Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: SeekAndFind
Please Explain to us why observing a behavior that fits the definition of a word is in error.

This woman demands that we pay for her sexual activities (where she cannot even exercise self control that it would cost her more than $3,000 a year in birth control), and someone who points this out should now apologize?

You describe an apparently sexually active college student, and that alone would not (by my def) make her a "slut".

(Just looking at some online defs, a slut would be a prostitute or one given to numerous one-night-stands. Also, one who has casual sexual relations frequently with different partners; and isn't exactly "choosy").

The fact that she (apparently) chooses to lie about the costs and the circumstances that make her somehow a victim seemingly make her a liar before congress, which, my FRiend, would be a crime.

I would, however, hesitate to call her a "slut" without further knowledge of her social habits (and I'm not the slightest bit interested in those, and nobody should be.)

.

69 posted on 03/03/2012 9:44:28 PM PST by Seaplaner (Never give in. Never give in. Never...except to convictions of honour and good sense. W. Churchill)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies ]


To: Seaplaner

DICTIONARY DEFINITION OF A SLUT: Slut or slattern is a term applied to an individual who is considered to have loose sexual morals or who is sexually promiscuous.

Why would one need more than $3,000 in contraceptives a year if one were not sexually promiscuous?


77 posted on 03/03/2012 9:48:44 PM PST by SeekAndFind (question)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies ]

To: Seaplaner

RE: I’m not the slightest bit interested in those, and nobody should be

Nobody WAS interested in those until she opened her wide trap and advertised her need to the world.


80 posted on 03/03/2012 9:51:24 PM PST by SeekAndFind (question)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies ]

To: Seaplaner

RE: I’m not the slightest bit interested in those, and nobody should be

Nobody WAS interested in those until she opened her wide trap and advertised her need to the world AND DEMANDED THAT WE PAY FOR IT WITH OUR HARD EARNED DOLLARS.


83 posted on 03/03/2012 9:52:22 PM PST by SeekAndFind (question)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies ]

To: Seaplaner

If she personally spent $3000 on contraceptives (the Pill plus condoms — and what ever happened to expecting the guy to pay for his part?) during a two or three year period in law school, she’d have gotten laid often enough to qualify as a slut. She likely did not do so herself (her manner suggests she’s a lesbian, who needs no contraception), but is likely only sympathizing with others who are sluts.


101 posted on 03/03/2012 10:10:05 PM PST by HiTech RedNeck (Sometimes progressives find their scripture in the penumbra of sacred bathroom stall writings (Tzar))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies ]

To: Seaplaner

A voice of reason. Thank you. I’ve spent years defending Rush to people that don’t listen to him, but only hear what’s said or printed about him. He was right to apologize, people, good people make mistakes. He didn’t need to go down the “slut” road to make his point. She may be a liar, but that doesn’t necessarily make her a slut. She didn’t ask others to pay for her to have sex. She wants others to pay for her contraception when she has sex. None of which I agree with. I won’t defend him for it, he shouldn’t have said it. I will defend him for his apology. Which is the right thing to do.


204 posted on 03/04/2012 5:25:49 AM PST by TheRake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson