They do, like, politics, too.
September 6, 2006 4:56 AM   Subscribe

"N+1 is a new NYC-based publication that styles itself high-brow and left; I am told that kids just out of college hanging out in NYC read it, and read its website in particular." (via) Articles include: Weakonomics, Excremental Education, and Is Anal Sex Fair to Women?
posted by anotherpanacea (38 comments total)

This post was deleted for the following reason: previously



 
Women can put their tongues in their own vaginas? Coo ur.
posted by bonaldi at 5:03 AM on September 6, 2006


I am told that kids just out of college hanging out in NYC read it . . .

*BZZZZT*
posted by xthlc at 5:07 AM on September 6, 2006


A little learning is a dangerous thing;
Drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring:
There shallow draughts intoxicate the brain,
And drinking largely sobers us again.

posted by anotherpanacea at 5:08 AM on September 6, 2006


Do kids just out of college hanging out in NYC actually read it, or are we just talking about the publication's staff here?
posted by taursir at 5:08 AM on September 6, 2006


Taursir, I have never read n+1 but I have never graduated either

INTRIGUE at n+1 fundraiser
posted by shownomercy at 5:11 AM on September 6, 2006


Women can put their tongues in their own vaginas? Coo ur.
posted by bonaldi


No, read it again. Not own tongue in own vagina but tongue in vagina. (or maybe you knew that and were joking?)
posted by nofundy at 5:20 AM on September 6, 2006


I don't understand that anal sex chart at all. Now there's a sentence I never thought I'd be saying.
posted by antifuse at 5:23 AM on September 6, 2006


No rss feed? WTF.
posted by sveskemus at 5:29 AM on September 6, 2006


Nope, nofundy, it says 'tongue in own vagina' as well as 'tongue in other's'.... among a bunch of other unlikely anatomical stretches.
I think it's all meant to be rather, uh, tongue in cheek.
posted by Flashman at 5:29 AM on September 6, 2006


Articles neither long nor interesting enough, so I guess it works in a sort of twisted way.
posted by The White Hat at 5:34 AM on September 6, 2006


Flashman writes "Nope, nofundy, it says 'tongue in own vagina' as well as 'tongue in other's'.... among a bunch of other unlikely anatomical stretches."

Yes, but not "one's own tongue in one's own vagina". So, presumably, it's referring to "[someone else's] tongue in own vagina", and "[own] tongue in other's vagina" (ditto with fingers, penises, pencils, donkeys, and the like).
posted by Bugbread at 6:04 AM on September 6, 2006


Head out of other's vagina. Heh. That brought it up a notch.
posted by GuyZero at 6:04 AM on September 6, 2006


vaginahattery.
posted by RobertFrost at 6:21 AM on September 6, 2006


The politics-focused articles (such as this one about Naomi Klein) are really well written, I think.
posted by Sijeka at 6:22 AM on September 6, 2006


This is my new email signature. Just have to run it by corporate first.

* For the purposes of this [email], “woman” and “man” are defined chromosomally and developmentally, i.e., XX-chromosomed postpubescent Homo sapiens and XY-chromosomed postpubescent Homo sapiens respectively. “Unmediated” shall be understood to mean via one’s own body parts, without the aid of an instrument or substance topical, inserted, or ingested. “Possible” shall be construed as “achievable within the conceivable limits of bilaterally symmetrical physiques typical of each of the two sex categories” (some hearsay considered). “Fair-”ness, QED, shall be constituted in an equal number of penetrative opportunities for all. Now, then.
posted by purephase at 6:40 AM on September 6, 2006


It's good to know that anal sex is, in fact, fair to women.
posted by Balisong at 6:40 AM on September 6, 2006


Is Anal Sex Fair to Women?

Is this the high-brow part or the left part?
posted by scheptech at 6:42 AM on September 6, 2006


nofundy, bugbread: The title of the acts column of the chart is Possible Unmediated Penetrative Acts, As Actor. When it says tongue, it therefore means own tongue.
posted by bonaldi at 6:51 AM on September 6, 2006


Hmmm ... looks like you have a valid point there bonaldi. Please pardon me as I overlooked the title.
Some physically impossible acts might be a good subtitle.
posted by nofundy at 7:02 AM on September 6, 2006


#Is Anal Sex Fair to Women?
#Is this the high-brow part or the left part?
~snicker~
I think it's the 'broach a mildly eyebrow-raising subject but approach it in an intellectual manner so as to try to legitimize the writing" part
posted by allelopath at 7:03 AM on September 6, 2006


My New York-based magazine is way better than this rag. Better writing, web design, layout, and graphics. Those schmucks.
posted by Captaintripps at 7:08 AM on September 6, 2006


bonaldi writes "nofundy, bugbread: The title of the acts column of the chart is Possible Unmediated Penetrative Acts, As Actor. When it says tongue, it therefore means own tongue."

Whoa. You're right. I'm sorry.
posted by Bugbread at 7:16 AM on September 6, 2006


New?!? Issue one came out fall 2004.
posted by wiggles at 7:16 AM on September 6, 2006


"N+1 is a new NYC-based publication that styles itself high-brow and left; I am told that kids just out of college hanging out in NYC read it,

Translation: kids just out of college hanging out in NYC want to be seen holding it.

Do people read magazines anymore? Do I need to renew my subscription to Granta?
posted by Pastabagel at 7:21 AM on September 6, 2006


Not own tongue in own vagina but tongue in vagina.

Thanks heavens. All my efforts were failing, and I thought is was my fault.
posted by jonmc at 7:26 AM on September 6, 2006


I've been reading it since 2004 and I live in NYC and graduated from college in a year starting with 2. It's pretty decent, and much better than most other craptastic lit mags.
posted by dame at 7:44 AM on September 6, 2006


I'd actually read a lit journal called Craptastic Lit, but that's just me.
posted by jonmc at 7:59 AM on September 6, 2006


The article linked in the [via] is unbelievably (or am I just naive?) sloppy and bad, and Leiter's outraged response was pretty entertaining. In my view the Klein article proceeds largely by distortion, too, but that might be excusable if it represents her thought accurately.
posted by grobstein at 8:05 AM on September 6, 2006


Anal sex is only unfair to women who have sand in their vaginas and want to lecture men about it, so what do they expect?
</leaves for extended vacation>
posted by weapons-grade pandemonium at 8:44 AM on September 6, 2006


Anal sex is only unfair to women who have sand in their vaginas

Actually, wouldn't anal sex offer women with sand in their vaginas a more comfortable alternative?

I'm just saying.
posted by jonmc at 8:58 AM on September 6, 2006


Oh, is this the new Vice magazine?
posted by oraknabo at 9:09 AM on September 6, 2006


Actually, it isn't and it's too bad that one article is overshadowing the rest.
posted by dame at 9:32 AM on September 6, 2006


Yeah, that is a good article about YAMAEWK, too
posted by Flashman at 9:50 AM on September 6, 2006


Well let's see, how can I stir things up here...how about: David Foster Wallace!

("Against Exercise" in Issue One got some deserved attention last year.)
posted by xod at 10:29 AM on September 6, 2006


Niiice - thanks for digging that out, xod.
Those who survive the hazing often emerge with a fierce devotion.
posted by Flashman at 11:19 AM on September 6, 2006


N/A
posted by popcassady at 11:26 AM on September 6, 2006


38954
posted by unmake at 4:30 PM on September 6, 2006


Huh... what did I do wrong?
posted by anotherpanacea at 5:12 PM on September 6, 2006


« Older What's your position?   |   A digital atlas of the new towns of Edward I Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments