What I think Limbaugh is trying to (but ultimately fails to) say here is that “liberals” would condone ANY sex-act as long as it is consensual. You know how conservative Christians frown upon certain sexual acts (you know, the whole LGBTQ thing). I don’t think he has a problem with the consent part so much as the part where that allows two consenting adults to do pretty much whatever (which, I think, is still a pretty accurate description of how many liberals and progressives think about sex). His wording is so stupid though, that it sounds like he’s saying that the idea of having consensual sex is laughable at best, further dumping his team in the dredge that is currently killing Trump’s campaign. But you know what, they can stuff their campaign in their f… stuff it in their… … I didn’t say it!
Uh, that is accurate.
Do conservatives feel it’s acceptable to not have consent during sex acts? Perhaps forcing themselves on someone against their will? That’s okay to a conservative?
Strange words from someone who champions the party of personal responsibility.
When someone takes away your choices, they’re responsible for the outcome. Just like any rapist.
Also it’s funny that Limbaugh calls them the “rape police”. I’m pretty sure you just call the regular police when someone’s being raped.
I heard about biblicalgenderroles dot com from several atheist community podcasts some time last year. Everyone picked up the story. A lot of them thought it was satire. I’m on the fence.
In anycase, what fundies believe isn’t the same as what conservatives necessarily do.
But yeah, I don’t remember any part of the bible addressing consent, or even saying that rape is forbidden. Just that it’s an expensive “you break it you buy it” type of commercial transaction between the rapist and the victim’s father. Since women are property in the OT.
And really, IIRC from the bible, it’s not even about rape, so much as a man and woman having sex unmarried without her father’s consent. The only consent that mattered was the property owner.
And people call the bible “the good book”
If it’s really the word of a god, it’s not a god worth worshiping anyway.
The best people
Also, how much do Americans love being bankrupted by one surprise illness anyway?
OK, first Trump does this:
Then you got this evil clown scare in the US
And now you wonder about Rudi loosing it?
Pfffrrrt, can’t you see the plan? Hurry up and change the bulb in the bat signal, we’ll need it!
For once I agree with Rush Limbaugh… although I think we need more rape police.
I think this is one of those issues where I might agree with Limbaugh’s claim (i.e., any sexual act between two or more adults is perfectly acceptable to me as long as there is consent,) but we’re on polar opposites as to if that’s a positive or a negative. My reaction to the statement is: “Yes, and?”
Here’s another one:
Yes. And?
Oh come on, give the guy some credit. He’s clearly suggesting that the government ought to provide free uterine cancer screenings for women of a certain age. When he says “we don’t want it,” he means “we” as in “men.” Men have no use for those screenings, so we should save money by not administering them to people without uteruses. It’s just fiscal common sense!
I’m still hoping for some socialized medicine. The ACA is a convoluted joke only politicians could create. It’s great that it helps some people but it falls far short of what we actually need.
Agreed; he tries to lead into it with the “however many are involved” line.
It’s ridiculous to think that I should have to condone other people’s sex lives, but if it’s consensual, I see no problem with what they do. Even if they do gross yucky stuff that squicks me out.
I’ve never understood the mindset of “if I don’t enjoy [X], nobody else should enjoy [X]”.
It’s part of the authoritarian mindset, specifically a high tendency towards ethnocentrism (seeing the world as “in-group vs out-group”), a high tendency towards self-righteousness (“I and my group are ‘good people’”), and combined with a fearful outlook of what they don’t understand or is part of the outgroup, especially combined with how they are dependent on social reinforcement of their beliefs (due to poor reasoning skills) leading them to overestimate how common their beliefs are. Add in a tendency towards aggression towards people in the out-group, and well, you get that mindset.
–Interestingly, although Trump isn’t particularly religious, he DOES tend to view all interpersonal relationships as transactional. And with him it’s not even “what have you done for me lately,” it’s “what are you going to do for/to me in the future.”
What if worshiping is the difference between being punished or getting goodies? I would argue that it may be a God worth worshiping, but not loving. It’s an argument about the nature of God, not its existence.
Rudy 9iu11ani, what an asshole.
Gotta energise your base to GOTV. After pussygate, there ain’t nothing left to lose by pussyfooting around issues.
… I’ll get my coat.
The Oxycontin Blimp does have a point: lefties DO labor under the idea that consent is the “magic key” to a positive sexual experience. All of those happy hippy couples in healthy relationships must have it all wrong.
I actually feel sorry for Giuliani. He reminds me of an elderly uncle. He’s old, and he knows that he’s coming to the end of his life. He thinks he’s done everything of significance that he’s going to do, and doesn’t even try anymore. He just keeps trying to get you to help him relive those glory days of his past. But instead he just sounds increasingly desperate as he sinks deeper and deeper into a personal history that no one else cares about, and fewer and fewer people can even relate to. But he can’t stop himself from bringing his glory days into every discussion, over and over again, until everyone else just thinks he’s creepy.
