Stephen Fry, stop being so fucking disappointing.

An exerpt from this article (it's all bad) in which he tries to defend his comments from a few months back:

"If you want to talk about rock stars, do we have to name the rock stars that we think almost certainly had sex with 14-year-old children? But those 14-year-old girls were so proud of it that they now in their 50s wouldn't for a minute call themselves 'victims'."

He went to say he believes it is wrong to use the term "victims" for those who claim to have been sexually assaulted "before the case has even come to court, before certain figures have even been charged".

"If they're guilty then quite clearly there should be evidence, but they shouldn't be hung out like fly paper to try to attract other 'oh yeah, I think he touched me too when I was that age.'"

The thing is... for a while there, I was willing to overlook some of his stupider comments about women as a homosexual man voicing his irrelevant opinion. ie, Oh, women have no sex drive? Sure thing, man who's never had sex with one.

But I really can't overlook this. He seems willfully oblivious to the realities of rape of any kind โ€” refuses to let victims call themselves victims โ€” and yet rushes to the aid of the poor men who had sex with underage girls and are now being forced to face the consequences.

For a smart guy, you'd think he'd realize that historically there are far more instances of sexual aggressors, rapists, etc. getting slaps on the wrist or no punishment at all while the person accusing them gets vilified. So why play this game of pretending that men are all being "hung out like fly paper" for further "false" accusations?

Advertisement

Either way, I am disappoint.

Hugh Laurie's still okay, though, right?