<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>The Sexist &#187; mark sanford</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/tag/mark-sanford/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist</link>
	<description>Sex and Gender in D.C.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 23 Nov 2009 16:56:07 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.1</generator>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
			<item>
		<title>Sexist Beatdown: Let&#8217;s Talk About Sex, Whatever That Is</title>
		<link>http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/2009/07/02/sexist-beatdown-lets-talk-about-sex-whatever-that-is/</link>
		<comments>http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/2009/07/02/sexist-beatdown-lets-talk-about-sex-whatever-that-is/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 02 Jul 2009 13:00:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Amanda Hess</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Beyond DC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Bill Clinton]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[blow jobs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[cheating]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[mark sanford]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[promiscuity]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[sady]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[sex]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Sexist Beatdown]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Tiger Beatdown]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/?p=4794</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[
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. [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p style="text-align: center;"><img class="aligncenter" src="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2470/3657386741_6cdc751a80.jpg?v=0" alt="" width="308" height="346" /></p>
<p>Quick Quiz! Sex. <a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/07/01/health/main5127062.shtml?tag=stack">What is it, exactly</a>?</p>
<blockquote><p><strong>A. </strong>One step past whatever you were just caught doing with that woman who is not your wife.</p></blockquote>
<blockquote><p><strong>B. </strong>Anything that two people do together in private when they love each other very much, not including whatever those queers are doing.</p></blockquote>
<blockquote><p><strong>C.</strong> Whenever the one with a penis has an orgasm.</p></blockquote>
<blockquote><p><strong>D.</strong> Given the obvious power disparity between men and women in the patriarchy, an implicitly non-consensual act&#8212;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.</p></blockquote>
<blockquote><p><strong>E. </strong>Dancing.</p></blockquote>
<p>Today, <strong>Sady </strong>of <a href="http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist">Tiger Beatdown</a> and I will get to the bottom of this mysterious phenomenon, and figure out why the definition of &#8220;sex&#8221; is not actually any particular combination of penises, vaginas, anuses, and mouths, but rather a tool for cheaters to pretend they&#8217;re not cheating and homophobes to pretend they&#8217;re different from gays. Good morning, by the way!</p>
<p><span id="more-4794"></span></p>
<p>AMANDA: hi</p>
<p>SADY: why hello!</p>
<p>AMANDA: do you want to talk now?</p>
<p>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</p>
<p>AMANDA: and they never learned the true meaning of sex!</p>
<p>SADY: ah, yes. apparently, americans &#8220;can&#8217;t agree&#8221; 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?</p>
<p>AMANDA: when involved in a high-profile political scandal, i define sex as &#8220;one step past whatever i did with that woman&#8221;</p>
<p>SADY: i personally define sex as &#8220;anything you can&#8217;t tell grandma about for fear she might lose her tenuous grip on this mortal coil.&#8221; but the studies themselves are intriguing!</p>
<p>AMANDA: yeah definitely. i think, though, that they may be lacking in context. like, it&#8217;s not as important to define what &#8220;sex&#8221; is as it is to define what we&#8217;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.</p>
<p>SADY: right, exactly.</p>
<p>AMANDA: and any cheater&#8217;s excuse about anything</p>
<p>SADY: and many many men&#8217;s magazine think-pieces about how it&#8217;s not cheating if it is with a stripper or other sex worker</p>
<p>AMANDA: or in argentina. etc.</p>
<p>SADY: oddly, the men&#8217;s definitions of sex tend to be more liberal than the ladies&#8217;, though, as per this particular article! like: forty-four percent of men surveyed said that oral sex was doin&#8217; it. only thirty-seven percent of ladies said the same.</p>
<p>AMANDA: yeah, that was a surprise to me. i have a theory on this. it&#8217;s good.</p>
<p>SADY: i eagerly await it!</p>
<p>AMANDA: ok, so women are socialized to downplay their sexual expertise in order to not appear as&#8212; i believe the scientific word is &#8220;slutty&#8221;. 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</p>
<p>SADY: there is actually a long passage in that keith gessen novel (&#8221;All The Sad Young Literary Men&#8221;) 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!</p>
<p>AMANDA: sha-wing</p>
<p>SADY: whereas ladies might indeed self-identify as Virgins, a la Dionne in &#8220;Clueless&#8221; (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.</p>
<p>AMANDA: yeah, i noticed that also. allow me to extend an example from yet another genre, the Hip Hopera.</p>
<p>SADY: please do!</p>
<p>AMANDA: one thing that i&#8217;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&#8217;s out Real Penis Vagina sexing some other woman. and maybe it&#8217;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&#8217;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.</p>
<p>SADY: yes, and yet i feel that (since this article is all about contextualizing &#8220;sex&#8221; 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 &#8220;cheating&#8221; as &#8220;that thing you&#8217;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.&#8221;</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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&#8230; but no-one&#8217;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.</p>
<p>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&#8217;s not sex, whatever it is you&#8217;re doing. which i refuse to equate with my penis in vagina business.</p>
<p>SADY: ha, yeah, or sex between women, in which case basically everything outside of a strap-on is relegated to &#8220;foreplay.&#8221; never &#8220;duringplay.&#8221;</p>
<p>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&#8217;s what this is all REALLY about and i can&#8217;t force myself to do it.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>AMANDA: save it for another sexist beatdown.</p>
<p><em>Photo by <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/notionscapital/3657386741/"><strong>Mike Licht</strong></a></em></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/2009/07/02/sexist-beatdown-lets-talk-about-sex-whatever-that-is/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Why Female Politicians Don&#8217;t Cheat. Hint: Too Busy Being Female Politicians</title>
		<link>http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/2009/06/29/why-female-politicians-dont-cheat/</link>
		<comments>http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/2009/06/29/why-female-politicians-dont-cheat/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 29 Jun 2009 21:39:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Amanda Hess</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Beyond DC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[affairs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[infidelity]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Jezebel]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mark Foley]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[mark sanford]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Politico]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[women]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/?p=4733</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[
Last week, Politico&#8217;s Melanie Mason tackled the question of why female politicians are so rarely caught with their pants down. Mason starts out with a pretty good theory&#8212;&#8221;Men far outnumber women in elected office, and statistical probability dictates that if a random politician is caught in a sex scandal, it is overwhelmingly likely that the [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3204/3114496628_e9dde87c55.jpg?v=0" alt="" width="420" height="289" /></p>
<p>Last week, <em>Politico</em>&#8217;s <strong>Melanie Mason</strong> tackled the question of why female politicians are so rarely <a href="http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=1A5452E7-18FE-70B2-A87D468DE2F07506">caught with their pants down</a>. Mason starts out with a pretty good theory&#8212;&#8221;Men far outnumber women in elected office, and statistical probability dictates that if a random politician is caught in a sex scandal, it is overwhelmingly likely that the politician would be male&#8221;&#8212;and then offers up a bargain basement of half-baked ideas in order to cover all the basis&#8212;and sexist stereotypes against women. Most of these reasons would never, ever actually stop a woman from messing around, but that won&#8217;t stop us from buying into it all again.</p>
<p><span id="more-4733"></span></p>
<p><strong>Strong Women Aren&#8217;t Hot Enough:</strong></p>
<blockquote><p>“I guess men in power are terribly attractive to some women, but I don’t think that women in power are attractive to some men,” said former Rep. Pat Schroeder (D-Colo.), who was co-chairwoman of Gary Hart’s scandal-plagued presidential campaign in 1988.</p></blockquote>
<p><strong>Love Finds A Way: </strong>Please. This isn&#8217;t true, but even if it were&#8212;everybody can find somebody who wants to fuck them. This theory also conveniently lets male politicians off the hook. It&#8217;s not their fault! All the women who unexpectedly want to fuck them are to blame, somehow:</p>
<blockquote><p>male politicians may be lavished with sexual attention they are unprepared to handle. “Most of these politicians were the high school boys that couldn’t get the cheerleader,” said [Suzie] Johnson, whose website GoAskSuzie.com specializes in issues of infidelity. “Now the situation is reversed.”</p></blockquote>
<p>&#8212;</p>
<p><strong>The Media Has Eliminated the Female Politician&#8217;s Sex Life:</strong></p>
<blockquote><p>Being so outnumbered in the political realm can also lead to greater media scrutiny for politicians—think, for example, of the brouhaha over Hillary Clinton’s V-neck blouse that sparked a lengthy discussion on the appropriate amount of cleavage a female politician should reveal.</p></blockquote>
<p><strong>Love Finds A Way</strong>: I won&#8217;t argue with the fact that female politicians are often unfairly scrutinized by the news-media. Even when they&#8217;re not caught with their pants down, women are often scrutinized over infidelity&#8212;<strong>Bill</strong>&#8217;s blowjob meant a lot of obsession over <strong>Hillary</strong>&#8217;s reaction. However, it&#8217;s not like the Governor of South Carolina doesn&#8217;t have reporters watching his every cross-continental flight&#8212;and monitoring his sexy e-mails&#8212;as well.</p>
<p>&#8212;</p>
<p><strong>Having A Career Is Hard Enough For Women!:</strong></p>
<blockquote><p>Others say women in high-power careers are so overloaded already that affairs are an unlikely possibility.  As Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-N.Y.) points out, “Who has the time? I don’t have enough time in the day to take care of the responsibilities I have between work and family.”</p></blockquote>
<blockquote><p>Women tend to be able to juggle a lot, but with so many pressures, throwing an extra romance in the mix may feel like just another item to have to multitask. “In a certain way, it’s a privilege, and it still belongs predominantly to men,” said Williams, who is herself a mother.</p></blockquote>
<p><strong>Love Finds a Way</strong>: First, women were too preoccupied with homemaking and baby-raisin&#8217; that they simply didn&#8217;t have the time or energy to hold down a career. They just couldn&#8217;t handle it! Now, women are too preoccupied with homemaking, baby-raisin&#8217;, and that career they insisted upon, they just can&#8217;t manage to squeeze the infidelity in. Are female politicians too busy with their careers to ruin their careers, or are there&#8212;again&#8212;just not that many women who have had the opportunity to fuck up?</p>
<p>&#8212;</p>
<p><strong>Women Can Make Babies, Didn&#8217;t You Know!</strong></p>
<blockquote><p>“The tendency or willingness to transgress sexual boundaries in general is much more likely in men than in women,” said Paul Abramson, author of the forthcoming book “Sex Appeal: Six Ethical Principles for the 21st Century.” Abramson, a psychology professor at the University of California, Los Angeles, added that “women are socialized to be much more cautious about sexuality due to the fact that they can get pregnant. Having an affair is a sexual risk, and women are much less inclined to do that.”</p></blockquote>
<p><strong>Love Finds a Way:</strong> As<strong> Megan Carpentier </strong>points out on Jezebel, these women <a href="http://jezebel.com/5303121/where-are-the-female-philanderers">are in menopause</a>. And if they&#8217;re not: condoms.</p>
<p>&#8212;</p>
<p><strong>Women Are Too Emotional To Have Casual Sex!</strong></p>
<blockquote><p>“That’s the reason you don’t see more female politicians having affairs,” Johnson said. “Women are less likely to have physical affairs but more likely to have emotional affairs, and there’s no way to bust those.”</p></blockquote>
<p><strong>Love finds a way: </strong>Emotional affairs leave paper trails, too. See: Mark Foley&#8217;s illicit AIM conversations, Mark Sanford&#8217;s flowery e-mails. Also, why are we listening to the advice of Suzie Johnson of GoAskSuzie.com again? You don&#8217;t have to take the URL literally!</p>
<p>&#8212;</p>
<p><strong>Women are wily bitches.</strong></p>
<blockquote><p>And, of course, there is always the possibility that female politicians have their own sexual indiscretions the public simply doesn’t know about. Those secrets may stay hidden for a while. According to Johnson, “women are way more clever at covering [affairs] up.”</p></blockquote>
<p><strong>Love Finds A Way: </strong>This is likely true&#8212;but it&#8217;s likely true for many male politicians, as well. The idea that women are inherently better at hiding affairs is a tempting, completely unsubstantiated, and useless theory.</p>
<p><em>Photo by <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/veni/3114496628/"><strong>veni markovski</strong></a></em></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/2009/06/29/why-female-politicians-dont-cheat/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>4</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
