A Slut by Any Other Name (would still be a slut)

Share

Several things are going on here.  We’re looking at a new front in the culture war.  Obama is trying to make conservatives look at fools.  This is what Obamacare is all about. And, we watching a new entitlement being born.

The Pink Flamingo is on record that I think Darrell Issa blew it with his male panel on female reproductive rights.  BUT, when 30 year old Sandra Fluke (past president of Law Students for Reproductive Justice) was not allowed to give “testimony”, I agree.  She is a ringer.  For one thing, she was alleged to have been 23 when she is 30.  She’s a pro at this, a ringer, someone brought in to literally cheat the other team’s way to victory.  This is a Democrat set-up.  It is about pushing Obamacare by manipulating the sentiments of the “normal” women of America.

That’s nice.  There’s a little problem here, though.  Not all the women in America are….

Merriam-Webster

It’s a set up and we’ve been played for fools for having just an iota of morality, and not really wanting another entitlement.

Hot Air

Rush Limbaugh is right about this one.  Deal with it.

“...Fluke testified that without insurance coverage, contraception can cost a woman as much as $3,000 during law school. “Three thousand dollars for birth control in three years? That’s a thousand dollars a year of sex — and, she wants us to pay for it,” Limbaugh said, adding that high school boys applying to college should consider Georgetown. “They’re admitting before congressional committee that they’re having so much sex they can’t afford the birth control pills!”

The conservative radio host continued: “What does it say about the college co-ed Sandra Fluke, 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. What does that make us? We’re the pimps.”…”

I don’t know about you, but I’m sick and tired of having everyone’s version of morality rammed down my throat, pushed in my face, and demanding that I go along my way, happily accepting what is going on.  I have no tolerance for promiscuity.  I don’t care if the person is male, female, straight, or gay.  I have no problems accepting a couple who is not married or who is gay.  I don’t approve, but I can deal with that.  I absolutely refuse, though, to tolerate someone who is nothing but a slut, male of female.

ABC News

Fine.  I don’t care who or what people like Ms Fluke sleep with.  Just do not expect me to pay for their habits which are “optional”.  Sorry, but she can pay for it herself.  I don’t see the reason that we must support welfare for sluts.  It’s that simple.

Rush brought up exactly what I was going to post here.

Rush Limbaugh

Erick Erickson observed:

“…And Sandra Fluke, who spends over $50,000.00 on law school per year really believes that American tax payers should, because of her expensive law school, pay for her birth control pills so she can have sex. Not just that, she claims it costs $3000.00 over the course of law school to pay for the contraception. That’s an extraordinarily high price considering most common birth control pills can be purchased at WalMart or Target or elsewhere for vastly less. (though admittedly some cannot take the cheap pills and need the expensive ones, let’s not pretend every woman, or even a majority of women, require them)…”

Amazon Prime - FREE shipping

Rush is right about this, also.  If you are an Amazon Prime member, you get free shipping.  I am loath to mention this, but if a person intends to use more than this, and needs $3000 a year for condoms, and you can get them for about 18 cents a piece, then that’s at least 17,000 condoms.  That’s enough for at least 46 condoms per day.  Sorry, but anyone who needs that many is indeed a whore, or is seriously disturbed and needs a psychologist.  I think the health care plans play for that.

A few weeks ago, The Pink Flamingo annoyed a few readers when I stressed the fact that the alleged attack on the Catholic Church over contraceptives and abortion was NOT an attack on religion but the opening salvo in establishing a new entitlement:  Free Sex for One and All!

I really don’t care if a person wants to slut around.  It’s their body and their life, not mine.  I do care about being forced, blackmailed, coerced, and bullied into creating a new entitlement.  Where Rush managed to get it wrong about Sandra Fluke and her ilk is the fact that he said they should have less sex.  He should have said they can have all they want, we’re just not going to pay for their contraceptives.

For those who don’t get it, there is a difference in using birth control pills for medication for certain problems like ovarian cysts, endometriosis (I was given a prescription for them for that) and a few other problems that the hormones in the pill will help.

ABC News

World’s smallest violin here.  Birth control pills for such things cost anywhere from $15 – $30 a month.  All the perfectly innocent young woman who is using the medication only for medicinal purposes and would never even think of having sex outside of marriage need do is drink 5 less beverages at Starbucks a month.  (There, I did not even say leave off a few beers a month).

It’s that simple.

Don’t expect us to pay for it.

In many ways, I don’t see much different with the fuss about contraceptives than someone crying because they’re forking out a thousand bucks a month for insurance with no deductible, “free” prescriptions, and everything you could possibly want. Then there are the rest of us who pay about $164 a month with a $2500 deductible, and we pay for our own medication.  The only time I ever met the deductible was the year I broke my elbow.

Don’t expect people with morals and standards to approve of women demanding free contraceptives.  Heck, I don’t approve of free viagra, either.

“...What confounds me most about it is that Rich Lowry and Kathryn Jean Lopez of National Review, Bill Kristol of The Weekly Standard, Matthew Continetti of the Washington Free Beacon, Glenn Kessler of The Claremont Review of Books, Arthur Brooks at the American Enterprise Institute, Edwin J. Feulner of the Heritage Foundation, fellow talk-radio host Bill Bennett — none of these people would ever dream of going before a national audience and calling a female law student half their age a slut and a prostitute. None of them would ever dream of joking that if she wants her health insurance to cover birth control she should put a sex tape on the Internet. If a deranged gunman held a loved one hostage and forced them to make those remarks, as if of their own volition, they’d feel deeply embarrassed and ashamed doing it. Yet when Limbaugh says these things — when he said other things as indefensible in the past — he remained and remains a frequently celebrated, seldom criticized figure within the conservative movement. The Dittoheads are kept happy, but discredit is brought upon the movement. No leader of the conservative movement is willing to defend Limbaugh on the merits. They just stay mum. …”

Huff Post

Oh, the good ol’ boys of the GOP stumble around, constantly.  Half the time they don’t know what they are doing, but they are not anti-woman.  Their real problem is the fact that they are a little bit patronizing in their need to protect and defend women, when we really don’t need it.  We can take care of ourselves.

There is something else going on here.  Any woman who has lived a half-way decent life, knows what it is.  For decades we’ve been pushed around by women who have been fully “liberated”.  Now days, they are the ones who reign supreme.  Those of us who attempt to live a moral life are the real losers.

Once upon a time, the “sluts” of the world had a good time.  They’d end up pregnant, do something vile with the child, collect nice stuff, and welcome one and all.  When it came time for a man to marry, “we” were the women who married.  We were moral, decent, and, most importantly, a man could prove a child produced by such a union was his, to inherit.

Now days, with the advent of birth control, abortion on demand, and DNA for parental testing, a decent woman doesn’t stand a chance.  I think that’s why Rush touched such a nerve with a lot of women.  I think there are a heck of a lot more of us than the Dems think.

This isn’t about reproductive rights.  It’s not about feminism, women’s rights, or the Neanderthals in the GOP.  This could become an issue for “decent” women in this country.  I saw a headline, “We All Sluts Now” and one about the “Slut Vote”.  Any politician, Democrat, or Republican who attempts to cash in on this, is going to lose numerous women.

I’ve had my differences with Rush, but after the fact that he had the courage to call out and say what was right, I may renew my subscription to him.  The fact that certain Republicans are castigating him, and distancing themselves from him is terribly revealing.   They are slobbering cowards who can be bullied by a bunch of liberal S – L – U – T – S.

Any women who has experienced high school, college, and the work-place knows about which I speak.  We’ve always talked about it in code.  It’s always been us v. them.  We discuss it in noting a certain “whore” perfume they wear, the shoes they wear, and how a woman stands, and acts around men (like a cat in heat).  They’re not “nice women”.

Those of us who are “nice” women played by the rules.  We did and do what is right.  We have morals, scruples, and standards.  It is not about male domination, not at all.  It is about having some pride in one’s self.  It’s about putting up with women who don’t care what they do or who they hurt.  Right now, these kind of women appear to be winning, beating the you know what out of us.

In many ways this has been a cat-fight that has been going on since the beginning of time.  Rush Limbaugh made the catastrophic mistake of stepping in between the two factions.  I fear he’s going to be shredded into a million pieces by razor like cat claws we’ve been sharpening for a couple decades.

This has been a fight between two factions of women.  It is a fight that has been a long time coming.  Don’t even think about it as part of the culture war.  That’s far too sophisticated.  This is the Hissy-fight at the Kitty Coral.  It’s good girls v. bad girls.  It’s not about religion, “modest” dress, or even how short one’s skirt is, or how low cut the blouse is.  It’s about a group of women who have been on the prowl, collecting men since the “sexual revolution”.

It’s time we put them in their place.

I get so tired of their smug little attitudes as they “slut walk” their way, even in church.  They collect all the men by their promise of cheap and easy.  They wriggle, giggle, and flirt.  It is not a matter of attractive, think, educated, uneducated, ugly, or cute.  It is about which advertising that they are willing to put out, and we are not.

It’s a war, we’ve been apparently losing for a long time.  Perhaps its best men stay out of it.  They’re too fragile and easily upset.  In the end, thought, attrition starts taking these sort of women out, once they reach a certain age.  They get what we in either Texas or New Mexico call the look of having been rode hard and put up wet.

In a way, that’s our only real victory.  It’s a chick thing.  Men are not even going to be able to comprehend what I’m writing, but we know.

We must also remember that “sluts” can be redeemed, just as we have been redeemed by the Blood of Christ.  Never forget, Mary Magdalene was once considered a “slut”.

Share

10 thoughts on “A Slut by Any Other Name (would still be a slut)

  1. And now the President of the United States has added his support for Fluke. Isn’t this priceless? In my opinion, it is really pathetic that so many in this generation know everything there is to know about sex, but they know absolutely nothing about romance. Of course, romance is a fine art, so come to your own conclusions. This is just the beginning of what is coming with Obamacare. I happen to agree with Senator Lindsey Graham who said on Greta’s show Thursday night, “You haven’t seen nothing yet.”

  2. Read your scripture and don’t believe any folk legends. Mary of Magdal was a nice jewish girl, a writer, reformer and ended up as an apostle in Egypt. It’s just stories made up by illiterates in the past about her. The adulterous woman, who remains unnamed in the NT, was a different person. Jesus saved her from a lynching by pointing out that the angry mob was also sinners, each of them had commited some capital sin, but the practice of death penalty had largely fallen out of used after the Babylonian captivity period. Read the story of Shoshana in the apocrypha books to find out how the process goes according to law when someone is (falsely) accused of adultery. It’s similar to moderate reading of shari’a: there needs to be enough witnessess of the actual deed, and their testimonies must match, otherwise the adulterers cannot be sentenced.

  3. Ms. Fluke’s testimony was not about her sexual activity, it was about fair coverage of health insurance for women. Limbaugh lied about this on air for three days, then again in his “apology.” You have internet access, read her testimony for yourselves.

    Frankly, the country would be better off with informed conservatives, rather than an ignorant mob that simply repeats what a shock jock says on the radio.

  4. The woman lied. She may not be a slut, but she is whoring for the Dems. Those “poor” students she says can’t shell out $3000 a year for contraceptives are paying $50K a year tuition. She also did not mention the fact that she is a “reproductive activist”.

    I don’t mind a slut or an honest whore, but I detest people who can’t tell the truth. She is a liar. That’s worse, in my book.

    SJR

  5. Sorry, but you have your history all wrong. Mary M is one of my favorite characters in the Bible. I’ve been researching her life for years. She was being stoned for adultery. When you mangle the story, saying she was a Nice Jewish Girl, you detract from the magnificence of the story. Mary was a sinner. She accepted Christ and His forgiveness. She confessed her sins. She was the very first person to see the Risen Christ. That makes her the very first Christian and the very first Apostle. I don’t know where you are getting your history, but most scholars now consider the two women one in the same – the sister of Martha and Lazarus.

    SJR

  6. In Roman Catholic tradition Mary of Bethany and Mary Magdalene are considered the same woman. In the Orthodox tradition they are considered two separate women. According to Orthodox tradition, Mary of Bethany, together with Martha and Lazarus went to Cyprus. All three are said to have died in Cyprus. Lazarus is said to have lived 38 years after he was raised from the dead. Mary Magdalene is said to have gone to Ephesus with John the Evangelist and the Blessed Mother. In the Holy Land it is said that they returned to Jerusalem and died there. There is the Church of the Domitian, which is supposed to mark the spot of the house of the Blessed Mother and where she is said to have died.

  7. Thank you jose maria I never heard the Orthodox version. Interesting stuff. According to the non-canon Gospel of Mary she went became a church-leader in Egypt, but regardless of if it was Greece/Turkey/Africa I think the whole point is that this lady achieved lots to promote Christianity (or maybe for her it was just to tell about Mashiah…)
    I recommend reading a hebrew-to english and greek-to english Bible translation to mrs. Reidhead. No papal or scholar can claim authority over the Bible itself. Mary of Bethany, sister of Martha and Lazarus was indeed saved by Christ in many ways. She is said to have been possesed by seven demons that Jesus drove out of her. There is no evidence that Mary of Magdal and Mary of Bethany were the same person. Neither of them was the unnamed adulteress. Why would Mary B. have been living with her siblings if she was married? The adulteress who was almost stoned is also a different person than the two other “immoral” women; one of them is the Samaritan woman who chats theology with Jesus at Jakov’s well, while the diciples are buying groceries, another is the unnamed “sinner woman” one who washes J.C:s feet.
    Mary B. is the person who anoints Christ with nardus-oil before his death and Mary M. is according to some gospels, but not all, the first person Jesus meets after resurrection.

    I wonder why there were so many women named “Maria” in Judea and Galil… It’s a latin name, afterall. I was thinking that maybe they read it in hebrew/aramaic with different vocalisation: Merii or Meria, meaning something like “rebel”. Any native hebrew speakers here?

  8. I will stick to my NRSV. I know it’s evil and Episcopalian, but what can I say, I’m an evil, godless Episcopalian who has been studying the topic of Mary M since I was about 13 years old. I just I’m just stupid, because I happen, as a historian, to put a tremendous amount of credibility on tradition. But, what do I know?

    Have you ever stopped to consider that Mary of Bethany could have been a widow? Also, families lived together. One of the problems with people today is that they have a tendency to project modern values and sensibilities onto situations where we simply cannot do that. I have a great respect for Catholic history and tradition. I think we are giving far too much authority to Hebrew scholarship for this time period, and that, in itself is a mistake. Most of our Hebrew history of the era comes from Josephus, who was a traitor and wrote to appease his Roman captors.

    Also, TRADITION has it that many of the people around Christ were related to either he or his family, in some way. Names have a tendency to pop up, time and time again, in families. My family has so many Sarahs in it, it is crazy.

    I do love the way people assume that those of us who do not agree with them don’t know much of anything. It is rather insulting, but, when it comes to dealing with self-righteous “Christians” they excel in insulting to mask their abject lack of actual knowledge. Sorry, but I’ve been studying this for many years. I have found that “translations” have an agenda of their own.

    What truly disgusts me about such “knowledgeable” scholarship is the fact that, in order to prove a point, you go out of your way to diminish the actual story of Mary M. She was a sinner who was considered so vile, she was to be stoned to death. She was probably Christ’s distant cousin, which is extremely important. This WOMAN, who was such a sinner was the very first Christian, the first person to see Him as Risen Lord. She was the very first apostle. John Paul II called her the “apostle’s apostle” and completely agreed with the fact that Mary M and Mary B were the same person. Oh, wait – you don’t recognize his authority.

    I bet you don’t believe in the tradition of an unbroken chain of apostolic anointing that comes directly through Christ to modern day Episcopal & Anglican bishops, either. I didn’t either, until I was confirmed. I do now. But, I’m an evil, godless Episcopalian.

    SJR

Comments are closed.