General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsFinally, Science Explains Why Rush Limbaugh Gets So Mad About Women Having Sex
By Amanda MarcotteEven though 95 percent of Americans have premarital sex, as anyone who advocates for women's reproductive rights on Twitter can tell you, there is still a shocking amount of anger, and many colorful epithets, aimed directly at women who indulge. Why is there so much angst over women's sexual choices? Jesse Singal at Science of Us looks at a recent study that suggests that a lot of the desire to control and punish female sexuality is rooted in the belief that women are, or should be, financially dependent on men. Singal writes:
Overall, the more likely a given respondent believed women were economically dependent on men, the more likely they were to view female promiscuity as immoral. These were modest to medium effects, but they were statistically significant, even controlling for factors like religiosity and political conservatism.
The researchers argue that this may stem from long-standing cultural concerns about "paternity certainty" that linger on in more conservative circles despite the advent of birth control. "Beliefs," they write, "may persist due to cultural evolutionary adaptive lag that is, because the environment has changed faster than the moral system." This suggests, I'd argue, that the recent upswing in hostility to birth control is an attempt to preserve these cultural norms.
more
http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2014/07/08/rush_limbaugh_s_outrage_at_the_contraception_mandate_explained.html?
louis-t
(23,295 posts)3catwoman3
(24,007 posts)...would be infinitely preferable.
BrotherIvan
(9,126 posts)Are the ones who have difficulty with starting or keeping a relationship. That sounds obvious, but if you never truly interact with women they seem like wholly different creatures. It leads to awkwardness, which then clashes with the marketing that every man should be showered with supermodels, which then leads to a twisted hatred of women. They often don't have sisters and so their first experience with a woman is the one who rejected them. MRA types most especially.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)However, I have to disagree with this:
These males might not have sisters; but I would suspect that their first experience with females was with their mother. But then, again, the Oedipus thing might factor in.
Orsino
(37,428 posts)LadyHawkAZ
(6,199 posts)ismnotwasm
(41,989 posts)libodem
(19,288 posts)4Q2u2
(1,406 posts)Rushie asks if anybody has seen his penis, because he has not in a long time. Some times pill popper sometime news man(Ha Ha Ha) is worried that it is not working or maybe gone all together.
Octafish
(55,745 posts)Too bad. So sad. As it's going, his honeymoons are running about $100 million per.
abakan
(1,819 posts)It was because he has to pay them to have sex with him! Personally there would never be enough money in the world and I'm sure I'm not alone.
Ilsa
(61,695 posts)He pays them to stay married to him for 3-5 years. Then they get a nice settlement including hush money.
Fuddnik
(8,846 posts)He said they used to have sex together all the time, and he guarantees that none of Rush's marriages were ever consummated. It's all for show. A front.
Ad wasn't he fired from a Pittsburgh radio show, in his early days, for propositioning men outside a gay bar?
abakan
(1,819 posts)ismnotwasm
(41,989 posts)It really is interesting and well written-- but the opportunity to make fun of Limbaugh is hard to resist
makes a classic correlation ne causation fwiw
ismnotwasm
(41,989 posts)I'm not sure I buy it, except possibly the 'catching up with the time' implication
d_r
(6,907 posts)and I think there is good value in thinking and discussing these sorts of findings.
I just wish she'd framed her argument in a different way. but that's me.
mopinko
(70,127 posts)male involvement with a small number of offspring is a risky business. it requires a high level of trust.
some people arent smart enough to override their amygdala.
Initech
(100,081 posts)noiretextatique
(27,275 posts)In places like the supreme court, congress, and the white house. How about looking at the cold hard facts instead?
elleng
(130,974 posts)I'll remember that!
Jeff In Milwaukee
(13,992 posts)They saying it's the desire for paternal certainty that causes the change in attitudes.
Could it just as easily be the belief that if a woman is financially independent, the financial consequences of an unintended pregnancy are milder than they would be for a woman who is not financially independent. These people might just be subconsciously stating the belief that a financially independent woman can afford the consequences of her actions, while a financially dependent woman cannot.
Or to put it another way -- Don't do the crime if you can't do the time.
underpants
(182,829 posts)IkeRepublican
(406 posts)It's what you'd expect - he's catering to his old-broken-dick audience. That's why his ads are mostly about broken-dick pills, hoarding goods and the rest of that old fogie shit.
And it's not due to his "lost advertisers". His show has always had that string of sponsorship for over 20 years.
calimary
(81,322 posts)Why shouldn't science weigh in on this, then?