<?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; pamela anderson</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/tag/pamela-anderson/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, 22 Aug 2011 18:08:35 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.2</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Pam Anderson and PETA Release Another &#8220;Banned&#8221; Video</title>
		<link>http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/2009/09/09/pam-anderson-and-peta-release-another-banned-video/</link>
		<comments>http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/2009/09/09/pam-anderson-and-peta-release-another-banned-video/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 09 Sep 2009 17:21:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Amanda Hess</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Beyond DC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[airport security]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[animal rights]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[banned]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[CNN]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[pamela anderson]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[PETA]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/?p=6316</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[[youtube:v=yp1UoppmJD]
So, Pamela Anderson's new commercial for PETA, which features the former pin-up screening airline passengers for "prohibited" leather, fur, and animal products, won't be shown on the CNN's Airport Network. According to the New York Post, "PETA planned to debut the spot tomorrow at all three Gotham-area airports, and later this fall in the other [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[youtube:v=yp1UoppmJD]</p>
<p>So, <strong>Pamela Anderson</strong>'s new commercial for PETA, which features the former pin-up screening airline passengers for "prohibited" leather, fur, and animal products, won't be shown on the CNN's Airport Network. According to the <em>New York Post</em>, "PETA planned to debut the spot tomorrow at all three Gotham-area airports, and later this fall in the other 45 major airports serviced by CNN. But the network wrote to PETA saying it's 'particularly sensitive because children make up part of the demographic in airports.'" PETA, <em>banned?</em> You don't say.</p>
<p><span id="more-6316"></span></p>
<p>Let's see: We have a Transportation Security Administration screener turned into a sexy Halloween costume. We have that TSA screener repeatedly assaulting people. We have what looks like some illegal search and seizure. We have an unintelligible racial stereotype. We have butts. Why wouldn't anyone want to show this thing in an airport? Probably because airports hate animals!</p>
<p>The <em>Post</em> says that the "propensity for nudity by PETA has backfired this time," but seeing as PETA dedicates an entire <a href="http://www.petatv.com/banned.asp">online television station to screening its banned ads</a>, I'm betting this is a strategy, you guys. Whenever PETA produces a "too hot for TV" ad, it gets to drum up some viral press over the injustice, but skips out on shelling out the cash required to actually show the thing on a network.</p>
<p>Since other PETA banned ads feature a man clubbing a woman to death, animatronic cats fucking, and women appearing to stuff asparagus into their vaginas, Pammy's short-shorts and belt play actually fall on the Lighter Side of PETA. Which raises the question: If PETA produces its ads in an attempt to get banned anyway, why doesn't it skip the soft-core stuff and start filming straight-up animal-friendly pornography? It's a sad day when I have to give PETA pointers on how to more effectively exploit women in order to save the chinchilla.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/2009/09/09/pam-anderson-and-peta-release-another-banned-video/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>12</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>A Hierarchy Of the Human Nipple (NSFW ZOOM)</title>
		<link>http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/2009/07/06/a-hierarchy-of-the-human-nipple/</link>
		<comments>http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/2009/07/06/a-hierarchy-of-the-human-nipple/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 06 Jul 2009 18:44:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Amanda Hess</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Beyond DC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Beyonce]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Huffington Post]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ian mckellen]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Lady GaGa]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[leonardo da vinci]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Lindsay Lohan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[mona lisa]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Natalie Portman]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[nipple slips]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[nipples]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[pamela anderson]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[real housewives]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[sexier]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Sexy]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/?p=4835</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The human nipple is a strange beast. Depending on the context, this "small projection of skin containing the outlets for 15-20 lactiferous ducts arranged cylindrically around the tip" has been marketed as alternately sexy, obscene, artistic, disgusting, and even sexier.
But as a consumer of nipple shots, such versatility can become confusing. It's often difficult to [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/files/2009/07/nipplepam.jpg"><img class="size-full wp-image-4834 alignright" title="nipplepam" src="http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/files/2009/07/nipplepam.jpg" alt="" width="100" height="100" /></a>The human nipple is a strange beast. Depending on the context, this "small projection of skin containing the outlets for 15-20 lactiferous ducts arranged cylindrically around the tip" has been marketed as alternately sexy, obscene, artistic, disgusting, and <em>even sexier</em>.</p>
<p>But as a consumer of nipple shots, such versatility can become confusing. It's often difficult to know the socially acceptable reaction to every stray projection of skin that catches your eye. Should you high-five your buddy or vomit discreetly into your hands? I'm here to help.</p>
<p><span id="more-4835"></span></p>
<p>Taking a page from <a href="http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/2009/06/09/huffington-post-liberal-politics-sexist-entertainment/">our friends at the </a><em><a href="http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/2009/06/09/huffington-post-liberal-politics-sexist-entertainment/">Huffington Post</a>, </em>I've compiled some photos of famously exposed nipples&#8212;complete with "NSFW Zoom" (Not <strong>Janet Jackson</strong>, she's too obvious). First, review the Guidelines For Socially Acceptable Reactions to Nipples. Then, check out some Famously Exposed Nipples (NSFW-Zoomed into focus) and see if your gut response to each biological structure is in line with society's nipple norms.</p>
<p><strong>Guidelines For Socially Acceptable Reactions to Nipples:</strong></p>
<p>* All of a woman's breast<em> </em>revealed <em>except</em> for the nipple, which may be obscured by clothing, hair, or paint: <strong>sexy</strong>.</p>
<p>* All of a woman's breast revealed <em>including </em>the nipple: <strong>sexy; obscene</strong>.</p>
<p>* Renaissance-era artistic rendering of a woman's breast including the nipple: <strong>art</strong>.</p>
<p>* All of a man's chest revealed including the nipple: <strong>null. Unlike female nipples, which are either HOT or TOTALLY GROSS, male nipples are just there.<br />
</strong></p>
<p>* All of a woman's breast revealed including the nipple while breastfeeding: <strong>not sexy; not obscene;</strong> to some, however, still <strong>totally fucking gross, far more disgusting than a normal female nipple, whose only reproductive function ought to be arousing you on-sight</strong> (Note: it is not yet socially acceptable to take photos of women breastfeeding in public in order to engineer "gotcha" nipple slip headlines).</p>
<p>* All of a woman's breast including the nipple, which the woman inadvertently flashes for the camera (also known as a "nipple slip"): <strong>sexy; obscene; still, manages to maintain the relative innocence of the woman who has inadvertently revealed the nipple, making the it <em>that much sexier</em>; unless of course it is Pamela Anderson's nipple, in which case the nipple slip is simply very obscene and not sexy at all, because Pam Anderson is agreed to be too slutty to pull off the treasured nipple slip dynamic.<br />
</strong></p>
<p>&#8212;</p>
<p><strong>Famously Exposed Nipples:</strong></p>
<p><strong>A.</strong> <a href="http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/files/2009/07/nippleportman.jpg"><img class="alignnone size-full wp-image-4828" title="nippleportman" src="http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/files/2009/07/nippleportman.jpg" alt="" width="100" height="108" /></a><strong> B.</strong> <a href="http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/files/2009/07/nipplepam.jpg"><img class="alignnone size-full wp-image-4834" title="nipplepam" src="http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/files/2009/07/nipplepam.jpg" alt="" width="100" height="100" /></a></p>
<p><strong>C.</strong> <a href="http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/files/2009/07/nipplelindsay.jpg"><img class="alignnone size-full wp-image-4833" title="nipplelindsay" src="http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/files/2009/07/nipplelindsay.jpg" alt="" width="100" height="98" /></a><strong> D.</strong> <a href="http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/files/2009/07/nippleian.jpg"><img class="alignnone size-full wp-image-4832" title="nippleian" src="http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/files/2009/07/nippleian.jpg" alt="" width="100" height="100" /></a></p>
<p><strong>E.</strong> <a href="http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/files/2009/07/nipplegaga.jpg"><img class="alignnone size-full wp-image-4831" title="nipplegaga" src="http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/files/2009/07/nipplegaga.jpg" alt="" width="100" height="107" /></a><strong> F.</strong> <a href="http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/files/2009/07/nipplebeyonce.jpg"><img class="alignnone size-full wp-image-4830" title="nipplebeyonce" src="http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/files/2009/07/nipplebeyonce.jpg" alt="" width="100" height="96" /></a></p>
<p><strong>G.</strong> <a href="http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/files/2009/07/nipplebetheny.jpg"><img class="alignnone size-full wp-image-4829" title="nipplebetheny" src="http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/files/2009/07/nipplebetheny.jpg" alt="" width="100" height="107" /></a> <strong>H. </strong><a href="http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/files/2009/07/nipplemonalisa.jpg"><img class="alignnone size-full wp-image-4836" title="nipplemonalisa" src="http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/files/2009/07/nipplemonalisa.jpg" alt="" width="100" height="98" /></a></p>
<p>&#8212;</p>
<p><strong>Socially Acceptable Reactions to These Nipples, Revealed:</strong></p>
<p>A.<strong> Natalie Portman</strong>'s <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/11/padma-lakshmis-sheer-dres_n_201541.html">nipple slip</a>: sexier. <strong>SUITABLE REACTION</strong>: High-five.</p>
<p>B. <strong>Pamela Anderson</strong>'s <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/03/06/pam-andersons-breast-pops_n_172609.html">nipple slip</a>: obscene; not sexy. <strong>SUITABLE REACTION</strong>: Vomit discreetly into hands.</p>
<p>C. <strong>Lindsay Lohan</strong>'s <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/16/lindsay-lohan-topless-on_n_216362.html">nipple, obscured by hair</a>: sexy. <strong>SUITABLE REACTION</strong>: Retweet.</p>
<p>D. <strong>Ian McKellen</strong>'s <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/06/30/blinded-by-the-light-ian_n_110038.html">nipple (male)</a>: null. <strong>SUITABLE REACTION</strong>: Curse your "celebrity nipple" google search for leading you astray.</p>
<p>E. <strong>Lady Gaga</strong>'s <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/06/lady-gaga-topless-in-v-ma_n_226202.html">nipple</a>: sexy; obscene. <strong>SUITABLE REACTION</strong>: High-five.</p>
<p>F. <strong>Beyonce</strong>'s <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/24/beyonces-oscar-nipple-sli_n_169494.html">nipple slip</a>: sexier. <strong>SUITABLE REACTION</strong>: High-five.</p>
<p>G. A<strong> Real Housewife</strong>'s <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/10/housewife-bethenny-franke_n_213851.html">nipple slip</a>, obscured by clothing: sexy. <strong>SUITABLE REACTION</strong>: High-five.</p>
<p>H. <strong>Mona Lisa</strong>'s <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/12/nude-mona-lisa-like-paint_n_214964.html">nipple (rumored)</a>: art. <strong>SUITABLE REACTION</strong>: Scratch chin.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/2009/07/06/a-hierarchy-of-the-human-nipple/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Huffington Post Sexism Goes Green</title>
		<link>http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/2009/06/23/huffington-post-sexism-goes-green/</link>
		<comments>http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/2009/06/23/huffington-post-sexism-goes-green/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 23 Jun 2009 21:05:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Amanda Hess</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Beyond DC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[alicia silverstone]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[annalise braakensiek]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[charlotte ross]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[dita von teese]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[gay]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[GLBT]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[homosexuality]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Huffington Post]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[jamie bamber]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[jenna jameson]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[kathy najimy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[maggie q]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[nudity]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[pamela anderson]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[people for the ethical treatment of animals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[PETA]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[sexism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[sophie monk]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[t&a]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[tommy lee]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/?p=4598</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[
Hey, this isn't the exploitation I signed up for!
The Huffington Post has finally discovered the porthole through which its sexist entertainment content can jump off of the Entertainment page and onto more explicitly political verticals. What is this valuable new discovery which suddenly makes sexy naked women so politically relevant? It starts with a P, [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/files/2009/06/dudes-kissing-1.jpg"><img class="alignnone size-full wp-image-4599" title="dudes-kissing-1" src="http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/files/2009/06/dudes-kissing-1.jpg" alt="" width="420" height="201" /><br />
</a><em>Hey, this isn't the exploitation I signed up for!</em><a href="http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/files/2009/06/dudes-kissing-1.jpg"></a></p>
<p>The <em>Huffington Post</em> has finally discovered the porthole through which <a href="http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/2009/06/09/huffington-post-liberal-politics-sexist-entertainment/">its sexist entertainment content</a> can jump off of the Entertainment page and onto more explicitly political verticals. What is this valuable new discovery which suddenly makes sexy naked women so politically relevant? It starts with a P, ends with an Eople For the Ethical Treatment of Animals, and it has been pulling this liberal sexist bullshit for <em>years</em>.</p>
<p><span id="more-4598"></span></p>
<p>Well, PETA and <em>HuffPo </em>are together at last, with two super-sexy animal protection stories making their way onto the site's "<a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/green/">Green</a>" page this week. After the photo-accompanied "<a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/21/the-sexiest-peta-ads-of-a_n_217731.html">Lydia Guevarra, Che's Daughter, Poses Semi-Nude for PETA</a>" made a semi-nude splash in the Web site's Popular Stories last week, <em>HuffPo</em> cashed in on the theme with the full slide-show: "<a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/21/the-sexiest-peta-ads-of-a_n_217731.html">The Sexiest PETA Ads of All Time</a>." Click on it for the environment!</p>
<p>To<em> HuffPo</em>&#8212;and PETA's&#8212;credit, the collection of PETA's notoriously naked ads includes its share of topless dudes alongside the unclothed women. But as the interactive poll feature demonstrates, <em>Huffington Post</em> readers are not so down with this nudity-for-all tactic.</p>
<p>Readers are allowed to rate each PETA rep's naked ad on a scale from 1 to 10, with 1 signifying "Rather have meat" and 10 "Pass the produce!" Here are the current rankings, from hottest to not-est:<br />
<strong></strong></p>
<blockquote><p><strong>Charlotte Ross</strong> 8<br />
<strong>Alicia Silverstone</strong> 7.6<br />
<strong>Annalise Braakensiek</strong> 7.6<br />
<strong>Sophie Monk &amp; Maggie Q</strong> 7<br />
<strong>Dita Von Teese</strong> 6.9<br />
<strong>Jenna Jameson </strong>6.7<br />
<strong>Pam Anderson </strong>4.7<br />
<strong> Kathy Najimy</strong> 3.7<br />
<strong>Jamie Bamber </strong>3.7<br />
<strong>Two male models making out </strong>3.4<br />
<strong>Tommy Lee </strong>2.2</p></blockquote>
<p>Let's take a look at the hierarchy here. The nine women on the list all score higher than the four men. The women lose points as they get closer to the porn spectrum, with the exception of <strong>Kathy Najimy</strong>, who is un-young and un-skinny enough to rank just above the men. At the bottom, we have the four guys: The dude from <em>Battlestar Gallactica</em> ranks above the overt display of male homosexuality, but the kissing guys still beat out the universally reviled <strong>Tommy Lee</strong>.<strong> </strong>In my opinion, Tommy Lee's low-ranked bare chest alone is enough to debunk <em>HuffPo'</em>s "<a href="http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/2009/06/16/huffington-post-sometimes-a-cigar-is-just-a-nipple-is-just-sexist/">sometimes a nipple is just a nipple</a>" theory. Nobody wants to see that shit.</p>
<p>The<em> </em><em>Huffington Post</em> brushes off the idea that the female nudity focus on its Entertainment page has any impact on its progressive political cred. In passing off interactive nude slide-shows as environmentalism, however,<em> HuffPo</em> wades into explicitly political sexist territory. PETA paved the way here by exploiting women in the hopes of ending the exploitation of animals. <em>HuffPo</em> joins the fray not by presenting a  counterpoint to PETA's sexist tactics, but by reveling in it&#8212;asking its readers to rank the "hottest print promotions."</p>
<p>I have to wonder if PETA's T&amp;A has ever convinced a soft-core porn enthusiast to stop eating beef.  I bet the naked stuff is actually used more of a peace offering to the general public&#8212;they may be annoyed by PETA's radical vegetarianism, but at least there are naked chicks.</p>
<p>But unlike PETA, the <em>Huffington Post </em>is not a one-issue newspaper. PETA objectifies women in order to save the lives of the poor, helpless bunny rabbits, but it never professed to care about women. <em>HuffPo</em> objectifies women in order to save its entire politically progressive business model. Why not pull a fast one on PETA and stick to <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/23/wallabies-are-the-new-law_n_219676.html">objectifying wallabies</a> instead?</p>
<p><iframe height="339" width="425" src="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22425001/vp/31390031#31390031" frameborder="0" scrolling="no"></iframe>
<p style="font-size:11px; font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; color: #999; margin-top: 5px; background: transparent; text-align: center; width: 425px;">Visit msnbc.com for <a style="text-decoration:none !important; border-bottom: 1px dotted #999 !important; font-weight:normal !important; height: 13px; color:#5799DB !important;" href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com">Breaking News</a>, <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032507" style="text-decoration:none !important; border-bottom: 1px dotted #999 !important; font-weight:normal !important; height: 13px; color:#5799DB !important;">World News</a>, and <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032072" style="text-decoration:none !important; border-bottom: 1px dotted #999 !important; font-weight:normal !important; height: 13px; color:#5799DB !important;">News about the Economy</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/2009/06/23/huffington-post-sexism-goes-green/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>5</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

