On The Daily Beast Anneli Rufus delves into a pornographic trend supposedly capturing the hearts and loins of conservative rural menfolk: pedal-pumping. It seems like satire: combining the two great loves of the stereotypical redneck—a damsel in distress and a beat-up truck—into a lot of super foot-fetish-y videos of dainty lady feet pushing down on big, dirty gas pedals and revving the engine. Remember that Freakonomics blog post on the gender disparity of driving? Put a man and a woman in a car together and the man is much more likely to insist on taking the wheel. Well, apparently there are many males who secretly don’t mind your foot on the pedal, as long as it’s bound in a 6-inch stiletto and struggling relentlessly with the gas.

In an attempt to explain the lure of the pedal-pusher fetish, Real Sex’s Dr. Susan Block hilariously details what is maybe the most obvious sexual metaphor ever:

"The basic kinetic movement is a masturbatory motion: the muscles releasing and contracting as the foot rubs repetitively against a phallic symbol, which is the gas pedal. Men think of themselves as cars. The 'vroom' of the engine reminds them of their own libidos being revved up by this hot woman."

Of course there are many variations on the genre—some like it hot, some like the A/C on, some like pink-polish toenails wrapped in ropy heels, while some like a dirt-smeared bare foot struggling with the gas. And how has this form of soft-core not gotten co-opted by a car commercial yet?

Photograph by Photodisc/Getty Images.

Tags: daily beast, pedal pushing, redneck america, softcore

Scholastic is reissuing the Babysitters Club series, in the hope that it will capture the hearts and minds of middle-graders as it did in the 1980s, when its various 213 titles sold 176 million copies total. Nina, I know you're thrilled—and the WSJ has Laura Vanderkam hoping that the updated series will inspire more young teens and tweens (the Junior Babysitters of the books were 11) to take on some responsibilities, earn their own money, and experience a little independence. In the books, it all worked out fine. As Vanderkam says, "The children ... had a good time, their parents got a well-deserved night out; and the earth did not crash into the sun."

But things didn't go quite so smoothly for Bridget Kevane, whose decision (in 2007) to drop her 3-, 7-, and 8-year olds at the Bozeman, Mont., mall with two 12-year-olds (Kevane's daughter and a friend) resulted in her being charged with endangering the welfare of a child after the older girls left the younger children outside of a dressing room. There was no disaster—the children weren't even distraught—but store employees called security, and the result, eventually, was a guilty plea from Kevane, who probably won't be buying the newly reissued Kristy's Great Idea any time soon.

I thought of Kevane last week, when I let my 5-, 4- and 3-year olds walk three blocks down our own small town Main Street, supervised only by my 8-year-old son and his 9-year-old friend. I had no doubt that I was making a fine parenting decision (Sam's tougher about holding hands in the crosswalk than I am), but I did wonder how others would judge me. And then I waved, turned my back, and let Sam and his friend Dory take over. Our ideas about what kids are capable of and safe in doing have changed vastly even since I was a latch-key first grader. Would a new generation of 12- and 13- year olds even be allowed to baby-sit, and if they did, would they find any takers? (Probably not in Bozeman.) Our kids may see Kirsty, Claudia, and the rest the way they do Harry, Ron and Hermione—as products of a different world.

Tags: babysitters club, children's books, scholastic

New York magazine has a very interesting article this week called “What if Women Ran Wall Street.” The article analyzes new research about testosterone and risk, which took on special significance after the market crash. Men, these researchers argue, are driven to make bad decisions because of testosterone surges. On the trading floor, these surges feed on each other during intense trading days (Sound familiar, ladies? Synchronized periods?) Competition and risk seeking get triggered, and boom: We have waves of irrational exuberance.

I have no idea if testosterone will ultimately prove to have that much influence on decision-making. But as a cultural marker, these studies sure are satisfying. For one thing, the old idea of men and markets on the side of the rational and women on the side of emotionalism takes a blow. For another, testosterone seems to be the new cultural hormone, and I look forward to the day a woman can say to her husband, “Honey, are you having one of your surges again?”

Photograph of Dick Fuld by Alex Wong/Getty Images News.

Tags: testosterone surges, What if Women Ran Wall Street,

The hunt is on for the person who yelled "baby killer" as Rep. Bart Stupak was giving his speech last night. (You can hear the words pretty clearly on this videotape.) Apparently some of his House colleagues heard the person but are not giving him up. "Members have a right to make an idiot of themselves once without being exposed," said Rep. David Obey, a Democrat from Wisconsin.

But why the shame? Why won't the person who yelled it just 'fess up with pride? Either this person believes Bart Stupak is a baby-killer, or everything that happened last night is just abortion theater. That's why the Obey quote is so weird. He wasn't making an "idiot of himself." He was defending the unborn, as the members said in speech after speech last night.

This is the eternal problem with abortion politics. The language—"baby killer," "defending the unborn"—is so loaded. And yet it does not mean what it actually means. The pro-choice side has gone through several phases of tweaking its terms over the last 20 years, from "My body, my choice" to "safe, legal, and rare." But the right is still stuck on "baby killer."

Photograph of protesters by Mandel Ngan/AFP/Getty Images.

Tags: baby killer, Bart stupak

Like you, Jessica, I was impressed by what an improvement the newest version of the NY Times raising the alarm about young people living at home was over previous versions they'd done of the story. The recession makes it impossible to paint twentysomethings who live with their parents as slackers and mooches. But what really impressed me was that they admit that parents might not be horrified at having their adult children at home, either: "[The research suggests] that parents need not be so concerned about becoming empty nesters when their children become adults."

My sister, mom, and I lived together for a time after I graduated for college. Now we're all in long-term relationships with men, so we don't live together any more, but I recall how the social shame put on adults who live with their parents made me feel at serious odds with myself at the time. The shame you're expected to feel doesn't match the realities, which are generally positive. My sister and I enjoyed paying lower rent than we would normally while we got on our feet economically, and my mom had the company of a family instead of just living alone. It was like having roommates without all the awkwardness you get living with perfect strangers and being unable to share basic things you share with family members or a live-in boyfriend.

It seems the shame of living with your parents has receded somewhat in the past few years. I was telling a story recently to some friends about how I had to get my first cell phone because my mother was like a teenager, always on the phone with her boyfriend, and I couldn't get a call in edgewise. It's a funny story, but I used to not tell it because I didn't want people to think poorly of me for having lived with my mom. But now they just laugh.

Part of the reason the stigma is receding is probably the recession, but I think a lot of it is the growing American consciousness about the problem of loneliness. Books like Robert Putnam's Bowling Alone, TV shows that celebrate the importance of friendships, like "Sex and the City" and "Friends," and the growing impact of divorce and delayed marriage have inclined Americans to start questioning a culture that condemns the partnerless to solitude. Even this NY Times article reflects this shift in thinking, allowing that young people living at home could provide benefits to their elders, such as companionship and care for elderly relatives.

Photograph of family by Photodisc/Getty Images.

Tags: kids living at home, parenting, recession

—Last night, health care reform passed in the House of Representatives with a vote of 219-212. Republican opposition was unanimous, and 34 Democrats joined in opposing the bill. [New York Times]

—Also during last night's House meeting, Rep. Bart Stupak, D-Mich., was called a baby killer by a Republican House member. Representatives are guessing who the culprit was, but no one is coming forward. [Washington Post's 44 Blog]

—Slate has chronicled scenes from last night's debate and vote over health care reform. [Slate]

—New York magazine is asking what it would be like if women ran Wall Street. Could it be possible that women are more equipped to ride the ups and downs of the market? [New York]

—In the "Great Recession," couples are deciding to wait for divorce until the market improves. Others are living together while separated to help relieve the financial burden of breaking up. [Washington Post]

—After the NYT exposed their discomfort with housewives and the unemployed, brides are coming forward with their own personal testimonies. [Gawker]

Photograph of Nancy Pelosi by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images News.

Tags: divorce, heathcare, NYT, reform, Stupak, Wall Street, weddings

There's another article in the New York Times today about Gen Y men and women who live with their parents. The Times publishes a version of this article about every two years: See "For More People in 20s and 30s, Home Is Where the Parents Are" (2003), " 'Boomerang' Children: When the Nest Isn't Empty Anymore" (2005), and "Emptying Nest Eggs, Not the Nests" (2007). Even before the recession set in, more people in their 20s and 30s were living with their parents than in previous generations, and the numbers are continuing to rise. According to today's article:

Since 2000, more people in the 25-to-39 age group have been living in their parents’ homes. By 2008, before the full effect of the recession was being felt, their ranks had increased by double-digit percentages since the decade began: by 32 percent nationwide, and by nearly 40 percent in Manhattan. ... In 1980, 11 percent of 25-to-34-year-olds were living in multi-generational households. By 2008, 20 percent were.

If the trend keeps going in this direction, the Times speculates, "it could signal other social implications: modestly reviving the multi-generational family and further delaying marriage and childbearing." I don't think this is a bad thing. Obviously, the markers of adulthood that were established in the middle of the last century—maintaining your own home, getting married young—are no longer realistic for most people in their early 20s. Young men in particular would benefit from more fluid definitions of adulthood.

At least the fiction that Gen Y does not want to be self-sufficient has been shattered by the recession. In 2003, the subjects profiled in the Times did not seem to be bothered by living under mom's roof in some sort of quasi-adolescent state. In the 2010 version of the article, the young people interviewed are desperate to leave home—it's just that the recession has made it impossible.

Photograph of man by Photodisc/Getty Images.

Tags: empty nesters, failure to launch, generation y, recession