I think publishing that story- that unverified, irrelevant story- was pretty scummy. I hereby denounce it.
That said, I gotta admit- O’Donnell’s kinda cute in those pictures. But you don’t stick your dick in the crazy.
Just once. It can be great. Then run like hell.
Depends whether “the crazy” is in her mouth or lower down.
My biggest fear is that O’Donnell doesn’t go away after today, that she hangs around annd actually gets more exposure like Sarah Palin.
Anyone who purports to be a religious puritan that rails against people for having the kind of sex she feels is wrong, and then gets caught in their own hypocrisy, deserves to be outed
Yes, it’s “slut shaming”, as the article calls it.
Yes, it’s a bigger deal because she’s a youngish, attractive female
Yes, a comparable male politician probably wouldn’t be excoriated for the same thing
None of that matters because Christine herself runs on false premises. The people deserve to know that their anti-masturbatory, halo-wearing fundie is just the kind of slutty, drunk whorish bimbo as she attacks.
If she never said a thing about sex and focuses her campaign on something else entirely, then the article is distasteful and wrong. But she brought it on herself by lying about it and attacking others for the same thing
Same question: let’s imagine a female politician who makes safe-sex a big part of her platform. She constantly pushes for more funding for safe sex education, condom supplies for distribution to high school students and sex workers, and PSAs extolling the value of practicing safe sex.
And let’s imagine a similar story is told by an anonymous contributor to a magazine, but in this one, not only do they have sex, it’s bareback.
Has she brought it on herself?
Didn’t someone already answer that question? What? You didn’t like the answer the first time.
Is your hypothetical safe sex educator promoting herself as someone who would only have safe sex because to do otherwise is immoral and reprehensible? If so, then yes, she’s a goddamn hypocrite, too, and if she had any sense at all, she’d understand that when it comes to teenagers, “do as I say, not as I do” is completely ineffectual.
That’s true. I think even I would find a hairy vagina “a big turnoff.” :eek:
Yes, one person did. But surely you’re not suggesting that I can impute one person’s answer to everyone, are you?
You planning on starting a poll, then? I’d say it’s more efficient.
I loathe O’Donnell, and while I support exposing her hypocrisy, the man did so in a crass and misogynistic way. It sounds more as if it was done out of spite – not to say she’s a hypocrite.
The attention now seems less on “she had pre-marital sex” and more on “she doesn’t wax her bush!!!”
Disgusting. Thumbs down to Gawker. Besides, the whole “anonymous” bullshit?
You would? How fascinating.
Well I’ve dated several girls that were “under religion” (either as “personal” belief or under family or social influence), Muslims that is, never happened to me with a Christian girl. And if you wanted some intercourse, it was through the backdoor. So, technically, marriage-wise, they were still virgins. The difference here being that my girls did this to avoid social stigma when they’d be getting married, not because they were running a political campaign based on chastity and that “no-sex” is healthy.
P.S: I too am getting tired of the no hair trend. Sorry but it rubs me the wrong way to see adult guys or girls with not a wisp of hair on any part of their body. I am not interested in adults masquerading as children.
Safe sex and anti-sex are completely different things. One can support sex-ed and condom distribution and without those behaviors contradicting one’s beliefs. Someone who fundies it up and is against sex, even the safest sex (with yourself) is a hypocrite and deserves to have their life examined under a microscope.
If I didn’t know better, I’d say your premise was biased :dubious:
But why isn’t the safe-sex advocate also a hypocrite?
You know, after thinking it over, I think I would have to agree with you that the safe-sex advocate would not be engaging in safe sex. I would find her hypocritical as well.
However, I’d have less anger for her, as safe-sex is a factual good and an objective good. It wouldn’t simply be her OPINION that everyone is better off with safe sex, so whatever her personal failings, she’s still advocating something good. To put it another way, I would be disappointed, but still think she has a good message
Pushy fundies simply want people to wallow in the same sexual abyss they are presumably suffering in, with no actual benefits except some promised ethereal afterlife playground. A failure to live up to your own arbitrary rules makes the rules suspect, moreso than objective rules. Whatever the safe-sex person does in her life doesn’t affect the objectivity of the message as it is supported through facts and scientific testing, but for someone like O’Donnell, her entire message is supported only by her behaviorial standards. Once that behavior ceases to support her message, then the beliefs come into question
“Why should I still practice safe-sex if the person saying it doesn’t? Because I want to be safe”
“Why should I still practice puritanical sex if the person saying it doesn’t? That’s a good question, I don’t really know”
Good answer.
Now: let’s assume that the person advocating puritanical sex (or the lack thereof!) is, from all indications, not a hypocrite – that is, she practices what she preaches.
Are you suggesting that you might be swayed by this?
Swayed in what way? To agree with her that her beliefs are not based on a foundation of arbitrary beliefs? Or that in that case, Gawker should not have published the article?
Swayed to believe her message about puritanical sex was a valid one.
If she wasn’t a hypocrite, I’d find her message more valid. However, since her beliefs comes from a religious standpoint, it’s already coming from a pretty low point to me. More valid doesn’t come close to approaching valid
However, if she wants to have any hope of persuading me, she better not be a hypocrite while doing so