The number of graphic stories with a graphic sexual theme has ramped up markedly.

It really isn't the only way to grab advertisers, is it? The pandering is relentless.

Meanwhile, if you can find your way to the pink ghetto, go over to (choke) "Broadsheet" to read the results of our sexual immaturity. One day soon, there could be a documentary called Sexual Warming...but we may not be around to drool over it.

Salon, this new editorial immaturity is a huge disappointment. Review your topics over the last few years. Why the big increase in sex topics?

Do I like sex? Yes.

Do I want it served in my face with my morning read?

Not so much.

Now I'll duck my head and wait for the howls: PRUUUDE!

Joan Walsh can't hold onto good writers...then again she wouldn't know good wriring it if it bit her on the ass. What she has to do is shock, because that generates clicks and that generates revenue. So you get lots of sex-themed leads, lots of sex-themed The Fix, lots of shitty TV shows reviewed, a movie reviewer who pans anything wholesome and drools over sex, a 'therapist' who admits he pads his crappy answers (to fake letters) to fill a book...I only come here after I've read news and commentary elsewhere...kind of like a little frothy dessert. I like to see what trash is being printed at Salon and have fun on the letters pages.

Gee, Casanova, a paen to BSDM 2 days ago, a "million little pieces" wannabe, and the anti-feminism rants of the feminists who write on broadsheet. It's really gone downhill, hasn't it?

Ha,ha,ha. The lipsmacking reverence this writer and presumedly the editors hold for this bit of Casanoviana would probably elicit howls of contempt if moved from the semiaristocratic environs of 18th century Europe to say, the hollows of West Virginia. Imagine the sneers that would greet the details of such behavior transposed to say, a trailer park, slum, or suburb of 2006. Oh wait, you'd probably like that too, but how would Broadsheet feel about it? Some people will get their porn any way they can, whether it's violence or sex. Casanova was a pustulant old swine as early as his thirties. Someone should make a pornographic movie of his adventures showing the characters as they probably really looked, dirty, missing teeth, scarred faces, open sores and sagging flesh. It would probably be more off putting than any abstinence lectures the Bush administration could dream up. When will people learn that most restrictions on sexual behavior are common sense attempts to protect human health and procreation rather than the inherent evil of sex. The women described in the article are not so much empowered as pathetic prisoners of the ignorance of their time. Salon seems here more interested in breathless titillation than actually elucidating any insights into sexual politics.

Folks perhaps shouldn't be so hard on Salon for a book review? I enjoyed learning about Casanova and want to learn more now--especially about the mores of those times. I don't think I knew a thing about him before reading this review.

It never ceases to amaze me how edgy and self-righteous this world's neo-Victorians can be. Personally, I like a bit of salaciousness with my cultural news.

I have no problem with the book or the review.

Now to the important question: Why is Fellini's movie Casanova with Donald Sutherland not available on video? This was an excellent movie, which did show the man and his women in a certain realistic ugliness.

Salaciousness is the perfect word. I just don't like it that it's simple salaciousness dressed up as "reportage." You're honest about enjoying it and more power to you.

I'm truly not neo-Victorian. I am a raving lefty, politically and was a round-heeled hippie (innocent by comparison to S&M and incest lit). I am just personally terrified for our children. I am not worried about them growing up inhibited. They should enjoy their sexuality, and be safe. But they are force-fed intense sleaze everywhere and I think parents can't keep up.

I sort of desperately search for a place that has intellectual community and aggressive political reporting but maintains a sense of conscience and awareness that young adolescents read this site.

I don't think Salon is into corporate responsibility for the young. And years back, I thought I'd found my, well...salon.

Not safe here any more.

We owe the kids not to satiate ourselves in public forums where they'll wander. I don't know if that's censorship but I do feel it's our debt to them.

""Casanova's Women" shows that the world-famous rake spread joy -- even empowerment -- among his 116 lovers, not to mention V.D., pregnancy and social disgrace."

Sounds like one of the corny intros to a mid-1950s feature story in a Playboy Magazine. When was the last time you heard some lounge lizard referred to as a "rake."

The article was mildly interesting until Amidon described the bastard daughter jerking off her father while pleasuring her mother. Now we're down in Hustler Magazine territory.

Nice going, Salon.

The man was clearly sick. Why is he so celebrated?

Perhaps the self-righteous prudes of the anti-sex league should not read a review about a bio on Casanova. Or the Marquis de Sade, or any (in)famous character from the past, if their delicate sensibilities cannot take the actual subject of the book. If you don't like the subject of the book, why read a review of it, then criticize Salon for reviewing it in the first place?

Same reason I don't read reviews of books on sports. I would feel totally unqualified to even comment on something I don't have an interest in. These are the same people who complain loudly about a radio or cable/tv broadcast, instead of simply switching to something else. We have options, people! More now than at any time in human history. So chill, and read a review about something you enjoy, instead of annoying the rest of us with your outrage.