Since assaulting girlfriend Rihanna in February of 2009, Chris Brown has repeatedly tried, and failed, to convince the public that he is sorry. On Aug. 31, 2009, Brown told Larry King: "When I look at it now, it's just like, wow, like, I can't believe that that actually happened." On Nov. 16, he told Wendy Williams "the steps that I've taken to show that I'm sorry probably have been perceived wrong," adding later in the show that he loves women. And Brown's tribute to Michael Jackson at last night's BET awards failed to correct the public perception problem.

In case you missed Brown's performance, the R&B singer was tasked with performing a medley of Jackson's greatest hits on the award show. He started with "The Way You Make Me Feel," continued with "Smooth Criminal," and sailed through "Billie Jean" before finally arriving at "Man in the Mirror," at which point he collapsed in tears, fist-pumped the air, and exited the stage without finishing the song. Commenter Lizrd described the spectacle this way: "Chris Brown did the Michael Jackson tribute, and then proceeded to cry throughout 'Man in the Mirror' in what I can only assume is a delicious truffle filled with creamy irony, descended from heaven as a gift for me."

Today, commentators are speculating as to whether Brown's tearful denouement was authentic or staged (smooth criminal indeed). The real question is what on earth Brown is meant to be expressing sadness about here. Is it Michael Jackson's premature death? Pelicans covered in oil, which appeared on the big screen during the song? That he assaulted his girlfriend last year? Maybe it's Haiti.

The Washington Post's Celebritology column asks if whatever that was means it's time to forgive Brown for assaulting Rihanna. I can't tell the music-listening public when (if ever) it ought to extend its forgiveness to Brown. But I would suggest that the guy needs to do a little bit more than cry indiscriminately over an undetermined source of sadness in order to get our money back.

Date Rape Anthem: Juelz Santana's "Back to the Crib," featuring the no. 1 guy who really shouldn't be participating in tributes to sexual assault, Chris Brown. [Thanks to Megan Thomas-Melly for the recommendation].

Relevant Lyrics:

Shorty said she wanna roll with me
I said yeah
She don’t know that we going back to the crib
She know that I’m on her
She don’t know that we going back to the crib
Back to the crib, yeah

She wanna roll with me
She wanna go with with me
But she dont know I'm tryin to take her back home with me

. . . Lil mama we can birthday text
Yes I said text
But I know you know what I really meant (sex).

Why It's So Rapey: Here, Santana and Brown are essentially admitting that they are in the business of luring women back to their caves under false pretenses. Are you under the impression that you and Juelz are going to be engaging in some texting this evening, perhaps after rolling out of the club and on to a public second location? Guess again! You will be sexing this evening, in Juelz's crib. You should have known what he really meant.

But Is It Good? According to the hierarchy of date-rape jams,"Back to the Crib" is one of the most dangerous odes to predatory sexual behavior out there, because goddamn if I can't get the sweet melody of "she don't know we goin' back to the crib" out of my head. "The song is so catchy and of course I love it, I am meant to love it," writes Thomas-Melly. "but the lyrics are basically about raping someone."

I recently scolded Chris Brown for employing the phrase on the Wendy Williams Show, citing four criteria (a) "I Love Women" essentializes an entire gender; (b) it really means "I love having sex with women"; (c) it is generally employed as a thin cover for a blatant sexist phase; or, worse: (d) it is assumed to be a get-0ut-of-jail-free card for past misogynistic behavior.

But Weingarten insists that he's not using "I love women" in the Chris Brown sense of the phrase:

Washington, D.C.: As a regular user of the phrase "I love women" right here in this very chat, what say you about this?

Gene Weingarten: This is interesting, and a comeuppance for me. Except when I say "I love women" I do not mean "I love to have sex with women." I mean something less crude, but no less objectionable, I suppose. I am saying that I find a combination of certain traits—compassion, empathy, the ability to wield sexual power with sophistication and adroitness and mercy, the sometimes comical pursuit of decency and cleanliness, a distaste for the vulgar and common, an instinctive kindness, and instinctive appreciation of tastefulness and decorum, a charming embarrassment over coarse bodily functions, and several other attributes—to be adorable and enviable and worthy and beyond the understanding of many men. In this sense, I am, in fact, both generalizing (all women are not alike) and diminutizing (I find these things, God help me, "cute"). I am guilty of this and apologize.

Gene Weingarten: Here's how much I respect women: If I were a gynecologist, I would administer ma'am-ograms.

So, Weingarten isn't using "I love women" in a (b) "sex!" or (d) "excuse for hitting his girlfriend" way, but he is using "I love women" in an (a) "generalizing" and (c) "deminutizing" way. Basically, he's batting .500 on "I love women." But hey, at least he's honest about it.

The battle for ideological dominance in our nation’s capital’s collegiate sex columns continues. Are our local campus columnists on the forefront of radical sex writing, or are they bringing back the good old days of blaming girls for getting unexpected boners rubbed on their butts?

This week: How to get laid without anyone knowing you got laid; sympathy for Rihanna is running out; butt boners!

GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY

Sex Tips: Georgetown Hoya sex columnist Colleen Leahey is officially the only person willing to admit that she appreciates the work of Chris Surette, the infamous Fairfield Mirror sex columnist who conceives of casual sex in these terms: "Not only is it a story for you and your boys, but others will soon realize what happened when they see your victim walking back to the dorms in her dress from last night, with a disgraceful look on her face as if she was robbed of her dignity."

Well, those words were such an influence on Leahey that they inspired her new column: "How to Survive the Dreaded Walk of Shame." (A servicey take on the matter!) "I’m sure [Surette] received countless emails ripping him apart for his chauvinistic comments," writes Leahey. "But the article was also a hoot because it is true."

Life Lesson: Remember: It's not the sex that's  shameful, it's people knowing that you had the sex. "If you truly desire to avoid the walk of shame, make him come home with you," writes Leahey. "Hooking up on your turf, rather than his, is optimal. You can avoid his teasing and snickering friends the next morning. You know your sheets have been cleaned in the past week; Lord knows the last time he threw his into the washing machine. And (sound the trumpet here), you avoid the walk of shame."

Progressive Meter: Hey, at least it's okay to hook up. But it's not a college dating column without some traditional gender roles thrown in for good measure. Boys are dirty! Four.

—

HOWARD UNIVERSITY

Sex Tips: The Howard University Hilltop doesn't publish a regular sex column, but its editorial staff regularly weighs in on "issues." This time around: "Yeah, He Was Wrong-–-But is Rihanna Trying to Play Us?," in which the Hilltop staff declares that Rihanna's recent 20/20 interview was "calculated and inauthentic." "Maybe it would have been different if she had used the situation and the publicity it received to do what she claimed she was doing with her '20/20' interview all along," they write—"before her album was set for release."

Life Lesson: Keep your private and professional lives separate, so that your history with domestic abuse is never misconstrued as an attempt to gain popularity points.

Progressive Meter: The story's lone commenter dismisses the opinion as "another femi-nazi editorial." Hmm. Really?

I, too, have expressed discomfort with the idea that Rihanna's "recovery" from her abusive relationship must arrive right on schedule—just as her new album drops. But I'm more interested in the public pressure that has required Rihanna's life as a pop star life and abuse victim to be perfectly in sync.

Rihanna's public image has been appropriated by so many fans, feminist commentators, and music executives since Chris Brown beat her up last February, I feel it's short-sighted to pin this awkward timing on Rihanna's own misstep. Instead, let's focus on the music industry's insistence upon exploiting her history of domestic violence to amp up her stardom—and the media's insistence upon exploiting Rihanna's stardom in order to discuss domestic violence. True feminazis know this is all about the structure. Good discussion, though! Seven.

—

UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND

Sex Tips: Esti Frischling of the UMD Diamondback advises girls how to avoid getting unexpectedly rubbed by a man's genitals in College Park bar The Thirsty Turtle. This is what "The Turtle" feels like for a girl: "At real-people bars, it’s not socially acceptable to just go up to strange girls and start humping them from behind. At the Turtle there seems to be an unwritten rule that makes uninvited dry sex the new 'can I buy you a drink?' You don’t even get to see the guy’s face, but he gets to feel you up in public, and you get to feel his boner."

Life Lesson: "Boner-to-butt" is an emergency indeed, and should be treated as such. "Your friends can also be a valuable asset in the repelling process. You guys should each agree beforehand to be in charge of rescuing the others in the event of a boner-to-butt emergency." But in the end, it's your fault for whoring it up at the Thirsty Turtle. "You and your friends can also act as a team by collectively dressing less like sluts. If you guys are the only girls in the Turtle who aren’t wearing hankies as shirts and belts as skirts, you’re likely to get a lot less unwanted attention."

Progressive Meter: I love that Frischling is tackling the modern problem of butt boners! I don't love the assumption that butt boners are only a problem for the sluttiest of hos, however—or that the problem should be solved by girls buttoning up. Three.

Photo by Claire L. Evans, Creative Commons Attribution License 2.0

Chris Brown appeared on the Wendy Williams Show on Friday, where he talked about his anger management classes, explained that his posture has been misconstrued by the media, and basked in the excessive fawning of Williams' female audience.

The whole interview was weird. Williams opens the segment by describing Brown in strangely passive language: "Our first guest has faced a firestorm of criticism for the past several months after a widely-publicized domestic violence incident which occurred with his former girlfriend, Rihanna." But the low point of the interview comes at segment's end, when William asks Brown if he's dating anyone. Brown responds, "Of course. I love women." And the crowd goes wild.

I hate "I love women."

Let's see what other illustrious male stars also "love women":

Tucker Max loves women:

I hate a lot of things, (stupid people and Duke basketball, for instance) but nowhere on that list is women. I LOVE women. Now, do I treat some women like shit? Yes, sometimes, but I treat EVERYONE like shit, not just women. Sexism is treating one sex differently from the other(s). I treat people as individuals.

Mel Gibson loves women:

I love women. They're the best thing ever created. If they want to be like men and come down to our level, that's fine.

Tom Cruise loves women:

Interviewer: You seem to have a real respect for women. What is it that you like so much about them?

Cruise: They smell good. [Laughs]. They look pretty. I love women. I do.

Silvio Berlusconi loves women:

"I think Italians recognise themselves in me. I am one of them. I was poor, I am interested in the things that interest them, I love football, I smile, I love others and, above all else, beautiful women," he said to loud applause.

Christopher Walken, as the eternally skeevy dude in the SNL sketch "The Continental," loves women:

You look so lovely. It is as though Michelangelo sculpted you by hand . . . then kept you for himself.. in a closet . . . to visit on lonely nights. Would you care for a glass of champagna? I knew you would. I knew you enjoy champagna. How do I know this? Because I love women. I can read their mail . . . I mean, mind!

Why is "I love women" the worst thing you could possibly say?

(a) It assumes that all women are the same. I'm a heterosexual woman with plenty of men in my life. I love my father, my brother, and my boyfriend. I do not love Tucker Max, Tom Cruise, or the skeevy guy in The Continental. How could this possibly be? Because I understand that even though my boyfriend and Tucker Max share a couple of pronouns, they have little else in common. Men who announce that they "love women" fail to recognize us as individuals.

(b) When you say "I love women," you really mean, "I love having sex with women."

(c) The phrase is almost always evoked defensively. Accused of calling a female police officer "sugartits"? Just say, "I love women." Convicted of beating up your girlfriend? "I love women." Accused of frequenting underage prostitutes? "I love women." Rumored to have brainwashed a beloved female star in order to make her into your Scientology baby factory? "I love women." This statement is the misogynist's answer to the racist's "I'm not racist but," and the homophobe's "some of my best friends are gay."

(d) Note the context. "I love women" is almost always prefaced or followed by some seriously sexist shit. You love women because they smell good? Great. What about women who don't smell good? Possibly the most annoying "I love women"-related commentary is the sentiment that "women are better than men" (See: Gibson). When Gloria Steinem said that “A pedestal is as much a prison as any small, confined space," she was talking to all these skeezes, who hold women up to a high standard of fuckability, then degrade all the females who fail to live up to that standard.

Do you wish that Rihanna and Chris Brown would put aside their differences and resume their abusive relationship already? No? Then you'll hate WPGC's newest concert promotion!

WPGC 99.5, a D.C. hip-hop and R&B station, is currently airing a concert promotion that uses the theme of "bringing Chris and Rihanna back together" in order to get people to listen to the radio.

In truth, the concert is offering up tickets to see Chris Brown in D.C. and Rihanna in London, so WPGC is only bringing Chris Brown and Rihanna within 3600 miles miles of each other, but look! They creepily Photoshopped a picture of them together, so it's almost like the real thing. "95.5 is brining Rihanna and Chris Brown together again... sort of!!" the promotion announces. "win tickets to see Chris Brown in DC and qualify to see Rihanna in concert in London! Everytime you win Chris Brown tickets you qualify!"

And just in case you didn't get that it was a joke about how Chris Brown beat up Rihanna and wouldn't it be great if that was still happening: "Bringing Chris and Rihanna back together—-within legal restraining order limitations of course—-From 955 PGC!!"

I understand that the only thing that might make someone excited to win Chris Brown tickets anymore is the possibility of also winning Rihanna tickets. And hey, I would love to win a couple of free tickets to see Rihanna in London! But this promotion is so offensive, I'm not sure I could really muster the strength to pick up the phone to be the 9th caller here. Who is the target audience for this? People who truly want to watch Chris Brown in concert, travel a few thousand miles to watch Rihanna in concert, and in the meantime think about how awesome it would be if those lovebirds could make it work? Or people who think domestic violence is so totally hilarious, this strange virtual double-billing is worth the joke? Who knows: Maybe Chris Brown's team just wanted people to know that he was back on tour again, since it's not like he can make much news on his own without invoking the shining stardom of the girlfriend he beat up nine times.

"Russian Roulette" has been branded Rihanna's "comeback single" in order to mark her first solo effort since being assaulted by then-boyfriend Chris Brown in February of this year. Following the assault, the feminist blogosphere exploded with criticisms, defenses, and theories relating to the R&B singer's personal tragedy. In the following months, Rihanna became a staple on feminist blogs.  The pop star has been consistently mentioned in discussions of sexual assault—but she's just as often been invoked to fawn over her clothing choices and speculate about her love life. In places like Jezebel, where feminist issues and pop culture obsessions both receive heavy coverage, Rihanna's abuse has only fueled interest in her more traditional pop-star duties, like carving out a unique style and churning out catchy songs. In 2009, Rihanna's public identity has emerged as a conflation of high-wattage pop star and domestic abuse survivor.

Rihanna herself, on the other hand, has felt comfortable only playing the pop star part—and has remained extremely tight-lipped about her abuse experience. She has never publicly identified as a feminist or an advocate for victims of domestic abuse. As I prepared this post, I realized with amazement that I had never actually read any full interview with Rihanna. (And, full disclosure, I really like Rihanna, and tend to follow the domestic abuse coverage alongside potential Justin Timberlake hook-up news). The pop star has managed to maintain an extremely high profile in feminism without saying much of anything at all. Rihanna is certainly no Lady Gaga, who has positioned herself in the center of the gay rights movement, even as she releases decidedly apolitical pop tunes (largely about heterosexual sex). It's not so strange for a pop star to opt out of discussing politics (and her personal life). But it is an odd formula for crafting a feminist idol.

Recent critiques of "Russian Roulette" have made clear that feminists are yearning for Rihanna to step into that role. After hearing the song, Alyssa Rosenberg wrote about her personal wishes for Rihanna's career. "When 'Silly Boy' leaked as a Rihanna track a couple of months ago, I thought it was a perfect career move for her: upbeat, vocally playing to her strengths, and by far most importantly, a rebuke to a guy who would treat his girlfriend badly," she writes. "I do understand that it's extremely difficult to leave an abusive relationship, and I respect that.  But I thought it would have been terrific for someone to overcome such a relationship in public.  Instead, Rihanna is using a song about embracing being terrorized as her comeback single." Jezebel's North was similarly creeped out by the song, writing: "What I'm actually most worried about is her label's thinking on this song . . . if anyone pushed a domestic violence victim to record a comeback song about gunplay, that's something to get angry about."

But the disappointment and anger over the subject matter of Rihanna's new single has also been accompanied by concerns over aesthetics. Rosenberg admits that the song "isn't much good"; North writes that it "kind of sucks." Perez Hilton, writing exclusively on the track's artistic merits, expressed that he was "shocked and saddened" by the lackluster production (though apparently unconcerned with the overtones of domestic violence). Rosenberg and North disclose the song's suckiness as if it's beside the point, but I wonder if the double expectation that Rihanna be both a successful pop star and a model survivor of domestic abuse is responsible for the perceived feminist failure here. The song's aesthetic problems extend to its lyrics, which, while "dark" and "edgy," don't appear to mean anything in particular, and certainly don't qualify as a clear "defense" of domestic abuse. Couplets like "As my life flashes before my eyes / I’m wondering will I ever see another sunrise" and "So many won’t get the chance to say goodbye / But it’s too late too pick up the value of my life" clearly connote violence. But I can't agree with Rosenberg that the song is about "embracing being terrorized"—the main problem with the song is that the lyrics don't convey any specific perspective on the darkness.

"Russian Roulette" may not have succeeded as Rihanna's "comeback single," but it's important to make clear which comeback we're talking about—is it her return to the world of pop, or her recovery from an abusive relationship? Rosenberg "thought it would have been terrific for someone to overcome such a relationship in public." But why does Rihanna's return to music have to come only after she's ready to announce that she's "overcome" domestic abuse? And given Rihanna's obvious reluctance to make her private life public, how could anyone expect her to live up to the feminist obsession that's been brewing over her life and career for the past nine months? Perhaps she isn't ready to play the public role of empowered survivor, and perhaps she never will.

I doubt that Rihanna's critics would be raising the same concerns over her missed feminist opportunity if she had released an infectious club jam like "S.O.S." or "Disturbia" which completely steered clear of an abuse theme. Problematically, both Rosenberg and North argue that the lyrics of "Russian Roulette" do evoke issues of domestic abuse—and go on to suggest that Rihanna is either doing it wrong, or being coerced by her handlers to do it wrong. I don't think we should expect Rihanna to incorporate her new-found feminist fame into her pop songs—like Perez Hilton, I'm more disappointed that the song isn't so hot. But when Rihanna does decide to make a public nod to her experience with domestic abuse, shouldn't we refrain from suggesting that she's not expressing herself correctly as a victim?

So, the cutest viral wedding video of the moment—dare you not to cry!—is this wedding entrance dance staged to Chris Brown's "Forever." Goddamnit!

Full disclosure: I was a shameless "Forever" fan before Brown became super famous for assaulting another super famous person. I still love this track—it's a really great pop song. And fuck, because the unbearable cuteness of this wedding video only helps re-establish Brown as a swoon-worthy romantic authority instead of a guy who beats up his girlfriend.

I can see why some people might experience a little bit of cognitive dissonance watching the adorableness of the video while listening to the musical stylings of a domestic abuser. What I can't understand is why Jive Records would little get upset over this!

Apparently, the record label has taken issue with the use of the song in the widely-circulated video. They should be sending newlyweds Jill and Kevin an autographed Chris Brown headshot; as MTV blogger Tamar Anitai points out, this little piece of publicity is "the most redeeming thing Chris Brown has done in months, albeit indirectly."

[youtube:v=3Mr4kXW6mOU]

By now, we're all pretty accustomed to the exploitation of Rihanna's injuries to feed public curiosity surrounding the high-profile attack (and yes, blogger obsession is guilty, too). Is that exploitation excusable if it feeds our hunger for voyeurism in the name of raising awareness? Of course, DoSomething.org can draw from whatever public record it chooses in its campaigns. But by elevating Rihanna's real-life problem into a Hollywood-size drama, don't we risk making it almost less real? The reenactment is disturbing, but it's also dramatic, sensational, and almost too watchable.

[via Broadsheet].

This is for all my women out there that be getting beat up, you know what I mean, struggling, welfare, sometimes the jobs ain't right, they going through mad trauma, especially with they man when they don't really need that shit.

Rihanna's own mad trauma isn't the subject of the song, but her name is called out several times in the background. Listen to the track, after the jump:

Alpha isn’t always “amused mastery” or grace under pressure. Sometimes, in fact a lot of times, it’s a flying flurry of fists to the face, in the case of Rihanna leaving its demon mark as shadow horns on its victim AKA enabler.

The post then descends into a desperate and masturbatory pursuit of page views.

My favorite response to Roissy, from Uncommon Priors:

I am tempted to fly to D.C. and manifest my alphaness by beating the shit out of Roissy for this post.

Perhaps some good can come of this. All the men who think they're the Alpha-est get together and try to beat each other up the hardest. The winner gets to blog about how much he hates women from prison, where he won't get to see any.

1. Menace to Sorority, wherein a George Washington University sorority accepts a transgender male, forces him out, claims they thought he was just a lesbian.

2. Why Does D.C.'s First Lesbian Bar Have a Problem With Marines? Find the answer in the comments.

3. Sexist Beatdown: Rihanna V. Chris Brown Edition, wherein we discuss whether celeb-obsessed Perez Hilton addicts can provide any positive insight into domestic violence.

4. Does Bonobo Porn Turn You On, Ladies? Well, apparently, yes.

5. Las Vegas' Prolific Prostitutes: Unimpressive, because they're all just glorified tresspassers!

STUDENTS, PARENTS, WOMEN AND MEN OF ALL AGES

Ward 4 Education Council and EZ Street of Radio-One WKYS Union Temple Youth Leader's MPD along with WEAVE have come together to create:

The "DOMESTIC VIOLENCE PREVENTION CAMPAIGN".

The summit will be held at Union Temple Church 1225 W St S.E. Tuesday February 17, 2009 7:00pm

Countless tragedies that occur in our homes, schools and workplace and we are holding this summit for everyone to address their concerns and issues with those who can tell you how to get out before it's to late. This summit will help break the cycle of violence by giving a voice in the fight against Domestic Violence.

The DC Commission for Women today denounced the recent spate of violence involving young women, both nationally and right here in our community. We are saddened by the alleged attack on the young singer Rihanna by her boyfriend, the singer Chris Brown, and are even more disappointed by the number of young women residents of the District of Columbia expressing their views that she deserved to be beaten on local radio call-in shows discussing the situation. Cherita Whiting, Ward 4 Commissioner for the Commission for Women and Chairperson of the Ward 4 Education Council commented, "With teen violence in the District of Columbia the highest in the country, it is particularly unacceptable for these young girls to believe there is anything anyone could have done to make Mr. Brown's behavior okay."

This, combined with the violence between girls that occurred this week at the District's Cardozo High School are cause for serious concern about the realities of teen and intimate partner violence. More than a dozen students (mostly girls) were injured and 16 people were arrested as a result of the fighting at Cardozo.

We applaud the companies, shows and radio stations that have pulled Chris Brown's endorsements, appearances and songs and strongly urge others to do the same. Domestic violence, teen violence, sexual abuse and stalking are serious issues that must be dealt with as such. DC Commission for Women Chair Reta Lewis stated today "if we have women and young girls in this town that think there's anything she [Rihanna] could have done to deserve this, something must be done to educate DC residents on the issue of teen dating violence." The Commission urges everyone to reach out to the following organizations if they are in need of help or want to learn more about these issues:

"WEAVE" (Woman Empowered against Violence) will hold sessions for privacy for all to speak in private with counselors.

Welcome back to a weekly collaboration in which, through the magic of Gchat, New York-based blogger Sady of Tiger Beatdown joins D.C.-based me of The Sexist to hash out the most pressing women's issues of the day. This time it was a no-brainer: Duh, Rihanna. In this edition: what happens when "the people entering into the domestic violence debate are people who are normally, you know, drawing jizz on Zac Ephron's face."

So. Chris Brown allegedly beat up (now-former) girlfriend Rihanna, and:

SADY: it's really troubling. i think it is just hard for people to even approach it without getting into iffy territory, because we have so many messed-up ideas about partner violence itself. and the idea of it surfacing in this huge and troubling way between two super-famous people, who both have (apparently) super clean public images, is really weird.

AMANDA: it is very weird. but then chris brown's whole history is resurfacing now—how he grew up in a really bad situation with an abusive step-dad—and everyone is upset about that. a lot of people are saying 'how dare you bring that up?' as if bringing up the history excuses domestic violence. I have to pee really quick. keep writing. i'll be right back.

SADY: Right. what it tells us is that brown has a history of being exposed to that stuff, and some people are reading that as an excuse-type statement, "oh but he didn't like it when his dad did it so he couldn't have," whereas other folks are reading it as: kids who grow up in those situations sometimes repeat them, it's a programming thing. i am reading a d.h. lawrence novel about how his dad beat up his mom! and lawrence hated it! and then went on to perpetrate it in at least one relationship, i understand! so d.h. and chris brown apparently have something in common.

AMANDA: who knew. i think it's been kind of interesting how the celebrity aspect of this has revealed a lot about how people talk about domestic violence. i remember reading a rumor on the internets shortly after the incident happened that said, "Chris Brown Beats Rihanna For Giving Him Herpes," and then there was this firestorm of people reacting to that, saying, why perpetuate this rumor, and even if it's true, it doesn't excuse anything. But still, I heard that rumor maybe 3 or 4 times just from people that i know.

SADY: right. exactly. it was all over.

AMANDA: because that's how celebrity news works—you hear a rumor, you repeat it. it doesn't have anything to do with your moral position on domestic violence.

SADY: yet i think it is interesting that the first thing people wanted to know was: how did she make it happen? was she possessive? cheating on him? was it the herp? the idea of an abuser as someone who makes a CHOICE, to ABUSE, is kind of absent.

AMANDA: i think part of it is that people just like to talk about celebrities, and now there's this whole movement to make the discussion of this domestic violence somehow more sacred than that—more tempered and more positive—and of course the whole situation is very serious and awful, but i think it's a little too much to expect here. the only reason we're dissecting every little part of it in the first place is because it's chris brown and rihanna, not some joe schmos from down the street who are probably beating each other right now.

SADY: yeah, true enough.

AMANDA: so, the people entering into the domestic violence debate are people who are normally, you know, drawing jizz on zac ephron's face. which is a frustrating place to be in for people who see this as an opportunity to talk about some issues that don't get a lot of time in the public conversation.

SADY: yeah, there's a lot of "if chris brown were MY boyfriend he wouldn't beat me up," versus "rihanna is so pretty, why would you hit HER?" it's kind of weird to acknowledge that people's positions on this, because of the fame, might be less moral than "OMG must come to defense of person who has never seen me or spoken to me but will one day love me back!"

AMANDA: yeah, definitely. what did you think of the spokesperson's comment? i think it was something like, "rihanna is well, we appreciate your concern." i got this press release from some lady judge who was super pissed about that, saying it "glossed over" the issue . . . i thought it was just a pretty standard "no comment."

SADY: yes, that was it, almost exactly. and, you know, normally people who report these things don't have their names published. which makes sense to me given the fact that someone created a "rihanna deserved it" t-shirt – you really want to shield someone from that kind of shaming. so i can see her wanting to be private above all right now. you're a journalist, i mean, way more so than i—what do you think of the fact that her name was reported?

AMANDA: wow, they create t-shirts fast these days.

SADY: yes, and take them down almost as quickly.

AMANDA: i mean, i think that's probably a result of how this was reported, and how all celebrity news is reported. if you're reporting from a police report, the name is struck and there are journalistic standards blah blah. but if paparazzi have the photo of RIHANNA and bloggers are writing first-person accounts of RIHANNA . . . it's out the window then.

SADY: yeah, exactly. and then people are like, "if only we had pictures! if only we had a statement from each of them! they are fame-os, how can they withhold this incredibly fascinating story from us, the public!"

AMANDA: it's too bad, but i think that privacy is one that all celebrities sacrifice, and journalistic standards are really lax for them. you can say pretty much anything about a celebrity and people are rarely sued. so do you think chris brown is going to fade into obscurity?

SADY: i dunno if it's going to be obscurity or infamy. i mean, axl rose was accused of domestic violence. ike turner, obvs. r. kelly not only got a "not guilty" sentence, he got even more famous. there is now a song called "don't call me whitney, bobby." i think that's where this is going.

AMANDA: i like that song. yeah, i guess we just wait for the comeback!

SADY: as do i!

AMANDA: let's agree to meet back here, same place, at the time of chris brown's inevitable comeback.

SADY: okay, i am scheduling it for a year from now. let's place bets. we'll talk.

—

AND NOW: the musical fruits of domestic violence, courtesy of Islands.

[youtube:v=F2SSIcG8FH4]