Posted on 03/12/2012 3:53:08 PM PDT by Kaslin
Mark your calendars, gentlemen. An incipient national sexless nightmare is nearly upon us:
The women’s group “Liberal Ladies Who Lunch” is putting together an unusual event, which it is calling “Access Denied: Sex Strike.” The event, which is scheduled to take place between April 28 and May 5, features a poster saying “If our reproductive choices are denied, so are yours.”
What has these elegant ladies in such a tizzy, you ask? Their "rights" are under assault, or something:
Younger men and women may not remember the "good old days" when the only reproductive choice we had was to deny men access to sex. In truth, if we lose our hard won rights to medical care, birth control and pregnancy choice, it won't only affect women. Men will have to...go back to the days when they waited for or paid for sex. This is issue impacts all of us. This strike is designed to make that point. Ask your man to speak up for your rights, because when we lose our reproductive choices, so do they.
And to think, it's an unimpeachable article of faith on the Left that conservatives are reactionary. A few points:
(1) One could argue that there is a Constitutional right to access birth control, established under Griswold. But as I've said many times, nobody is seeking to ban or cut off access to contraception. This "strike" was prompted by the dust-up over the administration's very recent unconstitutional mandate, under which the federal government forces all employers -- including most religious employers -- to pay for health plans that must include "free" birth control. Push back against this federal power grab and affront to religious liberty in no way represents a deprivation of women's "rights." This manifesto also makes passing reference to abortion "rights" (extrapolated from "penumbras" or some such nonsense by the Supreme Court in 1973), which is also a red herring. Although pro-lifers are happy to have a debate about the legality and availability of abortion, the current debate has nothing to do with the issue, aside from the fact that the new mandate coerces religious institutions to fund certain abortion-causing drugs.
(2) Do these ladies realize that by suggesting this sex moratorium will require men to "go back to the days when they waited for or paid for sex," they're tacitly endorsing prostitution? Weren't a lot of people ticked off at Rush's inappropriate "joke" about Sandra Fluke being...a prostitute? I'm also unclear on whether certain pockets of women actually want to be called sluts. Liberal columnist Kirsten Powers has written about the "slut walk" movement, in which women "reclaim" the term (however that works), and Hot Air's Tina Korbe just wrote about a (related) "sluts unite" project. What are the rhetorical rules governing the use of this term? Help me out here.
(3) Is the idea that men -- conservative or otherwise -- will abandon their views on anything, let alone a core Constitutional principle, after one week of no sex? Glad to know these ladies hold us in such high esteem.
(4) After a full week of endless, mindless, and baseless "war on women" rhetoric from Democrats, The Weekly Standard's John McCormack highlights the inconvenient truth that President Obama (warmonger in chief on this front) has lost standing among female voters, according to the Washington Post poll we discussed earlier:
From March 7 to 10--a week into the national media firestorm surrounding Rush Limbaugh's degrading remarks about Georgetown Law student and liberal activist Sandra Fluke--Washington Post/ABC conducted another poll. It found Obama's approval rating at 46 percent, down four points from February, and his disapproval rating at 50 percent, up four points from February. In February, Obama was leading Mitt Romney, 51 percent to 45 percent among registered voters. In March, Obama was trailing Mitt Romney, 47 percent to 49 percent among registered voters. The Post/ABC pollster finds that Obama "did better among men and women alike last month, and has lost ground slightly among both sexes this month."
Maybe it's time for Democrats to consider cutting and running from this manufactured war.
UPDATE - Read some of the comments on the original "strike" Facebook page. Some are offensive and cross the line, but others are downright hilarious.
“Liberal Ladies Who Lunch”What? Is lunch a new euphemism? It is IMPOSSIBLE to keep up. I'm afraid to google it.
Looks to be a meet-up thing. They eat together. It's not a weird euphemism.
We enjoy conversations with likeminded women in a safe environment about topics other than boyfriends and fashion, and we like to grab lunch together.
For those who have not yet taken a vow of celibacy (the one that contains “I do”), this could be a new problem...
>>Denying a spouse his or her marriage rights (e.g., for spite) is also a sin against the marriage vow, and is actually a form of fraud.<<
However, the statement wasn’t “I’ll divorce you” but rather a statement that I’ll get it elsewhere.
The divorce you deal, I can see. The I’ll go elsewhere statement speaks volumes.
Well, hell; if they didn’t have that wet spot to begin with, there would be a bounty on every one of em’.
That pic of Laura Ingraham has to be 20 years old, and Carrie Prejeans 15 minutes were up two years ago.
“these elegant ladies “
UH HUH < rolling eyes >
I second that!!!! Hilarious!
EWWWWW!!!!! The NEW HELEN THOMAS!!!!!!!!!!!
LOL!
It doesn't matter, not even Laz would hit a liberal woman...
Especially not these (dogs)
And there are three people alive today that can be thankful of that. They are my children born to subsequent wives.
Since they rarely have sex with normal men anyway, who cares.
Guess those vows don't really matter to a lot of guys. Some of them being Horn Dogs. Go figure.
There’s something about this “argument” from these women that has been nagging me and I think I’ve finally put my finger on the point that I was missing. For years, folks here have pointed out that when “empowered” women have made sex more available in their relationships it has reduced any incentive for men to marry. However, it’s dawning on me that this is also a trap: men who don’t insist on waiting until they’re married leave themselves wide open to this sort of physical coercion in the OP—not just in terms of actions, but mental coercion, which I would argue is far more cruel.
Pop culture likes to ridicule grown men who haven’t lost their virginity, but it’s beginning to dawn on me that they also enjoy a special freedom (though they might not realize it). If a woman wants to keep them it cannot be through coercion (or at least that particular kind of it), and that suddenly sounds pretty darned good to me.
Well, it coulda been worse. Some of those “wives” were actually mine, though most weren’t. Now they’re only happy memories.
BTW, have you ever spent much time on the west coast?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.