When Rush Limbaugh decided to make fun of a university for creating a policy about sexual relations he attacked a couple of things. The first thing he objected to was the suggestion that any kind of sexual relation had to be with someone who was “over thirteen years old”. The other thing he balked at was the idea that sex had to be agreed to as a process. I’m guessing that the overall idea was that kissing doesn’t necessarily lead to anything. If a partner says ” no” it means that the game is over. There is no natural progression from “first base” to “second base”.
Rush seemed surprised by that and he asked his audience whether or not they had had experiences with women in which they had to suss out what she really meant? He asked if it wasn’t true that men learned in the “art of seduction” that sometimes a woman said no when she really meant yes and spotting it was a skill.
It’s pretty shocking that we aren’t telling people that no means no. Yes means yes, and no means no. How hard is that? If a woman says yes and she means no, then she should change her statement so that she then indicates that she is in agreement with a decision. And if she doesn’t, then it’s fair to assume her no was meaningful. What don’t people understand about that?
Why would Mr. Limbaugh try to incite his listeners with suggestions that there are law suits waiting to happen if men are asked to agree with their partners about sexual acts? What is the big deal?
If he’s confused because he’s wallowing in nostalgia I feel sort of sorry for him. I would imagine he knows more about law suits with members of the opposite sex than I do. Apparently his early training in becoming a Lothario didn’t work out all that well for him.