I have a slight interest in the crazier aspects of US politics and I ran across a story from a ‘tabloid’ website called Gawker. It’s about the senate candidate Christine O’Donnell who’s renowned for her rather puritan attitude towards sex.
The story is entitled “I had a one night stand with Christine O’Donnell” and pretty much does what it says on the tin. With photographs. The story was written by the guy involved and is misogynistic and weirdly detailed.
The debate is first whether it was right of Gawker to publish the story and secondly whether this will help of hinder O’Donnell’s campaign.
Here is her response which I think OK but unfair for attacking her opponent Chris Coons as he has called the story ‘despicable’ and hasn’t as far as I’ve seen tried to take advantage of it.
The website has posted their reasoning for posting it,which is worth a read. I was wondering what the opinion of people here was - would you have published?
I dont get it. What’s the point of her putting the moves on a guy she has seen 5 mns 3 months ago, basically behaving more like a college girl in Cancun than a 40ish carreer woman, going in bed with the guy the very same evening, NOT TO HAVE SEX? (Of course, technically she could have sex while still staying a virgin, but I just dont understand the logic here. And what’s the point? Staying a virgin while you’re young for moral reasons, ok , I can understand. Coninuing to do it when you’ve hit 40 sounds really creepy.)
The guy who wrote the item is an asshole, and it’s less relevant to the campaign than he and Gawker think. O’Donnell comes off as a little dopey and slightly hypocritical–not news–but if anything stands to gain slightly on the reaction.
I think she made it fair game when she claimed in public not to believe in that sort of behavior. Not that I don’t believe she could regret what she did three years ago, but, when running for office, you are being legitimately judged. If you’ve done anything to the opposite of what you preach, you’d better confess before it comes out from someone else, or, if you want to be a crooked politician, pay them off.
Many “Christian” women who like sexual stuff tend to do this. As long as they don’t cross the PiV line, they’re okay. It’s a way to have their cake and eat it, too. It’s people like this that make my sister, a true Christian virgin in every sense, very upset at the hypocrisy.
That is a good point, though. I think everyone who is going to be persuaded that she is a hypocrite has already been persuaded, and it does give ammunition to those who think the story shouldn’t have been run.
Of course, since it took someone else to point that out, I probably would have run it anyways based on my previous response.
This. It’s not that I don’t think the information in this story is relevant. It’s that we have no proof other than this guy’s word. Yeah, it looks like his roommate sort of corroborated the story, but even that’s not enough to go by, especially when you’re that makes claims as seedy as this story did. And that the guy didn’t want his name published certainly wouldn’t make me feel any better about running it.
By publishing a story of questionable veracity, all they’re doing is giving more ammunition to the right.
Gawker does gossip, so it’s right up their alley. What annoys me is that they cross-posted it to all of their sister sites. I’m not reading Gizmodo to hear about O’Donnell’s cooch. They seem to think it’s far, far more important than it actually is, as mentioned up thread.
The people who support her aren’t going to be swayed by this. All it does is make Gawker and the asshole who wrote it look bad. If anything, she just showed how awesome technical virginity can be.
It’s like if somebody wanted to do an edgy PSA for abstinence:
“You can get drunk and go out partying and get naked with random guys and still not expose yourself to the risk of pregnancy! ROCK ON!”
Worth a read in the sense of being a totally rationalizing piece of BS?
Seems to me that if you call yourself “Gawker” and publish anonymous smear pieces like this, then you fall in the category of “The National Enquirer”. In that case, I guess they are justified in publishing it-- they just don’t get to be called an objective news outlet.
WTH did Coons have to do with this? It seems mighty opportunistic of her to blame her political opponent for the loose lips of someone that she dated. Yeah, it’s pretty uncouth to publicly go into that much detail about a sexual encounter, but she did kind of open the door to that with her self-righteous pronouncements. To do so anonymously, seems especially douchey.
As to Gawker publishing this story, I thought celebrity gossip was their biz. She’s a public figure. Gossip about public figures sells. I don’t like it, so I don’t buy it. If the story crosses the line into slander, Ms. O’Donnell can avail herself of the legal system, just like anyone else can.
Finally, the feminists have a lot of nerve bitching about how poor women are always marginalized in this manner. Maybe they should ask Gary Hart how he enjoyed his sexual indiscretions being publicized. Then, they can go talk to Senator Wide Stance. What a load of feminist bullshit.
This. I grew up with many of these girls who were “saving themselves for their husband” but would blow any guy that they knew for more than 5 minutes. It was a twisted idea of sexual purity that makes no sense.
So you get drunk and naked and make out with a stranger in his apartment? But that is okay because there was no actual penetration involved?
I think that this guy is an asshole for publishing the article but it does reveal some hypocrisy in her “sexual purity” beliefs.
Her hypocrisy and insanity is well documented and well known. There are a zillion reasons to dismiss her as a goofy ass bimbo, but her sexual habits are her business. I care that she talks endlessly about the constitution as her guiding light and does not know whats in it.
I never believed or cared about her virginity. I was interested that she was using campaign finances for personal bills.
One is the breaking of a serious vow and doing emotional damage to one’s partner, as well as potentially exposing them to diseases. The other is a strange, but not at all uncommon, view of what constitutes sexual purity that does no harm to anyone. Neither is anybody’s business, but they aren’t on the same level of behavior.