Rush Limbaugh: Rapist

As per Rush: If there is consent on both or all three or all four, however many are involved in the sex act, it’s perfectly fine. Whatever it is. But if the left ever senses and smells that there’s no consent in part of the equation, then here come the rape police. But consent is the magic key to the left

Or, you know, just regular old ‘police’.

What the fuck is going on with the right? What point is Rush trying to make here? I can’t fucking wrap my head around it. I always thought that those South American sex boy allegations against Limbaugh was the left making hay but now. . …

Really. What the fucking fuck?

What “South American sex boy allegations”? I don’t remember hearing about this.

Heading to the Dominican Republic for the weekend with 29 Viagra pills.

I suspect Rush thought he was making a killer point about how “the left” is down with whatever pervy 3-way, 4-way stuff (probably involving butts) weirdos get up to in their sex caves, but when consent is an issue “the left” turns into a bunch of Puritans.

An argument from hypocrisy, in other words.

A poor effort, obviously.

(If I’m reading him right, it’s a terribly stupid argument: “the left” argues against many sexual taboos, therefore they don’t believe in ANY sexual taboos. [See Rick “man-on-dog” Santorum]. But for some people who do believe the sexual revolutions have gone too far, I guess orgies are morally equivalent to rape, or something.)

Rush is rarely correct, but in this case I think he is. “Consent” really is the gateway between acceptable and unacceptable sex among adults.

Where he’s insanely wrong is in thinking this is a criticism. Why on earth would anyone object to this?

Yeup. The one and only time he actually knows what liberals think. Sex without mutual consent is rape. Let’s call the police when this happens. I, for serious, thought that this was what the right thought also. I seem to be wrong. This is my flabbergasation in Pit form.

There are “conservative”/reactionary arguments that having very strict rules about sex, even if they’re broken all the time in practice, is important to maintaining social order. This attitude comes from not trusting the plebes to make good decisions - a la Leo Strauss, sometimes you gotta lie because the truth is too destructive.

I suspect that at a fundamental level many people would rather Limbaugh, Vitter, et al pay lip service (LOL) to conservative sexual mores and violate those mores (and express remorse when caught). It means the rules still stand, and without those rules …

Agreed. It’s one reason the new line of attack I see so many right wingers trying to spread “If most women are supposedly so offended by what Trump said who’s buying all the copies of 50 Shades of Grey” makes no sense.

I’m sure it’s a terrible book and I myself find BDSM really distasteful, but from what I’ve heard the people in it have an incredibly unhealthy relationship, but all the BDSM in the book is(I assume) consensual so the comparisons really don’t work.

Rush is clearly confused about this whole consent issue. Somebody apparently explained it to him but he just doesn’t understand how it works.

The OP quoted Rush attempting to mock the idea of consent. But Rush went on to give his own views on the subject: “How many of you guys, in your own experience with women, have learned that ‘no’ means ‘yes’ if you know how to spot it?”

Or as I saw somebody online point out, “I like watching Dexter. But that doesn’t mean I want Ted Bundy to be President.”

Or to put it another way he’s saying.

“Come on guys everyone of us has grabbed a hunk of pussy now and then, the woman may protest but that’s just for show so they don’t look like a slut. Even if it isn’t, it’s just a joke, there’s no real harm done. Nothing in the bible against it. And yet Liberals get all bent out of shape by it but say nothing about real perversions like two men sodomizing each other.”

It’s locker room talk when the Republicans do it. It’s criminal when the Democrats do it. Something like that.

If this is how Rush Limbaugh talks on the radio, and Donald Trump talks to a reporter on a bus, imagine what they say in actual locker rooms.

Exactly. Lots of people have, in the privacy of their heads, rape fantasies, or read fiction that includes rape scenes. Some of us also read fiction that involves murder scenes. It doesn’t have any reflection at all on our views regarding real world morality.

I read a lot of “Great Age of Sail” naval adventures. It doesn’t mean I favor binding people to the railing and flogging their backs until the ribs show. (But if Horatio Hornblower were eligible to be President of the U.S., I’d happily vote for him!)

My favorite meme on this says something about Silence of the Lambs made millions but that doesn’t mean we all want to run out and start eating people.

Difficult to say. Certainly not possible based on the quote alone (I’m not familiar with the source, but it’s presumably some left-wing outfit taking his words out of context.)

Listening to the sound bite, there’s a bit more ahead of the quoted portion. It appears from that that his point was going to be about the lack of moral standards and “anything goes” approach of the Left. And his point was not that there’s something wrong with insisting on consent, but that once you have consent everything else is OK, which is the part he seemed to be objecting to.

Again, hard to say for sure, since they didn’t have anything after the quoted text, but based on what he said before that, that looked to be what he was leading up to.

This appears to be the Michael Hurd article he was talking about. It doesn’t mention anything about consent.

I think this blog post might possibly explain some of what was going through Rush’s head, to the extent that he’s engaging in coherent thought at all.

I think you’re right about what point Rush was trying to make (and also about its being a “poor effort”).

Yeah. What BigGirl said on the way in. WTF.