* The New Gay is looking for stories of people affected by a lack of ENDA. "Fired from your job for being gay, lesbian, bi or trans? Do you feel that no one cares about your lack of livelihood born from our governments systematic betrayal of its own people? Now you can do something about it," TNG writes. File your stories here.

* Fugitivus on sex work:

Theoretically, I don’t have a problem with sex work. I don’t think there’s anything inherently, fundamentally wrongdirtybad with sex as a job, or sex for pay. But that’s based on a concept of sex work in a vacuum, and we don’t live in a vacuum. We live in a patriarchy. And sex work situated within a patriarchal world is inevitably swimming in a pool of wrongdirtybad, and anything tagged with the wrongdirtybad brush becomes fair game for serious violations of humanity.

On the one hand, since my ideal vision of the world doesn’t differentiate sex work from any other kind of work, it seems like that should be the thing I’m working toward. I “should” be the kind of feminist that is all on board for decriminalization or legalization, or normalizing the sex trades so they’re not a dirty stigmatized mess — and often I feel bad that I’m not more so. On the other hand, I work in a profession where I frequently see young girls who have been trafficked and exploited, and/or mothers who have had to prostitute themselves in order to feed their children, and their desperation has usually caused them to be exploited as well. Some of the abuses I see surrounding exploited sex work are so heinous that it’s very difficult not to come away with a “SHUT IT ALL DOWN” view of sex work. And yet, I know it’s not something that can be shut down, not now, not ever. I often just don’t feel like my brain is large enough to find a way to integrate some of the worst horrors I’ve ever seen with a utopic vision of positive, healthy sexuality. I don’t know how to overcome my revulsion of abuse long enough to separate the tools (which are not inherently abusive) from the abusive people who are handling them. At some point, they just seem practically, realistically fused together, even if conceptually I know they aren’t.

* Speaking of: Last month, D.C. police busted six people for solicitation [PDF] at 2121 P St. NW.

* Westboro Baptist Church turns its attentions to Lady Gaga.

*Metro Weekly takes a local angle on Chinese counterfeit condoms lubricated with vegetable oil, featuring FUK!T Campaign leader Dan O'Neill:

''When you have counterfeited items, like your Louis Vuitton bags and what have you, at the end of the day, that's not great. But here, when one's life is put at risk,'' [O'Neill] says. ''This has real implications in that it undermines the public's trust in these products.

''What we don't want, or what would be terrible, is if people are just trying to get a deal and at the end of the day they just totally abandon their trust in using condoms altogether, thinking, 'Why bother?'''

In Jennifer Senior's New York Magazine piece on recent research into the joylessness of parenting, Senior recalls a time when her beloved 2-year-old son dismantled a wooden garage then proceeded to chuck the wooden planks at her head, leading Senior to turn to booze. But does it make her happy?

Signs point to no! According to Senior, "a wide variety of academic research shows that parents are not happier than their childless peers, and in many cases are less so." Duh, right? While joyless parenting may constitute a newfangled field of research, that whole joyless motherhood thing has been racking up its share of anecdotal evidence for quite some time. In the Atlantic, Sady Doyle recounts 60 years of its horrors: Simone de Beauvoir's observation that "the child is merely harassing and bothersome"; Adrienne Rich's assertion that children cause "the most exquisite suffering"; Mary McCarthy's fictional mother feeling that, "to her shame, [the baby] was a piece of hospital property that had been dumped on her and abandoned—they would never come to take him away."

Feeling soulless yet? What this edition of Sexist Beatdown needs is a couple of fancy-free non-parents who have not yet been trampled by the misery of child-rearing! So join Sady of Tiger Beatdown and I as we discuss the Stockholm syndrome of baby-making, the luxuries of upper-class depression, and the quiet despair we are told we will forever regret not having!

SADY: Hello, fellow non-parent! Enjoying your non-parental non-miserable lifestyle yet? Because I sure am!

AMANDA: God, I am too. I plan on enjoying it until I have children too late in life, at which point memories of my blissful childless years will only contribute to my ultimate unhappiness.

SADY: If only we were all having children immediately after leaving our parents' homes! Surely this would alleviate our misery. Also, it would help if we were not so rich and successful. This makes it harder for us, unlike the lower classes and immigrants, who simply take these bodily matters of procreation in stride. POOR PEOPLE: Not at all subject to undue stress in the matter of having kids!

AMANDA: Indeed. It is so very taxing to have the time to dote over our own happiness.

SADY: The thing is, I don't think that the news that raising children can be stressful IS NEWS. Like 74% of second-wave feminists were talking about how grueling it is to raise children, and/or to have that as your primary responsibility.

AMANDA: Haha. And now that it's shared, people are suddenly all like, "Should we even be doing this?"

SADY: Right? Like, "wow. It turns out this is HARD. Who knew?

AMANDA: "Who" indeed! I do find these studies of happiness interesting, but I find it strange that people are looking for some sort of definitive answer from them: Like, Everyone procreate! Or, Condoms!

SADY: Right. I mean: "Happiness Studies," in and of itself, which I hear is actually a growing field, is strange. We can measure what makes people happy or unhappy, but ultimately I guess I'm with Senior on this point: Are we questioning what role "happiness" plays in our life choices? I mean, I have recently come to feel that I might not want kids, but this has to do with the fact that I am (a) poor, and (b) high-strung. I can't get a dog without Googling care instructions obsessively and researching what sort of terrible ailments might wind up killing it. But was "happiness" what people had children for, ever, anyway? Maybe the issue isn't that "parenting has changed"—because it seems to have changed most fundamentally in terms of who has to do it—but that we EXPECT "happiness" from popping one out in a way we didn't use to.

AMANDA: Right. I think the happiness part is some new-agey conception of raising children. It's important to remember that joy aside, the fact is that now a lot of people get to choose whether they have children or not, and if so, when. And so it becomes much more of a quality-of-life question than a biological-necessity one. And so I think it's fair to expect that you do the thing that you think will make you the happiest. But there's also a lot of fear-mongering about that, because of that whole ovary-loss thing. So people are like, "If you don't have kids now, you will never be happy and you'll regret it for the rest of your life!" And people on the other end are like, "Once you pop it out, there's no turning back! Life-ruiner!" When, actually, I bet that a lot of people could find meaningful, happy lives doing either of those things.

SADY: Yeah. I mean, women are so, so frequently scared out of, like, LIVING, or doing anything other than having children ASAP, because they're told that their fertility is evaporating and they'll be unhappy forever if they don't have babies. And I think it's worth noting that a ton of the parents interviewed, who were speaking most directly about being unhappy and frustrated, were women. Men in that article were mostly "experts," even if they were also fathers.

AMANDA: Right, I think there is some stat in there that women are on the whole less happy. Which, you know, probably has something to do with that whole "shared parenting" thing not being completely shared, and the general added expectations placed on mothers. One of my favorite parts of the story was the suggestion that you "always regret the things you didn't do, not the things you did do." Like, why does the "thing I do" have to be having babies? There are plenty of things I won't be doing if I end up having kids.

SADY: Haha, yeah. "I will never regret not having children, when I die because my child threw boards at me and one of them had a nail in it and it punctured my skull and killed me." But I'm also wondering if being told that children are the KEY TO HAPPINESS (if you are a woman) has to do with the disappointment (among women) that children don't auto-fulfill you? I mean, Simone de Beauvoir talked about this. Her whole deal was that women are told having children will fulfill them, and then it doesn't, and then they hate their children. Her solution: Make something else in your life more important than getting pregnant?

AMANDA: But there's nothing more important than hating your kids! If you never do that, you will regret it for the rest of your life!

SADY: It's true. You'll never regret hating your kids as much as you'll regret not hating them. It is fun to think about fathers in all this, though. I mean, I like to imagine they're at least MARGINALLY more involved in dealing with the poop and the breaking things and the eighteen years of college prep these kids are all being put through now.

AMANDA: Right. The story did mention that the most unhappy parents of all were those who were the non-custodial parent (mostly fathers). So having a kid and not raising it? Depressed for life. Having a kid and raising it too much? Also depressed—single parents and moms in general were less happy. Solution: Move to Norway?

SADY: Right. I, predictably, DID enjoy the part where they were all like, "maybe if we had state-sponsored child care?" "Also, longer maternity leave helps?" Like: All of these things that feminists are advocating FOR WOMEN would actually make parents' lives easier, in the long run. OR, you could just live a life of heedless wanton non-impregnated self-satisfaction. Until you die, and there is no-one who will visit you at the nursing home. Except for that one robot seal thing.

AMANDA: Right. I mean, is that the whole point of it? That someone will be there to care when I die? That seems to be the last-ditch explanation when I press people on why this is necessary. I'm guessing it's more like a Stockholm syndrome thing.

SADY: Yeah. Probably. We love our tiny oppressors!

AMANDA: The baby captors stole our happiness! Join us!

Photo via Smithsonian Institution

* My Sex Professor's Debby Herbenick on a condom-distribution program at a Provincetown, Mass. elementary school.

The new policy allows for the distribution but apparently requires that children/young teenagers speak with a school nurse or counselor before they can receive a condom, an aspect of the policy that not everyone agreed with due to concerns that the conversation may be a barrier for some to asking for a condom. However, as their elementary school education class does not instruct on how to use a condom, this aspect of the policy may provide that type of information—and other types of conversations/counseling that I would hope any concerned adult would ask someone who is that young and either sexually active or thinking of becoming sexually active.

* Alyssa Rosenberg takes a hard line on actresses who coast on an "America's Sweetheart" reputation when dabbling in terrible and misogynistic dreck: "there ought to be genuine penalties for making rotten movies, particularly ones in which smart actresses debase themselves to turn in rotten portrayals of their fellow women."

* Via Holla Back DC!, former Holla Back intern and D.C. 11th grader Brittnie Smith has written an op-ed at the Examiner on sexual harassment and assault on public transportation:

Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA) doesn’t do a good job on meeting the needs of women’s safety. From April 2009-March 2010 Holla Back DC! has received thirty-two reports of verbal sexual harassment, twelve reports of groping, (four of which were thigh grabs), four reports of physical assault, four reports of stalking, and three reports of public masturbation on public transportation. There were five incidents that were reported to either WMATA officials and/or the police. Out of the five cases, there was only one positive response, which led to the perpetrator’s arrest. This incident causes women to feel more fear than security when taking public transportation in DC.

* s.e. smith at FWD/Forward on the limitations of anti-discrimination legislation.

* Cara Kulwicki at the Curvature questions the U.S. government's reluctance to bankroll an end to prison rape:

the answer to the supposedly burning question isn’t difficult—the federal government needs to give prisons more money to specifically address this problem. Though not up to wardens to address, I think it’s worth pointing out that we’d have lots of money to spend on the issue if we stopped senselessly incarcerating people like non-violent drug offenders. And it’s definitely worth mention that we don’t have a big issue with spending money on prisons to begin with. The prison industrial complex is big, big business—and while $1 billion sure is a lot of money, it’s chump change compared to what we pour into incarcerating people every year. At around a mere 2% of what is being spent already, a whole lot of people—who we insist on locking up against all logic and reason—could be a hell of a lot safer. So what, exactly, is the problem?

Photo via Augapfel, Creative Commons Attribution License 2.0

FUK!T, a D.C.-based initiative that supports condom use among gay men, has produced a spoof of old-school sex-ed films in an effort to promote modern safe-sex practices—just in time for D.C.'s Capital Pride. Delivering the message are porn stars Brent Corrigan and Matthew Rush, who administer advice on condoms and lubes, deliver campy bon mots, and do their best coach-and-student routine as the camera lingers on Corrigan's penis (in this version, censored with a yellow smiley face). FUK!T—short for "fuck kit"—began distributing packages of condoms with lube at clubs and other businesses around D.C. after staggering reports of D.C.'s HIV epidemic were released last year. An uncensored version of "Brent's Oral Exam"—along with plenty more explicit penis-in-condom shots—are available on the organization's website.

The Informer paraphrases West-Ojo: "During a time when the nation and popular culture appear to accept open relationships or 'hook ups,' West-Ojo said Black women in the District must be more conservative." West-Ojo added: "Everybody can have these open relationships, but it's not a safe environment to have those kinds of relationships in D.C."

Photo via Trygve.u, Creative Commons Attribution License 2.0

* Andrea Plaid takes on Trojan's new hip-hop centered Magnum condom campaign, "Magnum Live Large," and how it reinforces the "ye olde black male penis myth" [via Feministing]:

The campaign is an great idea, considering the epidemic-level stats on HIV and Black cis and trans women and, as my friend sexologist Bianca Laureano said, “especially in the hip-hop community where ‘I like it raw’ is still prominent.”

I am wondering, though, about the racialized sexual stereotypes undergirding and getting perpetuating by this, namely that mainstay of black sex-negative imagery, the Big Black Penis.

* Fuck you, LOST! Ahem. This is pretty interesting, however: Bitch Magazine crunches the numbers on race and death throughout the series.

* Emily Nagoski talks trials and tribulations of dating as a sex educator:

it’s hard to date when you’re a “sexpert” (hideous word). I mean, at what point in a new relationship is it appropriate to tell a guy that you’ve written a guide about fellatio? How early can you talk about orgasms and lubrication and the miracle that is cervical mucus? How early in a relationship is too early to use the word mucus? . . . It appears you can’t talk to any guy you’ve just met about sex—even about sex research—without giving him the wrong impression.

* On I Blame the Patriarchy, lessons learned from true crime documentary television:

(a) If a man targets you on Craigslist and murders you, remember that the really shocking thing to television producers will be the "photos of dead women in porn outfits."

(b) Sex work is only safe if you are working at the direction of a pimp. "So ladies, remember; if you’re gonna work the classier hotels, you’d better get yourself a pimp to “protect” you. Otherwise you might come down with a terminal case of slain masseuse."

* Sociological Images on Shape magazine: Kim Kardashian is confident with her body. Readers: Don't learn how to get confident—learn how to get a body just like Kim's!:

It’s another example of articles that pretend to be presenting an alternative to beauty standards/Hollywood ideals (be confident! Even stars have cellulite! So what?!?) but ultimately reinforce them, both by presenting images in which the featured women’s bodies differ little from those seen in the rest of the magazine and by making sure you know how to diet and exercise in order to get  your body to conform.

Photo via Thirteen of Clubs, Creative Commons Attribution License 2.0

* SAFER Campus asks why reproductive coercion—or birth control sabotage—ain't criminalized yet. One woman shares her story, naturally, on Facebook:

A recent event has caused me to question [what] it means to be sexually assaulted . . . While sleeping with a guy [he] decided to take off the condom without me realizing it and when he was fingering me he pulled out my nuvaring without telling me. I saw [my]  nuvaring on the ground and he admittedly told me that he had pulled it out. The next day I wrote Eric an email asking him to never contact me again.

I think that birth control sabotage should absolutely be considered sexual assault; consenting to one sex act doesn't imply consenting to all of them, and consenting to sex with and without a condom are two very different things. (Just in the interest of clarification: You can remove the NuvaRing for up to three hours and still be prevented from pregnancy).

* Alyssa Rosenberg is eager for Hollywood to write some gay love stories that aren't expressly political.

* Violet Blue points us to "Super Sexy CPR," a video that uses super porny imagery to teach the elements CPR. Perfect for the next time you need to resuscitate a lingerie model, but sexily.

* My Sex Professor gives you a primer on incorporating the foot into your sex life.

* Nerve ranks the sexiest women and men of LOST. You fools are so wrong about Eloise.

* Susannah Breslin with a great essay on Max Hardcore, the porn giant currently imprisoned on obscenity charges:

I had seen Max’s movies. I found them terrifically depressing. To be clear, I have seen many, many (far too many, really, come to think of it) movies that fall into the explicit, depraved, and explicitly depraved category. I’ve seen cophrophagy porn, senior citizen porn, a porn in which Ron Jeremy appeared as a baby in an adult diaper and a bonnet, midget porn, world-record setting gangbang porn (I was present for one of those, and it’s hard to say which was worse), so-called “ready to drop” pregnancy porn, and a movie in which a series of young women had sex with men and then promptly threw up onto a black tarp spread over a sagging bed after taking what I assumed to be Ipecac. Suffice to say, it takes a lot to shock this reporter when it comes to porn movies. Max’s movies aren’t shocking — not most significantly. They are sad. Everyone suffers. No one is happy. If joy is located at one end of the spectrum, this is where its opposite resides. This is the monstrous mating of unfulfilled longing and untenable hate. Their progeny: an abomination.

(Unconvinced? Try this.)

Photo by Darrow Montgomery

* The Abortioneers ask: Why can't anti-abortion activists get along?

A grumpy anti and a soft-spoken priest [were] protesting at the same clinic.

Priest was youngish, bright-eyed and eager to start doing God's work. Grumpy was a veteran with a gruff voice and quivering jowls. Priest was not amused by his hollering; he only wanted to pray for the women and their dying babies. He inched away slowly at first, then took giant steps towards the other end of the sidewalk, leering at Grumpy all the time. By noon, as Priest prepared to depart, he put his hand on Grumpy's shoulder, made sure he looked him in the eye, and asked, "Do you really think you can help these women by screaming at them?" It was a genuine, reasonable question.

Priest never came back.

* Via Nerve: A Swiss prophylactic manufacturer has begun producing extra-small condoms for sexually active preteens. From the New York Daily News:

Dubbed the Hotshot, the prophylactic was developed in response to a study that indicated young teens were regularly engaging in unprotected sex.

"The result that shocked us concerned young boys who display apparently risky behaviour," said Nancy Bodmer, who oversaw the research for the study at the Center for Development and Personality Psychology at Basel University in Switzerland.

"They have more of a tendency not to protect themselves," she said, adding that because of their young age, they also do not know much about sexuality.

A friend's take: "I like the concern about unwise sexual activity shown by the manufacturers, who named it . . . 'The Hotshot.'"

* Bitch takes on the "innovative" new marketing campaign used to promote popular videogame Bayonetta. Bayonetta, for the uninitiated, stars a sexy heroine who kills bad guys via stripping, rolls on the ground in porny poses while killing said bad guys, and restores her power by sucking on a lollipop. How could this videogame ever spawn a misogynistic marketing campaign, you ask? Bitch answers:

[youtube:v=hcaKvZLNVek]

* On another note, try Meat Cards: the "one-and-only laser etched beef jerky business cards."

Photo via Darrow Montgomery

* Feminists With Sexual Dysfunction photographs her awesome family collection of antique prophylactics. Among them: Vintage versions of the awesomely bad brand Contempo Condoms, which still employs the following catchphrase: "Unleash the man you truly are and do it YOUR way with the ultra sensual range of lubricated Contempo Condoms." Perfect for the guy with masculinity issues who is unconcerned with his partner's pleasure!

* Tiger Beatdown speculates as to the many reasons why you may not love Beyonce:

2. A STRONG BELIEF THAT ROSIE THE RIVETER WOULD NOT WEAR HOT PANTS. It is true: Beyonce does in fact dress as the iconic proto-feminist industrial worker when she has a particularly tough mechanical project to attend to. And she is, in fact, wearing hot pants! However, I think Beyonce’s connection to the history of women in the workplace ought to be applauded. And, for those who take issue with the accuracy of her costume, remember: We only ever saw Rosie the Riveter from the waist up. We don’t know what kind of pants she was wearing. Rosie the Riveter may not have worn pants at all.

[youtube:v=TA-QMT2P-9I]

* And Sociological Images comments on the subversive twist of Beyonce playing the stereotypical "perfect housewife":

And that twist is very political.  Consider this: In American politics today, the “perfect” mother is one who does not work and stays home with her children.  Unless she’s poor.  Poor women who want to stay home with their children are called lazy, welfare cheats.  If you’re poor, you can only be a good mother by working.

* MAN SALE.

* Via Sexuality & Society: Jesuit institution Marquette University has withdrawn a job offer to sociologist Jodi O’Brien because the university "found some strongly negative statements about marriage and family" among her works. Marquette said that its decision related to the school's "Catholic mission and identity." O'Brien—who has taught at another Jesuit institution, Seattle University, since 1995—is an out lesbian who has written extensively on religion and sexuality.

Photo courtesy of K at Feminists with Female Sexual Dysfunction

Free female condoms have been sitting on the counter at Jasmine’s Hair Gallery in Anacostia for one week, but the contraceptive device has yet to make it out of the salon and into a woman’s vagina. Last week, a representative from a local nonprofit came down to Jasmine’s equipped with a few dozen female condoms—and two sets of rubber genitalia—in order to instruct the salon’s owner, Terry Nelson, on the finer points of the device. Nelson, 50, is the last stop in the female condom’s long activist conga line—a system set up to distribute the condom from the D.C. government, down through five local nonprofits, and finally out to hundreds of local businesses, where the device can be casually promoted to the public through trusted neighborhood fixtures. Theoretically.

“This is really new,” says Nelson. “We’re still in the stage where we’re trying to see if women will be receptive to this or not.” So far, Nelson and Cecelia Woodland, 49, the other Jasmine’s stylist to soak up the demonstration, haven’t yet tested out the female condom themselves. They haven’t found the right opportunity to raise the topic with any of their customers. And no one’s plucked a device from their tidy stack on the Jasmine’s shelf.

The D.C. government has invested a lot of energy in figuring out how to get women to pick this thing up. This year, Washington will be the first city to roll out a large-scale promotion aimed at getting women to use a form of contraception few even consider. Thanks to a $500,000 grant from makeup company M.A.C., five local nonprofits will distribute 500,000 free female condoms at hair salons, barber shops, health centers, nail salons, and liquor stores around D.C., where owners are being recruited to tout female condom promotion to customers. The condoms will also be available for sale at 56 local CVS stores.

Here’s what you may not know without getting the full, rubber genital demonstration: The first barrier method controlled by women, the female condom is a loose, synthetic rubber sheath that women can insert into the vagina before sex—and that will stay in place by means of flexible rings on both ends. The FDA approved the female condom in 1993 as a revolutionary tool in the fight against HIV, but objections to it have mostly centered around aesthetic concerns. Women who tried the device had one major complaint: the distracting sounds of crinkling, squishing, or rustling emanating from the vagina.

Enter the FC2, the female condom’s new generation. Like its predecessor, the FC2 is manufactured by the Chicago- and London-based Female Health Company, but it’s been tweaked to mute the grocery bag soundtrack (and cut the retail price by 30 percent—a three-pack at CVS goes for $6.49). But for all the female condom’s plusses, its advocates must still navigate between promoting the device as a crucial tool for preventing HIV infection in women and situating the condom as a socially acceptable sexual accessory.

For years, female condom promotion has focused on women in desperate need of the device—like sex workers or women in coercive or violent sexual relationships, whose sex partners refuse to use the male version. Now, female condom promoters have discovered that to protect high-risk women, they must first reinforce the idea that the device is a normal—and yes, sexy—option for all women. “We’re trying to reach that critical threshold,” says Shannon Hader, director of D.C.’s HIV/AIDS, Hepatitis, STD and TB Administration (HAHSTA). “So if you have 10 women in a room, it’s not necessary that all 10 try out the female condom—but if a few of them have tried it, if your best friend has tried it, if half of you are familiar with it and know about it, then there’s a higher comfort level with the product when you’re introduced to it.”

But female condom advocates have to do much more than throw out some free protection and wait for women to bite. Women have to be wooed to the condom. “Just giving women the female condom doesn’t necessarily inspire them to use it,” says Abby Charles, a program director for the Women’s Collective, one of the nonprofits funded by the M.A.C. grant. “We’ve found that we’ve had to do a lot more training around the female condom. At the trainings we’ve done so far, women start by saying, ‘Mmm—what’s that.’ You know?” Charles says the trainings often start from scratch. “There are a lot of women who don’t understand their bodies. When they take a look a the female condom, they’re confused by it. They think it’s pretty complex. A lot of the training is just helping women to understand the structure of our bodies.…At the end of the training, I would say 90 percent of them are ready to try it on.”

How exactly does a woman just spring a previously inserted protection device on her partner? Part of the training around the female condom includes translating the device’s prevention features into bedroom-ready talking points. For every FC2 feature meant to help protect against HIV, there’s another sexy twist. The condom can be deployed in anticipation of a partner or client who may show up to force unprotected sex. In other words, the device “increases spontaneity” and doesn’t “interrupt lovemaking.” The female condom is often touted as a bargaining point for women in coercive sexual relationships. But those kinds of conversations can also “encourage intimacy.” And the external ring that stretches the condom over the woman’s vulva, protecting her from sexually transmitted infections like herpes? That ring can also stimulate the clit.

When D.C. rolled out its new female condom campaign last week, it scored extra sexy points with the help of rock stars Cyndi Lauper and Lady Gaga. The ladies are the new faces of M.A.C.’s “VIVA Glam” campaign, which encourages HIV awareness among women. Gaga has this to say about her prevention device of choice: “It’s for the everyday woman,” Gaga declares in a M.A.C. PSA. “Anybody can wear it and feel great about themselves, and that’s what VIVA Glam is all about…awareness, and identity.” Gaga was speaking, of course, of her new M.A.C. lip color, “VIVA Glam Gaga,” a light-blue-pink shade. (Proceeds of the cosmetic sales will go toward HIV prevention).

It’s easier to talk about the eternal themes of HIV awareness than it is to start a conversation about a new loose, lubricated bag and why women should insert it into their bodies. But Gaga is just the face of female HIV prevention—not its vagina. So in order to encourage a more intimate knowledge of the female condom, local nonprofits are staging educational sessions around the District, encouraging business owners to pass the FC2 promotion onto their patrons. It’s the fantasy imagined by every birth-control commercial—women just hanging out, talking frankly about their vaginal health. “Women talk to women. We all talk to each other,” says Hader. She wouldn’t disclose whether she’d tried it out herself. “I’m not going to answer that question. I don’t want people to think that we’re asking that when we come around,” she says. “I am familiar with the product. I’ve touched it, I’ve felt it. It’s not a new product to me.”

The D.C. government is hoping that District hairstylists will be more forthcoming. “People are comfortable talking to their hairstylist about anything. You get to feeling like social workers sometimes,” says Nelson. But stylists can’t just start chatting FC2 with every customer dropping in for a trim. “They have to bring up the conversation,” says Nelson. In order to be on the receiving end of Nelson’s female condom spiel, customers don’t have to specifically name-check the device—“but if they bring up sex, say they’re dating around, finding a new partner, I might mention it to them,” says Nelson. Suitable “ins” for the female condom talk arise between Nelson and her clients “about three to four times a week,” she says—they just haven’t come up yet.

Early in the afternoon at Jasmine’s Hair Gallery, a woman comes in, settles in a salon chair, leans her head back for a shampoo, and starts talking. Somehow, one of Jasmine’s female condoms has ended up in her hand. “What do they do with it?” she asks Nelson. “They stick it up in you?” Nelson and Woodland are quick with the talking points. You do stick it up in you. It stays in place near your cervix, like a diaphragm. You can put it in whenever you want. It conforms to the inside of your body. The rings provide extra stimulation. The condom wraps around the outside to protect you from other STDs. The customer does not appear entirely convinced. “Well. I’m allergic to latex anyway,” the customer says, dropping the condom into her lap. “It’s not latex! It’s not latex!” Nelson and Woodland both call out, stepping over each other to mention that the FC2’s made of synthetic rubber. Of course, it’s possible this conversation would never be happening had I not been in the salon, prompting these women to openly discuss rubber genitals, clitoral stimulation, and herpes for the past 20 minutes. Either way, we’ve got our first taker: After getting dried off, the woman walks out the door with an FC2 in hand.

Photos by Darrow Montgomery

This Wednesday is National Women and Girls HIV/AIDS Awareness Day, and since women now account for one-third of all new HIV cases in D.C. [PDF], well, it's really important that we all become aware of this, post-haste! So this week, activists are hosting a variety of events around the D.C. area in an effort to encourage HIV prevention among women and girls. Even if you're not a women's health nerd like myself, the roster of activities may have something for you: Refreshments! Interactive Facebooking! A star of White Men Can't Jump, after the jump!

What: "Standing United Against HIV/AIDS: Confronting the Impact on Women and Girls," a lunch lecture featuring speakers like Tina Tchen (Executive Director of the White House Council on Women and Girls) and Dr. Howard Koh (Assistance Secretary of Health for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services). RSVP to Lynn Shaull at 202-434-8003 or lshaull@NASTAD.org.

When: Tomorrow, March 9, 12:30 to 3 p.m.

Where: Dirksen Senate Office Building, Room 562, First and C streets NE.

Bonus: If Koh isn't your bag: The discussion will be moderated by Rosie Perez!

—

What: The "HHS Office on Women's Health National Women and Girls HIV/AIDS Awareness Day Event at the National Press Club," a press conference (register online here).

When: Wed., March 10, 12 to 5 p.m.

Where: National Press Club, 529 14th Street NW.

Bonus: Totally free lunch!

—

What: "REPP: Remind, Encourage, Protect, Prevent," a spoken-word poetry night featuring "DC's finest poets, spoken word artists, female DJs and MCs" taking on the question of "why women and girls must remind each other, encourage each other and our partners and protect ourselves from HIV." Plus: The world premier of REPP PSA 'The Promise Ring.'"

When: Thursday, March 11 from 5:30 to 8 p.m.

Where: The Women's Collective, 1331 Rhode Island Ave. NE

Bonus: Program host the Women's Collective promises "refreshments, giveaways, and prizes(!!!)"

—

What: "Chasing Waterfalls," a program hosted by the Black Women's Health Imperative that will provide "An Artistic Showcase and Conversation about Young Black Women and HIV/AIDS."

When: March 11 from 6 to 8:00 p.m.

Where: Tabaq Bisro, 1336 U Street, NW.

Bonus: Beyond the TLC-inspired programming? Interactive Facebooking! If you log onto the event's Facebook page and post a "creative HIV/AIDS awareness message," your "message may be featured in a collaborative poem performed by our featured artists."

—

What: "S.O.S: Saving Our Sistas from HIV/AIDS," a "skill-building summit" for women ages 13-29 (Sign up here).

When: Sat., March 13

Where: The ARC, 1901 Mississippi Ave SE.

Bonus: If you can't make it down to the ARC: "Event will conclude with a Town Hall Meeting that will be streamed live via the Internet and include panel interactions from Facebook and Twitter."

photo via Jayel Aheram, Creative Commons Attribution License 2.0

Last week on the Sexist, we discussed the contraceptive knowledge deficit among young men (and I got into the sex ed video business). Readers, bless 'em, chimed in with more "magical" birth control theories they've heard over the years—from both men and women.

Lizrd's mom is mystified:

As a nuva ring user, it rocks and I miss it now that I’ve been booted from my parents health care. But yeah, my boyfriend was probably a little mystified by the whole endeavor. The most resistance came from my mom, who seemed to think it “caught sperm” and told me, a freshman in college “well its your pregnancy to worry about” when I told her I was making the switch from daily pills.

Sarah has heard some bizarre tampon theories in her day:

I had a boyfriend in my early twenties who thought that tampons were the size of penises, which is how they ‘filled’ you (yep, his word). He didn’t understand how I could skip the sugar pills and still be safe the week after.

Then again, I went to university with a women who thought you urinated from your vagina (not uretha), and thus avoided tampons. How would she go to the toilet then?

She was a sexually-active 21 year old at Cambridge in England. Jesus.

Shannon's boyfriend knows best:

A college boyfriend once told me I couldn’t possibly have my period because it was too early in the month. He had interpreted “every 28 days” to mean that all women, everywhere, simultaneously got their periods on the 28th of the month. He also accused me of lying when I still had said period 5 days later. His biology textbook had informed him that periods only lasted 3 days. (You’ll be shocked to hear this relationship did not last very long.)

K's sex partner finally understands pills—hundreds of women later:

I am sleeping with a 27-year-old man who has had many, many partners before me (all women.) One night he wanted me to stay over, and I said I can’t, I forgot my pills and don’t want to take one late. He said, “That’s okay, I just won’t come in you this time.” As if the pills were like condoms, and you took one every day you might get pregnant.

I explained that to him that they didn’t work if I took them irregularly, and that they were like antibiotics: they wouldn’t work if I gave up half-way thru. He understands much better now, but how he got to 27 without this knowledge, when I know he’s slept with literally hundreds of women, is mind-boggling.

disgusted dude knows a guy who is disgusted by vaginas:

There’s a Simpsons episode in which Nelson Muntz eats contraceptive pills hidden in a box of mints. His resulting hormonal imbalance is a running gag throughout the show. Jokes based on the idea The Pill contains hormones date back to 16 Candles. I’m stunned by the idea there are guys watching that and having no idea what they’re laughing about.

Perhaps it’s because I grew up in the 80s and my life just happened to co-incide with Peak Sex Ed. Even in conservative Florida, they started teaching the biology of reproduction in 6th grade and eventually covered periods and hormones.

Due to the growing AIDs crisis/panic, my college was aggressive about teaching reproductive health in general and people were receptive. This conintued into my young adulthood – fighting AIDs had the side effect of making general information about “down there” a more common talking point.

On the other hand, an acquaintence my age was a person for whom no subject was too gross except ladyparts. Scatology was a big topic, but jokes or even mentioning the cycle made him put hands over his ears.

Jamie put a copper thing in her baby incubator:

I got a copper IUD inserted recently and the whole process freaked my boyfriend out. It took lots of explaining for him to wrap his head around it and I think it still makes him uncomfortable. I make sure he is aware of what my genitals are doing at all times, though, so he’s used to hearing about it.

As for girls being equally clueless, a girl I know (who attends an Ivy League school) asked me if “the uterus is where the baby lives for nine months.”

Allison, 26, and her boyfriend were having sex—an activity they had engaged in many times over the six months they had been dating—when her contraceptive vaginal ring fell right out of her vagina. Her boyfriend paused. He developed a sudden concern over the efficacy of the couple’s method of birth control. “He was like, ‘Oh, no. How is it going to catch my semen?’” Allison recalls.

For about a year now, Allison has used the NuvaRing to prevent pregnancy. Three weeks out of the month, the clear, flexible plastic ring sits in Allison’s vagina and releases hormones into her bloodstream that prevent her from ovulating. It does not “catch” anybody’s semen.

“He played it off as a joke,” says Allison of her boyfriend’s bizarre interpretation of her birth control. “But in the tone of his voice, that honest worry was there. Part of him was thinking, ‘What does this ring actually do?’”

Allison is a veteran witness to contraception awareness syndrome. “I was dating a guy in college who knew that I was on the birth control pill. Of course, he was concerned about me getting pregnant,” says Allison. “So he said, ‘You know, you should take four or five of these a day—just take as many as you need to,’” she says.

Jenna had been living with her boyfriend for several months when he floated his own contraceptive theory. Jenna was taking her birth control pills continuously, meaning that she was skipping the pack’s built-in placebo pills in order to stop her period. At some point, her boyfriend discovered how she had managed to avoid the monthly ritual. “I was thinking you were just magical, like a unicorn,” he told her. “I mean, you hope one exists somewhere, but you never think you’ll get to live with one…a cool chick with no period drama that has sex all month long.” He added, “The guys thought I was making it up.” (Boyfriends could not be reached for comment for this story).

According to a new study by the National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy, many young American men exhibit attitudes toward contraception that could best be described as “magical.” The study [PDF] surveyed American singles ages 18–29 about their perceptions about and use of contraception. Twenty-eight percent of young men think that wearing two condoms at a time is more effective than just one. Twenty-five percent think that women can prevent pregnancy by douching after sex. Eighteen percent believe that they can reduce the chance of pregnancy by doing it standing up.

For the most part, men lagged behind women on the pregnancy prevention front. And when the study dipped into the realm of “female” forms of birth control, the gender divide intensified. In the study, 29 percent of men and 32 percent of women reported that they know “little or nothing about condoms.” When asked to rate their knowledge of birth control pills, 78 percent of men reported to be clueless, compared to 45 percent of women.

With a majority of young men generally unknowledgeable about hormonal birth control—and nearly half of young women equally stumped—men sometimes don’t figure out the basics until they think they may have impregnated someone, or their penis feels something weird. “I dated a girl with a NuvaRing, while I didn’t know she had one,” says a 22-year-old Arlington resident who didn’t discover how the couple was preventing baby-making until his penis was already well inside her vagina. “I found out the physical way, when I felt the alien object. I immediately recoiled in fear, asking what was wrong. It was frightening. Then she told me her birth control was a ring in her vagina, which I had never heard of.” He demanded the evidence. “She retrieved it—which is a sight to see—and showed it to me, put it back, and we continued,” he says. “I feel like girls should tell people.”

When Allison’s boyfriend expressed concern with the efficacy of her vaginal ring, she told him all about it. But even between two adults, the subject inspired some awkwardness. “The conversation wasn’t exactly free-flowing,” Allison says. “I’ve been dating since high school, and it feels like the men that I date now have a very similar idea of birth control as the men I dated who were high school students,” says Allison. “They get a preliminary idea in sex ed, and then there’s not really any education after that. Nothing ever changes.”

In addition to staging teach-ins, women are also responsible for shouldering the physical, emotional, and financial responsibilities for pregnancy prevention. Pap smears, STI tests, and gynecological sessions about their contraceptive options—that’s just the tip of it for the sexually active woman. In order to keep their birth control subscription fresh, they have to repeat that process every year. Their male sex partners are under no such requirements. As Salon noted last year, women have 11 methods of contraception from which to choose; men have two—condom and vasectomy. And even if men did have additional reliable birth control options, many women wouldn’t trust them to use them correctly. In a comment on the Salon article, one woman wrote, “I love my husband more than anything in the world but I would not place that responsibility on him because if the BC failed and he was responsible for it I would kill him then he would be dead and I would be having a child while in prison.” Perhaps it is no mystery why some men confine their responsibility to forms of birth control which relate directly to their own genitalia.

Gustav Seestedt, 23, says that birth control pills are the form of contraception he has “the most indirect experience with.” He has no idea how they work. “I thought it, uh, controlled, uh… I actually don’t know, now that I think about it,” he says. “Oh, man, I thought it had something to do with hormonal control, but that doesn’t seem right at all. That sounds pretty awful. I thought it, uh, somehow killed fertility with like chemicals and stuff,” he says. The ring, however, strikes Seestedt as a superior option. “I thought that was pretty fine, because, from what I understood, it was kind of a low-cost way of doing it, and it wasn’t really…I like it because chemical pills and stuff are kind of weird, [but the ring] was kind of placed inside, and…you know what I mean? It just kind of did its thing, you know?”

To some, the male indifference to birth control can be attributed to a juvenile disregard for all things related to the place in which the vaginal ring “does its thing.” We live in a country where heterosexual heartthrob Robert Pattinson feels comfortable announcing to Details magazine, “I really hate vaginas. I’m allergic to vagina.” Where tech nerds everywhere let out a collective titter over new Apple device the “iPad,” because it sounds kind of like a thing women use when they’re on their periods. Where Judd Apatow has built a film career out of turning extended vagina jokes into blockbusters.

“I definitely think that the inability to understand birth control goes back to the woman’s period,” says Allison. Months after the vaginal ring incident, Allison’s boyfriend remained confused about the specifics of her menstrual cycle. “The other day, I was on my period, and I took out my tampon before I went into the shower,” she says. “My boyfriend was like, ‘Wait: But you just took your tampon out. Can you go into the shower like that?’”

Allison responded to her boyfriend’s question with more questions. “Does he think that the second I take out my tampon, it’s just blood, blood everywhere?” she wondered. “That if I don’t plug it up with this cotton thing every moment, all hell will break loose?” Her boyfriend did not elaborate. “He was just kind of like, ‘Never mind,’” says Allison. “I think he understood the absurdity of his comment. But he was making an honest attempt to learn about something he doesn’t really know about.”

VIDEO: Men Explaining Birth Control.

Photo by outcast104, Creative Commons Attribution License 2.0

I'm a condom access nerd, so I was excited to see a Shapley Prose commenter post this vintage Golden Girls clip of Rose, Dorothy, and Blanche getting shamed by their cashier for loudly buying condoms for their romantic getaway (rarely do two nerd obsessions combine so harmoniously).

Next time your condom dispenser is a jerk about your safe sex purchases, try using Dorothy's Blanche's retort, which is, at the very least, sure to leave the cashier speechless: "Now we are embarking on a little weekend cruise with some longtime gentlemen friends, and if we decide to be intimate, then we'll be prepared . . . We're going to walk out here today with our heads held high, secure in the knowledge that we have done is morally and socially responsible."

Though the most dedicated rape apologists may disagree, clothing choices like miniskirts, low-cut shirts and high heels are not reliable indicators of a woman's sexual availability. Inanimate objects don't consent to sex; people do. But is there any sartorial choice out there that does announce to the world that the wearer is down to fuck?

Enter The "LOVEBUCKLE," a product of sex toy retailer OhMiBod (suggested stylings here). This leather belt features a brushed metal buckle with "circular cut-out window" for displaying "uniquely designed One® condoms." Basically, it's a big 'ol condom belt, and it retails for $85.

It's pretty clear that the LOVEBUCKLE is the rare clothing accessory that's specifically designed to send a sexual message. But what exactly is it saying?

Are you one of those people who still believes that women wear short skirts in order to secretly signal that they want to have sex with you? Consider this: Even prancing about with a prophylactic strapped to your pubic area by an extravagant leather belt can be interpreted in a variety of ways. Possible messages sent by wearing a LOVEBUCKLE:

a) Have sex with me now! Last night, I strapped on my sample LOVEBUCKLE and asked some co-workers what it all means. "You're wearing a condom right above your vagina," one co-worker explained. "It means you're ready to get freaky."

b) Don't have sex with me! I consulted a trusted friend to get another opinion on the meaning of this LOVEBUCKLE. This is what a giant condom belt means to her: "It's one step up from a giant torso tattoo that says 'I NEVER WANT TO GET LAID.'"

c) I want you to know that I am committed to safe sex. According to the OhMiBod presser, the LOVEBUCKLE is perfect for the safe sex partner who cannot be bothered with the hassle of accessing a condom that's not directly above their genitals. "Never again find yourself digging though your wallet or purse to find a condom when the mood strikes," The press release reads. "You’ll always have one handy when wearing the practical and stylish LOVEBUCKLE."

d) I do not want you to know that I am committed to safe sex. In the next breath, OhMiBod recasts the LOVEBUCKLE as the pinnacle of discretion. "I find the LOVEBUCKLE a handy way to inconspicuously be prepared on-the-go," an OhMiBod representative told me over e-mail. The LOVEBUCKLE's promotional materials include the following travel tip: "Spare yourself the embarrassment of packing condoms in a carry-on or purse that may be searched. The LOVEBUCKLE allows you to discreetly carry artistic One® condoms in the buckle, and makes a great fashion statement at the same time. With the LOVEBUCKLE, you'll always be inconspicuously prepared for safe sex on-the-go." Until your gigantic brushed metal belt buckle sets off the metal detector, and sends you over for a more intimate inspection.

e) I want you to know that I'm committed to condom wrapper art. According to the OhMiBod press release, the LOVEBUCKLE can be filled with "200 different graphic [condom] designs . . . giving wearers hundreds of ways to express themselves, and making the idea of safe sex fun, hip and stylish." My LOVEBUCKLE sample condom was illustrated with a photograph of Yellowstone National Park's volcano-heated Old Faithful Geyser, which I can only assume means that the wearer is scheduled to erupt every 35 to 120 minutes.

f) Or, something completely different. According to an OhMiBod press release, "When the LOVEBUCKLE is empty, an engraved 're-load' message shows through the circular window, reminding wearers to refill it with One condoms, or leave it empty, giving off an entirely different type of message and showing a alternate fashion style."

So which is it? Is it a gigantic metal buckle dedicated to displaying your collection of designer condoms? Is it a discrete accessory that allows you to carry your safe sex accessories undetected? Is it a handy signal that you can take on or off depending on your level of horniness? Or is it a belt that carries an unnamed but "entirely different" message?

What's that old phrase? When you assume, you make an ass out of the extravagant condom belt. After all, even if the LOVEBUCKLE is meant to signal that you're "ready to get freaky," it does not automatically signify that you're willing to de-belt for just anyone who happens to spy your LOVEBUCKLE. For me, at least, strapping on the LOVEBUCKLE indicated only that I was conducting some field research on the meaning of strapping on a LOVEBUCKLE. Results were inconclusive.

Because seriously, this thing is hard not to notice.

The District expects to register six-to-twelve inches of snowfall today. Winds are clocking at up to 40 miles an hour. The government is closed. Classes are canceled. Road conditions are hazardous. You want to pass the time by fucking. But is it safe?

A tipster for We Love D.C. reports that at least one District Safeway's condom selection was so decimated from the blizzard supply rush that only Magnums were left on the shelf (plenty of lube, though). Snogasm, indeed. Will D.C.'s near-record snowfall present a heightened risk for unintended pregnancies and STD transmission among antsy residents?

So far, at least, the condom rush has yet to extend to the District's most pervasive condom provider, CVS Pharmacy. Perhaps the chain's signature security click-boxes are fortified enough to prevent a quick clearing of the shelves: I called several CVS locations to check on their availability, and many claimed to be stocked with the full cornucopia of reproductive health products. The Dupont Circle CVS (6 Dupont Circle NW) boasts a full condom stock and will be open 24 hours throughout the storm; a clerk at the Adams Morgan CVS (1750 Columbia Rd. NW) promises the store will stay open until 10 p.m. As for AdMo's prophylactic stock: "Yes, we have a lot, honey," she insists.

The larger condom concern, of course, lies in the Southeast quadrant, home to the District's highest HIV/AIDS rate and the lowest concentration of pharmacies. One Southeast CVS (661 Pennsylvania Ave. SE) is currently operating and stocked with condoms—but the clerk who answered the phone said she couldn't promise the store would keep its doors open throughout the storm. One Anacostia CVS location (2646 Naylor Road SE) also plans to close early, at a time TBD. That store's condom stock isn't as healthy—"we have a few," says an employee—but the store doesn't anticipate having to turn anyone away from protection. "They're not running out," she says. "Nobody's buying them at the moment." CVS's second store across the river (3240 Pennsylvania Ave. SE) wasn't answering the phone when I called; a nearby Safeway pharmacy (2845 Alabama Ave. SE) also wasn't talking.

If your local pharmacy is closed or running low on condoms, the D.C. Department of Health points condom-seekers to the long list of community partners who distribute free condoms to District residents. While the D.C. government is closed today, some of D.C.'s condom partners may still be shilling rubbers gratis. But make sure to call ahead. "They're not government run, so they're probably opening and closing on their own accord right now," says a DOH rep. The list includes 37 locations in NW, 29 in SE, 14 in NE, and four in SW. The DOH also directs frisky residents can also text "DCWRAP" (followed by their zip code) to 365247 for a list of the nearest participating locations. The DCWRAP text line may be closed today, as well: I texted twice. I got nothin'.

But what of the residents who aren't able to brave the wind, sleet, and snow to reach one of these rubber providers? Call up DC Snacks, one of the Department of Health's condom distribution partners, who will deliver free condoms to your door—along with your order of Cheetos, cigarettes, or Chipwiches, of course.

Snack delivery entrepreneur Matt Mandell says that DC Snacks was open for business until about 10 p.m. last night. He hopes to resume delivery service again this evening, provided that the snow slows enough to ensure safe conditions for his delivery fleet. Since most DC Snacks snacks are delivered on bicycle, tonight's service depends on whether the main city arteries get plowed. "Our people on bikes can usually ride until we hit about six inches of snow, and then it's hard to get traction. That's when we pretty much closed," says Mandell. Mandell doesn't like to be closed. "We'll do our best. In some areas, we'll have to walk the bike. Some areas we can do it by motorized transportation . . . if it's close enough, we'll try to walk it there," he says. "I'm almost positive we're going to be open tonight."

If DC Snacks is operational this evening, be sure to take advantage of the extras. "There are always people who request that we throw a bunch of condoms in the bag," says Mandell. "We will definitely do that."

Photo by Darrow Montgomery

If your boobs could talk, what would they say? According to this proposed ad campaign for Durex condoms, your boobs would likely say . . . "boobs":

. . . at least, that's what German designer Andrej Kranhe thinks your boobs would say. Other strange sexual insights gleaned from Kranhe's "Type Sex With Durex" ads:

Girls orgasm in mythological afterlives:

When you have sex, does your body feel as if it has been transported to:

a) Elysium, the ancient Greek underworld that housed the "final resting place of the souls of the heroic and the virtuous"?

b) Valhalla, the mythological Norse afterworld where dead soldiers dine in an "enormous hall . . .  ruled over by the god Odin"?

c) Zion, the Jewish promised land?

If not, you're probably a dude:

According to the ad, when boys have sex, their penises turn into brains, and their brains turn into:

Yeah . . . nothing. According to the ad, when boys are busy sticking their "brains" into a lady's "Valhalla," they are incapable of reacting to outside stimuli, processing information, or reasoning.

You just ate a bunch of fruit:

At least, that's what I think that means.

Performing oral sex on a man makes a woman's brain feel "dainty":

. . . and her throat feel "TASTY"!

When boys do manage to think thoughts during sex, the thought is, "this sucks":

Girls, meanwhile, are experiencing shuddering, quaking boob orgasms. However, they are privately traumatized by this:

Her body's saying "orgasm wave," but her mind is saying "paralyzed, confused, embarrassed." Hmm. I wonder what kind of "Type Sex With Durex" this one is?

Yesterday's post on a guy named “Dirty Jersey” who refused to strap one on sparked a more general discussion about guys who refuse to wear condoms. Then, commenter Shinobi chimed in with an area  for further inquiry: "Hilarious reasons guys can’t wear a condom."

Shinobi kicks it off:

Can I get a WTF on college aged guys who bitch about wearing condoms? Not that I took a represenatative sample or anything……. but it happened a LOT. (Actually, after college too… again, not a representative sample.)

I think what college papers actually need is a column about how men who want to get laid need to have the testicular fortitude to wear a fucking condom, and in fact, provide said condom, and show a little fucking consideration for the girl and not make her practicly beg you to put it on.

Also, don’t take it off in the middle, because that’s fucked up and means you are a scumbag.

I think I needed to use the f word more in this comment.

Liss chimes in:

Super extra fail to the guy who told me that he “couldn’t” wear condoms because he was JUST TOO BIG for them! (Even though bigger guys than him had worn the exact same type of condom and gotten off just fine with them.)

So: Have you heard a hilarious reason why a guy won't wear a condom? Even better: Are you a guy with a hilarious justification for why you won't strap one on? Best: Are you a lady or guy with a hilarious justification for why you don't want your sex partner to condom up? Even bestest: Do you totally object to the idea that your reasons for not wearing a condom are, in fact, hilarious? File it in the comments.

Photo by Darrow Montgomery

Over 1,200 people have signed a petition to demand the right to carry three condoms in the District of Columbia without fear of arrest. Why do 1,200 people think that carrying more than two condoms is against the law?

Widespread media reports of a "three-condom rule" in D.C. began with an item on RH Reality Check investigating the District's anti-prostitution provisions. The item, written by researchers Aziza Ahmed and Brook Kelly, claimed that in the District of Columbia, "Anecdotal evidence suggests that having three or more condoms is considered a proxy for being a sex worker."

When that piece of intel migrated over to the Women's Rights blog at Change.org, Alex Dibranco phrased Ahmed and Kelly's anecdotal evidence this way: "Think you might get lucky tonight? Well, if you're in D.C., don't bring more than two condoms in your purse, or you could be arrested as a prostitute."

Last week, the three-condom rule hit Jezebel, where it received 4,426 page-views—and inspired dozens of comments from women concerned that a late-night prophylactic run could send them behind bars. "Don't many brands sell in 3-packs? Anyone who carries around a new package is automatically carrying 3," one wrote. "so people in long term relationships that decide to stock up are really screwed," wrote another. Feministing also picked up the three-condom rule. On Amplify, Jaclyn Friedman worried that her new "cute red vinyl condom case" designed to hold three Trojans could be grounds for arrest. "I once used over a dozen [condoms] in a particularly memorable weekend," Friedman writes. "And I still wasn't a sex worker." Meanwhile, Dibranco's post has been viewed over 40,000 times.

Where did this "three-condom rule" originate?

It's not a legal standard. In D.C., police can set up temporary "Prostitution Free Zones" where officers who suspect you of loitering with the intent to commit prostitution can force you to leave the area. If you don't leave, they can arrest you. The zone can remain in place for up to 10 days. According to the Prostitution Free Zone Law, "prostitution-related offenses" include "repeatedly beckoning to, stopping, attempting to stop, or attempting to engage passers-by in conversation for the purpose of prostitution," "stopping or attempting to stop motor vehicles for the purpose of prostitution," or "repeatedly interfering with the free passage of other persons for the purpose of prostitution." Cops can also ask you to disperse if they recognize you from previous incidents as a gang member or a sex worker, or if a "reliable source" informs the police that they have observed you engaging in prostitution. The law contains plenty of objectionable procedures—they can make me leave my neighborhood if someone "reliable" tells them I'm a sex worker?—but no mention of contraceptives.

According to D.C. police spokesperson Gwendolyn Crump, carrying condoms can lead an officer to suspect prostitution—but there's no three-condom arrest rule. "Although the possession of multiple condoms may be a factor that leads an officer to suspect (reasonable suspicion) that a person is engaged in prostitution, it is not enough to establish probable cause for any crime," Crump writes. "Depending on the circumstances, factors such as this may justify an investigative stop—but not an arrest." She adds: "Essentially, if police cannot arrest someone for having two or more condoms outside a [Prostitution Free Zone], police cannot arrest them for it within a PFZ." [Update: DCist also reported on this statement from Crump].

Of course, it's possible that some D.C. police officers don't always follow the letter of the law. Is there any evidence that D.C. police have an internal three-condom rule?

Both RH Reality Check and Change.org cite a 2008 "Move Along Report" on the Prostitution-Free Zones as evidence of the cops' condom counting. The report cites plenty of evidence of police officers confiscating or destroying sex workers' contraception. According to the report, 8.6 percent of sex workers interviewed claimed that officers had taken "safe sex supplies" from them during their interactions with police; the report also cites evidence of police officers seizing or destroying condoms in Las Vegas and San Francisco. Again, the report's findings reveal police conduct that can be extraordinarily harmful for D.C.'s sex workers. However, the report includes no magic number of condoms required to ignite suspicion—and it doesn't provide any evidence that condoms alone are enough to get you locked up.

Cyndee Clay, Executive Director of HIPS (Helping Individual Prostitutes Survive), says her organization has heard from "many, many" sex workers in D.C. who attest to police targeting them over condom possession. "People will come in and tell us they're afraid to carry too many condoms, because they're afraid of drawing attention from the police," says Clay. Still, no specific number has emerged as a red flag.

Brook Kelly, who co-wrote the original RH Reality Check item, wrote in an e-mail that the three-condom tidbit emerged during the course of her research. Kelly's work included "interviews with sex workers' organizations, sex workers, or individuals who do not identify as sex workers but who seek support from DC based sex worker organizations, organizations that worked with drug use in the DC area, lawyers working on issues of HIV/AIDS, homelessness and poverty, and law enforcement." But even though Kelly's anecdotal evidence suggests that "having three or more condoms is considered a proxy for being a sex worker"—at least according to one source she interviewed—her report didn't mention anything about three condoms leading to arrest.

D.C.'s anti-prostitution laws and internal practices are dangerous to sex workers. Frightening sex workers into being unsafe—or physically removing their protection from them—is an extremely harmful practice, whether it's reinforced in the law or not. But the blogs and petitions that extend the harm of these practices to any girl who runs over to CVS for a three-pack of condoms are misleading. "Did you know you can be charged with prostitution in Washington D.C. if the police catch you carrying three or more condoms on the street?" the petition reads, in an attempt to rally all of D.C.'s condom users against the Prostitution Free Zones. Really, condom possession is only going to present a problem if you're a sex worker. And that should be enough for all of us to get angry about.

Photo by Darrow Montgomery

Despite the snub, CUAllies has carefully attempted to conform its advocacy work to the teachings of the Catholic church. The Post story notes that CUAllies has formulated a "self-imposed list of topics that are off-limits: pre-marital sex, gay sex, birth control, gay marriage and behavior not permitted by the Catholic church." With sex, marriage, and "behavior" off the table, what can CUAllies talk about?

Catholic University senior Robby Diesu, one of the group's founders, explains how to cultivate an LGBT group while keeping it Catholic: Avoid "advocacy," distract administrators from the dreaded combination of gays and food, and invent some clever condom wordplay.

"The three goals of CUAllies are to make Catholic U. a safe, welcoming, and affirming place for GLBTQ peoples," Diseu wrote to me. The purpose of CUAllies is hardly controversial: The group is devoted to preventing gay-bashings, providing some visibility for gay students on campus, and affirming the "dignity of the human person" for gay and straight students alike. Diseu insists that the group's goal is "not to change the Church," but rather to find a safe space within church teachings for LGBT students. In order to make life at Catholic University better for CUA's LGBTs, Diseu has found that it benefits the group to keep quiet on the political front. "We as a group do not have an official position on issues like gay marriage or birth control, so the group never diverges with the administration on those types of issues," he writes.

CUAllies has reason to step carefully: The group was formed in the aftermath of Catholic University's first gay-straight alliance, which ultimately conceded to university pressure. The first iteration of the CUA gay group, the Organization for Lesbian and Gay Student Rights, operated as an official student organization from 1988 until several years ago, when "the group was forced to dissolve . . . because it became an advocacy group," Nakas told the Post. "The university has chosen not to go down that path again," Nakas said.

Diseu says that CUAllies' strictly apolitical activities are an attempt to avoid the dreaded accusation of "advocacy." "The reason why we have 'self-imposed' off-limits topics is to show the ridiculous nature of the fact that Catholic is refusing us official status as a group," Diseu writes. But no matter how much CUAllies members censor themselves, Catholic University will always raise the bar for inclusion: "Their definition of advocacy is to have food at your meetings or wanting to talk about hate crimes! Ahh the horror!!" According to Diseu, Catholic's former gay group was hardly controversial. "They were having food at their meetings, and if the gays have food you know what happens. . . . The school put a stranglehold on the group, and we were not going to let them do that to us." (Despite the evident controversy of gays serving food, Diseu says CUAllies does have refreshments at meetings).

Besides fighting off dissolution, what can CUAllies do? Plenty, as long as they frame it right. "We went to the National Equality March as a group because we support full equality for all people," Diseu writes. "In the spring we are having a 3-week series on GLBTQ health and safety and we have a whole week set aside to talk about HIV/AIDS." Diseu says that last subject may take a little bit of verbal acrobatics. "It's basically a word game, we find the loopholes and use them to our advantages," he writes. "Will we talk about condoms? Most likely. But will we directly say, 'When you have sex, use a condom'? No. It will more likely be, 'One of the ways to prevent getting HIV/AIDS is to use a condom.'"

R&B singer Jeremih, self-proclaimed "Mr. Birthday Sex himself," wants to make sure that D.C. youth remember to have safe sex (and listen to Jeremih's hit single, "Birthday Sex"). In this PSA recorded for the local "Street Wize Foundation," Jeremih inserts some safe-sex messages over the, uh, sex messages of "Birthday Sex."

A sample: "You know, I might be doing my Birthday Sex thing, it's cross-promoting and all, but I just want to make sure that if you all choose to do what you all do, make sure you all keep it safe in the streets, man. Make sure y'all strap up and you know, just keep it safe, y'all."

This would be completely awesome—did I mention he's promoting safe sex and "Birthday Sex" in front of a wall of sneakers?—except for one unfortunate ad-lib. Jeremih tells D.C. teens "strap twice if you got to." Unfortunately, I'm a fucking decrepit snail compared to R&B sensation Jeremih—have you all heard his new hit single, "Birthday Sex"?—so no teen in the world is going to listen to me when I say DO NOT STRAP TWICE, KIDS. Someone cool please relay that message to the youth of America.

So ... ejaculation. It turns out that where you do it can greatly affect a woman's chances of becoming pregnant. Like: If you ejaculate straight up into her vagina, she's more likely to become pregnant; if you ejaculate into a condom or anywhere else in the world, she's less likely to conceive. Every 16-year-old boy knows this to be true, and now those 16-year-old boys have grown up to become the Guttmacher Institute's Lead Pulling-Out Researcher, Rachel K. Jones. Jones published her findings in the June issue of Contraception magazine [via NYT]:

“If the male partner withdraws before ejaculation every time a couple has vaginal intercourse, about 4 percent of couples will become pregnant over the course of a year,” the authors write.

For condoms, used optimally, the rate is about 2 percent. But more significant, the authors say, are the rates for “typical use,” because people can’t be expected to use any contraception method perfectly every time. Typical use of withdrawal leads to pregnancy 18 percent of the time, they write; for typical use of condoms 17 percent of the time.

Hey, that's information that helps us become better informed about our sex lives. Great, right? No. IT'S BAD, says the Daily Beast's Tracy Quan, who calls the study's results "folk wisdom" with a lack of "supporting evidence" and infers that the Guttmacher Institute is no longer "sane" for publishing this no good very bad information. Why? Because withdrawal is "caddish," "insulting," and it's FOR BOYS, NOT GIRLS. And we all know we can't trust boys to do anything. What else can't we trust? Science, for one! And while we're at it: We can't trust grown women in mutually monogamous relationships to make this choice for themselves, either, even though it's free, accessible, and feels better than a condom. THERE I SAID IT.

But enough about ejaculating outside of vaginas. Oh, wait, no: It's time for Sady of Tiger Beatdown and I to discuss ejaculating outside of vaginas some more! Join us!

AMANDA: 9:23 a.m. is a great time to talk about the ups and downs of not ejaculating into vaginas.

SADY: yes. personally, when i heard that not ejaculating into vaginas was a "reliable" form of birth control, i had my suspicions! i was like: apparently all of the dudes i have argued with about birth control have become scientists! who knew?

AMANDA: published in the renowned peer-reviewed journal of medicine, Maxim.

SADY: right. it strikes me as some flawed science, is what i am saying! for, even if withdrawal is a semi-effective method of "birth control," it strikes me as a highly ineffective method of Not Getting Various Diseases Such As The Herp Control. which i think is what Tracy Quan is saying, which is good common sense.

AMANDA: of course, but at the same time, real scientists who are not your ex-boyfriends have worked very hard to come up with dozens of methods of birth control that also don't prevent STDs

SADY: fair enough! the scientists, they do these things! i suppose i am a person who likes a certain modicum of control over these situations. and withdrawal as birth control, TO ME, relies on your partner having (a) really good timing, and (b) a solid commitment to not getting distracted or losing track of whatever he is supposed to be doing, during a moment that (AS I UNDERSTAND IT) can be kind of distracting! (I AM REFERRING TO THE MALE ORGASM. In case my incredible tastefulness and subtlety are working against me.)

AMANDA: this is a point that Quan made as well, and I agree that for a lot of people withdraw would not be a good option for this reason. But all forms of birth control come with a degree of human error, or in some cases, shit ripping inside your vagina error. say you're a couple who doesn't want to use condoms. and the woman takes her birth control pills, but the man, like you, can't trust her—for whatever reason—to take them at the same time every day. maybe she forgets sometimes!

SADY: fair enough!

AMANDA: he might not want to rely on her, either. and so if you forget a birth control pill, or a condom breaks, or you ejaculate into a vagina, you know, you can take emergency contraception as well. one of the interesting things to me about this study—and i'm just going to assume the study is accurate for argument, because i don't know anything about methodology with these things. is that it placed withdrawl slightly below condoms, right? and still, most of the response has been, 'there's no way this could ever work, this is some frat dude conspiracy.' and so perhaps what this study reveals isn't that withdrawl is a very good option, but rather that we have a bit too much faith in condoms

SADY: a fascinating point! and i agree, some of this may have to do with the fact that, as long as i've been alive, anyway, Birth Control has been less important to the discussion than Safe Sex. and most of the sex ed i have ever received has been like, "USE CONDOMS, also there are other methods but seriously just USE CONDOMS." and i'm still a fan of the condom, because it is cheap and does not require a prescription and has a lower failure rate and higher disease protection rate than other things! the withdrawal method, to me, requires what is (in many or most circumstances) a perhaps unrealistically high level of trust for one's makeout partner. but maybe this just has to do with the fact that i have been culturally conditioned to trust other people less than i trust the Trojan corporation.

AMANDA: of course. and the method is really counter-intuitive, because pulling out is something that irresponsible 15 year old boys are supposed to do, when really it's something that would be more appropriate for, say, mutually monogamous STD-free old people.

SADY: right. it is odd for me that something which is the centerpiece of much heterosexual porn is now a meaningful expression of committed monogamous trust. NEXT UP: how having sex on a bus can keep you from getting cancer!

AMANDA: hhahaha. yeah. i heard if you put a donut on it and then seductively bite it off it lowers the risk of kidney failure, or something

SADY: WOW. a doughnut, you say! i guess i've been doing it all wrong with the bagels.

AMANDA: i'm with the critics of Quan with this one, though – something that PEOPLE DO turning out to be less sexually risky than we thought is probably a good thing. she says a bit of anxiety is good, but i actually have a lot of that! and so reducing that is probably a good thing for a lot of people. maybe not for Quan, but it's not like we're getting rid of condoms! The Trojan lobby (sponsored by Tiger Beatdown) would never allow that.

SADY: true enough. i guess i am just concerned with the fact that there is already pressure on girls to be the "cool" ones who don't "make" the dude use condoms. i do not know why i think that the sort of dudes who apply that pressure are all going to show up with scientific studies and go through a careful risk-benefit analysis! yet i do. in conclusion: withdrawal is totally fine, if you want to do that and are reasonable about it, and not fine if you do not. CONTROVERSY!

AMANDA: agreed. DON'T LET HIM NOT EJACULATE IN YOUR VAGINA IF YOU DON'T WANT HIM TO NOT DO THAT, KIDS.

SADY: there, problem solved. everybody does what they want to do. the real winner? the paper towel industry. hurrah!

Photo by amorphity

According to the couple, most residents of the U.K. prefer Durex-brand condoms.

“They are a hell of a lot cheaper here, and we do try to take a lot of stuff back with us, but we’re definitely not taking these.”

Millions of British tourists flock to the U.S. each year to make the most of bargain prices, but research by Washington City Paper suggests that few will be returning with suitcases full of condoms.

Nobody at Church and Dwight Co., the company behind the Trojan range, was reached for comment.

Two men loiter between the “eye care” and the “vapor relief” sections. They look around. They seem on edge. They’re sizing up the condoms. I understand their distress—confronted with eight shelves of contraceptives, how's a girl guy to choose these days? “Twisted Pleasure” or “NATURALAMB”?

I decided to make their whole experience a little more embarrassing by conducting some market research of my own.

“Most people will get the ultra-thin, or the ultra-ribbed. They’ll go with that,” says one guy in his early twenties. “But if you’re smart like me, you’ll go for the Ecstasy type.” He assures me that Ecstacy is the best: the Chateau Lafitte of the condom world. They are ultra-ultra-thin. “Its all about the feeling,” he explains.

It’s not only the brand, of course. Condom selection is also a numbers game.

“I’d get a big box. It’s a sign of commitment,” the second gentleman tells me, before picking up a pregnancy test and dragging his friend down the aisle—“He’s got to find out if his girlfriend’s pregnant.”

A third customer has a slightly different view: “You know men are always gonna get Magnums because it says ‘big size.’ They get that even if it comes off," she says.

This appears to be a recurring problem for her. “You know my boyfriend—well, my ex now—always used to get them, and I’d tell him he didn’t need that shit.”

Pharmacies that keep their condoms in locked cases cite shoplifting as the main rationale for the safe-sex lock-up. When shoppers are ashamed to buy sex-related items, the theory goes, they're more likely to steal them—instead of sheepishly carrying them to the counter. But condom shame could hold a hidden benefit for pharmacies as well: When customers do buy condoms, they're more likely to impulse-buy other items, as well.

Online pharmacy mastersdirect.com has conducted a survey about pharmacy shopping habits which is probably mostly bullshit. But the dubious reporting here may hold some truths about pharmacy hang-ups:

* "One out of 10 men said . . . they have had unprotected sex because they were too embarrassed to buy condoms from a pharmacy."

* "A quarter has simply walked out of a pharmacy because they were too embarrassed to ask for a particular health product."

* "Thrush creams, tampons and pregnancy tests also made people feel conspicuous. In an attempt to hide their embarrassment over their purchases, well over a third had even bought something they didn't need as a 'cover-up'."

If the last statement is true, pharmacies may not be too eager to reduce the stigma of condom purchasing in their stores. If purchases of condoms, tampons, and lube are accompanied by a lucrative cover, why tone-down your employees' sex-product gawking?

Personally, I've never been so embarrassed to buy a health product that I've walked out of the store. But I have definitely picked up a cover item or two to balance out my sex-related purchase. I usually go for the gummy bears—cheap, tasty, close to the counter. I can't really explain why I find that necessary. Am I afraid the cashier will know that I'm on my period? That I plan to have sex soon? That I plan to have reduced-friction sex soon? Why, instead, would I prefer that the cashier know I'm bleeding out of my vagina, want to have sex, and require a snack?

Photo by Darrow Montgomery

Tomorrow, Cure CVS Now and a coalition of public health advocates will gather outside the Dupont Circle CVS store in an attempt to pressure the pharmacy chain to rethink its locked condom policies. The ultimate goal of the "rally and press conference" is to convince "CVS to adopt a corporate policy to keep all condoms unlocked at all times." A letter to CVS CEO Tom Ryan will be unveiled!

Gina Bowers of Cure CVS Now admits that the CVS store at 6 Dupont Circle does not lock up its condoms—and that D.C. CVS stores are freer than in many other cities with high HIV rates across the country. "We wanted to do this in D.C. to focus on the national nature of our campaign, but we also want to acknowledge that we are doing this on the backs of the activists who have had success in unlocking the condoms there," she says. Though the District of Columbia has been somewhat of a success story for public health groups like Cure CVS Now and Save Lives, Free the Condoms, Bowers says that the condom-freeing work—in D.C. and elsewhere—isn't done until a national policy is in place. "One thing our researchers have found is that many stores only unlock the condoms for a while, and then lock them back up again," she says.

More details about the rally:

WHAT: Rally and press conference

WHO: National Organization of Women (NOW); Advocates for Youth; ACT UP; Latino Commission on AIDS; Black Women for Wellness; Community HIV/AIDS Mobilization Project (CHAMP); more.

WHEN: 12:30 PM EST Thursday, June 11, 2009

WHERE:

CVS/pharmacy
6 Dupont Circle
Washington, D.C.

Photo by NCinDC

Via Feministe: Advocates for Youth, in conjunction with Cure CVS Now, has created a petition to tell CVS to unlock the condom cases in its stores:

Call on CVS to unlock condom cases in all its stores. Locked condoms create a barrier to condom access, and could be a threat to public health. CVS's practice of locking condom cases in minority neighborhoods is unacceptable, and we urge CVS to change its store policy. Walgreens and Rite-Aid prohibit condom lock-up: it's time CVS did the same.

CVS claims to have unlocked all of the condoms in its Washington, D.C. stores. Last month, I wrote a story about how, despite the lip service, condom access in our CVS stores remains a pain in the ass. Unlocking the condoms and then placing them into click-boxes which are often broken—and sometimes actually locked!—isn't good enough. Perhaps the petition should read: Unlock the condoms. For real this time, guys.

Sign the petition here.

Photo by Darrow Montgomery

Last week, I wrote about how CVS Pharmacies in Washington, D.C. are continuing to limit access to condoms by locking up some stores and declining to work with public health activist groups. The main problem with condom lock-up is that it forces customers to interact with several employees, wait around in front of the condom box, and verbally request the product. In short, it's embarrassing.

Sometimes, the employees make it more so. I stopped by a CVS in Los Angeles last week to pick up some personal items—not condoms, though. I approached the cashier with a box of tampons, some Midol, and a pack of gum. I was with a boy.

The cashier rung up my merchandise, requested my CVS card, and delivered my change. Then, she said this to us:

"You kids have fun this weekend, whatever you do or don't do!"

Whatever we "do" or "don't do"? You got us good, CVS. I thought your employees could only make me uncomfortable about doing it when I bought something actually related to sex. Now I know you can make me uncomfortable about doing it (or not doing it!) when I buy anything at all!

Photo by Editor B

Three years ago, if you were to walk into a CVS store in search of condoms, you’d face about a 50 percent chance of hitting a brick wall. In 2006, 22 of about 50 CVS stores in the District of Columbia were guarding their condoms under lock and key. The glass-case treatment was reserved for neighborhoods with the greatest need for contraceptives—the wards with the highest rates of HIV.

Securing a three-pack of Trojans required you to alert an employee who would escort you to the glass condom case, unlock it, wait as you made your selection, then lock the case again behind you. The purchase could be further complicated by wait time, employee attitude toward condoms, and the customer’s level of shame—all factors which could deter a potential buyer from preventing the spread of HIV.

CVS brass, however, was more interested in protecting the condoms from those who refused to buy. The locks were in place to prevent shoplifters from “grabbing a whole bunch of condoms and running out of the store,” says CVS spokesperson Mike DeAngelis. “The stores that had to keep condoms locked experienced shoplifting to such a degree that our entire inventory was being wiped out,” he says. “There were no longer condoms available for customers to purchase.”

In the fall of 2006, CVS managers around the District began to reevaluate the policy. Twenty-one of the stores have taken contraceptives out of the cases, leaving only one Southeast stalwart with locked-up rubbers. But the managers weren’t unlocking of their own volition: They were just appeasing the activists. 2006 is also the year that students from the George Washington University’s School of Public Health and Health Services launched “Save Lives: Free the Condoms.” The campaign, now administered through the Metropolitan Washington Public Health Association, was targeted specifically at CVS’ condom policies. Over the next two years, Save Lives formed a coalition with other public health groups, drummed up media attention, and then, store by store, convinced CVS to free its contraception.

Though locked glass cases are still employed in the pharmacies to protect precious items like soap, toothbrushes, pregnancy tests, and lube, condoms have been upgraded from “locked” to simply “inaccessible.” But with the help of some new technology and a little repression, CVS condoms are still hard to reach in the areas that need them most. According to GW professor Caroline Sparks, who helped launch the campaign, “it is a misapprehension that condoms are now unlocked in Washington.”

—

MEET THE "POWER WING." Post-emancipation, CVS condoms migrated from the glass case to the “power wing.” The wings, in shelf-talk, are displays that feature limited supplies of certain highlighted products like sunglasses, batteries—and now condoms. The wings are designed to encourage a well-intentioned customer to grab one pack of condoms, while preventing shoplifters from making off with armfuls.

Shumaya Ali, one of the original GW students involved in the campaign, says “limited” is the key word in the power wings’ limited supply. “At first we said, well, it’s better than having everything locked up,” says Ali. “But when we did a follow-up survey, we would go to stores and see the shelves empty, or see that many sizes were still not available.”

An empty power wing is on par with a locked case—it means that customers must grovel with a CVS employee to retrieve condoms from the back. The liberating quality of the new policy depends upon how regularly employees restock the merchandise. Access to stocked shelves also varies by neighborhood. A national CVS watchdog organization, Cure CVS Now, collects user-submitted photos of “good” and “bad” CVS stores, often determined by a neighborhood’s median income and racial makeup. In the photos, a sparse dairy case in Compton is slicked with brown and black liquid, while a Beverly Hills case is fully stocked with fresh milk; a Detroit freezer case is littered with gnawed sunflower seeds, while one in Rochester Hills, Mich., is sanitarily stocked with frozen pizzas.

Jana Baldwin, a current campaign member, says the stocking disparity is no coincidence. “What I personally found, and continue to find on my 17 or so visits to various CVSs around D.C., is that when there are the power wings in the deemed ‘high-theft’ CVS locations, they are not well-stocked,” she says. “Interestingly enough, when I have spoken with managers about why they are not well-stocked, many have said that it is not because there have been condoms stolen, per-se—it is because they want to prevent theft,” she says. “So it doesn’t really make sense.”

According to Ali, the move to power wings didn’t do much to solve the disparity issue, but it did help CVS address another problem: public relations. “It was a small step that showed we were getting through to CVS,” she says. “But it didn’t actually improve anything.”

—

MEET THE “CLICK-BOX.”

Though many CVS stores continue to tout the power wing, some have installed a more sophisticated contraption: the click-box. These clear plastic vending machines, which push out condoms at the push of a button, are modeled after CVS’ mechanism for dispensing razors. The device has streamlined the condom-selecting experience down to three simple steps: 1. Push the red button, 2. Pull the handle on the drawer, and 3. Remove the product. Some click-boxes have included an additional recommendation between steps two and three: “Wait for product to dispense.”

At CVS’ Columbia Heights store, some customers have had trouble waiting for the product to dispense. On a Friday night, CVS shift supervisor Dre apologizes for the store’s barely functional click-box, where red buttons rarely manage to push out the correct product. “Sometimes it gets stuck when someone sticks their hand in there before it’s ready,” Dre says. When the machine is broken, Dre is on call to unlock the click-boxes and retrieve the condoms. “It’s crazy, but that stuff gets stolen like crazy,” he explains. “I mean, I think they should be free.”

Even fully functional click-boxes are often monitored by additional store security. Many are situated right in front of the pharmacy counter, where whitecoats can watch your every move—or at least hear it. Pushing the red button triggers a loud grinding noise that makes the experience less than discreet.

Still, most of the time, you don’t have to explicitly inform an employee that you want them “ribbed for her pleasure”—as long as the condom makes it out of its cage. Campaign member Noraine Buttar recalls the consequences of reaching too deeply into a click box: “Someone who was working there walked by and snapped, ‘That’s not how you do that,’” she says. “That sort of reaction means that the process can still be very embarrassing for some people.”

The highly supervised, one-box-at-a-time method proved too liberating for one CVS store in 2007. Many click-boxes are fortified with additional locks, which can swing down over the case at the manager’s discretion. Save Lives: Free the Condoms staged a protest outside of one Petworth CVS when it found that the store’s click-box remained locked during business hours—meaning you needed an employee’s help in order to push the button to pull the handle to remove the product. According to the GW Hatchet, the CVS store unlocked the click-box in the course of the protest, but the store’s manager can’t confirm it: “I couldn’t talk to you about that,” he says. “We’re not allowed to talk to anyone about anything, regardless.”

—

MEET THE "GAG ORDER."

The Petworth manager was just following another CVS post-lock-up strategy. While competitors like Walgreens and Rite-Aid institute company-wide policies ensuring that condoms stay on open shelves, CVS has continued to delegate condom management to a store-by-store basis. CVS’ reluctance to institute companywide policies aside, the pharmacy has instituted at least one order: Employees are not to comment on the issue.

Save Lives: Free the Condoms encountered the gag order midway through its campaign. “We started negotiating at the national level, and while we were in the process of debating with CVS, lots of news releases were coming out about us, supporting our campaign,” says Ali. “Meanwhile, CVS was going behind our back and changing policies store-by-store—starting to put up the clear dispensers and power wings,” she says.

CVS’ strategy—eliminating locks while avoiding a larger discussion—lead to the swift emancipation of dozens of CVS stores. It also left Save Lives: Free the Condoms shut out of the post-lock discussion. “What we want is a comprehensive policy from CVS,” says Ali. “What they did was just take very small steps at the stores where they were pushed hardest, in order to avoid the press.”

Even as it rolled out the new devices, Buttar says, CVS refused to extend the discussion. After sending e-mails and placing phone calls in an attempt to open a dialogue with CVS, its communications team “started blocking our e-mails,” Buttar says. “I could tell what happened—they were coming back immediately with this message saying, “This address no longer accepts e-mails from your address,” Buttar says. Adds Sparks, “Historically, corporations that have consumer problems have two options: They can negotiate in good faith, or they can try to circle the wagon,” she says. “CVS has decided to circle the wagon, thinking that the whole thing would go away. But the whole thing has not gone away.”

At the CVS stores I called, store managers refused to comment on the state of their condoms, pushing queries to the corporate line—where DeAngelis, in turn, wouldn’t comment on individual stores’ practices. The information gap makes things harder for the Save Lives campaign, which must mount new inspections of CVS stores to ensure that the pharmacies aren’t backsliding. In February, Baldwin visited the CVS location at 2646 Naylor Road SE, where she found the click-box locked. Since that precaution can be added and removed instantly, Save Lives: Free the Condoms can never say for sure how many condoms remain locked. When called, that store’s manager wouldn’t discuss power wings or click-boxes, but he would offer one line: “We do not lock our condoms.”

DeAngelis says that the new devices have been effective in decreasing shoplifting—and activist attention. When asked how free-condom activists have responded to power-wing and click-boxes, DeAngelis pleaded ignorance: “I’m not aware that they’ve been in touch recently,” he says.

Photo by Darrow Montgomery

Last month, I wrote a story on why the government won't fund local youth AIDS prevention group WAIT (or Washington AIDS International Teens). WAIT's problem was this:

a. Their goal was stopping the spread of HIV.

b. Their methodology was abstinence.

c. The government only funds one or the other.

Last week, President Obama proposed to add another roadblock to their fight for funding by cutting abstinence-only cash from the budget altogether.

Now, groups like WAIT, which represent the most practical side of abstinence eduction—delaying sex only to prevent an uncurable deadly disease—will remain, well, pretty much unaffected. As I detailed in my piece, federally-funded abstinence-only education was always itself too much of a "comprehensive" strategy. In order to receive federal funding, abstinence groups couldn't just work against AIDS—they also had to teach prevention of “out-of-wedlock pregnancy”; that “a mutually faithful monogamous relationship in context of marriage is the expected standard of human sexual activity”; and that “sexual activity outside of the context of marriage is likely to have harmful psychological and physical effects.”

So while proponents of comprehensive sex education rejoice at the White House rule, some abstinence advocates, at least, aren't lamenting the move: abstinence's realists have always been left behind.

Photo by Darrow Montgomery.

This week, I wrote a cover story for the paper on the sex life at the Catholic University of America, the official U.S. university of the Catholic Church. The Washington, D.C. school bans all behavior that is "inconsistent with the teaching and moral values of the Catholic Church"—including premarital sex, condom use, masturbation, and sexual assault.

Every year, Catholic's coeds manage to successfully compromise the university policies—and their own chastity—within the school's residence halls (and, according to one student, in the student center). The difficulty, for students and administrators, is acknowledging that sex happens. Consistent with Catholic tradition, sex isn’t sex at the Catholic University of America if nobody knows about it.

You can pick up the story on newsstands tomorrow.

Illustration by Doug Boehm

Devon Hunter, a "a career exotic dancer with formal, professional training in dance and theatre," set out on the streets hit the clubs of D.C. last weekend in the hopes of launching a new safe-sex campaign. All the guys he approached thought Devon Hunter—who should call me, by the way—was totally lame.

"I’d asked three people if they’d like to be part of an advertising campaign to promote safe sex. All three rejected me," he writes. "Two said, 'Condoms are so 1985,' and the third said, 'Condoms are so 1980’s.' It had never occurred to me that safe sex was trendy, much less that condoms were connected in some way to fashion."

I agree with Hunter that this does not bode well for the future of the HIV epidemic in D.C. Still, I'm impressed that the condoms-are-lame trend is so specific! One respondent narrowed condom use down to the decade that it became uncool; two pinned the exact year.

Hunter posits that we should mix things up and reestablish condoms as "so 2009." I say that fashion is cyclical. Now that AIDS is back, condoms can't be too far behind.

Photo by Jeb Ro

Cristina Page for Reproductive Health Reality Check wrote yesterday on one sector of the economy that hasn't hurt from the economic downturn: Birth control sales. Page's evidence of a contraceptive spike:

- Vasectomy.com has fielded a 30 percent increase in appointment requests since January

- Over-the-counter contraceptives (like condoms and emergency contraception) have "jumped a dazzling 10.2 percent in the first two months of the year."

- Nielson reports that "condom sales jumped up 5 percent in the fourth quarter of 2008 and 6 percent in January compared with the same time periods last year."

- and "sales of Essure, a non-invasive, irreversible birth control method for women were up also, 28 percent over last year's sales."

The numbers aren't simply evidence of couples putting off pregnancies during the recession—they're also a big fuck-you to Congressional Republicans who objected to the family planning provisions in Obama's stimulus. Vasectomies, condoms, and Plan B are great options for men and women with health insurance and cash. But those Americans who can't afford to step-up their birth control with their current bank balances will be having recession-era babies—and they're the ones who will be hit hardest by another mouth to feed.

Or, as Page puts it: "So much for contraception being a non-sequitur in discussions about the economy."

Photo by Marshall Astor

Zack Rosen over at The New Gay wrote an excellent column the other day about the importance of condom use within the gay community. The post covers a lot of ground—personal responsibility, modes of transmission, casual anal bleeding:

A couple years ago when one of the cutest boys I’d ever seen begged me to fuck him without a condom. Actually, beg is the wrong word. He pleaded. He whined. He implored me not to use one as if it was simply some seasoning our our sexual entree that he found disagreeable.

Condoms, however, are not cilantro and I refused to eat without one. And the next morning I found his blood on my sheets, meaning that if he had listened to me, and I was HIV+, he would’ve been too. What a dumbass.

Zack answers a lot of questions about cultural attitudes toward condoms in same-sex relationships, but he also posed a question for me: Do straight people feel the same urgency to use protection?

I am but one woman, and I do not speak for The Straights. But D.C.'s newest AIDS numbers included two statistics that may have something do do with each other: The leading mode of transmission for new HIV cases is heterosexual sex, and 7 out of 10 D.C. citizens reported to not use condoms.

One reason I think condom concern may be lower among heterosexuals is that the HIV threat hasn't been pounded into our brains for decades, like it has in the gay community. Also, "protection" means something different than STD prevention for us—it also means preventing babies. In a lot of heterosexual relationships, sex partners are often so worried about pregnancy that the fear of conception overshadows concern over STDs.

I have to think that the real question, in the straight world, must be this: Are condoms as important to men as they are to women? In both cases—pregnancy and STD prevention—the responsibility to use protection often falls on her. She has to go to the doctor regularly and get her birth control prescription and make sure she takes it correctly every day. Often, she also has to make sure the man is wearing a condom. If she doesn't, she's more at risk than he is: In a female-to-male HIV contact scenario, women are more likely to contract the virus than men are, because of the way our bodies are made. This is true all the time—it doesn't depend on whether or not anybody is bleeding or whether the sex is anal.

So, that leads me to my question for Zack: Are condoms as important to guys on top as they are to guys on bottom?

Photo by victoriapeckham.

The U.S. Agency for International Development, or USAID, helps fight AIDS by distributing tens of millions of condoms worldwide. The initiative hasn't just helped to save lives—it's also supported the jobs of hundreds of U.S. condom-makers. But the AIDS-fighting, job-creating super match-up couldn't last: The U.S. government is now switching its condom source to lower-cost rubbers produced China and other countries. Some say the change is "expected to cost 300 American jobs." The change, however, will save three cents on each condom: American condoms run a pricey five-cents-a-pop, whereas Chinese prophelactics go for a cool two cents.

Photo by ~chichun~

The District's official report this week was astounding: The number of people with HIV infections rose 22 percent from 2006 to 2007. More ominously, the report said 6.5 percent of the city's black men are infected—that is more than 1 in 20. The disease is decimating not only the District's gay community, but its African-American neighborhoods. Yet, the city has a major condom distribution program: More than 1.5 million condoms were distributed in 2008. In other words, it is raining condoms and still the District's AIDS rate is soaring. The answer is not free birth control or more sex education, but a return to the old Judeo-Christian moral order—marriage, abstinence and personal responsibility.

If Kuhner thinks that marriage is a leading protector against HIV, and that "the District's gay community" is the one most affected by the crisis, what better solution to stop HIV than to OK gay marriage? Ever since the new District's AIDS numbers came out, conservatives have been quick to point out that throwing condoms at HIV is about as effective as throwing the Pope at Africa. It's time for conservatives to bolster their anti-condom stances with real solutions: Allowing men to have monogamous gay sex under legal marriage protection.

"The scourge cannot be resolved with the distribution of prophylactics; on the contrary, the risk is of increasing the problem."

. . . despite the insistence of journalists present that yeah, it was actually the first one, not that it matters, because the second one is essentially the same.

I would parse the Vatican's version of the interview myself, but as of now, it's only published in Italian. So I'll just say that it's not surprising the Vatican would offer up an alternate version of the interview, as it appears the Catholic Church is living in an alternate reality.

The Washington Post's editorial board published a piece today arguing that "Pope Benedict XVI Is Wrong on Condoms." An understatement, sure, but I was still glad to see our newspaper of record take God's gift to Africa down a notch. Until I got, oh, four sentences in:

In a perfect world, people would abstain from having sex until they were married or would be monogamous in committed relationships.

Now, at long last, we know what a perfect world would look like!

Nobody would have sex until they were married, except for the gays, who would never have sex ever (except while in Massachusetts and Connecticut). We would all be virgins until we caved and got married too young so we could have sex finally, only to figure out that we didn't really like our spouses enough to spend all eternity with them (and also that the sex was bad). We wouldn't get divorced, because divorce is also un-perfect. Our children would suffer, because even while married we wouldn't be allowed to use contraception.

Take heart, sinners: Everyone who is currently having premarital sex is doing his or her part to make our world a little less perfect. Those of you who are unmarried but are "monogamous in committed relationships" are less unperfect, as long as that committed relationship is your first and it ends in a marriage which ends in death.

Thanks for showing us the way, Washington Post editorial board, secret agents of the Papacy!

Photo by roblisameehan

Finally, the debate is over, and we may finally know who is truly to blame for HIV!

As promised, blogger Black Informant has posted a response to my response to his response to my response to his call for a debate based on my response to a blog post he wrote about the District's new HIV numbers, thus concluding our virtual tête-à-tête. Let me begin by saying that it's been a blast, and I hope that Black Informant has a great summer and never changes.

Since Black Informant's post was to be the final one in our debate, which spanned fisting, rimming, irresponsible hedonism, and the importance of a good education, I won't respond to the points he's made here. If anyone would like to weigh in in the comments—by all means. Below, I've collected the greatest hits of Black Informant's closing statement.

"Africa is dealing with an almost completely different set of cultural issues that cannot be compared to the gay and lesbian community here in the West. The only real challenge for us Westerners is deciding whether or not we are going to take it too far in the bedroom. That is a far cry of what is taking place on the African continent."

—

"If you are an adult and of sound mind, economic position in life has NOTHING to do with self-control in the bedroom. While many of the various HIV/AIDS studies out there focus exclusively on those infected with this disease, you will be hard-pressed to find a study that focuses on those who are making the right personal choices. No matter what ethnic/economic demographic you study, the majority on this issue has managed to make the right choices and steer away from risky sexual behavior."

___

"For the sake of argument, let’s say the average cost of a pack of condoms is about $10. Do you really believe that the low income folks in your district can’t afford a $10 box of condoms? “Low income” does not mean “no income“. If people really wanted to make the right choices regarding their sexual practices, do you really think that a locked display at a local drug store would deter them? If that is the case, then cigarettes must not be selling too well in DC. The low-income population in DC may have its share of problems, but stupidity isn’t one of them.

Thanks for the discussion."

Thank you!

I've written pretty extensively on how pharmacists can exert power over their customer's contraceptive use. I've reported on pharmacists who restrict birth control by hewing to Catholic tradition; by refusing to talk; by extolling the virtues of "natural family planning"; and by writing absurd run-arounds into their policies.

Now, Shark-Fu of Angry Black Bitch and Shakesville details a more nontraditional method employed by some pharamcists in her hometown of St. Louis, Missouri: the "stank eye."

"A bitch is concerned about the impact of stank eye," writes Shark-Fu. "Specifically, I’m concerned by the stank eye many people are subjected to when they buy condoms at their local pharmacy."

Shark-Fu was in line at Walgreens on Valentine's Day when she noticed a young man preparing to purchase "two packs of condoms." When he placed the condoms on the counter, "the woman behind the counter leveled the most intense stank eye on him that I’ve seen in a long time. . . . I’m talking the same level of stank coming from the eyes that this bitch gets from those wooden cross dragging protesters outside of Pridefest each year…mmmhmm, STANK!"

The man completed his purchase, but who can say whether the stank eye will discourage him and countless other victims from buying condoms in the future? And how might a concerned citizen combat the pharmacist's stank eye?

Shark-Fu says: Fight stank eye with stank eye. "[W]hen I came up to purchase my juice I gave Ms. Thang some stank eye right back. . . I stared hard…hard as hell…so hard and so filled with angry disgust that when she lifted her eyes to me she physically jerked. And then she flushed and looked away."