Big Brother's little sister Big Pharma

Since theocracy is the rule of God or its priests, and democracy the rule of the people or of the majority, pharmacracy is therefore the rule of medicine or of doctors. ~Thomas Szasz

I was at the doctor’s the other day, and I saw something incredibly disturbing. In the examination room, there were at least seven drug or drug company logos – on two wall calendars, a clock, a clipboard, two posters and a pen. If you’ve been into any doctor’s office lately, it’s hard not to notice the immense amount of drug-branded swag that’s everywhere.

Boris Sidis was a man after my own heart – a psychologist in the early 1900’s who spoke out against what he saw as social diseases (war and eugenics, to name a few) and was in great opposition to mainstream psychology and especially intelligence tests. He published The Psychology of Suggestion: A Research into the Subconscious Nature of Man and Society, the full text of which can be found online here (beware: annoying site layout). Experiments discussed towards the center of this page illustrate that people’s minds jump immediately to what they saw the most or what they saw last.  It is not a stretch to imagine that a doctor is more likely to prescribe the drug that immediately jumps to mind because it’s on the pen being used to write the prescription.

(Don't believe me? Say silk three times. What do cows drink? Most people will give an answer they know is wrong because it rhymes with the last word they said and because they have it mentally associated with cows and drinking. Now apply this concept to doctors. Scary stuff.)

The “results” section of this experiment report contains this observation: It was observed that the inclination to brand name prescribing was more and there were occasions when prescribing by generic names would have reduced the cost of treatment.

This study found that Although it is widely supposed that pharmaceutical advertising accounts for rising CCB use, this is the first study to substantiate that advertising patterns are consistent with this claim. Pharmaceutical companies devote substantial resources to drug advertising, despite assertions by physicians that they pay little attention to advertisements. Only 3% of physicians surveyed by Avorn et al described drug advertising as a "very important" influence on their prescribing practices. Beliefs regarding 2 index medications, cerebral vasodilators and propoxyphene, however, corresponded more closely with advertising claims than with published scientific evidence.

Here’s the issue: humans are suggestible. The more you see something, the more ingrained it becomes into your mind and the easier it is to access immediately. This means that doctors who see the same drug logo constantly, associating it with convenience and charity when it’s printed on useful gifts, are more likely to prescribe that drug. The more they do this, the more money the drug company gets to continue advertising in this manner, and the vicious cycle continues.

What we can do about it: Know your stuff. Be wary when you’re prescribed anything, and ask questions to make sure the doctor has thought this through. What are the alternative drugs and how do they compare in terms of price and side effects? Has it been shown to be the most effective drug for people in your exact condition (co-existing conditions, age, gender, etc.) by independent research, not the research of drug companies? Remember that for most involved, this is about your money, not your health.

 Recommended Reading:

Dangerous pushing-for-profit of atypical psychiatric drugs

Money trumps the rights of patients as mental hospitals are encouraged politically to prescribe expensive new drugs not proven to be an improvement

"Pushing Prescriptions" - a report on pharmaceutical lobbying

American Medical Student Association scorecard on "conflict-of-interest" policies regarding gifts from drug companies

Shakespeare In Bed

(A quick scene sketch, that's why there's no beginning/ending. Inspired "cute" by  a discussion "smart" about Ayn Rand.)

Charles Dickens would be a boring lover, I decide. I’ve only ever read David Copperfield, but I remember incredible dullness and traditional gender roles, both of which equal lights-off missionary.

“Really?” He hasn’t read any Dickens, so he takes my word for it. “Okay, Sylvia Plath.”

“Totally neurotic, but probably wild too.”

He agrees. “Switch in a moment from on the floor with ten cans of whipped cream to you want to put what where?”

I laugh, but I feel somewhat guilty gossiping this way about someone I see as a kindred spirit, so I change authors again. “Joseph Conrad. I bet he was really smooth.” He hasn’t read Conrad either, and we’re both still a little stuck on Plath’s virgin/whore dichotomy, so I throw in Mary Shelley. “She had to have been crazy.”

“Oh, definitely. Shakespeare.”

“Thought he was way better than he was.”

“Seriously? The guy could get you off by whispering!”

“I don’t know about that. I’m sure he was great at pillow talk, but high expectations almost always disappoint.” I know it’s blasphemy to see Shakespeare as anything less than a stud, but he had to have an ego, and a guy with self-confidence and the linguistic ability to express it has almost no chance to live up to the anticipation he talks up.

“Fine.” There’s a pause while we envision more authors between the sheets. This all started with his observation that Ayn Rand seems preoccupied with hands and violence. He comes up with one before me. “John.”

I’m confused. He quickly clarifies. “Really gentle and attentive. Definitely, because those are the aspects of Jesus he focuses on the most.”

He’s right, but I’m not about to delve into a discussion of the sexual personalities of Biblical figures. My imagination is bizarre and distracting enough in church already. I exhale softly, a substitute for ignoring him, and roll over. The phone, hot with power from the charge cord, burns into my ear. I’ve got one. “O’Henry. Good the first time, but the same thing every time afterwards.”

“Good? Had to be boring and preachy.”

“How much O’Henry have you read? You know he had to have had that one signature move that was great, but overused.”

He describes one, “you mean like that?”

I blush, grinning. “Yeah. But even that would get old after a while. Poe.”

“Oh man. Master of kink.”

“You sure? He seems like the shy type.”

“Those are the ones you’ve got to watch out for.”

“But he married his cousin.”

“Um, case in point.”

“I dunno, he still seems like the type who might want it but wouldn’t have the guts to ask.”

“I’ll give you that, but once things got going…”

My mental image is a modified cask of amontillado. I need a quick subject change. I curse my school for not assigning the Classics – all I can come up with are contemporary authors he hasn’t read, and the conversation lulls into quiet.

"Communism" vs. communism

I have a serious issue with Misters Stalin, Mao and Castro. They’ve provided a baseless foundation for countless moronic “arguments” against perfectly legit social reforms. Marx and McCarthy aren’t off the hook either.

There have been plenty of teachings that discuss the evils and dangers of loving money, mistreating lower classes, and not sharing. Judaism teaches farmers to not harvest the corners of their fields because everything belongs to God, which means people need to share. The food growing in those corners is available to any poor or any travelers coming through (Lev. 9:9-11*). Christianity teaches self-enforced class equality (1 Cor. 9:22**) and need-based sharing of resources (2 Cor. 8:14***). Respected Buddhist teacher Atisha is quoted as saying “The greatest achievement is selflessness. The greatest worth is self-mastery. The greatest quality is seeking to serve others…The greatest medicine is the emptiness of everything.” Sounds a little like Stalin’s calls to selfless loyalty and the Communist concept of eliminating ownership.

But do you hear people screaming “THAT’S JUDAISM!” when we discuss welfare programs? “THAT’S CHRISTIANITY!” when we lament the gap between the lower and upper classes? Or “THAT’S BUDDHISM!” when we propose that materialism, possession, and money might be harmful to certain aspects of society (like privatized medicine?) No. People immediately bristle with “THAT’S COMMUNISM!”

I’ll be the first to concede that terrible, terrible things were carried out in the name of Communism. But people being morons doesn’t change the ideas they’re ostensibly pushing. Remember the Crusades? People don’t claim “THAT’S CHRISTIANITY!” when we hear about tortures and abuses at Gitmo. This is because Christianity has had better PR and more people have read enough of the Bible to realize that it’s not about the Crusades. There are aspects of what we know as Communism that are awful – repression of individuality, elimination of religion, etc. We need to step far away from all this and start from scratch, because sharing our toys and empowering the common man (or to use a word with some connotations, the proletariat) are very good things. Unfortunately, one can hardly propose any measures to push for these without being accused of Communism. People make it sound like socializing medicine is going to bring Zombie Stalin back from the grave to start killing people.

Here’s the issue: plenty of good ideas have gotten bad reputations, enough so that identifying something as Communism today counts as an argument to shut it down, when in reality the detractor has failed to establish “Communism = Bad” as a premise for their argument.

What we can do: stop letting faulty language and definitions get in the way of innovations in social reform. Refuse to allow new ideas to be labeled “Communism”, or use “Stalinism” or “Marxism” as a stand-in for what most people describe as “Communism”. Be educated enough to call out this faulty premise, and be confident enough not to back down as soon as you’re accused of being “Communist”. And keep a watch out for Zombie Stalin.

* "When you reap the harvest of your land, you shall not reap all the way to the corner of your field…you shall leave them for the poor and the stranger."

**“When I am with those who are oppressed, I share their oppression”

*** “I only mean that there should be some equality. Right now you have plenty and can help them. Then at some point they can share with you…in this way, everyone’s needs will be met.”

Recommended Reading:

Stalin discusses language and Marxism

Lenin's summary of Marxism to compare with the stated goals of today's mainstream Public Welfare Foundation

Modern-day anti-Bush program that was founded by today’s Revolutionary Communist Party

McCarthy rallies against Cold War Communists

Red City

(Inspired by this picture: 

which I think I found in Found Magazine but now can't find in their archives.)

[piece removed because it was submitted for publication]

Freedom & Fear

State of CI: Woo guys I'm in Baltimore at orientation! This post is posting itself! Creeeeepy.

I've talked on here before (June 9: "God & Guns & Gays, oh my") about ideologies people think are conflicting that have really nothing to do with each other, but what about the ones that truly do? This essay really doesn't have a thesis like my others, but instead is a discussion of some things lately that have made me struggle, torn between two strongly-held convictions. Here, some examples and explanations of why I feel the way I do, and an invitation to all of you to weigh in. 

Here is a New York Times article on "thinspiration" materials online - videos and other web content encouraging anorexic behaviors, referred to by supporters as "pro-ana lifestyles". The article mentions that France is considering criminalizing the creation and posting of these materials.

This article discusses new laws that would criminalize "cyber-bullying" like the kind that led thirteen year old Megan Meiers to take her own life.

I'm a writer, and I love words more than anything. I value freedom and I'm familiar enough with history to know that then the government starts trying to prevent certain types of expression or speech, that it's a very very bad sign. So I feel like I should be ardently against these laws, which essentially limit free speech. Should we be held responsible for another person's actions if they could be linked to things we say? What about the claim that the man who shot John Lennon linked his crime to The Catcher In The Rye? Does CSI teach criminals to evade investigators the same way thinspiration teaches girls to be self-destructive? If a man is standing on a rooftop because his girlfriend dumped him and someone else yells "jump, loser!", are the yeller or the girlfriend criminally responsible for his death if he does jump?

But it's not that simple. I've been in situations dealing with someone who is dangerously self-destructive, and I know how terrifyingly, desperately helpless it is. From that perspective, anyone who can get to them before you has the power, and they either become the villain (as in the creators of the videos) or the hero (for example, those executing something like a 5150, which for the record I'm less conflicted about - they suck). When someone you love is in danger, it's easy to agree with the suppression of certain liberties. This is how oppressive governments rise to power so easily - instilling in the population fear of an enemy that's worse than the government. Giving up freedom for security is very often an easy choice. 

I've also been the victim of bullying, and it feels beautifully just to see that other people want to make sure that bullies pay for the damage they do. What those people did is so obviously and clearly wrong that it's easy to make the leap to believing that it should be legally punishable, without really considering the sociopolitical ramifications.

As a self-defined smartsy intellectual radical, I feel like a total sell-out by feeling so ambivalent about these laws. From a purely intellectual standpoint, I'm opposed to them all, but emotionally, I don't know. Criminalizing thinspiration and cyberbullying will offer peace of mind and some sort of protection for certain people and/or those who love them; and no amount of ethos and logos can overshadow the pathos of that argument, especially for me.

Then there are these ads, which make my head spin - I despise guns, but I'm also a tiny female terrified of getting pushed around (or worse). I'm getting whiplash from the viewpoints in direct opposition to my own appealing to emotions very familiar to me.

So what do you all think? Should I have exploded by now as a result of these internal contradictions? How big of a role should emotionally charged fear play in these decisions as opposed to rational thought? How fair is it to appeal to emotion when trying to gain support for legislation? How legal should it be to encourage someone else to engage in dangerous activities? Should everything that is wrong be illegal? Where is the line between freedom of expression and criminality? How slippery is this slope and does that matter?

(One of you should recognize the majority of this discussion. And because I promised, this post now contains the words "cute" and "smart".)

Recommended Reading:

Research study that says patients who visited pro-anorexia websites were not considerably "sicker" than those who did not

The "Consequences" section of this study cites psychological results of bullying, specifically mentioning research (not published online) that claims cyberbullying may be even more damaging

Legal examination that concludes that incitements or encouragements of violence online are protected by the First Amendment

People v. Campbell says incitement to suicide is "morally reprehensible" but not criminal

Control

State of CI: I've decided that every Monday is essay day and every Thursday is not-essay day! This is to keep me from driving you guys nuts with five consecutive "Things That Annoy Me" posts and it's also a self-experiment for me, because having to come up with something creative every week will push me to actually create and it will also push me to be brave and post things that suck without spending months revising and polishing them. I will not allow myself to make excuses for them or comment on them besides a short introduction. Because there's no better place than the internet to uncomfortably push your personal boundaries! 

(Sketch stemming from the title prompt "discipline"; could be a companion piece to Porcelain)

The kitchen was dark and shining, utensils and white countertops reflecting the dim light. He followed me into the glowing room and our bodies soaked up the light, blotted it up from the darkness, smudges against the sterile shine. The location was mine – my house, my kitchen – but his presence robbed my home of any promise of safety. This was neutral battleground now.

“Just go home.” I wanted him out. Instead he stood in front of the refrigerator, looking at me. I leaned back against the counter, my fingers curling hard around the edge, tips pressed against the rough unfinished marble of the underside. My mind saw him leaving, getting into his car and driving home alone. We would talk later, separated or in the light, somewhere else.

“No. We need to talk about this.” The “we” startled me. There was nothing cohesive about our presences in the kitchen. We were two people very apart from each other. Any needs were individual.

“Get out.” I knew he wouldn’t. I had already anticipated his move towards me, his face momentarily illuminated by the square of light thrown by the streetlight through the small window. The fear was nameless and primal – not a fear of him, but a fear of his closeness, of my situation, of the circumstances. Fearing him was impossible, but my breath caught upon hearing his so close to mine.

“We’re going to talk about this.” He looked down at me, eyes shining with determined emotion.

“There is nothing to talk about. It’s not the time. Please, just go.” My words fell fast and jumbled, my voice quickening with my breaths. His hands pressed on top of mine, the sharp edge of the counter slicing into my palms. I did not push back, refused to acknowledge what was happening by fighting it.

“I’m not leaving.” His knees leaned hard into my thighs. My teeth ground against each other. A strange feeling of double experience overcame me – the certainty that he could not hurt me coupled with the threat that he would. I kicked my heels against the cupboards under the counter, leveraging myself up to sit on it. His hands pulled back from mine and we looked at each other, now at equal heights.

I needed him gone. I found myself tensely caught between fight and flight, without option, desperate. The game had changed and surrender now meant victory. “I’m sorry.” The words were dead, hollow, only a battle strategy, a move to re-establish security. I looked down, trembling, channeling fright and rage into convincing contrition.

It was enough. He turned to leave, flicking the lights on as he left. I lowered myself down onto the tile. Both of us had lost, an inevitability after we crossed the threshold that made a win impossible. I stood in the flatly lit kitchen devastated by the loss, slowly regaining my sense of control. The engine of his car whispered into motion outside my door and I heard him leave.

God & Guns & Gays, oh my

I am a hypocritical moron. I did something the other day that I am incredibly angry at myself over – something that other people do to me all the time, and that I hate.

I’m a Christian Jewish liberal gun-hating pro-choice pro-gay rights evolutionist creationist. I sympathize with both sides of the Israel-Palestine conflict and I think anarchy, democracy, and communism are all pretty nifty ideas. I think legalizing marijuana makes a lot of sense but I don’t touch caffeine. I trust lawyers over doctors and I’m a feminist who adores guys. And I hate when people assume that since I’m a smartsy liberal I’m an atheist; or that since I love Jesus I hate gays and the Clintons. Any time I want to discuss my views I have to explain or excuse them first, and this is beyond frustrating to me. I feel like I have to prove myself by preaching to the choir before I can make any points. The things listed above shouldn’t have to be contradictions – beliefs and views do not come as a one-size-fits-all bargain bundle pack – but people think they are because they’ve been presented that way.

So I was thoroughly ashamed when the other day I (wrongly) assumed that a libertarian-leaning atheist was rabidly pro-choice. Turns out that the question of human life and its origins, rights and value isn’t religious or political, but personal – and I knew that, I really did, but I allowed myself to be brainwashed by the blue vs. red mentality we have going on, and I jammed my foot into my mouth quite uncomfortably.

This is why I get so annoyed at the democracy of personalities we have constructed in America. No one human is a perfect package, and the way we have the system set up, it doesn’t exactly lend itself to finding the best candidate for the job as president. We don’t have Executive Branch scouts out finding and auditioning the best and brightest minds – we have mostly rich kids from privileged families rising to the top. The way I see it, there’s more of an equal selection process to cast the next star of Final Destination 908 – and they aren’t expected to write, direct, or produce; but a presidential candidate is expected to hold balanced and “complementary” views on economics, military actions, social policies, etc.

When we force all these decisions to fall to one or a few human beings, we cheat ourselves out of democracy. True democracy votes for ideas, not people. The focus on Obama’s pastor is a perfect example – instead of squabbling over his influences, his past, his ideals, we need to demand a game plan we can say clearly “yes” or “no” to. I don’t want to sit around and speculate about his inner psyche – he should tell us what exactly he would do in certain situations and we should judge that. It is, of course, then our job to hold candidates to that standard – lying is not nice, and when Bush denies saying something that he’s been filmed on camera saying, there should be more of an outcry. That’s the closest we can realistically get to voting for ideas and decisions over people. Ideally, there would be a neutral Executive who carried out the wishes of the masses: every morning there would be new issues on the table (“Should we declare war: yes or no”) to decide on. This would be true democracy and it would allow people to be more informed and involved. What we have now forces the bundling of ideas I discussed before, which is frustrating. I’d like to be able to vote for a candidate who will carry out true Christian values in office – “purity, understanding, patience, kindness and love” (2 Cor. 6:6) – but I think today those who claim to be furthering God’s agenda are getting it pretty wrong (and they endorse a religion that encourages me to say this: Romans 16:17-18*).

So here’s the real issue: people come in unique packages capable of thinking for themselves, and thinking independently on every separate question. Objectively, owning guns for self-defense has nothing to do with whether or not you support the right to a homosexual marriage and neither has any impact on whether you think the Iraq war is right. This is why politics of personality is dangerous and damaging to democracy.

What we can do about it: refuse to participate. Only engage in discussions about candidate’s relevant political ideologies, and shut down any gossip about “omg Hillary Clinton’s hairdresser has a gay goldfish” (DISCLAIMER: I made that up) by pointing out its irrelevancy. We’re stuck with a system that unfortunately forces personality politics, but supporting legislation that regulates campaign donations/spending is a step in the right direction. And spread the awareness that leaders/ideas don’t get to dictate entire belief sets by refusing to make assumptions and allowing ourselves ideological flexibility, considering separate issues separately.

*"Watch out for people who cause divisions and upset people’s faith by teaching things that are contrary to what you have been taught…Such people are not serving Christ our Lord; they are serving their own personal interests."

Recommended reading:

New York Times: Taking their faith, not their politics, to the people

The Washington Post: Communion denied for supporting pro-choice Obama

Focus on the Family's response to the claim that one can simultaneously be gay and Christian

New York Times: Liberal explains why he's against same-sex marriage

One reporter's take on an unconventional juxtaposition of views

Rescue

State of CI: I've started labelling my posts to keep everything all organized. So far they're all sorted into "essay", "story", "discussion" or "memory". "Story" is a misnomer though, as most of my writings here won't be coherent pieces on their own but the writer's equivalent of doodles.

The first two paragraphs of a new piece that resulted from a weird dream, currently sucks, and has the working title Rescue, which also sucks.

Afterwards, she lay so still in my bed. She had, of course, lost weight, and the fact that she was dressed in a pair of my boxers and one of my t-shirts made her look even tinier than usual, impossibly so, barely a sliver of flesh and girl. I pulled up the comforter and it devoured the sliver like dark clouds over the thinnest moon. Her eyes, both blackened, were closed, and for that I was grateful. The memory was more than enough. I pulled my gaze from her swollen face down to my hands, those terrible instruments I still could only half believe had done this.

My beeper rang. Work. I was off that day, but I knew they’d call me in once they discovered her missing – what would later be referred to as The Incident - since I had been on duty the night before. My watch read 5:00am. We were expected to immediately answer every call, but I couldn’t look too suspicious. I considered leaving her a note in case she woke up before I got back, but by my calculations, she’d be out at least five more hours, and I had no idea what I would say. I changed into a fresh uniform, rubbed my eyes red, and left.

Sex & Power

State of CI: I promise to keep to a Monday-Thursday update schedule, which I know for certain will carry through the summer because I've got a month's worth of scheduled posts ready to publish themselves (yay new features!) on the right days. Also, new banner, yay! Featuring my feet, Monica's, and Nahee's. I'm trying to tweak the layout so it's more comfortable to read, but I'm having a hard time fooling with the html - anyone wanna help me out?

I find the mini-analysis in this blog fascinating for the same reason I like reading movie reviews after I see movies (especially these ones) – I like looking at the world in different ways, and this offers a perspective on the images I see every day that is different than my own. Since I started reading it, I’ve found myself identifying subtle sexual/gender statements in media all around me. But I disagree with a lot of the feminist indignance inherent in a lot of the analysis.

The fact is that the female body is attractive, and both genders like to enjoy this. My girlfriends and I love an excuse to get dressed up, even when anything remotely sexual is not part of the plans – a group of us will primp and prep together, go out to eat, and head back to chill in the hot tub. We know that our bodies are beautiful, and that is fun. Driving a sleek, fast car is a rush even when you are not racing. Women like looking nice, and men like looking at women who look nice. This does not in itself create a power imbalance or exploit women. I wear tank tops and skirts on dates, but this does not objectify me. When women are sexually attractive, that does not strip away the rest of their identity and reduce them to a place to stick it.

There are a lot of recurring problems with the blog, which might produce some later essays, but one thing that really gets me is the fact that is lambasts any visual “inequality” between the genders. This post asks “And is it not possible to just have some images where men and women are equals and no one has to be dominant? Is that out of the question?” Well, yes,  images like that do exist in advertising. The thing is, though, that power plays are deeply sexual, and wherever there is sex, there is almost always going to be some element of dominance. This is why there are different positions and different practices and different costumes and such. For the most part, men are big and women are little, and this immediately makes men more powerful, even when that power isn’t being exercised. But even hinting at the possibility of a power inequality annoys the blog. Here, all it takes is size and position to evoke a power inequality, which the blog claims is only linked to sexuality because it’s been taught that way. I have to disagree. If sexual preferences could be so subtly taught and molded by advertising and what is socially acceptable, everyone would get off on missionary-in-the-dark and we would have no "sexually deviant" cultures (BDSM, furries, what have you), not to mention homosexuals. (They make a similar, equally outrageous claim in this post. Why would ads make extra work for themselves by re-defining sex, then using that to sell? It makes more sense to lean on what already excites people. Ads have no reason to "re-define" sex as more violent or unequal than it always has been.) When you think about it, sex lends itself to “power asymmetry” – you have a person reliant on another person for pleasure; extreme vulnerability; and the, ahem, “mechanics” of it. 

Or you could consider that social stereotypes may help make power plays sexy – the theory goes that since girls are taught that “good girls say no”, being “overtaken” can be sexy because they get to indulge in sex without the guilt of having said yes. Either way, it’s not the way the blog makes it sound – some unnatural, evil construct we have been brainwashed into. True equality is not about who’s bigger or who’s on top, true equality is about respect and understanding. By reducing the issue of equality to who holds who, and how (see this post), it actually trivializes the issue and it pushes sexual freedoms backwards. Let’s make women feel guilty for betraying their gender by engaging in (and maybe even enjoying!) sexual play that may involve them held in a “non-egalitarian” way. I’m a confrontational, self-respecting woman very proud of her X-squared chromosomes, and I am not offended by either of the two advertisements. Things would get pretty boring, awkward and annoying if a couple insisted on maintaining “equal positioning” at all time. This equality is just as stereotyped, hollow and contrived as the unequal gender roles in some of the other ads. (Note how the boy is bending down to make their heights equal, and how the girl has a short, boyish haircut.) Once people stop squabbling about images like the one at the bottom (can you imagine their positions reversed? That doesn’t work – she’s shorter than he is! And note how he’s only holding her hair softly, but she’s got a serious grip on his belt, implying a grip on something else – I honestly see very little inequality in that photo), they can get down to the real issues. Like this - wrong on so many levels.

P.S. I would also like to point out that sex blogger “Girl With A One-Track Mind” (not one I would recommend to everyone – pretty raw and graphic – but fascinating, hilarious, human, intelligent and interesting nonetheless) has been praised, as well as other woman sex bloggers, for advancing feminist causes and empowerment. But she herself describes scenes involving huge power inequalities (both genders), and sings the praises of male dominance in the form of “teasing” – an idea that should deeply offend the writers of Sociological Images, but their comrades in feminism seem to disagree.