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.

March 31, 2011

We Support SlutWalk Toronto

We want to give a shoutout to a really cool event called SlutWalk happening this weekend in Toronto. The walk was inspired by some slut-shaming comments that were made earlier this year by a Toronto police officer. The officer was participating in a campus safety event at a Toronto law school when he decided to go off script during a discussion about safety tips for female students.
Ronda Bessner, who attended the session, remembered being surprised by what the officer suggested to women.

“One of the safety tips was for women not to dress like ‘sluts.’ He said something like, ‘I’ve been told I shouldn’t say this,’ and then he uttered the words,” said Bessner, Osgoode assistant dean of the Juris Doctor Program. “I was shocked and appalled. I made contact with the police [...] and we’ve asked for a written apology and an explanation.” [Excalibur]
Unfortunately we've all heard slut-shaming and victim-blaming statements like these, but obviously it's especially distressing when they come from someone in law enforcement. The organizers of SlutWalk decided that these comments were basically the last straw and that it was time to take action, and SlutWalk was born. I'll let them explain since they do it so eloquently:

As the city’s major protective service, the Toronto Police have perpetuated the myth and stereotype of ‘the slut’, and in doing so have failed us. With sexual assault already a significantly under-reported crime, survivors have now been given even less of a reason to go to the Police, for fear that they could be blamed. Being assaulted isn’t about what you wear; it’s not even about sex; but using a pejorative term to rationalize inexcusable behaviour creates an environment in which it’s okay to blame the victim.

Historically, the term ‘slut’ has carried a predominantly negative connotation. Aimed at those who are sexually promiscuous, be it for work or pleasure, it has primarily been women who have suffered under the burden of this label. And whether dished out as a serious indictment of one’s character or merely as a flippant insult, the intent behind the word is always to wound, so we’re taking it back. “Slut” is being re-appropriated.

We are tired of being oppressed by slut-shaming; of being judged by our sexuality and feeling unsafe as a result. Being in charge of our sexual lives should not mean that we are opening ourselves to an expectation of violence, regardless if we participate in sex for pleasure or work. No one should equate enjoying sex with attracting sexual assault.

We are a movement demanding that our voices be heard. We are here to call foul on our Police Force and demand change. We want Toronto Police Services to take serious steps to regain our trust. We want to feel that we will be respected and protected should we ever need them, but more importantly be certain that those charged with our safety have a true understanding of what it is to be a survivor of sexual assault — slut or otherwise.

We are tired of speeches filled with lip service and the apologies that accompany them. What we want is meaningful dialogue and we are doing something about it: WE ARE COMING TOGETHER. As people from all gender expressions and orientations, all walks of life, levels of employment and education, all races, ages, abilities, and backgrounds, from all points of this city and elsewhere.

We are asking you to join us for SlutWalk, to make a unified statement about sexual assault and victims’ rights and to demand respect for all. Whether a fellow slut or simply an ally, you don’t have to wear your sexual proclivities on your sleeve, we just ask that you come. Any gender-identification, any age. Singles, couples, parents, sisters, brothers, children, friends. Come walk or roll or strut or holler or stomp with us.

Join us in our mission to spread the word that those those who experience sexual assault are not the ones at fault, without exception.

A group of people getting together to publicly speak out against slut-shaming and reclaim the word slut? Yeah, we officially LOVE this event. The walk is scheduled for Sunday, April 3rd at 1:30, but even if you don't live near Toronto (or the locations of any of the satellite events), we encourage everyone to check out the SlutWalk website. You can also follow them on Twitter and Facebook to learn more and show your support. Happy SlutWalking!

We're Going to Momentum!

The Evil Slut Clique is going to the first annual Momentum Conference in Washington, D.C. / Silver Spring, MD! We are very excited to be "making waves in sexuality, feminism and relationships through new media" this weekend!

If you're going to be at Momentum this weekend too, please get in touch!

You can stay on top of the happenings this weekend even if you're not there, by checking out the Twitter hashtag #mcon or by following @momentumcon. (And if you're not already, you should follow us too while you're at it, @EvilSlutClique.)

The phenomenal growth of online communication has given rise to an amazing amount of sharing, learning and experimenting with different expressions of sexuality, relationships and feminism. MOMENTUM provides a safe place to listen, discuss and learn about the ways the web has impacted our sexuality without the fear of reprisal or shaming. It is a space for acceptance and appreciation of diversity, including for those in the LGBTQ, sex-work, BDSM and non-monogamous communities.

During MOMENTUM we will discuss ways to bridge the baffling dichotomies our culture creates around sexuality. While on one hand we have unprecedented sexual freedom, on the other we continue to police sexuality with a frightening vigor. Abortion laws, restrictions on gay marriage, abstinence programs, medicalization of sex, fear of pornography and prosecutions for teenage sexting are examples of one side of the spectrum. The discomfort that strives to make us keep our sexuality hidden conflicts with the use of sex — especially the female body — to sell everything from food to cars to “performance enhancing” products.
Geared toward anyone interested in intelligent conversations about the influence of new media on sexuality, MOMENTUM is the conference to attend in 2011. [via Momentumcon.com]
We're be sure to post about our experiences at the conference when we return after the weekend.

Sex Toys on the Brain

Between getting ready for Momentum and blogging about the best news story ever (if you haven't read it yet, there's a dildo involved), we've kinda had sex toys on the brain this week. Of course, we've been known to buy sex toys ...oh, occasionally. But it's actually been awhile since we bought anything, so we were just checking out a sex toy site to see what's new out there. (Okay, we were procrastinating on getting ready for our trip. But we'll call it 'field research'.)

Here's what we've learned:

-There is a brand of lube called You'll Never Know It Isn't Boy Batter. Based on the product description it sounds nice, but we can't decide if the name is disgustingly brilliant or brilliantly disgusting. Whatever the case, we're sure the makers of I Can't Believe It's Not Butter are thrilled.

-Some 'love dolls', like the classy Birlinda here, are proper ladies and just like to hug.

-There is a book called Car-Ma Sutra: A Glovebox Guide For Lovers that is described as the "definitive guide to back seat bonking". Love it.

-Vibrators that involve animal likenesses absolutely can look too cartoonish and freakishly similar to children's toys. We'll probably stick with the Rabbit. Not sure we could deal with those big cartoon eyes staring up at us during the act.

-There is such a thing as Ice Menthol condoms. The packaging promises "greater stimulation", which sounds like a big understatement to us. Now whenever we hear commercials extol the virtues of "menthol action", this is the only product that we'll be able to think of.

*Online window shopping (and procrastination) session brought to you by Sex Toys Emporium

March 29, 2011

Best News Story Ever

This needs no embellishment from us:
Lawyer: Plea deal in sex toy battery case

Charges have been dropped against a Gurnee woman accused of attacking a police officer with a sex toy, her attorney said today.

As part of a plea agreement for an unrelated felony DUI charge she received in September, officials dropped an aggravated battery charge earlier this month against Carolee Bildsten, 57, said Waukegan-based attorney Neil Calanca.

Police said Bildsten held a "clear, rigid feminine pleasure device" in a "threatening manner" at her apartment on Nov. 9. An officer had gone with her to the apartment to retrieve cash after she allegedly failed to pay her dinner bill at Joe's Crab Shack on Route 132. [ChicagoBreakingNews.com]
We had so many questions after reading this. Why did this woman feel the need to "threaten" the police officer? And when she decided that it was necessary, how and why was the "feminine pleasure device" the most practical and convenient thing for her to grab? (After reading a more detailed article, it turns out that the officer surprised the woman by following her into her bedroom while she was getting the money from a drawer, and the only thing in the drawer that could pass for a "weapon" was a dildo. Gotta do what you've gotta do.)

More than anything, of course, we're dying to know what kind of dildo it was. Was it threatening merely by its essential dildo nature? Was it oversized? Too lifelike? Inflatable? Vibrating? Was it The Vamp?

Maybe it was one of those glass dildos. The article does say that the "rigid feminine pleasure device" in question was clear, so it's possible. And I guess it would probably hurt to be hit with one of those, so it could be considered sort of threatening.

Actually, we've always wanted to buy some and use them to decorate the ESC office. You know, like conversation pieces. Some of them are really pretty and colorful, and it sure beats a coffee table book. (Although I supposed we could have both.) And since we now know that they can also be used for self-defense, it's become a practical purchase as well. This is why it's so important to read the news and stay informed about current events.

One Million Moms Still Hate Glee, Remain Hypocritical and Boring

The One Million Moms are still at it. In their latest action alert they're targeting Glee again, probably because all of their previous efforts have had such a tremendous impact on the show's success. I don't want to give their ineffective campaign more attention than it deserves, but I found this latest alert to be pretty amusing so I thought I'd share some of my favorite parts.

To sum up their argument, Glee continues to corrupt the children of America and generally contribute to the downfall of our society, mostly by the continued presence of gay characters and storylines but also by the show's bold assertion that some teenagers are sexually active.

GLEE is Not Backing Down So Neither Will OMM
I wonder what exactly would constitute "backing down" for Glee in the Mom's minds. I'm guessing it would involve Kurt, Santana, Blaine, and company getting a group rate on some ex-gay "therapy" while the other characters become born again virgins and decide that from now on the glee club will devote itself entirely to the songs of Amy Grant. I can just see the Emmy nominations piling up.
Ryan Murphy, the creator of "Nip/Tuck," an open homosexual and the producer of "GLEE," is pushing political correctness and his lifestyle choice on teens.
An open homosexual in Hollywood? I've never heard of that. And what is this gay agenda of which you speak, Moms? This is all brand new information.
The music chosen for this show is extremely inappropriate especially for school activities. The choreographed routines are obscene and contain vulgar dancing which they perform for a regional competition. Foul language is used in every episode.
I can practically see one million strands of pearls being clutched all at once.
The writers mock Christianity with a song named "Jesus is a Friend of Mine" sung by competitors at regionals. The scene presented them as being cheesy, uncool and prudish.
As everyone knows, there is no more cruel or painful form of discrimination than being made to feel uncool. Stay strong Moms, and know that one day you will heal.
One of the judges is a liberal nun, and a former exotic dancer. She became a nun because she needed a place to live. Another judge is Kathy Griffin, playing the part of Sarah Palin as a homeschooling mom and tea party candidate. Griffin portrays Palin in a negative light. They also mock Palin and her conservative beliefs by giving her lines to ask the students if they are born in the U.S. and to say homosexual students cannot win the competition because it sends a message to students that gay is okay. A third judge chimes in that two men can get married and raise a family. Then, the announcer for the winner of regionals announces that her husband is verbally abusive, and she has been drinking since noon.
Of course I knew that the Moms were going to hate Kathy Griffin's character. But what's so funny to me is that they really can't fully articulate exactly why they hate her, so they end up essentially saying that they were offended because she accurately portrayed their beliefs. Sure, Griffin's character was over the top, but "gay is not okay" has been the take home message from every single OMM action alert about this show and countless others. So basically they disliked this character because she would totally be a member of their organization if she were a real person. Makes perfect sense.

Similar to most teen shows today, all the characters can talk about is sex. There are homosexual and lesbian couples on the show. These teens share passionate kisses on the mouth several times. The two homosexual boys sing a duet together, and the lesbians can only be friends since one of the girls has a boyfriend too.
Homosexual AND lesbian couples? Well, there goes the neighborhood! Also, I kinda love that they go into such detail about the storylines even when it's not really relevant to what they're complaining about. Come on Moms, we all know you're just closeted fans of the show. You probably download all of the music to make sure you've done thorough research into how inappropriate the songs are. And I'm sure you bought the DVDs too just to check for any obscene or vulgar special features. Just admit that you're Gleeks. Accept it. Embrace it. You'll all feel better and we won't have to read any more of these ridiculous action alerts.

March 18, 2011

Friday Playlist (100% Rebecca Black Free)

If you've been on the internet for even five minutes this week, you've probably heard about the insta-meme that has sprung up around the music video for Friday, the first single from up and coming "artist" Rebecca Black. (If you're blissfully ignorant and you must know, click here and here.)

To fully dislodge the song from our minds and cleanse our music palates, we decided to make our own Friday-themed playlist. (We're including a few of the videos too.) Enjoy!

Covering Up Is A Feminist Issue

Today we'd like to share this video called Covering Up is a Feminist Issue from the awesome blog PhD in Parenting. The video started out as a way to address the argument that women who breastfeed in public should "cover up", but the final product also address the slut-shaming of women who 'show too much skin'. Check it out:

[The video is also available in Spanish and French.]

If you liked the video, you might also want to read the original post on the issue that inspired it. (And really, if you're not reading Phd in Parenting already you should definitely check it out, even if you're not a parent, for great coverage of issues relating to women's and children's health, feminism, and activism against sucky companies like Nestle.):
But is refusing to cover up indiscreet? I don’t think so. There is a wide range of opinions on what constitutes good judgment with regards to how women dress themselves and how much they should or should not cover up. Any time a woman is told to cover up or told to undress, I see that as an attack on her person. Telling women to cover up and telling women to strip down are frequently used tactics for oppressing women. There are both practical and philosophical reasons why no one other than the woman herself should decide how covered or uncovered to be. It is easier for onlookers to avert their eyes than it is for a woman to dress in a way that makes her feel uncomfortable.

When it comes to dressing, I think women should be able to choose from a wide variety of options. It should be up to them to decide how they feel comfortable. [Phd in Parenting]

So what does everyone think? Do you agree with the video that covering up is a feminist issue?

March 17, 2011

Thirsty Thursday: Special St. Patrick's Day Edition

In honor of today's very holy tradition of puking green beer all over the train station (what? isn't that how people celebrate St. Patrick's Day outside of New York?) we thought we'd share a recipe* for how to make your own green beer.

Step 1: Grab a glass.
Step 2: Add a drop of green food coloring to the glass.
Step 3: Grab a beer (the lighter the better).
Step 4: Pour beer into the glass.
Step 5: Drink.
Step 6: Repeat. Repeat. Repeat. Repeat.
Step 7: Puke.

         Think you can handle that?

*We googled 'make your own green beer' and found this recipe from About.com. We just had to laugh at the utter simplicity (I don't know what we were expecting).

Holidays are always better with candy

Happy St. Patrick's Day everyone! 
(Or as we like to call it here at the ESC, 'Happy Get Drunk Day!')

I'm not really a huge fan of St. Patrick's Day festivities... I'm a fan of drinking, in moderation, but frankly, in New York everyone not only overdoes it, but they start way too early. On my commute into work today there were at least 20 drunk idiots making lots of noise on the train. At 9 am! What were you drinking in the shower this morning?

It seems like no one actually cares about (or even knows) who St. Patrick really was... today has become just an excuse to drink excessively or watch a parade. And okay, yes, I do plan on cutting out of work for an extra long lunch today to catch part of the parade, but that's more about taking any excuse to cut out of work early for an extra long lunch and less about the actual parade.

But I think more than anything, the reason why I'm not a huge fan of St. Patrick's day is about the candy. There just isn't enough! Sure plenty of people can figure out a way to incorporate candy into St. Patrick's Day ('pot of gold' comes to mind) but really, it's not a candy-oriented holiday so much as some of the other holidays. So I really just consider St. Patrick's day as just my marker for the time when everyone really starts selling their Easter candy!

Because I'm all about the candy. Frankly, I'm not really interested in a holiday unless there's candy involved (which is why I totally give props to everyone who manages to scam themselves some chocolate four-leaf clovers on St. Pat's). There are no other gifts as good as chocolate gifts. That's why I far favor Easter, Halloween, Christmas and Valentine's Day over St. Patrick's Day any day. And yes, those holidays are ranked in order of candy awesomeness, which I will explain further...

Valentine's Day is maybe my least favorite candy-oriented holiday. (Not my least favorite holiday, period, which is probably a tie between Thanksgiving and Columbus Day, but just my least favorite candy-holiday or 'candiday'.) Sure the whole roses-and-chocolates cliche is beneficial to someone with a sweet tooth such as my own, but when you're single (but don't want to be) on Valentine's Day there is nothing sadder than buying a heart-shaped box of chocolate for yourself. Also, while it's always nice to get a box of chocolates, no matter what shape the box is, but Valentine's Day is just such a messed up holiday in and of itself that the chocolate aspect isn't enough to make it better. Plus those little conversation hearts always taste like chalk.

Next on the list, is Christmas. Christmas is a candy extravaganza. You can get candy under the tree, in the stocking, or just handed to you. Stumped for what to buy your loved ones... sweet gifts are always the best gifts. Plus you get other presents and lots of other fatty desserts, like cookies, cake, pie, mmmmmm. It's a chocoholic's wonderland. (Just to be fair, I'll give props to Hanukah too... but sorry, those Hanukah gelt just don't top an entire chocolate Santa.)

Next up is on my 'candiday' rankings is Halloween... You get to dress up and strangers just give you all the candy you want. And all kinds of candy! In terms of accumulating a massive amount of candy Halloween is the best. But I still prefer Easter for two very important reasons:

One, unlike Halloween, where you have to work for that candy, walking from house to house and ringing doorbells and saying 'trick or treat', on Easter the candy comes to you! All you have to do is wake up in the morning and go downstairs and find your basket... easiest candy score ever!

Two, the candy is just better on Easter. Marshmallow peeps are insane. That Cadbury Cream Egg - as disgusting as it looks - is just amazing. It's just all good. I don't know what it is... but even every day candy somehow tastes better in Easter shapes. A chocolate bunny will always be far superior to a chocolate... anything else. Jelly beans are sweet, but nothing is sweeter than popping open a plastic egg full of jelly beans. And everything tastes better in pastel colors.

There's just something about a chocolate bunny that gets me every time.

I don't go to church on Easter... I don't really do much else to celebrate. Even though my family was half-Jewish growing up, we still did Easter... for the candy. I have very vivid memories of being a kid and creeping down the stairs on Easter morning, catching a glimpse of that basket and just going crazy. There would be plastic neon grass all over the floor as I attacked that basket and unearthed it's yummy goodness. No matter how slick I thought I was, somehow my dad always seemed to get to my chocolate bunny before I did and ate the ears. Clearly this sweet tooth runs in the family.

Now even as an adult I still get excited about Easter. I take pleasure in filling up a basket of love for my kids. To save them the anguish my dad always caused me, I always always buy an extra chocolate bunny just for me. So happy St. Patrick's Day everyone! And more importantly, have a very happy start to the Easter-candy season!

March 16, 2011

Way to go Glee!

So I know that Glee hasn't exactly been that consistent lately... sometimes it's all about the characters and storylines; while other times the plot seems almost extraneous. We know that for most of the fans, the show is - and always has been - all about the music. But many of us have also really grown to love these characters.

One thing that hasn't faltered about this season is the way the writers have treated the LGBT themes.

But this week's episode was really something special.


We need a federal breast cancer prevention plan!

Last year, the President's Cancer Panel suggested that President Obama should enact policies that will reduce or eliminate human exposure to toxic, cancer-causing chemicals... So what has he done about it so far? Hm.

Why is this so important? Let's look at the numbers:

The lifetime risk of breast cancer has gone from 1 in 20 in 1964 to 1 in 8 today. That's too high of a number. Only about 200 of the 80,000+ chemicals in commerce today have been tested for their impacts on human health. That's too low of a number.

Even some chemicals that are already known to cause cancer can be legally added to everyday products because there aren't enough policies in place to prevent this. Does anyone else see something very wrong here?

This week, the Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families Coalition has asked us to sign and pass on a petition asking the government to create a national cancer prevention plan, including federal regulation of cancer-causing toxins. Please sign this petition asking President Obama to enact a policy that will help us STOP CANCER BEFORE IT STARTS. Please help the petition reach 100,000 people!

We here at the ESC, believe very strongly that the best thing we can do to stop the cancer epidemic is to concentrate on PREVENTION. More research needs to be done into what causes breast cancer... and women need to be fully informed about breast cancer symptoms - because early detection is so very important - and potential risk factors (be they genetic, environmental, behavioral, etc.).

Some potential risk factors may include:
family history/genetics
early menstruation or delayed menopause
high alcohol consumption
not having children/delaying first child
not breastfeeding
exposure to radiation or carcinogens*
This is not a fully comprehensive list. *Carcinogens are considered by the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences as substances that are "known" or "reasonably anticipated" to cause cancer. There are currently over 200 accepted or anticipated cancer-causing agents - and probably many more that have yet to be tested or verified.

This is why it is so important for the government to enforce stricter rules on chemicals - including increased testing. So please sign the petition!

In the meantime, please everyone, this is so important... Inform yourselves of the known (and even just potential) carcinogens and avoid them whenever possible. Do whatever you can to minimize your chances of getting breast cancer by becoming aware of the risk factors. And remember that early detection is key to beating cancer (or dealing with precancerous cells) so please do self-breast exams, have your doctor do breast exams on you regularly, make an appointment for a mammogram. And please inform yourself of all and any possible symptoms.

Some common signs of breast cancer may include:
a lump or mass in your breast
swelling in your breast
swelling in an underarm lymph node
skin indenting, inflamation, redness, thickness or scaliness
nipple retraction or thickening
nipple discharge (non-milk) or blood
breast or nipple pain or tenderness
change in size or shape of your breast
(These is not a fully comprehensive list. Please do your own reading and fully inform yourself! Clicking on any of the links provided in this blog entry is a good jumping off point for your own breast cancer research and self-education.)

And most importantly - be your own medical advocate. Too often women are afraid to go to the doctor when they notice signs that something is wrong. Or they are too quick to dismiss their symptoms as "no big deal". (Or even worse, their doctors are too quick to dismiss their symptoms as "no big deal"!)

No matter how terrifying or intimidating it might be to suspect that you have symptoms of breast cancer, do not ignore them and don't let anyone else push you around. Your health (and your life) is your responsibility - if the people around you aren't giving it the attention it deserves - make them!

March 14, 2011

Mars Needs Moms. Earth Needs Less Homophobia and Sexism.

I wasn't planning on going to see Mars Needs Moms for a few reasons...

1. Lil' Lilith hasn't begged asked me to take her to see it.
2. I think those weirdly CGI-animated movies are creepy.
3. The movie itself looks pretty dumb.

So I didn't pay any attention to the plot other than the fact that some kid's mom gets abducted and he has to go save her. Blah. Seemed like typical boring cheesy kids-movie fare.

Then I read a review from SomethingAwful.com and realized that there's a lot more wrong with this movie than being cheesy and creepy... it's also apparently anti-gay:
The reason Mars actually needs moms is that all the female martians are busy being leaders, soldiers and politicians. Because of this, they are apparently terrible mothers, because no woman can be in a position of power and possess maternal instincts. (There's a nanny-bot and some memory-erasing/murder of humans involved, but it's weird and boring and overall basically unimportant.) The men are no help, because they all live in a huddle together painting themselves in bright flamboyant colors and dancing and hugging all the time. (Seriously.) The men all live together because the women are led by an old angry lady who believes that women are stronger, and we should do away with all men. Then the movie goes out of its way to show that before Butchy McLes-alien took over, all children were raised by a man and a woman. Just like the Martian bible says it should be! The whole thing plays out like a particularly preachy episode of Futurama, minus any of the self-awareness. I kept thinking that I was reading too much into the film (impossible), but when Ke tells the Martians that they were meant to be raised by two parents, because that's the only way to feel love, I was convinced. And angered.
It's not often in this line of work that I get to write pieces that really matter, so I want to make the most of this. Mars Needs Moms isn't just offensive to gays, it's offensive to anyone who has a non-structuralist family. The overall message of the film is "Unless you're raised by one Mom AND one Dad, then you're wrong." Single parent? Wrong. Living with other relatives? Wrong. The film even makes sure we know that Milo has a Dad, although he serves no other purpose than letting us know that Milo is in a "proper family." [emphasis mine]
Wow. I was quite angered too after reading that review. Why didn't the trailer give any clues about what a homophobic, sexist hot mess this story was?

(And yes, you can make the argument that I haven't seen it yet, so I can't truly make a judgment based on someone else's review without having seen it. But unless the reviewer, Martin R. "Vargo" Schneider, is lying then I've really heard enough to make the decision not to see this - and more importantly, not to take my daughter to see this.) Perhaps it's possible that there's a little more self-awareness and irony in the film than Schneider is giving them credit for, but I'm doubtful, and even so, it's pretty clear what 'message' our kids will get from this propaganda film kids movie.

It's not only anti-gay (and anti-single parent/anti-non-traditional family) but it's also sexist and anti-feminist. In addition to the message that the only 'right' family has one mom and one dad (no single parents, no same-sex parents, no non-traditional families of any kind) kids are also subjected to the fucked up idea that women are the only people who can be nurturers (sorry dads) but that's all they should be.

This movie sends the message that it's a bad idea to let women be in power - in politics, in the military, or any position of power at all really because apparently if women achieve any level of power or prestige or responsibility outside of parenting and homemaking they are rendered incapable of fulfilling their real responsibilities of motherhood. In fact, they might just destroy civilization altogether! Why? Because feminists are evil, man-hating, power-hungry bitches incapable of running a country (let alone a planet).

How is it that two big time stars like working-mother Joan Cusack and Seth Green (who had a recurring role in the very gay-friendly Buffy the Vampire Slayer series) agreed to sign on to a movie with a message like this?

There have been plenty of matriarchal or matrifocal cultures that didn't crumble because no one was raising the poor babies. And although the United States is still very much a patriarchy, women have proven that they're totally capable of 'having it all' and achieving high levels of power with or without children and husbands. Same-sex marriage and civil partnerships are now legal in many U.S. states, as is LGBT adoption. A lot of experts have stated that not only do the children of same-sex couples grow up just as well developed as other kids, but gay marriage may actually be better for kids.

So why is this movie sending the message that in order to be happy and healthy kids need two parents of opposite genders? (We bet this is one film that the AFA and OMM won't be complaining about.)

Another reviewer from LostInReviews.com also questioned whether there were any racial overtones to the film:
First, all of the human characters were white. Usually, not a big deal. It’s not like that’s bad or good, just one of those things. But, the male aliens of Mars seem to be a little stereotypical. They all wear tribal paint, mainly yellow, black, green and red. They also have dreadlocks, larger lips and are projected as being idiots. I’m not trying to jump to conclusions, but it seemed like they made these aliens have very African traits. Now, it’s not a big deal to have a character like that, but through the entire movie, the other characters talk about how stupid the men are. Is it just me, or did it seem like this movie had a tiny, minuscule bit of racism to it?

I know what commenters are going to say about this post. Oh, you're making a big deal out of nothing. It's just a kids movie. Yes, it's a kids movie. That's exactly the problem. When movies for adults have subtle (or not so subtle) messages in them, at least adults have the ability to decipher these points and (hopefully) have the knowledge and intelligence to decide for themselves if they agree or not. But kids? Kids are much more impressionable. When kids movies have these kinds of messages, they're not just 'messages' but lessons.

So before you take your kids to see Mars Needs Moms think about what lessons you want them to learn... Do you want them to learn that women don't deserve economic or political power? Do you want them to learn that in order to be fully loved and happy and normal they need two parents? And do you want them to learn that non-traditional families are downright dangerous to our society? (Maybe you do, in which case why are you reading our blog in the first place?)

And we're not necessarily saying that you shouldn't see this movie (although it seems like no one else is, phew)... Maybe the kids are begging to see it? Maybe you're really into CGI? Maybe you want to give it a chance? Fine, go for it. But go into it knowing what messages your kids might be getting... and please, have a conversation with your kids about why those messages are wrong.

March 13, 2011

The One Million Moms Target Axe's Angel Ad

It's been awhile since we checked in on the One Million Moms. This week's action alert is about a commercial for AXE:

Angels AXE Their Halos in Newest Unilever Commercial!

If you have seen it then you know what OMM is concerned over. The new commercial for AXE is beyond repulsive! AXE, owned by Unilever, produces men's deodorant, body wash and body spray and has outdone itself in shocking audiences with outrageous ads.

Their newest commercial has angels falling from the sky. After the angels stand up from the jarring fall, they grab their glowing halos and throw them on the pavement which causes them to shatter into small pieces. This happens repeatedly and ends with several angels walking towards a man apparently wearing AXE. The tagline is "Even Angels Will Fall!"

This is degrading and irresponsible for AXE to stoop so low. To mock Christianity is inexcusable!

Here's one of the ads:

Now, I agree with the Moms to the extent that I also find this commercial to be stupid and offensive. I'm so sure that angels would choose to give up everything for some random dude stinking of AXE in the street when they could be chilling out in heaven instead. And of course the angels have to ditch their halos because sexual desire is dirty and shameful and unbecoming of a "holy" creature. But, you know, it's an AXE ad. I'm not expecting art or poetry or creativity or feminism.

What I find interesting about the OMM action alert is that it complains only about the anti-Christian aspect of the ad and totally glosses over the obvious sexism. There's a general reference to the ad being "degrading", but that's it. Apparently "to mock Christianity is inexcusable", but to mock women is not that big of a deal. Since the Moms are supposed to be all about protecting children from negative influences in the media, you'd think they would be concerned about the message that ads like this send to their daughters and sons. Instead this is yet another example of the OMM's selective and often misguided outrage.

March 8, 2011

The Virgin Mobile "Crazy" Girl Should Become A Sparkly Vampire

Can someone explain to me why the girl in this commercial is "crazy", but Edward Cullen is the dreamy romantic hero of the century?

Same lurking, creeping, and nonconsensual nighttime visits, am I right? She's a lover, not a stalker!

[Cross-posted on ESC TV]

We've developed an addiction to free

We've developed a very serious problem that we need to confess. We're addicted to freebies. Now, we go to a lot of conferences so we're no strangers to swag bags and expo halls. And I'm a makeup junkie so I've definitely done the not-so-logical shopping move of buying extra stuff just to get that "free" gift with purchase. But recently we took it to another level.

It started when I happened to see a tweet from someone about a giveaway on facebook for free deodorant (of all things). We follow a few shopping and free stuff sites, and this tweet just caught my eye for whatever reason. I sent the link to the rest of the ESC, and what resulted was basically a 'freebie off' with links flying back and forth - a sample of body lotion here, a box of cereal there, vitmins, tampons, laundry detergent, granola bars, and so on.

We realized that it was out of control when we found ourselves saying stuff like 'hey cool, a free diabetes awareness bracelet!' even though none of us (or anyone close to us) actually have diabetes. Is it a good cause? Yes. Do we need the bracelets? No. Even if they are free. (One of us may also have gotten a free pouch of dog treats even though she doesn't have a dog. No names.) So we're going to try to check ourselves and only get free samples that we actually want/need, otherwise pretty soon we'll find ourselves auditioning for the next season of Extreme Couponing.

So to make us feel less like losers, please share some stories about the most awesome thing you ever got for free, or the dumbest thing you ever did to get something for free.

March 2, 2011

Belated Cosmo Quickies: February 2011

"Cosmo has been the bible for women since Helen Gurley Brown took over in 1965." So says Kate White in the February issue's letter from the editor. Obviously we beg to differ.

Honestly, we almost skipped over this issue entirely because we thought it was a bit boring. (And you may have noticed that we're already talking about the April issue.) But there were a few notable things that we wanted to mention. So, consider this a quickie Quickies.

-The infamous Hot Sheet page has been revamped. It's now called What's Sexy Right Now, and the list is just as silly and random as ever - this month's sexy trends include things like "men who make pancakes". But the big news is that they've eliminated the What's Not So Hot section, which used to be a reliable monthly source of cattiness and slut-shaming. Although we're sad to lose a steady source of blog material, we're glad they've done away with it. Baby steps.

Oh, and number one on February's sexy list? Manthers, of course.
Snagging a Manther

A reformed bay boy like Russell Brand, an older guy on the prowl like Jake Gyllenhaal...these are the kinda scruffy, in-need-of-taming types that starlets from Katy to Taylor are going wild over.
Oh, Cosmo. Please don't try to make manther happen. It's not going to happen. And in what universe is Jake Gyllenhaal an "older" guy "on the prowl"? Come on.

-February's cover girl is Mila Kunis, and she's also Cosmo's Fun Fearless Female of the Year. This part of the article jumped out at us:
"I could not be less sexy if I tried!" she insists. "I'm a sweatpants kind of girl. I burp. I'm not a very attractive female." Of course, that I-don't-give-a-shit attitude is what makes her sexy. That and the fact that she doesn't play games. "I think playing coy is silly. Speak your mind. If a man gets turned off, he's the wrong man."
It's so funny to us that Cosmo would highlight this quote since it basically contradicts about 99% of their dating and relationship advice.

-In the 101 Things About Men section, there's a piece called Get Him To Call You that's about "body language signals" that you can send to "guarantee" that a guy will ask for your number and follow through on calling you. Remember ladies, playing coy is silly...

-In the Guy Watch section there's a painfully unfunny and offensive photo spread called Busted Being Girlie. "We're all for men embracing their feminine side, but some take it too far. Seriously, dudes - we can see your hoo-has!" I wish I was making that up. The photos include celeb guys like George Clooney, Jude Law, and Eric Dane committing horrible girlie offenses like getting a manicure, holding a small dog, and carrying various shopping and tote bags. Each photo has a hilarious caption like "Did someone say shoe sale?! Jude definitely needs a new pair...of balls, that is." And the Cosmo team was apparently really proud of this piece since it got a mention in the editor's letter ("We aren't fans of guys getting too in touch with their feminine side..."). The whole thing is just a mess.

-There's an article about how to apply lessons learned from Cleopatra to your own life. They refer to her as "the original Cosmo girl". I'm offended on her behalf.

-There's a piece called We Can't Believe We Said That!! that compares some of the "crazy-hilarious" advice that Cosmo gave in the 70s to the "wiser" advice that they offer now. Between this and the 'don't play coy with guys' thing, this must have been the Lack of Self-Awareness issue. And as long as they keep dishing out such wise advice, we'll keep reading. So you don't have to.

March 1, 2011

Britney vs. Demi vs. Lindsay: Only One Can Survive!

Don't think that we only had one thing to say about the April 2011 issue of Cosmopolitan... We have a feeling this is might be a pretty Cosmo-heavy month for the blog based on all the garbage we pulled out of this one issue. (Don't get us wrong, there's actually some good stuff this month too. Er.. well, good-for-Cosmo that is. We promise we'll mention that too!)

But anyway... on the same page as the lovely Selena Gomez/Justin Bieber piece that we tore apart yesterday, we also found this little tidbit:

Who are you rooting for?

These ├╝bercriticized celebs are trying to make a comeback. According to our poll, you're behind...

50%: Britney
Britney Spears - She may be "country," but her latest single is really catchy.

34%: Demi
Demi Lovato - Growing up in the spotlight is a bitch. Team Demi!

16%: LiLo
Lindsay Lohan - Messy life aside, she's a talented actress.

Hm. I don't know Cosmo... don't you think it's just a little bit tasteless to turn the personal issues of three troubled young women into a cutesy little game? 50% of readers want Britney Spears to make it! And the rest... what? ...hope she gets committed?

And why do we have to pick just one? Are we not allowed to root for more than one woman at a time? If I root for 'Team Demi' am I basically telling Lindsay to go fuck herself? In Cosmo World, women are always being pitted against one another, but what if we want all three of these young women to reemerge stronger and healthier and happier?

And in typical Cosmo fashion, they're trying to mask bitchy gossip about celebrities as 'rooting for' them...

Britney is "country" (code: white trash). Lindsay Lohan has a "messy life" (code: jail time). And although they don't directly dis Demi Lovato, it's worth mentioning she doesn't even get a "but" or an "aside"... apparently Cosmo doesn't think Demi is a talented actress or that her singles are catchy. All three of these women have grown up in the spotlight... and yes, it is a bitch. But let's not ignore Cosmo's role in the so-called "├╝bercriticism" that stars like them put up with every day. The writers and editors at Cosmo criticize female celebrities like it's their job (oh wait, it is their job)... so why are they suddenly 'rooting for' these three? They're not.

And the suggestion that Britney needs a 'comeback' is condescending on its own...

Britney's personal life may have had a lot of ups and downs in the past few years, but professionally she's still going strong. Circus sold 4 million copies worldwide (one of the fastest-selling albums of 2008) and its related tour grossed $131.8 million (fifth highest grossing tour of the year). Her episodes of How I Met Your Mother and Glee brought in the highest ratings for both shows.

Hold It Against Me
Her newest single Hold It Against Me isn't just "catchy". It debuted at number one on the Billboard Hot 100 (making her the second artist in history to have two songs - the other being ...Baby One More Time - debut at number one on the chart). It is also Spears' fourth number-one single in the U.S. According to the Guinness Book of World Records, she's also the youngest female artist to have five albums debut at number one.

Demi Lovato hardly needs a comeback just yet either. At only 18, the girl is worth millions. She's the star of a hit Disney show Sonny With a Chance and the premiere of her most recent film for Disney (Camp Rock 2: The Final Jam) gained the channel 8 million viewers. Her last album, Here We Go Again, got her three Teen Choice Awards nominations in 2010 and her South American tour grossed $1,007,590. She also won a 2010 People's Choice Award for Favorite TV Guest Star for her appearance on Grey's Anatomy.

What To Do
Yes, it's true that she had to drop out of the Jonas Brothers Live in Concert Tour a few weeks early in order to enter a treatment facility for "physical and emotional issues" but it hasn't exactly hurt her career just yet. Her third album is expected this Spring and Disney even reworked Sonny with a Chance in order to accommodate her treatment schedule, publicly announcing that they "support Demi's decision to put her health first".

She's definitely been the topic of a lot of gossip and trash talk lately (between rumors of self-mutilation, unconfirmed drug use, and the least scandalous photo 'scandal' ever) and she's definitely had some issues to work out regarding her mental and physical health, but to say she's in need of a "comeback" is a huge exaggeration.

Machete - Movie Poster (Lindsay Lohan as The Sister) (Size: 24" x 36")And then there's LiLo...now maybe she does need a comeback of sorts. But the real reason Lindsay Lohan's career has been 'hurting' a little bit lately has little to do with the fact that that people are 'criticizing' her. Over the past few years she's been in and out of rehab, in and out of court, and even in and out of jail... which has caused her to lose some film offers. (She last appeared in Machete and Underground Comedy 2010 and was cast as Linda Lovelace in Inferno but later replaced with Malin Akerman.)

Sure, Lindsay Lohan has some problems right now ... so maybe she doesn't need bitchy Cosmo editors taking bets on whether or not she's going to beat Britney and Demi in the race-to-persevere. And only 16% of women are 'rooting' for her to get her life back together? Lovely.

The simple fact is that while sometimes it's hard to resist gossiping about a recent 'scandal'... it's really about the work. If the song is good, we'll listen to it; if the movie or TV show is good, we'll watch it. We at Evil Slutopia may not always have the nicest things to say about some of today's celebrities (of course, it's usually for completely different reasons), but we're definitely not hoping for any of them to have to deal with some of the recent issues that Britney, Demi and Lindsay have had to deal with.

We wish these three women the best... and we wish that instead of using their troubles as catty magazine fodder, Cosmo would actually be rooting for them... for all of them.