Categories
antifeminism creepy misogyny reactionary bullshit sex shaming tactics sluts vaginas whores

Attention feminists: Rush Limbaugh wants to watch you having sex.

Sometimes Rush gets a little overexcited

You may recall that  all-dude panel of “experts” at that recent congressional hearing on contraception. One of the reasons it was an all-dude panel was that congressional Republicans wouldn’t let Georgetown law student Sandra Fluke testify on the costs of birth control. (She later testified at a separate hearing held by Nancy Pelosi.)

Apparently stating publicly how much contraception costs when it’s not covered by insurance is basically the equivalent of pooping on the flag to some misogynistic assholes, among them the always charming Rush Limbaugh, who has denounced Fluke as a “slut” and a whore, saying, at one point, that she

went before a Congressional committee and said she’s having so much sex she’s going broke buying contraceptives and wants us to buy them.

Actually, she didn’t testify about her own experience at all.

Also, does Limbaugh even know how contraception works? Yes, the number of condoms one buys depends on how often you have sex. (Or at the very least how often you hope to have sex. Who knows how many boxes of condoms, purchased in moments of optimism, have quietly expired on the shelf waiting for their purchasers to finally get their mojo working. )

But the costs of many other forms of contraception have no relation whatsoever to the frequency of sex. Women on “the pill” take a pill every day, regardless of whether they are having sex that day or not. Women using IUDs don’t run down to the health center to have one installed every time their vagina expects a visitor.

Birth control, in short, doesn’t work like Oxycontin or Viagra, the two pills about which Limbaugh seems most knowledgeable.

Sorry to belabor the obvious, which apparently isn’t so obvious if you’re a right-wing, woman-hating asshole.

Anyway, now Limbaugh seems to think he’s entitled to watch Fluke having sex:

So Miss Fluke, and the rest of you Feminazis, here’s the deal. 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 post the videos online so we can all watch.

Dude, what the fuck is wrong with you?

Here’s the excerpt from his radio show in which he makes this creepy demand.

Subscribe
Notify of
guest

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

404 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
katz
8 years ago

Rush Limbaugh obviously thinks good girls shrink in horror from the thought of sex because every woman he’s ever been with shrank in horror from the thought of sex.

IdeologueReview
8 years ago

But if you believe this, then why aren’t you spending your time on this thread chastising Limbaugh for calling a woman who uses birth control a whore?
She wants other people to pay for her to use birth control. That’s where the grey area is – do you want to force organizations to finance a lifestyle they do not support? It’s not so much masculinity against femininity as David and many of his supporters frame it, but rather autonomy versus authority.

Magpie
8 years ago

I think I’ve gotten confused about what’s going on here. Is contraception covered by health insurance at the moment? Is the argument about some employers wanting to remover cover for contraception or is contraception a new thing that wasn’t covered before? (I know people have explained this before, but I’m slow to catch on.)

Shadow
Shadow
8 years ago

@Magpie

They’re trying to get birth control pills covered under their insurance plan (I think it was a student insurance plan). AFAIK contraception isn’t covered by most plans

Holly Pervocracy
8 years ago

Having sex is a “lifestyle” now?

Beware the insidious Sex-Haver Agenda!

(Or really, since most people who need contraception are straight… It’s the Heterosexual Agenda!)

Bostonian
8 years ago

She wants the insurance company to pay for a medicine, like it pays for vigara. She is paying insurance premiums like everyone else. Viagra is “free” to those who pay for insurance. Birth control should similarly be included, because of the benefits for everyone if it is included.

Please note that vasectomies are also included as “free” with the new law. That is, they are included in what is paid for by the insurance premiums that everyone who has insurance pays.

Also, since when is having sex a “lifestyle”?

Holly Pervocracy
8 years ago

And for the umpteenth time I repeat that this is all about insurance plans that women are PAYING for. It’s not “the government gives everyone birth control for free.” It’s “when you pay $200/month for your health plan, that includes birth control.”

Shadow
Shadow
8 years ago

@Bostonian

Vasectomies are covered now? Well that’s just pissing in women’s cereal now. Are litigations covered as well?

Nobinayamu
Nobinayamu
8 years ago

She wants other people to pay for her to use birth control. That’s where the grey area is – do you want to force organizations to finance a lifestyle they do not support? It’s not so much masculinity against femininity as David and many of his supporters frame it, but rather autonomy versus authority.

You’re so dumb. She wants her insurance, which she works for and pays for, to cover her prescription medication. Period.

Magpie
8 years ago

Thanks Shadow and Bostonian!

How come birth control pills weren’t covered to start with? I was assuming anything you needed a prescription for would be covered.

(Geez I’m glad we do it differently in Australia. Not just for the cost. It seems too complicated for me to navigate.)

CassandraSays
CassandraSays
8 years ago

If you’re having P in V sex, pretty much the only way contraception isn’t part of your lifestyle is if you’re Quiverfull. Which I don’t think most MRAs would want to sign up for, but hey, it’s not really about lifestyles anyway, it’s about their wierd emotional need to make women’s lives as unpleasant as possible.

debbaasseerr
8 years ago

Everything is a “lifestyle” now. Nevermind being sexually active is about as normal as eating regularly for like 99% of adult humans. What’s not considered a lifestyle, naturally, is choosing to not have sex at all until you chose to enter into a contract, under a deity, that can’t be broken, and only ever engage in any intercourse to make kids, lots and lots of kids.

That’s about as extreme a lifestyle choice as you can make, but that’s what the Santorum vote calls “natural”.

Which is fine. Stupid, but fine. If only they were content to just punish themselves with it, instead of everyone else too.

Xardoz
Xardoz
8 years ago

it’s not really about lifestyles anyway, it’s about their weird emotional need to make women’s lives as unpleasant as possible.

Some of the “liberal MRAs” on Reddit would claim this is a totally unfair ad hominem generalization. This is why I appreciate David’s lax moderation policy – we’ve got Ideologue Review, Arks, and NWO around to prove this is absolutely true statement about many of the most vocal MRAs.

IdeologueReview
8 years ago

You’re so dumb. She wants her insurance, which she works for and pays for, to cover her prescription medication.
You know what’s dumb? Assuming that because something is prescribed, it’s okay. After all, it’s not like doctors ever have any incentive whatsoever to medicate their patients, or patients ever lie to get drugs. Hell, if David became a psychiatrist rather than a blogger, he would probably recommend chemical castration for every man who did not buy into his politics, or as he puts it, “men who should not ever be with women ever.”

Shadow
Shadow
8 years ago

You know what’s dumb? Assuming that because something is prescribed, it’s okay. After all, it’s not like doctors ever have any incentive whatsoever to medicate their patients, or patients ever lie to get drugs. Hell, if David became a psychiatrist rather than a blogger, he would probably recommend chemical castration for every man who did not buy into his politics, or as he puts it, “men who should not ever be with women ever.”

So… you don’t think birth control is necessary now? Or is this just a random rant that has no bearing on the issue whatsoever?

IdeologueReview
8 years ago

It’s “when you pay $200/month for your health plan, that includes birth control.”
Okay, nobody is forcing you to work for a nunnery. You know that if you want to violate your employer’s values, they will not compensate you for it. That will enter into your decision to work for them. If they don’t want to pay that extra $20 for the birth control option, that’s their decision. That’s what this argument is about, whether your dogma can be forced on private organizations.

Bostonian
8 years ago

Well it is not like birth control has been studied or anything…

Bostonian
8 years ago

Actually, it is about whether private organizations can violate the law, and the thing is, they cannot.

They cannot prevent a private insurer from providing birth control as part of their health plan, which is the current policy being instituted.

They are not allowed to prohibit medical care.

IdeologueReview
8 years ago

So… you don’t think birth control is necessary now?
No, I don’t think that because something is “prescription medication” it is automatically a good thing. If you’re going to address someone mounted on the gleaming opulent horse of superior Aryan intellect, you should not start off with a logical fallacy so obvious a child could find it.

Bostonian
8 years ago

“If you’re going to address someone mounted on the gleaming opulent horse of superior Aryan intellect”

This is supposed to be you?

Magpie
8 years ago

IR, I was trying to understand the differences between US medical care and Aus medical care. Here, (almost) every prescription medication is subsidised, so it costs me about $3, no matter what it’s worth. That’s all I meant.

IdeologueReview
8 years ago

Actually, it is about whether private organizations can violate the law, and the thing is, they cannot.
Because it’s not like there are debates about laws or anything so that people who want to *GASP! SQUEAL!* violate the content of those laws after they’re partially or fully repealed can do so.
You know, prohibition, limited suffrage, etc.

Magpie
8 years ago

The opulent horse has superior Arabian intellect?

belledame222
8 years ago

Do they really want a society full of unwanted children who also will not receive adequate healthcare, nutrition, and decent living conditions? Do they realize what will happen? A large portion of the population will essentially be living in 3rd world conditions.

Actually they probably do realize this. They just don’t give a shit.

Oh, I think they actually want this to happen (more than it already is). Why struggle to make life better for everyone when you can keep a large chunk of the population in dire straits, guaranteeing an endless supply of dirt cheap labor, fodder for your understroked superiority complex, and convenient scapegoating?

Look, this is why a purely materialist understanding of How Things Work is never going to be sufficient. Of course it’s illogical. Eventually it’s even going to be illogical from a purely selfish point of view, because you can’t keep the zombie hordes from storming your razor-wire-guarded fortress forever. It doesn’t matter; they get off on power. Even if all they had to do to make life a paradise for everyone on earth, right now, was push a button, they wouldn’t do it, because they can’t be happy unless other people are miserable.

Bostonian
8 years ago

Covering something that 98% of American women take in their lifetime, that is relatively safe, is well tested, and that prevents pregnancy, which is expensive, time consuming and a big health risk, is a good public policy.

The fact that some Catholic bishops are having a tantrum does not change that. Fun fact! 98% of Catholic women report taking birth control!

Also, if the individual woman does not want to take birth control, this policy does not force her.

I do realize that doing something practical, like covering birth control, is against your stated beliefs, but that is not going to work as an actual argument.

IdeologueReview
8 years ago

Well, this is the oddest “argument” I’ve read all day, and believe me, I’ve read a lot of odd arguments today.
Really? In medieval times they drilled into people’s skulls to cure headaches. Just because something is “prescription medication” does not mean that an organization is morally obliged to pay for it. The way the laws are now, it is legally, but the moral grey area is the reason there’s a debate in the first place.

CassandraSays
CassandraSays
8 years ago

@ Xardoz

What’s funny about that is that most of the MRA movement is just a series of weird ad-homs. There’s usually very little context to MRA posts, it’s just sort of “OK so women are terrible”.

IdeologueReview
8 years ago

There’s usually very little context to MRA posts, it’s just sort of “OK so women are terrible”.
Let me guess – these women don’t buy into your very theoretical and restrictive dogma so they’re brainwashed.

Shadow
Shadow
8 years ago

No, I don’t think that because something is “prescription medication” it is automatically a good thing

Again, this whole conversation is revolving around birth control. So either your post was in regards to birth control, or it was a random OT rant about whether or not “prescription medicine” is always necessary.

If you’re going to address someone mounted on the gleaming opulent horse of superior Aryan intellect

I,, uhm.. what? Is this some common phrase or quote that I’m just not aware of?

This is supposed to be you?

I’m guessing so. I know he can’t be referring to me, my stock is firmly Dravidian!

IdeologueReview
8 years ago

Oh, I think they actually want this to happen (more than it already is). Why struggle to make life better for everyone when you can keep a large chunk of the population in dire straits, guaranteeing an endless supply of dirt cheap labor, fodder for your understroked superiority complex, and convenient scapegoating?
So what you’re sputtering about is that religious people in positions of authority are all planning this draconian scheme to overpopulate the Earth so they can somehow get more power. Never mind that they only want to determine whether or not to pay for a certain service for the very tiny sliver of people who work for them, you’ve gotta see the big picture here. While you’re never minding, never mind that many of them will die before their scheme materializes, you wouldn’t become a feminist if you wanted to think and not never mind.
TL;DR
You’ll probably screw up the world from your tinfoil consumption than the evil clergy will with their charities and birth control schemes.

Viscaria
Viscaria
8 years ago

If you’re going to address someone mounted on the gleaming opulent horse of superior Aryan intellect, you should not start off with a logical fallacy so obvious a child could find it.

What? Is it, like, Be Extra Super Racist day here in the hallowed halls of Man Boobz?

And furthermore, “opulent” is an incredibly weird thing for a horse to be.

Bostonian
8 years ago

Oh wow, FactFinder found female misogynists. That would be a surprise, except that David has showcased them before, and also the cursing out they get on the AVFM website.

CassandraSays
CassandraSays
8 years ago

I guess a horse could be opulent if you dressed it in gold battle armor? Not sure why you’d want to, since gold is rather soft, but in theory.

Viscaria
Viscaria
8 years ago

Is Rush posting on the gleaming opulent horse of superior Aryan intellect in the picture above, and that’s why he’s bouncing?

darksidecat
8 years ago

Fun fact, the drilling into the skull thing actually has medical merit, and it wasn’t done in every random case. There are these things called “brain tumors” that sometimes occur in some humans. There are also other sorts of situations that result in overly high pressure in the skull, one of the symptoms of which is horrible headaches. There are medical cases where draining blood from the brain cavity to reduce pressure is a good medical idea. They even remove large pieces of people’s skulls now in cases of brain swelling as well.

Just because something is “prescription medication” does not mean that an organization is morally obliged to pay for it.

It does if that organization is an insurance company. It’s not as if the insurance companies charge more for a plan that includes birth control coverage, this is the religious organizations entangling themselves with public funds and then trying to use insurance companies to forcibly deny people care.

Medicine is a science, and of course it advances. That doesn’t mean it’s okay to refuse the best available treatment on a whim or because you’re a woman hating douche.

darksidecat
8 years ago

Patients with high levels of intracranial pressure often need additional surgery to relieve pressure and drain blood that has accumulated beneath the skull. Surgeons drain the blood using a catheter, by drilling holes in the skull or by prescribing strong medications to reduce inflammation.

http://www.allabouttbi.com/open-head-injury/

Emergency surgery may be needed to reduce pressure within the brain. This may involve drilling a small hole in the skull, which allows blood to drain and relieves pressure on the brain.

http://health.nytimes.com/health/guides/disease/subdural-hematoma/overview.html

This is a perfectly valid treatment. I don’t know why you picked this instead of a treatment that has been disproven. Is it because it sounds dramatic?

Seoul Sister
Seoul Sister
8 years ago

Cassandra, you clearly don’t realize how important it is for your horse to look really awesome.

I know I insist on having my pony decked in bling.

IdeologueReview
8 years ago

That doesn’t mean it’s okay to refuse the best available treatment on a whim or because you’re a woman hating douche.
Oh boy, this “religion is a woman-hating conspiracy” shit again. A bit of me thought that the whole religious leader conspiracy theory was some attempt to bait me. Silly me, even setting the bar low to begin with.

CassandraSays
CassandraSays
8 years ago

Well, I demand that even my bonbons be blinged out with gold leaf, since I’m a privileged feminist princess and all.

IdeologueReview
8 years ago

This is a perfectly valid treatment. I don’t know why you picked this instead of a treatment that has been disproven. Is it because it sounds dramatic?
To be honest, most medieval procedures had a bit of truth to them and the basis for more may be found as science advances. That being said, if you think pushing an unsterilized bit of metal into someone’s brain to replace a headache with an open wound more often turns better than worse, be my guest.
Now, if I had mentioned that I would have been henpecked for getting off topic. That being said, replace the head drilling with using beetle paste to remove teeth or something if it makes you feel better.

Viscaria
Viscaria
8 years ago

I’ve actually had chocolate truffles with edible gold leaf on them. It was the ultimate in “wtf, rich people?” since it didn’t taste at all different, it just cost more. Plus, I don’t think even “food-grade” gold is something we should probably ingest.

In any case, I was not on an opulent horse at the time :(.

IdeologueReview
8 years ago

Plus, I don’t think even “food-grade” gold is something we should probably ingest.
The reverse is always an option.

Magpie
8 years ago

That may be opulent, but it’s not a horse.

CassandraSays
CassandraSays
8 years ago

I actually dislike edible gold leaf. It’s a texture issue, since as you said, it doesn’t taste of much.

Much like whatever makes Pop Rocks do that frothy thing and some candy sparkle, I do think that if it isn’t usually a food item then we probably shouldn’t be eating it.

katz
8 years ago

OK, the Aryan-horse remark was just too damn funny: I started a funny troll comments contest on the forums.

Viscaria
Viscaria
8 years ago

@FF, aren’t most of your links supposed to show us the error of our feminist ways? What’s up with the Cracked link? Were you just reminded of it by what I’d said and thought we would be amused or interested? Given your history here, that’s kind of weird, but okay I guess I’ll go with it.

@Cassandra, I think my biggest issue with edible gold leaf is just the pretentiousness. I feel like, if someone is serving me a tasteless precious metal, they’re trying to make some point about how much money they have to waste.

CassandraSays
CassandraSays
8 years ago

@ Viscaria

I think it’s supposed to make the chocolates pretty? Which doesn’t really work for me, aesthetically speaking, but oh well, if some people want to eat tiny flakes of gold then hey, have at it.

BTW, are other people following FFs links? I’m pretty much working under the assumption that he has nothing worthwhile to say and is just trying to waste people’s time, so why bother?