Japanese Women now free to enjoy mouth meat.

this is the (partially obscured) face of equality

By Ana

Good news! Those muffled moans you've been listening to all month are actually the sound of Japanese women taking an appreciative bite of out of their hamburgers... from behind a chastity muzzle. (So you can stop glaring at your neighbor every morning the elevator. Sorry, Mrs. Papadopoulos.)

According to Huffingtonpost, who probably won't mind that I borrowed one of their images,  this revolutionary East Asian dining accessory, is referred to as  the "Liberation Wrapper."  (Which, as it turns out, doesn't mean "condom," aaand might also explain why the Trinidadian guy at the gas station looked so confused.)

Instead its a type of napkin used to "cover a woman's face, thus "freeing" her to devour a burger without fear of exposing one of her germiest cavities to the world. (I assume they eat their beef raw too? ...Is something a racist or Alec Baldwin might say.)

According to Mr. Huffington, this creepy convention, brought on by the "trend known as “ochobo” --AKA having a "small and modest mouth" -- has caught on to the point where it's considered rude for women to flap their beaks in public. So when Japanese restaurant chain owners noticed a gender discrepancy in the sales of their large Classic Burger, they chalked it up to their female customers' adherence to cultural norms... Hence a need for the Liberation Wrapper. It all makes sense!

hey girl, why you covering up those fine lips?

And I thought I was oppressed for being a government sponsored infant carrier.

Pantene manipulates feminism to sell more Pantene.

By Anči

 Yes it's all very magical: a giant corporation pointing out sexism, while attempting to sell beauty products to women.

Oh and, in case you can't tell, the TV spot was actually made to air in the Philippines. Yep, that's right: those luxurious locks don't belong to white women of distant Mexican ancestry. These are Filipina models we're apparently admiring.  (Looks like India isn't the only nation to glorify whiteness, eh?)

Plus, i'm not super moved by any 'social' campaign aimed at high powered women with fancy jobs.  
 I mean sure, executive ladies in business suits are negatively viewed as pushy, and that sucks. But their upper class struggles are already overrepresented in the media. (see: every sitcom, romcom, and ad campaign.)
The majority of women however, face a much more serious set of injustices,  which unfortunately don't look as glamorous on camera. (lack of access to health care, child care, birth control, employment, and oh yeah, the looming threat of sexual assault..)

I guess what I'm trying to say is I don't really give a shit whether some high-earning babe achieves "empowerment" through wealth, (or shiny hair) and neither should you.

(That reminds me: Remember that 'inspiring' moment in the Sex and the City movie, when Samantha "finds herself" after failing to land some diamond ring she was bidding on..only to discover that  her controlling boyfriend was the one that had purchased the rock... to give to her himself? Then do you  remember thinking: "Someone needs to sit these writers down and explain to them what actual problems look like?"

Girl, we've all been there.

So no, the "liberation" of rich  women doesn't move me. And neither does this Pantene commercial. Try again.

On Self-Pleasure and Scottish Royalty

By Anči

Anyone close to me knows that I am a sucker for two things: geeky men of color and soapy period dramas.
Regarding the former, (which I'm hoping means "the first thing I said") I have no complaints. (hi honey!)  But regarding the latter, I've always felt there was something missing.

That is until I discovered CW's "historical" drama (a series called "Reign")  about Mary Queen of Scots.
Now I use the term "historical" loosely, since the show is technically about a non-existent love triangle between Queen Mary, Prince Frances and his made-up brother Bash. (it figures the only hot dude would be the figment of a hungry writer's imagination.)

check out those fashion-forward 16th century lovebirds.

Then there's the small matter that Queen Mary looked more like this:

hubba hubba

and less like this:

pretty sure the real Queen of Scots would have been executed for wearing this outfit. Oh wait*

But whatever, it's TV right? And this post isn't meant to be a review of the show (which by the way, gets 10 stars!!!!)

 The reason I wanted to bring the show up, (other then to plug it. Cause it needs to stick around for six seasons and a movie,*)  is because of an alleged controversy regarding a hastily censored moment in the first episode
 Turns out the offending shot was of a lady in waiting getting sexual pleasure in some other way than the traditional penis-in-her-vagina method.
 Yes that's right, Miss abigail was fondling her own garden.**

The scene was then recut to simply suggest that the renaissance babe had started lowering her hand... just as the King of France appears and romantically creepily offers to "help her out." (Hey, that's how my grandparents met too!)

because it's somehow less upsetting to see a middle aged man hijack a young woman's solo-session, than it is to see the same woman happily finger-banging herself in peace.

Everytime you wank it, a monarch loses his wings.

This isn't the first or last time a film or TV show has refused to air dramatizations of women getting off without the aid of a penile implant.
In fact, it just happened recently to actress Evan Rachel Wood in her upcoming movie Charlie Countryman:

Says the article: "According to Wood, the Motion Picture Association of America  forced [the] director to cut images of Shia le Beouf's character performing oral sex on Wood's character in order to secure an R-rating ...as opposed to an NC-17 rating, which can tank the commercial viability of a film."

Really? Simulated cunnilingus is too graphic for Hollywood?

Now think about the number times you've seen a woman kneeling in front a guy in an R-rated movie. Then think of all the times you've seen a guy on top, or behind of, a woman in an R-rated movie. Then remember all the  times you've seen a male character sexually assault or rape a female character in an R-rated movie.  So ...why exactly does the harmless image of a dude performing oral sex on a woman automatically render a film NC-17?

I'll tell you why. Because in that case, it's the woman who's on the receiving end of pleasure. AND she's also getting it without the assistance of man-meat.. Which no doubt freaks a lot of male studio execs out. (sorry guys, your dongs aren't that special. and penis-envy isn't real!)

thoughts?



* Spoiler alert: she really did get executed.

*copywrite dan harmon

** I know the character's name is  Kenna. 'Abigail' can also means lady in waiting. (Shows how many bodice-rippers you've read, Myrtle.)

On plus-size models

By Anči

 I've always been a bit ambivalent about Plus-size models. And after years of going back and forth on the issue, I still can't decide whether or not they represent positive change in the fashion industry, or just more of the same. 

For a comparison check out the following images side-by-side. The first is of plus size model Ashley Graham, the second is of runway sensation Adriana Lima.

Are you as overwhelmed as I am?

To be clear, I am absolutely in favor of a more diverse, and realistic representation of women in the media. I love seeing thick bodies, and curvy bodies being celebrated. But i'm not convinced that's the primary function of plus-size marketing.
To be fair, it does create a space for "bigger" women to be appreciated-- but only if they happen to line up with classically feminine proportions --which still favor a conventional body type.  Not to mention, most of the "bigger" models aren't actually big at all.

According to Huffington Post, Elle Spain recently featured its first plus size cover girl, which is something we've all wanted to see for a long time. But looking at the impossibly beautiful model they selected, (a young woman named Tara Lynn)  I'm baffled that the magazine would publicly pat itself on the back for their obvious centerfold selection. The only thing Elle Spain actually did was plug another gorgeous woman on their cover. Big deal. In that context, the model's size felt completely incidental. Almost like an afterthought.
Don't agree size can be incidental?  That's because you've been conditioned to evaluate beauty through a very narrow template. (get it?)

Check out Tara's cover:

and  another picture of her:

Admit it:  if you saw this woman walking down the street, in real life, you wouldn't think "she's good looking for a big girl."  Instead you'd probably think "holy shit, is that woman stunning. She needs to be on the cover of something NOW."

I mean, People don't usually look like that. Sure, some may have full pouty lips, or a high cheekbone. And among the extra blessed you might come across shiny voluminous hair, or smooth silky skin, set off with a pair of piercing eyes. But certainly not all things at once!  The fact is, Tara Lynn is objectively, and conventionally beautiful, so why exactly has her much-deserved presence on the cover of Elle, been reduced to a manifesto about her "plus size" figure?

really pushing barriers here.

I'm not unaware of the need for plus size role models, and frankly I would rather see women like Tara splashed across Billboards, than any of her 'mainstream' counterparts. But lets keep in mind that for the majority of women-- Tara Lynn still represents a look that is unattainable.
For one thing, I doubt too many overweight women of color looked at this spread and thought "Finally! Someone I can relate to." And that's the point.

 As important as it is to promote diversity, we shouldn't pretend  that a conventionally curvy white lady with classically feminine features, and long flowing hair  is somehow "subversive." Elle hasn't thrown this woman a bone: if anything, they were lucky to land her, given the enthusiastic response to her stunning cover. 

So until the plus size industry starts practicing some actual inclusivity, forgive me if i'm not too impressed by their efforts.

What's your take?

"Real men vs. underwear models" is a thing of beauty

 Anči

For those of you who thought Body Acceptance only applied to women, here is an awesome new campaign aimed at challenging rigid notions of masculinity!
 Dubbed "Real men vs. underwear models," this project is exactly what it sounds like:

sexy.

is it crazy that i'm actually more attracted to the guy on the left? Absolutely not. The guy on the right looks like he wants to kill me. Also, his hair makes him look stupid. This message is way too long to work as a caption.

What I love about this campaign is that it acknowledges something most men have been reluctant to discuss: That beauty standards are oppressive to dudes too.  And while guys certainly don't experience the same level of bodyshaming, and scrutiny as we do, they still have a male beauty myth to contend with.

This new wave of consciousness-raising might be the reason so many guy friends have opened up to me about battling body image issues:  these complexes have simply become common enough, that overlooking them is no longer an option.  In fact, pretending to be unaffected by beauty standards would at this point, only demonstrate an extraordinary lack of awareness. Not to mention doucheyness.

 The time for faking a relaxed attitude is over, lads. You can sing belch your suffering to the heavens-- or weep into the bosom of your bro. Because some bros have bosoms too.