A Conservative Responds To "Is It Right For Conservative Blogs To Use Pic's Of Semi-Naked Women,Like These,To Attract Readers?

I posed the question-Is it acceptable for Conservative sites to use pictures of semi-naked young women like these to attract readers? Does the end result of garnering a wider audience (particularly of young male activists) for the conservative viewpoint justify the means.

I asked-are we as conservatives not by our very nature superior to the commercial soft porn magazines and web sites who peddle the idea they are libertarians somehow when all they are in fact is exploiters? Surely we can, by presenting logical ideas in an exemplary framework, over time win the argument?

One of the conservative blogs I used as an example "JerseyNut" replied with a deeply thought out and constructive response which I reprint below.

The JerseyNut said... Hmmm...the question is valid, and one I have debated internally before getting into the "Rule 5" game...

But there is a marked difference between the liberal appreciation of women and the conservative appreciation of women, one that I feel can often be seen in the "Rule 5 lineup".

For all of the liberal talk of "equal rights" for women, it is just that: talk. Think of the lewd and lacivious things that have been said about Sarah (and Bristol) Palin, about conservative Miss America Carrie Prejean, about Michelle Malkin, Christine O'Donnell, Meg Whitman...you get the drift. And let's not forget whoremonger Elliot Spitzer or leftist hero and rapist Julian Assange...

Now conservatives, on the other hand, actually treat woman as equals - both intellectually and morally, and pay homage to the gender with such old-fashioned ideas as the sanctity of marriage, chilvary, and politeness both in public and in private.

What does this have to do with pictures of pretty girls? When I see a liberal site splashing around some girlie pix (and it is usually celebrity softcore porn in order to maximize hits - NATALIE PORTMAN (almost) NAKED!) I can only think of the way they treat women, and what the photos are meant to be - flypaper to catch similar scuzzies, in the hopes they will actually do more than gawk at the pictures...

Now, we conservatives look at it differently. It's a lot less celebrity skin, and a lot more appreciation of the female form - part and parcel of the artistry of God, if you will - a concept mocked by the left. And while conservative sites are also playing the Sitemeter game, the entire enterprise just seems a little less dirtier. The appreciation of female beauty is there, but without the attendant disrespect and smuttiness that is part and parcel of the left-wing girlie posts. Maybe it is just perception, but knowing the reality of the two ideologies involved, I feel "our" Rule 5 mutual linkage is more innocent and respectful than anything conjoured up by the left.

And speaking for myself - I will usually go Rule 5 only to make a point, or to illustrate a theme. Take my Hanukkah Honeys series (http://jerseynut.blogspot.com/2010/12/7th-night-of-hanukkah-honey-brings.html), for instance - sure, they're filled with pictures of semi-nude Hebrew hotties, but the point is - "Did you know she was Jewish? And when you reach into the anti-Semetic bag of hate, do you realize you are slurring these lovelies as well"?

The Sexy Santas, so to speak, was simply to provide some balance....

The critique of the false liberal premise by "JerseyNut" is entirely valid but to me the concept of ideas alone,presented certainly in a modern,attractive format, should be convincing enough to stand on their own merit.