Who needs a unifying theme anyway?

In 1978, it might have been economically feasible and perfectly legal for an executive to award himself a multimillion-dollar bonus while shedding 40 percent of his workforce and requiring the survivors to take annual furloughs without pay. But no executive would have wanted the shame and outrage that followed –– any more than an executive today would want to be quoted using a racial slur or photographed with a paid escort. These days it is hard to open the paper without reading stories about grotesque overcompensation at the top and widespread hardship below. Getting rid of a taboo is easier than establishing one, and once a prohibition erodes, it can never be restored in quite the same way. As Leo Tolstoy wrote, “There are no conditions of life to which a man cannot become accustomed, especially if he sees them accepted by everyone around him.

And this push-poll tendency is shared by many of those who ask, “Why on earth would women want casual hookups?” They’re not asking, “Why do some women have casual sex?” They’re asking, “Why on earth would some women have casual sex, when it’s so clearly a bad idea that will do them and other women harm and is obviously not in their best interest?” And they’re doing this despite research showing that casual sex isn’t, in fact psychologically harmful for young adults.

If you’re out there right now, and you’re a pretty girl who may wonder from time to time, “Oh man, I’m really pretty, but I’m also weird as hell, I wonder if my being weird as hell cancels out my pretty-ness.” The answer is no. NO. It makes it better, because in the mind of people who have lived life long enough to know what’s what, a weird pretty girl = sex bruises that last for three weeks, and sex bruises that last for three weeks are the only thing worth living for, when you really break life down to its most important elements, which are boobs, grabby hands, and a filthy mouth.

For over five years I have been the victim of a hate blog against me. On 9 November 2011 I incorrectly identified Joshua Meggitt on this site as the man responsible for writing that blog. I accept that Joshua is not the writer and I sincerely apologise to him and his family for any upset caused.

PROMINENT columnist and author Marieke Hardy is believed to have paid about $13,000 in a confidential legal settlement over an online shaming campaign. Last Friday night, Hardy posted a retraction on her blog after erroneously identifying Melbourne man Joshua Meggitt as the author of a hate blog dedicated to her. ”I accept that Joshua is not the writer and I sincerely apologise to him and his family for any upset caused,” she wrote, linking to her site from Twitter with the one-word post ”apology”. Advertisement: Story continues below
Her original post - which was removed a few hours after it was published on November 9 this year - accused Mr Meggitt of harassing her in a series of “ranting, violent” passages online. Her ”name and shame” post was widely reported in Australia and internationally after she posted a link on Twitter in response to the #mencallmethings campaign, in which female columnists reposted the nastiest responses they had received online.

Apparently I trade on my good name, and therefore there’s a public interest defence in going into my private life. But I wasn’t aware I traded on my good name. I’ve never had a good name. I’m a man who was arrested with a prostitute.

The next thing I knew, it was two days later and I was lying hogtied and naked beside the M5. Hitch had already severely damaged my reputation in a vicious essay in the Guardian. But that’s how he operated, and that’s why we loved him.