I have nothing but the most sincere sympathy for Sandra Fluke who testified at a hearing on the medical coverage of contraception and is now at the center of a shitstorm organized by sexually repressed miserable folks on both sides of the partisan divide. Here is what Rush Libmaugh had to say about Fluke:
It was Sandra Fluke who said that she was having so much sex she can’t afford it. […] She’s spending $3000, $1000 a year, on pills and she’s going broke and wants us to buy it. […] By her own admission, in her own words, Sandra Fluke is having so much sex that she can’t afford it. […] Does she have more boyfriends? They’re lined up around the block. Or they would have been in my day.
I don’t understand why anybody would listen to the guy who repeats the same thing like a broken record, makes strange logical connections, and is so out of touch with reality that the difference between condoms and other forms of contraception eludes him. From this quote, Limbaugh’s show sounds tedious as hell.
But I don’t see what’s offensive about this particular quote.
I copied it directly from a progressive website that is scandalized by the quote. Mind you, I have no idea what was said in the parts that the progressive website edited and put in […]. I’m reacting to a reaction, so to speak, and for the purposes of my post, what matters is the text that the progressive website in question found offensive. This is how the progressive blog responded:
And still, with the exception of mealy-mouthed demurring by John Boehner and Rick Santorum, the gutless Republicans have nothing to say about these attacks. If the Speaker’s daughters Lindsay and Tricia had been Limbaugh’s targets for these scummy attacks, would he have just said the guy’s words were “inappropriate.”
Now I want everybody to breathe very deep and look back at the quote from Limbaugh. Yes, we all hate Limbaugh. He is stupid, he is vile, he is an uneducated, stupid jerk. But let’s look at this particular quote because I’m trying to make an important point.
Where precisely are the “scummy attacks” in the quoted text? Is having “so much sex”, “more boyfriends” and people who are “lined up around the block” something bad? What is so offensive about being sexually active and popular? Limbaugh is an idiot and a clown, we all know that. But what about the progressives who take the phrase “she is having so much sex” as some huge insult?
Limbaugh’s position is, at least, very clear: “I can’t get it up any more, so I hate everybody who can.” The author of the progressive post, however, has me very confused. He seems to think that having a lot of sex is something that happens but it is a reality that is so offensive that it should never be mentioned in polite company.
There is a lot of sexual repression going on here on both sides. All that differs is the way in which the conservatives and the progressives manifest how much sex horrifies them. The verbiage changes but the substance remains the same.
Clarissa's Blog 
I’m not sure why that particular blogger singled out that quote. This is the one I’ve gotten numerous e-mails about:
“What does it say about the college co-ed [Sandra] Fluke who goes before a congressional committee and essentially says that she must be paid to have sex? What does that make her? It makes her a slut, right? It makes her a prostitute. [. . .]
If we are going to pay for your contraceptives, and thus pay for you to have sex, we want something for it. We want you to post the videos online so we can all watch.”
LikeLike
This is not the article the progressive blogger chose to decide, though.
In any case, what everybody is missing in this whole partisan drama is that the pharma companies are gouging the prices for pills that cost next to nothing to make. And we are all contributing to that form of extortion by discussing who will pay for health insurance when the problem is that this entire system of insurance is horribly messed up.
The insurance companies need to go. That would make medication and health care better and cheaper for everybody.
LikeLike
The insurance companies need to go. That would make medication and health care better and cheaper for everybody.
I agree with you. This simply isn’t going to be an easy fight, though. In the meantime, we need these protections and guarantees–many of us can’t wait until the U.S. jumps on the public health care bandwagon to get medications.
In my first comment, I just wanted to point out that most of the outrage is over the quote that I posted, and not the one this particular blogger is talking about. 🙂
LikeLike
It’s unacceptable for Rush Limbaugh to be making any claims about Fluke’s sex life. She didn’t testify about that. Limbaugh is making stuff up. He’s misrepresenting her testimony in front of an audience of 15 million.
He’s trying to silence Fluke for making a policy argument before Congress. By extension, he’s trying to shame all American women, since 99% of us use birth control at some point in our lives.
Note that when Rush was called upon to apologize he switched from “she’s a slut” to “she’s unfuckable.” He said that after looking at her, it was obvious that she wasn’t a prostitute. Those two flavors of misogynist insult are equally cruel.
There’s nothing shameful about not being a prostitute. Lots and lots of perfectly nice people aren’t sex workers. That’s so not the point. A woman has a right to get up and make a policy argument before Congress without having the likes of Rush Limbaugh make up lies about her sex life. Most people want to keep their private life private, regardless of what they’re doing in bed. Bullies like Rush are trying to silence people by threatening to make their private lives the subject of public discussion.
LikeLike
“By extension, he’s trying to shame all American women, since 99% of us use birth control at some point in our lives.”
– For the bizillionth time: shame has an internal locus of control. Are people not understanding this phrase, or something? It means that shame comes from inside of you. Nobody can make you feel ashamed for something you don’t find to be shameful.
“A woman has a right to get up and make a policy argument before Congress without having the likes of Rush Limbaugh make up lies about her sex life.”
– Freedom of speech guarantees that Fluke and Limbaugh can both say whatever they want to say.
“Those two flavors of misogynist insult are equally cruel.”
– Stupid, yes, but “cruel”???? I have trolls trying to leave comments on my blog about how I’m either a whore or unfuckable about every other day. I would describe these comments as pathetic, stupid, idiotic, hilarious, ridiculous. But cruel? They can only be cruel if they hurt my feelings. And if they hurt my feelings that is only because I have decided that it should.
” Bullies like Rush are trying to silence people by threatening to make their private lives the subject of public discussion.”
– It will only work until people keep getting scandalized about any discussion of sex in this manner.
LikeLike
It’s from the “good old days” – she has “boyfriends” lined up around the block (meaning all neighborhood is gossiping of her sex life and all men know where to go if they want sex), but, of course, nobody will marry her.
LikeLike
Today, as at every time in the past, the sexually popular women were the ones who found it super easy to get married. 🙂
LikeLike
You’re so right. I said many of the same things in my blog.
LikeLike
When I first heard about this, my first thought was that time Rush got caught coming back from the Dominican Republic (or was it Costa Rica?) with bottles of illegally-obtained Viagra in his pockets. I bet he is just jealous that nobody would ever want a sex tape of him.
LikeLike
Those are all insults. He’s trying to imply a lot of standard misogynist things and he also implies all this ownership – we are paying, we deserve to see the tapes which must exist, if her birth control is subsidized in any way then we have rights to visually fuck her, etc.
I’m wondering how one could make an analogy to some other type of medical procedure. Like, if Rush has a heart attack and somehow I end up paying for part of it, due to group insurance or whatever. Does this mean he owes me … groceries, maybe, or gift certificates to fine restaurants, since I “paid” for the consequences of his overeating?
I mean, really.
LikeLike
You really find the statement “It was Sandra Fluke who said that she was having so much sex she can’t afford it. […] She’s spending $3000, $1000 a year, on pills and she’s going broke and wants us to buy it. […] By her own admission, in her own words, Sandra Fluke is having so much sex that she can’t afford it. […] Does she have more boyfriends? They’re lined up around the block. Or they would have been in my day” to be insulting?
I can honestly say that if this were said about me, I’d perceive it as a string of compliments. How can the suggestion that you are having a lot of sex be insulting? Isn’t that the best thing in the world?
Note that there are no tapes mentioned in this quote and it’s this quote that we are discussing. If they were mentioned, however, I don’t see how that’s more offensive than saying, “If you are going to buy caviar on food stamps, then post a video so we can all enjoy it.” It is an uninformed, obnoxious statement. But an insult? A “scummy attack”? I don’t see it.
LikeLike
You’re ignoring context. It’s a standard speech where the next part is about deserving to be raped, etc. He means she’s available to have done to or with her whatever anyone wants. I’m sure you know about this line of thinking. Anyway, here’s a lovely sentence by him:
“If we are going to pay for your contraceptives, and thus pay for you to have sex. We want something for it. We want you to post the videos online so we can all watch.”
(We are paying for contraceptives, we are paying for this, we are paying for that.)
LikeLike
You are not hearing me on this one. I’m analyzing a very specific text that contains a very specific quote. I find that the reaction of a supposedly progressive journalist to this very specific quote is extremely prudish. And my point is that we are not seeing a healthy attitude to sex either from the conservatives or the progressives. The extreme priggishness reins on both sides. The progressive post I quoted contributes to the environment of an unhealthy prudishness in the same way (albeit to a lesser degree, of course) than the texts by Limbaugh.
LikeLike
The proper response to “you’re having a lot of sex!” is “yes, and?” Or maybe, “I know, it’s great, isn’t it?” Or maybe just “LOL u mad?” Getting upset means deep down inside you agree with the fussbudgets that women having sex and enjoying it is bad. Limbaugh knows this and the people screeching about it have played right into his hands. This is his shtick, for God’s sakes — he says deliberately provocative things to stir people up and get attention. This is why I don’t know why so many conservatives love him. He’s not a conservative — he’s a celebrity. He’s not the conservative’s friend, not when he pulls stunts like this all the time, stunts that always end up hurting conservative causes. This is why I’m basically through with conservatives. They’re doing the same thing liberals did years ago that made me drop them — making self-aggrandizing, out-for-themselves-only “celebrities” their heroes, and then expecting me to join in rationalizing it away when they pull stunts like this. No. I have better things to do with my time.
LikeLike
That’s exactly what I’m saying.
Politics has become such a show that we lose track of how little actual difference there is between our conservatives and liberals.
LikeLike
These people aren’t self-conscious enough to have that work.
LikeLike
..or to be more precise: to call someone a “slut” or a “prostitute” is an insult – those are insulting words in English, not compliments – and to say you want pictures of them having sex is mega-creepy, in almost every circumstance, not a compliment.
LikeLike
Who used the word “slut” in the comment that I’m discussing?
LikeLike
Look at the context – that’s a few words lifted out of what he said and it’s with ellipses. Even so, in the context in which he was speaking, what he says are fighting words.
“Take it as a compliment,” “he is just jealous,” “turn the other cheek,” etc. are the traditional recommendations for these situations but in fact they’re just enabling. And one isn’t dealing with hearts or minds subtle enough to look inward if a mirror is held up to them, etc. – responding yes, I am having a lot of sex, and what about it is essentially just giving them license to up the volume. This is some of why that had to have a response.
The kind of attitude (and also activity) Rush has about sex, and its trumpeting about, is the reason our students are afraid of sex in any art house film we might show, etc. etc. – and it’s really not effective to verbally spar with people who have decided sex is a way to degrade women and will go out of their way to make sure they do it.
LikeLike
This conversation has run into a dead end because I feel like you are not listening. This isn’t about Rush who is obviously a jerk, so what is there to discuss? This is about how much Liberals contribute to the same prudish culture.
“And one isn’t dealing with hearts or minds subtle enough to look inward if a mirror is held up to them, etc. – responding yes, I am having a lot of sex, and what about it is essentially just giving them license to up the volume. ”
– And convincing them that no, I’m not, I’m a good girl, and I just need the pills for a serious health condition is going to achieve what exactly?
“and it’s really not effective to verbally spar with people who have decided sex is a way to degrade women”
– These people include the ultra-progressive author of the post I quoted. And that’s the real problem. Nobody is free of the atrocious patriarchal conditioning here. Both Rush and this guy are convinced that sex is dirty.
LikeLike
Definitely liberals are often no better than their cousins of the extreme right. It’s mind-body dualism. To defend oneself, one is expected to show that one can rise above the body and live only in the mind. Otherwise ancient apparatuses are brought into action at the level of most people’s pre-conscious awareness. Women can be put into place because for many centuries, Western culture has trained its citizens to have contempt for the body and to associate it with emotional loss of control. Even those who think their viewpoints are more rational have probably assimilated a sense of this ideological dichotomy as being true. At an emotional level, they react as they are expected to, by casting suspicion and contempt upon women who are deemed to be acting on the basis of the needs of the body.
LikeLike
And these so-called progressives don’t even stop to think how hugely patriarchal this “defense” of “what would he feel if somebody said that about his daughters” sounds. Because in this pseudo-progressive creepo’s mind, a woman’s sexuality still belongs to her father! It is still a reflection on the father (and not a good one) if she is sexually active. Because only the pater familias is allowed to dispose of the daughter’s body.
This is the kind of progresssivism we get here in the US.
LikeLike
Yes. I think it’s an attempt to appeal to community bonds, rather than to any capacity for free thought.
This failure may have much to do with the back to nature movement that has been afflicting Australia and the US very generally since the 90s. Secularism seems to have been almost wholly swallowed up by evolutionary psychologically talk, celebrating our apehood and questioning what ought to be done if one is a Beta ape instead of an alpha ape. Having sex has also been framed in this manner as an unintelligent trade-off in the evolutionary stakes or “giving it away”.
So, the liberal ape is going to look out for himself and his evolutionary rights and property, because he has been taught that he is not really a rational ape and is not capable of being one.
LikeLike
“Secularism seems to have been almost wholly swallowed up by evolutionary psychologically talk, celebrating our apehood and questioning what ought to be done if one is a Beta ape instead of an alpha ape. Having sex has also been framed in this manner as an unintelligent trade-off in the evolutionary stakes or “giving it away”.”
– So true!! But what lies behind this pseudo-liberal attitude is intense fear that a person exorcises by a lot of long and scientifically sounding words.
LikeLike
Yeah, but the ideology of apelikeness nurtures this fear. I mean, if you really are just an ape in the jungle of life, you’ve got to take what you can get whilst you can get it. If you’re a chimp, rather than a bonobo, there’s not enough to go around, and so you’re going to need to fight, flatter and deceive. Anything goes in the law of the jungle.
This goes to show how perceptions can in so many ways become reality.
LikeLike
But try in practice in US to bring a complaint for rape, stalking, etc.
LikeLike
The quote, exactly as quoted is offensive. Not because of prudishness, but because of context and intent, which you cannot just remove at will. That was not said in a vacuum.
While lots of sex is not inherently shameful (and that’s the point you’re trying to make, as far as I can tell), Limbaugh’s intention is to use it as an insult. He brought it up in this conversation. As far as I know, Sandra was not talking about the amount of sex she was having. She wasn’t even talking about herself, primarily, but women and birth control in general at her school plus the story of a friend who needed bc for medical reasons (ie not related to sex at all), and who suffered serious consequences as a result of being denied insurance coverage.
So Limbaugh brought up the amount of sex he figures she’s having in an attempt to shame her. You can argue it shouldn’t be offensive because sex isn’t wrong, but consider an analogous example of using the term “gay” as an insult. There is nothing shameful or wrong about being gay, and plenty of people who are gay (we’ve come a long way) are comfortable identifying themselves as such and won’t suffer any social consequences for it. But if you hear a bully on the playground call another kid “gay” because he isn’t good at sports, I imagine you would see that as offensive. Even though there’s nothing inherently offensive in the term “gay”. The intent was to shame him, and it came up in a situation that had nothing to do with the kid’s sexuality. And there will probably be social consequences for the kid. It shouldn’t be that way, but it is.
So Sandra’s testimony didn’t really have much to do with how many sex partners she had. She didn’t come out and say “I should be able to sleep with however many people I want, and my bc should be covered.” That may be true, but that wasn’t her point. People should also have the right to privacy. She may not want to discuss the number of sex partners she’s had, so saying her proper response to an attack that was clearly meant to silence her should be to say “yeah, and so what?” is missing the point. The point is this should never have been brought up. Choosing to talk about birth control and why it should be covered is not an invitation to have one’s sex life speculated about publicly. That’s the problem. It’s offensive that the first place Limbaugh goes to is “she’s had sex with so many people she can’t afford it.” Which brings up the next logical fallacy and offensive aspect. He’s trying to paint lots of sex as irresponsible, and Sandra as irresponsible, completely and willfully disregarding the fact that the cost of birth control pills is not proportional to the amount of sex you’re having or your number of partners. It costs the same whether you’re sleeping with zero people or fifty.
In other words, Limbaugh’s quote, exactly as is, is really offensive. Maybe if it had come from her best friend in private, it wouldn’t be so offensive (well, that implication that she’s being irresponsible because of all the sex still would be) but the fact that it came from Limbaugh to the public, grants it a particular context and meaning. This got rather long-winded, and I hope it’s clear. But this is why I (a liberal lady who has no problem talking amongst close friends about the copious amounts of sex we may be having) find this quote offensive.
LikeLike
“Limbaugh’s intention is to use it as an insult”
– Nobody can insult us unless we give them a preliminary and a completely voluntary permission to do so. An example: say, I consider that reading many books is a stupid, harmful activity. So in order to insult you, I say, “You, C, read many books!” Will you be insulted or amused? Even if you know that my intention here was to offend, will you be offended by such a statement?
“So Limbaugh brought up the amount of sex he figures she’s having in an attempt to shame her.”
– Nobody can shame you without your consent. Shame has an internal locus of control.
“But if you hear a bully on the playground call another kid “gay” because he isn’t good at sports, I imagine you would see that as offensive. Even though there’s nothing inherently offensive in the term “gay”. ”
– A kid who is not bullied on a daily basis by his or her parents will not find anything threatening in being called this or absolutely anything else on the playground.
“So Sandra’s testimony didn’t really have much to do with how many sex partners she had.”
– Thank you, I’m aware.
“He’s trying to paint lots of sex as irresponsible, and Sandra as irresponsible”
– I don’t remember the word “irresponsible” being used in this discussion at all. Is this your personal judgment?
LikeLike
The only person who can shame you is yourself.
LikeLike
So the only reason a child would feel bullied at school is if he/she is already being mistreated at home? Off-topic, but please read http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/one-towns-war-on-gay-teens-20120202 if you haven’t already.
The word “irresponsible” doesn’t have to have been used for the concept to have been invoked. To say she is having so much sex she can’t afford it– when that’s not even how birth control pills work– is to imply she is irresponsible based on a fallacy anyway. Consider how homeowners who bought houses with mortgages they couldn’t afford are called irresponsible, or how if you buy an expensive car beyond your means, you will be called irresponsible. To say someone is consuming more “x” than they can afford is to imply they are irresponsible, whether or not the word is used at the time. That is not a judgement I made, that’s how political rhetoric works in this country.
This is not a full response to your response, but I wanted to answer your last question.
In the OP, you asked what was so offensive about the quote as it was. I answered that question– why it’s offensive to me. I can’t speak for anyone else, although I did agree with Z’s comments too. You don’t have to agree with me. And your original questions may have been rhetorical, but either way, this is my opinion. I stand by it, and it has nothing to do with thinking there’s anything shameful in having lots of sex/sex partners.
LikeLike
“So the only reason a child would feel bullied at school is if he/she is already being mistreated at home”
– Not “mistreated” because that’s vague and meaningless but assigned the role of a victim.
“In the OP, you asked what was so offensive about the quote as it was. I answered that question– why it’s offensive to me. I can’t speak for anyone else, although I did agree with Z’s comments too. You don’t have to agree with me. And your original questions may have been rhetorical, but either way, this is my opinion. I stand by it, and it has nothing to do with thinking there’s anything shameful in having lots of sex/sex partners.”
– The first and the last sentences contradict each other. Do you feel exactly the same way about the statements “She has read many books” and “She has had a lot of sex”?
“To say she is having so much sex she can’t afford it– when that’s not even how birth control pills work– is to imply she is irresponsible based on a fallacy anyway.”
– This is completely beyond the scope of what we are discussing. I can only repeat for the 15th time that we are discussing a very specific quote and a very specific reaction to it. We are not talking about the economy or the issues of responsibility in this particular post. We are talking very specifically about sexual prudishness. And I have to say that I find these constant attempts to take the conversation into a completely different direction to be the perfect answer to my initial question. People on both sides of the political divide in this country are massively uncomfortable with the idea of sex.
LikeLike
The first and the last sentences contradict each other. Do you feel exactly the same way about the statements “She has read many books” and “She has had a lot of sex”?
“She has read many books” is a praise usually in the culture, while “She has had a lot of sex” usually isn’t. At some places of work even today the latter can cost a job or being promoted to higher levels. At school people would gossip about X having too much sex and sometimes even bully. You say “you shouldn’t pay attantion”, but people are a social species and ignoring many people around you changing your treatment for worse is more than most can manage.
LikeLike
// At school people would gossip about X having too much sex and sometimes even bully.
That’s what I think would happen in many US schools. I didn’t see it at my Israeli school, but in my class most (>50%) were virgins or in a serious relationship. Never heard of anybody being short term.
LikeLike
A friend (born and raised in the US) shared that in spite of being very beautiful, sociable and academically gifted (she is all that), she was never popular at school because she only had one boyfriend that entire time and other people made fun of her as a goody two shoes. This is pretty much exactly how it was when I was growing up, so I wasn’t surprised.
LikeLike
I honestly can’t imagine any school kids who admire book reading and punish sexual activity. An unpopular bookish nerd is tons more likely to get bullied than a sexually successful kid.
In any case, that’s beyond the point. The point is that the environment of “ooh, horrible, shameful sex” is created by people. And those people are just as likely to identify as progressives as they are to identify as conservatives.
And I’m suggesting precisely that we pay a lot of attention to this fascinating phenomenon.
LikeLike
Quite literally, people didn’t have sex when I was in high school. At least not in my group.
LikeLike
Boys weren’t sexually active in my class but girls all were by the age of 16. Except for the completely hopeless characters stomped into the ground by their parents. That was Soviet Union for you. 🙂
LikeLike
“Boys weren’t sexually active in my class but girls all were by the age of 16.”
How is this possible? If the boys were not sexually active, while the girls were, were the girls sexually active with much older men, or with each other, or???
LikeLike
With college boys, of course. I later married my college boy, for example. 🙂
LikeLike
Curious. Were there enough college boys to go around? Or did the college boys have lots of partners? I was under the impression that only a small fraction of high school pupils in U. S. S. R. went on to college.
LikeLike
Oh no, the majority of people got higher education. Boys were especially desperate to go to college because that was the only way to avoid being drafted into the army. The higher education was of abysmally poor quality, so people who got it were doomed to accept fictitious jobs, do nothing and make a pittance. Still, it was all worth it because the division into social classes was very rigid and that was a way for people to distance themselves (at least, nominally) from their working class and peasant origins.
LikeLike
On US generally being prudish, sure. On whether *RL’s comments* could be taken as a compliment, no. On whether it was smart for responses to address all aspects of what he had to say, yes.
LikeLike
Imagine what the reaction would be if a man testified before Congress that he spent x amount of dollars on birth control in a year’s time. Would his testimony be taken seriously? Would anyone be offended if political commentators had some fun at his expense?
Yeah, there’s a double standard here, and it works in all kinds of different ways.
LikeLike
I have a feeling that you are not aware of the situation we are discussing. No woman has gone to congress to testify “that she spent x amount of dollars on birth control in a year’s time.” We are discussing real events that are taking place right now. You can read Sandra Fluke’s testimony here: http://radioviceonline.com/a-look-back-to-sandra-flukes-spoken-testimony-transcript-included/
LikeLike
Although sure, a double standard, whereby a man would get some (largely admiring) jokes, and a woman would get called a “slut.”
But, on the question of having a lot of sex, I would say that yes, women who do this and mean it – they are doing it for themselves, etc. – are popular. But then there are the ones of the “easy” image, who do it *to please*, and so are just “passed around” – which is ultimately the only reason Rush can see for it, and gets pissed off if it’s not done *to please him*, and so demands videos of it. (This is in shorthand because it’s so late, I hope it makes sense. My hunch is that what the Rush types are so p.o.’d about is autonomy, which is why they’re going after birth control.)
LikeLike
//But then there are the ones of the “easy” image, who do it *to please*, and so are just “passed around”
Can you explain further, please? How are they “passed around”, while women who do it for themselves are “popular”? Like a man will respect and want to marry a popular woman, but call “passed around” one names? Don’t those “passed” choose with whom to sleep too?
LikeLike
“How are they “passed around”, while women who do it for themselves are “popular””
– This isn’t reality we are discussing. It’s the imagination of a deeply damaged and insecure type of man. Who cares what he thinks and why? The point of his existence is to be ridiculed. 🙂 🙂
LikeLike
El – Clarissa keeps making the point, very unfamiliar in US, that having lots of sex with lots of partners does not in fact make women “damaged goods” who cannot marry etc. but desirable. I am saying yes, sure, this does happen, but what Rush is talking about is the airhead floozy who will allow anyone to satisfy himself with her because she is just that insecure and has that little identity … and who in fact nobody would stay with for more than a few minutes, etc. … and whose word is not to be believed, etc., etc. My point is, I don’t think this is a teachable moment, or that by doing just the right feint one can get rush to see the light. At this time certain laws may be passed or not and attempts to discredit witnesses or sway opinion in the way of unscientific fiction have to be contested.
LikeLike
” what Rush is talking about is the airhead floozy who will allow anyone to satisfy himself with her because she is just that insecure and has that little identity … and who in fact nobody would stay with for more than a few minutes, etc. … and whose word is not to be believed, etc., etc.”
– Yes, that’s exactly what Rush is saying. And my point is that the progressive journalist I quoted is saying exactly the same thing.
“My point is, I don’t think this is a teachable moment, or that by doing just the right feint one can get rush to see the light.”
– Who’s disagreeing? 🙂 🙂 I hope nobody took my post as an attempt to improve Rush Limbaugh.
LikeLike
Here’s a Reichian take on US conservatism and sexual repression. Of course one has heard things about Reich’s own life, etc., but it’s still worth a read. http://www.alternet.org/module/printversion/154194
LikeLike
Actually, it is none of Rush’s business how much sex, if any, Ms. Fluke engages in. Shame is not the issue. Using terms such as “prostitute” (by definition in the USA except Nevada, a criminal) is a clear attempt by Rush to discredit Ms. Fluke AND to encourage others to discredit and very possibly to harass Ms. Fluke. What part of “ad hominem attack” do you not understand?
LikeLike
Very good points.
LikeLike
It is very strange that 51 comments into the discussion people still have not noticed that I’m not excusing Limbaugh – whom I repeatedly called a vile jerk – but, rather, questioning the position of the progressive defenders of Sandra Fluke who are prissy prudes of the worst caliber.
LikeLike