Sandra Fluke Responds To Rush Limbaugh 'Slut' Comments

[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]

Originally Posted by Leo656

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.

Originally Posted by 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.

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

[Jester]

Originally Posted by Kiwamu The 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?

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]

Originally Posted by ToTheNines

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.

Originally Posted by Type 97 Chi-ha

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.

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]

Originally Posted by Jester

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.