Right wing bloggers are making a lot of noise about an item on conservative women which had been on Playboy’s web site written by Guy Cimbalo. Sometimes when the conservative blogosphere makes a lot of noise their complaints are nonsense. While Playboy took down the material, The Activist Conservative has posted screen captures. Just a quick glance of them was enough to convince me that the conservative bloggers are entirely correct in objecting to this vile material.
If we are going to object to Bill O’Reilly saying things which can be taken to incite extremists to murder an abortion doctor, we should also object to this article which virtually advocates the rape of conservative women. While conservative sites are often guilty of hyperbole in their attacks, I note that Hot Air was actually somewhat restrained in writing “A “hate f**k” sounds like something perhaps just short of rape, but degrading enough to entertain the perverted twerps at Playboy.” At least Playboy’s terminology does make it clear that this form of rape is a crime of hatred, whether they are advocating rape or something “just short of rape.” Right Wing News also shows similar restraint in writing, “Still, I’d have to say Guy Cimbalo is probably not endorsing rape — probably.” He sure comes damn close to it.
I think everyone’s freaking out because they’ve never heard of a hate f-ck. It’s not rape, it’s consensual sex between people who hate (but lust after) each other. I’m a liberal, and I’d have no problem with an article written by conservatives about hate f-cking liberal women. It would even be a nice acknowledgement by them that our women are hot too. But then, I know the meaning of hate f-ck.
Ok, after looking up the definition it might be a little further from rape but still in extremely poor taste.
A better question would be not whether you would have a problem with “an article written by conservatives about hate f-cking liberal women” but how liberal women would feel about such an article.
Not Playboy’s finest journalist moment . . .
P.S. take a look at their interview subjects starting in 1963:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_in_Playboy_1960-1969
now that’s ballsy!
Of course they have had a number of excellent interviews over the years. Don’t you read Playboy for the interviews and articles?
Who needs Playboy anymore when you have Zoe Saldana right here on your website? 🙂
Because Zoe Saldana is wearing a lot more clothes in the picture of her on this site as compared to the girls in Playboy.
Now, if we talk about the web beyond this site, then there is a legitimate question as to whether there is any need for Playboy.
I don’t know any statistics or facts on the matter, but I suspect with all the free porn on the net, printed magazines like Playboy and others must be taking a financial beating. The availability and competition of porn has got to be driving prices down too. Perhaps our government will reluctantly have to become the owner of businesses that provide income to so many young starlets.
That depends. The government stepped into GM because of the repercussion of GM going under, along with the impact on suppliers and other businesses. What would be the repercussion if young starlets lost this income opportunity? How serious a blow would this be to the national economy?
Aside from the direct impact to the models and photographers, there are the presses, the paper industry*, delivery drivers, bookstores,advertising industries, and convenience stores just to name some off the top of my head.
*International Paper is one company I’m a little familiar with, although they don’t make magazine grade paper, mostly cardboard boxes and such, I know their stock has nose dived in the past five years. My point being they don’t need less demand for paper.
Ron, you missed the opportunity to add some pictures and boost your hit count.
Mike, All this leads to the question of whether a stimulus is needed for the porn industry, which was considered back in January.
Fritz, Somehow salacious pictures didn’t seem appropriate here. Besides, I’m still getting lots of hits from the recent pictures of Carrie Prejean and Mary Louise Parker. In addition, pictures of Paris Hilton always bring in traffic, no matter how old, and the pictures of Tim Tebow’s girl friends also guarantee a fair number of extra hits per day. There are also lots of hits from search engines from people looking for nude pictures of Emma Watson even though there aren’t any pictures of her which are remotely nude–most wind up at a post with a picture of Scarlett Johansson which also mentions Emma Watson.
I guess I’m late on that discussion. Oh well, it does seem like these discussions can be cyclical at times. Maybe I’ll just chime in next time around.
Mike, it’s never too late to make comments connecting “stimulus” and “porn”.
Great point Fritz! Now that I think about it, given the way politicians throw away all scruples and values, regardless of what ideology they claim to have, the way they”market themselves” would make them natural leaders of the porn industry. They may wreck the auto making industry forever with their tinkering. They may cause a financial catastrophe some day in Banking. But they no doubt would cause a boon in the business that thrives on sleaze and degradation.
Mike — back in the day I knew a fair number of people in that business. Some were, sure, extra sleazy. But most were just hard working men and women, perhaps with a bit of extra humor. I would never denegrate them by comparing them to politicians.
Besides, I’ve been paid by the hour to program in COBOL. So I know a thing or two about prostitution.
@pinkelephantpun Here is a liberal view on the playboy article http://tinyurl.com/q7vnf6
RT @freeadviceSea: @pinkelephantpun Here is a liberal view on the playboy article http://tinyurl.com/q7vnf6 #TCOT
RT @freeadviceSea: @pinkelephantpun Here is a liberal view on the playboy article http://tinyurl.com/q7vnf6 #TCOT
@pinkelephantpun Here is a liberal view on the playboy article http://tinyurl.com/q7vnf6
RT @freeadviceSea: @pinkelephantpun Here is a liberal view on the playboy article http://tinyurl.com/q7vnf6 #TCOT
Why are conservatives always called — right wingers? If one believe in God and goes to church, there’s the label! This is disgusting….no matter what rape is disgusting…HOW BOUT PUTTING QUEEN PELOSI IN playboy, JUDGE WHAT’S HER NAME ….NOMINATED TO SUPREME COURT, AND PAULA ZAHN, KATIE COURIC, MAYBE queen Michelle…just to even things up?
Jan,
It is a poor way to show one’s objection to the expressions of hatred in the Playboy piece by showing similar hatred towards others.
The point here is that this type of material is objectionable, regardless if directed towards someone you agree with or disagree with ideologically. It is possible to express one’s disagreement on issues without stooping to this level.
As for why conservatives are called right wingers, it is a convention which came from the French National Assembly prior to the French Revolution. Conservatives were seated on the right wing of the assembly and liberals on the left. The terminology stuck over the ages.
It isn’t really based on whether one believes in God or goes to church. There are religious people on the left and there are atheists on the right. Still that does work as a very rough generalization as frequency of church attendance is probably the best general predictor of ideology and party affiliation, with conservatives/Republicans being more likely to attend church two or more times per week and liberals/Democrats being more likely to attend an average of once or less per week.
What do you call people like me who are socially Liberal, financially fiscal and believe in God? I would really like to know what my label is.
and @giantslor you wrote “a hate f-ck. It’s not rape, it’s consensual sex between people who hate (but lust after) each other.” and no you are not the only one who who know this term… pretty much everyone over the age of 16 knows it. But it kind of contidicts you point. Consensual being the key word.
Edie: Libertarian.
“What do you call people like me who are socially Liberal, financially fiscal and believe in God?”
That demonstrates the limitations of our labels. There are people who believe in God who are socially liberal and fiscally conservative who are both labeled liberals and conservatives. Currently far more people who fit this description are considered liberals as the conservative movement has driven such people away. For example, this description fits Andrew Sullivan. Sullivan calls himself a conservative but most in the conservative movement consider him to be a liberal.
Perhaps you should throw in your position on the Iraq war as a tie breaker. Currently the two strongest issues which draw people together under the liberal label are opposition to the Iraq war and opposition to the social policies of the religious right. (You can believe in God without supporting the agenda of the religious right of imposing religious views upon others). Beyond opposition to the war and social conservatism, liberals are all over the spectrum on economic matters, ranging from strong supporters of capitalism to hold outs from the old left. There both liberals who do and do not believe in God.
Fritz,
The libertarian term leaves the use of labels just as confusing. There are many social conservatives who now call themselves libertarian, such as with many of Ron Paul’s supporters.
“Social conservative” can mean “I think that is wrong” (which is perfectly fine in a libertarian) or “There needs to be a law” (which is not).
True, but many of Ron Paul’s supporters fell over onto the side of supporting laws. They primarily opposed laws from the federal government but were perfectly fine with laws from state or local government (which is why so many Nazi’s were backing him).
I don’t live in CA because (for one reason) the gun laws are too restrictive. And I don’t live in Alabama because, well, Alabama.
There is something to be said for local mores and voting with your feet.
Yes, there are advantages in some cases. The downside of Paul’s idea of state’s rights is that he does not agree with the idea that the 14th Amendment extends Constitutional rights to state governments. Paul and many state’s rights supporters would back a state government which restricts rights in ways which currently would not be considered Constitutional.
Fritz,
This thread has sure drifted in a lot of different directions from the initial post. See the track back from Pink Elephant Pundit above. It is from a social conservative blog which tried to attribute the views of those commenting here to the views of liberals, noting a lack of outrage as the comments went onto a discussion of the porn industry. I commented there to point out that of the three regulars who had comments here so far two are libertarians are one is a conservative.
Edie:
‘What do you call people like me who are socially Liberal, financially fiscal and believe in God? I would really like to know what my label is.’
Thus Fritz:
‘Edie: Libertarian.’
A lot of Randian libertarians and libertarian conservatives, such as Christopher Hitchens, are quite expressedly atheist.
Technically, though, in terms of pure political science terminology (as opposed to economic terminology or political polemic) Fritz is pretty close to correct. ‘Libertarian’ was defined in my PoliSci 101 textbook as economic conservatism (which is slightly different from fiscal conservatism, which is just about doing everything as cheaply as possible) combined with social liberalism. The reverse, left wing economics coupled with right wing social views, is defined in PoliSci as ‘populism.’
On that note it would be fair to call a lot of neoconservatives ‘corporate populists’ and to call Mike Huckabee a ‘populist’ instead of a ‘conservative.’
Keep in mind that political science terminology is very general. There are lots of ideological gaps for which there is simply no correct technical term because people are human beings after all.
In terms of pure political polemic and nothing else, from my study of Republican politicians and commentators, a fiscal conservative with liberal social views is a ‘socialist.’
Which just goes to show how far actual politics is from political science. 🙂
If you don’t want government to shove religion (or lack of religion) down peoples’ throats, then one’s religious convictions become a matter of discussion rather than politics. Lack of use of government force makes getting along a lot easier.
Huckabee is definitely a populist.