Subsidizing promiscuity

I’m going to make a few observations about the Limbaugh kerfuffle.

i) I don’t listen to Limbaugh. I’m only aware of what he says when he’s quoted by a conservative pundit or I see a clip of him on a news outlet.

ii) I did skim through a transcript of what he said, although I didn’t read the whole thing:

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2012/03/01/left_freaks_out_over_my_fluke_remarks

He does come across as a typecast male chauvinist pig in this transcript.

iii) As someone whose life ambition is to advance the conservative cause, Rush needs to avoid expressing himself in ways which are apt to backfire. Which give ammo to the opposition.

By the same token, Rush also needs to avoid fomenting controversies that put conservative candidates on the defensive.

iv) If you talk all the time, sooner or later you’re bound to say something you will regret.

For those reasons I think Rush merits criticism. That said, there’s another side to this issue:

v) He was using an argument from analogy: if somebody wants to have his (or her) sexual promiscuity subsidized by someone else, that’s analogous to prostitution.

Well…isn’t there some truth to that analogy?

Limbaugh also makes the valid point that if a single woman wants to have safe sex, why doesn’t she ask the guy to buy her contraception? Isn’t that between consenting adults?

vi) Is it sexist to single out the coed? To begin with, she singled herself out by speaking before Congress.

vii) More to the point, the reason we’re debating “free” contraception for women is because Obama’s policy is sexist. If women are entitled to “free” contraception, why aren’t men entitled to “free” contraception? Why isn’t the liberal media offended by the blatantly sexist bias of Obama’s policy?

viii) Suppose this had been a discussion about men rather than women? Suppose a male college student complained about how expensive contraception was for men? Suppose Limbaugh had called the male student a “gigolo” or “callboy.” Would there be the same outrage? I doubt it.

ix) I also doubt promiscuous singles are all that sensitive about inappropriate language. We live in a time when many women drop F-bombs right and left. A time when many Americans who can’t name the Attorney General or the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court can name every cast member of Jersey Shore.

x) Feminism itself promotes “slutty” behavior by both sexes. What about unisex locker rooms at Ivy League universities? What About "Sex Week" at Yale? What about The Vagina Monologues on many college campuses? Or consider this article:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/28/fashion/after-class-skimpy-equality-motherlode.html?_r=3&adxnnl=1&hpw=&pagewanted=print&adxnnlx=1331038981-97jnIbRkWp2Ze9ZuYLc1Ug

x) Finally, one might argue, from a Christian standpoint, that there ought to be some differences in how men treat men, men treat women, women treat men, and women treat women. Men and women are not interchangeable.