Hey, look at the day glow puritans! For only $89 $79, you too can experience the freedom of safely concealed dirty pillows and all the sundry naughty bits... like knees. And, for those who are offended by exposed elbows, WholesomeWear will do itself one better:
We also offer a Slimming Swimmer suit that extends to the midarm (between the elbow and the wrist) and covers down to the lower leg (between the knee and the ankle).
Emphasis all them. Jill from Feministe has an idea why these "wholesome" folks are so arm-phobic in their effort to cover all but hands, feet and face:
Because the rest of her is a temptation to sin, my friend. You see, God may have created woman with breasts and hips and an ass, but these things are nonetheless evil, and any indication of them is bad.
Insert painfully obvious Taliban snark here. Sure there's too much serialization of women in our culture. I was reminded again this weekend that Hooters really is considered a family restaurant for some Americans. I'm appalled each time I hear it, and have yet to actually reconnoiter for myself, but I'm with Jill in contextually celebrating scantily clad women:
The bikini was scandalous because it publicly revealed the female body. And, while I think we can all agree that objectification isn’t liberating, the bikini was sort of a big middle finger to the people who saw the female body as inherently sinful and needing to be covered.
It's a fine line to tread, the celebration vs. objectification of women's bodies - and even though context is everything, WholesomeWear is so clearly wrong. Nudity is a natural for swimming - not serving chicken wings.
I'm suspicious of anyone who never says anything I don't agree with. I'm cranky and opinionated, so unless there's a cosmic alignment of great magnitude, the chance that I'll swallow 100% of another cranky ranter's line is slim indeed. Twisty blamed the patriarchy for blow jobs - we're talking 100% blame - and and attracted a swarm of comment hate. Apparently folks forgot who they were reading (did they expect teh radical feminist lesbian to love bjs?). Or they don't appreciate a difference of opinion. Or, as Twisty supposes, she stepped in some messy taboo - surprising even in this hearty crowd:
I’d forgotten that when it comes to sex, it is the duty of the radical feminist to shut the fuck up. Sex, which, along with religion, is the new religion, is sacrosanct territory. It is anti-feminist to point out the ideological problems with certain patriarchal sexbot traditions because so many women enjoy patriarchal sexbot traditions.
Now is the time when I chime in with my opinion... but it's sorta irrelevant. As teh gay, blowjobs have a completely different set of politics for me. It's a bit of a patriarchy short circuit, and I really can't think of much to complain about there. I'm also cut from a different cloth than Twisty - a sex positive cloth with a big tacky privacy/let dogs lie fringe. So many people are all up in my bedroom that I just about don't care what other people do in theirs (though I see and recoil at all the sexist shite that happens in the hetero bedroom, and sincerely recommend lesbianism to all the women that suffer gross power games and bad sex in the sexist bedroom). I disagree with Twisty and love her all the more for it. She's got something to say, and she's pushing some folks towards some sexual politics that are uncomfortable. Good for her.
I have an excellent idea what is happening here, but none why. I do ask why I wasn't invited to the vagina-cookie party, and why I'm not these vagina-makers friend. I love Brooklyn. Click the pic for a many photos of vagina cookies in various states of decoration and use.
"UR-86" = best pun ever. Or this week at the very least. Get yourself over to the Onion immediately to read the best satire it's spun in... as long as I can remember.
NEW YORK—Pro-life advocates celebrated approval of the new anti-abortion drug UR-86 by the Food and Drug Administration Tuesday, calling it a "safe and effective method" for terminating pregnant women while leaving their unborn children unharmed.
Who ever said the Grey Lady was boring? She likes gossiping about SEX (imagine for yourself a nice old biddy stage whisper) - especially queer sex. (Remember the shock schlock about parking lot sex a while back?). Today it's a slightly less sleazy look into "mixed orientation" marriages (with a video if you click the pic above). I'll focus on the happy part Taunee pointed out (thanks):
The survival of even a small minority of these marriages calls into question the conceptual shoe boxes into which human partnerships, affection, attraction, commitment and sexuality are often jammed. Describing their permutations and combinations turns out to be much more complicated than checking a box on a form labeled "gay," "bisexual" or "straight."
One woman in her 50's, who asked to be identified only as Trillian, out of concern for her husband's privacy, said that she and her husband formally divorced after she discovered his secret sexual life seven years ago, but they quickly decided to stay together. She has a satisfying monogamous sexual relationship with him, while he also has sex with men.
"He tried to go back in the closet, but the more research I did on the subject, the more I realized this is an integral part of the person," she said. "You can't just turn it off like a light switch. My husband is the man of my dreams, and I could not face the rest of my life with the man of my dreams being miserable and guilt ridden over being gay."
It's not perfect, but they seem ok with it. Taunee put it well:
...a kind of distinctly Queer American marriage - a devoted love relationship with outside casual sexual partners that isn't ideal... BUT in some cases manages to be more successful than many heterosexual marriages -- it's at least functional in raising children, maintaining a home, providing companionship with mutual respect etc...
Discouraging news is always met with something more promising. The trick is to hear about both to maintain that optimistic equilibrium.
Walgreen Co. said it has put four Illinois pharmacists in the St. Louis area on unpaid leave for refusing to fill prescriptions for emergency contraception in violation of a state rule.
The four cited religious or moral objections to filling prescriptions for the morning-after pill and "have said they would like to maintain their right to refuse to dispense, and in Illinois that is not an option," Walgreen spokeswoman Tiffani Bruce said.
I've always hated Walgreens (it's the "Wal" perhaps) but this is cause to reconsider. As corporate chains continue to consolidate, it's important to highlight their politics so the differences stand out and we can see what little choice is left in genericamerica. Thanks Sean.
As with a so much American cultural change, New York has lead the country in securing access to abortion. Jill posts in great detail on our history over on Feministe, and includes a proud moment for NYU:
It was an NYU Law paper that first proposed that the right to abortion was included under the right to privacy. In New York City... a network of clergy and doctors worked together to provide women access with safe abortions — similar networks were happening across the country, like JANE in Chicago. When NARAL was formed, they focused on New York first, and were successful in passing the country’s first abortion-rights legislation.
She also notes that while New York currently ranks top with 10% of the abortions performed, lots more than a hundred years ago fully 20% of pregnancies in New York City ended in abortion. See fundies, contraception and sex ed prevent abortion. You're fighting yourselves coming and going with your make-believe faith-based education...
Sadly, this secure access has apparantly been used by out-of-state women for decades. When I was a clinic escort in Buffalo, we saw a good amount of Pennsylvania and Ohio plates - and they're not exactly commuting distance. What local restrictions really do is force women to spend more money and time on securing abortions. Pushing the procedure from a right to a privilege of birth (if you're lucky enough to live in a progressive state) or means (to travel to those states). Anti-choice activists and legislators know this, and don't mind attacking poor women on their way incrementally criminalizing abortion. That's class warfare - not talking about class, detailing out the mechanisms of classism or admitting we live in a class-constrained culture. Calling that class warfare is bullshit.
Um, not a huge surprise here, but a study at UC Berkeley shows that decision-making skills are... compromised... in men as they become aroused:
Ariely and Loewenstein say their results are "striking" and more than confirm what most people believe about young men as a group - that when aroused, they (1) become sexually attracted to things otherwise offputting; (2) grow more willing to engage in morally questionable behaviour that might lead to sex; and (3) are more likely to have unprotected sex.
"[Our] study shows that sexual arousal influences people in profound ways," they write. "Efforts at self-control that involve raw willpower are likely to be ineffective." This is a dig at theorists - the ones who advise people to just say no - from experimentalists who are unafraid to get their hands dirty.
See? It's scientifically proven that men will do anything for sex - we're programmed to be idiots! This eases my mind about all the stupid things I've done for sex, and makes me grateful for all the stupid things I managed not to do. via towleroad