The Blaze today has the story of Hustler’s photoshop of S.E. Cupp. While this is emblematic of the REAL “War on [Conservative] Women”…the one that the usual suspects have no interest in talking about, it has been rightly pointed out that all though Hustler was both good enough to provide a disclaimer next to the photoshop…which will undoubtedly NOT accompany the image as it makes its way around the web, and was also good enough to be honest about the reasons for doing so, in creating this image, they have forever marked her in a graphically sexual manner over a political disagreement.
While the National Organization for Women has not yet issued a statement, it is not anticipated that it will offer anything more than a pro forma protest, if any.
The Hustler explanation states:
S.E. Cupp is a lovely young lady who read too much Ayn Rand in high school and ended up joining the dark side. Cupp, an author and media commentator who often shows up on Fox News programs, is undeniably cute. But her hotness is diminished when she espouses dumb ideas like defunding Planned Parenthood. Perhaps the method pictured here is Ms. Cupp’s suggestion for avoiding an unwanted pregnancy.
President Obama, who inserted himself in a similar controversy earlier this year when he personally called Sandra Fluke, the Georgetown Law Student and Activist who was called a “slut” on air by Rush Limbaugh, has so far remained silent on this matter. Fluke, despite voluntarily enrolling at a Catholic school, testified in a public hearing about the need for the school to offer health care plans that would pay for the birth control of female students, which she claimed could cost upwards of $3000 over the course of a standard law school attendance. The number was claimed to be based not on a standard that would use either condoms, or “generic” birth control pills available at the nearest Target or Wal-Mart Stores, but upon the exceptions to the rule, who claimed the more expensive formulations were necessary to treat other conditions, an explanation not given until after the figure was criticized and ridiculed by Limbaugh and others. For the school to offer such a plan , it would have to go against church teaching and doctrine on the issue of birth control.
So because Ms. Cupp opposes PUBLIC funding of Klanned Parenthood, an organization that has undoubtedly been of great utility over the years to a readership that was more than happy to avoid the responsibilities of fatherhood that would have been incurred by sport screwing and the objectification of women, she deserves to be photoshopped with a penis in her mouth…an image that will undoubtedly be seen one day by her children, and the rest of her family.
It seems a far cry from a January day in Tucson, Arizona when President mustered enough sincerity to say these words with apparent conviction:
But then talk is cheap, and Ms. Cupp’s conservative views and opposition to Klanned Parenthood undoubtedly make a similar intervention by the President in this matter quite impossible.
Taxes, Stupidity, and Death 
When liberals say things like that, they don’t really mean it.
These words were never meant to be applied to himself or his sycophants. To him only the “other” engages in hatred and incivility. The left is wholly Machaivellian in it’s justification. If they need to be obscene and dishonest so be it. This is why the left in this country is so comfortable with Islam. No act is off limits as long as their cause is advanced. Scruples, integrity and morality are very much in short supply by both pResident and his supporters.
Well I do agree that NOW will remain silent about this and that double standard is deplorable.
But the Limbaugh/Hustler comparison is a false equivalency. Limbaugh hosts a program purportedly NOT about sex. He is no Dr. Ruth. So why he levels a sexual pejorative against Sandra Fluke (“slut”) is beyond me. On the other hand, Hustler is a porno magazine. Their natural method of defamation will be sexual in nature … and graphic in nature. So the two cases really don’t merit comparison.
From the little I’ve seen of S.E. Cupp, I like her. She lacks the meanness found in her peers Ann Coulter and Michele Malkin. Honestly, Cupp’s best move is “nothing to see here” and just move on. Hustler has limited distribution, mostly among pervs who have never even heard of S.E. Cupp. Don’t inflame it and it will go away. I assure you, unlike the iconic pic of Marilyn Monroe with her skirt up in the air, no one 20 years from now will be looking at a picture of S.E. Cupp sucking cock.
Your right they aren’t equivalent. Sandra Fluke was a phony perpetrating a fraud and was called on it. As I’ve said before she may not have been a slut in the biblical sense she certainly was one in an intellectual sense. She helped advance an unctuous and disingenuous agenda being promoted by the Whitehouse designed to rationalize the stripping of first amendment rights from religious institutions. She lied about who she was in front of a partisan pseudo congressional committee using bogus information in order to make a case of why she ought to be re-reimbursed for a life style choice at the expense of someone else’s constitutional rights.
SE Cupp is a working journalist/commentator who was utterly slandered and had her reputation metaphorically raped in the public square by Obama supporters(surrogate may be too strong a description). Every time anyone marginally associated with the conservative movement, the republican party et al say anything that can be remotely construed by the dishonest left as racist, sexist et al the professionally and selctively offended on the left raise a cacophony of faux outrage. SE Cupp is a public figure and must expect some rough and tumble but this is so clearly over the line that even the most callous partisan should be able to make right call. Just because Flynt is a scum bag doesn’t mean you give him a pass. Do you give a rattle snake a pass on biting you? Or do you stomp it’s head to make sure it doesn’t bite you anymore.
Like Beck said on his show just think if this had been done to Michelle Antoinette or if that gap tooth old scum bag Letterman had made the joke he made about Willow Palin and Alex Rodriguez about Sasha or Malia. You would be losing your mind.
This is an easy call. If they can’t condemn a sleazebag like Flynt who will they condemn. Oh yeah that’s right they will try and taint Romney with a 157 year old event by ostensible coreligionists while they ignore hateful remarks and the utter anti-Americanism of Obama’s religious guru’s
Well at least we agree they’re not equivalent.
To echo what WCT said below, sadly all Glenn Beck did was sell more Flynt magazines.
You’re right…no equivalency…this time there was absolutely no question of the intent underlying what was done. Can you say “actual malice”?
I hope Larry does sell lots of copies…he’ll need the money.
OH … one more thing. I neglected to inquire about the title of your post. Surely you’re not suggesting Hustler magazine is a surrogate for Barack Obama?
Hustler is certainly a surrogate for the Dimocratic Party – which is led by Barack Obama. Absolutely, I will make that suggestion. Hustler is part of the goon squad of the liberal wing of the Dimocratic Party, used to intimidate, humiliate and bully, as is George Soros, as is the SEIU, as is MSNBC, as in the NAACP.
While I doubt Barack Obama requests Hustler’s help, they are more than willing to help without being asked. Like BIC, I would like to see Barack Obama condemn this. Otherwise, I will assume Obama’s tacit approval of Hustler’s methods by his silence.
If I’m wrong, why did Larry Flynt offer a million dollars to anyone that could claim they had an adulterous affair with Rick Perry when Perry still the front runner at the outset.
So, Larry Flynt make a crude joke. He probably wants to stir the pot, sell magazines and make a splash. Which he did, helped along by The Blaze and the nattering nabobs of the MSM. As for S. E. Cupp, she probably resents the fact that her fame has been engorged, her book sales stimulated and her speaking fees pumped up. Nothing to see here but business as usual. Except maybe for the unpleasant possibility that the lovely Ms. Cupp may dress more modestly in the future. Heaven forbid.
LOL I didn’t put it that way and now wish I had. Bravo WCT. It does now strike me odd that S.E. found it helpful for Glenn Beck to discuss this on the air.
Yeah, it isn’t at all like he could possibly have an issue with someone doing this to one of his employees…besides, we all know that the gang at MSNBC and CNN didn’t work themselves into a lather over Limbaugh’s criticism of the activist-provocateur…when he didn’t actually prepare and publish an image of her sucking on a penis.
Cupp works for Beck? She just dropped a rung in my estimation.
Cupp works for Beck? She just dropped a rung in my estimation.
Yes, because there was so much room below “under the soles of my shoes”.
Actually, I line my cat Ollie’s litter box with pictures of Michelle Malkin. 😉
And of course they can’t just condemn Flynt’s actions on it’s own terms they have to draw what can only be a intellectually vacuous and totally dishonest equivalence.
From the Daily Caller
This comparison is an obscene bit of false equivalency. It is the difference between a pinch on the ass(Limbaugh) and a full blown sexual assault. And that’s even assuming that a liar like Sandra Fluke even deserves a modicum of civility since by being dishonest with the American people she has shown that she will eschew civility whenever it advances her agenda.
I will however give Ms Fluke some polite golf applause for only reminding us of herself in an oblique fashion.
Wow have you lost your bearings on this one. First, to my surprise, The Daily Caller simply reported the tweets. They are conservative and they seemed to have no problem with the suggested equivalency. Maybe tells you that PPAF deserves a bit of credit for condemning the photo?
Second, as always, perception is everything. Limbaugh said that Fluke is promiscuous (that is what a slut is). Hustler simply suggested that SE gives head, perhaps in a good conservative monogamous relationship. 🙂 If viewed through that lens, Limbaugh is FAR MORE OFFENSIVE.
Perhaps the image would have suited you better if the camera had panned back to reveal it was Uncle Sam or Ronald Reagan’s cock she was sucking? 😉
I don’t really care much whether the Caller passed judgement on this or not.If they accept the equivalence it doesn’t speak well to their intellect or moral compass does it. This was chosen for the rather obnoxiously self serving and clumsy way in which the truly loathsome provocateurs at PP tried to intellectually steal a base by rehashing an incident that is orders of magnitude less offensive to anyone with a normal sense of decorum. As for credit do you think that the next time they trump up some offense by a conservative they will bring up the Hustler incident and rake Mr Flynt or Maher or Letterman as a bad example. No they were trying to regain credibility on the cheap. No Sale.
You really can’t be serious with that statement. Anyone who cares to find the context of why Sandra Fluke is an intellectual prostitute(yes I know Limbaugh wasn’t thinking in those terms) and deserved such opprobrium will understand the difference.
The fact that you actually thought that was funny is particularly disturbing there is a rejoinder but this is a family friendly venue and the last time I went down that road(under a different handle) it wasn’t pretty.
I never actually considered this “a family venue” but to that point, my apologies to the blog host. Feel free to edit out the offensive bits.
I’m not sure when the blog host became a shrinking violet, but I’m sure the shoptown kid in me has an appropriately obscene and offensive response to the suggestion.
I find that I try not to let that dog off the chain, because the conversation stops with that, and the rest is just shouting. It can be cathartic, but not necessarily informative, which is why I reserve it as response to some of the guests on the radio show I listen to while driving home.
OOOPs!
It is I who should apologize. I did not mean to sound prudish or seem like I was special pleading to have you censored. I do not presume to speak for anyone here but myself. It was that kind of assumption that started the aforementioned incident and since then I try to mind my P’s and Q’s. Sometimes the stage directions seep into my comments.
To use a hackneyed cliche ” I don’t agree with what you say but I will defend your right to say it”. Not to the death there have to be limits you know. 😉
Maybe tells you that PPAF deserves a bit of credit for condemning the photo?
I will agree to this, yes.
Second, as always, perception is everything.
Agreed, but too often, you seem to perceive a cat to be a dog.
Limbaugh said that Fluke is promiscuous (that is what a slut is).
Actually, she testified to an outrageous and still unsubstantiated figure as the average contraceptive costs of the average co-ed at Georgetown Law. It was presented in the context of personal experience, and was not sufficiently detailed enough to make clear that she was using the exception rather than the rule as the basis of her claims (that being that it really wasn’t about contraception, which can be achieved with a $1 a pop condom or $9 a month generic birth control pill from the nearby Target or Wal-Mart, but using different and expensive birth control pill formulations to “treat” various conditions other than a desire not to get pregnant). Limbaugh took the testimony and the funny math that it presented, and drew the obvious conclusion…that approximately $1000 a year will buy both the pill and a boatload of condoms, and that she might be studying something, but it isn’t law. He didn’t go pick her name at random out of a hat, and he wasn’t the one giving specious and incomplete testimony regarding the “need” for yet another government mandate, and one that violates the Constitution, at that. In contrast, Cupp was maligned simply because the editors think she is “too conservative”, and because she thinks that public funding of Klanned Parenthood is not a good idea. No matter how you slice it, that doesn’t invite the concoction of a photo with a penis in her mouth. That is neither debate, or a criticism of her beliefs. It is merely a slander of her character that is not based on anything that she has said, but merely the editor’s desire to see her in a situation that implies their dominance over her because they don’t like her opinions.
Hustler simply suggested that SE gives head, perhaps in a good conservative monogamous relationship. If viewed through that lens, Limbaugh is FAR MORE OFFENSIVE.
No, what Rush did was draw a conclusion from incomplete, specious, and self-serving testimony. He phrased it in a way that was provocative, and not at all diplomatic, but not everyone is Winston Churchill. What Hustler did was take the imfamous Playboy “hate-f**k” article to the next level, and hide their actual malice behind a claim of ‘satire”, despite the fact that it was neither the written word, or a cartoon, either of which could be “taken out of context”, and still recognized as satire. It isn’t the same thing with a photgraphic image which portrays an act that if done in real life without her consent, would be a sexual assault. This image is severable from the disclaimer and their explanation, and will undoubtedly be severed at some time. As the father of a daughter yourself, R, I’m surprised that you really haven’t consider the difference, and while I only have sons, it seems to me that the image, regardless of my knowledge that it is fake, would be enough to piss me off every time I see it. It may not be a rape of her body, but it is a rape of her character, and the silence of President Civility on this matter when he couldn’t “bear witness” to the Fluke matter, which he believed helped his agendas, only underscores his hypocrisy and opportunism.
BiW it’s a semantic argument since I know I’m defending the indefensible. You infer aggression. I honestly do not. The fake act seemed in context quite voluntary to me. And the accompanying text actually DOES tie the lewd photo to its political underpinnings by suggesting that conservative women give blow jobs to avoid getting pregnant since they clearly have no need for Planned Parenthood.
Our good friend and financier Foster Friess had his own prescription for contraception, namely that women squeeze an aspirin between their knees. Flynt could just as easily have used that image … but then, since no “snatch” would be visible, it would defeat his magazine’s raison d’être.
P.S. Seriously, I’m only jousting to show an intellectual debate can be had on this that paints liberals or conservatives in a bad light. The bottom line is that the mock up was inappropriate and Cupp has every right to be pissed off. I still say the less she says and does about it, the better for her. Let it go away.
P.P.S. I think I may be the first person ever to use “snatch” and “raison d’être” in the same sentence. 🙂
Now that’s what PP should have said without dragging anything else into it.
Now that’s something to tell the grandkids.
That made me laugh. 🙂