Some parts of this blog may contain adult-oriented material. (It is NOT porn or erotica, but some of the content is inappropriate for children). If you are under your country's legal age to view such material or find it to be "objectionable", please leave this page now. Reader discretion is advised...but if you couldn't infer from the title that this may be an adult-oriented blog, then you shouldn't be on the Internet at all.

Everything on the Evil Slutopia blog is copyrighted by the E.S.C. and ESC Forever Media and may not be used without credit to the authors. But feel free to link to us as much as you want! For other legal information, disclaimers and FAQs visit ESCForeverMedia.com.

February 26, 2007

Cosmo thinks I'm a slut

Now I don't normally read Cosmopolitan, however I happened to come across a copy the March '07 edition in an office waiting room and couldn't resist. Oh the shame. I should have resisted. I thought that by now Cosmo would be a little bit less stone-age, but apparently I thought wrong.

I found the online version of the article that confirmed my dislike of Cosmo: When Should You Sleep with Him? by "relationship expert" Ryan C. Browning. (He suggests you wait at least a month before doing the deed). The article irked me for a few reasons...

1. The title implies that there is any clear cut "appropriate" time to have sex with a man for the first time.

(I'm not sure if this advice could be applied toward lesbians as well, but it's unlikely since as far as one can tell from Cosmo they don't exist. Either that or they just don't care about the hottest new mascaras and ab-toning exercises?) The reason this bothers me, is that... surprise! Not all men are the same. Just like not all women are the same. So therefore... not all relationships are the same. What might be "too soon" for one relationship, is not soon enough for another... and vice verse. It's a gross simplification to assume that any advice can apply to all relationships equally, but since it's Cosmo and they base their entire magazine on generalizations... I'll cut them a little slack and move on to #2.

2. The author suggests that withholding sex will give a woman power over the man she is dating.
"Once you give up the goods, you lose the upper hand in the dating power dynamics."

"The longer you hold off, the more intrigued he'll become, allowing you to set the pace and control how things develop."

"As long as you dangle the promise of sex in front of him, he'll be fixated on you."

Um... what? I thought we were past the time of The Rules-style dating manipulation and game-playing. The fact that anyone should have the "upper hand" in a relationship is offensive. If I'm going to be in an actual relationship (and not just a casual one, which it's evident Cosmo isn't recommending here) I want to be on an equal level with my partner. There should be no upper hand, period. I'm not going to "dangle" anything! (That sounds dirty doesn't it?) A relationship should be based on mutual respect and trust, not power plays and bribery.

3. The article implies that women can't tell the difference between sex and love.
"...sex creates a false sense of intimacy, so even if you were iffy about a guy, you'd suddenly crave a commitment. Now to problem number two: This guy might not be there yet, so while you want to move forward, he's locked in place."

"...hot sex can cloud your judgment. If you click sexually with a guy, you might overlook a lot of his flaws or inflate his good qualities in order to justify your reasons for sleeping with him"
So basically, you shouldn't sleep with him too soon or it might make you have "feelings". But he of course won't have that problem, because... he's a man? Why wouldn't the reverse be possible? He couldn't be confused by that sudden false sense of intimacy and scare you off? I realize that sex and love are often linked (as they very often should be) but they aren't the same thing. I think most women nowadays are smart enough to know the difference between an orgasm and their soul mate.

4. The advice given seems to put too much emphasis on the importance of "the first time" and claims that the longer a woman waits, the hotter the sex will be.

Even though he admits that the initial time you sleep with someone new, it's not always completely earth-shattering, he also implies that waiting will somehow make it better. Actually he doesn't imply it, he outright says it.
"The sex will be better."

"The longer you have him in this holding patter, the more fulfilling the sex will be when it happens."

"First-time sex isn't always the greatest, but because you've been looking forward to it for so long, it'll seem more intense."
Or... maybe because you've been building it up for so long, it'll be a Big Let Down. It's possible that it will be the best sex ever. But if you go into it thinking "I waited, so it'll be the best sex ever", you're setting yourself up to be disappointed. It's too much pressure... too much build up... It'll never live up to the hype or expectations. It's like those girls who put so much importance on losing their virginity, that if it's not the most romantic and meaningful sexual encounter ever (which few virginity-losings ever are)... they're forever crushed.

5. Everything in the article is contradicted in the final sentence.

"Coming to the decision on your own terms, at the right time, not only boosts your confidence, but it makes you feel more empowered in the relationship overall."

Even though they never bring up moral issues, there's still a vibe of "only slutty girls do it on the first date". I don't think that there's ever one specific amount of time that is right for everyone. (I've had one night stands that turned into years-long relationships, but that's me). The fact that throughout the entire article he's giving reasons to wait, makes his final line about "coming to the decision on your own terms" seem like a hell of a loaded statement. It implies that your own decision would - and should - be to wait. What if I happen to come to the decision in my own terms that the "right time" is right away? The article implies that there is a "too soon" as well as a "not too soon enough" but it's all subjective.

The answer to "When Should You Sleep With Him?" is different for everyone. For one person it might be right away. For some, it might be after a few dates. For others it might be much longer. And for some it might be after marriage. Or not at all. In my humble opinion, the only important factor in making this decision should be "am I ready to sleep with him?" Your definition of what makes you "ready" is part of your personal decision... it might include physical attraction, emotional intimacy, issues of safety, level of trust, moral beliefs, and how comfortable you feel. It should never include what anyone else might think or what a stupid, sexist magazine article (written by an actor-turned-lifecoach) says is the right answer.

February 25, 2007

Reunited... and it feels so.... bad?

Someone I went to high school with called me recently about our 10-year Reunion. (Yes, I realize I am giving away my age right now).

I honestly, have no desire to "reunite" with anyone I went to high school with. The only people I care to be in touch with... I'm already in touch with. Everyone else... let's just say we lost touch for a reason.

I didn't love high school. I wasn't a cheerleader or Class President or Valedictorian or Prom Queen (although I was nominated for Homecoming Queen one year, but that's because we cheated - that's a whole other story). I didn't hate high school either. I had friends and I got okay grades and I pretty much survived in one piece.

That doesn't mean I want to go back and reminisce.

I have fond memories of my high school friends, but that's pretty much all we have. Most of them are not in the same place that I am in. We have each grown in different directions. (I don't think that history is enough of a reason to stay friends. Not to say that I'm on bad terms with all of them... I just don't care to be on any terms with most of them).

I am kind of curious to see who has gotten fat or bald... to see who is unemployed or divorced. But I have no desire to "catch up". There are a few people I do keep in touch with from high school - people who are (kind of) in the same place I am now... people who live locally that I run into at bars/events... guys I've had casual sex with over the past 10 years... people who try to add me on myspace.

Not too long ago I ran into a girl from high school in the ladies room of a local bar I frequent. She seemed really happy to see me, which was completely fake since I have it on good account that she's said terrible things about me behind my back. I can't stand the girl and didn't feel like pretending to chat with her, so when she went into the stall, I ran out of the bathroom - and out of the bar altogether - just to avoid having to continue talking to her.

Even more recently I had a close encounter with an ex-friend. Although I suppose "encounter" isn't really the right word for it, since we didn't actually speak. I was chatting with another girl (about the upcoming reunion actually) and the ex-friend came over and stood between us with her back to me. It was the funniest thing ever - I couldn't even be offended because I was too amused by how petty she was being after all these years.

It just reminds me that I don't feel the need to pay to see: A) people I already see and B) people I don't want to see. For those few people that don't fit into category A or B... I'd rather just get together with them (all three or four of them) and save the money.

I decided that sometime between that original phone call - damn me for not having an unlisted phone number - and the actual event I will dig out (and dust off) my old high school yearbook. After the initial horror/laughter that comes from viewing your high school yearbook photo ten years later, I've decided that I have to find ten or more people that I'd actually like to see (that I'm not already in touch with) and no more than twenty people that I really really really dread ever seeing again.

The cost of attending the event must be appropriate based on the amount of people attending that I do and don't want to see. I refuse to spend a ton of money to hang out with a bunch of people I'd normally pay not to have to see. I'm willing to spend a maximum of $6 per person I'd like to see (about the cost of me just buying them an imported beer at the local bar). On the other hand, I'm not willing to spend more than $2 per person I don't want to see (the approximate cost of two rolls of single-ply toilet paper that I could use to TP their houses).

In honor of high school, I've devised a mathematical formula to decide whether or not I shall attend:
X= number of people I'd like to see
Y= number of people I don't want to see
Z= cost of attending the event

N= amount of pounds I have to lose before the reunion



1. This formula is meaningless. I made it up based on little-to-no mathematical knowledge. (It's been ten years since high school! You think I remember math?)

2. I really need to go on a diet/join a gym before I even consider "reuniting" with anyone.

3. I think I'll stay home.

February 24, 2007

To Choice

Saturday Choice Update

~Choice: Abortion Referendum in Portugal
Earlier this month, a referendum was held in Portugal on the issue of legalizing abortion in the first 10 weeks of pregnancy. Turnout was only 40%, which is lower than the 50% needed to be legally binding, but 59% of those who did vote were in favor of the measure. Prime Minister Jose Socrates has said that the results of the referendum support his commitment to making abortion legal. Right now, women can only get abortions in cases of rape, threat to life or health, or serious abnormalities to the fetus. There are only a few countries left in the European Union with such strict anti-abortion laws. Portuguese women are forced to seek out illegal abortions, which can be unsafe, or try to travel to Spain, where abortion is legal. They are also still actively prosecuted for having abortions, or for performing or assisting with abortion services. Getting these laws off the books would be a great step forward for Portuguese women, and hopefully also a message to the few remaining European nations with similar laws.

~Choice: Abortion Ban Defeated in South Dakota
This week, a bill that would have banned almost all abortions in South Dakota was killed in committee in the state Senate. This was the state government’s second attempt at a ban--last year’s bill was rejected by voters, partly because it only provided for exceptions in cases where the pregnant woman’s life was at risk. The new bill also had exceptions for health risks, rape, and incest. Opponents of the bill believed that it was unconstitutional and not likely to stand up to all of the legal challenges that it would definitely face. This doesn't mean that the issue is dead in South Dakota--the bill could still (but probably won't) be forced out of committee, and new bills will surely be introduced in the future. But the defeat of this bill is still a step in the right direction. And one more note: South Dakota currently has only one abortion provider, the Planned Parenthood clinic in Sioux Falls. Support them if you can.

~Choice: New Diaphragm in Clinical Trials
Diaphragms have been around for over 100 years, and a nonprofit organization in Seattle is working on redesigning them for the very first time. Program for Appropriate Technology in Health (PATH) has had success with the early trials of the new diaphragm, called SILCS, and it could be on the market by the end of the decade.

Unlike the Ortho All-Flex, currently the most commonly prescribed diaphragm, which comes in nine sizes and requires a woman to undergo a specialized pelvic exam to be fitted with the correct size, SILCS is a "one size fits most" silicone device.

PATH’s ultimate goal is for the new devices to eventually be available over the counter. An improved diaphragm could be a good choice for many women because it doesn’t involve hormones, has no side effects, can be effective at preventing pregnancy and protecting against some STDs, and it’s a method that can be totally controlled by the woman. A large study is currently underway in Africa to determine whether diaphragms could have a significant impact in HIV prevention. Because of the nature of HIV transmission, diaphragms wouldn’t be 100% effective, but even if the study shows that they could provide partial protection, it would still be a huge advance, especially in places like Africa where women are at such a high risk.

~Choice: Civil Unions in New Jersey
This week was the first week that civil unions for gay couples were officially permitted under New Jersey state law. There was already a domestic partnership law on the books, but the State Supreme Court had ruled that the law didn’t go far enough, and ordered the legislature to come up with a new law, which is now in effect. New Jersey joins Vermont, Connecticut, and California in offering civil unions, while Hawaii and Maine offer only limited rights to gay couples. Massachusetts is still the only state that allows gay marriage.

~Anti-Choice: Sex Toy Ban Upheld in Alabama
On Valentine’s Day, the Eleventh Circuit Court upheld a ban on the sale of sex toys in the state of Alabama. There are similar laws being contested in several other states—some have been rejected as unconstitutional, while others have been upheld. The grounds in this particular case? Preserving “public morality”. We think this issue is positively crying out for some creative protest methods. Ideas? Email us. Wouldn’t you just love to see this issue climb all the way to the Supreme Court?

Dumb Things Waiters Say

Dumb Things Guys Say #13

Waiter: You can't sit here. We're not allowed to let people sit until everyone who is eating dinner is finished... unless you order food.

Jezebel: Okay, so what if we just order french fries or something?

Waiter: Ha ha, very funny. (starts to walk away)

Jezebel: But, wait...

Lilith: Are you going to bring us a menu?

Waiter: (gone)

February 22, 2007

Holy... crap

We just realized that Lent started yesterday and we completely overlooked it.

Man, just think of all the jokes we could have made that are already dated!

We missed out on cracks about what we would give up... We missed out on all references to "eating meat" on Fridays... We missed out on making fun of that lame Josh Hartnett movie 40 Days & 40 Nights... We missed out on questioning the true meanings of how "Passion Sunday" and "Spy Wednesday" got their names... We missed out on a slew of Jesus jokes... We even missed out on Mardi Gras!!!!

Man we suck.

Goddamnit! You'd think that a group of ladies named Mary Magdalene, Jezebel, Lilith and Eve would know better! At least we have plenty of time to come up with some great material for Easter and Passover.

February 21, 2007

President Hillary?

There's been a lot of talk of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton running for President in 2008. I know there are a lot of people who don't like her for various reasons. Personally, I'll probably vote for her just because I'd love to see the next President be:

  • Female
  • Not Republican
  • Not Named "Bush"

In all honesty, I'll vote for anyone the Democrats have because I see them as the lesser of two evils when going against the Republicans. (And as much as I'd love to vote for a third-party candidate... it ain't gonna happen in '08).

A lot of people think America isn't ready for a female President (although this year did mark the first female Speaker of the House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi... so maybe we're more ready than people give us credit for).

As much as I'd like to see a woman as President, I wouldn't vote for a female candidate just because she was female. I'd have to agree with her on some/most of the big issues ("big" to me at least). So, from my liberal standpoint... I do support a lot of Clinton's platform.

According to Vote Match, Clinton supports a woman's right to choose; civil/human rights (including issues related to women, minorities, and homosexuals); environmental efforts (including attempts to stop global warming and air pollution); federal funding for health coverage; gun control/safety; funding for public schools; and more treatment resources for drug addiction related crimes.

So in my humble opinion, we could do much worse for our President than her (and we have done much worse). However, there is still one issue I might have with her -- and it's probably not what you think.

During her tenure as First Lady, Clinton - wife, mother, lawyer, politician - was touted as a role model for all modern women and feminists. She stood as a symbol of female empowerment. However, she also stood by her husband who cheated on her. Now I don't think that Bill Clinton's sex life had anything to do with his presidency. I think he was completely justified in lying about his "encounter" with Monica Lewinsky, because we should never have asked him about it in the first place. It wasn't our business.

However, it did become our business (even if it didn't deserve to be). I would never condemn Bill Clinton as a President for his actions with Lewinsky, just as I would never condemn Hillary Clinton as a Presidential candidate for staying with her unfaithful husband. However, I might condemn her as a "role model for women".

A good Senator? Sure.

A good Presidential candidate? Why not?

But a good "role model" for women of all ages... I have to say yes and no. A woman in a position of power has to be a role model to women, but Clinton can also be painted as a victim.

Now I don't know the private details and nuances of their relationship, so I won't pretend I know why Hillary stood by her husband. Was it out of love? Was it out of duty? Was it out of power-seeking ambition? What I do know is that staying with a man who doesn't respect you or treat you right (and that includes infidelity) makes you a victim. I don't say this in an insulting way, for so many of us have been there, including me. Whether or not Bill Clinton respected her/treated her well... is up for debate.

Maybe they had some sort of "open marriage" arrangement, I don't know. What I do know is that to the public - based on the information we were given in the news - Bill cheated, Hillary stuck around anyway. I'm still on the fence about this issue. And I'd hate for anyone not to vote for her because of it. However, I do have to worry about what message this sends to young women. I almost wish we knew more about what happened, but as I already said... it's not really our business. However, our business or not... we've already seen enough to wonder.

In Laura Ingraham's book The Hillary Trap: Looking for Power in all the Wrong Places, she writes:

She owes everything to Bill. For all her feminism, Hillary has never learned to stand on her own.

Now I probably disagree with 99.9% of that book, but that one line stands out a little. Did Hillary use the power that Bill's presidency gave her to her benefit? And is that good or bad? Would we respect her more if she'd left her lying, cheating husband and went on to become Senator of New York on her own? Would she even have been able to do that? Would it have been better if she sacrificed her chances at being Senator (or President) for the sake of her self-respect?

I guess we'll never know.

Either way, I'll still probably vote Hillary in 2008 (if she makes it that far). It's worth it enough just to see Bill Clinton as First Lady.

February 20, 2007

Count Rugen?

Dumb Bitch Parade #2

Even the evil sluts can be dumb bitches from time to time... usually alcohol is involved.

I can count how many women I've been with on one hand.

Lilith: Which hand?

Note: Anyone who gets the reference in the title, wins our utter devotion.

February 18, 2007

Yeah, totally!

Dumb Bitch Parade #1

Dumb Bitch #1: "Okay, we really need to stay away from the margaritas tonight."
Dumb Bitch #2: "Yeah, totally."

Five minutes later.

Dumb Bitch #1: "Let's do tequila shots!"
Dumb Bitch #2: "Yeah, totally!"

February 17, 2007


I was looking through our myspace friendslist of fabulously evil sluts (and the people who love them). I came across a blog from Franny, a sexy musician from Essex about the word "cunt". Here's an excerpt:
The fact that this word is the most offensive word in the English language is, as a woman, one of the most offensive things to me.

I often wonder, surely if you were to be called a cunt, it should be the biggest COMPLIMENT anyone can give you? After all, I am a woman and I am beautiful. I am a woman and my cunt is beautiful. I have a cunt and it is beautiful. Women are beautiful. Cunt is beautiful. Isn't it?
Feminists have spent decades trying to reclaim this charming word yet it still remains a taboo.

I particularly get frustrated when women themselves say "please don't say that word" and by doing this, their ignorance, through no fault of their own leads them to openly accepting these descriptions related to them and thus, accepting that they are too themselves all of the aforementioned. Well, accept this no longer because CUNT IS BEAUTIFUL. YOU ARE YOUR CUNT. YOUR CUNT IS YOU. YOUR CUNT IS BEAUTIFUL AND YOU ARE BEAUTIFUL. CUNT IS A BEAUTIFUL WORD.
(Click here to read the blog entry in its entirety).

I have always wondered why some women found "the c-word" to be so much more offensive than anything else they could be called. I like the word "cunt".

It's similar to what was written earlier about why we use the word "slut". It's only offensive if you choose to be offended by it. Like "slut", reclaiming the word "cunt" takes the power away from those who would use that word against us.

From Expletive Deleted: A Good Look at Bad Language:
If women can reclaim the word as part of womenspeak, they can subvert the male-endowed perniciousness of the word. Some feminists argue that "the way to change some of the false and undermining messages is to change the usage of the word. . . . Defuse it, and in doing so we subvert the culture that prescribes negative meanings to words that don't deserve or need them".

Some women actively cultivate a use of CUNT that they hope will shift usage and attitudes, most especially so that girls don't grow up "believing they possess something disgusting in their bodies and young boys [don't grow up]... believing that what they were born from is the most offensive thing they can call another person."

According to the The Woman's Dictionary of Symbols and Sacred Objects, English words like "cunning" and "ken" (to know) descended from words related to "cunt". In many religions and cultures, the genitals were a symbol of power, knowledge, and wisdom. This is likely how it came to be the word for female genitalia, however it wasn't considered vulgar until more recently (according to Wikipedia's entry on Profanity).
So when did it become the worst word in the world; that which must not be said; the cruelest thing you can call a woman...? When!?

Maybe part of the reason people take such issue with it is because it's just sooooo female. There's no escaping it or relating it back to men somehow, so the only thing to do is turn it into an insult. And the fact that men will use words like "cunt" and "pussy" to insult each other - and not just women - is also an indication of how masculinity is defined by society. It's not at all okay to be a "feminine" man or to ever say or do anything that might be considered "girly" because that would be weak or lame or gay.

On the flip side, the fact that women are afraid to embrace (or even use) the word goes back to how we are taught all our lives to be self-conscious and basically not proud of beinga woman. So I think it's hard for women to be like, "yeah, I'm a woman, I have a cunt, and fuck you if you don't like it".

I think we should embrace the word "cunt". We should honor it for what it truly is - not a vile person or disgusting thing - but a beautiful, perfect part of our bodies and our sexuality. Having a cunt is one of the main things that makes us women.

From Cunt: A Declaration of Independence:
Based on the criteria that "cunt" can neither be co-opted nor spin-doctored into having a negative meaning, venerable history or not, it's ours to do with what we want. And thanks to versatility and user-friendliness of the English language, "cunt" can be used as an all new woman-centered, cuntlovin' noun, adjective or verb.
Say the word outloud.




February 16, 2007

soy makes kids gay?

Never mind, it's not Metallica that's making your kids gay. It's soy.

This was also forwarded to us by king of all drunks (he sure does know about a lot of "gay" stuff... but we have it on good authority that he's all hetero-male).

Apparently there is some "evidence" that soybeans are "feminizing" because they contain "substantial quantities" of estrogen. And for men, "feminine" must equal "gay", right?

According to Jim Rutz (who by the way, is not a medical expert):

If you're a grownup, you're already developed, and you're able to fight off some of the damaging effects of soy. Babies aren't so fortunate. Research is now showing that when you feed your baby soy formula, you're giving him or her the equivalent of five birth control pills a day. A baby's endocrine system just can't cope with that kind of massive assault, so some damage is inevitable. At the extreme, the damage can be fatal.

Soy is feminizing, and commonly leads to a decrease in the size of the penis, sexual confusion and homosexuality. That's why most of the medical (not socio-spiritual) blame for today's rise in homosexuality must fall upon the rise in soy formula and other soy products. (Most babies are bottle-fed during some part of their infancy, and one-fourth of them are getting soy milk!) Homosexuals often argue that their homosexuality is inborn because "I can't remember a time when I wasn't homosexual." No, homosexuality is always deviant. But now many of them can truthfully say that they can't remember a time when excess estrogen wasn't influencing them.
Toxicologists estimate that an infant fed exclusively on soy formula is getting the equivalent of three to five birth control pills — per day. One study found that soy-fed babies had 13,000 to 22,000 times more estrogen in their blood than milk-fed babies.
Read the full article here: Soy is making kids 'gay'

He does have a point about excessive amounts of soy products (particularly soy milk and soy milk formula) given to infants and children being potentially harmful. There are a lot of things in soy that aren't 100% good for you in huge quantities.

Another of the proposed side effects of soy milk is premature puberty in adolescent girls and boys (or on the opposite side of the spectrum, a delay in maturation of boys).
However meat, milk, and dairy products containing growth hormones have also been linked as a possible cause. [Precocious Puberty Is On the Rise] There is also evidence that soy may affect men's sperm count and fertility. [Phytoestrogens & Male Health]

So maybe soy isn't the perfect food... but citing homosexuality as one of the side effects is quite a stretch.

I'm hesitant to think about homosexuality as something that can be caused, since having a "cause" implies that there is a "cure" (or rather, that it is something that can/should be cured or prevented at all). There is still no clearcut evidence as to whether homosexuality is an inborn trait and I don't like the idea of it being thought of as a preventable side-effect, regardless of the science.

And even the science is up for debate. Many medical professionals think that the amount of estrogen in soy formula is unlikely to have any serious long-term effects.
[Too Much of a Good Thing?] Supposing that the theories are correct and soy is feminizing in some way, I think it's irresponsible to immediately jump to the "it will make you gay" conclusion. That is Jim Rutz's conclusion by the way - if you read his sources, they don't all link the side effects of soy with being gay, that is his own opinion (based on no medical training). Maybe a hormonal imbalance could possibly lead to some confusion about sexual identity or some sexually "ambiguous" behavior (I say "maybe" because I don't have any evidence to this effect, nor do I wish to seek any out, but I guess anything is possible). However, even that does not constitute the claims that it can cause homosexuality.

Basically, my issue with this article and Rutz's
stance is two-fold: I fear that there will be two main reactions to this theory and neither of them are positive. On the one hand, are the people who will blindly support his position and work to ban soy formula, etc. in order to prevent a "gay epidemic". His theory (although "backed by science") is simply him jumping to an inflammatory conclusion, which both concerns and offends.

On the other hand, are those people who will instantly dismiss his writings as those of a crazy bigot. Maybe this
is a potential health issue that should be taken seriously. By immediately linking it to homosexuality, he discredits the entire argument against soy, when maybe more people should be looking further into the risks associated.

Conclusion: Jim Rutz is a moron, but maybe soy
is bad for us (but not because it will make you gay). Your thoughts?

February 15, 2007

Black History Month Movie Marathon

Everyone celebrates Black History Month in their own way. Personally, I like to watch an interracial dating movie marathon (and wonder why I haven't slept with more black men in my lifetime).

Jungle Fever
Spike Lee's story of interracial romance between an African American man (Wesley Snipes) and Italian-American woman (Annabella Sciorra). Everything I've read about this movie talks about how their relationship causes "intense pressure" from friends and family. Of course, that has nothing to do with the fact that he's married and she's his secretary?

This movie about a relationship between a white man (Michael Rappaport in his film debut) and an African-American female came out a year after Jungle Fever. A lot of people criticized it as simply trying to capitalize on the popularity of that film and jumping aboard the lucractive "interracial dating conflict" movie train. I don't think that's really fair though - it's like Spike Lee calling the kettle black - because this movie does have some important things to say (and pretty good acting).

Guess Who's Coming to Dinner
Sidney Poitier stars in this late 60s film about a wealthy white family who learns their daughter is engaged to a black doctor. It's a little bit dated (interracial marriage is hardly as controversial and shocking today as it was then) but is still a powerful movie.

Guess Who
A role-reversing remake of Guess Who's Coming to Dinner starring Bernie Mac and Ashton Kutcher. Need I say more?

Monster's Ball
This movie is about a racist, white prison guard who falls in love with the black widow of an executed inmate. This movie is worth it just for the disturbing sex scene between Hallie Berry and Billy Bob Thornton. (It's disturbing mainly because it includes Billy Bob Thornton).

Something New
I actually haven't seen this movie yet. I just find the concept of the title funny... a successful black woman dating a white man? She's just trying something new.

The Bodyguard
A pre-crazy, pre-druggie Whitney Houston stars as a singer/actress (big stretch for her, right?) who hires Kevin Costner to be her bodyguard.

A Bronx Tale
Although this movie is primarily a "mafia film", racism and interracial dating are also strong themes. It stars Robert DeNiro, Chazz Palminteri, and a pre-murder charges
Lillo Brancato.

Made in America
A young black woman discovers that her father was a sperm donor... but surprise - he's white! And even worse... he's Ted Danson. Co-stars Danson's then-girlfriend Whoopi Goldberg. Now that is just one fucked up couple, am I wrong?

Corrina, Corrina
Set in the 1950s, Whoopi Goldberg plays a housekeeper who changes the lives of a widower (Ray Liotta) and his daughter. There's a quote from the film: "A fish and a bird can fall in love, but where do they build their home?" That never made sense to me... which one of them is supposed to be the fish?

Lawrence Fishburne and Kenneth Branagh star in this classic Shakespearean tragedy of love, jealousy, deceit, and yes - interracial dating! Shakespeare was never so sexy.

This teen version of Othello stars Mekhi Phifer and America's favorite Shakespearean-remake queen Julia Stiles (she also starred in 10 Things I Hate About You - a Taming of the Shrew update - and Hamlet, opposite Ethan Hawke).

Save the Last Dance
Julia Stiles is at it again! Not Shakespeare this time... but the lily-white actress is again paired with an ebony hottie, Sean Patrick Thomas. This movie stars Stiles as an aspiring dancer and resulted in a super cheezy direct-to-video sequel Save the Last Dance 2 (which doesn't feature any of the original cast).

Marci X
Lisa Kudrow as a spoiled Jewish American Princess who takes over her father's hard-core rap label and falls in love with rapper, Dr. Snatchcatcher (Damon Wayans). Yes, it's as bad as it sounds... but it's so bad it's almost good.

February 13, 2007

Be Our Valentine

Celebrate Valentine's Day the Evil Slutopia way.

  • Support V-Day by attending a benefit performance of The Vagina Monologues. Join a global movement to end violence against women and girls, and have fun seeing who gets uncomfortable when they ask what your Valentines plans are and your answer includes the word vagina. To find an event near you: V-Day Events

  • Head to a Babeland store in Seattle, Los Angeles, or New York for one of their Valentines workshops. Attend a single's party with free alcohol and vibrators, explore bondage, or practice your blowjob techniques on a willing banana.

  • And speaking of sex and fruit... NYC burlesque troupe The Peach Tartes is putting on a very juicy Valentine's show. Info (and more importantly, pictures) here. Afterwards, there's always Diamanda Galas's Valentine's Day Massacre.

  • Check out Altoids store events in New York, Chicago, and Miami to promote their new chocolate dipped mints. Altoids: Curiously Slutty
"Sick of all the Valentine's Day hype? Unattached and glad about it? In the week leading up to Valentine's Day, Altoids invites the lovesick, lovelorn and Cupid-wary of New York, Chicago, and Miami to a sanctuary from all the romantic overtures."

  • If you're Anti-Valentine's, you know it, and you really wanna show it, head over to CafePress to stock up on Anti-Valentine's merchandise. We especially enjoy the "V is for Vodka" and "Be My Fuck Buddy" collections.

  • Go see the Museum of Sex's new exhibitition, Kink: Geography of the Erotic Imagination. Kink opens February 8th, and the museum will be open late on Valentine's Day.

  • Buy us something from here. Because you love us.

  • Investigate mating rituals by attending Woo at the Zoo at the San Francisco Zoo. Enjoy champagne and chocolate covered strawberries while you learn about giraffe foreplay. If you're into that sort of thing.

  • Valentine's Day is obviously a popular day for engagements and weddings. So it's also a good day to keep in mind that there are plenty of people out there who can't get married to the men and women that they love, just because they happen to be gay. Shake things up by attending or supporting one of the marriage equality actions that will take place all across the country this week.

  • Anyone in the Indianapolis area can attend an anti-valentine's dinner at L'Explorateur. The "Seven Deadly Course" menu is inspired by a recent Top Chef challenge. And in the spirit of Valentine's Day, we'd be willing to give Top Chef runner-up Marcel Vigneron some tutorials on lust. (Note: The preceding statement may not reflect the views and opinions of the entire Evil Slut Clique. We all have weird taste in guys, but not always the same weird taste.)

  • Seattle sluts can enjoy some good old-fashioned PDA by participating in a Valentine's Day mass makeout. If the public petting floats your boat, mass makeout events are held on a monthly basis.

  • Go get tested. Because knowing for sure that you're chlamydia free is a better Valentine's gift than anything Hallmark makes. But don't feel bad if your test comes back positive: V.D. is for everybody.

  • Remember that February is Black History Month, so don't pass up any opportunities to have sex with cute black guys or girls. (Note: This advice applies equally to people of all races. Just be careful, because once you go black...well, you know.)

  • Speaking of 'safe sex', don't forget that Valentine's week is also National Condom Week. Have lots and lots of protected sex.
Above all, remember that Valentine's Day doesn't really matter. Single or taken, love it or hate it, it should be something that you can have fun with or it should be nothing to you at all. However you choose to celebrate, we hope your day is as evil and slutty as you want it to be.

February 12, 2007

Un-Valentine's Playlist

This year, for "Singles Awareness Day" I made two mixed CDs for a dear friend's Valentine's Massacre Party...

Love is Dead

by Aimee Mann
Love Hurts
- by Nazareth
Do You Really Want to Hurt Me?
- by Culture Club
Tainted Love
- by Soft Cell
Do You Love Me Now? -
by The Breeders
You Don't Love Me
- by Dawn Penn
Desolation - by Benzos
- by Pat Benatar
Don't Think of Me
by Dido
Too Little Too Late -
by JoJo
All Yours Now
- by Dante Mazzetti
Breakin' Up (Is Easy To Do
) - by Violent Femmes
Don't Want You -
by Lunachicks
Throwing Stones
- by Paula Cole
Shit List
- by L7
Fuck You (and Your Cat) - by Goldfinger

Happy Un-Valentine's Day

Take Off Your Clothes - by Morningwood
Hot Sluts (Say I Love You) - by Robbers on High Street
Bad Reputation - by
Half Cocked
Gay Bar - by Electric Six
Get Rid of That Girl - by the Donnas
Threesome - by Fenix*TX
Hooker - by Pink
Professional Widow
- by Tori Amos
Need to be Naked
- by Amber
Rippin Kittin
- by Golden Boy with Miss Kitten
- by ZZ Top
Cradle of Love
- by Billy Idol
- by Morningwood
- by Hall and Oates
Liza and Louise
- by NOFX
Stroking My Cat -
by Diesel Boy
Kill a Kitten
- by Stephen Lynch
Cruel To Be Kind
- by Letters to Cleo
Cake and Sodomy
- by Marilyn Manson
- by Violent Femmes
Drink You Pretty
- by Stephen Lynch

We'd love to hear your own fave un-Valentine songs... Email us or comment to the blog.

Note to readers: the first person to send a sappy, romantic love song gets his or her ass kicked for being stupid. That is all.

February 11, 2007

National Condom Week

Screw Valentine's Day, it's time to celebrate National Condom Week.

First, do your basic research.

Then, let Condomania's Condom Wizard help you find your perfect match, or check out Babeland's article on how to choose the right condom.

Move on to some field research with a condom variety pack. Amazon.com is offering a special Valentine's/National Condom Week 12-pack for just $2. They also have a bunch of other variety packs to choose from - including a 100-pack for those of us who are extra slutty. Up until recently we didn't even know that Amazon sold condoms, but these are the things that we dedicate ourselves to researching just for you, our loyal readers. (We've also come to the conclusion that we may have to buy ourselves this book for the sole purpose of displaying it prominently on our coffee table.)

And finally, we strongly encourage everyone to rock the condom tote. This week, or any other week of the year. Some of the proceeds from condom tote sales are going to sex ed and STI awareness organizations, and also it's just really time for condom fashion to come back.

P.S. Now here's the disclaimer, because we love you all. When experimenting with condoms, especially the flavored/multicolored/glow-in-the-dark/studded and/or holiday varieties, check the packaging to make sure that it's actually giving you the protection that you need, since some novelty condoms don't. Also, if you're using lube, make sure it's a type that is safe to use with condoms. The "basic research" link above has a great list of safe and unsafe lube/condom combinations. Happy Condom Week!

February 9, 2007

It's an invitation... through email... get it?

Dumb Things Guys Say #12

So I was dating this guy who is ten years older than me. That's not really much of an age difference when it comes to most stuff, but every once in a while it was a little more noticeable. Sometimes he'd ask me to name a singer or band that's playing and I can't do it. (The last one I missed was Earth, Wind, and Fire).

When I realized that he was possibly too old for me (mentally old, not "age" old) was when it came to technology. He didn't instant message or text message - hell, he barely used his cell phone at all.

And then there was this:

Older Guy:
"I got this thing in my email from a friend. It was called an evite. It was an invitation... through email. Get it? You know, an e-mail in-vite."

Lilith: "Um... yeah, I know what an evite is."

Ultimately we stopped seeing each other not because he was too old, but because he was too immature.

February 6, 2007

Dumb Bitch Parade

We write a lot about the Dumb Things Guys Say, but that doesn't mean that we don't still love men. The Evil Slut Clique loves sex and especially sex with men... so we could never say anything bad about the entire male gender as a whole. We just prefer the less-dumb men (but if they're really good in bed, we're even willing to overlook the dumb thing anyway).

We hear plenty of dumb things from women as well, so in order to be fair - we are starting a section called Dumb Bitch Parade. The phrase comes from something we encounter at bars a lot: a group of loud, oblivious, brain-damaged girls (often following each other in a line, hence the "parade") acting like rude, inconsiderate dumb bitches. They're the ones who say - very loudly and often in slurred speech - things that make us embarrassed to be in the same category as them (that category being "female").

They make women look bad as a whole. Not to say that we don't also demonstrate some "dumb bitch" tendencies from time to time... we most surely do! But there's just something about the bimbo-esque women we encounter that takes it to a completely new level.

So look forward to more dumb things guys say, but also plenty of things dumb bitches say/do.

February 5, 2007

I've never been with an Asian before

Dumb Things Guys Say #11

This one was submitted to us by one of our readers and myspace friends, Brandi:

So the other night, I was at the bar, and some dumbass came up to me and actually said, "Hey. I've never been with an Asian before. Is it true your people are freaks in bed?"

I just slapped him and walked away.

Good for you Brandi! (Next time, kick him in the nuts!)

February 4, 2007

That Bowl is just Suuuuper

I don't watch football. American football that is (although I don't watch the other kind either).

I'm just not a fan - at all - so Super Bowl Sunday usually just comes and goes without me taking much notice. I do quite enjoy a good Super Bowl party, but that's more about the beer and food, than it is the actual game. I used to enjoy watching the commercials, but even those have been pretty bad lately. (Who can forget last year's debacle "Diet Pepsi: Brown and Bubbly"?)
So since I don't care for football and honestly don't understand a lot about the game anyway... I thought I'd take a moment to piss off all of our male readers (and quite a few of our female ones I'm sure) to make fun of the sport.

Now is it just me or is football kind of homoerotic? (It's not as bad as male wrestling, but close enough). Handsome muscular guys wearing tight pants (and sometimes makeup), running around with other men, occasionally touching each other on the asses while trying to get their hands on the other team's... um, ball.

RuthlessReviews.com has compared American football with World football ("soccer") in terms of "gayness". Some of it was kind of offensive (I happen to love offensive stuff, but I know some of our readers are homosexual so that's just my little disclaimer) but it was also very funny and made some good points. Here are a few excerpts (I've bolded the really gay stuff).

The overall aim, the very point of both sports is the physical unification of sweaty men; Goals are but a necessary detour towards the real goal: The celebratory pile.

...America's puritan past forces NFL players to adopt a macho facade when the urge to cuddle arises: A touch-down is the cue for the linemen to get their fat asses moving towards the goal for some chest-humping and helmet-crashing with that slender, smooth-skinned running back who seems to possess a strange magnetism in the post-game sauna sessions.

... it’s far more titillating to have teams named The Bears, The Packers and The Browns and pretend that nothing could be more normal. Or to watch the Raiders vs. The Vikings: two teams named for nautical plunderers of booty and to pretend that we are interested in the cheerleaders.

...Each play in American football begins with the quarterback and center simulating, not only anal sex, but the subsequent birthing of a butt baby. Yes, there are tight ends and wide receivers running ‘up & outs’ and ‘hail marys’ against defensive packages. But even football terminology that lacks any clearly identifiable sexual connotation sounds gay, like ‘button hook’ and ‘deep cross.’ Players are in constant and close physical contact. But that’s just plain gay. The NFL is kinky gay, which is why the players go through the entire performance wearing chastity belts, in the form of athletic supporters. The frustration, building through hours of competition and agonizing commercial breaks, must be nearly unbearable.
Even more homoerotic football terms (thank you to Outsports.com): Naked bootleg. Over the top. Line plunge. Going all the way. Getting penetrated. Man in motion. Going deep. He scores!

Play ball!