In my defense, I'd already seen the first two linked pages, and I clicked on the third only because I didn't know who Emma Watson and Hermione were. (are?)
Ok, I'll bite. I didn't click the Hermione link. I haven't seen the movies or read the books, so I'm Hermione-neutral.
Second, while I think that age-of-consent laws varying from 12 to 18 are a very peculiar phenomenon indeed, considering the severity of the crime if there is one, I do not actually perv on little girls. (Nor farm animals either. I just think that pig-fucking is a sophisticated, transgressive, cutting-edge conversational topic.)
That said, I just now went to Google image to look up Hermione/Emma, and some of those pictures do indeed seem a bit provocative / nymphettish.
Is this where all the jokes come from, or am I imagining things?
4: Even more bizarre, I didn't know anything about Emma Watson or Hermione, but I know about norbizness -- I've even visited his site. Now how fucked up is that?
3, 8: I already read the other information and mistook the Hermione mentioned for Hermione Norris. As it involves a television series, I guess it still counts.
To perv or not to perv: that is the question
Whether 'tis nobler on the blog to suffer
The pings and updates of outraged scribblers,
Or take up bits against Newsweek's covers,
And by exposing rend them? To pry; to gaze;
No more; and by a peep to say we join
The longing and the thousand other things
That flesh gives rise to, 'tis a consummation
No doubt often wish'd. To lie, to boink;
To bone: perchance to bed: ay, there one rubs;
For in that little death what scenes we see
When we have shuffled off our meager clothes,
Must give us pause; there's the codex
That makes calamity of so young girl;
For who would bare her bits and other parts,
With oppressive gaze, the born male's privelige,
The pangs of too-youthful love, the law's firm hand,
The insolence of officers duly charged
To hold up the maid's most wholesome state,
When he himself might his respite take
With a bare bodkin? Who would Farbers bear
That claim this too he long since wrote
But that the dread of something outside blogs,
That undiscover'd country from whose coast
No packet return, puzzles Unfogged
And makes us rather bear those ills we have
Than click to others that we know not of?
Thus doth trackbacks make cowards of us all;
And thus the native software resolution
Is sicklied o'er with the pale meatloaf lunch
And comments of great pith and moments
With this regard their moments fail to click
And return 404, page not found. Soft you now!
The fair Hermione! Nymph, in thy orisons
Be all our sins remembered.
Did we ever really nail down the rules on acceptable perving? Or even what we meaning by "perving"? If a woman is over the age of consent (min. 18) and below the .5*age+ 7 bar, is it perving?
Well, Doug, it was the job of the later commenters to tell you that 26 was really funny, but they're off on a tangent. "Ay, there one rubs" totally cracked me up.
If the woman is 30 and the man is 70, shouldn't the woman decide if it's perving or not? Not us.
Hmm. If we're setting societal standards, I'm not sure why we can't do it. But that doesn't necessarily strike me as perving--the guy's too old and (I assume) ineffectual. Maybe there's a Churchill rule that establishes some sort of upper boundary for men to be considered under the rule.
The nice thing about allowing for perving that's not illegal is that we could couple "acceptable perving" to the age of consent. Emerson's picture is mildly disturbing; 16 year-olds shouldn't be on camera (or at least in widely-published pictures) looking knowing.
I originally skipped 26 because it was too long and I often don't read long comments. But with ogged's endorsement I went back and read it, and concur that it's a very impressive work. Bravo.
The picture I posted could be a 16-y-o girl looking boldly at a 16-y-o boy, in which case it's innocent though sexy. Or it could be a 16-y-o looking non-sexually at a friends or a member of her own family, in a joking or teasing way. But blowing it up and broadcasting it seems pervy.
She gives me the impression, based on the interview, that she's fairly well on top of her life, though she probably doesn't completely realize how crazy she makes people, from no fault od her own.
After visiting Weiner's thread, I'd like to point out that the miracle of photography makes it possible to perv on your own late grandmother. There's gotta be a journal article in their somewhere.
And yes, both my grandmothers were hott, and one of them absolutely knew it. Though they unfortunately dressed modestly.
And you expected....?
Posted by SP | Link to this comment | 09-27-06 1:01 PM
I did write "most important," didn't I?
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 09-27-06 1:04 PM
In my defense, I'd already seen the first two linked pages, and I clicked on the third only because I didn't know who Emma Watson and Hermione were. (are?)
Posted by Jesus McQueen | Link to this comment | 09-27-06 1:06 PM
If I chose not to click, have I still made a choice?
#3 Liar.
Posted by norbizness | Link to this comment | 09-27-06 1:09 PM
And in my defense, I was thinking, "whoa, she's already picked up a coke habit?"
Posted by Jackmormon | Link to this comment | 09-27-06 1:09 PM
Seriously, who ever perved on Duncan Black?
Posted by FL | Link to this comment | 09-27-06 1:12 PM
In my defense, I thought you were linking to SdB-scripted Hermione anime.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 09-27-06 1:13 PM
I also, like jesus McQueen, had already seen the multiple-newsweek-cover thing.
Posted by Tom Scudder | Link to this comment | 09-27-06 1:15 PM
Mrs. Black?
Posted by washerdreyer | Link to this comment | 09-27-06 1:15 PM
3,8:Yes.
Posted by bob mcmanus | Link to this comment | 09-27-06 1:19 PM
Count me among the Hermione-linkers who had seen the other stories already.
Posted by I don't pay | Link to this comment | 09-27-06 1:21 PM
I was going to say the same thing as #3, except I know who the actress and character are, I just wanted new pictures to perv on.
Posted by Waltowin | Link to this comment | 09-27-06 1:22 PM
6. Um. Yeah.
And in light of a Screech Dirty Sanchez, you still ask questions and assume boundaries?
Posted by ptm | Link to this comment | 09-27-06 1:33 PM
Seriously, who ever perved on Duncan Black?
You mean, besides Brendan Nyhan?
Posted by Anderson | Link to this comment | 09-27-06 1:56 PM
How can you tell what people have clicked on? I think you're making it up.
Posted by neil | Link to this comment | 09-27-06 2:30 PM
Whatever, I'm just a perv. I'm going to click on Hermione first just about any chance I'm given.
Posted by Armsmasher | Link to this comment | 09-27-06 2:32 PM
Ok, I'll bite. I didn't click the Hermione link. I haven't seen the movies or read the books, so I'm Hermione-neutral.
Second, while I think that age-of-consent laws varying from 12 to 18 are a very peculiar phenomenon indeed, considering the severity of the crime if there is one, I do not actually perv on little girls. (Nor farm animals either. I just think that pig-fucking is a sophisticated, transgressive, cutting-edge conversational topic.)
That said, I just now went to Google image to look up Hermione/Emma, and some of those pictures do indeed seem a bit provocative / nymphettish.
Is this where all the jokes come from, or am I imagining things?
Posted by John Emerson | Link to this comment | 09-27-06 2:58 PM
4: Even more bizarre, I didn't know anything about Emma Watson or Hermione, but I know about norbizness -- I've even visited his site. Now how fucked up is that?
Posted by Jesus McQueen | Link to this comment | 09-27-06 3:01 PM
Neil, we use mybloglog.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 09-27-06 3:14 PM
3, 8: I already read the other information and mistook the Hermione mentioned for Hermione Norris. As it involves a television series, I guess it still counts.
Posted by volanta | Link to this comment | 09-27-06 3:16 PM
Ah, I see that now. How evil.
Posted by neil | Link to this comment | 09-27-06 3:27 PM
For example, here
Posted by John Emerson | Link to this comment | 09-27-06 3:41 PM
Well, she is 16.
Posted by Anderson | Link to this comment | 09-27-06 4:08 PM
So in some states it's legal to look at her in an intentional way; in others, you have to wait two years.
Posted by John Emerson | Link to this comment | 09-27-06 4:39 PM
Atrios was already covered on Eschaton, and Newsweek was already covered on Wonkette and Passport.
Unfogged is where I go for all Harry Potter-related links, all the time.
Posted by double-plus-ungood | Link to this comment | 09-27-06 6:22 PM
To perv or not to perv: that is the question
Whether 'tis nobler on the blog to suffer
The pings and updates of outraged scribblers,
Or take up bits against Newsweek's covers,
And by exposing rend them? To pry; to gaze;
No more; and by a peep to say we join
The longing and the thousand other things
That flesh gives rise to, 'tis a consummation
No doubt often wish'd. To lie, to boink;
To bone: perchance to bed: ay, there one rubs;
For in that little death what scenes we see
When we have shuffled off our meager clothes,
Must give us pause; there's the codex
That makes calamity of so young girl;
For who would bare her bits and other parts,
With oppressive gaze, the born male's privelige,
The pangs of too-youthful love, the law's firm hand,
The insolence of officers duly charged
To hold up the maid's most wholesome state,
When he himself might his respite take
With a bare bodkin? Who would Farbers bear
That claim this too he long since wrote
But that the dread of something outside blogs,
That undiscover'd country from whose coast
No packet return, puzzles Unfogged
And makes us rather bear those ills we have
Than click to others that we know not of?
Thus doth trackbacks make cowards of us all;
And thus the native software resolution
Is sicklied o'er with the pale meatloaf lunch
And comments of great pith and moments
With this regard their moments fail to click
And return 404, page not found. Soft you now!
The fair Hermione! Nymph, in thy orisons
Be all our sins remembered.
Posted by Doug | Link to this comment | 09-28-06 2:30 AM
You misspelled "privilege."
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 09-28-06 7:20 AM
Did we ever really nail down the rules on acceptable perving? Or even what we meaning by "perving"? If a woman is over the age of consent (min. 18) and below the .5*age+ 7 bar, is it perving?
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 09-28-06 8:00 AM
I don't think it should be considered "perving" unless the act would actually be deviant, by which I mean illegal.
If the woman is 30 and the man is 70, shouldn't the woman decide if it's perving or not? Not us.
Posted by Cryptic Ned | Link to this comment | 09-28-06 8:02 AM
If the woman is 30 and the man is 70, shouldn't the woman decide if it's perving or not? Not us.
What fun would that be? We make the rules. And yes this is definitely perving.
Posted by Brock Landers | Link to this comment | 09-28-06 8:04 AM
Well, Doug, it was the job of the later commenters to tell you that 26 was really funny, but they're off on a tangent. "Ay, there one rubs" totally cracked me up.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 09-28-06 8:07 AM
If the woman is 30 and the man is 70, shouldn't the woman decide if it's perving or not? Not us.
Hmm. If we're setting societal standards, I'm not sure why we can't do it. But that doesn't necessarily strike me as perving--the guy's too old and (I assume) ineffectual. Maybe there's a Churchill rule that establishes some sort of upper boundary for men to be considered under the rule.
The nice thing about allowing for perving that's not illegal is that we could couple "acceptable perving" to the age of consent. Emerson's picture is mildly disturbing; 16 year-olds shouldn't be on camera (or at least in widely-published pictures) looking knowing.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 09-28-06 8:12 AM
I originally skipped 26 because it was too long and I often don't read long comments. But with ogged's endorsement I went back and read it, and concur that it's a very impressive work. Bravo.
Posted by Brock Landers | Link to this comment | 09-28-06 8:16 AM
Who would Farbers bear
That claim this too he long since wrote
Very nice.
Posted by mcmc | Link to this comment | 09-28-06 8:36 AM
Or rather, not nice, but funny.
Posted by mcmc | Link to this comment | 09-28-06 8:37 AM
Emerson's picture is mildly disturbing; 16 year-olds shouldn't be on camera (or at least in widely-published pictures) looking knowing.
Here, be disturbed all over again. It would be irresponsible not to perv on Emma Watson.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 09-28-06 9:02 AM
She's got a real Traci Lords thing going on. I dig it.
Posted by Brock Landers | Link to this comment | 09-28-06 9:04 AM
That picture makes me think this.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 09-28-06 9:12 AM
The picture I posted could be a 16-y-o girl looking boldly at a 16-y-o boy, in which case it's innocent though sexy. Or it could be a 16-y-o looking non-sexually at a friends or a member of her own family, in a joking or teasing way. But blowing it up and broadcasting it seems pervy.
She gives me the impression, based on the interview, that she's fairly well on top of her life, though she probably doesn't completely realize how crazy she makes people, from no fault od her own.
Posted by John Emerson | Link to this comment | 09-28-06 10:20 AM
After visiting Weiner's thread, I'd like to point out that the miracle of photography makes it possible to perv on your own late grandmother. There's gotta be a journal article in their somewhere.
And yes, both my grandmothers were hott, and one of them absolutely knew it. Though they unfortunately dressed modestly.
Posted by John Emerson | Link to this comment | 09-28-06 10:23 AM
31, 33, 34: Many thanks! (Too jet-lagged to be cleverer...)
Posted by Doug | Link to this comment | 09-30-06 4:29 PM