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

« Elsewhere | Main | Initial Confusion »

November 08, 2006

More Naked Youngsters

Michael Blowhard writes:

Dear Blowhards --

Given how uninhibited even respectable kids are these days, I've been wondering for a while now when they'd start making their own explicit porn, starring themselves. Because, like, well, why not? It isn't as though the culture is exactly discouraging them from doing so, god knows.

Item #1: Columbia University now has its own nudie magazine produced by and featuring students.

Item #2: So does Harvard. (Link now fixed.)

What to make of the fact that both of these magazines appear to have been founded by (and are both edited by) chix, er, girls, er, womyn?



posted by Michael at November 8, 2006


Not particularly sparkling in the design department, are they? Fashion, where is thy sting?

Posted by: Charlton Griffin on November 8, 2006 8:40 AM

Because fortunately our younger generation sees that , despite the lies and misinformation to the contrary, there's nothing wrong with sex or porn or enjoying life? :)

Posted by: Upstate Guy on November 8, 2006 8:43 AM

The link to the Harvard magazine isn't working. But I checked out the one from Columbia, and lo and behold there were, as far as I could tell, precisely *zero* erotic photographs of the Columbia students themselves. So much for the students' supposed "courage" in putting out a groundbreaking erotic magazine.
Even if I hadn't read your posting or looked at the masthead, I probably would have figured out that the Columbia magazine is produced most by chix. And that's because it's mostly words rather than images. When it comes to erotica, women like words or speech, while men like images. In fact, I made an observation along this line to my wife and stepdaughter last night as we were watching Nip/Tuck. The storylines and dialogue in that show are almost pure pornography, yet for all the filty talk you never - never! - see any Bare Tit. That indicates, according to my theory, that the show is written for a primarily female audience, as indeed is most non-sports TV programming.

Posted by: Peter on November 8, 2006 10:29 AM

No thanks -- only a shade above the sterile stuff that Ron Rosenbaum detailed in his "Sex Week at Yale" article for The Atlantic Monthly (collected in Steven Pinker's edition of The Best American Science Writing 2004). Leave it to overachieving nerds to not get porn or erotica. I think the best erotic / porn people score very low on Conscientiousness -- they're drifters, spontaneous, turned on by having no clear vision of where they're going, etc. You don't get into Harvard unless you're a stickler about following rules, though.

They could improve it simply by not focusing on themselves (the staff) or fellow students. Guys at the helm would be a safer (though not totally safe) bet, since girls in charge runs the risk of intellectualizing things too much. Then you're back to Sex Week at Yale.

Posted by: Agnostic on November 8, 2006 10:56 AM

Upstate Guy: Oh, come on now! The beginning of wisdom is realizing that there's something wrong with everything.

Agnostic: "I think the best erotic/porn people score very low on Conscientiousness".

Heh. I think we have the winner of this year's "Nicest Possible Way Of Putting It" award.


I still can hardly believe my luck that girls today believe they are empowering themselves by shaking it before my leering and slobbering gaze. But if it's empowerent they want, I can only say: shake on!

Posted by: Brian on November 8, 2006 3:15 PM

How do you guys make bold and italics in the comments box? The normal keyboard shortcuts don't work for me. Thank you.

Posted by: sj on November 8, 2006 3:42 PM

Dear SJ:

You have to insert HTML tags into the text for the effect you want.



If you use your browser and select "view source" wwhile reading my comment, you'll see the tags. Or select the text from this comment and paste it into a text editor to see the tags.

Posted by: Peter L. Winkler on November 9, 2006 4:51 AM

Brian, I can agree if you can show me what the downside is to people expressing their sexuality as they see fit? There are limits, of course, but we need to define what they are. Do we define them according to the hypocritical zeitgeist we have now that forces people into such states of repression that they'll proclaim to the highest mountain how we need to stop exploitation of children while doing so through congressional e-mail? Where we insist on not telling kids not only the risks and dangers, but what it even is?! Great plan, that's why we have a nation of children who believe you can only get pregnant by making out with a boy while wearing a bikini...and even then it won't happen the first time.

I say enough. We set obvious limits on it (children, non-consensual), and allow people to decide the rest and how they live their own lives. It's up to parents to decide what their kids see on TV and the Internet, it's their job to filter it. There's more than sufficient tools to do so across the board despite what our now-emasculated leader has to say about it. *I* should not be restricted because *your* repressed kids might see it. It never ceases to amaze me how the US believes it's some kind of "enlightened" society, yet an accidental boob slip during the super bowl drives the whole country into a tizzy. Yeah, how many serial killers were born that day? And yet other countries, who don't have the same levels of sexual crimes (or the fictional sexual "addiction"), have what we'd consider hardcore porn running on their broadcast TV.

The downside to sexual freedom are those who can't handle it and insist on sexual repression. They're the ones that cause the real sexual problems in the country, not the ones who enjoy it.

Posted by: Upstate Guy on November 9, 2006 10:56 AM

Upstate Guy - Why do you think "there are limits" and what should they be? It is always easy to argue against existing limits but much harder to define what the new ones should be. And your Mark Foley reference is the sort of argument I would expect from a clever high school kid. I could just as easily refer to any number of rapists or serial killers who consumed loads of porn and make that an argument for banning porn altogether.

As to who is causing the "sexual problems in the country", I guess that depends on how you define sexual problems. Your biggest concern seems to be that someone out there isn't getting enough porn but I would argue the rate of illegitimacy creates far more problems than repressed sexual desires.

Posted by: nola on November 10, 2006 11:17 PM

At least some work shows that increased availability of porn reduces the incidence of rape: rape rates go down when cable TV comes in.

Posted by: Mike Snider on November 20, 2006 4:33 PM

Post a comment

Email Address:



Remember your info?