Slut Or Not??

[Barb]

So, Liz...do you introduce your wife or daughter to folks as, 'my slut,' ...or joke about how many liaisons she, they, have engaged in?

'Preach what you practice', as Charles Murray says.

I rarely see a woman so aggressively post AS a douche bag.

I'm torn.

On one hand, your stance as a self loathing woman is appalling.

On the other, "we" (?!!) have arrived?!!

So, now that you have identified what you are, and stand for....

so?


If you have a problem with any who stand up for tradition and the values that separate human beings from the rest of the animal kingdom ,what then?

You have your idols, and I have some who actually have self discipline.


When I think of folks with your perspective, what comes to mind is
this snap-shot of pop culture, the music industry, which has “somehow reduced humanity’s greatest achievement- a near universal language of pure transcendence - into a knuckle-dragging sub-pidgin of grunts and snarls, capable of fully expressing only the more pointless forms of violence and the more brutal forms of sex.” Michael Bywater, “Never mind the width, feel the lack of quality,” The Spectator, May 13, 1995, p. 44.

There is the world that folks like you envision for all of us.

Based on same, do you actually believe that your view of myself or of the constitutional lawyer, Ms. Schlafly, carries any moment?

But, I appreciate your coming by, and offering your opinion. Usually one has to go to the pool room to get the views of someone like you.

Well, you've got hyperbole down pat, much like your friend Fitz.

Frankly Scarlett, you can't possibly think your, fitz's, or that female sell out's idea of what anyone's role in society should be is remotely connected to the power I wish for my progeny. You do know that she [and women like her, yes dear, like you] was rewarded handsomely for selling women's sovereignty down the river.

And, btw, I don't have idols. People are only people, and religion is man-made.

 

[earlycuyler]

Just for the record, Viagra is not a contraceptive. It is a Medical Association sanctioned treatment for a medical condition. I doubt very seriously that medications that could also be used as a contraceptive but that are necessary to treat a medical condition would be denied by any private health care insurance company.

Medicare, however, allows or disallows all sorts of medications sometimes with absolutely no rhyme or reason. I sat beside my aunt who, because it was affecting her liver, was not a candidate to continue taking the medication necessary to control her severe osteoporosis. So in a consultation with a doctor, he recommended a very expensive medication that was still somewhat experimental but should be effective and Medicare would pay for it. There was another, far less expensive, and necessary to be injected less often, that was actually more effective, but Medicare would not pay for it. UNLESS she had had her gall bladder out. I asked what the gall bladder has to do with Osteoporosis. He said nothing at all. But there is absolutely no explanation for some of the Medicare rules and it is getting worse all the time.

I do not care what private insurance companies choose to cover or not cover so long as that is clearly explained to the patient. It is obvious that most are doing a far superior job of coverage than is Medicare for most things. But I do not want the federal government telling any insurance company what it must provide, what it cannot cover, or that anybody has to provide whatever insurance for their employees.

I know what Viagra is. For your information and hopefully for your edification polycystic ovary disease is also a medical condition. (You are another who didn't watch the testimony.) So is pulmonary hypertension which is what I have. One of my medications is Adcirca, a horrendously expensive new Viagra type drug. Viagra was originally being researched for the disease I have. But when the company discovered it would give men boners they did an about face. The Adcirca is SO expensive that when I order it, the specialty pharmacy wants to know how many pills I have left in the bottle. And yes, my insurance pays for it. All I have to pay is an $80 copay for three months worth through the specialty pharmacy.

I find it somewhat paradoxical that people think it's OK to help men impregnate women so that the government can support the children rather than expect insurance to provide adequate contraception.

To say insurance does not cover birth control is not telling the truth. They do cover it. It is also available for free as has been pointed out several times. The testimony is a lie, and the issue is a lie.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Glad to see you scurrying away from this:

"Sexual morality has changed since the 1960s. Most people no longer..."

The term "slut" is inherently insulting. It IMPLIES an adherence to a sexual morality that believes a woman who has sex outside marriage is doing something wrong. As I do not adhere to that morality, I would never use the word.

I would not call my daughter a slut because she is having sex with her boyfriend. I don't believe there's anything wrong with that. I did not call my ex-wife a slut because she had more than fifty lovers before we got together. I don't believe there is anything wrong with that. If I called either of them a slut, I would be implying that there was something wrong with their behavior, which I don't believe.

The word simply has no place in my universe.

1. "The term "slut" is inherently insulting."
As it is meant to be.
One should hardly pretend that the behavior in question is unnoticed.

2. "I did not call my ex-wife a slut because she had more than fifty lovers before we got together."
This is more information than I need.
But, if the little woman asked me to pay for her birth control...I might (OK...in private) refer to her in the pejorative.

3. Now, stop obfuscating.

You know very well that the situation in question is not you 'daughter... because she is having sex with her boyfriend."
The question was a matter of quantity not quality.
If one is having sex with every male in the dorm....
...that is the object of this discussion.

And the $1,000 in pills/condoms that the young lady is asking the national policy to indemnify.

Wanna change your tune, Lizard?

 

[PoliticalChic]

I rarely see a woman so aggressively post AS a douche bag.

I'm torn.

On one hand, your stance as a self loathing woman is appalling.

On the other, "we" (?!!) have arrived?!!

So, now that you have identified what you are, and stand for....

so?


If you have a problem with any who stand up for tradition and the values that separate human beings from the rest of the animal kingdom ,what then?

You have your idols, and I have some who actually have self discipline.


When I think of folks with your perspective, what comes to mind is
this snap-shot of pop culture, the music industry, which has “somehow reduced humanity’s greatest achievement- a near universal language of pure transcendence - into a knuckle-dragging sub-pidgin of grunts and snarls, capable of fully expressing only the more pointless forms of violence and the more brutal forms of sex.” Michael Bywater, “Never mind the width, feel the lack of quality,” The Spectator, May 13, 1995, p. 44.

There is the world that folks like you envision for all of us.

Based on same, do you actually believe that your view of myself or of the constitutional lawyer, Ms. Schlafly, carries any moment?

But, I appreciate your coming by, and offering your opinion. Usually one has to go to the pool room to get the views of someone like you.

Well, you've got hyperbole down pat, much like your friend Fitz.

Frankly Scarlett, you can't possibly think your, fitz's, or that female sell out's idea of what anyone's role in society should be is remotely connected to the power I wish for my progeny. You do know that she [and women like her, yes dear, like you] was rewarded handsomely for selling women's sovereignty down the river.

And, btw, I don't have idols. People are only people, and religion is man-made.

1. Why is my view a 'sell-out' but your ideal of womanhood, one who behaves the way an alley cat behaves, and further, demands that society agree to the behavior and to pay for same, not the most disgusting, low-level behavior, and evidence of zero self-esteems and self-respect?

Your posts and attitude indicate that one can rationalize anything.


2. " for selling women's sovereignty down the river..."
Sounds like feminist pap from the 60's....and so disprovable....careers, college attendance, you name it.
Wise up.

 

[Barb]

So, now that you have identified what you are, and stand for....

so?


If you have a problem with any who stand up for tradition and the values that separate human beings from the rest of the animal kingdom ,what then?

You have your idols, and I have some who actually have self discipline.


When I think of folks with your perspective, what comes to mind is
this snap-shot of pop culture, the music industry, which has “somehow reduced humanity’s greatest achievement- a near universal language of pure transcendence - into a knuckle-dragging sub-pidgin of grunts and snarls, capable of fully expressing only the more pointless forms of violence and the more brutal forms of sex.” Michael Bywater, “Never mind the width, feel the lack of quality,” The Spectator, May 13, 1995, p. 44.

There is the world that folks like you envision for all of us.

Based on same, do you actually believe that your view of myself or of the constitutional lawyer, Ms. Schlafly, carries any moment?

But, I appreciate your coming by, and offering your opinion. Usually one has to go to the pool room to get the views of someone like you.

Well, you've got hyperbole down pat, much like your friend Fitz.

Frankly Scarlett, you can't possibly think your, fitz's, or that female sell out's idea of what anyone's role in society should be is remotely connected to the power I wish for my progeny. You do know that she [and women like her, yes dear, like you] was rewarded handsomely for selling women's sovereignty down the river.

And, btw, I don't have idols. People are only people, and religion is man-made.

1. Why is my view a 'sell-out' but your ideal of womanhood, one who behaves the way an alley cat behaves, and further, demands that society agree to the behavior and to pay for same, not the most disgusting, low-level behavior, and evidence of zero self-esteems and self-respect?

Your posts and attitude indicate that one can rationalize anything.


2. " for selling women's sovereignty down the river..."
Sounds like feminist pap from the 60's....and so disprovable....careers, college attendance, you name it.
Wise up.

Because I don't view women as "cats." You do, so you believe we should be "domesticated" in order to be "socially acceptable."

And dear, that "FEMINIST PAP" got YOU the right to vote. I'd say I hope you use it,
but DAMN, I'm torn. On the one hand, people much better than you fought for it FOR you, and on the other, you don't quite seem to know what all that struggle and bloodshed and death was FOR. In all honesty, you don't deserve it.

You don't. Really you don't.

Still, its yours.

I really hope you choke on it.

 

[Si modo]

So, now that you have identified what you are, and stand for....

so?


If you have a problem with any who stand up for tradition and the values that separate human beings from the rest of the animal kingdom ,what then?

You have your idols, and I have some who actually have self discipline.


When I think of folks with your perspective, what comes to mind is
this snap-shot of pop culture, the music industry, which has “somehow reduced humanity’s greatest achievement- a near universal language of pure transcendence - into a knuckle-dragging sub-pidgin of grunts and snarls, capable of fully expressing only the more pointless forms of violence and the more brutal forms of sex.” Michael Bywater, “Never mind the width, feel the lack of quality,” The Spectator, May 13, 1995, p. 44.

There is the world that folks like you envision for all of us.

Based on same, do you actually believe that your view of myself or of the constitutional lawyer, Ms. Schlafly, carries any moment?

But, I appreciate your coming by, and offering your opinion. Usually one has to go to the pool room to get the views of someone like you.

Well, you've got hyperbole down pat, much like your friend Fitz.

Frankly Scarlett, you can't possibly think your, fitz's, or that female sell out's idea of what anyone's role in society should be is remotely connected to the power I wish for my progeny. You do know that she [and women like her, yes dear, like you] was rewarded handsomely for selling women's sovereignty down the river.

And, btw, I don't have idols. People are only people, and religion is man-made.

1. Why is my view a 'sell-out' but your ideal of womanhood, one who behaves the way an alley cat behaves, and further, demands that society agree to the behavior and to pay for same, not the most disgusting, low-level behavior, and evidence of zero self-esteems and self-respect?

Your posts and attitude indicate that one can rationalize anything.


2. " for selling women's sovereignty down the river..."
Sounds like feminist pap from the 60's....and so disprovable....careers, college attendance, you name it.
Wise up.

Now, come on. If it weren't for women who came before fighting the ever-so-common mentality that women are much more than their sex and sexual habits, the chauvinist walls keeping women OUT of universities and careers would still be entrenched today.

 

[Barb]

Well, you've got hyperbole down pat, much like your friend Fitz.

Frankly Scarlett, you can't possibly think your, fitz's, or that female sell out's idea of what anyone's role in society should be is remotely connected to the power I wish for my progeny. You do know that she [and women like her, yes dear, like you] was rewarded handsomely for selling women's sovereignty down the river.

And, btw, I don't have idols. People are only people, and religion is man-made.

1. Why is my view a 'sell-out' but your ideal of womanhood, one who behaves the way an alley cat behaves, and further, demands that society agree to the behavior and to pay for same, not the most disgusting, low-level behavior, and evidence of zero self-esteems and self-respect?

Your posts and attitude indicate that one can rationalize anything.


2. " for selling women's sovereignty down the river..."
Sounds like feminist pap from the 60's....and so disprovable....careers, college attendance, you name it.
Wise up.

Now, come on. If it weren't for women who came before fighting the ever-so-common mentality that women are much more than their sex and sexual habits, the chauvinist walls keeping women OUT of universities and careers would still be entrenched today.

THANK you!

 

[PoliticalChic]

Well, you've got hyperbole down pat, much like your friend Fitz.

Frankly Scarlett, you can't possibly think your, fitz's, or that female sell out's idea of what anyone's role in society should be is remotely connected to the power I wish for my progeny. You do know that she [and women like her, yes dear, like you] was rewarded handsomely for selling women's sovereignty down the river.

And, btw, I don't have idols. People are only people, and religion is man-made.

1. Why is my view a 'sell-out' but your ideal of womanhood, one who behaves the way an alley cat behaves, and further, demands that society agree to the behavior and to pay for same, not the most disgusting, low-level behavior, and evidence of zero self-esteems and self-respect?

Your posts and attitude indicate that one can rationalize anything.


2. " for selling women's sovereignty down the river..."
Sounds like feminist pap from the 60's....and so disprovable....careers, college attendance, you name it.
Wise up.

Because I don't view women as "cats." You do, so you believe we should be "domesticated" in order to be "socially acceptable."

And dear, that "FEMINIST PAP" got YOU the right to vote. I'd say I hope you use it,
but DAMN, I'm torn. On the one hand, people much better than you fought for it FOR you, and on the other, you don't quite seem to know what all that struggle and bloodshed and death was FOR. In all honesty, you don't deserve it.

You don't. Really you don't.

Still, its yours.

I really hope you choke on it.

1." "FEMINIST PAP" got YOU the right to vote."
Hardly.
The Nineteenth Amendment (Amendment XIX) to the United States Constitution prohibits any United States citizen to be denied the right to vote based on sex. It was ratified on August 18, 1920.
Nineteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


2. "You do, so you believe we should be "domesticated" in order to be "socially acceptable."
I've learned that when others attempt to put words in my mouth, that means they know that they've lost the argument.
I'm guessing that that would be you.

3. "On the one hand, people much better than you fought for it FOR you...."
So, which one, Cady Stanton or Susan B. Anthony endorsed free condoms and promiscuity?
I suspect that neither would enjoy being identified with someone like you....do you?


4. "I really hope you choke on it."
I'm certain that when you recover from the 'barbs' I've put into you, you'll want
to apologize for that comment.
When someone gets angry enough to comment like that, it usually means that they realize that what I've said is true.
You do, don't you.

 

[Barb]

Glad to see you scurrying away from this:

"Sexual morality has changed since the 1960s. Most people no longer..."

The term "slut" is inherently insulting. It IMPLIES an adherence to a sexual morality that believes a woman who has sex outside marriage is doing something wrong. As I do not adhere to that morality, I would never use the word.

I would not call my daughter a slut because she is having sex with her boyfriend. I don't believe there's anything wrong with that. I did not call my ex-wife a slut because she had more than fifty lovers before we got together. I don't believe there is anything wrong with that. If I called either of them a slut, I would be implying that there was something wrong with their behavior, which I don't believe.

The word simply has no place in my universe.

1. "The term "slut" is inherently insulting."
As it is meant to be.
One should hardly pretend that the behavior in question is unnoticed.

2. "I did not call my ex-wife a slut because she had more than fifty lovers before we got together."
This is more information than I need.
But, if the little woman asked me to pay for her birth control...I might (OK...in private) refer to her in the pejorative.

3. Now, stop obfuscating.

You know very well that the situation in question is not you 'daughter... because she is having sex with her boyfriend."

The question was a matter of quantity not quality.
If one is having sex with every male in the dorm....
...that is the object of this discussion.

And the $1,000 in pills/condoms that the young lady is asking the national policy to indemnify.

Wanna change your tune, Lizard?

The question was a matter of quantity not quality.
If one is having sex with every male in the dorm....
...that is the object of this discussion.

It's NOT, if the kid is in a monogamous relationship, she has to take the pill every damned day too.

but even if it were:

WTF? Its an insurance policy. Since WHEN does coverage get dictated by any but the insurer, what (as opposed to who) already insures that, unless and until some other entity decides to poke their nose into other peoples crotches? Exactly HOW much is saved by denying birth control pills? I want a number. The kids PAY for the damned policy, and not a cent is paid by "taxpayers."

Not for nothing, she's a LESBIAN. The keeping from getting pregnant thing wasn't even an ISSUE.

And not for nothing, THAT shouldn't BE an issue.

You people are troglodytes.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The term "slut" is inherently insulting. It IMPLIES an adherence to a sexual morality that believes a woman who has sex outside marriage is doing something wrong. As I do not adhere to that morality, I would never use the word.

I would not call my daughter a slut because she is having sex with her boyfriend. I don't believe there's anything wrong with that. I did not call my ex-wife a slut because she had more than fifty lovers before we got together. I don't believe there is anything wrong with that. If I called either of them a slut, I would be implying that there was something wrong with their behavior, which I don't believe.

The word simply has no place in my universe.

1. "The term "slut" is inherently insulting."
As it is meant to be.
One should hardly pretend that the behavior in question is unnoticed.

2. "I did not call my ex-wife a slut because she had more than fifty lovers before we got together."
This is more information than I need.
But, if the little woman asked me to pay for her birth control...I might (OK...in private) refer to her in the pejorative.

3. Now, stop obfuscating.

You know very well that the situation in question is not you 'daughter... because she is having sex with her boyfriend."


And the $1,000 in pills/condoms that the young lady is asking the national policy to indemnify.

Wanna change your tune, Lizard?

The question was a matter of quantity not quality.
If one is having sex with every male in the dorm....
...that is the object of this discussion.

It's NOT, if the kid is in a monogamous relationship, she has to take the pill every damned day too.

but even if it were:

WTF? Its an insurance policy. Since WHEN does coverage get dictated by any but the insurer, what (as opposed to who) already insures that, unless and until some other entity decides to poke their nose into other peoples crotches? Exactly HOW much is saved by denying birth control pills? I want a number. The kids PAY for the damned policy, and not a cent is paid by "taxpayers."

Not for nothing, she's a LESBIAN. The keeping from getting pregnant thing wasn't even an ISSUE.

And not for nothing, THAT shouldn't BE an issue.

You people are troglodytes.

"Since WHEN does coverage get dictated by any but the insurer,..."

When the government mandates it?

 

[Si modo]

1. Why is my view a 'sell-out' but your ideal of womanhood, one who behaves the way an alley cat behaves, and further, demands that society agree to the behavior and to pay for same, not the most disgusting, low-level behavior, and evidence of zero self-esteems and self-respect?

Your posts and attitude indicate that one can rationalize anything.


2. " for selling women's sovereignty down the river..."
Sounds like feminist pap from the 60's....and so disprovable....careers, college attendance, you name it.
Wise up.

Because I don't view women as "cats." You do, so you believe we should be "domesticated" in order to be "socially acceptable."

And dear, that "FEMINIST PAP" got YOU the right to vote. I'd say I hope you use it,
but DAMN, I'm torn. On the one hand, people much better than you fought for it FOR you, and on the other, you don't quite seem to know what all that struggle and bloodshed and death was FOR. In all honesty, you don't deserve it.

You don't. Really you don't.

Still, its yours.

I really hope you choke on it.

1." "FEMINIST PAP" got YOU the right to vote."
Hardly.
The Nineteenth Amendment (Amendment XIX) to the United States Constitution prohibits any United States citizen to be denied the right to vote based on sex. It was ratified on August 18, 1920.
Nineteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


2. "You do, so you believe we should be "domesticated" in order to be "socially acceptable."
I've learned that when others attempt to put words in my mouth, that means they know that they've lost the argument.
I'm guessing that that would be you.

3. "On the one hand, people much better than you fought for it FOR you...."
So, which one, Cady Stanton or Susan B. Anthony endorsed free condoms and promiscuity?
I suspect that neither would enjoy being identified with someone like you....do you?


4. "I really hope you choke on it."
I'm certain that when you recover from the 'barbs' I've put into you, you'll want
to apologize for that comment.
When someone gets angry enough to comment like that, it usually means that they realize that what I've said is true.
You do, don't you.

So, a question for you, PC (rather wordy, though):

Correct me if I am wrong, but you seem to be lamenting about the loss of social niceties concerning women being promiscuous. I base this on your comment concerning nice society and women not separating themselves from the animal kingdom by practicing restraint in their sexual habits.

I agree. Personally, I think sex is between the persons having it. I don't need to hear about it almost all the time. It doesn't seem all that classy or proper in polite company.

But, that is the way of the world. Listen to a pop song or watch the TV. Sex is all over.

I understand what you would like to see from society; so would I.

So, on that same note, you mentioned in an earlier post (I believe to Dragon) that you would refrain from calling some a slut, even if you thought she was. Rather, you would save that for a private discussion.

I agree with that, too.

It looks like both of our mothers taught us etiquette.

So, wouldn't (shouldn't) Rush be called a social failure (as far as acting proper and polite) for calling Fluke a slut? And he said that to a huge audience.

So, in the interest of the type of society you seem to wish we had (me too), calling Rush out would be consistent.

(Me? I really don't care all that much about the slut issue. At this point in time there are much bigger battles to be fought. Our Constitution is dying quickly.)

 

[Barb]

1. Why is my view a 'sell-out' but your ideal of womanhood, one who behaves the way an alley cat behaves, and further, demands that society agree to the behavior and to pay for same, not the most disgusting, low-level behavior, and evidence of zero self-esteems and self-respect?

Your posts and attitude indicate that one can rationalize anything.


2. " for selling women's sovereignty down the river..."
Sounds like feminist pap from the 60's....and so disprovable....careers, college attendance, you name it.
Wise up.

Because I don't view women as "cats." You do, so you believe we should be "domesticated" in order to be "socially acceptable."

And dear, that "FEMINIST PAP" got YOU the right to vote. I'd say I hope you use it,
but DAMN, I'm torn. On the one hand, people much better than you fought for it FOR you, and on the other, you don't quite seem to know what all that struggle and bloodshed and death was FOR. In all honesty, you don't deserve it.

You don't. Really you don't.

Still, its yours.

I really hope you choke on it.

1." "FEMINIST PAP" got YOU the right to vote."
Hardly.
The Nineteenth Amendment (Amendment XIX) to the United States Constitution prohibits any United States citizen to be denied the right to vote based on sex. It was ratified on August 18, 1920.
Nineteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


2. "You do, so you believe we should be "domesticated" in order to be "socially acceptable."
I've learned that when others attempt to put words in my mouth, that means they know that they've lost the argument.
I'm guessing that that would be you.

3. "On the one hand, people much better than you fought for it FOR you...."
So, which one, Cady Stanton or Susan B. Anthony endorsed free condoms and promiscuity?
I suspect that neither would enjoy being identified with someone like you....do you?


4. "I really hope you choke on it."
I'm certain that when you recover from the 'barbs' I've put into you, you'll want
to apologize for that comment.
When someone gets angry enough to comment like that, it usually means that they realize that what I've said is true.
You do, don't you.

Nope, feminist PAP made that possible.

Nope, I'm pretty sure I read you right.

Nope, you're projecting, and doing a really shitty job at it.

And, NOPE, hell if i will, or ever would.

You should be ashamed of your attempted subjugation of your sisters. You should really rethink your whole attitude. And yes, I really do hope you choke on every one of your words. I do, yes I do, and HELL YES I DO.

I really do. You're reprehensible, appalling, and you suck big huge sweaty balls of sepsis.

It is what it is.

You blow.

 

[Dragon]

Okay give us a number. While I don't think any of us consider a monogamous relationship in or outside of marriage to be 'slutty', exactly how many lovers does a man or woman need to have to qualify for the 'slut' label?

Inquiring minds want to know.

There is no number. The word is meaningless in my universe, as I sad already.

 

[Katzndogz]

It's a shame really that after fighting so long and so hard to be taken seriously as women and not be dismissed as mere sex objects, we have women now fighting twice as hard to be reduced to nothing BUT sex objects.

 

[Barb]

1. "The term "slut" is inherently insulting."
As it is meant to be.
One should hardly pretend that the behavior in question is unnoticed.

2. "I did not call my ex-wife a slut because she had more than fifty lovers before we got together."
This is more information than I need.
But, if the little woman asked me to pay for her birth control...I might (OK...in private) refer to her in the pejorative.

3. Now, stop obfuscating.

You know very well that the situation in question is not you 'daughter... because she is having sex with her boyfriend."


And the $1,000 in pills/condoms that the young lady is asking the national policy to indemnify.

Wanna change your tune, Lizard?

The question was a matter of quantity not quality.
If one is having sex with every male in the dorm....
...that is the object of this discussion.

It's NOT, if the kid is in a monogamous relationship, she has to take the pill every damned day too.

but even if it were:

WTF? Its an insurance policy. Since WHEN does coverage get dictated by any but the insurer, what (as opposed to who) already insures that, unless and until some other entity decides to poke their nose into other peoples crotches? Exactly HOW much is saved by denying birth control pills? I want a number. The kids PAY for the damned policy, and not a cent is paid by "taxpayers."

Not for nothing, she's a LESBIAN. The keeping from getting pregnant thing wasn't even an ISSUE.

And not for nothing, THAT shouldn't BE an issue.

You people are troglodytes.

"Since WHEN does coverage get dictated by any but the insurer,..."

When the government mandates it?

It was already a covered benefit. Because the government mandates it makes is evil? REALLY? Can you people HEAR yourselves? CAN you?

 

[Dragon]

1. "The term "slut" is inherently insulting."
As it is meant to be.
One should hardly pretend that the behavior in question is unnoticed.

You don't get it, apparently. I'm not saying it's "unnoticed." I'm saying that, according to my own moral beliefs, there's nothing wrong with it. I will not use the word to apply to it BECAUSE the term is inherently insulting, and I don't believe that behavior deserves an insult.

You know very well that the situation in question is not you 'daughter... because she is having sex with her boyfriend."
The question was a matter of quantity not quality.

No, I don't know that. In fact, with respect to the origins of the word and the opinions of many, I know to the contrary. The fact that my daughter and her boyfriend aren't married means, in the minds of some, that she is a slut for having sex with him. Between that, and my ex-wife's promiscuous behavior before we met, the difference is only one of degree.

No one knows anything about the sexual behavior of the student that Limbaugh called a slut -- including Limbaugh. (Well, no one but herself and those close to her, one presumes.) What we do know is that she is unmarried, and, since she is using birth control, presumably she is sexually active, or at least expects to be. And that's all.

Regardless of what she's doing, though, I would not call her a slut. If she is currently celibate but hopes to find a lover, I would not call her a slut. If she is in a monogamous relationship with a boyfriend, I would not call her a slut. If she is in a polyamorous relationship with two boyfriends and a girlfriend, I would not call her a slut. If she is doing it with the entire male population of the law school, I would not call her a slut.

Hopefully, that will clarify matters.

 

[Si modo]

It's NOT, if the kid is in a monogamous relationship, she has to take the pill every damned day too.

but even if it were:

WTF? Its an insurance policy. Since WHEN does coverage get dictated by any but the insurer, what (as opposed to who) already insures that, unless and until some other entity decides to poke their nose into other peoples crotches? Exactly HOW much is saved by denying birth control pills? I want a number. The kids PAY for the damned policy, and not a cent is paid by "taxpayers."

Not for nothing, she's a LESBIAN. The keeping from getting pregnant thing wasn't even an ISSUE.

And not for nothing, THAT shouldn't BE an issue.

You people are troglodytes.

"Since WHEN does coverage get dictated by any but the insurer,..."

When the government mandates it?

It was already a covered benefit. Because the government mandates it makes is evil? REALLY? Can you people HEAR yourselves? CAN you?

When the government mandates it to a religious organization, it doesn't make it evil, rather it's a violation of the First Amendment.

 

[Barb]

It's a shame really that after fighting so long and so hard to be taken seriously as women and not be dismissed as mere sex objects, we have women now fighting twice as hard to be reduced to nothing BUT sex objects.

FUCK you. The ability to CHOSE if we get pregnant or not does not reduce US, you little asshole, and it only reduces YOU in your wimpy little pants.

 

[Dragon]

It's a shame really that after fighting so long and so hard to be taken seriously as women and not be dismissed as mere sex objects, we have women now fighting twice as hard to be reduced to nothing BUT sex objects.

Everyone wants to be a sex object. No one wants to be that and nothing more. A woman should be free to be a sexual being, without that reducing her in anyone's mind to non-person.

And that's really an implication of the word "slut," that the woman in question is not a person.

 

[Barb]

"Since WHEN does coverage get dictated by any but the insurer,..."

When the government mandates it?

It was already a covered benefit. Because the government mandates it makes is evil? REALLY? Can you people HEAR yourselves? CAN you?

When the government mandates it to a religious organization, it doesn't make it evil, rather it's a violation of the First Amendment.

You know better Si, you do. You pay attention to whats going on. And honestly, the first was not to be used as an excuse to deny this.