Rush Limbaugh: Women Who Want Birth Control Are Sluts

[Tekania]

Jon Stewart on Rush's comments and more

I loved that one... especially his pseudo-jizzing in his pants wanting the video of the doctor explaining the health and overall financial benefits in covering birth control pills.

[Wikkiwallana]

That's...why, that's almost...human. And we all know that can't be right. Women are alien creatures made of sugar and spice and that weird blue liquid they use in the maxi pad commercials.

I believe the technical term for that is "Chemical X".

Chemical X is clearly black. Do your research, man.

[Poorisolation]

Its amazing to me how many men resist the notion that women...enjoy sex.

I do not resist it. I believe that anybody who utilizes sexual activity in the absence of love is engaging in a masturbatory endeavor, which I perceive as less noble, less beautiful, and less worthy than a relationship based on something more meaningful than physical pleasure. That's my opinion. I consider a slut, male or female, anybody who participate in sexual activity devoid of emotions. Essentially, to me, a slut is somebody who turns it into something masturbatory. Yes, it's pleasurable. I understand that, but you shouldn't expect me to consider pleausre as something necessarily ethical or good. Especially not as ethical or good as actual passions.

No, they figure something must be wrong with women, not with them. It's women who think, something must be wrong with me.

This does differ from person to person. Both men and women have feelings of inadequacy about sexual intercourse, and both men and women can choose to believe that something is wrong with the opposite sex.

Oh my word what a lot of ignorance dressed up in a vague effort to make it sound reasonable while still pouring forth bile.

A lot of women take the contraceptive pill without any intention of having sex with anyone. It is just more pleasant to able to know when to take sanitary precautions and/or be able to warn your friends in advance you are going to be a moody bitch rather than having to guess "Am I on a twenty two cycle this time around, a twenty eight day one, a thirty-four day one or any number in between?" not to mention that it can sort out heavy periods in some women or period associated cramps or....the list really does go on and I am a mere by stander not an expert.

As to the whole sex for fun is masturbation argument, very, very few people have sex for masturbatory purposes, your hands do not expect you to dress up for dinner or buy dinner or make small talk or worry about their feelings. If a women decides to have sex with you it suggests most likely that she actually likes you at least a little, either that or you are incredibly hot and almost no one I ever met objected to be told they were incredibly hot.

Now while of course it may be different for you, most people I have met worry about about the experience of the other person, the same is true for the vast majority who whose have written down their experiences of sex and that I have read their accounts. That hardly strikes me as masturbatory behaviour.

As to the whole "has to be for love" fig leaf, well the fact that most people still get married within their own economic class and not to random people they happened to spend most of their time talking to rather suggests that marriage is not always contracted for the sole purpose of love. Indeed I would go further and suggest that many people who talk of love have A) never experienced it and B) conflate love with desire, maybe the subset of desire that "I desire they love me" but still desire rather than love.

Love has been defined as the importance of that other person's happiness being important to your own or even more important to you than your own. I am sure there are many others but the point is that love is a giving emotion not a taking one and I struggle to be able to believe that someone who would call another human being a slut on the mere suspicion they might enjoy pleasure is capable of much giving.

[Evraim]

I do not resist it. I believe that anybody who utilizes sexual activity in the absence of love is engaging in a masturbatory endeavor, which I perceive as less noble, less beautiful, and less worthy than a relationship based on something more meaningful than physical pleasure. That's my opinion. I consider a slut, male or female, anybody who participate in sexual activity devoid of emotions. Essentially, to me, a slut is somebody who turns it into something masturbatory. Yes, it's pleasurable. I understand that, but you shouldn't expect me to consider pleausre as something necessarily ethical or good. Especially not as ethical or good as actual passions.


This does differ from person to person. Both men and women have feelings of inadequacy about sexual intercourse, and both men and women can choose to believe that something is wrong with the opposite sex.

Oh my word what a lot of ignorance dressed up in a vague effort to make it sound reasonable while still pouring forth bile.

A lot of women take the contraceptive pill without any intention of having sex with anyone. It is just more pleasant to able to know when to take sanitary precautions and/or be able to warn your friends in advance you are going to be a moody bitch rather than having to guess "Am I on a twenty two cycle this time around, a twenty eight day one, a thirty-four day one or any number in between?" not to mention that it can sort out heavy periods in some women or period associated cramps or....the list really does go on and I am a mere by stander not an expert.

As to the whole sex for fun is masturbation argument, very, very few people have sex for masturbatory purposes, your hands do not expect you to dress up for dinner or buy dinner or make small talk or worry about their feelings. If a women decides to have sex with you it suggests most likely that she actually likes you at least a little, either that or you are incredibly hot and almost no one I ever met objected to be told they were incredibly hot.

Now while of course it may be different for you, most people I have met worry about about the experience of the other person, the same is true for the vast majority who whose have written down their experiences of sex and that I have read their accounts. That hardly strikes me as masturbatory behaviour.

As to the whole "has to be for love" fig leaf, well the fact that most people still get married within their own economic class and not to random people they happened to spend most of their time talking to rather suggests that marriage is not always contracted for the sole purpose of love. Indeed I would go further and suggest that many people who talk of love have A) never experienced it and B) conflate love with desire, maybe the subset of desire that "I desire they love me" but still desire rather than love.

Love has been defined as the importance of that other person's happiness being important to your own or even more important to you than your own. I am sure there are many others but the point is that love is a giving emotion not a taking one and I struggle to be able to believe that someone who would call another human being a slut on the mere suspicion they might enjoy pleasure is capable of much giving.

Pardon me?

I was not commenting on birth control in the least. In fact, I'm not opposed to individuals purchasing and using it, especially if they do not yet possess the responsibility or desire to raise children. It's sensible, in fact. This really isn't much of a discussion because you assumed that I oppose birth control, which as a matter of course I do not. I do, however, believe that companies and insurance providers ought to be able to negotiate what coverage is provided to people purchasing and/or using their services/plans/etc.

Once again, you do not appear to comprehend my opinion on the subject of discussion. First, I ought to clarify that the term "masturbation" applies to purposeful sexual stimulation of any kind for the purpose of pleasure alone. Sexual intercourse without passions qualifies as mutual masturbation, nothing more. Certainly, you aren't arguing that people can never engage in such activity? Individuals who hire prostitutes are doing it rather plainly. "Hooking up" can also qualify if no sincere emotions exist between the people doing it. Also, sleeping with somebody because they're attractive would qualify. It's essentially objectification of another individual for your own pleasure. Until you genuinely have developed an attachment, I consider it preferable to eschew physical intimacy.

What are their motives? That does affect the situation. Also, what about the people who do not write or tell you about it? What about the people who view it as "conquest"? We're looking at two different things entirely. I do not doubt that sexual intercourse can be meaningful and go beyond mutual masturbation, but I was arguing that having sex with only pleasure is not the ideal situation.

Once again, you're simplyfing things. We're not discussing marriage. In fact, I oppose marriage as anything more than a symbolic and/or spiritual gesture. I also believe that if you're going to utilize marriage for anything, you ought to be certain that you love the other person. I presume you're suggesting that I've never loved anybody? Interesting. Or were you going onto a tangent issue? My definition of love is complex and based on various spiritual and philosophical ideals and my own emotions.

I disagree with the application of your definition of love. A desire to please one's sexual partner by itself is not necessarily an indicator of love, and you should know that this is a blatant fact. Also, applyg a word to individuals who engage in specific activities which I find unsavory does not disqualify me from anything. On the most basic level, a slut is an individual who engages in promiscuous sex. Promiscuous is an adjective which describes casual sex. Casual sex, by definition, does not involve love in any meaningful way.

[Central Slavia]

You know, I never quite understood why the hell are they so much against birth control.
More availability of it means , among other, that less of those people who bloody can't keep themselves out of each others pants won't have children, which means there's less likelihood of their kids being misraised and growing up as criminals, which means less likelihood of crime.
For fuck's sake ,if I was a millionary conservative, i'd be all for birth control being free.

[Evraim]

You know, I never quite understood why the hell are they so much against birth control.
More availability of it means , among other, that less of those people who bloody can't keep themselves out of each others pants won't have children, which means there's less likelihood of their kids being misraised and growing up as criminals, which means less likelihood of crime.
For fuck's sake ,if I was a millionary conservative, i'd be all for birth control being free.

Religion.

Now, I feel like one of those anti-theists from whom I always defend Catholicism.

[Grave_n_idle]

Oh my word what a lot of ignorance dressed up in a vague effort to make it sound reasonable while still pouring forth bile.

A lot of women take the contraceptive pill without any intention of having sex with anyone. It is just more pleasant to able to know when to take sanitary precautions and/or be able to warn your friends in advance you are going to be a moody bitch rather than having to guess "Am I on a twenty two cycle this time around, a twenty eight day one, a thirty-four day one or any number in between?" not to mention that it can sort out heavy periods in some women or period associated cramps or....the list really does go on and I am a mere by stander not an expert.

As to the whole sex for fun is masturbation argument, very, very few people have sex for masturbatory purposes, your hands do not expect you to dress up for dinner or buy dinner or make small talk or worry about their feelings. If a women decides to have sex with you it suggests most likely that she actually likes you at least a little, either that or you are incredibly hot and almost no one I ever met objected to be told they were incredibly hot.

Now while of course it may be different for you, most people I have met worry about about the experience of the other person, the same is true for the vast majority who whose have written down their experiences of sex and that I have read their accounts. That hardly strikes me as masturbatory behaviour.

As to the whole "has to be for love" fig leaf, well the fact that most people still get married within their own economic class and not to random people they happened to spend most of their time talking to rather suggests that marriage is not always contracted for the sole purpose of love. Indeed I would go further and suggest that many people who talk of love have A) never experienced it and B) conflate love with desire, maybe the subset of desire that "I desire they love me" but still desire rather than love.

Love has been defined as the importance of that other person's happiness being important to your own or even more important to you than your own. I am sure there are many others but the point is that love is a giving emotion not a taking one and I struggle to be able to believe that someone who would call another human being a slut on the mere suspicion they might enjoy pleasure is capable of much giving.

Pardon me?

I was not commenting on birth control in the least. In fact, I'm not opposed to individuals purchasing and using it, especially if they do not yet possess the responsibility or desire to raise children. It's sensible, in fact. This really isn't much of a discussion because you assumed that I oppose birth control, which as a matter of course I do not. I do, however, believe that companies and insurance providers ought to be able to negotiate what coverage is provided to people purchasing and/or using their services/plans/etc.

Once again, you do not appear to comprehend my opinion on the subject of discussion. First, I ought to clarify that the term "masturbation" applies to purposeful sexual stimulation of any kind for the purpose of pleasure alone. Sexual intercourse without passions qualifies as mutual masturbation, nothing more. Certainly, you aren't arguing that people can never engage in such activity? Individuals who hire prostitutes are doing it rather plainly. "Hooking up" can also qualify if no sincere emotions exist between the people doing it. Also, sleeping with somebody because they're attractive would qualify. It's essentially objectification of another individual for your own pleasure. Until you genuinely have developed an attachment, I consider it preferable to eschew physical intimacy.

What are there motives? That does affect the situation. Also, what about the people who do not write or tell you about it? What about the people who view it as "conquest"? We're looking at two different things entirely. I do not doubt that sexual intercourse can be meaningful and go beyond mutual masturbation, but I was arguing that having sex with only pleasure is not the ideal situation.

'Ideal situation?' What are you talking about?

The 'ideal situation' in human sexuality is.... well, human sexuality.

You - personally - might need to attach romance to sexuality, but you shouldn't assume that applies to anyone else. And I'm saying that as someone who has always insisted 'sincere emotion' in my relationships. The only 'ideal' situation you can really speak to, is what would be 'ideal' for you... and it should be self-evident that what is good for you, applies to... well, you.

[Poorisolation]

Oh my word what a lot of ignorance dressed up in a vague effort to make it sound reasonable while still pouring forth bile.

A lot of women take the contraceptive pill without any intention of having sex with anyone. It is just more pleasant to able to know when to take sanitary precautions and/or be able to warn your friends in advance you are going to be a moody bitch rather than having to guess "Am I on a twenty two cycle this time around, a twenty eight day one, a thirty-four day one or any number in between?" not to mention that it can sort out heavy periods in some women or period associated cramps or....the list really does go on and I am a mere by stander not an expert.

As to the whole sex for fun is masturbation argument, very, very few people have sex for masturbatory purposes, your hands do not expect you to dress up for dinner or buy dinner or make small talk or worry about their feelings. If a women decides to have sex with you it suggests most likely that she actually likes you at least a little, either that or you are incredibly hot and almost no one I ever met objected to be told they were incredibly hot.

Now while of course it may be different for you, most people I have met worry about about the experience of the other person, the same is true for the vast majority who whose have written down their experiences of sex and that I have read their accounts. That hardly strikes me as masturbatory behaviour.

As to the whole "has to be for love" fig leaf, well the fact that most people still get married within their own economic class and not to random people they happened to spend most of their time talking to rather suggests that marriage is not always contracted for the sole purpose of love. Indeed I would go further and suggest that many people who talk of love have A) never experienced it and B) conflate love with desire, maybe the subset of desire that "I desire they love me" but still desire rather than love.

Love has been defined as the importance of that other person's happiness being important to your own or even more important to you than your own. I am sure there are many others but the point is that love is a giving emotion not a taking one and I struggle to be able to believe that someone who would call another human being a slut on the mere suspicion they might enjoy pleasure is capable of much giving.

Pardon me?

I was not commenting on birth control in the least. In fact, I'm not opposed to individuals purchasing and using it, especially if they do not yet possess the responsibility or desire to raise children. It's sensible, in fact. This really isn't much of a discussion because you assumed that I oppose birth control, which as a matter of course I do not. I do, however, believe that companies and insurance providers ought to be able to negotiate what coverage is provided to people purchasing and/or using their services/plans/etc.

Once again, you do not appear to comprehend my opinion on the subject of discussion. First, I ought to clarify that the term "masturbation" applies to purposeful sexual stimulation of any kind for the purpose of pleasure alone. Sexual intercourse without passions qualifies as mutual masturbation, nothing more. Certainly, you aren't arguing that people can never engage in such activity? Individuals who hire prostitutes are doing it rather plainly. "Hooking up" can also qualify if no sincere emotions exist between the people doing it. Also, sleeping with somebody because they're attractive would qualify. It's essentially objectification of another individual for your own pleasure. Until you genuinely have developed an attachment, I consider it preferable to eschew physical intimacy.

What are there motives? That does affect the situation. Also, what about the people who do not write or tell you about it? What about the people who view it as "conquest"? We're looking at two different things entirely. I do not doubt that sexual intercourse can be meaningful and go beyond mutual masturbation, but I was arguing that having sex with only pleasure is not the ideal situation.

Once again, you're simplyfing things. We're not discussing marriage. In fact, I oppose marriage as anything more than a symbolic and/or spiritual gesture. I also believe that if you're going to utilize marriage for anything, you ought to be certain that you love the other person. I presume you're suggesting that I've never loved anybody? Interesting. Or were you going onto a tangent issue? My definition of love is complex and based on various spiritual and philosophical ideals and my own emotions.

I disagree with the application of your definition of love. A desire to please one's sexual partner by itself is not necessarily an indicator of love, and you should know that this is a blatant fact. Also, applyg a word to individuals who engage in specific activities which I find unsavory does not disqualify me from anything. On the most basic level, a slut is an individual who engages in promiscuous sex. Promiscuous is an adjective which describes casual sex

. Casual sex, by definition, does not involve love in any meaningful way.

I do love the careful caveat....you would be surprised at how much of the sex you define as casual and promiscuous does indeed involve such concepts as love and compassion and a whole range of complexity of purpose from the highest of aspirations to the lowest. Of course you will always describe the sex had by people you choose to disapprove as lacking meaning as I said anyone who would accuse of someone of being a slut on the suspicion of enjoying pleasure will never understand love, platonic love as much as any other kind will always remain beyond them save as a mere word to be misused.

I note and really there is little else that needs to be noted that despite all the attempt to once again create an illusion of reason you conclude with a paragraph once again trying to justify the use of the word "slut", I on the other hand would hold that the word is probably never justifiable in either political debate or as a serious assessment of a person's character and if it is then only by a person who has a deep and intimate knowledge of that person's character and motivations. Certainly I feel that no person of moral dignity would even contemplate using that word of a person they did not know.

[Azivegu]

recemtly the vatican approved the usage of contraceptives for nuns. Not because they dont want to get pregnate, but because it helps keep their hormones in check and reduces the chance of cancer.

BTW, saying that you have to pay more for every time you have sez is ridiculous. contraceptive pills are somthing you have to sustain, to keep up. Miss a single day, then you have to start all over again. So saying someone is a slut, because she works for less then minimum wage, pays for housing, food, insurrance, school andcontraceptives is just down right wrong.
If we arent able to give up 0.01 cents of our salary to pay for the health benefits of millions of women, then we are just a downright, egoistic selfsish nonsensical nation, and we should be ashemed of it. This is a repeat of the republican congress man that voted against First Responder Healthcare (for the people that started the rescue right after the twin towers collapsed, risking their lives in the bitter hope to just save a single soul and for doing so have respritory problems and cancer the rest of their lives) because it would cost the tax payer less then 1 cent.
Ridiciulous. We have got to stop being so egoistic and remember, we arent Americans because of the individual, but because of the whole.

I would gladly pay an extra $5 if i could help these women (and im a guy who has little direct benefit from this) live a better, healthier and more socially open life.

[Evraim]

I do love the careful caveat....you would be surprised at how much of the sex you define as casual and promiscuous does indeed involve such concepts as love and compassion and a whole range of complexity of purpose from the highest of aspirations to the lowest. Of course you will always describe the sex had by people you choose to disapprove as lacking meaning as I said anyone who would accuse of someone of being a slut on the suspicion of enjoying pleasure will never understand love, platonic love as much as any other kind will always remain beyond them save as a mere word to be misused.

I note and really there is little else that needs to be noted that despite all the attempt to once again create an illusion of reason you conclude with a paragraph once again trying to justify the use of the word "slut", I on the other hand would hold that the word is probably never justifiable in either political debate or as a serious assessment of a person's character and if it is then only by a person who has a deep and intimate knowledge of that person's character and motivations. Certainly I feel that no person of moral dignity would even contemplate using that word of a person they did not know.

How so? You also mistook my intentions in defining what a slut is. Or would you claim that no such thing exists? For example, the definition of G-d does not necessitate the existence of G-d, does it? Then, certainly, I welcome you to disprove the existence of sluts. I do believe that you're attaching the connotations of the word with its denotations, which although possibly inevitable, does not mean that inhibitions about the significance of the latter ought to entirely supercede the former in characterizing something. I do agree that the denotations and how society perceives individuals has led to "sluts" being seen in a negative light, but the fact of the matter is that anybody engaging in casual sex is a slut- by definition, for better or for worse, whether I call them by that name or not. Why is it immoral to use this word precisely? What makes its mere existence immoral? Do explain.

'Ideal situation?' What are you talking about?

The 'ideal situation' in human sexuality is.... well, human sexuality.

You - personally - might need to attach romance to sexuality, but you shouldn't assume that applies to anyone else. And I'm saying that as someone who has always insisted 'sincere emotion' in my relationships. The only 'ideal' situation you can really speak to, is what would be 'ideal' for you... and it should be self-evident that what is good for you, applies to... well, you.

I was refering to emotional attachment. I consider it ideal for a number of reasons. I feel that the commitment that comes with a lasting relationship offers much more than casual sex ever could. You may very well disagree for a variety of reasons, but we're both being rather obscure about our ideals, emotions, and experiences- which may be for the better in this forum. I do not know as of yet whether my ideal of sexuality as tied to love is more beneficial for other people. I know that it worked for me, and I know that I disapprove of hedonism as a system of ethics because pleasure does not inherently equal virtue and the calculus associated with it is only entirely reliable after the fact.

[Freelanderness]

I do love the careful caveat....you would be surprised at how much of the sex you define as casual and promiscuous does indeed involve such concepts as love and compassion and a whole range of complexity of purpose from the highest of aspirations to the lowest. Of course you will always describe the sex had by people you choose to disapprove as lacking meaning as I said anyone who would accuse of someone of being a slut on the suspicion of enjoying pleasure will never understand love, platonic love as much as any other kind will always remain beyond them save as a mere word to be misused.

I note and really there is little else that needs to be noted that despite all the attempt to once again create an illusion of reason you conclude with a paragraph once again trying to justify the use of the word "slut", I on the other hand would hold that the word is probably never justifiable in either political debate or as a serious assessment of a person's character and if it is then only by a person who has a deep and intimate knowledge of that person's character and motivations. Certainly I feel that no person of moral dignity would even contemplate using that word of a person they did not know.

How so? You also mistook my intentions in defining what a slut is. Or would you claim that no such thing exists? For example, the definition of G-d does not necessitate the existence of G-d, does it? Then, certainly, I welcome you to disprove the existence of sluts. I do believe that you're attaching the connotations of the word with its denotations, which although possibly inevitable, does not mean that inhibitions about the significance of the latter ought to entirely supercede the former in characterizing something. I do agree that the denotations and how society perceives individuals has led to "sluts" being seen in a negative light, but the fact of the matter is that anybody engaging in casual sex is a slut- by definition, for better or for worse, whether I call them by that name or not. Why is it immoral to use this word precisely? What makes its mere existence immoral? Do explain.

'Ideal situation?' What are you talking about?

The 'ideal situation' in human sexuality is.... well, human sexuality.

You - personally - might need to attach romance to sexuality, but you shouldn't assume that applies to anyone else. And I'm saying that as someone who has always insisted 'sincere emotion' in my relationships. The only 'ideal' situation you can really speak to, is what would be 'ideal' for you... and it should be self-evident that what is good for you, applies to... well, you.

I was refering to emotional attachment. I consider it ideal for a number of reasons. I feel that the commitment that comes with a lasting relationship offers much more than casual sex ever could. You may very well disagree for a variety of reasons, but we're both being rather obscure about our ideals, emotions, and experiences- which may be for the better in this forum. I do not know as of yet whether my ideal of sexuality as tied to love is more beneficial for other people. I know that it worked for me, and I know that I disapprove of hedonism as a system of ethics because pleasure does not inherently equal virtue and the calculus associated with it is only entirely reliable after the fact.

I missed the part where someone claimed you to be the expert on other people's motivations and relationships.

[Cameroi]

in a sane culture, there wouldn't even BE a rush limbo.

[Tekania]

Even more so I fail to see how people's motivations as to an act would be relevant to fulfillment of the prescription written by a doctor.

[Tekania]

in a sane culture, there wouldn't even BE a rush limbo.

yes there would.... it's merely rather than peddling his crap on the radio... his crap would get peddled between medication times, to his invisible pet grasshopper "Sam".

[Evraim]

How so? You also mistook my intentions in defining what a slut is. Or would you claim that no such thing exists? For example, the definition of G-d does not necessitate the existence of G-d, does it? Then, certainly, I welcome you to disprove the existence of sluts. I do believe that you're attaching the connotations of the word with its denotations, which although possibly inevitable, does not mean that inhibitions about the significance of the latter ought to entirely supercede the former in characterizing something. I do agree that the denotations and how society perceives individuals has led to "sluts" being seen in a negative light, but the fact of the matter is that anybody engaging in casual sex is a slut- by definition, for better or for worse, whether I call them by that name or not. Why is it immoral to use this word precisely? What makes its mere existence immoral? Do explain.


I was refering to emotional attachment. I consider it ideal for a number of reasons. I feel that the commitment that comes with a lasting relationship offers much more than casual sex ever could. You may very well disagree for a variety of reasons, but we're both being rather obscure about our ideals, emotions, and experiences- which may be for the better in this forum. I do not know as of yet whether my ideal of sexuality as tied to love is more beneficial for other people. I know that it worked for me, and I know that I disapprove of hedonism as a system of ethics because pleasure does not inherently equal virtue and the calculus associated with it is only entirely reliable after the fact.

I missed the part where someone claimed you to be the expert on other people's motivations and relationships.

I never spoke about an ability to gain insights into other people's motivations and relationships. I made a simple statement on what I believed to be optimal based on rather simple ethical premises and my own experiences. I find it rather gratifying that I've garnered so much attention by suggesting that having love together with sex is a better idea than having sex by itself, and furthermore providing definitions for a word cited in the original post of this thread.

[Grave_n_idle]

I was refering to emotional attachment. I consider it ideal for a number of reasons. I feel that the commitment that comes with a lasting relationship offers much more than casual sex ever could.

Different things. It's like saying that a cookie is bad for you because it's not a balanced meal. Well, sure it's not a balanced meal. It's just a cookie. It doesn't pretend to be a balanced meal, or serve the same purpose.

You may very well disagree for a variety of reasons, but we're both being rather obscure about our ideals, emotions, and experiences- which may be for the better in this forum.

I'm not being at all obscure. For me, I've only ever actually gotten involved where I had a real emotional attachment, but that's just because that's the way I am. I wouldn't dream of expecting anyone else to conform to my ideals.

I do not know as of yet whether my ideal of sexuality as tied to love is more beneficial for other people.

I'd say it's pretty obvious that it could be entirely the opposite, sometimes. People get involved in longterm 'passion' relationships that end up destructive or just deadening BECAUSE they tie sexuality to 'love'. So they marry for 'love', have a honeymoon period of 'passion', and then end up married to someone they never should have married.

Those people would definitely have been better served by considering sexuality and love to be things that are optionally linked, not inherently linked.

I know that it worked for me, and I know that I disapprove of hedonism as a system of ethics because pleasure does not inherently equal virtue and the calculus associated with it is only entirely reliable after the fact.

Pleasure does not inherently equal virtue... but that's not necessarily the point.

Me, I'm not a pure hedonist - I have obligations I have to meet. I have a family, and I have things I need to do that means it CAN'T be 'all about me' or the pure pursuit of pleasure.

But, on the other hand, the pursuit of pleasure is very much a part of the human condition and - unlike a lot of other things about humans - there's no inherent wrong about it. Eat things that are delicious, drink things that bubble up your nose and make you smile, enjoy your flesh - it's temporary - and love a lot. There's no harm, there.

[Poorisolation]

I missed the part where someone claimed you to be the expert on other people's motivations and relationships.

I never spoke about an ability to gain insights into other people's motivations and relationships. I made a simple statement on what I believed to be optimal based on rather simple ethical premises and my own experiences. I find it rather gratifying that I've garnered so much attention by suggesting that having love together with sex is a better idea than having sex by itself, and furthermore providing definitions for a word cited in the original post of this thread.

No you have garnered attention for attempting to justify the use of a pejorative. As each of your attempts to justify said term prove unfounded you simply move on to a new line of attack or claim to be speaking of something else.

"Slut" is a pejorative description of people who engage in sex acts in a manner or for a reason that you disapprove of. Interestingly though you have not denied it is a pejorative description that may be used of people who might engage in sex acts in a manner or for a reason that you disapprove of without be required to prove they did so or even the lesser requirement to provide evidence they have or may be considering doing so. This is your opportunity should you wish to take it to withdraw from holding or being seen to hold at this time either or both the above positions.

Now I will declare that I do not have the moral authority to judge the acts of others and so consider the word slut to be solely a pejorative. I do not feel it that it should be used in polite discourse in the public arena, between friends in private is always different.

[Evraim]

I was refering to emotional attachment. I consider it ideal for a number of reasons. I feel that the commitment that comes with a lasting relationship offers much more than casual sex ever could.

1.) Different things. It's like saying that a cookie is bad for you because it's not a balanced meal. Well, sure it's not a balanced meal. It's just a cookie. It doesn't pretend to be a balanced meal, or serve the same purpose.

You may very well disagree for a variety of reasons, but we're both being rather obscure about our ideals, emotions, and experiences- which may be for the better in this forum.

2. I'm not being at all obscure. For me, I've only ever actually gotten involved where I had a real emotional attachment, but that's just because that's the way I am. I wouldn't dream of expecting anyone else to conform to my ideals.

I do not know as of yet whether my ideal of sexuality as tied to love is more beneficial for other people.

3.) I'd say it's pretty obvious that it could be entirely the opposite, sometimes. People get involved in longterm 'passion' relationships that end up destructive or just deadening BECAUSE they tie sexuality to 'love'. So they marry for 'love', have a honeymoon period of 'passion', and then end up married to someone they never should have married.

Those people would definitely have been better served by considering sexuality and love to be things that are optionally linked, not inherently linked.

I know that it worked for me, and I know that I disapprove of hedonism as a system of ethics because pleasure does not inherently equal virtue and the calculus associated with it is only entirely reliable after the fact.

4.) Pleasure does not inherently equal virtue... but that's not necessarily the point.

Me, I'm not a pure hedonist - I have obligations I have to meet. I have a family, and I have things I need to do that means it CAN'T be 'all about me' or the pure pursuit of pleasure.

But, on the other hand, the pursuit of pleasure is very much a part of the human condition and - unlike a lot of other things about humans - there's no inherent wrong about it. Eat things that are delicious, drink things that bubble up your nose and make you smile, enjoy your flesh - it's temporary - and love a lot. There's no harm, there.

1.) True enough. Although, unless your partner(s) agree it probably wouldn't be advisable to pursue both options at once. I do adore the cookie metaphor, by the way. It lightens the mood.

2.) I do not expect others to conform to my ideas. It's certainly a choice. I tend to perceive the types of relationships I described as preferable though. So long as what you're doing it isn't illegal or in violation of basic ethical standards such as do not murder others with a pickle to the eye.

3.) It is possible. I am tentative about my beliefs, and am willing to change them if I am proven wrong. Of course, this problem stems from love's subjectivity. It is an emotion after all, and those can change. However, it seems as though it would be hard to form a romantic relationship without risking something terrible happen. There's also the fact that loneliness could affect those who only go after non-committed and/or casual relations with other people. There are harsh possibilities either way, really. I would say that the majority of people happen to mix these practices to a varying extent.

I suppose I should explain why I'm so determined to link sexuality with love. I view sexuality as an expression of love. You may think it naive certainly, but I think that if it is viewed as a source of pleasure only then you risk using other people to meet your own interests. They become a means rather than an end. By viewing sexuality as a gesture of affection it becomes the means to attaining an end, which is expressing your sentiments to the other person.

4.) True enough. My problem is when hedonism infringes on other forms of ethics. Additionally, hedonism doesn't have to be selfish- at least not applying its general definition of any ethical philosophy based on a calculus of weighing pleasures and pains. You can apply this too the general population, but that seems arbitrary as well. Being a hedonist is a rather complex business.

[Wesibaden]

Its funny how you guys are raging about this when he totally didn't mean it like that

He just ment with obamacare the TAX PAYERS have to pay for birth control FOR women who want it

[Grave_n_idle]

Its funny how you guys are raging about this when he totally didn't mean it like that

He just ment with obamacare the TAX PAYERS have to pay for birth control FOR women who want it

Actually, I don't care about his political arguments at all.

If I'm raging, it's that Limbaugh apparently believes that the amount of sex you have influences how often you have to take The Pill, and yet with that level of 'expertise' he decides to appoint himself the expert. If I'm raging, it's because Limbaugh believes it's a legitimate strategy to attack the arguer instead of the argument. It's that he chooses to call a woman a slut and a prostitute for having an opinion.

[Neutraligon]

Its funny how you guys are raging about this when he totally didn't mean it like that

He just ment with obamacare the TAX PAYERS have to pay for birth control FOR women who want it

Which is entirely untrue. The employers will have to pay for the insurance which in turn must provide the birth control. Tax Payers have nothing to do with it.

[Poorisolation]

Its funny how you guys are raging about this when he totally didn't mean it like that

He just ment with obamacare the TAX PAYERS have to pay for birth control FOR women who want it

Actually, I don't care about his political arguments at all.

If I'm raging, it's that Limbaugh apparently believes that the amount of sex you have influences how often you have to take The Pill, and yet with that level of 'expertise' he decides to appoint himself the expert. If I'm raging, it's because Limbaugh believes it's a legitimate strategy to attack the arguer instead of the argument. It's that he chooses to call a woman a slut and a prostitute for having an opinion.

I would merely second this

[Evraim]

No you have garnered attention for attempting to justify the use of a pejorative. As each of your attempts to justify said term prove unfounded you simply move on to a new line of attack or claim to be speaking of something else.

"Slut" is a pejorative description of people who engage in sex acts in a manner or for a reason that you disapprove of. Interestingly though you have not denied it is a pejorative description that may be used of people who might engage in sex acts in a manner or for a reason that you disapprove of without be required to prove they did so or even the lesser requirement to provide evidence they have or may be considering doing so. This is your opportunity should you wish to take it to withdraw from holding or being seen to hold at this time either or both the above positions.

Now I will declare that I do not have the moral authority to judge the acts of others and so consider the word slut to be solely a pejorative. I do not feel it that it should be used in polite discourse in the public arena, between friends in private is always different.

Multiple individuals are discussing different things, and I feel inclined to point out that initially you did attempt to counter my argument related to sexuality and romance. You have never, as a matter of fact, attempted to suggest a valid reason that one should refrain from utilizing the word other than that it is a paticularly nasty pejorative. As a matter of fact, I, myself, would not imagine uttering anything of the kind in a polite discussion, regardless of my feelings on the matter. However, you did not make an argument. You accused me of being immoral because of my thoughts on a particular subject and then failed to explain why.

Wrong. I've provided a rather valid definition of the word, which you may glance at in previous posts and extrapolated that on the basis of that definition an individual who has sex only for pleasure would be classified as such using a strict definition of the term. I never claimed to know any particular persons motives. I merely made a statement which stands on its own weight because it is semantic. A slut is anybody who chooses to have casual sex, regardless of motivations. People under duress do not count, nor do those who do not have casual sex. You may dispute the notion that pleasure can stand by itself as motivation for sex, but you have yet to do that. Only one part of my argument is entirely subjective. The term slut is defined and refers to definitive actions when strictly defined.

Really? What is your opinion of murder? Stealing? Smoking? Eating meat? Certainly, you have opinions on whether activities are better or worse. Somebody has to possess moral authority, even if it is illusory. The alternatives are not particularly pleasant.

[Tekania]

Its funny how you guys are raging about this when he totally didn't mean it like that

He just ment with obamacare the TAX PAYERS have to pay for birth control FOR women who want it

Personally I wish more medical coverage was handled via taxes... a National healthcare system would be nice. But frankly that is a side issue, and not related to this one. We're talking about (and this issue is dealing with) people who do in fact have health insurance. But whose employers or schools are attempting to deny coverage via the supplied policies the employees/students are paying into to certain types of medication [BC pills] (indeed even when it's being used to actual treat a debilitating condition not even related to attempting to control pregnancy risks) on "moral grounds".

Combine this with the fact of equating frequency of sex with frequency of pill consumption (which is really nothing more than a humorous side note to really show how little this idiot really knows about things) and it just becomes one sad vat of humorous bullshit hat we've come to expect and ridicule this moron for.

[Poorisolation]

No you have garnered attention for attempting to justify the use of a pejorative. As each of your attempts to justify said term prove unfounded you simply move on to a new line of attack or claim to be speaking of something else.

"Slut" is a pejorative description of people who engage in sex acts in a manner or for a reason that you disapprove of. Interestingly though you have not denied it is a pejorative description that may be used of people who might engage in sex acts in a manner or for a reason that you disapprove of without be required to prove they did so or even the lesser requirement to provide evidence they have or may be considering doing so. This is your opportunity should you wish to take it to withdraw from holding or being seen to hold at this time either or both the above positions.

Now I will declare that I do not have the moral authority to judge the acts of others and so consider the word slut to be solely a pejorative. I do not feel it that it should be used in polite discourse in the public arena, between friends in private is always different.

Multiple individuals are discussing different things, and I feel inclined to point out that initially you did attempt to counter my argument related to sexuality and romance. You have never, as a matter of fact, attempted to suggest a valid reason that one should refrain from utilizing the word other than that it is a paticularly nasty pejorative. As a matter of fact, I, myself, would not imagine uttering anything of the kind in a polite discussion, regardless of my feelings on the matter. However, you did not make an argument. You accused me of being immoral because of my thoughts on a particular subject and then failed to explain why.

Wrong. I've provided a rather valid definition of the word, which you may glance at in previous posts and extrapolated that on the basis of that definition an individual who has sex only for pleasure would be classified as such using a strict definition of the term. I never claimed to know any particular persons motives. I merely made a statement which stands on its own weight because it is semantic. A slut is anybody who chooses to have casual sex, regardless of motivations. People under duress do not count, nor do those who do not have casual sex. You may dispute the notion that pleasure can stand by itself as motivation for sex, but you have yet to do that. Only one part of my argument is entirely subjective. The term slut is defined and refers to definitive actions when strictly defined.

Really? What is your opinion of murder? Stealing? Smoking? Eating meat? Certainly, you have opinions on whether activities are better or worse. Somebody has to possess moral authority, even if it is illusory. The alternatives are not particularly pleasant.

Pleasure is in my opinion a perfectly valid reason for sex but all I wanted to see was if offered the opportunity to do so you would conceded the need for any kind of evidence before calling someone a slut. I would also have hoped that you might come to recognise that under any circumstances calling someone a slut is morally dubious behaviour on the part of the speaker. It would still appear you do not so good day to you.