In Defense of Slut-Shaming
Sandra Fluke, an abortion activist masquerading as a law student, spoke before the House Democratic Steering and Policy Committee on a very important issue: the right for college students to have endless amounts of sex while someone else pays for their birth control. According to Fluke, female students shell out $3,000 for three years of contraceptives.
Of course, do the math and find that this means Fluke and her fellow law students have sex two or three times daily (since condoms only cost about a dollar). Rush Limbaugh noticed this, and made the apparently grave error of pointing out the obvious, calling Sandra Fluke a slut and a prostitute on air.
The swift, immediate fallout: Scores of Limbaugh’s sponsors dropped him. Rush himself apologized not only once, but twice. Fluke, being the gracious, classy lady that she is, went on The View and refused to accept his apology. President Obama himself even called the poor, maligned, sex-crazed activist to make sure she was doing OK, and to tell her that — shockingly — her parents should be proud.
Yes, I too hope and dream for the day that my child will stand up in front of the nation to announce they’re having so much sex that they can’t afford to pay for it.
But is “slut-shaming,” Limbaugh’s infraction, really such a horrible crime?
Sandra Fluke is just one in a long line of pseudo-feminists celebrating their sluthood.
Jessica Valenti, founder of Feministing, the largest feminist blog, wrote a book on it. She claimed that purity oppressed young women, not the Girls Gone Wild porn chic culture. Monica Shores, who writes for Ms. magazine, the Huffington Post, and Alternet, made a handy little checklist of reasons why girls should have casual sex. It’s empowering! You can learn about your sexuality! Salon writer Tracy Clark-Flory wrote that casual sex is a great way to earn respect. Feminist writer and activist Jaclyn Friedman wrote a piece called “My Sluthood, Myself,” in which she opined that being a slut is “liberating” and “healing.” A blogger at Slate, specifically addressing the Limbaugh controversy, stated that Fluke’s sex positivity recharges feminism.
But the trend goes much deeper than just a handful of feminists. Last year, SlutWalks became a worldwide craze, with feminists urging women to participate in order to revel in their sexuality and proudly reclaim the word slut. SlutWalks took place in cities across the United States, Canada, and Britain.
And then of course, there’s the feminist preoccupation with abortion and birth control, both issues employed solely to enable a woman’s right to have sex without consequences, as much as she wants. This objective is virtually the only thing feminists care about now. Oh, every now and then they’ll throw out something about the non-existent gender wage gap, or whine about how there aren’t enough women in traditionally masculine career fields. But that’s about it. Real feminist issues like, say, stoning and sharia law are rarely, if ever, touched upon.
Abortion, birth control, and promiscuous sex are the cornerstones of the modern feminist movement. Say that women shouldn’t sleep around with wild abandon, and you’re out of the club. Mention that you’re pro-life, and you aren’t allowed to call yourself a feminist. Do the unthinkable and suggest that women should pay for their own abortions and birth control, and you’re castigated as a woman-hating tool of the patriarchy. Feminists throw the word “choice” around and like to pretend that they fight so women can have different choices. The truth is, feminists will decide what kind of lifestyle is best for you, and if you have a problem with it, you better keep your mouth shut and your wallet open. Because not only do you have to approve of their whoredom, you’ve got to subsidize it also.
The worst part of the obsession with sluthood? The harm to women. For starters, one in five women currently have herpes. Rates of chlamydia among women have also skyrocketed, with almost three times as many women infected as men. HPV, a disease which can cause cancer, is so prevalent now that at least half of all sexually active adults have been diagnosed with it at some point. According to the CDC, of the 12,000 women who get cervical cancer each year, almost all of them are HPV-related. The effects are even worse on younger girls. Sixty-three percent of teens who have sex wish they didn’t. The Heritage Foundation did a study and found that 8,000 teenagers are infected with an STD daily.
As a woman, how is it better to close our eyes and bleat “empowerment!” about women being sluts? It’s harmful, degrading, and even the feminists advocating for sluthood admit to feeling used, cheap, and worthless. It may seem harsher to call someone a slut, but far better for us to stop glorifying sluthood as if it’s some kind of acceptable lifestyle than to praise women for it. What’s the better choice in the long run for women? To lie to them about the greatness of being a whore, or to be honest and call sluts what they are? Believe it or not, slut-shaming serves a purpose.
We can lie to women all day long about the excitement of the hook-up culture, but it’s far better to tell women the truth, even though the word “slut” stings.
$1 a condom seems a small price to pay to prevent herpes! Yaaaaaaay!
But you do know Fluke was talking about the cost of 13 packs of birth control pills per year and not the cost of condoms for thrice-daily boning, RIGHT? Otherwise, I shall have to assume your cranium is full of oatmeal.
There you go then, Vas. Clearly the best way to educate is to troll, neh? Let’s go straight for the full-on personal attacks.
Oddly, that kind of seems like what Mr. Limbaugh has been whipped for, in this case…
Since no one could be that dumb as to truly misinterpret the many manifestations of Feminism, saying that Sandra has a head full of oatmeal is being kind enough to avoid the obvious.
Sandra is being maliciously deceptive. Take a closer look at the opening argument. The speaker cannot be a law student because she is an activist.
It is closely related to the argument (which is a personal attack) that a woman cannot be the victim of a violent attack since there are women who engage in sex willingly and wear festive clothing.
Of course Sandra has the right as far as I am concerned to make all the personal attacks she wishes; as long as we don’t forget this is a fallacy as far as discrediting an argument goes, I don’t care. For years we paid for a space program that gave us 5 dollar a gallon gasoline. We paid for an internet while half our working people pay nearly half the week’s wages for their children’s healthcare.
Finally, if you are fixated on a young adult women’s sexual life, you are a pervert. :: ))
and YOU do know that a month’s supply of birth control pills runs you $9 at Target, right off the Georgetown campus, right?
Umm das, The BC pills cost $20-$50 for one months supply. Assuming Miss Fluke is smart enough to not pay the high end price of $50 but for some reason can’t get access to $20 pills then her annual bill for BC pills should be around $540 ($35mo for the pills and $120/yr for the doctors exam). THat being the case, the logical question becomes what is she spending the other $480 a year on? I submit the logical inference would be condoms. You can even make a case for doubling up on the protection (BC pills dont protect against STDs). Therefore, even if you subtract out the cost of BC pills, the woman is still “getting lucky” every day of the week and twice on Sundays IF she’s spending as much on BC as she claims.
Yeah – not so sure how accurate that is.
I don’t like Fluke, and I completely oppose her POV. HOWEVER, the cost of The Pill is about $1,000 a year. I know, because my wife was on it until very recently for medical reasons.
I think the idea of equating condom cost to The Pill is legitimate, however. I disagree with Rush’s approach (calling her a “slut”), and this equates with Vas Deferens’ personal attack (equally atrocious). But Rush’s point is accurate. If Fluke hadn’t figured out that she could save money (and prevent STDs) with a condom, then she’s not as intelligent as she pretends to be, and she should be accused of sleeping around 2 or 3 times a day – because this is essentially what she’s asking us to subsidize.
The Pill is perceived to be ‘the safest’ approach to Birth Control. It isn’t. It may limit pregnancy opportunities better than condoms, but it promotes the spread of STDs – hardly a worthwhile tradeoff, in my opinion. Of course, Fluke would say she uses both (ha! I laugh because I’ve heard this before and I know it isn’t true), and this only adds to her costs.
In fact, my wife and I used both and still wound up with a son some 15 years ago. So…sorry, Sandra, nothing is foolproof.
Sandra’s failure is being presented as a victory by her Progressive friends, because she was vilified and acts “surprised” at this. Her Progressive friends feel she acquitted herself well. I’m not surprised they feel this way. They are deluded and are only looking for a Utopian and completely paid for environment where the ‘rich’ can pay for their laid-back lifestyle.
Good luck, when it all comes tumbling down, Progressive Fools. Because we haven’t hit Utopia, and it’s all crumbling now.
Keeping your genitals apart is pretty damn foolproof.
It always amazes me how many men think that only men should enjoy having sex, while being totally against homosexuality.
How does that work? You split the world into ladies and sex-slaves?
Ladies only ‘put up with’ sex when married?
Very confused. Probably religious.
The Feminist Case Against Abortion
“Abortion is mans ultimate exploitation of women.”
Alice Paul, Author of the Original E.R.A. (Equal Rights Amendment), 1923.
“Sweeter even than to have had the joy of caring for children of my own has it been to me to help bring about a better state of things for mothers generally, so their unborn little ones could not be willed away from them.”
Susan B. Anthony, 1889
As one of the generation of women so happy with the advent of ‘the pill’ they were glad to pay for it, I agree with you. Sex is just too available these days.
Well said Son
Depends on which pill you are talking about. Most of the generic pills will run anywhere between $9-20. There are a few brand-name pills that may cost $80-100/mo. The vast majority (i can’t give a definite number) take one of the low-cost generics. Best-case scenario of $9/mo = $108/year = $324/3 years. Cry me a river.
Her testimony concerned a friend who had ovarian cysts. Is it possible that a more expensive BCP was needed to treat this condition? Why denigrate this woman’s character just because you disagree with her arguments?
Condoms don’t prevent herpes. That’s why one in five women are infected. It can reduce the rate of transmission but not nearly as effectively as it does for other types of stds. It really isn’t possible to go out and have sex without repercussions, no matter what “the experts” tell us.
Vas, the Target that is literally just a few blocks from Georgetown offers birth control pills for $9/month, as does Target.
http://consumerist.com/2007/09/target-matches-walmarts-9-birth-control-pill-program.html
Give up two trips to Starbucks and you’ve got your BCP costs covered.
Sandra Fluke is a liar.
Only virgins and lesbians would think a $3000/yr tab for birth control to be correct.
There’s one Target in DC, and it is not within blocks of either G’town campus, for what it’s worth.
My pills ran $75 a month and were not covered by insurance, totaling $900 a year. She might be a liar, but her math is not wrong. Different pills serve different purposes, and the $9 ones did not do what I was taking them for.
Leigh, If you were taking THE pill for purposes other than birth contron, why wasn’t you insurance paying? It’s what the doctor wrote for a diagnosis for the insurance company. The prices vary depending on what the use is for, and that includes contraception. My oldest daughter got BC’s from the military pharmacy when that was unheard of. Reason had NOTHING to do with contraception, but lack of menses and NOT being pregnant. As with ANY types of medication, some are stronger in their makeup than others. For run-of-the-mill BC’s, they’re fairly cheap, even now. To top all this off, Georgetown would have filled the script IF it were not to be used for birth control, but for medical reasons. This is what that craw-dad was trying to say couldn’t be done.
This crowd ONLY wants to giggle and tee-hee over what they imagine to be Sandra Fluke’s sex life.
The only thing they’re really accomplishing is making an appalling display of their own ignorance and their own disgusting piggery.
This is what the right has devolved into. And now we have a female contributor to PJMedia engaging in the same shameful behavior.
Well, personally I find this whole issue to be sort of a joke. A bad joke. The fact that this educated activist (and that is exactly what she is, an activist) thinks that any sane, intelligent person will actually believe that we are supposed to feel sorry for sex-crazed students and their inability to afford their own contraception IS laughable. My niece is a 3rd year Med student and she barely has time to eat, let alone have sex multiple times per day. Susan Fluke is the one who should be apologizing, not Rush Limbaugh.
Yes, but that kind of got lost once RL made his request for the sex tapes he claims he’s entitled to get from Sandra Fluke, didn’t it?
That’s the thing — there are so many obvious ways to deconstruct Fluke’s testimony in a meaningful way that would resonate with voters on both sides of the aisle, but the right STILL can’t resist the cheap shots. That’s where they want to keep the discussion, that now IS the discussion, and we lose.
But, hey, so much more fun to be a piggy and wallow in the mud, right?
“Yes, but that kind of got lost once RL made his request for the sex tapes he claims he’s entitled to get from Sandra Fluke, didn’t it?”
She wants me to pay her to have sex. What am I getting from the deal?
If the answer is “she doesn’t have an unwanted child”, then I demand she be sterilized. It’s more cost-effective.
If the answer is “how dare you expect anything from it”, then I demand she pay for her own birth control, like a responsible adult. If she cannot be a responsible adult, then perhaps she should keep her knees together.
So you’re proud to be the sort of man who pays for sex, Rob? Nice.
By your logic, if I have to pay for the fallout of fat people’s poor lifestyle habits, or smokers’ poor choices, then I want something from them, too — I suppose the fat slobs aren’t much use to anyone. Oh, wait, as long as they’re sitting around on their fat butts, maybe they could wait on those annoying Verizon or Comcast customer service phone queues, or something. And the smokers could come clean one of my houses, or go fetch my dry cleaning, or pick up the dog poop.
Well Nora, if you feel that:
“The only thing they’re really accomplishing is making an appalling display of their own ignorance and their own disgusting piggery”
you must believe that Obamacare should also pay a monthly stipend to all single men so their sexual needs can be taken care of through a “sexworker.” The liberals will then prove once and for all that women of ALL ages aren’t just mindless idiots who can’t say no to sex and need parasitic handouts to deal with all those sexual solicitations from males needing to get laid……..right?
Women and Men alike can then equally share in disgusting piggery.
No, but I completely get that if I don’t join in the piggy name calling and sexual degradation of Sandra Fluke, I MUST be a liberal, blahblahblah…
Sorry you can’t understand that people can be against the name calling and the nasty commentary, that people can think that men who would rather chortle over what they feverishly fantasize Sandra Fluke’s sex life is all about, and still think this proposed BC mandate is wrong.
Please ignore Nora. Her point is that people should not call people names ever, unless — you know — you disagree with Nora. In which case you are a pig with a dirty mind. And in comments yesterday, she falsely claimed that commenters to Dr. Helen’s post called for rape of the Carbonite founder’s daughters. That was a lie. She is either a progressive troll or deeply disturbed.
Still don’t get it, do you?
When men openly ask other men to “go get some” from the daughters of the CEO of Carbonite because a) he dropped his sponsorship of RL’s show and b) his daughters spend $1000.00 on contraception, making them (in his sick mind) fair game, then, yes, that is sick, twisted, piggy, disgusting, vile, repulsive and probably actionable.
And, yes, men who disagree with me about calling women sexually degrading names and insisting they’re entitled to sex tapes of women who disagree with them on a political issue ARE piggy, disgusting, filthy-minded creeps. You think it’s okay for men to do that, so that’s who you are.
Yes. Exactly. Duh. So I’ve said countless number of times. YOU say his words don’t add up to a call for rape. YOU haven’t explained how they don’t. YOU haven’t shown me how I’m lying.
What is Ed saying he and his buds should “go get”? Define “some”?
And, for the record, I said “essentially call to rape”, not “call to rape”. You even quoted me below, but you’re not quoting me accurately here.
Again.
What is Ed telling his friends to do? We had this discussion, remember? Is Ed asking his friends to go get some Girl Scout Cookies? Is he asking them to court them in a gentlemanly manner?
WHAT is Ed asking for. I say it’s sex. You say it’s not. What, then, is the “some” Ed and his friends are to “go get”?
Dude, this is first grade level primer English. What part of my question do you not understand?
Here is what you said yesterday in response to the first comment to the PJ Tatler post entitled: Do Democrats Want the Fluke Uproar to Continue?:
“Guess the reality is we’re all just supposed to stoop to the level of grubby little piggies and make sexually degrading comments about women who disagree with us — including, btw, a call to essentially rape the daughters of the Carbonite CEO, found among the comments of “Dr. Helen’s” Mean Girl piece.”
To top this off, you called several commenters ingorant, piggy, dirty minded — because they did not agree with you — while at the same time lamenting the loss of civility in political discourse caused by mean old Rush Limbaugh. As you were completely aware, no commenter called for rape.
You are the one who has exlpaining to do, not me.
Yeah. Look. This is the 4th time you’ve cut and pasted the same response when asked to point out the lie.
You can’t. You know when Ed said he and his buds should all “go get some” from the Carbonite CEO’s daughters, he meant sex. And I assume you know that when men go to get sex from women against their will, that’s rape. Or maybe that’s the problem — maybe you don’t understand that taking sex from women IS rape. Is that the problem? Do you think it’s okay to take sex from women, to “go get some” if you feel entitled to it? What’s your definition of rape? And, again, what’s your definition of “go get some”? How am I lying when I say Ed is referring to sex?
Stop lying. You said his comment called for rape. It obviously does not call for rape.
We’ve been over this.
You clearly can’t substantiate your claim that I’m lying, and I’ve clearly pointed out that I’m not.
You’re continuing to approve of rape, AND you’re stalking me.
What does that make you?
It doesn’t seem to me that Nora has spent much time with men. I must say I have never, ever heard a man say ‘let’s go rape us some women’. I can’t prove it has never been said, but it doesn’t apply to ‘getting some’. ‘Getting some’ is far closer to ‘getting lucky’.
In the context of that discussion, Ed prefaces the ocmment I referenced with his proposal that we make a dictionary change to include fluke = slut.
Then he says that, since the daughters of the CEO of Carbonite spend $1000/yr on contraception, they should all “go get some” from those “flukes”.
His words.
In that context, he clearly meant he was entitled — regardless of what those women thought — to “go get some” sex from them.
No matter how “funny” he and you and Freddie-boy think he was being, he meant go get some sex from them because they’re now somehow owed sex from women who spend X dollars on BC and/or who are the daughters of business men who make business decisions they don’t like.
And, no, I’m not the sort of woman who’s “spent a lot of time with men”. I’ve only slept with one man my entire life. I have honorable men in my life. Not men like you or Rush or Ed or Freddie. I thank God for that every day, looking at what passes for “men” here.
Well, Nora, if your going to get insulting, let me ask you one question: Ding your bat much?
Actually, I wish she’d testified under oath so she could be charged with perjury. I don’t think she’s a slut as that word is normally understood, it’s kinda hard for the vagitarians to qualify. I think she’s a leftist apparatchik who lied about the cost of contraception and the need for HI coverage for it as a part of the standard leftist attack on any traditional institution in this Country. And if she isn’t a vagitarian, she sure missed a great opportunity, and in that case, she really wouldn’t need birth control would she?
Please ignore Nora. Her point is that people should not call people names ever, unless — you know — you disagree with Nora. In which case you are a pig with a dirty mind. And in comments yesterday, she falsely claimed that commenters to Dr. Helen’s post called for rape of the Carbonite founder’s daughters. That was a lie. She is either a progressive troll or deeply disturbed.
Yes, in comment #33 someone named “Ed” asked his like-minded buddies to “go get some” from the daughers of the Carbonite CEO. His words. He based his right to sex from these woman on Carbonite’s dropping their sponsorship of RL’s show and on the fact they spend $1000.00/yr. on contraception. Therefore Ed and his pals have a right to “go get some” from them.
His words. Not mine. And fahagen supports Ed’s words. So what does that make fahagen? A man who has no problem with hunting down and forcibly obtaining sex from women who don’t share his political views. Dude, you’re the sick one. I hope to God you don’t have daughters.
But I’m the bad guy for pointing out that calling for the sexual abuse of women is wrong. Apparently, good conservatives support the sexual abuse of women they disagree with.
That is the thing about you progressives. You cannot have a honest conversation about anything without personal attacks, namecalling, libel, false rape claims, etc. That is because your agenda would lose in an honest debate. So you lie, pretend to be offended, lie about and personally attack other PJ Media commenters. That is who you are. That is the kind of sewer you progressives want to make the rest of us live in. You lack honesty, integrity, and basic respect for your fellow man. Yep, your a progressive.
Oh, horse manure, fahagen.
The reality is your sort brought this upon yourselves when you didn’t stand against RL’s comments.
And I’m not making claims of false rape. I’m pointing out that a specific person made a specific statement that involved the sexual abuse of specific women.
Explain to me EXACTLY how Ed’s comment #33 on “Dr. Helen’s” post is not calling for the sexual abuse of the CEO of Carbonite’s daughters.
You keep defending Ed’s statement. You keep telling me I’m the bad guy for saying it’s wrong to use RL’s rhetoric and Ed’s rhetoric.
What’s wrong with you that you’re okay with demanding porn tapes from women you disagree with and are agreeing with a man who wants to “go get some” from the CEO of Carbonite’s daughters?
What exactly are you for or against, anyway? Do you stand for anything? Have you no honor? Have you no integrity? What’s wrong with you?
That is not what Ed’s post said and you know it. You are a lier.
–33. Ed
By the way,
Carbonite CEO David Friend says he has 2 daughters who also need $1000 worth on contraceptives that someone else should pay for. Go get some from those Flukes, guys. (hey, he brought his family into this.)–
Okay, fahagen.
Break down Ed’s comment for me. Explain exactly what he meant. Tell me exactly what he was asking his fellow commenters to “go get”. Define “some”.
Here’s your big chance to prove me wrong. Go for it. I’m waiting.
You told us that this comment was a call to rape. Are you now admitting that was a lie?
Nope. If he’s not calling for guys to go rape them, then define the term “go get some” for me.
If it doesn’t mean that, what does it mean?
You’ve stalked me for two days now, and mostly about my comment regarding Ed’s piggery.
What gives? What’s your motive?
And I’m still waiting for your explanation of Ed’s comment, since you say I’m lying about it.
Yesterday, you hysterically claimed that commenters at PM Media were calling for the rape of the Carbonite founder’s daughters–a serious charge that was a lie. So while you are deeply offended by RL’s joke, you have no problem falsely accusing PJ Media commenters of essentially being rapists. That is O.K. in your progressive playbook. By any means necessary, right?
So now I am “stalking” because I responded to a few of your numerous comments. So in your world, you can respond to almost every comment made to a post, employ name calling, personal attacks and lies, but if someone responds to a few of those posts to call you on it, they are the ones who are “stalking”. Unbelievable.
I said recent rhetoric included “a call” to rape, blahblahblah. Singular. As in Ed’s comment #33.
Yes. That is correct. And now I’ve reposted Ed’s comment here and asked you to explain what he meant if he did not mean for guys to go get some sex from them — which, btw, is rape, or were you not aware that stalking down women and getting sex from them is rape…? I mean, it’s clear you’re good with stalking, and it’s clear you’re fine with sexual aggression, so I guess you could be confused by the fact that actually stalking women with an intent to get sex from them is a crime, and if you actually do it, it’s rape, but…whatever.
Go ahead. Explain Ed’s comment now. You continue to call me a liar while avoiding explaining how I’m lying.
You’re not responding to me. You came here and responded to my posts with your accusations of my lying about Ed’s comment. You responded to posters I had responded to by telling them what I had said on another thread and told them to ignore me.
You clearly have boundary issues, and you clearly don’t understand that it is wrong to call for acts of sexual aggression against women.
You’re not just a stalker, you’re a creep.
At the risk of you calling me a creapy stalker for replying, here is what you said yesterday is response to the first comment to the PJ Tatler post entitled Do Democrats Want the Fluke Uproar to Continue?:
“Guess the reality is we’re all just supposed to stoop to the level of grubby little piggies and make sexually degrading comments about women who disagree with us — including, btw, a call to essentially rape the daughters of the Carbonite CEO, found among the comments of “Dr. Helen’s” Mean Girl piece.”
To top this off, you called several commenters ingorant, piggy, dirty minded, while at the same time lamenting the loss of civility in political discourse caused by mean old Rush Limbaugh. You are the one who has exlpaining to do, not me.
Yes. I’m aware of what I said. I haven’t denied it.
Again, what did Ed mean when he told his pals to “go get sone” from the CEO of Carbonite’s daughters?
You’ve called me a liar for saying he meant sex, so what did he mean? Explain Ed’s comment.
You’ve avoided this several times now. You’ve followed me around bringing up this comment several times and called me a liar, yet now that you have the chance to prove it, you avoid the question.
You claimed he was calling for rape. Stop changing your story.
Yes. I said that the rhetoric had devolved to the point there was a call to ESSENTIALLY rape the daughters blahblah….
Yep. I’ve agreed that’s what I said SEVERAL times now.
How have I lied?
You say Ed meant something else by “go get some”. What did he mean? C’mon, dude, surely you can tell me what he meant since you keep screaming that I’m a liar for asserting that he meant sex.
Still avoiding the question?
Here is what you said yesterday in response to the first comment to the PJ Tatler post entitled: Do Democrats Want the Fluke Uproar to Continue?:
“Guess the reality is we’re all just supposed to stoop to the level of grubby little piggies and make sexually degrading comments about women who disagree with us — including, btw, a call to essentially rape the daughters of the Carbonite CEO, found among the comments of “Dr. Helen’s” Mean Girl piece.”
To top this off, you called several commenters ingorant, piggy, dirty minded — just because you disagree with them — while at the same time lamenting the loss of civility in political discourse caused by mean old Rush Limbaugh. As you were completely aware, no commenter called for rape. You are the one who has exlpaining to do, not me.
You’re just cutting and pasting your same posts over and over again.
How are Ed’s words not essentially a call to rape the daughters of the CEO of Carbonite?
What does “go get some” mean?
If I am lying, as you say, when I say he meant go get some sex, then what did he mean? If I’m lying, he had to mean something else. What was it?
You accused me of lying, and now I’ve asked you to show me the lie. You say you don’t have to do that, that I have to explain my comments. I have explained them. Several times. Using really small words. Yet you still can’t understand what I’m saying.
I am saying that Ed’s comment was ESSENTIALLY a call for rape. You say it isn’t and that I am lying. Where is the lie? What about his comment is not ESSENTIALLY a call to rape the CEO’s daughters? What does he mean by “go get some”? Get some what? Define “some” in Ed’s sentence.
So, were you up in arms when Ed Schultz called Laura Ingraham a slut on his barely watched TV show? Just speculating, but, I’d bet your empty head was bobbing up and down in unison with that reprehensible hypocrite as he made his vile, loathsome remarks. Ed Schultz’s apology was accepted.
This little tramp(Fluke) does not seem that bright. Especially, in light of the fact is that she can get her BC pills very cheaply through Planned Parenthood and that The City of Washington, D.C. provides condoms and even lube, upon request. Birth control costs shouldn’t really be a financial concern. Or she could get a job to PAY HER OWN EXPENSES. I know, I know, a foreign concept to the left wing. Besides, she should have the guy buy the condom. All heterosexual men I know would cheerfully spring for a prophylactic in order to get laid, especially single college age men. So, she is seemingly not smart enough to get into, or graduate from, Georgetown Law.
But, this whole issue is just an exercise designed to keep the glare off all of Obama’s failures; foreign policy, foreign relations, the economy, the debt, passing a budget(as required by the Constitution), strangling the production of OUR OWN RESOURCES, etc. Let’s not even mention his outright ignoring of the War Powers Act(Democrat passed legislation) and illegal military action in Libya.
I could go on, but anybody with a shred of impartiality and common sense can smell the desperation emanting from the obama administration.
Yes, it is equally appalling for any one to use this kind of demeaning, dehumanizing rhetoric, regardless of their political affiliations.
What’s truly ridiculous is you’re another one who’s mired down in details that don’t matter when it comes to Fluke’s non-testimony testimony.
It doesn’t matter if she spends a million bucks or a single dollar on her BC. It doesn’t matter if she’s a virgin or a promiscuous woman.
What matters is what this administration is attempting to do by mandating 100% BC coverage be provided by private insurance companies in general, and by insurance plans purchased by religious organizations in particular.
When you focus on the meaningless details of Fluke’s “testimony”, you help the Obama administration.
The shameful behavior is on the part of Sandra Fluke, and those who support her.
We’re not “tee-heeing” and “giggling”.
We’re disgusted, and you should be, too.
I’m vehemently opposed to the proposed mandate. I suspect Sandra Fluke has been less than honest in her “testimony” (which was just a dog and pony show put on by the left). I am appalled by RL’s rhetoric, and doubly appalled by the same rhetoric coming not just from the comboxes at PJMedia, but from writers at PJMedia.
Why are you against the mandate?
No response?
What, you want me to have a serious conversation with you now? Grow up.
You called me a liar, and then you ran away when asked to show me my lie. Until you man up and do that, no one’s having a serious conversation with you.
Like I said, progressives are not capable of having an honest debate. They just want to attack and call people names.
I’ve answered the question several times to people who weren’t stalking me at the same time they were defending raping women with whom they disagreed.
I’m not answering you because you’re a pervy stalker who is okay with raping women you disapprove of.
That doesn’t make me progressive. It merely means I think you’re a sicko.
No, Nora! What we are seeing is that the last 40 years of permiscuity has led to STDs that didn’t even exist before “free love,” not to mention infertility. That perhaps the old fogey religious people were right about abstinence and monogamy for purely HEALTH reasons.
Liberals always think they are enlightened and the first with ideas – like these “ideas” have never happened before in human history. Perhaps that’s why religion keeps rearing its head and humanity has to do a “reset” because this behaviour in the long run actually starts to threaten the species.
Yes, well…since I am one of those old fogey’s, I’m not really sure what you’re getting at. You’re preaching to the choir, sistah!
But that has nothing to do with the Fluke situation, which is about the BC mandate. Or was, until RL made it into something else, and in doing so revealed the slimey underbelly of the Republican party.
Nora, I’m one of those old fogies, too. I spent my young and single years in the 60s during the height of the sexual revolution and the dawn of the BC pill.
Like you, I’m vehemently against the mandate. I, too, think that Fluke’s so-called testimony was a dog and pony show put on by the pols and she was their ‘useful idiot” du jour. This is part of the progressive smokescreen to obscure the REAL ISSUE which is our FIRST AMENDMENT rights to freely practice religion. I wonder what Fluke’s response would be to forcing all children to take chastity classes and instruction on the public health dangers of indiscriminate sexual contact in our tax supported public schools? I’d bet money on her (and her puppet masters) going ballistic against such a mandate. However, if the issue is about money, I’d like to point out that engaging in sex is a choice, not a right, and abstinence is free. (I know, I know–rape happens. Does that mean we should force all pubescent girls to take the pill “just in case…?” Or, force all the pubescent males to undergo a vasectomy?) Let’s be real. Fluke and her ilk really want license to do whatever they want, whenever they want, where they want with no consequences including financial obligations. Oh–and if some consequence in the form of a baby or an std should arise, we taxpayers will take care of that for her, too. Never fear! We have a government agency or a taxpayer subsidized organization for that!
I believe that Rush Limbaugh crossed a line. I understand the point he was trying to make, but as a non-feminist woman of a certain age, I think some words used to label women are offensive in almost every context. I think his apology was warranted. I also think it was predictable that Fluke would reject his apology in order to protract her 15 minutes of fame and obfuscate the real issue. I believe that ploy is in the progressive handbook.
I disagree with you about the phrase “go get some” (re “from the daughters of the Carbonite CEO”). ‘Getting some’ was a common phrase in my youth and simply meant having sex. There was never a connection with rape. It was more about seduction, however cleverly or crudely practiced. That’s why some men were more successful at “getting some” than others. IMHO, you may have jumped the shark a teeny bit on that one. Perhaps the meaning of that phrase has changed over the years. If so, I apologize for my foggyness.
This is just my two cents–for whatever that is worth in this economy. Thanks for caring about our culture!
Nora, I’m one of those old fogies, too. I spent my young and single years in the 60s during the height of the sexual revolution and the dawn of the BC pill.
Like you, I’m vehemently against the mandate. I, too, think that Fluke’s so-called testimony was a dog and pony show put on by the pols and she was their ‘useful idiot’ du jour. This is part of the progressive smokescreen to obscure the REAL ISSUE which is our FIRST AMENDMENT rights to freely practice religion. I wonder what Fluke’s response would be to forcing all school children to take ‘chastity classes’ and courses on the ‘health dangers of indiscriminate sexual contact’ in all our public schools? I’d bet money on her (and her puppet masters) going ballistic against such a mandate. However, if the issue is about money, I’d like to point out to them that engaging in sex is a choice, not a right, and abstinence is free. (I know, I know–rape happens. Does that mean we should force all pubescent girls to take the pill “just in case…?” Or, force all the pubescent males to undergo a vasectomy?) Let’s be real. Fluke and her ilk really want license to do whatever they want, whenever they want, where they want with no consequences including financial obligations. Oh–and if some consequence in the form of a baby or an std should arise, we taxpayers will take care of that for her, too. Never fear! We have a government agency or a taxpayer subsidized organization for that!
I believe that Rush Limbaugh crossed a line. I understand the point he was trying to make, but as a non-feminist woman of a certain age, I think some words used to label women are offensive in almost every context. I think his apology was warranted. I also think it was predictable that Fluke would reject his apology in order to protract her 15 minutes of fame and obfuscate the real issue. I believe that ploy is in the progressive handbook.
I disagree with you about the phrase “go get some” (re “from the daughters of the Carbonite CEO”). ‘Getting some’ was a common phrase in my youth and simply meant having sex. There was never a connection with rape. It was more about seduction, however cleverly or crudely practiced. That’s why some men were more successful at “getting some” than others. IMHO, you may have jumped the shark a teeny bit on that one. Perhaps the meaning of that phrase has changed over the years. If so, I apologize for my foggyness.
This is just my two cents–for whatever that is worth in this economy. Thanks for caring about our culture!
PS–I apologize for the double post. I’m just learning how this forum thing works. I think.
And here I though that the liberal position was that the true sign of sexual liberation was to be a homosexual
It certainly reduces birth control costs.
That amounts to $52/yr at Target or $156 over a three year law school career. That is a long way from $3,000 but such idiot math might explain why Georgetown lawyers charge so much for their inadequate services.
So 13 packs of contraceptive pills is about $130 a year. What does she need the other $870 for? Judging from her picture, probably to pay men to have sex with her.
Thirteen packs of birth control pills does NOT amount to three thousand dollars. Condoms AND birth control pills for thirteen months wouldn’t amount to three thousand dollars.
Fluke is a tool, and what the Obama admin is trying to do is despicable, and Rush had a good point behind it all (though IMO he made a tactical mistake, playing into the Dems’ hands).
But this whole article is just ugh. So much conflation and sloppy thinking, so many false facts, so many strawmen. And it’s almost like a Obama-supporting political troll wrote it: exactly what the Dems are trying to convince the country that Republicans are arguing about, when Republicans object to Fluke’s disingenuous testimony: *that’s* what you’re arguing– not arguing, ranting– here. Get your scarlet letters, people, let’s shame “sluts” and “whores” (i.e. women who happen to use birth control and/ or have premarital sex)!
Whatever good intentions you might have (e.g. re STD/health issues– very valid concerns), are torpedoed by your rhetoric and the thoughtlessness of your rant. (If you’re a religious social conservative, you might want to try to follow Jesus’s example– and consider e.g. the compassion and respect he showed toward sinners like Mary Magdalene– and try to sound less like a present-day Islamist blowhard who’s all too happy to self-righteously shame and stone their daughters and sisters for being “sluts” and “whores”.)
It’s disappointing to read something like this at PJ Media.
I disagree and in fact, found it refreshing that there apparently still females in the world who at least make the attempt to talk of virtue – a word Sandra Fluke apparently unfamiliar.
If you’re going to accuse Cassy Fiano of using falsehoods, or conflation and sloppy thinking, at the very least you ought to state for the record (1) what facts are false; (2) what has author conflated or where was she sloppy.
So, I took the time to verify the “facts stated” by the author (verified by the CDC and if anything the risks of contraction for females contracting incurable STDs are understated by the author).
Apparently, Barack Obama and I have a very different idea of the word “proud” concerning our two daughters. Because if either of my two adult daughters by chance happen to stand before Congressional members as witness to talk about “sex”, I pray it is in the context of marriage and/or personal responsibility, and certainly not a demand for someone else to pay for their raging libido. If I were Sandra Flukes father, the word “whore” and “slut” would not be the first thing that entered my mind that day – the words “SHAME” and “MORTIFIED” would. And I say with absolute assuredness, our daughter’s mother would have thought worse.
As a footnote, being I’m a “religious”, social conservative, I would like to correct you on your own use of a logical fallacy called contextomy.
If you are going to use Jesus’ example of forgiveness of sin with compassion, Jesus example of forgiveness is always accompanied with a request of repentance and not an offer to pay for the sin.
Tex, your last sentence is right on the money.
Home run, Tex! “Jesus example of forgiveness is always accompanied with a request of repentance and not an offer to pay for the sin.”
I am not at all surprised by the liberal reaction to what most normal folks would consider to be humiliating. I recall listening to an interview of Monica Lewinski’s father (later to be revealed as a huge liberal) shortly after the whole sordid affair between the married President and his young daughter had been described in intimate and absolutely disgusting detail to the entire world. I listened to her father for any sign of anger directed toward the President for having taken advantage of his young daughter, or any expression of disappointment in his daughter’s behavior. Instead what I heard was near glowing pride in the fact that his daughter had actually serviced the married (and father of a young daughter)President of the United States. I found it hard to believe what a disgusting jerk Monica’s old man was….and probably still is. No one in the liberal MSM ever picked up on Monica’s father’s lack of shame or anger. In fact, he was portrayed as a great guy for his open-minded attitude by the MSM. As Ann Coulter once said, liberals have a wonderful way of handling morality. Don’t have any!
“Instead what I heard was near glowing pride in the fact that his daughter had actually serviced the married (and father of a young daughter)President of the United States”
In another time, they called that “fuhrerprinzip”.
Wasn’t Jesus girlfriend a prostitute?
Virtue is not hurting others, it it not synonymous with sexual abstinence. Before the monotheists got control, sex was something nice, enjoyable and normal.
Now all the monotheists are making it into something dirty and disgusting, as if having sex every night was obscene.
You do realise that masturbation cuts down rape and also the need for contraception, but still the church finds it ‘sinful’. Weird people.
A) Jesus didn’t have a girlfriend.
B) Sex isn’t dirty or disgusting. It’s a sin to do it outside of marriage.
C) I don’t recall the bible saying anything about masterbation and I’m not a Catholic, so my church never addresses it.
And, D) Since you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about regarding religion I suggest you study up before attempting to address it.
As a purely health based issue we, as a society, should absolutely go back to our basics that young people should be abstinate before marriage and stay faithful to one another just to avoid disease.
1. We object to fornication for the same reason we object to infidels receiving the Eucharist- sex, like the Eucharist, is holy, and fornication desecrates it. The marriage bed undefiled is honorable, and sex in Holy Matrimony is a supreme act of love.
2. Even if masturbation did reduce rape or other sexual offenses, it is irrelevant. It is never permissible to do evil that good may result.
3. Contraception is, by definition, poison, since its primary purpose is to cause the disease of infertility. It is never morally licit to take poison willfully, nor to dispense it except to execute a duly convicted capital criminal.
Way to go, Tex! I couldn’t agree with you more and you said it better than I could.
I’m the mother of a daughter and would be appalled if she had so publicly displayed such a lack of moral and social values as Ms. Fluke did. Her father would have been equally mortified and disappointed. BTW–I would feel the same about my son if I had one. Fortunately, I seem to have raised a good conservative woman.
And what was the last thing Jesus said after he did not condemn the adulterous woman? “Go now and sin no more.”
Why, that sounds like Jesus’ forgiveness of her sins was not unconditional!
agreed rachel, “slut” is a misogynist term used by chauvinist fascist pigs to keep “women in line”.
How dare you call me that. I am a chauvinist capitalist pig.
yeah dave and i am a slut and a whore
Ah, you’re one taking it back?
Why object when it’s used, then?
Paranoid delusional, much?
Thank you Rachel. I would like to correct one point of fact.
Sandra Fluke did NOT testify before congress or anyone else. The whole thing is Kabuki theater of the highest order.
The congressional hearing was about the contraception mandate on religious institutions. I will say that again; the hearing was about a mandate issued by the POTUS, unconstitutionally, requiring people to act against their conscience. They were investigating Obama’s violation of the first amendment.
Religious leaders were to testify. The Democrats who were in the minority on the panel had asked for Rev. Barry Lynn [head of Americans United for Separation of Church and State]. At 4:30 pm on the afternoon before the hearing the Dems changed their minds and wanted Sandra Fluke to testify. Senate rules require a 72 hr vetting period before testimony. Issa, chairman of the hearing denied ( rightfully so ) Fluke as a witness, as no one knew her credentials or status as an ‘expert’.
The Democrats objected and walked out of the hearing. What you saw Sandra Fluke doing was not testifying under oath before congress. What you saw was a press conference set up to look like testimony before a congresssional panel. It was PURE THEATER. A FAKE.
The democrats have successfully diverted attention away from an egregious constitutional violation by the president. Now sex seems to be the topic.
Rachel gets it. The rest of you better wake up. Take a cold shower and pull your head out of your….a dark place. Evil people are plotting against you and you are letting them get away with it because you cant quit talking about who or how much other people are diddling. Personally, if Sandra Fluke wants to hump herself to exhaustion, that is fine with me. She will be too tired to hump us then.
Shame on you Cassy.
You’re kidding me ! The Rev. Barry Lynn is still alive. He’s put some serious work in being the left wing’s nation’s antichristian spokesperson, opposing every Christian moral position and doing all he can to drive Christianity out of the public square. I thought the old boy had gone to his just rewards by now.
I dont know anything about the guy. Knowing that the dems called him to testify about this issue makes me very unsurprised by your assessment of him.
Ya know, everyone makes the world a better place. Some of us because we are in it, and the rest of us when we leave it.
I am guessing Rev. Lynn is the second kind.
Fluke is a political activist, so I’m not upset about Obama using her – she is a willing partner. But in his statement Obama used his daughters! That is truly despicable. And it isn’t the first time. So, Obama’s position is that we should keep family out of the political arena except when it suits him. As in so many other cases, Obama needs to be called out on this.
“But is ‘slut-shaming,’ Limbaugh’s infraction, really such a horrible crime?” No. It isn’t. If there were more of what he did, we might have less of what she’s been doing.
Tex’s last paragraph is right on: Godly compassion and readiness to extend forgiveness have absolutely nothing to do with being forced to finance someone else’s sinful, shameful choices. Jesus Christ indeed paid the penalty for sin, but that is a far different matter than financing sin.
emma, you would fit right in in a madrassa in pakistan or saudi arabia. women who have sex before marriage should be stoned to death? oh wait, you don’t want to stone them you just think they are evil and should be condemned for their sins. just one small question, who died and made you and limbaugh god that you should judge? didn’t jesus also say judge not least you be judged?
i guess all you people supported letterman when he called palin a slut yeah?
leciat, are you serious, or did you forget the /sarc tag?
Are you actually trying to equate so-called “slut-shaming” (not that the woman in question HAS any shame, acting under false pretenses as she is) with the stoning of women?
As for Letterman calling SP a slut, I don’t recall SP ever saying that the government should use force to make others cover her birth control costs. Did I miss something? Pray elucidate.
And in the meantime, please don’t vote or breed. You aren’t smart enough.
No, but if we’re talking about “sinful, shameful” sexual behavior according to Emma’s beliefs, Palin is as much a slut as Fluke since Palin had pre-marital sex.
Of course, if the definition slut now only refers to women who use contraception covered by insurance companies, how many of your wives are on prescription contraception paid for by others? Daughters? Sisters?
Guess they’re all sluts, too. Hey, it’s your definition. My insurance company covers birth control, and that coverage is factored into my premiums. Therefore all women on birth control and who share my plan are sluts.
Because that’s what this is all about, right..right..?
Men and women on the right getting to call people sluts…that is the objective, yes…?
In answer to Nora: “Men and women on the right getting to call people sluts…that is the objective, yes…?”
No Nora, that is not the objective of most people outraged by what Ms. Fluke said. The objective is to denounce the whole attitude exhibited by her that demands that someone else pay for her behavior. Let’s look at some facts. She is the recipient of scholarships to one of the most prestigious universities in the nation. She has a public interest law scholarship that enables her to have summer work. When she graduates she will be at the top of the line for a very high paying job, meaning if she applies herself she will become a member of the 1%. I feel it is not right for her to ask the rest of us 99% to pay for her behavior and to demand that a religious institution be forced by the government to do something in violation of the Bill of Rights. Separation of church and state.
I understand women’s outrage at Rush’s comments. He was a dummie in his choice of words. I wish the same outrage had been directed at Bill Maher and others when they made even worse comments about women. The double standard is not glaring, it is blinding.
Yes, but that’s what this debate is now — Limbaugh’s words have defined the debate forever, and his little fanboyz are perpetuating them every chance they get. That’s my point.
Also, let’s stop the “they did it first” nonsense. How old are you — five?
Yes, they did it, continue to do it, and it’s awful. So who’s NOT going to do it? Apparently not the conservatives — look at you all — if anyone DARES to say the rhetoric is wrong, they’re called names, too.
This is what conservatism is now — a bunch of trash mouthed, dirty minded shrills who are stuck on Sandra Fluke’s sex life to the point they don’t give a damn about the real issues at stake here?
Reagan is rolling over in his grave.
“No, but if we’re talking about “sinful, shameful” sexual behavior according to Emma’s beliefs, Palin is as much a slut as Fluke since Palin had pre-marital sex.”
Did Palin ever demand payment for it, as Fluke and you are doing?
Uh, where did I ever demand that anyone pay for birth control for me? I don’t use any birth control.
I’m completely against the mandate. I’m also completely against the kind of rhetoric Limbaugh uses. Sorry it’s so hard to wrap your tiny brain around the fact that people can be opposed to both the BC mandate and the use of appallingly slanderous rhetoric.
But then, you’re a guy who’s proud to pay for sex, so what you have to say on the matter ain’t worth much.
Now look what you did, Mike2; you turned Nora into a concern troll, she’s worrying about Reagan turning over in his grave.
And, Nora, you exhibit the ignorance of all lefties; you’re all two trick ponies. Trick one is that your calculus is that smart and lefty are synonyms; they’re not. Trick two is that when calling Republicans/conservatives stupid doesn’t achieve the desired result that we shut up and slink away, you go into some riff about how we’re all creatures fundamentalist Christianity and only one step removed from establishing an American Taliban regime. That’s the stuff your leadership cadre tells you and you useful idiots just parrot right along.
Only about a third of Republicans/Conservatives would self-describe as either very religious or as a social conservative. Granted, we aren’t quite as tolerant of celebrity style licentiousness and perversion as the left is, but that’s mostly because the left’s ugly women, castrati, and homosexuals have to have some fantasy of a sex life, so they identify with the rich and famous. Unlike you lefties, I actually know a lot of Republicans and conservatives and they all have an active sex life both within and without marriage, though admittedly, we aren’t as tolerant, even encouraging, of adultery on the part of our candidates and officeholders as you on the left seem to be.
Since some lefty a**hole has called practically every conservative female some variation of whore, slut, or worse, we’re not much impressed by the fake outrage from the Left. Rush won’t lose any listeners, he’ll still have advertisers, and his audience will patronize those advertisers because unlike the OWSers and other lefty trash like 30 year old college students going to school on other people’s money and wanting other people’s money for their birth control, most of us on the right actually work productively and don’t rely on our parents or the government to support us or to make our buying choices.
Um, Art, I’m a conservative. Why can’t you understand that a person can be conservative AND be appalled by RL’s rhetoric? Is that too hard for you to understand?
I’m a Christian, too. Not a fundamentalist, or a Biblical literalist, but I’m a pretty conservative Christian nonetheless.
What ARE you going on about…?
Here is how Nora responded below when another commenter complained about her “nasty” comments attacking other commenters:
“Really? Nasty? Oh, so sorry…I thought that was what it took to be a good conservative…just taking a page out of your book.”
Nora is a progressive troll. (She is probably being paid to do this, just like the OWS “protesters”.) So don’t let Nora suck you in. We actually have to work for a living.
Try the words in context, dearie. You’re making a fool of yourself.
I’m hardly a progressive, lefty, liberal, or whatever else it is y’all need to call me because you can understand that someone can be conservative and still think RL’s rhetoric is appalling.
If you need to believe that, however, knock yourself out. You’re just stalking me all over now because you keep getting called out for your support of sexually degrading rhetoric.
I don’t care what you call yourself. Your lies about what other people have said in comments are a waste of time. They don’t do anything but distract from the real issues. You are just a troll. Go away.
What lies? I reposted Ed’s comment — the one you say I’m lying about, and gave you the chance to prove me a liar. Go for it, dude.
All you’re doing is stalking me now, and it’s getting pretty creepy, especially since you’re a man who approves of sexually attacking women who disagree with you — or even sexually attacking the daughters of people who disagree with you.
Yesterday, you hysterically claimed that commenters at PM Media were calling for the rape of the Carbonite founder’s daughters–a serious charge that was a lie. You probably didn’t think anyone would go look for the comment and call you out on it. So while you are pretending to be deeply offended by RL’s joke, you have no problem falsely accusing PJ Media commenters of essentially being rapists. That is O.K. in your progressive playbook. By any means necessary, right?
No, I said that recent rhetoric included A CALL to rape, etc.
I didn’t say multiple commenters did this. Just ONE.
–33. Ed
By the way,
Carbonite CEO David Friend says he has 2 daughters who also need $1000 worth on contraceptives that someone else should pay for. Go get some from those Flukes, guys. (hey, he brought his family into this.)–
Again, there’s the comment. Again, here’s your chance to tell me exactly what Ed meant.
STILL waiting…
Here is what you said yesterday in response to the first comment to the PJ Tatler post entitled: Do Democrats Want the Fluke Uproar to Continue?:
“Guess the reality is we’re all just supposed to stoop to the level of grubby little piggies and make sexually degrading comments about women who disagree with us — including, btw, a call to essentially rape the daughters of the Carbonite CEO, found among the comments of “Dr. Helen’s” Mean Girl piece.”
To top this off, you called several commenters ingorant, piggy, dirty minded, while at the same time lamenting the loss of civility in political discourse caused by mean old Rush Limbaugh. As you were completely aware, no commenter called for rape. You are the one who has exlpaining to do, not me.
I’m aware that Ed, comment #33 called for people to “go get some” from the daughters of the Carbonite CEO. “Go get some” is clearly meant to be sex. When a man tells other men that they should all “go get some” and justifies it by the amount of money they spend on birth control, he is saying he is entitled to sex from them because he believes anyone who spends $1000.00 or more on birth control has lost their right to say no and refuse a man’s sexual advances. He is saying the cost of their birth control justifies his having forced sex with them.
That’s rape. Maybe not to you and those of your ilk, but to the rest of the free world. “Going to get some” from women you don’t know and who don’t want your sexual advances is rape.
So tell me again how I’m lying?
You said his comment called for rape. You lied Nora. It doesn’t call for rape, unless your definition of rape is: any sex between a man and woman equals rape.
Yes. For the umpteenth time. I said this comment, this cry to “go get some” from these women, is a cry for rape. I’m not lying. I’m AGREEING that this is what I said, and I’ve explained how a man gleefully shouting out to his buds that they should GO GET SOME from these girls is a cry for rape.
You haven’t told me how this is a lie — you can’t do it. Because I’m not lying.
Again, if I’m lying, then you can tell me what “go get some” means. I’m only lying if it doesn’t mean go get some sex. If it doesn’t mean that, what does it mean? Come on — you accused me of lying, now show me how I’m lying. What’s wrong with you that you can’t do it? Are you stupid? Oh, wait…
BTW, ANY sex between anybody isn’t rape. But forced sex on women because men perceive them to be “sluts” IS rape. And that’s what that comment was calling for.
You’re the liar here, dear. You’re the animal who thinks it’s okay to call women sexually degrading names, to demand that they make you porn tapes, and that it’s not rape if you “go get some” against their will, and all because they a) disagree with you on a political issue and b) spend more money than YOU approve of on their birth control (remember, to date, Sandra Fluke and these two women PAY FOR THEIR OWN BIRTH CONTROL).
Congrats, dude. You just told the world that you’re fine with rape. Nice. And now you’re going to go curl up in a ball and cry because I think you’re a disgusting pig that no decent and honorable woman would want anywhere near her.
Whatever you are, it’s not a man.
Follow through with your strawman objection so we can all have a good laugh:
1. What is a “slut?”
2. Does the characterization apply to Sarah Heath Palin?
3. If so, why? If not, why did you bring it up?
leciat, so you believe that any guy that walks up to you and says “Hey, lets nookie” has a right to expect you to give it up?
i believe i have the right to “give it up” if i am so inclimed to do so and it is NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS if i do
It sure as f*__ will be my business if you expect me to subsidize the behavior!
I don’t want to subsidize men’s limp dicks for their precious blue pills either.
You impotent POS should stop making people pay for Viagra.
I also don’t want to pay for more welfare babies.
Oh gee!
Farrah, do you really believe every prescription — or even the majority of them — for Viagra is covered by insurance?
Salon writer Tracy Clark-Flory wrote that casual sex is a great way to earn respect.
Words fail me.
Why? Men have been patting each other on the backs for how much they ‘score’ since time immemorial.
Duhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
Yes, but not all men are like that. You tar with a broad brush, thus discrediting your message.
Well, Father Allston, not all women (single or married) are WHORES/SLUTS just because they want birth control covered under their health insurance.
What you lefty idiots don’t get, probably because most of you are parasites living off money somebody else made, is that insurance isn’t for covering expected, recurring events. Your car insurance doesn’t cover oil changes, new tires, a new fan belt, etc.; it covers accidental and unexpected events. Health insurance covers unanticipated medical events, usually with significant deductibles and co-payments. Premium packages may cover preventative measures, often including contraception, but such packages cost significantly more than health insurance alone. And if you lefty fools believe Comrade Obama’s ruse about the HI companies providing it free it fully explains how 52% of the electorate were stupid enough to vote for the man.
That may well be so.
They do, however, desire a free ride.
yes college students DO have the right to have endless amounts of sex and yes they SHOULD have access to cheap or free contraceptives to protect themselves. their lifestyle is none of your business just as your lifestyle is none of theirs. slut and whore is a medieval misogynistic term that degrades women into submission.
Now that’s not right either.
I don’t want to catch herpes from a partner who has had sex with one of those whose lifestyle you claim “is not my business.”
Those college students you’re referring to have a RESPONSIBILITY–both to themselves and to the nation in which they live–to practice safe sex. If they don’t, then that really is shameful.
** I don’t want to catch herpes from a partner who has had sex with one of those whose lifestyle you claim “is not my business.” Those college students …” **
First, since we’re discussing ‘college students’ in general and not Ms. Fluke specifically, you don’t need to worry about catching ANYthing from them — unless you’re a middle-aged man desperate to have sex w/girls half, or a THIRD, your age.
Next, I unfortunately AM that 1 woman in 5 who has herpes. But I got it from my husband. Yes, that’s right. We were going thru a bad patch, and since he wouldn’t try therapy or even changing his behvr, I asked for a trial separation; 3 mos. later we attempted reconciliation. I NEVER suspected that since we were still *married*, I’d have to worry. Suffice to say 5-6 mos. later when it became apparent I’d been infected, that WAS the end — but that didn’t change the fact I now have an auto-immune disease that I will have the rest of my life.
So if we’re talking about Fluke, well, bombs away w/the slut-shaming. But not ALL of the 1 in 5 women did anything they should be ashamed of, except TRUSTING THEIR HUSBANDS.
BUT: I still say that Obama, his awful Obamacare, and equally awful admin. are succeeding in getting everyone off topic. We need to keep this argument firmly rooted in economic and religious liberty issues — NOT the morality behind them. That indeed leads to name-calling and disingenuousness on both sides. We need answers, something that’s helpful, period. We don’t get there from here.
My mind simply boggles at this.
For those of us over a certain age, we remember when there was the public argument that people should be allowed to recreate in ways not previously socially accepted; loose sex, wife-swapping, rampant drug use, “alternate” lifestyles. Much social turmoil resulted over this.
Forty-odd years later, it’s virtually the same argument, but now it’s not only “I should be allowed to debauch,” it’s also “and you must pay for me to do so.”
The ramifications of this are staggering.
After all, we already know from hard experience that “Progressive” actually means “without end.” Consider that for a moment. If this Fluke person “wins” this, where will we be twenty years from now?
I, good sir, assuming I am still alive and healthy, will be sailing …. somewhere. Australia, Carribean, WestPac, etc. I seriously doubt I’ll be wasting my precious few remaining years listening to the progeny of narcissistic incompetents prattle on about rights, finances, etc.
Cheers
If I’m paying for it, they do not have that right. If I am paying for their health and well-fare, then I have an obligation to ensure that my money is being well, and from a health an well-fare view, endless sex is even less appropriate than endless bungee-jumping.
Welcome to Obamacare, where your life is not your own.
How about obesity?
All those fat people you see waddling down the street are headed for diabetes and cardiovascular disorders, which will drive up health insurance premiums and national health care costs for you and me. No one is forcing them to be couch potatoes stuffing their faces with junk food and Big Macs; they’re freely doing that of their own free will.
You only want your health insurance policy to cover thin people?
Hey, let’s stop subsidizing Viagra for you noodle penises and then we can talk.
I agree that viagra shouldn’t be paid for by insurance any more than birth control unless the insurance is being paid for by a private entity of some sort like a company or by the individual. No taxpayer dollars there. But don’t think that this is about women and birth control. It is really about drug companies making money. Nothing more, nothing less. The drug companies went full in with Obama on universal healthcare, not for you and me but for themselves.
Farrah, that’s a strawman argument if there ever was one. Medical problems that require either Viagra or female hormones is covered, because they are legitimate medical syndromes. Those are covered.
This is all about paying for the contraceptive needs of everyone, at the drop of a hat. An entirely different argument.
I am not responsible if you want to sleep around. Period.
is supposed to help pay for treatments of sick people whose bodies don’t work the way they are supposed to. That includes viagra for penises that don’t work, but does not cover contraceptives which are designed to stop the body from working the way it’s supposed to. So, viagra should be covered by medical insurance but contraception should not.
Draw the line elsewhere, and it’s hard to avoid saying that medical insurance should cover vanity-based plastic surgery, sex change operations, etc.
Pregnancy is not a disease.
Here’s the thing, however. When a person who chooses to eat nothing but junk food and chooses to avoid exercise, and who becomes obese as a result, and suffers from Type II diabetes, hypertension and/or cardiovascular disease, their bodies are doing exactly what’s natural — their bodies are working correctly.
“Lifestyle” diseases, most often metabolic diseases, are the natural, normal response to mistreating one’s body.
So should we cover meds that treat lifestyle diseases?
And, if you’re going to go down this road, we’re designed to wear down and die. Disease, illness, physical breakdown — all perfectly natural, normal processes.
Also, once you go there, you’re open to the old “death panel” problem — is it reasonable to ask others to pay for an extremely expensive drug or treatment when it can be shown to have only a marginal affect on outcome? Look at the Avastin debate — where do you stand on that? Should insurers be asked to pay for what usually amounts to tens of thousands of dollars for one course of treatment when it’s been proven that the outcome is a) marginal and b) only marginally postive for a small subset of patients?
That’s not the answer here.
The only answer to this problem is to stick on the government mandate/religious exemption issue.
that’s bull chips. it’s a person’s actions that determine their submission. Not words. Women (and I say this a one – and a feminist at that) cannot have it both ways. They cannot ask for freedom of choice then make someone pay for it.
The same goes for men…don’t ask me to pay for your viagra, then bitch about Fluke or whoever.
Now, can we talk about the price of gas, inflation, and the possible war btwn Iran and Israel?
Sure, let’s talk about obama’s success at stealing money out of the Treasury. And disguising it as ‘green energy’ funding.
It becomes my business when they put a gun in my face and demand that I pay for it. If I am to be forced to pay by the government for other people to do whatever they want, I should receive some benefit in return. This is a government force issue, plain and simple. Sex has nothing to do with it. It doesn’t matter to me if this Fluke person wants to have sex with anything that moves, right up until she wants me to pay for it. She’s having the all the fun, she can foot the bill. Demanding that I pay for her to have licentious fun without consequences (as if these can be avoided), is just plain evil. Calling her a slut doesn’t go nearly far enough. Her sex life is nothing to her advocacy of government force to pay her for it.
If erections can get covered by health insurance why can’t birth control?
Not to mention, birth control pills for women are often for treating things other than just for use as birth control (it’s used for everything from treating acne to women who have severely painful and heavy menstrual periods).
What is VIAGRA for? Oh yeah, so you skanky men can ‘get it up’ and F*CK around some more!
WOW. You men are such a JOKE!
No, you are the joke, using skewed “statistics.”
Birth control for both men and women is very cheap. And it prevents/covers the ramifications of what is, after all, an elective behavior. You can’t expect everyone else to pay for your decision. I sure and hell refuse to. You want to sleep around, man or woman, it’s on you.
I think I want to weigh 925 lbs. That’s my decision. You have to pay to support me.
Happy now?
No one says birth control can’t or shouldn’t be covered by insurance. If an insurance company wants to include that coverage and their customers want to pay for it then by all means they should get together and do some business.
And certainly no one is saying we should ban contraception. It’s absurd to say that anyone on either side of the aisle is advocating that.
What IS being said is that compelling a religious organization to provide services in violation of their religious teachings is an abridgement of First Amendment rights.
No one has the right to make someone else finance their lifestyle. Sure, this woman, in fact every woman (and man) should be free to have all the sex they want with however many consensual partners as they can manage… but it’s not our job to pay for it.
It becomes our business when we are asked/ordered to pay for it.
Personal responsibility. If you want the personal freedom at least have the intellectual honesty to accept the personal responsibility and not expect a free ride on someone else’s back.
There are just too many dammed leeches in this country today.
Do you all know that in the 30s the government couldn’t give all that welfare away because most people wouldn’t take money for no work? They had to create “workfare”. That shows the last great generation, now we are being buried under a tide of leaches!
I still don’t believe that’s sound federal policy, but I certainly wish there’d been more people like you when I was an undergrad.
When a MAN calls a woman a slut, he’s not shaming her. He’s insulting her.
Shaming her would have been saying that “the woman has committed a sin.” IOW, criticize the woman’s *actions*, not the woman as a person. You’re supposed to hate the sin but love the sinner.
You are absolutely correct that high-risk sex with many partners puts you at increased risk for STDs. But that has NOT been Limbaugh’s argument and it has NOT been Santorum’s argument. Santorum went way beyond Limbaugh in echoing the original Vatican theory that even within marriage, sex is only for procreation and birth control gets in the way of that.
And when a doctor tells you that your lifestyle increases your risk of illness–whether that lifestyle involves smoking or heavy drinking or promiscuous sex–he is NOT trying to shame you. He’s giving you the facts so you can choose whether you want to continue those high-risk behaviors.
After FIFTY YEARS of the contraceptive pill, it’s a little late to be railing against premarital sex. In older times, men and women used to marry at much younger ages. In colonial America, often girls married while still teenagers. That’s because back then, the goal of nearly all women was to be a housewife.
Today, women pursue careers and postpone marriage till they’re in their thirties. Some (like Condoleeza Rice) never marry. To suggest that such women should remain virgins most of their adult lives is just silly.
Finally, this whole subject should NOT be in the middle of a presidential campaign. The Dems are salivating at the thought of scaring millions of single women to the polls to vote Democratic. (Hispanics are the fastest growing voting bloc in America, and single women are the second fastest growing voting bloc.) Unfortunately, we have a front-runner for the GOP nomination–Santorum–who evidently thinks that sexual lust is one of the things that’s most wrong with America.
America has suffered because of sin. But the sin that crashed the American economy in 2008 was not sexual lust. It was greed.
What you are saying is absolutely true. But as a point of clarification, Rush did not call Fluke a slut and/or a prostitute because she was having pre-marital sex. He used those terms because she wanted others to PAY for it.
I did hear the shows that got him into hot water, and he was definitely being highly satirical. He was using her words from her “testimony” and taking them out to their farthest logical conclusion. I am a woman who does not like gratuitous insults to be used against political opponents – even by our side. But I thought Rush was hilarious on this topic. It is through total hysteria and a compliant press that this issue get so blown out of proportion.
Agreed, Deb! Because of the myopic view of the media and the tineared reception of the left, they’ve taken Rush’s words and turned them into an “insult” of this Fluke person’s “lifestyle.”
No. That’s not what he said.
We have a term for women who want others to pay for their sexual escapades. Those women are known as “prostitutes.” It’s in the dictionary. That was Rush’s point, and it is still as valid today as it was when he first said it.
The left’s hysterics are, frankly, hysterical.
Deb K, birth control pills are used to treat more than just pregnancy avoidance. You do realize that, right?
Also, should we all call men prostitutes and sluts for having their “Viagra” covered under insurance?
Farrah Lee
Duh – thank you so much for the education. I had no idea that “birth control pills are used to treat more than just pregnancy avoidance” – Wait!…now I remember! I had a roommate in college and several other friends that were treated for “women’s issues” with birth control pills. What gives you the idea that I would not know this, it is certainly nothing in my post.
BTW: You post does not address anything that I wrote and is a total non-sequetor. I have no idea why it was directly addressed to me.
Deb K, you just don’t understand; Farah or whatever her name is is a lefty and all lefties have been told that lefty and smart are synonyms and since you don’t agree with her, you must be stupid because all the smart people like her see it the same way.
Why is it silly that people be forced to choose between marriage and celibacy? That was always the rule, and those who transgressed it were commanded to repent. You hypocrite, why do you lecture us about our sins while encouraging those sins you approve of?
Tex,
Look, I hate that this piece actually forces me to defend Fluke (who’s a mendacious Dem activist tool) from the baseless aspersions cast at her (and by implication other adult women who use contraception– like me) here. Especially when what I’d like to do is sink Fluke (and the DNC she rode in on). And bear in mind, I didn’t have much of a problem with what Rush said.
What Rush did was something like a reductio ad absurdum, which would highlight 2 things about Fluke’s testimony: that she was lying (the numbers don’t add up: so she would have to be a “slut” to account for those inflated numbers) and that the public policy paradigm she’s advocating is ridiculous (demanding that her use of contraception be paid for). Rush’s intended target (which his rhetoric didn’t hit accurately enough, a misfire that the Dems then exploited) was not to shame Fluke for being a “slut”, let alone for having sex or using birth control– especially since there is nothing to indicate how much sex Fluke engages in (she might well be a celibate lesbian with a hormonal imbalance, or someone who takes birth control pills and has sex once a month with her monogamous boyfriend, or whatever the case may be)– but for being a leftist lying activist.
The implication that “Fluke is a slut” served for Rush as part of a reductio ad absurdum. But Piano states that Fluke is a “slut” and “whore” as a factual conclusion, a judgment and assertion.
The author is moving the focus of shame from the “paying for” boondoggle (which is what the target should be) to the use of birth control itself by an adult 30-year-old woman. According to Fiano, it seems, for an adult woman to publicly state that she uses contraception (thereby implying that she might be having safe sex) *by itself* makes her a shameful slut and whore, which ought to cause her parents’ mortification. Or am I misreading what Fiano says and implies here?
Maybe there are feminists who celebrate promiscuity as a lifestyle choice– and maybe there are good reasons to deplore that. So criticize those specific feminists for that. But what has that to do with Fluke, her testimony, or her use of contraception? Nothing, unless you equate the very use of contraception and/ or having premarital sex (by an adult 30 year old woman) with shameful behavior– and moreover, something that warrants public shaming and vilification as a “slut” and “whore”.
I’d say those are some unfortunate conflations– just the conflations Obama wants to make for us (or wants to claim that we’re making). Why do Obama’s work for him?
That’s better. Because what you did in that first criticism of Cassy was exactly what Rush Limbaugh was guilty of – laziness and unsubstantiated criticism.
I don’t agree with your criticism of Cassy nor your take on Christ’s message, but I do agree with your take about the situation. Don’t misunderstand that those of us who comment on Sandra Fluke don’t recognize what the real issue is.
Fluke is a self-aggrandizing dunce and floozy, with her highest aspirations now achieved – notoriety on “The View.” She’s a side show and a coward, and you’re right – a tool, who will quickly be cast under the bus once this dog and pony show is through. One day, Fluke will be Cindy Sheehan, but for the moment, the Left believes Fluke is useful and Limbaugh allowed her to become useful. For that, Limbaugh should be condemned and he has.
The real issue is, does government have the authority to determine personal conviction, intrude upon freedom of religious expression, and most importantly decide our national conscience. Clearly, Barack Obama, Kathleen Sebelius, and Valerie Jarrett infringed upon the First Amendment. When they realized the outrage and a losing cause, their second scheme was the classic bait and switch. “We will force their insurance to pay for it and still win.” When that didn’t work because many Catholic Universities and facilities self-insured, Obama and his minions have played the ever predictable liberal game – drag out some willing zealot and stooge willing to play martyr.
Limbaugh did make a mistake calling Fluke a slut. Limbaugh should have referred to Fluke as a misandrist and political activist with the intent of forcing Georgetown to go against its basic tenets: a mission statement that reads, “An academic community dedicated to creating and communicating knowledge, in the Jesuit tradition for the glory of God and the well-being of humankind. Flukes demand is both an affront and an attack on the religious convictions and mission of the University.
We had won this argument. We could have dismissed Fluke for what she is. Limbaugh allowed this ditz to sidetrack the real issue at hand and gave some really wicked people all the ammunition needed to deflect from the debate. That doesn’t change the truth of what Cassy said about Fluke.
Thank you Ms Fiano for an excellent post. The left always presents truth as a lie and a lie as truth. I have known (not in the Biblical sense) far too many women who have sought happiness and satisfaction in a “slutty” lifestyle only to find themselves in a constant state of want. I had a secretary who literately freaked out when she learned that one of her one night stands was keeping his active case of AIDS a secret. Fortunately for her, she tested negative. Rush was totally correct in his point and even in properly assigning the traditional term for a promiscuous lifestyle. I hope there is a silent majority of women like you out there who see the truth of Rush’s point.
Fluke asked for $3,000 to cover her sexual activities. Limbaugh was right; she is a whore. The testimony was simply establishing her service charge.
Very well said. Reminds of when Sir Churchill was debating price with a woman who seemed inclined to sleep with him for the balance of the exchequer.
Very nicely put. Fluke may not deserve to be called a slut, but she is a nasty piece of work, lying about rape that way.
Her testimony included the claim that she knew a woman who decided to not report a rape because she was worried that her rape kit examination wouldn’t be covered by insurance.
Think about that for a moment. This alleged woman allegedly gets raped, and all she can think is: ‘Gee, maybe I’ll have to shell out more than a co-pay to report this, so I guess I’ll just let a dangerous rapist go free to attack other women.’
That woman probably doesn’t exist. If she does, she’s placed herself outside the boundaries of decency. More to the point, Fluke either lied to Congress, or she was simply exploiting a rape story — exploiting real rape victims — in order to advance an entirely false argument.
Federal law and D.C. victim policy both cover any costs associated with collecting rape kits and treating rape victims. A phone call to 911, or to any of a number of local rape crisis center, or to the national hotline, would have confirmed this.
Disgusting.
I’d like to make 2 additions to my comment @7 [in brackets], because I missed a key point.
In the second paragragh: ” …that the public policy paradigm she’s advocating is ridiculous (demanding that her use of contraception be paid for” [by a religious institution against their conscience].
And in paragraph 4: “moving the focus of shame from the “paying for” boondoggle” [and the governmental contravention of freedom of religious conscience].
That was, is, and should be such a winning argument for us! But Rush’s unfortunate tactical error, and pieces like this one (which not only double down on Rush’s misfire but make things much much worse) turn it into a loser for us, and a win for flucking Fluke and the flucking Dems.
The problem with Rush Limbaugh’s remarks are two-fold: (1) misrepresented her testimony and (2) baselessly defamed her character. As a nonpartisan who distrusts MSM, I went to the source to determine if his accusations are grounded. Here’s a link to her 11m testimony: http://youtu.be/xlRC0nsjtKQ. I encourage you to take the 11m out of your day to listen to it before forming opinions about Sandra Fluke.
After listening to it in its entirety, you’ll understand that her focus is on oral contraception needed for medical conditions (Endometriosis, PCOS, PMDD). She shared stories of women at her school who were denied coverage because it was “possible” they were lying in order to obtain birth control. In one story, a woman lost her ovary because she was unable to afford the prescription and the school denied her claim. In another story, a woman who was raped was afraid to obtain testing for STDs and/or the morning after pill because she didn’t want to undergo an investigation from her school. Given that prescription drugs for men’s reproductive health are covered without controversy (Viagra, Vasectomies) this is an equal rights issue in addition to a health issue.
As for the cost, the coverage she’s discussing is for oral contraception which has a fixed monthly cost and is taken daily regardless of whether or not you’re sexually active. The argument that she’s asking for someone else to pay for her to have a lot of sex is a straw man. In addition, she mentioned the premiums for her school’s health plan is not subsidized so it would not be an additional cost to them. As for the tax payers being involved, we would only have to cover the minimal cost of the increase in tax deductions. There are many things I wish my tax money didn’t go to (e.g., offshore tax loopholes). This is one thing I can see my tax dollars providing a benefit to our society for. Why? (1) I want to reduce the number of abortions. Studies have shown the most effective way to do that is to provide affordable and effective birth control and proper sex education. Condoms are not very effective in preventing pregnancy when compared to oral contraception (chances of becoming pregnant are 15-25 out of 100 & 2-8 out of 100 respectively). Free clinics are not able to keep up with the demand and federal funding is under attack. (2) Women who need oral contraception to treat a medical condition and are unable to afford the prescription are being hurt because there is unequal treatment of coverage for male reproductive health and female reproductive health. I want to ensure those women are able to receive fair and equal medical care.
Sandra refused to accept Rush Limbaugh’s apology because he only addressed the name calling. He never cleared up the misrepresentation he made. As a result, and as apparent in this post and the subsequent comments, many people are arguing about promiscuity and are missing the point that women are suffering from medical conditions they struggle to get proper treatment for.
It’s my sincere hope that anyone reading this will understand that this issue is about more than sexual activity. Which is why (in addition to the unwarranted and grotesque Ad Hominem arguments he made) Rush’s statements were so appalling.
Did Rush Limbaugh also misrepresent Sandra Fluke’s resume? Nice try, but your justification a tad disingenuous, your reasoning specious. As a reminder:
It would appear to me long before Sandra Fluke became a household name and Rush Limbaugh had the “audacity” to call Fluke a slut which is much too lenient to represent what Fluke really is, Fluke had a nasty habit of misrepresenting herself to a Catholic University – a Catholic University run by the Jesuits.
And Catholic Universities hold to some very basic tenets, at least two of those being abortion is immoral and murder, and contraception forbidden. I don’t care how many Catholics choose not to follow the rules – that is irrelevant to the stances of the Church and it is the Church that sets the rules of the University.
I have two questions, one of those requiring to be posed to the University itself. Why are you allowing ghastly misandrists like Sandra Fluke to grace your university, when she is an anathema to everything you hold dear? If she signed a contract, by the dictates of your own rules and moral conscience, you should immediately dismiss Fluke from the grounds of your university with a reimbursement of any expenses.
But the second question is to both you and Ms. Fluke? Why haven’t you chosen to go elsewhere to obtain your degree? Any nice, secular university hating organized religion, and that is what you are Ms. Fluke, a zealot and hater of both men and Christianity, would just love to make your acquaintance.
“I have two questions, one of those requiring to be posed to the University itself. Why are you allowing ghastly misandrists like Sandra Fluke to grace your university, when she is an anathema to everything you hold dear? If she signed a contract, by the dictates of your own rules and moral conscience, you should immediately dismiss Fluke from the grounds of your university with a reimbursement of any expenses.”
Are you really trying to make the case that a woman paying 60k to go to a university has no right to petition that university to pay for health care? What you seem to be advocating is that a Catholic university only accept those students which adhere to Catholic law and teaching, and that those students who choose to pay 60k to go to law school have no recourse to challenge the school’s policies. What a load of garbage.
My daughter goes to medical school. Though her tuition paid by academic scholarship, the very public university is close to that price for most students, but does not pay for her healthcare. If she were to demand her birth control be paid, I can promise you she would be summarily laughed at. Still, healthcare is required for her admission.
And the thought to even petition the university to pay for my daughter’s healthcare never crosses my daughter’s mind, nor her parents. Her mother and I pick up the tab. Why don’t you have Ms. Fluke contact Mr. or Mrs. Fluke to do the same? Like Obama, Mr. Fluke should be proud of his daughter’s demands to point her toes toward the ceiling as many times as she wishes across the national stage.
So let’s talk about how disingenuous and duplicitous you puppets from the Left really are.
First, Georgetown is clearly a Catholic University which is under no obligation to provide anything but an education to Ms. Fluke, I don’t care if tuition costs a million dollars a year. Georgetown should have never accepted this horrid stooge to begin with, as her nefarious intentions clear from her history. Second, it’s a privilege to attend a private university – students and state don’t dictate the rules; the Jesuits do. Third, there are a multitude of universities this Ms. Fluke can pick from if she so wishes. If she doesn’t like the rules at Georgetown, I suggest Ms. Fluke park her ass in a seat that would happily submit to her zealotry and misandry – Berkeley, for instance where she would fit right in. And Fluke will still pay a small fortune for her healthcare, which won’t cover his birth control pills, her abortions, or her appeal to paid gender changes.
Heh! You’re beginning to catch on. That is exactly what I am advocating and the way it should be at a Catholic/private university. Any high school Catholic school operates that way, and if you as parent of Sandra or Nora or Johnny don’t like it, you can diddle your sorry ass to any public school or nice private secular of your choice without debate.
If Georgetown had any backbone whatsoever, they would immediately reimburse this hatemonger fully, and escort her off the campus with instruction to not set foot on on campus again.
The reality is, Georgetown has obviously been infested with reprobate minds like yours, those more than happy to trample the very First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. And I suspect the decision to allow these demons to pollute their classrooms was three fold: A lack of conviction by the board, cowardice and political correctness run a mock, and the wish to be liked and honored by neopagan academicians, who wouldn’t recognize wisdom if it were etched upon there forehead with a chisel.
Their forehead.
Best post in this thread, Tex. You said it all!
P.S.
I’ll save you the money of your study. Abstinence is full proof, and marriage the finest sex education tool on the planet. I can confirm that both are 100% Guaranteed.
I heard an argument about 40 years ago similar and using some of the same justification you’ve attempted to use here. And I heard things like assurance of children wanted, prevention of childhood neglect, prevention of back alley abortions, etc. etc. etc.
After 50,000,000 legalized abortions (I assume you’ll call that rare) and 40 years of confirmed analysis, the results are in. How about one in two children being without any accompanying father, child hood depression and suicide rampant, STDs, some incurable, an pandemic, our public schools war zones, many of our urban areas resembling Beirut?
So if you want to put aside these moral arguments, why don’t we talk about the dollars associated with dumbing deviancy downward? How about trillions of dollars in health associated costs, neglect and dependency? What do you propose we do about incurable MRSA and gonorrhea which is growing more prevalent, both of course affiliated I’m sure with taxpayer funded “protection”?
We tried it your way. And it was a disaster. What should be rare is listening to your ilk’s advice concerning anything of substance. Yours is the most egregious lie of them all: It’s ‘fer’ the children and its a health issue.
Foolproof, not full proof. Tex, I like reading your posts and generally agree with your political viewpoint. But, if you’re going to cast derision upon a typo your spelling had better be infallible and you should be using words in their proper context.
LOL – funny thing is I didn’t use that term or make that typo. I think he’s making an attempt to make fun of my argument (e.g., “fer” = “derp derp”). It’s the adult version of “nuh uh,” but not any more mature.
In any appropriate discourse, there will be a difference of opinion (agree to disagree) or correcting of fallacious statements. I’m always open to changing my stance for the latter, but he neglected to provide any valid arguments for why I was wrong and should change my position (i.e., I’m not convinced).
I find it interesting that in both of your comments you’ve neglected to address the main point of my post and the focus of her testimony – that medical conditions of the female reproductive system are treated with oral contraception and coverage for that medication is being denied. To me, this is not about promiscuity (as Limbaugh has successfully turned the focus on) it is about health.
To answer your question, “Why haven’t I chosen to go elsewhere?” I don’t attend Georgetown. As for Ms. Fluke, she answers that question for herself in her testimony.
I don’t know what you mean by my “ilk” – I’m nonpartisan and mentioned that.
Regarding the ineffectiveness of Abstinence-Only Education, this was my source: http://www.siecus.org/_data/global/images/research_says.pdf.
As to claiming I’m lying about this being “for the children” (because I argued why I could can be okay with a gov’t mandate for affordable birth control because it should reduce abortions) and a health issue (because it’s the focus of the testimony and examples of suffering were given) – is that really a lie as much as a difference of opinion? Of course, my opinion is based on the sources I provided. What’s your opinion based on?
Look at that I made a typo…
“I argued why I could can be okay” = “I argued why I can be okay”
I suspect that Ms. Fluke’s $3000 number is correct. She is a liberal and a law student. No doubt the $3000 includes notarization and filing fees for university’s “Mutual Consent to Have Sex” forms.
She claimed that purity oppressed young women
It does. Purity is the last thing that a woman should want. It’s really quite simple: A man can’t have sex unless the woman is willing to have sex, so the woman has the power in the relationship. The feminist, who demonstrates her power by having sex with every Tom, uhm….. Dick, and Harry in the bar, is actually admitting, quite rightly, that the man should have all the power in the relationship. The Feminist Movement was the great sexual liberator of young men. It’s the greatest thing since bologna and cheese, sex with any woman at any time with no commitment or concerns. And if the woman refuses why just report her to NOW for violating the Sisterhood!
“The Usual Suspect” includes the line “The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn’t exist.”. The second greatest trick was convincing women that only by giving up their power could they be powerful.
excellent point, excellent delivery.
Here’s a compromise . Instead of calling Ms. Fluke (isn’t that a liver parasite?) a “slut” which does have a harsh guttural sound to it, how about calling her a “skank”. The word is defined as:
[a dirty or promiscuous female.]. Works for me.
“Contraceptive sponge” would have been the epithet of choice.
Fluke was attempting to sponge her contraceptives off others by advocating that they be included in a government mandate.
How is it “obvious” that Sandra Fluke is having sex several times a day?
It’s beginning to look like the majority of PJ Media’s contributors are not only filthy minded pigs, but are incredibly stupid.
Cassie, sorry you got herpes. Must be a real cross to bear. But that you bought into the mores of the feminist crowd and picked up a disease is not Sandra Fluke’s fault. It’s your fault. Maybe you should’ve kept your legs closed, girl. Too late now. Herpes is forever. Ick.
“How is it “obvious” that Sandra Fluke is having sex several times a day?”
Math certainly isn’t your strong suit Nora.
Actually, it is.
Please post your mathematical proofs, with supportive evidence, that Sandra Fluke is having sex several times a day, and uses condoms.
Go ahead. Post it — post your proof — actual, documented evidence of the number of condoms you know for a fact that Sandra Fluke purchased, with receipts, and then document every instance of her sexual activity.
Until you can do that, your puerile efforts to calculate how many times Sandra Fluke had sex are nothing but slanderous filth.
You’re a pig, and no man’s daughter is safe around men like you. No one’s. God only knows what ridiculous rationalization you’d come up with if you felt like sexually degrading any woman you decided to target.
The issue is not whether Ms. Fluke is promiscuous. The real issue is she is a democrat activist masquerading as a victim. The whole agenda here is to get the focus off of Obama’s dismal performance as President and present a strawman argument that the Republican if elected will bring back chastity belts, coat hanger abortions and all the other feminist boogiemen.
Incidentally, your own rhetoric is as inflamed as those you criticize.
Unbelievably nasty post, Nora. Take a chill pill.
Really? Nasty? Oh, so sorry…I thought that was what it took to be a good conservative…just taking a page out of your book. Funny how it’s “nasty” to ask people to support their assertions that they know for a fact how many times Sandra Fluke is having sex every day.
Still waiting on Tolbert’s evidence, btw.
Here’s your mathematical proof:
First we take Ms. Fluke at her word that she spends $1,000 a year on contraceptives.
It’s been widely reported that birth control pills are available at her nearby pharmacy for about $20 a month. Twelve months times $20 is $240. That leaves $760 unaccounted for. If we take her word that the money has been spent the only logical conclusion is that it’s been spent on condoms (which would mean that at least she’s being prudent and doubling up her protection).
Name brand condoms can be had for $9 a dozen. $760 divided by 9 is 84 (dropping the .44 since you can’t buy half a box of condoms). 84 x 12 is 1008.
1008 divided by 364 is 2.77. Which means that on average she’s going through almost 3 condoms a day, and since there’s no indication she’s using them as water balloons the reasonable inference is that she’s having intercourse, on average, 2.77 times per day.
Now of course I don’t have the receipts and notarized witness statements you asked for. All of this assumes that Ms. Fluke was being honest when she made her statement. If you want to say that she’s NOT being honest, well, I’d be inclined to agree with you. But using the data she’s provided it’s a reasonable conclusion.
Now let me save you the trouble of saying that I love degrading women or sexually assaulting them or whatever other bizarre and unfounded accusation you reflexively want to throw. I only posted this math in answer to your aggressive, wise-a$$ed and frankly quite vile challenge.
The fact of the matter is I neither know nor care how much sex she has or with whom she has it. It’s not our business, and I don’t judge her on it one way or the other. It’s not the issue.
You know what SHOULD BE the issues?
1) Obamacare is a blatantly unconstitutional intrusion into our private lives
2) Forcing religious organizations to fund things which violate their core beliefs is a clear 1st Amendment violation.
3) Forcing the taxpayers to subsidize your chosen lifestyle is fundamentally wrong.
But we won’t be discussing the real issues because you (meaning the left) have successfully derailed the conversation into irrelevancies around Ms. Fluke and her hurt feelings.
One final thought: the best way to avoid having the general public opine on your sex life or any other moral decision is to not bring it into the public sphere, either by talking about it or making it a function of government.
You’ve proven nothing.
All you have is the number Fluke put out there for what she claims is the cost of her prescription contraception. Condoms are not prescription contraception.
You are lying — fabricating — deliberately bearing false witness — when you say you KNOW how many times she has sex because you KNOW she purchased X number of condoms.
All you’ve proven is your own dishonesty.
Nora,
Apparently your reading comprehension skills are every bit as formidable as your math skills. I never said I know how often she has sex. You asked to be walked through the math and I walked you through the math, and cited all my caveats and assumptions along the way (the biggest one of which is taking Ms. Fluke at her word).
So actually, what I’ve really proven is that you’re incapable of logic or reason on this particular topic, having settled comfortably into “sputtering rage” mode.
Also, for future reference, I’m an athiest. The phrasing “bearing false witness” has no special cache with me, so you can save it.
You “walked me through” “math” based on some imaginary situation, not the one Fluke referred to. Regardless of the cost she came up with, she was referring to prescription contraception. Condoms are not prescription contraception.
Also, you stated that by YOUR math (and your dishonest assertion that she was referring to condoms), she was going through 3 condoms a day and not using them for water balloons, blahblahblah…
So if you weren’t claiming that she was having sex three times a day, what were you saying…?
You’re even lying in your defense that you’re not a liar…
Maybe if you’d stick to the reasons why the BC mandate is wrong, you’d have a better shot at making your point. Instead, you’re bogged down in fantasizing over how many times Sandra Fluke has sex every day.
The cost itself doesn’t matter, nor do her sexual mores, nor the number of times she has sex every day, or the number of her sex partners.
What matters is that this administration wants to mandate that private entities, especially private religious organizations, MUST provide contraceptive coverage, and if they don’t, that private insurance companies MUST cover contraceptives at 100%.
Stick to that, and keep your creepy fantasies out of it, ‘k?
In fact not only did I not claim to know how much sex she has, I explicitly stated the exact opposite thing when I said:
“The fact of the matter is I neither know nor care how much sex she has or with whom she has it.”
Go ahead, read it for yourself. That line is only a few inches above your reply.
I await your apology for your flagarantly dishonest characterization of my post. I won’t hold my breath though, as I’m assuming your sense of honor is equal to your math and reading skills.
This is actully hysterically funny.
Nora, every single time you reply you make it more clear that you either didn’t read or couldn’t understand my post.
You’re just a rageaholic at this point. You’ve become incapable of understanding basic English.
Nope. Wrong again, dear.
Until you can substantiate your assertion that Sandra Fluke has used any amount of money to purchase condoms, you’re just making stuff up out of whole cloth.
Fabricating nonsense is not coming to “logical conclusions”.
You’re still nothing but a dirty-minded liar.
You said you could prove the math, but you can’t — you can’t even prove the factors. You don’t have any. You’re making them up.
That’s not proof of anything other than your dishonesty, dear.
Oh, one more thing, princess — you should probably spend more time working on your own reading comprehension issues before you accuse me of being a left winger and supporting the BC mandate. My words regarding those are all still here on this thread.
But, of course, you’re yet another so-called conservative who has to insist that anyone who thinks it’s wrong to demand porn from women who disagree with them politically MUST be a liberal and MUST support the BC mandate.
As commenters go, Nora, you’re an interesting psychological study. I’ve already established your inability to follow a logical if/then chain of thought so I won’t bother elaborating further (especially since you clearly won’t understand anyway).
What I find noteworthy now is your insistence that thinking about sex is “creepy” and “dirty”. It’s interesting (if mildly alarming) that you assume everyone’s fantasies are deviant, unwholesome and unnatural. And it’s downright puzzling that you so passionately defend someone from the label “slut” when you clearly have a pretty jaundiced view of sexuality yourself.
Funny, I don’t remember claiming to be a Conservative.
So, to upbraid me for making an assumption about you you made an assumption about me. In other words you engaged in the exact conduct you’re condemning.
Which kinda sums up your entire history on this thread.
Dearie, still waiting for your logic. So far, you haven’t posted any logic.
You’ve FABRICATED the notion that Fluke MUST be purchasing condoms, but you haven’t posted any logic. YOU jumped in and claimed you could PROVE the math that shows that Fluke is a slut, and then you failed to do so.
You’re trying to have it both ways — you’re pretending you can “logically” prove that Fluke purchased X number of condoms, yet you’re adding all these BS disclaimers afterwards so you don’t really have to be held accountable.
Now you’re just getting all hysterical and flipping out because you got called on your BS.
Hysterical? Flipping out? Me?
God, you are just one walking, talking, textbook example of projection.
Except that I’m not hysterical. Oopsies! You’re wrong again!
get a room.
Good grief, Nora. You’re a shrill little harridan, aren’t you? Your repeated refusal to actually READ James’ comment just proves that you are a close-minded fool.
You obsess over the fact that this Fluke person claimed that she spent $1000 a year on prescription contraception, and condoms aren’t prescribed. Fine. James noted that the cost of a month’s supply of PRESCRIPTION birth control pills is at most $20. $20 x 12 months = $240. Unless she’s buying birth control pills for all of her friends using faulty prescriptions (an illegal act), then this Fluke person is either lying through her teeth or as stupid as you appear to be.
I did read it.
He shouldn’t have tried equating the costs of her birth control with how many times she had sex.
Once you go down that road, no one hears anything else you have to say.
That’s the problem. A-holes like RL can’t resist the cheap, easy shot. They can’t get their piggy little brains out of the mud. And now, what should have been an easy point for us to make is now lost forever.
Even now, the little piggies can’t resist the 6th grade sexual chortling over this.
What’s stupid, MWR, is claiming that the amount of money one spends on BC somehow indicates the number of sex partners one has or how many times a day they have sex.
A woman can be on the pill and have NO sex with anyone. If she overpaid, that’s a completely different issue.
You’re the stupid one. You’re the shrill who’s more interested in calling a woman a slut than actually deconstructing her assertion that a Catholic university should be forced to pay for products and services that go against their beliefs. It’s people like you who lost this point for us.
But, hey, you got to have a good laugh over calling a woman a slut. Oh, score one for MWR!!
Sounds like you will be really upset when you learn that Sandra Fluke is in fact promiscuous. Wait, didn’t she advertise that fact (or allegation, her own) to the world?
Rush was sloppy in his choice of words. We are justified in calling Fluke a liar and a professioanal victim. Let’s encourage young women to be smart and honest. We all make dumb choices from time to time.
There must be more to this. If “abortion, birth control, and promiscuous sex” are the feminist objectives, what would be the objectives for females if the program were designed by us young studs?
Sitting around the fraternity house, drinking beer and reading Playboy, we were wondering how we could get some of that fine young stuff. Our normal recourse was courting and marriage before getting some and, always, running the risk of paternity. Sure, the hookers were easy and safe, but they cost and there were risks. But, it was the good looking college girls that appealed to us. And, variety, yeah, variety.
But, you know how dumb girls can be, especially when you get them together and tell them that whatever you are suggesting will instantly make them even prettier.
Let’s make them believe that the most liberating things they could do to make themselves, prettier, smarter, more alluring and desirable and more like real people would be to adopt “abortion, birth control, and promiscuous sex” as their guiding concepts.
In fact, only “nickel beer” would improve this female program if it had been designed by randy males.
The concept of shame is something that our culture has been fighting to discourage since at least the sixties, to our detriment. The reasons for shame are varied, and the outcomes of shaming are not all harmful. At the societal level, shame contributes to a healthier, wealthier, HAPPIER population. Without the shame previously associated with teen pregnancy and pregnancy out of wedlock, for example, single motherhood has skyrocketed. 27% of single mothers live in poverty, with little chance for economic or social advancement, and they pass those negatives on to their children.
Pregnancy out of wedlock has been a reality since forever and a day, but in a time when shame was still an option to shape behavior, there were mechanisms available to rehabilitate the situation. The most notable was the taboo of having sex outside of marriage, period. “Loose” women were frowned upon. It was a social stigma. And before you say it was an unfair social stigma, don’t forget that in that era the man had a higher stake in any potential pregnancy, too. It was seen as the man’s responsibility to marry the woman he’d impregnated. Did it always happen? Of course not, especially not in the less affluent portions of society, where social pressures were not so great. But if the girl had an angry father, or if the man was a churchgoer with a clergyman who could provide guidance, it was a preferred option. Hell, just watch “Grease.” Rizzo and Kinicke FTW.
Today, men have little to no stake in what may result from a one night stand or other casual sexual encounter. There is no longer the shame of being considered a “cad” or a “bad guy” for getting a woman pregnant and abandoning her. In fact, the more anonymous the sexual encounter the better, since anonymity reduces the risk of the woman suing the man for child support should she give birth to his child, or from being asked unpleasant personal questions should he infect her with an STD, or from footing the bill for an abortion should she get one. The old saying holds true to this day: “Why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free?”
And then there’s the female half of the equation. Women are “embracing” the “demeaning” terminology of the past. Now it’s considered a notch in your feminist headboard to be called a “slut” (which makes this Fluke person’s objections all the more baffling — shouldn’t she be flattered?). You should be allowed to do whatever you want with your body, with as many people as you want, as often as you want, and d@mn the consequences. You DESERVE to have your contraception bought for you. You DESERVE to have free health screenings. If you get an STD, you DESERVE to have access to the best service money can buy, but not YOUR money — your EMPLOYER’S money, or the TAXPAYER’S money. There should be no stigma attached to your frequent outbreaks of genital warts and your ubiquitous crabs. You’re not a public health hazard because you sleep around; you’re just expressing your sexuality! Because you are woman; hear you roar!
And this is supposed to be empowering to a woman?
Speaking as a woman, I can tell you that no, it’s not empowering. Not at all. It’s demeaning and disgraceful. It does a disservice to our children, and it does an almost greater disservice to men. By essentially turning men into little more than breathing vibrators, these women take away a man’s opportunity to become something great: a father. And contrary to the overwhemling feminist view that all men are scum, I think a great many men would say that they didn’t recognize their own potential until they became a dad.
Way to go, my fellow women. You’ve destroyed a few generations of children and an equally numerous number of men because you wanted the opportunity to have sex without consequences. Shame on you. SHAME.
Quite possibly the best post here. Bravo! Sign me ex-feminist.
Great Essay. Great Post. Just awesome!
“The reasons for shame are varied, and the outcomes of shaming are not all harmful. At the societal level, shame contributes to a healthier, wealthier, HAPPIER population. ”
Well, hold on there a moment: all things in moderation. Most of the Middle East has a heavily shame-based culture and they certainly can’t be described as any of those things.
Agreed, James. Thank you for bringing that up, because it’s definitely important to draw a distinction.
Shame, as employed in the West, is a tool to modify behavior. When a little boy pushes a smaller boy out of the sandbox because he wants the sandbox all to himself, you say, “Shame on you!” to teach him that’s not the right way to do things. When a little girl smears chocolate cake on her best friend’s new dress out of jealousy, you say, “Shame on you!” to teach her that that’s not proper behavior. You shame a teenager who uses crude language in a polite setting to remind him or her that there are rules of etiquette that society expects them to follow. You shame a mother who lets her child run around a restaurant screaming to remind the mother that SHE is responsible for her child learning acceptable behavior. The more socially unacceptable a behavior the more severe the associated shame, to the point that some anti-social behaviors are criminalized and subject to punishment.
Additionally, in Western cultures shame can be a two way street. A family in the United States who disowns their daughter because she got pregnant at sixteen and “shamed” the family may, upon reflection, feel shame for their own actions. Their daughter is still their daughter, and they may end up feeling that they abandoned her in her time of need. They may seek to reconcile, and as a result BOTH sides are able to know and learn from the consequences of their actions. BOTH sides become wiser.
In areas such as the Middle East, this opportunity for self-reflection isn’t allowed. Shame is used to enforce behavior. Society doesn’t yield. If a family member shames the family, the family MUST denounce and distance themselves from that family member, or else the shame will never be removed from them. Shame isn’t used as an opportunity for growth; it’s seen as an unacceptable breach of honor and etiquette, and is used as a reason for severe punishment.
In the West, shame is used as a tool to shape an individual’s behavior for the betterment of the individual and society as a whole. People can make mistakes, then adjust their lives accordingly depending on the outcome. Each check on a person’s actions or attitudes is used as an opportunity for the individual or society to grow in a new direction. Sometimes that direction is negative, and sometimes growth is stunted entirely. But there’s always a choice.
In other areas of the world, shame is used as a cudgel. Instead of an individual being allowed to grow and find their place in society, shame is used to violently hammer people into pre-defined molds. Any attempt to stray from those molds, even by accident, is met with brutal retaliation. There is no choice at all.
Shame, when used properly, can be a powerful tool. It can also be easily misused. But just because a tool can be misused doesn’t mean it should be abandoned. When shame is removed from society, you get the London riots of 2011. Or the Air Jordan riots of this past Christmas. Or you get the audacity of a thirty year old activist sitting in front of a Congressional panel demanding that her sexual escapades be subsidized because she’s having trouble paying her bills on account of how much she spends on contraception because of how much sex she’s having.
That’s why we call such behavior “shameless.”
“The most beautiful women in the world are wearing the courage of their convictions.” Bravo!
Amen! Slut shaming is appropriate because fornication is shameful. What we need to do is not stop slut shaming, but rather to shame boys (I refuse to call them men) who take advantage of women and want none of the responsibilities of marriage and fatherhood.
MWR–Thank you for saying so well what I have been thinking and not been able to express with such eloquence. For the most part, I am in awe of the level of intelligent discourse and wit on this forum! I can only aspire to be as perceptive and articulate.
I have gotten caught up in reading the replies here for hours and I now feel better about who we are as Americans and as conservatives. Perhaps there is light at the end of this cultural tunnel.
If you can’t beat them, join them.
In the name of gender equality, men now should demand regular and copius amounts of free viagra, just to make sure that absolutely everyone gets the maximum value from this investment.
If you can’t beat them, join them.
In the name of gender equality, men now should demand regular and copius amounts of free viagra, just to make sure that absolutely everyone gets the maximum value from this investment.
I would like to thank Nora, rachel, leciat, and Comfy Ever After for further confirming to all the men on this board that Roissy is right; because not even a public specimin of the purest cultural cancer on display is enough to stop you from acting all high, mighty, and offended because a generally respectable man described her as such using language common to all. You will, on pure instinct, fight for Team Woman even if it means the death of America and Western Civilization.
I don’t believe in Islam, but that Puritan hat is looking mighty nice right now…
My, but you’re an ignorant fool. All you want to do is giggle and guffaw and make piggy sexual comments about a woman. You’re not man enough to fight the real fight, so you have to resort to grubby middle-school rhetoric and cackle and cavort and call a woman names instead. Ooh. Big man.
Oh effing please! You men with your ‘entitlement’ complex when it comes to sex. And, if you can’t get it for ‘free’ you’ll ‘buy’ it anyway. So, who’s the SKANK? YOU. YOU MEN are the skanks.
Oh no, women should NEVER enjoy sex the way ‘MEN’ are allowed to in society. Oh noes! That’s just sooooooooo freakin’ WRONG.
Women, are the gate-keepers! Only, men have men raping and pillaging during war times and even peaceful times for ages. Those damned gate-keepers couldn’t keep from getting raped by those wonderful, virtuous war-mongering sex-crazed a-holes. Dang!
How about you stupid punks who think you can f*ck anything that walks take a good look in the mirror at your OWN whorish selves for once.
Eh? Thanks!
Love,
Reality CHECK
Tone the anger down a little bit there Riot G-R-R-R-Ls.
The really asinine thing about your response is that you ASSUME that I’m all about sexual promiscuity or sex before marriage or contraception because I think it’s appalling that so many conservatives have devolved the entire debate over Obama’s proposed BC mandate into their right to call Sandra Fluke a slut. That’s it — that’s the message.
Instead of formulating an intelligent rebuttal, it’s all come down to a bunch of piggy men calling a woman a slut. And that’s where the debate is going to stick.
Even now, writers like the author of this piece can’t resist their bizarre need to get a nasty sexual comment in. How sad is that?
what kind of retarded high school mentality do you have that everyone has to now hate Sandra Fluke and call her names and make sexually degrading comments about her in order to be considered a good conservative?
What exactly does that make you?
Some how you’ve missed my point that it’s not about the names he used, it’s the context in which he used them. He misrepresented her testimony. She was not advocating promiscuity, her focus was health coverage for medical conditions of the female reproductive system. He has freedom of speech to be as much of an ass as he wants. However, I find the context of his rant to be slanderous.
Perhaps we may hope that one day, after the full misery of promiscuous sex has become obvious for all to see, women may once again claim the moral high ground of the guardians of virtue and responsibility. Fathers: affirm and love your daughters so that they don’t seek it in worthless dirtbags. Appeal to your sons’ higher natures to respect women. Mothers: model decency and modesty for your daughters. Teach your sons to have self-control. Can’t be done, you say? My church is full of decent kids because their parents have set the bar high. My oldest son and his wife were both virgins when they married three years ago. My younger son is 21 and my daughter is 18–both virgins and determined to wait until marriage. Our children have to live in this world but they don’t have to participate in its hedonism.
You can’t expect women to be ‘virtuous’ if you don’t also expect men to be ‘virtuous’ as well. It takes ‘two’ to tango, as the old saying goes.
These girls/women didn’t have sex with themselves did they? No. They had sex with boys/men who were just as loose as the girls/women.
Oh, but, it’s okay to look the other way or even ‘cheer’ a dude on when a guy scores some ‘poon’. Oh yes! Hurrah for the pick-up arteest!
Oh. But it’s ‘natural’ for men to be scumbags right?
PLEASE. Sex-drives are sex-drives. The difference is, men are hypocrites when it comes to their own disgusting sexual behavior when they whore themselves out to every Tina, Dina and Harriet.
Until BOTH men and women seek to be virtuous, things will NEVER change.
No one is cheering promiscuous men on to greater “scores” as you say. Where are you getting that from?
Are you kidding me? Have you ever heard of Roissy DC or numerous other skanky men’s blogs?
Dayum. Some men really are in the dark about the ugliness of MEN that is showing its ‘true self’ as per usual.
And women wish to be just like men… mind-boggling.
“Just like men”? Impossible. We can do it more often and don’t have to wait for that “GET UP AND GO” thing.
I am a woman, btw. I used to have anger issues with men too. Most of this came from having a wretched father. The point is there is enough blame to go around for everyone: loose men and loose women both. I would appeal to women here to tone down the bitter rhetoric. It’s ugly.
All you know is hate, isn’t it?
As several noted above, the sexual revolution is the greatest boon to men ever. Far from making women happier, it has only given “piggish” men more of what they want. Are you catching this at all?
No, they don’t get it. You speak with something they don’t hold. Wisdom.
Nice post above.
Thank you. I have enjoyed your posts as well. I had thought to impart a bit of reasonableness (word?) to the debate but the conversation has sunk into a nasty, disgusting cesspool. Too hard to read.
Slut is the new “n”-word for Feminists.
Only they can call themselves sluts, but YOU can’t call them sluts.
You can’t blame them for this kind of group-think. Their vaginas are literal echo chambers.
I’m here all week!
I am surprised Nora the “conservative” troll did not jump on you for making a specious joke. Oh well, this comment section is kind of funny so far. hello hellO hellOOOOO
I don’t think calling a woman a slut shames her at all. Insults offend, they don’t engender shame. While Rush didn’t say anything that isn’t true, his tactics were miserable. It was not an insult like Maher or others on the left who insult with impunity, but bad enough. He could’ve and did shame her with the facts, but the insult is all we hear about, and allows her to pretend to be offended when of course that was just what she hoped for.
You can’t shame somebody who has no honor and integrity, as we know she hasn’t. She’s a stalking horse, a prostitute in the political sense, and Rush fell for the trick.
“You can’t shame somebody who has no honor and integrity”
Oh? Is that the reason it has been nearly IMPOSSIBLE to shame men into being more chaste?
I SEE THE LIGHT! THANK YOU FOR THE INSIGHT oh mighty SEER of TRUTHS!
Do you know what a stalking horse is? Do you even understand the context at all? Or did it go right over your pretty little head?
So apparently in conservative fantasyland, Rush is the victim here because he stumbled in a well-laid Democrat trap? Too funny. For a movement that prides itself on “personal responsibility”, conservatives always seem to have a knack for finding a liberal to blame for their own screwups.
Some of you dolts do realize that quite a few married women use birth-control too?
I’ve been married for over 32 years to the same man and I like to have sexual relations with him quite frequently and before he got a vasectomy, I used birth control pills and condoms combined to insure I wouldn’t have an unplanned pregnancy.
As far as single women using birth-control, I’d rather pay for that than an unwanted, unplanned pregnancy (not to mention you men who will then go on whining rants about having to pay ‘child support’ and boo-hooing into your small boy manties).
What is Viagra for? It’s not even PREVENTING anything. It’s just so some loser with a flaccid wanker can screw around some more and possibly cause MORE unplanned pregnancies! Oh Joy! Oh happiness. Hooray for man whores slut scums!
P.S. Here’s an idea for you twit-headed little men folks who whine about single mothers, paying child-support for unplanned pregnancies and GOD FORBID having to pay for birth-control: GET A EFFING VASECTOMY! Do the whole damned world a favor and then less women will even ‘need’ birth-control.
#WINNING!
You’re a hate-filled little thing, ain’t you?
What a stellar rejoinder! Wow. You must be one of those members of MENSA.
/sarc
He’s already admitted he’s into paying for sex. Seriously.
And you and your husband paid for those things yourselves. You rightly assumed the responsibility for your own decisions and self-maintenance; you prioritized your household spending to make sure you could so so. You talked about it with each other. In short, you were mature adults (in this matter anyway; your post here was toddleriffic).
What I’m saying is: You just made our point for us.
Anyway, why do you think so little of today’s young women that you assume they are incapable of assuming responsibility for their own lives as you did? Why do you wish to infantilize them, refuse to let them decide their own priorities?
Heather, do we ‘infantilize’ men by allowing their Viagra to be covered under their health insurance?
Women use birth control pills for a lot more than just ‘birth control’. There are a whole host of issues that bc treats!
Should abortion be covered? IMO…NEVER.
Erectile dysfunction can be a result of medical conditions such as high blood pressure, diabetes and spinal cord injuries to name a few. So, how about we put to rest this distracting debate about insurance coverage covering Viagra and not the bc pill? Some insurance covers one and not the other, some only covers them for medical necessity and some covers both for contraception. To the best of my knowledge (not vast) there is no regulation or law, which compels private insurance companies to cover or not cover either or both of those drugs.
>> According to Fluke, female students shell out $3,000 for three years of contraceptives. Of course, do the math and find that this means Fluke and her fellow law students have sex two or three times daily (since condoms only cost about a dollar).
I’m sorry, but you’re either stupid or being willfully obtuse. Ms. Fluke was not talking about condoms. You know this, right? …Right?
And none of this is about the government paying for birth control. It’s to make sure that women have birth control covered on their insurance plans.
Did you even read or watch Ms. Fluke’s testimony? She spoke about a friend who had to have emergency surgery to remove her ovary because she couldn’t afford $100 a month for birth control to treat ovarian cysts, and the school refused to cover it. Do you think that’s moral in any way?
I would never have believed that an article of such utter stupidity and depressing misogyny had been written by a woman unless I saw it with my own eyes in the by-line. So discouraging.
Totally concur, DeeDee.
“DeeDee”, Fluke is a lying tool and you apparently are willing to carry on the lies.
“It’s to make sure that women have birth control covered on their insurance plans.”
Why should birth control be included in insurance? Isn’t it a routine matter? Isn’t it a personal matter? Haven’t we been told over and over and over and over and over and over that it’s between a woman, her “god”, and her physician? When did the rest of us get involved in paying for it through the insurance premiums we pay to deal with real illnesses? How many cancer patients are going to be cut off their chemo to pay for Fluker’s bed-hopping?
“She spoke about a friend who had to have emergency surgery to remove her ovary because she couldn’t afford $100 a month for birth control to treat ovarian cysts, and the school refused to cover it. Do you think that’s moral in any way?”
Hell if I know — the only report of this story we have is from a liar lying for the Cause. I doubt the “friend” even exists, given the rest of the lies Fluker told.
Boy oh boy! You ‘men’ sure weren’t up in arms about Viagra being covered under insurance.
Such total hypocritical B.S.
Also, women are treated for a plethora of ailments with birth control (yes, it can actually treat medical conditions). HELLO!?
When I was in my early twenties (in the 1960s) I had endometriosis and a very, very low paying job. The only treatment available (other than pregnancy) was birth control pills. Insurance didn’t pay for them. Because my health was my priority, I paid for them. BTW–it was not effective and was a much bigger dose than used today. Then there was a new drug for endometriosis. It was so new, that it wasn’t covered by insurance either. I found the money because it was important to me. It never occurred to me to do nothing but sit around and whine about my predicament. The drug worked much better than the bc pill. There are now several drugs available for treatment of endometriosis.
To say that I am skeptical of Ms. Flukes narrative about the woman who had to have surgery because someone else wouldn’t foot the bill for her bc pills is an understatement. There is almost free chemical birth control offered many places if you want it. (Or–what the heck is Planned Parenthood doing with my tax dollars besides being the biggest provider of abortions in the world?) Just as a matter of economics, I would assume that most insurance companies would rather pay for therapeutic bc pills than an expensive surgery.
One last point: Neither pregnancy nor fertility is a disease.
No need to put my name in quotes. It’s my name.
What did Fluke lie about? If you direct me to her lies and the evidence for them, I would be very grateful.
>> Why should birth control be included in insurance? Isn’t it a routine matter? Isn’t it a personal matter?
So you approve of also having insurance cut Viagra and other men’s health medications? I take birth control for a medical condition. I’ve never even had sex yet. What makes my medicine different from, say, insulin? I’ll tell you: it’s because women need it, and there’s an erupting hatred and disdain for women in this country right now. You are a shining example.
If it’s medically necessary then I have no problem with it. I don’t think anyone here would argue otherwise. And no, viagra shouldn’t be covered either. Good enough for ya? Probably not.
I’d just love to see the manly revolt against repealing Viagra from insurance coverage!
But, hey, I can dig it and compromise.
No Viagra for men and Birth Control for women only for medical necessity situations.
Of course, you realize this is a pipe-dream right? If men didn’t want to pay for other men’s Viagra, they would have already bitched up a storm about it.
I say okay, don’t pay for viagra or its like meds in insurance plans. Its another by-product of our obsession with youth and sensuality. If you can’t get it done anymore , buy the little blue pill on your own or realize that life without orgasms isn’t the end of the world. Our culture is so hyper-sexualized, we lose sight of how much more there is in the full spectrum of things. Incidentally, I’m a happily married man of over 30 years and haven’t needed the wonders of chemistry .
If this apocryphal student exists, and truly needed artificial hormones for a medical condition, the policy would have covered it. $100/mo? She could have asked her physician for a generic equivalent at a fraction of the cost. So even if she’s real, she’s a terrible argument for abrogating religious freedom in America.
How is it ‘religious’ freedom, when some of these women are not even ‘Catholics’? Or, that some of these women ARE Catholics and believe they should have birth control?
There was a time Catholics didn’t believe you should ‘masturbate’ either.
Time for the Catholic Church to grow the eff up.
But, much like many religions, keeping women barefoot and pregnant means…hey, more people to fill our pews and our coffers! GENIUS!
It’s a question of religious freedom because the government is compelling religious groups (not just Catholics, btw) to pay for something that violates their core religious teachings.
I’ll repeat this since you seem not to understand it: no one is trying to ban birth control. No one. The discussion here is about who should properly pay for it.
But you’re too lazy/foolish/enraged to allow that point to sink in, so I’ve just wasted another two minutes typing this.
Hmm, should we obey you, or obey Jesus? That’s a no-brainer: obey Jesus and regard you as anathema to us. Repent, or you shall suffer eternal damnation for your blasphemy.
Farrah, there seems to be no end to your misconceptions on so many subjects. Mother-in-law notwithstanding, almost everything you mentioned about the Catholic Church is wrong. I won’t bother to attempt to set you straight. I suspect that is a fool’s errand. If you want to know what the Church teaches, you have a computer and presumably know how to use a search engine. Whether or not you can discern truth from dissension is arguable.
“If you’re a religious social conservative, you might want to try to follow Jesus’s example– and consider e.g. the compassion and respect he showed toward sinners like Mary Magdalene–”
If I remember the story correctly, Jesus didn’t tell everyone that old Mary could do whatever she wanted to, and that they were all required to finance her recreational sex activities.
He just told them not to kill her, and he also told her to knock off being a whore.
So, I’m afraid your metaphor doesn’t really hold up. Nobody is suggesting that she be stoned to death or punished in ANY way (at least I haven’t heard anyone suggest that). Nobody is even telling her what she can or can’t do sexually. That’s her business. We’re just saying that we don’t want the government to force us to pay for her contraception, or any other of her personal expenses. for that matter.
I’ll believe your rhetorical response to whomever you quoted, when you say that you also want men to “knock off being whores” and stop using Viagra covered under insurance and buy it on their own dime or just accept the inevitability of impotence.
Apples and oranges…
Viagra works also for healthy men (it enhances their sex drive) and so, with your logic, every man over 21 should be getting it for free, in unlimited amounts.
Secondly, not using bc does not produce impotence in females, a women who cannot afford to pay for the pill (or the IUD, which is cheaper and healthier) she can masturbate as there is no loss of the physical function, sexual intercourse is an optional extra.
So you cannot equate the purpose of Viagra with bc.
How do you feel about men getting 3 free condoms per day btw just to even things out and to keep the STD epedemic down? Those who don’t use them could choose the equivalent in money instead, just like women should be able to choose whether they want free bc or free money, for example, the elderly would probably prefer to buy heating or food instead of bc, and why should they lose out, that would be age discrimination.
Equality all round, what is not to love?
Here’s the question I really want answered: Even if we have some nebulous right to get it on anytime, anywhere, with anyone, with no side effects or negative consequences–and contraceptives only prevent babies (and only if used consistently and correctly), they don’t prevent any of the other side effects–with no effort or expense required of the participant except to show up and do it….
why does that negate the right of other people to practice their religion?
You will never hear a “feminist” or “progressive” or “activist for reproductive[sic] justice” give an honest answer.
Catholics are idiots. They are against abortion AND birth control. My Catholic mother-in-law gave birth to 14 children (and two miscarriages and 3 still births) before she completely quit the Catholic religion because they didn’t believe in “birth control” and she realized that her so called ‘religion’ had completely let her down.
As far as ‘side effects’ from birth control or Viagra? There are side-effect to using aspirin, there are side-effect from drinking artificial sweeteners for cryin’ out loud!
Catholics are idiots?
You want to qualify that a little?
Just a tiny little bit?
Here you go, ari. . .
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0kJHQpvgB8
Catholics! Ha
As I said, you will never get an honest answer.
That wasn’t even an answer. That was an anecdote about someone exercising her right to practice her religion.
I’m looking for the “like” button! Good point.
‘I’ll believe your rhetorical response to whomever you quoted, when you say that you also want men to “knock off being whores”’
Something about this you don’t understand, moron?
“Nobody is even telling her what she can or can’t do sexually. That’s her business”
When did I say she, or anyone, should knock off being a whore? Never. That’s when. I said just the opposite. To repeat: As far as I’m concerned, she can do as she pleases when it comes to her sex life.
Talk about unclear on the concept. Maybe if you shut your continually working mouth, and opened your ears and brain, you might actually hear what people are saying, instead of what you want to hear.
Dumb broad.
Really ‘tardo er the great, the almighty “Dave Surls”?
Which passage (verbatim) in the bible, did Jesus say to Mary, “knock off being a whore”?
Also, where in the Bible does Jesus recommend to men that they also “knock off being the whores and Johns”?
Waiting for your BRAZILLIANT response, almighty Dave Surls!
He said “Go and sin no more,” which includes turning from harlotry. The only dispute is whether or not that woman was Mary Magdalene.
Uh, Jesus never refers to Mary Magdalene as a “whore”, and nowhere does the Bible mention that Mary Magdalene’s sins included prostitution or other sinful sexual behavior. That was a construct of men. No mainstream Christian religion supports the idea of Mary Magdalene as a prostitute.
‘Uh, Jesus never refers to Mary Magdalene as a “whore”’
No doubt. Seeing as how folks in that neck of the woods didn’t speak English.
What he supposedly said was “Go and sin no more” in the bible story I’m talking about (which I think is what Rachel is also talking about).
Rachel is suggesting that people are acting like the folks in that bible story, but that’s not correct. People aren’t condemning her, aren’t punishing her, and they aren’t even trying to tell her to go and sin no more, which Jesus did do.
We’re just saying that we don’t want to be forced to pay for her or anyone else’s birth control.
That’s all.
Neither do I.
But when you point to Mary Magdalene as a prostitute or otherwise sexually sinful woman, you’re dead wrong. Just sayin’. That Mary Magdalene was a prostitute is pure myth. I know it’s off topic, but it irks me that this myth still gets perpetuated even now.
“But when you point to Mary Magdalene as a prostitute or otherwise sexually sinful woman, you’re dead wrong.”
No, it isn’t wrong, Nora, if we’re talking about the same woman.
The story I’m talking about is the one in John 8:3-11
Then the scribes and Pharisees brought to Him a woman caught in adultery. And when they had set her in the midst, they said to Him, “Teacher, this woman was caught in adultery, in the very act. Now Moses, in the law, commandeded us that such should be stoned. But what do You say?”6 This they said, testing Him, that they might have something of which to accuse Him. But Jesus stooped down and wrote on the ground with His finger, as though He did not hear.
7 So when they continued asking Him, He raised Himself up and said to them, “He who is without sin among you, let him throw a stone at her first.” 8 And again He stooped down and wrote on the ground. Then those who heard it, being convicted by their conscience, went out one by one, beginning with the oldest even to the last. And Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst. 10 When Jesus had raised Himself up and saw no one but the woman, He said to her, “Woman, where are those accusers of yours? Has no one condemned you?”
11 She said, “No one, Lord.”
And Jesus said to her, “Neither do I condemn you; go and sin no more.”
That woman might not be Mary Magdalene, but I think that’s the parable Rachel was referring to.
And, if Rachel is saying that we’re like the people who wanted to stone the woman in the story (whether it’s Mary Magdalene or Mary from Brooklyn), and that we should be like Jesus and not judge, she’s wrong.
Nobody is judging or condemning her or punishing her at all for her personal sexual choices. We’re not even telling her she should sin no more (when it comes to sex). We’re just saying that we don’t want to be forced to pay her bills. At least that’s where I’m coming from.
There’s no reason to assume that passage refers to Mary Magdalene. I know, totally off topic. Just a pet peeve of mine.
Ask yourself, “What would Breitbart do?”
Breitbart would point his finger at Sandra Fluke and loudly call her a slut. We should all do the same.
No, Brietbart would have said, “Let’s get this girl to go undercover at Planned Parenthood!”
Please do. I’m sending the link to these comments, yours in particular, to every moderate, undecided and right-leaning woman I know, just so they can see how morally depraved the right wing has become. The conservative movement’s war on women is the stupidest thing they could have ever done. While the Rush Limbaughs of the world spent their formative years locked in soundproof studios and going on hooker vacations, an entire generation of women have clawed their way into positions of leadership, and access to health care – especially contraception – was a big part of helping them get there. And they often had to fight against a male-dominated establishment to get there. And now a bunch of fat old perverts are calling their daughters sluts. You guys clearly have no clue what kind of $#!%storm you’ve brought on yourselves.
I feel compelled to point out that the people here who think it was wrong to call Fluke a slut have UNIVERSALLY:
- made sexually degrading comments about men, both individually and as a gender
- accused those with contrary opinions of being sexual deviants
- made fun of various illnesses and conditions that uniquely afflict men, again as individuals and as a gender
- condemned religion and religious believers
You’ve all behaved orders of magnitude worse than Limbaugh did.
It’s fine if you want to condemn Rush for comments he made, even if they were off the cuff and he later apologized for them. But you can’t condemn someone’s conduct by taking the exact same action, amplifying it doing it yourself. It’s like trying to make a point about nonviolence by beating the crap out of someone.
“Off the cuff” implies that he made a single comment. He did not. He devoted three days to calling Fluke a slut and a prostitute, even after the initial uproar. Try to at least pretend to be honest when making your arguments.
For the sake of argument I’ll grant your point. In fact I’ll do you one better, I’ll pretend he never apologized. Let’s pretend that right up to this moment is STILL calling her names.
Now… care to address the actual substance of my post? Care to explain to me how it’s wrong for him to do it but it’s right for the women on this board to do it?
Limbaugh went on and on…and on…and on about Sandra Fluke’s supposed promiscuity, including asserting that he was entitled to video tapes of her sexual activity (and he barely stopped himself short in calling from actual sex from her, if you listen to the tapes). That’s not just an off the cuff insult.
His revolting little diatribe was based on her proposal that Georgetown cover BC for their students. So far, no one but Sandra Fluke has paid for her BC. Yet all over the internet, including right here in these comboxes, “men” are claiming if they’re paying for her sex, they deserve to get something in return from her. Except they haven’t paid for anything for her. At. All.
Also, because some chimp somewhere took the figure she put out for PRESCRIPTION birth control and divided it by the number of cheap condoms he buys, more “men” decided they could categorically justify the RL’s diatribe. OBVIOUSLY (the author of this piece’s word), Sandra Fluke is a slut, because somewhere, in some backwater, some guy can buy X number of condoms for the figure Fluke used, therefore SHE is CLEARLY buying condoms with that money, and therefore she is having X number of sexual encounters per day — and having them with unique partners.
That’s actually what happened here.
This isn’t about one fat, pill-popping, whoremongering slob’s “off the cuff” comment.
It’s about the slandering of a woman by using the most putrid means possible merely because you disagree with her.
Worse, it’s about rejecting a thoughtful deconstruction of her “testimony” in the context of the proposed mandate in lieu of getting in some really nasty cheap shots at Fluke.
At the end of the day, the only reason the same “men” are all upset now for getting called on their piggery is that they know they blew it — they lost — they did Obama’s work for him. And yet, they STILL can’t be honest about what they did.
So stop whining about how you’re all such victims now. Maybe y’all should have thought about that before you began wallowing in the mud over what you ASSUMED Sandra Fluke’s sex life to look like.
“Sandra Fluke is just one in a long line of pseudo-feminists celebrating their sluthood.”
Well, she’s not really doing that, but what her, and her pals in the Democrat Party, are doing is saying that if she chooses to be a slut, the rest of us should be forced to pay for her contraceptives…and that’s a million times worse than being a slut. That’s being a thief.
And they aren’t just saying it…they’ve passed laws (albeit totally unconstitutional ones) that are making it a reality.
the misogynistic mindset of reublicans has just changed my vote to obama and i will campaign to every woman i come in contact with to do the same.
I don’t think that’s the answer, leciat.
C’mon you know you were already voting for the water walker.
Please do so.
And yell your message a little louder to everyone accompanied by that old Helen Reddy song “I AM WOMAN!” for the next six months, or so. Why your personal testimony here alone, along with some of your sisterhood is a message everyone in America needs to hear. Just make sure, as you megaphone the message, you use the words “VOTE OBAMA” with it.
Same goes for you Puppet and your demands tuition should cover birth control at Catholic Universities. What else can I do to assist and encourage you to get the message out?
One can gain some insight into why liberals are winning the debate by reading op eds, blogs, and comment sections like this here or on other sites (e.g., townhall.com) whenever a situation like this comes up. Here we are debating things like the cost of birth control and issues of entitlement; we are dealing with the content of the issue and trying to apply reason. There is mention of what kind of person Bill Maher and Sandra Fluke are, delving into personality. There is some mention of hypocrisy among liberals, and that is a bit more to the point. I see one statement that we kowtow to charges of incivility because we have higher standards – nope, it is because we are bullied by the left and afraid of the politically-correct speech police. Look how liberals manipulated Rush’s sponsors and Maher says he can say what he wants because he doesn’t have sponsors; notice the lack of any principle in his statement.
Many liberals are all about winning the debate, no matter what it takes. Their agenda is the guiding light, not any sense of principle. Like Muslims who have a doctrine of lying to infidels, these liberals see conservatives as evil or stupid, and not worthy of respect (thanks to Charles Krauthammer for this formulation). To principled people, hypocrisy means their position is inconsistent and therefore must be revised. To these liberals, it just means they were caught, that they need to be a bit more careful in the future. Following Alinsky, if they can get us to follow rules (e.g., civility) then they gain an advantage when they break the rules. So, we make a logical rebuttal or point out hypocrisy and get a self-satisfied feeling that we won the debate? Meanwhile, the next issue comes up and they play the same Alinsky game again…and again. Over time, they back us further and further into a corner. They pull the strings and we dance. It grows tiresome. Here’s what I want to tell these manipulators.
Don’t pretend this is about principle – it is just political gamesmanship.
Don’t pretend that everyone should follow rules when you, yourself, won’t follow them.
Don’t ask us to repudiate language from conservatives until you clean your house first.
Quit blackmailing people you disagree with with threats of boycotts and occupations.
You may be able to hide behind the skirts of the mainstream media, but we’ll call you out when you play dirty.
Don’t pretend to be holier than thou or self-righteously indignant; you’re no better than us.
Boycotts are not blackmail. Boycotts are the free market at work. Pull your head out of your behind.
I stand corrected. It is actually extortion, not black mail. And based on your use of personal insult and scatological reference, I assume you are a liberal.
Strange, but you know I never, ever, seem to hear women talking about how wonderful the “hook-up culture” is. Never. In fact, they always complain about it. They are always looking for that “One special guy” they never seem to be able to find. As a result, they feel cheap, used, and worthless, with this “culture” doing more to damage their self-esteem than anything a man could ever say. With freedom comes a lot of responsibility, yet noone ever talks about being responsible with this freedom. According to the feminists, just have sex until you drop. And if you get pregnant, no problem, we’ll just get rid of that sucker before you even know it thanks to abortion on demand. So there’s no problems, right? Well, then if there are no problems, why are women always whining that men are pigs? After all, you can’t have more pigs without the sows.
Time for a little reality check and A LOT more discretion on the part of the females in this country. They also need A LOT more respect for abstinence or just waiting a bit longer before having sex. This would give them more time to make a more mature judgment on when to have it (instead of in high school, when the probability of bad things happening, such as unwanted pregnancies or STDs, tends to skyrocket). In our 24/7 media culture today, we seem to celebrate the slut (just pick a few shows on any evening lineup on network TV) and never quite let kids know the consequences of those decisions (and there could be many).
So go to it, feminists, ecourage these kids to become adults before their ready and allow them the prvilege of getting some really serious adult diseases or unwanted pregnancies. Now THAT is progress, isn’t it?
I’m really tired of this old saw. Oh if women were chaste it would keep men in their place!
NO IT DOES NOT. Men will still chase skirt, still cheat, still pay for prostitutes. It doesn’t ‘tame’ men. It just makes men’s skankitude less ‘obvious’ because, like a psychopath, they have to be more ‘sneaky’ about it, but, they still act the same way. It changes nothing. Men have been ‘allowed’ to be skanks forever and nobody bats an eye? Nobody says, “Hey men, how about YOU be the chaste ones this time?” How about YOU say “NO” this time?
I’m waiting for that frozen day in hell….
Good point. If the taxpayer is going to be on the hook for this woman’s condoms, then they might as well pay for my prostitutes.
Farrah, the really funny thing is that the mentality you describe pretty much screams to the world that men ADMIT they’re incapable of self-control, that they’re mindless, rutting animals who can’t help themselves.
Fine. I’ll take their word for it. The rhetoric they’re so gleefully engaging in over Sandra Fluke supports their admission.
LOL Nora!
Wittle men can’t control their little penises, don’tchyaknow? They walk around with those ‘things’ like weapons of mass premature destruction! They just can’t help it! *sniff-sniff*
Seriously, you’d think men would be happy enough walking around topless while women get chastised for breast-feeding in public and using their breasts for…you know…what they were MADE fore (even though plenty of men have a pretty nice ‘rack’ of their own). But, no, that’s not even good enough! They have to parade around in banana hammocks too! Don’t even get me started on having to view their ass hairs in public.
What was it that Tom Arnold said to RoseAnne Barr, your sister, when he was reminded of his “wittle” manhood.
Hey buttercup, even 747 seems small flying through the Grand Canyon.
If I hung out with lefty shrews, er, excuse me, wymyn all the time, I’d probably be chaste because not even Viagra or Cialis will cure erectile disinterest.
“According to Fluke, female students shell out $3,000 for three years of contraceptives. Of course, do the math and find that this means Fluke and her fellow law students have sex two or three times daily (since condoms only cost about a dollar).”
Wow. Does the author truly not understand how the pill works, or is she just being terribly disingenuous? This article is a joke.
The really sad part about all of this is how morally depraved and disgusting the right wing has become: reduced to defending an overweight, obscene, pill-abusing, prostitute-frequenting scumbag, simply because he’s “on our team.”
Plus, it’s always great to witness a bunch of post-menopausal trainwrecks frothing over the sex lives of attractive young people. How pathetic.
Yes, they can only get their metrics to work if they insist that she meant condoms. Which she clearly didn’t. So they lie, and they think if they repeat the lie often enough, they can get people to think it’s true.
And, of course, NONE of this has anything to do with the real issue, the BC mandate. Only the Republicans would turn this issue into a referendum on one woman’s sexual habits and the morality thereof. It’s all about getting to feel better about themselves by calling her dirty names and fantasizing over the porn tapes they truly believe they’re entitled to get from her.
Actually, its progressives like you who have tried to turn opposition to the mandate into a “war against women.” But that is one of the Alinsky tactics, lie and then accuse the other side of doing exactly what you are doing.
Yes. I’m CLEARLY a progressive because I a) personally believe birth control to be immoral, b) believe the government has no place mandating that private institutions, especially religious institutions, provide any kind of coverage for anything. Yep. That’s me, the big liberal.
The truth, you stalking creep, is that you are furious I don’t approve of the sexual degradation of women. That, for some really twisted reason, bothers you big time. Hmmm. Makes me wonder what you’re up to in your free time.
Are you calling Farrah Lee, “a post menopausal trainwreck”? That ain’t nice.
I’m not menopausal yet. I wish. I’d save a lot of moula per month!
Do you know how much sanitary napkins and tampons cost? Oh, and we women get TAXED for those necessities.
I dont know what backwater hole these archaic fossils crawled out of, but in the big city young people have no problem with pre-marital sex.
I am shocked that this was written by a young woman. She should be ashamed for submitting to the pandering of crusty old puritans.
As for those that say BC is $20/month, perhaps in the 80′s before you and you significant others went through menopause and needed viagra.
My girlfriend of 8 years (we have no intention of getting married) pays $175/month for prescription BC.
BTW, Rush is an obsolete sensationalist with a history of amphetamine abuse.
sub80, I bet you if you polled every single one of the men here on PJM and asked them if they have ever had premarital sex. . .well, the answer sure would be ‘interesting’.
Then, poll the same men and ask them how they feel about having to pay child-support for an unplanned pregnancy. . .
Ahem. Hilarity and hypocrisy ensues.
I bet you would find that we paid for our own contraception or that our partners paid for their own contraception.
Responsibility, what a concept.
Tolbert, that’s hilarious, because, I’ve seen so many men whine here on PJM about paying child support and how unfair it is and the court systems are against them and whaaaaaa it’s epic. EPIC.
Sure, my husband and I could afford our birth-control but the poorest often can’t, and those are the people (usually non-whites) who need it the most so they don’t drain society with a whole uterus load of unwanted or unaffordable babies that end up paid for by the taxpayers.
Maybe if men were more responsible about birth-control (at least 50/50), then, the unplanned pregnancies would be cut down quite a bit.
Also, as has already been stated ad nauseum, birth control is used for more than controlling ‘birth’. Many women use it for a whole host of issues that help their quality of life.
Farah, the men who were complaining about child support weren’t complaining about providing support for their children. What they were complaining about is providing support for their children while not being able to see them or providing support for their children while their ex-spouse is using that support to support herself and her new live-in boy friend, or providing support for a child that isn’t theirs because even though a paternity test proved that they weren’t the father and the mother lied to them, the courts still ordered them to support those children for another two decades.
Try to keep up next time.
This is modern conservatism in a nutshell: the government needs to subsidize medicare, because I am old and benefit from that; the government must not subsidize contraception, because I am old and do not benefit from that. It’s just naked greed and selfishness, cloaked in faux morality and religiosity.
Nail…Head…HIT!!!!!!
Except that I am not old and I don’t receive medicare and I would like to see all government assistance, including S.S. eliminated.
I do however pay about $16,000 per year for my family of three’s health insurance. Would life be easier if the government paid for it? Probably, but then I would be at the government’s mercy. No thanks.
Hey Tolbert you have to remember it was that conservative stalwart Lyndon Baines Johnson who started Medicare.
Since when are conservatives boosters for Medicare? Your central assumption is 100% wrong, as is every conclusion you draw based on it.
According to national voter registration, 41% of america is registered with a conservative party. 37% of those are eligible for medicare. That means that nationally 15% of registered voters are conservative and on medicare.
contrast that with the 18% registered with liberal parties and one now has a interesting argument. combining liberals and medicare-eligible conservatives, we have a pro-social medicine demographic of 33%. Now add in the approx. 38% moderates and there you have it, a majority vote for social medicine.
Another lefty useful idiot; did you not get today’s talking point email and are trying to make stuff up on your own. Since when did Republicans back Great Society programs like Medicare; you idiots trot out the throw granny off a cliff crap everytime we mention that they’re all bankrupt. Stupid, stupid lefties; Mediscare is your meme.
Why did your husband need a vasectomy? After all you alread bit his testicles off. You are one unpleasant woman (I guess).
carla, carla, carla. SMH!
Because, like most women, I got tired of being the ONLY one responsible for our birth control and we didn’t want any more children (five was my limit tyvm).
Good job!! He actually made it with you five times? I give the guy credit. You’re a real amazon.
Hard to believe anyone would screw her five times.
The sexual act itself might not be that bad, but then you would have to listen to her, after it was all over. Probably for hours on end
Talk about hell on earth.
Her hubby must have the patience of saint. Either that or he’s a deaf.
Dave must be carla’s husband. I bet the only secks he wants with you involves the poop chute.
“I bet the only secks he wants with you involves the poop chute.”
Sweetheart, if you think I’d EVER put my penis in your mouth, you are sadly mistaken.
Dave Surly, I doubt anyone wants your shriveled jerky gherkin pickle dick anywhere near their proximity without a hazmat suit and a fire-hose, FREAK.
Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned!
I tell her she’s not allowed to touch me, and now she’s really mad!!!
Go ahead and sulk, Farah, my sweet. I’m still not putting anything in your poop chute, for fear it might get bitten off.
Besides, God only knows what’s already been in there.
I’m faithfully married. Why would I want anywhere near your infected saggy sack?
DREAM ON.
For a faithfully married woman, you seem mighty interested in MY sexual proclivities, sweetie. But, no matter how interested you are, you are NOT going to get my penis in your poop chute. No oral sex for you, Little Ms. Potty Mouth.
For one thing, I only have sexual relations with other human beings, or at least fellow primates.
I draw the line at reptiles.
I don’t want to start anything ugly here, but, I have to say:
Would this have even come up if the religion had been, say, uh, ISLAM?
R U kidding me? The Muslims would have been up-in-arms [or chopping some off] if they had been forced to provide birth control under their insurance policies. NO WAY in hades would D’ohbama even ‘went’ there with his Muslim brethren.
Again, this is a war on Christianity. Nothing more. Nothing less.
Some faiths are more equal than others. Some faiths are more ‘white’ than others.
:\
Oh please. This is a strawman argument. How do you know Muslims don’t support a woman’s right to birth control?
Idiot.
The natural Lefty reflexive defense of enemies of Western civilization is evident. Islam does countenance the use of contraception. However, since women don’t even get to choose who they’ll marry, can’t leave the house without a male familial escort, can’t drive, can’t go to school, etc., I suspect the choice of whether to use birth control isn’t the woman’s in any meaningful sense. The Georgetown lefty slut would have a very hard time under Sharia since the penalty for premarital or extramarital sex for a female is death by stoning.
Sheesh, Farrah, wanna maybe take it down a notch or two? I have the flu and I don’t have the strength to battle with you crazy daisies today.
Art, you are correct. I should have framed that better. I shoulda said: “It would be against Islam for single women to be able to acquire birth control.”
My head hurts.
Have a nice day, everybody (yes, even you Lefty nut-jobs)!
Seeing as they murder rape victims and throw acid in girls faces for going to school, I bet they hold your enlightened feminist views. You probably believe what Congressional Retard Patty Murray said that Bin Laden was loved because he built day care centers in the Middle East.
I think that Ms. Fluke and this thread’s self-righteous, angry feminists should just go f*ck themselves. No pills, STD’s, or subsidy needed. Problem solved.
When I was in college thirty-five years ago I was all in favor of eliminating the sexual double-standard, so that women would feel free to have casual sex with me. In practice, the sexual revolution went horribly wrong; the only men who benefited from the change were men who were rich, good-looking, athletic, extroverted, or who had low standards. In other words, it hardly helped me at all.
Therefore, considering the disadvantages of sexual promiscuity to society, I think we should undo the sexual revolution and go back to the moral standards we had in the 1950s.
Okay. Wait.
Let me get this perfectly straight.
Are you saying you’re poor, ugly, skinny, introverted with ‘high standards’ and you think reverting to the 50′s is going to help you score?
Sorry, but, ELL OH ELL!
Farrah Lee, fugitive from an anger management group. I can only conclude that if are happily married, your husband is comatose. Pity the children.
He might just be ordinary — you have stumbled onto the fallacy of the excluded middle.
Katherine Sebelius announce today that female law students will be allowed to remain on their parent’s health-care insurance policies until they reach age 40 or get a job with the federal government.
this whole thread and comment section should be stickied as to demonstrate how to disembowel some trolls
ALL WOMEN ARE WHORES… IT’S JUST A MATTER OF WHAT PRICE A MAN IS WILLING TO PAY..
What do you call a man who f_ucks multiple women who he himself deems ‘whores’, Wolfie Poo?
That’s right, you’re the bigger, uglier whore elephant in the room, dipsh_t.
How about you keep that vile, infected, herpes spreading snake in your pants and be chaste for once in your life?
Impossible you say? Then, you’re just as pathetic as your posse o’ whores.
Farrah,
There isn’t a posse here and if there was Wolf wouldn’t be one of them. No one here has remotely put forth the position that all women are whores. Wolf’s comment is out of line and I will be the first to condemn that utterance.
Tolbert, I would just ignore the multiple ‘its’. You shouldn’t have to apologize on behalf of ‘wolf’. I know there are a lot of wonderful men on this blog and in general who believe nothing of the sort. [Psst. I smell trolly McTrollerson plant pretending to be a Conservative].
Have a good day.
Hey Farrah, I think you need to reload the Zoloft prescription. You’re entering the manic phase and getting as ugly on the inside as you no doubt are on the outside, you sick cow you!
“What do you call a man who f_ucks multiple women who he himself deems ‘whores’,”
John?
A whoremonger, and the likes of him shall not inherit the Kingdom of God.
I love how there are no real comments on the real numbers.
“DON’T CONFUSE ME WITH FACTS!!!”
Why are we letting the Dems control this discussion? Contraception is a non-issue. Let’s focus on putting people to work, lowering taxes, and a strong military. The social issues will kill us.
Exactly, Brutus. Which is why we shouldn’t feed them with these kinds of PJM blog posts which hijack the real issues concerning America and her people right now. It serves nothing except to perpetuate a non-dialogue rife with pejoratives with a bunch of whack-a-doodles.
Yes, letting Progressives control the discussion and thus getting involved in an irrelevant emotive game of [Alinsky tactic] name calling is one reason why Limbaugh said it was a mistake for him to descend to the “Progressives’” level – by any stretch of their imagination
But if we do succumb, then the only concern about Obamacare simply becomes a question of whether all of us presumed dependents and grovellers before the Central Gov’t can persuade Kathleen Sebelius to decree next that “tranquilizers will also be free”, since that’s what everyone might have to do in order to survive Gov’t mandated “healthcare”. Victory Gin, anyone?
In other words the real point about Sebelius declaring that ~”birth control shall be free” is that Obamacare obviously allows the Gov’t to mandate what “healthcare” is – not only that everyone who is able to will have to pay for it, so that it really won’t be “free” for them regardless.
As we have seen from Obama’s solely politically prioritized first shot out of the box as to what healthcare is, “free birth control” [say what?], which proceedes directly as an appeal into the realms of lower thinking, under Obamacare every disease and treatment immediately becomes fully politicized. As well as the very idea of what a “disease” is, what “health” is, and what “care” is.
For example forget mere School lunches, etc.. For the purposes of “healthcare” doesn’t everyone deserve “free” access to whatever the Gov’t decides is a “healthy diet”? Or perhaps the provision of Universal access to Thoughtcare in order to minimize “discord” = free rational debate by individuals?
Then also under the whim of Obamacare’s Gov’t “healthcare” control there’s still always the somewhat, er, “nuanced” problem for the Gov’t to consider, involving whether you in particular are even worth treating – a metric considered also in relation to Obamacare’s overall “cost control” model of healthcare which is designed to supplant the previous ideal instead directing healthcare professionals to provide “the highest quality of healthcare to everyone”.
Does anyone not susceptible to being bought off for mere beads really want to abandon that ideal in favor of Gov’t mandates involving and controlling anything possible, and does anyone anywhere truly desire “cost control” Death Panels as well – because that’s what they are – given that the “cost control” can be applied to them?
Hey “Nora who claims to be a conservative” Tell me something you have a conservative opinion about. ANYTHING?
Well, to keep it topical, I’m vehemently opposed to this particular mandate, and I’m generally opposed to Obamacare. I’m pro-life, I’m pro-religious freedom. I actually personally believe contraception is immmoral, although that’s not necessarily a politically conservative position. I’m avidly pro-small government, and I’m for a flat tax. What else would you like to know?’
However, I think RL’s response to Sandra Fluke’s testimony was appalling and damaged our side of the debate greatly. Apparently that means I have to turn in my “conservative” card to some very small-minded, nasty people who revel in that sort of rhetoric. Oh well. I can afford another four more years of Obama, and I have plenty of nice places to go to wait them out. Let’s see…there’s Kauai, and Kiawah Island and Southampton and the Cape. Not to mention some nice condos in NY and SF.
Makes no nevermind to me, darlin’. If you insist that I am no longer allowed to vote for a Republican/conservative candidate, fine. My polling place isn’t in the greatest neighborhood. I’m happy to stay home. Or on the beach. Or just go shop or have lunch out with friends, or whatever.
Come on, Nora. This is an anonymous board and not worth being offended or taking it personal.
I for one am not questioning your Conservative bona fides. If you have kids, or grand kids, or even a love of country, you don’t want to sit this one out. And I think you know that.
I cede your point about Rush Limbaugh and said as much above. Rush was lazy more than he was offensive. Worse, he allowed the real issue to be kidnapped, allowing these pigs from the Left to frame the issue as anything but the jackbooted fascism on display from Dear Leader and his minions. Fluke is a product to be consumed to the Left.
Still the content of post is accurate, even if you didn’t like the descriptor of Sandra Fluke. Fluke is a trouble making fruitcake, being used by the Obama Admin and deserves to be mocked unmercifully. I hope Fluke does insert herself into this national dialogue, because offhand, I can not think of a better caricature of so called liberated woman found on the Left.
I will brutalize this woman for her abject stupidity, misandry, phoniness, zealotry, amorality, and sense of entitlement. This harpy has now put herself front and center of the national debate.
However, I will attempt to refrain from making sexual oriented innuendo to describe the woman, if for no other reasons I’ve got a wife and two daughters that wouldn’t approve of me posting the word “slut” either.
Fair enough?
Fine, but how many independents and moderates do you think this kind of garbage turns off?
When educated, intelligent people who are not extremists of any kind hear and read the rhetoric used here, on conservative talk radio shows, at other right wing forums and blogs, do you seriously think they want to align themselves with that kind of trash?
Do you think a person who has options is going to choose to be one of those people?
The truth is, my life doesn’t change one bit no matter who gets elected in November. Personally, if I’m going to be all about me, I don’t give a damn.
Why should I care about a bunch of animals who have shown that they have no honor, no breeding, no decency and who spit in the face of God with their behavior?
The Republicans began this election season under the assumption it would be a slam-dunk for them. Now, not so much. And this situation is just another reason why.
We have embarrassing candidates, we have embarrassing pundits like Rl, and now the world sees that the constituency is made up primarily of a bunch of embarrassing yahoos.
Who’d want to join that crew? Who’d want to put that bunch in the White House?
Maybe it’s time to shut down the Rush Limbaughs and Sean Hannitys. Unfortunately, I think George Will is right. They’ve monopolized the dialogue and everyone is afraid of them, big bullies that they are.
Unfortunately, I think it’s too late. Too many people are just quietly deciding to walk away and let the chips fall where they may.
You’re a troll and you were going to vote for Obama anyway, so if we encouraged you to stay home, that’s a good thing.
“Let’s focus on putting people to work, lowering taxes, and a strong military.”
Well, we’re going to have a bit of a problem, because I don’t want what you want, except lower taxes. So, I don’t think we’re going to focus too well.
I don’t want government to put people to work. That’s not their job. And, i don’t want a strong military, unless there’s no other option. So, two of your goals aren’t goals I care to focus on.
I think Limbaugh throws words like slut and femanazi around and has never considered the possible repercussions. He thinks it’s cute. His tribe will always think he’s wonderful even as others just switch stations or turn him off. This story should have died out after day 1.
I don’t know but I would think such pills, given for medical problems, whould be differentiated somehow. Birth control and Viagra use are very sticky issues.
I can think of many who should be issued birth control and many men who should be Bobbited. I am old but I can remember a summer job typing ‘rejection letters’ from a health insurance company for families of unwed mothers who tried to claim the infany’s infant’s delivery cost through their insurance.
Times have really changed.
you know some men who need to be bobbited?
maybe you also know some women who need to be $%#$^ed?
thanks for pointing out the double standard stench that permeates.
odd how i would have probably gotten banned from any discussion for saying somthing similar about women. and it just flows through the conversation on a conservative blog w/o so much as a mention. and you think you aren’t feminized?
oops, sorry. i know we’re not suposed to talk about this elephant.
I bet i can maı̸̸̸̸̸̸̸̸̸̸̸̸̸̸̸̸̸̸̨̨̨̨̨̨ke you wipe your screen
“The conservative movement’s war on women…”
Hey, it’s not a war on women per se, just a war on sluts for socialism, like Ms. Fluke…or Barack Obama. And, he ain’t even a woman. Well, sort of, but not really.
Two rather minor quibbles with the young lady’s presentation:
1. If she’s straight. I’m a Shetland Pony.
2. Just how much contraception does someone need who makes Maddow look like an SI swimsuit model?
I’m a woman and a feminist. It is appalling to me that a 30 year old
Georgetown law student claims to be unable to come up with the funds to pay for her own recreational activity. I don’t care how much sex Fluke has per day. That’s her business. However, it is not my business to pay for it. Her claims are offensive to me as a woman. We should take responsibility for our own bodies and our own lives. Grown women pretending to be little girls is vile. We are not helpless and should not pretend to be so.
Sluts should be using condoms not pills. The only “disease” the pill prevents is pregnancy (and ovarian cysts, in the case of medical conditions Catholic teaching does not restrict use of the pill). The only method that should be considered preventative is condoms, they are the only method that prevents diseases. Sorry sluts, pregnancy is not a disease.
What’s the Church’s teaching on using unchaste language? On calling women sluts? Wanna run that one by us…?
I think the word you are looking for is “uncharitable” rather than “un-chaste”.
This would perhaps be a sin against charity.
The CCC defines the following:
II. The Definition of Sin
1849 Sin is an offense against reason, truth, and right conscience; it is failure in genuine love for God and neighbor caused by a perverse attachment to certain goods. It wounds the nature of man and injures human solidarity. It has been defined as “an utterance, a deed, or a desire contrary to the eternal law.”121
1850 Sin is an offense against God: “Against you, you alone, have I sinned, and done that which is evil in your sight.”122 Sin sets itself against God’s love for us and turns our hearts away from it. Like the first sin, it is disobedience, a revolt against God through the will to become “like gods,”123 knowing and determining good and evil. Sin is thus “love of oneself even to contempt of God.”124 In this proud self-exaltation, sin is diametrically opposed to the obedience of Jesus, which achieves our salvation.125
In charity, this likely a venial sin.
1857 For a sin to be mortal, three conditions must together be met: “Mortal sin is sin whose object is grave matter and which is also committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent.”131
1858 Grave matter is specified by the Ten Commandments, corresponding to the answer of Jesus to the rich young man: “Do not kill, Do not commit adultery, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Do not defraud, Honor your father and your mother.”132 The gravity of sins is more or less great: murder is graver than theft. One must also take into account who is wronged: violence against parents is in itself graver than violence against a stranger.
1859 Mortal sin requires full knowledge and complete consent. It presupposes knowledge of the sinful character of the act, of its opposition to God’s law. It also implies a consent sufficiently deliberate to be a personal choice. Feigned ignorance and hardness of heart133 do not diminish, but rather increase, the voluntary character of a sin.
Hope this helps you better understand the RC Faith.
I understand it fine. I’m sure many others here do, too. My question was for ella8, however, since it was her comment.
I actually meant “unchaste”, since the nature of ella’s slur is sexually salacious, although it is equally uncharitable.
I just find it highly amusing when the self-proclaimed Catholics toss out Catholic teaching while defying it in the same breath.
Okay. But, we (you me and ella) are all fallen creatures. We all sin. We all forget who made us and why. We need charity and forgiveness.
“You may be the only Jesus your neighbor will ever see.” – Mother Angelica
Nora, do you tee hee when Bill Maher calls Sarah Palin a c@#t or when Obama calls conservative women scrotum suckers (teabaggers)? Cut the sh#t, you know there are double standards.
No, ella, I don’t. I think it’s ALL wrong. It’s called having integrity, something you’re clearly not familiar with.
You, however, have proven yourself a foul-mouthed hypocrite. Lovely.
Don’t take Nora’s personal attacks personally. She is a progressive troll out to mess with PJ Media commenters. That’s the Alinsky way.
Still stalking me, you creep? Still claiming it’s okay to rape women because you disagree with a business decision their father made and because they spend more money on BC than you approve of? You’re going to follow me around everywhere because you’ve become bizarrely obsessed with me because I disagree with you — oh, and you approve of raping women you disagree with — you’re one sick animal, dude.
Yes, dear. And you’re an animal who approves of raping the daughters of men who’ve made business decisions you disagree with.
You can call me a progressive troll from now ’til the cows come home, but that doesn’t make it so.
You can stalk me up, down and under, and that, combined with your taste for rape, just makes you a sick pervert.
You’ve become truly bizarre in your defense of the rape comment. Hmmmm. Maybe someone should look into YOUR background.
Church teaching is definately against calling women sluts. Catholics are some of the nicest people I know. I am definately not worthy. But speaking strictly from a public health perspective, sluts definately should use condoms.
I am most definately a sinner. I do have great respect for the Church. I would never demand that the Church bend it’s rules just so I could feel good about myself. You are right I deserve to be called a sinner.
I even admit that I have been a slut. What a terribly unsatisfying way of life that was. Thank God I am in a stable marriage now. Not to mention the sex is so much more satisfying with a man who cherishes my heart. I so don’t deserve this life, but I am thankful for it.
Yes, but Catholic teaching is that the use of condoms is a grave sin. Also, continually referring to women as sluts — even after you’ve agreed its sinful — ramps your sin up a whole bunch (you might want to check out the teaching on venial and mortal sins, and how continually choosing venial sins in spite of the fact you know they’re sins puts you in danger of committing mortal sin).
So you’re more concerned with giggling and snickering over getting to say “slut” on teh interwebs than you are about your own soul?
Sad.
Actually, I believe Catholic teaching approves of condom use for prevention of disease (not to prevent pregnancy) and only secondary to abstinence.
Wow. just scanned thru these comments.
First off… 3 little words.
Chastity within Marriage.
Second… 3 more little words.
Natural Family Planning.
“Natural Family Planning Method As Effective As Contraceptive Pill, New Research Finds”
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/02/070221065200.htm
In an earlier post about organizing a boycott against Limbaugh, Pastor of Muppets said “boycotts are the free market at work.” This is a wonderful example of left wing political gamesmanship I commented on earlier.
1. Liberals don’t even favor free markets and have serious doubts about capitalism. Therefore, citing “free markets” as justification for boycotts is cynical gamesmanship, not a principled argument. It is like Obama using a Constitutional originalist argument against the Defense of Marriage Act (at the Saddleback debate) or his selective quoting of the Bible to support higher taxes. Say whatever it takes to win the argument – you don’t really have to believe it.
2. It is also a lie. Free markets are a system of mutually beneficial voluntary exchanges. “Mutually beneficial” refers to the economic benefit to the parties to the exchange and “voluntary” means the exchange is not forced or coerced. Organizing a boycott is coercive and it has nothing to do with mutual economic benefit. So, a boycott is not the free market at work.
3. What a boycott is, in fact, is using the markets for ideological purposes. It’s not that different from throwing someone off a roof and saying “that’s gravity at work”, or murdering someone and saying “that’s free will at work.”
4. And here’s the blatant, cynical hypocrisy of it. If someone boycotted a business because of the owner’s gender, race, sexual orientation, or (maybe) religion our liberal friends would have a hissy fit. But boycott someone to suppress free speech, now that’s downright righteous.
So, Pastor or Muppets, that dog don’t hunt.
Nora,
As a rule, when a guy wants to “get some” and he doesn’t go about it in a “gentlemanly manner” as you mentioned earlier, he’s not going to get any.
You may be appalled at rush’s language but you certainly can’t be surprised, I’m guessing that Rush already knew she was a shill and just didn’t think it all the way through.
As far as fluke having so much sex, I don’t think that’s true. I doubt she even gets hit on very often.
And, Fluke can probably get everything she needs from the planned parenthood folks.
This whole thing is unfair. Sandra Flukes’ male coital partners (she obviously has no “boyfriends”) should get a word in. It costs a lot of money to take a woman out. And what do you get? You have to look at a woman on TV who cost you a bundle, telling Congress how expensive it was for her. So she had to buy a lousy birth control pill. Big deal. Congress should have some kind of equal opportunity session to get the input of Flukes’ dates, real or imaginary.
Alright, can we please stop the “she must be having tons of sex to spend $1000 a year” argument?
There are many different types of contraceptives. Even just considering the pill, there’s estrogen/progesterone combination pills, progesterone only pills, not to mention mono-phasic, bi-phasic, and tri-phasic pills. Not everyone woman can take the $9 generic pill available at Target. Some women have great difficulty finding a pill that works for them. I would also guess that different types of pills work better for different medical conditions.
Let’s take an example: I take Lo/Ovral-28 continuously. That’s about 16 pill packs a year. On drugstore.com, Lo/Ovral-28 sells for $59. That’s about $950.
Therefore, her cost, while maybe higher than average, is certainly not unfeasible.
I really am disappointed that there has been no mention of the behavioral problem inherent in the spread of easy sex. As humans we are programmed to trust individuals we allow into our personal space. They are ‘family’ and are supposed to be trusted. If this trust is ‘betrayed’ then it is harder for the person thus ‘betrayed’ to trust again. What does this do to future relationships for that individual. Will it be harder to forgive transgressions by those you are supposed to trust. I believe what is worse for women in this situation, though it affects men to an extent as well, is that women are still considered the primary care giver for children and the lack of trust makes more likely that the women will forgo maintaining a relationship with a man they cannot trust because they have ‘learned’ no man is trustworthy.
Mr. Testa, your post resonates deeply with me!
“…the lack of trust makes more likely that the women will forgo maintaining a relationship with a man they cannot trust because they have ‘learned’ no man is trustworthy.”—And they will also raise children who are unwilling to accept the risk loving entails!
Having grown up in a home that was motherless two times due to acts of God (biological and then first step-mother dying), I’ve thought a lot about all of “this.”
Since this is a nearly unbearable set of circumstances when it occurs through no fault of one’s own, I have always had a complete inability to understand how anyone in his right mind would ever create such a scenario intentionally.
For me, the eye of the storm at the center of this slow-moving societal cataclysm is that we have created legions of young (and not so young) people adrift in a sea of lovelessness, and it is that which we are seeing on florid display all about us.
From the profoundly disturbing, apparently pervasive cultural assumption that the casual delivery of heartlessly cruel remarks is an infallible sign of superior sophistication and savoir faire, and therefore deserves to be emulated and generously recompensed, all the way to the most gruesome and revoltingly sadistic, inhuman crimes, which are not only endlessly replayed in the news media to general indifference if not titillation, but are then reprised cinematically for even greater financial rewards in an ever-descending spiral of depravity, what I see is a whole new subset of humans beings (or perhaps some would argue an atavistic return to the sub-human stock from whence we came) for whom love is no longer the pearl of great price.
We learn how to love by being loved, and by watching those we look up to, showing love to their loved ones in words and actions. The combination of not only not knowing what dependably steady, unconditional love feels like as its recipient, but also of not seeing it modeled so that we know how to do it when life—that ever profligate giver–offers us the chance to do so is, I think, at the heart of this great human tragedy being played out seemingly everywhere we care to cast our gaze. That we have brought this on ourselves is perhaps the greatest tragedy of all.
Some eastern religions hold that hedonism is the fastest ticket to spirituality/love on this plane. And they may well be right and we just happen to be stuck with a whole bunch of people who are genetically incapable of one-trial learning. I think it was Emerson who wrote that the longest ebb is the turn of the tide?
One is reminded of some lines from Alan Paton’s, “Cry, the Beloved Country:”
“Cry, the beloved country, for the unborn child that is the inheritor of our fear. Let him not love the earth too deeply. Let him not laugh too gladly when the water runs through his fingers, nor stand too silent when the setting sun makes red the veld with fire. Let him not be too moved when the birds of his land are singing, nor give too much of his heart to a mountain or a valley. For fear will rob him of all if he gives too much.”
Why is everyone hating on Viagra? It’s a nitrous oxide booster. The erection is just an outward sign that the arteries are working. The guy who needs Viagra for the bedroom also probably needs heart medication. Maybe not a lot, maybe just sometimes. But- asthmatics need inhalers, too.
It works on heart issues. I was a tech doing a study on a viagra-class chemical. It involved people- not just men- being hooked up to cardiac monitors for days on end- 12 lead cardiograms- the most complicated ones- to see how it altered their heart functions, their oxygen rates, their heart-beats. It’s a good medicine.
We make jokes now, b/c guys use it as a performance enhancer. That’s one side-effect. The other side effect is that their heart works better, their arteries work better, they aren’t as likely to stroke out. There are kids taking viagra for congestive heart failure, or heart disease. Women, too. It’s a good drug.
And- statistically, verifiably- men are not hound-dogging every woman that comes along. Kinsey, to get his numbers, had to interview prison populations, and pimps, and known sexual deviants. Regular, every day men have been painted with a criminal’s paintbrush. That is so Not Cool. Most men are honorable and decent human beings. They deserve respect.
And, goodness, someone pretending to be wonderful and calling all catholics stupid might….want…..to….rethink…..their religious bigotry. I’m not even Catholic and I know that’s one of the stupidest statements of all time.
Well, I don’t agree with Ms. Fluke’s premise but fact of the matter is Rush was behaving in a bullying way. I’ll go as far as to say that ANY man who calls women by such invectives and defamatory names is no real man at all. A true gentleman treats ALL women like ladies whether or not they “deserve” to be treated that way. It’s called unconditional love and that is indeed the Christian way…not this mangled mess that passes for Christianity in the USA in 1912 which is really nothing more than a hodgepodge of political extremism.
Consider this: Jesus Christ didn’t name call the woman caught in adultery. In fact, he called out the Pharisees for doing so. Said he without a fault cast the first stone. Know what he said to the woman herself? Go and sin no more. I consider Jesus a far better example than Rush, don’t you?.
Who in their right mind would think Rush Limbaugh is a spokesman for Christianity. That is about as crazy as thinking the upcoming TV show Good Christian Bitches represents Christianity. Rush is not a spokesperson for the Catholic Church. The Church already has a system in place. The Pope has the ultimate say with the Bishops next in line. What kind of idiot would believe that Rush speaks for the Church? Lots of people have opinions and lots of people say vile things (coming from many angles but often from the left). If you want to know where the Church stands on an issue look to the Pope and Bishops not random people. You probably believe the Wesboro Baptist Church is the norm amongst Baptists. Chances are they are probably leftist actors/agitators.
Will you stand up to Obama, Schumer, and the countless journalists who have called conservative women scrotum suckers (teabaggers). I am not going to hold my breath. Many of the same people (many of them women) who have been throwing around the teabagger term are the same one’s outraged at Rush’s comments. Probably as I type there is a group of wrinkling old faculty lounge feminists tee heeing as they degrade conservative women. This is just a bunch of political bull. If a woman does not march in lockstep with the feminazis, they will smear her worse than anything Rush Limbaugh has ever said. Apostates of the sisterhood are not treated very kindly.
ella, you’re so charming…
One can be appalled by Maher’s rhetoric AND Limbaugh’s rhetoric.
Why are you convinced that anyone who is appalled by Limbaugh’s rhetoric gave Maher a pass on his?
You keep screaming this at people (in vile terms, no less), and expect people to take you seriously.
Right now, your argument is that since they did it, you get to do it. How old are you? 5?
Nora, Do you put this much effort into criticizing leftist pigs? I did not set the precedent for civility, Obama did. Until he apologizes for calling conservative women scrotum suckers I am going to say whatever the f#@k I want. I never said I was a good person. Heck if we are going to live under the dictatorship of moral relativism, why not just have a free for all.
Just admit it Nora, you hate WOMEN who do not march in lockstep with your ideology. You know that behind the scenes you and your crusty old shriveled up faculty lounge compadres are tee heeing and sending around hate mail about that c#@t Sarah Palin and those Neanderthal scrotum suckers in fly over country.
ella, your language speaks for itself.
What is your intent here? What do you hope to gain? All you’re doing is alienating your own cause.
Am I supposed to be shocked by the dirty language? Oh, my poor dear. I raised five kids to adulthood and have four grandchildren. That sort of thing only makes me roll my eyes and think less of you. Sorry to disappoint.
Well Nora, that is the language of Obama the great, Chuckie Schumer, Anderson trusted source Cooper, and many other leftist scum CNN is a trusted source for school children, are they allowed to talk about the teabaggers (scrotum suckers) too?Why don’t you turn your attention to the left. I am just one insignificant person, why are you so obsessed with what I have to say. Why don’t you tell Obama and Schumer to apologize for calling conservative women scrotum suckers?
How do you know that I have not also expressed my disgust at the vile rhetoric others have used? I have, actually. I even expressed my outrage at the language used about Sarah Palin and her family, and I’m no Palin supporter.
But, tell me, how does the fact that they have used vile rhetoric excuse your filthy mouth?
What kind of female uses the language you use? Is this who you want to present to the world — a woman who is just a little too familiar with vile words and vile sexual practices? Is that who you are? You want nothing better for yourself or for others, so you stoop to that level?
What does that accomplish? Nothing.
You’ve become the thing you say you hate. Sad, that.
Just don’t blame conservatives for my bad behavior. I am a product of the left. Public schools, secular lukewarm values, rarely went to church. No moral compass. I am a mess. I admit it. I pray my children do not make the mistakes I did. The kids that I grew up with that did turn out good and healthy are the ones with a moral upbringing. Those whose parents brought them to church every Sunday and taught them a sense of right and wrong. They are the nice ones. I have never met real Christians who were mean. It is those of us without the moral compass that end up screwed up. Thank your parents if they cared enough to bring you to Church and monitor what you were learning in school. Why do all the Catholic school girls end up fighting for Planned Parenthood. They should be thanking their parents for trying to protect them.
I blame you for your bad behavior. It’s called P-E-R-S-O-N-A-L R-E-S-P-O-N-S-I-B-L-I-T-Y.
Good. Then go worry about someone else. The only reason I am explaining myself to you is because you hold conservatives to a higher standard. All I did was call women who call themselves sluts the same thing. Why don’t you focus on those who are talking about hate f#@%ing Sarah Palin. This bothers me on a much deeper level than the word slut or some naughty words. You are a hypocrite, that is your problem.
Nora the school marm, I think we may have come full circle. In a way you have made the case for the article. You are shaming me for using some naughty words…tsk tsk as she slaps my naughty knuckles with the ruler. So then explain to me how that is any different than shaming promiscuity?
Well, I don’t agree with Ms. Fluke’s premise but fact of the matter is Rush was behaving in a bullying way. I’ll go as far as to say that ANY man who calls women by such invectives and defamatory names is no real man at all. A true gentleman treats ALL women like ladies whether or not they “deserve” to be treated that way. It’s called unconditional love and that is indeed the Christian way…not this mangled mess that passes for Christianity in the USA in 2012 which is really nothing more than a hodgepodge of political extremism.
Consider this: Jesus Christ didn’t name call the woman caught in adultery. In fact, he called out the Pharisees for doing so. Said he without a fault cast the first stone. Know what he said to the woman herself? Go and sin no more. I consider Jesus a far better example than Rush, don’t you?.
What many of you are doing to each other, and to yourselves thereby, is wicked. So many posts are nasty, vile not just in word but in tone and content and mindless accusation, in awful “go you one better than that!” responses.
It contributes nothing to discourse and a better or even decent world. Never mind who started it, stop before you post and read aloud what you are about to say. Many of you should be ashamed of yourselves, to use a word out of vogue.
From the Book of James, Chapter 3 – but applicable, even for the non-Christian:
5 Even so the tongue is a little member and boasts great things. See how great a forest a little fire kindles!
6 And the tongue is a fire, a world of iniquity. The tongue is so set among our members that it defiles the whole body, and sets on fire the course of nature; and it is set on fire by hell.
7 For every kind of beast and bird, of reptile and creature of the sea, is tamed and has been tamed by mankind.
8 But no man can tame the tongue. It is an unruly evil, full of deadly poison.
9 With it we bless our God and Father, and with it we curse men, who have been made in the similitude of God.
10 Out of the same mouth proceed blessing and cursing. My brethren, these things ought not to be so.
11 Does a spring send forth fresh water and bitter from the same opening?
12 Can a fig tree, my brethren, bear olives, or a grapevine bear figs? Thus no spring yields both salt water and fresh.
I’m sick of feminism and I’m sick of feminists saying that “social issues don’t matter”. It does. You just say it doesn’t matter because big city social liberalism is A-okay but cultural conservatives are all a bunch of crazies ain’t it? Sandra Fluke please pay for your own contraception, your own abortions and your own lube. You’re a strong, grown independent woman and you should be having casual sex all the time you want without the consequences right? She’s a perfect example why our higher education system is BANKRUPT. If a a creature like her is the “best of the best” then I shudder for America. I’m skipping college. Thank you for your testimony Fluke. It has convinced me how bad higher education is. See ya.
Sandra Fluke does pay for her own contraception.
Those of us who don’t consider ourselves objects for men to use as they will think social issues are important, but we ALSO think the degradation of women is wrong. It’s not an either/or. It’s a both/and.
Our higher education system is not bankrupt (yet…). Many people who’ve gone on to university and to obtain post-graduate degrees share your values. There are still institutions of higher education that impart those same values, as well.
It’s certainly your choice whether or not to pursue higher education. But to slam education in general because of the agenda ONE person exhibited is foolish — and so ignorant I suspect your decision to eschew a university degree has less to do with choice than it does with nature.
Right now, in THIS election, harping on social issues isn’t going to help, big picture-wise. The reaction of the right to Fluke hurts us. People are not interested in dredging up the old fights re marriage and abortion, et al., right now. They’re sharply focused on economic issues, and the candidate who speaks to them on those issues and in the ways those issues affect them particularly, is going to win.
The Fluke nonsense has pretty much ended Santorum’s hopes of becoming the nominee (and that’s probably the one good thing that has come of all of this). Independents and moderates aren’t going to back Santorum, especially now that RL reframed the Fluke issue as a social issue rather than a constitutional one.
If it makes you feel better about your lot in life to make nasty comments about “feminists” (a meaningless term, if there ever was one, since feminism doesn’t mean anything anymore), or to remain uneducated and live off the earnings a GED or high school diploma gets you, fine.
Just don’t whine and cry when Obama gets another four years. Because that’s what focusing on social issues is going to get you.
Are you done?
Good. Go make me a sandwich.
Haha…someone’s bitter…
…and a clinger.
Thanks for the sanwich toots.
Oooh, you’re such a victim…poor, sad little man, all those strong, self-reliant conservative women passing you by…LOL!
Maybe if you’d man up enough to take responsibility for your own life instead of blaming your failure on others, you’d be a happier person. Personal responsibility really is the key, dear, to success. Try it sometime.
Don’t rule it out completely, just be extremely thoughtful about the choices you make. Start at a community college if you do go. Get all of the junk liberal arts requirements out of the way, they are not worth the big money. Combine that with a well thought out career goal, like nursing or take real skill based science or computer courses etc. Don’t go into deep debt for it because it is not worth it and if you eventually have children you may want to be a stay at home mom. If you are buried in debt you will be forced to work and put your kids in daycare.
The stupid is strong around here, isn’t it?
Sandra Fluke was
a) Not talking about condoms
b) Pointed out that contraceptives have a variety of medical uses, not just birth control
and
c) Wasn’t asking for anyone else to pay for her prescriptions, since, as a student at Georgetown, she presumably already pays for the insurance that is provided there.
All she’s asking is that the insurance SHE IS PAYING FOR actually cover HER medical needs, rather than conforming to someone else’s ideological biases.
i will agree that the stupid is strong…as your ‘post’ demonstrates!
a-BC pills, prescribed for medical conditions OTHER than pregnancy prevention, ARE covered
b-if you think that ‘paying the premium’ means ‘paying all the cost’, you really need some serious education-Georgetown (read Catholic Church) pays the BULK of the insurance cost
c-perhaps you haven’t hear, but Ms Fluke is a professional ‘reproductive rights activist’ who chose Georgetown SPECIFICALLY BECAUSE they don’t cover contraception, sterilization, abortions, and sex changes (something she has also demanded them to pay for)
“Sandra Fluke does pay for her own contraception.”
LOL. Yeah, that’s what she’s complaining about. That she, and/or other people in her situation, have to pay to pay for birth control, and they don’t like that. They want government to force someone else to pay.
That’s the whole point of this exercise.
Except that people are reacting as if we, or the people who share her insurance company, are already paying for her BC.
You know, anyone in this country is free to petition any other entity for pretty much anything they want. I could write a letter to pretty much anyone asking them for pretty much anything. And they can say yes or no as they please.
There’s nothing wrong or un-American about Sandra Fluke petitioning her insurance company or even our government to request coverage, or help in obtaining coverage. Right now, as I type this, there are obscenely rich lobbyists petitioning our elected officials for all sorts of crazy-ass stuff. And that’s a good thing.
If the reaction, however, to someone’s petition is personal slander, what do you think that does to free discourse in this country?
And then the defenses of the nastiness start — he did it first, they do it too, blahblahblah — really? You’d accept that from your five year old?
Yes, ideologically, Sandra Fluke’s request is wrong and dangerous, IMO. The proposed mandate, the so-called “compromise” with the Church — all wrong, all dangerous, all very, very, bad for this nation, INCLUDING the left (even though they don’t understand that). But how that got turned into piggy little calculations over how much sex Ms. Fluke is having each day, and with whom, is beyond me. How supposedly intelligent and educated people let a handful of loudmouth schoolyard bullies blow this is a pretty damned sad commentary on the average intelligence of conservatives.
But, hey, for the overwhelming majority of media outlets, radio, TV or internet, it’s about the $$$, and only about the $$$. “Slut!” gets attention, gets listeners, viewers, unique hits. Reasoned, thoughtful analysis, not so much.
So, once again, this nation will get the president it deserves this November. Meh. So what? Time to retire to the beach and just take care of me and my own from now on.
“You know, anyone in this country is free to petition any other entity for pretty much anything they want.”
They’re not asking, they’re telling you what you’re going to do, or else.
They already have the laws in place, unless they’re struck down. You’re either going to pay for her birth control, or you’re going to have your money taken by force.
This ain’t a question of petitioning. Government doesn’t petition. They order people around.
What Fluke wanted was the power to demand a Catholic institution betray their core principles and embrace her shrill leftist amorality. That has been the plan all along as well as hiding Obama’s incompetence. The left, whether Jacobin, Socialist, Communist liberal, anarchist, Weather Underground, Khmer Rouge, Shining Path, Sandinista,etc. has had a full blown hatred of all things religious
and a desire to drive the church from the public square.
It has failed and will fail. All the tin pot jackasses and psychopaths who’ve been leftist icons are dead. Do they still have Lenin’s waxy formeldehyde laced stiff in Red Square in Moscow? It doesn’t matter, he’s tortured in hell with Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot, Voltaire, Robespierre and the rest of the leftist vermin.
“Do they still have Lenin’s waxy formeldehyde laced stiff in Red Square in Moscow? ”
Yes, unfortunately. They also have that crappy writer John Reed buried in the Kremlin wall. “Ten Days the Shook the World” was rubbish that was poorly written.
you know, catholics consider birth control a paraphilia. if you think about it- the pill makes you 1/3 pregnant- about three months along, somewhat swollen, it alters your odor and your sense of smell. Condoms are the tiniest latex paraphilia around- enough to wrap that rascal.
We get creeped out when people mack on fully blooming pregnant women, and we really get freaked out by people in full latex body gear.
So, for some people- it’s a matter degree, and for Catholics- it’s a matter of kind. They think Birth Control is a form of paraphilia- a perversion. Since Ms Fluke also wants abortions and sex changes, she’s aware of the perverse nature of her requests. She’s not lobbying for giant size asthma inhalers, or viagra for occasional heart issues. She’s asking for sexual perversions that offend Catholics particularly.
If she’s granted her desire: will catholic schools be required to supply trench-coats for exhibitionists, fur coats for masochists, cats for people who really like P****? Will they really need to go all out for the Jesus statue butt plug? That’s at that touching nexus of perversion, sexual device, and religion. How xould it not be required under the law?
I’ve written to NOW several times, querying them on their stance on Shariah law. They have not responded. I think they’re afraid and they don’t want to bite the hand of their political masters, the Dems.
Many have suggested that most feminists do not understand the concept of insurance. If you have a non-medical cost recurring each month, then providing for it does not come under the term of insurance. Perhaps, belongs under “pleasure cost”. Who would pay 160K for a lawyer who is so stupid? By the way, everyone knows that the e on the end of Fluke’s name makes the u long. Making it short sounds better, but then she should be a fluke anyway.
Great, thorough review of a non-story that, nevertheless, stirred the hearts of the dumbocrats. Thank you Cassy Fiano. It is refreshing to hear a woman rationally articulate a rational position in the midst of mob behavior over the rights of woman to contraception as it relates to their health?!! I recommend reading this article and have posted where ever I can.
Abortion, birth control, and promiscuous sex are the cornerstones of feminism? What kind of sick rock do you live under?