A spindly, beautiful woman is extended on a chaise lounge in an immaculate ruffled dress. She is paging idly through an antique book when a floating trail of sparkly light interrupts her reading. She follows the glow up the staircase of the manse and into a room marked by fresh roses and enchanting music, where she twirls luxuriously and pets her own hair. A shining perfume bottle appears, suspended in the air. It turns magnificently to reveal its label: "CERVICAL CANCER."

"Maybe it's unfair to get your attention this way," a narrator admits. "But nothing is fair about cervical cancer." When it comes to marketing products related to women's health, anything is fair game—as long as your sexist tropes are dispatched in the name of "awareness."

The frilly cancer awareness ad is produced by GlaxoSmithKline, the pharmaceutical company behind HPV vaccine Cervarix, an alternative to Gardasil that was approved by the FDA last October and is already in heavy use in the UK. The premise of the new ad is that it's unfair to lure women into cervical cancer awareness with shiny things—but cervical cancer awareness is so important that it just doesn't matter how offensively sexist that premise is.

The pinkification of women's health is nothing new, of course. Breast cancer awareness promoters have long engaged in the deep feminization of women's health. Breast cancer is now inextricably linked to such enduring symbols of femininity as pink ribbons, flowers, butterflies, angels, teddy bears, cartoon penguins, and yogurt. Adult women who develop abnormal cell growth in the tissues of the breasts aren't any regular cancer patients—they're cancer patients who must be treated with infant-fairy-princesses gloves.

The infantilization of women's health is a product of a marketing environment where women's breasts are constantly reinforced as overtly sexual, while other aspects of women's bodies—like menstruation—are dismissed as vulgar. The pervasive pink is an attempt to neutralize the idea that women's bodies are necessarily either sexy or gross by unleashing a boatload of nonthreatening, nonsexual, girly symbolism. The ultimate goal is to normalize the conversation about all the bad shit that can happen to women's bodies . . . by reinforcing the most convenient sexist stereotype for this particular cause. But because that conversation is so important to have, pharmaceutical companies like GlaxoSmithKline are given free reign to take the "ooh, shiny!" route, insult the women their product hopes to protect, and chalk it all up to "awareness."

Other women's health advocates have taken the opposite tactic. Some are hoping to raise awareness of breast cancer in the same way we raise awareness of beer and cars—by emphasizing just how sexy titties really are. This week, Heartless Doll pointed to a recent breast cancer fundraiser in New York City, "Generosi-titties," which features female comedians telling jokes without their shirts on, all in the name of "awareness."

[youtube:v=Q0xckcvV2KM]

"Whatever gets people through the door," Heartless Doll's Andrea Grimes writes. "But wouldn't it be more interesting if what got people through the door was hilarious women telling great jokes for a great cause, not hilarious women taking their tops off as a publicity stunt? You can't even argue that the end result is the same–that it's all just raising money and awareness, so no panty-wadding allowed. Because the end result of the topless show is that women can, will and should take their tops off if they really want someone (men) to listen to them. And that's detrimental to all women, everywhere."

I'd add that this tactic—which equates a woman's worth with her breasts—is particularly offensive to women who actually suffer from breast cancer, many of whom find it medically necessary to remove their breasts in order to survive.

I understand the importance of encouraging awareness of women's health issues among men and women. Men can be instrumental in raising awareness among their friends, donating money to the cause, and helping to prevent the spread of sexually transmitted viruses, like HPV, which can cause cancer in women. The importance of breast and cervical cancer awareness among women goes without saying. But I agree with Grimes that cancer awareness that emphasizes women as either silly girls or sex objects doesn't encourage the general population to start caring about women as people. As YouTube user bobyzuckerman of the "Generosi-titties" awareness campaign: "great concept I love boobies."

I'm currently working on a story that touches on a lighter side of this problem—sex partners who don't quite understand how your birth control method actually works. If you've ever heard any bizarre theories about how exactly that pill stops babies from popping out of your ladyparts, please let me know.

But the tendency to place the burden for reproductive health on women reaches into far more serious territory. Case in point: Gardasil, the vaccine that prevents against HPV, was initially exclusively developed for use in young women, even though the virus affects 75 percent of men and women under 50. What's up with that?

In the new issue of Ms. Magazine, Dr. Adina Nack of California Lutheran University attacks the issue of the HPV vaccine's inconsistent application among men and women. According to a Ms. press release:

The CDC recommends “routine” vaccination for females ages 9-26 but, last October, after the FDA approved Gardasil for prevention of genital warts in boys and men, the CDC voted in favor of a lesser recommendation of “permissive” use in males that is likely to make the vaccine less affordable for men.

Translation: While the CDC permits use of this vaccine among both men and women, it only recommends that women receive the vaccination. The effect is that men will be less likely to elect to receive the Gardasil vaccine, and that health insurance companies will be less likely to provide adequate coverage for that use.

Gardasil is chiefly advertised as a method of preventing cervical cancer among women, an approach which glosses over the serious medical problems that HPV can cause in men—including genital warts, anal cancer, and oral cancer. There have been a few recent developments in providing access to the vaccine to young men. Today, in light of a Gardasil study that found the vaccine "successfully prevents deadly anal cancer in men," the CDC's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) met to consider the expansion of the HPV vaccine in men [PDF]. Yesterday, Health Canada approved the vaccine for use in Canadian men aged 9-26 in order to prevent genital warts.

Why have we been slow to recommend this vaccine equally to both men and women? Men's reproductive health has not traditionally been medicalized like women's bodies have been. Women are accustomed to being subjected to annual medical check-ups on the status of their sexual health, including what sort of damage HPV may be looking to exact on their cervix. Men aren't. So while I'm forced to receive my annual pap smear and raft of STD tests in order to receive a refill on my birth control prescription, my male sex partner is subject to no such requirement. When you start considering the possibility of injecting young people with three doses of a vaccine that, like all vaccines, holds possible side-effects, women are the natural recipient of such a remedy. Their bodies have already been engaged in these issues, while male bodies have so far been kept at a distance.

As Nack notes, advocating for men to take control of their reproductive health can only help women:

“Feminists have a vested interest in advocating for policies and circumstances around the world that shape men’s ability to develop healthy sex lives, which, by definition, has to include respect for the rights of those with whom they partner, regardless of gender,” says Patricia Rieker, Ph.D., a sociologist at Boston University and Harvard Medical School and coauthor of Gender and Health (Cambridge University Press, 2008).

Nack's piece is entitled, "Why Men’s Health Is a Feminist Issue." And women's health is a men's issue, too. As Nack notes, we can't be solely concerned with how STIs will affect our own bodies when we're responsible for spreading these viruses to each other. "Women’s health—especially reproductive health—is usually the focus of sexual-health discussions but men’s health also deserves women’s attention—and not just because women care about their sons, male partners and male friends," she writes. "It almost goes without saying that women can also be infected by their intimate partners, and since the great majority of women primarily have heterosexual relations, that usually means by men."

The Centers for Disease Control is currently weighing whether to recommend the circumcision of boys and men in the United States. If the CDC finds that a circumcision recommendation would reduce the risk of HIV among American men, I think that's swell. Providing people with information to help protect themselves from disease is a wonderful thing. But a CDC recommendation would likely come with one major adverse side-effect. For women who already find uncircumcised penises disgusting, wrong, or unfuckable, the recommendation will also provide more fuel for their ignorance.

Women who shun uncircumcised penises has always struck me as short-sighted. These are the women who will glibly deem their sex partner's genitalia unacceptable if, several decades ago, his parents did not predict her sexual preferences and subject him to newborn penis surgery accordingly. Sound familiar? We're women. We know what it's like to be unfairly judged on impossible physical standards! And yet, even women who are well-informed about sex—women who like it, talk openly about it, and even get paid to write about it—are keeping the genital snubbing alive.

Yesterday, the Frisky's Annika Harris wrote: "Uncircumcised penises repulse and scare me, so my sons are getting cut whether it’s PC or not." And she writes for a sex blog.

On the Simple Life, Paris Hilton and Nicole Richie laughed over catching sight of some uncircumcised dick at a nudist beach, with Richie calling uncircumcised penises "fucking disgusting." And they're Paris Hilton and Nicole Richie.

In circumcision documentary Partly Private, a woman on a Sex and the City bus tour announced that "Ninety-nine percent of women in America would be shocked if they got in bed with someone and they were like: Oh! Huh!" (Watch her genital superiority, above, at the 1:33 mark). And she was standing outside of a sex toy shop while paying homage to a television show almost exclusively devoted to having sex with men. Note that this woman doesn't just express her extreme dislike of uncircumcised penises—she attempts to justify her position by extending the disgust to her entire gender. In the Sex and the City's circumcision episode, incidentally, the girls' penis preferences were split about 50-50.

Whenever I've encountered women like this—women who find uncircumcised penises inherently gross—various medical statistics will doubtlessly be raised in defense of their penis discrimination. Uncircumcised penises, they'll say, have a higher risk of contracting HPV—plus, they look weird. Uncircumcised penises have a higher risk of contracting penile cancer—also, what the fuck do you do with it? Uncircumcised penises have a higher risk of spreading HIV—and none of my girlfriends would ever fuck an uncut guy. These women are interested in sexual health, but they're more interested in protecting their own prejudice against unmodified genitalia. When it comes down to it, it doesn't matter if the guy's clean of STDs—to these women, he will always be unclean.

Again, facts are great. And when the CDC gets around to making a recommendation, we'll all be better informed about just what the risks of circumcision are. But no matter what the HIV link to uncircumcised penises turns out to be, you will never be able to determine a man's status by examining his genitals. (And in some cases, you wouldn't notice the difference anyway). So if you're one of those women who dislikes uncircumcised penises because you consider them to be "unclean," you would be better served to reserve that reaction for penises that don't have condoms on them, or any sexual conduct initiated before you and your partner undergo fresh STD tests. No matter what style of penis you prefer, those two little accessories are a lot more likely to keep you safe than an irrational repulsion to unmodified dick.

Mandating that girls receive the vaccine at age 11 or 12 (there is currently no vaccine for boys) strikes me as a not-bad idea for the following reasons:

(a) D.C. has the highest rate of cervical cancer in the nation
(b) D.C. has one of the most sexually active teen populations in the nation
(c) 80 percent of sexually active teens contract HPV
(d) condoms don't protect against it
(e) it's CDC and FDA-approved for women ages 9 to 26
(f) Gardasil has been criticized for marketing the vaccine to the women least at risk for cervical cancer—all the more reason for D.C. to mandate it for the girls most at risk.

And yet, media coverage of the vaccine in recent weeks has focused almost uniformly on the bogeyman du jour— The Vaccine—instead of that other scary thing—The Virus. Check out the following story ledes about Gardasil:

CNN: "Should Your Daughter Get Gardasil, the Vaccine Against HPV?":

When Raffi Darrow brought in her two daughters, Wendy and Alice, for their annual back-to-school checkups this week, for the first time in her career as a mom, Darrow decided to be a rebel.

Raffi Darrow decided not to get the HPV vaccine for daughters Wendy, left, 11, and Alice, 12.

Even though every federal health authority says her girls, ages 11 and 12, should get Gardasil, the vaccine that helps protect against cervical cancer and genital warts caused by the human papillomavirus, Darrow instructed the pediatrician not to give it to them.

"Up until now my children have had every vaccine doctors have recommended," says Darrow, a graphic designer in St. Petersburg, Florida. "But most friends, like me, fear the safety of something new."

CBS Evening News: "New Worries About Gardasil Safety":

Gabby Swank was a straight-A student and cheerleader.

But that was before she became very ill following the standard dose of three Gardasil vaccinations, Attkisson reports.

You know the commercial. It showed teenage girls saying "I want to be one less" who gets the HPV virus, which is linked to cervical cancer.

"It was like a big hype among my friends, because we're like, 'we're gonna get it' because we felt almost pressured by the commercials," Gabby said.

ABC News: "Parents Doubt Gardasil's Safety":

"I thought I was protecting my daughter."

Tammy Harper, 42, now fears that vaccinating her 14-year old daughter against several strains of the human papilloma virus, or HPV, may not have been the right thing to do.

Harper, from Merrit Island, Fla., is one of many parents gripped by doubt about the safety of Gardasil, the 3-dose vaccine that promises to protect against cancer-causing HPV infections, following media reports this week on government data that called the vaccine's safety into question.

Politely: What the fuck are you people doing? Moms who don't get vaccines for their kids are "rebels." A cheerleader who got sick—maybe from the vaccine, maybe not—was "pressured" by the television commercials. Parents now regret giving the vaccine to their children "following media reports"—and is it at all surprising, giving the flavor of the coverage? With all due respect, "parents"  and Not one of these stories leads with a girl and her parent who receive the vaccine and walk away feeling better that she's been protected from a virus that she almost certainly would have contracted otherwise. Not one focuses on the increased HPV risk for girls in low-income and African-American communities. Not one gives more than a passing consideration to the benefits of the vaccine. Each story packages the worst fears of parents into tidy network news stories to help inform the decisions of other parents. And each story concedes that media reports are one of the biggest factors in a parent's decision about getting the vaccine.

I'm all about knowing your options—and for the record, D.C. parents, you can opt out of the Gardasil mandate if you so choose. But keep in mind that your options aren't:

(a) ruin the life of a cheerleader by opting for Gardasil, or
(b) become a cool rebel mom by rejecting the vaccine.

I don't know: Maybe consult a doctor instead?