Letters to the Editor
-
What in world???
Why in the world would you subject all of your readers to your own miserable opinion about life in America? We're ALL whores? Please. What a load, Heather. Grow up and get an editor, will you? I expect more from Salon than this. SHeeeeeeesh.
-
No Summer Whoredrums here
Very funny article! I'm pleased that Salon.com encourages you to write about shows like this. Enough PBS, already. Bring on the whores!
-
No, Heather...
most of us are not into all that kinky stuff.
Well, at least I won't be. Not these two, not "Swingtown", hell, not even "The Bridges of Madison County."
I am far from a prude, but increasingly, I'm switching off from this insult to my intelligence and going to the news channels, The History Channel or just switching the TV off and reading a good book.
-
Superb!
I was able to stand up straight long enough to enjoy this brilliantly written piece. (Bending over all day is tough on my back!) This brief explanation as to why we are drawn to such stuff may or may not be dead-on, but it was a delight to read. Whether we are taking it from The Man, or whether we have (as in the great Sprint cellphone commercial) at long last, become The Man, it all rings pretty true to me. And as for those who feel that the correct response to such cultural discomfort is to switch over to The History Channel or just read a good book (both of which I also enjoy), I have to say that you are just missing the whole damn thing. Keep up the good work Heather!
-
Aside from the title, this is Havrilesky doing the necesary thing.
She had to employ a hook to make this article (supposedly) appealing to everyone, so she chose the "everyone's a whore" line. This is the only thing I can severely criticize about this column, aside from the "whoring sea donkey" remark, which as a catch phrase isn't as good as David Letterman's "They pelted us with rocks and garbage."
To anyone who is self-centered - and too many American are - "whoring" is defined as doing anything your childish ego doesn't want to do. "You make me wash my hands after going to the bathroom? You just made me a whore!" This is petulant, boring nonsense, and tragically, too many people of too great an age believe it.
You're only a whore if you sell something precious and essential to your soul, and most people have nothing precious, or have souls for that matter.
Meanwhile, of all the accusations I could make against Havrilesky, "whore" is not one of them. She had to review these distasteful shows, because it is a part of the TV scene, and she did her duty. She even tried to find some virtue in the Denise Richards cesspool, which was remarkably charitable of her. I hope she shows the same qualities when reviewing the more mundane and more nauseating shows the networks are flinging at us later this summer.
-
Denise Richards questions
1. Havrilesky repeatedly refers to Denise Richards as being Midwestern. But I'm pretty sure she grew up in Oceanside, California. What up?
2. Havrilesky refers to Denise Richards doing a Playboy "cover." Then she refers to Richards showing her boobs. Forgive me but I am not a Playboy expert: Does doing a "cover" mean that you show your boobs? I thought the women on the front of Playboy concealed their tingly bits?
-
Lesson in culture for Xrandadu Hutman.
I realize you probably haven't seen Playboy. Nobody outside of young junior high school boys reads it today. They graduate to the genuine adult material younger and younger these days. And with the closing of the Playboy Clubs there is no reason for the magazine's existence aside from some nostalgia for America's historical discovery of sex, which was not acknowledged to exist here before Hef started printing his rag.
However, to answer your question; if a woman appears on the cover, she is dressed, because you can't sell magazines on the newsstands with naked women on the cover. At least not in America. Who knows what they do in France, and who cares?
However, if a woman is so featured, it is expected that she will appear with bare breasts and buttocks inside the magazine. I understand that the magazine allows glimpses of pubic hair now, where previously that region was airbrushed out. This is their way of competing with the harsher magazines like Hustler and worse, which could probably be used to teach gynecology.
Now the "cover girl" is not automatically the "centerfold," but I believe that happens quite often these days. The centerfold is usually an unknown (used to be a Playboy Bunny, a profession that no longer exists) but the cover might be a celebrity wishing to document her willingness to disrobe. (For some reason Joan Collins comes to mind in this aspect.) Hopefully that clears things up for you, and welcome to our country.
-
Thanks TomReedToon
I guess it wouldn't make much sense to appear on the cover if you weren't going to be inside the magazine. I just didn't realize it was always nekkid. I thought maybe Playboy had those teasey pictorials like FHM and Maxim do, in addition to the usual buck-naked stuff. Don't get me wrong, I am an appreciator of bosoms, but not an appreciator of paying people for it.
Oh by the way, I just found something I thought I would share:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5LWL2Ii7rxo
I'd like to see Heather's review of that.
-
Denise Richards is best seen and not heard.
Denise Richards in the pool in 'Wild Things" and Phoebe Cates on the diving board in "Fast Times at Ridgemont High," along with Jennifer Connelly riding that toy in "Career Opportunities." If you've seen those three scenes, you can die happy.
Beyond that, why would anyone bother watching Denise Richards? Worse, when you consider all the human effort that goes into producing a television show: the director, the lighting crew, the sound crew, and the rest (including the Professor and MaryAnn), it seems like an enormous waste of human time and effort for the sake of a disposable reality show.
But then, as a nation of stressed out whores, do we really prefer quality TV shows to this mindless dreck? Actually, I would answer yes; that people would both watch and get more satisfaction out of intelligent and thoughtful shows, whatever the genre. Alas, like George W. Bush, the cheap and tawdry is foisted on us whether we want it or not.