Now for Something a Little Bit Kicky and Fun.

Top Liberal Writers I’d Like to Dismember: A Work in Progress

[Note: You might check out the first link before you read any further. And that link is not safe for work. The entire subject is N.S.F.W.]

Guy Cimbalo, who is sexy, but would look better without a dick, and with acid eating away at his gonads. But he’d be wearing a black wife-beater shirt. Hawt!

Anne Schroeder Mullins, who is fetching, but would look better impaled up her squeakhole by a ten-foot piece of rebar that would emerge from her body somewhere in the area of her collarbone. Hilarious! Maybe fix her makeup so that she’s smiling even in death, as her head lolls seductively to the side of her shish-kebabed body. [Ms. Mullins has removed the entry she had up that appeared to whitewash the Playboy article; she claims that she was working off of some sort of digest, or excerpt, of the original article that did not entertain violent fantasies or discuss “hate-fucking.” Curiouser and curiouser. But she did take her own post down.]

The editors of Playboy Magazine, for whom I think some Saddam’s sons’ schoolboy pranks might be in order: remember how those scamps were into rape, and into locking the current boyfriends of ex-girlfriends up with predators such as wild tigers? I think it would be a blast to bring those sorts of hijinx to this country, and was thinking of taking to Playboy crew for a stroll through the cages at the San Diego Zoo.

Aw, come on: loosen up, wouldja? I’m joking!

This is hilarious! I could go on like this all day!

* * *

A few of you are going to suggest, not without cause, that the term “hate-fuck” may not be synonymous with “rape.” To me, that is a bit theoretical, since the alternative to my “hate-fuck = rape” reading rests on the idea of a “consensual hate-fuck.” Certainly it’s theoretically possible, but I doubt any of the women I know (some of whom have decidedly exotic tastes) would agree to sex under the following terms: “I despise you and everything you stand for, and I want to have rough sex with you to express my loathing, the result of which would be an unplanned pregnancy that I will bail out on, and I will take special glee in the fact that your ethic doesn’t allow you to abort the fetus. I intend for the experience to be a source of humiliation for you.”

And someone is going to consent to that, for the thrill of it all? Highly theoretical.

* * *

Via everyone, including some of the commenters at AoSHQ, Moe Lane, Yid with Lid, Ed at Hot Air, and Tommy Christopher.

None of whom, of course, have seen this entry—or is the least bit likely to condone it.

UPDATE: Another intellectually honest liberal writer denounces the Playboy piece, and Jimmie at the Sundries Shack is on the case, via Stacy McCain.

UPDATE II: Left-leaning Jezebel is also intellectual honest; hooray!

John Hawkins shows Playboy how it’s done.

Maybe we need a good right-leaning skin magazine that could serve the function Playboy did in its heydey. If the editors were smart, they’d run at least one beefcake article in each issue. And the arguments we would all have about whether it’s okay to run sexy pix in the first place would be, as Ace would say, manifique! I’ll bet Stacy would be on-board; after all, wasn’t running pictures of hot chicks one of his little traffic-whoring rules?

Via Darleen, who has her own digs put also posts at Protein Wisdom, Pandagon’s Jesse Taylor suggests that “the right” (that monolith) has just discovered sexism. Um. Jesse, I’m 46 years old. I got the memo; I know there are a lot of bigots out there, and a lot of people (left, right, and center) who hate women. So, thanks for the heads up, but you’re a bit late.

Jesse did remind me that I’d wanted to take Doug Powers to task for being an asshole as well. He’s not an asshole like Guy Cimbalo is, but he is one. The whole meme of my-political-opponents-are-ugly is not compelling, not interesting, and does not set a good example for the other side—and I say that as someone who probably has succumbed to the temptation to make a remark now and then about Michael Moore’s problem with obesity. But for every Michael Moore, there’s a Rush Limbaugh, and making cracks about people’s appearance doesn’t (surprise!) advance an argument. And, yes: there’s something particularly vile about doing it to women, resting as it does on the “liberal women, you’re ugly”/”liberal men, our women are cuter than yours” ideas. Please note the explicit or implicit “our,” with one political persuasion claiming ownership of the wimmenfolk. Classy, kids.

And that, by the way, is one of my reasons for disliking the common right-wing/center-right habit these days of pushing back against media Obama-worship by putting down the First Lady. I know they like to do it as Ace’s place because . . . well, because they feel like they aren’t supposed to, and all that. But you know what?—I never saw what the fuss was about Jackie Kennedy Onassis, either. It wasn’t until recently that I realized how much of Kennedy’s appeal was her sheer class (and to some degree the way she handled her husband’s assassination). Michelle Obama, likewise, is making a huge effort to leave behind some of the strident rhetoric she was known for in the past, and growing into the role of First Lady, which is an odd role to take on: we want our First Chicks to be sort of ornamental-but-substantive, and I suspect it’s more of a balancing act than many realize.

And . . . speaking of first ladies, Doug: that charming graphic you ran about how much better-looking “our” women are than “theirs” does rely on a particularly awful picture of Hillary Clinton, who is really not a bad-looking woman at all.

UPDATE III: William Teach sends some linky love, and demonstrates that there are some good-looking lefty ladies out there:

And, yes: this is funny. On this site, I am the decider. Deal with it.

UPDATE IV: Now listening to the podcast of Fausta’s show, featuring . . . Moe! Apparently, Moe gets a bit wound up at the end, explaining my argument that the “hate-fuck isn’t rape” notion rests on the idea that women would consent to rough, degrading sex. Nope: not even in the B&D world.

(What I love is the boy-pr0n idea that “if a woman lets you have sex, she’s stupid.” Not even worth deconstructing, really: it’s just misogyny. But maybe girls like sex because sex is fun—a notion that doesn’t, apparently, cross the minds of the horny dudes who produce hate-fueled boy-pr0n. Hey!–maybe the girls who had sex with you in the back of that station wagon were using you, ya fucking idiot.)

UPDATE V: Nice work, Moe.

He makes the point that the reason Playboy thought they could cross the line is that the Democrats effectively erased that line in their behavior last year toward Hillary Clinton and (especially) Sarah Palin. He remarks that a lot of these guys just don’t even seem to understand what it does to them to allow themselves to be bigots when it comes to women (and minorities) they disagree with: that it will affect their relationships with their mothers, their wives, their sisters, and their daughters (and their friends).

And he warns us that if we have a woman (Sarah or anyone else) on the ticket in 2012 it will start right up again like clockwork, and remarks that the left should watch out–that the right is “radicalized” on this issue, and that we’ll be punching back against the sexism (or, presumably, racism, if we have a “minority” on the ticket). And that we will be punching hard.

Me? Can’t wait. I’ll be studying up on my verbal kickboxing over the next couple of years . . .