Slut Or Not??

[Katzndogz]

It's a shame really that after fighting so long and so hard to be taken seriously as women and not be dismissed as mere sex objects, we have women now fighting twice as hard to be reduced to nothing BUT sex objects.

**** you. The ability to CHOSE if we get pregnant or not does not reduce US, you little asshole, and it only reduces YOU in your wimpy little pants.

Demanding that someone else pay to support your sex life reduces your worth to what's between your legs. You have no other value. That's not the way it was supposed to be.

At one time, the suggestion that women could not prioritize and see to their own reproductive obligations would be insulting. Now it's a right.

 

[Foxfyre]

Because I don't view women as "cats." You do, so you believe we should be "domesticated" in order to be "socially acceptable."

And dear, that "FEMINIST PAP" got YOU the right to vote. I'd say I hope you use it,
but DAMN, I'm torn. On the one hand, people much better than you fought for it FOR you, and on the other, you don't quite seem to know what all that struggle and bloodshed and death was FOR. In all honesty, you don't deserve it.

You don't. Really you don't.

Still, its yours.

I really hope you choke on it.

1." "FEMINIST PAP" got YOU the right to vote."
Hardly.
The Nineteenth Amendment (Amendment XIX) to the United States Constitution prohibits any United States citizen to be denied the right to vote based on sex. It was ratified on August 18, 1920.
Nineteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


2. "You do, so you believe we should be "domesticated" in order to be "socially acceptable."
I've learned that when others attempt to put words in my mouth, that means they know that they've lost the argument.
I'm guessing that that would be you.

3. "On the one hand, people much better than you fought for it FOR you...."
So, which one, Cady Stanton or Susan B. Anthony endorsed free condoms and promiscuity?
I suspect that neither would enjoy being identified with someone like you....do you?


4. "I really hope you choke on it."
I'm certain that when you recover from the 'barbs' I've put into you, you'll want
to apologize for that comment.
When someone gets angry enough to comment like that, it usually means that they realize that what I've said is true.
You do, don't you.

So, a question for you, PC (rather wordy, though):

Correct me if I am wrong, but you seem to be lamenting about the loss of social niceties concerning women being promiscuous. I base this on your comment concerning nice society and women not separating themselves from the animal kingdom by practicing restraint in their sexual habits.

I agree. Personally, I think sex is between the persons having it. I don't need to hear about it almost all the time. It doesn't seem all that classy or proper in polite company.

But, that is the way of the world. Listen to a pop song or watch the TV. Sex is all over.

I understand what you would like to see from society; so would I.

So, on that same note, you mentioned in an earlier post (I believe to Dragon) that you would refrain from calling some a slut, even if you thought she was. Rather, you would save that for a private discussion.

I agree with that, too.

It looks like both of our mothers taught us etiquette.

So, wouldn't (shouldn't) Rush be called a social failure (as far as acting proper and polite) for calling Fluke a slut? And he said that to a huge audience.

So, in the interest of the type of society you seem to wish we had (me too), calling Rush out would be consistent.

(Me? I really don't care all that much about the slut issue. At this point in time there are much bigger battles to be fought. Our Constitution is dying quickly.)

I concur with this absolutely. I don't condone Rush or anybody else further coarsifying the language with even more crude language. I have conceded that though I don't think his intent was to call Fluke a slut but rather use her to illustrate the absurdity of what she was asking, he was close enough to be offensive. There were far more socially acceptable ways to make the point. And we should not be shy about stating what we see as offensive. I think a society in which certain language is not used in polite cvompany is aesthetically pleasing and requires ever so much more intellligence to insult somebody than just dropping a lot of 'f' 'c' or 's' bombs.

But speaking of the Constitution dying, to deny anybody the right to be offensive or to intentionally seek to deny somebody his/her livelihood just because s/he uses coarse or offensive language is a dangerous thing. And each time it happens it brings us closer to the final destruction of the core basis of the Constitution. Most especially when it is selectively applied.

 

[Si modo]

It was already a covered benefit. Because the government mandates it makes is evil? REALLY? Can you people HEAR yourselves? CAN you?

When the government mandates it to a religious organization, it doesn't make it evil, rather it's a violation of the First Amendment.

You know better Si, you do. You pay attention to whats going on. And honestly, the first was not to be used as an excuse to deny this.

1. This isn't denying women any rights at all. If they want to work for a religious based organization or contract their services, then they know full well going into it what to expect. There are many other organizations offering the same services or for whom they could work.

2. The First Amendment is there to keep government out of religion and religion out of government. That is NEVER a one-way street. Without the integrity of the first, the gains in women's rights would crash and burn. (It reminds me of folks in recovery who put their sobriety first and always - without that, nothing else is possible for them.)

 

[Barb]

It's a shame really that after fighting so long and so hard to be taken seriously as women and not be dismissed as mere sex objects, we have women now fighting twice as hard to be reduced to nothing BUT sex objects.

Everyone wants to be a sex object. No one wants to be that and nothing more. A woman should be free to be a sexual being, without that reducing her in anyone's mind to non-person.

And that's really an implication of the word "slut," that the woman in question is not a person.

I have to spread it around, and I've used too much, but I owe you

 

[Barb]

When the government mandates it to a religious organization, it doesn't make it evil, rather it's a violation of the First Amendment.

You know better Si, you do. You pay attention to whats going on. And honestly, the first was not to be used as an excuse to deny this.

1. This isn't denying women any rights at all. If they want to work for a religious based organization or contract their services, then they know full well going into it what to expect. There are many other organizations offering the same services or for whom they could work.

2. The First Amendment is there to keep government out of religion and religion out of government. That is NEVER a one-way street. Without the integrity of the first, the gains in women's rights would crash and burn. (It reminds me of folks in recovery who put their sobriety first and always - without that, nothing else is possible for them.)

I'll get back at you. I work nights. Honestly though? there should BE no question. Fot **** sake Si, really? I should have to explain any of this?

 

[Si modo]

You know better Si, you do. You pay attention to whats going on. And honestly, the first was not to be used as an excuse to deny this.

1. This isn't denying women any rights at all. If they want to work for a religious based organization or contract their services, then they know full well going into it what to expect. There are many other organizations offering the same services or for whom they could work.

2. The First Amendment is there to keep government out of religion and religion out of government. That is NEVER a one-way street. Without the integrity of the first, the gains in women's rights would crash and burn. (It reminds me of folks in recovery who put their sobriety first and always - without that, nothing else is possible for them.)

I'll get back at you. I work nights. Honestly though? there should BE no question. Fot **** sake Si, really? I should have to explain any of this?

Yeah, I look forward to your explanation that without the integrity of the First, rights women have would never have been realized.

 

[Katzndogz]

Way back when women were fighting just to get into colleges and universities, fighting to get into classes and courses, if one of us had gotten up and demanded that birth control be the obligation of the university it would have permanently excluded women from even entering these institutions. Women just don't want to be taken seriously. They get so far, then they flop their legs open and it ruins us every time.

 

[Scout]

She appears to be a slut. But I support her right be a slut.... unless she expects me to pay for it. That is when I have an issue.

Yet another Limbaugh automaton who didn't bother to read the transcript. I am sooo embarassed for you people.

 

[Scout]

Total slut....But not in the conventional sense of the word.

Who else but a no-pride political slut would let herself be used by congress the way that Fluke has been?

On top of that, it's evident to anyone who isn't totally in the tank with the whackaloon left, that the figure of $3,000 for an annual contraception tab is simply an over-the-top lie.

a. The Obama administration will do anything to get his string of failures out of the news.

That has been evident since the the moment that the whole contrived "debate" over contraception was ginned up.

TOO BAD you dummies didn't read the transcript or you'd know she never made any claim remotely near one that somebody spent $3000/yr on BC. That is what happens when you listen to Limbaugh for your info rather than legitimate news organizations. You end up looking stupid on message boards....

 

[Scout]

A sexually active Georgetown Law Student that is in her early to mid 20s is a slut.
Most women in their early to mid 20s that are not married are sluts.
Glad we can clear that up.

As someone I know once said "I like FoxNews, because its SIMPLE".

Ms. Fluke never said she is on birth control or is sexually active. Sounds like somebody has been listening to their icon, Rush Limbaugh, instead of legitimate news organizations again.......

 

[Si modo]

Total slut....But not in the conventional sense of the word.

Who else but a no-pride political slut would let herself be used by congress the way that Fluke has been?

On top of that, it's evident to anyone who isn't totally in the tank with the whackaloon left, that the figure of $3,000 for an annual contraception tab is simply an over-the-top lie.

a. The Obama administration will do anything to get his string of failures out of the news.

That has been evident since the the moment that the whole contrived "debate" over contraception was ginned up.

TOO BAD you dummies didn't read the transcript or you'd know she never made any claim remotely near one that somebody spent $3000/yr on BC. That is what happens when you listen to Limbaugh for your info rather than legitimate news organizations. You end up looking stupid on message boards....

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vwWNh_4QAAk]Sandra Fluke's Controversial Birth Control Testimony - YouTube[/ame]

You don't have to tax yourself too long. Just listen up to 0:48. "Contraception can cost a woman over $3,000 during law school."

Take your own advice.

 

[Dragon]

Way back when women were fighting just to get into colleges and universities, fighting to get into classes and courses, if one of us had gotten up and demanded that birth control be the obligation of the university it would have permanently excluded women from even entering these institutions. Women just don't want to be taken seriously. They get so far, then they flop their legs open and it ruins us every time.

Not that anyone would confuse you with a feminist, but language much like the above is common among feminists of a certain age, or at least it used to be. It comes from a very deep insecurity about one's ability to be taken seriously as a human being on an equal basis with men.

As I said above, everyone wants to be a sex object, but no one wants to be that and nothing else. Feminists at a certain point in the struggle came to the conclusion -- and maybe it was true at that time -- that women would always be "nothing else" so long as they were objects of sexual desire at all, and so reacted with a puritanical zeal to suppress all expression of sexual appreciation from men and all attempts to make themselves sexually appealing by women.

But we are, hopefully, past that stage of things today. The desire of a woman to be sexually appealing to men is not an artifact of sexism but a natural result of human biology and psychology. Men also want to be sexually appealing to women, but we don't think of that as somehow making them non-persons, do we? Nor should it in the other direction.

Real victory doesn't come from suppressing sexuality. It comes when women can be seen as sexually desirable AND as genuine persons both at the same time. And when that happens, the word "slut" will become archaic and disappear from the vocabulary of current usage.

 

[Scout]

Total slut....But not in the conventional sense of the word.

Who else but a no-pride political slut would let herself be used by congress the way that Fluke has been?

On top of that, it's evident to anyone who isn't totally in the tank with the whackaloon left, that the figure of $3,000 for an annual contraception tab is simply an over-the-top lie.


That has been evident since the the moment that the whole contrived "debate" over contraception was ginned up.

And used by RUSH, I guess, though I disagree about the insurance complaint, she has a right to speak out without denigration.

She's a willing political prop and deserves all the derision she gets.

And she's flat lying out her ass that it costs $3,000 a year for contraception.

Actually, it is YOU that are lying when you try to deceive people into believing she said that. Duh.

Find someone with an IQ over 50 to tell you how many years it takes to get thru law school.

 

[Dragon]

You don't have to tax yourself too long. Just listen up to 0:48. "Contraception can cost a woman over $3,000 during law school."

Take your own advice.

Law school is completed in one year, then? I had no idea it was so quick and easy!

 

[Gadawg73]

Why does someone that has $150K to pay for law school need someone else to pay for her medical bills?

 

[Si modo]

You don't have to tax yourself too long. Just listen up to 0:48. "Contraception can cost a woman over $3,000 during law school."

Take your own advice.

Law school is completed in one year, then? I had no idea it was so quick and easy!

Even at a K a year, I know of few oral contraceptives that costs that much.

It's been in the generic pool for decades and is dirt cheap.

 

[Scout]

Total slut....But not in the conventional sense of the word.

Who else but a no-pride political slut would let herself be used by congress the way that Fluke has been?

On top of that, it's evident to anyone who isn't totally in the tank with the whackaloon left, that the figure of $3,000 for an annual contraception tab is simply an over-the-top lie.


That has been evident since the the moment that the whole contrived "debate" over contraception was ginned up.

And used by RUSH, I guess, though I disagree about the insurance complaint, she has a right to speak out without denigration.

She's a willing political prop and deserves all the derision she gets.

And she's flat lying out her ass that it costs $3,000 a year for contraception.

Well, then its a good thing she never said that, huh?

 

[Katzndogz]

Way back when women were fighting just to get into colleges and universities, fighting to get into classes and courses, if one of us had gotten up and demanded that birth control be the obligation of the university it would have permanently excluded women from even entering these institutions. Women just don't want to be taken seriously. They get so far, then they flop their legs open and it ruins us every time.

Not that anyone would confuse you with a feminist, but language much like the above is common among feminists of a certain age, or at least it used to be. It comes from a very deep insecurity about one's ability to be taken seriously as a human being on an equal basis with men.

As I said above, everyone wants to be a sex object, but no one wants to be that and nothing else. Feminists at a certain point in the struggle came to the conclusion -- and maybe it was true at that time -- that women would always be "nothing else" so long as they were objects of sexual desire at all, and so reacted with a puritanical zeal to suppress all expression of sexual appreciation from men and all attempts to make themselves sexually appealing by women.

But we are, hopefully, past that stage of things today. The desire of a woman to be sexually appealing to men is not an artifact of sexism but a natural result of human biology and psychology. Men also want to be sexually appealing to women, but we don't think of that as somehow making them non-persons, do we? Nor should it in the other direction.

Real victory doesn't come from suppressing sexuality. It comes when women can be seen as sexually desirable AND as genuine persons both at the same time. And when that happens, the word "slut" will become archaic and disappear from the vocabulary of current usage.

I doubt it will disappear, some women will always act like sluts. Women do and yes they should be sexually appealing, they just shouldn't ask for strangers to pay them for it.

 

[Scout]

You don't have to tax yourself too long. Just listen up to 0:48. "Contraception can cost a woman over $3,000 during law school."

Take your own advice.

Law school is completed in one year, then? I had no idea it was so quick and easy!

Even at a K a year, I know of few oral contraceptives that costs that much.

It's been in the generic pool for decades and is dirt cheap.

*************************

Ms. Fluke's ACTUAL words (rather than your fabricated version):
“Without insurance coverage, contraception, as you know, can cost a woman over $3,000 during law school."

She doesn't say it costs that much for everyone, now does she? Where did you get this expertise that tells you what every woman at Georgetown requires in terms of birth control?
I think you should be the one taking advice from me and learn to read........might save you this humiliation next time.....

 

[Scout]

Way back when women were fighting just to get into colleges and universities, fighting to get into classes and courses, if one of us had gotten up and demanded that birth control be the obligation of the university it would have permanently excluded women from even entering these institutions. Women just don't want to be taken seriously. They get so far, then they flop their legs open and it ruins us every time.

Not that anyone would confuse you with a feminist, but language much like the above is common among feminists of a certain age, or at least it used to be. It comes from a very deep insecurity about one's ability to be taken seriously as a human being on an equal basis with men.

As I said above, everyone wants to be a sex object, but no one wants to be that and nothing else. Feminists at a certain point in the struggle came to the conclusion -- and maybe it was true at that time -- that women would always be "nothing else" so long as they were objects of sexual desire at all, and so reacted with a puritanical zeal to suppress all expression of sexual appreciation from men and all attempts to make themselves sexually appealing by women.

But we are, hopefully, past that stage of things today. The desire of a woman to be sexually appealing to men is not an artifact of sexism but a natural result of human biology and psychology. Men also want to be sexually appealing to women, but we don't think of that as somehow making them non-persons, do we? Nor should it in the other direction.

Real victory doesn't come from suppressing sexuality. It comes when women can be seen as sexually desirable AND as genuine persons both at the same time. And when that happens, the word "slut" will become archaic and disappear from the vocabulary of current usage.

I doubt it will disappear, some women will always act like sluts. Women do and yes they should be sexually appealing, they just shouldn't ask for strangers to pay them for it.

Yet another idiot that didn't listen to the testimony or read the transcript....

so you think, if you pay insurance premiums, it is a gov't handout when the insurance pays the bills?