* Via Sociological Images, a recent Marie Claire fashion shoot declares that "nude is the new black." Except that by "nude," they mean "the color white people are." White people are the new black. It's science.

* s.e. smith on rethinking the ban on gay and bisexual men donating blood:

The ban is not a deferral period, as is the case for most things that exclude people from donation. It is a lifetime ban. If you are a man who  has had sex with a man since 1977, you are not allowed to donate blood in the United States. Period. End of discussion.

Meanwhile, if you are a heterosexual man who has had sex with a woman whom you know to be HIV positive, there’s a year waiting period on blood donation.

Let me reiterate this: The FDA has determined that a year waiting period to eliminate any possible concerns is enough if you have been exposed to a known risk factor for HIV infection and you are heterosexual. Meanwhile, if you are a gay or bisexual man, you are banned from donation for life unless you haven’t had sex with a man since 1977. Regardless of risk factors. Only had one monogamous partner since 1977, and you’ve both been tested? Banned. Only had protected sex since 1977? Banned. Get regular HIV tests that are always negative, and been tested since the last possible window period? Banned.

* Thomas at Yes Means Yes on labeling sexuality: "Does that make me queer?"

* On Shakesville, is "the end of men" really the end of male privilege?

Hanna Rosin's piece in The Atlantic is titled "The End of Men," but a more accurate title might be "The End of Male Privilege."

Well, it would be a more accurate title if she'd ever managed to tease out the idea that struck me as a glaring omission from the piece: Privileged men's achievement gap, and the associated atrophy born of the observable resistance, or inflexibility, to make quick course corrections, is the inevitable result of a culture that continues to sell privileged men a patriarchal narrative of birthright entitlement, despite the fact that it is nothing but an empty promise of an illusory bounty in which most men will never share.

Simply: American culture continues to promise straight, white, cis, able-bodied men success and supremacy, in exchange for nothing but their being straight, white, cis, and able-bodied. But that shit just ain't enough anymore.

Photo via the Jewish Historical Society of the Upper Midwest

I've been fascinated by the dust-up over "trigger warnings" that's inched across the feminist blogosphere this week. "Trigger warnings," for the uninitiated, are warnings placed before blog posts that touch on certain subject areas (or particularly graphic presentations of them) that could possibly "trigger" the past trauma of a survivor of sexual assault or abuse. So: To trigger-warn or not to trigger-warn?

The debate over the feminist blog staple began with sex writer Susannah Breslin, who thinks trigger warnings are condescending at best, and a disingenuous ploy to keep feminist blogs relevant at worst. The topic then migrated to Feministing, which employs trigger warnings for the simple reason that it "care[s] about rape victims." Feministing declared Breslin a "certifiable asshole," at which point the debate moved on to Jezebel, which doesn't employ trigger warnings, also cares about rape victims, and thinks Breslin is an asshole, too. (For the record, I think Breslin is an asshole, and that's often what makes her work compelling to this feminist, anyway). Melissa McEwan shies from the Breslin: Asshole? angle, but does provide the most impassioned defense of the warnings, writing:

A trigger is something that evokes survived trauma or ongoing disorder. For example, a person who was raped may be "triggered," i.e. reminded of hir rape, by a graphic description of sexual assault, and that reminder may, especially if the survivor has post-traumatic stress disorder, be accompanied by anxiety, manifesting as anything ranging from mild agitation to self-mutilation to a serious panic attack.

Those of us who write about triggering topics (sexual assault, violence, detainee torture, war crimes, disordered eating, suicide, etc.) provide trigger warnings with such content because we don't want to inadvertently cause someone who's, say, sitting at her desk at work, a full-blown panic attack because she happened to read a triggering post the content of which she was unprepared for.

We provide trigger warnings because they give survivors of various stripes the option to assess whether they're in a state of mind to deal with triggering material before they stumble across it. Just like someone who isn't easily triggered can nonetheless have, say, a shorter temper when stressed or tired or hungry, a person whose history of trauma makes some material triggering for them can often navigate triggering material without a problem, except when stressed or tired or hungry. Trigger warnings give them a moment to consider whether they want to deal with potentially triggering material right now.

We provide trigger warnings because it's polite, because we don't want to be the asshole who triggered a survivor of sexual assault because of carelessness or laziness or ignorance.

My personal position on trigger warnings is pretty clear to regular readers—you won't see a trigger warning on this blog. Unlike Breslin, I don't think trigger warnings are some sort of page-view ploy or a harbinger of the End of Feminist Days. But like Breslin, it seems that neglecting to trigger-warn does make me kind of an asshole.

I'll likely never stop being an asshole, but I am open to reconsidering my position on the warnings, and I'd like to know what my readers think about that. So: What are your thoughts on trigger warnings? Survivors, do you find trigger warnings effective? Are triggers too personal to be avoided with a blanket warning? What about feminist blogs that write about potentially triggering subjects in nearly every post (hi there!)? Anyone got a feminist argument against trigger warnings up their sleeves? How big of an asshole am I? Discuss.

Photo via Let Ideas Compete, Creative Commons Attribution License 2.0

Today I thought I'd just cut to the chase and find out what ladies on the Internets think is sexist today. Modern sexism, reveal yourself!

* Gender Goggles reviews Yoko Ono's feminist video project Cut Pieces, thinks jokes are sexist, but not as sexist as sexual assault: "You might argue that there is a world of difference between laughing at a sexist joke and committing mass sexual assault in Central Park, and while this is obviously true it’s also all of a piece. They are on the same continuum of subjugation of women."

Also sexist, according to the Goggles: some newfangled "Ladder Theory" of relationships.

* Jezebel thinks Bukakke-esque advertising isn't as sexy as it is sexist.

* Shakesville's Melissa McEwan thinks cartoon e-mail forwards are sexist, except when they contain visual poo jokes: "we started emailing each other any dumbass forwards we got, especially ones with 'hilarious; sexist jokes and cartoons, with intros like 'This is the best email forward you'll ever receive!' We also send each other good email forwards, too, like the one I sent her of a guy wearing see-through plastic pants and crapping himself, which is a classic."

* Tiger Beatdown thinks that maybe she herself is sexist, but also right, for writing this tirade about rom-coms:

I can hear your cries of shock and denial! But es one hundred percent verdad, ladies: people who watch—and consider themselves fans of—such high quality cinematic entertainments as "Runaway Bride," "Maid in Manhattan," and "The Wedding Planner" do, in fact, tend to have crappy relationships, due to the fact that they believe in "predestined love," immediate commitment, and the idea that "if someone is meant to be with you, then they should know what you want without you telling them."

Photo via trialsanderrors.

* Richard Cizik, the VP for Government Affairs for The National Association of Evangelicals, stepped down yesterday after making comments on NPR "that he backs same-sex civil unions" [via Shakesville].

* Jezebel—along with the rest of the Gawker universe—gets a massive face-lift to "increase pageviews." Agh, what? But we're still working on our redesign that will shamelessly appropriate your model!

* In other NPR news, ye olde tyme radio content  has aborted an interview with an abortion provider, Feministe reports.

* How is "Hot" Rod Blagojeblahblah like Sarah Palin? Now in cartoon form! [Via WaPo'sTom Toles, who just can't quit her].

* Tiger Beatdown beats down the continuing coverage of ladies drinking and whatever the fuck a "ladette" is.

* Can I "make" this hot little item about Tim Gunn coming to D.C. this weekend "work"? Eh, I guess not. He'll be at Halo tonight.

Photo by trialsanderrors.

* Melissa McEwan over at Shakesville says a cat's place is in the cleavage:

this morning, after [the cat had] been driving me bananas for about an hour with this new routine, I tucked the bottom of the tanktop I was wearing up under my boobs to create a little pouch, then stuck her inside, where she promptly fell asleep for about three hours.

And yes, there is a photo.

* Over at The New Gay: A David Foster Wallace obit, from the perspective of someone who's never read a book by David Foster Wallace.

* The District cracks down on clubs that have different age requirements for men and women, the G.W. Hatchet reported last week. Metro News Editor Alexa Millinger writes that it's "not uncommon for bars and clubs to advertise events with a minimum entrance age of 18 for females and 21 for males," and writes that ABRA community resource officer Cynthia Woodruff-Simms "said she knows of a few places in Adams Morgan, U Street and the Southeast Waterfront that use these practices"—all of which seems unnecessarily vague. Can we get the skinny on the effect on those "few places"?

* Via Feministing via Boing Boing: Sexist men make more money. Writes Vanessa:

Most of my friends who make a lot of cheese (finance, technology – all male-dominated fields mind you) seem to have experienced or witnessed more sexism than others. (The corporate world alone is enough to make one nauseous.) And what is there to be said for women who believe in traditional gender roles making less money than women who don't?

* Via Slate: How the "Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood" made the case that "Bratz" dolls—along with "explicit music," "rap videos," and M&M flavored "lip gloss," contribute to "eating disorders, low self-esteem, depression and poor sexual health."

* Larry Craig is back: The Idaho senator has started a legal defense fund to aid in his attempt to overturn his guilty plea from a June 2007 "misdemeanor disorderly conduct" charge, the Idaho Statesman reports. Last February, the Senate Ethics Committee admonished Craig for spending over $200,000 of unused campaign funds to try to reverse the plea; now, he's accepting donations after the fund, dubbed "The Fund for Justice," was OK'd by the Ethics Committee.

* Larry Craig extra: While perusing the Senator's Web site, I came across this page, wherein Larry Craig debunks common Internet rumors for his constituents. The page features a totally creepy photo of Craig who, through some feat of dark magick, appears to be balancing a man-sized Fabergé egg in his palm. My favorite of Craig's "fact or fiction" crusades for truth, filed under "Tax on email":

Some folks have contacted me about a possible five-cent tax on email. This is a hoax that began circulating on the Internet several years ago. An email message warns people that "House Bill 602P" will levy a five-cent surcharge on every email sent. It goes on to say that the bill is sponsored by Congressman Tony Schnell, and the funds would go to the U.S. Postal Service. Further, it refers to an "editorial" in the "March 6 issue" of The Washingtonian supporting the tax. . . . Let me assure you, there is no Bill 602P. There is no Member of Congress by the name of Tony Schnell, and the United States Postal Service has nothing to do with delivering email. The Washingtonian is a monthly magazine, and does not even have a "March 6" issue. It is highly unlikely that a measure like this will ever come to the Senate floor for debate.

Glaring omission: That pesky Larry Craig gay rumor.