Tag Archives: gawker

National Organization for Women gone wild: sex-free Christine O’Donnell savagely ‘slut-shamed’

I don’t enjoy being in the position of criticizing the National Organization for Women, but these comments are ridiculous.

If your internet has been turned off over the last 48 hours, here’s the recap: website Gawker.com posted a recounted story of a then-25-year old man who opened his front door on Halloween to find the once (and future) 39 year-old Senate candidate Christine O’Donnell. She remembered meeting him, and I guess she thought he was attractive. They go out to a bar, they go back to his place, they go to his bedroom, she undresses, and then she tells him she is and will remain a virgin. He’s not too happy with that. In the morning, he drives her back to her car. End of affair, all of — what — 10 hours?

Three years later, she gets the Republican nod for Senate, she gets loads of attention, and she’s the anti-sex and anti-masturbation candidate. He finds the whole thing bizarre. He tells Gawker, they pay him, they publish his story, the internet goes crazy. Liberals are particularly furious: it’s anti-women, it’s the usual crap, it’s opportunistic and it’s dirt-cheap politics.

That last part was Thursday. I wrote a post on it with this view: the idealistic notion that a politician’s sexual behavior must remain perfectly secret is laughable. While a noble idea, it’s never been the case for men, it won’t be the case for women, it’ll never be the case for anybody, ever. This story is not an expression of misogyny on the world’s part, it’s an expression of foolishness on the part of Christine and her ‘date.’

Well, cue the National Organization for Women. And while you’re at it, start up the cliche machine:

NOW to Media: Stop Reducing Women Candidates to Sex Objects
Statement of NOW President Terry O’Neill
October 28, 2010

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

I get the feeling that Terry O’Neill spent very little time writing this. Either that, or her job has gotten so routine as to be reflexive, there’s very little in here that makes sense.

Christine O’Donnell has gotten mountains and mountains of press. These are only a few of the things the world might know of her: Conservative, Republican, anti-sex, anti-porn, anti-masturbation, pro-marriage, anti-gay, anti-condom, pro-abstinence, anti-government, anti-evolution, anti-science, anti-brains, anti-Obama, anti-healthcare, anti-stimulus, totally Tea Party, fundamentalist Christian, witchcraft dabbling, Hare Krishna curious, campaign-fund pilfering, former Bill Maher show pundit, and about to get her ass kicked in the election.

But now that Gawker published that true story, she’s been ‘reduced to a sex object’? The crusader VIRGIN? Hullo?! Try the opposite: the barely lustful tale just got added to her massive personality profile.

And sexism? Misogyny? To my mind, those are efforts to denigrate or disrespect someone. Good luck making those claims stick to a story that’s both true and, frankly, vanilla. More:

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

Wow. There was no ‘sexual degradation’ between the couple that night. So if it didn’t happen, if it never existed in reality, then where else did it come from? From Terry O’Neill’s mind. Right? She thinks sex is abnormal and dirty. Therefore, reminding people of it, bringing it into the light of day, is degrading to the participants. Oops, sorry: to the participating woman. “Leave the twisted female sex life alone!” she’s saying. For the rest of us, sex is normally a dirty good thing. Yay.

NOW repudiates Gawker’s decision to run this piece. It operates as public sexual harassment. And like all sexual harassment, it targets not only O’Donnell, but all women contemplating stepping into the public sphere.

Worse and worse. There is not a single definition of ‘sexual harassment’ which remotely applies. You’d think the President of NOW would come close. Unless she’s claiming that the whole planet is a politician’s work environment. Then every sex scandal provides a cause for action, and all Christine O’Donnell has to do is to sue . . Zeus? No having sex with anyone else on Earth, incidentally — company policy.

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

. . and that might be the sadly crowning effort, there. If Gawker were denigrating her, she would have been denigrated. If they were scorning her, she would have gotten scorned. But since they were ‘slut-shaming‘ her, Christine got slut-shamed. Congratulations Terry, you’re the first person to match up ‘slut’ with the iron-clad chastity ditz, O’Donnell. What a good friend you turned out to be.

Reminds me of the time I went over to see my niece as she got ready for the Homecoming dance. When she walked out into the living room, I said, “Wow, look at you, in that low-cut dress . .” That’s when my sister pressed “So she’s a slut to you, too?”

Similarly, reminds me of the time when that 39 year-old virgin politician showed up at the door of a 25 year-old woman on some Halloween night. Yada yada Gawker yada yada . . and the Men’s Rights League said “This is textbook sexism and misanthropy. It is not acceptable to use cad-shaming against him, or any man.”

Okay, what’s going on here? If anything, really?

My guess: with increasing freedom, especially of the sexual kind, women are free to take the initiative as they please. But let’s not pretend that with the proliferation of sexual events, especially of the more casual nature, as O’Donnell’s date was, that tales of a random ‘affair’ won’t make their way out of the bedroom. Men and women talk about sex — always have, always will. And the more meaningless it was, the more likely it is that the encounter will go public. This has always been true for men, and now it’s increasingly true for women. Welcome, ladies.


Anti-sex crusader Christine O’Donnell does hook up with young guys but doesn’t go all the way

These are revelations about a current Senate candidate? Wow. Politics has certainly changed since the days when I used to stare at the TV and wonder how anyone could like that old prune, Ronald Reagan.

Gawker has a first person tell-all with a (then) 25 year-old who hooked up with a 39 year-old Christine O’Donnell. Here’s a bit of the story:

I barely knew Christine when she turned up at my door at around eight o’clock on the night of Halloween. We’d met for the first and only time three months earlier when my two roommates and I signed the lease on our apartment: Christine’s aunt owned the place we were moving into, and she happened to be up from Delaware visiting at the time . .

Aggressive is another word I’d use to describe her. At the bar, she confessed to me that her aunt really hadn’t been sleeping. She hadn’t even gone to her apartment to check, she said. She had remembered me from our five-minute meeting the previous summer, and used the story about her aunt as an excuse to knock on my door. She’d set her sights on me from the beginning . .

Things got physical on the couch pretty quickly. It wasn’t long before we’d moved from the living room to my bed.

I won’t get into the nitty gritty details of what happened between the sheets that evening. But I will say that it wasn’t half as exciting as I’d been hoping it would be. Christine was a decent kisser, but as soon as soon as her clothes came off and she was naked in my bed, Christine informed me that she was a virgin.

“You’ve got to be kidding,” I said. She didn’t explain at the time that she was a “born-again virgin.” She made it seem like she’d never had sex in her life, which seemed pretty improbable for a woman her age. And she made it clear that she was planning on staying a virgin that night. But there were signs that she wasn’t very experienced sexually . .

Feel free to familiarize yourself with more of the racy details.

What’s most interesting about this is the reaction to it. Plenty of left-wing and liberal voices are furious about Gawker’s piece (here’s just one, there are dozens). It’s a political ‘hit’ that smacks of misogyny, of throwback anti-feminism, of lurid opportunism, etc., you name it. Fine, I hear that, I respect those views. I wouldn’t want someone to do that to me, so it stinks.

But, first, I don’t find the story changes my opinion of her — she’s a fool who is unqualified for the job she desperately wants. And, second, what planet did all of you wake up on this afternoon? What happened to all the obvious political realities being ignored in the tumult?

Since when are sex lives sacred in the political realm? Since when have there been expectations for perfect secrecy regarding major political figures’ behavior and decisions? In any facet of life? When has politics ever been civilized? Should politicians’ sexual behavior be private and secret? YES. Feel free to rouse me from my grave when reality finally turns in that direction.

Wasn’t she the anti-sex candidate? She sure as hell was. O’Donnell made people’s personal sexual behavior a part of her crusading personality and her effort to connect with the voters. They eventually gave her the Republican nomination. Quote:

O’DONNELL: . . The sad reality is — yes, there is something you can do about it. And the sad reality, to tell them slap on a condom is not —

NIES: You’re going to stop the whole country from having sex?

O’DONNELL: Yeah. Yeah!

NIES: You’re living on a prayer if you think that’s going to happen.

O’DONNELL: That’s not true. I’m a young woman in my thirties and I remain chaste.

She benefited from these righteous lectures, she became the far right-winger in the year of the crazies. She won the nomination. That sort of crusading makes for an easy target for all sorts of people, including your former sex partners. And obviously, ‘chaste’ is a word with many definitions in O’Donnell’s world.

Sex is not a proper weapon in politics (if you’re a liberal). I applaud your nobility. I mock your obliviousness. Anybody remember the impeachment of the last Democratic president? What about Obama being ‘smeared’ as a gay coke whore? Anybody remember Ann Coulter calling Bill Clinton and John Edwards prodigious adulterers who are very likely homosexuals? Remember Gary Hart? How about David Vitter’s free pass back to the Senate? Then how about this: O’Donnell’s own campaign employees ‘smearing’ her primary opponent as a closeted, adulterous homosexual? Hmm? Can I stop there?

When a 39 year old former (and future) Senate candidate seduces an anonymous 25 year old, that’s healthy feminism? No, it’s political recklessness. If this seduced person turns out to be a shallow immature oaf, perfectly willing to scuttle a national political career, it’s misogyny? It’s just stupidity on both parties’ parts.

I’m pretty sure I could do this all day. Gawker is a gossip and pop culture site, but they should sit on the story? Any of you familiar with the definition of the word ‘gawker’? Have you seen their ridiculous traffic numbers today? Even though they’re a business, their real loyalties should be to whom exactly? A politician? Please.

UPDATE: O’Donnell responds by pretty much admitting it . .

This story is just another example of the sexism and slander that female candidates are forced to deal with. From Secretary Clinton, to Governor Palin, to soon-to-be Governor Haley, Christine’s political opponents have been willing to engage in appalling and baseless attacks . .

‘Slander’ and ‘baseless attacks’? That’s a stretch, something would have to be a lie. Anyway the paranoid right-wingers see an evil master-puppet behind it all:

Classless Coons goons have proven yet again to have no sense of common decency or common sense with their desperate attacks to get another rubber stamp for the Obama-Pelosi-Reid . .

. . which reminds me of something, evil master-puppet wise. A woman by the name of Krystal Ball (yes) is a 28 year-old Democrat running for congress in Virginia. A Conservative blog got a hold of photos of a Christmas party in which Krystal is seen fellating the dildo-appointed outfit of her husband. Here:

The same gossip goon site, Gawker, acquired and published the images for all the world to see. The ‘controversy’ demanded a statement from Krystal, and this was it:

“Society has to accept that women of my generation have sexual lives that are going to leak into the public sphere. Sooner or later, this is a reality that has to be faced, or many young women in my generation will not be able to run for office.”

Amen. So, let’s ask ourselves: with all of this vigorous hand-wringing who are we really worried about protecting? Our parents? Do we really believe there will ever be a time when sex won’t be interesting to us? Why would people’s sex lives ever manage to side-step politics? Christine O’Donnell turned out to be Christine O’Donnell. Whatever.