Photo of cocooned, privileged Republican golden (shower) boy Sen. Vitter by Flickr user Sir Poseyal. Used under a Creative Commons license.

Back in 2009 a very nettled Ken Layne clearly thought Louisiana Senator David Vitter ought to resign.

Louisiana sex creep David “Diaperman” Vitter is known for one thing, and one thing only: Hiring hookers and then making those hookers put adult diapers on him, so he can poop in the diapers, for sex kicks. He has been caught employing prostitutes at least twice, in New Orleans and in Washington DC — his number found in the client phone records of the since-suicided “DC Madam,” in the latter case.

Source: Wonkette

I seem to remember saying that if Rep. Anthony Weiner should resign then Sen. Vitter ought to resign too. I didn't think Weiner should resign. But the entire Democratic leadership from President Obama to Nancy Pelosi and pretty much all the way down thought resigning was the right thing to do. And in the end Weiner did just that.

And so, fair being fair, I think it's well past time for Vitter to go.

Going back through the records it sure is hard to find a prominent Republican who was ready to ask Vitter to do what for him really would be the right thing. Take a look at the commenters in this Michelle Malkin post about the Vitter, err, affair back in 2007.

I’m sick and tired of the “holier than thou” crowd of Democrats (and some Republicans) calling for Republicans to resign their office (like Trent Lott over his Strom remark), when NOT A SINGLE DEMOCRAT RESIGNING WHEN THEY GET CAUGHT!

---

In Vitter’s case, he had ALREADY worked it out with his wife...

---

The dems need to take VERY long look at their own ranks before calling for Vitter’s head.

I think Vitter should keep his jopb just long enough to flush out the Dems who are also on that list and who demonize him, and then get exposed…

Line up 3 or 4, and then say “I’ll resign if they do”…

---

I like Vitter. He’s a solid conservative.

This issue is between Vitter and his wife.

It just angers me that the democrats are make out to be clean and pure, but the republicans are made out to be corrupt and untruthful. It’s all BS and media spin. William Jefferson had his freezer full of money and he’s still in the house. You don’t hear the main line media talking about that at all. Keith Obermann is a real slime ball. NBC sounds like the DNC.

Guess what? Like it or not, and I actually kind of like it, the Democrats actually are the party of ethics and integrity. Sucks for Weiner, and it sucks for those of us who aren't really that troubled by the depressingly mild transgressions that led to his forced resignation.

But by and large I prefer their over-caution and priggishness to the 100% support he received from Republican President Bush, and from the Republican Congressional leadership, not to mention the outrageous number of right-wing nominally Christian, nominally family-values Louisiana voters who overwhelmingly re-elected the literally shitty asshole.

Yeah, I didn't think Weiner should resign. But I did say that if Weiner should resign then Vitter should as well.  So...

Ball's in your court, Breitbart. Your integrity's on the line, Malkin. Clock's ticking, Mcconnell. Not that I'm holding my breath for any of them. Because when it comes to hiring prostitutes and cheating on their wives it's not just a matter of "It's Ok If A Conservative Does It," it's not even news.

#%!#@!

Pema Levy correctly identifies sex-that-doesn't-punish-women activist Marjorie Dannenfelser as both a liar and a bastard.

The most important way for conservatives to roll back access to family planning is to link it to abortion. To wit, at the Faith and Freedom Conference last week, Susan B. Anthony List president Marjorie Dannenfelser declared: “Every year that contraception and family planning increases, the abortion rate also increases in direct proportion. … This is an undeniable fact.” SBA List will not support a candidate that does not want to defund Planned Parenthood because of this faux-causal relationship between contraception and abortion.

Source: TAPPED

To equate a correlation with a causation is to be either stupid or a deliberate liar. Presiding over a major nationwide political organization requires considerable intelligence; to be president of the Susan B. Anthony List means categorically that Marjorie Dannenfelser not stupid. Therefore she's a calculated, categorical liar.

To a) deliberately lie about a causal relationship between contraception and abortion when b) there is no causal relationship and c) there is in fact considerable credible evidence that women who lose access to contraception instead increase their rate of abortion when d) your stated purpose of making such a correlation is your opposition to abortion and e) you've been previously identified as not stupid enough to make such a mistake in error is... to identify one's self as a mendacious bastard. Marjorie Dannenfelser and her coven of supporters are aggressively performing items A-E. Consequently Marjorie Dannenfelser is a mendacious bastard.

So if access to contraception does not in fact increase the rate of abortion for those who have access to it but instead decreases it, but the decidedly non-stupid president of a nominally anti-abortion organization makes that claim she must be making it to advance an agenda that's... well... not actually causally related to reducing the rate of abortion.

I'm thoroughly prepared to acknowledge that other people have a different view of the origin of human life. And consequently I can acknowledge that other people can honestly and ethically oppose abortion on the basis of their view of when life originates. Even if I disagree with their view. Even if I bitterly disagree!

But by moving beyond the debatable question of when human life begins into the thoroughly unambiguous question of opposing contraception itself, Dannenfelser and her ilk surrender any and all right to claim that their motivations are, at all, about protecting unborn human life.

So if, as I think is an inescapable conclusion that Dannenfelser's organization is interested in far more than opposing abortion, what is their intention instead?

Pema Levy concludes, as do I, that (emphasis mine.)

Dannenfelser's statement has nothing to do with facts and everything to do with the idea that women should, literally, bear the consequences of having sex.

I think that's about right. We can quibble about why the sam hill anyone would want women to think about sex in terms of consequences to be suffered. But there's no quibbling that that is indeed the only conceivable purpose of opposing contraception.

Want a little tip about contraception?

Not one single woman I know has had an unplanned, unwanted pregnancy with a man who's had a successful vasectomy. Not a single woman on earth has had an unplanned, unwanted pregnancy with a man after having a successful tubal ligation.

Note: The enclosed erotic male image is considered perfectly "safe for work" since it only shows body parts that straight men don't realize are sexy.  All links, however, lead to other NSFW posts.

Note to Rep. Weiner and... pretty much every other man who thinks it's the height of creativity to snap a pixie of their peepee and call it erotic, here's how you do it.

Australian sex-blogger and frequent erotic self-photographer GeekyVamp reposts another woman sex-blogger, Musingsandmischief's repost of a male self-photographer, Isinpi's photo.

Photo by Tumblr user Isinpi.

Oh wow, mr Isinpi,

this pic deserves to be reblogged the shit out of. Well played sir, well played…

musingsandmischief:

Beautiful picture, no wonder I keep seeing reblogs with you getting tumblr ladies weak at the knees.

isinpi:

I can’t decide which one, so fuck it I’ll post two. Hands, clavicle, lips, and scruff in one photo.

Source: There May Be Tits There May Be Banter

It's not that women don't think penises are sexy.  Or that penis bulges veiled behind athlete-gray underpants are sexy.  A surprising number do.  But what seems to be an even more surprising number of women prefer a bit more context -- as, in fact, would most men if they too were regularly innundated with random unsolicited closeups of solicitous women's vulvas.  Once context is established (and believe it or not, intentionally visiting a porn site establishes some kind of context) then one has a great deal more latitude.

But for out of the blue imagery?  Even when you want to preserve your anonymity?  Well.  If you follow the link to his Tumblr post and check out who's already followed and/or liked the photo you'll find that as of this morning (the photo was posted this morning) fifteen women (and no men) have indicated their approval and several, like GV and MAM have reposted it to their own erotic-photography blogs.

Hint, maybe?  Clue perhaps?

The funniest thing?  I could be mistaken but I'm guessing that Rep. Weiner could post and tweet photos like this all day long and the likes of Andrew Brietbart would never register it.  Or if they did they wouldn't register it as anything but some kind of artsy-fartsy east-coast liberal noodlings.  Because, you see, it wouldn't be porn for men.

Now I don't happen to think there's anything wrong with porn for men per se. And of course there are plenty of women who are downright cheerful about consuming it (and of course men who aren't.)  But that's not the point.

The point is, it seems to me, that if you're interested in women, and if you're going to go around sending random, unsolicited photos of yourself to women, then maybe you should take, oh, five or ten minutes to find out what women find most eye-catching about men.  And try sending that instead.

Especially if you're going to send them via Twitter.  Because, you see, while in the ancient history that was the world before Twitter (i.e. July, 2006) and before Tumblr (i.e. 2007) it was quite a bit harder to find out what sort of erotic images of heterosexual men women preferred.  But nowadays?  If you were interested you could find out pretty quickly.  But you would have to be interested.

Update: While watering the planter boxes just now it occurred to me that I might sound like I'm claiming I know this photo but not that one will work as "porn for women."  I'm just saying that if you want to know what works, look at what women are saying works!  Same's true, obviously, about all manner of other kinds of decisions, sex-related or not, about what works for all kinds of people.  Even when you think you know what should work for other people.

Also, this post obviously isn't supposed to be an enlightening tract on how people, in Congress, in power, or otherwise, should and should not impose themselves sexually on those who have not indicated it would be appreciated. 

Holly has just knocked another one out of the park re. the imputed "intention" of SlutWalk to somehow recruit "sluts."

[Q] Are you encouraging women to act like sluts?

[A] Nope! We're just saying it's an acceptable option.

Lots of people at the Slutwalk were dressed very modestly, and I personally know that some of them were monogamous or celibate. Absolutely nobody was telling these people that they needed to be sluttier to fit in. Slutwalk is not an event to recruit sluts, but to defend sluts.

Source: The Pervocracy

And that's not, incidentally, to defend sluts from rapists (it's about defending everybody from rapists. Instead its to defend against the idea, again somehow shared by rapists, law enforcement, the general public, and and anti-SlutWalkers, that if someone actually happens to be a "slut" then she's got it coming to her because men are either a) unable to control their animal natures or else b) socially sanctioned enforcers of the bogus Two Rules of Desire and don't you forget it.

[Q] What is the message of Slutwalk?

[A] The message of Slutwalk is that SOMEONE BEING A SLUT DOES NOT EXCUSE SHAMING, HARASSMENT, OR SEXUAL ASSAULT.

In other words, if you see someone looking or acting like oh my god such a slut, you let her go on her merry way. You have no more right to abuse, mock, harass, or assault her than you do any other person. And if a slut is abused or assaulted, she did not want it and did not deserve it, and the people victimizing her are every bit as guilty as if they did it to a non-slut.

And meanwhile, there's the issue of what the fuck exactly does it mean to "dress like a slut" in the first place? (Emphasis mine)

[Q] But isn't it safer for women to dress modestly?

[A] Yeah. That's the problem.

Actually, there aren't any statistics on clothing and sexual assault, but there doesn't seem to be much connection. Sexual assault isn't a matter of "she aroused me so much I just couldn't stand it;" it's an act of deliberate violence. The majority of assaults are committed by people who already know the victims. Often the assaults take place at home. Speaking anecdotally from three years of experience as an EMT and an ER worker, most of the sexual assault victims I've seen were wearing jeans, sweatpants, pajamas, even hijab. (Or little footie pajamas with Elmo on them.)

It's that last little bit that keeps me coming back, and back, and back to this topic.

There's more though. And you really should to go read the rest of her post (actually if you're not already then you should immediately subscribe to Holly's RSS feed. In fact if you've only got time to read one blog a day maybe you should stop reading this one and go read her. And I don't say that lightly.)

But one of the points Holly keeps coming back to over and over is the near-uniform failure to distinguish the intense loathing so many people -- conservatives, liberals, libertines, prudes, feminists, and MRAs alike -- feel for women who look or, worse, act like their definition of a "slut" and the little matter that even if someone does offend you to the core it's still not ok for someone to rape them for you.