Groups like NOW are aghast, calling the Gawker story sexual harassment, The New York Times and Amanda Hess have also chimed in. All-in-all the credible media outlets view the post as seedy, sexist, and plumb unnecessary. And as much as I dislike Christine O'Donnell's politics, I'm going to agree and more. I think that the guy is full of camel dung.
To begin with, I've seen photos of this guy, and he's no prize. His story that the fairly attractive frequent candidate for office sought him out and was aggressive in her pursuit seem a tad far-fetched. Moreover, I've beaten around a few bushes in my time, and a little fur is not going to deter me from going for the promised land. He also goes on to say that after he rejected her for being au naturel, she still wanted to date him. But the most absurd part of this yo-yos claim is that he had never before heard the term cougar. Come on dude, you live in a city as large as Philadelphia and your tender ears have never once born witness to a term that goes back decades? That detail alone would set the bullshit bell off even if the yarn didn't sound like something a 14 year old boy wrote.
Gawker has posted that they are sticking with the story- not because the guy is credible, but because Christine O'Donnell is a bigot and deserves it. They also acknowledge the fact that they hoped their blog would go viral by mentioning the seedy details of a drunken holier-than-thou candidate out on the hunt. Gawker admittedly published the story for "clicks and money and attention" but justifies it because they think that it's another chink in the moral morass' armour. And Gawker is all kinds of wrong for doing this.
Gawker has no idea whether or not Anonymous' story has any factual merit. They published it solely to gain financially from shaming another human being. However they are the ones who, in conjunction with this douchey boy-man, come across as creepy. While I'll never look to websites like Gawker for unbiased journalism, there are lines that one shouldn't cross. It's less about the non-sex that was claimed to have occurred than the fact that this article was designed to vilify someone.
In the story, Christine O'Donnell is made to look like a drunken hyper-sexual cock tease, something that the young male readership hates. Women are expected to say no, but after a certain point they're not allowed to. She's demonized for promoting chastity but moreso for leading someone on. Anonymous' account reads like something fabricated for a very specific, predominately male audience, and that's what it likely is.
There are an infinite number of credible arguments against the Christine O'Donnell platform- sound, fundamental, verifiable reasons why this woman should not go to Washington. One could write an entire dissertation about the incompetence of Christine O'Donnell without referencing allegorical filth from anonymous sources, but that would require effort. Gawker has engaged in an unneeded and undignified debasement of another human being for fun and profit at the expense of their own integrity.
Smooth move, Exlax.
This stuff does nothing but make O'Donnell the victim due to rumor and slander. You oughta call this one "When Dislike Goes Too Far"
ReplyDeleteI could care less that C.O.D. dabbled in witchcraft (the same that I care about any politician's teen/young adult years that have no effect on their policies), the chick's dumb as rocks on the Constitution. But Stuff like this hurts the cause and gives them a reason 4 sympathy.