Skip

Blog Interrupted
August 16, 2004 10:45 AM   Subscribe

Blog Interrupted. The Wash Post Magazine does a freakishly in-depth feature on ex-Senate staffer Jessica Cutler and the Weblog she once kept, which detailed her supposed romantic entanglements with various and sundry Capitol Hill types. Excerpt: "The messages warning Jessica that her private little joke had just gone very public came from a girlfriend over on the House side. Reading it, Jessica says, she was too stunned to wonder how Wonkette had discovered her blog. Instead, the portion of Jessica's brain that had evolved to help humans survive marauding mastodons screamed: Kill the blog! Kill the blog!" (Via Obscure Store.)
posted by GaelFC (69 comments total)

 
The article's author is online now, though that's ending in a few minutes. You can read the transcript, at least.
posted by MrMoonPie at 10:54 AM on August 16, 2004


Steve Gilliard's, umm, less-than-supportive take.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 10:59 AM on August 16, 2004


Steve Gilliard, whoever he is, is more annoying than his subject - and she is a, oh, a smidgen annoying.
posted by raysmj at 11:05 AM on August 16, 2004


I stopped reading here:

She's 5 feet 2, weighs about 100 pounds, wears hoop earrings as big as her fist and has a higher IQ -- she says she's been twice tested at more than 140 -- than the average medical student.

Any time some idiot mentions his/her "tested IQ", I'm done paying attention.
posted by psmealey at 11:21 AM on August 16, 2004


Just about every snippet of dialogue they quote makes her sound like a complete idiot.
posted by dobbs at 11:43 AM on August 16, 2004


And I usually can't stand Naomi Wolf but I couldn't agree more with this quote from the article:

What is gained is they totally reject the double standard and believe they are entitled to sexual exploration and sexual satisfaction," Wolf says. "The downside is we've raised a generation of young women -- and men -- who don't understand sexual ethics like: Don't sleep with a married man; don't sleep with a married woman; don't embarrass people with whom you had a consensual sexual relationship. They don't see sex as sacred or even very important anymore. That's been lost. Sex has been commodified and drained of its deeper meaning.
posted by dobbs at 11:46 AM on August 16, 2004


Every time I read this quote: "the portion of Jessica's brain that had evolved to help humans survive marauding mastodons screamed: Kill the blog! Kill the blog!""

I think it should say: "the portion of Jessica's brain that had not completely withered away screamed: Kill the blog! Kill the blog!"
posted by GaelFC at 11:52 AM on August 16, 2004


I think the idea of attacking her as a "whore" is interesting. Not to be rude or nasty, but that sort of seems beyond argument. She had sex with people for money, now she's writing a book, for money, about how she has sex with people. She's a whore the way a guy who is paid to put out fires is a firefighter and a guy paid to take out trash is a garbageman. It's not really an insult, merely an observation.

This girl is, in fact, a whore. How she wants to address that is her business. But the parts of the article crying for sympathy because she's being labelled as what she clearly made herself to be are a bit condescending. This story isn't one of these anti-chauvenistic "oh you call powerful women bitches" speeches. If you didn't want to be looked as as a whore, it might have been a good idea to use that twice-tested 140 IQ to, you know, not write a weblog about how you're fucking multiple people because they give you money.

I feel sorry for her failed hopes, but I feel a lot sorrier for the next entire generation of female Washington interns, already dealt the Monica Lewinsky scandal, who have to enter a legitimate job market iconified by predecessors who blazed their trails by being their male superiors' sex toy. Wonkette's (who I usually enjoy) desperate attempts to make this some triumphant story as if Disney music is playing in the background is revolting.

My favorite part was how she felt she was in "Scarface." You know, the guy who decided to take the easy way to success instead of working and caring about people, fucked up royally letting everyone suffer around him, and concluded miserably. You go, girl!
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 12:00 PM on August 16, 2004


What XYZYZYAPS said:

whore, n. 1 : a woman who engages in sexual acts for money

Yeah, sure, there are a lot of nasty connotations that go with it, but the denotation is pretty clear and specific and accurate here.
posted by xmutex at 12:05 PM on August 16, 2004


When can we stone her?
posted by Dukebloo at 12:10 PM on August 16, 2004


Sex for money? How shocking! I've never heard of such a thing...

She should be ashamed! ASHAMED!!!
posted by SweetJesus at 12:11 PM on August 16, 2004


If you didn't want to be looked as as a whore, it might have been a good idea to use that twice-tested 140 IQ to, you know, not write a weblog about how you're fucking multiple people because they give you money.

But that wouldn't give her what she really wants: fame. And she's a great illustration of how cheap fame continues to be.

To be honest, if people want to buy or sell themselves sexually, that's none of my business. It's her shallowness and venality that offend me, and it'd offend me just as much coming from a man.

Which is really nothing more than attention exponentialized. She's like the drunk girl at a keg party lifting up her top going "Look at me! Look at me!"

And we all are, sadly enough.
posted by jonmc at 12:13 PM on August 16, 2004


For reference and more fuel: read the archive and the wonkette interview.

At least Belle writes well.

I swear the (w)hole Washingtonienne drama appeared in the blue, but I can't find any posts that mention it specifically. oh well.
posted by shoepal at 12:24 PM on August 16, 2004


Mmmm.... Senate-staffer-cum-bucket... delightful!

(Nothing to see here folks... move along please. Just some consenting adults enjoying adultery and sex for money.)
posted by wfrgms at 12:30 PM on August 16, 2004


This is, of course, exactly what Spider Man 2 warned us about
posted by fedextruck at 12:33 PM on August 16, 2004


I swear the (w)hole Washingtonienne drama appeared in the blue

I heard it was another color, ;)
posted by Peter H at 12:34 PM on August 16, 2004


"What Johns?"
posted by Space Coyote at 12:41 PM on August 16, 2004


It's amazing how she pretty much comes off as an idiot every time her words are put in print. It actually makes me a bit suspicious. 140 is not that high of an IQ, really, and it's revealing in itself that she brags about it...but the impression she gives (me) is that her IQ (whatever that represents, if anything, go along with me here) is more like 30 points lower but she's been pampered in such a way that she's (and people around her) have come to think she's smarter than she is. So, she says dumb things in semi-smart ways.

Or, alternatively, she's very intelligent but mind-bogglingly shallow. I don't normally think in terms of someone being intelligent but thoughtless, but possibly here's a good example.

Like jonmc and others, I have no problem with her having casual sex. Even for money. Sure, her mocking and dehumanizing attitude is revolting; but, really, that's not uncommon. Why should sex be any different? And, anyway, I've known (but not been friends with) many men who think and talk this way about their casual sex partners.

No, what's wrong with Jessica Cutler isn't her lack of sexual morality. It's her apparent lack of so many other things—most of them far more important. Like simple human decency.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 12:45 PM on August 16, 2004


140 is not that high of an IQ, really

*remembers that in highschool he tested at 127*

*cries*

*realizes he has a built in excuse for doing stupid shit*

*smiles*
posted by jonmc at 12:50 PM on August 16, 2004


"Book agents and publishers routinely scan blogs looking for new talent like the blogger-turned-author who posted a fictional account of life as Paris Hilton's pet Chihuahua."

GO DONG_RESIN!!!!!
posted by quonsar at 12:51 PM on August 16, 2004


she's (and people around her) have come to think she's smarter than she is.

Maybe I missed it but it didn't seem like anyone besides hersefl thought she was smart.

on preview: yeah, quonsar, I was just about to say that as well. I got the impression that the writer of the article was a mefi reader. Each example she gave about blogging has been on the blue. However, maybe I'm just ignorant of how each of these things spreads.
posted by dobbs at 12:54 PM on August 16, 2004


She's no good at anal and she's panicked by the idea of handcuffs....not to mention being completely indiscreet. Amateur. Calling this girl a whore is an insult to professional sex-workers everywhere.
posted by junkbox at 12:56 PM on August 16, 2004


Isn't a man who has sex for money also called a "whore"?

Just askin'.
posted by Sidhedevil at 12:56 PM on August 16, 2004


Remember that IQ is a score of performance on a particular test that has a rough correlation with certain forms of academic performance and standardized tests. As a statistical measure it is better at describing larger trends than the behavior of individuals.

Like jonmc and others, I have no problem with her having casual sex. Even for money. Sure, her mocking and dehumanizing attitude is revolting; but, really, that's not uncommon. Why should sex be any different? And, anyway, I've known (but not been friends with) many men who think and talk this way about their casual sex partners.

I really don't think that the problem has much to do with the fact that she had sex, or even that she enjoyed financial gains from her dating partners. I think she is being villified because she chose to talk about her exploits in ways that were less than flattering to her partners. This is where I think that the whole "sex positive" thing went askew. It is one thing to talk and be honest about sex and sexuality. It is another thing entirely to air your dirty laundry with your partners in public.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 1:06 PM on August 16, 2004


What was the names of these customers again?

Suppose maybe they're good little supporters of "moral values?"

Where's Larry Flynt when you need him? This could upset some elections!

[gasp] He had anal sex with an intern? And paid her how much?
Where's the blue dress?

[media bobble heads] This is a constitutional crisis! Some politician in DC had sex with an intern!
posted by nofundy at 1:07 PM on August 16, 2004


oh man, I just noticed (reading the blog archive, thank you shoepal) that she HOT-LINKED wonkette in a freakin blog entry! Really, how oh how did the wonkette gossip grind find out about her? duhh...
posted by Peter H at 1:08 PM on August 16, 2004


q: how is a HOT-LINK different from your ordinary, everyday anchor tag link?

a: it's, like, hawt!
posted by quonsar at 1:22 PM on August 16, 2004


Heh heh heh... I remember this whole thing unfolding. I was refreshing Wonkette every hour.

The WaPo article is really fascinating, though, if you look at it in the context of the moral relativism... There were some darned good explanations and questions asked about where the fuck all of this is going. It's been 40 years or so since casual sex began being talked about without negative social connotations; where has this led us?

On preview: Yeah, she's a ditz. She's why I love and hate dating in my generation at the same time. If only I could find someone who's thoughtful AND good looking.
posted by SpecialK at 1:26 PM on August 16, 2004


> hawt!

Using washingtonette's vernacular: Gag, don't make me vom, Q!

I am convinced that the Congressional offices are full of dealers and hos.
posted by Peter H at 1:31 PM on August 16, 2004


Sidhevil: That'd be gigolo, I believe. If you count "supported by a woman" to include financial compensation.
posted by armage at 1:31 PM on August 16, 2004


Well and good that she was able to trade on her good looks to get a Staff Assistant position on the Hill, particularly since she didn't care one bit about politics. I wonder how many less-attractive people who would actually be competent and interested in jobs on the Hill get shut out while Cutler and her ilk manage to move themselves into those choice positions.
posted by deanc at 1:32 PM on August 16, 2004


The WaPo article is really fascinating, though, if you look at it in the context of the moral relativism... There were some darned good explanations and questions asked about where the fuck all of this is going. It's been 40 years or so since casual sex began being talked about without negative social connotations; where has this led us?

I don't think that it is wise to treat this as something "new". The 1890s and the 1920s had their own sexual revolutions going on. It's not that there was not a heck of a lot of casual sex going on in olden days. I think that what has changed is that the whole concept of keeping up appearances has vanished now that the sexual confessional has become a staple of non-fiction. Nin may have written her diaries with the intent of later publication, but she sat on them until the affairs described were quite cold.

According to my current bedtime reading, Simon Singh's The Code Book, the Kama Sutra advises courtisans to adopt cryptography for this very reason.

But honestly, I feel that there is a definite double standard here. On the one point, we get on our bully pulpit and condemn Culter for her public revelations of her sexual behavior. On the other hand, we seem to be eating this up with quite a bit of guilty glee.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 1:47 PM on August 16, 2004


I think that anyone who works for less than 20 dollars an hour is a whore. Your salary/hours worked.

Someone who enjoys sex and is given presents by guys that she sleeps with isn't charging, so therefore isn't a whore.

But, if you give up the largest portion of your life for money, and you do the job for any other reason then you like it, then you are probably a whore.

Leave the girl alone. There are plenty of young people experimenting and doing stupid stuff. Let them alone. Soon they'll get steady jobs and be whores just like all y'all.
posted by ewkpates at 1:52 PM on August 16, 2004


no one can whore like me, ewkpates.
posted by plexiwatt at 2:09 PM on August 16, 2004


Working for a living is SO vulgar . . . .

[delicate ladylike shudder]
posted by JanetLand at 2:16 PM on August 16, 2004


I wonder how many less-attractive people who would actually be competent and interested in jobs on the Hill get shut out while Cutler and her ilk manage to move themselves into those choice positions.

Hmmm. Why are you blaming her for getting hired? Why aren't you blaming the guy who hired her, who according to the article did so in part so he could sleep with the hot chick later?

She's young and dumb and pretty shallow, yes. But all these men are in positions of power and responsibility, and none of them have lost their jobs, even though they paid an intern for sex.

It irks me to hear so many men in this thread insist on calling her a ho and letting the guys get off (literally). If she exercised terrible judgment in doing what she did and blogging it, yeah it's tragic, but she's not married, she doesn't have a real position of power in her job, etc -- basically she's a nobody. The lesson from Washingtonienne is that lots of big men on the hill have been exercising terrible judgment as a matter of right, and completely getting away with it, and even now continue to do so. (Except Clinton, who got caught in a big way.)
posted by onlyconnect at 2:18 PM on August 16, 2004


She's not a nobody, she's a person. She did something witty and scandalous that had everybody talking for a while, and that made us think a bit more about Washington culture. Getting fired was an eventual given, but if she's smart (that's how we'll really find out) she'll find a way to capital-ize (pun intended) on her fame and stay working.
posted by anser at 2:33 PM on August 16, 2004


You're right, onlyconnect. The men in the story aren't receiving nearly as much condemnation as they should. The entire structure of those Washingtonienne encountered who looked at the interns and junior staff as prospects to bed or pimp out should be fired.

However, one could argue that they didn't know Cutler was utterly uninterested in the work, while Cutler did know this about herself and consciously decided to trade solely on her looks.
posted by deanc at 2:33 PM on August 16, 2004


Working for a living is SO vulgar . . . .

[delicate ladylike shudder]


yea! so back to the kitchen with you! and take off your shoes!
posted by Stynxno at 2:37 PM on August 16, 2004


Hmmm. Why are you blaming her for getting hired? Why aren't you blaming the guy who hired her, who according to the article did so in part so he could sleep with the hot chick later?
Her boss has a crystal ball? How would he know it would pan out like that?
posted by thomcatspike at 2:40 PM on August 16, 2004


SpecialK: "If only I could find someone who's thoughtful AND good looking."

Clearly, there's an inverse relationship applying to these two attributes, as demonstrated by Miss Cutler: if you are "hot" enough, you don't need to be thoughtful. Or smart. Or competent. Or even very interesting. Oh, and it helps if you'll do anal for money.

Hey, young women of America! Here's your role model! Now get out there and get yourself ahead in life!!

I still think this girl is detestable for her shallowness and utter vacuity, but after reading a bit about her childhood where it sounds like she got abandoned in her own home and left to raise herself, I have some compassion for her. Same thing happened to me (along with some violent physical abuse) and I'm kinda "broken" in a few glaring ways too. So I can sorta grok where she came from, although my weirdness manifests rather differently...

And yeah, even though she's a ho, the guys who took advantage of her ho-ness are just as despicable, and they should be out on their asses too. Hopefully the married Bush appointee's wife puts the boot in his ass and dumps him. I wouldn't bet on it though...
posted by zoogleplex at 2:42 PM on August 16, 2004


Another "yay" for onlyconnect.

If we're attacking Cutler for creating problems for the next batch of female interns, why aren't we asking why a climate exists where they can be looked at as sexual partners? That climate will still be there in five years because the MEN WHO PAID FOR SEX still have their jobs.

I don't, actually, agree with many of our sexual harassment laws -- if the sex was consensual, then fine, in my book -- but stop saying it's all her fault that such dishonor was brought upon the Capital.
posted by occhiblu at 2:44 PM on August 16, 2004


On the one point, we get on our bully pulpit and condemn Culter for her public revelations of her sexual behavior.

I can't speak for anyone else, but I have no problem with public revalations of sexual behavior. In fact, I'm all for it if it's honest.

My complaint is that she did it in such a dumb way: a blog ("for three people"?!); she turned down the simple option of password protecting the blog ("because it would be too much trouble for my friends to log in"); and she used her bed-mates real initials (wtf?). Then she's suprised when she's "found out" (and says she doesn't know how it happened), in a matter of weeks, and that anyone cares. All those stupid things combined and she then brags about being intelligent! I mean, really! That's one stupid person. Her sex has nothing to do with it.
posted by dobbs at 3:07 PM on August 16, 2004


Maybe she is smarter than we think and it was all a dream. Why is she protecting the guys and not naming the names, "profit?" ?
posted by thomcatspike at 3:28 PM on August 16, 2004


This gal wanted to get caught.

Meanwhile, it is harder and harder for me not to think that most men are pigs.
posted by konolia at 3:54 PM on August 16, 2004


most men are pigs.
oink, it takes two{the open ones}. I find it hard as a single guy understanding the whys a woman would subject themselves with a married man. I know why I wouldn’t with a married woman besides being murdered in bed legally. I have been told first hand from many women whom were evolved in this type of relationship. At the end it became clear they were in the wrong because she was a known participant in it. This was also when they realized the scum bag subjected his children through it and it would be her future which was no respect. Like having the sexual affairs in the children’s beds.
posted by thomcatspike at 4:23 PM on August 16, 2004


Also most of the women told me, cheaters rarely stop cheating. Which scared me...{as I looked at them while they looked at me for affection}.
posted by thomcatspike at 4:27 PM on August 16, 2004


(After the battle) I don't get it. I wasn't able to read the entire, rather bad and breathless article. Maybe I missed the good bits. But... What did she do that is so bad or so noteworthy? She had sex with people and wrote about it? Some of these people are slightly well-known in the Washington microcosm? And so now lots of people in this thread are moralizing, pontificating and saying "whore" a lot? Ick. "Freakishly in-depth" indeed.

Just wanted to say I really regret reading this embarrassing thread.
posted by Turtle at 4:55 PM on August 16, 2004


"because the MEN WHO PAID FOR SEX still have their jobs."

Important point. I wish the stupid article was about that and not a bunch of shallow ramblings. She's no poster child for "What is wrong with America (tm)", but man... how pointless.

And the all men are pigs thing made me absolutely cringe.
posted by fillsthepews at 5:01 PM on August 16, 2004


What did she do that is so bad or so noteworthy?
She has a book deal out of the whole ordeal. Why I can't imagine her not naming names for more profit. Unless most of her tale is exaggerations.

Just wanted to say I really regret reading this embarrassing thread.
I could only read so much, the article's ending says it all.

She has friends there waiting for her in a coveted corner table. The table is a perk some deejay has arranged. He sits next to Jessica. The club is loud. The thumping music and flashing lights are jarring. Jessica looks self-conscious as the photographer snaps frame after frame of her.

Before long, a hostess gives Jessica, her friends and the deejay some bad news: They are being dumped from their corner table. "Somebody who is going to spend a lot of money wants it," Jessica says.
She shrugs. "I never had a table before." It was cool while it lasted.


posted by thomcatspike at 5:15 PM on August 16, 2004


Now watch this little lesson from Jessica Cutler on exactly how to be gifted with great intelligence and still live your life looking just as dumb as they come (so to speak):
Going out every night in NYC, and every boy I meet wants to do drugs with me and be my new best friend. That's why I love NY. Boys in DC never have any drugs. If they do, it's always coke, and then they're so stingy with it. That's why everybody is so hard-up. Even though I'm high right now as I write this, I really think I'm on to something with that theory.
Can we please not make her the poster child for free-thinking self determination in the face of oppressive social mores? How about we find someone doing more thinking than coke?
posted by NortonDC at 5:36 PM on August 16, 2004


Was anyone really making her out to be a hero in here? I thought this argument was over who we should stone first, her or the respectable Hill men who paid her for sex but kept their jobs.

If you vote her, and I vote the married guys, our votes cancel each other out! :P
posted by onlyconnect at 5:56 PM on August 16, 2004


First of all, I didn't say it had happened; I pleaded that it not happen. And I asked for that because of what seems to be hinted at in comments along these lines (various authors):
On the one point, we get on our bully pulpit and condemn Culter for her public revelations of her sexual behavior. On the other hand, we seem to be eating this up with quite a bit of guilty glee.

The entire structure of those Washingtonienne encountered who looked at the interns and junior staff as prospects to bed or pimp out should be fired. However, one could argue that they didn't know Cutler was utterly uninterested in the work, while Cutler did know this about herself and consciously decided to trade solely on her looks.
I see hints in there at ideas that maybe those that criticize her are hypocrites and she's the brave truthteller, that she was consciously subverting the power structure or striking a blow against it, etc.

It's not anybody's claimed position, and I really hope it stays that way.

Another "yay" for onlyconnect.
Damn straight!

posted by NortonDC at 6:22 PM on August 16, 2004


I swear the (w)hole Washingtonienne drama appeared in the blue, but I can't find any posts that mention it specifically. oh well.

Look here for the link.

The Calico Cat debriefs the interview here.
posted by calwatch at 7:03 PM on August 16, 2004


*drops stones, searches for alternative target, playfully tackles NortonDC*
posted by onlyconnect at 7:09 PM on August 16, 2004


NortonDC:
I see hints in there at ideas that maybe those that criticize her are hypocrites and she's the brave truthteller, that she was consciously subverting the power structure or striking a blow against it, etc.

Well gee, I do think there is some hypocracy in criticism of her, but I don't think it is because she is anything like a brave truthteller.

The hypocracy comes from the fact that the genre of the "sexual confessional" from The Secret Life of Catherine M. to works supposedly by adulterous grandmothers on holiday in Europe, to Belle du Jour and on to Washingtonnette, exists and gains noteriety because of an audience that provides responses ranging from support to criticism to condemntation.

And certainly, I'll point the finger right at my self here. As much as I find the sexual confessional to be a serious problem, as much as I find the desire to make a name for one's self by kissing and telling to be trite, as much as I see these things as trainwrecks of sexual ethics, I still find myself clicking through to Washington Post and NYT articles on this. This type of thing provides the perfect soapbox for people like me to put in two bits worth of opinion about how the new sex positivism means you can say anything about sex except for talking about sexual ethics.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 7:14 PM on August 16, 2004


Thanks calwatch! I knew it was in the blue! (I searched for washingtonienne site:metafilter.com which was apparently too restrictive. I suppose "Staff Ass" would have been better!)
posted by shoepal at 7:51 PM on August 16, 2004


hypocrisy not hypocracy, you erudite numbskull...
posted by anser at 7:54 PM on August 16, 2004


All I know is I'd love to see the Bush appointee outed. Seriously. Clinton should have gone down for perjuring, but the Repubs have forfeited any mercy for this kind of thing.

Not that it stopped Herr Gropenfuhrer from being elected.
posted by namespan at 8:53 PM on August 16, 2004


She's only as famous as we make her. Funny, the outrage about that.
posted by moonbiter at 4:48 AM on August 17, 2004


Do we have any kind of proof that she didn't make up every last sentence of it? I mean, anything?
posted by Hogshead at 6:47 AM on August 17, 2004


I see hints in there at ideas that maybe those that criticize her are hypocrites and she's the brave truthteller

So criticizing her here is wrong? You may want to look at the fact that she is airing out her own stinky laundry for the world to smell it. How can you not say pee ewe? Think the world does not know about the sex politicians have. How long ago was it that JFK had hookers in the white house?
posted by thomcatspike at 6:51 AM on August 17, 2004


Do we have any kind of proof that she didn't make up every last sentence of it? I mean, anything?
Yes, her own. She may be delusional because she says she was doing coke as she wrote it.
posted by thomcatspike at 6:56 AM on August 17, 2004


OK, the article talks about "amateur sleuths" piecing this together and naming names. Where are the named names? I WANT NAMES!!!

... and yeah, Konolia's right. She's a pitiful (literally) person, acting out in highly self-destructive ways and crying out for attention. "Secret blog" my ass. I don't even want to begin to think about the emotional baggage she's lugging around.
posted by mkultra at 7:16 AM on August 17, 2004


I just think it's sad that the Washington Post would devote 80 column inches claiming this blog is "raised a ton of questions about where America is headed." There are blogs that are actually doing that, and they're getting ignored, while newsmen continue to spread the "bloggers can't be real journalists" meme.
posted by inksyndicate at 7:25 AM on August 17, 2004


I love it when people judge other people! It's like reality television on this thread!

I condemn this foolish young woman! She's stupid! How disgusting! My life is a much better example for the masses! But the masses aren't interested! I may be boring, but I'm righteous!

Metareality: Where you can laugh, point, and judge, without your own sex blog.

ooh! ooh! What IQ does it take to do that?

also this just in: homewreckers is such a yesterday way of blaming women who are single for the infidelity of men who are married.
posted by ewkpates at 8:22 AM on August 17, 2004


I don't even want to begin to think about the emotional baggage she's lugging around.

Which are now filled with "six fucking figures" of cash.

The best way to register disapproval of this woman is to ignore her antics. Every response whether it's titillation or disgust just fuels her.
posted by jonmc at 8:25 AM on August 17, 2004


OK, the article talks about "amateur sleuths" piecing this together and naming names. Where are the named names? I WANT NAMES!!!

Yeah, where the hell is Kenneth Starr when we need him?
We want names!
Heads must roll!
And we want 75 FBI agents, and $70 million dollars of tax money and the media bobble heads talking 7/24/356 about the outrageous behavior of the politicians involved in this scandal!

OH! They're Republicans?
Never mind then.
Nothing to see here.
Move along now.
posted by nofundy at 9:13 AM on August 17, 2004


She feigned social naivete, did whatever she wanted, and got the notoriety she wanted instead of the actual socialization she (in my opinion) needs. The article paints her as attention-grabbing with a past in which she's felt neglected.

You see, we don't really have an "enlightened" society where you can have sex with whoever you want, do whatever drugs you want, and live your little life. There's currently an element of harm done to others by revealing an affair or anything our "unenlightened" system feels is immoral. See, if we had this sort of "enlightenment," no one would care what the hell Jessica Cutler has to say, because it'd all be completely normal.
posted by mikeh at 9:18 PM on August 17, 2004


« Older the snake comes out of the dirt   |   40 years of global news Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments



Post