Exactly, there’s no bearing on how the victim dressed in any case and their attempts to try and make it have bearing are even more arbitrary and victim-blaming when they then completely ignore the rapist’s behaviour.

Alternate title: Publicist Does Her Job, Jezebel Writer Doesn’t Understand His.

It’s so crazy how some people don’t respond well to a random “hey tell me if you’ve ever been sexually assaulted!”

“She may have been dressed “inappropriately” as they charge ...”

I bet it’s really frustrating to try to promote your work, only to have it derailed and ignored by someone throwing a tantrum because he only wanted to talk about his interests, even though you’ve already made your views on that topic clear in the past ... just not with him.

The only place for “besotted” is a romance novel. I think you meant “beset.”

Did his lawyers google stereotypical questions for a rape case.

Dude your former roommate AJ is on the Shitty Media Men list. Your Pot Therapy co-host called what Roman Polanski did “banging a thirteen year old” right here on Jezebel. Maybe people should be badgering YOU on #MeToo.

Why are you here? You don’t like us and we don’t like you.

This was an interesting read. Thanks for parting the curtain on interview scheduling, I was dying to know all about that process. Making a woman uncomfortable over a man’s bad behavior isn’t the framing device I’d have gone with, I don’t think, but then I’m not a man so...

“Hadn’t you sat on Mr. Khan’s lap and kissed him?”

Hope the prosecutor asked the perpetrator why he chose to dress as “a rapist.”

...... No dude. Just no.

But, on the bright side, we’ve managed to make #metoo about putting women on the spot and make them uncomfortable in fun new ways. It was the natural endgame.

WOMEN DON’T HAVE TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTIONS just because you’re a gay guy (and therefore not threatening or something????) at a women’s site.

They’re both terrible so

Sorry, are we talking the terrible, terrible Halloween II from 1981 or the other one from 2009 that I have not seen?

The bigger issue here seems to be why you feel entitled to her answers, and why you think that she should have to talk about Matthew Weiner just because she has spoken out about sexism in the past.

I wonder if she was contractually bound to stay on topic while doing press.