<?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; Mike Riggs</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/tag/mike-riggs/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist</link>
	<description>Sex and Gender in D.C.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 24 Nov 2009 02:00:35 +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>Mike Riggs Is Trailer Trash Zombie. But Is It Sexy?</title>
		<link>http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/2009/11/03/mike-riggs-is-trailer-trash-zombie-but-is-it-sexy/</link>
		<comments>http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/2009/11/03/mike-riggs-is-trailer-trash-zombie-but-is-it-sexy/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 03 Nov 2009 16:00:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Amanda Hess</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Beyond DC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Halloween]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mike Riggs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Sexy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[sexy halloween costumes]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[trailer park zombie]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/?p=7325</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[
Yesterday, City Lights Editor Mike Riggs revealed that he dressed as &#8220;Trailer Trash Zombie&#8221; for Halloween this year, a costume he claimed was “not even a little bit&#8221; sexy—“unless short denim shorts, suspenders, a camo ball cap, a black sabbath tee with no sleeves, and really upsetting face paint is your idea of sexy.” Now, [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/files/2009/11/RedneckZombie.JPG"><img class="alignnone size-full wp-image-7324" title="RedneckZombie" src="http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/files/2009/11/RedneckZombie.JPG" alt="RedneckZombie" width="420" height="560" /></a></p>
<p>Yesterday, City Lights Editor <strong>Mike Riggs </strong>revealed that he dressed as &#8220;<a href="http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/2009/11/02/halloween-how-sexy-was-it/">Trailer Trash Zombie</a>&#8221; for Halloween this year, a costume he claimed was “not even a little bit&#8221; sexy—“unless short denim shorts, suspenders, a camo ball cap, a black sabbath tee with no sleeves, and really upsetting face paint is your idea of sexy.” Now, we have the photo evidence to judge for ourselves. Is Trailer Park Zombie sexy? Is it just offensive? Or is it one of the rare <a href="http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/2009/10/06/the-10-worst-sexy-halloween-costumes/">offensively sexy costumes</a>?</p>
<p>Keep this tidbit in mind, courtesy of Riggs: &#8220;also, the shorts progressively shortened through the night as I (a) ripped pieces of them off and (b) pulled them up over my gut.&#8221;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/2009/11/03/mike-riggs-is-trailer-trash-zombie-but-is-it-sexy/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>4</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Rap Sex Euphemism: Gucci Mane&#8217;s Gyros, Egg Rolls, and Tacos</title>
		<link>http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/2009/10/05/rap-sex-euphemism-gucci-manes-gyros-egg-rolls-and-tacos/</link>
		<comments>http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/2009/10/05/rap-sex-euphemism-gucci-manes-gyros-egg-rolls-and-tacos/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 05 Oct 2009 15:15:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Amanda Hess</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Beyond DC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[egg rolls]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[euphemisms]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[gucci mane]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[gyros]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mike Riggs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[rap]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[rap sex euphemism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[sarah godfrey]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[tacos]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ted Scheinman]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[young problems]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/?p=6776</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[
Cataloguing the sexual euphemisms of rap music is one of my favorite pastimes. So when a commenter requested that I parse Gucci Mane&#8217;s lyrics for hidden sexual undertones, I was happy to attempt to smoke out some hidden naughty bits in the rapper&#8217;s contribution to Young Problemz&#8216; &#8220;Boi&#8221; (Mane weighs in at the 2:55 mark).
Perhaps [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wN82bOg5AMs"><img src="http://img.youtube.com/vi/wN82bOg5AMs/default.jpg" width="130" height="97" border=0></a></p>
<p>Cataloguing <a href="../2009/06/10/top-10-rap-sex-euphemisms/">the sexual euphemisms of rap music</a> is one of my favorite pastimes. So when <a href="http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/2009/06/10/top-10-rap-sex-euphemisms/#comment-18225">a commenter requested</a> that I parse <strong>Gucci Mane</strong>&#8217;s lyrics for hidden sexual undertones, I was happy to attempt to smoke out some hidden naughty bits in the rapper&#8217;s contribution to <strong>Young Problemz</strong>&#8216; &#8220;Boi&#8221; (Mane weighs in at the 2:55 mark).</p>
<p>Perhaps I am off my game. Because  for the life of me, I can&#8217;t make out any clear sexual imagery in Mane&#8217;s lyrical feast of gyros, egg rolls, tacos, and sting rays:</p>
<blockquote><p><em>Extra lamb like a gyro / Wrap &#8216;em like a egg roll<br />
Beat up out the taco / Feed &#8216;em to the octos<br />
Fully fully auto / Shawty bout that good plate<br />
Fuck around next they be sleepin with a sting ray</em></p></blockquote>
<p>While the taco reference inspires an obvious anatomical comparison, that octopus shit is beyond me. So I <a href="http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/artsdesk/">turned to <em>CP</em>&#8216;&#8217;s resident art staff</a> for help:</p>
<p><span id="more-6776"></span><br />
Arts editor <strong>Sarah Godfrey</strong> was similarly tripped up by the taco:<strong><br />
</strong></p>
<blockquote><p>After listening a few times, I&#8217;m thinking Gucci has mixed his metaphors a bit here. Although the taco thing and the sleeping with a sting ray thing seem like sex euphemisms, I&#8217;m pretty sure the extra lamb thing is about money, and the wrap &#8216;em like an egg roll and feed &#8216;em to the octos lines are about hurting people. But maybe I just have a hard time understanding his country ass.</p></blockquote>
<p>Arts editor <strong>Ted Scheinman</strong> suspects that &#8220;extra lamb&#8221; refers to the size of Mane&#8217;s dick:</p>
<blockquote><p>Line 1: possible Christ ref. Also, isn&#8217;t this, like, the weirdest endowment boast ever? Shoulda made it a half-smoke!</p>
<p>Line 3: I prefer to read this line as &#8220;meat up out the taco.&#8221; Slightly racier. Though, let&#8217;s be frank, the mixed-food metaphors are starting to make me nauseous</p>
<p>Line 4: Do octopi go for ethnic food?</p>
<p>Line 7: OK, Mr. Mane has now officially jumped the shark into full-on erotic-aquatic imagery. Or I guess this is a threat, like sleeping with the fishes. Either way, Shawty better not fuck around.</p></blockquote>
<p>Listings czar <strong>Mike Riggs </strong>thinks it&#8217;s ALL about the taco. And don&#8217;t call it a taco!<strong><br />
</strong></p>
<blockquote><p>1.) Lamb meat is an imaginative substitute for &#8220;roast beef,&#8221; which was likely the most popular slice-meat parallel to vagina pre-Gucci. It would be worldly, perhaps even sophisticated, if comparisons to deli stuffs weren&#8217;t pejorative.</p></blockquote>
<blockquote><p>2.) I hate taco references, thanks to the scene in &#8220;Me, Myself, and Irene&#8221; in which Jim Carrey commandeers the PA at a grocery store to harangue a woman who&#8217;s buying Vagisil for her &#8220;cheesy taco.&#8221;</p>
<p>3.) Then again, the &#8220;good plate&#8221; sounds, well, good! Like it&#8217;s all tasty down there! And let&#8217;s face it, the vagina is a tasty place, so it might as well be a tasty plate.</p>
<p>4.) I don&#8217;t know about that whole stingray/egg roll/octo thing, except that octopus reminds me of Octopussy, the female lead from the same-titled 1983 James Bond movie, starring seafood connoisseur Roger Moore.</p>
<p>In closing, rappers can and should do better by the vagina. It&#8217;s what they seem to live for, and yet they talk about it in terms befitting a so-so food cart. Jesus. <span style="color: #888888;"><br />
</span></p></blockquote>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/2009/10/05/rap-sex-euphemism-gucci-manes-gyros-egg-rolls-and-tacos/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>12</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Comments of the Week: Mike Riggs Edition</title>
		<link>http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/2009/08/10/comments-of-the-week-mike-riggs-edition/</link>
		<comments>http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/2009/08/10/comments-of-the-week-mike-riggs-edition/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 10 Aug 2009 13:00:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Amanda Hess</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Beyond DC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[comments of the week]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mike Riggs]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/?p=5787</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[
Also: These women are considered &#8220;fat&#8221;? I give up.
Last week, while I was busy exploring the rich Northern Idaho social scene (so much homophobia, you guys&#8212;more on that later), Mike Riggs offered to man The Sexist in my stead. And man he did. But it&#8217;s over now! And thankfully, some brave commenters waded into the [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><img src="http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/entertainment/realitycheck/blog/more-to-love.jpg" alt="" width="420" height="315" /><br />
<em>Also: These women are considered &#8220;fat&#8221;? I give up.</em></p>
<p>Last week, while I was busy exploring the rich Northern Idaho social scene (so much homophobia, you guys&#8212;more on that later), <strong>Mike Riggs</strong> offered to man <em>The Sexist</em> in my stead. And <a href="http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/2009/08/03/could-tig-notaro-play-amy-ray-in-non-existent-comedic-biopic/">man</a> <a href="http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/2009/08/05/more-to-love-sending-the-wrong-message/">he</a> <a href="http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/2009/08/07/i-have-both-a-poon-and-a-peener-big-fcking-deal/">did</a>. But it&#8217;s over now! And thankfully, some brave commenters waded into the fray to say what I was probably thinking. Let&#8217;s hear it:</p>
<p>On <a href="http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/2009/08/05/more-to-love-sending-the-wrong-message/">More to Love: Sending the Wrong Message</a>, in which Riggsy helpfully refers to fat women as &#8220;addicts&#8221; who are victims of &#8220;rationalized over-eating and sedentary lifestyles&#8221;:</p>
<p><span id="more-5787"></span></p>
<p>From<strong> alix</strong>:</p>
<div>
<blockquote><p>Yikes. How is fat-hate feminist? How much help is promoting the message that to fall in love, women need to change themselves as opposed to finding men who are attracted to them just as they are?</p>
<p>Not that I’m defending the show&#8212;but to say that fat people should only be allowed on TV when they’re trying to lose weight? Fuck you.</p>
<p>Do you think that if there was less fixation on weight, and more fixation on health (how the FUCK do you know that these women overeat/ get no physical exercise?), we’d have a healthier society?</p>
<p>I think you need to spend a bit of time at Shapely Prose (<a rel="nofollow" href="http://kateharding.net%29/">http://kateharding.net)</a>, and then report back.</p></blockquote>
</div>
<p>From <strong>Mike Riggs</strong>:</p>
<blockquote>
<div>
<p>Hey Alix, thanks for commenting today! (Before I get started, I’d like to point out that you’re the second person to criticize this post without first watching the show. Would it help y’all to provide some Hulu links?)</p>
<p>Re your points:</p>
<p><em>How much help is promoting the message that to fall in love, women need to change themselves as opposed to finding men who are attracted to them just as they are?</em></p>
<p>I didn’t write that. In essence (that seems to be what you’re referencing–the “essence” of my argument), I’m disappointed that the contestants, from what we’ve seen so far, think that exercise is exclusively for trying to get skinny; that a positive attitude about their body is a substitute for a realistic attitude about their health; and that there’s a nostalgic treatment of over-eating. One woman even remarked (paraphrasing here) that she was tired of getting up in the morning to diet and be skinny. So, to you I say, How is promoting an addiction feminist?</p>
<p><em>but to say that fat people should only be allowed on TV when they’re trying to lose weight? Fuck you.</em></p>
<p>Didn’t write that either. I made an offhand reference to the biggest weight-related reality TV show currently on the air in an effort to show that I THINK IT’S OK FOR A REALITY TV SHOW TO REVOLVE AROUND HEAVY PEOPLE. It’s kind of stupid to hate on me when there aren’t any other reality TV shows about heavy people (unless you want to count that brief series A&amp;E did about morbidly obese people).</p></div>
</blockquote>
<p>From<strong> thedrymock</strong>:</p>
<blockquote>
<div>
<p><a rel="nofollow" href="http://kateharding.net/but-dont-you-realize-fat-is-unhealthy/"></a></p>
<p>It’s great that you think it’s okay for a reality show to revolve around heavy people, but I think you’re missing Alix’s point. Please do take a look around at Shapely Prose (www.kateharding.net). You might want to start with this post: <a rel="nofollow" href="http://kateharding.net/but-dont-you-realize-fat-is-unhealthy/">http://kateharding.net/but-dont-you-realize-fat-is-unhealthy/</a></p>
<p>Leaving aside the show itself for the moment, you’re making a lot of basic assumptions in your post, including:<br />
1) Fat people are all fat because they overeat and don’t exercise<br />
2) Being overweight or obese necessarily causes health problems<br />
3) Losing weight in and of itself (independent of the health benefits of exercising and eating healthy foods) improves health<br />
4) It is possible for most people to lose weight and keep it off</p>
<p>Even if 1-3 were true (and please check out the post I linked for refutation of those), 4 clearly isn’t — as you sort of acknowledge when you admit that “evidence suggests that some people are genetically predisposed to obesity or plain old chubbiness.” The fact is that 95% of people who lose weight regain it (and often some extra for good measure) within 5 years. If those women have “the conviction that fatness is forever,” as you put it, it’s because every single one of them has tried NOT to be fat, has probably spent a huge amount of time and energy on that effort, and it hasn’t worked for them. (And in the process of trying to lose weight, they’ve quite possibly made themselves less healthy overall by losing and regaining weight multiple times.)</p>
<p>But the most ridiculously wrong assertion you make is that “we’re not supposed to comment on or disapprove of fatness.” I don’t know if you are or have ever been fat, but I’ll be shocked if you have been and can still make that assertion. Being fat is almost universally seen as a moral failure, and fat people — especially women (and from what I’ve heard you can see that gender differential in the show) — take all kinds of shit just for existing. Why do you think the women in this show have dealt with so much “weight-related anxiety, depression, isolation, and rejection”? You seem conscious that women especially do suffer from these things because of their weight, but somehow you haven’t put two and two together there.</p>
<p>Your point that it’s ridiculous to think that finding a lover is a panacea for all ills is well taken, but I think you are underestimating how rare that is for fat women and how much better it can make you feel about yourself to be with someone who really doesn’t think you need to spend the rest of your life eating 800 calories a day in order to be good enough for them. Clearly, going on a dating show like this is probably not the way to do that, but given that the Bachelor/ette and other similar dating shows have the exact same premise, I’m not sure why you’re making that criticism of this show and not the others.</p>
<p>Lastly, you keep talking about “addiction,” and I cannot figure out what you’re referring to. It sounds like you’re saying that all fat people overeat and that overeating counts as an addiction. There is such a thing as compulsive overeating, but it’s extremely unlikely that most of the contestants on this show suffer from that. It’s an eating disorder, and it is a serious problem — but the same goes for anorexia, which somehow I doubt you’d refer to as an addiction.</p>
<p>I’m sorry if you feel “hated on,” and I’m trying to be polite here, but you posted on a feminist site about how fat people (and fat women in particular, as there are 20x as many of them on this show as fat men) just need to be criticized more and then they’ll lose weight. You’re gonna get some backlash.</p></div>
</blockquote>
<p>From <strong>brie</strong>:</p>
<blockquote>
<div>
<p>Do you think you’re being some badass rebel or something talking about this when “we’re not supposed to comment on or disapprove of fatness”? Do you think you’re being transgressive or smarter than everyone else or something?</p>
<p>Because you’re not. Being fat isn’t (like you say) something that’s not “openly maligned.” Have you ever been to celebrity gossip website? Or a girl’s locker room? (Actually, I’m sure you haven’t actually experienced the last one, which may explain why you’re so insensitive about this.) I’d like you to name me a place where it’s okay or not maligned to be fat (and NOT this show, which is just as manipulative and exploitative as the rest of the cesspool that is reality TV).</p>
<p>But I’ve got to hand it to you: your reasoning is flawless. All fat people are “addicts”? Even if you’re only talking about the people on the show, I think you’d be hard-pressed to prove that they’re all compulsive over-eaters. But, no, don’t worry about it, let’s all lump them together. They’re like cattle anyway, right? Size-wise? You’re sooooo rebellious!</p>
<p>I bet you write this stuff without thinking about, but you’re what gives millions of girls (of all ages) across this country eating disorders. When you write off people like this or even comment on this exploitative trash, you’re furthering a way of thought (whether you’re doing it on purpose or not) that causes girls to think that stick-think is the only way to be attractive or even vaguely human.</p>
<p>How can you feel good about doing that, just look like some smartass rebel or make some pointless point about a stupid show? How can you run such rancid anti-woman bile in a feminist column?</p>
<p>It’s not dumb, outwardly ignorant people who are the problem; it’s people like you, loud white men who pretend like they can be sensitive and empathize women and gays and lesbians and different races all while spewing this same stupid shit. People like you who pretend they get it but don’t have a clue.</p></div>
</blockquote>
<p>Yeah . . . I&#8217;m with the commenters on this one.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/2009/08/10/comments-of-the-week-mike-riggs-edition/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>3</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Vacation All I Ever Wanted</title>
		<link>http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/2009/07/31/vacation-all-i-ever-wanted/</link>
		<comments>http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/2009/07/31/vacation-all-i-ever-wanted/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 31 Jul 2009 20:24:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Amanda Hess</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Beyond DC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mike Riggs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[most popular blog posts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[vacation]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/?p=5726</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[
Next week, I take my annual exotic vacation from a life of bloggin&#8217; about drag queens and pulling out (okay: I&#8217;m going to Idaho). While I&#8217;m off the sex and gender beat, resident City Paper bike porn chronicler Mike Riggs will be posting here on the Sexist to pick up my dildo slack. He promises to [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kLI3qvhsnng"><img src="http://img.youtube.com/vi/kLI3qvhsnng/default.jpg" width="130" height="97" border=0></a></p>
<p>Next week, I take my annual exotic vacation from a life of bloggin&#8217; about <a href="http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/2009/07/30/how-to-make-a-woman-in-under-an-hour/">drag queens</a> and <a href="http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/2009/07/31/sexist-beatdown-wherever-to-ejaculate-editio">pulling out</a> (okay: I&#8217;m going to Idaho). While I&#8217;m off the sex and gender beat, resident <em>City Paper</em> <a href="http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/2009/07/29/porno-for-gearheads/">bike porn chronicler</a> <strong>Mike Riggs</strong> will be posting here on the<em> Sexist </em>to <a href="http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/2009/07/30/the-dildos-of-the-future/">pick up my dildo slack</a>. He promises to write about dude stuff!</p>
<p>But before I go&#8212;oh, the memories! Let&#8217;s relive last week&#8217;s most popular blog posts:</p>
<p><span id="more-5726"></span></p>
<blockquote><p>1. <a href="ttp://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/2009/07/29/doggie-style-a-sex-toy-for-dogs/">Doggie Style: A Sex Toy for Dogs</a>, in which<em> CP</em> editor<strong> Erika Niedowski</strong> explores the newest “silicone vagina and an easy to clean reservoir,&#8221; for dogs.</p>
<p>2. &#8220;<a href="http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/2009/07/27/he-could-have-sex-with-anybody-he-wanted">He Could Have Sex With Anybody He Wanted</a>,&#8221; in which <strong>Ben Roethlisberger</strong>&#8217;s most ardent fans aren&#8217;t doing him any favors.<a href="http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/2009/07/28/could-condom-shame-be-good-for-pharmacies/"><br />
</a><br />
3. <a href="http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/2009/07/28/could-condom-shame-be-good-for-pharmacies/">Could Condom Shame Be Good for Pharmacies?</a>, in which Trojan sales come with a little gummy bear income on the side.<a href="http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/2009/07/29/dick-sucking-economics-101-6th-and-k-streets-nw/"><br />
</a><br />
4. <a href="http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/2009/07/29/dick-sucking-economics-101-6th-and-k-streets-nw/">Dick Sucking Economics 101: 6th &amp; K Streets NW</a>, in which CP seniro writer <strong>Jason Cherkis</strong> learns how to hide your after-hours sex work from an unsuspecting husband.<a href="http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/2009/07/27/mystics-kisscam-would-be-too-gay/"><br />
</a><br />
5. <a href="http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/2009/07/27/mystics-kisscam-would-be-too-gay/">Mystics KissCam Would Be Too Gay</a>, in which the Washington Mystics protect the KissCam&#8217;s homophobic punchlines.<a href="http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/2009/07/30/the-dildos-of-the-future/"></p>
<p></a>6. <a href="http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/2009/07/30/the-dildos-of-the-future/">The Dildos of the Future</a>, in which rocking chairs grow penises.<br />
<a href="http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/2009/07/29/sex-codes-the-top-31-acronyms-for-your-sexist-racist-fetishes/"><br />
</a>7. <a href="http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/2009/07/29/sex-codes-the-top-31-acronyms-for-your-sexist-racist-fetishes/">Sex Codes: The Top 31 Acronyms for Your Sexist, Racist Fetishes</a>, in which &#8220;Concentration Camp Look&#8221; is used commonly enough to earn a fucking acronym.</p>
<p>8. <a href="http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/2009/07/24/date-rape-anthems-karaoke-no-no-edition/">Date Rape Anthems: Karaoke No-Nos Edition</a>, in which Sublime is off-limits.</p>
<p>9. <a href="http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/2009/07/30/gay-man-arrested-for-mocking-police-bigotry/">Gay Man Arrested for Mocking Police Bigotry</a>, in which</p>
<p>10. <a href="http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/2009/07/30/when-gender-transition-requires-a-long-strange-trip/">When Gender Transition Requires a Long, Strange Trip</a>, in which all plastic surgeons are not created equal.</p></blockquote>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/2009/07/31/vacation-all-i-ever-wanted/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>3</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The City Paper Reviews &#8220;Saddlebacking&#8221;</title>
		<link>http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/2009/01/29/the-city-paper-reviews-saddlebacking/</link>
		<comments>http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/2009/01/29/the-city-paper-reviews-saddlebacking/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 29 Jan 2009 19:44:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Amanda Hess</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[City Paper]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Dan Savage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mike Riggs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Rick Santorum]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Rick Warren]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Saddlebacking]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/?p=2441</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Last week, sex columnist extraordinaire Dan Savage gave Rick Warren the Rick Santorum treatment by turning his life into a code-word for a sex act. &#8220;Saddlebacking,&#8221; named after Warren&#8217;s California Saddleback Church, will henceforth signify &#8220;the phenomenon of Christian teens engaging in unprotected anal sex in order to preserve their virginities.&#8221; (Santorum, incidentally, means &#8220;The [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Last week, <a href="http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/display.php?id=36739">sex columnist extraordinaire</a> <strong>Dan Savage</strong> gave <strong>Rick Warren</strong> the <strong>Rick Santorum</strong> treatment by turning his life into a code-word for a sex act. &#8220;Saddlebacking,&#8221; named after Warren&#8217;s California Saddleback Church, will henceforth signify &#8220;the phenomenon of Christian teens engaging in unprotected anal sex in order to preserve their virginities.&#8221; (Santorum, incidentally, means &#8220;The frothy mix of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the byproduct of anal sex.&#8221;)</p>
<p>City Lights Editor <strong>Mike Riggs</strong>, a born, bred, and lapsed Florida Christian,<a href="http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/citydesk/2009/01/29/how-accurate-is-dan-savages-definition-of-saddlebacking/"> explains whether the definition rings true</a> for evangelicals and fundies &#8220;looking to skirt rules about sex.&#8221; [Hint: they're more into oral].</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/2009/01/29/the-city-paper-reviews-saddlebacking/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>2</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Podcast: Five Minutes* You&#8217;ll Never Get Back</title>
		<link>http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/2008/12/08/podcast-five-minutes-youll-never-get-back-6/</link>
		<comments>http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/2008/12/08/podcast-five-minutes-youll-never-get-back-6/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 08 Dec 2008 19:50:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Amanda Hess</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Five Minutes You'll Never Get Back]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Amanda Hess]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mike Riggs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[podcast]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/?p=1470</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Welcome back to another edition of Five Minutes* You&#8217;ll Never Get Back, the occasional podcast wherein City Lights editor Mike Riggs and I probe the other&#8217;s psyche in an attempt to understand why the other person is the way that they are. I&#8217;m up first. Riggs goes next.
Topics discussed: Mike Riggs, Amanda Hess, narcissism, co-workers, [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Welcome back to another edition of Five Minutes* You&#8217;ll Never Get Back, the occasional podcast wherein<em> City Lights</em> editor <strong>Mike Riggs</strong> and I probe the other&#8217;s psyche in an attempt to understand why the other person is the way that they are. I&#8217;m up first. Riggs goes next.</p>

<p><strong>Topics discussed</strong>: Mike Riggs, Amanda Hess, narcissism, co-workers, Ernest, crippling embarrassment, horrific facial expressions, never smiling, worst part of Mike Riggs&#8217; day, horrible screamo Soulja Boy musical outro that Mike Riggs chose and I had no involvement in.</p>
<p>* pretty close this time!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/2008/12/08/podcast-five-minutes-youll-never-get-back-6/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Podcast: Five Minutes* You&#8217;ll Never Get Back</title>
		<link>http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/2008/11/26/podcast-five-minutes-youll-never-get-back-5/</link>
		<comments>http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/2008/11/26/podcast-five-minutes-youll-never-get-back-5/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 26 Nov 2008 20:45:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Amanda Hess</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Five Minutes You'll Never Get Back]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Bobby Allyn]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[City Paper]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Edward Cullen]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Jane Austen]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mike Riggs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[podcast]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Pootie Tang]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Twilight]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/?p=1307</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Welcome back to another edition of Five Minutes* You&#8217;ll Never Get Back, City Paper&#8217;s sex and politics podcast. This week, City Lights Editor Mike Riggs and I discuss the pros and cons of cinema&#8217;s most recent abstinence-only vegetarian tween vampire phenomenon, Twilight. (Our usual cohort, Intern Bobby, gets a pass this week).

Topics discussed: Jane Austen, [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Welcome back to another edition of Five Minutes* You&#8217;ll Never Get Back, <em>City Paper</em>&#8217;s sex and politics podcast. This week, City Lights Editor <strong>Mike Riggs</strong> and I discuss the pros and cons of cinema&#8217;s most recent <a href="http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/2008/11/25/in-defense-of-abstinence-only-vampirism/">abstinence-only vegetarian tween vampire phenomenon</a>, <em>Twilight</em>. (Our usual cohort, <strong>Intern </strong><strong><strong>Bobby</strong></strong>,<strong> </strong>gets a pass this week).<strong><br />
</strong></p>
<p><strong>T</strong><strong>opics discussed: </strong>Jane Austen, morality, ballet studio, Pootie Tang, Edward Cullen, Zac Ephron unlike Edward Cullen, Mike Riggs unlike Edward Cullen, feasts of flesh</p>

<p>* okay, ten minutes.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/2008/11/26/podcast-five-minutes-youll-never-get-back-5/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Podcast: Five Minutes* You&#8217;ll Never Get Back</title>
		<link>http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/2008/11/13/podcast-five-minutes-youll-never-get-back-4/</link>
		<comments>http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/2008/11/13/podcast-five-minutes-youll-never-get-back-4/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 13 Nov 2008 18:46:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Amanda Hess</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Five Minutes You'll Never Get Back]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Bobby Allyn]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Democrats]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Larry Summers]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[libertarians]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mike Riggs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[podcast]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Prop 8]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Republicans]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[sex]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/?p=1054</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[* Admittedly: Even I am unsure how long the podcast is this time. You know, when City Paper&#8217;s resident libertarian and I get to talkin&#8217;, it&#8217;s anyone&#8217;s guess how long it will take us both to tire of speaking directly to the other. And yet, Mike Riggs and I brave the conversational waters again today [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>* Admittedly: Even I am unsure how long the podcast is this time. You know, when <em>City Paper</em>&#8217;s resident libertarian and I get to talkin&#8217;, it&#8217;s anyone&#8217;s guess how long it will take us both to tire of speaking directly to the other. And yet, <strong>Mike Riggs</strong> and I brave the conversational waters again today in this, our post-election podcast! With us, as always, is intrepid <em>City Paper</em> intern and off-the-cuff interviewer extraordinaire, <strong>Bobby Allyn</strong>.</p>
<p><strong>T</strong><strong>opics discussed:</strong> Post-election sex, Prop 8, making nice, hugging it out, <strong>Larry Summers</strong>, innate mathematical ability, Democrats vs. Republicans, girls vs. boys.</p>

<p><em>Download the podcast <a href="http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/files/2008/11/sexist-episode-4.mp3">here</a>.</em></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/2008/11/13/podcast-five-minutes-youll-never-get-back-4/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
<enclosure url="http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/files/2008/11/sexist-episode-4.mp3" length="5900247" type="audio/mpeg" />
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Podcast: Five Minutes* You&#8217;ll Never Get Back</title>
		<link>http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/2008/10/31/podcast-five-minutes-youll-never-get-back-3/</link>
		<comments>http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/2008/10/31/podcast-five-minutes-youll-never-get-back-3/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 31 Oct 2008 14:00:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Amanda Hess</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Five Minutes You'll Never Get Back]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Bobby Allyn]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[dinosaur costume]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Halloween]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mike Riggs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Palin porn]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[phallic obect]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[podcast]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[sexy costume]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/?p=732</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Welcome to another edition of “Five Minutes* You’ll Never Get Back,” wherein Mike Riggs and I delve ever deeper into the darkest corners of the other&#8217;s soul as we review the week in sex, media, and politics (but mostly sex). Today, five minutes* gets spooky as Riggs and I hash out our deeply seated views [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Welcome to another edition of “Five Minutes* You’ll Never Get Back,” wherein <strong>Mike Riggs</strong> and I delve ever deeper into the darkest corners of the other&#8217;s soul as we review the week in sex, media, and politics (but mostly sex). Today, five minutes* gets spooky as Riggs and I hash out our deeply seated views on the chilling phenomenon of sexy Halloween costumes. With us, as always, is intrepid <em>City Paper </em>intern <strong>Bobby Allyn</strong>.</p>
<br /><img src="http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/files/2009/11/blog_parties-2.jpg" alt="media" /><br />

<p>Topics discussed: The<strong> Sarah Palin</strong> porn film, lost dinosaur outfits, sad children, presidential costumes, a nurse with a box and she takes the box of and&#8230;, latent homoeroticism, and <strong>Mike Riggs</strong>&#8216; tortured psyche.</p>
<p>* pretty close this time!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/2008/10/31/podcast-five-minutes-youll-never-get-back-3/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>3</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Podcast: Five Minutes You&#8217;ll Never Get Back</title>
		<link>http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/2008/10/14/podcast-five-minutes-youll-never-get-back/</link>
		<comments>http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/2008/10/14/podcast-five-minutes-youll-never-get-back/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 14 Oct 2008 18:31:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Amanda Hess</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Five Minutes You'll Never Get Back]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Bobby Allyn]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[City Paper]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mike Riggs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[podcast]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ron Jeremy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[sex]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[wire tapping]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/?p=241</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Welcome to the new City Paper podcast, &#8220;Five Minutes* You&#8217;ll Never Get Back.&#8221; Each Tuesday, City Lights Editor Mike Riggs and I will go head to head on current issues of sex, media, and politics (but mostly sex). What will you get for your five minutes?
- Sexy/Unsexy, in which we praise, shame last week&#8217;s talking [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Welcome to the new <em>City Paper </em>podcast, &#8220;Five Minutes* You&#8217;ll Never Get Back.&#8221; Each Tuesday, City Lights Editor <strong>Mike Riggs</strong> and I will go head to head on current issues of sex, media, and politics (but mostly sex). What will you get for your five minutes?</p>
<blockquote><p><strong>- Sexy/Unsexy</strong>, in which we praise, shame last week&#8217;s talking points.</p>
<p><strong>- Intern Bobby</strong>, in which intrepid <em>City Paper </em>intern <strong>Bobby Allyn</strong> asks the questions.</p>
<p><strong>- Hess v. Riggs</strong>, in which we disagree.</p></blockquote>
<p>All in a handy downloadable widget! In this, our inaugural episode, spend five minutes with us on modern voyeurism. Topics discussed: Sarah Palin, hair, <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/09/AR2008100902953.html">overseas wiretapping</a>, pillow talk, amateur porn, and Ron Jeremy.</p>
<br /><img src="http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/files/2009/11/blog_parties-2.jpg" alt="media" /><br />

<p>Or, <a href="www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/files/2008/10/podcast1.mp3">download the podcast here</a>.</p>
<p>* we round down.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/2008/10/14/podcast-five-minutes-youll-never-get-back/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>12</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
