Rush Limbaugh: 'No Means Yes If You Know How To Spot It'

[doggie]

he just keeps getting worse.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/1 ... 24582.html

Rush Limbaugh is so sick of the "modern" definition of consent. When a girl says "NO," she actually mean NO. But that's just crazy talk, according to Limbaugh.

"How many of you guys in your own experience with women have learned that 'no' means 'yes' if you know how to spot it?" he asked on "The Rush Limbaugh Show" Monday. "It used to be used as a cliché."

Really? Was it?

Limbaugh then read off Ohio State University's definition of consent, which outlines how two people should behave once they have decided to engage in a sexual relationship. It states that you and your partner must agree to engage in the activity every step of the way, including agreeing on "why" you are doing so. But that just sucks all the fun out of it, Limbaugh said.

"Agreeing on the 'why' takes all the romance out of everything!" he said. "Seduction used to be an art, now of course it's brutish and it's predatory and it's bad."

[louisa05]

Rush needs to go away.

But I do agree that the consent to every step could be rather mood killing and including "why", really? How does that work? "I would like to nuzzle your neck now because I think you might like that, is that agreeable to you?"

Oh, dear.

Spontaneity and exploration in sex is a good thing. Too many layers of explanations and negotiations could really kill that.

[socalrules]

The only seduction involved in rape is in a rapist's twisted mind. I am really tired of "men" talking about rape and trying to find either a justification for it or a way a woman should look at it as a positive experience.

[browncoatslytherin]

i swear his shit is troll-ish, along with ann coulter. my parents used to listen to him all the time, and while i don't remember everything he said, i don't remember him being this outrageous. i stopped listening to him long ago, obviously, but it seems he gets more and more offensive and inflammatory as time goes on. perhaps it's just me, or perhaps it is a pattern. maybe he's afraid he'll fade away and he's fighting to stay relevant in some fashion?

[2xx1xy1JD]

Here's the link to the actual Ohio State University statement on consent.

http://swc.osu.edu/sexual-violence-educ ... t/consent/

Rush is a douche for the "no means yes if you know how to spot it" comment. There is a difference between seduction and coercion. Seduction is getting someone to the point that they say yes. Coercion is ignoring the lack of consent.

That said, I have some issues with the Ohio State definition.

For starters - ableist much? Who the fuck are they to say that nobody with a disability can consent to sex, regardless of what they may say? I really hope that this is just the result of someone failing to proofread, and that they don't actually believe that people with disabilities can be sexual.

Similarly, there is no magic age where everyone stops being sexual. It's ignorant as hell to suggest that someone who is "elderly" cannot legally give consent.

While I'm on this rant - if you are going to talk about times that someone can't LEGALLY give consent, realize that you are talking about laws. Citing the actual law would be helpful. Here's the link to the actual Ohio law:

http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/2907.02

Guess what? It doesn't say that you can never have sex with someone who is disabled or elderly. It says that you can't have sex with them IF THEIR ABILITY TO RESIST OR CONSENT IS SUBSTANTIALLY IMPAIRED because of disability or age. Big difference.

[Firiel]

Agree about the ableist language. It's good the see the actual laws aren't ableist in that way, and I hope the university's ridiculousness is the result of one idiot who just wasn't thinking.

Rush Limbaugh's tirade was ridiculous. He was saying perfectly reasonable things in a tone that revealed he thought they were completely ridiculous.

"[No meaning yes] used to be cliche. It used to be part of the advice young boys were given, but now it's one of the things we need to change. We have got to reprogram the way we raise young men." (indirect quote)

Well, yeah, Rush. We do.

I don't know how I feel about the fact that being in a relationship doesn't change the concept of consent at all, though. I mean, I think non-verbal consent is pretty par-for-the-course in relationships, and I don't really think that's necessarily a bad thing. Different circumstances (EXCEPTIONS :lol: ) like past sexual abuse or something could make that different for an individual relationship, but, well, if a SO and I are ripping each others' clothes off, I think consent is pretty solidly implied/assumed, even if we don't verbalize it...

Then again, they wouldn't have to add the caveat about relationships if assholes didn't rape their SOs, so maybe the understanding is that non-verbal consent will happen and be unreported in healthy relationships.

[jerkit]

I am also on team "relationships change the need for constant consenting/answering "why" etc"

I get the point: just because you're dating someone doesn't mean they have blanket consent. But like Firiel said, I absolutely do not want my husband to stop and ask me "Why am I removing your pants?" Dude, just give me some P in V.

[Firiel]

I am also on team "relationships change the need for constant consenting/answering "why" etc"

I get the point: just because you're dating someone doesn't mean they have blanket consent. But like Firiel said, I absolutely do not want my husband to stop and ask me "Why am I removing your pants?" Dude, just give me some P in V.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Oh gosh, I'm dying over here.

[It'sFunToRun]

Here's the link to the actual Ohio State University statement on consent.

http://swc.osu.edu/sexual-violence-educ ... t/consent/

Rush is a douche for the "no means yes if you know how to spot it" comment. There is a difference between seduction and coercion. Seduction is getting someone to the point that they say yes. Coercion is ignoring the lack of consent.

That said, I have some issues with the Ohio State definition.

For starters - ableist much? Who the fuck are they to say that nobody with a disability can consent to sex, regardless of what they may say? I really hope that this is just the result of someone failing to proofread, and that they don't actually believe that people with disabilities can be sexual.

Similarly, there is no magic age where everyone stops being sexual. It's ignorant as hell to suggest that someone who is "elderly" cannot legally give consent.

While I'm on this rant - if you are going to talk about times that someone can't LEGALLY give consent, realize that you are talking about laws. Citing the actual law would be helpful. Here's the link to the actual Ohio law:

http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/2907.02

Guess what? It doesn't say that you can never have sex with someone who is disabled or elderly. It says that you can't have sex with them IF THEIR ABILITY TO RESIST OR CONSENT IS SUBSTANTIALLY IMPAIRED because of disability or age. Big difference.

I had a teacher who was talking to us about how his father is in a retirement community in Florida, and he had to give his dad the awkward old safe sex talk because STDs were running rampant there with the elderly.

[browncoatslytherin]

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Oh gosh, I'm dying over here.

or t on c, i'm not picky