Archive for the 'Sex sex sex' Category

Caitlin Flanagan? Is that you?

Published at December 15, 2008 in Sex sex sex, Pantysniffing, Revising reality and Woman-Hating. 8 Comments

Oh, no, it’s Charles M. Blow, wringing his hands about The Kids Today and Their Hooking Up:

The paradigm has shifted. Dating is dated. Hooking up is here to stay.

(For those over 30 years old: hooking up is a casual sexual encounter with no expectation of future emotional commitment. Think of it as a one-night stand with someone you know.)

According to a report released this spring by Child Trends, a Washington research group, there are now more high school seniors saying that they never date than seniors who say that they date frequently. Apparently, it’s all about the hookup.

“Hookup culture” seems to be the latest bugaboo among those who worry about the degradation of the young people — let’s face it, specifically of young women and girls. Because sex is harmful for girls, dontchaknow.

What’s most amusing about Blow’s handwringing is the fact that he contradicts himself within a few paragraphs. See, in the hip, under-30 lingo, “hooking up is a casual sexual encounter” and yet, a few paragraphs later:

I should point out that just because more young people seem to be hooking up instead of dating doesn’t mean that they’re having more sex (they’ve been having less, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) or having sex with strangers (they’re more likely to hook up with a friend, according to a 2006 paper in the Journal of Adolescent Research).

So Mr. Blow, on the payroll of the New York Times, is just making shit up to fit the latest (or, in typical Times fashion, just-about-over) buzzword. Well, not that surprising for the paper that employs Maureen Dowd, William Kristol and David Brooks (and, for that matter, Caitlin Flanagan herself).

But having defined “hooking up” as “casual sexual encounter, he then backs off that definition and admits that Kids Today aren’t actually having quite as much sex, or that they’re fucking strangers. So. What’s the problem, Charles? Continue reading ‘Caitlin Flanagan? Is that you?’

Name that innuendo!

Published at September 10, 2007 in Sex sex sex, The Teevee and Fun Stuff. 1 Comment

Go visit Terrance for a commercial from New Zealand that brings the double entendres.

All I can say is, I’m not surprised a gay guy had to look up “beef curtains.” ;)

Why I love James Wolcott

Published at August 14, 2007 in Sex sex sex and The Teevee. 9 Comments

From his takedown of a review of Californication:

The sex romps are setups for Hank’s kissoff lines and parting shots, some of which are so nasty they’re like being spat upon. “Consider yourself defiled,” he says to one babe as he brings their session to a premature close, and he tells the wife of a producer he’s just laid (who had the nerve to insult him that the movie adaptation of Hank’s novel was better than the novel itself), “Not only are you a cadaverous lay, you have shitty taste in movies.” “Have you ever heard someone refer to a lover as a ‘cadaverous lay’? I doubt it,” beams Doug Elfman* in the Chicago Sun Times. “That’s a mark of clever, original writing.”

No, it’s not, it’s the hoofprint of misogyny, the same half-quip, half-sneer of hip misogyny knocking around in so many Hollywood comedies about manchildren with low metabolisms. I feel sorry for the actresses cast in Californication, who not only perform nude scenes–something many actresses are wary about, knowing those clips will be pasted forever on the internet–but then have their characters dispatched with a crude insult that adds a special spicy dash of indignity for the drive home. Yes, they knew what they were getting into, but even so–Shampoo didn’t rubbish its actresses that way. That Hank gets his comeuppance now and then doesn’t dispel the smog of contempt that permeates the pores of nearly everybody on this show for the crime of not living up to the ideals Hank supposedly possessed before the sin of selling out turned him into a husk of a writer attached to a roving penis.

Swoon!

Thank you! Contempt for women for the crime of having sex is not adult at all — it’s a sniggering adolescent’s conception of what adults do when they’re having sex, a fantasy of revenge against all those girls who dared have their own preferences when the writers were back in high school trying to score.

What would be really revolutionary, really adult — and frankly, in our present social climate, really transgressive — would be a show about amoral people who have sex or don’t, as the spirit moves them, but don’t get tangled up in bitterness, reproachfulness or recriminations. Or guilt.

The closest TV ever came to that recently was Samantha on SATC, and it was clear that she was a cartoon, who eventually got her comeuppance for her years of unapologetic sportfucking by contracting cancer and having to endure the guilt-tripping of her sex-columnist friend.

Running the numbers

Published at August 13, 2007 in Sex sex sex, Pantysniffing, Revising reality and Anxious masculinity. 11 Comments

numbers.jpg

Isn’t it interesting how nobody ever really questions statistics that bear out some version of reality that “everybody knows!”

EVERYONE knows men are promiscuous by nature. It’s part of the genetic strategy that evolved to help men spread their genes far and wide. The strategy is different for a woman, who has to go through so much just to have a baby and then nurture it. She is genetically programmed to want just one man who will stick with her and help raise their children.

Surveys bear this out. In study after study and in country after country, men report more, often many more, sexual partners than women.

One survey, recently reported by the federal government, concluded that men had a median of seven female sex partners. Women had a median of four male sex partners. Another study, by British researchers, stated that men had 12.7 heterosexual partners in their lifetimes and women had 6.5.

And of course, that statistic gibes with reality — or at least, what we tell ourselves is reality — the Way Things Are, Naturally. And because it does that, newspapers and other media outlets just keep repeating that statistic as if it’s God’s Honest Objective Truth. After all, someone else had it in their story, and they must have fact-checked it, and it was in a book somewhere, so that’s good enough for me!

Well, except for the part where it’s mathematically impossible. Continue reading ‘Running the numbers’