You Dirty Sluts
I posted this to my Facebook and tumblr today. I'm reposting it here instead of current events or politics, because I think this isn't just political or newsy. This is a huge women's issue that transcends mere political debate.
WOMEN. LADIES. GIRL-FOLK. Do you use birth control? Are you a slut? If your answers were "yes" and "no", or even if you ever have used or plan to ever use birth control, and think that using that fact alone to brand you as a slut or a prostitute is not just appalling, but offensive to women everywhere... If you have a mother, or sister, or daughter, or girlfriend, or wife, who has taken birth control... PLEASE find a way to make your voice heard. Sign the petition to have Rush Limbaugh taken off Armed Forces Radio. Join the boycott and pressure against his corporate sponsors. And most important of all, let the extremists in the Republican party know that standing by such unabashedly sexist, discriminatory, offensive language or policies is unforgivable by anyone who knows a woman.
WOMEN. LADIES. GIRL-FOLK. Do you use birth control? Are you a slut? If your answers were "yes" and "yes," PM me!
Well obviously Mr L would be happy with my choices lately. lol
I hope you're barefoot and making a sandwich.
well, I am barefoot, and I made taco's for dinner. We ate with our fingers. That probably qualifies.
I don't know anything about Armed Forces Radio. Is it supported at all by taxpayer money? If so, it shouldn't have any partisan stuff on it, unless it's balanced out with another extremist blowhard, but from the left.
I do not use birth control and I AM a slut.
You're the slut we all wish we were :p
I do not use birth control and I AM a slut.
Yes, but are you a blowhard?
I do not use birth control and I AM a slut.
I would consider the fact that the slutty action you're involved in doesn't have any risk of producing a baby birth control.
[YOUTUBE]k80nW6AOhTs[/YOUTUBE]
Is it more offensive to call someone a slut than a bitch? Or are both equally mysogynistic when used by a male in a discusiion/argument/debate scenario?
slut is much worse than bitch, imho
My take is that "slut" is a judgement about the value of the person, while "bitch" just means you don't like them at that moment.
because of the sexual aspect?
I have the idea of the slut harms herself, a bitch harms others.
because of the sexual aspect?
What other aspect is there?
But it says more about the person using the word than the person it's aimed at. Maybe a few decades ago it was the other way around.
Bitch means "you are a woman, who is acting negatively", or "you are acting negatively and I want to paint you with a feminine epithet for increased effect". in both cases, it's implied that the being a woman part of the term is meant to increase the negativity of the term.
Slut, however, means "you are immoral, and have too much sex", and is almost always applied negatively only to women. it implies trashiness and a lack of personal worth or value. But it also means "sex is bad"... and that's already becoming a position wildly out of touch with anyone who isn't a Limbaugh fan or a Westboro Baptist or whatever. Slut shaming is becoming more and more rejected by society. Slutwalks are an increasingly common sort of protest march.
But it says more about the person using the word than the person it's aimed at. Maybe a few decades ago it was the other way around.
What other aspect is there?
But it says more about the person using the word than the person it's aimed at. Maybe a few decades ago it was the other way around.
Is that what makes the difference -that one is sexual and one isn't, or is it the way in which each is used or is it just higher on the sliding scale of all bad words that ranges from you dastardly devil thru you motherfelching cunt to.....wherever?
It wasn't a challenge, merely a question, sorry if it came off differently
I don't find them particularly different in this context of use. You and Ibram have both touched on what I feel about it really -it says more about the person who resorts to the name-calling, and it's about damn time women just didn't let "slut" hurt them any more than "bitch". words like this just need to be reclaimed until there are no more left. But I wouldn't be surprised to find I'm in the minority about that. I think all this "bad words" thing is ridiculous. And I don't feel any need to take a stand against this Lindburgh chap because he's already been outclassed and shown up by his "victim". Good for her.
I don't know anything about Armed Forces Radio. Is it supported at all by taxpayer money? If so, it shouldn't have any partisan stuff on it, unless it's balanced out with another extremist blowhard, but from the left.
Armed Forces TV carries Fox and MSNBC shows for example. The problem is... IS there anyone as extreme as Rush on the left? Not just someone who's really far on the left - I mean EXTREME, as in, repeatedly and unabashedly calling a woman who testified about a friend of hers needing birth control for ovarian cysts a slut, regardless of the facts?
the partisanship isn't the issue. It's the offensiveness and disgusting personal attacks.
I think they are very different.
Bitch is always a woman or an insult to a man by calling him a woman. You can be a bitch one day, and then not be a bitch the next. It's about attitude. Or maybe you are always a bitch. But then that's just the way you are. (Not you, Monster.)
Slut is someone who is promiscuous. But in a bad way. And using that word is making a judgement on the worth of the person forever. They are unclean. In the gutter. The lowest.
Armed Forces TV carries Fox and MSNBC shows for example. The problem is... IS there anyone as extreme as Rush on the left? Not just someone who's really far on the left - I mean EXTREME, as in, repeatedly and unabashedly calling a woman who testified about a friend of hers needing birth control for ovarian cysts a slut, regardless of the facts?
the partisanship isn't the issue. It's the offensiveness and disgusting personal attacks.
Yeah, but do I pay for it with my taxes?
Yeah, but do I pay for it with my taxes?
Yes. Yes you do.
He's losing advertisers...I think the count is up to 30.
Armed Forces TV carries Fox and MSNBC shows for example. The problem is... IS there anyone as extreme as Rush on the left?
the partisanship isn't the issue. It's the offensiveness and disgusting personal attacks.
The closest I can think of is Ed, used to be Ulbermann maybe. But no, neither went that far.
IMO, Rush shouldn't be on ANY radio.
The closest I can think of is Ed, used to be Ulbermann maybe. But no, neither went that far.
They're both loud and bombastic, and tend to have a rhetorical style similar to Rush's, but neither are particularly
extreme by my reckoning. What exactly makes them extreme, other than being loud and slightly angry all the time?
Yes. Yes you do.
Well then I'm completely opposed to that. Give the troops entertainment, but not politics.
Rush Limbaugh routinely mocks the commander in chief. How can they justify broadcasting that over official channels? He foments insubordination. That's just nuts that he would be carried.
bitch=female
double fucking dick=male
FTFY ;)
bitch=female
dick=male
Whew! I've been doing it right!
Well then I'm completely opposed to that. Give the troops entertainment, but not politics.
That's not how AFN (armed forces network) works. The idea isn't to give them state-approved, uncontroversial, milquetoast media... The basic premise is, "if we're asking you to give up your liberty, your home, your acquaintances, and potentially your life, to go live or fight in a foreign country, we are going to give you the amenities of American life as best we can to make up for it." That's why commissaries/BXs/PXs carry books or magazines or products that may be distasteful to or disliked by some people - including politically-related material. Because it's meant to give the troops what they want in the context of what they're sacrificing by living on-base, predominantly overseas.
Any of our stateside military folks can help clarify, but that's my understanding of AFN's guiding principle, at least overseas. Keep in mind that I
had AFN TV (and I assume radio if I'd looked for it) while I was living in Taiwan.
I think they are very different.
Bitch is always a woman or an insult to a man by calling him a woman. You can be a bitch one day, and then not be a bitch the next. It's about attitude. Or maybe you are always a bitch. But then that's just the way you are. (Not you, Monster.)
Slut is someone who is promiscuous. But in a bad way. And using that word is making a judgement on the worth of the person forever. They are unclean. In the gutter. The lowest.
There's probably an element of cultural difference here too. A slut can just be a slovenly woman with no reference to sexuality, so it just doesn't have the strong slur to it for me. I often refer to myself as a slut in the messy/poor houseworking sense. I just checked the Oxford and the slovernly aspect gets far more coverage than the sexual one and is the first meaning given. Also Brits are generally less hung up about sex and booze (and more hung up about guns and violence)
I also noticed "slut wool" being given as a term for "dust bunnies" :lol:
To me, being a dick and being a bitch are two completely different behaviours that have very little to do with gender. And they're both just words, neither is really worse than the other.
The closest I can think of is Ed, used to be Ulbermann maybe. But no, neither went that far.
When Air America was on, Ed Schultz was the centrist. I haven't seen his TV show; maybe he's bumped it up a bit for them. At that time, maybe Randi Rhodes was the most extreme one in the lineup. At one point she called Geraldine Ferraro and Hillary Clinton whores.
She was later fired by Air America, though there's dispute over whether that was the real reason.
Randy Rhodes - yes.
What about Phyllis Diller (in her time) :D
To me, being a dick and being a bitch are two completely different behaviours that have very little to do with gender. And they're both just words, neither is really worse than the other.
They're used in exactly the same way here, at least.
Neither is that overtly offensive. They describe a behavior (ie: being a jerk) more than anything.
Slut is a FAR worse word bordering along the "c" word.
bitches are just cranky. sluts are dirty.
Sometimes I tell my boys they're behaving like bitches - implying that I think they're being cranky women. It usually helps.
I think our equivalent to slut in terms of offensiveness would be 'slag'
We call them sluzza's over here. But sluts and slags as well.
To be honest, I really don't like any of the words. I just think it's another labelling word that inflicts negative feelings, both on the user and the receiver. I feel kind of like I need to wash my mouth out just for thinking the word as I'm typing here. (yes I come from a family of mothers who still wash their kids mouths out with soap. No wonder Aden has such clean teeth)
Well then I'm completely opposed to that. Give the troops entertainment, but not politics.
Rush Limbaugh routinely mocks the commander in chief. How can they justify broadcasting that over official channels? He foments insubordination. That's just nuts that he would be carried.
Please. Armed Forces radio is supposed to broadcast a cross section of what is happening on radio in the US. Ideally what they broadcast is something the troops and other listeners want to hear. Based on the generally right leaning make-up of the military, it makes perfect sense for them to carry Rush.
I don't care for the guy and I've never really listened to his show, but reaction this is getting is just stupid. He called a woman a slut while ranting. Dumb move in my opinion, but so what. He isn't a journalist. It was just as dumb and just as much of a non-issue for me as when Schultz called Laura Ingraham a slut. Whatever.
The woman is revelling in her 15 minutes. She went before congress and boo hooed about poor law students not being able to afford contraception. Fuck off. We all have our crosses to bare lady. If between you and your partner you can't afford a condom, then you're too damn stupid to be having sex anyway.
and No I do not have a religious opposition to birth control. I have a deeply held dislike for people who believe it's someone else's (meaning you and me) to pay for things they want.
She went before congress and boo hooed about poor law students not being able to afford contraception. Fuck off. We all have our crosses to bare lady. If between you and your partner you can't afford a condom, then you're too damn stupid to be having sex anyway.
Did you ever actually listen to her testimony? at ALL? or are you talking out of your ass?
http://www.buzzfeed.com/boxofficebuz/transcript-of-testimony-by-sandra-fluke-48z2
“Without insurance coverage, contraception, as you know, can cost a woman over $3,000 during law school. For a lot of students who, like me, are on public interest scholarships, that’s practically an entire summer’s salary. 40% of the female students at Georgetown Law reported to us that they struggle financially as a result of this policy.
“And some might respond that contraception is accessible in lots of other ways. Unfortunately, that’s just not true.
“Women’s health clinic provide a vital medical service, but as the Guttmacher Institute has definitely documented, these clinics are unable to meet the crushing demand for these services. Clinics are closing, and women are being forced to go without the medical care they need.
“A friend of mine, for example, has polycystic ovarian syndrome, and she has to take prescription birth control to stop cysts from growing on her ovaries. Her prescription is technically covered by Georgetown’s insurance because it’s not intended to prevent pregnancy.
“Unfortunately, under many religious institutions and insurance plans, it wouldn’t be. There would be no exception for other medical needs. And under Sen. Blunt’s amendment, Sen. Rubio’s bill or Rep. Fortenberry’s bill there’s no requirement that such an exception be made for these medical needs.
“When this exception does exist, these exceptions don’t accomplish their well-intended goals because when you let university administrators or other employers rather than women and their doctors dictate whose medical needs are legitimate and whose are not, women’s health takes a back seat to a bureaucracy focused on policing her body.
“In 65% of the cases at our school, our female students were interrogated by insurance representatives and university medical staff about why they needed prescription and whether they were lying about their symptoms.
“For my friend and 20% of the women in her situation, she never got the insurance company to cover her prescription. Despite verifications of her illness from her doctor, her claim was denied repeatedly on the assumption that she really wanted birth control to prevent pregnancy. She’s gay. So clearly polycystic ovarian syndrome was a much more urgent concern than accidental pregnancy for her.
“After months paying over $100 out-of-pocket, she just couldn’t afford her medication anymore, and she had to stop taking it.
“I learned about all of this when I walked out of a test and got a message from her that in the middle of the night in her final exam period she’d been in the emergency room. She’d been there all night in just terrible, excruciating pain. She wrote to me, ‘It was so painful I’d woke up thinking I’ve been shot.’
“Without her taking the birth control, a massive cyst the size of a tennis ball had grown on her ovary. She had to have surgery to remove her entire ovary as a result.
“On the morning I was originally scheduled to give this testimony, she was sitting in a doctor’s office, trying to cope with the consequences of this medical catastrophe.
“Since last year’s surgery, she’s been experiencing night sweats and weight gain and other symptoms of early menopause as a result of the removal of her ovary. She’s 32-years-old.
“As she put it, ‘If my body indeed does enter early menopause, no fertility specialist in the world will be able to help me have my own children. I will have no choice at giving my mother her desperately desired grandbabies simply because the insurance policy that I paid for, totally unsubsidized by my school, wouldn’t cover my prescription for birth control when I needed it.’
“Now, in addition to potentially facing the health complications that come with having menopause at such an early age – increased risk of cancer, heart disease, osteoporosis – she may never be able to conceive a child.
“Some may say that my friend’s tragic story is rare. It’s not. I wish it were
“One woman told us doctors believe she has endometriosis, but that can’t be proven without surgery. So the insurance has not been willing to cover her medication – the contraception she needs to treat her endometriosis.
“Recently, another woman told me that she also has polycystic ovarian syndrome and she’s struggling to pay for her medication and is terrified to not have access to it.
“Due to the barriers erected by Georgetown’s policy, she hasn’t been reimbursed for her medications since last August.
Yeah. Surprise. She wasn't talking about government paying for anything. She wasn't talking about needing it just for preventing pregnancy. She wasn't talking about herself or her sex life. She was saying that letting insurance providers (that is to say, employers, not the insurers) refuse to cover, or try to put up stumbling blocks to obtaining, medically legitimate treatments, for "moral" or political reasons, is unacceptable.
IS there anyone as extreme as Rush on the left? Not just someone who's really far on the left - I mean EXTREME, as in,
repeatedly and unabashedly calling a woman ~snip~ a slut,
the partisanship isn't the issue. It's the offensiveness and disgusting personal attacks.
They're both loud and bombastic, and tend to have a rhetorical style similar to Rush's,
but neither are particularly extreme by my reckoning. What exactly makes them extreme,
other than being loud and slightly angry all the time?
[YOUTUBE]LLeGQr9TK6g[/YOUTUBE]
Yeah. But he didn't double down on it for two more days.
I'm not a big fan of Ed, but he's no Rush.
But he did call a woman a slut.
They have that in common.
Unfortunately, I do think he tries quite hard at emulating Rush from the left.
If you go way back to when he was on Air America, he was totally different.
They're used in exactly the same way here, at least.
Neither is that overtly offensive. They describe a behavior (ie: being a jerk) more than anything.
Slut is a FAR worse word bordering along the "c" word.
Dick vs Bitch. Not here (SE Mich) at least. I suspect more of the US too. Being a dick requires no intelligence whatsoever. And often doesn't need a third party. Bitchery requires a third party and is often based on intelligent/insightful observations. Not always. neither are specific to the gender exhibiting the behaviour, although it is possible that one gender is better at one and the other at the other. or not.
I get that slut is a bad, bad word here. It just isn't to me. but then, as I said, I don't really have problems with any words. If they're used appropriately, I'm all good.
Yes Ibram, I did hear it. Thanks for pasting it in for me though. I see nothing in there that causes me to feel differently about compelling private organizations to provide coverage for any specific medication or procedure. Ooh, a prescription costs a lot. Some people can't afford to have it. Shit happens. I've been on the shitty end of things not being covered an awful lot in the last few years. That still doesn't make me believe anyone or any organization should be compelled to pay for my expenses.
Dick vs Bitch. Not here (SE Mich) at least. I suspect more of the US too. Being a dick requires no intelligence whatsoever. And often doesn't need a third party. Bitchery requires a third party and is often based on intelligent/insightful observations. Not always. neither are specific to the gender exhibiting the behaviour, although it is possible that one gender is better at one and the other at the other. or not.
I get that slut is a bad, bad word here. It just isn't to me. but then, as I said, I don't really have problems with any words. If they're used appropriately, I'm all good.
Fair enough. Diff'rent strokes and all that.
the subtle difference between a "dick" and a "prick."
I'd say a dick was more passive and apt to allow douchebaggery to occur on his watch, where a prick is more active and deliberate.
the subtle difference between a "dick" and a "prick."
I'd say a dick was more passive and apt to allow douchebaggery to occur on his watch, where a prick is more active and deliberate.
yup could go for that. prick is definitely more intentional assholedness than dick.
:lol:
Sheldon?
[COLOR="LemonChiffon"]Flint[/COLOR]
Yes Ibram, I did hear it. Thanks for pasting it in for me though. I see nothing in there that causes me to feel differently about compelling private organizations to provide coverage for any specific medication or procedure. Ooh, a prescription costs a lot. Some people can't afford to have it. Shit happens. I've been on the shitty end of things not being covered an awful lot in the last few years. That still doesn't make me believe anyone or any organization should be compelled to pay for my expenses.
Then, i assume, you believe that argument applies equally to ALL medical procedures.
Then it's Obamacare, not contraception coverage, you have a problem with.
Why, then, should you or anybody else single out contraception as an issue?
... I see nothing in there that causes me to feel differently about compelling private organizations to provide coverage for any specific medication or procedure. ...
Then, i assume, you believe that argument applies equally to ALL medical procedures
What pomposity it is to declare that you assume something about another, through vocabulary substitution, that they have already blatantly stated about themselves.
... Why, then, should you or anybody else single out contraception as an issue?
Because ALL Medicine is NOT Preventive Medicine which is a fact of life that is lost on you. It's ALWAYS a matter of degree whether discussing immunizations, contraception; or, limiting medical intervention to prayer.
Your continuing approach, like the sensationalized title you ascribed to this thread, reflects attention whoring at the expense of a valid issue. You are respectfully requested to cease and desist confrontational methods of engagement and pursue synergistic intellectual discussion.
I think Ibram has a valid point, personally. If you're against all medical socialization, that's one position. But singling out one procedure/medication over others reeks of alterior motives.
That's what all the sluts say.
[COLOR="SlateGray"](I saw that.)[/COLOR]
Then, i assume, you believe that argument applies equally to ALL medical procedures.
Then it's Obamacare, not contraception coverage, you have a problem with.
Why, then, should you or anybody else single out contraception as an issue?
And what about Viagra?
Personally, I think there should be no contraception. Women should get pregnant, and have abortions, or the fathers can pay support, or the mothers can become welfare queens, and the kids can grow up to become criminals. That'll teach 'em and save us money.
Come out and take it you dirty slut, or I'll give it to you through the door!
[YOUTUBE]-0MkIPGKdAk&start=30s[/YOUTUBE]
It's being reported that Limbaugh has lost 36 sponsors in the fall out of all this, along with 2 radio stations.
Doesn't matter Lamplighter. Other advertisers would be more than happy to fill the vacuum. Look at this:
Now that over a dozen companies have bailed on Rush Limbaugh after he called Sandra Fluke a "slut" on air, a couple of new companies are swooping in to buy up that abandoned air time. AshleyMadison.com, the dating site that helps people cheat on their significant others, has offered to buy up all of Limbaugh's existing ad inventory. The company's founder and C.E.O. Noel Biderman, who's already shown himself to be a deft grabber of publicity, said in a press release, "Rush has always been a controversial figure and we have always been a controversial service so we can relate."
Another dating site, SeekingArrangements.com is also looking to buy some ads on Limbaugh's show. Described in a separate press release as "the world's largest sugar daddy and sugar baby dating website," SeekingArrangements is taking a different approach: "When a woman seeks out a Sugar Daddy to help pay for college, many in mainstream media have no problem likening her to being a prostitute," the company's founder and C.E.O. Brandon Wade said. "Such is the hypocrisy of the society we live in."
Sure, both of these companies are seizing the Limbaugh scandal for publicity, but they're being pretty amusing as they go about it. That's more than can we say about Limbaugh's original comments about Sandra Fluke.
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2012/03/some-advertisers-suddenly-want-support-rush-limbaugh/49561/
That would be hilarious. hahaha
:D
Irony and hypocrisy - the best forms of entertainment, sprinkled with occasional puns
That's what all the sluts say.
Actually, it's true. Just like Sandra Fluke's case example, I was on birth control pills from the age of 15 for medical non-contraceptive reasons. I am the very definition of a slut, here.
First time I went on birth control pills it was for non-contraceptive reasons. And like Clod, I was around 15 or 16 at the time.
It's actually quite common for the pill to be used for non contraceptive medical reasons. It helps a lot of, particularly young, women manage unusually painful and debilitating menstrual pains, for example.
Because ALL Medicine is NOT Preventive Medicine which is a fact of life that is lost on you. It's ALWAYS a matter of degree whether discussing immunizations, contraception; or, limiting medical intervention to prayer.
Your continuing approach, like the sensationalized title you ascribed to this thread, reflects attention whoring at the expense of a valid issue.
But again - Obamacare is clear in that it takes the stand that preventative coverage is included in Obamacare - that is to say, health insurance plans meeting the minimum standard of coverage are required to cover preventative services, including birth control.
Why, then, is birth control being singled out as a problem? Why not checkups or immunizations or whatever?
Ooh, a prescription costs a lot. Some people can't afford to have it. Shit happens. I've been on the shitty end of things not being covered an awful lot in the last few years. That still doesn't make me believe anyone or any organization should be compelled to pay for my expenses.
The only organization being compelled is the insurance companies who now need to provide coverage with a minimum standard of care that has raised to cover preventative services including birth control... and the POINT of insurance as a principle is that when "ooh, a prescription costs a lot, some people can't afford to have it"... the insurance company steps in to help. It's the same principle by which "ooh, chemotherapy costs a lot, some people can't afford to have it" so instead of saying "only rich people can survive cancer", we say "insurance coverage should be expected to cover them".
So therefore, to attack birth control coverage as YOU or TAXPAYERS or THE GOVERNMENT paying to give women birth control - which, as a supporter of a single-payer system, i think the government SHOULD - is flat out false. And so, the issue becomes, why should birth control be considered differently than any other medicine or prescription, when it comes to the mandated minimum standard of care? And if not, why single out birth control as a problem unless it's specifically with the intent of slut-shaming and trying to treat women differently - worse - than men?
I'm just really astounded at the objections to covering a prescription drug that is used to either a) treat a medical condition or b) prevent an expensive medical condition.
It's insurance. That is what it is for. Just like dental insurance pays for bi-annual cleanings and molar sealings and health insurance pays for physicals, pap smears, prostate and breast exams. It is to prevent a potentially expensive issue later on. OR, to cover treatment of an illness.
The cost of covering birth control doesn't even come close to prenatal care, delivery, and 18 years of insuring an additional dependent. Not to mention taxpayer funded education and other civic expenses associated with another citizen.
If I have to pay for your insulin injections and glucose testers because of your eating habits, your rehab due to your drinking habits, your surgeries due to your lousy driving habits, your diet pills due to your excessive eating habits and your effing Viagra so you can continue to go have sex on demand...then why shouldn't my birth control be covered so I do NOT have to have a baby that I am unprepared for??
Makes no sense to me.
The cost of covering birth control doesn't even come close to prenatal care, delivery, and 18 years of insuring an additional dependent. Not to mention taxpayer funded education and other civic expenses associated with another citizen.
Stormie Stormie Stormie :facepalm:
Don't bring the larger picture, you know...reality, into this argument. This is only for highly idealized calls for personal responsibility that has repeatably been shown to never work.
Break out your tinfoil hats, Birthcontrol and abortions will always be available to the well-off. Saddling a person with a child is a great way to keep that person from moving up the economic ladder.
There's a local branch of a very popular Christian cult in my town. One of their M.O.s is to encourage lots o' babies for the members of the cult, at the same time education is generally discouraged and avoided. The upshot is, since you've given away all your worldly possessions before joining, and you now have a family of 7 or more to support, and you lack rudimentary skills like reedin and ryten and math. You aren't likely to up and leave.
The cult is more overt, but the same thing happens in our country.
Please put the tinfoil in the recycling bin when you are done.
Yesterday, I read someone claim that birth control pills are a recreational drug.
First time I went on birth control pills it was for non-contraceptive reasons. And like Clod, I was around 15 or 16 at the time.
It's actually quite common for the pill to be used for non contraceptive medical reasons. It helps a lot of, particularly young, women manage unusually painful and debilitating menstrual pains, for example.
Yeah, but women deserve those pains because they tempted Adam with the apple...
Yesterday, I read someone claim that birth control pills are a recreational drug.
Well, in a manner of speaking...
Yeah, but women deserve those pains because they tempted Adam with the apple...
Sadly, the awesome Ricky Gervais standup bit about Adam and Eve and the Serpent has been removed from youtube. Whereas, the rest of the same entire bloody show is still there.
Don't worry, the snake's all right. :lol:
There's always Viagra, paid for by insurance.
Ironic, eh?
the subtle difference between a "dick" and a "prick."
I'd say a dick was more passive and apt to allow douchebaggery to occur on his watch, where a prick is more active and deliberate.
Dicks are the the way they are, 'cuz they are born that way. Pricks are that way 'cuz they get off on it. I am an insufferable prick.
Then it's Obamacare, not contraception coverage, you have a problem with.
Why, then, should you or anybody else single out contraception as an issue?
Is there something I've posted in the last 8 years that would make you think I
don't have a problem with Obamacare? I don't care at all about contraception. I'm pretty sure my insurance plan covers it. I don't have an issue with anyone using it and if their insurance plan covers it they should absolutely take advantage of the savings available.
I have a problem with private companies being villified for choosing to cover some procedures and medicines but not others. They are private companies and so long as they are not discriminating by race, religion, or sex then they can do just about anything they want in my opinion. Either they will be competitive and thrive or they will falter in that highly competitive industry.
To make it very very clear Ibram, so you don't feel the need to rephrase what I've posted in a lame attempt to accuse me of some horrible thoughts. I don't support Obamacare.
so long as they are not discriminating by race, religion, or sex then they can do just about anything they want in my opinion
I think the issue is that some people feel contraceptive medication is excluded on the basis of it being morally wrong and based on religious beliefs.
That's my impression of it anyway.
...so long as they are not discriminating by race, religion, or sex then they can do just about anything they want in my opinion.
no, THIS is the real problem for most people. Your right to free religion doesn't mean you can discriminate based on sex, which contraception coverage does. We as a nation decided that we needed health care reform, and even if you dont want it, it's the LAW. why, then, should an insurance company be able to arbitrarily break the law just because they don't agree with birth control? Why does birth control not deserve to be just as legally protected as any other basic prescription coverage that we've also collectively coded into law that they must provide?
But again - Obamacare is clear in that it takes the stand that preventative coverage is included in Obamacare - that is to say, health insurance plans meeting the minimum standard of coverage are required to cover preventative services, including birth control.
Why, then, is birth control being singled out as a problem? Why not checkups or immunizations or whatever?
I appreciate that you're asking a question; however, when you have to repeat it after there's been ample time for a response, it's always a good idea to reexamine your question [I've done written test question validations including proctoring target audience pretests and post pretest statistical analysis]. Your question presupposes that
checkups or immunizations or whatever have not previously been singled out as problems.
Checkups are covered. A thorough checkup would include a DNA analysis for predisposing factors of disease and other conditions. That information, whether it turns out to be an accurate prognosticator or not, could be used to segregate people and have dramatic consequences in their everyday lives. Checkups are covered to a degree; or, it becomes a problem. It's always a matter of degree.
Immunizations are covered. There have always been implied associations between immunizations and side effects whether they were accurate correlations or not (e.g. MMR or MMR plus thiomersol containing vaccines and Autism). The degree to which immunizations are covered rely on their statistical safety. Even though statistically safe, they are still held suspect via the media necessitating reassuring ad campaigns for vaccinations. It's always a matter of degree.
Contraceptives are covered. They can be used to treat other conditions in addition to preventing pregnancy. They are statistically safe. The degree to which they are covered depends on political influence. It's always a matter of degree.
The applications for insurance covered contraceptives are subject to scrutiny just as many other drugs (e.g. recreational marijuana VS medical marijuana) and procedures are for various reasons whether for prevention or treatment. The people affected would be better served if you presented arguments in support of the degree of application you desire rather than false analogies.
Actually, it's true. Just like Sandra Fluke's case example, I was on birth control pills from the age of 15 for medical non-contraceptive reasons. I am the very definition of a slut, here.
I'm delighted to see that you're taking responsibility for your actions. :p:
I love every one of you. ...
I luv U 2.
(even though I've seen Codfobble's brain before morning coffee in a first draft reply)
On a hunch, I did a Google image search for Sandra Fluke. I figured there might be some "motivational posters" about her.
Here's a bit of what I found. The Freepers and dittoheads have been having fun. Rush tells them what to think, and they fall over themselves to follow his lead.
[ATTACH]37695[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH]37696[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH]37697[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH]37698[/ATTACH]
This is just a small sample of what's out there.
If Sandra Fluke is so terrible, you'd think they'd give her all the free contraceptives she wanted just to keep her from reproducing.
How about that Ann Romney jumping on the bandwagon and telling everyone she doesn't consider herself wealthy so she won't lose free contraceptives either.
How about that Ann Romney jumping on the bandwagon and telling everyone she doesn't consider herself wealthy so she won't lose free contraceptives either.
Bzzzzzzzzzzzt! False.
Read the actual quote:
Those that are suffering from M.S. or cancer or any disease I feel like I want to throw my arms open and say,
welcome to my family and welcome to the place where I've been and, so, you know, we can be poor in spirit and I don't look --
I don't even consider myself wealthy, which is an interesting thing. It can be here today and gone tomorrow,
and how I measure riches is by the friends I have and the loved ones I have and the people I care about in my life
and that is where my values are and those are my riches so for me having done through a difficult period in my life
both with M.S. and with breast cancer it has done something to my heart and it's softened my heart
and made me realize there are many people suffering in this country and they are suffering from things that aren't financial --
and some people are suffering from things that are financial, as well -- but those that are suffering, for me,
I just have a larger capacity for love, and for understanding."
Still feel the same?
She's saying she has no friends?
@classic,
Yes, I still feel the same, my statement was a joke just like my other statement above it.
That quote from AR seems like a stream of consciousness that she forgot was falling out of her mouth. I kept waiting for her to come to her point...but she never really did. I can sort of assume what it is, but I could be wrong.
(even though I've seen Codfobble's brain before morning coffee in a first drat reply)
It's true, I realized I had completely misunderstood your post and changed my reply accordingly. This is why some people think I'm smart, it's because they're not as quick to click on new posts as you are. :)
Or maybe it says something about the (alleged) intelligence of the people who consider you smart?
We'll stop there before we get to the people who consider you sexy.
back to Rush Limbaugh ...
I was going to post on this subject in the humor thread, or the tasteless jokes thread with the punch line about his apology delivered by the head ditto himself: "It wasn't personal."
ha ha ha
I laughed myself sick over that one.
she's a slut, she's a prostitute, and since we're all paying for your sex, video tape it and send me a copy.
or words to that effect. That sounds really personal to me.
Ah but it wasn't. In order for it to be personal, Rush would have to give a shit about her, which he clearly doesn't. The only reason she was used, is because she was the one testifying. The whole tirade was against Obamacare, the left, Democrats, et al.
The whole tirade was against Obamacare, the left, Democrats, et al.
Ah, but it wasn't. He went after her personally, not the policy of covering birth control on your insurance. That's the whole problem. He thought that what he said wasnt personal... it WAS.
Same as Maher and Shultz... they're all media WHORES! :eek:
I've been saying this for years, now this woman is writing legislation about it. She's my new hero. Thanks for the article, c-man!
http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/03/08/10612704-want-viagra-ohio-lawmaker-wants-men-to-get-second-opinion
I’m fed up over all this concern, consideration and conversation over the feeble and fragile minds of women who are unable to make decisions on their own,” Turner said. “I thought it was time to show our men some love and some regulation. It was time to level the playing field for all.”
Turner said she started working on SB 307 about three weeks ago, and made sure the language mimicked the abortion legislation.
Turner’s bill would require doctors to get a second opinion from a psychological professional to verify that a patient has a medical reason for the medication.
It also would require doctors to inform patients in writing of the risks involved in taking the drugs; require that records about prescriptions for erectile dysfunction be retained in a patient’s file for at least seven years; and require men to sign a document acknowledging the risks of taking the medication, just like the anti-abortion bill does, she said.
Turner said she has received hundreds of supportive of her cause since she introduced the bill on Tuesday. She said she expected her bill to pass, just like the Heartbeat Bill did in the Ohio House in June.
“By implementing more intensive screenings before prescribing the medication and requiring outpatient educational services, we can do more to prevent the potential side effects linked to PDE-5 inhibitors,” Turner said in a press release announcing the bill. “We must advocate for the traditional family, protect the sanctity of procreation and ensure that all men using PDE-5 inhibitors are healthy, stable, and educated about their options -- including celibacy as a viable life choice. This legislation will do just that.”
Bwaaahahahaaaaaaa! Brilliant lady! Let's watch this go over like a lead balloon. I said recently that if men were subject to sneaky cancer like Ovarian cancer they would move heaven and earth to find better ways to detect and treat it. We ain't come that far, baby.
So yes, make the men jump through all sorts of hoops to get their Boner Pill. Really, think of their health. We must watch out for them.
Same as Maher and Shultz...
Only if you accept Limbaugh's premise that the only things he said wrong was two words.
Nope - sorry. All three of them did the same thing.
Rush is just getting way more attention from it.
That "same thing" was what, exactly?
Calling a woman a slut on the air.
I was called a slut to my face once.
(sorry, back to some of the original discussion, I've been away)
I felt it was justified.
In hindsight it wasn't. I'd had sex, that was all. My choice of partner was poor (and the sex wasn't good) but the person who called me a slut was hurt and disappointed because he wanted to get jiggy with me and someone else got there first.
The person who has called me a bitch the most is my own mother, who throws in words like spiteful and selfish as adjectives.
Anyway.
I started using contraceptives at 16 for non-medical reasons.
I now have a contraceptive implant, on the NHS, and don't have sex.
I am both a slut and a drain on resources.
On a hunch, I did a Google image search for Sandra Fluke. I figured there might be some "motivational posters" about her.
Here's a bit of what I found. The Freepers and dittoheads have been having fun. Rush tells them what to think, and they fall over themselves to follow his lead.
This is just a small sample of what's out there.
Y'know I have conservative friends who are always saying to me 'liberals do the same kinds of stuff'. Maybe I don't go out of my way to look for it, but is there this kind of stuff out there for Coulter or any of the prominent conservative women? Is there any of this out there for a conservative woman whose only claim to fame is giving testimony before Congress? My take on this is that Coulter and other public figures seek attention and are compensated for being public figures. As such, they are more 'fair game', although I would find those pictures offensive even if Coulter were the subject.
I seriously think that the extreme right is better at expressing hatred then the extreme left. That might be my bias, and as a liberal I am willing to be proven wrong.
Rich, just get outside your norm. There is plenty of hatred posted from ALL sides on most any political page - just read the comments.
the subtle difference between a "dick" and a "prick."
I'd say a dick was more passive and apt to allow douchebaggery to occur on his watch, where a prick is more active and deliberate.
God that's apt. Apt!
Also has everyone forgotten their Classics?
Lysistrata, ladies!
No birth control you say? Ok, no sex for you.
Cool. Does that mean if I offer a woman birth control she'll have sex with me?
WHY DID I NOT KNOW THIS SOONER?
How carefully did you follow this story and how invested were you in it? If you spent more than five minutes concerned about it...
YOU ARE A SLUT
Not a traditional slut, but a political slut! Here's why!
1)
There was no actual issue to begin with. The reason why we know this is that it happened at a congressional hearing.
1a)
Congress are the biggest sluts in the land. They regularly hold hearings on things they have absolutely no actual interest in or even the ability to change, such as steroids in baseball. Federal legislators think they run everything and are the most important people in the world. The entire point is for concerned "leaders" to have their faces shot on TV looking all concerned. The process is a fake debate and the result doesn't really matter and nothing ever actually happens. It's all just sluttery.
2)
Sandra Fluke is a slut. Not a traditional slut, but a political slut. The reason why we know this is that she claimed in front of a congressional hearing that
Without insurance coverage, contraception, as you know, can cost a woman over $3,000 during law school. For a lot of students who, like me, are on public interest scholarships, that’s practically an entire summer’s salary."
People took the time to look into this statement and found that it was nigh impossible to spend $1000 a year on contraception. Depo shot = about $600/year, oral contraception = $200-600/year, implant = one-time $800 lasts 5 years, sponge = $4 per event, condoms = $1 per event.
1000 condom uses per year would make Ms. Fluke an actual slut. The simpler explanation is that she's a political slut. It is Not Okay to suggest that someone having enough sex to generate $3000 in contraceptive expenses is a slut... only because everyone on all sides knows full well that $3000 is a carefully-constructed lie, and lying is standard practice in political sluttery. And that's why...
3)
Rush Limbaugh is a slut. This is well-understood by all sides. The entire raison d'etre of the Rush Limbaugh Program is political sluttery. It's professional wrestling. It's well-understood to be fake. Even when the show covers actual issues, it does so in as slutty a style as possible and so when the issue is SEX and there is politics, the fake debate will become the show's main concern. And what helps them get a huge audience is the barking opposition...
4)
The people claiming outrage over Rush's statements are sluts. They know all of the above, but cannot help jumping into the fray and claiming to be outraged. But there is no actual outrage. Nobody's face is actually turning red over the idea that Rush Limbaugh would call someone a slut. There are no marches planned and even sponsor boycotts are sort of fake. But by the way...
5)
The sponsors leaving the Limbaugh program are sluts. They knew when sponsoring the program that Limbaugh was a slut and the entire reason you sponsor it is to gain from sluttery. They made a calculated decision that leaving the show would get them more publicity and interest than staying on the show. Sure enough the first jumpers got a round of coverage and that led to a second round of jumpers trying to get the same coverage. But what they didn't realize was...
5a)
The sponsors staying on the Limbaugh program are sluts. The ones staying have done the calculus that their name will now be dragged around and they will gain attention and sales from that. Really well played, Carbonite! And the reason this works is...
6)
The Media are all sluts. They know all of the above; they're in the game and they know full well that their job is to get the crowd all worked up for the professional wrestling match. But the only reason they can actually do this is...
7)
You are all sluts. You fell for it, because you love it. In the back of your mind you know it's professional wrestling and it's far more fun to play this shit than to actually study issues and think about real issues to debate. It's pretend-productive. It makes you think you're engaged.
~
On a basic level "slut" is just a fake accusation that you are sex-positive. And ironically, if you use contraception, being sex-positive is entirely fine. "Slut" should not be the pejorative term that it is, acting slutty is not even necessarily negative, and
BigV has actually marched to defend that principle.
