Thursday, October 28th, 2010
109

Today, We Became Hardline Feminists All Over Again

Story time! Gather round! So, a few years ago, a single woman had a few beers and made out with guy on Halloween and didn't have sex with him.

And then later, when she was better known, a guy anonymously wrote a story about it on the Internet.

I know I'm not alone in thinking that, clearly, she is a horrible slut. And one who definitely shouldn't have a job or be taken seriously. And him? Just an innocent, nameless dude who met a slut one time. On accident. Accidental slut meeting! And so it's really interesting reading, right? That people (don't) have sex and do drink alcohol. On Halloween no less! Maybe you also know some people who drink alcohol and make out with people? If so, they should definitely feel ashamed of themselves. You should tell them that. Definitely keep an eye out this weekend.

RELATED: Gawker head Nick Denton discusses today's story

109 Comments / Post A Comment

saythatscool (#101)

45K views and 400+ comments (and counting) but there was no peening, and ergo no \"one night stand.\"

This will get picked up by real media but how does it play?

Art Yucko (#1,321)

for a second there, I thought you wrote "no peeing". which you and I both know is a bald ______'d lie.

saythatscool (#101)

Well they had 5 beers apiece, so I am assuming there was some peeing.

petejayhawk (#1,249)

From the story, it doesn't sound like there was a bald anything there.

@petejayhawk: Why is Gilette not sponsoring this post?

Matt Langer (#2,467)

Fair point! But then again, kind of sheds some light on the "God is the reason I'm running" quote from a few days ago, no? At least in the time-honored spirit of "If you're going out of your way to persecute gays from your legislative post it might be because you're AIMing pictures of your dick to underage House page boys" and/or "If you're actively courting the evangelical vote it might be because you love to get drunk and screw". And I'm all for getting drunk and screwing! I'm even all for people of the same sex getting drunk and drunkenly gay-screwing each other! But, y'know, I'm not out there shilling for my cause on the Christian Broadcasting Network…

Matt Langer (#2,467)

Sorry, "getting drunk and not-screwing", I mean.

petejayhawk (#1,249)

Exactly.

barnhouse (#1,326)

Yeah … the thing is, nobody would care two pins about this story except that she talks about her celibacy all the livelong day, even though she wants to be a senator.

Tyler Coates (#451)

I think people would still care about the story even if she was a Democrat who supported same-sex marriage and abortion rights. It's more salacious because she's Christine O'Donnell. Remember Krystal Ball, the candidate from Virginia who had a similarly bland "scandal" come out a few weeks ago (with pictures!)? She's a Democrat! But she's not as big as Christine O'Donnell, obviously, so people stopped caring.

Ball came out against the media, claiming that the pictures' publication was sexist. They weren't! Christine O'Donnell will certainly come out and accuse Gawker as being misogynist, which she is absolutely right to do.

cherrispryte (#444)

"God is the reason I'm running ….. because if He catches me, He'll kick my ass for being a hypocrite."

… in this way, God is a lot like The Great Pumpkin.

Moff (#28)

Yeah. The Gawker post is appalling, especially the pube stuff and the anonymous byline. But when you make your sexual behavior part and parcel of your platform, I'm awfully reluctant to say other people shouldn't be allowed to trade on it.

I mean, I get the feminism slant. But if a male politician went on at length about his commitment to celibacy and wholesome quote-unquote family values, and then a similar story came out about him, I'd see it as fair. The issue here isn't real the story, so much as all the implicit shamery.

cherrispryte (#444)

@Moff – The "if it were a man" argument, (per usual!) doesn't hold up here. Men haven't been slut-shamed since the beginning of time.

boyofdestiny (#1,243)

@cherri: Are you saying that Christine O'Donnell shouldn't be called out as a hypocrite because she's a woman?

barnhouse (#1,326)

Very much agreed that the post is appalling. It's really vulgar as well as being misogynist, sensationalist, etc.

Re: "if it were a man", wasn't Eliot Spitzer was slut-shamed? In kind of the same way, too, because he'd been so 'upright' before that … @Tyler C. makes a good point but I still think the hypocrisy is driving the interest most.

deepomega (#1,720)

@Moff: Except that she didn't have sex. She doesn't run on an anti-makeouts platform.

BadUncle (#153)

Deepomega: do you buy into some technical sexing distinction, like penetration? I think physical interaction is a gradient leading there, and it's really murky when the panties drop and you're in bed with a guy. And so, if she's willing to place sexuality on the national legislative agenda, and put her own history as the bonifides, she's fair game.

Bettytron (#575)

@barnhouse – Spitzer wasn't just promiscuous, though, he was committing a crime.

And I think most people opposed to this post are taking umbrage at the content and its presentation rather than objecting to her being called out as a hypocrite. To say that she's actually behaved promiscuously in the past, in spite of her sermonizing, is one thing, to go into details about her pubic hair grooming (I MEAN REALLY) after gallantly claiming he wouldn't describe what went on "between the sheets" is unnecessary bullshit.

Moff (#28)

@cherri: My point is that all the shaming is what's wrong with the story! I think the story is gross. The whole tone, the way of the telling.

But I do think there's a reasonable way to say, "This person who wants to be in charge, who's trading on how her sexual behavior allegedly makes her a better, more moral person than other candidates? Yeah, her behavior doesn't seem consistent with that image."

There's a difference between a woman who's never raised the subject of her sexual behavior getting attacked for it, and a woman who has getting called out for a discrepancy about her claims. I certainly don't think there's anything wrong with a single woman having some drinks and sort of hooking up. But it only perpetuates the belief that there is something wrong with it when a woman who's done acts like it's a Life Choice to Be Frowned Upon.

Moff (#28)

@deepomega: Sure. But you realy think the crowd she's pandering to don't see "having sex" and "getting drunk and ended up naked in a near-stranger's bed" as almost identical? There's a bright line, but (whatever they may actually do in the privacy of their own lives) it looks pretty dim to them.

cherrispryte (#444)

@Moff – I agree with you, just in your initial post, the "if this was a man, mocking would be fair" – it's no basis for comparison.

@boyofdestiny – Christine O Donnell should be called out because she's a hypocrite, not because she's a woman. There's a bit of both here (well, not here. you know.)

boyofdestiny (#1,243)

@cherri: Fair enough! I think we can all agree that Anonymous is a bit of a loathsome cretin, and perhaps not the right guy to be leveling critiques.

How this plays out in the days before the election will tell us a lot (or maybe just confirm everything we already know), especially compared to what's going on in Louisiana, where a guy guilty of far worse offenses than getting drunk and making out with a rando is about to cruise to victory in his Senate election.

deepomega (#1,720)

Choire, I don't think you understand. She's a republican.

still thinking that this is all a ploy to 'humanize' her right before 11/2

deepomega (#1,720)

Good thing she's down double digits in a heavily dem state. And her campaign hasn't shown even the barest minimum of media savvy, so I'll be shocked if they even know about Gawker.

barnhouse (#1,326)

@Maura Wow, yes. Desperate measures.

SourCapote (#4,872)

so an optimistic take from this is that she shes pretty normal, and i see her less as a threat to political undertakings?

SourCapote (#4,872)

or yes maybe its just as evil as ever

Matt (#26)

Luckily, Jon Stewart is going to keep her and all Tea-Partiers from gaining any ground this weekend. With reasonableness.

conklin (#364)

I certainly don't think I'd prefer Anonymous to be my senator any longer!

Multiphasic (#411)

But I thought witches were human. Are you implying she's some sort of… werewolf?

He left out the part where she gave him cooties.

oudemia (#177)

She made him look at pubes. Isn't that enough?

MichelleDean (#7,041)

I'm seeing some people make the point that she has some desire to police others' sex lives, so they might as well police hers… but to me that doesn't hold water. Either it's okay to call people sluts and whores or it isn't. If you want to call her a hypocrite there are easier and more effective ways of doing it than criticizing her pubic-hair grooming and posting to the internet about how you didn't quite have sex with her.

roboloki (#1,724)

she dabbled in sluttiness.

Matt (#26)

What I'm wondering is how much Anheuser-Busch paid for that product placement.

NinetyNine (#98)

Did they go to Subway the next morning? I bet the AV Club boards are going to light up like a Christmas tree over this.

hockeymom (#143)

Not going to lie.
Laughed at the "cokehead" costume. Gave her points for humor AND ingenuity. She would make a GREAT Girl Scout leader (senator, not so much).

deepomega (#1,720)

Hah! Yes! I'll get working on the posters.

kneetoe (#1,881)

@hockeymom: Nope, too much of a slut.

cherrispryte (#444)

@kneetoe – you're spending time with the wrong girl scouts.

kneetoe (#1,881)

@cherri: Ha

brent_cox (#40)

Other question: how much did Anonymous get paid?

(NB i have no idea how much they paid for it. but anything more than a half-drunk yuengling that's been sitting out overnight = too much.)

brent_cox (#40)

Just wondering if Bro feels he's providing some public service or if Bro saw an opportunity to hit the lottery.

Matt (#26)

And with your help, we'll throw that lager.

jrb (#3,020)

IT'S NOT MASTURBATION IF YOU DO IT WITH SOMEONE ELSE.

saythatscool (#101)

Agreed. This story did nothing but jerk us off.

BadUncle (#153)

I found it anti-climatic.

Spencer Lund (#2,331)

"I won't get into the nitty gritty details of what happened between the sheets that evening." I'm glad he was classy about it, and didn't kiss and tell. Why not just keep this as a funny joke with you and your friends?

chrisafer (#1,322)

Screw him knowing the Bill of Rights, let's find out if Chris Coons manscapes enough for us to be down with him.

I'm not really down with the whole shaving thing because stubble + friction = pain. And ugh, ingrown hairs, blech! A not-too-close trim is fine, and keeps hair out of awkward places.

That's my opinion.

cherrispryte (#444)

@Butterscotch. Noted. I shall update my spreadsheet.

I'm glad someone is keeping track of these things! And feel free to call me Butter, or BS, whichever you feel is most appropriate.

Hamilton (#122)

Ehhh. I'm not involved in this story firsthand, but I'm pretty confident we'd run "I hooked up with [FAMOUS PUBLIC FIGURE]" for just about any famous public figure, male or female. So I'm not sure I buy that this is a feminist outrage. Ask Brett Favre.

NinetyNine (#98)

Well, that's a comfort.

01:50 PM
134,768134,768 views on this post, 39,036 new visitors
1,083 [Read 1083 comments on the post]

Who's Nick making the check out to?

That dog won't hunt, Choire. Hypocrisy/lying in a political candidate = news.

KenWheaton (#401)

Wait, is she STILL anti-masturbation? Or was that a phase she went through post-witchhood?

Niko Bellic (#1,312)

"And then later, when she was better known…"

Let me fix that for you:

"And then later, when she was better known for being anti-sex, anti-masturbation, anti-making-out and anti-Halloween while being highly suspected of hypocrisy…"

Neopythia (#353)

I'm morbidly curious to see how this is going down at Jezebel, but too scared to look.

It is like a ghost town over there. They are all on the Gawker thread, it was cross posted on Jez.

Neopythia (#353)

I noticed it cross posted on Gizmodo as well which, corporate synergy aside, struck me as odd.

Kevin Knox (#4,475)

@ Neopythia:
I noticed a similar strategy with the cross posting (to Jalopnik) of Richard's essay on the use of the word gay in Vince Vaughn's movie trailer .
I believe that's called chumming the water.

kneetoe (#1,881)

I don't really feel one way or another about this.

Agreed – I get no boners from this story.

Her face flushed by alcohol isn't ringing any primordial bells?

kneetoe (#1,881)

Considering the flusher . . .

libmas (#231)

I'm seeing the word "hypocrisy" a lot here, and I think it's being misused. Every Christian admits to being a sinner – it's why they need saving by Christ. For a Christian to behave in a way that is not consistent with his/her Christian principles is not hypocrisy. It's sin. Or, if you prefer a less loaded word, a lapse. A mistake. A failing. I'm married; I think adultery is wrong. If I get sloshed some night and fall into the exactly wrong set of circumstances and then yield to the temptation to commit adultery, that doesn't make me a hypocrite. It makes me weak, fallen, etc. Hypocrisy is saying you believe one thing while actually believing the opposite to be true.

cherrispryte (#444)

Okay, but as an Atheist who thinks that's Bullshit, I'm going to keep thinking that telling other people they shouldn't do something that you yourself engage in is hypocrisy.

And I don't want none of that in my Pumpkin Patch.

boyofdestiny (#1,243)

What's the shorthand for "holding people to a standard that you yourself can't uphold" or "presenting yourself as living up to a standard that you don't actually live up to"? Whatever it is, let's use that instead of "hypocrisy."

roboloki (#1,724)

pharisaism?

libmas (#231)

@BOD: I'll plead ignorance here: How is she holding people to a standard? By force? Or is she saying that she thinks there is an ideal way to behave in the sexual arena, and that folks ought to strive for that ideal? (Really, I don't know.) Re: your second term: when a person claims to be celibate, I generally understand them to be committed to the practice and ideal of celibacy. But people being people, I don't think that means they're saying they never fail in that regard.

libmas (#231)

Is it really a religious question? Let's stick with my adultery example, which need not have any reference to religion. I promised my wife that I would be faithful to her. If I fail and commit adultery, am I a hypocrite for telling someone else that they shouldn't commit adultery? Even if my failing convinced me in a powerful way that it was a disastrous, awful thing to do?

Is there a Levitican or Talmudic imperative regarding that kind of grooming? I'm pretty sure there's a Hadith that provides guidance for women in particular.

Niko Bellic (#1,312)

The problem with people like this O\'Donnell person is not that they merely believe in something, it\'s that they go further than that: they preach it. And even further than that: they make it the essence of their political agenda on which they are running for a high office. Now, once you do that you are held to a bit higher standards than the the people who merely believe something and talk about it only when asked by others. This person went on a fucking campaign on preaching this shit, well excuse me, if you do that you are fair game once you trip on it.
So, if you say you believe adultery is wrong and you do it, fine. But if you say \"make me a senator (even though I don\'t know shit about economy or foreign policy) because I am such a champion of fidelity\" and then you sin… well, excuse me but fuck you, sir.

libmas (#231)

Well, okay then. Though it's maybe worth noting that she didn't trip on it after she started this campaign, but years before?

Niko Bellic (#1,312)

My understanding is that she has been campaigning for years on this same shit (those MTV clips from college days exist because she was getting political about her beliefs, it never occurred to me that I should take to TV things that I believe in), it's just that only now it become worth calling her on it since she won a big primary.

libmas (#231)

Pity the Christian, Niko – Christ commanded that the Christian go out and proclaim the good news to all the world. So the Christian is obliged by the very person he/she worships as God to do things like go on MTV. I don't regard her early work as campaigning, but evangelizing. She's trying to engage the culture for the sake of Christ. Granted, as long as it's public, there is a political aspect to it, but I don't think she was thinking politics?

barnhouse (#1,326)

"Hypocrisy is saying you believe one thing while actually believing the opposite to be true."

Exactly, you know. There's a suspicion that she doesn't really believe this stuff and is only saying it in order to appeal to certain erf! people who might then vote for her. (A suspicion that is only strengthened by watching the Bill Maher episode where she commanded Ben Affleck to get down on his knees in what can only be described as a flirtatious manner.)

libmas (#231)

How the hell did I end up becoming an apologist for this woman? My bad, I suppose. But okay, I'll bite: I cannot believe that anyone could make that cringingly earnest MTV chastity speech that Maher showed her making without meaning what they say. And flirting – well, there are folks who regard flirting as a kind of sublimation – a way of indulging without really indulging. Celibacy ain't easy.

Moff (#28)

@libmas: I think it's totally fair to acknowledge that people can change, and it's fair to condemn a behavior that you yourself once practiced. (In fact, in many cases, you can only condemn from a position of authority if you have been guilty of the behavior!)

But I see this as a person who indulged in reasonable sexual behavior — getting drunk and messing around with a stranger; kinda silly, maybe, but nothing to be ashamed of — now seeking to gain power via a platform that paints such behavior as Something to Be Ashamed Of. Her speech may have been 100 percent in earnest, but that'd be sort of just as worrisome to me — this need to disown her past actions. As strong as it sounds, I see a certain kind of self-hatred there (HAVE BEEN GUILTY OF THAT MYSELF), her desire to maintain an even more stringent sexual code for other people to follow notwithstanding.

libmas (#231)

Just when I thought I was out…

She was "committed to sexual purity" back in '96, when she made that video for MTV. So presumably, she was ashamed of her drunken shenanigans the next morning? Her own sexual moral code has been pretty stringent for a long time, I think. Before she needed to disown any past actions like this hookup.

I hear you on self-hatred, I'm not getting that here.

Moff (#28)

@libmas: But unless I am misreading things, the Gawker post says the events described therein took place three years ago.

Now, setting aside any questions about the accuracy of the post (people seem to be taking it at face value, don't they? which is weird to me), if she was already committed to sexual purity way back in '96, and if she's campaigning on said commitment in 2010 — I think it's fair to see some cognitive dissonance if she was getting drunk and ending up naked in a mostly-stranger's bed in 2007?

libmas (#231)

Cognitive dissonance, indeed. I was just responding to this from you: "getting drunk and messing around with a stranger; kinda silly, maybe, but nothing to be ashamed of" – suggesting that, for O'Donnell, it WAS something to be ashamed of. So that her current platform that paint it as something to be ashamed of is not a shift, and not necessarily an indication of self-hatred. Self-disappointment, maybe. But I've already said way too much on this. Last word to you if you want it.

Moff (#28)

I WILL TAKE YOU UP ON THAT.

No, that all makes sense. Anyway, I have also said way too much! The Gawker post was terrible; I wouldn't like her as a candidate regardless of what it said or what she's done, just because of her platform; and it doesn't really matter, because I live nowhere near Pennsylvania. I'm gonna go home and sleep with my wife.

Pennsylvania…

WellThen (#1,251)

@Moff: Ten points for that movie reference.

C_Webb (#855)

If anyone could make me a celibate conservative Christian, Anonymous could. Blech.

LondonLee (#922)

Like that Newsweek cover of Sarah Palin in her running gear last year this story has the effect of making me feel sorry for someone I dislike intensely which is reason enough to hate it.

Jasmine (#8)

I think the guy who wrote it is an idiot. I also think that if you're going to bust into someone's house under false pretenses, throw yourself all over them and be a total mess you don't also get to play the, "I'm a good virgin" card. At the most it's weird to see all that aggression from someone who doesn't want sex. Politicians and attention-whores go hand in hand I suppose.

302,526 views on this post, 101,874 new visitors [Comments] 1,935

The Hadith in question, narrated by Anas ibn Malik in the Sahih Muslim, refers to the plucking of armpit hair, and the shaving of pubic hair (regardless of gender), which should be practiced at least every forty days.

Shi'a don't give a shit though, because they believe Anas was cold frontin'.

KarenUhOh (#19)

I know nothing about any of this, but I'd definitely do her broomstick.

Now comes the truly wonderful time in any story like this where the original source of the story is outed by investigation, and the people who spent so many furious words denouncing Christine O\'Donnell\'s \"slut-shaming\" spend an equal amount of words calling this guy a fat loser, a nouveau Glenn Beck… pretty much every appearance-based insult in the book.
And thus the circle of shame-outrage-hypocrisy is closed and the lion dies and beomes the grass, which the antelope eat…. WHHOOOOOOSSSSHHHHHH.

saythatscool (#101)

Good call!

NY Observer article (that I would link, if I wasn't on my phone) says it cost "in the low four figures."

GoGoGojira (#2,871)

This is the world's biggest non-story. They've attempted to pass this off as a "one-night stand" when there was zero sex occurring. Sorry, that's not a one-night stand, that's just one of those weird hook-ups where you make out and you're in bed but the sex doesn't happen for whatever reason. (If anybody knows a better term for those situations, let me know.)

Post a Comment