Subscribe
Recent Comments
-
One of us isn’t following this conversation (hint: it’s you). Also, I think you mean...
-
To the author of this…”debunking 221;: You debunk the email inserted using an example...
-
There’s already a sequel scheduled (The Magician King), so perhaps he intends to turn the thing...
-
Reading pieces of Grossman’s comments on Rowling and Meyer is helpful in understanding why he...
-
The entire site isn’t down, but the index page is blank. The contact page is still up, though.
-
abou
/ Friday, October 6th, 2006Ha!
Amanda
/ Friday, October 6th, 2006I agree.
Pants are the real terrorists.
ffanatic
/ Friday, October 6th, 2006oh, awesome! I remember that picture.
Ben
/ Saturday, October 7th, 2006The things you find when you go through site archives.
Aleksandersen
/ Friday, October 13th, 2006May I ask why?
Ben
/ Friday, October 13th, 2006From the obvious sexual context of nakedness to something as innocent as the “little boy pee” (the phenomenon where young boys will insist on pulling their pants down to their ankles or even taking them off entirely when they go to a urinal), there’s a primordial appeal to pantslessness. Or nakedness in general—whatever.
My rejection of pants stems from my insistence that they are a bourgeois convention, inherently limiting to the members, and entirely socionormative.
(Hint: the second paragraph is me joking)