Hey, everybody! Rush Limbaugh has issued a gracious apology for his attacks on Sandra Fluke, the Georgetown law student who testified before congress on the costs of birth control. Here it is:
For over 20 years, I have illustrated the absurd with absurdity, three hours a day, five days a week. In this instance, I chose the wrong words in my analogy of the situation. I did not mean a personal attack on Ms. Fluke.
After a long paragraph in which he basically repeats his original argument about birth control, such as it was, this time without directly referencing Fluke, he continues:
My choice of words was not the best, and in the attempt to be humorous, I created a national stir. I sincerely apologize to Ms. Fluke for the insulting word choices.
Uh, “I chose the wrong words in my analogy of the situation???”
“My choice of words was not the best??”
Here’s what he originally said:
So Miss Fluke, and the rest of you Feminazis, here’s the deal. If we are going to pay for your contraceptives, and thus pay for you to have sex. We want something for it. … We want you post the videos online so we can all watch.
He also called her a “prostitute.”
So let me rewrite that for you, with some nicer words this time:
So my dearest Miss Fluke, and the rest of those who share a love of feminism and the tenets of National Socialism, I would like to present to you a most intriguing proposition: If we are called upon to help finance your purchase of medical treatment and/or various and sundry items designed to prevent pregnancy, and thus to provide financial support to you as you make sweet, tender non-procreative love with your beloved, we humbly request something in return for our investment. To wit, we would like you to memorialize your lovemaking in video format, and for you to graciously place this video tribute on the Internet so we may share in the pleasure of enjoying these tender moments.
Oh, and instead of “prostitute,” why not refer to her as a “courtesan?”
Yeah, that’s not really any better. (And for some reason you still think taxpayers are paying for birth control, when in fact the issue is insurance coverage.)
In an attempt to be humorous, I would like to suggest to you, Mr. Limbaugh, that you stuff your apology up your ass, you worthless piece of shit.
I do not, of course, mean that as a personal attack.
Bwa ha HA!
See, now, I want a socialist hat.
Nice to see other men fighting misogyny! Great blog.
That’s not how science works. You have a statistically significant result. It means little-to-nothing in the context of a single person.
I know cis men as rule, I think that actually goes without saying, but still, I find it curious that some of those men who gnash their teeth over the dirty, dirty sluts having “consequence free sex” are also the same people who rail against any consequences for cis men, like child support. In other words, the only people who should not have any consequences is them, and it’s totally unfair that women can have that advantage too.
I think it also shows a lack of imagination their part – there are many ways to have sex that don’t involve putting parts into other parts that will result in pregnancy. Even PIV sex doesn’t always lead to pregnancy. There are many factors involved with sperm and egg meeting and then implanting and the process doesn’t always work. All birth control does is drastically lower the chance of that happening. I think it’s strange to assume that EVERY TIME someone has PIV sex, a pregnancy WILL happen.
It becomes a moot point once a woman reaches menopause, as she’s no longer reproductive. Somehow, though, I can’t really see them getting up in arms over all those older sluts who don’t need to take anything to slut it up, probably because they don’t find older women sexy, even though there’s a high rate of STDs among older people/elderly because they’re not worried about pregnancy and probably forgot to think about condoms for STDs.
And Starskita, I’m sorry to hear about that. I hope it happens for you.
Oh, okay. It would be homophobic to criticize him for being gay and out, because then he’d be one of the good queers. However, if he’s closeted, he’s one of the bad, misbehaving queers, so it’s fair game. You’re right, that’s not homophobic at all.
/raging sarcasm
What a doucheapotamus. (Hey, I just invented a new word!) As far as I know, many medical insurance plans in the U.S. cover Viagra. Interesting. I am sure that these people believe that only married women should be permitted to have sex, and only for procreational purposes. And only when they still possess the requisite “sexual market value.” Those over 50 should be lined up and shot or, at the very least, rounded up and confined to convents, because they are too “old and ugly” to be of any use to the world. (I am sure that they thought that 60-plus, still beautiful Meryl Street winning the Oscar for Best Actress was an evil feminazi plot.) I could go on and on, but I am afraid I will have an aneurism. And I don’t have medical insurance. Because this is the only developed nation in the world that doesn’t offer a public health plan. That would make us a dreaded “socialist” country. GRRRRR!!!!!!!
WTF no more mr.nice guy, care to stop speculating on other people’s sexuality? Its utterly irrelevant and offensive.
I speculate he is a closet gay not a normal gay!!! therefore he is bad?????
Anyway, the “Rush Limbaugh is totally gay *giggles uncontrollably*” hypothesis doesn’t really explain how he could never have discussed hormonal birth control with any of his wives, because the idea that he didn’t have sex ever with any of them is realllllly unlikely, whether he’s gay or not. I’d say it’s more likely that none of the cis women he’s ever had sex with were using hormones and were instead relying on other methods, but even that seems pretty far-fetched given how widely it is prescribed.
Also the media plays a part in the concept of sex for women should lead to pregnancy. If you look at films like Knocked-Up and Juno, Lifetime Movies or shows like16 and Pregnant where the good, non-slutty women are to get pregnant as a consequence of sex. It’s mainly the slutty or bad women who don’t get “punished” with a baby. So this might feed into their beliefs.
@NMMNG
A dick is a dick, regardless of sexual orientation. What he does in his personal life is his business. There’s no need to stoop to his level and start poking around his bedroom. Further, if you’re not gay yourself then you need to back off, you have no business being in this argument.
Also, the 1996 study dealt with physical arousal, which is different from sexual orientation or romantic feelings. All sorts of things can affect your involuntary blood flow. Hell, some people have orgasms when they’re being raped, and that doesn’t mean that they wanted it or they were enjoying themselves. So no, the study doesn’t “prove” that some homophobes are closeted gay or bisexual; it demonstrated that they experienced increased penile blood flow when watching gay porn.
Also the media plays a part in the concept of sex for women should lead to pregnancy. If you look at films like Knocked-Up and Juno, Lifetime Movies or shows like16 and Pregnant where the good, non-slutty women are to get pregnant as a consequence of sex. It’s mainly the slutty or bad women who don’t get “punished” with a baby. So this might feed into their beliefs.
“Might” feed into their beliefs? It completely does! A lot of sexist/racist/homophobic etc. assumptions are perpetuated by mainstream media.
BTW a cute picture of Limbaugh I just found. XD
Proflowers just suspended advertising. Sweet.
http://twitpic.com/8s1mbc
@ No MOre Mr. Nice Guy: studies like the one you cite are not predictive, so lay the hell off.
Rush Limbaugh is a misognistic, woman-hating, dick, period.
Okay, what the hell is going on here today?
Rush Limbaugh is not an asshole because of who he likes to screw.
Rush Limbaugh is not an asshole because of the size of his waistband.
Rush Limbaugh is not an asshole for any reason other than the hateful, bigoted, asshole things he says. Okay?
This bullshit is giving me a headache.
I just want to second what Cassandra, Holly, and Viscaria said about the homophobia issue.
Thirding what Cassandra, Holly , Viscaria and darksidecat said.
It is the content of Rush Limbaugh’s character that is the problem with him, not looks or anything innate, like orientation.
His ideas are garbage and his actions and words are cruel and evil.
Fourthing. Fat-shaming is never ok.
And I don’t get why “ha ha he’s secretly gay” is said with such relish (putting aside for a moment why it’s stupid to say it in the first place.) If someone is so deeply closeted that they use homophobia to support their denial, that is a terribly sad thing. It’s something to be pitied, and something to be fought against by countering the homophobia in our culture, not something to be ridiculed or used as some kind of weird trump card in arguments.
Fifthing, and adding that “lol he’s fat and gay!” is as good as a tacit admission that you don’t actually have any substantive criticisms of him. Isn’t there enough material to work with in his words and actions?
If I may add to “concentrate on what matters and don’t be offensive”…
Let’s compare:
Rush Limbaugh’s:
– Fat,
– possibly gay,
– Publicly says that woman who fight for the pill is a nazi and that he should have access to the tape of her having sex.
Rick Santorum:
– Slim,
– Apparently not gay,
– Publicly says that aborting your rape-pregnancy is a sin and that marrying you same-sex partner is like bestiality. (random example)
What is worth attacking in these scumbags? Is it not the same thing?
I can understand the anger against closeted gays who are non-closeted homophobs. They are hypocrites who can afford non-equal rights thanks to wealth privilege. That doesn’t make wild speculations ok, same thing for hurting them with their sexual orientation (not the same thing as hurting them with their hypocrisy) and outing them is, morally, a very foggy issue.
In this case, I’m puzzled how Limbaugh’s orientation could be relevant since it’s not even about homophobia at all.
David, I thoroughly enjoyed your rewrite. It’s right up there with Lawrence O’Donnell’s rewriting in the same-titled segment of his show. Of course, they are not as literally a rewrite as yours, but the intent is more or less the same.
Either way, it made me giggle.
As regards Mr. Limbaugh’s “apology” — I’m not buying it. I think Rachel Maddow’s assertion that you’ve built your livelihood on shock and provocation is spot on, and you meant every word, if for no other reason than to get exactly what you got — the ire raised of those who disagree with you. Even when you mean to shock and offend, there are lines that should not be crossed; common-sense decency. Your “bargain” with Ms. Fluke crossed that line.
Have a good day, Mr. Limbaugh, and I hope more sponsors pull their ads from your show.
So Rush wants to put the entire responsibility on men to carry condoms at all times?
Just wanted to chime in my agreement that there are so many–so many– things wrong with Limbaugh that it is baffling that people chose to pick on the two things–being fat and possibly gay– that aren’t wrong with him. It’s like accusing Ann Coulter of being trans–you’re implicitly saying that this is a bad thing for her to be.