Home / General / Consent and the Republican Mind

Consent and the Republican Mind

Comments
/
/
/
60 Views

If being a Republican today means anything, it means…well, supporting massive upper class tax cuts.  But in addition to that, it means not understanding the concept of “consent,” at least as it pertains to women. A desire to use the law to punish women for having sex in ways Republican men don’t like and a world-class virgin/whore complex are also essential.

A relevant cartoon.

 

FacebookTwitterGoogle+Share
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Google+
  • Linkedin
  • Pinterest
  • Holden Pattern

    Stoopid libtard. Consent is only for taxes on rich people. If women want a right to withhold consent for sex or to a right to control their own bodies, their nearest male relative or the local male religious leader can exercise that right for them. Silly girls!

    • RaflW

      Indeed. I’d imagine that shortly, only married women in the U.S. will be allowed to drive. Because single women with cars & locenses can get away from home and … er, be sluts.

      Oh, well, I suppose married women can go out and have affairs. So the should only have licenses to drive when hubby is too tired or drunk.

      Which means dad would have to find a lazy (ie unemployed) male relative to drive the kiddos to soccer.

      Well, on the bright side, there should be a plentiful supply of those, soon, if Romney wins.

      • Bill Murray

        Women’s DLs should be like learner’s permits. They can only drive with a related male over the driving age in the car with them

    • TT

      “Stoopid libtard. Consent is only for taxes on rich people. If women want a right to withhold consent for sex or to a right to control their own bodies, their nearest male Republican relative or the local male Republican political or religious leader can exercise that right for them. Silly girls!”

  • MAJeff

    Why should consent matter? It’s fundamentalist definitions of “morality” that determine whether or not sex is acceptable, and everyone knows God don’t give a shit about consent.

    • Malaclypse

      How does any of this put jobs in the hands of poor people that need ’em?

      • MAJeff

        *garblegarblegarble* MARXIST HOMO POMO FEMINIST TAKER!!!!!!

        • firefall

          not bad, but a bit lacking in the true Jenbob spittle

      • DrDick

        TAX CUTS (for the rich)!

      • Malaclypse

        Jennie, you need to fake being me better.

  • Curmudgeon

    You are assuming facts not in evidence by implying that Republicans have minds to begin with.

  • elm

    Wow. I honestly think it’s unfair to Akin to say that Smith is the new Akin as Carmon does. I thought I couldn’t be surprised by wingnuts anymore, but suggesting that rape and sex outside of wedlock are similar (at least to a father’s view of the matter) is something I never thought I’d see.

    • Malaclypse

      Yea, the fact that he is as upset over his daughter consenting to sex without asking his permission as he would be if she was raped is rather stunning.

      • DrDick

        I think the Taliban would understand it completely.

        • kerry

          Didn’t see your comment before I made mine, but looks like we had the same thought.

    • kerry

      Well, we’ve seen it before…in fundamentalist Muslim countries, where getting raped shames the girl’s family, not the rapist’s. They don’t call Republicans the American Taliban for nothing.

    • thebewilderness

      In that particular fathers view, and there are many like him, her pregnancy is all about him, regardless of the “method of conception”.

      Neither narcissists nor sociopaths, nor Republicans, have empathy, so the method of conception is beside the point.

  • Miserable Failure

    Why aren’t you talking about the economy and JOBS? In poll after poll voters have named these the top issues.

    The president was all too willing to talk about it when he wanted your vote.

    Now…..not so much.

    • MAJeff

      Cracker, please.

      • Keaaukane

        To give it that ethnic touch, aren’t you supposed to draw out the second word, something like

        Cracker, Puhleeeeze…

    • Malaclypse

      Finally Jennie has ab accurate nym. Good Job, Jennie!

    • Malaclypse

      And, Jennie? You might want to ask Akin and Smith about their topic preferences. Funny that they don’t want to talk about economic policies.

      • RedSquareBear

        I would have expected, given the response, that they too would want to switch to the economy and jobs. But the GOP’s ability to fall on their swords is matched only by the joy with which they then twist their own blades.

        What a (bunch of) maroon(s).

        • That was my initial thought, too: the Romney campaign suffers from the same short-attention-span, lack-of-discipline, “Squirrel!” reflex that the McCain campaign demonstrated – which was odd, because Romney was quite disciplined, even programmed, during the primary.

          But that’s not it. This is a plan. They are systematically using racial dog-whistle politics. Every single one of these “distractions” has a racial angle.

    • DrDick

      Why aren’t you talking about the economy and JOBS?

      Because the fucking Republicans keep changing the subject. I guess maybe they understand, like the vast majority of Americans and unlike you, that they caused the current economic situation and don’t want to talk about it.

    • thebewilderness

      I’m sure the Republicans will share their view, that women only work for pin money and so need not be employed nor paid the same as men if they are employed, at the convention.

    • Why aren’t you talking about the economy and JOBS?

      Why isn’t Romney talking about jobs?

      Welfare rules, Joe Biden’s remark, birth certificates – why isn’t Mitt Romney talking about the economy and jobs? And what do those things have in common, anyway?

  • JMP

    (I originally posted this elsewhere on the statement, but think it bears repeating)

    Really, it comes down to the fact that these misogynistic motherfucking vile excuses for human beings don’t understand the concept of consent. They think some sex is good and some is bad solely based on whether it fits their religious rules or not; therefore, any sex outside of their rules is equivalently bad, whether there is nothing wrong with it, like sex between two men or two women, or between an unmarried man woman, or whether it’s completely fucking wrong, like rape.

    To them though, rape and non-marital sex are just both bad because they violate the rules they think an invisible man gave them. So they think both are morally the same. This is what the so-called “pro-life” movement really believes, and yet the media continues to treat them as if they have the moral high ground, even though not only do they not, they are one of the most immoral, vile, evil, anti-human movements around.

    • Sherm

      Where’s the “like” function when you need it?

    • Sly

      After a nine year old girl in Brazil was raped and impregnated by her step-father, her mother was excommunicated for authorizing an abortion while the rapist was allowed to remain in the Catholic Church because, to quote the Archbishop of Pernambuco, José Cardoso Sobrinho, the mother (and the doctors) committed a “more serious” crime.

      In other words, religious nutjobs are perfectly capable of an emotional and rational calculus that places various infractions on a spectrum of moral acceptability. Every non-psychopathic human being has that capacity. The problem is that their nutjobbery has completely botched that calculus by inserting unverifiable nonsense into the equation that skews the result. They’re not literally insane; they’re worldview is just fucked up to the extent that it makes them functionally insane.

      • Heron

        Pretty much. To these folks, rape is still a property crime like it was to the Romans and in much of Europe until the 1900s, not an assault upon both the body and the dignity. As such for them the calculus is simple; the step-father committed the equivalent of throwing a rock through someone’s window while the girl, her mother, and the doctors committed both murder and blasphemy by taking their own fate into their own hands and carrying out a divine-plan-nullifying abortion.

    • Nate

      It’s exactly the kind of morality one would expect from the most sadistic being ever imagined.

      • chris

        You mean the kind of being that would set up his own son to be tortured to death?

    • Barry

      “They think some sex is good and some is bad solely based on whether it fits their religious rules or not; therefore, any sex outside of their rules is equivalently bad, whether there is nothing wrong with it, like sex between two men or two women, or between an unmarried man woman, or whether it’s completely fucking wrong, like rape.”

      I’ve heard this before, and I think that for these people it’s true.

  • Sly

    The audio from the Tom Smith interview is at ThinkProgress. Here’s the transcript:

    MARK SCOLFORO, ASSOCIATED PRESS: How would you tell a daughter or a granddaughter who, God forbid, would be the victim of a rape, to keep the child against her own will? Do you have a way to explain that?

    SMITH: I lived something similar to that with my own family. She chose life, and I commend her for that. She knew my views. But, fortunately for me, I didn’t have to.. she chose they way I thought. No don’t get me wrong, it wasn’t rape.

    SCOLFORO: Similar how?

    SMITH: Uh, having a baby out of wedlock.

    SCOLFORO: That’s similar to rape?

    SMITH: No, no, no, but… put yourself in a father’s situation, yes. It is similar. But, back to the original, I’m pro-life, period.

    Emphasis mine.

    So we have a man who:

    A) Simultaneously affirms and denies a pregnant woman’s agency; affirms it when the result of that agency reinforces his preferences, denies it when it doesn’t.

    B) Finds similarities between a pregnancy resulting from rape to a pregnancy resulting from sex out of wedlock from the perspective of the pregnant woman’s father. The actual content or relevancy of that perspective is unspecified.

    C) Infers that if the female family member in question (presumably his daughter) decided to terminate the pregnancy, he would have had to have done something about that (again unspecified), and is thankful his daughter didn’t put him in that position.

    I’m beginning to think that the claim that there is no Republican “War on Women” has some truth to it, because it is incredibly difficult for me to conceptualize one group of people waging war against another group of people when the first group clearly doesn’t give a rats ass about the second.

    • BigHank53

      Your problem is that you still consider women to be people. Imagine them as chattel livestock–something you hope will earn you a profit, but if they break out of your pasture and eat the neighbors’ apple crop, you’re on the hook for that–and you’ll be getting closer.

      • “eat the neighbors’ apple crop”

        So that’s what they’re calling it these days…

        • Bill Murray

          or hay bale

  • DrDick

    One is tempted to suggest that “consent” has never entered into their sex lives (which would also explain their pervasive anxiety about being “falsely” accused of rape).

    • Holden Pattern

      It’s also why they think there’s a slippery slope from adult homosexuality to pedophila and bestiality, and why one of the big defenses to the use of water torture was “Special Forces troops are subjected to this as part of training.”

  • bad Jim

    On the subject of evangelical disregard for the concept of consent, such that rape and premarital sex are considered roughly equal, I highly recommend “A Tale of Two Boxes” from Love, Joy, Feminism. Several commenters have made the same basic point, but Libbie Anne gives a thorough explanation.

  • Reilly

    B) Finds similarities between a pregnancy resulting from rape to a pregnancy resulting from sex out of wedlock from the perspective of the pregnant woman’s father. The actual content or relevancy of that perspective is unspecified.

    Yes, so it’s up to us to specify it, and it isn’t that difficult. Consent is the operative concept from Smith’s perspective, only it’s his consent, not hers that matters. If his daughter gets married, he consents — “gives her away” — after which her husband may fuck her six ways from Sunday and all’s still right with the world. But neither a rapist nor an illicit lover ask for a father’s consent. Certainly, only one of those things is a violation of the daughter, but both of them violate Smith’s paternal prerogative. It might as well have been rape inasmuch as it diminished him, and it is, after all, primarily about him.
    And actually Malaclypse nailed it upthread with this:

    Yea, the fact that he is as upset over his daughter consenting to sex without asking his permission as he would be if she was raped is rather stunning.

    • Reilly

      Sorry, that was supposed to be a reply to Sly.

    • DrDick

      In Conservative World (like Bizarro World, but darker and more sinister), the real victims of rape are men who did not give their consent to their daughters, wives, sisters, etc. having sex.

  • SMITH: No, no, no, but… put yourself in a father’s situation, yes. It is similar.

    The similarity he is talking about is that both rape and having your daughter knocked up involve violating someone’s right to control a woman’s sexual availability.

    In the case of rape, it is the woman herself whose rights are violated. In the situation Todd Scott describes…”put yourself in a father’s situation.”

    Mr. Lemieux, this particular Republican understands the concept of consent just fine. He just locates it in the wrong person.

  • calling all toasters

    Every time they talk about freedom they are referring to the “freedom” of the powerful to limit the rights of the less powerful. This just extends that logic to baby-bearing machines.

    • firefall

      Well sure, after all you dont ask your toasters consent to toast some bread, right?

      • Malaclypse

        Look, why be concerned about some axlotl tanks?

It is main inner container footer text