I do a lot of grumping and grousing here at The Frisky. But when companies do something awesome, I like to give credit where credit is due. K-Y jelly has some new commercials going on the air in September for it’s K-Y Intense lube and one of them features a lesbian couple. (They’re actors.) The two women are shown in their bedroom talking about their great relationship and then under the covers, post-sex. As blogger Vanessa Valenti wrote on Feministing, “It’s perhaps the only ad I’ve seen referring to lesbians having sex that doesn’t portray them as oversexualized, objectified and not really gay but just performing for dudes’ pleasure.” I couldn’t have put it better. Good job, K-Y, and may your K-Y Intense lubricant be just as amazeballs as you claim! [YouTube via Feministing] Keep reading »
“Look good in all that you do” is not a slogan you expect to see next to a woman with a nasty-looking black eye. Then again, no one denies the Fluid hair salon in Edmonton, Alberta, was not trying to shock. The ad depicts a woman with a funky hairdo and a black eye sitting on a couch, while an attractive man in a suit stands behind her holding a diamond necklace. For myself and many others, the ad suggests domestic violence — gratuitous domestic violence, actually, because it’s an ad for a freakin’ hair salon.
Insinuating domestic violence is perfectly within Fluid’s rights, of course, and as to be expected, the salon owner is getting huffy about free speech. Keep reading »
A federal judge has struck down parts of an extreme Texas law going that would require a doctor to show a woman — including a rape victim — an ultrasound, describe the development of the fetus, and give her headphones to listen to a fetal heartbeat before an abortion. Doctors who refused to do these things to their patients — cruel by any compassionate standard — would have been penalized. An injunction issued yesterday blocks the state from enforcing penalties on both doctors and patients.
The judge ruled aspects of the law, which goes into effect on Thursday, were “unconstitutionally vague” and violate the free speech of both the doctor and the patient by requiring “government-mandated speech.” In his decision, the judge wrote the law “compels physicians to advance an ideological agenda with which they may not agree, regardless of any medical necessity, and irrespective of whether the pregnant women wish to listen.” He continued, “The court is inclined to agree with (the) defendants’ characterization that (the) “plaintiffs have chosen to throw everything at the wall and hope something sticks.” That’s how much respect these anti-abortion extremists have for you, ladies. Keep reading »