...by suggesting that straight porn turns boys gay. Huh? Via Broadsheet, it seems that Michael Schwartz is giving advice to folks as to how to deter your child from pornography - tell them it's gay.
He dropped this divine wisdom this weekend at the Values Voter Summit during a panel on "The New Masculinity," which focused on how "feminism has wreaked havoc on marriage, women, children and men" and discussed the need to get "the principles and ideals for a new 'masculinism' right." Part of getting those principles right means inculcating young boys with fear of their own bodies, apparently.This absurd sound bite surfaced when Schwartz shared an "astonishingly insightful remark" made by a friend of his who suffered for some time from "the malady" of homosexuality: "All pornography is homosexual pornography, because all pornography turns your sexual drive inwards." He continued, "Now think about that. And if you, if you tell an 11-year-old boy about that, do you think he's going to want to go out and get a copy of Playboy? I'm pretty sure he'll lose interest. That's the last thing he wants."
Check out the video:
So feminists and gay folks are responsible for the widespread popularity of pornography. Wait, how does that work again? Because you've completely fucking lost me between homosexuality being "inflicted on people" and the new "'masculinism' right." Looks like he needs to hook up with the MRAs.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Sen. Tom Coburn's chief of staff reaches new level of crazy .
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/16128
Don't forget the dudebro today that told everyone that conservative college students were good Christians like David* standing up against the liberal Goliath. It's ok though, because conservative women are "hot," like Michelle Malkin, whereas liberal women like Rachel Maddow look like dudes.
The story is up on ThinkProgress.
*NB: History and world religions are obviously not his majors.
Christians often retrofit Jewish stories and heroes with Christianity. Annoying but nothing out of the ordinary. All good Jews were supposed to have been proto-Christians eagerly waiting for Jesus to come. Naturally, by this theory there have been no good Jews for 2000 years now.
And Maddow is way hotter than Malkin.
Except for the fact that Christians and Jews share the Old Testament (or in Judaism, the Torah). Christians aren't "taking" anything.
Not to derail. The comment about David and Goliath is ridiculous to the point of being funny. I love how they always have to dash in the whole "hotter women" argument. Charming.
The Torah isn't equivalent to what Christians call the Old Testament, and the stories that we share are massively reinterpreted by Christians to fit a theology that didn't exist when the stories were written. Doesn't it strike you as odd to see Jewish stories referring to the Son of God and to Lucifer-the-fallen-angel?
That said, I should have qualified "Christians" as there are thousands of types of Christianity and pretty much no statement can be assumed to apply to all.
No, the Torah is not the Old Testament. The Tanakh would be a closer comparison, but as aleks points out, Christianity and Judaism do NOT use these books in the same way. At all.
I studied once with a rabbi who compared the situation to taking someone else's family photo album and telling them that they didn't understand their own family history properly.
Not to take away from how ridiculous the David & Goliath statement is, of course, I think we're all in agreement there.
All I'm saying is it's a bit offensive to imply that Christianity stole anything from Judaism, when in truth they're intimately linked religions in which one branched off from the other. As someone raised in an intensely Catholic family, I thought it was a bit insulting.
Regardless, we're all coming from Abraham, Islam included - right? Why focus on the differences? Instead, I'd rather complain about what an ass Michael Schwartz is.
I didn't say Christians stole anything. I said that they changed originally Jewish stories and characters (in this case David) to correspond with Christian theology. Other examples would be Isaiah's curse of "Lucifer", and the "fourth man in the fire." If that's stealing then every religion, philosophy or story is an act of theft.
The general implication of
"Christians often retrofit Jewish stories and heroes with Christianity. Annoying but nothing out of the ordinary. All good Jews were supposed to have been proto-Christians eagerly waiting for Jesus to come." is that Judaism is the truer religion. And I have to say that Christians don't characterize Jews as "good" or "bad" based on whether they accepted Christ or not. They characterize them as "Christian" or "Jewish".
I just really don't see the point in highlighting these differences when in truth the two religions are siblings. As someone raised Catholic I have the utmost respect for the Jewish tradition, and have nothing against them. I understand that what you're pointing out about biblical stories is true, but the way you go about it and word it is hurtful and offensive. Please, all I'm asking for is a bit of respect for the religion.
Besides, this thread really is detracting from the entire point of the post..
That Christian theology changes the facts and meaning of originally Jewish stories is just an undeniable fact. Jews don't believe in a Son of God, and we certainly didn't see him in the fire with the other three men. Jews don't believe in fallen angels, and that's not who we think Isaiah was addressing as "Lucifer". I don't see this as theft, because every religion is based on elements borrowed from older beliefs.
As for the idea that the good Jews followed Jesus and became Christians and the bad Jews rejected and murdered the messiah, that's been standard Christian doctrine for two thousand years. I didn't bring this up to insult your faith, but to explain why Coburn's staffer thought David qualified as Christian when he lived so long before Christ. From the point where Jesus Christ is the messiah the Jews were waiting for, Jews like David were essentially Christian. As I acknowledged, I should have qualified my statement a lot more as the anti-Jewish dogma of Christianity has been substantially abandoned or moderated over the past 64 years.
The only way he might even be tangentially accurate is that excessive porn use can broaden your horizons and you can find yourself interested in things you weren't before...but that ain't gonna turn you gay. Bi, maybe, but if you go fully bisexual you already had the tendency.
Huh? *scratches head*
There is no where near enough coffee in my system to attempt to tackle this one.
And following that bizarre logic, gay porn will turn you straight... I think... 'cause it's like the opposite, you know? Yeah... it's basically impossible to make this make any sense at all.
I was kind of hoping Feministing wouldn't post this. We already have enough to be embarrassed about here in Oklahoma...
It's not "like the opposite." To this kind of thinking (any) porn, homosexuality, sex with animals and household appliances, are all the same and the opposite of man-woman-married-missionary .
Stop trolling my comments.
Am I supposed to counter that by calling you an MRA or something?
No, you're supposed to get over whatever weird personal issue you've developed with me and stop seeking out my comments so that you may nitpick them. I'm not replying to you anymore.
I have no "personal issue" with you, and no idea who you are. I certainly don't seek out anyone's comments.
No, you're an obnoxious, tiresome, condescending asshole to everyone.
Thank you. Exactly the opposite of seeking someone out or having a personal issue.
Um, that's a bit unnecessary...............
If looking at naked women turns you off to women or 'makes you feel gay' then you were either a) already gay or b) scared by the way women are portrayed in some mainstream porn. Ill admit that 3 inch fake nails and lots of make-up don't do it for me either.
Its hard though to take Coburn seriously at this point, if ever, or even be embarrassed anymore. I didn't vote for him in the last election and this is just one more reason to make sure he gets ousted in the next one.
i think his point is you are male and your jerking a dude off. even though that dude is you.?? right? not positive. and by this logic we may want to start keeping our hands off when using the restroom or bathing. also going out by ourselves might be a problem as this could be considered a date with the same sex. oh the horror!!!!
Right. Homosexuality = Narcissism is a core belief with these people, that's what the rocket surgeon is getting at with "All pornography is homosexual pornography, because all pornography turns your sexual drive inwards."
If that were true, there'd be a lot more gays.
There are lots of reasons to be critical of porn. This isn't one of them. Does all masturbation turn you gay too?
That's their argument. All "unnatural" sex is fungible, playboy=playgirl=pedophilia=sex with box turtles.
sex with box turtles
This is a hard thing for me to admit, but not too long ago I was spending hundreds of dollars a month on box turtle porn websites. hawtbox.com, dirtyshell.com, etc.
Luckily, I got some help and my money no longer goes to the exploitation of box turtles.
Good, because it would have hurt marriage for you to have married one of those turtles.
"It does not affect your daily life very much if your neighbor marries a box turtle. But that does not mean it is right. . . . Now you must raise your children up in a world where that union of man and box turtle is on the same legal footing as man and wife."
-- Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tex.)
In church one day, I was told that masturbating turned you into a gay and a lesbian. I, being naive and only about twelve, asked what masturbation was, as I'd finally found the reason I liked girls! But alas, no, I was told I was dirty for asking something like that when I already new the answer.
I'm guessing that's their general point, yes. That sexuality is only permissible if it's part of a procreative, married, hetero encounter. Anything other or anything less is perversion, and one perversion might as well be any other. And yeah, there's plenty to criticize about porn, but if a little self-knowledge makes me gay... well, I'm having a little trouble being insulted by the association.
Sounds to me like a guy who's never picked up a copy of Playboy...
I can't even be offended because that is so ridiculous. This is paired perfectly with that stupid website featured yesterday. These people do such crazy mental gymnastics to justify their stance in some pseudo-scientific or psychological way.
If it's about religion, they should just say "God doesn't want you to touch yourself sexually". I'm sure a lot of Christians disagree with that interpretation and certainly plenty of young people have masturbated (or worse! gasp) while under the threat of eternal damnation... But it's a lot more honest than tricking young men into following your beliefs by telling them they will turn gay or go blind or grow hair on their palms.
It's not about religion, it's about fear. Religion is an excuse - why do you think christians rewrite old scripture? because they can use it to instill fear into people, which makes them easier to control
This comment is going to be a little random but, has anyone ever seen the old anti-port documentary "Perversion for Profit"? It talks about how looking at breasts will make men homosexual. This kinda reminds of that. They showed it on TCM Underground a couple of months ago...sorry, that's all.
My first thought was that this was something like the Ron White "We're all gay" comedy routine where he makes a valid and funny point about watching hetero porn to a homophobe, but sadly, this guy is not funny. Not even intelligent, really.
I saw that. I think it might have been the only funny thing he ever said.
I think the Senator must have been watching a lot of movies about retarded people, and clearly the have had an effect on him.
Err... While your general message about the idiocy of the senator is true, I don't really agree with the way you worded it by bringing "retarded people" into the picture...
Why? It's not a moralizing statement against said retarded people, but a comparison between the recognized diminished or stunted (literally "retarded") mental development of such people with this fella.
Unless you're offended by the word "retarded", in which case I understand but would ask you to investigate the concept of euphemism treadmill.
I just think that there are much more tasteful, less offensive ways of going about calling a person stupid.
Of course you know this, but using someone's status as a general pejorative "comparison" is pretty obviously insulting.
I'd be super flamingly homosexual by now if that whole "pornography turns you gay" were actually the case.
I'd be pretty much the only straight guy left, which I admit would have its advantages.
and where would bi's end up? Bi?
So does straight porn turn women gay too? Or are the ladyfolk just less likely to be tempted by it because we hate sex and all?
Just to clarify my OP above, I work for a women's organization in Oklahoma and every time a debacle with Coburn or Inhofe (who once said that the Weather Channel was creating a panic over global warming... yes, seriously) makes the news we spend the day fielding angry phone calls and emails wondering what we're doing to get them out of office instead of actually helping women. I have a different day job but I reply emails from our website at my office. Within ten minutes of this appearing on Broadsheet my inbox was completely flooded. I know it's fun to poke fun at our wacko senators and I do it plenty myself but after explaining for the five thousandth time that my organization has no political affiliation and that we do not endorse candidates from any platform I've gotta wonder what the point of this is. No one here took it seriously and I guarantee you my inbox is filling up again as we speak.
This asshole is my senator. Again. I really hate him. Every time he opens his mouth shit pours out that makes no sense to anyone with two brain cells to rub together, and yet, he is constantly reelected.
Grats Oklahoma.
"So feminists and gay folks are responsible for the widespread popularity of pornography. Wait, how does that work again?...Looks like he needs to hook up with the MRAs."
That is not what he said. He said that pornography makes boys gay by turning their sexuality inward. He never mentioned feminism in connection with his theory. His statement about porn "inflicting" homosexuality on boys is stupid enough on its own.
As for the bit about MRAs, they have nothing to do with this man's comment. Dumping this man's comment on MRAs is the same as him dumping all the current cultural problems on feminists.
Porn (mainstream, hetero) might make some men less interested in having sex with actual women but it doesn't make them want to have sex with men. I've dated plenty of guys who would be happy to give up actual sex and would rather wank to porn...(I've left many such guys)
There are so many good reasons to avoid porn, I don't see what the point is in making up reasons.
Jon Stewart explains it all:http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-september-22-2009/moral-kombat