Subscribe via RSS Feed

Non-Sequitur Theater, With Mr. Richard Cohen

[ 250 ] September 3, 2013 |

Shorter Richard Cohen: “Young women get raped because Elvis once got shown from the waist down Mick Jagger sang “Let’s spend some yarrrgh together” on Sullivan Miley Cyrus danced suggestively. And, no, I really have no understanding of the concept of consent. Anyway, she’s a twerk. See, I am a funny guy!

Bonus classic Cohen: he acknowledges that the Kitty Genovese story is an urban legend, but he’s so lazy he uses it anyway.

Comments (250)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Icarus Wright says:

    Jesus Fu Twerking Christ.

  2. Walt says:

    Oh, it’s worse than that. He’s saying that the Steubenville rape case is an urban legend like Kitty Genovese.

    • rea says:

      Not to mention the bit of time-travel involved in Miley Cyrus’s dancing being responsible for last year’s rape.

    • tt says:

      No he’s not. You’re misreading.

      • Aimai says:

        I agree with tt, he’s not saying that the Steubenville Rape is an urban legend like Kitty Genovese–he’s saying that both are examples of depraved indifference to the suffering of naked women but that Steubenville is worse because, as it happens, people were shocked and did call in in the Kitty Genovese case but the teenagers and their families are still unshocked by the actions of the teenagers in the steubenville case. Its a double twist reverse with a backwards “kids these days ON THE INTERNET and SOCIAL MEDIA!!!!!”

      • Anonymous says:

        I don’t know, tt — this line here “That country, such as it is, exists on the Internet — in e-mails and tweets and Facebook, which formed itself into a digital lynch mob that demanded the arrest of the innocent for a crime — gang rape — that had not been committed” — seems to suggest to me that Cohen is saying Steubenville was not a gangrape; and earlier he claims that only “two young men” were involved in any wrong doing at Steubenville, since only two young men were actually convicted of any crime.

        It seems to me, in other words, that Cohen is saying no big thing happened at Steubenville, and we’ve just made a mountain out of a molehill.

        • delurking says:

          That was me, btw.

          • Aimai says:

            Cohen really wants to have his rape and eat it too. On the one hand: everyone is implicated including the entire culture and everyone who could have spoken up and stopped it but didn’t–a group which of course included coaches and adults as well as teens–and on the other “only two” were found actually guilty of anything because only two were found criminally liable. So the frenzy and the public outcry against it becomes another source of scandal, for Cohen, because somehow Steubenville and its good country people are being overcharged for a crime they didn’t commit?

      • Walt says:

        I’m not misreading it. Read it again. He says about the SRC “The next thing you should know is that just about everything you do know about the case from TV and the Internet was wrong.”. And then later about Kitty Genovese he says “You could compare what happened in Steubenville, Ohio, to the notorious 1964 murder of Kitty Genovese,… This was an urban legend that arose out of fear of urban living.”

        It’s all right there in the article.

  3. Anonymous says:

    But, but, but this Richard Cohen asshole is just some anonymous nobody on the internet, right? Why pick on such a person? It’s not like he has a highly-paid position writing rape apology (what we need is . . . more purity culture!) for a prominent newspaper or something.

  4. Aimai says:

    Not getting out of the boat but perhaps those willing to dogpaddle through the sludge can tell me whether Cohen assigns her responsibility for his own sexual harrassment suit years ago?

  5. jim, some guy in iowa says:

    “culture run amok” is newspaper code for “click this link or the columnist gets his pay docked”

  6. Aimai says:

    Do these people really think that rape didnt exist before women showed a little ankle? Is the problem with steubenville that gangs of people suddenly behave worse than individuals? Is cohen really going to ignore famous cases if rape and mob violence that happened within his lifetime–that he probably commented on–because they happened before disney gave them their imprimatur?

    • Shakezula says:

      Of course women got raped before then. It’s what we got for allowing our earlobes, finger tips or chins to inflame the normally dormant passions of innocent men.

    • celticdragonchick says:

      Let’s see…murder of Hypatia (not sure if she was raped…but just about everything else was done to her by a Christian mob)…mass rape of Scottish women by Hannoverian troops after the Battle of Culloden (according to a UN report, this is the first documented example of mass rape used as a state tool for genocide), rapes of Irish, Scottish, English, French etc women by Norse invaders…rape and sexual slavery carried out by North African Muslim pirates, mass rapes of Greek women by Ottoman Turks, institutionalized rape of thousands of Irish women taken into slavery…including captive nuns and pubescent girls as well as thousands of African women on British held island of Barbados during 17th and 18 centuries, unimaginably grotesque incidents of rape during the Japanese occupation of China, including the infamous Rape of Nanjing, also Japanese rape and sexual slavery committed against women from Formosa, Indonesia, Denmark, Soviet Union, Australia, The Philippines and Korea, mass rape of women in Bangladesh by Pakistani troops in 1971, mass rapes of Muslim women by Croats and Serbs in Bosnia as a toll of genocide, mass rapes of African anamist and Christian women by Sudanese Janjaweed militia…

      God, I think I need a break from this.

    • Warren Terra says:

      A bare ankle has been mentioned; I must go tremble in a darkened closet, striving to control my manful urges.

    • delurking says:

      Silly Aimai. There was no rape before Feminists invented it (in or about 1970).

  7. bspencer says:

    Um, do I want to click? I feel like I’m gonna…and I’m going to regret it deeply.

    • jim, some guy in iowa says:

      based on past performance, it’s going to be lazy, obtuse and misogynistic posing as meaningful and clever. how much of that does a person *need* to read – or write, for that matter?

      • bspencer says:

        I skimmed it and, yes, it was offensive and stupid…but mostly what I took away from it was that he sounded so so OLD. Just ancient. Just out of touch…to a silly extent. If what he wrote didn’t give cover to rapists and sexual harassers, I’d feel sorry for him.

        • joe from Lowell says:

          Grampa Simpson, rambling on about one thing and then the other, ending up with “Oh, yeah, what was I saying?”

        • GoDeep says:

          Reading this post I thought that Cohen was mansplaining gang rape, but that wasn’t the case at all. He wrote:

          “I felt…unhappily immersed in a teenage culture that was stupid, dirty and so incredibly and obliviously misogynistic that I felt like a visitor to a foreign country…This is what got me: a teenage culture that was brutal and unfeeling, that treated the young woman as dirt.”

          He condemns the actions & talks abt the larger culture which, in his opinion, spawned it. I generally dislike Cohen to be perfectly honest but what more can you ask of the guy? This ain’t MRA bullshit.

          • Aimai says:

            Well, but what is the connection between the SRC and Miley Cyrus ultimately? In Cohen’s mind Cyrus participates, like the Steubenville Rapists, in a culture of sexual profligacy and (therefore) misogyny because she dances in a sexy manner. She can’t possibly be in charge of her own sexuality or her own brand image and a sexy girl who chooses to dance sexily leads directly to other girls getting (not exactly) raped but turned into celebrity sex toys because something something something degradation of the culture.

            Since Steubenville was emphatically more about a historically unsurprising Jock culture run amuck and the star treatment which is given football players for all kinds of criminal acts from vandalism to rape it has absolutely nothing to do with Miley cyrus’s dance routine. If you wanted to make that argument Cohen should have gone to read Stiffed, Susan Faludi’s brilliant book, and looked at the moronic band of the Spur Posse (I think that was their name) who sought celebrity status at the national level through their sexcapades.

            • GoDeep says:

              OK, well I follow your logic now, tho my conclusions abt what he was saying were entirely opposite.

              I think the point he was making–and its a legitimate critique–is Miley’s twerking coarsens the culture (who could disagree with that?), and that coarsening the culture leads inevitably to things which aren’t just coarse but also criminal.

              So Amanda Bynes tweets, “I want Drake to murder my vagina” and feminists shrug it off. Ke$ha gender bends rape scenarios in her lyrics and feminists defend her while pop culture celebrates her. In fact, the greatest outrage from the feminist community abt Cyrus’ conduct was b/cs she “misappropriated” a black dance, not that she sexually objectified herself.

              So, ultimately Cohen buys into the feminist argument of “Rape Culture”, its just that he locates the origin of that culture someplace they wouldn’t. I’m not entirely sure that culture spawns rape but if feminists make that argument Cohen certainly can too.

              • Bijan Parsia says:

                I think the point he was making–and its a legitimate critique–is Miley’s twerking coarsens the culture (who could disagree with that?)

                I think I can!

                What exactly is the coarsening and why is it a problem? (I mean, putting aside the asinine purported causal relationship between celebrity performances and general criminality?)

                I mean, I guess I can understand the deep culture shock one might experience at a performer not respecting the majestic gravity of the MTV Music Awards. It is true that he solemnity and sober reflection that an entertainment award show engenders in even the meanest of us is something to be cherished, like a delicate orchids bloom or the first blush of untrampled snow which makes the world anew in the light of sublime wonder.

                But fuck that noise.

                • Ronan says:

                  Yes, thank you Bijan. Culture coarsening is only a soundbite

                • Bijan Parsia says:

                  And, let me add, that I just “read” (in the sense of cause my jaw to dislocate at a piece of writing so incoherent, bonkers, stupid, and offensive that I thought I was reading about Cohen being funny again) his article. I did watch the VMA clip. Without question, the Cohen piece is a far more loathsome and tasteless bit of cultural jetsam than the Cyrus performance. I didn’t particularly care for the Cyrus performance aesthetically and am concerned by the appropriation involved, but meh. No big. Nothing too interesting or shocking about it. “Twerk” is fun to say but not interesting to watch (or, I suspect, do, at least how she did it).

                  The Cohen piece from start to finish was illiterate, embarrassing garbage. The last line summarised the stupidity perfectly.

                • Ronan says:

                  “and am concerned by the appropriation involved”

                  I linked to this before on that point which was interesting, i thought

                  http://tressiemc.com/2013/08/27/when-your-brown-body-is-a-white-wonderland/

                • Bijan Parsia says:

                  Great read, Ronan. Thanks for reposting it.

                • Malaclypse says:

                  Culture coarsening is only a soundbite.

                  As was “degenerate art.”

                • Ronan says:

                  “As was “degenerate art.” ”

                  And free school dinners.

              • witless chum says:

                I think the point he was making–and its a legitimate critique–is Miley’s twerking coarsens the culture (who could disagree with that?), and that coarsening the culture leads inevitably to things which aren’t just coarse but also criminal.

                Yeah, that all makes sense except for the fact that the exact opposite seems to be happening. Crime rates going down, girls shaking their butts on teh TV going up. Perhaps there’s not much connection between these two things. And spare me the Miley thing. “Rump Shaker” was certified multi-platinum before Miley Cyrus was born, so I think you need to thing about zoom-zooming this line of argument.

                So Amanda Bynes tweets, “I want Drake to murder my vagina” and feminists shrug it off. Ke$ha gender bends rape scenarios in her lyrics and feminists defend her while pop culture celebrates her. In fact, the greatest outrage from the feminist community abt Cyrus’ conduct was b/cs she “misappropriated” a black dance, not that she sexually objectified herself.

                Assuming your characterization of the level of feminist outrage is correct, even if you define skimpy costumes and suggestive dancing as Cyrus sexually objectifying herself, that’s something she has in common with pretty much every other female pop star in existence, so feminists getting upset at that would be odd. She’s outstanding only in the fact that she’s super awkward at stealing black culture.

                Also, maybe they were busy worrying about the organized political movement to make them second-class citizens and they haven’t gotten around to analyzing all of Kesha’s lyrics yet?

              • I think the point he was making–and its a legitimate critique–is Miley’s twerking coarsens the culture (who could disagree with that?)

                Me. It’s irrelevant. “The culture” is a phrase uttered by wannabe gatekeepers.

                coarsening the culture leads inevitably to things which aren’t just coarse but also criminal.

                So in 1950 there was less rape?

                • N__B says:

                  If I read RC correctly, rape in 1950 was less coarse.

                • mark f says:

                  If I read RC correctly, rape in 1950 was less coarse

                  It was just an idiosyncracy of charming rogues who refused to be fenced in. Maybe it wasn’t right, exactly, but was it wrong? *looks at Hud poster* Kids today ruin everything.

                • I only saw Hud recently, and, uh, yeah. I don’t think my reaction was supposed to be surprise that Paul Newman would play someone so obviously awful.

                • mark f says:

                  I imagine Richard Cohen would be exactly the kind of guy to read the movie all wrong.

                • Hogan says:

                  Give Jessica Valenti and The Nation a read & she’ll say Rape Culture causes–not enables–rapists.

                  Oh, so you’re not talking about “the culture,” you’re talking about “Rape Culture.” I got confused because you kept saying “the culture,” as if those two were interchangeable. Or indeed as if “the culture” had some meaning.

              • Scott Lemieux says:

                I think the point he was making–and its a legitimate critique–is Miley’s twerking coarsens the culture (who could disagree with that?)

                Me!

                and that coarsening the culture leads inevitably to things which aren’t just coarse but also criminal.

                This is really, really dumb. Rapists don’t rape women because singers dance suggestively.

                • GoDeep says:

                  I said it was a legitimate critique I didn’t say it was an accurate one. Legitimate arguments aren’t necessarily accurate arguments. Reasonable ppl can disagree.

                  I personally believe rape is more abt psychology than sociology. But–just like Cohen–a great majority of feminists think rape is caused by culture. I think they’re both wrong, but they both make good points at times.

                • I said it was a legitimate critique I didn’t say it was an accurate one.

                  “And it’s a legitimate critique” in the sentence reads as a parenthetical.

                • Bijan Parsia says:

                  Either way, I disagree.

                  It’s not a “legitimate” critique and I don’t agree with the content.

                  You’ll find plenty of people in this thread who think that the idea of “coarsening the culture” is nonsense.

                  I suppose this flavor of your nonsense is better than the “Richard Cohen is just using the OLD UCR definition of rape, so that’s cool” nonsense below. Either way, it’d be better if you stopped.

                • Hogan says:

                  a great majority of feminists think rape is caused by culture.

                  Feminists know the difference between “caused” and “enabled.” You I’m not so sure about.

                • GoDeep says:

                  Give Jessica Valenti and The Nation a read & she’ll say Rape Culture causes–not enables–rapists. And so while Cohen cites different aspects of the Culture his critique is as equally valid as Valenti’s.

                  There certainly are liberals who think “coarsening the culture” is bunk–I used to be one myself in my younger days–but then these are the same liberal ideologues who angrily said that Daniel Patrick Moynihan was wrong abt the decline of the family.

                • Aimai says:

                  It ought to be obvious, even to you GoDeep, that Rape Culture is not synyonymous with female sexuality, even overt displays of female sexuality, whether it “causes” or “enables” rape itself Rape Culture has nothing to do with female sexuality as such. It has a lot to do with male policing of female sexuality–when and how it can be safely displayed and the meanings that men qua rapists assign it. So far from critiquing Rape Culture by assigning Miley Cyrus’s nothingburger of a sexy dance some kind of mythic status and some kind of superhuman ability to “coarsen” the culture you are buying into one of the central Myths of Rape culture which is that rape is the natural outcome of men’s being tempted to lusty thoughts by women’s dress or actions. In reality, men can be aroused without being tempted to rape at all. The leap from arousal/desire to rape is purely voluntary.

                  You might just as well argue that a culture which enoucrages upper class men to spend money on watches is forcing the poor to rob them and that wealthy men are at fault for displaying their wealth–do you want to argue that? Would you, if you could, argue for sumptuary laws to discourage envy?

                • Bijan Parsia says:

                  Give Jessica Valenti and The Nation a read & she’ll say Rape Culture causes–not enables–rapists.

                  It’s very convenient that you do not provide any specific citation or quote.

                  The closest I could come is this article wherein she writes:

                  Rape is a standard result of a culture mired in misogyny, but for whatever reason—denial, self-preservation, sexism—Americans bend over backwards to make excuses for male violence. This refusal to place responsibility with the perpetrator means we need to place it somewhere else—most often, with the victim. And while victim-blaming is nothing new, its pervasiveness serves as a stark reminder of women’s second class status—where we’re not actual people, just catalysts for men’s actions.

                  Now, I’m sure that you, being so attuned to the niceties of wording, will concede that she’s not claim that Rape Culture causes rape per se. (“War crimes are a standard result of war” is not the same claim as individual war crimes are caused by the war they occur in.)

                  Try a bit harder in your trolling.

                • GoDeep says:

                  I never said, Aimai, that Cohen & Valenti’s views of the cultural seeds of rape are the same. I said they both offer cultural critiques on the causes of rape. And that, as such, they are both equally valid.

                • Tristan says:

                  Wait wait wait… was GoDeep the guy running around diagnosing public figures with psychopathy a few months back?

                • GoDeep says:

                  I want to be clear, Aimai, I’m not victim blaming–no way, shape, or form. As I said above I think ALL cultural critiques of rape–whether Valenti’s or Cohen’s–are ultimately inaccurate. Rape is committed by evil people doing evil things. It is abt psychology, not sociology.

                  My point was that if you dismiss Cohen’s cultural critique b/cs pop culture doesn’t cause ppl to do bad things, you can’t then endorse Valenti’s view that Rape Culture DOES cause ppl to do bad things.

                  At that point you’re arguing that Miley Cyrus doesn’t impact the culture b/cs she’s just dancing, but that rapey Kanye West/Robin Thicke/Rick Ross does impact the culture b/cs they sing. To make such an argument would be both the ultimate non sequitur & the height of hypocrisy.

                • Bijan Parsia says:

                  I said [Cohen & Valenti] both offer cultural critiques on the causes of rape. And that, as such, they are both equally valid.

                  Both sentences are false. The second sentence is bogus even if the first sentence were true.

                • At that point you’re arguing that Miley Cyrus doesn’t impact the culture b/cs she’s just dancing, but that rapey Kanye West/Robin Thicke/Rick Ross does impact the culture b/cs they sing. To make such an argument would be both the ultimate non sequitur & the height of hypocrisy.

                  What might be the difference between a display of sexuality and a suggestion that you can rape someone?

                • djw says:

                  I said they both offer cultural critiques on the causes of rape. And that, as such, they are both equally valid.

                  Just out of curiosity, what is your dictionary telling you “valid” means?

                • GoDeep says:

                  Substance–There is no difference. Both singers and dancers can objectify women. The only difference (in this case) is the gender of the singer and dancer.

                  To hold otherwise is to suggest that while Hugh Hefner objectifies women the centerfold models he employs cannot.

                • Substance–There is no difference.

                  Okay, you’re a creepy misogynist, and your head is where Rape Culture lies. That was easy.

                • GoDeep says:

                  No Substance you’re just a hopeless ideologue who won’t let facts get in the way of opinion. For some ppl its easier to flame ppl we disagree with than to objectively look at the facts. This just reveals the shallowness of the person. Unfortunately liberal ideologues are just as non sensical as conservative ideologues. Both are immune to reality.

                • Pseudonym says:

                  So saying “pop culture causes rape” has exactly the same validity as saying “rape culture causes rape”? Does that mean that rape culture also causes pop?

              • Origami Isopod says:

                You can’t “objectify yourself.” Someone else has to do it to you.

                Also, could you please provide some citations for what “feminists” have “shrugged off” or “defended”? Because IMO you’re talking out of your ass.

              • JMP says:

                Oh, pity those poor rapists, forced to commit rape by a culture that had coarsened! Whatever you do, just make sure not to blame the actual rapists but insist that young women really are to blame, and continue to conflate consensual sexual activity with nonconsensual rape, and insist that somehow sex and sexuality are somehow bad instead of when there is a lack of consent.

              • Njorl says:

                “The stage [in general] is given over more and more to women of dubious morals. It is from this class that people like to recruit the heroines of our dramas, our comedies, and now even our comic operas. But once they have sunk to the sewers of society they have to do so again and again; it is from down there that they have to choose their models. … They think they always have to “improve” on what has gone before.

                It’s been 140 years since “Carmen” coarsened the culture. Now we have Miley Cyrus twerking. Obviously we need to travel back in time to kill Bizet.

                • Njorl says:

                  Oops. I forgot to credit that extended quote of a contemporary review of Carmen. It was by Achille de Lauzières, in La Patrie

              • Origami Isopod says:

                I personally believe rape is more abt psychology than sociology.

                I’m sure you do, because then you can write it off as the act of a depraved monster, not an act committed by men who are widely considered to be “normal” (e.g., athletes) and which society excuses far too often.

                but then these are the same liberal ideologues who angrily said that Daniel Patrick Moynihan was wrong abt the decline of the family.

                He was. You don’t have to be an “ideologue” to see the classism, racism, and sexism in what Moynihan said. I suppose you think the 1950s were all they’re cracked up to be, too.

                At that point you’re arguing that Miley Cyrus doesn’t impact the culture b/cs she’s just dancing, but that rapey Kanye West/Robin Thicke/Rick Ross does impact the culture b/cs they sing.

                Consent. Do you understand it? Apparently not, because you don’t understand the difference between a woman being sexual in public and men/women saying it’s OK to violate the boundaries of a woman being sexual in public.

                Anyway, congrats on becoming a smug fauxgressive douchebag in your old age, I guess.

          • Aimai says:

            I’d also argue that Cohen is Altekocher-splainin as in Also sprach Altekocher.

      • tt says:

        The piece isn’t even coherent, because he has two contradictory purposes–to minimize the badness of the Steubenville rapes, and to use it to show how depraved our culture is.

        • Aimai says:

          Makes sense to me. If the problem is that women sometimes choose to have sex, or to go to parties, then Steubenville perfectly demonstrates this even if its no big deal–like: no real “virgins and I mean real virgins who were young and beautiful and white and saving it up for marriage with a good christian man” were harmed.

          • GoDeep says:

            1) He doesn’t minimize the actions of the rapists, he says, specifically, that they were misogynistic and treated her like dirt.

            2) He doesn’t remotely suggest that its ok to rape anyone who’s not white and blonde and traditional and virtuous, etc…I don’t see how the link posted comes close to connecting to Cohen.

            • elm says:

              He does minimize the actions of the rapist, by suggesting that it wasn’t actually rape because there was no intercourse and that only two people were involved so it wasn’t a “gang”. That he still said it was bad doesn’t mean he wasn’t minimizing just how bad it was.

            • Hogan says:

              He doesn’t minimize the actions of the rapists

              If denying that there was a rape doesn’t count as minimizing their actions, I’m not sure what would.

              • GoDeep says:

                He uses the word “sexual mistreatment” once and the word “rape” eight times.

                So he’s a feminist champion if he uses the word rape 9 times, and a misogynist chauvinist creep if he uses it just 8 times amirite??

                • elm says:

                  Let’s see, out of those 8 usages, 2 are as part of the phrase “The Steubenville Rape,” which he describes once as the “so-called” Steubenville Rape and the other time as “what became known as” the Steubenville Rape.

                  Another usage was to say that the “so-called” rape wasn’t a “rape involving intercourse.” A fourth was to note that they were innocent of the crime of gang rape.

                  The other four were from other people’s quotes, three of which were from some unnamed youtube commenter.

                  When Cohen uses his own words to describe what “indisputably did happen” he describes it only as sexual mistreatment.

                  But, go ahead, count the usage of words ignoring the context of them.

                • You’re just reaching now.

                • Scott Lemieux says:

                  Although using a lazy non-sequitur to defend Cohen is very meta.

                • GoDeep says:

                  Until last year the FBI’s OFFICIAL definition of rape excluded ALL of the activities prosecuted in Steubenville! So, now its not just Cohen but the whole of the FBI who are rape apologists???

                  From the NYT: “The old definition — “the carnal knowledge of a female, forcibly and against her will” — covered only forcible penetration of a woman’s vagina by a penis, and excluded many other kinds of sexual assaults that count as rape under more modern definitions.

                  For example, the outdated definition did not count forcible anal or oral penetration, the penetration of the vagina or anus with an object or other body part, the rape of a man, or the rape of a woman by another woman.”

                  All Cohen does is distinguish the historic definition of rape from the specific rape which with these men were charged.

                • elm says:

                  Backing off your farcical counting of words? Look, Cohen is minimizing the Steubenville Rape case. Not as badly as other writers have, I’ll grant you, as he does seem to think it it was a bad thing and reflexive of a mysoginistic culture. But calling it “sexual mistreatment” is minimizing it: as others have noted, at a minimum it is “sexual assault.” And that was not the only way he was minimizing the event, as other have also noted.

                  Plus, even if we grant that he wasn’t minimizing the event, what Miley Cyrus is supposed to have to do with it is still remarkably unclear.

                • Bijan Parsia says:

                  He’s a misogynist chauvinist creep for many, many reasons. Your defence of him on these terms is not wise.

                  Re: the FBI change in definition: While noted legal and crime scholar Richard Cohen is no doubt aware of the subtle issues arising from definitions used in laws (esp. in dual sovereignty contexts), statistical analyses, and general discourse, I sincerely doubt that the mere fact that the fact that the Uniform Crime Report’s definition of rape used to mean that men could not, by definition, be raped would mean that he would assert that a rape of a man was not, in fact, a rape.

                  Or perhaps he would. It makes it no less ridiculous.

                  Oh, and for your “historical definition of rape” (which is wasn’t! it was the UCR’s definition of rape for crime statistics gathering!), in fact:

                  The victim was transported, undressed, photographed, and sexually assaulted. She was also penetrated vaginally by other students’ fingers, an act defined as rape under Ohio law.

                  and

                  Ohio General Assembly. “Ohio Revised Code Title [29] XXIX Crimes – Procedure » Chapter 2907: Sex Offences”. Lawriter. Retrieved 27 May 2013. “Section 2907.01 Sex offenses general definitions. (A) “Sexual conduct” means vaginal intercourse between a male and female; anal intercourse, fellatio, and cunnilingus between persons regardless of sex; and, without privilege to do so, the insertion, however slight, of any part of the body or any instrument, apparatus, or other object into the vaginal or anal opening of another. Penetration, however slight, is sufficient to complete vaginal or anal intercourse.” Section 2907.02 Rape: (B) “Whoever violates this section is guilty of rape, a felony of the first degree.”"

                  I would strongly urge you to back rapidly away from your rape and Cohen apologetics.

                • GoDeep says:

                  So let me get this straight, if you think the guys who did this should go away for 30yrs you’re a feminist champion, but if you think the guys should go away for 25yrs you’re a chauvinist misogynist creep?

                  Right. That argument is the height of politically correct nonsense. The only reason to call Cohen a chauvinist is b/cs he doesn’t dot every i & cross every t of the Liberal Manifesto. Because we know liberals have been right abt everything ever in the history of the world.

                  I. Can’t. Stand. The. Guy. But even I cringe at how this thread is trashing him.

                • But even I

                  “Of course I” is maybe the direction you want to go.

                • Bijan Parsia says:

                  So let me get this straight,

                  It would be helpful if you would make some minimally effective effort to get it straight instead of wildly misreading what’s going on so that you might present very poor arguments about how “rape” is a very confusing term and it’s no surprise that Richard Cohen might accidentally minimise it in his quest for accuracy.

                  if you think the guys who did this should go away for 30yrs you’re a feminist champion, but if you think the guys should go away for 25yrs you’re a chauvinist misogynist creep?

                  Since this argument appears no where but in your own comments, and your defences of Cohen involve very bizarre theories about the shifting meaning of the word “rape”, then I’m comfortable with the judgement that you’ve edged over into somewhat creepy argument.

                  It’s simply undenaiable that he minimises the Steubenville Rape. Right up top:

                  The first thing you should know about the so-called Steubenville Rape is that this was not a rape involving intercourse. The next thing you should know is that there weren’t many young men involvedjust two were convicted.

                  So first question: When Cohen writes “so-called Steubenville Rape” which part is he calling into question, that it had something to do with Steubenville or that it was a rape? Oh! Well, there’s a clue in the next bit: It’s not a rape involving intercourse. But, unless you think that a rape not involving intercourse isn’t a rape, there’s nothing “so-called” about the “Steubenville Rape”. Cohen is a bit too canny to outright say that a rape without intercourse isn’t a rape, but that’s the clear message: That somehow, it’s not a rape worthy of the name.

                  Second question: When he says that there weren’t very many young men involved and that knowing that is the very next thing you should know after knowing it’s not a rape-with-intercourse? I mean, my goodness! Only two were convicted! as if “two” isn’t significant (hardly worth mentioning) or that the only way to be involved is by being convicted!

                  So, he uses the word rape twice in this paragraph but only to minimise what happened.

                  It’s perfectly possible to object to some aspects of those events without it being necessary to minimise the core event. Cohen chose not too. And it’s characteristic of his work. This is what I, at least, object to.

                  What’s characteristic of your comments in this thread is the provision of transparently bogus defence of the indefensible Cohen wrapped in a thin layer of self-righteous, “Oh you’re so PC you’ve driven me to defend Cohen” bullshit.

                  Neither your object level nor your metalevel claims are remotely convincing.

                • GoDeep says:

                  Of course you’re comfortable calling someone who doesn’t tow the PC line 247 a creep b/cs that’s easier than recognizing how ideological purity blinds you to facts.

                  Here’s the only fact that matters: A guy who condemned the rape of the victim by calling the assailants misogynistic is himself called misogynistic b/cs he used the word “sexual mistreatment” once and a definition of rape that was 11 months old.

                  Yes, I concede, that was the height of sexism. He is surely going to patriarchy hell. Then we can properly flame his ass.

                • Of course you’re comfortable calling someone who doesn’t tow the PC line

                  Go through the thread: everything you’ve said has been ably refuted by anyone who bothered to respond. At this point you’re a misogynist creep because you won’t acknowledge your failure and you keep repeating arguments used by misogynistic creeps like Richard Cohen.

                • GoDeep says:

                  What you talking abt Willis? I’ve been a feminist for 40yrs now…I just recognize when my movement’s wrong…Our problem is that we glom our political aspirations on to academic discourse…We make a mistake when we let ideology cloud facts.

                • What you talking abt Willis? I’ve been a feminist for 40yrs now…

                  No you haven’t.

                • GoDeep says:

                  Typical ideologue, assuming facts not in evidence.

                • Bijan Parsia says:

                  Of course you’re comfortable calling someone who doesn’t tow the PC line 247 a creep b/cs that’s easier than recognizing how ideological purity blinds you to facts.

                  Oh poor lil GoDeepBro has run out of links he hope no one will follow up on and now is left aimlessly repeating the “You’re so PC charge”. Please try to be a tad more inventive.

                  Here’s the only fact that matters: A guy who condemned the rape of the victim by calling the assailants misogynistic is himself called misogynistic b/cs he used the word “sexual mistreatment” once and a definition of rape that was 11 months old.

                  Just out of curiosity, who exactly do you think will be convinced by this combination of misrepresentation (of Cohen and his critics) and dissembling (about your definition of rape gyrations)? Do you think it bugs your interlocutors? (I’m quite happy to refute you all day long, albeit as you don’t produce new stuff it’ll get more “see above”) Do you feel more bold and brave if you cast your defiance once more ineptly into the teeth of the PC hordes?

                  Just wondering!

                  And your claiming feminism and Cohen loathing isn’t remotely convincing either. No one is going,”Oh, well, someone who claims to loathe Cohen in spite of defending him with bonkers appeals to the supposedly shifting meaning of the word rape that was supposed to befuddle poor Cohen even though what happened was, in fact, rape under Ohio law and even the wanker Cohen didn’t quite go that far….the must be something there!”

                  No, they are doing the reasonable thing and concluding that you are acting the misogynistic Cohen shill. Fun!

                • Aimai says:

                  Bijan, you’ve said all that needs to be said. I was wondering the exact same thing. What purpose does GoDeep think he’s serving in pretending to be a 40 year feminist who doesn’t like Cohen and then defending this incredibly indefensible and disgusting article? No one believes he’s a feminist–the whole “ideologue” accusation reeks of Rush Limbaugh style “feminazi” sterotypes.

                  Show us on the doll where Feminist Studies touched you, GoDeep. You are clearly working out some deep seated rage at women in general and people who criticize old white farts for their old fartitude. Other than that, i can’t see where you are going with this string of increasingly creepy posts. You seem really, really, really, fixated on demonstrating something about Rape, but I’m not sure what it is other than you seem to really like typing the word out and defending a rape apologist.

                • Malaclypse says:

                  But Aimai, GoDeep has been a feminist for forty years, and is a really nice guy, but where is his blowjob?

                • Origami Isopod says:

                  Anyone who unironically uses the phrase “politically correct” demonstrates that they are not worthy of being taken seriously.

              • Hogan says:

                I’ve been a feminist for 40yrs now

                Cool story, bro.

                I own a yacht.

    • DrDick says:

      Swimming in a sewage lagoon would be both healthier and more fun.

  8. dave says:

    The worst part is that he downgrades the Stubenville case to “sexual mistreatment” whatever the hell that means. If you can’t bring yourself to call what happened in that case “rape” then at a minimum you have to call it sexual assault. “Sexual mistreatment” makes it sound like it was just bad sex.

    In conclusion: Cohen is a major creep.

    • Bartleby says:

      I was thinking the same thing. It was a sexual assault; not mistreatment, not roughhousing, not justified because she was drunk. Richard Cohen is a scumbag.

    • cpinva says:

      “In conclusion: Cohen is a major creep.”

      and in other news, the sky is blue and water is wet, film at 11.

    • Tristan says:

      I’m being tangential and a bit pedantic about my own preferences here, but I wouldn’t say using ‘sexual assault’ in lieu of ‘rape’ is less damning, as you imply by prefacing it with “at a minimum”. The problematic legal and linguistic history of ‘rape’ plays a big part in constructing misogynist discourses about ‘real rape’ like Cohen’s nauseating “rape involving intercourse” line. Not privileging ‘rape’ as the really bad criminal sex act, but rather folding the by now widely accepted definition of ‘real’ (and yes I hate using the term even rhetorically) rape (forcible penetrative sex) into a broader spectrum of ‘sexual assault’ is, I think, important for disabusing people of the notion that only ‘real rape’ is an incontrovertibly criminal sex act and everything else occupies some sort of only potentially criminal gray area where misogynists like Cohen can redefine a violent criminal act as “mistreatment” while stroking their beards about ‘culture’ or how drunk everyone was at time.

  9. toberdog says:

    About Steubenville, Cohen says,

    The first thing you should know about the so-called Steubenville Rape is that this was not a rape involving intercourse. The next thing you should know is that there weren’t many young men involved — just two were convicted

    Words fail me.

  10. LeeEsq says:

    My short response is that Richard Cohen deserve a punch to the face and a knee to the stomach. Nobody should get paid for writing this shit, especially if they earn a lot of money. Its simply not fair.

    My long response is that no human culture is ever going to be able to deal with sex and romance in an intelligent and mature fashion. Too many people seem to get joy out of a dysfunctional sexual system because it allows them to past wild judgment like Richard Cohen in this case or those judge from Montana and the UK in previous posts. Dysfunctional sexual systems are a source of power and the ability to punish. A lot of people who consider themselves nominally sex-positive aren’t much better than the traditionalists in this regard.

    • Aimai says:

      What the fuck? I’m not “sex positive” but for christ’s sake how to sex positive feminists ever skim the surface of the cesspool of patriarchal assholes who don’t grasp the concept of consent? Who view female consent as identical to “availability” where availability is signaled by failures of the adults around them to protect them from predators, failures of their clothing to act as a star wars style missile shield, failures of their bodily systems to protect them from roofies? What this has to do with the notions of “enthusiastic consent” that underlie sex positive approaches to female life is beyond me.

      • jim, some guy in iowa says:

        I thought his point was that people (and maybe that should read “men”, I don’t know) are using the term ‘sex positive’ to cover behavior that isn’t, really

        • LeeEsq says:

          That and I find that the term sex positive is so vaguely and varyingly defined that its useless.

        • Aimai says:

          If by “sex positive” you mean “libertarian male assholes” then, sure, but since even Glenn Reynolds is, in fact, horrified by female sexuality unless its being bought and sold I don’t think the term can actually be applied to them. Again: it has a real world meaning that is different from “I personally like sex when I’m getting it.”

          I absolutely deny that there can never (or will never) be a culture in which sex and its accompanying complexities can’t be celebrated and respected simply because there are always forces that will seek to use it punitively. “too many people get joy” out of a lot of shit but the fundamentalists and the anti-sex crowd are drowning in their own incoherence. Rush Limbaugh is an excellent example–do you think that his decreasing relevance has nothing to do with the fact that he poses as anti-sex and anti birth control when the vast majority of his potential audience (white males) are longing to have sex? They aren’t longing to be rapists. They are longing to have consensual sex without pregnancy as the result.

          • Vance Maverick says:

            I absolutely deny that there can never (or will never) be a culture in which sex and its accompanying complexities can’t be celebrated and respected simply because there are always forces that will seek to use it punitively.

            Is this that “negging” I hear about from PUAs? Certainly there’s at least one too many changes of sign in there for my little brain.

      • Origami Isopod says:

        I’ve come to start defining myself as “sex-neutral,” because there is a lot of problematic crap that gets passed off as “sex-positive.” For instance, Dan Savage with his “good, giving, and game” shtik, which presumes relationships should revolve around sex and doesn’t take power differentials (mainly men vis-a-vis women) into account.

        None of it is as damaging or as pervasive as the crap spewed by conservatives, but that isn’t a good defense.

        • Shakezula says:

          Is that what that stands for? That’s just … Wow. That is such a guy definition it is funny.

          The “good” partner will be up for anything at least once, which is not a rule we’d apply to any other aspect of interpersonal relationships.

          I also know Savage would never state it as such, but then reducing interpersonal relationships to cutesy little mnemonics is fraught with risks. (And he is always a good sport when people telling him he’s being a dumbass.)

          • Aimai says:

            Yeah. I dont really enjoy dan savage’s sex advice. Orher than DTMFA i generally find it irrelevant to the people snd problems i encounter which just really dont revolve around sex or specifically sports sex.

            • Shakezula says:

              Sports sex. Tee hee.

              I have seen him give advice to all sorts of people, even those with what might be called vanilla questions. But advice columns exist so we can gawk, and even the best are full of shit, aren’t they?

              I am sure there is some process of selection so we probably see the more interesting submissions. Looking back, his early columns would be dead dull if they were printed today. But back in the 90′s he was an out gay man (!!!) so it was (at the time) completely mind-blowing.

        • Tristan says:

          ohmigod Dan Savage.

          • Tristan says:

            Sorry (or possibly ‘you’re welcome’), I intended that to be a big rant about Dan Savage and how obviously fucked and backwards and, I’ll say it even though it makes me sound like a crotchety newspaper columnist, selfishly hedonistic a lot of his philosophy is, and how it drives me nuts that usually progressive and critical people don’t seem to see that and how the fuck does he unproblematically present himself as an LGBT spokesman when he’s been really transphobic in the past and hasn’t really addressed it beyond ‘oh I stopped doing that so it’s fine’ and AAAARRRRGGGHHH

            …but it’s just exhausting.

            I will add though, that by far the funniest illustrative example of what’s fucked up with Savage’s ‘GGG’ thing is the time he got really angry and critical at one advice-seeker for ‘making her boyfriend feel like a freak’ because she was shocked by a sexual request of his. The totally normal request which no reasonable loving person would have been surprised by was putting his scrotum into her vagina.

            • Aimai says:

              Maybe this is TMI but I think the thing I find weird about Savage is that his attitude towards people’s sex lives is that its an endless series (or should be) of thrill seeking moments and acts which are utterly divorced from the rest of the relationship–like your spouse is someone who has a large number of sexual practices and just happens to be involved with you so you are the orifices he chooses to use, or yours are the feet he wants to sniff or whatever. Its both incredibly reductive–everyone is seen as naturally a compendium of almost free floating desires and fetishes–and dismissive of the total relationship that the two of you might have, a relationship which makes having sex just one fraction of the total experience of being together and something which can’t be gotten from someone else.

              Of course he’s extremely wedded (as it were) to an essentialist notion of male sexuality which is non monogamous and in which one sexual partner is as good, or better, than the next.

              • Origami Isopod says:

                I would have less of a problem with that if he were honest, with his readers and with himself, that this is what he believes and that people whose relationships are not only about sex should maybe seek advice elsewhere.

                • Pseudonym says:

                  He is a sex columnist, right, not a general advice columnist?

                • Origami Isopod says:

                  He is a sex columnist, right, not a general advice columnist?

                  I didn’t realize that sex and the other aspects of one’s existence occupied such discrete and never-interacting spheres.

              • Aimai says:

                Well, he’s a sex advice columnist but he’s branched out in a lot of ways and people do seem to write to him for other kinds of advice–hence the “dump the motherfucker already” advice which he gives to lots of people, especially women,when they seem clueless about just how doomed the relationship is.

                I loved him after I heard his brilliant interview with NPR about his mother’s death and catholicism, and he did a piece about going to Paris with his husband and young son which was wonderful. But I get the feeling of creeping misogyny and contempt for (some) kinds of people problems that arise from a non-gay-male centered sexual identity. What was ground breaking twenty years ago will, inevitably, come to seem old hat and rather old fashioned in another twenty years. But “It gets better” really strikes me as a solid contribution to the world.

                • Tristan says:

                  There’s some valid criticisms of It Gets Better that I find myself leaning towards, though not quite thoroughly convinced by. Honestly though, so much about Savage, or more accurately the sort of cult of personality around him, gets up my nose that I may be biased just because of that. What I’m saying is your mileage may vary.

                  The gist of most of it is that it really doesn’t amount to much more than ‘just hang in there for now’, which maybe not only fails to connect with a lot of kids, but might actually seem downright horrifying for some. Think back to your last three years of high school and try to identify any three year span after that that seems like it was as long. Now imagine spending that time being terrified your classmates might murder you if they find out you get the wrong kind of boners and someone is telling you to just keep your head down and go with the flow because things will be fine eventually.

                  The whole time distortion thing can be mitigated by other factors, or really just one factor, that factor being how similar you are to Dan Savage. If you’re a gay kid in a big city whose family is well off enough to make ‘will/should I go to university?’ a question that never even occurred to you, you might be able to see some value in it. If you’re a gay kid living below the poverty line in a depressed rural town, good fucking luck.

                  I really don’t want to do the cut-and-paste shuffle with a bunch of links right now, but if you google ‘it gets better criticism’ it looks like you should get a pretty good sampling (and way less right wing lunacy than I expected) to check out the arguments yourself, most of them probably better than I’ve represented them here.

            • Origami Isopod says:

              Yeah, Savage has failed on just about every social-justice issue that doesn’t personally affect him. I give him credit for taking Rick Santorum out of the pool of serious presidential candidates, but I really, really dislike his approach to sex advice.

              There are some sex-positive feminists who aren’t much better (e.g., Clarisse Thorn, close buddy of Hugo Schwyzer), but none of them have anywhere near the same podium.

            • Lee Rudolph says:

              The totally normal request which no reasonable loving person would have been surprised by was putting his scrotum into her vagina.

              If she’d really loved him, she’d have offered to arrange to undertake the minimal accomodations that would make that possible even when they were in different places!!!

            • Ronan says:

              I think the reality is if Dan Savage was a *straight* white male he would never have been given the leeway among the left to become the asshole he always was

    • Shakezula says:

      It isn’t confusion about sex or romance. It’s a willful refusal to accept there can or should be limits on penises.

      Recognizing that conflating the consensual act of sex with the non-consensual crime known as rape is a stupid as conflating the act of getting sugar from a neighbor with breaking into their house would be a great start.

  11. Ok, now that the NFL teams have finalized their rosters, when does Bezos show us his WaPo “Cut-list?”

    Hopefully this clown, and JeRu are among the first to go – after Fred Hiatt, of course!

  12. Karen says:

    I can’t wait to see why Cohen says about those crazy kids and their waltzing.

    I have not and will not view the Thicke/ Cyrus debacle from last week. It was, apparently, very tacky. Call me when TV STOPS being tacky, because that will be news.

    • bspencer says:

      I can’t wait to see why Cohen says about those crazy kids and their waltzing.

      Hands were touching! Ankles were exposed!

      • muddy says:

        The most upsetting part was of course her putting a foam finger between her legs. Who could have imagined there would be any crotch grabbing/gesturing in a modern music performance? She’s the only young performer I have ever seen do this!1!! Probably she taught it to those hippity hop guys that she hangs around with, poor things!

        What I took from the performance was Thicke’s Beetlejuice suit = super old and her teddy bear suit = super young. Just to make the song that much more explicitly creepy. Like it needs the help.

        I also think her tongue gyrations represent her own extreme youth as well. It was like a child’s playing at what they think grownups think is sexy or something. Just because she has (I assume) had sex does not rule this out. How many bizarre things do we say or do when we are 20 and think we are super cool and no one tells us what to do and etc. I’m so glad to be old enough not to have had my youthful indiscretions immortalized.

      • Aimai says:

        bspencer you make the waltz sound like twister. I think you might be doing it wrong.

  13. Ronan says:

    Who is this ‘Richard Cohen’, and whats he doing being given such a prominent platform?
    Is he some class of ex President?

  14. brad says:

    Dear Amazon,
    This review told me nothing of value about Miley Cyrus’s album. Why is it featured?

  15. bspencer says:

    OK, here’s the sad part: I just called Richard Cohen “old” and “ancient,”…but I just learned that Miley Cyrus “twerked” FROM HIM. What does that make me?

    I think I’m caught up now.

    • Karen says:

      You’ll get younger when your son starts middle school. All of pop culture knowledge comes from snooping on my kids’ Facebook pages.

      • Aimai says:

        Yes, this is definitely true. You regress with your children from learning the latest format for “nnananan boo boo” which still strikes me as utterly weird to eventually learning the popular hairstyles and actors and musicians or rather musicians hired for their ability to dance* of the day.
        *Buffy the Vampire Reference

        • bspencer says:

          Aimai, Karen, I was thumbing through my MIL’s “People” yesterday and I was like “Wow. I had no idea half these couples existed.” Or had kids. Or were divorced. Or whatever.

          • Karen says:

            LOL. I have a gigantic gap in pop culture references between 1996 and 2004. I don’t watch much TV anyway, and I never listen to Top 40 radio. I had an extremely demanding job from ’96 through ’05, and my sons were born in ’98 and ’01. Until Andy started first grade I had no idea that Pokemon or Yu Gi Oh existed. I still regret learning about them, too.

            • Aimai says:

              My mother usually discovers things about fifteen years after their sell by date:

              “Did you know about this show, Seinfeld?” Or, recently, Bruce Springsteen. I’m afraid I’m about to go that route myself.

    • Lee Rudolph says:

      Oh, it’s all fun and games while you’re being caught up. But just wait until you’re let drop by that indifferent beak!

    • NonyNony says:

      I continue to believe that “twerk” is top-down slang coming from suits at record companies.

      Because the alternative is that “twerk” is a bottom-up slang term that sounds EXACTLY like what a focus group for a record company consisting of execs sitting around a table would come up with, and that makes me feel sad about our popular culture.

  16. bspencer says:

    Weirdest part of this is that Cohen advises Miley Cyrus to read an account of the Steubenville rape case he claims is wildly misleading. I guess if she reads the misleading account, she’ll stop wearing skimpy outfits and twerking.

    BTW, how does a wildly popular, rich teen star represent “teen culture” in any way? Miley Cyrus is Miley Cyrus. I highly doubt most teens are living a “Miley Cyrus” life. Most girls aren’t dating this guy, anyway. Whew.

    • Karen says:

      Miley Cyrus was never an idol for kids above age 13. She was a star for girls between 7 and 12 when she herself was a teenager. Her appeal, and it was significant, was for kids who had just then outgrown “Blues Clues.” I think at least some of the creepiness of the video comes from the fact that people remember her Disney show and seeing Hanna Montana dolls in toy stores and can’t square that picture with a 20 year old woman. A large part of the reason I won’t watch the awards video is because I remember my kids and their friends watching the show and liking her music, and she is forever trapped in amber at age 15.

  17. Danton says:

    Kitty Genovese’s murder is an urban legend? Maybe I missed something in the posts, but I went to high school with her younger brother and I’ve seen her grave.

  18. [...] ton of oozing misogyny contained in just those two sentences. Later he actually writes this (h/t to Scott Lemieux for catching it): You could compare what happened in Steubenville, Ohio, to the notorious 1964 [...]

  19. journalmalist says:

    “I run the risk of old-fogeyness …”

    Richard Cohen runs the risk of old-fogeyness like the Atlantic Ocean runs the risk of being salty.

  20. Bitter Scribe says:

    The New Yorker piece was done by Ariel Levy, a gifted writer. When I finished her story, I felt somewhat disconcerted — unhappily immersed in a…culture that was stupid, dirty and so incredibly and obliviously misogynistic that I felt like a visitor to a foreign country.

    How odd. That’s exactly how I felt when I read about Cohen talking creepy-dirty to young women who worked in proximity to him.

  21. ChrisTS says:

    I’m late to the party, but I will add that I do not see an argument in Cohen’s piece, at all. Not that he presents a bad argument; just that there is no argument. Of course, I have a head cold (“Ah havuh hehd code”), so I might be missing something.

    • Bijan Parsia says:

      Nope. It’s hopelessly incoherent.

    • N__B says:

      You need to get really, really high on codeine and vodka.

      That won’t help you understand Cohen, but it’s my general head-cold advice.

    • Snuff curry says:

      Cohen’s thesis, if you can sort out all the contradictory dogwhistles, is that black people (people like the fictional Marcellus Wallace, O.J. Simpson, the unnamed but referenced Winston Moseley, one of the two Steubenville rapists) constitute a “foreign country” in which sexual violence is the norm, and that’s perfectly fine provided the damage is limited to women and girls of color. When white teens start to emulate “tasteless” black culture, however–twerking as 2013′s Great Moral Panic–white boys suddenly get finger-y and rape-y without recognizing that they’re doing wrong and white girls (usually the prize black men have sought after hence, again, the references to Wallace and Simpson, who married white women, Moseley, who murdered a white woman, and Steubenville, whose victim was a white teenager) are treated in a “brutal,” “unfeeling” fashion. Them’s the breaks. I’m just calling it like I see it. Multiculturalism is impossible. The blacks have won. The rap and the hippity-hop have brainwashed Our Youth. Protect your own. Lock up your daughters. Etc. etc. etc. ad nauseam to the end of time.

      • Snuff curry says:

        Richard Cohen attempted a weak iteration of Nigger Nigger Nigger, and instead accidentally acknowledged* the existence of rape culture, is what I’m saying.

        *Of course, he pretended it is all a product of The Blacks.

      • Origami Isopod says:

        This is a really good point and I’m kind of embarrassed that I didn’t see it before, given how racially enlightened we know Cohen to be.

  22. Hogan says:

    Even shorter Richard Cohen: “I saw something nasty in the woodshed.”

  23. Manju says:

    I’m going to defer judgment until Whoopi Goldberg weighs in.

  24. [...] all, they only put fingers into the unconscious girl, it’s not like they used a penis!). In this LGM thread, one commenter agrees, arguing that if teens don’t consider raping an unconscious [...]

  25. [...] I wonder who Fred Hiatt is going to commission to write a piece about how what Castro did wasn’t really all that terrible. Personally I blame it on a culture coarsened by Miley Cyrus’s evil hips. [...]

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

  • Switch to our mobile site