Guys,
Here are my thoughts about Sandra Fluke, the slutty Georgetown Law student who wants US to pay for HER birth control. While I could get into the morality and ethics of asking others to pay her her choices, that's not the tack I shall take here. No, I want to ask one, simple question: how does Miss Sandra Fluke have TIME for all the sex that'd require her to spend $1,000 a year on birth control? I have to wonder if this girl is a serious law student; I really, truly do.
I looked into attending law school; I looked into it quite seriously, in fact. I researched it thoroughly, and I got a good idea what law school was about. I read books, articles, and talked with attorneys. I concluded that, even back in 2003, when I got my BS degree, that getting a job would be too difficult, and that the payoff wasn't commensurate with the time, effort, and money that law school requires.
Having said that, one thing that I found out was that law school, if done right, requires a LOT of time and effort. We're talking about 4-6 hours a day of study and reading-every day! You have to read through cases, outline them, etc. There simply is no other way if you're going to keep up with the workload than putting in the time & effort. If you do well during your 1L year, you might get on your school's law review; otherwise, you might end up on a law journal. Law review requires 40-50 hours a week of time; you're lucky if you can squeeze in your classes! If you're lucky, you might be able to have a Saturday or Sunday afternoon free for tennis or something; that's cause for celebration amongst law school students!
This does NOT account for the time students need to put in for job searches. Oh yes, students need to conduct job searches too! If they want to have any PRAYER of landing a legal job after graduation, then they'd BETTER work in legal jobs during their 1L & 2L summers. The 2L jobs, often given at prospective employers, are a must have; they can, and often do, lead to job offers from the firms offering them. But, in order to get the crucial 2L summer job, you will have had to work at a legal job during your 1L summer. Because these jobs are so important, whatever time law students don't spend on study, class, and law review is spent finding jobs for their 1L and 2L summer. If a law student hasn't worked in LEGAL JOBS during his 1L & 2L summers, he'll have an even harder time finding a job after graduation. Why? Because prospective legal employers will think that you're not INTERESTED in the law, which will effectively knock you out of the running for a job with a law firm or gov't agency-a job the law grad will need to pay back the $100K and more in loans. Then, there's the matter of law school grading.
Law school grading isn't the same as we had in undergrad or high school. In undergrad or high school, whatever grade you earned is what you got; there was no uniform distribution of grades. If half the class got an A or B on the test, then half of the class kept their A or B grade. In law school, there is a hard and fast distribution of grades. It works something like this: 20% of the class will get A+, 20% A-, 20% B+, 20% B-, and 20% C. What does that mean? If you're on the borderline between one grade and another, and the 20% quota is already met, then guess what? You may be getting the lower grade! IOW, the grade you may deserve may not be the grade you get in law school-all the more reason to study and work harder.
My point is this: Miss Sandra Fluke, if she's taking her studies seriously, shouldn't have the TIME for all this sex! WTF isn't she studying? Why isn't she busy doing law review, law journal, or moot court? Why isn't she busy finding a job for her 1L & 2L summers? Why isn't she busy furthering her legal career? After all, tuition, room & board, fees, etc., Georgetown Law School will set you back $60k/year. Even if she has scholarships, Miss Fluke needs to maintain a certain GPA to retain those scholarships. If she's on the border between an A- and a B+; if the quota for A- grades has been met; then she'll get a B+. Even when times were better in law a few years ago, grades were crucial; they're even MORE crucial now. Again, where does she find time to have all this sex?!
In closing, Miss Sandra Fluke shouldn't have time for all this sex-not if she's doing law school right. She has classes. She has studying to do; she should be spending 5-6 hours a day studying, reading cases, outlining, etc. She needs to get good grades, so she can get law review, law journal, and/or moot court. She'll need those on her resume', because her fellow law grads will have those on THEIRS. If she's on law review, she'll spend 40-50 hours a week doing that. When she's not in class, studying, or doing law review, she'll need to be searching for 1L & 2L summer jobs-jobs she'll need to get a legal job after graduation. If she's doing law school right, then she shouldn't have the time or energy for sex, because the law is a jealous mistress; law school takes all your time and effort. Those are my thoughts...
MarkyMark
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
61 comments:
Oh, she's working hard. She's flat on her back 40-50 hours a week trying to nail down a laywer husband.
http://www.quickmeme.com/Sandy-Needs/newest/?upcoming
Good memes left on my blog by an anonymous poster...
Good stuff, ScareCrow... :)
Well, whether she has sex 10 times a day or she's celibate and needs the pills for a medical condition, it's still one pill daily.
Maybe you should have discussed the "morality and ethics of asking others to pay" instead.
Hell, make fun of her for going to law school! ANYTHING else would have made more sense.
Marcus,
If Miss Fluke wasn't shagging like a mink, she wouldn't NEED the pills now, would she?
MarkyMark
What do I take out of this?
That the law is stupid and people are even more stupid for trying to make a career in it.
Also, one thing you overlooked - sometimes she'll have study partners and it only takes 5 to 25 minutes at most normally to "do the deed".
She has time for sex, but as you point out, not much of a life otherwise. Not if she is doing it right.
Clarence
If she switches to butthexing, she won't need birth control. It's a scientifically approved substitute.
It's very easy to spend $1k if she's taking birth control pills which are taken every day, not to mention a few doctor visits a year. It doesn't mean that she is having sex constantly.
Bollocks!! No way is this slut bitch hoe getting taxpayer money for birth control!! The government should fund Viagra and that's it! AND I'll add to that condoms, for all of us poor unsuspecting men taken by surprise sex! 'Cause we gonna play but NO WAY we gonna be your baby daddy, bitch! That's on YOU hoe bag! What do you think you're even doing going to "law school" (flat on her back is right! tell it to me brothers!) anyway!? Why don't you make yourself useful. Get in the kitchen and make me a sammich!
Sandra Fluke is not a slut, she just has the misfortune of being an American-the worst capitalist country in the world. Birth control can cost as much as $50 a month. They are not just to prevent pregnancy, they are usually prescribed for acne treatment and debilitating PMS symptoms- and by that I mean cramps so painful, it's near impossible to get out of bed, much less function without extra strength Tylenol. Also, they are good for women who bleed so much as to put them at risk of developing anemia- a very common and real problem for women. I have it, and have been in the emergency room twice for severe low blood pressure and low blood levels.
By the way Douche (what's with the pretentious spelling and accenting?) the only 'hoe' you're likely to get with that attitude, is the one you PAY for. And if you need Viagra, well low testosterone is a normal part of aging, it doesn't need a pill, it's not a medical issue. Preventing someone extreme pain, humiliating skin conditions, possibly dangerous levels of bleeding, and unnecessary (and also potentially dangerous) pregnancy is.
Anonymous, I suggest you go pound sand. Your posting is nothing but standard feminist shaming language, so 80's.m We don't care.
You also know nothing about testosterone. Low testosterone not only inhibits the capacity for sex, but also causes low energy, muscle loss, and other issues.
Doesn't matter. I pay my own AndroGel, which is the way it should be. And, feminists should pay their own estrogen pills. Just as they should pay their own housing and food bills. Just because your biology makes you bleed is no reason men are required to pay for your medicine.
Anonymous age 69
The fact that this topic is even an issue shows how far America has fallen.
She's a feminist plant.
http://www.jammiewf.com/2012/sandra-flukes-appearance-is-no-fluke/
Yeah, I know.
Women are strong and independent.
Until they want something they can't afford, then taxpayer to the rescue!
She is really turning out to be a human Fluke.
This blog should really be titled "Other People's Thoughts On Various Issues." I used to think it should be titled "Marky Mark's Plagiarism Blog" since nearly all of his blog posts are re-blogs of someone else's thoughts. But now that he's added parroting the senseless radio ramblings of Rush Limbaugh to his repertoire, I think the former is more succinct.
As always, this conversation is moot. Ms. Fluke was discussing the fact that the private insurer (insurance for which the students PAY) was being blocked from providing birth control as part of their coverage to students of this religious institution. I'm not sure how that equates to "men are required to pay for your medicine." Sounds like more standard masculinist shaming language to me. So 20s, 30s, 40s, 50s, 60s, 70s 80s, 90s...hmm...so many decades to choose from.
Uh oh boys. It appears your fearless leader has issued some backpedaling. Must be his "mangina" talking, huh?
http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/03/03/10571547-limbaugh-apologizes-to-student-he-called-slut-for-insulting-word-choices
I thought this was about making it so that private insurance companies that are already paid for have to cover birth control. In any event, fair is fair. Maybe they should stop covering male sex pills like Viagra as well, hmm?
>I want to ask one, simple question: how does Miss Sandra Fluke have TIME for all the sex that'd require her to spend $1,000 a year on birth control?
Oh, dear. I think somebody doesn't quite get how birth control works. If you're on the pill, you have to take it every day whether you're having sex or not. It's not like a condom, where you think to yourself, 'I have a date tonight! Better pop the pill!' Fluke might have sex less than twice in the entire year, but she'll still spend the same amount of money on contraceptives. The pill does not work if women don't take it every day.
Also, Marcus brought up a valid point: some women need the pill to help alleviate extremely painful medical conditions, such as ovarian cysts.
Finally, while I don't know if there are statistics on it, I am certain that there are some law students out there who've mastered balancing studies, work, and a social life, even if the social life gets shoved to the wayside more often than not. I'm willing to bet that at least a few times a year a law student is able to go to a party, or go on a date, so on and so forth. After all, if that wasn't the case, wouldn't all law students be single shut-ins? I'm sure that there are at least some law students out there with boyfriends and girlfriends, or even with husbands and wives, who they see every so often to spend time with and possibly engage in coitus.
The funniest thing about this whole argument is that Sandra Fluke is being called a slut, when really she is being a very responsible and mature adult. If she (or any other woman) is on birth control to prevent unwanted and unplanned pregnancy, isn't that a good thing? Often women go on birth control because they are in a trusting, committed relationship, and have decided it's OK to be that close with their partner. It's funny how many men here complain about women trying to get at their money by getting pregnant, but really, aren't they pregnant because YOU GUYS were too stupid and didn't put a condom on? Often it comes from men having casual sex, so stop having it, or at least be protected. They even GIVE condoms away at most medical centres and clinics. Don't want babies? Don't have sex unprotected. Same thing goes for STIs, you decided to ride bare, you're fault.
Anon0338,
Miss Fluke can be responsible all she wants. Just don't ask me to PAY for it! If she wants to be responsible, then she can pay for that responsibility...
MarkyMark
MarkyMark, Can't you read? Or do you just choose not to? This issue has to do with which services THE INSURANCE THAT SHE PAYS FOR is allowed to cover for the students of a right wing religious institution. She's not asking YOU to pay for anything. Try reading that a few times. Maybe it will sink in.
Anon 03:38, these guys are probably unaware that free condoms PAID FOR BY SOMEONE ELSE are available to them. If they were aware, that would imply that there are any women on the face of the earth that would give them the time of day. Not likely.
Looks like Sandra is a Fluke- does not have to study or work much, can be a slut and nympho fucking her way to a job as a corporate whore. Ideal role model for the radical fem hags.
Ms. Fluke was discussing the fact that the private insurer (insurance for which the students PAY) was being blocked from providing birth control as part of their coverage to students of this religious institution.
Which is the real issue here. That the government is going to be called in to force religious institutions to engage in acts which they believe to be immoral. It's one more example of the massive expansion of state power. We can extrapolate and observe that it is one more example of feminism working to undermine religion, morality, and the independence of institutions.
...the only 'hoe' you're likely to get with that attitude, is the one you PAY for.
Wow!
What an original comment.
Did you think that up yourself or did your special ed teacher tell you to say it?
"That the government is going to be called in to force religious institutions to engage in acts which they believe to be immoral."
Burton, how is the use of a hormone regulating pill that helps with a number of medical conditions including ovarian cysts "immoral?"
>Which is the real issue here. That the government is going to be called in to force religious institutions to engage in acts which they believe to be immoral. It's one more example of the massive expansion of state power.
Maybe you'd better tell that to MarkyMark. He seem to think that the government is asking him personally to shell out money for birth control. He's being disingenuous in suggesting that taxpayers will be footing the bill for female contraceptives. This has nothing to do with what he pays for, and everything to do with what private insurance companies cover. If you want to disagree with the matter on religious grounds, that's fine. But don't make this about the poor beleaguered taxpayers being forced to pay for women having sex.
He also mis-represented the issue of the pill in implying that women must be having a lot of sex in order for it to cost so much. The truth of the matter is that chemical contraceptives cost the same whether a woman has sex or not. Women still have to take the pill every single day. It costs the same no matter what.
I wonder what Socrates would think of this blog if he were still alive, given his beliefs regarding people who speak without knowing...
"Wow! What an original comment. Did you think that up yourself or did your special ed teacher tell you to say it?" <--Typical masculinist response. When he can't defend his argument, he gets all emotional and resorts to the masculinist party line and "shaming language." LOL!!!!
@Anonymous 04 March, 2012 15:51
"Burton, how is the use of a hormone regulating pill that helps with a number of medical conditions including ovarian cysts "immoral?"
She has a point.
Which is why it needs to be addressed by another absurdity.
did you know that Ecstasy can treat cancer?
So why isn't it prescribed for that?
Just because there is a beneficial side-effect that works for SOME people, doesn't mean that the medicine was created for that purpose.
The purpose of the birth control pill, was to allow for consequence-free sex (at least where the consequence is pregnancy).
Do you understand how using it can be seen as immoral?
I will fully support birth control pills, when virginity testing becomes legal.
After all, I have no problems with women planning their families when they are in committed relationships and prove themselves worthy of trust.
Or is the idea that a woman not slutting around something that most women want to forget, so that the sluts can have their fun and then try to con a man they have no real interest in, into marriage?
P.S. Maybe the reason there are no reliable tests for men carrying certain STDs is so that the woman can feign being clean and blame the guy for passing on the infection. Remember: the moral high ground, the immoral want to claim it for themselves through outrage and being indignant, not by having to prove themselves.
^^Some of you guys^^ just sound more and more ignorant the more you open your mouths.....
P Ray, you're grasping at straws now, hon :)
I think all non-virgins ("raped" or not;) should be stoned to death, just like in the B-I-B-L-E that's the book for me! And I think all defilers of said virginity should be shot. At close range. Right in their wee wees.
Completely wrong, Marky.
First of all, the cost of birth control pills is the same if she has sex once a month as it is if she has it once an hour.
Secondly, Fluke is not asking for anyone to pay for her contraceptives. Georgetown requires all of its students to buy health insurance from United Health (unless they already have a qualifying individual plan--which costs a fortune). At the same time, Georgetown mandates exactly which UH plan the students must buy. And that plan does not include contraceptives.
All that Fluke is asking for is that the insurance, again, which SHE, not the school or the taxpayers, is paying for, have the option of including contraceptives.
Georgetown pays NOTHING towards the cost of the insurance. That being the caes, coupled with the fact that it mandates that students buy health insurance, indicates, to me, that it would not be compromising its religous beliefs if it simply allowed its students to purchase any plan from United Health which provides some minimum X of total coverage. If a student, such as Fluke, wished to purchase a policy that included that minimum X but then also went on to cover birth control, I fail to see how that implicates Georgetown in the decision. The choice would be the student's, not the school. And the student would be using her own money to pay for it, not the school's (and certainly not the taxpayer).
This is neither a case of the taxpayer being asked to foot the bill, nor a private entity that has moral objections. Nor is it really a case in which that private entity is being forced to involve itself in something it doesn't believe in.
Really Marky, you should do your homework and not simply accept the Rush Limbaugh/right wing (mis)characterization of every issue that makes the news.
Ruddyturnstone
Burton, how is the use of a hormone regulating pill that helps with a number of medical conditions including ovarian cysts "immoral?"
I did not say it was immoral but that many people do. For those people, this would be the government forcing them to engage in an immoral act.
My point is that this incident is being used as one more excuse to expand the power of the state by forcing private institutions to engage in services.
It gets back to the totalitarian impulse in modern feminism. All power to the state!
Anonymous said...
P Ray, you're grasping at straws now, hon :)
04 March, 2012 21:30
Your defilement isn't mine to finance.
And neither is your criticism worth much, since it doesn't take much effort to behave like an animal.
CroMagnonMan said...
I think all non-virgins ("raped" or not;) should be stoned to death, just like in the B-I-B-L-E that's the book for me! And I think all defilers of said virginity should be shot. At close range. Right in their wee wees.
04 March, 2012 21:36
You make your own choices. Others will judge you by those choices. In the absence of a convincing lie (now made even harder by the Internet and widely available literature and a modicum of proper judgement about the way the genders relate), good luck finding a buyer for your story.
P.S. Have you considered working in the construction industry? You can move up from making strawmen to stacking BS.
'I will fully support birth control pills, when virginity testing becomes legal.'
Lol, what?
What sort of 'virginity testing' do you recommend?
I wonder if men would be subject to virginity testing too, hmm? How does one prove that men are not being "immoral sluts" and have retained their virginity? How does one prove that a girl broke her hymen from horseback riding, bicycling, or using tampons?
lol, some of you are quite ridiculous!
Ovarian cysts my ass. Contraception is NOT about health. The only thing that BCP does is that it prevents pregnancy. It doesn't cure a disease nor does it prolong women's health. A woman with healthy reproductive organs that gets injected with a chemical that stops the normal process of pregnancy is not seriously discussing, let alone thinking, about health. Health is about improvement and the natural order being in place and functioning. Reproduction is normal. Recreation is not. BCP does not protect against STDs like condoms do and it doesn't solve ovarian cysts. If anything, contraception causes infertility, breast cancer and other health problems but liberals find it so Politically Incorrect that they would rather brush it under the carpet and pretend it doesn't exist. Do you wonder why all of those old single feminist women find IVF so alluring? Because they became infertile after prolonged use of BCP for years. I've seen it myself. The only thing I've learned from this contraception debate is that fertility is a disease that needs to be eradicated because pregnancy displays inequality between men and women. The health language is all a smokescreen. It's all about sexual liberation. We have legions of men defending women like Fluke because they're sex addicted, feminist sympathizers and ruled by hedonism. A woman like Fluke is also that one of the country's most prestigious law universities but she and her female friends can't even pay $3000 of BCP when they can pay anywhere between $30,000 and $50,000 for their studies. It's hilarious the sense of entitlement and lies coming through. It also displays the bankrupt system of college education when feminism 101 is considered education. Why is a feminist girl even doing at a Catholic college? Fluke did this on purpose because she wants to bring "the patriarchy" down. From what I've learned, if Fluke doesn't inspire you not to go to college nothing will. Now feminists go with their biggest canard: "LIMBAUGH, PALIN! GEORGE W. BUSH! UNEXPECTED PREGNANCIES!". Like I said reproduction is normal. If a man and a woman have sex there is the possibility of pregnancy. Don't want it? Don't have sex. Celibacy and chastity does work and 98% of Catholic women are NOT on contraception (thank you Nancy Pelosi for your crap statistic!). Human beings are not animal beasts. "Unexpected pregnancies" occur mostly due to contraception failure, not because there was no use of BCP. Later folks.
"Virginity testing" huh, P Ray? Someone doesn't understand too much about the female anatomy. You guys really are an endless source of amusement :D
"I did not say it was immoral but that many people do. For those people, this would be the government forcing them to engage in an immoral act"
Unfortunately, we don't have single payer in the US. We don't have public insurance (except for the elderly, the poor, and some veterans). Individual insurance costs a fortune. Therefore, most people get their health insurance through the institution they are associated with.
If left to its own devises, any instution can dream up "moral reasons" not to cover devises. Got diabetes? Well, I have a moral objection to people who don't eat right, and so it would be "wrong" of me to have "my" insurance treat the consequences of that act? Pregnant? Well, I have a moral objection to people having children, thereby exacerbating overpopultion, so no prenatal care for you, and on and on. To avoid this crazy quilt pattern, in which each and every private institution which controls health insurance can impose its own, idiosyncratic "moral" views on the people who actually need the health insurance, we need government regulation. People should be able to take the best offer of employment or education available, without having to worry about the institution involved having "moral objections" to various medical treatments.
Personally, I would prefer single payer, or at least a public option, but we don't have that...
In the case of employers there is some slight case to be made for the "moral objections" of the institution. There is some sense of them being forced to pay for something they don't believe in. Not a good case, in my opinon, because the insurance they offer their employees is part of their employees compensation package. The employees earn the insurance in the same way they earn their salaries. So, since it is their insurance, not the employers, it should be up to them, not the employer, to choose the coverage (within a given price range). That no more implicates the employer in whatever "moral" decision is made in the coverage than the do the other purchasing decisions of the employees, when spending their salaries (which, like the insurance, ultimately derive from the employer).
And, in any event, folks are "forced" to pay for government activities that they morally disagree with all the time. I have a moral objection to aggressive war, yet my taxes were used to attack, invade, and occupy Iraq. No one seems too concerned about that.
But, be all of that as it may, in this case, unlike, at least arguably, that of employers, the institution involved, Georgetown, is not paying squat towards the insurance. That being the case, I fail to see it is being forced to "engage in a immoral act." It needn't do a thing. It doesn't pay for the insurance, so it has no reason to be in control of it. The choice to purchase insurance that includes contraceptives would be the choice of the student, not the school.
'Ovarian cysts my ass. Contraception is NOT about health.'
Would you care to cite a source on that statement?
There are plenty of sources that show that the pill is associated with an increase risk for certain health issues. I doubt that many women who take the pill are unaware of their elevated chance at having a stroke, heart attack, so on and so forth. The risks you highlight concerning the pill are valid, and it is important that all women considering oral contraceptives are thoroughly aware of them.
However, you are painting only one side of the issue. 'Ovarian cysts your ass' indeed! I invite you to do real research on the non-contraceptives uses for and benefits of the pill. You might be surprised, ma'am.
http://informahealthcare.com/doi/abs/10.1517/14656566.9.13.2317
This study's results show that oral contraceptive use can reduce the risk of ovarian, endometrial, and colorectal cancer significantly. Furthermore, the scientists found that it can treat endometriosis, menorrhagia, and uterine leiomyomas. It improves such conditions as pelvic inflammatory disease, acne, dysmenorrhea, and PMS.
http://www.springerlink.com/content/r337741kp72307m1/
Look here. This study says that using the pill for a period of at least five years reduces a woman's risk of getting ovarian cancer by 50%. Are you still scoffing at the idea of non-contraceptive uses for the pill?
http://humupd.oxfordjournals.org/content/17/2/159
Then check this study out. While not entirely conclusive, its results also suggest that the pill can reduce the risk of getting endometriosis.
Heck, if looking up all these studies is too much trouble for you, why don't you just read about the pill on Wikipedia? Here's some quotes I found:
"The hormones in "the Pill" can also be used to treat other medical conditions, such as polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS), endometriosis, adenomyosis, menstruation-related anemia and painful menstruation (dysmenorrhea)."
"In addition, the Pill provides some protection against breast growth that is not cancer, ectopic pregnancy, vaginal dryness and menopause-related painful intercourse."
"Overall, use of oral contraceptives appears to slightly reduce all-cause mortality, with a rate ratio for overall mortality of 0.87 (confidence interval: 0.79–0.96) when comparing ever-users of OCs with never-users."
A wise man would admit that this blog post is total rubbish, or at the very least, avoid commenting on it altogether. Does MRM solidarity mean you support MarkyMark even when he insists the moon is made of cheese and has "statistics" to back it up? Consider that aligning yourself with every dolt who comes long and calls himself an MRA does not strengthen your cause or credibility.
"Anonymous said...
"Virginity testing" huh, P Ray? Someone doesn't understand too much about the female anatomy. You guys really are an endless source of amusement :D
05 March, 2012 16:57"
You're a bit of a child leading a sheltered life, aren't you, Anonymous?
They sell tampons in Saudi Arabia, and China:
2 countries where virginity is prized.
So you can take that "I broke myself putting the tampon in" to another bunch of people.
P.S. If it couldn't be tested for, why do hymen restoration clinics exist?
P.P.S. I wouldn't trust a woman hitting her 30s saying she is a virgin anyway ... which is when most modern women get married, ahahahaha
Besides that, it would be hard explaining to a child that the reason they have a certain condition is because of the STDs mummy picked up having fun before she met daddy.
Or even explaining that to the grandparents.
According to this
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1383814/Student-sells-virginity-online-45-000-shes-keeping-identity-secret-case-parents-out.html
"'I needed to be sure she was a virgin so I sent her to my own gynaecologist in The Hague, and he has certified that she is.'"
So virginity testing is not some inexact science or black magic.
Meaning that it can be proven whether a girl is or isn't.
And gynaecology is not a profession that is restricted to a single part of the world.
Tough noogies, sluts!
P Ray, you still have not addressed how we are to go about testing for virginity in young men...
P Ray, you're as ignorant as they come. A hymen can be easily broken for many reasons. You're rude, crass, and imbecilic.
Don't look now boys.... more "false rapes" that never happened. Let the "masculinist" shaming language and idiot-fest commence!
http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/46637869/ns/today-today_people/#.T1ZEU8zAjXE
P Ray are you a virgin, sweetie?
P Ray,
You mention hymen restoration clinics. If hymens can be restored, what use is virginity testing?
And what test could determine if a woman had engaged in oral sex?
However, you are painting only one side of the issue. 'Ovarian cysts your ass' indeed! I invite you to do real research on the non-contraceptives uses for and benefits of the pill.
I invite you to stop endorsing obviously false research to further your ends. You're almost as insidious as the people who support AGW. I'm quite familiar with these charades since a friend of mine is an expert in the medical field so you can't fool me.
'I invite you to stop endorsing obviously false research to further your ends.'
Ah! Since you are so much more knowledgeable on this matter, Stacy, would you mind explaining (with sources cited) what makes this research 'obviously false'?
'You're almost as insidious as the people who support AGW.'
No, Stacy. Ad hominen attacks are not sufficient. Calling me "insidious" does not somehow make you more right.
'I'm quite familiar with these charades since a friend of mine is an expert in the medical field so you can't fool me.'
Wow. I'm totally bowled over by the existence of your 'friend'. Unfortunately, anecdotal evidence is nearly as fallacious as resorting to argumentum ad hominen to express your point. I'm afraid you'll have to do better.
I backed my claims up with links to actual scientific studies that have been accepted as valid by the medical community. So far, you've brought nothing to the table but your own opinion, a bit of name-calling/obscenity, and claiming to "know someone" as the basis for your expertise on the uses for contraception.
"You're rude, crass, and imbecilic."
You're fat and ugly. And will get old in good time. Heh.
Tough Noogies
To whether I'm a virgin: Why, are you offering me sex? I don't know you from Eve, you might be just as old too. Or you might be a man, and while it's a lifestyle choice ... sorry, not my lifestyle. Keep doing what makes yo happy though.
"If hymens can be restored, what use is virginity testing?"
So that the women can fool a relatively clueless guy.
"And what test could determine if a woman had engaged in oral sex?"
If you suddenly get throat or ass cancer that's your bill to pay, sweetie.
"P Ray, you still have not addressed how we are to go about testing for virginity in young men..."
Most young men are not the ones getting the sex.
Otherwise, prostitution wouldn't exist.
And funnily enough, the clients of most prostitutes happen to be married men.
It's probably the worst place to be in where you are married but can't have sex.
P.S. If women weren't sharing the same men, why are their rates of diseases in the samples they surveyed so disparate with that of the men?
P.P.S. Maybe insurance and healthcare premiums will rise the moment companies understand that sluts are bad for medical insurance as their claims will be both costly and frequent.
I bet slutty women will be howling for subsidised healthcare then :)
"P Ray, you still have not addressed how we are to go about testing for virginity in young men..."
If you can point me to the government grant to solve that problem, I'll get around to that after we finish testing all the young women.
My male mind can only handle doing one job (but doing it well) at a time. :)
I'm sure you appreciate a job well done, as does any person who expects quality work. And you can't have quality without attention to detail.
Stacy, are you a man or a military wife? You're one or the other. Your hard-headed (no pun intended) propaganda spewing leads me to believe you're a man; but maybe you're a military wife, just parroting your husband? It's one or the other... though I suspect you'll deny it. A friend of yours is an expert in "the medical field?" Haha that's funny. Which medical field, dear? I didn't realize there was just one :))
Note to self: P Ray declined to answer, so I'm guessing he is indeed a virgin... a very angry virgin :(
Anonymous 07 March, 2012 17:36
If a man answers that he is,
you'll say it's because of his attitude.
If a man answers that he isn't, you will say you can't imagine any woman who would choose him.
Sweetie, if women didn't get into relationships with men who hated women, domestic violence would completely be the fault of women. :)
Sweetie, go call your boyfriend to beat me up :)
He's a ramblin' maaaaaan.......
P Ray, click on ^My Name^ sweetie <3
My Name 07 March, 2012 23:37
Not until you call your boyfriend to beat me up sweetie :) <3
Or does he do that to you (and you LOVE it)?
I don't follow strange people I know nothing about.
Stacy, are you a man or a military wife? You're one or the other. Your hard-headed (no pun intended) propaganda spewing leads me to believe you're a man; but maybe you're a military wife, just parroting your husband? It's one or the other... though I suspect you'll deny it. A friend of yours is an expert in "the medical field?" Haha that's funny. Which medical field, dear? I didn't realize there was just one :))
What a fail. I'm not a man. I'm not a military wife either. I'm a girl who was going to law school but I gave it up and it has been the best decision of my life (aka I aborted my lawyer career). With creatures like Sandra Fluke in law school what's the point? Higher education is bankrupt. It's filled with feminist creatures like Nancy Pelosi and Joe Biden. Oh and I forgot: Yael and Anonymous are the same person. Stop hiding fool. Don't mock my friend btw.
Stacy,
Another reason you're better off out of law school is that there are NO JOBS in the legal profession right now-none! You won't have $150k in loans to pay off with no means to pay them off. I wanted to attend law school, but even when I thought about it a few years ago, there was a glut of lawyers. If you didn't attend HYS, you had to be towards the top of your class, on law review, etc.
Are you familiar with the law school scam blogs? They catalog the lack of job opportunities vs. what the schools tell unsuspecting 1Ls. Even students graduating from HYS are having trouble landing jobs now! It used to be that, if you graduated from HYS, you could write your own ticket in the legal world. Now, that's not the case.
It used to be that, if you got into a T14 school like Georgetown and did well, you could get a job. You'd have to finish towards the top of your class, get on law review, etc.; but you could do all right finding a job. Now, T14 isn't good enough; even HYS isn't good enough.
If someone has a wealthy family who can pay their whole way through law school, then they can and should go. If someone is from a family that has a law firm (and thus a job at graduation), they should go. If someone can get a scholarship, go for it. But, under no circumstances should someone take out $100K and more in loans to attend law school.
Getting back to the scholarship, Sandra Fluke HAS one! I would so love to find out about that. I bet that, truth be told, she has big feminist organizations backing her. I mean, she attended Georgetown with the express INTENT of overturning their policy WRT birth control! She couldn't do what she does without serious, behind the scenes help.
Oh, if you want to check out the law school scam blogs, go to Third Tier Reality, read it, then check out his blog roll. It validates my decision to forego law school. Thanks for stopping by, and have a nice day...
MarkyMark
"What a fail. I'm not a man. I'm not a military wife either. I'm a girl..."
Nope. You're a man. Women don't talk about themselves that way^^
P Ray, My apologies and deepest sympathies. I didn't fully realize until just now that you're mentally challenged. Good luck to you, son.
'Oh and I forgot: Yael and Anonymous are the same person.'
I'm sure that MarkyMark has the vantage point of being able to observe that Anonymous and I are two different posters. From what I understand, bloggers are able to see who is posting from what IP address/location, something to that effect. I cannot be certain, though, as I do not blog. I have merely observed on other blogs' comment threads when bloggers have called commenters out for sock-puppeting other accounts.
At any rate, I don't mean to offend the Anonymous poster, but I honestly think she is being a little bit immature. All's fair in internet trolling I s'pose, but that's not a game I like to play outside the likes of 4chan.
'Stop hiding fool.'
I don't need to use multiple accounts to make my point. I also don't need to call people names to prove that I'm right. The only things I need to prove that I'm right are facts, data, scientifically validated evidence, and so on. I have shown those things. You have not. Good job skirting the issue at hand, though.
'Don't mock my friend btw.'
See, this is what I mean. You deliberately ignored the context (and largely the content) of the discussion. I didn't mock your friend. I merely said that you saying that you 'know someone' in the 'medical field' is meaningless in this conversation. Meaningless. Unless you can show actual, hard evidence from which you base your claims, you have not succeeded in proving your point.
I have acknowledged that birth control pills can be bad. They are associated with certain health issues. So are a lot of drugs, which is why anyone taking any medication should always be thoroughly aware of all the risks involved.
I have also provided links to all sorts of valid studies that are widely accepted by the medical community that prove that the birth control pill can do a lot of good outside of preventing pregnancy. It has been proven that women taking the pill are less likely to get several kinds of cancer, and that the longer they take it the lower their risk of developing ovarian and other cancers is. It can treat the symptoms of all kinds of serious (and some not-as-serious) physical conditions, and prevent a lot more bad stuff than unwanted pregnancy.
You have responded to this not with any data or facts, but with your own opinion. Which is fine, you're free and welcome to do that. But it doesn't prove your point. Or any point.
While you are great at providing conjectures, you've failed to demonstrate actual logic, and are now dodging the issue by suggesting that I am trolling by posting under multiple accounts.
Anonymous 09 March, 2012 15:28
My apologies and deepest sympathies to you.
As a slut you're going to have to lie a fair bit to men who know about your double-dealing nature since you are probably going to get married way after the girls who think honouring their husbands by being chaste is worth demonstrating.
Hope you pay your own bills.
P Ray, I think that people should wait until marriage to have sex (of any kind). Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be any way of determining virginity in either men or women.
I asked: if hymens can be restored, what use are virginity tests? You said: So that the women can fool a relatively clueless guy. Did you mean to say this, that women can use virginity tests to fool men? How? If virginity testers can be fooled, then the tests are useless, aren't they? Or were you trying to say that only clueless men can't tell the difference between real and restored?
As for your reaction to my second question, about how to determine if a woman has engaged in oral sex, I realize you were trying to be insulting, for some reason, but just in case you were remotely serious: throat cancer does not afflict everyone who's had oral sex, and has causes other than sex. It mostly strikes men, and in middle age. Does not exactly provide a handy way to distinguish sluts from virgins.
JustWondering 13 March, 2012 23:10
"You said: So that the women can fool a relatively clueless guy. Did you mean to say this, that women can use virginity tests to fool men?"
Women like you love to twist words.
A clueless guy will not know that an experienced gynaecologist can conclusively determine whether a woman is faking/has restored her virginity,
and the conniving woman who is aware of her own sluttiness will tell the man that "it was a tampon" and "if you dare to ask me to do this the marriage is off, nice guys don't ask women whether they are virgins, I will tell everyone I know you are a creep".
"If virginity testers can be fooled, then the tests are useless, aren't they?"
You are trying to convince men that gynaecologists (which also includes women) are unreliable.
Stop being such a misogynist.
"Or were you trying to say that only clueless men can't tell the difference between real and restored?"
By clueless I mean man who has been actively hoodwinked, and has been brainwashed into the slut agenda.
After all, no matter what a slut says, they all want to get married.
Hopefully to a guy that has no idea that his wealth and assets are likely to be taken from him by someone who doesn't think being honest about her past sexual history.
After all "nice men don't ask a woman about her past", and "a nice woman does not have sex with just any men".
Yeah right. Men are wising up.
But women like you love to say that nobody can tell.
Teeheehee :)
"As for your reaction to my second question, about how to determine if a woman has engaged in oral sex, I realize you were trying to be insulting, for some reason, but just in case you were remotely serious: throat cancer does not afflict everyone who's had oral sex, and has causes other than sex. It mostly strikes men, and in middle age. Does not exactly provide a handy way to distinguish sluts from virgins.
13 March, 2012 23:10"
The "my granddad smoked 4 packs of cigarettes a day and lived to be 90" defense.
You have no understanding of genes, do you? Half the genes come from the father, and half from the mother.
Hence it is not unreasonable to say your immunity profile is also halved in efficacy.
The insurance industry will soon clamp down on those with oral fixations for their reckless sexuality. Since many of those getting that may have had previous cigarette use, it's possible that they will soon make the "smoking cigarettes made me get cancer" as ridiculous to claim for insurance as "eating lots of fastfood made me fat".
Then you'll see the squirming start.
Protests about how women are "being discriminated against for exploring their sexuality" ... until it gets pointed out that women also pay for insurance, and that effectively means the chaste ones are paying for the sluts. Along with "men are the ones having plenty of sex" which means they want men to pay more, despite "MANY WOMEN choosing FEW MEN".
Then you can really watch "The Sisterhood" come together.
Post a Comment