A number of things, most of which sum to just being a disruptive and malign presence rather than doing any one thing wrong. There were stated proximate causes but they seemed a little ginned-up, which is--reasonably--part of why many posters treat him as a sort of martyr. The--less reasonable--reason why some of these posters treat him as a martyr specifically for sexual liberation (for those oh-so-repressed straight men, naturally) is that he bragged incessantly about the extensive use that he made of the Southeast Asian sex trade. As if needing to pay indigent, in many cases likely terrified women for sex is something to brag about.
I was never particularly 'triggered' by him and generally got along superficially okay with him, mostly because his 'style' was bemused and quasi-sociopathic detachment rather than viperous affrontedness of the kind of which I and the poster above me are both guilty, but I did strongly support his ban once it was mooted as a possibility.
I actually wrote a stylistic parody of Robert Herrick at one point as an attack on the assumptions that opebo and his defenders made and make about sex and relationships, and I can post it if anybody's for some reason interested.
ETA: Cory, I understand and present myself as a leftist, and indeed as a socialist, because my basic views on how society should be structured and how the economy should operate genuinely are by and large those of a particular strand of useful-idiot midcentury idealism, including useful-idiot midcentury feminism. In terms of what's actually possible in the America that we currently have with the issues that are currently at stake, and especially the sorts of issues that provoke extensive moral debate on this forum, I'm willing to admit I'm (in many ways) trending soft-socon, yes. (I obviously still won't vote Republican because I'm neither a fusionist goon nor a creep who thinks Franco was a cuck for using Moroccan shocktroopers.)
Nathan, I never cease to be amazed at your eloquence.
