To understand Rush Limbaugh’s opposition to consent, Thomas Fiffer explores the entitlement mindset.
___
I don’t listen to Rush Limbaugh’s radio show. It would only make me angry. Not because I tend towards the liberal when it comes to politics. But because I don’t do stupid well—at all. I also try, as a rule, to ignore extremists who think that because they have a media platform, they represent the feelings and beliefs of the country, of what Nixon once called “the silent majority.”
Given America’s enormous diversity, there really is no such thing as the feelings and beliefs of the country.
|
Given America’s enormous diversity, there really is no such thing as the feelings and beliefs of the country. When it comes to most social and political issues, we’re divided, or we (some) tolerate a multiplicity of opinions. The last time we really experienced near-complete nationwide solidarity was in the days after 9/11. But it didn’t take long for conspiracy theorists to drive a wedge into that.
We’re a first-world democracy where rape is illegal and not condoned by tribal law or custom, and where men and women have equal rights.
|
One thing you’d think we’d be able to agree on, as a country, and as the leader other nations look to on human rights, is the need for consent when it comes to sex. We’re a first-world democracy where rape is illegal and not condoned by tribal law or custom, and where men and women have equal rights. And yet, we have Rush Limbaugh reading aloud OSU’s consent laws with contempt and mockery, then asking:
How many of you guys, in your own experience with women, have learned that no means yes if you know how to spot it?
To understand why someone like Limbaugh would oppose consent laws and try to cripple the whole concept by simultaneously mocking it and appealing to men by suggesting that their own experience trumps the legal code, it helps to understand what the opposite of consent really is. The opposite of consent is what Limbaugh is arguing for, and the opposite of consent is entitlement.
Entitlement to sex, whether your partner agrees to it or not.
Entitlement because you’re a man, and men have a right to enjoy female pleasure.
Entitlement because men know, despite a woman’s protests, that she wants it.
The opposite of consent is what Limbaugh is arguing for, and the opposite of consent is entitlement.
|
Entitlement because men get to determine a woman’s opinion for her, and base their actions on that determination.
Entitlement because men get to take what they want, when they want it, simply because they want it.
Entitlement because men don’t have to take no for an answer.
The truth is, neither men nor women are entitled to any of the above, and consent laws make that truth—which is uncomfortable for some men—both clear and actionable.
Limbaugh also complains that consent takes the fun out of seduction. He laments, “Seduction used to be an art. Now, of course, it’s prudish, and it’s predatory. It’s bad.”
Persuasion implies getting to yes, and even overcoming no, but it does not and has never meant getting someone to have sex with you against their will.
|
He’s probably not one to read the dictionary, but Webster’s defines seduction as “the art of persuading someone to have sex with you.” Persuasion implies getting to yes, and even overcoming no, but it does not and has never meant getting someone to have sex with you against their will. Seduction is the art of getting someone to want to have sex with you, and ultimately to agree to have sex with you, of getting someone to—you guessed it—consent to have sex with you.
♦◊♦
Now, let’s reverse the genders in Limbaugh’s question and see how it sounds.
How many of you girls, in your own experience with men, have learned that no means yes even when you mean no?
Isn’t this the question we should be asking?
And shouldn’t we strip it of gender altogether?
How many of you, in your own experience with sexual partners, have learned that no means yes even when you mean no? How many of you have been raped within marriage or a committed relationship, or been forced to have sex with threats of anger or emotional blackmail, or been touched when and where you didn’t want to be touched—as a child or an adult—or finally given in to sex silently because saying no is just an invitation to your partner to wear you down until you simply don’t have the energy to fight? How many of you have experienced any of that?
But Rush Limbaugh, and the people he persuades, or even seduces with his speech, would never ask those questions. They wouldn’t ask them because they cut right to the core of entitlement, and specifically male entitlement. Because they reveal entitlement for exactly what it is.
♦◊♦
If you’re Rush Limbaugh or someone who hangs on his every word, consent sucks. Consent is a pain in the ass. Consent means you can’t just cut to the head of the line and take what you want. Consent means you have to treat others—all others—especially women, as equals. And consent means, you have to ask.
Doesn’t being sure that you are about to enjoy a mutually pleasurable experience just suck all the joy right out of it?
|
Wow, doesn’t that just spoil the moment? Doesn’t knowing, for sure, that your partner actually wants what you want ruin the mood? Doesn’t being sure that you are about to enjoy a mutually pleasurable experience just suck all the joy right out of it? Doesn’t establishing agreement just take all the passion and intimacy out of sex?
No. What consent does is remove the power element.
Bottom line: Rape is about power.
And rape is sex without consent.
Photo—Buzz Sourse/YouTube
Still having no luck posting here
I may be looking at it simplistically here, but once a person (female or male) says ‘no’ then their partner is morally, ethically and legally bound to comply and relent. A disingenuous, spiteful or a passive-aggressive type of person could, of course, purposefully misrepresent their own interest or ultimate intent by saying ‘no’ and thus withhold sex from their partner: But regardless of their ultimate motive or intent, again, the only moral, legal or tangible benchmark would be what they articulated. Extending or withholding consent does not require a justification before or after the fact of some kind. So come… Read more »
Having no luck posting here
Power/control/entitlement is at the root of any kind of abuse. Love you work TF 🙂
I’m pretty sure that is rush was drunk and saying no to a big gay biker and the biker decided to have his way with him anyway and rush kept saying no no no and the biker was all yes yes yes then maybe rush would have a different opinion on no=rape
For the people who love this type of rule/law… Please give an interpretation of the following: 1. “Consent must be freely given and can be withdrawn at any time.” – agree without hesitation. 2. You have to be sober, not coerced”- Seems to imply that non-sobriety must equal coercion. What are the standards for sobriety? Do we need a “safe start” attached to our bedposts? 3. “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.”- wow… so what are… Read more »
I am a 62 year old female who was date raped at 18 in 1969 and totally agree with what you wrote. My husband and I call him the blowhard. We listen occasionally, and I always research what he has to say. Maybe that’s the point.
Rush Limbaugh having sex. That’s an image no one needs in their head.
My husband’s family lived across from L., who used to always tell us how much he loved listening to Rush Limbaugh….I did not really understand what he was talking about….he seemed really enamored of his radio show….
The neighbor, named L., has passed away some years ago…but now I know what Rush Limbaugh is all about… it is just mind-boggling to me…perhaps L. and Rush would perceive me as some subhuman organism who threatens their worldview and mindset….
“as the leader other nations look to on human rights”
Um. Not to put too fine a point on it, but – no. Just, no.
The good news is… he basically gives us the playbook for the other team. As a man who spends a lot of time in this world, (I run a program called “Understanding Consent”) I can vouch that he uses the standard sexist entitlement arguments verbatim. You did a great job breaking his arguments down and turning them positive.
Thanks, Dale. I’d love to know more about your program.
Nice post Tom. Dead on. And impressive restraint to discuss this in a measured way and draw something from it. I’m not sure I could temper the hatred I have for this man to write about it in this way.
Thanks, Mike. It’s such an important issue. I didn’t want my personal feelings to get in the way of the points I needed to make.