GOOGLE GIGGLING

EXIBIT A:  IS THIS PORN?

 From Twitter  posted by the Economist just now:  The Economist ‏@TheEconomist  2h

2 hours ago

One reproductive biologist suggests that curvy bums and boobs ensure the future of humankind http://econ.st/1Avqk3z 

Is this porn?  Will my re-post of it cause my blog to be suppressed?  (I do like the image quite a lot, though not necessarily the message since it endorses fertility when our future may be better served by non-reproduction.)  It appears that a lot of people like it, but for what reasons?  Are they POLITICALLY CORRECT REASONS?

Well, it's a painting, so that's aesthetic and gives it an art pass, but I assume Bridgeman is the artist so it's advertising, too.  The story it illustrates is science, though the message is old as the Venus of Willendorf but she's archeology or something, so that's science, too.

Of course Google knew very well it would back off from its sudden burst of prudery and so did the others that realize (as Ogi Ogas and Sai Gaddam discovered when researching "A Billion Wicked Thoughts") that the real money-maker of the internet has been porn -- whatever that is.  I’d be willing to bet real money that it’s not porn but the SEARCH for porn that makes money.  "Googling" porn.  Hoping to feel something.

And what most people think of as obscene or “adult” -- depends on whether it’s icky or nice, or something else unscientific and changing like that.  It wanders around all the time, so once it was Deborah Kerr and Burt Lancaster rolling around in the surf with only their lips engaged, but now on “Game of Thrones” there are naked Barbies wandering around all over the place, stopping to imitate noisy coitus on cushions.  Google “nudity on ‘Game of Thrones’” and see what you get.  But be warned, you may end up laughing yourself onto the floor.  When seen back-to-back (so to speak) without any story line or teases, it’s mostly just squirming.

Still, some people hang onto the idea that it’s porn if the people aren’t wearing any clothes, unless it’s a classical painting or scientific.  Here’s one  that’s both.  It’s supposed to be illustrating women with big bottoms who are presumably more fertile.  But we’ve known that big butts mean lots of babies since the Venus de Willendorf, so how much scientific value is there really in this story?

There was a story today about men with small testicles being better at baby care.  But there was no picture of testicles -- just a guy holding an infant.   Just the same, maybe all these young women whose worthless boyfriends end up killing their babies ought to get out the tape measure next Saturday night and see what’s what.  Will someone publish a guide in an appropriate magazine?  It’s info with practical value.

One of my fav twitter feeds is http://www.gocomics.com/that-is-priceless.  The idea is to recaption paintings from the past with contemporary interpretations.  It’s amazing how many paintings from the past are of naked people doing strange things, not just standing there.

Last night I watched “Renoir” (streams from Netflix) which was, of course, full of naked females, which were biographically accurate since that’s what Renoir painted.  It’s from the period in his life when he was barely able to hold a brush and there is barely enough plot to be an excuse for one beautiful image after another.  That qualifies under aesthetic, right?

There’s hardly a movie that can be shown on Google if the rules are strictly enforced.  Even the official censors can’t get a grip on “Game of Thrones.”  It’s just too profitable.  And now we’re getting used to men’s bare bottoms.  No fronts yet.

Julian Freud's portrait of one of his favorite models

Of course, Google would wipe out the entire oeuvre of Julian Freud, but some people would say good riddance, on grounds that all fat people are obscene whether or not they are bare.  Then it became apparent in the grieving over the death of Leonard Nimoy, that many people cherished his book called “The Full Body Project: Photographs by Leonard Nimoy”.  (Actually, I’m reliably told (by Ogas and Gaddam, for instance) that fat women are a big porn category.) 

Photo by Leonard Nimoy

Since I have a mirror, I provide my own images, but I don’t find them seductive.  Nimoy, who sort of swallowed Mr. Spock, found it “fascinating” to think about what people consider sexy.  Who are we to contradict Mr. Spock?

I knew a guy who said what really turned him on was the image of Maggie from “Maggie and Jiggs,” that old comic strip in which Maggie was always in an old chenille housecoat with her hair in pincurls, always in a bad mood and waving a rolling pin.  I suppose she could be classified as a dominatrix, but I suspect it was just his mother.  Some people think their mothers are sexy and some people don’t.  Oedipus did, Hamlet did not.

But what if you want to be really covered up?

Plushies are a big porn category.

Then there’s the little problem of people thinking that one thing turns them on, because they believe others respond that way or because it fits their image of themselves.  Or maybe they deny to themselves that they are turned on at all.  Only a plethysmograph could really prove who was responding to which porn.  Some might be surprised by themselves.  Should we market plethysmographs in the Big Box Pharmacies next to the glucose strips, the blood pressure cuff, and the fancy electronic bracelets that tell you how you’re doing when you go jogging?  It might be pretty interesting for many women who don’t know themselves very well.

I was talking to someone in the presence of a old guy in town and mentioned that I subscribe to a number of sites about sex.  I could see by the guy’s face that what he thought I was subscribing to was porn, not academic research.  He didn’t know there was such a thing as objective reflection about sex.  He did know about the criminalizing of sex.  We know the orientation, price range, and level of competence of one person in town because he was caught in an FBI sting that showed up in the newspaper.  He was identified.  A few years ago that would have been unthinkable.

How and where could someone in a small town with few feminists get educated without revealing publicly  what s/he’s thinking about it?  Well, s/he could Google, couldn’t s/he?  The internet can provide a little sophistication for those smart enough to look for it.  It would do cultural damage to shut it down.