"Jane, you ignorant slut!"

[Necron2.0]

Recently, someone misrepresented as an average college coed testified before a completely unofficial Congressional committee (in the US). She expressed outrage that her school's healthcare would not pay the contraception costs for someone like her to have sex four times a day, seven days a week, for three straight years (no breaks, no days off). A national talk-show host has gotten in hot water for suggesting that someone having that much sex just might be a slut.

Well, I recognize the word carries a lot of emotional baggage with it, but if we can put that aside and think purely analytically, how much sex would someone (anyone - male or female) have to have on a daily basis to be classified as a slut?

The only point of reference I have is Gene Simmons, who has characterized himself as a slut in documentary interviews. He's on record as having "slept" with over 5000 women. If we assume he turned "good boy" after hooking up with his wife (yeah, right), that means his prowling days were from 1971 to 1983. That still only puts him at 417 sexual encounters per year, as opposed to the 1389 encounters an "average" Georgetown coed is supposed to be having. Kinda makes you go, "Hmmmm."

[eldargal]

Contraceptive pills are actually used to treat a whole lot of medical conditions in addition to their obvious uses as birth control. Just because someone is taking them every day doesn't mean they are a slut.

[Psychosplodge]

That's fairly easily done between two people with enough sex drive, would probably be more difficult if she was having to find a new partner everytime....

[wittdooley]

I'd rather have someone that was smart enough to get into Georgetown making babies than the welfare suckers that are presently making them in abundance in the US.

[Grenadier]

Hey Witt, I see you're in Cincinatti. Been there a couple of times. Scary place!


Ok, so there are some legitimate medical reasons for a woman to use contraceptives for something other than preventing pregnancy. That's a given. But still, that student's sense of entitlement is disgusting. The fact remains is plenty of women only use them to prevent pregnancies and have no other medical reason for using them. And, in these cases women should not turn to the government to pay for her having sex.

As for Rush Limbaugh calling her a slut I say this: no big deal. So what? He used a dirty word. I personally don't think he should have called her that. And I disagree with using such hateful language towards any woman, even liberal women. But so what? I give him a pass anyway.

And why do I give him a pass for this? Simple: where is all the outrage when Bill Maher called Sarah Palin the dreaded C word? Or when any other Conservative or Republican woman is hit with similar abusive words by mysoginistic comments by liberal media figures. Michelle Malkin, Anne Coulter, Sarah Palin, Andrea Tantaros, S.C. Cupp, and plenty of women on the right have had such words hurled at them by liberal media figures. And nobody steps up to defend these women. Recently Kirsten Powers, a liberal democrat and stategist actually pointed out this hypocritical double standard. Kudos to her for actually calling her side out on this bogus outrage.

[Necron2.0]

Contraceptive pills are actually used to treat a whole lot of medical conditions in addition to their obvious uses as birth control.

I am aware, but then it wouldn't cost anything near $1000 per year.

That's fairly easily done between two people with enough sex drive, would probably be more difficult if she was having to find a new partner everytime....

I disagree. I admit there would be no problem at all with two people going at it four to seven times a day for the first two or three months of a relationship, but that would get old fast, no matter how wild it was. Eventually it'd either slow down, or those involved would need to seek other partners and we're right back to the "S" word.

----

I should point out that this whole tempest in a teapot is one huge, monumental joke. The "coed" in question is a stooge, and an obvious one at that. She's a thirty year old reproductive rights activist who is known to have enrolled at Georgetown simply to cause trouble. When she tried to get into an official congressional hearing on contraception she was barred because she couldn't be vetted as an authentic witness - meaning they saw right through her. So, Pelosi decided to waste time and taxpayer dollars in the committee she chairs to hold her own unofficial and utterly pointless hearing, where the ONLY speaker allowed was the stooge, and there would be no rebuttal, no fact checking, no cross examination.

Of course, Rush and his ilk were all raging idiots, because they fell for it. They should have let the circus pass them by. Instead they lent it credibility by commenting on it. Stupid, stupid, stupid.

[eldargal]

Well the pill I'm on I'm supposed to take every day, I've no idea how much it costs. I'd imagine it could cost a lot more in America with your lack of medical subsidies and whatnot.

I do agree the whole issue is silly, though.

[Psychosplodge]

I disagree. I admit there would be no problem at all with two people going at it four to seven times a day for the first two or three months of a relationship, but that would get old fast, no matter how wild it was. Eventually it'd either slow down, or those involved would need to seek other partners and we're right back to the "S" word.

----

Maybe for you
No thinking about it seriously the odds of both partners wanting it four times a day and being able to schedule the time for it. I've probably got a skewed perspective as generally only see the other half at the weekend...

[MaltonNecromancer]

Well, I recognize the word carries a lot of emotional baggage with it, but if we can put that aside and think purely analytically, how much sex would someone (anyone - male or female) have to have on a daily basis to be classified as a slut?

Okay, let me ask you:

Can we "put that aside and think purely analytically", ignoring the " emotional baggage" of a word like n***er? how about the one that starts with "c" and rhymes with "punt"?

WORDS HAVE EMOTIONAL BAGGAGE ATTACHED! YOU CANNOT PUT THAT BAGGAGE ASIDE!

I mean really?

Really?

You actually want to try and come up with some statistical measure of exactly how bad a person is because of how promiscuous they are? I mean, come on, that's pretty nasty.

If someone wants to sleep around, then frankly, fair enough. You sleep with them and get emotionally attached and your heart broken? That's your fault for being a poor judge of character. If they cheat on you, they're not bad because they're sleeping around - they're bad because they're a liar and a traitor.

The act of sex has no inherent negative value. It's the lies told that are the issue. I have a very pleasant polyamorous friend who has slept with what can only be described as a positively heroic number of people. They have done this because they really, reaaaally enjoy ******s. Is it emotionally healthy?

Why should I care, I'm not in an intimate romantic relationship with them! It's not my damn place to care, nor is it anyone else's.

As for free contraceptives? I couldn't care less. Frankly, anything that stems the rise of STI's is fine with me. We have them in the UK and it works up to a point here.

Frankly, this silly girl's comment seems like one of those typical things that shows up in the tabloids for no other purpose than to enrage the tin-hat brigade who don't bother looking any deeper than a shocking soundbite.

[Grenadier]

I almost spewed my coffee onto my screen reading that.

"The act of sex has no inherent negative values." The funniest thing I've read on this forum to date.