I’m a Jezebel and Gawker fan from way back when. I like Emily a lot. But the SATC analogy is just perfect. Emily has become the thing she spent so long mocking. And it stresses me enough that I almost didn't clik on this Salon article.

I didn’t read the Magazine this past weekend. And I didn’t search it out. I don’t want to rag on Emily even if she’s begging me to accept the ammunition. I feel bad for her. I could easily see the trap she was falling into. Those close to her warned her. And while those icky media executives, publishers, literary agents and the NY Times should be all held accountable for lifting her up to tear her down I’m really annoyed at Emily for not seeing the trap. She seemed so savvy and cool but now she just stresses me out to the point that I can’t read her. Just looking at the cover of the Magazine makes me feel a little sick for her and for all women in the media. She’s letting herself be positioned like this edgy version of Julia Allison and it’s such a turn off.

It’s just ok. If there wasn’t a buxom young actress involved it would go completely unnoticed. And that’s sad and frustrating. Because if Tom Waits was just a 20-something upstart I imagine he’d have a hell of a time making an album today. But this cute girl (with little musical talent and lots of help) has reviews all over the place and haters and defenders and more publicity then I’ve seen in a long time – and that really rubs me the wrong way.

I find these videos super frustrating as I can’t listen to sound at the office (and I almost never read Salon at home). And two almost identical videos on the same day by the same person - it’s like you’re just begging your readership to go elsewhere today. I’m almost thinking this must be a mistake…

I try to just ignore it and I try really hard to never call them out by name. To a certain extent there will always be this flavor of crazy on the internet – but what’s happening here lately is a little over the top. Plus it’s not very smart. I think we’ve attracted stupid crazies and that’s especially painful/dull.

What a lovely, humble woman.

Too bad there are so many trolls here today bringing me down. I really hope Salon figures this out better because they’re about to loose me as a reader/poster if they don’t. I’m not afraid of an intelligent argument – but the trolls Broadsheet attracts are awful, crazy haters.

It would seem the friend making that ‘Missouri Compromise’ joke is telling you way more about their own sexual fantasies then commenting a trend.

These studies often read like Penthouse Forum letters to me. I’ve always been sure that ‘rainbow parties’ and ‘technical virgins’ have been way, way overstated – but I’m not surprised these old farts in Washington want more money to ‘study’ the possible epidemic.

Anal sex and group acts freak most adults out - I doubt there are too many young girls who think that’s no big deal or that it’s the answer to ‘what would Jesus would do’ question. I’m glad to see a new study prove that point.

I agree. Even if everything else was perfect I’d drop that guy who wouldn’t like a hot potato. It’s not even so much about the sex act as it is about a person’s squeamish sexual nature with regard to my body. I mean – I’m put together very nicely and the man who can’t appreciate that just doesn’t make the cut.

I don’t find admissions of affairs, prostitution and porn to be so shocking. I do find an inability to communicate with your spouse to be shocking. I’m sure this author loves his wife – and I’m equally sure that, by reducing her to a personal assistant, he’s slowly pushing her away. Already she’s not sleeping with him. Pretty soon she’s not going to give one rat’s ass what his mother is doing for Christmas. That the author can only see this problem in terms of how it affects him, and other clueless men like him, is the really telling thing.

And I think we all know what Spitzer was thinking. The guy is turned on by dangerous, kinky sex with a variety of partners. The gossip rags (and yes, New York Magazine is a gossip rag) keep asking this rhetorical question in order to keep up some sort of pretense that Spitzer getting pegged by a call girl is somehow a newsworthy story. And of course it's not.

It supposes that a young woman’s sexual identity belongs to her father and then to her husband. What you’re going to get is a woman who thinks of Daddy as a sexual figure or who thinks of her husband as a father figure. No matter how you look at it it’s messed up.

I mean – forget about this in terms of your daughter. Would anyone here want to date/marry a young girl who’s only ever dated her Daddy? You think that’s going to be the recipe for a healthy sex life?

Or is it an installation art project?

To me it looks like an art project. I don’t think this artist has anything to do with robot sex or replacing women – but he is commenting on those things. And if someone buys this I’m willing to bet it’s an art collector and not some lonely male lawyer.

I think Broadsheet got this one wrong.