Michele Bachmann is seen as a strong candidate for the Republican nomination in the 2012 U.S. presidential election. She was the first to sign an ethics pledge for conservative endorsement “The Marriage Vow: A Declaration of Dependence upon MARRIAGE and FAMILY.” Among the vows includes the pledge to ban porn, to operate on the premise that homosexuality is a choice and a public health risk, and with no irony to reject Sharia [Islam] law.
Are these people obsessed with sex or what?
Image of Lily via this gallery.
Ironically, the only chance of Bachman getting elected is if she campaigns in the buff.
I think you are only seeing what you want to see Alec. I think it’s safe to say most people reading tinynibbles would agree that Sharia sucks. I think it’s also safe to say that if asked then most people in the US would defiantly not want Sharia to be adopted in the US. So why put it in the pledge. It’s like including a pledge to murder old people… why do you need a pledge for that when no one would want it anyhow?
The answer is that this idiotic promise is a step from where we are toward Sharia. Sure, it would still leave a quite a way to go, but it absolutely is a step in that direction. The statement of abhorring Sharia is just a contradiction to what this pledge actually does advocate.
To claim that the pledge equals sharia, while explicitly banning it is an amusing twist indeed. Yet, it is nothing else save that: amusing. It is a naive claim that far understates the volatile, all encompassing and very present threat that the pledge so clumsily and stupidly wants to address (sharia part, not porn part). Presumably, from its crude message, one might venture a guess as to the receiving demographic.
Someone mentioned that Sharia law is already banned. Case closed. That is partly true. It is not an official law, yet it is practised by some, regardless. And with catastrophic outcome. See what is happening in Europe and in England in particular. We’re having a hard time pursuing all those banned outcomes of Sharia practice. Sharia law and the islamic state do not play by the rules. That part is built into its system. To never conform, and never bow before the unfaithful.
Frankly, reading comments such as the one above, off handedly dismissing a very real problem with claims that the right is threatening with Sharia ‘to eat our clits’ is not only sad but also very juvenile and embarrasing to the person claiming it. If the right has adopted the case for their own and using it for their political gain, that needs to be looked into. Certainly. But do not make the mistake of dismissing the problem in itself. We did in Europe. Now we’re having heck of a times dealing with it.
As this blog is not a political or religious, I will not comment further on the subject. Had it not been for the evident link to Sharia’s hideous attitude towards sexuality, regardless of gender, there would have been no reason to comment at all.
Let me explain why there is that bit about Sharia so that people won’t be confused. As first I was confused also, I mean why was it put into that pledge, it looks so out of place. But then I went and read a bit about Sharia and it all made sense. You see Sharia has a bunch of rules about what women can do with their bodies, who can have sex with who, who can marry who, what sorts of sex are ok, and it prohibits looking at naked people… and that’s exactly what this pledge is about! Do you see now? This dumb pledge says they will support basically the same things as in Sharia, and someone must have realized this and pointed it out. The problem is that Sharia is something those nasty muslims follow, so signing the pledge would be like supporting terrorists. Rather than sit back and consider that they were advocating the same thing as Sharia so maybe they should reconsider their views now that they see where they lead, instead they fixed the problem by just tacking on the bit about not supporting Sharia.
I love that certain nouns are in all caps, like a schizophrenic’s website. The last bullet point should be to reject the 24-hour day and embrace NATURE’s harmonic Time Cube.
Whatever you may think of Sharia, banning it in the United States is silly. We live in a constitutional republic where the sources of law are explicit and spelled out in our founding documents. Sharia is, in effect, already banned … we don’t use it here, nobody is em offering to use it here, and we can’t use it here unless our existing constitutional system is burned to the ground … in which case, a law banning Sharia isn’t going to do much good.
I don’t know where the right-wing echo chamber got the idea that Sharia was coming to eat all of our clitorises, but it’s a doofus idea, right up there with Henny Penny worrying about the sky falling. Hey, good idea, let’s ban falling sky while we are at it!
A case of silly, surely. Porn cannot be banned. Things just don’t work that way. Never have. Arguments superflous. Though I cannot understand how banning the ultimate vehicle of institutionalised human cruelty, Sharia law can be a bad thing. Particularly on western soil.
Or perhaps I’ve misunderstood something? Surely, no enlightened human can endorse the barbaric ways of Sharia. No matter how liberal or putty spined one might be, Sharia needs to be wiped from the planet.
i agree with billy bob
It’s just for distracting stupid people. If she said “I plan to take money from poor people like you and give it to my friends” then no one would vote for her. So she says, “I’ll endorse all your irrational fears and protect you from them” and people get wrapped up in that and forget all the real things that she’s going to screw them on.
It is a bit irrelevant for me to post, as I am not US citizen, but I have to say……
Porn was banned, it got free. Do they need to try again?
Instead I say the opposite, embrace the idea of porn. I have seen countless people denounce porn, but I have never seen someone contribute their concept of what porn should be.
I am a father of a 4 year old daughter and a 2 year old son. I hope beyond hope that something will be done that will present a visual interpretation of sex that involves a natural body image by the time they see porn.
In the same way I was shown a many-times folded photo of a classic 70’s hairy bushed women shot by candlelight by a camera lens with a flare to create the ambience of intrigue please do something that may prevent my children’s first visual introduction to porn be a 2003 classic Max Hardcore segment shown on a Iphone 14gS – or whatever they have by the year 2020.
Don’t denounce porn, just make sure there is enough of a comparison in the genre that people can make an informed decision.
For the record I love porn and I love some kinky stuff, but that is my decision. I want my children to make their own decision as they need to, however I can’t control their future classmates and what video’s they carry on their smart phones.
Sending it underground eliminates education.
So lets have the conversation of Education & Classification vs Censorship.
Censhorship is your typical head in the sand technique, don’t admit the problem, or trust someone to remove it so no one knows better. The problem with censorship in porn is that it removes the media catering to the urge, in the hope that the urge will also go away.
Not so, its like removing obesity by outlawing chocolate. You think that may work but then there will be an influx of tourism for lesser developed nations advertising “Chocolate Indulgence Weekends” and a hard to pin down clique of reviewers who practice home grown chocolate preparation along with legally available chololike* alternatives that product a similar approach.
Education & Classification teaches you what the difference between the types of chocolate are, and what level of calories they contain.
Lets take the attitude of my local grocery store, you walk-up, grab a trolley, run through the one way gate and you are smack bang in the fruit and veg section next to the bakery. This is the everyday food section. If I want good wholesome food – I’m here. If I want chocolate – its 6 aisles down. Ice cream is at the far end of the store, poorly advertised through cold frosted glass.
Why is porn not like that? Make that the aim of an anti porn campaign. If you type porn into your search engine make sure the result presents a standard view of natural bodies, with a caveat that the whip wielding lady-boy does exist if you need it, aisle 6. Not hidden, but still on offer – easily accessible to those that have a curiosity, but not thrown in the face of those that have the simplest queries of whether or not they have a normal sexual appetite. Sex-Ed a la carte if you will, but lets start with freely available porn showing natural boobies, hair covered genitals and less abusive porn, just like my kids will have when they see it, so they can associate. I want them to see that porn, so they can learn that sex is positive, from there they can make their decision to see what they like, but I want their first vision to be one they can physically associate with. I want that vision to be easily found, when they search for it.
Some people want to remove porn in the same way governments removed alcohol as the source of evil at the turn of the 1900’s.
Will our great, great great grand children have the same impression of wasted efforts as we have now of alcohol prohibition.