Salon: Broadsheet

Has our reverence for DNA gone too far?

James Hannaham — Tue, 13 May 2008 06:55:00 PDT

"Those who are innocent have nothing to fear," says Laura Neuman, a Maryland rape victim whose attacker, Alphonso Hill, might have been caught much earlier than the 20 years it took if his DNA profile had been on record. According to CNN.com, Neuman has become a fierce lobbyist for a law that would make it mandatory for police to take DNA samples from anyone arrested for a violent crime.

Ten states already require DNA collection for certain felony arrests, and two more states will follow next year. While it might be tempting to embrace anything that would help catch a rapist as soon as possible, it's also difficult to ignore a certain Orwellian miasma arising from the proposition of such widespread swatching. Those who are innocent, it turns out, have always had something to fear -- the fact that the system doesn't always work in their favor. Note that this law requires people who have only been arrested for violent crimes, not those who've been convicted in a court of law, to scrape their cheeks for the police.

As painful as it may be for a victim to await a capture and a conviction, it is more important to find out the truth than to invite additional pain and chaos by nabbing the first likely suspect and railroading him into the clink. In the service of catching that creep lickety-split, officers do occasionally arrest the wrong guy. The ACLU is predictably up in arms about these laws, arguing that DNA is a far more personal marker than fingerprints and that racial profiling is inevitable. Suspects cleared of state charges can have their records destroyed, but on a federal level, they'd be required to make a "formal request."

The erasure clause, in fact, may be the rub. Why, if innocents have nothing to fear, is it assumed that they'd want to expunge their DNA record from the files? Why doesn't Neuman argue that everyone's DNA should be put on file? That would be the most effective strategy, since it would enable the police to catch first-time sex offenders with no criminal record at all. Lawmakers seem to be making a possibly facile distinction between "criminals" and "us." If there's anyone with enough faith in the criminal justice system to make DNA records mandatory for all, please step forward.

Perhaps Neuman, and a lot of us, have put too much confidence in high-tech forensic science. DNA profiling is a fantastic tool for law enforcement and has solved a lot of cases, but all those shows like "CSI," "Dead Men Talking" and "Cold Case Files" have romanticized its potential, making us assume that DNA profiling is infallible. Evidence can still be tampered with. People can still be framed -- in fact, our blind faith in genetic data might make such a practice more feasible. As a tool, it is only as good as the humans who use it.

"Speak up for down there"

Tracy Clark-Flory — Tue, 13 May 2008 03:40:00 PDT

I don't think I've ever bothered covering a press release about a feminine hygiene product, but this announcement from Vagisil is worthy of being the first. For starters, in a single sentence, the release manages to mention "Sex and the City's" Carrie Bradshaw, sex educator Sue Johanson and ... former Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. Better still, its dissonant name-dropping is in the service of giving examples of "icons of female empowerment" -- and that's the entirety of the list. There you have it, the only feminist idols we have left: a fictional sex columnist, a silver-haired sex toy enthusiast and the first female Supreme Court justice!

Despite these famous exemplars of vaginal empowerment, one in two women is uncomfortable talking with her doctor about "vaginal discomfort," according to Vagisil's Voice for Women survey. That's why, in recognition of National Women's Health Week, Vagisil is encouraging women to "speak up for down there" when it comes to "itching, burning, unusual or excessive discharge" (and, most important, to purchase Vagisil's screening kit, "which helps women identify the possible source of their vaginal discomfort"). After all, the survey showed that vaginal discomfort has a significant "emotional toll" on women: 80 percent feel frustrated, 68 percent suffer increased self-consciousness and 29 percent get angry. It also found that women's embarrassment in addressing the issue with their doctors mostly has to do with a "lack of knowledge"; they wrongly assume their symptoms are linked to bad hygiene or promiscuity.

Now, I realize that campaigns need catchy slogans -- and (aside from angina, China and South Carolina) what on earth rhymes with "vagina"? But I find it funny that Vagisil is pushing women to educate themselves and confidently address these symptoms by launching a campaign that refers to the vagina as "down there." Then again, if women remain giggly and embarrassed about issues "down there," they'll likely address their symptoms by turning to the feminine hygiene aisle, instead of their doctor, in an attempt to self-diagnose.

I'm not sayin', I'm just sayin'.

Should this dress be illegal?

Kate Harding — Mon, 12 May 2008 13:00:00 PDT

Remember last year when 25 girls were turned away from a high school prom in Louisiana because their gowns were deemed "inappropriate"? Well, this year, a Texas school has one-upped that Puritanism, calling the cops on senior Marche Taylor after she argued with an official who refused to let her in. The crime? A very revealing dress. Taylor was led away from her prom in handcuffs without even getting a chance to spike the punch.

Now, unlike the dresses that got those Louisiana girls kicked out of their prom (check out the slide show in the link above), Taylor's really was skimpy, in a very Cher, circa 1986 way. But it included a long train, which Taylor says she tried wrapping around her body in order to make the dress "appropriate." At that point, the goal posts moved; now it was inappropriate because she wasn't wearing any "undergarments" -- i.e., a bra. (Taylor says she was wearing other undergarments.)

And that's where I get suspicious. I'm willing to bet everything I own that lots of girls had already made it through those doors braless. The vast majority of prom dresses these days are strapless, spaghetti-strapped or halters, making bra wearing enough of a challenge that those who don't absolutely need the support are likely to skip it. Once Taylor wrapped that train around her exposed midriff (as seen in the video in the above link), the dress wasn't so different from many others found in hotel ballrooms all over the country at this time of year. And still, she was not only tossed from the prom but also refused a refund for her ticket. "They didnÃ¢ÂÂt give me any options but to go to jail or go home," she told Houston's KHOU television.

That just ain't right. As one Salon staff member put it, "That dress is a crime against fashion, but it shouldn't be a crime."

Click here to read more about our annoying love

Charly Wilder — Mon, 12 May 2008 11:45:00 PDT

The fantastically reprobate teen drama "Gossip Girl" has not been lacking for praise of late. Nevertheless, after seeing this Web site for Lily and Bart's upcoming nuptials (via Gawker), I must join the pile-on. "Gossip Girl" has found the perfect way to satirize one of the more repugnant cultural trends of the Tnternet era: the overblown wedding Web site.

Perhaps some of you are lucky enough to be unfamiliar with this phenomenon. I happen to be at the age where each season brings with it a flurry of invites. Remove unnecessary piece of tissue paper. Glance past fancy fake calligraphy, and there it is -- a URL at the bottom of the eggshell-colored square. That's when the ickiness begins. Sure, there are practical and appropriate links, like the RSVP and the gift registries. But then there are the other site links. There is probably one titled "Our Story," in which the bride and groom offer cloying accounts of their first meeting and courtship, and there is the always embarrassing "Proposal" section. (Proposals are like dreams: only interesting for the participant.)

While the "Gossip Girl" site is a mere marketing tool, set up to promote next Monday's season finale, it's also a great sendup of this obnoxious trend. Any diligent "G.G." watcher (like yours truly) knows that Lily and Bart's relationship is essentially a farce. The opening page of the site reads, "We share this site with you because Bart and I recognize how rare our love is and we want all of you to be a part of it." Only Lily still loves Rufus, the ex-rocker Williamsburg hipster dad, and the wedding is obviously going to be a shit storm of epically trashy proportions. This lends a wicked air of irony to the wedding countdown clock at the top of the site, enumerating the days, hours, and minutes "until the big day," which at the time of this writing is seven days, seven hours and one minute away.

I, for one, appreciate the parody of nauseating online exhibitionism. Just because the Internet allows you to overshare about your wedding doesn't mean you should.

It's kinda gross, but it's only 90 calories!

Kate Harding — Mon, 12 May 2008 10:14:00 PDT

True story: While putting away groceries Sunday night, my boyfriend actually held up a tub of Fage Greek yogurt and said, "What the hell is this?"

I'm reasonably certain he can read, so I'm still not sure why I had to help him out there, but his confusion makes a little more sense to me after watching a hilarious video (below) about women and yogurt advertising. Yogurt has been relentlessly marketed to women for so long now, men can probably be forgiven for failing to recognize it at first glance.

Specifically, it's almost always presented to us as a diet food these days -- since every good ad wiz knows all self-respecting women hate their bodies. In fact, the whole reason I buy Greek yogurt is that it's often the only full-fat option left at the supermarket. When I gave up dieting for good a few years ago, after nearly a decade of yo-yoing, my big symbolic act was to swear off low-fat yogurt forever. I still truly enjoy stuff like grilled chicken breasts and steamed asparagus, but I find low-fat yogurt only tolerable as part of an overarching program of self-abnegation. I hate the texture. I hate all the extra sugar that's there to give it some semblance of a flavor. And I really hate the commercials, which seem to be the 21st century's answer to the General Foods International Coffee ads of my youth. You know what this watery, ultra-low-fat boysenberry with active cultures reminds me of? That guy in Paris! You remember -- the one who called me a fat pig and then gave me an enema? Jean-Luc!

If you hate ridiculous, female-targeted yogurt ads as much as I do, you owe it to yourself to watch this video right now. It's so full-fat good, I'm shitting myself!

My mom is better than your mom!

Sarah Hepola — Mon, 12 May 2008 08:45:00 PDT

Was I the only sucker who watched "America's Favorite Mom" Sunday night? As I witnessed hosts Donnie and Marie Osmond treat a succession of misty American moms to gifts of heart pendants, corny medleys and pink Teleflora bouquets, I had the sneaking suspicion that I was the one person in the entire country who just couldn't be bothered to turn the channel before "The Office" finale. Anyway, America's favorite mom turns out to be (spoiler alert!) Patty something-or-other, whose son is stationed in Iraq. I had $50 riding on a perky, blue-pantsuited widow from Iowa. Goddamn you, Patty!

The idea of ranking mothers in the first place is, of course, patently absurd. It's like ranking kitty cats. (Also absurd, because as everyone knows, mine is the best.) But since this is competitive America, we can turn even something as sacred as motherhood into a cutthroat contest for the most text messages. Too bad for the rest of you mothers. Please go home and suck an egg.

Meanwhile, Time magazine offered a different kind of ranking -- a Top 10 list of the best and worst moms ever, mostly drawn from pop culture. The list of good mothers includes old-time favorites such as Mother Earth, Florida Evans from "Good Times" and the woman who would get my vote for America's favorite mom -- Marge Simpson. The more exciting list, of course, is the Top 10 worst moms. Winners include (naturally!) Joan Crawford, aka "Mommie Dearest," Mrs. Robinson, Livia from "The Sopranos," Gertrude from "Hamlet" and Medea.

If that list seems a little thin to you, here's one that's more substantive, as recently reported on NPR: Save the Children released its annual list of best and worst places to be a mother. Once again coming out on top? Sweden, where new moms get one year (!) of paid leave and domestic help is tax-deductible. America? Well, we ranked No. 27. Sorry, Patty something-or-other. You may be America's favorite mom, but someone in Stockholm totally trumped you.

"SNL" spoofs Hillary: "I am a sore loser"

Sarah Hepola — Mon, 12 May 2008 06:30:00 PDT

After Tina Fey debuted her now-famous "Bitch Is the New Black" routine on "Saturday Night Live" last February, NBC caught flak for apparently lobbing an endorsement at Hillary. All parties at NBC denied any kind of favoritism, even as bumper stickers emblazoned with the phrase made their way to Clinton rallies. By the time Amy Poehler was promoting "Baby Mama," her recent film with Fey, she had grown defensive about it. "I don't even want to talk about that," she told an interviewer from the Onion when he asked her about whether the bit bolstered Hillary.

If "Saturday Night Live" was once soft on Hillary, well, it whetted its knife this week, with a satire poking fun at the embattled senator. An excerpt: "First, I am a sore loser Ã¢ÂÂ¦ Unlike Senator Obama, I have no ethical standards. Even my critics would agree that once I get the nomination, I will stop at nothing -- absolutely nothing -- to win, whereas with Senator Obama there are some things he simply will not do. Take, for example, the race card, which he has been reluctant to play. As in, anyone who doesn't vote for me is a racist. I, on the other hand, will be happy to play the gender card and claim that anyone who doesn't vote for me is a sexist. In fact, once Senator Obama is out of the picture I look forward to playing the race card myself. As in, anyone who doesn't vote for me is both a sexist and a racist."

You can argue in the comments to what extent you think the satiric portrait is accurate, but I'll go ahead and tell you that, regardless, I don't think it's all that funny. Too many easy jabs, not any real creativity. Sigh. I remember the days when "SNL" was offensive and made me laugh.

Are men victims of forced abortions?

Tracy Clark-Flory — Sat, 10 May 2008 01:30:00 PDT

At age 20, Yi Qiang Yang married his 17-year-old wife in a traditional ceremony; they were still years away from meeting China's age requirement for legal marriage. His wife soon became pregnant, but in the middle of her third trimester, local authorities forced her to have an abortion. Another man, Zen Hua Dong, says local authorities threatened him with sterilization and forced his fiancÃÂ©e to have two abortions. Both men applied for asylum in the United States, but were denied because they were not legally married, reports the Associated Press. Now, the men are appealing the Supreme Court.

Yang was actually told by an appeals court in Atlanta that "legal marriage reflects a sanctity and long-term commitment that other forms of cohabitation simply do not." Wait, so, raising a child with someone you've wed in a traditional ceremony -- because, remember, you're too young to legally marry -- doesn't reflect a "long-term commitment"? Interestingly, in 2004, a U.S. court of appeals ruled that the "refusal to grant asylum to an individual who cannot register his marriage with the Chinese government on account of a law promulgated as part of its coercive population control policy, a policy deemed by Congress to be oppressive and persecutory, contravenes the statute and leads to absurd and wholly unacceptable results." Regardless, in Dong's case, a New York appeals court ruled that even legal marriage is not enough to earn asylum.

U.S. courts may disagree with how to respond to these requests, but one thing is not up for debate: Chinese women who are forced to have abortions have a legal right to seek asylum. In 1996, Congress passed section 601 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act, which reads, "[A] person who has been forced to abort a pregnancy or to undergo involuntary sterilization ... shall be deemed to have been persecuted on account of political opinion...." But, in a landmark case, the Board of Immigration Appeals ruled that "the husband of a sterilized wife can essentially stand in her shoes and make a bona fide and non-frivolous application for asylum based on problems impacting more intimately on her than on him." Unfortunately, the BIA didn't fully detail its grounds for extending refugee status to a partner -- so, the courts are left to sort it out. In some cases, marriage has been discarded as a determining factor because the couples were not allowed to legally marry in the first place.

Many of these men are actively intimidated and threatened by authorities; and though it's the woman who sustains the physical trauma of a forced abortion (sometimes late-term and without anesthesia), in many cases, the man shares in the emotional trauma. This doesn't speak to the practicalities of determining on a case-by-case basis a man's commitment to his partner, the psychological toll it has on him, or the level of political persecution he personally experienced -- but New York University law professor Samuel Estreicher, Dong's lawyer, sums up the situation succinctly: "The Chinese government is not just going after the pregnant woman, it is going after the unit, the couple."

It's not a brain tumor, it's a hangover

Kate Harding — Fri, 09 May 2008 14:00:00 PDT

The Internet is a blessing and a curse for information hounds like me, who can waste days researching a potential shoe purchase, let alone how to write a killer book proposal, where to vacation or what kind of dog is best suited to my lifestyle. (Would that there were such a thing as an information hound!) But nothing brings out the "curse" part like researching health issues. It's way too easy to convince yourself that the relentless headache that's been there since you woke up is evidence of brain cancer, when it's actually what's known in medical circles as a "hangover."

Furthermore, the top Google hits for a whole bunch of maladies will lead you to sites owned by people pushing particular drugs, elective surgeries, herbal remedies and/or plain old quackery. So what's a girl with symptoms that might indicate a yeast infection or a rare disease that will totally kill her if it doesn't leave her sterile to do? Check out CNN's list of reliable women's health sites, put together by a panel of experts. With sections on gynecological concerns, heart disease, breast cancer, osteoporosis and general women's health, here are some sites that can be counted on not to scare your pants off or sell you anything you don't need. Now if I could just get the Internet to buy me some Advil Ã¢ÂÂ¦

It's hard to be a warrior girl on a bum knee

Kate Harding — Fri, 09 May 2008 12:46:00 PDT

Ugh, my knees hurt just reading this lengthy excerpt from Michael Sokolove's upcoming book, "Warrior Girls: Protecting Our Daughters Against the Injury Epidemic in Women's Sports," which appears in this Sunday's New York Times Magazine. Though solid statistics are hard to come by, it does appear that girls in high school and college sports are injured at higher rates than boys. And in particular, ruptures of the ACL -- "a small, rubber-band-like fiber ... that attaches to the femur in the upper leg and the tibia in the lower leg and stabilizes the knee" -- occur up to five times more often among girls than boys. Yeesh.

It's not known why ACL ruptures happen so much more often to girls, partly because it's not always known how it happens to them. While male players more often get ACL injuries from direct blows to the leg, when it comes to girls, according to injury epidemiologist Steve Marshall, "you can look at a video of an injury all day long, and what you see is people in the air. People landing. People cutting. What we can't actually see is what tears the thing apart." But it would seem the likely underlying culprit here is biology. Among other differences, boys tend to grow more muscular after hitting puberty, while girls grow more flexible -- and for all the athletic advantages flexibility confers, it can also increase the risk of joint injury if the surrounding muscle isn't strong enough to stabilize the joint.

The good news is, there are now ACL-injury prevention programs -- exercise series designed to increase strength, balance and coordination -- cropping up around the country, and so far, they're showing phenomenal results. The bad news is, plenty of people are still skeptical of those results, and plenty of coaches are reluctant to adopt any new program that chews up practice time without producing demonstrable improvements in performance. (One would think that keeping players on the field, instead of in hospitals and rehab, would constitute an overall team performance boost, but evidently not.)

More troubling, Sokolove says, some of those who have fought valiantly for girls' access to high school and college sports are wary of trumpeting the greater risk of injury, lest female athletes appear weak or fragile. Now, I'm about as feminist as they come, but that? Is bullshit. I would hate to see anything threaten girls' and women's full inclusion in sports, but when star soccer players are blowing out both knees before they finish high school -- and that's not happening to boys at anywhere near the same rate -- there's a difference that needs to be acknowledged here. It's all well and good to be as tough as any boy on the field when you're 17, but will it feel like such a victory when you're 35 and can't walk?

Quote of the day

Tracy Clark-Flory — Fri, 09 May 2008 11:50:00 PDT

In a New York Times Op-Ed, Susan Faludi argues that "white men are warming to Hillary Clinton" because she has rejected the archetype of the powerful female -- "the rules keeper, the purse-lipped killjoy who passes strait-laced judgment on feral boy fun." This privileged persona inspires men's animosity, argues Faludi, because it suggests exemption from combat. But Clinton -- indeed, like Rocky Balboa -- isn't watching from the sidelines; she has jumped into the ring:

In the final stretch of the primary season, she seems to have stepped across an unstated gender divide, transforming herself from referee to contender Ã¢ÂÂ¦ We are witnessing a female competitor delighting in the undomesticated fray. Her new no-holds-barred pugnacity and gleeful perseverance have revamped her image in the eyes of begrudging white male voters, who previously saw her as the sanctioning "sivilizer," a political Aunt Polly whose goody-goody directives made them want to head for the hills.

Even true beauty is Photoshopped

Tracy Clark-Flory — Fri, 09 May 2008 09:40:00 PDT

In this week's spot for Current TV, I talk about the New Yorker's profile of Pascal Dangin, "the premier retoucher of fashion photographs."

A most encouraging update: Dangin says his comment about doing retouching work for Dove's True Beauty campaign was taken out of context in Lauren Collins' New Yorker profile. Here's what he has to say:

The recent article published by The New Yorker incorrectly implies that I retouched the images in connection with the [2005] Dove "real women" ad. I only worked on the [2007 Dove Pro-Age] campaign taken by Annie Leibovitz and was directed only to remove dust and do color correction -- both the integrity of the photographs and the women's natural beauty were maintained.
The "real women" ad referenced in recent media coverage was created and produced entirely by Ogilvy, the Dove brand's advertising agency, from start to finish, and the women's bodies were not digitally altered," Unilever Senior Communications Marketing Manager Stacie Bright said in the statement, referring to the 2005 ad, which showed younger women in their underwear.

Roundup: Wikipedia debates child porn

Sarah Hepola — Fri, 09 May 2008 06:51:00 PDT

Rocking us like a hurricane of creepiness: There's controversy raging over at Wikipedia about -- of all things -- a 1976 Scorpions album. The cover of the album, "Virgin Killer," features a naked prepubescent girl. (The album cover was banned in the States and replaced with a picture of the band.) The debate is about whether the image constitutes child porn and should be deleted from Wikipedia or has historical/artistic merit. The Scorpions? Historical/artistic merit? (A censored version of the image can be found at Gawker.)

Tell it to my face: A recent study suggests that if you want to convince a woman of something, you should do it face-to-face. Unlike men, who responded similarly whether they were receiving information online or in person, women were more likely to be persuaded when "they were able to form a bond through eye contact, facial expressions and gestures, the researchers found." All I can say to my fellow sisters is, when Scientologists approach -- stay strong!

Real men drink rosé: The Guardian wants to know why men won't drink rosé wine, despite its surge in popularity. Get over the color, guys. Nothing beats a good, dry rosé in the summertime.

Survey you should take: Working America and the AFL-CIO want to know what it's like to be a working woman in this election year. And they won't know unless you tell them.

The weirdest video I saw this week: A bizarrely earnest satire of an informational video about Ã¢ÂÂ¦ vagina dentata? Go ahead, if you dare.

And the award for headline of the week? Click here. It's about the birds, of course.

Condoms: Sort of like crack?

Catherine Price — Thu, 08 May 2008 13:20:00 PDT

Here's a new addition for your blog roll: Abstinence Clearinghouse. Yup. Just in case you weren't getting your abstinence fix from the main site, you can check out the daily blog (which I found out about via Feministing) and glean fascinating insights into sexuality, humanity and crack cocaine.

About that last one: In my favorite entry (so far), an author named Kayla uses a story about crack cocaine to demonstrate the negative effects of sex education. To wit:

"Could it be -- that the distribution of crack pipes to addicts in Canadian Cities to halt the spread of the disease is actually doing more harm than good but [sic] tacitly encouraging substance abuse?

"Could it be -- that by handing out condoms to children (with partially developed brains) that society could actually be sending them the WRONG message and encourage MORE dangerous sexual behavior?"

(Side note: Are sex educators specifically targeting children with partially developed brains? Because that would be totally messed up.)

Quoting Canadian chief superintendent Derek Ogden's opinion on distributing crack pipes, the blog says that just as "handing out crack pipes at free will ... sends the wrong message and could actually encourage the rate of crack cocaine use in the community," "freely distributing condoms to children ... is actually encouraging them to become sexual [sic] active and put themselves at risk!!!"

Sics aside, I find it hysterical that anyone would compare condoms with crack pipes. Or insinuate that the sex education advocates think we should offer rubbers to 5-year-olds as Halloween treats. Or, for that matter, say that sexual education -- i.e. teaching kids about the risks and responsibilities of sex and encouraging them to be safe if and when they decide to become sexually active -- is the equivalent of pushing drugs.

But when it comes to being crackpots, the Abstinence Clearinghouse has plenty of company -- June 7 has been named Protest the Pill Day '08 (tag line: "The pill kills babies"). (In case you didn't figure it out, June 7 marks the anniversary of the Supreme Court's Griswold v. Connecticut decision, granting people the right to privacy in access to and use of birth control pills.) The event's Web site lists helpful talking points like, you know, descriptions of how the Pill "can kill your preborn baby without you even knowing" and makes you "more susceptible to the AIDS virus."

I mean, there are noncrazy reasons to abstain from sex (you want to wait till you're in love, you don't feel ready for it, you're 10) -- but why go that route when you can argue that the Pill will give you a cerebral hemorrhage and that Planned Parenthood "brainwashes young girls"? I can only hope that these people actually do abstain from sex. That, at least, would keep them from reproducing.

They "might as well call themselves Slutbucks"

Sarah Hepola — Thu, 08 May 2008 12:20:00 PDT

Gawker

There are good reasons to boycott Starbucks. Here's one: Its coffee is overroasted and tastes nasty. Here's a dumb reason to boycott Starbucks: Its new retro logo is slutty! Gawker reports today that a Christian group called the Resistance is scandalized, absolutely scandalized by the coffee chain's reintroduction of its original 1971 logo, which is about as racy as your garden-variety playground statue. Believe me, there is much better porn in my dog-eared copy of "The Guide to Norse Mythology." But here's a colorful, outraged description from the group's press release:

"The Starbucks logo has a naked woman on it with her legs spread like a prostitute, explains Mark Dice, founder of the group. Need I say more? It's extremely poor taste, and the company might as well call themselves, Slutbucks."

Frankly, this new logo is the most exciting thing I've seen at Starbucks since the introduction of the peppermint mocha. You don't think this might be another way for some crackpot religious organization to drum up publicity, do you? Well, we won't fall prey to that by giving it more ink! Oh, wait, never mind.

The cellulite monologues

Catherine Price — Thu, 08 May 2008 11:40:00 PDT

Remember Dove's Real Beauty campaign? You know, the one where it picked non-anorexic-looking models, started the Dove "self-esteem fund" and made a bunch of commercials highlighting some of the ways the beauty industry makes people feel shitty about themselves? (As Rebecca Traister points out, it's a little weird to have this message coming from a company that sells beauty products, but still.)

Well, Dove is at it again -- but this time, it's taking the campaign to the stage. According to the Financial Post, Dove held a contest encouraging women over 45 to write letters to their bodies. The 13 winning letters were adapted into a script by playwright and director Judith Thompson, and their authors were invited to participate in a theatrical performance -- a combination of music, dance and spoken word called "Body & Soul" and debuting May 10 in Toronto.

Does Thompson feel weird about writing a show as part of an ad campaign? Nope. "Everyone from Shakespeare to [Toronto theater company] Soulpepper is sponsored by a corporation," she told the Post. "It was understood from the beginning that there would be no advertising or mentions of Dove -- never. [Unilever marketing executives] knew what they were getting when they asked me." (Dove products will be handed out during some performances and there will be ads for Dove's Pro-Age line in the show's programs, but other than that, it's ad-free.)

As for the show itself, I know what you're thinking: This could be bad. Check out the first sentence from the article: "A gamine woman clad in theatrical black nods her curly head of silver hair and widens her eyes, chanting breathily, as 12 other women behind her break into a slow-motion song-and-dance number." I saw similar performances in college -- and they left me with a permanent distrust of anyone wearing a black unitard.

But I have to say -- unitard-phobia aside, I actually really do like Dove's campaign. Sure, it's weird to have an anti-beauty industry message coming from a company that's trying to sell beauty products. But you know what? Most companies are trying to get me to buy their crap by making me feel bad about myself. Considering the fact that I'm going to purchase face soap from somebody, why not contribute to the profits of a company that makes me feel good?

Childhood, a time of carefree play ... and crash diets?

Sarah Hepola — Thu, 08 May 2008 08:27:00 PDT

The first time I went on a diet, I was 9 years old. I was a scrappy kid who played Little League and ran track; I didn't actually have any extra weight to lose, but it seemed fun in a grown-up way, in the way that slathering my face with rouge and running a pink Daisy razor over the downy hair on my shins seemed fun. My mom was on a diet, so I went on one. Hey everybody, let's eat rice cakes and guzzle Diet Coke! It's a par-tay!

I was so proud of this diet that I went to school and told all my girlfriends -- about calories and cellulite and why blueberry muffins were deadly. I practically held court on the playground, as little girls listened with rapt attention to the hell that would happen to their thighs if they ate another Bomb pop. What strikes me about this story is: 1) Wow, that is all kind of sad. 2) Back then, the idea of diets and calorie consumption and starvation diets were foreign to kids, at least the ones I grew up around. 3) I somehow internalized the idea that it was cool to diet, something I really didn't let go of until much later in life.

Today we get word from the UPI that, in Britain, "an increasing number of children under the age of 10 are being hospitalized with eating disorders and self-inflicted injuries." This is what we call KGOY (kids getting older younger). This is also what we call sad.

Here's an interesting part of that study, too. The majority of those children under 10 are boys. "The Department of Health said more than 270 boys and 163 girls under the age of 10 were admitted to hospitals with eating disorders in the past four years, The Daily Telegraph reported Tuesday." This dovetails with the rising trend of "manorexia" and news last month that former Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott of Britain suffered from bulimia. But it's also rather startling. This isn't really the kind of parity we were after.

Walk in a brothel, walk out a rapist?

Tracy Clark-Flory — Thu, 08 May 2008 02:30:00 PDT

In Britain's latest attempt at fighting sex trafficking, it's simply calling johns rapists. Men visiting the loo at their local pub may soon start to notice posters showing an open door -- along what seems a wall smeared with blood or other bodily fluids -- leading to an illegal sex den. (Note that prostitution isn't illegal in Britain, but brothels are.) The advertisement reads: "Walk in a punter. Walk out a rapist." Then, in smaller text, the ad throws out a dare to any man who comes across a sex worker he suspects was trafficked: "If you're man enough, call Crimestoppers."

Not all johns are rapists, of course; and, I'm uncomfortable calling anyone who sleeps with a trafficked girl a rapist, even though she is being forced to have sex against her will. Certainly, johns who know they are having sex with a trafficked girl are rapists, and it could be argued that there are many more cases of involuntary rape caused by willful blindness -- but I don't think all men who unwittingly sleep with trafficked girls are guilty of rape.

The ad is clearly aiming to draw a line between willful and forced prostitution, but it's a matter of perspective whether the ad is applying the rapist label to all clients of trafficked prostitutes. If it is, it raises a host of questions. For instance: If a man has sex with a drug-addicted sex worker, or a prostitute who has an abusive pimp, is he a rapist?

All that being said, I salute the advertisement for pushing any man considering sex-for-pay to consider that he very well could end up unwittingly having sex with a trafficked woman.

"Will you lick my swizzle stick?"

Rachel Shukert — Wed, 07 May 2008 13:50:00 PDT

For some, romantic obsession means languishing in a freezing garret, producing pages and pages of yearning symbolist poetry, or listening to Patsy Cline's greatest hits over and over. For Weather Channel coanchor and ratings favorite Bob Stokes, it apparently meant harassing the object of his affection, former anchor Hillary Andrews, for details of her sex life, sabotaging her at work and repeatedly entreating her to "lick his swizzle stick." (This according to the Smoking Gun.) Swizzle stick? I guess we can add that to a list that includes Clarence Thomas' can of Coke and Bill O'Reilly's "falafel thing." (It was actually a loofah, but obviously O'Reilly is far too populist to know that. Or to wash himself.)

Andrews' female predecessor was also allegedly subjected to the same treatment and eventually forced out of her job. Andrews experienced much of the same bullying and marginalization from her bosses when she complained about Stokes, but no such fate would befall her; in 2006, three months before her contract expired, she slapped Stokes with a major lawsuit. And won.

Today, however, as the owner of the Weather Channel is negotiating a multibillion-dollar sale, the network's lawyers are angling to keep the blistering arbitration ruling a secret, fearing it might affect the sale and value of the cable outlet. I can't help hoping that the Weather Channel's total disregard for the right of women to a safe, respectful workplace knocks a few zeroes off its asking price. Nothing like the bottom line to drive home the point that blatant misogyny isn't just bad behavior; it's bad business.

It can "just happen" at just about any age

Lynn Harris — Wed, 07 May 2008 12:00:00 PDT

Fill up those fishbowls with condoms, folks: Today is the National Day to Prevent Teen Pregnancy. Yes, teen pregnancy rates are down, but we still need at least one day to work this stuff out -- after all, according to the National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy, 30 percent of teenage girls become pregnant at least once before age 20 and 82 percent of teen pregnancies are unintended.

Turns out, though, that maybe the grown-ups need their own day as well. As Wall Street Journal columnist Johanna Bennett recently noted (subscription only; summary here), data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention shows that between 2000 and 2005, the number of live births among women ages 45 to 54 increased 45 percent. But perhaps contrary to popular imagination, they're not only women defying the odds with in vitro fertilization. According to a 2001 survey by the National Center for Health Statistics, 40 percent of pregnancies among women 40 and up are unintended. (Also, 7 percent of women 40-44 had recently had unprotected sex but did not want to become pregnant.) True, a 45-year-old woman has about a 1 percent chance of conceiving using her own eggs. But given that all you hear once you hit, like, 28, is, "Hurry up, your eggs are goners!" older women who do not wish to become older mothers might do better -- just in case -- to heed the no-glove-no-love messages meant for teens.

Quote of the day: Mildred Loving

Katharine Mieszkowski — Wed, 07 May 2008 07:25:00 PDT

"We loved each other and got married. We are not marrying the state. The law should allow a person to marry anyone he wants."

-- Mildred Loving on her court challenge to Virginia's anti-interracial-marriage law, as quoted by the Washington Evening Star in 1965. The Supreme Court ruled in 1967 that Mildred, an African-American, and her husband, Richard, who was white, had the right to marry, legalizing interracial marriage throughout the country.

Loving died on Monday at age 68, the Associated Press reported Tuesday. She was predeceased by her husband, who died in a car accident in 1975, in which Mildred was also injured. Before their successful court battle, the couple was arrested and forced to move out of the state of Virginia to avoid jail time for the crime of "cohabiting as man and wife, against the peace and dignity of the Commonwealth."

Publicity shy, Loving gave few interviews late in life. Yet she did make a statement last year on the 40th anniversary of the Supreme Court ruling to voice her support for gays' and lesbians' right to marry, according to the New York Times. Every June 12, the anniversary of the ruling, events mark Loving Day to celebrate the legalization of marriage by interracial couples.

McCain supports cloning

Lynn Harris — Wed, 07 May 2008 06:00:00 PDT

You know when you hear someone say, "Democrats, Republicans: Feh. They're all the same. It doesn't matter who wins," and even as you think, "Oh my fucking God, I am not even going to have this conversation," you hear yourself stammering, "Yeah, but what about the judges they nominate?" OK, what about the judges they nominate? Just to pull a Republican out of a hat, let's take John McCain. In his speech Tuesday at Wake Forest University in North Carolina, CNN reports, he pledged to nominate only strict-constructionist judges to the federal bench. (Remember when you thought his membership in the 2006 "Gang of 14" might make him some sort of, I don't know, "maverick"? Yeah, well.)

"It will fall to the next president to nominate hundreds of qualified men and women to the federal courts, and the choices we make will reach far into the future," he said, adding, "MMWWWWUAAAHAAHAAAA!"

Here's what we know from the past (PDF):

1. McCain: "I will try to find clones of Alito and Roberts."

2. McCain: Also, I voted for Bork.

3. Gary Bauer: "McCain, in private, assured me he would appoint pro-life judges."

4. McCain also voted for superstars such as William Pryor, nominated to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit, who called Roe v. Wade "the worst abomination of constitutional law in our history," and Charles Pickering, nominated to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, who, while serving in the Mississippi Senate, supported a resolution urging Congress to pass a constitutional amendment to ban abortion under most circumstances.

It's not just about abortion, of course. But even if it were: "John McCain's voting record reads like a Who's Who List of right-wing activist judges who are hostile to the constitutional right to privacy and want to allow politicians to interfere in our most personal, private medical decisions," said Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America. "McCain's support of anti-choice judges will be one of many reasons voters, especially pro-choice Independent and Republican women, will not cast their ballots for him in the fall."

Did "crying rape" lead to murder?

Tracy Clark-Flory — Tue, 06 May 2008 19:00:00 PDT

One night, while her husband played cards a couple towns over, Tracy Roberson text messaged her lover, Devin LaSalle: "Hi friend, come see me please! I need to feel your warm embrace!" He drove to her home in Fort Worth, Texas, and parked his pickup truck outside; she greeted him wearing a bathrobe and underwear, and climbed in his truck.

Meanwhile, her husband, Darrell Roberson, repeatedly called home without answer. When he finally got their 7-year-old daughter on the line, she told him that mommy wasn't in the house -- so, Mr. Roberson drove home early from his card game. He found the lovers kissing inside LaSalle's truck and whipped out a gun, ordering his wife outside. At one point, either before or after Mr. Roberson started shooting, Mrs. Roberson screamed that this was rape, not an illicit affair. As LaSalle tried to drive away, Mr. Roberson killed him with a shot to the head.

Mrs. Roberson frantically called 911 to report the shooting, while her husband shouted at her again and again in the background: "Why you do me like that?" In later interviews with police Mr. Roberson admitted that he had long held suspicions about his wife's infidelity; Mrs. Roberson told police that she made the false rape claim because she feared for her life, but that her husband didn't buy her lie for a second. However, last week, Mrs. Roberson was convicted of involuntary manslaughter; meanwhile, Mr. Roberson walks free.

Jacquielynn Floyd, a columnist for the Dallas Morning News, asks of the jury: "Did they blame her rape lie? Or did they blame her adultery?" Floyd continues, "The distinction may not have played much role in the end result, but it's an important one. Because if Darrell Roberson did not, in fact, believe at the moment he fired that his wife was being raped; if, instead, he was killing mad at catching the adulterous couple in the act, then this isn't a case about a lying woman."

But, even if Mr. Roberson shot at LaSalle only after she made the rape claim, the outcome of this case is incredibly unusual. Last year, a grand jury actually dismissed a murder charge against Mr. Roberson and instead indicted Mrs. Roberson. Fred Moss, an associate professor at the Southern Methodist University School of Law, told The Dallas Morning News, "You don't see people charged when they're accused of indirectly having someone commit the actual killing. Prosecutors have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she was aware that saying 'he raped me' created a substantial risk that her husband would shoot the guy ... That was a very forgiving grand jury."

Shakesville's Melissa McEwan argued that the ruling seems to rely on the stereotype of the hotheaded male who cannot be expected to control himself. "It suggests that women should be able to control their emotions, and are to be punished when they don't -- because, ultimately, what we have is a woman who (wrongly) told a lie in desperation, and a man who (wrongly) killed another man in anger, but it is her rash lie that is punished, not his rashly pulling the trigger." McEwan makes a great final point: "Of course the argument is that he never would have pulled that trigger without her lie, but why does that mean he should be exempt from punishment? If she had been telling the truth, and he had killed an actual rapist, it's still wrong."

The groom will be changing his name

Catherine Price — Tue, 06 May 2008 12:25:00 PDT

Call me naive, but in a world where it is fair game to name your children things like "Pilot Inspektor" and "God'iss Love Stone," I thought it wouldn't be a big deal for a man to take his wife's name. I mean, hell, in some cases, it might help men fight back against unfortunate parental choices. Take, for example, Duke president Dick Brodhead.

But apparently I'm wrong. According to Reuters (sent to us via Shakespeare's Sister), "it took two years, a lawsuit alleging sexual discrimination, and a change in California law" before Michael Buday could become Michael Bijon. As Reuters describes the situation, "He discovered it would take a $350 fee, court appearances, a public announcement and mounds of paperwork to make a change on his driving license that is routine for women who marry."

The problem? While it's easy for a woman to take her husband's name, for both to keep their birth names or, for that matter, to create a Bijon-Buday hyphenation, California and about 40 other states didn't (and mostly still don't) provide a place on the marriage license application and driving license for the groom to change his name to the bride's.

But in California at least, things are changing. Thanks to the Bijons' lawsuit, a new state law has been established that guarantees the right for both married couples and registered domestic partners to choose whichever last name they prefer.

The Bijons, obviously, are thrilled: "Women have fought so long for equal rights and it feels like this is part of that fight," Diana Bijon is quoted as saying. "When we got married, the law basically said, 'Don't be silly, only a woman can change her name when she gets married.'"

(I would add that this lawsuit also represent a win for men's equal rights, since Michael can now call himself a Bijon without fears of hyphenation -- it's good for both sides.)

"I'm really, really proud of him," Diana Bijon continued. "Not many men would do this."

I actually know of at least one male Broadsheet reader who took his wife's name, but are there more of you out there? Or does anyone know people who have tried? I'd be interested in hearing what your experiences have been like -- and if you think that having the right to change their names might encourage more men to do so. (My guess is no, but then again, I'm not a Bijon.) Thoughts?

Those women could stop traffic

Catherine Price — Tue, 06 May 2008 11:34:00 PDT

News flash from Pakistan: For the first time, female traffic cops are being allowed to take to the streets outside of Islamabad -- but not everyone's thrilled about it.

According to the Chicago Tribune, while Pakistan is not opposed to women holding powerful jobs -- it had a female prime minister, after all -- there's still a common perception that the only types of women who work on the streets are beggars and whores. So the new female traffic cops? Let's just say that they're having some problems.

Female traffic cops have been working in Islamabad for the past three years, but this is the first time that they've been allowed outside the capital. (President Pervez Musharraf has been encouraging training for female cops, in addition to pushing for various other pro-women policies.) To see what it's like to, er, work the streets, the Tribune's correspondent tags along with Mehnaz Akhter, a female cop working a busy intersection. As she directs the flow of cars, she's forced to ignore "the looks, leers and laughs" -- not to mention requests for directions from men who aren't really lost. The harassment is bad enough that Akhter's male colleague, Zaigham Abbas, says that he has slapped four motorists in the past few months for harassing her.

Granted, as most women know, getting harassed on the street is not an experience that's limited to Pakistan -- but it's bad enough that "eve teasing" (a euphemism for harassment used throughout South Asia) is a punishable offense. Unfortunately, few people are actually arrested for eve teasing, and according to the Tribune, many women feel too intimidated to exercise outside or visit local parks -- so it's perhaps not surprising that being a female traffic cop directing (mostly male) drivers would prompt a certain amount of unwanted attention.

But it's still upsetting, just as it's upsetting to see that there are people who think that women should be banned from jobs like being traffic cops for their own protection. (I mean, why punish the harassers when you could just ban the women?) Take this anecdote from the Tribune as an example:

"'They shouldn't be here because hundreds of bad people come here,'" said Muhammad Sabeeh, 16, an 8th grader in Rawalpindi who wore a black baseball cap proclaiming 'bad boy' and who walked through Akhter's traffic intersection every day. "'There are some men who can do anything and say anything.'"

Exactly. And that's the problem.

Barbie vs. Bratz XVII: The Reckoning

Rachel Shukert — Tue, 06 May 2008 09:43:00 PDT

Brace yourself, America: The enduring struggle between the forces of Barbie and the forces of Bratz is gearing up for a final, epic battle -- albeit not fought on the blood-stained field of Golgotha but on the more traditional terrain of the courtroom.

Mattel, which first introduced the world to the miracle of structural engineering known as Barbie Millicent Roberts in 1959, is suing the living daylights out of Bratz creator Carter Bryant, a former Mattel employee, on the grounds of copyright infringement. Looks like there's only room for one lushly proportioned polyurethane poppet in town.

And in no uncertain terms! Wait till you see the frantic internal Mattel memos released as part of the court documents, describing the success of the Bratz brand as "a rival-led Barbie genocide." Yes, the G-word, conjuring horrible images of shaven-headed Skippers corralled in Barbie prison-of-war camps being terrorized by machete-wielding Bratz dolls (or maybe that was just my sister and me). Not content to let Barbie have the last word, MGA memos counter that Mattel planned to "litigate to the death" (italics mine) and that "this is a war, and sides must be taken."

It's interesting to note the context of these memos -- written in 2003, as the nation geared up for war and the militaristic language of "you're either with us or against us" was at its peak. But in 2008, with all of us sadder and wiser, all parties would do well to remember that most little girls have the sense not to view inanimate objects as role models, and instead think of the fate that eventually befalls the vast majority of these toys, Barbie and Bratz alike: They wind up bald, naked and covered in dog slobber in a pile beneath the bed, condemned forever to a dollie Gitmo of their owner's creation.

I think Barbie herself said it best: "Pizza party, anyone?"

Are women bad at friendship?

Annsley Chapman — Tue, 06 May 2008 09:35:00 PDT

The Los Angeles Times is deeply concerned about the nationwide trend of superficially amicable (but secretly toxic) friendships between women.

"Nowadays, the notion of link-armed Laverne and Shirley has been replaced by Paris glaring at Nicole. Or Heidi Montag refusing to be photographed within spitting distance of ex-BFF Lauren Conrad. Lindsay Lohan reportedly snapped at Ashley Olsen with the ferocity of a lioness last week in New York, when the starlet approached Lohan's new BFF, Samantha Ronson. But perhaps it's all for the better. Maybe these feuding and fiercely protective friends make more accurate role models than those musty, bygone tokens of sisterhood."

Wait, my bad. The L.A. Times is concerned about Lindsay and Paris! We could debate the blithe correlation between relationships among regular women and the overblown, overchoreographed spats between spoiled Hollywood celebrities -- but first, where did I put my coke pants?

The article goes on to point out the increasing number of books about spiteful girly friendships (last year's "The Friend Who Got Away," for instance). But it misses the point: Bitchiness isn't necessarily more prevalent (is there a catfight census we should know about?), bitchiness just sells. Meanwhile, young girls who could once identify with the female camaraderie in "The Baby-Sitters Club" and on "Friends" are now glued to prime-time soaps devoted to fickle vacillations between vapid rich girls on "The Hills" and "Gossip Girl." Even shows like "Grey's Anatomy," which praises the bond between Meredith Grey and Christina Yang, still peddle plenty of husband and boyfriend swiping.

For every Tina Fey vehicle that champions mutual respect and admiration among women, there are a hundred trumped-up examples of an ongoing catfight between famous women. Leighton Meester, one of the two actresses on the famously bitchy "Gossip Girl," recently rebuffed rumors that she was engaged in a cold war with fellow costar (and on-screen frenemy) Blake Lively:

"I was just reading something about, like, how Natalie Portman and Scarlett Johansson didn't get along [on the set of "The Other Boleyn Girl"]," says Leighton. "Why don't they say that George Clooney and Brad Pitt don't get along? It's always the girls."

Remind me to invite Leighton over when "Baby Mama" comes out on DVD.

Politician fights for women's pleasure

Tracy Clark-Flory — Mon, 05 May 2008 16:40:00 PDT

An Ecuadorian politician recently set off a monsoon of machismo by reportedly attempting to write a woman's right to sexual satisfaction into the state's constitution. Maria Soledad Vela's pro-pleasure argument was called "ridiculous" and an attempt to "decree orgasm by law" by male lawmakers. A local newspaper spoke with a man who actually likened the legislation to "life in prison." (Surely, he's a bunch of fun in bed.) But, all she's asking for is required public health education that acknowledges women aren't unfeeling breeding machines. (¡Qué horrible!) Soledad Vela says she isn't demanding the right to an orgasm, but, as the BBC puts it, "merely the right to enjoy sex in a free, fair and more open society" -- and if that means greater orgasms, which it probably does, then so be it.

In conservative Ecuador, that's a dangerous political platform; and that's why, even though I realize it's only Monday, I'm nominating Maria Soledad Vela as Broadsheet's woman of the week.

This little piggy was hideously mangled

Kate Harding — Mon, 05 May 2008 13:15:00 PDT

This weekend, I was reading a New York magazine article about how shoes are ruining human feet. Yep, all shoes, even the kind designed to support your arches, cushion your heels, and get your achilles tendons a cocktail. So it goes without saying that high heels are killers:

"If you wear high heels for a long time, your tendons shorten -- and then it's only comfortable for you to wear high heels. One saleswoman I spoke to at a running-shoe store described how, each summer, the store is flooded with young women complaining of a painful tingling in the soles of their feet -- what she calls "flip-flop-itis," which is the result of women's suddenly switching from heeled winter boots to summer flip-flops."

But then I read this article this morning, which tells me that flat shoes can "strain the achilles tendon that runs from the back of the heel, and also the calf muscles in the back of the leg," and increase one's risk of plantar fasciitis. For optimum foot health, this article says, you should alternate between high and low shoes and do some calf stretches before going out in a pair of flats.

OK, so either high heels are going to painfully shorten my tendons, or they're necessary for keeping those tendons from painfully overextending. And the solution is either to go barefoot as often as possible (the New York article's suggestion) or to wear supportive shoes of varying heights. Never mind, I'm taking a nap.

He's just not that into (sex with) you

Sarah Hepola — Mon, 05 May 2008 10:20:00 PDT

It's very easy for women to turn down sex. We turn down sex on the way to the subway. We turn down sex buying light bulbs at the grocery store. Just now, while typing this sentence, I turned down sex. Men have a trickier time of this. See, men are supposed to want sex all the time. It's supposed to be tattooed on their brains, as some kind of involuntary function, like breathing or not asking for directions. And if they do try to turn down sex, women too often treat it like a bizarre aberration -- like there's something wrong with them or (more chronically) wrong with us. Of course, sometimes men just aren't in the mood. Sometimes men are tired. Sometimes men drink too much Jameson and pass out on the couch.

Nevertheless, it seems that men may be turning down sex in larger numbers. According to a story in the Telegraph, one sex therapy clinic in the U.K. has seen a 40 percent uptick in the number of men who just aren't that into sex with their partner, especially men in middle age.

"Men used to come to us with impotence -- now known as erectile insufficiency -- but Viagra has sorted some of that problem. What we have is a lot of men who say, as women did in the 1950s: 'I can have sex but I do not want to. It's not rewarding.'"

Yeesh, I don't know why this is happening. Maybe it's depression, or "changing sexual roles," as the story so vaguely suggests. Maybe Viagra ripped the veil off a deeper sexual malaise. But it's clear the old notion about men wanting it all the time just isn't true. Turns out, two can play the "Not tonight, I've got a headache" game.