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.

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

"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?

Listening to Hot 99.5 yesterday, I was interested to hear the radio station bleep out the latest trend in hip-hop homophobia: "no homo." "No homo," for the uninitiated, is a little piece of wordplay which works to neutralize any potentially "gay" interpretations of a rapper's lyrics. For a full review of the term, check out Bryan Safi's informative piece, above.

Recently, Hot 99.5 washed the term out of Kanye West's contribution to Jay-Z's "Run This Town." In the track, Kanye employs the phrase in order to insist that he does not regularly engage in gay orgies. "It's crazy how you can go from being Joe Blow," Kanye says. "To everybody on your dick—no homo."

Generally, radio censorship only inspires listeners to imagine the offensive term in their head. In the case of "no homo," however, bleeping may also serve a valuable and unintentionally hilarious function!

Apparently, bleeping out "no homo" has become pretty standard for radio stations. Recently, a poster on the IGN hip-hop message boards voiced his concern with no-no-homo radio programmers: "They bleeped out 'No homo'. What's that all about?" he writes. "No homo meaning, no gay intended. Why is that so wrong?

The IGN message board was an interesting place to raise the issue. At IGN, working "no homo" into a comment can cause a poster to be banned—unless the post is employing "no homo" in order to discuss "no homo" from a critical lens. This poster's critique amounted to an outright denial that "no homo" is a homophobic phrase. "Surely, stating that he doesn't mean anything gay by the line doesn't equate to anti-gay," he writes. "I think gays are over-protected. I really do. . . . I was banned for saying 'no homo' and I felt it was petty."

Another commenter concurs: "No homo," he writes, is "blanked out b/c it sounds Anti Gay even if the word isnt the true meaning."

Of course, the straight guy who types "no homo" with impunity isn't the best person to argue that "no homo" is unoffensive to gays. According to another IGN poster, "no homo" is "pretty wrong, kinda like saying i could go for a watermelon, 'no negro.'"

However, some more impartial "no homo" scholars have argued against the pure homophobia of the phrase. Kanye West, Slate's Jonah Weiner notes, has crusaded against homophobia in hip-hop when he's not telling everyone he's "no homo." Weiner goes on to argue that there may be a progressive lining to the term's anti-gay slur. "No homo" is "progress," Weiner writes, as it allows rappers to "smuggle in a fuller, less hamstrung notion of masculinity":

No homo . . . allows, implicitly, that rap is a place where gayness can in fact be expressed by the guy on the mic, not just scorned in others. In the very act of trying to "purify" an utterance of any gayness, after all, the no homo tag must contaminate it first—it's both a denial and a flashing neon arrow. This isn't to suggest that saying no homo is a radical act, but there's an appealing sense in which the phrase refuses to function as tidily as some of its boosters might like.

According to Weiner, the homophobia of "no homo" is somewhat mediated by the term's ability to incorporate traditionally "gay" or "feminine" sentiments into hip-hop's fold. The popularity of the phrase itself has even encouraged rappers to heighten the homoeroticism of their lyrics—in order to use "no homo" more. Weiner writes, "Often, no homo appears not just as a disclaimer but as a punch line, a See what I did there? that flaunts one's cleverness."

The radio censorship of the term poses a problem for rappers who have amped up their gay euphemisms in the name of "no homo." Writes one IGN commenter, "If they censor it, and someone hasn't heard it uncensored, doesn't that completely ruin the meaning?" In other words, when radio stations censor "no homo" following a rapper's intentionally homoerotic verse, won't that make rappers sound kind of, well, gay?

If the point of "no homo" is truly, as Weiner argues, to slowly make hip-hop less heteronormative, censoring "no homo" can only speed up the term's intended progress. Why not encourage rappers to express alternate interpretations of masculinity without an easily deconstructed verbal safety net? As for the commentators who profess that "no homo" truly has no relation to homophobia—if they're really OK with being gay, this form of censorship shouldn't chap their asses too much—no "no homo" necessary.

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."

It's no secret that The Huffington Post fancies itself a left-leaning Web rag. Wikipedia describes Arianna Huffington's aggregatorial monster as "an American liberal news website." Conservapedia's definition, however, might be more helpful: "The site is an extreme mouthpiece for liberals," it reads. "The Huffington Post calls itself an internet newspaper of blogs, news and video but often is referred to as a hate site where its one-sided news cannot be trusted."

But even HuffPo's liberal readership gets tired of hating on conservatives sometimes, guys. Sometimes, they just want to sit back, relax, and look at accidentally bare nipples—just like the rest of America. This one-sided liberal hate site has one fatal weakness—boobs. Let's check out some recent stories from the Huffington Post's entertainment section:

* Here are some photos of Natalie Portman's nipple.

* Here are some photos of Beyonce's nipple, complete with HuffPo-provided "NSFW zoom."

* Here are some photos of Pamela Anderson's nipple (hardly news, but a boob's a boob).

* Here is an entire page devoted to recently naked women (and Barack Obama).

* Here is a collection of zoomed-in photos of 23 celebrities' breasts, made into a fun game called "Guess the Celebrity Breast Implants?"

Pretty standard entertainment-section blog fare here—though HuffPo does go above and beyond with the "NSFW zoom." You don't see a Beyonce nipple that close just anywhere.

So, what do nipple slips and boob jobs have to do with liberal politics?

The obvious answer, of course, would be nothing. People—even progressive, conservative-hating, liberal-minded people—will click on nipple slip slideshows and boob jobs guessing games, and that's a big part of the Huffington Post's model.

But look past the nipples, if you can, and you will find a clear liberal bent in HuffPo's non-boob Entertainment stories. Yesterday, the top three links on the Entertainment page could be considered GLBT interest stories: "Adam Lambert Confirms Rolling Stone To Address His Sexuality"; "WATCH: Neil Patrick Harris' FANTASTIC Tonys Closing Song"; "Gordon Ramsay Shocks Audience With 'Lesbian' Rant About Journalist." Also on the page yesterday was blogger Jackson Katz's post directly addressing the objectification of women in entertainment, titled "Eminem, Misogyny and the Sounds of Silence." Even "Guess the Celebrity Breast Implants" was inspired by a progressive premise: the Carrie Prejean controversy, which the Huffington Post began following as a homophobia-shaming story, before turning around and covering it as a topless-photograph-shaming story.

Here's the lib logic on that one: How dare this professional spokesmodel both hate gay people and take revealing modeling photographs? Our only choice is to shame her by posting them on our Web site. It is the only thing that will finally reveal her hypocrisy (and reel in the pageviews)!

This same Prejean logic is used by the Huffington Post to justify its other women-as-object pieces, as well. Though Senior Features editor Katherine Thomson didn't immediately return my request for comment yesterday, HuffPo has, in the past, addressed stray nipples directly. Cenk Uygur, host of "The Young Turks," took this position on the Janet Jackson flap:

CBS was fined $550,000 for showing Janet Jackson's right nipple on live television. Coal mines that endanger the lives of their workers are commonly fined $60 per violation. . . . How do you like those priorities?

Uygur has a point—who cares? It's just a nipple! Only a religious conservative would bother to make a stink out of a body part which most men, women, and children have in sets of two. It's almost enough to make fetishizing nipples on your Web site sound like a liberal position. If it pisses off the religious conservatives, that means it's a good thing, right? After all, this is just "entertainment," anyway—who cares if it's progressive or not when we're all just staring at nipples and having a good time? As Harry Shearer points out on HuffPo, everybody's doing it!

The problem is that people really do care about nipples. They care so much about nipples that the Huffington Post devotes pages and pages of photographs to them when women accidentally (or, you know, against their will) reveal them to the public. In that way, there's no difference between the religious conservative who is scandalized by a bare breast popping up in the middle of his football game and a liberal Web site which devotes its resources to naked chicks. A woman's body part is a priority. Real women's issues, not so much.

The Prejean logic, while tenuous, is at least accompanied by her blatant homophobia; how items like "Rihanna's Battered Face (PHOTO)" and "Valerie Bertinelli Gets Back In Her Bikini" key into HuffPo's liberal identity remains a mystery to me. But I'm confident that any item that reaps a lot of pageviews can some way, somehow, be justified as "liberal."

[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]

* On Slate, Dahlia Lithwick serves Joe Biden with some rules on how to fight a girl. Lithwick, a former parliamentary debater (side-note: totally awesome), gives Biden a frank run-down on how not to lose the Veep debate to Governor Palin. Most of the advice is fine—don't leer, don't condescend, don't stoop—until Lithwick slips from the particular Biden/Palin scenario to a generalization about all male/female match-ups.

When Lithwick writes that her "insanely successful college debate friend told me recently that the way he won against women was by always behaving like they were men," the implication is that minus their feminine wiles—the lipstick on their pit bulls—women will lose. After a long explanation of why Biden shouldn't respond to Palin with Palin tactics, Lithwick's kicker—"My best advice to you for dealing with Gov. Palin? Fight like a man. She will."—is both confusing and lame. Who's the man what now?

* The Washington Post marches boldly on with their "Wedding Week" coverage. At 1 p.m. today, join the authors of The Bridal Wave: A Survival Guide to the Everyone-I-Know-Is-Getting-Married Years for a live online chat. Ask Erin Torneo and Valerie Cabrera Krause how people who desperately wish they were married manage to be more tragic than the people who actually publicly declare how they're going to love each other forever in front of everyone they know. Including their parents.

* Wait, coverage of marriage issues that doesn't include pandering to the wedding industry? The Blade tips you off to a panel discussion on marriage rights in California and Massachusetts, tonight at 6:30 at the University of California Washington Center. UCWC is located at 1608 Rhode Island Avenue NW.

* The New Gay chronicles the "hidden history" of the women behind the writings of Victorian author Michael Field.

* Via Wonkette: Michelle dances with Ellen. Possible next First Lady jam: Rihanna's "Don't Stop the Music." Last year, Barack got down to Beyonce's "Crazy in Love." Umm, I only watch Ellen when an Obama is on the show, does she make everyone do this?

Photo by NCinDC.