True Blood Season 6: How Much More Ridiculous Can This Show Get?

The Season Premiere of True Blood was last night, so we thought what better way to revive our ESC TV blog than to tell you all of our feelings about it...

It was a weird-ass episode. Of course, they're all always weird-ass episodes, but this one was particular weird. I'm not sure how I feel about the show anymore. Maybe the show has just gone on for too many seasons, so they have to keep topping themselves with crazy storylines... but it is getting ridiculous already.

[READ MORE]

Plenty of Fish Uses Age Discrimination to Avoid "Hook-Ups"

I've been trying out the online dating scene again and joined Plenty of Fish (POF.com). On May 20, I received a message from the creator, "markus" (Markus Frind) telling me about some of POF's newest policies. The short version is that the site is trying to make a shift towards focusing on finding relationships by making it harder for users to look for "hookups". Of course, Markus and the POF team have decided that the best way to do this is to jump right into age discrimination!

This was the message from Markus:

When I created POF, I wanted it to be all about finding relationships with the right person. For the first 7 years this worked really well, I got the site to 10 million users without any employees people and POF was generating a ton of relationships. Around 3 years ago, everyone started using the website via mobile phones. Today about 70% of POF use is via a mobile phone and unfortunately about 2% of men started to use POF as more of a hookup site mostly due the the casual nature of cell phone use.

In sticking with my vision that POF is all about Relationships, I'm going to make a bunch of changes to ensure it stays a relationship-focused site.

Markus wants to blame mobile phone use for why people are using POF for casual hookups instead of relationships (not sure where he got that 2% of men statistic, doesn't seem like a high enough percentage to worry about). But let's take a look at POF for a moment and examine the real reason people are probably
using the site for casual hookups:


1. They're people. I've been on a variety of dating sites over the years and there will always be a percentage of users who just are looking to hook up. They may be open about this in their profiles or they might pretend to be looking for more, but there will always be people like that. Just like there will always be people that you meet anywhere (at the bar, at the gym, at the grocery store, wherever) that will just be looking for sex. It's a fact of life. POF can change their settings all they want, but there will still always be that 2% (or whatever the real numbers are).


2. POF's own settings are conducive to casual hookups. POF asks you for both your "Intent" and what you are "looking for" (which are sort of the same thing, but okay). Under "I am looking for:" you can choose "I am serious and want to find someone to marry"; "I am putting in serious effort to find someone"; "I want a relationship"; "I want to date but nothing serious" and "I'm looking for Casual dating/No Commitment". Under "Intent" you can choose "Hang Out", "Long-term", "Dating", "Friends" and "Intimate Encounter".

If Markus's original vision of POF was to be relationship-focused, why did he give people the option to select things like "No Commitment" or "Hang Out" or "Intimate Encounter" in the first place?

Getting rid of "Intimate Encounter" is #3 of the three changes Markus has announced he will be making in order to try to steer the site back towards Relationships. I don't have a problem with that - there are already plenty of sites devoted to finding "intimate encounters" so if he wants POF to be all about relationships that's fine. But the other two changes are really hard to grasp:

1. Any first contact between users that contains sexual references will not be sent. Anyone who tries to get around this rule will be deleted without warning. This rule has actually been in effect since last month and it's made the site so much better.

2. You can only contact people +/- 14 years of your age. There is no reason for a 50 year old man to contact a 18 year old women. The majority of messages sent outside those age ranges are all about hookups. Anyone who tries to get around this rule will get deleted.

3. Intimate Encounters will go away in the next few months. There are 3.3 Million people who use the site every day, of those there are only 6,041 single women looking for Intimate Encounters. Of those 6,041 women, the ones with hot pictures are mostly men pretending to be women. Intimate Encounters on POF can be summed up as a bunch of horny men talking to a bunch of horny men pretending to be women.

What!?

#1 is somewhat concerning... I guess I can understand why they might want to discourage people from sending sexually suggestive messages for the first message. I certainly prefer not to receive those from guys I'm not interested in (which is most of the guys on POF). But I'm not really sure I understand how they're going to enforce that. Are they reading our messages (totally uncool) or are they just going to flag any messages with certain buzzwords they deem inappropriate? I would love to see that list.

But my real issue is with #2 and I think we should all have an issue with this. Read it again:

2. You can only contact people +/- 14 years of your age. There is no reason for a 50 year old man to contact a 18 year old women. The majority of messages sent outside those age ranges are all about hookups. Anyone who tries to get around this rule will get deleted. [emphasis mine]

Isn't that age discrimination (or at the very least, forcing us to be discriminatory?) Fourteen years is really not that much of an age difference. One of my exes is fifteen years older than me and our relationship wasn't "all about hookups".

I'm in my mid-30s and I have a kid. I come across a lot of guys my age who are freaked out about dating a woman with a kid. You know who tends to be less freaked out about that? Older men. They're more likely to be parents themselves or they're at the point in their lives where they're okay with the idea of being a part of someone else's child's life instead of pushing to have their own. Obviously that's a huge generalization, and I'm sure there are many many exceptions, but Markus is making a pretty broad generalization too. I'm sure there are plenty of younger guys who would love to raise someone else's kid and I'm sure there are even more older guys who are gross, sleazy jerks, but I'm just speaking from my own personal experience. So how exactly can he claim that the majority of messages sent outside that age range is all about hookups?

One of the perks of POF that I do like is that you can set very specific restrictions on who can or can't contact you. For example, you can filter people based on gender, age, location, and other details. Check out what my profile settings currently look like:

 

Aside from the obvious fact that the reason I'm still single is probably because I'm super picky, you'll notice that you can get very specific on the age range you're willing to date. So if you don't want older people contacting you, you can stop them from contacting you without having to control what everyone else on POF is doing.

Also there's Markus's logic that there is "no reason" for a 50 year old man to contact an 18 year old woman. That's a 32 year age difference, not 14! And okay, while I'm sure that there are plenty of exceptions, I will go out on a limb and say that maybe there's something a little odd about a person who literally just became an adult and can't even drink yet dating someone who could be their parent, but if it works for them, who are we to judge? But it's quite a stretch to compare an 18-to-50 difference to say, 36-to-50. If I'm 18 (or any age) and don't want 50-year-olds contacting me, I can set my settings to prevent that... or here's a crazy idea, I can just not reply to them! And if someone persists, you can easily block them. There's really no reason to get so strict about the rules.

It just feels like POF is trying to take more and more control away from their users and if they really want to do that, fine, but this crosses the line into age discrimination and I'm not okay with that.

Markus's final words:

In short the vast majority of people will not be impacted. This is because the vast majority of people are not going around spamming women saying "let's have sex tonight". I can't change POF alone, I need your help to get the word out there that POF is all about relationships!

If he wants to steer POF to be "all about relationships" that's fine, because there are plenty of websites that are geared towards those who are looking for casual hookups. But I don't agree that preventing people from dating outside of the age range that Markus deems appropriate is necessarily the best way to prevent guys from spamming women saying "let's have sex tonight".

If you disagree with POF's new policy and feel that it amounts to age discrimination (or is just a stupid, unnecessary idea) let them know.  

Plentyoffish Media Inc.
701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 5400,
Seattle, Washington 98104
Fax: (604) 648-9521
legal@plentyoffish.com

Media Inquiries:
pr@pof.com 
778-373-2107

We know haven't been blogging much lately (have been so busy with awesome ccon planning) so it's a little funny that the only two things we've written lately have been about online dating... but oh well...

Related:

• Online Dating Surrogate
• Meet Mr. Grey

Online Dating Surrogate

I was looking at Craigslist the other day at the 'writing/editing' jobs section (hey, even the evil sluts need a little side work from time to time) and came across a really disturbing job offer for an Online Dating Surrogate...

Successful entrepreneur needs discerning woman to handle online dating communications for him for roughly an hour per day

Process:
1. Review profiles of women on 3 or 4 dating sites
2. Per criteria you will be provided, mark as "Favorite" all potential women to contact
3. You'll let me know when to review Favorites periodically and I'll delete those I'm not interested in
4. You'll write to and exchange messages with the remaining Favorites and try to set dates

Up until Step 3, I actually was almost okay with this. He's a busy guy, so he doesn't have time to weed through multiple profiles just looking for someone who might interest him. 

 

But Step 4 freaks me out. He wants someone to pose as him and exchange messages with women in order to set up dates? That's so creepy. And then I started to feel uncomfortable about the online dating attempts I've made... It made me wonder if the reason that really cool guy I was messaging with turned out to be a dud in person was because I was actually being written to by a surrogate. Or if the reason that guy who clicked "I want to meet you" on my profile never replied to my follow-up message was because it was his surrogate who picked me instead. The whole situation is really disturbing and it's concerning that someone would go into a potential relationship, automatically starting off with dishonesty.

Ideal candidate for this job is similar to dating candidates sought: Pretty, thin, educated female in her 20s or 30s (with great taste and strong writing ability)

If This Part-Time Job is For You:
Email to craig0519nyc@hotmail.com your picture, resume and lengthy enough response to assess your writing ability. Indicate why this job will be easy and fun for you and describe why you believe that you have great taste and a discerning eye.

 So now it gets weirder. Why do I have to look look a certain way in order to help this guy lie to women online and include a photo? Does he think that my being pretty and thin will somehow make me more able to attract other pretty and thin women?

This whole situation freaks me out. At the very least - this guy is either lazy or too busy to date anyone (if he's too busy to exchange messages with them). And he is definitely dishonest. But sadly, that's the best case scenario. There are darker, scarier alternatives... He's not interested in talking to these women online to see if they have anything in common or any chemistry, he wants someone else to do that and try to set up an in-person meeting. Is that because he doesn't care about whether or not he's at all compatible with these women because he's just a dumbass... or because he has some ulterior motive to meeting her? Maybe he's trying to manipulate them in order to get laid, or maybe he's a predator and is luring these women to dates for some sinister motive. I know I might be overreacting, but in this day and age, it's certainly possible and anyone who took on this "job" would potentially be an accessory to whatever creepiness he has in mind.

The whole thing is just sad and pathetic however you want to swing it. And it makes me want to reevaluate online dating altogether. And the final kicker? This job pays $100/week for "roughly seven hours a week", meaning that you'll only make about $14/hour for the privilege of deceiving and manipulating unsuspecting women.

Related Reading:

• Meet Mr. Grey 

Would You Want to Know He Cheated?

We already just wrote a very very long post about all the crap that was printed in the February issue of Cosmopolitan magazine... but would you believe it, we're not done! In the Love, Lust & Other Stuff section there's yet another pile of garbage article entitled "Would You Want to Know He Cheated?"

Maybe not: Sometimes the confession can be as cruel as the infidelity. Benjamin Anastas tells us why he wishes he had never come clean.

This is so bad, it's hard to believe it wasn't written by Jessica Knoll or Ky Henderson. Really, it's that bad.

First of all, the article itself never really address the question in the title. The title asks "would you want to know"? But the question that the article answers is actually "should you tell?" which is very different. They don't ever consider the point of view of the person who has been cheated on. It's told from the point of view of a man who cheated and the entire page is just one long self-serving rationalization for dishonesty. 

Then I cheated. It happened far away, at a high-rise hotel in a cold European city, in a white box of a room with thick curtains that blocked out light and sound. Those curtains stopped time. In the security line at the airport, it hit me: I had to walk through the door, put down my suitcase, and tell her. I thought I owed her that. Every time I'm in an airport now, I can feel that feel that old panic returning, and then I remember: That's what it felt like when I cheated on my fiancee. Before she became my wife.

He doesn't explain what led to his infidelity. A rash decision? A drunken mistake? A calculated choice? Only that it happened and it didn't occur to him that he might need to tell his fiancee until he got to the airport.

Of course, it doesn't happen that way.

To be honest, I wasn't strong enough. So I went back to work, brought groceries, cooked her lavish dinners, went to the gym an extra day a week.

Nope, he doesn't walk through the door, put down his suitcase, and tell her.  Instead he keeps it a secret.

"Is something wrong?" she asked.

"No nothing's wrong," I lied.

It was two months before I finally let it all pour out. I hadn't been sleeping. I couldn't concentrate on anything. I had a persistent rash that I thought might be an STD (it wasn't). It seemed like a golden dream now, the safe and comfortable life we'd had, and I was convinced that the only way for us to get it back would be for me to open up.

He waited two months to tell her. Just want to make sure that's clear. Two months. He didn't tell her because it was the right thing to do or because she deserved to know. He did it to calm his own guilty conscience. He couldn't sleep, couldn't concentrate... he hoped telling her would help that. His telling her was as selfish as cheating in the first place was.

That's the thing about cheating. It's not just that you're breaking your commitment to be faithful. It's also a betrayal -- lies and secrecy. He didn't just sleep with someone else; he lied to his fiancee (either directly or indirectly, by omission) every single day for two months. That's not just one indiscretion. That is at least sixty lies (if you estimate one lie a day for two months).

It's also extremely disturbing that he says he thought he had an STD because it implies that he waited until he got the rash to get tested. No, wait, he waited until the rash became persistent to get tested. So he cheated, possibly exposing himself to an STD, and instead of telling his fiancee immediately (or at the very least, secretly getting tested right away just to be sure), he potentially risked his girlfriend's health for two months.

I can still see her, propped on her pillows, squinting at a copy of The New Yorker. She was wearing an ancient, frayed U2 concert tee shirt. She had no idea.

"We need to talk," I said.

She looked up. 

Again, he leaves out the details, that might be relevant. How did he tell her? Did he just blurt it out? Did he tell her matter-of-factly? Did she cry? Did he cry? Did he get down on his knees and beg for forgiveness? We have no idea if he did an adequate job of apologizing or if he was insensitive about it. We have no idea if he gave her all the details or just left it as a vague confession. Maybe it shouldn't matter, but in some ways it does. Since this whole story is about whether or not one should confess to cheating... isn't the quality of that confession relevant?

That was nine years ago. We've been divorced for five. She tried to forgive me and went through with our wedding, but on the other side, she got me back by having an affair. We tried to reconcile, but it is not easy to rebuild trust once it's been violated. 

No, it's not easy to rebuild trust once it's been violated. Of course, yet again, we have no details on whether he actually made a decent effort to regain her trust. He says "she tried to forgive me" but what did he do? Hopefully, he does realize that the rebuilding of trust should've started on his end. Did he do anything to prove himself? A confession alone isn't enough to fix things; an apology means nothing without actions to back it up.

There's often a big misconception in relationships that the confession/apology is supposed to make everything all better. 'I told you what happened! I said I'm sorry! What more do you want from me?' But that's not how it works. You confess, because the other person deserves to know and deserves the right to make an informed decision about whether they want to be with you. You run the risk of them making a decision that you don't want; you run the risk of losing them. But if you can't be honest with them, then you shouldn't be with them in the first place. We all make mistakes and it is in coming clean that you give yourself the opportunity to make amends for your mistakes and be forgiven. If you are worth forgiving - and do the work that is required to earn that forgiveness, to rebuild that trust, to prove yourself - then you may be rewarded for your honesty. But lying for two months doesn't exactly foster confidence. A confession that comes two months after the fact is going to be too little, too late for a lot of people.

I wonder, standing outside, if we'd still be married if I'd just let her go on reading her magazine that night and kept my infidelity to myself. It's not an appealing thought, that dishonesty can sometimes be the answer--that it can be less damaging to maintain a lie--but I know that being honest about cheating can wreck lives.

No. Dishonesty is not the answer. It was the two months that he maintained the lie that was damaging, not the decision to reveal it. It was the cheating that wrecked their lives, not being honest about the cheating. Way to learn the wrong fucking lesson asshole!

I felt guilty, and I wanted to be forgiven before we married. Was telling her the right thing to do, or did I compound my infidelity with another selfish act? Some part of me thinks it would have been bigger of me--and better of me as a future husband--to walk down the aisle with her as if nothing had happened in that hotel room. 

He has a point. His confession was motivated by selfishness. He confessed for the wrong reasons, but that doesn't mean it was the wrong thing to do. Of course, it was the wrong time. He should've told her immediately after it happened. Keeping it a secret for two months was selfish. Keeping it a secret forever would've been even worse. In no way would that have made him "bigger" or "better"... except maybe a bigger asshole. I do understand that the motivation to confess secrets often comes from a selfish reason ('I need to free myself of this guilt') instead of doing what's right ('she deserves to know the truth'). But that doesn't mean that the act is wrong, just the motivation is wrong. The truth - given kindly and appropriately and timely - is always better than a lie. When it comes to infidelity, there is no scenario in which I think that lying and secrecy are the better choice (nor do I think that it would ever make the cheater a 'better person' for lying).

Anastas is making the wrong connection here. He thinks that his marriage ended because he confessed, but the truth is, it ended because he didn't confess soon enough. The message of the article is "don't tell" but I think the real lesson should be "don't wait to tell." Cheating is bad, but it is one impulsive act (unless we're talking about an on-going affair, which is a whole other issue). The real hurt and betrayal come from the continued dishonesty. The repeated act of dishonesty and disrespect every single day. That is a bigger slap in the face than anything.

It reminds me of a line from the movie Love Actually, when Emma Thompson's character discovers that her husband may have cheated. He says "Oh, God. I am so in the wrong. The classic fool." And she replies: "Yes, but you've also made a fool out of me, and you've made the life I lead foolish too." Every day that Anastas declined to tell his fiancee what happened, every day that she had no idea what he had done, was one more day that she was made to feel foolish about. When she said "I love you" or asked "what's wrong?" and he said nothing, it was a repeated betrayal so deep that it's almost like he's cheating on her all over again.

I know this much: There is no way to press rewind and undo the hurt you've caused another. I lost a marriage when I cheated and confessed. Who knows? It could have been a good one.

No Benjamin, you lost a marriage when you cheated. Period. You could have saved the marriage if you had done right by your fiancee, but you didn't. It would never have been a good one, because you are not a good one.

Cosmo Quickies: February 2013

We have been slacking on the Cosmo quickies every month, sorry... we just got the March issue in the mail which is the signal that we better get fucking back to the February issue before February is over! We already went off on their "Fake Chastity Belt" advice (UNDER THE BATH MAT!) but oh boy, this was a doooooozy of an issue... It's the LOVE issue!

So of course that means:

• Epic Confessions
• A Cheater's Diary
• Obsessive Office Crushes

Yep, sounds like true love to me!


The sexy cover model is Julianne Hough and there's a little arrow pointing at her head that says "On Success and Sexy Time With Seacrest!" Ugh, again, the most fascinating 'fact' about the woman on the cover is her connection... to a man. Let's recap the last two months - Carly Rae Jepsen's cover said "The Secret Bond She Shares With Bieber" and Taylor Swift's cover said "Crazy for a Kennedy!" But Seacrest? Barf.

Also on the cover: Ohhhhhhh! CRAZY HOT SEX: 10 Secrets to Intense Action

You can tell it's going be really crazy and intense because they used SEVEN h's! We cannot wait to hear what their ten secrets are. We're pretty sure it's definitely going to be brand new secrets that no one has ever read about before ever in any past issue of Cosmo, right:?

Then Cosmo does a weird little juxtaposition / math equation: 

Fun Fearless Lingerie
Try the Sex Diet & Curb Your Carb Cravings
 +
"I'm Marrying My Gay Best Friend"
(and yes...he's great in bed!)

You can only wear your fun, fearless lingerie if you first lose weight on the "sex diet"... plus, marry your gay best friend. We do not know what the total of that addition problem is.

We don't usually address stuff written in the "What You Thought of the December Issue" section (letters from readers) but we have a few things to say this time:

These were good:

Progressive Props
"I was so impressed with your inclusion of Ellen DeGeneres and Portia de Rossi in 'If They Break Up, We Quit Life!" Articles like these are helping to normalize homosexual relationships." - Claire M., Worcester, Mass.

Sweet Shaming
"The blurb on the cover, 'So You Are a Cupcake? Fast Moves to Burn it Off!' really bothered me. You made it sound as if eating a cupcake is something to be ashamed of. I try to work out regularly, but I do it to be healthy, not to burn off something I ate." - Elizabeth K., Halifax, Penn.

These were annoying...

Nervous Flier
"Reading my Cosmo magazine; turn to 'Late Night Sex'. The man sitting next to me on the plane looked horrified. #Priceless." -@annadwyerr

Young and Gifted
"I love that Taylor Swift was on the cover of the December issue. It's so amazing that she has accomplished so much by 23....Wow!" - Laken M., Auburn, Ind.

...because like we said above (and in our December Quickies) Swift has accomplished so much by age 23. So why the fuck is "Crazy for a Kennedy!" the only fact they could think of for the cover? (Especially since she wasn't even still dating him by the time the magazine went to print.)

And then this... oh fuck this:

A Few Good Men
"Cosmo's 'The Only Kind of Man Worth Marrying' is a must-read. Good guys are out there, I promise!" - @_meredithanne_

We had a lot of strong feelings about that article! One thing we can say is that it is not a must-read. It's common sense plus tips from an attempted murderer.

This month's "hot topic" from The Cosmo Question is "Can Two Alpha Females Be Friends?" Um... yes. They discuss Amy Poehler and Tina Fey's success and real-life friendship:

But perhaps the greatest takeaway from their pairing is a reminder that powerful women can be friends, share the spotlight, and not be viewed as competitors.

That's the greatest takeaway from their friendship? Really? Why do we have to continue to portray this stereotype of women as always being "competitors" pitted against each other, to the extent that we even have to ask if it's even possible that two successful women can be friends? Of course they can. And maybe they'd be able to more often if Cosmo and the world didn't continuously tell us that we're supposed to be competing with each other.

Then of course, there's this:

How often are we told to choose between two amazing women, as if we can only like one? Gaga or Madonna? Jen or Angelina? Carrie or Samantha or Charlotte or Miranda? Pick only one!

Yeah, Cosmo, it really sucks when we the media continuously pits Jennifer Aniston and Angelina Jolie against each other. So um, why do you do it every fucking single issue? (Twice, last month.)

Fun, Fearless... FAIL! Cosmo calls the trends like they see them "from wow to WTF". Honestly, it's not even worth the time to write about how stupid and arbitrary this section is, just take our word for it. We don't need Cosmo to tell us which celebrity's "super-smoky eyes" are the best (spoiler: Berenice Marlohe beats Ke$ha, OMG!).

Then, "in honor of Valentine's day", Cosmo introduces their PDA Awards:  "we reveal stars at their touchy best (and worst!)". It is of course, filled with arbitrary and hypocritical slut shaming.

For instance, this photo of Jessica Biel and Justin Timberlake isn't that much different than the one next to it, of Dough Hutchison and Courtney Stodden. So then why is the latter described as "Ickiest Grope Fest" and "put the scene in obscene"? For no fucking reason, that's why. No reason other than Stodden is known for being sexy and the couple's "controversial" relationship was the focus of a reality show "Couples Therapy".

Note: These aren't the exact pics used. They're pretty similar but were cropped in Cosmo's version.

Speaking of slut-shaming, Sexy vs. Skanky doesn't disappoint this month!

Yet again (as usual) they've taken two pretty similar situations and just focused on one photo to decide which one is sexy and which is skanky - but the tables could easily be turned if you looked at another pic from the same day. That's because it's really about who the photos are of, and not what's happening in them.

Cute Vacation Lovin' (Rumer Willis) vs. Gross Seaside Humpin' (Model Suelyn Medeiros)

These are the photos that Cosmo used:

Not completely sure why making out in the ocean is totally cool and picking up your girlfriend on the beach is gross humping, but it probably has more to do with the fact that Suelyn Medeiros is a sexy model/actress who dared to wear a thong bikini at the beach than anything else. Because here are some other scenes from the same day, that Cosmo didn't choose because they don't make the same point of Medeiros being "skanky"...

What's the diference between this pic (below) and the one of Rumer and her boyfriend kissing in the ocean? Nothing.

 

Or how bout this... See below how Rumer's boyfriend is picking her up and being playful? That's what the "gross seaside humping" was, if you'd look at the whole scene (also below). 

  

So what's really the difference? It's the bikini bottom. That's it. 

Also in the Sexy vs. Skanky line-up was:

Sexy: Derek Jeter, with or without a few extra pounds

Skanky: Derek Eater jokes. It's the off-season; cut the guy some slack!

We agree, but seriously Cosmo... did you forget that half your magazine is about telling women what they can/can't eat and how to burn off that single cupcake you indulged in?

Flirty bird - love the feather peplum, Jess! (Jessica Biel) vs. Dirty bird - cheesy, crotch-y, just plain wrong (British personality Katie Price)

Note: The photo of Kate Price is not exact picture used in the magazine, but it's the same outfit and similar pose and the same background... so it's close enough. Now we won't pretend that Katie Price's outfit isn't a little bit over the top... but as usual, it's taken out of context. Cosmo makes it seem as though Price wore that on the red carpet at the Oscars or something, but it's really from a photo shoot to promote her newly launched jewelry line KP Rocks (hence the KP Rocks url and logo behind her). That's why it's over-the-top. It's a costume, not an outfit. Here's are some other pics from the shoot:

In the man-thro-pol-o-gy section, Cosmo yet again tells us how to "decode" some aspect of a man's life or behavior. We've seen them try to decode his text messages, how he holds his beer, how he grabs your ass... but this one really takes the cake. "Decode His... Bed Linens." Yes, you read that correctly. His fucking bed linens! Apparently, if he has bright colored sheets he's a rebel and if they're neutral, he's a "straight shooter". Satin finish, silk or Egyptian cotton? Too high-maintenance. Cartoon characters? "Run for the hills", he's a man-child. Cosmo, this time you've just gone too far on the decoding.

Also in this section, is "Confessions of a Player". A "famous athlete who, shall we say, gets around" gives them some tips on how to identify if your man is cheating. Just the intro already annoys us - he "gets around". There's a difference between someone who is a jerk (in this case a "player" which they've decided is synonymous with "cheater") and someone who sleeps with a lot of people (someone who "gets around"). It's not always the same thing Cosmo.

In the Fun, Fearless Work section, an article "Can Looking Too Young Hurt You at Work?" suggests that although "most women would kill to look younger than they are" it could jeopardize your career because people don't take you seriously. Okay, maybe that's a valid concern, although we think the author's story is a bit over-exaggerated. However it was the side bar "5 Ways to Be Taken Seriously at Work" that irked us. Specifically this tip:

Unplug at Key Moments
In a meeting, take notes on paper, and look up and nod. "Unless everyone else there is doing so, don't use an electronic device like an iPhone," Keener warns. "It can look like you're texting or sending personal e-mails."

So you should take notes in a way that is both less efficient and more harmful to the environment (paper waste!) just so people don't think you're texting? First of all, I'd be surprised if no one else was taking notes electronically, but even so, that should be an opportunity to use your "youthfulness" to be a good example and show how much more tech-savvy you are. This should be an asset to the company. No reason to dumb yourself down and go back to pencil on a legal pad when there are better ways to go about it.

Sometimes we do have to give Cosmo a little credit for their political section, "The Real Power Players of D.C.", which highlights five new female Senators and "Fun, Fearless Females" on women who are "kicking ass and making a difference".

In SEX on a desk: worth it? Cosmo tells "true stories" of women who have had workplace affairs. Of course, they had to include some famous examples in a "Affairs to Remember" sidebar such as Monica Lewinsky-Bill Clinton and the complicated Petraeus scandal. But mixed in there, of course is this fucking garbage:

The Celebrity Swapperoo
Ever since Angelina snagged Brad from Jen on the set of Mr. and Mrs. Smith, we can't get enough of this tabloid-y triangle.

You know what, we actually can get enough of it. In fact, we have had enough of it! We're pretty sure that everyone on the planet "had enough" years ago, including the "triangle" themselves. Just a few pages ago you asked why we can't stop pitting women against each other? And you used Angelina Jolie and Jennifer Aniston as an example of two alpha females, did you not? Well, here's your answer - we learned it by watching you Cosmo!

In "The secrets to super passionate sex", Cosmo gives us tips to have "richer, more connected sex that makes you smile every time you think about it". And you'll never believe what their advice is...

First, they blame adult films:

There are a few reasons that you may not be having as much passionate sex as you deserve. The first? The rise of mainstream porn. "It's become the model of what people think sex is supposed to be," [...]

"Women become convinced that they should emulate porn stars, so they try to do all these wild, man-pleasing moves rather than paying attention to their own satisfaction and taking the time to find out what they like too" [...]

Now wait... aren't like, 90% of Cosmo's sex tips about "wild, man-pleasing moves"? So it's okay when women use Cosmo as the model of what sex should be, but not porn? Yeah, they have a good point that adult films shouldn't necessarily be sex ed, but isn't it possible that some women might find out what they like to do by watching porn? And maybe some couples are turned on by watching porn. And maybe there might even be a porn star out there who is bridging the gap between porn and sex ed in a really innovative and interesting way? Oh wait, there is and her name is jessica drake. But why discuss that when we can just rehash the same oversimplified "porn is ruining your sex life" theory from the last five or ten or fifty articles on this topic, right Cosmo?

And of course, to back up their bullshit claims about porn, they've included a sidebar called "Meet the Woman Who's Bringing Sexy Back" on Cindy Gallop's new website MakeLoveNotPorn. We think Gallop has good intentions, but no, we're not buying it (literally). Her MNLP business model doesn't seem particularly workable to us at all, and we definitely wouldn't go so far as to say that she's "bringing sexy back" or doing something particularly unique or revolutionary. There are a lot of other women they could have interviewed (like, say, Tristan Taormino) who have actually been breaking new ground and doing cool stuff in the area of feminist porn.

Then later in the article, they again use the ableist term "lame", just to round-out of the offensiveness of the whole piece.

In "Can Sex Make You Skinnier?" Cosmo has actually suggested something almost as crazy as hiding your panties under the bathmat. They're suggesting that having sex (or just thinking about it) can substitute eating carbs, sweets or other diet no-nos. The author (oh look it's Jessica "UNDER THE BATH MAT" Knoll again!) tested the theory by doign something sexual every time she had a carb craving. Spoiler alert: it doesn't work.

"I'm Marrying My Gay Best Friend" tells the anonymous "true" story of a woman who literally married her gay best friend. And it's not a marriage of convenience, they allegedly have all the romance and sex of an actual marriage, except he's gay and she's a woman. It's kind of hard to know how to feel about this story. On the one hand, we don't agree with putting people in boxes with strict rules. Sexuality is fluid and just because someone primarily identifies as homosexual doesn't mean they can't be attracted to certain members of the opposite sex. On the other hand, it's kind of hard not to at least wonder if this marriage is legit or if they're living a lie. And then of course, there are plenty of stereotypes about gay men (and straight men) thrown around for good measure...

Dating a gay man has its upsides. (Dave still considers himself fundamentally gay; he's attracted to lots of different types of men but to only one woman--me!) While I wouldn't call myself a slob, Dave basically organized my entire life. When we're out shopping, he knows when to ask, "Will you really wear those shoes?" He's not just my date to weddings: He helps me pick out the perfect dress and even does my hair. I know some women may prefer a more traditional show of masculinity, but I love Dave as a partner. Straight guys might give their girlfriends flowers once a year on Valentine's Day. Dave gives me flowers every week.

It's like one step forward and two steps back - she makes an interesting point (for Cosmo at least) about how guys don't have to conform to mainstream standards of masculinity to be "real men" or great partners, but she does it in the middle of a "he does my hair and shops with me!" cliché-fest.

In "Are You Your Best Friend's Worst Enemy?" Cosmo gives advice on how to be give unsolicited advice to your friends without sounding judgmental. Some of the examples given are valid, but there were a few that we think crossed the line from sounding judgmental to actually being judgmental. For example:

Be Honest When... Her over-the-top outfits are attracting the wrong attention.
You love going shopping with her, but she insists on buying every cleavage-baring top she can find. She's a gorgeous girl, but her face isn't what's making people stare.

Here's How To Do It: Focus your convo on the potential for embarrassing situations, rather than zeroing in on her outfit, says Bonior. If she dresses too sexy for work, say, "I think that outfit looks great on you, but I wonder if some old-school coworker might think it's not right for work." Then spin your next shopping trip as a wardrobe upgrade for both of you.

There's so much about this advice that is judgmental and slut-shamey. Look at the choice of words "over-the-top" ... "wrong attention" ... "too sexy" ... they're really making a lot of judgments on what is or isn't appropriate dress. How do we know she's getting the wrong kind of attention without knowing what kind of attention she's looking for? And who is to say what is "over-the-top" or "too sexy"? Since when is cleavage baring so bad? Haven't they seen the clothing that Cosmo advertises in their editorial photo spreads?

The Cosmo Interview was with cover model Julianne Hough. The feature itself is as stupid and boring and boyfriend-centric as most of the interviews, but "The Cosmo Quiz" they gave her really was extra dumb this month.

The accomplishment I'm most proud of is:
a. Starring on the big screen in films like Safe Haven and Rock of Ages.
b. Recording a country album.
c. Landing Ryan Seacrest.
d. All of the above.
e. Other:

Landing Ryan Seacrest!? Hough was as surprised as we were by choice c... she handwrote in "OMG for real?" (Her actual answer was e - "starting my charity", good for her.)

Another props-for-Cosmo moment (it's so rare when they do something right, we have to acknowledge it when they do)... in the Hot & Healthy section, there's a feature on emergency contraception called "So, the Condom Broke..." It explains what EC is, how it works, and how to get it. Nice work.

And finally, the Cosmo Quiz... "Are you Self-Sabotaging on the Web?"

When you hear that your frenemy from college started a successful blog, you:
A. Visit it, realize it'll only make you mad, then go back to browsing Zappos.
B. Bookmark it and hate-read it every morning.
C. Scoff at the naive idea that a blog is any indicator of success.

And... fuck you Cosmo. A blog, is like, totally an indicator of success! Everyone knows that. At least, it's a way better indicator of success than landing Ryan Seacrest.

Note: There are two other articles in this issue that we were really pissed off about - one about how it's a mistake to admit when you've cheated and one about women going to strip clubs. Not shockingly one of them was written by Jessica "UNDER THE BATH MAT" Knoll and features quotes from attempted murderer Hugo Schwyzer, so you can just imagine how we feel about them - but we had too many feelings to fit in here in Cosmo Quickies. So you can look forward to more, coming soon...

The Fake Chastity Belt

Oh Cosmo, you really lowered the bar with this one... (as if that was even possible).

In the February 2013 issue of Cosmopolitan, there is an article entitled "The Fake Chastity Belt" written by Jessica Knoll. (That's the same writer responsible for the train wreck that was "The Only Kind of Man Worth Marrying" and the slut-shaming extravaganza "Why So Many Men Are Suckers for Skanks" in case you were wondering.)

It's the easiest insurance against having sex with a guy too soon, and it usually works. But when it doesn't, you need a backup plan. This is it.

One of these days we should scan the pages of our Cosmos to show the little notes we make in the margins (to prepare for our "Cosmo Quickies" blogs). This one was summed up in three easy letters: WTF.

Recently, Sara Blakley, the inventor of our dear, dear friend Spanx, was named to the Forbes list of billionaires for the first time ever. So many of us rely on the body shapers to contain a muffin top or slim our thighs. But they also have a secondary use; they help keep you from having sex with a guy you like.

 Yes, the "fake chastity belt" is Spanx. Really. Senior Editor Knoll actually gave this a lot of thought and probably did a little research and then actually wrote this shit down. In fact, we bet she even had a few different drafts of this garbage and this was the final, best version. Think about that for a minute. Really let that sink in. Okay, moving on...

"When I'm into someone, I don't want to ruin things by having sex with him too soon," says Liz (not her real name), 27. "The problem is, I usually want to have sex with him so badly that I don't trust myself not to go too far with him when we are making out." So she squeezes herself into her grossest pair of Spanx. "I have an extra-ugly girdle reserved for really tempting situations."

Now there's a lot to address in this "article" (I really don't feel comfortable legitimizing this steaming pile of garbage by calling it an "article"). For starters, why does having sex too soon "ruin things"? Our very first Cosmo-related blog entry on Evil Slutopia, "Cosmo thinks I'm a slut" was written in February 2007. It's almost six years since "relationship expert" Ryan C. Browning told women that they shouldn't have sex too soon... haven't we gotten over that crap yet? Cosmo goes on and on about "fun, fearless women" yet they're still teaching us that we should be afraid of having any fun!

Why can't we just trust ourselves, trust our bodies, our desires... and do what we feel is right? It says it right there in fake-Liz's quote: "I usually want to have sex with him so badly". She wants to have sex with him so badly... so of course, she should fight that feeling and do the opposite of what she wants so badly. And the best way to do that is to wear an ugly girdle...

Other women rely on things like prickly legs, a grown-out bikini line, or even just a good old-fashioned pair of granny panties. No matter your poison, they are all things we like to call fake chastity belts: preventative measures taken to ensure that no matter how tempted you are to have sex, you don't. The problem, as you know, is that they're only sometimes reliable. And the Spanx method might be the least reliable of all, as it ups your desirability and makes you feel sleeker and sexier, thereby weakening your resolve. When a fake chastity belt fails you, it's the ultimate FML moment. Now you're in bed with the guy you really like, and you're hairy, your Spanx is giving you back cleavage, and underneath that mess is underwear you normally reserve for day two of your period.

Here's a newsflash Cosmo: Some women don't shave their legs or their bikini line at all and there are still plenty of men out there who have sex with them! And the odds are that a guy's going to be way more concerned about the fact that he's getting your panties off, than worrying what they look like. Prickly legs or granny panties don't actually make you gross and unfuckable, so why does that mean an FML moment (let alone the ultimate FML moment)? 

But wait, let me get this straight... we can't trust ourselves to make good decisions. So we have to use some superficial way of uglying ourselves up sexually, in order to force ourselves into making good decisions. But of course, those methods don't actually work, so we will make those bad decisions anyway. So what's the point of this article... is Knoll just basically filling space between ads for makeup and Summer's Eve? (That was a dumb question, that's what Cosmo is!)

So here's what to do, should you ever find yourself in this position: Go to the bathroom. Take off Spanx and/or granny panties. Hopefully, your purse is big enough to cram your undergarments into it. If not, you need to make a note to invest in a bigger purse and, for the present moment, find a hiding place. Underneath the bath mat is a good one, as is stuffed in between a stack of folded towels.

What..........? Okay, aside from the fact that Knoll is basically giving us the antidote for the fake chastity belt (therefore making it even less reliable), her advice is ri-fucking-diculous. Hide your underwear under the bath mat? Really, please let us all take a moment to acknowledge the fact that a Cosmo Senior Editor is advising women to HIDE THEIR UNDERWEAR UNDER A MAN'S BATH MAT. Joanna Coles, are you seeing this? This is printed in your magazine! This is your legacy!

Hey, we have some other ideas for what to do with those pesky Spanx. Why don't you flush them down the toilet or shove them in the garbage disposal or feed them to his dog!? Or... here's a crazy fucking thought, just take them off and put them where you put the rest of your clothes. Yeah, that's right, you're about to have sex, so all your clothes are coming off anyway, so just leave your Spanx next to your shoes and purse on the floor by the bed and proceed to deposit the rest of your clothes in that pile as you remove them.

Or you could... um.. I'm sorry, I can't concentrate. I'm still thinking about the fact that Jessica Knoll wants you to HIDE  YOUR UNDERWEAR UNDER HIS BATH MAT. I realize now that I wasn't ready to move on from that point, because I am still trying to wrap my head around it. UNDER. THE. BATH. MAT. Under the fucking bath mat!

What happens when he gets up after sex to use the bathroom and finds your underwear under his bath mat? Wouldn't that be an even more ultimate FML moment? Or what if he doesn't have a bath mat (half the guys I've dated, didn't, or if they did it was really a thin towel and not a "mat" and therefore would've been easily spotted - I can't imagine that a big Spanx-sized lump isn't going to be noticeable.) Ugh, and now I'm thinking about what the underneath of a bath mat looks like in the average man's bathroom and I feel queasy thinking about every wearing those Spanx again. Are you supposed to leave them there forever? Or are you supposed to put them back on after the sex, after they have been UNDER THE BATH MAT?

Okay, I think I'm almost over the whole "under the bath mat" thing... so let's also take a moment to laugh at the idea that there would be a a stack of folded towels in your average single man's bathroom. What is this a hotel? At best, they'd be in a linen closet or something, so she's supposed to go all around his house to find a place? Or how crazy is the idea that you should invest in a bigger purse that will fit your Spanx, that you specifically wore so you wouldn't have sex, in order to hide them, so you can have sex? Chase that logic around in a circle for a minute and let me know what... Seriously! She said to hide them UNDER THE BATH MAT!!!!

And if you can't stash the evidence? We turned to Jenn Rogien, costume designer for Girls, for advice. (She's the new fit expert at Aerie, a lingerie line, so she knows her undies.) If you're wearing ratty underwear, the key is to play it off with humor, Rogien says. Also, she points out, "Try to remember that you've been blessed with two very distracting assets. A guy won't notice your full-coverage briefs with the hole in the left cheek when you're working some awesome cleavage.

UNDER THE BATH MAT! Oh, sorry. New paragraph... um... yeah, this is really the way to go about it. Either ignore the fact that you're wearing ugly undies (since he's clearly more interested in what's in them) or just acknowledge it and move on ("yeah I'm wearing my ugly underwear, but that's okay, they're ready to come off anyway!") They should've just suggested this in the first place. Or even a more discrete "let's turn the lights down" and then slipping those panties off in the dark could work... but under the bath mat!? I'm never going to get over that.

Unfortunately it's not as easy to distract him from a crazy bush. Regarding this dilemma, I canvassed the other team. The consensus: Acknowledge it. "If I hook up with a girl with a wookie bush, I'm thinking she's out of it and not that sexual of a person," my guy friend Chris says. "It's 2013, and grooming is a thing everyone seems to have accepted that we need to do...guys included."

And… fuck you. There’s just so much fucking wrong with this paragraph, that is almost distracts me from the whole bath mat situation for a little while (almost). The terms "crazy bush" and "wookie bush" are offensive enough, but the reasoning just takes the cake -- basically pubic hair is gross according to Cosmo. And fuck this dude Chris... what exactly makes her “guy friend Chris” an authority on... well... anything? Does he have the same level of training as Cosmo’s resident sexist moron guy guru Ky Henderson? They couldn’t find a couples therapist or even a fake "expert"? No, she just went through the very scientific research methods that Cosmo loves to employ and just asked one of her douchey guy friends.

Of course, Cosmo has always given hypocritical grooming advice, but the idea that everyone, guys included seem to have "accepted" that they need to do some "grooming" is a hard one to swallow. Yes, many many many women - and a lot of men too - do keep things neat and trim down there, but that doesn't mean that everyone does it, that everyone should do it, or that everyone has the same opinion of what it even means. Are women expected to have a full Brazilian at all times, even when they have no intention of letting anyone see it? Why does a little hair make you "out of it" or "not that sexual of a person". Maybe it just means you didn't plan on having sex that day. Apparently guys (or at least her douchey friend Chris) expect you not to have sex on the first date, but to be ready for sex at all times!

And really, how "crazy" can your bush really be after only a few days? I mean, the author said "grown-out bikini line" - what does that mean? So basically a "wookie bush" means just not completely bare? Yeah, fuck you Cosmo.

So there you have it -- the next time a fake chastity belt fails you, laugh, distract, and explain that normally you don't sport enough hair to make a merkin out of it. And don't forget to collect your nude-colored bodysuit from the towel closet before you go.

Don't you mean... from UNDER THE BATH MAT!?!?!??!?!

The 5 Worst Things About Save the 1

Last week the anti-choice group Personhood USA put out a press release announcing, essentially, that they've decided to get even more in your face about how extreme and ridiculous their views are by creating a new group called Save the 1. Go ahead, soak up the idiocy (we only included the worst of it and bolded the worst of the worst because we're nice like that):

For the first time since the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, a new organization has formed to focus on the demographic of babies most ignored by the pro-life movement, yet most often singled out by pro-abortion groups: babies conceived in rape. Savethe1.com has launched an effort to educate politicians on the 100% prolife position; disallowing for any "exceptions" sentencing babies to death. These so-called "hard cases" include babies who have a poor in utero diagnosis as well as babies conceived in rape. 

...Following the widely publicized misstatements of Todd Akin and Richard Mourdock , Save the 1 has been created to equip politicians who hold to the 100% prolife position, educating them on the statistics and facts that support 100% abortion bans. Save the 1 will include the personal stories of rape victims and people conceived in rape who seek legal protection for all unborn babies, no matter the circumstances of their conception.

Save the 1 intends to remove and prevent 'rape exceptions', starting with the Hyde Amendment. Save the 1 is a reference to the parable of the lost sheep in Matthew 18:10-14, in which the shepherd leaves his 99 sheep behind to find the 1 sheep who was lost.

"Rape and abortion are wrong for the same reason; they are both violent acts of aggression against another person," continued Kiessling. "If you really care about rape victims, you should want to protect them from the rapist, and from the abortion, and NOT the baby. A baby is not the worst thing which can happen to a rape victim — an abortion is."

Well, it's a good thing Ms. Kiessling cleared that up for us, right ladies? Now, there are a lot of important conversations that we could have about rape exceptions. For example, we could talk about that fact that often when people say that they support abortion rights only in cases of rape, what they mean is that they're willing to be magnanimous enough to "allow" a woman to have an abortion, but only if she's not a big old slut who got pregnant because she chose to have sex. In that sense, we have to at least give it up to the "no exceptions" crowd for consistency - they think we're all horrible evil people for ever considering abortion or supporting abortion rights.

So of course we had to check out this Save the 1 site. And although it can sometimes be hard to measure such things, we can safely say that it's one of the worst things we've ever seen on the internet, and we watched Bam Margera's new music video. So allow us to present, in no particular order, the five worst things about Savethe1.com.


#1 - The fact that it exists

Are we really still trying to make the "personhood" thing happen? Personhood bills and amendments have been solidly defeated at the polls in every state where they've managed to get them on the ballot, including very red states like Mississippi. Sometimes they fail in the courts or before they even come up for a vote. Colorado even rejected it twice. (And yes, I know that just because something is defeated on Election Day, that doesn't make it wrong. Gay marriage should be legal everywhere but it's been voted down a bunch of times, but this is different for a few reasons, like the very wide margins by which these personhood amendments have gone down, and the fact that gay people aren't trying to marry fertilized eggs. But I digress.) Polls have shown that only a small portion of Americans actually agree with the "100% pro-life position", and there are even a lot of people within the anti-choice movement who reject the personhood agenda, either on principle or because the wording of the proposed amendments is always way too vague and broad or just as a matter of bad strategy.

You would think that Personhood USA would have picked up a clue about how popular this whole "no rape exceptions" idea is by the fact that men like Todd "Legitimate Rape" Akin and Richard "What God Intended To Happen" Mourdock are not serving the Senate right now. But no, according to them all that the Akins and Mourdocks of the world lack is a little finesse. Just explain it better and then everyone will understand that it's a great idea to force rape victims to continue their unwanted pregnancies. But not to worry! Save the 1 is here to help with their list of tips for candidates. Here are a couple of their suggested sound bites:

“According to the U.S. Supreme Court, rapists don’t deserve the death penalty – not even child molesters, and that it’s cruel and unusual punishment to sentence them to death. I certainly don’t believe that an innocent child deserves the death penalty for the crimes of her father. Just as the death penalty can’t undo a rape, neither will an abortion.”

“Rape and abortion are wrong for the same reason — they are both violent acts of aggression against another person. I care about rape victims, so I want to ensure that they are protected from the rapist, and not the innocent baby. More violence within her body is not the answer.”

Because if Todd Akin had said that instead he would totally be a Senator right now.


#2 - They almost made us kinda sorta agree with Ann Coulter a little bit

There's a section on the site where Save the 1 director Rebecca Kiessling responds to a column that Ann Coulter wrote after the election. Here's some of the relevant part of Ann's column:

No one can be blamed for the hurricane that took the news off the election, abruptly halting Romney's momentum, but Todd Akin and Richard Mourdock can be blamed on two very specific people: Todd Akin and Richard Mourdock.

The last two weeks of the campaign were consumed with discussions of women's "reproductive rights," not because of anything Romney did, but because these two idiots decided to come out against abortion in the case of rape and incest.

After all the hard work intelligent pro-lifers have done in changing the public's mind about a subject the public would rather not think about at all, these purist grandstanders came along and announced insane positions with no practical purpose whatsoever, other than showing off.

While pro-lifers in the trenches have been pushing the abortion positions where 90 percent of the country agrees with us -- such as bans on partial birth abortion, and parental and spousal notification laws -- Akin and Mourdock decided to leap straight to the other end of the spectrum and argue for abortion positions that less than 1 percent of the nation agrees with.
In order to be pro-life badasses, they gave up two easy-win Republican Senate seats.

 She's right. Well, mostly right. As right as Ann Coulter can ever be about anything. Akin and Mourdock (and quite a few other Republican candidates) tanked their campaigns and did damage to Mitt Romney's campaign by expressing extremely unpopular views in extremely stupid ways with extremely bad timing.

But Ms. Kiessling disagrees. She calls Coulter a "Republican party apologist" who just doesn't get that Akin and Mourdock's losses were because of "how poorly they expressed their positions", not the positions themselves. She also says that Ann wouldn't know anything about what goes on in the "pro-life trenches" because she's been "missing in action", and claims that it was actually Mitt Romney who hurt candidates like Akin by running "ads in battleground states suggesting that it’s extreme to be 100% pro-life".

I know that the number of 100% pro-life Americans would be much higher if the pro-life movement as a whole actually went after this ground. Instead, Coulter is right in pointing out where the effort has been focused – on things like parental notification laws and efforts to ban partial birth abortion. The lives of children conceived in rape are often minimized with the standard dismissive language of: “Well, it’s only 1%.” Why continue to minimize? Why not stand up and really defend our lives? We need to try to gain ground on this issue, by educating the public, by equipping candidates and legislators on how to most effectively respond to the rape question, by making ads with children conceived in rape available for anyone who wishes to utilize them, and by removing rape exceptions from the law, beginning with the Hyde Amendment.

I fully support this Republican infighting and hope that it goes on for a long time, and that Save the 1 is able to encourage a lot more Republican candidates to Akin themselves and lose their elections.

This part is just fascinating to me:

Back to Ann Coulter’s article – she wrote that “No law is ever going to require a woman to bear the child of her rapist.” I don’t believe that. Laws DID protect children like me and these protections can and should be restored. She went on to add: “Yes, it’s every bit as much a life as an unborn child that is not the product of rape.” Ann, your words speak volumes as to what you really believe. A preborn child is not an “it.” He or she is a life, a human being, a person, a son or a daughter. They have a gender. This is not a mere philosophical or political exercise, but real people’s lives are at stake. When I represented the mother inMichigan’s “frozen embryo” case, the fertility doctors testified at deposition that from one cell, they are literally male and female, and ascertainably so! Just as it says in Genesis, “male and female, He created them.” Using words of gender serve to demonstrate the humanity of these children.

So you're more valuable if you have a gender. Or, at least, one that conforms to the gender binary. Interesting.

And then there's this:

We must not discriminate! Children conceived in rape are surely the most outcast members of our society, being unfairly demonized and portrayed as a “horrible reminder of the rape,” “the rapist’s baby,” “tainting the gene pool,” and even “demon spawn.” This not only affects the pre-born, but also those born under such circumstances. Can you imagine if a law was introduced with an exception in cases of bi-racial rape? I could hear the rationale, “Well, it’s only 1% of 1%,” and “the child would look more like the rapist and would surely be more of a reminder of the rape” – an argument which I’ve actually heard before. There would be a national outcry for such discrimination! Civil rights leaders would be outraged and demand that the exception not only be removed, but that the legislator who introduced it must immediately step down. And yet, half of pro-lifers think nothing of discriminating against children conceived in rape, and it’s wrong!

You know, we always try to make posts like this informative, witty, and/or insightful, but sometimes all we really want to say is...wow, fuck you.

#3 - The total disregard for women in general, and rape victims in particular, as individuals with lives and voices and any rights to control their own bodies or make their own choices


The language that this site uses to talk about rape victims is so disrespectful and disgusting. Like the suggested sound bites for candidates we quoted earlier that go on about how rape victims need to be "protected" from abortion, and those who choose abortion are "sentencing" an "innocent child" to the "death penalty" - a worse fate than rapists and child molesters suffer.

Here are a few more of their suggested talking points:

“That child is not ‘the rapist’s baby,’ but her mother’s child. The majority of rape survivors choose to raise their children who were conceived in rape. After everything the rape victim has endured, what an insult to her to suggest that somehow her child’s primary identity is marked as ‘the rapist’s baby,’ and what an unfair stigma to attach to an innocent child.”

“I’m tired of these children being demonized like this. Women are capable of great love for their children and must be given more credit for this.”

"Rape victims need real help – to be protected by ensuring the rapist does not have any parental rights, to make sure the rape victim mother will be able to receive governmental aid, even if she is unable to name who the rapist is.  Tragically, the rhetoric surrounding abortion has left the majority of rape victims mothers unprotected because too many seem to think that a real rape victim couldn’t possibly want her child, when this is simply untrue.  I will work to protect rape victims, and their children."

So they preach about not forcing an identity on a child because its father is a rapist, but they're fine with forcing the identity of "rape victim mother" onto a woman whether she wants it or not. I think that "after everything the rape victim has endured", the real insult is that the Save the 1 crowd tries to shame and manipulate and even legally compel her to conform to their agenda rather than respecting her choices.

#4 / 5 - The Visual Aids

Okay, I accidentally lied twice - there aren't five things on this list and they're not in no particular order. But there's a very good reason for that, and it's because number fourfive is so ridiculous that...just look:

It's a poor innocent baby being run over by a bus that's apparently being driven by a rape victim whose desire for an abortion is such pure evil that it turned her invisible. I think I have that right. The Save the 1 team suggests that you put this lovely graphic on facebook, which is awesome. I was sick of grumpy cat memes, arguments about gun control, and photos of people's gluten free vegan lunch anyway.

If you're not into the whole bus thing, don't worry. They have a bunch of choices, so they've got you covered whether you need a new facebook cover photo or just want some fun graphics to freshen up your Jim Bob Duggar fan site. Perhaps this baby enjoying a nice nap on a lamb is more your style:

Sometimes the best way to get an important message across is with a really stunning and powerful piece of art, you know? I feel like this image really captures the essence of the futility and ineptitude of the personhood movement. Well done. At this point I'd also like to mention that all of the babies that they used for these graphics are white, but I'm sure that was a total coincidence or accident or something since they've already proven how aware and sensitive they are about race issues with that whole "biracial rape" thing.

But this image has got to be my favorite:

The fetus is on fire! The fetus is on fire! Red alert! Call 911, or better yet call Rick Santorum and tell him that he's needed at the Towering Fetus Inferno immediately.

#Whatever, the format is fucked already

Okay sorry, I thought I was done but then I realized that the Resources page has essays in addition to those awesome graphics. One of them is called No Exceptions!, which I didn't read because it looked like just a rehash of the rest of the site. The other one is called Rebecca Kiessling Philosophical Essay, so that's obviously where all the magic is happening. There's a hilarious disclaimer about not plagiarizing this brilliant work, which has "been ranked as the #1 philosophical abortion essay in many search engines for a long time" because "your professor will likely be aware that it’s not your original work". It's extremely long and full of fun phrases like "pre-birth killing", as well as lots of very persuasive and thought-provoking philosophy. Here are a few examples:

As will be discussed in detail below, one cannot legally and morally kill someone else in order to prevent that person from stepping on one’s toe.

That's quite true, and clearly very relevant to the issue of abortion because...well, if you step on someone's toe that's really not nice and therefore...yeah, I got nothing.

...if a doctor does not wish to assist in aborting an unborn child when the pregnancy is innocently placing the mother’s life in jeopardy, the doctor must not be punished for choosing not to personally intervene — even if it is medical necessary in order to save the mother’s life. 

Yes, she is actually saying that if a doctor chooses to stand by and let a woman die rather than perform an abortion that is medically necessary to save her life, that's totally cool and the doctor shouldn't face any consequences.

As we have seen, if you leave your harbor open, an innocent boat — out of necessity — may still permissibly dock in your “safe harbor” under the “necessity doctrine.”  Again, this is not because the boat was constructively invited into your harbor, but merely because it needs to and is able to dock there.  The same reasoning readily applies to an unplanned pregnancy.  The unborn child has a right not to be unjustly killed, not because the unborn child was necessarily constructively invited into the mother’s womb, but merely because the unborn child needs to and is able to be harbored there.

Yes, so when a fertilized eggboat sails through the ocean of your womb and attaches itself to the harbor that is your uterine wall, you should try not to get seasick because...dude, what the fuck are you talking about? My uterus is not a dock and my unplanned pregnancy is not a sailboat in distress.

It is just for a pregnant woman to prematurely terminate her pregnancy to save her life because in such a scenario, it is much harder for her to facilitate her unborn child’s right to life and it is much harder for her to fulfill her own duty to her unborn child.

So it's okay for a woman to have an abortion if it's necessary to save her life, not because it saves her life but because if she were dead she wouldn't be able to continue the pregnancy and then take care of the kid anyway.

Finally, the world would be much different if Moses or Jesus, Einstein or Newton, Rosa Parks or Martin Luther King, Jr., or simply any person had been aborted.  The world may in fact be much different now because of people who have been aborted.  Mother Theresa shared that she had been praying to God as to why he had not sent someone to find a cure for the A.I.D.S. virus.  After praying for many days, she said she finally received an answer from God.  His response, she said, was that He had sent someone, but that person had been aborted.  Whether you are a spiritual person or not, you must realize that the world is necessarily different because of those who have been aborted.

Oh good, this argument again. Insert the standard "but doesn't that work the other way too, like what if Hitler had been aborted blah blah etc." rebuttal here. And of course if Mother Teresa says something that means it must be true.

Just think, if scientists found an unborn child just after conception — a “cluster of cells” — on the planet Mars or on Antarctica, the next day world headlines would read: “Scientists Have Found Life on Mars” and our president would be making a special televised address to the nation to announce these “spectacular” findings that scientists have found life. 

Yeah, just think about it. What if someone found a zygote just straight chillin' on an iceberg in Antarctica? That would be totally sick, bro. 

In addition, it is an indisputable fact that an unborn child is a living human being since no human “fetus” has ever been known to develop into a dolphin, a rabbit, or a carrot.

Indisputable fact. I do not think that phrase means what Rebecca Kiessling thinks it means. But if you take nothing else away from this whole thing, please take the mental image of a human woman giving birth to a giant carrot. You're welcome.