they don't get married and start producing babies. People rush to Protestant singles' groups when they are trying to hook up with someone after more than an exciting night.

You on the other hand grew up Catholic, and Santorum grew up Catholic, and as a consequence I think maybe you should explain to us what Santorum's influences were when it comes to his sexual orientation. You have a celibate priesthood, celibate nuns, and therefore an automatic sort of respect for the orientation of chastity. It's also kind of a gilding of the lily, because a lot of Catholic groups seem to be very focused on sexuality when you have your leading figure conspicuously celibate. Naturally, this causes a lot of conversation and consternation. You also have to be forgiven through the confessional for things like auto-eroticism. In Protestantism, with a few exceptions, auto-eroticism is followed by more pursuits at dating. Nobody really regards this as something for which some sort of forgiveness needs to be disposed.

Anyway, you grew up with all this, and lord only knows an Italian Catholic pretty much knows the system from the ground up.

Huckabee, from Arkansas, is from the Protestant world where sex drives and heterosexuality are assumed unless someone goes to the pastor and wants counsel about it. Otherwise the good ole boys and girls are running around chasing tail but with the hopeful contention that ultimately it's about marriage.

So I ask you as a noted expert on exotic sexual practices. Maybe you could feel disposed to explain to the rest of us what is up with Rick Santorum.


P.S. In the Western lodge system, sexual matters are simply regarded as personal. However, we do insist that should people wish to produce a Moon Child, they really, really, really know what they are doing.

Big Bad Bald Bastard said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Big Bad Bald Bastard said...

Cazzo di merda! Ma gavte la nata, pazzo.

It's funny how, with the exception of the clergy, the populations of majority Catholic countries always have a lot fewer sexual hangups than sweet FA's American Anglo-Saxon Protestant good old boys.

Brazil or Appalachia? Italy or Oklahoma?

Formerly Amherst said...

I think bbbb is absolutely right.

My view is that the Protestant sexuality is robust and at the same time a lot more whitebread. Actually, I had theological reasons for putting P on my dog tags. And yet the whole Catholicism culture is a lot richer and less prosaic.

At one point in my life, I actually had two good buddies who were Catholic priests. And I preferred hanging around them to Protestant pastors. I always found Protestant pastors a little too sanctimonious. Oddly enough, the Catholic priests I knew came on much more like regular guys despite the fact that celibacy insisted that they lead lives very removed from ordinary experience, while the Protestants were pretty much living ordinary lives parallel to the people they served.

Vixen is raising questions about Rick Santorum and his sexuality. Obviously, he came by his personal views because of his religion. And I'm wondering what insight someone on the inside of Catholic teaching can bring to bear on the Santorum situation.

I completely understand that in Catholicism and Protestantism you have a handful of “church nerds” and many of them become priests and ministers. I remember this one Catholic kid who made a lot of trips back and forth the before the sacrament so he could genuflect a couple of hundred times. I've known protestant kids who carried a Bible around in there hand 24 hours a day, and would pray over deciding to have a stick of chewing gum. Weird knows no denomination.

I don't attend any church, and I haven't for a long time. In my real life, I cover a lot of philosophy and theology that intersects in some ways with my interests and responsibilities as a leader in an esoteric lodge. I would say my favorite theologians are Protestant, and my favorite practices are Catholic. If I were forced to define myself relative to some subjects that I am not invested in.

The question is, what teaching would lead Rick Santorum to hold whatever views he has on sexuality?

Vixen Strangely said...

My heritage as a Catholic is a little overstated, but an honest mistake--

My family is about 50-50 Protestant and Catholic, a mix of mostly Irish, German and English. We seem to have practiced a kind of unintentional cultural exogamy with Protestant generations marrying into Catholic families and so on. It's a little tiring to keep straight who practices what. My parents dispensed with the whole thing by the time I came around, so my brother and were spared anything to do with religion, except for Christmas. Over time, however, I went to enough confirmations, weddings, etc to get the hang of the standing up and sitting down bits of the whole church thing--but that was later on. I was not exposed to it until I was at school.

Most of my schoolmates were a touch incredulous that "not any church" was even an option. So I kind of did the Bible school circuit, dragged along by well-meaning friends who hoped to church a heathen. But I think I missed whatever formative stage I was supposed to be at for any of it to "stick" as it were.

Which is a roundabout way of getting to my perspective on it--looking at Catholicism, and to an extent fundamentalist Protestantism, there are some really odd hang-ups that must have worked into the brain of a kid before they were old enough to critically deal with them.

I wouldn't say that Huckabee and Santorum's respective political policies with respects to sexual/reproductive matters are that far apart, but to do a kind of "snap analysis"--Huckabee once gave an interview stating his opposition to LGBT rights came down to the "ick" factor. In the same interview, he pointed out certain women, like Nancy Pelosi, who would sure be hard to be married to (he used the term married, I believe, but translation understood--she isn't beddable). I got the distinct impression of a person who dealt with those matters, when he did, on simple terms. Like, grade school terms. It's casually misogynistic because women have cooties and are only good for girl stuff.

Santorum, on the other hand, does seem to have a guilt trip going re: sex and, I've noticed, knowledge in general. Sex is, in the oldest tradition of Christianity, following Augustine and Aquinas, who acquired their hangups from, of all places, Aristotle, not supposed to be pleasant. It's supposed to be fecund. Men pay for pleasure by being married, women probably shouldn't have pleasure, but if they do, they pay by having kids. Sex isn't by itself clean. Sex for pleasure is fornication, and for that matter, dealing with education outside of one's religious focus is spiritual fornication. I feel like the two things are very much tied together for Santorum. Fornication is bad and dangerous and needs to be denied or controlled.

He makes little jerking off gestures during speeches--watch out for it. It's odd.

Catholicism to an extent seems to reinforce certain heteronormative ideas about the place of women, but it could just be a byproduct of maintaining cultural traditions past their sell-by date. Christianity in general seems to place a premium on the idea of chastity as idealized, and a fascination with virginity on one hand as "good" and experience on the other as "bad"--but the harsher judgments regarding them fall on women.

All I know is, I'd rather be a fallen woman in Rio de Janiero or Tulsa, than in Riyadh. But I would prefer a culture where such a concept didn't exist at all.

Vixen Strangely said...

While I'm being autobiographical--

I'm phenotypically stereotypically Irish. (Although I grew up in a Russian Jewish neighborhood where I was assumed to be Russian in the store I once worked at. So I learned the words "Shto?" and "Ya ne znayu." Which left Russian customers thinking I was either deaf or stupid. )

I'm not sure how a Catholic university made sense, except that It was inexpensive and one SEPTA route from my parent's house. But the funny thing is, although my family couldn't be bothered spiritually, my dad always referred to Catholicism as the Church, and the other guys as "Brand X". As in "they are having a flea market down at the Brand X church--you should take a look."

I think I picked up the general idea of Catholicism as an earlier and purer lineage of the Christian tradition (although, FA, you are aware of my fascination with Gnosticism) which kind of leant a fascination for the ritual of the Church for me. When I married, first, an Irish Catholic, and then, a 1st gen Italian-American (lapsed Catholic Atheist), my habit of being a kind of unbelieving Catholic satellite was ensured. So I have an admiration for the Nuns on the Bus, and the way Pope Francis has kind of turned things back from the uberconservatism immediately preceding him.

When I see change in the Holy See, I see a sea change.