WorldNetDaily today published an "exclusive" opinion piece by Breitbart blogger Dr. Gina Loudon and Dr. Dathan Paterno, in which they engage in what can charitably be called armchair psychology regarding sexual harassment allegations against GOP presidential candidate Herman Cain.
Loudon and Paterno purport to profile two types of sexual predators, declare that Cain doesn't fit those profiles, and conclude that he must not have committed the acts he's been accused of. By contrast, they claim that Sharon Bialek -- one of Cain's accusers -- perfectly fits the profile of "contrived victim/false accuser." The piece misses basic facts about the accusations levied against Cain, and furthers a leading line of right-wing pushback in defense of Cain: blaming, shaming, and attacking the victims.
The piece begins by suggesting that Bialek's accusations against Cain are "unlikely" and "impossible," adding that they "read more like a fable than historical fact." This is followed immediately by a paragraph which tells readers that there is "nothing" to prove wrongdoing by Cain "except a woman's report of an egregious act." In fact, the National Restaurant Association has confirmed that it paid $45,000 to one of Cain's accusers, a former employee of his at the when he was its CEO. The NRA said that the woman complained of "several instances" of "inappropriate behaviors and unwanted advances," though the settlement was made "without any admission of liability." While Cain disputed the allegations at the time, that data point would be one of those "historical fact[s]" Loudon and Paterno were looking for.
The writers then describe the profiles of two different types of sexual predators -- the "Casanova," the suave and powerful but deeply insecure man who uses sex to boost his ego, and the rapist, who "comes on bold, fast, with no foreplay, no tenderness, no invitation." Loudon and Paterno then declare that since Cain's alleged behavior doesn't fit either profile, the accusations against him "defy common sense."
The evidence that Cain's accuser is making an impossible claim? Bialek said that Cain tried to force himself on her in a car, but then "took 'no' for an answer." Loudon and Paterno conclude that those two events "simply cannot co-exist." So Cain isn't the rapist. He also allegedly upgraded her hotel room but didn't visit her in the room or try to romance her, so he can't be the "Casanova," according to the writers.
The total implausibility of this premise is demonstrated near the end of the piece, when Loudon and Paterno write:
The rapist would not get her the room in the first place. He only needs a dark room, or a desolate corner to weave his trap for his victim, and his crime does not take long.
Of course, rape can happen anywhere and under any circumstance. It doesn't require a "dark room" or a "desolate corner" -- only a predator and a victim. Instead of finding fault with a profile that says that rape requires some dark and horrible place, Loudon and Paterno see only evidence of Cain's innocence.
In contrast to their attempting to demonstrate that Cain can't possibly have done what he's been accused of, Loudon and Paterno make sure to highlight Bialek's "involvement in multiple lawsuits, bankruptcies and perpetual unemployment." The authors conclude that Bialek's accusations are "more like the work of a contrived, confused and counterfeit accuser who hasn't examined the psychological profiles of her supposed predator." They insist that she "craves money , drama and attention" and that "her personality profile fits perfectly into the contrived victim/false accuser role."
The farce concludes appropriately: Loudon and Paterno call Obama adviser David Axelrod a "known anti-American socialist" before claiming that Bialek's story is "too full of fables for any thinking person to believe." Indeed.