mutant time-eating grasshopper thing

By Courtney Cox on Fri, Feb 13, 2009 3:14 pm .blogspot.com/&feature=player_embedded

mutant time-eating grasshopper thing

By Courtney Cox on Fri, Feb 13, 2009 3:12 pm http://www.wired.com/culture/design/magazine/17-02/st_chronophage

IN DEFENSE OF "GENDER-FREE" FRAGRANCE

By Courtney Cox on Fri, Feb 13, 2009 12:05 pm

To all my seemingly open-minded friends who love me unconditionally but told me I smell like a man:

 

At first you hurt my feelings. As a general eschewer of most things gender-polarized (nail polish, tiny purses, yogurt), I was pretty excited, even proud, to debut my lightly anointed wrists to my crunchy, DIY, free-dishwasher-on-their-RSS-feeds housemates. So when one round of whiffs elicited a solid 10 minutes of flagellation from both ends of the gender pool, I was surprised to find myself on the defensive. Suddenly, musk and I were two lonely pioneers in the dense jungles of olfactory deception.

 

But I was proud to fight beside him/her.

 

They told me it was unisex. They called it "love oil." Perfect, I thought. I will achieve the great illusion that is adult womandom without feeling like a drag queen, like how I feel when I try to play darts in high heels. Instead, my friends were convinced I'd gone digging through my boyfriend's bachelor box, which does in fact contain vials of sexual predator-like cologne (along with no fewer than three dusty, generic-brand teeth-whitening strips and, perhaps more inexplicably, several broken nail clippers).

 

Well, I've done my homework. And guess what? "Shared" or "universal" scents (did "tran-scent-ual" not make the cut?) are IN. The New York Times says so. And so does Allure. (OK, I know I'm reaching--but at least these sources prove I am not an aberration for wanting to float in an endless Lazy River of sweet musky waters.)

 

I realize The Economist says one of two partners in a "genetically successful love match" should hate unisex fragrance. So, boyfriend o' mine: Unsettling eugenics references aside, that only means your repulsion of my new, vaguely masculine aroma, is actually relationship affirming!

 

You know, you guys were so relieved to see the demise of gifting expensive flower bouquets as a BandAid for relationship hiccups—so why would I want to smell like an outdated, mildly condescending trend? And fruity fragrances remind me of the Bonne Bell gift boxes I get every year for Christmas from my wonky aunt in South Philly. And she still wears blue eyeshadow up to the browbone, where her eyebrows used to be before she shaved them in 1983. And while lavender and vanilla make nice aromatherapy candles, if I add one more self-medicating trend to my regimen, I'm sure to start blinking one eye at a time. (This is an actual fear of mine.)

 

Next you're going to tell me I can't wear my boyfriend jeans or drink beer. And I didn't even make fun of you when you wore your scarf as an accessory instead of something to keep your neck warm. So I hope you learn to accept me and my musky wrists, because we are here to stay.

 

 

Even women don't know what women want

By Courtney Cox on Tue, Jan 27, 2009 12:07 pm Well apparently, men aren't the only ones desperately trying to decipher the mysterious, cryptic system that is the sexual desires of their evolutionary counterparts. In case you've somehow not caught word of "What Do Women Want?" New York Times Magazine's epic feature about the latest research in female sexuality that’s eclipsed all other blogologues since it was printed on Sunday, here's what you've been missing.

 

Unpack the eight pages of Daniel Bergner's reporting—trying to give him the benefit of the doubt when coming across Freudian slips that associate the researchers’ work and Bergner’s unnecessary physical descriptions of them, like, "An associate professor of psychology and gender studies at the University of Utah, with short, dark hair that seems to explode anarchically around her head" (surely he wasn’t intentionally implying the “seemingly” anarchical nature of a female gender studies professor?) or, "Chivers, who favors high boots and fashionable rectangular glasses, measured their arousal in two ways" (questionable proximity of "high boots" to "arousal” there)—and you’ll come away with these non-conclusion conclusions:

1) Women’s sexual desire springs from being desired—coined the “narcissistic” argument—as concluded by studies in which women are physically aroused by both the sight of men being turned on by other women and the sight of other women alone, as well as evidence that women’s fantasies focus more on getting pleasure than giving it.

2) Why? Maybe because society has designated the female form as an object representing sex; maybe because the female sex drive is inherently “passive.” 

3) Can this explain the number of women who report entertaining “rape fantasies” (a paradox in itself)? Subjectively, yes, says one researcher, while another argues that the physical arousal (i.e., lubrication) exhibited by women exposed to actual unwanted sexual situations is actually an evolutionary defense mechanism—in other words, “Arousal is not consent.” (Breaking news!)

The endless string of open-ended questions resonated with readers, and on Sunday, women especially were poised over their keyboards, eager to engage in this much-needed discussion. Men’s “on-off” libidos are a simple machine, and they already have their choice of pleasure-enhancing prescriptions to keep the machine well-oiled. But, as made clear by the raucous debate the NYTimes piece incited, the field of female sex research is nothing but a dearth of real conclusions, and women want answers.

Responses to the article raised questions the researchers themselves have surely considered, but which Bergner fails to illuminate (though I’m suspending judgment till I read his upcoming book on the topic), ranging from Courtney at Feministing (“In a world where women are often objectified against their will, is the ultimate turn on being able to control and even illicit our own objectification?”) to Amanda at Pandagon's idea that the media downplays men’s bodies as sexual objects “because they think it’s demeaning to be looked at as a sex object.” For a comprehensive roundup of responses, head to Jezebel's follow-up post to their initial debate between editors Megan and Anna. But I think Slate XX Factor’s Susannah Breslin may have put it best: "Understanding female desire seems more like a universal quest. … I suspect it may be an impossible one."