Even though she went along with her husband's joke (I supposed he checked with her first -- 'is it OK with you honey if I say this?'), I don't feel as if I knew what her feelings were. I wished she'd say something about it.

Was his joke sexist? If the implied context is, Cindy is only as good as her looks, yes; if no, no. If the implied context is: I know what this 'pageant' is about and I support it, then yes; if it isn't (and I'd still want to hear from McCain if he did or did not know), then no, it isn't sexist.

Was it worse than Obama's "sweetie"? Yes, certainly. Much worse, especially given our "prudish" 21st-century society. I'd never had done that if I were McCain; the "I'm Just Like Your Beer-Drinking Buddies" effect would be canceled out by the "He's A Stupid Beer-Drinking Old Guy" effect for other audiences -- and he should have known this comment would be all over the blogosfere as soon as he made it.

Was there some implicit racism -- i.e. Obama was more criticized for his "sweetie" than McCain for his "my hot wife" because Obama is black and McCain white? This sounds very likely. I do point out, though, that people -- even Democrats -- tend to go harder on Democratic candidates' deviations from political correctness. That may also have played a role.

Was his comment "offensive to women"? Again, if he thinks -- or the context implies -- that Cindy is only as good as her looks, then yes. And, given his precedent behavior -- "c" word and "trollop", etc. -- there's a good chance that this context is indeed right -- in which case I have no problems saying he was offensive to women. But I hasten to add that I don't think women are automatically offended or objectified by taking part in topless competitions.

Should McCain be more dignified because he wants to be POTUS? Maybe. But he'll only get to be POTUS if he convinces the voters to vote for him. As you've all pointed out, the joke was meant to win him votes. Just like Obama's shift to the center, about which liberals express strong reservations.

To Michael in Vegas: I also tend to feel angry at jokes about women, but probably less than you. Some jokes about women (or men) are not sexist; they're just funny. And some jokes about women (or men) are indeed much more sexist than they're funny; these irk me. (What's hard is that there's a fair number somewhere in the middle; and these tell me more about the strangeness of humor than about sexism.)

I could not disagree more with you.

I'll hasten to agree that some men (and women) do form their ideas about other people based on media images. But, frankly speaking, do you think a man (or woman) would need to masturbate regularly to huge breasts in magazines in order to hold a future partner in contempt because she fails to conform to some ideal? There are lots of other sources for this kind of (bad) behavior towards one's partner, from movie actresses to history characters. A man could "hold his partner in contept" because her face is not as pretty as what he dreamed of, or her legs not as long, or whatever else he for some reason got fixated on. And so could a woman.

In my experience, the men (and women) who are likely to be so critical of others started out like this already. Their tastes for specific media images simply feed a need that already existed prior to that.

I tend to agree with idl1975. Gove's arguments are not anti-sexist, they may actually be themselves rather sexist. Considering him an ally wouldn't go as far as, but it would be surprisingly reminiscent of, the alliance between some radical feminists and the religious right in the war against porn.

The problem is of course that the connection between testosterno and its effect in terms of specific behaviors leaves a lot of space for cultural influence. I think what ends up happening is that hormones lead men to (statistical, bell-shaped curve-like, etc.) more intensity, which can be translated as more dangerous behavior, but also in other ways.

Of course, it may be that intensity will, no matter how it is expressed, result in less longevity -- a question of some importance. The candle that burns on both sides burns brighter but shorter. Maybe Science will be able to help later on.

I can see that a lot of effort was put into these dolls, and I can even understand they can satisfy a need in some people that might otherwise go unfulfilled. But I can't look at these dolls for long without getting the weirdest thoughts... taxidermized babies being the least disturbing of them. I don't know if I'm being insensitive to a kind of art -- those who appreciate it may forgive me -- but that's a really depressing video.

I think of it as the polar opposite of another video Broadsheet mentioned a few weeks ago -- Matt dancing around the world. I wonder what it would be like to watch both at the same time. Perhaps something closer to reality: both the light and the dark side of the Force.

You had mentioned some of your personal experiences with sexual discrimination in America in another letters thread (at the article on Saudi sexism OK at the Olympics); would you like a reaction from me? (I know this is not the right thread for this -- it has nothing to do with disturbing baby dolls -- but only got there and saw your post after they had closed that letters thread.)

She just wanted revenge, and went to a lawyer who made whatever claims s/he thought might have any chance of sticking. Isn't that one more in the long list of strange or frivolous lawsuits that one often hears about?