I'm confused by Virginia Heffernan's latest column: "File-Sharing Fetish."
"The Internet is for porn. Since I spend days and nights watching online video, people frequently remind me of this maxim from 'Avenue Q.' A little too rapidly, I protest that YouTube, the Web’s most comprehensive video site, where people watch around three billion videos a month — fertile territory for pornography any way you look at it — has somehow kept itself (relatively) clean and outstripped the video-sharing competition."
Well, OK. So, her thesis statement is... Thank heavens there's no porn on YouTube? I just don't know how compelling that declaration is, especially considering "one in four search engine requests on an average day is for pornography." What all those searchers are really looking for may generate more interesting questions and answers.
Daily Intel contemplates the broohaha over the Christie Brinkley/Peter Cook sex--I mean divorce trial of the moment, especially considering the revelations regarding Cook's purportedly excessive porn watching practices.
"Is porn really still something that's regarded as for deviants only? You'd think we all would have been tipped off to the fact that it's not — that all guys masturbate..."
Well, I'm not a guy, so I can't verify the veracity of that statement, but I think that "all" is probably in the ballpark.
Instead, Heffernan gets turned on by watching popcorn pop. "I was skimming thumbnails as usual when the popcorn video arrested my attention. I watched four times, transfixed... As I kept clicking and watching, I began to feel excited, even turned on."
To each his, or her, own video fetish, I suppose.
