“Why I’m Starting to Feel for Miss California,” by Mary Elizabeth Williams: Carrie Prejean may represent “the goody goody, the beauty queen, the topless model, the ‘dumb bitch,’ the would-be porn star” — but the public hatred for her says more about us than it does about her. We’re the ones still clinging “to the nearly impossible-to-uphold standards we set for our beauty monarchy — sexy but not too sexy, pure but not prudish, outspoken but only if we agree with the opinion.” Granted, this story was written before she truly refused to go away.

“Elizabeth Edwards’ Walk of Pain,” by Rebecca Traister: Why did a brilliant woman subject herself to a tortured media tour following the revelation of her husband’s infidelity? She seemed on a mission to regain her dignity. As Traister so eloquently puts it:

One way to do that, of course, is to be the person who says everything that everyone else might be saying behind your back, so that they don’t think you’re clueless or weak. Another is to develop your own account of what happened, including the vulnerabilities that you are able to turn into strengths by expressing them with grace and beauty. Another is to trash that bitch who banged your husband in front of the whole world, with Oprah on your side.

“Craigslist Xes Out Sex Ads,” by Tracy Clark-Flory: In May, Craigslist announced it was shuttering its infamous “erotic services” section and replacing it with an “adult” area, where ads would cost $10 and be rigidly screened for illegal services. Broadsheet spoke with prostitutes who made a guess as to where sex workers would turn next: the streets. But, shortly thereafter, it became clear that Craigslist’s supposed turnabout really only “amounted to a dimming of the flashing lights and a renaming of its virtual red light district” — all in response to a crusading state attorney general.

“The Thorn Birds of South Carolina,” by Amy Benfer: South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford’s e-mail exchanges with his mistress, “Maria,” were “part morality play, part bodice-ripper” and 100 percent riveting. They also reveal Sanford as “a guy struggling to reconcile his duties as a husband and father with being ‘impossibly,’ ‘hopelessly’ in love with another woman.” Ah, the timeless appeal of star-crossed sex scandals.

“Reminder: Roman Polanski Raped a Child,” by Kate Harding: After the world-renowned director was finally arrested in Switzerland, you wouldn’t think those five words — “Roman Polanski raped a child” — needed to be said. However, Broadsheet’s Kate Harding was one of the first to say what truly mattered, and in doing so she helped change the national conversation:

Let’s keep in mind that Roman Polanski gave a 13-year-old girl a Quaalude and champagne, then raped her, before we start discussing whether the victim looked older than her 13 years, or that she now says she’d rather not see him prosecuted because she can’t stand the media attention. Before we discuss how awesome his movies are or what the now-deceased judge did wrong at his trial, let’s take a moment to recall that according to the victim’s grand jury testimony, Roman Polanski instructed her to get into a jacuzzi naked, refused to take her home when she begged to go, began kissing her even though she said no and asked him to stop; performed cunnilingus on her as she said no and asked him to stop; put his penis in her vagina as she said no and asked him to stop; asked if he could penetrate her anally, to which she replied, “No,” then went ahead and did it anyway, until he had an orgasm.

“Cheering for Letterman’s Confession,” by Mary Elizabeth Williams: The “Late Show” host seemed to have learned a thing or two about how to properly handle a sex scandal from the mistakes of his philandering predecessors: “There were no Mark Sanford-style tears. No John Edwards-esque denials. No John Ensign-y contrite admissions that it was ‘absolutely the worst thing I’ve done in my life.’ No shame or blame. Just some straight-up, self-deprecating honesty.” In a year of sex, lies and scandals, how refreshing is that?

But, wait, there’s more! Come back tomorrow and you’ll find another gift waiting for you – the second half of our favorite posts of the year. (There were just too many sparkling gems to choose from, if we do say so ourselves.) Think of it as an extended Christmas or an abbreviated Hanukkah. Today, we bring you our top picks under the subjects of reproductive rights and motherhood; tomorrow, it’s sex, lies and scandal!

“Where Will Women Go Now?” by Kate Harding: After Dr. George Tiller’s murder, women were left with nearly no place to turn for late-term abortions. The importance of this was underscored by the outpouring of personal stories from people who had been under his care. As one patient powerfully put it, his clinic was “our heaven when we were living in hell.”

“The Conversion of a Pro-choice Warrior,” by Tracy Clark-Flory: Abby Johnson, former director of Planned Parenthood’s besieged clinic in Bryan, Texas, abruptly resigned from her job and joined forces with the very antiabortion protesters who had terrorized her for years. The 29-year-old talked to Broadsheet about her sudden “change of heart.”

“10 Reasons Abortion Must Be Covered,” by Lynn Harris: Anti-choice activists paint the issue of whether health insurance should cover abortion as a complicated issue, but we cut through the noise early on with a simple and straightforward guide to why it isn’t complicated, and why denying coverage means denying choice.

“The Opium (and Lion’s) Den of Motherhood,” by Broadsheet staff: Katie Roiphe waxed poetic about the all-consuming love she felt during the first six weeks with her second child in a provocative essay in Double X, “My Newborn Is Like a Narcotic.” (Provocative subhead: ”Why won’t feminists admit the pleasure of infants?”) It turned out to be a bit of a Rorschach for us. Some thought it feminist backlash, others called it a moving paean.

“Lay Off Those Not-So-Glamorous Teen Moms,” by Amy Benfer: A report finding that the teen birthrate had risen led to an attack on “romantic” and “glorious” portrayals of teen motherhood. But as former teen mom Amy Benfer points out, you can’t pin this one on “Juno,” Jamie Lynn and Bristol Palin, whose stories, by the way, weren’t the least bit “glamorous.”

“Sarah Palin, One Tough Mama,” by Amanda Fortini: When Palin resigned as Alaska governor, she left dropped jaws and question marks in her wake. But looking at her short, powerful public career offered an indelible lesson about the “appeal of the strong, confident, maternal woman.” Being a “mama grizzly” doesn’t exactly qualify one to be vice president, but “the tough mother persona was one we hadn’t seen before in a female candidate running at the national level” — and it’s a trope that isn’t likely to disappear anytime soon.

A lot, it turns out. A colleague e-mailed around a Playboy.com blog post about Valenti’s appearance in the New York Times’ Sunday Vows column and the e-mail responses immediately poured in. The post at issue didn’t inspire the commentary (its main offering was an immensely lame joke about Valenti’s husband telling the Times reporter that he didn’t care for raw fish) so much as it gave my fellow Broadsheet writers an excuse to throw down their final thoughts on this much-debated union. – Tracy Clark-Flory

Sarah Hepola: A friend of mine recently said, “Oh my god, did you see Jessica Valenti in the New York Times Style section? That made me SICK!” and I said, “Why would that make you sick?” (because, while I personally have no interest in being in the Vows section, I thought it was fine, whatever), and she said something about “Gah! Weddings!” and I said, “Yeah, I guess I don’t really care how people get married” and she said, “But it’s Jessica Valenti! You just don’t hold yourself up to some ideal and then …” but my mind drifted because, frankly, I was really hungry.

I understand we covered the whole flap about her having a wedding in the first place — which I thought was ludicrous then and still do. But, seriously now: Are people mad about this?

Amy Benfer: You know, I really can’t believe that anyone seriously thinks merely getting married is an anti-feminist act. The uproar over the Vows section seems to be more about the section being an icon of smug, bourgeois status-grubbing (you know, to generalize). Sort of like bragging about the size of one’s rock (something Jessica claims not to have done). While I’ve grumbled about a woman or two who seemed to be unduly proud of scoring a Vows column, it just doesn’t seem to be so much of a feminist issue as it is a status issue.

And while I guess you could see a Times wedding announcement as an entire part of the wedding-industrial complex — along with the ring, the dress, the destination wedding, etc. — I’m not sure why it seems such a betrayal. What is she supposed to do, refuse to talk with the reporters? And if she does, should we read that as a “Fuck you Wedding-Industrial Complex”? Or would we just, you know, not read about it at all? Like I said, I’m more often grossed out by that section than not. But in their defense, they’ve been using that space to promote gay couples, poor couples, even, famously, that formerly homeless couple.

A feminist wedding seems irresistible. There’s a riddle in here somewhere about a master’s tools and a master’s house. Guess it depends where you come down.

Rebecca Traister: As life brings us all kinds of surprises and complications, I’ve found that many people who have strongly held opinions about marriage — say, a lifelong desire to walk down the aisle in a Princess Di gown and stuff cake in someone’s face — can shift in a heartbeat after befriending one gay couple who can’t marry, or falling in love with a partner who doesn’t want to, or can’t because they’re the same gender as you. The personal is political is true in reverse, that the political becomes personal at some point, and can change rapidly. I know some women who talked and talked about weddings when we were younger, and who now find themselves single parents by choice, or in long-term relationships with men or women they don’t plan to marry.

This clarifies for me why the Jessica issue is fraught for some people: They see her as trying to have both — the staunchly held political view, the books about the evils of the Wedding Industrial Complex, the intersectionality-based approach to marriage as an exclusive institution and the Vows column, the bustle, etc. — without admitting a shift on either side. In a funny way, I wonder if even her anti-wedding detractors would have been more satisfied if she’d just said, “You know, falling in love and getting sucked into the complexities of party-planning has made me feel differently about some aspects of the marriage business.” I am not saying that that would have been a good idea, and I am not saying I agree with her detractors. Jessica is my friend and I am very happy for her. I’m just wondering aloud.

Tracy Clark-Flory: My feelings about marriage are very conflicted. I want very much to enter into a legally recognized union of some sort, at some point in time, with the man I love. But I detest the state’s involvement in what is an exclusionary institution. I hate to pull the “I have gay friends and family” card but … I do have gay friends and family and, as Rebecca points out, that matters. I refuse to be a part of any club that wouldn’t have them as members.

That said? I don’t think there is any one right way to personally respond to marriage inequality, and I don’t think there is any one right way to have a feminist wedding. There’s a dissonance between Jessica’s Vows column and her past criticisms of the wedding industry, and I’d love to see her address that — not because I think she needs to apologize for having the wedding she wanted, but because that kind of personal and political conflict is normal! It’s inevitable and understandable. Feminist theory is one thing, functionally living (and being raised) in this world of ours is quite another; and good luck to those who aim to perfectly reconcile the two — you’ll need it.

Judy Berman: As far as weddings go, I don’t have strong views. At least at this point in my life, marriage isn’t my glass of champagne (although, should I ever desperately need health insurance, prepare to watch me reconsider). Wildly expensive, bridezilla-making nuptials tend to make me shudder. But a wedding is about what the couple (and/or their family) wants, and Jessica Valenti’s choices don’t seem particularly offensive to me. Perhaps, for her, Vows was yet another public forum for making the statement that feminists can get married, on their own terms. Or, you know, maybe she had more selfish and personal reasons. Either way, I’d still rather read about Valenti than yet another finance/P.R. couple with a Vera Wang gown and a second home in the Hamptons.

That said, Vows’ inclusion of the “fish story” raised my eyebrows a bit, too — but not because I think the Times meant to include the unfortunate subtext Playboy points out. To me, it felt like an attempt to add color of the “Feminists are so pushy! They make men do things they don’t like!” variety. If that wasn’t the point, then why even bring up what sounds like a pretty standard first date?

Kate Harding: My basic take is that objections to the wedding and/or Vows column fall into four categories, and the extent to which I’ll tolerate people giving Valenti (with whom I am Internet-friendly) and her husband, Andrew Golis, crap for any of it depends on which of those categories seems to be the primary source of the objection:

1. Marriage is anti-feminist, because it’s a patriarchal institution based on the idea that women were property, blah blah blah.
2. Marriage is anti-feminist if one claims to take an intersectional perspective (which Valenti does), because gay people are still excluded from it most places, and thus getting straight-married is a conscious exploitation of privilege unbecoming a public figure committed to social justice.
3. The Vows column is a classist, sexist celebration of everything reasonable people, especially feminists, find appalling about the Wedding Industrial Complex.
4. I hate Jessica Valenti, because she’s so successful/talented/pretty/in love/sorta famous/New York-based, and taking her down a peg is the next best thing to being all of that myself.

1 and 2, in my opinion, are perfectly valid arguments that can provoke thoughtful and important discussions — although I’m married, so I obviously don’t find them 100 percent persuasive. No. 3 is the plain truth, but outside a fairly narrow segment of mostly New Yorkers, who gives a shit about the Vows column? I can appreciate the hypocrisy argument there; I just can’t muster the will to care.

No. 4, unfortunately, rarely stands alone and announces itself — it most often inflects the other three arguments, and to what extent it does is variable and always open to interpretation. So all I can say is, I’ve perceived a whole lot of it, and it irritates me so much I’d probably be inclined to give Jessica a pass if she’d let the NYT photographer remove her garter with his teeth. Reasonable people can disagree about whether marriage is inherently anti-feminist, but when public criticism of a happy, successful women turns into an Internet-wide Schadenfreude-fest, the sexist undertones are pretty blatant.

Finally, a feminist wedding really isn’t the point; a feminist marriage is. And I wish them both the best of luck in figuring that one out — as privately as possible — for the rest of their lives.

Mary Elizabeth Williams: All of the tongue wagging and head shaking and second guessing that’s gone on over Valenti’s nuptials are pretty much a grand version of what any bride, anywhere, has to go through. To be honest, the NYT wedding section generally makes me hork, but that doesn’t mean I get to be the buzz kill on anybody else’s Very Special Day. A wedding is one of life’s ultimate intersections of the public and private sphere, which usually means that every jackass you’ve ever known and many you don’t will gladly volunteer their opinions on what you’re doing wrong. And I have never, I mean never, met a married woman who didn’t have some story about who was pissed off regarding the execution of her wedding day.

The thing about being a human being of any gender is that you come into the world with a whole lot of historical expectations of how you’re supposed to behave, and those get kicked up like crazy when you decide to have a go at cleaving unto another. And whether you invite 400 people or two, whether you run away to Reno or get written up in the Vows section, you’re never going to make everybody happy. So you might as well do it your own way and not mind what the world thinks anyway. Isn’t that what feminism is all about?