Category Archives: rants

Dove’s Dirty Tricks

Posted on by
Reply

The nice folks at Dove are at it again: in their bid to convince women that they don’t have to look on the point of collapse or have preternaturally symmetrical features and skin unmarked by life to be beautiful, they’ve conducted what they’re calling “a compelling social experiment”. Real Beauty Sketches is a film in which a group of women each sit on the other side of a curtain to a forensic artist and describe themselves. Based on their description he draws them, then does another drawing based on a description of them by a stranger.

The women talk about the height of their foreheads, shadows, lines, protruding chin and rounded cheeks. Then the strangers say things like “nice, thin chin”, “short, cute nose”, and “very nice blue eyes” which, somehow, the forensic artist turns into an image that looks less like Barbie than it should.

The result is two drawings depicting average-looking women that both bear some resemblance to the one on camera. The women tear up, one saying, “I should be more grateful of my natural beauty…It impacts everything. It couldn’t be more critical to your happiness”. I can think of several things I’d consider more critical to happiness, but none of them has anything to do with obsessing over appearance. Nor do they have anything to do with needing instructions from a corporate brand on how to think and feel. Basing its claim on some unreferenced data (“Only 4% of women around the world consider themselves beautiful.”), Dove seems to have assumed that women are in need of this sort of instruction, as though we’re incapable of forming our own opinions about our appearance and just how much importance we give it.

There’s a fatal flaw in the experiment: any woman who has a face or features like those in the self-described drawings is deemed unattractive or, to attempt Dove parlance, less beautiful. I happen to have a friend who looks very like one of them and she’s happy with her appearance, as well she should be. The woman it depicted wasn’t, saying it looked “closed off and fatter” than the drawing done from the stranger’s description. Not intended as a compliment, but then maybe women being nicer to each other isn’t part of Dove’s plan. For all its talk of democratic notions of beauty, Dove Real Beauty Sketches pits women against each other as much as any pageant by giving the women a choice of which drawing they’d rather resemble.

I appreciate that there’s a company in the beauty industry making an effort to offer consumers a change from the usual pristine faces and bodies, but really, it’s all just so much marketing. If Dove’s professed attitude of care towards women were based on anything other than corporate profit, they’d stop using known carcinogens in their products. They’d also stop testing them on animals, in line with the wishes of the majority of consumers. Instead of films about women fixating on their flaws until some stranger tells them they’re not all bad and they tear up in gratitude, Dove could show happy rabbits frolicking in meadows and not being kept in labs having chemicals tested on them. I reckon the feel-good factor of that would outweigh any negative feelings a woman might have about her appearance. I suppose they’d have to work out how to tie the rabbits to the products and the campaign. Maybe women of all sizes having a super time playing with the rabbits and not giving a thought to their bulges and creases? Sounds like marketing gold to me. I may have missed my calling.

My Response to Rhoda Grant’s Proposed Bill to Criminalise The Purchase of Sex

Posted on by
Reply

Throughout her draft bill to criminalise the purchase of sex in Scotland, Rhoda Grant asked a number of questions for those submitting for and against arguments during the consultation period. These are my answers to her questions.

Q1: Do you support the general aim of the proposed Bill? Please indicate “yes/no/undecided” and explain the reasons for your response.

No.  The general aim of the proposed Bill appears to be to end all forms of sex work by cutting off demand.  Criminalising the purchase of sex will not end demand: it will force the industry underground. (See response to Question 2 for further evidence.)

Grant’s purpose appears to be the imposition of her own personal opinion and morals onto an industry about which she is woefully uninformed.  As a result, the proposed bill is based on presumption, prejudice, and stereotype: not on fact.

For example, it is not a fact that “Prostitution is harmful to those who are exploited and impacts negatively on society”, “Prostitution is inherently harmful and dehumanising” or that “Prostitution acts as a serious barrier to equality and dignity by reducing sexual activity and individuals to a commodity that can be exchanged for money or goods. The buying of individuals for sexual purposes creates a form of sexual servitude”.

Grant presents these statements of personal opinion as fact and goes on to make claims for which she provides either no evidence or, at most, fudged statistics.

For example, she gives no evidence for the statement “The majority of those who are involved in prostitution are unwilling participants”. And the study from which she has taken the statistic “75% of women in prostitution in the UK became involved when they were children” was on a small group of sex workers, all of whom had been involved in sex work before the age of 18.  As a side note, given that this is the study on which Grant bases her 75% statistic, this begs the question of why she didn’t conclude that 100% of sex workers had been involved in the industry when they were children.

The proposed bill shows no consideration for the human rights of those whom it will affect.  Commenting on the attempts by former MSP Trish Godman to pass a similar bill, The Law Society of Scotland published their response which raised doubts as to the proposal’s compatibility with Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights which states that everyone ‘has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence and that there shall be no interference by a public authority’. They stated:

• “the proposal seeks to criminalise an activity which is not illegal i.e. sexual intercourse between consenting parties, albeit against the background of a financial transaction”

• “the proposal has of course to be set against Article 8 and considered as to whether it can be construed as an encroach upon one’s personal liberties”

 From: http://www.lawscot.org.uk/media/245847/crim_purchase_and_sale_of_sex%20_scotland_%20bill.pdf

 Q2: What do you believe would be the effects of legislating to criminalise the purchase of sex (as outlined above)? Please provide evidence to support your answer.

Criminalising the purchase of sex will not end demand: it will force the industry underground where, contrary to what Grant may believe (“If you drive it underground so no one can find it, it wouldn’t survive.”, quoted in the Daily Record, November 12th 2012), it will continue in conditions that are made more dangerous for sex workers.

The illegality of sex work in the US drives the industry underground and leads to a strong distrust of both police and public health authorities among sex workers. To avoid arrest, street-based sex workers are often forced to change how they work to avoid police. For example, sex workers may take less time to negotiate sexual transactions prior to getting into a client’s car, and may even agree to engage in riskier sexual activities. Conducting HIV prevention outreach or education in this environment can be difficult.

From: Center for AIDS Prevention Studies: What are sex workers’ HIV prevention needs? http://caps.ucsf.edu/factsheets/sex-workers/

Legislation that criminalises the purchase and sale of sex and targets the sex industry as a whole, results in harmful outcomes for sex workers, including increasing their HIV risk, vulnerability to abuse and exploitation and limiting their access to effective healthcare and support services. This has been well documented around the world, as recently highlighted at a recent UNFPA/UNAIDS conference:

“As a result of the criminalization of sex work, the locales where sex work takes place are surrounded by other forms of criminality such as criminal gangs, gambling, large scale corruption and extortion. This negatively impacts the health, safety, and human rights of sex workers.”

From: ‘Creating an Enabling Legal and Policy Environment for Increased Access to HIV & AIDS Services for Sex Workers’, Thematic Task Team on Creating an Enabling Legal and Policy Environment in preparation for the 1st Asia and the Pacific Regional Consultation on HIV and Sex Work, 12 – 15 October 2010 in Pattaya, Thailand.

http://www.nswp.org/sites/nswp.org/files/EnablingEnv_discussion_paper_FINAL_Sep2010[1].pdf

The proposed bill references the ‘Swedish Sex Purchase Act’, under which it is illegal to purchase sex but not to sell sex. Commenting on the Act, the Law Society of Scotland noted that:

“there has been some criticism of the law in Sweden in that women are less visible and accordingly more difficult to reach by the support system and that the sex trade in Sweden has gone underground and online, putting sex workers in a greater danger”.

 From: The Law Society of Scotland’s Response, February 2011 http://www.lawscot.org.uk/media/245847/crim_purchase_and_sale_of_sex%20_scotland_%20bill.pdf

 Q3: Are you aware of any unintended consequences or loopholes caused by the offence? Please provide evidence to support your answer.

Contrary to the beliefs expressed in the draft, criminalising the purchase of sex will worsen problems caused by trafficking.

The proposed bill references the Swedish Sex Purchase Act, under which it is illegal to purchase sex but not to sell sex. Recent independent research has begun to expose the chasm between the stated success of the ban and the lack of evidence and data supporting this. Dodillet and Östergren found:

“when reviewing the research and reports available, it becomes clear that the Sex Purchase Act cannot be said to have decreased prostitution, trafficking for sexual purposes, or had a deterrent effect on clients to the extent claimed”

From: Dodillet S., and Östergren P., ‘The Swedish Sex Purchase Act: Claimed Success and Documented Effects’. Presented at the International Workshop: Decriminalizing Prostitution: Experiences and Challenges. The Hague, March 3-4, 2011.   http://www.plri.org/resource/swedish-sex-purchase-act-claimed-success-and-documented-effects

According to international treaties, trafficking in persons is defined as “the recruitment, transportation, transfer, harbouring or receipt of persons, by means of the threat or use of force or other forms of coercion, of abduction, of fraud, of deception, of the abuse of power or of a position of vulnerability or of the giving or receiving of payments or benefits to achieve the consent of a person having control over another person, for the purpose of exploitation”.

By definition, sex work means that adult female, male and transgender sex workers who are engaging in commercial sex have consented to do so (that is, are choosing voluntarily to do so), making it distinct from trafficking. Trafficking, on the other hand, involves coercion and deceit, resulting in loss of agency and lack of consent on the part of the trafficked person.

From: United Nations. ‘Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons, Especially Women and Children’, supplementing the ‘United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime’ (Palermo Protocol), 2000. http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/protocoltraffic.htm

Initiatives which confuse sex work with trafficking (as this proposal does), impact negatively on sex workers and expose them to greater levels of risk and insecurity. Sex workers are best placed to spot a trafficked person – and have no interest in supporting human trafficking – and criminalising sex workers means the people best placed to spot a trafficked person will then be prevented from helping them.

Raiding sex work venues and forcibly “rescuing” or “rehabilitating” sex workers results in increased displacement of sex workers, mobility of sex work venues and migration among sex workers; it also has a direct impact on HIV risk. Forced rescue and rehabilitation practices lower sex workers’ control over where and under what conditions they sell sexual services and to whom, exposing them to greater violence and exploitation. In turn, this leads to loss of solidarity and social cohesion (social capital) among sex workers, including reducing their ability to access health care, legal and social services. Low social capital is known to increase vulnerability to sexually transmitted infections among sex workers.

From: Kerrigan D, Telles P, Torres H, Overs C, Castle C. ‘Community development and HIV/STI-related vulnerability among female sex workers in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil’. Health Education Research, 23:1, 137-145, 2008.

http://her.oxfordjournals.org/content/23/1/137.full

In relation to street-based sex work, increased criminalisation will only serve to drive it further underground, leading to an increase in attacks on women, making them more vulnerable.

SCOT-PEP spent approximately 15 years as a service provider, including working with sex workers working on the streets in Edinburgh. The ‘Prostitution (Public Places) (Scotland) Act 2007’ has already directly led to sex workers taking more risks, engaging with clients more likely to pose a risk or clients who refused to wear condoms, dropping prices, spending less time ‘assessing’ and negotiating a contract with potential clients – due to fear of arrest. The Act also had the effect of making people work in more isolated ways and places, led to an increase in ‘solo’ working and meant that less ‘intelligence’ was being shared between sex workers. Criminalising clients makes sex workers more apprehensive about seeking help from the police when they have problems with an abusive client.

 Q4: What are the advantages or disadvantages in using the definitions outlined above?

The fact that this question is asked is further evidence of Rhoda Grant’s ignorance of the sex industry.  Had she made any effort to consult with sex workers about her proposed bill, she would not need to ask it. She would also know that her attempts to be politically correct are of little interest or compensation to sex workers when the outcome of her proposed bill would be to remove livelihood and violate the right to earn a living.

Q5: What do you think the appropriate penalty should be for the offence? Please provide reasons for your answer.

I’m opposed to the legislation.

Q6: How should a new offence provision be enforced? Are there any techniques which might be used or obstacles which might need to be overcome?

I don’t believe there is a workable way in which to enforce the offence.  It would be dependent on widespread, constant, and hugely expensive police surveillance and invasive physical examinations of sex workers to ascertain if sex had taken place.

Commenting on the attempt by former MSP, Trish Godman, to pass a similar Bill, the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland (ACPOS) stated that they could not support either option tendered in the Bill, and had significant concerns as to how the proposed offence would apply practically. ACPOS made the following statements in their response:

• “ACPOS has concerns as to how sufficient evidence of such activity could be secured when balanced against the proportionality and necessity i.e. would it be justifiable and proportionate to carry out an intimate forensic medical examination of the purchaser and / or seller in such a situation in order to prove sexual contact?”

• “ACPOS is of the opinion that officers may not be able to gather sufficient evidence to report to the Procurator Fiscal, which in turn would mean there would be too few convictions for the proposed new offence to deter others”

The Law Society of Scotland also raised points about the practicality of policing and enforcement in the following statements:

• Prohibiting the advertising of brothels and prostitution “may well be very difficult to enforce given the use of the internet and that services advertised online may of course be advertised as escort services”

• “From an enforcement point of view this may of course involve procedures such as police surveillance. Against that background, a balance clearly has to be struck between the level of criminality and the cost of enforcement”

Q7: What is your assessment of the likely financial implications of the proposed Bill to you or your organisation; if possible please provide evidence to support your view? What (if any) other significant financial implications are likely to arise?

The financial costs will be immense, covering widespread and constant police surveillance, legal proceedings, jobseekers’ allowance and financial support for sex workers whose jobs have been taken from them.

In considering the financial implications of the bill proposed by former MSP, Trish Godman, The Law Society of Scotland stated that:

The Committee highlights the practical issues involved in criminalising those who facilitate activities linked to prostitution beyond advertising such as organising hotel accommodation etc.

 From an enforcement point of view this may of course involve procedures such as police surveillance.

Against that background, a balance clearly has to be struck between the level of criminality and cost of enforcement.

From: http://www.lawscot.org.uk/media/245847/crim_purchase_and_sale_of_sex%20_scotland_%20bill.pdf

Q8: Is the proposed Bill likely to have any substantial positive or negative implications for equality? If it is likely to have a substantial negative implication, how might this be minimised or avoided?

Yes, it is likely to have a very significant implication for equality: it will result in the loss of livelihood to sex workers. The right to earn a living is a basic human right and one which is defended by the GMB trade union, by whom sex workers are represented. Contrary to what Grant believes, the purchase and sale of sex do not “[reduce] sexual activity and individuals to a commodity”.  The sex industry is a service industry: sex workers provide a service for which clients pay. It is the services and not the individual that are the commodity.

Rhoda Grant has recently launched the TOBIE campaign (Tackling Oppressive Behaviour In Employment), the primary focus of which is the reduction and eradication of bullying and harassment in the workplace. Removing the right of an individual to work in his or her chosen profession is, surely, both bullying and harassment. It is certainly oppressive behaviour in employment. Both her attitudes towards sex workers and sex work, and the likely consequences of the bill constitute bullying, harassment, and oppressive behaviour under the definitions given by the ACAS, quoted by TOBIE:

Harassment, is unwanted conduct related to a relevant protected characteristic, which has the purpose or effect of violating an individual’s dignity or creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for that individual.

Bullying may be characterised as offensive, intimidating, malicious or insulting behaviour, an abuse or misuse of power through means that undermine, humiliate, denigrate or injure the recipient.

From: http://www.acas.org.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=304&p=0

I don’t believe the substantial negative effects can be avoided, under the bill in its current state, but if legislators genuinely wish to protect the welfare of those working in the sex industry, the following pointers may be of use.

Researchers, public health and law enforcement officials need to hear from sex workers what they need to keep themselves safe, and work together to achieve those goals. Laws and police attitudes towards carrying condoms must be eased to allow sex workers to protect themselves. Violence against sex workers by clients, police, and other neighbourhood community members must be criminalized, while sex workers should be encouraged and supported to report violent incidents.

Street-based sex workers face a multitude of needs, from immediate concerns of housing, food and medical attention, to longer-range concerns such as mental health services, substance abuse treatment, violence prevention, job training and employment, HIV/STD prevention, quality health care, improved relationships with law enforcement and help leaving sex work. Increased funding and awareness is needed for public health programs that address this full range of issues sex workers face.

From: Center for AIDS Prevention Studies: What are sex workers’ HIV prevention needs? http://caps.ucsf.edu/factsheets/sex-workers/

Why I’m Opposed to Criminalising the Purchase of Sex

Posted on by
Reply

The Member of the Scottish Parliament, Rhoda Grant, believes sex workers are imbeciles who should be denied the right to earn a living and subjected to state-sanctioned sexual assault to ensure that they comply with the dictates imposed upon their profession. Not that she puts it quite like that.

In her proposed bill to criminalise the purchase of sex in Scotland (open to public consultation until the 14th of December), she’s gone for a paternalistic tone, suggesting authority with her (unfounded and patently untrue) statements about the sex industry while offering protection to the poor souls forced to work in it with promises to keep them safe from the big bad men who exploit them by paying to have sex with them. She’s very noble in her presentation: she’s also woefully uninformed. As a result, the proposed bill is based on presumption, prejudice, and stereotype, not on fact. But then, who needs facts when emotive statements, hyperbole, and fudged statistics will do the job just as well? It’s not as if the outcome of the bill will affect the lives of thousands or anything.

Grant’s theory is that criminalising the purchase of sex will end demand for the services of sex workers. Her initial claim, sort of said in the draft bill, was that the sex industry would simply vanish into thin air when all sex workers were given nice jobs that didn’t offend her moral sensibilities. Then, talking in the Daily Record in November, she declared “If you drive it underground so no one can find it, it wouldn’t survive”. Speaking on Sunday Politics Scotland last weekend, she then decided that it needed to stay visible so those wishing to purchase sex could find it. Seems she’s more than a little confused. Criminalising sex will drive the industry underground, but it’s not going to die there.

It’s going to have to exist surrounded by other forms of criminality, undermining or ending the relationship maintained between the police and sex workers. To avoid arrest, street-based sex workers are often forced to change how they work. For example, they may take less time to negotiate sexual transactions prior to getting into a client’s car, drop prices, and may agree to engage in riskier sexual activities such as sex without a condom. Conducting HIV prevention outreach or education in this environment can be difficult and sex workers’ access to effective healthcare and support services limited.

Then there is the matter of enforcing the legislation. In order to bring charges against an individual for the purchase of sex, there has to be proof that sexual intercourse has taken place which would require an invasive forensic medical examination of the purchaser and/or seller. There is nothing in the draft bill to suggest that the purchaser and/or seller would be asked for their consent before such a procedure was carried out. Not that this is exactly surprising: neither is there anything in the draft bill to suggest that any sex workers have been consulted about it and the effect it will have on their lives and livelihood. In fact, the only nod Grant gives to sex workers being people is asking in her consultation document what the advantages and disadvantages are in using the terms she’s applied to them.

The lives of sex workers aren’t of any interest to Rhoda Grant, though. As far as she sees it, taking away their livelihood and freedom of choice to choose their profession is what’s best for sex workers because they couldn’t possibly want to be there and, if they say they do, they must be doing so with a pimp’s knife at their back. She’s quick to point out the circumstances that may drive people into the sex industry – poverty and drug addiction, for example – but gives no suggestions for alleviating these aside from taking away their job.

The right to earn a living is a basic human right and one which is defended by the GMB trade union, by whom sex workers are represented. Grant dismisses this on the grounds that the purchase and sale of sex “reduce sexual activity and individuals to a commodity”. The subtext to this statement being that sex workers are reduced, by their profession, to objects and, therefore, have no need for rights. The sex industry is a service industry: sex workers provide a service for which clients pay. It is the services and not the individual that are the commodity.

As well as saving all those working in the sex industry, whether they want to be saved or not, Grant believes her bill will stop all trafficking. If this were true, then I would applaud her efforts and hope that she received the support necessary. However, she’s confusing sex work with trafficking and assuming – in fact, stating – that all those working in the sex industry are there against their will and under coercion. Initiatives which confuse sex work with trafficking impact negatively on sex workers and expose them to greater levels of risk and insecurity. Sex workers are best placed to spot a trafficked person – and have no interest in supporting human trafficking – and criminalising sex workers means the people best placed to spot a trafficked person will then be prevented from helping them.

By definition, sex work means that adult sex workers who are engaging in commercial sex have consented to do so, making it distinct from trafficking. Trafficking, on the other hand, involves coercion and deceit, resulting in loss of agency and lack of consent on the part of the trafficked person.

There is much to condemn in the sex industry and I’m not about to argue that all those who say so are lying, because they’re not. But what they’re doing is showing only part of the picture. Sex work is a job done by people and, though an obvious fact, this is what abolitionists and those who want to criminalise the purchase and/or sale of sex seem to forget. It isn’t done by drones to be pitied, rescued, and denied the right to freedom of thought and choice because they’re either deluded or incapable of forming, let alone voicing, an opinion, yet that is how those working in the industry are, frequently, assumed to be. Criminalising the purchase of sex doesn’t magically give sex workers a super life; it takes away their livelihood, forcing them out of their profession, and providing them with no alternative employment. Though this may be welcomed by those who wish to leave it, for those who don’t, their choice of profession will be dictated by bureaucrats blinded by visions of themselves as saviours.

(If you want to read more about the draft bill and campaign against it, you can do so at http://www.scot-pep.org.uk)

Whatever happened to foreplay?

Posted on by
Reply

Once upon a time there was a thing called foreplay. Sometimes it was silent: just a kiss in a club and an awkward scuffle in the toilets. Others took more time with it. They wrote sweet lines, sent flowers, asked a lady to dance and, even, for her hand in marriage before they even embarked on it. For some people, it was all about the tease: lips licked over dinner, a glimpse or more of bosom, biceps squeezed with an “Oh you’re so chunky!” and a wink, toes moving up trouser legs. It seemed women did this better than men, this slinking about. Or, maybe, they just had more role models. There isn’t a male equivalent of Dita Von Teese, unless you count Magic Mike which none of my straight male friends has seen so you can’t, really. That said, if you’re a fella on a date with another chap, there are some moves you could steal. You’d most likely do yourself an injury, but that’s all part of the fun of foreplay.

You see, fun was what foreplay was all about.

Then along came Big Pharma declaring that, no no no no no, what people really wanted wasn’t fun; it was a failsafe ticket to instant gratification. Foreplay was pointless and sexual desire was nothing more than a physiological process, ripe for medicalization. Most enticing of all, for Big Pharma, it seemed things didn’t always go smoothly; in fact, things went wrong. People had problems: vaginas wouldn’t lubricate on command, penises wouldn’t get hard, sex drives didn’t render people horny 24 hours a day. But never fear: Big Pharma was on hand to help.

The first step in all this was to come up with a vernacular – some acronyms and terms that sounded like they came from the mouths of experts. Trouble was, sexuality was all a bit messy and the problems complex. What the whole thing needed was some disorders, a few umbrella terms, to neaten it all up a bit. So was born Female Sexual Dysfunction, Male Erectile Dysfunction and, later, Female Orgasmic Dysfunction. Being able to attribute their problems to a disorder, a medical term no less, was comforting for people, right? And if it was a disorder, that meant it was a medical problem which, in turn, meant it required treatment.

With dollar signs in their eyes and patient well-being in their hearts (honest), pharmaceutical companies set about transforming sex from something of the body and mind into a scientific phenomenon. Money poured in and clinical studies, pills, ointments, potions, devices, and patches poured out.

Men’s sexuality wasn’t of particular interest because there was only one process involved in arousal – penile erection – and it was just a question of mechanics so research pretty much stopped with Viagra. If you’re bringing in over $2billion a year in sales with apparently few complaints from consumers, why bother investing any more time or money?

Female sexuality was something different altogether. For a start, a lot of it went on down there where, unless you happened to have your head in the right place, you couldn’t see it. Thinking it might be a simple case of mechanics, a few scientists gave devices a shot: the Orgasmatron involved the insertion of an electrode into the spine attached to a control button pressed to stimulate nerves in the clitoris but which was more likely to make your legs jerk than send you into mind-melting heights of orgasmic ecstasy, and the clitoral vaginal vacuum suction pump was equally ineffective and as unsexy as it sounds. No, it seemed that there was more to it than could be sorted through mechanics. It called for something subtler than suction and electrodes. It called for pharmaceuticals. Inspired by the phenomenal success of Viagra, companies raced to find a female equivalent – a pill that could be popped and all bedroom troubles forgotten.

The race has gone on for a few years now but is yet to come up with anything to cure the “secret epidemic” (as it’s been termed) of FSD, despite the fact that it’s said to affect around 40% of women. Oprah said it, so it must be true. The latest cure-all to arrive is Tefina, a nasal testosterone spray, created by Trimel and currently entering clinical trials with an estimated release sometime in the next 3-5 years. It’s being marketed as a treatment for Female Orgasmic Dysfunction, a condition apparently unheard of until Trimel came up with the name and decided it needed a treatment. In case you’re worried you might have it, according to Trimel, “FOD is defined as the persistent or recurrent delay in, or absence of, orgasm following normal sexual excitement phase that causes marked personal distress or interpersonal difficulties”. What constitutes “normal” sexual anything no one knows, but let’s not let specifics get in the way of vast generalisations. You might be concerned about the potential side effects of the absorption of testosterone, but Trimel is quick to reassure people that Tefina is “expected to present an attractive safety profile, with virtually no androgen-related side effects such as acne, facial and body hair growth or deepening of the voice”. Probably just as well, given the adverse effect on your sex life of waking up with a hairy chest and baritone growl.

There are many cooked-up statistics to support the existence of and, therefore, need for treatment of FOD of the unspecified “studies have shown” variety. For example, 1 in 5 women has FOD, 30% can’t climax during sex, not 1 in 5 but 43% of women have FOD and “many women” have sex up to five times a month, despite not wanting to, because they think it is what their partners want and is, therefore, good for their relationship. I find this last factoid disturbing because, technically, this is sex against the woman’s will so raises the issue of consent which is far greater cause for concern than the potential efficacy of a nasal spray. Not that relationships have anything to do with sexuality – no, it’s all about the chemicals.

Despite being billed as an “on-demand” treatment, the spray takes up to two hours to have any effect which doesn’t sound very on-demand to me. I suppose I could fill those hours on something fun like, I don’t know, foreplay, maybe. Once you’re fired-up, the effect is reckoned to last around six hours. Yet to be released is any literature on what this effect is likely to be and, crucially I think, what happens if you have a squirt but don’t have sex. Say you take it before you go out, but don’t meet anyone you’d want to have sex with, are you left, squirming on a bar stool, horny as hell, with an engorged clit and wet pussy? If that’s likely to be the case, Trimel should be providing pocket rocket vibrators with every prescription.

Weighing in on Marissa Mayer’s maternity leave is nothing new for mums

Posted on by
1

Yesterday morning Yahoo CEO, Marissa Mayer, went back to work after two weeks’ maternity leave. Based on the extent of the coverage and breadth of the commentary, this was clearly a momentous event. The range of opinions and those weighing in is pretty varied: Katherine Lewis of the about.com Working Moms heralded it as “a landmark moment for working moms”; over at The New Yorker, Ruth Margalit drew attention to the many women who, unlike Mayer, have no choice over the kind of maternity leave they take and asked where the questions were about Mayer’s husband, Zach Bogue’s, decision regarding paternity leave (Where indeed?); writing in Slate, Allison Benedikt got very cross with Mayer for appearing to choose her job over parenting, saying “you are not just a CEO anymore. You are not only responsible for a huge corporation and thousands of employees. Life changes, priorities shift. You are a parent.” Amy Graff, of the SF Gate Mommy Files, wondered if Mayer was setting the bar too high for other mothers; at Salon, May Elizabeth Williams said it’s none of anyone else’s business; and Fortune’s Katherine Reynolds Lewis pondered whether Mayer’s return to work was “a remarkable sign of gender progress that a new mother is now at the helm of a major corporation” or  “emblematic of a workaholic culture that leaves too little time for family or even personal health, preventing either men or women from “having it all.” Then there are the many hundreds of reader comments.

Fact is, whatever Mayer decided to do, she would be criticised. If she’d taken longer than the standard 10-week maternity leave, her access to the childcare resources provided by her wealth and, therefore, unavailable to most women would be commented on; if she’d chosen to work from home, she’d be accused of not giving her child enough attention; and if she’d left the workplace altogether, she’d have been criticised for falling from her pedestal as role model for the having it all faith and for failing to shatter the glass ceiling, gender norms, and corporate male dominance, all by herself.

It’s always open season on mothers – you only have to glance over the past few months’ much-hyped parenting debates to see that they’re blamed for every ill. Choose to stay at home and you’re more likely than a working mum to be diagnosed with depression which may result in stunted physical growth of your kids, but go to work and any stress caused by both working and having kids can have an adverse effect on their DNA. Increased involvement in child-rearing by your partner could help ease some of that stress, but the more time he spends with his kids, the lower his testosterone levels drop so you might just be to blame for lowering his fertility and emasculating him. Have the occasional glass of wine doctors are so keen to recommend during pregnancy, but be prepared for the fact that it may affect the IQ, self control, and attention span of your child. (The jury remains out on that particular issue.) Woe betide you if you decide not to breastfeed, but if you do, just make sure you do it publicly – though don’t post the pictures on facebook or you’ll have your account closed for posting obscene images – and don’t do it for too long. You will be blamed if your child is overweight, but you will be criticised for putting them on a diet should they need to lose weight. Be too strict with your kids and you’ll drive them to suicide, but if you’re too lenient, you could end up in prison if they’re truant. Your baby boy might like his dummy, but he’ll grow up to be an emotionally stunted man if you let him spend too much time sucking it. (For some reason, the same doesn’t happen to girls – don’t know why.) If you think your workplace should be better suited and more sensitive to your needs during pregnancy, you’re either a pioneer for change in the workplace or turning pregnancy into a disability. Which you’ll be is likely to be selected at random. Should your child be diagnosed with ADHD, it might be genetic, but there’s a 20% chance it was caused by something you did wrong during pregnancy. You then get to decide whether or not to medicate your kid. If you do, you may be accused of drugging them; if you don’t, you’ll be negligent and inconsiderate of those who have to deal with your unruly kid. And just when you thought you couldn’t be a worse parent, that apple juice your kid’s drinking as part of their five a day? Well, Dr Oz says it’s got arsenic in it.

Decoding Insecurities

Posted on by
Reply

Here’s an interesting development: not only are women faced daily with a barrage of images designed to make them feel imperfect at best and repulsive at worst, now, courtesy of the Wonderbra Decoder, wherever they go, they can carry a picture of a supermodel in her underwear to remind them that they’ll never look like she does. Sure to be fantastic for women’s self-esteem and body image.

Campaigns Against The Sun

Posted on by
Reply

No More Page 3 and Turn Your Back On The Sun are campaigns against the daily publication of pornographic images of women on page three of The Sun, a newspaper notorious for its misogyny, racism and bigotry.

Women are more than a commodity to be exploited for commercial gain.  A pout, vagina waxed to resemble that of a child, and painfully distended silicon-pumped breasts do not a woman make.  Presenting this as an acceptable summation of all that a woman is – nothing more than an object for titillation and ridicule – creates a barrier to any sort of equality because, vacuous and pathetic in her attempts to attract attention, the woman on Page 3 is unlikely to receive any respect.  With their massive readership, the attitude of The Sun and other publications like it, such attitudes become the norm, both for men and women and, more dangerously, for children.  Girls are shown that sexualised poses and clothing are an acceptable, appropriate, and necessary way in which to get attention and boys are taught to expect and accept it.  In their attempts to emulate such behaviour, donning g-strings, push-up bras, lipstick, Playboy insignia-covered clothing, pouts and poses, girls put themselves into situations with which they are not equipped to deal.  Though, of course, not all men would take advantage of the girls’ innocent yet sexualised state, many would.  Whatever other abilities and qualities they may have are seen as irrelevant – both by the women themselves and those who believe they are nothing more than the poses in their pictures.  The Page 3 presentation of women and its normalisation through endorsement in the mainstream media promotes abuse and exploitation.  She is merely woman as a hole – not the whole woman she should be.

To join the campaigns go to https://www.facebook.com/NoMorePage3?ref=ts&fref=ts and https://www.facebook.com/turnyourbackonpage3?ref=ts&fref=ts. Email Councillors, MPs, MSPs, MEPs and Lords to inform them of your objection to this use of women’s bodies at http://www.writetothem.com/.

Sign the petition for the removal of page 3 at http://www.change.org/en-GB/petitions/dominic-mohan-take-the-bare-boobs-out-of-the-sun-nomorepage3

Take a picture of yourself and your friends with signs that say “No More Page Three” and have someone write “Turn Your Back On Page Three” on your back, take a picture, then go to The Sun “I want to be a Page Three Girl” page at http://www.page3.com/freshers/index.shtml, print out the application form and send it along with your photo to the address shown on the form.  Feel free to include a comment on why you object to the use of women’s bodies in this way – as well as anything else you’d like to say.

For a stealthy protest, print No More Page Three and Turn Your Back On The Sun images and slip them into The Sun. Be sure to cover Page Three.

Thanks for joining these campaigns against inequality, sexism, and exploitation!