I hope you can still find a way to justify your self image as a Western oppressor.

apparently, users of this phrase don’t intend it to be misogynistic or promote rape, or even a fantasy of rape. They see the repulsion -and attraction – as mutual.

Nonetheless, I think the phrase is a bad idea – it sounds too much like rape, too easy to confuse with hate-crime.

When I was younger, I heard the phrase “grudge-fuck” every now and then. I don’t know why they don’t use that – more accurate, less likely to be misinterpreted. Not advocating it, but its a phenomenon that exists, so there might as well be an accurate word for it.

1) good observation, that a portuguese word has the same sad dual connotation (sex and harm).

2) unsupported conclusion. The fact that this dual concept is also found in a closely related language – an artifact of a closely related culture – underlines the fact that this is a cultural bias. Its a hangover from our shared puritannical roots – an outgrowth of the old idea that any sex must be a bad thing.
Its an indictment of our culture – our broad western culture. (it might also ring true for others, but lets clean up our own back yard first, eh?)
Yes, ‘sex, god and excrement’ are a common theme – but not ‘sex = bad’. thats not a universal cultural touchstone.

Of course, this is my own perception of the phrase, and it may (for others) overlap with rape. However, one does not have to feel anything for the victim of rape. There are many reasons why rape is done, one of which is hatred toward the victim (or against someone that the victim ‘represents’).

Of course, too, there’s likely a large dose of fantasy that the subject of the hate-fuck will actually like to hate-fuck the fucker for some reason. But I’m only supposing that.

Embodying some combination of those characteristics triggers the robotic “she’s a possible sex partner” response in males programmed to respond to such, even if there’s no possible chance of a real encounter (like politics, it takes place entirely in our minds). Playboy has worked tirelessly for decades to reinforce that programming, and the women appearing in it rarely speak or express themselves beyond mentioning how much they like football and beer too or something equally inane. A woman expressing opinions about health care reform or whatever is not going to be perceived as being as easy to get into bed as one who is already naked and likes whatever I say I like and won’t talk out loud (or so the fantasy goes, I suppose), and if a guy doesn’t really give a damn about politics (and couldn’t respond to her arguments even if he did) then he can show everyone she ain’t better than him by fuckin’ her. Yeah, she might know quantum physics and was elected to Congress and stuff, but I fucked her!

So, maybe this ‘hate-fuck’ thing comes from the confusion caused in some men by a woman who looks a little tiny bit like a centerfold but unlike centerfolds she expresses her knowledge or opinions out loud (whether they are really her opinions or not is another issue). It’s not so much about the actual opinions being expressed as it is the fact that by expressing them these women are clearly not going to be sitting quietly and safely in the background looking decorative. Well, there’s an old-school way to fix that! I got yer counter-argument right here, baby! If it was about the opinions then women with the ‘correct’ ones would be well regarded independently of their appearance.

It’s especially ironic considering that these particular women are advocating a ‘conservative’ political position that’s become so intertwined with religion that it would (if sufficiently empowered and taken to its logical conclusion) ultimately result in them being told to be quiet and to get back in the kitchen. Hell, I don’t find any of these women attractive (I cannot separate bodies from minds) or the hate-fuck stuff funny so I guess I’m the most confused of all.

Oh, and why don’t women get together and talk about hate-fucking Dick Cheney or Karl Rove? (that’s a rhetorical question!) Or for that matter, why don’t men dry-hump the men they defeat in political debates or other conflicts like wolves do? It’s a very effective way to eliminate ambiguity about one’s status and no one would argue that wolves are acting “gay” when they do it.

Then again, maybe I’m looking too deep and I should just write this off as a men’s magazine equivalent of a Cosmopolitan article that reveals more about its author than anything else.

First of all, the former statement is an insult to mean-spirited people, and the latter is an insult to the frosty bitch community.

Beyond that, neither statement is actually funny or meaningful. With that in mind, “[Ann Coulter] is a bilious simpleton who could turn Gandhi into a bloodthirsty maniac,” as quoted above for Hasselbeck, is far preferable to both.

And I’m sure you “get” the joke without me having to explain it. Its setup is sexist, but the degredation of women is not the payoff of the joke. Same for the line about TownHall being “a website for illiterates who disprove evolution by their very existence.” Or even the last few lines about Dana Perino, which were not even an exaggeration. The irony of using childish sexist humor as “liberal” political commentary was unintentionally funny for me as well, since you’d expect it more from Rush Limbaugh types (who seem even more offensive due to their sheer witlessness).

Maybe you could tell us a few jokes that exemplify the kind of comedy you approve of. It is very, very easy to make me laugh, and you’re already halfway to the punchline by sounding like one of those “humorless feminist” cliches.

Wow, the old “humourless feminists” trope? I don’t think I said anything of the sort. I said that laughing at sexual degradation and mocking women for being women is sexist. In other words, there’s a difference between saying “Ann Coulter is a mean-spirited person with shitty ideas” and “Ann Coulter is a frosty bitch.” The latter doesn’t contribute, and if you’re using it to affirm your liberal views, it falls flat.

Can you explain why you find the article funny if not for its sexist character?

And a lot of this stuff that is quite misogynist when you put it under the lens also happens to be entertaining or funny for other reasons.

To me, there’s a lot more to being progressive than toeing the line of political correctness. If, for you, it’s about magically suppressing laughter when the joke is tasteless, respect for art whose creators you disagree with, or arousal at images that aren’t gender-utopian, then I’m afraid you’ll have a very difficult time finding enough “real progressives” in the human race to affect any real social change.

In brief: if you find this funny, you are maybe not as progressive as you’d like to think.