Who'd want to have sex with Sandra Fluke anyhow?

That was my first thought when I saw pictures of this rabble-rousing woman.

In case some of you haven't heard of her, Sandra Fluke is a law student (typical) who sought out Georgetown University (a Catholic school) for admission, then once in, started raising hell because Obama's "contraception rights" BS wasn't being followed.

She went on and on about how important sex was and birth control and reproductive rights, blah blah blah.

So, like any other red-blooded American male, I headed to the internet looking for pictures of this supposed babe who, from the way she presents herself, is perpetually more horny than a pack of Dallas middle-aged cougars grazing on cocktails at a midtown martini bar across from the local Gold's Gym.

I figured Sandra Fluke would be a babe. A cover girl for a condom advertising spread. Someone Hugh Hefner would drop millions on to get in his Playboy mansion.

But I remembered a popular line from the 70's about some of the more self-righteous women who were piously in everyone's face about abortion.

"What do those broads care? They're so ugly, nobody would want to (ahem, er, fornicate with) them anyhow."

Now oh yeah, that is a sexist statement, no doubt. It also sounds like it's pro-choice. But to a typically hormone-equipped young man in the 70's, it was really neither. Instead, it was just a simple observation.

Now some three-plus decades later, I'm still anti-abortion but find myself drawing the same analogy to this Sandra Fluke person.

Or, to put it another way, I think she's uglier than a batch of homemade soap gone bad. Uglier than an empty glass of buttermilk. Uglier than Death itself reading a Mad magazine in an outhouse basement.

I mean, this woman is approaching Nancy Pelosi ugly, and that's some serious ugly.

Yet, she wants Georgetown to spring for her "protection" against unprotected sex because she wants to have sex all the time?

I can see why.

She's probably never had much, and probably never with the same guy more than once.

In college, we used to call girls like Fluke "coyote dates." The reason was that if you got THAT drunk to where you woke up in the morning, and Fluke's head was resting on your arm, it was preferable to chew your own arm off and leave rather than risk awakening her and possibly having to do the "deed" again just to be able to grab your clothes and leave.

Fluke could be a recruiting poster for the AA 12-step program on college campi everywhere.

Yeah, I'm really sounding sexist here but I'm trying to make a point.

Fluke CHOSE a Catholic university. She KNEW what their moral standards were. She KNEW what their "health plans" were, etc. Yet she chose to apply and enroll for the sole purpose of raising hell about not being supplied condoms or little daily white pills or vaginal foam or sponges or whatever.

I don't recall anyone else at Georgetown University complaining over these things. Those that did simply dropped out and enrolled at universities more to their liking.

If a liberal looney tunes idiot like Fluke really wants to make a point, maybe she should try dropping a few pounds, doing a little wardrobe experimenting, do something with her hair and makeup and make herself a bit more sexually appealing if she wants to argue on behalf of free-range sex with "protection" sponsored, provided and paid for by a religious institution that disagrees adamantly with her.

But on the other hand, if I were the Georgetown head priest guy, I think I'd take pictures of Fluke and blow them up to poster size, then put them up in all the dorms and bars around campus.

The sight of Fluke and her supporters alone might do more for abstinence than one could ever imagine.