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

« Banks As Graphic Design | Main | I Caught Maybellene At the Top of the Hill »

February 04, 2008

Alt-Erotica Linkage for the Day

Michael Blowhard writes:

Dear Blowhards --

A brilliant young Swiss designer, Maria Wagner, hand-makes micro-bikinis for the goth and punkette set. Her work has all the narcissistic attitude and blase insolence that any fan of the scene could hope for.

Choosing a favorite from among Maria's creations isn't easy, but if a gun were held to my head I'd have to opt for this beauty. Which size front panel do you prefer -- teeny-weeny? Or ultra-teeny-weeny? Although there is something about the back view of this racy number that makes my heart beat in a very special kind of way ...

NSFW, as I really hope you didn't need to be told.

Semi-related: I sort of blogged about neo-burlesque queen Dita Van Teese here. Wired's Regina Lynn expresses enthusiasm for the Australian amateur site Abby Winters, and for the chic and edgy BDSM company You can enjoy a lot of freebie samples from both outfits by typing their names into Google Images. Prepare for atypical porn -- er, erotic entertainment -- that actually has mood and personality.



posted by Michael at February 4, 2008


Would any of these suits be attractive on an average-looking model? Would these models be less attractive in a conventional swimsuit from, say, Target? To be sure, the extreme exposure is "sexy", but there doesn't seem to be much design involved.

Posted by: Rich Rostrom on February 4, 2008 4:19 AM

The problem with those micro-sized bikini bottoms is that a woman who wears one of them more or less has to engage in .... grooming, of a form that does not square well with my fetish, er, preference.

Posted by: Peter on February 4, 2008 9:35 AM

Rich -- They seem meant for the luckier 14 year olds, don't they? Hard to imagine many grownup women looking their best in them.

Peter -- I think your comment could use "definitely" in place of "more or less" ... Funny how the kids (at least of a certain class) seem to take the necessity of extreme pubic grooming for granted, isn't it? Some youngster was explaining to me a diff between the youths and the oldies this way: That kids expect cameras to be everywhere, always. We oldies tend to think that we'll be asked about it, and that being snapped or taped is a kind of special thing. While these kids were all videotaped being born, and there have always been mobs of cameras pointed at them. So it's a simple necessity of life that you better be ready for it -- "it" meaning upskirt-shots, bad-side shots, etc. Seems plausible to me. I notice that when I take the digicam out, oldies tend to go on alert. They fluff up, they pose, then they want me to put it away. Youngsters just take it for granted. The camera's on, it's not, it's all the same to them. Do you notice this too?

Posted by: Michael Blowhard on February 4, 2008 10:50 AM

Post a comment

Email Address:



Remember your info?