By Irene F. Starkehaus -
The Daily Mail Online reports that Rush Limbaugh is threatening to sue the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee for defamation. He requests that they retract comments they made about him, and apologize to him because the organization allegedly sponsored advertising and emails that, based on comments made on his syndicated talk show on October 14, 2014, claimed Limbaugh advocates for rapists on college campuses.
The dispute between Limbaugh and the DCCC began when Ohio State University implemented a controversial policy regarding consensual sex that in part reads:
The act of knowingly, actively and voluntarily agreeing explicitly to engage in sexual activity. Consent must be freely given and can be withdrawn at any time.
Sober / Not coerced / Imaginative / Enthusiastic / Creative / Wanted / Informed / Mutual / Honest / Verbal / The absence of "no" does not mean "yes" / It must be asked every step of the way / It cannot be implied or assumed, even in the context of a relationship
Mr. Limbaugh took to the airwaves to mock the school's policy as an outlandish illustration of form over substance specifically because it is an unrealistic expectation that consent will be provided through every step of a liaison, and even if it was a realistic expectation, how would one actually document that consent had been granted play by play?
During Limbaugh's critique of Ohio State's policy, he made the following comments:
"Consent must be freely given, can be withdrawn at any time, and the absence of 'no' does not mean 'yes.'" How many of you guys, in your own experience with women, have learned that "no" means "yes" if you know how to spot it? Let me tell you something. In this modern world, that is simply not tolerated. People aren't even gonna try to understand that one. I mean, it used to be said it was a cliche. It used to be part of the advice young boys were given.
See, that's what we gotta change. We have got to reprogram the way we raise men. Why do you think permission every step of the way, clearly spelling out "why"... are all of these not lawsuits just waiting to happen if even one of these steps is not taken?
The bolded section represents part of Limbaugh's discussion used by the DCCC to promote the narrative that Rush Limbaugh is pro-rape. Via email, the DCCC promoted its feigned outrage:
We knew we had to take action after Limbaugh's reprehensible rant excusing rape on college campuses,' one email read. 'In case you missed it, Limbaugh actually said, "'no' means 'yes' if you know how to spot it.
There are several iterations of this theme which you can read in the Daily Mail post. The purpose of the DCCC's messaging was twofold a) to fundraise for the 2014 election using the Republican's so-called War on Women and b) to silence the Rush Limbaugh Show by pressuring sponsors not to support what they characterized as a misogynistic, pro-rape talk show host.
I'll keep the focus of my observations on the Daily Mail piece by David Martosko because it offers a pretty balanced account of the story and points out the contextual disparity between what Limbaugh actually said and meant (here is a full written transcript from Rush Limbaugh's site) versus what the DCCC alleged he said and meant. Martosko concludes that given the full text of the first of two paragraphs that I have highlighted above, Limbaugh essentially acquits himself of the pro-rape accusations that the DCCC makes against him. The problem for Limbaugh, Mr. Martosko contends, comes in the second paragraph when Mr. Limbaugh states…
See, that's what we gotta change. We have got to reprogram the way we raise men.
… as this somehow mocks the core belief that rape is unacceptable. This purported mockery undermines any relevant point that Limbaugh was trying to make.
So what did Rush Limbaugh mean? Was he mocking? Does it seem likely that he in any way promotes the rights of rapists through his comments? Is that anything like a reasonable interpretation of his words?
Further, would it be reasonable to conclude that Rush Limbaugh is advocating for reeducation camps where men can undergo behavior modifications so that they can better satisfy the ever-changing needs of women?
Both interpretations seem unlikely, and this assures us that there is a third and more plausible reading of the words that he said. And let's put aside that what he actually meant has no real impact on the lives of everyday citizens in the way actions taken by politicians do. They should be the last thing that concerns us, but that's just ancillary to the greater point.
The long-term legal ramifications of Ohio State's consent policy ought to be more important to the DCCC than anything that Rush Limbaugh has to say about it. The very principle of touch by touch consent epitomizes to the problem that Millennial men and Gen Z boys are facing with regard to feminism's never ending truculence.
Men and future men need equal protection too. They need protection from ridiculous consent policies. Frankly, parents could be forgiven for directing their children far, far away from Ohio State to boycott the school's surplus of academic absurdity.
If we read Ohio State's policy in its entirety, we learn that the troubles that the University addresses on behalf of libidinous but hesitant women everywhere lead to the criminalization of most sex acts, and the need for government oversight where most people want it the least – the bedroom.
Look beyond the oft quoted paragraphs about asking permission every step of the way which is as taciturn and infantile as feminism itself has become. You will discover that the University advises students that any sexual act failing to obtain consent at every step is rape and therefore criminal:
If consent is not obtained prior to each act of sexual behavior (from kissing to intercourse), it is not consensual sex.
This argument that Limbaugh's use of the word "reprogram" mocks cultural scorn for an act of rape ultimately obfuscates the point. American men don't need to be reprogrammed. They need to be shown the very adult ramifications of hookups, which on the surface seem the epitome of freedom but end in enslavement – it's not just that sex without meaning is emotionally deadening and leads to aberrance; it's not just that it carries the physical danger of STDs; it's not just that hookups create cultural erosion and instability that invites regulation and oversight.
No. It's more. If we are to literally interpret the Ohio State policy on consent, every sex act gives every woman an arbitrary right to cry rape if every touch or kiss hasn't been preapproved by her in real time.
Women, throughout the sexual revolution, have sought to free themselves from the bonds of biology and in doing so, it was explicit that men would be made freer too. Where women would be emancipated from marriage, men would be emancipated too. Where women could be made free from motherhood, men could be free of fatherhood too. Where a woman could explore the many facets of her sexuality without consequence, a man would be free to explore his sexuality too.
But men are not sexually freer, are they? This policy merely institutionalizes the growing sentiment that masculinity is something deviant and in dire need of modification.
What must sexually active men do in order to adhere to the Ohio State policy as written? Through every step of the sex act, men will be required to remain coherent and detached from pleasure so that women can leave their options open. How's that for imaginative, enthusiastic and creative?
There's nothing natural about the standards of Ohio State's consent policy. It's is, for all intents and purposes, a circumcision of Eros, and it's as demented and sadistic as a clitorectomy for the same reasons.
How then should we interpret the comments of Rush Limbaugh on the subject of the Ohio State Consent Policy? Perhaps he means to communicate to our nation's young men that, in spite of feminism's insistence that men are pale reflections in the world that women dreamed, or that they are merely oblivious cacophonies of libido and impulse that achieved nothing except what they stole from women, the truth is that men were the ones that dragged humanity out of barbarism by insisting on the protection of women.
One interpretation of Limbaugh's comments must then be that if a woman claims she is your equal, it doesn't necessarily follow that she is. Men should more frequently exercise their rights to refuse sexual advances, and hold women to standards that they seem incapable envisioning for themselves. The brainwashing of men that they are merely imbeciles who are slaves to their sex drives and who must react to a woman's sexual willingness is ridiculous.
For a woman to be equal with a real man, she ought to be made to prove something more than proprietorship over a vagina and a monthly government stipend for her all-you-can-eat birth control bonanza.
Men can once again be the ones who drag humanity out of barbarism and they can do this by seeking women who are worthy partners, not child dictators.