in lieu of a real post, i give you ... semi-porn but not really

It's been quite some time since I've said anything even remotely resembling significant, huh? I'm gonna roll with that for just a bit longer.

While looking for the video of a commercial my friend and I were talking about last night, I stumbled upon this gem of a banned Skittles commercial. Surely, it was never intended to make it on television because sweet holy god, I can't imagine in what world it would ... but I still find it hilariously ... well, hilarious.



As you were.

oh sweet god, cover your eyes!

Fuckin' serious, folks?

I have nothing at all against Victoria's Secret models flaunting their tits all over television in more of an attempt to get men to stroke one off than to actually sell bras and panties. They're friggin' gorgeous, even if I do wonder how some of them don't fall over when the wind blows. But you know what? Chicks with tits bigger than theirs and added hips and ass to go along with them? They wear bras. And they're sexy. And they don't spend their time sitting at home watching television, eating ice cream out of a carton and getting "fatter." They wear pretty underthings. And they meet men for lunch in their skivvies (possibly only in commercials and fantasies but ya never know). And they fuck. And they do the very same things other women do.



That is all.

I'm just *not* going to do it, thanks

I need new sneakers.

Fear not, this post isn't going to revolve solely (ha!) around my need for new athletic footwear but the fact I'm still wearing a pair of sneakers with a giant hole in the bottom of the left one *is* what inspired this post.

I don't generally care for sneakers. I only wear them to and from work and when I go to the gym. Truth be told, I hate footwear in general. Have you ever heard of bras being referred to as "boobie zoos"? That's much how I feel about shoes. Foot zoos. Hate 'em. But much like math, it's a necessary evil. So, I buy sneakers.

Over the years, I've mainly purchased Nike sneakers because when I spend the good hour or two it takes me to purchase one lousy pair of shoes, I simply wind up feeling the most comfortable in their shoes. But there has always been that nagging little voice in my head telling me to buy a different brand because of Nike's alleged repeated asshattery, such as their piss poor child labour laws and the likelihood that little Tommy and Tammy were paid $.05 for every eight pairs of shoes they produced while I'm forking over close to $100 a pair. But I have a really difficult time with boycotting.

Everyday, companies are in the news for one reason or another, often with bad press. Most recently, I gave up Starbucks for a bit because of their lousy-ass handling of a teenager's sexual assault claim. What did I get this morning on my way into work? A tasty little nonfat white mocha with raspberry. Back in 2006, the Marriott Hotel chain was in the news for claiming a woman who was raped at gunpoint in front of her children was to blame. Have I stayed in a Marriott since then? Indeed. Is it fairly likely I'll stay in a Marriott again? It is. Obviously, there are far more instances of companies using questionable practices and my continued patronization of those companies. But if I boycott every company whose practices I disagree with, I'm going to be left on the Wells St. bridge asking for change right alongside the guitar playing homeless guy. Although, I *will* take this opportunity to let you know, Mr. Polanski, that I very much would enjoy seeing The Ghost Writer. But I'm going to take that entertainment hit and let your film fall into the "ain't never gonna happen" category because I can't stomach even a penny of my money finding its way back to you.

But back to Nike. After everyone's favourite hoops-throwing rapist had his case dropped, Nike was the first company to 'take him back.' The only people who know what happened in that Denver hotel room are Kobe and his accuser but my default is to believe a victim. But no matter whether he raped that woman or not, his first post-rape case commercial for Nike was this:



In it, we see him shooting hoops and hear his voice telling us, Love me or hate me; it's one or the other. Always has been. Hate my game, my swagger. Hate my fade away, my hunger. Hate that I'm a veteran. A champion. Hate that. Hate it with all your heart. And hate that I'm loved for the exact same reasons.

Feel free to call me a humourless prude of a feminist but that shit just rubs me the wrong way. If you were, to say, Google some of his earlier commercials, you'll (hopefully) notice quite a difference between those and the latter ones after his case was dropped.

And there's Tiger's new craptastic commercial.



Cue Tiger looking all sad and lonely while looking at the camera and listening to his dead father say, "Tiger, I am more prone to be inquisitive. To promote discussion. I wanna find out what your thinking was. I wanna find out what your feelings are. And, did you learn anything?"

While I don't believe Kobe had consensual sex with the woman who accused him of rape, from what's been told to the public, Tiger *did* have consensual sex with his mistresses. Sure, he's a massive asshat with a serious Madonna / Whore complex (Tiger, if you're reading, here's a tip: the women dudes want to fuck? They can be the very same women dudes also want to marry. They need not be separate.) but I don't give a flying golf ball what or who Tiger sticks his dick in, provided it's a consensual act. Even so, I think Nike's ad is in piss poor taste and it gives me the creeps.

And now, we've got this Major Douchenozzle, Ben Roethlisberger. Yet again, he's been accused of sexual assault (that's three times, for those who are keeping track). Even if I allowed for the "bitches always put out, feel regret and then cry rape" argument (which I don't), exactly how many women is it going to take before it's acknowledged this guy has a serious entitlement complex? No criminal charges does not equal innocence and in the very least, Roethlisberger is a fratboy-esque jock who spends his free time drunkenly pawing at women. But it's no surprise that Nike continues to stand by him.

Once, twice, three times you've proved yourselves to be a company of jagoffs, Nike. Remember when you suspended Michael Vick because of his love of vicious dog fighting? Yeah, me too. I'm no marketing executive or genius business woman but wouldn't it just be cheaper to put out a press release stating "Nike believes 100% that dogs are man's best friend. Cruelty and abuse toward animals will be taken very serious and the abusers will be punished. Abuse and disrespecting women? Eh, we're gonna go ahead and let those slide."

I hope Adidas foot zoos are comfortable.

I may not judge books by their covers...

but I certainly judge magazines by them.

When reading this article, my first reaction was, "dude, seriously? As much as my mind tends toward smutting up perfectly innocent images, not everything is meant to be taken as sexual."

I mean, I don't know an awful lot about skiing but from what I can tell, the pose Ms. Vonn is in seems to be one that is quite common to skiing. Oui?



But as I read some of the comments accompanying the article, I realized there was a similar Sports Illustrated cover years ago.



They aren't drastically different photos but the subtle differences speak volumes about each of them.

The latter is an action shot of A.J. Kitt (an Olympic athlete) skiing in what appears to be an attempt to show readers what a skilled athlete he is. The former appears to be a posed shot of Lindsey Vonn (also an Olympic athlete), a pretty girl bent over and smiling in what appears to be an attempt to show readers what a hot little number she is.

Funny, that.

In lieu of a real post

Ya know, one in which I say something fabulously witty or introspective?

I give you this.



Carry on.

it is NOT a weapon

A bunch of safe sex advertisements

Most of these, I like. If MTV is looking to turn me one while reminding me of the importance of being safe, consider it done! And the one with the girl at her computer makes me giggle like a schoolgirl.

This one, on the other hand, does not:

Image #1:I loathe "penis as a weapon" imagery but whatever. It does have the ability to become a deadly weapon. Fine, I get it.

Image #2:Right, yes. If I take precautions, it's less likely said penis will become a deadly weapon.

The problem I have is with Image #3, which I'm providing in a link because of the main problem I have with it: The copy reads, "Girls, protect yourself. Demand your partner wear a condom."

Really? Did nobody in the marketing group responsible for this ad think it could possibly be triggering to someone who has been a victim of sexual assault or gun violence? Hell, I haven't been and it still makes me cross me legs and cringe to see a gun pointed at some random woman's snatch. Then again, it's really not some random woman. It's some random headless, humanity-free hole because let's face it...nobody wants to look at a face when they're thinking about fucking (or hurting) a hot, naked chick, do they?

Which leads me to the second point. This woman is very obviously shaved or waxed. So not only is a gun pointed at her, it's pointed at the oh-so-pretty-every-woman-must-have-one-so-she-looks-like-a-little-girl bald bajingo. I've got absolutely nothing against keeping the nether regions nice and tidy but for the love of 70s porn, can I please see a stray hair somewhere? And the hairless images never come with tips about the pros and cons of shaving or waxing. It comes along with the subtle and sometimes not so subtle implication that dudes dig it so we should be digging it too. Apparently, even with a gun pointed at it, it needs to meet the socially-accepted standards of beautiful.

Now, the copy. Girls, protect yourself. Demand your partner wear a condom. I'm all for that. As every person does, I have every right in the world to decide how someone comes into contact with and touches my body. Every woman absolutely should take it upon herself to make sure she (and her partner) are protected. But who's making the demands here? If you're the one sans gun power, you're the one without the ability to make demands. The goal of any safe sex ad should be to empower the people looking at it to realize they have the right and responsibility to ensure their safety and sexual health. I see no female empowerment when a gun is pointed between one's legs.

I asked a male friend for his opinion and what he thought when first seeing the ad. His response was:

That a man's penis can be seen as a weapon and some men see women as a place to use their weapon.

Interesting. Sex (whether safe or not) wasn't the first thing on his mind...violence was.

I'm almost done reading The Purity Myth: How America's Obsession with Virginity Is Hurting Young Women and this ad reminded me of the tools abstinence supporters use to get their silly little point across, which are almost always rooted in fear. And it drives me absolutely batty when sex is portrayed as something terrifying.

Scaring people into not having it is not the way to get people to start subscribing to your idea of morality. Shaming those who do is not the way to show them the error of their ways (especially since it's neither shameful nor sinful). Withholding it is not a way to punish a nagging spouse. Using it as a bartering tool is not the way to get what you want. Manipulating, coercing, forcing someone to do it is not the way to assert your misplaced feelings of dominance.

It is NOT a weapon. It's sex.

suck this

I'm a bit conflicted about this OB tampon ad, which was created by an all-male creative team in Switzerland. (clickety click)

On one hand, I'm a member of the "vampires are hot" camp. Biting. Fear. Pain. Yes please. I also like that the ad is an acknowledgement that once a month, blood comes out of a vagina. I have a very low tolerance for ads relating to menstruation that have nothing to do with the purpose of the product they're selling. In the case of tampons, it's to absorb blood. I don't want to see women frolicking around doing gymnastics or watch a woman swimming. Just give me the facts about what the product is going to do. Much like birth control pills. Sure, they often help with one's complexion and for those who get uncharacteristically emotional in the days right before their periods, it can help make you feel like you're in a bit more control of your feelings. And sure, there are plenty of women who take the pill for regulating their periods and / or any other number of female health concerns that don't have to do with preventing pregnancy. But for the most part, the purpose of birth control pills is to prevent yourself from getting knocked up. Yet very few commercials or advertisements for birth control actually say anything that even vaguely sounds like, "if you take this pill every day, you can fuck without reproductive consequences." And I think they should.

I also don't believe the act of going down on a woman who has her period is icky and gross. I understand it may not be everybody's cuppa tea and that's fine...to each his / her own. But I don't believe there's a week out of every month where certain sex acts are off the table. Hell, survey a group of women who are all days away from their period and quite a number of them are going to tell you their overtime-working hormones are partly responsible for desperately wanting to throw their legs up behind their heads and engage in any and all sex acts. So I love the fact that a bunch of men came up with this ad and I'm sure, at some point in their brainstorming session, realized it may evoke thoughts or images of oral sex while a girl is having her period.

On the other hand, vamp teeth made of tampons? Please. Those things aren't going to pierce anything and everyone knows a vampire isn't just gonna dive in and start sucking. He's going to bite, get an artery and go to town. So the whole "tampon as teeth" thing is just silly. And just makes me giggle.

Which, I suppose, may have been the intention. And if that's the case, then the advertising fellas have succeeded. Where they haven't succeeded is in giving me even one reason, if I were a purchaser of tampons, to buy OB's brand instead of any of the other brands.

And isn't that pretty much the main objective of the advertising world?