You make a very interesting point, Amy. Of course most icons of female virtue/generosity in our Christian world must be tagged as virgins (Mother Theresa -yes, yes, I know what Hitchens would say, I'm just pointing out that she got good media coverage and, well, there are few pictures of her cavorting around). If they're not, what happens? I was trying to think of counter-examples, and the only one that could come to mind was that of Diana, Princess of Wales. And there was the slutty/druggy/dumb coverage next to that of her charitable actions. So indeed it is clear that men aren't held up to the same standards, and a bastard who gives his time for charity will still be covered as a great guy (speaking of which, do those standards also apply to philosophy, where one is willing enough to ignore the dark sides of men -e.g., Heidegger?). However, I'm curious to know how much you think this is due to excessive and inappropriate coverage by the media. The argument that this is what the readers want is ridiculous -the readers would also want the Circus games if offered- so why don't we just have a responsible press stop the coverage of the dumb stuff (impossible dream, I know) -I think CNN tried not covering Hilton for a day or something like that? The reason I'm asking this here is because I'm curious to see what people like Joey have to say about this -being that he is thoroughly opposed to any limitation on the so-called freedom of the press (yes, so-called, because I'm ready to argue that giving yourself limits is not restraining your freedom but instead the very definition of being autonomous). And it's early on a Sunday morning, so sorry for the rambling.