You say that as if there were something wrong with it

[supergee]

The simple and obvious idea that consent marks the difference between acceptable and unacceptable sex horrifies Rush Limbaugh.

Comments

[arlie]

Rush is a member of one of the many branches of The Religion of the Rule Book. All branches agree that they have a set of rules, set by their deit(ies), which must be obeyed. Specifics of the rules differ, but they have this common element.

They may or may not have a concept of natural morality, things that [they believe] all peoples see as right (or wrong), even without exposure to their "true" religion. (Or perhaps in practice only all right-thinking, properly reflective people - not those "barbarians")

Theologically, rule book religions have 3 options:
- deity makes the rules. If It tells you to rape infants and skin old ladies, then this is good. There is no natural morality.
- deity adds extra details for believers, but its rules include and expand on natural morality
- deity is itself good, even according to natural morality. All right thinking people agree with its rules.

In this context, it can be argued that "natural morality" disallows non-consensual sex. It's legitimate to argue that consensual sex must follow the rest of the rulebook, _as well_. Being consensual is not sufficient. But by that argument, it is necessary. [Thus, for example, one might reject even consensual incest between adults.]

And frankly, it's not clear to me whether Limbaugh is arguing against consent, or demanding that all the rest of his particular religious rule book be followed as well.

Alternatively, he's arguing either that consent is not required by natural morality, or that there is no natural morality, and only The Rules matter. Both of those are worthy of the kind of mockery I'm seeing.

But which position is he really taking, under the sound bites and rhetoric?

Note also that a simple look at history shows that it's not clear that all or even most people reject non-consensual sex as immoral. We do, and insist that it's not just our particular rulebook talking. But most cultures had all kinds of exceptions to any such general principle.

[weofodthignen]

Seems to me his position is really simple: "If we [men] have to worry about consent, we'll have to worry about who women actually want to have sex with, and maybe it won't be us [insert loud dog-whistling about orgies and marrying animals, because neither of those is us]."

I'm self-censoring the rest of my thought.