My beef with HuffPo's nipple slip coverage, Huffington Post: Liberal Politics, Sexist Entertainment, inspired a range of responses this week. One commenter was peeved that I appear to "take no joy" in my work—an assertion that I roundly deny. Another sees rogue nipples throughout HuffPo's political coverage, as well: "They couldn’t find Hillary’s nipple, but they got as close as they could." And the Huffington Post chimed in, too—though not about the nipple thing.

The best of the rest are after the jump.

Theo Goodwin:

Having been on campus since the 1960’s and having shared my life with all those on the Left, let me tell you that the Left’s objectification of women is no secret, not even on the Left. Self aware members of the Left have said for decades that if abuse of women were to become a serious topic of conversation then all the leading men on the Left would have to line up and take their medicine.

tim33ny:

i read huffpost everyday at work, lots of good reads. judging from your article, it would appear as if you are a conservative. try this, stop focusing your energy on trashing liberal entertainment media and propaganda, and start to focus on how to take back the lost dignity of the right wing. if you try that you may actually get something done. also thanks for letting me kno that huffpost has nipple shots, i never knew that, ill be sure to check them out. btw dont bother replying to this comment because i will not be back to this website to check it. peace.

a liberal democrat from new york named tim

ps. dont forget to hail to the chief!!!

jason:

hahahaha. tim33ny is a prime example of huffpoop’s readership.

-libby mcliburul

Can't get enough of the CockBib (pictured), folks. On The Inventor of the CockBib Speaks Out, Cronin writes:

“Based on my research, most people will buy these because they are funny, not because they are unsatified with a bowjob.”

Research? You mean to say you have a demographic breakdown somewhere that gives you clear numbers on what prompts people to buy baby clothes for their genitals? For the sake of social science, please publish that pie chart somewhere.

Perhaps he can publish it . . . on a CockBib?

It's been an exciting week over in the comments section of Screw U.: Inside the Secret Sex Life of Catholic University. I laughed, I cried, I snuck a girl out through the bathroom when my RA came knocking. But I wanted to highlight two commenters:

From Member of the Underground Jimmy Hat Railroad:

This article couldn't possibly be more accurate.

I transferred to Catholic from a Big 10 state school because I wanted more opportunities to intern as a politics student. I hadn't even unpacked all of the boxes in my dorm room when I got a knock on the door from two students interested to know my stance on the Roe v. Wade.

Later that evening, my RA also knocked on my door with a pitcher of frozen margaritas and promptly provided me with a list of bars in the neighborhood who would accept my student ID and where I could get a great fake NJ ID.

The student body has CONSISTENTLY been packed with students from east coast preparatory schools who are so sexually repressed that when they finally got the chance to explore they completely went wild.

It was a blast. Run don't walk to the mailbox to send in your application.

From God Squadder Mike, who describes himself as "a real 'God-Squadder' of Catholic University":

Upon reading this article and seeing her sources, one wonders where Ms. Hess learned journalistic integrity. It seems a pretty poor argument to base your entire work on the source of one or two students, who obviously seek to push their own agenda of debasing Catholic University. One might query whether or not these students ever sought something more from their collegiate experience besides self-gratifying actions. Furthermore, it causes deep sorrow to see two of my friends, Karen Mahowald and Jonathan Meyer, be misquoted as if to prove that even good Catholics do not practice chastity. The blatant manipulation of their words is an affront to journalism and to truth, but to be expected from someone of Ms. Hess’ poor caliber. It is true what Karen said, chastity is not a list of do’s and don’ts. Chastity is a lifestyle dedicated at freeing yourself from selfish pleasures and focusing on the inherent beauty of sexuality. To treat it as something negative as many unfortunately do, only degrades our humanity further. Jonathan Meyer said, “None of us perfectly lives out our call to chastity.” This is not to say we view it as unimportant or insignificant. Rather Jon was saying that we recognize our own sinfulness and realize that we are bound to sin sooner or later. None of us can be perfectly chaste at all times. This does not stop us from trying. It would not be surprising to find out Ms. Hess is not a Christian as any Christian can recognize the understanding of trying to live like Christ as much as possible, but recognizing that we ourselves are not perfect; we are not sinless. The word is concupiscence, Ms. Hess, and we are all subject to it.

Illustration by Doug Boehm.

From David:

This is sort of odd, ’cause their list… the women are really really hot.

So why would women, who can get their pick of the lekking order, want adolescent boys?

The lonliness excuse doesn’t fly, ’cause they can get whoever.

i don’t think it’s fair to call them pedophiles if they’re not pursuing pre-adolescents, but…

and the whole “tenderoni” thing implies it’s not exploitative and/or predatory…

From Amanda Hess:

David, I agree with you that neither “pedophile” and “tenderoni” seem to fit here. I also agree the women are attractive, and at least socially adept enough to be hired as schoolteachers.

So why do they want to have sex with underage boys? Remember that these women are risking their jobs, reputations, and free lives in order to do it. In Letourneau’s case, she even served time, was released, and returned to the boy again (they’re now married). How do we account for this compulsion to do so despite the consequences?

I’m not going to venture to say that what sexual predators do can ever truly make sense. But when a woman preys on a young man, I can’t help but think that some of the compulsion here lies in subverting the traditional gender dynamic. Sure, many of these women could probably have their pick of men of legal-age. But while those men might want them, would they need them like an underage kid does?

From Eleanora D'Aborborera:

“I’m not going to venture to say that what sexual predators do can ever truly make sense. But when a woman preys on a young man, I can’t help but think that some of the compulsion here lies in subverting the traditional gender dynamic.”

Amanda! This is why I almost never read your column. You are sitting there with the entire internet at your fingertips, and the opportunity to share actual information with many people.

How about you (1) do a search to see what has been written on the topic, and (2) call a few experts to ask their opinions and then (3) write up a few of the things you have learned? Is that too much to ask of someone who writes the only news/culture gender-conscious feature in the City Paper?

Sigh.

I'll double that Sigh, Eleanora. I wish that I had time to thoroughly report out all the conversations that go on in the comments section of my blog. For better or for worse, though, the blog mostly functions as a venue for myself and others to share, opine, and argue. Some of the sex and gender issues I care about I'll open for discussion on the blog; others, I'll report out fully (and I would be honored if you would look for my reported column in the newspaper every week!)

That being said, I'm probably not going to write a reported column on adult female sex offenders, citing experts and victims and perpetrators—it's just not my main area of interest, and I'm a local reporter, not a national one. Even if I did spend a day making phone calls, is that going to conclusively determine why some women sexually abuse underage men? Still, I don't think that precludes me from sharing an opinion that I've formed by following the media coverage of these cases—that these women are acting from a position of power that they can't claim with men of their own age and status; that they are often themselves victims of male dominance (either culturally or explicitly through their own sexual assault experiences); and that her actions are often downplayed specifically because she is a woman, and doesn't fit the abuser profile. Does any of this mean that I can truly understand the abuse of a minor? No.

I can't write a newspaper story for every blog comment, but I can open the conversation on this blog, and I encourage anyone and everyone to share their own insights and information and links and opinions on the phenomenon. Maybe someone else, like you, will take an interest in the subject and write a story on it. If you do, I'll link!

In the meantime, you can check out my reported work here.

She’s not a dumb bitch because she’s a bigot. She’s a dumb bitch because her only reason to support her bigotry was that she was raised in the United States. SO WAS EVERYBODY IN THE COMPETITION YOU DUMB BITCH.

I understand how a smaller state like North Dakota might have to make a compromise between hotness/intelligence/willingness and ignore the middle category. California has plenty of women that meet all three criteria at once. How did we end up with this loon?