"Jane, you ignorant slut!"

[Necron2.0]

Recently, someone misrepresented as an average college coed testified before a completely unofficial Congressional committee (in the US). She expressed outrage that her school's healthcare would not pay the contraception costs for someone like her to have sex four times a day, seven days a week, for three straight years (no breaks, no days off). A national talk-show host has gotten in hot water for suggesting that someone having that much sex just might be a slut.

Well, I recognize the word carries a lot of emotional baggage with it, but if we can put that aside and think purely analytically, how much sex would someone (anyone - male or female) have to have on a daily basis to be classified as a slut?

The only point of reference I have is Gene Simmons, who has characterized himself as a slut in documentary interviews. He's on record as having "slept" with over 5000 women. If we assume he turned "good boy" after hooking up with his wife (yeah, right), that means his prowling days were from 1971 to 1983. That still only puts him at 417 sexual encounters per year, as opposed to the 1389 encounters an "average" Georgetown coed is supposed to be having. Kinda makes you go, "Hmmmm."

[eldargal]

Contraceptive pills are actually used to treat a whole lot of medical conditions in addition to their obvious uses as birth control. Just because someone is taking them every day doesn't mean they are a slut.

[Psychosplodge]

That's fairly easily done between two people with enough sex drive, would probably be more difficult if she was having to find a new partner everytime....

[wittdooley]

I'd rather have someone that was smart enough to get into Georgetown making babies than the welfare suckers that are presently making them in abundance in the US.

[Grenadier]

Hey Witt, I see you're in Cincinatti. Been there a couple of times. Scary place!


Ok, so there are some legitimate medical reasons for a woman to use contraceptives for something other than preventing pregnancy. That's a given. But still, that student's sense of entitlement is disgusting. The fact remains is plenty of women only use them to prevent pregnancies and have no other medical reason for using them. And, in these cases women should not turn to the government to pay for her having sex.

As for Rush Limbaugh calling her a slut I say this: no big deal. So what? He used a dirty word. I personally don't think he should have called her that. And I disagree with using such hateful language towards any woman, even liberal women. But so what? I give him a pass anyway.

And why do I give him a pass for this? Simple: where is all the outrage when Bill Maher called Sarah Palin the dreaded C word? Or when any other Conservative or Republican woman is hit with similar abusive words by mysoginistic comments by liberal media figures. Michelle Malkin, Anne Coulter, Sarah Palin, Andrea Tantaros, S.C. Cupp, and plenty of women on the right have had such words hurled at them by liberal media figures. And nobody steps up to defend these women. Recently Kirsten Powers, a liberal democrat and stategist actually pointed out this hypocritical double standard. Kudos to her for actually calling her side out on this bogus outrage.

[Necron2.0]

Contraceptive pills are actually used to treat a whole lot of medical conditions in addition to their obvious uses as birth control.

I am aware, but then it wouldn't cost anything near $1000 per year.


That's fairly easily done between two people with enough sex drive, would probably be more difficult if she was having to find a new partner everytime....

I disagree. I admit there would be no problem at all with two people going at it four to seven times a day for the first two or three months of a relationship, but that would get old fast, no matter how wild it was. Eventually it'd either slow down, or those involved would need to seek other partners and we're right back to the "S" word.

----

I should point out that this whole tempest in a teapot is one huge, monumental joke. The "coed" in question is a stooge, and an obvious one at that. She's a thirty year old reproductive rights activist who is known to have enrolled at Georgetown simply to cause trouble. When she tried to get into an official congressional hearing on contraception she was barred because she couldn't be vetted as an authentic witness - meaning they saw right through her. So, Pelosi decided to waste time and taxpayer dollars in the committee she chairs to hold her own unofficial and utterly pointless hearing, where the ONLY speaker allowed was the stooge, and there would be no rebuttal, no fact checking, no cross examination.

Of course, Rush and his ilk were all raging idiots, because they fell for it. They should have let the circus pass them by. Instead they lent it credibility by commenting on it. Stupid, stupid, stupid.

[eldargal]

Well the pill I'm on I'm supposed to take every day, I've no idea how much it costs. I'd imagine it could cost a lot more in America with your lack of medical subsidies and whatnot.

I do agree the whole issue is silly, though.

[Psychosplodge]

I disagree. I admit there would be no problem at all with two people going at it four to seven times a day for the first two or three months of a relationship, but that would get old fast, no matter how wild it was. Eventually it'd either slow down, or those involved would need to seek other partners and we're right back to the "S" word.

----




Maybe for you :cool:
No thinking about it seriously the odds of both partners wanting it four times a day and being able to schedule the time for it. I've probably got a skewed perspective as generally only see the other half at the weekend...

[MaltonNecromancer]

Well, I recognize the word carries a lot of emotional baggage with it, but if we can put that aside and think purely analytically, how much sex would someone (anyone - male or female) have to have on a daily basis to be classified as a slut?

http://robinbrown.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/facepalm-500x4001.jpg

Okay, let me ask you:

Can we "put that aside and think purely analytically", ignoring the " emotional baggage" of a word like n***er? how about the one that starts with "c" and rhymes with "punt"?

WORDS HAVE EMOTIONAL BAGGAGE ATTACHED! YOU CANNOT PUT THAT BAGGAGE ASIDE!

I mean really?

Really?

You actually want to try and come up with some statistical measure of exactly how bad a person is because of how promiscuous they are? I mean, come on, that's pretty nasty.

If someone wants to sleep around, then frankly, fair enough. You sleep with them and get emotionally attached and your heart broken? That's your fault for being a poor judge of character. If they cheat on you, they're not bad because they're sleeping around - they're bad because they're a liar and a traitor.

The act of sex has no inherent negative value. It's the lies told that are the issue. I have a very pleasant polyamorous friend who has slept with what can only be described as a positively heroic number of people. They have done this because they really, reaaaally enjoy ******s. Is it emotionally healthy?

Why should I care, I'm not in an intimate romantic relationship with them! It's not my damn place to care, nor is it anyone else's.

As for free contraceptives? I couldn't care less. Frankly, anything that stems the rise of STI's is fine with me. We have them in the UK and it works up to a point here.

Frankly, this silly girl's comment seems like one of those typical things that shows up in the tabloids for no other purpose than to enrage the tin-hat brigade who don't bother looking any deeper than a shocking soundbite.

[Grenadier]

I almost spewed my coffee onto my screen reading that.

"The act of sex has no inherent negative values." The funniest thing I've read on this forum to date.

[MaltonNecromancer]

"The act of sex has no inherent negative values." The funniest thing I've read on this forum to date.

But it doesn't. Well, not any more than eating or sleeping.

I'm going to assume you're on about rape. But if you want to talk about rape, well, that's about power, not sex. Perhaps I could have worded my comment more clearly (something along the lines of "consenting sex between two adults has no inherent negative values"), but I didn't see the need. I don't count rape as anything to do with sex, and I'm a little saddened anyone does.

I'm intrigued: what do you percieve as the negative values of protected sex between consenting adults? Because if everyone's enjoying it, has agreed to what's going on, and is psychologically robust enough to deal with it, I genuinely don't see the issue.

Is this another cultural thing?

[greendestiny]

why should a school or anyone else provide a contraceptive to someone else at all? If you have the ability to choose to have sex then you should have the responsibility of providing your own means of restricting pregnancy. If you don't have those means then quite possibly you should not be having sex. It irritates me to think that I am paying for someone else to have sex at all. Excepting in the cause of rape sex is always a choice. If you can't pony up the case for your own contraceptive you should probably not be making that choice.

[Grenadier]

No doubt the negative values of sex that I see every day is something entirely absent in the exalted and enlightened culture of the United Kingdom. And no doubt the only people having sex over there are consenting adults. And nobody has ever experienced a negative value as a result of having sex. After all, the English know better than we do and any American who isn't a liberal would do well to listen to them on all matters.

[Psychosplodge]

You do realise that when some body mentions a culture gap they don't mean "ha look our ignorant redneck american cousins"(<== what you basicly accused me of the other day) they simply mean the assumptions that underpin your outlook on life are different...

[eldargal]

Because there are plenty of non-sex related reasons to be on birth control.

why should a school or anyone else provide a contraceptive to someone else at all? If you have the ability to choose to have sex then you should have the responsibility of providing your own means of restricting pregnancy. If you don't have those means then quite possibly you should not be having sex. It irritates me to think that I am paying for someone else to have sex at all. Excepting in the cause of rape sex is always a choice. If you can't pony up the case for your own contraceptive you should probably not be making that choice.

[DarkLink]

Here's (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/03/10/condemnation-of-rush-limbaugh-shows-our-hypocrisy.html) a funny article about Rush's comments and hypocrisy. Not Rush's hypocrisy, the hypocrisy of a lot of the people who attacked him. It also points out how stupid it is that the President of the United States of America personally called some random woman who got called a four letter word, when the middle east is up in flames and Israel/Iran are in position to make it even worse, when the world economy is still relatively in the gutter, and Russia and China are making political and military alliances with dictators and enemies of the western world.

Just keep some perspective.



Edit:
It's also worth pointing out that Rush is an entertainer. He is intentionally inflammatory and offensive, because that's what draws in the listeners.

[Drunkencorgimaster]

Necron 2.0 is right on the money on this one. Rush should have ignored Pelosi's obviously planted activist. Rush makes good points sometimes, but on other occasions he can be just petty, small-minded, and willfully-ignorant.

Now that the Genie is out of the bottle though, I am appalled that Jane Fonda and Gloria Steinem today called for Rush to be banned from public airways. This is wrong on several counts.

1) First of all (as an earlier poster commented) I do not recall Fonda or Steinem saying squat when Bill Maher called Palin the C-word. If they are the self-appointed guardians of womanhood, where were they then?

2) Does scoring a few points against an arguably-misogynist radio show host justify BANNING HIM FROM THE AIRWAYS? Can you imagine the field day the right would have with that? Really, you want to go there? Don't you find that more than a little disturbing? Who decides who gets to speak and who doesn't? The Committee of Public Safety as Determined by Jane and Gloria? Can they not see how this could backfire and potentially be used against their own darling demagogues on the left like Maher or Madow? I am appalled that former 1960s radicals with all their demands for free expression back in the day could now even CONSIDER such a draconian response. We are awash in hypocrisy.

[Grenadier]

Assumptions are the mother of misunderstanding in conversations. Furthermore, the Brits here are not the only ones I've dealt with in conversation. Virtually every one of them I'd discussed all manner of issues with have a lot of assumptions about America. Including some cousins of mine who live over there. But the worst offender was this very anti-American idiot who never once said a kind word about America and its citizens. Instead he kept on with stereotypes and the usual European criticisms of America. I remember he once was harping about how wonderful Britain is in terms of race issues. And how he claimed America is nothing but a racist country in a discussion about Obama's qualifications to be president. When I asked him "when was the last time England had a black prime minister" he quickly changed the subject. My point is, it is easy for each side to make assumptions. But I don't liken a cultural gap to an assumption. British culture is in many ways very different than American culture. But in just as many ways it is similar. I don't liken a cultural gap to an ideological gap. To me ideology, while it can influence (over time) a culture it is a distinctly separate thing. So it seems to me any of our disputes thus far have less to do with the culture of our parent country and more to do with ideological differences. For example, in my region of the state there are strong conservative values. These are ideological based and not cultural based. It is possible, though, in certain areas the culture may influence the ideology and vice versa. But they still remain distinctly separate things due to the fact that culture is comprised of many components and ideology is comprised of thought as its primary component.


You do realise that when some body mentions a culture gap they don't mean "ha look our ignorant redneck american cousins"(<== what you basicly accused me of the other day) they simply mean the assumptions that underpin your outlook on life are different...

[eldargal]

Hipocrisy doesn't excuse ignorant bigotry, but neither does ignorant bigotory warrant banning someone from expressing their opinion. It does warrant calling them out on it, though.

[Psychosplodge]

You're just arguing semantics now, it's essentially the same principle.

[Hive Mind]

Oubliette Rules

5) No politics (including niche/pet causes)!

[Psychosplodge]

Don't about half the front page break that?

[Hive Mind]

Indeed. I've noticed that a lot of wargaming forums have 'no politics' rules that for some unexplainable reason aren't enforced when the politics being posted adhere to the kind of half-baked rightwing crap that most wargamers seem to be into.

[Psychosplodge]

I don't think it should matter which "wing" you're on, as long as it doesn't descend into pinching and name calling lol

[Hive Mind]

It shouldn't, but it does seem to.

[Psychosplodge]

I can't help it ;)

[Grenadier]

There's a reason it's called the "right wing." That's because the left wing is always wrong.

[Hive Mind]

How terribly droll.

[Grenadier]

Egads sir! Droll? How terribly pretentious a word! Droll you say? Droll is how I roll! Shall I strike a hip hop pose for you and say something like "word to yo muth beeeeyotch?"

Anyway..who is this "Jane" anyway?

[Hive Mind]

"Droll" is pretentious? Perfectly ordinary word, m'boy.

Jane is presumably some poor woman currently sat in a shaming room awaiting the rape that the state has legislated for her.

[Grenadier]

Pretentious in the way the "Egregious Englishman" uses those "five dollar fancy words" way. (E.E. is a character a friend and I developed once. Very high society type sneering at the lesser people and using lots of "big words.)

Shaming room? That's what I call the exam room when I have to get a check up with a doc.

[Hive Mind]

So droll is a fancy word when an Englishman uses it, but egregious isn't when an American uses it.

Your neuroses are showing, my dear.

[Verilance]

Anyway..who is this "Jane" anyway?

for those of you much younger than I, "Jane" is Jane Curtain from Saturday Night Live in the mid 70's

In Counterpoint sketch Dan Ackroyd would begin his argument with the afore mentioned phrase

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=k80nW6AOhTs

[Grenadier]

I'm 36 so I can't rightly remember anything from the late 70's. But I'm well familiar with Dan Ackroyd. As well as all those old school funny guys you don't see anymore.