Today, Tucker Carlson launched The Daily Caller, a Web site that has been hailed as the conservative answer to the Huffington Post. Given my peculiar obsessions with Arianna Huffington's left-leaning political tabloid, I had but one question for Carlson: Will there be nipples?

Last June, I noted the Huffington Post's regular publication of "nipple slips," or the accidentally bared nipples of major and minor celebrities. I argued that the promotion of these red-carpet snafus encourages readers to objectify women's bodies, while denying those women the agency to control their own nipple exposure—and that these non-consensual erotic displays compromised the Huffington Post's ostensibly progressive bent. (Recall this intensely zoomed-in image of the outer reaches of Beyonce's areola to reveal the depths of HuffPo's obsession with accidental nipples).

When pressed on what it all means, editor Arianna Huffington insisted that a nipple slip is divorced from political ideology: "As Freud said, 'Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar'—and a nipple slip is just a nipple slip." (Translation: Sometimes a cigar does not mean a "penis," but sometimes a "woman's nipple" does mean a "woman's nipple," and that means lot of page-views).

Huffington's armchair psychoanalysis failed to shed any light on the matter: How is the objectification of women justified by political progressives? With the launch of Carlson's Caller, I was presented with a rare opportunity to see how a right-leaning Web site might deal with women's boobs peeking out of their dresses. Would it lean toward the side of abstinence-informed modesty? Would it tend toward boy's-club objectification? Or would it just publish, like, real news?

I e-mailed Carlson to ask him about his site's political ideology, and whether it would embrace nipples. Carlson's response: "I can't promise the site will be areola-free—in my experience these things are hard to predict—but even at this late stage we haven't settled on a firm nipple policy," he wrote.

So far, the Daily Caller has yet to promote images of any accidentally naked celebrities on the Web. A perusal of the Daily Caller's "Entertainment" page reveals some tabloid fare ("Lohan in paparazzi incident...again"), and some sexy news ("Avatar was supposed to have a sex scene"), but, alas, no nipples:

Yet.

Megan Fox, everyone's least-favorite super-hot chick, gets the New York Times Magazine treatment this week. We all know Megan Fox as that hot sassy vixen who claims to be female-empowered (“I would eat Robert Pattinson”) as she poses in wet bikinis for men's magazines. And we know that that combination, uh, usually doesn't go over so well among feminists. But here's where things get trippy, you guys: Like, is it all an act? And what does it all mean?

Take one of Fox's most well-publicized stunts: Publicly comparing Transformers director (and noted wet bikini enthusiast) Michael Bay to Hitler. Could there by a lesson hidden beneath the headline? I'll bite: Why do feminists spend our time hating on the Megan Foxes of this world instead of focusing their efforts on the Michael Bays? Is dancing in a bikini under a waterfall for Bad Boys II empowering? It was pretty empowering for 15-year-old Megan Fox ($), and it was really empowering for Michael Bay ($$$$$). But it's probably not so empowering to women. Is projecting all of our hatred of entertainment-industry sexism onto one 23-year-old starlet empowering to other women? Nope, but it is empowering to snarky celebrity bloggers, who squeeze out their own ($) in mean-spirited Fox-based blog posts. Me? I like to empower myself by putting the word "boobies" in the titles of all of my snarky Megan Fox posts ($$$)!

So! On that note, join Sady Doyle of Tiger Beatdown and myself as we embark upon another Sexist Beatdown. This time: What the fuck do we do with Megan Fox, then? Pray that she crashes, burns, and ends up managing a Hooters in Tennessee, even if she'll never bring Michael Bay down with her? Hope she has the strength to uglify herself just long enough to win an Oscar? Start a campaign to get that girl into some dry bikinis for once? We decide, after the jump!

SADY: megan fox has ARRIVED! PRAISE THE LORD!

AMANDA: and she has fake "boobies"!

SADY: I feel that I am not meant to like Megan Fox, based on this NYTM piece, which is all about how she is clearly (and candidly!) a market-tested persona product in the midst of rebranding. But (a) how many celebrities are not, and (b) how many public PEOPLE are not, and (c) the fact that she talks about the fact that she IS makes her weirdly seem to be less of one than, let's say, Zac Efron, and (d) BOOBIES! SHE TALKS ABOUT HER FAKE BOOBIES IN FRONT OF THE INTERVIEWER! SHE DEBATES WHETHER OR NOT TO INSERT THEM IN HER BRA! CAPSLOCK! I like this!

AMANDA: i like this, too. but i'm left wondering what the point of this piece is. half of it seems like a disingenuous way to get around the low-brow celebrity scoop on megan fox while still cashing in on that scoop. NYT isn't going all Us weekly and making the headline "MEGAN FOX USES FAKE BOOBIES," [Editor's note: But hey, I'm not above it!] but i'm not sure this form of pseudo-intellectual celebrity gawking is really that different from the tabloid version.

SADY: fair enough: the article does seem to hold her at a weird distance. like, it is supposedly about The Spectacle Of Megan Fox, and how she's got all this weird projection-based hate and love and whatever around her, but also invites us to take part in that and deplore her for her fake booby usage or frequent anti-"middle-america" statementing.

AMANDA: and her affinity for Hitler jokes.

SADY: she is fond of a hitler joke every now and again! it's true! but i also thought, after reading stuff like the Rolling Stone cover piece a while back, that it was kind of refreshing to read an interview that was not just asking her whether she drinks human blood during sex or which celebrity penis she'd prefer to keep company with.

AMANDA: yes. i agree, and i don't think this piece is bad. i just think it's barely there in terms of transcending the tabloid thing. but one thing i found really interesting in this piece was the idea of Fox manufacturing a persona of "female empowerment" for men's magazines. it's an old trick to give an interview to a men's magazine next to photos in your undies that talks about how you want to eat Robert Pattison, and how you're an empowered woman, and how using your body in Hollywood and being frank about it is better than the alternative, but it's interesting to see her quote at the end that, actually, she doesn't like men looking at her body.

SADY: well, i am kind of unclear on megan fox's personal philosophy of female empowerment. like, it seems to be not that well-defined! projecting myself into the head of megan fox, which i know only through interviews, and in which (as you note) she is always only saying what she has chosen to convey to the world at large, i THINK she thinks that being all sexy boy-eatery is not in and of itself the empowerment? that using that image to your own benefit and being a canny manipulator of that image is the empowerment? BUT, as you say, she does seem pretty sick of it and is maybe kind of trapped by that image to a greater extent than she once expected to be. in the Golden Years! when she put her underage self in a bikini and did a waterfall dance for Michael Bay's cinematic vision and got a whole FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS in extra pay for so doing!

AMANDA: yeah, and more than that, she fucking loved it! she felt that she belonged dancing in the waterfall.

SADY: like a bikini-clad nymph dancing in the fountain of Underage Youth.

AMANDA: but, since you are perhaps a more studied Fox scholar: is Fox's version of female empowerment any different from Joanna Krupa's statement that posing for Playboy is feminist? That, because this activity makes one super hot woman super rich, that means it's empowering?

SADY: well, that's the thing, right? that's the reason we get all pissy about this? because this is actually the divide that I most frequently fall into and die a thousand intrablogular deaths. there's one school of thought that is like, "no, it is not actually empowering," and another school of thought that is like, "no, it is not empowering, and also any woman who participates in it is BRINGING FEMINISM DOWN and must immediately run straight to the consoling zombie arms of andrea dworkin and claim that she was brainwashed into doing it whether or not this was actually the case." and i am of the "no, it is not empowering" school myself. i think the only people who think it is empowering are people who don't get structure, and are kind of libertariany and weird.

AMANDA: yeah. "i do something, and i am a woman, so that thing is empowering for women" doesn't really make sense

SADY: but i also don't think yelling at the actual women who participate in it is kind of weird, because: as a person without a steady paycheck, I get that you do what you have to do in order to get by. and one of the options open, if you look even vaguely Fox-like, is to do the Hot Girl thing.

AMANDA: and on the other hand, "i wear bikinis and hang out around cars" is not empowering to women, but "i wear bikinis and hang out around cars and point out what a skeevy hack michael bay is, and how weird it is that this is my job" is better, i think. and that's something Joanna Krup totally fails to recognize.

SADY: yeah, exactly. i mean, fuck the michael bays of the world. who come in many forms and at many pay levels. i've known girls whose main source of employment was dressing up in kind of sexy outfits and going to bars and convincing dudes there that this one specific kind of beer was superior to all others. the michael bays of marketing! but, yeah, obviously, part of our fantasy around those women is that they're totally thrilled and turned on by jobs that are about selling their sexuality – compliance is the biggest part of the fantasy, like that policy at hooters that you have to engage in "friendly banter" that is most likely about your titular Hooters – and so when girls complain, you know, they're subversive. and subject to the typical blowback. even if they're only doing what everyone else in the world does, which is bitching about the uncomfortable aspects of their jobs. sorry, SPEECHIFYING.

AMANDA: THATS OK. so, moving on to the virgin-whore aspect to all of this ... i think it's really interesting that Fox has been able to be in more control of her tabloid stories because of the fact that she dates boring Brian Austin Green and they've been boringly dating for five years. all the tabloid stories are like, "megan fox SAID THIS," not "megan fox fucked some dude."

SADY: yeah. BRIAN AUSTIN GREEN. a compellingly boring choice! because if she were out actually having actual sex, she'd be portrayed as a train-wreck.

AMANDA: it's really sad.

SADY: yeah, but it's another part of the narrative about Hot Girls: that they're out behaving like trollops and possibly crazy and messed-up and lost and blah blah whatever. like, female sexuality can't exist without us feeling the need to punish it, or see it punished. and i don't think women feel that need to the same extent that a lot of men do, or in the same ways, but i think it's disingenuous to say that a lot of us don't feel it. basically, I am using the word "lot" a lot, in an attempt to parse this. but Fox can always fall back on the old, "I have a BOYFRIEND! My sexy sexiness is merely an ACT" thing. which brings us to this whole Meta Fox level where admitting that something is an act may in fact be part of another, overarching act.

AMANDA: METAFOX. well, it's interesting, because we all know that the Jennifer Aniston Act about her being a hopeless spinster who can't find love is created by the tabloids. and we know that the Jessica Simpson Is A Stupid Bitch act is created by the tabloids. But whether or not those narratives are based in truth, those celebrities will not be able to escape it, no matter what, so it doesn't matter. with Megan Fox setting herself up from the get-go as being entirely fake, it may give her some more power to control that fakeness later on.

SADY: yeah. i mean, i think that coming from someone who was basically hired as a cinematic boner dispenser before she was even old enough to vote, and who really hasn't been hired for jobs outside of that context, she seems remarkably in-control.

AMANDA: well-said

SADY: but i do question how in-control anyone hired to be a cinematic boner dispenser actually is, in the long run. i mean, the weight of The Patriarchy and all of its various Deep-Rooted And Contradictory Sex Issues does not rest lightly on one's shoulders.

AMANDA: that's certainly true, but at the same time—and i really don't mean to insult megan fox here, because i don't know what she's capable of—what is she going to do, become a senator? be a mid-level manager? write? she has always wanted to be an actress, she says, and she's noted that the only reason she can do that is because she's hot. Fox isn't going to be getting many Oscar-bait roles (although Jennifer's Body was an improvement), but does she have to do that kind of acting in order for her to be acceptable?

SADY: uh, probably? i mean, i'm trying to think of someone else who's made this kind of transition. and, weirdly, the only people i can think of who have made the transition from Object of Desire to Serious Actor are men. like: johnny depp! he was once a mere hot dude! or brad pitt! he was that also! or george clooney! those dudes all started out being valued primarily for their hotness, and then later we were like, "oh, ACTING!" marilyn monroe tried it, but it didn't really happen. angelina jolie, maybe? oh, hey, here's an option for megan fox: retire at the age of thirty-four, and spend your entire life rolling around on a bed of cash money.

AMANDA: right. marry someone more successful than brian austin green. is it mean that i keep making fun of brian austin green?

SADY: uh, NO. fox needs someone with an eye for investments, and fewer anecdotes about that time he was on "Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles." it got CANCELLED! it was AWESOME!

AMANDA: it sounds awesome. but some women do do that. Halle Berry did that, and then she just kind of receded back into the boobie rolls. there's a short window of opportunity for Hot Girls to be Oscar-Worthy Hot Girls, and then they must retreat to the Elder Hot Girl Processing Area. I know what it is! Megan Fox hasn't gotten to her "purposefully ugly" stage yet. then she can really be an Actress

SADY: right? she needs to talk to Mariah Carey's people! they can de-Glitter her! i just used the phrase "talk to [X]'s people." without shame. that is a sad thing i did. i think i must leave now, and contemplate my sins.

AMANDA: haha. well i need to go put on my knee-pad leggings myself. dont tell the blogs about that one

The Washington City Paper's second Best Of D.C. issue since 1987 hits newsstands today. Since this is our staff's second Best Of, we're honoring the District's second-bests in 2009. My picks—including "Second-Best Strip Club Excuse," "Second-Best Item of Clothing to Remove at a Gay Bar," and "Second-Best George Mason Personality" (pictured)—are after the jump.

Second-Best Dog

Second-Best Item of Clothing to Remove at a Gay Bar

Second-Best Place to Prepare for the Upcoming Apocalypse

Second-Best Use of the Postcard

Second-Best Strip Club Excuse

Second-Best Way to Pick Someone Up

Second-Best DURKL Brother

Second-Best Reason to Claim a Pew

Second-Best George Mason Personality

Second-Best Celebrity-Watching with Side of Half-Smoke

Second-Best Dude Blogger

Photo by Darrow Montgomery

Twilight's Kristin Stewart! (Kbitch): Twitter error message: "That page doesn't exist!"

Singer/Actress Brooke Hogan! (BrookeHogan): "@Bradshaw27 That's terrible..You can borrow one of mine if you need to"

Singer/Actress Vanessa Hudgens! (VanessaHudgens): "Wish I could re-live the Grammy parties" (The previous tweet is even better: "just bought a juicer online. the name of the game is enzymes who knew")

Unemployed Mischa Barton! (MischaBarton) "@aplusk happy birthday!"

Celebrity relative/hanger on Solange Knowles! (solangeknowles): "@tcherryx can u call me asap!"

One Tree Hill's Sophia Bush (SophiaBush): Twitter error message: "This person has protected their updates."

American Idol alum Taylor Swift (taylorswift13): "Chicago."

O.C. alum Rachel Bilston (rachel_bilson): "thank you to all my followers! Sorry I haven't been updating more!"

Porn Star / hipster icon-in-training Sasha Grey! (sashagrey): "Woooow the cancer didn't get her but the peanuts did, that was/is so fucked up to hear."

I just escaped from newly minted Town Tavern's "Bi-Costal 'Ball,'" a $125-per-ticket party that top-billed special guests from MTV's "The Hills." Whither Lauren, whither Brody, whither Audrina and Speidi? (At this point, I'd even take a JustinBobby). As if they'd be showing in this Adams Morgan den of defrosted-shrimp-appetizers before 10 p.m. But that's okay—in its first two days of operation, Town Tavern has proven that it doesn't need to deliver the C-list reality show starpower to trade in some pretty serious hype. The Town Tavern is the same bar that's blown up a bit recently for claiming to turn away men younger than 23, require collared shirts, and deny "unaccompanied" groups of men entrance.

Tonight, the hype stakes were raised significantly. Take a look at the $125 price tag on the ball tickets. Of the two-dozen party guests I surveyed, nobody paid anywhere near that much. In fact, nobody paid anything at all. Nobody! Take this guy, for example:

His name is Romero, and he's been drinking on the Town Tavern's dime since 6 p.m.! He indicates that he did not pay anything to get in by forming a "zero" with his fingers! I do the same!

Or how about these guys?

These men, too, paid nothing, despite the $125 price indicated on the tickets they do not hold! They won't even agree to show their faces at Town Tavern, but they'll come in and not party with the cast of the "Hills," who is not present! For free!

How about these guys?

These men are not displaying their hands, but if they did, they might be forming them into "zero" signs, indicating that they did not pay anything! Early on, I asked the rightermost gentlemen in this photo how they managed to gain access to this Very Exclusive Club Event without paying any money. They indicated that the man on the left had the "connections" to get them in for free.

"I hear you're the guy with connections," I said to the man on the left.

"If by 'connections,' you mean 12-inch cock, then yeah," the man on the left said.

This exchange was totally free and cost me no money!

Entering Town Tavern: Free. Eating a chocolate-covered pineapple at Town Tavern: Free. Partying with this lady (shirtless): Priceless. Someone's blushing!

These dudes gained free access to this exclusive club by agreeing to wear ridiculous promotional costumes! They sacrificed more than all of us.

These nice people from New York City were invited on Facebook!

Despite the inflated price tag which nobody—and I mean nobody—actually paid, this club was not without its exclusive touches. "Skewers" of chocolate-covered fruits and mozzarella cheeses circled the darkened pub! A professional photographer shot my friends and I three times before giving up with a snide "not so much"! Scantily clad women employed by the club danced to Journey! Dudes in Superhero costumes danced with these women, to Journey! Behold:

One party-goer (who got in totally free, knows the brother of a manager) said that all of this—the strict door rules, the strange dress code, the $125 tickets—was all part of a plan to make this "the classiest bar in Adams Morgan." He's not sure it's working. "I hate to say this, but I think they just want a reason to turn people away at the door if they want to," he told me. "I'm not sure the whole 'exclusive' thing is working, though."

The inaugural event bubble is bursting everywhere, but nowhere as much as Adams Morgan, a neighborhood that's high on party hype and low on political spirit. Before I left, I asked a couple of girls waiting at the coat check if they would text me if a cast member from the "Hills" actually arrived at Town Tavern that night. Less than a half an hour later, I received this text from one: "so i'm heading out but word on the street is that doug is on his way. Goodluck!"

Doug? Who the fuck is Doug?

Confirmed: Common!

UPDATE: Common was busy speaking on his cell phone when the person in his presence ended his cell phone call with the person who was in my presence. The person in the presence of Common stated his intentions to secure a photograph with Common when he got off the phone.

In a stunning reprise of last year's "possible cougar" sighting on the UMD campus, a man who may or may not be John "Cougar" Mellencamp was sighted at the National Portrait Gallery today. Is this man, who is not facing the camera and could in fact be anyone, the Cougar in the flesh? Twitter tweeter Flyandmighty says yes.

In addition to my Sexist duties, I'll be covering the stars & bars on this long inauguration weekend. I'll be busy chasing after the Ritz's finest and Cafe Milano's worst starting tomorrow—party reports concerning cast members of MTV's The Hills are absolutely guaranteed—but I need your help! Catch Oprah re-living Obama and Fenty's Chili Bowl moment? Spy Clooney delicately sanding the elaborate sex toy he constructed in his basement? Catch SNL alum Kevin Nealon downing drinks at Lucky Bar*? LET ME KNOW.

Send all celebrity sightings to ahess@washcp.com, or tweet your tips to @TheSexist.

* coming soon!

Photo by Joe Crimmings Photography.