Your friend Jim George thinks you'd be a great addition to Ricochet, so we'd like to offer you a special deal: You can become a member for no initial charge for one month!
Ricochet is a community of like-minded people who enjoy writing about and discussing politics (usually of the center-right nature), culture, sports, history, and just about every other topic under the sun in a fully moderated environment. We’re so sure you’ll like Ricochet, we’ll let you join and get your first month for free. Kick the tires: read the always eclectic member feed, write some posts, join discussions, participate in a live chat or two, and listen to a few of our over 50 (free) podcasts on every conceivable topic, hosted by some of the biggest names on the right, for 30 days on us. We’re confident you’re gonna love it.
Harvey Weinstein’s recently “exposed” decades of lurid and disgusting sexual assaults on young women underscores the need to update the lexicon of unwanted sex encounters.
Makes you want to go back to prosecuting crimes, doesn’t it?
This is wildly inappropriate.
So I’m only going to “like” it once.
Now you’ve done it. The Galliano famiglia will be after you for causing a drop in cocktail sales.
Brilliant
You left out the category of being Clintoned, which surely requires legal and physical threats in the aftermath.
Okay, Paul opened that door, so I’m going to walk through it.
There should certainly be a Teddyed.
That’s a particularly bad one, because, after whatever indignities are involved, you’re drowned in a car.
Wildly inappropriate is better! It is what puts the zip in Harvey’s zipper.
You can bow add the Afflack brothers.
Hillaried , when the wife of your abuser has your cat killed for deigning to complain.
That one can be an all-purpose profanity. “Affleck you!!” (i.e., “I hope you get groped!”)
Miralax Studios. Haha, I missed that on the first read!
I have shared this so many times and I’m getting all sorts of credit for your hilarity.
Such a great piece.
When your name is the punchline, you’re done for…
I don’t like the language creep showing up in the Weinstein situation. I am not following the story in any detail, as “lurid and disgusting” seem an accurate description.
But “sexual assaults” seems completely inaccurate, unless I have missed something about the story.
As I understand it, Weinstein stands accused of using his wealth, power, and influence to persuade women to have sex with him, or to engage in other grotesque pseudo-sexual behavior (such as watching him shower). If true, these are the acts of a boorish cad, but they are not “sexual assault,” which as I understand the term is synonymous with forcible rape.
It is precisely this type of rhetoric that leads to the ludicrous and false claim that something like 20% of college girls are the victims of sexual assault.
I admit to some schaudenfreude at the spectacle of a left-wing Hollywood bigshot targeted by a Puritanical inquisition from the feminist left.
There are also accusations of forcible rape.
My understanding is that “sexual assault” refers to sexual crimes which fall short of rape, where rape is defined exclusively as forcible penetration. As I understand it most jurisdictions consider coercion to meet the definition of force even in the absence of physical violence.
There can be several different levels of crimes and different states call them different things.
This seems to list six California sex crimes. I do not believe that Harvey Weinstein is accused of all six.
In Michigan, by the way, there are several levels, but they all fall under the name of Criminal Sexual Conduct. So, I guess rather than being a rapist, the convict is a conductor?
@columbo, that is not funny. It is gross! Take it to the pit!
First thing that’s really surprised me about this whole fiasco.