Attention, Christian kids: If you like not having sex, not speaking the Lord’s name in vain, and not being gay, then you’ll love the newest trend in policing typical adolescent behaviors in the name of God. It’s called the The Christian Side-Hug, and it’s here to help the devout avoid the temptation of full frontal hugging. Don’t worry—it’s cool, because they made a “rap” song about it.

According to Stuff Christians Like, there’s no “exact scripture reference” banning normal hugging. But the Side-Hug does significantly lower the “risk of two crotches touching,” which has got to be in the Bible somewhere. Here’s how you do it:

Instead of face to face, you go side to side, putting your arm around the person and your hip against their’s. Still having a hard time mastering it? Pretend you’re taking a photo and you’re both looking at the camera together. The side hug, or A frame as it is also called, is safe for the whole family, friendly and above all holy.

The Christian Side-Hug strikes me as almost skeezily chaste—I’d much rather have a brief normal embrace with a stranger than a hip-tap from a person who I know sexualizes even the most mundane forms of human contact. But the Side-Hug itself is slightly less offensive than the medium being used to promote it: An appropriated version of “rap music” performed by a bunch of white youth pastors who think that mixing in some  gang-ish hand signals, tying on a bandana, and securing some fake bling will bring the youth to God.

The Christian Side-Hug rap comes courtesy of the Encounter Generation Conference, an annual Christian youth gathering which hopes to “bring the power, authenticity, and relevance of Jesus Christ to their culture.” I’m afraid that this potent combination of absurd chastity and mock hip-hop will be more likely to bring the power of a school-yard beat-down to these kids’ faces.

Thanks to the 163,364 of you who stopped by this week to read about Sarah Palin’s lip hair. I guess.

1. Sarah Palin, Lip Hairs and All, in which Newsweek focuses on Sarah Palin’s face.

2. The Final Hours of the Washington Blade, in which the Blade falls, but the DC Agenda rises.

3. Sarah Palin’s Entire Existence is Sexist, in which Newsweek focuses on Sarah Palin’s bod.

4. Rapists Who Don’t Think They’re Rapists, featuring trolls.

5. Chris Brown: I Love Women, in which Chris Brown joins the ranks of Mel Gibson, Tom Cruise, and the skeevy guy from The Continental.

Photo via Library of Virginia

According to DCist, women in D.C. are not at risk of losing their birth control coverage, as previously reported at RH Reality Check and picked up on this blog. Sommer Mathis received this statement from Department of Insurance, Securities and Banking spokesperson Michelle Phipps-Evans:

The Department of Insurance, Securities and Banking (DISB) has not made any changes in its position regarding contraceptive coverage in individual health insurance under Commissioner Gennet Purcell or prior to Commissioner Purcell’s appointment.

In fact, mandated coverages for insurance are not at the discretion of the insurance commissioner, but rather mandated coverages are those that are required by D.C. law. Contraceptive coverage is not now, nor has it ever been, a mandated coverage in D.C. DISB has researched its recent consumer complaint history and found no complaints about individual health insurance not covering contraception. It is surveying insurance companies writing individual health insurance in the District of Columbia and, while responses are still coming in, has found that there are individual plans available in D.C. that provide contraceptive coverage.

I called the DISB earlier today, and never heard back. But Commissioner Gennet Purcell weighed in on the comments: “District Residents/Sexist Bloggers: Please check your facts. I have not made any policy decisions or other DISB determinations regarding mandated contraception coverage in the District of Columbia. This is simply untrue.”

D.C. ladies on the pill: You may not know the name of Gennet Purcell, the woman that Mayor Adrian Fenty appointed to head up the D.C. Department of Insurance, Securities and Banking last August. You should. Purcell may be responsible for sending your birth control costs through the roof. Yesterday, Amie Newman of R.H. Reality Check reported that Purcell recently gave insurance companies the go-ahead to opt out of contraception coverage. [UPDATE: Purcell's office roundly denies Newman's story. Statement after the jump].

Under Purcell’s watch, private insurance companies operating in Washington DC are now allowed to opt out of covering contraception in individual plans. This coverage is considered “non-mandatory” by the insurance commissioner and some women are finding their birth control coverage suddenly dropped.

UPDATE: A call I made to DISB this afternoon was not returned, but a DISB rep issued the following statement to DCist:

The Department of Insurance, Securities and Banking (DISB) has not made any changes in its position regarding contraceptive coverage in individual health insurance under Commissioner Gennet Purcell or prior to Commissioner Purcell’s appointment.

In fact, mandated coverages for insurance are not at the discretion of the insurance commissioner, but rather mandated coverages are those that are required by D.C. law. Contraceptive coverage is not now, nor has it ever been, a mandated coverage in D.C. DISB has researched its recent consumer complaint history and found no complaints about individual health insurance not covering contraception. It is surveying insurance companies writing individual health insurance in the District of Columbia and, while responses are still coming in, has found that there are individual plans available in D.C. that provide contraceptive coverage.

Photo by nateOne, Creative Commons Attribution License 2.0

On the Daily Beast today, Amy Siskind decries Nancy Pelosi as a “feminist nightmare.” Why so serious? Because “the House Speaker pushed the Stupak amendment through—then moved to block the woman bidding for Ted Kennedy’s Senate seat.”

That first point makes sense—feminist women were thrown under the bus in order to pass the health care bill, and they’re right to be pissed about it. But what’s this business about forcing us to vote for lady politicians? “A major element in our battle for equality is getting women into positions of power,” Siskind explains. “The hope is that these leaders, once in place, would promote women’s issues and encourage the next generation of women leaders. Speaker Pelosi reveals a flaw in feminist thinking: There are exceptions. A powerful woman can in fact be an enemy to women.”

Speaker Pelosi has taught Siskind a very important lesson: Supporting female politicians is not the same as supporting women. If only Siskind had figured that out sooner, before she wrote a big ‘ol article entitled “Should Women Back Palin in 2012?”

The obvious answer to that piece’s titular question, of course, is “fuck no.” Sarah Palin is, officially, the worst. But Siskind defies feminist conventional wisdom by throwing out this compelling argument: “Here’s the difference: Sarah Palin played women’s basketball.”

Barring the possibility Siskind believes that sinking sweet jump shots is now a requirement for President of the United States (at this point, I wouldn’t put anything past her)—I’m going to guess that Siskind supports Palin for President because she is a lady. Siskind is willing to support a woman who definitely opposes abortion rights, is totally a firm believer in teen abstinence, and is most certainly opposed to sensible rape policy—but is a lady. Why, again? Oh yeah: Because “the hope is that these leaders, once in place, would promote women’s issues and encourage the next generation of women leaders.”

That is a really dumb thing to hope, Amy Siskind. And that false hope becomes—forgive me for borrowing the terminology here—a nightmare when you learn of the wide variety of women Siskind is willing to support as her leader, just because they are women:

We should embrace what the current Newsmax cover describes as The Newer Feminism, which has a home for leaders regardless of political affiliation: Hillary Clinton, Sarah Palin, Suzy Welch, and Kathy Ireland, among others.

So, in the next presidential election, I’m going to vote for Sarah Palin and hope she suddenly starts caring about women’s issues. I’m going to vote for Kathy Ireland and hope she suddenly turns into someone qualified to lead the nation in more than just underwear sales. And I’m going to vote for Hillary Clinton and hope she turns into a hippopotamus.

I kid. But just in case you weren’t convinced that Siskind doesn’t base her faith in female politicians on blind hope, consider this argument: “I know I’ll hear from critics who claim that Palin would not share my policy views,” Siskind writes. “But what makes them so sure?”

We aren’t stuck with Stupak because we have lifted an anti-woman woman to the Speaker of the House. We’re stuck with Stupak because we have elected plenty of representatives—male and female—who are really, actually anti-women in their policies. I’ll take a pro-woman man over Siskind’s theory of spontaneous feminist conversion any day. Besides, women are not the only group who need more representation in the U.S. government. It’s worth noting that Siskind converted from a lifelong Democrat to a McCain supporter because he chose a woman as his running-mate. On the one hand, that says a lot about Siskind’s eagerness to support women in government. On the other hand, I guess that means she doesn’t think it’s important for African-Americans to gain representation.

The most troubling thing about Siskind’s aggressive campaign to put more women in office—even if their policy positions directly oppose women—is its one caveat. Why support Palin and not Pelosi? To Siskind, we must always support female politicians, no matter what—unless that female politician does not aggressively campaign to put more women in office. Keep in mind—we don’t even know if Sarah Palin would support more women in government—that’s just another of Siskind’s “hopes.” If representation is going to be our one-and-only issue, we should all be supporting Amy Siskind for president. And that’s a very scary thought indeed.