Today, a Pepsi-Cola Company representative posted this comment on Feministe as a response to my post about the “lifeguard ad”:

Official Response from Pepsi-Cola Company:

Pepsi-Cola Company wants to assure you that there’s absolutely no Pepsi advertisement in circulation that even remotely resembles the creative in question. After investigating this matter further, we learned that an advertising agency developed this print ad on “speculation” and it inadvertently made its way to the internet.

Please know that we would never use this type of imagery to sell our products. We are not using this image now, nor do we have any plans to use it in the future.

We’re sincerely sorry that this has upset you and we’re grateful to have had the opportunity to set the record straight. If anyone following this topic would like to discuss this issue further, free to contact me at the email address listed below.

Bart Casabona
bart.casabona@pepsi.com
Pepsi-Cola Company

I followed up with Bart to verify that this is in fact an official statement.  In his response to my email, Bart also expressed his respect and understanding for our offense at the ad and assured me that Pepsi would never choose to market their brand in this manner.

I for one certainly appreciate that Pepsi took the time to look into this, and that their response not only denied but also denounced this advertisement.  I think it’s very important for them to do so when these ads have been gaining traction in advertising circles (where I myself looked in attempt to validate them) as legitimate.  The company may not have created the ad, but their branding is still on it; for that reason they needed come out against the values perpetuated in the image.  And I very much hope that Pepsi will not be using the advertising agency that created this ad in the future.

As for the ad itself . . . I think that this whole thing has been a rather interesting if not particularly surprising experiment in rape apologism.  I spent the weekend wading through, deleting and occassionally responding to large volumes of troll comments on two different blogs.  In those comments, I was called everything under the sun and the outrage that many of us felt upon seeing this ad was harshly mocked.  The complaint from every single one of these people was not that the ad was illegitimate, but that there was nothing wrong with it.  That response coupled with the fact that advertising promoting non-consensual sexual behavior is indeed very real says a lot about what I orginally declared the issue to be — rape culture. The ad is fake; rape culture is not.  While fully acknowledging and regretting the error here, I think it’s important to remember that.

This is a completely off-topic rant about how I hate Victoria’s Secret with every fiber of my being.

Why?  They’re expensive.  They stopped carrying the underwear I like in stores.  They rarely have the bras I wear in the right size/color in stores.  Their shipping prices from their website are outrageous.  Their website is impossible to navigate when they have a sale on.  They have atrocious customer service.

Example: my mom bought me a new bra offline for my birthday.  She couldn’t get me the color I wanted because it said “this item is no longer available.”  What they meant was that it was no longer available for the sale price and that they weren’t going to be selling it again until after the sale is over.  But of course it didn’t say any of that, so she took it very logically to mean that the bra was discontinued.  Once we got that sorted out, we returned it for an exchange for the color I like.  And then?  And then they charged her the difference between the sale price and the full price on a straight exchange.  I don’t think I’ve ever in my life heard of a company refusing to take a straight exchange of an item because it was on sale at the time — at least when they didn’t have a “all sales final” policy to start out with.  And especially when the receipt says they will not charge for a straight exchange.

And why have I put up with all of this shit for years?  Because I like their bras.

So imagine my surprise when I try on the new bra today to find out that they’ve completely changed the style.  If you wear an IPEX Demi, do not buy it again without trying it on first. In addition to changing the material, making the back smaller, and turning the strap adjustment upside down, they’ve also made the cups bigger. Not as in, I now need to go down as a size — as in they’ve made the top of the cups bigger, as though women’s breasts actually look like they do in the ads, super round and full at the top and spilling out over the edges.  Even though, you know, their models’ boobs don’t actually even look like that, and are airbrushed to look that way.  (Hey, there’s some feminist content after all!)  So now there’s this big empty space at the top, making it completely unwearable and leaving me without a bra that I really, really needed and with no immediate replacement.

I’ll be checking out Cacique ASAP.  And Victoria’s Secret can just fuck off and die, preferably by drowning in their own evil corporate blood.

When I saw an email in my inbox with the subject “BEAUTY SECRET Bust-Firming Bra: 4 Weeks to a Firmer You,” I thought it must be spam with strangely correct spelling. But then I saw that the email from from Victoria’s Secret (whose emails I get virtually daily and delete unless they actually happen to have a good deal). The picture to your left is a Victoria’s Secret model showing off the new advertised bra.

From the product description:

The secret’s out: 4 weeks to a firmer looking you. Introducing the only bra proven to tighten, firm and enhance the appearance of your skin – all you have to do is wear it. Beauty Secret™ gives your bust a more uplifted effect in just 4 weeks. Innovative firming and renewal treatments diminish signs of aging and improve skin’s ability to retain moisture, resulting in a naturally firmer-looking bust area. Beauty Secret™ is an unprecedented breakthrough in the world of bras…and now it’s yours to experience. Lightly lined. Contoured shaping. Underwire cups. Adjustable straps. Back closure. Imported nylon/spandex.

• Gives an 18% boost in skin firmness after 4 weeks of continuous wear (8 hours daily)
• Safe to wash (hand-wash preferred): retains renewing power for the life of the bra
• Feels just like any other bra: no inserts, creams or lotions
• You’ll notice results after 4 weeks of continuous wear (8 hours daily), with maximum rejuvenation in 8 weeks

Wow.  I guess they are serious.

The bra is, of course, $68. Which means that unless you want to regularly hand-wash your bra at night and cross your fingers that it’s dry in the morning, you’re going to have to buy at least two. But what a small price to pay for an 18% boost in skin firmness! A firmness that, if similar creams are any indication, you will never actually see.

I’m not sure which is sadder: that Victoria’s Secret thinks women are so dumb that they’ll actually buy this thing, or that women are so beaten down with regards to their appearance that many probably will actually buy this thing.

Just out of curiousity: anyone have any clue how they’re even pretending that this bra really firms your breasts?  What kind of bullshit pseudo-cure talk are they going to use to “back up” their claims here?

Writing this blog everyday, I sure as hell do! And this cracked me up.

If like me, you’re fed up with stupid sexist commercials, check out a few getting some feminist skewering:

I want to see more of Sarah Haskins. And I also might have to start watching InfoMania. It kind of looks like VH1′s Best Week Ever . . . but with jokes that are funny.

h/t Feministing

If you saw someone wearing any of these disgusting shirts, would you:

1. Hit him where it hurts (your choice of body part)
2. Go into an uncontrollable screaming rage
3. Run in the other direction
4. Burst into tears in mourning for your very last ounce of hope in humanity

For me, it depends. I would always be tempted by #1, but refrain (violence is wrong, I’m a wimp, and the last guy I want to initiate violence with is the one wearing a rape shirt). I would probably do #2 if around enough people I know, and could therefore feel relatively safe yelling at someone who is a rapist or rapist-in-training. Otherwise, I’d have to go with #3, followed very quickly by #4. Actually, #4 could probably be guaranteed.

Leave your answers in the comments.

UPDATE: Numerous people in the comments have left remarks questioning whether or not Cafe Press should sell such material and whether or not people are allowed to sell such material on Cafe Press. I looked into it, and as it turns out . . . I’m pretty sure that they can’t.

General Guidelines for Prohibited Content

• Content that may infringe on the rights of a third a party.
• Items that make inappropriate use of Nazi symbols and glamorize the actions of Hitler.
• Use of marks that signify hate towards another group of people.
• Hate and/or racist terms.
• Inappropriate content or nudity that is not artistic in nature.
• Content that exploits images or the likeness of minors.
• Obscene and vulgar comments and offensive remarks that harass, threaten, defame or abuse others such as F*** (Ethnic Group).
• Content that depicts violence, is obscene, abusive, fraudulent or threatening such as an image of a murder victim, morgue shots, promotion of suicide, etc.
• Content that glamorizes the use of “hard core” illegal substance and drugs such as a person injecting a vial of a substance in their body.
• Material that is generally offensive or in bad taste, as determined by CafePress.com.

The list outlined above should NOT be construed as an exhaustive list of offensive material but rather as a general guideline for you to follow.

I think that these shirts pretty much have to fall under at least one of these guidelines. Cafe Press says that if something breaks the usage policy to email them at cup@cafepress.com. So, below the jump, I’ve compiled a bunch of links for the shirts I found, roughly though hardly scientifically in order of most to least offensive. I suggest sending off an email with these URLs and an explanation as to why they violate the content policy. Trigger warning: all of these shirts are very disturbing and offensive.

one
two
three
four
five
six
seven
eight
nine
ten (Note: this shirt is particularly offensive as “rape.com” redirects to rainn.org)
eleven
twelve

Lastly, I’d like to note that many of the most offensive shirts (“I put the sensual back in consensual”) can be seen during searches but are no longer available — though I don’t know if it’s because they’re sold out or because Cafe Press removed them. If you do find something that I’ve missed, leave them in the comments. I have no illusions that this will somehow stop rape jokes, but we can at least try to keep fuckers from making a profit off of them.

In honor of Valentine’s Day, here’s this article from Newsweek about how drugstores are now starting to sell “sexual aids” right out there in the open with the non-sinful products:

The migration of what used to be called “marital aides” from specialty sex shops to the mainstream stores began about four years ago for Trigg Laboratories Inc., the company that makes Wet. “Since then, even the more conservative retailers have come over,” says John Winning, vice president of sales for the Valencia, Calif., firm.

“Every retailer has a different line on what will be acceptable—and that line can move,” says Winning. “For us it was also about getting them past the name. But once they see our sales, that doesn’t last long.”

You might think that Wet and other personal lubricants with blush-worthy labels would be hidden away on a special shelf in the back of the store behind a curtain. Nope. They are usually right out in the open—near the female contraceptives and pregnancy tests.

Nor are they the most risqué items to appear on pharmacy shelves in the last six months. Indeed, certain aisles are starting to look like supply sites for Cosmopolitan magazine’s sex tips section.

In addition to dozens of massage liquids, “warming gels,” and lubricants in many flavors, you’ll also find vibrators. Durex, an international condom maker with a U.S. base in Atlanta, began putting the Little Gem personal massager (a.k.a. vibrator) on drugstore shelves around the country in August of last year. Demurely packaged in a lavender frosted-plastic oval container, the purpose of the Little Gem is fairly ambiguous unless you read the fine print, or just guess that it’s related to sex because it’s right near all the lubricants. Out of context it could be some kind of exfoliating device—or maybe a fancy skin cream.

The discreet packaging was, of course, deliberate. “Now a soccer mom in her minivan can be comfortable buying these types of products right along with her toothpaste and shampoo,” says Tim Cleary, Durex’s vice president of marketing. He says that Durex’s “Play” line of lubricants, condoms, vibrating condom rings, and massagers geared to women was introduced online in 2004 but is now in 30,000 stores nationwide—though the massagers and condom rings are not available everywhere. (Wal-Mart, for example, says it does not offer any personal massagers, though it does sell a variety of lubricants.)

Drugstores have been selling many of these products online for a decade or more. And it’s a healthy market. Over-the-counter sales of lubricants (excluding Wal-Mart) hit $113 million in 2007, a 30.3 percent hike from the previous four-year period, according to Nielsen Strategic Planner. The prices per container range from $5 to $15, depending on the brand and size. And while there isn’t much market data yet on mainstream retail vibrator sales, Durex says its personal massagers are doing very well at about $36 per Little Gem.”

Sweet. And I’m sure that now Texans can legally buy sex toys they’ll be absolutely thrilled.

I have to say that I have no complaints — even if the fundamentalist groups do — about sex being seen as a normal part of life and sexual pleasure as one of many human needs. Even if the people who write these kinds of stories are still behind the pop cultural times enough to attribute the shift to Sex and The City, and even if they’re ignorant enough to paint lubrication as only a straight middle-aged woman’s need. If women are feeling more comfortable claiming their sexual pleasure, I couldn’t be happier.

But do we have to rip these women off in the process? Thirty-six dollars for this thing? Really, those sex toys you buy online actually do come in very discreet packages. And you can now buy them at sites not covered in hardcore porn. Try the sites in the back of your Bitch and Bust magazines, ladies.

Also, while we’re on the subject, Jill has a hilarious video about what happens when you outlaw sex toys. Other than very cranky women.

Happy Commercialized Love Day, everyone.

[Thanks to KaeLyn for the link.]

I don’t know where Melissa keep finding these things, and I probably don’t want to know. Yesterday, it was this pencil sharpener.

And I was naively convinced that when it comes to “joke toys” that promote rape, a headless woman bent over with her hands and feet nailed to the floor while having phallic items shoved in at least one orifice is about as bad as it gets.

But, sadly, it’s not. Because today (and this makes it a sad, sad day), I learned about Lusty Linda.

Now, at first glance, Lusty Linda doesn’t look any worse than the pencil sharpener. But that’s because you don’t know that she talks, yet. From the one of the sites selling it:

Let Lusty Linda the pen holder sun-bath on your desk. When you stick in a pen, she will moan, groan or say any of 10 different things. A switch on the bottom lets you set Linda’s mood, from good or bad. (too bad all women did not have such a switch).

Lusty Linda The Pen Holder Says 10 Different Things including:

* ooow (ouch)!
* Get out you, you dirty old man!
* What are you looking at?
* Help! Help!
* Oh ooh (excited)

That’s right. This “toy” is a plastic object that looks like a woman with a gaping hole in her crotch that symbolizes her vagina, and you’re supposed to shove pens into said hole while she screams for help or moans in pain. But hey, that’s only when she’s in a “bad mood.” When she’s not being a massive bitch, she totally loves it. Like all women, of course. Except that — haha — you can’t turn most of the stupid whores on and off at your leisure for your fucking/raping pleasure.

I want to make it explicitly clear right now: this post is a part of my 16 Days of Activism Against Gender Violence series.

And I want to make something else, clear, too, and it’s something that could be highly unpopular:

This promotes rape.

If you buy one of these things, you are promoting rape. If you laugh at one of these things, you are promoting rape. If you don’t laugh but still think that it’s a harmless joke, you are promoting rape. If one of your friends has one, or thinks it’s funny, and you don’t say anything about it, you are promoting rape.

Do you get that? Because I am quite sure that people don’t get it (trigger warning). I know that Spencer’s Gifts shoppers don’t get it.

Rape is not funny. Jokes about rape are not “black humor.” They are not “tasteless.” They are actively promoting rape. By laughing at it, you’re saying that it’s okay. By laughing at it, you’re giving encouragement to the guys who are actually rapists. I’m going to steal an excerpt from Kate Harding that is so good it sends chills up my spine (from a classic post that you should read in its entirety):

‘Cause the thing is, you and the guys you hang out with may not really mean anything by it when you talk about crazy bitches and dumb sluts and heh-heh-I’d-hit-that and you just can’t reason with them and you can’t live with ‘em can’t shoot ‘em and she’s obviously only dressed like that because she wants to get laid and if they can’t stand the heat they should get out of the kitchen and if they can’t play by the rules they don’t belong here and if they can’t take a little teasing they should quit and heh heh they’re only good for fucking and cleaning and they’re not fit to be leaders and they’re too emotional to run a business and they just want to get their hands on our money and if they’d just stop overreacting and telling themselves they’re victims they’d realize they actually have all the power in this society and white men aren’t even allowed to do anything anymore and and and…

I get that you don’t really mean that shit. I get that you’re just talking out your ass.

But please listen, and please trust me on this one: you have probably, at some point in your life, engaged in that kind of talk with a man who really, truly hates women–to the extent of having beaten and/or raped at least one. And you probably didn’t know which one he was.

And that guy? Thought you were on his side.

Look, before the hate comments, guys, if you don’t talk like that with your friends, then it wasn’t about you.

But it is about an awful lot of guys out there. It’s about the people who make these toys. Because you know who’s going to buy them? Idiots. And rapists. It’s about the people who make videos with jokes about rape. Who’s going to laugh at them? Idiots. And rapists.

All of you out there who don’t get it can tell me until you’re blue in the face that you’re not a rapist and you think that rape is bad and horrible and terrible and you’re NOT a rapist, really, really not, you just think that the joke is funny — but I only have one thing to say to you:

If you’re not a rapist, get off the rapists’ side.

[cross-posted from Femniste]

About a month ago, I wrote a post about Guitar Hero III. The main gist was that as a big-time previous fan of the series, I was thoroughly unimpressed with the the changes that have been made to the game, which are quite misogynist, exploitative of women and completely insensitive to the fact that the game has a female audience. To my great surprise, the post became a big hit (and troll target) and was linked to in all kinds of forums and blogs that would normally never give me a second glance. This was also to my slight dismay, because I didn’t spend much time on that post, and frankly, I don’t think that it’s very good. Anyway, lesson learned.

The point is that I now feel compelled if not required to say a few words about Rock Band.

Amanda has already written a more comprehensive review than I’m going to get into. And in any case, I only have a PS2, so I don’t own the game yet. My brother does, though, and since we live very close to each other I’ve already spent a good deal of time playing his (and plan to continue today).

In short, it fucking rocks. The game play is great, particularly in multi-player mode. It really does feel like you’re in your own little rock band. The guitar parts seem easier, but the timing is somewhat different than on Guitar Hero, which means that I’m currently having some difficulty with riffs in Rock Band that I would normally be able to cream without any trouble. I imagine that it’s just a matter of time before I get that down, though. Drums are tough for people like me who have no rhythm, but they’re also a hell of a lot of fun. And I’m not gonna lie: I love singing.

For someone like me, who has always had a strong desire to be in a band but has no actual musical talent, it’s about as good as it gets.

As for the feminist question, the problems with Guitar Hero III mostly don’t exist in Rock Band. You get to create your own character, which is great and a lot of fun. That includes choosing among many skin tones, several face shapes and tons and tons of hairstyles. The weight option is slightly annoying, because no matter how big or small you make the character’s bodies, the body proportions stay almost exactly the same. For the female characters, that means hourglass figure. But I can live with that, because it’s the same for the male characters — you can choose between skinny but buff or body builder. It sucks, but I have to say that if we’re going to give people body issues, I do appreciate that for once it’s not only women who get to have them. The female characters don’t prance around stage like vapid sex kittens; you get to choose whether you want your character’s attitude to be “rock,” “punk,” “metal,” or “goth.” They also give you a million clothes choices — some skimpy, most not, and it goes both ways with the male and female options. And you can apply makeup to both male and female characters.

The game is still male-centric. When you play in solo mode, it seems to automatically grant you all male band mates. [Correction: this must have been a fluke, as I was given female some band mates in another session.] And of course, most of the songs are by male bands (but so is most mainstream rock music, which is what they have included). But they do seem to have put in equal time creating both male and female character options and making sure that those options are highly comparable. Oh, and I haven’t seen any half-naked dancers on stage, yet.

That’s pretty much all I’m going to say before I open it up for discussion because, hell, its Thanksgiving, I’ve got food to eat and a band to rock.

But who out there is a Guitar Hero and/or Rock Band fan? And for those of you who are, I know that you’ve thought of this question before: what would be your ultimate dream Guitar Hero/Rock Band songs?

For me, with Guitar Hero, it would be While My Guitar Gently Weeps. As for Rock Band, I’m going to have to go with Hotel California and Where the Streets Have No Name. Not very original, perhaps, but I’m not really a trendy music person, and in any case, don’t lie: sometimes the corniest songs are the most fun to play.

Here’s something you probably haven’t heard much about in a while: the female condom. Why talk about it now? Because finally, someone has had the sense to redesign it.

Some history:

The female condom has never caught on in the United States. But in the third world, where it was introduced in the late 1990s, public health workers hoped it would overthrow the politics of the bedroom, empower women and stop the AIDS epidemic in its tracks.

It did not. Female condoms never really caught on there, either.

Only about 12 million female condoms are delivered each year in poor countries, compared with about 6 billion male condoms. Couples complained that the female version was awkward, unsightly, noisy and slippery — or, as Mitchell Warren, who was one of its earliest champions, now says, “the yuck factor was a problem.” Many women tried it, but in the end, it was adopted mainly by prostitutes.

Actually, I hadn’t heard before that the female condom was popular among sex workers. Does anyone know if this is true? In any case, I’m not nuts about the tone of the statement, which seems to imply that it’s a useless victory. Of course we want any contraceptive to have a wider market, but I’d say that if sex workers are using it as a way to protect themselves, that’s a win.

Anyway, I digress. The point is, as almost everyone agrees, the original sucked and was weird. I’ve never tried one; in fact, I don’t know anyone who has ever admitted using one to me. If you have, let us know about it (you’re more than welcome to leave your comment anonymously). So there’s a lot of room for improvement, to say the least, and the new design certainly sounds interesting:

The redesigned female condom is made of softer, thinner polyurethane to better transmit warmth. It is easier to insert; one end is bunched up as small as a tampon, an improvement on the old design, which resembled the stiff rubber ring of a diaphragm and had to be folded into a figure 8 for insertion.

During sex, the new female condom also moves more like a vagina than the old design did, according to couples in Seattle, Thailand, Mexico and South Africa who tested a series of prototypes, said Joanie Robertson, project manager for the condom at PATH. The old design hung passively from the rubber ring, which could shift around and sometimes hurt; the new design has dots of adhesive foam that adhere to the vaginal walls, expanding with them during arousal.

According to PATH, more than 90 percent of the couples were satisfied with the ease of use and comfort of the new condom, and 98 percent found the sensation of sex to be “O.K. to very satisfactory.”

You can also check out a drawing of the new design in the article itself.

. . .

Though the new condom sounds a lot more comfortable and easier to use, it’s certainly not without its problems. Namely, there’s the issue of consent in regions where a female-controlled form of HIV prevention is most necessary:

However, the new design does not overcome the glaring drawback that doomed the first to be a niche product: it cannot be used secretly. For that reason, married women, now one of the highest risk groups for AIDS in poor countries, rarely use it.

“I don’t want my husband to know that I am wearing a condom,” said Lois B. Chingandu, the director of SAfaids, an anti-AIDS organization in Zimbabwe.

“Condoms are almost undiscussable within a marriage” in Africa, she added. “It is something associated with casual sex. If a wife uses a condom, the message is that you have been unfaithful. If she even initiates the discussion, it tips the power scale. Men resist quite a lot, and it can result in violence.”

Indeed. I’d say that if a man refused to wear a condom himself, the chances of him agreeing to sex while his partner is wearing a condom is also fairly slim. The issue of men refusing to wear protection is, of course, a huge part of the problem. The fact is, not all women get to decide when they would like to have sex with their husbands, and they often live in regions where HIV/AIDS is a major problem. And though we would like nothing more than to abolish socially sanctioned spousal rape, it’s a social process. And until we get there, the least we can do is make sure that women in these situations are safe from deadly disease. Quite frankly, the ability to use protection while keeping it a secret from their male sexual partners is often a must. And that’s why the failure of the diaphragm experiment was so devastating.

That all being said, there are many uses for the female condom, and it certainly can be a lifesaving device and is quite imperative to the cause of female sexual autonomy. In fact, female-controlled contraception has been shown to shift other social values about women’s rights, so while it’s not exactly likely that a usable female condom might have some effect on the situations that currently make it a bad option, it’s not hugely off the wall, either.

But the drawbacks of the device itself are also not the only problem preventing it from being distributed to women. What is? Cliche as it may be, it’s the U.S. government and and the greedy corporations. Sigh.

PATH is seeking approval from the Food and Drug Administration so the condom can be sold in the United States. And with the drug agency’s approval, it would be much easier to license the condom in poor countries or get a World Health Organization endorsement.

While the F.D.A. designates male condoms as Class 2 medical devices — meaning that a new maker has to pass tests only for leakage and bursting — it puts female condoms in Class 3, the same category as pacemakers, heart valves and silicone breast implants.

That decision was made in 1999 — after much debate, and well after the condom was in use overseas — because there was no clinical data on the effectiveness of female condoms, and failure could be life-threatening if the woman’s partner had AIDS. An advisory panel suggested not even calling it a “condom” and instead labeled it an “intravaginal pouch,” but the agency rejected that advice.

Names notwithstanding, the Class 3 listing means that any new design must pass clinical trials, which would cost $3 million to $6 million.

“That’s a huge, huge impediment, close to a 100 percent block, because no one’s willing to put up that sort of money,” Dr. Free said.

The United States Agency for International Development, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the Lemelson Foundation and others paid for design costs and prototypes, but they are not willing to pay for clinical trials and the cost of building a factory. Private investors have also balked because the American and European markets for the original design proved smaller than had been predicted.

The fucking FDA. Please, don’t get me wrong. The female condom needs to be tested and we need to make sure that it’s safe and effective. But are we to believe that the decision had only to do with “safety concerns?” Yeah, about as much as the stalling over EC over-the-counter access and the fact that it’s still not available without a prescription to minors was about a “safety concern.” The fact is, I cannot see any reason why the female condom has to undergo more rigorous testing than the male condom, other than the fact that the FDA has a beef with female sexual autonomy, and the fact that U.S. government has a problem with both sex and condoms, period. Oh, and they also have an issue with providing financial assistance to poor people of color, even more so when they’re foreign.

But even if we assume that the tests are necessary, and hell, even if they aren’t, the fact that they are not being tested is complete and utter bullshit. I’m sitting here, staring at those figures — $3 million to $6 million — and very honestly wondering if it’s a typo. If it said billion instead of million, I would understand. If that was not a mistake, though, I don’t even know what to say.

Six million dollars, to the U.S. government, major investors and the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation, is quite literally pocket change. The government spends that much money every time a Senator blows his fucking nose. And though the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation has done a lot of good, and because of that I do hesitate to criticize them . . . they’re Bill and Melinda fucking Gates. Six million dollars sounds like a lot of money to you and me. It is a lot of money. But in the schemes of public health, philanthropy, investment and government spending, it is a tiny little drop in an ocean-sized bucket.

So I hope that it’s a typo. I hope to go back to the article later on in the day and see a correction. Because if six million dollars is what’s holding back a prophylactic that can and will save lives of many, many women — and, it must be said, mostly black women and other women of color — well, I don’t think that I’m being overly-dramatic in asking, what the hell kind of hope is there for anything?

Salon has an article up today on a slightly unusual topic: makeup for men. I remember a few years ago, some companies tried this out. And it was ruthlessly mocked pretty much everywhere that there was a platform from which to do the mocking. But apparently, the idea is making a comeback. Sort of.

It’s no secret that actors have been prone to powder their noses, but a growing number of high-profile guys are drawing notice for rocking suspiciously ruddy glows offstage. Alongside Efron, a bevy of pretty boys have been cited recently for egregious makeup application: John Mayer, Jesse McCartney, Ryan Seacrest. Fall Out Boy’s Pete Wentz, the world’s most approachable hipster and patron saint of “guyliner,” even gave a sober demonstration on applying eyeliner in People magazine a few months ago that would have made the late Tammy Faye Bakker proud.

So are we ready to embrace makeup on men? After all, the Beatles’ long-ish hair was once considered an affront to modest ’60s sensibilities. Or will men’s makeup go the route of the men’s skirt trend circa 2003 that never quite took off?

If foreign markets are any indication, we may be slathering on foundation soon enough. The U.K. drugstore giant Boots has started carrying a men’s makeup line, and H&M in London stocks mascara in its men’s section. In Asia, Japan’s Gatsby line of men’s makeup and South Korea’s Man Holding Flower line by Somang featuring “Color Lotion” are doing brisk business.

But the culture that gave birth to the rugged masculine ideal of the Marlboro Man may not be ready to reach for the blush brush just yet. A GQ survey in 2005 reported that “92 percent of men would not wear makeup even if it guaranteed them a more fulfilling sex life.” U.S. sales figures seem to confirm the ongoing resistance to men’s makeup. Tres Wilson, executive director of Clinique Global Treatment Marketing, said, “Clinique’s Skin Supplies for Men M Cover [a concealer that debuted earlier this year] and Non-Streak Bronzer products sell very well in Europe, much more so than in the U.S.”

Interesting.

You know, I think that the first liberal inclination might be to embrace a culture that accepts makeup on men. It would show a blurring of gender roles, an increased acceptance of varying genders and sexualities and a lack of concern about whether one might be called “gay.” These are good points, but I do have a slightly different take.

Here’s the problem: even men who are interested in makeup don’t generally want to be associated with it. Look at the ridiculous lengths that companies are going to to prove that you can wear makeup and “still be a man.”

Many men prefer to keep their makeup desires on the down-low, and cosmetics companies are happy to oblige, employing discreet packaging and butch names. Take Jean Paul Gaultier’s Brow and Lash Groomer: It is ingeniously designed to look like a pen. It’s also mascara. 4VOO’s impressive-sounding Confidence Corrector is a product better known as concealer.

Even the term “makeup” requires a makeover: The winning euphemism for men’s makeup seems to be “enhancement.” Jean Paul Gaultier refers to its line as “men’s aesthetic enhancement.” Sephora added a “complexion enhancers” category on its site a year ago, and Biotherm Homme’s Power Bronze line of concealer and tinted gel is touted as “instant skin enhancement.”

Here’s what this tells me: men aren’t interested in makeup to enact some kind of different gender role play. The idea is not to explore identity. The idea is that men are becoming increasingly unhappy with their natural bodies. This may seem obvious, but I think it’s important to not forget when discussing whether men wearing makeup is a good thing. Men wearing visible makeup as a form of fun or experimentation = good. Men wearing makeup only because they’re ashamed of how they look, and praying to god that no one knows = bad.

And sadly, more often than not, it seems like the second scenario is closer to what women do. Women aren’t very likely to hide their makeup use, anymore, (though there are still some who go for “the natural look” and fail to see the irony) but they are likely to wear their makeup as an “enhancement.” Generally, they’re covering up and feeling like their natural faces aren’t good enough (which is, duh, why it’s called concealer). That’s why I used to wear full makeup every day. And it is why I still wear foundation, despite my slow efforts to wean myself from it.

I think that the backlash also tells us something:

Even in the metrosexual age, dabbing concealer on a blemish is seen as an emasculating activity. American ambivalence about men’s makeup seems to run pretty deep, as GQ fashion editor Brian Coats can attest, “I just think it can be a scary thing for guys to wear makeup. I kind of understand that.” Coats believes makeup on men is not a good idea for the general population. “A guy should look like a guy. I think in general, guys just look better natural.”

Let’s put away the obvious misogyny and homophobia in the “a guy should look like a guy” sentence to focus on the one that follows: “I think in general, guys just look better natural.”

And, Captain GQ, what about women?

Well, we know what someone who writes for or reads GQ is likely to think on that subject. But it’s also reflective of a larger social view. Men are good as they are, women need fixing.

The fact is that women, “in general,” look better natural, too. Really, they do. But makeup and marketing and a million other social pressures have made us forget that.

Do we really want guys to forget it, too? Isn’t this just going to take the oppression of masculinity and change it into the oppression of artificial appearance? Of course, we’re nowhere near that point, yet.

Men may no longer raise a tweezed eyebrow at the thought of manicures and facials, but makeup still draws severe reactions. The aforementioned GQ survey found that 65 percent of men thought plastic surgery acceptable but that only 14 percent would consider using makeup for a 25 percent salary increase. It seems men would rather go under the knife than get paid to put on some makeup to cover up wrinkles.

Forget pay increases — women are often forced to wear makeup just to get and keep the job in the first place! And they do it. Fighting the man is all good and fine until your comfort of living directly hinges on a fight that is relatively unimportant. If makeup became the expected norm for men, I imagine that they, too, would change their tune.

And that’s not what I want. We’re pushing for equality here, but this is the exact wrong way to do it. Forcing ridiculous physical standards on men doesn’t make us “even” — it just makes us both fucked. Despite what MRAs say/think, my efforts towards equality do not hinge on making men’s lives worse. I just want to make women’s lives better.

When makeup is something that both men and women wear optionally as a form of fun self-expression, like dressing up or changing an outfit, instead of as a desperate bid to constantly look “perfect” and a way for companies to make money off of self loathing, I’ll be down with makeup for men. As it is, I don’t feel that it’s where we, as liberals/progressives/feminists, etc., want to go.

What do you think?