Evil Slutopia

Online Dating Surrogate

2013-05-13T12:30:00.000-04:00

I was looking at Craigslist the other day at the 'writing/editing' jobs section (hey, even the evil sluts need a little side work from time to time) and came across a really disturbing job offer for an Online Dating Surrogate...

Successful entrepreneur needs discerning woman to handle online dating communications for him for roughly an hour per day

Process:
1. Review profiles of women on 3 or 4 dating sites
2. Per criteria you will be provided, mark as "Favorite" all potential women to contact
3. You'll let me know when to review Favorites periodically and I'll delete those I'm not interested in
4. You'll write to and exchange messages with the remaining Favorites and try to set dates

Up until Step 3, I actually was almost okay with this. He's a busy guy, so he doesn't have time to weed through multiple profiles just looking for someone who might interest him.

But Step 4 freaks me out. He wants someone to pose as him and exchange messages with women in order to set up dates? That's so creepy. And then I started to feel uncomfortable about the online dating attempts I've made... It made me wonder if the reason that really cool guy I was messaging with turned out to be a dud in person was because I was actually being written to by a surrogate. Or if the reason that guy who clicked "I want to meet you" on my profile never replied to my follow-up message was because it was his surrogate who picked me instead. The whole situation is really disturbing and it's concerning that someone would go into a potential relationship, automatically starting off with dishonesty.

Ideal candidate for this job is similar to dating candidates sought: Pretty, thin, educated female in her 20s or 30s (with great taste and strong writing ability)

If This Part-Time Job is For You:
Email to craig0519nyc@hotmail.com your picture, resume and lengthy enough response to assess your writing ability. Indicate why this job will be easy and fun for you and describe why you believe that you have great taste and a discerning eye.

So now it gets weirder. Why do I have to look look a certain way in order to help this guy lie to women online and include a photo? Does he think that my being pretty and thin will somehow make me more able to attract other pretty and thin women?

This whole situation freaks me out. At the very least - this guy is either lazy or too busy to date anyone (if he's too busy to exchange messages with them). And he is definitely dishonest. But sadly, that's the best case scenario. There are darker, scarier alternatives... He's not interested in talking to these women online to see if they have anything in common or any chemistry, he wants someone else to do that and try to set up an in-person meeting. Is that because he doesn't care about whether or not he's at all compatible with these women because he's just a dumbass... or because he has some ulterior motive to meeting her? Maybe he's trying to manipulate them in order to get laid, or maybe he's a predator and is luring these women to dates for some sinister motive. I know I might be overreacting, but in this day and age, it's certainly possible and anyone who took on this "job" would potentially be an accessory to whatever creepiness he has in mind.

The whole thing is just sad and pathetic however you want to swing it. And it makes me want to reevaluate online dating altogether. And the final kicker? This job pays $100/week for "roughly seven hours a week", meaning that you'll only make about $14/hour for the privilege of deceiving and manipulating unsuspecting women.

Related Reading:

Meet Mr. Grey

Would You Want to Know He Cheated?

2013-03-03T19:42:00.003-05:00

We already just wrote a very very long post about all the crap that was printed in the February issue of Cosmopolitan magazine... but would you believe it, we're not done! In the Love, Lust & Other Stuff section there's yet another ~~pile of garbage~~ article entitled "Would You Want to Know He Cheated?"

Maybe not: Sometimes the confession can be as cruel as the infidelity. Benjamin Anastas tells us why he wishes he had never come clean.

This is so bad, it's hard to believe it wasn't written by Jessica Knoll or Ky Henderson. Really, it's that bad.

First of all, the article itself never really address the question in the title. The title asks "would you want to know"? But the question that the article answers is actually "should you tell?" which is very different. They don't ever consider the point of view of the person who has been cheated on. It's told from the point of view of a man who cheated and the entire page is just one long self-serving rationalization for dishonesty.

Then I cheated. It happened far away, at a high-rise hotel in a cold European city, in a white box of a room with thick curtains that blocked out light and sound. Those curtains stopped time. In the security line at the airport, it hit me: I had to walk through the door, put down my suitcase, and tell her. I thought I owed her that. Every time I'm in an airport now, I can feel that feel that old panic returning, and then I remember: That's what it felt like when I cheated on my fiancee. Before she became my wife.

He doesn't explain what led to his infidelity. A rash decision? A drunken mistake? A calculated choice? Only that it happened and it didn't occur to him that he might need to tell his fiancee until he got to the airport.

Of course, it doesn't happen that way.

To be honest, I wasn't strong enough. So I went back to work, brought groceries, cooked her lavish dinners, went to the gym an extra day a week.

Nope, he doesn't walk through the door, put down his suitcase, and tell her. Instead he keeps it a secret.

"Is something wrong?" she asked.

"No nothing's wrong," I lied.

It was two months before I finally let it all pour out. I hadn't been sleeping. I couldn't concentrate on anything. I had a persistent rash that I thought might be an STD (it wasn't). It seemed like a golden dream now, the safe and comfortable life we'd had, and I was convinced that the only way for us to get it back would be for me to open up.

He waited two months to tell her. Just want to make sure that's clear. Two months. He didn't tell her because it was the right thing to do or because she deserved to know. He did it to calm his own guilty conscience. He couldn't sleep, couldn't concentrate... he hoped telling her would help that. His telling her was as selfish as cheating in the first place was.

That's the thing about cheating. It's not just that you're breaking your commitment to be faithful. It's also a betrayal -- lies and secrecy. He didn't just sleep with someone else; he lied to his fiancee (either directly or indirectly, by omission) every single day for two months. That's not just one indiscretion. That is at least sixty lies (if you estimate one lie a day for two months).

It's also extremely disturbing that he says he thought he had an STD because it implies that he waited until he got the rash to get tested. No, wait, he waited until the rash became persistent to get tested. So he cheated, possibly exposing himself to an STD, and instead of telling his fiancee immediately (or at the very least, secretly getting tested right away just to be sure), he potentially risked his girlfriend's health for two months.

I can still see her, propped on her pillows, squinting at a copy of The New Yorker. She was wearing an ancient, frayed U2 concert tee shirt. She had no idea.

"We need to talk," I said.

She looked up.

Again, he leaves out the details, that might be relevant. How did he tell her? Did he just blurt it out? Did he tell her matter-of-factly? Did she cry? Did he cry? Did he get down on his knees and beg for forgiveness? We have no idea if he did an adequate job of apologizing or if he was insensitive about it. We have no idea if he gave her all the details or just left it as a vague confession. Maybe it shouldn't matter, but in some ways it does. Since this whole story is about whether or not one should confess to cheating... isn't the quality of that confession relevant?

That was nine years ago. We've been divorced for five. She tried to forgive me and went through with our wedding, but on the other side, she got me back by having an affair. We tried to reconcile, but it is not easy to rebuild trust once it's been violated.

No, it's not easy to rebuild trust once it's been violated. Of course, yet again, we have no details on whether he actually made a decent effort to regain her trust. He says "she tried to forgive me" but what did he do? Hopefully, he does realize that the rebuilding of trust should've started on his end. Did he do anything to prove himself? A confession alone isn't enough to fix things; an apology means nothing without actions to back it up.

There's often a big misconception in relationships that the confession/apology is supposed to make everything all better. 'I told you what happened! I said I'm sorry! What more do you want from me?' But that's not how it works. You confess, because the other person deserves to know and deserves the right to make an informed decision about whether they want to be with you. You run the risk of them making a decision that you don't want; you run the risk of losing them. But if you can't be honest with them, then you shouldn't be with them in the first place. We all make mistakes and it is in coming clean that you give yourself the opportunity to make amends for your mistakes and be forgiven. If you are worth forgiving - and do the work that is required to earn that forgiveness, to rebuild that trust, to prove yourself - then you may be rewarded for your honesty. But lying for two months doesn't exactly foster confidence. A confession that comes two months after the fact is going to be too little, too late for a lot of people.

I wonder, standing outside, if we'd still be married if I'd just let her go on reading her magazine that night and kept my infidelity to myself. It's not an appealing thought, that dishonesty can sometimes be the answer--that it can be less damaging to maintain a lie--but I know that being honest about cheating can wreck lives.

No. Dishonesty is not the answer. It was the two months that he maintained the lie that was damaging, not the decision to reveal it. It was the cheating that wrecked their lives, not being honest about the cheating. Way to learn the wrong fucking lesson asshole!

I felt guilty, and I wanted to be forgiven before we married. Was telling her the right thing to do, or did I compound my infidelity with another selfish act? Some part of me thinks it would have been bigger of me--and better of me as a future husband--to walk down the aisle with her as if nothing had happened in that hotel room.

He has a point. His confession was motivated by selfishness. He confessed for the wrong reasons, but that doesn't mean it was the wrong thing to do. Of course, it was the wrong time. He should've told her immediately after it happened. Keeping it a secret for two months was selfish. Keeping it a secret forever would've been even worse. In no way would that have made him "bigger" or "better"... except maybe a bigger asshole. I do understand that the motivation to confess secrets often comes from a selfish reason ('I need to free myself of this guilt') instead of doing what's right ('she deserves to know the truth'). But that doesn't mean that the act is wrong, just the motivation is wrong. The truth - given kindly and appropriately and timely - is always better than a lie. When it comes to infidelity, there is no scenario in which I think that lying and secrecy are the better choice (nor do I think that it would ever make the cheater a 'better person' for lying).

Anastas is making the wrong connection here. He thinks that his marriage ended because he confessed, but the truth is, it ended because he didn't confess soon enough. The message of the article is "don't tell" but I think the real lesson should be "don't wait to tell." Cheating is bad, but it is one impulsive act (unless we're talking about an on-going affair, which is a whole other issue). The real hurt and betrayal come from the continued dishonesty. The repeated act of dishonesty and disrespect every single day. That is a bigger slap in the face than anything.

It reminds me of a line from the movie Love Actually, when Emma Thompson's character discovers that her husband may have cheated. He says "Oh, God. I am so in the wrong. The classic fool." And she replies: "Yes, but you've also made a fool out of me, and you've made the life I lead foolish too." Every day that Anastas declined to tell his fiancee what happened, every day that she had no idea what he had done, was one more day that she was made to feel foolish about. When she said "I love you" or asked "what's wrong?" and he said nothing, it was a repeated betrayal so deep that it's almost like he's cheating on her all over again.

I know this much: There is no way to press rewind and undo the hurt you've caused another. I lost a marriage when I cheated and confessed. Who knows? It could have been a good one.

No Benjamin, you lost a marriage when you cheated. Period. You could have saved the marriage if you had done right by your fiancee, but you didn't. It would never have been a good one, because you are not a good one.

Cosmo Quickies: February 2013

2013-02-26T22:26:00.001-05:00

We have been slacking on the Cosmo quickies every month, sorry... we just got the March issue in the mail which is the signal that we better get fucking back to the February issue before February is over! We already went off on their "Fake Chastity Belt" advice (UNDER THE BATH MAT!) but oh boy, this was a doooooozy of an issue... It's the LOVE issue!

So of course that means:

Epic Confessions
A Cheater's Diary
Obsessive Office Crushes

Yep, sounds like true love to me!

The sexy cover model is Julianne Hough and there's a little arrow pointing at her head that says "On Success and Sexy Time With Seacrest!" Ugh, again, the most fascinating 'fact' about the woman on the cover is her connection... to a man. Let's recap the last two months - Carly Rae Jepsen's cover said "The Secret Bond She Shares With Bieber" and Taylor Swift's cover said "Crazy for a Kennedy!" But Seacrest? Barf.

Also on the cover: Ohhhhhhh! CRAZY HOT SEX: 10 Secrets to Intense Action

You can tell it's going be really crazy and intense because they used SEVEN h's! We cannot wait to hear what their ten secrets are. We're pretty sure it's definitely going to be brand new secrets that no one has ever read about before ever in any past issue of Cosmo, right:?

Then Cosmo does a weird little juxtaposition / math equation:

Fun Fearless Lingerie
Try the Sex Diet & Curb Your Carb Cravings
+
"I'm Marrying My Gay Best Friend"
(and yes...he's great in bed!)

You can only wear your fun, fearless lingerie if you first lose weight on the "sex diet"... plus, marry your gay best friend. We do not know what the total of that addition problem is.

We don't usually address stuff written in the "What You Thought of the December Issue" section (letters from readers) but we have a few things to say this time:

These were good:

Progressive Props
"I was so impressed with your inclusion of Ellen DeGeneres and Portia de Rossi in 'If They Break Up, We Quit Life!" Articles like these are helping to normalize homosexual relationships." - Claire M., Worcester, Mass.

Sweet Shaming
"The blurb on the cover, 'So You Are a Cupcake? Fast Moves to Burn it Off!' really bothered me. You made it sound as if eating a cupcake is something to be ashamed of. I try to work out regularly, but I do it to be healthy, not to burn off something I ate." - Elizabeth K., Halifax, Penn.

These were annoying...

Nervous Flier
"Reading my Cosmo magazine; turn to 'Late Night Sex'. The man sitting next to me on the plane looked horrified. #Priceless." -@annadwyerr

Young and Gifted
"I love that Taylor Swift was on the cover of the December issue. It's so amazing that she has accomplished so much by 23....Wow!" - Laken M., Auburn, Ind.

...because like we said above (and in our December Quickies) Swift has accomplished so much by age 23. So why the fuck is "Crazy for a Kennedy!" the only fact they could think of for the cover? (Especially since she wasn't even still dating him by the time the magazine went to print.)

And then this... oh fuck this:

A Few Good Men
"Cosmo's 'The Only Kind of Man Worth Marrying' is a must-read. Good guys are out there, I promise!" - @_meredithanne_

We had a lot of strong feelings about that article! One thing we can say is that it is not a must-read. It's common sense plus tips from an attempted murderer.

This month's "hot topic" from The Cosmo Question is "Can Two Alpha Females Be Friends?" Um... yes. They discuss Amy Poehler and Tina Fey's success and real-life friendship:

But perhaps the greatest takeaway from their pairing is a reminder that powerful women can be friends, share the spotlight, and not be viewed as competitors.

That's the greatest takeaway from their friendship? Really? Why do we have to continue to portray this stereotype of women as always being "competitors" pitted against each other, to the extent that we even have to ask if it's even possible that two successful women can be friends? Of course they can. And maybe they'd be able to more often if Cosmo and the world didn't continuously tell us that we're supposed to be competing with each other.

Then of course, there's this:

How often are we told to choose between two amazing women, as if we can only like one? Gaga or Madonna? Jen or Angelina? Carrie or Samantha or Charlotte or Miranda? Pick only one!

Yeah, Cosmo, it really sucks when we the media continuously pits Jennifer Aniston and Angelina Jolie against each other. So um, why do you do it every fucking single issue? (Twice, last month.)

Fun, Fearless... FAIL! Cosmo calls the trends like they see them "from wow to WTF". Honestly, it's not even worth the time to write about how stupid and arbitrary this section is, just take our word for it. We don't need Cosmo to tell us which celebrity's "super-smoky eyes" are the best (spoiler: Berenice Marlohe beats Ke$ha, OMG!).

Then, "in honor of Valentine's day", Cosmo introduces their PDA Awards: "we reveal stars at their touchy best (and worst!)". It is of course, filled with arbitrary and hypocritical slut shaming.

For instance, this photo of Jessica Biel and Justin Timberlake isn't that much different than the one next to it, of Dough Hutchison and Courtney Stodden. So then why is the latter described as "Ickiest Grope Fest" and "put the scene in obscene"? For no fucking reason, that's why. No reason other than Stodden is known for being sexy and the couple's "controversial" relationship was the focus of a reality show "Couples Therapy".

Note: These aren't the exact pics used. They're pretty similar but were cropped in Cosmo's version.

Speaking of slut-shaming, Sexy vs. Skanky doesn't disappoint this month!

Yet again (as usual) they've taken two pretty similar situations and just focused on one photo to decide which one is sexy and which is skanky - but the tables could easily be turned if you looked at another pic from the same day. That's because it's really about who the photos are of, and not what's happening in them.

Cute Vacation Lovin' (Rumer Willis) vs. Gross Seaside Humpin' (Model Suelyn Medeiros)

These are the photos that Cosmo used:

Not completely sure why making out in the ocean is totally cool and picking up your girlfriend on the beach is gross humping, but it probably has more to do with the fact that Suelyn Medeiros is a sexy model/actress who dared to wear a thong bikini at the beach than anything else. Because here are some other scenes from the same day, that Cosmo didn't choose because they don't make the same point of Medeiros being "skanky"...

What's the diference between this pic (below) and the one of Rumer and her boyfriend kissing in the ocean? Nothing.

Or how bout this... See below how Rumer's boyfriend is picking her up and being playful? That's what the "gross seaside humping" was, if you'd look at the whole scene (also below).

So what's really the difference? It's the bikini bottom. That's it.

Also in the Sexy vs. Skanky line-up was:

Sexy: Derek Jeter, with or without a few extra pounds

Skanky: Derek Eater jokes. It's the off-season; cut the guy some slack!

We agree, but seriously Cosmo... did you forget that half your magazine is about telling women what they can/can't eat and how to burn off that single cupcake you indulged in?

Flirty bird - love the feather peplum, Jess! (Jessica Biel) vs. Dirty bird - cheesy, crotch-y, just plain wrong (British personality Katie Price)

Note: The photo of Kate Price is not exact picture used in the magazine, but it's the same outfit and similar pose and the same background... so it's close enough. Now we won't pretend that Katie Price's outfit isn't a little bit over the top... but as usual, it's taken out of context. Cosmo makes it seem as though Price wore that on the red carpet at the Oscars or something, but it's really from a photo shoot to promote her newly launched jewelry line KP Rocks (hence the KP Rocks url and logo behind her). That's why it's over-the-top. It's a costume, not an outfit. Here's are some other pics from the shoot:

In the man-thro-pol-o-gy section, Cosmo yet again tells us how to "decode" some aspect of a man's life or behavior. We've seen them try to decode his text messages, how he holds his beer, how he grabs your ass... but this one really takes the cake. "Decode His... Bed Linens." Yes, you read that correctly. His fucking bed linens! Apparently, if he has bright colored sheets he's a rebel and if they're neutral, he's a "straight shooter". Satin finish, silk or Egyptian cotton? Too high-maintenance. Cartoon characters? "Run for the hills", he's a man-child. Cosmo, this time you've just gone too far on the decoding.

Also in this section, is "Confessions of a Player". A "famous athlete who, shall we say, gets around" gives them some tips on how to identify if your man is cheating. Just the intro already annoys us - he "gets around". There's a difference between someone who is a jerk (in this case a "player" which they've decided is synonymous with "cheater") and someone who sleeps with a lot of people (someone who "gets around"). It's not always the same thing Cosmo.

In the Fun, Fearless Work section, an article "Can Looking Too Young Hurt You at Work?" suggests that although "most women would kill to look younger than they are" it could jeopardize your career because people don't take you seriously. Okay, maybe that's a valid concern, although we think the author's story is a bit over-exaggerated. However it was the side bar "5 Ways to Be Taken Seriously at Work" that irked us. Specifically this tip:

Unplug at Key Moments
In a meeting, take notes on paper, and look up and nod. "Unless everyone else there is doing so, don't use an electronic device like an iPhone," Keener warns. "It can look like you're texting or sending personal e-mails."

So you should take notes in a way that is both less efficient and more harmful to the environment (paper waste!) just so people don't think you're texting? First of all, I'd be surprised if no one else was taking notes electronically, but even so, that should be an opportunity to use your "youthfulness" to be a good example and show how much more tech-savvy you are. This should be an asset to the company. No reason to dumb yourself down and go back to pencil on a legal pad when there are better ways to go about it.

Sometimes we do have to give Cosmo a little credit for their political section, "The Real Power Players of D.C.", which highlights five new female Senators and "Fun, Fearless Females" on women who are "kicking ass and making a difference".

In SEX on a desk: worth it? Cosmo tells "true stories" of women who have had workplace affairs. Of course, they had to include some famous examples in a "Affairs to Remember" sidebar such as Monica Lewinsky-Bill Clinton and the complicated Petraeus scandal. But mixed in there, of course is this fucking garbage:

The Celebrity Swapperoo
Ever since Angelina snagged Brad from Jen on the set of Mr. and Mrs. Smith, we can't get enough of this tabloid-y triangle.

You know what, we actually can get enough of it. In fact, we have had enough of it! We're pretty sure that everyone on the planet "had enough" years ago, including the "triangle" themselves. Just a few pages ago you asked why we can't stop pitting women against each other? And you used Angelina Jolie and Jennifer Aniston as an example of two alpha females, did you not? Well, here's your answer - we learned it by watching you Cosmo!

In "The secrets to super passionate sex", Cosmo gives us tips to have "richer, more connected sex that makes you smile every time you think about it". And you'll never believe what their advice is...

First, they blame adult films:

There are a few reasons that you may not be having as much passionate sex as you deserve. The first? The rise of mainstream porn. "It's become the model of what people think sex is supposed to be," [...]

"Women become convinced that they should emulate porn stars, so they try to do all these wild, man-pleasing moves rather than paying attention to their own satisfaction and taking the time to find out what they like too" [...]

Now wait... aren't like, 90% of Cosmo's sex tips about "wild, man-pleasing moves"? So it's okay when women use Cosmo as the model of what sex should be, but not porn? Yeah, they have a good point that adult films shouldn't necessarily be sex ed, but isn't it possible that some women might find out what they like to do by watching porn? And maybe some couples are turned on by watching porn. And maybe there might even be a porn star out there who is bridging the gap between porn and sex ed in a really innovative and interesting way? Oh wait, there is and her name is jessica drake. But why discuss that when we can just rehash the same oversimplified "porn is ruining your sex life" theory from the last five or ten or fifty articles on this topic, right Cosmo?

And of course, to back up their bullshit claims about porn, they've included a sidebar called "Meet the Woman Who's Bringing Sexy Back" on Cindy Gallop's new website MakeLoveNotPorn. We think Gallop has good intentions, but no, we're not buying it (literally). Her MNLP business model doesn't seem particularly workable to us at all, and we definitely wouldn't go so far as to say that she's "bringing sexy back" or doing something particularly unique or revolutionary. There are a lot of other women they could have interviewed (like, say, Tristan Taormino) who have actually been breaking new ground and doing cool stuff in the area of feminist porn.

Then later in the article, they again use the ableist term "lame", just to round-out of the offensiveness of the whole piece.

In "Can Sex Make You Skinnier?" Cosmo has actually suggested something almost as crazy as hiding your panties under the bathmat. They're suggesting that having sex (or just thinking about it) can substitute eating carbs, sweets or other diet no-nos. The author (oh look it's Jessica "UNDER THE BATH MAT" Knoll again!) tested the theory by doign something sexual every time she had a carb craving. Spoiler alert: it doesn't work.

"I'm Marrying My Gay Best Friend" tells the anonymous "true" story of a woman who literally married her gay best friend. And it's not a marriage of convenience, they allegedly have all the romance and sex of an actual marriage, except he's gay and she's a woman. It's kind of hard to know how to feel about this story. On the one hand, we don't agree with putting people in boxes with strict rules. Sexuality is fluid and just because someone primarily identifies as homosexual doesn't mean they can't be attracted to certain members of the opposite sex. On the other hand, it's kind of hard not to at least wonder if this marriage is legit or if they're living a lie. And then of course, there are plenty of stereotypes about gay men (and straight men) thrown around for good measure...

Dating a gay man has its upsides. (Dave still considers himself fundamentally gay; he's attracted to lots of different types of men but to only one woman--me!) While I wouldn't call myself a slob, Dave basically organized my entire life. When we're out shopping, he knows when to ask, "Will you really wear those shoes?" He's not just my date to weddings: He helps me pick out the perfect dress and even does my hair. I know some women may prefer a more traditional show of masculinity, but I love Dave as a partner. Straight guys might give their girlfriends flowers once a year on Valentine's Day. Dave gives me flowers every week.

It's like one step forward and two steps back - she makes an interesting point (for Cosmo at least) about how guys don't have to conform to mainstream standards of masculinity to be "real men" or great partners, but she does it in the middle of a "he does my hair and shops with me!" cliché-fest.

In "Are You Your Best Friend's Worst Enemy?" Cosmo gives advice on how to be give unsolicited advice to your friends without sounding judgmental. Some of the examples given are valid, but there were a few that we think crossed the line from sounding judgmental to actually being judgmental. For example:

Be Honest When... Her over-the-top outfits are attracting the wrong attention.
You love going shopping with her, but she insists on buying every cleavage-baring top she can find. She's a gorgeous girl, but her face isn't what's making people stare.

Here's How To Do It: Focus your convo on the potential for embarrassing situations, rather than zeroing in on her outfit, says Bonior. If she dresses too sexy for work, say, "I think that outfit looks great on you, but I wonder if some old-school coworker might think it's not right for work." Then spin your next shopping trip as a wardrobe upgrade for both of you.

There's so much about this advice that is judgmental and slut-shamey. Look at the choice of words "over-the-top" ... "wrong attention" ... "too sexy" ... they're really making a lot of judgments on what is or isn't appropriate dress. How do we know she's getting the wrong kind of attention without knowing what kind of attention she's looking for? And who is to say what is "over-the-top" or "too sexy"? Since when is cleavage baring so bad? Haven't they seen the clothing that Cosmo advertises in their editorial photo spreads?

The Cosmo Interview was with cover model Julianne Hough. The feature itself is as stupid and boring and boyfriend-centric as most of the interviews, but "The Cosmo Quiz" they gave her really was extra dumb this month.

The accomplishment I'm most proud of is:
a. Starring on the big screen in films like Safe Haven and Rock of Ages.
b. Recording a country album.
c. Landing Ryan Seacrest.
d. All of the above.
e. Other:

Landing Ryan Seacrest!? Hough was as surprised as we were by choice c... she handwrote in "OMG for real?" (Her actual answer was e - "starting my charity", good for her.)

Another props-for-Cosmo moment (it's so rare when they do something right, we have to acknowledge it when they do)... in the Hot & Healthy section, there's a feature on emergency contraception called "So, the Condom Broke..." It explains what EC is, how it works, and how to get it. Nice work.

And finally, the Cosmo Quiz... "Are you Self-Sabotaging on the Web?"

When you hear that your frenemy from college started a successful blog, you:
A. Visit it, realize it'll only make you mad, then go back to browsing Zappos.
B. Bookmark it and hate-read it every morning.
C. Scoff at the naive idea that a blog is any indicator of success.

And... fuck you Cosmo. A blog, is like, totally an indicator of success! Everyone knows that. At least, it's a way better indicator of success than landing Ryan Seacrest.

Note: There are two other articles in this issue that we were really pissed off about - one about how it's a mistake to admit when you've cheated and one about women going to strip clubs. Not shockingly one of them was written by Jessica "UNDER THE BATH MAT" Knoll and features quotes from attempted murderer Hugo Schwyzer, so you can just imagine how we feel about them - but we had too many feelings to fit in here in Cosmo Quickies. So you can look forward to more, coming soon...

The Fake Chastity Belt

2013-02-01T12:03:00.000-05:00

Oh Cosmo, you really lowered the bar with this one... (as if that was even possible).

In the February 2013 issue of Cosmopolitan, there is an article entitled "The Fake Chastity Belt" written by Jessica Knoll. (That's the same writer responsible for the train wreck that was "The Only Kind of Man Worth Marrying" and the slut-shaming extravaganza "Why So Many Men Are Suckers for Skanks" in case you were wondering.)

It's the easiest insurance against having sex with a guy too soon, and it usually works. But when it doesn't, you need a backup plan. This is it.

One of these days we should scan the pages of our Cosmos to show the little notes we make in the margins (to prepare for our "Cosmo Quickies" blogs). This one was summed up in three easy letters: WTF.

Recently, Sara Blakley, the inventor of our dear, dear friend Spanx, was named to the Forbes list of billionaires for the first time ever. So many of us rely on the body shapers to contain a muffin top or slim our thighs. But they also have a secondary use; they help keep you from having sex with a guy you like.

Yes, the "fake chastity belt" is Spanx. Really. Senior Editor Knoll actually gave this a lot of thought and probably did a little research and then actually wrote this shit down. In fact, we bet she even had a few different drafts of this garbage and this was the final, best version. Think about that for a minute. Really let that sink in. Okay, moving on...

"When I'm into someone, I don't want to ruin things by having sex with him too soon," says Liz (not her real name), 27. "The problem is, I usually want to have sex with him so badly that I don't trust myself not to go too far with him when we are making out." So she squeezes herself into her grossest pair of Spanx. "I have an extra-ugly girdle reserved for really tempting situations."

Now there's a lot to address in this "article" (I really don't feel comfortable legitimizing this steaming pile of garbage by calling it an "article"). For starters, why does having sex too soon "ruin things"? Our very first Cosmo-related blog entry on Evil Slutopia, "Cosmo thinks I'm a slut" was written in February 2007. It's almost six years since "relationship expert" Ryan C. Browning told women that they shouldn't have sex too soon... haven't we gotten over that crap yet? Cosmo goes on and on about "fun, fearless women" yet they're still teaching us that we should be afraid of having any fun!

Why can't we just trust ourselves, trust our bodies, our desires... and do what we feel is right? It says it right there in fake-Liz's quote: "I usually want to have sex with him so badly". She wants to have sex with him so badly... so of course, she should fight that feeling and do the opposite of what she wants so badly. And the best way to do that is to wear an ugly girdle...

Other women rely on things like prickly legs, a grown-out bikini line, or even just a good old-fashioned pair of granny panties. No matter your poison, they are all things we like to call fake chastity belts: preventative measures taken to ensure that no matter how tempted you are to have sex, you don't. The problem, as you know, is that they're only sometimes reliable. And the Spanx method might be the least reliable of all, as it ups your desirability and makes you feel sleeker and sexier, thereby weakening your resolve. When a fake chastity belt fails you, it's the ultimate FML moment. Now you're in bed with the guy you really like, and you're hairy, your Spanx is giving you back cleavage, and underneath that mess is underwear you normally reserve for day two of your period.

Here's a newsflash Cosmo: Some women don't shave their legs or their bikini line at all and there are still plenty of men out there who have sex with them! And the odds are that a guy's going to be way more concerned about the fact that he's getting your panties off, than worrying what they look like. Prickly legs or granny panties don't actually make you gross and unfuckable, so why does that mean an FML moment (let alone the ultimate FML moment)?

But wait, let me get this straight... we can't trust ourselves to make good decisions. So we have to use some superficial way of uglying ourselves up sexually, in order to force ourselves into making good decisions. But of course, those methods don't actually work, so we will make those bad decisions anyway. So what's the point of this article... is Knoll just basically filling space between ads for makeup and Summer's Eve? (That was a dumb question, that's what Cosmo is!)

So here's what to do, should you ever find yourself in this position: Go to the bathroom. Take off Spanx and/or granny panties. Hopefully, your purse is big enough to cram your undergarments into it. If not, you need to make a note to invest in a bigger purse and, for the present moment, find a hiding place. Underneath the bath mat is a good one, as is stuffed in between a stack of folded towels.

What..........? Okay, aside from the fact that Knoll is basically giving us the antidote for the fake chastity belt (therefore making it even less reliable), her advice is ri-fucking-diculous. Hide your underwear under the bath mat? Really, please let us all take a moment to acknowledge the fact that a Cosmo Senior Editor is advising women to HIDE THEIR UNDERWEAR UNDER A MAN'S BATH MAT. Joanna Coles, are you seeing this? This is printed in your magazine! This is your legacy!

Hey, we have some other ideas for what to do with those pesky Spanx. Why don't you flush them down the toilet or shove them in the garbage disposal or feed them to his dog!? Or... here's a crazy fucking thought, just take them off and put them where you put the rest of your clothes. Yeah, that's right, you're about to have sex, so all your clothes are coming off anyway, so just leave your Spanx next to your shoes and purse on the floor by the bed and proceed to deposit the rest of your clothes in that pile as you remove them.

Or you could... um.. I'm sorry, I can't concentrate. I'm still thinking about the fact that Jessica Knoll wants you to HIDE YOUR UNDERWEAR UNDER HIS BATH MAT. I realize now that I wasn't ready to move on from that point, because I am still trying to wrap my head around it. UNDER. THE. BATH. MAT. Under the fucking bath mat!

What happens when he gets up after sex to use the bathroom and finds your underwear under his bath mat? Wouldn't that be an even more ultimate FML moment? Or what if he doesn't have a bath mat (half the guys I've dated, didn't, or if they did it was really a thin towel and not a "mat" and therefore would've been easily spotted - I can't imagine that a big Spanx-sized lump isn't going to be noticeable.) Ugh, and now I'm thinking about what the underneath of a bath mat looks like in the average man's bathroom and I feel queasy thinking about every wearing those Spanx again. Are you supposed to leave them there forever? Or are you supposed to put them back on after the sex, after they have been UNDER THE BATH MAT?

Okay, I think I'm almost over the whole "under the bath mat" thing... so let's also take a moment to laugh at the idea that there would be a a stack of folded towels in your average single man's bathroom. What is this a hotel? At best, they'd be in a linen closet or something, so she's supposed to go all around his house to find a place? Or how crazy is the idea that you should invest in a bigger purse that will fit your Spanx, that you specifically wore so you wouldn't have sex, in order to hide them, so you can have sex? Chase that logic around in a circle for a minute and let me know what... Seriously! She said to hide them UNDER THE BATH MAT!!!!

And if you can't stash the evidence? We turned to Jenn Rogien, costume designer for Girls, for advice. (She's the new fit expert at Aerie, a lingerie line, so she knows her undies.) If you're wearing ratty underwear, the key is to play it off with humor, Rogien says. Also, she points out, "Try to remember that you've been blessed with two very distracting assets. A guy won't notice your full-coverage briefs with the hole in the left cheek when you're working some awesome cleavage.

UNDER THE BATH MAT! Oh, sorry. New paragraph... um... yeah, this is really the way to go about it. Either ignore the fact that you're wearing ugly undies (since he's clearly more interested in what's in them) or just acknowledge it and move on ("yeah I'm wearing my ugly underwear, but that's okay, they're ready to come off anyway!") They should've just suggested this in the first place. Or even a more discrete "let's turn the lights down" and then slipping those panties off in the dark could work... but under the bath mat!? I'm never going to get over that.

Unfortunately it's not as easy to distract him from a crazy bush. Regarding this dilemma, I canvassed the other team. The consensus: Acknowledge it. "If I hook up with a girl with a wookie bush, I'm thinking she's out of it and not that sexual of a person," my guy friend Chris says. "It's 2013, and grooming is a thing everyone seems to have accepted that we need to do...guys included."

And… fuck you. There’s just so much fucking wrong with this paragraph, that is almost distracts me from the whole bath mat situation for a little while (almost). The terms "crazy bush" and "wookie bush" are offensive enough, but the reasoning just takes the cake -- basically pubic hair is gross according to Cosmo. And fuck this dude Chris... what exactly makes her “guy friend Chris” an authority on... well... anything? Does he have the same level of training as Cosmo’s resident ~~sexist moron~~ guy guru Ky Henderson? They couldn’t find a couples therapist or even a fake "expert"? No, she just went through the very scientific research methods that Cosmo loves to employ and just asked one of her douchey guy friends.

Of course, Cosmo has always given hypocritical grooming advice, but the idea that everyone, guys included seem to have "accepted" that they need to do some "grooming" is a hard one to swallow. Yes, many many many women - and a lot of men too - do keep things neat and trim down there, but that doesn't mean that everyone does it, that everyone should do it, or that everyone has the same opinion of what it even means. Are women expected to have a full Brazilian at all times, even when they have no intention of letting anyone see it? Why does a little hair make you "out of it" or "not that sexual of a person". Maybe it just means you didn't plan on having sex that day. Apparently guys (or at least her douchey friend Chris) expect you not to have sex on the first date, but to be ready for sex at all times!

And really, how "crazy" can your bush really be after only a few days? I mean, the author said "grown-out bikini line" - what does that mean? So basically a "wookie bush" means just not completely bare? Yeah, fuck you Cosmo.

So there you have it -- the next time a fake chastity belt fails you, laugh, distract, and explain that normally you don't sport enough hair to make a merkin out of it. And don't forget to collect your nude-colored bodysuit from the towel closet before you go.

Don't you mean... from UNDER THE BATH MAT!?!?!??!?!

The 5 Worst Things About Save the 1

2013-01-31T18:50:00.000-05:00

Last week the anti-choice group Personhood USA put out a press release announcing, essentially, that they've decided to get even more in your face about how extreme and ridiculous their views are by creating a new group called Save the 1. Go ahead, soak up the idiocy (we only included the worst of it and bolded the worst of the worst because we're nice like that):

For the first time since the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, a new organization has formed to focus on the demographic of babies most ignored by the pro-life movement, yet most often singled out by pro-abortion groups: babies conceived in rape. Savethe1.com has launched an effort to educate politicians on the 100% prolife position; disallowing for any "exceptions" sentencing babies to death. These so-called "hard cases" include babies who have a poor in utero diagnosis as well as babies conceived in rape.

...Following the widely publicized misstatements of Todd Akin and Richard Mourdock , Save the 1 has been created to equip politicians who hold to the 100% prolife position, educating them on the statistics and facts that support 100% abortion bans. Save the 1 will include the personal stories of rape victims and people conceived in rape who seek legal protection for all unborn babies, no matter the circumstances of their conception.

Save the 1 intends to remove and prevent 'rape exceptions', starting with the Hyde Amendment. Save the 1 is a reference to the parable of the lost sheep in Matthew 18:10-14, in which the shepherd leaves his 99 sheep behind to find the 1 sheep who was lost.

"Rape and abortion are wrong for the same reason; they are both violent acts of aggression against another person," continued Kiessling. "If you really care about rape victims, you should want to protect them from the rapist, and from the abortion, and NOT the baby. A baby is not the worst thing which can happen to a rape victim — an abortion is."

Well, it's a good thing Ms. Kiessling cleared that up for us, right ladies? Now, there are a lot of important conversations that we could have about rape exceptions. For example, we could talk about that fact that often when people say that they support abortion rights only in cases of rape, what they mean is that they're willing to be magnanimous enough to "allow" a woman to have an abortion, but only if she's not a big old slut who got pregnant because she chose to have sex. In that sense, we have to at least give it up to the "no exceptions" crowd for consistency - they think we're all horrible evil people for ever considering abortion or supporting abortion rights.

So of course we had to check out this Save the 1 site. And although it can sometimes be hard to measure such things, we can safely say that it's one of the worst things we've ever seen on the internet, and we watched Bam Margera's new music video. So allow us to present, in no particular order, the five worst things about Savethe1.com.

#1 - The fact that it exists

Are we really still trying to make the "personhood" thing happen? Personhood bills and amendments have been solidly defeated at the polls in every state where they've managed to get them on the ballot, including very red states like Mississippi. Sometimes they fail in the courts or before they even come up for a vote. Colorado even rejected it twice. (And yes, I know that just because something is defeated on Election Day, that doesn't make it wrong. Gay marriage should be legal everywhere but it's been voted down a bunch of times, but this is different for a few reasons, like the very wide margins by which these personhood amendments have gone down, and the fact that gay people aren't trying to marry fertilized eggs. But I digress.) Polls have shown that only a small portion of Americans actually agree with the "100% pro-life position", and there are even a lot of people within the anti-choice movement who reject the personhood agenda, either on principle or because the wording of the proposed amendments is always way too vague and broad or just as a matter of bad strategy.

You would think that Personhood USA would have picked up a clue about how popular this whole "no rape exceptions" idea is by the fact that men like Todd "Legitimate Rape" Akin and Richard "What God Intended To Happen" Mourdock are not serving the Senate right now. But no, according to them all that the Akins and Mourdocks of the world lack is a little finesse. Just explain it better and then everyone will understand that it's a great idea to force rape victims to continue their unwanted pregnancies. But not to worry! Save the 1 is here to help with their list of tips for candidates. Here are a couple of their suggested sound bites:

“According to the U.S. Supreme Court, rapists don’t deserve the death penalty – not even child molesters, and that it’s cruel and unusual punishment to sentence them to death. I certainly don’t believe that an innocent child deserves the death penalty for the crimes of her father. Just as the death penalty can’t undo a rape, neither will an abortion.”

“Rape and abortion are wrong for the same reason — they are both violent acts of aggression against another person. I care about rape victims, so I want to ensure that they are protected from the rapist, and not the innocent baby. More violence within her body is not the answer.”

Because if Todd Akin had said that instead he would totally be a Senator right now.

#2 - They almost made us kinda sorta agree with Ann Coulter a little bit

There's a section on the site where Save the 1 director Rebecca Kiessling responds to a column that Ann Coulter wrote after the election. Here's some of the relevant part of Ann's column:

No one can be blamed for the hurricane that took the news off the election, abruptly halting Romney's momentum, but Todd Akin and Richard Mourdock can be blamed on two very specific people: Todd Akin and Richard Mourdock.

The last two weeks of the campaign were consumed with discussions of women's "reproductive rights," not because of anything Romney did, but because these two idiots decided to come out against abortion in the case of rape and incest.

After all the hard work intelligent pro-lifers have done in changing the public's mind about a subject the public would rather not think about at all, these purist grandstanders came along and announced insane positions with no practical purpose whatsoever, other than showing off.

While pro-lifers in the trenches have been pushing the abortion positions where 90 percent of the country agrees with us -- such as bans on partial birth abortion, and parental and spousal notification laws -- Akin and Mourdock decided to leap straight to the other end of the spectrum and argue for abortion positions that less than 1 percent of the nation agrees with.
In order to be pro-life badasses, they gave up two easy-win Republican Senate seats.

She's right. Well, mostly right. As right as Ann Coulter can ever be about anything. Akin and Mourdock (and quite a few other Republican candidates) tanked their campaigns and did damage to Mitt Romney's campaign by expressing extremely unpopular views in extremely stupid ways with extremely bad timing.

But Ms. Kiessling disagrees. She calls Coulter a "Republican party apologist" who just doesn't get that Akin and Mourdock's losses were because of "how poorly they expressed their positions", not the positions themselves. She also says that Ann wouldn't know anything about what goes on in the "pro-life trenches" because she's been "missing in action", and claims that it was actually Mitt Romney who hurt candidates like Akin by running "ads in battleground states suggesting that it’s extreme to be 100% pro-life".

I know that the number of 100% pro-life Americans would be much higher if the pro-life movement as a whole actually went after this ground. Instead, Coulter is right in pointing out where the effort has been focused – on things like parental notification laws and efforts to ban partial birth abortion. The lives of children conceived in rape are often minimized with the standard dismissive language of: “Well, it’s only 1%.” Why continue to minimize? Why not stand up and really defend our lives? We need to try to gain ground on this issue, by educating the public, by equipping candidates and legislators on how to most effectively respond to the rape question, by making ads with children conceived in rape available for anyone who wishes to utilize them, and by removing rape exceptions from the law, beginning with the Hyde Amendment.

I fully support this Republican infighting and hope that it goes on for a long time, and that Save the 1 is able to encourage a lot more Republican candidates to Akin themselves and lose their elections.

This part is just fascinating to me:

Back to Ann Coulter’s article – she wrote that “No law is ever going to require a woman to bear the child of her rapist.” I don’t believe that. Laws DID protect children like me and these protections can and should be restored. She went on to add: “Yes, it’s every bit as much a life as an unborn child that is not the product of rape.” Ann, your words speak volumes as to what you really believe. A preborn child is not an “it.” He or she is a life, a human being, a person, a son or a daughter. They have a gender. This is not a mere philosophical or political exercise, but real people’s lives are at stake. When I represented the mother inMichigan’s “frozen embryo” case, the fertility doctors testified at deposition that from one cell, they are literally male and female, and ascertainably so! Just as it says in Genesis, “male and female, He created them.” Using words of gender serve to demonstrate the humanity of these children.

So you're more valuable if you have a gender. Or, at least, one that conforms to the gender binary. Interesting.

And then there's this:

We must not discriminate! Children conceived in rape are surely the most outcast members of our society, being unfairly demonized and portrayed as a “horrible reminder of the rape,” “the rapist’s baby,” “tainting the gene pool,” and even “demon spawn.” This not only affects the pre-born, but also those born under such circumstances. Can you imagine if a law was introduced with an exception in cases of bi-racial rape? I could hear the rationale, “Well, it’s only 1% of 1%,” and “the child would look more like the rapist and would surely be more of a reminder of the rape” – an argument which I’ve actually heard before. There would be a national outcry for such discrimination! Civil rights leaders would be outraged and demand that the exception not only be removed, but that the legislator who introduced it must immediately step down. And yet, half of pro-lifers think nothing of discriminating against children conceived in rape, and it’s wrong!

You know, we always try to make posts like this informative, witty, and/or insightful, but sometimes all we really want to say is...wow, fuck you.

#3 - The total disregard for women in general, and rape victims in particular, as individuals with lives and voices and any rights to control their own bodies or make their own choices

The language that this site uses to talk about rape victims is so disrespectful and disgusting. Like the suggested sound bites for candidates we quoted earlier that go on about how rape victims need to be "protected" from abortion, and those who choose abortion are "sentencing" an "innocent child" to the "death penalty" - a worse fate than rapists and child molesters suffer.

Here are a few more of their suggested talking points:

“That child is not ‘the rapist’s baby,’ but her mother’s child. The majority of rape survivors choose to raise their children who were conceived in rape. After everything the rape victim has endured, what an insult to her to suggest that somehow her child’s primary identity is marked as ‘the rapist’s baby,’ and what an unfair stigma to attach to an innocent child.”

“I’m tired of these children being demonized like this. Women are capable of great love for their children and must be given more credit for this.”

"Rape victims need real help – to be protected by ensuring the rapist does not have any parental rights, to make sure the rape victim mother will be able to receive governmental aid, even if she is unable to name who the rapist is. Tragically, the rhetoric surrounding abortion has left the majority of rape victims mothers unprotected because too many seem to think that a real rape victim couldn’t possibly want her child, when this is simply untrue. I will work to protect rape victims, and their children."

So they preach about not forcing an identity on a child because its father is a rapist, but they're fine with forcing the identity of "rape victim mother" onto a woman whether she wants it or not. I think that "after everything the rape victim has endured", the real insult is that the Save the 1 crowd tries to shame and manipulate and even legally compel her to conform to their agenda rather than respecting her choices.

#4 / 5 - The Visual Aids

Okay, I accidentally lied twice - there aren't five things on this list and they're not in no particular order. But there's a very good reason for that, and it's because number fourfive is so ridiculous that...just look:

It's a poor innocent baby being run over by a bus that's apparently being driven by a rape victim whose desire for an abortion is such pure evil that it turned her invisible. I think I have that right. The Save the 1 team suggests that you put this lovely graphic on facebook, which is awesome. I was sick of grumpy cat memes, arguments about gun control, and photos of people's gluten free vegan lunch anyway.

If you're not into the whole bus thing, don't worry. They have a bunch of choices, so they've got you covered whether you need a new facebook cover photo or just want some fun graphics to freshen up your Jim Bob Duggar fan site. Perhaps this baby enjoying a nice nap on a lamb is more your style:

Sometimes the best way to get an important message across is with a really stunning and powerful piece of art, you know? I feel like this image really captures the essence of the futility and ineptitude of the personhood movement. Well done. At this point I'd also like to mention that all of the babies that they used for these graphics are white, but I'm sure that was a total coincidence or accident or something since they've already proven how aware and sensitive they are about race issues with that whole "biracial rape" thing.

But this image has got to be my favorite:

The fetus is on fire! The fetus is on fire! Red alert! Call 911, or better yet call Rick Santorum and tell him that he's needed at the Towering Fetus Inferno immediately.

#Whatever, the format is fucked already

Okay sorry, I thought I was done but then I realized that the Resources page has essays in addition to those awesome graphics. One of them is called No Exceptions!, which I didn't read because it looked like just a rehash of the rest of the site. The other one is called Rebecca Kiessling Philosophical Essay, so that's obviously where all the magic is happening. There's a hilarious disclaimer about not plagiarizing this brilliant work, which has "been ranked as the #1 philosophical abortion essay in many search engines for a long time" because "your professor will likely be aware that it’s not your original work". It's extremely long and full of fun phrases like "pre-birth killing", as well as lots of very persuasive and thought-provoking philosophy. Here are a few examples:

As will be discussed in detail below, one cannot legally and morally kill someone else in order to prevent that person from stepping on one’s toe.

That's quite true, and clearly very relevant to the issue of abortion because...well, if you step on someone's toe that's really not nice and therefore...yeah, I got nothing.

...if a doctor does not wish to assist in aborting an unborn child when the pregnancy is innocently placing the mother’s life in jeopardy, the doctor must not be punished for choosing not to personally intervene — even if it is medical necessary in order to save the mother’s life.

Yes, she is actually saying that if a doctor chooses to stand by and let a woman die rather than perform an abortion that is medically necessary to save her life, that's totally cool and the doctor shouldn't face any consequences.

As we have seen, if you leave your harbor open, an innocent boat — out of necessity — may still permissibly dock in your “safe harbor” under the “necessity doctrine.” Again, this is not because the boat was constructively invited into your harbor, but merely because it needs to and is able to dock there. The same reasoning readily applies to an unplanned pregnancy. The unborn child has a right not to be unjustly killed, not because the unborn child was necessarily constructively invited into the mother’s womb, but merely because the unborn child needs to and is able to be harbored there.

Yes, so when a fertilized eggboat sails through the ocean of your womb and attaches itself to the harbor that is your uterine wall, you should try not to get seasick because...dude, what the fuck are you talking about? My uterus is not a dock and my unplanned pregnancy is not a sailboat in distress.

It is just for a pregnant woman to prematurely terminate her pregnancy to save her life because in such a scenario, it is much harder for her to facilitate her unborn child’s right to life and it is much harder for her to fulfill her own duty to her unborn child.

So it's okay for a woman to have an abortion if it's necessary to save her life, not because it saves her life but because if she were dead she wouldn't be able to continue the pregnancy and then take care of the kid anyway.

Finally, the world would be much different if Moses or Jesus, Einstein or Newton, Rosa Parks or Martin Luther King, Jr., or simply any person had been aborted. The world may in fact be much different now because of people who have been aborted. Mother Theresa shared that she had been praying to God as to why he had not sent someone to find a cure for the A.I.D.S. virus. After praying for many days, she said she finally received an answer from God. His response, she said, was that He had sent someone, but that person had been aborted. Whether you are a spiritual person or not, you must realize that the world is necessarily different because of those who have been aborted.

Oh good, this argument again. Insert the standard "but doesn't that work the other way too, like what if Hitler had been aborted blah blah etc." rebuttal here. And of course if Mother Teresa says something that means it must be true.

Just think, if scientists found an unborn child just after conception — a “cluster of cells” — on the planet Mars or on Antarctica, the next day world headlines would read: “Scientists Have Found Life on Mars” and our president would be making a special televised address to the nation to announce these “spectacular” findings that scientists have found life.

Yeah, just think about it. What if someone found a zygote just straight chillin' on an iceberg in Antarctica? That would be totally sick, bro.

In addition, it is an indisputable fact that an unborn child is a living human being since no human “fetus” has ever been known to develop into a dolphin, a rabbit, or a carrot.

Indisputable fact. I do not think that phrase means what Rebecca Kiessling thinks it means. But if you take nothing else away from this whole thing, please take the mental image of a human woman giving birth to a giant carrot. You're welcome.

Cosmo Quickies: January 2013

2013-01-30T13:45:00.002-05:00

It's time for Cosmo Quickies in the new year! We're getting this one just under the wire (since the month is almost over) but let's take a look at the January 2013 issue of Cosmopolitan magazine.

The cover promises "EPIC SEX" and "your hottest year ever!" so it's... totally like every other issue of Cosmo?

Carly Rae Jepsen is the cover model and just like last month, her cover story headline focuses on her in terms of her connection to a guy. "The Secret Bond She Shares With Bieber". Okay, so I'm sure that a lot of Cosmo's readers might be interested in her connection to Justin Bieber, but is this really the only cover-worthy tidbit of information they could find about her?

In the Fun, Fearless Celeb section, there's a stupid feature called "Celebs by the Numbers". In it, they compare "star stats" that no one really cares about, like the number of people following Kim Kardashian on Twitter (16,573,908+) compared to the number of people Kanye West follows on Twitter (1, it's Kim).

Most of it is pretty innocent, but then we saw that they compared the rings of Jennifer Aniston and Angelina Jolie:

8: Estimated carat count of Jen Aniston's bling from Justin Theroux
16: Carats in Angelina Jolie's flashy sparkler from baby daddy Brad Pitt
69.42: Carats in the famous Taylor-Burton diamond, given to Liz by hubby Richard (Her ring was 33.19 carats)

Aside from the fact that who cares how many carats are (estimated) in the rings of any celebrities, the fact that they chose to compare Aniston to Jolie is interesting. The media has been pitting these two actresses against each other for years and Cosmo has been no exception. We've had to read for years about how Jolie "stole Jen's man"... so now that Aniston is engaged to Justin Theroux they can't let us just be happy for her. We have to know that the ring Brad Pitt gave Jolie is twice as big as the ring Theroux gave Aniston!

Later in the same issue, in an article called "Take Your Love to an Epic Level", a sidebar on "Passionate Paris" featured Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt with this caption:

Jennifer Aniston may have had Brad Pitt first, but he and Angelina Jolie are the ultimate alpha couple.

Ugh, seriously? They couldn't just call them "the ultimate alpha couple" (questionable) without having to go back to this nonexistent rivalry between Aniston and Jolie? Yeah, you know who else "had" Brad Pitt first? Robin Givens, Jill Schoelen, Juliette Lewis and Gwyneth Paltrow. And Angelina Jolie has been divorced twice. Jennifer Aniston has dated several guys before Pitt and after Pitt/before Theroux, so god, can we please just get over this Aniston-Jolie thing already? They have.

This month's Cosmo Question asks "Is It Good to Be a Bitch?" We're not sure that this is necessarily a "hot topic" (although it's at least a little more interesting than the "what's with the bodyguards?" question from last month). However, we're actually a little bit impressed by the article itself. It was written by Nahnatchka Khan (creator/executive producer/writer on the hit show Don't Trust the B---- in Apartment 23) and not a Cosmo staff writer, so automatic plus right there. It starts off with a definition of "bitch", which the author rejects as unsatisfying, so she gives her own:

Someone who lives by her own rules; unconcerned with the opinions of others; free.

We're obviously all for reclaiming words and giving them new meaning (ahem, sluts). Not completely sure that the character Chloe from Don't Trust the B is a good role model, but she is certainly unapologetic and unconcerned with the rules and opinions of others. Overall, we think you should be able to be that way and still be a generally good person (and we're not sure Chloe is), but we can definitely get behind Khan's final lines:

I truly feel like women are embracing their inner bitches more than ever. They're going after what they want with a confidence that's both empowering and a bit reckless...in the best possible way. We all could benefit from a dose of Bitch Think. It might make things messier, but it sure as hell makes life a lot more fun.

And now, our "favorite" part of every issue of Cosmo (ugh): Sexy vs. Skanky!

Caped Crusader: Jennifer Hudson vs. Big Ang. (The photos below are not the exact pics in the magazine, but were taken at the same time and show the same outfits.)

It kind of makes no sense that they're comparing these two photos. Hudson doesn't seem to actually be wearing a cape, she's just got her jacket over her shoulders (you can clearly see the sleeves hanging). And the Big Ang photo is from a portrait photo shoot that may or may not have been for Christmas, but is no doubt supposed to be playful and fun. Why is it skanky? Because she's Big Ang. That's the only reason. Because she's from a reality show about mob wives. That's the only reason.

A little further down, they list "Sliding with your mini-mes" (Chris Martin and his kids) vs. "Sliding in your minidress" (Rochelle Wiseman). It's actually kind of interesting that Cosmo chose to slut-shame Wiseman for this photo because they make it seem like she did it on purpose, when she was reportedly really upset about it. The pic was taken back in October 2012, when Wiseman and her bandmates were at a pumpkin patch. She looks mortified and like she's struggling to keep her skirt down. So why is this skanky? It was a bad idea maybe, but skanky? Isn't shaming someone for an embarrassing mistake also pretty skanky? Isn't posting photos of someone's embarrassing mistake pretty skanky? Wiseman was reportedly furious about the photos being posted and the comments being made. She vented on twitter "I'm SO embarrassed! Surely there's some sort of law against this?"

And finally... Hanging out with your girls (January Jones, Jennifer Aniston, and Isla Fisher) vs. Letting your girls hang out (Joanna Krupa). Ugh. It feels like every month they make some kind of obnoxious joke about a woman being "skanky" for showing off her boobs. Now, we'll admit, maybe Krupa's outfit isn't exactly conservative. But the shirt might not be that revealing in the dark (it's obviously evening in those photos) but when a dozen paparazzi flash their camera flash bulbs on you at once, something "sheer" becomes "see-through".

Also, it's not as though she's wearing this outfit on the red carpet or a TV talk show. She was out to dinner with her fiance. Most likely, Cosmo singled out Krupa because she is a former Playboy model and on a reality show.

In the man-thro-pol-ogy section, Cosmo continues to try to confuse and torment women "What He Texts vs. What He Means".

He texted: Hey, what are you doing?
He means: "If he doesn't follow up with an invite, he's just checking to see if you're available. This is a text guys use to keep you interested without expending time or energy."

Maybe "what are you doing?" means "what are you doing?" Cosmo does some kind of decoding every few issues, so of course we're not surprised that they're trying to find hidden meaning in text messages. And the truth is, sometimes guys do mean more than they say... but not all men are the same. Not all men mean the same thing when they say what they say. You can't generalize all men to know what "Hey, what are you doing?" or "Take care" means. It's a text message! It's not that complicated.

Also in the "man" section this month is yet another shout-out to Tosh.0! Dude, Cosmo, stop trying to make Daniel Tosh happen! He's a misogynist! He thinks rape jokes are cool! Get over him already. There are like a zillion other male comedians much funnier than you could talk about instead of him. And you know, there are also about a zillion female comedians much funnier than Tosh. Here's a newsflash, Cosmo: Some men like female comics too!

And yet again (again!!) Cosmo has "discovered" a brand new trend that isn't even remotely new! "The New Hollywood Leading Man" is... funny guys.

Funny guys are the latest arm candy (e.g., PDA-loving Jason Sudeikis and Olivia Wilde). But is a laugh-a-minute type the one for you? It's the funnies vs. the hotties vs. the smarties -- who's the ultimate catch?

Then they proceed to pit three "types" against each other in the fight for who is the ultimate catch. In addition to "The Funnies" (Sudeikis), they list Channing Tatum as an example of "The Hotties" and James Franco as an example of "The Smarties". Here's how they break it down:

The good morning message he'll send you.
The Funnies: A YouTube video of a kitten giving the weather report
The Hotties: A pic of his freshly showered, still-glistening abs
The Smarties: A link to an inspiring TED talk

Hanging out with his friend is like being in a scene from...
The Funnies: New Girl
The Hotties: Magic Mike
The Smarties: The Newsroom

The compliment he'll whisper into your ear
The Funnies: "I'm so excited to see you, I peed myself a little. I don't do that with just anyone."
The Hotties: "Your hair is, like, so soft."
The Smarties: "God, if only someone like you were in charge of social security reform."

The sex move he hopes you'll be into
The Funnies: Motorboating your twins
The Hotties: Getting steamy in front of a mirror
The Smarties: Cerebral dirty talk (say he's "too big to fail" and watch his "NASDAQ" skyrocket)

Okay, this whole section is so cheesy that it's kind of cringe worthy that someone on Comso's staff actually wrote this shit down and then they actually published it. But going beyond how dumb it is, it's also pretty offensive. A funny guy has to be "on" all the time and is incapable of also being smart or hot? (If anything, being funny is kind of dependent upon being smart.) The "hotties" aren't funny or smart... and they're also extremely vain. So hanging out with a hot guy and his friends is like being in a scene from Magic Mike... because that's what hot guys do right? They just hang around together with their shirts off complimenting each other on their abs. We think Channing Tatum should be offended. (And the fact that he reportedly has ADD and dyslexia, we should all be offended that Cosmo is basically calling him stupid because of his looks. Because they basically just told us that being hot and being smart are mutually exclusive.) Apparently smart guys are boring. And all men only hang out with other men who are exactly like them.

Hey Cosmo, I think I want my next "arm candy" (a totally non-offensive way to refer to a significant other) to be a "new" hybrid that I've "discovered": The Smart-Funny-Hottie!

In the Fun, Fearless Work section there's an article entitled "Man Up and Brag a Little". While the advice isn't terrible (claim the credit you deserve) the term "man up" is just annoying and sexist.

In Love, Lust & Other Stuff, there's an article "I Fell for a Woman -- While I Was Engaged to a Man". We have to give Cosmo a little credit that they managed to print this story with little-to-no judgment. (Sadly, that's a huge deal.) However, it's not 100% perfect. We're not completely sure what makes this story worthy of being printed in a magazine. It's basically about a woman with a live-in boyfriend who cheats on him with a female friend and then gets engaged to him, only to pull away from the relationship because of her feelings for the female friend. Replace "female friend" with "male friend" and this isn't a sympathetic story at all, so why print it? The author doesn't even use what happened to come into a realization about herself (is she a lesbian? is she bisexual? does she consider herself to be fluid in her sexuality or does she think this was an anomaly?) and she doesn't end up with either the guy or the girl.

There's also this:

At 25, Sarah* had the big three down pat: great job, great guy, great friends. Then a girl crush came along that pulled the rug out from under her perfect life.

The "big three"? Does "great guy" really fall under the big three? And did the girl crush really ruin her perfect life, or did it just let her know that her life wasn't as perfect as she thought? We also noticed that the photo acompanying this story (of two women laying next to each other with the caption "Straight, gay...it's not always that simple") has a disclaimer: "These are professional models" because god forbid anyone think these unnamed models in the magazine are lesbians or something. The story says "Names have been changed" so why would we think they used their real photos?

We Hate Valentine's Day But We Love Shameless Self-Promotion

2013-01-27T14:51:00.000-05:00

Okay, so we don't actually hate V-Day. We're mostly indifferent to it. February 15th, aka Half Price Candy Day, is where it's at as far as we're concerned. But we do love our ESC merchandise, so we wanted to do a quick recap of all of the stuff that we have that can meet your Valentine's Day needs, whether you fall into the For, Against, or Candy! camps.

Vamp Love

Love Sucks

I do.......... anal!

I do.... (PG version)

I Love Myself

You Are Perfect

I Am Beautiful

And last but not least...

ESC Hearts

Cafepress is doing a weekend sale right now - up to 50% off of select products with the code COOLDEAL. If that one doesn't get the job done for you there's also a 30% winter weekend code: WWSALE. We'll update this post during the week after this sale ends with whatever comes next. Happy Valentine's Day / Valentine's Day sucks / Candy is awesome!

Occupy Rush Limbaugh

2013-01-19T16:03:00.000-05:00

We normally don't bother to write about the offensive stuff that Rush Limbaugh says on a daily basis. Like Ann Coulter, he's fueled by bitterness and thrives on outrage, particularly from us "feminazis" out there, so often we choose just to ignore him.

Of course, Rush knows this about us. And so he pushes. A day when he's not mentioned on Media Matters and MSNBC is a day without sunshine to him. The Sandra Fluke "slut" controversy gave him life. (It also and more importantly cost him advertisers, but back to that later.) So when he was looking for a little attention in the wake of the Obama administration's press conference on gun control this week, he knew what to do - find a way, no matter how convoluted, to tie the issue to the true root of all evil...slutty young women:

CALLER: It's terrible that 26 people died in Sandy Hook and 20 of them were children. Terrible. Very sad, coming up to Christmas, hopes and dreams that young children had; their parents and weddings and graduations that will never occur.

However, on any given day in Americans [sic], more than 3,000 children are killed from abortion and we have no problems with that. We're OK with that. It's not an issue.

So you can't spend 40 years of telling people and telling children that if I make a mistake, if something comes up and this child I don't want is in the way of my future and in the way of me graduating high school, is in the way of me going to college, is [in] the way of me being happy, is in the way of whatever I want out of life, that it's OK for me to kill the baby, but later on when I become a disgruntled employee, when I become an unhappy student at school because children are bullying me, that I want to eliminate them and get them out of the way?It's the same concept.

LIMBAUGH: Well, it's a good point. You know how to stop abortion? Require that each one occur with a gun. [via Media Matters]

First, here's a puzzler for you - who is more twisted here? Is it Rush, for his brilliant gun abortion plan, or his caller for suggesting that there's any connection at all between a man who walks into a school with a gun and murders 20 children and a teenage girl who chooses to have an abortion so that she can do awful things like finish high school and go to college and have a future. (Which is obviously not to say that young women who get pregnant and choose to continue their pregnancies can't do those things too, I'm just following this caller's "logic" here.) I really can't decide. But I guess it's nice that when right-wingers don't want to point the finger for a tragedy like this at guns, gun culture, the NRA, Reagan's slashing of mental health funding, or any number of other actually relevant things, they feel free to hang the blame on women instead.

So, Rush Limbaugh is a disgusting vile reprehensible and pathetic excuse for a human being. Women's lives and bodies are a joke to him, and violence against us is a punchline. This is not news, but every time he tries to make news by saying horrible sexist bullshit like this I wonder if there's anything we can really do to make it stop. Obviously you can't call in and try to reason with him, although it might be fun to designate a feminist call-in day and give his call screeners a hard time. Do we show up at the studio where he does his show and Occupy Rush until he agrees to stop being a dick? Probably not - I don't think any of us have that much free time - but lets take a moment and enjoy the visual of a horde of angry women going all Ladies' Home Journal 1970 on him and staging a sit in at his "Excellence in Broadcasting" studios, shall we?

The only thing that seems to give him any pause at all is losing advertising dollars. He lost so many after his Sandra Fluke comments that he actually issued an apology, half-assed as it was. So maybe our best strategy is just to keep reminding his remaining advertisers that we're still listening and we're still pissed and it's still not okay. For example, if you go to Rush's website right now there are huge LifeLock ads all over the place proudly proclaiming that "Rush Limbaugh is a paid endorser of LifeLock". So every time Rush says something like this, I might just pay a visit to LifeLock's twitter or facebook page and say "hey guys, today Rush Limbaugh said that he wants to shove a gun in my vagina and shoot me if I want to have an abortion, and you paid him to say it. I'm not okay with that, and I will never buy your product. Have a nice day!" Until we can all coordinate our schedules to Occupy Rush, I think it's our best bet, but I'm open to suggestions.

Cosmo's Ky Henderson Continues to Give Bad Advice

2013-01-17T22:36:00.000-05:00

Cosmo's horrifying "guy guru" Ky Henderson gives more terrible advice in the January 2013 issue in Ask Him Anything...

On Vacation, my guy always wants to have hotel sex first thing. Why is that?

Guys pretty much want sex no matter where they go--work, the mall, funerals, etc. It just so happens that having sex when they get to a hotel room is socially acceptable and won't potentially lead to their arrest. That, plus the naughty factor of doing it in a new place, is why doing the deed, not a walk tour, is priority number one.

Now, we get what he's saying about hotel sex... but it's 2013, can we please get past the stupid, sexist stereotype that men want sex constantly and are always ready. It's not always true, so not only is it offensive to label all men as sex-crazed... but it also puts an unfair, unrealistic expectation on men to always be ready for sex. And then when they're not ready (at a funeral? really?) we're supposed to feel confused and rejected.

I am traditional and won't have sex until things are really serious. How do I handle the third (or fourth or fifth) date and let him know that even though I'm really attracted to him, I'm not there yet?

There's a two-prong approach to getting the message across. Drop not-so-subtle hints, and avoid situations that'll make him assume sex is imminent. Let's talk about the first point. I'm not saying you need to tell him on the first date that he's not getting any until 2017, but do be open about the way you feel, especially after the first date when it's clear that you have chemistry and you're both sussing out LTR potential in each other. When you're sharing your dating histories, make sure you tell him that you've always had long-term relationships and aren't really into flings. Or just come out and say, "I'm pretty traditional when it comes to waiting to have sex." Now, it's very likely that initially he'll think he'll be able to turn you into a sex fiend by date three--it's that kind of bravado that allows men to change into battle during war and approach women in bars during happy hour--which is why you them need to back up your words with action. Or, really, a lack of action. Cut off make-out sessions at a point when most of your clothes are still on so that tings never come to a head, so to speak, and so that it doesn't seem like you're just torturing him for fun.

Huh. Okay, well there's some good advice hidden in there but there's a lot of problematic shit in there too. Starting with "avoid situations that'll make him assume sex is imminent." We all know that Ky Henderson has a problem understanding consent, so it's not surprising that he'd suggest that it's ever okay for a man to assume that sex is "imminent". (And it's not surprising that he'd imply that it was up to the woman to make sure the guy doesn't make that assumption instead of putting the responsibility on the guy to not assume that sex is "imminent".)

Then there's the phrase "I'm pretty traditional when it comes to waiting to have sex." This could actually be misleading. What does "traditional" really mean nowadays? Does that mean waiting until marriage? Or waiting until you're in love? Or waiting until you're exclusive? Or waiting until you're just ready? It's probably better not to use buzz-words like "traditional" because we all have different definitions and connotations of what that means. I think a lot of men are open to waiting to have sex, but waiting until marriage is very different than waiting until things are "serious", so it's probably better to be specific.

Then there's the suggestion that the guy will likely try to change your mind. Ugh. Not only is that fucking obnoxious, but it's not something that should be accepted. If you are open and honest with the guy you date about what you are or aren't ready to do, then he should respect that. If he pressures you or tries to turn into a "sex fiend" by date three, then he's a jerk. But for some fucked up reason, Henderson thinks this is a good thing! "It's that kind of bravado that allows men to charge into battle during war and approach women in bars during happy hour." Ugh. I'm not really comfortable with associating the same impulses that drive men to kill opposing soldiers to those that encourage a man to pressure you into having sex. I also don't agree with the idea that this is something we should feel good about.

Henderson has repeatedly tried to make this point - guys are just like, super horny, all the time, so women should, like, feel totally flattered, even if they're being assholes - barf. It's really problematic. There's just something very wrong about encouraging women to view unwanted advances from a man as compliments. Trying to push someone's sexual boundaries isn't "bravado" it's harassment.

Then there's also his advice to cut off make-out sessions "at a point when most of your clothes are still on". Why? Because if you take off your clothes, then he's entitled to sex? And then if you deny him, you're doing something wrong because you totally led him on? (Even though you already made it clear that you wanted to wait.) And it also suggests that if you don't want to have sex that automatically means that you don't want to do anything but make-out fully clothed. (When really, there are a lot of varying degrees of physical intimacy that can take place before intercourse happens.)

On a first date, I'll always do the wallet grab, even though I'd be turned off if he wanted me to pay. Do guys know it's an act?

Yes...but that doesn't mean you should stop doing it. Why? Because it shows that you're not a princess who needs everything done for her and that you understand the value of money. There is a trick to doing the wallet grab without giving him the wrong idea that you actually want to split the bill. What not to do: Say something like "I'd really prefer we split this." If you do that, a guy who had every intention of paying may panic and fear that you'll be annoyed if he doesn't let you pay for half. Instead, let him make the first move for his wallet. When he does, reach for yours, and silently continue going through the motions of paying until he stops you. Most guys will.

This advice isn't terrible, but what I object to here, is that he never calls her on the fact that she would be "turned off" if he accepted her offer to split the bill. Why is it such a turn off to pay for yourself? Why does it have to be an act? The idea is not to seem like a "princess who needs everything done for her" but it's totally cool if you are a princess like that?

I get hit on when I'm not dressed up, but when I wear a cleavage-baring top, I'm ignored by guys. What's the deal?

Do you have a giant skull and crossbones tattoo between your boobs? If you do, I'm guessing that's a pretty big factor. If you don't, then it's probably a combination of how a low-cut top changes both a guy's perception of you and your own behavior. Hitting on women can be extremely stressful, so men will often choose women who look approachable. I'm guessing you're not wearing sweatpants with your cleavage-baring top? So while you may look fantastic, that right there could be the problem -- because guys may assume you'll need a lot more than a friendly hello to be impressed. In other words, they're intimidated by you and your sexy top. On the other hand, if you're not comfortable with your look and are wearing it to get guys' attention, it probably shows. Your body language will come off as self-conscious, which turns guys off. Dress in a way that makes you feel confident--no need to bust out the Sofia Vergara costume.

Okay, first of all... what's wrong with a giant skull and crossbones tattoo between your boobs? A lot of people might think that was pretty fucking hot. Like this woman. Don't be so judgmental Ky.

I will give Henderson a tiny bit of credit on this one, that it wasn't nearly as slut-shamey as I expected it to be. Of course there's a little bit of subtle slut-shaming innuendo hidden behind "how a low-cut top changes both a guy's perception of you and your own behavior", but I'm actually really impressed that he didn't outright say something like "he'll think you're a slut" this time.

However, that doesn't mean that his answer isn't still a bit problematic. In an earlier question he went on about how men think about sex constantly and likened the "bravado" that helps them approach women in the bar to going to war. But now they're intimidated by a low-cut top? And the Sofia Vergara reference is odd. She's gorgeous, but what exactly would a "costume" of her look like? A low-cut top? His phrasing just rubs me the wrong way.

Overall, this isn't the worst advice Ky Henderson has given... but it's not good advice either. We're still not sure what qualifies him to be Cosmo's "guy guru" other than the fact that he allegedly has a Y chromosome. All we can say is, Cosmo, please, stop trying to make Ky Henderson happen. It's not going to happen. The only guy that would be a worse choice for Cosmo's resident guy expert would be Hugo Schwyzer (although we think he's well on his way... more on that soon. Ick.)

EVI goes to California

2013-01-14T16:42:00.000-05:00

Last week we went to L.A. with Dee Dennis to attend Xbiz 360 and work on some CatalystCon business. The Catalyst staff never travels without our official good luck charm - the Evi by Aneros - and since we had Evi along for the ride we decided to document her West Coast adventures. If you follow us or Aneros on twitter (which you really should be doing anyway) you may have seen a few of these already, but we wanted to put them all together in one place for the full effect. Evi had quite a trip: Of course we had to submit this little travelogue to Toy With Me Tuesday - check out this week's roundup for more fun sex toy photos.

Cosmo thinks "normal"-sized women are a new breed

2013-01-01T20:43:00.000-05:00

Okay, so remember last month in the December 2012 issue of Cosmopolitan, how Cosmo talked about this "new breed" of men who like, raise their own kids and stuff? Well, now they've "discovered" another breed (that has always been around)... the female celebrity who isn't a size 0. Gasp! They do exist!?

There's a fresh breed of powerhouse in Hollywood today: A smart, beautiful star who's too busy being successful to worry about a few extra pounds.

Yes, that's right. In the January 2013 issue, in the Fun, Fearless Celeb section, Brittany Talarico claims that women who aren't obsessed with being skinny are a new breed and "The New Normal".

With the runaway success of The Mindy Project, there's no question that Kaling is sitting pretty on top these days. But for all the buzz, shes' oddly middle of the pack in one regard: her weight.

"I am not model skinny but also not superfat and fabulously owning my happiness," she writes in her memoir, Is Everyone Hanging Out Without Me? (And Other Concerns). "I fall in that nebulous 'normal American woman' size that legions of fashion stylists detest. For the record, I'm a size 8 (this week, anyway)."

For the record, we love Mindy Kaling for the most part. We were fans of hers back when she was on The Office and although her new show isn't exactly perfect, it's smart and funny, just like its creator. We're glad that Kaling has been able to be successful in Hollywood without meeting our society's screwed up stereotypical definition of beauty (being neither white, nor emaciated). However, we'd hardly say that she is part of a "fresh breed" of women. Yet, Talarico seems to be convinced that she is, among other curvy celebs:

Mindy is hardly alone. Lena Dunham, Christina Aguilera, Jessica Simpson, Khloe Kardashian Odom... they're all members of the same club: normal-size women who wear a few pounds here or there as a badge of honor -- and with badass equanimity.

It's interesting that Cosmo can call these women "normal-size" and then in the same sentence suggest that they "wear a few pounds here or there". Don't all women wear "a few pounds" somewhere? Even the skinniest woman out there who is a size zero, doesn't weigh zero pounds. By saying that they wear "a few pounds here or there", what they're really saying is that they wear a few extra pounds that they're not supposed to be wearing. If these are "normal-size" women, then lets stop referring to them in this way. Do we refer to women who are super skinny as being "missing a few pounds here or there"? Even the title refers to them as the "New Normal"... as if it isn't actually normal. It's not the real normal, it's the "new" normal. It's the abnormal that we're newly accepting as normal. (And as we've seen in the past, Cosmo has a totally skewed perception of what "normal" weight really is - remember when they called Hilary Duff "plus-sized"?)

Also, who is to say that these women are actually really "normal" size? What is "normal"? Just because they're not excessively underweight does that mean that they really are the norm? The average American woman wears a size 12-14, so at a size 8, Kaling would still be below "normal". Most of the celebs they featured in this article are similar in size. They're curvy, but not big enough to be considered plus-size. Why didn't they focus on any plus-size celebrities? Where's Melissa McCarthy, Gabourey Sidibe, Rebel Wilson, Brooke Elliott, Adele? Aren't they smart, beautiful, successful stars too? Why aren't they part of the new normal? Or are they too "fat" to qualify for this so-called trend of "normal" women?

Regardless, we agree that all of these women are beautiful at their various sizes. However, we're not completely convinced that all of the examples Talarico gave wear these "pounds" as a "badge of honor" or with "badass equanimity". Both Kardashian and Simpson have been pretty public about trying to lose weight. They're constantly running to the press to talk about their weight issues and shilling for various diets (like Weight Watchers), so while they may be good examples of celebrities who are beautiful without looking like they're starving, they're hardly examples of women who don't "worry" about their weight.

And what about the stars who were curvy and proud before it became the so-called "new normal"? Marilyn Monroe's weight fluctuated over the years and at times she was super curvy, but to this day she is still considered to be one of the most iconic sex symbols our society has ever known. Plus-sized Beth Ditto has posed nude on more than one magazine cover and has been an outspoken advocate for body positivity. Queen Latifah has been successful and confident about her body for a long time... this concept is nothing new. So why is this a new "breed"?

Why does Cosmo continue to act like they've discovered some new pattern, when it's usually a "trend" that has always been around?

I'm thinking that maybe there is a "trend" here, but it's not the actresses who are normal-size and dare to still feel good about their bodies. They have always existed. I think maybe the trend is that for whatever reason these women have managed to actually be successful in show business without being super thin. It's not that they're doing something new or different, but maybe the new "trend" is that we're more accepting of their bodies. Perhaps the "new breed" isn't the celebrities, but the TV, movie and music executives that have actually allowed these not-super-skinny women be on shows and in movies, etc.

And even then, it's not perfect... in order for Melissa McCarthy to get a leading role on a primetime network sitcom, she has to star in a show where literally the entire gimmick is "look, a show about a couple... and they're both FAT!" But at least we're making some progress. And it's not as though male celebrities have ever really had to struggle with the fat-stigma in the same way that women in show business have. A few years ago, McCarthy's Mike & Molly co-star Billy Gardell might have still managed to get a leading role on a sitcom... but Molly would've been played by someone thinner, like in The Honeymooners, King of Queens, According to Jim, and a slew of other shows. (The last TV couple I can think of that looked even remotely like Mike and Molly was on Roseanne in the 80s-90s, but that show was somewhat of an anomaly in a lot of ways.)

These women aren't just fearless; they achieve so much more per pound than most of us could ever hope to achieve in a lifetime. And that's because slipping into a size 00 is not a priority for them. They choose to focus on doing amazing things instead. And with everything they've accomplished so far, we'd say they're in excellent shape.

We know that Talarico and Cosmo probably meant for that last paragraph to be empowering and for the readers to walk away feeling good... but no. The message is trying to be positive, but the language still comes off as slightly negative underneath. "More per pound" almost sounds like the excessive pounds they carry on them are justified by their success... so if they weren't this successful, would we be less accepting of their size? And yet, we could never hope to achieve this level success in our lifetimes, regardless of our weights? "They're in excellent shape" also rubs me the wrong way, because, Talarico is basically saying that they're in "good shape" when it comes to their accomplishments, even though they're not actually in good shape physically. I think her language choices are just a little off.

And the fact that she even had to write this article says something about her and Cosmo's mindset. Why not put one of these curvy celebrities on this month's cover instead of the tiny Carly Rae Jepsen? Why not do a feature on Mindy Kaling or Lena Dunham and not even address the fact that they're not super skinny? Most of the celebs they mentioned aren't even big enough to be called "overweight" by most medical standards, so why are we even talking about their size in this context?

If being "normal" size really is the new "normal", then let's stop talking about it like it's some outrageous new concept and just start actually accepting these celebs for the beautiful, intelligent, creative, successful women they are, without the disclaimer.

Cosmo Quickies: December 2012

2012-12-27T21:02:00.001-05:00

We already wrote about two horrible articles in the December 2012 issue of Cosmo... but we thought we'd give you all one more quick run-down of everything else that was wrong in this issue (before we start dissecting the January 2013).

That's Taylor Swift on the cover. (Not sure why there's a huge "Sexy" over her torso. It's hard to keep track of which issues of Cosmo are supposed to be the "sexy" issues... because they're all basically the same issue.)

A couple of things irked us straight away from the cover alone. The Taylor Swift story is headlined as "Crazy for a Kennedy!" which showcases Cosmo's longstanding tradition of only writing about women and women's issues as far as they're framed by men. I mean, it's not like there's anything else interesting about Taylor Swift they could have focused on... it's not as though she has a new album (oh wait, she does... Red was released in October 2012) or an upcoming tour (Red tour is scheduled to begin in March 2013). It's not as though she has won any awards recently (she won two Grammys in 2012, bringing her lifetime total to six so far, and was nominated for three more for the 2013 Grammy Awards). It's not as though she had any other kind of accomplishments or acclaim this year (except for, you know, being 2012's highest paid musical performer). Nah, the most interesting thing about Taylor Swift, according to Cosmo, is that she's dating a Kennedy. Wow.

Further down the cover page is the offensive "So You Ate a Cupcake? Fast Moves to Burn it Off!" because women should feel ashamed for indulging in one single cupcake and have to work their asses off to get rid of it immediately.

Also on the cover: "GREAT GUY... What's With the Lame Gift?" What's with the ableist language? Cosmo hasn't gotten the memo yet that you're not supposed to use the word "lame" anymore.

And finally: "Innocent Mistakes that Blow a Job Interview". There's actually nothing wrong with this headline, except that when I read it quickly I saw it as "Blow Job Interview" and that made me laugh.

Finally, onto the inside of the magazine...

The Cosmo Question: "Every month we take on a hot topic" claims this section. So what is this month's question?

What's With the Bodyguards?

Yes, this month's "hot topic" was why celebrity women sometimes date their bodyguards. Way to ask the hard questions Cosmo!

The "Sexy vs. Skanky" section is always full of offensive slut-shaming bullshit. This month was no exception...

"Taking your twins out" (Sarah Jessica Parker with her daughters) vs. "Taking your twins out" (Mary Carey with her large breasts) ... apparently if you have large breasts you're supposed to leave them at home when you go out? Her dress is a bit revealing but really, when you have breasts that size, everything looks a little revealing. But what's the big deal with showing off what you got? This is just part of Cosmo's long-running history of slut-shaming women for being sexy, especially when those are women who make their career being sexy, such as adult actresses like Mary Carey.

A little bit further down the list they have "Momshells" vs "Cougars". What the fuck is a "momshell"? We get that it's a mom/bombshell, but what qualifes one to be a momshell? (We're thinking this is their PG-rated way of saying "MILF"?) And what is the difference between a momshell and a cougar? Is it just the age? If so, then fuck you Cosmo.

Next is "Sharing a pic with your guy at the checkout line (Behati Prinsloo and Adam Levine)" vs "Sharing spit with your guy at the checkout line (Rose McGowan and boyfriend)". Hm. Here's a close-up of both photos:

It's obviously just a quick smooch between McGowan and her boyfriend Davey Detail, while they waited online for their groceries. Who cares? Why is this skanky? Why is it sexy for a couple to be photographed on line at the grocery, but skanky if they happen to steal a brief moment for a kiss? Are we 100% percent convinced that Levine hadn't kissed his girlfriend at the grocery earlier that day and it just wasn't caught on film? Have you never kissed your significant other in public!? They make it seem as if he had her pressed up against the doors of the frozen food section, geez.

Here are another two pics... one of McGowan and Detail the same day as their shopping trip and one of Levine and Prinsloo another day, kissing at a friend's party. Now who is the skanky couple? (Trick question: Neither. There's nothing skanky about kissing your significant other.)

And finally...

"Three WTF-worthy mouths" is the phrase they used to describe the supposedly skanky Georgina Leahy at the UK Lingerie Awards. (Note: The pic on the right isn't the exact one used by Cosmo, but it's a similar shot from the same event.) This one was also pretty confusing... what exactly is skanky about this photo? Yes, it's true that her lip necklace and belt are kind of ridiculous, but we're pretty sure that's the point. But even so, why is it skanky? And it's pretty fucking rude to call this three WTF-worthy mouths, because basically... the third one is her actual mouth. So Cosmo is just calling her actual mouth "WTF-worthy"? Why? What's the difference between Leahy's bright red lipstick and Gwen Stefani's "sexy" bright red lipstick, except for the fact that she's got the silly necklace and belt to go with it?

We're pretty sure that the only reason why this is under "Skanky" is because she's at the Lingerie Awards and because Leahy is a lingerie model (in addition to singer, actress, etc.). Also, shame on Cosmo for being so lazy that they missed the actual semi-WTF photos of Leahy from the awards... they managed to find one of the few pics where she wasn't posing with her 6 foot albino python. Still wouldn't have been skanky, but at least it would've been a little more unusual than just a silly necklace.

In the man-thro-pol-ogy section, they let us know about a brand new way to make women crazy. "Flirt on Instagram"...

A new way men are showing that they may be interested in you: Liking your Instagram pics. They love that it's a low-risk way to find out how you feel -- if you Like his photos, it gives him confidence to take the next step. Yes, we're horrified that flirting has been reduced to a click, but two can play that game....

Okay, sorry but one - flirting being reduced to a click is nothing new. What do they think Facebook is for anyway? But the truth of the matter is, liking your Instagram pics is probably not a new way for men to show you that they're interested in you. What it actually probably means is that they like your pic. Really. I mean, it's possible that a guy who likes you will also like your pics, but trying to find hidden meaning on Instagram is just setting women up for disappointment and confusion.

Also in the man-section is "What Axe Marketers Know About Men". Um, okay. Apparently men like to hang out in coed groups (shocking!). They "all want to be the next Tosh.0" and by that, we assume they mean that they all want to be misogynistic assholes who make rape jokes? And finally, men are into "smelling good".

"Now men are open to 'feminine' products," says McCarthy. For example, from June 2010 to July 2012, shower-gel use among men increased by nearly 15 percent.

So shower-gel is a feminine product? Smelling good is a feminine thing?

In "Hubby's Little Helper", they write about viagra (using Paul Rudd's character in This is Forty as an example). The article actual gives good advice - that viagra shouldn't be for recreational use, rather you should only use it if you actually have erectile dysfunction - however, it comes off a little viagra-negative as a whole. That is, this line in particular:

"...if your guy brings it up, reassure him that an Rx-drug-aided erection isn't necessary - that you're more than happy with his natural talents..."

There's just something a little off with that line, because for some men an "Rx-drug-aided erection" is necessary (specifically, those with E.D.) so it comes off as kind of shaming those men who do need to use viagra. Also, if a man is considering taking viagra without a medical need, then it's probably for his own benefit - so he's probably less concerned with whether his natural talents make her happy and is looking for a better time during sex for him. Otherwise he'd have suggested that she take a viagra too. The article should just focus on the medical risks for taking the pills without a prescription or diagnosis and not make it about performance, because there's nothing shameful about needing a little help from a little blue pill.

In the Love section, Cosmo reinforces their "men love sports, women hate sports" stereotype yet again...

He Abstains From ESPN. Huge one. Huge. "He gives up his weekend for you -- men take their playtime so seriously that giving it up feels, to them, like a major gesture," says Goldsmith. So if he hangs out with you despite the fact that his football team is playing, he may as well have just lit some candles, give you a massage, and read to you from Fifty Shades of Grey in his sexy voice.

Ugh. There's just so many stereotypes they crammed into one small paragraph! First of all, the assumption that most men are obsessed with ESPN and the related assumption that all women aren't. What if he just invited you to watch his favorite football team with him, because it might just be your favorite football team too? Also, there's the idea that skipping a football game is the equivalent of giving you a sexy, candlelit massage - it isn't. Skipping something he likes, is not the same as doing something you like. It's a sacrifice maybe, and it's a thoughtful gesture, sure. But it's not the same thing. There are plenty of men who would actually give you a romantic night such as that and if that's something that's important to you (it might not be, but if it is), then you shouldn't have to settle for "well, he skipped the Giants game for me" as true romance. And then finally... Fifty Shades of Grey. Ew. I'm sorry, but possibly the least sexy and/or romantic thing I could ever think of would be being subjected to the horrible writing in that book.

In the You, You, You section, Cosmo gives readers an opportunity to bitch about their friends. (Maybe they should've called it "Her Her Her"?) "The High-Maintenance BFF" shares stories of the long way some women go to make their best friends happy. The stories are a mix of women with horrible friends (like the woman who has so many affairs that she has to constantly use her best friend as an excuse to her husband) and women who are horrible friends (like the woman who logs onto her friend's dating profile and contacts potential dates for her without her permission). Overall, it just comes off as petty bitching and that's not exactly what we think of when we think of the "fun fearless females" that Cosmo loves to pretend they care about.

In "8 Surprising Mistakes That Could Cost You Your Dream Job", Cosmo yet again drops the offensive, ableist L-word:

#1. Your Twitter Feed is Lame
"I always look at potential employees' Twitter feeds, says Alison Brod, president of Alison Brod PR. "I know it's informal but a stream littered with u's and luv's makes you look 12 years old - definitely not hiring material."

(Guess Brod doesn't realize that Twitter's 140 character limit sometimes makes it necessary to shorten words.)

Under the Health & Fitness GYNO section, there's a quickie tip about you period:

Keep your flow on the down low. Period problem number 92: What to do with your used tampon applicator at this place? Flushing could clog the toilet, so you bury it in the garbage can...and hope it doesn't come rolling out when he empties the trash. The solution: Tampax Radiant tampons come with resealable wrappers, so you can toss without fear or even take it with you.

Are they serious? It's almost 2013. Do most adult men not realize that women menstruate by now? Are tampon applicators really so embarrassing and offensive that we have to add it to the long of things we're supposed to be ashamed of? We're really supposed to take our tampon applicators home with us in order to avoid letting the man we're presumably dating know that we sometimes use tampons? I mean, god, what if you use pads instead of tampons, are you supposed to be afraid to throw the used ones in his garbage pail too? Or are you just a dirty impure disgusting woman and should just spend the week of your period in a hut away from all the villagers?

In the Lust section (wait, there's a Lust section? ahahahahahha okay, sorry, moving on)... there's an article abut "Late-Night Sex".

Some things are better after midnight -- like karaoke, disco fries, and rip-your-clothes-off sex.

Oh Cosmo. Some of the advice actually isn't terrible (although not sure what any of them have to do with after midnight... they're almost all things you could do at any time). But a few of their tips on how to "bring the after-party back to your place" are just so silly.

Squeeze your Kegel muscles while you're talking to a lame party guest or standing forever at the bar waiting for a drink.

They used the word "lame" again!

Pull the car into the garage. Then get on the hood and pull him on top of you.

And then tomorrow take the car to the garage to fix the dents and scratches in the hood!

Keep the party mood going by quickly turning on a sexed-up song, like Rihanna's "S&M", and putting it on repeat to ensure it doesn't finish before you do.

Ugh, so not only do I have to listen to Rihanna, but I have to listen to Rihanna on repeat? How many times can you really listen to S&M in a row? If the sex takes longer than 10 minutes (which let's hope it does, at least), that's already too many times. At least make a sex playlist or something, don't listen to the same song again and again.

Don't turn the lights on. Stumble through the dark to the living-room floor, and use the inability to see each other as an excuse to say the kind of things you normally wouldn't.

Okay, couple of problems with this one... first of all, have sex with the lights on or off, I don't care, but trying to stumble your way into the house in the dark has the potential to go from sexy to ouchie, very quickly. I also object to the idea that not being able to see each other gives you an excuse to say things you normally wouldn't. If you're having sex with this person, shouldn't you be comfortable, you know, talking to them first? What things would you be too ashamed to say that are suddenly okay to say in the dark? I just don't get it.

After the late-night sex article, is an article called "Party of One".

So you're on your own this week -- that doesn't mean you can't have a good time.

If this wasn't in the Lust section, knowing Cosmo, I'd think it was a guide for spending the weekend without your significant other and I'd expect tips like "get a manicure!" or "watch soap operas". But nope, you guessed it, it's about masturbation. Of course, they never use that word. Instead it's filled with different euphemisms (like "a little solo time does the body good") and tips from readers. We're actually impressed that Cosmo is acknowledging that masturbation not only exists for women, but is a normal, natural and even positive thing to do. However, we wish they'd have actually said that - instead of just jumping into the readers' stories right away.

Later on, there's a quiz to take to see if you're you should have a threesome or not.

Menage a Trois? We're not here to judge. If your guy wants to try a threesome and you're curious yourself, have at it. But are you sure you're as cool with it as you think you are?

Check all that apply:

[ ] I've never creeped into my boyfriend's e-mail or text messages.
[ ] I thought the Marnie-Jessa smooch in Girls was kind of hot.
[ ] I'm pretty adventurous in bed.
[ ] I'm totally confident about how I look naked.
[ ] My boyfriend doesn't check out other girls...at least not when he's with me.
[ ] My motto is "I'll try anything once."
[ ] I am open with my boyfriend about my sexual fantasies and talk about them in detail.
[ ] I've never stalked my guy's ex on Facebook.
[ ] I'm down to watch girl-on-girl porn sometimes.

If you don't agree with at least seven of these statements, we have a feeling you'll regret adding another girl to the mix. No matter how comfortable you are with sex or hooking up with a girl, having a threesome with your boyfriend and someone else can bring up all kinds of issues afterward -- especially jealousy. Unless you're totally confident in yourself, one hundred percent secure in your relationship, sexually curious and a little bit kinky, and somewhat attracted to chicks (or at least not repulsed by the thought of being naked with one), you might think twice before giving the green light to a three-way.

Hm. They're not here to judge? Isn't that pretty much Cosmo's job? To judge women? Why do they even have the sexy vs. skanky section if they're not here to judge? Even the fact that they feel the need to say "We're not here to judge" has a tinge of implied judgment in there. And the fact that they've basically given a list of criteria that they have deemed necessary for you to meet before you have a threesome, they're explicitly there to judge.

Then there's the fact that the entire thing is framed as being about the guy. Of course they ignore the fact that some women are not interested in having sex with any guys (and therefore a threesome could be three women) but that's sort of Cosmo-territory to ignore lesbians, so okay. But it's still annoying that the author assumes that it would be the guy's idea and the woman would agree to go along with it... if only she was actually as cool with it as she thought she was. (Because us silly women just have no idea how we actually feel about stuff! We need magazines to tell us how we feel!) It's quite possible that the threesome idea is the woman's idea, not the guy's and she's looking for her significant other to give her the greenlight, not the other way around. Her fantasy might include her with two men (not her and her boyfriend with another woman) which is completely ignored as a possibility and makes some of the questions (like the Marnie-Jessa smooch) kind of moot. Of course, considering that this is the same issue that ran the totally offensive "Worst Date Ever: He Was Bisexual... With a Girlfriend!", Cosmo probably can't fathom the idea that a guy might be willing to participate in a devil's threesome, let alone suggest one.

Also, why do you necessarily need to be having your threesome with a boyfriend? That is, a threesome can exist outside of a committed relationship. Or you might be the third person joining another couple. There are a lot of ways that threesomes can go... so Cosmo's take on it is very limiting. As is their criteria for deciding whether or not you will regret having done it. The truth is, there's always the possibility you will regret your decision, because that's the way human beings are... we make decisions and then we either are happy with our decision or regret them in some way. You could meet all of their arbitrary criteria and still feel uncomfortable and unsatisfied after a threesome... or you could meet none of them and still walk away with no regrets and no qualms.

The fact that they say you have to be "totally confident in yourself" and "one hundred percent secure in your relationship" is also kind of funny. Not that it's impossible to be both of those things (although of course, how many of us can truly say that we are totally one hundred percent?) but getting women to feel insecure abut their bodies and their boyfriends is pretty much Cosmo's bread-and-butter.

Another piece in the Lust section asks the question "Got sex on the brain?" According to experts, the way you react to and interpret these three images below tells us whether you've got sex on the subconscious...

The first image is of a piece of chocolate cake.

If you said: moist, naughty, wicked, sinful, intense, gooey, melt-in-your-mouth: Sex brain!
If you said: fattening, dark, dessert, rich, heavy, delicious, good: Normal.

Just the fact that it describes someone without "sex brain" as "normal" is annoying. Isn't it normal to have sex on the brain? Don't most people have sex on their minds at some point? Also, we fail to see how "gooey" is related to sex. I don't think of sex as "gooey" or "gooeyness" as sexy. And the word "moist" just makes me feel icky no matter what we're talking about. The first word that I thought of was "cake" and the second was "chocolate" so clearly I don't have sex brain, I have chocolate cake brain.

For the second image, apparently if you see a butt, you have a "dirty mind". If you see "feet" you aren't "sex-obsessed". I saw it as knees, so I have no idea what that says about me. The final image is a Rorschach ink blot and if you think it's a vagina, then you think about sex a lot (emphasis theirs). I'm sorry, but I think I'm pretty sex obsessed and I don't see a vagina in that image at all. I also don't see a Christmas tree or a four-legged animal (some of their suggestions for the non-sex-obsessed).

In "Your Pop Culture Portfolio" Cosmo treats pop-culture trends (like TV shows and actors) like stocks and tells us what to buy, hold or sell. It's all pretty stupid, but we're supposed to use these tips to make our party chatter and Twitter feed more interesting in 2013.

Apparently "Gwen and Mindy" (of The Mindy Project) are trendy, "Jess and Cece" (of New Girl) are just okay, and "Snooki and JWoww" (of Jersey Shore) are on the way out. The reason they give for the decline of the guidettes is not that Jersey Shore's final episode aired this season but rather: "An engagement, a little meatball... the duo has official jumped the shark." Um, what? So they're moving on with their lives and that makes them less likeable? Even though JS is done, a new season of their spin-off is set to premiere in January 2013.

Other "tips" include:

Buy Kristen Stewart ("Thanks to the whole cheating thing, K-Stew is undervalued, but she's going to have to have a big month with Breaking Dawn Part 2 and On the Road"), hold Mila Kunis, and sell Avril Lavigne because her engagement ring is "ridiculously tacky".
Buy Andrew Lincoln, hold Chris Hemsworth (at least until Thor 2 comes out) and sell Robert Pattinson. So we should buy Kristen Stewart but sell Robert Pattinson? Hm. And their reason? "Rob, we feel for you, but it's time to man up." Um.... what the fuck?
Buy Dior 24-Karat Gold Jewelry Tattoos (huh?), hold gold headbands, and sell gold nail polish.
Buy "Guy Crush" Joseph Gordon-Levitt, hold Shia LaBeouf (um, we'll sell him, thanks, ew) and sell Taylor Kitsch.
Buy Socialcam ("like Instagram for videos"!), hold Instagram, and sell Foursquare. Considering Instagram's recent screw up (trying to change their TOS to give them the right to sell users' photos) it's kind of funny that Cosmo doesn't think we should "sell" them just yet.

Finally, in the horoscope section they tell Sagittarius that her best love matches are Pisces and Aries. They give celebrity examples (complete with birthdates) and this just proves once and for all that Cosmo is not a magazine for women over 30 because their examples are Alex Pettyfer (4/10/1990) and Justin Bieber (3/1/1994).

Now I feel old.

We'll be back in January to dissect and mock the January 2013 issue of Cosmo! Happy New Year everyone!

Is Cosmo's 'Worst Date Ever' the worst article ever?

2012-12-08T19:40:00.000-05:00

Okay, we know that Cosmopolitan magazine is usually pretty fucked up in a lot of ways -- but sometimes we come across something that's just so bad that we almost can't even believe they thought it was a good idea. In the December 2012 issue, it was "Worst Date Ever: He Was Bisexual... With a Girlfriend!"

There are so many things wrong with this allegedly "true" story, that we can barely wrap our heads around it.

It starts off innocently enough:

The backstory: I hit it off with a sexy, scruffy guy at a friend's party, and we ended up making out before saying good-bye at the end of the night. The next day, he added me on Facebook and asked me if I wanted to see a movie with him. I was super excited--he seemed to be just my type, so I said yes and breezily added, "I'll see whatever!"

But then got a little weird:

Unfortunately, he got us tickets to Blue Valentine. If you haven't seen it, it documents the dissolution of a raging alcoholic's marriage. (In the beginning, the couple finds their pet dog dead on the side of the road; this is probably the least depressing part of the movie.) Every time I went to rest my head on my date's shoulder, a harrowing scene--an abortion appointment, a drag-out lovers' fight--would make me cringe or shudder.

Okay, maybe it's not the most "romantic" movie, but Blue Valentine (starring Michelle Williams and Ryan Gosling) was critically acclaimed. She said she'd see "whatever" so bashing his choice of film just comes off as bitchy. She could have easily said, "I'd rather not see that" and suggested an unwatchable, cheesy romantic comedy instead. (Also, not exactly sure what's so "harrowing" about an abortion appointment, it's not like they actually show an abortion taking place.)

And then here's where the shit hit the fan. I hope you're ready for a long rant, because I have a lot of feelings! There's just so much wrong with this one little paragraph...

When it was finally over, we headed to a wine bar, where, over a glass of merlot, my date matter-of-factly informed me that he also hooks up with men. I consider myself pretty open-minded, so that bit of info itself didn't bother me--it was his timing. At this point in the night, we were supposed to be all flirty and into each other.

Let's start with "matter-of-factly". What exactly is the proper way to tell someone that you hook up with both men and women? Does the fact that he did it "matter-of-factly" somehow make it inappropriate? Being bisexual (or "also hooking up with men" - since he never actually used the "b"-word so we can't know for sure if he actually identifies as such) isn't anything shameful or wrong or offensive. So why exactly must a person break the news in a way that isn't "matter-of-factly"? Was he supposed to sit down this woman he just met and delicately, slowly beat around the bush to tell her about his sexual orientations and preferences? Should he have taken her on Oprah to do a confessional about it? Why does she feel that he owes her (or anyone else) any kind of explanation that isn't "matter-of-fact"?

She claims to be open-minded and claims that the only reason it bothered her was "his timing", but what is the appropriate timing? Isn't the first date the most appropriate time to disclose this kind of information? That way you can weed out any closed minded bigots - if they have a problem with it, you don't waste your time going on a second or third date with them. She felt they were supposed to be "all flirty and into each other" at that point in the night, but how can you time a date? Maybe he wasn't acting like he was all into her, because he wasn't all into her. Or maybe he didn't realize that mentioning that he hooks up with men and "being all flirty and into each other" are apparently mutually exclusive things.

I figured he'd mistakenly thought it'd impress me, so I politely laid it out for him: "I understand that a guy can picture a girl he's dating making out with one of her girlfriends and get turned on by that. But for me personally, picturing a guy I'm doing going at it with his male-bud is not a turn-on." My date looked confused. I ordered us a second round of drinks.

Ugh. She figured he thought it would impress her? What the fuck? So basically, he's being honest about his sexuality in order to a) be a decent human being and b) weed out bigoted homophobes like her... and she thinks he's trying to impress her? Look, we know that in Cosmo-world, any same-sex sexual behavior is done for the benefit of an onlooking member of the opposite sex. Her response to him was just awful. No wonder he looked confused! He doesn't hook up with guys to turn her on; he does it because it turns him on!

Meanwhile, as if on cue, a man who'd been sitting near us at the bar turned toward my date to ask him a question. My date, without hesitation, flirted back. I tried to chime into their conversation, but I had ceased to exist to either of them. I sat there for 10 minutes while they got to know each other.

I'm starting to wonder if this guy even knew he was on a "date" with her or if he thought he was just seeing a movie with a new friend. I know they made out at the party, but it doesn't seem like he was trying to make her his new girlfriend for some reason. Maybe telling her he "also hooks up with guys" might've been his way of telling her that he wasn't looking for a commitment with her. He didn't say he also dates guys, he said "also hooks up with"... so maybe she wasn't his "date" after all? I might be reaching on this one, sure, but something about the whole story just doesn't ring true to me, so I have to wonder if she fictionalized any part of it to make a better story for Cosmo. (That is, if the entire story itself isn't fiction, which knowing Cosmo, it probably is.)

It's also possible that he wrote her off because her attitude and comments made it clear that they obviously weren't compatible, and decided to try to make the most of the evening by chatting with other people at the bar.

Finally, I stood up, grabbed my coat, and told them both I was heading out. My date ran after me and gave me a good-night kiss, but I'm pretty sure he went back to finish his flirtation.

Why wouldn't he go back to finish his flirtation? She left! If he still had any doubts about whether or not she was interested in him (seeing as she basically told him that she wasn't interested in him if he hooks up with guys, which he does) why wouldn't he continue to flirt with someone else? If in fact that is what he was even doing with that guy - based on her other statements, it's likely that this woman isn't very clear on exactly what "flirting" is and may have mistaken friendliness for romantic interest.

Here's the kicker: I got home and texted the friend who'd hosted the party where we'd met. I summarized the night's events and she wrote back, "That's weird--he totally has a girlfriend. They just moved in together."

Okay, so maybe I've been spending too much time at events like CatalystCon, but this is what I think... he's in an open relationship where they're both free to date and hook up with other people. His girlfriend may very well be doing the same thing he was doing. I can't know this for sure, but it doesn't seem like this woman stuck around long enough to find out. I'm very much against infidelity, but I don't have a problem with polyamory. I also don't have a problem with bisexuality (or fluid sexuality either)... what I do have a problem with is the way that this article seems to lump the two separate issues that this woman had with her date into one. The way that it's framed in this article just perpetuates the same stupid stereotype that we always hear about bisexual people being promiscuous and just basically having sex with everyone indiscriminately. This woman had two separate issues with her date, but the article frames it as if they were the same issue, as if him being bisexual and him (possibly) cheating on his girlfriend, were part of the same problem. It's really offensive.

It's as if we, the readers, are supposed to assume that his girlfriend has no idea that he hooks up with guys sometimes, but this is something she likely does know about, because if he tells women about it on the first date, his girlfriend probably found out in a similar way. Which is why I think it's probable that she also knows that he "dates" other women, like the author. It is the author who seemed to be confused about where she stood with this guy. It makes me wonder what their first interaction at the party was like... did he actually mention something offhand about having a girlfriend or being in an open relationship before they "made-out" and she just missed it (perhaps because it was noisy or she was drinking)? Or did he assume she knew based on the fact that they had a mutual friend? Or would he have explained it to her further, if she hadn't shot him down so directly after his initial comment about hooking up with guys? It just feels like the author did a lot of "filling-in-the-blanks" for this guy without actually getting the real story.

In fact, how do we even know that he actually does have a girlfriend? She's going based on what their mutual friend told her, but how do we know it's true? There's no indication of how close she is with this mutual friend or how close the friend is with him. The girlfriend apparently wasn't at the party and he's apparently not listed as "In a Relationship" on Facebook. Maybe they just broke up. Maybe they were never actually in a relationship to begin with and the friend was mistaken. Maybe she makes the same kind of stupid assumptions the author makes.

And it's also quite telling that the fact that he has a girlfriend was more of an after-thought. The real complaint is that he was bisexual. The ellipsis "...with a girlfriend!" is just a little extra annoying. But she didn't even find that out until after the date, so it doesn't contribute to it being the worst date ever. Him allegedly being bisexual was all it took.

A few days later, I posted this emo Facebook status update: I would like to date someone who's not dating someone. Guess who Liked it.

That right there proves it to me once and for all... this guy was either never interested in "dating" her in the first place or realized way before she did that they were totally incompatible and "likes" that she's going to hopefully try to date someone with whom she is compatible. Maybe someone as judgmental and bi-phobic as she is! I'm still laughing that this was under the heading "Worst Date Ever!"

I'd love to hear his point of view of the whole chain of events - I bet it was the worst date ever for him as well.

The Only Kind of Man Worth Marrying?

2012-12-06T14:07:00.002-05:00

In the December 2012 issue of Cosmopolitan magazine, there is a really problematic article in the "Love" section called "The Only Kind of Man Worth Marrying". We're pretty sure that its author Jessica Knoll and the Cosmo editorial team are all patting themselves on the back right now about what an empowering, feminist piece of writing they've got here... but we're sorry, it's just not true. There are so many things wrong with this (probably well-meaning) article.

First of all, let's just start with the title. The only kind of man worth marrying - the implication is that all women (or at least all heterosexual women, seeing as Cosmo rarely admits the existence of lesbians) are looking for a man to marry. Because aren't all women just looking for "the one" so they can settle down?

Anyway, the article begins like this:

There's a new breed of guy out there -- a lean, mean, dish-doing, and diaper-changing machine. And continuing to excel in your career even after you have a few mini-yous may be contingent on making him your husband.

Just the fact that they're referring to this type of guy as a "new breed" is kind of annoying. Men have always been capable of doing dishes and changing diapers. If they weren't actually doing so, that's a whole other issue, but they were capable of doing so. Even if men were expected to work outside the home and women to raise the children, still, are we supposed to believe that fathers never changed a diaper or washed a dish ever? The truly good men were always doing the little stuff, even if they weren't in a truly "equal" relationship.

An exciting career, a beautiful home, a second half as sexy as Ryan Reynolds, and eventually some rug rats. This is the modern definition of having it all, and unlike our grandmothers, or even our moms, we've been promised it's doable.

Eventually some rug rats? What about the women who choose to have children before marriage (or outside of marriage altogether)... are they not capable of "having it all"?

And I'm sorry but no one promised me that I could have it all. If anything, society still tells us that we can't. Women who work because they want to (not have to) are judged as putting their careers before their children. Families that hire nannies to help care for their kids are shamed for not being present. Working mothers are still pitted against stay-at-home moms in the battle of "who's a better parent?" And at the end of it all, we're told that we can't succeed. There are too many problems with our society that don't truly let women "have it all". Having a supportive partner helps, of course, but it's not a magical secret solution that Cosmo has finally discovered for all of us.

Then the article goes and takes on a whole other level of crazy when they start quoting Hugo Schwyzer as an expert.

Not familiar with Schwyzer? He teaches at Pasadena City College and speaks nationally on gender and masculinity. In some circles, he's considered to be a passionate male advocate of women's rights. But in other circles, he's considered to be sexual predator and attempted murderer. And just to be clear, I say "considered" but not "alleged" -- he has admitted to sleeping with his students and trying to kill his ex-girlfriend, both during a period of his life where he struggled with drug and alcohol addiction. (Not to mention the time he described helping to organize SlutWalk L.A. as "herding sluts", or his desire to jizz on the face of feminism.) So obviously, Schwyzer is an interesting choice to quote in an article that's about female empowerment and respectful male partners. I'm not saying that he's not capable of being a feminist, despite his checkered past, but I think it's problematic for him to be the public face of male feminism when there are plenty of other more worthy people out there to take that role. It seems very odd for them to seek out a quote from someone like him for an article about men "worth marrying".

The article goes on to talk about this amazingly insane concept of men who you know, don't expect their women to wait on them hand and foot and actually want to be involved with the home and their own children. I know - crazy right? On the surface, this isn't a terrible piece. Yeah, we should all hold out for a guy (or girl) like that - one who respects our choices and our right to have our own lives, one who chooses to be involved with their own children, one who cares about our needs as well as their own. But this isn't some brand new concept.

Frankly, Knoll and Schwyzer's description of how to identify this kind of man is almost as offensive as it is obvious:

First, they can handle disappointments and inconveniences well. If something comes up at work and you have to cancel on him, his response is, "It's not important, I understand." Not "Aw, come on. Can't you just do it later?" The former is a sign he respects that you have a meaningful life outside of him. Second, these guys express interest in your career. "He should be curious even when it doesn't connect to him in any way," says Schwyzer. When a man truly values all your extra stuff, he won't assume you'll be the one to attend every parent-teacher meeting. Yeah, you'll put out family-related fires half the time, but so will he.

How about instead of using this criteria to determine whether or not he'll be a 50-50 parent, use this criteria to determine whether or not he's a douchebag. If a guy you're dating doesn't behave in this way, you shouldn't be dating him and you definitely shouldn't be marrying him or having kids with him. It's common sense, no? It's also annoying that in the past Cosmo has run several snide little comments about men who aren't "manly" enough... like getting facials, carrying a "man purse", or gasp!shopping! So they want men to be sensitive and nurturing and enlightened enough to do dishes or change diapers or play with their own kids, but they don't want them to cross that line and be too "girly"! I mean, carry around your baby, that's fine, but god forbid they carry around a small dog or something.

What really really irked me the most about the article was the accompanying photos of celebrity dads who - gasp - actually spend time with their own children! "Orlando [Bloom] takes over while mom models" ... "With Mariah's Idol gig, Nick [Cannon]'s on double duty" ... "When Posh is away, David [Beckham] and Cruz play" ... "Mark [Wahlberg] picks up where wife-y leaves off." Noticing a theme? These dads are spending time with their kids when their wives are busy, because you know, that's the only reason why a man might spend time with their kids. And it's just because their wives can't be with the kids, so the implication is that otherwise they would be the mom's responsibility.

By the way - we happened to come across photos from the same batch of pics as their shot of Nick Cannon. He wasn't even on "double duty" while Mariah was working at her "Idol gig" - they just cropped her out of the photo during their trip to Aspen, CO.

(And then just for symmetry, they included a pic of John Hamm with the caption "Don Draper... so not a 50-50 guy". Also not a real guy, seeing as he's a fictional character and not even of this century.)

Look Cosmo, we appreciate that you're trying to be less old fashioned and more feminist, but... it's kind of hard to take you seriously when your version of feminism is simply "don't marry a guy who is an asshole, only have kids with guys who are willing to raise their own kids" common sense. And any female empowerment you managed to squeeze out of this article is then completely contradicted by the rest of the magazine, which is specifically formulated to make the "fun fearless females" reading it feel insecure and neurotic.

The ESC Reads 50 Shades of Grey: Chapter 10

2012-11-29T09:35:00.000-05:00

WARNING: This blog post contains spoilers. But, of course, that's kind of the point.

We decided to tackle the Fifty Shades of Grey series one book at a time and give everyone chapter-by-chapter summaries and critique. We're going to read Fifty Shades of Grey... so you don't have to.

Chapter 10

Summary: Ana meets Christian's mom, who is thrilled to meet her because Christian has never introduced her to a girl before and so she always thought he was gay. Christian takes Ana home and tells her to research the contract that he gave her and BDSM in general so she'll know what she's getting into. He gets annoyed when she says that she wants to be able to discuss sex with Kate since she has no frame of reference and needs a friend to talk to, as if this is a totally unreasonable request. Ana and Kate compare notes about having sex with the Grey men. José calls Ana a million times to apologize for making a pass at her, and says "Dios mio" a lot in case we forgot that he's the Latino character in our story. We learn that Christian was "seduced" by a friend of his mother's when he was 15 and that she's the one who showed him the ropes (and whips, floggers, nipple clamps, etc.) of BDSM. That "showed him the ropes" joke was terrible and we apologize. This book sucks and we're really hurting so sometimes we just lash out like that. Oh, and we also learned that Ana's subconscious is a shapeshifter.

Sexiness factor (scale of 1-10): 0

Plot Holes, Fact Checking Fails, and Other Observations:

He gazes at me. He’s amused, his eyes dancing with mirth. He kisses my forehead quickly and beams at me. “Another first,” he acknowledges, but I have no idea what he’s talking about.

That's okay because we never have any idea what either of you are ever talking about.

Christian glares at me. “So the photographer called?”

Crap. “Yes.”

“What did he want?”

“Just to apologize, you know – for Friday.”

Christian narrows his eyes. “I see,” he says simply.

Dude, it's none of your business who was on the phone or why.

“This is the contract. Read it, and we’ll discuss it next weekend. May I suggest you do some research, so you know what’s involved.” He pauses. “That’s if you agree, and I really hope you do.” He adds, his tone softer, anxious.

“Research?”

“You’ll be amazed what you can find on the Internet,” he murmurs.

Internet! I don’t have access to a computer, only Kate’s laptop, and I couldn’t use Claytons’, not for this sort of ‘research’ surely?

She's a college student but she has no access to a computer? And just the way she is so incredulous is kind of ridiculous - Research? Internet!? What's that?

“I’ll just make a call,” I murmur. I just want to hear Kate’s voice.

He frowns. “The photographer?” His jaw clenches, and his eyes burn. I blink at him. “I don’t like to share, Miss Steele. Remember that.” His quiet, chilling tone is a warning, and with one long, cold look at me, he heads back to the bedroom.

She's not even calling José! Sure, maybe she could have tried communicating that fact to Christian rather than just standing there blinking at him, but again, it's none of his business and there wouldn't be anything wrong with it even if she was calling him, because he's just a friend and she hasn't even agreed to anything with Christian yet. Dial it down a fucking notch.

Ana's subconscious, inner goddess and other invisible friends:

I despair at my clothes. Maybe I should take Christian up on his offer of clothes. My subconscious purses her lips and mouths the word ‘ho’. I ignore her.

Did Ana just slut-shame herself? That's almost impressive.

I stare at him, unable to articulate anything – even my subconscious is silent.

So for once her subconscious is actually acting like... a subconscious?

“Oh… by the way, I’m wearing your underwear.” I give him a small smile and pull up the waistband of the boxer briefs I’m wearing so he can see. Christian’s mouth drops open, shocked. What a great reaction. My mood shifts immediately, and I sashay into the house, part of me wanting to jump and punch the air. YES! My inner goddess is thrilled.

Ana's inner goddess really needs to get out more if this is all it takes to thrill her. Maybe she and the subconscious can have a girl's night or something.

“Yeah, took almost a year to have my first orgasm through penetrative sex and here you are… first time?” I nod shyly. My inner goddess sits in the lotus position looking serene except for the sly, self-congratulatory smile on her face.

Setting aside the whole inner goddess thing (most because we're running out of ways to point out how stupid it is), we have to give E L James one point here for at least somewhat acknowledging how ridiculous Ana's magical multi-orgasmic first time was.

Too obvious, Steele! My subconscious glares at me, wagging her long skinny finger, then morphs into the scales of justice to remind me he could sue if I disclose too much.

This sounds like a dream you would have after taking too much cold medicine before bed.

BDSM Analysis:

We get some important info about Christian's past in this chapter, so we're going to include the whole section:

“Why have you never had vanilla sex before? Have you always done… err, what you’ve done?” I ask, intrigued.

He nods slowly. “Sort of.” His voice is wary. He frowns for a moment and seems to be engaged in some kind of internal struggle. Then he glances up, a decision made. “One of my mother’s friends seduced me when I was fifteen.”

“Oh.” Holy shit that’s young!

“She had very particular tastes. I was her submissive for six years.” He shrugs.

“Oh.” My brain has frozen, stunned into inactivity by this admission.

“So I do know what it involves, Anastasia.” His eyes glow with insight. I stare at him, unable to articulate anything – even my subconscious is silent.

“I didn’t really have a run-of-the-mill introduction to sex.”

Curiosity kicks in big time. “So you never dated anyone at college?”

“No.” He shakes his head to emphasize the point. The waitress takes our plates, interrupting us for a moment.

“Why?” I ask when she’s gone.

He smiles sardonically. “Do you really want to know?”

“Yes.”

“I didn’t want to. She was all I wanted, needed. And besides, she’d have beaten the shit out of me.” He smiles fondly at the memory.

Oh, this is way too much information – but I want more. “So if she was a friend of your mother’s, how old was she?”

He smirks. “Old enough to know better.”

“Do you still see her?”

“Yes.”

“Do you still… err…?” I flush.

“No.” He shakes his head and smiles indulgently at me. “She’s a very good friend.”

“Oh. Does your mother know?”

He gives me a don’t-be-stupid stare. “Of course not.” The waitress returns with venison, but my appetite has vanished. What a revelation. Christian the submissive… Holy shit.

And here's some of Ana's reaction to this news when she's thinking it over later:

He’s such a complicated person. And now I have an insight as to why. A young man deprived of his adolescence, sexually abused by some evil Mrs. Robinson figure… no wonder he’s old before his time. My heart fills with sadness at the thought of what he must have been through. I’m too naïve to know exactly what, but the research should shed some light.

One of the most common criticisms of 50 Shades is that it doesn't portray a typical or "normal" or healthy BDSM experience, and so it's potentially sending a lot of people the wrong message about what these kinds of relationships are usually like. That's fair, but at the same time we have to defend E L James somewhat by acknowledging that she never claimed she was writing a how to book or the definitive portrayal of a D/s relationship. There are red flags flying all over the place in this chapter.

Obviously that doesn't mean that anyone should stop criticizing the book or pointing out all of the ways that ELJ gets it wrong. (We're certainly not going to.) We're just saying that we think she was at least aware of the fact that Christian and Ana's relationship was pretty dysfunctional right from the start. After this chapter it should be pretty clear to most readers that this setup is less than ideal - a man who was "initiated" into D/s relationships at age 15 by a woman old enough to be his mother, and a naive and inexperienced young woman getting in way over her head with a man that she believes was sexually abused by an "evil Mrs. Robinson".

That being said, there are still plenty of inaccurate and problematic messages that James does send (intentionally or not) in the coming chapters, so stay tuned.

Some of the worst writing in the chapter:

He grins, leaps up off the bed, and pulls on his jeans, no underwear!

OMG no underwear! Qué escándalo!

“I have no clean clothes in here.” I am filled with sudden panic, and considering what I’ve just experienced, I’m finding the panic overwhelming. His mother! Holy crap. I have no clean clothes, and she’s practically walked in on us in flagrante delicto. “Perhaps I should stay here.”

Do people in the real world actually use the phrase "in flagrante delicto"? Seriously, leave a comment if you've said or heard or even thought of this phrase recently. I think the last time I heard it, I was watching Clue. Speaking of which, here is a representation of how we feel about 50 Shades of Grey:

He’s wearing a black leather jacket. He certainly doesn’t look like the multi-multi-millionaire, billionaire, whatever-aire, in these clothes. He looks like a boy from the wrong side of the tracks, maybe a badly behaved rock star or a catwalk model. I sigh inwardly, wishing I had a tenth of his poise.

Shut up, Ana.

Beside the elevator, I can see the black 4x4 Audi, but it’s the sleek, black sporty number that blips open and lights up when he points the key fob at it. It’s one of those cars that should have a very leggy blonde, wearing nothing but a sash, sprawled across the hood.

Oh, one of those cars. Got it.

He smiles his dazzling head-cocked-to-one-side smile, and my stomach pole vaults over my spleen.

So her inner goddess does yoga and now her stomach is pole vaulting? Can't wait to hear about how her pancreas is really into rhythmic gymnastics.

“What’s vanilla sex?” I ask, if anything to distract myself from the intense, burning, sexy look he’s giving me. He laughs.

“Just straightforward sex, Anastasia. No toys, no added extras.” He shrugs. “You know… well actually you don’t, but that’s what it means.”

“Oh.” I thought it was chocolate fudge brownie sex that we had, with a cherry on the top. But hey, what do I know?

Nothing, Ana. You know nothing. You especially don't know how to describe things in a way that doesn't make you sound like a complete moron.

“My first time was horrid,” she continues, making a sad comedy face.

A sad comedy face? What, like one of those clowns with the one tear coming down?

My mind drifts to last night, and this morning… and the incredible, sensual sexuality I’ve experienced.

Sensual sexuality? This is like when Cosmo writes articles about how to have the sexiest sex ever.

Kate blushes. Oh my… Katherine Agnes Kavanagh goes all Anastasia Rose Steele on me.

And on that note, the Evil Slut Clique is about to go all "we need a fucking drink" on this stupid book.

Conclusion: There was a lot going on in this chapter, but the whole setup with Christian's mother at the beginning may be the thing that bugged us the most. She's thrilled and relieved to meet Ana even though Ana isn't particularly charming and doesn't say anything remotely interesting during their meeting, purely because she realizes that Christian and Ana are fucking and that probably means that her son isn't gay like she always thought. This whole not-at-all-homophobic-and-ridiculous situation is played for laughs because E L James is a terrible writer and this book blows. Get ready for the next chapter, when we'll finally get a look at this contract that we've been hearing so much about.

Previously:

Our Post Election Results Recap

2012-11-07T22:04:00.001-05:00

Four More Years!

We're very happy that President Obama was reelected! We admit that we do have a few criticisms for Obama (we have some issues with everyone don't we?) but we couldn't be happier that Mitt Romney lost. We are really really really happy.

But this wasn't just a big night for the presidency... there are a lot of other important milestones that came out of this election. For instance, there were 10 female senators elected (or re-elected) into office, bringing the U.S. Senate to a record high of 20 women. And fifteen of the Republicans we quoted in our The Republican Party Hates Women post the other day were defeated!

Some important milestones and/or accomplishments:

Arizona - Kyrsten Sinema (D) may be the winner of Congressional District 9 (technically the provisional ballots haven't been counted yet, but as of today she has the lead). Sinema would be the first openly bisexual member of Congress.

Florida - Florida voted against the anti-choice Amendment 6, which would have limited abortion funding and access.

Hawaii - This year Hawaii sees its first female Senator, Mazie Hirono (D), who is also the first Asian-born immigrant to be elected to the U.S. Senate and the first Buddhist Senator. Hirono's House seat was won by Tulsi Gabbard (D), who will become the first Hindu-American in the House of Representatives. Gabbard is also one of the first female combat vets to serve in Congress, along with Tammy Duckworth (D) of Illinois.

Illinois - In addition to being one of the two of the first female combat vets to serve in Congress (along with Gabbard above), Tammy Duckworth (D) is also the first Asian American woman elected to Congress in Illinois.

Indiana - Richard Mourdock (R), the Senate candidate who suggested that pregnancies from rape were "something that God intended to happen", lost big time to Joe Donnelly (D) in the race for the Senate. Although Donnelly isn't exactly the best when it comes to reproductive rights (he only supports abortion in cases of rape, incest, and when the life of the mother is at risk), he's still a step up from Mourdock any day.

Maine - Maine voted to legalize same-sex marriage! Maine's "Question 1" repealed a 2009 referendum that struck down a law to legalize gay marriage.

Maryland - Maryland also voted to legalize same-sex marriage, by passing "Question 6".

Massachusetts - Elizabeth Warren (D) is the first woman to ever represent Massachusetts in the Senate, beating out Cosmo centerfold incumbent Scott Brown (R).

Minnesota - A measure to ban same-sex marriage ("Amendment 1") in the state's constitution was voted down. That doesn't mean that gay marriage was legalized, but it's still hopeful because it hasn't been officially made illegal. Minnesota also defeated an amendment ("Amendment 2") that would require all voters in the state to show photo ID before voting.

Missouri - Sen. Claire McCaskill (D) beat Todd Akin (R) with 54.7% of the vote. Yes, that's Todd Akin who thinks that pregnancy resulting from rape is "really rare" because women's bodies can magically "shut that whole thing down" if the rape is "legitimate". His chances at becoming Senator of Missouri sure got shut down by women voters.

New Hampshire - For the first time in history, New Hampshire is being totally run by women at the federal level. In addition to its second female Governor, Maggie Hassan, New Hampshire elected Carol Shea-Porter (D) and Ann Kuster (D) to the House of Representatives. They join Senators Jeanne Shaheen (D) and Kelly Ayotte (R) in an all-female Congressional delegation.

North Dakota - Heidi Heitkamp (D) won the race for North Dakota Senate, making her the first woman to serve in Congress from North Dakota, in either the Senate or the U.S. House of Representatives.

Washington - Washington's "Referendum 74" to legalize same-sex marriage is expected to pass. Washington is a vote-by-mail state so official results may take up to a week to tabulate, but so far it looks good. Support appears to be leading 51.8 percent to 48.2 percent.

Wisconsin - Rep. Tammy Baldwin (D) is the first openly gay candidate elected to the U.S. Senate.

A lot of great stuff, right? Of course, it's not all wins...

Alabama - Alabama proved to still have some leftover racism when voters shot down a measure ("Amendment 4") that would remove language from their constitute that references segregation by race in schools. Yes, that's right. Although the Supreme Court decision on segregation was made in 1954, the people of Alabama still won't officially remove it from their constitution.

California - California passed two propositions that we're not psyched about. Proposition 35 to ban human trafficking and sex slavery and Measure B (Los Angeles County) requiring condom use in adult films. We totally understand why the average voter would think that both of these measures were a great idea, but the language used is problematic, there are a lot of negative implications and overall it's just unrealistic and not helpful. California also failed to pass a proposition requiring mandatory labeling of genetically engineered food.

Minnesota - Michele Bachmann (R) actually got reelected! How!?

Montana - Montana passed a measure "LR-120" that will require parental notification before a minor can get an abortion. It passed with more than 70% of the vote. Sigh.

Oklahoma -A majority of voters chose to pass the Oklahoma Affirmative Action Ban Amendment ("State Question 759") which will ban affirmative action programs in the state and prohibit "special treatment" based on race or sex.

So clearly, it's not a perfect world yet... but overall, we're optimistic about the next four years with Obama and Biden.

And it's clear that someone out there has a sense of humor: President Obama won in every state that Romney could consider "home" - Massachusetts, Michigan, California, and New Hampshire. Ouch! He also won Paul Ryan's home state of Wisconsin as well as District 1 (Rock County, Ryan's district) where surprisingly Ryan won reelection... with the lowest margin of his career (just under 55% of the vote). Guess they thought he'd need that job after all.

The Republican Party Hates Women: A Treasury of Quotations

2012-11-05T18:49:00.000-05:00

Lately it seems like Republican politicians can't even open their mouths without saying something offensive about rape. The views expressed by people like Todd Akin are awful, but not at all surprising to those of us who have been paying attention to the increasingly vocal and virulent misogyny of the GOP.

But despite the fact that Akin and company are putting their sexism out there more and more each day, I'm sure we've all heard at least one of the following excuses made for him or any of the other offenders who have made news lately:

But he apologized! (Bonus points if it was actually one of those non-apologies like 'sorry if you were offended, or if you're John McCain accepting Richard Mourdock's "apology" on behalf of women even though he didn't actually apologize.)
His comments were taken out of context! (Bonus points if the person references the liberal media while making this excuse.)
He's entitled to his beliefs! (Someone tried this one on us recently, and shockingly they had no comeback when we pointed out that there's a difference between having beliefs and trying to make your beliefs the law and deny people with different beliefs the right to make different choices.)
He's just a fringe lunatic/extremist/outlier who doesn't reflect the real GOP. Most Republicans don't feel that way!

It's that last one that we want to focus on now because the truth is that people like Todd Akin absolutely do reflect the sexism of the Republican Party accurately. It's no secret either - it's in the bills that they promote, in the words that they say, and in the official party platform - and yet many people both inside and outside the party continue to deny that there's such a thing as the "war on women" or that the party has a major sexism problem. So to help them out, we've decided to round up a bunch of quotes on the subject so that we can hear it right from the mouths of prominent members of the GOP and judge for ourselves.

We're going to include a section with some of the "classics", like Pat Robertson's famous quote about feminism, but we're keeping the rest of the quotes as recent as possible, because the point is that this is today's GOP. This is what the Republican Party believes, promotes, and supports today, in 2012, and this is what they want for the future. Let's get started:

The Classics

"The feminist agenda is not about equal rights for women. It is about a socialist, anti-family political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians." - Pat Robertson, 1992

He compared the cold, foggy weather spoiling the event to a rape, telling ranch hands, campaign workers and reporters around a campfire, ''If it's inevitable, just relax and enjoy it.'' -Clayton Williams, candidate for governor of Texas, March 1990

"Feminism was established so as to allow unattractive women easier access to the mainstream of society." -Rush Limbaugh, 1987 and repeated in 2005

"Real liberators of American women were not feminist noisemakers; they were the automobile, the supermarket, the shopping center, the dishwasher, the washer-dryer, the freezer, the garbage disposal and frozen food." -Pat Buchanan, 1998

"The life expectancy of men is drawing closer to that of women. Women still live longer than men because their lives are easier." -Rush Limbaugh, March 2005

"Liberal women have feminized politics to such a degree that male politicians can't even be men, which may explain why politicians as a group are often caught in these sex scandals. Everybody says, 'What is it about politicians?' Anybody ever think it might be liberal women? ...Women have neutered the business of politics so effectively that the men who are involved in politics constantly have to prove their masculinity to themselves and to others." -Rush Limbaugh, June 2011

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. What does that make us? We're the pimps. (interruption) The johns? We would be the johns? No! We're not the johns. (interruption) Yeah, that's right. Pimp's not the right word. Okay, so she's not a slut. She's "round heeled". I take it back. ...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. ...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. -Rush Limbaugh, February 2012

We could quote Rush Limbaugh all day, but we have to cut if off somewhere or this post will never end. But before we stop, we want to point out the language that Rush uses to describe women every day. Not only is he very proud to have invented the term "feminazi", but he has also called various women anchorette, infobabe, Senatorette, Chairbabe Debbie Blabbermouth Schultz, referred to Nancy Pelosi as a witch, calls the National Organization for Women the National Assocation of Gals (or NAGs for short), and so on. And 99% of the GOP worships at Rush's altar and never calls him out on anything that he says.

"Just again, the example of the eloquence of Sen. Obama. He's [for] health for the mother. You know, that's been stretched by the pro-abortion movement in America to mean almost anything. That's the extreme pro-abortion position, quote, 'health.'" -Senator John McCain, October 2008

We need a visual aid to convey the mocking scare quote that McCain used in that last statement, which was made during a presidential debate:

The Rapeublicans

“It seems to me, from what I understand from doctors, that’s really rare,” Mr. Akin said of pregnancies from rape. “If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down. But let’s assume that maybe that didn’t work or something: I think there should be some punishment, but the punishment ought to be of the rapist, and not attacking the child.” Todd Akin, Missouri congressman and candidate for Senate, August 2012

“Oh, life of the mother – exception of life of the mother, rape and incest. Yeah, I’ve always — that’s a mantra, you know, I’ve said it so often it just spills out. If you really – there are very few pregnancies as a result of rape, fortunately, and incest — compared to the usual abortion, what is the percentage of abortions for rape? It is tiny. It is a tiny, tiny percentage. …. [I]n terms of the percentage of pregnancies, percentage of abortions for rape as compared to overall abortions, it’s a tiny, tiny percentage. [...] Most abortions, most abortions are for what purpose? They just don’t want to have a baby! The second reason for abortion is you’d like a boy and it’s a girl, or vice versa. And I know a lot of people are opposed to abortion who are pro-choice.” -Rep. Roscoe Bartlett, September 2012

Q: What do you say then to a young girl, I am going to place it as he said it, when a young girl is raped by her father, let's say, and she is pregnant. How do you explain this to her in terms of wanting her to go through the process of having the baby?

A: I think that two wrongs don't make a right. And I have been in the situation of counseling young girls, not 13 but 15, who have had very at risk, difficult pregnancies. And my counsel was to look for some alternatives, which they did. And they found that they had made what was really a lemon situation into lemonade. -Sharron Angle, candidate for Senate from Nevada, June 2010

Q: You have two daughters. You have many granddaughters. If one of them was raped -- and I accept it's a very unlikely thing to happen -- but if they were, would you honestly look at them in the eye and say they had to have that child if they were impregnated?

A: No. If it's an honest rape, that individual should go immediately to the emergency room. I would give them a shot of estrogen. -Presidential candidate Ron Paul, February 2012

Q: So a rape victim, in a hospital. And it’s a hospital that is run by a Catholic institution. Emergency contraception, should that be—should she be sent to another hospital in the middle of the night when she’s in dire distress?

A: I don’t think that the government should overreach. I mean it’s a separation of church and state in my view, and I think that a religious institution has the right to decide what its policies would be in that, in that case.

Q: Yeah and I respect that, I just wonder if that institution, gets a certain, a majority of it’s money from the government, if it’s mostly federally funded, does that play a role in your thinking?

A: Well I just think again, that it is an issue of separation of church and state, and that institution should decide what its role would be, and what it’s comfortable with doing in that instance. -Linda McMahon, Senate candidate from Connecticut, October 2012

You'll be relieved to learn that McMahon later clarified and said "It was really an issue about a Catholic church being forced to offer those pills if the person came in in an emergency rape. That was my response to it. I absolutely think that we should avail women who come in with rape victims the opportunity to have those morning after pills or the treatment that they should get." Because apparently "emergency rape" is a thing now. You know, as opposed to 'no big deal, I'll get those morning after pills when I get around to it' rape.

“This bill does not require a trans-vaginal exam. … It leaves that up to the patient and the physician to make that determination. Rape and incest was used as a reason to oppose this. I would hope that when a woman goes in to a physician with a rape issue, that physician will indeed ask her about perhaps her marriage, was this pregnancy caused by normal relations in a marriage or was it truly caused by a rape. I assume that's part of the counseling that goes on.” -Idaho Senator Chuck Winder, March 2012

Q: Do you really believe, in every case, it should be totally wrong, in the sense that -- I know that you believe, even in cases of rape and incest -- and you've got two daughters. You know, if you have a daughter that came to you who had been raped. And was pregnant and was begging you to let her have an abortion, would you really be able to look her in the eye and say, no, as her father? ...And they are looking at their daughter ,saying, how can I deal with this, because if I make her have this baby, isn't it going to just ruin her life?

A: Well, you can make the argument that if she doesn't have this baby, if she kills her child, that that, too, could ruin her life. And this is not an easy choice. I understand that. As horrible as the way that that son or daughter and son was created, it still is her child. And whether she has that child or doesn't, it will always be her child. And she will always know that. And so to embrace her and to love her and to support her and get her through this very difficult time, I've always, you know, I believe and I think the right approach is to accept this horribly created -- in the sense of rape -- but nevertheless a gift in a very broken way, the gift of human life, and accept what God has given to you. As you know, we have to, in lots of different aspects of our life. We have horrible things happen. I can't think of anything more horrible. But, nevertheless, we have to make the best out of a bad situation. -Former senator and presidential candidate Rick Santorum, January 2012

Q: Specifically where you stand when it comes to rape, and when it comes to the issue of should it be legal for a woman to be able to get an abortion if she’s raped?

A: I’m very proud of my pro-life record, and I’ve always adopted the idea that, the position that the method of conception doesn’t change the definition of life. -Congressman and VP candidate Paul Ryan, August 2012

"He also told me one thing, 'If you do (have premarital sex), just remember, consensual sex can turn into rape in an awful hurry.' Because all of a sudden a young lady gets pregnant and the parents are madder than a wet hen and she's not going to say, 'Oh, yeah, I was part of the program.' All that she has to say or the parents have to say is it was rape because she's underage. And he just said, 'Remember, Roger, if you go down that road, some girls,' he said, 'they rape so easy.'" -Wisconsin State Rep. Roger Rivard, December 2011

King supports the "No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act." It would ban Federal funding of abortions except in cases of forcible rape. Right now, Medicaid also covers abortions for victims of statutory rape or incest - for example, a 12 year old who gets pregnant. Congressman King says he's not aware of any young victims like that.

"Well I just haven't heard of that being a circumstance that's been brought to me in any personal way, and I'd be open to discussion about that subject matter," he said. -Rep. Steve King, August 2012

"Incest is so rare, I mean, it’s so rare. But the rape thing…you know, I know a woman who was raped and kept her child, gave it up for adoption, she doesn’t regret it. In fact, she’s a big pro-life proponent. But on the rape thing, it’s like, how does putting more violence onto a woman’s body and taking the life of an innocent child that’s the consequence of this crime, how does that make it better? You know what I mean?" -Congressional candidate John Koster, October 2012

Q: How would you tell a daughter or a granddaughter who, God forbid, would be the victim of a rape, to keep the child against her own will? Do you have a way to explain that?

A: I lived something similar to that with my own family. She chose life, and I commend her for that. She knew my views. But, fortunately for me, I didn’t have to.. she chose they way I thought. No don’t get me wrong, it wasn’t rape.

Q: Similar how?

A: Uh, having a baby out of wedlock.

A: That’s similar to rape?

A: No, no, no, but… put yourself in a father’s situation, yes. It is similar. But, back to the original, I’m pro-life, period. -Tom Smith, Senate candidate from Pennsylvania, August 2012

I believe life begins at conception. The only exception I have for to have an abortion is in the case of the life of the mother. I struggled with myself for a long time but I came to realize life is that gift from God, even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape. It is something that God intended to happen. -Richard Mourdock, Senate candidate from Indiana, October 2012

A few Republicans did criticize Mourdock in particular and distance themselves from his comments (it is an election year after all), but many other ran to his defense. Here's a quick sampling:

Ohio Senate candidate Josh Mandel: "I’ve gotten to know Richard because we’re both state treasurers. We’re treasurers in states next to each other. He’s a gentleman. He’s a class act. He’s a thoughtful guy."

Senator and NRSC chair John Cornyn: "Richard and I, along with millions of Americans — including even Joe Donnelly — believe that life is a gift from God. To try and construe his words as anything other than a restatement of that belief is irresponsible and ridiculous."

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell: "It’s incredibly irresponsible for anyone to take what Richard said about his views on life to demean his opposition to the detestable act of rape. We’re at the end of an election season here and I understand each side is looking to make hay out of every comment, but sharing the view of millions of Americans that life begins at conception is Richard’s deeply held personal belief that shouldn’t be misconstrued by partisans to imply something it does not."

Newt Gingrich: "If you listen to what Mourdock actually said, he said what virtually every Catholic and every fundamentalist in the country believes, life begins at conception...[Mourdock] also immediately issued a clarification saying he was referring to the act of conception, and he condemned rape. Romney has condemned — I mean, one part of this is nonsense. Every candidate I know, every decent American I know condemns rape. OK, so why can’t people like [Obama deputy campaign manager] Stephanie Cutter get over it? We all condemn rape. Now let’s talk about whether we also condemn killing babies in the eighth and ninth month."

Women's Health & Reproductive Rights

With modern technology and science, you can’t find one instance…There’s no such exception as life of the mother. And as far as health of the mother, same thing, with advances in science and technology, health of the mother has become a tool for abortions anytime under any reason. -Rep. Joe Walsh of Illinois, October 2012

"This contraceptive thing, my gosh it’s such inexpensive, back in my days we used Bayer aspirin for contraception, the gals put it between their knees and it wasn’t that costly." -Rick Santorum campaign donor Foster Friess, February 2012

“In the vast majority of these cases, [abortions] are matters of lifestyle convenience." -Virginia Deputy House Majority Leader C. Todd Gilbert, February 2012

"Mr. Speaker. I just have to take issue with the comments that have been preceding this debate. This is not a political issue. This is a human issue. Let me just say this to all of my colleagues who are about to vote on this issue. On the motion to recommit. The health exception is a loophole wide enough to drive a Mack truck through it. The health exception would render this ban virtually meaningless." -Paul Ryan, April 2000

Q: I know Rick Santorum in his speech was talking a lot about this. He even went so far as to say, “I don’t think insurance plans should be covering birth control in the first place.” Do you think he’s right about that?

A: I do, I do. I don’t think that’s the role of government. We have to start rolling back government. There are many issues out there beyond Obamacare, but really the issue overlying everything is, is this nation going to survive? And that ultimately becomes an issue of economics. -Richard Mourdock, October 2012

While campaigning for governor in April, he told the Wisconsin Right to Life convention that during his time as a state legislator, he was proud of "trying to defund Planned Parenthood and make sure they didn't have any money, not just for abortion, but any money for anything." -Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker, April 2011

Q: What do you think makes a woman want to have an abortion?

A: Well, there’s probably a lot of — I’m not a woman so I’m thinking, if I’m a woman, why would I want to get — some of it has to do with economics. A lot has to do with economics. I don’t know, I have never — It’s a question I have never thought about. -Ohio state Rep. Jim Buchy, September 2012

Frank Szabo said that as sheriff, he would arrest any doctor performing elective or late-term abortions in his jurisdiction. "There is a difference between legal and lawful," Szabo said.

Szabo explained the difference by referring to the issue of slavery, which he said used to be legal but was never lawful under the Constitution. He said that even though elective abortions are legal in New Hampshire, with some restrictions, he doesn't consider them lawful. But Szabo may have inflamed the issue further when asked if he would use deadly force to prevent an abortion.

"I would respond specifically by saying that if someone is under threat, a full-grown human being, if they're under threat, what should the sheriff do? Everything in their power to prevent them from being harmed," he said.

When pressed about what he would do if he learned that a doctor was about to perform an elective abortion, Szabo replied he would do what it took to prevent that from happening.

"Absolutely," he said. "Well, I would hope that it wouldn't come to that, as with any situation where someone is in danger, but again, specifically talking about elective abortions and late-term abortions, that is an act that needs to be stopped." -Frank Szabo, candidate for sheriff in Hillsborough County, NH, August 2012

"Of course I support the Blunt Amendment." -Mitt Romney, March 2012

“Today marks the 39th anniversary of one of the darkest moments in Supreme Court history, when the court in Roe v. Wade claimed authority over the fundamental question regarding the rights of the unborn. The result is millions of lives since that day have been tragically silenced. Since that day, the pro-life movement has been working tirelessly in an effort to change hearts and minds and protect the weakest and most vulnerable among us. Today, we recommit ourselves to reversing that decision, for in the quiet of conscience, people of both political parties know that more than a million abortions a year cannot be squared with the good heart of America.” -Mitt Romney, January 2012

"I am pro-life and believe that abortion should be limited to only instances of rape, incest, or to save the life of the mother. I support the reversal of Roe v. Wade, because it is bad law and bad medicine. Roe was a misguided ruling that was a result of a small group of activist federal judges legislating from the bench." -Mitt Romney, June 2011

"Absolutely." -Mitt Romney, when asked by Mike Huckabee whether he would support a "life begins at conception" or "personhood" constitutional amendment, October 2011

"Many issues are at stake, but some issues are not negotiable: The right to life from conception to natural death. Marriage should be reinforced, not redefined. It is an egregious violation of our cherished principle of religious liberty for the government to force the Church to buy the kind of insurance that leads to the taking of innocent human life.

Your vote will affect the future and be recorded in eternity. Will you vote the values that will stand the test of fire? This is Mike Huckabee asking you to join me November 6th and vote based on values that will stand the test of fire." -Mike Huckabee, November 2012

That last one is one of those statements that I can appreciate because, while it's totally stupid and offensive, I feel like at least it has some poetry to it. Kinda like at the last debate when Mitt Romney said that Syria was Iran's "path to the sea". Totally 100% inaccurate - Iran is already on "the sea" and doesn't even share a border with Syria - but it sounded nice. Like I could see putting "you are my path to the sea" in a love letter or something. This is a similar thing. I want to approach someone randomly, like maybe a Starbucks barista, and bust out the test of fire. "Sure this pumpkin spice latte is good, but is it the best one you ever made? Are you proud of it? Would Jesus like it? Will this latte stand the test of fire?"

Equal Pay

Q: You voted against the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. Why do you think it is okay for a woman to be paid less for doing the same work as a man?

A: Well, first of all, the premise of your question is that I’m making that particular distinction. I believe in free enterprise. I don’t think the government should be telling people what you pay and what you don’t pay. I think it’s about freedom. If someone what’s to hire somebody and they agree on a salary, that’s fine, however it wants to work. So, the government sticking its nose into all kinds of things has gotten us into huge trouble. -Todd Akin, September 2012

What about something like a pay equity law, that men and women should be paid equal pay for equal work. Is that something that you think would be appropriate for the role of state government here in New Hampshire?

I certainly think women should be paid the same as men. Young workers should be paid the same as older workers if they achieve the criteria for salary. But I don’t know that it’s appropriate for the government to continue to micromanage the workplace. -Ovide Lamontagne, candidate for governor of New Hampshire, October 2012

But just because they call a piece of legislation an equal pay bill doesn’t make it so. In fact, much of this legislation is in many respects nothing but an effort to help trial lawyers collect their fees and file lawsuits, which may have nothing to do whatsoever to increasing pay equity in the workplace. -Senator Marco Rubio, October 2012

"Lilly Ledbetter was not an equal pay law. It was about opening up the lawsuits and statute of limitations. It wasn't an equal pay law, and of course, we support equal pay." -Paul Ryan, October 2012

"We don’t think America suffers from a lack of litigation." -Sen. Mitch McConnell, explaining why Senate Republicans blocked the Paycheck Fairness Act, June 2012

"Will, you know, will repealing [the Lilly Ledbetter Act] be a priority? If you came back and said, you know, that's really the thing that's hurting my business the most. My guess is there are other things that we can do that have a higher priority in terms of what I, what I believe might need to be done. I think you know we need to create -- that thing is a nuisance. It shouldn't be the law." -Pete Hoekstra, former Congressman and current Senate candidate from Michigan, April 2012

War on Women? What War on Women?

“Now it’s a war on women; tomorrow it’s going to be a war on left-handed Irishmen or something like that.” -Paul Ryan, October 2012

"You know, liberals, ladies and gentlemen, are still in a state of shock and disbelief over the notion that "social issues" don't hurt Republicans. You see the reason for the manufactured, false, it-doesn't-really-exist attempt to convince people Republicans have a war on women... Which, again, as mayor of Realville: Republicans date women, they marry women, they have children with women. They take women to dinner. They buy women diamonds and open car doors for women." -Rush Limbaugh, March 2012

"If the Democrats said we had a war on caterpillars and every mainstream media outlet talked about the fact that Republicans have a war on caterpillars, then we’d have problems with caterpillars. It’s a fiction." -Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus, April 2012

"...the Democrats have been trying to create, manufacture this war on women...And the fact of the matter is that they've taken it too far. And that it's being exposed that there is no war on women. What's happening is that there's a distraction that the Democrats are trying to distract the American people from the real issues. -Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers, April 2012

"I’m fed up with it. I’m really, really sort of at the end of my rope in terms of the Democratic Party claiming we have a ‘war on women.’ The Democratic Party seems to believe the only things women care about is government-funded contraceptives and government handouts from cradle to grave." -Liz Cheney, August 2012

Miscellaneous Misogyny

“I think we have a very clear path to victory, and apparently Claire McCaskill thinks we do, too, because she was very aggressive at the debate, which was quite different than it was when she ran against Jim Talent. She had a confidence and was much more ladylike (in 2006), but in the debate on Friday she came out swinging, and I think that’s because she feels threatened.” -OMG it's Todd Akin again! (September 2012)

"The only hitch in an otherwise perfect week was the awful noise coming from the hotel room next door to mine. Turns out it was just Debbie Wasserman Schultz, practicing her speech for the Democratic National Convention in Charlotte next week. Bless her heart." -Mike Huckabee, August 2012

"We need you to come in and lock shields and strengthen up the men that will go into the fight for you. To let these other women know, on the other side, these Planned Parenthood women, the Code Pink women, and all of these women who have been neutering American men and bringing us to the point of this incredible weakness, to let them know that we are not going to have our men become subservient." -Rep. Allen West, April 2011

"I was marching in a parade in Schaumburg, Sunday, two days before the Democratic convention, when Tammy Duckworth was on a stage down in Charlotte -- if you can look at the picture -- picking out a dress for her speech Tuesday night."

"...at this point the only debate Ms. Duckworth is actually interested in having is which outfit she’ll be wearing for her big speech." -Rep. Joe Walsh, October 2012

"My wife likes to shop." -Former Wisonsin governor and current Senate candidate Tommy Thompson, explaining why he chose to become a lobbyist after leaving the Bush administration

"We’ve got real issues to talk about not the latest bimbo eruption." -Former governor and presidential candidate Jon Huntsman, addressing sexual harassment allegations against fellow candidate Herman Cain, November 2011

"She goes to Washington, D.C., it’s a little bit like one of those dogs, ‘fetch’. She goes to Washington, D.C., and gets all of these taxes and red tape and bureaucracy and executive orders and agencies, and brings all of this stuff and dumps it on us in Missouri." -Todd Fucking Akin, October 2012

Just to make sure the intended disrespect was perfect clear, senior Akin campaign aide Rick Tyler tweeted this:

This is far from a comprehensive list, and that's kinda the point. Republicans are literally saying stuff like this every single day. It's impossible to keep up. And they're not just talking, but also constantly pushing a legislative agenda designed to force these sexist views on all of us. The Republican Party has proven more than ever in the past year that they don't understand how our bodies work, they don't care about the discrimination and challenges that we face in the workplace, and they don't respect us enough to let us make our own choices about our health and our lives. So they don't deserve our support, or our silence in the face of their sexism. That's why we're never going to shut up about it, no matter what they call us.

The ESC's Third Annual Sexy Halloween Costumes That Aren't

2012-10-31T11:15:00.000-04:00

Happy Halloween! This year we're continuing our tradition of rounding up pictures of our favorite "sexy" Halloween costumes. Sexy Halloween costumes are nothing new, but if you've shopped for a costume in the last few years you've probably noticed that the "sexy _____" costume trend has really gotten out of control. Here are our previous posts on the subject if you want to get caught up:

We were a little bit concerned that there wouldn't be enough new material to do this for a third time, but we shouldn't have worried. The sexy costume industry is constantly innovating. Once again all of the costume pictures in this post are from Yandy.com, but they're certainly not the only offenders. They just have the largest selection.

As always, the most disturbing sexy costumes for us are always the ones that are based on children's TV, movie, and book characters. Because who among us hasn't read a Dr. Seuss book or watched a classic Warner Brothers cartoon and thought "this really needs to be sexed up a little bit", right?

Sexy Grinch and Sexy Lorax

Sexy Bugs Bunny and Sexy Tweety Bird

Sexy Winnie the Pooh is particularly disturbing because it looks as though she hunted, killed, and skinned him to make her costume.

We actually think that Yandy may have gotten in trouble for their costumes based on Sesame Street characters this year. Check out these Bert, Ernie, and Big Bird costumes, and the masks that show up as "related products" for each one:

Sexy Green Overalls Set, Faux Denim Overalls Set, and Yellow Dress & Stockings

Bert Mask, Ernie Mask, and Big Bird Headband

But in the original versions of these pictures that we saw when we first started researching this post, the models were wearing the masks and costumes together. And these costumes make no sense without the masks (not that they actually "make sense", but you know) so we're wondering if maybe they were asked to make it slightly less obvious that they were selling sexy costumes based on characters beloved by preschoolers. But don't worry, sexy Oscar the Grouch made it through unedited:

Sexy Trash Monster

This year we also noticed a trend of sexy video game character costumes. Why stick with the usual choices like Princess Peach when you can step it up a notch and go as sexy Mario and Luigi or sexy Link?

Sexy Mario, Sexy Luigi, and Sexy Link

And while we're on the subject, Fuck No Sexist Halloween Costumes is a great place to go to compare men's and women's versions of costumes for the same characters. You might notice some subtle differences.

Sexy food costumes are always a thing for some reason. This sexy hamburger costume is like 80% bun. Someone must be on a high carb diet.

We're not sure why anyone would want to be a sexy hamburger, but if you're going to do it you should at least have a proper bun/meat/toppings ratio. Maybe these sexy orange and lime wedge costumes would be better:

We actually think the lime wedge costume could be saved if you could get a friend or date to go with you in the sexy beer costume that we featured last year.

On a more serious note, there are always those costumes that cross the line from random and goofy to offensive. Racist and "politically incorrect" costumes are not okay. Halloween isn't a free pass to dress up like an offensive stereotype. Unfortunately Yandy hasn't gotten this memo, which is why this post includes a special section every year for those costumes that fail to attain a heightened sense of cultural sensitivity. It wasn't even so much the costumes themselves (although they are ridiculous) that got to us this year, but the names of some of the costumes.

Reservation Royalty, Hot On The Trail, and Chief Wansum Tail

Asian Persuasion, Shanghai Delight, and Geisha Beauty to Ninja Cutie

Insert your "sexy cock" jokes here. Or don't, that would be okay too.

Sexy Rooster

These sexy skeleton costumes don't seem quite anatomically correct to us. And some women's studies student somewhere is probably writing an entire paper right now on the symbolism of these costumes and the idea that even our bones are supposed to be sexy:

Glow in the Dark Sexy Skeleton and Fever Skeleton Tutu Dress

If we had to say something somewhat positive about Yandy.com, we could say that they really do have something for everyone. No matter what you're into, Yandy has a sexy costume for you. No, seriously:

Sexy Gnome and Sexy Toy Soldier

Sexy Mime and Cry Baby

But every year there's one costume that stands out above the rest for us as the most bizarre and random sexy costume of the year. Two years ago it was Sexy George Washington (still my personal favorite, and we still call dibs on the Sexy Founding Fathers group costume idea), and last year it was Sexy Hulkamania. This year? Meet Sexy Beetlejuice:

Sexy Beetlejuice, Sexy Beetlejuice, Sexy Beetlejuice! Was there a huge demand for this costume? Is there an ongoing challenge among costume designers for who can take the least sexy characters imaginable and turn them sexy? Our favorite part of this costume is that there's a patch on the skirt that says Beetlejuice so that people know what the hell you're supposed to be and you don't have to the spend the entire night going "I'm Beetlejuice! Yeah, a sexy version of Beetlejuice...no, I'm not kidding". We can't wait to see what they'll come up with next year.

Our Favorite Mitt Romney Burns From Newspaper Endorsements of Barack Obama

2012-10-29T12:16:00.000-04:00

With the election fast approaching, newspapers across the country are starting to publish their candidate endorsements. Naturally, many of them are endorsing the Obama/Biden ticket because Romney/Ryan sucks. They all make their case for President Obama, but quite a few of them also include the case against Mitt Romney, and some do so in an entertaining and/or delightfully snarky fashion. So just for fun we decided to round up some of our favorite Mitt Romney burns from the endorsements that we've read so far. Check it out (all emphasis is ours):

San Antonio Express-News - Obama has earned a second term:

These shortcomings, however, don't justify a change in leadership, particularly when many of Mitt Romney's proposals — such as an across-the-board 20 percent cut in taxes and the elimination of unspecified itemized deductions — invite skepticism. So does his goal of repealing the Affordable Care Act without offering any meaningful replacement. In addition, the video of him behind closed doors dismissing 47 percent of the population as government-dependent slackers was disheartening and possibly disqualifying for anyone seeking the presidency.

We started with this one because it's a mild burn. "Disheartening" and "invite skepticism" are such nice polite ways to say "wildly offensive" and "makes no fucking sense".

The New York Times - Barack Obama for Re-election:

Mitt Romney, the former governor of Massachusetts, has gotten this far with a guile that allows him to say whatever he thinks an audience wants to hear. But he has tied himself to the ultraconservative forces that control the Republican Party and embraced their policies, including reckless budget cuts and 30-year-old, discredited trickle-down ideas. Voters may still be confused about Mr. Romney’s true identity, but they know the Republican Party, and a Romney administration would reflect its agenda. Mr. Romney’s choice of Representative Paul Ryan as his running mate says volumes about that.

The Denver Post - Endorsement: Barack Obama for president:

Romney's approach is one of tax cuts for all, drastic Medicare reform, increased defense spending, and what would be catastrophic cuts to other discretionary programs. In the Republican primary, he said he couldn't support a plan that included even $10 in cuts for every $1 in new revenue. To expect the country to balance its budget without additional revenue, in our view, is nothing short of fantasy.

...From running to the far right on immigration and women's health in the primary and then saddling his campaign with Rep. Paul Ryan's extreme and unrealistic budget, the Romney of this election cycle is not the man elected in Massachusetts.

Instead, we must judge him on the menu of options he has repeatedly put forward during this campaign. On policies ranging from tax reform to immigration, from health care to higher education, none of Romney's numbers add up. Moreover, he has been unwilling or unable to outline for voters specifics that demonstrate his math works — probably because it doesn't.

Romney has said he will repeal Obamacare, yet insists he can keep its most popular provisions without fully explaining how he would pay for it.

He's calling for 20 percent tax rate cuts across the board. Independent analysts say the government can't come close to making up for that lost revenue without closing popular deductions like those for home-mortgage interest and charitable contributions. Romney's explanations for how he would do that don't wash.

And his pledge to create 12 million jobs in four years sounds good, but Moody's Analytics has predicted that type of job growth regardless of who is elected.

Asheville Citzen-Times - Allow Obama to build on progress:

The GOP and Democrats disagree significantly on issues from health care, energy policy, women’s health, the regulation of the financial community, the role of government in American life and the role of America on the world stage.

It’s hard to know exactly how these differences apply to the presidential race because, despite having essentially run for president for six years, it’s still hard to get a handle on many of Romney’s positions. It is difficult to know whether a President Romney would be the progressive who governed Massachusetts or the partisan of the campaign trail.

Would we get the Romney who championed universal health insurance for his state or the one who opposes it for the nation? Would he be the governor who said a Massachusetts coal-burning power plant was killing people or the campaigner who said, “I like coal?”

The Portsmouth Herald - President Obama has earned our trust, support:

When you cut through the Republicans' untruths, half-truths and downright lies, it becomes clear that President Obama has helped the American people in his first term despite an opposition party whose stated purpose was his destruction. Despite the Republicans' best efforts to tarnish him, the president remains well liked by the majority of Americans, while Congress has never been more reviled. Most Americans know in their guts that the president is on the side of working men and women. While the past four years have turned his hair gray, the president has kept his cool, has refused to be provoked and still truly believes America works best when we are united in a common cause.

...In the end, it comes down to trust. We trust President Obama to look out for the health, safety and well-being of all Americans. Unlike his opponent, he hasn't written off nearly half of our fellow citizens through a cynical calculation that they are dependents and moochers and therefore not his constituency. Your ears did not deceive you. Romney really said 47 percent of Americans believe they are victims and won't take personal responsibility for themselves and, given the chance to correct himself, he defended those statements. That's what he really believes.

Detroit Free Press - Top reasons to re-elect Obama:

An easy test for the seriousness of a Republican promising spending cuts is how willing he or she is to reduce defense department outlays, the nation’s largest domestic spending category. In Romney’s case, the number’s zero — no defense cuts at all, and in fact he wants to hand the Pentagon extra funding it hasn’t requested. The cuts he’s promised to make — 5% in discretionary, nondefense spending, including pink slips for Big Bird & Co. — fall far short of closing the $4.9-trillion gap.

Romney also says his tax cuts will grow the economy enough to make up the difference, the old “tax cuts pay for themselves” line that helped Bush trash the economy 10 years ago.

The nation has no appetite for Act II of that operatic tragedy.

Even more troubling has been Romney’s about-face performances in the closing weeks of the campaign. He was a hard-liner during the GOP primaries and the convention, but in the debates with Obama, he has been someone almost entirely different — “Moderate Mitt” is the term some pundits have coined.

It’s unclear whether Romney is playing for political advantage, or whether he’s just unsure of who he really is. Either is unacceptable in the White House, where the president needs certainty not just about what he believes, but why — and he must be able to rally others to his cause.

Romney’s self-ambiguity suggests he’s not ready to be president.

And if Romney isn’t up to America’s domestic challenges, he’s certainly not ready for the role of commander in chief. He’s moved from seeming ready to declare war on Iran during his first debate to saying, by the third, that America can’t kill its way out of the global war on terror. With the myriad, significant conflicts in the Middle East, southeast Asia and Africa, not to mention the U.S.’ perpetually tense relations with China and Russia, the president has to have a steady, learned hand on the tiller.

Romney does not have that hand.

The Toledo Blade - Re-elect President Obama:

The auto bailouts began under a Republican president, George W. Bush, but Mr. Romney has continued to oppose them. In last week’s debate, he claimed disingenuously that he would have supported federal “guarantees” of private investment in the automakers.

But in the depths of the Great Recession, no such investment was forthcoming. A high-powered businessman — and the son of a Detroit auto CEO who plays up his Michigan roots — might be expected to acknowledge that.

...In challenging the President’s first-term record, Mr. Romney has displayed a chronic eagerness to say anything he thinks will win him the support of the audience he is addressing at the moment. That raises the question of what he truly believes: He has changed positions so often on so many basic issues — health care, women’s rights, government regulation — that it seems his only fixed principle is his own advancement.

...A 1964 Blade editorial described the GOP nominee’s father, then-Michigan Gov. George Romney, as “a successful man of affairs who sees nothing soft-headed about wanting to do good for others.” We had hoped to be able to say the same of Mitt Romney. We can’t.

Mr. Romney’s vast wealth, gained largely in the private-equity industry, need not be an impediment to leadership. But he too often seems to have little understanding of the lives, problems, and aspirations of Americans who do not inhabit his economic and social strata (see “47 percent”).

The Star-Ledger (NJ) - Barack Obama: The Star-Ledger editorial board's pick for president:

Instead of facing these hard truths, Romney runs from them. He would cut income tax rates by 20 percent, and says he’ll cover the cost by closing magical loopholes he won’t name. Even if that were true, his goal is to break even, ignoring the need for more revenue.

His military buildup would dwarf Ronald Reagan’s, adding $2 trillion in spending over the next decade. The $4 trillion hole would deepen to more than $6 trillion. He then promises to restore the $700 billion cut in Medicare growth. That digs the hole to nearly $7 trillion. And if closing loopholes doesn’t cover the cost of his enormous cut in tax rates, that cost would be layered on top.

This is not an honest plan. It is an undisciplined jumble of political planks — some designed to woo his base during the primary, others to attack the president during the general election.

...his policies consistently favor the wealthy over the middle class, and the budget plan drafted by his running mate, U.S. Rep. Paul Ryan, relies on spending cuts that overwhelmingly land on low-income families. His plan to starve Planned Parenthood is extremist nonsense that will leave many women without basic cancer screening.

He has flipped positions on abortion and gun control, on health care and taxes, on gay rights and climate change. The list goes on and on, and reflects a serious character flaw. Yes, Abraham Lincoln compromised on slavery and Reagan compromised on taxes. Good politicians stay flexible to manage their coalitions. But Romney’s flip-flops are chronic and self-serving. He is consistent only in the way he floats with the political winds. That is not leadership; it is pandering. And it means he can’t be trusted.

A final concern: Romney is an unsteady player in global affairs, striking a belligerent tone in almost every theater and relying on many of the neocon advisers behind the disastrous policies of George W. Bush. That is unnerving, especially when combined with his inexperience and his promised military buildup.

The Los Angeles Times - Obama for president:

The most troubling aspect of Romney's candidacy is that we still don't know what his principles are. Is he the relatively moderate Republican who was governor of Massachusetts, the "severely conservative" one on display in the GOP primaries or the more reasonable-sounding fellow who reappeared at the presidential debates? His modulating positions on his own tax plan, healthcare reform, financial regulation, Medicare, immigration and the national safety net add to the impression that the only thing he really stands for is his own election.

The Sacramento Bee - Endorsements: Barack Obama for president:

The scariest part of a Romney victory is the potential that he and Paul Ryan would attempt to shape the U.S. Supreme Court to match their religious and political beliefs, including opposition to abortion. As Ryan made clear in the debate Thursday, "Our faith informs us in everything we do." That could mean Romney would appoint justices who oppose abortion and gay marriage, even though Republicans normally pledge to "get government out of people's lives."

...Romney has been all over the map on climate change, health care reform and fiscal policy, and he seems determined to lead us into a costly war in Iran, regardless of the consequences.

We've seen this script before. We don't want it again. We'd urge you to return President Obama to the White House for a second term.

The Washington Post - Four more years for President Obama:

Mr. Romney, by contrast, has embraced his party’s reality-defying ideology that taxes can always go down but may never go up. Along that road lies a future in which interest payments crowd out everything else a government should do, from defending the nation to caring for its poor and sick to investing in its children. Mr. Romney’s future also is one in which an ever-greater share of the nation’s wealth resides with the nation’s wealthy, at a time when inequality already is growing.

Even granting the importance of the fiscal issue, a case might still be made for Mr. Romney if Mr. Obama’s first term had been a failure; if Mr. Romney were more likely to promote American security and leadership abroad; or if the challenger had shown himself superior in temperament, capacity and character. In fact, not one of these is true.

...there is no way to know what Mr. Romney really believes. His unguarded expression of contempt for 47 percent of the population seems as sincere as anything else we’ve heard, but that’s only conjecture. At times he has advocated a muscular, John McCain-style foreign policy, but in the final presidential debate he positioned himself as a dove. Before he passionately supported a fetus’s right to life, he supported a woman’s right to abortion. His swings have been dramatic on gay rights, gun rights, health care, climate change and immigration. His ugly embrace of “self-deportation” during the Republican primary campaign, and his demolition of a primary opponent, Texas Gov. Rick Perry, for having left open a door of opportunity for illegal-immigrant children, bespeaks a willingness to say just about anything to win. Every politician changes his mind sometimes; you’d worry if not. But rarely has a politician gotten so far with only one evident immutable belief: his conviction in his own fitness for higher office.

So voters are left with the centerpiece of Mr. Romney’s campaign: promised tax cuts that would blow a much bigger hole in the federal budget while worsening economic inequality. His claims that he could avoid those negative effects, which defy math and which he refuses to back up with actual proposals, are more insulting than reassuring.

St. Louis Post-Dispatch - Obama for president: A second term for a serious man:

As to Mr. Romney, we are puzzled. Which Mitt Romney are we talking about? The one who said of himself, in 2002, "I'm not a partisan Republican. I'm someone who is moderate and ... my views are progressive." Or is it the Mitt Romney who posed as a "severely conservative" primary candidate? Is it the Mitt Romney who supported abortion rights and public health care subsidies in Massachusetts or the one who is pro-life and anti-Obamacare now? Is it the Mitt Romney who wants to cut taxes by $5 trillion or the one who can't remember saying that now? Is it the Mitt Romney who said in May that 47 percent of Americans are moochers or the one who said last week that's not what he believes?

Mr. Romney apparently will say anything that will help him win an election. As a president, he might well govern as a pragmatic chief executive, or he might sell himself to the plutocrats and the crazies who have taken over his party. He is asking Americans to take a lot on faith — there's nothing to see in his tax returns; he can cut taxes and whack away debt while trimming deductions he will not specify.

Mr. Romney's business career is the only way to judge his foundational beliefs: He did not run a company that built things and created jobs and strong communities. He became fabulously wealthy by loading up companies with tax-deductible debt, taking millions out up front along with big management fees. Some companies were saved. Others went bankrupt. Mr. Romney's firm always got out before the bills came due, either in lost jobs, bankruptcies or both.

If the nation's most pressing issue is debt, why elect a president whose entire business career was based on loading up companies with debt?

In picking Mr. Ryan as his running mate, Mr. Romney signaled that he's ready to perpetuate that model in public office. The middle class hasn't had a raise in 20 years. Income inequality has reached record heights. Mr. Romney is the very embodiment of what's gone wrong with the economy: Too many people at the top create vast wealth that they do not share, either by creating jobs or by paying fair tax rates.

If more Americans were paying attention, this election would not be close. Barack Obama would win going away, at least 53 to 47, perhaps even 99 to 1.

The Durango Herald - Re-elect Obama:

Obama has done a reasonably good job handling an almost unprecedented economic mess – a situation that has proved far worse than anyone knew as it developed. Still, there is room for debate about the direction the country is headed.

Unfortunately, the Republican Party has offered no credible alternative. Its platform consists of little more than nostalgia for the 1950s, and its presidential candidate largely remains a mystery.

Romney has publicly demonstrated no core convictions beyond his obvious belief that he should be president. He apparently thinks that simply not being Obama is qualification enough.

It is not.

... [Romney] has gone from supporting reproductive rights when running for the Senate in 1994 to saying in 2007 that he would gladly ban abortion in all cases. He now says he would allow exceptions for rape, incest and the health of the mother.

Romney has shown some consistency on other women’s health issues. He has repeatedly said he would strip Planned Parenthood of all funding and allow employers to exclude contraception from health-insurance coverage. He wants to talk about the economy but fails to understand that reproductive autonomy is an economic issue for women.

Santa Fe New Mexican - For president, Barack Obama:

In the world of Barack Obama, raised by a single mother and grandparents, propelled to the top through his own hard work, intelligence and drive, we all do better when we come together. He has never forgotten the struggles of his youth, understanding better than most the necessity of individual initiative. To Obama, government is not the enemy. It is not dispenser of all wisdom or wealth, either. Government is the safety net that catches the weak, the sick, the old and the very poor. It is also our collective will in action — building, defending and securing our nation. Obama will not privatize Social Security or reduce Medicare to a voucher system that costs too much while not guaranteeing treatment. He understands that Medicaid, which underwrites medical care for the very poor, must be protected from budget slashers who think nothing of leaving sick people at the emergency room door while asking for more tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires.

Mitt Romney’s world is very different, one of privilege and wealth, where in his view, 47 percent of all citizens are takers who won’t assume responsibility for their lives. He had the good fortune to be born in a two-parent home, and should be credited for taking his comfortable start and building a fortune with it. He is a model of a citizen, a good father, husband and church member, contributing to his greater community with both his time and treasure. However, his vision for the United States — with almost half the population moochers — will not lift the least of us up. Instead, it will continue to divide the country along class lines, further splitting us between the haves-a-lot and everyone else.

The Philadelphia Inquirer - Obama will do a better job:

Like a carnival barker cajoling a mark into spending the last bills in his wallet, the Republican Party is counting on Americans' not remembering that they've seen this trick before.

GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney wants voters to forget their familiarity with the prize he's dangling before their eyes - a return to the disastrous economic policies that preceded the recession. Given that context, Romney's prize is no better than a fake pearl.

Stop playing the blame game, the Republicans say to anyone who dares remind voters of what led to one of the worst economic collapses in U.S. history. They have kept former President George W. Bush under wraps lest he refresh voters' memories.

The GOP would prefer the nation repeat history rather than remember it.

...America doesn't need an Etch A Sketch president whose positions change with the type of audience he's speaking to.

Akron Beacon Journal - Obama for president:

Romney would be more credible as a candidate if on one occasion he had told the far right something it did not want to hear. Instead, the man who once was a moderate, appealingly pragmatic, has massaged positions, ducked and performed full flips, saying little about his leading achievement as the governor of Massachusetts, health-care reform, which served as a model for the president. The obvious question then surfaces: What does he really think? What would be the tilt of his presidency?

...Romney cannot walk back easily his comments at a Florida fund-raiser about 47 percent of Americans refusing to take responsibility or care for their lives. He either was telling the crowd what he thought it wanted to hear, or he believes what he said. Either way, the words aren’t worthy of a president.

La Opinión - Re-elect Obama:

But the Romney alternative [for immigration reform] is self-deportation and state laws like Arizona's, in which undocumented immigrants are seen as a danger instead of as contributors.

For all the boasting on the business savvy he would bring to steering the economy, Romney has said little to nothing about how immigrants make a positive difference in our nation's growth. This, in the face of the Partnership for a New American Economy emphasizing that passing a legalization measure like the DREAM Act would add $329 billion to the U.S. economy.

The blunt reality is that Romney has not worked to gain the trust of Latinos. Left up to Romney, Justice Sotomayor would not be sitting on the Supreme Court. The Republican candidate has said that given the chance, he would have voted against her nomination.

With a candidate, campaign and party that have failed to engage Hispanics, one can only wonder whether a binder of Latinos would even be on a shelf at the White House under their reign.

Las Vegas Sun - Obama is our choice for president:

Mitt Romney has presented himself as a reasonable alternative to President Barack Obama, the idea being that Romney, a seasoned and successful businessman, knows how to turn the country around. That sounds appealing, given that the country’s recovery from the Great Recession has been painfully slow. But, after studying the campaign, we’re not sure who Mitt Romney really is or what he really stands for.

Romney has been called a flip-flopper, but his changes over the past year would make a chameleon blush. Consider:

• The Mitt Romney of the primary ran to the right of his opponents to curry favor with the Tea Party. He proclaimed himself to be “severely conservative,” a hawk who talked about cutting foreign aid and denounced Obama as weak on foreign policy. He pledged to dismantle Obamacare and said government should get out of the housing market and let it “bottom out.”

• The Mitt Romney since the primary has resembled the Massachusetts moderate whom conservatives complained about. On foreign policy, Romney says he wants to increase aid, and he was nearly indistinguishable from Obama in the last debate. And despite his opposition to Obamacare, which happens to be modeled on Romney’s own health care law from Massachusetts, Romney wants to replace it with policies that include key parts of Obamacare. And on housing? He pledges some unspecified help, blames Obama and plans to gut regulations designed to protect homeowners.

So what does Romney believe? We’re not sure. His campaign has been short on specifics. Where he has offered detailed plans that differ with the current administration, they haven’t been persuasive. For example, his grandiose plan for the economy literally doesn’t add up, and it would put a new burden on the middle class to the benefit of the wealthy and larger corporations — the “job creators” that haven’t been creating jobs lately despite record profits.

How a Romney administration would govern is something of a guessing game given his ever-shifting positions. The indications, however, show that the nation would see a foreign policy run by neocons who have been all too willing to send Americans into harm’s way overseas, and on domestic policy, the middle class and the “47 percent” would be left behind.

Arkansas Times - For Obama:

If it's true that united we stand and divided we fall, America will come crashing down should Mitt Romney be elected president. He's already declared half the citizenry worthless, and said that as president, he'll concern himself only with the others. All those deemed unworthy of Romney's attention are low- and middle-income Americans, people who, unlike Romney himself, had no rich father's shoulders to stand on. These are the people who most need a friend in the White House. Romney promises the back of his hand.

...Today's Republican Party won't tolerate moderation and generosity in a presidential candidate. One might even feel sorry for Romney, except that he himself clearly feels no discomfort saying whatever is politically expedient, no matter how false.

The New Yorker - The Choice:

Romney’s conviction is that the broad swath of citizens who do not pay federal income tax—a category that includes pensioners, soldiers, low-income workers, and those who have lost their jobs—are parasites, too far gone in sloth and dependency to be worth the breath one might spend asking for their votes. His descent to this cynical view—further evidenced by his selection of a running mate, Paul Ryan, who is the epitome of the contemporary radical Republican—has been dishearteningly smooth. He in essence renounced his greatest achievement in public life—the Massachusetts health-care law—because its national manifestation, Obamacare, is anathema to the Tea Party and to the G.O.P. in general. He has tacked to the hard right on abortion, immigration, gun laws, climate change, stem-cell research, gay rights, the Bush tax cuts, and a host of foreign-policy issues. He has signed the Grover Norquist no-tax-hike pledge and endorsed Ryan’s winner-take-all economics.

But what is most disquieting is Romney’s larger political vision. When he said that Obama “takes his political inspiration from Europe, and from the socialist democrats in Europe,” he was not only signalling Obama’s “otherness” to one kind of conservative voter; he was suggesting that Obama’s liberalism is in conflict with a uniquely American strain of individualism. The theme recurred when Romney and his allies jumped on Obama’s observation that no entrepreneur creates a business entirely alone (“You didn’t build that”). The Republicans continue to insist on the “Atlas Shrugged” fantasy of the solitary entrepreneurial genius who creates jobs and wealth with no assistance at all from government or society.

...Romney, breaking with custom, has declined to release more than two years of income-tax returns—a refusal of transparency that he has not afforded his own Vice-Presidential nominee. Even without those returns, we know that he has taken advantage of the tax code’s gray areas, including the use of offshore accounts in the Cayman Islands. For all his undoubted patriotism, he evidently believes that money belongs to an empyrean far beyond such territorial attachments.

But holding foreign bank accounts is not a substitute for experience in foreign policy. In that area, he has outsourced his views to mediocre, ideologically driven advisers like Dan Senor and John Bolton. He speaks in Cold War jingoism. On a brief foray abroad this summer, he managed, in rapid order, to insult the British, to pander crudely to Benjamin Netanyahu in order to win the votes and contributions of his conservative Jewish and Evangelical supporters, and to dodge ordinary questions from the press in Poland. On the thorniest of foreign-policy problems—from Pakistan to Syria—his campaign has offered no alternatives except a set of tough-guy slogans and an oft-repeated faith in “American exceptionalism.”

The Salt Lake Tribune - Too Many Mitts:

Nowhere has Mitt Romney’s pursuit of the presidency been more warmly welcomed or closely followed than here in Utah. The Republican nominee’s political and religious pedigrees, his adeptly bipartisan governorship of a Democratic state, and his head for business and the bottom line all inspire admiration and hope in our largely Mormon, Republican, business-friendly state.

But it was Romney’s singular role in rescuing Utah’s organization of the 2002 Olympics from a cesspool of scandal, and his oversight of the most successful Winter Games on record, that make him the Beehive State’s favorite adopted son. After all, Romney managed to save the state from ignominy, turning the extravaganza into a showcase for the matchless landscapes, volunteerism and efficiency that told the world what is best and most beautiful about Utah and its people.

In short, this is the Mitt Romney we knew, or thought we knew, as one of us. Sadly, it is not the only Romney, as his campaign for the White House has made abundantly clear, first in his servile courtship of the tea party in order to win the nomination, and now as the party’s shape-shifting nominee. From his embrace of the party’s radical right wing, to subsequent portrayals of himself as a moderate champion of the middle class, Romney has raised the most frequently asked question of the campaign: "Who is this guy, really, and what in the world does he truly believe?"

The evidence suggests no clear answer, or at least one that would survive Romney’s next speech or sound bite. Politicians routinely tailor their words to suit an audience. Romney, though, is shameless, lavishing vastly diverse audiences with words, any words, they would trade their votes to hear.

...If this portrait of a Romney willing to say anything to get elected seems harsh, we need only revisit his branding of 47 percent of Americans as freeloaders who pay no taxes, yet feel victimized and entitled to government assistance. His job, he told a group of wealthy donors, "is not to worry about those people. I’ll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives."

Where, we ask, is the pragmatic, inclusive Romney, the Massachusetts governor who left the state with a model health care plan in place, the Romney who led Utah to Olympic glory? That Romney skedaddled and is nowhere to be found.

...In considering which candidate to endorse, The Salt Lake Tribune editorial board had hoped that Romney would exhibit the same talents for organization, pragmatic problem solving and inspired leadership that he displayed here more than a decade ago. Instead, we have watched him morph into a friend of the far right, then tack toward the center with breathtaking aplomb. Through a pair of presidential debates, Romney’s domestic agenda remains bereft of detail and worthy of mistrust.

Therefore, our endorsement must go to the incumbent, a competent leader who, against tough odds, has guided the country through catastrophe and set a course that, while rocky, is pointing toward a brighter day. The president has earned a second term. Romney, in whatever guise, does not deserve a first.

Conservatives Lose Their Minds Over Lena Dunham's "First Time"

2012-10-26T20:05:00.000-04:00

Girls creator and star Lena Dunham has a new video out for the Obama campaign called "Your First Time". It's a funny reminder to young voters that when you vote for the first time you should think carefully about it and make sure you're choosing the right candidate for you:

Your first time shouldn't be with just anybody, you wanna do it with a great guy. It should be with a guy with beautiful...Someone who really cares about and understands women. A guy who cares whether you get health insurance, and specifically whether you get birth control. The consequences are huge. You wanna do it with the guy who brought the troops out of Iraq. You don't want a guy who says "oh hey, I'm at the library studying" when really he's out not signing the Lilly Ledbetter Act. Or who thinks that gay people should never have beautiful complicated weddings of the kind we see on Bravo or TLC all the time.

It's a fun game to say "who are you voting for?" and they say "I don't want to tell you!" and you say "no, who are you voting for?" and they go "guess!". Think about how you want to spend those four years. In college age time, that's 150 years. It's also super uncool to be out and about and someone says, "Did you vote?" and you say, "No, I wasn't ready." My first time voting was amazing. It was this line in the sand. Before I was a girl, now I was a woman. I went to the polling station, pulled back the curtain...I voted for Barack Obama.

In a totally unsurprising turn of events, conservative men are up in arms about this ad. (Funny how we didn't hear any of them complaining about ads that demean women when the RNC ran "The Breakup", an ad that likened President Obama to a bad boyfriend.) Two of the douchebags from planet Breitbart denounced it - one called it "disgusting" and the other described it as "astoundingly tasteless", adding:

Yes, she just compared sex with voting. And she mocked virgins – “No, I didn’t vote, I wasn’t ready.” And she said that Barack Obama’s the guy she’d rather have sex – er, vote – with. She actually saved herself for Barack Obama (she’s 26) – she could have swiped her V(oting)-card with John Kerry, but he was too limp a candidate, apparently. A real flip-flopper.

So she chose to do it for the first time with Barack Obama, since he “cares about and understands women.” In fact, he understands them so well that he exploits them for insane commercials comparing losing your virginity with voting. Obama has young daughters. But that didn't stop him from releasing this commercial. Because this is what Obama thinks of your daughters. This is Obama's official campaign ad. Paid for with his campaign money. Distributed by his campaign. If this ad were any more demeaning to women – who apparently care only about having sex, if you listen to Lena “You Want To Do It” Dunham -- it would be produced by Bill Maher and star Bill Clinton. [Breitbart.com via Little Green Footballs]

Fox News found a PR "expert" to call the ad "R-rated", "offensive" and "inappropriate". And then, of course, there's Rush Limbaugh:

I mean, [the Lena Dunham ad is] insulting to women. It again looks at women as monolithic sex machines who want to make sure they've got unending birth control pills and then a free trip to Planned Parenthood the next day, all paid for by Obama. If I were a woman today, I would feel insulted each and every day, the way they look at women, all thinking the same way, all wanting the same things. I think that ad -- some people look at it, they'll think it's cool, that it's hip and it's representative of the current modern day pop culture. But I think it's an insult to women everywhere.

I mean, where the hell is Gloria Steinem? Gloria, is this what you all have been fighting for all your lives, an ad like this, an appeal to women as sex machines? Is that what feminazi-ism was all about? Is that what all the equal pay stuff was all about? Is that why you wanted to storm your way into every all-male club and all-male institution and everything that you felt you were being discriminated against, was this what you were hoping would be the fruition, the result of all of your hard work? [Via Daily Kos]

Because who better to tell women, and specifically feminists, when to feel insulted than the creator of the term "feminazi", right ladies?

So let's think about this for a second. To these conservative men, it's a horrible anti-woman nightmare and an affront to common decency when a young woman jokingly alludes to the fact that she might be sexually active while making a point about voting, but it's totally cool and no big deal when many of the candidates put up by a certain political party believe that women who are "legitimately" raped should be denied emergency contraception in the hospital, and should they become pregnant should be forced to carry that pregnancy to term since after all rape is just another "method of conception" and it's "something that God intended to happen" anyway. These are the same men who will also tell you with a straight face that there's no such thing as a war on women.

It's also kinda fascinating to watch the massive amount of projecting and denial involved in this argument that it's the Obama campaign and the left in general that constantly obsesses over young women's sex lives and reduces women to "sex machines" too consumed with our rampant sluttiness to care about any other issue. (Never mind the fact that in the very ad they're critiquing, Dunham touches on several of the many issues that are important to young women, from health care to gay rights to the Iraq war to equal pay.) Believe us guys, we'd love to spend less time talking about things like birth control and our right to make our own choices about our health and access the health care services that we need when we need them. We'll be happy to do that just as soon as the Republican Party stops trying to take those things away from us. And in the service of that goal, we hope that a lot of young women get into the voting booth on Election Day for their own "first times". But please don't do it with Mitt Romney and the Republicans...they won't respect you in the morning.

Cosmo: Is "Porn Star" the New "Skank"?

2012-10-25T14:01:00.005-04:00

For years, Cosmo has been slut-shaming women and calling them names like "skanks", so we're hardly surprised anymore when we notice shit like that in their magazine. However, there's a new level of slut-shaming that we've been noticing lately and it's directed at women in the adult film industry.

First, the magazine's new editor Joanna Coles was asked in an interview whether she feels at ease talking about sex:

"Yes, I do actually. I think it's an important part of our lives. I feel some regret at the pornification of culture. I think that does us a disfavour because people forget that, actually, sex is this great connecting tool between men and women."

Aside from the fact that sex isn't always strictly between men and women (nor is it solely a "connecting tool"), we're confused by her regret at the "pornification of culture". How exactly is our culture being "pornified"? We won't deny that the media has a messed up relationship with sex - it avoids it, shames it, but then also exploits it - but pornified?

Doesn't Coles think that Cosmo - with its monthly dose of ridiculous sex tips, incomprehensible sex positions and photo spreads of models in revealing outfits - is contributing to our hypersexualized society? We don't always agree with the way Cosmo addresses sex-related topics mainly because of their sheer hypocrisy. They give endless sex advice, then shame women for being too sexual. They talk about being fun, fearless females and then do all they can to foster their insecurities. Yes, there's something wrong with our culture, but we don't think porn is the problem.

We might have just passed over that comment if we hadn't also flipped through the November 2012 issue. We couldn't help but notice that there seemed to be a recurring anti-porn theme...

In their famous "Sexy vs. Skanky" section, they've yet again called out an adult actress (this time Jenna Jameson) for being skanky based on her outfit. Of course, we really know that it's based solely on the fact that she's Jenna Jameson, a former adult actress.

Then we saw this advice from the charming Ky Henderson in "Ask Him Anything":

Q. My boyfriend wants me to be on my knees while giving him oral. It seems disrespectful....Isn't that what porn stars do?

A. It has nothing to do with disrespect. To be honest, those concepts are far too complex for the caveman level on which male brains operate during sex. And it's exactly that porn association that makes guys think it's so hot for a girl to be on her knees while pleasuring him. But if it feels weird for you or makes you uncomfortable, don't do it. You can create a similar thrill by giving him oral when he's not expecting it, like when he's watching TV. Surprise sex from a woman who can't keep her hands off a guy? That's the plot of just about every porn flick.

We've always assumed that all of the "questions" that Cosmo receives for Ky Henderson are made-up and this one seems to prove that. Is that even really a thing, that giving oral sex on your knees is "what porn stars do"? We kind of thought that was the standard for blow jobs. Yes, of course, we know there are many lovely positions from which you can suck dick, but we've never heard of being on your knees as being strictly a thing from porn. And while we've heard some people claim that giving head is demeaning (we disagree), we've never heard of one position for it being more or less disrespectful. We also don't understand the leap from "disrespectful" to "porn star" or Henderson's suggestion that the porn association has anything to do with why men might want a woman on her knees.

It's interesting how Cosmo manages to imply that porn is shameful and disrespectful, while at the same time advising women to emulate porn stars. Mixed messages anyone?

Then again, in "25 Ways To Blow His Mind With Your Mouth" (no really)...

#5 - With a flat tongue, lick the underside of his penis like an ice pop. A little porn star-ish? Yes. Still hot? Definitely.

Again, what...? This is Cosmo, they've written entire articles on ways to please a man - many many times - and yet they're going to refer to licking a penis as "porn star-ish"? And we're confused by the "Still hot?" question. We don't agree that this move is porn star-ish, but if it is, wouldn't that be part of what makes it hot? It wouldn't be hot in spite of the fact that it's porn star-ish.

We're not sure exactly where the Cosmo writers are getting their information about porn. Is there some specific genre of porn that's just women on their knees, licking penises like popsicles? If there's anything we've learned over the years is that people can have fetishes for just about anything and there are plenty of videos out there to cater to those fetishes, so we're sure this does exist... but we're just unfamiliar with the concept that this is a porn standard. And even if it is, we're definitely not convinced that there's anything wrong with that.

We don't think that people should try to emulate everything they see in adult films, but that's just because we think some pornography can be unrealistic, not because of any "moral" objections.

Cosmo throws around terms like "skank" and "stripper" as if they were synonymous and now it seems that they've thrown "porn star" into the mix as well. I don't know if the magazine is going to get better or worse now that Coles has replaced Kate White, but we've got some news for her - STRIPPERS AND PORN STARS AREN'T SKANKY. It's a job, just like any other job.

Women are allowed to be sexual (for pleasure, for work, or both) and there's nothing wrong with that!

Presidential Debates: Live Tweets

2012-10-23T12:11:00.000-04:00

If you missed our live tweets of the Presidential Debates, we're putting it all in one place on Storify. (We will be updating the post after each upcoming debate.)

First Presidential Debate - October 3, 2012

Vice Presidential Debate - October 11, 2012

Second Presidential Debate - October 16, 2012

Third Presidential Debate - October 22, 2012

Related posts:

The ESC's Guide to Social Media: You're Probably Doing It Wrong

2012-10-19T22:46:00.000-04:00

Disclaimer: We are far from social media experts. We will fully admit that. We use social media like Facebook and Twitter (and to a much lesser degree, Pinterest) to promote our blog and interact with our readers, but we wouldn't necessarily call ourselves "corporate" users. However, we've dealt with enough of them (and have enough common sense) to be able to recognize when some companies are just plain old doing it wrong.

So here is our somewhat incomplete, totally biased guide to how you may or may not be fucking up your company's social media presence - complete with real life examples. We're going to focus primarily on Twitter, but we'll briefly address some failures on other sites as well.

(Note: We've chosen to block out some of the companies' names. We did this because while we think all of these mistakes were bonafide social media "fails", we don't want to publicly blast certain companies or brands that we still like or have relationships with or who we've already spoken to privately. Also, we didn't want to repeatedly blast the same companies/users for multiple errors. Our hope is that they will all learn from these mistakes and do better next time.)

Learn Before You Tweet

It pains us to see companies (and individuals) messing up some of the basics. We understand that not everyone fully understands every site right away, but we recommend that you learn that shit before you dive right in. And if you're paying someone to handle your social media marketing for you then they better damn well know what they're doing. Some of the mistakes we see coming from companies are just so cringeworthy. Here are a few basic Twitter "tips":

@ Messages and Retweets

If you post a tweet with @username at the beginning of it, then it will show up in that user's "Interactions" and other people reading it will understand that it was intended for that particular user. It will be publicly visible to everyone on your feed, but it will only show up on the homepage of people who follow both you and that user.

If you want everyone to see your @ messages then you have to put something in front of the @ symbol. Most often people just throw a period in front (.@) and that will suffice. If you're not sending the message to that user (and rather are posting about them) then you can put the @username in the middle of the tweet instead. We always roll our eyes when we see brands or PR companies tweeting posts that should really be public but aren't because they started them with @, therefore limiting the audience. It actually didn't work like this in the early days of twitter, but the change was made a long time ago so we're surprised at how often we still see @ when it should be .@.

If you put a space between the @ and the username it won't work at all.

When you want to repost something that someone else has posted, you have two options. You can hit "Retweet" which will repost the entire tweet in your feed. Or you can cut and paste the original tweet into a new tweet - preceded by RT @username. (A lot of twitter clients and apps have an option for this too.) Using the RT option is preferable when you'd like to add a quick comment before the retweet. MT means "modified tweet" which is what you should use if you've edited the original tweet somewhat (usually for space).

If you want to share a link or photo or fact that you saw in someone else's tweet, but don't want to repost their whole tweet. You can include just include via @username to credit where you originally found the information. If you're posting something that you want someone else to see (but aren't directly addressing them) you can throw a little cc: @username at the end... kind of like you'd cc someone on an email.

Direct Messages

A direct message will only be visible to the sender and the recipient. Don't confuse them with @ messages! DMs are private messages. Way too often people accidentally post an @ message instead of a DM, but publicly tweeting something that was meant to be a private message is a rookie mistake.

One of the most well known examples of this mistake came from Rep. Anthony Weiner, who set off a good old fashioned political sex scandal when he infamously tweeted a photograph that was probably intended to be a direct message. We've also seen people (including some celebrities) accidentally tweeting their cellphone numbers and stuff like that. Pay attention to what you're tweeting!

Hashtags

A hashtag is a word or phrase preceded with a pound sign (#) that becomes a clickable search term: #hashtag. Clicking on a hashtag will bring you to a search that shows you all the other tweets marked with that keyword. If your account is public and you tweet with a hashtag, anyone searching that hashtag may find your tweet, even if they don't follow you. Very popular hashtags are called "trending topics" (which means that a lot of people are using the same hashtag in the same time period).

You can break a hashtag with certain symbols and punctuation like apostrophes, so it's best to keep them simple. Here's an example from a campaign to raise money for Claire McCaskill after Todd Akin made his offensive and ignorant statements about "legitimate rape"...

The goal was to gather $5 contributions to McCaskill's campaign, but the hashtag #$5-4-McCaskill just doesn't work because it has dashes and a dollar sign breaking up the tag. (It's also just awkward to type and read - it probably should've been #5forMcCaskill.) It's never going to gain any traction or become a trending topic that way.

One example of a popular recurring hashtag is #ff (which stands for "Follow Friday"). It's a weekly tradition where people recommend twitter users that others should follow by tweeting: #ff @username @username2 @username3 (etc)... (And while we're on the subject, many people consider it kinda douchey if you retweet every single #ff that mentions you only because it mentions you. Nobody cares about your Internet popularity as much as you do.)

Sometimes you can use more than one hashtag in a single tweet, but don't over do it and only use hashtags that are relevant to the topic of your tweet. Don't hijack a hashtag that isn't related to your tweet, especially if it's a hashtag for a serious issue. One horrible example of this came from Celeb Boutique shortly after the tragic shooting at a movie theater in Aurora, CO. The hashtag #aurora was trending and they hijacked the hashtag in a really tasteless way:

The offensive tweet sat on their feed for hours (while hundreds of people @'d them in disgust) and then they finally apologized:

It's hard to believe that anyone in PR wouldn't know about the tragedy in Aurora (which despite taking place in the U.S., was an international news story) but even so... that's why you check what the hashtag is and why it's trending before you join in. It would've taken only a few seconds of reading the other #aurora tweets to notice that it was related to something tragic (even if they didn't know what exactly). Don't assume what any trending topic means - check before you tweet.

When your create your own hashtag, you run the risk of how others will use it. Making up a random hashtag doesn't mean that anyone will necessarily answer - you need to establish followers and engagement and interaction first. If you don't have a lot of active followers then it's likely that no one else will be using your hashtag except for you. It will make your company look dumb if people click on your hashtag and find that you're the only one using it.

On the other hand, sometimes well-intentioned hashtags can backfire. Earlier this year, McDonald's created the hashtag #McDStories in order to get everyone talking about their positive experiences at McDonald's. It backfired when people starting using the hashtag to tweet jokes and talk about their negative "experiences" instead - including poor service, stomachaches, animal cruelty, etc. Part of the problem was that the hashtag was too generic (#McDStories could go either way) and they forgot about the fact that not everyone on Twitter is necessarily a fan.

Another example on the flip side of the 'hashtag hijacking' issue comes from Nestle. They created the hashtag #nestlefamily for an event that they hosted for a small group of parenting bloggers. The conversation sparked some criticism from people who pointed out some of Nestle's questionable and problematic behavior as a company when it comes to their marketing of baby formula around the world and other concerns. This situation created some good dialogue between supporters and critics of Nestle, but also a lot of arguing and snarking back and forth - not the warm and fuzzy positive promotion that Nestle likely intended when they organized the event and created the hashtag in the first place. In this case, Nestle was very slow to respond when the criticism started to come in, and since their reputation as an unethical company is no secret we were surprised that they didn't seem to be prepared with a "damage control" plan to address any critics that popped up. It was as if they didn't realize that their hashtag would not only be visible to everyone on twitter, but that other people besides their designated bloggers would be free to use it.

It's important for any company to remember that your critics are on Twitter too.

There is also such a thing a sponsored hashtags. During Mitt Romney's presidential campaign, he paid to have some hashtags listed as trending topics globally, which can cost at least $120,000 per day. In addition to his official hashtag (#RomneyRyan2012), he also sponsored some anti-Obama hashtags like #FailingAgenda, #16TrillionFail and #AreYouBetterOff. Of course, this totally backfired because Democrats flooded Twitter to use the hashtags against Romney and the GOP.

This is just a complete waste of money in our opinion, especially with hashtags like #16TrillionFail where it's not even clear exactly what it's about. When specific campaign-related events like conventions and debates happen, trending topics related to your campaign will happen naturally.

Links

If you want to include a link in your tweet, you should use a URL shortening service like bit.ly or tiny.url. With only 140 characters most URLs won't allow much room for commentary. These sites generate shorter links that will redirect to your longer URLs.

But please tweet links with caution. It's important not to blindly tweet (or retweet) something without knowing exactly what you're talking about. If you haven't read the article you're tweeting (or retweeting) or you aren't familiar with the original source, you shouldn't tweet it. We've seen this happen way too often, and we'll get into a few examples below.

Which leads to our next point...

Think Before You Tweet

As we said before, don't just blindly tweet without knowing exactly what you're forwarding and what you're talking about. This includes commenting on a news story without having all the information.

Who can forget Ashton Kutcher's idiotic tweet about Joe Paterno after he was fired from Penn State for allegedly covering up a child abuse scandal?

He later apologized and explained that he wasn't aware of the scandal and had only heard that Paterno was fired. Here's a good rule of thumb that he should've followed (and you all should)... if you don't know anything at all about what happened, don't take it upon yourself to declare that it was "in poor taste", an "insult" or "no class". But at least Kutcher apologized and owned his mistake... which brings us to our next section...

Apologies and Transparency

When you screw up, your first instinct may be to defend it... don't. Just own it and apologize. Definitely take the time to clarify what you meant and explain how the mistake happened, but don't get into a back and forth argument trying to defend your mistake. Apologize, make some kind of amends if applicable (for example - if you made a tasteless comment about rape, make a donation to an organization like RAINN). Whenever possible, have someone higher up at the company make the apology. Even if was an intern who screwed up, if the CEO takes responsibility for it their followers will believe that the company truly cares about righting the wrong.

We've seen so many companies and organizations try to argue and make excuses and it only digs the hole deeper. If you really need to give those excuses, you can include them in your official apology. But arguing with individual people on Twitter or Facebook never looks good. (And this should go without saying, but don't send someone unrelated to the drama to fight your battles for you. We actually saw a CEO's mother make a snide comment on someone's page once. Whether she was sent to do so or did it of her own accord is unknown, but it looks bad either way. No we're not going to name the CEO. We think they're probably already embarrassed enough.)

Also, remember that "I'm sorry you were offended" or "I'm sorry you didn't get the joke" or "I'm sorry you're so sensitive" or "I'm sorry but..." are not apologies.

Don't try to hide your mistakes

It's important for your fans/followers/customers to think that they can trust you as a brand/company/public figure. That requires honesty and transparency. Don't try to hide or delete negative feedback. We all make mistakes sometimes... don't try to sweep it under the rug or censor your fans. Publicly acknowledge it, apologize, learn from it, and do better next time. Once we noticed a tweet from a company that included a link to a right-wing religious source with a really bad reputation. We were familiar with this company and didn't think that the tweet matched what we thought was their 'philosophy'. So we tweeted an "FYI" @ them, politely letting them know that the source of the link they had tweeted was extremely controversial, not to mention sexist and homophobic.

A little while later we noticed that the tweet had been quietly deleted and we had a new direct message from the company:

We were shocked. We couldn't believe that a corporation or a PR company would actually ask someone to delete something. It is almost unheard of for a PR company to ask that. (For the record, we didn't delete it.) It's also worth mentioning that we did a regular @ and not a .@ (like we explained above) so none of our followers even saw our tweet unless they also followed the company. We were uncomfortable with the request because we never delete tweets and we felt like we were being asked to help the PR company sweep something under the rug for their benefit, not necessarily the benefit of the company or its followers.

What they should have done was just post a short public apology to their followers, like "Sorry for that last tweet guys, we should have checked the source first!" (The fact that they didn't check the source before posting that link is a whole other problem that we already addressed above.) Deleting the tweet is fine, but acknowledge to your followers that you deleted something and explain why.

Apologize Publicly

Another company that has also messed up in this department is Liberator. A few months ago they tweeted some ignorant comments about condoms, that undermined condom use. A lot of people felt this was especially offensive and dangerous considering that they are a company that makes a sex-related product.

These tweets sat on their newsfeed for at least twenty hours (despite there being a ton of @ messages complaining and asking for explanation) and then they were mysteriously deleted without comment or apology. They also had an offensive photo on their Facebook page that joked about rape and consent (it said "no means eat me out first") that sat on their page for days and then was also quietly deleted the same day they deleted the offensive tweets.

About a week and a half later, they followed us on twitter, so we asked them why they had never apologized. They claimed that they had apologized and offered a link to a short post on their Tumblr page, that apologized for the tweets and mentioned that the person responsible was "no longer with us". The Facebook photo was not mentioned at all. (They later added in a reference to the Facebook post, and upon our suggestion, tweeted a link to the apology for all their followers to see.)

Points for apologizing... but apologizing on Tumblr for something that happened on Twitter and then never tweeting a link to it is pretty pointless. Don't assume that your twitter followers also check your blog/facebook/tumblr/pinterest/etc. pages (or vice versa). Always make apologies or retractions in the same place you made the mistake.

Etiquette and Rules

Copyright and Common Courtesy

It's not only considered rude to use someone else's photos or content without permission/credit but in some cases you may be setting yourself up for a lawsuit.

A while back a company we know used one of our photos without permission on their Pinterest account. Instead of linking back to the blog where they found it, they linked back to their own website. We were obviously annoyed so we let them know and they corrected the problem by giving us credit and a link (as is standard practice). Even though we knew that it was just a mistake and not an attempt to "steal" our photos, it's concerning that whoever is running their social media accounts didn't know this because they may be creating a lot of potential problems for the company to deal with in the future. Not only is copyright violation a legal issue, but it was also a violation of Pinterest's terms of service to post something without crediting the original source.

Even when it's not a legal issue, it's still considered common courtesy to give credit where credit is due, and when in doubt, ask permission before using something that isn't yours.

Engagement

We always find it annoying when a company doesn't respond to your @ messages to them. It is so important to engage with your followers, so unless you have a huge corporation (like, say, McDonald's) that maybe can't answer every message directly, you should at least make an effort to respond to criticism and praise. Answer questions, apologize when necessary, join in the conversation. If a company is getting bombarded with negative @s then it's not always possible to answer each one individually - so a general message to the masses will suffice - but most small companies (or those with a small social media presence) that don't get many @s, should make the effort to respond to them when they do. Thanking for RTs isn't necessary (and would be considered excessive) but answering questions is always viewed in a positive light.

On the other hand "Thanks for following" is not necessarily good engagement. We're not saying it's terrible to do that, but when your whole twitter feed consists of you thanking random followers - and there's not any genuine content in between - it just makes you look like you have nothing real to say.

The same goes for repeating the same tweet again and again. It's okay to tweet the same link more than once if you want to make sure it reaches the most of your desired audience (some people are online during the day, others at night, etc.) but if you repost the same tweet too many times, you'll not only look like you have nothing real to say... but you'll also annoy people. We follow a couple of companies that clearly have their twitter feeds set up to just auto-tweet the same tweets over and over and over each day. Most people can tell when a company is doing this and it makes it obvious to your audience that you're just on twitter because you're supposed to be and aren't really all that interested in actually engaging with your customers.

Twitter Spam

We've seen companies ask users on Twitter to tweet or retweet something in order to win a contest or get some other perks... This seems like a good way of generating attention and new followers for your brand but trust us, it isn't. It comes off as obnoxious and spammy and when everyone's feed is clogged up with it, they're not going to think highly of your company. This is especially obnoxious when a company has hijacked someone else's hashtag. One example of this is the BlogHer conference: Every year brands will latch onto the #blogher hashtag in order to take advantage of the massive amount of users who follow it, even if their tweets are only semi-related.

You should also be wary of using automated tweet systems. We've seen one blogger who has an automated system to tweet links to old blog posts. Sounds like a good idea in theory but in actuality, it's both annoying and confusing - considering that so many of their blog posts are time sensitive. For instance, the tweets below were all posted in a row in September 2012. Only one was recent, two were from a month ago, and two were from 2011. Why would someone want to go back and read that now?

If you've got a really amazing, timeless piece that you want to share again, go for it. But to retweet every old blog entry, even the ones that are embarrassingly outdated and irrelevant, you're only making yourself look bad. This is just a random example from that particular user... we have often seen them posting links to outdated blog entries (including those that truly are time sensitive - just the other day they auto-tweeted links to posts about the Macy's 4th of July fireworks and the death of Steve Jobs in October of 2011) asking "Pls Leave Comments". In theory it's not that terrible - although why would anyone leave a comment on a blog from an event that took place a year and a half ago? - but all in a row like that it just clogs up their feed and makes it look like they have nothing genuine to say. It ends up coming across like you either made a mistake and set up your auto-tweets incorrectly, or are blatantly trying to drive "fake" traffic to your blog by getting people to click links to old posts thinking that they're new.

Auto-tweeting can also get you in trouble when a breaking news event happens - if everyone is talking about an earthquake or a shooting or a political scandal or something else serious that just happened, and your twitter account is auto-tweeting stuff about the great fashion show you just went to or the awesome new product that you're launching, it makes you look out of touch at best and totally insensitive at worst.

We also don't really agree with begging for comments or retweets. Every once in a while if you have a particular topic that you want feedback on (or a cause that you want to promote and spread around), that's one thing. But if you constantly have to ask for interaction, then it's not genuine and means nothing.

Be an Influencer vs. a Follower

In the same way that "thanks for following" doesn't count as engagement, following back everyone who follows you doesn't count either. Not to sound bitchy, but not everyone deserves a follow back. Some of the users following you might be fake spam accounts... some might be inactive.... some might be users who don't post anything relevant to you or your business and are only following you to get you to follow them. A corporate twitter should be treated differently than a personal account. You're not making new friends, you're potentially gaining an audience. You want to engage with your followers, but do so by being an influencer.

Having a lot of followers is helpful for a business, because it increases the audience for your tweets and therefore your promotional messages. However, a high number of followers is less impressive when you have a near equal number of users that you follow. That is, with so many regular users automatically following back anyone that follows them, if you have 10,000 followers it's not that impressive you also follow 9,500 users. A ratio like that isn't that hard to achieve if you just follow everyone who follows you back (and vice versa). You appear much more influential if you have 10,000 followers and only follow, say, 4,000 users.

What you should definitely try to avoid is following a lot more users than you have following you. If you follow 1,000 users but only have 20 followers, you not only look unimportant (like you have nothing to say that would make you worthy of following) but you also run the risk of looking like a spam account and might even get shut down.

We suggest you use a program like Friend Or Follow or Twit Cleaner take a look at who is or isn't following you back and make decisions about who to keep on your list and who to unfollow. Refollow can also help you weed out inactive users from your following list.

Having a lot of followers doesn't necessarily mean that you're doing the right thing though. You want to have real followers and you want to grow that following organically (by posting good content, being generally interesting, and gaining lots of RTs). Begging for followers or retweets is a no-no and it makes you look bad and desperate. Buying followers is even worse - just don't do it. The real way to measure your influence and reach is to think about not just the number of followers you have and the ratio of followers to following, but also think about how many relevant @ messages do you get? How often are your tweets retweeted? Are you getting a lot of traffic to your website through twitter?

In the same respect, you shouldn't rely too heavily on your "score" on metrics sites like Klout or Kred because very few people really care what your score is. (That being said, if anyone wants to go to Klout and give us +K about whatever topics you can think of, please do because we find it amusing.) However, it doesn't hurt to examine their reports in order to find out how others are interacting with you on Twitter.

Don't Let the Interns Tweet Unsupervised

This is the most important "rule" and we can't stress enough how crucial it is. Why would you let an untrained intern or any lower level staff member who isn't fully aware of your company's philosophy or social media strategy be in charge of interacting with your customers or fans? In the same respect, don't hire an expensive PR company that doesn't understand your company or your image. If you're paying someone to handle your social media for you, then they should be making things easier for you. So if they're actually doing the opposite - embarrassing the company, offending your audience, and potentially opening you up to legal problems - why are you paying them? You might be thinking "oh it's just twitter, it doesn't matter", but it does. If you're going to do it, do it right or not at all. Having no social media presence is better than having a bad one.

We once contacted a company about something they had screwed up on Twitter and they claimed that an intern was to blame. As a one-time mistake this isn't so horrible. But most of us have had experience with internships so we know that some interns can manage more responsibility than others, which is why they should be well-informed and supervised to make sure they're capable of handling the task. This has become sort of a running joke now for us... anytime we see a social media error or screw-up we laugh that Joe the Intern (we named him Joe) is at it again. It's all his fault. We imagine poor, untrained-but-overworked Joe, roaming the country, tweeting mistakes for hundreds of companies. Whether or not an intern was actually to blame for your screw up or was just a scapegoat in your public apology, it still begs the question - why are you letting someone like that handle your social media accounts?

Know Your Purpose

It's also important to have a clear set of goals. Social media just for the sake of social media isn't really helpful. And considering that many companies are spending a lot of money for someone to run their accounts - either on a private PR company or an in-house social media team - they can't know if they're getting their money's worth without having an idea of what they hope to get out of it in the first place. Are you trying to just gain more followers? Increase sales? Get feedback about your products? Get more visits to your website? Improve your image? If you don't know what you want, you won't know what approach to take and you won't know whether or not it's working.

Know Your Market

It's important to understand your audience and your demographic. We follow one company that has what we consider to be a sex-positive product. Their target demographic is - and should be - women. However, we keep seeing them tweeting links to men's magazines, sex-negative "experts" and conservative/religious sites. They may be appealing to a small group of their male followers, but they're ignoring - and potentially offending - the bulk of their audience and market.

It's also worth thinking about who is the "face" of company's social media efforts. If you are a female-oriented company like that and you have a man as your spokesperson and your tweets are coming through in a "male voice" and are directed to a male audience (or even worse, are condescending or disrespectful to women in any way) you're going to alienate your female audience.

Case Study: Summer's Eve

Summer's Eve is guilty of so much that we couldn't even fit them into just one category! We've written about them a few times now... Last year, they launched a multimedia campaign called "Hail to the V" that was criticized as being sexist and racist. They eventually pulled some of the offensive videos, but the real failure is how they used social media (or rather, didn't use it) to address the issue.

Back in 2010, a lot of people complained about an advertorial in Women's Day that suggested that women seeking a raise at work should start by using Summer's Eve products. Summer's Eve created the Twitter account @Eve_Cares to respond to the criticism. When people started to use @Eve_Cares to complain about the new Hail to the V campaign, the account was deleted without explanation. Initially, some people got confused and thought that Summer's Eve was apologizing for the Hail to the V campaign because they hadn't tweeted anything from the @Eve_Cares account since their last round of apologies in 2010 - it's not a good sign when people get your "sorry for our offensive ad campaign" tweets confused because that's all you ever use your twitter account for. Shortly after, their other official Twitter account (@FleetSummersEve), which had also sat unused for over a year, was taken over by spammers.

Negative comments on their Facebook page were ignored or deleted while they continued to post fluff. When the videos were finally pulled, they made no official apology or mention other than linking to a single article (from Adweek) that had a quote from the head of their ad agency. This was one case where a company mishandled a bad situation so totally that they would have been better off not having twitter and facebook pages at all.

Who Does It Right

Since we don't want to just complain (as much as we love to complain), we wanted to show a few examples of companies that are doing it right. They might not all be perfect, but here are some examples of social media successes...

Taco Bell

Whoever is running the TacoBell twitter (@TacoBell) is doing a great job. They interact a lot and respond to @ messages. They're funny and they actually knows the pop culture references that people are using. Check out some of their "best" tweets here, thanks to BuzzFeed.

Our favorite? God, Karen you're so stupid!

The Obama campaign

The team that runs the Obama campaign's official tumblr does a really good job. Not only do they understand all of the campaign issues, but they also understand the Internet - they've got memes, they've got gifs, they've got Mean Girls references, they've got funny and cute photos, they talk like normal people and not in campaign speak. They take submissions and share people's stories about why they're supporting President Obama. It comes across as very genuine and gives the impression that the campaign actually wants to get in there and interact with people, not like they just created a tumblr account because some social media strategist somewhere told them that they should have one. (Their Twitter isn't half-bad either.)

LowCostHolidays.com

Recently a guy named Thomas Cook posted a joke on the facebook page of the UK travel site ThomasCook.com. Whoever was managing social media for Thomas Cook the company did not know how to deal with Thomas Cook the guy, but another travel site called Low Cost Holidays did know what to do, and it's kinda awesome. You can click here to see how the whole thing unfolded, but we also have a summary for the too-lazy-to-click among you:

A man named Thomas Cook found that sharing his name with a global travel company has its perks, as the latest viral sweeping the internet today proves. Mr Cook posted a cheeky comment on the Thomas Cook Facebook page back in November, asking for a weekend in Paris as compensation for a lifetime of being “ridiculed”. The then 26-year-old wrote: “Seeing as I share the exact same name as your huge company, and because of this I have been ridiculed for as long as I can remember, I think it’s only fair that you help compensate for this by giving me one of your lovely holidays.” When the travel agency refused to give away a ‘free holiday’, Mr Cook protested that he had endured ‘years of ridicule and torment’ as a result of sharing the name. He added that he deserved a trip to Paris as he helped “to promote your brand by constantly keeping it in peoples minds every time they speak to me” (sic).

Quick-thinking travel competitor lowcostholidays.com then stepped in to offer Mr Cook a free trip to Paris. Marketing representative Charlotte Hunt wrote: “Here at lowcostholidays.com we completely sympathise with your suffering and if your name was “lowcostholidays.com” we would certainly have accepted your request to be sent away on a weekend in Paris. “… So how about we send you on that weekend in Paris?” And sure enough, Mr Cook was given a free trip to the French capital, which he travelled to this month, lowcostholidays.com spokeswoman Nicole Walsh confirmed.

So Low Cost Holidays capitalizes on another company's failure to get the joke, and for the cost of one trip to Paris they've got a viral internet sensation and a ton of free publicity.

True Blood

HBO has really done it right with their True Blood social media. In addition to their "True Blood Talk" online forum, they are very active on Twitter.

Not only is there a primary twitter account (@TrueBloodHBO) and hashtags (there's #TrueBlood along with #waitingsucks and some other fun stuff, like right now they're doing #TBHalloween to talk to fans about True Blood themed Halloween costumes), but each of the characters has their own twitter account as well and they interact with each other. Not just the major stars like Sookie and Bill, but also the minor characters like Maxine_Fortenberry and Arlene's kids, even baby Mikey!

They also have an official website TrueBloodOnTwitter.com where fans can find all the True Blood tweets in one place. Not only does all of this boost the show's popularity, but it really gets the viewers involved and connected and keeps people talked about the show even during the long breaks between seasons.

Final Thoughts

Like we said at the beginning, we're not social media experts, whatever that means these days. We've just been using social media for a long time, and observing how others use it and what works and what doesn't. We've really only just scratched the surface with this post - there are so many examples and case studies and tips and other tips that contradict those tips that we could go on forever. Instead we'll shut up now, but we'd love to hear what you think about what we've said, and about your own social media experiences (positive or negative). See you all on Twitter!

Let's Talk About Mitt Romney Talking About Women

2012-10-18T16:08:00.000-04:00

There was a lot of discussion about women's issues in Tuesday night's presidential debate. And by a lot, I mean any at all compared to the first debate. This means that Mitt Romney got the opportunity to say a lot of things about women and to women, and I found all of it to be very telling. So let's take a closer look and just work all the way through it, shall we?

This was the town hall style debate, which means the candidates took questions from an audience full of allegedly undecided voters. One thing I noticed partway through was that when Mitt Romney would get a question from a woman, he would start his answer with this exaggerated "thaaaaank you" that just came off as really smarmy and patronizing to me. (He even did it to moderator Candy Crowley once or twice.) I know it's a small thing, but it seemed as if he was going into 'dad mode' and congratulating one of his grandkids for drawing him an ugly picture or something, like 'wow, you're a lady and you just asked me a question about politics, good for you!' The tone of it also reminded me of his super creepy "I'm Mitt Romney and I approved this message" voiceover from his recent "Dear Daughter" ad, which is probably part of the reason it struck me in such a negative way.

While we're on the subject of tone and style, let's have a quick sidebar about the way that Romney treated debate moderator Candy Crowley. Throughout the evening he continually interrupted her, talked over her, ignored her, and called into question her ability to keep the time and manage the debate correctly. Here's a typical exchange:

MS. CROWLEY: Mr. President, I got to — I got to move you along. And the next a question is for you —

MR. ROMNEY: No, he — he gets the first — he actually got — he actually got the first question. So I get the last question — last answer on that one.

MS. CROWLEY: If — actually, in the follow-up. It doesn't quite work like that.

MR. ROMNEY: Actually —

MS. CROWLEY: But I'm going to give you a chance here. (Laughter.) I promise you I'm going to. And the next question is for you, so if you want to, you know, continue on, but I don't want to leave all these guys sitting here and — because —

MR. ROMNEY: Candy, Candy, Candy, I don't have a policy of — of stopping wind jobs in Iowa and that — they're not phantom jobs. They're real jobs.

MS. CROWLEY: OK.

MR. ROMNEY: I appreciate wind jobs in Iowa and across our country. I appreciate the jobs in coal and oil and gas. I'm going to make sure —

MS. CROWLEY: So you're — OK. Thank you, Governor.

MR. ROMNEY: — that taking advantage of our energy resources will bring back manufacturing to America. We're going to get through a very aggressive energy policy, 3.5 million more jobs in this country. It's critical to our future.

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Candy, it's OK.

MS. CROWLEY: We're going to move you along to taxes —

PRESIDENT OBAMA: I'm used — I'm used to being interrupted.

[Transcript via NPR. You can also find audio at that link, or video here.]

It's hard to sell yourself as a candidate who respects women when you can't even manage to show any respect to the one woman who is sharing the stage with you.

Anyway, on to substance. One of the questions that the candidates got from a woman in the audience was about inequality in the workplace and the fact that women are still paid less for doing the same jobs as men. I thought that after years of dodging the question, Romney might actually finally tell the women of America where he stands on the question of equal pay. I was mistaken.

Q: In what new ways do you intend to rectify the inequalities in the workplace, specifically regarding females making only 72 percent of what their male counterparts earn?

MS. CROWLEY: Governor Romney, pay equity for women.

MR. ROMNEY: Thank you. And — important topic and one which I learned a great deal about, particularly as I was serving as governor of my state, because I had the — the chance to pull together a Cabinet and all the applicants seemed to be men. And I — and I went to my staff, and I said, how come all the people for these jobs are — are all men?

They said, well, these are the people that have the qualifications. And I said, well, gosh, can't we — can't we find some — some women that are also qualified?

And — and so we — we took a concerted effort to go out and find women who had backgrounds that could be qualified to become members of our cabinet. I went to a number of women's groups and said, can you help us find folks? And I brought us whole binders full of — of women. I was proud of the fact that after I staffed my cabinet and my senior staff that the University of New York in Albany did a survey of all 50 states and concluded that mine had more women in senior leadership positions than any other state in America.

Okay. Anyone who has been anywhere on the internet in the last couple of days already knows that "binders full of women" has become a meme and a tumblr and a hashtag and all of that.

But let's not let the fact that this comment was a joke distract us from the fact that it was also a lie. There was a binder full of women, but Mittens didn't ask for it - it was put together by a bipartisan group of women call MassGAP that was formed prior to the election and given to Romney when he took office. The Phoenix, which reported on the binder lie as soon as it came out of Romney's mouth, also dug into the question of exactly when and where these women worked when they moved from the binder to the cabinet:

First of all, according to MassGAP and MWPC, Romney did appoint 14 women out of his first 33 senior-level appointments, which is a reasonably impressive 42 percent. However, as I have reported before, those were almost all to head departments and agencies that he didn't care about -- and in some cases, that he quite specifically wanted to not really do anything. None of the senior positions Romney cared about -- budget, business development, etc. -- went to women.

Secondly, a UMass-Boston study found that the percentage of senior-level appointed positions held by women actually declined throughout the Romney administration, from 30.0% prior to his taking office, to 29.7% in July 2004, to 27.6% near the end of his term in November 2006. (It then began rapidly rising when Deval Patrick took office.)

Third, note that in Romney's story as he tells it, this man who had led and consulted for businesses for 25 years didn't know any qualified women, or know where to find any qualified women. So what does that say?

It says a lot. Notice that although the question was about equal pay, he never mentions whether all of those many many many women that he hired when he was governor actually got equal pay, does he? And then there's the rest of his answer:

Now, one of the reasons I was able to get so many good women to be part of that team was because of our recruiting effort, but number two, because I recognized that if you're going to have women in the workforce, that sometimes they need to be more flexible. My chief of staff, for instance, had two kids that were still in school. She said, I can't be here until 7:00 or 8:00 at night. I need to be able to get home at 5:00 so I can be there for — making dinner for my kids and being with them when they get home from school. So we said, fine, let's have a flexible schedule so you can have hours that work for you.

Okay. Flexible schedules are great, not only for moms but also for dads and maybe even for unmarried people and/or people without kids as well! (A crazy thought, I know.) It's definitely worth talking about the fact that equal pay isn't the only challenge that women face in the workplace, and flexible scheduling is one solution that can work for a lot of women. Like, it would have been great if Mitt had brought this up in addition to expressing his support for equal pay, not instead of addressing that question (which was the question) at all. Also, when the first example out of your mouth to illustrate why flex time is good is that it helps women get home in time to cook dinner, it ends up sounding less "yay for equality!" and more "make me a sandwich". That's not to mention the fact that he introduced the subject with the phrase "if you're going to have women in the workforce". If?

You know what else would have been great? If there was anything in this answer about actual policy. This has been a fairly standard tactic for the Romney campaign, especially when questions about women's issues come up - respond to policy questions with personal anecdotes. My personal favorite is Ann Romney's talking point about how we can just trust her when she says that Mitt will stand up for women because she knows what a great guy he is. Even if Mitt Romney had hired more women than any governor ever in the history of the United States of America and had given them the most flexible work schedules ever designed...how does that help me? How does that ensure that all of the women who don't work for Mitt Romney will have fair treatment and the tools to fight discrimination in the workplace? It doesn't. It sounds nice and it's designed to give the impression that Mittens cares about working women, but the bottom line is that he doesn't actually respect us enough to even answer a direct question about whether he thinks we deserve equal pay for equal work.

But wait! There's more:

We're going to have to have employers in the new economy, in the economy I'm going to bring to play, that are going to be so anxious to get good workers they're going to be anxious to hire women. In the — in the last four years, women have lost 580,000 jobs. That's the net of what's happened in the last four years. We're still down 580,000 jobs. I mentioned 3 1/2 million women more now in poverty than four years ago.

What we can do to help young women and women of all ages is to have a strong economy, so strong that employers are looking to find good employees and bringing them into their workforce and adapting to a — a flexible work schedule that gives women the opportunities that — that they would otherwise not be able to — to afford.

This is what I've done, it's what I look forward to doing, and I know what it takes to make an economy work.

And I know what a working economy looks like. And an economy with 7.8 percent unemployment is not a real strong economy. An economy that — that — that has 23 million people looking for work is not a strong economy. An economy with — with 50 percent of kids graduating from college that can't find a job, or a college-level job — that's not what we have to have.

MS. CROWLEY: Governor —

MR. ROMNEY: I'm going to help women in America get — get good work by getting a stronger economy and by supporting women in the workforce.

Well, there you have it. Mitt Romney will address the problems that women face in the workplace by "supporting" us in a vague, general, non-specific and policy-free way, and by making the economy so incredibly super duper strong that employers will even want to hire women! And these employers will be so jazzed about how strong, strong, and strong the economy is that they'll even be willing to "adapt" to the flexible work schedules that all women everywhere apparently need to give them the "opportunity" to get home in time to cook dinner. That sounds awesome. I'm making lasagna tonight if anyone wants to come over.

So, let's review. The question was about what each candidate will do to address the issue of inequality in the workplace, and specifically the problem of women not earning equal pay for equal work. Here are the things that Mitt Romney's answer did NOT do:

Address the problem of inequality in the workplace as it relates to the issue of equal pay
Clarify Romney's position on the issue of equal pay so that we could at least understand whether he even believes that it exists or is a bad thing
Use the phrase "equal pay" even once
Offer any specific policy solutions for the problem of equal pay, or even a standard Republican talking point about how we shouldn't use government to solve this problem because the job market will regulate itself blah blah blah whatever
Tell the truth about his experience in Massachusetts
Answer the question

So now we're all totally clear on where he stands on this important issue, right ladies?

Later in the debate there was a question about gun control, which did not seem to present much of an opening for the candidates to address women specifically. But Mittens found a way.

Q: President Obama, during the Democratic National Convention in 2008, you stated you wanted to keep AK-47s out of the hands of criminals. What has your administration done or plan to do to limit the availability of assault weapons?

[...]

MS. CROWLEY: Governor Romney, the question is about assault weapons, AK-47s.

MR. ROMNEY: Yeah, I — I'm not in favor of new pieces of legislation on — on guns and — and taking guns away or — or making certain guns illegal. We of course don't want to have automatic weapons, and that's already illegal in this country to have automatic weapons.

What I believe is we have to do as the president mentioned towards the end of his remarks there, which is to make enormous efforts to enforce the gun laws that we have and to change the culture of violence we have. And you ask, how are we going to do that? And there are a number of things.

He mentioned good schools. I totally agree. We were able to drive our schools to be number one in the nation in my state, and I believe if we do a better job in education, we'll — we'll give people the — the hope and opportunity they deserve, and perhaps less violence from that.

But let me mention another thing, and that is parents. We need moms and dads helping raise kids. Wherever possible, the — the benefit of having two parents in the home — and that's not always possible. A lot of great single moms, single dads. But gosh, to tell our kids that before they have babies, they ought to think about getting married to someone — that's a great idea because if there's a two-parent family, the prospect of living in poverty goes down dramatically. The opportunities that the child will — will be able to achieve increase dramatically.

So we can make changes in the way our culture works to help bring people away from violence and give them opportunity and bring them in the American system.

You could really see the wheels turning in Mitt's head as he worked his way through this answer: Okay, gun control question...I can't actually talk about gun control or say anything bad about guns because the NRA owns the Republican party...I know, I'll do a vague "culture of violence" thing and get in some of my education talking points...yeah okay, this is great, now I can pivot to a traditional families thing, moms and dads, no gays allowed, that will make the social conservatives happy...darn, just singled out single moms, I don't want to undo all of my lady pandering I just did a few minutes ago, let me throw in a mention of single dads too...think about getting married to someone before you have babies, that's a great idea if I do say so myself...change the culture!...okay done, nailed it.

In some ways this was the reverse of the equal pay moment - there he had a direct question about a specific issue that affects women and managed to avoid it entirely, and here he had a very specific question about an issue that had nothing to do with women and he managed to hand single mothers the blame. Almost impressive.

Back to ladybusiness. President Obama made a point of bringing up women's health several times during the debate, and specifically mentioned Planned Parenthood and all of the affordable health care that they provide to women (and men) across the country. He also mentioned the fact that Republicans like Mitt Romney are constantly trying to cut Planned Parenthood's funding and do anything else they can to prevent us from making our own choices about issues like birth control and deny us access to the health care that we need. Needless to say, Mitt wasn't happy about this:

MR. ROMNEY: I — I'd just note that I don't believe that bureaucrats in Washington should tell someone whether they can use contraceptives or not, and I don't believe employers should tell someone whether they could have contraceptive care or not. Every woman in America should have access to contraceptives. And — and the — and the president's statement of my policy is completely and totally wrong.

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Governor, that's not true.

This is the perfect way to end this breakdown, with the easiest kind of statement to analyze of them all - the blatant lie. Romney supported the Blunt Amendment, which would have given employers the exact power that he's now saying he doesn't believe in - the right to deny contraceptive coverage to their employees if it conflicts with their "religious beliefs or moral convictions". He also opposes the new Obama administration rule that requires insurance companies to provide coverage for contraception with no co-pay. (There's even a snazzy and factually inaccurate petition on his website about it which makes an argument about religious freedom that so far has failed to convince even Bush-appointed judges who have ruled on the issue.) He also told Mike Huckabee in an interview that he would "absolutely" support a constitutional amendment stating that life begins at conception. So called "personhood" amendments are majorly unpopular and aren't even supported by many people in the anti-choice community because they're so extreme that they could potentially outlaw certain forms of birth control and fertility treatments in addition to abortion. Oh yeah, and he has also stated repeatedly that if he's elected, he will "immediately" eliminate all federal funding for Planned Parenthood, which is a pretty confusing way to demonstrate his stated belief here that "every woman in America should have access to contraceptives".

I think that even if you didn't already know what Mitt Romney was all about as far as women's issues are concerned, this debate told you everything that you need to know. He doesn't believe that we deserve straight answers to our questions. He sees women primarily in terms of our identities as wives and mothers and that reflects in the examples that he chooses to describe us. He doesn't see a need for new policies to help us achieve equality. He has no problem with lying to us about issues that are critical to our health. And he just doesn't respect us.

That's the Mitt Romney that I saw on Tuesday night. What about you?

The AFA's Misguided Freakout Over Mix It Up Day

2012-10-11T18:10:00.001-04:00

It's been awhile since we checked in on the American Family Association - the One Million Moms are just boring at this point and it's not quite time for the AFA's bogus War on Christmas campaign - so I just went to their website to see what they've been up to. The most recent action alert is about an event called Mix It Up Day that is apparently a very bad thing:

Homosexual 'Mix It Up' day - Is your child's school on the list?

Radical Southern Poverty Law Center behind gay indoctrination program

On, Tuesday, October 30, over two thousand schools across the nation will be observing "Mix It Up" (MIU) day. MIT is a nationwide push to promote the homosexual lifestyle in public schools. A strong focus is directed specifically to elementary and junior high grades.

MIU is a project of the fanatical pro-homosexual group, Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC). This is the same organization that launched hateful and malicious rhetoric toward the Family Research Council just prior to the August shooting of a security guard by a SPLC sympathizer. See if your school is on the list.

AFA is joining other family-oriented groups in urging parents to keep their children at home that day if their local school is sponsoring the "Mix It Up" project. The Southern Poverty Law Center is using this project to bully-push its gay agenda, and at the same time, intimidate and silence students who have a Biblical view of homosexuality.

Wow, if the AFA is this worked up about it, Mix It Up day must be pretty extreme, right? It's so awful that they had to invent the totally unnecessary and goofy term "bully-push" to describe it. I'm picturing SPLC brainwashing teams roaming school hallways and sponsored gay orgies at recess. So I went to the SPLC website to get the details. Brace yourselves, people...

Just what is Mix It Up at Lunch Day?

A national campaign launched by Teaching Tolerance a decade ago, Mix It Up at Lunch Day encourages students to identify, question and cross social boundaries.

In our surveys, students have identified the cafeteria as the place where divisions are most clearly drawn. So on one day – October 30 this school year – we ask students to move out of their comfort zones and connect with someone new over lunch. It’s a simple act with profound implications. Studies have shown that interactions across group lines can help reduce prejudice. When students interact with those who are different from them, biases and misperceptions can fall away.

...OMG you guys. Encouraging kids to eat lunch with different kids than the kids that they usually eat lunch with for one day?! Surely such a thing will undo everything their parents have ever taught them and "indoctrinate" them with the horrible idea that it might be cool to hang out with different people sometimes.

It's also worth noting that there's nothing at all in the description of Mix It Up day that's about LGBT students in particular (or any other specific group). This event isn't about forcing straight and gay students to hang out together against their will, and it's certainly not about "intimidating and silencing" anyone. It's just about encouraging kids to get out of their comfort zones and "cross social boundaries" for one day in the hopes that doing that will help students to have just a little bit more understanding or respect or tolerance towards each other. In the SPLC's response to the AFA's protest, they point out that each school sets it own agenda and theme for Mix It Up day - there's no official "gay indoctrination program" involved. The AFA have turned this into a gay panic action alert situation based on absolutely nothing, probably because they know that's the easiest way to get their followers fired up.

I find it so disturbing that the members of the AFA would rather keep their children home from school than let them have the option of spending one lunch period hanging out with kids who are different from them in any way. I feel like the only thing missing from this sad and pathetic action alert is the actual phrase "stick to your own kind". Hopefully a lot of kids across the country do choose to "mix it up" and the event has a positive impact so that ignorant and bigoted views like the AFA's can continue to fade away as quickly as possible.