Just to start with Hannity--
There are a lot of people who were paddled or whipped as kids, firmly, not to excess, and who lived and did well for themselves. But boasting that one has never been to a shrink is not that same as saying one hasn't experienced after-effects of one's abuse, and there could be an argument made that the discipline Hannity received taught him to be a punch-down, kiss-up authoritarian personality who goes out of his way to excuse power and malign the underdog. Just saying. But there's a real disconnect when someone tries to excuse the switch-beating of a four year old child that leaves cuts in his legs and scrotum. That just isn't acceptable. If Hannity can't see that this is a question not about the ability of parents to discipline, but the extent to which they carry that discipline out, then I really wonder. Can't parents carry out loving discipline that isn't harmful, and instill values by living them? Is that so preposterous? (For the record I may have been spanked, by hand, once in my life, by my parents. Never an implement.)
Hannity explained that he was hit by his father as a child, and he turned out just fine.
"I got hit with a strap. Bam, bam, bam. And I have never been to a shrink. I will tell you that I deserved it," he said.
"I think he went far," Hannity then said about Peterson. "But I don’t want to see this guy get a felony, I don’t want to see this guy lose his job. He deserves parenting classes."
Hannity then took off his belt to demonstrate the technique.
In a way, I'm kind of sad for belt-beaten little Sean. In my head, I'm just thinking--it didn't have to be that way.
Now, as to Limbaugh:
Limbaugh said Monday on his syndicated "The Rush Limbaugh Show" that he's tired of the "modern" definition of consent and that, actually, sometimes "no" really means "yes."
"How many of you guys in your own experience with women have learned that 'no' means 'yes' if you know how to spot it?" he asked. "It used to be used as a cliche."
Sigh. Yeah, he really said that. Because he knows how to spot it.
According to the Huffington Post, Limbaugh then read off Ohio State University's definition of consent, which apparently says once people have decided to have sex, they must agree to agree to every activity along the way, including agreeing on "why" you are doing so.
Which takes all the fun away, says Limbaugh. "Agreeing on the 'why' takes all the romance out of everything!" he said. "Seduction used to be an art, now of course it's brutish and it's predatory and it's bad."
You know who always thinks they know when "no" means "yes"? Rapists! This art of seduction of which he speaks is the art of disregarding a women's outspoken decision not to do a certain activity and to coerce compliance--there's a word for that, and it isn't "romance".
What Limbaugh is basically saying is that sometimes, a woman might like it when she is engaging in activities she has expressly stated she'd rather not. Because she might find out she likes it! Romance!
Limbaugh is an ugly misogynist. His tirade regarding Sandra Fluke calling her a "slut" many times over for her being in a relationship and discussing the vital need for access to birth control stands out as an astonishing example of an unhinged man contemplating a woman as the boss of her own sexuality. His eventual apology once he was bleeding sponsors was inadequate and sad. But his misogyny marches on and on and on.
I really think he just basically explained he doesn't think rape is a real thing, there. And that is some truly messed-up thinking.
So, well, this is why I have such problems listening to RW media. So much pathology. So little ability to address all of it.