Openly Bisexual Nontheist Kyrsten Sinema Is Winning Her Democratic Primary Race for Congress

***Update 1***: Sinema has won the primary! More updates below. If you want to support her, donate to her campaign!

Arizona State Senator Kyrsten Sinema — an openly bisexual nontheist — appears to be winning her Democratic primary in the state’s 9th Congressional district:

Sinema has received an award from the Center for Inquiry for the Advancement of Science and Reason in Public Policy and she was present at the opening of the Secular Coalition for Arizona.

***Update 2***: Sen. Sinema has officially won the primary:

She will be facing Republican and Paradise Valley Town Councilman Vernon Parker in the election this November:

This is a tossup race and Sinema has a financial edge over her opponent (around $750,000 to his $210,000). But it’s Arizona. So no one should take a victory for granted.

If you want to see her win, donate to her campaign!

About Hemant Mehta

Hemant Mehta is the editor of Friendly Atheist, appears on the Atheist Voice channel on YouTube, and co-hosts the uniquely-named Friendly Atheist Podcast. You can read much more about him here.

  • Michael

    She is stunning.

    • Ibis3

       She is not a mindless object on display for your judgement.

      • Yonnie

         I haven’t seen one comment other than Ibis3 suggesting Kirsten is mindless.  So what if she makes my pecker stiff and impress a great desire to move to AZ just so I can vote for her!  I want that in the senate!  She could get up there and speak and have every male senator doing exactly what she wants.  She could even get those republicans to denounce god!

        • Chaise Guevara

          If you think whether or not someone makes your pecker stiff is a good reason for voting them to the senate then you are a moron.
          The fact that you refer to her as ‘that’ does not add weight to the idea that you respect her or think of her as more than an object for your gratification.

  • http://philosophicalzombie.net/ Carl

    Yeah, it doesn’t hurt that she’s smoking hot, too.

    • Donalbain

       It fucking does hurt that the first thing you say when you hear about a woman running for office is to comment on her physical appearance. Fucking douchebag.

      • IndyFitz

         That would at least have been a reasonable and honorable point if you didn’t immediately resort to swearing and insulting.

        But the fact is, she is smoking hot.

        • Donalbain

           Oh noes! Someone used a bad naughty word! That is so much worse than the rampant misogyny that a woman candidate has to put up with. Fuck off you douche.

          • IndyFitz

             Well, my point was that you weaken your argument by resorting to swearing and name-calling… a point you didn’t seem to get, since you responded by saying “Fuck off you douche.”

            I take exception to that. While I have, in fact, been inside many vaginas, I am NOT a douche. Although I did drink one on a dare many years ago. With an added shot of apple juice, it’s almost like cider!

            I’m a bit confused, however, how a man thinking a woman is attractive means he hates women. It kinda seems like the other way around.

            I love you, Donalbain, even if you just want to spew hate and nastiness. May the Force be with you!

            • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000477021766 Elaine Ballou

              Couldn’t you just please, please, please, please consider that there might be a reason why so many people–mostly women–are reacting so strongly to these types of comments, and instead of digging your heels in and doubling down your argument, please think about the fact that you are actively making the world a worse place for women to live in? Please just back off defending these comments so vociferously and think about it for a while, and wonder if you might be wrong. Instead of insisting on your right to dismiss a woman politician as only important for her looks, and respond to objections as “that’s just the way it is,” try to look at the actual arguments being offered as to why that’s not appropriate and really try to view it from the other side. Just please. Please. I beg of you.  Normally, I’m on the “fuck off, douchebag” bandwagon, because I don’t think your argument deserves anything better than cursing and name calling in response, but today, after so much bullshit in the news, I can’t take it anymore, and I’d really love for just one person to consider this rationally and with some level of kindness. You claim to want rational discourse and object to being called names, and say “I love you, even if you just want to spew hate,” but all I get from YOUR side of the argument is hate. It makes it a hell of a lot harder for a woman to do anything in this world when it’s filled with people who deliberately refuse to understand why their attitudes are destructive.

              • Maps Tirader

                Well, I’m here, and I consider every argument equally. After consideration, I find you to be grossly overreacting.
                Since previous attempts at logic have been unsuccessful, I’ll try to make this simple.
                1. It’s the internet. There will always be some asshole who is, well, being an asshole.
                2.  “Yeah, it doesn’t hurt that she’s smoking hot, too.” Does NOT equal “The only reason she might be even slightly successful is because she has a pretty face.” Compared to the shit I’ve seen, this is pretty tame. If you don’t trust that I’m telling the truth, consider that no one (at least that I’ve seen) has dismissed you with a “Lol, looks like it’s that time of the month!”
                3. While your automatic dismissal of any response as “digging in your heels and defending…your right to dismiss a woman politician as only important for her looks,” is clever, it only works to a point. That point is reached when the people you are arguing with are not the people you object to. “Carl” hasn’t said a word other than his initial comment. One can’t dig oneself in if one wasn’t there previously.
                4. You didn’t actually present an argument. You presented the rant of a clearly very upset person. For all the talk of negative attitudes, there wasn’t a single, undisputed fact in your comment, with the possible exception of “Normally, I’m on the ‘fuck off, douchebag’ bandwagon,”. Come back with an argument, and we can have a real discussion.

                • http://philosophicalzombie.net/ Carl

                   Thank you, you expressed what I was thinking, nicely. That’s the thing I have a problem with when I argue with people on the internet on these issues. It’s like these people are so hostile and reactionary that they can’t even see that I agree with 99% of what they are saying. I’m not the enemy here. If I make a flippant remark that offends someone, I will be more than happy to apologise if you can rationally explain why you’re upset instead of treating me like some kind of woman-hating psycho.

                  I get that women have a lot to be pissed off about, and certain comments might incite an emotional response of anger. Most of these women (I don’t want to say “feminist”, because I’m totally in favour of feminism too) even admit that throwaway comments like mine aren’t, in and of themselves in isolation, completely terrible, but are offensive when considered in the wider context of how woman are treated by society at large. Well that’s fine, I accept that, but they need to remember that I, as a male, am not attuned to that “context” like they are, so I don’t see the problem as clearly as they do. Please don’t treat me like a monster just because I don’t have my “sexism radar” set to ultra-sensitive like the woman who are heavily invested in these issues do.

                • Cam

                  That’s funny. I recalibrated my sexism radar, and the setting you call “ultra-sensitive” is clearly the one marked “basically adequate” on my model.

              • Roger561

                 May I just interject here for a second? I just want to say I’d tap that. Thanks.

            • Donalbain

               Concern troll is concerned. Thank you. Now fuck off douche.

            • Xander

               If you took just a couple hours to educate yourself, maybe you could understand why your interpretation that “a man thinking a women is attractive means he hates women” is so far off base. But of course, you actually do not wish to understand. You wish to dismiss donalbain’s valid criticism. It doesn’t even matter if you are being deliberately obtuse or are simply ignorant of misogyny in the context of American culture.

              Your efforts to avoid the issue by mischaracterizing it, focusing on tone, and feigning “trouble understanding” while making zero effort to understand are truly pathetic.

            • Maria

              You really can’t see why some women are offended? For a long, long, looooooong time, a woman’s looks seemed about the only thing that added any type of value to her, and this is in societies all over the world!  Now, within the last century, we’ve finally made so much progress and are finally being valued for our brains, instead of just looks, and when people make comments like these a lot of people think that that means we’re backsliding as a society. DUH! how can you not see that? I honestly think that whatever helps her win, fine.  Whether it’s her looks, her brain, whatever. I’m just very stoked that she’s openly bi AND nontheist and she’s actually leading in the poles. That’s very encouraging to me!

              • Max

                You said “leading in the poles” – pun intended?

                Anyway, I’m happy someone who’s openly non-theistic is being considered. Not knowing anything else about her, that would probably make me vote for her, since it probably means she uses logic to make decisions and not “dur dur god told me”

            • Chaise Guevara

              Thinking women are attractive is not misogynistic. Thinking that it is OK for your single and only comment on a highly intelligent, educated and successful women to be “she’s hot”, is. Especially when taken in the context of a world that often patronises and devalues successful women by focusing heavily on their appearance at the expense of their skills/character/achievements.

              The idea that a woman’s looks are her most important characteristic, and that her intelligence is much less relevant, and feeling that you have a right (almost a duty) to rate the attractiveness of every woman you see and loudly declare to the world whether or not she makes your winkie feel happy, feeds into (and originates from) the view that women are mere objects, placed here for the gratification of men. Like walking blow-up dolls. This is a view that is deeply hateful to women, hence, misogyny.

              Although this view is now rarely expressed in the extreme, this “she’s hot” bullshit is indeed a hangover of the old monotheistic tradition of relegating women to the place of sex-toys/domestic slaves.

              Hope that clears up your confusion.  

              • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_6OE7LEYELE4MZTVXGZUSVTBFUI julie

                But as long as these guys say that they’re sure this blow up doll has other good qualities too, it’s totally not offensive that they see her as a blow up doll!
                And apparently, it’s not sexist if they say it’s not sexist.

              • Maps Tirader

                The provided information is a photograph. If the article was based around information like political history, political beliefs, and other things that aren’t a photograph, those likely would have been commented on. I see just as many people commenting along the lines of “Wow, in Arizona, too. That’s pretty cool” as “Durr hurr, man she’s hot”. It’s a very simple reaction to stimulus, not a grand, sexist clusterfuck.

              • Maps Tirader

                Also, you’re wrong. The big Christian thing around the time in which Pride and Prejudice was based (I forget the name of the era) was that women were perfect, glittering angels. They weren’t kept at the will of their husbands for the purpose of being “sex-toys”, they were kept that way so as not to be sullied by the imperfection of the real world. I don’t agree with this way of thinking (and I don’t know anyone who does), but that’s the fact of it.

        • http://twitter.com/FelyxLeiter Felyx Leiter

          It’s still a reasonable point, and swearing doesn’t diminish the fact that the first two posts on the thread (as well as yours) are about her appearance.

          • IndyFitz

            Yes, but my comment was because Donalbain was losing his/her mind over the first two comments, and the fact is that the woman is, IMHO, smoking hot. That doesn’t mean I base my judgment of her solely on her looks. It doesn’t mean I don’t like her. It doesn’t mean she isn’t qualified in other ways. It’s just an observation. What’s wrong with a woman — or a man — being attractive?  What’s wrong with other people noting that fact? Why does such an observation seem to immediately inflame people into screaming claims that someone is a misogynist?

            I know, everyone claims it’s objectification of women — but that isn’t misogyny; misogyny is hatred of women, and admiring a woman for being smoking hot is not hatred of women. And is it objectification? Maybe, if that’s ALL that matters to the observer.  But people objectify other people all the time for many reasons. For example, I love Meat Loaf, the singer (and the dinner, too). I love the lyrics he sings. I love the voice he belts songs out with. I love the feeling and passion he puts into his performances. But ultimately that’s all I care about Meat Loaf. I disagree with his religious stance. I disagree with lots of his views. But I love his music. So one could say I’m objectifying him for his singing ability.

            I love Tom Cruise’s movies. I don’t think I’ve ever NOT enjoyed a movie with Tom Cruise. He’s a great actor. But I think he’s an idiot, personally, when it comes to circus acts like Scientology and couch jumping and telling Matt Lauer that Matt knows nothing about psychology and he does. I like almost nothing about Tom Cruise except for his movies. So I objectify Tom Cruise — I love him for his movies, and that’s it.

            My ex-wife was a horrible person. I stayed with her far longer than I should because of my stepchildren. But today I can find two things to say great about her: she was a FANTASTIC cook, and she was a great driver (could drive all night and all day and not fall asleep — it was superhuman!). So I objectify my ex-wife for her cooking and her driving, because there was nothing else redeeming about her.  (Not her looks, not the sex.)

            So I’m perfectly fine with observing that someone is attractive. At least here I have other things to admire about Sen. Sinema. But she’s still gorgeous. I’m sorry, but she is. It’s terrible, I know, for her to be beautiful — and ferocious crime for anyone to point it out. It hardly seems like a horrible thing to say so.  I’m sure not going to apologize for it, no matter how many angry haters post her accusing me of hating women.  Just sayin’.

            • http://twitter.com/FelyxLeiter Felyx Leiter

              You may not base your judgement soley on her looks, yet you consider it important enough that it’s the first–and only–thing you write about her.  And not just you, but the first two comments–on a thread about a nontheistic bisexual running for office.  And no, it isn’t just this thread.  This is a symptom of a larger issue that women deal with all the time.  It’s fine if you think Tom Crusie is a lunatic, but enjoy his movies.  He’s in entertainment.  His entire career is built on pretending to be people that he, in reality, is not.  Pointing out a person’s skills and talents is a bit of a leap from pointing out their outward appearance–especially if that person isn’t in entertainment or any other field where looks should be any sort of qualification.   How is it different from saying,” One thing’s for sure…he’s gay!” or “Yup, she sure is Jewish!” It doesn’t matter, and the fact that people think it does prevents us from moving past that.  I guarantee a HUGE number of discussions about this woman devolve into dissecting her looks.  It’s not just you, or this thread–this happens all the time.  All the time.  And please, the sanctimonious, “It’s terrible, I know, for her to be beautiful — and ferocious crime for anyone to point it out…” doesn’t do a damn thing to further this discussion.  This a total red herring.  That’s great that she’s good looking–it’s seriously the only thing you can think to say about her?  Maybe you really don’t experience the issue at hand the way women do.  When we have wholesalers visit our office, 4 times out of  5,within the first five minutes they tell me, or crack a joke, at their surprise about how good-looking I am.  It doesn’t matter that I’m the office manager who has worked with them for years, and fielded literally hundreds of phone calls and business transactions with them.  It doesn’t matter I hold a higher degree than they do.  Your intent doesn’t have to be misogynistic for it to drive a misogynistic notion home about beauty standards and competence.  It’s assumed you’re successful, at least in part, because you’re attractive, and people who immediately focus on appearance serve to further this notion and ingrain it deeper in society.   As much as I loathe Sarah Palin, it was distressing to see how frequently her appearance was discussed.  Whether people called her “hot” or “ugly,” with all the whackadoo things she’s said and done, THIS is what people pay attention to?  THIS is how votes are cast?  Even if you think a male candidate is good-looking (as you mention about Obama below), how many discussions about Obama have you seen or heard that spent more than half the time focusing soley on his appearance?  It’s in no way equivalent.  Even if it’s the status quo…do we really want to go there with politics?

              • IndyFitz

                Misogyny is about intent, not perception. It isn’t my fault if YOU or someone else perceives a comment by me or anyone else as misogynistic. It wasn’t intended that way. And by labeling my comment as sanctimonious would seem to very clearly outline your stance — that nothing I say can POSSIBLY mean anything other than how YOU choose to perceive it.  Because, again, my intent, I think, was made clear by my statement… yet you’re perceiving it as sanctimonious, and it seems likely that nothing I say will change that.

                So how committed to this holier-than-thou stance are you, really?  When four out of five men come into your office and tell you how beautiful you are, do you thank them, or do you stand up to them and tell them that that is NOT okay, and you don’t have to sit there and listen to that?  Since you didn’t mention that you put them in their places whewn they say these things, it seems reasonable to assume that you’re contributing to that status quo.

                As for politics, my first exposure to this candidate was this post and her picture. Now, I wouldn’t have made a comment about how attractive she is, except Donalbain went completely nuts over the first two who said that, and it was impossible to not comment at that point. But since my first exposure was her photo, sure, I did, in fact, judge her to be very attractive. As hard as this is for some people to understand, most men’s brains are wired to react that way. We just are. It isn’t about being disrespectful or hateful; it’s just how we respond. I’m not going to apologize for an evolutionary trait that kicks in without me making a conscious decision.

                And any idea that I don’t consider people beyond their appearance is just wrong, and frankly not for someone who doesn’t me in any way to decide.  I have just learned of this person and am eager to see a nontheist bisexual winning her party’s nomination, and because of those two things alone I hope she wins the race and ends up in Congress. Am I an objectifier because I want a bisexual nontheist in Congress? Maybe. Will I be eager to learn more about her as a person and a politician? Definitely. Will I find things about her I don’t like? Possibly. Will I judge her overall based on my assessment of her in many areas? Absolutely.

                And will my judgment of her rest in any way on how she looks? Most certainly not. She could be a thoroughly repulsive troll, but so long as she’s a decent person and someone I feel is ideal for the job, of course I’d support her — 100 percent.

                Likewise, because she’s attractive won’t sway me. I supported Ross Perot in 1992, and nobody ever mistook him for a male model. Hillary Clinton never did anything for me as a man as far as how she looked, but had she won the Dem nomination instead of Obama in 2008, I’d have avidly supported her because of who she is.

                So I’m not apologizing for Sinema being attractive, nor am I going to further defend myself against thinking she is. People’s minds rarely get changed in blog forums, particularly when they’re so incredibly rabid about an idea that their minds are already made up. The only person who has to be comfortable with my beliefs and the truth of what I say is me.  And I am.

                • http://twitter.com/FelyxLeiter Felyx Leiter

                   
                  “As hard as this is for some people to understand, most men’s brains are wired to react that way. We just are. It isn’t about being disrespectful or hateful; it’s just how we respond. I’m not going to apologize for an evolutionary trait that kicks in without me making a conscious decision.”
                   
                  That’s fine.  But you DID make a conscious decision to write about her appearance.  And you didn’t write that she was attractive–you went with “smoking hot.”
                   
                  “And any idea that I don’t consider people beyond their appearance is just wrong, and frankly not for someone who doesn’t me in any way to decide.”
                   
                  I didn’t single you out–I made a point to say our society is rife with this attitude, and that the two posters before you did the exact same thing.  It’s not something to be taken personally.  I’m asking that you look at the big picture, and that even if you judge people as well-rounded human beings (which I don’t doubt you do) that you–and society in general–choose to focus on this one dimension of women a LOT, and tend to mention it before any other qualifications.  I know that this has been going on forever, but it doesn’t make it okay.  It would be completely bizarre, and somewhat dehumanizing, if people focused on a different fixed trait like ethnicity and constantly brought it up as the first thing they noticed about someone else.  Even if it IS the first thing you notice about someone, you don’t say, “Wow, you’re so Hispanic,” because it doesn’t matter and shouldn’t affect the way someone is perceived.  I realize people always make snap judgements and appearance is one of the first things you notice about another person, but it’s insulting to actually voice that to someone as if it matters, especially when you don’t know anything else about them and don’t bother to address the other aspects of who they are (especially when the reason they’re being discussed has nothing whatsoever to do with their being Hispanic, or attractive, etc.)
                   
                  Look, I agree–neither of us is going to change the other’s mind on this forum, and it’s probably a waste of time to address the questions you posed to me, since you ignored most of the ones I wrote you.  It’s just incredibly frustrating to see an accomplished woman being reduced to T&A on an atheist blog–again–and people denying that there’s anything wrong with it, or that it isn’t a pervasive attitude in our society.

                • Lets_Be_Honest

                  ” It would be completely bizarre, and somewhat dehumanizing, if people focused on a different fixed trait like ethnicity and constantly brought it up as the first thing they noticed about someone else.  Even if it IS the first thing you notice about someone, you don’t say, “Wow, you’re so Hispanic,” because it doesn’t matter and shouldn’t affect the way someone is perceived.  I realize people always make snap judgements and appearance is one of the first things you notice about another person, but it’s insulting to actually voice that to someone as if it matters, especially when you don’t know anything else about them and don’t bother to address the other aspects of who they are (especially when the reason they’re being discussed has nothing whatsoever to do with their being Hispanic, or attractive, etc.)”
                   
                  Using your example, would it be racist for me to infer that because someone is Hispanic they have a close knit family and are religious?  Because these characteristics are prevalent in the Hispanic community.  Stereotyping someone is not a conscious decision we make as humans, it is a function of our brain that helps us organize information more efficiently.

                • http://twitter.com/FelyxLeiter Felyx Leiter

                  Ummm, what?  That has nothing to do with my quote, or my point.  If every time you met someone who looked Hispanic (or every time you saw an article about someone who was Hispanic, even though the article had nothing to do with their ethnicity) and your first words to them (or the first several comments on the board) were, “Oh, wow, you sure are Hispanic!” you’re reducing that person to one immutable characteristic (and in most cases, it would be considered at the very least rude, bordering on unacceptable to say something like that).  Think to yourself whatever you’d like–I understand that people subconsciously stereotype all the time–but if you actually take the time to say it out loud or write it down, it’s not some subconscious decision–it’s very deliberate.  At that point, you’re not organizing your thoughts.  You’re making the deliberate choice to tell that person how you compartmentalize them, and what you think is important for them to know about the way you perceive them.

                • Luke

                  Threepio!  Where could he be!?

                • Max

                  shut all the garbage smashers downon the detention level!

                • http://www.nul-unu.com/blogs/elucubrando rodrigo

                  That was not the example being posited. The example was “Do you immediately respond to anything said about an Hispanic person by saying that you think they are Hispanic?”

                  And, anyway, yes, it would be racist.  My group of Hispanic friends includes 2 atheists and 4 single people who do not see their families for months at a time.

                • http://www.facebook.com/people/John-OBrien/100001338658769 John O’Brien

                  INDY INDY INDY!!!

            • http://www.facebook.com/people/John-OBrien/100001338658769 John O’Brien

              Best comment here. Couldn’t agree more.

      • http://philosophicalzombie.net/ Carl

        I thought someone would reply like this. I’m sorry if you’re offended, but there are two separate issues here: the issue of whether I, personally, am making judgements about her competence based on her looks, and whether the fact that she’s attractive might have such an effect on the voting public, generally. I was definitely going for the latter, as I am in no position to comment on her competence or suitability at all, since I know basically nothing about her. I do know she’s attractive though, and I do know that that makes a difference in elections (sadly), hence my comment.

      • http://philosophicalzombie.net/ Carl

         I thought someone would reply like this. I’m sorry if you’re offended,
        but there are two separate issues here: the issue of whether I,
        personally, am making judgements about her competence based on her
        looks, and whether the fact that she’s attractive might have such an
        effect on the voting public, generally. I was definitely going for the
        latter, as I am in no position to comment on her competence or
        suitability at all, since I know basically nothing about her. I do know
        she’s attractive though, and I do know that that makes a difference in
        elections (sadly), hence my comment.

        • amycas

           Well, I guess it was presumptuous of us to think that you might have read the article on which you were commenting. You know, the article that tells you a little bit about her and where you could go to get more information. Here’s a pro-tip: if you know next to nothing about somebody/something and you’re not willing to read the article or go find out more information, then whatever comment you make is probably going to be inane and/or ignorant.

          I’ve seen plenty of articles on this site about slightly obscure male politicians, but afaik none of the comments on those articles were about the male politician’s appearance (certainly not the first comments if there were). It’s almost like when we’re discussing a male politician people take the time to read the article and find out their position on issues and their competency to do the job, but when it’s a woman politician people just look at the picture, scroll down and post some shit about how ugly/beautiful they are.

  • http://www.facebook.com/tuibguy Mike Haubrich

    Arizona needs some sanity right about now.  I wish her the best!

  • HA2

    Is it in a district where she has an actual chance of winning? Or is this one of those races where the republican is going to win anyway, and the democratic nominee is mostly for show? 

    • Josh

      The district is listed as lean Dem.  She seems to have a good shot, and I think the Republican is involved in a scandal.

      • Phasespace

        Hmm… I’m not sure I would say that district leans democratic.  It includes the area around ASU which definitely leans democratic, however, it also includes areas south and east of the university that are hardcore republican areas (the state congressional districts where the  authors of the infamous SB1070 came from).  I hate to be pessimistic, but having grown up in that area, I’m not so sure a democrat can be truly competitive there.  

        Maricopa county, in general, is a tough nut to crack unless the republican candidate has gone completely off the wall (which does happen on occasion). 

    • Coyotenose

       The part about there being a hard fight for the nomination suggests that the Dems have a strong chance.

  • sioux

    Evolutionary urges overpower social prejudice. “She’s smoking hot so I’m going to set aside my theistic prejudice and give her my vote.”

  • LesterBallard

    She’s winning the primary. Okay. That’s cool. I don’t imagine she’ll come close to winning the general election. And I’m certain it will be a ugly campaign.

  • Atheisticallyyours

    And the fact that she is HOT will help too! ;) I have an overwhelming desire to move to the 9th CD in AZ right now! 

  • Georgina

    Speaking as a fellow blond – I would vote for her.

    (Sorry, is ‘fellow’ sexist? What is the female version?)

    • Coyotenose

       I was going to jokingly suggest “fellette”, then, well… I saw what that looks like in print. Let’s stick with “fellow”.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=667615465 Chris Eide

     Good for her, and the district. Maybe we are getting that much closer to a point in our history where stuff like this won’t be news anymore, it’ll just be the way things are. Might be wishful thinking though.

  • English Atheist

    Wow! Can she please come to England and stand for election here.  W don’t have any politician that look like that (it’s probably the law or something)

    • English Atheist

      That’s ‘we’ and ‘politicians’.  Should stop looking at that pic while I’m typing!

    • Thorny264

      Nevermind the looks, We don’t even have any decent politicians over here. I think we’re going to have to import some from america. 

      • IndyFitz

         No!  You can’t have them!  We have so very few decent politicians here as it is and cannot spare them.  (But if you do import some of them, beware: often they LOOK decent but really aren’t.) :-)

      • Yonnie

         All you have to do is offer our republicans more money than they can steal here.  They are pretty cheap political whores who practice very lousy sex I’m told.  They will do or say anything you pay them to, so please take them away! 
        NO, you are not welcome to buy our Democrats and non-theists!

  • Powersurge9

    Congratulations!  Kyrsten let’s hope you ride rough-shod over the powers that be and establish yourself.  Let me know if you have probs.  I never lose a fight lol.  But seriously, I’m in CT, not the same legal history but I really can spot a problem easily when I hear the bare bones.  

  • http://twitter.com/iamfantastikate Kate T.

    Sinema is HIGHLY educated and experienced for her age. That so many comments here completely overlook her qualifications, in favor of judging her according to her looks (positively or negatively–it doesn’t matter) or “jokingly” suggesting others have done so to “explain” her winning, is incredibly belittling and proves at least some atheists haven’t grown out of the pervasive sexism that religion has fostered for so long. Come on, people. You dropped the deities. Drop the sexist bullshit attitude with it.

    • Kamron Brooks

       Why is it sexist to say that she’s hot? I don’t see people writing “she’s only winning because she’s hot” they seem to be saying “it probably helps that she’s hot” and you know what? She IS hot, it IS hot that she’s bi, and it IS probably helping.

      • http://twitter.com/the_ewan Ewan

        It’s sexist because no-one ever has that response to a male politician even when they are hot, and because comments on their appearance are always amongst the first responses to female politicians.

        If you’re trying to analyse the full range of her appeals to voters then you might reasonably include mention of her appearance, and you might do that for a man too, but to simply say in isolation “She’s hot!” is not that, and it can’t be whitewashed as that.

        • IndyFitz

           That’s not true, that “no-one ever has that response to a male politician.”  I specifically remember saying “He’s hot” when Barack Obama was running, and I’m male.  And my mother remember many men saying JFK was “a handsome devil,” sort of the early 1960s version of “He’s hot.”

          • Brian Westley

            Also, people who saw the TV version of the JFK/Nixon debate thought JFK won, while people who heard it on the radio thought Nixon won, which could be due to JFK’s good looks, or at least not looking like Nixon.

            • Chaise Guevara

              It wasn’t really due to his looks, or at least not that he was less handsome. He refused to wear make-up and therefore looked sweaty under the lights, pale and uncomfortable (he was much less comfortable with public appearance than JFK and squirmed and fidgeted under the hot glare of the cameras, which came across much more clearly than TV than radio.)
              The end result was that people felt he looked shifty and ill-at-ease compared to JFK, but it was not about JFK being ‘hotter’. If he had seemed composed and sincere, not shifty and uncomfortable, his objectively less handsome looks would not have made such a difference.

              This is not the same as sexist assumptions like:
              1. A woman’s appearance is THE MOST important thing about her and should be commented on first, foremost and often exclusively.
              2. Hot women must have got on because of their looks and not their qualifications etc.
              3. Hot women are stupid.

              These assumptions are still depressingly commonplace. No one is saying that men are not judged by their looks, they increasingly are, but with women the effect is much greater and to deny that is to deny the evidence before your eyes. Pick up any newspaper and you will see the huge bias in focus on how women look and dress, in comparison to men.

              • Maps Tirader

                Yes, as a matter of fact you’re right.  That’s not a product of some male-dominated society. This is a a product of both sides of the gender divide you are so keen to point out. We live in a society where many girls’ greatest dream is to be on America’s Next Top Model. Maybe things have changed since I was in grade school, but third-graders probably aren’t equating girls with pretty faces yet.

                • http://twitter.com/mikimoro Miki Moro

                  Equating girls with pretty faces sadly starts so much younger than 3rd grade.  Noting “attractiveness” begins at such a young age….  Even the youngest children react more positively to “attractive” people, either male or female. 

              • Clove

                It’s hard top ignore that womens looks play a larger role than mens, but overlooking the fact that men are MUCH MORE easily sexually stimulated visually is sexist in itself.

                I think its much more a matter of observation.  Anyone ever break off a relationship, only to notice the particular make/model/color of vehicle your ex drove is seemingly EVERYWHERE right afterwards? It’s not that people all went out and bought that vehicle after you broke it off with your ex, it’s WHAT YOU CHOSE TO OBSERVE. YOU’RE LOOKING FOR IT.

                If you’re looking for the sexist side, it will become apparent in your observations.

              • http://twitter.com/mikimoro Miki Moro

                Kudos for your knowledge on the debates between Nixon/JFK!!  #impressed

              • Aly

                men have their own stereotypes to overcome. like “he must be family of the owner” or “he must’ve paid for those degrees”. there are various negative assumptions made about everyone. no need to particularly bitch, gripe, and whine about one group. and anyone who thinks JFK’s win wasn’t largely based on his looks is in some serious denial. yes, nixon came off badly on the television but Kennedy came off very very well because of his looks, not his debating skills. 

          • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_6OE7LEYELE4MZTVXGZUSVTBFUI julie

            Yes, people do mention the attractiveness of male politicians, but it’s never on the same level. They’ll joke around about how it could help win some more votes, but they also talk extensively about their actual qualifications. When there’s an attractive woman in a position of power, people hold that  against her and they say she only got there because of her looks or that she slept her way there. As in, she’s hot, so she’s probably not that qualified. It’s similar to how people said Obama only won because he was black, not because he’s qualified.
            Also, when a male politician isn’t hot, no one holds that against him, but people feel free to poke fun at Hilary Clinton for not being a supermodel.

            • Lets_Be_Honest

              Are you kidding me?  Chris Christie gets ragged on plenty.  

              • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_6OE7LEYELE4MZTVXGZUSVTBFUI julie

                I knew someone would bring him up, but the weight issue does change it a bit because fat people get made fun of a lot.
                But just think of how many old, unattractive men there are in politics. You never really hear anything about their looks. But as soon as there’s an old, unattractive woman in politics, people freak out because…woman = sex, but this woman doesn’t arouse me!!

                • Tainda

                  I heard tons of comments when Ross Perot was running

                • Maps Tirader

                  Your equation only works if you’re a guy (or a lesbian, I suppose). I don’t know the actual statistic, but last time I checked there are an approximately equal number of males and females in this country.

                • Aly

                  51% female 49% male is the most current estimate

        • http://www.facebook.com/cory.caplan Cory Caplan

          People talk about Paul Ryan and p90x ALL THE TIME.

          • Yonnie

             Ewan is just deaf or doesn’t pay attention to news media

            • Slumdogmogli

               I think Paul Ryana and Obama are hot. I’m a dude.

              • http://twitter.com/mikimoro Miki Moro

                So which ya gonna vote for?  Whichever you think is hotter? lol ;) 

                • Tainda

                  In that case I’m going to write in Alexander Skarsgard.  

                  Oopsie!  Sorry, that was sexist.  I looked at his CV first, he’s qualified…  

          • wvj

            They may talk about a male (politician) being hot, but their success is not attributed to their looks. Men are successful AND hot, women are hot and THUS successful.  Also, a bi-sexual guy would not have been received the way she has.  This too shows sexism even though you may think/say it’s a positive thing.

            • X_MW

               BS. There were many shows about the Clinton campaign speculating about how much his looks and his magic handshake were winning him voters.  It works the same both ways even if you can’t admit it.

              • http://twitter.com/mikimoro Miki Moro

                Yep, agreed.  Many people find Obama charming and attractive and voted for him for this reason.  His charisma got him as far as his knowledge/ability/experience.

            • eyebeam

              Second on the BS – it’s a well-known phenomenon that taller and more attractive male candidates  will trounce shorter and less attractive ones – and we now know that candidates with lower voices – male or female, have an advantage over ones with higher voices.

              People like attractive people, there’s no way around it.

              Edit: I do understand where you’re coming from, “lookism” is used much more frequently to discredit women. But you cannot claim that men are completely immune from it.

              • I_Drink_Heineken

                So that’s why Ron Paul lost…

                • eyebeam

                  That’s part of the reason, but not the only reason…

            • The Specialist

               That’s a bunch of horse shit.

        • Tainda

          Looks are a HUGE part of elections (and almost everything).  They don’t get stylists for nothing ya know.  I guarantee you a big part of why Romney chose Ryan was to get the younger (and older) female vote.

          • http://twitter.com/ylaenna M. Elaine

             You mean the kittens and cougars? ;D

            • Tainda

              Yes I do lol

              I don’t see it myself but to each their own!

              • Aly

                that’s exactly why he was chosen,  just like palin was chosen to appeal to hillary’s crowd. of course that backfires badly when their past and their voting record start getting airtime. you just can’t choose someone who’s anti-women’s rights to appeal to the female voters. well, obviously you -can- but history shows it doesn’t work that well. 

        • Boyfromthedwarf9

          No, this is sexist:
          “Pics or it didn’t happen” in regards to her being bi.  I mean, it’s almost like a birth certificate, I need proof she’s bi.

          • Boyfromthedwarf9

            I need proof she’s bi before I can get behind her.*

            HEYOOO!

            • Maps Tirader

              I’m sorry, have you been to the internet? Only pubs and construction sites are in the running against the internet for most dirty (or vulgar, or crass, or whatever you choose to call them) jokes.

              • Aly

                psshhhh puuleeeez.. pubs and construction sites don’t hold a candle to the internet. maayyyybe the japanese… maybe.

        • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_BFGF5RNRAJ5ZGJWR52Q4LRJ6YY Matthew

          I tend to take the ‘It’s sexist side’ here but how attractive Scott Brown happens to be, especially his modeling or photoshoot or whatever that was, was mentioned a LOT during his senate campaign, so its not like it never happens with male candidates.

          • amycas

            You can say it was mentioned, but can you find any articles on this website about Scott Brown in which the first comments were exclusively about his looks? Not an analysis on how his looks might affect voters, but just a single “he’s smoking hot” remark.

            • Aly

              google image him. the internet has decided his looks come first.

          • http://www.facebook.com/krbasinet Kirsten Basinet

            It’s not that it never happens… but Scott Brown kind of proves that as a male politician, you pretty much need to have full-page magazine spreads in your underwear before you get close to receiving the same kind of comments about your appearance as women do. As a woman, you can have the best qualifications in the world and present yourself in a completely “ladylike” way and the first thing out of people’s mouths will STILL be your appearance/sexiness. Can you imagine what would happen if a woman running for office had posed for Victoria’s Secret or Playboy or something? Voters would go insane.

        • YuriNalarm

          You forget JFK.

        • Samuel

          I’m from Massachusetts. Scott Brown’s body was all anyone had to talk about for his entire campaign. “No-one ever” is not true at all.

          • http://twitter.com/mikimoro Miki Moro

            As I now go to google “Scott Brown’s body”…  Shame on me!  #pointproven

            • Aly

              that makes two of us…

        • Ohyouknow

          I’m a lesbian AND an atheist, she IS HOT! I’m not mixing those features with her platform – just stating her attractive features. If she were republican I would still assert her hotness.

        • http://twitter.com/mikimoro Miki Moro

          Not gonna lie, I have said “It doesn’t hurt that he’s good looking” when it comes to a male politician getting ahead/winning a race.

        • Geoffrey Abram

          You’ve obviously never heard of Harding, Kennedy, Clinton, or Obama then?  Since you’ve never heard of a male politician being voted for based on looks over substance.

          • Aly

            okay more importantly, since when was clinton hot? hillary is a more attractive man than bill. wth people? I mean, I love what he did as president… (not the sex stuff although that was entertaining) but he’s not attractive.

      • amycas

         Please don’t use a girl’s personal sexual orientation as another way to sexually objectify her. My sexual orientation (and how I express it) is there for my gratification. Not yours.

        • Matthew Crocker

          I don’t see anyone here talking about a girl. I see them talking about a grown woman…

          Don’t try to out-feminist ME!

      • vexorian

        It depends, is your first reaction when the news about a male bisexual nontheist candidate to check out if he is hot or not? If so, then having the same reaction with this bisexual candidate is not sexist. But if you actually rate only females on looks then it is quite sexist.

        But nonetheless, even if you did this with all candidates of all genders, it would still be a case of objectifying people and not all right imho.

    • Tok0750

       She’s not an atheist.  She is a NON-theist.  Big difference bud.

      • Kingjoeffry

        NON-theist = Athiest that can’t say they are an athiest for political reasons.

        Out side of the political realm nontheist would be the category that athiests, agnostics & skepitcs belong in.

        In short she is an athiest or agnostic.

        • Maps Tirader

          I’m with you on “non-theist=athiest-spawnofsatan” thing, but I athiest and agnostic are not mutual, exclusive, or mutually exclusive. There was a chart somewhere that explains it well. I’ll post it here if I see it again.

        • Scott McDaniel

          Negative – I’m a non-theist, but don’t identify as an atheist because it has particular connotations and meanings (that I don’t view as negative, just not descriptive of my worldview).

          I think it makes for a good catch-all for not-believing-in-a-personal-god point of view, since it’s a description for me, but not the word I use when I fill in the blank on a form, say.

      • Tolsen81

        And no there is not a big difference. They are synonymous.

    • http://philosophicalzombie.net/ Carl

      All we had to go on is one photo. The photo doesn’t reveal her competence, qualifications, abilities, etc. Hence those qualities weren’t commented on.

      • amycas

         Yeah, the photo doesn’t mention them. Too bad there wasn’t an article talking about the award she won from CFI along with links you could have followed to learn more…and what’s this “google” thing I keep hearing about? Could that possibly help somebody find our more about her qualifications, competence and abilities?

        • http://philosophicalzombie.net/ Carl

          Yes, you’re right. But the reality is I’m not going to spend time doing serious research about a candidate in a sub-region of a country that I don’t even belong to. If I did that much background every time I made a  comment on something, I’d be spending my whole life googling obscure trivia. It’s a throwaway comment on a web forum, not a serious debate.

          I made a flippant remark about her looks based on the fact that that sort of thing actually makes a difference (like it or not) in elections. I in no way intended to cheapen her accomplishments – I was just too lazy to look them up. I wish her all the best in her endeavours, but I personally have no stake in her campaign and have no intention of following her career further (unless it happens to pop up in a Friendly Atheist post).

        • all-hail-the-hypno-toad

          nah, you’re thinking of bing. because, as bing points out, 2 out of 3 internet users prefer crappy search engines. 

    • http://twitter.com/mikimoro Miki Moro

      LOL  Yeah, they don’t have pictures on the ballots anyway. :p People are crazy.

  • Beth

    How do we know she is a non-theist. I heard in the interview that she grew up Mormon but is there a link some where that explains her lack of faith. I would love to know more.

    If you wonder how saying she got votes because she is hot is sexist try replacing hot with black. Would it be racist to say she got elected because she was black? (I know she isn’t black I mean if she were)

    And if you aren’t sexist then you would also be pointing out when a male politician is good looking.  Barack Obama is good looking. Did you comment on that when he first ran? Paul Ryan is also good looking. Does that make his political views less offensive?

    • thebigJ_A

      If I were attracted to men, I’d have pointed out that Obama was hot (as several friends of mine of that sexuality did at the time of his campaign). I’d be very surprised if his looks didn’t help his election, to a greater or lesser degree.
      Sexual attraction =/= sexism.

      • Cyberhippy13

        Correct. Sexual attractiveness =/= sexism.
        However, constant focus on appearance of a highly qualified candidate, with more time spent discussing looks than policy or qualifications does = sexism, because this is something that overwhelmingly happens to women more than it happens to men.

        Not being taken seriously/only being judged by their looks is still a huge problem for women in positions of power. If you are making these sort of comments then you are contributing to this problem and to making women feel devalued, objectified and ignored.

        Please stop for a moment and consider how you would feel if you worked really hard to achieve something, studied, laboured and strove for it, put in hard work, dedication and numerous natural skills, only to open an article about yourself and find that all most people cared about was how you looked. I can tell you, even if the comments are complimentary, it does not feel good.
         

      • amycas

         There are plenty of gay men and straight women who post comments on this website, and I didn’t see any comments about Paul Ryan’s looks when Hemant wrote about him.

    • Michael Brice

      Paul Ryan is good looking?

      • rukiio

         I think I read that somewhere…

    • Lets_Be_Honest

      It’s a matter of personal opinion and if someone wants to share their opinion then that’s fine, it doesn’t make them sexist.  Maybe the people who responded that way were surprised to see someone they percieved to be attractive and that’s why they felt the need to comment.

      On your analogy of replacing “hot” with “black”– if you don’t think that Obama got votes last election just because he was black, then you are choosing to ignore facts.

      If I am not attracted to men, I am not going to be inclined to say that I find a particular man attractive, even if women think he is.  This goes on outside of politics too.  

      It seems like a trivial example, but look at the boy bands of the late 90′s and early 2000′s, and now, Justin Bieber.  He isn’t as talented as most musicians but he garners more attention because millions of little girls think he’s “hot”.  This is the way the world works with both males and females.

      • amycas

         Except, boy bands and Justin Bieber’s fans are mostly 10-16 year olds. This particular politician is not pandering to hormonal 10-16 year olds, she is campaigning to adults who should be able to evaluate her stances on the issues and if they don’t know much about her, use google to find out more before posting inane comments about her looks.

    • qxe

      You forgot Michelle Malkin. Smokin’ hot with a head full of snakes and yak dung.

  • CelticWhisper

    I like this news.  Seems like only yesterday that avowed atheism coupled with bisexuality (or any LGBT/non-”traditional” sexual orientation) would be a one-two punch of unelectability.

    That said, this IS still Arizona we’re talking about, land of Jan Brewer and John McCain.  I wish her the best, but have no illusions – she has a hell of a fight ahead of her.  Someone here mentioned a scandal involving the (R) candidate, but hardline red states tend to care less about that than blue or swing states do.

    As a general rule, I avoid voting Republocrat wherever possible (pulling for Stein/Honkala 2012 here), but after reading where she stands on various issues (namely immigration and developing rail transit) I’d support her.

    • Matthew Crocker

      Personally, I’m pulling the lever for Rocky Anderson.

  • Bill Haines

    My question is, if people like us support her openly, does that help or hinder her?  I’ll give her campaign the few bucks I can spare, and urge other godless folk to do the same, but any endorsements of her by well-known atheists or secular orgs actually might hurt her chances with the religious voters she needs to win?

    • rukiio

       Meh. She’s already wearing the nontheist moniker.  I can’t see high-profile atheist endorsements making a significant impact one way or the other at this point.

  • http://garicgymro.wordpress.com/ garicgymro

    By the way, Hemant, thank you for not describing her as gay (or a lesbian). 

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000477021766 Elaine Ballou

    The story was great. Then I read the comments. Now I want to kill myself. NEVER READ THE COMMENTS. Not even here, where I thought it was safe. 

    • amycas

       I know. It’s really sad, and part of the reason why I’m slowly leaving the comment sections here. I love Hemant and his contributors, so I’ll keep reading, but participating is getting harder and harder to do.

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=613751245 Alex Manuel

      Seriously. No matter how progressive I think a population of non-believers might be, it’s the same old flip out: “Did someone just make a FEMINIST observation in here? Quick, DENY! DENY DENY DENY!”

      I hope they eventually enjoy the homogeneity they’re working so hard to promote. 

  • http://twitter.com/moother moother

    Pretty sure Hemant was chuckling when he pressed POST.

  • Tainda

    I actually love the fact that she’s not a little stick barbie doll and the men are calling her hot lol  

    If that’s the ONLY thing they judge her on, that’s a different story entirely.

  • Luis Echevarria

    Having met her in person and having voted for her I can say that she was clearly the best candidate in the field.  Always visible on the right side on the important issues.  
    I hope she wins in the general election.  And I also think that the comment on her looks WAS sexist.

  • sidray

    Finally the Democrats find a hottie to run, TAKE THAT NAPALITANO!!!

  • http://www.facebook.com/brock.lee.77312 Brock Lee

    Here’s why she’ll fail: 
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y5OdQGbVNa4

    • rukiio

      Holy shit! I’ve never seen so many pathetic, sexless men in one youtube comment board before!

  • technoreaper

    She sounds like a whackjob. I’d never vote for her.

    • Matthew Crocker

      That’s exactly why I WOULD vote for her. Not enough lunatics in government these days, since Jello Biafra never runs for office any more and Hunter S Thompson is dead…

  • disqus_53QtC9hdXK

     Does it matter that she is bisexual and probably an atheist? Oh right, it matters because in a nation that is run based on religious beliefs, one who is not straight nor a theist is shocking.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/A6QCZZG6LJGO3QV3W56ZX73G6M yahoo-A6QCZZG6LJGO3QV3W56ZX73G6M

    bisexual people are greedy people . . .

    • intheshadowofleaves

      Awwww, are you just upset that they never want to play with you?

    • amycas

       How am I greedy for being naturally attracted to a person regardless of which set (or blend) of genitalia they have?

  • Bob

    She’s not THAT hot…

    • intheshadowofleaves

      Post a photo of yourself “Bob”. Or are you one of those repressed, paunchy, balding failures who can only get off watching plastic bimbo porn?

      WTF does it matter what she looks like? If you only vote for people based on their looks and not their intelligence, perhaps you should stick to reality TV?

  • matt

    Ok I thought I understood the definition of misogyny, but I seem to be missing some of the finer points.

    So….It’s NOT ok to say that Ms (Mrs?) Sinema is attractive?  The post doesn’t mention anything about her credentials, and it has a big picture of her right in the center.  Please understand that this is just a question.  When i see an attractive person walking down the street and I say to my hypothetical friend that she (or he) is attractive (or any other synonym) am I being sexist?  I don’t understand.

    • amycas

       It does mention that she won an award from the CFI and provides a link. There are also at least two links to her campaign website. Also, there’s this thing called google that I hear people often use to get information about things.
      Commenting that a random girl on the street, of whom you literally know nothing and most likely couldn’t find out anything about, is different from commenting about a prominent woman and having the only comment be about her looks. That’s the difference.

      • matt

         Ah i see, so I’m just not allowed to call a prominent woman attractive then. 

        • Pat Meade

          It’s not that you’re not allowed, it’s that it’s a general trend where prominent women tend to be judged on their appearance first, and their achievments second. As in a ton of initial comments were about her looks, and not her accomplishments.

          The amount of comments like that for prominent men are far less common.

  • Nullop

    Looks, schmooks….if she’s elected track her performance against her campaign promises. THAT’S where you’ll find out the truth about this candidate!

    • rukiio

      .. or any candidate… anywhere

      Just thought I’d add that.

  • Fortune

    I have a feeling that if it was a male bisexual, they wouldn’t stand a chance.

  • http://twitter.com/chandlertwilson Chandler T Wilson

    Mountains of studies show better looking politicians win regardless of what people consider a good qualifications/trait. It holds in all cultures and regions.  Romney, Clinton, Reagan, Bush, Obama where all better looking than their competition. On the womens side look to Italian politics.

  • http://twitter.com/headphase Tim Brown

    If you all you do is post a picture of her and none of her accomplishments.  (except for an award, big whoop)  You are going to have people have their first impression of the her being her looks.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/JWPCDWWOQJAS5UTZVN5CE3MZLU PamelaT

    You go girl!!!  Now kick the GOPs butt. 

  • A Reader

    This is just awesome, so happy for her (and Arizona!). Hope she does well in the general election too–heck yeah for bi nontheists! :)

  • Lithp

    I like science.

  • http://twitter.com/Bookworm12k Amelia Ingrao

    I’m a little curious why she isn’t making LGBTQ rights or separation of church and state issues as part of her platform. It’s worth nothing to say that she is bisexual and non-theist if that isn’t changing her campaign. I understand tolerance and acceptance come from exposure, but being a member of any minority should not be the sole reason for electing someone.  Not to say that she isn’t highly qualified, but aspects of her that are related to her campaign, such as her previous experience as a social worker inspiring her to be an “outspoken champion of kids”, define her more as a politician than her sexuality or creed.

  • Agnostic

    Does openly bisexual means unfaithful to any sex type at any given time or faithful to one sex type at one time?

  • Painkyller

    I’d munch that after a 5 mile jog!!!

  • http://www.facebook.com/jenccy.gree Jenccy Gree

     Gender has nothing to do with love!www.meetbi.com is a serious bisexual Social Site.

  • http://www.facebook.com/jenccy.gree Jenccy Gree

     Gender has nothing to do with love!www.meetbi.com is a serious bisexual Social Site.

  • http://www.facebook.com/j.alex.harman John Alexander Harman

    Sinema is awesome; I wish I lived in her district so I could vote for her.  Unfortunately, I’m stuck in the next one over, currently represented by Dimwit Dan Quayle’s even stupider son, Ben, who just lost his primary to a slightly more intelligent but no less horrible wingnut, Dave Schweikert (who is also a sitting Congressman, oddly enough – they got redistricted into the same seat).

  • Gthx

    I’d like to spend some time in her ‘district’

  • rukiio

     Of course, her attractiveness is giving her a boost most photogenic candidates enjoy.  But to argue that her bisexuality is a boon as well is overreaching.  The trouble is that bisexuality, in and of itself, imply that strict monogamy may not necessarily be present in her relationships.  She would have no issue running here in Portland, sure, but in conservative Arizona, that could be a problem.  She won her primary amongst Democrats easily enough, but in the general election, I wonder if anybody will even notice that she’s nontheist.

    • timidatheist

      What does being bisexual have to do with monogamy?  Aside from nothing that is.

  • Steven Wolf

    First: Awesome that an openly honest human being is able to win the primary!
    Second: Check your male douchebaggery. 

  • JIMOTHYONE

    What a disgusting liberal .. Snobbery and condescension toward normal people .. This bitch is way too proud of giving other peoples money away ..

    • Lithp

       Care to explain what evidence lead you to that conclusion?

  • LamberthG

    I am a bisexual and advocate that others choose to be such! We are born that way but others can choose to be so as it is so much fun. This eudemonist like both sexes. Why, I’d be a Bonobo [ paramory pepple] , had I the opportunity!

    • Lithp

      I think you’re missing the point of a sexual orientation.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X