Rape AKA Republican Catnip

You know their are certain comments in life, that when someone else says it, you really just don't attempt to clarify for them.

"Hitler is a good guy" "Slavery would help get us out of the recession" ect ect.

It doesnt particularly matter if their is a tiny grain of truth or not in them. I mean look maybe Hitler really was super nice to kittens and saved thousands from being put to sleep. So yea it might be that Hitler was only 99.999999999999% evil. But thats the problem, that 99.9999999999 is clear enough reason to anyone with a functioning brain that the phrase "Hitler was a good guy" should NEVER be said even in the context of kitty rescuing.

This is a lesson apparently lost on Republican Representative Phil Gingrey, who decided basically totally out of the blue and some 6 months late to defend former Rep. Todd Akin's comments on legitimate rape while taking to the Chamber of Commerce this week.

"Part of the reason the Dems still control the Senate is because of comments made in Missouri by Todd Akin and Indiana by Mourdock were considered a little bit over the top, Mourdock basically said ‘Look, if there is conception in the aftermath of a rape, that’s still a child, and it’s a child of God, essentially.’ Now, in Indiana, that cost him the election.


And in Missouri, Todd Akin … was asked by a local news source about rape and he said, ‘Look, in a legitimate rape situation’ — and what he meant by legitimate rape was just look, someone can say I was raped: a scared-to-death 15-year-old that becomes impregnated by her boyfriend and then has to tell her parents, that’s pretty tough and might on some occasion say, ‘Hey, I was raped.’ That’s what he meant when he said legitimate rape versus non-legitimate rape. I don’t find anything so horrible about that. But then he went on and said that in a situation of rape, of a legitimate rape, a woman’s body has a way of shutting down so the pregnancy would not occur. He’s partly right on that.”

He then mentioned he (Gingrey) is an OBGYN and added (also seriously women, your letting this guy look at your vagina? better judgement people, like a doctor who actually knows how it works, just saying)

“And I’ve delivered lots of babies, and I know about these things. It is true. We tell infertile couples all the time that are having trouble conceiving because of the woman not ovulating, ‘Just relax. Drink a glass of wine. And don’t be so tense and uptight because all that adrenaline can cause you not to ovulate.’ So he was partially right wasn’t he? But the fact that a woman may have already ovulated 12 hours before she is raped, you’re not going to prevent a pregnancy there by a woman’s body shutting anything down because the horse has already left the barn, so to speak. And yet the media took that and tore it apart.”

Now see heres the problem, this is Todd Akin's actual statement:

“It [pregnancy from rape] seems to be, first of all, from what I understand from doctors, it’s really rare. If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut the whole thing down.”:
So heres your first problem. Akin clearly WAS NOT referring to women who report consensual sex as rape after the fact. He said flat out "if its a legitimate rape you don't get pregnant."

Which leads to the second problem. Quoting Rep Gingrey "But the fact that a woman may have already ovulated 12 hours before she is raped, you’re not going to prevent a pregnancy there by a woman’s body shutting anything down because the horse has already left the barn, so to speak."

In other words theres Phil Gringrey saying flat out, "Todd Akin is wrong...(with the possible exception the very rare case you are supposed to be ovulating the exact second and we ignore the fact you can get pregnant 3 days or so after sex as well) which is why Todd Akin was right"

Hitler was nice to kittys. He used to shoot cats in the head. So Hitler was nice to cats.

Ok to review, 6 months after the fact some other republican has decided to defend Todd Akin's comments as correct, while admitting while doing so they are wrong.

But here's the bigger question, Why the hell would you even bother? I mean seriously all 12 of the guys in the last election who made rape comments lost, so what in god's name would convince any republican to even say the words "rape" and not follow them with the words "is a crime, always"?

And I think i figured it out.

I have two cats, and one of them LOVES catnip. As in we had a Christmas present (that we didnt know) had catnip in it. He tried to rip open the wrapping paper as soon as the thing hit the ground, and spend the rest of the day (once we removed the catnip) rubbing himself all over the toy or at the bottom of the bookshelf that we put the catnip on top of, or fighting with our other cat so he could do one or the other.

Because cats go fucking nuts for catnip.... they cant help it.

And I think its the same thing for Republicans and rape. I think its a reflex. I think a republican hears the word Rape and there is some deep unquenchable urge to defended it. I'm not even sure they are conscious of it. And to be honest, I think something it can be triggered if they heard a word LIKE rape (cape, nape, ape, drape, grape, crape, ect) or if they see a word that kinda looks like rape (rap, rake, ripe, race ect)

Because honestly I have no other explanation as to why 6 months later, for no reason at all, some republican would feel the need to defend a defeated former congressman's rape comments WHILE disproving and misrepresenting the comments, other then a deep seated involuntary reflex. Because NO ONE can possibly be that damn stupid.

(apologies to the family members of any republicans reading this, it just occured to me I should have put a warning at the top, so that your loved one wouldnt be reduced to a drooling quivering convulsing mass on the floor suffering from "rape overdose".)