Oh, wait. I'm thinking of a WHORE. Or that assclown wanker columnist is.

I suspect he has a lot more experience with them than with a woman who actually wants to be around him for reasons other than financial gain.

Good point! Which totally explains how he can't write about women without characterizing them as whores.

I do wonder if the guy just wrote himself out of future pundit appearances on TV.

I do wonder if the guy just wrote himself out of future pundit appearances on TV.

I suspect there will always be a place for him on Fox News.

I'm filled with an urge to play matchmaker and pair him up with Ann Coulter. Assuming they could be sterilized to rule out any possibility of reproduction.

But what if they actually liked each other? The world might never recover.

Not to be catty but isn't she OLD for that? But of course, she's got money... No wonder I know Prager as a fairly frequent(Bach) Worst. Person. In. The World!(/Bach)

It could be worse. He could be a regular worstpersonintheworld (hold the Bach).

That shopping center that the Obamas were at (in the article tommyrot linked) was my growing-up shopping center. Koko Marina, just down the street from my house from 6th grade on.

Surreal.

t eta just read the rest of the article - aww! They went to Sea Life Park! I went there often as a kid.

What strikes me about that article is how completely he's defining sex as something a woman gives and a man takes. Not an act, but a commodity. He repeated uses phrasing like "gives her body to him," but never once mentions that the woman is supposed to get anything out of it, other than what the man will give her in exchange.

Also, the "of course men are animals" thing. I love how often "men are animals who are controlled by their sexual urges unless women civilize them" and "women are controlled by emotion, while men are logical and rational" seem to come from the same people.

Plus the illogic of his argument -- if wives don't have sex with their husbands often enough, then the husbands will have sex with other women. What other women? In his argument, women don't get anything out of sex except for the benefits of marriage, so what woman, in his world, would be willing to sleep with any man other than her husband? Taking his argument only about half a step beyond where he takes it, the only women possible in the world are wives, wannabe wives, and prostitutes.

Plus the illogic of his argument -- if wives don't have sex with their husbands often enough, then the husbands will have sex with other women. What other women? In his argument, women don't get anything out of sex except for the benefits of marriage, so what woman, in his world, would be willing to sleep with any man other than her husband?

He's arguing in favor of marital rape. Why would you assume these hypothetical "other women" have any greater say in the matter than the hypothetical wives?