Author: has written 5289 posts for this blog.

Jill has been blogging for Feministe since 2005.
Return to: Homepage | Blog Index

60 Responses

  1. Thomas MacAulay Millar
    Thomas MacAulay Millar October 29, 2010 at 9:56 am |

    Here’s my take. I ignored the hypocrisy angle because to make the case for hypocrisy they would have had to say what she actually did that was inconsistent with what she’s said, and they mostly elided it. It’s not even slut-shaming, because it revolves around the guy’s sense of entitlement to fuck. It’s tease shaming. (Still wrong. So very, very wrong.)

  2. Tyler
    Tyler October 29, 2010 at 10:09 am |

    This is exactly the position I have been taking when thinking about this story while reading all the different posts. It is nice to see it written down in the blogosphere. I agree that the language of the gawker piece is deeply sexist, but when the O’Donnell camp claims sexism with no response to the hypocrisy I get a little wary-like you mentioned.Thanks again!

  3. Becca Stareyes
    Becca Stareyes October 29, 2010 at 10:23 am |

    Yeah. I might be strongly opposed to Ms. O’Donnell’s political position, and she might be on my list of ‘people who, when they say “the sky is blue”, I head to the window to confirm’, but you can call her a hypocrite for not practicing what she preaches without commenting on her pubic hair or calling her a cougar.

  4. H.K. Anders
    H.K. Anders October 29, 2010 at 10:26 am |

    Several things bother me about the Gawker piece, including the anonymity of the author. If you’re going to talk trash about a woman, have the courage to sign your name to it.

    But here’s a thought: don’t talk trash about a woman.

    Yes, it is legitimate to expose the hypocrisy of politicians who do not live under the conditions they would impose on other people.

    But the Gawker piece is nothing more than gossip. It seeks merely to humiliate O’Donnell by denigrating her appearance and her personality. Ironically, it makes her seem more human, more vulnerable, and more sympathetic.

    Criticizing the woman for having pubic hair? Seriously? What, doesn’t this guy realize that grown women actually have hair “down there?” It’s a secondary sex characteristic that is supposed to signal that she is no longer a child, and is therefore a potentially suitable mate. Turn of the pornos, scumbag, and meet some real women. They’re not all aspiring porn starlets.

    I agree with you, Jill, that the Gawker piece failed primarily by ignoring the political hypocrisy in O’Donnell’s public positions on matters of sex. But, then, the clown who wrote the piece probably can’t spell the word “hypocrisy.” What awful writing. According to The Smoking Gun, he received a sum “in the low four figures” for his work. He was overpaid.

  5. Sheelzebub
    Sheelzebub October 29, 2010 at 10:29 am |

    Say what you want about her (and I’ve have plenty of unflattering things to say), O’Donnell isn’t a hypocrite. She was ambivalent and tempted (and tipsy), but she didn’t have sex. All this douchey dudebro did was give the right ammo–look, you can be chaste for years! It’s not sex if there’s no piv contact!

    The author–who the Smoking Gun outed–is a misogynist fuck maggot, however. I am really fucking tired of slut shaming. This is like locker room gossip where dudes who fuck around slag off on the women they were with.

  6. Ben
    Ben October 29, 2010 at 10:30 am |

    Has Christine O’Donnell actually talked about abstinence only education, sex, etc. in this campaign? The closest her platform gets to sex issues is that she is pro-life (“Life”) and that for education she is in favor of some form of school choice (“Values”): http://www.christine2010.com/issues.

  7. groggette
    groggette October 29, 2010 at 11:03 am |

    H.K. Anders: Turn of the pornos, scumbag, and meet some real women. They’re not all aspiring porn starlets.

    Not all women who shave their pubic areas are “aspiring porn starlets”. Not all porn starlets, aspiring or otherwise, shave their pubic areas. And all women, regardless of their association with porn, are real women.

  8. April
    April October 29, 2010 at 11:34 am |

    I wish O’Donnell would let us know if Dudebro has pubes. Because I’ll bet he does, and I’d like to see him explain why he thinks his should remain intact and hers shouldn’t.

  9. R. Johnston
    R. Johnston October 29, 2010 at 11:58 am |

    I’m surprised to see how many people have difficulty understanding that life is not a zero sum game. Just because Dustin Dominiak and Gawker are fully deserving of condemnation for being purveyors of salacious misogynistic gossip doesn’t mean that O’Donnell deserves much if anything in the way of sympathy. O’Donnell seeks to position herself as the nation’s slut-shamer in chief, and if elected would use any political power she had to limit sex education to “education” that “teaches” captive children that people who engage in naked make-out sessions outside of marriage are psychologically traumatizing and sexually debasing themselves and that their slutty ways will doom them to a life of unhappiness.

    So, thank you Jill for writing what’s by far the best piece on this “story” that I’ve encountered.

  10. Tei Tetua
    Tei Tetua October 29, 2010 at 12:10 pm |

    It’s a sure bet that any woman in politics will face opposition that’s sexist in style. As you say, Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin have both had their share. We might or might not support these people, but as women they don’t deserve the flak they’ve been subjected to. If the world could get used (If! If!) to women in public life, this kind of crap wouldn’t happen. But that’s not the state of the world.

  11. chad
    chad October 29, 2010 at 12:13 pm |

    Should one never have (or advocate) standards that one isn’t sure that one can live up to? That’s a silly view. Most of us know that we will not be completely honest at some point. Should we therefore stop advocating that people be honest? Clearly not! Hypocrisy, or at least hypocrisy of the sort that is objectionable, is when a person doesn’t *sincerely* hold a standard that he or she professes in public, or holds others to, perhaps for political gain. I don’t see any reason to believe that’s what is going on here.

  12. g_whiz
    g_whiz October 29, 2010 at 12:15 pm |

    This is fascinating. And I outright refuse to read the article in question. In fact, I outright refuse to click links referencing O’Donnel at any point now. (And if we’re talking about her right-of-center views, I like to reiterate that she believes the gay can and should be cured by faith based reparitive therapies. Masterbation bans are far less problematic than “homosexual deprogramming” in my opinion) As much as it bothers me that we expect our politicians and public figures to be somehow purer and somehow not have complicated adult lives while not at work, O’Donnell seems to work harder at presenting chastity and sexuality as a platform issue. If she expects to dictate who can do what with whom after winning office, I’d at least expect a little consistancy on her part. The appropriately named “tease shaming” is awful, and evidence of a massive double standard of course.(Un)Fortunatley there ‘s a lot of valid platform and value issues O’Donnell presents that can be refuted without calling her genitalia into reference.

  13. PrettyAmiable
    PrettyAmiable October 29, 2010 at 12:40 pm |

    April: I wish O’Donnell would let us know if Dudebro has pubes. Because I’ll bet he does, and I’d like to see him explain why he thinks his should remain intact and hers shouldn’t. 

    This would be an AWESOME response from the O’Donnell camp.

    chad: Should one never have (or advocate) standards that one isn’t sure that one can live up to?

    Yes. One should not espouse judgmental bullshit if one cannot live up to their judgmental bullshit.

    That said, I do feel for Christine O’Donnell, though that comment is for when I have more interwebby times! (Short version is that I would feel different if the guy was all, I banged COD! without the unnecessary details that are what people will necessarily remember. Then it would be HA! rather than “That guy’s a douche and I wish she didn’t have to go through that.”)

  14. jeffliveshere
    jeffliveshere October 29, 2010 at 12:52 pm |

    groggette:
    Not all women who shave their pubic areas are “aspiring porn starlets”. Not all porn starlets, aspiring or otherwise, shave their pubic areas. And all women, regardless of their association with porn, are real women.  

    Yeah. And the irony of this on a post about slut shaming. Thank you.

  15. Comrade Kevin
    Comrade Kevin October 29, 2010 at 12:54 pm |

    I predict in time that it will cease to be salacious to call any woman a “cougar”, or to slander her as easily as has been done here. The article reads like a bad rumor. The sexism takes low blows to a new level.

    I also wonder about the timing of this piece, with the election mere days away. There really is nothing fair about politics, particular when someone has already given lots of reasons for people to severely dislike her. The best one can do is make sure to keep potentially damaging bits of information under wraps, which is not the case here even a little bit. Don’t leave yourself vulnerable for these sorts of things is the lesson I draw from it.

  16. xenu01
    xenu01 October 29, 2010 at 1:00 pm |

    PrettyAmiable:
    …I would feel different if the guy was all, I banged COD! without the unnecessary details that are what people will necessarily remember. Then it would be HA! rather than “That guy’s a douche and I wish she didn’t have to go through that.”)  

    Thank you for saying so succinctly what I wanted to say but couldn’t figure out how to say.

    I would feel a lot differently about this were it just a case of, “I banged Christine O’Donnell and so therefore she’s being a hypocrite in her so-called moralist politics.”

    WHY couldn’t we just leave it at that? I mean, we didn’t have an exclusive interview with the young man caught coming home with George Rekers, did we? We didn’t hear about his sexual aggression/lack of aggression. Nor did we hear about the state of his pubic hair, and what he’s like in bed.

    Some damning photographs, fully clothed, at the airport. I wish this story, as well, had left Christine O’Donnell fully clothed but damned for hypocrisy none the less.

  17. gretel
    gretel October 29, 2010 at 1:05 pm |

    . . . sorry, sister, but when you start using your own purity and sexual mores to try and dictate everyone else’s, and when you want to be the sex police and violate everyone else’s privacy, you lose the right to your own . . .

    I’m mostly in agreement with you, but I’m not sure about this. I am for full sexual freedom for all, which in a way is using my own sexual mores (happily cohabitating with my partner and boycotting marriage). If I campaigned for office (no way that’s happening) my platform would be for marriage equality and the option of civil unions (with the same legal rights as marriage). So couldn’t someone argue that therefore my right to privacy is null and void using your logic?

    I’m not trying to pick a fight here, I’m just thinking about this from every angle, because I usually don’t agree with violating anyone’s privacy, regardless of how revolting they are. If she had broken the law or harmed people/animals that would be another matter, but she didn’t. I think there is enough in her public pronouncements to completely discredit her as a viable leader in any capacity.

    Further: Nick Denton is basically a nihilist. At least that’s how the New Yorker profile portrayed him. He is getting the attention he craves. But Sharon Angle is the biggest beneficiary of all this in my opinion, as her bigotry has been completely overshadowed and she is poised to defeat Harry Reid. Terrifying.

  18. anonone
    anonone October 29, 2010 at 1:08 pm |

    Christine’s primary campaign against Congressman Mike Castle was spreading rumors that he was having an affair with a man and personally inferred he was gay on several occasions with quotes such as:

    “You know, these are the kind of cheap, underhanded, un-manly tactics that we’ve come to expect from Obama’s favorite Republican, Mike Castle. You know, I released a statement today, saying Mike this is not a bake-off, get your man-pants on.”

    So whatever you think of the Gawker piece, don’t waste any tears for O’Donnell. She is a pompous extremist who would gladly have the government regulate what you can do with your body and with whom.

  19. Shoshie
    Shoshie October 29, 2010 at 1:32 pm |

    gretel:
    I’m mostly in agreement with you, but I’m not sure about this. I am for full sexual freedom for all, which in a way is using my own sexual mores (happily cohabitating with my partner and boycotting marriage). If I campaigned for office (no way that’s happening) my platform would be for marriage equality and the option of civil unions (with the same legal rights as marriage). So couldn’t someone argue that therefore my right to privacy is null and void using your logic?  

    I don’t think this is a good analogy, because people who argue for the government staying out of people’s bedrooms aren’t forcing people to have sex outside of marriage. They’re not forcing people to marry someone of the same sex. They just want those options available. I think that if you campaigned for same sex marriage, but then someone wrote an expose about how you argued against it in private, or committed hate crimes against queer folks, that would be totally legit.

  20. Today’s Hack Puzzle : Lawyers, Guns & Money

    […] “hypocrisy” won’t fly. My position on this goes a lot farther than, for example, Jill’s; even if the story was less overtly sexist, it would still be irrelevant. Share and […]

  21. Scott Lemieux
    Scott Lemieux October 29, 2010 at 1:45 pm |

    Well, no. She’s not just against sex — she’s against any sexual activity outside of marriage, including masturbation. So I think the hypocrite tag still applies.

    I think an important distinction should be made here between the values she advocates for and and the values she actually wants to impose by force of law. As far as I can tell, she’s never claimed that premarital sex (let alone premarital making out) should be illegal. Given that, I don’t think that hypocrisy charges can justify the invasion of privacy. At a minimum, I think there needs to be a relatively narrow connection between private behavior and some specific policy goal. I don’t see it here.

  22. klobster
    klobster October 29, 2010 at 2:19 pm |

    Jill:
    Although agreed that the author is a misogynist fuck maggot.  

    Speaking of hypocrites…

  23. chad
    chad October 29, 2010 at 2:33 pm |

    “Yes. One should not espouse judgmental bullshit if one cannot live up to their judgmental bullshit.”

    Well this follows directly and obviously from the truism that one should not espouse bullshit. But if you want to say that one should not espouse any moral principle without being sure that one can live up to it, then there is very little left for anyone to uphold, including the principle that one should not be dishonest. This seems an obviously mistaken position. I think what is really going on is that the claims of hypocrisy are gratuitous, and the real point is that we disagree with her moral principles about “sexual purity”. I certainly sympathize with that, but let’s stop calling her a hypocrite if what we really think is that she’s just morally confused.

  24. David
    David October 29, 2010 at 2:48 pm |

    Criticize a politician on the issues, not on their personal life. After watching a mountain of negative mud-slinging advertisement close to the midterm elections, I have a greater appreciation for those politicians that actually decide to reference why they should be elected instead of why their opponent is a insert-litany-of-personal-insults here. Of course, I would be naive if I thought that negative ads don’t work. I think it’s been proven time and time again that they can sink a politician’s candidacy.

  25. bmf
    bmf October 29, 2010 at 2:51 pm |

    I’m no Karl Rove fan but I do respect his judgement. His judgement of Christine O’Donnell was negative.

  26. Usually Lurking
    Usually Lurking October 29, 2010 at 3:03 pm |

    I don’t want to go down “this never happens to males !” road. Whether it does* or it doesn’t, the O’Donnell question remains the same.

    I think that it was fair game to expose her hypocrisy and behavior, largely because I think that the private lives of public figures are (or should be) relatively open to scrutiny. If you want to be in Congress or the Senate or the Presidency, and if you’re going to use that bully pulpit, then don’t live a lie. And although (a) sexism sucks ass; (b) women are targeted for sexism; (c) this article is sexist as hell… on some level I’m willing to sacrifice O’Donnell (or anyone else who is a serious candidate for high ranking national office) on the altar of more open politics.

    So while I hate to do it, I end up with mostly a tone argument: exposing O’Donnell was OK and even a good thing, but the particular way in which it was done (and the focus on irrelevant things, like her genital trimming, etc.) sucked.

    For those who are making an exception for what she puts into law: Really? This board is replete with people talking about the immense damage that folks do just by airing certain, inappropriate, viewpoints. You don’t need to pass a horrible law to accomplish a lot of horrible shit. O’Donnell is scary and will have a horrible effect on the country whether she is passing laws regarding our bodies or whether she is simply advocating them in Washington.

    * IMO, it does happen to males. Exposing the hypocrisy of men, or taking them out of the closet, is a relatively frequent occurrence. (Remember John Edwards?) Doing it to females seems more rare, whether it’s because they cheat less, are smarter and better at hiding it, or something else.

  27. james
    james October 29, 2010 at 3:06 pm |

    she *condemned masturbation* because the bible says that “lust is wicked”. so…..how then can you be so horny as to get naked in someone’s bed without *lust*? with someone you just met a few hours prior? does the bible permit this? can you show me where the bible pardons lustful behavior so long as full-blown intercourse is avoided?

    she has repeatedly said that ‘you never have to lie’, even debating maher about this in an episode of p.i. in ’98. didn’t she lie about why she needed to change at dominick’s apartment? didn’t she lie when she said she was a virgin? in college, she slept with a bunch of guys and thereafter has considered herself a ‘born-again virgin’….that figure of speech is a lie in and of itself, but she told dominick that she was a virgin, not a ‘born-again virgin’.

    i think it’s very revealing how all these political types come out of the woodwork to defend her in spite of her raging hypocrisy. probably because they are also raging hypocrites and therefore identify with o’donnell.

    stupid american politicians and their fairytale religions and disingenuous moralizing. please china, stomp all over us and force us back into the poverty-stricken industrial/manufacturing society we deserve to be.

  28. PrettyAmiable
    PrettyAmiable October 29, 2010 at 3:25 pm |

    chad: But if you want to say that one should not espouse any moral principle without being sure that one can live up to it, then there is very little left for anyone to uphold, including the principle that one should not be dishonest.

    Where we differ is the idea that sex before marriage, masturbation, and so on are issues of morality. I happen to think it’s judgmental bullshit. I am not immoral because I like fucking and masturbating and do both frequently.

    I don’t buy into a god figure, but if there is a god, that fucker has a lot bigger things to worry about than whether or not I’m whipping out my favorite vibrator tonight. Every “moral justification” I’ve ever heard against sex and masturbation is rooted in a god, and really, if I were god, I’d be wicked pissed that people didn’t think I had better shit to do with my time. You know like half of women are getting raped in the DRoC? But! Women-folk! Close your legs!

    Nope, sorry.

    Anyway, back to the point, since I’ve already decided to avoid infantilizing her god, it really does boil down to judgmental bullshit. Thus, if she espouses judgmental bullshit that she can’t live up to, she’s hypocritical.

  29. chad
    chad October 29, 2010 at 3:51 pm |

    No, where we differ is that I think hypocrisy requires insincerity, and you think that hypocrisy only involves failing to live up to one’s principles. I don’t agree with her moral views on sex-related matters. I just think that she holds them sincerely, and that this makes her a non-hypocrite with incorrect moral views that she (like everyone) sometimes fails to live up to. The alternative view–your view–of hypocrisy entails that we’re all hypocrites, since we all think (I presume) that there are correct moral principles (e.g., about honesty and other things) that we ourselves fail, on occasion, to live up to.

  30. Heather Cook
    Heather Cook October 29, 2010 at 4:00 pm |

    You realize that “she’s engaging in it” is incorrect, you should have said “she engaged in it” as she is not currently doing it. (Pun intended.)

  31. PrettyAmiable
    PrettyAmiable October 29, 2010 at 4:03 pm |

    Thanks for telling me what I think. I’d be so lost without you.

    Ignoring ALL of your discussion about morality, because, as I mentioned, morality is not an issue here (though I understand you were busy ignoring what I actually wrote and telling me what I thought to actually try reading some of it), I think if you’re walking around doling out judgmental bullshit that you cannot live up to, you are acting hypocritically, yes.

    If this were a moral question, we could walk into the gray area of “do as I say, not as I do” because acting morally benefits the whole, even if there are free riders. However, for the umpteenth time, this is NOT a moral question.

    In reality, I think you’re looking for someone to validate you when you fuck up, and I’m not going to be that person. Does everyone act hypocritically occasionally? Yes. Is everyone held to the same standard? No. Should someone who could be making laws for me be held to a higher standard? YES.

    You said this: “I certainly sympathize with that, but let’s stop calling her a hypocrite if what we really think is that she’s just morally confused.”

    WE don’t think she’s morally confused. YOU think she’s morally confused and decided to generalize your opinion to the whole. I think she knows exactly what she’s saying, and I think she’s a douchebag because of it.

  32. Brooke
    Brooke October 29, 2010 at 4:24 pm |

    May I express surprise that NO ONE seems to be questioning that this piece was run to attack O’Donnell, poor little victim that she is? And that everyone takes it, anon as it is, as though it contains facts?

    This is why the world needs actual journalism.

    First, ignore the article. Maybe there’s a word of truth in it, maybe not. How would we tell?

    Ah, there are pictures, are there? There are, in fact, FIFTEEN pictures. Fifteen pictures of ODonnell, some with boyscout uniform boy. Who took them? Him? Don’t make me laugh. Find me one 25 year old man that has 15 fully clothed pictures of a girl he dated once 3 years ago. If the girl was a supermodel, 6, tops. Just some disappointing one night? No.

    Everyone is in such a rush to go on about the evils of slut-shaming that no one bothers to ask a) where are the slut-shaming experts? The ones who divide the world into the good and the bad girls? & b) who benefits from, once again, from having all the talk be about “poor Christine”, and not about policy, or the fact she won’t permit local reporters to cover her events and just threatened a local radio station for airing on the net their interview with her.

    I’m a Delaware voter. We’ve known her for years. You have NO idea (and I guess, no interest) in how low she and her gang of thugs can get. Public hair? She’d MAIL you public hair if it increased her polling percentage by 1/2 a percent.

    Y’all are being played. I’m damn tired of trying to explain that it is feminist (and has been for longer than Christine has been alive, which is about how long I’ve been a public feminist) to hold women accountable for what they do. And it’s SMART to consider the result of an action in the real world.

    Chris Coons is a decent man. He’s also brilliant. She’s used this to attack him, as she attacked her previous opponent, also a decent man. That’s the point. That’s the POINT. #balloonboy

  33. Tei Tetua
    Tei Tetua October 29, 2010 at 4:27 pm |

    One thing that occurred to me is–this incident shows that O’Donnell has miserably poor judgment about people she comes into contact with. If she lets a rat like Dustin Dominiak get acquainted with her crotch, what’s she going to do in Washington? It would be nice to think that people running for the Senate have at least a few functional brain cells (despite what we’ve seen from some who’ve been there).

    1. Cara
      Cara October 29, 2010 at 5:01 pm |

      Oh for fuck’s sake Tei Tetua, that is the most pathetic and bullshit argument I have ever fucking seen. Really, we’re going to judge everybody now based on the potentially worst person they’ve ever dated — or even better, just hooked up with? Or just people you don’t like? I dated a guy who decided to rape me. So apparently I not only lack “at least a functional brain cells” but also should never be trusted to exercise good judgment again for the rest of my life. Fuck off. People should not be held responsible for the assholish behavior of people they know. And O’Donnell has plenty of her own assholish behavior that we can hold her accountable for, anyway.

  34. David
    David October 29, 2010 at 4:30 pm |

    I think Christine O’Donnel is probably a hypocrite but honestly, it doesn’t matter one iota if she’s a hypocrite or not. I can’t count a single person I know (myself included) who hasn’t been a hypocrite at one point or another in their life. What I care about, are the policies and political views that a politician wishes to promote. I very much disagree with Christine O’Donnel’s political views, because I believe she wants to legislate her morality. As for the piece of political assassination, I think it’s really distasteful.

  35. Marle
    Marle October 29, 2010 at 5:06 pm |

    I think people should avoid moralizing about sexuality in general, because the stereotypes we think about with sexuality never actually work in real life. When I realized O’Donnell didn’t have sex with the guy, I thought it kinda sucked that she lead him on, because I hear that so often and that’s the kind of thing people say when they’re talking about other people’s sex lives. Then I realized that with every guy I’ve ever slept with (except for one, but he sucked in bed) the first time we got naked and in bed together we didn’t have PiV intercourse. I don’t think I’m that unusual, none of the guys I was with expressed that it was really weird. And the last time it was the guy’s decision (not to have PiV) and even though I really wanted to it’s not like it was a big deal.

    I don’t think the hypocrisy angle is really a big issue here. She says conservative things about sex and out comes a story about how she doesn’t have sex. I don’t really care enough to find her specific statements and find where it doesn’t match. Can’t we just find her saying something homophobic and just run with that? This story was just gross and sexist and completely unnecessary, and I wish Gawker never published it.

  36. Manju
    Manju October 29, 2010 at 6:41 pm |

    On a brighter note, this Dustin Dominiak dude is on his way to Linda-Tripp Land.

  37. g_whiz
    g_whiz October 29, 2010 at 6:55 pm |

    I don’t disagree about moralizing about sexuality in the slightest. I do however find that the woman in question moralizes about sexuality quite a bit, as she’s made a career on it. Given how often we find out that the conservative figures that present themselves as pious and virtuous have feet of clay regarding lust, infidelity, the hiring of rent boys to carry luggage etc. its not exactly surprising that Christine O’Donnell has a sex life, sexual urges and desires. Whats problematic is that her definition of sex and marriage in this instance deviates sharply from her public image and her message about abstinance, faith and marriage. Her sexual encounter we’d not bat an eyelash at if she were not making herself out to be some sort of morality guru turned political second coming of Palin. Its fair to judge her on this, but I don’t at all like the “tease-shaming” aspect. And truthfully, I’d rather wish I didn’t know any of this myself…

  38. Fat Steve
    Fat Steve October 29, 2010 at 7:59 pm |

    Marle: I think people should avoid moralizing about sexuality in general, because the stereotypes we think about with sexuality never actually work in real life.When I realized O’Donnell didn’t have sex with the guy, I thought it kinda sucked that she lead him on, because I hear that so often and that’s the kind of thing people say when they’re talking about other people’s sex lives.  

    I don’t see how she led him on if she told him she was a virgin. The ‘hypocrisy’ charge doesn’t wash with me either. I mean she never mentioned her personal grooming habits in the debates, and she didn’t really do anything that she has publicly referred to as immoral.

    Having said that, I think I would actually have found this story very interesting had BOTH parties remained anonymous, as I have no experience with the dating rituals of virgins/born-again virgins.

  39. She's not a hypocrite
    She's not a hypocrite October 29, 2010 at 8:01 pm |

    She’s not a hypocrite. She’s a horrible horrible person but the arguments as to why she is a hypocrite are so poorly formed, it’s laughable.

    She believes in sexual purity? Right? She says she is a virgin. Well, she probably is a virgin according to this story. And again, believing something doesn’t mean that you live your life 100% perfectly on that issue all the time. I’ve done shitty things that I regret in my life. Really. I think we all have. So does that mean that you are no longer allowed to say you believe in those things. Can anyone on this thread who has never ever failed to live up to any moral standard they’ve ever espoused please identify themselves so that we can set up a new religion around you or something. Honestly, it’s a ridiculous and stupid argument.

    The only people you get to call hypocrites are those who make completely false claims and are insincere in those beliefs. And you usually glean that from the double lives they lead. So people who are openly condemning homosexuality and spend half of their lives arranging clandestine encounters with rent boys are good evidence. A 41 year old woman, three years before her campaign, who advocates ‘purity’ actually refusing to have sex with a guy is not evidence of insincerity of belief. It’s evidence of deviance from her prescribed moral code. But there’s this crazy thing that allows for some deviance from your moral code without being called a hypocrite – it’s called making a mistake.

    Fuck, I guess since I stole a book when I was 15 that I am a thief and would be a hypocrite if I am against stealing. Or since I’ve lost my temper a few times, I’m deserve what? Are we really all willing to stand up and be judged by the worst thing we’ve ever done, for ever?

    Besides she is not trying to legislate against sex before marriage. This is ridiculous and horribly horribly misogynistic.

  40. drydock
    drydock October 29, 2010 at 8:16 pm |

    Nice critique, Jill.

  41. Politicalguineapig
    Politicalguineapig October 29, 2010 at 8:44 pm |

    PA : “acting morally benefits the whole, even if there are free riders.”
    Er no. Acting ethically benefits everyone, acting ‘morally’ just gives us even more Sunday Scolds. Morals are G*d’s province, and people like Christine O Donnell are why I would never EVER call myself a moral person.
    I was rooting for a take-down, but I wish it hadn’t gone down like this. But well, if she was running on a platform as a proud curtain twitcher, she ought to have been prepared for something like this.

  42. CaliOak
    CaliOak October 29, 2010 at 9:41 pm |

    I think I’m developing a magical new litmus test for who deserves autonomy in their sexual lives. Any adult who isn’t willing to extend the same tenderness, respect, privacy, medical care and right to consent and reproductive choice to 15 year old, that he or she expect for himself or herself doesn’t pass.

    Destroying the lives, liberty, health, freedom of conscience, bodily integrity and reproductive rights of young people is not okay. This has nothing to do with her sexual values, or her political hypocrisy and everything to do with her willingness to force teenagers and their children to pay in blood, ignorance, violence and poverty, so she can look like a “conservative” candidate.

    This is the least of what she, and anyone else trying to restrict access to comprehensive sex and and medical care for minors deserves.

    The author is a scum bag but I think this politician is infinitely worse.

    End tirade. (Yes I know everyone always has a right to sexual autonomy and consent.)

  43. evil_fizz
    evil_fizz October 29, 2010 at 11:18 pm |

    I think hypocrisy is ultimately a red herring because the article isn’t addressing it. It’s addressing the “OMG, you guys! I had this older woman come on to me and she didn’t even wax her bikini line!!1! Isn’t that horrifying?!” angle which is inane, sexist, and pathetic.

    Having said that, I think you can make the argument that someone who pontificates about sexual purity and the need for our children to be indoctrinated with it and fails to adhere to that kind of moral code is a hypocrite: you all need to keep it zipped, but I can be a drunk ladybug and hook up with a pitiful urbanite who should not be allowed to narrate a sexual encounter ever.

    People do make mistakes, which is why people running for political office should get a fucking grip and stop acting like a normal adult sex life is something to get the vapors over.

  44. Max
    Max October 30, 2010 at 3:21 am |

    Clearly no one posting here has ever not fully lived up to an personally expressed ideal (i.e. a hypocrite by the standards of this site).

  45. Natalia
    Natalia October 30, 2010 at 4:52 am |

    Great post, Jill.

    Turn of the pornos, scumbag, and meet some real women. They’re not all aspiring porn starlets.

    LOLWAT.

  46. anonone
    anonone October 30, 2010 at 7:40 am |

    Speaking of “slut-shaming,” here are O’Donnell’s own words in 1998:

    “I know many physical virgins who are not sexually pure. I know many virgins who are into pornography or who are “doing everything but” with their boyfriends. On the flip side, I know many non-virgins who live beautiful, holy, pure lives through the power of Christ’s blood.”

    As a Delawarean who has watched her dishonest, holier-than-thou, Bible-thumping for years, I have no problem seeing her hypocrisy exposed as a politician, not a woman. I don’t see any shame or lack of purity in so-called slutty behavior (I rather celebrate it), but I whole-heartedly support exposing those who shame other’s sexual behaviors others for their own political or career gains, as O’Donnell has done for decades.

  47. PrettyAmiable
    PrettyAmiable October 30, 2010 at 9:01 am |

    Politicalguineapig: PA : “acting morally benefits the whole, even if there are free riders.”
    Er no. Acting ethically benefits everyone, acting ‘morally’ just gives us even more Sunday Scolds. Morals are G*d’s province, and people like Christine O Donnell are why I would never EVER call myself a moral person.

    See, in my version, morals and ethics are one in the same, but in the world where gods have better shit to do with their time than to worry about the menial crap people seem to think zie cares about.

  48. Politicalguineapig
    Politicalguineapig October 30, 2010 at 2:32 pm |

    I prefer ethics, because that implies that there’s some thinking going on. Whereas morals are simply: Do this or don’t do that because G*d said so. (And G*d tends to be a prick.)

  49. Watch the Toes
    Watch the Toes October 31, 2010 at 10:30 am |

    A 41 year old woman, three years before her campaign, who advocates ‘purity’ actually refusing to have sex with a guy is not evidence of insincerity of belief.

    She didn’t refuse sex – she was rejected. If she hadn’t been rejected, at least by the way this guy tells it, she very well might have ended up having piv intercourse. Or maybe she wouldn’t have. Regardless, that’s a moot point, and I think, if what this guy writes is to be believed, that she absolutely is a hypocrite because now she’s running on a “Do as I say, not as I do” campaign – one that runs rampant on condemning those who don’t drink her Kool-aide as impure, and that’s dangerous. You also can’t argue that this incident is a laps of morals on her part rather than something that shows her to be hypocritical, because she’s running on this platform that she’s above all of us and oh-so-pure. Had she said, “These are my beliefs, and even though I haven’t upheld them 100% of the time, I’ve done my best to do so,” then you could argue that this was a moral laps. But since she’s toting herself as someone on par with the Virgin Mary, and we learn about this event, then yeah, she’s a fucking hypocrite.

    And yes, I think they way the guy wrote this article was horrendous and that he shouldn’t have taken such a misogynistic angle. He’s a douche and I hope that any woman attempts to date or hook up with him has a big, wild and unkempt bush so that his boner is permanently killed. But O’Donnell’s sex life is fair game and I don’t feel bad for her in the slightest that this expose was written. With the dangerous direction she wants to lead this county to, every single one of her flaws deserves to be shown.

  50. Athenia
    Athenia October 31, 2010 at 11:24 am |

    I really don’t need to read about her drunken exploits to know that Christine O’Donnell is full of shit.

    Moreover, it’s not going to affect her fans because as long as Christine plays the “I did wrong, now I know the Truth” which makes her a saint.

    Likewise, while it can be satisfying or heartbreaking to see someone exposed (John Edwards, Elliot Spizter, Ted Haggard), I really don’t need to know the details of it….which makes this piece upsetting to me.

  51. Daryl
    Daryl October 31, 2010 at 5:12 pm |

    If I am a recovering drug addict, and I express the opinion that drug abuse is bad for you, and that people should not take illegal drugs, does that make me a hypocrite? It is entirely possible for people to believe something, yet make a mistake and do what they know, or believe, to be wrong. Owning up to a mistake does not make one a hypocrite. Continuing the behavior that one speaks out against, is hypocritical. So far, I have not heard any allegations that Ms. O’Donnell has continued sleeping with strange men, in the nude.

  52. PrettyAmiable
    PrettyAmiable October 31, 2010 at 7:14 pm |

    Daryl: It is entirely possible for people to believe something, yet make a mistake and do what they know, or believe, to be wrong.

    Your analogy would work if Christine O’Donnell were addicted to sex. She’s not. She got naked because, like many of us find, being naked is fun. No, I don’t think addicts are hypocrites. I think they’re fucking addicts.

  53. Susan
    Susan November 1, 2010 at 10:11 am |

    This guy, and i’m going to use this word for the first time ever in print, is a dickwad. If ever there was one.

    I agree with the author implicitly.

    the point about her beliefs… well, if that was as close as she came she, in hindsight is thankful the guy was an ass. Its hard for everyone to stick with things they believe all the time.. That does’t mean they don’t believe them.

  54. Josh
    Josh November 1, 2010 at 5:39 pm |

    Still will be out there at 6:30 a.m. with my hot cocoa and lawn chair, first in line to vote against her.

  55. Lasciel
    Lasciel November 1, 2010 at 11:00 pm |

    @Toes: LOL. you really think a douchebag like that would admit that a woman changed her mind and decided against having sex with him? Nooooo. *of course* he rejected her…

    What was his story? He saw pubic hair and suddenly couldn’t get it up? I guess he was a virgin too… /rolls eyes

Comments are closed.

The commenting period has expired for this post. If you wish to re-open the discussion, please do so in the latest Open Thread.