- Candice
Tuesday, March 13, 2012
The Issue of Marriage
This image is circulating around Facebook right now, and it's so awesome I wanted to share it with you. Let's work together to wipe out homophobia!
- Candice
- Candice
Monogamish Ethics
Yep, it's monogamish again.
Yep, it's Dan Savage again.
This one comes to us from the Savage Love Letter of the Day (SLLOTD) iPhone app and was posted on Monday, March 12, 2012. What attracted me to this post was the fact that, while the broad topic is communication and the ethics of disclosure, the issue itself is unique to nonmonogamy.
FYI: contains coarse language.
Enjoy!
[box]
My wife and I have been married eighteen years, basically since high school. We opened up our marriage two years ago. She quickly attracted an avalanche of attention online, and has had a couple of lovers. It has done her—and us—good. But my own experience has been the opposite of hers: tepid interest online; endless correspondence with sort-of interested parties; a few disastrous dates.
I'm writing to get your opinion on a point of ethics, and also your permission. The few women who have expressed interest so far—other than the two who wanted long-term monogamy from me or nothing—only did so as long as they thought I was cheating on my wife. As soon as they realized that I was hooking up with her approval, they were no longer interested. I find it ironic that I worked so hard to do the ethical thing by opening up my marriage, only to find that the ethical thing itself is a buzzkill, but anyway.
There's a bit more at stake here aside from some kanoodling: both before marriage and now, I never successfully dated or hooked up (I was a bit of an ugly duckling adolescent), and this endless rejection is starting to affect my libido and my self-worth. I need to get past it. I'm very honest and can't actively deceive anyone, unless I'm convinced it's just part of the game. Do I have your permission to pretend I'm cheating on my wife in order to not cheat on my wife with someone who gets off on the thought of me cheating on my wife? My wife is fine with this.
What The Fuck, Over
First, some theories—yanked out of my ass just now—about the women who bailed on you after they found out you weren't a CPOS:
1. They were looking to do something dirty and wrong, WTFO, and once they found out you were proposing something clean and correct, they were no longer interested.
2. They were cheating on their husbands and were looking for a "mutual assured destruction" pact—you couldn't expose her as a CPOS because she would be able to expose you as a CPOS.
3. They were after two particular and overlapping ego boosts. They were turned on by the thought that you were willing to "risk everything" to fuck 'em (because they were just that irresistible), WTFO, and they wanted to feel superior to—and more desirable than—whatever the woman you had at home. MomLogic ("What Moms Are Talking About") did a piece on this a few years ago: "52% of women have had sex with a married man: Momlogic contributor Shannon Fox says one of the reasons women will sleep with a married man is because women tend to be very competitive. 'If they can get a man who's committed to someone else, they take it as a win.'"
That said, WTFO, I'm with your wife. I don't see any harm in deceiving women who are aroused by deception about the fact that you're not deceiving your wife. Deceiving people is wrong, ethically speaking, but the deception here is mild and no one is or will be harmed by it. These women you "deceive" get a "win" by sleeping with a married man and you get to enjoy a little libido- and self-worth-enhancing pussy. Don't go on and on about how your life will be destroyed if your wife should ever find out—don't actively deceive anyone (your impulse there is a correct)—but don't feel obligated to set them straight if they assume you're a CPOS.
Permission granted, WTFO.
[/box]
Yep, it's Dan Savage again.
This one comes to us from the Savage Love Letter of the Day (SLLOTD) iPhone app and was posted on Monday, March 12, 2012. What attracted me to this post was the fact that, while the broad topic is communication and the ethics of disclosure, the issue itself is unique to nonmonogamy.
FYI: contains coarse language.
Enjoy!
[box]
Permission Slippage
My wife and I have been married eighteen years, basically since high school. We opened up our marriage two years ago. She quickly attracted an avalanche of attention online, and has had a couple of lovers. It has done her—and us—good. But my own experience has been the opposite of hers: tepid interest online; endless correspondence with sort-of interested parties; a few disastrous dates.
I'm writing to get your opinion on a point of ethics, and also your permission. The few women who have expressed interest so far—other than the two who wanted long-term monogamy from me or nothing—only did so as long as they thought I was cheating on my wife. As soon as they realized that I was hooking up with her approval, they were no longer interested. I find it ironic that I worked so hard to do the ethical thing by opening up my marriage, only to find that the ethical thing itself is a buzzkill, but anyway.
There's a bit more at stake here aside from some kanoodling: both before marriage and now, I never successfully dated or hooked up (I was a bit of an ugly duckling adolescent), and this endless rejection is starting to affect my libido and my self-worth. I need to get past it. I'm very honest and can't actively deceive anyone, unless I'm convinced it's just part of the game. Do I have your permission to pretend I'm cheating on my wife in order to not cheat on my wife with someone who gets off on the thought of me cheating on my wife? My wife is fine with this.
What The Fuck, Over
First, some theories—yanked out of my ass just now—about the women who bailed on you after they found out you weren't a CPOS:
1. They were looking to do something dirty and wrong, WTFO, and once they found out you were proposing something clean and correct, they were no longer interested.
2. They were cheating on their husbands and were looking for a "mutual assured destruction" pact—you couldn't expose her as a CPOS because she would be able to expose you as a CPOS.
3. They were after two particular and overlapping ego boosts. They were turned on by the thought that you were willing to "risk everything" to fuck 'em (because they were just that irresistible), WTFO, and they wanted to feel superior to—and more desirable than—whatever the woman you had at home. MomLogic ("What Moms Are Talking About") did a piece on this a few years ago: "52% of women have had sex with a married man: Momlogic contributor Shannon Fox says one of the reasons women will sleep with a married man is because women tend to be very competitive. 'If they can get a man who's committed to someone else, they take it as a win.'"
That said, WTFO, I'm with your wife. I don't see any harm in deceiving women who are aroused by deception about the fact that you're not deceiving your wife. Deceiving people is wrong, ethically speaking, but the deception here is mild and no one is or will be harmed by it. These women you "deceive" get a "win" by sleeping with a married man and you get to enjoy a little libido- and self-worth-enhancing pussy. Don't go on and on about how your life will be destroyed if your wife should ever find out—don't actively deceive anyone (your impulse there is a correct)—but don't feel obligated to set them straight if they assume you're a CPOS.
Permission granted, WTFO.
[/box]
Sunday, March 11, 2012
Savage Says: Another Gold-Star Pedophile
This week's Savage Love really made me stop and consider what it would be like to have an off-limits sexual desire / fetish / kink.I can't imagine having to spend my entire life resisting my sexual interests and desires -- desires which, as Dan points out -- we don't choose. This particular column features an individual struggling with one of the most taboo and potentially damaging attractions - pedophilia.
I particularly like that Dan commended this man for his determination to resist his desires, and encouraged society to be more compassionate towards him and others experiencing similar struggles. He also points out the huge gaps in service and support currently available to "gold star pedophiles" -- and the potentially damaging regulations in place in many countries -- including Canada and the US.
Dan's response really made me stop and think, and I hope it does the same for you.
Note: I've added the emphasis in Dan's response.
[box]
March 7, 2012 by Dan SavageI'm a gay man in my late 20s who has been trying to deal with an attraction to young boys since I hit puberty. I know that what I feel is wrong and wish to Christ that I could have a normally wired brain. I have never abused a child; I do not look at child pornography. But I need to speak to a therapist because I can't get through this on my own. Bottom line is I'm afraid. Seriously afraid. I don't know what my legal rights are and I don't know how to go about getting more information without incriminating myself. I'm sure there are more people than just me who need to talk about this. My problem is that I'm not financially stable enough to afford seeing someone for more than a few sessions. I just can't keep saying I'm fine, and I can't let healthy relationships fall apart because I'm unable to talk to anyone about my problem.
Can't Wish It Away
I shared your letter with Dr. James Cantor, a psychologist, associate professor at the University of Toronto, and editor in chief of Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment. (Follow Dr. Cantor on Twitter @JamesCantorPhD.) The first thing he said, CWIA, was that you deserved praise—he called you "an ace"—for making it this far without having committed an offense.
But accessing the support you need to get through the next six or seven decades of life without sexually abusing a child—support the culture should provide to men and women like you in order to protect children—isn't going to be easy, Dr. Cantor said, particularly if you live in the United States.
"Other countries have created programs to help people like CWIA," said Dr. Cantor. "Germany has Prevention Project Dunkelfeld, which includes a hospital-based clinic and anonymous hotlines that people who are attracted to children can call when they need to talk to someone, vent, or debrief. In Canada, we have the Circles of Support and Accountability—groups of volunteers who provide assistance and social support and who, in turn, receive support and supervision from professionals."
But Canada funds these programs only for people who committed a sexual offense. The Circles
program isn't open to "gold-star pedophiles," my term for men and women who have successfully struggled against their attraction to children without any support or credit. (Yes, credit. Someone who is burdened with an attraction to children—no one chooses to be sexually attracted to children—and successfully battled that attraction all of his adult life deserves credit for his strength, self-control, and moral sense.)
Sadly, in the United States, we've taken steps that make it harder for pedophiles to get the support they need to avoid offending.
"One of the recent regulations in the United States is mandatory reporting," said Dr. Cantor. "These regulations vary by region, but in general, if a client has children or provides care to children and admits to experiencing sexual attraction to children—any children—the therapist is required to report the client to the authorities, regardless of whether any abuse was actually occurring."
The goal is to protect children, of course, and that is a goal I fully support as a parent and a human being. But broad mandatory reporting policies have an unintended consequence: People like CWIA—people who need help to avoid acting on their attraction to children—are cut off from mental health professionals who can give them the tools, insight, and support they need. Mandatory reporting policies, designed to protect children, may be making children less safe.
"The situation is not completely hopeless, however," said Dr. Cantor. "Therapists with training and experience working with people attracted to children are keenly aware of the delicate legal situation that both they and their clients are in. A good therapist—a licensed therapist, please—will begin the very first session by outlining exactly what they must report and what they may not report."
So long as there is no specific child in specific danger—so long as you don't have children (please don't), CWIA, and don't work with children (please don't)—your therapist is required to keep whatever information you share confidential.
"CWIA should ask questions about confidentiality before disclosing anything to a therapist," said Dr. Cantor. "He can ask these questions over the phone before making an appointment or even revealing his name."
To find a therapist, CWIA, you can contact—anonymously—the Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers (http://atsa.com/request-referral).
"Although that group is primarily about services to persons who have already committed an offense," said Dr. Cantor, "the professionals in their referral network are able and willing to help people in CWIA's situation as well."
Even the few sessions you can afford will help, CWIA.
[/box]
I particularly like that Dan commended this man for his determination to resist his desires, and encouraged society to be more compassionate towards him and others experiencing similar struggles. He also points out the huge gaps in service and support currently available to "gold star pedophiles" -- and the potentially damaging regulations in place in many countries -- including Canada and the US.
Dan's response really made me stop and think, and I hope it does the same for you.
Note: I've added the emphasis in Dan's response.
[box]
Another Gold-Star Pedophile
March 7, 2012 by Dan SavageI'm a gay man in my late 20s who has been trying to deal with an attraction to young boys since I hit puberty. I know that what I feel is wrong and wish to Christ that I could have a normally wired brain. I have never abused a child; I do not look at child pornography. But I need to speak to a therapist because I can't get through this on my own. Bottom line is I'm afraid. Seriously afraid. I don't know what my legal rights are and I don't know how to go about getting more information without incriminating myself. I'm sure there are more people than just me who need to talk about this. My problem is that I'm not financially stable enough to afford seeing someone for more than a few sessions. I just can't keep saying I'm fine, and I can't let healthy relationships fall apart because I'm unable to talk to anyone about my problem.
Can't Wish It Away
I shared your letter with Dr. James Cantor, a psychologist, associate professor at the University of Toronto, and editor in chief of Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment. (Follow Dr. Cantor on Twitter @JamesCantorPhD.) The first thing he said, CWIA, was that you deserved praise—he called you "an ace"—for making it this far without having committed an offense.
But accessing the support you need to get through the next six or seven decades of life without sexually abusing a child—support the culture should provide to men and women like you in order to protect children—isn't going to be easy, Dr. Cantor said, particularly if you live in the United States.
"Other countries have created programs to help people like CWIA," said Dr. Cantor. "Germany has Prevention Project Dunkelfeld, which includes a hospital-based clinic and anonymous hotlines that people who are attracted to children can call when they need to talk to someone, vent, or debrief. In Canada, we have the Circles of Support and Accountability—groups of volunteers who provide assistance and social support and who, in turn, receive support and supervision from professionals."
But Canada funds these programs only for people who committed a sexual offense. The Circles
program isn't open to "gold-star pedophiles," my term for men and women who have successfully struggled against their attraction to children without any support or credit. (Yes, credit. Someone who is burdened with an attraction to children—no one chooses to be sexually attracted to children—and successfully battled that attraction all of his adult life deserves credit for his strength, self-control, and moral sense.)Sadly, in the United States, we've taken steps that make it harder for pedophiles to get the support they need to avoid offending.
"One of the recent regulations in the United States is mandatory reporting," said Dr. Cantor. "These regulations vary by region, but in general, if a client has children or provides care to children and admits to experiencing sexual attraction to children—any children—the therapist is required to report the client to the authorities, regardless of whether any abuse was actually occurring."
The goal is to protect children, of course, and that is a goal I fully support as a parent and a human being. But broad mandatory reporting policies have an unintended consequence: People like CWIA—people who need help to avoid acting on their attraction to children—are cut off from mental health professionals who can give them the tools, insight, and support they need. Mandatory reporting policies, designed to protect children, may be making children less safe.
"The situation is not completely hopeless, however," said Dr. Cantor. "Therapists with training and experience working with people attracted to children are keenly aware of the delicate legal situation that both they and their clients are in. A good therapist—a licensed therapist, please—will begin the very first session by outlining exactly what they must report and what they may not report."
So long as there is no specific child in specific danger—so long as you don't have children (please don't), CWIA, and don't work with children (please don't)—your therapist is required to keep whatever information you share confidential.
"CWIA should ask questions about confidentiality before disclosing anything to a therapist," said Dr. Cantor. "He can ask these questions over the phone before making an appointment or even revealing his name."
To find a therapist, CWIA, you can contact—anonymously—the Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers (http://atsa.com/request-referral).
"Although that group is primarily about services to persons who have already committed an offense," said Dr. Cantor, "the professionals in their referral network are able and willing to help people in CWIA's situation as well."
Even the few sessions you can afford will help, CWIA.
[/box]
Thursday, March 8, 2012
The Regression of Sex Education in Utah
I must say, I'm incredibly disappointed that this is really happening. The passing of Bill HB363 19-10 by the Utah Senate is absolutely ridiculous. Dropping sex ed from the curriculum all together, enforcing abstinence-only education as the "this or nothing" option, prohibiting teachers from discussing homosexuality AND prohibiting any discussion of contraception. Not to mention the "married and monogamous only" approach to talking about sex and the complete removal of an optional comprehensive sex ed program.
WAKE UP UTAH SENATE!
Sex is everywhere! How can you possibly think that anything good will come of depriving your students of such a fundamental education? Has the increase of unintended pregnancies and STI infections in Texas taught you nothing?!
For the sake of all children and youth in Utah, I hope this bill doesn't get any further. I thought schools were supposed to prepare children for, y'know, real life.
[box]
The Huffington PostLaura HibbardFirst Posted: 03/ 7/2012 12:13 pm Updated: 03/ 7/2012 4:12 pm The Utah state Senate passed a bill Tuesday that would allow schools to drop sex education, prohibit instruction on how to use contraception, and prohibit discussion of homosexuality in class,The Salt Lake Tribune reports.
Legislators passed Senate bill HB363 19-10 after a short debate during which many senators expressed their belief that sex education is meant for the home, not school.
"To replace the parent in the school setting, among people who we have no idea what their morals are, we have no ideas what their values are, yet we turn our children over to them to instruct them in the most sensitive sexual activities in their lives, I think is wrongheaded," Republican state Sen. Stuart Reid said, according to The Salt Lake Tribune.
The bill lifts the current requirement that all public schools must teach sex ed in grades 8 through 12. Districts would decide whether to offer sex ed classes that teach an abstinence-only curriculum, or not offer the course at all.
Teachers would be barred from talking about homosexuality even if asked about it by a student, KTSU-TV reports. They also must restrict their sexual education curriculum to advocating abstinence before marriage and remaining faithful to your spouse.
Those who voted against the bill are concerned that without formal sex ed, students' lack of sex knowledge will spark higher rates of sexually transmitted disease and teen pregnancies in the state.
"I believe knowledge is the most important aspect in anyone's lives," Democratic state Sen. Gene Davis said, according to the Daily Herald. "A child needs the right and correct answer."
Last month, Republican state Rep. Francis Gibson said that in the Utah school district he represents, the abstinence-only curriculum is not producing positive results, and that unexpected teen pregnancy is still a problem.
"I would hope as we make this decision, that we won't think if we say abstinence only, that fairy dust will have been sprinkled and that teen pregnancy will no longer be a problem," Gibson said, according to an earlier piece by the Daily Herald.
This decision by the state Senate to pass the bill comes after similar regulations have passed nationwide. Last November, the Wisconsin state Senate passed legislation requiring schools to promote abstinence in sex ed classes, but didn't prohibit lessons on contraception.
[/box]
Watch some of the Senate debate for yourself:
- Candice
WAKE UP UTAH SENATE!
Sex is everywhere! How can you possibly think that anything good will come of depriving your students of such a fundamental education? Has the increase of unintended pregnancies and STI infections in Texas taught you nothing?!
For the sake of all children and youth in Utah, I hope this bill doesn't get any further. I thought schools were supposed to prepare children for, y'know, real life.
[box]
Abstinence-Only Sex Ed Bill In Utah Passes Senate, Prohibits Talk Of Homosexuality In Class (VIDEO)
The Huffington PostLaura HibbardFirst Posted: 03/ 7/2012 12:13 pm Updated: 03/ 7/2012 4:12 pm The Utah state Senate passed a bill Tuesday that would allow schools to drop sex education, prohibit instruction on how to use contraception, and prohibit discussion of homosexuality in class,The Salt Lake Tribune reports.
Legislators passed Senate bill HB363 19-10 after a short debate during which many senators expressed their belief that sex education is meant for the home, not school.
"To replace the parent in the school setting, among people who we have no idea what their morals are, we have no ideas what their values are, yet we turn our children over to them to instruct them in the most sensitive sexual activities in their lives, I think is wrongheaded," Republican state Sen. Stuart Reid said, according to The Salt Lake Tribune.
The bill lifts the current requirement that all public schools must teach sex ed in grades 8 through 12. Districts would decide whether to offer sex ed classes that teach an abstinence-only curriculum, or not offer the course at all.
Teachers would be barred from talking about homosexuality even if asked about it by a student, KTSU-TV reports. They also must restrict their sexual education curriculum to advocating abstinence before marriage and remaining faithful to your spouse.
Those who voted against the bill are concerned that without formal sex ed, students' lack of sex knowledge will spark higher rates of sexually transmitted disease and teen pregnancies in the state.
"I believe knowledge is the most important aspect in anyone's lives," Democratic state Sen. Gene Davis said, according to the Daily Herald. "A child needs the right and correct answer."
Last month, Republican state Rep. Francis Gibson said that in the Utah school district he represents, the abstinence-only curriculum is not producing positive results, and that unexpected teen pregnancy is still a problem.
"I would hope as we make this decision, that we won't think if we say abstinence only, that fairy dust will have been sprinkled and that teen pregnancy will no longer be a problem," Gibson said, according to an earlier piece by the Daily Herald.
This decision by the state Senate to pass the bill comes after similar regulations have passed nationwide. Last November, the Wisconsin state Senate passed legislation requiring schools to promote abstinence in sex ed classes, but didn't prohibit lessons on contraception.
[/box]
Watch some of the Senate debate for yourself:
- Candice
Happy International Women's Day!
I just wanted to write a quick post about what day it is today - International Women's Day!
I think this day is very important to celebrate to recognize women as important people in our communities. Women are the driving force in the world and do 60% of the world's work. I know so many amazing women in my life that are leaders, educators, innovators, mentors and caretakers.
From the International Women's Day website:
[box]
International Women's Day is a global day celebrating the economic, political and social achievements of women past, present and future. In some places like China, Russia, Vietnam and Bulgaria, International Women's Day is a national holiday.
Suffragettes campaigned for women's right to vote. The word 'Suffragette' is derived from the word "suffrage" meaning the right to vote. International Women's Day honours the work of the Suffragettes, celebrates women's success, and reminds of inequities still to be redressed. The first International Women's Day event was run in 1911. 2011 was the Global Centenary Year. Let's reinvent opportunity for all women.
[/box]
[gallery link="file" orderby="title"]
Note the google icon change for IWD
So happy International Women's Day and go thank a woman who has made a significant impact on your life!
-Jocelyne
I think this day is very important to celebrate to recognize women as important people in our communities. Women are the driving force in the world and do 60% of the world's work. I know so many amazing women in my life that are leaders, educators, innovators, mentors and caretakers.
From the International Women's Day website:
[box]
International Women's Day is a global day celebrating the economic, political and social achievements of women past, present and future. In some places like China, Russia, Vietnam and Bulgaria, International Women's Day is a national holiday.
Suffragettes campaigned for women's right to vote. The word 'Suffragette' is derived from the word "suffrage" meaning the right to vote. International Women's Day honours the work of the Suffragettes, celebrates women's success, and reminds of inequities still to be redressed. The first International Women's Day event was run in 1911. 2011 was the Global Centenary Year. Let's reinvent opportunity for all women.
[/box]
[gallery link="file" orderby="title"]
Note the google icon change for IWD
So happy International Women's Day and go thank a woman who has made a significant impact on your life!
-Jocelyne
Sexy Research: Sex Ed, First Sex
It's time for some sexy research!I received this article from the Guttmacher Institute this morning. It makes a great case for comprehensive sex education. And you know how I feel about comprehensive sex ed! :)
Note: I've added the emphasis (aka bold and italics).
Read and enjoy!
[box]
SEX EDUCATION LINKED TO DELAY IN FIRST SEX
Teens Getting Information About Both Abstinence and Contraception
Have Healthier Outcomes Than Those Who Receive No Sex Education
Teens who receive formal sex education prior to their first sexual experience demonstrate a range of healthier behaviors at first intercourse than those who receive no sex education at all. This is particularly so when the instruction they receive includes information about both waiting to have sex and methods of birth control. These findings come from a new study, “Consequences of Sex Education on Teen and Young Adult Sexual Behaviors and Outcomes,” by Laura Duberstein Lindberg and Isaac Maddow-Zimet of the Guttmacher Institute.
The authors analyzed data from 4,691 men and women aged 15–24 who participated in the 2006–2008 National Survey of Family Growth. They found that 66% of sexually experienced females and 55% of sexually experienced males reported having received information about both abstinence and birth control prior to first intercourse. Eighteen percent of sexually experienced females and 21% of males had received only abstinence instruction, while 16% of females and 24% of had had no instruction on either topic. However, these measures do not correlate directly with any specific “abstinence-only” or “comprehensive” sex education programs (see below).
Respondents who had received instruction on both abstinence and birth control were older at first sex than their peers who had received no formal instruction and were more likely to have used condoms or other contraceptives at first sex; they also had healthier partnerships. Those who had received only abstinence instruction were more likely to have delayed first intercourse than were those who had had no sex education, but abstinence instruction was not associated with any of the other protective behaviors at first sex. Moreover, condom use at first sex was significantly less likely among females who had had only abstinence instruction than among those who had received information about both abstinence and birth control. The study found no relationship between sex education and current sexual behaviors, suggesting the need for ongoing education after the onset of sexual activity.
“Sex education is important to teens’ healthy development,” said study author Lindberg. “It should cover a wide range of topics, including both how to delay first sex and how to use contraceptives, and should be reinforced over the course of young people’s development. Reaching teens with comprehensive information before they have sex should be a key goal.”
The authors point out that this study is based on the reports of teens and young adults who were asked if they had received formal instruction prior to age 18 on “how to say no to sex” or on “methods of birth control.” The measures do not correlate directly with any specific sex education programs. However, the authors suggest that their findings complement results of program evaluations showing that a comprehensive approach to sex education is associated with healthier sexual behaviors than is an abstinence-only approach.
“Consequences of Sex Education on Teen and Young Adult Sexual Behaviors and Outcomes,” by Laura Duberstein Lindberg and Isaac Maddow-Zimet, is currently available online and will appear in a forthcoming issue of the Journal of Adolescent Health.
For a comprehensive review of research findings on the effectiveness of comprehensive and abstinence-only sex education programs, click here.
[/box]
Learn more about the Guttmacher Institute and all they do for sexual and reproductive health!
- Candice
Tuesday, March 6, 2012
A Slut, You Say?
I want my insurance to pay for my birth control ...Why, you ask? Because I'm a slut and a prostitute, of course!
Have you heard about Rush Limbaugh's most recent offensive statement? I'm referring to the one where he called a young woman a slut and a prostitute because she wants health insurance to cover contraception. Because, y'know, she must be having so much sex that she needs him to buy her pills for her ... and then he'd be paying her to have sex. So she's obviously a prostitute, right? But it's OK, as long as she posts the videos on the internet for him to enjoy.
I have to admit, I have mixed feelings about this whole thing. On one hand, I'm horrified, disgusted and outraged. On the other, I find Limbaugh's "arguments" to be so inaccurate - and downright ridiculous - that they're funny. So after you read the first article I've posted below, read the second and watch the video of Jon Stewart showing just how pathetic Limbaugh really is.
Then tell your friends.
[box]
Rush Limbaugh called the woman who was denied the right to speak at a controversial contraception hearing a "slut" on Wednesday.
Sandra Fluke, a student at Georgetown Law School, was supposed to be the Democratic witness at a Congressional hearing about the Obama administration's contraception policy. However, Darrell Issa, the committee chair at the hearing, prevented her from speaking, while only allowing a series of men to testify about the policy. Fluke eventually spoke to a Democratic hearing, and talked about the need for birth control for both reproductive and broader medical reasons. She mentioned in particular a friend of hers who needed contraception to prevent the growth of cysts.
To Limbaugh, though, Fluke was just promoting casual sex.
"Can you imagine if you were her parents how proud...you would be?" he said. "Your daughter ... testifies she's having so much sex she can't afford her own birth control pills and she wants President Obama to provide them, or the Pope."
He continued:
"What does it say about the college co-ed Susan Fluke [sic] who goes before a congressional committee and essentially says that she must be paid to have sex -- what does that make her? It makes her a slut, right? It makes her a prostitute. She wants to be paid to have sex. She's having so much sex she can't afford the contraception. She wants you and me and the taxpayers to pay her to have sex."
Limbaugh then said, "ok, so she's not a slut. She's round-heeled." "Round-heeled" is an old-fashioned term for promiscuity.
Limbaugh's comments came on the same day that Fluke was mentioned during a debate in the Senate about the so-called "Blunt Amendment," which would override Obama's contraception rule. Sen. Barbara Boxer brought up Fluke's testimony, recounting what she would have said at the Congressional panel if she had been given the opportunity.
[/box]
[box]
Unless you've been doing yourself a favor by not paying attention to Rush Limbaugh, you've probably heard about the conservative radio host calling Georgetown Law student Sandra Fluke a "slut" for supporting contraceptive insurance coverage -- and you're probably outraged.
Thankfully, Jon Stewart came to the rescue on Monday night's "Daily Show" with a humorous take on the despicable comments which have advertisers fleeing Limbaugh's show faster than you can say "Liability."
We might all learn something from how Stewart dealt with Limbaugh's remarks, including his insinuation that the amount of birth control you take correlates to how much sex you're having, and that women benefit financially somehow from having regular sex. Instead of getting mad, Stewart didn't allow himself to be shocked:
Stewart got the most material out of how the GOP presidential candidates and Fox News hosts Bill O'Reilly and Megyn Kelly reacted to Limbaugh. Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich simply disagreed with the semantics used, and everyone on Fox seemed to think there was nothing wrong with the reasoning. Stewart reiterated that the issue isn't about sex, it's about a healthcare mandate that would support women's reproductive health whether conservatives like it or not, just like liberals have to deal with government spending on things they don't believe in.
Watch the full clip [below] to hear Stewart take on Megyn Kelly's hypocritical reaction and Limbaugh's "creme de la creepy" comment that confused him the most.
[/box]
[box]
[/box]
Don't forget to leave a comment below!
- Candice
Have you heard about Rush Limbaugh's most recent offensive statement? I'm referring to the one where he called a young woman a slut and a prostitute because she wants health insurance to cover contraception. Because, y'know, she must be having so much sex that she needs him to buy her pills for her ... and then he'd be paying her to have sex. So she's obviously a prostitute, right? But it's OK, as long as she posts the videos on the internet for him to enjoy.
I have to admit, I have mixed feelings about this whole thing. On one hand, I'm horrified, disgusted and outraged. On the other, I find Limbaugh's "arguments" to be so inaccurate - and downright ridiculous - that they're funny. So after you read the first article I've posted below, read the second and watch the video of Jon Stewart showing just how pathetic Limbaugh really is.Then tell your friends.
[box]
Rush Limbaugh: Sandra Fluke, Woman Denied Right To Speak At Contraception Hearing, A 'Slut'
Rush Limbaugh called the woman who was denied the right to speak at a controversial contraception hearing a "slut" on Wednesday.
Sandra Fluke, a student at Georgetown Law School, was supposed to be the Democratic witness at a Congressional hearing about the Obama administration's contraception policy. However, Darrell Issa, the committee chair at the hearing, prevented her from speaking, while only allowing a series of men to testify about the policy. Fluke eventually spoke to a Democratic hearing, and talked about the need for birth control for both reproductive and broader medical reasons. She mentioned in particular a friend of hers who needed contraception to prevent the growth of cysts.
To Limbaugh, though, Fluke was just promoting casual sex.
"Can you imagine if you were her parents how proud...you would be?" he said. "Your daughter ... testifies she's having so much sex she can't afford her own birth control pills and she wants President Obama to provide them, or the Pope."
He continued:
"What does it say about the college co-ed Susan Fluke [sic] who goes before a congressional committee and essentially says that she must be paid to have sex -- what does that make her? It makes her a slut, right? It makes her a prostitute. She wants to be paid to have sex. She's having so much sex she can't afford the contraception. She wants you and me and the taxpayers to pay her to have sex."
Limbaugh then said, "ok, so she's not a slut. She's round-heeled." "Round-heeled" is an old-fashioned term for promiscuity.
Limbaugh's comments came on the same day that Fluke was mentioned during a debate in the Senate about the so-called "Blunt Amendment," which would override Obama's contraception rule. Sen. Barbara Boxer brought up Fluke's testimony, recounting what she would have said at the Congressional panel if she had been given the opportunity.
[/box]
[box]
Jon Stewart Slams Rush Limbaugh's Sandra Fluke Comments: 'He Is A Terrible Person'
Unless you've been doing yourself a favor by not paying attention to Rush Limbaugh, you've probably heard about the conservative radio host calling Georgetown Law student Sandra Fluke a "slut" for supporting contraceptive insurance coverage -- and you're probably outraged.
Thankfully, Jon Stewart came to the rescue on Monday night's "Daily Show" with a humorous take on the despicable comments which have advertisers fleeing Limbaugh's show faster than you can say "Liability."
We might all learn something from how Stewart dealt with Limbaugh's remarks, including his insinuation that the amount of birth control you take correlates to how much sex you're having, and that women benefit financially somehow from having regular sex. Instead of getting mad, Stewart didn't allow himself to be shocked:
"Personally, I don't get too worked up about the things Rush Limbaugh says because he is -- and has been for many years -- a terrible person."
Stewart got the most material out of how the GOP presidential candidates and Fox News hosts Bill O'Reilly and Megyn Kelly reacted to Limbaugh. Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich simply disagreed with the semantics used, and everyone on Fox seemed to think there was nothing wrong with the reasoning. Stewart reiterated that the issue isn't about sex, it's about a healthcare mandate that would support women's reproductive health whether conservatives like it or not, just like liberals have to deal with government spending on things they don't believe in.
"To the people who are upset about their hard-earned tax money going to things they don't like: Welcome to the f*cking club," Stewart said. "Reimburse me for the Iraq war and oil subsidies and diaphragms are on me!"
Watch the full clip [below] to hear Stewart take on Megyn Kelly's hypocritical reaction and Limbaugh's "creme de la creepy" comment that confused him the most.
[/box]
[box]
Video: Jon Stewart on The Daily Show - Rush Limbaugh, March 5, 2012
[/box]
Don't forget to leave a comment below!
- Candice
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)