A few days ago I blogged about how it’s open season on Kate Middleton. Today, the online/lifestyle editor at the Sydney Morning Herald feels it’s important to tell readers that Kate Middleton can’t be a virgin because she and William have lived together. Seriously.
Even though the headline is Virgin territory for princess bride, which isn’t so bad, check out the document title:
That’s right – the online editor/journo thought it was important to mention that, nudge nudge, it’s unlikely that Middleton is a virgin. The article is actually about the modernisation of the monarchy and has very little to do with Middleton’s hymen, yet the whole article hangs off the words “Middleton” and “virgin”.
And then there’s the first line:
For many of us, there’s an intrinsic appeal to the image of a virgin bride – a pretty concoction of purity in a princess dress.
I am such a failure as a woman – indeed, as a human being – because I couldn’t care less about whether or not someone has sex before marriage. Or even gets married at all. And then there’s the idea of purity – that after she has sex, a woman is impure/defiled/damaged goods. Journalism doesn’t have to be this sleazy.