Monday, October 13, 2008

Sexually-explicit column in Kansas City Star magazine called "vile" and "sleazy"

Raising eyebrows for its sexually-explicit language, a column in the Kansas City Star's "Ink" magazine has been criticized for its sleazy language and content. The column, written by Kansas City Star writer Pamela Spencer, is focused on dating issues but frequently degrades into discussion of sexual acts.

Published by McClatchy, Ink magazine is targeted at young professionals in Kansas City, ages 21 to 34.

I have a couple of examples of Pamela Spencer's columns for you. In this entry from October 10 she talks about her experiences going to a strip club when she was 18 and 20. Here Pamela Spencer talks about masturbation.

It gets worse. The topic gets almost obscene in this entry from August 20 when Spencer talks about sexual acts. (Warning - what follows are some excerpts from Spender's post. I have chosen to not edit out Spencer's graphic language; sorry if this offends you.)

Here you go:

There’s a long list of questions you should probably never ask when you’re dating someone, whether it’s a first date or you’re married.

•“Would you ever consider getting a boob job?”

•“Did we have sex last night?”

• “Will you go down on me?”

•“Can your friend join us?”

•“What kinky stuff have you done with your ex?”

•“Can I cum on your face?”
•“Will you stick your finger in my butt?”
•“Will you pee on me?”

The explicit column was criticized by Katie Van Luchene, executive editor of KC Magazine, as being sleazy.

Katie Van Luchene, executive editor of KC Magazine, gives the Kansas City Star and its "Ink" publication a big "NO" for a recent column (below), calling it "vile."

"The questions to ask your date were vile and inappropriate for a publication that can be picked up at any corner," Luchene wrote in the October 2008 edition of KC Mag. just out.

"I figured this newsheet would go toe-to-toe with The Pitch for advertisers, but I didn't expect it to try to top the city's alternative paper in the sleaze department. Ink? Ick."

Aren't there any adults at the Kansas City Star to draw the line? This is degrading stuff, why would McClatchy want to be associated with it?
Hat tip: comments


Anonymous said...

nice work, prude

Anonymous said...

i think the prudish stance set forth by the author of this blog is pure evidence as to why McClatchy is such a pee-poor company to work for. If Americans in general didn't have their panties in such tight wads then we would be far more willing to accept others for who they are and what they want to be.

Dave D. said...

....Proving once more that you can't ever get below a Progressive on anything ethical or sexual. They will always get down and dirtier than Conservatives. And there is nothing they won't write, or say, or do, to sell newspapers. This is not a flaw of Liberalism. It's....a feature.

Dave D. said...

..I agree with Anon above. We should accept " others " for who they are and what they want to bee. They are lowlifes and they want to be lower. The Bee exists to facilitate their descent and debasement. It celebrates their degenerate lifestyle. It supports them with donations and in print.

...How's focusing on peoples bottoms working out for the bottom line, Mr. Pruitt ? Surely you can out slease Larry Flint and capture the wedding tackle market.

Anonymous said...

leave it to poor journalism to take the words of someone and contort the meaning to their liking. Here's wishing McClatchy fewer and fewer years in the future.

Mason said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

Prudish? Perhaps.

If you want to be invited into a family's home, you need to appeal to the family. As a parent, I think I would be tossing this section before my kids got to least at their age now. Which I bet would be a shame...I bet there is a lot of content and advertising that would be useful in that section.

The reality is that the newspaper is a 24/7 mass medium for families. Television and radio often tailor their offerings to their audience. For the most part they aren't broadcasting the overtly sexual or violent material during hours kids are watching. Newspaper doesn't have the luxury of selecting day parts, so they should probably play it safe or develop a sepearate niche publication geared to a different audience.