评论
打印
In this case, revulsion against a sexual felon – the revulsion that also appears to have fuelled his own desire – and the law were on the same side. But time and again we see the legal struggle for redress against sexual assault brought up against the most stubborn forms of resistance and sidelining. This seems to be due, at least in part, to the fact that human subjects can be roused by what disgusts them; that licentiousness, even in the political order that is meant to tame and subdue it, can be a draw. This certainly seems to have played a part in the 2016 election of Donald Trump, when his ugly misogyny was either dismissed as mere masculine playfulness, or else championed, and positively fired up his base, as it continues to do to this day.
在该案件中，对性罪犯的厌恶——这种厌恶似乎也助长了他自己的欲望——和法律是站在同一条船上的。但是，我们一次又一次地看到，为获得对性侵犯的赔偿而进行的法律斗争是针对最顽固形式的抵抗和排斥。这似乎是由于，至少在一定程度上，人类实验对象可以被他们厌恶的东西唤醒；淫乱，即使在意在驯服和压制它的政治秩序中，也可以是一种平局。这似乎在2016年唐纳德·特朗普的大选中发挥了一定作用，当时他丑陋的厌女症要么被斥为纯粹男性化的玩笑，要么得到支持，积极激发他的基础选民，这种情况一直持续到了今天。
Chelsea Clinton has described such misogyny as "the gateway drug", a soporific that lulls the senses and opens the door to greater nastiness to come. Permission is granted to a vicarious frisson of erotic pleasure and rage, so often directed towards women, which no one is in a hurry to admit to.
切尔西·克林顿曾将这种厌女症描述为“入门毒品”，一种催眠药，它会麻痹人的感官并为更大的恶行敞开大门。允许的是一种性愉悦和性愤怒下间接感受到的强烈兴奋感，通常针对女性，但没人愿意承认这一点。
By common assent, Trump is a law-breaker: two rape accusations, one made and then withdrawn by his first wife, Ivana, and one from the journalist E Jean Carroll, who has sued Trump for defamation on the grounds of his denials and aspersions; multiple cases of sexual harassment, by his own boastful acknowledgment; numerous exploitative hiring and financial practices swept under the carpet or settled out of court, but still publicly known; not to mention the grounds for his impeachment in 2019 – abuse of power for political gain (passed by the House of Representatives and then blocked in the Senate).
人们普遍认为，特朗普是一个违法分子：两项强奸指控。一项来自他的第一任妻子伊万娜，之后又被撤销。另一项来自记者E·让·卡罗尔，她以特朗普的否认和诽谤为由起诉特朗普诽谤；多起性骚扰案件，他自吹自擂地承认；大量的剥削性雇佣和财务行为被掩盖或庭外和解，但仍为公众所知；更不用说他在2019年被弹劾的理由了——滥用权力获取政治利益（在众议院被通过，之后在参议院被阻止）。
Likewise Boris Johnson. There is evidence that in 1990, he agreed to provide the address of a journalist to a friend who wanted to arrange for the journalist to have his ribs cracked as revenge for investigating his activities.
鲍里斯·约翰逊也一样。有证据表明，1990年他同意向一位朋友提供一名记者的地址，这位朋友想安排打断这名记者的肋骨以报复他调查自己的活动。
In the case of Trump's first impeachment, it was not that his supporters even necessarily agreed with him that the charges were a "hoax", as he repeatedly claimed in the face of mounting evidence against him, or even that he could do no wrong. Rather, it was that he was adulated in direct proportion to the wrong that he clearly could do. It is because he was transgressive – because, in the words of US TV host Rachel Maddow, he could be relied upon to do something "shocking, wrong or unbelievably disruptive" – that it became "a rational newsworthy assessment to put a camera on him at all times".
就特朗普的第一次弹劾而言，并不是说他的支持者们必然同意他的观点，认为这些指控是一场“骗局”，正如他在面对越来越多指控他的证据时他反复宣称的那样，即便是这样他也不可能做错什么。相反，他所受的奉承与他所犯的错误成正比，这显然是他可以做到的。正因为他越轨了——因为，用美国电视节目主持人雷切尔·玛多的话来说，他是可以信赖的，会做出“令人震惊、错误或难以置信的具有破坏性”的事情——所以，“让摄像机随时对着他拍是一种有新闻价值的合理评估”。
