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

« Blogging Notes | Main | Thin Mustaches »

March 30, 2007

Food Porn

Michael Blowhard writes:

Dear Blowhards --

No wonder the boys love watching Rachael Ray.



posted by Michael at March 30, 2007


Mmmm...Oh yeah...Mmmm

On the other hand, who giggles after taking a bite? A turn-off.

Posted by: ricpic on March 31, 2007 5:55 AM

Gives new meaning to the term "vicarious experience."

Posted by: Charlton Griffin on March 31, 2007 8:31 AM

OOh, can you find us some Nigella Lawson?

Posted by: dearieme on March 31, 2007 9:54 AM

Yeah, she's cute. And I usually have no interest in white girls... they're usually totally self-interested and stuffed full of the feminist chip on the shoulder crapola.

Rachael enjoys serving people! You can see it in her. This is as much what makes her attractive as her perky tits.

Another of my favorites is Lydia. Even though she's fat and balding, I'd marry that gal in a second. Old fashioned Italian mama who dotes on her son. I'd put up with the big tummy for the pasta and tomato sauce.

You see, Michael, I think that we are all fed up to here with women who are "empowering" themselves and pioneering new paths through the known universe. How about women who love to cook and have babies!

Once I depart from the workplace, I do my best to have absolutely nothing to do with the pioneering New Woman. What a dreary, self-involved, bland corporate robot is that species! Might as well screw an Excel spreadsheet.

Posted by: Shouting Thomas on March 31, 2007 11:31 AM

Guys like her because she's refreshingly cute: pretty face, amiable demeanor, and a huge, round booty.

You might not know about the last detail since there's some unspoken proscription against showing the derriere in shows with hosts -- it's fine to shoot someone full-length from the front, but once they turn to the side or turn around, the camera immediately struggles to obscure the bum. It's hard to believe this is due to prudishness among the broadcasters, given how salacious most programming is, so my best guess is that it's by request from the person being filmed. We live in a fairly booty-phobic society (except for some parts, and the TV geared to them is fine with it -- BET for instance), so I can understand their anxiety.

Occasionally the cameraman isn't so quick and you get a glimpse of it, though. And after watching Rachel Ray's in-the-kitchen show a few times, you can tell she's 100% Sicilian down there.

Posted by: Agnostic on March 31, 2007 11:55 AM

Michael --


Pretty funny video. Though like a whole lot of these types of YouTube vids, the deal’s done half way through or even 1/3 way. Yeah they sometimes save the very best stuff for last but they should chop it at half or a bit less and end with that best stuff there. Seems a very common phenomenon. Everyone seems to think 3 or 3.5 minutes is kinda the minimum to be taken seriously. It’s a mistake, though pioneers may take arrows (as usual).

The first few times one might even believe it. Then it starts to look like 90% of the rest of those porngasms.

Rachael is nothing if not corn fed in mentality. In her case the parts of NY State the more resemble the Midwest than New England never mind the megalopolis and it's immediate satellites. Actually, that can be quite refreshing or invigorating as a beginning but she's kept that on air persona (no doubt part of her niche appeal) and so far as one can tell, without the slightest difficulty.

It would, for example, be rather impossible for me to imagine Rachael reading your blog more than once or twice, much less commenting here. Or for that matter liking pretty much any of the erotic French movies so many of the regulars around here adore, and which you Michael are so generous in recommending from time to time.

In sort, she's kinda boring and pretty grating, pretty fast. (There are of course many other ways of being boring and grating, some of which involve beaucoup de sophistication.) She’s a salesgirl first and foremost, who’s pitch is nothing if not basic girlish enthusiasm. That’s it! She’s the NICE HS cheerleader, or actually probably more someone running for some class office, who just pours that energy into those smiles, time and time again!!

Actually I think I saw somewhere that she WAS a salesgirl in some fairly upscale department store in the Albany/Troy etc area when someone related to the food network happened to be chatting with her. Yeah cooking was a big time hobby for her, and she just poured out the personality, all barely grown up girl charm and smiles and happy, and she got her screen test. Or something like that.

Posted by: dougjnn on March 31, 2007 6:36 PM

BTW, just recently saw Emmanuelle Beart in “Strayed”, and then “Natalie”. (Both French erotic but not Xish films from the last four years.)

I realize this is massively off topic, but there’s no post I’ve scanned in the recent past for which it would be closer to on topic, so here goes. (If you ask me to knock this sort of thing off I will.)

My GOD what a hottie in oh such a French girl way. In both but esp Natalie, she oozes sexuality, yes because she's beautiful in her own rather unusual way, yes she has a delectable body, but the killer is her deep and seemingly bottomless abandoned sexuality, once a man has found how to unrap it. It's an ultimately submissive and even somewhat masochistic sexuality, but only after teasing and denial. When she’s not “on the meter” that is. Even a bit when she is. Ahhh, just KINDA exciting.

What’s more and truly astounding to me, in Natalie she plays a young sorta upscale prostitute 4 nights a week, and high end beauty salon licensed cosmetologist by day (it is not hard to believe that the French take those qualifications seriously). She’s hot beyond belief in her work place, an upscale but also a bit trashy "in call met to then go outcall greet" private club / bar. (Can someone please direct to an establishment with anything LIKE the feel of that place, in NYC. You know, to have in my black book in reserve? Last I checked (a while ago), there's nothing close in feel.) This young hottie, Beart, is in fact 40 at the time of filming. Looks somewhere between about 28 and 32 in the film. Zowieee!

It actually strikes me that Beart, who though I’d heard of I really hadn’t seen or seen much of before, has unusual but very beautiful looks that are quite a bit like Charlotte Rampling’s. Beart’s a bit more symmetrical and more beautiful I think, but they’re both a bit horse faced in a very good way. But the real bullet Beart has is her shouldering sexuality. Rampling in contrast comes across as an English ice queen, one you eagerly anticipate melting, and then who never does. At least not convincingly. Whereas Beart. Try convincing me she isn’t a hypersexual woman in real life. Try. Yeah she could be an impossible bitch, selfish, a diva, a depressive, other things (I see signs only of depressive). But she’s hypersexual for sure.

Posted by: dougjnn on March 31, 2007 7:20 PM

This is the most bizarre comment thread I've ever read.

Posted by: the patriarch on April 1, 2007 11:11 PM

Rachael Ray is responsible for the misspelling of the traditional name "Rachel" to such an extent that it will take centuries to correct the error.

Posted by: Sebastian Moran on April 7, 2007 9:19 PM

Post a comment

Email Address:



Remember your info?