I suppose I should say something about the piece that Gawker ran from a dude that claimed he got drunk and made out with Christine O'Donnell once, though actual sexual intercourse didn't happen, making the title somewhat misleading. Some thoughts:

1) If their intention was to smear O'Donnell, I would say it backfired miserably. All this demonstrated was that she's actually pretty sincere in her beliefs, at least in that right wing it's-not-technically-sex-love-ya-Jesus way. I personally thought she was a grade A liar with her chastity crap at her age, but apparently not.

2) The guy who wrote it comes across as a smug, sexist piece of shit. The irony is that he thinks he's smearing her, but the way he comes across plus the actual innocuous details of the night end up making O'Donnell look pretty good. He wants to smear her as "aggressive", but she just sounds confident and like she likes to have fun. Now we all know in real life, O'Donnell is herself a smug asshole, so I'm not surprised that she was attracted to the author of this piece. Like attracts like. But if this was a random story about a stranger, from the details provided, she would actually seem like she's a decent sort of person.

3) Did Gawker really think their core audience is going to buy into the implication of all this? What actions taken by O'Donnell in this story are actually, you know, wrong? Drinking too much on Halloween? If that's a crime, then you'd have to throw half the country in jail. Wearing a relatively tame "sexy ladybug" costume that's actually kind of cute? All that shows is that she likes to have fun. Thinking a guy is cute and getting him to go out with her and her friend? Not adhering to a painful ritual of hair removal that is far from expected by any men that aren't douchebags? Not immediately feasting upon a boner just because it's in the room? She didn't do anything wrong. Suggesting otherwise is just pure sexism, particularly since the guy who wrote this clearly thinks he should be applauded for the behavior he condemns in O'Donnell.

You could, I suppose, make the case that she's a hypocrite, but it's honestly a stretch. Realistically speaking, struggling with but not giving in to the temptation to have sex is part of the whole chastity deal. All this does is give the religious right ammo to argue that it's totally possible to refrain from having sex for decades, if need be.