Complex Numbers

Revisited: "Those Naughty Brits"

It's time-travel time again. Today's random numbers brought me all the way back to July of 2008, with a short and ranty entry: "Those Naughty Brits" 

Apparently, there was a link to a (London) Times article, in the chick section, about "kinky sex." It should be surprising to no one that the link is dead and now just redirects to the Times main page, which I didn't bother looking at.

"Why do many of us like kinky sex?" apparently opened the original article, based on what I said in that entry. These days, I have preconceived ideas about headline questions: First, if it's a yes/no question, the answer is probably "no." Second, if it's a "why" question, the answer is probably "money."

I think I'm wrong about the second idea, but only this time.

2008 Me: Why is this in the "women" section? Men don't want to read about kinky sex? Please.

I'm guessing men are less likely to consider it kinky, outrageous, or naughty. But what the fuck do I know (pun intended)?

2008 Me: In conclusion, the article seems to be designed to be provocative, but semantically null.

I guess that was me, waking up to the practices of major information outlets.

2008 Me: What happened to investigative journalism? Hell, what happened to comprehensive news stories?

Gods, 2008 Me was so young and naïve.

2008 Me: ...an excuse to link the blog of a friend of mine...

Said blog no longer exists, and I have no recollection of who the friend was now.

2008 Me: Journalism may not be dead yet, but it's starting to wander and stink.

Dead now. Mostly.

2008 Me: I blame bloggers.

Clearly, that was an attempt at irony. The reality was, and is, way more complicated than one single reason, as these things usually are. I'm not getting into it here, and I'm probably wrong, anyway. But this look into the far-distant past has been enlightening, and maddening. Still, one constant that hasn't changed, and was an old constant even in 2008: sex sells. And, apparently, kinky sex sells more.