View Single Post
Old 11-01-2010, 07:00 AM   #15 (permalink)
Jinn
Lover - Protector - Teacher
 
Jinn's Avatar
 
Location: Seattle, WA
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hektore View Post
I could not disagree more about women needing more protection for their sexual history than men. This is no different than when that George Rekers fellow showed up in the airport with a Rentboy. In this case it's even more relevant because of her platform and it's condemnation of sexual promiscuity..
It *is* different than Rekers, and that was precisely my point. I think it takes only a basic understanding of sociology to say that there is a far greater stigma for women engaging in sex than men. It comes out in our very basic use of language, from slut to whore. Men are lauded, women are condemned. We're just barely peeking out of the Puritan morals which have plagued the country for so long, and yet still women are not in any way shape or form encouraged to be sexual, have a positive view of sex or sexuality, or even ensure that their own sexual needs are met. Dildos are still illegal in many states, Texas included. Colleges still have "walks of shame" and college men still hang panties on their doors and women pretend it didn't happen. Pop culture icons like Letterman can have multiple affairs with coworkers and the country barely blinks an eye, but if a woman does it it's an absolute travesty.

You'd really have to be blind to the difference to think that revealing the sex life of a man or a woman is equal in terms of societal acceptance. We still have rape victims whose credibility is undermined because they were dressed too 'provocatively.' Really? There's no difference between how men and women are told to behave in regards to sex?

I'm certainly no protectionist and the very last thing I want to do is defend this terrible woman, but there is certainly a point to be made that revealing the sexual lives of women is not in any way equal to revealing the sexual lives of men, if only because the former is considerably more damaging to the person involved.

In this case, she really did nothing hypocritical. So far as I can tell from the stories I've been trying to ignore, she didn't even have sex. She got naked. HEAVENS NO! NOT NAKED! If this were a story about a male politician who got drunk and naked with some lady, it'd be a nonstory, and you know it.

---------- Post added at 08:00 AM ---------- Previous post was at 07:45 AM ----------

So I finally got around to reading this wretched abortion of journalism and I find this part especially pertinent:

Quote:
"You've got to be kidding," I said. She didn't explain at the time that she was a "born-again virgin." She made it seem like she'd never had sex in her life, which seemed pretty improbable for a woman her age. And she made it clear that she was planning on staying a virgin that night. But there were signs that she wasn't very experienced sexually. When her underwear came off, I immediately noticed that the waxing trend had completely passed her by.
If you really don't think this reads like juvenile slut-shaming than I'm not sure we can a real discussion. But it gets better..


Quote:
Obviously, that was a big turnoff, and I quickly lost interest. I said goodnight, rolled over, and went to sleep. It was almost four o'clock in the morning. I had to get up at 6:30 to go to work.

Christine wasn't in the best of shape when my alarm clock went off three hours later. I was hungover and exhausted and we'd both had about the same amount to drink, so I'm guessing she was feeling even worse. I got up and started to get dressed and told Christine she'd need to get up, too. But she clearly didn't want to budge, and even after I'd reminded her a few times, she was still under the covers. Did she think I was going to leave for work and let her sleep in my bed?
This story has merit as something that makes her a 'hypocrite' or something even worth sharing? Really? It's a pretty clear slam that wouldn't work if the politician were a man and so I think its pretty clear that it doesn't follow the same "you're a politician, so your life is an open book" nonsense being espoused here.

I'm not alone, either:

Gawker's Christine O'Donnell tell-all backfires - Broadsheet - Salon.com
Shakesville: Holy Shit
__________________
"I'm typing on a computer of science, which is being sent by science wires to a little science server where you can access it. I'm not typing on a computer of philosophy or religion or whatever other thing you think can be used to understand the universe because they're a poor substitute in the role of understanding the universe which exists independent from ourselves." - Willravel
Jinn is offline  
 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360