Mix it all up however

Sure… Superman… Gay… Or, I guess, Superman’s kid I guess, and Superman’s kid is apparently a new Superman —

Or… Just kill him already.

What is the state of comic books anyways? Jumping into familiar comments land

What is true is that no one is buying print any more, period, and that’s especially true of comic books. DC is still ahead of Marvel, but in a very small market. DC seems to have a major reboot/marketing event every year or so now- who can keep up? I never heard of Jon Kent until today. The real money for comic book characters is in the movies, and there DC is way behind Marvel. (And no one’s gone to see any movies in almost two years anyway.)

The history of comics sales is pretty much decline from 1954 on. Illusory spikes bringing with it new high points to reach back at, even as the highs points are lost points in prior eras. Comic books are rounding eras in Disney and Time Warner’s profit margins — necessary only for movie and tv rights. Inasmuch as anything is selling, we are back at curious retro history —

Whether this financial gambit pays off remains to be seen – Marvel’s earlier Marvel NOW initiative seemed to be a mixed bag in terms of sales[3] – especially given that the biggest demographic buying comics are middle-aged men[4] who may be resistant to such themes. On the other hand, the speculator market has returned with a vengeance, so milestone issues featuring these newer characters may generate demand based on future collectability expectations[5].

Say what you must on that number 5. The dilemma is that a gay son of a superhero who is a superhero, apparently the new identity of the old one — or at least on one dimensional plane — holds no “collectable” value. A dime a dozen. We already have a bunch of other gay new old superheroes who either are or are not their original versions.

Sure to take over the most valuable slot from Action number one.

Previously I saw Dreher get his panties in a bunch over something in Teen Vogue — I think it was a pro anal sex article full of products to buy for teen anal sex usage — and, I had a question, bring this out of cobwebbed draft storage…

Just what is Teen Vogue? I did flip through the issue Hillary Clinton edited, and saw that… Frankly, she did a horrible job of it. But pestering culture detritus…

Into the comments section on hysterical all in drehrer article.

NOBODY is arguing over bringing kids to kink shows. One woman said she was ok with it and she was universally pounded for it. If anything the push on the left is for a bright and hard line at 18, with the only anxiety being how to navigate sex between teenagers inside that framework.

2) Everyone keeps eliding what the word “child” means when it’s convenient and uses “young adult” when it’s not. You’ve done it here: NOBODY thinks “hard core porn” is part of a “normal childhood”. They assume that before the age of 18 kids will come across it and yeah, it needs to be discussed more. It was never discussed in my household growing up and that was a problem.

Teen Vogue isn’t telling children how to have anal sex. They’re providing reviews to late teens and adults (because Teen Vogue’s readership is adult: their marketing and readership statistics list 18+ as 97% of their readers) for products of which there are a massive range available. I’m not expecting to convince everyone that it’s just fine, but it’s not pedaling anything to kids.

The fact that Teen Vogue‘s readership is 97% adult is more disturbing than the reviews of sex paraphernalia.

18 and 19 year olds are both teenagers and adults.

Teen Vogue reinvented themselves as a Social Justice Warrior outlet around 2016 or so.

It was a deliberate publishing choice, I think. When they went fully online they shifted to much more political coverage and it changed their readership substantially. And increased it more than 700%.

Teen Vogue isn’t telling children how to have anal sex.” They are selling a magazine labelled for teens. Typically, they are targeting anyone older than 11. I don’t buy their excuse that in actuality, their readership is over 18. Even if it is, their articles are totally disgusting. If they don’t want to be seen as appealing to teens, they should change the name to “Adult Vogue”

How did you determine Teen Vogue is of the “cultural Left”? Seriously, what makes it a magazine of the Left? I suspect its readership doesn’t break down into neat little ideological categories like Left and Right.

If you can’t look at the fact of ubiquitous hardcore porn considered a normal part of American childhood, and if you can’t look at the fact that mainstream magazines like Teen Vogue advise young readers on the best lubricants to use for being rogered up the rear, and if you can’t observe that progressives are actually arguing now over whether it is appropriate for little children to see sadomasochist queers at Pride events — if you can’t look at all that and see the Second Coming of Hel

was amused a few weeks back to read in an online women’s forum similar complaints about how too many men take their sexual cues from porn. This, needless to say, is the same forum where porn is routinely defended, and performers’ decision to go into porn is said to be every bit as legitimate as any other profession.

So it’s legitimate, even moral, to be a pornstar, and of course everyone should be able to watch porn because banning it would be the work of prudes. But the takeaway must be what the libertines insist. No one should see porn as “real,” all must recognize it as make believe, it mustn’t influence real-world behavior!

A minor observation: At this point, I’m really skeptical about Teen Vogue. I am not convinced it is what it purports to be. I suspect it mainly functions as a clickbait site to draw in ad money. I don’t think anybody actually reads it — certainly not any teens.

Their constant use of outrage-inducing headlines and articles is just weird, and I can’t think of any real human beings who could possibly constitute a genuine audience for this stuff — at least, none who would read Teen Vogue. It would be one thing if it were just an occasional article or two, but the whole site is like this. I think their business model is something like, “come up with insane articles and headlines to get links and attention from right wingers, then collect ad money based on clicks.”

It’s just really strange how everything they do seems designed to confirm the worldview of right-wing doom-and-gloomers. No real lefties I know — and I know some good and woke ones — are actually like this. The mirror image would be something like a professional-looking Fox News or Breitbart style site where “right wingers” go on unironically at length about how they love racism, hate gays, love Nazis, think science is Satanic, etc. Something that *appears* to be pitched at right-wingers while coincidentally confirming every single awful stereotype lefties have about the right.

I am the father of a teenage girl, and know many of her friends, also teenage girls; and as a teacher, I interact with teenage girls every day; and I will second you that while I’ve heard all kinds of things, none of them given any evidence of knowing what Teen Vogue even is.

Isn’t Cosmopolitan basically the same? When I was a teen in the late 90’s, my female peers used to read Cosmopolitan for the articles about sex (of which there were many, IIRC) and relationships. It was the same kind of stuff, though perhaps just a tad less explicit than this Teen Vogue example (not by much). They didn’t subscribe, they just bought it off the news stand and then kept it hidden in their room (or openly, depending on their parents). It was sort of the teen girl version of what the guys were doing with Playboy (though of course we couldn’t just buy those ourselves, we had to be more creative). It was especially a thing at 13 to 15, before most people were actually doing the things described therein but were nonetheless awfully curious about them.

Leave a Reply