You completely mistook my intent. I no more hold to the "truth" of that italicsized sentence than am I a "male land owner." It seems that those people who do think that way aren't alone in their deplorable prejudices.
Ahem.
I was confident that the phenomenal ridiculousness of the statement was enough to make it clear that I was parodying, ridiculing and lambasting people who actually think like that.
Unless, of course, one's deeply personal bigotry gets in the way of a more reasonable interpretation. Whatever. I suggest you trade in your histrionic soap-boxes for a smidgen of rational thinking, and leave your yet-to-grind axes at the door.
Just a thought...
Are you accusing me of accusing you? If so, you may benefit from reading my comment again. Or maybe not.
I think your satire failed because it's clear that a number of the people in this article bought into this precise argument, and it sounded like you were agreeing with them.
While it may be a ridiculous idea to you, even before reading this article I could have told you that the idea that a "ho" of any age "can't be raped" is broadly believed by both liberals and conservatives (although my money is it's one more liberals buy into). Therefore your confidence was misplaced.
A world where supposedly reasonable people consider that idea phenomenally ridiculous is not the world a lot of us are living in.