I stand by my earlier opinion, and think Helen has been taken in by her generous spirit, with reason also giving way to the story’s flattery of and usefulness to her particular pet issues and agendas. The implication that maintaining skepticism about a man with a long internet trail of kookery and attention-seeking is “bigotry” or hypocrisy is beneath her.
I have another criticism – A better friend and advisor, in my view, would advise discretion in putting this story abroad, at least until he was further along in therapy and was more in control of his impulse to create a storm around himself.
While it may well have been unconsciously done, can you deny the lure of bringing “light” onto a serious men’s issue might have interfered in what a pychiatrist or psychologist would think best for this man (someone with enough quirks, eccentricities and personal baggage to suspect, if not diagnose outright, some mental instability or personality disorder)?
He may shout it from the rooftops if he wants, but he himself admits that stressing his uncontrollable, magnificent erections, through wind snow and alcohol. would lead to suspicion of what he might be getting out of relating such a tale. And in fact I think he is getting the secondary gain he always wished for: attention, and lots of it.
And not accruing to the benefit of rape victims, of either sex.
