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

« Book Draft Snippet | Main | Third-party Voting »

September 03, 2008

Fact for the Day

Michael Blowhard writes:

Dear Blowhards --

Is modern tech making conducting a tradional-style affair impossible? "There are just too many ways to get caught, and the technology-savvy realise this," writes Nick Harding. An interesting stat from his piece:

Currently, the most common duration of an affair is less than six months (68 per cent of them). Twenty years ago, it was three years.

I assume that those figures hold for England only, but still ...




posted by Michael at September 3, 2008



Looks like the war between those who believe that sex is just play, and those who think that sex is about making babies, has exploded into the primary issue in the presidential campaign... as a result of Sarah Palin's nomination.

Steve Sailer, as usual, is leading the pack in examining this issue.

An obsession with affairs is, of course, the central issue of life for the sex is just for play crowd.

I know that I'm supposed to think that sex for play is glamorous and exciting, so why does it seem so damned dreary?

The ugly secret of Manhattan and Woodstock is that perversion, homosexuality, perpetual adolescence, infidelity, etc., have become the exalted norm. The natives of these places pretend that they are rebels, but they are strict Stuff White People Like conformists.

The thrill of offending and outraging is long gone. Nothing remains but a pro forma stance.

So, why the pretense that anybody cares about getting "caught" having an affair? In our world of SWPL hipsters, it is astonishing when a person remains married and doesn't have affairs. Even more astonishing is a person who has five children and raises them to be traditionally religious.

The cycle has turned completely, Michael. We hipsters are gray, dreary non-entities, wasting our lives babbling on about boring theories and ideologies. What is fresh and interesting is a white woman who wants to be married and have a lot of kids. Hurray for Sarah Palin! She lives for action.

The great failure of the hip life is this. Immortality is readily available in the non-hip world. Just have kids who have grandchildren. In the hip world, a tiny few produce work that enshrines them in the library or on the charts. The rest, as the Kinks' song says, "struggle and suffer in vain."

Art is not an adequate substitute for children. Momma tell your chilren... Don't you do what I have done.

Posted by: Shouting Thomas on September 3, 2008 7:22 AM

Art is not an adequate substitute for children.

Having children is not an adequate substitute for not dying.

Posted by: PatrickH on September 3, 2008 10:10 AM

Most British social "research" is written in Queen's English.Whose logical rules are sometimes a reverse syllogism of conclusion first and premises as an afterthought.

Of course technology does not come in the way of long lasting affairs...except when it opens up more choices to people - choices that look better than current options, and that can sometimes be distracting.On the balance I love my facebook page like a Doppelganger.

blaming technology for it sounds so....stick in the mud and "telephones destroyed ettiquite" .

Posted by: Ramesh on September 3, 2008 10:21 AM

I'd say 6 months is more than enuf time for the passion to wane. Don't believe that 2 year figger for 20 years ago.

Pleaze excuse my channeling Ol' Ez. ;^)

Posted by: ricpic on September 3, 2008 10:50 AM

Who needs three years when the fast train reaches Paris in about two hours?

Posted by: dearieme on September 3, 2008 11:12 AM

Having children is not an adequate substitute for not dying.

Well, there's a relevant remark. Take that, baby mommas!

Posted by: ERM on September 3, 2008 11:25 AM

ERM, you might want to raise the mitt a little to catch the high ones. ST was ST-ing about how achieving immortality through children is superior to achieving immortality through art--something about the odds being better, I think. Hard to tell with ST sometimes.

Foolish irrelevant Patrick decides to get off a quickie by making an indirect reference to Woody Allen's famous (to some; to others terra incognita) quip about..well, if I have to explain it, then I'll ruin the joke for the people who got it in the first place.

So ERM, great non-catch there bud! The Say Huh? Kid shows 'em how it's done!

Posted by: PatrickH on September 3, 2008 12:45 PM

William Saroyan wrote a book titled Not Dying about just that, not living exactly but not dying either, just hanging in there. Very underrated, Saroyan. Probably not read at all these days. Well worth looking into, especially the stuff he wrote after his heyday had passed. Married the same woman, twice. After the second divorce he pretty much gave up on what people call living. Led a post-mortem existence after that. But went on writing and saying fascinating things, IMO.

Posted by: ricpic on September 3, 2008 4:10 PM

'Ey, Babette, my sweet! Quelle nuit, last night, oui? Oh la la, just want to let 'ew know, I 'ev enjoyed every minute of our folie à deux! Remembair zo, eef ma femme ask, we weir workeen late at ze office!

And, merci beacoup for giving me your e-mael addresse!

Posted by: Rick Darby on September 3, 2008 4:23 PM

ERM, you might want to raise the mitt a little to catch the high ones.

I think you are dreamy, PatrickH; you can reduce me to a cultural stereotype any old time.

Posted by: communicatrix on September 3, 2008 6:15 PM

ST, I've known a few very un-hip, regular people who have had affairs. Come on, cheating knows no cultural, ethnic, socio-ecomonic, nor age bounds.

Posted by: JV on September 3, 2008 6:28 PM

Communicatrix, I can only respond to your impenetrable sophistication with the blind fatuous anti-ironic literal-mindedness!

You think I'm dreamy? Oh wow, let's meet! Wait, damn...those pervy searches I did that led me to you. The butter thing...that would be a deal breaker if you found out...p*ssy jello...damn...busted! Sigh. I'll guess I'll have to make do with s*cking my brother's d---

Posted by: PatrickH on September 3, 2008 9:14 PM

May I vote YES for "ST-ing" as a verb?

Posted by: Sister Wolf on September 4, 2008 1:16 AM

Colleen...may I call you that? Where are you? You can't say something clever and inscrutable to me like that and not mean it just a little bit. Help me here...I'm dying to know what the fuh you're talking about!


Posted by: PatrickH on September 5, 2008 4:02 PM

Post a comment

Email Address:



Remember your info?