And, quite possibly, a twit.

This, coming from the editor of a "magazine" that over the years has published so many sexually explicit pieces that I have lost count, is utterly ridiculous. You have had authors who wrote graphically of screwing their boyfriends with strap-on dildoes, fisting, performing in porn movies, their exploits as hookers, etc. (Not to mention Aylet Waldman's forays into verbal child abuse.) Yet here you are, complaining that Jane Fonda crossed the line by merely sitting in Stephen Colbert's lap and kissing him. The hypocrisy you display here is simply amazing.

Perhaps you feel more comfortable just reading about graphic sex acts, rather than watching a hilarious appearance by an actress on a talk show. That may be why you have no qualms about publishing articles such as the one detailing a porn actress's attempt to set a record for the most consecutive sex acts in a single day. (I'm sure you remember that one.) Before you write another piece like this one, however, I hope you go through Salon's vast erotica archives and reacquaint yourself with some of the things you have published. Then we can have an honest discussion about the appropriateness of sexuality in any other venue.

Joan, I felt uncomfortable too, even though he had apparently made HER an object at an earlier show by talking about his fantasies of her.

I thought Colbert was clearly embarrassed. He was probably wondering how he was going to explain to his wife that he had no idea that was going to go down. It would be alot more fun to watch Jane do her thing on Bill O'Reilly. He would have gone berserk. Joan, I think you were just as embarrassed for Stephen as I was.

Walsh's screed reminds me of the reaction of the Washington press corps and pundits to Stephen Colbert's appearance at the White House Correspondents' Dinner. So many wrote to assert that it wasn't funny, that it was bullying (Richard Cohen) and impolite. Many of the attendees (and targets) found Colbert's performance to be an affront because he went against traditions of the format and broke out of his prescribed role.

That sounds remarkably similar to Walsh's post and many of the comments on this thread.

I am amiss for not reading all of the 130-plus postings, so perhaps others have mentioned already Ms. Fonda's equally discomforting appearance this week on the Letterman show. I just wish she would realize how little of an actual sense of humor she has. Some people do, some don't; she doesn't. She is now in the habit unfortunately of trying to be "cute" and "funny" when she is on comedy shows and it just does not work. Does not work at all. I didn't feel uncomfortable for Colbert; I felt uncomfortable and embarrassed for HER, in both instances.

If you rerun the scene, it's clear from the ultra-formal greeting and the filler talk that Stephen uses as Jane crosses behind him that the performance was planned. They are both consummate performers-- his discomfort probably was real, but any improv actor would know to use that discomfort, which he does, expertly.

The segment was hilarious. Yes, it would have been different if their genders had been reversed, but there's a reason for that. Most men don't actually mind good-looking women getting on their laps, and if they do mind, they can always push 'em off.

Dear Joan

I love your writings - and you left me speechless in Edmonds - I agree about Fonda - sometimes she makes me gag which is sad because I really want to admire her!

What is this blog about? Will Havrilevsky show up and the end of the week to crown Fonda a 'whoring sea donkey'? Will Traister lionize the Letterman appearance?

Fonda is important enough that these moments mean something beyond funny/not funny. It isn't just entertainment, is it? This is another high visibility moment for a longtime lightning rod. At present her publicly defined role is 'voice of reason' for walking reality show Lindsay Lohan. What happened to her?

I'd like to read more analysis while the movie tanks at the box office.

Someone above wrote about personas "crashing into each other." Great post. If that had really been a well structured improv we wouldn't have had such erotic chaos from Fonda. I see the "spiralling downward into phoney, shallow dress-up roles" too. Look closely as she cycles through :

Seductress - the come on

MILF - wiping off her lipstick kiss - why?

Disciplinarian Schoolmarm - fantasy dos and don'ts

Girl Gone Wild - flashing

Kitten - cuddling up

Dominatrix - "I have rules"

Thighmistress - enough said

yes woman - "I'll do anything you say."

Political Sex Therapist - "Premature emasculation"

etc...Painfully one dimensional in one way, yet freakishly all over the place. That's not role play or skilled performance, that's Sibyl Goes Down. Contrast that with Colbert's consistent subservience in the O'Reilly face off.

Co-Starring Colbert fidgeting through the many grimaces of "The Reluctant Straight Man." Instant emasculation after intense provocation.

Enjoying it? Dear reader, that's schadenfreude.

The pornification of all media is titillating, terrifying, scintillating and boring all at once. That is the muddle.

She was funny. Posed or not, he was clearly uncomfortable and it was a silly little "interview." Reminded me of a Carson moment. What's the big deal?

lisa

There's a lot of potential here!

(1) Get somebody attractive and witty to host a show.

(2) Bring on the most attractive, interesting people you can book.

(3) The host and guest make out for the duration.

(4) Credits roll.

Yes, you are a prude, Walsh. And you give feminists everywhere a bad name. Buy yourself a sense of humor--I hear they're cheap on eBay.

Heartland Woman, courtesy Eric Free

I didn't see the show, but it doesn't sound like a pleasant experience to have witnessed it. Glad I missed it. I suspect it would have made me uncomfortable, as it did you, Joan.

… you need "professional" help Joan!

It's in the Yellow Pages.

(You Go, Girrrrrl!)