Tag: Premium

Maureen O’Connor, who is quickly carving out the TMI beat, declares that “butt stuff” is officially in:

What [my friend and I] were talking about was heterosexual anal play—not treating the anus like the vagina’s pervier cousin, useful merely for penile penetration, but actually pleasuring it.

That kind of “butt stuff” does seem to have reached a tipping point in straight culture, at least to judge from magazines devoted to conventional gender roles. Playboy published an essay on rim jobs last year, and Cosmo followed suit with a how-to guide a few weeks ago. (“If you are performing anilingus on a hairy guy, just part the hair with your hands.”) And while we’re familiar with the idea that anal sex is getting more and more common, a less talked-about side effect is the rise of “anal messing around”: The CDC reports that 44 percent of straight men and 36 percent of straight women say they have had anal sex, and an academic study found that 51 percent of men and 43 percent of women who’ve had anal sex have also participated “in oral-anal sex, manual-anal sex, or anal sex toy use.” And once the ass is in play, it’s more likely to get played around with: Half of straight men who’ve had anal sex, and one in ten who haven’t, report having inserted a finger up a sex partner’s butt in the previous month. “Oral is the new sex, and rim jobs are the new oral,” a male friend proposed. …

But why? Transgressing a nasty boundary is, for some, part of the appeal. For those people, filth—symbolic and, yes, literal—is a plus. “Do you know why I’m doing this?” a man once asked as he reached for my butt­hole after sex. “Because you know I don’t like it?” I responded. “And for the smell on my hands,” he replied. My horrified reaction seemed only to delight him further.

Update from a reader:

Sex and the City handled this topic much more succinctly (and hilariously) more than a decade ago. The scene starting at :27 is where the good stuff starts:

Best. SATC scene. Ever.

Another:

*Sigh* Everyone who’s been reading Dan Savage since the very early days (His “Hey, Faggot” column in The Onion was essential reading when I was a college freshman in Milwaukee) already knows the pleasure of the Rim Job. And although I’ve forgotten names and faces and classes and everything else about my doomed first freshman year, I can still recite Dan’s sacred rules for ass-licking:

1. Shower, Shower, Shower

2. Look before you lick

3. Never give a rim job to somebody who won’t kiss you immediately afterward.

Another:

I’m mildly dyslexic, so I damn near did a spit-take when I read “Best. SCAT scene. Ever.” at the end of the reader comment.

Happy Monday!

The Puzzle Facade project transformed a building in Linz, Austria into a giant, solvable Rubik’s cube:

In Puzzle Facade the player interacts with the specially designed interface-cube. The interface-cube holds electronic components to keep track of rotation and orientation. This data is sent over Bluetooth to a computer that runs the Puzzle Facade designed software. This software changes the lights and color of the large-scale Ars Electronica’s media facade in correlation to the handheld interface-cube. Due to the nature of this building and its surroundings, the player is only able to see two sides at the same time. This factor increases the difficulty of solving the puzzle, but as the player is able to rotate and flip the interface-cube, it is not a blocking factor.

In other large-scale gaming news, designers recently honored Philly Tech Week by repurposing a building to host a massive game of Tetris:

The Tetris building was designed by Frank Lee of Drexel University and forms a sequel of sorts to the game of Pong, which he set up on the face of the same building last year and which, until this point, held the Guinness record for Largest Architectural Video Game Display. Tetris works by lighting up coloured LEDs that are attached to the shadow box spandrels on the building. But where Pong only made use of one side of the building, Tetris covers both the north and south faces.

Paul Bisceglio relays a new study showing a “strong correlation” between underage drinking and musicians name-dropping specific alcohol brands:

During the interviews, [the 15- to 25-year-old] participants were told the titles of radio hits from 2005 to 2007 and asked if they liked the songs and could name any alcohol brands mentioned in them. After their responses were controlled for factors including sex, race, socioeconomic status, and friends’ and parents’ alcohol use, participants who liked the songs and remembered a number of brands were up to twice as likely as others to have binged at least once. Even simply liking alcohol-referencing songs was associated with more drinking.

Julie Beck elaborates:

The survey found that those who scored highest on the measures of “alcohol song receptivity” were three times as likely to have ever had a drink, and two times as likely to have binged than those who scored lowest. Those who were able to identify at least one brand mentioned in a song were at higher risk in both of those categories. “A surprising result of our analysis was that the association between recalling alcohol brands in popular music and alcohol drinking in adolescents was as strong as the influence of parental and peer drinking, and an adolescent’s tendency toward sensation-seeking,” Brian Primack, the study’s lead author, said in a press release.

The legal implications:

“In terms of policy,” said Primack, “it is worth considering whether or not payment to music stars by alcohol companies is in violation of current guidelines. For example, the Distilled Industries Council of the U.S., or DISCUS, states that ‘Alcohol advertising and marketing materials should portray alcohol products and drinkers in a responsible manner.’ This text is vague and challenging to interpret. However, if you watch a few music videos by stars who are spokespeople for alcohol companies, you would likely come away questioning whether these messages portray ‘alcohol products and drinkers in a responsible manner.’ Thus, it may not be a question of enacting new legislation, but rather one of simply enforcing current legislation.”

Update from a reader:

Hold on one second. This sounds like a classic example of “correlation or causation?” My personal guess is with “correlation.”

As Bisceglio notes, the researchers said: “it is also highly plausible that music-oriented adolescents who develop favorable attitudes about drinking for other reasons could be drawn to genres that promote drinking and often mention brands.” That sounds to me to be a lot closer to the truth. I mean, what kind of music name-checks booze brands anyway? For the most part, party music.

Sure, a lot of music involves drinking and mentions booze, but country songs and the “old barfly” music (e.g. Steely Dan) my dad listens to (I’m 25) tend to be a little more general: whiskey, gin, wine, whatever, sure. But not Grey Goose or Jack. The genres where singers drop references to alcohol brands are the current Standard Average Commercial Pop and glam rap. It stands to reason that the kids who party a lot would like party music – else they probably wouldn’t be there (I certainly wasn’t, in large part because I found the music even more obnoxious than the company).

In general terms, from what I gather, in every age there’s always “that crowd” of kids who start drinking young and start drinking a lot. They listen to the same music, perhaps in part because they like it, but mostly because musical taste is a pretty good way to set up an “in-group.” It’s stereotypical, but yes, younger folks have been defining themselves by the kind of music they listen to for a long time. It just so happens we’ve reached a point in our cycle that our Standard Average Pop Music name-checks alcohol brands, probably recognizing that the people who listen to this music tend to drink a lot. It may very well be advertising (as an aside, Andrew, nowhere in the Universe is the “z” spelling correct), but it probably isn’t significantly expanding the market for booze; it’s probably trying to tap into existing demand, so that when these drunk party kids have money to spare for decent liquor, they’ll choose this brand and not the other.

(Full disclosure: I was listening to Steely Dan and Ryan Adams and sipping on a local craft beer while writing this. See what I mean?)

On Thursday, Kiss was inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. Chuck Klosterman, who has written about the band “semiconstantly for the past 20 years,” celebrates their success while acknowledging “there’s never been a rock group so easy to appreciate in the abstract and so hard to love in the specific”:

Kiss do not make it easy for Kiss fans. … They inoculate themselves from every avenue of revisionism, forever undercutting anything that could be reimagined as charming. They economically punish the people who care about them most: In the course of my lifetime, I’ve purchased commercial recordings of the song “Rock and Roll All Nite” at least 15 times (18 if you count the 13-second excerpt used in the introduction to “Detroit Rock City” on Destroyer). … To “qualify” as a Kiss supporter, you have to be a Kiss consumer. And this is nonnegotiable — it doesn’t work any other way. If you try to enjoy Kiss in the same way you enjoy Foghat or Culture Club or Spoon, you’ll fail. You might like a handful of songs or appreciate the high-volume nostalgia, but it will inevitably seem more ridiculous than interesting. To make this work, you need to go all the way. And this is because the difficult part of liking Kiss — the manipulative, unlikable part — is how you end up loving them.

Here’s a statement only a fool would contradict:

There’s never been a band inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame whose output has been critically contemplated less than the music of Kiss, at least by the people who voted them in. I can’t prove this, but I’d guess 50 percent of the voters who put Kiss on their Rock Hall ballot have not listened to any five Kiss records more than five times; part of what makes the band so culturally durable is the assumption that you can know everything about their aesthetic without consuming any of it. That perception doesn’t bother me, and I certainly don’t think it bothers the band. In many ways, it works to their advantage. But I definitely disagree with anyone who thinks these albums are somehow immaterial. It’s traditionally hard to get an accurate appraisal on their value, because most people who write about Kiss either don’t care at all or care way too much. My publishing this essay arguably puts me in the latter camp (and the argument is not terrible). But it doesn’t feel that way. I know what I know: A few of these records are great, most are OK, several are bad, and some should be buried in sulphur.

Continuing the endless quest to determine the Great American Novel, Michael Dirda steps back and ponders the Great Novels of other countries:

Readers around the world have already elected Gabriel Garciá Márquez’s One Hundred Years of Solitude as the Great Latin-​American Novel. But is India’s central work of fiction Salman Rushdie’s Midnight’s Children—​or could it be Rudyard Kipling’s panoramic Kim, which captures so much of the subcontinent’s rumbustiousness and variety? In Australia Henry Handel Richardson’s saga-​like The Fortunes of Richard Mahony still battles for top honors against Patrick White’s more intense Voss. Though Goethe remains Germany’s leading contributor to Weltliteratur, his finest prose work, Elective Affinities, may be too Mozartian, too heartbreaking to be called the Great German Novel. I suspect that the GGN’s author is, inevitably, Thomas Mann, though whether for Buddenbrooks, The Magic Mountain, or Doctor Faustus remains open to debate.

Dirda brings the debate back to the States with a comment on Lawrence Buell’s The Dream of the Great American Novel:

In his epilogue … Buell returns to the current validity of the GAN ideal. For many writers and readers today, the all-​American super-​novel must seem, on the surface, utterly outmoded in an age when literature has grown increasingly global and transnational. Yet Buell argues that the GAN isn’t necessarily a representation of jingoist brag, and that its greatest exemplars have usually offered diagnoses of our nation’s fragilities and failures, especially with regard to race and class. Given the fraught nature of twenty-​first-​century American life, whether one looks at the increased stratification of our society or the overall loss of status of the United States in the world community, there should be every expectation that the “national” novel will continue to offer writers a form in which to capture and critique the way we live now. After all, the GAN merely exemplifies a more operatic version of what all art aspires to do: structure the chaos of experience, give clarity to complexity, transform a world of troubles and confusion into a thing of beauty and a joy forever.

Previous Dish on the GAN here, here, here, and here.

In a review of Linda Leavell’s biography of Marianne Moore, Bruce Bawer describes the poet’s exceedingly bizarre home life. After a brief stay at college, Moore returned to live with her “terribly sick and suffocatingly possessive mother—a woman who, quite calculatingly, set out to imprison [her children] in a hermetically sealed little world of their own with its own peculiar customs, moral codes, and rules of behavior, all of them determined exclusively by her”:

Consider this: [Moore’s mother] Mary established a pattern whereby Marianne, in family conversations and correspondence, was invariably referred to as a boy and identified only with male pronouns. Furthermore, Mary encouraged the siblings to regard each other as “lovers,” and to think of her as their “lover,” too. (In a letter to [Marianne’s brother] Warner, for instance, she told him: “you are Mr. Fang’s lover”—Mr. Fang being one of their names for Marianne—and in another letter she described Warner as being her “lover, father, and son all in one.”)

But maybe domestic despotism is what allowed Moore to thrive creatively:

[T]he closest thing Marianne had to an escape from life with Mary was her poems. A key fact about them, underscored by Leavell, is this:

On the one hand, she “could never have become the poet she was without the four years away from her mother at Bryn Mawr,” where she first became part of a creative community and found the freedom and confidence to forge a poetic voice of her own—in reaction, one might say, to the family language Mary had invented—and where, taking biology courses, she was drawn to the rigorous language of science. On the other hand, it was being back home under Mary’s thumb that made her feel compelled to write—compelled to escape from the world Mary had fashioned (itself an escape from the real world) into a literary landscape of her own devising.

Many of Moore’s poems, Leavell reminds us, feature “camouflaged and armored animals” that are “misunderstood, self-reliant, and invariably solitary”—a manifest reflection, of course, of Marianne’s own circumstances. But the poems, as any reader of Moore well knows, are the very opposite of cries of the heart. Mary, after all, read every word—so raw confession, or anything close to it, was not an option. Hence Marianne was forced to devise what amounted to a new type of poem, stunning at the time, not only for being syllabic in form (something which was previously all but unheard of in serious English poetry) but, perhaps even more so, for its extraordinary, even clinical, degree of precision and dispassion. … [J]ust as so much of the power of first-rate Iron Curtain poets like Joseph Brodsky and Czeslaw Milosz can be accounted for by the terrible pressure of the circumstances under which their poems were composed, so the strength of Moore’s own work owes much to the fact that she, like them, created it while living under an iron-fisted tyranny. Only in Moore’s case, the tyranny was that not of a totalitarian state but of a little old lady.

Previous Dish on Moore here.

Tara Isabella Burton reviews The Collected Stories of Stefan Zweig, pronouncing the Austrian writer a master of psychological complexity who has “lapsed into an undeserved obscurity”:

His worlds are dream-like, their atmosphere colored by a memory that is, more often than not, unreliable. In the 22 stories that comprise Pushkin Press’s new Collected Stories, expertly and atmospherically translated by Anthea Bell, most are told through concentric circles of narrative — unobtrusive narrators meet the tale’s real raconteurs on board ships, trains from Dresden, and guest houses on the Riviera. Each level of narrative adds a degree of nostalgic uncertainty, a veil of emotions through which facts become ever more vague.

Zweig has sometimes been criticized for an excessive tendency to whitewash, to create a vision of pre-war Central Europe that is, as Robert S. Wistrich puts it, “gilded, sanitized [and] pure nostalgia.” But such a reading of Zweig fails to take in account his pronounced sense of tragedy. He treats the personal and the political with equal sensitivity: the atrocities of war are no more surprising than the atrocities of human nature from which they spring. While it’s easy to accuse Zweig of too-ready nostalgia — of falling in love with a world, a place, a time, that never really existed — such a reading is simplistic. The vanished world Zweig longs for is never really just the Vienna of 1900. It is the world of our childhoods, of our illusions, of the faith we have in human goodness that the world so often does not confirm.

Burton notes the author’s influence on Wes Anderson, remarking that the director’s latest film, The Grand Budapest Hotel, “does much to bring Zweig’s particular brand of elegiac to the screen”:

From Zweig’s almost cloying candy-colored atmospheres — virtually tailor-made for Anderson’s brand of visual whimsy — to the inevitability of global catastrophe, casting a pall over even the happiest moments of domestic comfort, The Grand Budapest Hotel manages to capture nearly all of Zweig’s most striking qualities.

Jason Diamond also picks up on Anderson’s inspiration, and hopes the filmmaker will bring Zweig’s work a bigger audience:

“It’s more or less plagiarism,” Anderson recently told the press about the huge influence Zweig’s work had on his latest film, Grand Budapest Hotel. Zweig, who Anderson pointed out was among the biggest writers in Europe in the 1920s and ’30s, never attained the sort of popularity in America that he did on his own continent. …

Zweig’s story, unfortunately, will never quite have the rosy glow of most Anderson films no matter how many of his books sell, considering the tragic way his life ended. Constantly in exile beginning in the early 1930s, the Jewish author and his wife, Lotte Altmann, escaped his home country of Austria to avoid Nazi persecution. As the couple roamed from England to America before finally ending up in Brazil, Zweig felt more and more hopeless about the course humanity was taking, as well as his own constant running. In his suicide note, he explained, “to start everything anew after a man’s 60th year requires special powers, and my own power has been expended after years of wandering homeless. I thus prefer to end my life at the right time, upright, as a man for whom cultural work has always been his purest happiness and personal freedom — the most precious of possessions on this earth.” Zweig and Lotte were found dead from a barbiturate overdose, holding hands in their bed.

(Video: Trailer for The Grand Budapest Hotel)

High Cotton author Gerard Helferich visited farms in Mississippi to examine “the forces that have exiled cotton from its historic homeland and to ponder what its loss means for farmers, for others in the industry, and for the rest of us”:

In the end, what is gained and what is lost by the Delta’s shift away from cotton? It’s clear that if Mississippi farmers never harvested another boll, the world would still have plenty of the fiber to meet its needs. The region’s residents may miss the sight of cotton nodding in the fields and the evocative scent of fresh-​picked lint. Those whose livelihood depends on the crop, such as brokers and gin workers, have already suffered from cotton’s retreat. The local economy has been pinched, as cotton’s greater capital investment and higher employment needs have drained away. … Excluding [Quito Gin owner David] Grossman, every farmer I spoke with believes that he is better off for diversifying his crops. In fact, as I’ve talked to growers large and small over the past few months, I’ve heard very little nostalgia for cotton.

Yet “even as the creation of the finished product disappeared from the US economy,” observes Matthew MacFarland, “demand for American cotton in the global textile sector has only grown: Exports’ share of domestic cotton production has expanded from 32 percent in 1948 to 74 percent in 2012.” He examines the bottom line as the product moves to cheaper labor markets:

Enter Bangladesh, a country whose garment exports have skyrocketed from a mere $6.4 million in 1983 to $21.5 billion in 2012. Bangladesh’s ready-​made garment (RMG) industry has been the sole force behind the country’s rapid industrialization, shifting its economy away from agriculture and toward manufacturing and drawing a rural population into the churning city of Dhaka. … The Bangladesh RMG industry gets most of its cotton from India and Uzbekistan, countries that trail the US in terms of sheer cotton exports but whose proximity makes for cheaper and easier trade. But while the likelihood of an American farmer’s cotton ending up in Bangladesh is low, a piece of clothing made in a Bangladeshi factory has a one in four chance of ending up in the US and a 50 percent chance of ending up in the European Union. In other words, on the supply side, American cotton and Dhaka factories are cousins several steps removed. In terms of demand, the relationship between Western retailers—​and consumers—​and the RMG industry is more directly causal. Including the Pacific Ocean, 8,500 miles lie between Yazoo City and Dhaka—​but that distance vanishes between here and any local mall.

Previous Dish on the costs of clothing here, here, and here.

(Photo of “September in the Delta” in Leflore County, Mississippi, 2006, by Natalie Maynor)

David Crane reviews Ian Morris’s new book War: What is it Good For? The Role of Conflict in Civilisation, from Primates to Robots, which posits that “in the long run, the very, very long run, ‘productive war’ has always made the world a safer and richer place for the losers as well as the winners”:

It is conceivable, in theory, that there are other ways of taming man’s capacity for violence, but if the European Union (hiding behind the American Leviathan) has at least temporarily succeeded in boring and regulating a continent into relative docility, pretty well the only force through history capable of creating the Leviathans big and strong enough to cage William Golding’s ‘beast within’ and bully, bribe and coerce the levels of violence down is, paradoxically, war. ‘Lord knows there’s got to be a better way,’ Morris quotes the song,

but apparently there isn’t. If the Roman empire could have been created without killing millions of Gauls, if the United States could have been built without killing millions of Native Americans … if conflicts could have been resolved by discussion instead of force, humanity would have had the benefit  of larger societies. But that did not happen … People hardly ever give up their freedom, including their rights to kill and impoverish each other, unless forced to do so, and virtually the only force strong enough to bring this about has been defeat in war, or fear that such a defeat is imminent.

This winter, The American Scholar asked Morris to pose questions about the future of conflict. One of his open queries:

Late in the 20th century, anthropologists learned that feuding and war were extremely common among the world’s last surviving Stone Age societies. On average, something like 10 to 20 percent of people in these societies died violently, and archaeologists suggest that similar rates applied in prehistoric Stone Age societies. In 20th-century industrialized societies, by contrast—despite two world wars, the use of atom bombs, and multiple genocides—just one to two percent of people died violently. And as Steven Pinker pointed out in his recent book, The Better Angels of Our Nature, in the 21st century the rate is, so far, well below one percent. Why, even though our weapons keep getting more destructive, has the risk that anyone among us might die violently fallen so much? Can that trend continue?

Lizzie Wade questions the practice of raising endangered birds with puppets before releasing them into the wild:

These animals don’t cause as much trouble as marauding gangs of adolescent condors, but they can wind up with their own mysterious behavioural issues. Puppet-reared whooping cranes, for example, have trouble incubating their eggs in the wild; they will often abandon their nests mere days before the eggs are due to hatch.

John French, Patuxent’s research manager and head of the crane programme, has a couple of different theories about the crane’s parenting problems.

In the wild, nesting cranes are often swarmed by black flies; perhaps the puppet-reared cranes, raised in relative comfort, can’t tolerate the parasites and are driven off their nests. Or perhaps their own puppet parents failed to pass along a crucial piece of information about the breeding process. What the missing piece might be, French told me, ‘I have no idea.’ Meanwhile, the cranes’ failure to raise the next generation on their own guarantees, somewhat ironically, the need for more puppet-rearing.

It’s tempting to see puppet-reared California condors and whooping cranes as victims of a horrific real-life version of Plato’s cave: after living in a shadow world since birth, they are suddenly dragged out into the blinding sunlight and forced to cope with an incomprehensibly rich and complex reality. Ill-equipped to live in anything but a carefully managed simulacrum of nature, they crack under the pressure. When viewed from this angle, it is hard to imagine why keepers thought puppet-rearing would produce psychologically healthy animals.

[L]ike all intensive, hands-on conservation programmes, puppet-rearing was never really about the animals. While the stated goal of any captive breeding programme is to create self-sustaining populations of wild animals that can survive and thrive without human intervention, the true reason for their existence is guilt of a very human variety.