Christine O’Donnell won the Delaware primary last night, and within minutes (literally) über liberal Rachel Maddow started running video and commentary on MSNBC about O’Donnell’s views on masturbation.
The pretext for sexualizing O’Donnell was a 1996 video in which O’Donnell was interviewed about her conservative Christian views on sex.
Before Maddow’s post, the subject mostly was the subject of left-wing bloggers, but Maddow took it mainstream on MSNBC’s primetime coverage.
An almost 15-year old video was all the excuse Maddow needed to take the story national. Because the fate of the nation turns on whether O’Donnell masturbates, at least to Maddow.
One can understand why Alan Colmes would get all excited about the subject, but why the person who runs the liberal feminist blog Feministe?
Because liberal feminism is dead, and has been for years.
The liberal feminist death march has continued through the sexualized attacks on Sarah Palin and other conservative women in more recent times.
But, it’s not like I didn’t see this coming.
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tT0lln4SoXE?fs=1]
Update: The always classy NY Times starts off its headline article hit piece about O’Donnell’s win with this paragraph:
In the bright light of Wednesday morning, Christine O’Donnell, whose Republican primary victory upended the calculus for future control of the United State Senate, became quickly known to Americans as the woman who once made dire warnings about the negative impact of masturbation.
New Post, same subject: “What’s up w/obsession about O’Donnell’s opinions on sex?”
——————————————–
Related Posts:
Nuts and Sluts In Delaware
Palin Haters Killed and Field Dressed Liberal Feminism
“Put Your Laws All Over My Body”
Follow me on Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
So what? A lot of Christians don't care for masturbation because it's a self-indulgent and lustful act.
This is almost as stupid as MSNBC's claim that Sharron Angle supports wife abusers. No idea what they crapped THAT one up.
"…One can understand why Alan Colmes would get all excited about the subject, …"
Good one.
Cracked me up.
One would wish that Ms. Maddow would express her sexual energy in a more private forum and, perhaps, get laid more often.
Oops, she's not…
Here is the Left: Identify, Personalize, Demonize. Rinse and repeat. There is no poilcy, there is no arguing.
You would hope a guy like Rove would be savy enough to see it coming, but, no.
Oh my God she deigned discuss the only topic – sex – where libs think that the government shouldn't intervene. Unless you're having too many children and then population control should be the norm. Birth control for all – like it or not – if that fails abortions for all – like it or not. How many's too many? I'm sure Dear leader and wife will gladly tell us….and the Dems in congress will gladly make it a law.
Well, she's now got the Muslim vote locked in 😛
Now if only someone could manage to sexualize Rachel Maddow.
Crikey !
I think running this video (and all of the other stones they can throw at O'Donnell) is going to backfire and get fair minded men and women to pull the lever for her in Nov. If for no other reason than to spite both the GOP establishment and the religious-holier-than-thou-left.
I have the link for the video of that young girl being stoned, and I won't post it because it is too disturbing, but it seems appropriate here. Feminists and liberal "elites" no longer get upset about a video like that anymore, they are too busy looking for stones to hurl at Palin and O'Donnell.
NeoKong, there is not enough Viagra in all Creation……
While I'm no supporter of liberal feminism, I don't think Maddow's point was to wonder whether O'Donnell maturbates or not–that's ridiculous–the point was to show O'Donnell's views on sexuality. Everyone is entitled to their own views of human sexuality, but I doubt the majority of Delaware's voters wish to be represented in the Senate by someone whose views tilt toward the puritanical. (Karl Rove worries about O'Donnell's electability and he's no left-winger…) Ms. O'Donnell is entitled to her views and if she wins the general election, so be it. But it is quite tiresome to see members of the left and right blogosphere purposely misconstrue points made by the opposing side.
O'Donnell runnng on jobs, economic growth, national saecurity. Dems have the pro-masturbation platform prioritized.
you mean…
über liberal Rachel Madcow …as in mad cow disease.
Maddow on O'Donnell: Scissor me timbers! NSFW
http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/104423/?searchterm=D-Yikes!
Maddow is letting her lesbian lust get in the way of her pretending to be a professional.
A waste of time. Her point was all too obvious.
So, how many times a day, Matt, and do you imagine Maddow or Olbermann?
Matt, here's a simple fill-in-the-blank question for you:
"I think the majority of Delaware's voters wish to be represented in the Senate by someone who, on average, masturbates ___ times/day."
Matt, why exactly are her views on sex so important in the first place? Would you be so quick to say the same about a candidate that was a lesbian who had a 1996 video talking about why she doesn't believe in having sex with a man?
The point IS that they are attacking her not on her policies about jobs or the size of government, but her personal views about sex. I suppose you could imply, though not positively say that she would not support public funding for abortions, or gay marriage, but then many democrat male candidates have similar views.
As our economy collapses due to corrupt leaders throwing billions of our dollars around like drunken sailors, are personal attitudes about sex really what we want to fiddle about as Rome burns?
Matt, be fearful of all the anti-masturbatorial laws the new Senate will pass!
Matt,
What difference does it make if O'Donnell feels one way or the other about a private act so long as she does not operate the levers of power available to the state to force others into her worldview?
IOW, so long as she's not a Democrat willing to disregard the Constitution of the United States for her own ends, what does it matter to you?
P.S. Concern Troll Alert !!!
Matt, I'm willing to bet most of the people of Delaware don't care in the slightest the masturbation views of the people who represent them. It's simply not relevant to the job she's running for and if Maddow had anything relevant, she would have run with it. But apparently she doesn't so she's faced with a choice–be a responsible pundit or a feckless partisan?
Maddow and her misery be damned. I'm supporting O'Donnell with cash. Did you see Drudge reporting that her servers are crashing because so many people are going to her site to donate? She was just at 95% of her LATEST goal – it looks like she's had to up her numbers 3 times because the money is coming in so fast.
Delaware Voters Flock to Coons
Dateline Dover, DE: "I dunno. I agree with her about Cap and Trade. And the budget. And taxation. But her view of masturbation is too prudish," said Skip Jones, a Dover man. "No, I'm going to vote Coons."
Such sentiments are commonly heard around Delaware water coolers these days, after Senatorial Candidate Christine O'Donnell's contraversial views of masturbation became known.
"I mean, what's the big deal with masturbation? Something's gotta be wrong with that woman. Sure, government spending is bankrupting us, but I'm going to have to go with Coons," said Amy Tucker, also of Dover.
Just two comments, I don't much care about the rest of the content of your post; Rachel Maddow keeps referencing Ms. O'Donnell's views on masturbation because they are kooky and funny, not because she wants to use sex specifically as leverage against her. She's kind of kooky that way herself, as she likes to focus on what's going on in the "fringe" of politics and political thought. If you bother to watch Rachel Maddow regularly you would know that while she is kind of… lusty at times, she never comments on female candidates looks, or their confirmed or speculated sexual histories, and she has not used any of the things I just listed against Ms. O'Donnell.
Also, these attacks have a name. They are called sexism. And they happen to ALL women, not just the women that are on your side.
What is it with MSNBC's obsession with sex, anyway?
Maddow on masturbation, Matthews' leg tingles, the whole network's obsession with oral sex… I hope parents are paying attention as to whether their kids watch this porn.
Rachel should do her prowling off camera.
just a lesbian having a momentary sexual fantasy
This is a shockingly stupid article. Running video of a candidate's past public appearances is "sexualizing" them? Had you stopped to consider if it was possible that the candidate appearing on a show called "Sex In the 90s" might have sexualized themselves?
next scathing expose from maddow…."I hear she doesn't wipe herself clean, and she doesn't wash her hands afterwards".
this left progressive movement are DISGUSTING to the core, and i detest each and every one of them!
…the candidate appearing on a show called "Sex In the 90s" might have sexualized themselves?
Yes, and one might also gather that something said in the 90s might be less than germane in…2010. (And even less so considering that her stance on masturbation might not be terribly important information in a senatorial election…unless you're Rachel Maddow or a member of her audience, apparently.)
Listen, I bow to no one in my hatred for MessNBC and Rachel Maddow, but you're all missing the point. She wasn't trying to "sexualize" O'Donnell, she was trying to show that she's a kook. And quite frankly, I found that video borderline creepy. Maddow's point was, "Hey, is this Christain wacko the Republican candidate?" Was it a low blow? Sure. Will I be contributing to O'Donnell's campaign? Absolutely. But don't try to make Maddow's attempt to make fun of O'Donnell something it wasn't.
What is with conservatives STILL bringing up that myth of Clinton's "serial abuse" or "serial rape"?? WHO are you referring to that he has "raped" or 'abused'? Last I checked, there were only a few woman in the late 90s, not long after or before the Lewinsky scandal, who came out claiming that who were FULL OF CRAP, and it was all thanks to the propaganda campaign (yes, a vast right-wing conspiracy) and deception known as the Arkansas Project, if I recall.
Salon and David Brooks, among others, exposed it in the late 90s. Guys like Richard Mellon Scaife were behind it and STILL are unapologetic. Look, I'm not the biggest fan of Clinton, but one thing I HATE, esp. in politics, is lying to get your way.
Ok, maybe bringing up video from 14 years ago is kind of a cheap shot. But until or unless she says OTHERWISE about her views on abstinence and masturbation, we have to assume she holds the same or similar views! And if so, she's a puritanical kook who will probably push those kinds of nonsensical policies in the Senate that just lead to more teen pregnancies and abortions. As well as higher rates of STDs.
Abstinence-only DOESN'T WORK! Sure, in a perfect world, we'd all like our teenagers to stay abstinent and wait until they're ready and older, but that's not the reality. You have to cater to reality, not a utopia. Telling teens about protection and safe sex is NOT encouraging them to do it; it's simply saying, "Look, don't give in to peer pressure, but if you do feel you're ready at any particular moment, make sure you're safe." That's all.
And besides, moderation is much safer than abstinence for individuals. If you try all your life getting the 'moral courage' to abstain from something that's highly tempting, you're likely to let that energy build up until it's too much, and then you indulge massively in whatever you're trying to resist. I don't know the whole story behind WHY there are so many pedos in the Catholic Church, but I would assume that this explanation is at least partly true.
Midwestern Avenger, the woman Clinton raped was named Juanita Broaddrick. I'm not going to waste my time finding links for the long list of others he abused, but suffice it to day that you're the one who's full of crap. In fact, if you're going to make thaose kinds of charges, you're the one who needes to come up with links to back them up.
Face it. We all just cannot think like the liberals. Poor fellow at DU posted about his house being broken into by "trashy" career criminals. He was chastised for calling a criminal "trashy", as they were clearly just down on their luck, and their only chance of survival was to steal a stranger's belongings. That's how it works.
But,I am glad to see the left is bent out of shape, especially as O'Donnell just surpassed $650,000 in campaign contributions in less than 24 hours.
Rachel Madcow in a thong is the antidote to the 4 hour erection fron the Cialis commercials.
This is quite a bright light you guys are defending:
"… In 1998, while O'Donnell was a guest on Politically Incorrect with Bill Maher, she … argu[ed] that 'telling the truth is always the right thing to do, I believe, and that's what always gets you out of a situation.'
"Comedian Eddie Izzard pressed her on just how far she would take her anti-lying beliefs. Izzard asked O'Donnell whether or not she would lie to Nazis who showed up at her door during WWII and demanded to know if she were hiding any Jewish people in her house. O'Donnell refused to even entertain the notion of concealing the truth from Nazis in that scenario because "you never have to practice deception":
"… IZZARD: What if someone comes to you in the middle of the Second World War and says, 'do you have any Jewish people in your house?' and you do have them. That would be a lie. That would be disrespectful to Hitler.
"O’DONNELL: I believe if I were in that situation, God would provide a way to do the right thing righteously. I believe that!
"MAHER: God is not there. Hitler's there and you’re there.
"O’DONNELL: You never have to practice deception. God always provides a way out.
"In addition to the fact that O’Donnell’s unwillingness to lie about the Jews’ whereabouts would have almost certainly resulted in their capture and imprisonment, an important question must be asked: Does O’Donnell believe that those brave Gentile families who hid Jews from the Nazis weren’t righteous because they practiced deception?"
http://thinkprogress.org/2010/09/15/odonnell-lie-jews/
Midwest av said "And besides, moderation is much safer than abstinence for individuals"
Can this be true? Doing something only sometimes is safer than doing something never?
Just out of curiosity, how do std rates in todays permissive society compare to the more rates before the 60's? How can you claim that abstinence doesn't work when there's only one story that I could find where an abstinent women ended up pregnant? I bet it's just as effective at disease prevention.
I'd feel better about O'Donnell if she'd ever won anything done anything beside run for office that demonstrates leadership ability. So far, all I can see her running on is her good looks.
Big surges like this in either direction are great for opportunists. I just hope that she's got more than just a naive "wouldn't it be neat" wish to win an election.
Midwestern Avenger, hers is one vote and voice in the entire senate, and on this one particular sexual issue, how much leverage is a freshmen senator actually going to have?
Also, the higher rate of STDs, pregnancies and abortions? You would be right to blame that at least in part on the more liberal view of sex education in today's society. Abstinence, you'll recall, is 100% effective in preventing all of those things. Easier said than done, but it's definitely something to strive for.
Wait a second, what? You can't criticize O'Donnell's clearly antifeminist views and be a feminist?
While we're playing "enemies of the group define the group," you can't criticize a TV talk show host and be a conservative. Why? Because I declare it so.
If you can do it, so can I.
Pashley said:
"One would wish that Ms. Maddow would express her sexual energy in a more private forum and, perhaps, get laid more often.
Oops, she's not…
Here is the Left: Identify, Personalize, Demonize. Rinse and repeat. There is no poilcy, there is no arguing."
Did you read your own comment before posting? The first two sentences are and example of your last three paragraphs. Guess it's not just the Left that your observation applies to, huh?
You seriously called this, sir, and I linked to you in two different articles. Good call, and thank you. I'm documenting the atrocities here: http://peacocksandlilies.com/2010/09/14/christine-odonnell-sexism-elitism-watch/
"Midwestern Avenger, the woman Clinton raped was named Juanita Broaddrick. I'm not going to waste my time finding links for the long list of others he abused, but suffice it to day that you're the one who's full of crap. In fact, if you're going to make thaose kinds of charges, you're the one who needes to come up with links to back them up."
You didn't even bother "wasting time" to find even a single link. You linked to WorldNetDaily, a racist, bigoted right wing hate machine. You're pathetic.
"Also, the higher rate of STDs, pregnancies and abortions? You would be right to blame that at least in part on the more liberal view of sex education in today's society. Abstinence, you'll recall, is 100% effective in preventing all of those things. Easier said than done, but it's definitely something to strive for."
The rates in the United States are higher than just about all the more liberal countries on sex: Canada, the Scandinavian countries, etc.
O'Donnell has been a sexual Puritan for years.
http://radamisto.blogspot.com/2010/09/yes-hannity-has-know-odonnell-for-years.html
Rachel Maddow is a little shriveled up ball of hate. No other way to put it.
Scrounging up a 14 year old video of a girl promoting individual sexual purity is the first thing Maddow does when Odonnell wins.
You can just hear the venom dripping.
Christians can be phenomenally stupid at times, especially when it comes to ……. well, ANYTHING. Some of the public statements Christians make are really dumb. This is NOT one of those statements, though. It is a statement about an issue that is if anything, personal. However, CHRISTIANS DID NOT DRAG THIS PERSONAL ISSUE INTO THE PUBLIC ARENA. It was out there by….. OUR FEDERAL OFFICIALS. Kids saw the news every night, and leaders in the church felt they needed to respond.
Maddow is doing everything she can to intimate that O'Donnell is wack about sex. Rather, this seems to be simply a young woman attempting to stand up for what she believes is true and correct. This video was made in the recent context of that LOON of a surgeon general Jocelyn Elders, who was, as the US Chief Medical officer, instructing kids that a great way to avoid AIDS or sexual diseases was to masturbate. This was during the presidency of the chief horn dog himself, who was servicing a young intern on her knees in the oval office. All the sexual maelstrom at the time WAS COMING FROM THE GOVERNMENT. Elders had resigned as Surgeon General a few short months back, and "getting a Lewinsky" was becoming street slang. In this context, a young woman says in essence "Sex is not primarily about selfishness and personal pleasure. It is designed by the Creator to be something to make two people closer together and to give EACH OTHER pleasure. In short, it is about love, and not lust."
This is fuel, then, for the sneering contempt of Rachel Maddow. It is amazing that those who claim not to believe the Bible consistently behave EXACTLY as the Bible describes they will.
actual thinker: http://www.avert.org/std-statistics.htm
Granted, it's based on region. But as you can see, North America has lower STD rates than both Eastern and Western Europe. Thoughts?
Rachel is obviously trying to spin atteton away from her idol, the kenyan-in-chief.
I, for one, am sick and tired of the smarmy-ass condescending attitude of the progressive "tough guys", the ones that hide behind their anonymity of the internet. Eddie Izzard and Bill Maher are a couple of blights on our society, just as are you "tough guys". Fact is, I detest every fiber of your being. I loathe people like you, the perpetual whiners, sideliners, crying over spilt milk that wasn't yours to begin with. I propose that we settle our differences with a boxing/wrestling match. how about it? care to put your money where your mouth is? If you are going to provoke and attack, why don't we just call it what it is? I think the term is "Hater", someone who is blinded by jealousy that they have to attack viciously what they don't agree with. the only thing that silences a hater is a strong backhand, not one from the voting booth, but the one from the collective hand of America. Call them to task. ask if they would do the same. I'll be willing to bet that you find they are all cowards with no sense of loyalty to anyone but themselves.
Maddow? I don't like that guy.