Limbaugh on consent: the liberals want rape police!!!!

[Underseer]

Those evil, evil liberals will stop at nothing to take our freedom away! Any moment now, they after going to send the rape police after us and send people to jail just for having sex without their precious, stupid consent! [/Conservolibertarian]

Look, I knew when the Donald Trump tape was released that it's not just Donald Trump. I knew it because Republicans are constantly making comments about rape that range from creepy to awful, but Limbaugh has reached a new level of awful. He is actually attacking the idea of consent itself, and even lamenting the fact that peeked can be punished for having sex without consent.

Every time I think rightists (both conservatives and libertarians, as if the distinction matters) have gone as low as they can possibly go, they surprise me.

The barrel truly has no bottom.

I suppose we should thank Trump for proving that once and for all.

 

[fast]

This is yet another example where intentional misinterpretation rears its ugly head. Maybe it should be called disinterpretation. I don't mean the original poster but rather the commentators.

First, he is espousing the view that while conservatives do in fact hold consent as a necessary condition for sexual interaction, unlike conservatives, liberals also espouse consent as a sufficient condition. In other words, both conservatives and liberals hold consent as a necessary condition while liberals but not conservatives hold consent as a sufficient condition.

Second, he isn't denying that police shouldn't be called for rape which lacks consent. He's pointing out that it's merely consent and absolutely nothing else that matters to liberals. There's no level of couth, for instance, when assessing whether certain behaviors are wrong. (I'm expounding, not espousing)

 

[Arctish]

This is yet another example where intentional misinterpretation rears its ugly head. Maybe it should be called disinterpretation. I don't mean the original poster but rather the commentators.

First, he is espousing the view that while conservatives do in fact hold consent as a necessary condition for sexual interaction, unlike conservatives, liberals also espouse consent as a sufficient condition. In other words, both conservatives and liberals hold consent as a necessary condition while liberals but not conservatives hold consent as a sufficient condition.

Second, he isn't denying that police shouldn't be called for rape which lacks consent. He's pointing out that it's merely consent and absolutely nothing else that matters to liberals. There's no level of couth, for instance, when assessing whether certain behaviors are wrong. (I'm expounding, not espousing)

So was Limbaugh bemoaning the lack of Sex Police, or was he just bitching because Liberals have stolen his mantle of Champion of Freedom with their 'consent is what matters most' sloganeering?

 

[zorq]

This is yet another example where intentional misinterpretation rears its ugly head. Maybe it should be called disinterpretation. I don't mean the original poster but rather the commentators.

First, he is espousing the view that while conservatives do in fact hold consent as a necessary condition for sexual interaction, unlike conservatives, liberals also espouse consent as a sufficient condition. In other words, both conservatives and liberals hold consent as a necessary condition while liberals but not conservatives hold consent as a sufficient condition.

Second, he isn't denying that police shouldn't be called for rape which lacks consent. He's pointing out that it's merely consent and absolutely nothing else that matters to liberals. There's no level of couth, for instance, when assessing whether certain behaviors are wrong. (I'm expounding, not espousing)

Yes, this is his argument. But he didn't really give any indication that he actually values consent personally. He is saying that conservatives may be willing and eager to send people to prison for consensual same-sex kissing, consensual 3-ways, consensual pre-marital sex, consensual oral sex, consensual anal-sex, consensual non-missionary-style sex, or consensual sex using birth control. To some conservatives, any or all of these things should carry governmental punishments. That's what he's saying. Of course, if you want to talk subjective moral relativism, try getting a room full of conservatives to agree on exactly which of the above should and shouldn't be punished.

I think he just got wrapped up in demonizing liberals with his smarmy voice work and smarmied up the wrong sentence. But on face value it sure sounded like he has a problem with sending in the police when there is non-consensual sexual activity. But I really don't know where he was going with his whining about liberals and their insistence on getting consent.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

I didn't know that brainless, blovating carcass was still alive.

 

[repoman]

Is he helping feed the grievances of people past their sexual prime who can't pull two girls for a freaky night and get jealous of those guys?

So they think these good looking bastards are getting so many girls and they do immoral things, so if I get rapey with the rare woman who will only hang out with me platonically I am still superior to guys with a lot of sex?

You would think that republicans could come to terms with life and opportunities not being fair. Sexual opportunities are absolutely not "fair".

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

He seems to have left out the word "adults" in consenting adults.

 

[Angry Floof]

He seems to be whining that he and his ilk don't get to decide what is couth among consenting adults. Liberals challenge rape culture, while conservatives perpetuate and protect it and at the same time want to judge consenting adults on what they do in their sex lives.

Waaaaaah! Liberals won't let us define rape in a way that appeals to knuckledragging misogynists while shaming liberals for their views on staying out of consenting adults' sex lives.

 

[ksen]

I didn't know that brainless, blovating carcass was still alive.

There's always tomorrow.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Perhaps Rush Limbaugh just hasn't experienced the joy of being grabbed in the pussy?

 

[Sarpedon]

Since rape is a crime, aren't the ordinary police the rape police?

 

[DrZoidberg]

Since rape is a crime, aren't the ordinary police the rape police?

Makes me think of the debate in Sweden to make human trafficking illegal. Some politicians politely pointed out that we don't need special laws against it, since we already have other laws that cover this kind of crime fine. They were stuck having to defend why they were "for" trafficking. And of course had to back down. And now we have a redundant law against trafficking.

 

[Derec]

Since rape is a crime, aren't the ordinary police the rape police?

Makes me think of the debate in Sweden to make human trafficking illegal. Some politicians politely pointed out that we don't need special laws against it, since we already have other laws that cover this kind of crime fine. They were stuck having to defend why they were "for" trafficking. And of course had to back down. And now we have a redundant law against trafficking.

Not only that, but the Swedish feminazis defined all sex work as "trafficking" and all sex workers as "victims" no matter the reality of the matter. That in turn curtailed freedoms of consenting adults, both sex workers and their customers.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Makes me think of the debate in Sweden to make human trafficking illegal. Some politicians politely pointed out that we don't need special laws against it, since we already have other laws that cover this kind of crime fine. They were stuck having to defend why they were "for" trafficking. And of course had to back down. And now we have a redundant law against trafficking.

Not only that, but the Swedish feminazis defined all sex work as "trafficking" and all sex workers as "victims" no matter the reality of the matter. That in turn curtailed freedoms of consenting adults, both sex workers and their customers.

Well... not unique for Sweden. In the most of the world prostitution is illegal. I think the shift from woman from evil seductress (which is the norm) to victim is minor. The former is blatantly misogynistic and not cool. But neither is the later. The fact that prostitution is illegal at all is the problem. No matter the retarded excuse used to keep it illegal.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

This is yet another example where intentional misinterpretation rears its ugly head. Maybe it should be called disinterpretation. I don't mean the original poster but rather the commentators.

First, he is espousing the view that while conservatives do in fact hold consent as a necessary condition for sexual interaction, unlike conservatives, liberals also espouse consent as a sufficient condition. In other words, both conservatives and liberals hold consent as a necessary condition while liberals but not conservatives hold consent as a sufficient condition.

Second, he isn't denying that police shouldn't be called for rape which lacks consent. He's pointing out that it's merely consent and absolutely nothing else that matters to liberals. There's no level of couth, for instance, when assessing whether certain behaviors are wrong. (I'm expounding, not espousing)

But if the left ever senses and smells that there's no consent in part of the equation then here come the rape police.

Of course here come the rape police--sex acts without consent are rape!

 

[fast]

But if the left ever senses and smells that there's no consent in part of the equation then here come the rape police.

Of course here come the rape police--sex acts without consent are rape!

What else would a nonconsensual kiss be? Oh, and a nonconsensual booby touch is and should be treated as rape in the Genghis Khan degree?

Any hoots, I recognize that he could have better worded what he did, but don't let an "of course" retort give free reign to alter the meaning of what's said. Some may say it's suggestive that he might hold room for cases of nonconsensual sex that isn't rape, but suggestive language is not equivalent to a logical implication. The whole point behind what he said can be gleaned by evaluating the context; that is, by considering what was said before and after the statement.

The strong emphasis is on singularity of thought by liberals that ONLY consent matters (and thus NOTHING ELSE matters). That doesn't mean that conservatives find it unimportant; of course it's important ... but that's not the point he is driving at. The issue is that there are more things to be concerned with, things that liberals could care a wit about. Again, (expounding, not espousing).

 

[Underseer]

This is yet another example where intentional misinterpretation rears its ugly head. Maybe it should be called disinterpretation. I don't mean the original poster but rather the commentators.

First, he is espousing the view that while conservatives do in fact hold consent as a necessary condition for sexual interaction, unlike conservatives, liberals also espouse consent as a sufficient condition. In other words, both conservatives and liberals hold consent as a necessary condition while liberals but not conservatives hold consent as a sufficient condition.

Second, he isn't denying that police shouldn't be called for rape which lacks consent. He's pointing out that it's merely consent and absolutely nothing else that matters to liberals. There's no level of couth, for instance, when assessing whether certain behaviors are wrong. (I'm expounding, not espousing)

Wow. That was an impressive bit of gymnastics! Did you actually believe what you said, or were you just hoping the rest of us would be dumb enough to fall for it?

Why don't you go into more detail and explain to us what Limbaugh's big concern about "rape police" was? Exactly what is it about liberals that is so horrible that Limbaugh is now afraid we are going to send "rape police" after people?

 

[Arctish]

This is yet another example where intentional misinterpretation rears its ugly head. Maybe it should be called disinterpretation. I don't mean the original poster but rather the commentators.

First, he is espousing the view that while conservatives do in fact hold consent as a necessary condition for sexual interaction, unlike conservatives, liberals also espouse consent as a sufficient condition. In other words, both conservatives and liberals hold consent as a necessary condition while liberals but not conservatives hold consent as a sufficient condition.

Second, he isn't denying that police shouldn't be called for rape which lacks consent. He's pointing out that it's merely consent and absolutely nothing else that matters to liberals. There's no level of couth, for instance, when assessing whether certain behaviors are wrong. (I'm expounding, not espousing)

Wow. That was an impressive bit of gymnastics! Did you actually believe what you said, or were you just hoping the rest of us would be dumb enough to fall for it?

Why don't you go into more detail and explain to us what Limbaugh's big concern about "rape police" was? Exactly what is it about liberals that is so horrible that Limbaugh is now afraid we are going to send "rape police" after people?

I think fast is right about Limbaugh's intent. I think Limbaugh was trying to say that consent isn't the only thing that determines whether a sex act is moral. But instead of making a thoughtful, cogent argument on behalf of social norms, he decided to use his Scary Voice and Liberal Boogeyman shtick and wound up sounding like he thinks consent is a liberal hobbyhorse that only stupid people care about.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Wow. That was an impressive bit of gymnastics! Did you actually believe what you said, or were you just hoping the rest of us would be dumb enough to fall for it?

Why don't you go into more detail and explain to us what Limbaugh's big concern about "rape police" was? Exactly what is it about liberals that is so horrible that Limbaugh is now afraid we are going to send "rape police" after people?

I think fast is right about Limbaugh's intent. I think Limbaugh was trying to say that consent isn't the only thing that determines whether a sex act is moral. But instead of making a thoughtful, cogent argument on behalf of social norms, he decided to use his Scary Voice and Liberal Boogeyman shtick and wound up sounding like he thinks consent is a liberal hobbyhorse that only stupid people care about.

Actually, I suspect the real answer is something else entirely: Rush Limbaugh is extremely factually challenged, I think this was one of his Swiss cheese arguments attempting to defend His Flatulence.

 

[Angry Floof]

Thank goodness these bloviating bags of pig shit are dying out. The younger generation has its share of this mentality, but they have a much better chance of evolving.