Rick Santorum Wants Your Sex Life to Be 'Special'

[High_Gravity]

if you can "hear" it.....now it's time to try to understand it......if you'd drop the religious antipathy you might realize something that is RATIONAL....

FACT: when society does NOT ENCOURAGE easy free irresponsible sex......there are less problems....less fatherless babies, less abortions, less broken homes, less poverty.....

FACT: People are going to **** whether society encourages it or not.

 

[Nosmo King]

How are the small government, anti-nanny state, too much federal interference in your personal life crowd going to rally around the Puritan Santorum?

He apparently wants a government small enough to fit comfortably in your bedroom.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

if you can "hear" it.....now it's time to try to understand it......if you'd drop the religious antipathy you might realize something that is RATIONAL....

FACT: when society does NOT ENCOURAGE easy free irresponsible sex......there are less problems....less fatherless babies, less abortions, less broken homes, less poverty.....

FACT: People are going to **** whether society encourages it or not.

why is there more teen sex than a few decades ago.....?

 

[High_Gravity]

if you can "hear" it.....now it's time to try to understand it......if you'd drop the religious antipathy you might realize something that is RATIONAL....

FACT: when society does NOT ENCOURAGE easy free irresponsible sex......there are less problems....less fatherless babies, less abortions, less broken homes, less poverty.....

FACT: People are going to **** whether society encourages it or not.

why is there more teen sex than a few decades ago.....?

Teens are not supervised as much as they were back than right?

 

[healthmyths]

"They're supposed to be within marriage, for purposes that are, yes, conjugal... but also procreative."

No one, in my opinion, has the right to tell me how to think. And when words, such as "supposed and should and shouldn't " are spoken to, or at, me, it implies that someone else knows what is better for me, than I do, for myself. I tune that person out.

Michelle Obama..
"We’re going to have to make sacrifices, we’re going to have to change our conversation, we’re going to have to change our traditions, our history and we’re going to have to move to a different place.”
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=59twO1fJwtQ]Michelle Obama on The View - YouTube[/ame]

So have you "tuned Michelle Obama" out?

 

[jgarden]

"One of the things I will talk about that no president has talked about before is I think the dangers of contraception in this country, the whole sexual libertine idea... It's not okay because it's a license to do things in the sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be. They're supposed to be within marriage, for purposes that are, yes, conjugal... but also procreative.

That's the perfect way that a sexual union should happen. We take any part of that out, we diminish the act. And if you can take one part out that's not for purposes of procreation, that's not one of the reasons, then you diminish this very special bond between men and women, so why can't you take other parts of that out? .....

What America needs is a presidential candidate who's developed a purient interest to ensure "procreation" is front and center on the business agenda in the bedrooms of the nation.

Meanwhile our ever vigilent conservative "friends" accuse Obama of being intrusive over "lunchbox nazi inspectors are mandated by the Feds!"

Should Santorum is elected president, it won't be "lunchboxes" that will be concerning the federally mandated "nazi inspectors!"

Pardon me - I 'm off to perform the patriotic duty of "procreating" somemore future Democratic voters!

 

[koshergrl]

What I see is that Santorum thinks it behooves us as adults to model good and moral behavior.

OH MY GOD THE BASTARD! HOW DARE HE! WHAT A FREAK!

Sheesh you druggies are brain dead.

 

[IndependntLogic]

What I see is that Santorum thinks it behooves us as adults to model good and moral behavior.

OH MY GOD THE BASTARD! HOW DARE HE! WHAT A FREAK!

Sheesh you druggies are brain dead.

That's right! GOOD and MORAL behavior! Here here! And thank God we have Rick Santorum to define what that is for everyone else! Having sex without poppin' out babies? SHAME on you! That's a license to enter a realm of sexuality that "isn't right"!!! (Quote verbatim).

Hooray for Rick! Hey btw, what kind of music is okay to have in the background? Is rock okay or should it only be Bach's Brandenberg Concerto's (That #4 is a real turn on!)

Oh and by drug users, do you mean Rush?

 

[ScreamingEagle]

What I see is that Santorum thinks it behooves us as adults to model good and moral behavior.

OH MY GOD THE BASTARD! HOW DARE HE! WHAT A FREAK!

Sheesh you druggies are brain dead.

that's what sex, drugs, and rock-n-roll will get ya.....

actually it's more like sex STDS, drug ODs, and rock the abandoned AIDS babies....

 

[healthmyths]

Fourteen trillion in debt, too much unemployment, a housing market in the shitter and all this guy can talk about is that there's too much ******* going on in this country?

too much *******,, cost us all money..

i'd say if rightwingnuts had more, they wouldn't be so angry and wouldn't be so busy worrying about what normal people do.

just saying.

Normal? Like when you and Sandoski like showering with little boys?
Or "Normal" like you when you see LambChop and wonder what that little sheep would look like in a baby doll?
"Normal" like you?

 

[frazzledgear]

"They're supposed to be within marriage, for purposes that are, yes, conjugal... but also procreative."

No one, in my opinion, has the right to tell me how to think. And when words, such as "supposed and should and shouldn't " are spoken to, or at, me, it implies that someone else knows what is better for me, than I do, for myself. I tune that person out.

That's because society has benefitted so much more by making sex unspecial and of no more importance than a sneeze or a fart or any other passing body function, right? How DARE anyone insist sex should mean more than a FART! In the meantime, we have a sky rocketing birth rate for out of wedlock children -even though we know for a fact and it has been repeatedly proven to be a fact, that is one of THE worst situations you can put your child into, one of the worst things anyone could do to their own child. How dare Santorum point out what repeated studies have shown that the two single most best things someone can do to avoid a life of poverty is to graduate high school and get married before having children. People who do that have reduced their odds of a life of poverty to nearly identical to that of people who go to college. Shouldn't children know that while they can still take advantage of that knowledge? Instead we encourage people to be both irresponsible and selfish by encouraging them to NOT have a special sex life -and then decide to hobble their own child by deciding to have children outside of marriage. Or worse yet, encourage boys and men to believe that the more women they knock up and the more out of wedlock children they father is something to be proud of instead of the revolting stigma it should be. But since when did liberals think putting the best interests of one's own children before immediate gratification an important message? So who gives a crap if it harms your own children -government will pick up the tab and getting on the dole was good enough for mom, so what's the big deal if the kid grows up and gets on it too?

It is putting a hurdle and burden on them that previous generations didn't have to deal with -one we know will increase the odds of personal failure, dependency on government, antisocial behavior, poverty, drug abuse and addiction, violence and crime. And the topper is that we also know for a fact that diseases like cervical cancer, venereal warts, gonorrhea, syphilis, chancroid, chlamydia, candidiasis, viral hepatitis, herpes, HIV, vulvar, anal and penile cancers, and MCV and more -are all alive and flourishing because the rates of infection and your risk of infection with any of them alone or in combination, are correlated to the number of sexual partners one has. To say nothing of the spiraling tab on society for all the social ills that comes from having an UNSPECIAL sex life. In other words, the more UNSPECIAL your sex life is, the more you treat it as having no more meaning for you than a passing urge and the more promiscuous you are -male or female -the more likely you are to end up riddled with a list of bacteria as dangerous as that found in any sewer. Obama thinks the proper people to foot the bill for "free" birth control pills aren't those who want them -but those who don't. But birth control pills won't prevent the social decay, the social costs and health risks of promiscuity to either gender.

Let's get HONEST, ok? Promiscuity is a social ILL! Pretending sex is nothing more important than an itch that should be scratched is a DETRIMENT to society and no benefit whatsoever. NONE. I don't care how many liberals want to PRETEND otherwise -it is a social ILL. Liberals think the proper way to handle it is to force those who have no personal use for birth control pills -to foot the bill for those who do. While teaching younger and younger children that engaging in a very serious and at times potentially life threatening (and to more than one person) adult activity is "normal" and socially acceptable activity for children. Santorum's approach may rub people like you wrong -get over it. But let's not pretend his OPINION is somehow of less value than that of the far left which has been dominating the debate and has produced no benefit to society with -as if hearing the leftwing defend their opinion that even 12 year old kids should be ******* like bunnies isn't FAR FAR more offensive to the majority. Which message would you REALLY rather your child hear -that his "sex life is important, should mean something important to him because it is serious and has potential life and death consequences and not just for himself - so take it seriously"? Or that sex is "just another body function, no more meaningful than any other body function. So if it itches -scratch it."? I know which message is most likely to produce the greatest good for both society and individuals and WHICH PROVABLY HAS NOT -and liberals do too. And THAT is why it pisses off liberals because what REALLY WOULD benefit society most is NEVER part of their agenda. It is about breeding the same poor quality citizen Greece did because that is the kind most likely to voluntarily forfeit their rights to government and expand its power.

Promiscuity and an unspecial sex life is a significant social and health issue with long term negative consequences to society itself. But one government under liberal control has no problem seeing people succumb to at a high rate. Instead they hyperventilate and insist a 5 year old's lunch from home of a turkey and cheese sandwich, chips, banana and apple juice amount to child neglect, would yank her lunch away and force her to eat chicken nuggests instead. They want a nanny state that encourages people to fear and avoid the responsibilities of adulthood, reward them for making poor decisions on their own behalf -and then try to convince even the youngest that mommy doesn't care as much about her own child as the cold, faceless institution of government. Wow. And of course, like a typical leftist stunt on a par with Saddam billing the family for the cost of the bullet used to kill their loved one -adds insult to injury after the government first undermines the parent-child relationship and trust, by billing the mother for a $1.25 for doing it -and sending her kid home upset at her mother because she was told her mother sent her a BAD LUNCH and the implication she did because she just isn't a good mommy! But oddly enough -liberals think THAT is the appropriate use of government. But will insist others are totally out of line pointing out the very real, very serious, some of which are life threatening risks by having a very unspecial sex life more fitting for a rodent. Liberals believe there is nothing special about our SPECIES in the first place -so why would anyone expect them to encourage individuals to believe their sex life should be special and have meaning for them?

YOU don't like Santorum's message -then ignore it and get on with your rodent quality sex life. But the fact YOU object to it, that YOU find it offensive -doesn't mean it is a message others should not be allowed to hear. YOUR personal offense at hearing someone's opinion is NOT what determines whether it is a worthy message of value. I find the leftwing liberal message far more offensive and far more inherently dangerous to the welfare of the individual as well as to society as whole - but that hasn't made them shut the **** up about it, has it?

 

[healthmyths]

You know this whole thing can be illustrated very clearly in the difference between Confucius and Lao-Tsu. I will try to be brief but that will force over-simplicity. It will be enough to make my point.

Confucius, when you boil it right down to the basics, held the opinion that the world would work just perfectly if everyone acted logically, rationally, and did exactly what they were supposed to do exactly when they were supposed to do it. It was a very rigid life philosophy which showed no tolerance whatsoever for anyone who did not follow those principles.

Now Lao-Tsu, on the other hand, essentially said "you know Confucius, you're a real asshole. While you may be right in theory the problem is we live in an illogical, irrational world where people don't do exactly what they should do exactly when they should do it. Furthermore, trying to force people to do it results in rebellion and in the end people act appropriately even less frequently. Back here in reality people don't give a shit whether you think they should or should not do something. They are going to do it whether you like it or not."

So I hear ultra-conservative, religiously influenced people make the Confucian argument that essentially "we wouldn't have abortion, disease, parentless children, drags on the costs of health care, etc if irresponsible people would simply stop *******."

Well....that kind of thinking hasn't exactly worked wonders for Confucian societies because Lao-Tsu is correct. Confucius was an asshole and he endorsed a completely unrealistic model of society and the importance of his own values. Whether irresponsible people should or should not **** is completely irrelevant when you finally accept that they are going to **** no matter what you think.

So when I hear these religious, self-righteous, ultra-conservatives ***** about abortion, disease, parentless children, drags on the costs of health care, etc you would think that they would be driving around shoveling rubbers out of the back of a truck. But like Lao-Tsu said....we live in an illogical, irrational world.

if you can "hear" it.....now it's time to try to understand it......if you'd drop the religious antipathy you might realize something that is RATIONAL....

FACT: when society does NOT ENCOURAGE easy free irresponsible sex......there are less problems....less fatherless babies, less abortions, less broken homes, less poverty.....

NO question I agree with what you said... "Encouraging" via advertising.. extensive use of "whatever makes you feel good' mentality is what creates the environment you described!

As with your point about "religious antipathy" the same holds true with why if more people understood that the "Golden Rule" ..do unto others as you would have others do unto you" IS NOT a religious dictum but a valid, practical efficient way "ADVANCED" civilizations advance!

If our educational/advertising/media were as enthusiastic in encouraging the "Golden Rule" as they have with "global warming" there would be diminished needs for laws, rules, regulations...(some 41,000 in 2012 alone!)..

BUT idiots think adhering and training and educating people to follow the rules of physics i.e. shouldn't drive 50 mph in 30 mph school zone not because it's against the law but because you can't stop your car in time when a kid darts out!

See that's what I mean.. "Golden Rule" would supercede following laws because we'd understand the need to follow the laws are done for practical means !

 

[koshergrl]

What I see is that Santorum thinks it behooves us as adults to model good and moral behavior.

OH MY GOD THE BASTARD! HOW DARE HE! WHAT A FREAK!

Sheesh you druggies are brain dead.

That's right! GOOD and MORAL behavior! Here here! And thank God we have Rick Santorum to define what that is for everyone else! Having sex without poppin' out babies? SHAME on you! That's a license to enter a realm of sexuality that "isn't right"!!! (Quote verbatim).

Hooray for Rick! Hey btw, what kind of music is okay to have in the background? Is rock okay or should it only be Bach's Brandenberg Concerto's (That #4 is a real turn on!)

Oh and by drug users, do you mean Rush?

Did someone propose that we approve background music? Or is the music thing just in your head...?

Anyway, now your mania has (hopefully) spent itself, back to the topic at hand...

Again, how DARE Santorum presume to state that moral behavior benefits people. What an EXTREMIST MONSTER!

 

[BluePhantom]

if you can "hear" it.....now it's time to try to understand it......if you'd drop the religious antipathy you might realize something that is RATIONAL....

FACT: when society does NOT ENCOURAGE easy free irresponsible sex......there are less problems....less fatherless babies, less abortions, less broken homes, less poverty.....

FACT: People are going to **** whether society encourages it or not.

why is there more teen sex than a few decades ago.....?

Is there? Are you sure about that. I grew up in the 70s/80s and I seem to recall a whole lotta ******* going on.

 

[koshergrl]

It went down a little in the 90s...but it's up again.

 

[healthmyths]

"They're supposed to be within marriage, for purposes that are, yes, conjugal... but also procreative."

No one, in my opinion, has the right to tell me how to think. And when words, such as "supposed and should and shouldn't " are spoken to, or at, me, it implies that someone else knows what is better for me, than I do, for myself. I tune that person out.

That's because society has benefitted so much more by making sex unspecial and of no more importance than a sneeze or a fart or any other passing body function, right? How DARE anyone insist sex should mean more than a FART! In the meantime, we have a sky rocketing birth rate for out of wedlock children -even though we know for a fact and it has been repeatedly proven to be a fact, that is one of THE worst situations you can put your child into, one of the worst things anyone could do to their own child. How dare Santorum point out what repeated studies have shown that the two single most best things someone can do to avoid a life of poverty is to graduate high school and get married before having children. People who do that have reduced their odds of a life of poverty to nearly identical to that of people who go to college. Shouldn't children know that while they can still take advantage of that knowledge? Instead we encourage people to be both irresponsible and selfish by encouraging them to NOT have a special sex life -and then decide to hobble their own child by deciding to have children outside of marriage. Or worse yet, encourage boys and men to believe that the more women they knock up and the more out of wedlock children they father is something to be proud of instead of the revolting stigma it should be. But since when did liberals think putting the best interests of one's own children before immediate gratification an important message? So who gives a crap if it harms your own children -government will pick up the tab and getting on the dole was good enough for mom, so what's the big deal if the kid grows up and gets on it too?

It is putting a hurdle and burden on them that previous generations didn't have to deal with -one we know will increase the odds of personal failure, dependency on government, antisocial behavior, poverty, drug abuse and addiction, violence and crime. And the topper is that we also know for a fact that diseases like cervical cancer, venereal warts, gonorrhea, syphilis, chancroid, chlamydia, candidiasis, viral hepatitis, herpes, HIV, vulvar, anal and penile cancers, and MCV and more -are all alive and flourishing because the rates of infection and your risk of infection with any of them alone or in combination, are correlated to the number of sexual partners one has. To say nothing of the spiraling tab on society for all the social ills that comes from having an UNSPECIAL sex life. In other words, the more UNSPECIAL your sex life is, the more you treat it as having no more meaning for you than a passing urge and the more promiscuous you are -male or female -the more likely you are to end up riddled with a list of bacteria as dangerous as that found in any sewer. Obama thinks the proper people to foot the bill for "free" birth control pills aren't those who want them -but those who don't. But birth control pills won't prevent the social decay, the social costs and health risks of promiscuity to either gender.

Let's get HONEST, ok? Promiscuity is a social ILL! Pretending sex is nothing more important than an itch that should be scratched is a DETRIMENT to society and no benefit whatsoever. NONE. I don't care how many liberals want to PRETEND otherwise -it is a social ILL. Liberals think the proper way to handle it is to force those who have no personal use for birth control pills -to foot the bill for those who do. While teaching younger and younger children that engaging in a very serious and at times potentially life threatening (and to more than one person) adult activity is "normal" and socially acceptable activity for children. Santorum's approach may rub people like you wrong -get over it. But let's not pretend his OPINION is somehow of less value than that of the far left which has been dominating the debate and has produced no benefit to society with -as if hearing the leftwing defend their opinion that even 12 year old kids should be ******* like bunnies isn't FAR FAR more offensive to the majority. Which message would you REALLY rather your child hear -that his "sex life is important, should mean something important to him because it is serious and has potential life and death consequences and not just for himself - so take it seriously"? Or that sex is "just another body function, no more meaningful than any other body function. So if it itches -scratch it."? I know which message is most likely to produce the greatest good for both society and individuals and WHICH PROVABLY HAS NOT -and liberals do too. And THAT is why it pisses off liberals because what REALLY WOULD benefit society most is NEVER part of their agenda. It is about breeding the same poor quality citizen Greece did because that is the kind most likely to voluntarily forfeit their rights to government and expand its power.

Promiscuity and an unspecial sex life is a significant social and health issue with long term negative consequences to society itself. But one government under liberal control has no problem seeing people succumb to at a high rate. Instead they hyperventilate and insist a 5 year old's lunch from home of a turkey and cheese sandwich, chips, banana and apple juice amount to child neglect, would yank her lunch away and force her to eat chicken nuggests instead. They want a nanny state that encourages people to fear and avoid the responsibilities of adulthood, reward them for making poor decisions on their own behalf -and then try to convince even the youngest that mommy doesn't care as much about her own child as the cold, faceless institution of government. Wow. And of course, like a typical leftist stunt on a par with Saddam billing the family for the cost of the bullet used to kill their loved one -adds insult to injury after the government first undermines the parent-child relationship and trust, by billing the mother for a $1.25 for doing it -and sending her kid home upset at her mother because she was told her mother sent her a BAD LUNCH and the implication she did because she just isn't a good mommy! But oddly enough -liberals think THAT is the appropriate use of government. But will insist others are totally out of line pointing out the very real, very serious, some of which are life threatening risks by having a very unspecial sex life more fitting for a rodent. Liberals believe there is nothing special about our SPECIES in the first place -so why would anyone expect them to encourage individuals to believe their sex life should be special and have meaning for them?

YOU don't like Santorum's message -then ignore it and get on with your rodent quality sex life. But the fact YOU object to it, that YOU find it offensive -doesn't mean it is a message others should not be allowed to hear. YOUR personal offense at hearing someone's opinion is NOT what determines whether it is a worthy message of value. I find the leftwing liberal message far more offensive and far more inherently dangerous to the welfare of the individual as well as to society as whole - but that hasn't made them shut the **** up about it, has it?

I am in 100% agreement with what you wrote!
I've been thinking more about what Santorum was saying and pro-creation aspect of sexual relationship is "God like"!
When joined in sexual intercourse is pleasurable no doubt but ALL of us should be overwhelmed by the opportunity to be a part in "CREATION" of life! Overwhelmed by the RESPONSIBILITY of life!

But the sexual immediate gratification has completed so overshadowed this that our society is paying the price.

Santorum is striking a cord among "thoughtful" intelligent people that are seeing what the response to the animalistic side of humanity has brought us and maybe he has struck a cord that is UPLIFTING!!

 

[BluePhantom]

Again, how DARE Santorum presume to state that moral behavior benefits people. What an EXTREMIST MONSTER!

Moral according to who? That's what the conservatives here seem to lack understanding of. It's not your place to determine what is moral or immoral except in regards to your own ******* lives. What is moral in a given society is defined by the opinions of that society and it will change according to time, geography, all sorts of things. What you insist is moral is only moral when those around you agree that it is. In other words going to a titty bar to preach the gospel is just as fucked up as getting a lap dance in church.

You, Santorum, Screeching Turkey, and katz do not get to determine for the rest of the ******* nation what behavior is moral and what is not.

 

[BluePhantom]

I've been thinking more about what Santorum was saying and pro-creation aspect of sexual relationship is "God like"!
When joined in sexual intercourse is pleasurable no doubt but ALL of us should be overwhelmed by the opportunity to be a part in "CREATION" of life!

I have created three lives and yep...it's awesome. Sorry if I don't want to create one every single time I want to slip my missus the high hard one.

Santorum is striking a cord among "thoughtful" intelligent people that are seeing what the response to the animalistic side of humanity has brought us and maybe he has struck a cord that is UPLIFTING!!

Actually I just think he's making an ass of himself and making it easier for us to identify the religious bigots.

 

[koshergrl]

Again, how DARE Santorum presume to state that moral behavior benefits people. What an EXTREMIST MONSTER!

Moral according to who? That's what the conservatives here seem to lack understanding of. It's not your place to determine what is moral or immoral except in regards to your own ******* lives. What is moral in a given society is defined by the opinions of that society and it will change according to time, geography, all sorts of things. What you insist is moral is only moral when those around you agree that it is. In other words going to a titty bar to preach the gospel is just as fucked up as getting a lap dance in church.

You, Santorum, Screeching Turkey, and katz do not get to determine for the rest of the ******* nation what behavior is moral and what is not.

And what leftoids don't seem to grasp...morality is not subjective. Killing babies and ******* like bunnies outside of marriage isn't moral, not in most societies in the world.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

FACT: People are going to **** whether society encourages it or not.

why is there more teen sex than a few decades ago.....?

Is there? Are you sure about that. I grew up in the 70s/80s and I seem to recall a whole lotta ******* going on.

yes....foreshadowed by the "free love" 60s when "the pill" became widely available (thanks to Margaret Sanger and Planned Parenthood)....before that....the family-oriented 50s....