Rush Limburger calls Student 'Slut', Backlash

[eran_rathan]

Do you maintain that any moral opposition to birth control is necessarily misogynistic?

Why should your morals have anything to do with someone else's healthcare choices?

[Роберт]

And yes, we paid for this out of pocket, because neither of us had insurance, and it was cheaper than having kids and/or her committing suicide.

I'm curious why IUDs were out of the question... but I guess that could be private.

[Dauric]

And yes, we paid for this out of pocket, because neither of us had insurance, and it was cheaper than having kids and/or her committing suicide.

I'm curious why IUDs were out of the question... but I guess that could be private.

Some women can't use IUDs as their immune systems may try to attack the device, or they may suffer from an increased chance of inflammation and infection. IIRC after a woman has her first IUD placed she has to come back for a series of appointments to make sure that her uterus isn't reacting to the device.

[addams]

Do you maintain that any moral opposition to birth control is necessarily misogynistic?

Yes. Unless it is the woman that is to be effected. She gets to make moral choices about her birth control.
Birth control is hard. With good medical care and twenty-first century technology it is still difficult. The Rhythm Method is flawed because when a female human is fertile she is most likely to play Rhythm Method Roulette.
Some say it is an argument about women's sexuality. I think that we need nationalized health care. It is an argument that is going the wrong way. What insurance company can do what? No. Wrong question.
Insurance companies make money by not providing care. Think about it.

We all have the right to good care. That means birth control sometimes. Birth control and care of pregnant women are both important and personal. Next; We will be arguing about care of the aged. It's a Heath Care question. The answer is Nationalized Health Care.
The Right is making the same kind of talk about the olds, now. I listened to a man explain that care for the aged is what is destroying the country. The woman at his side was so...? She said, "We love our olds, but, we can't afford them.''

We Love our women,but, we can't afford for them to have reasonable sex lives.
We Love our olds, but, we can't afford to feed and house them.
What is next?
We Love our intellectuals, but, we can't afford people that think?
Opps. We passed that landmark a while ago.

The US is a messed up place at the moment. The battle lines have been drawn in the sand. Either you want birth control for everyone or you want unprotected sex in the streets or on the internet. No middle ground.
Really? That creepy fat man wants to watch. That is birth control. If, he is watching, then, the numbers of people that want to do it will go way down. He is O.K. with birth control for exibitionists only? That is not fair.

[JudeMorrigan]

Birth control is hard. With good medical care and twenty-first century technology it is still difficult. The Rhythm Method is flawed because when a female human is fertile she is most likely to play Rhythm Method Roulette.

Wow, seriously? Talking about misogynistic statements...

The rhythm method sucks because a) when most people refer to a rhythm method, they're talking about a calendar-based one. That's far too inaccurate to be a sane form or birth control. And b) because the more reliable fertility awareness methods (ie, keeping meticulous track of cervical mucus, etc) are really cumbersome and far easier to make an honest mistake on than other forms of modern birth control.

[lutzj]

Birth control is hard. With good medical care and twenty-first century technology it is still difficult. The Rhythm Method is flawed because when a female human is fertile she is most likely to play Rhythm Method Roulette.

Wow, seriously? Talking about misogynistic statements...

addams phrased it crudely (not that I'd want or expect it any other way), but it is true that people get more promiscuous when they are more fertile. For women, this occurs during ovulation (obviously there are many more factors affecting both potency and horniness for both men and women).

[JudeMorrigan]

I've got no problems with the idea that women are more interested in sex during their fertile periods. I obviously don't have much first-hand experience obviously, but I'm willing to stipulate it. But I've got real issues with the idea that they arent perfectly capable of overriding that interest if they so desire.

[Fantastic Idea]

I've got no problems with the idea that women are more interested in sex during their fertile periods. I obviously don't have much first-hand experience obviously, but I'm willing to stipulate it. But I've got real issues with the idea that they arent perfectly capable of overriding that interest if they so desire.

I also take issue with this. I do however think it's not standing alone in the dark, it's got the idea of Men Are Incapable of Resisting The Opposite Sex* to stand next to. Which I think is also holding hands with the misogyny aspect of this whole birth control debate. Birth control is a thing that allows women to prevent pregnancy that men cause them to have.
That's just an evo-psych essay waiting to happen. (Of course men are angry about that, we are destined to want to continue our genetic line!)
The anti-BC party is a great deal about religious beliefs and the reality that those beliefs can be occasionally legislated to influence the lives of those outside the party. I've got problems with that most of all.
*So women have to stop them and if you fail to stop them you're a slut.

Whether life begins at conception is immaterial when we're discussing birth control pills, IUDs, or condoms, because the sperm and egg never come together (although it would be an issue for RU486 morning after pills), so conception never happens.

It would have a lot to do with strict controls on sex activity, because [some] religious conservatives would argue that the purpose of sex is procreation, and having sex while avoiding procreation is a subversion or perversion of God's gift.

NOPE! CHUCK TESTA.

I mean. You're wrong there. Actually. Conception is the sperm meeting the egg. Implantation is the result of conception when the new cell attaches to the uterine wall. IUDs, RU486, and birth control pills all prevent implantation (some of them do both). Opinions of conception/life starting or whatever: they often center on incorrect data.

[Dauric]

...Yeah, I don't even know what's up with Rush, if only because I don't get to listen to his show firsthand that much at all. From what I do know, however, the language he uses is so completely 'extreme' that it's hard not to see him as being this ginormous asshole. I don't know if he's serious about some of the crap that he's said in the past or if he's just trying to get a reaction, but it is hard to respect him when he makes comments like the ones he made in this case.

Limbaugh's a "Shock Jock", he gets paid to be "eXtreme". Problem is that he's also been labeled as a leader to the GOP, which means that people think they're supposed to emulate him. Beck, Hannity, Coulter... Limbaugh's 20+ year career of being "edgy" is finding him desperate to stay afloat in a rising tide of hard-right 'edgyness'. Hell, the internet means he's drowning in the increasing number of bloggers, forum posts and comment logs that present everything he does without all the annoying advertisements 'cause they're all doing it for free.

So Limbaugh has to try to push the envelope even farther, to be "edgier", more eXtreme.

Problem is he's already sitting on the edge of what society thinks is acceptable. He pushed too far and slipped out of the envelope, and now the people paying him to be edgy don't want to be associated with him any more.

I'm not sure if Limbaugh's the first to pass through the envelope though, Beck may have taken that title when Fox refused to re-sign him.

[induction]

I've got no problems with the idea that women are more interested in sex during their fertile periods. I obviously don't have much first-hand experience obviously, but I'm willing to stipulate it. But I've got real issues with the idea that they arent perfectly capable of overriding that interest if they so desire.

It's the 'if they so desire' part that's causing the problem here. The claim being made is that women are less likely to desire such an override at that particular time of the month [1].

I'm not convinced that the claim that that hormones can and do affect behavior necessarily counts as misogyny, but I wouldn't object to a peer-reviewed citation to accompany the subjective one below.


[1] My wife, personal correspondence, 2009

edit: changed a word

[aeki]

Whether life begins at conception is immaterial when we're discussing birth control pills, IUDs, or condoms, because the sperm and egg never come together (although it would be an issue for RU486 morning after pills), so conception never happens.

I mean. You're wrong there. Actually. Conception is the sperm meeting the egg. Implantation is the result of conception when the new cell attaches to the uterine wall. IUDs, RU486, and birth control pills all prevent implantation (some of them do both).

A few things:

RU-486 (mifepristone) is an abortifacient, not a morning-after pill. It causes the uterine lining to shed and is used for early termination of pregnancy.

Emergency contraception (levonorgestrel) works by preventing ovulation. Scientists have speculated that it might also work by preventing implantation of an embryo, but scientific studies show that it has "little or no effect on postovulation events but is highly effective when taken before ovulation."

Birth control pills work primarily by preventing ovulation. Secondary effects include thickening the cervical mucus and thinning the uterine lining. Scientists have speculated that the thinner lining makes it more difficult for embryos to implant, but there is no scientific evidence that this is true.

Nobody is really sure exactly how IUDs work, but studies have shown that they "achieve their primary contraceptive effect by interfering with sperm motility and survival to prevent fertilization. In rare cases, when fertilization does occur, IUDs may also prevent implantation."

[Torchship]

In the US, it's a kind of smelly cheese.

Don't you think it's a tad childish and harmful to dialogue to make crappy puns on your opposition's name? Sure, your opponents do it too, but that means precisely nothing (WE CANNOT ALLOW A CHILDISHNESS GAP). It accomplishes nothing, makes your side look like a bunch of 12 year olds with no valid points to make and decreases the chance of convincing moderate conservatives that your point has any validity. (not directed at you in particular, rather everyone who thinks that 'Limburger' is a brilliant name).

[lutzj]

In the US, it's a kind of smelly cheese.

Don't you think it's a tad childish and harmful to dialogue to make crappy puns on your opposition's name? Sure, your opponents do it too, but that means precisely nothing (WE CANNOT ALLOW A CHILDISHNESS GAP). It accomplishes nothing, makes your side look like a bunch of 12 year olds with no valid points to make and decreases the chance of convincing moderate conservatives that your point has any validity. (not directed at you in particular, rather everyone who thinks that 'Limburger' is a brilliant name).

I was more annoyed by the fact that it's not even a very good pun. "Limbaugh" to "Limburger" is kind of a stretch sonically.

[sourmìlk]

In the US, it's a kind of smelly cheese.

Don't you think it's a tad childish and harmful to dialogue to make crappy puns on your opposition's name? Sure, your opponents do it too, but that means precisely nothing (WE CANNOT ALLOW A CHILDISHNESS GAP). It accomplishes nothing, makes your side look like a bunch of 12 year olds with no valid points to make and decreases the chance of convincing moderate conservatives that your point has any validity. (not directed at you in particular, rather everyone who thinks that 'Limburger' is a brilliant name).

I was more annoyed by the fact that it's not even a very good pun. "Limbaugh" to "Limburger" is kind of a stretch sonically.

Spelling-wise it works though.

[JudeMorrigan]

I've got no problems with the idea that women are more interested in sex during their fertile periods. I obviously don't have much first-hand experience obviously, but I'm willing to stipulate it. But I've got real issues with the idea that they arent perfectly capable of overriding that interest if they so desire.

It's the 'if they so desire' part that's causing the problem here. The claim being made is that women are less likely to desire such an override at that particular time of the month [1].

I'm not convinced that the claim that that hormones can and do affect behavior necessarily counts as misogyny, but I wouldn't object to a peer-reviewed citation to accompany the subjective one below.


[1] My wife, personal correspondence, 2009

edit: changed a word

The thing is, our hypothetical woman has decided ahead of time that she doesn't intend to have sex while fertile and is able to correctly identify her fertile periods (otherwise, she has bigger problems). It not the idea that hormans can affect behavior that I find misogynistic, but with those as givens, I don't see any way to not parse addams' statement as "you can't trust those women when they get all hormone-y". Once one swallows that as an axiom, all sorts of really nasty things fall out of it. Frankly the idea that of Men Are Incapable of Resisting The Opposite Sex that naturally pairs with it is one of the *less* nasty ones.

[Metaphysician]

See what I don't get here, is why Limbaugh decided to take the "it's like we're paying her to have sex" angle. Why not just go with the "I'm paying her to not reproduce" angle... seems like he could have saved himself a lot of trouble.

[CorruptUser]

I'll play devil's advocate here.

"You know what, I really hate the left-wing. I hate them so much, that I wish they would all disappear. The fewer of them there are, the better. But I can't advocate murdering them without sounding crazy. We need some way to prevent them from breeding, or at least reduce the number of children they have so that eventually they will be displaced by the right-wing in a few generations. It'd even better if it could be done voluntarily of their own free will. What could we do that would voluntarily get them to control their birth?"

I'm not sure where I was going with that.

[Proginoskes]

I'll play devil's advocate here.

"You know what, I really hate the left-wing. I hate them so much, that I wish they would all disappear. The fewer of them there are, the better. But I can't advocate murdering them without sounding crazy. We need some way to prevent them from breeding, or at least reduce the number of children they have so that eventually they will be displaced by the right-wing in a few generations. It'd even better if it could be done voluntarily of their own free will. What could we do that would voluntarily get them to control their birth?"

I'm not sure where I was going with that.

Maybe Rush saying: "I'm in favor of birth control, but only for Blacks, Latinos, Asians, and the Left-wing Spawn of Satan."

Have conservatives been passing out birth control to ghettos to cut down on the Black population? If they thought things through, they would.

**************

Bonus rant: I'm disappointed that Rush's comments weren't handled in a different way, in an ironic justice sort of way. You "sweetness and light" people probably will want to skip ahead to the next article. NSFW, hidden in a spoiler, to "protect the kiddies". (For those of you reading one of my posts for the first time, I am not normally like this, but considering who it is, and what he said ... well ... he deserves what I posted. The moderator will have a field day with this and probably block everything afterwards. I hope he privately enjoys it before that happens, though.)

This post had objectionable content.

It's funny how you were able to predict what would happen, yet that didn't stop you from doing it anyway. This is not the venue for your revenge fantasies. -Hawk

[Nordic Einar]

Spoilered for some sweet, sweet transphobia

Spoiler:

This post had objectionable content.

Hey, here's an idea. Why don't we not be a massive transphobic douche and place the identity of trans women in scare quotes? Considering how many are murdered every year because of that kind of shit, I think that'd be pretty swell.

[Proginoskes]

Spoilered for some sweet, sweet transphobia

Spoiler:

.Video: A busty "woman" strips, reveals she has a penis, and says, "I'm a woman, and even my penis is bigger. I don't need Viagra, Pee-Wee!" Imagine how many thousands of dollars of therapy that will require to get that image out of his mind!

Hey, here's an idea. Why don't we not be a massive transphobic douche and place the identity of trans women in scare quotes? Considering how many are murdered every year because of that kind of shit, I think that'd be pretty swell.

Spoiler:

I was using quotes because I was describing the scene. Sorry, but I'm not up on the lingo. Would you object if I had said: "A busty person-looks-like-a-woman-but-is-really-a-shemale strips ..."? Even as awkward as that phrase is?

I'm only pissed off at Limbaugh here. I didn't intend anyone else to be a "target."

[TheGrammarBolshevik]

The appropriate term for a person who regards herself as a woman is "woman."

[Nordic Einar]

I am literally speechless.

[Weeks]

Spoiler:

shemale

Don't use that term, ever.

Edit: Yeah.

[Nordic Einar]

Spoiler:

shemale

Don't use that term here, ever.

FTFY

[The Mighty Thesaurus]

If you want to refer to a transwoman specifically, I recommend "transwoman", though opinion is divided on the subject.

[Proginoskes]

If you want to refer to a transwoman specifically, I recommend "transwoman", though opinion is divided on the subject.

Like I said earlier: (1) I'm not up on the lingo, and (2) I didn't intend to offend anyone other than Rush Limbaugh.

Read the rest of the thread before you post, people.

[Weeks]

Your post is horrible for many, many other reasons than just not knowing the "lingo".

[TheGrammarBolshevik]

Knowing that you only intended to offend Rush Limbaugh would not have changed the reaction of anyone here.

[addams]

I've got no problems with the idea that women are more interested in sex during their fertile periods. I obviously don't have much first-hand experience obviously, but I'm willing to stipulate it. But I've got real issues with the idea that they arent perfectly capable of overriding that interest if they so desire.

It's the 'if they so desire' part that's causing the problem here. The claim being made is that women are less likely to desire such an override at that particular time of the month [1].

I'm not convinced that the claim that that hormones can and do affect behavior necessarily counts as misogyny, but I wouldn't object to a peer-reviewed citation to accompany the subjective one below.


[1] My wife, personal correspondence, 2009

edit: changed a word

The thing is, our hypothetical woman has decided ahead of time that she doesn't intend to have sex while fertile and is able to correctly identify her fertile periods (otherwise, she has bigger problems). It not the idea that hormans can affect behavior that I find misogynistic, but with those as givens, I don't see any way to not parse addams' statement as "you can't trust those women when they get all hormone-y". Once one swallows that as an axiom, all sorts of really nasty things fall out of it. Frankly the idea that of Men Are Incapable of Resisting The Opposite Sex that naturally pairs with it is one of the *less* nasty ones.

Whoa! Whoa Up! Are you all men?
All Hormone-y? What kind of a body do you live in?
That whole can't resist thing is, kind of, true.

Sure; Some people can do it.
But; Not for long periods of time. It has something to do with Love. I am not quite sure what color that is. But, it seems to exist. Like a cloud. Like a sparkly fog.

If, a woman lies next to a man that she loves day after day. Well; Does he love her, too?
Opps. So; It has come to this.

That is why the birth control pills and IUD's are so good. A woman needs to resolve the birth control issue once every 6 mo or so with an IUD. Every day for the pill. But, that can be built into a daily routine.
Oh! OH! Added fun. The hormones in birth control pills cause some women to lose interest in sex. Another reason that IUD's are good.

A birth control method that requires a woman to abstain on the few days that she wants to have sex is mean.

Yes. Some women want sex all day every day, always.
Yes. Some women would rather not have anything to do with sex in any way, ever.
Yes. Everybody else is somewhere in between.

It is personal. The rhythm method is genus. Great way to populate the world with guilt ridden Catholics. So, funny.
From what I understand guilt ridden Jews must be created, postpartum.

[sourmìlk]

Nah, I'm pretty sure most women can resist having sex during ovulation if they so choose. I'm not great at self control, but I've gone over 17 years without sex. I think a woman can manage the same for a week out of every month. Not that they should have to, obviously.

[Ulc]

Nah, I'm pretty sure most women can resist having sex during ovulation if they so choose. I'm not great at self control, but I've gone over 17 years without sex. I think a woman can manage the same for a week out of every month. Not that they should have to, obviously.

You're assuming that any given women knows exactly when she's fertile - which is wrong. The "28 day cycle" is in many cases quite unpredictable and more like "three month cycle of one's body doing random crap".

Not to mention, seeing how you're not in a relationship, it's quite different. Refraining from sex because you don't have anyone to have sex with is drastically different from sleeping in the same bed as ones sexual partner every night. Remembering that it's the "no sex for a week" time when you're half-awake in the middle of the night, and you and your partner are both horny isn't always easy

[Tomo]

Not to mention, seeing how you're not in a relationship, it's quite different. Refraining from sex because you don't have anyone to have sex with is drastically different from sleeping in the same bed as ones sexual partner every night. Remembering that it's the "no sex for a week" time when you're half-awake in the middle of the night, and you and your partner are both horny isn't always easy

In addition, it's completely possible for some people to have sex while asleep/half asleep without fully thinking through the consequences, due to not being entirely conscious.

[Zamfir]

That's why they invented chastity belts. They used to be uncomfortable, but with aramid fibres you can make fairly wearable ones.

[Steroid]

I know I shouldn't dive back into this, but when there's such universality of opinion, someone has to explain the other side, lest you become lazy in your thinking.

This event, and many others that have occurred and are to come, show the problem with universal health care and even the premise that health care is a right. The practical upshot of that conclusion (and practical upshots are what we go by, if the repeated declarations in this thread that the conservative position is all about misogyny) is that we can force people to pay for anything that the health-care establishment thinks is desirable regardless if the payor doesn't want it, thinks it's too expensive, believes it to be murder, etc. At which point it's just a question of who controls the establishment. Get enough devout Catholics on the AMA boards and it's birth control out, priestly consultations in.

But, you say, our position is not arbitrary, but based on reason and experience. Choosing reason and experience over other standards is arbitrary. When the first amendment says that you have the right to not have a religion established that has control over you, it does not mean that you have the obligation to be controlled by a nullifidian system of reason.

When a Catholic says that this is not about sex or misogyny but his beliefs, and you conclude that he's being disingenuous, you open yourself up for the same line of logic, and so I assume that Ms. Fluke's position is not based on a genuine belief that universal health care is good policy, but instead comes from hatred of religion and promiscuity. Why shouldn't I or Rush Limbaugh (Seriously, will no one edit the title? If that's the standard, then note to self: be the first to post the next thread about left-wing NY Times columnist Charles Blow) work from that premise both for humor and for debate position?

[sourmìlk]

I have no problem with the government deciding how to exercise its power by using reason rather than religion. The government is perfectly allowed to override an action based on a person's religious preference if that preference interferes with another person's rights. Suicide bombers may believe what they're doing is because God told them to, but that doesn't mean they're allowed to deny another person the right to life. An employer may believe that birth control is evil, but that doesn't give him the right to deprive his employees of their right to health. Even from a religious freedom argument, this doesn't hold up. Not letting you impose your religion on others isn't a violation of freedom of religion, it's a protection of it.

[Steroid]

But employment is a voluntary relationship. That of murderer and victim is not. Voluntary relationships should be governed only by the preferences of the related parties. Involuntary relationships can be managed governmentally on a principle of justice.

[elasto]

This event, and many others that have occurred and are to come, show the problem with universal health care and even the premise that health care is a right. The practical upshot of that conclusion (and practical upshots are what we go by, if the repeated declarations in this thread that the conservative position is all about misogyny) is that we can force people to pay for anything that the health-care establishment thinks is desirable regardless if the payor doesn't want it, thinks it's too expensive, believes it to be murder, etc. At which point it's just a question of who controls the establishment. Get enough devout Catholics on the AMA boards and it's birth control out, priestly consultations in.

Can you point to any country with a long-standing, universal, taxpayer-funded healthcare where this has happened? I guess it could happen in theory, but in practice governments aren't silly enough to allow just anyone to sit on a board determining which drugs and procedures are medically efficacious and represent value for money and which don't - they choose experts in evidence-based healthcare: scientists, doctors, researchers and whatnot.

[sourmìlk]

I think that's a good argument as to why healthcare shouldn't be handed out through employers but through either personal payment or the government. But given that you pretty much have to get it through an employer, it becomes the employer's responsibility to provide healthcare adequately. I think the idea that employers have no responsibility to their employees died when small children started losing limbs in machinery.

[Steroid]

Can you point to any country with a long-standing, universal, taxpayer-funded healthcare where this has happened?

I cannot. That's the problem. We're creating a world where health care is falling into lockstep and it's becoming a dictatorship of experts. I don't want to be ruled by experts in any industry, certainly not in the important ones like health care. I want the freedom to make my own decisions.

I think that's a good argument as to why healthcare shouldn't be handed out through employers but through either personal payment or the government. But given that you pretty much have to get it through an employer, it becomes the employer's responsibility to provide healthcare adequately. I think the idea that employers have no responsibility to their employees died when small children started losing limbs in machinery.

At what point do we stop trying to work within a flawed system and start fixing the flaws? But beyond that, have you no sympathy at all for someone who doesn't want to spend on birth control because they believe it's murder? Is that really not just a position you disagree with, but a position that is untenable to hold? If not, any system that forces them to do so is problematic and flawed.

[sourmìlk]

Can you point to any country with a long-standing, universal, taxpayer-funded healthcare where this has happened?

I cannot. That's the problem. We're creating a world where health care is falling into lockstep and it's becoming a dictatorship of experts. I don't want to be ruled by experts in any industry, certainly not in the important ones like health care. I want the freedom to make my own decisions.

then you should be perfectly free to pay for your health insurance out of pocket or pay for the healthcare out of pocket. I agree that you should have the choice to be unhealthy, but that doesn't mean it isn't the government's responsibility to enable you to be healthy.

I think that's a good argument as to why healthcare shouldn't be handed out through employers but through either personal payment or the government. But given that you pretty much have to get it through an employer, it becomes the employer's responsibility to provide healthcare adequately. I think the idea that employers have no responsibility to their employees died when small children started losing limbs in machinery.

At what point do we stop trying to work within a flawed system and start fixing the flaws?

Preferably immediately. But given that we're stuck with a flawed system (and I'm pretty sure we're stuck with it for a while, as people don't seem to want it to change too much) we should improve it as much as possible.

But beyond that, have you no sympathy at all for someone who doesn't want to spend on birth control because they believe it's murder? Is that really not just a position you disagree with, but a position that is untenable to hold? If not, any system that forces them to do so is problematic and flawed.

I don't have sympathy for people imposing their incorrect views on others. But even if I did, that would be outweighed by my sympathy for people being deprived of proper healthcare.