Not one to condemn writers without having seen their work, I looked up the editorial (someone copied it
here from a PDF of the Recorder). It is either a very poorly written attempt at satire or a crazy rant thinly disguised as satire. It's very difficult to call this satire, though, because for the life of me I can't figure out what he's trying to satirize.
It might have been more acceptable if he'd stuck to historical commentary-- he makes some references to events such as the "Rape of the Sabine Women," an event memorialized with a famous painting that I remember being shocked by in my history book. He could have made some snarky comments linking historical attitudes to modern times. But he just goes way, way, way over the line with what he apparently thought were clever comments about the benefits of rape. I'm all for freedom of the press, and I absolutely love satire, but this is just idiocy.