Down mammary lane

In case some of you missed the media flap last week, Lane Bryant — a company that specializes in lingerie for plus-sized women — was supposed to have aired an advertisement on the popular American TV show Dancing With The Stars (ABC Network). After several demands to edit the content, ABC finally decided to not air the 30 second spot, which shows a very attractive size 16 Ashely Graham trying on various undergarments, and opening her phone to show an appointment “Meet Dan for Lunch”. At the end of the spot, she is wearing a racy red bra and donning a trench coat. She then leaves the house for her lunch date, pausing only to turn back to look conspiratorially at the camera.

While the reasons ABC refused the ad are still unclear, Lane Bryant contends that it’s because the spot featured a plus-sized (or as Lane Bryant terms them: full-figured) model ; their claim is that she shows no more skin than one normally sees on Victoria’s Secret models, or indeed, on many other ads featuring women in lingerie or bathing suits. For that matter, on the various media blogs, many people observed that the costumes on DWTS are often much more revealing.

Femmedia blog Jezebel posted one of the letters from ABC to Lane Bryant, detailing time slots when the ad would not be allowed ( primarily during family hours and specific tv shows). Interestingly, during daytime dramas was fine, as was the post 9pm slot — except during DWTS.

Lane Bryant took the disagreement public, and posted details on their company blog Inside Curve.

“ABC’s statement that ‘Lane Bryant was treated absolutely no differently than any advertiser for the same product’ is simply not true.  It was only after we got the rejection and raised the fact that they were operating under a double standard that they reluctantly agreed to put us in the last pod of the program.  The Victoria’s Secret ads, which had aired on Dancing With the Stars prior to the date our ad was rejected, were not subject to the same restrictions.  We have records of their ads airing in earlier time slots,” a Lane Bryant spokesman said.

Elsewhere on their blog, they have this:

Yes, these are the same networks that have scantily-clad housewives so desperate they seduce every man on the block, and don’t forget Bart Simpson, who has shown us the moon more often than NASA, all during what they call “prime time.”

We knew the ads were sexy, but they are not salacious.  Our new commercials represent the sensuality of the curvy woman who has more to show the world than the typical waif-like lingerie model.  What we didn’t know was that the networks, which regularly run Victoria’s Secret and Playtex advertising on the very shows from which we’re restricted, would object to a different view of beauty.  If Victoria’s Secret and Playtex can run ads at any time during the 9pm to 10pm hour, why is Lane Bryant restricted only to the final 10 minutes?

While it’s no secret that Victoria’s Secret “The Nakeds” ads are prancing around on major networks leaving little to the imagination, steaming up t.v. screens and baring nearly everything but their souls, our sultry siren who shows sophisticated sass is somehow deemed inappropriate. The network exclaimed, she has “too much cleavage”  Gasp!

Personally, I don’t think that there can be “too much” cleavage, but I am aware that some people have nothing better to do than to write in to TV networks to complain about such thing.

Interestingly, one of the the discussions that I read regarding this situation (which I can’t find right now) was that the underlying issue was not the cleavage itself, but the concept that while the Victoria’s Secret models were sexy, the Lane Bryant model was sexual and sensual. Being plus-sized indicated that she had appetites, and not just for food. That pushed the ad spot from merely displaying lingerie to displaying wantonness. In essence, the VS women are no more than clothes racks, and therefore, safe enough to show on TV; the luscious Ashely Graham, in contrast, was displaying her intentions, i.e., her expectation that those pretty underthings were going to lead to something kinky.

I don’t have any thoughts on this with regard to the reasoning. I do think that had VS come up with a similar ad, then it probably would have been placed. I do agree that showing a normal woman (i.e., normal according to US media standards, meaning a woman that  looks like Eva Mendez or Tyra Banks) would probably have made the network more prone to allowing the ad, and I’m inclined to agree with the idea that a full-figured woman in such an overtly sexual context is a bit too forward for prime time, and most likely scared the network execs, who are trying to prevent controversy so as not to scare off future ad clients.

One more point: The model, in picking out enticing clothing for a kinky lunch date, is shown in a very sex-positive role. This is not typical in American television, where most actresses are no bigger than a size 4. Larger women with sexual appetites are often portrayed for laughs, if not some degree of humiliation. The commercial, in portraying a woman who is going after a man in an aggressive manner goes against the current media trends; guaranteed that ABC execs did not want to deal with the expected flurry of emails from shocked viewers.

If you think that the lovely Ashely Graham looks familiar, it’s because you might have seen her back in October, right here on The Edge of Vanilla.

ETA: Just as I was finishing this post (about 9:50 pm EDT), Fox aired this ad during the end of American Idol. Again, it’s during the very last segment of the show.

Mrs. Edge asked “Was that it? What was all the fuss about?” Good question.

Chastity Device Reviews: The CCS&S Scale

You may have noticed that I don’t have banner ads from various adult toy sites. Not that I don’t get asked; about once a month somebody contacts me to ask if I’d be interested, but frankly, I can’t be bothered. I mean, I know it’s the cool thing to use your personal blog to help augment your personal income stream, but I’ve already got enough to worry about without having to think about maintaining a business that might pay me, oh, 42 cents a week, or 16 ounces of guacamole flavored lube.

Seriously, I turn down a lot of offers from adult toy companies because Mrs. Edge and I don’t really use toys, so the arrangement to have them send me something once a month in exchange for me to review it on The Edge of Vanilla is probably pointless, as most items would sit in the drawer for weeks, if not months. Mrs. Edge doesn’t really care for vibrators — not the rabbits, not the duckies, not the jellies, nor even the ones that you hide in your purse. Last year I bought her an Hitachi Magic Wand, and we’ve hardly even use that. And she’s *very* particular about dildoes; we’ve tried a few, and have essentially settled on one that we use in a strap-on harness when I’m wearing my chastity device. Mrs. Edge is one of those “meat & potatoes” types when it comes to sex, so except for our investment on various devices, our toy drawer is pretty meager.

But there are dozens, no, hundreds of bloggers who do engage in some kind of toy review arrangement, which is a good thing because there’s really no Consumer Reports for sex toys. This is probably just as well; reviews of typical consumer goods like tires, toaster ovens, and table saws can generally be determined by some basic criteria. Is it well built? Will it last a long time before breaking down? Will the replacement parts be costly? (Some of you are probably thinking that those kinds of questions might well apply to choosing your next partner.) But adult toys are more, um, subjective in use. All toasters will toast bread eventually, but not everyone is going to appreciate  the particular vibration rate or battery life of the same vibrator.

But clearly, before you buy an adult toy, you want as much information as possible. Since there really isn’t any CR for chastity devices, the Edge of Vanilla Labs has been working tirelessly to develop a more objective scale to use. In the past when I’ve mentioned chastity devices, I’ve generally focused on three essential qualities: Comfort, Convenience, and Security. To this scale I’m adding a slightly more subjective criteria: Sexiness.

Comfort is an essential quality: if a device is constantly scraping, chaffing, rubbing, or otherwise damaging your tender bits so much that you need to keep removing it, then clearly that device is not working for you, and you’re not going to wear it. Yes, some time for adaptation is normal, but having to deal with edema or rashes is not. For example, this is why the Birdlock (and presumably, the new Bon4 device) rates pretty well for comfort — the squishy silicone means that you shouldn’t need to worry about hard edges rubbing against your skin. Similarly, some of the stainless steel devices have smooth rings and edges (more comfort against your skin), but are sometimes offset by sharp edges on the locking mechanisms.

Convenience is an often overlooked criteria when some people discuss their devices, but it really is just as important as comfort, for many of the same reasons. Convenience concerns the ease with which you can keep the device clean, and engage in your normal daily activities. If your device has to be removed a couple of times a day, that’s not especially convenient for your keyholder. If you can’t clean it properly, then you can’t wear it for very long. If you can’t work or exercise while wearing it, then that’s a problem For example, one of my personal criteria is being able to use a urinal; between my work and my regular activities, I can’t always find a stall. I can, however, find a tree when I’m working outside, or on a particularly long bike ride.  This is a reason that I avoid the full belt style devices and stick with the CBxxxx line.

Fitting into the convenience category is the ability to wear a device under normal clothing. The CB2000 and the Curve left rather odd looking or simply large bulges in most dress pants, and some of the lesser-known devices depend upon locks or fasteners at odd angles. If people at work keep staring at your crotch as if they are tryign to figure out if you’re hiding something, then that’s not especially convenient.

Some  of you might be surprised that I didn’t mention Security right at the beginning. That  is because, based on everything that I’ve read in the last ten years from guys describing their own experiences, if a device is not comfortable or convenient, then they aren’t going to wear it anyway, so the security is moot. By Security, I’m referring to whether or not you can masturbate while wearing the device, and if so, how successfully. While presumably any device will prevent intercourse, many allow some (most?) men some degree of manipulation to the point of orgasm (or at least, something that allows an ejaculation of sorts). For example, the Birdlock failed here because the squishy silicone that made it so comfortable allowed me to manipulate myself enough to have a rather pleasant orgasm. The hard polycarbonate plastic of my CB3000 and CB6000 obviously prevent that, however I need to add the KSD-G3 device to keep from being able to pull out. Other people rely on using tighter cuff rings or opt to get a piercing so they can anchor the end of their penis to the cage.

Why all the trouble? Because men’s genitals are infinitely squishy and variable, and a device that is secure for one man might not be for another. And really,when you come right down to it, men who are into these devices aren’t wearing them because their partners don’t trust them (i.e., they are not for preventing random intercourse); they are wearing them because the enjoy the idea of erotic control. The more inescapable the device, the more believable their internal script when it comes to their  willing suspension of disbelief. We want something that allows us to believe more completely in our fantasies of turning over the control of our orgasms, within some limits of reason that we set for ourselves. This is why we’re willing to settle for a fairly comfortable and relatively inexpensive CB6000 instead of a less convenient and much, much more expensive Latowski. So, security is ironically not the most important thing with a chastity device, especially if the wearer properly manages his WSD.

Those three criteria may not be completely objective, since I give my own weighting to them when thinking about devices. But I think that they are reasonably applicable to most users. I’ve used these three criteria in evaluating devices ever since I began building my own about ten years ago. But it’s only recently that I began to think seriously about a more subjective criteria: How sexy, how appealing is the device? Does it make you want one, make you wish you were wearing one right now, and damn the cost? For example, the Latowski full metal design is shiny and ergonomic and the metal itself looks like it flexes with your skin. I don’t know anything else about it except that the sleek look is eye-catching and erotic — to me.

And here’s where I think some couples have some difficulty; their difference of opinion on what is “sexy” quite possibly hampers their agreement on a device. When I look at one of the Steelwerks Extreme devices, I see heavy-duty industrial coolness. Mrs. Edge, however, sees something that looks too artificial. Her take on the CB2000, the Steelwerks, and some of the other commonly available devices is that they look like things left over from the plumbing or hardware store. And frankly, we are both turned off by the Lori’s tube devices which, in my opinion, look a bit clunky.

This is one of the reasons that I keep repairing and modifying my CB3000 — we both agree that we like the looks.  We have long discovered that when we agree on something, we should buy it because mutual agreement — be it furniture, wall paint, dinner — isn’t all that common with us. Mrs. Edge likes the “organic” design, which in my opinion, is missing in a lot of the other devices. The 3k, and it’s successor the 6k, have a head shaped like a, well, a head. You can visualize a penis inside them, and their relatively low profile under clothing gives it an air of being a bit more natural than, say, some of the other devices that are more tube-shaped.

Again, though, sexiness is a subjective criteria, and I don’t expect that everybody will agree with it. Lori’s tubes have a huge following, and the CB6000 seems to be a more popular device than the older 3000 (for the record, I think that the 3k is a better built device, but that’s another article) . But as new devices are (ahem) coming into the market, I think it’s important to at least have some commonalities on which they could be rated and compared.

Paying for Quality

To those of you who normally drop by for the hawt chastity porn, the pictures of hawt BBW models, the hawt pictures of Marina Sirtis, or the cool conversations: I’m not offering anything like that in this admittedly longish post. But I do hope that you’ll take a few minutes to read this because, while it’s not sexy on the surface, it does concern a more serious issue.

This is a detective story, one that you will not see on some TV drama show because few people will understand the implications. But it’s because of my informal education — not any special training — that there is a story at all.

Although you’d never suspect if from the skyline of office buildings and the endless shopping centers, the area around the Elm City has a number of small, old-school shops. Not chain drugstore shops, but small businesses that house little manufacturing, repair, and contracting facilities. I’ve been fortunate to have grown up in and around so many small businesses, in which I’ve seen all sorts of occupations from watch repair, to jewelry making, to upholstery, to shoe repair, to specialized machining. Sometimes, when I was younger, I would spend afternoons just hanging out, watching, or even helping when I could. I’ve repaired antique radios (the kind with tubes!), made and repaired jewelry, watched fabric being bought and sold, and even some furniture and cabinets being built. This background has given me an unusual perspective on the idea of quality. As our society has moved from industries which actually made things to industries that trade on information, I think that we have lost the ability to discern quality in material things, simply because we no longer have any feel for them, nor any idea of how things are made.

The idea of discernment — the ability to tell what’s important — is something that we are bombarded with in ads and commercials all the time; but what the marketers are really counting on is that we, as a society, have lost the ability to discern quality merchandise. They are hoping that, in not knowing the difference, we will simply buy what they throw at us, because their commercials are funnier, sexier, or more relevant. And in fact, fewer people than ever in the US and UK really understand how things are made, where they come from, and what kind of effort is needed. This is why reality shows like “Dirty Jobs,” “Ice Road Truckers,” “The Deadliest Catch,” and even “Extreme Home Makeovers” are so fascinating to us, most of us really don’t know how anything is built or produced anymore.

I don’t have any special skills, but I did pay attention to the older relatives, the neighbors, and the people that I met in those little shops. You might wonder what possible use it would have been, cluttering up my brain with seemingly useless trivia, but there have been times when it has been useful. For example, back in the 1980s, a friend showed up at our nightspot flashing a new-looking Rolex, which he claimed to have picked up “gray market” for only $1,500. Examining it, I handed it back to him and explained that this particular model was supposed to be self-winding, but that if you felt it carefully, you couldn’t feel or hear the counterweight that does the internal winding. Not that it mattered because mechanical watches have a sweep, i.e., a constantly moving second hand. His second hand made discrete movements each second, tick…tick…tick. What he had bought was a very nice case with a $10 Japanese movement.

Oddly, he was not pleased at my display of knowledge.

Consent and sensibility

Having solved the problems of world hunger, universal medical care, and corrupt politicians, it’s good to know that some people still have enough energy to tackle the really important issues of whether or not “enforced” chastity is an actuality, whether or not one needs a device, and what devices are serious enough for consideration.

At the moment, this argument discussion is taking place over on Sarah’s Male Chastity Blog, although this is really just another instance of the discussions that take place on some group or forum just about every freaking month. It’s kind of like the kudzu of the kinky internet; as soon as you think it’s gone, it pops up somewhere else.

So, let’s review a few things. As I’ve said a bazillion times, chastity devices are sex toys, plain and simple. Just like handcuffs, rope, or other restraints, they are equipment to enhance sexual, or more accurately, erotic enjoyment.  This is not a paradox; except for extremely rare circumstances, people buy chastity devices in order to engage in erotic control scenes. Yes, the scenes may play out over long periods — weeks or months — but the essence of the play is erotic control of one’s sexuality.

Yeah, yeah, I know that some of you are ready to get on a soapbox about how it has changed your relationship, given you focus, made you a better partner, blah, blah, blah. Well, I call “bullshit” on that entire concept; what you’re descibing is not the magical effect of the device anymore than Dumbo’s crow feather gave him magical flying powers (sorry, when you have kids, these kinds of analogies come to mind). Rather, I suspect that you, yourself have become more focused, a better parter, etc., because you’re enjoying the attention and you’re reciprocating in a way that fits the paradigm you’ve set for yourself (actually, since we don’t live in a social vacuum, that other people around the internet have set for you). You want to call the device a symbol of your new life? Hey, great — that’s exactly what those freaking wedding bands do. How well was that working for you?

So, does that mean that chastity devices are toys? Well, that’s a bit more complicated, so to avoid certain emotional connotations, I’m going to call them “equipment”. This makes more sense because that’s how we usually refer to other kink-oriented items; the word “toy”, while having a connotation as being something used for fun, also conveys an image of something that’s not intended for serious usage (fsv of “serious”). Hence, the snobbery of those people who sneer at anything made of plastic, who are in turn frowned on by those espousing the use of anything less than a full stainless steel Tollyboy (or whatever) belt, who are then dismissed as amateurs by those who have spent months of their salary (and months of fitting time) to own custom Latowski metal underwear.

And of course, all of the above people are dissed by the domlier/subbier than thou types who claim that nobody should even need a device, they should simply develop the willpower to do as they are told.

A pox on all of ye, I say.