Evil Slutopia

Cosmo Brings "Sexy vs. Skanky" To YouTube

2012-05-17T00:02:00.001-04:00

There's a new YouTube channel called Hello Style that features weekly shows about fashion and beauty. It features shows produced by several women's magazines like Marie Claire, Seventeen, and our BFFs at Cosmo.

Some of the shows are based on columns and features from the magazines themselves, like Seventeen's prom specials and Marie Claire's "Big Girl in a Skinny World". So what did Cosmo choose for the show that would represent their magazine? That would be "Sexy vs. Skanky", of course! This is a feature that appears in each issue of the magazine in which Cosmo arbitrarily classifies random things like "posing with a hot dog" as either sexy or skanky. Our favorite Sexy vs. Skanky column of all time was one from last year where they included "slut-shaming" on the skanky list - so one step forward by acknowledging that slut-shaming exists and is a bad thing and two steps back by implying that the reason slut-shaming is bad is because it's too slutty, or something. Typical Cosmo logic.

Anyway, on to the show. Here's the premiere episode, hosted by Jessie Cantrell and Cosmo Senior Editor Carolyn Kylstra (or you can just skip to our breakdown below, because as with the magazine we're willing to watch so you don't have to):

First, let's talk about the problem that you don't even need to click play to see. I'm not surprised at all that Cosmo would choose "What Guys Think About ____" as the format for this show. If you read Cosmo regularly (which I don't recommend), you know that they encourage women to center all of their life decisions right down to the color of our nail polish on the question of what a guy might think. "What do guys think?" is the "what would Jesus do?" of Cosmo's theology.

Next, the choice quotes from Jessie and Carolyn's intro:

"We're on a mission to help all the ladies who may not know when they've crossed the line from hot to hot mess." (So glad these angels of mercy have come into our lives.)

"And don't feel bad if you've had a trashy moment or two in the past. We're all survivors of skanky decisions here, especially when it comes to today's topic...cleavage." (I feel so much lighter now that Cosmo has given me permission to let go of the guilt and shame of all of my past trashy and skanky fashion mistakes.)

Then, it's on to some man on the street interviews about cleavage. Finally! I had to watch a whole 42 seconds of this video before they finally got to the all important "what guys think" part. It's all pretty boring and mostly boils down to 'we like boobs', but this guy was definitely my favorite:

Cleavage Analyst Guy: It causes a lot of awkwardness, I think. Especially, you know, I have a girlfriend so if I'm with her and I'm walking somewhere and there's cleavage hanging out somewhere, it's like...I'm like a robot.

Jessie Cantrell: Your eyes can't help it.

Cleavage Analyst Guy: No, they can't. Now I'm training myself just to stare straight ahead.

I'm so sorry, sir. I'll be sure to start wearing baggy sweatshirts everywhere I go because you can't control yourself and avoid leering at me in front of your girlfriend.

Next, our hosts welcome in Cosmo Fashion Director Michelle McCool to give us some cleavage rules. They're all really fascinating, like 'don't squish them together' and 'no deep v-necks if you're more than a B cup' (a rule that Cosmo breaks on its own cover like every other month). Kim Kardashian is their "sexy" celebrity example because "she always does a great job with her chest, she covers enough and shows enough".

Aubrey O'Day is not so lucky. They show a photo of her wearing a low-cut dress - it doesn't quite fit her right so it's not the most flattering dress I've ever seen, but whatever. For committing this horrible sin Aubrey gets the word skanky plastered in huge letters under her picture while our hosts discuss how "tragic" it is that she didn't adjust the straps of the dress properly, and Cantrell finishes things off by saying "I'm worried the implants are gonna pop." Fun!

To keep the good times rolling, they move on to a game called Guess the Breasts!, which features cropped photos of celebrity cleavage because it's always fun to reduce women to random body parts. First up is a photo of JWoww ("those boobs look drunk"), followed by Mariah Carey ("that is really bad...sideboob is supposed to be subtle"). The celeb in the next photo (spoiler alert: it's Anne Hathaway), who is pronounced "pasty white", is also showing a little sideboob, so our hosts ask cleavage expert McCool "is that okay?" She replies, "I hate to say this but it depends on how old she is, cause if she's really old I don't want to see that much of her body." Leaving aside the fact that she's probably not "really old" if you can't actually tell how old she is from the cropped photo, it's almost like they sat around while scripting this talking about how to make sure they shamed as many women as possible and came up with ageism as a creative solution.

To end the show, we have a discussion of cleavage as a "useful tool for dating". Of course, since "not every date requires the same level of exposure", we'll need more rules to follow to make sure we're doing things right. Kylstra informs us that "Cosmo polls tell us that when women want to keep seeing a guy, they wait on average until the fifth date or longer before they sleep with him". (I guess these would be those super scientific polls that Cosmo likes to conduct via Twitter and Facebook.) Once this fifth date gospel has been established, we can move on to the cleavage dating chart.

On the first date, your cleavage should be sexy, but make sure it's a "tasteful" sexy so that he'll want to ask you on a second date. On the third date, you be thinking ahead to the fifth date, so make sure to keep him interested by "showing another side of you" with a casual (but still sexy) outfit. On the fifth date you can show a little more cleavage since you're trying to "seal the deal", but make sure it's sultry cleavage and not tacky cleavage. Got all that? I hope so, because if you don't follow all of these rules you'll surely die alone and unloved.

Our ESC dating chart is a little bit simpler. Rule #1 is "wear whatever the fuck you want" and there are no other rules.

I watched this show right after it premiered on YouTube last night, and I couldn't resist leaving a comment. (It's currently one of the video's top comments. We do what we can.) Since it was the first episode, they were actually responding to a lot of the feedback. Here's our comment and their reply:

evilslutclique - Oh cool, another show that revolves around slut-shaming women for wearing what they want and doing what they want. Just what the world needs.

HelloStyleChannel - We're sorry you didn't like the show :-( Our channel is all about celebrating women, and this show is no exception -- if you don't want to try these style suggestions, no worries! Thanks for sharing your opinion xo

Right. I'm sure Aubrey O'Day and Mariah Carey would feel really "celebrated" by this show.

We found some of the other comments and replies to be just as illuminating:

laurenwhit279 - My husband watched with this me and he agreed with the second and third guy. He likes a little cleavage, but if they're way too big or there's too much showing he said it's really gross. Sometimes we'll see women like that and he just feels awkward. I understand that sometimes you can't help but notice though.

HelloStyleChannel - Love that you watched it together! We always value a guy's opinion :-)

Truer words were never spoken. Cosmo always values a guy's opinion. Any guy. Even in situations where a guy's opinion is really not relevant or necessary. If they replaced "Fun Fearless Female" with "We Always Value A Guy's Opinion" as their magazine's tagline, it would be a lot more accurate. Incidentally, the last time Cosmo slut-shamed Aubrey O'Day, it was for posing for pictures holding a t-shirt she designed with a message that implied that she values herself more than she values men and their precious guy opinions. I'm sensing a pattern developing here.

ebilmuffins - Why do we need to associate words like "skanky" and "slutty" with how women dress? I don't get it. This is incredibly disrespectful, in my eyes.

HelloStyleChannel - We're sorry you think so :-( We definitely don't mean to be disrespectful -- our channel is all about celebrating women! "Sexy Vs. Skanky" is a well-loved column in Cosmo each month, so we're proud to translate it into a new YouTube show. Thanks for sharing your opinion with us xo

So you're calling women skanks, telling us to make sure we don't look too trashy because guys won't want to ask us out, saying that older women's bodies are gross and should be as covered up as possible, and cracking obnoxious jokes about someone's breast implants...but not in a disrespectful way. Oh, I get it now! And I'm pretty skeptical about their claim that the Sexy vs. Skanky column is so well-loved, but the real problem is that they think it's true and they're so proud of it that they'd choose it as the one thing from the magazine that they wanted to "translate" for this show. I guess I should thank them though, because they've also managed to translate everything that's wrong with Cosmo in one five minute video.

The problem with Girls is really a problem with HBO

2012-05-16T16:38:00.000-04:00

There has been a lot written lately about Lena Dunham's new show "Girls" on HBO. The main topic of concern, aside from the fact that the characters are "whiny" and "narcissistic", is that the show is very white. Like pretty much all white.

Read the rest at ESCTVblog.com

The 10 Most Slut-Shamed Former Disney Stars?

2012-05-14T13:09:00.002-04:00

Hey Complex, fuck you. That's how we feel about your idiotic pop culture piece "The 10 Most Corrupted Former Disney Stars"... (Yes, this piece is from February, but we just found it - via ONTD - and we couldn't let it go without saying something.)

No matter how many movies Vanessa Hudgens puts out, including this weekend's Journey 2: The Mysterious Island, they still won't erase the memory of her nude photo scandals. To be
fair, she isn't the only former Disney star who has the problem of a tarnished image. From Miley Cyrus' salvia video to Britney Spears' mental breakdown, Minnie Mouseketeers often make a grand exit from the House of Mouse.

There's just so much wrong with their "top 10 list" that we don't even know where to begin...

Why are Disney stars expected to remain squeaky clean teenagers, well into adulthood? Teen stars - as most non-famous teenagers - grow up and become adults. It happens! Shocking! They drink alcohol. They have sex. They make mistakes. Just like most human beings. So why do we hold them to a higher standard? Why do we act like they have to be children forever and then shame them when they aren't?

Or how about the fact that every person on this list is female? Because apparently when male stars do something wrong, it doesn't fucking matter. But if a young woman does anything at all, she's "tarnished". Why are female stars held to a higher standard than their male counterparts?

Shia LeBeouf, who starred on Disney's Even Stevens, didn't make this Top 10 list. Why not? He's certainly "tarnished" his image as much as some of the women on they selected... His past "fails" include: criminal trespassing (2007), unlawful smoking (2008), failing to make a court appearance (2008), drunk driving (2008), multiple bar fights (2011), and has admitted to dating certain female celebrities while they were in relationships with others (or at least he claims to have done this; some of the women have denied his allegations).

How about Orlando Brown (That's So Raven) who was arrested for marijuana possession (2007) and DUI (2011)? Or Mitchell Musso, who wasn't even 21 yet when he was arrested for a DUI? Joe Jonas took racist photographs, allegedly smoked marijuana at a club and broke up with Taylor Swift over the phone (not a crime, but pretty douchey). Zac Efron dropped a condom on the red carpet of a children's movie premiere and Corbin Bleu posed practically nude for ads promoting his (now cancelled) racy series The Beautiful Life. [We don't see anything wrong with those last two, but they're certainly "as bad" for their squeaky Disney images as being the subject of a false pregnancy rumor, see below.]

So why didn't any of them make the list? Why? Because we apparently don't give a shit with male celebs do. It's extra fucked-up that this list was compiled by a female "writer" (Tara Aquino) because the only thing more annoying than men slut-shaming women for their choices, is women doing it to each other!

We went down the entire list and very few of these women's offenses are actually that bad (or bad at all). Most of them have to do with drinking alcohol (over the age of 21) or being sexual in any way. To be clear, we're not condoning doing drugs, drinking and driving, or any other illegal activity. But one mistake does not mean you are "tarnished" and it certainly isn't fair to hold women to a higher standard than men; former child or teen stars to a higher standard than stars who peaked as adults; or Disney stars to a higher standard than, well, everyone else.

To view the fucked up, idiotic, sexist, slut-shaming list... with our commentary check out the full blog at www.ESCTVblog.com

Johns Scared Stiff: The Dangers of Hookers

2012-05-08T09:40:00.001-04:00

Disclaimer: We do not normally read The New York Post. We don't even read it like we read Cosmo magazine ("so you don't have to"). The Post is usually too bad even to read as critique. But sometimes their pun-tastic titles catch our attention and we can't help but glance. That's what happened yesterday.

The following text conversation happened while one of us was commuting home from work on Monday:

Lilith: Reading the Post over someone's shoulder on the train. Gotta google this story later: "Johns Scared Stiff. Class teaches men dangers of hookers". WTF

Lilith: I assume it's the Post, based on the title.

Jezebel: Wow. Yes, we need to google that later, because now I'm dying to know the story.

Lilith: I'm sure it's an "amazing" article.

Jezebel: Okay, I just looked it up. The first line is about "bad boys" who need to be "taught a lesson". High quality journalism as always.

Here's the article, for those of you who actually want to read it in its entirety, instead of just our bitching and ranting about it. The title on the web version is "Brooklyn's 'john school' teaches men dangers of hookers" but the headline that was on the print version had the "Johns Scared Stiff" pun.

Obviously the title alone was pretty infuriating: The dangers of hookers. Even before reading it, I already hate this article and its author (Josh Saul) just from that line alone. I'd imagine that on average, "johns" are much more of a danger to sex workers than vice versa. The "school" in the article is actually a 10-year-old educational program called Project Respect in which men are taught the "adverse consequences" of patronizing sex workers. Men who are arrested for soliciting or patronizing sex workers are given the option of avoid a court hearing and possible jail time by taking a 5-hour class for $350. Afterwards their cases are dismissed in 6 months, as long as there are no new arrests. (The article claims that more than 3,000 men have taken the class and only "a bone-headed 26" have been arrested again for the same crime.)

Photo by Gabriella Bass

Clearly "Project Respect" is a misnomer, because it doesn't seem like anyone is being respected here. The chief of the Brooklyn DA's sex-crimes division, Rhonnie Jaus, has referred to it as a "scared-straight concept". Yeah, scared-straight by slut-shaming and spreading propaganda. The program includes a lecture from an HIV-positive sex worker who "kept working the streets after her diagnosis", "graphic slides of diseased genitalia", and warnings from assistant district attorneys about underage sex workers.

“If you are patronizing prostitutes, there is a very good chance you are going to encounter children,” Assistant District Attorney Jamila Cha-Jua-Lee told the men. “If you come into court and say, ‘I thought she was 18!’ and I have a birth certificate, I win.”

Now, we understand that prostitution is illegal in New York, and we acknowledge that there are a lot of problems with the sex work industry and it's not always the safest line of work. But still, we have a hard time believing that this "class" is a great solution to anything. We'll concede that it's possible that the class itself is not quite as bad as the article's description of the class, but there's still plenty to dislike.

First of all, it's nice for these men that they get the option of taking a class instead of going to court. But there's no mention of what happens to the sex workers who are arrested alongside them. Do they get offered the option of avoiding court and possible jail time by taking a class that teaches them that johns are dangerous liars who probably have a bunch of STDs? We're betting they don't. And we hope that Brooklyn is putting more time and resources into helping the underage girls who are working as prostitutes in their borough than they are into using them as scare tactics at john school.

According to the article, most of the men in these programs claim that they were entrapped. We may never know how many of them are lying, but the claim fits right in with the overall framing of this story. It's not really about holding the johns accountable for their actions or digging deeper into the idea that the existence of something like a john school in the first place just may mean that our cultural attitudes and public policies about sex work are totally screwed up. Nope, instead we can boil it all down, as the article's headline did, to the "dangers of hookers". Hookers lying about their age, hookers concealing their STDs, undercover cops lying about being hookers. Thank goodness we have john school to teach men that hookers can't be trusted.

We're thinking of pitching a follow up article to the Post. The working title is "New York Post article about Brooklyn's 'john school' teaches everyone dangers of criminalizing sex work and shaming sex workers".

Also, this might just be us being petty... but they couldn't even come up with an original name. There is another Project Respect that has been around at least two years longer and has a lot more to do with respect. It is a prevention and education program aimed at preventing sexualized violence. Now that's the kind of respect we can get behind.

It Doesn't Have to Say Rape to Be Rape Culture

2012-05-03T02:12:00.001-04:00

We recently observed two examples of rape culture in action. Seeing the two incidents back to back, and watching how people reacted to them, really served as a depressing reminder for us of how many people out there still refuse to accept that rape culture is a real thing that does real harm. It also reminded us of how important it is to call this stuff out and talk about it when we see it so that hopefully more people will start to understand.

The first incident was a story about a radio DJ on a morning show in Cleveland. The show received a letter from a father who had seen his teenage daughter kissing another girl and was concerned that she might be a lesbian.

This morning GLAAD received several incident reports that alerted us to a horrific anti-gay remark that was made on today's episode of "Rover's Morning Glory," a popular morning show that airs on Cleveland's WMMS 100.7 FM radio (The Buzzard). Throughout the history of FM broadcasting, WMMS has been widely regarded as one of the most influential rock stations in America.

According to the incident reports (and later confirmed to us by an executive for Clear Channel, the station's parent company), the anti-gay remark was made by Dominic Dieter, one of the "Rover's Morning Glory" cast members. Responding to an e-mail from a father who (for reasons unknown) wrote to the station to say that he'd happened upon his teenage daughter kissing another girl. Deiter responded to the father, on-air, by saying:

"You should get one of your friends to screw your daughter straight." [GLAAD]

Nothing like a little corrective rape advice with your morning radio, right? It's horrifying that a man would not only give this advice to a father about his child, but share it with a whole radio audience as well. The homophobia of suggesting that a lesbian teen needs to be turned straight combined with the misogyny of advocating rape as the method for accomplishing that makes this one of the most disgusting and inappropriate comments we've heard in a while.

Unfortunately, not everyone saw it that way. We read a lot of the comments about this that appeared on various articles as well as Twitter and the Rover's Morning Glory facebook page. The majority of people who commented were just as offended as we were, but there were some who disagreed. Here's a sampling (we're paraphrasing a few of these and not linking directly to any of them because this is about the larger issue, not about calling out individual commenters):

I'm sorry...but where in this statement does it say "rape"? You guys all have your panties in a bunch over something #1. You never even listened too. #2. He never said "rape"...What he said was told as a joke. Yes a bad joke, but he never said rape. Lets get the facts straight before we go for a witch hunt.

Freedom of speech! [Every time the "freedom of speech" argument comes up in situations like this, which is every time there is a situation like this, I get a headache. I think it's a sympathy pain that I experience as the Founding Fathers turn over in their graves.]

You stupid crybaby losers, he never said raped. 16 is the age of consent in ohio. Yeah, I don't agree with him...but its dieter. If you take him seriously, you're the moron. Get over yourselves for fucks sake

People are over-exaggerating dieters comments... he didn't say 'rape'

Disgusting as that comment was, I'm disturbed that the DJ said "Get one of your friends to screw her," yet the article puts the word "rape" in his mouth. Obviously a young gay woman can't simply become straight, nor would she want to. But it seems, to me, a large leap between "get one of your friends to screw her" and "get one of your friends to rape her." I agree that only a moron would think a young gay woman would consent to that. But the comment struck me as demonstrating a profound and disgusting lack of understanding for what it means to be gay. It was horrible, but rape still seems a leap.

Variations on the phrase 'he didn't actually say the word rape!' came up again and again among Dieter's defenders. Apparently in their world it's common for teenage lesbians to consent to sex with men their father's age that have been hired by said father to cure their gayness, and "screw her straight" is just a term of endearment or something. (Of course, we don't even know whether this young woman is actually a lesbian or not, but we're describing the situation that way because that's the assumption that Dieter made about her when he made his comments.) Many people also seemed to be hung up on their belief that Dieter couldn't have meant it that way, that it was just a thoughtless joke and he didn't intend to promote homophobia and sexual violence with his comments. (Dieter himself said as much in the on air apology that he delivered after this outcry.) But it doesn't really matter. Maybe he didn't intend to advocate the corrective rape of a gay teen girl, but that's exactly what he did, and it still has the same harmful effects whether he 'meant it' or not.

Some people seem to think that if it's not 100% blatant, if the person isn't literally shouting "Rape is okay! Rapists rule! Yay for rape!" from the rooftops, it's not an example of rape culture. They may even agree that something is offensive or in poor taste, and yet they're more willing to give the benefit of the doubt to the person advocating rape than to the crowd of Cassandras off to the side yelling "hey, this is rape culture and it's not okay". We don't know yet whether Dieter is going to lose his job over these comments, but at least there was enough of an outcry that he was suspended and forced to apologize. Hopefully the conversations that this has sparked will educate at least a few people about the issue of corrective rape and the reasons why comments like Dieter's are so harmful.

The other incident was maybe minor in comparison to the Dieter fiasco, but still a page out of the same book. This was posted by a friend of ours on Twitter:

It's always so funny to make jokes about how no really secretly means yes. We can imagine how this meeting went:

"Okay, we need slogans for our new rule about how you can't change the toppings on our artisan pizzas."

"I've got it! We'll combine that saying '____ is the new black' with that 'no means no' anti-rape slogan."

"Brilliant! Let's go get cheesy bread."

Some of the people who responded to the tweet agreed that the slogan was problematic, but some didn't:

How does that connect to rape culture? You're reaching a bit....That has nothing to to with the advert. There are things that are worse than that.

I'm vehemently against rape culture, but I didn't connect that statement to it. Mainly b/c the campaign contains specific language that makes it about their pizza, and in no way connected to sex, dating, etc.

Searching the same topic on tumblr brought up some less polite disagreements involving charming phrases like "oversensitive bitches". And yes, obviously this slogan isn't literally about rape. It's about pizza toppings. But it's just really not helpful to make jokes about the line between no and yes being blurred, and to imply that no doesn't always mean no. In a society where rape jokes are a staple in many TV shows and movies, slut-shaming attitudes like the belief that a woman can be "asking for it" by dressing or acting a certain way and not by actually saying yes are prevalent, and phrases like "that test totally raped me" are common, I could easily see "no is the new yes" being adopted for use in non-pizza contexts. It's just one more thing, and maybe it's a small thing, but it all adds up.

What do you think of these two incidents? Have you ever observed something that you thought was an example of rape culture only to have other people say you were wrong or oversensitive or humorless? What do you think is the best way to call out stuff like this when you see it?

No, pineapples won't make your junk taste like pina colada

2012-04-28T20:24:00.001-04:00

Just yesterday we were talking about the taste of semen. (Yeah, you read that correctly.)

We were checking out some of the Masque samples that we got at the MOMENTUM Conference. (Masque is a new line of orally-dissolvable, flavored gel strips that block the flavors associated with fellatio.) Neither of us is personally that offended by the taste of semen. Maybe we don't love the flavor but we've never had a problem swallowing after oral sex. However we realize that many many men and women do have a problem with the taste, so that's why we think Masque is an ingenious product. Anything that makes oral sex (or sexuality in general) a more positive or enjoyable experience for people is a good thing. And even if you don't mind the taste of semen, sometimes it's fun to mix it up a little.

So right in the middle of our conversation about the taste of semen, we noticed that Cosmo posted something on Twitter about drinking pineapple juice before oral sex to improve the taste! Oh Cosmo, sometimes it's as though you can read our minds. But then you take that psychic connection and go and fuck it up!

Now, it's not a bad tip. Any fruit high in natural sugar is likely to increase the sweetness of your body's secretions but don't expect your man's penis to taste like a piña colada. There is evidence to support the theory that a change in diet can improve the taste of semen, but... it's still semen. However, in true Cosmo-form, they act like this is the most amazing tip ever (like that time they told us about that brand new amazing invention called lube).

Apparently there's a section on their website erroneously called "Cosmo's Best. Sex. Ever. Blog". (Sorry, but if this is the best sex ever, then that's just really really really sad. Read on... you'll see what we mean.) The blog follows the (allegedly) true stories of 20-something "S" and her boyfriend "D"'s sexual escapades:

Our naughty blogger is back and feeling ballsier than ever. And this time, we're letting you ladies choose the dares that S. and D. will be trying out! Every week we'll post two hot ideas on Facebook and Twitter. Then our followers and fans (that's you!) will vote for one or suggest something even hotter and read the sexy recaps right here.

Neither the sex nor the dares sound very hot or very interesting so far. I mean, it's not shocking - considering that the last time they tried this "sex challenges" idea, they included relatively tame ideas like eating candy necklaces off of each other, kissing for a full minute (gasp!), and putting your hair in a ponytail and having him gently yank it from behind - but it's still a pretty slow start.

And the writing is bad, like cringe-worthy bad, 50 Shades of Grey bad. You can tell that "S" is trying really hard to be cute and witty, while at the same time still come off as totally naughty but she fails at both and the result is just painfully bad. It's kind of hilarious that Cosmo thinks of itself as a magazine full of super sex experts (there are "sex tips" in every issue) yet this is the best they can do for a sex blogger and their first "hot idea" is to eat pineapple.

Just in case you think we're being unnecessarily snarky, we've included a few excerpts to show just how terrible this sex blog is...

If, like they say, you are what you eat, D. and I would be big pineapples. Actually, as of last night, D. would be my hoo-ha and I would be his peen.

Groan.

It had been a little while since I'd been on the receiving end of el sexo oral (I've been getting laser hair removal ergo I can't get waxed ergo I'm often unkempt down there ergo I don't let D.'s face get too close)

Double groan.

There's just too much cutesy-ness for a blog that's supposed to be sexy, but when she finally gets to the actual sex-part, it gets even worse.

D. started on top of me, kissing my neck, my chest, my nipples, and my stomach, but he went on like this for a while and didn't make any moves to go farther south so I had the genius idea of taking charge and treating him to an orgasm before I collected mine. That "genius" was sarcastic, bee tee dubs. You'll see why shortly. I sat up so that D. was forced to get on his knees (with my legs around his calves) and started to kiss his torso. This foreplay lasted all of three seconds before I went straight for the business. I don't think I've ever given a beej in this position before (have you?). You sort of have to lean forward and curve your back, which is a tad uncomfortable. And I'm sure the rolls on my stomach would have been enough to deflate D.'s erection faster than an air mattress when you take the stopper out (actually, bad analogy, those things take freaking forever to deflate, but you get the point), but my bobbing head blocked his view so I was blissfully un-self-conscious.

D. tried to use his right hand to reach between my legs, but he couldn't really reach and settled for grabbing my left boob. Apparently that left boob is really something special, because he finished in just a couple minutes.

It's neither erotic, nor informative. It just reads as... bad sex. Or bad oral sex. Or just bad bad bad. (And then there's more nauseatingly twee fake-slang like "bee tee dubs" and "beej", ugh.)

And survey says: the pineapple juice makes a difference! A slight difference. Don't expect cotton candy and ice cream and unicorns, but I did notice that it simply had less of a taste. And that's exactly what I told D.

"It tastes like nothing!" I exclaimed.

"Is that...good?" he asked.

"Yes!" I said, a little too enthusiastically. "Well, it's just...different than usual. Not that your...it isn't...I'm fine with your...it's very..."

I stemmed the verbal vomit by planting a kiss on his stomach.

Nothing sexier than throwing a "vomit" metaphor into your story! And she completely contradicts herself in regards to how effective the pineapple juice really was. Somehow that "slight difference" and "less of a taste" translates to "It tastes like nothing!" I'm sorry, but I don't care how much pineapple juice you're drinking, but it's not going to make semen taste like nothing.

[Hilariously scary naked dude with a pineapple courtesy of Cosmo UK]

But the worst part of the story is yet to come.

We returned to horizontal position, where D. was now easily able to get a hand between my legs. He starting moving two fingers in slow, circular motions over my clitoris. Very slow motions. Very, very slow motions. And that's when I noticed it: D. was drifting off. I moaned loudly to wake him up and he came to. Realizing he needed to get this show on the road, he started heading down.

Things were going well at first. He was doing a lot of flicking and simultaneous hand-and-mouth stimulation (can I add that to my earlier definition of heaven?). But after a minute, the tongue movements slowed down. Slower…slower…slower. HE WAS NODDING OFF AGAIN! Please, someone out there, tell me this has happened to you, and that I'm not the only woman with a sleep-inducing vagina.

He was falling asleep? WTF! This is what Cosmo considers a "sexy recap"? Just because it's about sex doesn't make it sexy. And yet, they have the nerve to include this story in something called the "Best. Sex. Ever. Blog". I'm sure plenty of people have experienced something similar to this, but would you classify it as the best sex ever? I don't think so. It's not even good sex, let alone "best" sex.

We just can't wait until the next "sexy" challenge (not).

But we are somewhat curious about what the actual effects of pineapple juice and other diet changes can have on the taste of semen and vaginal juices. We're pretty skeptical.

In addition to pineapple, other fruits high in natural sugars (like papaya, mango, melon, grapes and apples) are said to help counteract the bitter/salty taste of semen. Drinking water and eating diuretic foods (like parsley, celery, and wheatgrass) can flush out bad toxins. It is also recommended to avoid red meat, dairy, alcohol, caffeine, nicotine, certain "stinky" vegetables (garlic, onions, cauliflower, cabbage, asparagus and broccoli) and heavily processed foods. And of course, proper hygiene doesn't hurt!

But there's no magical diet that can make any of your body fluids taste like candy. (Not to mention, that it's quite a lot to ask to insist that your partner change their diet drastically for you, even if it does result in more oral sex.) If a couple wants to play around with different foods and see if it has an effect, we say go for it. But if you're one of those people who really hates the taste of semen, there is not enough pineapple juice in the world to make it suddenly taste good.

You're probably better off just popping a Masque strip in your mouth instead.

(Maybe we should send that in as a suggestion for the next dare?)

Sluts Across America

2012-04-27T17:08:00.001-04:00

We want to give a shoutout to a new birth control advocacy project called Sluts Across America. In case you've been living under a rock, you know that Rush Limbaugh recently called Georgetown law student Sandra Fluke a slut and a prostitute because she testified at a congressional hearing about the importance of adequate insurance coverage for birth control. You also know that Republican politicians across the country are pushing so much anti-choice, anti-woman legislation right now you'd think they were all contestants on America's Next Top Misogynist or something.

Many of us are at the point where we've just about had enough of this fuckery, and we're all finding creative ways to express that. Sluts Across America is one of those efforts:

Birth control is under attack in the United States.

Conservative members of our government and society have launched what is essentially a war on reproductive rights. They have made attempt after attempt to limit the availability of essential services to women, men, and families who need access to them to live healthy, productive lives.

They have also repeatedly made judgment calls on those of us who do choose to use birth control -- calling our morals and values into question and referring to us as sluts, whores, and other derogatory names -- without even trying to understand that the use of birth control represents an awareness of our individual responsibility to do whatever we can to protect our health, and to ensure that the children we bring into this world are born into families who have the resources and ability to take care of them.

"Sluts Across America" is the collective voice of the women and men in this country who use or support birth control, and are sick of being judged because of our desire to be responsible and safe about our sexual health. If protecting ourselves makhttp://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gifes us sluts, then it's time to redefine what "slut" actually means.

Obviously we're going to support any project that mocks Rush Limbaugh and points out how ridiculous and unacceptable it is to slut-shame women for talking about birth control and demanding access to proper health care (or for any other reasons). If you want to participate, just go to their site and add your location and a short message about why you support birth control, and are therefore a big old slut. You'll be in good company:

We're so proud of our fellow East Coast sluts right now, way to represent. Come on Southwest, West Coast, and Pacific Northwest - we know you're sluttier than that. Get to work!

OB/GYN sexual harassment in Cosmo

2012-04-18T13:19:00.002-04:00

Earlier this month, we went to the MOMENTUM Conference on feminism, sexuality and relationships. Those of you who read our blog regularly, know that we always pick up a copy of Cosmo (or a similarly terrible "woman's magazine") when we travel. This trip was no exception. And every time we pick up a copy of Cosmo, we find something in it that really upsets us and needs to be critiqued.

But this month we almost have to give Cosmo some credit. (Almost!) They are still a really fucked up magazine in many, many ways... but it seems as though they might actually be trying to be a little bit better. Or, more likely, they're trying to seem as if they're trying to be better. But they're still just not getting it right.

For example, in this issue (April 2012) there's an article about crazy and/or inappropriate comments that gynecologists have made called "The Crazy Thing My Gyno Said to Me":

Although you never expect a ride in the stirrups to be fun, you certainly don't plan on being harassed. But these women were on the receiving end of snarky one-liners, weird compliments, body put-downs, whacked-out diagnoses, and just plain inappropriate comments.

We have to give them credit that they actually acknowledged that these comments were inappropriate and in some cases could be considered harassment. But at the same time, they compiled a list and turned it all into a big joke (the photo caption says "These girls all just had their hoo-has insulted") without really addressing the examples that were more than just "crazy" and crossed the line to actual harassment. Also, having these more serious anecdotes mixed in with sillier ones (like "she called my cervix my 'pink doughnut'" or "she said I have the smallest uterus she'd ever seen") makes light of the whole situation when really some of these incidents should've been taken seriously and even reported.

There's a sidebar that asks the question "Are Female Gynos More Judgy?" and a suggestion to send your personal stories to them on Twitter under the hashtag #CrazyGyno, when they really should've included a sidebar telling their readers what they should do about these kinds of inappropriate comments.

We did a little research on where/how you can report a doctor for bad behavior and found the American Medical Association's Code of Medical Ethics. You can use this as your first step of determining whether or not your physician acted unethically or unprofessionally (as opposed to just unofficially "weird" or "creepy"). The AMA's Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs has developed guidelines for physicians who strive to practice ethically, which can be found here.

The AMA recommends approaching your physician directly if you have a concern, but in certain extreme cases you might not feel safe doing that. If your doctor is part of a group practice, you also can speak to one of the physicians in the practice, or if they are associated with a hospital, there may be a formal system for which to voice grievances or lodge complaints. Then there's also your state's licensing board, which should be able to review your doctor's conduct and take disciplinary action at the local level. You can find contact info for licensing boards in each state here.

The AMA also recommends contacting one or more of the state and national specialty society or association for more insight into policies or guidelines specific to your concern. In this case, that might be the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists or the American Gynecological and Obstetrical Society. (For more resources, try here.)

If all else fails and it's determined that your doctor's behavior - while creepy and inappropriate - isn't technically an ethical violation, there's still the option of leaving a review for that doctor online, warning future patients. Some online review sites for medical professionals include HealthGrades.com and RateMDs.com. (There are also doctor reviews on AngiesList.com and Yelp.com.)

So we thought we'd pick out some of the examples that really did cross a line from "weird" to wrong and give the advice that the "author" Annie Daly should've given.

Judgmental comments

"I was on my grad school's medical plan and needed a birth-control refill. I ended up getting a rambling lecture from the health-center gyno about how I had to be extra careful with my fiance because, as she said, 'He will cheat on you one day. It's just a matter of time.' When I assured her I trusted him, she called me naive." -- Virginia, 30

"I was 18 and at the gyno for the first time. Before asking me anything about my sexual history, he stated, 'I'm glad you've chosen to practice abstinence. It's safer in the long run.' I was too shy to correct him and make it clear that I wasn't abstinent. When I saw him the next year, he repeated the same thing, and then again a year later! I guess it was his stock phrase, but what kind of doctor would not accept the fact that young women have sex?" -- Hannah, 21

The first example might not qualify as a breach of ethics as far as the American Medical Association is concerned, but we would've filed a complaint with the school's administration.

The second example, we feel might fall under "intimidation". The physician has an ethical obligation to place his patient's welfare above his own self-interest/obligation to other groups, but by deciding for her that she's chosen to practice abstinence (without asking her if this is in fact her choice) and doing it in a way that's possibly intended to shame her into abstinence, he's not providing her with the care she needs. That is, there's no discussion of safe sex, birth control options, STD tests... all basic parts of gynecological care that she's being deprived access.

According to the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics' Code of Ethics:

The principles of medical ethics applied to all individuals, such as beneficence (maximize best health outcomes), non-maleficence (do no harm), autonomy (ensure rights of persons to make informed choices about their own health care), and justice, are derived from and consistent with general human rights.[...] These rights imply a need to inform public opinion and to promote a respectful public dialogue, including different ethical and religious perspectives and noting that freedom of religion includes the requirement that no one religion or belief can impose its values on others." [emphasis ours]

The doctor really should be trying to serve the best interests of his patients, which would include asking her questions about her sexual activity/history, not telling her that she is practicing abstinence.

Now, a lot of this comes down to a patient's need to self-advocate. Ask questions, correct misconceptions, and demand the care you need. But at 18, at your first visit ever, when you're probably still under your parents' health insurance and possibly still living at home with your parents... it's definitely easier to be intimidated into making choices that aren't your own. A good doctor should know better and shouldn't try to impose his own values on his patients (and should maintain a level of confidentiality with his patients as well).

Unsanitary care

"I went in for a Pap test, and my doctor showed up with her lunch in her hand. When it came time to spread my legs, she took another bite and chewed while her hands were inside me." -- Sammi, 21

This one definitely is some kind of breach in our opinion. Not only is it gross, but you have a right to be treated in a sanitary facility. Your doctor should be wearing gloves to examine you and there should definitely not be food anywhere near your body! Most offices do have certain standards of care that they abide by. If this doctor was part of a practice, I would make a formal complaint to the office.

Miscellaneous creepy

"I always get fidgety and nervous before a Pap test. I guess my facial expressions revealed my discomfort because my MD looked at me and said, 'Oh, come on. How many partners have you had? This thing is nowhere near as big as a penis.' I was completely appalled. 'Yeah, but a penis is not cold or metal, nor does it open up while inside my vagina, ' I responded. She was pretty quiet after that." -- Wendy, 20

"My gyno said, while huddled over my vadge, 'You are very cute. Are you single? I have a son your age, and I think you two would hit if off." -- Samantha, 23

The first one may or may not be an ethical violation, but it's definitely not okay. That to us would warrant a change in doctor and at the very least, a formal complaint to the office or practice.

Whereas the second one is a little more of a gray area. Definitely inappropriate, definitely uncomfortable... but is it a breach in ethics? Maybe. Aside from the fact, that your doctor shouldn't be calling you "cute" while he's looking at your genital area, while it might not be an explicit violation, it most certainly leads to a whole slew of potential issues. Bad enough that she may have to fear that he will try to reciprocate or drop her as a patient if she says no, but if she does date his son... that just opens the door to so many possible problems.

Aside from the obvious issues of embarrassment (a lot of women might not feel comfortable talking to their boyfriend's father about sex and birth control.) For one, there's the issue of confidentiality. If she begins dating his son, she may be uncomfortable answering her doctor's questions honestly. If she discloses that she is sexually active with multiple partners, that puts her doctor in a strange position. And what happens the next time she's in for a pregnancy test or STD screening? Not only does this in some ways, indirectly, reveal his son's personal and/or medical information to his father, but it puts the doctor in a position where he may feel compelled to violate his patient's privacy.

While a doctor is permitted to contact a patient's past or current sexual partners to notify them that they may have been exposed to a sexually transmitted disease, the doctor is not permitted to reveal the name of the patient. However, if your dad's office calls you to tell you you've been exposed to an STD and you know your girlfriend/date is a patient of his, then it's not too hard to "guess" her private and confidential medical information.

Additionally, there is an ongoing debate over whether it is appropriate for a doctor to examine and treat his own family members. Obviously that doesn't necessarily extend to his son's girlfriend... but if things were to get serious and they were to marry, that would make her his daughter-in-law.

Sexual harassment

"While doing an exam, my OB-GYN, his face closer to my hoo-ha than it needed to be, told me how beautifully groomed I was, then patted my butt. I was so floored, I just mumbled 'Thank you' and prayed for the exam to be over." -- Emily, 32

"I went to my school health center for my yearly visit. During the breast-exam part, while feeling and fondling my boobs for signs of cancer, my gyno gushed about how smooth and pretty they were. Thanks, doc?" -- Morgan, 22

Almost everyone knows that it's unethical for a doctor to have (or try to have) a sexual relationship with a patient, but what is happening here goes well beyond that issue and is straight-up harassment. These two incidents are so blatantly inappropriate and wrong, that it really disturbs me that Cosmo has included them with the other "jokey" anecdotes. It's called sexual harassment and it's never okay, but it's especially awkward and violating when it's done by a gynecologist because of the already personal and sensitive nature of their examinations.

The doctor-patient relationship relies on trust and in this case, intimacy. A doctor should never "hit on" his or her patients, because it is virtually impossible for the patient to give meaningful consent. But what is happening in the two incidents above are not examples of doctors merely "hitting on" their patients. They are examples of doctors exploiting their power and positions, as gynecologists, to physically violate their patients.

Now, yes, I have heard cases of women who were so uninformed about their own medical care, that they honestly did not know what a pelvic exam or breast exam consisted of. Therefore, they may have mistaken actual, legitimate examination for inappropriate conduct. But in these cases, it is clear that the doctor's conduct is inappropriate. In the first story, there's no way to necessarily determine how close his face did or did not need to be... but his comment was inappropriate and his pat on the butt is clearly a violation. In the second exam, it's not clear whether they performed the breast exam appropriately or inappropriately (use of the term "fondling" makes me a bit uneasy), but the comments are obviously inappropriate and do potentially cross the line from "innocent compliment" to sexual harassment.

You are already putting yourself in a vulnerable position when you go to any doctor, but at an OB/GYN, the intimacy of the exams takes that a step further. Therefore those doctors need to have an even higher level of behavior and bedside manner. Stories like those above should never happen and when they do, they should never be included in light-hearted stories as Cosmo has done. They should be taken seriously, pointed out to be the sexual harassment and ethics violations that they clearly are, and reported.

We think that Cosmo's "reporting" (ha!) was not only insensitive but irresponsible. But of course, we're not shocked.

Condom Quickie: No Condoms as Evidence!

2012-04-17T11:17:00.000-04:00

You may or may not be aware that in New York, the police and the courts can currently use the fact that a person has or is carrying condoms to prove that they are engaging in criminal activity (i.e., prostitution). WTF right?

Obviously this is ridiculous - any laws that discourage people from carrying condoms, in effect discourages them from using condoms - something that everyone should be doing, not just sex workers. It's 2012, we should be way beyond the antiquated ideas that women who carry condoms are unladylike or slutty. They're smart and they're safe. Condoms are not shameful and carrying them should not be "illegal" or "evidence".

New York State Bill A1008/S323 (also known as the "No Condoms as Evidence Bill") would stop police and prosecutors from using possession of condoms as evidence of prostitution, based on the premise that it is a much better public health policy to encourage condom use, by eliminating the fear that carrying them might be used against you in a court of law.

Today, Tuesday April 17, supporters of sex workers' rights, public health experts, sex educators, and human rights advocates have gone to Albany to lobby the New York State Assembly to pass Bill A1008/S323. Today there will be a press conference held, calling on the Assembly to pass this legislation and stop discouraging sex workers and other New Yorkers from carrying condoms.

Even if you're not in Albany today, you can still help! You can get more information on the bill, on why it's important, and on what you can do here.

How to Lose Your Virginity

2012-04-08T11:23:00.000-04:00

We recently helped support the film How to Lose Your Virginity (a documentary project by Therese Schecter) on Kickstarter. We were lucky enough to be able to see a preview of this film at the MOMENTUM conference last weekend and we were really impressed by it and are really looking forward to seeing the finished film. If you'd like to learn more and support Therese as she finishes this project, check out her page on Kickstarter.

By making a donation to the project on Kickstarter, you'll not only support a great project but you'll also choice of rewards and thank yous. Here's a little more info on the film:

WHAT'S THE DEAL WITH VIRGINITY?

I am not going to tell you how to have sex for the first time. I do want to know why, in our hyper-sexualized American culture, we're so obsessed with virginity.

Our goal for How To Lose Your Virginity is to undo centuries of myths and contradictions around virginity, and to encourage an honest conversation with people navigating the confusing process of deciding when and why to become sexual. What do a rock violinist, an Ivy League blogger and an Ohio engineer have in common? They're all subverting the virginity narrative in our film.

The "How to Lose Your Virginity" trailer from Trixie Films on Vimeo.

Thanks to our fantastic supporters we've finished our first rough cut, are talking with distributors and have given voice to young people all over the world who've submitted their own stories to our blog. The project earned spots in prestigious events such as the IFP Film Market, the Paley Center pitching forum, and the Hot Docs Documentary Festival Master Class.

We're excited to be back with a second Kickstarter campaign to raise money to finish up the film, hire our composer and animator and license our footage. We are so close to being done, but we can't finish without a successful fundraiser.

If you've been following the media, you know the subject is more timely than ever: Recently, Rush Limbaugh told single women everywhere that they’d better act like virgins if they don’t want to be shamed as sluts and insulted on national television. Fifty years after the sexual revolution, this attitude continues to define a young woman’s morality and self-worth.
Female virginity has been ‘restored’ through surgery, fetishized by porn and commoditized by popular culture. The US government has spent $1.5 billion dollars promoting it through abstinence programs. It’s fetched tens of thousands of dollars at auction. That's our damaging virginity culture at work and our film addresses these issues head-on.

What does How to Lose Your Virginity mean to young people? Here's what one young woman told me:

“Hearing about other people’s experiences with virginity made me feel differently about losing my own, and all the soul searching that resulted. I don’t know what it’s going to take for me to achieve a normal sex life, but I feel more comforted that maybe one day it’ll happen.” Read more of these

My first documentary I Was a Teenage Feminist ignited a movement to redefine feminism for the 21st century at universities, on television and at events all over the world–and it’s still going strong seven years later.

I invite you to join me in this new quest to discover how young women are encouraged by the media to look hypersexual, called prudes for not putting out, and then punished for actually having a sex life. Using my own journey out of 'virginity' to guide the story, I'll introduce you to a group of amazing women and men telling their own personal stories from across the sexuality spectrum.

The road to understanding our obsession with virginity will take you to places you never thought you’d go–from a Love & Fidelity Abstinence Conference at Harvard to the set of a Barely Legal porn movie shoot in the San Fernando Valley.

The film features the wisdom and wit of Dr. Joycelyn Elders, Heather Corinna, Hanne Blank, Jessica Valenti, Shelby Knox, Abiola Abrams, Sady Doyle among others.

YOU CAN FUND OUR FINAL CUT AND GET THIS FILM INTO THE WORLD

There is little if any funding for independent media that focuses on the lives of young women, especially films like How to Lose Your Virginity which encourage young people to challenge the damaging messages in the pop culture landscape.

You have the power to challenge these damaging messages by making a generous donation to fund the final cut of the film. Your backing will help us raise the $35,000 that will catalyze this conversation to a whole new level. This is not just a film, it's a multi-media project with huge outreach potential.

As a result of being in the IFP Film Market, we've had massive interest in the project, but–and this is a big but–distributors today need to see a finished film before they can get it onto television, into theaters and into schools.

That's why we need you.

Become a backer for just $10, snag some great rewards and ensure that How to Lose Your Virginity gets out into the world.

Since we debuted the film's first trailer on Vimeo, we’ve had over 60,000 views, hundreds of blog posts and an overwhelming number of people speaking to each other through our online crowd-sourced First Person story series. Demand for this kind of information is so high, the trailer is already being used in university Human Sexuality classes across North America.

BACK US ON KICKSTARTER AND SUPPORT INDEPENDENT MEDIA

Kickstarter recently said their projects could bring in more funding this year than the National Endowment for the Arts; grants are few and far between.

• Back How to Lose Your Virginity today to support independent media and documentaries that are changing the conversation, speak out against the sexism of virginity culture, and make sure conservative blowhards can't shame us for our sexual decisions.

Want to help but are totally broke? You can also help by spreading the word to everyone you know using the links right under the video above! Every single dollar, Facebook post, blog entry and tweet gets us that much closer to our goal. Please check out our blog, become our Facebook friend or follow us on Twitter.

Thank you so much from Therese, Lisa, Ellice, Dina, Jude, Matt and the rest of Team Trixie Films!

This project will only be funded if at least $35,000 is pledged by Wednesday May 9, 6:00 pm so please help Therese reach her goal by then!

10 Things About Momentum '12

2012-04-06T20:45:00.000-04:00

This past weekend (March 30-April 1) we attended the MOMENTUM Conference in the Washington, D.C. area. Just like last year, we had an amazing time! Here is our recap... 10 things about MOMENTUM:

#1. The Backstory

This was the second annual MOMENTUM Conference on sexuality, feminism and relationships. The conference was organized by Dee Dennis (@deedennis) and Tess Danesi (@urban_gypsy) of Tied Up Events. Although MOMENTUM's main focus was sex, it was not a sex event. There was no public or organized 'play' (although attendees were obviously free to make whatever private arrangements they wanted). If you haven't already been reading along on Twitter, you can join the conversation at hashtag #mcon or follow @momentumcon.

We had nothing but praise for Momentum last year (which, if you know us, says a lot - we rarely rave about anything). We expected some beginner mistakes and mishaps, considering that it was their first year, but everything went as smoothly as possible and it was easily one of the best conferences we have ever been to. (Read about our experience at last year's MOMENTUM Conference here.)

#2. The Sessions and Keynotes and Performances

SEX RULES
Maria Falzone (@mariafalzone)

Description: A hilarious and inspirational performance that addresses serious sexual subjects in a frank and funny manner. Through lecture and audience participation, Falzone speaks to students about topics from safe sex to self-sex and everything in between. The message behind “SEX RULES” is that sex should be fun and satisfying emotionally, as well as physically.

Quotes: "If someone calls you a cunt, respond with 'that's juicy cunt to you, now move on and don't make me slap you with it.'"

Reactions: Maria Falzone is loud, over-the-top, honest, open, engaging, and totally hilarious. She performed at last year's conference and we loved her just as much this year. Even when some of the material was the same as what she said last year, we still found ourselves laughing and nodding as if we were hearing it for the first time.

The Opening Keynote Plenary:
Making Waves in Sexuality, Feminism and Relationships

Dr. Charlie Glickman (@CharlieGlickman), Dr. Logan Levkoff (@LoganLevkoff), Bill Taverner (@sexedjournal) and Audacia Ray (@audaciaray). Moderated by Carol Queen (@carolqueen).

Description: The keynote panelists, all of whom have made significant impact in their own spheres, discuss the role of sexuality in today’s culture, how they make waves that help change perceptions about sex, feminism and relationships and what attendees can do to carry forward the momentum by generating conversations about sexuality.

Quotes: 'I have problems with the term sex toys because it makes them sound like novelties, when for many they are necessities.' - Logan Levkoff

"If we continue to treat adult sexuality as something dangerous, our young people don't stand a chance." - Logan Levkoff

"Be excellent to each other." - Charlie Glickman

Reactions: We admit that this panel is a bit of a blur of sexy goodness in our minds since we were still in 'OMG we're finally at MOMENTUM!' mode, and we were too busy eating meatballs to live tweet (more on that later). But it was a really interesting discussion and a great way to kick off the weekend. And honestly, any panel moderated by Carol Queen is an automatic winner in our book. We loved Charlie Glickman's suggestion that we all try to bring "fierce compassion" to the debates about reproductive freedom and sex ed and other hot button issues, and also Logan Levkoff's honesty about how incredibly fucking hard it is to do that sometimes.

One part of this discussion that we didn't entirely agree with was Audacia Ray's talk about why she no longer identifies as a sex positive feminist. (You can read a version of her comments on her blog.) She raised some really important questions and critiques of sex positive feminism, but at the same time it also felt a bit patronizing to us, as if she was saying that since she's decided that the term "sex positive feminism" no longer has value to her, we should all agree or we're just unenlightened and wrong. We're sure she didn't mean it that way, but it just came across a little weird to us. But one thing we will say is that we could see that it sparked a lot of discussion and debate in the room, and in a room full of super smart and creative MOMENTUM attendees that's never a bad thing.

Sexual Freedom and the Law
Diana Adams

Description: Why is sexual pleasure treated as 'dangerous' by the religious right? How can we activists use political messaging to defend our rights to sexual freedom and privacy? Adams, a sexual civil rights attorney, will educate you on the current state of the war on sexual pleasure and facilitate a discussion about the best political and legal strategies to create positive messages about sexual freedom.

Quotes: "In Alabama today, the fine for selling a gun to a child: $500. The fine for selling a dildo or vibrator: $10,000 and one year in jail."- Diana Adams

"Explicitly, 'let's get these single moms married.' I think a single mother needing to get married to be able to support her children and have health insurance is the government being her pimp. You should not need to enter into a sexual relationship to get your basic economic needs met."- Diana Adams

Reactions: This was a great discussion about the ways that the government and the law recognize, promote, and protect certain types of families and behaviors and what those of us who might fall outside of that mainstream can do to challenge this status quo while also taking steps to protect ourselves and our relationships. It also made us glad that we don't live in Alabama, because we could easily be arrested for the "intent to sell" sex toys based solely on the number of free vibrators that we've collected at conferences over the years. (Someone mentioned that the number is six or more. We definitely have more than that and many of them are still in their original packaging! We should have a vibrator yard sale.)

Sex and the Media: Who Wins?
Brian Gross (@bsgpr)

Description: The relationship between sex and the media is a love/hate one. The industries of sexuality see incredible response when spoken of in the media, but what's the cost? The media loves to use sexuality to sell publications, bring ratings, and increase advertising revenue. However, they don't necessarily paint the prettiest or most accurate picture. We discuss the relationship, the dos and don'ts, and how you can come out ahead.

Quotes: "One word I never use is the word 'pornography'. It's a bad word, unfortunately. When I deal with media people I never use that word, I use 'adult film'. And when you think about the pieces you read and the things you see on TV, things you read on the Internet... pornography is looked at as a bad word." - Brian Gross

"With sexuality, now we can break it down and have all these great discussions of what everyone's involved in -- but to the media as a whole, it's sexuality. And they are either gonna support you or they're gonna say 'no thank you.'" - Brian Gross

Reactions: With the word 'slut' in our name, we know what it feels like to have people who won't work with you, so it was interesting to hear about how the media looks at businesses that are sex-related or 'adult' content.

Sexuality and Social Media
Stef Woods (@citygirlblogs), Dr. Jennifer Gunsaullus (@drjennsden), Maggie Campbell (@asimple_melody) and Carmen Rios (@c_rios)

Description: This workshop examines the interplay between sex, sexuality and social media. What are the advantages and disadvantages of the growth of social media as it pertains to sexuality? How has the evolution of online communication and social networks encouraged sexual expression, sex education and activism? How has social media increased fear, misinformation, prejudice, and harassment with respect to individual and group sexuality? What is the impact of social media on relationships and forming identities? What role can bloggers, sex educators and sexual health advocates play in helping to answer those questions?

Quotes: "Sometimes people prefer to call it 'new media' or 'digital media' because we can be as social or as anti-social as we want. We can be as authentic... or not. These are all choices that we can make. What's going on out there we can't control, but we can control what we put about ourselves online. What we're doing personally and professionally to control our reputation, our online presence, our personal brand." - Stef Woods

Reaction: This was a great panel and a really interesting discussion about the ways that we all negotiate social media differently. There was a debate about whether blogging anonymously means you have less credibility - the group didn't come to a consensus, but we think most people came down on the side of 'if you have good content it shouldn't matter'. There was also a lot of talk about compartmentalizing your social media identity, whether that means expressing different parts of yourself on different sites or just adjusting your Facebook privacy settings so that your family doesn't see all of your status updates about how Rick Santorum is an anti-choice douchebag and 50 Shades of Grey isn't the best BDSM erotica out there.

The Pleasure Revolution: Feminist Subversives Then and Now
Rebecca Chalker (@clitoraltruth) and Lara Riscol (@larariscol)

Description: Feminist sexuality activism after 1968 created a dynamic, profound and far-reaching shift in sexual values and practices that recast the heteronormative, androcentric paradigm to include the sexual needs, interests, problems and preferences of women. Chalker coins this movement, “The Pleasure Revolution,” in which feminists critiqued Freud, wrote subversive novels and sex advice books, popularized masturbation, demanded respect for lesbians, opened their own sex shops, did their own sex surveys, rehabilitated the clitoris, challenged male-centered psychology, made “cunt art,” created their own porn, and in the process, reinvented sex for women and their partners! Chalker evaluates the work of these “pleasure activists,” in the 1970s and 80s, with respect to their legacy. Riscol captures today’s historic Pleasure Revolution revived over recent years to combat politically potent mainstreamed Christian fundamentalism against female sexual autonomy and gender deviance. New media has not only enabled pleasure activists a reverberating voice in political and cultural debates mired in purity vs. perversion nostalgia, but also a more intersectional feminism to include men, sexual and gender queers, people of color, and immigration and sex workers rights activists. The revolution will be tweeted!

Quotes: Press covering Judy Chicago's iconic feminist art piece The Dinner Party used the term "butterfly plates" because they couldn't or wouldn't reference vulvas in print. - Rebecca Chalker

"Everyone here hopefully knows feminists never burned their bras. That never happened. It was never a part of history, except for a PR event. It was a PR stunt, but that was not what feminism was about. But that's how we grow up learning ... that is the story. The history-makers, the victors are those who tell the best story. And they maintain and they keep that story to marginalize and belittle the feminist movement. Pitting the housewives and working women against the lesbians and the marginalized women of color, dividing within." - Lara Riscol

Reaction: We both felt like we were back in our college women's history and gender studies classes with this one. It's easy to be preoccupied with everything that's going on now and looking to the future, but this session was a great reminder that we can draw so many lessons and so much inspiration from the "pleasure revolutionaries" who have blazed a trail for us.

Feminist Porn as Cultural Critique
Lynn Comella, PhD (@lynncomella), Carol Queen, PhD (@carolqueen), Tina Horn (@tinahornsass and Sinnamon Love (@sinnamonlove)

Description: It’s not uncommon for sex positive feminists, including those who make, watch, study and write about pornography, to be accused of lacking a meaningful critique of the mainstream adult industry. This session discusses how we can reframe the very idea of what counts as “feminist critique” and “sex positive” by focusing on the ways in which cultural producers use media texts, sexual images and ethical production practices as modes of political intervention that challenge ideas about “business as usual” within the adult industry.

Quotes: "Before we can critique porn for it's lack of appropriate sex education, we have to look at how are we educating (or failing to educate) young people that then become adults that are poorly educated when it comes to sex and look at why porn is used as the primary of sex education for adults that have been poorly educated by the system." - Sinnamon Love

"I think that anyone who is against pornography in any way, because of the images and the kind of stuff that people could learn from it, must be an advocate and activist for good, comprehensive, pleasure-based, thorough sex education. If not, they are talking through their hat. They are partisan. Because if they care about that, we've got a world in which this is such a crucial question and everybody's work is needed to help make sex education better and where are they at that table?" - Carol Queen

Reaction: We attended Lynn Comella and Carol Queen's session last year and it was fantastic, so as soon as we saw that they were teaming up again as part of this panel we knew we were so there. This session took an interesting approach to the topic of feminism and porn by looking at the ways that feminist porn itself can serve as a critique of sexism in "mainstream" porn - respectful and fair treatment of performers, choosing a diverse group of performers rather than one stereotypical 'porn star' look, allowing performers to express themselves in ways they're comfortable with and to do what they think is sexy rather than what the audience may expect to see, and so on. We also thought it was interesting that both Tina Horn and Sinnamon Love stated that winning Feminist Porn Awards made them more likely to identify as feminists themselves and think about their work in feminist terms.

How To Lose Your Virginity
Therese Shechter (@trixiefilms)

Description: Another presenter was unable to attend at this last minute, so Therese Shechter filled in with a preview of her documentary How to Lose Your Virginity:

I am not going to tell you how to have sex for the first time. I do want to know why, in our hyper-sexualized American culture, we're so obsessed with virginity.

Our goal for How To Lose Your Virginity is to undo centuries of myths and contradictions around virginity, and to encourage an honest conversation with people navigating the confusing process of deciding when and why to become sexual. What do a rock violinist, an Ivy League blogger and an Ohio engineer have in common? They're all subverting the virginity narrative in our film.

Reaction: We were really impressed by the preview and we're looking forward to seeing the finished film. If you'd like to learn more and support Therese as she finishes the project, check out her page on Kickstarter.

The Closing Keynote Plenary:
Sex in America: Changing the Conversation Beyond Smut and Sanctimony
Dr. Joycelyn Elders (@eldersrev), Esther Perel (@estherperel) and Lara Riscol (@larariscol)

Description: Adultery, abortion, homosexuality, transgender rights, teen sex, female promiscuity, virginity campaigns, sex ed, pornography, prostitution and family values all clog public debate, especially in an election year. Despite America’s hypersexualized consumer culture, the practice of policing and demonizing sexualities continues unabated, while an Ozzie and Harriet, Sandra Dee nostalgia binds us to sexual myths that harm us as individuals, as lovers, as a society. As today’s infotainment era churns out a “smut and sanctimony” narrative that divides our nation regardless of sexual lives lived, how do we change the conversation? When we’re taught that sex is dirty but save it for the one we love, is it any surprise that so many couples become erotically alienated? How do the politics of sex enter the bedroom? Join three bold thinkers–known for challenging the sexual status quo–in a thoughtful and provocative conversation about sex, pleasure, desire, eroticism, infidelity and monogamy.

Quotes: "We're talking about very serious issues - personal, political, cultural, societal issues - that need to be addressed. that we need to talk about. And MOMENTUM is addressing these issues by talking about sex." - Lara Riscol

"This is part of a strategic, powerful, well-funded relentless decades long attempt to capture the soul of America. It is an all-out war... cultural warrior, theo-conservative. Those who want to take us back to a biblical world view. And so it serves them well to play up the scary stuff of modernity, the toxic pop culture and hypersexualization and dump all of that toxicity on those who are working towards reform and change and rights. And their mission is ultimately to take us back to an America before we had those rights." - Lara Riscol

"If you can't control your reproduction, you can't control your life." -Dr. Joycelyn Elders

"The best contraception in the world is a good education." - Dr. Joycelyn Elders

"The vows of abstinence break far more easily than latex condoms." - Dr. Jocelyn Elders

"In this country, Puritanism and hedonism collide every second." - Esther Perel

"Monogamy used to be one person for life, now it's one person at a time...I want one person to give me everything a village used to provide." - Esther Perel

Reaction: This panel was absolutely amazing and the perfect way to finish off the conference. Dr. Elders, Esther Perel, and Lara Riscol are rock stars and together they created an engaging, inspiring, and thought-provoking discussion. People were tweeting up a storm because there were so many quotable lines, and we think just about everyone left the room recharged and ready to go out there and create some momentum of their own.

#3. The Sponsors and Vendors

The premier sponsor of the conference was Masque™ (@yourmasque), a brand new company with a really cool product designed to "bring you and your partner closer together—inside the bedroom and out." Based on the idea that, for some people, the taste of semen can make the act of fellatio less enjoyable, Masque's orally-dissolvable, flavored gel strips take the intimacy between you and your partner to the next level by blocking the flavors associated with oral sex.

We think this is just a really interesting product, because while we personally don't have a huge problem with the taste of semen, we know countless women and men who do... So anything that helps make giving oral sex a more enjoyable experience is a good idea in our opinion. We want to give them a very big THANK YOU for sponsoring this conference because we truly are very grateful to have had the opportunity to attend such an awesome event for such a low price. It's really awesome to see companies support something like MOMENTUM and the concept of sex positivity, especially those that can help make sex more positive for more people. We went home with a few samples and we're looking forward to trying the product out soon. (Stay tuned for a review when we do.)

Additional sponsors of MOMENTUM included:

Gold Level Sponsor: Tenga, the manufacturer of the male masturbator “TENGA”, the most popular masturbator in Asia.

TENGA’s stylish design is meant to offer the user an experience of sensual sensations like never before while avoiding any visual imitation of any sexual organ. This modern, non-obscene approach helps to overcome the taboo factor and the combination of materials and ergonomic shapes offers innovative technology in the market of male pleasure.

Recharge Room Sponsor: Trigg Laboratories manufactures premium sexual wellness and consumer healthcare products and is parent company to Wet® International, Inc., an international leader in personal lubricants, aromatherapy massage oils and intimacy products.

Wet® products are developed, formulated and packaged at Trigg Laboratories’ 52,000 square foot facility in Valencia, California. Developed, tested, and manufactured to comply with stringent FDA Medical Device regulations in state-of-the-art facilities, each of Wet’s 80+ products are developed to exceptional purity, consistency and comfort levels. Currently available in 62 countries, Wet® is sold by adult specialty boutiques as well as food, drug, mass merchandise retail, including most major U.S. drugstore chains.

Silver Level Sponsors

JanesGuide.com, led by Jane Duval and "Vamp", is a team of website reviewers who have been writing about sex for nearly fifteen years and bring you the best in paysites, product reviews, adult blogging, sexuality resources and education.

Good Vibrations has provided high quality products, education, and information that promotes sexual health, pleasure, and empowerment for over three decades.

Good Vibrations is a diverse, woman-focused retailer providing high-quality, sex-positive products and non-judgmental, accurate sex information through our clean and comfortable stores, catalog, web site, wholesale division, product and movie production lines in order to enhance our customers’ sex lives and promote healthy attitudes about sex. We invented the concept of the clean, well-lighted vibrator store and we’re proud to provide a safe and welcoming environment where customers can shop for sex toys, books, movies, and attend workshops.

Safe Office is a subscription based website designed specifically for those who value security, privacy, and discretion. It is designed by and for Service Providers.

Get sensitive data off PCs and phones that are notoriously NOT secure and at risk of theft, damage, or seizure. Enjoy the privacy and reliability of offshore venue and hosting. Separate your work life from your personal life. Organize your business. Increase your profits. Protect the privacy of both you and your clients. Track your Contacts, Schedule, History, Projects, Mailing Lists, Passwords, Bookmarks, and more. Share “Resources” and “Blacklist” information with other members of the Community.

njoy creates "pleasure instruments that stimulate more than the obvious senses".

All njoy toys are crafted in premium medical grade stainless steel for purity, beauty, and infinite durability. Employing precision design, superior new-world craftsmanship, and a healthy dose of naughty creativity, we present to you the finest of erotic products. We hope you have as much fun playing with our toys as we have designing them… njoy!

Standard Innovation Corporation is a world leader in designing and manufacturing high quality, safe, eco-friendly intimate products including the popular We-Vibe.

Since the launch in 2004, the We-Vibe has quickly become the fastest selling sexual wellness product of its type in history, with over 2 million products sold worldwide since the launch in 2008. Committed to engineering products aimed at improving couples’ fun and intimacy, this Canadian company has expanded their product line to include the Touch, Tango and Salsa (all by We-Vibe®) and plan to continue to expand their comprehensive product portfolio to provide innovative solutions to help couples have more fun.

The full family of Standard Innovation’s We-Vibe ® products are currently distributed by drug stores and fine boutiques in over 50 countries around the world.

Bronze Level Sponsors

HotMoviesForHer.com is porn for women!

We hand pick through the largest online adult library to find the best movies just for women – on demand and ready to watch, along with a FREE blog full of movie reviews, sex tips, erotic stories, interviews, our own fun ramblings, and more! No monthly or recurring charges; you just pay for what you watch, without the hassles.

Tantus manufactures the world’s finest adult toys.

All Tantus Toys are hand-made from the highest quality 100% Ultra-Premium Platinum Silicone, are designed to work with the body’s anatomy, and are manufactured in the USA. Since 1998, Tantus has built a reputation as the industry leader through our elevated level of quality and exclusive product designs.

Sexquire’s founder, Davis, a small-business attorney, has spent over seven years working with clients in all areas of the adult industry: including brick and mortar and online retail stores, sex toy manufacturers, dungeon and club owners, sex educators, adult performers, sex workers, adult event producers and authors.

Davis has spent an equally long time vetting other professionals for her clients. Fed up with the sex-negativity and misunderstandings she found with many other service providers, Davis created Sexquire in order to have a team of professionals at the ready to assist sex-positive businesses and companies in whatever needs arise. Sexquire’s team includes a core group of regular service providers, as well as a world-wide network of companies and individuals who regularly work within the adult and kink industries. No matter your need, give us a call and if we don’t have a perfect fit we’ll go out and find one for you. Convenience and quality service – it’s what Sexquire is all about.

Artpulp.net was created to with the goal to support the creative process, give voice to artists, and encourage others to choose creativity.

Since 1996, the Aneros Company has been dedicated to crafting unique, effective sexual aids that promote health as well as pleasure, led by our patented line of hands-free Aneros Prostate Stimulators. We will be working diligently to introduce our line of female products that will uphold the Aneros tradition and standard of innovation and quality.

Superior Strap on harness and bondage toys designed for your pleasure! ASLAN creates products inspire people to explore desire in new ways. Give yourself permission… ASLANLeather.com.

MOMENTUM also had a Marketplace where a lot of great vendors and companies were selling their goods or promoting their programs. In addition to the sponsors listed above, some additional brands and organizations at MOMENTUM this weekend included:

#4. The Compliments

We have to say, yet again, that this was one of the best conferences we have been to so far. We're so impressed by the fact that this conference is still so new (only in its second year), yet was able to hold its own against (and actually surpass in some ways) some of the bigger, longer-running conferences with major corporate sponsorships. We weren't really worried that this year wouldn't live up to last year's experience, but we're still happy that now we can officially say that MOMENTUM was really that good...again.

This was a very reasonably-priced conference but the old adage "you get what you pay for" did not apply in this case. We got so much more than we paid for! We said this last year and we will say it again... we love this conference because everything seems as if it was custom-designed with us in mind. Yet again, everything was totally organized and ran super smoothly and we couldn't have been happier.

They gave us free ice cream on the first night. We could end the list right there and be fully satisfied.
On the second night, Good Vibrations sponsored a cocktail party. They gave us bellinis and chocolate and a room packed full of awesome people that we could have hung out with all night. (Get used to seeing the word awesome in this recap.)

They had a Recharge Room (thanks to sponsor Wet) and a Hospitality Suite (which was conveniently right down the hall from our room). We could stop in and juice up our computers or grab some coffee... Rice Krispie treats, chocolate covered almonds, granola bars! Yay! They also had vegan/gluten-free cupcakes. Lots of 'em.

They scheduled the opening keynote in the evening (instead of early in the morning, when we are sure to be tired/cranky/hungover) and had a bar set up right outside the keynote that was fully stocked with Corona (and other stuff). It really is like they designed this conference with us in mind.

No one flinches when we say the name of our blog! And if someone mistakenly assumes that it's a porn/erotica site, when they learn that it isn't, they seem more disappointed than relieved.

They are 20-minute breaks between sessions (and a hefty amount of time allotted for lunch and dinner) so we're able to talk after a really great session and not have to worry about rushing to get to the next one on time. Plus all of the session rooms were located right near each other, in a nice row, which made it even more convenient.

There was such a great selection of sessions that it was hard to decide what to attend! We really appreciated the diversity of the panelists... people from all walks of life and lots of big names!

Every session was of great quality and the speakers not only knew what they were talking about, but were passionate about the subject matter and personable. Not once did we leave a session thinking "well that was a waste of time" or "they really should've prepared more" and we didn't hear anything negative about the sessions we missed either.

They have flawless privacy policies. They let attendees choose what name to use on their badges (e.g., a pen name, just a first name, etc.) and that is the only name you need to get your badge. (No showing ID, no list of which pen name goes with which legal name and which credit card.) They have "NO PHOTOS" pins for those attendees that are not willing to be photographed and make it very clear that there are to be no photographs, video, or audio recordings made without permission. No other conference we've been to yet has a privacy policy like that (or well, any at all really) so it is extremely refreshing for those of us who are still at varying degrees of anonymity.

Dee and Tess. We think they deserve their own little section on this list because we just love them and we love what they've done by creating this amazing conference. Thank you!

Overall, we have nothing but praise for MOMENTUM.

#5. The Criticisms

Didn't you see that we just said we have nothing but praise!?

At one point during the weekend we were jokingly discussing what we would say if we absolutely had to come up with some complaints. The extremely minor and petty nature of the following list only serves to further illustrate how awesome MOMENTUM really is:

The pillows on the hotel beds were kinda marshmallowy and weird.

There was no actual Starbucks in the hotel (it was one of those 'we brew Starbucks coffee' situations), so to get to a real Starbucks we had to walk into the shopping center attached to the hotel, which took like five whole minutes.

The air conditioner in our room made a weird noise a couple of times.

The hotel's wifi Internet service was sketchy.

There were no good TV channels. We would have traded the Speed channel, CMT, Fox News, and one of the ESPNs for Vh1 or E! or LOGO or something.

During some of the time slots there were too many good sessions and it was hard to choose which one we wanted to go to.

Tess's suite had nicer artwork than our room.

That's really the best we can do. We can't come up with anything to seriously complain about, and if there was something, we would be the ones to find it and loudly bitch about it.

#6. The Hotel

This year MOMENTUM was held at the Crystal City Marriott at Regan Airport in Arlington, Virginia. To those of you who may have read our recap of last year's MOMENTUM conference, we were not happy with the Silver Spring Crowne Plaza. It was our only complaint about last year's conference, which had nothing to do with the conference itself. (Check out our TripAdvisor review here). So really, any hotel would've been a step-up from last year and we would've been happy.

But the Marriott was actually really great on its own too! Our hotel room was clean, the staff was helpful, and the bar/restaurant Bell20 (@Bell20Tavern) was automatically better than last year just by the fact that they agreed to serve us at all! But the food was also delicious and the bartenders were so nice and helpful.

Yet again the MOMENTUM Conference was booked at the same time as a group of kids (this time a trip of fifth graders) but unlike last year, the hotel didn't try to control or shame us in any way and there was no conflict whatsoever. We were a little freaked out to see so many kids in the lobby, swarming around us and seemingly multiplying at every turn, when we first checked in... but we didn't see them again the whole weekend.

It seemed like they booked a lot of MOMENTUM attendees on the same floor as us, which was kind of nice, and we lucked out being right down the hall from the Hospitality Suite. Just the fact that the toilet flushed at all officially made it better than last year's hotel, but we were also pleasantly surprised by the quality of the water pressure in the shower and our request for extra towels and pillows was fulfilled quickly. (Did we mention that last year's hotel really sucked?) Like we said above, we didn't love the pillows on the bed, but that's not really a complaint about the hotel. That's just an indication of how hard to please we are when it comes to our sleeping arrangements. We are pillow snobs and need to start traveling with our own.

Really, the only genuine complaint we can make is that the hotel's Internet access was sketchy. When we used the wifi on our laptops it was painfully slow and using it on our smartphones was downright impossible. (We both used up a lot of our phone's data plans on this trip!) We also saw that someone had posted something about certain sites being blocked, but we're not sure if that was really the case.

During one of our sessions there was an issue with the audio and someone came and fixed it. It seems like common sense right, but last year it wouldn't have happened. We appreciated how helpful everyone was and how much they really seemed to care and appreciate the fact that MOMENTUM brought a lot of business to their hotel. They showed the conference, the organizers and the attendees the respect we all deserved.

#7. Friends and Inspirations

It was really awesome to catch up with so many of our Momentum friends and we met so many new great people this weekend... but we haven't completely organized our pile of business cards and stuff yet, so we're just going to list some of our new twitter friends/followers for now. We definitely recommend that you all check these people out!

Here in no particular order - except that Dee and Tess are first, because they're awesome - are some of our new friends, old friends, and some people we'd love to hopefully make our friends someday. Those of you who are on this list hopefully know which category you fit into and if you're not on the list it doesn't mean we don't love you too. It means we haven't fully recovered yet from the weekend! (Or... we have misplaced your contact info, so please get in touch! And if we're not already twitter friends, follow us now!)

@deedennis
@urban_gypsy

@FranciscoNYC

@citygirlblogs

@funkybrownchick

@ReidAboutSex

@mariafalzone

@bsgpr

@lynncomella

@debontherocks

@DCampesePhoto

@TrixieFilms

@Sexquire

@LaraRiscol

@CharlieGlickman

@cunningminx

@fancynancynyc

@clitoraltruth

This list could go on and on and we're sure we left a lot of people out, sorry. Basically, we can't help repeating the words 'great' and 'awesome' over and over again because everyone we met at MOMENTUM was awesome and we can't wait to see them all again!

#8. The Random ESC Moments

As we mentioned before, we've gone to a lot of conferences and stayed in a lot of hotels over the years. It can get a little exhausting so we always make sure to give ourselves a little time to chill and zone out and... watch terrible TV. At last year's Momentum, the crappy hotel had crappy cable so we ended up watching a marathon of Law & Order. This year we somehow continued that tradition. Leave it to the ESC to spend most of our day talking about sex-positivity and respectful BDSM, only to turn around and watch hours of women getting raped and abused. This must have been the celebrity guest star marathon weekend because we watched some really bizarre episodes, including one that was focused on poisonous mushrooms and another starring John Stamos as a reproductive abuser with 47 kids across the US.

Every time we travel we end up getting sucked in by at least one totally random movie that we come across on TV. (Once we stayed up super late the night before the start of a conference to watch Donnie Darko for no apparent reason, and then couldn't get to sleep because we kept trying to analyze the plot.) This time our movie was an iconic musical film from the '90s that you may have heard of...yes, of course we're talking about Spice World. We got some weird looks from a random dude in the elevator later that night because we couldn't stop singing "Spice Up Your Life".

We spent all day Friday traveling, so by the time the opening festivities started that evening we realized that we had eaten nothing but Twizzlers and Chex Mix all day. We needed real food but we didn't want to miss anything. So using our typical ESC resourcefulness, we went down to the bar and ordered food "to go", and then snuck it upstairs just in time for the opening panel to start. We're not sure how much the people sitting at our table appreciated it, but we think they were mostly just jealous that they didn't think of it first.

One night we were really tired and having a hard time getting motivated to leave the room for dinner, so we debated ordering a pizza instead. Using logic that makes sense only to us, we decided that we'd have to order from Papa John's or Dominos or Pizza Hut, because being New Yorkers we knew that we'd be disappointed with any "real" pizza from a pizza place in Virginia, so it would be better to just order fake pizza from the start and know what to expect. (Full disclosure: We never ordered the pizza after all. Instead we went downstairs to the hotel bar in our pajamas. When we got there, we found Dee in her pajamas!)

Part of being at an amazing conference like MOMENTUM is the sense of community. We're all there for pretty much the same reason and there's a level of mutual respect floating around in the area, even among attendees you haven't spoken to yet (and the odds that a random person in the elevator is actually one of your twitter friends are pretty good). So when we were grabbing a drink at the bar and a random guy behind us asked "are you enjoying the conference?" we answered "yes" without flinching. Then he asked "so what kind of conference is this exactly? Something about sex?" and we realized he had no idea what MOMENTUM really was and was likely just trying to hit on us because he assumed we were sex-crazed sluts or something. (Not that we aren't, but yeah, no thanks random dude.)

At one point we were hanging out in our room and we had this conversation:

Lilith: I love Tess and Dee. I feel like they're kind of like us. You're Dee and I'm Tess. Or... am I Dee and you're Tess?

Jezebel: I think we're both a little bit of both of them.

Lilith: We should tell them!

Jezebel: They'll know it's a compliment because they know how highly we think of ourselves.

And then we actually ran and told them. And we think they did take it as a compliment. Or at least we hope they did.

#9. The Area

The conference was not actually held in D.C. but in the "D.C.-adjacent" Arlington, Virginia (in an area called "Crystal City").

The D.C. Metro was conveniently accessible from below the hotel. We had almost forgotten how confusing the Metro system is (it makes us appreciate the simplicity of the New York MTA!) We're used to the NYC subway where every ride is the same price, but with the Metro there are different prices depending on the station and the time of day. The times are broken up into Regular, Reduced, and Peak-of-the-Peak, which makes no sense at all. Why is there a Peak-of-the-peak when there's no Peak? You have to calculate the fare yourself, which is no big deal but a little inconvenient when you have a long line of people stretching out behind you. You also have to insert your ticket again to exit and pay an "exit fare" if you managed to screw up the calculations and not pay enough.

It's hard to follow complicated instructions when you're sleep deprived.

All we can say is that it's a good thing we weren't traveling during "peak of the peak" time (whenever that may be), because we would have annoyed a lot more people than we did during the less crowded peakless or less than peak or peak after peak or whatever it's called.

We have to give a little shout-out to the two places we ate this weekend (other than Bell20 inside the hotel, where we spent a lot of time)... we had an awesome lunch at Bailey's Pub just outside the hotel and the most perfect brunch-for-lunch at Hamburger Hamlet inside the Crystal City shopping center. They should really change their name because we almost didn't go in there, thinking it was going to be a chain-type burger joint, but we had a great meal and literally cleaned our plates. Yum.

Before we left for the trip, every person that we mentioned it to would inform us that it's cherry blossom time in D.C. or ask us how much sight-seeing we were planning to do. We're resourceful, so we managed to squeeze both things in even though we had no time and might very well have been too tired and lazy to go anywhere even if we did. On Saturday we were wandering through the underground shopping center attached to the hotel looking for a place to eat lunch when we accidentally ended up outside, and right across the street was a courtyard with some cherry trees. Check! And on our way back to Union Station on Monday morning, our Metro train came out of a tunnel just in time for us to get a perfect view of the Washington Monument. Sight-seeing, check! Next year we might actually try to go to a museum or something, but no promises.

#10 What Others Are Saying About MOMENTUM

Notes from MCon: elevator speech edition - Leela Life Coaching
Keeping the MOMENTUM Going! - Good Vibrations Magazine
Cruising (or not) MomentumCon - Jane's Guide
Heteronormative Privileged White Whining - Jane's Guide
Inspired by Momentum, I recognize my Sex Ed privilege - Fearless Sexuality Educator
How not to be a douche on FetLife - Polyamory Weekly
Can We Love God & Sex? Religion, Media & Young Woman's Sexuality - Nicole Clark
Sex and Disability - SEXPress / Express Milwaukee
Momentum Con Part One: The Winner for Best Epiphany - The Kitten Calendar
Momentum Con Part Two: The Cure for Sexualization is Sex - The Kitten Calendar
The ArtPulp project - Eyedentify
Is Pleasure a Privilege? - Megan Morgenson

If you've also written about MOMENTUM, please leave a link in the comments! We'd love to see it.

Now what?

MOMENTUM co-organizer Dee Dennis is also working on bringing her conference magic to the West Coast with a new event called Catalyst that's scheduled for September 14-16 in Long Beach, CA. The call for presenters is going out soon so be sure to check out @CatalystCon on Twitter so you can stay in the loop.

Trayvon Martin: Another Example of Victim Blaming

2012-03-28T22:12:00.003-04:00

By now you've no doubt already been inundated by information - and speculation - regarding the shooting of Trayvon Martin. We're not exactly sure why this particular case has sparked so much media interest and attention. Martin is surely not the first unarmed black young man killed at the hands of a white man for what seems like no reason. Obviously we think it's tragic for anyone to lose their life at only 17, but we weren't there so we have no idea what really happened.

We can't see into George Zimmerman's mind and soul to know what his true motivations were... what he was really thinking... whether he really is racist or paranoid or remorseful... whether he really did fear for his life that night. We can't know for sure. There has been a lot of speculation from both sides of the issue, a lot of questionable claims made, and a lot of incorrect information floating around the Internet... but one recurring theme keeps coming up and it has rubbed us the wrong way so we'd like to address that.

Victim blaming.

Women - in particular, women who have been the victim of rape, sexual assault, domestic violence, etc. - have to deal with victim blaming so often, that it's easy to forget that we are not the only group that this happens to. There have been so many parallels in this case to the victim blaming of rape survivors and frankly, we're sick of it on all ends.

It doesn't matter what they were wearing

There has been a lot said about how Martin was dressed that night, in particular the fact that he was wearing a hooded sweatshirt. Even Geraldo Rivera came out from under his rock to declare that "the hoodie is as much responsible for Trayvon Martin's death as George Zimmerman was."

When you see a kid walking down the street, particularly a dark-skinned kid like my son Cruz, who I constantly yelled at when he was going out wearing a damn hoodie or those pants around his ankles [...]

Every time you see someone sticking up a 7-Eleven, the kid’s wearing a hoodie. Every time you see a mugging on a surveillance camera or they get the old lady in the alcove, it’s a kid wearing a hoodie. You have to recognize that this whole stylizing yourself as a gangsta — you’re going to be a gangsta wannabe? Well, people are going to perceive you as a menace [...]

When you see a black or Latino youngster, particularly on the street, you walk to the other side of the street. You try to avoid that confrontation. Trayvon Martin, God bless him, an innocent kid, a wonderful kid, a box of Skittles in his hands. He didn’t deserve to die. But I bet you money, if he didn’t have that hoodie on, that nutty neighborhood watch guy wouldn’t have responded in that violent and aggressive way. [Politico.com]

It's really pathetic to claim that his hoodie had anything to do with his shooting, but to state that it was as much responsible as the shooter is just downright offensive. Even if the hoodie did play a role in causing Zimmerman to believe Martin was a threat... Zimmerman (and his apparent prejudice) would still be to blame.

We've heard this kind of backwards argument so many times... We heard it about Ines Sainz in regards to the inappropriate behavior of the Jets, we've heard it from high school principals about kids getting bullying and we heard it from the Toronto police department, inspiring the SlutWalk movement. (We've also seen it on about a zillion TV shows over the years, a personal "favorite" being the Halloween episode of Beverly Hills 90210.) Putting blame on the victims for what they were wearing is wrong in each of these examples and is still wrong when it comes to Martin's shooting.

Rivera's position also seems to be based on a kind of old fashioned, outdated point of view about clothing. Wearing a hoodie and baggy pants means you're styling yourself like a "gangster" or "wanna-be gangster"? It's just fashion. I may not be a fan of the baggy jeans style, but it's certainly not exclusive to gang members or criminals.

We can't know for sure if Zimmerman is racist or if he judged Martin as a threat that night based on his race, but the "hoodie" argument is most definitely racially-loaded. Rivera specifically said "dark-skinned" and "black or Latino" youth should not wear hoodies because of the negative association, but doesn't mention that type of clothing being a threat to Caucasian or light-skinned teenagers. Why? Because racism is probably much more to blame than clothing choice. (Similarly, when Juan Williams cited his fear of people wearing "Muslim garb", it was clear to most of us that it wasn't the garb itself that scared him, so much as he knew that the people wearing it were apparently Muslim. It was Islamophobia, plain and simple.)

It doesn't matter what they have or haven't done in the past

Another aspect of the Martin case that rubs us the wrong way is the way that some members of the media have been portraying Martin, and more specifically, the way we're supposed to feel about that portrayal. Many say that he's been slandered, but whether or not that's true shouldn't even make a difference. Because it doesn't matter what he did in his past or what "kind" of person he was. All that matters was what he was doing the night he was shot.

Michelle Malkin's Twitchy posted a photograph alleged to be Martin, of a shirtless boy in baggy pants with his middle fingers sticking out. Of course, it has now come out that the photograph wasn't of Trayvon Martin at all, but what if it was? Would that photograph somehow make Martin's shooting justified? One photograph does not paint a full portrait of the young man - and even if it did - does that somehow negate the fact that he was killed while "armed" with only Skittles and iced tea?

It has been reported that Martin had been suspended from school three times - most recently for carrying an empty baggie with traces of marijuana. Again, what does this have to do with his shooting? Although Zimmerman was never tested for drugs that night, Martin's dead body was and we haven't seen in any reports that he had any illegal substances in his system. But even if he did, what would that matter? It feels as though these "tid-bits" of information only serve to try to demonize the victim, to somehow defend his shooting - that if he wasn't as "innocent" as his family says he was, then he must have had it coming.

This is all too familiar territory. When a woman is raped (or assaulted or sexually harassed or stalked or abused) the attorneys - and the public - immediately jump to point out every single little thing she may have ever done wrong in her life, especially if it's sex-related, regardless of whether it's true.

When Chris Brown was first arrested for beating up Rihanna, discussions of what she might have done to "provoke" him (including the false rumor that she gave him herpes) spread like wildfire. Roman Polanski's supporters have always put a great emphasis on the so-called "reputation" of his teenage victim and the claim that she may not have been a virgin when he drugged and raped her. Dominique Strauss-Kahn's accuser was outright called a hooker in the New York Post (even though there wasn't any evidence to back that claim up). In the same way that a woman's sexual history and past indiscretions don't have anything to do with whether she deserved to be raped, whether or not Martin is a perfect angel who got straight As or a drug-using criminal (or more likely - something somewhere in between, like most teenagers)... doesn't have anything to do with why Zimmerman shot him.

One report - which we've yet to verify - claims that Martin was once caught with women's jewelry and a "burglary tool" (i.e., a screwdriver) but not the night that he was shot! That night he only had Skittles and iced tea on him. Even if he was guilty of burglarizing homes (there's no concrete evidence to support this) and Zimmerman was right to suspect him of such (again, no evidence to support this)... it still doesn't give Zimmerman cause for what he did. He had no evidence of any wrongdoing, no knowledge of any (alleged) prior bad acts and no reason to suspect that Martin was doing anything wrong.

They definitely weren't "asking for it"

This is one of the most common claims that rape apologists make. She was asking for it... because she was
dressed sexy, because she was drunk, because she flirted, because she just happened to be female.

We've heard way too many people suggesting that Martin deserved what he got or may have attacked or provoked Zimmerman. But the facts just don't add up to that. Zimmerman has claimed that he shot Martin in self-defense and there has been a lot of debate and speculation as to whether or not Zimmerman was ever really in danger (or at least believed that he was in danger). But Zimmerman had no grounds to apprehend Martin because he wasn't doing anything wrong that night. And even if he had done something wrong, Zimmerman would still have had no evidence of that, no knowledge of any (alleged) prior bad acts and no reason to suspect that Martin was doing anything wrong. Being black in public is not a crime and it's not reasonable grounds for suspicion.

It has been reported that Zimmerman may use the "stand your ground" law as justification, but it probably wouldn't be applicable in this case. According to the legislator who wrote the statute, there's nothing in it that authorizes you to pursue or confront other people. Zimmerman was specifically told by the police not to follow or approach Martin, but he did it anyway... while carrying a loaded gun. Let's not forget Zimmerman is not a police officer (he's not even an official member of any neighborhood watch group) but apparently he considers himself some kind of vigilante superhero. Who does he think he is, Batman?

We're just so tired of hearing victims of crimes being blamed for what happened to them... what someone else chose to do to them. We recently wrote about a terrible victim blaming article in Cosmo and the parallels here are just too clear. What happened to Trayvon Martin is sad and was entirely avoidable. It doesn't matter if he was a good kid or a "bad" kid... it doesn't matter what he was wearing... it doesn't matter if he looked "suspicious" or was acting in a way that made Zimmerman think he was a criminal. It doesn't matter.

The fact is that Zimmerman should never have been following Martin, he should never have gotten out of his car and approached him, he should never have tried to play cop. Whatever the surrounding details of the incident, that fact remains true. We can't ever really know if Zimmerman intended to kill Martin or if he truly feared for his own life or if he had any actual reason to find Martin suspicious other than the color of his skin...

But the one thing we do know is that Zimmerman is the only person to blame for Trayvon Martin's death. Period.

Back Up Your Birth Control Day of Action 2012!

2012-03-28T21:55:00.001-04:00

Today is the 11th annual Back Up Your Birth Control Day of Action! This year's theme is EC=BC, and the goal is "to defeat the myths and lies, by spreading the word that EC is a safe and effective form of birth control that prevents pregnancy after sex, but will only work if you are not pregnant". It's more important than ever right now to talk about emergency contraception since right-wingers are working overtime to attack birth control, jeopardize women's health, and shame women for being sexually active.

Today's a good day to take a little time to get the facts, get your coupons, and get involved. We've heard so many stories of people being denied access to EC when they should have been allowed to buy it, or having to deal with dirty looks and harassment from judgmental pharmacy employees. We've also been frustrated by stories we've seen in the media (both the conservative and the "mainstream" media) that have gotten the facts about EC totally wrong.

We need to try to make sure that accurate information about EC is out there and to counter the misinformation that is constantly spread by the anti-choice community. Taking EC is not the same as taking an "abortion pill". (But it would still be okay even if it was.) Taking EC doesn't make you a slut. Taking EC is a responsible choice and it's a choice that we should be free to make for ourselves. Anyone who wants EC should be able to access it without fear or hassle or shame or judgment. EC is BC!

Find Your Momentum!

2012-03-22T22:43:00.002-04:00

As the end of March gets closer and closer, we have been getting more and more excited about Momentum! The second annual MOMENTUM Conference takes place March 30 through April 1, 2012 in Washington, D.C. and we just cannot wait.

For those of you who aren't already aware of Momentum, you are missing out! Momentum is a conference that explores sexuality, feminism and relationships:

The phenomenal growth of online communication has given rise to an amazing amount of sharing, learning and experimenting with different expressions of sexuality, relationships and feminism. MOMENTUM provides a safe place to listen, discuss and learn about sexualities and gender without the fear of reprisal or shaming. It is a space for acceptance and appreciation of diversity, including for those in the LGBTQ, sex-work, BDSM and non-monogamous communities.

During MOMENTUM we will discuss ways to bridge the baffling dichotomies our culture creates around sexuality. While on one hand we have unprecedented sexual freedom, on the other we continue to police sexuality with a frightening vigor. Abortion laws, restrictions on gay marriage, abstinence programs, medicalization of sex, fear of pornography and prosecutions for teenage sexting are examples of one side of the spectrum. The discomfort that strives to make us keep our sexuality hidden conflicts with the use of sex — especially the female body — to sell everything from food to cars to “performance enhancing” products.

Geared toward anyone interested in intelligent conversations about the influence of new media on sexuality, MOMENTUM is the conference to attend in 2012.

In addition to the numerous awesome presenters and panelists, this year, Dr. Joycelyn Elders - yes, the Joycelyn Elders, the former U.S. Surgeon General - will join the Closing Keynote Plenary! This year the conference's premiere sponsor is Masque sexual flavors (orally-dissolvable, flavored gel strips that make fellatio more enjoyable) and we're really looking forward to checking them out.

We had nothing but praise for Momentum last year (which, if you know us, says a lot - we rarely rave about anything). We expected some beginner mistakes and mishaps, considering that it was their first year, but everything went as smoothly as possible and it was easily one of the best conferences we have ever been to. Check out our recap from last year. We can't even imagine how they could top last year, but we highly suspect that they will live up to the task. (And at the very least, we can be sure to go home with at least one brand new shiny sex toy.)

The conference is next weekend, but it's not too late to register! We'd love to see you there!!

Tess and Dee, Momentum's sexy founders

Anti-Street Harassment Week

2012-03-22T11:15:00.003-04:00

Since it is still International Anti-Street Harassment Week, we thought we'd share a little video that we found recently.

Someone we know was in it, but the video seems to have gone viral in the past few days which is pretty great.

Shit Men Say To Men Who Say Shit To Women On The Street

It's nice to know that there are male allies out there who are willing to speak out against street harassment. Thanks guys!

And while we're on the subject, we just wanted to give a quick shout-out to a few websites and organizations against street harassment. Check them out and get involved!

The ESC Is Team Willam

2012-03-20T15:07:00.002-04:00

If you're a fan of RuPaul's Drag Race then you've probably heard about last night's "shocking" elimination. Just when we thought that we were either going to lose our beloved Sharon Needles or finally be rid of the nasty negative toxic and horrible Phi Phi O'Hara, RuPaul announced that instead it would be challenge winner Willam going home for "breaking the rules".

They never explained exactly what happened, and apparently we have to wait until the reunion special to get more details. Honestly, we don't even really care that much, we're just pissed that Willam's gone. Yes, she could be obnoxious at times, but for us that was part of her charm, and we think she's hilarious and entertaining. Now that Willam's gone, we're team Sharon Needles for the win.

We've developed a three step process to deal with our Willam withdrawal, so if you have a lot of feelings about this like we do maybe it will help you too:

1. Vote for Willam for RuPaul's Drag Race All Stars: VOTE! (You can vote once per day so you can get in some votes for some of your other faves too.)

2. Vote for Willam as Most Addictive Reality Star in the NewNowNext Awards: VOTE!

3. Check out Willam's new song Chow Down (at Chick-fil-A), a hilarious collaboration with Detox and Vicky Vox. As Willam explains, it's the last endorsement that the conservative Christian chicken chain would ever want:

How did that come about?
Well, I wasn’t a big Chick-fil-A fan, I guess, I never really knew about them because I’m from Philly and they don’t have them there. I was eating there with my girlfriends and they were telling me how [they support anti-gay organizations]. I was like, “Oh that sucks about the gay thing.” And then, I got diarrhea from it, so I was like, “F— this, I’m gonna write a song.” The fact that they come after gay people, let me come for you. The worst endorsement for a Christian chicken eatery is three drag queens. So it’s like, “Alright, alright, boo.” In reality, I just wanted to wear a bobbed wig. [EW.com]

We feel better already.

Cosmo's "Deadly Decisions" Denounces Victim Blaming, Then Engages In It

2012-03-19T15:48:00.001-04:00

We've been slacking off on our Cosmo blogging lately because our subscription expired and we haven't been able to bring ourselves to spend any money to renew it. But I did get my hands on a copy of the February issue recently and there's an article in there that I do want to address.

The article is called "Deadly Decisions: How Smart Women Put Themselves at Risk":

Watching all the recent reports of young women being abducted and murdered probably has you wondering - what can you do to avoid such an awful fate? Former New York sex-crimes prosecutor Linda Fairstein pinpoints three choices that can sometimes mean the difference between life and death.

This is fairly typical of Cosmo - every month there's at least one "scary" article about some new threat that we should all freak out about. This month it even made the cover with the headline "Women and Danger: This Decision Could Cost You Your Life". This one seems to be headed straight for victim blaming territory, first acting like it's breaking news that smart women can be victims too and then implying that it only happens when these women make "deadly" decisions and "put themselves at risk".

The past few years a shocking number of stories have hit the news about bright, savvy young women who have mysteriously disappeared. Most have had tragic endings, with bodies found in dumpsters or shallow graves. In some heartbreaking cases, their remains have not been located.

During my three decades as a prosecutor, I worked on scores of similar abduction cases. One of my goals was to change attitudes that historically blamed victims for their deaths. These were vibrant women with promising lives, and they weren't responsible for their own assault or murder.

Yet there is something to be learned from many of these terrible situations: A mere misstep or poorly thought-out decision can be enough to make you a magnet for danger. That's certainly true for three recent cases that have made national headlines. Pointing out what seem to be errors in judgment on the victim's part is not about holding them responsible for their fate - not blaming them for their victimization - but about showing other women how a seemingly inconsequential action puts them in the sights of a predator.

So she's not trying to blame victims, just showing how their stupid choices led to their victimization. Oh. It's nice that Fairstein is addressing the issue of victim blaming and pointing out how wrong and harmful it can be, but it seems like she's trying to say that it's okay for her to make victim blaming statements because she understands that victim blaming is wrong. Don't worry everyone, it's the good kind of victim blaming!

Deadly Decision: Ditching Your Friends at Night

Kenia Monge, a smart, gorgeous 19-year-old from Denver, was reportedly planning to attend college to become a crime-scene investigator. One night last March, she and her friends headed to a chic dance club in a trendy downtown neighborhood.

Kenia and her girlfriends were partying happily that night. During the evening, she excused herself from their table to go to the restroom. She left her purse, car keys, and phone with them, giving every indication that she planned to return, according to the Denver district attorney's office.

But Kenia never came back, and the next day, she was the focus of a police manhunt. A 31-year-old man named Travis Forbes was questioned by police early on after he left a message on Kenia's cell, picked up by her stepfather, asking if she had gotten home safely after he dropped her off. It took five months for police to gather enough evidence to nail Forbes, who confessed and let them to the grave he dumped Kenia's body into along a Colorado interstate.

What went wrong for this girl who seemed to have everything going for her? The alcohol she drank must have blurred her thinking and led her to make the error that endangered her life: breaking away from her friends and leaving the club with a guy - not Forbes - she'd just met. Minutes later, she was caught on surveillance tapes alone, no longer with the guy she'd left with, wandering between an apartment building and a hotel blocks from the club.

Reading this raised a lot of questions for me. Why did she leave the club but leave all of her stuff behind? Was she actually planning to "ditch" her friends and leave the club, or just stepping outside with a guy to talk or smoke a cigarette or something like that? If she did leave with him, why did she end up breaking away from him just a few minutes later? Is it possible that her drink was drugged? It seems to me like it's pretty unclear what really happened, but Fairstein apparently doesn't see it that way. To her, it's simple: Kenia drank too much, made a stupid mistake, and became a victim.

At one point, she went inside the hotel, used the restroom, and then walked back outside, directly into the path of Travis Forbes. That's when Kenia made a second decision that sealed her fate: accepting a ride from Forbes and getting into his van. Perhaps Kenia felt safe with him, thanks to Forbes's clean-cut appearance and good manners. Maybe she thought it was easier to take him up on his offer than try to figure out how to get back to her friends.

Maybe maybe perhaps, perhaps maybe. Again, the truth is that we don't know exactly what happened, but Fairstein is happy to speculate on why Kenia Monge did what she did that night.

Forbes's confession fills in the blanks on what happened next: Inside his van, Kenia passed out, at which point Forbes made made sexual advances toward her. She scuffled with him upon coming to. He strangled her to death.

Every time I encountered a circumstance like this as a prosecutor, I wanted to turn back the clock so someone could have been with the victim at the moment her vulnerability intersected with a bad guy's opportunity. I wanted to put an arm around her and warn, "You can't get into the car with him. Find your friends. Sober up, and let them take you home."

In every Cosmo article I've written on this subject, I implore friends who go out together to form a buddy system. If someone has had too much to drink, pay special attention to her. Accompany her to the restroom or take her home in a taxi if she wants to leave. Keep tabs on how long she's gone, because if she appears vulnerable to you, she will also be vulnerable to anyone looking to do her harm.

I think it's only natural to wish you could go back and prevent a horrible crime like this from happening. But shouldn't we also be asking why we live in a society where it's considered a "deadly decision" for a woman to walk down a public street by herself? Shouldn't we be asking why Travis Forbes thought it was okay to make sexual advances towards an unconscious woman? Shouldn't we be talking about Forbes at all rather than focusing on what the victim did wrong? Any of those conversations would be more productive than Fairstein repeating the same old "advice" that she admits she's already given many times before.

Deadly Decision: Not Struggling With An Abductor

Just because you don't go clubbing or drink excessively doesn't mean you can't be victimized. Consider the case of Holly Bobo, a 20-year-old nursing student kidnapped from outside her Tennessee home last April.

I'm sure Fairstein doesn't think she's blaming victims here but the implication seems to be that if you do go clubbing and/or drink "excessively" that you're 'asking for it'. At the same time, she's pointing out that you can be victimized even if you're in or near your own home, so there's really no magic set of rules that you can find in Cosmo that will keep you protected. But that doesn't stop Fairstein from finding a "deadly decision" to apply to Holly Bobo's case.

Holly, who lived with her family on the edge of a wooded area, was apparently confronted by a man as she approached her car next to her house at 7:30 a.m. Holly's brother Clint, 25, was inside the house at the time; he told investigators he looked out a window and saw her being led into the woods by a man clad in camouflage - not unusual, since it was hunting season. Because Clint couldn't see the man's face, he assumed that it must have been Holly's boyfriend, Drew. But in the driveway about 10 minutes later, Clint found a small pool of blood and called the police. The lunch Holly had packed was later recovered a few miles away in the woods. Holly herself had vanished, possibly abducted by a stranger (at press time, there were no suspects or traces of Holly's remains).

One question I am often asked is if women should struggle with their abductor, whether on a busy street or in a remote area, like the land behind Holly's home. In general, the collective wisdom advises this: You scream or physically fight the attacker the best you can before he completely isolates you from other people. Although every situation is different, after you are isolated, it may be useless to resist, and it can put you in even greater jeopardy by agitating your attacker. However, if there's a chance that people might hear you make a commotion, you should.

From the evidence, it appears that Holly may have battled with her abductor. A neighbor reported hearing a yell from the direction of Holly's home. The blood Clint found suggests that if Holly made an effort to fight, it could have resulted in a serious injury to her. We don't know if Holly's injury then left her unable to struggle or if she made the conscious decision to stop fighting as this predator was taking her father from her home.

Once again the key words are "we don't know", and once again Fairstein doesn't let that stop her from making assumptions. It bothers me that she chose to use Holly as an example of what can happen when you don't struggle with your attacker even though there's evidence to suggest that she may have done just that. It seems like she's trying to make this case fit into her lesson even though there's no way to know if it actually does, and I don't think that's fair to Holly Bobo.

I understand why, at any point, she may have decided to be docile and quiet. I've had victims tell me that because their assailant was armed, they chose not to alert neighbors or family members by screaming for fear that their loved ones would be put in harm's way too. Perhaps Holly was trying to shield Clint from danger.

Victims can also feel a false sense of control when in a familiar environment. Because Holly was still in her yard, she may have thought she could pretend to cooperate then suddenly break free and run back to the house. But again, in general, a victim is better off trying to draw as much attention to herself as possible with people nearby rather than hope she can physically fend off a man likely to be bigger and more powerful.

If Fairstein really wanted to write this type of article, I wish she would have stuck with the stories of victims that she actually spoke to and cases that she actually worked on rather than choosing recent cases that required her to do so much speculating.

Deadly Decision: Storming Off After A Public Fight With Your Guy

A third situation that can put you in danger is a fight with a boyfriend in a public place that results in you and your guy parting ways. Strangers who witness the fight and realize you are alone may now see you as a target for something sinister.

I wish Paula Sladewski, a 26-year-old model and dance from Michigan, had known of this risk. Paula got into a shouting match with her boyfriend, Kevin Klym, at a Miami club. The fight between Paula and Kevin, together for about two years, was so heated that bouncers threw Kevin out. He took a cab back to their South Beach hotel.

Paula stayed, and then the club's cameras caught her leaving hours later with a man walking behind her as she exited to the street. The next morning, when Paula didn't return to their hotel, Kevin reported her missing. Horrifically, her body was found that night, burned beyond recognition, in a smoldering trash bin in another Miami neighborhood. Two years have passed, and police still do not have a suspect. (Kevin is not considered a suspect, nor does Paula's family believe he is responsible, police say.)

First off, we can say that this is another case of the story not quite fitting with Fairstein's chosen list of deadly decisions, since Paula Sladewski technically didn't "storm off" anywhere. She had no control over the bouncer's decision to kick her boyfriend out of the club, and it was her boyfriend who chose to leave, go back to the hotel, and not report Paula missing until the next morning. And yet Fairstein doesn't say that she wishes Paula and Kevin had known the risks. Nope, all of the blame for the bad decision falls on the victim.

Another point to consider is that while Paula's boyfriend is not considered a suspect in her murder, there are many women who are assaulted or killed by their boyfriend or husband or someone else that they know. What "deadly decision" did those women make? Trusting another human being?

What happened after Paula and her boyfriend separated for the night, a split observed by so many people? I've worked on cases in which women who have been assaulted or abducted under similar circumstances admitted that they started flirting with other guys around them as "payback" to the boyfriend or accepted help from a stranger - someone they felt falsely connected to because they'd been at the same party. Maybe a guy Paula flirted with offered to drive her back to the hotel to make up with Kevin, or maybe she thought she could make Kevin jealous by leaving with someone else.

Whatever decisions Paula made in the throes of an emotional and public quarrel with her man, the visible fight and Kevin's expulsion from the club left her vulnerable. Her story is gruesome and tragic, but by sharing it and the stories of other victims, I truly hope it prevents another young woman from making a bad decision that turns her into a target for a monster.

Great, another round of "maybe, maybe, maybe" to finish things off. All we know is that there was a man walking behind Paula when she left the club. There's no proof that she was flirting with anyone or that she intended to go home with another guy, and even if there was that still wouldn't make her murder anyone's fault but her killer's.

I really feel like Kenia, Holly, and Paula deserve better than to be the "what not to do" examples in a pointless article that does nothing for women but serve us the same warmed over safety tips that we've all heard a million times before. Give us a real conversation about victim blaming, slut-shaming, and rape culture and what we can all do to challenge it, or don't bother at all.

Just a few pages after "Deadly Decisions" is "Cosmo Fights Campus Rape", an update on Cosmo's yearlong campaign to improve sexual assault policies on college campuses. I applaud them for partnering with SAFER on this campaign, but I wish they'd realize that engaging in victim blaming in the pages of their magazine does a disservice to the effort, and to women everywhere.

Respectfully, we love Amber Tamblyn

2012-03-16T14:29:00.001-04:00

We've said it before and we will say it again. We fucking love Amber Tamblyn.

We thought it was hilarious enough that when Tyrese Gibson mistook her email address for that of Amber Rose, she went with it instead of correcting him. But the "Awareness Raps" that were the result were total genius.

So just when we didn't think we could possible love her any more, she re-released downloadable mp3s of the songs, including an even more awesome, extended version of "All In Favor".

And in case that wasn't cool enough, she is donating 100% of the songs' proceeds to The Respect Project (a brand new fund of the 501c3 non-profit Write Now Poetry Society which will disburse grants to organizations who run creative writing workshops for women and girls and those working to end violence against women, such as The Safe Zone Foundation).

So what are you waiting for? "All In Favor" is our new jam, don't you want to get your own copy ASAP? This one goes out to all the sluts!

Rush Limbaugh Thinks You're A Slut

2012-03-06T17:19:00.001-05:00

March has been a red letter month for sluts thanks to everyone's favorite right-wing radio blowhard, Rush Limbaugh. If you somehow managed to miss it, last week Limbaugh got upset at Sandra Fluke, a Georgetown University law student who testified at a congressional hearing about the importance of insurance coverage for birth control. Rush responded by attacking and slut-shaming Fluke for three days straight on his radio show. Here are the choice quotes:

What does it say about the college co-ed Susan Fluke [sic] who goes before a congressional committee and essentially says that she must be paid to have sex -- what does that make her? It makes her a slut, right? It makes her a prostitute. She wants to be paid to have sex. She's having so much sex she can't afford the contraception. She wants you and me and the taxpayers to pay her to have sex.

Can you imagine if you're her parents how proud of Sandra Fluke you would be? Your daughter goes up to a congressional hearing conducted by the Botox-filled Nancy Pelosi and testifies she's having so much sex she can't afford her own birth control pills and she agrees that Obama should provide them, or the Pope.

Opening his show Thursday, Limbaugh characterized the criticism of his comments as "a conniption fit," which he called "hilarious." He offered what he said was a "compromise" to contraception coverage: purchasing "all the women at Georgetown University as much aspirin to put between their knees as possible."

Limbaugh later questioned why insurance should cover contraception and played a portion of Fluke's testimony laying out the problems many college-age women face paying for contraception. He asked, "Ms. Fluke, have you ever heard of not having sex? Have you ever heard of not having sex so often?"

After saying that the Washington, D.C., Department of Health "will send you free condoms and lube," Limbaugh said: "So, Ms. Fluke and the rest of you feminazis, here's the deal. If we are going to pay for your contraceptives, and thus pay for you to have sex, we want something for it, and I'll tell you what it is. We want you to post the videos online so we can all watch."

After discussing outrage over his comments, Limbaugh again attacked Fluke, asking: "Who bought your condoms in junior high? Who bought your condoms in the sixth grade? Or your contraception. Who bought your contraceptive pills in high school?"

He described Fluke as "a woman who is happily presenting herself as an immoral, baseless, no-purpose-to-her life woman. She wants all the sex in the world whenever she wants it, all the time, no consequences. No responsibility for her behavior."

On Friday, Limbaugh defended his previous comments about Fluke and complained that "not one person says that, 'Well, did you ever think about maybe backing off the amount of sex that you have?'"

Later, Limbaugh said that requiring insurance companies to cover contraception is "no different than if somebody knocked on my door that I don't know and said, 'You know what? I'm out of money. I can't afford birth-control pills, and I'm supposed to have sex with three guys tonight.'"

After considering the meaning of feminism, Limbaugh offered a definition of his "misogynist": "a man who hates women almost as much as women hate women." He clarified: "I do not hate women." [via Media Matters: Wednesday, Thursday, Friday]

It hardly seems necessary given that the source is Rush Limbaugh, but quick fact check - Fluke's testimony wasn't about her sex life, and she certainly never said that she couldn't afford birth control because she was having too much sex (because that's not how birth control works and makes no sense). She did testify about the real consequences for women when they can't get insurance coverage for birth control, like a friend who lost an ovary due to PCOS and ovarian cysts (and who happened to be a lesbian so her reasons for needing BC also had nothing to do with how much sex she was having, not that there's anything wrong with needing BC solely because you're having tons of sex, because there's not). And finally, she was talking about private insurance coverage that she and other female students pay for, so none of it had anything to do with "forcing" the government or taxpayers to 'pay her to have sex'.

Now, Rush makes offensive comments all the time, so for him the initial rant was pretty much just a normal Wednesday. Sometimes there's a brief firestorm, but it usually dies down fairly quickly and Rush continues to grace our airwaves with his special brand of fuckery. But this time it was different. It turns out that there are a lot of people who use birth control or know someone who does or has, and that many of those people don't appreciate being told that we're all sluts and whores who should spend less time whining about the price of our birth control and more time mailing our sex tapes to Rush Limbaugh. The timing also wasn't the best for him, because in this current political climate many of us sluts are even more fed up than usual with the seemingly endless Republican attempts to crawl up our vaginas.

So this time, people are protesting. They're speaking out, signing petitions, and contacting the Limbaugh show's advertisers. And this time, it's working - so far more than 20 companies have pulled their ads from Rush's show, and more are likely to follow. Anyone who needed evidence that this advertiser boycott was having an effect got it in the form of an actual apology issued by Limbaugh on his website on Saturday. Naturally, the statement was of the 'I'm sorry you sluts were offended' variety - he apologized specifically just for his "insulting word choices", laughably claimed that it wasn't meant as a personal attack, and spent the majority of the statement explaining that he's actually right about the birth control issue. But the fact that the words "I apologize" appeared at all seems to indicate that Rush is feeling at least a little bit of heat from all of these lost sponsors.

Nobody actually bought Limbaugh's apology since he made no effort at all to even pretend to be sincere about it, so the protest continues. We've started and stopped writing about this a few times now because the story just keeps developing. It's been pretty interesting (and sometimes frustrating) to watch this discussion about slut-shaming and birth control play out on such a large scale, and we want to address some of the arguments that we've been reading and hearing this past week.

What about the First Amendment?! Free speech!!! You're trying to take Limbaugh's rights away!

We've seen a lot of this, and as a general rule we feel that while it's great to be passionate about defending the rights guaranteed by the First Amendment, it's also helpful to actually understand what those rights are. The government isn't censoring Limbaugh or trying to shut his show down. He has the same free speech rights that the rest of us do, but nobody has the "right" to their own radio show and a bunch of corporate sponsors to support that show with advertising. Limbaugh has the right to speak out, we have the right to speak out against him, and companies have the right to decide whether supporting his speech is the best use of their advertising dollars. (Aren't conservatives supposed to be big fans of this kind of free market activity?) The only person in this equation who is actually interested in taking rights away from people is Limbaugh himself.

Limbaugh's comments were inappropriate, but he's just an entertainer!

This is the standard line that Republican politicians use when they want to walk the line between defending Limbaugh for saying something offensive and criticizing him for saying something offensive. They pretend that it doesn't really matter that much anyway because Limbaugh's just an entertainer and not one of the most influential figures in the GOP. That way they can avoid looking stupid for defending the indefensible while also avoiding pissing off Rush and drawing criticism on his show. Rick Santorum demonstrates this nicely:

"He's being absurd, but that's you know, an entertainer can be absurd," Santorum told CNN's Wolf Blitzer on Friday. "He's in a very different business than I am."

What's apparently lost on them is the fact that classifying someone as an entertainer doesn't also give them some kind of magical free pass to say whatever they want with no repercussions. Anyone who uses the entertainer excuse for Rush's offensive remarks does nothing but demonstrate their own cowardice. Which reminds me, let's check in with GOP presidential front-runner Mitt Romney, who will surely demonstrate leadership and character on this issue:

“I'll just say this which is it’s not the language I would have used," Romney said. "I’m focusing on the issues I think are significant in the country today and that’s why I’m here talking about jobs and Ohio.”

Congratulations, Mittens. This statement would need at least three upgrades to get to half-assed. Such courage. But we do wish you had been more specific and not left us hanging. What words would you have used? Harlot? Strumpet? Lady of the evening? You know what, we'll send you one of our Slut note cards and you can get back to us.

Were Rush's comments really harmful?

We actually only heard this argument in one place, but felt like it really earned a mention. Here's GQ and The Atlantic editor Marc Ambinder:

Back me up on this one, ladies. Isn't it always just so lovely when a man comes along to tell us women what's important and what's not? Sure, Sandra Fluke got her feelings hurt by big mean Rush, but it's not like it actually matters. At least, not enough for Marc Ambinder to dip into his "reservoir of time" to find a few minutes to address it. We'd love for Ambinder to talk to this mother of a teenage girl being shamed and teased at school for being on birth control - let him try to tell her that slut-shaming isn't harmful.

This is a double standard! What about when that one liberal said a bad thing about a conservative woman that one time?!

This one's been really popular. People have been dredging up everything Bill Maher ever said about Sarah Palin, David Letterman's offensive Palin joke from a few years ago, Ed Schultz calling Laura Ingraham a slut, and anything else they can find to "prove" that liberals are being hypocritical on this issue. Limbaugh himself complained about the alleged double standard on his show on Monday (after his very sincere and heartfelt apology), using the example of rappers, who "can say whatever they want about women...and they win awards!"

There are two problems with this. (Well, at least two.) The first is that this argument assumes that all liberals were totally okay with these other comments and that nobody on the left spoke out against them, which is demonstrably false. When sexist comments are made about conservative women, we always see liberal feminists speaking out and condemning the remarks. Personally, I know more liberals (particularly women) who would agree that Bill Maher makes offensive sexist comments than those who would argue it. I've read plenty of feminist defenses of Sarah Palin when she was the target of sexist comments. We've defended Michele Bachmann, and we're not alone. Many of us were offended by Ed Schultz's comment about Laura Ingraham, and we were glad that he was immediately suspended by MSNBC and that he issued an apology that took full responsibility for his comments and made no excuses for them (unlike Rush's "apology"), and that he called Ingraham personally to apologize and offered to stay off the air indefinitely with no pay. Maybe if Rush's comments weren't so difficult to defend on their own merits, his supporters wouldn't feel the need to try to shift the focus to other incidents that really aren't comparable.

The other thing about this argument is that it sort of implies that liberals somehow prevented conservatives from launching the same kind of protest against Maher or Schultz or anyone else that is currently being directed at Limbaugh. Anyone is free to speak out about what they see on TV or radio and to contact companies about where they choose to spend their advertising dollars. We even saw a few people suggesting that this protest is some kind of Obama administration conspiracy to help his reelection campaign, as if Obama somehow forced Limbaugh to go on a three-day long slut-shaming diatribe. I know it's too much to ask, but it would be nice if we could all try to stick to relevant and reality-based arguments.

Rush was being absurd and over-the-top to make a point!

This is another popular one, even used by Rush himself in his "apology":

For over 20 years, I have illustrated the absurd with absurdity, three hours a day, five days a week. In this instance, I chose the wrong words in my analogy of the situation. I did not mean a personal attack on Ms. Fluke.

It's an excellent argument if the point that Rush was trying to make was "Rush Limbaugh is an obnoxious judgmental misogynist douchebag". Otherwise it's nothing but a cousin to the equally pathetic "entertainer" argument. Limbaugh's comments reflected absolutely no understanding of what Sandra Fluke actually said in her testimony, or of birth control in general and how and why women use it. How can you say you're using "absurdity" to make an "analogy of the situation" when your comments literally have nothing to do with the situation? And if Fluke is so obviously wrong and Limbaugh is so obviously right, why does he need to reach for the very height of absurdity just to demonstrate that? Even if Fluke's arguments had actually been absurd, and Rush really wouldn't know because he clearly either didn't read them or consciously chose to misrepresent them, that still wouldn't be an excuse to go with 'hey you feminazi slut whore, send me your sex tape' as a response.

If she's having so much sex that she can't afford her birth control then she is a slut! If you can't afford birth control you should just stop having sex.

Unfortunately a lot of people ran with this one, because apparently they believed Rush when he claimed that Sandra Fluke actually testified that she couldn't afford her birth control because she was having too much sex. It's really sad to see arguments like this, not just because of the obvious slut-shaming but because it's revealing so much ignorance. Birth control is not Viagra - you don't pop a pill each time you have sex. There's no such thing as 'I was extra slutty this month so my birth control bill is really high'. Lots of women are on birth control for health reasons that have nothing to do with sex. I know I keep repeating this stuff but apparently it's very confusing for some people.

There's a flip side to this one too. A lot of people, us included, are defending Sandra Fluke by pointing out that her testimony wasn't about her sex life, it was about women who need birth control for health reasons. But it really shouldn't matter. Limbaugh's comments aren't offensive because Sandra Fluke isn't a slut, they're offensive because the word slut should not be used as a sexist weapon to shame us and silence us. They're not offensive because it's shameful to be a sex worker, they're offensive because Rush Limbaugh thinks it's shameful to be a sex worker and he was trying to shame Fluke by calling her a prostitute.

Women who use birth control to treat conditions like PCOS should not have to jump through hoops to prove to an insurance company that they need birth control for "good" reasons and not slutty reasons. But we shouldn't buy into the narrative that some uses for birth control are more legitimate than others. All reasons for using birth control are health reasons. If Fluke's testimony had focused more on the fact that many young women are sexually active and we need access to birth control because it's an important part of our health care, that would have been just as valid and Limbaugh would been just as wrong to shame her for it.

Limbaugh loves controversies like this and they never really hurt him, so let not give him the attention he wants

I can totally understand and appreciate this argument. Most days I'm perfectly content to pretend Ann Coulter doesn't exist, so I get it. But as I said at the beginning, this time seems to be different, so I'm going to wrap this up with some info on the ongoing protest of Rush Limbaugh and the results that we're seeing so far. Shortly after Limbaugh's initial attack on Sandra Fluke, people began contacting his show's sponsors to ask them to withdraw their support. As the outcry grew, more and more companies pulled their ads. The current number is over 25 - Think Progress is doing a good job of keeping track of the growing list. At least two radio stations have also dropped Limbaugh's show entirely:

“The most recent incident has crossed a line of decency and a standard that we expect of programming on KPUA whether it is locally produced or a syndicated program like the Rush Limbaugh show," KPUA president Chris Leonard said in a statement. "...Regardless of one's political views on the issue being discussed, we feel the delivery was degrading and the continued comments over several days to be egregious. As a result, we are discontinuing the Rush Limbaugh program on KPUA effective immediately.”

WBEC general manager Peter Barry told a local public radio station that Limbaugh had overstepped his boundaries. "The nature of Rush's programming has always presented challenges for us and he's always pushed the envelope," he said. "But this time he's taken it too far."

So far the protest shows no signs of slowing, so if you'd like to stay updated here are a few good places to start:

-Keep up on Twitter by checking the hashtags #StopRush and #BoycottRush and following people like Krystal Ball and StopRush (one of the masterminds of the successful Stop Beck effort).

-Check out Shoq's Stop Rush Limbaugh Project Tracker to see all of the current anti-Rush efforts at a glance.

-This Daily Kos diary offers some tips on how to take action against Limbaugh at the local level.

-If you're in the mood to sign some petitions, Left Action, CREDO Action, and Media Matters have you covered.

Oh yeah, and there's just one more thing...

Condom Quickie: Zac Efron on the Red Carpet

2012-02-26T19:00:00.001-05:00

Zac Efron recently had an embarrassing red carpet moment at the premiere of his new movie The Lorax. He reached into his pocket to get something to hand to his publicist, and in the process he accidentally dropped a condom onto the carpet.

This is like one of those goofy Cosmo Confessions stories come to life. (Or the 'a tampon fell out of my backpack right in front of my crush!' stories from our teen years.) It's kinda hard to believe that it actually happened.

The incident has been largely dismissed as just a random funny embarrassing moment. Most of the comments we've seen have been along the lines of 'haha, at least he's being safe!' and 'guess he's not in high school anymore'. But we have to wonder what the reaction would have been like if this had happened to a young female star. Can you imagine if Miley Cyrus or Vanessa Hudgens had done this? I feel like we'd be seeing a lot more stuff like 'why is she even carrying condoms?' and 'who is she trying to hook up with at the premiere of a kids movie?' and 'she's a Disney star, what kind of message does this send to her young fans?'

What do you think? Do you think the reaction would have been the same if this had happened to a young woman like Miley or Vanessa, or would there have been a lot more pearl-clutching and slut-shaming going on?

Rihanna calls a fan ugly, then claims cyberbullying

2012-02-25T10:35:00.003-05:00

What the fuck is wrong with Rihanna? Yeah, I said it. I'm pissed. We were very quick to defend her when people criticized some of her actions after being beaten by Chris Brown, but now I'm disgusted.

You may already know about Rihanna's new collaborations with Chris Brown and may or may not be back in a relationship with him. (Yes, this is the same Chris Brown who put her in the hospital a few years ago and who showed off what he learned in anger management by throwing a chair through a window at "Good Morning America".) Now that might be enough to disgust some Rihanna fans (in fact, read responses from fans, celebs and experts: here, here and here) but that's not what's got us pissed off.

Obviously we don't understand her decision to forgive the man who beat her so badly, but she's not the first woman to forgive her abuser (and sadly, she won't be the last). It's not fair for us to hold her solely responsible for being Ms. Anti-Domestic Violence, even if it's kind of what we all want and expect. So yeah, we're disappointed in the collaboration and reconciliation -- and the message that it sends to other women and girls -- but it's her life and she's going to make the decisions she wants to make.

What we're so angry about is something that may seem insignificant and stupid in comparison, but is actually a pretty big deal in our opinion.

One fan in particular, tweeted something about being disappointed in Rihanna choosing to collaborate with Chris Brown and Rihanna's response was downright repulsive.

Yes, you read that correctly. Someone suggested that it looks bad to collaborate with someone who used to physically abuse you (the same opinion that has been expressed widely in the past few days, including by some domestic violence experts) and Rihanna responded by saying that her avatar photo was ugly. She didn't defend the song, claim that Chris Brown had changed, or say that it's her life and she'll do what she wants. Nope, she just called her ugly. Why? Because she stated what we are all thinking - that it looks bad to forgive (and record with) someone who beat the crap out of you not that long ago.

Can we please get past the point where our immediate reaction to any kind of criticism is to go to the "you're ugly" defense? It's really sad that in 2012 women are still calling other women ugly, for no fucking good reason. (Also, let's not forget that Rihanna's previously stated views on beauty are kind of messed up anyway. So no one should sweat being called ugly by her. But I digress.)

What happened next, makes my stomach turn. Rihanna's "loyal fans" lashed out at JuhReeV, laughing and calling her ugly, retweeting Rihanna's comment over 7,000 times. JuhReeV has been harassed on twitter en masse thanks to Rihanna's bitchy tweet. (She also gained about 1,500 twitter followers, so clearly some people agree with her.)

We think that this is just unacceptable. Rihanna is a celebrity - and she's publicly showing off her reconciliation with someone we all know abused her - so she should be prepared to handle some criticism. Unless she's a total moron, she had to expect that people would feel this way and speak out about it.

We don't think there was anything wrong with JuhReeV's original tweet or the sentiments she expressed. It is the way a lot of people feel, including us. Rihanna has the right to face her critics and respond to them, but she should be more mature and proactive in the way that she handles this criticism. She should also be more responsible with the power of fame and social media. Rihanna has over 14,000,000 fans. When you have that many Twitter followers, you can't just make a stupid comment like that without expecting there to be a huge response (and in this case, JuhReeV was the victim of that response). Let's not forget what happened when Ashton Kutcher tweeted about Joe Paterno... with great power, comes great responsibility. When you're a celebrity on Twitter with that much of a following, you have to think before you tweet.

But it gets worse. JuhReeV responded a few times (because well, who wouldn't respond if Rihanna called yo ugly?)...

And then Rihanna had the nerve to claim that she was being cyberbullied, again calling JuhReeV by name. Really. A celebrity with over 14,000,000 followers calls a young woman ugly in front of all those followers (inciting them to also call her ugly and harass her) and then claims that she is the victim of cyberbullying? What? Someone is definitely being ugly here but it's not JuhReeV.

Of course, no doubt that "cyberbullying" tweet incited her 14,000,000+ followers to harass JuhReeV even more. Who's the real cyberbully here?

I find it extremely offensive and irresponsible that Rihanna is claiming that she was cyberbullied. Sorry, but no. Cyberbullying is a real thing and this is not it. Telling a singer that you disagree with her choices is not cyberbullying. Responding when someone calls you ugly is not cyberbullying. Defending yourself against hundreds of rabid Rihanna fans calling you ugly (among other things) is not cyberbullying. Rihanna's claiming to have been cyberbullied is offensive to anyone who has ever dealt with real bullies (cyber or otherwise).

Apparently Rihanna is more forgiving of someone who punches her in the face, than someone who dares to disagree with her questionable choices. And that is ugly.

Related posts:

We jumped on the meme bandwagon!

2012-02-18T14:39:00.001-05:00

We've seen a lot of those "What my friends think I do/what I actually do, etc" memes floating around... so we decided to create our own. Can you relate?

Disclaimer: Obviously this isn't true of all feminists. This is just our own personal take on the meme. If you read our blog at all, you'll get it.

I'm Still Not Over Chris Brown at the Grammys

2012-02-15T19:21:00.003-05:00

Yes, I know, the Grammys were Sunday night and everyone is moving on. But there's still a valuable conversation going on about the presence of Chris Brown on the Grammy stage and why it matters, so we wanted to address it.

I happened to be on twitter during most of the Grammys, so between that and talking to people after the show I know that I was far from the only one who was not happy that Chris Brown was invited to perform. (He also ended up winning an award.) If you were wondering about the thought process that led the show's producers to decide to invite Brown to perform, especially with Rihanna also scheduled to attend and perform, Grammy Executive Producer Ken Ehrlich answered that by essentially explaining that Rihanna wasn't the most important consideration:

“I think people deserve a second chance, you know," Ehrlich said. "If you’ll note, he has not been on the Grammys for the past few years and it may have taken us a while to kind of get over the fact that we were the victim of what happened.”

He went on to say that "what (Brown has) done to reclaim his career and seemingly the kind of person that he has become makes him -- I don't even want to use the word eligible -- but you know, it's time."

Oh, now I get it. The producers' decision was never about what Chris Brown did to Rihanna - which was beat her so badly that she ended up in the hospital, and is documented in a police report if you know anybody who's forgotten about it like Ehrlich apparently has - it was about what Chris Brown did to the Grammy Awards. It was about Ken Ehrlich and his fellow producers giving Brown their version of the silent treatment for a whopping three years while they decided whether they could find it in their hearts to forgive him for the horrible crime of forcing them to rearrange a small portion of their awards show. Keep in mind that this is the same Grammy Awards that banned Janet Jackson for her Super Bowl wardrobe malfunction, but Chris Brown violently assaults his girlfriend while threatening to kill her, shows little to no remorse for his actions, and gives indications that his violent behavior is not under control, but hey, Ken Ehrlich says "it's time" for all of us to welcome him back to the Grammy stage.

I found Ehrlich's choice of words to be really interesting, and also really infuriating. He doesn't say that they were giving members of their viewing audience a chance to get over what happened, and he doesn't show any concern for Rihanna or any other victims of domestic violence that may have strong feelings about Brown's participation. He doesn't say 'we were wary about inviting him back because in a very small way we were also kind of a victim of what happened due to the timing'. He says "it may have taken us a while to kind of get over the fact that we were the victim of what happened". Rihanna who? This is all about Ken Ehrlich's pain, guys. Let's all admire his strength in finding a way to forgive, and also his audacity in thinking that these comments were remotely acceptable.

Of course, some people will inevitably say that it's just an awards show, but this sends a message and that message matters. Right after the show Buzzfeed compiled a list of 25 extremely upsetting reactions from twitter, with women saying things like "I'd let Chris Brown beat me up anytime". And Brown himself tweeted, and then deleted, this mature and thoughtful response to the controversy and his critics: "HATE ALL U WANT BECUZ I GOT A GRAMMY Now! That's the ultimate FUCK OFF!" Clearly Ken Ehrlich is seeing something that I'm not when it comes to the question of the kind of person that Chris Brown has become. As media critic Jennifer Pozner put it, "Dating violence, just like domestic violence, is deeply misunderstood and not taken even remotely seriously, even though it happens in epidemic numbers...That's part of the reason why it is so dangerous for the Grammys to embrace and showcase Chris Brown after his violence against Rihanna."

If you'd like to join us in sending a message to the Grammys about their support of Chris Brown, there's a petition on change.org right now asking the Grammys to apologize, and to "make that apology meaningful with a donation to an organization that works on behalf of domestic violence victims and survivors". It currently has more then 5500 signatures, so maybe if enough of us speak up we can help Ken Ehrlich to realize that "it's time" for him to rethink his point of view.

Some comments about same-sex marriage

2012-02-12T15:11:00.002-05:00

We recently got a few interesting new comments on some old blog posts: Mars Needs Moms. Earth Needs Less Homophobia and Sexism. (a blog about the film Mars Needs Moms and its possible homophobic and anti-feminist undertones, originally posted in March 2011) and Stupid Protest: The Million Moms Against Miley (a blog about the One Million Moms criticizing Miley Cyrus for advocating love, tolerance and acceptance, originally written in May 2009).

We're not sure why these blogs are getting some attention, so long after they were posted. Perhaps it has to do with the recent attention the OMM have gotten lately thanks to their misguided boycott of JC Penney and Ellen Degeneres or maybe they googled "same-sex marriage" or something. Either way, some anonymous commenter/s (it might be the same person) has revived two old posts in order to scold and educate us for being wrong about the gays.

We think their comments are both hilarious and sad, so we thought we'd share some of it with you all and respond.

From the Mars Needs Moms blog:

And what the hell..Are you saying this movie is against same sex marriage?It looks like you are some crazy homosexual trying to convince heterosexuals about your superiority and you see a threat in everything that is,among the majority of society considered normal.Saying things like "gay marriage may actually be better for kids" is unacceptable,just as much as saying that gay partners can't take care of children. [Feb 5, 2011]

We think we already explained in detail why we feel the movie comes off as anti-feminist, homophobic and biased against any non-traditional family, but if the commenter doesn't agree that's their opinion. But we felt we had to address their outrage over the "gay marriage may actually be better for kids" comment.

The actual line they were referring to was: "A lot of experts have stated that not only do the children of same-sex couples grow up just as well developed as other kids, but gay marriage may actually be better for kids." That's not our idea that we made up. We were simply stating that there has been evidence to suggest that same-sex parents might be better for children.

The theory is that gay parents may tend to be more motivated, more committed and more involved because they more often chose to be parents (while there's a 50% "accidental pregnancy" rate among heterosexuals). There is also evidence to suggest that children of same-sex couples are more tolerant, more open-minded, more empathetic and less likely to be held back by outdated gender stereotypes. [Here's just one source on this research: Gay Parents Better Than Straight Parents? What Research Says]

That's not to say that all children of gay parents will do "better" than all children of straight parents. It's just a theory based on averages. (Just as it's not fair to say that all children from two-parent households will do "better" than all children from single-parent households.)

While there is evidence that might suggest that same-sex parents are better for children, as far as we know, no one is out there making the claim that children need to be raised by same-sex parents (or single parents or grandparents or any other non-traditional family) in order to succeed. But there are a lot of politicians and government agencies that are making the argument that kids need two heterosexual married parents in order to succeed... even though the research doesn't support that claim.

And of course, the commenter called me "some crazy homosexual" because only gay people support equality, right? It's no one's business what my orientation is, but the fact is I'm heterosexual. But I'm also a single parent, another form of "family" that is dismissed as inadequate in the film. We responded to their comment and then a few days later two new comments popped up. One on the Miley Cyrus blog:

This was an amazing action Miley Cirus took. God wanted everyone to love eachother and in that way she is dead on. However, God made marriage and it's between a man and a woman. Gays were around when Jesus was and he said it was a sin, but to love everyone regardless. Love them all, just don't let them spoil the marriage God made. [Feb 10, 2012]

To which we responded:

Not everyone believes in the same God that you do, so it's not correct to say that God made marriage. God made your understanding of marriage, not mine. Marriages take place outside of Christianity all the time and many Christians do not believe that marriage should only be between a man and a woman.

I can't stop anyone from practicing their religion the way they see fit, nor would I try to. No one is forcing Christian churches to perform same-sex marriages; civil marriage has nothing to do with your God or your religion.

Unless they're trying to marry you, there's nothing any gay couple can do to "spoil" your personal idea of marriage. Is your faith in God and Jesus so weak that you cannot have the marriage you believe in just because others happen to marry differently?

The greatest lesson to learn from Jesus is to love one another. And that's that. [Feb 10, 2012]

We also got another angry comment on the Mars Needs Moms blog:

You people have a serious problem if you don't appreciate traditional families! How DARE you belittle families like the one I was raised in! I was raised by my Mom and Dad, and I wouldn't have it any other way! That's right! I call my parents "Mom and Dad!" Do you think I'm hateful and homophobic for calling them that? Well, let me tell you something! If it wasn't for Moms and Dads, the world would be completely devoid of people! What do you heterophobes have against men and women marrying each other and having children together? Do you not realize that it takes a man and a woman to conceive a child? Two people of the same sex cannot do that! Do you want to see traditional families dwindle out? I happen to love my Mom and Dad! I am honored to be their daughter! And nothing you people say to me will ever change that! [Feb 10 2012]

Now that was just annoying. They took the previous commenter's misconceptions and just doubled them. I get really pissed when people completely twist and distort what we write and then use that to make stupid assumptions about us. I also get really pissed when people are so grossly ignorant about... well... everything. She completely doesn't get what gay people are actually doing when they fight for equal rights. It's not about taking away anything from straight people. I feel like that is one of the dumbest arguments that anti-gay bigots make - the world will cease to exist if gay couples marry! Traditional families with dwindle out! (Plus the sarcasm in their comment was so barfy: "I call my parents 'Mom and Dad!'" Gasp!)

Sometimes we're content to just let these kind of ignorant comments slide, but I felt the need to put this woman in her place because she was just so wrong and so angry about it. ("How DARE you!")

I quickly responded:

Where did anyone say we had a problem with "traditional" families? We just disagree with the bigots who have a problem with non-traditional families. I was raised by heterosexual parents and I am a heterosexual parent. So I don't know where you people are getting that idea that we're heterophobes or against men and women marrying each other. Get a grip.

I don't care if traditional families dwindle out, because I don't think that's the only valid family. But that doesn't mean I want it to happen. I just want same-sex couples (and single parents) to have the same rights and respect as anyone else. [Feb 10, 2012]

This caused her to backtrack a little bit... but only a little bit. And then she posted some of the most ridiculous drivel we've seen in a while here at Evil Slutopia:

Okay, Lilith, (and anyone else I may have offended), I apologize for my outburst. But I have to be honest here. I did read some things by you and some of the other people who commented on this blog, and those comments did sound heterophobic to me, whether they were intended to be, or not. Some of the people who commented said that children who were raised by same-sex couples are better off than children who were raised by their biological parents. I happen to disagree with that. Also, Lilith, that comment you made about not caring if traditional families dwindle out is, whether you think so or not, heterophobic. Believe it or not, the world needs traditional families. As I said before, I would not change a thing about the kind of family I come from. I do appreciate knowing that you yourself came from a traditional family and are raising your own children the same way. I would think that that fact alone, would make you appreciate traditional families more, and not want them to dwindle out.

If anybody here thinks I'm a horrible person, judging by what I've been saying, think again. People know me as a kind and loving person. I would never intentionally upset anybody, but to be honest, I do have a temper. The times we're living in are difficult, because there is so much hatred in the world. Look, I don't hate people who live alternative lifestyles. I love everybody. I just hate alternative lifestyles, themselves. I'm a devout Christian, and I believe that God created two different sexes for a purpose. Let's face it, God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve. If God had intended for two people of the same sex to marry each other, He would not have created Adam and Eve in the first place. But I know you people believe otherwise, and I can't change your minds. I pray that God will open your eyes to the truth one day. I hope you all will not think badly of me and my beliefs, and I do hope you will forgive me for my outburst the last time I posted. This will be my final post on this blog, and I will not be coming back here to read it, so let's call a truce, okay? 'Nuff said. [Feb 11, 2012]

Yes, she actually said "Adam and Steve" in all seriousness. Clearly I wasn't going to call that a truce. It wasn't even close to a truce. She was dead on wrong. Heterophobia is not a real thing. It's like when people throw around arguments about "reverse racism" or "sexism against men". It just doesn't exist in even remotely the same way that real homophobia, racism, and sexism does. I really hate when people try to educate me and preach to me, so I had to have the last word:

Oh geez. Okay...

First of all, I call bullshit on this whole "heterophobic" thing. The U.S. is extremely heterosexist and homophobic. If someone who feels that all people deserve the same rights and respect happens to fight against that homophobia and heterosexism, it doesn't make them heterophobic.

I think you are using the word incorrectly and you are just grossly misunderstanding everything that we here at EvilSlutopia are about. We are about equality for all. I also think you're very mistaken about what gay people are trying to accomplish when they fight for equal rights.

Also, pointing out that there is evidence to support that children of same-sex parents may actually be better off, isn't heterophobic either. It's just stating the findings of a study. I think I was more than clear (above) in fully explaining what that statement meant and what the findings of the studies were, so I don't feel as though I need to defend that yet again.

No, I do not care if "traditional" families "dwindle out" because if that is what is meant to be, that is what is meant to be. I don't think that society "needs" traditional families any more than any other families. The President of the United States was raised by a single mother and his grandmother - a non-traditional family - and he turned out okay. Children need loving parents/guardians. Period. So no, I'm not overly concerned with the possibility that traditional marriage will "dwindle out".

But I don't actually think that's even a remote possibility. I do not for one second think that that will actually ever happen and I just think that's one of the arguments that anti-gay bigots use to stop same-sex couples from marrying. It is propaganda and offensive.

Do you really think that if gay couples are allowed to marry then heterosexual couples will cease to exist? Do you think that there is a limited number of marriages that the U.S. is allowed to perform and that gay couples are stealing all the good spots? LOL.

Straight people will continue to be straight, even if gay people are given equal rights, so what are you so scared about? You will still have the same chance to raise your children the same way you've always wanted to so get over this fear-mongering misinformation and follow Jesus's teachings about love and tolerance. You can hate the "alternative lifestyles" as much as you want, but keep it to yourself unless you want to come off as a hateful person... because not everyone shares your religious beliefs and your values.

To quote Ellen: "I stand for honesty, equality, kindness, compassion, treating people the way you want to be treated, and helping those in need. To me those are traditional values." [Feb 11, 2012]

We don't know if she will respond again or if she will even get to read that. Who knows if any of the other anti-gay marriage commenters will come back either. But we felt it had to be said (and shared). We're so sick of the fear mongering that anti-gay bigots use to support their homophobia. We can't force anyone to interpret their religion the way that we do... but we definitely won't let them pressure us into sharing their warped beliefs.

Susan G. Komen for the Cure Shows Their True Colors

2012-02-05T15:15:00.004-05:00

By now almost everyone has heard about the controversy surrounding Susan G. Komen for the Cure's decision to stop giving grants to Planned Parenthood for breast exams and cancer screenings. After a huge outcry that included thousands of social media comments, signatures on petitions, and pressure from politicians and other public figures, the Komen foundation put out a statement yesterday apologizing (kinda) and reversing their decision (maybe).

If you haven't been following the story that closely, you might think that Komen's apology represents a happy ending and that we can all go back to supporting both organizations. But this incident has brought so much information to light that many people are rethinking their support of Komen. (As we mentioned in our last post, we've done the Race for the Cure in the past but more recently we've been critical of the Komen foundation as well.) There's so much info out there and so many questions being raised, so I thought I'd put together an overview of the main issues with Komen that are being discussed right now. It's packed with links so you can read more about any aspect of this that you're interested in.

-Komen's official explanations for their decision don't make much sense

Komen initially claimed that Planned Parenthood was getting cut off because they were adopting new rules that prevented them from giving grants to organizations that are under investigation. People started poking holes in this right away, pointing out that the current investigation of Planned Parenthood in Congress is being carried out by anti-choice Republican Rep. Cliff Stearns (who just might have an agenda), and that it had been ongoing for months with Planned Parenthood's full cooperation and had yet to turn up evidence of wrongdoing. Also of note is the fact that Komen didn't pull any of their grant money from Penn State, which would most definitely qualify as "under investigation" at the moment. (And they're not alone - Komen gives and takes money from quite a few organizations that are being investigated.) But strangely there didn't seem to be any other groups besides Planned Parenthood that were actually affected by these new rules.

After people started raising these questions, Komen seemed to change course and started claiming that the decision wasn't about investigations and they just wanted to give more grants directly to providers of mammograms and less to groups like Planned Parenthood that mainly do referrals. This new explanation contradicted the statements that Komen board member John D. Raffaelli made to the New York Times, as well as Komen's own internal documents about the issue, so by this point most people weren't buying either explanation.

-Komen's response to the criticism was detached and dismissive

The Komen foundation's response to this controversy is a textbook example of a social media and PR fail. First, they allowed the outcry to rage all over the internet for more than 24 hours and get picked up by the media before they said anything at all. When they finally did respond, it was with a video called "Straight Talk" in which Komen founder Nancy Brinker rather blandly explained that their new granting strategy had been "regrettably mischaracterized" and would actually allow them to help more women. She insisted that the decision wasn't about bowing to political pressure, but never mentioned Planned Parenthood by name and didn't address the critics of the decision in any meaningful way, except to complain that the "scurrilous accusations" against the organization were "profoundly hurtful".

The next day, Brinker took her show on the road and did an interview with MSNBC's Andrea Mitchell which did not go too well for her. Mitchell, a breast cancer survivor and Komen supporter, was clearly upset about the situation and asked some tough questions that Brinker didn't seem prepared to answer. The highlight came when Mitchell asked about the massive outcry against Komen's decision and Brinker dismissed it entirely, saying "All I can tell you is that the responses we are getting are very very favorable. People who have bothered to read the material, who have bothered to understand the issues. Again we work from mission." So if you're mad, it's because you're uninformed and you don't get it. Damage control couldn't possibly get smoother or savvier than that, right?

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Komen board member John D. Raffaelli got in on the act too in his interview with the New York Times, implying that Planned Parenthood was unfairly making a big deal out of the situation just to raise money: “Why are they going nuts?” Mr. Raffaelli asked rhetorically. “And the answer is that they want to raise money, and they’re doing it at the expense of a humanitarian organization that shares their goals and has given them millions of dollars over the years.”

And let's not forget this retweet from Komen VP Karen Handel (more on her in a minute):

These examples are a good illustration of Komen's response as a whole. They came across as totally detached and never seemed as if they were trying to really understand why people were upset, even when the criticism was coming from longtime Komen supporters. They treated the entire thing like an inconvenience brought upon them by ignorant people who couldn't understand how great their decision really was, so it's no wonder that many people have been very slow to forgive and forget.

-The incident revealed a conservative culture within Komen

Soon after the news broke about Komen's decision to defund Planned Parenthood, fingers started pointing at Karen Handel, Komen's recently hired Senior VP of Public Policy. Handel is a self-described conservative Republican who was endorsed by Sarah Palin when she ran for governor of Georgia in 2010. She's anti-choice and has publicly stated that she does not support the mission of Planned Parenthood. Komen claims that Handel had nothing to do with the decision to defund Planned Parenthood, but anonymous sources within the organization (and common sense) would suggest otherwise.

To be fair, Handel's not the only anti-choice conservative in the Komen family:

Komen’s board includes Jane Abraham, the General Chairman of the anti-choice Susan B. Anthony List (SBA). SBA constantly spreads false information about federal government funding of abortion and public health and medical evidence surrounding safe abortion care. Abraham is also closely tied with the Nurturing Network, which exists for the sole purpose of convincing women that abortions cause a range of unrelated health problems, like promoting the mythical link between abortions and breast cancer. Jodi Jacobson at RH Reality Check rightly asks, “Can you trust a breast cancer organization whose staff and board members lie about breast cancer?”

And then there's Susan G. Komen for the Cure founder Nancy Brinker. Brinker has given more than $175,000 to the RNC and Republican candidates since 1990 and was a huge supporter of George W. Bush, even serving as ambassador to Hungary in his administration. It's also been confirmed that former Bush press secretary Air Fleischer has been involved with developing Komen's strategy regarding Planned Parenthood. So it may be fair to say that Handel isn't responsible for pushing Komen's leadership to the right; she's actually just a reflection of where they already stand.

-Komen's apology and "reversal" doesn't really reverse anything

On Friday, Komen issued a new statement with an apology of sorts:

We want to apologize to the American public for recent decisions that cast doubt upon our commitment to our mission of saving women’s lives. The events of this week have been deeply unsettling for our supporters, partners and friends and all of us at Susan G. Komen. We have been distressed at the presumption that the changes made to our funding criteria were done for political reasons or to specifically penalize Planned Parenthood. They were not.

They went on to say that they would amend their criteria for grants again to "make clear that disqualifying investigations must be criminal and conclusive in nature and not political. That is what is right and fair. " Regarding Planned Parenthood specifically, it states that Komen "will continue to fund existing grants, including those of Planned Parenthood, and preserve their eligibility to apply for future grants, while maintaining the ability of our affiliates to make funding decisions that meet the needs of their communities."

This was widely reported as a "reversal" on Komen's part, with many headlines announcing that Komen will continue to partner with Planned Parenthood. But some pointed out that the statement doesn't actually reverse anything or make any promises about future grants for Planned Parenthood. It says that Komen will continue to fund its existing grants to Planned Parenthood, which they had said they would do all along, and that Planned Parenthood will be able to apply for more grants in the future. It doesn't guarantee that any of those future grant applications will actually be approved, so basically all the statement does is buy Komen some time to come up with more new rules that allow them to deny Planned Parenthood in the future. (A Komen board member confirmed to the Washington Post that the statement guarantees nothing to Planned Parenthood because that would be "unfair".) Even the apology was of the 'sorry we got caught/sorry you're offended' variety, so it's not surprising that it left many Komen critics unsatisfied.

-Komen's position on stem cell research may also have changed

Almost lost in the controversy surrounding the Planned Parenthood decision was the news that Komen may also be pulling their funding for stem cell research:

Anti-abortion groups are also declaring victory in their parallel attempts to pressure Komen on embryonic stem cell research, another hot-button issue. Anti-abortion groups have targeted Komen for providing funding to any medical institution that also conducts that type of research (even if Komen isn't directly funding it). A few weeks ago, Texas Right to Life flagged a Komen press release from late November explicitly stating that they don't support research that involves "destroying a human embryo" and have never funded that type of research. Both Life News and the National Catholic Register noted the Komen release on Wednesday evening, and Life News reported further that Komen appears to have also ended grants to institutions that conducts embryonic stem cell research. The link to the press release on the Komen site is dead now, and the press release is no longer posted in their media section. The organization did not respond immediately to a request for comment on whether they've changed their policy on this topic as well. [Mother Jones]

Komen's claim that their decision about Planned Parenthood wasn't political and had nothing to do with abortion was already difficult to believe, but if their position on stem cell research has also changed it becomes pretty much impossible.

-So how much of Komen's money actually goes to breast cancer research anyway?

Last year the blog The Cancer Culture Chronicles analyzed Komen's 2010 financial statements to determine how much of their money actually goes to breast cancer research. (There's also a great critique of Komen's four star rating on Charity Navigator.)

In 2009 the Research program received $70.1M or 21% of total revenue, and in 2010 it received $75.4M which, although a slight increase in terms of dollars, only represents 19% of total revenue...relative to dollars earned, allocations to the Research program (purple line) seem to be on a definite downward trend, whilst the other programs remain fairly flat, and Administrative Expenses (orange line) seem to be on the increase.

Analyzing further the financials for Komen's Research program, I find that from the $75.4M allocated to the Research program, that only $62.7M was spent on actual research awards and grants with the remaining $12.7M spent on Professional Fees expense of $6.3M; Salaries and Benefits of $2.8M; and other Operating expenses of $3.6M.

To recap; although the Research program was allocated 19% of total revenue only 16% of total revenue was used to fund actual research! And why the need to spend $6.3M on Professional Fees expense, which is generally fees like accounting, legal, public relations, financial management etc.? 16% to Research is significantly less than the 25% Komen repeatedly claims is used to fund research. And the annual Research program allocation percentage, when compared to total revenue, keeps decreasing!

Also of note is the fact that from 2008-2010, Komen paid an estimated $1.9 million in severance, including large packages for some people who had only been with the organization a short time. Komen's grants to Planned Parenthood are actually a very small piece of their multi-million dollar pie, but their decision to split with Planned Parenthood has opened the door for many people to ask some big questions about their financial integrity.

-Komen, corporate partnerships, and pinkwashing

The Komen foundation has a lot of corporate partners and lends their name to a lot of products that supposedly raise money and awareness "for the cure", which means they are frequently accused of pinkwashing. It often seems like they're putting partnerships, products, and profits above women's health. Examples include their partnership with KFC on pink buckets of fried chicken (healthy!), a pink ribbon credit card by Bank of America (currently being investigated!), and Yoplait's fundraising campaign which requires people to mail in yogurt lids in order to generate a 10 cent donation to Komen (not only not cost effective, but the yogurt itself used to contain the hormone rBGH until a campaign by Breast Cancer Action persuaded Yoplait to remove it). And don't forget your pink gun!

And then there's "Promise Me", a perfume commissioned by Komen last fall. A bottle of Promise Me costs $59, but only about $1.50 of that money actually goes to breast cancer research. The perfume also contains two potentially harmful chemicals not listed in the ingredients.

There's also the fact that Komen downplays and dismisses the potential link between the chemical BPA and cancer, even though there's a lot of evidence to support such a link. Of course, they deny that there's any connection between their stance on BPA and the fact that they partner with so many companies that use BPA in their products (including many of those pink products that raise money for Komen).

-Komen has engaged in some questionable lobbying efforts

This current controversy has caused people to take another look at some past criticisms of the way that Komen lobbies for and against certain legislation, including questions about what kind of help Komen believes poor women should get to pay for cancer care, and about whether Komen really supports research into potential environmental causes of breast cancer. Here are a couple of excerpts:

In 2000, when I first became a breast cancer activist, one of my first assignments was contacting the senators and members of Congress in my area to encourage their support for the Breast & Cervical Cancer Prevention & Treatment Act. The bill was to provide Medicaid coverage for uninsured women diagnosed through the Breast & Cervical Cancer Prevention & Screening Act, which had been passed several years earlier. IOW, the Treatment Act was necessary because uninsured women were getting no-cost breast cancer diagnosis, but still had no means to pay for treatment.

...Upon calling my GOP senator and speaking with his aide, I was shocked to hear her tell me "Sen.__ can't sign on as a co-sponsor to the bill because all the breast cancer groups aren't in agreement on it." Shocked, I asked her who was opposing it. She told me that Komen opposed the bill. When I asked her why, she explained that Komen felt that treatment for uninsured breast cancer patients should be funded through private donations, like the pink ribbon race. I was speechless, in shock. A phone call to another activist confirmed it was true - Komen was lobbying behind the scenes to kill the bill. A moment later, Sen.__'s aide called me back and begged me not to repeat our conversation to anyone, that she had given me the information by mistake.

...In 2009, Komen lobbied behind the scenes to weaken the health care bill (ACA) as it was being debated in Congress. They hired Hadassah Lieberman, wife of Joe, in an effort to convince Joementum to vote against the Public Option. Komen spent over $1 million in 2008 & 2009, on behind the scenes lobbying related to the health care reform bill, so who knows what else was on their agenda.

...They worked for several years to stall or kill the Breast Cancer & Environmental Research Act. In the end, they eviscerated it by removing new funding for environmental research and substituting a panel to review all research on breast cancer & environment. Using private funds, they recently collaborated with the Institute of Medicine to develop said report. Released last December, it sadly detailed the same old arguments that there's no evidence of links between environmental toxins and that no further research should be done on the subject since everyone has those toxins in their bodies already. Instead they chose to blame breast cancer patients for getting the disease (more here).[Daily Kos]

...most people would be shocked to find that the Komen Foundation helped block a meaningful Patients Bill of Rights for the women it has purported to serve since the group began in 1982.

Despite proclaiming herself before a 2001 Congressional panel as a "patient advocate for the past 20 years," demanding access to the best possible medical care for all breast cancer patients, Federal Election Commission records show the Komen Foundation and its allies lobbied against the consumer-friendly version of the Patients Bill of Rights in 1999, 2000 and 2001. Brinker then trumpeted old friend George W. Bush in August 2001 for backing a "strong" Patients' Bill of Rights, while most patient advocates felt betrayed. [AlterNet - Read the whole thing. Seriously, go. I'll wait.]

You can go to OpenSecrets.org for more information on just how much money Susan G. Komen for the Cure spends on lobbying and where they direct their efforts, and thanks to this current controversy I think we can expect for questions to be raised and more information to come to light about exactly what they're lobbying for, and against, and whether those efforts really match the mission they keep telling us they care so much about.

-Komen takes legal action in defense of their brand at the expense of smaller charities

The Komen foundation is very devoted to protecting their brand. So devoted, in fact, that they've spent thousands of dollars taking legal action against smaller charities that use any variation on the phrase "for the cure".

So far, Komen has identified and filed legal trademark oppositions against more than a hundred of these Mom and Pop charities, including Kites for a Cure, Par for The Cure, Surfing for a Cure and Cupcakes for a Cure--and many of the organizations are too small and underfunded to hold their ground.

"It happened to my family," said Roxanne Donovan, whose sister runs Kites for a Cure, a family kite-flying event that raises money for lung cancer research. "They came after us ferociously with a big law firm. They said they own 'cure' in a name and we had to stop using it, even though we were raising money for an entirely different cause."

I doubt this is what most people envision their money being used for when they make a donation to the Komen foundation.

-This incident has given new life to the myth that abortion causes breast cancer

One negative side effect of this whole mess is that some in the anti-choice community have used the situation as an opportunity to promote the myth that abortion causes breast cancer. There were many comments from anti-choicers on Komen's facebook page touting the supposed link between abortion and breast cancer as a reason why Komen never should have partnered with Planned Parenthood in the first place, and the "theory" that abortion causes breast cancer was cited by several anti-choice organizations in their responses to Komen's decision to split with Planned Parenthood.

For the record, Komen's website lists abortion as a factor that does not increase the risk of breast cancer and states that "research clearly shows no link between the two". So while Komen can't be held responsible for every misleading report from a pro-life website or ignorant comment on their facebook page, it's unfortunate that they've opened the door for so much harmful misinformation to be spread and will most likely do nothing to help correct the record.

I'm sure I've missed a lot, but this overview should give you an idea of just how big the Komen story really is. Komen may have apologized, but many people now have a new perspective on the organization, and the debate continues. Here are a few of the recent comments from Komen's facebook page:

Nancy and Karen ran this charity like a Jr League bake sale. They need to be called out for all the things that most people never knew they were doing. The bullying of smaller orgs, the paltry sums spent on research, the huge severance packages to short term employees, the lobbying against patients rights....this is merely the last straw.

To me they appear to have actually been a money laundering business instead of a charity. I'm glad that I learned so much more about the underlying issues of this charity. Selling a bunch of pink crap doesn't make a charity for which it was founded - it was founded to find a cure for breast cancer - why then would they squash things that could have been a cure.

I actually had no idea about this organization until all this stuff hit the fan, but it's been fascinating to see all their dirty laundry finally aired out.

I so agree with you. We've all been looking at the world through the Komen Foundation's "pink-colored" glasses.

Some are calling on Komen to take further action - there's a petition on change.org right now asking that the organization get back to their mission by firing Karen Handel and returning to "a non-partisan, science-based approach" to finding a cure. I understand this effort, but also feel that Komen's "mission" is exactly what they want it to be right now. They wanted to hire Handel and they wanted to walk away from Planned Parenthood, just like they want to engage in constant pinkwashing and collect as much money from corporate partners as possible. At this point, I feel like the best course is to continue to hold Komen accountable, but also work to make them less powerful and relevant, and give our support and money and time to other organizations whose missions are truly worth that support.

The good news in all of this is that Planned Parenthood has raised thousands of dollars since this story broke, including a $100,000 grant from LiveStrong and $250,000 from New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, which means that a lot of women are going to get the care that they need.

The situation has also raised awareness for some of the other breast cancer organizations that are out there doing great work with a fraction of the budget and the publicity that Komen enjoys. One organization like this that we support is Breast Cancer Action. For years they've been teaching people how to "think before you pink" and running successful campaigns against pinkwashing, they have a strict policy about corporate contributions, and they're committed to challenging the status quo of breast cancer and working to turn awareness into action. Susan G. Komen for the Cure could learn a lot from them if they ever took off those pink-colored glasses.