This is terrifying. Laughed so hard I CRIED.

I think it’s about time we all relived this.

Slut-shaming: A monologue →

This Bust article, which demonizes a Finnish HIV awareness advertising campaign, has been bothering me since it was published in early March. The ads the article refers to depict an underwear-clad woman and man with Facebook check-in symbols hovering above their genitals, presumably with the aim of encouraging people to use protection with their sexual partners.

Though operating under the guise of impartiality and a transparent attempt to present both sides of the argument, the Bust article condemns the ad featuring a woman as “slut-shaming,” despite the fact that the one featuring a man indicates that he’s had had MORE sexual partners (and could potentially be viewed as more promiscuous).

Blasting the ad as an example of “slut-shaming” is actually harmful to the public perception of women’s sexuality. Nothing about the ad itself suggests that the woman should be perceived as a slut; it’s the idea that having 19 sexual partners makes a woman a slut, and that idea comes from the article’s author. It’s simple probability that a higher number of partners makes a person more likely to contract a sexually transmitted disease. It would be one thing if the ad encouraged abstinence as a means to curb this alleged sluttiness; however, it simply (and logically) encourages the practice of safe sex and caution regarding the transmission of potential diseases during all that merry lovemaking.

 To decry an ad that suggests that a woman has more than a handful of sexual partners is just cementing the idea that this makes her a slut. The ad itself, and the fact that she’s had 19 partners, isn’t what “shames” her; it’s the idea that 19 partners is too many, which is not what’s implied in the ad. It’s ironic, in my estimation, that women are protesting the ad as a slut-shaming exercise when they’re the ones who have decided that sleeping with a certain number of people is what makes you a slut. I think it’s clear that this practice is self-defeating.

What we should be doing is reframing these damaging cultural perceptions. Rather than implying that a woman who has had sex with a certain number of people should be ashamed of her “slutty” behavior, the conversation should be about the fact that the woman has been enjoying her sexual experiences and is practicing safe sex. All the ad depicts is the number of sexual partners and the suggestion that the woman and her partner practice safe sex; the context was added later.

The idea of slut-shaming is an ugly one; no one should ever be made to feel that their private sexual choices define them as more or less worthy of love and respect. However, it seems to me that the ads themselves are more celebratory than judgmental. Men and women should enjoy sex with as many people as they deem appropriate; the ad simply reminds them to be safe so they can continue to do so. Personally, I don’t see anything shameful about that.

Tutu awesome →

I’m enamored of the Tutu Project, which strikes me as an innovative means to offer support for breast cancer research and treatment. According to the website, net proceeds from Bob Carey’s book go to breast cancer organizations like Cancercare.org. I’m generally wary of breast cancer organizations (due in large part to this compelling Marie Claire article), but Cancercare.org posts its annual reports and financials and is accredited by the Better Business Bureau, which reports that 89% of its proceeds go toward its programs.

I know breast cancer initiatives typically inspire more donations and support than other cancer programs, and I want to make it clear that I also encourage donations to other causes. As the child of a breast cancer survivor, however, one of my largest personal commitments is to support research and treatment for this particular disease. Check out the Tutu Project; I know I’ll be ordering my copy of Ballerina when it’s released this fall, if for no other reason than to enjoy the hilarious photographs. Tutu awesome.

Newest obsession →

View high resolution

This is the best thing I’ve ever seen in my entire fucking life.

Expected, but still depressing →

“After 244 years, the Encyclopaedia Britannica is going out of print. In an acknowledgment of the realities of the digital age — and of competition from the Web site Wikipedia — Encyclopaedia Britannica will focus primarily on its online encyclopedias and educational curriculum for schools. The last print version is the 32-volume 2010 edition, which weighs 129 pounds and includes new entries on global warming and the Human Genome Project.” -The New York Times