December 16, 2013--All the XXX That's Fit to Print
I know things are difficult these days for newspapers. The kind delivered to your front door. Even for the "paper of record," the New York Times that proclaims each morning that it offers all the news "That's Fit to Print."
Put simply, they are losing readers and in turn advertisers are abandoning them.
Fit to print suggests editors make strategic decisions about what's important to report and, connotatively, fit also means what's appropriate to write about. To the gray-lady, fit has traditionally meant what to cover as well as what not to.
When, for example, supermarket tabloids and gossipy blogs such as the Drudge Report were the first to report about President Bill Clinton not-so-allegedly fooling around with an intern in the Oval Office, the Times did not see that as fit to cover. Instead, after a few weeks, realizing they were losing readers who were panting to learn all the lurid details, they began to cover the coverage, letting readers know what Drudge and the Sun and Enquirer were up to, assuming there were any Times readers who didn't notice the blaring headlines or sneak peeks as they dawdled in the checkout line.
So you can imagine my non-surprise when two Sundays ago the Times in its Magazine and special Style sections published stories that I would have expected to find in Cosmo or the Enquirer.
The first about "Sexercise," a detailed look at the fitness value of canoodling; the second, "What Lies Beneath," about various approaches to managing and grooming one's mons pubis.
WARNING--You must be over 18 to continue.
Times reporter Gretchen Reynolds asks, "Do intimate acts count as working out?"
And concludes . . . sort of.
Some sexercise advocates claim that sex burns up to 100 calories per session (about the number of calories in two medium-size chocolate chip cookies), but until recently that has never been scientifically verified.
To measure the potential aerobic benefit of having sex, researchers at the University of Quebec undertook a careful study. They signed up 21 young heterosexual couples and began by having them jog on treadmill for 30 minutes to create a baseline. They noted their energy expenditure and other metrics. Next, over a full month, they had their subjects fool around and then engage in sexual intercourse, all the while keeping track of various metabolic reactions.
They found that sex qualified as "moderate exercise," a little more so for men than women. About the equivalent of playing tennis doubles or walking uphill. For brief periods, they found, men exert more energy during sex than when jogging. They also found that for men sex burned four calories per minute while it only consumed three for women; and thus for "sessions"that lasted an average of 25 minutes (no comment) men burned two chocolate chip cookies' worth.
Not so surprising, 98 percent of the subjects reported that "sex felt more fun than jogging." I'm more interested in the responses of the remaining two percent. And why they left gay people out of the sturdy.
Meanwhile, over in the Times Style section, Amanda Hess reports that, "After years of razors, wax, and lasers reducing pubic hair to the bare minimum--or nothing at all--there's a return to a more natural state."
She continues--
If you would like more, here are a couple of other things from Ms. Hess and the New York Times--
As for me, I'll get back to reading about the protests in Ukraine.
Put simply, they are losing readers and in turn advertisers are abandoning them.
Fit to print suggests editors make strategic decisions about what's important to report and, connotatively, fit also means what's appropriate to write about. To the gray-lady, fit has traditionally meant what to cover as well as what not to.
When, for example, supermarket tabloids and gossipy blogs such as the Drudge Report were the first to report about President Bill Clinton not-so-allegedly fooling around with an intern in the Oval Office, the Times did not see that as fit to cover. Instead, after a few weeks, realizing they were losing readers who were panting to learn all the lurid details, they began to cover the coverage, letting readers know what Drudge and the Sun and Enquirer were up to, assuming there were any Times readers who didn't notice the blaring headlines or sneak peeks as they dawdled in the checkout line.
So you can imagine my non-surprise when two Sundays ago the Times in its Magazine and special Style sections published stories that I would have expected to find in Cosmo or the Enquirer.
The first about "Sexercise," a detailed look at the fitness value of canoodling; the second, "What Lies Beneath," about various approaches to managing and grooming one's mons pubis.
WARNING--You must be over 18 to continue.
Times reporter Gretchen Reynolds asks, "Do intimate acts count as working out?"
And concludes . . . sort of.
Some sexercise advocates claim that sex burns up to 100 calories per session (about the number of calories in two medium-size chocolate chip cookies), but until recently that has never been scientifically verified.
To measure the potential aerobic benefit of having sex, researchers at the University of Quebec undertook a careful study. They signed up 21 young heterosexual couples and began by having them jog on treadmill for 30 minutes to create a baseline. They noted their energy expenditure and other metrics. Next, over a full month, they had their subjects fool around and then engage in sexual intercourse, all the while keeping track of various metabolic reactions.
They found that sex qualified as "moderate exercise," a little more so for men than women. About the equivalent of playing tennis doubles or walking uphill. For brief periods, they found, men exert more energy during sex than when jogging. They also found that for men sex burned four calories per minute while it only consumed three for women; and thus for "sessions"that lasted an average of 25 minutes (no comment) men burned two chocolate chip cookies' worth.
Not so surprising, 98 percent of the subjects reported that "sex felt more fun than jogging." I'm more interested in the responses of the remaining two percent. And why they left gay people out of the sturdy.
Meanwhile, over in the Times Style section, Amanda Hess reports that, "After years of razors, wax, and lasers reducing pubic hair to the bare minimum--or nothing at all--there's a return to a more natural state."
She continues--
Marilyn Monroe's maid claimed she once walked in on the actress naked and splay-legged, bottle and toothbrush in hand, meticulously bleaching the hair between her legs a perfectly matching platinum . . .Enough? Or too much information?
If you would like more, here are a couple of other things from Ms. Hess and the New York Times--
For women of Monroe's generation, pubic hair was a game of peekaboo--on full display in the privacy of the bungalow, but carefully hidden from popular view. In recent years the bombshell bush has essentially disappeared. Wax-wielding estheticians and permanent lasers have whittled it down or erased it entirely . . .I'm done. If you're not, read the piece in full on-line to see what porn stars are up to as well Gwyneth Paltrow.
As for me, I'll get back to reading about the protests in Ukraine.
Labels: Amanda Hess, Bill Clinton, Cosmo, Drudge Report, Gwyneth Paltrow, Marilyn Monroe, New York Times, Newspapers, Porn Stars, Pubic Hair, Sexercise, Tabloids, The Enquirer, University of Quebec
posted by Steven Zwerling at
5:29 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home