Pages Menu
TwitterFacebook
Categories Menu

Posted in Censorship, Tyler Clementi (Teen Suicide and Wikileaks) | 0 comments

The PG-13 Version of This Blog Entry Has Been Rated NSFW

The following entry is the “SFW” (i.e., PG-13) version of: This Blog Entry Has Been Rated NSFW

What is “age appropriate” viewing? Who determines when you can see what?

Let’s begin with some representative vignettes.

The first from the print-centric paradigm of my youth.

When I was a teenager in the seventies, growing up in the South, there were visible, physical boundaries marking what was fit for consumption by those who were “under aged.”

  • At the back of the local used paperback bookstore, a curtain separated general reading from “adult” reading material.
  • At the 7-11, magazines for the general public were out front for the skimming; the adult magazines were behind the counter, out of view.
  • At our small public library? As elsewhere, the librarians could raise an eyebrow or look the other way. For the timid, better to stay in the stacks than to risk being asked if your parents approved.

All of these boundaries were permeable, of course.

Behind the ratty old curtain, you could catch glimpses of stacks of authorless pulp porn and plastic wrapped back issues of the adult magazines sold at the 7-11. At the convenience store, an older looking peer could screw up his courage and ask the clerk for a slurpee and a copy of the most recent Playboy, Penthouse, or Oui (which was pronounced “Oy” locally). Or chance could intervene: an errant shot at the public golf course might take you into the bushes where you’d find a rain-soaked copy of Barnyard Fun, which you could then secret away in your golf bag for future study.

Upon closer inspection, you might well conclude that the short stories in Barnyard Fun did not capture humanity in its best light. Wait a minute! These aren’t titillating stories about strapping young Hans having his way with the chesty milkmaid Bergit, they’re about . . . . Yikes!

But this conclusion could only be reached after you’d found a place where you could review the manuscript in private. Prior to this moment, you would have had to determine a safe place for hiding your reading material (as a previous reader had with said bush off the hypothetical dogleg left at our imagined public golf course); and then, after your rude introduction to non-andro-centric carnal pleasures, you’d be faced with the task of figuring out how to dispose of the foul reading matter in such a way that it didn’t point back to you.

Then, it’s back to the classics, where the black ram tupping the white ewe is safely confined to the realm of metaphor.

Physical boundaries, physical objects.

*

Movies also had a physical boundary–in the form of the ticket seller who was charged with enforcing the MPAA (Motion Picture Association of America) rating system. Under 17 and without a parent or guardian? You weren’t getting into that R rated film.

I was fifteen when I saw my first R-rated film. After much strategizing, a couple of buddies and I joined the crowds on a Friday night, blended in, had the biggest one amongst us buy the tickets, and slid low into our seats for Two-Minute Warning. Imagine our disappointment when it turned out that the R rating was largely for violence.

IMDb (the Internet Movie Database) confirms this recollection from 1976: “A woman is seen briefly nude.” IMDb provides other helpful information: “mild profanity,” “one use of the f-word,” “some gory killings,” “very bloody!”

Click image to enlarge

“The mass panic of the people fleeing the stadium
when the sniper starts shooting is very intense.”

The IMDb comments appear in the “Parents Guide” for the film and are meant to fill out the meaning of the MPAA “R” rating. This new feature on IMDb is a Web 2.0 response to the challenge of assessing whether a film is appropriate for a particular viewer: the crowd collectively generates the review and self-polices for accuracy.

Since the beliefs that parents want to instill in their children can vary greatly, we ask that instead of adding your personal opinions about what is right or wrong in a film, that you instead use this feature to help parents make informed viewing decisions by describing the facts of relevant scenes in the title for each one of the different categories: Sex and Nudity, Violence and Gore, Profanity, Alcohol/Drugs/Smoking, and Frightening/Intense Scenes.

Admittedly, that’s one terribly written sentence, but you get the idea: if viewers provide a factual account for each of the categories, other viewers can decide whether little Johnny should see the film (or, much more likely these days, whether little Johnny should have seen the film).

*

The IMDb Parents Guide is offered in the teeth of an incontrovertible reality in the Web 2.0 World: there’s no controlling what little Johnny sees. The best one can do is have a fuller sense of the various vectors that might define appropriateness relative to who might be sitting in front of your screen at any given moment.

Joe Bob Briggs, self-described drive-in movie critic, has long understood the necessity for providing an alternative to the 1.0, top down rating system of the MPAA. You could even say that he has long used the categories the IMDb now recommends; he just doesn’t separate his comments out into the IMDb’s boxes:

Four breasts. Twenty-eight dead bodies. Throat ripping. Double broadsword impalement. Abominable snow-wolf. Jaw Fu. Stephanie Faulkner, as the woman who is visited by the werewolf while she’s putting on her jeans and says “This is VERY rude”….

And, well, there’s the fact that Joe Bob inverts all the categories, so that a film that had one woman “seen briefly nude” and “one f-word” would be tossed into the bonfire in favor of, say, Howling V, reviewed above and the recipient of two out of a possible four stars on Joe Bob’s scale of bare breasts and buckets of blood.

*

What is the MPAA? It’s an obvious question, but not one I’d ever thought to ask until I started thinking about privacy and censorship in the print-centric paradigm. In This Film is Not Yet Rated, Kirby Dick takes up this question, focusing on the MPAA rating board’s distinction between the R and the NC-17 film. The former rating signifies no one under seventeen is admitted without an accompanying adult; the latter rating, which is the kiss of death in terms of distribution, signifies that no one under seventeen is allowed admission no matter what.

Dick records his efforts to get behind the MPAA’s veil to its secretive rating board. Unhappy with the official description that the board is made up of typical parents who must remain anonymous if they’re to be free of outside influence, Dick hires a private eye who, through ingenuity and clandestine observation, is able to reveal the identities of the board members. Having documented his own acts of spying in the name of freedom of expression, Dick submits his film to the MPAA to be rated. And, sure enough, it comes back with a rating of NC-17.

Why?

It includes numerous clips from films that have received R ratings and NC-17 ratings. It uses these clips as evidence in an argument about the biases of the MPAA’s ratings board which are:

  1. the board favors the major motion picture industry over independent film makers in determining its ratings and;
  2. the board is generally determines that there are two types of sex scenes inappropriate for the under-17 crowd: any sex scene not shot as an over the shoulder closeup; and any sex scene that focuses on the woman’s gratification.

One example, among many, that Dick provides:

Click image to enlarge

The Cooler, originally NC-17, starring William Macy and Maria Bello; Scary Movie, PG-13, starring Carmen Electra, briefly.

The Cooler was originally assigned an NC-17 rating, in part because Maria Bello’s pubic hair is visible during her sex scene with William Macy. The Cooler opened on 11 screens nationwide and grossed $130K on its first weekend. (It was subsequently edited to receive an R rating.)

Scary Movie, which received a PG-13 rating, opens with Carmen Electra stabbed in the breast, her gelatinous, translucent breast implant caught on the killer’s knife. Bleeding profusely, Electra runs to the highway for help, where she is then hit by a car and left for dead. Scary Movie opened on 2913 screens nationwide and grossed $42M on its first weekend. This spoof of slasher films became an industry unto itself and, with its three sequels, grossed $818M worldwide.

There’s a lotta ka-ching in generating the old knife-in-the-heart-of-the-scantily-clad-babe kind of belly laughs.

*

Got it?

Woman’s pubic hair: disturbing.
Adults having consensual sex: sketchy.
Former Playboy model stabbed in the breast, unleashing gallons of blood: family fun.

There’s not much of a challenge to setting up juxtapositions of this kind, precisely because the MPAA’s ratings are inherently incoherent and are produced only, as Dick documents, to serve the industry that pays its bills. Indeed, when Dick goes to appeal the board’s initial decision to rate his film NC-17, he is expressly forbidden from referencing any other films in his appeal. Dick is left to make his case to an an appeals board composed of members who also refuse to identify themselves and includes two religious leaders (one Catholic, one Protestant) who are present as non-voting members for all appeals.

This Film Is Not Yet Rated ends with the final verdict of the appeals board stamped on the screen: NC-17.

Click image to enlarge

*

As it happens, the issue that centrally concerned Dick when he began his research into the MPAA’s unregulated powers took center stage in the main stream media this year. Two films, one from a major motion picture maker, the other from an independent filmmaker; both with scenes of oral sex; one receives an R rating, the other an NC-17.

In the four years since This Film Is Not Yet Rated came out, however, the independents have learned something about fighting back. The producers of Blue Valentine got news of the MPAA’s decision out quickly. The news spread virally on the internet–and there’s nothing that riles a celebrity-obsessed population more than a controversy about access to sexual content–and an online petition protesting the rating for Blue Valentine circulated.

The story was taken up by bloggers. Gary Susman, tongue in cheek, looked at the silver lining in the controversy:

The ratings board may have muddled standards regarding female sexual pleasure, profanity and violence, but at least it’s no longer quite so fearful of lesbianism. So long as the lesbians are played by household-name actresses in MPAA-member films, and they’re not totally naked, and they’re not necessarily enjoying themselves, and they might just be fantasizing, that is …

The controversy is taken up by the popular press. And the MPAA unanimously reverses itself on appeal: Blue Valentine will be released on December 31st with an R rating.

*

For some, all this kurfuffle over an obviously outdated and inadequate rating system may seem much ado about nothing. Perhaps, like me, you’ve stopped going out to movies because:

  1. the movies that make it to the screen in your neighborhood are almost exclusively about the internal conflicts experienced by comic book super heroes or talking lions or amusement park manikins come to life as swashbuckling heroes or . . . ;or
  2. the viewing “choices” are, essentially, all versions of the same fly-covered valentines to the Gods of Technology, with the majority of the shots involving cell phones, computer screens, computer simulations of reality, computer simulations of destruction (kul), computer simulations of acting, etc.;or
  3. the experience of sitting in what used to be a darkened space has been replaced by competition at the doors of perception, with one’s fellow viewers forever dipping in to do a little cell phone email or texting or Facebooking or gaming or, well, actual conversing, whenever there’s a nanosecond where whatever’s happening on the screen doesn’t completely consume one’s attention;or

well, I could go on, but you get the point.

*

Quick: name all the movies you saw in 2010.

What a minute, that’s not fair at all. Do over!

Quick: name as many movies as you can that you saw in a theater in 2010. Go!

Still, not so easy, at year’s end, is it?

One last try. Ready?

Quick: name as many movies as you can that you saw in a theater in 2010 that were good.

Ah, much easier.

*

Let’s agree: both the movie industry’s efforts to self-regulate and the news media’s adoring coverage of the controversies created by the move industry’s unregulated self-regulation are ripe for ridicule and mirth. And in the spirit of the season, I’ll go a step further, as long as it’s just between you and me, and get this off my chest: I fear I’ve not been entirely successful in resisting the temptation to engage in said ridicule and mirth here, sadly.

There, I feel better. Don’t you?

If we take a step back from the specifics of which movie got what rating and why, we can see the MPAA rating system for what is truly is: the futile effort of a 1.0 regulatory body to govern viewing habits in a 2.0 world.

Other facets of this futility have emerged over the course of this meditation. We’ve seen it:

  • in the Obama administration’s directive to federal employees instructing them not to read the WikiLeaks documents;
  • in the international attempt to shut down the avenues for providing financial support to the WikiLeaks project;
  • and in the international search for members of Anonymous, the loosely affiliated group of hackers responsible for launching “Operation Payback,” which began as an attack on….wait for it….anti-pirating websites, including the MPAA, before it morphed into a counter-strike in support of Julian Assange.

These regulatory efforts are all traces of a dying paradigm, one where authority was centralized, information was scarce, and access to that scarce information could be controlled.

Now?

There’s a trace of a rating system organic to the Web 2.0 environment.

Brace yourself.

The remainder of this entry is not for the feint of heart.

Indeed, there have been more than a few moments during the process of collecting materials for this meditation where I’ve had to declare a CODE BLUE and self-administer CPR to bring myself back from the abyss.

James Bond, self-administering CPR  after having been poisoned in the remake of Casino Royale or having begun research into NSFW websites. It’s hard to tell.

*

During the talks that Paul and I have been giving over the past two years, I’ve stressed that the Web is a neutral repository: it stores the best thoughts humans have had and the most depraved. It’s one thing to say this. It’s another thing to know and understand it in the abstract. It’s yet another thing to see it realized in individual instances.

In the 1.0 World, with its physical boundaries, its physical objects, and its hokey, ridiculous movie rating system, it was possible to exercise some significant measure of control over who had access to what kind of information when. In the Web 2.0 World it is not possible to exercise any significant control over who has access to what kind of information when.

As I’ve stressed throughout my posts over the past two months, the change is not one of degree; it’s a change in kind. This is why it’s appropriate to describe what we are experiencing as a paradigm shift: In the 1.0 World, we had G, PG, PG-13, R, and NC-17. In the 2.0 World, there’s only one rating and it’s self-imposed:

NSFW

NSFW?

Not Safe For [Viewing at] Work.

If you scroll any further down this post, the blurred images are the sanitized images from the NSFW version of this post.

Why?

That’s the essence of the how the self-imposed NSFW rating system works:

Whoever has added the NSFW acronym to the subject line of an email or in the blog title or above a link in an email is warning you that the information on its way to you is information that is likely to be disruptive in the work place. It’s a judgment call on the part of the sender. Not exactly arbitrary; certainly, subjective; and unavoidably contingent, since the viewing standards at one work place aren’t necessarily the standards at another.

If, for example, you are a teacher, you might think your workplace protects your right to view whatever you please as long as it is advancing your education. My advice? When the government is telling federal employees not to read WikiLeaks, I wouldn’t count on your home institution to declare its commitment to academic freedom. It might be better to wait till you get home.

*

Let’s return for a moment to our timeline.

It’s early Friday morning on September 17th, 2010. In eight days, Dahrun Ravi’s name will produce tens of thousands of hits in google searches; he will feature in lead new stories around the globe; his high school yearbook picture, alongside Molly Wei’s, will be flashed across screens worldwide. And soon thereafter, Facebook pages will be created demanding his expulsion from Rutgers, that he be charged with a hate crime, that he be given the chair; videos making similar demands will be posted to YouTube. In the near future, Dahrun Ravi will go viral as the face of cyberbullying.

But at 2:33 AM, on September 17th, that future is unimaginable. Preposterous. Ravi’s got his mind on other things. He tweets to his 148 followers:

Sitting here stoned out of my mind with a buddy watching top 100 viral videos. Pandas sneezing is what college is about.

What might have been queued up for their viewing pleasure?

Perhaps this.

Ranked 11th on YouTube’s list of most viewed videos of all-time (well, not to be a stickler, but most viewed since YouTube was founded in February 2005):

An Experiment

This 35 second video, with its 144M views, is a gimmick.

What’s the experiment referenced in the title? Is it getting you to click on the video?

That’s what “justley124″ surmises in his comment that was just below the video when I watched it: “I bet over half the people who clicked on this thought it was going to be porn. Lol.”

What would make anyone think such a thing?

In the YouTube list of most-viewed videos of all-time, all the honorees appear as thumbnails. To view a given video you click on its thumbnail:

Actual Size

What is that? Could be a girl undressing? A naked girl with a towel? Is the experiment spying on her? Does the experiment involve that bottle?

Let’s find out.

Note: I didn’t label this video NSFW, so you’re fine.

And ole justley124 has already let the cat out of the bag, anyway. What lies ahead isn’t 35 seconds of porn; it’s just a silly young Asian girl/woman (age indeterminate) dropping crushed Mentos into a Coke bottle and getting the results that have provided endless hours of viewing pleasure for the huddled masses. To wit, the Coke erupts out of the bottle and, in this instance, rains down on the head of the delighted, squealing young lady.

Mentos and Coke is a YouTube meme. Kids see the trick once and they feel compelled to replicate the experiment on film and then post the results for others to see: two bottles at once; strings of bottles; simultaneous eruptions and sequenced eruptions engineered by young men in lab coats; timed drops that result in the bottles themselves rocketing erratically into space.

The experiment here turns out to have at least three parts: first, see if you can get users to click the thumbnail (girl in pink in bathroom, could be naked); see if the Coke explodes when you drop in the Mentos; see if you can start your own meme, where others take up your delighted squeal of “nyoki nyoki” and incorporate it into their videos.

Click image to enlarge

nyoki nyoki

Why would anyone conduct such an “experiment”?

If you follow the link below the video, you get taken to an iTunes page where you can purchase music by the two young women, who go by the name 294 (it’s their combined height in centimeters). In one respect, what the two young women have done is put together a homemade commercial in hopes of grabbing your attention for long enough to make you curious enough to pay to hear more from the gal who is squealing “nyoki nyoki” and her off-stage partner.

What is “nyoki nyoki”?

Turns out this is 294′s effort to establish world peace.

I’m not making this up, alas.

With a little help from Google Translator and a little more clicking around, you can find your way to “294′s Nyoki Nyoki Center: ‘Everybody, Let’s Nyoki Nyoki Together,’” where four hundred fans have posted response videos featuring individuals who eventually find their way to proclaiming “nyoki nyoki.”

Why does 294 want this to happen? What does this have to do with world peace? As posted–that is, in English–on their site, the explanation is as follows:

We’ve been acting “nyoki nyoki please” on YouTube.
“nyoki nyoki” means Growing up!
We want to grow up the world for the peace!
“nyoki nyoki” & your smile is going to save the world!
If we were all friends,
we wouldn’t fight.
If we help other people,
the world would be more peaceful.
If we love each other,
we will have a much more better world.
Let’s nyoki nyoki together with us!
Please give me your smile with nyoki nyoki!

Turns out 294 aren’t really musicians after all. They “use Kara-OK” [karaoke].

*

Well, that was a bracing first dip into the online world of video.

But not really in the Not-Safe-For-Work kind of way.

More in the New Yorker’s Constant-Reader-faced-with-reviewing-A.-A.-Milne’s-The-House-on-Pooh-Corner kind of way. Constant Reader, as you may recall, was only able to make it to page five before giving up on Milne’s classic. What happened on page five?

Pooh used the word “hummy.”

“And it is that word ‘hummy,’ my darlings, that marks the first place in The House at Pooh Corner at which Tonstant Weader Fwowed up.”

*

YouTube does its best, through the round-the-clock feedback from their viewers, to keep its edgiest content safely in the R range. Their community guidelines are explicit about what they will and won’t post:

YouTube is not for pornography or sexually explicit content. If this describes your video, even if it’s a video of yourself, don’t post it on YouTube.

. . .

Things like predatory behavior, stalking, threats, harassment, intimidation, invading privacy, revealing other people’s personal information, and inciting others to commit violent acts or to violate the Terms of Use are taken very seriously. Anyone caught doing these things may be permanently banned from YouTube.

YouTube strives to be SFW.

PornoTube? PornoTube is not affiliated with YouTube in anyway, except of course via the intentionally confusing similarity between the site names.

PornoTube?

Definitely NSFW.

Yikes!

According to the PornoTube homepage, this is just the first twenty-four of the 32,444 total videos available for instant free viewing. There are no firewalls; there are no physical barriers. Just click and you’re in business.

There’s something for everyone, apparently.

Well, not everyone, really, but there’s something for everyone seeking access to footage of virtually any imaginable combination of one body part somehow intersecting with one or more other body parts or stage props. If you’re in the market for that, I’m guessing that PornoTube has just what you are looking for.

Recordings not to your taste? Prefer live streamed access? PornoTube appears to have that covered, as well:

You gotta give this to PornoTube: they cover the waterfront.

*

What about those rascals over at anonymous? What are they up to, when they’re not fighting for freedom of expression on the Internet and defending WikiLeaks from a coordinated global cyber assault?

Click to enlarge

4chan Discussion Boards

Here, the range of activities is much wider than one finds at PornoTube. Members meet to discuss everything from Anime and Manga to Weapons to Science and Math to Literature (really!).

After the PornoTube detour, things seem positively wholesome out here at this corner of the cyber-universe, if you can adjust to the discursive norm, which is clipped bursts of knowing swagger. The most recent post to the Literature board, for instance, (how could I not go there?) is:

Sup /lit/ fags! Can any of you recommend some decent philosophy books? Something maybe more contemporary?

If I gave you a million years, you’d never guess the first suggestion from Anonymous that came back two minutes later:

The parallax view slavoj zizek

Then another post two minutes after that, also by Anonymous, of course:

Robert Kane’s Ultimate Responsibility

Mortimer Alder’s Self Determinism

The Thief of Time: Philosophical Essays on Procrastination

Jack Donnelly’s Universal Human Rights

Kenneth Waltz’s Man, The State and War

I’ll admit it: I find it heartening to see users anywhere exchanging reading recommendations, even though I know anonymous would ridicule me for having such feelings.

anonymous exchanges all manner of information at 4chan. Indeed, the home page states that 4chan accommodates nearly 60,000 current users and that more than 650M posts have been made to its boards. Some of those posts, not surprisingly, go to the 18+ boards, where images of both real “sexy beautiful women” and fictional ones are shared fast and furiously:

First image on the “Hentai” board,
starting a thread entitled, “Posting for Some Friend.”

Others, as I’ve discussed in earlier posts, share information about how to participate in Operation Payback.

*

And the boys over at justusboys.com? What are those scamps up to?

Turns out, the same thing everybody else is up to on these other sites–catering to tastes for every imaginable combination of body parts, locations, and ethnicities:

Page 1 of 1039 pages.

The difference between justusboys and PornoTube? PornoTube really is just a place to hang out and watch porn–potentially for all eternity. justusboys, like 4chan, has a message board area, one that allows visitors to the site to communicate with each other. When cit2mo discovered he’d been spied on by his roommate, he turned to the community at justusboys for advice. It’s not insignificant that the resulting thread on “college roommate spying” happens, literally, interspersed with graphic images of sexual activity.

What is more significant, though, is that justusboys really does serve as a virtual community where visitors can go to ask questions and share advice, not only about issues related to sex and health, but about topics ranging from personal safety to coming out to your parents to deciding between buying an Apple or a PC. justusboys is a relatively safe (but not, as we’ve seen, private) place for gay, gay-friendly, gay-curious users, who may or may not have an interest in graphic pornography, to meet virtually. 4chan serves a similar function for tech-positive, geeky users with an interest in images, memes, and freedom of expression–users who may or may not also be interested in hacking or graphic images of women. In other words, justusboys and 4chan are doorways into voluntary, virtual communities.

PornoTube? No message boards. No communication between users. [What brings you here? I like porn. Ah. End of Conversation.] It’s just porn. Lots and lots and lots of porn. 24-7. No physical boundaries preventing admission. No doorway. No there.

*

You get the idea, yes? There are no ratings out there, no barriers, no guardians at the gates. Anything two humans have ever done with each other that involves genitalia is out there. Anything.

I’ve just scratched the surface. Go in a few clicks deeper and it gets a lot darker in the blink of an eye.

*

And if you didn’t wish to wander from one ungated virtual community to the next endlessly? What would you do then?

Say you wanted to learn more about global interest in Tyler Clementi. What could you discover?

Click image to enlarge

Google Zeitgeist 2010:
Tracking searches globally for “Rutgers” and for “Tyler Clementi.”

Not surprisingly, interest in Clementi peaks during the period of September 26th to October 2nd, just as news of his suicide broke. Within two weeks, Clementi recedes from view.

What’s was the fastest rising search item overall at Google over the course of 2010?

A hint: the site is NSFW.

Is it safe? No. It’s not safe, it’s… very dangerous, be careful.

Click image to enlarge

Chatroulette edges out iPad as the fastest rising search term for 2010.

Chatroulette? Yes, as discussed in an earlier post, the site dedicated to video voyeurism.

*

Here’s something to consider. The NSFW rating itself is founded on the assumption that one shares physical space with co-workers, not virtual space. Indeed, the rating system assumes a world where there is work.

Time will tell whether this assumption is warranted.

*

We may now be in a position to propose an explanation for a couple of the questions that have been raised over the course of this meditation:

1. When Ravi tweeted:

Roommate asked for room till midnight. I went into molly’s room and turned on my webcam. I saw him making out with a dude. Yay.

why didn’t his 148 followers on Twitter respond with shock and outrage?

2. Why wasn’t Clementi outraged, initially, when he discovered that his roommate had spied on him?

3. Why did the news media get nearly all of the basic facts about what happened during the first spying incident wrong?

Hypothesis/Short version:

18-year olds know what happens with images in the Web 2.0 world; older people don’t.

Hypothesis/Longer version:

Curiosity about sex is a given from the onset of adolescence.

In the Web 2.0 World, adolescents now have access to a global archive of images, still and moving, of every imaginable form of sexual activity. Chatroulette is just one venue among many catering to this curiosity: it works by providing users with random virtual encounters that may be shocking or not–parties of teens watching together, masks on to retain their anonymity, may be connected to an aspiring folk singer or an exhibitionist or a folk singer wearing nothing but his guitar. The porn sites, by contrast, allow the user to tailor the content in advance–by body type, by act, by preferred fantasy. In this world, it is not unusual to encounter images that have been posted without the expressed consent of all those engaging in the selected sexual activity.

Next: Now Things Get Complicated: The Calculus of Desire.

__________________________

This is part of an ongoing meditation on the End of Privacy. While it can be read on its own, you might enjoy starting at the beginning, where I lay out the project of thinking about privacy in relation to examining information about Tyler Clementi that is openly available on the Web. This mediation starts here: The End of Privacy: A Case Study (Tyler Clementi and WikiLeaks). A summary of all sections of the meditation may be found here: Annotated Table of Contents for The End of Privacy: A Case Study.

Susman’s piece may be found here.

294′s video response site may be found here: Nyoki Nyoki Center

Subscribers to The New Yorker can access Constant Reader’s review, “Far from Well,” here. In the same review, Constant Reader says of Professor William Lyon Phelps book, Love, that, “[l]ike its predecessor, it is a small, light, pleasantly printed book, nice to hold in the hand. I believe that these are what are called gift books, meaning, I supposed, that that is the only way anybody would take them.”

Let me know what you're thinking

%d bloggers like this: