Skip to main content

Conservative group in Iowa wants to protect women

By banning all forms of pornography. That's one of the 14 bullet points from some "family" supporting group in Iowa that wants Republican presidential candidates to sign their pledge in order to get an endorsement. Not surprisingly, Michele Bachman has signed on, continuing to up her cred as a completely crazy candidate.

There is a lot of stuff in this thing about homosexuality. Its the typical crap you hear from conservatives. Not much to say there. One funny point is that they claim "sex is better after marriage". If they are so committed to their beliefs how would they have the experience to be able to compare sex before and after? The pornography thing is what I wanted to talk about because that is not as ridiculous as the others and they frame it as protecting women. Here is what it says:

Vow 9 stipulates that the candidate must “support human protection of women and the innocent fruit of conjugal intimacy” and protect them from “seduction into promiscuity and all forms of pornography…and other types of coercion or stolen innocence.”

I'll tackle this in order. Supporting the protection of women is obviously important and great. Though I doubt they would support protecting a mother is a birth was threatening her life and an abortion would save her. Nor would they protect a woman's mental health by supporting abortion if a woman was impregnated because of rape or incest. So I'm sure they fall a bit short in fulfilling that step. I have no idea what the "innocent fruit of conjugal intimacy" means. But if it means sex before marriage they are fighting biology and will lose.

Relatedly, I don't think most people are seduced into promiscuity. Again, you are fighting biology to suggest that a person should only have sex with one person in their entire life. Plus you can partake in promiscuity and still be completely safe. However, the one point they are kind of legitimately approaching is being coerced into pornography or sex in general. I'll point out the obvious and agree that no woman should be coerced into porn, stripping, prostitution, or any kind of sexual or violent act.

But what about a woman who completely on her own chooses to do porn or prostitution? I mentioned this in my post titled "Joss Whedon's feminist cred". I don't have a problem with those things as long as the woman is making the choice. As with abortion, she possesses her body, thus she has the right to use it as she pleases. As long as that choice doesn't entail harming her body or someone else's I don't see the problem with the choice. That's not to say that the porn industry shouldn't use condoms all the time and take every other measure to ensure that both men and women are protected. But my point is that other than religious views, which seems to be the only thing this group is going off of, I don't see much of a problem with women choosing porn.

The fact is that sex is almost as much a part of every human life as eating, drinking and sleeping. We don't have to have sex in order to survive as an individual. So its not exactly like the basics of eating, drinking and sleeping. But as human beings on a larger scale it is vital to our survival, just as it is for other animals. Therefore I don't find it very problematic that people not only want to have sex, but when they can't do so at a particular moment, they want to see other people have sex. Nor do I think its a wild notion that someone would want to be paid in order to have sex with someone else. Again, as I said in my Whedon as a feminist post, I'd love to hear some different perspectives because maybe my view is completely dominated by the fact that I'm a male.