April 28, 2007
Jacob Sullum reviews the history of the girlie magazine.
Help Reason celebrate its next 40 years. Donate Now!
Try Reason's award-winning print edition today! Your first issue is FREE if you are not completely satisfied.
Google
9/11 was an inside job
virginia school shooting government black op?
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/april2007/160407blackop.htm
It is well documented that disturbing questions remain over the
incident at Columbine. It is clear that authorities had prior
knowledge of what was going to happen. Observers were in the area
hours before the shooting took place. Articles from the Associated
Press stated that ballistics from Columbine show that six of the
thirteen victims were possibly shot and killed by Jefferson County
SWAT.
9/11 was an inside job
this was a psy op - to induce fear and panic
OKC 9/11 amish school killings katrina vt shootings - NO ONE WILL
STOP THEM - WAKE UP AMERICA!!
Anyone who thinks that following a woman's leg, from ankle
upward, leads to Hell is in serious need of smacking.
Also, I vote "Yes" on deleting the spam message above, if it is put
to a vote.
And here I thought someone would be mentioning the widening
prostitution scandal involving Randall Tobias.
Guessing Mr. Weigal is all over that one.
I second the motion from the distinguished commentor from
kyleconspiracy.blogspot.con
Is it just me, or does Jacob Sullum get all the best
assignments? Drugs, porn, guns. Kerry Howley gets some interesting
assignments too, but mostly it's Jacob Sullum who gets the fun
stuff.
We all like to allege that Ron Bailey and Katherine Mangu-Ward are
the corrupt ones, but it seems to me that if anybody at
Reason is bribing the boss it's Jacob Sullum, because
Jacob gets all the best assignments!
Maybe Jacob is sharing his best weed with Nick Gillespie.
:)
(Just messing around, of course. I don't mean any of this
seriously.)
From the article: Hanson, former editor of the niche porn
magazines Juggs and Leg Show, ...
Isn't that kind of a stretch? I think Juggs and Leg
Show are really just girlie mags. No intercourse or BJs in
there.
What people fail to realize is that *Playboy* was a CIA "black
op." It's so obvious - what better way to distract the sheeple from
the depredations of the military-industrial complex?
Larry Flynt tried to move in on Playboy's territory - that's why
the CIA, with help from the Trilateralists and the Bilderbergers -
tried to kill him.
At least half of the girlie mags in this country are CIA
operations.
Wake up, people!
So, Dr.T: Jacob doesn't share? And his assignments aren't
good?
hmmm. :)
[keed keed]
and to think the playboy mansion is (was) right around the
corner...
...now where did I put my puffy bunny tail...
Man, I loved this article when I read it in the Print Edition: Its like seeing an old friend again!
Man, I loved this article when I read it in the Print
Edition: Its like seeing an old friend again!
They still have a print edition? I have not seen an ad, disguised
as a story, for that in a while ;)
Sorry, I am distracted by Laura Schwartz. I made the mistake of
listening to her without looking at her and crushed my
fantasy.
Perhaps a follow-on piece about life-like machine-generated
erotica? Even machine-like human-generated erotica?
Is it just me, or does Jacob Sullum get all the best
assignments? Drugs, porn, guns. Kerry Howley gets some interesting
assignments too, but mostly it's Jacob Sullum who gets the fun
stuff.
Worse yet, thoreau, all that, um, erotica Mr. Sullum acquired for
the article constitute research expenses for tax purposes. I tell
you, I gotta get in on this writing racket.
"a sequence in which a gorgeous brunette in a tight uniform
toyed with an unconscious blond"
Boys are blond, girls are blonde. Just, of course,
sayin'.
For the first time in my life, I think I might actually be interested in a book by someone who was an editor of a "niche porn" magazine. Did anyone else wonder what could possibly be disturbing about beehive hairdos?
Did anyone else wonder what could possibly be disturbing
about beehive hairdos?
Yes, I found that odd. I do find those hairdoos unattractive and
the few times I have seen them "in the wild" I always thought the
women wearing them would look better with a different
hairstyle.
That style does seem to be used stereotypically by quite a few
folks in the visual arts, now to the point of annoyance.
re beehives, if you grew up in baltimore or you're a fan of the early john waters flicks, you'll know immediately why they're disturbing.
Goddammit! That one Rosie blog post has attracted the Truther
spammers.
But not to worry. They'll come in their single digits (excluding a
half-dozen sockpuppets each), spew a bunch of crap, post links as
if they're definitive proof and leave in a week or two, never
really directly answering any engineering-based responses.
Here's a theory about why 9/11 conspiracy theories seem so
popular:
"The world of the conspiracy theorist is Manichean: either you are
intelligent, well-informed, and honest, and *therefore* question
all authority and received opinion; or you accept what popular
opinion or an authority says and *therefore* must be stupid,
dishonest, and ignorant. There is no third option.
"Crude as this dichotomy is, anyone familiar with the intellectual
and cultural history of the last several hundred years might hear
in it at least an echo of the rhetoric of the Enlightenment, and of
much of the philosophical and political thought that has followed
in its wake. . . .
". . . [T]he standard Enlightenment narrative has had a powerful
influence on the way modern people understand the relationship
between authority, tradition, and common sense on the one hand, and
science and rationality on the other. We tend reflexively to assume
that the popular or received wisdom, especially if associated with
some 'official' source or long-standing institution, is always ripe
for challenge, and also that if some independent thinker or writer
takes an unconventional position, however extreme or
counterintuitive, then there simply must be something right in it,
or least worth listening to. 'Innovator' and 'iconoclast' are among
our favorite terms of approbation, and "questioning authority" and
'thinking outside the box' are applauded even by many
self-described conservatives. By contrast, 'unoriginal' and
'conventional' are treated as if they were synonyms for
'unintelligent' and 'unthinking.'"
http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=092006B
Blond(e) is English's only inflected adjective, but it gets it
from French.
What's erotic has never changed, actually. The male is driven to
figure out what it is that attracts him to the female, generally by
looking. That it's just some neuron firing does not occur to him.
He has to investigate ; yet nothing he investigates results in a
signification, nothing comes to light, no matter how much light is
available. Something is always hidden.
Where that line is put doesn't matter. In the extreme, man is
defeated by what Camille Paglia calls the architectural chaos of
the female genitals.
As she nicely put it, the man in the porn store (old essay, there
were still porn stores) staring at a money shot is look not for
gratification but for an answer to a question.
The woman's secret is that nothing is hidden. There is hiding, but
of nothing, only as a reflex of the male's desire to find something
out.
What the hidden corresponds to, incidently, is the child, and its
unknowableness is the unknowableness of the future that the child
is.
In a book on Picasso's obsession with the model, chiefly in his
late porn period, Karen L. Kleinfelder (_The Artist, His Model, Her
Image, His Gaze_) says the the obsession suddenly stopped one day,
when Picasso was in his 80s. She felt it was because he had come to
terms with his mortality. That's because she's a woman. What
happened is that that neuron finally stopped firing, leaving
nothing that needed explaining any longer.
Where fashion says you have to draw the line as to what can be
shown doesn't matter. Something always cannot be shown, even if you
try to show everything. That's how it works.
Ron Hardin, yours is the most intersting comment so far. It makes me ask, why is it that women feel apparently less need to question by visual stimulation what they find attractive? Also there is gay pornography; are gay men who look at images of men asking the same question as straight men who look at images of women?
Men are driven by lust, and not much else. Thus, just seeing
body parts will often suffice.
Women need to "feel" pretty or beautiful. They are wired for
emotional need. This translates into how they view men. Simply
looking at "detached" body parts doesn't cut it.
Hence, we have innumerable girly-bars for the guys to view body
parts, but we have far, far fewer man-bars where women can do
likewise.
If it seems interesting, ``my'' ideas are extracted from
long-ago-read
Camille Paglia, Sexual Personae
Stanley Cavell, Disowning Knowledge in Six (Seven, depending on
edition) Plays of Shakespeare, Introduction
Jacques Derrida, Spurs (skip the (guest) introduction)
Emanuel Levinas, Totality and Infinity, appendices ``Phenomenology
of Eros,'' and ``Fecundity''
Interestingly, Cavell, Derrida and Paglia all can't stand each
other.
If it doesn't seem interesting, don't bother.
I heard on WMPR the other night that "Mister Charlie" set up the
VTECH shootings to distract from the serious issues of race in our
society raised by the Imus affair. White Western Civilisation set
up the War on Terror to pit Blacks against each other in Ethiopia
and Somalia.
Mugabe is on the outs with the White Man now that he is finally
helping the people in Zimbabwe.
It is all about keepin' the brothers down.
re beehives, if you grew up in baltimore or you're a fan of
the early john waters flicks, you'll know immediately why they're
disturbing.
baltimore is disturbing all by itself without combining it with
"hon day"
Re: the brunette in the thumbnail image
Where can I see the rest of that picture?
Oh great, now I have an idea for a beehive-hairdo meets Alien
meets Stepford Wives indy horror movie.
After all, you don't know WHAT could be living in there....
"Hence, we have innumerable girly-bars for the guys to view body
parts, but we have far, far fewer man-bars where women can do
likewise."
as a counterpoint, i would mention that having read several
ethnographies of strip club patrons, there's a nearly universal
emergence of a sense of intimacy with regulars not related to "oh
man she likes me" delusions or some kind of misogyny. believe it or
not, the same theme pops up again and again - i want to talk to
women face to face without any real pressure (or expectations), to
be able to look at them without being yelled at and this is the one
legal way to do so.
personally i think it's super fucking weird and strip clubs freak
me the fuck out, but it's still fascinating to read about.
The first time I encountered the word penthouse was in the
context of Guccione's skin magazine. To this day the word seems
erotically charged, even when I'm punching buttons in an
elevator.
remind me never to ride in an elevator with Jacob
I watched that episode of Wild West Technology about sex and
drugs last night, again.
The show has a bit on 19th century 3-D porn taken with two cameras
mounted a couple of inches apart, to match the distance between the
eyes. The customer would look through a specifically designed
viewer to make the 3-D image reappear. It could be operated with
one hand only. Where's the 3D porn now ?
IIRC, Penthouse letters, in the early 70s, included tales of male
homosexuallity.
dhex,
Strip Clubs are businesses and the way they work is that the
'dancers', for lack of a better term, pay the owner for the venue -
a few hundred bucks a day. Each dancer has to figure out how to get
her ante back and make some money for herself. Not one of these
dancers is going to talk to someone for very long without getting
paid. There is real pressure. The guys who claim there is no
pressure are delusional.
You can get a large audience together for a
strip-tease act-that is, to watch a girl undress on the stage. Now
suppose
you came to a country where you could fill a theatre by simply
bringing a
covered plate on to the stage and then slowly lifting the cover so
as to let
every one see, just before the lights went out, that it contained a
mutton
chop or a bit of bacon, would you not think that in that country
something
had gone wrong with the appetite for food? And would not anyone who
had
grown up in a different world think there was something equally
queer about
the state of the sex instinct among us?
One critic said that if he found a country in which such
striptease
acts with food were popular, he would conclude that the people of
that
country were starving. He meant, of course, to imply that such
things as the
strip-tease act resulted not from sexual corruption but from
sexual
starvation. I agree with him that if, in some strange land, we
found that
similar acts with mutton chops were popular, one of the
possible
explanations which would occur to me would be famine. But the next
step
would be to test our hypothesis by finding out whether, in fact,
much or
little food was being consumed in that country. If the evidence
showed that
a good deal was being eaten, then of course we should have to
abandon the
hypothesis of starvation and try to think of another one. In the
same way,
before accepting sexual starvation as the cause of the strip-tease,
we
should have to look for evidence that there is in fact more
sexual
abstinence in our age than in those ages when things like the
strip-tease
were unknown. But surely there is no such evidence. Contraceptives
have made
sexual indulgence far less costly within marriage and far safer
outside it
than ever before, and public opinion is less hostile to illicit
unions and
even to perversion than it has been since Pagan times. Nor is the
hypothesis
of "starvation" the only one we can imagine. Everyone knows that
the sexual
appetite, like our other appetites, grows by indulgence. Starving
men may
think much about food, but so do gluttons; the gorged, as well as
the
famished, like titillations.
We do have food porn. Go watch the Food Network, or Saturday
afternoon on many PBS stations -- Show after show featuring
gorgeous, mouthwatering dishes beyond most of the audience's
ability to prepare, or perhaps afford.
I don't think it's a matter of "growing by indulgence". I doubt
that most of the guys I've seen in strip clubs or adult video
stores are all that sexually active... at least with real women. I
do think their sex lives are disappointing in some sense, either in
terms of simple availability, indulgence of a particular fetish, or
simple desire for novelty.
An excellent movie from last year: The Notorious Bettie Page. It deals with the art-photography culture mentioned in this article.
There was a former co-worker of mine who was 'into' watching porn and visiting associated shops. He was a married guy with two kids. His wife didn't have too much of a problem with his hobby, btw.
Without any real data to back this up, I would guess that most
strip club regulars are middle-aged men, often married, who go
there simply because they still like to look at random 20-something
pussy and this is the only way it's going to happen.
The rest of the customers are usually partiers, be it bachelor
parties, businessman blowing off steam at the end of the week, or
what have you. It's not something they are going to do all the time
but every once in awhile somebody makes the suggestion. Strip clubs
are a good common denominator when a group of men are trying to
find something to do. The times in my life that I've gone to strip
clubs have mostly been when I found myself on a business trip or
some similar circumstance in which I was away from home and
socializing with guys I didn't know that well. Take men away from
their wives and girlfriends and usual hangouts and somebody is
going to suggest getting drunk, going to a strip club, or
both.
A for porn, I'd say pretty much all men look at porn
semi-regularly. In the old days when you had to go through the
embarrassment of a porn shop or the little swinging doors at the
back of the video store, it may have been more limited to the
fringes of society, but today the internet has democratized
perversion.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245