stupid and evil together. Personally I'm leaning toward 'evil' as the primary.
“His sexual needs were his sexual needs, coming from whatever childhood he has or whatever DNA he has,” Ms. Streisand told The Times, a British newspaper.
“You can say ‘molested,’ but those children, as you heard say, they were thrilled to be there. They both married and they both have children, so it didn’t kill them,” Ms. Streisand added, the outlet reported.
Coming, be int noted, from one of the people who made excuses for Polanski drugging and raping an underage girl.
And who, if said accused had been of conservative/libertarian bent, would've been howling for his blood as a molester.
I don't hate them, but oh, how I despise and loathe these people.
1 comment:
So let's turn the tables and ask this hypothetical question:
Suppose Ms. Streisand or Diana Ross (another defender of deviancy) were to be raped. Would it be all right because the rapist was simply expressing his sexual needs?
Post a Comment