Thinking through this, Kevin Murphy made some good points in comments about whether Ryan was hypocritical or not–he saying not. But I think I can find an example that does show Ryan’s hypocrisy—meeting with Concerned Women of America.
Kevin’s view is that most conservatives say, hey, you’re maried–go have wild monkey sex together and I think that fits for many. But others would frown on behavior like going to a sex club and engaging in sex with your partner and CWA is one of those organizations. Ryan courted them.
This also seems interesting from the perspective of if he is running and attracting support from CWA, there’s a disconnect somewhere between what he thinks is acceptable behavior and those he is courting.
what worries me is the right wings inability to discern the difference between consent and coerced. If both Jeri and Jack wanted to go have wild monkey sex in front of people then that’s great. But she didn’t and he tried to force her. That should be wrong in anybody’s book.
It’s like trying to compare the Abu Ghraib pictures to American pornography…
it’s all about consent…
Mike Switzer
Yeah, and I’m concerned about the relationship, but I’m trying to be somewhat fair in that they are allegations and we only have a little bit of the files that deal with the issues. But good point.
Oh please. Jack! didn’t coerce or force Jeri, or try to (at least based on what’s come out so far). He requested, begged, cajoled, connived- he didn’t threaten or lay a hand on her. There isn’t a man married longer than a year who hasn’t had sex with his wife when she didn’t want to but went ahead anyway because he requested, begged, cajoled, and connived among other non forceful methods. We’re talking what – seven years of marriage ( that’s the itch year!)
It’s nice to see the non-judgemental left sit in judgement. And don’t tell me he started it — I don’t accept that from kids, I certainly don’t accept it from adults.
But on to the bigger point of hypocrisy. In my book, there are two kinds of hypocrisy. Saying one thing and doing another I would call little h hypocrisy and is something we’re all guilty of. Only the utterly depraved who have no standards fail to meet them. I sure haven’t lived up to my ideals, and nobody reading this post has either.
And that’s my problem, when people focus on the messenger rather than the message. Jack! could have been out having wild monkey sex with people other than his wife, and it wouldn’t have changed the correctness of his remarks. The importance of marriage to society and (separate issue) whether same sex marriages should be legally recognized have nothing to do with Jack!, whether he says anything about it or not. Since we’re all hypocrites to lessor or greater extents, calling somebody a hypocrite is the same as calling them human.
The other kind of hypocrisy, or big H hypocrisy, involves deception — in trying to make other people think you’re better than you are. So if he had claimed that he wasn’t doing something when he really was, then I would join in in calling him a hypocrite. But he didn’t. I think there is a huge difference in saying something is bad or wrong and saying I don’t do that bad or wrong thing. Now it would be different if he really didn’t think marriage was important or that homosexuals shouldn’t get married — then that too would be hypocritical.
While one can debate whether the Jeri’s charges are accurate, her version of events are quite disturbing if accurate in relation to their relationship. The crying doesn’t turn me on line is pretty sick.
And Kevin, I just don’t know of this great left that doesn’t belive in being judging actions. I do know some twits who make that argument, but they aren’t representative.
I’m still not satisfied on homosexual marriage, but I can put that to the side, but going to the CWA and saying he is against pornography and then engaging in the behavior is hypocritical. This is an organization that combines both the moral arguments of th right with the degrading aspects of the left leaning arguments and crusades against.
Porn can be very destructive, but not all sexual explict material is destructive. They don’t make that distinction so I have to call bullshit on Jack!
I have no idea nor any ability to determine the accuracy of Jeri’s claims. My remarks are based on taking what she said as being accurate. Was Jack! insensitive — yes (extremely). Did he force Jeri to do anything — no.
As far as judgementalness goes, I suppose it’s all in what you hear and who you think is representative.
And finally on the hypocrisy, so what. Does his real (your position) or imagined (my position) hypocrisy change the validity of his or CWA’s positions? No. And that’s what bugs me about the charge of hypocrisy — it’s usually done to dismiss the position without actually addressing it.