Casual sex.

Normally, I just include snippets of articles but this one is too nuanced to chop it up. So in its entirety, from the Pacific Standard:

Casual Sex Is Actually Excellent for You, If You Love Casual Sex By Ryan Jacobs

New research suggests that not all casual sex is bad. For those legitimately interested, it can boost life satisfaction and self-esteem and lessen anxiety.

A lot of psychology researchers are giant prudes. In previous studies of bedding strangers, some have suggested that pretty much all casual sex is detrimental to your psychological well-being. As a new study published in Social Psychological and Personality Science notes, they’ll rattle off negatives like “less enjoyment and nurturance than romantic sex, frequent regret, unwanted emotional attachment, substance use, and social stigma.” There are others, too, of course: cheap wine and awkward conversation in a smelly apartment, haphazardly setting off stairwell fire exit alarms as you sneak out into the night, or a long and lonely morning walk or taxi ride of shame.

But research that has attempted to measure the overall effects of one-night stands and “fuck buddies” on psychological health hasn’t been totally decisive. “[P]ast findings on the main effects of casual sex on well-being range from negative to positive with a preponderance of nonsignificant results,” the new study, led by sex researcher Zhana Vrangalova, notes. In other words, the inconsistencies might mean that the true effect is context- and personality-dependent.

All-negative or all-positive findings don’t really account for the strange and nuanced spectrum of opinion about casual sex, and they especially exclude those who can’t wait to engage in their next coital misadventure with a complete stranger they just met while grinding on a dance floor of a sweaty club.

As we all know, these people do exist. They lurk in our bar’s backrooms, on our gym’s racquetball courts, on cruises and in airplanes, and on every street in the city of Miami. And, Vranglalova figured, they should be accounted for in statistical analysis.

In social science parlance, the personality trait that measures degrees of interest in casual sex is termed “sociosexuality.” “Sociosexual orientation is a relatively stable tendency toward or away from casual sex, determined by a combination of heritable factors, sociocultural learning, and past experiences, and reflected in three key components: motivation for, attitudes toward, and past experience with casual sex,” the authors write.

Other research has shown there are positive psychological benefits when someone acts authentically, or in accordance with their personality. The authors argue that there would be no reason to believe that this effect wouldn’t extend to casual sex. If you are “sociosexually unrestricted,” or you desire casual sex, you might derive psychological benefits from feeling like you’re acting authentically while having it. If you’re “sociosexually restricted,” it might work the opposite way.

The researchers tested their theory by surveying 371 college students about baseline sociosexuality and then asking about their sexual behavior and psychological well-being over a period of nine months. “Participants were considered to have had penetrative casual sex on a given week if any of their oral, vaginal, or anal intercourse partners were reported as one-night stands, friends with benefits, fuck buddies, casually hanging out, just friends, ex-partners, or unclear/complicated,” the researchers explain.

By the end of the study, 42 percent of subjects reported having sex outside a relationship. When it came to those who were sociosexually unrestricted, having casual sex was associated with higher self-esteem and life satisfaction and lower depression and anxiety. “Typically, sociosexually unrestricted individuals (i.e., those highly oriented toward casual sex) reported lower distress and higher thriving following casual sex, suggesting that high sociosexuality may both buffer against any potentially harmful consequences of casual sex and allow access to its potential benefits,” the researchers write. Additionally, feelings of authenticity “amplified” the beneficial psychological effects, but did not spur them, as hypothesized. Surprisingly, the researchers did not find any negative effects on well-being in those who were sociosexually restricted but had casual sex anyway. This might be due to limited sample size, though, since not very many restricted subjects did this.

“This study certainly seems to suggest that casual sex can be a good thing for people who are open to it, desire it, and have positive attitudes towards it,” Vrangalova says in an email to Pacific Standard. “And it is always a good idea to be safe while doing it and not get too wasted – other research shows that a lot of the guilt following casual sex comes from failure to [use] condoms or getting too drunk.”

Still, these findings do not imply that “casual sex is better than relationship sex, even for unrestricted people,” Vrangalova cautions. “The vast majority of unrestricted people desire, enjoy, and form relationships; they just also enjoy and desire casual sex.”

Not unexpectedly, the types of people who constantly desire casual sex sound a bit insufferable. They are generally “extroverted,” sensation-seeking, “impulsive,” “avoidantly attached” males, who “also invest less in romantic relationships and are more likely to have cheated on a romantic partner (perhaps because monogamous arrangements are less well-suited for them),” Vrangalova says. “Among men, they are also more likely to be physically strong, and especially among college men, also more sexist, manipulative, coercive and narcissistic.” They also tend to be “unconventional, attractive, [and] politically liberal.”

Crucially, the study proves that casual sex is much more textured and complex than previous research has let on. “This study and a previous study of mine are some of the first studies to show that hooking up is not always bad or good for everyone, that it depends on various personal, interpersonal and situational factors,” Vrangalova says. “And we need more research that will examine these various factors, and move the discourse away from the black-and-white picture often painted and toward these more useful nuances.” Pushing past the binary, Vrangalova is now investigating what influence getting wasted and forgetting to use a condom might have on casual sex’s overall psychological effects.

The "Gay Voice".

From Vice:

David Thorpe and Dan Savage Have a Lot to Say about the “Gay Voice” by Regan Reid

David Thorpe sounds gay. And, though Thorpe is gay, for a long time, it really bothered him. But it bothered him more that he was bothered at all. So he decided to make a documentary about it. He talked to voice coaches and linguists about how and why some people “sound gay.” He worked hard to “sound straight.” He interviewed historians about the cultural history of the gay voice. And he talked to famous gay celebrities, like Tim Gunn, Dan Savage, and David Sedaris, about accepting how you sound and who you really are.

I met up with Thorpe and Dan Savage during the Toronto International Film Festival to discuss Thorpe's debut feature documentary, Do I Sound Gay? We were seated in a crowded restaurant at the Intercontinental Hotel in Toronto and, after we all got over our excitement that Jennifer Connelly and Paul Bettany were sitting behind us (at least we thought it was them), we talked about what it means to “sound gay,” the use of the gay voice in kids movies, and one particularly contentious Louis C.K. skit.

VICE: When you set out to make this film, what did you want to accomplish? And how did that change over the course of making the film?

David Thorpe: I wanted to come to terms with my voice, whatever that meant. I broke up with a boyfriend, I had no confidence and I was on this trip to Fire Island that I should have been excited about, but instead of being excited, all I could think about was how much I hated the voices of the chattering gay men around me. That felt like a real low point for me, because I fought so hard to come out and embrace being gay, and I've really fought hard for the gay community as an LGBTQ and AIDS activist, and advocacy journalist. I couldn't believe that I was in my 40s and still hated sounding gay and was afraid of sounding gay. So, for me, the real Come-to-Jesus moment making the film was when I interviewed one of the men on the street, the young guy who says: I wish I didn't sound gay. I can't get a boyfriend because I'm too effeminate.”

He said other things that were not in the film, but he essentially said, I hate my voice and I wish I could change it. And I just thought, holy crap, what's going on?

Go read the rest here.

Child porn or art?

It's the story of a dad accused of being a child pornographer for sharing photos of his daughter. In some, she's naked. He had no sexual intent - he's a professional photographer and the photos are all simply innocent candids that he posted to Instagram. The story seems to be polarizing people; I'd be curious to hear what you think. TRIGGER WARNING: discussion of pedophilia, child porn, child sexual abuse.

In April 2014 photographer Wyatt Neumann went on a two week road trip with his two year old daughter Stella. Over the course of the trip Neumann photographed his daughter in various locations, sometimes with clothes on, sometimes without.


Being a woman.

This video has gone viral and there has been a pile of commentary published about it.

Creator/Owner/Director: Rob Bliss Creative- A Viral Video Agency - http://robblisscreative.com/ Business/Media Contact: rob@robblisscreative.com Talent: Shoshana B. Roberts - http://shoshanabroberts.wix.com/shoshanabroberts Video Effects Consultant: Kevin Budzynski - http://www.imdb.com/name/nm3345388/?ref_=fn_al_nm_1 Audio Production/Assistance: Peter Fox - http://www.peterfoxrecording.com/ for further discussion regarding the demographics of this video: http://bit.ly/1sAxkcA

For a good discussion (including race) with links to other pieces, check out this article at the New York Times: link.

A lot of guys (and some women) simply don't get it: e.g., "They're just saying good morning!" But do they say good morning to everyone, or just woman who they find attractive? A Reddit user did her best to explain it. I copied it in its entirety (full thread here):

Between the original video and the parody one, I see a lot of the same reactions, generally from men. "But that's not catcalling! Lots of people just wanted to say hi or good morning!" "She gets more compliments in 10 hours than I get all year." "How am I supposed to get to know someone if I can't even say hello?" "Ok, maybe being talked to is annoying, but come on...harassment?" and "Oh, yeah, it must be REALLY HARD being attractive." I get it. I understand that when you haven't experienced something, it's hard to understand. So I'd like to give to a brief explanation as to WHY it feels so awful to be shouted at every few minutes while you are just trying to exist in this world.

Let's pretend you have something lots of people want. Maybe you're famous or rich or powerful. In fact, let's go with something lots of people on reddit understand: let's say you're a whiz at computers. You've always been great at them, and when you hit college you finally decided to make it your career.

Of course, people know you're a whiz. When you were in high school, your parents always had you fix their computer, and maybe they made you go over to your grandparents house and teach them how to do simple stuff on it. It wasn't a big deal, and you liked using your skill to make other people happy. It made you feel good to be acknowledged for your talents, too.

But as you've grown, your social circle has widened, and now that it's your career path, everyone knows that you're a whiz. And the requests start coming more often. Your friend thinks he has a virus. Your cousin who you never speak to is having an issue getting his printer to work. A facebook "friend" wants to make a wordpress site and heard you were good at that. Your brother in law just can't get his wireless router set up.

It starts to really grate on you. You recognize a pattern...someone whom you don't talk to that often will send you text, email or facebook message, and it always starts off nicely with the "how are you"s, but within 3 or 4 minutes of small talk they will get to what they really want. You realize that the more you do for people, the more they want; and if you accommodate everyone, you would never have any time for yourself. So you decide to start being more assertive and tell people (nicely) "no."

Well, that was a fucking mistake. There is now hostility in your family because no one can understand why you were so rude to Uncle Joe, it would have just taken you a half hour to set up his new monitor, why would you be such a dick about it? And now you've been unfriended on Facebook by several people, your boss is pissed and you're worried now about job prospects down the line.

You obviously handled that poorly, you think. But you're still unwilling to spend 5-10 hours a week doing favors for people who seem pretty ungrateful, so you just change the way you deal with requests. You don't sign on to social media much anymore, and emails keep getting "lost." You try to ignore as many requests in as many ways as possible, thinking that if you don't say no, people won't get angry. Weeeeell, that was a lost cause. People are just as mad as before. In fact, it seems that the only thing that will make people happy is to do what they're asking...no one seems to care how this impacts you, because they just want what they want when they want it.

This starts to color all of your other interactions. Now, every time an old friend randomly wants to reconnect with you, you get a knot in your stomach. You read emails knowing that at the end of all of the sucking up and small talk, there's a good chance for an ask at the end. And because you've had so many hostile reactions when you tried to stand up for yourself, all of these reactions are now colored with that.

Maybe your old middle school crush really is just trying to say hi, but you've been through this before and you know the odds are on the fact that she wants something from you. This is now the way you look at most people. It wears you down. You don't understand why people can't respect your right to just be left alone, and why you can't find a space that is free from all the asks. You know your dread at seeing a simple facebook message seems unreasonable, but damn. If people only understood how many you get, and what it has led to. It's become a big thing in your life somehow, and you fucking hate it.

Now, this little comparison isn't really the best, because it doesn't deal with the actual scary shit that women get constantly...being followed in the streets, sometimes with people in cars. A guy walking down the street and putting his arm around you while he starts a conversation. The touching. The slurs of "slut," "cunt," or "whore" when you ignore someone. The threats. The occasional actual violence.

So yeah, I guess some people see someone saying, "Mmmmmm...good morning, mami!" as a nice greeting. But when it is constant, when it is colored with years of experience, when you JUST WANT TO WALK DOWN THE STREET AND LIVE YOUR LIFE....it is gross. So gross. Someone earlier mocked the fact that it was only 100 example of harassment in 600 minutes. When you have random strangers (an ALL men) talking to you every five minutes, when it seems like they all want something from you and there is no good way to respond to it, a simple twenty minute stroll just becomes exhausting.

Sorry for the length of this, and I doubt anyone will read this novel I've just written, but I wanted to explain why this feels the way the way it does for people who simply can't sympathize. I hope this maybe helps a couple of people understand why even "innocent" interactions feel very charged for the women who experience them.

More on Jian Ghomeshi.

jian.jpg

New piece from the Toronto Star - four more women come forward, one willing to be identified (an actress staring in Trailer Park Boys): link. Dan Savage's interview with a woman who participated in consensual BDSM with JG, plus some of his commentary: link.

Two related articles on why sexual assaults, with specific reference to this case, are often not reported: link and link. The first article is an essential read - it's written by a lawyer who describes exactly what it's like to go through trial as the person who was sexually assaulted.

Also rumours circulating that Navigation, the PR crisis-management firm that crafted the Facebook post for JG, has parted ways with him.

Sounds like the worst of what people were predicting/suggesting is true.

Backburners.

From Marie Claire:

Do You Have a Romantic Backburner?

If you’ve gotten past the stage of monitoring the ‘last seen’ update during flirty Whatsapp back and forths and getting your guy to be ‘in a relationship’ with you on Facebook, you’d be wrong in thinking the digital foreplay in your life, or his, is over.

According to a study from the University of Indiana, both women and men in relationships are now using Facebook and other digital media to keep in touch with exes or potential romantic partners in case their current relationships don’t work out. The study found that participants in relationships had, on average, up to two ‘back burners’ – people that they had romantic or sexual conversations with other than their current partner. Men also had twice as many back burners as women.

The opportunities to chat to anyone you might potentially be interested in are so abundant and accessible that it’s easy to slip into a situation that is essentially emotional cheating or digital infidelity.

In an article in the Washington Post journalist Caitlin Dewey notes that the strength of a relationship relies on three things: emotional investment, satisfaction and the availability of other partners. The world of digital networks means that we’re all connected to more potential partners than ever before, which means that relationships are tested more than ever.

But this doesn’t necessarily mean that your partner will leave as soon as someone better comes along. The study found no correlation between the existence of back burners and partners’ commitment to relationships. Perhaps this is just a new form of emotional security that will become, if it hasn’t already, a normal part of our lives. On the other hand, as if relationships were not difficult enough to maintain already, it’s one more challenge to overcome.

More about the same study at The Atlantic.

Jian Ghomeshi claims CBC fired him over BDSM.

This just happened earlier today and several students have already passed it along (thanks!). What appeared to be a case of wrongful dismissal based on private sexual practices has blown up into much more.

Jian Ghomeshi, the host and co-creator of arguably Canada's most successful radio show, Q, was let go today by the CBC. He took to Facebook to explain why. From his Facebook page:

Dear everyone,

I am writing today because I want you to be the first to know some news.

This has been the hardest time of my life. I am reeling from the loss of my father. I am in deep personal pain and worried about my mom. And now my world has been rocked by so much more.

Today, I was fired from the CBC.

For almost 8 years I have been the host of a show I co-created on CBC called Q. It has been my pride and joy. My fantastic team on Q are super-talented and have helped build something beautiful.

I have always operated on the principle of doing my best to maintain a dignity and a commitment to openness and truth, both on and off the air. I have conducted major interviews, supported Canadian talent, and spoken out loudly in my audio essays about ideas, issues, and my love for this country. All of that is available for anyone to hear or watch. I have known, of course, that not everyone always agrees with my opinions or my style, but I've never been anything but honest. I have doggedly defended the CBC and embraced public broadcasting. This is a brand I’ve been honoured to help grow.

All this has now changed.

Today I was fired from the company where I've been working for almost 14 years – stripped from my show, barred from the building and separated from my colleagues. I was given the choice to walk away quietly and to publicly suggest that this was my decision. But I am not going to do that. Because that would be untrue. Because I’ve been fired. And because I've done nothing wrong.

I’ve been fired from the CBC because of the risk of my private sex life being made public as a result of a campaign of false allegations pursued by a jilted ex girlfriend and a freelance writer.

As friends and family of mine, you are owed the truth.

I have commenced legal proceedings against the CBC, what’s important to me is that you know what happened and why.

Forgive me if what follows may be shocking to some.

I have always been interested in a variety of activities in the bedroom but I only participate in sexual practices that are mutually agreed upon, consensual, and exciting for both partners.

Go read the rest here.

He describes his preference for BDSM and rough sex, and a story of a past jealous lover who sought to take revenge against him in collusion with a journalist who Mr. Ghomeshi claims has been trying to ruin his career. His account is very compelling and it's hard not to feel like Mr. Ghomeshi has been horrifically wronged, simply because he's into BDSM.

Being curious to see the public's response, I headed over to Reddit and sure enough there is a very active thread (link here) about Mr. Ghomeshi's Facebook post. Many people are sympathizing with Mr. Ghomeshi but many others are questioning the veracity of what he claimed, noting that Mr. Ghomeshi has a reputation for being a "creep", "douche", and that many women have complained about his lack of respect for boundaries and worse. Someone also noted that Mr. Ghomeshi has hired Navigator, a PR firm in Toronto that is famous for managing crises like the one Mr. Ghomeshi is facing, and that the Facebook post has all the hallmarks of a very well crafted PR piece (e.g, mentioning dad's death to garner sympathy, use of words like "freelance" to discredit the reporter, inclusion of reference to being a "soldier" to associate Mr Ghomeshi with the soldier "hero" who was shot this week, etc.).

Then the Toronto Star published a piece tonight, describing the stories of several women who approached the paper earlier this year with their complaints about Mr. Ghomeshi's behaviour. This is the paper that Mr. Ghomeshi refers to in his Facebook post. These women's accounts seem to contradict the claims that Mr. Ghomeshi makes. Go read them here. The editor of the paper also wrote a brief piece explaining that the paper didn't originally write the piece (because the sources wished to remain anonymous, and therefore couldn't be verified), but given the events that transpired today, the paper reversed its decision and published the piece. Read the editorial piece here.

You can also read more about the entire story at Gawker.

So, is this a case of Mr. Ghomeshi, one of Canada's current stars, being wrongfully dismissed simply because of his atypical sexual preferences (i.e., BDSM)? Or is this a story an entitled celebrity whose supposed history of predatory and abusive sexual behaviour has finally caught up with him? If it's the first, then it would be an epic example of discrimination based on sexual preference. If it's the second, it would be an repulsive example of hiding inexcusable and abusive behaviour behind the cloak of sexual freedom.

Monday morning edit: a great piece of commentary from someone in the BDSM community, link here. Recommended reading, including the comments section. Lots of good debate.

Before-after fitness transformation advertising, debunked.

I imagine that you've probably come across ads showing photos of radical fitness/physique transformations. This video sheds some light on how these photos (at least some of them) may not be exactly what they appear to be. 

Subscribe to Furious Pete ► http://bit.ly/Sub2FuriousPete Limited Team Furious Apparel ► http://www.furiouspete.com This transformation is whats possible in less than 5 hours. I'm not stating anywhere in this video that supplements or programs (mentioned or not) don't work. I'm simply showing what is possible.

One third of American marriages begin online.

From USA Today (published last year):

Study: More Than A Third Of New Marriages Start Online by Sharon Jayson

More than a third of recent marriages in the USA started online, according to a study out Monday that presents more evidence of just how much technology has taken hold of our lives.

[…]

The research, based on a survey of more than 19,000 individuals who married between 2005 and 2012, also found relationships that began online are slightly happier and less likely to split than those that started offline.

Findings, published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, put the percentage of married couples that now meet online at almost 35% -- which gives what may be the first broad look at the overall percentage of new marriages that result from meeting online. About 45% of couples met on dating sites; the rest met on online social networks, chat rooms, instant messaging or other online forums.

[…]

While Cacioppo is a noted researcher and the study is in a prestigious scientific journal, it is not without controversy. It was commissioned by the dating website eHarmony, according to the study's conflict of interest statement. Company officials say eHarmony paid Harris Interactive $130,000 to field the research. Cacioppo has been a member of eHarmony's Scientific Advisory Board since it was created in 2007. In addition, former eHarmony researcher Gian Gonzaga is one of the five co-authors.

[…]

"It's a very impressive study," says social psychologist Eli Finkel of Northwestern University in Evanston, Ill. "But it was paid for by somebody with a horse in the race and conducted by an organization that might have an incentive to tell this story.

"Does this study suggest that meeting online is a compelling way to meet a partner who is a good marriage prospect for you? The answer is 'absolutely,'" he says. But it's "premature to conclude that online dating is better than offline dating."

Read the whole thing here.

Armpit fetish.

From Vice:

Illustration by Elizabeth Vasquez

It's Time To Talk About Armpit Fetishes By Alison Stevenson

Armpit fetishism: It’s real, yet not really talked about. We live in an age where tossing salad is all over mainstream porn, but there aren't many people who are gonna cop to licking someone's pit to get off. Is an armpit fetish really so different from all the other freaky stuff out there?

[…]

I remember jokingly putting on my OkCupid profile that I had hairy armpits, thinking that would deter a lot of men from messaging me. I never took the site all too seriously, and at the time indeed had hairy pits. So I thought, why not? I figured I’d add this detail about myself so the men posing shirtless in their default pictures would deem me gross, or even worse—some kind of feminist (a.k.a. unfuckable). To my surprise, I had a slew of messages from men who were either “curious” about my armpits, asked me to send pictures, or flat-out stated they loved hairy pits. I found myself in a predicament: If I shaved my armpits, I’d be pleasing men. If I didn't shave my armpits, I’d still be pleasing men. A real damned if I do, damned if I don’t sort of scenario. Couldn't I go just one day without being so goddamn desirable?

A few weeks later, I started seeing someone I met through the site. He lived in San Francisco while I was still living in my college town of Davis. The first time I took a train to meet him, we ended up spending the whole weekend together. The night before I had to leave, we were drunk and got to groping. Eventually, we were both naked. He stopped kissing my lips, and moved down towards my neck and breasts. At this point I was expecting some standard nipple sucking, but instead he lifted my right arm and began licking my armpit up and down. He paused and asked me if this was OK. I let him keep going, and he enthusiastically got to licking the other one. Licking, and kissing it. After a few seconds, he asked if he could “stick his dick there." I panicked at first, thinking he wanted to stick it in my butt. When he clarified that he was talking about my armpits, I was relieved. Hell yeah you can stick it there, just not the butt. Anything but the butt.

Read the rest of her story, and more, here.

Wedding-night sex on the decline.

From Jezebel:

Nobody Has Wedding Night Sex Anymore by TracyMoore

Wedding night sex is officially as passé as using Febreze or talking on the phone. Rather than get it on, newlyweds are wont to do any number of things post-nuptch that do not involve consummating the marriage. Consider this historical trajectory though: Medieval couples hadto do it. Modern couples simply ain't care.

Though facts here are easily fudged — who can ever know for sure how often anyone does it, when, why, or how, or count on the doers to be reliable narrators — surveys hint at some recurring just-hitched issues that lead to one of you spending your Big Night with your true soul mate playing Words With Friends on your phone. And what's more, being fine with it.

A recent survey from a wedding stationary company Paper Shaker claims a quarter of couples don't do it. A few years ago, the Daily Telegraph covered a survey by Bride to Be magazine, which found that 90% of couples expect to do the deed, but only a quarter see their dreams realized. The Daily Mail, who may or may not be forever a bridesmaid, insists that over half of couples (from a survey double the size of the previous) don't make it official by ancient religious standards on the wedding night.

The biggest reason? Drunk dick. Second biggest reason? Too tired. Last year, a financial advice website asked newlyweds why they bypass the action (in this survey, fewer than 48% got around to sex). All had been married within the previous three years. Their reasons:

Groom too drunk (24%)

Bride too tired (16%)

Bride too drunk (13%)

Had to watch kids (11%)

Had fight before reception ended (9%)

Needed to leave for honeymoon (9%)

Pulled an all-nighter partying (7%)

Groom too tired (4%)

Neither felt like it (4%)

Read the rest, including some funny personal anecdotes, here.

Christmas tree or sex toy?

From NewNowNext:

Parisians Mistake Inflatable Christmas Tree For 80-Foot Sex Toy

Tis the season to be cheeky: It’s only October, but artist Paul McCarthy has already gifted Paris with an 80-foot Christmas tree, erected in the venerable Place Vendome. But the sculpture, simply named “Tree,” has sparked outrage in the City treeof Lights because passersby are mistaking it for a giant green sex toy.

McCarthy is known for provocative sculptures, like a giant inflatable pile of poop in Hong Kong, Santa Claus holding a phallic tree in Rotterdam and two animatronic George W. Bushes having sex with pigs in London. So we can call this a tree, but no one’s fooled.

Least of all the anti-gay group French Spring, which protested France’s marriage equality law. The group tweeted their disapproval on Wednesday, writing “A sex toy giant 24m high will Be installed at Place Vendome. Taxpayers , this is where your your tax dollars are going!”

The group also says the work “disfigured” the Place Vendome and has “humiliated” Paris.

In all fairness, if Paris was worried about being humiliated by a giant phallic structure, it would’ve thrown a modesty sheet over the Eiffel Tower 125 years ago.

See more photos here.