Slog
News & ArtsFriday, October 29, 2010
Politics / Sex "I am chaste."
Posted by Dan Savage on Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 7:18 AM
Christine O'Donnell: just another rightwinger with a bad case of "screw as I say, not as I screw."
It really didn't take very long for Christine to make her move. She'd grabbed my hand on the way from the apartment to South Street, so I can't say I was totally surprised when she leaned in to kiss me soon after we arrived at the bar.... Christine was pretty intense, and she was pretty outspoken that night, but we didn't talk politics much. Her aunt had told me that Christine ran for Senate a year earlier and had lost, so I knew a bit about her background. But the most political she got that night was when she said she attended lots of events in Washington that attracted congressmen and senators. "It would be nice to have a good-looking young man to attend those with me," she added.We'd probably knocked back five Heinekens when Christine leaned over and whispered in my ear that she wanted to go back to my place.
The O'Donnell camp—with an assist from the National Organization for Women—issues a non-denial denial, condemns Gawker for running the story, and charges sexism.
Sorry, Christine and NOW, but when a candidate's entire political "career" prior to winning her party's nomination consisted of railing against pre-marital sex, slamming queers on behalf of the rightwinghaters at Concerned Women of America, pushing abstinence, and condemning masturbation, then the candidate's sexual conduct is 100% relevant and open to scrutiny, vagina or no vagina, penetration or no penetration. There are, no doubt, female candidates out there who whose sex lives have been discussed, speculated about, and exposed unfairly. Christine O'Donnell isn't one of 'em.
1
the pubic grooming comment makes this guy a douche. you lose interest in pussy because it has hair? you wouldn't have made it through the 70s and 80s.
2
It's funny. I am appalled to my very core by her. But her not-really-a-one-night-stand comes off as WAY doucheier. The story doesn't really change my view of her. I thought she was kind of a sad, delusional and confused person. Now she's just a sad, delusional and confused person with really bad taste in men.
I actually kind of resent the dude for making me feel a sort of sisterhoodlike solidarity with a woman I view as a political nightmare.
But yeah, I do agree that there is a kind of relevance to the story. She's not very consistent, is she?
I actually kind of resent the dude for making me feel a sort of sisterhoodlike solidarity with a woman I view as a political nightmare.
But yeah, I do agree that there is a kind of relevance to the story. She's not very consistent, is she?
3
yeah, what the fuck was up with that guy??? he's got a prude born-again-virgin in his bed, but when he gets her panties off, the hair makes him lose interest immediately? sounds bullshit to me.
also, was i the only one who thought her Coke-head costume idea was pretty funny?
also, was i the only one who thought her Coke-head costume idea was pretty funny?
4
The whole story is just classless.
No one deserves this, even a moron like O'Donnell. Dan you're fucked up.
And what kind of chump is turned off by pubes?
No one deserves this, even a moron like O'Donnell. Dan you're fucked up.
And what kind of chump is turned off by pubes?
5
While I believe that a politician's personal life is their business (who they fuck, how many they fuck, how they fuck), I agree that once they bring sex to the campaign, the legislature/Congress, the executive office or the Court, it's all fair game.
That said, Christine O'Donnell doesn't have a chance, and all of the time the Democrats are spending on her is such waste.
I get the (almost) argument that attacking her and the GOP in Delaware may be helpful in SE PA, but where are the photos of Pat Toomey get a handjob at the gym, or Marco Rubio the center of a bukakke party? That could make a real difference.
That said, Christine O'Donnell doesn't have a chance, and all of the time the Democrats are spending on her is such waste.
I get the (almost) argument that attacking her and the GOP in Delaware may be helpful in SE PA, but where are the photos of Pat Toomey get a handjob at the gym, or Marco Rubio the center of a bukakke party? That could make a real difference.
8
I was thinking that first photo on Gawker would have made a good "Drunk of the Week" entry...
It's true that if you're going to hold up your own life as an example of how you want to force everyone else to live theirs, then you better be able to back it up with chastity belts and convents. You can say it's an invasion of privacy, which it is, but isn't O'Donnell advocating invasion of privacy herself, by telling people how to behave in their own bedrooms? Much as Clint McCance has discovered the pain of being the subject of hatred and slurs directed at himself and his family, O'Donnell might use this to reflect upon the pain caused by our elected officials barging into the bedrooms of the nation.
It's true that if you're going to hold up your own life as an example of how you want to force everyone else to live theirs, then you better be able to back it up with chastity belts and convents. You can say it's an invasion of privacy, which it is, but isn't O'Donnell advocating invasion of privacy herself, by telling people how to behave in their own bedrooms? Much as Clint McCance has discovered the pain of being the subject of hatred and slurs directed at himself and his family, O'Donnell might use this to reflect upon the pain caused by our elected officials barging into the bedrooms of the nation.
9
I gotta say, having read the real and the fake letters to Dan, I think this one is fake, or at least part fake. Sure, he took pictures of a drunk Christine O'Donnell in her ladybug costume. But the rest of it reads like male "behind the keyboard" fantasy, where in the whole story he never makes a move- everything is done to him.
10
The National Organization for Women (NOW) on Thursday condemned the tabloid website Gawker for publishing an anonymous account: NOW issued a statement late Thursday stating that "sexist, misogynist attacks against women have no place in the electoral process, regardless of a particular candidate's political ideology."
"NOW repudiates Gawker's decision to run this piece. It operates as public sexual harassment. And like all sexual harassment, it targets not only O'Donnell, but all women contemplating stepping into the public sphere," said NOW president Terry O'Neill.
I think that says it all. The only question is why you chose to post this.
11
She's easy enough to take down without this. This story is muddled by the anti-sex views of the person doing the reporting (un-waxed vag is a turn off).
Reporting that a woman isn't DTF isn't scandalous. It's something Tucker Max would bitch about.
The story comes off as Christine O'donnell is a woman who has very human desires, but actually believes the bullshit line she feeds other people. The story reeks of internal struggle, not hypocrisy, and it makes me feel sorry for her.
Reporting that a woman isn't DTF isn't scandalous. It's something Tucker Max would bitch about.
The story comes off as Christine O'donnell is a woman who has very human desires, but actually believes the bullshit line she feeds other people. The story reeks of internal struggle, not hypocrisy, and it makes me feel sorry for her.
13
Srsly. Hair is natural. Damn I have never had a guy get my panties off and then go 'nevermind'. Even if he prefers no hair! Sheesh. Maybe he was too drunk to do it? and later remembered the hair and blamed that? I dunno. I just remember that 25 yr olds usually had a boner if they had a girl in their bed and who cares about the details!
That wasn't much of a one-night stand. He should have kept it to himself. We already know she's a huge hypocrite and liar.
That wasn't much of a one-night stand. He should have kept it to himself. We already know she's a huge hypocrite and liar.
14
5280, were you equally upset when homophobe George Rekers was caught with a male prostitute? The details of their encounter were just as graphically reported as the O'Donnell story, if memory serves. It was a relevant story, because it illustrated his hypocrisy. I don't remember anyone saying "sexual harassment!" when that story broke. If a candidate uses their personal life as an example to reinforce their platform ("I'm chaste! I'm a virgin! I don't masturbate, and neither should you!"), and then if evidence is found that her actual personal life does not, in fact, support her claims, then it is valid. If a candidate were running on an anti-drug platform, and was caught on tape buying cocaine, would it be relevant for voters to know, or would that be an invasion of privacy and harassment, too? I don't think we should play the sexual harassment card so quickly, just because she's a woman.
16
I was interested in this story until the guy pulled down his pubophobe panties and then I rolled over and said nevermind.
17
No doubt. When you use your moral character to win votes, its perfectly normal for others to attack it. In fact, by using you really push the moral code of conduct, youre basically accusing the challenger of not having one.
18
hey dan savage, when do you think it will "get better" for teenage girls and adult women who are publicly sexually humiliated, dismissed based on their sexual activity or sexual desirability to men in personal and professional situations, and generally treated like inhuman sex objects for male amusement? how are columns like this helping to do anything but further bully and excuse fucked up, misogynistic treatment of women and girls?
please note- i am not an o'donnell supporter. i think that she's a total mess and that things she says are also damaging to women. that said, it is absolutely 100% not okay in any way to launch misogynistic attacks on her based on her sex life and body and 'fuckability' rating.
please note- i am not an o'donnell supporter. i think that she's a total mess and that things she says are also damaging to women. that said, it is absolutely 100% not okay in any way to launch misogynistic attacks on her based on her sex life and body and 'fuckability' rating.
19
The whole thing reeks of slut-shaming. There's enough legitimate ammunition to use against her without going "haha, look at the cocktease!" I can't stand her, but I feel bad for her. "Anonymous" has already been outed, and I hope everyone who knows him tells him exactly what kind of a douchebag he comes off as. Seriously, what's more important about her: that she's a "constitutional scholar" who doesn't know what the first amendment provides for, or that she once made the poor decision to get drunk and mess around with a guy who would happily sell her and her bush down the river for five minutes of fame and cash?
20
Still, there's no justification for publishing this garbage. Christine O'Donnell may be a twit, but there is no justification for this kind of smear. Actually, I'm pretty disappointed with Dan Savage for promoting this even further. When he pulls stuff like this, it causes me to wonder if there's really any difference between his tactics and those of Glen Beck. Come on, we're supposed to be better than that.
21
I'm a woman and I completely agree with Dan on this. I'm sorry. This woman's entire career is built upon issues of sexuality. Thus, she gets what she deserves.
22
I agree with Dan about O'Donnel's sex life being fair game, but it seems wrong for a person's reputation to be smeared by an anonymouse internet posting that reads like the script to a bad porno.
23
@18 & @19:
The point is that this is not randomly "slut shaming" a female candidate, it is pointing out the hypocrisy of a person who has run on the platform of chastity and no sex before marriage--her gender is irrelevant. It could just as easily have been a male candidate who ran on the no sex before marriage platform, and had an old girlfriend come forward to say they had been having sex since high school.
The point is that this is not randomly "slut shaming" a female candidate, it is pointing out the hypocrisy of a person who has run on the platform of chastity and no sex before marriage--her gender is irrelevant. It could just as easily have been a male candidate who ran on the no sex before marriage platform, and had an old girlfriend come forward to say they had been having sex since high school.
24
Some conservative Christians don't consider it sex unless a penis goes in a vagina. Christine O'Donnell is one of them.
Some sleazy misogynist is turned off by pubes and decides to tell the world he can't get it up in a story that reads like a high school boy's fantasy revenge on a stuck up bitch.
Call me when there's actual news.
Some sleazy misogynist is turned off by pubes and decides to tell the world he can't get it up in a story that reads like a high school boy's fantasy revenge on a stuck up bitch.
Call me when there's actual news.
25
I really view a person's right to privacy in their sex life as pretty much sacred. HOWEVER, when you build your career (as 21 notes) on advocating that people make certain sexual choices, you have to expect your own to come under scrutiny. I felt the same way about that Rekers dude and Paladino, who has the gall to talk about the immorality of homosexuality while his wife helps to raise the child he fathered while he was cheating on her.
I believe the only immorality in sexuality occurs when there is an absence of consent (and sex with an underaged person would fall under "absence of consent" imo). But when you hold your own sexual conduct up as an example, you've just opened the door on a whole lotta stuff. It's like in court, when volunteered testimony opens up a new field of questioning.
Strangely, right now I feel the sudden urge to grow my pubes into dreadlocks. Go fig.
I believe the only immorality in sexuality occurs when there is an absence of consent (and sex with an underaged person would fall under "absence of consent" imo). But when you hold your own sexual conduct up as an example, you've just opened the door on a whole lotta stuff. It's like in court, when volunteered testimony opens up a new field of questioning.
Strangely, right now I feel the sudden urge to grow my pubes into dreadlocks. Go fig.
26
I think this is different from Haggart/Rekers/Paladino because there was more evidence of their extracarricular activities.
28
Nevermind. Found it. His name is Dustin "ewww pubes are gross!" Dominiak, for anyone who is curious. (Reference The Smoking Gun.)
29
Christine's sex life etc is open to public scrutiny for all the reasons Dan gave. The moment she decided to include her own sex life on her platform it became of public interest.
Still, this guy is a douche, and the article is in very poor taste. If the guy had just come forward and claimed to have slept with her and nearly given her head after a wild night, it would have been sufficient. This account was unnecessary... but no worse than a sordid story of sex with a male politician.
Anyway, there is too much detail in that article for it to be strictly true. He apparently knows it, since he won't take credit for the article and open himself up to questioning.
Still, this guy is a douche, and the article is in very poor taste. If the guy had just come forward and claimed to have slept with her and nearly given her head after a wild night, it would have been sufficient. This account was unnecessary... but no worse than a sordid story of sex with a male politician.
Anyway, there is too much detail in that article for it to be strictly true. He apparently knows it, since he won't take credit for the article and open himself up to questioning.
30
I think anyone who lectures other people on what kind of sex they should and should not have (and with whom they should or should not have it) is fair game for a story like this. Whether it's true or not, who the hell knows.
However, I have to defend Chrissie's follicular decisions. I'd happily wax, shave, or trim down there, but it gives me a horrible itchy rash that lasts for days. I have tried every damn thing I can think of or read about to minimize irritation, but I still get the rash. Even trimming makes me itchy.
So for some, 70s bush isn't a choice.
However, I have to defend Chrissie's follicular decisions. I'd happily wax, shave, or trim down there, but it gives me a horrible itchy rash that lasts for days. I have tried every damn thing I can think of or read about to minimize irritation, but I still get the rash. Even trimming makes me itchy.
So for some, 70s bush isn't a choice.
31
@28 hereiswheremynamegoes Good smoking gun article btw, thanks for the tip:
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/buster/gawk…
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/buster/gawk…
32
@29, he may also have been maintaining anonymity because some little voice of self-preservation and common sense might have been pointing out that his odds of getting laid would go way the hell down should he attach his name to the story. I mean seriously, what woman would want to sleep with a guy knowing that he was that finicky/squeamish about basic anatomy? And frankly, people that are that fussy about grooming that is unrelated to hygiene don't strike me as folks who would be particularly spectacular in the sack (but then, I tend to favor guys who are more, um, primal with regard to their sex drives). I mean, every line of that article depicts a snide and mean-spirited individual with a massive stick up his ass, and that's no fun in bed.
But his name IS out there now, and his dating pool just shrank considerably, I would think.
But his name IS out there now, and his dating pool just shrank considerably, I would think.
34
I'm weighing in in support of Gawker and Dan. If you appear in the national media against masturbation, even though it was 20 years ago, and your strategy when it comes back to bite you is to duck and cover, your entire sex life becomes fair game.
As to the douchieness of the dude in Philly (let's call him "Dennis") y'know, we like what we like and we dislike what we dislike. I'm of a certain age where I find the schoolgirl look a huge turn-on. I like the look and I really prefer the taste. I make no apologies. Blame "Return of the Living Dead."
I can't say I find 70s bush a turn off per se, but combined with a gal showing up drunk on my doorstep, a ladybug costume, and born-again virgin act?
Yeah. I could see myself losing interest real quick.
As to the douchieness of the dude in Philly (let's call him "Dennis") y'know, we like what we like and we dislike what we dislike. I'm of a certain age where I find the schoolgirl look a huge turn-on. I like the look and I really prefer the taste. I make no apologies. Blame "Return of the Living Dead."
I can't say I find 70s bush a turn off per se, but combined with a gal showing up drunk on my doorstep, a ladybug costume, and born-again virgin act?
Yeah. I could see myself losing interest real quick.
35
I agree with 5280, and the entire story smells like a hoax, along the lines of I Fucked Ann Coulter in the Ass, Hard (http://ifuckedanncoulterintheasshard.blo…).
And the difference between this and George Rekers, for the person who asked, is that in the Rekers case the charge wasn't anonymous and it was fully documented. It's one thing to smear someone with rumours, and another to point out their hypocrisy with facts.
And the difference between this and George Rekers, for the person who asked, is that in the Rekers case the charge wasn't anonymous and it was fully documented. It's one thing to smear someone with rumours, and another to point out their hypocrisy with facts.
36
I don't see how her sex life is fair game for anonymous (and then public) gossip. It's just tacky and trashy and the motivation is entirely political. Let people judge her by her record of moronic pronouncements on sexuality and education, not on some cowardly douche's recount of a makeout session.
37
Ah, dammit. I was hoping that this wouldn't appear on Slog. That y'all were better than this.
I think it's pretty weak to say that "she talked about sex a lot in the 90s /early 00s so now we get to say whatever we want about her sex life." I do not see her as running her current campaign on an anti-sex/anti-masturbation platform. Yes, she should be held accountable for her past statements, but I don't think her past statements mean that media outlets get to discuss her pubic hair. Particularly since she didn't even have sex with him (so, where's the hypocrisy exactly?).
Honestly, I'm not that worked up about Christine O'Donnell and this story. But, here's the thing. This shit is exactly why normal people have no interest in running for office. Particularly normal women. Coverage of this sends the message that if you run for office, the media will give an outlet to every random hookup from your past to talk about the appearance of your genitals (among other things). It's just sad, really.
I think it's pretty weak to say that "she talked about sex a lot in the 90s /early 00s so now we get to say whatever we want about her sex life." I do not see her as running her current campaign on an anti-sex/anti-masturbation platform. Yes, she should be held accountable for her past statements, but I don't think her past statements mean that media outlets get to discuss her pubic hair. Particularly since she didn't even have sex with him (so, where's the hypocrisy exactly?).
Honestly, I'm not that worked up about Christine O'Donnell and this story. But, here's the thing. This shit is exactly why normal people have no interest in running for office. Particularly normal women. Coverage of this sends the message that if you run for office, the media will give an outlet to every random hookup from your past to talk about the appearance of your genitals (among other things). It's just sad, really.
38
The only hypocrisy here is Dan's - who is oh-so-sex-positive . . . unless, of course, if involvessomeone he doesn't like, in which case he'll happily use it as a weapon.
39
Well said, #37. Even if the story is true (and I have no reason to believe it is, since a picture of her in her Halloween costume means nothing) she got drunk with a guy, they made out, she told him she didn't want to have sex, and they didn't. Does every woman on the planet now need to fear running for office on the off chance some guy she didn't have sex with is going to talk trash about her bush?
40
At this point, in the glorious USA, it is sexist NOT to scrutinize the sex lives of female political candidates. Excluding females from such scrutiny is sexist. Either ignore every candidate's sex life equally or put them all under the same microscope.
I agree with Dan that a candidate running on a specific morality platform should expect to have his/her morals sifted through by the press.
I agree with Dan that a candidate running on a specific morality platform should expect to have his/her morals sifted through by the press.
41
Have you people ever seen a witch's bush? Remember Blair Witch Project? You're not getting outta there.
btw, NOW, stfu.
btw, NOW, stfu.
43
Some conservative Christians don't consider it sex unless a penis goes in a vagina.This offer void for those named William Jefferson Clinton. Please read contest rules for details.
44
Guys, guys, guys. The real atrocity here is that for the first time in 20 years, 'pubic hair' is once again a topic of national discourse!!
Now, a little more seriously. I'm relatively new here; did y'all discuss what happened to Krystal Ball here? Now *that* is an example of slut shaming that needs to die a quick death *now*.
Problem is the same language and tactics are used here, where as Canuck says, it is much more in context on account of her public advocacy. I grant Canuck's arguments and more or less agree with him *but* after seeing too many examples where women who are slut-shamed by way of disagreement (which happens to both liberal and conservative women, so it's not the conservative boys all at fault here), I am *cautious* when it comes to any sort of slut shaming or similar stuff. Bleh.
Or, more succintly:
Slut shaming Krystal Ball for old facebook photos: wrong
Slut shaming Ann Coulter b/c you don't like her (esp the tranny accusations): wrong
Slut shaming Christine O'Donnel for being a hypocrite over sex: well, better reason than most.
But notice that the *same language* winds up getting used for all three cases and that's where the problem starts.
Now, I think Dan navigated that line just fine, but a lot of folks out there have *not*.
Now, a little more seriously. I'm relatively new here; did y'all discuss what happened to Krystal Ball here? Now *that* is an example of slut shaming that needs to die a quick death *now*.
Problem is the same language and tactics are used here, where as Canuck says, it is much more in context on account of her public advocacy. I grant Canuck's arguments and more or less agree with him *but* after seeing too many examples where women who are slut-shamed by way of disagreement (which happens to both liberal and conservative women, so it's not the conservative boys all at fault here), I am *cautious* when it comes to any sort of slut shaming or similar stuff. Bleh.
Or, more succintly:
Slut shaming Krystal Ball for old facebook photos: wrong
Slut shaming Ann Coulter b/c you don't like her (esp the tranny accusations): wrong
Slut shaming Christine O'Donnel for being a hypocrite over sex: well, better reason than most.
But notice that the *same language* winds up getting used for all three cases and that's where the problem starts.
Now, I think Dan navigated that line just fine, but a lot of folks out there have *not*.
45
@40 - I don't know, the current protocol seems to be that we hear about a politician's sex life (male or female) when there is (1) adultery, (2) homosexuality, and/or (3) breaking the law (e.g., prostitutes). I'm not agreeing with that protocol, but that seems to be the way it is. Detailed accounts from past random hook-ups where nothing out of the ordinary actually happened (and nobody had sex)? Not so much.
47
@37:
These.
This shit is exactly why normal people have no interest in running for office. Particularly normal women. Coverage of this sends the message that if you run for office, the media will give an outlet to every random hookup from your past to talk about the appearance of your genitals (among other things). It's just sad, really.and @ 39
... Even if the story is true (and I have no reason to believe it is, since a picture of her in her Halloween costume means nothing) ... Does every woman on the planet now need to fear running for office on the off chance some guy she didn't have sex with is going to talk trash about her bush?
These.
48
How can so many of you be missing the point here?
She wants to stop other people from having sex. She wants to make rules that apparently apply to everyone but her.
She's a hypocrite and an idiot. Every bit of her personal life is fair game when she's trying to control the personal lives of others.
Dan is pro-slut, and anti-hypocrite.
She wants to stop other people from having sex. She wants to make rules that apparently apply to everyone but her.
She's a hypocrite and an idiot. Every bit of her personal life is fair game when she's trying to control the personal lives of others.
Dan is pro-slut, and anti-hypocrite.
49
@48 - How on earth is she trying to stop people from having sex? What rules is she trying to make? If she is for some kind of anti-sex law, I haven't heard it. "I don't masturbate and I think others shouldn't either" is different from "I think it should be against the law to masturbate."
50
@49 How on earth is any of her comments on sexual behavior appropriate for someone running for political office? Unless it's coding for "I think it should be against the law to... " Her comments are in the context of her political campaigning and that's why they're taken as such.
51
I'm with 49. This would be legit if O'Donnell wanted to introduce anti-sex-outside-of-marriage laws or wanted to prevent people who have had sex from marrying. She doesn't.
It doesn't even seem all that hypocritical, considering that in her twisted way she even maintained her moral code ("remain a virgin") in spite of being drunk and horny.
This stuff is vile sleaze.
It doesn't even seem all that hypocritical, considering that in her twisted way she even maintained her moral code ("remain a virgin") in spite of being drunk and horny.
This stuff is vile sleaze.
52
Even if her dumb past comments make her personal life fair game, I question the effectiveness of this particular line of attack. There's a political price to be paid for seeming mean-spirited.
53
@49 - Go ahead and vote for her, then. You obviously haven't been watching her videos.
Regardless of whether she wants to make sex illegal (which would never happen, obviously) she's very vocal about her anti-sex views...when they apply to other people aside from her.
And anyone who says people shouldn't masturbate is open to whatever public scrutiny and ridicule we can heap upon her.
Regardless of whether she wants to make sex illegal (which would never happen, obviously) she's very vocal about her anti-sex views...when they apply to other people aside from her.
And anyone who says people shouldn't masturbate is open to whatever public scrutiny and ridicule we can heap upon her.
54
Yeah, this is a non-story. It's unfounded gossip and it pisses me off. We know this woman is a liar who is almost certainly going to lose, do we need to give coverage to some douchebag?
55
But clearly we can't say anything bad about her, because she's a woman, and that would just be sexist.
56
@49 A big part would be how much money she'd toss into that never ending sinkhole known as "Abstinence Only Education." And I think "we absolutely should have no real discussions about sex" "we need to make sure our children are completely misinformed about sex" are definitely damaging to society. Personally I don't think this is slut shaming any more than talking about Newt Gingrich's or Rush Limbaugh's sex life (neither of them did anything illegal) is slut shaming. It's more "hypocrite shaming."
57
@50 - Almost all of the sex-related comments people talk about ("I'm chaste", the anti-masturbation stuff) were made years ago (i.e., not in the context of her political campaign). As I have said, I think she should have to answer for her past crazypants statements. I just don't think they are any kind of justification for talking about her sex life (and personal grooming habits) in this kind of detail.
@53 I've watched plenty of videos of her, and obviously would never vote for her. I can actually hold two separate thoughts in my head at once (I'm not going to vote for this candidate because of her beliefs/positions; nevertheless, she should be treated with some level of dignity/respect as a human being).
Besides @52 is right. I doubt it will make a difference at this point, but this story can only be good for her.
@53 I've watched plenty of videos of her, and obviously would never vote for her. I can actually hold two separate thoughts in my head at once (I'm not going to vote for this candidate because of her beliefs/positions; nevertheless, she should be treated with some level of dignity/respect as a human being).
Besides @52 is right. I doubt it will make a difference at this point, but this story can only be good for her.
58
He is a douch bit it sounds true to me, due to details like a ladybug costume and the cokehead. I think his disgust at her thatch may be a cover for whiskey-dick. Guys often blame the woamn when they can't perform. I suppose she could claim he took advantage of her in her inebriated state, but she'd have to admit to taking part in the evening.
59
Yeah, very bad homo @48, like turning a public figure's bedroom into a must-go zone for voyeurs is a rule that the media will only apply to hypocrites.
Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiigggggggggggggggggggghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhttttttttttttttt.
No sane person will run for office in America if this shit keeps up.... and it's not as if you are under-serviced by crazies running for office now, are you?
Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiigggggggggggggggggggghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhttttttttttttttt.
No sane person will run for office in America if this shit keeps up.... and it's not as if you are under-serviced by crazies running for office now, are you?
60
"But clearly we can't say anything bad about her, because she's a woman, and that would just be sexist. "
No, and that's a straw man (or straw witch, if you prefer). The real question is whether we gleefully jump on and adopt the allegations of some tried-to-be-anonymous-douchebag-on-the-internet who is being scummy beyond words.
But, hey, if you want to roll in shit with pigs as proof of your moral superiority, be my guest.
No, and that's a straw man (or straw witch, if you prefer). The real question is whether we gleefully jump on and adopt the allegations of some tried-to-be-anonymous-douchebag-on-the-internet who is being scummy beyond words.
But, hey, if you want to roll in shit with pigs as proof of your moral superiority, be my guest.
61
In defense of bro-nonymous - he lost interest after it sunk in that he wasn't getting past "third" AND seeing that the extra bases weren't his style, plus it was late with an early morning looming. Hope doesn't quite spring eternal.
62
@55,
People constantly trash her with no resulting accusations of sexism (except from Palin & Pals). What the fuck is your damage?
People constantly trash her with no resulting accusations of sexism (except from Palin & Pals). What the fuck is your damage?
65
seconding 5280 and julie in eugene. i was also hoping i wouldn't see it here but kind of knew better.
she's not running on a platform of criminalizing masturbation, she just said some dumb things about it on the teevee a decade-and-a-half ago. her candidacy is dead in the water anyway and has been since before she won the primary.
i think she's an idiot and a genuine threat to our country's well-being if she gets elected, but this story only made me feel genuine sympathy for her. she's doesn't have a chance of winning anyway, so why not try focussing on candidates and issues that actually matter.
she's not running on a platform of criminalizing masturbation, she just said some dumb things about it on the teevee a decade-and-a-half ago. her candidacy is dead in the water anyway and has been since before she won the primary.
i think she's an idiot and a genuine threat to our country's well-being if she gets elected, but this story only made me feel genuine sympathy for her. she's doesn't have a chance of winning anyway, so why not try focussing on candidates and issues that actually matter.
67
I can't stand her, her politics, her fucked-up stance on sexuality, and I think she's a feminist-hater's dream, BUT this post actually made me want to defend her as a woman. Almost as much as I despise her, I despise a "slut-basher". I expect this kind of thing from the righty rags. I expected better from Gawker.
68
Just because she's not running on criminalizing masturbation doesn't mean her platform doesn't aim for social retardation. She's a holier than thou bitch who sleeps around lying about being a virgin. And she probably believes she is too. Which leads me to believe she's a total fucking nutcase. Not that I didn't know that already, but you can't never have enough facts. Especially when it comes to the sanity of people reaching for public office.
If you have sympathy for her because of this story, your empathy meter has been hacked.
If you have sympathy for her because of this story, your empathy meter has been hacked.
69
Dan, you are one of my favorite writers, but I think you got this one wrong. The intent of that anonymous post was not to expose O'Donnell's hypocrisy, because we already knew she was full of shit. The "wild past" (read: normal youth), the born-again virginity, etc - all public knowledge prior to this ugly episode, and the scrutiny of her sexual politics in the context of her own actions had heretofore been conducted with at least a modicum of human decency.
This was slut-shaming at its worst - the lowest of political blows. The post's sole aim was to provide enough tawdry detail to embarrass a woman who dares drink/make coke jokes/wear a revealing Halloween costume/not shave her snatch/get in bed with a stranger - in other words, a woman who dares live her life, have fun, and make mistakes. As Democratic candidate Krystal Ball said recently regarding her own sexy costume "scandal," the exposure of a woman's youthful indiscretions isn't embarrassing because she's done anything wrong, it's embarrassing because it's PRIVATE.
As a staunch feminist/GLBTQ ally, I hate O'Donnell's politics with all my heart, but frankly, the follicular condition of her genitals is none of my damn business.
This was slut-shaming at its worst - the lowest of political blows. The post's sole aim was to provide enough tawdry detail to embarrass a woman who dares drink/make coke jokes/wear a revealing Halloween costume/not shave her snatch/get in bed with a stranger - in other words, a woman who dares live her life, have fun, and make mistakes. As Democratic candidate Krystal Ball said recently regarding her own sexy costume "scandal," the exposure of a woman's youthful indiscretions isn't embarrassing because she's done anything wrong, it's embarrassing because it's PRIVATE.
As a staunch feminist/GLBTQ ally, I hate O'Donnell's politics with all my heart, but frankly, the follicular condition of her genitals is none of my damn business.
70
Dan, you are one of my favorite writers, but I think you got this one wrong. The intent of that anonymous post was not to expose O'Donnell's hypocrisy, because we already knew she was full of shit. The "wild past" (read: normal youth), the born-again virginity, etc - all public knowledge prior to this ugly episode, and the scrutiny of her sexual politics in the context of her own actions had heretofore been conducted with at least a modicum of human decency.
This was slut-shaming at its worst - the lowest of political blows. The post's sole aim was to provide enough tawdry detail to embarrass a woman who dares drink/make coke jokes/wear a revealing Halloween costume/not shave her snatch/get in bed with a stranger - in other words, a woman who dares live her life, have fun, and make mistakes. As Democratic candidate Krystal Ball said recently regarding her own sexy costume "scandal," the exposure of a woman's youthful indiscretions isn't embarrassing because she's done anything wrong, it's embarrassing because it's PRIVATE.
As a staunch feminist/GLBTQ ally, I hate O'Donnell's politics with all my heart, but frankly, the follicular condition of her genitals is none of my damn business.
This was slut-shaming at its worst - the lowest of political blows. The post's sole aim was to provide enough tawdry detail to embarrass a woman who dares drink/make coke jokes/wear a revealing Halloween costume/not shave her snatch/get in bed with a stranger - in other words, a woman who dares live her life, have fun, and make mistakes. As Democratic candidate Krystal Ball said recently regarding her own sexy costume "scandal," the exposure of a woman's youthful indiscretions isn't embarrassing because she's done anything wrong, it's embarrassing because it's PRIVATE.
As a staunch feminist/GLBTQ ally, I hate O'Donnell's politics with all my heart, but frankly, the follicular condition of her genitals is none of my damn business.
72
Because she likes to make sexuality a public issue, I have no problem with her sexuality being publicly scrutinized. This story does, however, sound like BS (at least some of it), and I do have a problem with running stories that very well may not be true.
73
@68: uh, no. please don't assume you understand anything about my own personal standards of empathy. everything is in proper working order here.
i had more than enough facts about her a long, long time ago (i'm not a delaware voter, so it's a moot point). i certainly don't need to know whether or not she waxes. besides, i don't find anything in the story hypocritical or inconsisent with her stated opinions.
the only thing this has accomplished -- other than driving up gawker's page hits -- is helping michelle malkin round out the latest entry into her "poor, poor conservative ladies" op-ed series. and making a bunch of people who can't stand o'donnell's politics feel pity for her. well played, everyone.
i had more than enough facts about her a long, long time ago (i'm not a delaware voter, so it's a moot point). i certainly don't need to know whether or not she waxes. besides, i don't find anything in the story hypocritical or inconsisent with her stated opinions.
the only thing this has accomplished -- other than driving up gawker's page hits -- is helping michelle malkin round out the latest entry into her "poor, poor conservative ladies" op-ed series. and making a bunch of people who can't stand o'donnell's politics feel pity for her. well played, everyone.
74
Yeah, it's unfortunate that the author of the piece is such a dick.
On "slut-shaming": Um, huh? Candidates' sex lives aren't relevant to their campaigns, unless they themselves make them relevant, as O'Donnell has done. But even so, why exactly is it problematic, and especially so for female candidates, to have their sexual histories discussed? I understand that this is a heavily gender-inflected area of public discourse, but if you're not running on a "family values" platform, who the fuck cares if your exes start crawling out of the woodwork? Unless YOU the candidate think you should be/are ashamed of your sexual history, I don't see the problem. The public might say "what a slut", but NOW's position, for example, just serves to reinforce sex-negativity. Making candidates' sex-lives off-limits for discussion, ESPECIALLY WHEN THEY MAKE SEX LIVES A CAMPAIGN ISSUE, is a fucking Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy, and we all know how well those work. Instead of reinforcing the sex-negativity and shame, people whose sexual histories are questioned (and aren't running on sex as a campaign issue) need to step up, own their sexualities, and respond: "Yes, I had some casual hook-ups. So what? How does that make me a bad legislator? I've never spoken out against sexual agency, so it doesn't make me a hypocrite, and I've never denied having non-marital sex, so I'm not a liar. Why is this even an issue?"
"Slut-shaming" provides a perfect opportunity to respond with a radical challenge to sex-negative discourse and therefore subvert the attempted shaming, as opposed to a liberal strategy of seeking acceptance within an extant social framework. Of course, NOW has always been far more liberal than radical, which is why they're still stuck back in Second Wave paradigms. I understand that it's a lot harder for women to do because of the way privilege operates; that makes it all the more important. DADT is not the answer here.
@44: By the way, Canuck is a lady (or do you prefer "woman", or some other descriptor, Canuck?). Welcome to Slog, BEG. :-)
More...
On "slut-shaming": Um, huh? Candidates' sex lives aren't relevant to their campaigns, unless they themselves make them relevant, as O'Donnell has done. But even so, why exactly is it problematic, and especially so for female candidates, to have their sexual histories discussed? I understand that this is a heavily gender-inflected area of public discourse, but if you're not running on a "family values" platform, who the fuck cares if your exes start crawling out of the woodwork? Unless YOU the candidate think you should be/are ashamed of your sexual history, I don't see the problem. The public might say "what a slut", but NOW's position, for example, just serves to reinforce sex-negativity. Making candidates' sex-lives off-limits for discussion, ESPECIALLY WHEN THEY MAKE SEX LIVES A CAMPAIGN ISSUE, is a fucking Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy, and we all know how well those work. Instead of reinforcing the sex-negativity and shame, people whose sexual histories are questioned (and aren't running on sex as a campaign issue) need to step up, own their sexualities, and respond: "Yes, I had some casual hook-ups. So what? How does that make me a bad legislator? I've never spoken out against sexual agency, so it doesn't make me a hypocrite, and I've never denied having non-marital sex, so I'm not a liar. Why is this even an issue?"
"Slut-shaming" provides a perfect opportunity to respond with a radical challenge to sex-negative discourse and therefore subvert the attempted shaming, as opposed to a liberal strategy of seeking acceptance within an extant social framework. Of course, NOW has always been far more liberal than radical, which is why they're still stuck back in Second Wave paradigms. I understand that it's a lot harder for women to do because of the way privilege operates; that makes it all the more important. DADT is not the answer here.
@44: By the way, Canuck is a lady (or do you prefer "woman", or some other descriptor, Canuck?). Welcome to Slog, BEG. :-)
75
@71, Keshmeshi is anything but an idiot, and when you've been around here for half as long as she has, you'll know that. Til then, excuse me if I blow off everything you have to say about anything.
76
Dan Savage, what the hell is WRONG with you? You really do hate women, don't you? Between your last column (in which you verbally abused a female rape survivor) and now this, you have lost all credibility in my female liberal Democrat opinion. You're a turd.
And as for your It Gets Better campaign? Any ensuing success and goodness that have come out of this project (and there has indeed been a great deal) are due solely to the everyday courage of the millions of queer folks out there who are keeping on keeping on in the face of bigotry and hate. Their courage is what has made the project a success--not you. You're a bully and self-righteous prick yourself who just uses "sex positivity" as an excuse.
When Christine O'Donnell (hopefully) gets defeated next week in the election, please please, Dan Savage, disappear off the face of the earth with her.
And as for your It Gets Better campaign? Any ensuing success and goodness that have come out of this project (and there has indeed been a great deal) are due solely to the everyday courage of the millions of queer folks out there who are keeping on keeping on in the face of bigotry and hate. Their courage is what has made the project a success--not you. You're a bully and self-righteous prick yourself who just uses "sex positivity" as an excuse.
When Christine O'Donnell (hopefully) gets defeated next week in the election, please please, Dan Savage, disappear off the face of the earth with her.
77
@74 Agree with your point re: radical strategies and owning one's sex life (which is effectively what Krystal Ball did when something similar happened to her.) But people are still owed their privacy, and moreover, women (and men too) should get to decide if and when to divulge their own sexual histories, no? You can be the most shameless and sex-positive person in the world, but that still doesn't make it ok for someone to blab about your bush to the entire world.
78
@74 - That's all well and good, I guess. But... just because I might not want my grandmother and my father and everyone in the small town in which I grew up to know all the details of my sex life (and whether I wax...), does not mean that I am sex negative. If that is now a condition of running for pubic office (because the left wants to see if you're a hypocrite or the right wants to see if your morals are in line with theirs), then you're going to get even fewer normal/sane people interested in running. I suppose I think that "owning your sexuality" in a public way should not be a condition of holding public office.
79
@75 Really? Because it would seem like someone who is anything but a fucking idiot wouldn't introduce themselves into a debate by calling someone else a fucking idiot without provocation. On my top 20 list of things that define fucking idiocy that ranks at about 13 (give or take.)
80
@78 I totally get what your saying and the guy is definitely a dick and, unfortunately, this is probably the most trashy way to make a point that there is but it's still a salient point. I'm not sure if this is going to detract from sane people running for office b/c I don't think of a sane person as being someone who publicly preaches one way of living for everyone else but then acts in a completely opposite manner. This applies to all manner of actions be it sex (Gingrich, Limbaugh, O'Donnell) gambling (Bennett) or gay rights (Haggard, Ashburn). Barbara Boxer could be fucking pizza delivery guys left and right for all I care b/c she's not up in my business about morals and sin and family values and abstinence only education etc. I think all bullshit, hypocritical politicians should be called on their hypocrisy regardless of what form that hypocrisy takes.
81
"Christine informed me that she was a virgin. And she made it clear that she was planning on staying a virgin that night."
She's a political nightmare, but she's sure as hell no George Rekers. Where is the "hypocrisy" in her refusing to have intercourse with this guy? Sounds more like she's actually consistent with her pro-abstinence stance. And captioning your highly selective quote "screw as I say, not as I screw," to make it sound like she actually fucked him (unless you click through to the original), is totally unfair. Bad form, Dan. You're better than this.
She's a political nightmare, but she's sure as hell no George Rekers. Where is the "hypocrisy" in her refusing to have intercourse with this guy? Sounds more like she's actually consistent with her pro-abstinence stance. And captioning your highly selective quote "screw as I say, not as I screw," to make it sound like she actually fucked him (unless you click through to the original), is totally unfair. Bad form, Dan. You're better than this.
82
I'm finding it amusing that one of Mr. Dominiak's 3 "likes" visible on his fb page (as shown on thesmokinggun) is for a "mowing and trimming" company.
83
@74 Oi, thanks for correcting my missassumption :-/
Sorry, Canuck.
And thanks for the welcome! It's certainly been fun reading this blog. At times laugh out loud funny. And I've certainly had my vocabulary expanded even given I don't think I was that much of a slouch to start with. :)
Sorry, Canuck.
And thanks for the welcome! It's certainly been fun reading this blog. At times laugh out loud funny. And I've certainly had my vocabulary expanded even given I don't think I was that much of a slouch to start with. :)
84
the only thing this has accomplished -- other than driving up gawker's page hits -- is helping michelle malkin round out the latest entry into her "poor, poor conservative ladies" op-ed series. and making a bunch of people who can't stand o'donnell's politics feel pity for her. well played, everyone.
AS IF Michelle Malkin needed an excuse to feel victimized. And I don't pity O'Donnell. I dunno why you would pity a bushy witch like her, but I don't.
85
C'mon guys, lay off the hairy bush criticisms unless YOU personally are willing to go a full brazilian as well. Sheesh.
What *happened* in the 90's that women got stripped bare as a matter of expectation? Ugh! Why would anyone want pubes to look preadolescent as a default?
What *happened* in the 90's that women got stripped bare as a matter of expectation? Ugh! Why would anyone want pubes to look preadolescent as a default?
86
Where's the story here (assuming it's true)? I think it's fake, but even if true, she didn't have sex, and even while drunk, told the guy she wanted to stay a "virgin", which means she didn't want to fuck him. The pubic hair turnoff sounds like sour grapes to me.
It sounds ever faker when you read that she supposedly texted him for a couple of weeks after, but he kept turning her down. Yeah, sure.
Fake fake fake
It sounds ever faker when you read that she supposedly texted him for a couple of weeks after, but he kept turning her down. Yeah, sure.
Fake fake fake
88
It will be so nice when this
Can't Understand Normal Thinking shrew loses next Tuesday night.
Veuve Clicquot is chilled and ready!!
Can't Understand Normal Thinking shrew loses next Tuesday night.
Veuve Clicquot is chilled and ready!!
89
BEG, what happened in the '90s was the Internet. As in lots and lots of porn on the Internet, and every woman having shaved pubes. It's whacked, but it's become the "expectation" nowadays.
Now, we could discuss how whacked peoples' expectations have become as a result of porn, but that's another topic for another day.
Now, we could discuss how whacked peoples' expectations have become as a result of porn, but that's another topic for another day.
90
Women used to trim their bush in ancient Rome. Nothing new here.
I'm betting Christine's was as long as Jesus' hair.
I'm betting Christine's was as long as Jesus' hair.
91
@74 John Horstman: Why, thank you for asking! Hmm, I'm not picky...woman or lady is fine, although if I had my druthers, it'd be Her Supreme Highness of the Desiccated Tundra, but that's a bit of a mouthful..
@83 BEG: Ah, no worries, you're not the first! (Is it my masculine writing style? My fabulous avatar? My treatment of my fellow sistahs? It's a mystery...)
@83 BEG: Ah, no worries, you're not the first! (Is it my masculine writing style? My fabulous avatar? My treatment of my fellow sistahs? It's a mystery...)
92
She's a loon who would be a disaster in the Senate, but this whole thing is awful and wrong on so many levels that it's hardly worth dissecting. There are a whole lot of reasons not to elect her, but not having sex with some jerk on Halloween several years ago really isn't one of them. Cheering for this kind of story is celebrating the increasingly toxic tone of politics.
93
Dan, you are so off-base on this that I'm embarrassed for you. As reprehensible as the woman is, she was smeared by
Gawker, and, at least in this case, they are they ones deserving of scorn.
Gawker, and, at least in this case, they are they ones deserving of scorn.
94
@74 I would call what happened to Krystal Ball a classic case of slut shaming, far worse than this (since she was making no reference whatsoever to sexual ethics in her campaign). What is going on here with Christine O'Donnell is the hypocrisy factor that needs to be called out (which Dan did), but which easily slides into slut shaming (which people in this thread have managed to do, actually & IMO which Dan did NOT do) which is unnecessary for the purposes of hypocrisy-shaming, as it were...
Canuck -- I think it's because your nom de plume strikes me as masculine -- my bad :)
Canuck -- I think it's because your nom de plume strikes me as masculine -- my bad :)
95
... and I wish to hell NOW could make that same distinction, their press release on this just makes me *facepalm*...
97
BEG, sorry, did you say you wanted to facepalm? Well, I think I can help with that:
http://joemygod.blogspot.com/2010/10/iow…
(Keep an eye out for scarf/angel lady about half way through, I think I'm going to be her for Halloween. Mr. Canuck can go as her husband, who follows her around saying "honey, you forgot your meds!")
http://joemygod.blogspot.com/2010/10/iow…
(Keep an eye out for scarf/angel lady about half way through, I think I'm going to be her for Halloween. Mr. Canuck can go as her husband, who follows her around saying "honey, you forgot your meds!")
99
If someone could find the part of O'Donnell's insane political agenda where she wants to strip legal rights from people who want to engage in consensual, adult 2nd base action, or is promoting a campaign of hatred and violence against people who make comparatively tame, awkward passes at other adults on whom they have crushes, or wants to criminalize pubes, I could kind-of-maybe buy the idea that this is just like George Rekers and the hypocrisy of said agendas must be exposed, regardless of the cost paid by women and the sullying of the national, political dialog.
As it stands, though, in the absence of that political agenda, that rationale just reads like an extraordinarily lame excuse to act like ugly little middle-schoolers because it's going to feel awesome and righteous until it gets turned around on a woman whose politics we DO agree with because we gave these tactics the seal of approval.
As it stands, though, in the absence of that political agenda, that rationale just reads like an extraordinarily lame excuse to act like ugly little middle-schoolers because it's going to feel awesome and righteous until it gets turned around on a woman whose politics we DO agree with because we gave these tactics the seal of approval.
100
Dan, you are so full of shit. I say this as a ex-Catholic queer woman who used to be confused about her sexuality. I was "outed" to my family by an ex-girlfriend who saw me with my new girlfriend. She wrote a lurid email to everyone in my family out of a fit of jealousy and it was the most humiliating and degrading thing ever. I was lucky that my family came out in full support, but the pain of slut shaming is degrading and damaging as hell. You are a sick, hypocritical chauvinist who is so blinded by hate for a person that you don't care to see a wrong done to them. I hate everything about O'Donnell, but I will not rationalize her slut shaming like this. Shame on you!
101
Dan, you are so full of shit. I say this as a ex-Catholic queer woman who used to be confused about her sexuality. I was "outed" to my family by an ex-girlfriend who saw me with my new girlfriend. She wrote a lurid email to everyone in my family out of a fit of jealousy and it was the most humiliating and degrading thing ever. I was lucky that my family came out in full support, but the pain of slut shaming is degrading and damaging as hell. You are a sick, hypocritical chauvinist who is so blinded by hate for a person that you don't care to see a wrong done to them. I hate everything about O'Donnell, but I will not rationalize her slut shaming like this. Shame on you!
102
I can't manage the entirety of the comments here but it seems like nearly all of them miss a point that should stand out to everyone.
This story illustrates not her hypocrisy but the fact that she is walking her albeit ridiculous talk. "I'm a virgin, I'm going to stay a virgin"
Why this story doesn't read like a paid ad for her chastity platform I don't know. It says quite plainly:
"Yes, kids party, they go out, they hang out, but they don't have to fuck. It is a choice and you can control your desires.
I don't believe that for one second but that is how this story reads to me.
This story illustrates not her hypocrisy but the fact that she is walking her albeit ridiculous talk. "I'm a virgin, I'm going to stay a virgin"
Why this story doesn't read like a paid ad for her chastity platform I don't know. It says quite plainly:
"Yes, kids party, they go out, they hang out, but they don't have to fuck. It is a choice and you can control your desires.
I don't believe that for one second but that is how this story reads to me.
103
After reading the gwaker article, all I can say is, she might call herself a "virgin" but she sure sounds like she's hungry for the cock.
Now, let me also state, I can't fault for that, really. I'm no virgin, but I'm hungry for the cock all the time too. So, does that make her political commercial of "I'm you..." relevant to me? I dunno.
Now, let me also state, I can't fault for that, really. I'm no virgin, but I'm hungry for the cock all the time too. So, does that make her political commercial of "I'm you..." relevant to me? I dunno.
104
#103: I dunno either, Frau Blucher. That's a question you can only answer yourself now, isn't it? But thanks for the mind-blowing socio-political/sexual commentary.
Spealing of irrelevance, anyone else think Dan Savage's face resembles the guy who played the Scarecrow in the Wizard of Oz? Anyone, anyone? Not that this has anything to do with the article above. Kinda like the Gawker article has nothing to do with anything other than how apparently shameful and rife for humiliation it is to be a female human being. Especially a female human being who dares to enter politics.
Dan Savage, do you really think the guy who wrote this piece of misogynist crap for the Gawker about O'Donnell really did it out of a hatred for hypocrisy or a sense of patriotism or justice for the sexually active and sex positive-folks who vote? Do you really believe that, Dan? If so, for a man who makes his living writing about sex, you're clearly profoundly stupid about its psychology. Bitter grapes, Dan. This Gawker sleaze-fest is about nothing more than bitter grapes. And my guess is the guy who wrote it couldn't give a damn about gay rights and DADT and anti-bullying campaigns and the morning after pill and creationsim in schools and blah blah blah. He cares about whether he got laid by a hot-enough chick. If he votes at all (and I wouldn't be surprised to learn he's never even registered), he votes with his dick, not with his brain. (And if you counter that you see nothing wrong with someone voting with their dick, Mr. Savage, you are even more hopeless and hateful than I've judged you to be.)
The guy over at the Village Voice was the one who got this right--not Dan Savage. "I got blueballed by a famous chick--what a dumb bitch!"--that's ALL this story is about. http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscar…
More...
Spealing of irrelevance, anyone else think Dan Savage's face resembles the guy who played the Scarecrow in the Wizard of Oz? Anyone, anyone? Not that this has anything to do with the article above. Kinda like the Gawker article has nothing to do with anything other than how apparently shameful and rife for humiliation it is to be a female human being. Especially a female human being who dares to enter politics.
Dan Savage, do you really think the guy who wrote this piece of misogynist crap for the Gawker about O'Donnell really did it out of a hatred for hypocrisy or a sense of patriotism or justice for the sexually active and sex positive-folks who vote? Do you really believe that, Dan? If so, for a man who makes his living writing about sex, you're clearly profoundly stupid about its psychology. Bitter grapes, Dan. This Gawker sleaze-fest is about nothing more than bitter grapes. And my guess is the guy who wrote it couldn't give a damn about gay rights and DADT and anti-bullying campaigns and the morning after pill and creationsim in schools and blah blah blah. He cares about whether he got laid by a hot-enough chick. If he votes at all (and I wouldn't be surprised to learn he's never even registered), he votes with his dick, not with his brain. (And if you counter that you see nothing wrong with someone voting with their dick, Mr. Savage, you are even more hopeless and hateful than I've judged you to be.)
The guy over at the Village Voice was the one who got this right--not Dan Savage. "I got blueballed by a famous chick--what a dumb bitch!"--that's ALL this story is about. http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscar…
105
dan savage lies. it does not get better. he is living proof, because he's still acting like a bitchy, gossipy 13 year old.
106
"But, but . . . being a bitchy little whiny cunt is what I do. Now shut the fuck up, because I'm famous and you're not."
- Dan Savage
- Dan Savage
107
Glad these threads are still going strong in the morning, to tide us over while the coffee brews...Frau Blucher, you ask if O'Donnell's "I am you" statement is relevant, owing to your possible mutual love of "the cock"...all I have to say is, if it turns out you also have a Clairol "chestnut brown" #541 pageboy hairdo and pearls, well, we're going to have to have a *chat*...if your affiliation goes no further than the wobbly bits, then carry on.
ReneO...hmm, I don't see the Wizard of Oz Scarecrow resemblance (but I think this would make a fabulous Slog Poll: Which character in the Wizard of Oz should Dan be for Halloween?) Kidding aside, I don't think we'd be having a similar debate if this had happened to a male candidate (one who said he was chaste in his personal life, and then had an old girlfriend come forward with bondage videos), which means the main problem for a lot of people is gender, rather than the event itself. I think the same rules should apply regardless of gender. And although you didn't say this (someone else did), no, she's not trying to pass legislation to outlaw premarital sex, but knowing her personal views on the subject, and how that correlates to her own life, is completely relevant to her as a political person, as it indicates how she will handle other issues if (shudder) she were to be in office.
ReneO...hmm, I don't see the Wizard of Oz Scarecrow resemblance (but I think this would make a fabulous Slog Poll: Which character in the Wizard of Oz should Dan be for Halloween?) Kidding aside, I don't think we'd be having a similar debate if this had happened to a male candidate (one who said he was chaste in his personal life, and then had an old girlfriend come forward with bondage videos), which means the main problem for a lot of people is gender, rather than the event itself. I think the same rules should apply regardless of gender. And although you didn't say this (someone else did), no, she's not trying to pass legislation to outlaw premarital sex, but knowing her personal views on the subject, and how that correlates to her own life, is completely relevant to her as a political person, as it indicates how she will handle other issues if (shudder) she were to be in office.
108
I can't believe NOW supports hypocrites? The only misogynistic thing was his waxing comment, which was annoying. But come on. NOW???
109
I think Dan "did" Dorothy some number of years ago, but he'd be just fine as almost any character in that movie.
What is this "coffee" of which you speak? I had mine long ago, and have been into the booze for hours already.
What is this "coffee" of which you speak? I had mine long ago, and have been into the booze for hours already.
110
I like the smooth look myself, on both men and women. Does that make me a misogynist also? I'm having a dificul time correlating this piece of fiction(and poorly written fiction at that, "Dear Penthouse, I never thought I'd be writing this petter"...) to a 'sexist, misogynistic attack' against women. NOW needs to collectively take a pill.
111
I started to say, "Well, I'm in Mountain Time..." as my excuse, but then you are, too...no, there's nothing to say, it's simply pathetic. Drinking earlier in the morning is one of the things I hope to accomplish some day (on my "Bucket List," so to speak) but as with painting the bathroom, I just never seem to actually get it done, despite the best of intentions. The only benefit to not drinking in the morning, as far as I can tell, is that it reduces the incidence of "drunk slogging," and waking up in the morning thinking, "Aw, shit!"......
113
What makes Christine O'Donnell different from other conservatives is that she objects to all sexual activity. Even masturbation. Which is patently ridiculous. Other conservatives focus on being anti-gay. Er go, a specific target is identified. So when conservative Christian male anti-gay bigots are caught hiring male escorts to life their luggage it IS news.
O'Donnell's hypocrisy has never been hidden. So this "story" is redundant. It wasn't needed to point out how short-sighted O'Donnell is. It was rendered for reasons other than political accuracy.
O'Donnell's hypocrisy has never been hidden. So this "story" is redundant. It wasn't needed to point out how short-sighted O'Donnell is. It was rendered for reasons other than political accuracy.
114
I don't understand how any claims of misogyny can even come into this situation. The bitch has made a business, in fact her whole political career, on propagating a view of sex appealing to the right-wing voters which she already knows to be fallacious, and which she doesn't herself follow. This is a clear case of hypocrisy, and it is valuable to expose her as a lying whore as it also illustrates that the view she was propagating is complete and utter nonsense.
There's nothing sex-negative about this whole situation; it is much the same as outing closeted homophobic pastors and politicians. It is an attempt to expose a quite real hypocrisy. Some in the middle (and the left) simply have a massive fascination with decorum, or maintain old-fashioned, misogynistic views of women which prevent them from criticizing a woman, a politician in fact, on her own sexual hypocrisy because deep down they have a visceral reaction against public knowledge of female sexuality.
In this light, NOW's reaction is not only... well, reactionary, but also chauvinistic.
There's nothing sex-negative about this whole situation; it is much the same as outing closeted homophobic pastors and politicians. It is an attempt to expose a quite real hypocrisy. Some in the middle (and the left) simply have a massive fascination with decorum, or maintain old-fashioned, misogynistic views of women which prevent them from criticizing a woman, a politician in fact, on her own sexual hypocrisy because deep down they have a visceral reaction against public knowledge of female sexuality.
In this light, NOW's reaction is not only... well, reactionary, but also chauvinistic.
115
@ 114, if you believe the behavior described in the article makes a woman a "whore," I think your ideas about what constitutes misogyny and chauvinism are worth approximately jack shit.
116
Some men actually *aren't* turned on by women that look like abandoned lots below the waist. Because, much like an abandoned lot, you can't really tell what might be lurking in the brush. That doesn't mean that we all harbor some secret hatred for women.
117
Fifty-Two Eighty: I've been admiring you from afar for some time, but your post @10 makes me really think I do love you!
119
Political people are judged -- as they should be -- on their ability to make judgments. So this story is completely relevant, male or female case in point. She made a bad call, so we need to know about it. What doesn't matter is that this particular bad call was about sex and her choice of sex partner. Bad choices all around.
120
"Sorry" Dan, but you're just wrong here, and the fact that you've become so entrenched in your own political campaign that you can't even consider this possibility is disappointing. I used to like your column but won't be reading it anymore; as a woman why would I, when it's so clear from your response that you don't care about the gendered nature of this particular attack on Christine O'Donnell? Tyler Clementi committed suicide because someone exposed his sex life, but somehow it's okay to do the same to Christine O'Donnell because she is a stupid, homophobic hypocrite? That doesn't fly for me. Sure, she's in a special position with special power because she decided to run for office. But as NOW astutely points out, she shouldn't be exposed to the threat of total humiliation and sexual harassment because of this - particularly because of the message of intimidation and warning this implicitly send to other women. (Also, Gawker is pathetic; why waste your (significant) political capitol defending a bad choice of theirs?)
121
Dan, you are my hero in so many ways, but you are really off base here. It's been well-said above.
122
And here's a very good post on the subject from Thomas at the Yes Means Yes Blog:
http://yesmeansyesblog.wordpress.com/201…
http://yesmeansyesblog.wordpress.com/201…
123
@115
Propagating unrealizable and false sexual ideals whilst simultaneously pursuing normal sexual relationships? That is the very idea of what a "whore" is, you bleeding apologist. The woman has sucked the GOP teat of power, dooming untold future relationships to false expectations and unrealized hopes; I cannot, for a second, maintain back my criticisms of this right whore.
I come from a world, raised by sex-negative, man-hating, sociopathic women; I know a woman's lies when I see them. And many of these NOW types are precisely that, sex-negative women who have all had a bitter relationship with their father, and choose to, I don't know why, rectify the matter by violating the lives of those generations younger than themselves. Though being victims, I overflow with contempt for them; being a victim is no excuse to victimize someone else.
There is no such a thing as womanly virtue. According to the morality of distance, positive characteristics must have been attributed to men in opposition to women, historically. What are supposedly manly virtues are merely--virtues; and women should adopt them as well.
Gods send to this world nothing but strong women, a generation of the Brynhildr type; and the devil take the rest.
Propagating unrealizable and false sexual ideals whilst simultaneously pursuing normal sexual relationships? That is the very idea of what a "whore" is, you bleeding apologist. The woman has sucked the GOP teat of power, dooming untold future relationships to false expectations and unrealized hopes; I cannot, for a second, maintain back my criticisms of this right whore.
I come from a world, raised by sex-negative, man-hating, sociopathic women; I know a woman's lies when I see them. And many of these NOW types are precisely that, sex-negative women who have all had a bitter relationship with their father, and choose to, I don't know why, rectify the matter by violating the lives of those generations younger than themselves. Though being victims, I overflow with contempt for them; being a victim is no excuse to victimize someone else.
There is no such a thing as womanly virtue. According to the morality of distance, positive characteristics must have been attributed to men in opposition to women, historically. What are supposedly manly virtues are merely--virtues; and women should adopt them as well.
Gods send to this world nothing but strong women, a generation of the Brynhildr type; and the devil take the rest.
124
"Sorry" @120, but I'm a woman too and I totally agree with Dan that someone who is trying to tell other people how/who to be/fuck should be called out when they do the exact opposite of what they preach - just as homophobic religious people (male or female) that preach "the gays are bad" and then fuck their own gender should be called out. Tyler Clementi (weak comparison, by the way) wasn't attempting to tell other people what to do, who to fuck, and who to be, was he? Dan calls out MALE priests/pastors/preachers/what-have-you (MUCH better comparison - a kind of person in a "position of power" and often feel/preach strongly about sexual matters), for example, for the same damn thing. Why does she get a free ride because she's a woman? Dan isn't calling her out because she's in a position of power but because she is doing the exact opposite of what she says she does and wants to force other people to do (so why anyone would want someone like her to run for any office, I don't know. Wouldn't that mean she might just go right ahead and switch any of her "principles" to whatever she likes?)
"Feminism" was about gender EQUALITY not "women are better than men" - so why can't Dan complain about her just as he complains about catholic priests or homophobic male senators/representatives/candidates/etc who have sex with men (oh noes, they might be "exposed to the threat of total humiliation and sexual harrassment")?
(I'm not even going to make the comparison to "priests who fuck little boys" here, as Christine O'Donnell's actions weren't illegal, as far as I know... you can correct me if I'm wrong there!)
Also, in my opinion, NOW is full of shit by saying that this woman, who wants to DESTROY WOMEN'S RIGHTS (by telling people how they should have sex, who they should have it with, etc), should be given rights HIGHER than men's rights (don't pick on her, she's a frail little girl, so timid and weak, can't stand up for herself like a MAN can... so let her off the hook... right? wait... so now NOW believes that women are less than men?). No no no - she gets to get the same treatment that a man would get. THAT is equality.
If she didn't have the opinions and "morals" that she says she does, if she didn't try to tell other people that she's better than everyone else and that other people should be just like her (or, as we know now, just like she wishes she could be), then I wouldn't give two shits about who she fucked and how she did it (within legal boundaries of course). In fact, I'd love to see an intelligent woman (or man) run for office who is unashamed of and open about her (or his) sexual adventures. Does it really matter? Of course not - unless you're someone who has (or has had) sexual adventures they don't want anyone else to have... like Christine O'Donnell.
More...
"Feminism" was about gender EQUALITY not "women are better than men" - so why can't Dan complain about her just as he complains about catholic priests or homophobic male senators/representatives/candidates/etc who have sex with men (oh noes, they might be "exposed to the threat of total humiliation and sexual harrassment")?
(I'm not even going to make the comparison to "priests who fuck little boys" here, as Christine O'Donnell's actions weren't illegal, as far as I know... you can correct me if I'm wrong there!)
Also, in my opinion, NOW is full of shit by saying that this woman, who wants to DESTROY WOMEN'S RIGHTS (by telling people how they should have sex, who they should have it with, etc), should be given rights HIGHER than men's rights (don't pick on her, she's a frail little girl, so timid and weak, can't stand up for herself like a MAN can... so let her off the hook... right? wait... so now NOW believes that women are less than men?). No no no - she gets to get the same treatment that a man would get. THAT is equality.
If she didn't have the opinions and "morals" that she says she does, if she didn't try to tell other people that she's better than everyone else and that other people should be just like her (or, as we know now, just like she wishes she could be), then I wouldn't give two shits about who she fucked and how she did it (within legal boundaries of course). In fact, I'd love to see an intelligent woman (or man) run for office who is unashamed of and open about her (or his) sexual adventures. Does it really matter? Of course not - unless you're someone who has (or has had) sexual adventures they don't want anyone else to have... like Christine O'Donnell.
125
@123.
Holy fuck dude.
Seriously? Have we a little bit of sexual frustration and resentment against all these "sex-negative" women who didn't feel like fucking you, perhaps?
Jesus, man.
And -1 for actually typing out the word "whilst."
Holy fuck dude.
Seriously? Have we a little bit of sexual frustration and resentment against all these "sex-negative" women who didn't feel like fucking you, perhaps?
Jesus, man.
And -1 for actually typing out the word "whilst."
126
@123, I'm so glad you're showing your true colors here so that people can see exactly what kind of misogynistic loons with mommy issues think this article and set of tactics are a great idea.
127
This story is only meant to humiliate her for 1) being aggressive and 2) being (supposedly) turned down. It is the men of the nation as a whole making themselves feel better because they "could have had that cock-hungry slut, but her vagina looked like an abandoned lot so I totally shut her down". Sick sick sick. No male politician who professed the same values would ever be shamed on this magnitude for being a bit aggressive and getting to second base.
128
If this incident makes one judgmental, right-wing asshole think twice about running for public office, then more power to Gawker.com. Lefties need to wake up the the realities of today's political culture and stop fighting with one arm tied behind their backs. Yes, politics are ugly. Get over it.
129
@124 (N.B.: I started my post with "sorry" because this is the snarky 12-year-old diction Dan uses to refute arguments he doesn't like; you didn't seem to pick up on this...)
The fact that you wrote in your post that "Feminism" (in quotes??) "WAS" anything shows how little you know about it. Feminism isn't dead - it's alive and well and supported by organizations like NOW. Also, no one is saying that women deserve more rights than men, and "rights" aren't even the issue here. Productive discourse and misogyny are. The fact that Christine O'Donnell is anti-women and anti-gay doesn't mean it's okay to undermine her by attacking her with harmful, sexist stereotypes. There are plenty of persuasive, rational arguments to employ viz. why her inane and harmful notions about sexuality, gender, women's rights etc. are wrong before we resort to exposing her as a hypocritical slut. It's lazy and cheap, and just adds to the vicious cycle of personal attacks and stupid, unthinking argumentation that dominate our political landscape.
The fact that you wrote in your post that "Feminism" (in quotes??) "WAS" anything shows how little you know about it. Feminism isn't dead - it's alive and well and supported by organizations like NOW. Also, no one is saying that women deserve more rights than men, and "rights" aren't even the issue here. Productive discourse and misogyny are. The fact that Christine O'Donnell is anti-women and anti-gay doesn't mean it's okay to undermine her by attacking her with harmful, sexist stereotypes. There are plenty of persuasive, rational arguments to employ viz. why her inane and harmful notions about sexuality, gender, women's rights etc. are wrong before we resort to exposing her as a hypocritical slut. It's lazy and cheap, and just adds to the vicious cycle of personal attacks and stupid, unthinking argumentation that dominate our political landscape.
130
Despite the fact that I do feel that this is kind of a sleazy non-journalistic low-blow, let me also suggest something that almost nobody on the NOW side of this argument seems to be remembering:
THE GOP ACTUALLY *IMPEACHED* A SITTING PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OVER AN EQUIVALENT ESCAPADE.
I mean, forget a mere tabloid smear by an anonymous (and now unmasked) douchebag. We're talking 228 sitting Representatives in the United States Congress voted to charge a sitting President with high crimes to initiate a federal public trial in the United States Senate presided by the Chief Justice of the United States which if successful (and 50 sitting United States Senators actually voted 'Guilty') would have lead to the President's removal from office. Over. A. Blowjob.
So let's not cast aspersions about some kind of double-standard here that men are somehow immune to this kind of thing, or that this article is somehow unprecedented. The GOP took this same tactic to the very brink of CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS.
It is not just Christine O'Donnell's views of sexuality that made this fair game. It is the absurd and relentless hypocrisy of the entire GOP that for decades have made this totally fair game.
THE GOP ACTUALLY *IMPEACHED* A SITTING PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OVER AN EQUIVALENT ESCAPADE.
I mean, forget a mere tabloid smear by an anonymous (and now unmasked) douchebag. We're talking 228 sitting Representatives in the United States Congress voted to charge a sitting President with high crimes to initiate a federal public trial in the United States Senate presided by the Chief Justice of the United States which if successful (and 50 sitting United States Senators actually voted 'Guilty') would have lead to the President's removal from office. Over. A. Blowjob.
So let's not cast aspersions about some kind of double-standard here that men are somehow immune to this kind of thing, or that this article is somehow unprecedented. The GOP took this same tactic to the very brink of CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS.
It is not just Christine O'Donnell's views of sexuality that made this fair game. It is the absurd and relentless hypocrisy of the entire GOP that for decades have made this totally fair game.
131
@127: "No male politician who professed the same values would ever be shamed on this magnitude for being a bit aggressive and getting to second base. "
Bullshit. We IMPEACHED one for third base.
Bullshit. We IMPEACHED one for third base.
132
This is just sad. I'd have thought that Dan, of all people, would rise above this kind of pernicious assault based on a private consensual encounter. I have to say, I'm pretty disgusted by this. Going back into hibernation now. Good luck with your new career as a right winged shill Dan.
133
I don't get it: She says she doesn't have sex, this article confirms it: she didn't have sex with Mr. WaxingTrend or her next long-term boyfriend. If anything, this nasty bit of business gives her some bizarre credibility.
134
@131- Clinton wasn't impeached for getting to second base 15 years prior, while not in public office and unmarried. If I remember correctly (because I'm canadian and under 30) he was impeached for lying under oath about receiving oral sex during his term as president from an employee, at work in the oval office, while married. That's really not comparable. Dumb still, but not comparable.
135
@134: It's more than comparable. What should his private sex life have anything to do with being dragged into court? It was a political court case, and it was a political impeachment. Bill Clinton didn't spend 20 years on TV and touring the country preaching abstinence and faithfulness. O'Donnell did.
And let's not forget the other half of this story: Christine O'Donnell was getting drunk, AND getting dressed up in a SATANIC LADYBUG COSTUME to celebrate the PAGAN holiday of Halloween, where she risked FALLING VICTIM TO HUMAN SACRIFICE.
But don't take my word for it. Horse's mouth:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QdTFb4O65…
And let's not forget the other half of this story: Christine O'Donnell was getting drunk, AND getting dressed up in a SATANIC LADYBUG COSTUME to celebrate the PAGAN holiday of Halloween, where she risked FALLING VICTIM TO HUMAN SACRIFICE.
But don't take my word for it. Horse's mouth:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QdTFb4O65…
136
Dan, I adore you and I am not a fan of O'Donnell's, but you got this one wrong. First, Mr. Anon isn't facing the media, but hiding behind it. There is no credibility in this "he said, she said" piece, and no journalistic integrity. It's vague, uncredited, vengeful, and just plain mean. By his own admission there was no sex. He paints that as his decision because it protects his vanity, but if this was a letter to Savage Love, you would have called BS.
This is media-fueled public bullying and it doesn't matter who the target is, it's wrong.
If I wrote an anonymous letter about how Ellen Degeneres got drunk and came on to me (a female) three years ago, and how disgusting I found her to be (after I got her naked, of course), would you print that or consider it gay bashing? I have pictures. I'm not in them.
Hate is hate. This piece of trash doesn't deserve a voice. He's the same guy who would beat up a male prostitute after a blow job.
A Gawker commenter said it best: the real story here is a 25-yo in a boy scout uniform couldn't close the deal unless the vagina looks like a 11-yo's.
This is media-fueled public bullying and it doesn't matter who the target is, it's wrong.
If I wrote an anonymous letter about how Ellen Degeneres got drunk and came on to me (a female) three years ago, and how disgusting I found her to be (after I got her naked, of course), would you print that or consider it gay bashing? I have pictures. I'm not in them.
Hate is hate. This piece of trash doesn't deserve a voice. He's the same guy who would beat up a male prostitute after a blow job.
A Gawker commenter said it best: the real story here is a 25-yo in a boy scout uniform couldn't close the deal unless the vagina looks like a 11-yo's.
137
The more I think about this, the more I say that anything goes, for men and women: highlight the other side as well equally, with David Vitter and his hiring of prostitutes and diaper fetishism, highlight Elliot Spitzer as well. Basically all our perceptions and the nature of the country are at stake. Nothing should be off limits.
138
Wrong, Joe. Oh, I might agree with you in theory, but in the particular reality we happen to live in, women will always bear the brunt of "anything goes."
141
This is a totally legitimate story and I think the guy is heroic for saying BS to her making young people feel ashamed of their sexuality, yet here she is TRYING to exercise hers.
Twisted witch.
Twisted witch.
142
Thank you so much for saying this. As a "card carrying feminist" I know some women are offended by the "sexist nature" of these comments. And normally I'd wholly agree... but SHE is the one that made her sexuality the issue. I don't usually care about any person's sexuality unless they're using it as the basis of their campaign.
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
Hating People Doesn't Make Them Thinner by Jen Graves
-
Los Angeles Gay Bar Bans Bachelorette Parties Until Marriage Equality Is Attained by David Schmader
-
Fill in the Blank by Grant Brissey
-
This Reminds Me of the Great Calculator Scare of the Late '70s/Early '80s by David Schmader
-
Idiot Tries to Defend Bigoted Anti-Gay-Marriage Preacher on Anderson Cooper by Paul Constant
-
Six Moms with Too Much Time on Their Hands and a Shitty Website Decide to Fight Gay Superheroes by Paul Constant
-
What the Hell Is Wrong With Seattle's Pride Parade? by Dominic Holden
-
The Saturday Morning News by Unpaid Intern
-
Why Mayor McGinn's Wife Canceled Her Family's Seattle Times Subscription by Eli Sanders
-
NYC Man Ticketed for Not Riding in the Bike Lane by Jonathan Golob
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (142) RSS