Sandra Fluke Responds To Rush Limbaugh 'Slut' Comments

[Sage Ninja]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/02/sandra-fluke-rush-limbaugh_n_1316304.html?1330709375&icid=maing-grid7%7Chp-desktop%7Cdl2%7Csec1_lnk3%26pLid%3D140233

Sandra Fluke, the Georgetown University law student Rush Limbaugh labeled as a slut and a prostitute for her beliefs about access to birth control, responded on MSNBC's The Ed Show Thursday night.

"Initially, you're stunned, but then very quickly, you're outraged, because this is historically the kind of language that is used to silence women, especially when women stand up and say that these are their reproductive health care needs and this is what they need," Fluke said to Ed Schultz.

Fluke entered the spotlight earlier this month when she attempted to speak before the House Oversight and Government Reform hearing on religious liberty and the birth control rule, and Chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) refused to let her, saying she was unqualified to speak on the issue.

Fluke was invited to speak for the Democrats and was going to be the only woman on the panel. Three Democrats, Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-N.Y.), Rep. Mike Quigley (D-Ill.) and Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-D.C.), walked out of the hearing as a result.

Limbaugh made the argument on his radio show Wednesday that Fluke's desire for birth control was a promotion of casual sex.

"What does it say about the college co-ed Susan Fluke [sic] who goes before a congressional committee and essentially says that she must be paid to have sex -- what does that make her? It makes her a slut, right? It makes her a prostitute," Limbaugh said. "She wants to be paid to have sex. She's having so much sex she can't afford the contraception. She wants you and me and the taxpayers to pay her to have sex."

Rep. Maloney told the Huffington Post after Limbaugh's comments became public that she was aghast.


"If the far right can attack people like Sandra Fluke, women are going to be afraid to speak because they're going to be called terrible words. It's an attempt to silence people that are speaking out for women," Maloney said.

75 House Democrats sent a letter to Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) urging him to condemn the language. Friday Boehner responded in an email saying the remarks were inappropriate, but he stopped short of condemning them.

“The speaker obviously believes the use of those words was inappropriate, as is trying to raise money off the situation,” Boehner spokesman Michael Steel said in an e-mail Friday morning.

Since launching its 'War on Women' campaign last week, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee has raised $1.1 million.

Fluke said on The Ed Show that she wanted to thank all the Congressional members and women across America who have reached out and supported her.

"It really has meant a lot to me. And I think to women across America. But in answer to your question, I don't really see why anyone would not condemn this type of language," Fluke said.

She also said she would return to Capitol Hill again to testify if asked.

"Well, I think what I'm going to be doing from here on out is just continuing to do what I have been, sharing the stories of the women who contact me and really trying to make sure that their voices are being heard."

oh boy. I'm not sure how I feel about the birth control debate, but I will say that I've always found Rush Limbaugh completely obnoxious. What is worse is that any time I ride in the car with my father I have to listen to him for the duration of the drive.

[Barkworm]

I think it is really sad that so many people support the ridiculousness and stupidity that is Rush Limbaugh.

[ToTheNines]

Rush Limbaugh is a disgusting stooge and a hypocrite.

That being said, birth control is a luxury not a right. If your bust ass can't afford condoms, you have bigger things to worry about.

[Falconhood]

"Lil Rush" on Talk Radio (a parody) used the word "slut" 100 times yesterday...hillarious!

[Type 97 Chi-ha]

I think it is really sad that so many people support the ridiculousness and stupidity that is Rush Limbaugh.

Rush is no worse than people like Steven Colbert or Jon Stewart.

[愛]

Oh boy, here we go.

[Jester]

*sits and waits for the keys to come out on this thread.*

And if anything Rush is as bad as Olberman. Colbert and Stewart are comedians, Rush is a pundit.

[joe-eyeball]

Rush is A BIG, FAT, FILIBUSTERING WINDBAG!!! Unfortunately there are many more mouthpieces just like him.

[Jester]

Rush is A BIG, FAT, FILIBUSTERING WINDBAG!!! Unfortunately there are many more mouthpieces just like him.
And on both sides...

[joe-eyeball]

And on both sides...

Precisely why I said there are many more like him. I have no interest in affiliating myself soley with either side.

[Falconhood]

Rush is no worse than people like Steven Colbert or Jon Stewart.
Agreed, or the worst: Bill Maher. That guy is a moron.

[Type 97 Chi-ha]

*sits and waits for the keys to come out on this thread.*

And if anything Rush is as bad as Olberman. Colbert and Stewart are comedians, Rush is a pundit.

Sorry it's impossible to tell if Colbert and Stewart are trying to be humorous or not.

In any case, Rush did issue an apology, so case closed.

[Jester]

Sorry it's impossible to tell if Colbert and Stewart are trying to be humorous or not.

In any case, Rush did issue an apology, so case closed.
Oh, don't get me wrong, Colbert and Stewart have an agenda at times, but they also go after anyone, as long as it's funny.

[Sage Ninja]

In any case, Rush did issue an apology, so case closed.

yes he did:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/03/rush-limbaugh-apologizes-to-sandra-fluke_n_1318718.html?icid=maing-grid7%7Chp-desktop%7Cdl2%7Csec1_lnk3%26pLid%3D140345

After a media and political firestorm, Rush Limbaugh issued an apology on Saturday for calling student Sandra Fluke a "slut" on his radio show this week.

Fluke, a law student at Georgetown University who was advocating for health insurance plans to cover the cost of contraception, became the target of a series of attacks by Limbaugh. Besides calling her a "slut," he also called her a "prostitute," said that he wanted her to make sex tapes and post them online, and speculated that she only had a problem paying for contraception because she was having "so much sex."

Limbaugh's comments caused advertisers to flee from his show, and even prompted President Obama to weigh in. The statements also became an issue in the Republican presidential race.

Limbaugh — who has a long history of making incendiary remarks, and is not known to take them back — issued the rare apology on Saturday afternoon, saying he was "sincerely" sorry about his "insulting" characterization of Fluke. But he maintained that the birth control debate was about "personal sexual recreational activities," not any broader health questions, and compared contraception to sneakers.

Even as he walked back his comment, though, there were signs that Limbaugh is not out of the woods yet. Another advertiser, Carbonite, posted a message on Facebook saying that it was ending its sponsorship of his show.

"No one with daughters the age of Sandra Fluke, and I have two, could possibly abide the insult and abuse heaped upon this courageous and well-intentioned young lady," CEO David Friend wrote. "Mr. Limbaugh, with his highly personal attacks on Miss Fluke, overstepped any reasonable bounds of decency. Even though Mr. Limbaugh has now issued an apology, we have nonetheless decided to withdraw our advertising from his show."

Below, read Limbaugh's apology in full:

"For over 20 years, I have illustrated the absurd with absurdity, three hours a day, five days a week. In this instance, I chose the wrong words in my analogy of the situation. I did not mean a personal attack on Ms. Fluke.

I think it is absolutely absurd that during these very serious political times, we are discussing personal sexual recreational activities before members of Congress. I personally do not agree that American citizens should pay for these social activities. What happened to personal responsibility and accountability? Where do we draw the line? If this is accepted as the norm, what will follow? Will we be debating if taxpayers should pay for new sneakers for all students that are interested in running to keep fit? In my monologue, I posited that it is not our business whatsoever to know what is going on in anyone's bedroom nor do I think it is a topic that should reach a Presidential level.

My choice of words was not the best, and in the attempt to be humorous, I created a national stir. I sincerely apologize to Ms. Fluke for the insulting word choices."


Whether Limbaugh's apology will quell the controversy remains to be seen, but for some, it wasn't enough. The company Carbonite announced that it won't reinstitute ads that it had pulled earlier in the week. And at least one organization wasn't buying Limbaugh's choice of words:

"Rush's apology wasn't actually an apology," said Shaunna Thomas, a co-founder of UltraViolet, an online advocacy organization that does grassroots work on women's issues. "He did little more than continue to expose himself as the anti-woman and offensive media personality that he is. Our campaign to pressure advertisers to drop their sponsorship of his show will continue next week. No radio show that attacks women should be rewarded with advertising dollars. And more than 84,000 of our members who signed a petition in the last day agree."

[Cure]

I guess this situation is a real FLUKE, EH?! lolololololololololz i h8 you guyz

[Barkworm]

Sorry it's impossible to tell if Colbert and Stewart are trying to be humorous or not.
You are such a sad, old person...

[Hannah]

What I think is most terrifying about this is that Rush has no idea how birth control works. You don't buy single pills and pop them before or after you have sex. It's a prescription drug- and he really just does not get that.

I'm so pleased that Obama called this woman. He does a lot of things I don't care for but lately I've been very proud to call him my president.

And seriously? **** anyone who says insurance shouldn't cover birth control. Having control of my body is my right.

[Leo656]

To make an extreme counter-point, though, if a person becomes - solely through their own actions, mind you - an alcoholic, or a drug addict, should taxpayers have to pay for their rehab? *I* had nothing to do with it, and quite frankly don't care if they "get help" or not, and if you asked me up front to pay for it I'd say no, I refuse to physically pay for the consequences of someone else's actions, actions I was not involved in and heavily disapprove of.

It's different, but it's what he meant when he asked "What about personal responsibilty?" Shouldn't people have to, at least some of the time, pay for their own "mistakes"? Even if casual sex can't be considered "a mistake", because I *definitely* don't think it is, some people don't like it, and would have a huge problem if you said to them "I want you to pay for my birth control". So they simply don't want to magically have their taxes pay for it, either. Makes sense if you ask me.

Plus there's the whole line between preventative and curative medicine. When you're asking other people to pay for things you *technically* don't need, or wouldn't need if you had done something differently, things get tricky. Taxpayer-funded cancer treatments, sure, makes sense. Taxpayer-funded liposuction? Absolutely not.

These are all different from the birth control issue BUT they're related in a broad sense. Personally, a lot of people I know and may or may not have known "biblically" have benefited from planned parenthood clinics, etc. So I'm not sure about how I totally feel, but at the same time I totally understand why people would be against it. It does encourage promiscuous behavior... anyone who says otherwise is full of it, the entire point is so you can f*ck around and not have babies, maybe some people do the "one guy/one girl" thing still but I find it's not very realistic for anyone over the age of 15 to believe in monagamy, but that's a whoooole other topic.

I personally don't get why anyone actually pays attention to Rush, Colbert, Stewart, or anybody of their ilk to begin with, because a lot of these things that happen are just to distract everyone from the fact that it's an election year and the economy still sucks. I do agree with Rush 100% though, that all this talk about "social issues" right now is stupid, because none of it matters unless people are going back to work. I hate how people get so worked up over stuff like this; they're working you, it's an act. Whenever there's an election, people talk about emotional issues like contraception and gay marriage, but once you're IN office all that matters is economics. So why even talk about anything else, except to avoid questions about why things ain't fixed yet?

But on the whole, I prefer Bill O'Reilly. Just sayin'. 8)

[Jester]

One thing that I've wondered in this whole debate is, "What about STDs?" The argument is all about potential pregnancy and government paying for prescription birth control pills, but those only stop one possible problem of "unprotected" sex. Is it because if you want to prevent an STD you can buy a condom at the corner store for a quarter, or get them free from a clinic? Don't those things work to avoid pregnancy as well? It's seems like asking to government to use tax dollars to cover prescription codeine cough syrup, when you can buy a bottle of Robitussin over the counter that does the same thing.

[Falconhood]

How many times do I have to tell him "Don't call chicks 'broads'"?

[Katie]

The thing about condoms vs birth control pills.....one you have to have a cooperative male....the other you can do for yourself. I don't know if having the pill as part of an insurance or medicaid type program is right, but I do think the pill is too damn expensive and the fact that it requires a perscription and a full fledged exam by a doctor to get makes it out of reach for some women.

I'm in a long term committed relationship. We aren't ready for kids at all. I take birth control pills because I want to be in control of my own fertility without having to rely on my partner to put on the condom or whatever (not that he's a jerk who wouldn't do it, but you get my point).

My pills are about $45 per month. If I didn't have a lot of disposable income, they would be sacrificed for more important things. It's rediculous that they are so expensive. So, if I'm poor and have an uncooperative partner, should I be forced to get pregnant when I don't want to be just because I cannot afford to be in control of my own fertility? Then people would be whining because they have to support me and my kid on WIC and welfare. Seems like a cheaper pill solves a lot here.

[Type 97 Chi-ha]

The thing about condoms vs birth control pills.....one you have to have a cooperative male....the other you can do for yourself. I don't know if having the pill as part of an insurance or medicaid type program is right, but I do think the pill is too damn expensive and the fact that it requires a perscription and a full fledged exam by a doctor to get makes it out of reach for some women.

I'm in a long term committed relationship. We aren't ready for kids at all. I take birth control pills because I want to be in control of my own fertility without having to rely on my partner to put on the condom or whatever (not that he's a jerk who wouldn't do it, but you get my point).

My pills are about $45 per month. If I didn't have a lot of disposable income, they would be sacrificed for more important things. It's rediculous that they are so expensive. So, if I'm poor and have an uncooperative partner, should I be forced to get pregnant when I don't want to be just because I cannot afford to be in control of my own fertility? Then people would be whining because they have to support me and my kid on WIC and welfare. Seems like a cheaper pill solves a lot here.

It's very cheap to control your own fertility. It's called "not having sex."

[Type 97 Chi-ha]

You are such a sad, old person...

You hate being zinged, don't you? :tlol:

[ToTheNines]

Is it because if you want to prevent an STD you can buy a condom at the corner store for a quarter, or get them free from a clinic? Don't those things work to avoid pregnancy as well?


But then u can't feel the puzzy :oops:

[BubblyShell22]

While I think Rush's comments were out of line to Ms. Fluke, I do think he has a point in some aspects. Yes, birth control is expensive and hard to get for some women, but you have to understand that there are a lot of conservatives out there who don't believe in birth control. Their belief is to wait until marriage to have sex. Honestly, I think that the idea of paid contraception is ridiculous when you can go to a store and get condoms all you want. While I do think birth control should be cheaper, I really doubt the taxpayers are going to allow that, especially the conservatives. That's just the way it is.

As for me, I'm all for birth control and contraceptives, but I can see that this debate is going to be a lost cause because of the conservatives and their beliefs. We have so many other important issues right now such as the economy and lack of jobs, but this is the thing that people are focused on. People make me sick. They really do.

[Katie]

It's very cheap to control your own fertility. It's called "not having sex."

Yeah? Not everyone is a frigid b!tch. Should someone in a marriage or relationship not have sex just because they don't want to procreate? sounds terrible. Bonding with your partner through sex is about more than procreating.

All I'm saying is that a female should be allowed to have sex if she chooses and should not have to rely on a man to be in control of her fertility. I hate when politicians (of any flavor) act like women are terrible for having sex or are immoral or whatever when half of them if not more run around having affairs.

[Barkworm]

You hate being zinged, don't you? :tlol:
I doubt you even know what that means. But I'll give you that, your weird world views are an endless source of hilarity.

[Type 97 Chi-ha]

Yeah? Not everyone is a frigid b!tch. Should someone in a marriage or relationship not have sex just because they don't want to procreate? sounds terrible. Bonding with your partner through sex is about more than procreating.

All I'm saying is that a female should be allowed to have sex if she chooses and should not have to rely on a man to be in control of her fertility. I hate when politicians (of any flavor) act like women are terrible for having sex or are immoral or whatever when half of them if not more run around having affairs.

I do remember seeing on television years ago about an old woman who was a child during the Great Depression who remembered overhearing her parents argue about sex. The wife didn't want to have sex out of fear of having more children and her husband was quite upset about that.

As far as Sandra Fluke is concerned, if she can afford to go to Georgetown University, she can pay for her contraceptives. Unless she is forced to constantly have sex, her behavior is her own responsibility.

[Type 97 Chi-ha]

I doubt you even know what that means. But I'll give you that, your weird world views are an endless source of hilarity.

Yes, I know exactly what it means. It means you're upset that I made a joke about (presumably) your favorite political commentators.

As far as my world views are concerned, they're based on a concept called "reality". FOX News may not tell you what you want to hear, but that doesn't mean they don't tell the truth.

[Barkworm]

Thank you grandpa, you teach me so much. I feel enlightened.

[Type 97 Chi-ha]

Thank you grandpa, you teach me so much. I feel enlightened.

You're welcome, sonny.

[Hannah]

One thing that I've wondered in this whole debate is, "What about STDs?" The argument is all about potential pregnancy and government paying for prescription birth control pills, but those only stop one possible problem of "unprotected" sex. Is it because if you want to prevent an STD you can buy a condom at the corner store for a quarter, or get them free from a clinic? Don't those things work to avoid pregnancy as well? It's seems like asking to government to use tax dollars to cover prescription codeine cough syrup, when you can buy a bottle of Robitussin over the counter that does the same thing.
Lots of people use birth control for even more things besides preventing pregnancy, such as:
-acne
-menstrual cramps
-heavy periods
-PMS
-irregular or total lack of periods due to a number of reasons, particularly those with damaged ovaries from chemotherapy

And even if the pill did NOTHING else but prevent pregnancy, it's still incredibly important that it's covered by insurance. Sex is natural and healthy and important to many people. Condoms don't work for everyone.

While I think Rush's comments were out of line to Ms. Fluke, I do think he has a point in some aspects. Yes, birth control is expensive and hard to get for some women, but you have to understand that there are a lot of conservatives out there who don't believe in birth control. Their belief is to wait until marriage to have sex. Honestly, I think that the idea of paid contraception is ridiculous when you can go to a store and get condoms all you want. While I do think birth control should be cheaper, I really doubt the taxpayers are going to allow that, especially the conservatives. That's just the way it is.

As for me, I'm all for birth control and contraceptives, but I can see that this debate is going to be a lost cause because of the conservatives and their beliefs. We have so many other important issues right now such as the economy and lack of jobs, but this is the thing that people are focused on. People make me sick. They really do.

I don't give a sh*t who believes in waiting until marriage. It's my body, not anyone else's. If you want to wait until marriage to have sex, that's your own business. I don't care. I'm not going to force you to take birth control and have sex. So don't you dare force me to go without it.
And wow, "that's just the way it is!" LOL LET'S NEVER CHALLENGE ANYTHING, EVER. THAT'S JUST THE WAY IT IS, GUYS.

And yeah, people make you sick? You poor poor thing. How dare anyone be concerned with controlling their own body and fertility when there are OTHER PROBLEMS IN THE WORLD? I guess you can only ever be upset about one thing at a time. Poor you.

It's very cheap to control your own fertility. It's called "not having sex."
omg you guys sex is ONLY FOR BABIES and only for privileged heterosexual people GEEZE
http://i43.tinypic.com/jt6z9g.gif

[Type 97 Chi-ha]

Lots of people use birth control for even more things besides preventing pregnancy, such as:
-acne
-menstrual cramps
-heavy periods
-PMS
-irregular or total lack of periods due to a number of reasons, particularly those with damaged ovaries from chemotherapy

And even if the pill did NOTHING else but prevent pregnancy, it's still incredibly important that it's covered by insurance. Sex is natural and healthy and important to many people. Condoms don't work for everyone.



I don't give a sh*t who believes in waiting until marriage. It's my body, not anyone else's. If you want to wait until marriage to have sex, that's your own business. I don't care. I'm not going to force you to take birth control and have sex. So don't you dare force me to go without it.
And wow, "that's just the way it is!" LOL LET'S NEVER CHALLENGE ANYTHING, EVER. THAT'S JUST THE WAY IT IS, GUYS.

And yeah, people make you sick? You poor poor thing. How dare anyone be concerned with controlling their own body and fertility when there are OTHER PROBLEMS IN THE WORLD? I guess you can only ever be upset about one thing at a time. Poor you.


omg you guys sex is ONLY FOR BABIES and only for privileged heterosexual people GEEZE
http://i43.tinypic.com/jt6z9g.gif

You make the point that contraceptive medicine is for medical purposes other than preventing pregnancy as well. But guess what? Sex may be pleasurable, but it's not a right, any more than it is a right to smoke cigarettes and get lung cancer or other health problems. Society doesn't have to pay for your personal irresponsibility.

[Hannah]

You make the point that contraceptive medicine is for medical purposes other than preventing pregnancy as well. But guess what? Sex may be pleasurable, but it's not a right, any more than it is a right to smoke cigarettes and get lung cancer or other health problems. Society doesn't have to pay for your personal irresponsibility.

i'm just gonna leave this here

[Hannah]

But guess what?

[Candy Kappa]

Sometimes I wonder if this Rush person is real, or just some jokers making fun of the US by faking a politician... :ohwell:

Lots of people use birth control for even more things besides preventing pregnancy, such as:
-acne
-menstrual cramps
-heavy periods
-PMS
-irregular or total lack of periods due to a number of reasons, particularly those with damaged ovaries from chemotherapy


beat me to it.

But yeah, birth control pills are, at least here in Norway, recommended to girls and woman that have so severe menstrual pain that they are bed ridden during their period. and the stuff mentioned by Hannah.

And in Norway girls in age 16-19 get birth control pills free as long as they have a prescription

[BubblyShell22]

Hannah, I agree with you. I'm not saying that I believe in sex until marriage. I don't. But there are people out there who do. I'm just being realistic about it. Conservatives aren't going to allow this to happen. You can challenge it all you want, but you're just going to lose when it comes to this issue. People don't want to look at it the way others do. The problem with this country is that people forget that we all have different belief systems. They would rather we all believe in one certain thing and proceed to shove that down our throats.

Plus, there are other ways to have birth control besides the pill such as Mirena and Nuvaring. So, if all else fails, you could always do something like that if you want to. And I know about birth control being for other things. My sister went on it because of her irregular periods. She went off it for a time after her periods became more regular, and I'm not sure if she's still on it or not. But for a lot of people, they see birth control as only one thing and that's what they focus on.

[Type 97 Chi-ha]

Hannah, I agree with you. I'm not saying that I believe in sex until marriage. I don't. But there are people out there who do. I'm just being realistic about it. Conservatives aren't going to allow this to happen. You can challenge it all you want, but you're just going to lose when it comes to this issue. People don't want to look at it the way others do. The problem with this country is that people forget that we all have different belief systems. They would rather we all believe in one certain thing and proceed to shove that down our throats.

Plus, there are other ways to have birth control besides the pill such as Mirena and Nuvaring. So, if all else fails, you could always do something like that if you want to. And I know about birth control being for other things. My sister went on it because of her irregular periods. She went off it for a time after her periods became more regular, and I'm not sure if she's still on it or not. But for a lot of people, they see birth control as only one thing and that's what they focus on.

This is completely beside the point. Rush isn't forcing his views upon anyone; in fact I find that it's the liberals who are often worse about trying to suppress views they don't like. I say that from what I see. He criticizes (legimately IMHO) Fluke and gets shouted down for it. Who's the real "shove it down your throats" types?

In any case, my original point still stands. You have the right to have sex, but you have to take your own responsibility for it. Or to put it in more concrete terms: You have the right to go skiing, but you don't have the right to receive free ski equipment from the government, and you certainly have nobody to blame but yourself if you crash into a tree while going down a hill.

[Navin Johnson]

In any case, my original point still stands. You have the right to have sex, but you have to take your own responsibility for it. Or to put it in more concrete terms: You have the right to go skiing, but you don't have the right to receive free ski equipment from the government, and you certainly have nobody to blame but yourself if you crash into a tree while going down a hill.

This ^^^^^

[Jester]

I think we're forgetting a key component of the argument, and that's that it's primarily Catholic (and other like minded) employers who don't feel that they should compromise their beliefs by offering contraception on their insurance plans. It's not all conservatives. (I personally have no problem with birth control or other contraception. I'd prefer people be responsible with their sex lives than just have sex without thinking of the consequences) The issue here is should Catholics employers be forced to provide something to their employees that goes against their core beliefs.

Conservatives aren't against birth control being covered, we just think that you shouldn't be enforced by breaching the Bill of Rights.

[Sage Ninja]

This is completely beside the point. Rush isn't forcing his views upon anyone; in fact I find that it's the liberals who are often worse about trying to suppress views they don't like. I say that from what I see. He criticizes (legimately IMHO) Fluke and gets shouted down for it. Who's the real "shove it down your throats" types?.

I agree with Rush that people need more self responciablity and I can even say that he made a few good points, however calling Fluke a slut and a prostitute even if it's his opinion, just takes a massive dump on whatever points he was making. Fluke is right when she said that type of language has been used against women when people do not agree with their opinion. It just seemed like Rush didn't like her stance and tried to focus on the sexual aspect of birth control rather medical aspect that Fluke was trying to make just to discredit her. When Fluke made her argument she used an example of a friend with problems with her overies that could have been helped with birth control. I don't think she even said anything about using it for recreational sex. I see both sides of this but Rush's comments were so out of line when it can to calling a slut.

[Jester]

Yeah, I occasionally tune-in to Rush, but I can't defend that.

At best it's a very VERY poorly executed joke...and that's a very VERY hard thing to defend.

[Navin Johnson]

I agree, he went way over the top trying to make a point. Its very frustrating when any
media person stoops to that level. If you can't argue the point civilly, i loose a lot of respect for the reporter, weather they are right or wrong.

[BubblyShell22]

I agree. Rush was way out of line in his comment, and he shouldn't have said it at all. But that's the way he is. He speaks without thinking, which leads to controversy. Maybe if he chose his words more carefully, he wouldn't have a problem.

And, yes, Jester, I agree that it's mainly the Catholics that are against putting birth control in their hospitals. I can understand their stance on it and feel that they shouldn't be forced to do that. I think it should be optional.

[Hannah]

So, if you believe in something on a ~personal~ level, you get to force that on to your employees?

No.

That is not freedom of religion.

That is forcing your religion on others.


Newsflash: NOT EVERYONE BELIEVES IN YOUR GOD. NOT EVERYONE FOLLOWS YOUR RELIGION.

You do not get to deny important medications being covered by your company's health insurance because of your religion. Why is this so hard to understand?

[Hannah]

Also, here's this:

http://ontd-political.livejournal.com/9402703.html


Rush Limbaugh is f*cking scum.

[The Stryker]

Know what would be hilarious? If she actually was a slut.

[Hannah]

I know you think you're being hilarious and edgy, but you're not helping the conversation at all.

What a woman does with her body is her own business. Stop name calling.

[The Stryker]

I know you think you're being hilarious and edgy, but you're not helping the conversation at all.

What a woman does with her body is her own business. Stop name calling.

I'm both of those things! Shut your mouth!

This is all a big circle of arguing. Everything and nothing is being said here and nobody is making any real points outside of their opinion and how they personally view things. It's just escalating and changing. Wasn't this about some crazy dude on the radio? You wanna have sex? Good for you, shut up about it. You don't want to have sex? Awesome, shut up about it. Yelling back and forth about stuff like this accomplishes nothing.


I'm wondering when this'll explode into a straight up atheism vs. religion thing because that's what it ALWAYS becomes.

[Barkworm]

Why does it always have to be "atheism vs. religion"? Why can't it be "sane religious people vs. fundamentalists"? Whenever it's "atheism vs. religion" religious people are always reduced to homophobic, misogynist, sex-hating, young Earth creationist kooks. Being from a religious family I know many Christians who would feel insulted if you put them in that category and I'm sure there are many people here who feel the same way.

[Cure]

Why does it always have to be "atheism vs. religion"? Why can't it be "sane religious people vs. fundamentalists"? Whenever it's "atheism vs. religion" religious people are always reduced to homophobic, misogynist, sex-hating, young Earth creationist kooks. Being from a religious family I know many Christians who would feel insulted if you put them in that category and I'm sure there are many people here who feel the same way.

While I agree, I think you misunderstood Stryker. He just meant that in the past, random topics have degraded into religion vs. atheism on these boards before, with anyone who follows religion being grouped in with the crazies by the atheists. Which be dumb.

Or maybe I'm misunderstanding you? I dunno.

[Jester]

The only thing I have to add is this: If you disagree with your employer's benefit package...get a new job. No one is forcing these people to work for these Catholic run businesses. If my values conflicted with my employer's values... I'd look for a new employer, not force them to take my values.

[Hannah]

http://weknowmemes.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/oh-get-a-job-charlie-day.jpg

[BubblyShell22]

Hannah, the issue is that Catholics don't believe in birth control yet Obama is forcing them to provide birth control to others when it's against their beliefs. So, in part, Obama is forcing them to go against their beliefs and do things his way instead of respecting their beliefs and letting them continue to not provide birth control. Yes, not everyone believes the same way, but Obama is forcing the Catholics to go against their religion, which really isn't a good idea in my opinion. I may not be religious myself, but I feel that forcing beliefs on people is not the way to go, and that's what Obama's doing.

Then again, that's what all politicians do in the end. It's a never ending cycle.

[Candy Kappa]

how bout women that uses the pills for other uses then birth control gets a confirmation from a doctor?

Or is living a normal life during the period a no no?

[Barkworm]

While I agree, I think you misunderstood Stryker. He just meant that in the past, random topics have degraded into religion vs. atheism on these boards before, with anyone who follows religion being grouped in with the crazies by the atheists. Which be dumb.

Or maybe I'm misunderstanding you? I dunno.

Oh, I got what he said, I just wanted to get this out there.

[Leo656]

It is a sticky debate, because ultimately it is about what different groups believe is right, and the truth that I do believe that you can't force people to believe what you do. I might not agree with a lot of what religious and Catholic-run institutions do, but it's ultimately about their beliefs in what is right and what is wrong, and since we ultimately can't prove they're NOT right, we can't very well force them to do things their God doesn't like. That isn't fair. It's not fair for Obama, or anyone really, to force a Catholic hospital to provide contraception if it goes against their beliefs, just like it wasn't fair for a buncha Christians to run around killing anyone who wasn't one and "converting" the rest during the Crusades.

Your argument might be "birth control is necessary for a lot of medical reasons," and you might very well be right. My girlfriend was having to take the pill before she started having sex for a lot of those same reasons other women do. But there are a lot of people in the world, an almost disturbingly high number of them, who do believe that NO medicine or medical procedure is EVER necessary, because whatever happens is God's will. And you or I might think that's the absolute stupidest thing ever... BUT, you can't say for sure, because they just might be right. You have to allow people, and groups, to follow their beliefs, even if that affects people outside that group, because that's one of the main principles this country was founded on.

And no, I'm sorry but you can't work for a company whose values go against yours and then try and force them to give you what you want, things don't work that way. I could join the mob or be a drug dealer and have a pretty swell life, but I don't, because that goes against my values. That's a choice we all make as adults, how much of our own beliefs we have to put aside for the necessities of survival. Forget even the beliefs angle: There are some jobs that don't provide ANY health insurance or health care, let alone birth control; you can't force them to because "It's my right as a woman and a human being," you simply have to work somewhere else at that point. And like it or not, it's entirely fair.

I should be on the other side of this. This is off-topic, but my whole life was screwed up by being born in a Catholic hospital. See, my parents weren't married, because after her first husband abused her it was my mom's belief that people don't need to get married. But I was born at a Catholic hospital that believed even though my biological father, the person who physically gave his seed for me to live, was right there, since he was not married to my mother he was not my "real" father. My "real" father was the guy whose divorce was not yet finalized, whose name my mom still had on her medical coverage, and so HIS name, NOT my father's, was listed on my birth certificate. Because of their beliefs that marriage is sacred, kids born out of wedlock, yadda yadda. Stupid, right? Because of this, I've had a ridiculous amount of problems with my identity, because now both my parents are dead and I can't get it fixed. When I was a kid and they could have fixed it, they didn't bother, and now as an adult I can't drive a car, even get a license, a passport, anything, because all I need is my real father's name on my birth certificate, and they won't change it without going through a ton of crap. There's a lot more to it but this is getting long as it is. It's taken years, but I'm finally close to getting it taken care of once and for all, but it's frankly ridiculous that I've had to deal with this sh*t for 15 years, all because my parents were not married and the hopital believed that was a sin.

And still, part of me thinks that's their prerogative. I really, really don't think you can force people to do things that go against their personal values, religious or otherwise, even if it seems to go against common sense. There's always a way to get what you want in life without making someone else violate their beliefs.

And I agree, if the chick really was a slut and a prostitute, that'd be pretty funny. At that point, would her argument be deemed shallow and Rush be vindicated? I mean, if he called Courtney Love or Lindsay Lohan a "slut" and a "junkie", technically he'd be right, so would he still be wrong just because "it's mean"? Is it still slander if what a person says turns out to be true? Discuss.

[Candy Kappa]

A "slut" is a woman with a man's morales. It's not in Limbaugh's place to call her a slut or a prostitute, sexually active or not.

[Leo656]

Is that really what it means? I never knew that. Like most slang terms people sling it around so often you never really think where it came from. I always just thought a "slut" was a chick who f*cked a lot, go figure.

And I'unno about all that, I think people have a right to be as judgmental as they wanna be. I, for instance, am very judgmental, and I personally think I have the right to call someonne something IF in fact they are that. If I call you a crackhead and you aren't one, then I'm slandering you, but if you really are one I'm just exposing an ugly truth. Especially someone whose primary means of expression is a public forum like a talk radio show, the entire point of its existence is to pass judgment on other people, and if the stuff they say is true you just can't cry about it because you don't like what they say or how they say it. Public speech or expression doesn't always have to be constructive, positive, or nice, but everybody gets to say their piece.

[Candy Kappa]

yes Slut means a chick who f*cks a lot, hence having the morales of a man, since woman can't sleep around without being called negative things while it's often accepted that men can do it. Is there even a negative term for guys who are having casual sex?

Rush can be as judgmental as he want, but calling her or anyone a slur or a prostitute on the radio is uncalled for, using birth control pills tells nothing of a womans sex life, nothing. There is no ugly truth, just accusations.

[Leo656]

But isn't that what guys like Stern do all the time and get away with it? Just sayin', it seems like people get picky about what they get upset by and when, or whom. I think people can say whatever crap they want and I can choose to just not listen. But specifically, I think it *could* matter if what a person says does, in fact, turn out to be true. I'unno, it's a fuzzy area.

And I agree it's a double standard, the male equivalent would probably be "stud", and that's definitely spoken in only the most positive context. Every guy wants to be a stud, while no girl will admit to being a slut. Could be the fact that, for a woman, sex has more potential consequences and so a woman should be more protective of her body. For guys, the worst that can happen is you get a disease, OR you get someone pregnant and frankly, most guys don't care about either. Which is stupid as hell, but I digress. Point being, casual sex from a male perspective has fewer negative consequences. For a girl, you could get a disease, have an unwanted pregnancy, possibly DIE from complications with that pregnancy, and for many girls, the very first time you physically lose a piece of yourself that you can never get back. It just seems a bigger deal all around.

So I think that's why casual sex is often seen as a positive thing for guys and a negative thing for girls. Guys are just plantin' seeds, girls could potentially ruin their lives by having sex with the wrong guy. It's a double-standard, but I see some merit in it. I think men and women in general could be more selective about their choices, quite frankly.

[BubblyShell22]

Well said, Leo on both of this post and the other post on the previous page. I totally agree with you about all of that. I may not believe myself, but I agree that it's in the Bill of Rights that we have freedom of religion which pretty much means we can believe whatever the hell we want. I don't agree with religion and some of their principles either, but I do see that everyone has different beliefs and forcing them to think differently than what they do isn't the right thing. I heard that before Obama even got elected as President, he went to the bishops and told them that he'd never do anything like this to them and that he would respect their beliefs. Well, he's gone and done the opposite, and I think that's horrible.

I'm pretty judgmental myself when it comes to certain things and people's choices. The way I see it, if Sandra Fluke was going to use this for medical reasons, that would be different. But the thing is, she wants the government to pay for birth control just so she can have sex any time she wants. She should've chosen her words more carefully if she didn't really mean that. And as for Rush, he's entitled to his opinions, but I don't think he should've worded it that way on the radio.

[Hannah]

and for many girls, the very first time you physically lose a piece of yourself that you can never get back. .... It's a double-standard, but I see some merit in it. I think men and women in general could be more selective about their choices, quite frankly.
Are you kidding me? Are you genuinely being serious right now? You're a joke. You're not a woman, don't speak for them. You don't PHYSICALLY LOSE A PIECE OF YOURSELF. WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT. Virginity is not a tangible thing. Stop spreading this disgusting bullsh*t. And look, you admit it's a double standard! Oh, but you lost the only accurate part of your insane dribble when you said you AGREE WITH IT.


Well said, Leo on both of this post and the other post on the previous page. I totally agree with you about all of that. I may not believe myself, but I agree that it's in the Bill of Rights that we have freedom of religion which pretty much means we can believe whatever the hell we want. I don't agree with religion and some of their principles either, but I do see that everyone has different beliefs and forcing them to think differently than what they do isn't the right thing. I heard that before Obama even got elected as President, he went to the bishops and told them that he'd never do anything like this to them and that he would respect their beliefs. Well, he's gone and done the opposite, and I think that's horrible.

I'm pretty judgmental myself when it comes to certain things and people's choices. The way I see it, if Sandra Fluke was going to use this for medical reasons, that would be different. But the thing is, she wants the government to pay for birth control just so she can have sex any time she wants. She should've chosen her words more carefully if she didn't really mean that. And as for Rush, he's entitled to his opinions, but I don't think he should've worded it that way on the radio.
I seriously do not understand how you people function during your day to day life. This is not disrespecting anyone's beliefs.
SHE DOES NOT WANT THE GOVERNMENT TO PAY SO SHE HAVE SEX WHENEVER SHE WANTS. THAT'S NOT WHAT THIS IS ABOUT.

To quote Jon Stewart (because everything he's had to say on this issue has been beautiful,) "Two things: 1) This isn't about paying women to have or not have sex. It's about an insurance mandate from the government covering contraceptive medication. And 2) It's not your tax money that pays for it! But to the people who are upset about their hard-earned tax money going to things they don't like: Welcome to the f*cking club! Everyone pays for sh*t they don't want all the time. You know what? Reimburse me for the Iraq war and oil subsidies."

[Hannah]

The fact of the matter is that this all comes down to misogyny. You people are so terrified of women having control over their bodies and dare I say it, having SEX. "She's such a whore! THE GOVERNMENT SHOULDN'T PAY FOR HER TO BE SUCH A SLUT."

Go back to 1950, Jesus Christ.

Also, this: "Can we finally put this to bed now? Can we acknowledge that perhaps preventative care is a good priority for the government to have as part of the whole “promote the general welfare” part of its function? Or, at the very least, can we all act like adults that sometimes have to pay for things that they don’t use or like as the entrance fee to living in a society? Because I for one am sick of explaining all of these facts over and over. It’s the political equivalent of telling people to eat their broccoli. Eat your damn broccoli and read Leviathan." — Sex, Lies, and Limbaugh (http://www.lawsonry.com/2012/1385.html)

[Jester]

yes Slut means a chick who f*cks a lot, hence having the morales of a man, since woman can't sleep around without being called negative things while it's often accepted that men can do it. Is there even a negative term for guys who are having casual sex?
So...because I'm a male I want to have lots of sex? That's almost as bad an assumption as Rush calling this girl a "slut" with out knowing anything about her.

I think slut can be gender neutral. There are "male sluts".

[Master Splinter]

That being said, birth control is a luxury not a right. If your bust ass can't afford condoms, you have bigger things to worry about.

I am sure a rapist takes the time to buy condoms right before he attacks his victims.

In any case, my original point still stands. You have the right to have sex, but you have to take your own responsibility for it. Or to put it in more concrete terms: You have the right to go skiing, but you don't have the right to receive free ski equipment from the government, and you certainly have nobody to blame but yourself if you crash into a tree while going down a hill.

In my personal humble opinion, birth control aka the pill should be free or very affordable and available to any women or teenage girl (with or without parental consent) until we get to a point when men stop raping women.

As a husband and a father, I know there is not much my wife and daughter can do to protect themselves from someone who is hell bent on getting their rocks off, but at least I know that they can be protected from an unwanted and unwarranted pregnancy.

Bottom line, pregnancy by rape is not a gift from god. It is a tortured reminder of a horrible event that could very well cause years of pain, neglect, suffering, and who knows what other psychological damage.

And an even more bottom line, men do not have ANY right to discuss women's contraception. Why? Because we are not women. We can talk about condoms, vasectomies or whatever, but a women's body is not ours and we have NO RIGHT creating laws or even having panel discussions full of men planning to govern how they want to protect themselves.

-ms

[The Stryker]

There be mad double posts in this thread. Also pretentious and condescending soapboxing on both sides. This is that special kind of out of hand that we really don't get here anymore. I love it.

[Sage Ninja]

I can see this is going to go to religion vs. nonreligion to misogyny vs. feminism real soon. :roll:

I agree with Hannah, all Sandra Fluke was saying was that is it could be put on as coverage in heath insurance to cover medical problems. She even gave an example of a classmate (I beleive it was a classmate) that had serious problems with her ovaries that could have been helped with birth control. I do not know the specifics but she never implyed that it could or should be used for promicious behavior. Even though it very well could if the average woman did have access to birth control. However this touchy subject was blown out of poportion, focusing entirly on the sex and not the medical use she was trying to bring up. I'm not saying that the concerns that putting birth control could be used for a bunch of women to have as much sex as they want (although most women over 15 do any way with or with out birth control) for free through the government are out of left feild, but focusing on Fluke's (and really all women's sexuallilty) just comes off too much like a scapegoat. Oh, only sluts and whores would want that! It's very typical, Rush used a tactic as old as time it self to try to discredit Fluke. Calling her sexual morals in to question. As soon as woman's sexual morallity is put in doubt she loses all crediablity. We can all say that it's mysogyny at work and I would agree, but come on...In the 21 centurary can't so called learned people like Rush or any other poltical person argue a with a female with throwing the "slut" or "whore" slurs at her.?

As to the subject at hand, I do not know how I feel. I think it is sucky to make a religious institute go against their beliefs. That just seems like it goes against what America is supposed to be about.

And I agree it's a double standard, the male equivalent would probably be "stud", and that's definitely spoken in only the most positive context. Every guy wants to be a stud, while no girl will admit to being a slut. Could be the fact that, for a woman, sex has more potential consequences and so a woman should be more protective of her body. For guys, the worst that can happen is you get a disease, OR you get someone pregnant and frankly, most guys don't care about either. Which is stupid as hell, but I digress. Point being, casual sex from a male perspective has fewer negative consequences. For a girl, you could get a disease, have an unwanted pregnancy, possibly DIE from complications with that pregnancy, and for many girls, the very first time you physically lose a piece of yourself that you can never get back. It just seems a bigger deal all around.

It is a sucky double standard but I think it is cool that a guy can reconise this and even admit it is unfair. But the whole thing points or reason you made about why it's worse for girls than guys is true but not everything. Like I said above it's about a woman's integrity that call into question as well. Being a slut or a whore is the worse thing historically a woman can be labled. And still is really. Your worth is completly gone if you are labled as that. It not something guys created most of the persecution comes from other women. Figure that one out. :-?

also kudos to Master Splinter! You are very progressive minded.

[Hannah]

So...because I'm a male I want to have lots of sex? That's almost as bad an assumption as Rush calling this girl a "slut" with out knowing anything about her.

I think slut can be gender neutral. There are "male sluts".

So you think that someone assuming you like to have lots of sex is as bad as the constant perpetuation of harmful gender norms and degredation of female sexuality?

BUT WHAT ABOUT THE MENZ YOU GUYS!??

[Dirty Blond]

Why was the Obama thread closed but not this one?

Isn't this a political thread too?

[愛]

Anyway, I've had enough of this. Too political, too feminist, too everything. If you want to continue any conversations about this, please do it through PM.