Slog News & Arts

Line Out

Music & Nightlife

« Jon Lovitz Will Fuck You Up | Today The Stranger Suggests... »

Tuesday, July 17, 2007

Social Networking for Drunk D.C. Douchebags

posted by on July 17 at 10:41 AM

Stranger alum Angela Valdez has a cover story for this week’s Washington City Paper that has created quite a buzz, including appearances on Wonkette, Gawker, and Feministing. (Yay, Angela!) The story, about a group of entitled, old-money Republican d-bags who belong to an exclusive (and indescribably racist and misogynistic) online social-networking/drinking club, makes me glad I don’t live on the East Coast.

Over and over, guys tell me that women on LNS give it up for free. The forum is always abuzz with reports of last night’s takedowns, trips to poundtown, debates about whether sluts are still datable, and the acceptable number of notches in one’s headboard. At every bar and party, I witness dancing that would be banned at most high school proms—usually girls in heels driving backward into guys in flip-flops.

One LNS member tells me he can be a social conservative and still have premarital sex. Another says the pliability of young women correlates to an obsession with social status.

“The girls think that maybe if they go home with some guy they’re gonna be the next big thing in D.C.,” he says, “that they’re gonna be cool and be part of this whole group.”

The girls, he says, think they might become the next Katherine Kennedy or Coventry Burke, young women who’ve achieved semi-celebrity status on the site. But, he says, the deed has repercussions. In the worst cases, girls recover from a hangover and find their indiscretions revealed on the site, either by their suitors or witnesses from the bar. (Landry says he monitors the site closely to remove such posts.)

The avid LNS reader might assume girls would know better. The forum is full of warnings against promiscuity, even as it encourages the hunting tactics of men who benefit from an evening’s adventures.

RE: optimal number for a woman
Posted By: Guy on 10-23-2006 1:35 pm
I could put up with 12. Anything more than that without a good explanation, and the girl is incapable of being in a serious relationship.

RE: optimal number for a woman
Posted By: higher the better on 10-23-2006 1:39 pm
I prefer high #’s. It usually means they really like to have sex, and that they are very good at it. And the idea that you might be exposing yourself to a serious disease is thrilling and really gets my blood flowing.

RE: optimal number for a woman
Posted By: SF on 10-23-2006 1:58 pm
I think one sexual partner for every 2-3 years is acceptable for a girl from a good family. Sex just isn’t something girls should be doing if they are interested in marrying me.

Getting tainted by older men
Posted By: Roger Chillingworth on 07-02-2007 9:16 am I’m concerned with a lot of the younger ladies in DC who are hooking up with and dating older guys. Whenever I first start seeing a girl I go through a checklist of what is acceptable, and having dated a guy who is 10+ years older than her is a tremendous red flag. I hope some of these younger girls realize the scarlet letter they are attaching to themselves by engaging in this scandalous behavior.

RE: Getting tainted by older men
Posted By: Steve Pimpington on 07-02-2007 9:21 am
I agree wholeheartedly. Nothing says “I blow guys for money” like dating some old rich dude. And the scarlet letter they are attaching to themselves is “W.” For “whore.”

Read the whole sordid story here.

RSS icon Comments


Is the use of the word "douchebag" as a slur anti-feminist?

Posted by Matt | July 17, 2007 10:45 AM

Oh my God. Oh my God.

Posted by Mr. Poe | July 17, 2007 10:49 AM

There's really only one way to combat this: Woman need to dish it out as good as they get it.

Nothing ruins a fundie's political career faster than branding him a man-whore.

Posted by UNPAID BLOGGER | July 17, 2007 10:49 AM

How about "colostomy bags" instead?


Posted by Fnarf | July 17, 2007 10:50 AM

dude, as douching throws off the ph balance of the vagina and can lead to infections, and most pro-vag websites and doctors advise against them, it has been decreed that douchebag is not an anti-feminist slur. it describes pretty accurately the men in question.

Posted by erin | July 17, 2007 10:53 AM

I'm all about older men, don't get me wrong. In fact, that's all I'm about. But why is it they're only attacking the young girls? If they truly disagree with the age difference, wouldn't they have something to say about the older man? Why do they simply rush to the conclusion that the girl is a whore? Wh..

Whoa, here I go again. Trying to understand Republicans. Silly me.

Posted by Mr. Poe | July 17, 2007 10:54 AM

Sex just isn’t something girls should be doing if they are interested in marrying me.

Well, that sounds like a fun marriage.

Posted by Darcy | July 17, 2007 11:02 AM

Whatever. I'd be apalled & shocked but I can't be bothered. WHAT?!? Rich, Republican men are total fucks? You don't say.

Posted by JessB | July 17, 2007 11:03 AM

Holy fuck. Wow. I shouldn't be shocked, but I am. Wow. That's all. Wow.

Posted by Jaime-Leigh | July 17, 2007 11:06 AM

Who says they're interested in marrying YOU, you freaking asshat.


Posted by arduous | July 17, 2007 11:11 AM


Damn! I was just about to comment about that quote!! Whoever that guy is, he is fucking idiot!! He doesn't want a wife that has sex? No wonder Republicans have to call escort services. They all marry women that don't have sex!! It all makes sense now!!

And then there are all the quotes about dating older men!! I'm sure they don't mind dating girls over 10 years YOUNGER than them.

Man, the hypocrisy just blows my mind!! I'm with Mr. Poe on this one. I don't think I will ever be able to understand Republicans.....

Posted by Scottie | July 17, 2007 11:13 AM

I see some very expensive divorces in these guy's future.

Posted by monkey | July 17, 2007 11:14 AM

Jesus, I read that article. What fun!
Go back and read the comments for bonus grins. I love how the pro-LNS comments start out by trying to slur Valdez. They tried to paint her as sloppy drunk, which is an old tactic and never works (cf. the letters "New York" magazine got after publishing a negative restaurant review by Jessica Mitford in 1975. Investigation of the letters by Mitford turned up the fact that both had been sent by the owners of the restaurant). They also made allegations about a plagiarism charge against Valdez, and linked to an article in the Portland Mercury, but the link doesn't work. And somebody remarks that she's obviously one of those hipsters who wants us to lose in Iraq! Oh, what fun.

Posted by --MC | July 17, 2007 11:23 AM

@11 It does explain why so many Republicans are getting outed as avid man-lovers. Why marry a woman who wants to fuck you if all you want is big juicy cock? STRATEGY!

Posted by Gloria | July 17, 2007 11:31 AM

Wait, wait, a charity event raising money to "teach disadvantaged D.C. youths to play polo"? POLO? Are these people for fucking real?

Posted by Gloria | July 17, 2007 11:38 AM

Shocking! Men in powerful positions lust for sex (and are inappropriate in their relationships with women to whom they are not married). Just shocking! Someone should tell Bill Clinton, Ted Kennedy and Jimmy Carter… (Maybe they could put together a blue ribbon panel on the “lust and sexual conduct in a man’s world”.)

Now I’m totally disillusioned with the whole human race. I never could have imagined such a thing if not for Angela’s hard hitting investigative journalism. I’m glad someone is reporting on the real issues instead of being distracted by the war in Iraq, Darfur, AIDs and global warming.

What are Obama and Hillary’s position on man-whores? (Oh, I guess we know Hillary’s: “permissible if presidential.”)

Posted by You_Gotta_Be_Kidding_Me | July 17, 2007 11:51 AM

They really need to throw a charity event for TBA. With your help we may find a cure for TBA in our lifetime!

Posted by UNPAID BLOGGER | July 17, 2007 11:52 AM

I think one sexual partner for every 2-3 years is acceptable for a girl from a good family. Sex just isn’t something girls should be doing if they are interested in marrying me.

See, this is what you need to understand about this comment. It is immaterial whether or not the woman likes sex. They guy is saying that he wants to marry a girl "from a good family" who won't have a past that will embarrass him, and after they marry her job is to produce male heirs. Because she is nothing but breeder property.

Posted by Tlazolteotl | July 17, 2007 11:57 AM

I just read the whole article and honestly, I didn't find anything that didn't happen at the bars and frats every weekend when I was in college. Anal sex? Everyone was doing it, het and gay. Guys love it and gals still get to be "virgins" - it's that simple.

I also didn't think that Ms. Valdez gave them the poison pen treatment at all. She was very matter-of-fact and she interviewed tons of LNSers for the story.

Wonkette summed it up best:

"We gave up on the Last Week’s Shots feature because, while LNS does describe a specific-to-DC type of douchebag, it’s still just a terribly-designed message board filled with the same sad wealthy fratty post-adolescent lost causes you’d find thousands of in Houston or Atlanta, or any other second-or-third tier city (which, hate to break it to you, DC is)."

Posted by Original Andrew | July 17, 2007 12:18 PM

I read this on Metafilter a couple days ago and I've been thinking about it ever since. It makes sense that the intricate and highly-controlled social world of the Georgetown powerful would make its way onto the internet... I don't think anything's happening on the site which hasn't been happening for centuries among those same families. The difference here is that now the rest of us can watch the grisly details unfolding, even if we live across the country. Yay! It's like a reality tv show except not on tv! So it's like a reality show! Er... I guess that makes it just plain reality.

Posted by Katelyn | July 17, 2007 12:20 PM

THe comments thread on Angela's article is priceless. The angry LNS'rs go after her and quickly reinforce everything she wrote about them with their own comments.

Posted by longball | July 17, 2007 12:23 PM

What, it's ok for men to sleep around but not women?

I've never heard anything like this before (except from almost everyone I've ever read, talked to or heard).

Posted by Dianna | July 17, 2007 12:27 PM

This sounds like the bar across the street from where I live in Seattle (Tommy's). Except there, the misogynistic alcohol psychosis crowd is still mostly young guys. They're skeevy enough, but keeping that mentality in your 40s (as some of these guys seem to be) is unforgivable. So fucking gross. Classist, sexist, racist, moralistic on one finger and hedonistic with the rest. They feel threatened by this and they should. When the revolution comes, they're the first to go.

Posted by christopher | July 17, 2007 12:38 PM

@14 Ah, good point!! Can't believe i missed that one!!

Posted by Scottie | July 17, 2007 12:45 PM

I don't think the LNS guys are in their 40s, given that they refer to a 35-year-old as a 'cougar' and that they are hanging out at the bars mentioned. It's mostly guys in their 20s.

Posted by Katelyn | July 17, 2007 12:47 PM

The angry, angry comments are the best part of the article. It is worth reading all 400+. Lots of angry Republicans suffering from congenital retardation caused by inbreeding. All with lawyers to boot. I think the best part is the charity that teaches inner city kids polo...that is a something only a brain damaged Republican could come up with.

Posted by Old Bald Guy | July 17, 2007 12:57 PM
He doesn't want a wife that has sex? No wonder Republicans have to call escort services. They all marry women that don't have sex!! It all makes sense now!!

Well, yeah, sex is for procreation and male escorts only.

Posted by keshmeshi | July 17, 2007 1:20 PM

@15. The polo charity is most likely a charity run by an Executive Director with a parental trust fund (and, for sure, a LNS member) to justify their existence of going from fundraiser (party) to fundraiser (party).

That way, they don't have to get a real job, but they get an office and use of a Blackberry for 'business'. Their friends also get a tax break for making a 501(c)3 donation. Oh, and that charity most likely provides jobs to three or four liberal arts majors from Georgetown U. (hey, someone, someone actual has to deal with the low income program participants, manage the funds, etc.) who feel really pleased to not be working "for the establishment".

Posted by Phenics | July 17, 2007 2:56 PM

So none of you think young, rich Democratic guys do this same type of stuff? Not a single one of you?

Posted by Sam | July 17, 2007 2:57 PM

@Sam... Well, face facts. I'm sure there's lots of Democrat douchebags, but the fact it, Republicans are far and away the strongest supporters of misogynistic cultural mores. Many people become democrats just because they see it as the only political alternative to allying oneself with retrograde knuckle-dragging shits like Newt or Rush or Fill in the Blanks. It's the "women should stay in the home and shut up" mentality of their GOP parents that perverts the minds of young men into this kind of state. I'm sure the dems have quite a few fucked up bastards, but the fundamental shism of the parties (liberal/conservative) means the conservative party will inherently have more sexist fuckos. Tell me I'm wrong and I'll tell you you have your head up your ass.

Posted by christopher | July 17, 2007 3:10 PM

"Tell me I'm wrong and I'll tell you you have your head up your ass."

What a beautiful way to try and convince someone of your argument.

I'm impressed.

Posted by Sam | July 17, 2007 3:25 PM

I know. Not the best choice of words. Guess I'm in a pissy mood for some reason. Not really trying to be convincing either. It's basically a foregone conclusion to me that people believe what they want and will only change their minds on their own whenever they feel like it. This isn't a forum for winning converts- it's a place to shout support for your own positions, "amen" for words you like and "shut-ups" for the ones you don't. Unless I'm wrong.

Posted by christopher | July 17, 2007 3:55 PM

The odd thing is I've not offered up any political leanings and yet I seem to have been attacked anyway. It was more of a test anyway. I figured the first thing that would happen would that someone who throw out a rude, reactionary response.

Generally - I tend to agree that there are many stories out there that show the social mores pushed by Republicans to be just a show of smoke and mirrors.

But I have to wonder if more people, especially those who are liberal in general, tend to try and ignore those Democrats that commit wrongs as well.

The university I went to, while in a conservative state, was largely liberal and the people I partied with all did crazy things. I sincerely doubt the majority of them will ever find themselves in Republican circles, but nobody is going to write a story about them.

Is it an issue of shining the light on hypocrisy? That's not really for me to say.

Really - I was just curious. ;)

Posted by Sam | July 17, 2007 4:07 PM

How many of those kids had any political lean at all? If asked on an issue, they may agree more with liberals just because they're inhabitants of the 21st century. But mostly they're apolitical. Puking your guts out in search of oblivion and fucking everything in sight is hard to do when you give a shit about the future. But I like those kids better than the Republicans, who look ahead to the future and embrace their jesus-approved evil with open pants... er, open arms.

Posted by christopher | July 17, 2007 4:19 PM

"I could put up with 12. Anything more than that without a good explanation, and the girl is incapable of being in a serious relationship."

I like this one. What exactly would the "good" excuse be?

Posted by J | July 23, 2007 1:19 PM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 14 days old).