Wasn't the sweet/spicy young thing in the photo that accompanied the NYT article absolutely yummy? What's so interesting about that pic is that the NYT could not possibly have decided to use that photo without full awareness of its prurient power. Now porn is about nothing at all if its not about the direct attempt to titillate. So the NYT deliberately attempted to grab some eyeballs by using that very sexy young thing, sweaty and sulky and cleavagey (in a bud-like way of course). I mean, how old could she have been? 16?

So...NYT goes porno! Barely legal at the Newspaper of Record! All right!

Betcha ST's eyes popped out of his aging noggin at that pic (mine sure as heck did--I mean my eyes popped out my aging noggin, not my eyes popped out of ST's aging noggin. It would be awfully weird if that happened, wouldn't it). Wonder if he'll tell himself it's because of moral outrage.

The ones in the slide show looked skanky though. And the guys with their long lacquered black hair. What's with that? Is that look around anywhere else?

Oh, and I can't help noticing the NYT is covering sexual awakening among the whitest of South Ams. No mestizo or Indio honeybuns getting shagged at 13 for the Times. Nosiree. We know what kind of teenie beauty-pies the NYT's readers want to feast their eyes upon.

Posted by: PatrickH on September 16, 2008 2:36 PM

The whole "phenomenon" described by the NYT is just a temporary fad that takes place - overwhelmingly, I might add - among Chile's lower and middle-lower income sectors. Even then, it only involves a handful of youth. It's the sort of irrelevant, marginal and by now pretty old story that could only catch the attention of a paper like the NYT, "sexy-ing" it up with absolutely unrelated references to Pinochet and making it seem as if it was a social movement of any consequence.

Posted by: GB on September 17, 2008 7:44 PM






Post a comment

Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember your info?