Click here to see some of our favorites reviews  Our Media Recommendations, then Click here to share your favorites or add your own suggestions (this link will bring you to our new website.  It cannot be found in a wordpress search, so please Bookmark us there.)

First, google is discriminating against cougar dating sites, but not similiar, or even more explicit and offensive dating sites for men. Second, Hollywood discriminates against movies about females seeking sexual pleasure, while movies about males seeking sexual pleasure are commonplace.

If the real reason for a lack of sexually stimulating material for women is lack of demand, why do we do we need the sexual double standard to keep female behavior in line?  The double standard not only functions to make women feel uncomfortable taking an interest in their own sexual pleasure, an incredibly strong deterrent to female sexual exploration on its own, but once women get past this hurdle and decide make sexual material available to other women, there are major barriers when it comes to gaining funding, advertising, and publication.

Google

Google recently made the decision to disallow cougar dating service ads on its site, but not similar men’s dating service ads. (link from the NYtimes.com article below)  The owner of CougarLife.com is fighting back.

Google said it made this decision after classifying CougarLife.com as “non-family safe.”  and says that all companies and websites containing the word “cougar” will now be considered adult and will not be able to run on Google’s “content network.”  (The Google advertising system has two components: one for ads that appear next to search results, and one for its content network). This means CougarLife’s ads will no longer show up on more than 6,700 websites, accounting for 60 percent of its traffic.

CougarLife’s describes it’s services as “…classy, confident women that already possess many of the finer things in life – but now want the young, hot guy to go with it.”   However, sites promoting sugardaddy’s, like date-a-millionaire.com and ArrangementSeekers.com, which describes itself as “the original Sugar Daddy service catering to ambitious and attractive girls seeking successful and generous benefactors to fulfill their lifestyle needs!,” and even more sexually explicit dating sites are allowed to advertise.  So, if you a woman looking for a man, now you’ll see ads to help you find “sexy Latin women” rather then attractive men.

Ms. Opdenkelder, the owner of the cougar dating site says googles actions gender and age discrimination.

Link to NY Times article: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/16/fashion/16cougar.html?src=tptw

Movies

Recently I wrote the following column about the movie, “Coming Soon,” under my media reviews section:

This movie is not the most highly-rated, nor is it easy to find (you can find it on Amazon.com using the movies title, along with the director’s name Colette Burson).  This movie is, however, important and worthy of your attention.  Writer and director, Colette Burson, tells a realistic story of the common, yet rarely discussed, experience of a teenage girl as she becomes sexually active: inability to have an orgasm, discomfort addressing the problem, uncertainty regarding what an orgasm feels like (Did I have an orgasm?),  and dishonesty about the experience of sex due to desire to fit in.  Despite its racy cover, this movie was not as crude or offensive as one might expect, especially in comparison to American Pie, Porky’s, and other coming of age films about the sexual experience of teenage boys.  Even so, this movie was highly controversial.  The producers found that the sexual double standard was powerful and had a hard time gaining support in its production or sale.  The MPAA refused to give this movie an R- rating, even though it lacked nudity, and although frank, was not exploitative or titillating.  Instead it was rated NC-17.  Director Colette Burson said her MPAA representative admitted the board has a double standard when it comes to depicting female sexual desire.

This week’s Us Weekly Magazine (May 5, 2010) features hot pictures of Eric Dane (AKA Dr. McSteamy from Grey’s Anatomy) shirtless. If you want to support increased equality in the media’s portrayal of the sexes or simply want to see more of McSteamy, vote with your wallet and increase the demand by buying this magazine today–on newstands this week only.

Ancestral men were more susceptible to an additional cost if they failed to detect infidelity: the investment of resources into genetically unrelated offspring.  Ancestral women had less reason to be concerned about cheating, because they could be sure that a child was theirs.

Evolutionary theory is heavily relied on in explaining present day relationships between the sexes and differences between men and women.  I wonder, is reliance on evolutionary theory really as necessary or helpful in understanding sex and gender as it is made out to be?

For example, can’t we adequately answer the question addressed in the study I refer to without reliance on suspected concerns in the life of the caveman.  One of the simplest explanations is this:  The guilty tend to be the most suspicious.  Why?  Because when a person is cheating or considering cheating themselves, cheating weighs more heavily on their mind.  They tend to associate with other cheaters, so cheating seems more common than it is.  They are also well aware of the possibility that they too could be cheated on.  This theory holds true not just for cheaters, but for liars, drug users, thieves, etc.  An advantage of the theory I propose is that it can be tested, whereas, we cannot test or be certain of the behaviors or motivations of the first humans.  In addition, the theory I propose is not gender-specific.  Female cheaters may respond in a similar fashion.

I fear that continued reliance on evolutionary theory to explain issues of gender stands in the way of progress and equality.  We can’t test it, we can’t change it.  We’re just stuck with it.  This mindset is not conducive to change.  What do you think?

Goetz, A.T. & Causey, K. (2009). Sex differences in perceptions of infidelity: Men often assume the worst. Evolutionary Psychology, Vol 7, No 2: 253-263. Full text: http://www.epjournal.net/filestore/ep07253263.pdf

The June 2010 issue of Vanity Fair features pictures of sexy shirtless soccer players.  Ladies, if you agree that too many magazine covers feature bikini clad women and too few feature mankini clad men, show your support by purchasing this issue.  I recently got a one year subscription to Vanity Fair for only $12 on the Vanity Fair website.  What drew me to this magazine is its tendancy to portray women and men in a similiar fashion: there are nearly as many sexy pictures of men as of women!   In addition to outstanding photograhy, Vanity Fair contains excellant articles about global issues, economics, travel, beauty, fashion, and entertainment

To view our other media recommendations  click here

Control of female sexuality through dress is a commonly used form of female oppression.  In places like Iran, women are desexualized in appearance and the double standard is used to keep their behavior under control.  In other places, women are sexualized in appearance (in a way that’s visually pleasing to men), while the stud/slut double standard still functions to keep female behavior under control. Both of these forms of oppression were started by and for the benefit of men, but are now frequently supported and continued voluntarily by women.

In the most advanced countries like the U.S., many women believe they have “taken control” of the situation, by becoming active participants in their own objectification. This is not a sensible or constructive approach to gender equality. If wearing revealing clothing led to increased power and status, women would be viewed as far superior to men. Rather, the extent of female sexualization, in comparision to male sexualization, stands in the way of our equality.  Female sexualization and sexual attention-seeking do not and have never lead to real, long-term gender equality, respect or female empowerment. Fortunately, covering the entire body or putting our private parts on display, are not the only options for women. Women can look great, make their own decisions about clothing, and look respectable all at the same time.

Show Your Boobs For Breast Cancer Awareness

For more information of this topic, see the following: Women Mistake Sexual Attention for Liberation and The Bikini Revolution: Liberation or Exploitation at mankinirevolution.com

Did Bigelow win just because she\’s female? Read comment and reply to this post.