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.

July 28, 2011

Fail to the V: Summer's Eve's Sexist and Racist New Ad Campaign

Last year, Summer's Eve ran an ad in Women's Day magazine called "Confidence at Work: How to Ask for a Raise". The ad featured a list of ten tips and first on that list was the suggestion that women should make sure to start off every work day feeling fresh by using Summer's Eve products.

After an outcry from women offended by the implication that using feminine hygiene products is the first step to career success, Summer's Eve agreed to pull the ad and issued an apology. They also created a Twitter account called Eve Cares to field the complaints. Director of U.S. Marketing Angela Bryant promised that Summer's Eve would do better in the future, and said, "Moving forward, Summer's Eve wants to not only connect with our customers, but to be an active leader on the issues that matter to women. We just engaged a progressive communications team, and in the next several weeks, we'll be talking to women all over the country about the issues that matter to us as women. We're insisting on open and frank discussions to make sure all of our future marketing and education efforts are relevant and respectful."

Summer's Eve recently unveiled their new ad campaign, called "The V", and it's safe to say that Bryant's promise was not kept. The press release announcing the new ads described an "empowering" campaign featuring "strong female archetypes" like Cleopatra, and stated that "Summer's Eve is not a means to confidence, rather it's a celebration of confidence, of being a woman, and taking care of their bodies." Missing from the press release was the fact that Summer's Eve makes products like douches that are considered by women's health experts to be unhealthy and unnecessary for women who want to "feel fresh" and take good care of their bodies.

The campaign, which includes print and video ads and a redesign of the Summer's Eve website, is all about praising "the V" and its role in history. The "Hail to the V" commercial shows us scenes from various times and places in history while a voiceover intones "It's the cradle of life...the center of civilization. Men have fought for it, even died for it. One might say it's the most powerful thing on Earth." Groups of men are shown battling it out with each other while women stand passively by looking pretty, and the ad ends with a modern women buying Summer's Eve to show her V "a little love".

The print ads follow along similar lines. One ad tells us that Cleopatra would have loved to use Summer's Eve products because she knew how important it was to "take care of her most precious resource. No, not the Nile. We're talking about her V." Those of us who thought that Cleopatra's most precious resource might have been intelligence, political acumen, courage, or charisma were apparently mistaken. The other ad stars Helen of Troy: "A war was fought. A whole city fell. And thousands died. Because of a beautiful face? We think not. Although you'll be hard-pressed to find any mention of her V in any history book, you can bet Helen of Troy knew what was up." It goes on to claim that Helen could have launched even more ships if she had been able to use Summer's Eve products.

It's hard to find the "empowerment" in these ads since the message seems to be that the most important role of women in history has been inspiring men to act through the power of the V. (It also seems that everyone is heterosexual in the Summer's Eve version of history.) The ads reduce women to a single body part and their strength and power in the world to their status as sexual objects, and imply that all of men’s actions are based solely on their desire for sex.

The other series of ads in the campaign gets right down to the V and doesn't show any actual women at all - instead, we only see a talking hand that is supposed to represent a vulva. (Dismembering women in advertising is nothing new but it's never been done quite like this before.) There are three Vs and they're apparently supposed to represent white, black, and Latina women, which gives Summer's Eve a chance to throw some stereotyping into the mix. The white V lives in "VaginaLand" and wants to be your BFF, while the black V calls herself "Lady Wowza" and is all about changing hair styles and making sure you feel fresh before you "hit the club". The Latina V has an accent, says "ay yi yi", and switches to Spanish halfway through the ad to rant about having to wear a "tacky leopard thong".

The Richards Group, the agency responsible for the ads, has dismissed criticism of the stereotyping by saying that their "in house multi-cutural experts confirmed the approach". (We're not sure who these multicultural experts are, but a quick glance at the Richards Group's website shows that there aren't many people of color or women on their Creative staff.) Apparently Summer's Eve thinks that "sassy black woman" and "spicy Latina" are "strong female archetypes" rather than tired old stereotypes. While The Richards Group was making excuses, Summer's Eve quietly deleted the Eve Cares page on Twitter, which had sat unused for almost a year until people started using it again to tweet criticism of the new campaign. Apparently Eve doesn't care.

This ad campaign is a Fail to the V and is far from empowering. Summer's Eve says they're hailing the V, but they're really insulting women by trying to sell us the idea that we need their products to keep our vaginas fresh, since they are the true sources of our power. They promised a "relevant and respectful" ad campaign, and what they've delivered instead is sexist, racist, and demeaning. Sign the petition and join us in asking Summer's Eve to end this offensive ad campaign.

Crossposted: Change.org

July 21, 2011

Kiss Our Sass Tells 3M To "Suck It"

We are super excited for BlogHer11! (You can expect our obligatory pre-BlogHer post shortly.) Of course, we're psyched for the whole weekend, but it wouldn't be BlogHer without some awesome parties. When we heard about the Kiss Our Sass Party (Powered by Match.com® and hosted by Melysa of Sex, Lies and Bacon and Jamie of Single Mom Survives) we had to get in on that.

(The Kiss Our Sass Party will take place Thursday, August 4th from 9pm to 11pm at the San Diego Hard Rock Hotel’s rooftop.)

So imagine our dismay when we read on Twitter that one of their sponsoring companies, 3M (owner of the Scotch, Post-it, Command and Filtrete Water brands) pretty much screwed them over. According to Melysa and Jamie, the 3M Company agreed to help sponsor the Kiss Our Sass Party, a party for awesome single moms and their awesome single friends, for $1,500... and then... totally fucked them over, in a really shady, unethical way.

(We're a little late on writing about this... but better late than never, because we think everyone needs to know about this. Both because the Kiss Our Sass Party is accepting donations to help cover the amount 3M isn't paying and because you should know how shady 3M is!)

If you've been keeping track of BlogHer's endless sponsor promotions emails, you may have noticed the 3M Goin' Coconuts! Luau & Mixer on the SAME DATE and at the SAME TIME as the Kiss Our Sass Party. [Note, the original URL which read "goin'-coconuts-luau-mixer-sponsored-3m" is redirecting to one that reads "filtrete-water-front-yoga-studio"... possibly because the luau guestlist is full or possibly because they're trying to draw our attention away from what they did.]

After committing to sponsor the Kiss Our Sass Party (and in turn, receiving awesome tips on how to best effectively promote themselves at the event) they're going to bail and throw their own copycat party at the same time? And they're going to leave the organizers of Kiss Our Sass hanging for over a week, while their emails went unanswered? Weak!

Of course, the PR team at 3M claims that they didn't do anything wrong. From a prepared statement written jointly by 3M and BlogHer:
Recently, 3M and BlogHer were surprised to see negative tweets about this party. Two bloggers tweeted that the date and time of 3M’s official party overlaps with an outside party they are organizing that same night.
While 3M had inquired about sponsorship of this outside party, 3M signed its sponsorship agreement with BlogHer in May and subsequently notified the two blogger organizers that it was focusing on the details of its own official event and sponsorship.

On Monday morning, July 11th, 3M staff tried to arrange a phone call with these bloggers to hear their concerns. We would have welcomed the chance to speak. However, the bloggers declined 3M’s offer and instead continued to post negative comments.
That sounds like a reasonable explanation, until you hear the Kiss Our Sass gals' rebuttals of their claims... According to them, 3M came to them in June (a good month after they had already agreed to sponsor BlogHer) about sponsoring the Kiss Our Sass Party... so the term "subsequently" is definitely inaccurate. Also, they did way more than "inquire". They committed in writing to sponsor the event.

 From Melysa's blog A Letter to 3M or Why 3M Can Suck It:
They did not INQUIRE about sponsorship, they COMMITTED in an email after weeks of exchanges. "The Scotch team will be COMMITTING to this effort." Does that not sound like a commitment to you? Does that sound like an inquiry? I HAVE THE EMAIL THAT SAYS THIS
She also explains why they "declined 3M’s offer" to talk on the phone. They wanted to continue the conversation in email, as they had been for the past months... something that 3M declined. Why? Most likely because they didn't want anything else in writing that could incriminate them. It's bad enough that Melysa and Jamie have screenshots of pages of emails proving 3M screwed up... if the convo moved to the phone, it would become a "he said/she said" situation.

(We definitely recommend you click on that link to her blog and read the whole entry for the full story. Seriously. Do it. Right now... we'll wait here.)

We want to make it clear that Melysa and Jamie didn't share this story in order to trash the company (although that's just an added bonus!) They did it in order to let other people who might get involved with them to know that they clearly don't behave ethically. From Melysa's Open Letter to 3M (Didn't you read it? We told you to go and read it!):

Above all, I am disgusted by the way Jamie and I were treated in our dealings with your company, which has left a bad taste in our mouths, and since we’ve gone public with it, it has also left a bad taste in the mouths of bloggers who would’ve normally supported, and have been supporting, 3M. Jamie and I are making no money off of this party. We have nothing to gain from it. We have invested our time, our energy, and our hearts in order to pull together an event for women who truly deserve it. We didn’t set out to do this to make money or promote ourselves, like your corporation did. We did this to give something back to bloggers who are less fortunate than us. The fact that you tried to undermine a party that was created for something good is saddening.
That being said, I’d like to give 3M a chance to make things right by either making a donation to support the women attending the Kiss Our Sass Party so we can add some last minute surprises to the event, or by compensating me for my time and my ideas that you used for your own personal gain.
Not-so-shockingly, 3M hasn't made a donation. You still can if you'd like to support the party. Or at least, we recommend you email the 3M PR team to RSVP and let them know why you won't be attending (or supporting 3M's brands anymore). While you're at it, you can also RSVP to their Filtrete Yoga event on Saturday, August 6 and tell them the same thing!

Whether this was just a scheduling snafu or an intentional attempt at stealing ideas on 3M's part, either way, the way they behaved and treated these women is not okay.

July 20, 2011

The AFA Forces Us to Defend Michele Bachmann

We would never ever vote for Michele Bachmann or support her in any way. We oppose pretty much everything that she stands for. (And our fellow True Blood fans know that we suspect her of being an evil maenad.) That being said, leave it to Bryan Fischer of the American Family Assocation to present an argument against Bachmann that even we can't agree with.

Bachmann migraines would be a gamechanger, make Perry run inevitable

A sensational Daily Caller story this morning by Jonathan Strong quotes three anonymous sources to the effect that Michele Bachmann suffers routinely from debilitating migraine headaches, which, according to one source, can “incapacitate” her on occasion for several days.

While the sources are anonymous, what is worrisome is that Ms. Bachmann’s spokeswoman Alice Stewart admitted that Ms. Bachmann “suffers from migraines” but says they are “under control with medicine.” She challenged the use of the word “incapacitating” but, according to Strong, “did not specify how the descriptions were wrong.”
So Bachmann's spokeswoman said that the migraines shouldn't be described as incapacitating and are under control with medicine, which somehow isn't enough to "specify" how the description of the migraines as incapacitating and not under control is wrong.

She understandably refused to discuss details of Bachmann’s hospital visits (“I’m not going to go into her medical history”), but neither did she deny that Bachmann has been hospitalized on occasion for treatment of this condition.
In other words, she wouldn't discuss details of Bachmann's medical history, which is "understandable" but also totally suspicious. Gotcha.

This story obviously must be read with a certain amount of caution, and verification is needed before conclusions can be drawn. However...
We should be cautious about this story based entirely on "anonymous sources" (that could very well have their own agendas here), but that wouldn't be any fun so let's get right to speculating instead!

...it must be said that should the content of Strong’s piece be verified, I do not see how a Bachmann candidacy can survive. We obviously must have a president and commander-in-chief in full and complete health, who is in constant command of his faculties, and who has no known risk of being temporarily unable to discharge the duties of office.
A president who is in constant command of his faculties. Am I alone in thinking that this word choice reveals another reason that Fischer wouldn't be too upset if Michele Bachmann's candidacy didn't survive?

All of which would make a Rick Perry candidacy both inevitable and necessary. Perry, Bachmann, and Herman Cain are the most enthusiastically popular potentials with Tea Partiers, but even fervent Tea Party supporters would be forced to concede it would not be a good idea to have a president who might be sidelined for periods of time virtually without warning.

What this would mean in the end is that the campaign would come down to Cain and Perry. Mitt Romney, despite his fundraising advantages, is obviously and patently unacceptable to social and small government conservatives. Neither Pawlenty nor Santorum nor Huntsman are likely to generate any traction, and Gingrich’s campaign was over virtually before it started.
Pawlenty, Santorum, and Huntsman are unlikely to generate traction, but Herman 'communities have the right to ban mosques' Cain totally can? Okay, let's pretend that we accept that he can do that. In that case, why is a Perry run so necessary?

It would be essentially necessary for Perry run if Bachmann’s health becomes an issue. If he doesn’t wade in to the pool, he’ll get drafted.

He has an enviable and unmatched record on jobs as governor of Texas. According to the Census Bureau, 907,000 of the 1.6 million jobs created in the last 10 years were created in Texas under his watch. With jobs and the economy the number one issue on people’s minds, this is virtually the only message Perry will need. With his unapologetic social conservatism, including unqualified support for the sanctity of life and natural marriage, Perry will make an appealing if not irresistible candidate for true conservatives.
Natural marriage? Is that what we're calling it now? I liked opposite marriage better.

Cain seems to have rediscovered his bold and unwavering voice in recent days, after a few weeks of uncertainty and clumsy footwork, and could make Perry earn the nomination down the stretch. The iron-sharpening-iron dynamic between the two would help conservatives to make their choice and prove the mettle of the eventual winner. From here, that winner looks a lot like Gov. Rick Perry.
So Herman Cain is a great candidate, which means that Rick Perry has to run because Cain is black for some reason. It's not Bryan Fischer's fault that the best candidate in this scenario is obviously not the woman or the black man but the white man who has not even announced that he's actually running. I think this all makes perfect sense, but don't go by me, because I'm a woman who sometimes gets migraines so obviously I can't be trusted.

July 15, 2011

What he secretly doesnt want in bed?

We're used to women's magazines like Cosmo selling its readers generalizations about men and sex... but when we find that kind of article in Redbook (aimed at a slightly different demographic of women) it's a bit of a surprise. Perhaps Aaron Traister's "What he secretly doesn't want in bed" (August 2011) isn't as offensive as the typical Cosmo fare, but we couldn't help but notice how... wrong... this one seemed.

The article opens up innocently enough:
I feel like everywhere I turn, someone's telling me that my sex life isn't exciting enough. From the oversharing nature of social media to hypersexual ads for places like American Apparel to the onslaught of sex scandals involving politicians, celebrities, and that guy at American Apparel, I sometimes feel like I'm the only man not having Rick James-style sex (may he rest in peace), filming it, and uploading it for strangers to watch online. I can't help but wonder if the rest of the world is busy re-creating Cirque du Soleil in the bedroom while I'm simply having sex with my wife of 10 years on the couch.
Obviously we support all types of sex (including the choice to not have sex at all) so there's nothing wrong if you prefer things a little bit more "vanilla". In fact, we think it's good that Traister has opened up about this fact, because the world needs to know that it's okay to want what you want and like what you like, regardless of what it is. So if he wants to be the spokesman for men who just don't want or need all the "extras" in the bedroom, that's great.

But where he crosses the line for us, is where he suggests that his point of view is the typical, usual, normal one. He gives a list of common "twists" you can add to your sex life (we won't go so far as to call any of it "kink" because most of it is pretty tame vanilla stuff to begin with) and claims that "a lot of women think" guys want them but "most" of them don't. We find this "most" point hard to believe (in fact, we think most women would find it hard to believe) because nothing he mentions is really that outrageous and it has been our own personal experience that most guys do want a lot of these things - and often a hell of a lot more.

So let's take a look at the stuff Traister claims men don't want in bed:

1. Aggressively sexy lingerie.
Leg Avenue Women's Strappy Spandex Tube Dress, Black, One SizeDon't get me wrong, I'm all for sexy clothes, but sometimes lingerie goes too far. Formfitting and revealing is awesome - so much better than manky old sweats. But I don't need elaborate Rorschach tests of lace patterning, and I don't want snaps, zippers, triggers, and stuff you're supposed to eat.
Okay, sure. Some men may not "need" elaborate lingerie, but some do need it and a lot of them want it. There are so many varying styles of naughty outfits a woman can wear in bed. Who is to say that men don't sometimes like it a little... complicated. These kind of outfits wouldn't exist if someone didn't buy them...

2. Role-playing.
I'm not pretending to be a pizza man, a merchant marine, a European football star or an evil clown. It feels ridiculous, and it's hard to get in the mood when you feel ridiculous.
Okay, if you feel ridiculous doing something, that's a perfect reason not to do it. But a lot of people find role-playing anything but ridiculous. What is a bit ridiculous is Traister's closed-minded description of what role-playing actually is. Maybe for some it is about pretending to be an evil clown, but more often than not, it's quite different. Also, as many of us already know, there are many varying degrees of role-playing. While sometimes it can mean the actual detailed portrayal of a specific character, quite often it can only mean assuming or acting out a different "role" than usual. That can be as simple as giving your personality a minor tweak (such as being a little more submissive or dominant than usual).

3. Watching porn during sex.
[...] a lot of women admit to watching porn with their significant others while having sex. I'd be lying if I said Karel and I have never tried this, but for me it sorta ruins the moment. It's distracting. I like being totally focused on the woman I'm with.
Now that's a really nice sentiment, not wanting porn to distract you from being totally focused on the woman you're with. But it's really unfair to say that just because he finds it distracting, that therefore a lot of men feel the same way. (In fact, it's a little bit offensive to imply that if you do happen to add a little something extra to the bedroom, that you're not into being "totally focused" on your partner. That's not true.) He said it himself, a lot of women admit to having done it. Well, are we supposed to believe that all of the men that they've been doing this with don't actually like it? Oh those poor guys. Listen, some people like to watch porn during sex, some like to watch it before sex, some like to watch it instead of sex... it may be distracting to some, but it's also a turn-on for others.

4. Making homemade porn.
I like the idea of the finished product, but the reality of making that product seems overly complicated to me. It's a lot of equipment to hold. Sure, I could use a stationary camera, but crappy cinematography really bothers me. Also, I get a little obsessive bout creative projects. I can imagine myself trying to be the Terrence Malick of homemade porn: "Karel, we're going to lose our light if we can't do this in one take. Now let's go over our marks again. Remember, I'm starting with a tight shot on the grasshopper in your hand. We need the grasshopper for the metaphor I'm trying to make; otherwise the entire picture won't make any sense. Also, the script calls for your boobs to have an 'extraterrestrial sheen' on them. Can you figure out how to make that happen? Finally, we're $50,000 over budget -- just something to think about as we work."
I actually quoted this one in its entirety because it was just that annoying to me and I needed everyone to know that I wasn't exaggerating it when I described it. Okay, yes, it's funny. Ha ha. But while this article is supposed to be humorous, it's not a satire piece. It's meant to be helpful, no? Traister's recurring column is called "Whys Guy" because he's supposed to be the readers' source for decoding male behavior. So how about he gives at least one genuine reason why "most" men allegedly don't like making homemade porn mixed in with the jokes? It's fine if you don't like the idea of making a sex tape... maybe "most" men really feel that way. But I really doubt that any of them feel that way because they hate "crappy cinematography".

5. The A word.
Some guys want "all access" to various parts of the body -- okay, one particular part -- during sex. If this works for you and your partner, mazel tov! But I actually find it unpleasant, and I can only imagine how it feels to you. I'm going to leave it at that.
Yet again, Traister mistakes the article for "what I want in bed" instead of "what most men want in bed". That's totally fine if he's not a fan of anal sex, but he fully admits that some guys want this - so why is this included on the list at all? Also, I'm sorry.... but "The A word"? This isn't Seventeen. Redbook is a magazine for grown women. They can't say the word? Say it! ANAL! It's not a bad word. Anal sex! Anal sex! I know some people still consider this to be "taboo" but c'mon, can't we at least SAY the words? Now a lot of people are not fans of anal sex, but a lot of men - and a lot of women - do enjoy it.

6. Threesomes.
I know, I know. They're every man's fantasy. But not mine. First of all, I'm a terrible multitasker.
Again. He admits that this has nothing to do with what men want, and more to do with what Aaron Traister wants. He said it himself: "They're every man's fantasy." Now, I'm sure there are plenty of men who really, truly don't want a threesome... but I find it hard to believe that it's "most". Basing it on my own experience... I'd have to say that I've only ever come across one guy that didn't at least like the idea of a threesome, even if he wasn't actively trying to have one.

7. Bondage.
One of my first sexual experiences involved being handcuffed by a lovely young woman who went on to become a neurosurgeon. It felt forced, like we were doing it just because it was "kinky". That's less like sex and more like performance art.
Ah, bondage. Of course, he had to add that one to the list. Now to be fair, it's quite possible that a lot of people don't want to try this (or only want to try it because they think they should try something "kinky" - you know, like Cosmo suggests - and that's not a good enough reason). But on the other hand, bondage - you know, vanilla white bread bondage - is really popular right now. It's everywhere... Cosmo magazine, music videos, everywhere. So it's really not fair for him to say that this is something men secretly don't want in bed.

Traister follows up with this:
But listen, if handcuffs make you breathe heavy, by all means, whip them out. Your guy will probably play right along, because anything "extra" that authentically turns you on is a turn-on for him, too.
No, you don't just "whip them out". You have a conversation about it first. He may be happy to try it, but he shouldn't just "play right along" without a discussion about boundaries. Which brings me to my final point.

The real issue that I have with this entire article... it isn't just that Traister has decided that what he secretly doesn't want in bed are the same things that "most men" secretly don't want in bed. The real issue I have with it is the "secretly" part. Why oh why is anything about your sex life secret from your partner!?

What you like in bed (or what you want to try in bed) shouldn't be a secret. You should be talking about this with your partner! How else are they supposed to know what you want? Trial and error? By reading your mind? By reading it in a fucking magazine? No, I don't think so. Talk about it! But even more important than that... what you don't like in bed should never ever be a secret. If you really don't want to do something, don't do it. You shouldn't have to secretly suffer through it.

Now, yes, of course I understand that most of what Traister is trying to say here is that a lot of these things that women think men absolutely crave, are really not that important to them - often just you is enough. But the message he's actually sending is that our poor boyfriends and husbands are keeping secrets about what they really want. No. If that really is the case, the way to solve this problem is not to follow the directions of some schmo in a magazine. The solution is TALKING ABOUT IT. Ask your man what he likes, what he wants, what he doesn't want... and tell him what you like and you want. It's that simple.

If you can't talk to your man about sex... then you shouldn't be having sex with him.

July 14, 2011

Would Cleopatra Have Used Summer's Eve?

In a refreshing change of pace for us, the most offensive thing in the August issue of Cosmo had nothing to do with the actual content of the magazine. That honor goes to a Summer's Eve ad that declares that Cleopatra would have been a big fan of their 'feminine hygiene' products. Let's break it down.
Cleopatra used sea kelp, goat's milk, and rosemary leaves.

Life's hard even for a beautiful young pharaoh. Famine. Droughts. Marriage with a younger brother.
Yeah, you know how it is. Droughts, famines. Had to marry her brother, that must have been a bummer, am I right? At this point I was thinking that they had to be kidding, because nobody could possibly think this this was a good description of Cleopatra or summary of the hardships that she faced in her life. Unfortunately for me, I tested that theory by reading the rest.
But Cleopatra still found the time to take care of her most precious resource. No, not the Nile. We're talking about her V.
That's right, everyone. You may have thought that Cleopatra's most precious "resource" was her intelligence, political acumen, courage, strength, or charisma. Nope, sorry folks, it's all about the ladybits. I also can't help but read between the lines here. By saying that her most precious resource was "her V", are they going for a 'magical wonderful essence of womanhood' sort of a thing...or just implying that she used sex to get what she wanted? Like I said, I'm sure I'm reading into this more than the brilliant ad agency who wrote it intended, but I think this whole concept is pretty weird.
You can bet she would have loved to have Summer's Eve Cleansing Wash and Cleansing Cloths back then. Specially formulated, they help get you fresh and keep you fresh all day long. Now, what queen doesn't love that?
Since Cleopatra lived in a totally different time and a different society with its own rules and practices regarding hygiene, I can bet that she wouldn't. (And of course even here in our own time, many experts consider most of Summer's Eve's products to be unnecessary or even unhealthy for women.) What are the rest of the ads in this campaign going to look like? Maybe we'll find out that Joan of Arc was more successful in battle when she felt fresh, or that Marie Curie totally would have endorsed Summer's Eve's special formulas. If you need to get in a time machine to create an imaginary celebrity spokesperson for your product, maybe it's time to rethink your ad campaign.

Is Cosmo Running Out of Things to Do With a Naked Dude?

Jezebel: The new Cosmo came today. It's the 'Hot Issue' so I'm hoping for some extra stupid sex tips. They've been a little boring lately.

Lilith: Oh right, the Hot Issue, not to be confused with the Sexy Issue or the other issues of Cosmo that are totally sexless.

Jezebel: Okay, here's a lovely photo essay called The Hottest Thing A Guy Can Do Naked.

Lilith: Do tell.

Jezebel: "A fierce debate at the Cosmo office still couldn't answer this question: What's the sexiest nude dude activity? So we polled readers online to settle the score. Turns out, you think many pursuits are better in the buff, but here are your top four."

Lilith: Good to know they're having "fierce debates" about the really important issues.

Jezebel: The first one is 'cook you breakfast'. Since you can't go out to brunch naked, they suggest that we "save a few bucks and encourage your man to roll out of bed to fry up a couple of eggs - 62 percent of you rated playing naked chef as a favorite".

Lilith: LOL. Okay, Cosmo. And what, no bacon?

Jezebel: Just what I want to do when I'm naked, fry something in scalding hot oil or butter.

Lilith: It's totally fun and fearless.

Jezebel: The photo is of a guy holding a frying pan wearing nothing but a strategically placed little apron, and the caption says "he's serving this with a side of buns". They are so witty.

Lilith: Ew.

Jezebel: Next up is "lounge around" (44%), followed by "give you a massage" (82%) and "grab a snack" (35%).

Lilith: Breakfast and a snack?!

Jezebel: I know, right? If you only have four choices, two of them can't be 'eat something naked'.

Lilith: Yeah, they really thought outside the box with these creative options.

Jezebel: I also like that those percentages add up to more than 100. I'd love to see what this poll looked like.

Lilith: I'm sure it was very scientific.

Jezebel: "Rank how much you would enjoy doing the following activities naked with your guy..."

Lilith: We should do a poll like that. Our choices would be way better.

Jezebel: Oh wait, there's also a sidebar. "Your least favorite naked-guy activity: changing a lightbulb."

Lilith: You're making that up. Why would that even be a choice?

Jezebel: Because it's Cosmo.

Lilith: But naked lightbulb-changing is totally hot! How many naked guys does it take to change a lightbulb?

Jezebel: Cosmo always asks the tough questions.