Pokémon Go Away.

I was initially indifferent over the newest craze of Pokémon Go. Controversy ahoy was soon had, with various trespassing and privacy issues percolating into various news conglomerates, regaling tales of Pokémon Goers trying to catch ’em all. Amusement quickly turned to disgust for me when I heard that the game had Pokéstops at the Holocaust Museum, Hiroshima Memorial and Ground Zero. These areas have only recently been removed from the game, after weeks of outrage and complaints from the (sane) public. The gamers that thought it was appropriate to play any game whatsoever at say, Ground Zero, is the cause of my critique of Pokémon Go, which seems to encourage this self-serving attitude of millennial and Generation Y. These groups are essentially any person that reached young adulthood around the year 2000, and are actually defined as being typically perceived as being familiar with electronic and digital technology. The hype and different controversies over Pokémon Go prompted me to think about what motivates my age group, Generation Y, and I think for a large portion of the population, it is themselves. Convenience and entertainment appear to be sought over most other things, and it seems that select individuals are being reinforced by others, often though social media platforms, to do these things we’ve heard about on the news with apparently no negative consequences. Apparently we are the entitled generation because we can do whatever the hell we want, as long as our defence is in the name of the almighty fad and is (insert your banal adjective here…) cool/fun/sweet/awesuum.

pokemongopic– “Put your Pokémons away, Billy!”
– “But, Mooom, Koffings are super rare!”

There are theories that because of the Y2K scare in 1999 and 9/11, these events interrupted Generation Y’s sense of security at a young age, and has made us uncertain and hesitant in regards to ‘growing up.’ This can even be seen in some Internet memes of the ‘Adulting is Hard’ genre. I personally find myself learning of the most recent tragedies from around the world every day, and usually without my consent. With so much violence and turmoil in the world, it is easy to become apathetic towards our society of too-many-problems-to-fix. Possibly the increase of social media sites has served as a distraction for young people, and the frivolity serves as a kind of buffer against the horrors that we hear about every day. I would not be bothered over a distraction in itself, but it seems like Instagram and YouTube ‘stars,’ who for the most part seem to be ‘famous’ for being beautiful or rich (or both), or are known because they buy and showcase the right brands and products to their viewers. SnapChat, Instagram, Twitter, and any other social media site that focuses on a virtual representation of the individual user, as said user sees themselves, appears to be the most problematic, where one does not have to look far to find folk of the shallow, entitled variety.

Avid users and participants in these types of social media sites usually will only present the best aspects of themselves, and use the site to create a virtual mask, as well as a ‘face,’ which in sociology, refers to the concept of an individual’s own sense of dignity or prestige in social contexts. This representation of themselves is what they present to whoever is reading or viewing their content. It is human nature to present oneself in a positive way, and exaggerate our claims a small amount, but in my mind, the ‘faces’ of active and chronic social media users have surpassed this allowance in a large way (like playing a game at the Holocaust Museum for points and prestige, for instance). I know that research has shown that online users can get a Dopamine release connected with games and positive social media attention, and that we should grace certain people with an amount of patience, but I think we should just all take a step back and consider. I highly doubt that everyone playing the game in these sensitive areas I am discussing are ‘technology addicts;’ I think we are simply becoming a generation of narcissists.

The expression, ‘to save face’ refers to the lengths that a person may go to in order to preserve their perceived, established position in their community, and the taking of action that may be required to ensure that they are not thought of in a negative way by their peers. I think that the concept of prestige is what millennials have focused in on within their Interwebs trite. I think that how this translates to the modern, technological world for an average person being a ‘follower’ of the ‘star’ is that this dialogue makes the average Joe feel like they are a part of these pseudo-celebrity’s success simply by knowing their name and genre. We all know this kind of person. The one that checks their phones every few minutes to make sure they aren’t missing out on an update, tweet, like, or share from the celebrities of their own creations, which could potentially hurt their status quo by not being in the loop of whatever is deemed important in their world. Gentile, Twenge, Freeman, & Campbell (2012) found that in an experiment, students that chose to complete an activity to edit their personal MySpace page over another kind of assignment scored higher narcissism personality traits when completing the Narcissistic Personality Inventory (NPI) than the group that chose the alternative assignment. Narcissism itself is defined by a sense of entitlement, an elevated sense of self, and overt grandiosity. Morf & Rhodewalt (2001) found that narcissistic individuals often seek continual reinforcement from their social environment in order to maintain their inflated self-views. They will seek to gain attention from others, and this attention can be from “bragging, wearing flashy clothing, dating attractive ‘‘trophy’’ partners, and buying status symbols.” Sound familiar, friends…?


I think a major problem with social media is that it creates unrealistic expectations for the ‘real world.’ Your cousin seems extraordinarily dull compared to the quip that you read from your favsies Instagramer this morning. Even though said Instagramer had who knows how long to write and edit their post. It’s like a forged perfection. This idea is peppered within the Pokémon Go game, as well, with the concept of nostalgia. Nostalgia can be a longing, of sorts, of our rose-tinted remembrance of the past, which can prompt us to attempt a restoration of something tangible to bring us back to our previous comfort. Annnd, enter the marketers to sell everything and anything that may bring us this comfort. Remember the ‘Adulting is Hard’ memes I mentioned earlier? Many millennials are basically children with salaries, looking for something to throw their money at. My only hope for these groups is for them to be more mindful of what and who they are actually supporting with their clicks, downloads, likes, and Pokéballs.


“What Kind of Porn Does YOUR Kid Like?” And Other Acceptable Public Discussions, Apparently.


Recently, W5, a Canadian current events program ran a story that focused on a growing pornography addiction trend that many young people are experiencing. Within the episode, “Generation XXX,” a twelve year old boy was interviewed, where he discussed his own personal struggle with this addiction and the consequences he is currently experiencing in his life. I am purposefully omitting the boy’s name, because I personally think that the producers of the show breached journalistic ethics in not keeping the boy’s identity anonymous. Within the program, the boy’s name, age, province and home were all shown. The family believes that sharing the boy’s experience will benefit other families, and alert parents to their own children’s Internet use, given that this boy was only eleven when he first discovered the adult content. I don’t think that the ‘shock value’ effect the producers and family were seeking justifies the permanence of having personal information available to the public for the rest of this boy’s life. I don’t believe that children are old enough to give consent to have their personal information released, because they are unable to understand the lifelong consequences, making the technicalities of consent for the release of information and achieving informed consent impossible.

There is always potential to breach ethics when performing interviews, and it seems that reasonable care taken to avoid possible harm to the interviewee is only as much as the law requires. Within the W5 interview, having a young boy discuss the type of pornography he watches could definitely cause stigmatization for himself within his peer group, which is a specific ethics breach regarding harm for the interviewee within interviewing ethics (“Unite for Sight,” n.d.). Producers of W5 no doubt explained to the boy and his family about the possible negative effects that the interview may bring, but I don’t believe that a child at twelve years old is fully capable of making a such a permanent decision. Besides having his personal history discussed, I believe that labelling a young person as having an addiction, when ‘sex-addiction’ and ‘porn-addiction’ are two fairly new topics with little research available may be problematic to his self-identity and self-worth in the future. Revealing this private information, as well as the label of an ‘addict’ will no doubt isolate him to some extent from his peers, as well as the potential for creating barriers for his future partners, or even employers to look past. This is where I believe that W5 has made a mistake in revealing the boy’s identity, because he will not have the opportunity to disclose this information to whom he chooses; his story is now, and will always be accessible to everyone.

Modern reality television serves as a modified, slightly more calculated interview as well, and I think that television today is doing a great disservice to children. I think that most, if not all personal information in regards to children should be confidential, and for it to certainly not available for the entertainment of viewers. The W5 episode is not the only program that I have watched that seems to have a shaky grasp on ethics. If children are deemed not capable to drive a car, vote, have sex, and drink alcohol, why are we assuming that they, along with their guardians, are intuitive enough to make a decision to review and understand all possible risks that come with releasing information to the public? One example that made me physically cringe was an episode of a reality television show that follows a young transgender girl’s life, I Am Jazz. Film crews were allowed access into Jazz’s doctor appointment, where her hormone levels and changing body were discussed. It seems that morality was left behind when this young child was shown discussing her developing breasts and future sexual activity to millions of viewers.

There are indispensable benefits of discussing and exploring the topics that people usually shy away from for our society to continue moving forward. I don’t object to the fact that Jazz has her own reality television show, or that a young boy wants to warn others about the dangers of the Internet. I object to the fact that private information is being treated as a commodity in our society, and that children seem to be bestowed with the rights of adults when it is convenient, and more often, profitable for us.


Please Vacate the Premises, Sir, This Is a Wedding Expo.


I have recently seen for myself that gender binarism and stereotyping are in fine form at bridal expositions. I have never given much thought to wedding expos in general, until I realized that some are described as ‘bridal’ expos, versus ‘bride and groom’ or ‘wedding’ expos. Simply by the title discrepancies holds the first problem for me. Why people still pander to the idea that it is the woman’s responsibility to plan the details of the wedding, and that they are the only ones interested in attending an expo, I’ll never know. This atmosphere appears most frequently within the ‘bridal’ expos, but can also be found within the ‘wedding’ events, which in theory, should be inclusive of everyone. The aim of these expos is to book clients and for vendors to, you know, sell things, so it seems like poor business management to be alienating fifty percent of your potential clients.

The assumption that men are not interested in any kind of wedding expo is prevalent within these events, but is addressed in a paradoxical manner within the wedding industry itself. Some companies, such as the Love Story Wedding Expo, are attempting to increase the amount of Y chromosomes in attendance by advertising that grooms can attend expos for free, but only with their brides. To me, this is one of the many oddities within the land of the wedding expo. As far as I can tell, the events themselves attempt to separate the men and women as soon as they are through the door. I recently had a conversation with a friend, and he attended an expo with his fiancée. He is excited about planning his wedding with his partner, and was surprised that he, as the groom, was not allowed to enter any of the contests by himself. If companies running these events are trying to encourage men to attend, why are they quickly alienating any potential groom, (as well as same-sex couples) by sending them the message that they don’t really belong?

As part of the paradoxical element I mentioned, many events that are advertised online have a designated ‘Groom’s Area.’ In my idealized world, this area would simply be an area for tuxedos, shoes, and any other products that men predominately buy. Sadly, this area, also known as a ‘Men’s Area,’ ‘Groom’s Lounge,’ and the horribly condescending ‘Groom-Sitting Area’ are areas that pander to the narrow, stereotypical idea of masculinity from the 1950s. Firstly, assuming that a man is not interested in planning the wedding, and likewise, that women are is a testament to the idea that women are only interested in, or only have the ability for frivolous things like parties and clothing. In my mind, gender binarism is at work here, and there is a subtle message that if men are not frivolous party-planners, they therefore must be talented in logical things and/or rough-and-tough things, that are the opposite of ladylike behaviour (whatever the hell that is).

Speaking of rough-and-tough, what’s more tough and manly than football and beer? Nothing, that’s what. So, of course when a man is dragged past aisles of tulle and lace for any length of time, they eventually will need a testosterone boost to still be able to call themselves men. Insert the ‘Men’s Area’ that will save the any man’s reputation, where GroomsAdvice describes their service as:

“We mix a little wedding talk with Nintendo Wii, ping pong and man-food. Doesn’t sound that bad, eh?”

So there, you go. Men can all give one another hot beef injections of ‘man-food’ in each other’s mouths (beef is the manliest meat, right?) when they all grow weary of pantyhose and stuff.

GroomsAdvice also offers men a free football pass (because every man everywhere is a football fan) for simply attending their event. I’m pretty sure that any man that refused the free pass, and wanted to attend the event simply to help plan his wedding would be asked to leave.

So why are men attending? The wedding industry makes their money by selling a fantasy to women, and marrying a partner that is enlightened enough to attend an expo with you is the icing on the proverbial cake that you could probably buy with enough money.  All this dude has to do to show his support is to drive there with you, buy his ticket (or not), and retreat to the glorified sports bar until you are ready for him to sign the cheque once you have found your perfect dress and shoes.  The Wonderful Wedding Show  discusses their own Groom’s Lounge, and make a special note, telling grooms to drop by when they’ve inhaled too much of the estrogen-laced atmosphere, because they will surely need a “much deserved break while their brides-to-be are exploring the rest of the show.”

There are so many examples of ‘socially acceptable’ forms of sexism that we all come across daily that drives me crazy. I’m not even surprised at the varying degrees of stupidity anymore. It’s more of a frustration that the majority of my peers can’t see any issues with this crap, and I always get flak from everyone saying that I’m too sensitive over casual gender stereotyping. Stereotyping is damaging for all people; if the expectation is that men must be one thing, and women must therefore be another, it is troublesome for every person, especially those that do not fit into the typical ‘male’ and ‘female’ roles. I wish that the wedding industry (and everyone in general) could be progressive enough to be inclusive for all people, and all types of couples that are planning their big day.

I’m a PC Asshole, and I Love It.


Increased social networking technology has brought us an ever-expanding access to global information and opinions. Social media outlets have made it so that everyone and anyone can have their own platform to share their personal ideas. And what has come from this technological advancement? Arguments. All of the arguments, that can lead to flame wars, and my personal pet peeve, commenting in ALL CAPS TO SHOW LIKE, HOW ANGRY YOU ARE, OR WHATEVER. These chronicled theatrics delight spectators everywhere; likely, they progress with borderline unrecognizable words and if one was to introduce the word ‘homophone,’ it may be mistaken for a pink telephone.

People have been telling me to keep my opinions to myself for as long as I can remember. My Stepfather would constantly tell me to stop critiquing things; I never stopped, because I was determined that everyone in my family know the cheese factor that I witnessed in the teenaged acting that was Elijah Woods in Flipper.

As I got older, I was ‘Facebook warring’ with people before Facebook was even a thing. I heard the word ‘political correctness’ somewhere in my junior high age, and unlike some of my peers at the time (and even some of my peers as an adult, I’m not going to lie), I understood what it meant. I officially became a PC policeperson (hardy har har) in junior high school, when my gym teacher called one of his students ‘retarded.’ Now, I’m Canadian, and in Canada, the word ‘retard’ is considered to be quite rude, and definitely falls into the category of politically incorrectness. I called him on it, and the story of our interaction became the big news throughout the school for a time. I felt confident while confronting him, because I knew that my argument was ‘right.’ I knew a few other students that had siblings and family members with cognitive limitations, and to have an instructor use that kind of language was pretty upsetting. I don’t dare use the word ‘offensive’ within my anecdote, because that word is becoming overused, with its actual definition falling on deaf ears. I actually wish that I had a deaf friend to ask if they find the previous idiom offensive or not. Be sure that I will not use it in the future if someone objects to it!

Back then, I was beginning to create an identity for myself as a person that defends the rights of marginalized groups. I still strive to do the best that I can; if someone tells me that they are hurt, uncomfortable, or, perish the thought, offended by a term, phrase, comment, costume, or anything (within reason) else, I will believe and support their call for a retraction. I don’t accuse anyone of being too sensitive, or just figure they should get over it. I don’t know how it feels to be an Aboriginal or Native American, finding a ridiculous ‘Native’ Halloween costume in the store; or similarly, a costume that consists of a donkey and a sombrero; and I don’t know how it feels to be struggling to identify my own sexual orientation, and to hear the word ‘gay’ being used as a bad thing. Yes, you read that right. I don’t think people should use the word ‘gay’ as a synonym for ‘bad,’ or ‘stupid.’ I also don’t think that racial slurs and stereotypes are appropriate in any context. You may have freedom of speech, but that doesn’t mean you have freedom from the consequences of what comes out of your mouth. If that makes me an overly-sensitive asshole (I’m writing metaphorically here, I don’t mean I need ultra soft toilet paper or anything. Well, OK, I do actually prefer it), I’d rather be that over being the hurtful and bigoted type of asshole.

So, come at me on my various social media platforms. I’ll even start you off: I identify as a feminist. I love, LOVE discussing gender stereotypes and binary issues with people, especially when they have no flipping idea about what they’re talking about. Let me first counter what is the most common first argument about feminism: feminism is difficult to discuss because there is no official definition of it (which truthfully, doesn’t make us look good), but I adhere to the idea that women should be allowed to be as human as males. I think that gender stereotypes are damaging for everyone involved, so, don’t get down on me about how I’m a man-hater, and don’t care about anyone’s rights but my own. I think that custody cases should be investigated individually and objectively, and women shouldn’t always be awarded custody simply because they are female. I am a feminist, and am not only one when it is convenient for me. So, put that in your pipe and smoke it.

My PC-ness will come out in other forms, as well: I think that all children should be nurtured; yes, everyone does deserve a prize, but perhaps not in the way that you think. I feel like praising a child’s talent or skill over others in front a group can be damaging. If you are complimenting a child’s artistic ability, what does that even mean? Art is subjective, and honestly, depending on the age, the word artistic is probably a bit of a stretch, anyway. So why not compliment a child’s ability to copy an object accurately? And then, compliment another’s ability to use their imagination, or use of colors. There have been multiple articles that discuss how in the early years of school, rules and restrictions stamp out creativity in children, and make them believe that there is only one way to be… fill in the blank: intelligent, artistic, talented…

So, continue to feel free to leave your uniformed criticisms for your PC-Asshole acquaintances (I doubt that you are actually friends) on your various social media outlets. I’m going to bet that my lot are sitting on their computers, rolling their eyes, trying to come up with reasons as to why they haven’t deleted you already. I will continue to be a PC Asshole, because I would rather research how words and actions affect people, and to be conscious of my findings in my day-to-day life, over the kind of person that has not understood a single word that I’ve written.

Stiller’s Female Viagra Ad: Sloppy Satire or Misogynistic?


They’ll call anything ‘comedy’ these days…

Ben Stiller’s spoof commercial that was recently shown on The Tonight Show Starring Jimmy Fallon got big laughs from the audience members of the show. I’m discounting the laughter as my measure for any kind of comedic value of the commercial, since these were Jimmy Fallon fans. I actually can’t tell if the spoof was meant to poke fun at the old joke that men are inadequate lovers, and fail at deciphering female anatomy, or if it was meant to tear down the credibility of female sexual dysfunction issues and female sexuality in general.

I feel like the ‘comedy’ within the spoof is from another time, like, from the 80s or 90s. Whatever the intention of the commercial is, it isn’t funny. There is nothing new or clever that is said within the script, and I feel like it undermines the seriousness of hypoactive sexual desire disorder (HSDD), which  is what the drug, ‘female Viagra’ (which is actually called flibanserin, or Addyi) is aiming to treat. The commercial brings up the same tired examples of old-fashioned ideas of female sexuality, in that women have sex out of duty and obligation. Now, this could be satirical, calling attention to the fact that women do and can enjoy sex, but if that’s the point, then it is done rather sloppily. My instinct is that Stiller is not a friend of the third and fourth-wave feminist, and that this commercial was produced simply to poke fun at the idea of women’s sexuality and the existence of a female equivalent to Viagra in general, which are perhaps ridiculous ideas to some.

Female hypoactive sexual desire disorder (HSDD) is a medical disorder, and I don’t think that anyone would stand for a commercial that was making light of male erectile dysfunction by waving around a limp noodle for the entirety of the advertisement. Viagra, in all forms was simply created to help combat the sexual problems that both sexes can experience. For males, the problems are more often physical, but for females, stress and psychological issues can play a major part in decreased libido. The flibanserin pill is meant to balance different hormones within a female’s body to increase sexual desire, and early tests show that the pill can help to combat vaginal dryness and likewise,  increase blood flow and sensation in the genitals. So… I’m missing the joke here.

Even the script of the commercial is sloppily researched. One line reads, “even though 0% of women suffer from erectile dysfunction…” Right. So, women have erectile tissue within their genitals, and the myriads of reasons as to why there is low blood flow to the genitals could be described as some kind of erectile dysfunction. The rest of the line is, “… over 98% of women over 30 suffer from another condition, called ‘not being turned on by their husband anymore.'” The line is so reductive and noninclusive that it makes me think that there is meant to be some satire within the commercial… if only I could figure out the point of it all. Perhaps the joke is that Stiller’s character is the clueless ‘everyman,’ or perhaps they are attempting to support women’s rights. I’m kind of thinking that comedy only works if the audience can figure out the joke… so… good try? Or, maybe I’m over thinking this entire thing, and the commercial was produced with a much more universal, albeit, slightly more sinister agenda for a Hollywood actor; the commercial was most likely produced aiming for the lowest common denominator of a viewer, hoping to garnish some laughs and promotion for Stiller’s upcoming movie.


Playboy Re-brand Astonishes None

Playboy has released their first ‘non-nude’ issue of the magazine, as was promised last October, when Playboy’s marketing team announced they would be making changes to the brand in order to become more accessible to readers (see ‘Playboy Will Soon Be Nudity-Free‘ for all the whats and whys). Now, this description of ‘non-nude’ models is a misnomer for me. Alright, technically the models are wearing some clothes, but this is not anything different from what the models wore in the previous design of Playboy! Below, the picture of Miss March, model Dree Hemingway is wearing a sheer top…


… which seems like a very similar concept to a 2007 shoot of actress Garcelle Beauvais, shown below.


I’m failing to see the difference, other than the out-dated feel of this one. I know that Playboy was notorious for portraying models in a much more erotic manner, but trying to market themselves as ‘non-nude,’ when they still have this content is just misleading.

Playboy announced their change last year, apparently to become a more family friendly ‘entertainment’ magazine (as opposed to pornography), and therefore, become accessible to people because of the less offensive concepts they are designing. Perhaps the new shoots are more tame in comparison, but I say that the fact that their new magazine is boring will be the most offensive thing by far to their readers.


This image is a part of Hemingway’s photo-shoot. I don’t find anything about this photo visually interesting to look at. I would also argue that this contradicts Playboy’s -non-nude’ policy. She looks pretty nakie to me. Well… Ok. She’s wearing shoes. You win this round, Playboy.

I feel as if Playboy has missed their mark on their quest for a re-brand and increased revenue. They spend thousands of dollars on on concept teams, wardrobe and lighting, and the series that I have seen are all tired. Sheer tops and and underwear? Cheeky bedroom scenes?


This has all been done before, and in fact, I think that I have have even seen more interesting photos on amateur models’ Instagram pages. From what I see, this change for Playboy has not been worth the hassle.

On Why I Can’t Stand Chelsea Handler (‘s Comedy)

So, I have never been a fan of Chelsea Handler’s brand of ‘comedy;’ I don’t find shock-value comedy entertaining, and call me old-fashioned, but I think that comedians should find witty, unexpected, or dare I suggest, intelligent ways to recite their anecdotes. I also need to find something relatable in someone’s character, something likeable in a performer for me to root for their success. I have watched and read several of Handler’s works, and have found her to be lacking in all of the areas previously described. Recently, I watched her racism episode on her new Netflix series, Chelsea Does, and my opinions of her changed from a mild discontentment in regards to her brand of humor, to a general dislike of Handler as a person.

The Chelsea Does episode failed in so many ways for me; comedy can be used to address racism and discrimination when used appropriately ; satire would be my first (and possibly only) choice. The episode involved segments of multiple, well-known comedians to discuss racism within stand-up comedy and within the entertainment industry itself. This is not done well; hardly any of the comedians has anything of substance to say. I feel like there is no ‘real’ dialogue happening; each comedian is ‘on,’ constantly trying to one-up each other with their witticisms and shock value comments. I guess the lure of potential capital from their exposure on Netflix was too enticing to pass up for these comedians; they treat the time that they have on-camera as if there were an invisible brick wall behind them.

Another segment within the episode involves Handler discussing her comedy with a panel of academics and media-related personnel. I get the feeling that Chelsea was quite nervous to participate with the group, with good reason. A discriminatory comment against the Asian community is soon brought up, and Chelsea begins to laugh her own joke that was made in the past. Her laugh seems forced to me, like she is overcompensating, and attempting to defend her work by proving to the panel that she should be given permission to make these comments, because of how hilarious they are. Handler is later told: “[s]tereotypes are created for a purpose. They don’t fall from the sky. They always are attached to a political agenda. It’s about certain groups being able to dominate other groups,” which should be enough for most to reevaluate their standards. The only response that Handler can come up with is that African-Americans are known for being well-endowed;  therefore, stereotypes can’t be all bad, then… right? Her dim-witted remarks about genitalia are answered thoughtfully, and with more patience than what I would have been able to muster. Chelsea still doesn’t get it. Her general defense of her work is that she makes fun of ‘every group,’ so it must be OK.

I am really, really done with this chowderhead.

Attention Men Everywhere: Kanye Doesn’t Like His Butt Being Played with, and Neither Should You.


Recently, Kanye West was in a sparring match on Twitter with his ex-girlfriend, Amber Rose, who revealed that she has done some spelunking in West’s cave in the past. Kanye has since denied this fact, saying that he’s “not into that shit.” Ok, I get that anyone’s first reaction to having their sexual preferences and details about their private lives would be denial, but this heterosexual (and homosexual, in certain circles) revulsion of anal penetration seems to be a deeper issue for people. Enthusiasts of the binary system will see relationships in terms of  ‘penetrator’ and ‘penetrated’ positions, where the penetrated are usually considered to be weak, passive, and feminine. When I see and hear this attitude in regards to penetration, I get the feeling that the person saying it believes women to be below them, at least on some level.

In other cultures, men who have sex with men doesn’t necessarily mean that both are considered to be homosexuals; it is only the penetrated party that is considered to be gay, and in general, they will receive less respect for it. A study done at Yale University gives evidence that some heterosexual people will treat LGBTQ members differently, depending on which position (top/bottom) they identify with. Of course, discrimination against gender and sexual orientation are not new concepts. When people discuss gender stereotypes, they often will talk about how damaging it is for women, but men get the short end of the stick, too. It’s damaging for all genders for there to be a societal idea of how one should behave. Perhaps violent behaviour from boys and young men has increased because some ‘go along’ with what society is telling them; aggression is normal, and is often encouraged. Males who express emotion, who are thoughtful, and who hug one another freely are not the norm, and there are consequences for anyone partaking in this behaviour.

I guess my disapproval stems from two things; that penetration is considered feminine, and ain’t nobody want that, as well as the fact that some men feel like they can’t/shouldn’t explore their own bodies in private because of what society tells them. What is interesting is that it is not butt stuff in general that people find offensive; comedian Russell Brand made a remark during his stand-up routine in regards to the pleasure he experienced as one women was working ‘the front,’ and at the same time, one working [the hole]. From what I understand, male prison systems also have a system of submission that involves rimming. So a tongue is A-Ok, but a finger or a phallus is objectionable, I guess?

A YouTube video attempted to break down this barrier by having a heterosexual man use a vibrator, designed to stimulate the prostate, on himself in order to encourage a public dialogue on the issue. An article titled Why More Straight Guys Should Be Playing With Their Butts referenced this video, and described the situation, writing that the young man enjoyed the vibration, but “perhaps a little too much.” What the butts does that mean? This was supposed to be an article to encourage men to leave behind any kind of shame and societal nay-saying and they have a comment like that? Would anyone ever say that a woman was enjoying her vibrator too much? I don’t think so. It seems borderline ridiculous that men and women wouldn’t explore their sexuality in private because of fear and embarrassment they feel from society. Who knows, maybe guys everywhere are sticking things up their butts in their free time… I hope they are, if that’s what they want to be doing. I just really hate the shaming that is put onto consenting adults that are just doing what they do (or what they want to be doin’).

Playboy Will Soon Be Nudity-Free


Get ready for a kinder, gentler Playboy. No more will the Bunnies be shaking and shimmying their mammary glands for the world to see…

Playboy was founded by Hugh Hefner, and first published in 1953 as one of the first mass-produced soft-core pornographic magazines. The magazine was once a huge seller, creating huge profits for the Playboy family by selling a lifestyle of leisure and beautiful women to its readers. The Playboy Bunny is arguably has one of the most recognizable logos in the world, but as technology has improved, the power of the Bunny hasn’t held up well in the face of (or other body part) more explicit material available to people for free.

Playboy began its modernization process in 2011, with the launch of its complete archives in the form of a web app. More was needed to boost popularity, as Cory Jones, one of the top Playboy editors realized. Jones is the innovator behind the new nudity-free Playboy, and hopes that popularity and subscriptions can be gained by losing the nudity, and therefore, the restrictions, and become a prominent member in the social media universe. The new, work-friendly version of Playboy that will be available next March, will continue to include lifestyle columns, celebrity interviews, as well as a new “sex-positive female” columnist.

Playboy will launch the new nudity-free version, with the hopes of gaining popularity again simply by increasing accessibility and visibility of the Playboy lifestyle will be enough to compete with the treasure trove of free explicit material found by those who seek it. The modernization process of Playboy seems to be decades overdue, with sales of the magazine plummeting in a negatively correlated relationship with more easily accessible pornography websites.

Come March, we will see if Hefner’s decision to steer Playboy in a more modest direction will have the desired effect on its prevalence, but the timing of the upcoming family-friendly experience seems suspicious when Mr Hefner is still trying to recuperate from the damage done to his character by his ex-girlfriend, Holly Madison. Madison details the years she spent living with Hefner at the Playboy mansion in her book Down the Rabbit Hole: Curious Adventures and Cautionary Tales of a Former Playboy Bunny, where she depicts Hefner as an old-fashioned, abusive misogynist. Details of how Hefner scored the physical appeal of the women that entered the house, the drugs he offered his rotating female companions and their ‘bedroom routine,’ as Madison describes it in the book. Nothing of what she writes may be shocking to a reader when they realize they are reading about the life of a multi-millionaire that has made his money by publishing pornography, but Madison’s book has some illuminating things to say about the sponsorship and endorsement aspect of Playboy.

The Girls Next Door was a program on the E! network that followed the lives of Hefner’s girlfriends. Madison writes in her book that the network was always mindful to portray Hefner as a doting, romantic gentleman that just happened to have three young women as his girlfriends. This portrayal of Hefner made it feel safe for the viewer to watch the program, and Hefner kept his sales of Playboy by representing himself in a flattering way to his public. Time will tell if the revamping of the magazine that will take effect in March will be a permanent and lucrative change, or if it will be a change that causes the Playboy Bunnies to permanently hang up their tails.

Hollywood Men Say the Darnedest Things (and Still Get to Keep Their Jobs…)


English-born actor Daniel Craig has recently raised a few eyebrows by heavily criticizing the James Bond movie franchise in which he has portrayed the iconic character in four of the recent Bond instalments.

In a recent interview, Craig told a reporter he’d “rather slash [his] wrists” than reprise the role. He answered the question of who would play 007 next, by saying: “I don’t give a fuck.” Later in the interview, he said: “If I did another Bond movie, it would only be for the money.” Craig’s frustrations with the character have been noted by the media for many years; Craig was determined in earlier years to bring more “emotional depth” to the character, and explore the darker, convoluted aspects of portraying an assassin.

There are many notable cases of actors and actresses condemning their own projects to the media, and have suffered a backlash to their careers as a result. Katherine Heigl is an actress, who is reportedly difficult to work with, who experienced being ‘blackballed’ by producers after repeatedly critiquing the projects she had been involved in. Heigl called the film Knocked Up “somewhat sexist,” as it portrayed her female character as ‘uptight,’ and the male as a fun-loving goofball. She also dismissed the notion of winning an Emmy Award for the series Grey’s Anatomy because of its, as she describes it, poor writing. Heigl’s statements questioned the quality and political correctness of her projects, whereas Craig’s hyperbolic suicidal commentary is brash, and his petulant attitude regarding his future involvement with the Bond movies feels unnecessary. It will be interesting to see if Craig faces any repercussions over his interview, or if there will be a change in Craig’s status amongst movie producers.