Gay Pornography

Oh, NYTImes. You have all the details about Bill O’Reilly’s latest sexual harassment, assault and rape settlement. You have all the details, and you’re willing to share:

21st Century Fox, acknowledges that it was aware of the woman’s complaints about Mr. O’Reilly. They included allegations of repeated harassment, a nonconsensual sexual relationship and the sending of gay pornography and other sexually explicit material to her, according to the people briefed on the matter.

Emphasis mine.

Really, NYT? If it was fellatio focussed porn, would we know that? If it included anal penetration, would that be fit to print? Shall we presume that there was no cum shot, or just that the cum shot was, shall we say, not newsworthy?


Someone sending pornography to you when you have not previously given Crystal Clear Consent to receive pornography from them is bad, bad, bad, bad, and wrong. Sending it to you who when you have actually said that you don’t want it or generally that you don’t want a sexual(-ized) relationship is sexual harassment. It doesn’t matter if you would happily consent to receiving heterosexual pee porn, but that gay stuff isn’t your thing. It doesn’t matter why you decline. It doesn’t matter if you’re a slut. It doesn’t matter if you love porn but just aren’t into Bill O’Reilly. It doesn’t matter what you’re wearing when you receive O’Reilly’s e-mail.

Maybe people who work at Fox are more likely to publicly proclaim gay porn icky than they are to proclaim straight porn icky, but at risk of going on at length, it doesn’t fucking matter if you work at Fox News.

It’s horrible that you seem to think we want to know what kind of porn gets O’Reilly off. It’s horrible that you seem to think that someone needs a reason to say no to porn or that non-consent isn’t enough, but non-consent + perverted is [whatever “perverted” happens to mean to you]. And it’s really, really fucking horrid that you think that slapping the label “gay” on there makes O’Reilly’s behavior any more unacceptable, the victim’s trauma any more understandable, or the victim’s refusal to grant consent any more justifiable.

No means no, you fucking fucks. Take your implicit-victim-blaming ass out of here, and your little dog Heterosexism, too.

Edited to clear up some pronoun confusion in “Someone sending pornography” paragraph. Oct 24, 9:15am Pacific.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *