Rick Santorum tells boy not to use pink bowling ball

Discuss

74 Responses to “Rick Santorum tells boy not to use pink bowling ball”

  1. EdCampion says:

    A frothy mix of etc,etc

  2. Tony Pires says:

    Said the guy with the pink tie.

  3. TheKaz1969 says:

    I am surprised he doesn’t prohibit them using black balls, either…

  4. Brainspore says:

    Is that photo real or were the colors photoshopped for the obvious humor effect?

  5. Looks like it´s a valid photo from somewhere before August 17  in 2011.
    http://unicornbooty.com/blog/2011/08/17/rick-santorum-claims-gay-marriage-caused-the-recession/
    “It was gays, and not this fetching lavender and pink number, that led to the recession.”
    http://cdn.unicornbooty.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Rick-Santorum-Claims-Gay-Marriage-Caused-the-Recession.jpeg

  6. Evan Kelley says:

    That’s right! You tell ‘em, Rick. Boys are supposed to have blue balls!

  7. I hope there is audio. Jon Stewart and friends can do a lot with this quote: “Friends don’t let friends use pink balls.”

  8. Suburbancowboy says:

    The one thing that could’ve made this story  even more perfect would be if the kid replied “The ball is pink because it is for my Aunt who died from breast cancer because she couldn’t afford health insurance”

    (not that I wish anyone to have cancer for the sake of a good quip)

  9. Rory Santino says:

    With as many kids as he has, I guess the “no playing with pink balls” rule doesn’t apply in the Santorum household. Do as Rick says, not as Rick does…

  10. lknope says:

    “We’re not gonna let you do that.  Not on camera.”

    So, in the closet then?

    • Cynical says:

      Dude, it’s the Republican mantra:

      “Don’t ask, don’t tell, DO crywank furiously about it when there’s noone around to judge you.”

  11. skyhawk1 says:

    Rick likes black balls.

  12. Christopher says:

    When I was very young I told my mother my favorite color was pink. She said, “Oh no, you’re a boy. Pink is a girl’s color.” And I thought, Why do girls get pink? I couldn’t articulate it at the time but I like to think that somewhere deep in my still growing brain was the thought that colors being assigned specific genders was the stupidest thing I’d ever heard–and decades later, among all the other stupid things I’ve heard, it still ranks pretty close to the top.

    So let me rephrase Rick’s statement: Friends don’t tell friends what color balls they should have. 

    • mccrum says:

       Interestingly enough, pink was for boys and blue for girls prior to around 1940.  Red was manly and blue was for the Virgin Mary, so pink was like a little red.  And then it was switched for some weird reason.

      • ChickieD says:

         And if you look at photos from the Victorian era, young boys were dressed up in VERY feminine outfits with lots of lace and such. I learned this touring a Victorian era home and the docent pointed out a small portrait on the wall – thought for sure it was a girl, but no, that was the son.

      • Brainspore says:

        I’ve heard that claim but I’ve also seen a lot of old art that tells a different story. (The two most famous pieces from the Huntington Library’s gallery, for example.) Or at least a more complicated story. Maybe the rule just flips back and forth every century or so.

        • Christopher says:

           Or possibly there was a time when people didn’t assign colors to specific genders. I’ve never done any formal study of the history of fashion, but it’s always seemed to me that at earlier periods among the upper classes even if men’s clothing was different in cut and style it was at least as flamboyant as what women wore. The tuxedo and gray flannel suit, after all, are pretty recent inventions. And even into the 20th century small children wore dresses regardless of gender.

          • chgoliz says:

            And white was the preferred color for babies because you can use bleach and/or boiling water to get the stains out.

        • Ewen Cluney says:

          The bit about pink for boys and blue for girls was IIRC at a particular point in American history, and it’s why there were and still are pink dress shirts for men. It’s very definitely a cultural thing in any case.

      • Wreckrob8 says:

        Thank you. I believe blue was for the Virgin Mary in art as the dye for blue paint used to come from lapis lazuli and was the most expensive of all colours. So traditionally blue was for girls and pink for boys. The modern chemical industry and the waning of religious art has made such gender distinctions meaningless (which they pretty much are anyway). Fucking ignorant for a Catholic!

  13. 2011 into 2012 has been such a bewildering, groundhog day-esque, daymare. 

  14. teknocholer says:

    The homophobia and misogyny are only part of the story. The incident also further emphasizes  Santorum’s belief that everyone only gets to do what he allows.

  15. OoerictoO says:

    they can take our pink balls.  but they can never take… OUR FREEEEEEEDOM.

    or:
    what a libertarian.

    or:
    seriously, who thinks religion is good for us as a society when it lends credence to this BS?  and this is, relatively, an extremely insignificant example.  yeah, his religious derived morality seems useful.  no way my atheist ethics can compete.  [throws up in mouth, just a bit]

  16. Robert says:

    Well, I suppose if you’re gonna run a country based on militant people who scream loudly about how everyone else should live voting…

  17. Even in the supposedly strait-laced 1950′s pink wasn’t exclusively a “Girls” colour. 

  18. OtherMichael says:

     Red (pink derived from red) is considered active hence masculine.

  19. penguinchris says:

    Does anyone think Santorum actually has a shot? 

    I can think of two possibilities to explain the GOP candidates. One is that they’re the “B Team” (or C, D…) because they know they can’t beat Obama and so don’t want to waste any actually plausible candidates. The other possibility is that they’re trying to ease radicalism into mainstream politics even more than it already is. Whether the GOP wins or not, the mainstream apparently considers these candidates acceptable, which will lead to even more ridiculousness in the future.

    Now, that’s not necessarily a bad thing, I just hope that it leads to third party viability and a more diverse government, not to crazy conservatives in charge.

    The America I know and love (I’m trying to move to Canada but that’s beside the point) is one in which people like Santorum can say whatever they want, but don’t have any sort of real shot at power because no one will accept them.

    • Mister44 says:

       re: “because they know they can’t beat Obama”

      Have you seen the polls? A shit sandwich could beat Obama. Of course the republicans seem determined to once again field a giant douche, so who knows how this will shake out.

      • Brainspore says:

        Have you seen the polls? A shit sandwich could beat Obama.

        As of this week Obama’s approval rating was around 50%. That is a few points higher than G.W. Bush’s approval rating was at the same point in his Presidency.

        • Mister44 says:

           It’s finally up to 50%? Obama could win again – but only if the Republicans field a complete douche bag that none of the moderates can get behind. I don’t see him doing well against Romney at this point – but the election is still a long way off. Plenty of time for screw ups on either side.

          • OoerictoO says:

            i’m really glad you are wrong (about Obama not being a shoe-in).  but i’m all for rallying the troops.  i think we need another landslide to send the appropriate message.  it’s too bad landslides these days are like 10%

          • Christopher says:

             Maybe the Republicans won’t field a complete douche bag, but looking at the number of delegates Santorum has it seems like a lot of them are really trying to.

        • OoerictoO says:

          totally agreed.  only shit-sandwiches are running against Obama.  so thankfully it barely matters what his “approval rating” is amongst the mouth-breathing public and polarized-view ignorami. 
          Even if they did want to bother running a viable, moderate candidate, he or she would have a hard time against an incumbent, particularly with such good results considering the circumstances.  Watch his rating rise as he steadily starts talking about he and his cabinet’s record more.  I’m glad he hasn’t yet.  it means he’s been doing real (if imperfect) work.

      • wysinwyg says:

        I don’t think your analysis is very sound.

    • Daniel Smith says:

      Holy moly, I sure hope he doesn’t. I don’t want to believe the country is that far gone.

    • wysinwyg says:

       Yes, if he wins a bunch more primaries and Gingrich wins a few more Gingrich could hypothetically throw him enough delegates to get ahead of Romney in return for VP nod or something.  I don’t think this will actually happen but it’s a scary possibility.

  20. Mister44 says:

    I don’t get the whole “he doesn’t like gay people, he must be a closet gay”.  It sounds so much like the playground “I know you are, but what am I?” taunt. 

    • Brainspore says:

      I’m not (yet) convinced he’s a closeted gay, but I am convinced that he’s an obvious hypocrite. Just look at THE DAMN TIE.

      However if Santorum is eventually outed as a closeted gay man it wouldn’t exactly be a big break away from the pattern we’ve all come to expect. “The lady doth protest too much” and all that.

    • dougr650 says:

       Straight people who are secure in their masculinity don’t generally feel the need to always point out how heterosexual they are or try to put down people who are gay.  Also, many gay people go through a period of self-loathing or become hyper-aware of how they present themselves in order to better blend with the rest of society.  They are often the most vocal about anti-gay sentiments, in order to bolster their image as “not gay.”

    • Christopher says:

      It’s not so much “I know you are, but what am I?” as it is “It takes one to know one”. I admit, though, it does seem childish to taunt Santorum with his fear of homosexuality.

    • wysinwyg says:

       No, it’s the pattern already set by Ted Haggard et al plus the outfit he’s wearing in the accompanying picture.

      Also the fact that it’s hard for someone like me to imagine someone so insecure about his sexuality that he not only eschews the pink ball himself but insists that no other males may use the pink ball.  Seems almost like he’s trying REALLY hard to make sure no one mistakes him for Teh Gay.  (Gdim7!)

      • Christopher says:

         It may be hard to imagine, but bear in mind that on several occasions Santorum has demonstrated his willful ignorance of and outright hostility toward homosexuality.

        • wysinwyg says:

          That’s not the least bit hard to imagine.  What is hard to imagine is someone who is secure in his heterosexuality thinking that there’s somehow a causal relationship between pink bowling balls and homosexuality.

          You seem to be saying, “Well, he’s anti-gay so he’s OBVIOUSLY anti-pink bowling balls.”  That’s what I’m saying is not obvious.  There is no logical connection there.

    • Mister44 says:

       I get some of the replies – but where else does this logic also apply? “OH he really hates black people. I bet he secretly loves black people.” or “She really hates Brussel sprouts. I bet she really secretly loves them.”

      I imagine the number of people who don’t like gays and are straight far out number the few who are secretly gay and say they hate gay people.

      • Brainspore says:

        I get some of the replies – but where else does this logic also apply? “OH he really hates black people. I bet he secretly loves black people.”

        The main difference is that there isn’t a whole lot of precedent for the “racist bigot who secretly loves black people” thing, unless you count Strom Thurmond knocking up a black teen who was in his family’s employ at the time.

      • blueelm says:

        No, that would be like saying “he hates black people, so he must be black” and now that I’ve clarified that for you I bet you can *see* why that wouldn’t make sense. 

      • KanedaJones says:

        Um… using a pink bowling ball =/= sexuality, gender identity etc.

        The fact that he thinks it is is the problem…

        I get where you’re coming from: the whole argument seems nonsensical on its face, but there is a great and storied history (as Brainspore refers to) of people who exemplify this, which comes from (and this is the important part) a dedicated and principled morality that says that “Gay is wrong, M’kay?” combined with guys who are actually gay.

        Their emotional development makes them hate their instincts enough to damn not only acceptance of gays, but to demonise gays as “recruiters” of young men. From their perspective, this makes perfect sense: of course “teh gays” can “recruit” others, since only their masterful moral resistance prevented it in their case. (Up to a point)

        – GimpWii

      • atimoshenko says:

        Nah, if you really hate something, you just avoid it. If you spend many of your waking hours trying to attack anything related to Brussel sprouts, prevent as many people as possible from ever finding out about them, and insulting anyone who hints at enjoying them, then you do not hate Brussel sprouts, but are obsessed with them.

        I suspect most gay guys do not think about sex with other men as much as Santorum does.

        • cjporkchop says:

           I suspect most gay prostitutes who work double shifts and then moonlight as pron stars don’t think about sex with other men as much as Santorum does.

      • Christopher says:

         I realize citing a study (or studies) almost always raises as many questions as it answers, but there has been research that shows that sometimes homophobia is linked to sexual arousal. See: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8772014

        And, no, I don’t necessarily believe that just because someone hates gay people doesn’t mean they’re gay, but clearly this issue is more complicated than your simplistic examples. For instance I’m not going to assume that just because of your intense dislike of Obama you’re really secretly an Obama supporter.

  21. franko says:

    i suspect that mr. santorum knows all ABOUT boys who play with pink balls.

  22. timmaguire says:

    If that’s a quote, if Rick Santorum actually said, “Friends don’t let friends use pick balls,” then I need to rethink my decision to never in a million years vote for him.

  23. sam1148 says:

    Pink and Orange balls at a bowling center are made for children. They’re color coded because of their weight and smaller finger holes. 

  24. Matthew Stone says:

    This is ridiculous.  Anyone who’s ever played a Kirby game or as Dan Hibiki in Street Fighter can testify that pink is the color of strength.

  25. Anna Hight says:

    I am not comfortable with Santorum’s concerned intereest in a little boy’s balls.

  26. elix says:

    What the actual fuck is wrong with you, Rick Frothy? You’re practically leaning out of the closet at this point. SNL is going to have a hard time writing jokes about you because they can’t top your behaviour.

    I can’t believe this man has a Secret Service detail (I think?). 

  27. Sax Sandler says:

    Is snooker forbidden in the US? NOT playing the pink ball would be a difficult task…

  28. BBNinja says:

    Next…Cue Geraldo Rivera warning parents not to let their boys wear pink, because they’re asking to be targeted for a hate crime.

Leave a Reply