Shame on Rolling Stone

~ Clarissa

Apparently, the Rolling Stone apologized for publishing porn under the guise of political activism. Of course, the apology is formulated as “sorry we didn’t fact-check.”

The whole thing is beyond bizarre. People read this sort of article to self-titillate but are so terrified of their urges that they invent all kinds of weird excuses for these compulsions.

I find it really disgusting that people would use a horrible crime like rape to play this sort of a sick game. Rolling Stone should be eternally ashamed.

Unknown's avatar

Published by Clarissa

22 thoughts on “Shame on Rolling Stone”

      1. Hmmm, exactly who would you fault here? The feminist author or the goddamned politically correct editor that lacked the guts and honour to control her hysteria…one of your favourite word, but used correctly for a change ;-D

        Like

        Reply

        1. I fault the public that is desperate for stories that both titillate and talk garbage about colleges. Feminists have no connection to this story whatsoever. Editors and journalists publish what sells. This obviously sold, big way.

          Like

          Reply

      2. Clarissa

        No, I think that some feminists have deliberately spread the supposed “rape culture” completely out of control. This is likely another case, where the two of us are better off simply agreeing to disagree ;-D

        Like

        Reply

        1. Have you ever considered saying something unusual, something people don’t expect you to say with complete certainty? Try it, it can ge a fun experience.

          Like

          Reply

        1. “Have you considered being rational for a change? There is some small possibility that you are wrong”

          – That’s exactly what I’m talking about. Are you aware that you repeated this phrase at least 5 times just on this blog? Seriously, try to expand your horizons a little. I’m offering this advice in the spirit of kindness. There is no reason to get upset. Just try.

          Like

          Reply

      1. “If only there were some kind of vast digital resource with unimagineable amounts of every kind of porn available”

        – People are so sex-deprived and so terrified of sex that they need a variety of strange excuses to explore pornography. This time, it is hiding behind fake concern for rape victims.

        I found that Rolling Stone article to be disgusting, shameless, and the worst example of tabloid journalism I’d seen in years. To think that some people took it as some form of political activism!

        Like

        Reply

  2. I stopped giving a toss about Rolling Stone around the time that PJ O’Rourke fled the scene. (Perhaps “giving a toss” isn’t so good here in this case …)

    BTW, “Rule 34” means that somewhere out there, you can find porn that features university professors ….

    PROFS GONE WILD!
    WATCH AS HUMANITIES GETS CREATIVE WITH ENGINEERING!
    SEE THE SHOCK AND AWE OF INTERNATIONAL STUDIES!
    ENJOY FOREIGN LANGUAGES WITH CUNNING LINGUISTS!

    Right, that last one’s just a bit over the top, but so is porn. 🙂

    Like

    Reply

    2. “I have no Idea what happened and I am curious. Where do I have to go to get into the know?”

      – Rolling Stone published a very graphic description of a gang rape at a college campus. Since the article came out, half the country has been having fits of hysteria about the scary, evil colleges.

      Like

      Reply

  5. While I’m here I’ll say that I looked at this a little differently than most people.

    About a year ago I read Florence King’s autobiography and what the Rolling Stone story (and many others like it) remind me of are the kind of lurid “true confession” magazines that gave King her start as a professional writer.

    It’s about self-titillation, mostly for a female audience but disguised as journalism for people from social classes that wouldn’t be caught dead buying a confession magazine. They get a cheap thrill and raised consciousness which makes it okay.

    Like

    Reply

    1. “They get a cheap thrill and raised consciousness which makes it okay.”

      – Exactly. The story has absolutely no meaning or value outside of the pornographic dimension. “Jackie” chose not to go to the police. That’s her right. But since that’s what she chose, there is absolutely nothing else to discuss. We cannot expect colleges to prosecute violent crimes. The idea is ridiculous.

      And those who participate in this new round of college-bashing should be ashamed of themselves. Don’t they see that the only winners here are online education scams? I would not be surprised if this “journalist” had some incentive to write the piece from a place like that. The parents of prospective students read the piece, get enormously sexually excited, get scared of their feelings, and decide to keep their child at home, stuck in front of a computer screen.

      Like

      Reply

  6. The reactions are predictable. Most people will say either that this is the new Duke Lacrosse Team or that the victim is always right even when she’s wrong. I’m beginning to despise the politics of outrage bait and counter-outrage. Your reaction is refreshing.

    Like

    Reply

    1. The thing is, whether the story is 100% true, 50% true or 0% true doesn’t really change anything.

      The victim either chooses to contact the police or not. Either choice is completely her own to make, and I will not brook anybody’s criticism of that choice. Other than that, I don’t see what there is to discuss. The article is pure tabloid scandal-mongering.

      Like

      Reply

Leave a comment