By The Numbers: Interracial Marriage Data

Kim Kardashian and Kanye West arrive at the 2016 MTV Video Music Awards in New York (The Huffington Post)

FILE PHOTO – Kim Kardashian and Kanye West arrive at the 2016 MTV Video Music Awards in New York, U.S., August 28, 2016. REUTERS/Eduardo Munoz/File Photo

The 50th anniversary of the Loving v. Virginia case is soon approaching. The case struck down bans on interracial marriage, and continues to resonate today. With that in mind, I was curious to see any data on interracial marriages: Has the number gone up? Has societal disapproval gone down?

Let’s take a look:

Who’s Marrying Out?

  • In 1970, less than 1% of all married couples were interracial.
  • In 1980, 6%+ of newlyweds were interracial, and only 3% of all marriages were interracial.
  • In 2013, 12% of newlyweds (a record high) married someone of a different race, and 6.3% of all marriages were interracial.
The Absolute Rise of Intermarriage (Priceonomics)

The Absolute Rise of Intermarriage (Priceonomics)

Who’s Down with Marrying Out?

  • In 1986, only 30% of survey respondents felt interracial marriage is acceptable for everyone. But that same percentage of respondents did not feel interracial marriage was acceptable for anyone.
  • In 2009, 83% of survey respondents were accepting of interracial marriage.
  • In 2012, 93% of people approve of interracial marriage.

And let’s end on one more noteworthy statistic that warms my heart and gives me hope for the future:

“More than four-in-ten Americans (43%) say that more people of different races marrying each other has been a change for the better in our society.”



The Cost of Kim Kardashian West’s Social Media Blackout: By The Numbers

Kim Kardashian and her ring (TMZ)

Kim Kardashian and her ring (TMZ)

In light of getting robbed in Paris last week (losing $11M-worth of jewelry), Kim Kardashian West has decided to take a break from social media for a month to reassess her online presence. Prior to now, Kardashian West has had a far-reaching social media presence on various platforms. She’s reconsidering her use of social media to document her life because the Paris thieves were after the $4M ring gifted to her by husband Kanye West. How did the thieves know about the ring? Kardashian West had shown it off on Snapchat.

But Kardashian West also uses social media as an extension of her business: being a Kardashian. And she’s paid well to do so. But it’s estimated that her month-long social media hiatus could cost her.

Here are the projected numbers behind Kim Kardashian West’s self-imposed social media blackout:

Amount Kardashian West’s special event appearances make: $20-$30K

Amount Kardashian West’s personal posts are worth to her brand: $200-$300K

Amount Kardashian West makes on social media in a given month: $1M

Kardashian West’s estimated yearly salary: $50M

Kardashian West’s estimated net worth: $150M



#ThrowbackThursday: Kim Kardashian West, “Paper” Magazine, 2014

Kim Kardashian West, 'Paper' magazine 2014 (People)

Kim Kardashian West, ‘Paper’ magazine 2014 (People)

Remember when Kim Kardashian West broke the Internet? This was (not so far) back in 2014. She posed for Paper magazine. Cover shot: see above. Inside, the magazine featured shots of Kardashian West imitating a more famous photo and posing completely nude save for strands of her pearl choker (not a sexual metaphor).

Kardashian West didn’t get paid for her Paper photo shoot.

Though this wasn’t the first time Kardashian West posed nude, it was the time that everyone couldn’t stop talking about.


Caitlyn (Formerly Bruce) Jenner Covers “Vanity Fair”

Caitlyn Jenner on the 'Vanity Fair' cover (Us Magazine)

Caitlyn Jenner on the ‘Vanity Fair’ cover (Us Magazine)

Another Kardashian (well, Jenner) woman has broken the Internet.

The latest issue of “Vanity Fair” debuted today, and with it, the introduction of Caitlyn Jenner. And she. Is. Beautiful.

Caitlyn, previously known as Bruce, first publicly confirmed her transition in April during an interview with Diane Sawyer for “20/20.” Since then, things have moved quickly: Jenner said she’d transition “sometime during the spring” and would wait to debut a female name. Just last week, sources reported that Jenner would cover “Vanity Fair” sometime this summer. But I’m sure nobody thought it’d be this soon.

This interview also marks the first time Jenner has used female pronouns to describe herself. Taking her cue, other media outlets are following suit.

All of this has paid off in terms of web traffic: “Vanity Fair” reported that the Jenner piece set a new traffic record, netting 6M+ unique visitors in just hours.

(Side note: Caitlyn evidently took a few notes from her step-daughter Kim Kardashian in terms of self-promotion, not that that’s a bad thing. She’s also overshadowing Kim’s announcement that she’s pregnant with her second child with husband Kanye West.)

It’s safe to say that Caitlyn is literally the most high-profile transwoman right now. (And she would know, having been part of the Kardashian/Jenner clan for decades.) Covering “Vanity Fair,” a staple in entertainment and society journalism, really marks a debut of her true self.

It’s very inspiring to see someone blossom once they’re so comfortable in their own skin, and this is definitely the case with Caitlyn.

Obscenity Tests via Federal Standards: By The Numbers

Kim Kardashian in 'Playboy,' 2007 (The Trent)

Kim Kardashian in ‘Playboy,’ 2007 (The Trent)

I’ve never wanted to go into law (except when I watch “How to Get Away with Murder”), but if I did, there are two areas of the field that I’ve always found fascinating: intellectual property and obscenity laws. The first topic doesn’t apply here, but the second topic has all the business in the world of being covered here.

There are so many facets of obscenity, but today we’re looking at how federal standards define the term, as the First Amendment of free speech doesn’t extend to protect obscenity. A few different tests have been put in place from time to time to establish a baseline of what’s obscene and what isn’t.

Here’s how that’s changed over the years:

Number of obscenity tests: 3

The Hicklin Test, 1879 

This one was adapted from an 1860s British case. It became standard stateside when it was used in 1879 to prosecute D.M. Bennett, who was charged with obscenity when he tried to send out free-love information through the mail (this also upheld the Comstock Act).

The Hicklin test defined obscenity as material designed to corrupt impressionable minds (whether they were young or not).

– The Roth Test, 1957

This test overturned the Hicklin test, and set a new standard: Material would be considered obscene if the nature of the work deviated from a conventional norm and turned into “a prurient interest.” (Nerdy side note: in statistics terms, would that be two or three deviations from the mean? Would it be 95% or 97%? Would the prurient interests exist in the remaining 5% and/or the 2%?)

But exactly what a “prurient interest” was was never defined further.

Years later, this one was also responsible for Justice Potter Stewart’s now-famous quote on obscenity: “I’ll know it when I see it.”

– The Miller Test, 1973

Here, the Supreme Court Justices got slightly more specific as they struggled to define obscenity. Here are the three main points:

(a) whether “the average person, applying contemporary community standards” would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest

(b) whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law

(c) whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value

In layman’s terms, this would be:

a) Is it creepy, disgusting and/or explicit (according to your vanilla friends and neighbors)?

b) Does it run afoul of state law?

c) Is it worth anything to the greater good/society?


I love how all of these descriptions are so vague. Seriously, no one can define obscenity. What’s “prurient” to one person may be perfectly standard to another. But then, studies have shown that there’s not really such a “normal” fantasy, but there are varying degrees along the spectrum. And I’m willing to bet it’s the same with defining obscenity.


Kim Kardashian “Paper Magazine:” Instagram Likes Analysis

Kim Kardashian, 'Paper' Magazine 2014

Kim Kardashian, ‘Paper’ Magazine 2014

Happy Friday! When “Paper” magazine released its cover photos featuring Kim Kardashian, its stated goal was to “break the Internet” (well, mission accomplished). Naturally, both the magazine and Kardashian posted some of the shots on their respective Instagram accounts.

Since Instagram is the best app for sharing slice-of-life shots, this makes perfect sense. But they each seemed to take different approaches in doing so.

“Paper” Magazine:

The magazine, clearly excited about its work, shared all four of its photos. They also shared the photos in ascending order of nudity: First came Kardashian in her evening gown with the champagne glass balanced on her ass, next came Kardashian mooning the camera. The third photo showed her showing off her butt and boobs in profile, and the last one was her full-frontal. Both the third and fourth shots had back text bars obscuring her nipples and crotch where needed.

As of 10:30 p.m. Wednesday night, the magazine had 137K followers.

The number of likes per Kardashian photo are as follows:

Photo #1 (champagne glass): 9K+

This photo received likes from 6.57% of “Paper”‘s followers.

Photo #2 (full moon bare butt): 5K+

This photo received likes from 3.64% of “Paper”‘s followers.

Photo #3 (boobs and butt in profile): 2K+

This photo received likes from 1.46% of “Paper”‘s followers.

Photo #4 (full frontal): 3K+

This photo received likes from 2.19% of “Paper”‘s followers.

The Kardashian photos were the last photos posted.


Kim Kardashian:

By contrast to “Paper,” Kardashian only shared two photos: the champagne glass and the full moon, in ascending order of nudity.

As of 10:30 p.m. Wednesday night, Kardashian had 21M followers.

Photo #1 (champagne glass): 486K+

This photo received likes from 2.31% of Kardashian’s followers.

Photo #2 (full moon bare butt): 751K+

This photo received likes from 3.58% of Kardashian’s followers.

What’s interesting is that Kardashian posted four photos, all with husband Kanye West, afterwards. It appears that she sees the cover more matter-of-factly as part of her life, as contrasted with “Paper” for which this was a special event. The numbers bear that out.

Kim Kardashian Magazine Nudity: By The Numbers

Kim Kardashian, 'Paper' Magazine 2014

Kim Kardashian, ‘Paper’ Magazine 2014

“Break the Internet,” indeed. Kim Kardashian’s “Paper” magazine cover shoot debuted yesterday, and it’s already the talk of the town (and inter webs) due to her various nude shots.

In photos taken by Jean-Paul Goude, Kardashian poses mooning the camera (as the image above teases), and then goes balls (or boobs) to the wall and poses full frontal holding up her dress around her knees. This is the first time Kardashian has shown so much in a more artsy magazine.

Let’s take a look at how Kardashian’s nude magazine appearances in 2014 compare to the “W” magazine ones in 2010. (In terms of nude posing in magazines, we’re not counting “Playboy” because that would skew the sample.)

“W” Magazine, 2010:

Number of Cover Shots: 2

Number of Total Shots: 10

Number of Shots Sans Clothes: 10

Bare Butt: 2* (*one more prominent)

Bare Boobs: 2* (*shots where nipple is visible)

Full Frontal: 1* (*everything bare from the navel up)

(Technically, both cover shots are full-frontal, but text bars obscure the good stuff.)


“Paper” Magazine, 2014:

Number of Cover Shots: 1

Number of Total Shots: 4

Number of Shots Sans Clothes: 3

Bare Butt: 2

Bare Boobs: 2

Full Frontal: 1



#ThrowbackThursday: Kim Kardashian Nude in “W” Magazine, 2010 (NSFW)

Kim Kardashian, 'W' Magazine 2010

Kim Kardashian, ‘W’ Magazine 2010

Kim Kardashian’s “Paper” magazine photo shoot wasn’t the first time she’s stripped down for a magazine. That would be back in 2010 for “W” magazine and its accompanying article, “Kim Kardashian: Queen of Reality TV.”

In this shoot, her body was covered in silver paint (as above). She was reportedly upset with the result, telling her sisters Kourtney and Khloe, “I’ve definitely learned my lesson. I’m never taking my clothes off again, even if it’s for ‘Vogue.’” But later it’s reported she changed her mind and was proud of her photos.

Apparently, that only lasted a few years.