Discussion: Post Edits Headline On Marriage-As Sexual-Assault-Prevention Piece

Discussion for article #223760

Who purchased that newspaper?


Well, to some extent they are right. But in a better world, they would be completely wrong. Perhaps instead of lecturing women, though, they should be lecturing men about THEIR/OUR responsibilities.


The original headline seems rightly worthy of being panned, but are you calling the substance of the piece “Neanderthal”? Why? Unless the article (which I admittedly have not read in detail) somehow blames women (as opposed to noting the societal trend) for the decline of marriage in our country, it seems to me like a fair and reasonable contribution to the discussion.

1 Like

And by “wide range,” they, of course, mean everything from the extreme leftist positions of John McCain to the moderately conservative positions of Jim DeMint.


Perhaps so.
But timing is an important factor in marketing.
Rolling this out with a combustible headline (when aren’t they nowadays?)-- in the aftermath of George Will’s RWNJ-horsesh^t piece opens the WaPo to some justifiable criticism.

Ergo the headline edit.



“One way to end violence against women? Stop taking lovers and get married”

That does seem to blame women.


That was the headline, not something that comes from the substance of the article. Hence my question.

LOL. it is two Neanderthals arguing over the use of the club on the wimmenfolk.

Maybe, JMW, before shooting your mouth off you ought to actually read the article. It’s not even remotely a fair or reasonable discussion. it is a couple of boneheads who should be fired. Because instead of discussing the culture of rape they make up a bunch of worthless GARBAGE that distracts from the culture of rape. Where men rape women and are just allowed to walk away from it, and even shame the victim.

That is the problem.


yeah bc married men NEVER beat their wives

you’re an idiot, hth

So I would love to know how many married women have been raped as opposed to unmarried women.


I suspect it’s because married women are far less likely to prosecute their husbands for rape and/or abuse. Unmarried women, however, are probably more likely to prosecute a man they’re just dating.


That’s kind of like saying people should avoid taking public transportation because the likelihood of getting mugged is greater. Well, yeah, but that’s not really the issue, is it?


Did you know that a married woman will never suffer violence from her husband? It’s true!


1 Like

I support free speech. Paid speech is an entirely different matter.

Why does the Washington Post spend money on this crap? Does the Post think these viewpoints have financial merit?

I totally agree with the headline here at TPM, and “Neanderthal” is being way too kind.


Really? “Instead of discussing the culture of rape”? Perhaps you should read the article. The “culture of rape” is front and center in the first two paragraphs.

Jesus, this is so pathetic. Extremism and refusal to engage in civil discourse is just as bad coming from our side of the spectrum as it is the right.

Bunch of whores. Whoring around. Whorishly. Stop being such whores!

Excellent argument. You should be proud of your intellectualism. You’re a beacon of the enlightened liberalism that folks on our side of the aisle have long claimed is what motivates our progressivism.

ahh, creeping murdocification. his will be one of the several obituaries I will read with a smile one my face.