Login is disabled. This forum is read-only.
Imperial Forum → Politics → Rush Limbaugh and the slut comment
No, it makes you a foolish business person. A woman should demand gifts from the men she has sex with. Giving it for free is obviously naive. At the very least, she could demand her partner(s) pay for her birth control as a condition for sex.
oh, so the sophisticated women you sleep with milk you for every penny? /winks at other guys on this forum
Yell,
Human sexuality operates as a market, where men are buyers and women are sellers. It has nothing to do with 'love,' and everything to do with supply and demand.
There's no need to be upset that you can't afford a beautiful woman. If you increase your earnings, you can have bliss too. It's a free market 
.
That or he could wow a woman with his integrity, ethics, religion, and politics.
Maybe, but unlikely. Starting at the price of marriage, the market conditions put downward pressure on the price. This means that women who choose to wait until marriage are out competed by the women with more relaxed standards. They may exist, but for obvious reasons their numbers are few. Secondly, since men who only have 'character' to bring to the table are often single, it's clear women consider such values less valuable than others.
Btw, is it really relevant if she is a slut or not?
this post almost made me spit out my coffee this morning, which almost never happens to me lol
> Einstein wrote:
> The local health center has condoms for free.
If the cute slut can go through all those, and need $3000 more in condoms... well that's some train she does each night.
Hell I used to get condoms when I was married for $0.25 each (variety pack no less) averaged.
She is definitely one ambitious slut.
>>Btw, is it really relevant if she is a slut or not?<<
Yes. If her sexual lifestyle is freakaholic, then our national government should not require her employer to purchase coverage for her sluttiness as a condition of employment.
Because required costs of employment tend to reduce the rate of hiring and perpetuate the unemployment crisis. WHENEVER POSSIBLE, such costs should be reduced.
If she and her slut friends could choose to keep their pants up, or use the rhythm method, then employers should not have to bear the costs when they choose to rut. That would help our national economy.
Although, Yell brings up a good point. It will raise the costs for employers. I'm personally hesitant about sacrificing economic efficiency for equality. I think we have made too much of this trade-off, and I am at the point of saying "STOP!"
However, the issues she brought up were larger than contraception. She mentioned cases where women required contraception for non-contraceptive purposes, where no working alternative existed for them. I can see the logic in that, but I fail to see how this should persuade us to act. The political and economic costs are high, and there is a simple solution: don't attend a Catholic university. This is an issue that should be brought before the pope, not congress.
and then of course the 3rd private-sector solution, called I-Got-A-Man
The Yell, it seems to me you think she has several men, why would she need more?
Sex has been demonstrated to improve mental and physical health. The government should therefore pay for prostitutes. X(
The evidence:
The University she is at covers medical neccessity type stuff. Such as birth control which balances severe hormone issues or other medically neccessary stuff.
She wants free birth control to prevent unwanted pregnancies.
Aka at three grand, she is one expensive ho' 
I don't even think there's an argument here
except to say
what a slut
The Yell, be nice. It's well known that Justinian I has never had sex. Have you seen what he posts? Women scream at the mere mention of his name! Isn't that right, Imperator? 
Justinian I, the market goes both ways. If you were an attractive man, you would notice women vying for your attention and affections similarly [not necessarily in method] to the "buyer" men you reference. I meant to be informative in that it's not a one-sided men-buyer, women-seller dynamic, not to mock you... but I guess it was unavoidable. I think I just did it twice in a row. Sorry.
In your defense, the part about getting more beautiful women by earning more money is spot-on.
Einstein, the number of women attracted to virtue is um.... not what it once was.
Noir:
"Btw, is it really relevant if she is a slut or not?"
I already answered this question. But let's try again and see if you can follow along:
She claimed a certain cost of birth control. To reach that cost would require 50 [penises] in her 20 hours/day. One who engages in such behavior could be described crudely as a "slut."
Seeing as most people don't have the time for that many [penises]--and many object to paying for her, shall we say, "slutty" lifestyle--It's pretty relevant. If she wasn't a slut, it wouldn't cost so much, and she wouldn't have the grounds for her complaints. If she was honest and said she's a 30 year old grad student who can't afford $50 a month for birth control she'd look silly. She lied and claimed to be a mega-slut to buff the birth control cost number up, and thus her mega-slut status is relevant to pointing out she lied and knows her argument looks stupid when framed honestly.
Justinian I:
"She mentioned cases where women required contraception for non-contraceptive purposes, where no working alternative existed for them."
While this statement is literally true, she was not arguing for women in this situation. These women are usually already covered, even willingly by religious institutions which recognize that the "birth control" effect of medication is a side-effect of a legitimate medical treatment for a legitimate medical ailment other than "she's a huge f***ing slut." That these women have a legitimate reason to want "birth control" meds for their non-pregnant condition is not an argument for making others pay for women's birth control... Yet she stupidly spoke as if it was.
Simon:
"Sex has been demonstrated to improve mental and physical health. The government should therefore pay for prostitutes."
On the constitutional grounds argued for the constitutionality of the "Affordable Care Act" and the moral arguments offered in support of it, one could argue that government is _obligated_ to provide prostitutes payed for with tax money.
The problem here is entitlements. Dumb bitch is 30 and in grad school crying about a tiny recreational cost. QQ.
Imperial Forum → Politics → Rush Limbaugh and the slut comment
Powered by PunBB, supported by Informer Technologies, Inc.