The Hidden Threat of Vaginofascism

For far, far too long, America has gazed upon the specter of vaginofascism with indifference. We saw Lindsay Lohan's--and did nothing. We saw Paris Hilton's --and did nothing. Who will next unleash pantiless destruction upon a complacent America? The American Spectator's Carol Liebau knows who: your daughter.

To put it bluntly, the young women are shown out on the town, partying in short dresses -- without benefit of underwear. The photos themselves leave nothing to the imagination. In fact, some of the websites conveniently enlarge the "naughty bits" so that every random viewer can ogle every intimate inch of Lohan's and Spears' private parts...

What's most remarkable is the deafening silence from the larger culture that has greeted the antics of the young starlets.

Reacting to them with nothing more than voyeuristic amusement or bored indifference allows the bottom-feeders to set the standard for what constitutes glamorous female behavior -- a thought that should strike terror into the heart of every parent (or aunt or uncle) in America.

The current vagoterror threat level is indeed severe. In our post-Vagina Monologues age, what 13 year-old-girl doesn't want candid pictures of her precious flower plastered all over the tabloids? What woman has not gazed upon pics of Lohan's womanhood and thought "that could be me!" ?? As I write, thousands of skirted women are carelessly descending from SUVs, attacking innocent Americans who just want to get through a day --one day-- without having to gaze upon a stranger's shaved genitalia. Appeasement is futile; the only proper response to vaginofascism is total war. Wake up, America, before one more innocent life is lost to the scourge of Lohanian terror.

Comments

joe | December 1, 2006, 3:45pm | #

'In fact, some of the websites conveniently enlarge the "naughty bits"'

Or so Ms. Hilton would have you believe.

JW | December 1, 2006, 3:45pm | #

In this reign of shaved-commando terror, now that the revolution has come, I would like to volunteer to be the first up against the wall.

I do it as my duty. I do it for my country.

black_box | December 1, 2006, 3:47pm | #

No mention of Britney? That thing was scary

Lewis Black | December 1, 2006, 3:49pm | #

Because when I see Paris Hilton or Britney Spears ... I think 'glamorous'.

John | December 1, 2006, 3:50pm | #

"No mention of Britney? That thing was scary"

Britney may have done more for teenage abstinence than anyone in the last century. There have to be millions of adolescent teenage boys who saw that and decided that maybe this whole sex thing wouldn't be so great after all.

MarkV | December 1, 2006, 3:52pm | #

It's a sign of the rising dominance of females in our society. We may be ready for Hillary in 2008.

Compare and contrast what would happen if male celebs started 'accidentally' exposing their privates in front of the paparrazzi(sp?).

andy | December 1, 2006, 3:53pm | #

Mmm... Lindsey Lohan's vagina... sweet nectorous nest of all that is good and tasty in this world...

I mean, where's the outrage, people?

ed | December 1, 2006, 3:54pm | #

We may be ready for Hillary

Shaved Hillary. The mind boggles.

joe | December 1, 2006, 3:55pm | #

"It's a sign of the rising dominance of females in our society. We may be ready for Hillary in 2008."

Please tell me you're talking about being ready for her presidency.

Lamar | December 1, 2006, 3:56pm | #

If they couldn't stop Georgia O'Keefe's humongous vag paintings, they ain't gonna stop Brittany. "Ice Cave" and "Jack In The Pulpit" come to mind.

Dan T. | December 1, 2006, 4:01pm | #

H&R has this weird thing going where any expression of concern that distasteful behavior may influence the impressionable is mocked way beyond the “protest too much” level…but if an elected leader says that fast food isn’t good for you it’s a sure sign that the nanny state will start boarding up your local Wendy’s.

OO===D | December 1, 2006, 4:03pm | #

"Compare and contrast what would happen if male celebs started 'accidentally' exposing their privates in front of the paparrazzi(sp?)."

OO===D

The freedom. The...freedom.

MarkV | December 1, 2006, 4:06pm | #

The girls are just having some fun, p****-whipping the entire culture.

"Not that there's anything wrong with that."

joe | December 1, 2006, 4:07pm | #

Dan T,

Come on. Beaver shots + American Spectator Church Ladies = Teh Funny

You know it. Admit it.

Eryk Boston | December 1, 2006, 4:09pm | #

Its one thing to not know if an item is satire...its another to not know whether or not you want it to be satire.


Oh, and can we have a permanent moratorium on the phrase "shaved Hillary"? My potential therapy bills are high enough, thank you.

Eryk Boston | December 1, 2006, 4:11pm | #

Oh, and doesn't Mrs Liebau realize that, as a certified conservative scold, her disapproval confers cool points on such behavior? Doesn't she see the irony in encouraging them by providing such valuable street credentials?

J sub D | December 1, 2006, 4:11pm | #

It's my party and I'll flash if I want to
Flash if I want to,
Flash if I want to,
You would flash too if... Somebody stop me, please!

FatDrunkAndStupid | December 1, 2006, 4:11pm | #

Elected officials have the coercive power of government at their disposal. Blowhards are no more dangerous than you and me. Frankly, I believe vagina-gate is being overhyped. What you have to remember is that Hilton and Lohan are probably photographed by the paparazzi at least a few thousand times a year (obviously total picures are much more, but I'm just talking the actual photo opportunities). Of those thousands of events, Hilton has been caught with her beaver exposed only 3 times, and two of those were situations where she was wearing panties but they were just pushed to the side a bit too much. Lohan has had only two beaver moments. Brit is a different situation, because she's really gotten in to the game only in the past two weeks. She's way out of her leauge and it shows, but presumably she may learn how to get out of a car with more grace. There is no crisis here. Even the most demure woman would have nip slips and beaver moments if they were photographed as many times per day as Paris Hilton.

And the media is treating this thing seriously. Last night on inside edition or some such show they had a segment instructing American Women on the proper way to exit a vehicle while wearing a short skirt (its more complicated than you think and involves use of the purse).

Tim Cavanaugh | December 1, 2006, 4:12pm | #

strike terror into the heart of every parent (or aunt or uncle) in America.

This person doesn't know much about uncles.

ed | December 1, 2006, 4:14pm | #

Shaved Hillary

You know, if I weren't so against people always saying, "That would make a great name for a band!" I would say, well...you know.

Eric S. | December 1, 2006, 4:15pm | #

So I guess the Vagoterror threat level has been elevated from pink . . . to really pink?

Jon H | December 1, 2006, 4:16pm | #

andy writes: "Mmm... Lindsey Lohan's vagina... sweet nectorous nest of all that is good and tasty in this world..."

You haven't been keeping up with the rumors, have you?

She's called "firecrotch", and I'm not sure, but I think that's contagious.

Jon H | December 1, 2006, 4:17pm | #

Apparently while trolling the web, the author didn't bother to read any comment threads about said photos.

They most certainly aren't full of adulation for the ladies involved.

Mad Max | December 1, 2006, 4:18pm | #

There is nothing un-libertarian about civil society (the collection of private individuals, voluntary organizations, media, blogs) using "stigmatization" against undesirable behavior. H&R feels free to use stigmatization against advocates of chastity. Does this threaten liberty? No, because H&R and other civil-society entities aren't part of the government.

The only remaining question, then, is in which *direction* the stigmatization should go. Should other civil-society institutions follow the lead of H&R and stigmatize anyone who advocates chastity as a norm? Or should the stigmatization go towards those who treat sex as a commodity?

One would think that libertarians would at least *worry* about the connection between sexual license and Big Government. If you have sexual license, you tend to have more illegitimate children, hence more poor "families" and feral adolescents, hence more pressure for the government to "do something." Not to mention more "partner abuse" and stalking, leading to more calls for government intervention.

On the other hand, if you have intact, two-parent families, you have an alternative locus of authority which competes with the government. Shouldn't libertarians *want* that? As more and more families consist of divorced couples, the government steps in to regulate the children. Is *that* libertarian? When each party to the divorce rushes to the government for help against the other party, where's the incentive to minimize the state, or to rely on one's own family instead of the government?

Shouldn't we study history to see what kind of culture free countries and unfree countries tend to have? France, that hotbed of sexual enlightenment (if we believe envious Americans) just happens to have a history of tyranny. Then look at Switzerland, which got the freedom thing down a bit better than the French. Did the Swiss achieve this in a culture of hedonism? Did the Swiss give us the concept of the "French kiss," or such terminology as "menage a trois"? If only the Swiss weren't so uptight, they could have had *more* liberty1

All right, the floor is open to uninhibited mockery!

Dick Morris | December 1, 2006, 4:21pm | #

"Shaved Hillary" produced 46 hits on Google. Most of them regarding Hillary Duff's shaved cooter-box.

Jon H | December 1, 2006, 4:21pm | #

So, wait.

Is Vagoterror Threat Level Pink higher or lower than Threat Level Stubbly?

NoStar | December 1, 2006, 4:21pm | #

First, push up bras gave us boob cleavage. Then, low rise pants gave us butt cracks. Now, that butt floss underwear is giving way to no undies at all we face an onslaught of beavage*.

I shudder to think of what indecencies will follow. And yet, even though I'm positive this signals the end of the world as we know it, I feel fine!

* contraction of beaver cleavage, not to be confused with Jerry Mathews as Beaver Cleaver.

Akira MacKenzie | December 1, 2006, 4:21pm | #

What's most remarkable is the deafening silence from the larger culture that has greeted the antics of the young starlets.

No, what's remarkable is that anal retentive prigs like this who whine and kvetch about public displays of Brittney's pussy or Janet's tit still exist--not to mention ANYTHING regarding nudity or sexuality--in this supposedly modern society.

Red | December 1, 2006, 4:22pm | #

"She's called "firecrotch", and I'm not sure, but I think that's contagious."

It's slang for a red haired beaver.

Jon | December 1, 2006, 4:22pm | #

I think it is misleading to term the phenomenon "vaginofascism." This would connote a systematic, national institutional merger of vagina and state. The threat we face as a nation is, for one, distinctively asymmetrical. I mean the phenomenon, not the genitalia per se.

FinFangFoom | December 1, 2006, 4:25pm | #

Don't be fooled HnR readers! Kerry Howley is just trying to speed up the genocide of Colombian farmers!

http://www.reason.com/blog/show/116449.html

Red | December 1, 2006, 4:28pm | #

"She's called "firecrotch", and I'm not sure, but I think that's contagious."

It's slang for a red haired beaver.

Tildie | December 1, 2006, 4:29pm | #

"All right, the floor is open to uninhibited mockery!"

I think it's brilliant!

ButtHole | December 1, 2006, 4:31pm | #

"I shudder to think of what indecencies will follow. And yet, even though I'm positive this signals the end of the world as we know it, I feel fine!"


*

Jon H | December 1, 2006, 4:33pm | #

First, push up bras gave us boob cleavage. Then, low rise pants gave us butt cracks. Now, that butt floss underwear is giving way to no undies at all we face an onslaught of beavage*.

The thing is, if it becomes fashionable, it's inevitable that many, many women will adopt the fashion who really shouldn't.

ed | December 1, 2006, 4:37pm | #

many, many women will adopt the fashion who really shouldn't

Shaved Pelosi?
Ai carramba!

thoreau | December 1, 2006, 4:46pm | #

OK, to make a totally serious reply:

France, that hotbed of sexual enlightenment (if we believe envious Americans) just happens to have a history of tyranny. Then look at Switzerland, which got the freedom thing down a bit better than the French. Did the Swiss achieve this in a culture of hedonism?

If you want to argue that sexual inhibitions (or a lack thereof) explain the differences between France and Switzerland, I could point to Germany (which has much in common with Switzerland from a cultural and linguistic perspective) and observe that Switzerland has done quite a bit better than Germany (at least in regard to freedom) despite similar levels of sexual inhibition.

Whatever it is that explains the different trajectories of France, Germany, and Switzerland, I doubt that sexual inhibitions have much to do with it.

Besides, with excellent chocolate and ski lodges, there must be somebody in Switzerland having a good time!

J sub D | December 1, 2006, 4:50pm | #

it's inevitable that many, many women will adopt the fashion who really shouldn't.

Sad but true. Think of fat girls in miniskirts quadrupled in yuckiness.

mediageek | December 1, 2006, 4:51pm | #

Oh Jesus Christ.

Does this woman not read The Superficial?

They've got nothing but snide and scorn for Britney and Lindsay.

Mark | December 1, 2006, 4:52pm | #

Mad Max,

Actually there's a book about how the coercion of society is illiberal. It's called "On Liberty". Check it out.

Troy | December 1, 2006, 5:01pm | #

I am from Missouri, the "Show Me" state. I won't believe a word of this about there being these beaver shots. In order to satify my epistemic requirement borne upon me by my place of birth, could someone please give me and URL.

FinFangFoom | December 1, 2006, 5:02pm | #

Culturally speaking, the Germans are perverts, whereas the French are blase about sex. I agree though that the freedom thing has little to do with the sexual more thing. The Swiss do so well because they are crazy mountain folk/Calvinists, who are thus ordered, but not amenable to regulation.

Not to generalize.

Mad Max | December 1, 2006, 5:02pm | #

Mark,

As Gertrude Himmelfarb pointed out, *On Liberty* was not Mill's last word on civil society; many of his other works are somewhat more sympathetic to the idea.

If Mill were alive today, would he think that modern culture buttressed his arguments in *On Liberty,* or that it buttressed his pro-civil-society stance in other works?

Hmmm . . . that's a tough one. Wait, no, it isnt!

Mad Max | December 1, 2006, 5:05pm | #

Note: I didn't say that chastity *guarantees* freedom. I'd be interested, though, to know about a free society that kept its freedom in the long term with a large population of illegitimate children, divorced people, etc.

MarkV | December 1, 2006, 5:07pm | #

"I shudder to think of what indecencies will follow. And yet, even though I'm positive this signals the end of the world as we know it, I feel fine!"

Probably vaginal jewelry.
Already we have the piercing thing, next we get the labial bling.

littlemanintheboat | December 1, 2006, 5:08pm | #

Again, I find myself perplexed about the posts in tis blog. I am for this kind of thing. I can't claim to be a libertarian about it. I think the government should encourage this type of activity with tax breaks or other types of incentives that cost other people money.
And I for one was not disappointed in Britney's Beav. If anyone has enlargements (of the pictures mind you) please share.

thoreau | December 1, 2006, 5:09pm | #

Mad Max-

Failure to freak out over attention-seeking starlets does not necessarily lead to illegitimate kids, divorce, etc. Speaking as a happily married Catholic, I have no real interest in giving these celebrities even more attention than they already get. Let the public giggle for a moment and then let the 24 hour news cycle sweep them under the rug. Freaking out just gives them more attention.

Jeff S. | December 1, 2006, 5:09pm | #

Please, can't somebody far wittier than me figure out how we can enlist the coming scourge of clam shots in the real war on terror? The "Go Nuclear" option could be represented by the picutres of Dr. Laura's from about ten years ago. I never fully understood why they called it beaver until I saw photos of that thing.

anonymous | December 1, 2006, 5:10pm | #

Not the "bottom feeders"! Priceless...

mediageek | December 1, 2006, 5:10pm | #

"Shouldn't we study history to see what kind of culture free countries and unfree countries tend to have? France, that hotbed of sexual enlightenment (if we believe envious Americans) just happens to have a history of tyranny. Then look at Switzerland, which got the freedom thing down a bit better than the French. Did the Swiss achieve this in a culture of hedonism? Did the Swiss give us the concept of the "French kiss," or such terminology as "menage a trois"? If only the Swiss weren't so uptight, they could have had *more* liberty1"

I agree completely. I mean, in many Middle Eastern countries a woman can be stoned to death just for going out without wearing a Burqa, and look at how civil, free, and liberty-festooned those places are!

NoStar | December 1, 2006, 5:11pm | #

A topic related to the problem of pudendal exposure is given a thorough examination here:

Not work safe, but it is a funny parody of The Beach Boys song Kokomo

btw: Anyone else here (besides ed and myself) think that "Pelosi" would work as well as an euphemism as "Santorum?"

Sock puppet for Lindsey Lohan's Vagina | December 1, 2006, 5:11pm | #

"The Hidden Threat of Vaginofascism"

Isn't the "threat" supposed to be that it isn't all that hidden?

Also, I've heard that Britney's vagina is a libertarian. Reason will be doing an interview in the next issue.

Jason | December 1, 2006, 5:15pm | #

This post would be better with photos although that Kerry Howly is hilarious.

Number 6 | December 1, 2006, 5:17pm | #

Mad Max- Divorces tend to be more frequent in the "sex-for-procration only" parts of the world. Illegitimate children can be avoided through the use of birth control and by taking responsibility for one's actions.

I always find it amusing that a certain segment of the population equates sexual shame with moral uprightness and ethical behavior.

Jeff S. | December 1, 2006, 5:18pm | #

Why do people so often use the word "vagina" when they really mean "vulva"?

Lamar | December 1, 2006, 5:19pm | #

I used the term "vagina" for anything below the breasts.

FinFangFoom | December 1, 2006, 5:21pm | #

Why do people so often use the word "vagina" when they really mean "vulva"?

Jeff S., "vagina" is a synecdoche for the whole of the lady business.

D.A. Ridgely | December 1, 2006, 5:23pm | #

[insert "wise crack" here]

Mad Max | December 1, 2006, 5:23pm | #

"I agree completely. I mean, in many Middle Eastern countries a woman can be stoned to death just for going out without wearing a Burqa, and look at how civil, free, and liberty-festooned those places are!"

The key word here is "woman." The men, in practice if not in legal theory, have a greater degree of freedom to explore their sexuality, and not just with women. Or so I hear.

Plus, I didn't say chastity *guarantees* freedom, but that undermining chastity tends (in general) to undermine freedom.

Plus, my point involves civil society, and stoning tends to be a government measure.

Thoreau,

A key item in the column was an opinion poll finding that teenage girls (not married Catholics) wanted to emulate Lohan. If the poll is correct (and the respondents may have been yanking the pollsters' chain), then Lohan's behavior may, indeed, affect the cultural climate negatively.

jp | December 1, 2006, 5:25pm | #

Please, can't somebody far wittier than me figure out how we can enlist the coming scourge of clam shots in the real war on terror?

I think there's a chapter on this in Gargantua. (Seriously.)

ladyblogger | December 1, 2006, 5:27pm | #

This is sooooo yesterday. I mean, it's been 14 freaking years since Basic Instinct came out. This all reminds me of 6th grade boys tittering over naked bahoogies in National Geographic.

Jeff S. | December 1, 2006, 5:28pm | #

FFF, Correct, but doesn't vulva just sound nicer, less clinical? I take it, however, that there probably isn't any grass roots support for changing the standard.

Johncjackson | December 1, 2006, 5:31pm | #

Well, MSM HAS spoken out against the pantie-less revolution. How more mainstream does it get than the women on the View discussing Britney's cooch and offering her their underwear. I mean, that's gotta count for something, right? The culture warriors are on this! Dont worry.

Mad Max | December 1, 2006, 5:32pm | #

"Mad Max- Divorces tend to be more frequent in the 'sex-for-procration only' parts of the world. Illegitimate children can be avoided through the use of birth control and by taking responsibility for one's actions.

"I always find it amusing that a certain segment of the population equates sexual shame with moral uprightness and ethical behavior."

I don't dispute that "illegitimate children can be avoided" by various methods, I'm just saying that as a matter of empirical reality illegitimate children have *not* been avoided. The increase in illegitimacy *happens* to coincide with a more relaxed attitude to nonmarital sex. Maybe that's just a coincidence, I can't prove it's not. But I'm entitled to my suspicions.

mediageek | December 1, 2006, 5:33pm | #

"The key word here is "woman." The men, in practice if not in legal theory, have a greater degree of freedom to explore their sexuality, and not just with women. Or so I hear."

Ah. So we should force women to cover up so you don't have to worry about going to the local park to get a blowjob from an anonymous guy?

Carpet King | December 1, 2006, 5:39pm | #

"Let the public giggle for a moment and then let the 24 hour news cycle sweep them under the rug."

But the pictures clearly show the rug's been removed.

J sub D | December 1, 2006, 5:40pm | #

Probably vaginal jewelry.
Already we have the piercing thing, next we get the labial bling.

MarkV: I hate to be the one to break this to you, but the vaginal jewelry thing is old hat. You're probably one of those monogamous folks, i.e. not a slut. I'm not being snarky here. Monogamy = Good.

Ivan | December 1, 2006, 5:47pm | #

Half of the population has them, and the other half wants to see them (generally speaking). How could this possibly be a problem?

NoStar | December 1, 2006, 5:50pm | #

I got post # 69!

Mad Max | December 1, 2006, 5:55pm | #

"Ah. So we should force women to cover up so you don't have to worry about going to the local park to get a blowjob from an anonymous guy?"

You see, I was *rebutting* the notion that the Middle East was full of sexual repression, so . . .

Ah, what the heck, no-one pays attention to these nuances.

Yes, mediageek, I want to put burkhas on women so that I can go and get blowjobs in parks. What can I say, I gotta be me!

Rimfax | December 1, 2006, 5:57pm | #

I, for one, welcome our new vaginal overlords....

Mad Scientist | December 1, 2006, 6:00pm | #

This is just funny.

Chris S. | December 1, 2006, 6:07pm | #

Plus, I didn't say chastity *guarantees* freedom, but that undermining chastity tends (in general) to undermine freedom.

And you've given us absolutely zero evidence for this point, which is apparently the axiomatic assumption of 100% of your above arguments. I'm sorry, but the France/Switzerland comparison was so rhetorically and logically worthless that I’m ashamed I’m even responding. As others have said, compare France with the Middle East, or throw the Netherlands in the bunch. Or better yet, stop cherry picking anecdotal evidence to make your bogus correlation (incredibly weak correlation) equals causation argument about this issue.

Jon H | December 1, 2006, 6:10pm | #

" and observe that Switzerland has done quite a bit better than Germany (at least in regard to freedom) despite similar levels of sexual inhibition."

Really?

Less inhibited than scheisse porn?

FinFangFoom | December 1, 2006, 6:20pm | #

As evidence for Germany's sexual openess, I note that the two closest businesses to an American style fast food franchise are Nordsee (http://www.nordsee.de/flash.jsc), a passable and cheap seafood place, and Beate Uhse, a sex shop chain (http://www.beateuhse.ag/index.html).

James Kabala | December 1, 2006, 6:24pm | #

I side with Mad Max on chastity=good, but I think the oversexedness of the French has been somewhat overstated. (I don't mean today, but historically.) The French call French kissing "English kissing," for what it's worth.
I believe traditionally Europe's most straight-laced peoples are the Irish, the Polish, the Scottish, and (as hard as it may be to believe, given their drastic change of direction over the last forty years) the Dutch.

Isaac Bartram | December 1, 2006, 6:39pm | #

Actually a few of the French guys I have known loved to visit the States because American girls are so much easier.

Purely anecdotal, I know, but there it is.

cliff | December 1, 2006, 6:43pm | #

Why is Britney's privates OK for public display, but a male who has his dong hanging out would probably be charged with indecent exposure. Not only that, wouldn't he be considered a sex offender and have to submit to all sorts of legal nastiness?

Rimfax | December 1, 2006, 6:43pm | #

I was recently reminded that the plural of 'anecdote' is 'data'.

Mike Laursen | December 1, 2006, 6:51pm | #

H&R has this weird thing going where any expression of concern...

Not so weird. There are many examples of an expansion of government having been preceeded by the public's being convinced that some looming crisis was about to destroy society. The Reason writers, a crackerjack crew of savvy political trend spotters, like to keep their readers informed about tomorrow's looming crises.

joe | December 1, 2006, 7:02pm | #

"I think it is misleading to term the phenomenon "vaginofascism." This would connote a systematic, national institutional merger of vagina and state":

Vaganarchy?

"I used the term "vagina" for anything below the breasts."

And you wonder why Mrs. Lamar goes through so many batteries.

ed | December 1, 2006, 7:12pm | #

Speaking as a happily married Catholic

Dr. Thoreau, please resolve this apparent contradiction.
You know you crave the shaved regions.
Fess up, dude!

JK | December 1, 2006, 7:31pm | #

"I think it is misleading to term the phenomenon "vaginofascism." This would connote a systematic, national institutional merger of vagina and state"

As the parody of communist jargon went, the lower organs of the party must penetrate the backward parts of the proletariat.

The Wine Commonsewer | December 1, 2006, 9:17pm | #

I'm old enough to remember how cool the miniskirts were. And they were short. I nearly failed algebra because Patti Connolly sat next to me. I nearly failed Freshman science because the teacher was 23 and sat on her desk in a short skirt casually lecturing the class.

In the 1970's there were girls wearing hot pants sans undies to junior high school.

Now we have freak dancing at high school dances in the OC.

Where will it end?

The Wine Commonsewer | December 1, 2006, 9:20pm | #

All of that is why my House Blonde is going into the basement at age 12 and not coming out until she's thirty

The Wine Commonsewer | December 1, 2006, 9:22pm | #

I want to put burkhas on women so that I can go and get blowjobs in parks

Pretty sure my buddy Stevie Crowne did that last time he was in the Middle East. He was on the receiving end I mean. Not wearing the burkah. The girl was.

Solitudinarian | December 1, 2006, 9:36pm | #

Culturally speaking, the Germans are perverts

I knew there was a reason why I'm here...

Karen | December 1, 2006, 11:31pm | #

This is the best place to look for picture of La Lohan, Hilton, et al. Do note that the authors make deep, hideous, vicious fun of their targets. You want to stop public pubic? Forget the scolding and make vicious jokes. Soon enough they'll all be copying Grace Kelly. At least I hope so.

brian423 | December 1, 2006, 11:51pm | #

Stand up and fight. Don't be a pussy.

Jon H | December 2, 2006, 12:30am | #

Isaac writes: "Actually a few of the French guys I have known loved to visit the States because American girls are so much easier."

It's probably the lure of the exotic, and the foreign accent.

Dave | December 2, 2006, 12:35am | #

some of the websites conveniently enlarge the "naughty bits"

I've been to those websites.

The pills don't work. :(

MainstreamMan | December 2, 2006, 1:34am | #

General Impressions

FatDrunkAndStupid has far too much detailed information about how many beaver shots have appeared for each of the celebs.

It is rare to read the word "synecdoche" in a discussion of open air poontang shots.

Outsider impressions of how "prude" or sexually free a culture is are always inaccurate (see M Mead's work on the sexual practices of oceania)

Thomas Paine's Goiter | December 2, 2006, 3:28am | #

A key item in the column was an opinion poll finding that teenage girls (not married Catholics) wanted to emulate Lohan.

Good for teenage boys!

Todd Frye | December 2, 2006, 8:04am | #

I for one welcome our teenaged, coquettish, shaved, pudenda-showing, semi-innocent, curious, doe-eyed... well, you see where I'm going with this.

fustian | December 2, 2006, 9:09am | #

Hillary shaved?

Ridiculous notion.

Everyone knows she has a d*ck!

triticale | December 2, 2006, 9:15am | #

Shaved Pelosi?

Please tell me you are speaking of her upper lip.

Toad | December 2, 2006, 9:15am | #

It's not the teenagers exposing the arches that worries me. You've seen women wearing styles that are way to young for them or just not right for their body types....Voila, Helen Thomas, unshaved, unshriven, and uncensored.

otis wildflower | December 2, 2006, 9:38am | #

http://legendofspears.ytmnsfw.com/ for Legend of Zelda fans.. The internets are merciless....

Joe Dees | December 2, 2006, 9:53am | #

A large part of the present situation has to do with the wearing, by these women, of traditional outer lower garments without benefit of their undies. If these women were wearing pants, they'd have no problems keepng their lips zipped. I wonder how many schlong slips there are in the Land of Kilt...

I have also been noticing the various and sundry terms that have been used here to refer to the anatomical feature under discussion. Both the animalistic appellations pussy and beaver have been used (although not clam, perhaps for fear of insulting Scientologists by disparaging their purported progenitors), but as of yet, no one has used the Proverbial and Dreaded C word (even though there are several, and I prefer coochie to cooter among the un-untish alternatives). It seems to me to be the only word that vies for social disapproval with the N word these days. Pudendum is poetic, and not so bland or twee as muff (which only seems to be used in conjunction with diving references these days), but my favorite has to be punani. It has a flavor of exoticism about it, and is so much more attractive and elegant than quim or twat or snatch. My now-deceased rather Victorian elder female relatives (I'm from the southern US) used to call it a trissy, a term which for some reason always distressed me...

Paul A'Barge | December 2, 2006, 10:07am | #

You're a regular yuck a minute... except that in virtually every other subdomain of fashion, the phenomenon of slut trend-setters has typified our age.

It's called the culture war, and the naughty bits are just the front lines.

At least we now know for whose side's victory you're pulling.

J sub D | December 2, 2006, 10:18am | #

Joe Dee, intellectual, insightful, and completeky irrelevant dissertations like yours are what keeps bringin me back to H&R. Thanks for the smiles.

J sub D | December 2, 2006, 10:19am | #

make that completely vice completeky

Crusty | December 2, 2006, 10:20am | #

These ladies are helping me to deal more naturally with my maleness.

Next time it rises unexpectedly in public, or hangs a little too low, I am not going to feel quite so out of place.

Tim | December 2, 2006, 10:25am | #

It's too late. All the "Catholic" universities -- Notre Dame,Georgetown, BC, etc. -- have already added vagina meditation/monologue to their annual academic calendars. The administrations of these institutions routinely thumb their noses at concerned alumni and the parents and assorted aunts and uncles of the students.

RebeccaH | December 2, 2006, 11:06am | #

Aside from not wanting to view anybody's "precious flower", I just don't want to have to sit on a bar stool or restaurant chair where that "precious flower" has been sitting without benefit of a body fluid barrier, preferably with cotton inset. Ick.

john p. | December 2, 2006, 11:38am | #

If it does catch on as a fad, and you catch sight of the "precious flower" of an underaged minor, have you committed a crime?

mishu | December 2, 2006, 11:58am | #

Take it from someone who's lived in Switzerland for two years. There's plenty of sex going around.

Clyde | December 2, 2006, 12:10pm | #

Meanwhile, the popup ad shows an attractive young woman in a Santa outfit, exposing a canyon of cleavage. Sex sells, people, sex sells.

My guess is that Britney starts hanging out with Jenna Jameson next...

Mike | December 2, 2006, 12:13pm | #

"This all reminds me of 6th grade boys tittering over naked bahoogies in National Geographic."

Um, bahoogies??? WTF???

Thomas Paine's Goiter | December 2, 2006, 12:43pm | #

If it does catch on as a fad,

It's been a "fad" since the 60's

Thomas Paine's Goiter | December 2, 2006, 12:57pm | #

I don't know if I've ever had a girlfriend, or wife, that has WORN panties.

chuckie | December 2, 2006, 1:17pm | #

"Synecdoche" and "Bahoogie".... I'm just here to expand my vocabulary.

James Anderson Merritt | December 2, 2006, 3:27pm | #

I think that South Park dealt with all significant aspects of this controversy in the Paris Hilton vs. Mr. Slave episode, and the Oprah's Vagina episode. What more is there to say? We may now move on to ... er ... meatier topics.

andy | December 2, 2006, 3:35pm | #

I just don't want to have to sit on a bar stool or restaurant chair where that "precious flower" has been sitting without benefit of a body fluid barrier, preferably with cotton inset.

I agree with you about some flowers, but I think you're overgeneralizing.

Sissy Willis | December 2, 2006, 3:50pm | #

I hadn't planned to blog about Britney Spears's Crotch until I realized that the story contained, metaphorically, the entire world in a grain of sand. First, I stumbled upon your own sparkling gem, "The Hidden Threat of Vaginofascism."

Then I caught one of my favorite Fox News anchors, the cerebral and courtly Brian Wilson, exchanging war stories with guest Chris Wallace over the tyranny of television producers. Brian was telling Chris that he had no way of stopping his bottom-line-obsessed producers from splashing all things Britney all over his nominally respectable Saturday afternoon show, Weekend Live, even as a preponderance of Brian's email was just saying "NO!" to celebrity trash.

"What Britney's Crotch Did To My Stats"

whit | December 2, 2006, 4:25pm | #

"Not so weird. There are many examples of an expansion of government having been preceeded by the public's being convinced that some looming crisis was about to destroy society. The Reason writers, a crackerjack crew of savvy political trend spotters, like to keep their readers informed about tomorrow's looming crises."

that's great, but like most slippery slope arguments, it's odious at best.

being a libertarian does NOT mean 'anything goes'. at least imo, libertarianism means greatly restricting GOVT's authority to limit behaviors, even if those behaviors are self-destructive or just plain lame.

personally, i think mj is lame. it makes you laff at dumb jokes and eat cheetos. i just don't think it should be ILLEGAL, and i certainly don't think the feds should be violating states rights in those states that have legalized medical mj, or when and if they legalize "for fun" mj, i think the feds should also butt out.

it's kind of like that "nazis marching in skokie" thing. clearly, we should defend our 1st amendment to the death, and uphold the RIGHT of nazi idiots to spew bile (which btw is illegal in nearly every other nation on earth i might add). it does not follow that CRITICISM of nazi idiots, scorn, ridicule, etc. is not totally warranted.

libertarianism =/= libertinism, although in this blog people seem to think the two things are the same. anybody that makes any sort of criticism of any behavior is labeled "anal retentive", a "prude" or whatever.

i think public scorn, ridicule, etc. are often very good things for a society to use, and are fully compatible with a libertarian society.

i guess i take a crotchety (no pun intended) new england yankee view. which basically comes down to this. i don't care WHAT you do in the privacy of your own home, but if u are gonna flaunt your idiocy (or debaseness) in public, you should do so with the understanding that you might receive some scorn.

scorn is not anti-libertarian, disapproval of crass behavior isn't either.

in the case of the crotch-thing, brittany is either profoundly stupid (in not realizing that high intensity paparazzi coverage will result in bare crotch shots at some point or another if she chooses to wear (or not) the clothes she does) or just doesn't care.

in the former case, i feel kind of badly for her. in the latter case, she is gonna get what she deserves.

as for the male equivalent? i guess scotland paparazzi would have the answer. do they often get photos of nekkid scots "bits" under the kilt?

uncle sam | December 2, 2006, 4:40pm | #

It is well known that people crave to see that which is hidden. What may be happening is the eventual end of titillation as our brains become depleted of neurochemical titillation responses.

As example, we become blasé with advertising hyperbole, but may have to put up with increasing hyperbole until the sources run into the limits of language.

These things tend to be cyclic. Eventually, we will grow bored with exhibition and concealment will become the new fashion.

The problem with pornography is that after arousal, comes boredom.

Mad Max | December 2, 2006, 4:44pm | #

Allow me to repeat one of my earlier remarks:

"I'd be interested . . . to know about a free society that kept its freedom in the long term with a large population of illegitimate children, divorced people, etc."

J sub D | December 2, 2006, 4:58pm | #

I agree with you about some flowers, but I think you're overgeneralizing.

Shouldn't that be overgenitalizing?

Please don't shoot me for that.

J sub D | December 2, 2006, 5:09pm | #

The problem with pornography is that after arousal, comes boredom.

And it doesn't take very long. Also, disgust usually is sandwiched between the two.

Talldave | December 2, 2006, 5:48pm | #

Sure, you laugh now, but just till you're exposed to the nether regions of Hillary Clinton, Madeline Albright, or (shudder) Janet Reno.

It's all fun and games till someone claws their own eyes out in terror.

The Wine Commonsewer | December 2, 2006, 8:48pm | #

If it does catch on as a fad, and you catch sight of the "precious flower" of an underaged minor, have you committed a crime?

Effen A right you have. And if she catches sight of yours, your going down too. And not like that.

DANEgerus | December 2, 2006, 10:52pm | #

It's a lovely way of showing they hate Bush.

jon | December 3, 2006, 1:43am | #

We can see Ms. Spears' depilated cooch. We can see torture. But how come the Abu Ghraib guys got all pixelated around the pudential regions? What, we can't stand a little sexual humiliation with our brutal humiliation? We can show a guy naked and getting forced into a pyramid while soldiers laugh and point, but if we see his schlong, it's not a fraternity ritual no more?

Let the era of exposed genitalia begin! Then maybe we can pick something more important to be outraged by.

Greg | December 3, 2006, 3:28am | #

I'm with Mad Max above - nothing wrong with society using stigmatization as long as (in most cases) it doesn't have the force of law behind it. It's a shame that libertarians with a soapbox like Hit & Run are so, dare I say, closed-minded about this legitimate viewpoint from a freedom-liker (as Birch Barlow would say). Place your rage with the FCC if it ever fines a network for showing Lohan's cooter.

whit | December 3, 2006, 9:32am | #

actually, greg. i think you are with me, not mad max....


not that you are against mad max...

you know what i mean

I cannot lie | December 3, 2006, 9:50am | #

it's inevitable that many, many women will adopt the fashion who really shouldn't.

Sad but true. Think of fat girls in miniskirts quadrupled in yuckiness.

Hey, man, don't you be censoring the show! You look for the privates you want, and I'll look for the privates I want.

biologist | December 3, 2006, 10:07am | #

I'm surprised no one has posted the lyrics to the Lords of Acid song "Pussy" yet.

I want to see your pussy, everybody says it's nice
Can I see your pussy, I'll be at your house tonight
They say it's soft to touch and really smooth
I can hardly wait to see your pussy too

I want to see your pussy now, show it to me
Show me your pussy now, show it to me


...and so on

tarran | December 3, 2006, 10:44am | #

Biologist,

I am not surprised - those were some of the least imaginative, crummiest lyrics I have read in a while.

Maybe they sing it really well.

stubby | December 3, 2006, 11:35am | #

I haven't read all the comments here (and I'm not gonna) so I don't know if anyone was as perplexed as me at the "for what constitutes glamorous female behavior" part....calm down, Grandma Carol - I don't know ANYONE who considers this glamorous behavior. I am actually a bit of a prude myself, and I have a 5 year old daughter, and I do get kind of pissed off at all the flesh and flash of current "fashion", but even I don't think that beaver shots are going to become glamorous any time soon. These bimbhos may seem glamorous, at the moment, to some young girls, but young girls grow up - and bimbhos age, and we all move on. Back in 85 I wanted to look like, and dress like, Madonna.

MainstreamMan | December 3, 2006, 11:44am | #

What about "The Power of Pussy" by Bongwater...

Seems more on topic.

Or Iggy Pop

An evil shadow across my brain
A certain buring that makes me insane
Shes on my beam oh no shes in my room
Shes al around me now and Im a tool

Pussy power
Pussy power
Pussy power
Pussy power

She wears a raincoat in the sun all day
She says she wants to have some fun, well, hey
She calls me over on the sidewalk
Shes got a joint, shes got a cute walk

Pussy power
Pussy power
Pussy power
Pussy power

Pussy power-hour by hour
Pussy power oh what a flower
I want to hold her close to me
cause pussy powers pulling me
Down
Down
Down
Down

When its there and I cant have it
I get real real rabid
Ive got to figure out a way
Im so pent-up, like this I cant stay
Ive got to look this in the eye
Im much too crazed, Im much too shy
But all in all, at least I am i
Oh my oh my oh my oh my

Pussy power
Pussy power
Pussy power
Pussy power

The Wine Commonsewer | December 3, 2006, 12:07pm | #

scorn is not anti-libertarian, disapproval of crass behavior isn't either.

Whit, that is right on the money.

Way too many libertarians are not content with simply factoring the government out of the equation but actively seek societal approval and blessings on whatever the alternative behavior de jur may be.

IOW, it's not good enough to be free to make your own choices, I have to like and approve of what you've chosen as well.

The Wine Commonsewer | December 3, 2006, 12:12pm | #

Stubby, I don't know anybody who considers this glamorous behavior either.

Knemon | December 3, 2006, 1:23pm | #

I got the hard word
You know what I heard?
They say the miniskirt is comin back in style (sproingg)
I say it ain't fair
But what do they care
When you got power then you use it for a while

Knemon | December 3, 2006, 1:26pm | #

"The only remaining question, then, is in which *direction* the stigmatization should go."

Both simultaneously (as if there were only two "directions"!). Dynamic tension.

Knemon | December 3, 2006, 1:57pm | #

"The problem with pornography is that after arousal, comes boredom."

And vice versa, fortunately.

hale | December 3, 2006, 6:19pm | #

IOW, it's not good enough to be free to make your own choices, I have to like and approve of what you've chosen as well.

I understand the sentiment, but there is a difference between trying to convince you that it isn't a big deal and expecting you to approve.

And not to get overly platitudinal, but it seems to me as though one of the great things about libertarianism is that with restrictions on the power of the state to regulate our lives, we could theoretically have cultural disagreements of this kind without ever needing to invoke the "if this now, then what next?" and "if we don't raise tolerance it'll soon be a criminal offense" arguments that characterize nearly all of today's policy debates.

Akira MacKenzie, Proud Libertine/Libertarian | December 3, 2006, 9:24pm | #

libertarianism =/= libertinism, although in this blog people seem to think the two things are the same. anybody that makes any sort of criticism of any behavior is labeled "anal retentive", a "prude" or whatever.

Oh Bullshit! If you aren't at least a libertine-sympathizer you have no more business calling yourself a "libertarian" than Bill Mahr does.

What do libertarians want? Freedom! Who wants to keep it from us? In part, those who lecture us about "decency" and "modesty." The same fascist fucktards who threw a shit fit over Janet's "wardrobe malfunction" or Kerry's step-daughter's see-through dress at Cannes. Therefore, we must shed the inhibitions, smash the boundaries, and flush the crippling filth known as Judeo-Christian morality down the crapper. A libertarian should celebrate the blow that an exposed "private" part does the the establishment, not tsk-tsk it. Freedom and priggishness do not mix.

The twats (no pun intended) who proclaim that "libertinism is not the same as libertarianism" are most likely not libertarians to begin with, no matter what they tell themselves. They should go back to be among the Bible-beating hicks in GOP where they belong.

Mad Max | December 3, 2006, 9:44pm | #

"Therefore, we must shed the inhibitions, smash the boundaries, and flush the crippling filth known as Judeo-Christian morality down the crapper."

On a completely different subject, does anyone have any ideas about how to improve the low poll numbers of libertarian and/or Libertarian candidates? Because the lack of popular support baffles me.

Akira MacKenzie, Proud Libertine/Libertarian | December 3, 2006, 11:50pm | #

On a completely different subject, does anyone have any ideas about how to improve the low poll numbers of libertarian and/or Libertarian candidates? Because the lack of popular support baffles me.

Yeah, because the American people are so secular and freedom loving that they don't need their faulty philosophies and their antiquated notions of "right and wrong" dispatched (sometimes harshly) before they need to be convinced to vote libertarian.

We'll just expect a bunch of uptight puritans to vote for "free minds and free markets" just as long as we tell them exactly what they want to hear.

Mad Max | December 4, 2006, 12:48am | #

Phrases like "shed the inhibitions, smash the boundaries, and flush the crippling filth known as Judeo-Christian morality down the crapper" aren't the monopoly of libertarian atheists. Such phrases would not sound out of place in the mouth of a Nietzschean or a socialist.

Akira MacKenzie | December 4, 2006, 6:32am | #

Such phrases would not sound out of place in the mouth of a Nietzschean or a socialist.

Your point is?

MainstreamMan | December 4, 2006, 11:44am | #

Akira,

I don't know what Mad Max's point was, but I think you might need to take a step back and consider how your words indicate that you want others not only to respect your choice of morals, but that you expect/want them to adopt your choice of morals.

A very unlibertarian attitude. Society benefits from the fact that there are moralistic Christians and moralistic aethiests discussing the boundaries of moral behavior. A discussion that would result from flushing "the crippling filth known as Judeo-Christian morality down the crapper" would be diminished in complexity and therefore of less value.

You seem to have shed your extreme christian upbringing, but remain a zealot if your words on the topic of religion on H&R are representative of your true thinking.

Cracker's Boy | December 4, 2006, 5:31pm | #

Sheeeezzzzeeeee... 143 comments and not ONE of you has posted a link to the filth. I spent 2 1/2 HOURS trying to find a picture of Lindsay's firecrotch and the closest I got was a somewhat blurred look at what MIGHT be Britney's hoo-hah... or just pink cotton panties.

Either that or my wife has managed to get a porn filter on my laptop.

Cracker's Boy

Foxxy Love | December 4, 2006, 8:36pm | #

I spent 2 1/2 HOURS trying to find a picture of Lindsay's firecrotch and the closest I got was a somewhat blurred look at what MIGHT be Britney's hoo-hah

Seriously? I had the opposite problem... the link I found had multiple close-up shots of the offending orifice in several different positions. I think it winked at me. *cries*

Akira MacKenzie | December 4, 2006, 9:52pm | #

This sort of thing brings out the worst in me. It really does. Among the "morales and values" that the virtue-crats wish to foist upon us, traditional sexual mores are by far the most ludicrous of the batch. Why is a biological function that is vital for human survival (not to mention loads of fun) something to regulated and control by the powers that be in both church and state?

Sex is nothing to be ashamed of nor is the human body. (Well, that is accept MY fat, ugly body.) Yet, we spend so much time, money, and effort to try to keep sex and nudity behind closed doors or forbid them outright for reasons that make absolutely no sense to a rational person. This situation has the tendency to drive me bonkers and sets me into revolutionary atheist mode. That's my only excuse.

On the other hand I still think that if libertarianism is to advance, we have to challenge and oppose the mores that are used by politician and voter alike to expand the power of the state over those who want to live their own lives. I make no apologies for that, and I never will.

In the final analysis, I believe in the battle between freedom and puritanism, somethings got to give. I don't want freedom to give since it is too important a value to compromise on, ever. If freedom means Lindsay not wearing panties and occasionally exposing their vulva's to a papparazi camera, then so be it. It deprives no one of the life, liberty, or property as far as I can tell. My question is why should anyone get their ass in a bind over it and proclaim that civilization is about to end because of it? Honestly!

Akira MacKenzie | December 4, 2006, 9:54pm | #

Edit: ...exposing her vulva...

Sarah | December 11, 2006, 4:03pm | #

It'll take too long to read all the comments at this point, but I can't help notice a number of people had trouble finding the pics.

I frequent two websites - bestweekever.tv and idontlikeyouinthatway.com - and they always have these things up right away. You can visit either one and search the archives and you should find them without problem.

It's an interesting issue, whether libertarians ought to embrace social/cultural pressure as a means of conforming others to our values. I'm generally opposed to that, but in certain circumstances, I'm all about it. For instance, I live in a small community, and I have no problem boycotting racist or homophobic local businesses.

But, supressing nudity just isn't a goal I can get behind. Hey, I scrutinized these pics the moments they came out. I wouldn't deny others the same entertainment.