Rush thinks non-consensual sex is just another type of depraved sex act. Like in his head there is this list of bad things:
He thinks they all fall under the umbrella of “bad sex” and he thinks it is hypocritical for liberals to get all bent out of shape on #5 but the rest of the list is A-OK.
It reveals the brain of a simpleton and an acceptance of rape culture, IMO. Sick.
Here’s a shovel. Now take the quote “How many of you guys, in your own experience with women, have learned that ‘no’ means ‘yes’ if you know how to spot it?” and explain a context in which that statement is acceptable in a discussion of sexual consent.
The weird thing is, I think I actually agree with every word in that paragraph from Rush, in a literal sense. Except, of course, that I guess he’s being sarcastic?
You seem to be confusing two separate discussions.
How about we follow that quote with his next statement: “That’s simply not tolerated”? That sure got omitted.
Having listened to the clip, my takeaway is that he is harpooning the old BS theory about how the woman is always playing hard to get, and it takes a superstud to understand that no really means yes. And I agree - that’s simply not tolerated.
Rush has also been quoted as saying it’s not a man’s fault if he acts on his impulses because he’s thinking with his dick and not his brain. Apparently that only applies to rape being okay though and not all the other things on your list. Okay maybe adultery. Numbers 1 through 4 on your list? Those are bad. Those guys shouldsomehow control what their dick tells them to do.
I don’t agree.
I think he was objecting to the need for verbal consent in the OS guidelines, and contrasting that with the other extreme.
You can spot when ‘no’ means ‘yes’ by paying attention to whether she’s saying the safeword ‘avocado.’
Somehow I don’t think that’s what Rush meant, though.
The one area in which even the “crawled out form under a rock” variety of loon (Right Wing Division) should, by now, know to shut the fuck up about, it is sex.
They lost the EEEwww - dem queers are gross! discussion, and the birth control discussion, and the marriage discussion.
And now, against that background, they want to debate what is or isn’t rape?
And they screw up so badly as to think that “consent” has nothing to do with “rape”?
I did not think ANYONE could not have at least figured it out.
The difference between “without consent” and “against will” - maybe there are a few who can’t quite understand that.
But to state that “consent” has NO BEARING WHATSOEVER?
This is getting scary, folks.
Yeah, that’s a safe assumption when you read a conservative saying something appalling: a liberal is to blame.
Yep, passed out or can’t fight me off. That’s not a no it’s a YES. Not surprised that Rush would defend Trump. And do it poorly. They are both assholes to the first degree.
I can’t help but find it all hilarious. The right still hasn’t figured out that rape is the 3rd rail for them.
Am I supposed to hear this in Rushs’ voice?
Yeah. Except he says that like it’s a bad thing.
It doesn’t change the meaning of what he’s saying. Here are all the actual words from that section of the clip:
[QUOTE=Clothahump]
Having listened to the clip, my takeaway is that he is harpooning the old BS theory about how the woman is always playing hard to get, and it takes a superstud to understand that no really means yes. And I agree - that’s simply not tolerated.
[/QUOTE]
No, what Limbaugh is mocking is the modern “liberal” insistence on consent. He is endorsing the notion that “no means yes if you know how to spot it”, and making fun of the “oversensitive” liberals who are no longer willing to “tolerate” that attitude.
Limbaugh thinks we should “reprogram the way we raise men” away from this contemporary liberal insistence on consent, and change back to the former approach of advising boys to “spot” when “no means yes”.
Which is exactly the sort of assault-trivializing rape-culture attitude that so many people are complaining about now in Trump and his defenders.
Okay, with all the jumping around and sentence fragments, I can see it’s possible for there to be two ways this can be interpreted.
One is that Limbaugh is agreeing that having sex with a woman without her consent is a terrible thing and that it was wrong in the past to tell boys that they could sometimes ignore what a woman was saying. The other interpretation is that Limbaugh liked that old system of ignoring consent and regrets how liberals are trying to change it. Limbaugh’s quote is incoherent enough it could go either way.
Limbaugh being an appalling human being, I think it’s likely the appalling interpretation is the correct one. But I’ll be fair and hold off final judgment until he’s had a chance to further explain what his message is.
Well, that clip was part of Limbaugh’s show back in September 2014. I think he’s had plenty of time to explain it.
And his position on consent still seems to be firmly in the “appalling” camp, as the more recent remarks quoted by the OP indicate:
For Limbaugh, evidently, “moral standards” means objecting to “kinky” stuff like threesomes and foursomes. Consent, on the other hand, is just some tiresome liberal shibboleth like “safe spaces” or “trigger warnings”, and calling the cops on sex without consent is just oversensitive liberals overreacting.
Sounds like the guy obviously intended to get laid but your link didn’t say anything about underage boys.
My mistake. I read the article and missed that they were quoting two different speeches. I though this was all part of one speech Limbaugh delivered this week.
How many of you ladies like it when a new date asks if it’s okay to kiss you?
Time and time again over the course of my life I’ve heard or read women make derogatory comments about the courage of a guy who does that.
My take is that Limbaugh feels that not saying no = consent. Which frankly is pretty much the way it’s always been, at least during my lifetime. The guy tries for what he can get and the girl sets the limits by saying no when she doesn’t want things to go any further…unless of course she does, in which case she never says no and things go all the way. But at no point does she ever say, “Yes, please screw me!” (Unless of course they’re into that kind of talk, in which case it’s probably not their first time anyway.)
So be honest, how many of you have ever had sex with someone where you either verbally asked or were asked for permission before doing the deed? Or asked or were asked for permission every step of the way - dress or jeans removal, bra removal, panty removal, male disrobement, etc., etc., etc.? It’s silly, and that’s what Limbaugh is lampooning, in my opinion. And rightfully so, also in my opinion.