www.loveisallyouneedthemovie.com For press/media/investing inquires contact: info@wingspanpictures.com www.wingspanpictures.com "Teen bulling and teen suicide based on someone's sexual preference is ridiculous - and this film turns the tables on modern society. What IF the shoe was on the other foot?. " --K.Rocco Shields (Creator/Director) WingSpan Pictures is currently seeking financing of the feature version of the film to bring it to a bigger audience.
Attitudes
Slut shaming.
From Buzzfeed:
Pictures Of Teenage Girl Engaging In Oral Sex At Eminem Concert Spark Intense Online Slut-Shaming Many are furious that the teenage girl involved is being called a slut, but the boy is being celebrated as a hero. WARNING: This post contains graphic content.
A sample of the commentary:
And a sample of people pointing out the double standard:
See the entire article, including all the photos and commentary, here.
Circumcision debate redux.
If you're at all interested in the debate about circumcision, the following two pieces are must-reads. The article from Slate by a freelance writer lays out all the points made by those who support circumcision, referencing the relevant research, and sharply criticizes those who speak out against it. The piece from the Good Men Project, written by an Oxford academic whose work includes psychology, philosophy, and ethics, is a response to the Slate article. It counters many of the points made and addresses the research cited.
So first, the article from Slate:
How Circumcision Broke the Internet
A fringe group is drowning out any discussion of facts.
By Mark Joseph Stern
There are facts about circumcision—but you won’t find them easily on the Internet. Parents looking for straightforward evidence about benefits and risks are less likely to stumble across the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention than Intact America, which confronts viewers with a screaming, bloodied infant and demands that hospitals “stop experimenting on baby boys.” Just a quick Google search away lies the Circumcision Complex, a website that speculates that circumcision leads to Oedipus and castration complexes, to say nothing of the practice’s alleged brutal physiological harms. If you do locate the rare rational and informed circumcision article, you’ll be assaulted by a vitriolic mob of commenters accusing the author of encouraging “genital mutilation.”
How did it come to this? For years, circumcision was a private decision, encouraged by many doctors, practiced by most families (in America, at least), but little discussed in the public sphere. Yet in the past two decades, a fringe group of self-proclaimed “intactivists” has hijacked the conversation, dismissing science, slamming reason, and tossing splenetic accusations at anyone who dares question their conspiracy theory. For doctors, circumcision remains a complex, delicate issue; for researchers, it’s an effective tool in the fight for global public health. But to intactivists, none of that matters. The Internet is supposed to be a marketplace of ideas, where human reason leads the best ideas to triumph. There are plenty of other loud fringe groups that flood the Internet with false information, but none of them has been as successful as the intactivists at drowning out reasoned discourse. In the case of circumcision, the marketplace of ideas has been manipulated—and thanks to intactivists, the worst ideas have won out.
Like most fringe groups, the anti-circumcision faction is almost comically bizarre, peddling fabricated facts, self-pity, and paranoia. The intactivists also obsess about sex to an alarming degree. Still, some of their tactics are shrewd. The first rule of anti-circumcision activism, for instance, is to never, ever say circumcision: The movement prefers propaganda-style terms like male genital cutting and genital mutilation, the latter meant to invoke the odious practice of female genital mutilation. (Intactivistslike to claim the two are equivalent, an utter falsity that is demeaning to victims of FGM.)
Read the rest here.
And the response from the Good Men Project:
An Open Letter to the Author of ‘How Circumcision Broke the Internet’
By Brian D. Earp
Dear Mr. Stern,
I recently read your article, “How Circumcision Broke the Internet” for Slate magazine [republished as "'Intactivists' Against Circumcision" in Canada's National Post]. I understand your concern about overheated rhetoric in public debates as well as the misuse of science to support untenable positions. As a scientist and ethicist who studies circumcision professionally, I will admit that I have seen this happen on both sides of this particular controversy. I think, however, that in your hurry to admonish “the intactivists” for pushing their anti-circumcision arguments too far, you may have fallen prey to some of that very same rhetorical excess (as well as misuse of science) in your own piece.
First, when you said that circumcision used to be “practiced by most families” I’m glad that you added the qualifier, “in America at least.” This is an important point. Circumcision is extremely uncommon in most parts of the world, and about 70-80% of men globally are left intact. Over 70% of those who are circumcised come from the Muslim world where it is done as a rite of passage; it is also a rite of passage in countries like South Africa, where at least 39 young men recently died from complications related to circumcision, such as excessive bleeding from their penises. Europeans, by contrast, (including the British; as well Latin Americans, Canadians, Australians, New Zealanders, the Japanese, the Chinese, Russians, and Indians–that is, most of the developed world) very rarely circumcise outside of religious communities (if at all). A majority of doctors from these countries insist that any “health benefits” conferred by circumcision–even when the procedure is performed correctly–are dubious at best. In fact, 37 of Europe’s most pre-eminent medical authorities (along with the distinguished Canadian pediatrician, Dr. Noni MacDonald) have recently expounded on this point in the flagship journal Pediatrics:
Only one of the arguments put forward by the American Academy of Pediatrics [concerning potential health benefits for circumcision] has some theoretical relevance in relation to infant male circumcision; namely, the possible protection against urinary tract infections in infant boys, which can easily be treated with antibiotics without tissue loss. The other claimed health benefits, including protection against HIV/AIDS, genital herpes, genital warts, and penile cancer, are questionable, weak, and likely to have little public health relevance in a Western context, and they do not represent compelling reasons for surgery before boys are old enough to decide for themselves.
Read the rest here.
Perverts.
A great read from Aeon:
Perversions
Atheists and homosexuals were called perverts once. Why do we still see perversion where no harm is done?
by Jesse Bering
Perverts weren’t always the libidinous bogeymen we imagine when we think of the term today. Sexual mores have certainly shifted dramatically over the course of history and across societies, but the very word ‘pervert’ once literally meant something else entirely to what it does now. For example, the peculiar discovery that some peasant during the reign of Charles II used conch shells for anal gratification or inhaled a stolen batch of ladies’ corsets while touching himself in the town square would have been merely coincidental to any accusations of his being perverted (though it wouldn’t have helped his case). Seventeenth-century terms such as ‘skellum’ (scoundrel) or reference to his ‘mundungus’ (smelly entrails) might have applied, but calling this man a ‘pervert’ for his peccadilloes would have made little sense at the time.
Linguistically, the sexual connotation feels natural. The ring of it — purrrvert — is at once melodious and cloying, producing a noticeable snarl on the speaker’s face, while the image of a lecherous child molester, a trench-coated flasher in a park, a drooling pornographer, or perhaps a serial rapist pops into one’s head. Yet as Shakespeare might remind us, a pervert by any other name would smell as foul. For the longest time, in fact, to be a pervert wasn’t to be a sexual deviant; it was to be an atheist.
[...]
One key reason for this shift can be found in the work of the British scholar Havelock Ellis, who back in 1897 popularised the term ‘pervert’ in his descriptions of patients with atypical sexual desires. Earlier scholars, among them Richard von Krafft-Ebing, the Austro-German psychiatrist regarded by many as the father of studies in deviant sexuality, had already sexualised the term, but Ellis’s accessible writing found a wider general audience and ultimately led to this meaning of ‘pervert’ becoming solidified in the common vernacular.
[...]
Today, the word pervert just sounds silly, or at least provincial, when used to refer to gays and lesbians. In a growing number of societies, homosexuals are slowly, begrudgingly, being allowed entry into the ranks of the culturally tolerated. But plenty of other sexual minorities remain firmly entrenched in the orientation blacklist. Although, happily, we’re increasingly using science to defend gays and lesbians, deep down most of us (religious or not) still appear to be suffering from the illusion of a creator who set moral limits on the acceptable sexual orientations. Our knee-jerk perception of individuals who similarly have no choice whatsoever over what arouses them sexually (be they paedophiles, exhibitionists, transvestites, or fetishists, to name but a few) is that they’ve wilfully, deliberately, and arrogantly strayed from the right course. In other words, we see them as ‘true perverts’. Whereas gays and lesbians are perceived by more and more people as ‘like normal heterosexuals’ because they didn’t choose to be the way they are, we assume that these others somehow did.
Read the rest here.
Letter from grandpa.
Asking 100 girls/guys for sex.
There are several important sex differences in sexuality, some related to biology and some related to the social environment, learning, etc. Often, biology and environment interact. Recent research is showing that some of the sex differences that were thought to be quite large actually aren't - men and women are far more similar than they are different, as discussed in class.
These clips depict an interesting pseudo-experiment examining sex differences in responses to propositions to have sex. From a scientific perspective, the experiment isn't particularly rigorous, but it's still of interest. The results aren't at all surprising, both in terms of biology, and social rules and environment. Heterosexual sex is more risky for women, as they are the ones who can become pregnant. Socially, women are judged more negatively for a huge variety of sexual behaviour, including causal sex. Also, a stranger approaching someone for sex must be considered in the context of male-perpetrated sexual assault.
Here's the description of the experiment:
Social Experiment: Asking 100 Girls For Sex
There is a saying that goes that if you ask enough girls (in this case 100) to have sex with you, at least one will say yes. I'm not sure who to attribute that assertion to, but it's clearly wrong. I had a pretty strong feeling going in that I wasn't going to be very successful. What I didn't expect though, was that the vast majority of girls found it amusing and actually cracked up.
I wanted to do a social experiment comparing and contrasting how males and females respond differently to being outright asked if they want to have sex. I had a pretty good idea of how it was all going to go down beforehand, but I thought it would make for an interesting and entertaining video nevertheless.
And some extras and bloopers:
Changing perspectives on women's sexual desire.
This is a follow-up to the post from last week about recent research comparing men's and women's sexual behaviour. It's a brief review of a new book, What Do Women Want, by Daniel Bergner. The book has received piles of press attention. From The Atlantic:
How Strong Is the Female Sex Drive After All?
Women may be more sexually omnivorous than men, but that doesn't necessarily mean they're as hungry.
Daniel Bergner, a journalist and contributing editor to the New York Times Magazine, knows what women want--and it's not monogamy. His new book, which chronicles his "adventures in the science of female desire," has made quite a splash for apparently exploding the myth that female sexual desire is any less ravenous than male sexual desire. The book, What Do Women Want, is based on a 2009 article, which received a lot of buzz for detailing, among other things, that women get turned on when they watch monkeys having sex and gay men having sex, a pattern of arousal not seen in otherwise lusty heterosexual men.
That women can be turned on by such a variety of sexual scenes indicates, Bergner argues, how truly libidinous they are. This apparently puts the lie to our socially manufactured assumption that women are inherently more sexually restrained than men--and therefore better suited to monogamy.
But does it really?
Detailing the results of a study about sexual arousal, Bergner says: "No matter what their self-proclaimed sexual orientation, [women] showed, on the whole, strong and swift genital arousal when the screen offered men with men, women with women and women with men. They responded objectively much more to the exercising woman than to the strolling man, and their blood flow rose quickly--and markedly, though to a lesser degree than during all the human scenes except the footage of the ambling, strapping man--as they watched the apes."
Read the rest here.
Gender bias in sexuality self-reporting.
From Ohio State University:
Men, Women Lie About Sex to Match Gender Expectations
For Other Behaviors, People Care Less about Meeting Norms
People will lie about their sexual behavior to match cultural expectations about how men or women should act – even though they wouldn’t distort other gender-related behaviors, new research suggests.
The study found that men were willing to admit that they sometimes engaged in behaviors seen by college students as more appropriate for women, such as writing poetry. The same was true for women, who didn’t hide the fact that they told obscene jokes, or sometimes participated in other “male-type” deeds.
But when it came to sex, men wanted to be seen as “real men:” the kind who had many partners and a lot of sexual experience. Women, on the other hand, wanted to be seen as having less sexual experience than they actually had, to match what is expected of women.
“There is something unique about sexuality that led people to care more about matching the stereotypes for their gender,” said Terri Fisher, author of the study and professor of psychology atThe Ohio State University’s Mansfield campus.
“Sexuality seemed to be the one area where people felt some concern if they didn’t meet the stereotypes of a typical man or a typical woman.”
Fisher discovered how people would honestly respond to questions about sexuality and other gender-role behaviors by asking some study participants questions when they thought they were hooked up to a lie detector machine.
The study appears in a recent issue of the journal Sex Roles.
Participants were 293 college students between the ages of 18 and 25.
The students completed a questionnaire that asked how often they engaged in 124 different behaviors (from never to a few times a day). People in a previous study had identified all the behaviors to be typical of either males (such as wearing dirty clothes, telling obscene jokes) or females (such as writing poetry, lying about your weight). Other behaviors were identified as more negative for males (singing in the shower) or more negative for females (poking fun at others).
But some people filled out the questionnaire while they were attached to what they were told was a working polygraph machine or lie detector. (It was actually not working.)
The others were connected to the apparatus before the study began, supposedly to measure anxiety, but the machine was removed before they completed the questionnaire.
In general, the results showed that both men and women tended to act as would be expected for their gender. Men reported more typical-male behaviors and women reported more typical-female behaviors, regardless of whether they were attached to the lie detector or not.
But for non-sexual behaviors, the participants didn’t seem to feel any added pressure to respond in stereotypical ways for their gender.
In other words, women who were hooked up to the lie detector and those who weren’t were equally likely to admit to bench pressing weights – a stereotypical male activity.
“Men and women didn’t feel compelled to report what they did in ways that matched the stereotypes for their gender for the non-sexual behaviors,” Fisher said.
The one exception was sexual behavior, where, for example, men reported more sexual partners when they weren’t hooked up to the lie detector than whey they were. Women reported fewer partners when they were not hooked up to the lie detector than when they were. A similar pattern was found for reports of ever having experienced sexual intercourse.“Men and women had different answers about their sexual behavior when they thought they had to be truthful,” Fisher said.
This result confirms what Fisher found in an earlier study, back in 2003 – with one important difference.
Back in 2003, women went from having fewer sexual partners than men (when not hooked up to a lie detector) to being essentially even to men (when hooked up to the lie detector.)
In this new study, women actually reported more sexual partners than men when they were both hooked up to a lie detector and thought they had to be truthful.
“Society has changed, even in the past 10 years, and a variety of researchers have found that differences between men and women in some areas of sexual behavior have essentially disappeared,” she said.
Fisher said the results of the study may actually be stronger than what was found here. Although half the participants were not hooked up to the lie detector while completing the questionnaire, they had been hooked up before they started.
“Some of the participants may have been made uncomfortable by being attached to the lie detector at first, and that may have led them to be more forthcoming and truthful than they otherwise would have been,” she said.
Sexual assault PSAs from India.
Over the last year, several high-profile rape cases in India have drawn worldwide attention, the most infamous being the gang rape and subsequent death of a physiotherapy student (link). Historically, cases of sexual assault have not been taken seriously, in particular by the Indian Criminal Justice System. Due to large protests and pressure created by the media, this is beginning to change (link). Julia (thanks!) from class sent along a couple of related public service announcements (PSAs).
From IBN Live:
Rape? Ladies, it's your fault: Kalki Koechlin features in viral video
New Delhi: A group of stand-up comedians known as 'AIB' has come up with a satirical video in the wake of recent sexual assault cases in India. The group consists of Tanmay Bhat, Gursimran Khamba, Rohan Joshi and Ashish Shakya. Bollywood actress Kalki Koechlin and VJ Juhi Pandey have featured in the video. The campaign is called 'It's Your Fault', and it showcases different dimensions of a victim's life. Take a look.
And from Buzzfeed:
India’s Incredibly Powerful "Abused Goddesses" Campaign Condemns Domestic Violence
Save Our Sisters is an anti-sex trafficking initiative. This is their print campaign.
Ad agency Taproot physically recreated scenes from old hand-painted images of Indian goddesses.
Makeup was used to add bruises and wounds to the models before photographing them.
All the props were either real or painted on, keeping both authenticity and realism in mind.
“Pray that we never see this day. Today, more than 68% of women in India are victims of domestic violence. Tomorrow, it seems like no woman shall be spared. Not even the ones we pray to.”
Each ad includes a phone number to report abuse to “Save Our Sisters.”
The campaign simply and effectively captures India’s most dangerous contradiction: that of revering women in religion and mythology, while the nation remains incredibly unsafe for its women citizens.
Last year alone, 244,270 crimes against women were reported in the country.
For more information on the “Save Our Sisters” initiative, visit their website.More of the photos here.
Debate.org: Circumcision.
Circumcision is a highly controversial procedure. The debate tends to be polarizing and is messy, in the sense that it represents the intersection of medicine, science, tradition, sexuality, aesthetics, religion, and politics. A recent debate at Debate.org asked, "Do females prefer males who have circumcised penises?" There are hundreds of responses. Here's a sample and the current results (which cluster around 50:50 over time). Click to make larger:
All of the other comments for and against here.
Student proves gay marriage unnatural by using magnets.
From the International Business Times (and reported elsewhere):
Homosexuality Is Unnatural, Claims Nigerian Student Who Uses Magnets To Prove Gay Marriage Is Wrong
A student at the University of Lagos in Nigeria has conducted a study in which he attempts to present homosexuality and gay marriage as unnatural, by drawing an analogy to identical poles of magnets that cannot be attracted to each other.
Chibuihem Amalaha, a postgraduate student at the university, claimed, based on his observations of magnets, that a man would only attract a woman, according to the laws of nature. A man cannot attract another man or a woman cannot attract another woman because they are the same, he claimed.
“In recent time I found that gay marriage, which is homosexuality and lesbianism, is eating deep into the fabric of our human nature all over the world and this was why nations of Sodom and Gomora were destroyed by God because they were into gay practice,” Amalaha was quoted by This Day Live, a Nigerian news website, as saying.
The news about the controversial research comes on the heels of a recent threat by the U.K. to cut foreign funding for AIDS and HIV outreach programs if Nigeria proceeded with legislature to ban gay marriage in the country and frame a law under which gay rights supporters could be sentenced to 14 years in prison.
“I asked myself why should a man be marrying a man and a woman marrying a woman, does it mean that there is no more female for a man to marry or there is no more male for a woman to marry?” Amalaha said. “And recently, Britain told Nigeria to legalize gay marriage of forfeit international aid. I thank God for our lawmakers who refused to sign the bill legalizing gay marriage.”
According to Amalaha, the staff at the University of Lagos praised his work hoping that he would win the Nobel prize one day for his research, as what he has done is “real and nobody has done it in any part of the world.”
“I used two bar magnets in my research. A bar magnet is a horizontal magnet that has the North Pole and the South Pole, and when you bring two bar magnets and you bring the North Pole together you find that the two North Poles will not attract,” Amalaha said. “They will repel, that is, they will push away themselves showing that a man should not attract a man.”
Nigeria is considered one of the world’s most anti-gay nations. Homosexuality and same-sex marriage have been barred in the country since colonial days. And, lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) people in Nigeria face unique legal and social challenges, which are not experienced by non-LGBT residents in the country. According to a 2013 study by the Pew Research Center, 98 percent of Nigerians believe society should not accept homosexuality as a way of life.
South African LGBT website Mambaonline has criticized Amalaha’s claim, while calling the article published on the This Day Live “embarrassing.”
“The uncritical and uninformed article is likely to add to the ignorance and prejudice surrounding homosexuality in Nigeria,” Luiz DeBarros of Mambaonline said.
New blog post on female circumcision (FGM).
From Psychology Today:
Prisoners of Biology What the practice of female genital mutilation teaches us by Robert James King, Ph.D.
No gags or quips this week. My topic is female genital mutilation/cutting (FGM/C) and this is not a joking matter. It does, however, demonstrate that no culture is neutral about female orgasm. Some cultures celebrate it, others deny its existence and indeed go to some trouble to prevent it. Over-enthusiatic reports from anthropologists that this or that culture does not have female orgasm should be taken with a large grain of salt. Some researchers have been a little too quick to take difference at face value.
It has become fashionable in some quarters to decry the fact that behavioural scientists only investigate WEIRD (Western, Educated, Industrialised, Rich and Democratic) populations. The population that receives FGM/C is largely, though not as you shall see, exclusively—not like this. Therefore, findings about them should be of especial interest.
What is FGM/C?
Something like three million women a year--mostly in sub-Saharan Africa--receive some level of genital mutilation. This is usually done at a very young age. Ayaan Hirsi Ali vividly describes her experience at the age of five. FGM/C can range from a comparatively mild incision to a full “scraping clean” of the external genitalia—leaving a smooth flat surface devoid of the clitoral glans and labia. This so-called “Full Pharonic” is every bit as ghastly as it sounds, and produces injuries far too shocking to post pictures of on a family friendly website. This injury is then sewn-up (infibulated). The resultant stitches are expected to be burst on the woman’s wedding night. Injuries and complications abound and are discussed in detail here (strong stomachs required). Those who want full details should read Prisoners of Ritual by the incomparable Hanny Lightfoot Klein and I would like to take the opportunity to thank her again for her help and support during my research. You can get a flavour of this remarkable woman here. Please support her work.
Read the rest, including why Westerners should do some self-relfection before getting embroiled in cultural imperialism, and some things about FGM that may come as a surprise to you, here.
Sex questions.
in Attitudes, Sex Ed, Humour Etc.
From Thought Catalogue:
25 Mind-Numbingly Stupid Sex Questions People Actually Had To Ask On Yahoo! Answers
See the other 19 here.
Reusable tampons.
There seems to be growing interest in non-disposable menstruation products due to a slow cultural shift towards increased sustainability. There are now several products on the market that are reusable, including menstrual cups, as described in class and a previous blog post.
This seems to be a pretty reasonable description of reusable tampons, with links, from Reusable Menstrual Products, an information site:
Reusable tampons offer the advantages of an internal product, with the advantages of a reusable one. They can be cheaper than Menstrual Cups, however they may be more likely to cause TSS and can be harder to clean.
Reusable tampons can be purchased from a few online stores or they can be handmade - in sewn, knit or crochet form. Some women purchase cotton baby socks and use these rolled up as tampons.
Making a sewn version is simply a case of cutting out a rectangle of cloth (here I've used organic cotton jersey), sewing it into a tube, filling it with something absorbent (Like bamboo fleece or cotton terry), sewing it closed and (securely) sewing on a string. The advantage of this style is that it is used much the same as a disposable tampon and needs no rolling or fiddling around with. The disadvantage is that styles that can roll up will allow for easier cleaning than an absorbent-filled tube style.
Knit or crochet versions can be done in a cotton or bamboo yarn. Knitted tampons usually use the fact that a square or rectangle knit in "stocking" stitch will naturally want to roll. This rolling action makes it easy for the knitted tampon to stay rolled for easier insertion/removal. Crochet tampons sometimes have a flat roll up section, with a curved top to give the tampon a rounded end for more comfortable insertion.
Are they safe though? Well that's hard to say. The main contributing factor for TSS seems to be the rayon fibres in regular tampons (basically the bacteria multiplies readily on the rayon fibres and can cause TSS) All-cotton tampons have not be found to breed bacteria like rayon does. So it would seem that if an all-cotton disposable tampon is safer for you than a rayon one, then an all-cotton reusable tampon might be safer for you than a rayon disposable one. Regular disposable tampons are not sterile (just because they are white, wrapped in plastic and look sterile doesn't mean they are). Other things that go into vaginas also aren't sterile (penises, vibrators, fingers etc.). You could boil or soak the tampons in a sterilising solution if you wanted to.
You can find patterns and instructions for knit/crochet tampons here:
- http://hyenacart.com/FernandFaerie/index.php?c=0&p=33864
- http://www.craftster.org/forum/index.php?topic=178151.0
- http://www.craftster.org/forum/index.php?topic=82588.0
- http://withatangledskein.blogspot.com/2008/06/mama-clothreusable-tampons.html
- http://www.etsy.com/shop/danilykewoah
- http://www.ravelry.com/discuss/period-pieces/370226/1-25#13
- http://www.ravelry.com/patterns/library/reusable-tampon
- http://www.ravelry.com/patterns/library/washable-crocheted-tamponsThere are a few sellers on Etsy offering reusable tampons: link and link.
Vulva visor.
From the product homepage:
What On Earth Is The Va j-j Visor? The Va j-j Visor is a revolutionary, patent pending, protective vaginal shield designed to help protect a woman's inner vulva area (inner labia, clitoris, and vaginal opening). The Va j-j Visor is a soft and flexible cup that covers the inner vulva area and naturally fits the shape of your body, while your body's natural muscular tension holds it effortlessly in place. It is also hypoallergenic, disposable and recyclable.
Why Do I Need The Va j-j Visor? The Va j-j Visor will help protect all of those tender and sensitive parts that you don't want exposed during various methods of hair removal. Brazilian and bikini waxing, depilatories and shaving, hair coloring, tanning or spa treatments. It can also be used as a hygienic shield while trying on swimwear or intimate apparel, and during body piercings and tattooing.
- Disposable
- Hypoallergenic
- Protects against UV rays
- Provides hygienic protection
- Recyclable
- Doctor recommended
- Made in the USA
- 100% satisfaction guaranteed
- Patent pending
- Tested and approved for laser hair removal
- CE Certification
And some commentary from Jezebel (read the comments at the bottom for even more):
Here's my conflicted train of thought re: the Va j-j visor, a "a revolutionary, patent pending, disposable shield designed to help protect a woman's inner vulva area (inner labia, clitoris, and vaginal opening)" while removing pubes that's "soft and flexible and will naturally fit to the shape of your body, while your body's natural muscular tension holds it effortlessly in place."
- Fuck the patriarchy.
- I consider myself an open-minded woman, but if I ever saw one of these pastel clit shields in a friend's bathroom, I'd reconsider our friendship.
- But why? Who am I to forbid someone who wants to protect their delicate parts with a purple plastic visor? It comes very highly recommended on drugstore.com!
- Not to be a bitch, but this seems pretty remedial. Can't you just use your hand? (Says a person who recently sprained her ankle while walking slowly down a street, so maybe I'm not one to talk about careful movements...)
- Great, can't wait to read the next "sex adventure" piece about the woman who tried a Va j-j visor!!! (THIS IS SARCASM!)
- Am I shaming women for writing about their personal experiences?
- Why does it have to be called the Va j-j Visor? Why? Why??
Swept off their feet.
From the CBC:
'Sweeping girls off their feet' video sparks assault concerns
Many women describe falling in love as a feeling of being swept of their feet. A prankster duo, who specialize in invading personal space and awkward stunts, posted a video on YouTube of them literally sweeping girls off their feet.
The video, which takes place on an American college campus, has drawn much criticism in its short life online so far and has critics likening the prank to assault.
The video shows the two choosing their targets, walking up behind them and picking them up off the ground in their arms. The act is met with awkward laughter and looks of bewilderment.
But, some viewers are seeing a much deeper social problem arising.
A few of the girls are charmed by the act, but those who are not comfortable say things like, "What are you doing?" and "I think I'll break your back."
The comment section under the video on YouTube exploded with posts from viewers facing off over the apparent lack of respect or boundaries the two men exhibit.
"I am afraid for this world where men or women think it's ok to just grab people and even picking them up. That is so creepy and weird and no it's not all in good fun. Learn to respect boundaries," IIIShmeeIII.
"This is very disturbing to me as a woman and as a human being in general. Men are not just entitled to grab or touch a woman without her consent. This just perpetuates the culture of 'women's bodies exist for men to do what they please with them.' It's not ok and no real man would ever do this to a woman and expect her to feel flattered. Though your intentions may be good, the way you act on these intentions is completely wrong. You took away a woman's most sacred right towards males: CHOICE," said Jennifer Marcombe.
"This is what is known as assault. It is not okay," said Spiniflex88.
"Gave me some really bad vibes," said princessvideoklub.
Read the rest here.
Documentary: Virgin Tales.
The second of two documentaries posted today on purity balls, this one from the CBC (link to the full documentary at the bottom of this post):
There is a second sexual revolution growing in the heart of the American Evangelical Christian community. Young girls are promising to remain virgins in lavish ceremonies led by their fathers. So called “Purity balls” were created by the Wilson family, led by father Randy a deeply conservative Christian who works for the politically powerful Family Research Council. Randy and his wife Lisa homeschooled their 7 children and raised them to believe men are warriors and women are wives. Filmmaker Mirjam von Arx followed the family for 2 years and produced a fascinating portrait of how the religious right is grooming a young generation of Virgins to embody an Evangelically-grounded Utopia in America. Today one in eight girls in the United States vows to remain “unsoiled.”
In western nations in particular, the virginity movement is experiencing an outright boom in popularity, with an estimated 5,000 of these balls held in 48 states across the U.S. Evangelists who form the core of this movement already make up a quarter of the U.S. population and are a powerful constituency within the Republican Party, whether they vote or instead, sit at home, could decide who wins the U.S. Presidency in November. The Wilsons believe their duties include getting a Republican into the white House and ensuring their daughters remain virgins until marriage to a young man of their choosing.
Virgin Tales is a deeply engaging film that illuminates the complicated intersection of personal and political power in modern day America.
Directed and produced by Mirjam von Arx, written by Mirjam von Arx and Michele Wannaz for Ican Films. Read more on the official film website.
You can watch the full documentary here (it's excellent!).
Frosh week gone wrong redux: UBC.
From the CBC:
UBC investigates frosh students' pro-rape chant Chant condoned non-consensual sex with underage girls
The University of British Columbia has pledged an investigation after its students reportedly sang a chant advocating rape during frosh week.
The incident took place on a bus ride during the Sauder FROSH, a three-day orientation for the Sauder School of Business, organized by the Commerce Undergraduate Society (CUS).
The chant condones non-consensual sex with underage girls saying, "Y-O-U-N-G at UBC, we like 'em young, Y is for your sister, O is for oh so tight, U is for underage, N is for no consent, G is for go to jail."
Business student Vaibhab Verma was on the bus at the time and said he chose not to think about it.
"I listened to it and kind of ignored the chant, because for some people it was a bit vulgar," he said.
"If you don't feel like doing the chants, you can just ignore them and that's what I did."
Robert Helsley, dean of the Sauder School of Business, condemned the cheer.
"This is a deeply, deeply troubling event and one that we take very seriously...and we will take steps to ensure that nothing like this happens at UBC again," he told the CBC.
Helsley previously issued a joint statement with Louise Cowin, UBC vice-president for students, saying the chant is of grave concern to all members of the UBC community.
"Such behaviour would be completely inconsistent with the values of UBC and the Sauder School of Business and completely inconsistent with the instruction that the Commerce Undergraduate Society receives on appropriate conduct prior to FROSH," the statement said.
Read the rest and see the corresponding news clip here.
New show: Masters of Sex.
Showtime will be featuring a new series about Masters and Johnson starting this fall! They cast some excellent actors - hopefully the writing is good, too.
The homepage for the show: link.
Here's the trailer for the series:
Frosh week gone way wrong.
in Attitudes
From the CBC:
Saint Mary's frosh sex chant sparks review 'My colleagues and I were shocked by this incident,' Halifax university's head says
Saint Mary's University says it will conduct a special review to find out why student leaders were chanting about non-consensual underage sex in a video captured during frosh week at the Halifax school.
St. Mary's president Colin Dodds said the behaviour of the students is inexcusable.
In a video posted online, the students used the word "young" as an acronym in a chant that included the lines: “Y is for your sister […] U is for underage, N is for no consent […] Saint Mary’s boys we like them young.”
Dodds said in a statement: "My colleagues and I were shocked by this incident and are deeply sorry that our students, and now the community at large, were exposed to disturbing sexually charged material."
Dodds said he is forming a presidential council to investigate the incident and ways to prevent any other situations.
Meanwhile, the video drew harsh criticism Thursday from university students and health advocates.
Jared Perry, chair of Students Nova Scotia, stepped down from his position in light of the controversy. Perry is also the president of the student council at Saint Mary's.
"There is not, and has never been, any place for this sort of culture on our university campuses," said Jonathan Williams, executive director of Students Nova Scotia. "While the SMU students involved surely failed to grasp the severity of what they were doing and saying, this very fact highlights the need to speak out about sexism when we see it."
Read the rest here. More here.
And the video: