Thursday, June 30, 2016

This pill allows you to have anxiety-free sex. So why aren’t more people taking it?

shutterstock_372956731

via Shutterstock


More and more young people are taking a daily pill that provides them with a greater sense of safety and empowerment in their sex lives—and it’s not birth control.


Say hello to PrEP, or pre-exposure prophylaxis, a new drug that is more than 90% effective at preventing HIV when taken as instructed. Holy crap, right?


So why isn’t everyone at an elevated risk for HIV taking the drug—which is sold under the brand name Truvada—or at least talking about it?


Well, for a few key reasons, including a lack of awareness among doctors, cost, and access to healthcare. Watch and learn more.


Big thanks to Megan Coleman of Whitman-Walker Health and Callen-Lorde for their contributions to this video.


link to source





If you think you have a STD, there is something you can do about it! The only way to know for sure is to be tested.


GET TESTED NOW. SEE TESTS & PRICES



This feature is for informational purposes only and should not be used to replace the care and information received from your health care provider. Please consult a health care professional with any health concerns you may have.



This pill allows you to have anxiety-free sex. So why aren’t more people taking it?

Wednesday, June 29, 2016

5 maddening ‘undue burdens’ women still face to controlling their sexual health

160628-undue-burden2

Elena Scotti/FUSION


This week the Supreme Court delivered an epic win for women’s reproductive rights, ruling that a Texas law requiring abortion clinics to meet highly specific and arbitrary medical requirements put an “undue burden” on women seeking abortions—directly violating the terms spelled out in Roe v. Wade.



In the opinion, Justice Stephen Breyer, speaking for the majority, broke down that when a law has no real medical safety benefits and does nothing but increase patient wait times—as the Texas law did—yup, the “burden is undue.” Within minutes of the ruling, the term became an instant catchphrase for the victory, as pro-choice advocates tweeted in celebration.




The good news is that Monday’s ruling has already triggered a domino effect—other conservative states have begun dropping their legal battles to put similarly draconian abortion laws on the books. But the reality is that women in this country still face ginormous obstacles when it comes to their sexual health.


And so, while we celebrate the Supreme Court win, we also wanted to highlight some of the restrictions untouched by Monday’s ruling—“undue burdens” that shamelessly infringe on women’s rights to take care of their bodies.


Getting our hands on birth control


When state lawmakers strip Planned Parenthood of its funding and force clinics to close, many women have to travel long distances to obtain birth control—which can be especially difficult if one works or has a family. Indeed, you might say the burden placed on women to obtain the contraception they need is “undue.” Even more unjust? Lower income women and women of color tend to be hit the hardest.


Getting a medication abortion


Not only is it impossible to receive a medication abortion on any college campus right now—and not because of legal or medical reasons, simply because of cultural stigma—but this incredibly safe and effective way of terminating an early term pregnancy continues to face legislative regulations and challenges that defy logic.


Case in point: Even after the FDA updated its guidelines for medication abortion in March, allowing doctors to administer a lower dosage of the drug and to prescribe it for three weeks longer than previously suggested, Arizona Governor Doug Dacey signed into law a bill that required providers to adhere to the outdated FDA policy.


So yeah, until all women can access this safe and legal form of abortion easily no matter where she lives—undue burden, undue burden, undue burden.


Paying taxes on tampons and pads


This year has already seen great wins for the elimination of taxing tampons and other menstrual products as “luxury goods” (lol)—both New York and Illinois have stepped up to the plate to rule that period supplies are a need, not a want.


However, a whopping 38 other states still levy taxes on your pads and tampons under the highly illogical thought process that these items are not necessities. Clearly, the (male) legislators who crafted these policies never bled through a pair of pants in middle school.


Meanwhile, a recent episode of the Netflix drama Orange Is the New Black helped raise awareness for the fact that female prisoners are often denied pads and tampons, creating a black market for the supplies—just to help women avoid sitting in their own blood.


Preventing and punishing campus sexual assault


America is currently facing an epidemic of sexual assault against women on college campuses—yet universities have done little to address and rectify the way handle these crimes. Take the recent high-profile case at Stanford. After former student Brock Turner was convicted of assault and given an outrageously lenient sentence, the university has only worked to distance itself from the crime—forcing professors and students to demand more.


Until schools and communities come together to start teaching consent and respect to students from a young age, women will continue to face this undue burden.


Learning about safe sex


Sex education in this country sucks. It’s wildly inconsistent from state to state, with too many instructors still attempting to shame students away from having sex altogether.


According to the Guttmacher Institute, while more than 80% of American teens receive some formal instruction about STDs (which is great), only 55% of young men and 60% of young women receive formal instruction about methods of birth control. Not to mention, a national survey conducted by Planned Parenthood recently found that less than a third of all people in the U.S. have received any kind of education regarding what constitutes consent and sexual assault. Thanks to this lack of community support and education, assault victims face an uphill battle when seeking justice against their attackers.


With such shoddy sex education, American teens face an undue burden in gaining access to the information they need to be healthy sexual beings throughout their lives. We can do better.


link to source





If you think you have a STD, there is something you can do about it! The only way to know for sure is to be tested.


GET TESTED NOW. SEE TESTS & PRICES



This feature is for informational purposes only and should not be used to replace the care and information received from your health care provider. Please consult a health care professional with any health concerns you may have.



5 maddening ‘undue burdens’ women still face to controlling their sexual health

The latest stats about men and housework are depressing as hell

160628-men-cleaning2

Shutterstock, FUSION


More women are contributing equally to household incomes in this country, but the same cannot be said for men contributing to household chores. Yes, I am talking about the “cleaning gap,” in which working women are splitting the mortgage but not the dishes—a scenario with consequences that are bad for everyone.


A new poll released by the nonpartisan market research firm YouGov highlights this gap, finding that only 15% of dads do the laundry daily and 33% of dads do the laundry once a week. Sure, laundry may seem like a small task—if you’re the one who doesn’t have to do it. But the chore can take hours out of a day, especially if it’s being done in a shared laundry room or at a laundromat down the street.


These sad housework stats aren’t relegated to laundry. The most recent figures from the Bureau of Labor found that, on an average day, 22% of men did housework of any kind compared with 50% of women. And 43% percent of men prepared food or cleaned up after food preparation (a fancy way of saying “did the dishes”), compared with 70% of women. The cleaning gap is real, and it’s depressing as hell.


So listen up, guys-who-don’t-do-housework—enough is enough. In the words of J. Lo, we ain’t your mama, and the extra burden is literally sucking the life out of us.



Just last week I wrote about new research revealing that women who worked 60 hours a week or more tripled their risk of diabetes, cancer, heart trouble, and arthritis—but the same risk was not found for men. A big factor came down to this “second shift” women pull. Too many men still clock in at the office and clock out at home, while women clock in at the office and clock in again at home. In other words, they’re clocked in ALL THE TIME.


For anyone who argues that men simply work longer or harder at their jobs and that’s why they can’t be bothered to help out at home—well, they’re wrong. According to the same Bureau of Labor stats, among full-time workers, in 2015, men worked 8.2 hours per day while women worked 7.8 hours per day. When you do the math, that difference comes out to 24 minutes—and that’s saying nothing of the productivity and intensity of the actual work being done during those windows.


What about all the men who are sole breadwinners, some may ask? Well, most families don’t rely on one income anymore. According to the Bureau of Labor, husbands were the sole income earner in only 19.8% of married families in 2015. Meanwhile, wives were the sole income earners in 7.1% of families, and nearly 50% of families consisted of a dual-income household. And according to data from the Pew Research Center, in families with children, the percentage of dual-income households is actually much higher—around 66%.


That means that nearly 7 in 10 households with kids have two people bringing home the bacon, yet women still take on the lion’s share of the housework. WTF?


Plenty of men do contribute, of course, but it’s not enough. And guys, this isn’t just for the sake of women: Study after study has shown that couples who share housework also have more sex—and their marriages fare better as well.


Earlier this year a writer named Matthew Frey wrote an emotional piece for The Huffington Post titled “She divorced me because I left dishes by the sink,” which was shared 28,000 times. In it, Frey concludes that not helping out around the house was a way of showing disrespect for his wife, since it sent the message that his time was more valuable than hers—and ultimately led to their divorce:



I remember my wife often saying how exhausting it was for her to have to tell me what to do all the time. It’s why the sexiest thing a man can say to his partner is “I got this,” and then take care of whatever needs taken care of. I always reasoned: “If you just tell me what you want me to do, I’ll gladly do it.” But she didn’t want to be my mother.She wanted to be my partner, and she wanted me to apply all of my intelligence and learning capabilities to the logistics of managing our lives and household … I wish I could remember what seemed so unreasonable to me about that at the time.




So, men-who-aren’t-holding-your-weight, the next time you see a dish—wash it. Next time the laundry needs folding—fold it. No dinner on the table? Make it. Don’t wait for your partner to assign you chores. Just do it—and I guarantee both your penis and your partner will thank you.


link to source





If you think you have a STD, there is something you can do about it! The only way to know for sure is to be tested.


GET TESTED NOW. SEE TESTS & PRICES



This feature is for informational purposes only and should not be used to replace the care and information received from your health care provider. Please consult a health care professional with any health concerns you may have.



The latest stats about men and housework are depressing as hell

Tuesday, June 28, 2016

As a transgender man, choosing which bathroom to use can be agony

160628-bathroom-laws

Elena Scotti/Shutterstock


I do not enjoy using men’s bathrooms.


As a transgender man, I am not supposed to admit this. I am supposed to proclaim that I finally “feel at home,” and that I will fight for my right to access them. And I will! But the truth is, I don’t feel safe in them—nor do I prefer them to women’s rooms.


The thing is, I never felt wrong in women’s bathrooms and locker rooms; I felt wrong in my own skin. Growing up, I remember so many instances of what medical gatekeepers call “gender dysphoria”—of feeling like I was trapped in a mismatched body. After a childhood of being the only little girl playing on all-boys soccer and baseball teams, in middle school, I was ripped away from my social and athletic communities and told I was no longer allowed to play with the guys. I can still feel the sadness and confusion of that loss.


The first time I used a men’s bathroom I was 24 years old, when I’d just begun to physically transition. As I washed my hands, I stared at the filthy wall above the urinals and wondered: Do all cisgender men step up to the toilet and suddenly imagine themselves Jackson Pollock, with urine as their medium? To be a man, did one also have to be sloppy? I felt disgusted, and I began to understand why I’d taken so long to start transitioning. While women’s bathrooms are hardly pristine, I felt disconnected from this stereotypically crude side of masculinity. I have since learned, of course, that one can live as a man and reject outdated notions of masculinity.


Today, four years later, my beard approaches what my partner jokingly refers to as “mountain man length,” and my stocky stature frequently prompts comments like, “I would never have known you used to be a girl!” And yet, for me, I don’t feel that gaining entree into the men’s bathroom is any great triumph. If anything, I feel like it reinforces the notion that in order to be accepted, one must choose between two rigidly defined genders. While I have chosen to present as a man, many other friends in the queer and trans community choose not to be gender binary—where does that leave them?


I use the men’s bathroom now mostly because I am perceived as a threat in the women’s room. But I’ve come to believe that a long-term solution is not to make transgender people choose between two gendered bathrooms, but to make all bathrooms gender neutral. And in the meantime, to understand that the bathroom in which someone feels safest may not always align with their appearance—and support them in their choice.


The thing is, I never felt wrong in women’s bathrooms and locker rooms—I felt wrong in my own skin.


For me, these views are informed by a series of traumatic incidents in both men’s and women’s rooms. Some have felt unexpected—recently, for example, I accidentally stumbled into the women’s locker room at my gym. It took me a few seconds to recognize that I was in the wrong space because I’ve spent much more of my life in women’s rooms than I have in men’s rooms. It wasn’t until a woman shouted “get out!” that I realized how horrified the women in the room were, and how scared they must have been. The experience made me feel a little woozy.


But my experiences in men’s rooms have been far worse. Every time I enter a male locker room, I brace for what may be around the corner. Frequently, if men in the locker room see my body as I change or as walk into the showers, they follow me. In a few horrific cases, men have pulled back my shower curtain to “better see” me, or worse, pushed their genitals at me.


In these spaces, I seem to spark a unique and terrifying mix of sexual objectification and male-to-male aggressiveness. The men’s locker room is a place where I have accidentally, and unwillingly, become a Rorschach test of people’s sexuality, open-mindedness, and ideas on masculinity. And it’s not a fun place to be.


Meanwhile, the moment when I accidentally entered the women’s locker room was disorienting in part because it made me realize that I am now part of the same male threat I fear. After turning red and leaving, I wondered if the women I’d accidentally violated would feel less scared if they knew that I also shared a uterus, and in some ways, their same plight. Would it matter if they knew how many times I’d been harassed by men as a man with a vagina?


I don’t talk about these experiences often, in part because in my everyday life I pass as a masculine cisgender man. Far too many people, even those who care about me, have responded when they find out about my men’s room ordeals with, “Why did you let them see you?” and “Why don’t you change in the bathroom?” I change in the open because I refuse to behave like my body is a problem—and also because I prefer to tackle my fears head-on.


The men’s locker room is a place where I have accidentally, and unwillingly, become a Rorschach test of people’s ideas on masculinity. It’s not a fun place to be.


All of this being said, I have also experienced moments of hope—moments when I feel confident that, years from now, the public debate will be more sophisticated than simply whether to let trans people use the bathroom of their choice.


One incident from a few years ago left a particularly strong impression. I was hanging out at a bar that had separate men’s and women’s bathroom lines. It was 2:00 AM, and the bathroom bouncer seemed tired of drunk people and tired of his job—which, tonight, was to direct a sea of bodies into their proper lane. When I approached, he pointed me to the left, where a saw a large, trough-like urinal. Anxiety twisted my stomach, and I returned to the bouncer to ask to use a stall.


“Why, you don’t have a dick?” he growled at me. “I actually don’t. I’m a transgender man,” I told him impulsively, emboldened by multiple Whiskey and Cokes.


I didn’t bother bracing myself for anything; his reaction was a crapshoot. To my relief, his eyes simply opened in surprise. He did not ask any follow-ups. “Oh, okay. Uh, do you mind getting in that other line? Just so these ladies don’t think I let you skip them?”


Twenty minutes later, I had the misfortune of leaving my coat inside when I stepped out for a cigarette. When I finished, the outside bouncer refused to let me back in. At that moment, the bathroom bouncer walked past me and beckoned me to follow him. He introduced himself and walked me in through the backdoor.


“I’m sorry that guy’s an asshole. And I was, too,” he said. “I used to work at this big gay bar in the city, so I know a bunch of trans people. I’ve gotten too used to the idiot regulars around here.” I smiled at him, thanked him, shook his hand. He seemed to genuinely understand how unfair it was for me to have to explain myself, how humiliating it was to have a stranger ask me about my genitals in public.


When I tell this story now, I don’t attempt to hold back tears. Until that night, I’d never seen a cisgender person self-reflect and adjust their behavior and mindset in such a profound way, and so quickly. I appreciated the gesture deeply.


Terrifying and complicated and necessary as they are, bathrooms give us transgender people the opportunity to demand more, forgive ourselves, and see glimpses of what’s possible. But perhaps more importantly, these innocuous stalls can also give cisgender people a chance to better understand a situation outside of themselves—and hopefully, to offer a moment of kindness in a world that can sometimes be all too cruel to the queer community.


link to source





If you think you have a STD, there is something you can do about it! The only way to know for sure is to be tested.


GET TESTED NOW. SEE TESTS & PRICES



This feature is for informational purposes only and should not be used to replace the care and information received from your health care provider. Please consult a health care professional with any health concerns you may have.



As a transgender man, choosing which bathroom to use can be agony

Monday, June 27, 2016

What does consent look like when you’re wasted?

160622-consent1

Elena Scotti/Shuttersock



Any drinker knows what it’s like to wake up after a night of boozing and think, “I hope I didn’t do anything stupid.” Chances are, at some point you have. But what happens when your actions under the influence aren’t just embarrassing, but actively cause someone harm?



Earlier this month, Brock Turner, a former Stanford student who sexually assaulted an unconscious woman behind a dumpster, propelled this question into the national spotlight when he blamed his crime on a college culture that encourages binge drinking and “sexual promiscuity.” His defense—a clear attempt to eschew blame for his own horrific actions—was largely met with eye rolls and anger from a public disgusted by his lenient prison sentence.


Yet while Turner’s words were intended to shift responsibility off himself, his defense raised an important point: A culture that celebrates drunk hookups but rarely discusses how to navigate consent under the influence seems primed for catastrophe—and that’s something we need to talk about.


In the world envisioned by many college administrators and consent educators, we’d all be 100% sober every time we had sex, offering our partners clear, verbal consent for everything we happened to get up to. But we don’t live in that world. And while few of us end up taking advantage of a passed-out partner (or being taken advantage of in a passed-out state), most of us have, at some point or another, wound up in a situation where alcohol led to fuzzy boundaries and imperfect consent. What does it mean when a partner’s far drunker than they actually appear—or when we we give the impression of consenting to something we later regret (or perhaps don’t even recall)? And what can we do in the aftermath of an experience that might not have been as consensual as we thought?


🍻🍻🍻



The year I turned 23, a boy I’d long had a crush on came to my birthday party. I was pretty sure he wasn’t into me, and felt somewhat surprised when, later in the evening, he asked if he could kiss me, asked if he could sleep in my bed with me, asked if he could take my clothes off, asked if he could take off his own. So much of the evening happened at his direction, with what appeared to be enthusiastic, explicit consent.



A few days later, he told me over email that he’d been blackout drunk the whole time and felt that I’d taken advantage of his inebriated state.


My experience is an obvious outlier—few people in such an intensely inebriated state are able to give the impression of relative sobriety—but as I began talking to people about sex under the influence, it became clear that, for many, the combination can lead to some deeply confusing, and often uncomfortable, experiences.


When I put out a call for stories of experiences in the “grey area” of consent, everyone I knew seemed to have one. My friend Lauren told me about drinking until she puked—and then having sex with a boy she’d long had a crush on, undeterred by the vomit caking her hair until she woke up the next morning and realized the evening wasn’t quite the way she’d wanted to consummate their relationship.


Steve, who requested that I change his name to protect his privacy, told me about a time when alcohol lowered his resistance to a girl he wasn’t particularly interested in. Even worse, he later worried he’d taken advantage of her when he realized that what he’d thought was a continuation of sex momentarily interrupted by him passing out was actually him initiating sex with a sleeping girl hours after their original act of coitus.


Matt, who also requested I change his name, relayed a tale almost identical to my own: an afternoon of drinking with a flirty girl who seemed to enthusiastically consent, over and over, to every bit of their encounter, only to reveal the next day that she didn’t remember anything that had happened.


Whether an inebriated sexual experience feels exciting or awful can often come down to a matter of luck. Anna (another name change) shared two experiences that occurred within the same month, both of which involved blacking out and waking up in bed with someone. The first felt like a fun hookup; the latter, sexual assault. Part of the difference lays in the scraps of memory she retains from each experience—the consensual-feeling moments she recalls from the first experience, the physical pain she was left with after the second.


But most of what separated the experiences was far more vague: “It’s the difference between being in my own apartment and being in an insane spring break resort in Cancun where the towels are folded to look like monkeys; the difference between having been surrounded by friends most of the night and surrounded by frat boy strangers; the difference between waking up next to someone I didn’t know well but who was part of a trusted circle of friends, and someone I still don’t know at all but who had … angel wing tattoos.”


🍻🍻🍻



Part of what makes these situations so difficult is that many of us have mixed alcohol and sex to no ill effect. Have a drink or two, and it’s just a little social lubrication that helps to tamp down anxiety and lower inhibitions; for many, it can take a significant amount of drinking to edge into actual risky territory. So how do you know when you’re at risk for crossing a line?



Jaclyn Friedman, co-editor of the anthology Yes Means Yes!: Visions of Female Sexual Power and A World Without Rape, objects to the idea that even a single drink should mean that sex is completely off the table. “I think a lot of concerned adults overshoot the mark and say you should never, ever, ever mix alcohol and sex. But honestly, it’s completely unrealistic and also not true. I’ve had drunk sex and had a lot of fun. But I know where my line is.”


But knowing where someone else’s line is can be more difficult—especially when it’s someone you’ve only just met. Alcohol affects everyone differently: your age, your sex, how often you drink, even what you had to eat that day can all play a part in determining how quickly your judgment gets impaired. Knowing when someone’s had too much to drink isn’t always as simple as monitoring how many beers they’ve had and doing some quick math.


Friedman suggests erring on the side of caution. “If you have any question as to whether your partner is [too impaired] to consent, then the answer should be no.” A reasonable rule of thumb to operate by? If someone’s too drunk to drive, they’re too drunk to consent to sex.


The drunk driving analogy also makes the risks of drunk sex more clear. “It’s possible, if you’re drunk, to get behind the wheel and drive home and not hurt anybody,” she says. “We agree that that’s a possible thing. But we also agree that it’s a horrible asshole thing to do.” It’s also, she notes, illegal: “We don’t say there’s a grey area there just because nobody got hurt in that instance.”


Drunk driving isn’t only illegal when it leads to death and destruction; similarly, drunk sex shouldn’t merely be considered damaging and dangerous only when it it involves a woman passed out behind a dumpster.


Yet as much as we can intellectually understand the similarities between drunk sex and drunk driving, the comparison doesn’t always click on an emotional level. For many of us, the risk-reward analysis of drunk sex seems to work out in drunk sex’s favor—and it’s only after that fact that we begin to realize what seemed like a tipsy, fun hook up was actually an intoxicated, uncomfortable experience. So how can you remedy a seemingly consensual situation that’s gone awry?


🍻🍻🍻


I remember feeling a hard knot form in my throat as I read the email accusing me of sexual assault at 23. While some might have felt compelled to turn the tables on an accuser, to shame him for drinking, to remind him he’d started things, to shift the blame off of myself and on to him—I didn’t do that. I’d been on the other side of this equation before, and I knew what it was like to feel betrayed and violated by someone you thought you could trust. I knew how unhelpful defensiveness and excuses were to someone who just felt vulnerable and hurt.


So I tried to give my friend what I would have wanted in his situation. I laid out, in as neutral terms as possible, how the evening had appeared from my perspective. And then I did my best to apologize:


I don’t know you, and I don’t know what you’re like when you’re drunk, and maybe I shouldn’t have believed any of [what you said that night], and I apologize…. I apologize, because I don’t know your conditioning, and I don’t know what you’re like, and I had no idea that I was hurting you.


I feel really horrendous about this, and I just hope that you’re okay. It was never my intention to hurt or take advantage of you, and I just hope that you can understand that one day.



Ultimately, I did receive forgiveness—but for me, that wasn’t really the point. As uncomfortable as it was to be accused of sexual assault, I knew firsthand that being violated felt worse. And what mattered more to me—what continues to matter more to me—was knowing that this man would be able to begin to heal.


And that’s something that’s often overlooked when we talk about sexual experiences that leave someone feeling violated. We get so hung up on the details of the violator—trying to explain away their actions, making sense of a horrific act—that we often forget about the needs of the violated. “We need to remember that rape means somebody is profoundly injured,” says Friedman. We’re so used to the idea of a rapist as someone irredeemably monstrous that when we’re accused, our impulse is to distance ourselves from that image, to profess our own innocence rather than really engaging with our partner’s hurt.


“If somebody’s leg was broken because they tripped over you, you’re not going to first argue about whether or not your leg should have been there,” Friedman continues. “You’re going to help them, you’re going to respond to them as someone who’s in stress and crisis, who needs help and healing.”


So while an extra shot may not put you over the edge, it’s important to recognize that it may impair your partner in such a way that true consent is no longer possible. And if we do find ourselves in a situation where our partner feels sexually violated, rather than getting hung up on what our actions say about us, we need to start focusing on how our actions have harmed someone else—and what we can do to remedy and relieve that hurt.


link to source





If you think you have a STD, there is something you can do about it! The only way to know for sure is to be tested.


GET TESTED NOW. SEE TESTS & PRICES



This feature is for informational purposes only and should not be used to replace the care and information received from your health care provider. Please consult a health care professional with any health concerns you may have.



What does consent look like when you’re wasted?

Friday, June 24, 2016

Depressing study says men are less likely to wear a condom during sex with a ‘hot’ woman

FSN_STANFORD CONSENT_4

Omar Bustamante/FUSION


Most people know that condoms are a highly effective way to prevent sexually transmitted diseases, but some people appear to apply a bit of magical thinking to when protection is necessary. In a depressing new study, researchers found that men decide whether or not to wear a condom based on how “hot” they consider their sexual partner.


For the study, researchers at Britain’s University of South Hampton recruited 51 heterosexual men to determine whether the attractiveness of a woman influenced their decision to practice safe sex. The researchers were building off of previous studies suggesting that the more attractive someone is, the more likely he or she is to be perceived as “healthy.” (This perception has also been documented as the “halo effect,” a psychological phenomenon in which we assume beautiful people are pure of heart, smart, and generally awesome.)


For the experiment, published in the peer-reviewed journal BMJ Open, researchers surveyed each man about his sex life, condom use, and history of sexually transmitted infections. Next, they showed the participants pictures of 20 women and asked them to the rate each woman’s attractiveness on a scale of 0 to 100, with 100 being stunningly gorgeous.


From there, the researchers went for the kill—asking the men detailed questions about each woman’s photo, including whether or not they would have sex with her, whether or not they would use a condom, whether they think other men would use a condom, and whether or not they believed the woman pictured had a sexually transmitted infection. Each answer was given on a likeliness scale of 0 to 100.


Once the researchers reviewed the data, a few notable results emerged. First, they observed that the more attractive the men found a woman, the more likely he’d be willing to have sex with her. No shock there. But they also observed that the more attractive the men found a woman, the less likely they were to report that they would use a condom during sex. But that’s not all—the men also said that other men would likely choose not to wear a condom with attractive women, too. And yet, strangely, the researchers found no association between how the men perceived a woman’s attractiveness and her likelihood of having an STI.


This logic had the researchers baffled: If men were less likely in general to wear a condom during sex with attractive women, wouldn’t attractive women be at a much greater risk for carrying an STI? And wouldn’t this, theoretically, make having sex with attractive women incredibly risky? If no one is wearing condoms, someone’s getting herpes.


This study was incredibly small, so its results should be taken with a grain of salt. But they raise one big question: Why did the men respond the way they did about condom use? The researchers believe one reason could be that “Such men might believe that attractive women take care of themselves more than less attractive women do, and therefore that they are healthier and pose less of a health risk, legitimizing their reduced condom use intentions.” Blergh.


However, previous research paints a different picture. In a 2006 study published in the Journal of Applied Social Psychology, researchers found that women rated as highly attractive are also seen as more promiscuous, and more promiscuous women are seen as more likely to have an STI, thus negating the healthy halo effect.


Basically, two competing and contradictory thought processes emerge when it comes to safe sex. The first: This person is attractive and therefore must be healthy. The second: This person is attractive and must have a lot of sex and thus is more likely to have an STI.


But get this—in a 2012 study that focused on how women practice safe sex, the same two explanations for mens’ actions emerged simultaneously, despite their contradictory nature. Researchers found that women were more likely to have unprotected sex with an attractive man, even though those same women believed more attractive men were more likely to have an STI. Wut?


Indeed, in the current study, the researchers observed a similar trend: The more a man wanted to have sex with a woman, the more risks he was will to take—which, in their highly scientific opinion, appeared “irrational.” The researchers added, “People are often fully aware of the ‘rational’ responses (in a health promotion sense), but their actual behavior does not necessarily follow suit.”


To all of this, I say—come on, people. We can’t know if someone has an STI based on their physical appearance. And we shouldn’t risk contracting a disease just because someone is “hot.” The only way to know a sexual partner’s health status is to ask—or even better, to get tested together. Because we all know what happens when we assume.


link to source





If you think you have a STD, there is something you can do about it! The only way to know for sure is to be tested.


GET TESTED NOW. SEE TESTS & PRICES



This feature is for informational purposes only and should not be used to replace the care and information received from your health care provider. Please consult a health care professional with any health concerns you may have.



Depressing study says men are less likely to wear a condom during sex with a ‘hot’ woman

Thursday, June 23, 2016

Conservative blogger advises women to be cheerful when doing housework, never ask husbands for help

Screen Shot 2016-06-23 at 11.37.53 AM

Facebook


Hey remember when women were treated like property and couldn’t own land, hold jobs, or vote, and their only option for survival was to find a husband? Yeah, those days were super shitty. Which is why the following marriage advice, doled out by a conservative blogger, made me want to pull my hair out.


Lori Alexander, who runs a blog called “Always Learning,” recently posted a handwritten note to her Facebook page about the roles of men and women in matrimony. It’s now been shared more than 58,000 times—and when you read it, you’ll see why.


( function()

var func = function()

var iframe = document.getElementById(‘wpcom-iframe-0697afe5e7fe78eeab640eb6d2131fd6’)

if ( iframe )

iframe.onload = function()

iframe.contentWindow.postMessage(

‘msg_type’: ‘poll_size’,

‘frame_id’: ‘wpcom-iframe-0697afe5e7fe78eeab640eb6d2131fd6’

, “http://fusionembeds.net” );


// Autosize iframe

var funcSizeResponse = function( e )


if ( ‘function’ === typeof window.addEventListener )

window.addEventListener( ‘message’, funcSizeResponse, false );

else if ( ‘function’ === typeof window.attachEvent )

window.attachEvent( ‘onmessage’, funcSizeResponse );



if (document.readyState === ‘complete’) func.apply(); /* compat for infinite scroll */

else if ( document.addEventListener ) document.addEventListener( ‘DOMContentLoaded’, func, false );

else if ( document.attachEvent ) document.attachEvent( ‘onreadystatechange’, func );

)();


Alexander starts with an innocuous question: “Do you expect your husband to help w/ household chores?” But her answer quickly becomes as outdated as an abacus.


“If you do, you won’t have a great marriage because expectations destroy relationships,” she writes. Which is ironic, considering the whole post is a list of expectations for wifely duties. But whatever, please continue:


If he helps great, and if not do your housework cheerfully as unto the Lord. Remember you didn’t marry your husband to help w/ the household chores. You married him to be your protector and provider. You should also have married him because you deeply loved him, wanted to be a great help meet to him, and to make his life better, not worse and put more burdens on his shoulders that he already had to carry in providing for his family. Make his life as easy and happy as you can! <3



Obviously this post sparked outrage—the “angry” Facebook reaction was heavily used. Many commenters rightfully pointed out that both men and women work today and contribute to a household’s finances, so both partners should contribute to housework as well. To this argument, Alexander responds that women should still take on the brunt of the housework because—get this—men suck at it.


Screen Shot 2016-06-23 at 11.51.24 AM

I mean, c’mon. One moment she’s praising her husband as a protector and provider and the next she’s saying he’s not even capable of washing dishes? A chore many parents assign to their 8-year-olds? As another commenter pointed out, “If a man doesn’t want to clean or help then I hope the door doesn’t get him on the way out. My husband and I BOTH work and BOTH clean. Being a husband is not an excuse to be a little boy.” Preach, girl!


While some readers did praise Alexander with comments such as “I love this,” most chided her. In fact, one glorious woman wrote, “This lady is living in a cloud and farts fairy dust.”


All of this being said, I feel empathy for Alexander. She has a right to her opinion and a right to manage her marriage the way she wants. She runs a small blog seemingly directed at like-minded conservative Christian women—so who am I to judge, when all she’s doing is sharing her thoughts with an audience who want to hear them? It’s not her fault the post went viral.


But then Alexander decided to write another post on her blog, boasting about the anger she induced. The more I read, the more my empathy waned:


Yes, I had a post go viral. It didn’t go viral because the women loved what I said in the post. It was because they hated it and it made them angry. What was this evil post? … Just sixty years ago, I could write this same post and it would be received as normal living for women … Their husbands were the ones working hard outside of the home providing a living. The women were working hard inside of the home for the family. They all knew their place in the family.



She goes on to defend her viral post and vilify feminism, claiming it ruined the world and arguing that birth control is the evil of all evils. In fact, she refers to both of these things as “Satanic inventions” and urges women to fight against them:


So my question to you, Christian women, is why have you allowed Satanic inventions to influence your life? … I hate birth control because of what it has caused—the long term consequences of it, namely 58 million babies slaughtered in the womb. I fault the feminist movement for all of the children being raised by strangers instead of their mothers, plus all of the divorces that have been perpetuated upon marriages, the confusion of roles in marriage, and the extreme wing that wants to see no differences between men and women.



But, here’s my larger issue with the whole thing: Alexander wants us to go back to a time when women weren’t allowed to be anything except wives and mothers. Which is fine, she can want that all she wants. But what she can’t do is prevent other women from not wanting that. Or tell women that if they aren’t housewives they’re going to hell (which she does frequently).


The whole point of feminism is to give women choice. If a woman wants to be a housewife and mother, great. If a woman wants to be a CEO—also great. The point is just to ensure that she isn’t shackled by a system working against her.


In the era in which Alexander is glorifying—basically the 1950s and earlier—many women couldn’t leave their husbands, even if they were unhappy or emotionally and physically abused. They were stuck—powerless and financially insolvent. Alexander may feel otherwise, but I’m damn glad to be living in an era when it’s not only appropriate but celebrated to enter into a marriage full of only the highest expectations.


link to source





If you think you have a STD, there is something you can do about it! The only way to know for sure is to be tested.


GET TESTED NOW. SEE TESTS & PRICES



This feature is for informational purposes only and should not be used to replace the care and information received from your health care provider. Please consult a health care professional with any health concerns you may have.



Conservative blogger advises women to be cheerful when doing housework, never ask husbands for help

At the historic House sit-in, one congresswoman was a voice ​for​ domestic abuse survivors everywhere

160623-domestic-abuse=-survivors

Shutterstock, FUSION


A historic sit-in on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives kicked off in the late morning on Wednesday and rolled on until 12:30 PM the next day. Throughout the 24-hour protest, congresspeople from across the country stood at the podium to share how gun violence has impacted people in their districts—but the passionate plea of Michigan Rep. Debbie Dingell in the wee hours of the morning made those watching at home sit up and listen.



Civil Rights legend and Georgia Rep. John Lewis helped organize the sit-in on behalf of House democrats frustrated by the lack of action by Republicans on any gun control legislation, particularly after a gunman slaughtered 49 people at a gay nightclub in Orlando earlier this month. As the night wore on, suit-clad congressmen and women sprawled out on the House floor as, one by one, their colleagues faced the room—and the millions watching remotely via the live video app Periscope—to share their grief. But it was Dingell whose personal exposure to domestic violence made her colleagues break into roaring applause.


Standing before the podium, Dingell shared the following:


I lived in a house with a man that should not have access to a gun. I know what it’s like to see a gun pointed at you. And wonder if you are going to live. And I know what it’s like to hide in a closet and pray to God, “Do not let anything happen to me.” And we don’t talk about it, we don’t want to say that it happens in all kinds of households, and we still live in a society where we will let a convicted felon who was stalking somebody, of domestic abuse, still own a gun.



Because of this traumatic early exposure to domestic and gun violence, Dingell has made fighting both of these societal threats two of her core issues as a congresswoman. But it wasn’t just what she said a few minutes past midnight, as people breathlessly witnessed this spectacle unfolding—it was how she said it. With a near cry in her voice, one could easily imagine Dingell as a young girl, cowering in a closet and praying for her life. It was almost as if that same scared girl was addressing one of the most powerful governing bodies in the world.


This passion moved survivors like Michelle Kinsey Bruns, a feminist activist and organizer who focuses on abortion clinic defense. Minutes after Dingell wrapped up her remarks, Bruns tweeted about her own experience with domestic violence.



“I am so grateful to Rep. Dingell for shedding a light on the role of guns in domestic abuse,” Bruns told me in an email. “No woman should have to wonder whether her partner is going to leave her children motherless. No child should have to wonder whether it’d be better to be left alive or to be killed, too, if her mother is shot dead by her abuser.”


Bruns added: “The more we talk about guns as an exacerbating factor in domestic abuse, the more we can get away from the myth of attacks in the home by strangers as a greater risk to women’s lives than their own partners. When we face that reality is when we can begin to do something about it.”

Ruth Glenn, executive director of the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence (NCADV) is also determined to do something about this issue. She called Dingell’s story “very powerful” when I spoke to her on the phone Thursday morning, just a few hours after Dingell’s moving address. “Our organization is really about survivors speaking up. We recognize as a society that survivors are the ones who can tell us [what domestic violence is really like]. Having someone like Rep. Dingell tell her story helps to dispel the narrative that this only happens to certain people. And hearing from someone as high-profile as her is so important.”


The NCADV has actively worked with Dingell and other members of Congress to help draft and push through three different bills related to domestic violence, including H.R. 3130 (the Zero Tolerance for Domestic Abusers Act), which Dingell referenced in her remarks. The goal of the bill, according to Dingell’s website, is “to protect women who are victims of domestic violence and stalking by closing loopholes that allow abusers and stalkers access to guns.” The congresswoman has worked with Senator Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota to try to get it passed—but right now, Glenn says, the bills are “just sitting.”


Perhaps that’s what motivated Dingell to take the floor, even when the congressman who introduced her claimed she wasn’t even sure she wanted to speak as part of the sit-in. She recalled telling Klobuchar, “It will never change,” in regard to the current gun laws (or lack thereof) that allow nearly anyone to purchase a gun. But then she said, “Today we showed that’s not what’s going to happen.”


As soon as Dingell took office early last year, she immediately pressured Michigan Governor Rick Snyder to veto a bill that would allow some domestic abusers to get their hands on firearms. While Dingell is the wife and successor of former representative John Dingell, who she called in her speech “a responsible gun owner,” she wasted no time during her first days in office last January making sure the bill was thrown out.


At the time, she wrote that the bill was “a formula for disaster that would endanger too many people in our communities. We must demonstrate zero tolerance for bullying or abuse; respect and implement processes that protect individual liberties, but use common sense to eliminate potential violence.”


But since then, the country has seen a slew of mass murders by gun, including the most recent massacre in Orlando. And every day, men, women, and children are killed by a gun that falls into the wrong hands.


“Anytime we talk about removing guns from abusers and limiting access to guns for abusers, I get hopeful,” Glenn said. “We need more people to step up and do something to protect future victims.”


link to source





If you think you have a STD, there is something you can do about it! The only way to know for sure is to be tested.


GET TESTED NOW. SEE TESTS & PRICES



This feature is for informational purposes only and should not be used to replace the care and information received from your health care provider. Please consult a health care professional with any health concerns you may have.



At the historic House sit-in, one congresswoman was a voice ​for​ domestic abuse survivors everywhere

Wednesday, June 22, 2016

Why French women swear by ‘cooch coaches’

160622-cooch-coach-2

Shutterstock/FUSION


Childbirth is not sexy. The process involves copious fluids, murderous screaming, and rigorous pushing that is not kind to a woman’s body. Generally, the vagina is stretched and torn so much along the way that women are left with dramatically different cooches than when they started. As a result, postpartum sex can be daunting and sneezing without peeing becomes a pipe dream.


But what if I told you it doesn’t have to be this way?


On a recent trip to Paris, I met up with an old friend—let’s call her Émilie—for drinks and much needed catching up. She had a baby about a year ago, and during our walk from the 19th arrondissement to the Canal Saint Martin, the topic of her very fit vagina came up. In fact, she said her vagina was fitter than ever—which is shocking because SHE JUST HAD A BABY. So of course I had to learn her secret.


“In France they give you a cooch coach,” she said. Excusez-moi?


A “cooch coach” is the exact term Émilie used, but the more formal term is kinésthérapeute, or physiotherapist. Following childbirth in France women undergo la rééducation périnéale (perineal reeducation), in which a physiotherapist helps transform their pelvic floor from the sloppy mess it has become back into to the tight and fit model it used to be. Since 1985, the state has been providing new moms with these vagina lessons for free because it steadfastly believes that a healthy vagina is good for both the longterm health of the mother and the sex life of the father. (If you didn’t already know, France has a universal healthcare system that is considered one of the best in the world.)


America doesn’t have a standard postnatal vaginal reeducation program because, in this country, not only does the system treat women’s health as an afterthought, but our culture has straight up vilified the vagina. Women in this country are taught that our vaginas look bad and smell bad, that periods are gross, and that, if we want our private parts to bounce back post-childbirth, we’ll need expensive vaginal rejuvenation surgery—because now it’s even grosser than it was before! But given that last year was the so-called “year of the period,” in which menstruation was celebrated like never before, perhaps this year we can take a cue from the French and finally treat postpartum vaginas as the national treasures they are. In France, postpartum vaginal care is considered a medical necessity, not a vanity project.


And French doctors have very real medical concerns. “They are terrified of organ drop in France, so they take this very seriously,” Émilie, who is American but married to a French man, told me. Organ drop happens when a pelvic organ, like your bladder, falls from its normal place and pushes against the walls of your vagina—something that can happen to women after childbirth.


Along with working to prevent organ drop, the cooch coach also works to get you back into bed with your husband as quickly as possible. For the French, sex is essential to health and happiness—and it doesn’t carry the same shame that it does in this country. Nor does becoming a mother mean forgoing one’s identity as a sexual creature. Enter: the cooch coach.


“In each of these sessions, we started by talking about how I was doing and how I was feeling,” Émilie explained to me. “We also covered my sex life, and she gave advice on how and when to re-start ‘making love.’”


The cooch coach laid out strict guidelines for Émilie’s vaginal recovery. She told my friend to start doing Kegels and abdominal exercises immediately, to not run for four months, to not play tennis nor any sports involving pivoting for six months, and to not swim until her “vagina was tight enough to where water wouldn’t go up there involuntarily.”


But these sessions weren’t just about learning: They were about doing. “We spent the majority of the sessions with her gloved fingers up my vagina while she walked me through strengthening exercises,” Émilie casually explained to me.


Sitting in her own home, with her instructor’s fingers inside her, Émilie practiced clenching before coughing; short bursts of clenching using different pelvic muscles; long, sustained clenches; clench combinations (clench fast, hold hard, release, rest, repeat); and what she called “advanced cooch maneuvers.”


The latter included closing the muscles slowly “like the petals of a flower”; closing from “front to back or back to front”; making a sphere “like you’re holding a bubble”; performing “corkscrews” with the muscles; clenching the vagina, then the anus, then releasing the vagina, then the anus; and finally a zig-zag clench going up and down, right, left, right left.


After hearing it all, I understood a little better why the cooch coach has her fingers up there. I mean, who really knows how to make a sphere like a bubble? I know I don’t.


When not using her fingers, the cooch coach can also use a sonde—known as a “biofeedback device”—which is basically like a little dildo that’s hooked up to a computer and can read your internal contractions. The process sounds pretty terrifying, but so is a lifetime of incontinence and painful sex. A sonde can be key to figuring out your weak spots.


While this all may seem like an unnecessary ordeal—old lady fingers and dildos—the benefits are real. Émilie says she’s had no problems with urinary incontinence since giving birth, and her cooch coach even identified a serious problem she may have otherwise missed.


“At one point, I told her it was painful to make love, so she poked around and figured out where it was painful, did an exam, and concluded I had an infection on my stitches,” Émile explained, adding that the whole thing was taken care of in about a week (and it was all free). If she hadn’t been taking the lessons, she doesn’t think the infection would have been found.


“Without her, I would have just thought that painful sex was the new normal, and I would have avoided having sex, while letting an infection linger,” she said. “For the French, it isn’t normal for sex to be painful after about 10 or 12 weeks post-birth, so if it is, they take it really seriously.”


Émilie isn’t the first to rave about these miraculous French cooch coaches. In 2010, The New York Times noted that “Weeks after giving birth, French women are offered a state-paid, extended course of vaginal gymnastics, complete with personal trainer, electric stimulation devices and computer games that reward particularly nimble squeezing.” The program is all meant to lead to more sex and more babies.


In 2013, Ruth Foxe Blader, also writing for the Times, described the outcome of her own cooch coach experience in France, years after giving birth:


Four years later, I can say with confidence that the exercises, far more extensive than the standard Kegels that American gynecologists mention offhandedly, worked. Unlike in the United States, where a hypermedicalized pregnancy is followed by a perfunctory six-week follow-up, in France women aren’t left treading water in a sea of untold postnatal soreness. Many of my American friends have struggled with incontinence. But even a subsequent childbirth has failed to destroy my rock-hard perineum.



In addition, as Émilie—whose whole pregnancy cost her nothing—recounted, the state also sends a person out to check on the baby, perform exams, make sure new moms and dads know what they’re doing, and check for signs of postnatal depression. This is in addition to the 10 to 20 vagina lessons provided. For comparison, the average cost of an uncomplicated vaginal delivery in the U.S. in 2008 was $9,600—just for the hospital visit.


So why aren’t American women at least exposed to this type of training? In this country, most new moms receive a six-week checkup, possibly a Kegel brochure (if they’re lucky), and they’re sent on their merry way. On the Mayo Clinic’s website for postpartum care, it tells new moms, “You might also ask about Kegel exercises to help tone your pelvic floor muscles” during the six-week checkup, as if it’s something that maybe, if you’re not too busy, you should consider. Nowhere does it suggest committing to 10 or 20 dedicated perineal training sessions.


“Despite the occasional embarrassment, these sessions actually work,” wrote Claire Lundberg for Slate about her own pregnancy in France. Adding, “Americans’ lack of attention to the female body after giving birth is our own version of the modesty gown.”


Indeed, the regimen isn’t just cultural hearsay—studies have shown that perineal training is highly beneficial for women with pelvic floor dysfunction such as urinary incontinence, pelvic floor dyssynergia, or pelvic organ prolapse. While most studies haven’t been conducted on pregnant women or women who’ve just given birth, the therapy targets many of the problems women suffer from post-pregnancy. And in a study that did involve pregnant women, Swedish researchers found that, among 855 participants, pelvic floor muscle training led by physiotherapists during the second trimester greatly helped with “urinary and anal incontinence in late pregnancy.”


And here’s the kicker: One study that looked at the literature on postpartum pelvic floor exercises from 1966 to 2002 concluded that “Postpartum pelvic floor exercises, when performed with a vaginal device providing resistance or feedback, appear to decrease postpartum urinary incontinence and to increase strength.” Simply doing Kegels, on the other hand, as American doctors recommend, was “ineffective in preventing postpartum urinary incontinence.”


Bottom line? Even French vaginas are more glamorous.


link to source





If you think you have a STD, there is something you can do about it! The only way to know for sure is to be tested.


GET TESTED NOW. SEE TESTS & PRICES



This feature is for informational purposes only and should not be used to replace the care and information received from your health care provider. Please consult a health care professional with any health concerns you may have.



Why French women swear by ‘cooch coaches’

How To Flirt With New Emojis in iOS 9.1

flirting-with-new-ios-emojis


There are so many new ways to ask your crush or significant other to Netflix and Chill with all the new iOS 9.1 emojis. They may seem innocent at first glance, but they are full of sexual innuendos perfect for flirting or sexting. Here’s a guide to 20 of the new frisky, teasing emojis to help you out:



chemistry-emoji-2


  • Use the alembic emoji to let someone know that you can feel the chemistry between you. Don’t be afraid to talk nerdy when you talk dirty!

candle-emoji-2


  • Let your partner know that the mood has been set with the candle emoji. The candle is practically equivalent to rose petals– add it with a bathtub emoji. They’ll get the hint!

hugging-emoji-2


  • This “hugging face” emoji is ready to grope the hell out of you. Kinda creepy, kinda endearing. Use with caution.

crab-emoji-2


  • The crab emoji is perfect for letting your partner know you have crabs, aka pubic lice, and that they should get tested. Yikes! Also, great for gals who are PMSing; let guys know you’re crabby and that now is NOT a good time.

thermometer-emoji-2


  • Turn up the heat! The thermometer emoji will almost instantly get Nelly’s “Hot in Herre” playing in your heads, and you will be taking off your clothes.

wind-face-emoji


  • As if the wind-blowing face emoji is supposed to be used for weather updates. No, we all know what it’s really meant for. Here’s a hint!

chains-emoji


  • Into freaky, kinky stuff? The chains emoji is here for you! Alternatively, it can be added to conversations about 2 Chainz for obvious reasons.

champagne-bottle-emoji


  • The champagne bottle with the cork popping out: There has never been a more relevant emoji to depict an orgasm. Ever. Ta-da!

spy-emoji-2


  • Let your partner know you are digging into their Facebook past or personal history with the spy emoji. Or use the spy emoji to let them know that you want to see STD test results before Netflix and chill goes down.

popcorn-emoji-2


  • Hello, Netflix and chill, we introduce to you the popcorn emoji!

couch-emoji


  • The ultimate Netflix and chill emoji is the new couch and lamp emoji! Add it with a film or movie emoji and the popcorn emoji for the ultimate effect!

hot-pepper-emoji-2


  • The hot pepper emoji is great for letting someone know you think they’re hot or for showing your partner you what to spice things up!

control-knobs-emoji


  • Know how to push all the right buttons? Use the control know emoji to let your crush know too!

shield-emoji-2


  • Let your partner know you have protection or to bring protection (from STDs and pregnancy) with the shield emoji! Safety first!

joystick-emoji-2


  • Few things are as aptly named for sexual innuendos as the joystick. The joystick emoji can certainly take over the eggplant emoji’s role. C’mon, we all know the eggplant emoji is never used to signify you love a vegan healthy meal.

hole-emoji-2


  • The hole emoji– where you insert the joystick emoji. Yep.

biohazard-emoji-2


  • Tell your partner to get tested for STDs and STIs with the biohazard emoji. Can be used to alongside our anonymous STD test notifier that sends texts or emails.

hot-dog-emoji


  • The hot dog emoji is now the most fitting food emoji to represent a penis. So there’s that.

bed-emoji-2


  • The ultimate bow-chicka-wow-wow emoji of them all is the bed emoji! Add a simple “You + Me =” equation before it and you are set!

motor-boat-emoji


  • The motor boat emoji is self-explanatory when used as a verb. Pair it with the hugging face emoji for hilarity and to get your love of boobs across.

The post How To Flirt With New Emojis in iOS 9.1 appeared first on STD Exposed – Sexual Health Blog.


link to source





If you think you have a STD, there is something you can do about it! The only way to know for sure is to be tested.


GET TESTED NOW. SEE TESTS & PRICES



This feature is for informational purposes only and should not be used to replace the care and information received from your health care provider. Please consult a health care professional with any health concerns you may have.



How To Flirt With New Emojis in iOS 9.1

Tuesday, June 21, 2016

Study reveals that women are literally working themselves to death

160621-worked2death

Elena Scotti/FUSION


Long workweeks and copious amounts of stress aren’t good for anyone’s health, but new research has found that workweeks of 40 hours or more can be especially bad for women—and the reason why is depressing.


Pulling data from the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth, researchers from The Ohio State University and Mayo Clinic tracked the work and health histories of 7,492 men and women over the course of 32 years. The purpose of the study was to determine how full-time jobs affect our health over a long period of time, and whether gender plays a role. For the study, researchers looked specifically at eight conditions: heart disease, failure, or other heart problems; cancer of any kind (except skin); arthritis; diabetes; chronic lung disease; asthma; depression; and high blood pressure.


After analyzing the data, the researchers discovered that working long hours (40+ or 51+ hours per week) was significantly associated with elevated risks for four types of the chronic conditions:


  • Heart disease risk was elevated for people working 51 or more hours per week.

  • Non-skin cancer risk was elevated for people working 51 or more hours per week.

  • Arthritis risk was elevated for people working 40 or more hours per week.

  • Diabetes was more likely to be reported by people who worked more than 40 hours per week.

But when the researchers broke the findings down by gender, they found a startling correlation: The health risks associated with long workweeks were much greater for women than men.


“For men, long hour work appeared only to affect the risk of contracting arthritis. No adverse effects were found for other conditions,” explain the researchers in the study. “In fact, working moderately long hours (41 or 50 hours per week) was actually associated with less risk of contracting heart disease, chronic lung disease, or depression.”


For women, on the other hand, the side effects of working long hours were much more dire. For example, working 60 or more hours per week tripled the risk of diabetes, cancer, heart trouble, and arthritis in women. The researchers also found an association between hypertension and asthma among women working 51 to 60 hours per week.


So why do long hours take a different toll on the body based on gender? Before you shout “women are the weaker sex,” consider this: The researchers hypothesize that one reason women are experiencing more adverse health affects is because, beyond carrying a full-time job, women are also saddled with the brunt of housework and childrearing—what many sociologists refer to as the “second shift”—which increases their work time and stress levels.


“Research indicates women generally assume greater family responsibilities and thus may be more likely to experience inter-role conflict and overload compared to men,” explain the researchers. “Therefore, when women work long hours, they may experience more time pressure and stress than men, and their health consequently might be more affected by working long hours, especially when considered over a long timeframe.” (A commercial out of India released earlier this year highlighted this second shift beautifully.)


Another stressor that women are more likely to face is exposure to “negative psychosocial work characteristics” in the workplace, explain the researchers. These negative characteristics can include experiencing a lack of control, a lack of learning opportunities, a lack of upward mobility leading to job monotony, and a greater likelihood of being placed in jobs with low substantive complexity. This refers to how much intellectual and cognitive functioning is needed to perform a job. In a nutshell, jobs afforded to women may be unsatisfying and rife with sexist obstacles.


“Working long hours increases women’s exposure to these negative work characteristics, which might contribute to their overall burden of impaired health and chronic disease,” write the researchers. It’s worth noting that women in this study were tracked from 1978 to 2009, when the glass ceiling was even harder to break than it is now.


So not only do women have to take on most domestic duties in addition to their full-time job, but their full-time job may not be as rewarding as it is for men. That’s what you call a lose-lose. So how do we fix it?


The obvious answer is for employers to treat women equally—and for women to find a partner with whom they can share household and childrearing responsibilities. But the authors also suggest that employers can help by implementing social policies that specifically help unload the burden women face working double duty. This can include scheduling flexibility, childcare programs, more paid time off for maternity leave, the ability to work from home, and more paid sick leave.


Indeed, we’ve already seen how parents struggle more in the U.S. than any other country in the Western world, in large part because America doesn’t have as many social policies in place to help them juggle work, life, and family. Considering women in the U.S. still do most of the childrearing, it’s no wonder women are also suffering more when it comes to longterm health.


On that note, I’d like to formally take this moment to pitch a four-day workweek—for science, of course.


link to source





If you think you have a STD, there is something you can do about it! The only way to know for sure is to be tested.


GET TESTED NOW. SEE TESTS & PRICES



This feature is for informational purposes only and should not be used to replace the care and information received from your health care provider. Please consult a health care professional with any health concerns you may have.



Study reveals that women are literally working themselves to death

Women who groom more earn more—so where are the tax breaks for makeup?

160620-makeup-money

Shutterstock, Elena Scotti/FUSION



When I was growing up, my fierce, feminist mother had one piece of advice she always hammered home: “If you wear makeup, people will be nicer to you.” At the time this sentiment felt inconsistent with everything I believed in—equality, inner beauty, infrequent eyebrow plucking—and would fill me with endless teenage rage. Now that I am in my early 30s, I see this advice for what it actually is: A mother’s desire to see her child gain entrance into a world of privilege, both professional and personal, unfairly given to those who know how to get themselves done up.



Recently, a controversial study from researchers at the University of Chicago and the University of California-Irvine confirmed this hypothesis when it revealed that women who wear makeup at work and groom more thoroughly also tend to make more money. But if the benefits of grooming are so obvious, and the wage bump so quantifiable, what does this mean for those unable to afford monthly sprees at Sephora? Why, despite all the progress our society has made, are we still living like it’s survival of the prettiest? And given all of these realities, shouldn’t women get tax breaks for cosmetics?


Most of us learn early that attractive people get unfair advantages in life, from better grades to shorter prison sentences. But the new study, published in the journal Research in Social Stratification and Mobility, points specifically to the outsized effects grooming can have on women’s perceived professionalism and abilities—and as a result, our earning potential. There’s no doubt men are also judged by their appearance in the workforce; however, the study finds that, for women, “most of the attractiveness advantage comes from being well groomed,” while for men, “only about half of the effect of attractiveness is due to grooming.” The rest is up to genetics. As The Washington Post reported, the study also found that less attractive “but more well-groomed women earned significantly more, on average, than attractive or very attractive women who weren’t considered well-groomed.” BUMMER.


According to a rep I spoke with at Mint.com, an online budgeting tool, in 2015 users spent $1.5 billion on grooming. But analysts in California, which is actively trying to combat gendered pricing, place makeup usage and grooming costs in America at $1,351 per person per year. The state was the first to ban the so-called “the pink tax,” a term used to describe the extra cash women are charged for goods and services such as clothing, personal care products, even vehicle maintenance. For perspective, the median salary of a female worker in the U.S. is $39,621—so going by California’s numbers, the average woman’s grooming costs may make up roughly 3% of her income. And what about the worker who makes $28,000 working two part time jobs? She’s at even more of a disadvantage.


For more insight, I called up Betsey Stevenson, an associate professor of public policy at the Gerald R. Ford School of Public Policy at the University of Michigan, and President Obama’s chief economist from 2010 to 2011. Stevenson likened the pressure-to-prettify to a war of attrition in which essentially everyone loses.


“Women in the workplace are trying to balance two visions of themselves,” she told me. “The vision in which they’re taught how to make themselves attractive to the opposite sex versus how to make themselves be taken seriously.” Part of this schism, she said, plays out as a sort of lose-lose competition among co-workers. “Economists talk about efforts [like grooming] as an arms race,” she said. “There’s no real returns. It’s all completely superficial. If you spend a lot of time grooming, then your colleagues are going to want to spend a lot of time grooming because they are going to want to be assessed similarly, and the next thing you know we’re all spending an hour getting ready in the morning. That’s the standard economist thinking—that it’s wasteful, and we all would be better off if we committed to doing no grooming.”


Stevenson, however, sees a silver lining to the perks of grooming—namely, that it can allow those less attractive to game the system. “I think most economists have seen the studies that say attractiveness is a trait that’s stable over time, but that seems somewhat silly to me. … I see [the latest findings] as a somewhat optimistic thing. What this study is trying to point out is that just like how some are born smarter than others—if you work hard and get a good education there’s a return, regardless of what you’re born with—that might also true of attractiveness.”


Both sexes benefit from work grooming, but, as is true of other aspects of life, women still distinctly get the shorter end of the stick. Kate Bahn, an economist at the Center for American Progress and co-creator of Lady Economist, a feminist economics blog, broke down some of the numbers for me. She explained that in the latest study, the median salary for a well-groomed woman of average attractiveness was $30,000, while the median salary for a well-groomed man of average attractiveness was $40,000. While this pay gap is not shocking, given that women still make only 79 cents for every dollar men make, it turns out that men also reap greater rewards when they groom—according to the study, well-groomed men receive a 12.5% salary bump, whereas well-groomed women received a 7% wage salary bump. And on top of that, women tend to spend more on grooming products than men do. The sad truth, Bahn says? For women, grooming is less a ticket to getting ahead than a necessary part of work culture.


So if makeup is directly linked to career success and part of the “unofficial” professional uniform for women, shouldn’t we get to deduct it on our taxes—just like a regular uniform?


“How big an answer do you want?” chuckled Fred Giertz, a professor of economics emeritus at the Institute of Government and Public Affairs at University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign. “There’s a theoretical argument about why it should be, but there’s also a legal [reason as to] why it isn’t. The basic argument is that if you have to undergo costs to earn a living, those kind of costs should be deducted because you incur a ‘cost of doing business.’” One example Giertz gives is if a factory worker has to wear safety shoes or a helmet that his company refuses to pay for. “That really reduces the benefits you’re getting from your wages,” explains Giertz. Essentially, you would have to demonstrate that you can only use these things for your job and not outside of it. So, “if you’re a nightclub entertainer and have to wear a sequined tuxedo and you would never wear a sequined tuxedo anyplace else, you could probably deduct that.” When it comes to makeup, you can deduct it as a work expense, he says, but only if you’re working “as a female impersonator in a nightclub” or “maybe being an entertainer or a clown or something.”


However, Giertz did share some good news: If your cosmetic costs exceed 2% of your annual income, it is possible to get this deduction from the IRS—if you don’t mind taking a gamble and listing it under the nebulous “other expenses” column. Grooming products also might pass as a deduction if you are unemployed and you consider them a job-hunt necessity and don’t mind explaining this to the tax man in the event that you are audited. So there’s that.


Daniel Hamermesh, a professor in economics at Royal Holloway University of London, professor emeritus at the University of Texas at Austin, and author of Beauty Pays: Why Attractive People Are More Successful, thinks that the benefits of makeup in the workplace are somewhat overstated. It’s mostly about the confidence they instill, he told me, and at the end of the day the key is to look natural but not go too far with it. “I call this the Tammy Faye Baker factor,” said Hamermesh. “Too much makeup and you get negative returns. “


Hamermesh doesn’t deny beauty plays a part in workplace favoritism, but believes that the U.S. and Western Europe have made significant progress when it comes to enacting anti-discrimination policies that help level the playing field. However, certain aspects of looks-based favoritism may be so ingrained in our culture they may be difficult to expunge. “As much as we can [try to] outlaw advertising, it’s very hard to prevent people who are doing the hiring from reacting to looks, and, to some extent, to makeup.“


Last year, Kirsten Dellinger, the chair of the sociology department at the University of Mississippi, published a study titled Makeup at Work: Negotiating Appearance Rules in the Workplace, which explored the professional dynamics of makeup in America. The results shocked her. “The themes regarding makeup’s association with meanings of health, heterosexuality, and credibility came up in many interviews,” she told me. “I think I was most surprised by how common it was for people to report having others comment on their appearances—[negatively] when they were not wearing makeup or positively when they were wearing makeup. I was also surprised with my finding that resistance was not easy. Often people consider makeup to be a trivial ‘choice,’ but to some extent, it seemed to be an informal requirement in many workplace contexts.”


Kristin is one the few scholars I spoke with who seem to see the workplace makeup bias as a genuine problem—and one that needs solving. “I think that recognizing that ‘dress and appearance norms’ are gendered and sexualized phenomena is the first step. The more we see women in all work contexts without makeup (as well as with it), the more normal that will seem.” Kristen also believes that “more conversations about the unintended consequences of everyday appearance norms would be helpful in many workplaces. Perhaps a range of workers who are negatively impacted by gendered and sexualized dress norms—men with facial hair, trans men or women, and women who do not wear makeup—could work together to shed light on how this matters to them.”


The real (and unfortunate) issue is that none of these workplace standards are on-the-books legal requirements, so therefore, none are subject to law changes or even tax perks. But on the other hand, the fuzziness that surrounds whether makeup is a requirement or a choice also means that if you’re willing to stand up and demand makeup and grooming as a workplace expense, and can stand strong if potentially audited, the sky is the limit.


link to source





If you think you have a STD, there is something you can do about it! The only way to know for sure is to be tested.


GET TESTED NOW. SEE TESTS & PRICES



This feature is for informational purposes only and should not be used to replace the care and information received from your health care provider. Please consult a health care professional with any health concerns you may have.



Women who groom more earn more—so where are the tax breaks for makeup?