Subscribe via RSS Feed

Requiring That You Get Something In Return For Your Health Insurance Premiums — Is There No End To Their Smutty Treachery?

[ 71 ] November 2, 2012 |

Since the contest to parody syndicated columnist William F. George went so well, the Wiseacre Society at the Columbia School of Journalism held a follow-up requesting parodies of over-the-top winger freakouts about Lena Dunham’s Obama ad. Almost immediately, they received this perhaps slightly over-the-top parody of The Corner:

Was it only last week, pre-Sandy, that the Obama campaign ran the generally smutty, unpleasantly manipulative political ad featuring Lena Dunham, called “First Time,” which attempted to conflate a young woman’s first vote with losing her virginity? In addition to the smarmy, smutty tone, the ad was an ugly, desperate attempt to manipulate young women into voting for Obama, on the general grounds that he is “a great guy,” and “cool.” Apart from the fact that neither of those qualities are really at the top of the list of key attributes for boyfriends or leaders of the free world, the ad occasioned disgust because it was a new cultural low. Lower, even than attempting to bribe women with free contraception — or cell phones.

For the record, the ad was disturbing also because it forced normal parents, trying as hard as we can to instill reasonable morality, virtue, and common sense into our teenagers, to confront the ugliness of the hook-up culture which they have to work pretty hard to avoid. Who wants to be reminded that teenage girls now come of age in a culture in which it is common to strategize about how and where to have sex, when really that should be a consideration that comes after love, relationships and commitments? But that is a rant for another time.

Pure comic gold! That might be the best one since the Editors retired.

Comments (71)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Malaclypse says:

    the ad occasioned disgust because it was a new cultural low

    The fact that this is not universally and instantly recognized as an actual cultural low, that I hope will never be surpassed, is evidence that Schiffren, like most wingnuts, has some rather serious issues.

  2. Malaclypse says:

    For the record, the ad was disturbing also because it forced normal parents, trying as hard as we can to instill reasonable morality, virtue, and common sense into our teenagers, to confront the ugliness of the hook-up culture which they have to work pretty hard to avoid

    Also, for the record, as the father of a daughter, I actually understand that someday she will fuck someone. I’m glad birth control will be covered.

    • Snarki, child of Loki says:

      I, for one, am grateful that Doughy Pantload took himself out of the game by finally making Chunky Reese Witherspoon an Honest Woman.

      …wait, what?

    • DrDick says:

      Anyone who would say, “Who wants to be reminded that teenage girls now come of age in a culture in which it is common to strategize about how and where to have sex,” obviously does not know any actual teenage girls and obviously did not lose their virginity until rather late in life.

      • Warren Terra says:

        Everyone knows that teenage girls should only contemplate having sex after a Church-blessed heterosexual marriage or when God decides they should be raped.

      • rea says:

        a culture in which it is common to strategize about how and where to have sex

        Far, far better to have random, unplanned, unprotected sex, I guess.

        • DrDick says:

          Exactly. From what I hear and see, I think there may well be far less actual strategizing now than when I was in high school and college in the late 60s and early 70s.

  3. Murc says:

    Who wants to be reminded that teenage girls now come of age in a culture in which it is common to strategize about how and where to have sex,

    I do.

    Sex is awesome. People don’t have enough of it. They should have more. They should also plan accordingly to ensure that said sex, as well as the pre and post sex periods, is as smooth and without undesirable consequences as possible.

    • Julian says:

      Who wants to be reminded that teenage girls now come of age in a culture in which it is common to strategize about how and where to have sex

      Uh, does “now” mean “for the last sixty years”?

      Also, I just love this:

      Was it only last week, pre-Sandy, that the Obama campaign ran the generally smutty, unpleasantly manipulative political ad

      Hey, look over here – Obama ran an ad! Bad ad! Bad ad! Pay no attention to the natural disaster we badly need FEMA (which Romney wants to eradicate) to manage. What about that carazy ad from a week ago!?! AMIRITE

      • Ken says:

        Uh, does “now” mean “for the last sixty years”?

        Sixty thousand would be closer. Probably more, depending on when language got complicated enough.

    • Jerry Vinokurov says:

      More people should sign on to this eminently sensible position.

    • Who wants to be reminded that teenage girls now come of age in a culture in which it is common to strategize about how and where to have sex

      Is there a list I can sign up for?

      • Alan in SF says:

        Call me old school, but I long for the old days when teenagers just did it wherever, albeit badly, without any or that fancy-shmancy “strategizing” first.

        Also rainbow parties.

        • Why can't they be like we were... says:

          …perfect in every way?

          Call me old school too, but nothing says “innocent enough to not strategize to have sex” more than “teens getting pregnant because they forgot to strategize birth control”.

    • njorl says:

      Can we book SEK’s office in advance?

  4. Evan Harper says:

    Who wants to be reminded that teenage girls now come of age in a culture in which it is common to strategize about how and where to have sex

    Forget about disagreeing or even being outraged by this, can anyone figure out what the hell is it even supposed to mean? The only way I can parse it semantically, without first rewriting it somehow, is to say that The Corner wants girls to have sex only in a totally thoughtless and arbitrary fashion without regard for consequences. Or maybe just involuntarily.

    • jon says:

      All that would be fine: AS LONG AS I DON’T HAVE TO BE REMINDED OF IT!

    • Murc says:

      The Corner doesn’t think girls (and really, to them all women are girls) should be having sex at all, except when their husbands demand their rights.

      I should think that was rather obvious.

    • Lurker says:

      To be generous, I’d say that the people at the Corner wish to live in a world where teenage girls are paragons of virtue, never even thinking about sex with anyone but the husband their father will pick for them.

    • SatanicPanic says:

      If you start with the premise that women don’t choose boyfriends based on whether or not they’re “great guys” or “cool” then you’re bound to end up somewhere strange.

      • Cody says:

        We all know they a) Have their boyfriends chosen by their father or b) Choose the richest guy.

        How did you find love!?

      • Derelict says:

        Well, as the writers at NRO and The Corner will be quick to tell you, THEY are great guys AND they’re cool. Yet, they aren’t getting the girls. Therefore, the only possible conclusion is that women don’t choose boyfriends based on either of those qualities. Those mysterious women must be selecting mates based on some other ineffable, inscrutable, indecipherable criteria.

        Of course, it would never occur to any of these fools that being a troglodyte does tend to reduce your chances of having more than seconds-long interactions with women who are not being forcibly restrained.

        • cpinva says:

          you say this as though having them restrained is a bad thing.

          Of course, it would never occur to any of these fools that being a troglodyte does tend to reduce your chances of having more than seconds-long interactions with women who are not being forcibly restrained.

    • Leeds man says:

      Yeah, I was wondering when this Golden Age was, and how I missed it.

    • sharculese says:

      There is an easy solution to this and it’s called having an open conversation with your kids about sex so that they don’t have to get plan around the possibility of getting caught.

      But then you miss out on every conservative mother’s dream of bursting a blood vessel when she finds out all her daughter’s friends are disgusting, filthy sluts, so I guess it’s win-lose.

  5. In addition to the smarmy, smutty tone, the ad was an ugly, desperate attempt to manipulate young women into voting for Obama

    Rule of thumb: when a politician or activist uses the word “desperate” to describe an opponent’s message, that means it worked.

  6. the ad occasioned disgust

    Among whom? The only people I’ve seen express disgust about that ad spent September 2008 freaking out about Greek columns.

    Man, the set Obama used for his convention speech really occasioned stupidity.

    • NonyNony says:

      Grod I almost forgot about that.

      2008 was such a stupid election cycle. I’m still trying to figure out if this one is actually stupider or if it’s about the same.

      The columns. Jeebus.

  7. Lurker says:

    Actually, this goes to show the hypocrisy about politcal ads.

    In usual commercial speech, sex is conflated with almost anything from choclate bars to cars. This is the usual language of advertising. The only grounds you can consider Obama’s advertisement to be morally reprehensible are:
    1) Any non-marital sex is bad, thus this girl should’t even think about sex.
    2) Bringing up sex appeal in the presidential race does not conform with the decorum of the office.

    Point 1) is a thing that almost no Obama supporter will actively endorse. If you embrace point 1), you are already in Romney’s camp. Actually, Obama should play this up by touting his liberalism. Most Americans are OK with pre-marital sex.

    Point 2) might have been valid until “Old Hickory”. Since then, presidents have been selected at least as much due to their alpha-male sex appeal than due to their politics. In fact, I smell some racial stereotyping here. Obama’s opponents are likely to be afraid of the fact that he might use the famous irresistable appeal of his race towards the white Republican female voters. :-)

    • vacuumslayer says:

      Erm, not quite sure why the tag fail there. But now my link is laid bare, just wantonly inviting clicks. Shameful.

    • ralphdibny says:

      A white woman using sexual innuendo in discussing a relationship with a black man? Nope, can’t see why certain people would freak out. :)

      • vacuumslayer says:

        But the innuendo is so mild…and as my entry points out, it’s really much more about the exhilaration of voting than it is about sex.

        Bottom line, the spot just doesn’t seem sexytime-oriented to me. It barely nods at a joke about losing your virginity to talk about the coolness of voting.

        • Malaclypse says:

          Bottom line, the spot just doesn’t seem sexytime-oriented to me.

          Clearly, you have never been a sexually repressed young male.

        • laura says:

          Yup, same reaction. The whole thing is so arch it’s less voting as a metaphor for sex than sex as a metaphor for voting.

          And the sentiment is correct: we’ll vote for lots of unappealing candidates in our lives. It’s awesome if your first time is for a candidate you really like! It’s awesome if any time it’s for a candidate you really like.

        • BigHank53 says:

          It doesn’t matter how mild it is. What you have there is a young woman expressing sexual agency: the idea that she as an individual human being might want to have sex, and might want to pick out the partner she wants to have sex with.

          All humans are equal, but some are more equal than others.

        • Hogan says:

          Ah, but neither voting nor sex should be cause for exhilaration. They’re unpleasant but necessary chores.Just lie back and think of England America.

  8. ajay says:

    Interesting point: “When you do it the first time, do it for love” was a Sandinista slogan encouraging 16-20 year olds (voting age is 16 in Nicaragua) to vote in the Nicaraguan elections in 1989.

    Therefore, Obama is a communist!

  9. cpinva says:

    “virgin in the front, martyr in the back”

    i think this should be the next republican candidate for president’s slogan. perfect.

  10. Warren Terra says:

    Irony is truly dead. On the other hand, self-parody is thriving.

  11. anonymous says:

    Wasn’t the ad a joke (that, as previously pointed out on this blog, Ronald Reagan used 32 years ago)? Can it not be interpreted as “Lena Dunham’s sex drive is trivial or even foolish (although it certainly exists), but politics can be important. However, we do not want politics to be self-important, so here is an ad that compares the importance of politics to the triviality of Lena Dunham’s sex drive”? Why interpret it as some celebration of twenty-first century sexual attitudes when it can be a joke on those attitudes? I know that Obama likes an indirect subsidy for birth-control, but you can still think that is important for public health while being judgmental about social attitudes to sexual activity (and other subsidies for that activity), if you really want to be that way.

  12. laura says:

    It’s just pro-forma outrage designed to bring out the geezer vote and remind Aunt Maude that the Republicans are on her side in the culture war.

  13. The Pale Scot says:

    Was there a retirement notice for the editors?

    I just started reading the blog and then it it just stopped.

  14. HP says:

    Am I the only person making the connection between the Lena Dunham ad and this classic SCTV skit from back in the innocent days of 1982?

    I would’ve thought it was an obvious homage (if not outright theft), at least to anyone over 40.

  15. joel hanes says:

    the best one since the Editors retired

    Second best, maybe: the universe of discourse includes what may be Fafnir’s farewell post on Fafblog

  16. Going Here says:

    Howdy, tidy internet site you possess going here.

Leave a Reply




If you want a picture to show with your comment, go get a Gravatar.

  • Switch to our mobile site