Even if my mom will never believe that my brother's psoriasis wasn't caused by the discreet, classic Mr. Met on his upper arm, it's pretty much acknowledged that tattoos are not the cause celebre they once were (save, that is, in D.C. offices and Orthodox cemeteries.) Indeed, says the Washington Post, "almost 40 percent of Americans 18 to 40 have at least one tattoo."

And in Hong Kong, where ink has long been the exclusive province of triad gangs, tattoos are on the (discreet) rise. Says the Sydney Morning Herald, "Some men in Hong Kong do not accept their girlfriends having tattoos...But people are more open now — the tattoo is losing the bad-guy status it once had." And parents are still liable to be shocked, making one woman's secret "hand-sized portrait of her surgeon father at work" both touching and subversive.

And that double-standard may not be restricted to other cultures. As my mother said to me the other day, "Well, it's bad enough that Charlie would do that...but you never would, would you? It's completely different!" That depends on whether I can find an artist to do her full justice, of course.

In D.C. Area, Tattoos Are Largely Taboo From 9 To 5 [Washington Post]\
Hong Kong Women Shrug Off Tattoo Taboo [Sydney Morning Herald]

Highlights:

Washington is a small ‘c' conservative kind of society, in which people are aware of the traditions and boundaries of appropriate behavior," said Wayne Berman, a Republican lobbyist. "It's a city about rules, about conventions and if there's no keg at the party, it doesn't get crashed.

"At most parties in New York or Los Angeles, a bouncer will make a snap decision about whether to let you in depending on your looks or some shtick that that sets you apart," says Juleanna Glover, a Washington hostess and a founder of the Ashcroft Group, a legal and consulting firm. "In Washington, there are no snap decisions. It's a lifetime of wise decisions that make it so that you receive a state dinner invitation."

When the Salahis put their collection of digital snaps of the state dinner on Facebook, they flouted all the unwritten rules of power-wall etiquette. (Including a new one that nobody had thought to mention: Don't put your power wall on Facebook.) As an enhancer of prestige, these photographic menageries always target a certain audience - constituents in the case of politicians, potential clients in the case of lobbyists. It tells those audiences, "I know how to get things done."

"Washington has its own version of a celebrity-driven culture, but these people are unattractive and lack charisma so what makes them celebrities is their substance," says Eli Attie, a former White House speech writer in the Clinton administration and now a writer and producer for "House," the Fox television show.

You get the idea. (Indeed, apparently the self-promoting Salahis are such an anomaly in the greater Washington area that Virginia Gov. Tim Kaine declared, "If somebody had said to me, 'Hey, some Virginians tried to crash a party and there are 7 1/2 million Virginians, who do you think it might be?' I think I might have been able to guess it within five seconds, because he's [Tareq Salahi] such a promoter.") And if you flout these "rules" and wear fashion-forward clothes, well, you're suspect. But, did it occur to no one that maybe the Salahis (and the other crashers now crawling out of the woodwork) were just swept up in the blitz of pieces declaring the capital young, hip and happening? They were told things had changed! That the town was swarming with idealistic young go-getters who didn't wear pantyhose! That high fashion had returned to the capital! (Of course, some would argue that, being a large city, it is, and was, rather more multi-faceted than this, and that the Magnetic Fields could have told you that. Also that a few weeks ago a guy in a bar told me that D.C. was "a very sexy town" with "sexier women than New York." So.) And, et tu, Washington Post? In the context of tattoos, one young woman is quoted today saying, "D.C. is culturally one of the most conservative cities I've ever lived in." In the spirit of sweeping statements we say: blame the fickle media. Including us! (Look, we're very busy dealing with bouncers, okay?)

Dinner Crashers Walked All Over Social Code [NY Times]
36 Hours In Washington, D.C. [NY Times]

Disney Actress Snuck Into Inauguration [CBS]
NYC: "OK, DC, You're Hip Now." [DC Met Blogs]
Dinner 'Crashers' Stood Out Years Ago [CNN]
In D.C. Area, Tattoos Are Largely Taboo From 9 To 5 [Washington Post]

[Washington, D.C., December 9. Image via Getty]

WASHINGTON - DECEMBER 09: Activists from Avaaz pull inflatable manequins out of the reflecting pool on the National Mall after throwing them in to protest climate change December 9, 2009 in Washington, DC. Wearing t-shirts that say 'CO2 Kills,' the manequins are supposed to represent the more than 300,000 people who die from climate-related illness, according to Avaaz. The organization is calling on U.S. President Barack Obama to 'earn' his Nobel Peace Prize during the UN climate talks in Copenhagen. (Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

In a Washington Post piece titled "grappling with a wealth of guilt," we learn about the particular burdens of reluctant noblesse oblige, or at least the Adams-Morgan version thereof.

They are young people who have inherited or stand to inherit big money, and they are spending their post-college years living modestly and working to address the needs of the poor, hungry and politically disadvantaged. But the privilege they grew up with and the money coming their way nag at them in ways few people not in their position can fathom.

Now, it's easy to be snide about this sort of thing - dismiss it as a sort of earnest, modern-day Petit Trianon - which the article is quick to address. The meeting the author describes was, he says,

a rare chance for members of the Resource Generation, a nonprofit group whose 35-and-younger members devote themselves to philanthropic work for social justice, to talk about their guilt and their views on social inequalities without fear of eye-rolling from people who might view them as spoiled rich kids playing at helping the downtrodden.

Later he adds, "The young wealthy are keenly aware that there is little public sympathy for the moral doubts they struggle with. In a harsh economy, few people worry about the insecurities of heirs in their 20s and 30s who choose to work in social change philanthropy."

And yes, everyone in the piece does good work: they give to charity; one is a teacher; several work for non-profits. And they, too, have health and family problems. Nevertheless, parts of the article still read like parody, and the D.C. Young People with whom I spoke were not amused by what was perceived as a "seriously doubtful" "non-phenomenon" and unsuccessful attempt to be "edgy and contrarian." (Hey, Zagat is onto something!) Said one denizen sourly, "All I know is, when I used to work in a high-end hat boutique for a bit during college breaks, I can assure you that none of the moneyed youths to whom I sold $75 silk headbands appeared to have any serious qualms about the issue." (Different crowd, I guess.) Another queried, "in that picture why does the guy look like he's not standing on anything?" Perhaps the last word goes to the Logan Circle resident who wrote me, "yeah, there are rich people here, but if anything this feels like less of an issue in this economy...because so many of us are relatively lucky, just to be employed, fed, well, and dealing with a "survivor's guilt" that didn't exist a few years ago."

Because, here's the thing: there's a presumption here that the rest of the world is judging people...for being rich and living normally? For giving away money? For being conflicted? And, the thing is, we don't care. Most of us don't mind. Nice person who came into money and does good work? Great. We might envy the security, but I don't think we resent it. One guy in the piece says, "I definitely feel like I am at war between my desires instilled in me to eat out at nice restaurants and my better sense and principles," and I wanted to shout, "it doesn't help anyone if you don't go to a restaurant! Do it! If I had money, I would!" Like D.C., New York is full of rich people, many of them young. Some of them are, like these people, conscientious and civic-minded. Others, in Born Rich. Most of us are aware of this and aren't thinking about or resenting them nearly as much as they seem to imagine.

Here's what I do resent: when people pretend they can afford SoHo lofts on their artist incomes; when they're scrupulous about never paying a cent more than they owe at dinner because they think people are using them; when they complain about having to go on extravagant family vacations; and, most of all, when they talk about buying brownstones in "marginal neighborhoods." That's what we resent: not people having money, not their giving it to charity. I can even understand needing to vent about the guilt - although, don't you kind of get that off your chest? How often do you need to wallow in it? - and it's not their fault that someone wanted to profile them and left them open to cheap cracks from raging creative underclassers like me who, relative to much of the world, is still in a pretty well-fed percentile. It's all degrees of guilt and narcissism and analysis that, ironically, separates us further and further from any of the actual issues we're discussing.

The other evening, my grandfather, born very poor, reflected on feeling guilty "as a former Communist" for now living in such a swank area code. "I really feel like it's a sin," he said. "But at least there are like-minded people in the building." Then the doorman brought up some takeout.

Grappling With A Wealth Of Guilt [Washington Post]

[Washington, D.C., November 5. Image via Getty]

WASHINGTON - NOVEMBER 05: Anti-abortion demonstrator Diana Roccograndi of Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania, wear a paper mask of Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) while protesting outside the Cannon House Office Building November 5, 2009 in Washington, DC. The protesters were voicing their opposition to Congress' health care reform legislation, saying it supports government funding of abortion. (Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

Now that D.C. is the center of all things hot and sexy and now - with real housewives to prove it - obviously, they needed to step up the romance! Enter the hiply un-spaced "OnLove," which caters to the insatiable appetites of the capital's lovahs. Seriously, it's awesome. It's like "Vows" mixed with People, only dressed up in Brooks Brothers!

Wedding Write-Ups: First of all, these are done in this "cheeky," blind-date style.
First impressions: Missy: "I thought he was cute and a little geeky."
Ben: "Just what I was looking for . . ."
Note: you would feel comfortable leaving your dog, kids, and mail key with every single one of these couples, despite their avowed whimsy.

Cute Human Interest Story of a couple who's been married 65 years. Their secret? "Be nice."

Celebs: "Stars get married, too — and we love to watch them." The first "celebrity" in the gallery is Jenna Bush. The second one is Britney with K-Fed. And just when you wonder how they'll top that? Yes. Rod Stewart.

Cakes: The best one looks like a bucket of crabs with a box of Old Bay on the side.

Wisdom: "I don't believe that you're meant to be with everyone that you date...as long as you learn, and love and grow, you can be with someone for the rest of your life."

Given that the first installment rates a 110 on the entertainment scale, this is going to be hard to top. But on the off chance there's some kind of "House and Senate Romance Tips" or a story on "Crossing The Aisle!" or "Capital Crimes of the Heart," we'll be watching.

OnLove [Washington Post]

[Washington, D.C., March 5. Image via AP]

Yes, that's right: MSNBC cut away from former President George H.W. Bush crying about his hospitalized wife for Brad Pitt.

Dating in the time of the pink slip means feeling the squeeze of the drastically reduced paycheck, the sudden sting of the layoff. From investment bankers to real estate developers to construction workers, no job means no buying rounds of $15 martinis for a pretty woman and her girlfriends. No hosting parties in the bachelor loft. And often, no idea how to present one's new self on the dating market.

The piece is evenly divided between guys who used to coast on their money -"I was so used to using my financial situation to leverage my dating" - and the women who are mad they aren't treated to everything anymore. On the upside, they all seem to deserve each other! Guys in the piece say things like, "It comes back to this whole manhood thing. Like, can you be the provider, not just for yourself but for others?" Women, meanwhile, uniformly expect to be comped at dinner, bemoan being asked out less, say it's ok if the guys don't spend as long as they act like Aalpha males" and are quoted, "I guess I'm kind of traditional. So if a guy can't really take you out or doesn't have the money or the state of mind to take girls out, then it's not going to go anywhere."

Apparently these youngsters "developed their dating skills in fat times" and don't know how to date without an expense account. One dude used to say things like, "You're not going to see much of me in the next 15 years if we start dating, because I'm going to be making a lot of money," and thinks this drive helped him land his girlfriend. How can he win ladies if he can't produce charming bons mots like that?! Now he lives at home and has to take the Chinatown bus to see her; miraculously, given the attitude of most of the women quoted in the piece, she's still with him. But the plucky kids are willing to look for inexpensive dates with underemployed Alpha males, and even get creative! One guy talks about taking girls hiking or on motorcycle rides to vineyards and says, "Now I'm more inclined to take a girl to a good ethnic restaurant...I was constantly worried about being judged for how much money I was spending." One hopes the women are prepared to slum it!

I understand this piece only purports to speak to a certain segment of the population, many of whom worked in particular areas like finance. But...seriously? 20-somethings think this way? Because the straits they bemoan sound like the everyday dating lives of everyone I know, even in the Cap. If so, I feel for the kids in this piece, because it would seem the poor things are at an impasse: the women won't date penniless dudes, the men feel like emasculated losers cause they can't roll Don Draper-style, and it seems all of them are bound to wither away in a morass of self-imposed 1950s loneliness.

Market For Romance Goes From Bullish To Sheepish [Washington Post]

Weirdest moment of last night's Huffington Post ball at the Newseum: New York Times politics reporter Jeff Zeleny back to back with the guy from that new romcom with crazy Katherine Heigl. Neither had any idea who the other is. He's hot, even if he is the poor man's Clive Owen. Right by them was former MSNBC head turned publicist Dan Abrams. Blecho. Robert DeNiro and his lovely partner Grace Higjtower were in good spirits; Martha Stewart, who is always at these DC parties, and always dressed in the same 70s-era nature tones (running the gamut from peach to beige to ecru) was down by the door by midnight, undoubtedly waiting for her poor driver. This was a confusing party. The guest list was literally as thick as a phone book. This party existed, I think, to convey Arianna's social dominance but i'm not sure that message got across: not exclusive enough, and, relatedly, too crowded. The coat check alone was the size of a NYC block. Arianna made a couple of unintelligible speeches. If she was smart, she was appearing via satellite from home! Getting home from the Newseum, which is on Pennsylvania Ave and fifty feet from the Mall, was a horrorshow: fences and barricades and cops and, well, wow. DC is very nanny-state. The automated voices on the Metro are like something out of Robocop, repeating endlessly as people get trapped in the doors. The trashcans in the museums actually say "thank you" when you put trash in them, which is gross. But nothing can disrupt the glee today! Not crowds, not cold, not annoying social control measures. Today is awesome!

—10 minutes later—

Okay I have NO IDEA where I am but there are a LOT of people here. Some white ones too, as they did not stay home. But what is genius is that there are volunteer greeters everywhere who are like, HI, GOOD MORNING, WHHHOOOOO! Which reminds you that this is a party and you are supposed to be happy and nice to everyone. It's yet another brilliantanifestatiom of the Obama organizational machine. OMG MY HANDS ARE COLD.

All quiet in Arlington, except for the power-walkers! Apparently people still do that. D.C.'s glory days were the 80s, and they never passed, which Burn After Reading exhibited quite nicely. (Brie-passing at parties!) So driving into DC last night was a trip. There were all these helpful big light-up signs that said "NO PARKING IN DC" and stuff like that, which was hilariously unuseful. We came in through NorthEast and can I just say something for our friend Sister Toldja? It was a black people party! Totally excellent. The thing about this inauguration is: yes white people will come in droves. But also they won't leave NW, Chevy Chase and Arlington for one second. So they are easy to avoid. Also I saw a graffiti swastika in a rest stop bathroom on the way down but mid-day tomorrow, it will disappear when racism ends with our new awesome President.

[Capitol Hill, July 24. Image via Splash.]

One thing the Post story didn't touch on yet is the timeline. Did you know Condit's wife was in town (and staying with him) at the time Chandra disappeared? Or that when Chandra went for what was likely her final run (sometime after 12:30 in the afternoon of May 1, 2001), Condit was already up on the Hill after which he went for a rather public dinner? Yeah, I didn't know that either, despite obsessively following the Washington Post's coverage at the time.

Also, all the rumors that Mrs. Condit was upset weren't true, the police totally leaked their first interview, which was why Condit wasn't keen to talk to the cops a second time and his lawyer kept him from copping to anything about his sex life. Oh, and he agreed to a secret, sit-down meeting with the Levys and their lawyer but Mr. Levy wouldn't go because he'd already decided Condit killed her and Mrs. Levy didn't listen to anything because Condit was shorter and uglier (and older) than she'd expected and thus she decided that he'd killed Chandra, too.

I mean, yes, Condit was a serial philanderer but it was aggressive lawyer who told him to keep his yap shut about his sex life because of course a married serial philander would be suspected of offing one of his mistresses (he was seeing a flight attendant at the same time). On the other hand, being a serial philander was what made the police more suspicious and having a lawyer advise him not to cop to where his peen had been made the situation worse.

Worse still is that by focusing on dudes she knew, the cops missed finding Chandra's body or connecting it to other missing persons cases. By focusing their anxiety and parental disapproval on Condit (let alone holding press conferences to be able to pressure to cops into investigating him more thoroughly), her parents did their end goal — finding their daughter and punishing who hurt her — no good. Five days into the series and the case is already fucked, which I guess explains how the Post has so much to write about.

Who Killed Chandra Levy? [Washington Post]

• Try not to get murdered It seems like an obvious thing, but even reading about the case I feel kind of weird wondering how my life would look to a zillion strangers.
• Make sure someone always knows where you are It might've helped Chandra (or at least would've helped the case) and — if he actually was innocent the whole time — it totally would've helped Condit.
• Remember that sometime's there's no explanation As a crime victim, the hardest thing for my family to accept on some level was that sometimes violence really is random. While it was important for the cops to know that Chandra and Condit were an item, anyone who recalls the case probably remembers how hard they pushed him as a suspect. In part, it's probably because he was a less-random explanation than the unimaginable horror of random violence. Did they do right? Possibly not — Condit was never charged and the cops didn't seemingly look that hard for an alternate explanation.
• Don't fuck a married man Look, seriously, whatever he says, just say no. If he's betraying her, he'll betray you. It's comforting to believe that you're different, that you're special but, really, as Chandra never really got the chance to find out, she wasn't. Congressman Condit was nicknamed "Condom" during his stint in the Statehouse.
• If you are going to fuck a married guy, don't buy his bullshit Fine, so you've made your choice. But don't fall for the whole, "I'm totally going to leave my wife and marry you" line. Is there anything more cliché? If he was going to leave his wife, he would've already done so or or would be in the process of doing so, which is a long and painful process. Instead, he's inserting his penis into your vagina. He's got exactly what he wants.
• Don't fuck around on your wife This is 2008, that was 2000, you are not required to be married, even as a Congressman. If Condit had been a single skirtchaser, no one would've had as much cause of question his motives and he wouldn't have faced the same opprobrium (see: Ford, Congressman Harold).
• If you are going to cheat on your wife, don't like to the cops about it Fine, you've also made your choice, and I'm judging you. But the cops aren't there to judge you for where you stick your dick, and lying about it makes you look sketchy and guilty.

I mean, basically, the whole thing was apparently a mess from start to finish. Maybe Condit had nothing to do with her disappearance, maybe she would've been murdered anyway, maybe the police would've fucked this up so bad from the get-go regardless that no one will ever know what happened to her. But, if there hadn't been so much dirty laundry to look through before they started looking for Chandra, maybe we would know the answer to those questions.

Who Killed Chandra Levy? [Washington Post]
Judge Dismisses Ex-Congressman Condit's Slander Suit Against Author Dominick Dunne [Minneapolis Star-Tribune]

During the Kennedy administration, this city looked fabulous. It comes from the top down....I think we're style-challenged in '08.

Karl Rove, consider yourself warned: Tim Gunn does not suffer uninspired fashion fools lightly.

D.C's dressed, but failing to impress [The Politico]