The Joke’s On The Right: She *IS* A Slut…

… but the Left is demanding that no one be allowed to say so and the Right is bending over, like the empty suits they have become, and taking one for the team.

Somehow it’s become a new universe where we celebrate sluts in parades as the Left demands that we embrace and respect them; they are exercising their rights. We call them what they call themselves in a judgemental or derogatory context, and we’re haters who should lose their livelihoods and be shamed into extinction.

This is going swimmingly, dontchathink? Best of both worlds? Having AND eating your cake? Do as I say, not as I do? Ahh… the beauties of liberalism creep in full and delicious self-serving repose…they’ve got a really nice gig going.

Ordinarily I’d let this nonsense pass by like all the other gibberish & tripe that splashes across the pages of what used to be called “news”. But this latest flap is a developing moment in the history of American culture. Despite the headlines, we are not debating sluts and slut-ology. We are debating the rights, implications, and long-term consequences of modern female sexuality, women’s rights and individual freedoms (personal accountability & personal responsibility having no place in this particular debate, by the way) between the Left and the Right, both sides of which continue to insist they are best suited to speak for the womb.

It’s right that this issue should be considered now… carefully, with diligent and deep reflection (and great cerebral discipline), and that we should all be laser-focused on the matter at hand. Sadly, however, it has instead been smoke-screened and subterfuged, like so many other issues of our time, and has been made into an argument over whether the Democrats should be running things or the Republicans should be.

Instead, this has become about whether a NARAL proxy, with a long and storied past of hard left activism, who (allegedly) picked G-Town as the place for her law degree pursuits as a 30 year old knowing full well the place was ripe for her new battle front; reproductive rights. It’s become about her asking us to suspend our disbelief long enough to consider her (thanks to the entertainer Limbaugh) as a victim now, and accept her word as those of “millions” of other women… those particular millions being the ones who consider killing their babies less important than their having the right to do so.

[break for hysterical laughter... 5 minute intermission if you are so inclined]

See, I’m over 50 and, as such, I grew up in the days when children were called children (not ‘kids’) and children (me) were told there were respectable girls and there were girls that weren’t. We were told there were respectable boys and there were boys that weren’t.

Some of us followed that admonition, others of us? Notsomuch. Now, speaking for myself, as a boy, I longed to find those girls of ill-respect because I had urges and curiosities and longings that I convinced myself needed to be explored. We boys convinced ourselves back then that we would have to learn these lessons in those classes taught by the “other” girls so that, when marriage was to be seriously pursued and embraced, we would be sufficiently trained and at the ready. Or so we convinced ourselves.

Guess how we referred to those girls back then? Although, I shoud add, I would have loved to have had a few more Sandra Flukes being around in my youth… she’s sorta hot, and she doesn’t hold to those now-antiquated and outdated positions of pre-marital celibacy, chastity, or a respectable and dignified state of virginity… she would have said yes.

That was then.

As a result of both the 60′s and the 70′s (and, to a much larger extent, the 90′s)… and in direct response to the emasculation of the male gender overall during these past two and change generations… those lines have been blurred to the point of possessing no real distinction, one from the other. Some call that exciting and liberating… the rest of us call it a damn crying shame. A girl and boy “back in the day” were both expected to hold off on intercourse until they were married; this is the way things were done, and respectable parents (and God-fearing too, I might add… another phrase that has – in the eyes of far too many – been brushed aside as having become “old fashioned) made sure that it happened that way for their children. Except for the exceptions, of course.

Problem is… exceptions have a way of becoming rules given enough time and enough money and enough paid spokespeople (see: Marriage, Gay).

So, in the matter of this Sandra Fluke person, we have a new war once again being fought on the wrong damn battlefield. Now, I’m quite sure this Sandra person is a lovely lady (I did mention earlier that she was sorta hot), filled with energy and enthusiasm… confident in her cause and her self-proclaimed calling to “stand up and speak out for millions of women across America” being victimized by “the man” (warning-the video is an hour long, but if you can stomach it – and Pelosi’s smug and nasty and self-righteous and nasty [did I mention nasty?] face in the background – you should give it a taste). Having said that, however, I can’t help but ask what, to me at least, is the simplest of questions:

If we cant be involved with a woman’s womb in any way, and we cant judge women according to what they choose to do with it, do we really have any business, then, in the matter(s) of paying for whatever becomes of it when she puts it to whatever use she chooses?

I ask this question because all the rave these days is whether or not the Patient-Doctor relationship is superior to any other or whether Government should be involved… just enough… to determine, along WITH that one on one relationship, just exactly what is, and is NOT, necessary.

Fluke’s opening statement is compelling: women she’s talked to that need contraceptive prescriptions for non-pregnancy-preventing medical issues are being denied them because of those fat middle aged white Republican men in Congress who presume to know better what is good for a woman’s medically justified need for birth control contraceptives as used for non-birth-control applications. They are losing ovaries… losing the ability to conceive… losing their wombs and their dignities and are being prevented from access to healthcare that men don’t need… nor appreciate the value of nor the ill effects on the lives of those who are being forced to go without it.

Isn’t it a Federal crime to use prescriptions for other than their intended purpose(s)? [but I digress]

Where Fluke loses well-fought-for ground, and draws the mocking and hyperbole of entertainers (please don’t consider Limbaugh anything other than how he describes himself – AN ENTERTAINER [Bill Maher anyone? Anyone?]), is in this segment (around the 31:54 mark) right after she tells us about a woman whose life is terribly intruded upon because of the lack of a contraceptive prescription which then (the lack of it) causes her to have seizures (hormonal imbalance or something):

I think another impact that it’s really important that we all think about is that contraception, when it first became available, was a revolution in this country. It allowed women to enter employment and educational opportunities that had previously not been accessible because they were unable to control their reproduction in the same way and I just can’t imagine rolling back the clock on that progress.

Unless I’m just being hyper-sensitive, I’d venture Ms. Fluke is suggesting that women, before the days of contraception, had no control over the distance between their knees, and they had no control over their own vocabularies which apparently didn’t include the word “no”.

That is just stunning… she shows no respect for any woman from pre-1960… and she clearly seems to be under the impression that, before her own time, women had no control over any aspect of their bodies or their lives. Such a grand graduate of the FemiNazi school of thought…

But wait – she’s not done.

At the end of that sentence, Rep. Elijah Cummings (Democrat) says this:

Again, I see my time is up but thank you very much. I think you’ve done a great service for many many women. And men by the way.

To which she replies, with a sexy little smile and a twinkle in her eye:

I hope so. And I can tell you that my male partner is certainly one of those men who is very supportive of this policy, and I know there are many other men out there.

Well no kidding, sugar. If you girls get the contraceptives part covered, then we men don’t need to have our parts covered. Sheesh.

Look…the bottom line here is this. The base problem with “SlutGate 2012″ is that, by any version of the definition of that word in the last 50 years or more, she IS a slut (NTTAWWT in this day and age). At hand is the issue of whether it’s any longer acceptable to consider the behavior in a negative light… or accept that it is everyone else’s responsibility to pay money to protect her from the consequences of her freely chosen series of sexual activities which many of the rest of the payors would absolutely not have made for themselves.

In the matter of true medical health, it would be a far greater service to women to reclassify (or sub-classify) the drugs in a way as to not have to debate whether they are being used to avoid the consequences of slutty behavior exercising their rights to do whatever the hell they choose with their uteruses.

In the matter of claiming the right to have sex, willy nilly, while expecting other members of the insured group(s) or the American Taxpayer to foot the bill? Well, she should pay for her own shit and take personal responsibility for her own actions. If not, we should be able to tell her (like we do vicariously through helmet and seatbelt laws, for example) when, whether, and how she can proceed in a manner we all collectively consider acceptable… and at low enough risk that we don’t ALL have to pay more for our own shit.

Addendum: Let’s take a look at the background of the 3L student only trying to help…and speak up for women who can’t otherwise speak up for themselves (source here):

Sandra Fluke

Sandra Fluke’s professional background in domestic violence and human trafficking began with Sanctuary for Families in New York City. There, she launched the agency’s pilot Program Evaluation Initiative. While at Sanctuary, she co-founded the New York Statewide Coalition for Fair Access to Family Court, which after a twenty-year stalemate, successfully advocated for legislation granting access to civil orders of protection for unmarried victims of domestic violence, including LGBTQ victims and teens. Sandra was also a member of the Manhattan Borough President’s Taskforce on Domestic Violence and numerous other New York City and New York State coalitions that successfully advocated for policy improvements impacting victims of domestic violence.

As the 2010 recipient of the Women Lawyers Association of Los Angeles Fran Kandel Public Interest Grant, she researched, wrote, and produced an instructional film on how to apply for a domestic violence restraining order in pro per. She has also interned with the Coalition to Abolish Slavery & Trafficking; Polaris Project; Neighborhood Legal Services of Los Angeles County; Break the Cycle; the Domestic Violence Legal Empowerment and Appeals Project; NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund; Crime Victim and Sexual Assault Services; and the Human Services Coalition of Tompkins County.

Through Georgetown’s clinic programs, Sandra has proposed legislation based on fact-finding in Kenya regarding child trafficking for domestic work, and has represented victims of domestic violence in protection order cases. Sandra is the Development Editor of the Journal of Gender and the Law, and served as the President of Law Students for Reproductive Justice, and the Vice President of the Women’s Legal Alliance. In her first year, she also co-founded a campus committee addressing human trafficking. Cornell University awarded her a B. S. in Policy Analysis & Management, as well as Feminist, Gender, & Sexuality Studies in 2003.

#JustSayin’…