Michigan family lawyer Ryan Hill is so morally outraged by extramarital affair dating website Ashley Madison that he launched the "My Marriage Matters" campaign—and shot this awkward television spot—to bring the cheating service down. The result: Schmaltzy piano, sexy infidelity shots, and Hill doing the Bill Clinton thumb-gesture in front of a waving American flag. Vote Ryan Hill for Dude With A Website That's Against That Other Website, I guess? He's also currently asking 1,000,000 people to sign his petition against people who support cheating. [Thanks to Kay for the tip].

Mistresses! Whenever a public figure takes one as a secret lover, Society at Large is obligated to publicly shame this woman for her untoward behavior. But just how much shame shall we pile on a woman accused of having sex with a man who has pledged to only have sex with one other lady? Use this handy guide to determine how much irrational hatred she deserves:

a) if she is a mysterious and beautiful Argentinian mother of two, leak romantic e-mails.

b) if she is a fertile campaign videographer, proceed with light mockery over musical tastes.

c) if she is a cocktail waitress, insinuate that she is actually a sex worker.

d) if she works in a strip club, lose all ability to refer to her as anything other than "stripper."

e) if she is a porn performer, release grainy video stills of her shaking her boobs in front of a fire truck.

f) if she is literally the Devil, insinuate that she is actually a sex worker.

In this week's edition of Sexist Beatdown, Sady Doyle of Tiger Beatdown and I discuss why mistresses receive the brunt of all our projected self-hatred, wonder why the term "Mistress" has no male counterpart (I nominate "Mrstress"), and respectfully request that Tiger Woods set his Facebook statuses to private.

SADY: Mistresses!

AMANDA: Indeed. I have heard many sordid tales of their existence as of late.

SADY: sometimes, mistresses talk about being mistresses. At other times, they do not talk. In either case, it is fine to talk about them! For they are MISTRESSES, scourge of the "I am married to a cheater" world.

AMANDA: Can we talk for a second about this "mistress" business? Is there a word for the "mister" of a married woman? like a "Mrster"? Or something?

SADY: I prefer the term "Mister Mistress." Which is also the name of my new glam-metal band, in case you were looking for an update on that.

AMANDA: I think that was also a Hulk Hogan movie.

SADY: But really, we know that the appropriate word for "man mistress" is "totally rocking dude."

AMANDA: The only other term I can think of that is dismissive (dismistress!) in the same way is "pool boy."

SADY: Yeah. Basically, the only words we have for dudes who are being cruelly exploited for sex on the side by lady types are class (and often race) based.

AMANDA: Yeah. "Mistresses" (ugh) on the other hand, have to be cornered into this odd cultural Other Wife space, even though they are not married to this guy, and they actually have plenty of their own shit going on as well. They are still defined solely by this relationship.

SADY: Yeah. I mean, we have this strangely romantic Victorian version of the mistress, STILL. It is not just "I hooked up with a dude, he is married, sometimes I make bad decisions in my personal life," it is this strange thing where we still think of them as dissolute Women of Leisure who are sexfully attending to their patron's sexful needs while draped in diamonds which of course are the whole point. And I think, weirdly, though I definitely GET that intimacy and all of that are scary, and the fact that you could love someone and they could love hooking up with other people is really unsettling for just about anyone, our need to drag mistresses into the light and be like, "mistress! Behold ye alle this Creature, captured in thee most Wanton Abandon!" Well, it's people working out personal anxieties, sure. We WANT to hate them because then the people who are cheating on us are clearly choosing people lesser than ourselves. But also: it's a way of deciding which women are all right. A way of deciding what makes a good woman (being cheated on!) and a bad one (being cheated with!) if that makes sense.

AMANDA: Yeah, and I have found that to be a really weird part of the Sanford / Edwards ladies' narratives, where there is an attempt to make some sort of Character Coup out of being cheated on.

SADY: Well, but also, that excerpt from "Game Change," about the affair, went to great lengths to portray Elizabeth Edwards as a screaming, controlling harpy who clearly deserved to be cheated on.

AMANDA: But the thing that really disturbs me when people get to talkin' about cheating, is that we know that about 50 percent of married men and women (and men I think do it at higher rates than women, but not significantly higher) will cheat on their spouses at some point. And so all of this faux outrage tends to worry me, because either these people are just ignoring their own realities, or they are attempting to work out their personal issues by piling their hatred onto these women.

SADY: Right! And it is like: I would prefer people not to cheat on me. I am not a fan of cheating in general. I think it is a thing you should not do. And yet, affairs are such a commonplace part of human life that they form the basis of: much literature, much television, "Mad Men" specifically for like three seasons, many movies, music, and now apparently our salacious news headlines that are going on when also there is a huge recession which I find sort of important. So, when a marriage is found to contain cheating, and everyone panics gets all, "this is the worst thing! The worst thing that could happen! Ever! For marriage is a sacred covenant, united by God's holy tears of joy over the entwined bodies of lovers!" Well: but you know it happens all over, right? People just want to be clear that they are in the OTHER FIFTY PERCENT, maybe. Even right now, I am worrying that people are going to think I am a cheater because I am inappropriately freaked out by mistresses, strangely.

AMANDA: Cheater! Cheater! I think it's that people have always wanted to hold their public figures and role models to a higher standard than themselves, and that makes sense to me. But they also, now, want to bring them down to our level. Which is really easy! Because they have never been morally superior to us in the first place, and the news of their private lives has just been more strictly controlled. I think at some point we are going to have to just stop giving a shit, I guess? Because it is getting boring, to me. I don't think our 24-hour news cycle can endure the weight of all the revelations of cheating that will occur among the huge number of suddenly newsworthy people we're reporting on now. For example: I recently read a very large-fonted Huffington Post headling about Matthew Fox possibly cheating on his wife with a "stripper" (the most reviled form of Mistress!) How long can people keep clicking on that? Tell me it's not forever.

SADY: God. Okay, can we talk about this? Sex worker mistresses? One of Tiger Woods' mistresses was apparently a porn performer, and there is a lawsuit going on have been vague threats of a lawsuit which I don't clearly understand, but which has to do with her quitting porn for Tiger, and thinking she was his only girlfriend, and etc.

AMANDA: (I also don't understand the legal precedent here).

SADY: I think it is lost income? Because she stopped working due to their relationship? It does seem like a frivolous and fairly transparently mercenary deal, from all I can understand. And taking a dude to court over your failed relationship is a bit over-the-top. But also, people are just shocked, SHOCKED AND APPALLED, that a person who made PORNOGRAPHY could DARE to express hurt in public! Like: it is that, not the nature of the debate here, that is getting some I think unfair focus.

AMANDA: It ... has feelings?

SADY: She made PORNOGRAPHY Amanda! I do not understand it! I thought the pornography cameras stole your soul!

AMANDA: That is the rumor.

SADY: Like: that's the thing. Mistresses are always slutty, trashy, tacky, la la la. I think it is bad form to date a married dude, not least because what is the best-case scenario for YOU, Mistress, in this relationship? Dating a dude who hurts ladies' feelings? No. But when they are also sex workers—and there is always, if not a specifically Matthew-Fox-centric version of this rumor, a version of this rumor floating around— then they are basically the devil. Women get to be like, "and also, my husband cheated on me, and it was with Satan."

AMANDA: I think that the intensified shaming of the porn actress goes back to the idea of the Mistress as well being this woman who is committed to the married man, even though he is married. Tiger Woods has like a million "Mistresses" at this point, who are really just women he's seen at some point or another, and who were obviously not under any obligation to only have sex with Tiger Woods. But we are somehow encouraged to see them that way, because if you have sex with a married man, the only way to come out looking a tiny bit better in the public eye is if you were just so totally and hopelessly in love with him that you were sexually committed only to him, and all 12 of you thought he was the real deal, or whatever. Which is gross. Tiger Woods himself actually did get a little sensitive about his "Mistresses" seeing other dudes, from the literature I've read on the topic. So even Tiger couldn’t find a reasonable perspective on cheating with someone he was cheating on his wife with.

SADY: Right. Some mistresses get to be like, "well, but my heart and feelings were involved." And it helps if we can see them as not-at-all sexual outside of this relationship. But when a lady clearly engages in sexual activity elsewhere, people are like, "wait a minute! This is about FUCKING, isn't it? Gross!"

AMANDA: Right. Because if you're a porn star ... well, then, many other dudes who are not Tiger Woods have seen you, like, naked and stuff! Bad mistress! We grade Mistresses now.

SADY: Heart and feelings involved: A+

He really was getting divorced though and now also you have his baby: B+

Clearly having had sex with people not your Mistressifier: F. For Failure.

AMANDA: Being married to a guy who cheats on you with a woman who does porn: Priceless, or something.

SADY: Yeah. I feel for that lady. TO THE MAX. In conclusion, can we all just agree that sometimes DUDES who cheat are really the ones who Destroyed This Marriage, though?

AMANDA: Sure, but can we also agree that unless the dude in question is like a noted marriage advocate or some shit, I don't particularly want to see him stand on a podium and cry about it? Just go deal with your own business.

SADY: Yeah. Seriously. We are not Facebook friends, your Relationship Status Updates are not really my personal concern. TIGER WOODS IS IT'S COMPLICATED.

Image via Wikipedia Commons

It's time for more Dr. Laura YouTube fun! This time, Dr. Laura Schlessinger answers the age-old question: Can (hetero) men and women be "just friends"?

Answer: Men and women can be friends as long as it's a "cool quality, casual friendship fun thing where they both golf together, and that's it," Schlessinger explains.

But once these opposite-sex friends start having conversations that go beyond, say "Fore!," it's time to adopt an extreme concern for their ability to remain monogamous to their partners. Schlessinger explains the rules of hyper-monogamy: "Is this someone he tells the privacies of his life to? Ultimately, that would be his wife—and if that worked out, it would be you," Schlessinger says. "If a married woman is spending time with a guy, sharing intimacies about her life, that's inappropriate."

So: Talking to other people is considered cheating now. Let's see how this moral position might play out in a typical marriage: "You have a life outside of this marriage? That's cheating." Or, "You told your friend that I cheated on you? That makes you a cheater." Or, you know, "You told your friend that I accused you of cheating because you found out I cheated on you? I can't believe you cheated on me again."

According to a new Gallup poll,  Hillary Clinton is the most admired woman in America. Barely. Clinton's runner-up, Sarah Palin, almost knocked the Secretary of State from the most-admired perch she's assumed 14 times. If you think that's sad, check out the also-rans:

The third most admired woman in America is Oprah Winfrey, with 8 percent; fourth on the list is Michelle Obama, with 7 percent. Makes sense so far. Next up is Condoleezza Rice and Queen Elizabeth II—each with two percent. (Oddly, British royalty counts: The poll is actually meant to determine the most admired woman by Americans). Then we have the one-percent group: A four-way tie between Margaret Thatcher, Maya Angelou, Angela Merkel and . . . Elin Nordegren Woods.

Let's see: We've got heads of state, cultural ambassadors, high-ranking government officials, and a lady who married a douchebag. One of these things is not like the other!

Marrying (and divorcing) douchebags, sadly, has been hailed as a resounding achievement for women in 2009. Jessica Grose chastised Barbara Walters for placing Kate Gosselin and Jenny Sanford, two ladies who married douchebags, in the top 10 most fascinating people of the year: "Being publicly cheated on does not automatically make you an interesting person, much less interesting enough to appear on one of these silly lists." Phoebe Connelly also chimed in on the absurdity of giving the feminist treatment to Sanford: "The news that Sanford is leaving her national punchline of a husband, South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford, is no reason to hail her as a feminist icon."

Look closer at the cultural narratives surrounding Gosselin, Sanford, and Nordegren Woods, and you'll find three different monsters born of our fascination with wronged women. Sanford gracefully endured her husband's infidelities before calmly divorcing him. She is respected. Nordegren Woods allegedly chased her philandering husband down with a golf club, leaving him laying delirious in the middle of the road next to his wrecked car. She is celebrated. Gosselin, star of Jon & Kate Plus 8 and wife to confirmed douchebag Jon Gosselin until their separation this year, broadcast her marital troubles for all of America to see. She is pitied.

When we have women like Clinton, Angelou, Thatcher, Rice, and Merkel to admire, why are we still eager to recognize the long-suffering wife whose greatest accomplishment is no longer being married to a douchebag? Perhaps it's because divorcing a douchebag is an achievement that regular women can foresee accomplishing in their own lifetimes. Most women won't become Secretary of State or a celebrated writer—or end up married to a catch like Barack Obama. But many, many women will marry douchebags, and about half of those douchebag unions will end in divorce.

Most women won't find the strength to face their divorce with Sanford's calm and collected exterior. They won't get away with Nordegren Woods' outburst of spousal abuse (though many will fantasize about it). They won't attract the unwavering public attention that Gosselin's divorce has. But these public narratives of divorcing douchebags lend a certain gravitas to the personal lives of normal women—women who are not likely to be admired or celebrated or even pitied for finally severing their marital vows. For a long time, getting a divorce was seen as a failure, which meant that half of married women were failing. No wonder America has labored to find something to admire about these women—they are us. The problem with the current narrative is that we're celebrating divorce as a failure of men and a triumph of women, instead of focusing on the real triumphs of women like Clinton, whose marital status has been made irrelevant to the discussion of her success.

Photo via marcn, Creative Commons Attribution License 2.0

Sweden, a nation that has managed to avoid war for over 200 years, has nevertheless been quick to condone overseas agression in one recent conflict: Stockholm-born Elin Nordegren's reportedly golf-club assisted assault on her philandering husband, Tiger Woods. Today on the Daily Beast, Katarina Andersson noted how some prominent Swedish media types have reacted to the Nordegren-Woods affair. Namely, "Swing it again, Elin!":

Swing it again, Elin!” wrote Jan Helin, editor in chief of Aftonbladet, the country's biggest newspaper, on his personal blog. One of the paper's top reporters, Ann Söderlund, proclaimed, “Thank God for girls like Elin. Next time, I hope she uses a bigger club."

Britta Svensson, a well-known columnist at the tabloid Expressen and a former U.S.-based correspondent, commented, “Our Swedish hearts are overwhelmed with pride, because our very own Elin didn’t take any s—. Just like a tough Swedish girl shouldn't. Elin is our heroine.”

The American media, too, has been quick to excuse Nordegren's alleged assault on Woods, which left him lying bewildered in the middle of the road, next to a busted car, with scratches on his face and possibly a broken tooth. Stateside, Tiger's cheating has been deemed far more scandalous that Nordegren's physical assault—commenters have labored to paint Nordegren as the victim to Woods' web of affairs, but have hesitated to recognize Woods as a victim of domestic violence. Still, I've yet to hear from anyone actually endorsing Nordegren's outburst as an act of girl-power. Until now. Writes Andersson:

The culture of child-rearing in Sweden makes sure that girls have a strong sense of self. "Swedish women like Elin are brought up to be independent and strong,” explains Karin Magnusson, the op-ed editor for Aftonbladet, "and you can only stand for just so much humiliation. We're excited about this. We're hoping Elin will file for divorce and show Tiger—and the world—what Swedish women stand for."

If Swedish cultural commentators want the world to know that Swedish women stand for divorcing cheaters, I think that's fine—if a bit odd. If they want the world to know that Swedish women stand for beating the cheaters and then divorcing them, I think that's a fucked up standard to set for an entire country of girls and boys. Plenty of Swedish girls will grow up to be cheaters, too—do we want their future spouses to grow up thinking it's empowering to physically assault them for screwing around?

Perhaps I'm working against a bit of a cultural "girl power" divide here, but I'm afraid that Nordegen's domestic violence role-reversal has gotten some feminist signals crossed. I don't know too much about the culture of Swedish child-rearing, but I do know some girl power universals: Girl power is about having a strong sense of self, standing up for yourself, and not taking peoples's shit. Sometimes, girl power is about being empowered physically—for purposes of self-esteem and self-defense. It's not about beating the shit out of people! And it's certainly not about encouraging domestic abusers to keep up the good work. I know that male abusers have been beating the shit out of their spouses for a long time now, but domestic violence is one male-dominated field where inviting more female participation does not help promote gender equality.

Image via Wikipedia Commons

Hey, ladies. It's time for another edition of Sexist Beatdown. Up for discussion this morning are girls who hate on other girls when a man gets in the way, and then write pop songs about it. As always, your hosts are that bitchy, popular ho Sady Doyle of Tiger Beatdown, and the adorably geeky woman of your dreams—me! Join us: We promise to pretend to be your friends while we try to fuck your boyfriend and ridicule your skanky dye job.

Sady has already done the groundwork on the "girl-on-girl sexism" phenomenon. In this special genre of pop music, the protagonist ridicules another woman who is either a) involved with "her man," or b) involved with a man the singer wishes were "her man." The protagonist typically cites purely aesthetic arguments—But she's a cheerleader! But she has bleached hair! But she just sucks!—for hating that other bitch and attempting to convince the "man" that he belongs with her. Sady notes that this trend most recently surfaced in Taylor Swift's beloved hit single, "You Belong With Me":

It put my hair thoroughly on end, with Taylor pleading over and over again for a boy to just go ahead and dump a girl (who apparently has goals in life outside of obsessively working to please this one dude), in favor of Taylor (who doesn't). I mean, I know we're supposed to be rooting for Taylor, because GLASSES, but this whole thing whereby girls who do not conceive of themselves as traditionally attractive deal with this by hating on girls who they think are prettier is just really repulsive to me, and I can't stand it, especially when it's framed as "empowering" rather than just insecure and gross. You have a problem with how limiting the mainstream beauty standard is? Fine. TALK ABOUT THAT. I will agree with you. But slamming "ugly" girls and slamming "pretty" girls both amount to slamming girls. So, you know. Less of that, please.

Meanwhile, Notes on Popular Culture has already provided the counterpoint for Team Taylor: "Sady calls the comparison between the two girls 'girl-on-girl sexism.' What Sady forgets is that this is what people do. That is what girls do, that is what teenage girls do, this is what girls do when another girl has they guy they like. It’s tame, and pretty damn fair."

Or is it?

SADY:: let's talk about ladies who don't like other ladies! through the universal language of SONG! (the ladies who hate other ladies. not me, or, i would imagine you. let us conduct this discussion instead through the universal language of Gchat.)

AMANDA: agreed!

SADY: first of all, i think we need to separate the lady-disliking-lady song from the you-cheated-on-me-song (as sung by a lady). because both are venerable pop conventions. but one is pretty specifically about disliking a lady, and the other is more about being upset with somebody who cheated on you and referring to the co-cheater as a "tramp" or whatever.

AMANDA: so, you're saying there is a difference between your unnecessary "I Hate That Bitch" song and your Jolene rip-off?

SADY: i would argue, yes! although... maybe not? (BEHOLD, as i introduce and then disagree with my own points!) because, like, in "before he cheats," by carrie underwood, she mentions that there is "probably" a "bleached-blond tramp" in this dude's life before introducing some truly epic automotive destruction on the possible-tramp-liker.

AMANDA: oh ... "probably.” see, this is where it gets interesting. because doesn't carrie underwood appear to have bleached blond hair?

SADY: haha, and the hypothetical tramp sings "fake Shania karaoke" at one point. PROJECTION!

[youtube:v=fNzowNrhSx8]
Carrie Underwood's "Before He Cheats"
Woman: bleach-blond, wavy-haired Carrie Underwood
Other Woman: bleach-blond, straight-haired Carrie Underwood look-alike

AMANDA: and isn't it innocent-glasses TAYLOR SWIFT HERSELF, ladies and gentleman of the jury, and not bitchy-brunette Taylor Swift, that is the "other woman" in "You Belong With Me"?

SADY: RIGHT! or in "girlfriend," by avril lavigne, which is basically the same song: "hey hey you you i don't like your girlfriend hey hey you you i could be your girlfriend why can't you see you belong with me?" they sort of blur together into an identical message point in my head. also that "don't you wish your girlfriend were the pussycat dolls" song. there are a LOT of these songs!

[youtube:v=iT5Ez_qxpc0]
Avril Lavigne's "Girlfriend"
Woman: Redhead glasses-wearing Avril Lavigne, who is "like, so whatever."
Other Woman: Brunette punk-rocker Avril Lavigne, who is a "mother-fuckin' princess"

AMANDA: practically the same song, except avril subs in "punky arm-warmers" for glasses. But let's go back to Jolene for a moment, shall we?

SADY: let's!

AMANDA: so, instead of trashy bleached-blond hair (or trashy brunette-died hair, depending on the version), jolene has got a smile like a breath of spring, or whatever.

SADY: right. there's a lot of lavishly detailed jolene-sexiness, which makes the song weirdly kind of ladyrotic, all about the power of another woman's sexuality.
AMANDA: right ... and it raises an interesting point about how these "other women" are romanticized and demonized in song. the "other woman" song is an interesting thing to talk about from a feminist perspective I think. for example, when Dolly Parton is begging Jolene not to take "her man," she exerts ownership over another human being and even attempts to control another human (jolene) in order to keep that ownership. instead of being like, "fuck it," which maybe would not have made for a very compelling song, i guess. and so, perhaps you could give a feminist reading to "Girlfriend" and "You Belong With Me" in that these are women reminding other humans that they aren't property.

[youtube:v=1plvBR02wDs]
Dolly Parton's "Jolene"
Woman: Can't compete.
Other Woman: Flaming locks of auburn hair, ivory skin, eyes of emerald green, smile like breath of spring, voice soft like summer rain.

SADY: welllllll... possibly? i think both are actually ABOUT competition over territory (territory = actual human dude). in one case you are trying to lure a dude away, and in another, you are trying to keep hold of him. but, weirdly, i don't think that is so feminist? because what a lot of these songs do is sort of make the dudes not responsible for who they cheat on you with / who they date, in order to transfer all of the animus onto another woman. women are always sort of the villains, even if it's a dude who is making the choices you disagree with. compare this to one of my favorite dude-finds-out-his-lady-cheated songs, "take a letter, maria," in which a dude rolls into the office, tells his secretary his wife's been sleeping with another dude. then, asks her to draft a divorce letter. then, tells her she's his girlfriend now. like, the dude just kind of keeps rolling on. the lady is STILL the villain, even in songs about cheating ladies sung from dudes' perspectives. not the guy his wife slept with.

AMANDA: so ... does any dude actually choose his girlfriend based on who writes the best song about why he should be their girlfriend?

SADY: i kind of wish they did!

AMANDA: i dont! i such at that shit!

SADY: well, i think the vast majority of dudes would get a case of The Creeps if we were all under their windows performing dance-offs about them. which DOES kind of make the whole "you belong to me" genre weirdly feminist: it's women being suitors, not desired objects. granted, it's in some kind of wacky "i could totally fulfill all your needs better than she can" way, but WHATEVS.

AMANDA: right, and weirdly enough, the guys are hardly humanized.

SADY: exactly. like, it's not about how dreamy they are or whatever. they're not singing the dude's praises. they're just like, "WANT DUDE! DUDE MINE!"

AMANDA: it's possible that these "empowering" other-woman songs are just co-opting the worst aspects of traditional male courting behavior. one of the things that irks me about both You Belong with Me and Girlfriend is the assumption that, well, the guy belongs with them.

SADY: yeah! exactly! like, Dude can't choose who he wants to date? MAYBE THE FACT THAT YOU ARE ALWAYS IN THE WINDOW MAKING MOONEYES AT HIM HAS CREEPED HIM OUT, Taylor Glasses!

AMANDA: it's the same old shit where a dude feels entitled to harass a woman because that's what is supposed to happen when you like a girl, no matter what she says about you—like, "no thanks," or "just friends"

[youtube:v=hAq4eKwfBPY]
Pussycat Dolls, "Dontcha"
Woman: Not hot like her.
Other Woman: Hot.

SADY: yeah, exactly. like, the whole "Nice Guy (TM)" bit of jargon we've coined to describe dudes who whine about how they're so awesome and girls STILL won't go out with them and the fact is that they're just kind of chasing the wrong girls around? that seems, weirdly, to be present in some gender-flipped form in "You Belong With Me." Taylor Swift is a Nice Girl (TM) and it is freaking me out a little.

AMANDA: or pretending to be friends when they're really trying to get a boner. full disclosure, I find that song catchy and I listen to it whenever it's on the radio, which is all the time, which is why I know enough about this song to have this weird reservation about one of the lyrics. you pointed this out, as well, but when Swift says that evil bitchy girlfriend "doesn't get his humor" and freaks out when he says certain things, it always seems obvious to me that the guy is saying something so monumentally douchey, and Taylor Swift is just lining up to be like, "I won't call you out on being a douche."

SADY: yeah, exactly. like, i have seen girls do this. the whole "i get boys" thing, that in practice always seems to be about siding with boys when girls call them out on being sexist and/or douches. and i don't know what it is – being known as a "guy's girl" can give you some power, or an illusion of power, in certain circles – but to me I always get post-traumatic Tucker Max flashbacks to when he's like, "but some of my FRIENDS are women! some of my FANS!" and, yeah, but maybe those girls are just biting the bullet and/or deluded enough to think that your douchiness will never affect them unless they laugh along. basically, i think "You Belong With Me" is a song about how Taylor Swift wants to date Seth McFarlane. that is what i think it is. i will never apologize.

AMANDA: maybe they would be cute!

SADY: he could talk to her in the voice of a mean-spirited british baby and/or laconic dog.

AMANDA: that other bitch just doesn't GET that like she does.

SADY: EXACTLY. you know, though, i have been forced to come to the conclusion that everyone in the whole entire world likes taylor swift a little bit more than i do. like, my over-the-top dislike of taylor swift may in fact be wrongheaded and the result of being hit in the head with a skipper doll as a small child or something. people in general don't dislike taylor swift as much as i do, so there is maybe something wrong with me. and i would like to apologize to taylor swift, for whatever i have written about her in the past, using a girl-hating-(i think?)-another-girl-song lyric. from destiny's child. it reads: "you know i'm not gonna diss you on the internet / cause my mama told me better than that."

AMANDA: i heard that song on the radio the other day. taylor swift has, essentially, said the opposite about her career: she's said that all her songs are about dissing people who have wronged her in some way.

SADY: OH GOD. SHOULD I BE WORRIED?

AMANDA: (Yes). But i can't help but thinking that—with all her deliberate high-school-band-geek-goofy-glasses image—taylor swift maybe has underestimated how much people were going to Totally Fall In Love With Her. she's the most successful artist right now, and smoking hot, and she's writing a bunch of diss songs, which probably won't play for very long. just a bit of career advice. because i know a lot about the music business. so ... you're doing her a favor, is what i'm saying, and i can't wait to see what wig taylor swift wears in order to play you in her upcoming single, "I Didn't Know He Had A Nazi Shirt On, You Bitch."

AshleyMadison.com, an online dating site that facilitates extramarital affairs, has never been too popular among moral conservatives. Earlier this year, Deroy Murdock argued on Human Events that Ashley Madison has edged out gay marriage as the number one threat to traditional matrimony. Now, cluck-clucking conservatives won't have to choose between the cheaters and the gays: Ashley Madison has begun marketing itself as a place where the married can pursue their same-sex attractions, too.

Ashley Madison's gay (and bi-curious) population is modest, but growing. Worldwide, the agency hosts 4.7 million members seeking extramarital affairs. Of those, only 143,427 are seeking some same-sex action. About two-thirds of Ashley Madison's same-sex seekers are women looking for women; one-third are men seeking men. Noel Biderman, Ashley Madison's CEO (married, two kids), says that his service provides a necessary sexual outlet for gay men and women who are trapped within the confines of traditional marriage. "There are men and women who, for whatever reason, might have been motivated to pursue a traditional marriage because they did want to build a family," Biderman says. "Unfortunately, in our culture, their sexuality is still at odds with that arrangement."

In an age when marriage equality is gaining serious steam, helping closeted gays escape their repressive straight marriages seems downright altruistic. But Ashley Madison isn't so progressive as to encourage gay men to marry each other. "They're not looking to leave their families," Biderman says of the same-sex contingent. "They're looking to have this on the side." Ashley Madison is not here to release gays from the closet—it's here to offer them a peek outside before returning them safely to nuclear family life. Meanwhile, it invests in the repression. "I don’t want to call it ironic, because people who find this ironic assume that we're a home-wrecking service," Biderman says. "We're not. We are a marriage preservation service."

Nobody relies on the preservation of traditional marriage like Ashley Madison. Ashley Madison's motto, "when divorce isn't an option," seems strange in a country where no-fault divorce makes it easy to reset one's relationship status to single. But Ashley Madison is not designed for folks willing to ruin their home lives so transparently. The service relies entirely on secrecy and discretion—what skeptics might call "lying" and "self-delusion." "This is not a service for people in open marriages," says Biderman. "There are sites out there for the courageous ones—the swinger couples who have found the courage to say, 'I love you, but I need to do something different in the bedroom,'" he says. Ashley Madison, on the other hand, is for people who "can't voice their sexual concerns to their spouses, because they are terrified of the repercussions," he says. "There's this notion that people who engage in infidelity are lying and deceitful," he says. "But people wouldn’t have to lie if these more realistic sexual options were socially acceptable."

As soon as those "realistic sexual options" are accepted, though, Ashley Madison goes kaput. The service wouldn't be making any money if people weren't terrified of communicating with their spouses. Besides, secrets are hot. Ashley Madison's branding centers around the service as a sexy, hush-hush taboo. Ashley Madison may have built an empire out of facilitating transgressions, but its continued success lies in reinforcing the traditional. Biderman's business will only remain viable so long as its members continue to invest in conservative, heterosexual marriages which reinforce monogamy. "People have told me, 'Oh, you should open Ashley Madison in France,'" says Biderman. "I tell them, 'You know, I don’t think they need me.'"

To date, Ashley Madison has only identified a need in the U.S., Canada, and Australia. In order for the service to expand, Biderman has got to locate other cultures that are currently struggling between the repressive and the progressive. "Places like Brazil offer an interesting dynamic, where infidelity among men is extremely high and among women it's much lower," he says. "There’s no reason to believe you can’t be wildly successful there. There is an incredible opportunity for a global phenomenon."

Biderman's latest campaign to make this an Ashley Madison world has, so far, failed to reach its full potential. "We always thought there would be a marketplace for same-sex affairs, but it's been difficult to cultivate it," says Biderman. "We could probably stretch those legs further, but there are so many obstacles to advertising our brand. We have enough difficulty advertising infidelity—think about the problems we'd have marketing to same-sex infidelity. I cant even tell you one avenue where I could effectively market that."

Ashley Madison's target demographic —people who lead conservative lifestyles but secretly yearn for a transgressive kick—is difficult to target. Social conservatives, remember, are obligated to respond to businesses like Ashley Madison with concern, outrage, and calls for banning. Ashley Madison claims to support the institution of marriage. Other American institutions have proven less than supportive of Ashley Madison. Recently, police kicked a tanker truck advertising Ashley Madison affairs out of the city of Philadelphia. Earlier this year, an Ashley Madison commercial was deemed too hot for the Superbowl. "We've got the Parent Television Council saying these ads are reprehensible," says Biderman of the Web site's conservative backlash. "There's this huge fear to have any sort of conversation about sex."

[youtube:v=EwJSD46JSoM]

As a result, Ashley Madison's marketing strategy has attempted to awkwardly straddle the divide between the conservative and the progressive. In one television spot, targeted toward women, Ashley Madison is offered as an alternative to a life married to a sexist pig. This husband arrives to an anniversary dinner late, leaves early, and in the meantime, ogles other women and implies that his wife is fat. Cheating on this guy practically constitutes a feminist act. The ad targeted at men contains no such progressive bent. In this version, the poor man's wife isn't a jerk—but she's fat, and she snores, too! This man is encouraged to cheat on his wife for more, shall we say, traditional reasons: he just wants to fuck someone else behind her back. And there's nothing progressive about dudes doing that.

[youtube:v=mZLjwhEp7nU]

Ashley Madison's new PR push advertising same-sex affairs may further alienate the conservative base it requires to stay relevant. Then again, perhaps the gay element is just what Ashley Madison needs to keep conservatives abreast of its services—and curious about exploring its taboos. Every time a religious conservative declares a sexual practice an affront to human decency, a new conservative kink is born.

Illustration by Bonnie Kennedy

Ashley Madison, the online social network for men and women seeking extra-marital affairs, has had trouble landing its advertisements (above) on television and radio. So they've dumped their pro-cheating ads on the side of Remy Santiago's gasoline truck. On Friday, Santiago's cheatin' truck rolled through D.C., and settled in one location for about an hour. So what's the most cheating-amenable intersection in Washington?

When Santiago's month-long roll across the country for Ashley Madison hit D.C., he parked the affair-mobile on the corner of Florida Ave. & North Capital Street—right in the heart of my neighborhood. Silly me: I thought Ashley Madison's target demo would hang out just a liiiiittle further south on North Capitol. Maybe Santiago just wanted a cappuccino?

Good thing I'm not married, and thus cannot be convinced to engage in an extra-marital affair by walking past a really big truck! Many of my neighbors are not so lucky.

But even married folks of Bloomingdale and Eckington may be proven immune to the effects of Walking Past a Really Big Truck. Santiago, who is married, has been trucking billboard-sized phrases like "Life Is Short, Have An Affair" and "Have An Affair, Anywhere" for weeks now, and he claims he hasn't been swayed to cheat himself. Besides, Florida & North Cap is far from the cheatiest corner of the U.S.:The truck driver told Fox 5 he "found the most positive responses in Detroit."

Like many people, I harbor a modest fascination with Mad Men's Don Draper and his charmingly misogynistic web of lies. I wonder what Don Draper would tweet about, if he lived in 2009?

Super boring shit, apparently! Oh yeah: And Don Draper would never be pathetic enough to stoop to social networking. This guy, however, looks like a Don Draper worth following:

How are only 37 people into this?

Who is this Dan Sullivan?

Bring it on:

Quick Quiz! Sex. What is it, exactly?

A. One step past whatever you were just caught doing with that woman who is not your wife.

B. Anything that two people do together in private when they love each other very much, not including whatever those queers are doing.

C. Whenever the one with a penis has an orgasm.

D. Given the obvious power disparity between men and women in the patriarchy, an implicitly non-consensual act—unless two girls are doing it, but only if two girls are doing it exclusively for their own pleasure and not to satisfy the male interest in two girls doing it.

E. Dancing.

Today, Sady of Tiger Beatdown and I will get to the bottom of this mysterious phenomenon, and figure out why the definition of "sex" is not actually any particular combination of penises, vaginas, anuses, and mouths, but rather a tool for cheaters to pretend they're not cheating and homophobes to pretend they're different from gays. Good morning, by the way!

AMANDA: hi

SADY: why hello!

AMANDA: do you want to talk now?

SADY: yes indeed! first off, i think we should acknowledge that approximately 125,000 celebrities will have died by the time we post this. THE GRIM REAPER HAS COME FOR CELEBRITY

AMANDA: and they never learned the true meaning of sex!

SADY: ah, yes. apparently, americans "can't agree" on it! this is something i could in no way have learned from my own personal life of dating. i define sex as a peanut butter sandwich. is that so wrong?

AMANDA: when involved in a high-profile political scandal, i define sex as "one step past whatever i did with that woman"

SADY: i personally define sex as "anything you can't tell grandma about for fear she might lose her tenuous grip on this mortal coil." but the studies themselves are intriguing!

AMANDA: yeah definitely. i think, though, that they may be lacking in context. like, it's not as important to define what "sex" is as it is to define what we're comfortable with people doing with us or with other people. i feel like defining sex is just inviting loopholes. see: anal sex to keep virginity.

SADY: right, exactly.

AMANDA: and any cheater's excuse about anything

SADY: and many many men's magazine think-pieces about how it's not cheating if it is with a stripper or other sex worker

AMANDA: or in argentina. etc.

SADY: oddly, the men's definitions of sex tend to be more liberal than the ladies', though, as per this particular article! like: forty-four percent of men surveyed said that oral sex was doin' it. only thirty-seven percent of ladies said the same.

AMANDA: yeah, that was a surprise to me. i have a theory on this. it's good.

SADY: i eagerly await it!

AMANDA: ok, so women are socialized to downplay their sexual expertise in order to not appear as— i believe the scientific word is "slutty". and so may tend for the stricter definition in self-reporting. whereas men may want to fudge it a little bit in order to be able to put another notch in the bedpost

SADY: there is actually a long passage in that keith gessen novel ("All The Sad Young Literary Men") that backs up your theory. observe how i move smoothly from actual science to literature! but: the dude is trying to figure out his Number and his List and whatever and is trying to figure out how liberal his definition needs to be. he concludes, if i remember aright, that blowjobs should indeed count in The Number!

AMANDA: sha-wing

SADY: whereas ladies might indeed self-identify as Virgins, a la Dionne in "Clueless" (CINEMA! INTERDISCIPLINARIAN THOUGHT!) had they only, say, given the BJs, or received the Lady BJs. actually, this study is weirdly non-specific about Giving and Receiving of sexual favors.

AMANDA: yeah, i noticed that also. allow me to extend an example from yet another genre, the Hip Hopera.

SADY: please do!

AMANDA: one thing that i've always found is important in these definitions is who is doing the sexing or non-sexing. so, a man could get Very Very mad at his girlfriend kissing another man, while he's out Real Penis Vagina sexing some other woman. and maybe it's not so much men excusing their own behavior while demonizing women, but that, as an individual, you can excuse your own guilt because you know the emotional context, the strength of the temptation, etc. etc. See: R. Kelly's Trapped in the Closet, where everyone is fucking everyone else and they all get PISSED when they find out their significant other has been doing the same thing.

SADY: yes, and yet i feel that (since this article is all about contextualizing "sex" in light of certain political figures putting the Thing in the Places Where You Ought Not To) that there has probably never been a case of someone being cheaterly without KNOWING that they were being a cheaterly cheater. i think you can basically define "cheating" as "that thing you're going to feel really guilty about not telling your wife and/or husband and/or unmarried life partner because you know, for some reason, even if there was no Sexual contact involved by any definition, that you did something they would not like."

AMANDA: totally. i think the rush to define it, in the case of the high-profile cheating, is that the public is just honestly curious about the sexy details. not that we like, want to know what sex is.

SADY: right? especially if they took place in argentina! and involve THE FORBIDDEN PASSIONS that you told everyone you were on the Appalachian Trail to cover up! all of the futzing around, semantically, can be useful only when trying to figure out how the other person involved sees your sexual exchange... but no-one's denying that the exchange was sexual, in that case. the actual interest is kind of in knowing what other people have been up to.

AMANDA: and, in the case of say, gay sex, trying to define them out of the mainstream or out of existence. like, sure, you can put your penis in his butt, but it's not sex, whatever it is you're doing. which i refuse to equate with my penis in vagina business.

SADY: ha, yeah, or sex between women, in which case basically everything outside of a strap-on is relegated to "foreplay." never "duringplay."

AMANDA: UGGGGHHHH i feel myself sliding into the inevitable rant about the supremacy of the male orgasm in the sexual blah de blah and how that's what this is all REALLY about and i can't force myself to do it.

SADY: you sure? i have lots of thoughts about how the penis-in-vagina-as-real-sex thing is totally not good even for couples that have, respectively, penises and vaginas! LOTS OF THOUGHTS I TELL YOU.

AMANDA: save it for another sexist beatdown.

Photo by Mike Licht