Category Archives: Sex

Navigating the Minefield of Misogyny on the Way to Happy Town

Man, people are already coming out of the woodwork with comments on my latest for Role/RebootI love when this happens!

I haven’t written about porn in a while, but when I do, it always starts some interesting (and often heated) conversations. It usually boils down to drawing clear lines between pornography (the recording of sex acts) and the porn industry (an often gross and misogynistic entity that, as a whole, perpetuates damaging myths about sexuality and gender). This creates a fun dynamic wherein one must traverse the latter in order to find some of the former that you actually want to watch, hence the title of this post.

Screenshot_4_25_13_9_46_AM

Related Post: Can we learn anything from porn stars? (NSFW)

Related Post: Meet my favorite body-positive pornographic tumblr (NSFW)

Leave a Comment

Filed under Body Image, Gender, Republished!, Sex

Sunday Scraps 99

sunday99

1. TAVI: 16-year-olds have no right to be so cool and self-assured. This kid says everything I figured out ten years later about media, feminism, stereotypes, yada yada yada.

2. HEALTH: This American Life is on a roll. Killer piece about the huge upward trend in Americans filing for disability. Why? When? How did this happen? Better question, what do we do it about?

3. ADVERTISING: Sociological Images uses the interesting case of Rolling Rock beer to discuss the appropriation of working class iconography by upper class cohorts for the purposes of “seeming real.”

4. ROMANCE: Nick Offerman + Megan Mullally = Forever. THEY ARE THE BEST, and lucky us, NYMag compiled a history of their love.

5. POLITICS: Just for kicks, cats that look like politicians. Or politicians that look like cats?

6. LGBTQ: Really thought-provoking essay for BuzzFeed about the importance of gay porn, by gay porn performer Connor Habib.

Related Post: Sunday 98 - Marriage in China, mean girls, George Saunders and his editor, etc.

Related Post: Sunday 97 – Writing with a gender neutral name, Cindy Gallop, Anita Sarkeesian, etc.

2 Comments

Filed under Advertising, Art, Gender, Hollywood, Politics, Sex

That Girls Episode with Adam and Natalia

Oof. This week for Role/Reboot I wrote about Sunday’s Girls episode (Spoiler Alert) in which Adam and Natalia had sex twice. The first time was a little stilted and a little awkward, but ultimately sweet and tender and rooted in consent. It included conversations about what she liked and didn’t like, and an explicit acknowledgment of her pleasure.

The second time was not that. I describe the scene in detail in the essay (which was not fun), and I was pretty rattled by it. It unfortunately also clicked with a wide range of other content that deals with violence against women lately (VAWA, Battlestar Galactica, some George Saunders stories), and the whole thing snowballed in my brain into one big ugly, teary, mess of frustration at the ongoing injustice in the world. It was not a super productive place to be, and writing this helped me climb out of it.

I know the internet is awash with opinions on this episode (I like Amanda Hess’ at Slate), but I’d love to hear yours too.

Screenshot_3_12_13_9_50_AMRelated Post: My favorite two minutes of Louie.

Related Post: Is Parks and Rec the most feminist show on TV?

5 Comments

Filed under Gender, Hollywood, Republished!, Sex

Sunday Scraps 97

sunday97

1. GENDER: Remember when Anita Sarkeesian at Feminist Frequency got seriously harassed by the internet? The fruits of her labor are now available in the form of part 1 of her exploration of gender in video games.

2. RACE: W. Ralph Eubanks at the American Scholar explores what happens to conceptions of race when DNA tests prove your origins diverge from your sense of self.

3. PORN: Here’s a profile of porn entrepreneur Cindy Gallop (of Make Love Not Porn) from Vice. I think there’s a reason we don’t watch regular people have sex, but I wish her all the luck in the world if she can change some of the most offensive porn norms.

4. PUNDITS: Ta-Nehisi Coates invariably blows me away with everything he writes. The New York Observer tracks Coates’ rise to intellectual stardom.

5. PRETTY: Smithsonian Magazine’s best photos of 2012.

6. NAMES: Nico Lang writes for Thought Catalog about what happens when his readers can’t tell whether he’s male or female and how that changes their reactions to his pieces. I wish I had written this, but Emily is kind of an obvious name….

Related Post: Sunday 96 – Harper High School, Philip Roth, duct tape art

Related Post: Sunday 95 – Girls in the NFL, Seth McFarlane, Orson Scott Card

2 Comments

Filed under Art, Gender, Media, Really Good Writing by Other People, Sex

Why is it okay to put 16-year-olds in lingerie ads?

This is Gisele Bundchen at age 16 in a Macy’s catalogue:

Gisele

(Via Buzzfeed)

This makes me extremely uncomfortable. I think it’s a pretty twisted world we live in when a fashion director dresses a teenager up in fishnets and a velvet bra to try to convince other women (presumably Macy’s catalogue-receiving women in their 30s and 40s) to buy this underwear.

Selling clothes is always an exercise in aspiration. Wear this and your thighs might look slimmer! Wear this and hunky men will drape themselves all over you. Wear this and you’ll want to go to the gym! Wear this and other women will admire your style! Whatever you want to happen will happen if you only for the love of God buy these clothes!

What’s so bizarre about using underage models is that the aspiration you create in the minds of your consumer is impossible to fulfill. 30-year-olds will never look 16 again. Instead of building a vision about looking and being your “best self” (what brands like Dove do with campaigns like Real Beauty, manipulative in its own way), this ad creates impossible dreams. And what strange dreams to have!

See? Ann Taylor uses extremely attractive but age-appropriate models

See? Ann Taylor uses extremely attractive but age-appropriate models

You would never use a 16-year-old to sell a power suit, right? Because women who want to look powerful don’t want to look juvenile. They want to look attractive, and sleek, and put-together, but nobody aims for “junior prom” when they want to rock an interview.

But when you’re trying to look sexy (as anyone who is purchasing fishnets and velvet pushup bras likely is), looking youthful is part of the aspiration. We’ve conflated “adolescent” with “sexy” for so long that it seems natural for a teenager to model underwear the way it would never seem natural to put her in a skirt suit. That’s kind of scary, and we’re still doing it.

I feel like every party here is wronged in some way, the 16-year-old model who’s been tarted up, the rest of 16-year-olds who don’t look like this model and are intimidated, the 39-year-olds flipping through this catalogue and wondering why a girl their daughter’s age is being used to sell them underwear, any men who might catch a glimpse and lust after her, however briefly, not knowing she’s not even legal, teenaged boys who end up with bizarre expectations of what women wear under their clothes (hint, it’s usually not this).

Who wins? Macy’s, probably, if this ad sold a lot of tights. Sigh. They wouldn’t do it if it didn’t work.

Related Post: But how old is she really?

Related Post: Bras for 9-year-olds

12 Comments

Filed under Advertising, Body Image, Gender, Sex

“Women Can Get Laid Anytime They Want” and other things people say

On the internet, I get a lot of pushback when I write about sex and gender from guys who say things like “It’s not fair, women can have sex whenever they want!”, “Women are the gatekeepers,” “You don’t have to work for it,” etc. If it were only dudes on the internet that spouted this rhetoric, I’d write them off as idiot trolls.

But it’s not just misogynistic commenters and entitled jerks online who think this kind of thing; I hear it from real guys too, the normal ones, the nice ones, the ones who I know to be decent humans. The thing I think they’re all missing is that finding any old someone who wants to get down doesn’t exactly guarantee any magic will happen. That’s not to say  you can’t stumble on to awesome amazingtimez with a one-night stand, only that what many women want (need?) to enjoy sex isn’t what a lot of those one-night standers are offering.

Today at Role/Reboot I wrote about how “getting laid” might be easy, but “getting laid” is sometimes a pretty low, unappealing bar. It’s not hard to find someone casual who wants to get it in, it is hard to find someone casual who wants to get you going.

What Does _Getting Laid_ Really Mean?

Related Post: A flow chart about first-date sex. 

Related Post: Last week I reviewed a bootycall app.

Leave a Comment

Filed under Gender, Republished!, Sex

Apps for Bootycalling?

This week for Role/Reboot I “reviewed” a new Facebook app called “Bang with Friends.” In theory, it’s a discreet way to figure out which of your friends are down to hook up with you. In practice, I found it to be a quick reminder of why you don’t sleep with your friends.

I tested it with a willing friend, just to see what happens. We indicated we were down to bang each other (literally, the button you press per friend is “Down to bang!”), which opened up a little mini-messaging conversation that went like this:

Me: Hey baby, let’s get a little more comfortable. 

Me: I would never write that. That’s what this silly thing made me do.

Him: mmmm, sounds good.

Me: gross. 

If you’d like to read more about my thoughts on Bang With Friends, casual sex, secret admirers, and FWB relationships, read on:

Will A New App Reinvent The Booty Call?

Related Post: Sex on the first date? I made a flowchart!

Related Post: The “end” of courtship?

6 Comments

Filed under Gender, Republished!, Sex

The Bent Over Cartoon Character That Ruined My Sunday

I’m warning you now that I don’t really have anything articulate to say about the following photo.  This is sign I saw walking through Wicker Park last weekend in Chicago:

photo (70)

I feel vaguely assaulted. This is my sunday afternoon. It’s raining, I’m drinking my coffee, I’m doing errands, I don’t want to have to confront the hypersexual idealized form of this woman that American Apparel seems to want me to want to be. I’m not in the mood to soapbox about body diversity. I’m not in the mood to rant about what I think it does to girls when this is the image they see over and over again. Why am I still surprised by these things? This is not new. This is not different. I see this everywhere and I am bothered by it every single time.

There are kids around and this is not what I want them to think is “how to be sexy.” Wear a bathing suit and high heels. Have long mermaid hair. Be thin. Bend over. This is not how I feel sexy and I don’t think it’s how most women feel sexy (though, as always, if pulling this posture gets you going, be my guest). I don’t even think this is what most men find sexy. I think this is an extremely narrow vision of sexy cooked up by a porn-soaked graphic designer and a brand that picks campaigns that consistently stage women as  objects just waiting for sex:

Google "American Apparel Ads"

Google “American Apparel Ads”

Yes, yes, yes, I know… sex sells. I get that. This is not a plea for modesty or celibacy or anything so extreme. This is a plea for some sense of time and place, for context and propriety. There is room for sexuality in advertising, but there is no room in my Sunday stroll for a bent-over cartoon woman holding her ankles. Put that shit away.

Related Post: American Apparel’s “Next Big Thing” Contest

Related Post: But how old is she really? On underage models.

11 Comments

Filed under Advertising, Body Image, Chicago, Media, Sex

The Lena Dunham/Patrick Wilson Conundrum

Lena Dunham and Patrick Wilson (Girls)

Lena Dunham and Patrick Wilson (Girls)

I know you all watched Girls last night and have some seriously complicated feelings about it. I know I do! Most people have been talking structure, since this strange little episode was such a diversion from the show’s loosey-goosey multi-character narrative flow. But, when Lena Dunham spends so much time naked, we know we can’t just talk cinematic decision-making, we have to talk about the body politic.

Jezebel headlined their recap (which I thought was mostly on target) with “What Kind of Guy Does a Girl Who Looks Like Lena Dunham ‘Deserve’?” and I think they’re asking the right question. To sum up, she spends the weekend banging an older, blindingly handsome, chiseled Patrick Wilson. He looks like he just stepped off a yacht in the Vinyard while filming a Land’s End spot, and she looks like a very average, very pear-shaped girl who probably sat next to you in the library and tried to surreptitiously eat a donut while reading Foucault. Mismatch made in heaven? Apparently not, according to many a commenter, who go as far as to say this pairing is so farfetched it must be a dream sequence.

But is it that farfetched? Let’s grant that if you polled Americans, Patrick Wilson is about a 9.7 and Lena Dunham is, say, a 5.5. I am making up these numbers, but the point is that they are more than a standard deviation or two apart. Does that kind of perceived aesthetic mismatch ever work out?

Amber Valletta and Kevin James (Hitch)

Amber Valletta and Kevin James (Hitch)

Adam Sandler and Salma Hayek (Grown Ups)

Adam Sandler and Salma Hayek (Grown Ups)

Katherine Heigl and Seth Rogan (Knocked Up)

Katherine Heigl and Seth Rogan (Knocked Up)

Wait, weren’t you saying it’s ludicrous to even think that a vaguely unkempt, less sophisticated schlub might land a smoking hot partner? Oh I seeee, it’s only ludicrous because she’s a lady and ladies are supposed to be the smooth, shiny ones. I get it now, this is just your basic old-fashioned double standard. Got it, glad we’re all on the same page.

But Seth Rogan is so scruffy and adorable! But Adam Sandler is so hilarious! But Kevin James is so cute and cuddly!  Women have other reasons for falling for these dudes in the movies, so it all makes sense. Actually, doesn’t that seem about right? We all want to end up with someone we find physically pleasing, but most adults acknowledge that there will inevitably be a thousand other things we love about a person too. Even though not everyone can look like insert-your-dream-hunk-here, we will “compromise” because they are delightful and lovely in all of the ways that really count. You know, kindness, smarts, humor, that kind of lame “personality” stuff.

Why is this such a shocking concept when the genders are reversed? I find it both offensive to the ladies (you are nothing if not decoration!) and insulting to the dudes (you are shallow and only want decoration!) Why is it hard to imagine, in theory, that Patrick Wilson might have found this overly earnest quirky hipster girl on his doorstep sweet, cute, funny, or interesting? Or also hot? Which brings me to my second point…

I would like to brag about something now. It will seem like just straight-up patting myself on the back, but it is in service to a point, so stick with me. I have slept with some good looking gentlemen, some if-you-polled-America-they-would-tell-you-that-he-is-fiiiiiine kind of men. Here’s the kicker: back in the day (young, naive, blah blah blah), I used to be surprised that they wanted to sleep with me. Not like, “oh poor little old me, I’m not a supermodel” surprised, but just kind of curious, the kind of curious you are when you’re a plus size girl who is most definitely in the Lena Dunham camp, the she-of-the-thunder-thighs camp, not the Salma Hayek/Amber Valletta/Katherine Heigl camp.

So here’s what I know. People like all kinds of things. They like all kinds of bodies. They like all kinds of people. This is in spite of the Esquire Hot 100 list, or the Maxim Ladies We Love, or the Bro Mag Chicks We Dig column. There is certainly a segment of men who would only go for the willowy model-types (just as there are women who won’t date men under 5’9″). But there are also men (more than you think), that have a wide ranging palate. We are deluding ourselves if we let the beauty mags tell us what men like, because men will tell you that, yeah, that 36-24-36 is nice, but so is this, and this, and that, and sometimes this, and when I’m in the mood, that too. Human sexuality is a complicated thing, yo, and it’s pretty freaking arrogant to think your taste is the only one that makes any sense.

So I guess what I’m saying is no, I don’t think it’s impossible that Patrick Wilson went for Lena Dunham, and yes, I do think y’all are seriously narrow-minded if you can’t see that.

Related Post: My kind of porn tumblr (NSFW).

Related Post: Does being fat-positive mean you have to throw skinny girls under the bus?

12 Comments

Filed under Body Image, Gender, Hollywood, Media, Sex, Uncategorized

“A Letter to the Girl I Harassed”

Predator or Prey? Really?

Predator or Prey? Really?

Whoo boy, and the ride never ends. A few days ago, I received a letter from a guy who wanted to respond to my street harassment piece with his own explanation of this pattern of male behavior. I find the letter to be quite disturbing and a little scary, but mostly it makes me sad.

I believe the writer is sincerely trying to participate in the conversation about street harassment, and for that I am truly appreciative. I’ve received enough junky hate mail on this subject to know what straight-up misplaced aggression looks like, and this isn’t it. He has granted me permission to republish in full and I have not edited his letter at all.

Here’s his caveat that he included: “I do not think that the letter offers a good or healthy perspective, however, I suspect that a portion of guys can relate to it, because at some point in their lives they have felt some of the nasty things that the letter describes. Also, such nastiness needs to be expressed, even if its not PC, because how else can we talk about what’s going on?”

*    *    *     *    *

To the Girl Whom I Harassed At the Bar

It’s a drizzly Friday in Chicago and I’m loitering outside a bar after midnight. My friends and I would like a hookup, but we don’t have enough guts to talk to any girls. Sure, we can joke and snicker at them. Being assholes is kind of our strategy, because it gives us the upper hand.

We’re chilling on the sidewalk when two young women walk out of a bar. They’re not dressed up, but they’re still pretty. I notice they’re having a good time. My friends are I are bored. So I go up to the ladies and say something about their “tacos.” My friends all laugh. I laugh too. I feel pretty good, except that part of me doesn’t feel good. It’s an odd feeling. I don’t understand. It’s just another mixed up moment in my life.

Here is something you should know about me. I intentionally hurt people sometimes to make myself feel better.

Being in the presence of a woman can be anguish. It’s loneliness (and sometimes horniness), and all that other Freudian bullshit rolled up into mundane moments. Just walking down the street can make me feel helpless when I pass a woman sometimes. I can’t shake it. If I could shake it, I would. Trust me. It’s no fun. But this is the hand I’m dealt, so I roll with it.

It’s no one’s fault that I want to connect to someone sometimes and can’t.

You ask when will someone make a gender-swapping plug-in for real life? Well if you want to gender swap, then here’s my world. I live in a zero-sum culture. There is no harmony of the sexes; it’s a battle of the sexes. Who will be overcome by desire first? Who will have their daily routine interrupted by unwanted sexual tension first? If I were a saint, I would rise above the bullshit and say no one has to suffer. But I’m no saint.

You might say I that have a problem, that I’m wounded. Maybe you pity me. Pity doesn’t help me though.

Do I want to be this guy. Hell no! But who knows another way to become a man? Who can show me how to connect with a woman and respect myself? Not the women, since half of them are ignoring me, and the other half don’t respect themselves when I diss them. The men, at least the men I know, don’t know nothing. They just watch pornos and get pussy-whipped.

Love is a zero sum game.

Sometime, when you’re ready for a change, consider this question. If you find yourself in a vicious game, would you rather be the predator or the prey?

*    *    *     *    *

Yikes. Wow. Oof. Kapow. I don’t really know what to do with this, exactly. A big part of me is afraid that this writer’s perspective is all too common. I’ve heard this kind of language, “zero sum game,” “predator or prey,” etc from other young men before and it’s usually in the service of justifying unquestionably mean-spirited, manipulative, Douche-with-a-capital-D behavior. Some of this is straight out of the pick-up artist handbook, especially the idea that if a tactic works (on the women who “don’t respect themselves”) it’s acceptable to use.

The most consistent feedback I’ve received for the original street harassment piece is the overwhelming need for empathy, literally the capacity to recognize emotions that other people are feeling and try to vicariously experience them as well. When I reread the letter with that in mind, I lose a lot of the gut reaction rage that this letter inspired in me.

Without minimizing the overwhelming perfect storm of body hating, slut-shaming, victim-blaming, mixed messaging media bullshittery that women face on a daily basis, I do think there’s a void for young men about what modern masculinity really means. This is a conversation we’ve sorta kinda maybe a little bit started in this country, but for guys like this writer, already in their twenties, there are few role models of “manliness” that don’t involve killing the bad guy and getting the girl.

Is that an excuse? No. Treat women like humans and not opponents to be triumphed over and you might have more success with them. Don’t make taco jokes; say hello and smile. Approach with no expectation of anything more than a pleasant exchange with a fellow person just doing their best.

And this is not unidirectional. Ladies (in this imaginary all-hetero world I’m writing in at the moment), don’t be jerks to guys that try to talk to you (assuming they are civil), whether you’re interested or not. You can politely move on without rolling your eyes, turning away, sighing in disgust, or being a generally uninterested pretentious douchface.

People, be nice to each other. Niceness is a awesome. Niceness doesn’t mean I want to bone you, and it doesn’t mean you deserve a date or a drink or anything of the sort. It means that shit is hard out there, son, and a little kindness goes a long way.

Related Post: You don’t have to be a jerk to get laid. 

Related Post: Two letters.

116 Comments

Filed under Gender, Sex