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.
OK, the Aryan-horse remark was just too damn funny
Ok. I notice you didn’t cite your sources. That’s okay, feminists frequently use obfuscation to push their dogma, nothing new there.
Look, IR, I’m sorry you had a bad experience with the skull-boring attempts to drive your demons out, but that doesn’t actually mean you have a point here.
Oh, right, *that* Rammstein video, speaking of bling. SNORT your powdered gold!
It took me a while to grok that apparently she was supposed to have OD’d with her pearl handled hypo, and not that Emo, Grungey, Teutonic and Noir actually slipped it to her while she was in the tub.
vereh silleh, anyway.
I think the sparkly chocolates are made with mica.
Yeah! Next time you find something funny, katz, you’d better be willing to justify that with solid, scientific studies! Somehow!
I should have been asleep like 2 hours ago, but FF’s inane statements are mesmerizing. I will see y’all later!
You’re speaking from a position of privilege. You erased the involuntarily celibate 40-year-old virgin creepy loser omegas, even though some of them are mocked by this very site.
And furthermore, “opulent” is an incredibly weird thing for a horse to be.
Weirder than “gleaming?” (I googled “gleaming opulent horse,” but all I got was gleaming opulent houses. And a picture of the Rolling Stones. Disappointing.)
I thought Explore Nature was our most baffling troll, but IR is giving him a run for his money.
You erased the involuntarily celibate 40-year-old virgin creepy loser omegas, even though some of them are mocked by this very site.
You know the funniest thing in the world? As long as feminists like yourself pressure men into having sex, men will continue to pressure women into having sex. Or are you not speaking from ignorance? It wouldn’t surprise me if you’re okay with throwing a few men and women under the bus in the name of feminism. I’ve seen worse.
David, aren’t you trolling MRAs? I mean, you seeked out our attention by posting on our sites. You weren’t exactly a big name before we started talking about you, and you won’t be when we get bored.
I think of David as more of an anthropologist, really. An Anthropologist on Gor.
Yeah! Next time you find something funny, katz, you’d better be willing to justify that with solid, scientific studies! Somehow!
Citation
IR, do you really think you and the other MRA’s could make anyone a big name?
You know something, MRAS? I just read this
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/change-on-federal-benefits-payments-could-leave-child-support-debtors-with-no-income/2012/02/26/gIQAZvtxbR_story_1.html
That’s awful. The system needs serious reform, and quickly. Now, do you see how getting people to associate child support reform with a bunch of guys screaming about bitches and feminists might be a bad thing for that important cause? Do you really think what a poor disabled guy having his wages frozen needs is a trip to the world of Elam, et al?
Silly question, I know.
In my experience, people who take this stance would see it as a just punishment for promiscuity. People of Rush’s ilk have this very odd dichotomy about what pregnancy and a child is. For the married, it is the blessing of blessings. For the non-married, the child is a means to punish the adult for their wicked ways or something like that. If the above scenario did happen, Rush or others like him would ignore the effects of a lack of contraception and simply say “you deserved it for having sex.”
You know the funniest thing in the world? As long as feminists like yourself pressure men into having sex, men will continue to pressure women into having sex.
So the feminists here are pressuring men into sex (how? what proof of this do you have?) and those same exact men are pressuring other women into sex? xD
I think I need to see some proof as to how you know this.
Surely you didn’t come to your conclusion FIRST right? You must have come to your conclusion via persuasive evidence.
Show me that evidence 😀
@Zhinxy MRAs don’t even care about those guys >_> They care about getting dates, sex without having to talk to women, and lowering the standards of rape. Those honestly seem to be the biggest things on their mind.
http://www.avoiceformen.com/mens-rights/ncfm-asks-the-u-n-to-end-discrimination-against-men/
Even that list… no worrying about child soldiers, no worrying about rape of men during war, or rape of prisoners of war, or workplace disability, rights of those working manual labor jobs, depression, suicide, none of those things MRAs give lip service behind… no rights of trans or queer men or disabled or non-white men (groups that MRAs hide behind)…
what we get is that the government should legislate dating… that they need their own holiday… that female rape survivors be held responsible for men murdering each other (the whole “blood feud” thing)…
IR doesn’t care about being associated with people who hurt the cause of disabled men having their wages frozen by the state.,. to him, they’re at most, a poker chip to play against feminists online… e_e YOU care… he doesn’t xD
He’s just here to win the argument. He doesn’t care about “the cause” because he doesn’t have one. xD
(Or like many MRAs he takes the easy way out… the only way to help men is to destroy feminism… all else doesn’t matter… Feminism is Sauron… therefore even helping a couple men or a hundred men or a thousand men doesn’t matter… it’s a drop in the bucket compared to what would happen if we destroy feminism… and the only way to destroy feminism is to argue with feminists online xD Go you brave hero you!)
Also, in regards to contraception control.
At the University I am attending* student health used to give condoms away for free. However, the university required them to start charging students for condoms. I asked one of the staff there why they are doing this. She told me that parents felt that if condoms are freely available, their children would be too tempted to have sex or something like that (she thought it was a stupid reason too).
Apparently students having sex is so much of a concern that an organization dedicated to health can’t give away condoms without being forced to ask for money. Also, it shows that the school doesn’t consider the students adults capable of making their own decisions.
*I am currently studying abroad in Norway, but here I’m referring to my home university in the US.
@Factfinder
Are you envious that Slavey recently got thrown into the moderation for being a bigger ass then usual, because you are certainty stepping your troll game up today.
Wh…what? This is the strangest phrase I’ve read since that post with Christian J’s incoherent babble. I must say, I would like a gleaming opulent horse (I’m imagining the Red Hare horse from Romance of the 3 Kingdoms decked out with jewels and a shiny mane).
WHAT PRESSURING!? I was under the impression that “have sex if and only if both you and your partner want to (also known as getting and giving enthusiastic consent)” was expressly against the idea of pressuring anyone into any sexual act they don’t want to do.
Y’all should come over to the UK. Our contraception is free. Actually free. Free.
Hell, I filled my free prescription 2 days ago. Just went right on up to the counter and was giving three months supply of the pill without anyone calling me a whore! And at the GP, she gave me my prescription AND insisted I took free condoms. It’s like she WANTS me to have sex!
Seriously though, I fucking love the NHS.
Just went right on up to the counter and was giving three months supply of the pill without anyone calling me a whore!
At the very least a REAL MRA state would call you a slut.
…thrown into the moderation abyss*…
Also
I was under the impression that “have sex (or engage in certain sexual acts) if and only if both you and your partner or partners want to (also known as getting and giving enthusiastic consent)”
(how is it I miss these things before I post them. Ugh)
So, women need to pay for their own contraception in order to have sex with… themselves? Last time I checked, one doesn’t need birth control to masturbate. So if a woman is paying for her birth control, she is also paying for the birth control of the man or men she’s having sex with (if she’s having sex with a woman/women, she wouldn’t be needing birth control).
>>>You know that if you want to violate your employer’s values, they will not compensate you for it.
The conservative logic in a nutshell: your employer has a right to control your private life, just like a feudal lord. Maybe next they’ll try to defend a corporate ‘droit du seigneur’. (“Hey, if you didn’t want your employer to have first go at fucking your new wife, you could always go work elsewhere!”)
Dude, what part of “women are half the population” and “most women will be on some form of birth control during their lifetimes” do you not get? Don’t try to pretend like BC is some sort of whacky untested crank med. Shit works.
Also, (and I say this as someone who will be clergy at some point in the future) it really rubs me the wrong way that religious institutions don’t pay taxes. Like, the huge power differential for letting them off the hook for that, it kinda makes me furious, especially since so many religious hierarchies try to get the government to bow to their every whim when it comes to women’s bodies.
@Demios-
Of course, they completely ignore that some married people do NOT want babies, or that they do not want babies right this minute, and might sometime in the future. And also that for some single people, children are an absolute blessing and they want support and resources to care for those children effectively (like affordable daycare). Because people are monolithic blocks, not people.
@Blackbloc- Yeah, it kind of terrifies me that people think that some old white celibate dude gets to say what I spend my own money on just because I might happen to work for him. So fucking paternalistic.