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 | For the Ladies »

April 01, 2008

Linkage: Sex, Romance, Game

Michael Blowhard writes:

Dear Blowhards --

* Here's a witty series of very up-to-date nudes.

* Gennifer Flowers is planning to vote Republican.

* That Brit who was denied entry to the U.S. on account of "moral turpitude"? Here's a famous article he wrote for the Guardian about his love of prostitutes. Funny line: "The problem with normal sex is that it leads to kissing, and pretty soon you've got to talk to them."

* Singledudez: If you still like Ayn Rand don't expect to make any time with Cheryl Miller. But if you're a Donald Westlake fan, why not drop her an email?

* Because there can be no such thing as too many photographs of Monica Bellucci ...

* Irina had a good time freshman year but found that she couldn't keep the pace up.

* Roissy thinks that nerds could use some "Game" training.

* Sex-and-romance-fascinated Alias Clio turns up a London Times article suggesting -- and suggesting vividly -- that today's youngsters are unbelievably sexually uninhibited.

* It's apparently true what they say about redheads. (Link thanks to Charlton Griffin.)

* MBlowhard Rewind: I listed some of my favorite sexy words.



posted by Michael at April 1, 2008


The article about prostitutes is astounding. It's one of those rare instances when a man speaks the truth as experience has revealed it to him. Your reaction to the following statements can either be Yes! or No! but there's no real arguing with them:

The problem is that the modern woman is a prostitute who doesn't deliver the goods.

Hookers and drunks instinctively understand that common sense is the enemy of romance.

When I was young I used to think it wasn't who you wanted to have sex with that was important, but who you were comfortable with socially and spiritually. Now I know that's rubbish. It's who you want to have sex with that's important.

Posted by: ricpic on April 1, 2008 6:25 PM

the article about the teens is absurd. who are these people?! i mean my most sexually promiscuous friends were always completely drunk, and had a lot of love gaps to fill. i mean, maybe i'm sheltered or something!

Posted by: irina on April 1, 2008 6:41 PM

the thing to keep in mind about teen sex is that it is only being done by the top 10 or 20% of boys -- the budding alphas. teen girls may very well be more promiscuous now than they were in the past, but they are still the sexual gatekeepers and choosing who they will grant access to their bodies. a friend of mine calls this sexual playground where seemingly no rules apply "the secret society", whose members consist of nearly all the pretty girls and only a handful of select boys loved by all the girls, and maybe a few token gay guy friends. most teen boys are still trapped in a celibate wilderness.

eventually, the starving masses will have their turn at the pussy carousel once the girls have grown too old for the swinger lifestyle, but the days of being assured a somewhat chaste young maiden for marriage are long over.

Posted by: roissy on April 1, 2008 7:39 PM

i think this is a myth. the people who behave this way are usually the artsy, kinda bi kids from rich families who are only above average attractive. and they're all high.

Posted by: irina on April 1, 2008 8:23 PM

Roissy, I'm not sure you're entirely right about what you say here. The prettiest girls often try to form a stable love with one boy, and stick to him, especially when they find themselves living in a social meat market like the one described in the Times article.

Girls who compulsively bed one boy after another are often neurotic in some way, "attention whores", as you so ungallantly describe them. Even they often secretly hope for more, but their own character flaws do them in.

Posted by: alias clio on April 1, 2008 11:50 PM

Roissy is correct. All that article is about is the life of a "natural" during his teenage years, a top 5% or 10% guy. I mean, did you catch that the kid is a rock star with a band?

My younger brother is a born natural and he was having threesomes and foursomes by the age of 15. This was decades ago.

Posted by: mq on April 2, 2008 12:39 AM

Roissy said: "The thing to keep in mind about teen sex is that it is only being done by the top 10 or 20% of boys -- the budding alphas."

Sorry, Roissy. I usually agree with you, but you're dead wrong here. I'm a kid of the 1980s and in high school I was all the things you say are "bad" and "siinful": Too short, a crappy dresser, artsy, eccentric. But I had opportunities for sex fairly regularly WITHOUT me trying. And I had opportunities with all sort of girls: cheerleaders, nerds, rednecks, etc.

I passed up everyone of them, to be blunt, because I was uncomfortable and because I had a conscience, however misguided that may have been. I wanted sex only when I was in a "relationship," which I got, just when my senior year ended. The samples I'd had of "heavy petting" before that left me cold because I knew I didn't like the girls that much and I couldn't enjoy it. And long before political correctness, I would not take the bait when a drunk girl came on to me at parties. I felt it was taking advantage of a situation, and what was the fun in that?

In conclusion, my feeling is that the Alpha guys in high school are the guys that take the opportunities many of the more average guys pass up. They have a sense of entitlement and less of a sense of what other people's feelings might be (and tend to worry less about the next day, etc.). Many of the rest of us had the opportunities, but we were like Ratner in "Fast Times at Ridgement High" and wanted something deeper.

Whether it was right the way I lived my life is clearly up for question. But I certainly was no Alpha and had opportunities galore. None of which I took.

Posted by: Days of Broken Arrows on April 2, 2008 6:22 AM

Interesting to compare this weeks' teens-gone-wild story with last weeks' teens-gone-wild story. At least the Times isn't blaming it on Pinochet and credit cards.

Posted by: David Fleck on April 2, 2008 7:45 AM

After Sunday's NYTimes article, a number of us have been playing the game "what titles on a guy's/gal's bookshelf would make you walk?" (along the lines of Cheryl Miller). My personal list would be anything by L.Ron Hubbard, anything with the word "co-dependent" in the title, or any Star Trek or Star Wars sequels. Although lack of any books might be worse!

Posted by: Julie Brook on April 2, 2008 8:59 AM

Roissy, you're way off on the nerd thing.

Sorry, but I can't get a grip on what you're saying. The idea that physical attractiveness and technical smarts don't go together... well, you're wrong.

Can't say it any blunter than that.

You've got the world divided up into two factions... the alpha males and the bottom feeders. There's a whole world in between. This is a world in which both males and females understand that killing yourself for fame, fortune and the corporation just isn't worth the time, especially since you can make $100,000 to $150,000 for just showing up at a tech job. You work 35 hours and go home.

Find yourself a beautiful nerd women who also makes $150k and you've got a combined household income of $300k. You can live the high life, even in Manhattan, on this.

And, you go home at night, forget the fucking job and have a good time.

Especially if you like Asian women, a combination of brains, tech smarts, sexy and beautiful can be found.

Posted by: Shouting Thomas on April 2, 2008 10:58 AM

I don't know if the alphas are getting all the girls in that Times piece, but, my bet is that very few overweight boys and girls are participating in those wild parties.

And I know that the average British child has gotten much fatter over the last 25+ years. Esp. in the last 15 years.

Posted by: Ian Lewis on April 2, 2008 11:39 AM

that uk article was made up nonsense; it's just filler. none of the people seemed remotely real and the "writer" was embarrasingly unskilled. when that kind of activity occurs there are measurable spikes in std's as happened in georgia with the syphilis outbreak. sorry to say, but the letters that used to appear in Penthouse were also not real.

Posted by: cjm on April 2, 2008 7:39 PM

Pardon me while I take a big data dump all over that Times article on teen sex.

There was an article in The Lancet (major medical journal) about a year and a half ago that reviewed the prevalence of people who had had sex before they were 15. I wrote about it here:

Review of pre-15 sex article

Go about halfway down the page to where the chart is. Click on the picture of it.

It shows what percentage of those surveyed had had sex before they were 15. The top row is females, the bottom row males. Lavender bars are people born from 1960 - 64, and red bars are those born from 1980 - 84. Look at the far right of each row, where the developed countries are.

There appears to be a minute increase in "early" sex -- but it may not be big enough to be significant (I'd have to re-read the article to find out). Even if it were, we're talking about the US prevalence going from about 11.5% to 12%.

The tails of a curve are much more sensitive to changes in the mean than is the area near the mean, so if the change over time is this puny at the tails, it must be barely visible among average people (i.e., who first have sex in their late teens or early 20s).

Granted, these data only tell us about how prevalent "early" sex is, not how wild teenagers' sex lives are, but at least in the developed world, having sex before 15 surely correlates with promiscuity (number of lifetime partners, etc.).

So it's indirect evidence, but evidence nonetheless, that teenagers aren't living the lives suggested by the Times article. Maybe the 12% of people who have sex before 15 have wild sex lives, but these are not typical teens.

Posted by: agnostic on April 2, 2008 8:12 PM

BTW, I don't think the perpetual misperception of teens gone wild is due to adults needing some justification for worrying so much about the young 'uns.

It's more likely the, "You freakin' kids today have it so good -- why, when I was your age..." I don't know what the evolutionary explanation is for whining about how tough you had it growing up, but it's as prevalent as our tendency to scream when we step on something sharp.

Posted by: agnostic on April 2, 2008 8:41 PM

Very reassuring to hear this. I never know how seriously to take articles of the kind published in the Sunday Times. I usually try to dismiss them but I had read so much similar material in a short time that it had a disheartening effect on me.

Posted by: alias clio on April 2, 2008 9:40 PM

Post a comment

Email Address:



Remember your info?