cliterature

I guess I am getting older.  I am transitioning seamlessly from wanting to dye my hair any color other than the one it is, to wanting to dye it exactly the color it used to be before it started going gray (if only I could remember what that color actually was).  But it was surprisingly hard to find a product to meet my new specifications.

Why was it hard?  Well, stupid me was thinking that a coloring product intended just to blend in the gray hairs would have a model on the box who would plausibly be more worried about gray hairs than adolescent acne.  I know, what was I thinking.  I mean I had already discovered they hair color models often have more hair than one box would be able to color–(they say the model is there to display shade and not suggest the product could actual cope with that quantity of hair, but it still looks like false advertising to me).

My reason was this, if the product not only does not, but could not, significantly change the overall shade of your hair–what possible sense would it make to advertise how it works on someone whose hair is not in the process of gravitating away from said shade?

 Want to choose a Loreal shade with the help of a man with a french accent?  You can do it here.  The crucial question being whether you are ‘fashion forward’, ‘glamorous’, ‘classic’ or ‘natural’.  I feel these are code words that I do not really understand (as a female who got into the gray-haired years without ever mastering Nair.  Seriously, I can get i to remove skin, but not hair) but the middle two involve gray hair and so seem to be partially code for ‘old enough to drink smoke and bonk’.

 Apparently if I am ‘classic’ I should use Excellence Creme, and if I am glamorous I should use  Superior Preference (these are lines of color, the actual color is about the same).  Natural Match doesn’t come up despite this being the product I used and was very happy with.  So what is the actually difference between these three and Coleur Experte, Feria, Color Pulse or Color Spa, let alone the coloring products made by other companies?

 I don’t know!  I don’t even know how to find out! (/brand panic)

 So sue me if someone made a product with a older-young to younger middle-aged women on the box and the description “covers a scattering of gray hair and blends in with your natural color”, I would weep with relief and buy a crate load of medium cool brown.  Because whatever code it is these boxes are written in, it is not as much of a feminine lingua franca as they seem to think it is.  (But then as I read comment like the ones here, here and here, it seems I am not alone in my confusion).

Loreal, give us a break; less of the French accent and more plain English please?

In our current culture it often seems that you are meant to pick sides: be girly, or don’t. But I am a liberated woman who also likes a lot of feminine things, even those developed in an overtly sexist context. But I don’t see why not having to wear pastels means you can’t wear them–or why not having to play will dolls means you can’t like dolls. And I think the marketing boffins have found a way for us to break free from feminine assumptions, but have our girly stuff too.

Enter retro chic and ironic fashion. I can wear my pretty pink “Princess Sparkle” T-shirt with pride because the label tells me it is “retro”. I am not being juvenile and stereotypically girly, I am making a hip statement about classic toys and modern culture. Subtextually I am not saying “weee, i luv baby ponies”, but “Wow, Dude. How ironic is that rainbow motive. Princess Sparkle is totally a drag name.” All the while one thing is undeniable.

Princess Sparkle totally rocks.

I have previously blogged about how cleaning products are now being presented in advertising like gigolos, luring us away from our boring husband (or old boyfriend?) products (mops, none-skin-softening dish soap etc). Apparently adultery metaphors are hot in the advertising world.  Now the Health Discovery channel is in on the act. Trying to lure us away from bad foots and seduce us with nutrition. But, um…

Seduced by a carrot, really? Is this co-sponsored by the American Carrot Council trying to subliminally push the appeal of the dual purpose vegetable? Also, isn’t the whole problem with junk food the short-term thrill of “attractive” tastes and, um, “mouth feel” leading to unbalanced and/or excessive food intake? That is, we need to stay with reliable, good-for-us carrot rather than jump out the window into the fluffy white-bread arms of Mr. Sexyburger? (Not the other way around).

The site has a photo feature titled, disparagingly, “weight Loss Fads”. This apparently includes the title thumbnail, a women boxing (obviously for weight loss? Obviously a hilarious fad?) and Gloria Swanson* (excerpted here)using hand-weights (ditto?).  If women exercising is innately hilarious I do wonder about the overall goal of the program and why Bally fitness are apparently so deeply involved in it (as advertisers).

I also find the absence of any real science rather patronising.  Informational articles like this piece about soda never do more than non-specific hand-wave at ”stacks of research”, “new research” and “a study, out of the University of Texas”.  The reader is assumed to not want to, or be able to, understand the source material? Would a citation in a foot note be that bad, if only because the people who did the research probably deserve some credit? (Let alone because I might not trust the copy-writer’s interpretation of their data).

 * Gloria Swanson was a dedicated and influential proponent of healthy nutrition, including rather progressive attitudes about natural foods, vegetarianism and yoga–she lobbied for the first American law limited pesticide levels in foods.  She was also an astounding actress and founded successful companies producing make-up and clothing.  Frankly, she deserves more respect than this.

What is it with the advertisers tryng to get women to fall back in love with housework, literally.  First it was the swiffer ‘Baby, Come Back‘ advertisements which seemed to suggest what the bored married women needs is to leave her old mop for a new toy boy swiffer.  Now I see a dish detergent sold with a sponge saying, in Lothario tones, that what he loves most about a woman is her hands (how many fetishes do you see there?)

Research last year suggested that when a husband does more housework, the couple have more sex.  This suggests to me that what is sexy is either a man with a mop, or a woman on the couch with her feet up, drinking a beer.  But maybe that is just me.  If yuou think a man doing housework is unlikely, you have no idea what my apartment looks like.

Me falling in love with cleaning up?  I’ll believe that when mops and sponges actually do start to talk.

I am all for freedom of expression but sometimes I think: why? Just: why?

The freedom to do anything does not make being crass a virtue. It doesn’t mean using insult as a marketing strategy cool. But here I am aiding and colluding just by talking about it.

Here is the guts of it.  Mexican Playboy did some pictures clearly referencing classic methods for depicting the Virgin Mary.  You don’t have to be a genius to realise that: 1) a lot of people are going to hate this.  2) That their disgust will generate modo free publicity especially as they released it just before the Day of the Virgin of Guadalupe (not to mention Christams on the way).  And that 3) Playboy won’t lose to many customers in the process, unless there is a huge Roman Catholic soft core market that I am naively unaware of who would give up their booby on the basis of implied sacrilege.

 Playboy central office apologised.  Yeah, right.  The pictures are everywhere and I doubt sales suffered–because they weren’t exactly sorry enough to withdraw the issue.  And if they did they would get even more crap form the ‘freedom of speech’ brigade (and yes, I am a card carrying member).

 So, my bottom line (or bossom line, in this case) is that the magazine staff had every right to run with this provocative but effective approach, and I am going to talk about it just like they wanted.  But neither of us are showing a whole lot of class or consideration in the process.  We are doing what people in our roles do. they are selling magazines, I am talking about a topical issue, but the high ground is nowhere in sight.

One A Day Teen Advantage

“Did you know there are gender specific teen multivitamins to address the top health concerns of moms and teens? Complete Multivitamins for Teen Boys & Girls to Support:*”

 Because dads really couldn’t give a crap of the little tykes die of rickets.

“Healthy muscle function with Magnesium (for Him)”

Because girls don’t need muscles. (And besides, a son who rates an initial capital has to be taken rather seriously, methinks. Wouldn’t want a wimpy-looking second coming).

“Healthy skin with Vitamins A and C, Copper, and Iron (for Her)”

“Healthy skin” for those who are not and have never been a teenage girl is code for “no acne”. Because although boys and girls suffer acne at the similar rate, and boys normally experience slightly higher rates and greater severity, only girls have to have perfect skin. Oh, and the male and female versions of the pills have the same amount of A, C and Copper. (But at least the second coming is going to be co-ed).

Oh, and: “*This statement has not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. This product is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease.”

I can’t help but notice that the advantages, and listings of ingredients, both give male specifications first–and the picture has a boy in the foreground.  Just saying. because, honestly, who is going to buy a gender-specific vitamin that can’t claim to have any measurable effects?  I personally think the most likely demographic is Mom’s buying for daughters and older teen girls buying for themselves.

For a start, as of right now the girls version is sold out at drugstore.com, the male version is not. And I am thinking it is the perfect`triumph of exploitation over function. A pill that implies, but never actually claims, to cure acne–but if you stop taking it you might just get spotty. Brilliant–especially as girls tend to get acne earlier than boys and have it naturally resolve during their most neurotic mid-adolescent years.

Behold the power of the pink placebo.  Of course the blue placebo my be equally powerful if “healthy muscle function” is code of “bulking up like Me-Man of GraySkull” making Advantage for “Him” basically a gateway vitamin to steriods (I kid… sort of).

Let me repeat, for emphasis not truth, the slogan: “Complete Multivitamins for Teen Boys & Girls to Support”. (Not, for example, the reverse).

See also: feministing.com, WomensHealthNews, AppetiteForEqualRights.

There is a lot of commentary these days about children, especially girls, being ’sexualized’ too young.  I have mixed feelings about this.  It does seem that many kids have a lot of sexual experiences very young and under cultural pressure–often without appropriate precautions to prevent pregnancy and disease.  But where does this problem really come from?

But  I think the focus is too often on surface aspects like clothing and music.  I mean, I do think that young girls are wearing things that have elements many adults read as suggestive, which is bad taste.  But there is a huge subjective element.  I mean, my Dad flipped when I wore a pretty normal denim miniskirt as a teen.  So we cannot assume that we know what clothes mean to children and their peers.  The same applies to popular music, which has always made a lot of sexual references.  Is mainstream rap or emo really any different from rock and roll or R & B?  I think we forget that the songs from previous eras that we remember are the best ones–and others were more sexual and often rather crass and sexist–just like today. 

In contrast, not a lot of attention seems to be paid to how American culture encourages romance roleplay even in infants.  This is not just media or clothing, but training very young children in roles were they should orient romantically to the opposite sex and mime gestures that in adults within this culture are considered sensual.  I remember watching US TV shows, like sit comes, and being astounded that prepubescent children were routinely shown having crushes, dating and so forth.  And this with the active encouragement of parent, presented as cute and appropriate.  The very notion of acting like this was completely absent from my upbringing until well into my high school years.

 While thong underwear for seven-years-olds may be questionable, and child beauty pageants outright perverse, but I think it is far more important that girls not feel the need to play act flirting and courting behavior well before most of them have any interest in it.  This just teaches children to act not on their own wishes but to fit the feminine and masculine roles in soliciting romantic ans sexual attention and ignore their own feelings–or lack thereof.  That is how people who are exclusively gay or asexual end up not only feigning heterosexuality but going as far as marrying and having children–just continuing in the roles they have been taught from their earliest ‘play-dates’.

There are plenty of roles for kids to play act and practise, but dating, kissing, and flirting need not be part of this.  It is not media and fashion that teaches young children that there is only one way to regard the opposite sex.  They could dress in and listen to anything and not change their own behavior at all.  It is not media and fashion that create a culture where people can ask: is it possible for a man and woman to just be friends? 

It is our own gendering of child relationships were some people grow up never mixing freely with male and female playmates just doing the things that kids do.  Little kids cab just play together, older kids can just hang out together–and pursue more romantic relationships only when they really want to and are able to select someone they know well and be safe together.

 The sexualizing of children is not done by the evil retailers, but done (or not done) by families in an age where playing with Bratz and dressing like Madonna-lite may be a hell of a lot healthier than ‘playing house’ and kissing under the mistletoe because the adults think it is cute.  Listening to sexy songs maybe be far less important than being made to hug and kiss grandfather whether you want to or not–which is not to say that granddad is a perv, but that lessons in being in control of how and why you express physical affection begin early.  And it is when a girl loses her sense of that autonomy that she becomes vulnerable to pressures that may ultimately lead, not to the abstract ‘being sexualized’, but actually having sex early, unwilling and unprepared.

* For a bonus point, which recent catalogue included this illustration?

I promise not to dwell on this subject for too much long but I have been thinking about taboos relating to seeing, or even drawing indirect attention to, the groin.  There is a clothing company I quite like called Chicstar, but my first reaction when I saw the design shown to the right is that I would never, ever, wear it.  If you can’t guess why then congratulations, you have escaped the ridiculous conditioning that apparently is affecting me–that the very existence of the groin should be glossed over as much as possible (in interesting contrast to the cleavage).  It is like a modern version of the Victorian aversion to women wearing any kind of trousers because they “delineated the legs”.  
Nor do I feel any more comfortable on the effect of the design from behind.  Please tell me that I am being an idiot and need to get over my conditioning.  Women have body parts and the positioning of design elements in their general area shouldn’t have the slightest significant.  Overall the dress design is a very nice one and I am all for bold patterns and shapes that don;t require super-model thinness to achieve the right look.

The brain will do what the brain will do, but our emotional responses can be irrational and sometimes the best response it to try and retrain them just as you can modify more cognitive thoughts and beliefs.  Perhaps I should by myself this dress as a first step to overcoming my deeply embedded prudery?  Let me know what you think–I will go with the majority will of the comments and even send you a pic of me in the dress if you think I should get it :)

I have written before about the coyness of advertising when it relates to products–in particular vibrators and menstrual products.  One advertising company has found an alternative to the ubiquitous advertisements for sanitary pads that demonstrate absorbent capacities with a very unprepossessing blue liquid.  Which is, I suppose, as very sensible.  Blood and tissue outside the body is not something most people want to look at on a casual basis halfway through and episode of the Simpsons or on the side of a bus stop.  (Advertising of Dexter aside and other ’splatter-lite’ media aside, not tome mention some of that Halloween paraphernalia…. but I digress).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mxkUE5TtOFQ

One advertiser in Australia came up with a slightly more distinctive approach by using the pretty widespread understanding of ‘beaver’as referring to the female genital area.  In many countries it is more of a derogatory reference used by men but in Australia it is used more by women and is a more neutral euphemism like Oprah and her ‘vijayjay‘.  In this TV  advertisement a women, clearly on friendly terms with her beaver, takes good care of it.  Apparently this ad still provoked quite a number of complaints–which just suggests to me that some people need something better to do with their time.  This second ad gets just a little more literal and strikes me as a tad bizarre, but hardly upsetting.  And there are a few others than can be found on YouTube.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m6tNrZSF4j8

In my erotica writing I have learned that there really is no noun relating to female genitals that is not going to insult some people and look silly to others. I tend to skirt (so to speak) around the issue hopefully without be too obvious about–by avoiding ‘nouning’ the area at all. The vagina and pudenda are pieces of anatomy in search of an unemotive nouns appropriate for use outside of the medical arena. But frankly, until wider society is ably to think about genitals(and to some extent breasts) as body parts that spend the vast majority of their time just being there (not getting up to an salacious activities) I doubt that an innocuous noun is going to emerge.  Thus we are left to make do with allusions to the national animal if Canada. Which is all very well for the good people at Kotex Australia, but I imagine anyone who works in a job that relates to beavers (the animal) is pretty tired of how easily amused some people are by the mere mention of any kind of euphemism (shades of Mrs. Slocombe’s “pussy”–a joke that the audience apparently never got tired of).  But more about that next week (yes, that women’s sexuality and cats post I keep promising).

Communities that center around erotica, have really interesting boundaries.  For example, erotic romance has large embraced (so to speak) gay, group and bondage.  However something quite ordinary, like bisexuality, is not much represented—and fetish and role-play remains very rare.  Even in non-romance erotica, where kink is pretty much acceptable in any form that is consenting and not harmful.  I think straight (so to speak)erotica writers and readers are more comfortable with coming across interests they don’t personally share–without feeling the need to condment them as morally disgusting.

But even fetishes move with the time.  A few years back appreciating a women smoking was about as mainstream as liking to see long legs in silk stockings.  As a modern fetish it is not all that common, and not very well known.  A lot of people are surprised to find that their own guilty pleasure is in fact shared with quite a few men.  The focus seems to be the deep inhalation and especially exhalation of smoke, its manipulation and sometime a specific interest in exactly what the woman smokes (e.g. cigars).  (I will not link to any of this adult material from this public website–but if you are an adult, Google is your friend).

Although, it does seem to be men we are talking about here, at least as consumers of smoking fetish material.  Which is odd because, as I in a previous post, in general women run very much towards liking dominant men—and the smoking fetish is closely linked to a submissive streak.  The smoking woman is seen as confident and commanding.  But smoking fetish material showing men is rare and, as far as I can see, almost entirely directed towards gay men.  In fact, in one smoking fetish forum it was asked whether a woman having smoking fetish was even possible. 

This is the point where I should make it clear that I don’t smoke and never have, and I don’t even like to be in the same room as a smoker.  But I have watched with interest as objections to smoking fetish became stronger with time, just as physical punishment fetishes (e.g. spanking) seem to have gained wider acceptance.  This is entirely logical given that a body will recovered quickly and completely from a slap, but the consequences of smoking as more severe and cumulative.  However is the moral condemnation of smoking actually impeding our ability to understand why women do it? (And therefore, if we choose to, from stopping them?)

You see, the incidence of smoking amongst the young seems to be on the rebound, especially amongst girls.  People tend to blame all the aspects of society that make the poor little girl-child a slave to their power.  That is, advertising making smoking sexy and because smoking (like any chronic toxin) helps them lose weight.  I think that it might be interested to look for some other explanations that are based on what girls want—not what they are victim to.  That is that men like to watch sexy,  dominant women smoking—and a significant minority of girls want to be sexy, dominant women (even while almost all want to seen as beautiful, submissive damsels).

How can they want to be both?  Well, women are complicated, adolescent girl-women are even more so as they “try on” different identities.  Boys routinely “try on” being tough, by speeding in cars, committing petty crimes, getting drunk, getting in fights and hanging out in gangs trying to out-macho each other.  Increasingly some girls do this too, but for the most part being female, and being a classic (masculine-style) delinquent, do not do together—especially when it comes to violence and crime.  Women (either innately, or due to conditioning, or both) typically don’t do public disorder.

So girls are left with a fairly short list of ways to rebel that are more-or-less legal and don’t necessarily harm anyone but themselves.  And so long as that remains true there will still be young girls who get off on smoking and not-so-young men who get off on watching them because they have the equally problematic and socially unacceptable issue of lusting after strong, socially-transgressive women, a.k.a. “bad girls”.  (And smoking fetish material is often a fascinating form of pornography in that much of it is un-macho-like in being “safe:–neither explicit, nor relating to activities capable of transmitting disease.)  

Perhap it is not the big bad tobacco companies who make smoking transgressive, the social condemnation does—and if this is the case the more smoking is condemned the more a significant minority of young women will want to do it to experiment with a “bad girl” identity.  The thing is, smoking will be transgressive so long as it continues to lop about 15 years off your life span.  That fact, in combination with human psychology, is going to be a public health problem for some time to come.  However, overly shrill objections to things like product placement, smoking fetish material and so forth are going to make that worse, not better.  So if the ultimate goal is to do as little harm as possible, the answer may be to live, and let smoke (between consenting adults and in the privacy of their own home).  If it becomes less of a dangerous deal, it might also become less of a turn-on in both a erotic and the general sense of the word.