Jessica Valenti, one of my favorite author-bloggers, is already catching shit for her new book: “The Purity Myth: How America’s Obsession with Virginity is Hurting Young Women” - which is interesting, seeing as the book hasn’t even been published yet. The mere suggestion that virginity may not be all that it’s cracked up to be is like gasoline on the neocon fire. There’s every aspect of the typical religious right shitstorm; slut-shaming, ad hominem attacks, and rape apologism:

“Why is it so many feminists are so obsessed with turning teenage girls into raging whores? How is that something you tell girls they should aspire to? Sleeping around is not a good thing… Maybe I should just write a book called ‘The Feminism Myth: How Feminists’ Obsession with Slutting Around is Hurting Young Women’. See, feminism did not come around as a vehicle for women to be able to have on-demand birth control and abortions, or sleep around like horndog men.” - Cassy Fiano

“From what I understand Jessica is a bit promiscuous and wrote about it in her previous book. I would theorize that she is a little jealous of those girls/women who can practice abstinence.” - Paul L.

“If we want to see the end of the “rape culture”, women need to do thier part and stop sleeping with scumbags. I try to do my part by being a resoectful, committed guy who wants to get married. Too bad feminists see the conservtive man as Satan.” - Andrew

All this blather really does is make Valenti’s point, which is that we are a people obsessed with virginity. The concept of virginity as a cure-all for the societal ills perceived by conservatives - birth control access, abortion, and “raging whores” - puts women in a position of culpability; it’s our fault the world is so sinful, and if we’d just kept our legs together, maybe we wouldn’t have made it so.

The reality? Having sex before marriage does not make anyone “impure.” It doesn’t make anyone a “slut” or a bad person. And saving sex for marriage CAN be a good thing, if it’s a conscious choice made outside societal pressures.

If you haven’t seen the SNL take on the veep debate yet:

The religious right has yet another -totally- valid complaint against the godless capitalist market and its heathen ways - Hallmark has begun marketing wedding cards for homosexuals!

(Cue gasps of horror and disgust - or, if you’re like me, murmurs of “So?” or “And…?”)

The Family Policy Network has put together a petition asking Hallmark to withdraw all products that “celebrate, condone or otherwise encourage” teh gay. Petitioners are threatening to do their worst to Hallmark - a boycott!

This could mean serious trouble for the card giant. After all, One petitioner claims to make up 99% of all Hallmark revenue:

John in La Mesa, CA writes, “I will NOT buy from your store until this practice stops. 1% vs. 99%. Looks like a smart business move to me. I don’t think so!”

Oh, ho, ho! You’re in deep shit now, Hallmark!

And oh, snap! A gold crown customer has joined the boycott:

Kathy in Cobb, CA writes, “As a weekly gold crown customer in Montgomery Village Santa Rosa Ca I will no longer support you due to the current stand you have taken.”

As one petitioner notes, Ford’s loss of sales has nothing to do with the downward spiral of the American economy or the gas crunch - it’s the wrath of every Christian in America!

Sven in Herald, CA writes, “I’ll be sure to take my business elsewhere… I doubt you’ll be able to withstand the boycott of millions of Christians. Ask Ford how it’s doing.”

These Christians mean serious business. It’s a good thing that there’s nothing more important going on right now, like, say, a worldwide economic crisis. Or mass genocide abroad. Or a looming environmental disaster.

Biden and Palin both did what they were sent to the debate to do: Biden clearly won it, and Palin didn’t make any colossal blunder.

Palin had answers that she could form in complete sentences, but half the time they weren’t answers to the questions asked (does she know what “Achilles’ heel” means?). She didn’t have to deal with any “gotcha” moments because she wasn’t even really required to answer the questions fielded to her, and no question was specific enough to catch her in the headlights for longer than half a second or so. When in doubt, spout energy talking points. If she had been asked about the Bork nomination - and pressed to answer - she’d have been in deep shit. The questions asked were questions that virtually everyone could put their two cents into fairly intelligently as long as they didn’t have to explain the “how.” Add that to the smiling, the winks, the shout-out to her Wasilla 3rd graders - wait, is she running for Vice President or Miss America?

Nobody seems to really care much about what Biden had to say, but that was only partially his fault. Palin had the press interest from the get-go, but it’s always been her “folksy” presentation that’s wowed her base. Palin was all winks and teeth; Biden seemed strained and monotone in comparison. He also had, you know, substance. And while Palin made every attempt to play the pit bull, Biden stopped it in its tracks and stepped away from the debate unblemished.

Palin didn’t win this one. She had the benefit of no Couric-style follow-ups, but in no objective way did she top Biden.

[1] One shot for every use of the phrase “As we say/do/know in Alaska, ____.”

[2] One shot for every time either VP candidate offers a personal anecdote for a pressing issue of national importance.

[3] A small sip for every time Palin does the lip thing (yeah, you know what I’m talking about).

[4] Half a shot for each of the following buzzwords: God, 9/11, strategy, “Main Street,” and freedom.

[5] One shot for every time Biden makes a reference to his use of public transportation.

[6] Should there be any mention of Tina Fey, everyone must toast and down whatever drink they’ve got in hand.

Sarah Palin’s interview with Katie Couric was anything but “straight talk,” especially when it came to abortion. As the Times article put it, she drew “a bit of a fuzzy line” regarding women who have been impregnated as the result of rape or incest:

Ms. Couric: If a 15-year-old is raped by her father, do you believe it should be illegal for her to get an abortion, and why?

Ms. Palin: I am pro-life. And I’m unapologetic in my position that I am pro-life. And I understand there are good people on both sides of the abortion debate. In fact, good people in my own family have differing views on abortion, and when it should be allowed. Do I respect people’s opinions on this? Now, I would counsel to choose life. I would also like to see a culture of life in this country. But I would also like to take it one step further. Not just saying I am pro-life and I want fewer and fewer abortions in this country, but I want them, those women who find themselves in circumstances that are absolutely less than ideal, for them to be supported, and adoptions made easier.

Ms. Couric: But ideally, you think it should be illegal for a girl who was raped or the victim of incest to get an abortion?

Ms. Palin: I’m saying that, personally, I would counsel the person to choose life, despite horrific, horrific circumstances that this person would find themselves in. And, um, if you’re asking, though, kind of foundationally here, should anyone end up in jail for having an … abortion, absolutely not. That’s nothing I would ever support.

None of this actually answers the question or gives the American woman any solid idea of what to expect should Palin become Vice President (or, potentially, President). It seems like she would have some qualms with sending a rape victim to jail for aborting, but would have no problem with trying to guilt a battered child into giving birth despite the “horrific, horrific circumstances” that got her pregnant.

And I don’t buy the “I want them to be supported” shit, either. As Governor, she slashed funding for Covenant House Alaska, an organization that included programs (such as Passage House) to help struggling teenage mothers:

According to Passage House’s web site, its purpose is to provide “young mothers a place to live with their babies for up to eighteen months while they gain the necessary skills and resources to change their lives” and help teen moms “become productive, successful, independent adults who create and provide a stable environment for themselves and their families.”

I don’t think it’s even remotely fair to women to block abortion access, but to insist on a pro-life nation while cutting funding to homes for young mothers who don’t have any other support is just disgusting. I can’t imagine anything further from “pro-woman.”