# 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:** 16\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![Chefguy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chefguy/32/138_2.png) [@Chefguy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chefguy)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2012, 4:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-santorum-trying-to-lose/616182/101 "2012-03-23T16:32:32Z")
I’m still trying to figure out why, for a guy who is so anti-contraception, he doesn’t have 15 children. No sex? No wonder he’s so angry. ---
**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, 4:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-santorum-trying-to-lose/616182/102 "2012-03-23T16:44:22Z")
> [@Chefguy](#): > > I’m still trying to figure out why, for a guy who is so anti-contraception, he doesn’t have 15 children. No sex? No wonder he’s so angry. Not necessarily . . . consider what is associated with his name . . . ---
**Author:** ![Morgyn](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/morgyn/32/3041_2.png) [@Morgyn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Morgyn)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2012, 5:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-santorum-trying-to-lose/616182/103 "2012-03-23T17:02:39Z")
> [@Darth\_Panda](#): > > Is that some kind of vengeful prostitute? With long, sharp, [pointy teeth](http://www.tractorbynet.com/forums/attachments/construction-equipment/196062d1295544942-backhoe-bucket-tooth-wear-bucketteeth.jpg). I gotcher privy members, rightcheer. ---
**Author:** ![Yeller\_Hammer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/35a633/32.png) [@Yeller\_Hammer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Yeller_Hammer)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2012, 6:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-santorum-trying-to-lose/616182/104 "2012-03-23T18:32:49Z")
> [@Jonathan\_Chance](#): > > Look, I won’t be voting for Santorum no matter what. Accept that up front. But I expect someone playing at this fucking level to at least have the basics down. But in the past month he’s apparently worked hard on alienating these voting blocs: > > 1. Latinos (Gotta speak English to be American) > 2. Women (Contraception? Women don’t need that!) > 3. Users of porn (essentially most of the damn Internet) > 4. People who understand the constitution (a minority, I know, but c’mon!) > > For God’s sake. At this rate Herman Cain will have a better chance of being the nominee and he’s withdrawn and a flake. I’m not likly to vote for Santorum but for the simple reason I believe he is like most of the Republicans already there, They help create this fix we’re in as in taking one for the team, and besides if he had been serious him and Newte would have been registered in all the states. ---
**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 23, 2012, 9:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-santorum-trying-to-lose/616182/105 "2012-03-23T21:36:29Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Not necessarily . . . consider what is associated with his name . . . I’m pretty sure that’s a no-no for Catholics too. Catholic doctrine on sex in a nutshell: If it’s fun it’s bad. The only exception are those acts that make more Catholics. ---
**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, 10:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-santorum-trying-to-lose/616182/106 "2012-03-23T22:42:43Z")
> [@Buck\_Godot](#): > > I’m pretty sure that’s a no-no for Catholics too. > > Catholic doctrine on sex in a nutshell: If it’s fun it’s bad. The only exception are those acts that make more Catholics. Hm. And the SCOTUS now has a Catholic majority . . . :eek: ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2012, 11:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-santorum-trying-to-lose/616182/107 "2012-03-23T23:46:43Z")
> [@Chefguy](#): > > I’m still trying to figure out why, for a guy who is so anti-contraception, he doesn’t have 15 children. No sex? No wonder he’s so angry. Maybe not quite fifteen, but the Santorums have had eight children in the twenty-two years they’ve been married. I’m thinking they’re not faking their opposition to contraception. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2012, 11:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-santorum-trying-to-lose/616182/108 "2012-03-23T23:50:01Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > > [@Buck\_Godot](#): > > > > I’m pretty sure that’s a no-no for Catholics too. > > > > Catholic doctrine on sex in a nutshell: If it’s fun it’s bad. The only exception are those acts that make more Catholics. > > Hm. And the SCOTUS now has a Catholic majority . . . :eek: Pretty bad when the Jews are telling you to lighten up. ---
**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 24, 2012, 9:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-santorum-trying-to-lose/616182/109 "2012-03-24T21:52:22Z")
Just to be pedantic, the Catholic Church actually doesn’t have any objection to anal sex (or oral sex, or any of a wide variety of other practices) between a married couple, per se, just so long as it’s in addition to potentially-procreative sex, not instead of it. ---
**Author:** ![Rhythmdvl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/85f322/32.png) [@Rhythmdvl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rhythmdvl)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2012, 10:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-santorum-trying-to-lose/616182/110 "2012-03-24T22:58:39Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > Just to be pedantic, the Catholic Church actually doesn’t have any objection to anal sex (or oral sex, or any of a wide variety of other practices) between a married couple, per se, just so long as it’s in addition to potentially-procreative sex, not instead of it. Cite? Um, not that I don’t believe you, I just think it would be funny to read the Pope’s pronouncement that buttsex is okay under certain conditions. ---
**Author:** ![silenus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/silenus/32/166_2.png) [@silenus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/silenus)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2012, 11:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-santorum-trying-to-lose/616182/111 "2012-03-24T23:31:25Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > Just to be pedantic, the Catholic Church actually doesn’t have any objection to anal sex (or oral sex, or any of a wide variety of other practices) between a married couple, per se, just so long as it’s in addition to potentially-procreative sex, not instead of it. [Nope](http://catholicplanet.com/CCSE/marriage-sins.htm). Check Sections 2 & 3. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2012, 11:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-santorum-trying-to-lose/616182/112 "2012-03-24T23:47:48Z")
What? No sex with more than two people? But what could be more procreative than a guy having sex with two women? That way there could end up being two conceptions. I think a papal endorsement of MFF threesomes could really help bring people back into the faith. ---
**Author:** ![gamerunknown](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/6bbea6/32.png) [@gamerunknown](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gamerunknown)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2012, 12:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-santorum-trying-to-lose/616182/113 "2012-03-25T00:01:39Z")
Actually, I remember reading on the Catholic org website that there’s a theological controversy over whether a husband can manually stimulate his wife to orgasm after unilaterally satisfying procreative sex. If non-procreative sex within a marriage was fine, then there would be no controversy over condoms or masturbation. The theological justification for this, as far as I know, comes from the parable of the sower and Onanism. You know, in all honesty, I hope the Catholic Church sticks to its “natural law” position until obsolescence. At least it doesn’t make the convenient special pleading case of the Baptists where anal sex with (nonlatex) condoms and lube is fine as long as its between a man and a woman - you know, as God intended. Edit: > [@](#): > > I think a papal endorsement of MFF threesomes could really help bring people back into the faith. It’d contradict the admonishments for adulterers, since God made one man and one woman as one flesh. Though there is a disconnect between the Social Darwinist’s highest principle of promulgation of the individual gene and the fact that they rarely donate sperm or rape women. ---
**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 25, 2012, 12:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-santorum-trying-to-lose/616182/114 "2012-03-25T00:23:25Z")
Huh, what I said was what they taught us in my Catholic high school. I’m not sure which of the two sources is correct, and I don’t feel inclined to go sifting through the Code of Canon Law to find out. ---
**Author:** ![Boyo\_Jim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/87869e/32.png) [@Boyo\_Jim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boyo_Jim)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2012, 12:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-santorum-trying-to-lose/616182/115 "2012-03-25T00:32:43Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > Huh, what I said was what they taught us in my Catholic high school. I’m not sure which of the two sources is correct, and I don’t feel inclined to go sifting through the Code of Canon Law to find out. Is it searchable? If so, just type in “anal”. ---
**Author:** ![Mighty\_Girl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7bcc69/32.png) [@Mighty\_Girl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mighty_Girl)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2012, 12:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-santorum-trying-to-lose/616182/116 "2012-03-25T00:58:18Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > Just to be pedantic, the Catholic Church actually doesn’t have any objection to anal sex (or oral sex, or any of a wide variety of other practices) between a married couple, per se, just so long as it’s in addition to potentially-procreative sex, not instead of it. I am not an expert, and don’t really care what the RNC thinks about anal sex, but I remember from what passed for sex education in my Catholic school that non-tab A-in-slot B-type sex is verboten for Catholics. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-santorum-trying-to-lose/616182.md?page=5)