As someone said at Sadly, No!, it’s annoying that this douche actually makes you sympathize with O’Donnell. A gentleman he wasn’t.

I never thought I’d say anything nice about O’Donnell, but her ladybug costume is totally cute.

its just sad, she’s seems like someone who likes and enjoys sex, and has been brainwashed into celibacy for a couple of decades.

2) The guy who wrote it comes across as a smug, sexist piece of shit.  The irony is that he thinks he’s smearing her, but the way he comes across plus the actual innocuous details of the night end up making O’Donnell look pretty good.  He wants to smear her as “aggressive”, but she just sounds confident and like she likes to have fun.

Pardon me, but why are you making the assumption that it is a smear per se?

It’s sleazy in a “Dear Penthouse Forum…” way (I mean, seriously dude, no wax = revolted?), but it seems like a straight report of an encounter.  If you were setting out to slime someone, you’d embellish a bit, wouldn’t you?

Not to mention that O’Donnell dared to go after a younger man. As a 20-something myself, I can assure you that no man in his 40s has ever EVER made a pass at me.

God that guy is a turd.

I don’t think it’s a stretch to say she is a hypocrite.  If nothing, the story just proves that she likes guys that are even sketchier than she is.  What woman shows up at a stranger’s house unannounced and asks to change into a costume?

The “cokehead” bit is actually funny.

alysia:
It isn’t weird to you that she showed up unannounced to a stranger’s(basically) house?  There are a lot of things about this story that makes little sense.

Cris:
Tell me how I am wrong?  As it is, the Village Voice has smoked all this out.

“and I quickly lost interest”

=

“She gave me a handjob but then when I went to touch her she had all hair and stuff so yuck. As if!”

I first read this as a left-wing hit piece but reading it again (ick) it seems more like he’s some frat-boy Republican douchebag who “just happens” to run in the same dating circles as Republican senatorial candidates.

Sometimes I hate people, and I hate this guy for making me empathize with Christine O’Donnell.

Wow, of all the slut-shaming I expected in response, insinuating that someone is “loose” because she concocts a silly little excuse to drop in on a guy she likes was not on the list.

Yeah, its a bit weird, but the author of the post let her come in, went out with her, and throughout the whole night did not become disgusted with her until he found out she had a bush. I don’t think Christine is in anyway grounded in reality, but this guy is a huge douchebag.

re: 1) i don’t think the intention was to smear her.  i thought it was more, “actually, she kind of parties, despite the picture you might have of her being more of a fundamentalist prude.”  that’s interesting.

re: 2) the guy comes across as a twenty-something guy who hooked up with a woman 14 years older than him that he wasn’t that into, but still felt he got played by.

re: 3) i suppose the “aggressive” issue is relevant to the “tease” critique running through this (e.g., “born again virgin”).  still, i didn’t think the article was much more than, “hey, o’donnell likes to get liqoured up and hook-up-with-but-not-actually-sleep-with young guys.”  i suppose the fact that he mentioned driving around since she didn’t know exactly where her friend lived suggests that he wanted to communicate that she’s also kind of a dumbass.  that’s fine - she IS a dumbass (c.f., first amendment), no?  mostly what i got out of the article is that she drinks, and that she’s probably fun to have drinks with.  that’s no basis for electing her to public service (c.f., bush, george w.).  it’s a bit gauche to kiss and tell, though, but given the media attention she gets….eh.

What a fucking douchebag.

“I much prefer to have sex with females who look like pre-adolescents down under”...

re: 3) i suppose the “aggressive” issue is relevant to the “tease” critique running through this (e.g., “born again virgin”).  still, i didn’t think the article was much more than, “hey, o’donnell likes to get liqoured up and hook-up-with-but-not-actually-sleep-with young guys.”

Pardon me, but I believe you mean “Hey, o’donnell once three years ago during Halloween and while out with a friend enjoyed getting liqoured up and hooking-up-with-but-not-actually-sleeping-with one young guy.”  There’s a bit of a difference.

Thanks world!

I’m learning so much about how to turn-on douchebags.  Rule #1: Don’t be experienced sexually.  Rule #2: Don’t be on birth control.  Rule #3: Follow waxing trends.  Rule #4: Don’t be a virgin. Rule #4: Don’t act a little weird while hitting on a guy.

If I ever decide that I want to <strike>make myself miserable</strike> expand my dating pool, I’ll be prepared.

also, Calvin, Why did you address that comment at me?

Honestly, I do feel bad for Christine O’Donnell, because it’s sad enough when your life is a total trainwreck, but when you combine it with an obvious lust for fame, that’s just really sad. It’s bad enough to make a fool of yourself nearly every time you open your mouth, but she combines that by chasing after cameras and attention in a way that makes me deeply uncomfortable.

This guy is a jerk, no doubt about it, but this isn’t the first time I’ve felt pity for O’Donnell.

Pardon me, but I believe you mean “Hey, o’donnell once three years ago during Halloween and while out with a friend enjoyed getting liqoured up and hooking-up-with-but-not-actually-sleeping-with one young guy.” There’s a bit of a difference.

Which is to say, preeeeeeeetty much the plan for every single adult who dreses up and goes out at Halloween.

Cris:
I should make clear.  I was explaining why I was skeptical of the story(which has now been shown to have been made up).  Does it matter whether it’s Halloween?  When was the last time you knocked on a guy’s door who you didn’t know out of the blue(according to the original story .. because if you remember .. according to the original .. he met her once .. for five minutes)?  I said this doesn’t excuse nitwit fratboy.

All this demonstrated was that she’s actually pretty sincere in her beliefs, at least in that right wing it’s-not-technically-sex-love-ya-Jesus way.  I personally thought she was a grade A liar with her chastity crap at her age, but apparently not.

Really?  I took her seriously, mainly b/c everyone I’ve known who’s that Catholic has actually meant it.

@ Phoenician a time of Romans:

no, i do think the article was intended to make the reader think that this is typical of her, rather than exceptional for her (hence “aggressive”).  of course, “...the article was much more than” does not make it explicit that i meant to refer to authorial intent (though that’s what the initial “hey” was intended to convey), so point taken, and internet pedant point awarded.

i can’t wait for the “i am not a ladybug” commercial.

Does it matter whether it’s Halloween?  When was the last time you knocked on a guy’s door who you didn’t know out of the blue(according to the original story .. because if you remember .. according to the original .. he met her once .. for five minutes)?

Dude, if you read:

“It didn’t take long before the two women—who’d clearly been drinking—were sitting on my couch, beers in hand, trying to convince my roommate and me to join them for a night on the town. “

“Allie, I don’t want to go out by myself!”
“But I don’t know anyone around here, Chrissie.”
“Hold on, doesn’t [X] live around here?  He’s cute - let’s see if he’s doing anything!”

(which has now been shown to have been made up)

Cite?

I’m really tired of Republicans claiming they support women because some Democrats criticize candidates like Palin and O’Donnell.  If anything, the Democrats are treating the women like humans by criticizing them instead of staying silent.

which has now been shown to have been made up

Link to the proof?

I should make clear.  I was explaining why I was skeptical of the story(which has now been shown to have been made up).  Does it matter whether it’s Halloween?  When was the last time you knocked on a guy’s door who you didn’t know out of the blue(according to the original story .. because if you remember .. according to the original .. he met her once .. for five minutes)?  I said this doesn’t excuse nitwit fratboy.

Who gives a shit about any of this? Why are you so fixated on figuring out the reasons for her actions. Jesus fucking Christ on a pogo stick, it doesn’t matter, ok? She’s a grown up person, she can drop in to call on whoever she wants for whatever reason she wants, costume or no costume, Halloween or not, whatever. It’s her business, not yours, so why the fuck do you care?

This story’s one interesting application is that you can tell who’s an ass by how they respond to it.

I don’t intend to read the story, but as long as I can be relevant for four more days, I have to comment.  Even if she would do whatever I asked her to do sexually, I will still vote for The Taxman, Coons.  In fact, given that no one knows for whom I vote, I can’t think of anything anyone could do or offer me that would make me not vote for Coons.  I’m in favor of taxes, because I like bridges that don’t fall into the river and schools that can supply their own writing paper.  Not so much prisons or the gallows they couldn’t give away when they tore it down a few years ago.  (And it had only been used once—in 1996(!))

I’m preparing my lawn chair and hot cocoa mug to keep up my streak of being the first in line at my polling place to vote.  So far, 2004 (loss) and 2008 (win).

Also, this is just an attempt to - I can’t even say “kick her while she’s down” because people are actually out there doing that shit this election - Delaware’s done. The article had an extremely misleading headline and was cross-posted to a variety of high-traffic sites on Gawker, even the one about cars. This seems like a concerted effort to publicly embarrass her about something that regular single adults with squeaky-clean, election ready records do all of the time. She uses campaign funds to pay her rent… people should be readying a cell for her, not pulling high school hijinks.

Wow, dating for a year without having sex?

The last time I got away with that was 1996 (pre-birth control pills for unmarried girls, and I’d seen a couple of my friends get knocked up and forced to marry.)

And yup, the boyfriend finally broke up with me. But I wasn’t ready to have sex at 16, especially when I’d seen that the consequences could be a teenage husband and a baby, and living in your parents furnished basement.

By your late ‘30s, hmmm, seems it could curtail even that getting married thing.

In other exciting Delaware-related news, I’m apparently currently engaged in a debate with O’Donnell’s primary opponent, Mike Castle, about the virtues and consequences of getting rid of federal funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (which is really a stand-in for NPR in this debate which itself is apparently symbolic of the liberal media, you know the drill). Needless to say Mr. Castle’s interpretation of statistics leaves something to be desired.

alysia:
Sorry, I meant to address it to Cris.

Here is the proof:

http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/2010/10/is_this_the_guy.php

Phoenician in a time of Romans:
I posted the link.  I was talking about how they even ended up at his place to begin with.  Meaning when they were basically looking for a dressing room.

haha, its ok. I was just curious as to how I implied I didn’t think that O’Donnell was totally weird.

judibrowni—I’m pretty sure unmarried girls could get BC in 1996.

Slightly on topic, some assholes on salon acted like O’Donnell was this big ‘tease’ for not wanting to automatically have sex with this guy she barely knew. I’m against that sort of ideology that says that a woman doesn’t have the right to choose how far she’s going to go.

There’s been a couple arguments that the story proves what a hypocrite O’Donnell is that she did anything arguably sexual. But if you’re opposed to anti-sex policies, isn’t it hypocritical to try to shame somebody for doing sexyish things?
I’m just trying to wrap my head around who’s supposed to be the hypocrite here.

Here’s the part of the gawker piece that tied my brain in a knot:

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.

She said she never had sex, BUT she wasn’t very experienced sexually.

Is that supposed to be inconsistent? Does he think somebody who’s never had sex is supposed to be sexually experienced? How?

Try to make a syllogism out of that.

I’m sorry, but, the picture of this douche?

http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/2010/10/is_this_the_guy.php

...just puts me in, as Willow might say, “a stabby mood.”

What if she just decided after she made out with him for awhile that he was… well, maybe if he’d embraced the waxing trend it would have looked bigger? And the “born-again virgin” thing was just a way of letting him down easy?

Though the cognitive dissonance between “masturbation is wrong” and “get naked with others” is a little weird.

I can feel some human sympathy for O’Donnell without admiring anything about her politics.  I read the article and the author is a total douchebag.  Smoking Gun has pretty good circumstantial evidence on who it was.  The initial suspect denied it and Gawker confirmed his denials.  But the suspect immediately after talking with Smoking Gun removed a contact from his FB page and that contact shortly thereafter took his whole page down.  It’s more involved than that, but you can follow the links starting with Calvin’s @#35 if you care to.

Why do people seem to think articles like this are worth printing?  They don’t trust the former employees who completely out themselves, but willing to post an anonymous writing about a one night stand with someone?

Ugh.  It’s disgusting.

Lost interest=Too drunk to fuck.

A “born-again virgin” is someone who has had sex, but later submitted to some purifying Jesus ritual and solemnly promised to hold out for opposite-marriage next time. It’s not the same as being being born again and a virgin.

I think O’Donnell’s Christian base will be more scandalized by the fact that she dressed up for Halloween than she failed to fuck some random douchebag.

Writing about your sexual experiences with someone, in a public place without their permission is just plain criminal harassment if not something worse. It’s one step away from releasing naked photos or a sex tape.

Here is the proof:

http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/2010/10/is_this_the_guy.php

That link merely does a good job of tracking the guy down.  If anything, it makes the story more credible.

I posted the link.  I was talking about how they even ended up at his place to begin with.  Meaning when they were basically looking for a dressing room.

Calvin - how old are you?  Seriously.

1. Dude is a douche, no doubt.
2. Reverse the gender—how many men in their late 30’s hit on women in their 20’s? Hell, how many men in their late 30’s simply hit on me a couple years ago? This is a prime example of a double standard being applied and slut shaming to boot.
3. This is why regular people are afraid of running for office…it was Halloween, she had a few drinks, a cute costume and wanted to have a hook-up…who the fuck hasn’t, but goddess forbid their are pics out there, particularly for a woman.
4. I have to second the idea that she played the reborn-virgin thing authentically and the tension between abstinence and sex seemed real. I just happen to think that sex is great and that its sad that someone would deny themselves pleasure in their late 30’s. But, it is her choice (her “lifestyle choice” as the Rethugs love to say) and I’m not gonna hate, just empathize.

MagicPony, the past often doesn’t resemble the present in unimaginable ways to those in the present.  Oh, if only all unmarried high school girls could easily get birth control pills in 1966—would that it were so in our community, there would have been fewer teenage girls forced into shotgun marriages. (Or stuffed by the dozens into the local “home for unwed mothers.”

Maybe in New York City, maybe at Planned Parenthood there, but in our small New Jersey town, it was unlikely your pediatrician, who knew your parents, would have doled it out. And may have been illegally constrained from doing so, depending on the state.

“Although the FDA approved the first oral contraceptive in 1960, contraceptives were not available to married women in all states until Griswold v. Connecticut in 1965 and were not available to unmarried women in all states until Eisenstadt v. Baird in 1972.[18][22]”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birth_control_pill

Heard a rumor of one Senior put on the Pill “for acne” in 1968, she was a transfer from a more metropolitan area in another state, and her parents arranged for that off-use. Or so the story went.

The birth control pill also wasn’t available from the infirmary of the colleges I attended. It wasn’t until about 1971 when I went to an outside clinic—and only after an argument with the doctor who didn’t want to dispense it to me—that I finally got a prescription.

Before then, I was working on a wing and a prayer, with barrier methods. Like the high school—and college girls—I knew then.

Judy—you had a typo in your original and put 1996 instead of 1966. I think MPG was just teasing you a bit.

I can’t even imagine how horrifying sex and dating must have been before the pill was widely available. It is something I literally lose sleep over.

What woman shows up at a stranger’s house unannounced and asks to change into a costume?

People out for a night on the town on Halloween?

Seriously, WTF?  I went to my sister’s friend’s place a couple of Halloweens ago, chatted for a bit, had too much to drink, and sacked out on the couch.  This was utterly ordinary.

Whoops, didn’t see my typo.

One of my childhood friends was forced into marriage after getting pregnant at 14—she was also forced out of high school at the same time.

However, they allowed her to come back for a day and take final exams when she was eight months pregnant: I believe as an object lesson to the rest of us girls.

It worked: the possibility of being forced to be a teenage wife and mother scared me off sex until I was eighteen.

I once said to a therapist that I wasn’t afraid of sex in high school, I was afraid of housework.

Or rather, the idea of being limited to a lifetime of housework, after seeing what it did to my mother and stepmother.

Also, while my mightiness is not based on the fact that I’m magical.

I’m not a witch, I’m you. But with bigger tits.

But as for the whole “one night stand” with O Donnell piece, it’s a disgrace to journalism, as well as an object lesson in sexism.

And allowing the douchebag to be anonymous! Can’t wait for him to be outed.

Gawker defends their Clarence Thomas-like pubic hair reveal by claiming they could have done worse,
“There was some salacious stuff that we didn’t put in.”

Oh really, that was restrained? Wonkette takes them to task with tongue in cheek: What Did Gawker Leave Out of Their Christine O’Donnell Pubic-Hair Story?

http://wonkette.com/428406/what-did-gawker-leave-out-of-their-christine-odonnell-pubic-hair-story#more-428406

Calvin @36, that link has exactly zero proof that he made the story up.  Zero. 

I have to echo Piator: How old are you?  Because you’d be surprised what grown-ups can get up to once they stop caring as much as adolescents do about appearances.

The douchbag revealed?

Meanwhile, the Village Voice has been trying to track down Anonymous, and after a near miss, they may have found him.

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

But is this an improvement in the ethical journalism department? (sigh.)

Best comment on that story: “Tucker Max is slipping.”

The author of that Discount Penthouse Forum letter has proven himself a kiss-and-tell douchebag of galactic proportions, and irritated me by actually making me feel bad for her.

Though the cognitive dissonance between “masturbation is wrong” and “get naked with others” is a little weird.

It’s never pretty when someone works out their personal psychological issues in public (cough MAUREEN DOWD cough).  It’s even worse if that someone has the power of a Senator at their disposal.

O’Donnell does make a very cute ladybug, tho.  If only she’d just stick with doing that.

I’m not a witch, I’m you. But with bigger tits.

Cite.

It gets to me that the guy cut himself out of the photos.  It’s just a reminder that men are allowed to protect their privacy, but women are public property.  And that even if a man and a woman do EXACTLY THE SAME THING—spend the night together—only the woman can be judged for it.  (Not that there’s anything wrong about anything that happened in this tepid story except for this guy’s shock and dismay at seeing pubic hair.)  Really have no idea what Gawker was trying to do here.  I was reminded of nothing so much as Ross Douthat’s story about his sexual encounter with a “chunkier Reese Witherspoon”, in that it revealed much more about the author than the subject.

I have to echo Piator: How old are you?  Because you’d be surprised what grown-ups can get up to once they stop caring as much as adolescents do about appearances.

I’d interpret “Can I change at your place?” or “Can I use your shower?” as “I am comfortable with you and calling attention to my body as a flirt, and to see how weird you get over it, while giving myself space to back off if you creep me out” myself.

God, I am so glad to be out of the teenage sex obsession/guilt over sex obsession years.

Well, here’s something else we can thank the Village Voice for: a wonderfully pointed parody of the Bro reveal:

EXCLUSIVE: I Got Blueballed by This Famous-Ass Chick, Yo

http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/2010/10/exclusive_i_got.php

Emmett at 25 said:
“Really?  I took her seriously, mainly b/c everyone I’ve known who’s that Catholic has actually meant it.”

I just assumed it was a put on after it came out she was living with her boyfriend in the house she was illegally paying for with campaign funds. Did I miss a refutation of that story?

But mostly, Fuck this guy a whole bunch. And everyone have a fun Halloween.

You know, if this was “Hillary Clinton” instead of “Christine O’Donnell”, the calls would already be going out to recall, impeach, or prosecute the drunken whore.

I found the changing scenario implausibly pornified. The author seemed to imply that he and his roommate were just Christine’s aunt’s tenants, i.e., that Christine was a stranger.

It makes sense to invite yourself over to an acquaintance’s place to change, especially if you’re hoping to entice them to come out with you. But the idea that a beautiful older stranger would just invite herself over to her aunts’ dudebro tenants’ house sounds too much like one of those “average guy wins sexual lottery” scenarios in porn—like the pool guy or the pizza delivery boy who just happens to call on the gorgeous, sexually insatiable older woman.

I first saw this story at Little Green Footballs, of all places. And Charles Johnson’s position on the subject is nearly identical to the position here:

I think I’ve made it pretty clear that I’m no fan of Christine O’Donnell, but this Gawker article is one of the creepiest smear jobs I’ve seen recently: I Had a One-Night Stand With Christine O’Donnell.

Yeah, it’s exactly what it sounds like, right down to details about O’Donnell’s waxing habits, or lack thereof. And of course, the author is anonymous.

Overtly misogynistic sleaze should be good for Gawker’s ad impressions for a day or two.

As inexcusable as some of the positions that Johnson used to promote on his blog were, I’m pretty convinced that his 180-degree turn from the Dark Side is legit. The guy has been hammering Glenn Beck, Andrew Breitbart, Fox News, and the Tea Cracker movement relentlessly for more than a year.

I’d interpret “Can I change at your place?” or “Can I use your shower?” as “Can I change at your place?” or “Can I use your shower?” respectively. (Because it’d be weird to interpret “Can I change at your place?” as “Can I use your shower?”)

Either way, it’s horribly crass that someone was willing to pay for that story. If someone brought that to me and asked me to publish it, I wouldn’t do it if they paid me to.

Unless politicians are doing something illegal in the process, like trading sexual favours for drilling rights in national parks, I don’t care about what they’re doing. I don’t want to hear about it. If this story had been about that, it might be relevant, but either way, we don’t need to know the details. Just that something shady was going on. I understand that this is the internet, but is this truly necessary?

Can I use your towel? My car just hit a water buffalo.

But I don’t want water buffalo on my towel.

MPG: I’m not a witch, I’m you. But with bigger tits.

PIATOR: Cite.

And, in a flash, Pandagon becomes 4chan. 

If the sight of pubic hair deflates this guy’s hardon, he’s got way bigger problems than he thinks.

Maybe she was a committed “born again virgin” and maybe she wasn’t.  Maybe when he took off his pants she got bowled over by ass smell, or maybe he had a two inch dick.

Maybe a lot of shit. 

This is so much like that “liberal” guy who had that blog “I fucked ann coulter in the ass hard” that all the “liberal” guys loved to flock to.

Gawker is affliated with or owns Jezebel right?  Fucking for shame.

Cite.

Cite.

I find Christine O’Donnell to be more human now.  Knowing she gets tipsy, dresses up for Halloween, deals with tools, maintains her standards to some degree, and even that she doesn’t shave or wax makes her much more like a real person and much less like the stuffy idiot that she plays while campaigning for a Senate seat.

I still don’t want her within 93,000,000 miles of any political power, but I’m glad she isn’t the Stepford Wife from Hell that her public statements make her out to be.  If she’s a hypocrite, she’s better for it.

  Cite.

Cite.

It took me three viewings before I realised that wasn’t O’Donnell.  I really must remember to look at the face sooner.

I still don’t want her within 93,000,000 miles of any political power, but I’m glad she isn’t the Stepford Wife from Hell that her public statements make her out to be.  If she’s a hypocrite, she’s better for it.

It makes me extra sad because it’s like hey, O’Donnell, if you’d stop saying fucked up stuff we could hang out sometime? Your non-Tea-Bagger personality seems fun. Let us liberal women crawl out from beneath the bus you’ve thrown us under and then we’ll have girl talk about douchebags and bond!

The eyes are about a foot higher, PiatoR.

snobographer : I think that was poor sentence construction on his part. The “But there were signs that she wasn’t very experienced sexually” part was supposed to stand in contrast to “She made it seem like she’d never had sex in her life, which seemed pretty improbable for a woman her age.”

I do love the Gawker/Wonkette/a lot of other people piling on a race where the (D) is winning by 20 points, ignoring the 7-8 Senate races where they’re losing by 5-10 points.

The internet has once again taught me why bros are sometimes even worse people than conservatives.

Besides making me sympathize with her, this makes me think of her as more of a normal person than I did prior to hearing about this. If you’d asked me a week ago how I thought she’d have acted at a Halloween party, I’d have said “She’d probably storm in, condemn everyone to Hell, and throw the punchbowl across the room in case it had demon alcohol in it.”.

sorry boys and girls, teens and tots, children of all ages, i’m not buying into the (apparently fashionable, but lacking substance) “oh, that poor christine o’donnell, look what that cad did to her!” trope. last time i checked, hopping into the sack naked with someone is not considered good chastity form, sex usually comes of it, which is normally the intent to begin with. anyone checked with her ob/gyn, to determine if the woman really is a virgin (not that it matters, aside from her own braying claims of it), because so far, all we have is her less-than-credible word for it.

perhaps, after getting in the sack with this guy, all intent to get her jollies (nothing wrong with that), she had second thoughts about doing a guy 13 years her junior, that she basically picked up,  so she blurted out the “i am a virgin” bit to freak him out. apparently, it succeeded (and really, if a 38 year-old, not a priest or nun, told you they were a virgin, wouldn’t that give you cause to pause? it should.), and they spent the night in chaste repose. or something like that. maybe he fondled her boobs, or not.

sure, it’s kind of sleazy, in a douchebaggy sort of way. and your point? had ms. o’donnell not made her whole “i am such a good christian girl, still a virgin, unmarried (color me stunned!), and that’s what i bring to this political table” nonsense such an integral part of her campaign, i’d say you had a point. unfortunately, like many a republican “family values” politician preceeding her, she did (see: vitter & craig), while, it turns out, engaging in that “wide stance” herself. thank god no diapers were involved.

and so, you have no point, nor does she.

sorry boys and girls, teens and tots, children of all ages, i’m not buying into the (apparently fashionable, but lacking substance) “oh, that poor christine o’donnell, look what that cad did to her!” trope. last time i checked, hopping into the sack naked with someone is not considered good chastity form, sex usually comes of it, which is normally the intent to begin with. anyone checked with her ob/gyn, to determine if the woman really is a virgin (not that it matters, aside from her own braying claims of it), because so far, all we have is her less-than-credible word for it.

In fairness to O’Donnell, she doesn’t claim to be a virgin. Quite the opposite, she admits to having had sex in college and during her twenties. She claims to be a “born-again virgin”, meaning that she (supposedly) no longer engages in premarital PIV sex, even though she previously had premarital PIV sex. I think most people made the assumption that because of her stated beliefs about sexuality that she must have claimed to be a virgin herself since she has never been married and believes premarital sex is immoral. She doesn’t claim to be a virgin, though she does claim to practice abstinence today.

There’s a lot to go after her regarding her completely bizarre views on sexuality, but I don’t think this guy’s story necessarily exposes anything other than his infantile fratboy douchey nature.

I don’t see it as my place to judge her chastity or lack thereof.  You know the old saying, for male politicians it has to be a dead girl or a live boy.  Having even a pantyless makeout session really isn’t that big of a deal, writing anonymous tell-alls does make me think the person is a jerk.  And I was impressed that she managed to communicate and negotiate consent, and what she was and wasn’t willing to do.

In fact, good for her on that point.  That is pretty damn mature.

Also, regarding whether she is a hypocrite, I know Christians who draw the line at all kinds of points.  Some don’t kiss or cuddle or even touch.  But I know one who believes in it very much, in order to gauge physical compatibility.  Father Greeley has made the point that the Catholic Church should be more focused on couples having a playful, healthy sexuality in marriage, which means a playful, healthy sexuality *before* marriage too, and thinks that is more important than whether or not a couple boinks.  Maybe she is of that belief system.

She looks so happy in that picture, it makes me want to hug her and vote for her.

Gawker is affliated with or owns Jezebel right?  Fucking for shame.
Yes, and Jezebel defended the publication of that crap by saying O’Donnell is a Crazy Bitch.

Wow, I just read the story, it’s even more pointless than you make it sound.
And “Obviously, that was a big turnoff, and I quickly lost interest.”. Obviously ? Go die in a fire asshole.

I also love how her costume matches her red eyes. Something to keep in mind next time I need to choose a costume to be photographed indoors in.

A better example of her hypocrisy is this story:  http://www.delawareonline.com/article/20101028/NEWS02/10280327

O’Donnell went on the local news radio conservative talk show, made a total ass of herself because (as usual) she couldn’t answer a question, tried to get her goon to intervene, lost that fight, then threatened to sue lest anyone see the video that she knew was being taped because (a) that’s how WDEL rolls and (b) the cameraman is on camera adjusting his camera with her looking on.

Then her campaign says this gem:  “This is another example of the liberal media shamelessly attacking Christine O’Donnell to boost their ratings,” his statement said, even though Jensen is a well- known conservative.

Rick Jensen has been her biggest supporter.  I wasn’t able to listen to his show yesterday afternoon, but I’m trying to find out if he has pulled his endorsement of her.

O’Donnell certainly does her best to come off as a crazy lady, but man, the author of that piece sure isn’t doing himself any favors.  About the most charitable reading of that, so far as I can see, is “Christ, what an asshole.”.  It’s not even an expose, unless the bar’s been set so low that now “She says all this shit, but then she fucking lives up to it.  Can you fucking believe that?” is considered as such.

I actually kind of admire O’Donnell for going after a younger man, and it makes me sick to admire anything about her.  I have a very liberal friend and she won’t even date or talk to a guy who is 6 months younger than she is.  Many women, but especially conservative women, feel like they have to find an older guy for some reason.

Anyway, my theory is that the douche lost his boner because of too much alcohol, nervousness, or just general lack of experience.  And then he was really embarrassed by it so he made up whatever excuse he could find to blame it on the woman rather than admit that he trouble keeping it up.  I’ve met some guys like that.  The sad thing is that I personally don’t really think it’s a big deal if a guy goes soft occasionally, especially when he’s drunk.  I guess it’s a case of the Patriarchy Hurts Men Too when they have to feel this embarrassed by not having a raging boner on-demand.

So all night this is guy is stalked by a cougar and when it comes down to it, he’s got nothing, at all, and nowhere to go.

LMAO

he really should have kept this story to himself.

As a feminist, I really, really, hate that the uses of the word “douche” and “douchebag” as pejoratives have gone mainstream. It’s just as antiwoman as “gay” (meaning stupid) is homophobic, and as “lame” is ableist, etc.

For one thing, the use of the latter doesn’t even make sense. The bag is the cleanest part of the whole procedure.

Calling someone a useless item used to shame women is antifeminist now?

“Lame” isn’t ableist: it’s an accurate description of something that doesn’t get things done in an effective manner.  Calling someone who is actually lame “lame-o” is offensive, but calling something that is ineffective a “lame attempt” is an apt description.  “Lame” has an actual meaning that suggests an inability to move efficiently.  It’s not ableist to mention that some people are better able to move around than others; it’s ableist to not make reasonable accommodations to allow such people to have equal opportunities in work and life.

“Gay” used in the manner ttintagel mentions is not very nice, but unnecessarily putting unintelligent people into that conversation is probably offensive somehow.  I hope there is an apology coming, as I have a number of stupid relatives and friends.

Damn you Gawker for making me sympathize with Christine O’Donnell!

Seriously though, it sounds to me like Ms. O’Donnell was trying to explore her sexuality on her own terms and Mr. Anonymous got pissed off because she wasn’t willing to go all the way with him.  I wouldn’t be surprised if he’s one of those rape apologists who think it would have been perfectly fine for him to force the issue because she so readily got naked with him and then got all touchy feely.

Oh, and memo to Mr. Anonymous, bodyscaping goes both ways.  Unless he’s willing to say that he always keeps his situation all trimmed and tidy at all times…  Wait, no, he’s still a creep for supposedly not wanting to “go there” with her because she wasn’t as bald as a 10 year old girl.

Wow, that gawker item was just plain offensive, and the author is a jackass.

@3letterjon: lame as synonym of bad is ableist because it starts from the premise that being disabled is inherently bad. Same with gay as insult: it starts from the premise that being gay is bad. Can you ever write a comment that doesn’t come across as mansplaining?

Thanks colorless I’m going to go read that article on jezebel now, but I know I’m not going to like it.  Well, Jezebel is entertainment for me, they’re not my source for feminist issues and thought.  Let’s be honest about them.

I don’t think “lame” is considered bad when attributed to something ineffective.  It just suggests that it doesn’t quite get the job done.  I don’t really know if I use the term much or not, but I find its use to be very different from the usage of “gay” as meaning “stupid”.  Calling a person “lame” is a different matter: that’s pretty much as ableist as can be, even if it is an accurate description of that person’s physical abilities.  I’d never use it in that way.

Gawker are the only ones that come off as hypocrites here.  Instead of being honest and saying that they did it for the lulz and pageviews, they are pretending to claim the high moral ground of exposing political hypocrisy. All I see is a woman who is super-confused about sexuality try to be sexual within weird boundaries she set for herself. I also see a giant dudebro douchebag. If there’s one person who deserved to have his anonymity broken on the internets, it’s this dude. May every woman in the US see his smug dudebro mug and avoid him like douching.

I don’t see it as my place to judge her chastity or lack thereof.  You know the old saying, for male politicians it has to be a dead girl or a live boy. 

Let’s be fair - getting caught with either of these will ruin the career of female politicians too…

She looks so happy in that picture, it makes me want to hug her and vote for her.

*Bap* No!  Bad Caravelle, BAD!

Don’t make me use the rolled up newspaper again on you, young lady!

FFS 3letter, is there anything that you won’t defend?

#90 Jezebel’s… not quite what it used to be.

#108 What she’s saying is that the bar is higher for female sexual conduct from jump. A female David Vitter, for instance, would be done for.

#108 What she’s saying is that the bar is higher for female sexual conduct from jump. A female David Vitter, for instance, would be done for.

Yes, I know.  Pointing out that a female politician would “also” be in trouble if caught in bed with a live boy was humour.

Yes, douches were used in the past to shame women, and overuse of them, use of them by women who didn’t need them, and the use of inappropriate produts in them was pushed by people looking to make a profit. Most women don’t need them, and for those who don’t they can do more harm than good.

Many women also don’t need the bras society tells them they must wear. But for others, they’re a valuable tool for comfort.  For anyone who has never needed either a bra or an occasional douche for comfort, I salute you.

But do you really think it’s use as a pejorative has anything whatsoever to do with its being pushed on women? If so, why aren’t “girdle,” “high heel,” “pantyhose,” or “medically unneccessary caesarian” used as insults? No, its use comes from a male, “Ew, gross, it touches ladyparts!” reaction.

I am going to start thowing all of those as insults.

lame as synonym of bad is ableist because it starts from the premise that being disabled is inherently bad.

Being lame is optimal? So, when are you going in to have the laming procedure performed on yourself?

“Bad” has a host of meanings (and is, btw, probably derived from the O.E. word baeden: an effeminate man) some of which certainly apply to the physically disabled. Lame is not a synonym for bad in the sense of “evil”, it’s a synonym for bad in the sense of “broken”. “You’re lame” isn’t saying you’re malevolent, it’s saying something about you - logic or personality usually - is sub-optimal, disabled or incapable of normal activity. It’s a perfectly cromulant ambulatory metaphor along the lines of “run” (a program), “walk” (through a plan), “steps” (of said plan), “skip” (an appointment) or “slip” (of the tongue). Ambulatory and perceptive (see, hear, look, blind, deaf, etc.) metaphors are the very basis of language.

The word is not like “gay” because there is NOTHING wrong - mentally, morally or physically - with being homosexual while there most certainly is something wrong - physically - with being lame. And, honestly, if you don’t like unpleasant things being used as metaphors for other unpleasant things (a “cancer” on society for instance) then you may want to find a rock, in a cave, on Mars to live under.

Jezebel’s editor’s response made me lawl
http://twitter.com/AnnaHolmes/status/29086111727

Ok, teachable moment:

Why do we sympathize with Christine O’Donnell?  Because we are basically nice people who don’t want bad things to happen to other people. 

Don’t feel bad about your fundamental decency.  Own it.  O’Donnell’s just another nutjob, and she even did us the favor of knocking off Purportedly Sane Republican Mike Castle.  So we as a country kind of owe her one anyway.

Have you people ever seen a witch’s bush? Remember Blair Witch Project? You’re not getting outta there.

“medically unnecessary ceasarean” is my new favorite term of derision.

I have no idea how the etymology of “douche” works, especially because it refers to a particular subset of misogynist entitled men.  It’s just the word for those people, almost completely divorced from the original meaning, which to my generation refers to an obsolete thing like a whalebone corset or fainting couch.

Many people with disabilities don’t consider themselves broken, don’t feel there’s something wrong with them, consider their disabilities as part of their identities and wouldn’t want to be fixed. Lame in particular is a slur they’ve complained about as being not only offensive, but also hurtful.

“You’re lame” isn’t saying you’re malevolent, it’s saying something about you - logic or personality usually - is sub-optimal, disabled or incapable of normal activity.

That’s exactly why it’s ableist, because it defines something as normal and something else as not normal.
_______

That Jezebel author tweets alternate between (implied) criticizing the Gawker crap, and (more openly) treating it as a funny joke.
*confused*

I’m w/ Blue Texan on this one.  O’Donnell planted this story to try and salvage her losing campaign.  Occam’s razor - Gawker’s been had.

I can’t believe we’re having this damn conversation about “lame” again. For goodness sake, if a victimised group tells you that they’d rather you didn’t use that word, thank you very much, as they find it offensive, for gods sake just do it!  Who are you exactly to dictate what words they should and shouldn’t find offensive?  Oh, that’s right, a privileged majority who probably has little or no part of their identity and being used as an insult. 

How difficult is it to find a different word anyway?  The English language is fricking famous for having a zillion synonyms for crying out loud.  Use your imagination.

Lame as a complaint is stupid.  No one uses it to describe humans.  To complain about ‘lame’ is to complain about ‘disabled’ - that way leads to double plus ungood.

Fer crissake, people don’t mean “you’re a cripple” or “a horse worthy of euthanasia” when they say “you’re lame” anymore, they’re just saying you’re weak or sub-par.  The term “lame” hasn’t been used to describe handicapped people since the 1940s.  Seems like some sub-groups are just sitting around waiting for someone to knock the chips off their shoulders.

When a victimized group tells me not to use a word for them, I won’t use it.  When they choose a word that isn’t theirs, they’ve gone from reasonable request to unreasonable request.  They might not like being called disabled, but it still describes the lack of a set of abilities; it is also not generally used as an insult - just as lame is not used as a description for disabled people.

At this point, you’ve gone from reasonable request to removing perfectly good descriptions.  It would be like a gay organization saying you ought not use the word ‘flaming’ or ‘flamboyant’ because they were used to describe people negatively.  It’s an over-reach to the point of restricting conversation.

Fer crissake, people don’t mean “you’re a cripple” or “a horse worthy of euthanasia” when they say “you’re lame” anymore, they’re just saying you’re weak or sub-par.

Why do feminists complain so much, women can already vote and we don’t even do FGM here, so start behaving a good girl already, sexism doesn’t exist anymore! *pats head*

Should we stop saying “that sucks” too? Its origins are misogynistic and homophobic.

Idiot, moron, and imbecile all have disableist origins. And I’ve seen people corrected for using them, by able-bodied people.

That section of your car, toward the rear on the passenger side, that you can’t see in your rear-view - what do we call that?

These arguments can get pretty pedantic at times.

Apples, meet oranges.  Continuing to define a word in a manner that’s fallen out of use only serves to reintroduce said offensive usage into the popular lexicon.  That defeats the purpose of raising the objection in the first place.

Okay, I feel sorry for her because this guy kissed-and-told, and is an asshole.  But I’m still voting for Coons. 

Three more days of relevance until back to lurking.  Pretty soon, I’ll be counting down hours until Tuesday at 7 a.m.

That section of your car, toward the rear on the passenger side, that you can’t see in your rear-view - what do we call that?

Car? You privileged fuck! Don’t you know there are people who have to bus? Shut your temporarily-car-enabled piehole!

;p

Proposed new O’Donnell ad:

“I’m not a sexual hypocrite.  I’m exactly like what you’ve heard. I’m you. None of us are perfect, but none of us can be happy with what we see all around us, women who think actually having sex, being okay with having sex and not fooling around with men who will kiss (but nothing else) and tell are the ways to stay happy. I’ll go to Washington and do what you’d do. I’m Christine O’Donnell, and I approve this message. I’m you.”

The use of the word “disabled” is vile and hateful. To imply that a person is unable to do something is just an easy way to otherize them, to dehumanize them. All individuals deserve respect and to single out people because of their physical status and/or implying that there is some sort of “normal” way to exist is so degrading that I can not believe it is still happening in this day and age.

#74: Well, look what it did for John Ruskin.

I totally agree with all of 3 of your main points, but I have to pull you up on the ‘like attracts like’ comment on behalf of all the people in abusive relationships. Surely you have found yourself attracted to at least one person who turned out to be a douchebag?

@129: Bagelsan - I actually don’t have a car myself, but I know what a blind spot is and I’m not afraid to say it.

Just to be clear on this, I have heard credible claims that “that sucks” and “that blows” both come from engineering, specifically from pistons.  A defective piston sucks.  And blows.

This from someone in their 80s who claims to have heard the phrases used in the modern sense in the 30s and 50s.

It’s not easy to trace slang etymology, but that’s early, with the fellatio usage of sucks only dating to 1928 (!) and the derogatory usage first cited in 1971 (!) in etymoonline.com.

“Blows” appears to predate “sucks” by a lot and originates from sailing (“I’ll be blowed”).