Sunday, March 4, 2012

On Rush's Misstep

Warning: Not Politically Correct Content within.

"Rush is mired in an era when sex, especially outside of marriage, indicates some kind of avante-garde, hippie lifestyle. He misses the fact that the timing of childbirth is a discussion nearly all couples engage in, or wish they had."--Kansas City Star editorial

This is it-- why everyone's knickers are in a knot--sex. You see, before contraception was available every time you had sex there was a risk of a baby. There wasn't just a moral imperative to remaining sexually continent there was a practical aspect too. Actions had consequences. Once reliable and easy contraception became available the consequence was unattached from the action. Only the moral imperative stood in the way. In the end, for many, it was not nearly enough and with each succeeding generation the acceptance of the "rightness" of being chaste has been less and less until we come to today, where today's sexually loose lifestyle is regarded as normal by the majority. Those who think otherwise are regarded as odd at best or weird or, amazingly, just WRONG.
Taking a pill is not the only choice for avoiding having a child outside of marriage. There is that old reliable-- choosing not to be sexually active. Not only will the risk of an unwanted pregnancy be removed, so will risks of AIDS, syphilis, herpes, chlamydia, gonorrhea and cancer of the reproductive organs and genitalia. Not to mention skipping all the heart- break that happens by uniting in sex with someone who is not deeply committed to the relationship; when people, especially women, get their hearts broken when they are set aside like dirty socks...
The idea of remaining chaste outside of marriage should not be invalidated just because contraception is available. Finding disagreement with an active sex life is not an opinion just to be mocked or laughed at--being sexually under control is an option that should be considered, even in this day and age of contraception.

Rush Limbaugh was crude when he called Sandra Fluke names. He was wrong to do that. Contraception needs to be available to those who have real medical needs as well as being available for those who want it in this day and age. To me, however, some of the towering outrage is from the question standing behind Rush's objection: the questioning of just how good and right an indiscriminately active sex life is for both the individual and for our society. Some of those who heard that question were outraged that the rightness of their lifestyle choice was under even a little scrutiny.
You throw a stone at a pack of dogs--how can you tell which one got hit? The dog that yelps the loudest.


Super Dave said...

First off Rush is the last person to ever call anyone out on moral questions. But to then go so low as to use name calling is the final blow.

When it comes to sex far as I am concerned it is up to each individual as to how they will deal with it.

So if you are over 18 you should have the right to deal with your body as you deem fit. As well you also have the right to not have me call you any names because I might not like it.

Rush has no right to tell you how or what to do with your body. He can question it I guess if he feels the need to but to accuse anyone of anything that is legal to do only makes him out to be the two face media whore he is. He is far from a perfect person and needs to be reminded of that. If people would stop paying any attention to him and not listen to him he would very quickly be gone and just a bad memory.

The Observer said...

Coercion has never worked when it comes to establishing morals. In the end, it does come down to each person.

Rush has the right to his opinion. We have the right to listen or not, to agree or not. I am perfectly happy to let the marketplace decide about Rush.

The most we can do is to live our lives, and if we find we are happy, to share how we came to find happiness with others. They have the option to join us or not on our journey. While we might not think they have made the best choices, we respect their autonomy. If we are truly good friends, we will stick around to celebrate their successes and/or pick up the pieces of their failures.

I am realistic about humanity's character, but not overly cynical.

Thanks for reading, yes, tomorrow is Monday...

The Observer

Bob G. said...

You used a quote that my late Father ALWAYS said regarding the dogs and the stone...and I love to use it now as well...perfectly described.

Rush might have been a bit brusk in the manner he mentioned this situation (he's not subtle...just like I'm not either). but I do agree with his basic talking points.
I don't like my tax money funding people with no common sense...or self-control...or lack of desire to be something in life.
We ALL either succeed OR fail based on what WE choose to do (or do not do).

Sure, no one's perfect...and never will be (thankfully), because with such imperfection comes the motivation to become BETTER than we were yesterday, and we do that be learning what we did wrong, and trying not to do it again.

I think WE should be in control of that, and not any government program or mandate.

But hey, that's just *my* opinion.

Now, I gotta go toss some rocks into a few packs of dogs...and see who yelps.

Good post.

Stay safe out there.

bill kostar said...

You're absolutely right about wasting tax money on people with no self control. Which is why I want my money back from the kleptomainiacs who run the banks and the plutocrats with the oil companies.
That would be a good start, then we can dismantle the rest of the corporate welfare state piece by piece.
Wonder what Rush thinks about that?