Brief insights on a hideous man

No woman deserves to be disrespected in this manner. This language is an attack on all women, and has been used throughout history to silence our voices.”

“She was respectful, sincere, and spoke with conviction. She provided a model of civil discourse. … And yet, some of those who disagreed with her position – including Rush Limbaugh and commentators throughout the blogosphere and in various other media channels – responded with behavior that can only be described as misogynistic, vitriolic, and a misrepresentation of the position of our student.”

Behold, the most influential voice in Republican politics.”

“Those Republican politicians who have genuflected to Limbaugh in the past — do any of them have daughters? Wives? Sisters? Mothers?

“It is worth calling this what is is — the normalization of cruelty — and asserting, no matter how redundant, that it is wrong, and evidence of the lowest aspects of humanity.”

“And, truly, it’s weird, creepy, offensive and even creepier than you might imagine. The intense rape mentality that fills Limbaugh’s attacks on a woman … is kind of frightening and pathetic and desperate.”

“Conservatives try to pretend like these blatant anti-woman attitudes are about something other than just seething hatred of women for being female, but this entire contraception debacle has demonstrated that nope, it’s just misogyny.”

You want to damage your Christian witness and convince every fair minded skeptic you’re a fraud? Simple, just profess a liking for Mr. Limbaugh.”

“Let’s just say I’m not going out of my way to buy anything from Pro Flowers, Domino’s Pizza or Auto Zone any time in the near future.”

“So far, Sleep Number, The Sleep Train, Quicken Loans, Legal Zoom and Citrix have pulled ads from the program, and several others are considering following their lead.”

“Screw Rush Limbaugh. Screw Gateway Pundit and the entire conservative blogosphere. Screw all of you who think that Sandra Fluke’s age and gender are remotely legitimate reasons to disregard or diminish her message. And finally, screw the rest of us. Because it’s 2012. And we’re still putting up with this. …”

Stay in touch with the Slacktivist on Facebook:

Postcards from the culture wars (8.24)
Now we get moose and squirrel
Left Behind Classic Fridays, No. 96: 'Humbert Steele'
Sunday favorites
  • Anonymous

    Rush Limbaugh is a horrible asshat: film at 11.

  • Man_of_Size

    Actually, he’s an excellent asshat.  What he’s horrible at is being a human being.

  • http://plantsarethestrangestpeople.blogspot.com/ mr_subjunctive

     It does kinda seem like we knew this already.

  • http://blog.trenchcoatsoft.com Ross

    I think the shocking thing here is not “Rush Limbaugh is a dispicable misogynistic douchemilliner”, but “There actually is a thing so abominable that Rush Limbaugh couldn’t get away with saying it.”

    I mean, I kinda thought that the only thing Rush could say that would make the right actuall speak out against him would be something like “The poor ain’t so bad.”

  • http://mistformsquirrel.deviantart.com/ JJohnson

     The right is speaking out against this?    I hadn’t heard that.  (I have however heard he’s losing advertisers over it.  May he sink like Glenn Beck.)

  • P J Evans

     I understand he’s lost at least six advertisers, including a few that had been advertising on his show since he first started in radio. I suspect their own customers were letting them know about it.

  • Tricksterson

    More then that.  If you listen to the relevant segment or read a transcript of his blathering it’s not just revolting, it’s virually incoherent.  It make me wonder if the drugs he used to take (assuming he’s actually stopped taking them as he claims) caused permanent brain damage.  I will confess, once upon a time, I used to be a semi-fan of his.  I didn’t think he was, as he boasted, “right 97.3 percent of the time”, more like about 66% and even then mostly when it came to economics and foreign policy, rarely if ever on social or moral manners.  Often funny, sometimes mean-spirited.  Never listened to him regularly but about once or twice a week,  Then around the mid Nineties he got…weird.  It was like he came up to the Cliffs of Insanity backed up for a running start and leaped headlong. 

  • Anonymous

    So I’m trying to come up with a way to joke that Rush Limbaugh may possibly be addicted to pornography (“coeds” etc.), but I can’t figure out how to set it up because I keep tripping over how much of a piece of shit he is.

  • http://profiles.google.com/marc.k.mielke Marc Mielke

    Why joke? The truth is that Rush Limbaugh is addicted to oxycontin and was caught bringing illegally obtained viagra into the Dominican Republic, a country notorious for sex tourism — particularly the kind which exploits young boys. 

    When that’s the truth, why speculate about Rush looking at porn?

  • Anonymous

    I kind of thought it was funny that parts of his misogynistic tirade almost sound like a promo blurb for a terrible stag film, and that he may have watched so many blue movies that he’s confused his morning, afternoon, and evening viewing material with his talk show.

    Problem is, it’s really not funny.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=581585394 Nicholas Kapur

    As someone whose first language is withering sarcasm, I sympathize. It’s been pretty rough for us lately, because the sheer repulsive extremism on the US Right has been making it impossible to indulge the reflex to mock through exaggeration.

  • KarenJo12

     Same here.  Contemplating the Republicans this time makes me appreciate the good qualities of fire ants, cockroaches, and rats in comparison. 

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Patrick-McGraw/100001988854074 Patrick McGraw

    Contemplating the Republicans this time makes me appreciate the good
    qualities of fire ants, cockroaches, and rats in comparison.

    Rats have many good qualities that Republicans seem to lack, including intelligence, curiosity, affection, and careful attention to personal grooming.

  • Gocart-mozart

    I blame Poe.

  • Gocart-mozart

    Difficult but not impossible.  Here is some good snark on this subject:  http://www.sadlyno.com/archives/36643.html#comments

  • Gocart-mozart

    Damn reply button lied to me.  I bet its a dittohead.  

  • http://www.facebook.com/jon.maki Jon Maki

    I was having a disccusion with someone on Reddit who made a similar comparison.  In that case it was claiming that it’s like everyone being required to pay for an insurance premium that covers the cost of oil changes, when only people who drive SUVs are able to take advantage of the service.

    It was late at night, and my mind was just too boggled by the failure to understand the differences between health insurance and auto insurance, and how auto insurance works in the first place – to say nothing of the bizarre analogy comparing women to SUVs – so I just gave up.

  • P J Evans

    Oy vey! – it sounds like someone who doesn’t own a car. Or maybe leases it and drives it until it breaks, without taking it in for service.

  • Lori

     

    It was late at night, and my mind was just too boggled by the failure to
    understand the differences between health insurance and auto insurance,
    and how auto insurance works in the first place – to say nothing of the
    bizarre analogy comparing women to SUVs – so I just gave up.  

    I can be really tough to process that kind of illogical garbage when you’re fully awake, forget about when you’re tired.

    In the future you might inquire how the person feels about coverage for men’s health issues, like prostate cancer.

    If you wanted to stick with the (idiotic) car insurance analogy you might ask if they’d prefer to pay for SUV oil changes or to be required to chip in to pay the cost of having SUVs break down as a result of not having the oil changed.

  • http://www.facebook.com/jon.maki Jon Maki

    Yeah, I thought about that line of argument, but it was clear that I was arguing with an Internet Libertarian and I decided it wasn’t worth the effort.
    His overall line of reasoning seemed to be that you should never have to pay for anything that you don’t immediately directly benefit from, and the health insurance requirement that’s part of the Affordable Care Act is a de facto tax because of the fines for not having insurance, and tax is theft and blah blah blah…

  • JohnK

     I wish these guys could stick with one story. If the fines for not having an insurance are a tax, then they have to stop arguing that the individual mandate is unconstitutional… or they have to argue that tax credits, deductions, and exemptions are unconstitutional. If the fines aren’t a tax, then you can’t really accuse Obama of taxing you to death since those provisions are pretty much the only things he’s enacted that can be remotely construed as a tax hike. It has to be one or the other; they can’t pivot back and forth to piece together an argument like that.

    (Well, they can, but they should be called out on it.)

  • Gocart-mozart

    I think it likely that Rush is a big fan of a particular sub-genre of porn (worksafe link is here):
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_exploitation

  • Anonymous

     I’ve actually had some exposure to Nazisploitation via Brad Jones.  Most of it is pretty fucked up, but there are a few hidden gems of unintentional hilarity, like the scene in The Gestapo’s Last Orgy where a woman is being tortured by suspending her upside down over a box full of gerbils.

  • http://lliira.dreamwidth.org/ Lliira

    What’s with all the people acting surprised? Limbaugh’s always been this way. Exactly this way. His tirade was nothing new for him. He has made all his money and gotten all his influence solely by being a misogynistic, racist, homophobic, rape-cheerleading pile of shit. 

  • http://harmfulguy.livejournal.com/ harmfulguy

     I’m already tired of all the people who seem to be under the impression
    that Rush Limbaugh suddenly turned into Rush Limbaugh
    this week. How can anybody who’s paid the slightest bit of attention to
    him over the past few decades not understand that this is what
    he does
    on days ending in “y”?

  • Persephone

     I’m reposting this verbatim with attribution elsewhere. It’s too good to stay just in this thread.

  • http://profiles.google.com/rtssdorsai Jeff C

    just like Ed Shultz …

  • http://lliira.dreamwidth.org/ Lliira

    TRIGGER WARNING for the comments on those articles. I wish I hadn’t read them. They’re terrifying. There are lots of men defending Limbaugh on them. Calling him “funny” and “right”. And talking about how he was right because gas prices are high. 

  • Kiba

    And talking about how he was right because gas prices are high.

    http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v618/ithilion/GIFS/Nathan-Fillion-reaction-gif.gifDid I miss something? Since when did women’s reproductive health affect the price of gas? 

  • P J Evans

    Did I miss something?

    No, these are people whose personal biases take precedence over relevance to story-subject every time. (You can get people ranting about illegal immigrants in comments on a story about corruption in local government; the story never even mentions immigration.)

  • Gocart-mozart

    I read some comments that argued “having health ins. pay for contraception is like having car ins. pay for gas.”  Maybe that’s it but who really knows with those people.

  • Anonymous

    I read some comments that argued “having health ins. pay for contraception is like having car ins. pay for gas.”

    More like the safe driver discount.

  • Man_of_Size

    I would say that those comments make me ashamed to be a man…but actually they make me ashamed to be part of the same species

  • Kirala

    I’m just baffled. About half the women with whom I’ve discussed contraception take it for reasons entirely unrelated to sex. A dear friend of mine was terrified that the “birth control pills” she used to keep from bleeding to death in high school would keep her from ever conceiving as an adult – she would have been off them in a heartbeat if able. A lesbian student of mine certainly doesn’t need birth control to keep from conceiving with her girlfriend, but takes birth control to make biological functions fall into line.

    Come to think of it, not a single person I’ve talked with on the subject takes birth control in order to play around with extramarital sex. Which doesn’t entirely reflect reality and probably does reflect some conversational selection bias, but still.

    How is it that these people can’t get it through their heads that this is how it works?

  • http://lliira.dreamwidth.org/ Lliira

    Getting into why a woman takes birth control pills, and pointing out all the medical issues it’s taken for that are not related to having sex, is playing the misogynists’ game. It suggests that it’s not valid to take birth control pills purely to prevent pregnancy, and that there is something wrong and bad with the women who do that. Birth control pills are always for a medical issue, even when a woman takes them solely to avoid getting pregnant. 

    And there is nothing wrong with “extramarital sex.” By the way, now you know someone who did take birth control pills solely to prevent pregnancy while having sex with men she was not married to: me.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Charity-Brighton/100002974813787 Charity Brighton

    You’re absolutely right, Lliira, but I think the problem that I’ve noticed is that there seem to be a lot of commentators who literally don’t know that the birth control pill has more than one function, yet seem perfectly comfortable talking about how it should be regulated or who should be denied access to it. It’s not so much that they would be right even if the birth control pill has no other purpose than to prevent pregnancy; it’s that they don’t even understand the topic at hand but get to make rules that the rest of the country has to follow.

    It’s kind of like someone whose only understanding of space was the Ptolemaic model being put in charge of NASA.

  • konrad_arflane

    And in the “don’t know what the hell they’re talking about” section, part of Limbaugh’s tirade was this:

    She’s having so much sex she can’t afford the contraception.

    /facepalm

  • Lori

     

    And in the “don’t know what the hell they’re talking about” section, part of Limbaugh’s tirade was this:

     

    She’s having so much sex she can’t afford the contraception. 

    /facepalm  

    This is actually the thing about Rush’s rant that threw me. Limbaugh has always been a hateful misogynist, and so are most of his listeners*, so his comments disgusted me but they didn’t surprise me. The fact that he doesn’t understand how birth control pills work, or he assumes his listeners do not, did give me pause.

    *I don’t care what people say about listening to him because he’s “funny” or they “agree with him part of the time” or whatever other shit they use to excuse supporting this wretched excuse for a human being. I’ve heard his show. No one who doesn’t hold some problematic attitudes toward women, non-whites and poor people could sit through it for any reason other than data collection for a psych or sociology experiment or because they’re being paid. People listening to Rush voluntarily who don’t think of themselves as racist, sexist or classist are suffering from a shortage of self-knowledge.

  • Anonymous

    “The fact that he doesn’t understand how birth control pills work, or he assumes his listeners do not, did give me pause.”

    I think Rush picked this meme up from the hideous Craig Bannister column Amanda Marcotte was mocking the day before Limbaugh started attacking Fluke. (I’m not linking to it- if the piece wasn’t bad enough, the comments take it to another level.)

    Bannister writes, “It costs a female student $3,000 to have protected sex over the course of her three-year stint in law school, according to her calculations,” and then jumps to “At a dollar a condom if she shops at CVS pharmacy’s website, that $3,000 would buy her 3,000 condoms – or, 1,000 a year.”

    I think he’s trying to sarcastically say that oral contraceptives don’t need to be covered because condoms are cheap, but he (purposely?) leaves that unclear and gives Rush the opening to run with this nonsense.

    Rush also picks up the “prostitute” angle from Bannister’s piece. Bannister wrote:

    $3,000 for birth control in three years? That’s a thousand dollars a year of sex – and, she wants us to pay for it. Yes, us. Where do you think the insurance companies forced to cover this cost get the money to pay for these co-eds to have sex? It comes from the health care insurance premiums you and I pay.

    This lie needs to be cleared up publicly as well. First of all these health plans are not provided by the government, and secondly health plans that include contraception coverage are less expensive then ones that don’t. And even if we were talking about taxpayer funded contraception, as Nicholas Kristof points out, “every dollar that the United States government spends on family planning reduces Medicaid expenditures by $3.74.

  • P J Evans

    Some comments I’ve seen say about that one that it sounds like he doesn’t know how contraceptives are used: he thinks of them as being like ED drugs, used for the occasion, with a limited period of effectiveness. (I wonder if his various exes ever tried to educate him on this.)

  • http://blog.trenchcoatsoft.com Ross

    Actually, quite a few of the commentors I’ve read seem to accept this (though many of them do the whole “But that’s a tiny percentage and acceptable losses in our War Against WHORES” thing), but think that if insurers didn’t cover birth control, “obviously” they would cover the Pill when prescribed for non-birth-control reasons.  I’m fairly sure that would only be possible if you did a massive HIPPA violation, but hey, why let those pesky “facts” get in the way.

    (Not coincidentally, there seems to be a big overlap between people who think that and those who would ban abortion in general but make the allowance that a woman could go before a board of old white men and beg them to grant her one if she could sufficiently prove that she “really needed” one, and wasn’t just a SHAMELESS WHORE.  It’s almost as if they believe “Women are not in general people, but we are magnanimous enough to grant them rights anyway on a case-by-case basis so long as they are willing to beg us for them personally”.)

  • Tricksterson

    I really don’t think most of them would care.  It’s really not about women’s health or even about morality to them, it’s about maintaining control.  It took me awhile to come around to this viewpoint (always realized it wasn’t about health to them but I thought that morality, albeit a morality I didn’t agree with, played the dominant part) but now I have.

  • Tonio

     Excellent point about not playing the misogynists’ game. It must be emphasized that there’s nothing immoral about wanting to have sex without wanting to be a mother.

    I’m not quite sure why this is even controversial at all. I can think of several possible reasons:

    a belief in women’s “purpose”existential terror at the thought of their own mothers not wanting childrenprotecting paternal privilege, so that the women don’t have children by other menall of the above?

  • Tonio

     Sorry, apparently Disqus won’t allow bulleted lists:

    1. a belief in women’s
    “purpose”
    2. existential terror at the thought of their
    own mothers not wanting children
    3. protecting
    paternal privilege, so that the women don’t have children by other
    men
    4. all of the above?

  • Worthless Beast

    It could even be argued that women who do take it solely for pregnancy prevention reasons are *mindful* about the possible consequences of sex, as well as brave enough to go to their doctors in a world where people like Rush exist – such women are likely to be *responsible* in mindset and potentially the kind to have long-term relationships rather than be “party girls.”

    And if they are “party girls,” so what? Taking responsibility for your reproductive health is still a mindful thing, and for conservatives, isn’t prevention in this case better than one particular “cure” ? 

    The only “good” argument I’ve seen against women’s contraception is an environmental one (what drug/hormone laden pee does to fish populations), but if that becomes a main argument, lots of drugs are on the hypothetical chopping-block, including antidepressants and probably some of the stuff that Rush takes, too.

  • Anonymous

    It could even be argued that women who do take it solely for pregnancy prevention reasons are *mindful* about the possible consequences of sex, as well as brave enough to go to their doctors in a world where people like Rush exist.

    Exactly. Martha Plimpton (in a piece for Slate Fred linked to the other day) put it well:

    t’s long been accepted as fact that the availability of family planning services saves lives. Where women have access to these services, children and families are healthier, and society at large benefits. So the question becomes, what is it exactly about family planning that upsets so many conservatives?

    Most of the time, when you ask a conservative, their answer doesn’t even attempt to address matters of public health, or economics, or science, or even medicine. Instead, the moral concept of “consequences” gets thrown up. We are expected to believe that using birth control or the decision to have an abortion––for any reason––prevents us from learning the “consequences” of our actions, namely, of having sex. In other words, the argument goes, women are too ignorant, too thoughtless, and too confused to make decisions about their own bodies, so the state has an obligation to step in and teach them a moral lesson. 
    But Republicans are forgetting that women have been paying the consequences of life without family planning for thousands of years. And that’s why we need, and want, contraception.

    http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2012/02/24/martha_plimpton_stop_undermining_women_s_health_with_personhood_amendments_and_ultrasound_laws.html

  • Worthless Beast

    This whole debacle reminds me again that there is a large faction of people who apparently see “pregnancy as punishment.” – yet, the mentality of men being “studs” is left unchecked.  Rush wants to see sex videos because he thinks it’s his right as a studly man or something. Women aren’t really people to folks of his ilk, they are objects to serve men – to serve him – and if they aren’t serving him, they need to be punished with the physical danger and life-disruption that is pregnancy.  

    (I do not knock those who want to have kids – merely pointing out that it is a comittment and a drastic life-change). This actually makes attitudes like Rush’s even more pervese because it reduces children from a gift and treasure to a “punishment.”   

    While he’s a conservative figure, I never thought of him as a “religious” voice in any way.  If he has a Christian following, it’s time for them to back out now if they haven’t been wise enough to do so already if for nothing more than that line I  remember Jesus having about “looking at a woman lustfully” constituing adultery of the heart  – a grave sin.  The man just flaunted his own sin.

  • Lori

    This is true, but if you point out to such people that they are treating children as a punishment they will pitch such a fit. “No, no.” they say, “Children are a gift from God.” And then they go right back to their regularly scheduled programming of talking about how the dirty, dirty sluts have to accept the consequences of their whoring.  

  • Worthless Beast

    There are all kinds of weird double-standards.

  • http://blog.trenchcoatsoft.com Ross

    It could even be argued that women who do take it solely for
    pregnancy prevention reasons are *mindful* about the possible
    consequences of sex, as well as brave enough to go to their doctors in a
    world where people like Rush exist – such women are likely to be
    *responsible* in mindset and potentially the kind to have long-term
    relationships rather than be “party girls.”

    And if they are “party girls,” so what? Taking responsibility for
    your reproductive health is still a mindful thing, and for
    conservatives, isn’t prevention in this case better than one particular
    “cure” ?

    The pro-choice, pro-contraceptive position does not make a whole lot of sense if something prevents you from realizing that these issues are not about men, nor are they about babies nor are they about fetuses, but rather they are issues about *women*.

    Strangely enough, the anti-choice, anti-contraceptive position *also* doesn’t make a lot of sense unless you realize that. It’s just that the sense it ends up making is “Oh. THe reason they say these things is because they want to hurt women.”

  • Worthless Beast

    Much of what goes on *does* makes sense on the assumption of the “He-man Woman Hater’s Club” in action.

    My folly is in wanting the world to make sense for things actually making sense. There’s a big contentious issue between two major political factions – you’d think they could both agree that “an ounce of prevention is worth more than a pound of cure,” but, of course, it’s not like that because applying logic to politics is a lot like applying logic to video games – don’t even try.

    (Being someone who writes stupid fan fiction that attempts to apply bits of logic to certain video games makes me a double-loser, I guess).  I really should know by now that there are certain things to which logic, practicality and realism do not apply.

  • Anonymous

    THANK YOU! It feels like I’ve been waiting forever to see someone say that. 

  • http://twitter.com/shay_guy Shay Guy

    There’s still an instinct to attack a bad argument at every weakness you can — all at once, if possible. Suppose someone claims A→B and B→C and therefore A→C, even though neither of the first two are true. I’d want to leave no faulty step undemolished — i.e., debunk A→B and B→C. But sometimes, one is easier to debunk (bad facts instead of bad morality) and therefore people prefer that front. The problem is that others are likely to take that as conceding the other part of the argument.

    Applied psychology. Ugh.

  • http://profiles.google.com/rtssdorsai Jeff C

    too bad about those STD’s

  • Anonymous-Sam

     Because that would involve talking to women who don’t bow their head and simper with every word, Kirala.

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    Rush Limbaugh has always been a putrid sack of shit, going back to the days when he used to play vacuum cleaners over people’s voices, or when he’d maliciously mock the Clintons and then claim “Y U GETTIN SO UPSET IT IS A JOKE” as his standard “out”.

  • http://mistformsquirrel.deviantart.com/ JJohnson

    Ya know, I keep wanting to snark, or say something nasty about Limbaugh… and I just can’t.  Not because he’s undeserving, but because thinking about Rush Limbaugh is giving me a frigging migraine.

    No I’m not joking – I was fine a few minutes ago, and now I’m here, in this thread, and the space just behind my right eye is throbbing like you would not believe.  Just… blegh.

  • Dan Audy

    And there is nothing wrong with “extramarital sex.” By the way, now you
    know someone who did take birth control pills solely to prevent
    pregnancy while having sex with men she was not married to: me.

    There is nothing wrong with extramarital sex provided that all parties who are in a sexual or romantic relationship with any participant are aware of and consent to it.  If someone is being deceived, put at risk of STDs, having their oaths broken then harm is being done and as such something is wrong with it.

  • Ursula L

    There is nothing wrong with extramarital sex provided that all parties who are in a sexual or romantic relationship with any participant are aware of and consent to it.  If someone is being deceived, put at risk of STDs, having their oaths broken then harm is being done and as such something is wrong with it.

    All of these concerns, about consent, disease, STDs and oath-breaking, apply equally to sex within marriage as they do to extramarital sex.

    There is nothing wrong with sex when enjoyed in an ethical manner.  The marital status of the participants is irrelevant to the morality of sex.  

  • http://lliira.dreamwidth.org/ Lliira

    There’s nothing wrong with extramarital sex. There doesn’t need to be a qualifier there. There is something wrong with deceit and non-consent. Neither of those is about the sex. 

    Attaching qualifiers to sex makes it seem that the sex is the issue. It’s not. Deceit and non-consent are the issues. An emotional affair is as bad as one in which there is sex — it can be worse, as we’ve seen with Rayford, because it allows the participants to think they’re not “really” doing anything wrong. Having sex with people you’re not married to when you’re in an open marriage and abiding by the rules that you and your spouse have agreed on and being truthful with everyone is perfectly fine. 

    There’s nothing wrong with sex. Deceit and violence and using people are wrong. The tool used to deceive and violate and use people is just a tool. 

    Edit: this was in reply to Dan Audy’s comment on the previous page. I don’t know why Disqus decided not to add the “in reply to” line.

  • Dan Audy

    There’s nothing wrong with extramarital sex. There doesn’t need to be a qualifier there. There is something wrong with deceit and non-consent. Neither of those is about the sex.
    Attaching qualifiers to sex makes it seem that the sex is the issue. It’s not. Deceit and non-consent are the issues. An emotional affair is as bad as one in which there is sex — it can be worse, as we’ve seen with Rayford, because it allows the participants to think they’re not “really” doing anything wrong. Having sex with people you’re not married to when you’re in an open marriage and abiding by the rules that you and your spouse have agreed on and being truthful with everyone is perfectly fine.
    There’s nothing wrong with sex. Deceit and violence and using people are wrong. The tool used to deceive and violate and use people is just a tool.

    It wasn’t the sex part that those qualifiers were for but rather the extramarital part.  Marriage in our culture has certain assumed characteristics particularly involving monogamy and unless it has been explicitly clarified (preferably by both/all partners) I believe people should operate on the assumption that becoming involved with a married person is an improper interference and avoid such.  In a situation where the permissions have been examined and given such as an open marriage then it is no longer a violation of trust and monogamy and is fine.  However, I think the fact that we designate open marriages as such is sufficient to indicate that the default of marriage is closed.

  • http://lliira.dreamwidth.org/ Lliira

    I think we have a misunderstanding of terms, rather than an actual argument. When I responded to the post about “playing around with extramarital sex,” the context to me seemed to mean “extramarital” simply meant “sex between two people who are not married to each other,” which was what Limbaugh went on a frothing dirty-old-man misogynistic tirade about. I’ve often seen people use “extramarital” to mean this. 

  • Ursula L

    And yet, in doing this Rush manages to change the topic of public discourse from women needing health care to himself and his horrible behavior.  And in particular, in the discriminatory way that Sandra Fluke’s school refuses to provide women students with comprehensive health care, even though they pay as much as men students, who do get comprehensive health care.  

    Of course Rush will indulge in this type of behavior.  Because it makes the conversation about him, a rich white male, rather than about women and what women need. Even when people make the effort of denouncing him, he wins, because they’re talking about him rather than the topic of women’s health care.

  • Anonymous

    And now I am here to show you the ultimate anticonceptive: Rush Limbaugh!!!!!!!!!

    (I dare to tell me you want to have sex now)

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Rush_limbaugh.jpg

  • Anonymous-Sam

     Bill Maher commented on this last night. “The man has had four wives — and no children. Rush Limbaugh IS contraception.”

  • Tricksterson

    Or he’s a humongous frakking hypocrite which as a surprise ranks along the line of “water is wet” and “the sky is up”.
    Right now I’m positively vibrating with rage towards him.  He issued an “apology” that said he didn’t intend anything “personal” toward her. You called her a “slut” and a “prostitue”  HOW  IS THAT NOT PERSONAL!!!!

  • Thereisnorule6

    Time for a women’s revolution in this country. Seems much too quiet.

  • Anonymous

    I didn’t know that Georgetown was a Catholic school! Yah learn something new everyday.
    Seriously, do these people know how many women this policy is going to affect? How many Catholic charities/hospitals/hospices/12 step programs/food banks/schools there are in this country? How many non-catholic women work for those institutions? Do they have a clue how many localities are served by a single catholic hospital? 

  • Lori

     

    I didn’t know that Georgetown was a Catholic school! 

    Yup. In the end that was one of the reasons that I didn’t apply there when I was going to grad school. They tend to downplay their Catholocism in their ads, but I kept hearing from people who went there about all the ways that it effected their policies. I had no interest in supporting or dealing with that so they were off the list, even though they have a very good program in my field.

  • Tricksterson

    And again I say, do you relly think they care?  Their attitude is much like Duckman in an episode in which a neighborhood dispute escalates into literal all out war and theentire town is reduced to smiking rubble with Duckman as the only apparent survivor jumping up and down on the rubble of what used to be his house shouting gleefully “I won!  I won!  I won!”

  • Jeff Weskamp

    The third link listed is quite right.  Limbaugh is indeed the most influential voice in the modern Republican Party.  If you want proof, look at what happened when Michael Steele first became the Chairman for the Republican Party.  Steele tried to change things to make the party more appealing to moderates, and complained that the level of dialogue within the party was directly targeting the lowest common denominator of its voting base.  Limbaugh severely chastised Steele, and Steele immediately caved in and allowed things to continue as they were.

    This is why it infuriates me when Limbaugh says that he’s “just an entertainer.”  He may not hold any kind of elected office, but he exerts a horrifying level of influence over rank-and-file Republican voters.

  • Anonymous

    “This language is an attack on all women, and has been used throughout history to silence our voices.”

    Rush’s language is disgusting and his ongoing assault on a brave young woman is a new (or at least recent) low. And let’s not let anyone forget that his position itself is an attack on all women. I’m glad Rush is getting some pushback for once, but why does it feel like certain people (media, advertisers, etc) are more angry at his choice of words than their meaning? He’s just stating starkly what “conscience” actually means when opposing women’s health care. Now maybe all the bishops, commentators and Republican politicians who agree with Rush on the substance of his comments even as they wish he would have kept it “civil” can explain how they are any different where it counts.

  • Thereisnorule6

    what is most troubling is the lack of unified opposition from women on these attacks (birth control, abortion, etc). The streets should look like it is 1968 as these measures are every bit as de-humanizing as anything that was done against any minority group in the US. What’s next, women isolation camps?

  • WingedBeast

    I’d like to take a moment and address this issue as though it really is a matter of the religious rights of the employer.

    Let us first acknowledge that, in the USA, we treat healthcare as a form of payment.  You primarily want to be paid in money for your labors, but a great many workers work also for that health coverage.  Health coverage is a payment to a worker and payment, once earned, is owened by the employee.

    At no point does an employer have any right to proffer payment in any form, be it money, health coverage, or chickens for barter and follow it up by saying “You are not allowed to use this money in ways that offend my religious sensitivities.”  Oh, sure, the lawy may say that one is not allowed to use this money to pay for illegal substances, in trade for illegal acts, or that it is illegal to use the money to trade for certain specific otherwise legal acts.  But, the employer does not gain that power.

    What this means is that the question of whether or not an employer should be forced to pay for an employee’s birth control, regardless of whether or not it’s being used in case to control whether or not one will have to give birth at some point, is moot.  Employers do not pay, even with no-copay coverage for birth control, for birth control.  They pay for labor.  The employee uses that payment as the employee chooses.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Gus-Hinrich/100000151807749 Gus Hinrich

     EXCELLENT point. I definitely have to remember this argument. Thanks!

  • Makarios

    Indeed. The money paid to the insurers is the employee’s money, and this fact is recognized as such in labour negotiations. The employer does a bit of paperwork associated with passing the premiums to the insurer, but that’s it. They have no more business telling their employees what insurance coverage they can purchase through this mechanism than they have telling employees on what they can or can’t spend their paycheques.

    This controversy highlights the absurdity of a health care delivery system in which so many people’s insurance is tied to their employment. If the US had universal, single-payer, tax-funded health insurance, the whole thing would be a non-issue.

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    You can see selections of Limbaugh’s sordid over 20 year history of being a jackass of the highest order on Rack Jite’s site. Dude should deserve an award, he had to subject himself to watching Rush in order to do these kinda writeups.

  • Worthless Beast

    Aw, shit. Had Domino’s last night – had no idea they were a sponsor. What I get for not paying attention to who sponsors whom.  Just when I was getting over feeling sick, too.

    Aside from saying the man clearly doesn’t know how birth control works (you don’t just pop a pill and party, it’s, at least in the case of the stuff this *asexual virgin* takes to normalized her hell-periods and prevent cysts, a carefully-regulated continual dosage of hormones to be taken every day….

    I’d say I’d like to see Rush post a video of his own.  I can even help since I work at a barn.  Since he spews so much horseshit out of his mouth, I’d like to see him put some back in.  I’d like to see a vid of him presented with a giant, fresh pile of horse plop, then dine on it for the public’s viewing pleasure.  He must eat the whole thing, too.

  • Anonymous

    Being an oblivious guy, I’ve been unaware, for most of my life, of all the uses for birth control. I was always absolutely convinced of its necessity, though.

    But one of my girlfriends had (and still has) disabling, vomit-inducing pain from her menstrual cycle, and has to take birth control to stay functional. And so I became a little more educated.

    So now I get even more enraged when I hear old white guys boiling the conversation down to “sluts, amirite guys? High five!”

  • friendly reader

    I can’t attest to everyone’s feelings, but for me it was this perfect trifecta of being completely wrong on the topic (birth control doesn’t work that way), completely indifferent to human suffering (her friend lost an ovary!!), and intentionally, viciously, repeatedly cruel (several days’ worth of harping on the same slur), then coupled with how it feeds directly into a terrifying and very real political trend in this country to disregard the health of women. And while Rush has done this sort of thing before, I think it’s that meshing with the zeitgeist, plus the large scope of his attack (99% of 51% of the population) has hit a lot of people in the gut the way his other BS hasn’t.

    Is it fair that we’re reacting this way and not to the racist, homophobic stuff that he’s said in the past? No. But so it goes. If this is what finally brings him down, I’ll be happy, but I fear too many people will accept his “apology.”

  • http://lliira.dreamwidth.org/ Lliira

    But Rush has gone on exactly the same kind of rants about women before. Specific, well-educated, well-off white women, even. Spewing this kind of garbage about Hillary Clinton made his career. He insulted Chelsea Clinton’s appearance when she was twelve years old. He’s slut-shamed, victim-blamed, and said that women are not as smart as men and should stay home and raise babies for decades. Limbaugh’s the one who came up with and popularized the term “feminazi.” Misogyny is even more his bread-and-butter than all his other hatreds — though disentangling misogyny from homophobia isn’t really possible. 

  • http://lliira.dreamwidth.org/ Lliira

    “it’s, at least in the case of the stuff this *asexual virgin* takes to normalized her hell-periods and prevent cysts, a carefully-regulated continual dosage of hormones to be taken every day”
    Yep, it’s the same for sexually active women who don’t want to get pregnant while having sex with men. Except it’s even more important for those women to take it at  the same time every day, and not depend solely on the pill when taking antibiotics, because a slip means a drastic reduction in how effective birth control pills are at preventing pregnancy.

  • Worthless Beast

    Good stuff to know.  I felt the need to qualify regarding the stuff I take, just because I know there are many kinds and brands out there. I thought they were all a continual dose thing, but I didn’t want to make assumptions (in case Rush’s fantasy one-time popper actually existed in some form and I didn’t know about it).

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    The fact that right-wing bloviating about women has an element of control or loss of it under it all strikes me as being very analogous, as Martin Jay Levitt notes, to how business owners will often expend enormous sums of money on union-busting because to them, owning the business is as much about control as it is about profit, and the presence of unionized workers represents a loss of control and they react badly to that.

    It seems some men react badly to the idea that they can’t control or monitor what women do.

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    There’s a reason Limbaugh’s main following have all taken the appellation “dittoheads”. (>_>)

  • Anonymous

    I’ll echo several other commenters here and ask:
    Why is this the line we (as a culture) are insisting that Limbaugh shouldn’t have crossed?

    I mean, I’m glad he’s getting all this pushback. It’s great. But why now, and not a decade ago?
    The motherfucker is pure poison, right to the core. He’s a Hutt. He’s a Harkonnen. 

    Why have people taken so long to see this?

  • Dan Audy

    Why have people taken so long to see this?

    I suspect that it has a lot to with Sandra Fluke being a pretty, well spoken, educated, white woman.  My understand (not listening to the crap myself) is that mostly Rush restricts himself to talking about ‘the others’ as a generic and when he does talk about specific individuals they are ones that the conservative hivemind has already decreed are ‘not real people’.  Ms. Fluke seems like what many of the old white guys who make up his main demographic want their daughter or grand-daughter to be like (except for the liberal part).  While the people up in arms against him are pretty much the usual suspects, the difference this time is that his own audience won’t defend him as ‘saying what everyone is thinking’ or ‘standing up to liberal oppression’.   This in turn has the Republican establishment not backing him to the hilt because they’re tired of the bad press he keeps generating for them and this provides a reasonable proxy to push back (however lightly) because their own constituents aren’t going to eviscerate them for ‘betraying Rush’.

  • ako

    I’ve noticed that a lot of right-wing assertions fit into this kind of pattern.  They combine a whole bundle of inaccuracy and offensiveness so it’s hard to argue with any particular point without sounding like you’re agreeing with some of the other bits.  Start picking one particular point (birth control doesn’t work like that, insurance doesn’t work like that, why punish women for having ‘too much’ sex and not men, who made you the boss of deciding what was ‘too much’ sexual pleasure for a woman, if you think the women are so horrible and irresponsible why do you want them raising children) and many people will take it as confirmation of the points you didn’t argue against.  And it’s extremely difficult to argue against all of the points, and nearly impossible to do so in catchy sound-bite form. 

    So you end up either awkwardly enumerating a whole list of objections, or having a bunch of people in you your audience think you’re agreeing with really offensive assumptions.

    (This also comes up on QUILTBAG issues, particularly with “Being gay is a choice which makes it not okay!” and “Gay people are wild and promiscuous and should therefore not be accepted or treated decently”.)

  • http://blog.trenchcoatsoft.com Ross

    Breaking: Rush apologized once his ad revenue was threatened.

    Well, by”apologized”, I mean, “issued a statement where he decibed it as a poor choice of words.”  ie “I still think she’s a whore, but I wish I’d said ‘lady of the evening’ instead”

    He also asserted that what Sandra Fluke wanted to do was discuss her “personal sexual recreational activities before members of Congress.”So, “apology: ur doin it wrong.”I think we’ve had better fake apologies out of the folks who troll around here than we just got out of Rush.

  • Anonymous-Sam

     I feel like I should reply, “I’m so sorry you think that way.” :p

  • christian

    I think you all should actually listen to what he was saying, rather than judge out of context. He wasn’t disrespecting women, rather he was pointing out a certain LACK OF MORALS AND INTEGRITY that a great many women have in this country…

  • Anonymous

    So basically sex, consensual or otherwise, is bad and nasty and dirty, and it’s all women’s fault, and Rush was just pointing that out?

    Right.

    Fuck you.

  • Anonymous

     You cannot possibly be serious. A woman tried to testify about the need for contraceptives in women’s health care. He called her a slut and a prostitute. He went on to “jokingly” demand that if women be provided contraceptives, they put up sex tapes online. Fucking seriously?

    My sister’s trying to get herself birth control pills right now, because without them, her period pain is so bad she misses two or three days of school per month. Rush Limbaugh thinks she’s a slut for that. Rush Limbaugh said that in exchange for not going through horrific pain and illness every month, my sister should put up tapes of the sex she’s not having for his enjoyment. Rush Limbaugh thinks that women with ovarian cysts should just suffer the crippling pain in silence. Because if they think having that potentially cancerous issue cured is important? They’re prostitutes.

    Fuck him. Fuck him, and his vile, poisonous mouth.

  • http://lliira.dreamwidth.org/ Lliira

    Don’t forget: if a woman has sex and does something that makes her not get pregnant, she’s a whore and should be FORCED to record her sex life and put it online so he can watch it. Any woman who takes control of her own sexuality is a “whore”, and a “whore” is supposedly a thing that exists solely for the recreational use of men.

    A woman who has sex just because she wants to, in other words, is a fair target for anything you want to do to her. She deserves to be degraded, she *exists* to be degraded, and she must be forced to do something sexual for any random asshole who wants it. This is rape culture. This is what allows rapists to keep on raping because their victims weren’t virgins. Or were wearing makeup. Or smiled. Or existed while female, the highest possible crime. 

  • Tricksterson

    You know, normally I would reply with something witty and sardonic because I consider obscenity a sign of a lack of imagination but, the hell with it.

    Go fuck yourself.

  • http://lliira.dreamwidth.org/ Lliira

    You are lying, misogynistic trash. 

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    Oh god, haven’t people like you worn out the “omg permissive culture” thing yet? In the 1940s and 1950s, while soldiers were overseas, did you never think any of them ever got “Dear John” letters?

    Try not to be so naive next time, mmkay?

  • Beroli

    Hm. Only one comment on that entire profile.

    Guessing it’s a troll. Probably a new name for an old troll.

  • Tricksterson

    Five bucks says it’s Frank.

  • Anonymous

    I think you all should actually listen to what he was saying

    I think you should actually listen to what Sandra Fluke was saying. It seems you might learn something.

    rather than judge out of context

    You’re new here right? This topic has been at the heart of numerous conversations here in the last month.

    He wasn’t disrespecting women

    Rush- by utterly ignoring the content and purpose of Ms Fluke’s testimony, by purposely misstating (or not caring enough to find out) how contraception works, how insurance works, who uses it and why, by using demeaning language about and dismissing the experience of the vast majority of women in this country, by reveling in double standards- is absolutely disrespecting women. I’m kind of shocked this is even debatable.

    he was pointing out a certain LACK OF MORALS AND INTEGRITY that a great many women have in this country…

    Oh I see. He wasn’t calling Ms Fluke a slut and a prostitute, he was calling a great many women sluts and prostitutes. And you seriously suggested he wasn’t disrespecting women? Seriously?

    There is a glaring lack of morals and integrity in this story, but it’s not from young woman standing up for what she believes in; it’s from the powerful public figure who mocks and demeans and objectifies that young woman without even coming close to getting the facts of the case or the issue right. That’s the context.

  • Anonymous

    he was pointing out a certain LACK OF MORALS AND INTEGRITY that a great many women have in this country…

    In stark contrast to our FINE, UPSTANDING MEN in this nation:
    http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/crime/rush-limbaughs-dominican-stag-party

    or:
    http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-paul-babeu-arizona-sheriff-20120228,0,6363707.story

    To name two of millions of examples.

  • Albanaeon

     I guess you mean “morals” as “arbitrary antiquated standards we cling to”  and “integrity” as “following those arbitrary standards that incidentally gives men a great deal of power and control over women.”

    Not the actual definitions of those words, fuckwit.

  • Anonymous

    Hey, do any of you folks remember watching the “Heart of Gold” episode of Firefly? This Part? Where the villain gets up and says the most horrifying misogynistic and awful things, to the point where I (and, as I discovered, many people on Mark Watches) went “Wow, aren’t they going a little over the top with the villain, here?”

    And then shit like this happens, and I realize that no. No, no they were not. I hate that. I really, really hate it, and I’m in favor of free speech but seriously, where the hell is the Serenity crew when you need them?

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    I remember that :O It really went to show how a powerful man can do a lot of damage reinforcing cultural attiudes of female inferiority.

  • MaryKaye

    I think there is one other possibility for why people watch Limbaugh, beyond “on some level they are bigots” and “they are undertaking paid research.”  I think some liberals or semi-liberals watch him because they get off, as Fred has described in the past, on offendedness–and he is the world’s most reliable purveyor of offense, uncut, straight to the vein.

    To anyone who’s doing this, I’d *strongly* recommend stopping.  It’s really bad for you, physically and emotionally.  It sets off the crisis response and then there’s nothing for you to do, so the stuff just simmers in your bloodstream.

  • Married Guy With Convictions

    He shouldn’t be apologizing.  All of this is blown out of proportion.  Myself, I will raise my daughters to have a conscience, and moral discipline.  If my daughters decide to have sex with as many guys as possible during college, and so marry someone a few years later with so much emotional/sexual baggage that will cripple and probably cause their divorce, not to mention all of the STDs that contraceptives won’t always prevent, sure they can choose that for themselves, but I wouldn’t choose that for them.  I think that the issue is that women are not valuing themselves more than animal lusts, and that they don’t want to pay for their actions.  What will save us from this perverted generation?

  • http://lliira.dreamwidth.org/ Lliira

    Hi again “christian”. Go kneel on a Lego. 

  • http://twitter.com/shay_guy Shay Guy

    7+3+4+11? It should be 6+6.

    Usernames aside, I have a question for you.

  • Anonymous

     And if your daughters have incredibly painful periods which are, for the most part, only controlled by contraceptive hormones?

    Also, what about your sons? How do you judge their “animal lust” and “perverted generation”?

  • Anonymous

    What are you talking about “have sex with as many guys as possible during college”? What are you talking about “animal lusts”? It’s clear you have no idea what Sandra Fluke actually said. Married women use contraceptives. Single women use contraceptives. Women in monogamous relationships use contraceptives. Women with multiple sexual partners use contraceptives. Even virgins use contraceptives. More than 99% of women who have ever had sexual intercourse in their lives have used contraceptives and nearly 2/3s of women between 15 and 44 are currently using a form of contraception. 

    “I think that the issue is that women are not valuing themselves more than animal lusts, and that they don’t want to pay for their actions.”

    Wrong. Women value themselves enough to want basic and equal health care. They value themselves enough to want to start a family only if and when they want to start a family. They value themselves enough to stand before a mostly male and mostly hostile congressional committee and talk about personal issues of deep import. Do you value women enough to actually read what Ms Fluke said or any other explanation of why this is so important an issue?

  • http://blog.trenchcoatsoft.com Ross

    Y’know what I think? I think women should be treated like goddamn adults who are allowed to make their ownn goddamn decisions about their health care without the involvement of anyone other than themselves and their doctors, and this whole “giving in to animal lusts” and “disrepsecting themselves” thing is nothing but code for “Women aren’t real people who we trust as competant to make decisions for themselves,” and it’s no more your fucking business how much sex a woman wants to have and how she wants to protect herself thant it is your fucking business if *my* doctor decides I should be taking an extra 500 mg of niaspan.

  • Albanaeon

     The “perverted” generation needs to learn to shut up and mind their own business.  Old white guys spend more time thinking about everyone else’s sex lives than the actual people and just won’t stop talking about it.  Really, it’s not healthy.

    If you mean that the younger generation is having lots of sex then your dead wrong there.  Humanity has been getting in on in lots of ways and often lots of people since forever.  It’s just now, some of us have decided to not pretend they are not and minimize the risks.  After all, you really can’t fight reality.

  • ako

    If my daughters decide to have sex with as many guys as possible during college

    Nobody does that.  Literally no one.  If you can’t see the difference between a woman having sex that you don’t personally approve of and her trying to imitate the Empress Messalina, that says more about your view of women than it does about the “perverted generation”.

    and so marry someone a few years later with so much emotional/sexual baggage that will cripple and probably cause their divorce

    How much baggage a person brings into a marriage is not a function of how much sex they’ve had.  People who have premarital sex aren’t doomed to divorce, and there are plenty of people who go into marriages entirely virginal but with loads of issues.

    not to mention all of the STDs that contraceptives won’t always prevent

    Most contraceptives are purely a matter of pregnancy prevention, not disease prevention.  However, it is true that condoms don’t perfectly prevent STDs.  And it’s not like reducing the risk of catching HPV by 70% and the risk of catching HIV by 85% is worth anything, is it?

    (Yes, abstinence is more effective if used perfectly.  However, research on teens who took virginity pledges indicates that over 80% go on to have sex, so “I’ll teach them right and they’ll be perfectly abstinent until marriage!” rarely works.)

    sure they can choose that for themselves

    That’s exactly what this is about.  Women being able to choose for themselves.

    but I wouldn’t choose that for them

    The question is, if they made a choice you disagreed with, would you want them punished by having to do porn for Rush Limbaugh?

    I think that the issue is that women are not valuing themselves more than animal lusts

    Really?  It seems like if they were purely worried about their animal lusts and not valuing themselves, they wouldn’t go broke trying to get the health care they need. 

    Wait, you’re one of those people who thinks “women valuing themselves” is a synonym for “women doing what their fathers tell them and not having sex so their husband can enjoy the benefits of their virginity” right?  Never mind, then.

    and that they don’t want to pay for their actions

    Right, because seeing the doctor, keeping the prescription filled, taking the medication, and paying to have health insurance doesn’t count at paying.

    What will save us from this perverted generation?

    Rush Limbaugh will save us!  By having them all do porn!  Oh, wait…

  • P J Evans

    but I wouldn’t choose that for them

    It isn’t your choice. It’s theirs. You are not your children’s goal in life. Once they leave home, you won’t be able to run their lives – and when they’re out of sight, you’re not running their lives now.

    Grow up. Get some hobbies. Live your own life, and don’t try to run the lives of others.

  • http://www.blogger.com/home?pli=1 Coleslaw

    So how many convictions do you have, and are they misdemeanors or felonies?

  • The Lodger

    Okay, now we’re just pining for the lost Lenore here.

  • vega

    I pity any child you raise, but your daughters the most. You will inflict such pain, all the while telling them it’s for their own good. You will deny them even the idea of choice. I mourn for them, and I mourn for you. I’m truly sorry.

  • vega

     (that was in response to MMWC. The “in reply to” tag seems not to be appearing.)

  • Brandi

    Flag, don’t respond.

  • Katie

    I’m actually pleased that Rush said what he did.  It exposes all of the objections to contraception for what they are-wanting to control women and their sexuality.

  • Anonymous

    What will save us from this perverted generation?

    All right, pack it in, everybody. This guy’s fucking with us.

  • Omnicrom

    Oh Rush Limbaugh.

    A lot of people pointed out this isn’t new. And it isn’t. However that doesn’t mean we should be quiet. In fact I think we should be louder. Every single time Rush Limbaugh says something absolutely hideous, IE nearly everyday, people should be up in arms. Limbaugh is one of the most influential political figures in the country and he’s horrible. If enough people called Rush Limbaugh on being the really unpleasant person he is nearly every single day of the year maybe he would be less hideous or even stop talking altogether.

  • Omnicrom

    Oh Rush Limbaugh.

    A lot of people pointed out this isn’t new. And it isn’t. However that doesn’t mean we should be quiet. In fact I think we should be louder. Every single time Rush Limbaugh says something absolutely hideous, IE nearly everyday, people should be up in arms. Limbaugh is one of the most influential political figures in the country and he’s horrible. If enough people called Rush Limbaugh on being the really unpleasant person he is nearly every single day of the year maybe he would be less hideous or even stop talking altogether.

  • Ursula L

     What will save us from this perverted generation?

     

    You know, he’s right.  It’s tremendously perverted that Limbaugh would suggest that people be obliged to perform in pornography and post it for public viewing, in order to be eligible for basic medical care.  

    We can only look at this situation and see hope in the fact that Rush’s perverted generation will be outlived by the sensible, moral generation of Fluke and others of her age who believe that ordinary medical care should be covered by medical insurance, and no one should be coerced into sexual behavior they do not want in order to obtain medical care.  

  • Lori

    This is basically the response to Rush’s fauxpology that I wish I had written. Rush fills me with such loathing and rage that it’s too much work to be this articulate.

    Even when he can’t stand the heat and has to pretend to apologize, Rush Limbaugh can’t – or won’t – stop lying.

    Today he said he was sorry for having called law student Sandra Fluke a “slut” and a “prostitute” for telling Congress that women needed access to contraception.  But even as he did so, Limbaugh repeated the central lie in his original rants:  that Fluke had somehow made her sexual activity a matter of public discourse.

    http://www.samefacts.com/2012/03/watching-conservatives/he-cant-help-it/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+RealityBasedCommunity+%28The+RBC%29&utm_content=Google+Reader

  • http://www.blogger.com/home?pli=1 Coleslaw
  • Anonymous

    That’s a good breakdown of the “wrong words” defense, and Lori’s link to Mark Kleiman nicely covers Rush’s ongoing lie about the content of Ms Fluke’s testimony.

    Then in the meat of his appall-ogy he restates the lie that this issue has something to do with taxpayer funds: “I personally do not agree that American citizens should pay for these social activities […] Will we be debating if taxpayers should pay for new sneakers for all students that are interested in running to keep fit?” What does this have to do with employee benefits? And did he just throw in a midnight basketball-esque dog-whistle with the “new sneakers” bit? 

    And as if this “apology” didn’t have enough lies, he adds, “I posited that it is not our business whatsoever to know what is going on in anyone’s bedroom.” That’s what we’re supposed to get from his insistence that women’s healthcare should be subject to employers’ scrutiny? That’s the takeaway from his slut-shaming a woman who talked about someone else’s ovarian cysts? How on earth does not our business translate into but certainly not just the business of a woman and her doctor? It’s like sticks and stones are good and fine but words are where we draw the line.

  • http://www.blogger.com/home?pli=1 Coleslaw

    Some health insurance plans do cover wellness benefits, like gym memberships. I believe we get a discount on our Y dues through my husband’s insurance, which covers us both. Over the course of a year, the savings may even cover new sneakers.

  • Rikalous

     @Kubricks_Rube: I’m most confused about how his call for women to be required to star in publicly available porn constitutes not knowing what’s going on in their bedrooms.

  • Lori

    Oh, That Guy. Yeah, there’s no point arguing with That Guy. Pearls before swine and all that.

  • Lori

    Good response. I honestly can’t come up with much beyond a bunch of different intonations of asshole, so I’m doubly impressed.

  • http://twitter.com/FearlessSon FearlessSon

    I can say that the only reason I took any notice of Rush’s comments on this particular matter has been because of the media backlash.  You see, I have made it a point for two decades now to not pay any attention to Rush Limbaugh because anything more than cursory exposure could cause potentially fatal blood pressure issues.  Even this makes me feel like I need heart medication.  Do any insurance plans cover that?  Maybe Rush needs to start paying his audience’s premiums if he wants to continue on this track…

  • Lori

    This. I no longer know what’s going on in Rushlandia unless it breaks through to other media because it’s always that same crap and there’s just no benefit to me keeping up with it.

    Obviously there’s no really logical reason that this should be the thing, of all the horrible things that Rush says, that gets everyone’s attention. I’m not complaining though. Every time people notice how terrible Rush is and try to do something about it IMO it’s a good thing.

    Michael O’Hare posted a follow-up to yesterday’s piece on Rush’s non-apology. In it he notes that this incident could act as leverage to finally get the show off Armed Forces Radio. That would certainly be a good thing. If Clear Channel wants to give that jerk airtime it’s a private business and we’ve given up all pretense that the airwaves are a public trust, so there’s nothing to be done about it. There’s no reason the government should be giving him exposure though.

    http://www.samefacts.com/2012/03/watching-conservatives/more-rush/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+RealityBasedCommunity+%28The+RBC%29&utm_content=Google+Reader

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    Huh! As Rack Jite’s page noted, it got on AFR because the SecDef caved to political pressure, IIRC, and pushed for it to be on over the Joint Chief’s objections. That was in the Late Bush I or early Clinton days, so Rush has had his chance to push his crap for like 20 years over there. :(

  • Tricksterson

    So much for his being against government assistance.

  • The Lodger

    It’s possible to believe Limbaugh made an honest, excuse me, understandable mistake about how the Pill works if you don’t believe he’s ever performed an act with a woman that could result in pregnancy.
    Yadda yadda contraband ED medication yadda yadda boys yadda yadda yadda Dominican Republic.

  • The Lodger

    More seriously, who thinks the concept of “my employer’s religious feelings” makes any sense whatsoever if it doesn’t depend on the concept of “corporations are people?”
    Think about it: 99% of our employers, it we’re lucky enough to be working, are corporations of one form or another.  As corporations, they legally can’t refuse to hire someone on the basis of the employee’s religion. (Even my own church has hired a secretary who was a member of another denomination and a sexton… come to think of it, I have no idea what his faith is, or even if he has one.)
    So if it’s clear that the corporations operating Yeshiva University and Adventist Hospital can’t refuse to hire Catholic librarians, orthopedists or gardeners, then what kind of twisted feudalistic logic makes it OK for these employers to forbid them to get medical care on Saturdays?

  • Tricksterson

    Aaand we come one step closer to the Shadowrun dream of extraterritoriality.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X