Senator George Allen held a press conference that pointed out that his opponent Jim Webb, wrote some pretty sick stuff. Allen said Webb's writings consistently "portray women as servile, subordinate, inept, incompetent, promiscuous, perverted, or some combination of these." Does this reflect Webb's view on women, or is this just typical stuff for a fiction writer?
*Warning: Graphic descriptions below the fold*
Judge for yourself:
Lost Soldiers: “A shirtless man walked toward them along a mud pathway. His muscles were young and hard, but his face was devastated with wrinkles. His eyes were so red that they appeared to be burned by fire. A naked boy ran happily toward him from a little plot of dirt. The man grabbed his young son in his arms, turned him upside down, and put the boy’s penis in his mouth.”More at Drudge.
Something to Die For: "Fogarty . . . watch[ed] a naked young stripper do the splits over a banana. She stood back up, her face smiling proudly and her round breasts glistening from a spotlight in the dim bar, and left the banana on the bar, cut in four equal sections by the muscles of her vagina."
I think Allen was desperate; fictional stories for the purpose of fiction shouldn't be held against the respective authors. However, Allen might have a point, would Jim Webb be the best to represent the families of Virginia? I mean I wouldn't want a porno-film director to legislate from such a prominent position.