Santorum! (kinda, NSFW)
 

"Santorum

san-TOR-um n. A frothy mixture of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the by-product of anal sex. See also: Sen. Rick Santorum (R - PA).

In April 2003, Republican senator Rick Santorum made some asinine comments in defense of laws banning gay sex. While this in itself may seem unremarkable, many people were amazed at how much detail he went into. Rick wasn't satisfied to call it 'degenerate' and move on. He really, really wanted to talk about sex, so he told the Associated Press: "If the Supreme Court says that you have a right to consensual sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything." Well, little did he know that two months later the Supreme Court would rule anti-sodomy laws unconstitutional... whoops!

It's not every day that a U.S. Senator squirts out a nugget like that. Public outcry was considerable, yet readers of Dan Savage's syndicated sex column Savage Love feared the ensuing scandal would soon be flushed away and forgotten about. Acting on the suggestion of a reader, Savage issued this challenge:

There's no better way to memorialize the Santorum scandal than by attaching his name to a sex act that would make his big, white teeth fall out of his big, empty head. And don't doubt for a moment that Savage Love readers have that power. Savage Love readers selected "pegging" for a woman doing a man in the ass with a strap-on dildo—much to my Aunt Peggy's dismay—and "pegging" is already showing up in dictionaries of sexual slang. So, readers: Should a "Santorum" be a common or a rare sex act? Vanilla or kinky? Sweet or gruesome?

Submissions were published in a later column, readers voted, and the lube-fecal matter concoction entry won by a landslide:

While I agree with the spirit of naming something objectionable (to him) after Rick Santorum, I think it should be a substance, not an act. I would never want to Santorum anyone I liked. What a turnoff. Instead, I think it would be better to name some kind of sexual byproduct after him. After all, ending up with idiots like Santorum in elected office is a byproduct of the otherwise desirable practice of letting any old yokel vote. Specifically, I nominate the frothy mixture of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the byproduct of anal sex. As in, "We had a great time, but we got Santorum all over the sheets." Or better yet, "Before I sodomize my gay, unmarried dog, I like to give him an enema so there won't be any Santorum."

—Wipe Up That Santorum, Anal Pokers

Since then, efforts to promote use of the word have had considerable success. " [rotten.com]

I just learned about the concept of Santorum, its connection to Senator Rick Santorum and the spread of the definition. It is quite possibly one of the funniest things I have ever seen. I love how bigoted comments come back and bite people in the ass, even more so when the bite is done in a really funny fashion. Has anyone seen this word used in context or in any print magazines ?


http://www.spreadingsantorum.com (NSFW, kinda, if your boss is a hardass)

Not in print, but my friends use the term.

Wow, that's kinda...funny. Number 3 result in Google when I search for his name. LOL.

Wonder what his response to all this is...

Sweet.
I feel conflicted about this though, he deserves it, but is this really the way to go. Disrispecting people? Can't we make him understand not just try to humiliate him.
I'm confused about my feelings.

santorum spoke his mind and stood up for something he believes in whether people think its right or wrong, he didn't deserve this kind of negative attention, he's a good man
and if people want to twist what he said to make gay sex the same as bestiality, fine, just remember it is as natural as that, they're equal as far as biologically, its only for sexual gratification or when an emotional connection is made, who's to say someone can't have an emotional connection to their fav animal

why can't these type people (not only gays) be as openminded about the people they don't agree with as they DEMAND from everybody else?

syndicated sex advice columnist Dan Savage coined the term in his "savage love" column. i believe the site is his.

Do you think Rick Sanatorum (or you for that matter) is being open minded about the people he doesn't agree with (ie gay couples)?

I cannot believe how many people claim not to see the obvious difference between homosexual sex and bestiality or pedophilia. here it is one more time:

homosexual sex is between two consenting adults both of whom enjoy the experience and CHOOSE to engage in it.

beastiality is between one adult and an non consenting (i don't think we need to argue whether or not children and animals are mature enough to give sexual consent) child or animal.

if you say that homosexual sex is akin to beastiality because both are "unnatural" (i assume your definition has to do with the ability to produce babies) i expect you to agree that all of the following are also in that category:

1. oral sex between any two people
2. masturbation
3. sex with contraception

that is truly funny
i'd like to have a sexual act named after me

But remember that Santorum is not a sexual act, that might complement the Senator. Santorum is sometimes the icky by-product of a sex act, something nobody wants to be named after.

Welcome Home (Santorum)

Love that song!!

heh heh

Thats funny because Santorum would agree with you. Sigma is exactly right, people have the right to not agree with homosexuality... some people stand by their convictions and morals, more power to them. Santorum is a good guy and a honest man, just because he doesn't agree with the homosexual agenda doesn't mean otherwise.

It's not that he shouldn't have beliefs. It that he is trying to push his morality to discriminate and persecute other people. Naming the frothy fecal mixture that is aproduct of anal sex after him, it is a way for the discriminated to get back at him. You can also add this to the category, brianna:

4. sex between two married persons, one of whom is infertile.

Many long decades ago, the people of the United States took offense to the practice in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints to polygamy among the most faithful church leaders. They passed a federal law that declared polygamy unlawful (at the federal level) and sent the US Army out to the territory of Utah to stop the practice. While the history of that military campaign is interesting, what is important to this discussion is that the US Supreme Court found this law constitutional. So it still stands.

Comes now some state supreme courts finding it unconstitutional to have laws against homosexual sex. Hmmmm. Would someone point out whats the legal difference in the state's interest here?

Thanks.

Maybe he is playing according to constituents will??? Ever think about that?

And if constituents want a state ammendment applying Old Testment law, should he give lip service to that too? "Ever think about that? "

Aslong as it isn't an endorsement of religion, yes he should.

I don't care if people have these views. It's when they seek to make it a law and thus force these views on other people, it becomes disgusting.

Are we not a representative democracy? If the majority of the country feels this way, is it right to force something they are against? Homosexuality may not be a choice, but it is a lifestyle. Comparing the debate of Gay marriage to the Civil Rights movement is disgusting.

how is it disgusting? i'm sorry, but i don't see how they aren't related... in both cases people were/are being denied rights and privilges that everyone else had because of what they are (you may say that homosexuality is a choice, but evidence is to the contrary).

why should someone be denied rights that others have?

As a lifestyle it is a choice. I won't argue whether or not it is "natural". Blacks being black is not a choice, nor is it a lifestyle, it is there identity.

Gay people have all the rights as everyone else, and if you are going to argue otherwise you open up a pandora's box of a slippery slope.

okay, explain what you just said...

"as a lifestyle it is a choice." if they are biologically wired to be homosexual, then choosing to live how they're wired to is a choice? i guess then my choosing to live as a straight man, because that's how i'm wired, is also a choice then.

and how do gay people have all the same rights as everyone else? they don't. they don't have the right to marry the person they love. they don't have inheritance rights with the person they love. they don't have hospital visitation rights with the person they love. yet straight people have all that...

and don't give us the slippery slope BS. letting gays get married isn't going to lead to pedophilia or beastiality, or whatever else is going through your head. if you really think that's going to happen, then explain how/why.

I don't see what's so threatening about gay marriage....

but then again I see that this thread has been twisted from a definition of a term poking fun at a gay bashing senator into an argument over gay rights... If you want to discuss this topic, take it to one of the other threads about gay marriage, of which there are many.

I'll give mojo a chance to respond to harry, but after that I think this thread is finished.

I agree with bermuDa... done.

Let this be an example of just how off-topic some threads can get. As bermuDa said, there are many other threads on gay marriage/rights/etc., and this is not one of them.

Please let's all be a bit more mindful of whether or not what we're saying is actually constructive to the topic, or just what you feel like choosing to answer.

This is not the Politics forum, and blind rhetoric (from any side) is not the aim here.

Thanks for reading,

-analog.

y'all are right... my bad...

sorry for the jack...

First off I apologize for hijacking the thread. I just don't think its far that Santorum who is a decent human being, and an honest politcian gets so much guff.

And basically all I'm saying is that sexual preference is not your identity. Most of this comes down to semantics (thats the word I'm looking for right?). I don't think the framers ever ended to have something like this come up.

Thanks for understanding, guys. It's this kind of mutual understanding that makes this place great. This is a wonderful example of how a thread-gone-wrong can come out ok in the end.

Thanks again! :)

-analog.