How many episodes do I have to watch?

Give it to me straight . . . .

Phew!

(And thanks.)

So we need this new one or we don't need this new one?

Those were good ones, no doubt.

I know!

But which one was your favorite? The one Michelle Obama told during her speech at the Democratic National Convention, or the one Joe Biden told during the Vice Presidential debate?

(I'm partial to Mrs. Obama's, but that might be just because she said the word "viability" in that funny accent!)

Sulfur Helium

Iodine Sulfur

Fluorine Uranium Nitrogen Nitrogen Yttrium!

(And awesome.)

I think your final sentence nails it. Nails it.

Don't get me wrong: I know nothing about the quality or quantity of porn studies out there. If the research is really good and really plentiful — and if it's still being ignored — then blaze a new path, by all means. But I'm curious or maybe dubious.

I mean, none…

Great response — and thank you.

But a follow-up: Does this assume that the work / research / studies are up to par? I love the pop culture analogy, and I think it could work here too. But is it true that (a) the porn studies out there are good research just being ignored by the fussy aristocracy that edits…

No doubt — both about the trend and the toss-up.

But I really do wonder if it's worth advancing that trend here. Callie's post argues (pretty nicely, I think) that it is. I'm not so sure, mostly because I don't know why they feel the need to start something new. If it's because they're truly marginalized and ignored…

Exactly.

And why is this research so underrepresented in those existing journals? If it's because of editorial priggishness or closemindedness, I guess a new journal might be the best move. But if it's because of something else — bad research, bad design, bad whatever — well, nothing about a new journal helps that,…

No question.

I think the research is perfectly legitimate and potentially valuable.

But if that's true — and if it's done well — why the need for a separate journal? The "founders" speak of significant underrepresentation. Is that true? And, if so, why?

A question: Is a separate, stand-alone journal the right move here?

Can't these "porn academics" publish in sociology journals? Cultural studies publications? If not, why not? Provincial self-interest? Poor quality?

If the "field" is marginalized, is the best response to start a breakaway publication that even…

It takes one to know one?

Hmm.

I'm not sure about any of that.

For one, he may be ambivalent about doing television, but he is doing television. It doesn't matter why. What matters is that he really seems terrible at it, whether he's aware of that or not. The fact that he's a relentless self-promoter, or a glorified stalker, or getting…

Too true.

I really couldn't believe how many times he interrupted the others (all of whom knew more / added more than he). Is he always like that? On his podcasts?

I imagine he thinks this is just part of his "Every Fan" charm, but it makes for awful television.

Honest question: Is Simmons always as bad on television as he was last night?

I've tried to avoid him on the screen as scrupulously as possible, but last night I watched the extended post-game ESPN coverage with Simmons at the helm. He was terrible — interrupting the others incessantly, dropping countless tedious…

And don't forget Half Crappy Couch, Half Shitty Bed.

We can call them Futons.

Won't be long now . . .

It comes in all sorts of interesting colors and fabrics . . . .

True, though in that case shouldn't the tie be longer, uglier, and improperly tied?