…because she has. It’s just that I want to add something that I think is oftentimes lost in what is now turning into a quasi-philosophical debate, with the Left dishonestly trying to frame the issue as one of women’s rights and health, when in fact the real issue has to do with what the government can demand of a citizen that is said to trump his individual autonomy — that is, the fundamental relationship between the individual and the state.
And that’s this: before this imperialist dictate, was there some crisis in “women’s health” I was unaware of? Some sort of wide-ranging ban on contraceptives and abortifacients that I’d missed?
That is to say, was not the status quo already working, with supply and demand being met?
The Left doesn’t address that particular issue, instead working to reframe the public narrative as one of religion vs. women’s health, with Obama and the progressives trying to jockey for position as champions of women’s rights.
But here’s the thing: contraception is not a health issue unless one begins to look at pregnancy as a malady or disease of some sort. And that’s because pregnancy as a result of intercourse is the way the body is supposed to function. Contraception forestalls that function. Making it a lifestyle choice — a rather common one, but a lifestyle choice nevertheless — not a “women’s health” issue, except in very rare instances under which pregnancy could prove dangerous (in which specific cases, contraception may indeed prove important to a woman’s health; thankfully, contraception of all sorts is readily available and, thanks to a vibrant market, relatively inexpensive).
So what we’re really seeing here is a twofold attack: first, on the individual, whom the state wishes to own; and second, on a market economy, which the state wishes to control.
Seen in that light, it’s all the more troubling that a full 50% of Americans don’t much care that a progressive government is looking to fundamentally change the relationship between the state and the individual in direct contradiction to the ideals that led to this country’s founding — and before even that, from the perspective of religious conscience, which led the Puritans to flee to the New World in the first place.
They also don’t seem to understand that the Catholics still have an option here, and that is to stop proving health coverage altogether. If it’s a fine to make you pay for your own fucking insurance, it’s going to be even worse when you’re paying for your own health coverage in a lovely, potentuially non-existent state exchange. Which, if you don’t, then you’ll be paying a fine to Uncle Sam.
Morons.
From a teleological view, contraception and unnecessary abortion could turn out to be anti-health measures, to the extent they interfere with or violate physical life-cycle events, nevermind human fulfillment or happiness. But hey, such views are long out of date. Nature? What the hell is that in a time of the social determination of being.
50% + 1. There, fixed that for you. That’s all the will to power takes now.
The key thing to keep in mind is that condoms are universally advertised and out on the shelves in drugstores, grocery stores, etc. further, it’s not as though birth control pills or the morning after pill cost a fortune. the principle behind the dictate by Comrade Urkel is that religious institutions have to be forced to pay for what their doctrines forbid–and the principle that people should get free stuff.
Moochers of the world, bow before the State!!
…a full 50% of Americans don’t much care…
Let’s not ascribe to malice what can be explained by ignorance. These people have been lied to for their whole lives. The only thing they know about the Puritans is that they slaughtered the native tribes, and the only thing they know about Jefferson is that he raped one of his slaves.
Doesn’t make the situation any less troubling, but it’s important to distinguish between the Enemy and the Useful Idiots. The former must be resisted at any cost; the latter might yet be redeemed if their eyes are opened.
I think we’d be giving Marcunt too much credit if we presume that her views with regard to any matter of moment are formed to fall within the constraints of law or the American understanding of Liberty. She knows only allies and enemies – her ideological allies will be defended well past the point where even the most credulous supporters surrender (Mangum, Edwards, Weiner), and her enemies are not entitled to a presumption of good faith, process, nor any quarter or credit whatsoever. If she was in peril of actually getting close to real power she would be downright scary.
In the same vein, was I the only one to hear “Dr.” Nancy Snyderman accuse JFK of raping that woman this morning?
Why are you scarer quoting doctor? She is an MD.
JFK did rape that woman if the self-report of the incident is accurate.
Fen’s Law:
The Left believes none of the things it lectures the rest of us about.
Because she’s a tv personality, not really a practicing doctor any longer, and as a medical doctor she knows fuck all about the penal code in place in 1962 in the District of Columbia and the elements of the offense of rape thereunder.
JFK seduced her. He did not use force, threats of force, intoxicants rendering her unconscious or incapacitated. The fact that she found him handsome and his power irresistible does not equal force. He asked the woman on several occasions if she was “ok” before proceeding, to which she responded “yes.” Anyone who tells you that it was rape is full of radical feminist malarkey.
contraception is not a health issue
Condoms help prevent the transmission of STDs.
Otherwise…
He did not use force, threats of force, etc.
He was POTUS and in a position of authority over her, yes?
So if she says no, does she lose her position?
I don’t know if that constitutes rape rape, but there’s something statutory about it, meaning that her state of mind isn’t as relevant as the power differential.
If you’re going to use the standard that she is not practicing medicine any longer, which is not accurate because she is on the board at University of Pennsylvania’s School of Medical, then all of the lawyers who are all over televison who haven’t practiced law in a coon’s age, (if at all, e.g., Geraldo Rivera) should not be refered to as lawyers, either.
I say that the intern was raped. She was a 19 year old virgin who was used by the POTUS who then tricked her out to his friends and, unsuccessfully, to his family. I guess I will go sit over here on the radical feminist bench.
I wish there was a Conservative woman who could debate or something with her. Get a little clinical. That’s really not her style though. She doesn’t do daylight very well.
Years back, I wanted to do comedy, so I did comedy writing. In that world, there is a lot of disdain for comedians who work “blue” simply to work blue. If you weren’t funny talking about how your boyfriend was a lousy lay, you didn’t get a lot of work. It was an unwritten rule, but a rule none the less.
That’s Marcotte, in a nutshell: Screaming about fucking as if she was doing something dangerous and transgressive, in an age where women in the deep south’s Bible Belt buy rubbers in grocery stores and compare Boob ink on the check out line.
Medical=Medicine
Leigh,
I was wondering the same thing.
I had always seen JFK as willing to mount a catcher’s mitt but I thought he was honorable about it.
The excerpt I read in the NY Post made me doubt that, though I read it as he wasn’t “raping” her–she clearly acceded to it–but he was very obviously using her as little more than a sex toy (I’m not even going into power dynamics.) Moreover, he was just a total cold, distant SOB about it.
Actually, he reminds me of a King or noble in “The Tudors.” You have your wife to have children and a formal relationship with and then there are a host of other women who are there for you when you need to release.
I can’t wait for the Slate XY symposium on this.
/sarcasm tag off.
Roddy, I was too young when JFK died to have have the reverence for him that some have/had. That except in the NY Post cemented what I had always thought about him: he was a first class bastard. There’s Jackie, recovering in Cape Cod from the death of the premature Patrick and there’s him, poking an intern in DC while sharing the sympathy letters with said intern.
Not only that, but he picks Jackie’s bedroom at the WH to deflower her in. Sheesh.
Matthews has been mysteriously silent about all this.
Is she a medical Doctor? Sure. Is she called upon to use her authority in support of non-medical opinions, such as opinions as to matters of law, including the need to pass Obamacare? Yes. That’s the rationale in using quotes around “doctor.” Do whatever you want about the non-practicing lawyer pundits. I could care less.
Rape has a specific legal definition. Rape is not sex between people of uneven levels of power – that definition of rape (together with the “I had a sip of alcohol and regret the sex so rape!” definition) is pure feminist bullshit. Rape is not sex between an experienced man and a virgin. Rape is not merely being a cad. Rape is not having sex without returning the level of esteem and affection that a woman has for you.
The adult in question says that she answered “yes” to JFK’s repeated questioning “is this allright?” Not only did she not say “no,” she said “yes” explicitly, and then embarked on a substantial affair with the President until his death.
This whole matter is quite scary – there is a concerted attempt to change the meaning of rape to be something rather capricious and arbitrary and to encourage women to make accusations of rape where no rape has occurred.
Somebody have a link to what you’re talking about re JFK?
LB:
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5iKwM0CUoByraAT1u4bXKtVNxmM5w?docId=CNG.956cc047c755305c8ad4580183554bcc.e1
As does abstinence. Or a familiarity with your sexual partner (although you can be lied too, etc.). The point being that it helps prevent such transmission only if you agree to have sex, usually with a partner who is not a devoted one.
I have no problem with that, but I don’t believe it a state responsibility to ensure that I can’t make a stupid decision that may have consequences.
Howso?
Explain. Don’t just use throwaway lines about sitting over on the feminist bench. Explain.
Leigh,
The most shocking part is how he would try to send her over to guys to give them oral as he watched, because, really, that’s how most guys are with their girlfriends, you know? They like to watch as she blows other guys.
Is Matthews the default Camelot myth preserver now?
Like I said, I want to see the debate on this.
irrespective of whether it was “suprise-sex”, “date-rape,” “rape but not rape-rape,” “rape” or rape according to the laws of 1962, it was immoral, unethical, indecorous, and unbecoming.
It was also completely unsurprising.
Think about it: Edward M. Kennedy didn’t just wake up some morning, notice there was a sexual revolution in the offing and decide “I think I’m going to debauch myself now and forever more!”
I don’t believe it a state responsibility to ensure that I can’t make a stupid decision that may have consequences.
Nor should we want it to. You’re either a citizen or you’re not. If not, then you’re a subject, a ward or a slave.
put rape in a Venn diagram with those things, and it still comes out that rape has its very own section that doesn’t overlap.
Rape? Sounds to me like she brought a set of kneepads like that Monica chick.
Also, what Ernst said. It’s like learning Richard Pryor smoked pot.
You forgot “creepy.”
put rape in a Venn diagram with those things, and it still comes out that rape has its very own section that doesn’t overlap.
I agree. That’s why I led off with irrespective of . [grin]
I saw the Meredith Viera interview, and Ann Curry’s mini-interview on Today this morning, wherein both women tried to get Mimi Alford to accuse JFK of rape. Then that twit Snyderman states on national television “I spoke to her in the green room and told her that she was raped . . . you don’t have to say ‘no’ for it to be rape.” This, despite the fact that she recalled saying “yes” several times during the first encounter, and carried on an affair with the man for months or years before his death.
Essentially, the feminists are pretending that there is a definition of rape that includes behavior which is clearly not rape under the criminal laws of all American jurisdictions of which I am aware. They’re publicizing the idea of these creative “rapes,” which means that men will be accused of rape and put on trial for their liberty and prime of life because assholes like Snyderman are drumming into their heads that if a man has sex with you and doesn’t read your mind and understand precisely what you think the encounter is about, it is a rape and the man deserves to spend 30 years in the penitentiary.
Look – JFK was a mixed bag, and his behavior was less than admirable, but he doesn’t deserve to be slandered after his death by the Vagina Warriors.
They should have Juanita Broderick on and ask what she thinks about it.
Look – JFK was a mixed bag, and his behavior was less than admirable, but he doesn’t deserve to be slandered after his death by the Vagina Warriors.
Well, he was almost 2 years dead before Griswold and nearly 10 years dead before Roe became the law of the land, so they’ve got no reason to defend him either.
you don’t have to say ‘no’ for it to be rape
We’re doomed.
BTW
Any one else noticed the emanations of crickets from the VW corner in regards to Greg Kelly?
Oh my, Mandy is having a full melt down:
Any one else noticed the emanations of crickets from the VW corner in regards to Greg Kelly?
Nope. But then, I first have to note the corner.
Oh, and know who Greg Kelly is, I s’pose.
And when is Mandy not having a full on melt down? It’s the only way she can get any attention.
Ernst
Mandy and others say that women never falsely accuse men of rape — or that the number of false reports are really over blown.
They kept a low profile when Greg Kelly – son of the NYPD commissioner and local Fox morning anchor – was publicly accused of rape. And it was probably because from the start everyone knew the charges were pretty dicey to begin with. He’s now been exonerated.
Rape is what we say it is, Exhibit 3283:
http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2012/02/03/prudie-on-real-rape/
Ah. Didn’t put the name and the incident together. Thanks Darleen.
damn you, Alec, I had to go read that, then start reading the comments started screaming at my monitor and scared the cats out of the room.
one of them running over my bare foot and now I have to find a couple of bandaids…
;-)
I’m sitting here thinking that it may be in all of our best interests to maybe pitch in and fund Mandy’s health. It may not be a good idea to let her produce any progeny wanted or otherwise. Do you think she would be offended if we sent her a care package and insisted strongly that she take, apply and insert it?
Somebody should tell Mandy that orgasm is incidental to pregnancy, as far as women’s sexuality is concerned. Also to stop thinking about sex like a man.
Or does that make me a hater?
It’s amazing. Basically, they’re proposing that an exculpatory witness keep quiet while a false rape allegation is brought against some poor lad. They have a canned answer for every bit of exculpatory evidence – didn’t you know that rape victims typically act as if they haven’t been raped at all? You see, that is even more probative of the fact that a rape did actually occur! Rape victims routinely brag to their friends about one night stands which are actually rapes.
And did you notice how they’re not all that in love with the presumption of innocence – what the fictional Horace Rumpole called the “Golden thread of British (Anglo-American) Justice,” something so essential to the adversarial system of criminal justice? They think lack of consent should no longer be an element of the crime, but rather consent should be an affirmative defense, essentially shifting the burden of proof and production upon the accused. The burden to prove, I suppose, what was in the mind of the “victim.” They won’t be satisfied unless and until the law renders allegations of rape empirically unfalsifiable.
These people are downright scary, so much so that I don’t know whether the more appropriate adjective is Kafkaesque or Orwellian – can something be the dread bastard son of both?
The animated version. Probably NSW.
“Come on guys”.*
This is all because if the State is not somehow ensuring that women absolutely, positively do not become pregnant (or cease being pregnant) in any way, shape or form when they don’t want to be pregnant, then it must be involved in the patriarchal ideal that sees women as subjugated babymakers whose lives are secondary to those of the not-persons in their wombs.
Ergo any argument that separates the State from the support of contraception or abortion is about letting women die in childbirth and forcing them to bear unwanted babies, therefore you’re all misogynists. There’s no other explanation for it because that’s the logical end of not using the power of the State to force support for contraceptives (and abortion) on everyone. Especially because arguing against the rights of a fetus at any stage of life is junior-high level argumentation.
Excuse me I need to go punch myself in the face now.
The siren song of the left, prefigured:
J.- J. Rousseau, 2nd. Discourse, On the Origin of Inequality, Epistle Dedicatory —
Paternalist scum.
It would appear that in 1962, the age of consent was 16.
Google “United States Model Penal Code age of consent” and that’s pretty much what comes up.
I’m quite willing to be proven incorrect; I have no affection for the Kennedy clan.
“Do you think she would be offended if we sent her a care package and insisted strongly that she take, apply and insert it?”
Depends,
How big is the “package”?
And where do we want her to insert it?
I think it’s cute the way Amanda and the rest of the Totally Empowered Sisterhood of the Yammering Vagina get all pouty that there’s just no way they can get all the hot penile action they so very much desire — unless ‘daddy’ is there to buy them all the magic pills and assorted twatular folderol their little hearts desire.
Presumably, they’re unable to feed themselves if there’s no MAN around to buy them dinner, either — the poor dears.
Ah. So anything other than fully funding consequence free fucking at will is a war on women. I’m left with just one question: What are you shooting, toots?
“What are you shooting, toots?”
Marshmallows? Up the kazoo? With an air gun?
Someone should ask her if she’s being shrieky and hysterical in an ironic way.
I think I’ve found her Supreme Commander.
Khameni? Shaking in his turban, I tell ya.
They are? Who does she think Republican men have sex with?
It’s not that sex is sinful or dirty (unless it’s with her, and then it’s more shameful); it’s that I shouldn’t have to pay for her to stop sperm from turning into a baby, particularly if I’m not the one banging her.
She can ask the guy to bring a condom of his own if she doesn’t want to spend the $15 a month.
This has nothing to do with her health. It has to do with her lifestyle, which she wants everyone else to pay for. Always has been.
This is a full-blown war on individual autonomy and individual responsibility, not to mention an attempt to force the government INTO everyone’s uterus.
Ironic, eh?
Paternalist scum and pedestal putter-upper indeed.
But he may have been on to something:
Granted, Bruce is speaking specifically about boys and girls, and not women, but we carry our formative experiences all of our lives. And increasingly it seems that we as a society have come to look upon pregnancy and child-bearing as unnatural instead of as planned or unplanned, which supposedly was the original point.
Something has gone wrong when a so-called women’s rights activist insists on defending the right to treat herself, and expect others to treat her like a piece of plumbing.
Not that she’s going to see it that way.
Who does she think Republican men have sex with?
Why, Handmaids of course.
Those of us too poor to afford the latest model Stepford Wife.
Rick Santorum calls this “No-fault freedom.” (A play on no fault divorce) If I’m not happy with the consequences of my decisions, I’m entitled to a free do-over, and somebody else should have to pick up the tab, because I shouldn’t have to be responsible.
But we can ignore him because he clearly hates sex,
what with the six kids.
Another one who loves to sponge.
You didn’t just make a birth control double-entendre did you geoff?
Anyways, if you think your employer should pick up the cost of your birth control as part of your compensation,
don’t work for a fricken church!
Yes.
Of course the money, which amounts to a pittance, is just the fig leaf used to bitch about what is really all about who controls who, or said another way, “who owns you?”
So when Mandy and Hillary are all nobody owns me, I can do [whom] I want! What they’re really saying is they own us? Wow!.
They might think so but they sold/are selling all our souls to the government store.
That’s like Stage 3, or something like that.
We borrowed an awful lot of many against the future, and there’s not enough future to go around —you wymyns better get crackin on birthin the babies. And to see that you do, we’re takin away your birth control (which we can, since we’re payin for it).
Decided on Cash not Ford.
America’s demise in a nice, outraged nutshell:
No, darlin’. Who was given a fucking job by a hospital or university owned by the Catholic church.
We’re so fucking fucked.
I’m wondering if JFK, as the saying has it these days, “bagged it” and if so, did he use personal funds or POTUS discretionary funds to buy them?
I ask only because the woman, at 19 in 1962, didn’t have many birth control options open to her.
Looks like Baracky’s gonna have to cave to the Pope on this one…
As if the stupidish employees couldn’t notice the “Church” signage tacked just above the front entrance of the building they wanted to work in, or the religious-themed artifacts placed everywhere inside.
Mandy will just have to snap away ineffectually once more, as her titular Leader again comes up sterile. Way to miscarry, BHO, and have to come up all abortive and shit.
Horseshit.
Let’s say my boss is gay and really, really loves anal. He says to me: Slart, let me stuff my sausage into your natural casing, and you get to keep your job in return.
I tell him to stuff it in his own natural casing, he fires me, and (it being the ’60s), I don’t get to sue.
But I remain a virgin, in some places.
If on the other hand I accomodate the guy, he hasn’t raped me. He has abused his power and had inappropriate sexual connotations with a subordinate and probably even violated a statute or two, but he hasn’t raped me.
Choices. You can’t unfuck the Director.
Just another version of the infamous Hollywood casting couch.
Obnoxious, unfair, abuse of power, etc etc … but not rape.
In the beginning, there was rape. It was rape rape, and always involved the use of force or violence to achieve its criminal purpose.
And then one day the government noticed that some reprehensible persons were having sex with minors who were too young to understand what they were consenting to, and the government saw that this was bad. And the government determined that because the minors in question were unable to understand what they were consenting to, therefore by statute said consent must be defined as not to exist, and since at that time the only other form of non-consensual sex known to exist was that obtained by force or violence, or rape, it was decided that the new form of illegal, non-consensual sex should also be known as rape, but defined by statute rather than by the use of force.
And lo, the use of “rape” to describe any and all forms of non-consensual sex quickly morphed into the use of “rape” to describe any sex in which one participant felt in the least disadvantaged, until one day the vagina warriors decreed that all heterosexual activity was by definition “rape” because in a patriarchy all women are disadvantaged.
And no one lived happily ever after.
Re: #69, A cave that isn’t one as far as his aims, see here.
#72 is awesome McGehee; sort of a jurisprudence “Genesis” :)
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2098743/Greg-Kellys-rape-accuser-named-Maria-Di-Toro.html
If she was too blasted to consent, how did they wind up in her boss’ office?
Pablo
Her boyfriend “convinced” her that it HAD to be rape… what, she like stepped out on him intentionally??
Convenient her “not remembering” … keeps her from being charged with false reporting
Yeah, there’s nothing like accusing another man of rape to
keep your boyfriend from finding out you’re two-timing himprotect his feelings. What a gal! 29 going on 17.Darleen, then there’s the steamy texts after the fact….
Perjury is perfectly acceptable BECAUSE OF TEH PATRIARCHY!!!!
I can play feminism too:
Her “consent” was the product of her false consciousness, and therefore no “consent” at all.