Writes Jennifer 8. Lee for the New York Times' City Room blog,

In one of his studies, half of the 250 subjects were told that the designer glasses they were wearing were "real," while the other half were told they were wearing "counterfeits." They were told to do a number of tasks that seemed to be related to the glasses, like evaluating scenery. But tucked into the sequence was a math test. Researchers found that 60 percent of those who were wearing "counterfeit" glasses cheated, while only 20 percent of those wearing "real" glasses cheated.

Study participants also were given a financial incentive to lie about the location of circles in a series of visual puzzles — and those with the "fake" glasses lied both sooner and more often.

The Times draws the conclusion that buying counterfeit goods has a discernible corrosive effect on an individual's morality — that, in effect, wearing an item you know to be fake is like kryptonite for your sense of right and wrong. But can it really be that simple?

I don't question that wearing branded or luxury items makes us feel a certain way: maybe smarter, perhaps more put-together, more attractive, possibly more comfortable. Some of that is the result of thoughtful design — a fabric with a superior hand against your skin, a more flattering cut greeting your glances in the mirror, a better quality of embellishment, hand-sewn details, a secret silk lining in a daring color only you know about. But a great part of our emotional reaction to brands is the sole result of calculated marketing decisions and the tide of logo-infected imagery that's washed over us all since birth. (Which conditioned response is, weirdly enough, what Ariely's study considers "real.")

Ariely also seems to have lacked a control group. No research subjects were asked to complete the honesty-testing tasks while wearing sunglasses whose brand-status was not stated, or while wearing no sunglasses at all. Having essentially no baseline for comparison makes the results suspect; unless we know how often "average" people will cheat at mathematics or lie for low-stakes financial gain under identical conditions, there's no real way to know if people wearing branded items they believe to be counterfeit or real lie and cheat more or less often.

But most importantly, in real life people are not randomly assigned authentic or copied goods — they choose to buy them. And what motivates those choices more than wealth? The segment of the population who can actually choose to buy a real Birkin (price range lower limit: $6000, according to a Forbes article from last August that quotes a luxury goods marketeer thus: "People want to spend their money on frivolous things") is vanishingly small. The market for the $100 Chinatown version is increasingly well-stocked. How utterly insulting that a study should come along effectively to congratulate the tiny segment of the population who can afford authentic luxury items on being not only more financially successful than the rest of us, but more moral. Except I'm pretty sure Bernie Madoff's Cartier wristwatches were real.

This isn't to say that counterfeiting is a business worth supporting. It's a wretched concern for any number of reasons. In addition to the obvious wrong of stealing someone else's intellectual property, it defrauds the nation of tax revenue, and large-scale counterfeiting rings are often involved in drug smuggling and other, more serious forms of organized crime. Designer copies are also frequently made by child laborers in sweatshop conditions. But do we really need to be told — by a researcher who presented his findings at a conference sponsored by no less an interested party than Harper's Bazaar — that carrying a bag we know to be cheap tat made in lamentable conditions will make us cheat and deceive those around us?

Ariely gave the thank-you Prada bag to his mother. But, like so many of us, once he'd known that special feeling of owning something "genuine" and "real" (whether or not what that mainly means is merely really, really expensive), he couldn't stop. Ariely bought a Mont Blanc pen. (Starting price: in the hundreds.)

"When I take it out and I start writing, I have this objective feeling that my thoughts are clearer. My handwriting is clearer," he says. "The truth is — I didn't anticipate it — when I take this pen, there is a special feeling."

After a lifetime lived without "fashion products," a conference sponsored by a leading ladymag ruined the good professor for anything else. If there's a lesson in that, it's not that fakes are only bought by sneaky cheating crass folk, and the real deal is always carried by upstanding citizens.

[Image via Flickr user Janoid]

The Moral Costs Of Counterfeiting [NY Times]

Related:
World's Most Extravagant Handbags [Forbes]

Yesterday, a tipster told us Jason Wu, who has been enjoying a publicity bump following Michelle Obama's appearance in one of his gowns at the inauguration, had been effectively outed to some of his extended family by his profile in the Times Sunday Styles section. Writer Eric Wilson's mention of Wu's boyfriend, Gustavo Rangel, was, we heard, the first some of his family members had heard about his sexual orientation.

Whether that's true or not, says Mr. Gabriel, his section did not "out" the designer.

During his reporting, Eric Wilson asked both Wu and his partner, Gustavo Rangel, if it was okay to mention in print that they were a couple. They both consented. (...) [I]t is wrong to leave readers with the implication made by your headline that The New York Times someone [sic] outed Jason Wu. We take this issue seriously here. We did no such thing.

It's also worth noting that Wu spoke about Michelle Obama's style and his experience designing for her to The Advocate for their issue of January 20; the piece was headlined "Michelle Goes Gay." Although Wu was not quoted discussing his sexuality with the magazine, both the text and the sub-headline referred to him as a gay designer.

There are clearly levels of in-ness and out-ness within almost any gay individual's life — especially so for anyone whose family comes from a more conservative culture, but who lives and works far away in the relatively tolerant bubble of New York City. Negotiating these levels of identity must be fraught at the best of times. Wu may even have thought it was 'safe' to speak to The Advocate, since his Taiwanese relatives wouldn't read it. But if he did give the Times positive permission to identify his and Rangel's relationship as a romantic one, then he wasn't outed — even if it's true that the news entailed some difficult family discussions. He outed himself. And good for him, because he has plenty to be proud of right now.

The Spotlight Finds Jason Wu [NY Times]
Michelle Goes Gay [Advocate]

Earlier: Did Jason Wu Inadvertently Out Himself In The New York Times?

[Image via Tricia Romano]

Merkin writes that though Spanx are all the rage, they only work "if you are already in possession of a body toned and buffed from hours in the gym." She notes that during the 19th century, virtually all free-born women in the United States wore corsets. These days? Merkin finds that the girdle is virtually obsolete. But she was in search of "real help," and "looking for body armor to shield… extra rolls from scrutiny." Eventually, she discovered (and fell in love with) a black lace number by Rago (which, incidentally, turns out to be the same manufacturer of the one from the retro dress site). But, she writes, "I would be less than honest, however, if I said that it restored me to my 20-year-old body."

Of course, that's the problem with girdles and bodyshapers — they force a woman's body to conform to some sort of ideal which may not be what nature has in mind. Flat stomachs are prized in our culture, but very seldom do women — especially as they age — naturally possess such figures. Imagine if rounded tummies were considered sexy instead? Would young women pad their bellies instead of padding their bras? Would clothing be cut generously in the middle instead? Why is it, that even though women are "liberated" from other conventions, when it comes to our bodies, we're still desperate to keep things under control? In a new interview, Sara Blakely, the creator of Spanx, claims her product makes women more confident. "I don't feel it's [about] not accepting your body; I love my body. I love clothes, I just don't want panty lines."

Belt Tightening [NY Times]
Sara Blakely: The Spanx Creator Talks About Control [Times Of London]

When you're suffering from emotional pain — when your heart, mind and soul hurt — and you can't express it, when it stays bottled up because you don't have a method, place or medium of release, cutting can seem like a great idea. Like bleeding is breathing. Like you're letting it all out. Or sometimes you're so numb to the world you're desperate to feel. (Ever see a movie called Fight Club?) Believe me, I'm not advocating self-harm. But I understand it. The Times notes, "Self-injury can become addictive. Experts theorize that it may be reinforced by the release in the brain of opioidlike endorphins that result in a natural high and emotional relief." And honestly? From ear piercing to tattoos and nose jobs, humans have a history of modifying and inflicting harm on ourselves. (Not to mention: Binge eating, drug use, drinking, sun tanning and smoking.) So I call bullshit on the implication that the Internet is going to make a teenager cut herself. Nevermind the "I wish my grass was Emo so it would cut itself" T-shirts. There was self-harm before the age of MySpace and there always will be. Luckily, there are also therapists, doctors, and people who know when they need help.

All too often, if someone asks, "How are you?" we reply, "I'm fine", never letting on what kind of rage, sadness or depression boils inside us. If the Internet is a place where people who self-harm can vocalize and discover they're not alone, is that so bad? The girl in the striped socks was wearing her emotional damage on her sleeve — is there any harm in that, so to speak?

The Growing Wave Of Teenage Self-Injury [NY Times]

Oh, and then there was that story about Jezebel.

Obviously, the nonchalant tone of that last sentence is total bullshit: I — and most of the other staffers, I believe — spent the majority of the weekend reading the Times piece, then reading it again, and again, and again, all in an effort to process how we felt about it. (And, of course, our appearances. I was horrified by vast amount of forehead on display; Tracie thought she looked like a drunk; Dodai marveled at her abundant cleavage; Jessica disdained her lack of it.) My reaction to the story was one of amusement and disappointment, feelings that did not change even on my fifth or sixth reading, although I admit they were much-amplified after I got a look at the crazy-ass commenting thread about the story that sprung up on Gawker on Saturday; all I have to say about that right now is Jesus Christ.

There were some amusing moments in the story, like writer Lauren Lipton's acknowledgment of the alcohol-soaked truce between Moe Tkacik and her sometime-critic, SinisterRouge, and the confirmation of a rumor I'd heard regarding a group of disparate, far-flung, longtime commenters and a pilgrimage they took to Dollywood earlier this year. (Also: Redbook editor Stacy Morrison's defensive-sounding intimation that only the impressionable, "fun"-loving youngsters on the lowest rungs of her magazine's editorial masthead deign to visit Jezebel. Guess she's still mad about that Faith Hill Photoshop controversy.) And despite my disagreement that a Jezebel name-check on the website for Gossip Girl has suddenly led to an influx of younger, more (ahem) immature readers — and my disbelief that the Times compared our traffic to that of iVillage, of all things — on the whole, I felt the piece was fun and more than fair to us. (One quibble: We post from 9am to 7pm, not 10am to 7pm.)

But it wasn't fair to the readers. Why? Because: Problems between editors and commenters and between commenters themselves are not specific to this blog — or any Gawker Media site for that matter — and the tensions in the comment threads are a natural side-effect of our surprisingly speedy growth. Because: At least from my somewhat ignorant vantage point, there is simply no evidence of any group of commenters referring to themselves as "cool kids" in any thing but a joking manner. And most importantly, because: Jezebel readers are funnier, more vibrant, opinionated, impassioned, whip-smart — and yes, infuriating —than the Times made them out to be. (Why the paper chose to showcase an unremarkable, mildly-tense exchange within the thread of an Angelina Jolie "Snap Judgment" instead of contributions from readers on, say, "Crappy Hour" or something equally-loaded, such as this post, is beyond me.) Basically I just wish that the commenters had taken center stage a bit more. They — you — deserved it. Because despite all the thoughtful, opinionated, unique work done by Dodai, Moe, Tracie, Jessica, Jennifer and Maria, in the comment threads on our blog you can find sidesplitting humor, impassioned disagreement, emotion-laden provocations, expert anecdotes, and a variety of voices that inspire as much, if not more, than they annoy.

In fact, I can guarantee that you will.

Not On Our Blog You Won't [NY Times]

Thinspiration: ♥ So Pretty In Pain ♥ [You Tube]

(The text for this clip reads, "This video was made mainly for myself, but is here for all to view. It is very inspiring and sophisticated. Comments are highly apreciated! Enjoy!")

That sentence comprises the first 45 of over a thousand words devoted to female circumcision in Sunday's NY Times. (Sorry guys, this is the last of our Blue Monday-type stories for today.) According to Lukman Hakim, a (male) chairman of an Indonesian foundation that sponsors mass circumcisions, the benefits include the "stabilization" of a female's libido and balancing "her psychology".

The article, written by Sara Corbett, also features a series of upsetting photographs by Stephanie Sinclair (a slideshow, including the newly-circumcised, teary 9-month old girl pictured above, can be found here). Asks Jezebel reader Elizabeth: "What kind of person can stand there and photograph little girls screaming while parts of their genitalia are removed? This isn't a question of religion, or yearning to understand another culture more — it's recording barbarity with an objective lens, which somehow makes it okay."

A Cutting Tradition [NY Times]
Inside A Female Circumcision Ceremony [NY Times]

We read your story in the Times about Hadaka Sushi, a new L.A. eatery that offers nyotaimori — the practice using near-naked women to serve as human sushi platters.

According to you, successfully navigating a gig as a human sushi platter demands a disarming, gleaming white smile, blonde hair, the ability to suppress one's regular breathing pattern (lest one disturb the fishes!), and an iron will. In fact, as you said:

Rachael — her full name is Rachael Biggs, a publicist said — seemed to enjoy the evening as much as anyone could while lying supine and being poked by chopsticks. To an onlooker, the most disturbing aspect of her job might be Hadaka's rule that forbids a model to eat the sushi that rests inches away from her mouth.

"Most disturbing"? If working as a naked, immobile mute with the ability to suppress both her breathing pattern and her appetite isn't a woman's worst nightmare, we don't know what is. Then again, there's the fact that it is Hollywood, we are bitches, and you seem like kind of an asshole.

Selling The Sizzle Even Though It's Sushi [NYTimes]
Related: The Pornography Of Meat [Amazon.com]

So, you're an unmarried Christian investment banker, and that whole 'no sex before marriage and masturbation will make your penis rot' thing is really getting to you. And you meet a woman at a party who completely doesn't notice you, and mistakes you for a mugger when you chase after her to get her number. And she doesn't fancy you, but you stalk her all over bible class, and when she eventually agrees to go on a date with you, she makes it clear that you are repulsive. Probably because you are.

What to do?

A cost-benefit analysis, that's what!

"[Gregory Buechele's] close friend and fellow investment banker Mark Gundersen helped him do a cost-benefit analysis. "The downside, risk of a broken heart," Mr. Gundersen said. 'The upside, unlimited potential.'

Mr. Buechele took it as a challenge and pursued Ms. Cargill with the same intensity he uses as a timber trader. 'I wouldn't give up,' he said."

In today's all too depressing news, it appears to have worked.

[Intense timber-trader gets hitched]NY Times

Apparently they're having a DJ at the Oscars this year, to stop all the drunk celebs wandering off and puking in limos. More interestingly, said DJ will be of the feminine persuasion! We bet you'd like to hear all about it, wouldn't you? Like how she scored the gig, what it means to her, how difficult it is to get to the top in a male-dominated profession?

"Ms. Richardson, who is as slender as a tulip stem and feline in her demeanor, wore a mint green minidress by the up-and-coming London designer Christopher Kane and minimal makeup. When she laughed, her head jerked backward as if someone had tugged at her long light-brown hair."

So there you are then.

[Women! Objectification! NYT!

We finally got around to reading the NY Times obituaries section from yesterday and came across this sad report: Florence Z. Melton, 95, creator of the foam-rubber slipper, has passed away.

We didn't know anything about Ms. Melton before this, but her obit revealed a woman who lived a very interesting - and long - life, which included holdings of some 18 patents, including, get this: one for shoulder pads.

Now we know who to blame for the '80s.

When we think of killer make-up, we tend to think of our favorite sparkly green liquid eyeliner, rather than a ravenous face-pack of death. Turns out we were wrong, according to the NY Times.

Because it's not like we have enough to worry about with global warming, the war in Iraq and when precisely Lindsay Lohan will die choking on her own vomit, now we're being told that our lipstick will eat us. And that's not all!

"But some small case reports published in medical journals suggest that a few substances used in cosmetics may affect hormone function in humans.

Scientists are particularly interested in a group of chemicals called phthalates — used in some nail polishes, fragrances, medical devices and shower curtains — some of which have had an effect on the reproductive systems of lab animals and can be absorbed and excreted by the human body."

Shower curtains? We're gonna be killed by our shower curtains? Whatever next? Attack of the giant killer bathmats?

[we're all doomed]