Even The Wolf likely can't clean up Harvey Weinstein's pending troubles

Can't get a regular schnook ... Can't get a movie star ... poor girl.

But I do like the fact Flanagan put the term "revenge porn" on female-centric writing about the subject.

 

Become a single father and work nights. You'll never have to worry about having sex again.

 

The #1 Matchmaking and Dating Service: It’s Just Lunch

 

The rest of Flanagan's feed is interesting: Caitlin Flanagan (@CaitlinPacific) | Twitter

 

ha! I think you meant that for speedtcher, haha.

 

Not true.

Throughout the course of her short time in the apartment, she says she used verbal and non-verbal cues to indicate how uncomfortable and distressed she was. “Most of my discomfort was expressed in me pulling away and mumbling. I know that my hand stopped moving at some points,” she said. “I stopped moving my lips and turned cold.”

 

???

 

Sadly, this is not surprising.

 

I struggle with how to read code on stories like these, but there's something about this particular story that prompted a certain response - that The Atlantic was OK with - pretty quickly.

Or maybe there isn't something. Maybe I'm reading into it. Maybe The Atlantic was a bunch of dudes waiting for a woman to write these kinds of harsh words. I don't know.

On the flip side of the coin: Back to Atwood's argument. If a criminal court of law isn't a good standard, DW, what is? I mean, according to whom is anything offensive? You? Me? God? Whoever can be the most offended? Whoever can be the least? When you ask the question "This paragraph in the Atlantic piece by Caitlin Flanagan is pretty offensive, no?" to what standard are you applying it? The objective human standard? The "DW asked his wife and his friends what they thought" standard? The "you know it when you see it, and we all KNOW, right?" standard?

It's when we start creating non-criminal standards - that is, the standards that either deal with money or shame - where it gets trickier, right? A jury is never ever ever ever unwilling to frisk a rich person or a rich institution, from a little, or even a lot, of money in a civil trial. That's long been true, to the point where one lawyer friend described to me the civil standard as "ah, fuck it, why not do this, we're Robin Hood" standard. So civil is a shitty standard. Which one do we use? And how do we know it's right?

 

I don't think that Flanagan has a basis for her assertions about the source for the Ansari piece. It's offensive as a piece of journalism. She has no foundation.

 

It's an essay, an opinion column. I find anyone who claims Trump is a good president is ludicrous. I do not think those pieces are necessarily "offensive" to the being of journalism.

At any rate, you shifted from "is this sexual assault?" to "Caitlin Flanagan is a shitty journalist." Which, in this case, she very well may be.

 

Does it have to "eliminate the possibility" to be a preferable solution? Put another way ... why is "no sex outside of marriage" held to a standard of perfection?