The Wall Street Journal op-ed pages go lower...

[elfs]

In a recent op-ed in the Wall Street Journal, the unidentified editors wrote of the Sandusky scandal at Penn State:

We doubt it will happen again. It's also something of a relief that in a culture as libertine as ours at least some behavior—sexual exploitation of children — is still considered deviant.

Thor's balls, does anyone really believe this crap? How hard do you have to beat on someone's precious myths to make it clear to them that what we allow between consenting adults, and what we restrain sexual predators from inflicting on unwilling underage children, are two wholly different things with no overlap and no sane advocates for overlap? Does anyone outside the lunatic fringe right really believe that allowing two adults of any gender to be left alone in the privacy of their bedrooms, or to have their solemn twenty year relationship recognized with the same gravity and legal authority as Kim Kardashian's 72-day marriage, inevitably implies predation (of a sexual nature or, indeed, of any nature) on prepubescent kids?

The whole point of the sex-positive movement has been to dis-empower the harmful myths of sexuality, to bring it out into the open and make it easier to talk about. We have a long way to go in giving people to talk about sex, but, y'know, a lot of what we're talking about isn't about sex. It's about abuse of power. The WSJ knows all about power. Articles like this only serve to further the meme that Murdoch's newspaper is for the powerful, by the powerful, and of the powerful, and fucking, and fucking up, everyone else is, in fact, the only moral imperative.

The world will be a better place when Rupert Murdoch's little empire collapses in on itself, consumed by its own bile.