Note: Revised title -- initially I said she asked him out for the lunch date. --fl

I really like Amanda Marcotte's take on the recent brouhaha over Alyssa Bereznak's snobby link-spam post for Gawker Media about snubbing a millionaire she met on OKCupid because he's a Magic: the Gathering gamer. (And since Gawker pays her on a per-hit basis I'm not linking to it.)

Anyway, Amanda said

The problem I saw in the reaction in comments on the post and elsewhere was that all the various issues with this post were getting tangled up and people were getting confused about what was okay about this and what was fucked up.  So, for clarity's sake, I'm going to list what are the three entirely separate questions that this post brings up, and weigh in on how they're different issues and shouldn't be confused.  The questions were:

1) Was Bereznak wrong to reject Finkel on the grounds of dweebiness?

2) Was Bereznak wrong to go onto Gizmodo and tell the story, using Finkel's name?

3) Was Finkel wrong to "forget" to mention that he spends most of his free time playing Magic on his OK Cupid profile?

...

[M]y answers to these questions are:

1) Absolutely not.

2) Yes, and this is the real cruelty.

3) Yes, but.....

Source: Pandagon

The "yes but" being that Bereznak says Jon Finkel effectively lied on his OKCupid profile by failing to disclose that he's a big gamer (actually a really big gamer, though mostly retired from the game.) Amanda's position, and that of most right-thinking people, is big f-ing deal.

She doesn't mention it but it sounds like he also "lied" by failing to disclose that he's also independently wealthy because he evidently took his MtG card-playing skills to one of those pro poker tournaments and won three and a half million dollars. But I digress.

As Amanda says

Where Bereznak really shit the bed is with #2. There's no reason on god's green earth to name the guy in your post. Now this post is going to be in Google searches for his name. I can't for the life of my understand why she thought using his name was appropriate. It's just as good a story without naming him. In fact, it's a better story, because the moral of her story---be upfront about pertinent information on your dating profile---comes across as a more universal lesson when you're discussing an anonymous date. It's easier for any of us to project ourselves into the situation that way.

Actually I'm inclined to disagree about who's most damaged by the post. Finkel's a minor legend in a major "sport" (if you call poker a sport) and a major legend in a minor one. His public response to Bereznak's hit piece is kind of awesomely temperate. And years from now the story is likely to be no more than one of those quirky "did you know" asides in a larger write-up about him.

Bereznak, on the other hand, comes off looking like a jerk for snubbing a gamer (and publicly calling him a dweeb, an "infiltrator" and making various other nasty aspersions about anyone who's a) a nerd and b) trying to date women. That seems to be what's bugging most people about the piece. But what seems more significant to me is that whereas after the first date she Googled him long enough to find out he was a Magic champ she didn't go any further before expressing her repulsion. Instead he sounds like a moderately interesting man with a very interesting history. Which seems like completely unprofessional behavior for a nominal blogger for Gizmodo. That too is now enshrined in Google's archives. That won't be a problem as long as she stays with Gawker Media -- she and they seem like a perfect match! It might be a problem if she tries to find work with a credible media outfit. Being a smug jerk isn't really much of an impediment to good journalism. Being a jerk and a bordering-on-incompetent researcher doesn't look so great.

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.

#%!#@!

Screen capture of push-up bras for 7-year-olds via Sociological Images.

Sex-work advocate Suzyhooker says

A Florida GOP Rep has jumped on the victim blaming bandwagon by saying that an 11 year old gang rape survivor was dressed like a “prostitute.”

Source: Tits and Sass

I've seen several variations on this story from various predictable suspects and I'm a little confused.

Couple of rhetorical but pointed questions:  Are actual prostitutes (who sort of by definition "dress like prostitutes") are criminally sexually assaulted by approximately 18 assailants in numbers sufficient to warrant Kathleen Passidomo, Bill O'Reilly, and others' allegations that attire was the immediate cause in this case of assault of a child? Second, are non-prostitutes who nevertheless "dress like prostitutes" gang raped in sufficient numbers to warrant the same confidence?

No.

In fact I'm pretty sure that for all the talk on the right, left, and center there's little if any evidence whatsoever that "provocatively" dressed women are any more or less likely to be sexually assaulted than non-provocatively dressed ones.  It's a crime of power, people, not one of lust.  It's also far, far more accurate to call rape a crime of opportunity, not one of "provocation."

I'll just go one step further and say that to the extent actual prostitutes are made targets of violence (and Gary Ridgeway's remarks if nothing else would be sufficient to satisfy my assertion) then to the extent they actually do "dress like prostitutes" it's other factors such as vulnerability, isolation related to the need to avoid arrest that makes them easy targets, not what they're wearing.  (That and, as Ridgeway explained when asked how he was able to murder more than 60 subsistence prostitutes, prostitutes are good victims because society really doesn't care what happens to them.)  Point being that even when prostitutes are attacked it's not because "they're dressed like prostitutes."

So, back to the 'winger lament that the motive for a massive sexual assault on an 11 year old is an open and shut case.

Remember, we're talking about responses to descriptions of the victim.  Pretty much no one who's casting these stones would have had access to direct information.  They just heard something like "halter top" or "short skirt," or allegations by community factions,* added preexisting biases, and just let their flights of fancy take it from there.

Nor should this be a surprise, of course.  For way too many people the single statement that there has been an assault is all the data they need to "know" the victim did something to cause it.

See also:

• Holly on rape culture defenses
• Audacia Ray on State Department human rights review, and for that matter,
• Amanda Hess on When anti-gay hate crimes happen to straight people

* The case has allegedly widened divisions in the affected community with the result that it's not clear how much of what we know is spin and how much is actual evidence.

[I fear this post could be a bit long and maudlin. And nowhere near as personal-sounding as it feels.  There's a bit about sex at the end but this is mostly about the social impact of other "vices."  --fl]

Via Daily Kos, an article by health editor Sarah Boseley of England's The Guardian points out, very correctly, that if alcohol had been introduced recently instead of thousands of years ago it would be considered a class A narcotic (comparable to the U.S. Schedule I classification.)

Alcohol is the most dangerous drug in the UK by a considerable margin, beating heroin and crack cocaine into second and third place, according to an authoritative study published today which will reopen calls for the drugs classification system to be scrapped and a concerted campaign launched against drink.

Led by the sacked government drugs adviser David Nutt with colleagues from the breakaway Independent Scientific Committee on Drugs, the study says that if drugs were classified on the basis of the harm they do, alcohol would be class A, alongside heroin and crack cocaine.

Source: The Guardian

This is one of those areas where I really earn my prudish libertine stripes. That cannabis and heroin are illegal and alcohol is not (or, conversely, that alcohol is legal and cannabis and heroin are not) just sticks in my craw the way a law saying men but not women may own property would. Nor is this because I think heroin or even cannabis is just a hunky-dory walk in the park.

For instance consumption of what drug coincides with virtually all violent sexual assaults? And consumed more often, contrary to myriad stereotypes and admonitions, by assailants than their victims? Why that would be alcohol! (Don't even get me started on "ordinary" non-sexual violent assaults!)

And for instance consumption of which drug, exactly, is responsible for great huge quantities of consensual but dysfunctional sex? Alcohol? Why yes!

And for instance consumption of which drug, exactly, is responsible for astonishing quantities of unsafe sex or sex where sex safety is carried out incompetently? Right again!

And finally (for now) for instance which drug is responsible for... disappointing quantities of erectile dysfunction in men, response insufficiency in women, anorgasmia in both, fractured penises, bruised vulvas, blah, blah, blah? No, it's not cannabis, cocaine, methamphetamine, "hillbilly heroin," real heroin, huffing glue, or even commonly prescribed legal drugs. Nope. Not dope, it's alcohol yet again.

And to get off my editorial hobby horse for another minute, Boseley adds in her article that (emphasis mine)

Today's study offers a more complex analysis that seeks to address the 2007 criticisms. It examines nine categories of harm that drugs can do to the individual "from death to damage to mental functioning and loss of relationships" and seven types of harm to others. The maximum possible harm score was 100 and the minimum zero.

Overall, alcohol scored 72 – against 55 for heroin and 54 for crack. The most dangerous drugs to their individual users were ranked as heroin, crack and then crystal meth. The most harmful to others were alcohol, heroin and crack in that order.

Harmful to one's self I can nearly waive off with a small-l libertarian shrug (or could if I didn't hadn't watched a few too many alcoholics and heroin addicts slowly destroy their own lives.) Harm to others, however, is almost by-definition invisible to libertarians... which is just one more reason I'll never be a libertarian with a big L.

And just for the record, don't assume I think the default choice ought to be legalization -- for living in such a generally middle-class urban neighborhood it's kind of surprising how prevalent addiction... and it's consequences... can be.

I think I've hinted over the last half year or so that the lives of my neighbors and family have been affected by substances both illegal (heroin) and perfectly, completely, medically (painkillers, mood "elevators") or hardly-a-party-without-it (alcohol) legal.

From the nominal oasis* of my immediate, nuclear family it sure doesn't seem like there's that much difference between the teenager who was found to be poaching booze from neighbor's liquor cabinets was materially different from the young adult who was found to be lifting expired prescription bottles from medicine cabinets. And it doesn't really seem to matter that the quiet young man in the front room of the nearby boarding house, and the equally unassuming young man from the backroom are both unemployable and will soon be homeless, even though one's uncontrollably addicted to a legal substance and the other to an illegal one. Nor does the family down the street with the alcoholic father seem any less textbook clinically-dysfunctional than the one around the corner where the mom's hooked on some kind of oxycodone. They're just all equally fucked up.

And finally, a bit of Googling turns up 40 AlAnon weekly meetings in Seattle. (AlAnon, if you don't know, is an organization not for families of alcoholics and drug addicts, not the addicts themselves.) Forty separate meetings sounds like a lot. At least it sounds like a lot to me! Or it would sound a lot if a bit more Googling turned up 130 (one hundred and thirty!) Alcholics Anonymous meetings in the same city.

130 meetings just on Sundays!

Monday-Friday there's an average of 145 meetings per day. (There are closer to 15 narcotics-anonymous meetings a day in the same area though that's seriously apples to oranges -- a lot of drug addicts attend AA instead.)

Point being that just for alcohol that's a fuck of a lot of impact! And yet it's legal as pencils or polyester batting. More legal in a lot of places than vibrators, condoms, or abortion services.

And Dick Cheney wasn't shooting heroin or snorting coke or even tuffing hemp when he shot his hunting companion in the face. He was "just" drunk. And yet alcohol is legal and dope is not.

Almost all rape occurs when one or both the victim and perpetrator are drunk. Yet alcohol is legal and coke is not.

An inordinate amount of unsafe sex happens when one or both participants have been drinking. And yet alcohol is legal and OTC codeine is not.

Sigh.

I wonder how many people a year die of over-use a year -- from straight-up overdoses to cirrhosis to "collateral" deaths from drunk drivers and drive-by or turf-battle murders?  How does it compare to, oh, say, death by HIV?  (Oh wait!  A lot of HIV is transmitted by exchanged dope needles.  More is transmitted by people to drunk to remember condoms save lives.)

* Yeah, like we're unaffected just because it's not happening inside our four walls.