In which a group of graying eternal amateurs discuss their passions, interests and obsessions, among them: movies, art, politics, evolutionary biology, taxes, writing, computers, these kids these days, and lousy educations.

E-Mail Donald
Demographer, recovering sociologist, and arts buff

E-Mail Fenster
College administrator and arts buff

E-Mail Francis
Architectural historian and arts buff

E-Mail Friedrich
Entrepreneur and arts buff
E-Mail Michael
Media flunky and arts buff

We assume it's OK to quote emailers by name.

Try Advanced Search

  1. Seattle Squeeze: New Urban Living
  2. Checking In
  3. Ben Aronson's Representational Abstractions
  4. Rock is ... Forever?
  5. We Need the Arts: A Sob Story
  6. Form Following (Commercial) Function
  7. Two Humorous Items from the Financial Crisis
  8. Ken Auster of the Kute Kaptions
  9. What Might Representational Painters Paint?
  10. In The Times ...

Sasha Castel
AC Douglas
Out of Lascaux
The Ambler
Modern Art Notes
Cranky Professor
Mike Snider on Poetry
Silliman on Poetry
Felix Salmon
Polly Frost
Polly and Ray's Forum
Stumbling Tongue
Brian's Culture Blog
Banana Oil
Scourge of Modernism
Visible Darkness
Thomas Hobbs
Blog Lodge
Leibman Theory
Goliard Dream
Third Level Digression
Here Inside
My Stupid Dog
W.J. Duquette

Politics, Education, and Economics Blogs
Andrew Sullivan
The Corner at National Review
Steve Sailer
Joanne Jacobs
Natalie Solent
A Libertarian Parent in the Countryside
Rational Parenting
Colby Cosh
View from the Right
Pejman Pundit
God of the Machine
One Good Turn
Liberty Log
Daily Pundit
Catallaxy Files
Greatest Jeneration
Glenn Frazier
Jane Galt
Jim Miller
Limbic Nutrition
Innocents Abroad
Chicago Boyz
James Lileks
Cybrarian at Large
Hello Bloggy!
Setting the World to Rights
Travelling Shoes

Redwood Dragon
The Invisible Hand
Daze Reader
Lynn Sislo
The Fat Guy
Jon Walz


Our Last 50 Referrers

« Brown Girls | Main | Elsewhere »

August 17, 2006

Uninhibited 2

Michael Blowhard writes:

Dear Blowhards --

A Boomer friend recently told me about a party he'd thrown for his daughter, who was turning 21. Her friends were in attendance, as were many parents. Entertainment included a mocking PowerPoint slideshow, drinks, toasts, and funny presents. Up at the mike, the girl's friends told racey stories about her sex life, and three of the joke-gifts they presented to the girl were dildos. It evidently never occurred to the kids that this might not be quite the way to behave in the presence of their parents.

On YouTube, two blonde teens dance in front of the bedroom-webcam to a surly (and catchy) rap song whose refrain is "Circle circle, dot dot / I got my cootie shot." There's some stuff about booteys, and a recurring moment involving the line ''I'll fuck her anyway." The girls bounce around happily to the rhythms. Whee! What fun! (Complete lyrics to the song are here.)

Today's kids are making Boomers look like prudes.

I wrote a previous blog posting about today's know-no-inhibitions kids here.



posted by Michael at August 17, 2006


There was never a shortage of pathetic retards. They just have a stage now.

Posted by: onetwothree on August 17, 2006 7:50 PM

Uh, here's another video from that same user:

In it, they're piss drunk on jaeger and blurt out that they're only 14 or 15 (can't tell which is the truth). They deep french kiss for several long moments. In the course of this mischief, they also manage to belittle the old farts who watch their videos, "old" being 34.

I don't really know what to say. I'm just 25, and I don't remember girls like that in high school. Then again, maybe I didn't hang out with the right girls...

Posted by: Agnostic on August 17, 2006 9:49 PM

I remember turning 21 very well. I didn't do anything except kill some brain cells by taking the GRE and starting a blog.

Posted by: sya on August 17, 2006 9:51 PM

These girls aren't doing anything but what men have always done -- frat boys and so on. I've heard accounts of ministers' meetings where one fellow had told a racy story about screwing a donkey at a previous meeting, so his colleagues bought him a little ladder to use on subsequent opportunities. People have always acted like this, but they used to pretend they didn't.

It's meant to be a sign of privilege, confidentiality, trust, etc. Like knowing the password.

And not all people have been so extroverted. The new Vanity Fair has an article about George Bush 41 and George Bush 43 that mentions one of Prescott Bush's friends saying that he was so uptight and careful that the friend said "no one ever heard him fart." No wonder he got puffed up. (Prescott was George Bush 41's father for those who don't do geneaology.)

Prairie Mary

Posted by: Mary Scriver on August 17, 2006 10:25 PM

Yeah Mary, but women aren't men. Men don't get pregnant, for instance, and don't have to struggle with having an abortion. Why would a woman want to act like a man anyway? Men don't want to act like women. Must be a sense of inferiority amongst some. Too bad. Their mothers should have taught them better.

Contrast this with the info that fewer teens nowadays are having sex, if you believe the surveys. I think some teens are good liars--we all remember those "promiscuous" teens in high school, don't we? It's interesting to note the parents allowed the behavior and didn't walk out or protest. That's a huge generational difference. My parents were Depression babies, and I guarantee you most of them would have walked out, religious or not. Most of them were taught taste.

The main point about most of these exhibitionists--someone should point out that, even if they have no shame about broadcasting their most intimate acts to others, most people aren't interested in their sex lives. Not only is it in bad taste, its really boring. "You got three dildos for your birthday? Haha, how funny (pathetic). That's so cute (yawn). You must have a lot of creative and funny friends (sure you do). I guess they know a lot more about your love life than I do (thank God). Gotta go. Good luck with those dildos. Bye."

Posted by: s on August 18, 2006 12:20 AM

Yes, Mary, no discussion is complete without the predictable Bush Derangement Syndrome comments and vicious, resentful and jealous sniping at men.

Yes, it's truly awful that President Bush maintains a sense of decorum and privacy. He should be ashamed.

I'm certain, Mary, that whatever ails you is entirely the fault of the Bushes. Do you read BlameBush! You really should.

Since I played in a fairly famous rock band when I was a kid, I can tell you with certainty that none of the behavior mentioned in this post is new. If you read Henry Miller, you'll discover that people were doing the same thing in the 1920s. We just didn't have cameras to record the festivities.

I remember, when I was a kid, engaging in all these hijinks and being equally certain that I was the first person in history to think of the particular perversion or outrage in question. I thought, at age 18, that the adults had never tried these things.

How wrong I was!

Posted by: Shouting Thomas on August 18, 2006 7:58 AM

Regarding the party anecdote: Ick. Ickity-ick-ick-ick.

Posted by: Rachel on August 18, 2006 8:03 AM

Onetwothree -- So true. But having a stage makes a diff too, no?

Agnostic -- It's a little strange seeing the girls embrace a "Girls Gone Wild" gestsalt, isn't it?

SYA -- We're glad you retained the brain cells, and we're glad you're doing the blog.

P. Mary -- My own age-group/social-group's gals were pretty darned uninhibited, bless 'em. But they didn't gift each other with dildos in front of the parents, and they didn't put tapes of their sexy drunken misbehavior where the whole world can see them.

S -- It's getting to the point where a kid keeping a little something to him/herself is beginning to seem abnormal, don't you find? I wonder if the kids who don't want to broadcast themselves to the entire world feel a little weird about it.

Posted by: Michael Blowhard on August 18, 2006 8:04 AM

Another minor cataract as we drift slowly toward the falls.

Posted by: Charlton Griffin on August 18, 2006 8:19 AM

What bothers me far more than the girls dancing in a slightly suggestive way - normal blowing off of excess teen energy - is the so-called music they are dancing to. When, and more important, why, did rap become the standard (a coarse, brutal standard) on which teens model themselves?

Posted by: ricpic on August 18, 2006 8:42 AM

I think that to some extent, what we are seeing with today's young women is a reaction against Political Correctness. PC was (is) very puritanical about sex, and sexuality is generally presented as a threat to young women by the PC crowd. To many of today's young women, this seems like a revival of Victorian stereotypes about women and sexuality(which it is) so they rebel by showing that sexuality is not a threat to them - rather, they are in control, the arbiters and initiatiors of sexual behavior and action. As one of my old college professors once told me, "any natural human drive or desire that is denied, comes out sooner or later, usually in a distorted form". PC denied female sexuality and sexual desire - the reaction is "Girls Gone Wild".

That's my theory; any takers?

Posted by: tschafer on August 18, 2006 9:27 AM

"most people aren't interested in their sex lives"

Really? 1145 views seems to suggest differently. There will always be some who are interested, and some who aren't. The ones that are the problem are the ones that aren't interested. For them, the goal is to make sure no one who IS interested ever sees it. So what if kids are more uninhibited than previous generations? They said that about mine, too. It's a good thing to get rid of those worthless things, they just lead to unhappiness, hatred and intolerance.

Posted by: Spoonman on August 18, 2006 9:40 AM

Some people seem to forget that women don't have to get pregnant now either -- the pill? IUD? Shots? Heard of 'em?

I think part of the reason these girls could be so outrageous was that they had absolutely minimal if any actual experience with any of this stuff. It's just talk to them, a joke. When I taught high school in 1990, the girls were all crazy for "Pretty Woman," until I pointed out what walking the streets was really like and that Richard Gere was not likely to happen along. (Hugh Grant, maybe.) It was all fantasy and fun until then.

More recently (2002) I taught a high school English class where the mother dive-bombed me for teaching Jame Welch's "Fool's Crow," an acclaimed novel that was the Montana everybody-read-it book one year. There are two paragraphs briefly describing one young man's bad behavior for which he is amply, even excessively, punished later. She didn't want her daughter corrupted. Daughter, on the other hand, brought a CD to play in class (their Friday reward for good behavior was playing their own CD's while they wrote their weekly essay) that included lyrics like "stick yo butt out, mama, I wanna have me some fun." She thought it was hilarious and her mother was a fool.

No, I don't think my misfortunes are Bush's fault -- I think Bush is the fault of a nation that takes about as much care with its politics as this parent did with her daughter's CD's.

Prairie Mary

Posted by: Mary Scriver on August 18, 2006 9:40 AM

I second the one who thinks these party anecdotes are icky-ick. If you are going to screw a donkey (and risk every possible STD known to man) please don't talk about it around me!

It cracks me up that people say their parents would have "walked out" at discussions of them discussing sexual exploits and receiving dildoes. My parents would have grounded me for life in highschool. They would not just have "walked out."

Posted by: annette on August 18, 2006 11:01 AM

I find Bush Derangement Syndrome (BDS) fascinating. There is no end to it. The fact that Bush is Christian, a regular attendee of services and that he is a faithful husband seems to particularly gall the BDS sufferers.

Bush seems to serve as a metaphor for everything the left hates... which these days can be boiled down to... hetero white men. In Manhattan, the gay activists seems to blame Bush for the failure of their sex lives. "If only it weren't for the repressive Bush," they say, "I'd be married and faithful instead of having one night stands with 400 guys a years."

How is it, Mary, that you are so sure of what street walkers think and experience? I've been an intimate friend of a number of them in my younger life. I know some who thoroughly enjoyed that life, profited from it, loved the sex and did find, if not one Prince Charming, then a half dozen.

At the bottom of BDS is the sexual fascism of the left. This sexual fascism on the left is nothing new. The Weathermen tormented each other with Maoist sexual re-education sessions. The Bolsheviks used sexual torture as a means of disorienting their opponents. One of the reasons the gay activist movement is so hysterical is that it also uses these tactics of sexual fascism. Young men twist themselves inside out to survive an educational system that ridicules them for being hetero and rewards them for being homo. Closet heteros are a new trend.

BDS, at root, is hatred of the sexual assurance the president displays. He hasn't been hazed and ridiculed into sissy behavior. He knows who he is. He doesn't apologize for his machismo. This drives the left absolutely crazy. Bush is like some sort of cowboy holdout from the junior high school clique. He must be tortured into conformity, or else other men might also refuse to knuckle under!

It's fascinating the way the left hates him. Only makes me admire him. And I voted for Bill Clinton twice!

Posted by: Shouting Thomas on August 18, 2006 11:13 AM

This all goes back to a recent posting here on 2 Blowhards: The parents have abdicated authority and the kids are in control. No good end will come of this.

Posted by: D Flinchum on August 18, 2006 4:16 PM


Someone will have to tell me why the huge abortion and STD numbers coincide with the advent of contraceptives, if the contraceptives are so reliable. There's a head-scratcher!


Yes, kids nowadays are considered weird if they don't participate in the hijinks or keep thier modest love lives to themselves. That's how bad it is.


Divide 1145 by 6,000,000,000 and get back to me on that one.

Posted by: s on August 18, 2006 4:44 PM

"What bothers me far more than the girls dancing in a slightly suggestive way... is the so-called music they are dancing to. "

I agree. The rap made the whole clip feel unclean and nasty. And I'm as prurient as the next dirty-minded girl-video-watching guy.

Posted by: SJ on August 18, 2006 6:18 PM

Just want to point out that this party with all the jokes was for a "girl" who was turning 21. Maybe Dad shouldn't have been there.

Prairie Mary

Posted by: Mary Scriver on August 18, 2006 10:03 PM

Shouting Thomas, uh, you've obviously put a lot of thought into that. Uh. What? Maoist sexual re-education sessions?

Megadittos SJ. The music sucked ass and ruined the whole thing. I guess that's what kids are reduced to in the never-ending quest to shock us old fogies. (I'm 34 myself). The music is boring and brutally ugly at the same time.

But those kids will go to college and end up in a cube in a corporation somewhere with a McMansion in a shiny exurb and will probably be far more upstanding citzens than I am when they grow up. I wouldn't worry about them.

Posted by: Brian on August 18, 2006 11:18 PM

You're probably right Mary. They should have excluded all the men from the party before they gave her the dildos. That would have made more sense.

Posted by: s on August 19, 2006 1:16 AM


I got the impression that since "Dad" threw the party, it was his house. Dad's house = Dad's rules IMHO. My dear old Granny was a tetotaling Baptist and her grown children in their 40's & 50's did not drink alcohol in her home. In their own homes, they were free to drink whatever they pleased.

Posted by: D Flinchum on August 19, 2006 9:08 AM

Context is all, isn't it?

But sometimes secrecy is the best strategy. If you don't preserve deniability, how will a later, more mature, you back off from all this stuff preserved on videotape? Even if all your friends think it's funny, what if later you become part of a world that doesn't? And I think this party is far more of an exception than not -- though it seems an extension of those tupperware parties that became lingerie parties that became sex toy parties.

I had a heckuva problem a few years ago when my great-uncle wanted to come visit. Over eighty, he was bringing his equally tottery girl-friend. I have a double bed in my own room and two singles out in the "bunkhouse," which is too rickety for old folks. It took a lot of fishing around before I could figure out which beds to make up. (The double.) The deciding factor was the bathroom-- there's none in the "bunkhouse," which is only 2 beds in a shed. (Actually, cots but that won't rhyme.) I didn't want someone with a broken hip moaning on my weedy lawn at 3AM.

Prairie Mary

Posted by: Mary Scriver on August 19, 2006 2:49 PM

Amen, Mary. Who decided that everything everybody did had to be public? Or recorded? Or discussed? Etc?

Posted by: D Flinchum on August 19, 2006 4:55 PM

Shouting Thomas, you idiot, PM's post was about Prescott Bush, not W. You're the one who seems a little deranged here. What's your problem, did a liberal steal your girlfriend once or something? Oh, and in the last election us liberal sissies voted for the decorated military veteran who played hockey in college...I'm assuming you voted for the former member of the Yale cheerleading squad who dodged the draft?

I don't see what all the fuss is about. We're just seeing the wealthy, privileged side of the human race letting its hair down after several thousand years of agricultural families desparately guarding their daughters from the realities of life so they could sell them off the highest bidder before they went off and got themselves pregnant with some irresponsible boy down the block. Stands to reason birth control, capitalism, wealth, mobility would change this whole equation. Young women are in possession of the most powerful draw on earth -- youthful female beauty -- stands to reason they're going to play around with it some unless they are brainwashed from birth and supervised 24/7. The very lengths traditional agricultural societies went to in order to guard and control their teenage women is evidence that girls are not naturally all that prim.

Posted by: MQ on August 19, 2006 6:16 PM

I can see where dildoes might be a threat to guys who have to shell out for viagra in order to deliver what they consider to be sex. (They COULD concentrate on sensuality, valuing, cuddling, the elegant dance of skin against skin, even fine talk.)

There are sanitary advantages to a dildo -- you can give it a good scrubbing. Some teenaged boys -- I dunno. They might resist. Some grown men... hmmm. You know, a couple of good pelvic infections and you can kiss the babies goodbye. A "modern" woman said to me, "Oh, I just hate to have a new lover because it always means a new PI and that means antibiotics and that means more yeast troubles." But then, she had already decided she didn't want babies.

Prairie Mary

Posted by: Mary Scriver on August 19, 2006 8:34 PM


Funny how the hockey player/war hero/gold-digging gigolo couldn't even win when put up against the old Yale cheerleader, huh? Even with a crummy economy and an unpopular war. Still a bit bitter, aren't ya? Most marxist libs are.

I think the whole point of the above commentary by observant posters is that nobody really cares or wants to hear about the sluts' sex lives (I don't), that they lack any sort of class by publishing it on the web and inviting their parents to a tacky 21 party, and that their playing around is a lot less innocuous than libs would have us believe. Shouting Thomas was right to call out Prairie Mary on her political screeds. I don't know what that has to do with the increase in crass, dumb sluts who like to parade their love lives in front of people, so I think he was dead on.

By the way, I think people in the past were very wise to protect their daughters from loser men, as there was no birth control or abortion back then. Sounds like they had brains. But then again you only protect what you care about. The ironic thing about marxists and their "modern views" of women is that, on the one hand, they like to talk about how they have greater respect for women, liberation, blahblahblah, and then on the other hand, they set up a system where women get used more easily as sex objects by guys, where childern are disposable, and where its far more likely that women will get raped, pick up a disease, or encounter abuse and hardship than there was previously. Sounds like a whole lot of progress. Oh and those great careers for most women end up in a cubcle somewhere in the vast wastelands of corporate america, the other great evil. Liars.

Its one thing to go out looking for people to have a real relationship with, and finding your way through until you find someone you really like and want to make a committment to. Its another to go around using people like toilet paper for fun and games. For the record, I could have easily used a lot of girls. But I never did--I never use people like that, even if they want to. I only pursued relationships with women. People who use each other like that are trash in my book. Liberalism is one of the worst things to happen to a lot of women, propaganda to the contrary. And this example of so-called liberated hosebags is a great example of what I'm talking about.

Posted by: s on August 19, 2006 9:31 PM

Interesting range of reactions! As for me, my only points are that

1) If (as P. Mary puts it well) girls/young-women are now carrying on like frat boys ...

2) If they don't even care if their parents are present when they do so

3) If some of them think it's neat and fun to broadcast these antics to the world at large

Then that's a remarkable development.

I can see how some might want to call it all a good thing, and some might want to call it all a bad thing. As for me, though, I'm just saying, "Whoa! Would ya look at that! Who knew?"

Posted by: Michael Blowhard on August 19, 2006 11:00 PM

Hey, s, you're darn right I'm bitter, my country is being harmed, badly, and I'm a patriot.

Doesn't surprise me Kerry lost though, there are lots of foolish people who get to vote. Sometimes I read them on the net.

Posted by: MQ on August 20, 2006 1:32 AM

Post a comment

Email Address:



Remember your info?