You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Reply #34: yup... that part really made my tummy churn. [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
druidity33 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-29-10 07:56 AM
Response to Reply #3
34. yup... that part really made my tummy churn.
Yet had he excluded that and the specifics about her "virginity", i'm not sure i would still disapprove. It says a lot about her hypocrisy. And it was 3 years ago... not from her 80's teen anti-masturbatory days.

It would've been a tasteless cheap shot anyway. But it's out there now...

:(


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
  -"Slut Shaming" boston bean  Oct-29-10 06:23 AM   #0 
  - I agree. It sets a bad a precedent  Crystal Clarity   Oct-29-10 06:32 AM   #1 
  - I think the "missing the waxing trend" comment put this way over the top.  boston bean   Oct-29-10 06:36 AM   #3 
  - yup... that part really made my tummy churn.  druidity33   Oct-29-10 07:56 AM   #34 
  - Actually, the only proof "offered" is the writer's hear-say  MattyGroves   Oct-29-10 09:53 AM   #74 
  - There once was a girl named Christine  11 Bravo   Oct-29-10 03:53 PM   #112 
     - Are you older than 13? nt  boston bean   Oct-29-10 06:22 PM   #118 
  - Remember the attacks on Hillary?  boston bean   Oct-29-10 06:39 AM   #6 
  - her cankles....  boston bean   Oct-29-10 06:40 AM   #9 
  - Yup. It was wrong then  Crystal Clarity   Oct-29-10 06:43 AM   #10 
  - I'm sorry. You can't play nice with these people. They'll do or say anything  mudplanet   Oct-29-10 08:21 AM   #54 
     - I agree, and this piece really sums it up for me :  mfprtoo   Oct-29-10 08:17 PM   #128 
  - But what about hypocrisy? Didn't O'Donnell diss pre-marital sex?  Evasporque   Oct-29-10 08:07 AM   #43 
     - She didn't have sex with this guy, yet she is turned into some slut where  boston bean   Oct-29-10 08:10 AM   #47 
     - A lot of people use "hypocrisy" as an excuse to do something they know is wrong  petronius   Oct-29-10 11:35 AM   #95 
        - On the other hand,  krispos42   Oct-29-10 11:43 PM   #139 
           - I don't really see it that way. I hold me to my standards, although I don't always  petronius   Oct-29-10 11:58 PM   #140 
  - Gawker's Christine O'Donnell tell-all backfires  boston bean   Oct-29-10 06:36 AM   #2 
  - i agree. you can call her on a lot of things without having to call her a slut  ejpoeta   Oct-29-10 06:36 AM   #4 
  - i felt the same, having to defend palin as she used sexuality for her campaign,  seabeyond   Oct-29-10 06:38 AM   #5 
  - i remember DUer calling Palin a slut for wearing red shoes, and was like WTF  bettyellen   Oct-29-10 07:10 AM   #22 
  - Good for NOW.  woo me with science   Oct-29-10 06:39 AM   #7 
  - Where does it say this was a Democrat making these remarks?  GoCubsGo   Oct-29-10 07:01 AM   #18 
     - I was referring to the disgusting other thread on this page. nt  woo me with science   Oct-29-10 07:03 AM   #19 
        - Sorry.  GoCubsGo   Oct-29-10 07:05 AM   #21 
  - You can't deny that Christine O'Donnell is a hypocrite, though.  Quantess   Oct-29-10 06:40 AM   #8 
  - What did she do? Did she have sex with him, did she masturbate with him  boston bean   Oct-29-10 06:46 AM   #11 
  - The fact that she would pass judgment on your sexual  sufrommich   Oct-29-10 06:53 AM   #16 
  - I think the point is that her own behavior doesn't stand up to the judgement she'd pass on you.  JoePhilly   Oct-29-10 07:26 AM   #28 
     - but it's her "test" that is so fucked up, and you;re pepetuatiing the same awfullness  bettyellen   Oct-29-10 10:20 PM   #132 
  - And when she does that, we criticize her for it. If we are  sabrina 1   Oct-29-10 12:08 PM   #101 
     - The difference is...  MellowDem   Oct-29-10 07:11 PM   #122 
        - in this case she is being condemned for being a little flirty ! and you're not embarrassed by this?  bettyellen   Oct-29-10 10:22 PM   #133 
        - She is not being condemned at all...  MellowDem   Oct-30-10 12:10 AM   #142 
        - We are accepting the word of an anonymous person about whom  sabrina 1   Oct-30-10 03:24 AM   #147 
  - This Non-Story Got The Coverage It Deserved...None  KharmaTrain   Oct-29-10 06:49 AM   #12 
  - I agree. Stick with her crazy political positions. There is a  sufrommich   Oct-29-10 06:50 AM   #13 
  - I wish NOW would get involved in the trashy Celebriity "Tell Alls"  KoKo   Oct-29-10 06:51 AM   #14 
  - There's a lot of work to be done, that's for sure.  boston bean   Oct-29-10 06:53 AM   #17 
  - Deleted sub-thread  Name removed   Oct-29-10 06:52 AM   #15 
  - TSG update  pintobean   Oct-29-10 07:05 AM   #20 
  - Ahhh, so we know "Anonymous"'s name....  moriah   Oct-29-10 08:14 AM   # 
  - Let's see here,  MadHound   Oct-29-10 07:18 AM   #23 
  - Exposing hypocrisy is one thing, describing her ge  boston bean   Oct-29-10 07:23 AM   #25 
  - And we've had similar sorts of tawdry details exposed,  MadHound   Oct-29-10 07:30 AM   #29 
     - it's not slut shaming a guy, when he is married, it's not slut shaming when the guy is married  boston bean   Oct-29-10 07:53 AM   #32 
        - We're not talking about Hillary here,  MadHound   Oct-29-10 08:01 AM   #37 
           - Oh yes, we are. that is what the NOW statement is about. All women.  boston bean   Oct-29-10 08:06 AM   #42 
              - You might be, but I'm not  MadHound   Oct-29-10 08:12 AM   #48 
                 - And you won't discuss Hillarys treatment because it doesn't fit help your argument.  boston bean   Oct-29-10 08:17 AM   #51 
  - Where was the outrage over Diaper Dave?  hobbit709   Oct-29-10 07:24 AM   #26 
  - Well actually, FWIW I expressed that here.  Matariki   Oct-29-10 10:25 PM   #135 
     - It's not the sex, it's the hypocrisy of these people.  hobbit709   Oct-30-10 06:14 AM   #148 
        - If it's really the hypocrisy, then why do people make fun of the sex?  Matariki   Oct-30-10 09:20 PM   #161 
           - Because the more uptight the Morality Police are in public  hobbit709   Oct-30-10 10:19 PM   #163 
  - If a womans sexual history were treated the same as a man's  sufrommich   Oct-29-10 07:25 AM   #27 
  - Actually, in the case of politicians, it is  MadHound   Oct-29-10 07:34 AM   #30 
     - Can you please tell me then what Hillary did that was so hypocritical that  boston bean   Oct-29-10 07:59 AM   #35 
     - We're not talking about Hillary here,  MadHound   Oct-29-10 08:02 AM   #39 
        - read above and use some critical thinking as to why Hillary's treatment is in many  boston bean   Oct-29-10 08:08 AM   #45 
        - Again, we are not discussing Hillary,  MadHound   Oct-29-10 08:14 AM   #49 
           - I have discussed both with you. Don't make allegations that are untrue.  boston bean   Oct-29-10 08:18 AM   #53 
        - dupe  boston bean   Oct-29-10 08:08 AM   #46 
     - Patronizing a prostitute is a crime. n/t  moriah   Oct-29-10 08:07 AM   #44 
     - Having an affair isn't n/t  MadHound   Oct-29-10 08:15 AM   #50 
        - Agreed, which is why the Clenis story was overblown IMHO and the Starr report porn.  moriah   Oct-29-10 08:23 AM   #55 
        - No, but undisclosed situations of that sort can expose a politician to influence  jberryhill   Oct-29-10 11:16 AM   #92 
     - Is there something to be said for the fact that  Volaris   Oct-30-10 03:16 AM   #146 
  - Agree 100%. I'm not judging her for going home with the guy. What I am judging her for is the  Erose999   Oct-29-10 12:45 PM   #107 
  - There is nothing sexist or misogynistic about the story it is what it is ....  Botany   Oct-29-10 07:18 AM   #24 
  - Until the 25 year old Philadelphian comes forward with his name....  moriah   Oct-29-10 08:04 AM   #40 
     - point taken ....  Botany   Oct-29-10 08:35 AM   #56 
        - My grandma didn't.  moriah   Oct-29-10 08:38 AM   #58 
           - My grandma didn't  Botany   Oct-29-10 08:47 AM   #59 
              - Not at 42...  moriah   Oct-29-10 08:52 AM   #61 
  - Women can't have it both ways..  HipChick   Oct-29-10 07:39 AM   #31 
  - I certainly don't agree with the man up and cajones references. they are  boston bean   Oct-29-10 07:55 AM   #33 
  - And you don't see how that in itself is the same kind of sexism?  darkstar3   Oct-29-10 09:37 AM   #66 
     - Agreed, and refusing to stoop to their level isn't letting them "have it both ways" like  iris27   Oct-30-10 02:18 PM   #154 
     - Ack - dupe.  iris27   Oct-30-10 02:20 PM   #155 
  - The "Gawker" story reeks of being completely untrue.  moriah   Oct-29-10 08:01 AM   #36 
  - Anonymous but checkable  KossackRealityCheck   Oct-29-10 08:47 AM   #60 
  - All that can be proven is she went to a party.  moriah   Oct-29-10 08:58 AM   #62 
     - Not by journalistic standards  KossackRealityCheck   Oct-29-10 10:34 AM   #86 
        - I would assume referring to "journalistic standards" and Gawker in the same sentence....  moriah   Oct-29-10 11:35 AM   #94 
  - she participated in drinking and driving n/t  sammytko   Oct-29-10 09:48 AM   #70 
  - gawker? seriously??  Blue_Tires   Oct-29-10 08:02 AM   #38 
  - I stand by my label of her and don't think it is at all sexist  Generic Other   Oct-29-10 08:06 AM   #41 
  - +1, says this woman. It's the JUDGMENTAL hypocrisy of the Magic Christian that riles me.  blondeatlast   Oct-29-10 09:28 AM   #63 
  - Agree - Out Of Bounds  jberryhill   Oct-29-10 08:18 AM   #52 
  - Can't say i agree...anything that highlights the hypocrisy of any politician's  joeybee12   Oct-29-10 08:36 AM   #57 
  - Agree. Is everyone okay with the notion "Do as I SAY, not as I DO"?  blondeatlast   Oct-29-10 09:30 AM   #64 
     - Well, actually....  moriah   Oct-29-10 11:37 AM   #96 
  - This is no different than blasting Rush for popping oxy's. Exactly 0% different  TheKentuckian   Oct-29-10 09:30 AM   #65 
  - It is different, for many reasons. Chief among them:  darkstar3   Oct-29-10 09:47 AM   #69 
     - Substitute sex for anything else and that very thin logic falls apart.  TheKentuckian   Oct-29-10 10:16 AM   #81 
        - You're desperate to ignore the sexism in favor of your "hypocrissy" argument,  darkstar3   Oct-29-10 10:23 AM   #82 
           - I already addressed that in my prior post, so it wasn't avoided.  TheKentuckian   Oct-29-10 12:10 PM   #102 
              - 3 things:  darkstar3   Oct-29-10 12:25 PM   #104 
                 - No one told you what to believe and I defy you to point to a sexist expectation of Susie  TheKentuckian   Oct-29-10 12:40 PM   #106 
                    - Check your post  darkstar3   Oct-29-10 03:04 PM   #109 
                       - Sorry for any mixed signals on my end. The "you" was rhetorical.  TheKentuckian   Oct-29-10 08:56 PM   #129 
                          - And if questions were all we were dealing with that would be fine.  darkstar3   Oct-29-10 10:14 PM   #131 
                             - Unseemly and underhanded are not the same as sexist.  TheKentuckian   Oct-29-10 10:51 PM   #136 
                                - You consider that piece crucial because it is the only leg holding up your "non-sexist" case.  darkstar3   Oct-29-10 11:25 PM   #137 
                                   - How is the piece not relevant? You have to throw it out to present an affirmative case of sexism  TheKentuckian   Oct-30-10 01:45 PM   #149 
                                      - Your nearly unreadable rant fails to answer any points.  darkstar3   Oct-30-10 02:02 PM   #150 
                                         - Ok, sure. I gave every effort to address your points and it was pooh poohed to preserve protect  TheKentuckian   Oct-30-10 02:33 PM   #156 
                                            - If that was your best effort,  darkstar3   Oct-30-10 03:03 PM   #159 
                                               - Maybe reading comprehension on your end would be more beneficial  TheKentuckian   Oct-30-10 05:20 PM   #160 
  - Thank you, and NOW.  darkstar3   Oct-29-10 09:41 AM   #67 
  - Sluts rule.  Codeine   Oct-29-10 09:46 AM   #68 
  - You can't! If you like them, you're OBJECTIFYING them!!!!111cos(0)1!!!  Commie Pinko Dirtbag   Oct-29-10 09:49 AM   #71 
  - Maybe, but the only thing you'll ever get called for being a slutty man is a man-whore.  darkstar3   Oct-29-10 09:49 AM   #72 
  - Bullshit. Men get raked over the coals as well.  edbermac   Oct-29-10 09:51 AM   #73 
  - And what happened to them?  darkstar3   Oct-29-10 10:00 AM   #77 
     - Well, let's see...  MellowDem   Oct-29-10 07:05 PM   #120 
  - So exposing O'Donnell as a hypocrite  Upton   Oct-29-10 09:56 AM   #75 
  - It's not exposure. It's gossip.  darkstar3   Oct-29-10 10:03 AM   #78 
  - It's exposure...  MellowDem   Oct-29-10 07:07 PM   #121 
     - So hearsay can be used tarnish the credibility of our opponents.  darkstar3   Oct-29-10 07:12 PM   #123 
        - It's up to the voters....  MellowDem   Oct-29-10 07:28 PM   #125 
           - Oh dear god what about the men?!  darkstar3   Oct-29-10 07:38 PM   #126 
              - Well then DU eats up gossip...  MellowDem   Oct-29-10 07:47 PM   #127 
                 - Yes it does.  darkstar3   Oct-29-10 09:57 PM   #130 
                    - Personally, I would hold myself...  MellowDem   Oct-30-10 12:15 AM   #143 
                       - You're not holding yourself to any standard when you defend others  darkstar3   Oct-30-10 01:24 AM   #145 
  - This supposed "exposing" doesn't help anyone.  LisaL   Oct-29-10 10:04 AM   #79 
  - Slut shaming doesn't work anyway  ecstatic   Oct-29-10 09:58 AM   #76 
  - Would that more people interested in politics thought like you.  darkstar3   Oct-29-10 10:08 AM   #80 
  - Its not _who_ she slept with thats interesting  dbmk   Oct-29-10 10:55 AM   #89 
     - She didn't sleep with him. Did you even read past the headline?  boston bean   Oct-29-10 03:17 PM   #110 
  - Deleted message  Name removed   Oct-29-10 10:24 AM   #83 
  - What's sexist is demanding a zone of protection for women's hypocrisy.  Romulox   Oct-29-10 10:26 AM   #84 
  - Prove the hypocrisy, then we'll talk.  darkstar3   Oct-29-10 10:31 AM   #85 
     - Your argument is weak. Let O'Donnell sue for defamation is the guy is lying.  Romulox   Oct-29-10 10:35 AM   #87 
        - That's not how argumentation works, that's how you manipulate dupes.  darkstar3   Oct-29-10 10:43 AM   #88 
           - I'm not engaging in "argumentation" (sic), based on proving the veracity of the gawker claims  Romulox   Oct-29-10 10:55 AM   #90 
              - Before you use (sic), you should check that it was misspelled.  darkstar3   Oct-29-10 11:00 AM   #91 
                 - "sic" doesn't mean something is misspelled, necessarily--it means the phrasing is in the original  Romulox   Oct-29-10 11:33 AM   #93 
                    - Oi.  darkstar3   Oct-29-10 11:46 AM   #99 
                       - It means the phrasing appears in the original, full stop.  Romulox   Oct-29-10 12:01 PM   #100 
                          - Tiresome should be your nickname.  darkstar3   Oct-29-10 12:13 PM   #103 
  - It's the hypocracy factor. If she weren't parading around as Miss Morality, I'd agree.  Lisa0825   Oct-29-10 11:39 AM   #97 
  - As much as I can't stand her, this is totally uncalled for...  cynatnite   Oct-29-10 11:41 AM   #98 
  - Her "issues" include dictating to others what sex practices are acceptible, and infringing the repro  Erose999   Oct-29-10 01:02 PM   #108 
  - Pardon me while I pause for a moment of introspection.  lumberjack_jeff   Oct-29-10 12:37 PM   #105 
  - I'm impressed. I thought slut shaming would break out in this thread to denounce slut shaming.  sally cat   Oct-29-10 03:45 PM   #111 
  - Calling out someone for lying or hypocrisy  felix_numinous   Oct-29-10 05:15 PM   #113 
  - But she'd do it to someone else  treestar   Oct-29-10 05:23 PM   #114 
  - Agree.  BlueCheese   Oct-29-10 05:31 PM   #115 
  - Setting up a double standard here. OK to tell all re: male politicians but not women?  McCamy Taylor   Oct-29-10 05:33 PM   #116 
  - Clinton actually HAD sex. Did O'Donnell? No one knows, not from this story. n/t  darkstar3   Oct-29-10 07:14 PM   #124 
     - Actually, even if you take this story at Anonymous Dude's word, she didn't. n/t.  iris27   Oct-30-10 02:36 PM   #157 
  - But What If I'm A Shameless Slut ???  WillyT   Oct-29-10 05:37 PM   #117 
  - NOW is being dumb as hell with this...  MellowDem   Oct-29-10 07:03 PM   #119 
  - "NOW should've kept it's mouth shut"??  darkstar3   Oct-29-10 10:25 PM   #134 
     - Thanks for your concern...  MellowDem   Oct-30-10 12:09 AM   #141 
        - Thanks for the revelation.  darkstar3   Oct-30-10 02:05 PM   #151 
  - Wasn't she insinuating her opponent in the primary was gay?  Greg K   Oct-29-10 11:40 PM   #138 
  - I'm curious to know  LawnLover   Oct-30-10 12:20 AM   #144 
  - Those people actually had extra marital affairs or hired prostitues  bettyellen   Oct-30-10 02:17 PM   #153 
  - It was not a political ad and claiming it is is a lie  lunatica   Oct-30-10 02:08 PM   #152 
  - kick and R. Women of all parties deserve respect  Valienteman   Oct-30-10 02:45 PM   #158 
  - That article was so trashy.  Dash87   Oct-30-10 09:36 PM   #162 
  - It exposes her for her hypocrisy.  Lucian   Oct-30-10 10:21 PM   #164 
 

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC