# Is Santorum \*trying\* to lose? **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [March 19, 2012, 12:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-santorum-trying-to-lose/616182 "2012-03-19T00:57:34Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![StusBlues](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/dc4da7/32.png) [@StusBlues](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/StusBlues)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2012, 6:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-santorum-trying-to-lose/616182/81 "2012-03-21T18:30:14Z")
> [@a35362](#): > > Just… wow. :eek: Not sure what to make of this. I should just let it go, I guess. Wow, maybe I’ll get pitted! Nine years on the SDMB with no warnings and no pittings. Probably not a record, but hey. ---
**Author:** ![CaveMike](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cavemike/32/16379_2.png) [@CaveMike](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CaveMike)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2012, 6:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-santorum-trying-to-lose/616182/82 "2012-03-21T18:39:43Z")
> [@Buck\_Godot](#): > > The scary thing is that the exit polls that I’ve seen indicate that Santorum is actually getting relatively more votes from Republican women than Republican men. The only explanation that I can come up with is that there is a class of women who say “If I’m not getting any no one else should either”. This is really weak logic. There is no reason to assume Santorum is drawing women for any reason. It is equally likely that men are drawn to Romney. There are too many variables to draw any conclusions let alone the tortured one you came up with. If any factor is at play, I would assert it is Santorum’s stance on abortion. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2012, 7:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-santorum-trying-to-lose/616182/83 "2012-03-21T19:38:38Z")
> [@StusBlues](#): > > Not sure what to make of this. I should just let it go, I guess. > > Wow, maybe I’ll get pitted! Nine years on the SDMB with no warnings and no pittings. Probably not a record, but hey. I’d add: “If he watches porn he’ll want to do that dirty stuff with me” to your list. And never forget plain old religious fanaticism. ---
**Author:** ![StusBlues](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/dc4da7/32.png) [@StusBlues](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/StusBlues)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2012, 7:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-santorum-trying-to-lose/616182/84 "2012-03-21T19:44:46Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > I’d add: > > “If he watches porn he’ll want to do that dirty stuff with me” > to your list. And never forget plain old religious fanaticism. I think that would be subsumed under “he’ll be expecting a lot out of me.” Porn hurts families indeed! ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2012, 8:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-santorum-trying-to-lose/616182/85 "2012-03-21T20:34:30Z")
> [@StusBlues](#): > > Porn: similar to the above. If my husband/guy I have on the hook can look at all the porn he wants, he’ll be expecting a lot out of me . . . 😕 No, he’ll be getting a lot out of himself. You can go take a walk or something. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2012, 8:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-santorum-trying-to-lose/616182/86 "2012-03-21T20:40:02Z")
> [@StusBlues](#): > > Someone else on the SDMB once said that sexual morality was basically market protectionism for insecure wives. There’s something to that. From [_Man and Superman_](http://www.gutenberg.org/files/3328/3328-h/3328-h.htm) by G.B. Shaw: > [@](#): > > DON JUAN. The happier, no: the wiser, yes. That moment introduced me for the first time to myself, and, through myself, to the world. I saw then how useless it is to attempt to impose conditions on the irresistible force of Life; to preach prudence, careful selection, virtue, honor, chastity— > > ANA. Don Juan: a word against chastity is an insult to me. > > DON JUAN. I say nothing against your chastity, Senora, since it took the form of a husband and twelve children. What more could you have done had you been the most abandoned of women? > > ANA. I could have had twelve husbands and no children that’s what I could have done, Juan. And let me tell you that that would have made all the difference to the earth which I replenished. > > THE STATUE. Bravo Ana! Juan: you are floored, quelled, annihilated. > > DON JUAN. No; for though that difference is the true essential difference—Dona Ana has, I admit, gone straight to the real point—yet it is not a difference of love or chastity, or even constancy; for twelve children by twelve different husbands would have replenished the earth perhaps more effectively. Suppose my friend Ottavio had died when you were thirty, you would never have remained a widow: you were too beautiful. Suppose the successor of Ottavio had died when you were forty, you would still have been irresistible; and a woman who marries twice marries three times if she becomes free to do so. Twelve lawful children borne by one highly respectable lady to three different fathers is not impossible nor condemned by public opinion. That such a lady may be more law abiding than the poor girl whom we used to spurn into the gutter for bearing one unlawful infant is no doubt true; but dare you say she is less self-indulgent? > > ANA. She is less virtuous: that is enough for me. > > DON JUAN. In that case, what is virtue but the Trade Unionism of the married? ---
**Author:** ![a35362](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3da27b/32.png) [@a35362](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/a35362)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2012, 9:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-santorum-trying-to-lose/616182/87 "2012-03-21T21:23:36Z")
> [@StusBlues](#): > > Not sure what to make of this. I should just let it go, I guess. > > Wow, maybe I’ll get pitted! Nine years on the SDMB with no warnings and no pittings. Probably not a record, but hey. No no no! I’m not complaining. I’m just amazed. Sorry for the confusion. ---
**Author:** ![Enlightening\_Meditation](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/ecc23a/32.png) [@Enlightening\_Meditation](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Enlightening_Meditation)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2012, 3:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-santorum-trying-to-lose/616182/88 "2012-03-22T03:11:14Z")
> [@a35362](#): > > [QUOTE=StusBlues] > A lot of women have indeed internalized those values. > > Birth control: if every woman can sleep around and not worry about unwanted children, then what’s to stop my husband from cheating and eventually finding someone better? Santorum, reign in those floozies! > > Porn: similar to the above. If my husband/guy I have on the hook can look at all the porn he wants, he’ll be expecting a lot out of me–or going somewhere else to get it. Santorum, shut that shit down! > > Gay rights: what if my husband/guy I have on the hook is a little gay and figures it’s easier to live with another guy? If the social (and legal) stigma of homosexuality goes away, he’s got that option. Santorum, shut that homo shit down! > > Someone else on the SDMB once said that sexual morality was basically market protectionism for insecure wives. There’s something to that. Just… wow. :eek: [/QUOTE] Certainly, some of these attitudes exist, but I think the greater appeal of Santorum among right wing women (and men, too) is the following: If the USA reduces and marginalizes sinful behavior (birth control use + out of wedlock sex, abortion, porn, homosexual behavior, etc.), then the economy will improve, God will reward the USA with less destructive weather, and Jesus will be more likely to return for a second coming. Santorum wants the good Christian kiddies to be home school and wants most mainstream colleges/universities to be cut off from public funds because these places are where young adults are often liberalized, become more secular and possibly _gasp_ homosexual. ---
**Author:** ![Ulfreida](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ulfreida/32/8014_2.png) [@Ulfreida](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ulfreida)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2012, 5:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-santorum-trying-to-lose/616182/89 "2012-03-22T05:53:39Z")
The basis of social conservatism is simply that there are rules (written in a Book), and the idea is to follow them. Those who don’t follow them should be ashamed and try harder. Those who do follow them are to be encouraged and commended. Rules help us be better people, by giving us clear parameters, which, if we stay within them, we will be rewarded. It’s not that weird or hard to understand. It’s what every small group and tribe has always done, for cohesion, unity, and social survival. Marriages, for example, create wide and permanent social ties with specific kinds of responsibilities connected to them. It is this kind of social safety and continuity which the social conservative (correctly, in my opinion) sees as threatened by modernity. It is fundamentally not an individualistic world view, it is a communal world view. I am not a social conservative and will never be one, but I don’t see a reason to resort to frivolous and frankly insulting fantasies about what they are thinking. ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2012, 10:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-santorum-trying-to-lose/616182/90 "2012-03-22T10:49:00Z")
> [@Ulfreida](#): > > The basis of social conservatism is simply that there are rules (written in a Book), and the idea is to follow them. Those who don’t follow them should be ashamed and try harder. Those who do follow them are to be encouraged and commended. Rules help us be better people, by giving us clear parameters, which, if we stay within them, we will be rewarded. > > It’s not that weird or hard to understand. It’s what every small group and tribe has always done, for cohesion, unity, and social survival. Marriages, for example, create wide and permanent social ties with specific kinds of responsibilities connected to them. It is this kind of social safety and continuity which the social conservative (correctly, in my opinion) sees as threatened by modernity. It is fundamentally not an individualistic world view, it is a communal world view. > > I am not a social conservative and will never be one, but I don’t see a reason to resort to frivolous and frankly insulting fantasies about what they are thinking. That begs the question of why they believe in the particular _specific_ set of rules rather than any of an infinite number of alternatives. The various comments above offer facetiously phrased, but not implausible, explanations to that point. ---
**Author:** ![Buck\_Godot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/buck_godot/32/6573_2.png) [@Buck\_Godot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Buck_Godot)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2012, 3:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-santorum-trying-to-lose/616182/91 "2012-03-22T15:18:58Z")
> [@CaveMike](#): > > This is really weak logic. There is no reason to assume Santorum is drawing women for any reason. It is equally likely that men are drawn to Romney. There are too many variables to draw any conclusions let alone the tortured one you came up with. > > If any factor is at play, I would assert it is Santorum’s stance on abortion. You’re right. My second sentence was just meant as a throw away jab at Republican woman. In retrospect I see that it was a very sexist statment and out of character for me. Mea culpa. I really just trying to point out that polling indicates that Republican women may have different views on “women’s issues” such as birth control, abortion rights and women working outside the home than the general female population and may actually hold these views stronger than Republican men. ---
**Author:** ![Darth\_Panda](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ee7513/32.png) [@Darth\_Panda](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darth_Panda)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2012, 4:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-santorum-trying-to-lose/616182/92 "2012-03-22T16:11:49Z")
> [@Morgyn](#): > > Hell, I’ll rent him a fucking backhoe. Is that some kind of vengeful prostitute? ---
**Author:** ![guizot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guizot/32/3636_2.png) [@guizot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/guizot)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2012, 4:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-santorum-trying-to-lose/616182/93 "2012-03-22T16:18:52Z")
> [@Ulfreida](#): > > The basis of social conservatism is simply that there are rules (written in a Book), and the idea is to follow them. Those who don’t follow them should be ashamed and try harder. Those who do follow them are to be encouraged and commended. Rules help us be better people, by giving us clear parameters, which, if we stay within them, we will be rewarded. Social conservatism can have underlying economic motivations, too, though. Traditional sexual division of labor usually gives men economic advantages over women, for example. Changes in social roles usually lead to changes in economic roles. ---
**Author:** ![Ulfreida](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ulfreida/32/8014_2.png) [@Ulfreida](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ulfreida)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2012, 9:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-santorum-trying-to-lose/616182/94 "2012-03-22T21:42:59Z")
> [@Steve\_MB](#): > > That begs the question of why they believe in the particular _specific_ set of rules rather than any of an infinite number of alternatives. The various comments above offer facetiously phrased, but not implausible, explanations to that point. I think the fact that there are rules is more important than what the specifics are. At least for the sake of my argument. It doesn’t matter whether women wear a triangular white cloth over their hair in public or shave their heads, what matters is that they all do it. It’s just “the way we do things around here”, that which sets us above and apart from the Other. I agree there is an economic aspect, they go together, surely. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2012, 11:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-santorum-trying-to-lose/616182/95 "2012-03-22T23:21:53Z")
> [@](#): > > It’s not that weird or hard to understand. It’s what every small group and tribe has always done, for cohesion, unity, and social survival. Marriages, for example, create wide and permanent social ties with specific kinds of responsibilities connected to them. It is this kind of social safety and continuity which the social conservative (correctly, in my opinion) sees as threatened by modernity. It is fundamentally not an individualistic world view, it is a communal world view. Remind me: Which party is it, again, that’s trying to prevent people from getting married? ---
**Author:** ![Zakalwe](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/zakalwe/32/270_2.png) [@Zakalwe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zakalwe)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2012, 11:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-santorum-trying-to-lose/616182/96 "2012-03-22T23:52:45Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > Remind me: Which party is it, again, that’s trying to prevent people from getting married? That’s not fair. They’re not trying to prevent _real_ people from getting married, just fags and carpet munchers\*. \*Unless, of course, said fags and carpet munchers are willing to marry each other. In which case it’s not only okay, it’s a holy sacrament. ---
**Author:** ![Ulfreida](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ulfreida/32/8014_2.png) [@Ulfreida](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ulfreida)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2012, 11:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-santorum-trying-to-lose/616182/97 "2012-03-22T23:57:12Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > Remind me: Which party is it, again, that’s trying to prevent people from getting married? If only homosexuals would just go back to being confirmed bachelors/spinsters, or priests/nuns, the way they used to, and stop trying to change rules, we would all be so much more . . . safe. I’m sure of it. ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2012, 1:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-santorum-trying-to-lose/616182/98 "2012-03-23T01:14:11Z")
> [@Ulfreida](#): > > The basis of social conservatism is simply that there are rules (written in a Book), and the idea is to follow them. Those who don’t follow them should be ashamed and try harder. Those who do follow them are to be encouraged and commended. Rules help us be better people, by giving us clear parameters, which, if we stay within them, we will be rewarded. > > It’s not that weird or hard to understand… > > I am not a social conservative and will never be one, but I don’t see a reason to resort to frivolous and frankly insulting fantasies about what they are thinking. That would be fine, except Jesus said nothing about abortion or homosexuality. What the Bible does say about abortion implies that a fetus is less valued than a grown person. Admittedly Paul made a few homophobic slurs, generally in the context of an _ad hominem_ argument. But he doesn’t lay down mandates. Leviticus prohibits male-male homosexuality (but interestingly not lesbian relationships) – but a core aspect of Christian doctrine is that Christians don’t have to obey Jewish Law. _And generally speaking they don’t._ There _are_ prohibitions against divorce and red letter mandates to love thy neighbor and even socially despised groups. Furthermore, “Blessed be ye poor: for yours is the kingdom of God,” and even, "“It is not those who are healthy who need a physician, but those who are sick…” So much for pre-existing conditions. Conservative Christians can believe whatever they want of course: it would just be nice if the topics they yammered about had any Biblical basis. In that light, searching for underlying psychological appeals and interests makes a great deal of sense. ---
**Author:** ![drewtwo99](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/d07c76/32.png) [@drewtwo99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/drewtwo99)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2012, 2:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-santorum-trying-to-lose/616182/99 "2012-03-23T02:27:28Z")
> [@Buck\_Godot](#): > > The scary thing is that the exit polls that I’ve seen indicate that Santorum is actually getting relatively more votes from Republican women than Republican men. The only explanation that I can come up with is that there is a class of women who say “If I’m not getting any no one else should either”. This literally made me spit all over my computer screen. Thanks for the awesome laugh 😃 ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2012, 2:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-santorum-trying-to-lose/616182/100 "2012-03-23T14:28:53Z")
> [@Zakalwe](#): > > That’s not fair. They’re not trying to prevent _real_ people from getting married, just fags and carpet munchers\*. > > \*Unless, of course, said fags and carpet munchers are willing to marry each other. In which case it’s not only okay, it’s a holy sacrament. A lesbian lass of Khartoum Once took a fag up to her room And they argued all night Over who had the right To do what, and with which, and to whom! [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-santorum-trying-to-lose/616182.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-santorum-trying-to-lose/616182.md?page=6)