Creepiest wedding gift in human history? You decide:

The present I humbly send her today is this column; this public note, this irrevocable display of affection and support and gratitude; this worldly absolution from any guilt or sadness she felt between the time she said no to me and the time she said yes to him. No one ought to have to carry that with them into a marriage. I showered her with as much love as I could muster when we were together. I still love her and always will. So I am only too happy to offer my toast to her now, one more time, before she takes her vows.

Politics Daily's Andrew Cohen is obviously in a pretty weird place in his life right now. And he has decided to share it with us all! So let us count the backhanded compliments Cohen delivers, as "the great love of my life marries today and I am not the groom" [Thanks to Date Lab for the tip]:

* Crazy love: "not enough" or too much? And am I to blame for my own unhappiness, or are you? Oh, it's probably me:

I had my chance, a few years ago, but did not realize until too late how fleeting my moment with her was meant to be. Whether it was my fault or hers, and, let's face it, it was probably mine, I will wonder always about the life I might have had with the most loving and loveable woman I have ever known. Sometimes, I finally now understand, love, even crazy love, is not enough. Sometimes, as the romance novelists know, timing is everything.

* Hope you made the right choice!!!:

But today is not a day for remorse. It is not a day for lost causes. Today is a day for celebration. The woman I once promised to keep happy is happy. She tells me she is marrying a wonderful man, with a good heart, whom she believes I would have liked had we met in different circumstances. She lives where she wants to live. She has selected her life's path. All that is left for me to do is to wish her well and to hope that she has made the right choice; that she continues to find in him what she did not find in me. And I am sure he considers himself today the luckiest man on the face of the Earth.

* Did I mention the son you left still talks about you?:

I want to thank her for being so delightful with my son, who talks about her still.

* At least my dead dad thinks we're still together:

Until almost literally his dying day, my dad would ask me about her. Near the end, almost exactly two years ago, I did not have the heart to tell him that we had broken up. It gives me peace figuring that he died thinking she'd be in my life when he was gone.

* Even though you're gone, you helped me discover that I could find happiness again. By impregnating you:

Before I met her, as a single father, I never would have considered having another child. Although it took more time than it should have, I came to realize through her love and devotion that there would be nothing more I would rather do in the world than have a child with her. How many poor souls go their whole lives without the heart-string pull of such emotions?

* Thanks for inspiring me to resent most other women in this city:

I want to thank her for being such an inspiration. She did not give in or sell out or become one of those poor women of a certain age in New York who have put their careers ahead of their lives. When we met, she was living in New York but was not of New York; transplanted from the West Coast, she had not allowed herself to be seduced entirely by the City's charms. She took from Manhattan, like so many other beautiful women do, but she never gave to it her heart and soul. She was always rooted even among the rootless of her age and time. She knew she would one day leave the City, and she did, on her own terms. I admire her for that. I respect her for that. And I love her for it.

* Our imaginary wedding doesn't make my love for you any less real:

It wasn't too long after we met that I began imagining what our wedding day would be like. My second, her first, I nonetheless pictured her not taking it too seriously, laughing off the little crises that always pop up. I pictured her stunning in her dress and with that smile that would melt me. I pictured her having a vodka and soda to ease her nerves. I pictured us laughing a lot. I pictured myself at the end of the aisle. It was not to be. I've known that for years. But that doesn't make the love any less real.

So . . . was he invited to the real wedding?

Ever had a sexual experience? Then welcome to the magical world of "virginity," where a white wedding dress can restore a sexually-active 40-something's innocence, a set of pigtails can turn even the most experienced porn performer chaste, and a new hymen can be shipped from China for about 30 bucks. Documentary filmmaker Therese Shechter explores the culture of denouncing sex (even while you're doing it) in "How to Lose Your Virginity," a film about our cultural obsession with chastity— and the way its meaning shifts mysteriously depending upon the implement and the orifice.

Shechter has got nine days to raise a couple thousand dollars to finish the film; while she's waiting to seal the deal, she agreed to answer some questions about surrendering your precious chastity orb to that one special fella who will ensure its proper maintenance until death do you part:

SEXIST: What's it like making a movie about people not doing something?

TS: The definition of virginity is so subject to interpretation. A Mormon college student who considers herself a virgin did a post for my blog, The American Virgin, about how enthusiastically sexually active she was, even though she was waiting for her wedding night to have intercourse. In the film you get the whole spectrum of sexual activity, from Cindy, a very religious and abstinent 30-something screenwriter I met at the Sundance Film Festival, to former ‘abstinence poster girl’ Shelby Knox who now runs seminars called “Fucking While Feminist.” This is all pretty much North America I'm talking about, by the way. There's so much more to say about the rest of the world and I deal with a lot of that on the blog.

SEXIST: In your pursuit of understanding our culture's obsession with virginity, you've examined a variety of industries and subcultures that rely on our fascination with virginity for their own purposes—from "barely legal" porn producers to wedding dress retailers to religious abstainers. How have you seen the meaning of "virginity" shift to satisfy these different contexts?

TS: I think they’re remarkably similar in that they all work within the fantasy of female sexual purity as something to be fetishized. They have different props—the Big White Wedding Dress, porn’s white panties, and the purity ring—but all use a sort of ritualized process whereby a symbolically virginal female is offered up to a male for deflowering. I say symbolic because the porn actress is definitely not a virgin, we’re pretty certain that most modern brides aren’t either, and given our shaky definition of the V-word, we might not even consider some purity pledgers to be totally chaste. But it’s the fetishization of all three that really fascinates me. For whose benefit is it this being played out?

Interestingly, in shooting these scenes, I felt the most comfortable in the company of the pornographers. I don’t know what that says about me, but I’d sooner go back to Barely Legal Ranch than a bridal salon or an abstinence conference.

How does our culture's emphasis on virginity affect men and women differently?

TS: That’s kind of at the heart of it all, isn’t it?

There are the abstinence-until-marriage programs and purity balls that focus almost exclusively on female virginity, going as far as having young girls symbolically hand over their purity to their father for safekeeping until their wedding night when it gets transferred to the husbands. You know, we may cringe at this, but as I mentioned earlier, it’s just a more blatant version of the traditional wedding ceremony. That’s something I really get into in the film as I deal with my own wedding planning and all its chastity-based rituals.

In terms of more mainstream culture (and by that I mean teen sex comedies), I think it used to be that the guys had to be total horndogs and get rid of their virginity as quickly as possible, and the gals had to defend the castle for as long as possible. I feel like recently there’s been a cultural shift where the guys are still basically supposed to be horndogs but it’s now okay for gals to have pre-marital sex under the right conditions (i.e., sex with your perfect boyfriend in a romantic setting with scented candles, possibly after prom, after you’ve professed your love for each other). And by sex, I mean intercourse. I think the idea that a woman needs a penis in her vagina to turn her into a full-fledged sexual being is still pretty prevalent. In reality, young men and women do all sorts of things sexually that don’t fit these gender-based scripts at all, but then they run the risk of being judged, shamed or punished by their peers, media, religious authorities, what have you.

Something seems to change for women in college. Young women talk about this in the film: there’s this metaphysical dividing line between high school, where no one is talking about having sex, and college, where everyone is expected to be having sex. Except not too much. Because that would be slutty, or according to the media, soul-killing (see: Caitlin Flanagan’s article “Love, Actually” in The Atlantic Monthly). The flip side of all this is if you don’t feel ready for sex, you’re considered freakish or undesirable, so you end up either keeping that fact to yourself or doing a bunch of stuff you don’t really want to do.

What’s really interesting is how this plays out after college with people who haven’t yet had sex. Those earlier expectations—that ladies should only have sex when in love and guys should be getting some nightly—often continue past the college years. The women are usually still waiting for that ‘special someone,’ and the men are so totally humiliated by their lack of horndog experience that they just withdraw. I hear this so often—people just assume that not only is everyone but them having sex all the time, but that no one would want to have anything to do with someone who was sexually inexperienced. Again, I think it’s the script we think we should be following so we’re not honest about what’s really going on. I got into this film project because I was pissed off by how women were shamed for being sexual, but as I’ve looked deeper, I’ve found there’s a significant portion of people out there who feel shamed for being non-sexual. I was a post-college bloomer myself, so I can relate.

I think it’s interesting that if you’re queer, you don’t really have a cultural script to follow, because among other things your sex life isn’t about penis-in-vagina sex. Maybe that’s good because you can create your own script when it comes to sexual initiation. I love the Marshall character in “The United States of Tara,” and I’m hoping the writers are building up to some kind of interestingly complex virginity loss scenario. I haven’t seen all of season 2 yet, so if it happens in Episode 11, don’t tell me about it.

In your work on the issue, have you come to find any healthy, inclusive, and non-judgmental conceptions of what "virginity" could mean? Or should we just call the whole "virginity" thing off?

TS: I don’t think we can call the ‘virginity’ thing off. Even though it’s socially constructed, impossible to really define (there isn’t even a medical definition), and often employed as a tool of the patriarchy, virginity still matters. For most of us, sex is important, and the first time you have a significant intimate moment, it’s a milestone (maybe not the best one, but a milestone nonetheless). But it’s hopefully just the first of many milestones in our sexual lives.

So, I don’t necessarily have a problem with the word ‘virgin,’ just the values we attach to it. Virginity is already imprinted with so many meanings, depending on who you’re listening to. It would be nice to be able to create our own personal language of sexuality, and dis-engage it from religious dogma, double standards, the fantasy porn sex you just downloaded or last night’s episode of Gossip Girl.

We spent a whole day talking about all this at the “Rethinking Virginity” conference where I was a panelist, and in the end it came down to this: Do whatever you want with whomever you want as long as it’s consensual and safe. Go forth and shag. Or don’t. That’s fine too.

Your film is called "How to Lose Your Virginity." Any tips?

TS: Unfortunately, no. I’m hoping that by the time you’re done watching the film, you think that phrase is absurd. There’s no right way, we’re not losing anything, and virginity is ultimately an ephemeral and elusive concept. So maybe you’ll be mindfucked, but you’ll still technically be a virgin.

Last week on the Sexist, we payed tribute to the wedding industry's focus on women's "health," as evidenced through its tireless "BIG DAY" diet promotions, its images of women squeezing into too-small white dresses, and its total obsession with brides, not grooms. Commenters weighed in (GET IT?):

Shinobi on what wedding "health" looks like:

I remember one time a friend of mine was eating nothing but special K for two weeks before her wedding. (to fit into her dress, which she had purchased while on weight watchers.) Our conversations were pretty much limited to what she had eaten for the last two days, oh yeah, super interesting. When I failed to be particularly supportive she was all “Don’t you want me to be HEALTHY!?!?!?!?!”

And so I realized the error of my ways. The true road to health is crash dieting to fit into dresses.

Jess on the very healthy double standards of wedding "health":

I am getting married in October, and I cannot believe the amount of pressure I am getting from family and coworkers about my weight. I am a lifetime member of Weight Watchers, having met my goal a long time ago. I am a healthy weight for my height (5′9, 150lbs) and my wedding dress is a size 8. But all my coworkers and some annoying family members are telling me that I really should “tone up” or take off about 10 more lbs. Why? Why am I supposed to starve myself for a freaking wedding?! Not a chance!

Oh, and my fiance is about 25lbs overweight. No one has said a word to him about his weight and the wedding.

juicepockets on the beautiful moments that a focus on wedding "health" inspires between family members:

I was a fat bride three years ago (am still fat), and the amount of guff I got from my mom about it was alternately infuriating and heartbreaking. At one of my dress fittings, my mom looked at my reflection in the mirror and said sadly, “Your arms are so big.” Oh well, I wore the shit out of my sleeveless dress anyway!If you want an antitode to the People piece, take a look at the Museum of Fat Love.

Lesley of Fatshionista.com created the site to document ACTUAL EVIDENCE that fatties can and do find love and even sometimes GET MARRIED WHILE FAT. The gallery is full of adorable fatties in love.

PD on the media's helpful focus on wedding "health":

I was a fat bride two years ago. I’ve gotten fatter since—the back of my dress kept popping open because I’d put on a few pounds right before the wedding, and my husband shed blood trying to pin me back into it. Frankly, I think I looked great on my wedding day, probably better than I ever have in my life including my high school days, when I was definitely at my most fit.

No one who knows me personally—besides my mother, who does it all the time—suggested I try to lose weight in the two years I spent planning my wedding. I was, however, inundated with weight loss advice from the numerous wedding-related magazines and web sites I immersed myself in. Everywhere I looked I saw ads for “GET FIT FOR THE BIG DAY” schemes, and everyone on the internet was really, really invested, apparently, in making sure I was as trim and toned as possible before walking down the aisle. HOW DARE I be fat on my wedding day, when EVERYONE IN THE WORLD would see those pictures FOREVER? How dare I look at those pictures and think about how happy everyone was and what a great time we all had and how great the man I married is instead of focusing on how flabby my arms looked that day?

Listen, I’m like 70 pounds overweight, I know this is not great and it’s not healthy. I’m down with that. I’m also down with my own body—the body my husband has loved for 10 years, from 150 pounds to 230 pounds—even if the rest of the world is not. The wedding weight loss thing is, like pretty much everything else related to weddings, a scam to make money and make women feel like they have to conform to a certain standard of what brides should look like. I’m pretty sure your “bridal white” yoga mat costs twice as much as a regular one because someone screen-printed some doves and “FUTURE MRS. ____” on it or something.

Photo via sylvar, Creative Commons Attribution License 2.0

Earlier this week, I engaged in some light mockery of a People Magazine contest encouraging brides-to-be to lose weight before their wedding days. But yesterday, some commenters pointed out why this is no joking matter: Did you know that these women are, like, fat? And you do know how unhealthy that is, right?

Holy shit, you guys, why didn't you say something earlier? People Magazine is doing women everywhere a public service by worrying so much about our health for us. And to think I almost dismissed this initiative out of hand! Let's take a closer look at this valuable asset that's been gifted to our gender.

Here's how the magazine describes this contest: "For the Next Nine Months, We're Following These Six Women as They Work with a Trainer and a Nutritionist to Get Smaller for Their Big Day." It is illustrated with a photograph of each woman grimacing as she struggles to fit into a dresses that is too small for her.

I'm sure by "smaller," People really means "healthier." And I'm sure by illustrating the piece with a photograph of each woman grimacing as she struggles to fit into a dresses that is too small for her, People really means for us to be seeing visions of crisp apples and unrolled yoga mats and shit. After all, as commenter Kit-Kat writes: "This is not about losing weight for purely aesthetic reasons. These women need to lose weight for health reasons." And they desperately need to do it juuuust before their wedding days, when everyone in their lives will be intently judging how unhealthy they are—in a totally non-aesthetic manner, of course. (As a special gift for their weddings, these loved ones will also conveniently ignore all the ways that diets like this are actually bad for you).

But don't take it from me: let's hear it straight from the dieters themselves:

* "Eager to 'be healthier,' Jones adds, 'I'd want to lose weight whether I was getting married or not.' But the thought of standing before 150 guests at the Biltmore Estate in Asheville, N.C., on her wedding day is 'an extra motivating factor,' she admits. 'I want to enjoy taking pictures—not running from the camera!'"

* "When Councell, 35, tried on wedding dresses for the first time, she was shocked to find out she was a size 16. 'I'll get married in a blanket before I buy a size-16 gown!' says the 5' bride."

* "Now she has a big reason to change her habits: When she exchanges vows with Head, 25, in October, 'I want my dress,' she says, 'to be very fitted.'"

* "Ever since she got engaged last October, one thought has consistently run through Quintero's head: Oh my gosh—I'm going to be a fat bride!"

* "When her high school sweetheart proposed in 2008, Cerrata, 26, was ecstatic—until she saw their engagement photos. 'I was like 'Put them away!' she says."

Well there you have it. This has absolutely nothing to do with appearance, and it certainly is completely unrelated to subtly shaming some women into believing that they are too fat to be loved, like, in public in front of everyone. That's why I'm excited for People to roll out the following health-related wedding promotions:

* People Magazine's Bride-to-Be Cholesterol Reduction Challenge: "I'll get married in a blanket before I get married with a high density lipoprotein level 50 mg/dL!' says the 5' bride."

* People Magazine's Bride-to-Be Wear Your Helmet Every Time You Ride Your Bike Challenge: "Now she has a big reason to change her habits: When she exchanges vows with Head, 25, in October, 'I want my helmet,' she says, 'to be very fitted.'"

* People Magazine's Bride-to-Be Regular Pap Smear Challenge: "When her high school sweetheart proposed in 2008, she was ecstatic—until she saw her irregular pap smear results. 'I was like 'Put them away!' she says."

* People Magazine's Bride-to-Be CPR Training Challenge: "Ever since she got engaged last October, one thought has consistently run through her head: Oh my gosh—I never learned CPR!"

* People Magazine's Bride-to-Be Social Anxiety Disorder Management Challenge: "I want to enjoy taking pictures—not running from the camera!'"

* People Magazine's Groom-to-be Weight Loss Challenge: Haha. JUST KIDDING.

This week, I wrote the paper's cover story on the gay wedding business that's popped up in the District since same-sex marriages were legalized in March, and how local businesses are competing for a piece of the pie. Pick up a paper or read it online here.

Are you a "Smile, Baby" Guy who's just looking to find everlasting love by telling strangers on the street to alter their emotions for you? You're in luck! This tactic has officially worked at least once [Thanks to Jess for the tip].

Yesterday, Express Night Out profiled the upcoming nuptials of Arlington residents Wendy Martinez, 27, and Eddy Vulin, 30. How did these two local lovebirds manage to find each other? Oh, Vulin just approached a stranger, grabbed her, and informed her that the way she was expressing her emotions on her face was unacceptable to him. And she was into it! Martinez recalls how it happened:

She was upset and walking through Georgetown. He grabbed her hand. "He said, 'You are too beautiful to be upset. You look like you need a high-five.' I gave him an 'are you kidding me?' stare yet managed to crack a smile," and she gave him her number.

But did she give him the high five??

Things proceeded predictably from there. They got lost in Dupont Circle. They dined at Thaiphoon. She calls him "Stinker"; he calls her "Guza." He proposed. On June 12, they will hold a "Cro-Latin" themed wedding—a hybrid of their Croatian and Nicaraguan heritages—in Palm Beach, Fla. Looks like these kids are really going to make it work. Now let us never speak of this again.

Photo via halighali, Creative Commons Attribution License 2.0

Michigan family lawyer Ryan Hill is so morally outraged by extramarital affair dating website Ashley Madison that he launched the "My Marriage Matters" campaign—and shot this awkward television spot—to bring the cheating service down. The result: Schmaltzy piano, sexy infidelity shots, and Hill doing the Bill Clinton thumb-gesture in front of a waving American flag. Vote Ryan Hill for Dude With A Website That's Against That Other Website, I guess? He's also currently asking 1,000,000 people to sign his petition against people who support cheating. [Thanks to Kay for the tip].

When same-sex marriage was legalized in D.C. this March, Mike Newman offered himself up to officiate local gay marriages free-of-charge. Since them, Newman has wedded 44 of the District's same-sex couples—and one opposite-sex pair. Here's a taste of the ceremonies he's seen:

* "Most of them I’d describe as sort of guerrilla-style," Newman says of the typical same-sex wedding he's been called to officiate.  "We'll find a public space and do a ceremony that lasts only a minute or two . . . most of the the time it's just the couple says," he says. Newman, 43, says his officiant style is likely to attract more casual couples: "I'm obviously not a wedding professional, and I made it known I'm up for doing this wherever, whenever," he says.

* Also turning to Newman: Couples who don't want to get hassled by mainstream officiants of unknown tolerance level. "A lot of people I’ve spoken to are used to seeing a lot of discrimination. If they just make a blind phone call to an officiant and it comes out that it's a gay wedding, it can turn out to be a big deal," says Newman. "I'm vocal about wanting to perform these weddings, so they know right away it's not a problem."

* Since March, Newman has performed same-sex weddings in front of the Capitol, outside the U.S. Botanic Garden, in various local restaurants, on the roof of the Newseum, and in his own Capitol Hill living room. "A lot of people just drop by my house," says Newman."We've done half-a-dozen or so in my home, either in the living room or in the backyard," he says.

* Since March, Newman has also lent his services to a couple of heterosexuals. "I’ve performed one opposite-sex marriage in the past few months," says Newman. "It was a couple who said they were waiting to get married until their friends could get married, so it was a part of the same trend."

* On the first day same-sex marriage was legal in D.C., Newman performed eight weddings. Now the demand has tricked down to about one wedding a week. As demand has gone down, Newman's rate has increased. "I have recently started charging for the weddings," says Newman. As of a few weeks ago, the current going rate for his services is about $50 a pop. He's also recently taken on an apprentice—Newman recently endorsed his wife to become an officiant, as well.

Photo via Mike Newman

Today, the much-anticipated Fred Phelps counter-protest finally came to fruition—albeit a couple of hours after Phelps' homophobia parade got going. City Paper photog Darrow Montgomery was on-hand to document the results. (See all of Darrow's photos of D.C. gay marriage day here).

Below, counter-protesters utilize the Burger King Guy, God Hates [Blank], and unclear messages about vaginas in order to protest Phelps' bigotry.

It's no "REACH AROUNDS FOR JESUS," but it is confusing!

I'm not sure what this message says in full, but it includes "vaginas" and more than one "nom," so it's got to be something important.

Good start.

This line is nothing compared to the White House Easter Egg Roll of 2006. Four years ago, Terrance Heath and Richard Imirowicz waited in line overnight, in the snow and the freezing cold, in order to secure tickets for their son, now 7, to roll some eggs on the White House lawn. Imirowicz had come unprepared with little more than a sleeping bag—what was he thinking?—and the couple ended up crawling into a "lesbian tent" in order to stave off the cold (another couple had charitably invited them in). "Thank God for those lesbians," says Imirowicz.

This was under the Bush administration, when even bringing your family to push around a couple of colored eggs on the grass was a political statement for a gay couple. "People were being told so many bad things about our families and who we are, that it was an opportunity for us to show how not scary we are," says Heath. Today, Heath, 41, and Imirowicz, 43, joined the line at D.C. Superior Court to achieve a less symbolic victory—securing all the legal rights owed to them as a married couple in the District of Columbia. "Like the rest of the couples in line, we've built up our family and relationship on our own, and finally the rest of society is catching up," says Heath.

Not that the symbolic victories along the way haven't been fun. Heath and Imirowicz have celebrated their union so many times that they're not even sure what to celebrate as an anniversary. The day they met in June 10 years ago? The day in October of 2001 that they exchanged rings in Hawaii? The day in the summer of 2007 that they renewed their vows—this time, in front of their son—on an LGBT family cruise led by Rosie O'Donnell? Or, now, next Tuesday, when they plan to hold a small ceremony recognizing their legal marriage (finally!) at D.C.'s All Souls' Church? How about the unknown date in the future when same-sex marriages are recognized across the United States?

"We're not as married Mississippi as we are in Massachusetts," says Heath. "There are a lot of families in states across the country that can't do what we're doing now." If gay marriage does become a reality in all 50 states in their lifetime, Heath and Imirowicz aren't eager to add another anniversary to the list. "As much as I love him, this will technically be the third time we've been married," says Heath. "Our hope is that by the time our son is an adult, he'll be able to look back on this week and wonder what the big deal was."

As for the third ceremony, the couple is planning a small service for them and their children—since the last time they've exchanged vows, they've fathered another child, a two-year-old. The affair will be modest. "We might take the kids to McDonald's afterwards, pick up a Star Wars toy," says Imirowicz. "At this point, we don't need a big wedding."

UPDATE: CP photos of the ceremony.

Photo by Darrow Montgomery

The Archdiocese of Washington has been battling the D.C. government for the right to discriminate against gays and lesbians since D.C.'s same-sex marriage legislation got rolling last year.

One major point of contention: Once gays and lesbians are allowed to marry, the Archdiocese—which employs plenty of locals through Catholic Charities—will be required to provide health benefits to same-sex spouses, an act which it says would fly in the face of the Catholic church's teachings on homosexuality.

The solution? No spousal benefits for anybody.

Today, Catholic Charities President and CEO Edward Orzechowski sent out a memo to staffers informing them of the change to the health care coverage, which will go into effect tomorrow.

In short: If you and your spouse are already enrolled in Catholic Charities health coverage, your spouse will be grandfathered in. Starting tomorrow, however, new employees (or newly married employees, hint hint) will not be allowed to add spouses to the plan. So: Longtime employees will receive the spousal benefits they've always had; Catholic Charities will get to keep its pool of covered spouses gay-free; only fresh employees and gays will feel the sting on this one.

Here's the memo:

I am writing to you to inform you of an important change to our group health care benefit plan that will take effect on March 2, 2010 due to a change in the law of the District of Columbia. It is important to note that the existing health coverage of current employees will not be affected by the change. New employees and current employees requesting revisions in benefit coverage will be affected by this change.

Catholic Charities will continue to honor the health plan coverage that current employees have as of March 1, 2010. As of March 2, a new plan will be in effect that will cover new employees and requests for benefit changes by current employees. The new plan will provide the same level of coverage for employees and their dependents that you now have, with one exception: spouses not in the plan as of March 1, will not be eligible for coverage in the future. If your spouse currently has coverage in our Plan, he/she may continue to be covered by the health benefit plan, even if you later add a dependent or decide to change your option level (e.g., change from low option to high option). Please see the attached formal Plan Amendment.

We sincerely regret that we have to make this change, but it is necessary to allow Catholic Charities to continue to provide essential services to the clients we serve in partnership with the District of Columbia while remaining consistent with the tenets of our religious faith.

A summary of the Plan modification has been mailed to you at your home address. If you have any questions on this matter, please e-mail your Human Resources manager or, if you do not have access to email, call. Please remember, this change does not impact your current coverage in any way.

Thank you for your understanding in this matter, and let me again express my appreciation for your support and patience over these past months as we have worked hard to arrive at a decision that allows us to continue to serve others in a manner that is consistent with our religious beliefs.

Photo by Darrow Montgomery

This year on the Sexist, the pageviews accumulated like so many cats draped across my spinstery blogger frame. I'd like to take a minute to thank you all for clicking and commenting, even those of you who accidentally stumbled onto this blog while searching for porn. Especially you guys.

Below are the 10 most popular blog posts of the past year, with commentary on everything from semen facials to sexy librarians to nipple slips to Sarah Palin. Damnit! You all were just looking for porn!

10. Semen Facials Are Like Weddings, in which the degradation of porn can be ignored in the bedroom (as long as we can address it on the blogs):

Facials are like weddings. We all know that the institution of marriage is one of the patriarchy’s all-time greatest hits, in which women are sold into sexual slavery from father to husband in exchange for livestock. And yet, who derives the greatest joy from weddings? Women! It’s the craziest thing. But even though we all know that weddings were clearly institutionalized to facilitate the willing subjugation of women, feminists figure out a way to do it anyway. Why? Probably because even though we all know it’s sexist as fuck, weddings—like facial ejaculation—still make some people happy. And feminists deserve to be happy, too. But that doesn’t mean we should forget about the sexist tropes that sometimes inform our happiness (and our sex lives).

9. Library Conference Secret Twitter Proves Librarians Sexy, Stern, in which some librarians wish to silence the sexual overtures of other librarians:

Some librarians are exhausted by the conference’s material (”I have reached the point of the conference where I no longer give a damn about anything anyone is saying any more.”) Others are inspired by a perceived lack of cultural acceptance for a librarian’s sex life (”I am an adult. I am a librarian. I enjoy good sex. Including at this conference. What is the problem?”). Most of them, for whatever reason, are talking about fucking—that’s the “sexy” part. Not everyone is happy about it. That’s where “stern” comes in.

8. Huffington Post: Liberal Politics, Sexist Entertainment, in which nipple slips emerge as a liberal mainstay:

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.

7. The Onion's Best and Worst Rape Jokes, in which the hilarity of rape jokes is all about the target:

I’ve written a lot recently on who can successfully tell a rape joke and what targets are fair game for the butts of those jokes. One perennial source of rape humor, the Onion, gets the rape joke dynamic right a lot of the time. The format has a lot to do it: as America’s leading source of fake news, the Onion is always skewering the media along with its make-believe subjects, and media treatment of sexual violence is often ripe for satire.

6. The Rapiest Quotes From "I Hope They Serve Beer In Hell", in which Tucker Max's jokes rely on almost (but not quite!) rape:

[youtube:v=-qpHzm5Z-eQ]

Max’s stories succeed on orchestrating sexual conquests that are increasingly outrageous, drunk, dubiously legal, painful, objectifying, and embarrassing to his sex partners. In order to continue to one-up himself, Max intentionally pushes the line of consent—getting drunker, getting her drunker, leaving his sex partners to fend for themselves—naked—on the street, hiding his friend with an undisclosed video camera in his closet while they’re doing it. It’s not hard to think of the ultimate scenario these increasingly absurd sexcapades are inching toward—it’s, like, rape, dude. And now—thanks to Max’s movie tour—undergrads everywhere can compete to have the consensual sex that’s most like rape without actually being a prosecutable offense. Sure, some dudes might fail and actually rape chicks. Oh well!

Last spring, I discovered the CockBib, an oral sex accessory for men who want a dryer blowjob. "The whole idea for cockbibs came to me right after I was pleased orally and realized,'Damn, I can’t just fall asleep, I need to get up and wash my balls,'" the device's inventor explained on his Web site, CockBibCrazy.com. "I had just been a victim of another sloppy blowjob."

As it turns out, CockBibCrazy's proprietor was not the first martyr to the sloppy blowjob. Though CockBibCrazy.com was registered on March 13, 2009, a different CockBib outfit, CockBib.com, was registered all the way back on Dec. 22, 2008. At CockBib.com, a duo called Jon and Shan market what they call "the original cockbib." When I wrote to CockBibCrazy for his thoughts on the "original" CockBib, he seemed unfazed by the competition. "I am sure you can see a big difference in the quality of our product and the time put into our site?" he wrote to me.

For once, CockBib guy was right. CockBib.com's CockBib designs are even weirder than dick accessories "Caution: May Cause Trauma" and "Pussy Killer." Let's check 'em out!

5. "When Swallowing Is ... Not an Option!" The informative CockBib.

4. "Don't Talk With Your Mouth Full!" With a name like "CockBib," the infantalization was inevitable.

3. "Daddy's Little Squirt." When your product works equally well as a CockBib and a baby bib, you know you're doing something very, very wrong.

2. "Bride Breathalizer": For the pre-wedding date rape.

1. "Road Love . . . It's What Makes A Subaru, A Subaru." Gross. My parents have a Subaru.

But Wakeman errs in her either/or assumption about the sex act: that facials are either grounded in mutual respect, and elicit pleasure, or are grounded in degradation, and elicit humiliation. In fact, facials can imply all of these things, though we rarely analyze it all in the moment. Plenty of sex acts made popular in mainstream pornography, like facials, are based on achieving male pleasure. Under this model, the female's pleasure is derived by successfully pleasing the male—and in the process, allowing herself to be degraded. As Amanda Marcotte writes, "our culture constructs sex as something women do for men, and men do for fun." That model of sexuality is undoubtedly objectifying for women. But it nevertheless—voilà!—conjures up an idea of "pleasure" for both sex partners.

Interestingly, Wakeman concedes that the facial is an act loaded with objectification and subjugation—in porn. When this act is removed from the context of pornography and placed into the bedroom of a Man and Woman Who Love Each Other Very Much, however, those demeaning undertones disappear for Wakeman. I can understand that: actually thinking about the implications of why we like jizz on our face tends to put a damper on the whole mutual-attraction-to-degradation thing. So what do we do? We compartmentalize. When porn stars do it, it's degrading; when we do it, it's respectful:

I think leaving facials up to the porn stars—actors who are making the facial appear to humiliate the woman—is what keeps it looking demeaning. Certainly some facials are depicted in porn as humiliating or degrading, but not every man who wants to give a facial wants it to degrade and humiliate just like it looks onscreen. Many do love and respect their partners, and know, to varying degrees, that porn isn’t real. Likewise, some of those female partners enjoy the act as well.

When Wakeman liberates the facial from the demeaning clutches of the porn industry, she performs a useful little trick for us feminists—she separates her sex life from her personal philosophy. We all perform this function in our daily lives—detesting cruelty to animals while eating meat, denouncing philanderers while cheating on our wives, denouncing corporate America while smoking cigarettes. But it's a particularly common move when it comes to sex. Why? Because getting off is very necessary, very much informed by a tradition of male dominance over women, and can be very, very hard to accomplish if you only allow yourself to get off progressively. Of course, that doesn't mean that enjoying performing or receiving facials means that you hate women, or that you have no self-respect, or that you're a bad feminist. It just means that the patriarchy affects a lot of the things that we perform and enjoy on a daily basis, and it's good to remember that our attempts to recast these acts as "empowering" isn't so much transgressive as it is convenient.

See, facials are like weddings. We all know that the institution of marriage is one of the patriarchy's all-time greatest hits, in which women are sold into sexual slavery from father to husband in exchange for livestock. And yet, who derives the greatest joy from weddings? Women! It's the craziest thing. But even though we all know that weddings were clearly institutionalized to facilitate the willing subjugation of women, feminists figure out a way to do it anyway. Why? Probably because even though we all know it's sexist as fuck, weddings—like facial ejaculation—still make some people happy.  And feminists deserve to be happy, too. But that doesn't mean we should forget about the sexist tropes that sometimes inform our happiness (and our sex lives).

Tomorrow, the fate of our alt-weekly's ownership may finally be decided, again.  While Creative Loafing brass are hugging it out in Atlanta bankruptcy court, CP staff will be busy proving that we still deserve our paychecks. We're spending the whole day writing about fucking.

On the Sexist tomorrow: explore D.C.'s massage parlors, porn shops, courthouse weddings, clinics, and pick-up bars with the city's finest romantics, stalkers, bartenders, activists, and queens.

All sex. All day. Eat it, Tampa.

Photo by Darrow Montgomery.

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."

What does a punk-rock bride wear to her big day? If designer Stephanie Ward's "Punk Rock Bride" collection is any indication, she wears the same flowey white thing the other brides wear—but with an attitude. Ward writes that she designs for the "bride who is looking for an original, non-traditional wedding dress." To me, these pretty, ruffled, white designs are perfect fit for the bride who wants a different kind of wedding dress—without sacrificing the traditional virginal imagery (or the cost).

Check out Ward's Joey Ramone-inspired off-white silk charmeuse creations, after the jump.

Joan Jett would be right at home with this bride's studded stilletos, passed-out-in-an-alley pose, and French chantilly lace overlay. $3,900.

This silk chiffon sleeve must be inspired by Judy's Ice Capades phase. $3,400.

Johnny Rotten was known to trade in the studded belt for this silk organza beaded band from time to time. $3,100.

If you stare longingly into this dress's silk chiffon ruffle and pleated overlay, you can just make out the outline of the Misfits' iconic fiend skull. Available in off-white. $3,800.

This layered silk ruffle-detail is perfect for the impromptu ceremony held under the highway overpass. $3,400.

Photos courtesy of Punk Rock Bride, LLC.

The Washington Post's breakout Weddings section, "OnLove," has debuted, providing Washingtonians with another outlet for more-of-the-same coverage of the institution. You've got your pair of interlocked golden rings illustrating the header; your bouquet-clutching, white-veiled bride gracing the front page; and your tales of everlasting love sparked in Dewey Beach spicing up the copy.

But WaPo's weddings page is stepping out of the traditional mold in one way: It's soliciting stories and photos of same-sex weddings and commitment ceremonies, as well.

The OnLove "Wedding Story" submission form requests deets from two parties: "Bride" or "Partner #1" and "Groom" or "Partner #2." Later, the form then reverts back to regular old bride-and-groom. And there's no telling how seriously the Post will consider same-sex unions in its romanticized coverage: so far, the Post's wedding page appears exclusively hetero.

Even if OnLove ends up covering enough gay weddings, it will probably end up covering way too many weddings, period. Although I'm not married, I can understand why a couple's wedding is a very important moment in their lives. What I don't understand is why that couple's wedding is even a vaguely interesting moment in my life, however, unless something very horrific—death and destruction—or awesome—jet packs?—went down. If it's just the same old white dresses, flowers, rings, and vows, that's not newsworthy—that's just a wedding. Happens every day.

Wedding news certainly isn't the only fluff filling out the pages of the Washington Post. I realize that the "Arts & Living" section also devotes entire pages to glorifying our pets and critiquing celebrity fashion sense, as well. But while weddings may not be the least fit-to-print, they do manage to inspire the most predictable boilerplate feature coverage known to journalism.

Weddings, even same-sex ones, are about fulfilling tradition, after all—the whole story depends on the dresses, flowers, rings, and vows being there. In that world, even the tiniest breakings-of-tradition qualify as enduring details. We're talking rose-colored wedding dresses and Vegas-themed receptions here, not a jet-pack experiment gone awry.

Wedding coverage may never go away, but I like to think, at least, that the idea of wedding reporting actually equating writing "on love" is beginning to erode. Wedding coverage is all about artifice. At least fashion reporting attacks the subject with a critical eye.

Now that WaPo is preparing to roll out this "Sports page for women," perhaps it's time we consider to what other seemingly gender-neutral activities have been crying out for a clearly feminine alternative all along.

A colleague of mine suggested a game: I name an area of interest relegated to the ladies, and you tell me what normal (or "male") activity it corresponds to. When I say "hair salon"; you say, "gym, for women!" Ready?

1. High School Reunions: _______, for women!

2. Victoria's Secret: _______, for women!

3. Cosmopolitan: _______, for women!

4. Anorexia: _______, for women!

5. Childbearing, cooking, and vacuuming: _______, for women!

Answers are after the jump.

Answer Key:

1. Scrabble

2. Home Depot

3. The Economist

4. Hunger

5. Careers

Earlier this month, I called out local bride-to-be website DC Nearlyweds (which appears to be, in general, a lovely resource for aspiring brides) for employing the acronym "BM" to refer to their dear bridesmaids. Last week, one nearlywed struck again with this post detailing the arrival of her "BM" dresses:

"My BM dresses have arrived! (minus 1 – more about that later)," writes blogger "Miss Glen Allen." Later, Miss G.A. fulfills her promise on explaining her missing dress scenario:

Now, back to the "minus one" part.My younger sister (23), for some unknown reason me is opting not to be in the wedding and has not ordered any of her attire, which should have been ordered in November. Everyone else's dress and shoes are here. It's bothersome that she's choosing not to be in the wedding, but what's also bothersome is the way she going about it. She's just not ordering her stuff, and not taking my calls. I had to hear that she has no intention of participating in the wedding from my baby (17) sister. Has anyone else ever had a situation like this with a member of their bridal party?

Hmm, maybe it's because you refer to your sister, repeatedly and publicly, with an acronym that refers to taking a shit?

Photo by yananine.

Aventura, Fla, Jan. 16; Columbus, Ohio, Jan. 30; Boston, Mass., Feb. 20; Manhattan, Feb. 27; Atlanta, Ga., March 20.

Photo by mistercullen.