Rush Limbaugh Should be Beat Up By a Slutty Prostitute (G&G is Volunteering)

I’m not a slut or a prostitute, just a poor girl who depends on Planned Parenthood for her birth control, and I (along with pretty much everyone I know) was rather perturbed by Rush Limbaugh’s statements this week.  Now, we don’t like to get all political here on G&G, that’s what facebook is for, but let me just tell you, we are outraged.

We are not here to debate Fluke’s intentions, or whether or not birth control should be covered by insurance (it should…) no, we would just like to share how incredibly stupid Rush came across as sounding, trying to raise contention by making absurd statements about a speech he clearly didn’t understand in the slightest. Fluke never once even mentioned her own sexual needs, but focused on other students with medical issues.  We have read the entire transcript of Sandra Fluke’s testimony, and never once does she mention recreational sex. Instead, she cites students with ovarian cysts that can be prevented by taking birth control (including a lesbian student who obviously doesn’t need the pills for pregnancy prevention) and a married couple that decided they can no longer factor bc into their monthly budget.

We’ve also listened to Limbaugh’s commentary on her speech, and regardless of how he (mis)understood all the big words she used, his response was extremely immature and inappropriate, which I suppose is all one can expect from him anyway.  Rush states that Fluke “essentially says that she must be paid to have sex” and that “She’s having so much sex she can’t afford the contraception.”  Fluke is not asking the public to pay her for “getting laid,” she’s already paying an insurance premium, and simply thinks birth control should be covered within that fee.  Rush obviously has no understanding as to how bc works, and we honestly do not understand how he came to those conclusions, other than simply making them up to cause a stir and get to call women sluts and prostitutes.

I suppose that by using birth control to control how many children we have, and when, and with whom, all of the G&G Girls are sluts and prostitutes, and so are most of the other women we know.  We’re all just a scary bunch of slutty prostitutes.

Rush is probably scared of us, and he is also probably friends with the real life versions of these guys:


7 thoughts on “Rush Limbaugh Should be Beat Up By a Slutty Prostitute (G&G is Volunteering)

  1. I understand your point, but the craziness isn’t limited to Limbaugh. Most of this is just a decoy for the bigger issue. You “beat up” R.L. by insulting his intelligence – the man is smart and extremely well read, however you feel about his opinions. If you know anything about him at all, questioning his ability to understand doesn’t fly, except to people who are just on the bandwagon for kicks, who like to deride him for being passionate about his opinions. Just like you are.

    But back on topic, the issue IS about financing birth control, however you want to coat it. Not about name calling. Not about ovarian cysts (treatment for which is covered under normal medical programs, without requiring special dispensation from a contraceptive plan – my wife has them, I know ALL about it), or about “a” married couple’s birth control practices, and their decisions regarding their ability to accommodate them. It’s not about financing life threatening or life changing operations or any of the other details Fluke brings out in her speech, much of which is already covered under normal insurance and is not being opposed by other organizations. This is about millions of dollars of tax money, what it’s used for (specifically, birth control), and who is responsible for it. That is why she was there – the ONLY reason she was there.

    But that isn’t even it. This whole public issue (the part most people understand) is just about her comment that contraception cost $3k for 3 years and it was a financial burden on college students. And no matter how you break that up, it’s a dumb comment.

    You make a lot of broad assumptions about RL, degrade him, call him names, insult his intelligence, without any real merit except that you don’t like what he has to say, all while complaining that he’s done that exact same thing to someone else.

    I have to wonder if you were this outspoken when Bill Maher called Sarah Palin a c*nt, or when Letterman called Bristol Palin a slut? Or when Maher called Michelle Bachmann a bimbo, or when Jimmy Fallon’s band played “lyin’ ass b*tch” to her walk-on? Did you post about Ed Schultz calling Laura Ingram a slut? Was it ok when Kathy Griffin said on CNN that she would destroy 16 yr old Willow Palin? Where were you when Michele Malkin was called a Manilla whore, or when Olbermann called her a “mashed up bag of meat with lipstick? Was it ok for Jerry Brown to call Meg Whitmann a whore? I can go on if you like, there are hundreds of other examples if you’re really interested in who is slandering or threatening women for their politics.

    Is it really a gender issue? Or a Democratic one? Did you laugh at any of those incidents I mentioned above? Did you speak up at all?

    Is saying that R.L. should be beat up by anyone for his opinion a less volatile and inflammatory comment than the one he made? Are you a better person than he is for having said it? Or did you say it to play to your “audience”, or because you thought it was funny? Maybe you’re not so different from R.L. as you believe.

    Here’s something else to think about… Limbaugh went too far, and he apologized and he’s being rejected by both parties. Few of those mentioned above have offered any kind of retraction, and the women are just expected to take it. Are you f-ing kidding me?

    Still feeling the high ground?

    • As this is being moderated, I expect it will never see the light of day. That’s ok. It’s written to you, not your readers. They probably couldn’t take it – I’m betting you probably can’t either. Besides, it’s reposted and backlinked on mine. Maybe I should send it to your dad – think he’d post it? :)

      • Hi Jeff,
        Thanks so much for your opinion, for insulting my readers, and for assuming I’m not woman enough to approve a little negative feedback.

  2. Well Jeff, after reading Shayla’s post about her thoughts and feelings… you know, what most internet blogs are about… I’m really surprised at your comments. Yes, there were some “touche” moments and you seem extremely educated; however, I find it completely and totally unfair that you would go ahead and attack Shayla as a person with your demeaning tone throughout the reply and also degrade her in the ways that you have. For example, “They probably couldn’t take it – I’m betting you probably can’t either.” Um, excuse me? I’m not sure, but by that statement alone… I’m assuming you have not met Miss Shayla… She’s a strong woman, so don’t go there, at all. Rush Limbaugh is a human, he very well may not understand something, as we all do not at some point in our lives. It still does not give him the right to use the terms that he did. Well, I don’t know about you, but I would much rather give a college student birth control for free, than have that very same college student drop out and jump on the welfare bandwagon, possibly costing MORE tax dollars, because she became pregnant and was dumped on the street by yet another deadbeat dad. While Shayla is speaking her mind and going public with her own thoughts, I disagree with your approach of “deriding” this fine woman for being passionate about HER opinions. So all in all, the comments you have made against Shayla’s intelligence seem like one big contradiction to me, Jeff.

  3. Jeff –
    Let’s start at the top, then, shall we? Intelligence. It’s difficult to define, really, because when calling RL unintelligent I might mean he’s uneducated (I don’t), I might mean he’s dim when it comes to the ways of the word (I don’t) or I might mean he’s, socioemotionally speaking, a complete moron who simply cannot and is completely mentally unequipped to consider certains swaths of people’s feeling (you bet I do). Now, sure, maybe this is a ploy to get people to pay attention to him after the publicity from his other scandals has gone long cold, and that’s some kind of intelligent, but can anyone – man or woman – be so smart and so imbecillic at the same time? One has to wonder when it come to RL whether he’s duping his listeners/believers and insulting their intelligence (maybe type A and certainly not type C) or – gasp! – if, in this “enlightened” age, he still finds the will to be a bigot.

    As for birth control, it’s important. Period. Not only for its health benefits, but for preventing millions in tax money, which I believe was an issue of yours, being undoubtedly wasted on dealing with unwanted pregnancies, unwanted babies and the system-draining adults so very many of them grow up to be. Perhaps you say that students are responsible enough to take care of a baby and so let’s not help them not have them, as it were. And in the end, I put it to G&G readers that such an idea is punishment for responsibility, punishment for positive qualities.

    Scientifically, this issue of women’s bodies comes down to fitness and mating strategies. Those who pursue a committed strategy — at least purporting a monogamous partnership — are more politically conservative and against a number of “moral hot topics,” including drug use. These worries about drug use and about women’s bodies are hardly altruistic; this is not about the lives ruined by unnecessary surgeries and unwanted pregnancies. This is a selfish, fitness-enhancing strategy. It’s difficult to explain in so short a form, but I’m an expert on this — and it’s peer reviewed science, so you can indeed check for yourselves.

    And, finally, I don’t know why I bother. Your attitudes are not going to change, Jeff. You yourself came here to needle and insult over high ground and what not, not to begin any kind of dialog. What should we expect? You’re going to continue to attack women for not defending the “right” women or for defending the “wrong” ones. You’re going to continue to think, no matter what anyone more intelligent than yourself (types A and C are certainly in my pocket, sir, which is about myself and no insult to you) might have to say, that it’s somehow OK to mention a girl’s family in your blog comment. And me, I’m about ready to throw in the towel because you’re opinion is simply not that important. I’ll end with this. Teams — coalitions, one might say in the human sciences — are somewhat fluid. Kin and in-group members come first, but which in-group might one mean? I’m a woman, no doubt about that. But I’m also brilliant, and I like the idea of a political speaker/leader who is even more ferociously brilliant than typical G&G readers, which does call for separating rational logic and behavior from the ” god says” so explanation to which most of the women at whom I’d laugh when insulted do subscribe. As a man, Jeff, must you defend the rights of every other man, no matter how different his other beliefs might be from yours? Or do you think it’s different for women? Perhaps, and I really hate to resort to this, if you were the one carrying a child and disproportionately caring for it — even working moms with stay at home dads end up spending more time caring for the baby on average than they stay at home dads do — RL might be your target. But I really don’t expect you to — back to type C here — understand.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>