The socialists at Salon.com are desperately responding to the creepy Bernie Sanders 1972 article about male and female rape fantasies. It’s satire, you haters! Katie McDonough explains “It’s an attempted critique of heteronormativity — a clumsy and weird-as-hell attempted critique of heteronormativity.”
She reran the weird parts: “A man goes home and masturbates his typical fantasy. A woman on her knees, a woman tied up, a woman abused....A woman enjoys intercourse with her man — as she fantasizes being raped by 3 men simultaneously.”
Then she added that the Sanders campaign claims this is all a misunderstood Jon Stewart phase of the Sanders literary canon:
In response to the article making the rounds, Sanders’ campaign spokesman Michael Briggs said it was a “dumb attempt at dark satire in an alternative publication” that “in no way reflects his views or record on women.”
“It was intended to attack gender stereotypes of the ’70s, but it looks as stupid today as it was then,” he told CNN.
McDonough then turned on conservative critics of Sanders, as if conservatives don’t oppose the rape of women: “some people in conservative media, like respected anti-rape activists Bill Kristol and Erick Erickson, are very concerned about the article and what it may mean about Sanders’ views on rape.” He’s sponsored anti-rape bills.
That sounds good for Sanders, but that doesn’t take the creepiness out of the 1972 article. Bill Clinton also supported bills against sexual assault, but that doesn’t make him a saint. Why must liberals insist your personal views or actions don’t matter as long as you support the right bills? Isn't a really "clumsy and weird-as-hell" satire a "gaffe"?
PS: Talk about clumsy (if not intoxicated): McDonough linked to a different article with the mudslinging headline “Erick Erickson thinks unsafe abortions are hilarious.”
