"Slut Shaming"

October 28, 2010

Sexist, misogynist attacks against women have no place in the electoral process, regardless of a particular candidate's political ideology.

Today the tabloid website Gawker published an anonymous piece titled "I Had A One-Night Stand With Christine O'Donnell" that takes the routine sexual degradation of women candidates to a disgusting new low. 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.

NOW/PAC has proudly endorsed women's rights champion Chris Coons, O'Donnell's opponent in the Delaware Senate race, and finds O'Donnell's political positions dangerous for women. That does not mean it's acceptable to use slut-shaming against her, or any woman.

NOW has repeatedly called out misogyny against women candidates, and this election season is no different. Let me be honest: I look forward to seeing Christine O'Donnell defeated at the polls, but this kind of sexist attack is an affront to all women, and I won't stand for it.

http://www.now.org/press/10-10/10-28.html

regardless of who the candidate is. If we condone sexist attacks with one of their's, we open ourselves to sexist attacks on one of ours.

Yet had he excluded that and the specifics about her "virginity", i'm not sure i would still disapprove. It says a lot about her hypocrisy. And it was 3 years ago... not from her 80's teen anti-masturbatory days.

It would've been a tasteless cheap shot anyway. But it's out there now...

:(

The pictures only establish that O'Donnell had a ladybug costume at one point and was maybe a little tipsy.

As far as what happened "afterwards" it could be just a fantasy the guy had in the shower with his hand.


Given the high profile O'Donnell received after her nominiation I would think anyone who could offer up legitimate proof of any hypocrisy would have been in front of the cameras within 24 hours.

An anonymous article posted less than a week before the election on an on-line gossip site doesn't prove anything by most people's standards.

Whose private parts weren't too pristine.
The guy was a talker,
He told all to Gawker,
Now some people say he was mean.

She's a butch, she's a bitch, she is a cold fish, no one would want to have sex with her, no wonder the big dawg went outside the marriage and on and on and on.

and it is wrong now.

and it's worked very well for them. You want to play-you better be ready to take your licks. Otherwise, go home.

http://www.care2.com/causes/womens-rights/blog/christine-o-donnell-says-influences-are-god-gloria-steinem/#comments

Anyone unfamiliar with the author should check out the POV documentary, "The Education of Shelby Knox" - really fantastic.

I say if you run around talking about how people should not masturbate or be sexual and then have a normal sex life...seems to me to worthy of pointing out the hypocrisy.

people think it's ok to discuss her genital grooming and sexual inexperience.

As in "I would never say this normally, but so-and-so really deserves it because she's a hypocrite."

O'Donnell can be criticized and rejected based on her public record; there's no need for slimy rumors like the Gawker piece...

we're holding her to her standards, stated publically, not ours. Right?

succeed in living up to them, and I try not to let my standards bend in response to the behavior of others. Approving of this kind of rumor or innuendo, or using it as a weapon, doesn't fit with my own standards and so I call it wrong, no matter how far O'Donnell may have strayed from her own professed ideals. (That sounds awfully self-righteous and priggish, doesn't it? :eyes: at myself)

So whether or not O'Donnell had a tipsy fumble in the sheets is perhaps titillating, but I see spreading the story as a bigger indictment of the writer than of her. She can be assessed perfectly well (and quite negatively) on her public record alone.

(Of course, if it turns out the her campaign itself started this tale as a devious strategery, then she would deserve an epic roasting...)

"I really hate Gawker for making me do this, but ... I'm going to have to defend Christine O'Donnell. The site just published an anonymous first-person essay with the headline "I Had a One-Night Stand With Christine O'Donnell." Apparently Gawker's headline writers go by a different definition of "one-night stand" than the rest of the world, though, because her anonymous lay didn't actually get laid. Anonymous says that three years ago O'Donnell showed up tipsy with a friend at his front door on Halloween. Then 25, he was totally weirded out by her random drop-in because he didn't know her all that well -- but that didn't stop him from dressing up in a boy scout's uniform, hitting the town and tossing back several beers with her. Eventually, she grabbed his hand, kissed him and whispered sweet nothings -- god, I'm bored to death already, aren't you?"

http://www.salon.com/life/broadsheet/2010/10/28/christine_odonnell/index.html

or go after her for anything she may have done in her personal life. it's ridiculous.

having to defend her against the sexism too.

shame on the women that help to create the situation, too, making it harder for all women

I alerted, the mods kept the post up , and I said fuck this place, it;s not getting another penny out of me.

Misogyny is as ugly coming from Democrats as it is from Republicans.

I suspect it was more likely one of her own that did it. The GOP does not support her, and never did. I would not put it past them to pull something like this. It not only puts her down, but makes the Democrats look bad to those who automatically assume the anonymous person was a Dem. Chris Coons is up by 20 points. Why would he or anyone in his party even feel the need to consider such a stunt?

I do agree with you, though.

I have mostly stayed out of the "one night stand" threads, and I see your point, but I actually think the glaring hypocrisy deserves a spotlight.

She would call you a slut for doing the same as she did.

I'm pretty sure she didn't. the article tells you nothing happened, that much is clear.

I must point out that Christine O'Donnell is crazy and I didn't need to know that she doesn't wax and how sexually inexperienced she is to figure that out.

history does not mean it's right to do the same.

She's a hypocrite, that's all.

The article is ridiculous andthe guy behind it is scum. Total agreement there.

But Christine is that standard Republican candidate who wants to be able to control your sexuality, and your reproductive choices ... and so, using her own "values", she fails her own test.

Personally, I don't care who she sleeps with. Not my business. But if she makes sexuality a campaign issue, then she built her own trap and then stepped into it.

you're managing to gve her fucked up way of looking at things credibilty.
well not with me, but youre helping out the misogynists by playing this game.
i know it;s fun for a lot of guys, they do not give it a thought unless it happens to their little sister, or mom.

going to delight in this happening to HER, then we better be quiet when they do it to someone we like.

It is wrong when they do it. Why would we want to emulate something we have condemned?

if a Democratic politician was exposed, but didn't run on being sexually pure or wanting to impose sexual morality on society, then yes, it would be irrelevant. But it's not in this case.

you should be, it's bullshit. it's like whispering BS in the hallways at HS,

there was no judgment in the article. She is being exposed for being a hypocrite.

we know nothing. For all we know, her supporters could have set this up. Or, it could be a hoax, a lie.

But, aside from that, this is what THEY do. I want no part of that kind of nastiness no matter what excuses there are for it. THEY had excuses for why they went after Clinton too and we said 'there are no excuses for this'.

She was doing a great job of destroying herself. I would not be surprised if this actually ends up helping her.

This was extremely predictable...with all the outlandish stuff Christine the Teenage Witch spewed about masturbation and her own sexual abstinence, there'd be someone crawling out of the weeds in the final days of the election and yelling "I did her". Then this article had more holes than Swiss cheese. It was an obvious hit piece on her and a poor one at that.

This article wasn't written or distributed by the Coons campaign and thus why should he even give it the time of day?? The same applies with NOW or any other organization. Making this an issue gives this type of sliming credibility and anyone making an issue of it gets slimed as well. There's plenty of other stuff to disqualify Ms. O'Donnell from any public office.

lot of misogyny in politics.

over at Huff Post. Woman bashing and women telling all for publicity hurts everyone. Men telling all fits into the same category when it is used to hurt anyone or for personal or political gain. In a society where everyone is "telling all" how can you change things, though? If slut shaming is bad for O'Donnell why do tabloids make money off it with celebrities? What if a celebrity is bashed UNFAIRLY by rumor or innuendo?

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

"UPDATE: In a phone interview tonight, a besieged Kurisko told TSG that Dominiak is the man pictured with O’Donnell in the Gawker photos. He said that while Dominiak had borrowed his Boy Scouts uniform, he was unaware of the existence of photos of his roommate with O’Donnell."

"Dustin Dominiak, a 28-year-old"

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/buster/gawker/trail-anonymous-christine-odonnells-sex-free-pal

.... now when he actually says the stuff as himself, I'll believe it.

Sorry, the story is just a bit out there for me.

If we had a guy who had been going on and on in a judgmental nature about the evils of sex and masturbation, and then somebody published an article about an escapade he had engaged in that was similar to what Gawker had published, would Gawker get blasted for "Slut Shaming" a man? Somehow I doubt it. Rather, there would be cheering and high fives all around. In fact this has happened several times, in similar situations, over the past several years, and not a peep from NOW or anyone else about how we have "Slut Shamed" these men.

No, instead we have cheered the exposure of these men's hypocrisy, which is what this Gawker article was all about, exposing hypocrisy.

Yes, such tactics are ugly and tawdry, appealing to our prurient interests. But if it is OK for a guy to get this treatment, then it's OK for a woman to get the same treatment.

I'll be fully expecting the same sort of scolding treatment to come along the next time a guy's sexual hypocrisy is exposed, and be awaiting NOW's breathless denunciation of it. Somehow I think I'll have to wait a long, long time.

and what a turn off it is to the brother, is another. It is classic slut shaming. The bitch was cold, I would never have sex with that thing and she couldn't please any man. But she is a slut just the same, that's why the article is called, "I Had a One-Night Stand With Christine O'Donnell".

Using the same type of personal descriptions written about male politicians when their hypocrisy is exposed("Diaper" Dave Vitter, how large or small their privates were, etc.). Yet not a peep of outrage over how we were "Slut Shaming" the guy. Sorry, but this is a double standard:shrug:

and paying for sex. those are hypocritical instances.

name me the last single fella that had his genital grooming described to us.

and edit to add, what did hillary do to have these same stereotypes attributed to her?

Please stay on topic.

And having a woman, married or single, who preaches abstinence to the point of disavowing masturbation get caught having a one night (sort of) stand, yes, that is hypocrisy on her part. Just as hypocritical as a married fundy guy getting caught in an affair.

And no, no guy has had his genital grooming described, but the size and shape of his privates, yes, those have discussed to death in some cases.

it is the same types of tactics used upon women who enter public office.

if they are married there is a hypocrisy to be uncovered and I would agree it is fair game.

However, O'donnell is unmarried and went out on Halloween. Two completely different scenarios.

Her genital grooming and inexperience were not relevant to the story at all, or even to her anti mastubatory or pre marriage sex stance. you can try to defend Gawker if you like. But didn't have sex and she didn't masturbate. Where is her hypocrisy?

I'm specifically talking about the O'Donnel case.

Yes, O'Donnel is unmarried, an unmarried woman who has constantly scolded the rest of us about the evils of pre-marital sex. Yet here we are, and it looks like she engaged in just that, or something close to it. That is hypocrisy. Such hypocrisy does need to be exposed.

If you think that discussion of her inexperience and genital grooming were irrelevant, let me ask you, did you scold us over the exposure of Vitter's diaper preference? Or the many instances, including Bill Clinton, where the size, shape and markings on a man's privates were discussed?

No, I imagine that you thought such irrelevancies were just fine in the case of a guy. But when they are applied to a woman, you scream hypocrisy. Perhaps you should look in the mirror.

And again, please, we're discussing O'Donnel here, not Hillary.

And to answer your question, no, because they were both married men seeking sex outside of marriage.

Although, I never thought Bill Clinton should be impeached. I thought it was ludicrous on it's face.

A person's kink is their own business. I said that repeatedly in threads about Vitter, and got royally slammed for it. But I don't care. Everyone, including Republicans, even hypocrites. have a right to their sexuality - a right to it without being shamed.

Correlating sex, kinky or otherwise, with shame HURTS EVERYONE.

If somebody wants to get on a moral high horse and tell others what they can and can not do, it would behoove that person not to be doing the very things they are railing about.

Instead of making fun of the hypocrisy? You know ha ha, dipper fetish, or SM fetish, or whatever. There was a lot more laughing at the kink than at Vitter's kink than at his hypocrisy.

the stranger they are behind closed doors. If you can't see the humor in that.

you would have a point.

We hear the same sort of sordid details about men who have engaged in such hypocrisy. Things like what they like to wear to get their kink on, how large or small they are, hell, which way it hangs even.

I do have a point, that NOW and the other scolds around here are being hypocritical. Either it is OK to publish such stories about all politicians, or we shouldn't publish any such stories about any politician, male or female. But it is hypocritical to cheer on the intimate stories about politicians like "Diaper" Dave Vitter, yet be a scold about intimate stories concerning Christine O'Donnel.

she deserved the attacks.

I don't know why you want to all the sudden change the topic, but we're talking about O'Donnel, not Hillary. Please stay on topic.

way comparable to the treatment of many women who enter politics.

We are discussing O'Donnel. Please stay on topic. If you want to continue to throw up Hillary straw men, then I'll simply go elsewhere because it is quickly becoming apparent that you can't discuss O'Donnel and stay on topic, but rather have to continue to erect strawmen, one after the other, to defend your own hypocritical stance.

It is you who cannot extrapolate the issue, and I believe it's because it doesn't fit your view.

... but Dave getting diapered by a prostitute... uh, well, he did commit a crime. The details of that crime were salacious, but he committed the crime so he was taking that risk.

David Patterson got this one right by disclosing it, and moving on, rendering himself immune to blackmail.

The sex life of Christine O'Donnell is not relevant to anything.

IT doesn't matter to me WHAT Sen. Vitter wears to bed; that he was in bed with a paid prostitute is what makes that story newsworthy? (the fact that what he was doing was clearly illegal?)Christine O'Donnell failing at the practice of, and advocacy for, abstinence is NOT illegal, even if I happen to think its probably hypocritical as all get-out. (also, in the interest of FULL discloser, I do not believe that Sen. Vitter paying for a prostitute should be illegal-- if regulated correctly, it CAN be a legit. profession for those willing to engage in it, and I do not mean this statement to disparage women in any way... I.E., I would NEVER be a wall street banker, as I think its a slimy proposition to begin with, but that doesn't mean that profession should be illegal, no matter how distasteful/dangerous to the rest of us I might or might not find it to be...just saying....)

hypocrisy of trying to push a lifestyle on people that she doesn't even follow herself.

She's wanting people to stay out of her private life, but she's trying to get the gov't all up in the private lives of LGBT's, women's reproductive decisions, etc etc.

Christine was a drunken lady bug on Halloween 3 years ago and the pictures
that go w/ it are a hoot. What the story also shows is what a flaming hypocrite
Ms. O'Donnell is with her "polly pure-stuff" act. Nobody put a gun to COD's
head and made her try to seek her fame and fortune telling about her faith,
values, and that she doesn't masturbate so when it comes out she is just
a human, like all of us, that story is fair game. Now if she had never tried
to talk about her values and what others values should be then a gentleman
would never talk about things that happened in the bedroom.


Ladybug, ladybug . . . .

Fly away home.
Your house is on fire
and your children are gone!

... there's nothing in the pictures to indicate anything happened other than that she dressed up for Halloween and had fun.

I still call bullshit until the guy steps out of the shroud of anonymity.

.... but her campaign's statement does not really say that the story is not true
and blames it on Chris Coons' organization. Do you really think that a healthy
42 year woman doesn't have sex or masturbate? Her polly pure stuff act has
come back to bite her on the ass.

http://gawker.com/5676197/christine-odonnell-responds

Then again, that was a different era.

Honestly, justifying it with a "true" or "not true" comment would be giving it more attention than it deserves. Which could be why they said nothing on that note. Looks like their statement was more to highlight that NOW was giving them support than anything else.

:rofl:

She had to have done "it" at least or else you wouldn't here if she
was your biological grandmother.

She was a born-again virgin after my mother was born, 'cause the docs told them she shouldn't have more kids and Grandpa didn't want to risk her health.

Granny said she was just fine with it, had only had sex to get pregnant anyway. She was the definition of a cold fish in that department. Believe me, I heard *all* about it when I was given The Talk by her (and didn't bother to inform her that I'd already had a different version of The Talk from Mom -- Mom's was "If you want to have sex, come to me and we'll get you on the pill and get you better condoms than the ones the health department gives" and had sex ed in school.... ).

Female candiates are attacking males via various "Man Up", "Cajones" comments...and using sexuality as part of their campaign to attract voters..seems like double standards

a school yard bullying tactic.

Referring obliquely to men as women as a form of insult is sexist bullshit, and just like Schlafly and Coulter, the women who are doing it know exactly what it is and why they choose to continue.

HipChick seems to think it is...it's simply holding ourselves to a higher standard. There are plenty of things to attack O'Donnell, Angle, and the rest on (INCLUDING this "man up" bullshit)...we don't need to jump on this anonymous asshole's bandwagon.

Sorry.

Seriously, a person who won't give their name and remarks on pelvic waxing ... ?

There is nothing in the photos to indicate she did more than get dressed up for Halloween and have fun. I call bullshit, and I applaud NOW for having the ethical fortitude to NOT be hypocritical, even if it's likely should Hell freeze over and Christine get elected that she would vote against issues important to women.

Bad behavior on another's part does not excuse bad behavior on mine.

By journalistic standards, the story holds up. Although the source isn't named, his story is easily verifiable or "fact-checked." He was the tenant of Christine's aunt, and the roommate of her boyfriend. Plus the guy had pictures to prove his story -- presumably pictures with him in them that are obviously cropped for publication in Gawker.

If someone walked in the newsroom with this story, with the pictures of him and Christine, and phone numbers, it's checkable.

Nothing about her behavior in the bedroom or any of the rest, which is where the story started to go rapidly into the land of Out There.

Nothing is ever provable completely, but I'm assuming from what I've read about Gawker (eg recent NYer profile) that they do fact checking -- that means getting corroboration.

From the story itself, it's easy to see how to corroborate. There would be bills showing the guys address and property records showing the aunt's ownership; the roommate can corroborate the pattern of non-sex sex; other witnesses corroborating the roommate's year long relationship.

This is easily fact checkable.

... is your way of being funny.

Yes, they are factual in reporting that someone who is too ashamed/afraid to give his name is desperate/poor enough to accept money to say that he saw her naked with no proof of anything other than that she celebrates Halloween (which may piss off quite a bit of her base just in and of itself).

However, reporting such a thing is such an example of low standards that it's laughable.

They are starting to make TMZ look respectful by comparison...

Bragging about being a "born again virgin" is really "slut's remorse." Anyone who calls herself a "born again virgin" clearlyhas regrets about her past sexual behavior. Fine. Call it anything you like, and reform if that's what you think is necessary.

I don't think having sex is something to be ashamed of. I don't have a problem with women being sexually active (including multiple partners). I do have a problem with holier-than-thou attitudes and hypocrisy. This woman is so proud of her "purity" stance that she sets herself up as a some sort of paragon of virtue. She set a standard she expects others to follow while she herself acts like she is above it. Her behavior makes her seem nasty and dishonest to me. That is what makes her seem a slut in my book.

"Her behavior makes her seem nasty and dishonest to me." Nail, meet head.

I understand the notion about hypocrisy, but there is no reason to go into this stuff. She's a hypocrite and con artist without having to go beyond what is decent for reporting.

stand on any issue is fair game.

I sure as hell am not.

... she did do as she says, if Anonymous ever actually did see her naked, even he says she refused to have sex.

Carry on....

O'Donnell is a crotch sniffer who's POLITICS are substantially based on dictating the terms of sexuality and when she fails to live up to what she demands POLITICALLY then all bets are logically off.

I wouldn't give a shit if she was an active porn star if she was staying out of our business but that isn't the case and I don't get by what logic anyone is bothered by this other than the story sounds pretty phony but then she doesn't deny it but denies the separation clause and any number of absurd thing so maybe she found the rarest of dudes that care that much about pubescaping that they won't get down, even drunk.

It is shortsighted and stupid to give any politician a pass in an area they literally running on. By doing so you endorse a double standard.

If I say peanut butter is the devil and must be banned but every time you look up I'm stuffing Jiff in my maw, it would be foolish not to call me on it and a vagina is not a "get out of jail free card".

The entire argument is illogical. Don't want to be judged on your activities then don't make the exact same activity a part of your damn campaign. What the activity is has no relevance whatsoever.

1) There was actual evidence of Rush's pill problem.
2) Using someone's sexuality to attack them is sexism, and that is not a progressive value. Christine O'Donnell is a repressive sexist just like her predecessors, and there is no need for us to adopt her sexism in order to keep her from office.

I don't care about anyone's sex life. She says it is a big issue so she should be judged accordingly.

It's the hypocrissy...

Of course my life mission isn't about being "better" than the other side but being different than them and better because of those differences. I don't subscribe to the "above the fray" school of thought.

I got no issue casting my vote for a bright porn star that is right on the issues but a hypocritical crotch sniffer needs to go the fuck down.

I'm in no danger of becoming like them because I want very different policies that have different logical ends. That is the difference that really matters, not some code that cannot logically be carried over to another subject.

but you have forgotten point 1.

I'm not trying to be "above the fray". If there were actual proof of this story and it was simply stated in a newspaper that an abstinence backing candidate has trouble living up to their own ideals, I'd be ALL for it. That's not what happened here. Gossip is being spread around like we're all in a high school cafeteria talking behind our hands about Suzy being a slut. It is distasteful at best, harmful at worst, and it has no place here.

The story sounds like crap and I wouldn't put it out there but it is out there so she can deny it and it would go away or it may randomly and weirdly be true.

The Republicans are just as "dirty" as anyone else (likely more so as indicated by their insane levels of preoccupation with sex) and if they are rooted out and tar and feathered enough eventually either they'll quit running on the crazy shit or it will cease to be a factor.

I don't buy the sexism factor at all. If it was a man I'd feel the exact same way. Just because sex or genitals are in the mix doesn't make a subject "sexism". Sexism requires one to be treated differently because of gender or to demean or abuse based on gender.

A man can draw the exact same fire and would. You may believe it is "okay" for Billy to be a slut and "bad" for Susie but I don't share the perspective. I don't care what either do unless I'm sleeping with Susie and then I know to care if I find out.

I don't give a shit what O'Donnell does in her sex life but if she says she has the right to dictate mine then I'm open to any and all questions about hers.
She's already worse than almost anything you can be for wanting to dictate to America and the world what we all can do with our good bits so who the fuck cares.

She can deny...but most likely she's fucking and or helping herself at bedtime so it's likely a true charge if not then I'm sorry she's missing out on life and frittering away her peak years more than anything else because it's about like me worrying about stepping on the toe of the guy trying to stab me.

1. Just because someone else put the story out there, and you are not responsible for it, doesn't give you carte blanche to jump on it.
2. Intimate affairs are often disclosed regardless of gender, but GOSSIP about intimate affairs overwhelmingly affects one gender more than another. Unsubstantiated rumors are started and everyone believes them and spreads them because deep down you just know she's a whore.
3. Don't tell me what I believe. If you're curious about what I believe, read what I have written so far or ask. A small insight: I think the "slut" moniker is overly and poorly used, and I don't think sexuality can fall into an area of "good" or "bad". Take that self-righteous perspective you have in your middle paragraph, combine it with the sexist expectations you show for Susie, and cram both.

What Susie does sexually is none of my bee's wax unless I'm sleeping with Susie and I only would know to have an issue if I found out there was an issue.

If you think it is sexist to have an interest in what someone I'm sharing my bed with is doing sexually then that's your own trip but some of us like to be treated as we treat others, you know with some basic respect. Certainly, my girlfriend has a right to know if I were to decide to pick up an on the side or two because that is how we have agreed to be.

I agree with you about the "good" and "bad", it was my very point in typing the words that you are twisting or have strangely misinterpreting for whatever reason.

Funny how on the area we are in complete fucking agreement is the one that you went to war on. I'm not sure how my point wasn't perfectly clear. You might want to re-read that and hold your powder till you can make out your target.

You told me that I may believe it's OK for a guy to be a slut but not for a girl, and that you didn't share that perspective. You told me what you thought I believed, and you were very wrong. The implication, of course, was that your view was somehow more enlightened, and I took offense.

As for Susie, you made it sound as though her sexual history was your business as soon you started dating her. It now seems that wasn't quite what you meant.

Internet communications can be difficult. We lose tone, and we lose the back and forth flow of a normal conversation when we read and respond to everything in batch. Things get lost in translation.

Let's get back on track by first establishing our actual points of view.

From what I'm reading here, you believe that this posting on Gawker is completely within the realm of fair game. You further believe that this post on Gawker is not sexist. Is that correct?

No, I do not believe the story is sexist in and of it's self and yes I believe when you run on dictating people's sexual behavior then your's becomes fair game. The conversation is entirely brought upon one's self and deservedly so.

Don't run on the holding tax evaders accountable without expecting questions about paying taxes.

Example: Ms. O'Donnell, studies show that masturbation is a common, and commonly lied about occurrence. What would you say to people who express doubt about your ability to live up to your own views on the matter?

That's not what happened. No questions are being asked here. No benefit of the doubt is being allowed. The assumption has already been made that she's secretly slutty, and everyone just wants the nasty details.

You think this isn't sexist? Then let me give you an example of equal opportunity slut shaming:
Harry Reid is from Nevada, and spends quite a bit of time in "Sin City". His opponent is currently running neck and neck with him in the polls. Now, Nevadans are known to be rather bipolar on the issue of prostitution, so what's to stop Sharron Angle from feeding Gawker a story about how Harry has a regular call-girl at the Bunny Ranch? The short-lived drop in his popularity due to the scandal might be just enough to put her over the top, so why not?

Because no one would believe her. Sharron Angle could scream from now until Tuesday that Reid has been having kinky porn-sex with a hooker, and unless she had a shred of evidence no one would believe her. She obviously has reason to lie, but more importantly, no one expects Reid to be a slut.

Compare that to this instance. You think the drunken ass in the BSA uniform DOESN'T have a reason to lie? People believe the story anyway, and defend its use, and they do so because the assumption is already there. Everyone already expects that Christine's a secret slut.

This whole situation actually touches, as so many others do, on the Madonna|whore dichotomy. Look it up. You might find that this dichotomy is more prevalent than you could have imagined. I did.

Harry Reid that I've seen, doesn't run on cracking down on call girls. Harry doesn't put his on the line because he's not demanding the citizens put their's on the line.

That little piece is crucial. If Harry was on a rampage about these individual sexual behavior then everybody would suspect he is a freak of some brand or another too.

Nobody thinks this woman is vamp because she's a woman that doesn't think that about all or almost all women anyway.

It is about her on a individual basis. I think it is a leap to say it is necessarily sexist or even usually. Is anyone that has any sense SURPRISED! when puritanical Republican dudes get called out for interesting activities. I just don't see this as a gender issue. It is behavior driven and deservedly brought upon themselves. Instant karma.

What you miss is the fact that this kind of shit doesn't get tried on men in politics without proof.

Proof isn't a prerequisite for accusations against men at all not anything that would swing me on jury if such a thing were to happen in some jacked up parallel universe.

Now way anyone hasn't heard substantial rumor, hearsay, and speculation on all kinds of male politicians regarding their sexual habits because it goes on everyday, especially among the homophobes.

I can't say the "charge" or whatever against O'Donnell could not possibly be sexist but rather pointing out that it is not necessarily such. It just isn't because that may not at all be the perspective of someone raising the question.

Would you bet your life she doesn't have a fixation born of some unhealthy conflict yourself? How about a year's pay? Or a month? How about a week? 50 bucks?

Exactly!

She's open to the attack based on a set of behaviors and principles that has nothing to do with her gender. Sexism is rampant but I don't see dying on this particular hill.

I don't think it is possible to say my perspective is not valid yet you argue it should be omitted and not be a part of consideration but I'm not seeing the basis other than a desire for simplification in order to address a broad concern about sexism.
I am sympathetic to that outlook but I don't find it to be functionally accurate and artificially arbitrary.
I also view not as an effort toward equality but for protected status.

Almost saying something is a thing whether it is or not just in case it is.

I also feel pretty strongly that crotch sniffing authoritarians bring this kind of thing completely on themselves.
There is real substance that I don't think you are really willing to address here in why would anyone expecting to dictate a set of authoritarian laws not be fair game for questions about if they actually live as they seek to impose.

Set away from the sex and think about the broad and general principle.

If she wasn't out to codify my sexual behavior, your sexual behavior, my neighbors, and yours then I'd be backing you 110% but she earned the speculation and some interestingly invasive questions by asking them her fucking self.

Everybody's sexual activities should be on nonya (unless you want to share, free to do that too) but a one side conversation where this woman can make up any crazy thing she wants and place her self in a position to legislate her kookery and no one has the right to question or snicker about her is a better person than I'm interested in being, if one wishes to define it in such a fashion.

Instincts have been developed over a pretty long time and people know in their guts when folks are dogmatic and batshit in this area then something is almost inevitably going on backstage that is an absolute fucking train wreck and as long as you're a public figure especially a now high level politician then it is going to get out there as a question at murmur or blasting.

I feel like your wanting to make the possible or the plausible the inherent. I'm not seeing it that starkly.

She and those that share her worldview bring any and all such questions, accusations, and speculations on themselves and they richly deserve the 3rd degree at the very least. Like I said you, you have someone that is not running around preaching and trying to codify their mores and pet behaviors and I got your back. These should be left to the wolves, regardless of why the wolves went on the hunt.

They are who you must guard against, let the wolves have their own rather than adopting them because of gender. Her "man up" bullshit is far more sexist (and clearly so) than this little episode.

Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachmann are not a whit of improvement over Louie Gohmert and Steve King. Same fucking critter. I think they're all fucked up hypocrites and will treat them the same fucking way and that is with a mocking, bitter, and deep seeded distrust of them and their actions with exactly zero, on the high end of generous respect or benefit of the doubt and believe they are all high level deviants not to be trusted around children, animals, or objects.

It does, however, expose one of the many mentalities that this Gawker shit works on quite well. I will not play the role of Sisyphus to your boulder. Good day.

the oppressors based on gender. Gotta maintain a unified worldview rather than accept any uncomfortable gray areas.

I understand that but no I can't subscribe to it.

then might I suggest some language classes at your local learning center?

Or some objectivity since your issue is more zealotry than inability to comprehend and process information.

Little matter. I'll be your ally and you'll see me as an enemy because you can't acknowledge my perspective without feeling you diluted your own, that's cool. I'll live...well and happily as I can pull off and have your back sometime down the line when I'll magically be able to express myself quite well in your estimation whether you admit it or not.

Be cool.

When I found out about this story this morning I literally had a facepalm moment. This shit doesn't help anybody. It gets sympathy for O'Donnell, it makes good people defend an otherwise egregious politician, and it further degrades women in politics and places of power. This kind of supposed victory is nothing but a setback, and to those screaming that it exposes her hypocrisy, gossip doesn't expose shit.

I'm a slutty man, and I like slutty women. :evilgrin:

You must DESPISE them! Only that way you'll be respecting them! :crazy:

Now, does that made up word attack you for being a whore, or does it assume that women are always the whores and attack you for being like a woman?

Just ask Bill Clinton, John Edwards, Mark Sanford, John Ensign etc.

Hmm...getting rich on public speaking, still active and successful in politics, still governor and planning to run for PRESIDENT in 2012, still active in politics...

The fallout for men accused of sexual activity is nothing, unless they're caught liking cock. Gee, what does that sound like?

Something tells me Christine O'donnel will have the same "horrible" fate, so your sexism charge is complete and utter irrelevant bullshit.

is somehow wrong just because it involves sex and she's a woman...not in my world it isn't.

It's a fucking serious issue that O'Donnel is a sexual puritan who wants to invade other's sex lives as a senator. It's part of her political image. Just because sex is involved doesn't mean it's off-limits. It shouldn't be, because it does fucking matter, as we have seen, in legislation that effect people's private sex lives.

All's fair in love, war, and politics, huh?

I'll say it again: Gossip isn't exposure.

if they want to let a posting on a website effect their vote. I think Gawker has every right to do it, though. And in this case, I have a hard time finding the story to be irrelevant, whatever its veracity. Just because something hasn't been proven doesn't make it gossip. Lots of people on here were going on and on about Justice Thomas and his sexually deviant past, all based on a woman's own word, but some feminists seem to have no problem with tarnishing the reputations of men when they are accused by one woman of sexually harrassing or abusing them. In fact, if I remember correctly, Thomas described the accusations as a "lynching" based on race, basically playing the race card. O'Donnel is playing the gender card, and the media, and most shamefully NOW, is eating that sloppy shit up in droves. It's not about gender, but the card worked.

Spare me.

"Just because something hasn't been proven doesn't make it gossip."
Yes it does. An unsubstantiated and salacious story spread by a site with a proud reputation for gossip is just that.

As soon as you can tell me how this Gawker shit is any different from a high schooler starting a vicious rumor about a girl being a slut in order to tarnish her reputation, my days of not taking you seriously will come to a middle.

I think that something that hasn't been proven can still be relevant and not "gossip".

It's really really easy as to how this is different from a high school rumor. For one, this is a candidate for the US senate, who will have some power to decide on such things as reproductive rights and gay rights and who would like to impose her brand of sexual morality on the country. For another, this candidate is running on her pure sexual image and "family values". For another, this person has disparaged other's sexual practices publicly, therefore bringing up the issue in the first place.

So, considering this is a very relevant issue that O'Donnel is running on, it can and should be talked about. This of course is not the only time O'Donnel has been accused of being a giant sexual hypocrite, and the photos are there, so it's not coming out of left field. O'Donnel brought this on herself. The article was not about humiliating O'Donnel as a slut, it was about exposing her hypocrisy, period. Only under O'Donnel's own sexual views should she feel "ashamed" anyways. It's not about judging O'Donnel's sex life, it's about judging her hypocrisy.

That's not a good thing.

Your entire second paragraph is no different from the girl every guy refers to as a prude or a frigid bitch having her reputation dragged through the mud with accusations of sluttiness. It really is high school all over again, which isn't surprising when you think about how many people never progress from there.

As I have said elsewhere, I have no issue at all with pursuing and revealing hypocrisy. THAT'S NOT WHAT GAWKER HAS DONE. The "photos" you refer to only show O'Donnell at a party in a costume. There is no evidence whatsoever to corroborate what was said about her regarding any "afterparty". The article WAS about humiliating O'Donnell as a slut, or else they wouldn't have bothered to include such things as her grooming habits.

Let me be clear: Hypocrisy should be exposed, but only when we have actual proof and without grandstanding. I can't believe I have to say this, but: We. Are. Better. Than. This.

to that high standard. But do I care that Gawker doesn't? Not really. O'Donnel will get eviseracted by those who don't have as high of standards. And it is very obvious that the article is pointing out her hypocrisy. Gawker is not a site for morality or judging "sluts". I would say that the only people who might think of O'Donnel as a slut after reading that article are conservatives with a screwed up view of relationships and sex anyways.

who won't live up to it.

Gawker is a gossip site. Of course it's not a site for judging morality, but what you ignore is that gossip most certainly IS a method for judging others, "sluts" or otherwise. You are right that the article points out her hypocrisy, but you ignore the fact that it only does so after engaging in some rather egregious sexism. Not that you give a fuck...

She's been complaining about the sexist way she was treated and now she is finally right about that.

I saw the headline and didn't bother to click it. Who cares who she slept with? She's an ignorant fool who has no business in public office.

The vast majority, however, seem to like pointing and laughing at "the stupid whore" at every opportunity.

Its that she slept with _someone_ (if the story is indeed true) - given her stance on the issue.

When you say people should not have premarital sex - it is rather interesting whether you do yourself. Woman or man.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

:shrug:

Goddammit I hate defending right-wing trash from stupidity.

Neither you nor I can prove or disprove these allegations.

People with half a brain should know that is impossible to prove a negative, but our political system allows this type of character assassination anyway because our young people aren't trained in critical thinking or argumentation.

I could win a political campaign right now in my hometown. All I have to do is run for school board and mention the name of my opponent and the word "drugs" in the same sentence enough times on TV. My victory, and the good that I could do for the local schools, wouldn't justify my abhorrent defamation of my opponent, nor would it make such a strategy "legitimate."

I am arguing that, taken as true, the gawker claims are not "out of bounds". As to the "defamation" to which you refer, that word is a legal term. It's invocation should remind you that every state in the union has strong civil remedies (including actual and punitive damages, and well as equitable (i.e. injunctive) relief. You seem to be so eager to call people names that you've ignored that small fact. :hi:

You are arguing, therefore you are engaging in argumentation. The Gawker claims are baseless gossip, and what you should remember about our legal system is that very few libel, slander, or defamation cases are actually adjudicated successfully, especially when you consider the number of those cases compared to the number of outright lies perpetrated during the political season.

In short, I think you should take two things away from this conversation: Sexism is a hell of a lot more pervasive and problematic than you perceive, and you should never be so quick to defend baseless gossip lest you look like an ass.

I found the word "argumentation" strange in this context, and since it wasn't a turn a phrase I would've penned myself, I used "sic".

"In short, I think you should take two things away from this conversation: Sexism is a hell of a lot more pervasive and problematic than you perceive, and you should never be so quick to defend baseless gossip lest you look like an ass."

I think the majority of this "conversation" has taken place in your own head. I said what I meant on the subject, and I didn't say what you attributed to me (which is why you don't quote!) because it's not what I meant. :hi:

It is used to point out a grammatical error, misspelling, misstatement of fact, or, as above, the unconventional spelling of a name.
None of which were made.

If I wanted to attribute something to you, I would use quotes. I have attributed nothing to you and accused you of nothing except defending the use of baseless, sexist gossip, which is something you have done. For reasons as to why such defense is idiotic, see my other posts in this thread.

Your story becomes tiresome.

There is no story here, just like there was no story at Gawker. Had you realized that to begin with, we could have avoided your embarrassment.

I find myself utterly bored with you now that you have nothing to say and no way to defend your original point, and so I will say good day.

Same with outting people. Completely off-limits, unless they are promoters of discrimination. In both cases, it's about the hypocracy.

I've had to bite my tongue when I've seen women candidates slammed for things that had nothing to do with their issues. I can't stand it.

Having said that, I do think this "man up" thing Angle has said is sexist, too, IMO.

reproductive rights of women and the marriage rights of LGBT's.

Simply put, this story is all about her issues. We are not simply "slut shaming" her. Honestly the story makes her seem more human to me. But she wants to deny people the same experiences she enjoys herself and I cannot in good conscience let that slide without calling her out on it.

Nope, I still don't feel sorry for her. I fundamentally don't agree with the caveat that "all attacks on Republicans are okay, provided that they are men". My world view is much simpler, I don't need the comma or anything after it.

Anything truthful which undermines conservatism is okay by me.

But that's the problem, isn't it? NOW will rally to the defense of any woman, no matter how pro-war, anti-choice, anti-education, anti-social security, and frankly stupid she is, if someone criticizes her pubic hair.

Newsflash; politics is a tough goddamn business.

is necessary in politics. Unfortunately Ms. O'Donnell's low level of discourse has created a response on that same level. A line does have to be drawn on what personal details by a tabloid rate article are relevant and necessary to make the point she was lying. That comment about her personal hair was insulting, unnecessary and inappropriate, as much as I dislike Ms. O'Donnell.

These mentally unbalanced people, with no sense of personal boundaries are being masqueraded around as some twisted kind of circus clown for distraction and entertainment purposes. It is a shame that such incompetent women are holding public office. They are an embarrassment, yet there's no need to insult all women in the process of calling them out.

Republicans would do it whenever they can.

Also wrong: calling Sharron Angle a b----. Or saying that Hillary's voice makes a man want to close his legs, or something like that. The people who said those two things remain highly prominent figures in our popular discourse. There's a long way to go.

Why not? McDonnell made it an issuing by lying about it. When Clinton lied about sex they tried to impeach---andf i recall a whole lot of my sisters did not stand up for his right not be "shamed".

:hide::evilgrin::hide:

:yoiks:

It wasn't slut shaming. It wasn't sexist. Was it in poor taste? Sure, I guess. But I think it is more than justified by her stance on other people's sex lives. By her stance, she does indeed deserve to have her personal hypocrisies pointed out as she publicly disparages other people's private sex lives and is trying to be a fucking senator.

Making fun of her having a hairy bush? Sure it's in poor taste, but it's not sexist. Gawker has published quite a few stories about guy politicians and celebrities sex lives, and noone ever says shit about it being "sexist". Maybe the guy is an asshole who wrote it. And maybe he even is sexist. But the article didn't come across that way at all. It came across as somewhat sleazy, but it points out her hypocrisy.

NOW should've kept it's mouth shut, but now it comes across as another spineless liberal organization that invents outrage where there isn't any. The only outrage here should be the utter hypocrisy of O'Donnel. Seriously, where did the article shame O'Donnel for being slutty? What a fucking joke NOW is. No wonder teapartiers and people like Christine can walk all over liberals.

I am appalled at the fact that you obviously don't see the irony in that statement.

:eyes:

If nothing else, it's always good to know the ingrained and incurable stances of other board members.

It's hard to feel the slightest bit of sympathy for her.

how this is any different from any other MALE candidate being exposed for an affair?

If we can go after Vitter and Clinton and Edwards, etc., why can't we go after O'Donnell? Because she's a woman?

Are the attacks against those men an affront to all men?

Seems like a double standard to me.

this woman actually kept her chastity, guess what, she behaved pretty much like she said she does. did you read the Gawker piece, it was written purely to embarrass her because she drank and acted like she had a crush on a guy. you ever here of that being a big deal when a guy does it?

I didn't like that someone would not kiss and tell but no matter how low the author goes he still has that right. The author is not running for office.

O'donnell sucks politically, but let's keep it at the political level.

And disgusting. Went way too far, especially talking about her private parts. Friggin' eww... :(

♥

And if the article was true, how is it misogynistic? Sure, it was in bad taste to post it, but misogyny?