You're conflating two similar but different issues - Prostitution and Sexual Slavery. While they both come down to sex for money, as generally practiced, the latter is many magnitudes worse than the former because of the coercive slavery aspect of it. Sure, it would be a great thing if "end users" stopped buying but, in the end, as a solution, it's a simplistically naive illusion/proposition. Kinda like the "back in my father's day..." stuff. Prostitution is not called the "World's Oldest Profession" for nothing. Also, it's a bit much to suggest that some countries are using sexual slavery as a soultion to their economic woes. While it generates a good deal of money and some governments might be indifferent about solving the problem, let's remeber that, for the most part, the people who are running and profitting from sexual slavery are large, ruthless, terrible and well organized criminal gangs.

Virel (sp?) is my new hero. Hell of a man.

He didn't have to sell any organs but he, and moreso his wife, endured quite a terrible ordeal. His clear headed persistence, doggedness and love was wonderful.

Well aren't we full of ourselves. While more black men marry/couple outside of their race than black women, the vast majority of blacks who are married/coupled (the last time I looked at the Census figures it was either 83 or 85%) have a black partner.

"I believe if you look at the demographics you will see that rich white women tend to have a higher level of education than other women. That is not to put down other women - not at all. It is just to point out that when we (and I now count myself among that privileged class, having pulled myself up by my bootstraps from lower middle class white woman) voice opinions - often misconstrued as complaints - they are often informed opinions."

Wow, now that's shocking. Talk about being full of yourself and proving the other LWs right...

Anyway, the problem with Traister's analysis is that it's trifling blather about a silly sideshow. Though the earlier Rachel Ray comparison was amusing, I think's it's more of a "Sex and The City" feminism. You can dress it up in all the pseudo-intellectual banter you want, but, it's still much ado about nothing much.

IIRC, NBC's explanation last night, the Chinese pair not only got credit for attempting the quad, they got credit for completing a triple despite the disasterous fall. Yeah, I founf it to be a bit bogus that you could make that bad an error, stop, take a break and then complete your routine and still get silver.

Hollywood has been sinking now for what - 50, 60 years? People in general aren't going to movies like before but they sure are watching Hollywood product on cable and other places and buying DVDs. While still important, theaters have long since stopped being the sole distribution network. Also, this particular VF issue is an annual rite. It usually focuses on Hollywood up and comers and/or younger stars. So, it's not surprising that it doesn't perfectly correlate to Oscar nods.

VF's current circulation is 1.1 million per month and it's one of the top magazines in it's category. You can argue that it's a decline from it's "Tina Brown" all time top of 1.2 million, but, to act like it's going south fast, or in any significant way, to enhance a debate point is kinda ridiculous.

Here is the category and numbers. Spin it anyway you like.

"General Editorial

Parade 35,507,036

USA Weekend 23,713,510

AARP: The Magazine 17,183,768

Reader's Digest 12,212,040

National Geographic 6,890,852

Consumer Reports 4,000,000

People 3,617,127

Smithsonian 2,045,430

Vanity Fair 1,107,802

US Weekly 1,101,059"

Well said. It's astounding that some of LWs here don't get it.

Good job Salon and it's about time. I was about at my limit with the tiresome "lifestyle" Broadsheet stuff. The Danish cartoon angle is a classic false equivalency and a rather stupid argument. Ignore it and carry on...

Can't say I'm surprised by the increasingly bizzare analogies/rationalizations being offered by some here. While they can be easliy dismissed, they are occasionally amsuing. So, I guess they are of some use in that they provide a light diversion from the matter at hand.

The notion that some childfree women might be being pushed by "social pressures" not to have children they might otherwise have is a rather specious thought and insulting to those women. To imply that motherhood is "demonized" (which is a self indulgent exaggeration at best) and not "respected", therefore, some women might not have kids because they don't want to deal with the "social pressure" of potentially being "demonized or disrespected" is really dicey.

As is the idea that such social pressures and the supposed result is a threat to human existence. As has been pointed out, such dire calls have been going on for awhile and white folks seems to have managed to be fruitful and multiply over the years. Also, the thought that Western women aren't actually free to decide to have kids is way out there.

Anyway, I strongly suspect the Germans will figure something out and avoid "dying out".

Where does it say that Germans primary concern regarding declining birth rates is that their country will become "mostly Muslim"? The article does mention that one German reaction has been that "only immigrants are having kids" and perhaps at some point in the future they might have to allow more guest workers in, but, there's nothing stated that there's any general fear of the country becoming mostly Muslim. To suggest otherwise, seems like a reach.

In their normal manner, I think Broadsheet was being flip about it and on a macro level, I agree with you. If German birthrates continue to decline, they should be seriously concerned about the issue and I also agree that it's probably simplistic to tell them to allow more people to immigrate and that will solve the potential problem.