Also, I've used some of the spray-on sunscreens lately and they work really well and take two seconds to put on. Better than nothing, surely.
One of those T-shirt swimsuits? You know, if you don't get sunburned, why worry about it?
3: Isn't that what you wear to work?
If you're going to cover up that much up top, you've got to show more on the bottom. Rashguard + Speedo.
One of those T-shirt swimsuits? You know, if you don't get sunburned, why worry about it?
if you don't get sunburned, why worry about it?
Because I've read lately that even if you don't get burned, sun exposure increases your chances of getting skin cancer.
You don't wear a shark skin suit every time you swim?
7: Rashguard + Speedo = halfassed. Porky Piggin' it at the pool is the new black.
I thought it was a history of blistering burns. Just being in the sun is bad now? Geez.
(I don't understand my children. I cover them with sunscreen, and they still get tan. I feel all apologetic about the color they've turned, as if I should have covered them with lead plates rather than 50 SPF sunscreen.)
Just being in the sun is bad now?
I think burns are one risk factor, and total sun exposure over time another. Since I'm spending about an hour in the midday sun every day (and got tons of sun as a kid), it seems prudent to take precautions (although it's probably too late, and I'm a goner).
Have you considered how a goggle + rashguard tan might look? I vote spray sunscreen.
Also, if you're worried, have you had a mole check recently? Ever?
Wasn't there a study recently that some sun exposure, I think it was 30min of full body exposure, was beneficial? I think the vitamin D was shown to reduce colon and some other cancers which are much less treatable then melanoma.
f you're worried, have you had a mole check recently? Ever?
Never, but I'm not actually worried--my people are a sun people--but I'm just trying to be on the safe side, as long as Will says he won't laugh at me. I've started using sunscreen on my face, so maybe the goggle tan will be less pronounced.
Because I've read lately that even if you don't get burned, sun exposure increases your chances of getting skin cancer.
That's an important consideration, especially since you've already had cancer. A friend of mine did a fellowship in skin oncology, and she said that having had one type of cancer increases your risk for another and that they often saw that in their work.
Like Becks, I like spray-on sunscreen. I'm a big fan of Kinesys. They use a silicone base which isn't greasy. I reapply the stuff which I probably wouldn't do if I had to rub it in.
My people (the pale and moley) apparently have a higher rate of skin cancer but a lower risk of death overall.
Dude! As a highly spotty person myself, that's the cheerfullest bit of pop science I've read in a while.
That rashguard's going to give you a terrible tan line at the neck and wrists. People will laugh and laugh.
Oh, suck it up and wear sunscreen. As you are well aware, cancer is far more time-consuming than putting on a little sunblock, especially the spray stuff.
Also, I cannot offer an opinion on the square-legs because I can't tell from that catalog photo what they'd look like with someone with an actual package. (And why is it that the two modalities for selling men's swimsuits/underwear seem to be "ken doll" and "cucumber in pants"?)
my people are a sun people
Nice.
Sunscreen just doesn't work in terms of my schedule. Ideally, you let the waterproof stuff sink in for 10-15 minutes, which would mean putting it on here at work before I go to the pool. Doable for my face, not really for the rest of me. It's gotta be the rashguard or faith in Allah.
I wore a rashguard while lap-swimming for a while. It's exactly as annoying as you'd think it would be -- rides up, drags, etc. I justified getting rid of it by swimming in the morning, before the sun is shining on the pool.
I still wear it when we go recreationally to swim.
And ogged, don't go to briefs. Please.
The perfect is the enemy of the good, Ogged. I'm sure using sunscreen and not waiting the 15 minutes is better than nothing. Also, you could always put it on in the morning before you get dressed. Or would it have worn off by then?
Go to briefs. You'll get more chicks at the pool that way.
i'd have said not to be worried about it, but ogg has [i]had cancer[/i], so he shoudl probably get a pass on this
For god's sake, yes: wear the damn rashguard. Get one with long sleeves. You swim *every day* in an *outside pool*. This shouldn't even be a question.
29 - Well, it depends on the guy and how he looks in them. I suppose Ogged would have to post pictures of himself in each so we could see.
I guess when I see something like that I think of Daniel Craig wearing those shorts in the last James Bond movie and how that was such a great look. Ogged or you might look slightly different than Craig does in them, though.
Sunscreen doesn't do it, people. Ogged swims breaststroke, not backstroke: have any of you tried to apply sunscreen to your own backs lately?
when I see something like that I think of Daniel Craig wearing those shorts in the last James Bond movie and how that was such a great look
Giving you guys the vote was such a mistake.
"have any of you tried to apply sunscreen to your own backs lately?
He could ask a lifeguard for assistance.
Daniel Craig wearing those shorts
Ooh, good point, Becks.
have any of you tried to apply sunscreen to your own backs lately?
Which is precisely why ogged should go the sunscreen route. Or did you forget that he awkwardly chats up women at the pool?
So what shorts should Ogged wear at the gym while he develops the muscles necessary for the Daniel Craig shorts?
29: Slol! Last I checked, you're happily married.
Armsmasher would totally wear those shorts. Not just around the pool. Around the entire neighborhood.
I don't think people with beards should wear shorts.
And that includes swimsuits - shave your face before you go to the beach. They should also not take their shirts off. Beards are for cold weather.
43: shave s/b wax and face s/b back
Ned is a bigot infidel. Jihad has painted a bullseye on his groin area. No forgiveness, Ned.
Oh the irony, that was probably the most shari'ah-friendly sentiment I've ever expressed here.
(I don't understand my children. I cover them with sunscreen, and they still get tan. I feel all apologetic about the color they've turned, as if I should have covered them with lead plates rather than 50 SPF sunscreen.)
Well, think of it this way: if you hadn't been using sunscreen, their total sun exposure would be much higher than it is.
Also, apparently not all sunscreens are equal. The Environmental Working Group just came out with a handy database about the efficacy and safety of various sunscreen ingredients.
They didn't test this one, which is a relatively new brand, but imo the texture of the stuff is way superior to any other facial sunscreen I've tried.
Ogged, if you're swimming every day and timing yourself, I really can't believe you're not already wearing a speedo.
I'd prefer to see the square legs on anyone. Dunno how much that will help the decision.
As for the rash shirt ... they're fucking hard to get on you know, if you have one that actually fits as it should. I used to dive with a bloke who wore a short-sleeved one and the Daniel Craig style shorts - it looked fine. And I love it as a look on my kids, with either tight shorts or a sporty bikini bottom. But I prefer the short sleeves to the long - and I imagine you'd get pretty warm in the long sleeves? Even if you're trying to minimise your sun exposure, your arms probably get exposed a fair amount anyway. So get a short sleeved one is my advice. And hope you don't get skin cancer on your legs.
I did manage to keep my kids pasty white one summer, by using factor 50 on them, but then I decided that that meant that every second in the sun with no sunscreen was dangerous for them - at least if they have a bit of a tan, they have some natural protection. Is that completely fucked up logic? So now I use factor 30 and they tan. The youngest still looked somewhere between golden and nut brown by march this year from last year's summer (of course, not .going to school means they get a long summer!)
don't you wear board shorts to increase drag when you're training?
43: Beards are for cold weather and for hot weather, when they can hold wet, cooling liquids. And for contingencies, where one might want to soak yesterday's meals out for today's sustenance.
at least if they have a bit of a tan, they have some natural protection. Is that completely fucked up logic?
Yeah. A tan is a sign of skin damage: it's the skin reacting to damage by trying to protect itself from more damage, kind of like a high white blood cell count is the sign of an infection.
That said, I tan. My kid tans. If you're out a lot in the sun, you're gonna tan (unless you're absolutely anal about sunscreen, which is a pain in the ass). Skin damage over time is the cost of living.
(I have taken to wearing a completely ridiculous straw beach hat, though, I must admit.)
unless you're absolutely anal about sunscreen, which is a pain in the ass
I just wear pants.
A tan is a sign of skin damage: it's the skin reacting to damage by trying to protect itself from more damage, kind of like a high white blood cell count is the sign of an infection.
I do get confused by this, because I don't tan. I burn, but sun exposure short of burning doesn't change my skin color. I'm figuring that this means I'm taking more, rather than less, damage than someone who tans, but I get all mixed up about it.
54: You are getting more damage if you're burning. But people who tan are getting damage too, just not as much.
29: Slol! Last I checked, you're happily married.
And am. That was an incredulous "seriously," as Mrs. Slol would disagree.
You are kidding right? Aren't you a swarthy guy? And arent you over 5 years old? Just wear some sunscreen.
As far as the square leg, I love mine. But I typically only wear it around serious swimmers. If I am just swimming at the outside pool at lunch or walking around the pool deck, I wear this one http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Speedo.jpg
57.2: Ack. Please don't do that again.
Aren't you a swarthy guy? And arent you over 5 years old? Just wear some sunscreen.
What is this, the "black people don't blush" argument?
There is a difference in the possible skin damage between the red head, fair skinned people like my gf and darker ogged.
59: B, your house style is slipping.
Foiled once again by the goddamnfucking house style.
60: Sure there is, but that doesn't mean that people with dark skin who swim in the noonday sun shouldn't worry about sun exposure.
Bitch,
That is why I suggested sunscreen. Doesnt that count?
Man up and wear your freaking sunscreen, Ogged.
Also, yes on hotpants, no on manpanties.
I guess I'm thinking that if they don't have any tan at all, then if they go to the end of the road shop at lunchtime without sunscreen on, then they might get burnt (in 2 minutes?) so I need to be hyper-vigilant with the sunscreen. But if they've got a bit of a tan (and 3/4 of them are the kind of people who look out of the window and go brown) then they don't need to worry about getting burnt constantly, so that's better.
Not that we've had to worry about sunburn this summer though, it's just fucking rained and rained and rained.
So there's your solution ogged - just move - come and swim here (you can swim outdoors in Oxford, lovely pool) and will just freeze your balls off, no risk of even getting warm, let alone burnt.
Eh, sunscreen's a pain, a rash guard is easy and more reliable (and if you want to get all pc about it, it's less wasteful and more cost effective). And rashguards are perfectly acceptable swimwear in California, so why not?
Ogged I recommend you do not wear a speedo if you do not like penis in your mouth.
And what's the big advantage of the hotpants over the jammers, anyway?
69 caused me to snort Diet Mountain Dew out my nose.
Do people wear rashguards at pools? I've only seen adults wear them at the ocean or maybe waterskiing.
New [Skin Cancer] Cases 62,190
Deaths Per Year 7,910
5-Year Localized Survival Rate* 98%
5-Year Overall Survival Rate* 92%
Do what you want, ogged.
They look less like women's aerobics shorts from the 80s. Also, squarer porportions covering less overall area: butcher, more flattering frame for one's bulge.
And what's the big advantage of the hotpants over the jammers, anyway?
None, really. I've decided to stick with jammers, and probably will at least try a rashguard.
The Speedo is a perfectly acceptable option, boys. Stop being such 8th graders.
fwiw, ogged, I used to swim in a square leg. They were comfortable. I've never swum as regularly as you lot, though (except for physio).
69 caused me to snort Diet Mountain Dew out my nose.
Class 6 Felony in Virginia.
72: At PK's swim lessons (local outdoor pool, community college swim team instructors), half the teachers were wearing rashguards.
I think it is fabulous to get fashion advice from gym teachers.
73: Also, even the "good" kind of skin cancer completely. Every so often, I have to endure my dermatologist whacking divots up to the size of a quarter out of my skin, as the lingering after-effect of a single really bad sunburn I suffered when I was eleven.
In all seriousness, it makes sense to wear a rash guard if you are in the sun all day long. Sun screen only protects you for a limited duration. Repeated slathering doesnt extend that time.
80: How about from hot buffed out community college swim team 20-somethings?
81: Every so often, I have to endure my dermatologist whacking divots up to the size of a quarter out of my skin, as the lingering after-effect of a single really bad sunburn I suffered when I was eleven
Really? I got what I guess was a 2nd degree burn on my chest about 15 years ago. Nasty.
I should be having this checked regularly?
my people are a sun people
Yeah well my people worshipped the sun because it only appeared once a year, and now I live in a city that gets 330 days or more of it. Net result: sunscreen, hat, suspicious blotches and annual trips to my skeezy Italian dermatologist.
skeezy Italian dermatologist.
Umm, story?
84: It's not that complicated. Let's say SPF 30 means you can stay in the sun 30x longer without burning than you could without it. (The numbers are a bit silly, but that's what they're supposed to mean.) That doesn't mean that if you just keep reapplying it you can stay in the sun forever: it means that a layer of zinc oxide provides pretty good protection from the sun but *some of it is going to reach your skin regardless* and after X amount of time, your skin is going to start to burn.
You reapply the stuff to maintain the level of protection against wear, not because it's magic.
I think what 81 means is that having had a bad burn, LR now gets occasional "suspicious" skin lesions (or moles, or whatever you want to call them) at the burn site, which have to be removed. Not that if you've ever had a bad sunburn you need to go to a dermatologist right this second.
Heh. When I was a kid in the summer on Long Island, I knew a bunch of people with relatives who were illegal Irish immigrants working for rich people as nannies or whatever. And they'd all say things like "Oh, no, I lie out in the sun all day back home; I never get burnt." And then they'd blister all the skin off themselves, and end up in the emergency room. The sun's different around here.
Umm, story?
Well that's the U.S. healthcare system for you. Based on his waiting room, I think he's in the field for the middle-aged blonde women who drive SUVs, work out too much and tan too much.
91: Right, sort of what I figured. There doesn't seem to be anything suspicious going on.
91: Yes, but if you've never had it checked out it is probably worth having a look at. A dermatologist will a) tell you what to look for and b) have a much more nuanced idea of what `suspicious' means. I have several family members who have had these sorts of removals done, and they weren't all so obvious.
The upside is most skin cancers are very treatable (although the raree melanomas are nasty)
85: To be fair, I am pretty damn pale, and have a bit of a history of the bad kind of skin cancer on my dad's side, and this was a really bad sunburn. It was pretty much the end of my swimming career* But yes, get it checked it out, I cannot stress out how much it really freaking sucks.
TMI: every single time I have sex with someone new now, or even really get semi-dressed in an intimate way, I have to explain that no, those scars on my arm and back and chest are not cigarette burns, and I was not abused as a child.
* Trivia Ogged will find amusing: I'm from Baltimore originally, and as a spunky little ten year old breaststroker/IMer, was exactly one degree of seperation from Michael Phelps in several different ways. Not that I was even remotely in that class. But I followed his career for a long time after that, more because of the Baltimore connection than anything else.
I'm beginning to think that there's a lot to be said for not reading literature, since all you people apparently spend too much time with The Classics to bother to read any of the umpteen zillion articles about sunblock and skin protection that appear daily in magazines and newspapers throughout the nation every summer.
Speedos are appropriate for the North Pole (as I've mentioned), but if you have any worries whatsoever, wear the damn rashguard. My wife is going through the divot-whacking thanks to youthful years in Tucson, and she deeply regrets not covering up back then.
TMI: every single time I have sex with someone new now, or even really get semi-dressed in an intimate way, I have to explain that no, those scars on my arm and back and chest are not cigarette burns, and I was not abused as a child.
Oh, I bet that's just loads of fun.
perhaps better than having to explain to your doctor that, no, you haven't had this procedure done before....
Certainly it makes sense to take normal and easy precautions to avoid sun damage, just as it makes sense to do the same to avoid any type of damage. But it seems unlikely that mis-decision here is going to cause real harm unless you're unusually fair (not ogged). And if you're unusually fair, you shouldn't be outside uncovered anyway, as seeing your internal organs through your translucent skin creeps the rest of us out.
Dark skinned people get skin cancer too, Tim.
Lunar, I'm loving your whole comment. Yay, NBAC, boo skin cancer, and I have very noticeable stretch marks on my back from my adolescent growth spurt that make it look like I was subject to a horrible whipping at some point.
92: The blistering off your skin? Yep, exactly what happened to me, and I basically didn't even notice until several hours later as I was feeling itchy on the bus ride home (it happened at a post-swim-season party/day of frolicking at Wild World, and I'd slathered up twice earlier in the day.)
103: And while the overall numbers are lower, the percentage of nasty ones is higher.
Just to throw a little more paranoia your way... When the daughter was born, on of the baby books suggested that the chemicals in sunscreen might also pose a risk. Don't know how true this is, but it would weigh in favor of the rashguard thingy.
Anyway, it doesn't have to be about Teh Cancer. I haven't had any divots removed, thank GOD, but I've got a couple of those early liver spots starting (GROSS).
Plus, all you gotta do is check out the 30-plus women with the leathery décolletage to realize, ew. Who wants to look like that, even if it won't actually kill you?
those scars on my arm and back and chest are not cigarette burns
I've had somebody warn me before disrobing that she had lots of scarring from cigarette burns from a sexual assault. Which indeed she did.
Rashguards are GREAT. I love mine. There are several people who wear them at my local pool: at the very least, it pegs you as a serious swimmer. And Since you're just a little too far from the ocean to surf at lunch, people might just figure that you are a surfer keeping in shape for paddling. (Nothing is hotter than a surfer!) There is no question, though, that it is a draggy item. That just gives you a better workout, right? (I'm thinking of the high school/college swimmers who practiced in several swimsuits, the outermost of which was always in tatters, for extra drag.)
I have very noticeable stretch marks on my back from my adolescent growth spurt that make it look like I was subject to a horrible whipping at some point.
ZOMG!!! My last remaining naturally en-donged boyfriend has that, and I've been wondering what the fuck those are!
I have very noticeable stretch marks on my back
Jesus, man, wear a rash guard if only to cover *that* shit up. Disgusting.
NBAC used to have a cool Christmas meet. I still have the pin from the heat.
111: You don't know what stretch marks look like? Crazy.
My last remaining naturally en-donged boyfriend
What?
Also, yay Towson! Although I doubt you follow Baltimore girls' high school lacrosse. WHICH YOU SHOULD IF YOU'RE SUCH A WIRE FAN YOU KNOW, WHAT WOULD BUNK MORELAND SAY?
... probably 'Iranian-ass motherfucker', but you know what I mean.
There are several people who wear them at my local pool: at the very least, it pegs you as a serious swimmer.
Of my long-standing significant others, one is an FTM transman who I was involved with long before he was transitioning and still identified as a lesbian, the other is bisexual and somewhat genderqueer biological male. The remaning significant other, and almost everyone I hook-up with or date casually, identify as lesbians and are usually biological females.
So, long story short: Rocky has two boyfriends, but only one was born with a penis (and is freakishly tall, and works with an Unfogged commenter, and is the one amongst us who started reading Unfogged first.)
Virtually every girl on the UVa lacrosse and field hockey teams was a product of Baltimore. Amazing.
I'm glad I asked, Rockette, because I wouldn't have guessed.
That's because Baltimore and the horsey parts of MD are basically the only place in the entire US where it's played at the elementary/middle school/HS varsity level.
Well, and some parts of ultra-gentrified Virginia. But fuck those bitches.
Well, and some parts of ultra-gentrified Virginia. But fuck those bitches.
My thoughts exactly.
120: That's funny, I read the same comment and admired it for the vast amount of perfectly unambiguous information in it. What's not to figure out.
one was born with a penis (and is freakishly tall
I'm glad you clarified that he has a natural penis. For a minute there, I thought you meant Labs.
I think girls' lacrosse is common in the rich suburbs of any Northeastern state.
Dopeyness: My parents still have my first plastic stick, which I got at I think eight years old, which is adorned with "Rocky" and various squiggly adorments in fading neon pastel paint-marker and peeling stickers. (My first ultrapreppy wood one escaped such maltreatment, by the virtue of being really expensive.)
109: I've had that situation too. Including a `and this is the scar where the knife nicked my heart'. It's an awkward process, which I really hope I didn't make any worse.
sam k, I accept your comment as the one that pwned the other one, despite the chronology, because you used house style.
126: Okay, fair enough. But Baltimore is the only place where it's at least somewhat played and followed by the blue-collar and middle-classes, because of the regional identification, and because Baltimore people are completely insane about Baltimore stuff in a way that I have never seen from the residents of any other city. There are class divisions, and definitely racial ones, but in Baltimore it's a thing, the way it isn't in, say, Boston.
Blue-collar lacrosse? That's something I never heard of before.
107.---on of the baby books suggested that the chemicals in sunscreen might also pose a risk
My dad, a chemical engineer, is convinced that the chemicals in sunscreen are bad shit. Of course he tans a beautiful mahogany; my mother and I both have that blue-ish transparent skin and wear teh block.
132: Not the same thing, but in Canada, box lacrosse is still pretty big in some places. Really blue collar, and one of the roughest sports you'll ever see.
I think partially because of this and partially because of the UK connections, field lacrosse is still played a fair bit at some high schools and universities.
My family is blue-collar by origin, though not in practice, but there were a number of girls I played with or against at various schools or summer camps who were basically straight-up blue-collar. Most of them were either amazingly gifted black girls who played pretty much every sport available, or went to Catholic schools, or both, but there you have it.
Blue-collar lacrosse?
Welcome to Maryland. We're cool like that.
Lacrosse:Maryland::Ice hockey:Canada
Goddamnit, now I really want a snowball.
Fair bit of lacrosse in Vermont, too, at least when I was growing up there. We had lacrosse but not football at my rural high school.
We played lacrosse in high school PE, but I don't remember if we had a team. I do remember the sound of my classmate's nose being broken by the ball, however.
Jesus/LR/CN/MF: is there muc box lacrosse south of the border? I seem to recall a bit of it.
Yeah, my brother played in a box lax league during the off-season. Fast game.
Pwned by Apo, as is mete and just. However.
The kind that has all the Baltimoron cultural capital is field, but there's some box, especially at the collegiate llevel. Mostly men's, though. And I think a couple of the more insufferable boys' prep schools either have a league or facilities or something like that?
Jim Brown was a phenomenal lacrosse player, apparently. Somehow that makes it easier to think of lacrosse as blue collar.
Matt, if you don't mind my asking, where did you go to school?
(Watch, you/your brother will have gone to Gilman and I'll feel like an ass.)
Jim Brown was a phenomenal lacrosse player, apparently
Legendarily so; he's in the lacrosse hall of fame. And he's said that it was actually his favorite sport.
148: Definitely not a guy I'd want to see coming at me with a stick.
No, we grew up in Montgomery County, not Baltimore. Q/uin/ce O/rch/ard High School.
In lot's of Canada, municipal or city facilities are pretty common, so lots of people play. The need for gear keeps pick up games low, though. You're more likely to see a pick up game of road hockey going on in the box rather than actual pick up lacrosse, but I'd often see various levels of league play.
Oh, wow. My parents live in MC now, and my mom taught high school math at Quince Orchard for a while post-retirement, thanks to a program that basically let people with advanced degrees in math/science subjects get teaching certification on a ridiculously fast track.
This is the coolest place-name.
Soubz, I'm pretty sure that there's box lacrosse at UVM and a league team in Burlington, but I don't know about elsewhere. I've never seen it, but it looks pretty cool.
Um, she started sometime within the last four or five years or so, and wasn't doing it this school year, but I suck at remembering details. She only did about two years of it fulltime, though more subbing. Do you know folks who work there?
Just wondering if she was there when I was. I graduated in 2002.
I'll ask when she's here this weekend!
She taught remedial and non- honors/AP classes pretty much exclusively, though, because of starting out so late and so low down on the seniority totem pole.
I graduated in 2002.
Good grief. I'm old. Emerson, quick, say something curmudgeonly so I can feel young and optimistic again.
Hah, I've got beat by not graduating high school.
lol, fetus!
I graduated in 1995, but "should have" in 1997. So I basically get to be a curmudgeonly thirtysomething two years ahead of schedule, which is awesome.
163 should have been `got you beat', and is of course (alas!) a technicality. I should have graduated high school a long time ago. Actually, i may have technically done it it, too.
166: Yeah, yeah, we're all here right along with you rolling our trousers. Jesus, these kids don't remember Reagan.
When I was working at Better Blowing Things Up Underwater Through Science Labs(tm), in my early-mid twenties, I was bitching to one of my esteemed co-workers about how old and unhip I felt, and how young all the shiny-eyed new graduates we were giving the "come work for us!!!!!!111one!" tour seemed, and he turned to me, drew himself up, and scoffed regally, "You're a fetus!"
He was just about to turn forty at the time.
I do not think that they will sing for me.
I'm sorry to interrupt this tribute to auld Tom, but in the course of idling trying to discover what "jammers" were, I stumbled across one of those gloriously wierd personal websites (mostly SFW). Oh, tubes!
Also, there are some nifty maroon rubber jammers pictured. Scroll down.
Here's another page from his site. It seems as though he gets most of his jollies simply by dressing up and tootling around his home. It would be so awesome to go trick or treating at his place.
173: I didn't catch that. Next time, could you stay a bit longer?
So, basically, the point of 174 is that Ogged should go shopping for his new swimwear at Mr. S?
One coffee spoon. Two coffee spoons. Three coffee spoons...
Three! Three coffee spoons! Ah ha hah hah!
174:
I stumbled across one of those gloriously wierd personal websites (mostly SFW).
Oh man.
I once had a friend called Eric the Rat, an older gentleman, hippie, long scraggly beard, occasional cross-dresser who sometimes wore his long white hair (or beard) in braids and barrettes. I and my ex at the time used to stay with him when visiting New England.
One one visit, Eric had tacked prominently on his kitchen wall candid photos of himself and his 50-something girlfriend at the time prancing about in his house in leather and/or rubber S&M gear. One of himself with a hard-on.
For all who visited to view (in admiration?), don't you know.
I miss him; now deceased.
One of the good things about reaching the Get Offa My Lawn stage of life is that everyone you know is crazy.
lolfetus:
Im in ur woomz, not bein prsonz!
is that everyone you know is crazy
I read this as: everyone knows you're crazy.
And I'm not even that old, or I've been that old since I was 7.
The proportion of high-functioning crazies in our society is much higher than one would have thought.
Who said anything about high-functioning?
We could consider my comment a complementary observation to yours.
Late as always.
On rashguards: huh, I forgot that people often swim outdoors. I'd say sure, wear it, if you find it acceptably comfortable. I don't know what all these people who are going on about how it wood look funny/bad/etc are talking about. (then again, I am both generally and presently boyfriend-free... maybe my attitude about this kind of decision is part of my problem...).
Having said that, wearing a rashguard might suck for the same reason that boardshorts suck, comparatively speaking, relative to squareleg trunks. Wearing less in the water is much more pleasant. I was very, very happy when I made the switch. (And didn't we recently have this same conversation, with me playing the part of Ogged?)
"En-donged" is my new favorite word.
What happened to the fellow nerd you were pursuing?
Making "disendonged" the new "bobbitectomy"?
What happened
god, do we really have to quote the text? I didn't pay attention to how that issue was worked out.
191: That came to a somewhat nasty end, I'm sorry to say.
huh, I forgot that people often swim outdoors.
Being from L.A., I forget people swim indoors.
graduated high school in 2002?!!?!? Wow, I am feeling old. I was finishing my tenth year of being a lawyer.
Where is Chris Hansen?!?
So...just tried on a rashguard. Fit fine, could imagine swimming in it, except that when I raised my arm, it rode up halfway up my torso. Somewhat purpose defeating. Maybe it wouldn't do that wet, but given the snugness in the shoulders, I don't see how it wouldn't. Maybe I'll try a different brand...
Did you ask the salesperson about that issue? Surely you aren't the only person who raises his arms above his head when he swims.
O-dog, aren't you supposed to be outrageously skinny?
You mean the teenaged kid at the SportsAuthority? No, I did not. I'll pay attention to the guy at the pool who has the same thing.
So *that's* what's wrong with Ogged's stroke.
That if you are, and if your build is what I imagine it to be (very tall, sslender but trim and defined), then a) wearing one of those board shorts with jammies will make you look like you put a turtleneck on over a pair of 80s aerobics shorts and make you look really really skinny, while the spandex hotpants will actually be very flattering, especially if you have decent-to-good legs, which you probably know.
I hang out with drag queens, dude, I know stuff.
are rashguards really worse than 1 peice girls suits?
And not flattering in a feminizing way, either, just flattering.
LR, helping a brother out. What do you know about lifeguards, Rockette?
Compared to the standard girls' flyback onepiece? Yes, they are worse. Much worse.
Damnit, I'd been avoiding the swimming posts mostly because I miss swimming so damn much. Cry.
I love you Rockette, and I appreciate your attention to this matter. I actually tried on some of the square cut suits while I was trying on the rashguards, and they just didn't work. They rode up and made me look like Daisy Duke, or fat Britney Spears, take your pick. I'm going to stick with the jammers.
Speaking of girl's suits, you might want to get a rashguard without the chest enhancement padding.
Then dude, you probably need to bite the bullet and get a manpanty speedo.
You could also try one of those high-necked but not turtleneck rashguards that either have cap sleeves or no sleeves at all pair with the banana hammock, but depending that could look even more ridiculous. Which is to say: lol, leotard!
t rode up halfway up my torso
I said that like, a hundred and thirty comments ago. Really, you should just listen to me.
The jammers look ok, they just leave my tan line in a strange spot, but it's not like I ever wear shorts, so it's cool.
Slol, I had to try, didn't I?
I should just put my head in the oven.
If you have goggle tan, you're already doomed. And even if you do choose to wear shorts, are you seriously going to wear anything lower than jammies?
I should totally lose enough weight that I can ignore the rest of my seething mass of body image issues and start swimming again, for all I have always hated indoor pools. Also, flyback speedo + BDU pants sheared off with scissors + tevas = come back to me, sweet summer attire of my youth!
Damnit, I'd been avoiding the swimming posts mostly because I miss swimming so damn much.
Is it inappropriately nosy to ask why you can't swim?
It's not so much that I can't, just that I really prefer to swim outside and that's probably a bad idea given the skin cancer, plus I have serious body image issues from various scarring (not all from the skin cancer) and having put on weight since I was in school and other unpleasantness, so I've mostly avoided it.
Also, I'm just really lazy, when it comes down to it.
Aw, go swim, Rockette. I worried about my scar (on this very blog) and there's a guy at my pool who has some bizarro fungal growth all over his body, but honestly, no one cares; people are just trying not to drown, you know?
Also I have some joint injuries, that probably wouldn't respond well to swimming itself or being wet for long periods of time. Actually, I'm pretty sure that my massively fucked up knee and shoulder are mostly from trying (mostly unsuccessfully) to be competitive in 'fly when I was a kid, for reasons that escapred me entirely, since it was basically my weakest stroke.
... actually, I think I was trying to be competitive in 'fly because of a proto-feminist streak, because for some reason I thought of it as a really "butch" stroke and one I wanted to prove myself in.
The other reason I stopped swimming at about 11 was that I developed breasts really early and pretty aggressively, and it sucked. A lot. Anyone who thinks 10-12 year old boys are incapable of sexual harassment is a dumbass.
196: These things, they happen. But thanks.
208: Really?! I'm surprised, and also, I can't really imagine you looking even a little like Daisy Duke, although it's fun to try. (Fat Britney Spears, on the other hand, not so much fun. The cootchie picture scarred me for life, I think.) Square cuts are SO much better in the water than jamm... okay, wait, jammers are the ones that are long but tight, right? Maybe that's not so bad. I keep thinking of board shorts.
the teenaged kid at the SportsAuthority
Thank you for giving me an excuse to voice a general complaint: the utter uselessness of retail sales people* is epidemic in this country. They're often worse than useless, actually anti-helpful. Somebody do something.
*Not counting Cute Salesguy Terry at Jackrabbit, of course.
people are just trying not to drown, you know
And judging from some of the guys at my pool, they are really, really having to focus their attention on this.
221.2: I'd have to agree. The 12 year olds that were my peers were fully into trying out stupid pick-up lines. You know, the ones that don't actually work (in most cases). Like, "wanna fuck?". How much of that was because I was in Oklahoma at the time (Tinker AFB); probably mostly so.
I also cannot do the fly worth crap. Freestyle, I'm fast enough.
218: I somehow always assume that all the commenters here are great looking, poised, super-confident, etc. (ogged excepted, obv.), so, while entirely understandable and common, hearing those sorts of self-critical concerns always surprises me.
As ogged says, it's almost certain that no one else cares one way or the other. Anyway, Rockette, you're probably getting more action than the all the other unmarrieds here combined. Do you really need more? Leave a bit for the rest of us. In fact, throw one back, gawddammit.
I wouldn't call myself great-looking nor poised (in fact, I am the opposite of poised), but in most other realms I'm at least passably confident despite never having really been all that conventionally attractive. It's just that swimming, specifically, has all this other crap and baggage for me.
are speedos ok if you are a grower not a shower
Who gave yoyo access to the referral logs?
Sure they are. Just make sure they're tight enough to pack everything down - the effect of loose speedos is really unflattering.
Also, this is probably the biggest longshot ever, but do any of the swimwer types know of a place that sells women's flyback speedo-style suits with bras built in - not that ridiculous shelf crap, like actual support?
I guess they don't have to be fly, hell they probably won't be, it's just the kind I like the best.
Darn it, will. Your drills are too hard for me. I have no balance.
I somehow always assume that all the commenters here are great looking, poised, super-confident, etc.
WTF?
I somehow always assume that all the commenters here are great looking, poised, super-confident, etc.
I can only speak for myself, here, but yes.
teo knows that we're all the same balding, overweight forty-year-old man, commenting from his mother's basement under different pseuds. The rest of you are just weird.
230: Here's a suit that's a regular scoop back (not fly) but is actually sized by bra size and has proper cups built in. Freya makes some as well, as do Fantasie and (I think) Mandalay. Title Nine has a lot of fans, and I haven't tried their suits, so maybe. But I have to admit I, personally, am dubious about anything that doesn't actually size by bra size. Lands End has even come out with some D-cup sized suits this year, so that might be an option for you as well.
teo just wants someone to link to the thread from after we met up with him in New York meetup wherein multiple female commenters say that he's hot.
Re. body issues and/or sun exposure, however, the same advice for you as for Ogged: board shorts (or tighter fitting knee-length suit bottoms) and a rash guard. Covers most of you, perfectly appropriate and even stylish nowadays, and eminently practical.
Because I'm vain (and don't actually swim much, although I'm thinking about starting again, which means I'll need a one-piece suit or the combo I just suggested for Rockette) I do the board shorts + cup-sized bikini top thing myself. Board shorts are the best godamn thing to happen to women's swimwear in my lifetime, I swear.
*Also* speaking of body issues, I was hanging out at the beach with PK a couple weeks ago people-watching, and really, most people look way better than they think they do, if you just pay attention to the way their bodies as a whole look. If you fret (as one does) over fat roll X or scar Y on your own body, it looks awful; but if you stand back and look at the whole picture, most people look surprisingly okay.
Yeah, I was looking at some of the Eddie Bauer stuff , which was really adorable, but their sizing made me wary. I'm 36-38E, unfortunately, depending on how much I've been working out lately. But thank you, those sites at least look like good places to start.
236 is always already true, of course, but it's not actually what I had in mind when I wrote 232.
Right, I'm a 32DDD myself, I know the problem. I would be surprised if your band size actually changed depending on whether you're working out or not, though--at least, mine didn't change even when I was 9 months pregnant. People tend not to put on a whole lot of weight right at that point of their ribcage--mostly it goes on in the boobs themselves, or else below where a bra band (should) fit. Have you been properly fitted lately?
(Sorry, this is the fussy mother in me coming out.)
(You could also just wear a good sports bra, with or without a rash guard over it. When I was pg and could *not* find a suit (nor, to be honest, a sports bra) in a fucking J cup, I just went in the pool with a sports bra in the proper band size with way stretchy cups and a pair of boyshort bottoms. No one said anything. Though that might have been just because they were terrified.)
241: BTW, I don't think I ever sent thanks to you Bitch, but your post about bra sizing was a great gift for my wife. I sent her to Nordstrom's for the full treatment. She loved it.
You and she are most welcome.
Amusingly, I had to go be resized myself recently after wearing the same bra size since I was 18 (!) "My kid's six years old," I said. "How is it possible that my cup size has gotten bigger *now*?"
"Age."
Sigh.
No, no, don't apologize, you're 100% right about the band size thing. I think some of it may just be the insane elasticity of American sizing; "36E" or even just "36" really ought to mean one thing across all bras, and it so totally does not in practice.
And no, I haven't, mostly because the wonderful shop run by little old Jewish ladies where I've been going since I was about ten is in Baltimore, and I lamed out about going the last few times I've been back. Know any good places around SF, or even LA?
Nordstrom's is always excellent, and I'm sure you have one of those. I'm afraid I don't personally know any good independent shops in either of those towns, but I'm absolutely certain they exist.
However, if you ever were to take a drive down the 101 between the two cities and care to stop off in Ventura, we could have wine at the nice little wine store and then wander over to the nice independent lingerie store and have you sized. Or perhaps the uber-girly gifte shoppe that also serves yummy desserts and coffee instead of wine.
247: Excuse me, sir, but I must insist that you refer to my chestal appendages by their proper and due title, which bojubblies.
249: Which is both lovely and seems to have been coined by thee (according to teh Google).
Pronounced with zee slight French accent?
251: Actually, no, it was coined by one of the extremely witty and sweet yet tragically hormonal 16 year old boys in my World of Warcraft guild.
I... I can't even begin to approximate how he said it. I think you pretty much have to be a hormonal 16 year old boy in order to pronounce it correctly.
252: Sigh, well, those days are more than half my life ago.
Man, if I ever get back into raiding again, I'll have to entice him to say it on Vent and upload it somewhere, perhaps with a few other choice hilarities.
Also, B, aaaaarrrgggh you tempt me so.
B, aaaaarrrgggh you tempt me so.
It's my job. C'mon down, baby, we'll have a gooood time.
keep trying Tj.
The key is to relax and stop worrying about going forward. Learn to balance first.
B, I'm almost positive that by the time I have a free weekend, you will be doing vacation stuff with PK, but thank you for the offer, you rule.
Totally tangentially, but have you seen this? Argh. Argh. Argh. Argh.
Kill. Kill. Kill. Kill. Kill. Kill.
Shorter Washington Post: "OMG, I saw Hilary's boobies! Slut."
I read it a bit differently, more like "hey, titties! whoa. titties? titties! go for it! yay, titties!"
More, "Hey, that calculating bitch withheld titties until now. Other female politicians show us their titties, and on them it looks confident. Hilary, on the other hand? Is doing it wrong." "Slut," admittedly, wasn't really in there.
I think if it was anyone else, JM, I'd buy your reading, but HRC has been the media-designated misogyny bukkake target for years and years now.
Mmm. I get all weird talking about her, because I don't want to vote for her, but I firmly agree with everyone who says that the treatment she gets in the press is misogynistic. The fact that there are good reasons not to vote for her doesn't mean that most people who oppose her have good reasons for it.
258 gets it right.
You'd think that living with Mike Tyson would make Robin Givhan prone to trivializing men, not women.
Hilary, on the other hand? Is doing it wrong.
Yeah, that much is uncontestable. Clinton needs to talk to whoever styles Pelosi: Speaker Nancy always looks fiiine.
Givhan lives with Tyson? That is, uh, really weird. I mean, you've got to question her judgment.
262: Yep. I used to really like her during the Clinton area, but have been growing more and more disenchanted with her rightward lurch, to the point of disgust. Then I realized that Bill over the years has done the exact same sort of winger-empowering crap, but my good opinion of him remained untarnished, and I was holding HRC more accountable out of internalized misogyny.
Jack, are you feeling okay? The complained-of cleavage is perfectly normal looking. Giving Hilary a hard time because she's not allowed to wear a v-neck unless she meets some WaPo maniac's standards for emotional openness is nuts. (And the Tyson thing is a joke -- he used to be married to an actress with a similar name.)
265: I'm in a state of cognitive dissonance over Bill's warmongeringness. I haven't bothered resolving it because he's not in power over anything so it's not important, but I find it absolutely mystifying, to the point that I have to actively force myself to remember it when he comes up.
In the photo, I couldn't actually see any cleavage. But Clinton does make some weird fashion choices. I liked her black pantsuit phase, but if her campaign has decided that she needs to tack more feminine, they should hire her a better stylist. BUT OF COURSE we should be talking about her policies, not her clothes. I like clothes, that's all.
Speaker Nancy always looks fiiine.
Word up. The Speaker of the House is a total GILF.
Then I realized that Bill over the years has done the exact same sort of winger-empowering crap, but my good opinion of him remained untarnished, and I was holding HRC more accountable out of internalized misogyny.
We live in a different country than we did when Bill came into office. He actually caught a fair bit of shit from most Dems at the time (inc., particularly, IIRC, Moneyhan (sp?)). And he is just a much, much, much better retail politician than she is, and the apparent losses we could come to expect him to turn into gains we cannot expect from HRC (or, probably, anyone else).
Look at the crap Edwards is getting for being a hypocritical girlie man. Coulter's claims notwithstanding, that's not because he's a woman.
Aha, Jackmormon reveals the source of her equivocating stance.
Since I don't care about clothes, I see this story as 100% evil and ridiculous. In contrast to most men, who respond to stories like this with a "LOL Hillary is not serious enough to be president, howcum she gets in the newspaper for her clothes and not her policies?
270: Pelosi, to me, looks like a massive Bad Plastic Surgery poster. But I still love her.
268: I don't find it mystifying, I just think they're both assholes.
269: In the photo, I couldn't actually see any cleavage
I think they're using "cleavage" to mean "vertical line around where boobies are!!!!". But they seem to have auto-pwned, because I think the line is a clip-on mic.
271: I agree with you on all points, but one of the things that most angered me specifically the way her stance on abortion slid, and there was very much a kind of "oh NOW you bring out the Jesus and the hand-wringing, you dried-up hypocritical old bitch" aspect to it. So, yeah: misogyny.
You'd think that living with Mike Tyson would make Robin Givhan prone to trivializing men, not women.
This is either a funny joke or you've confused her with Robin Givens, the actress. I really like Givhan's columns. She's the political fashion reporter, and she does a good job.
So to bring this post full circle: O-dog, have you found a rashguard that shows a properly tasteful amount of cleavage yet?
Women should just buy the mens' rashguard and cut out two holes in the chest.
Come on, people. The so-called "cleavage" is clearly an attempt to "soften" her image after the media (and goddamn potential voters like a lot of us) have been bitching for months about how "hard" and "aggressive" she is. So she tries an outfit that's a little more "feminine," and the WaPo jumps on it as being all about boobies.
I fucking HATE every single word everyone ever says about that woman. This race is going to be fucking disgusting.
Finally, a thread in which I can say it.
Ahem.
IF THAT WAS A $400 HAIRCUT WHY DOES IT LOOK SO DORKY?
Sorry.
I swear to god, even if her platform were to feed liberals to a rabid Dick Cheney, I'd vote for her just because of the way people talk about her.
From that WP article:
After all, it wasn't until the early '90s that women were even allowed to wear pants on the Senate floor.
WTF?
281: You could have left this part off: just because of the way people talk about her.
278: Women should just buy the mens' rashguard and cut out two holes in the chest.
You know, that would actually almost solve my biggest problem with rashguards. If you're large chested, they smush your boobs up into an indistinguishable and unflattering mass, like the sports bra uni-boob only worse.
I fucking HATE every single word everyone ever says about that woman.
Hillary Clinton strikes me as a good mother.
283: Actually, smartass, I haven't said who I'm going to vote for yet, nor have I decided. You'll notice that I haven't been writing posts endorsing any candidate over at my own blog. But I swear to god, with due respect for Rockette who I totally dig, that the way people criticize her for (e.g.) saying "abortion is a tragedy" would *so* not even come up if she were a guy. That whole "to be equal a woman has to be twice as good" thing is driving me up a fucking wall.
Hillary Clinton strikes me as a good mother.
Like THAT'S relevant to her campaign. Asshole.
(Actually I agree.)
279: No doubt. I've never liked her much as a politician but I hate that most of the stuff I see leveled at her is this sort of bullshit. C'mon, there's policy flaws a plenty to chew her up about.
"to be equal a woman has to be twice as good"
As always, the problem is that she's already one of the least liberal members of the Democratic caucus, and has moved steadily rightward during her time in the Senate. The last Democrat who got this sort of treatment from party regulars was Joe Lieberman, and I'm mostly certain he doesn't have a vagina.
287: I don't know that Edwards is getting much of an easier ride. Obama, possibly, although just you wait until things heat up: the racism's going to be just as nasty as the sexism, gotta figure.
I don't like Hillary because the goofy, showboating election year issues she picks inevitably seem designed to piss me off. I also think her hawkishness (while probably partly a pose designed to deflect some of the "woman = weak" sexism) is extremely dangerous.
I'm mostly certain he doesn't have a vagina.
Couldn't get in his pants, apo? You must be slipping.
Which is not to say there isn't a healthy dose of misogyny in the press treatment of her, just that that doesn't really explain it all away.
292: Hadassah is like a fucking watchdog, dude.
287: But I swear to god, with due respect for Rockette who I totally dig, that the way people criticize her for (e.g.) saying "abortion is a tragedy" would *so* not even come up if she were a guy. That whole "to be equal a woman has to be twice as good" thing is driving me up a fucking wall.
No no, I know! I bring up my own internal misogyny towards her because I'm ashamed of it and I think it sucks.
It's also really creepy how there's basically a misogynist narrative pre-constructed for you no matter what your ideological relations to HRC. Lower to middle class? Elitist bitch. Upper class? Knowitall liberal bitch is going to give all your money away to welfare queens. Socially conservative woman? Uppity feminist bitch hates you for baking cookies. (Young) feminist? Dried up old bitch has sold you out to The Man.
Here's one of the many things I love about the Post article -- it's just flat wrong.
The last time Clinton wore anything that was remotely sexy in a public setting surely must have been more than a decade ago, during Bill Clinton's first term in office when she was photographed wearing a black Donna Karan gown that revealed her shoulders.
Wrong. At least a year ago, Hillary got written up over at National Review Online about wearing some outfit that showed some cleavage. There's even photographic evidence!
Of course, none of this is relevant to whether or not she'd make a good President. But I think it's telling that the very premise of the article is that she's never worn anything with cleavage on the floor of the Senate, and that's simply and demonstrably wrong.
Hey, now that's a nice suit on her!
290: I think Lieberman is much, much further right than HRC is.
I don't like Hillary because the goofy, showboating election year issues she picks inevitably seem designed to piss me off. I also think her hawkishness (while probably partly a pose designed to deflect some of the "woman = weak" sexism) is extremely dangerous.
I truly believe that on the showboating issues (e.g., video games, "abortion is a tragedy") she is showing a great deal of integrity in talking about real problems that are very difficult to tackle through legislation. On the hawkishness, I think it's partly a pose, and partly pretty consistent with her husband's foreign policy positions. It weirds me out that Apo's so hard on her for that particular issue, given what a huge fan I think he (you, Apo) is of Bill.
295: See, that's why I love you. I can say something like that without you getting all defensive. Can I have your baby now?
That's the maddening thing about this sort of nonsense -- it's so petty that pointing out it isn't based on anything true looks insane.
295: Why can't we concentrate on the idea that she's the face of much of what is wrong with the Dems (let alone the DNC) these days and leave her titties bojubblies out of it?
299: Damn. I was trying really hard not to look insane!
302: it's a difficult thing, some days.
299: And refuting it just gets one dragged into analyzing her goddamn clothes.
Sometimes I think the mullahs have a point.
Clothes matter; people care. There was also lots of talk about Al Gore's clothes.
298: I truly believe that on the showboating issues (e.g., video games, "abortion is a tragedy") she is showing a great deal of integrity in talking about real problems that are very difficult to tackle through legislation.
I know people who would not vote for Gore, basically because of Lieberman's stance on games. They're kind of politically naive and I want to smack them a lot, but basically liberal none the less. I really think people need to put the games issue down and back away slowly, until we actually have a canidate who grew up playing them and is really conversant with them as a form of media.
See, that's why I love you. I can say something like that without you getting all defensive. Can I have your baby now?
Can they be baby marmosets? I love marmosets!
she is showing a great deal of integrity in talking about real problems that are very difficult to tackle through legislation
Video games are a real problem? This may be someplace where we differ.
Also, they are very difficult (I would argue, impossible) issues to tackle through legislation (whether important or not), so why keep doing it? It comes off to me as relentless pandering that has an outside chance of actually making my life crappier in some small way.
Don't get me wrong, all of this is Hillary in comparison to other members of the Democratic leadership/presidential field, who I mostly like a lot. Compared to, say, Shumer or Hoyer or (god forbid) Lieberman, she's a prize.
305: Right. And that has nothing to do with trying to portray Gore as a sissy.
When was the last time you saw an article about what the fucking Republicans wear?
Clothes matter; people care. There was also lots of talk about Al Gore's clothes.
There was lots of talk; probably not very many people would have cared had not some people in the media made a big deal out of it; clothes do not, in fact, matter.
Which was also insane bullshit. As Somerby (poster boy for 'even though this stuff is baseless and terribly damaging, devoting the attention necessary to refute it makes you look nuttier than the liars in the media') pointed out at great length, Gore kept on wearing the same clothes he'd always worn, as the media analyzed them as proof that he was redefining himself or in Naomi Wolf's thrall. There wasn't anything at all strange about his clothes -- it was all articles about nothing.
I take it y'all didn't see Givhan's great piece on Cheney's clothes?
There have certainly been plenty of articles about Bush's choice of outfits for various occasions.
The story at 312 certainly puts that "reporter" in a bit more context.
Political fashion is her beat. I think she just won a Pulitzer, actually.
Uh, why does the Washington Post have a political fashion reporter?
312: You know, I'd trade the Cheney article for shutting up about everyone else's clothes in a heartbeat, because it just doesn't matter. But if we have to address it substantively, don't you see a difference there? The illustration to the Cheney article is him and a dozen other world leaders, and he looks like "One of these things is not like the other ones..."; he's genuinely wearing something peculiar. Clinton, on the other hand, is wearing a perfectly ordinary professional woman's outfit.
That's an awesome article (Ogged, you are perpetually suprising), but I still agree with Bitch: this is an issue that the Democrats, and specifically HRC, get hammered on much much more, and she's been getting a really brutal version of it since Bill's canidacy. Quite possibly even before, if only in Arkansas.
316: Because we live in degenerate times.
what a huge fan I think he (you, Apo) is of Bill
Bill's out of office and basically harmless. I like him on a personal level, most certainly *not* on a policy level, where he was essentially a Rockefeller Republican. I'm okay with Hillary on a personal level, too. I just think she'd be about as wrong a nominee as the Party could put forward at this moment in history.
When was the last time you saw an article about what the fucking Republicans wear?
316: Because the RNC can't give every Late Night Shots darling an internship.
Clinton, on the other hand, is wearing a perfectly ordinary professional woman's outfit.
LB works the cleavage.
306: Marmosets, yes!
307: Well, look. I kind of had an epiphany about this while driving through the upper midwest once with PK a couple years ago. It was *impossible* to find a radio station that wasn't either Christian or playing awful, misogynist, racist, violent rap music. And although we watch very little tv, I have seen stuff even on "family friendly" shows that I thought was just gross for kids--sitcomes do a lot of that whole, "dad's a doofus, mom's the one in charge" stuff and use the words "bitch" or "ho" for laughs, and *dramas*, ick. Dead women, violence, racist stereotypes, cursing. It's really pretty awful.
Most educated liberal parents I know absolutely hate shopping at, say, Toys R Us. The girl shit is all about shopping, the boy shit is virtually *all* about violence and war. I'm not even kidding you. And there are a *lot* of sincere Christian types who object to these same things. I don't agree with their attitudes towards sex and sexuality, but I do agree with them that little girls shouldn't be wearing spaghetti strap tanks with sexy double entendres on them.
So I think that Hillary's campaign on this "protect our kids" stuff is actually very on target. YES there are first amendment issues at stake, and yes, I am hardcore about the first amendment. BUT it is also true that shit like Hooter's billboards and a hell of a lot of public advertising, and first-person shooter games, and kids toys, and television programming, is just really quite vile. And it *is* extremely difficult to insulate kids from that stuff. One of the best things about living in Canada while PK was 3-6 is that there's so much less of that nonsense, whereas here for god's sake, I just went to target today and all the thermoses for kids' lunch boxes are either pink hello kitty (which is fine, but PK is old enough to be self-conscious about that stuff sometimes) or else Spiderman or army camoflage. Which is *not* fine, because he is *not* old enough, imo, to get the message that adults think violence and fighting is cool. (And yes, he has toy guns, and yes I will go outside and we will have a water pistol fight. I'm not a prude about these things. But I do think that it is important for kids to get the message that Real Violence is not approved of by the larger society--which unfortunately, is not the case in the U.S.)
So that's why I think that the knee-jerk liberal ridicule of things like labelling music or video games, or objecting to easter eggs that let you have naked girls in GTA (or whatever the hell it was, I forget) is really pretty insensitive to what it is people are trying to get at with this stuff. It isn't prudery for its own sake. I'm not a prude. It's that popular culture = youth culture, and as work hours keep increasing and marketing to kids keeps infiltrating everything they do (schools, books, Little League--all that crap has to take marketing dollars, and PBS has been so underfunded that the "sponsor" announcements are now virtual commercials for sugary cereal just like commercial tv was when we were kids--while commercial tv is even worse), it is not enough to just say "well, turn off the tv, mom and dad."
Not so much. Bra discussions here always leave me feeling flatchested.
324: Bra discussions here leave Pam Anderson feeling flat-chested.
311, 312: One article is nowhere near the equivalent of the way that Gore's outfits and the looks/dress of every goddamn national female candidate become Major Issues. Come on. The only thing even remotely comparable is the uproar about Bush in a flightsuit, which wasn't happening in the mainstream media, and the uproar about Dukakis in a helmet, which was. B/c after all he's a (pussy) Democrat.
don't you see a difference there?
One is a straight-up criticism of what Cheney is wearing, the other notes that Clinton can't seem to settle on a look (she can't) and often makes weird choices (she does). I understand you don't want to talk about fashion at all, but that's because you're a big nerd lawyer. Howcome B isn't calling you elitist yet?
Yeah, I pretty much couldn't disagree with you more.
Ogged, honestly. This is almost trollish of you. Are you really completely unaware of how common press discussion of women candidate's clothing, makeup/hair, "style," etc. is?
315: And people were just saying the media in this country is broken. That'll show 'em.
328: Fair enough. But surely what I'm saying at least doesn't sound like crackpot prudishness, which is the way lefties usually talk about these things when they come up.
Howcome B isn't calling you elitist yet?
Because she's right. I love chitchatting about clothes on blogs or among friends. But (1) that's totally girly of me and definitely a manifestation of my own internalized sexism; and (2) that doesn't mean it's a legitimate political issue.
327: The thing is, that there's something concrete to criticize about what Cheney is wearing. You could take the picture, and tell a hundred people that the WaPo fashion reporter had written about it, and 90 of them would say "Oh, because he's wearing a parka and a stocking cap instead of a topcoat?" or some recognizable version. You could take the picture of Hilary and show it to the same hundred people, and I doubt you'd get anything like consensus about what's interesting about it. What happens to Hilary and Gore (and Edwards, and so on) is that any ordinary clothing decision gets used as a hook to hang completely random character issues from.
I have to admit that "crackpot prude" isn't the first thing that comes to mind when I think of you, B.
The issue isn't crackpot prudishness. It's about addressing those things with freaking *federal legislation*.
surely what I'm saying at least doesn't sound like crackpot prudishness
No, I just think it's entirely wrong about the role of free expression in our society, the causes of violence and sexism in our society, and the social costs of (just about) any restriction on speech, however crass and commercial it might be.
My mom wouldn't let me have toy guns or war toys as a kid. Did this make me, as a normal teenage boy, any less fascinated by images of violence and war? Of course not. Did my fascination with these things make me more likely to actually do violence to somebody? Of course not.
You could take the picture of Hilary and show it to the same hundred people, and I doubt you'd get anything like consensus about what's interesting about it.
Yeah, but so what? Isn't the fashion reporter supposed to be more attuned to what politicians' fashion choices mean? Unless you think she's saying something unfair, I don't see the problem.
Also what 337 said. Talk about bringing a neutron bomb to a knife fight, to recall one of my favorite violent images from my childhood.
338: I'm not saying that popular culture *causes* violence and sexism. It doesn't. What I'm saying is that steeping kids (and for that matter adults) in a culture where women are *constantly* presented as hypersexualized, and men are *constantly* presented as being powerful through violence, is unhealthy. It reinforces and perpetuates some of the grossest things about youth culture: the way that girls pimp themselves on MySpace or Suicide Girls, the way that guys act like macho buttheads.
You don't have to believe that making Spiderman jammies for 5-year olds when the movie comes out will cause date rape to feel that Spiderman is not a movie that's appropriate to market to 5-year olds.
337: Okay, that's a fine argument. I'm willing to have that argument. All I'm saying is that having the government try to address some of these cultural issues is *not* intrinsically evil--though it may very well be misguided, impossible, or ultimately kind of silly. It is a legitimate attempt (on H's part) (I think) to address something that is a national problem.
The issue isn't crackpot prudishness. It's about addressing those things with freaking *federal legislation*.
And also, I think, going about it in a stupid way. Worried about capitalism's effect on young kids? Regulate advertising to children.
If nothing else, I think it's a legit kind of thing to use the bully pulpit for, legislation aside.
343: Agreed 100%. Which should also include some kind of regulation prohibiting marketing non-G rated entertainment on kids' clothing, sheets, lunchboxes, in Happy Meals, etc.
341: look I'm not saying everything about our popular culture is awesome. I'm just saying that the idea of fixing it by banning things at a federal level I find utterly repellent, and completely counter to what I imagine free speech is trying to accomplish.
"I don't want my kid to see this, therefore you should not try to make or sell it to anybody," as an attitude, I can't hang with.
I am reminded a bit of this.
It is a legitimate attempt (on H's part) (I think) to address something that is a national problem.
This would be more believable if she gave any indications that she were worried about violence and misogyny more generally. By not co-hosting fundraisers with rappers, for example.
323: Actually, you inadvertantly hit the nail on the head with why I am very uncomfortable with HRC these days, and the liberal way of dealing with videogames and violence in the media and whatnot: while there is maybe a smidge of common ground to be had with evangelicals, on things like the sexualizing of little girls the impetus behind their positions is just as bad, if not worse. No, little girls shouldn't be wearing ho-tacular halter tops at age four, but that's because they are little people, and because women are not sex-and-babies machines, and if you do not come out and very clearly frame the issue in such a way that the feminist component of your argument is very clear, you are just helping the platform of the "women should be modest and chaste before marriage, and then submit to their husbands" assholes.
If I had a daughter, I would choose having to educate her about what all the "daddy's little girl" crap is and why she isn't allowed to wear it but why she can wear an unadorned tank top if she's hot, then having my only option be one of those hideous "modesty" smocks.
My parents raised me in a very feminist way in practical terms of what I was encouraged to do and how I was treated, but one of the things they failed at was actually explaining objectification and sexualization of women, and f'rex banned makeup and over-ruled certain items of clothing by saying things "no, you'll like a whore" or "that's trashy". I eventually sorted it most of it out on my own later on, but for a long time I had those kinds of attitudes towards women more femmey than I. If you don't explain the reasoning behind "don't sexualize yourself to look cool, honey" very very explicitly, it just reinforces the misogyny that produces that pressure to sexualize in the first place.
The problem with videogames/violence is that even in "violent", "realistic" games, the role of violence varies even within genre as broadly constructed, and the way politicians have traditionally talked about them just makes no sense if you are actually a gamer. To the point where they say things that are the equivalent of lumping violence in Apocalypse Now in with that of Saw II and Die Hard.
. But surely what I'm saying at least doesn't sound like crackpot prudishness,
Wanna bet? As MY has pointed out over and over again, the kids are alright. Also, agree with the second half of Apo: about addressing those things with freaking *federal legislation*.
See, I heard this a lot during the Reagan administration, that government had to address "family values". That shit gives me the slithering jibblies 1) because of which creepy Christofascist groups it ALWAYS empowers and 2) because if there's any body more poorly suited to address the moral issues involved with parenting than the federal government, I can't imagine what it would be. The UFC, maybe.
343/345: BUT. My point is that Hillary's the only candidate who is actually addressing this issue *at all*. Who the hell is proposing legislation about advertising to children? This kind of thing *is* more of an everyday bread and butter type issue to your average parent of small children than Guantanamo, and I'm sorry that's true, but, well, it is.
The problem with videogames/violence is that even in "violent", "realistic" games, the role of violence varies even within genre as broadly constructed, and the way politicians have traditionally talked about them just makes no sense if you are actually a gamer. To the point where they say things that are the equivalent of lumping violence in Apocalypse Now in with that of Saw II and Die Hard.
And really, isn't part of teaching kids the difference between fiction and reality helping them understand that things happen in fiction that should not or could not happen in reality, and that one way to understand the darker aspects of human nature safely is through fictional narrative? To my mind, that's a good thing.
OMFG, in 348 "can wear a tank top if she's hot" is supposed to imply high temperature in summer, not "is deemed worthy by standards of physical attractiveness". Wow, I suck.
353; I thought that was fantastic. Also, the part where women should be modest and chaste before marriage, and then submit to their husbands' assholes.
351: yes, well, I am not voting the issues-of-concern-to-your-average-parent-of-young-children ticket. I am voting the candidates-I-like-and-trust-not-to-be-totally-wrongheaded ticket. In my world, Guantanamo is a whole shitload more important than using the massive machinery of the federal government to make it harder for some 13 year old dork to blow up pixellated Nazis.
I'm going to subvert the heteronormative paradigm by forcing you all to submit to my asshole.
Who the hell is proposing legislation about advertising to children? This kind of thing *is* more of an everyday bread and butter type issue to your average parent of small children than Guantanamo
Parents could kill the effectiveness of advertising to children anytime they choose by not buying that shit. Last I checked, my kids don't have an income.
339: Yeah, but so what? Isn't the fashion reporter supposed to be more attuned to what politicians' fashion choices mean? Unless you think she's saying something unfair, I don't see the problem.
Haven't you been reading? I do think she's saying something unfair. Cheney showed up at a formal event dressed oddly informally, and while it's petty, I could maybe see that's worthy of comment. Hilary just wore ordinary clothing, and it's an excuse for column full of psychologizing about her.
This would be more believable if she gave any indications that she were worried about violence and misogyny more generally. By not co-hosting fundraisers with rappers, for example.
I have no clue what Timbaland's music is like. Is it, in fact, misogynist and violent?
349: The kids are alright. Hm. Sure, from within the culture, they look fine. But we also think (don't we?) that (e.g.) political discourse is really fucking warped by the macho posturing of College Republican types. Might that be related to the way machismo is marketed to kids? Mmmmmaybe.
350: I suspect part of the reason that evangelicals support the Rs is because the Ds have failed to admit that these kinds of things are issues. And yes, the Rs have combined legitimate parental concern over pop culture with misogyny and sexism and the worship of the free market into a pretty toxic stew. But that doesn't mean that "less marketing of bullshit to children" + maternity leave + national health care + lets quit acting like basement-dwelling 16-year olds when it comes to foreign policy isn't a perfectly valid and coherent message, and one that might very well reframe the whole "christian values" rhetoric into something that makes sense. Which is what we're always bitching about, isn't it?
Last I checked, my kids don't have an income.
You are so naive, gswift. They've got something better than income: credit!
But we also think (don't we?) that (e.g.) political discourse is really fucking warped by the macho posturing of College Republican types. Might that be related to the way machismo is marketed to kids? Mmmmmaybe.
Or mmmmmmmaybe not! Best to ban some shit just to be sure.
360.3 is a sensible enough political discussion to have, but it doesn't resemble anything I've ever seen HRC do, or itimate she might do, or anyone suggest she might do.
357: I don't buy my kids that shit either. But guess what? The parents of his schoolmates do.
Do you raise your kid in a skinner box?
But we also think (don't we?) that (e.g.) political discourse is really fucking warped by the macho posturing of College Republican types.
Young people, as I understand it, are markedly Democratic as of last election. I think there is chattering that suggests that Republicans are pretty worried about this.
362: All I am saying is that giving a shit about popular culture is not inherently stupid.
Do you raise your kid in a skinner box?
352: And really, isn't part of teaching kids the difference between fiction and reality helping them understand that things happen in fiction that should not or could not happen in reality, and that one way to understand the darker aspects of human nature safely is through fictional narrative? To my mind, that's a good thing.
Yes, although that says nothing about how things like CS and Quake deathmatching and even WoW PvP culture help perpetuate the "macho/yay violence/everyone but me sucks and is worthy of being beaten up" attitude in kids.
Hell, I play all those games, and I'm a big old librul SF feminazi dyke, and even I turn into an overly aggressive, trash-talking testosterone psycho asshole when I'm deathmatching or doing arenas. Sometimes in good ways, mostly not. Actually, I think I'm more of an asshole when I'm out ganking on my priest than when I'm playing FPSes, and I don't think that's what a person who hasn't played both games as a self-motivated gamer would guess as a first reaction to just watching or playing WoW and CS: Source.
366: Hillary Clinton's approach is, that's all I'm saying.
Giving a shit about patriotism and love of country isn't stupid either. Flag-burning legislation, on the other hand, most certainly is.
363: Again, I'm not saying the specific content of what she's proposed is awesome. I'm saying she's the only person running for president who seems to have even noticed that some people--okay, fine, not Sifu--are concerned about this stuff. You can't have an intelligent discussion if you ignore the issue entirely.
Yes, although that says nothing about how things like CS and Quake deathmatching and even WoW PvP culture help perpetuate the "macho/yay violence/everyone but me sucks and is worthy of being beaten up" attitude in kids.
370: Agreed. But surely you're not such a single-issue voter as all that.
I play all those games, and I'm a big old librul SF feminazi dyke,
I don't, but god knows I'm steeped in American culture in other ways. E.g., I shop way too much. And I'm quite capable of engaging in macho rhetorical pissing contests. I'm not entirely certain that that's a good thing.
surely you're not such a single-issue voter
I was using it as an analogy (sorry, Ogged). I've stated my single issue previously.
371: It's worth having a discussion about. There are many more important things to have discussions about at the moment (imo, of course). And her policies suck on some of those. On this issue, her approach has ranged from pandering to lightweight and ineffectual, but I'll agree that she's the only one talking about some of these things.
don't buy my kids that shit either. But guess what? The parents of his schoolmates do.
Well so what? I'm still not seeing the need for legislation. Aren't you the one getting on people's cases for criticizing how others raise their kids?
Darn it.
372 continued: I am not entirely convinced that children weren't violent before video games (or TV, or movies, or violent books). Of course, I don't believe that male aggresiveness is a purely social phenomenon, so maybe that's the sticking point.
373: Well, by "in a good way", I mostly mean the teamwork and camaderie, and occasional shows of sportsmanship in the face of various technical fuckups that would give one team an unfair an advantage, etc etc, not the macho assholism per se. Though they're not at unrelated.
And I'm quite capable of engaging in macho rhetorical pissing contests.
Better to do it here than someplace where it would actually matter.
In general, I think there's a massive post hoc ergo propter hoc problem with the way people understand violence in media. Our media is violent. Our society is violent. Therefore, media perpetuates violence. Huh?
377: I'm not either, but some of the social dynamics surrounding ganking, griefing, etc, are ones that get a much freer reign in videogame land than they normally would outside of it, but I'm not sure that they aren't encouraging a feedback loop. PvP servers, Arena point selling, and PvE-to-PvP: training up a whole generation of sociopathic libertarian assholes without so much as a glance at Atlas Shrugged!
(I'm embarrassingly ignorant, but interested in the conversation. What do 'ganking' and 'griefing' mean?)
381: but, like, Atlas Shrugged didn't manage to train a generation of sociopathic libertarian assholes despite being read by every 14 year old D&D playing geek in the country for decades now.
356: I can't believe I missed this. O-dog, I love you.
380: Isn't your`post' incorrect? The problem isn't ordered like that, it's an issue of correlation not implying causation. Or, to be properly elitist about it something like cum hoc ergo propter hoc, no? (Am I remembering that right? I suck at figuring out latin)
Unless, of course, you believe that violence in this society came after violence in the media, which would surprise me.
386: it would surprise me too, but wouldn't that be the implication of believing it was making things worse?
Whatever. Fuck a latin. The problem isn't exactly one of correlation vs. causality, because there hasn't even been that much evidence of correlation.
cum hoc ergo propter hoc
My cock is a logical proof.
This would be more believable if she gave any indications that she were worried about violence and misogyny more generally. By not co-hosting fundraisers with rappers, for example.
WTF? Ogged, do you actually know who Timbaland *is*? (At the moment, he's best known for producing Justin Timberlake's latest album, and for helping remake Nelly Furtado as a sex kitten.)
I think the claim is often exactly that correlation (we have a violent culture, we have violent media/kids are exposed to lots of violence) has a causal relationship.
It isn't hard to find a `comparable' country with less of both, but there are lots of confounding factors.
do you actually know who Timbaland *is*?
Of course not. But I did look up some of his lyrics and there was talk of killin'.
Eh, that definition of griefing doesn't line up to WoW's, and most of the ones for ganking don't either.
Ganking: killing people in a way that they conceive of as unfair due to some advantage.
Griefing: purposely going beyond that to try and fuck up someone's play experience, to the point of abusing game mechanics to do things that are technically against the rules, but still possible.
I use "ganking" in pretty loose way, generally just to mean "going out and intentionally picking fights with people minding their own business".
Well, but just off the top of my head Japan has obscenely violent media, and way less violent crime than the US.
But really, even if there were a strong, proven correlation, that still doesn't argue for abrogating the first amendment.
393: yeah, I think Japan is an outlier that way. And we have to think about whether `violent crime' is the right metric. But I think you'll find most (not all) of the `1st world' countries are lower, in some sense, on both counts.
They also don't really have guns, Sifu. And their culture is in some ways more, um... psychologically violent? than ours. All the school bullying and the humiliation gameshows and whatnot.
394, even without 1st amendment concerns, the part about `does not imply causation' means that affecting one won't necessarily help much.
Most 1st world countries produce way less media than we do. Most European countries, at least, also consume quite a massive amount of American media.
South Korea has more online gamers per capita than anywhere else in the world, and their murder rate is much lower than ours.
Timbaland produced "Big Pimpin.'"
You know I thug 'em, fuck 'em, love 'em, leave 'em / Cause I don't fuckin' need 'em / Take 'em out the hood / Keep 'em looking good / But I don't fuckin' feed emIt sends a message, whether Timbaland wrote those lines or not.
396: are you repeating 380 or disbeleiving that it's the wrong construct? There is nothign `post' about it, afaics.
397: hence the question of violent crime being the right metric (but what is?)
397: well, maybe? But that doesn't really strengthen the case that media is the problem.
396: I intentionally avoided italicizing because I wanted it to be clear I'm a rube with very little Latin knowledge.
They also don't really have guns, Sifu.
You know, since my point is "politicians should shut up about videogames until they understand them better", was their similar cultural hysteria about other forms of media when they emerged? I seem to recall some amusing moral panics about movies, but that's all.
was their similar cultural hysteria about other forms of media when they emerged?
Yes. Until about 1850, a lot of crusty old men were VERY concerned about young ladies reading novels, for example.
Let's pretend 396 never happened.
404: it's nothing new. I can't find a link, but jazz was often linked to social decay in its early days. There was Elvis and his hips as well, of course.
I am not entirely convinced that children weren't violent before video games (or TV, or movies, or violent books). Of course, I don't believe that male aggresiveness is a purely social phenomenon, so maybe that's the sticking point.
I'm not saying that kids weren't violent before video games or tv. Or that aggression (male *or* female, thankyou) is a purely social phenomenon.
Here's what I am saying.
1. Both liberals and cultural conservatives are concerned about the way that popular youth culture fetishizes sex and violence.
2. Caring about these issues as *national* issues is not crazy.
3. Clinton deserves credit for bringing this stuff up. It's politically smart *and* its a real issue.
4. Inasmuch as we react to (3) by ridiculing it or dismissing it, we perpetuate the idea that this real issue is something that "the left" doesn't care about. Which simply isn't true.
I am *not* saying that banning shit is the only possible reaction. I am not saying that specific solutions Clinton has proposed are brilliant or even particularly good. But as long as we react to these issues with this kind of libertarian "turn off the tv, watch out for your own personal family, it isn't the business of government to care about culture" line, we are not only buying into the reactionary right's way of seeing these things, we are perpetuating it.
Again, back to my epiphany about the radio. I ended up listening to watered-down whitey-white "gospel" on the drive because the only other alternative was "suck my cock, bitch, I'll put a cap in yo ass." Now the reason for that isn't that "liberals hate Jesus"; the reason for that is that radio programming and requirements about local ownership have been handed over to Clear Channel and the like by the Republicans under the guise of free market bullshit. It's not that hard for us to make that case: all the left needs to do is react to HC's proposed legislation by *acknowledging that the issue matters* and then pointing out where the *real* problem and solution lies. But we don't do that because we get all up in arms about censorship. We don't see the issue any more clearly than HC does. And our refusing to acknowledge that "our" arguments about video games and rap music are structurally very similar to "their" arguments about Fox News is not only politically stupid, it's self-defeating in terms of the intelligent discourse and real news that we're all (rightly) pissed off doesn't exist in the media. You don't have to censor rap music, or censor Fox News, to solve the problem: all you have to do is reintroduce the idea of local ownership and public interest. And maybe admit that rap music and video games are not "speech"--they're products (just as Fox News is a product). Local ownership and public interest safeguards *do* matter, a lot. They're real issues. The Heartland is as bothered by pop culture as we liberal coastal elites are--we just look at different aspects of it. I care about the kids because I'm a parent, so my midwestern drive gave me a window onto why The Heartland skews "conservative" on social issues. And another window onto the fact that they're not wrong to care about this shit, and that however fucked up the specific legislation Clinton's proposed may be, it *at least* has the benefit of making it *possible* for the Democrats/the left to bring this shit up.
If only we'd stop Hillary-bashing long enough to fucking do it.
I share with B and eleventy million other parents concerns about our violence-saturated culture, and it seems to me that someone who unapologetically voted to authorize the Iraq war has zero credibility on the issue of violence.
Oh, and as to other countries that present counterexamples to American pop culture: again, Canada. Hello? They've got legislation about the percentage of tv/radio programming that has to be Canadian-produced, which means there's less American gangstarap/Spiderman/kids-tv-that's-nothing-but-a-commercial-for-toys crap. They play video games, too. But they're a lot less confused about the difference between censorship and the marketing, the CBC is still a major source of news, and I'm telling you, Canadian elementary school kids are a lot less into superheroes, gun play, and machismo than American kids are.
Being told that videogames have made me violent by a politician who voted for the Iraq War is possibly the ultimate ludicrous insult.
And maybe admit that rap music and video games are not "speech"--they're products (just as Fox News is a product).
By this argument no work of fiction you've ever paid for is "speech".
Sure, local ownership is important. That is completely orthogonal to anything HRC has ever tried to do about the issue. I don't understand what's so useful about bringing up issues if you're on exactly the wrong side of them. I should be thankful to John Yoo for bringing up the idea of the unitary executive?
I also pretty much disagree with 1-4. You knew that, though.
But, sure, my negative reaction is totally blinkered sexism.
someone who unapologetically voted to authorize the Iraq war has zero credibility on the issue of violence.
Glib cheap shot. Almost everyone voted for the Iraq war. Making Hillary the whipping girl for that fact is (imho) yet another instance of holding women to a higher standard.
And with that, I'm off to pick up my child.
You know, that line about rap and Fox News not being speech is still bothering me. That is just utterly, utterly wrongheaded. Of course they're speech. They are exactly and specifically the kind of speech the first amendment was meant to protect.
And maybe admit that rap music and video games are not "speech"--they're products (just as Fox News is a product).
B, you rule, but no. Just no. If this is true for rap and games, it's true for every other form of creative expression that anyone has ever made a dime off of, and the "rap music is not speech" thing is really insanely racist.
I can just see it now, when I finally go postal and use all the skills WoW has taught me. First, I'm going to go buy 3200 rounds of Ironbiter Shells, twenty smoked hams and sixty cups of coffee. Then I'm going to sit down and drink coffee and eat ham until my mana bar refills and I am free of any wounds. Then I'm going to send my trained boar, BossHogg, after my first victim. I will stand idly by while my boar attacks them so that he can gain aggro and they won't notice me firing at them later. Everyone else will be blind to the huge, red arrow bouncing up and down over my victim's head. After a few seconds of this it'll be Arcane Shot, Serpent Sting, Auto Shot, Steady Shot, Auto Shot, Steady Shot, and on and on until they're dead. If they notice that they're being shot and they run towards me to fight back I'll just lay down and play dead. They'll go right back to fighting the boar.
Then I'm going to sit back down and drink coffee until my mana bar refills.
It's going to be so cool.
(Aside: /wave at Lunar - what server?)
414: Right. What they aren't is `News'.
416: Starts with T, ends with is not for you!
Ahem. Tichondrius, Alliance, 70 draenei priest.
You?
Worried about capitalism's effect on young kids? Regulate advertising to children.
ZOMG FIRST AMENDMENT
RESTRICTION ON TRADE
RESTRICTION ON PERSONAL CHOICE
NANNY STATE
DON'T WE HAVE BIGGER PROBLEMS? NOT THAT I WOULD WANT THE BUREAUCRATS TO FIX THOSE EITHER, LOL
You know, if you're going to regulate something hugely popular among children which trains them in how to be violent, why not start with, I don't know, Tae Kwon Do?
Glib cheap shot.
Bullshit. Misconstruing my comment to suggest that I'm making her the whipping girl for the Iraq war is the cheap shot. Her vote for the war was no worse than anyone else's, but more to the point, it was no better. If she thinks that video games are somehow more damaging to children than exposing them to actual slaughter, she has no credibility.
421 makes no sense at all. It might make a tiny amount of sense if you said "football" instead, but still.
It's not about "training" children to be some way. It's about creating an environment in which they get an idea of what the normal way to behave is.
Why do the titty discussions always go so wrong?
408 sounds pretty reasonable to me, too, though I don't have the time or the energy to argue for it in B's absence.
Her vote for the war was no worse than anyone else's
It is for me. As her constituent I wrote her TWICE to tell her that voting for the authorisation bill was a terrible idea.
424: And the normal way to behave is to kick people in the head? Because that's what Tae Kwon Do teaches you how to do, however much folderol about discipline or creating an environment of trust or learning appropriate boundaries you load it up with.
Excuse the extraneous "how" in 428.
428 is clearly in bad faith, so why bother. I'm going to go back to my flow cytometry now.
Lightning Bolt! Lightning Bolt! Lightning Bolt! Lightning Bolt!
That's got to be one of the cutest, dorkiest things I've ever seen.
Glib cheap shot. Almost everyone voted for the Iraq war. Making Hillary the whipping girl for that fact is (imho) yet another instance of holding women to a higher standard
Oh sweet jeebus. Is the claim that accountability is inherently misogynistic? Of the three main candidates, one was against the war, one has said he made a grievous mistake, and one is HRC. I can't even begin to fathom that.
430: it wasn't meant that way. If you can explain how you think it was, I'll happily attempt to rephrase.
I didn't know you were a biologist, CN.
425: You didn't subvert the heteronomative paradigm hard enough.
It's politically smart
This has not yet been shown to be true. She still has the highest unfavorable ratings of anybody running on either side and hasn't yet won anything that would require turning Republican votes Democratic. Maybe it's politically smart, or maybe it alienates just enough people on this side to elect President Thatoldguyfromlawandorder.
as long as we react to these issues with [...] "
it isn't the business of government to care about culture" line, we are not only buying into the reactionary right's way of seeing these things, we are perpetuating it
This doesn't even make sense. Nobody wants to regulate culture more than the reactionary right. It's the same mindset that wants parental notification laws for abortion and books removed from public school libraries and certaini types of political expression punishable by law. HRC is actively adopting the strategies of the reactionary right in a way.
I am not at all concerned with youth sex&violence media consumption.
I am in favor of parental-y times like momma hilary or uncle lieberman being against them, becuase it makes it that much more fun to blow people up / bump the hiphop.
Also, why are these chosen? its middle class values against outsidery groups that have less power: african americans, kids, gays, whatever.
Kicking people in the head is pretty important.
436: that doesn't seem true. Lots of people on the left want to regulate culture, but less to preserve tradional sex mores and reverance for king & country, than to prevent insult to oppressed groups.
[436 continued] ...in a way nobody else in the Democratic field does, now that Lieberman isn't a candidate.
Glib cheap shot. Almost everyone voted for the Iraq war. Making Hillary the whipping girl for that fact is (imho) yet another instance of holding women to a higher standard
"Oh sweet jeebus. Is the claim that accountability is inherently misogynistic? Of the three main candidates, one was against the war, one has said he made a grievous mistake, and one is HRC. I can't even begin to fathom that."
Most supporters of hillary say something about their identification with here being based on common feeling of being victimized as a woman. Taking them at their word.
Yes but its more common amoung actual left-wing people, as opposed to the moderate sorts that run for office as a democrat. See the way college campus speech codes work, non-printing of the danish mohammad cartoons, etc.
I wonder which video game these kids play.
FPS Doug with a more nuanced discussion of video games vs. real violence.
The army is just like FPS but has better graphics, and I heard that there aren't any respawn points! And what happens if I get lag out there?
446: See, that does kind of get on my nerves a little bit, because while I know it's humor and making a good point, there are a lot of gamers who basically make arguments like that to shut down any kind of discussion of videogames as a cultural medium at all. Which, you know, they are, just one that hasn't really been discussed intelligently yet. Just because Jack Thompson is, well, Jack Thompson, doesn't mean the subject should be taboo.
And now I pull a B and go fetch my parents from the airport!
I'd like to question the use of "most" in 443.
non-printing of the danish mohammad cartoons
That's the decision of individual businesses, not a federal mandate. Unless comparing apples and gas stations is the order of the day.
418: 70 Druid, Alliance, on Arygos though my guild started on Durotan and took the server transfer offer. Also obviously a Dwarf Hunter (66)... and, er, a 70 Gnome Mage, and a 51 Draenei Shaman, and, well, you get the idea. I'm an altaholic.
419: Adorable, especially the sole enthusiastic applauder.
446: Agree and disagree. Depending on what my day's been like I either hand-wave it away as mindless entertainment or endorse it as a great way to build cooperative skills (I'm currently trying to convince my guild leader that yes, it really would be OK to list that on her c.v.); either way, I think there are artistic and cultural aspects unique to videogames that haven't yet been effectively or thoroughly explored.
And now, weekend!
447: there are a lot of gamers who basically make arguments like that to shut down any kind of discussion of videogames as a cultural medium at all.
I'm not exactly sure what "arguments like that" refers to, but I will just say that as the father of 3 multiple-character 70s I am very willing and eager to discuss videogames as a "cultural medium". (And I would take "FPS Dave" and the like as quite interesting contributors to that discussion.) In fact I think it is one of the most important and interesting cultural phenomenon of recent times. (...and yes I realize that that statement probably goes a long way towards explaining the place of video/computer games in my family's so-called life.) I will just say that although Scott Orson Card is a total flaming a-hole, you can't take away his great insight in the original Ender's Game novella (all downhill from there) - pretty prescient to get that in the '70s. My semi-serious prediction: much worklife sometime in the next 10-20 years will start to resemble guilds and raids on WoW, interspersed with IM and videochat sessions.
.. and ZOMG those Chinese gold farmers are going to pwn us!
451: From what I have observed, managing some of the more interesting/ambitious guilds does indeed take some very people interesting skills that are of great value in the workplace. But I understand the ambivalence, because it also indicates potential time management/priority issues. (it reminds me a bit of the joke/Urban Legend about the resume of someone who had all this great skill managing a large fluid multinational organization - which was a drug smuggling ring.)
I haven't read this thread, but I've pointed this out here before and I'll point it out here again. AFAICT the evidence that video games cause violence is pretty strong consensus (pdf) and is widely considered so among psychologists. (If someone with a deeper familiarity with and understanding of the literature wants to contradict me on this, cool.) I don't really have an opinion on what should be done about it. I just think it's an answerable empirical question, that appears, again, AFAICT, to have evidence strongly tending in one direction. The "it didn't make me violent" sort of introspection isn't relevant; "video games cause violence" doesn't mean "this single factor is enough in itself to make someone violent"; it means, "it's one disinhibiting factor, that in combination with others and in the presence of a stressor could enable a violent response." Obviously if an individual has lots of other characteristics that would inhibit violence, exposure to violent media wouldn't make that person more aggression-prone.
Sorry, the linked word there is supposed to be "strong," not "consensus." Strike "consensus."
That's interesting, Tia. I'll have to read it more closely. The valid objections they list in the study do seem fairly valid to me, but of course that could easily just be confirmation bias.
And here's an APA statement. It's regarding television and movies that there's something like consensus (or at least, that's my impression). Apparently, the APA feels comfortable with this declarative statement: "Fifty years' of research on violent television and movies has shown that there are several negative effects of watching such fare." Anyway, I'm not saying I've personally critically reviewed all this literature, just that I get the sense that the people who have generally think the balance of evidence supports the claim that violent media have harmful effects, including causing aggression.
Both liberals and cultural conservatives are concerned about the way that popular youth culture fetishizes sex and violence....But as long as we react to these issues with this kind of libertarian "turn off the tv, watch out for your own personal family, it isn't the business of government to care about culture" line, we are not only buying into the reactionary right's way of seeing these things, we are perpetuating it.
What Apo said.
Making govt. "care about culture" is straight up fundie wingnut goodness.
436: She's had unfavorable ratings since before Bill was elected. That's obviously got jack shit to do with her opinions about video games.
And look, caring about culture is *not* a right wing hangup. I refuse to concede that to the fundies. The entire idea of the "public good," and the old laws requiring broadcasters to devote X percent of their broadcast time to public affairs or local programming, or requiring X percent of children's programming to be educational--all that is "cultural issues." We used to care about that shit.
"rap music is not speech" thing is really insanely racist.
Fair enough. What I was trying to say is a lot like what was being said (sometimes) in the HP threads--that gangsta rap's popularity isn't demand-driven; it's marketing driven.
But okay, point retracted about that and Fox News. Although I still think FN is propaganda, and that the first amendment was intended to protect speech *critical of* the government, *not* to protect government propaganda in connection with international wealth for the purpose of shaping public opinion. Admittedly, though, with the laws we've got we can't (I can't, anyway) figure out how to, say, ban hate speech, so, eh.
451: Oh cool, is your druid feral, resto, or boomkin?
I have a 70 gnome mage, 70 druid, and 60+ gnome warrior as well, so I'm also an altaholic, but the priest is the only one geared worth a thing. SUPER NERD CONFESSION: I had a 60 human priest before BC who I managed to get Rank 14 with and who had 5/8 T3, but I wound up splitting her off to another account selling her to a guildie after I took a loooooong break before BC once Naxx started to lose it's appeal.
452: I'm not saying everyone who makes these kind of statements is trying to stifle dialogue, but that from being immersed in the culture and working with a lot of people whose involvement in the industry maybe makes them a bit oversensitive, there is a lot of institutionalized resistance to having these kind of discussions. There's a reason Terra Nova is basically a running joke to a lot of people I know, unfortunately.
(Woo, off to dinner now)
this seems like less of a left-right divide than a hanging-onto-rebellion 20/30something libertarian/liberals VS. psychotically overprotective conservative/nannystater parents divide
The entire idea of the "public good," and the old laws requiring broadcasters to devote X percent of their broadcast time to public affairs or local programming, or requiring X percent of children's programming to be educational--all that is "cultural issues." We used to care about that shit.
I look on Hillary's site, and what do I see about local programming and educational programming? Jack shit. Instead we get this nonsense.
Protecting children against violence and sexual content in the media and studying the impact of electronic media on children's cognitive, social, and physical development.
Bah. My kids turn 10 and 8 in the next couple months. They've been exposed to violent media for years not because it's been forced into my home somehow, but because I don't care. They like watching First Blood, Jaws, and Unleashed. They like playing Halo. And yet, in spite of this hellish upbringing, they are friendly, well behaved little girls.
460: Thanks for the Terra Nova link - not a place that I was aware of.
Although I believe they are a very important cultural medium, I certainly am not in the "It's all good" camp. My personal concerns tend to be along the potential stifling effect on meatworld socialization and becoming inured to technologically-mediated violence - but my feelings on that are informed only by introspection and limited personal observation.
BTW, here is a link to an FPS Doug YouTube. Not recommended for the overly earnest (not directed at anyone in particular, just saying).
462: they are friendly, well behaved little girls.
That's just what the shocked neighbors always say on the TV interviews.
Okay, so I will totally concede that people are influenced by media, and those influences can be both positive and negative, and that you almost certainly see both kinds of influences in video games. How you get from there to figuring out that violent video games are, as a net, bad, and how you further get from there to thinking the federal government has a plausible solution, I don't know.
As far as the public interest stuff, that was very valuable, and I think having government funding going towards developing positive, educational media in whatever form is great. I love PBS, I loved Sesame Street, I think they were hugely useful and important to millions of children. There should be more things like them. On the other hand, I think ratings systems are mostly a shell game, and usually serve to line the pockets of entrenched interests, and I don't think they do anything to keep anyone from seeing anything. I certainly think parents should be aware - and video game companies should help make parents aware - of what's in games, and I'm even okay with fairly stringent regulation of what gets marketed to kids when, because they don't have the same ability to filter that adults do. But I think it's easy to look at the apparent negatives of something like a violent video game or gangster rap and not understand how it can have any value, when in fact it can have all sorts of positive social value for all sorts of people.
Anyhow. Enough about the negative effects of violent media imagery. What about the rehabilitative effects?
460: Feral, always and forever, even back pre-1.7 or 1.8, whenever it was they redid the Feral tree so that it wasn't a shapeless void. (For that matter, Marksmanship, Deep-Fire Elementalist and Enhancement for leveling purposes, respectively.)
I'm willing to believe that videogames can have negative effects as well as positive ones; so can anything, and I say that not in the sense of so what? but as an admission that if I'm willing to believe TV has an effect on people, especially kids - and I do - that I have to be honest with myself and include videogames in those experiences that may be formative. At the same time, aware though I am that my beliefs based on personal anecdote don't stack up next to considered, collected evidence of experts in a field, I keep getting hung up on two things: it's such a mediated experience that I honestly don't see how a game can teach anything mechanical and, frankly, for all the games I've played where I shot guns I still physically recoil at the sight of a real gun.
With full knowledge that at 32 I am (I hope) better at this than the average tween, the difference between the fiction and the reality are just so glaringly obvious to me that I can't take seriously a blurring of the two from anyone otherwise competent. Anyone who can't tell the difference between whacking a virtual Nazi upside the head with the butt of their rifle in MOHAA and shooting a classmate was already fucked up to begin with.
I think that games are so unrealistic - they really are, no matter what the makers claim about graphics and water effects and pixel counts - that even very violent videogames have a jarring effect on suspension of disbelief. Games have caused me to jump in my chair, to startle, to refuse to play certain of them in the dark, but it's always been very easy to separate that experience out from reality. I am generally dubious of any position that doubts that capacity in my fellow nerds.
Anyway, as Sifu says, enough about games. I refer to them because I know more about them than a lot of cited culprits - rap, for instance - and I find them a comfortable topic. Just pretend that here's where I launched into an even lengthier rant about the traditional position that horror movies reflect our collective fears and my pet theory that contemporary average levels of gore in film have an inverse relationship to the level of genuine fear we feel as a society; I'm going to call it a night instead.
Okay, I need to stagger back to bed now, but I just have to point out the sublime beauty of this thread to the WoW-playing populace. For all it's probably horribly unfair to Teo, but still, I lol'ed.
She's had unfavorable ratings since before Bill was elected. That's obviously got jack shit to do with her opinions about video games.
The question is whether it's politically smart. Has it helped HRC politically? The jury is out. She's won a Senate seat in a solidly Democratic state.
caring about culture is *not* a right wing hangup
Sigh. What we are saying is that addressing it through the sledgehammer of federal legislation is. This is not a nitpicky difference. The examples you give involve public broadcast airwaves, which were/are viewed as a common resource, like mining on federal lands. Look, part of the problem Democrats have had over the past few decades is that they are seen (rightly or wrongly) as finger-wagging busybodies. Stunts like HRC's video game nonsense only help to reinforce that image.
I mean, I care about kids getting bullied in schools, too. But the federal government doesn't have any meaningful role to play in addressing that either.
