Derbyshire is a crank, and not the entertaining kind. I remember during the convention coverage when he got irritated that a rock band was performing. His comment was something to the effect of 'we're republicans so why are they playing this stuff?'

Derb's their resident paleocon dork, there to "keep it real" lest the editorial voice devolve into South Park Republicanism and "hot or not" arguments over Condi.

Sorry to point someone away from your incadescently powerful blog, Mr O'spades, but everyone should check out Allah's fine p-shop over at Goldstein's (naked testicle spiderman?) place re Derb fro last Thur.

"If there's grass on the field...play ball!"

http://www.proteinwisdom.com/index.php/P3/

God, but I do hate that insufferable Derbyshire a-hole. Crashing bore and caught in some sort of mind freeze where he continues to think channeling Archie Bunker is synonymous with great thinking and writing.

I cannot understand why they tolerate his BS over there.

On the other hand, he does function as a handy punching bag for the other writers with half a brain and its fun to visualize Ramesh Ponnuru actually showing some emotion, as he dismantles "The Derb's" brain droppings.

This is the guy who goes on and on about Ally McBeal? Obviously, he doesn't like breasts at all.

Well, allow me to stand up for Derbyshire, not like he needs me.

If you consider The Corner to be a sitcom-- I do-- then "the Derb" is an essential actor in that show. You can always count on him to be the gloomiest guy in the world there, and gloom-and-doom has always been a key and necessary part of conservatism. But certainly not the ONLY part, which is why I sometimes skirt his stuff to read something else.

Seriously, I don't see how any right-thinking person can find Derbyshire insufferable as long as Kathryn Jean Lopez is on that stupid blog. Hell, I'd rather read Andrew Stuttaford complain about Mike Bloomberg or Stan Kurtz rant about homosexual shopping habits in Swedish fishing villages-- *AGAIN*-- than read another thing from "K-Lo."

Oh, and Rich Lowry is absolutely worthless as a Corner commentator. The guy's observations range from "water is wet" to "you'll be surprised at what I heard about three days later than you did."

I guess this is all just a way of saying I have a crazy Jonah Goldberg man-crush, and everybody else on the Corner can just pound sand 4 out of 5 days a week.

Still, better than reading nothin'

Cheers,
Dave at Garfield Ridge

Okay, but you see what Derb is saying. Because when a woman get past twenty—say, twenty-three like Mrs. Derbyshire—then maybe she’ll put on a few pounds, and then when she isn’t feeling good about herself and you combine that with her period, eventually she’ll ask you if you like her body. You have to say no. I’m not tolerant of that at all. And I don’t placate.

Oh, and as far as Derbyshire's comment, let's be honest. . . he's right. Sort of.

I'd nudge that number out to 25 or so. After that, everything starts to slip, and it's just a rearguard action.

Doesn't mean older chicks aren't hot. Just means they're not *as* hot. Personality has to take up the slack from that point on (which no 15-25 year old girl has anyway, not that I cared a damn back when I was ogling 15-25 year old girls. Uh, regularly, I mean).

Cheers,
Dave at Garfield Ridge

And I don’t placate.

Neither do I: Size does matter. Don't let anyone tell you different.

Derbyshire's positions on almost every issue are the opposite of NR's editorial board.

ID? He sneers at it.

Iraq? He's been calling for a pullout since, IIRC, the winter of 2003-4. (He's in the "democracy's too good for the bastards" camp ... kind of like Buchanan and Taki at The American Conservative, a magazine where he'd seem to fit much more naturally)

God and Jesus and such? Not really a concern for him (granted, there are other NR writers who seem to feel the same way - but the people running the show, Lowry and the insufferable "K-LO," are Fanatical Papists)

He's not (just) a paleocon, he's his own weird thing. I happen to find him amusing, occasionally enlightening, often very creepy.

Plus, that picture of him they have on their site is hysterical.

Let's not ignore his constant, unfunny "math jokes."

DERB: I'm reminded of a very funny witticism once offered by physicist Kip Thorne. A Catholic priest, a rabbi. and a Pentacostal preacher go into a bar. The bartender says, "The integral of e to the x is only defined for values of x not equal to zero."

As you can imagine, I busted a gut at that. It's not for nothing that I call Kip Thorne "the Redd Foxx of moder physics."

I’ll second Dave and Knemon with regard to KJ Lopez. Derb is many different things, most of them unlikeable, but K-Lo’s abortion monomania is so unbearably tedious that it gets me praying for the sweet release that only death can bring. Preferably hers, but I’m not picky.

"He's not (just) a paleocon, he's his own weird thing. I happen to find him amusing, occasionally enlightening, often very creepy."

Yup. Every blog needs one of those guys.

Unless, that is, the guy writing the blog *is* that guy.

Uhhh. . . Hiya, Ace. How 'bout them Giants?

Cheers,
Dave at Garfield Ridge

While I can appreciate the 15-20 yr old look, I've always had a taste for the more old fashioned body style a la Marilyn Monroe and such... and so when I passed age 20, the future was still looking bright.

Having said that I realize I'm kind of in the minority, at least for a white guy; every other white guy that I can remember talking trash with has come off sounding strongly stuck on the 15-20 yr old look - everything else (apparently) just didn't "rate".

Which has led me to wonder of my fellow anglo males:

1) Is the average age 26+ white guy a miserably married closet piner for jailbait (i.e. borderline pedophile) or

2) Is he in fact a lot more turned on by the "post-jailbait" look than he let on, i.e. the noise about 15-20 yr olds is basically just male chest beating

You decide - but I will add that back in single days I never managed to find a surplus of single gals with a lot of junk in da trunk, and not for lack of searching...

I like the dynamic at the Corner, and although Derb is too cranky for my taste, he is very smart and has made some excellent points on this and many other topics. I personally think an intelligent liberal or two posting at the Corner would make for an excellent exchange.

BTW, isn't Derb's defense of his 15-year old comment true - that of course mother nature would have made the female form attractive to men from the age of puberty on. That's just basic science - not really controversial except that it makes people assume you intend to act on it, something I'm not aware he's ever said.

Really, utron? I find K-Lo's abortion monomania kinda endearing, like a comforting case of athlete's foot. It's always there to scratch, ya know?

Trust me, what bothers me most about her is just that whole "Mother Hen" attitude she takes. I have trouble with authority-- I'm a rebel, Dottie, don't you forget it-- and all she ever does on that site is bitch, bitch, bitch about everybody else on the blog. The second a conversation gets, you know, interesting, she usually steps in to poo-poo the whole thing.

That, and I really *do* want to hear Jonah's opinion on whether the fight between Kirk and Spock in "Amok Time" should have been settled in a different way than with that whole cheap "tri-ox injection" cheat.

Cheers,
Dave at Garfield Ridge

Derbyshire has always walked that fine line between "a guy just willing to say what we're all thinking" and "homophobic, racist asshole."

Indeed, and this comment is the perfect example. Objectifying 15-year-olds is creepy (to modern western culture, at least), but that's not what has most feminist panties in a twist. What they're pissed at is his broader suggestion that women's attractiveness peaks rather early in life. Which, of course, is absolutely true.

These chicks who are slagging him are just pissed that they're on the down slope. When a woman isn't feeling good about herself and you combine that with her period, eventually she'll ask you if you like her flabby, thirtysomething body.

You have to say no.

That's true, but Derbyshire should want every woman who's ever read him to say "We ended on good terms."

Are they still friends? Absolutely. Do they talk? No.

See, what bothers *me* most about her is ... actually, it's hard to pick just one. There's the Duran Duran thing. There's the breathless intimations of how connected and plugged-in she is to the upper levels of the VRWC. There's the mother hen thing, yes.

The abortion thing does get a little old. It's fine that Kirkorian (sp.?) has an immigration monomania, because he only posts once every couple of days (and because researching that stuff is his job). But oy, all the time with the unborn. Yes. The abortion industry sucks. We get ya.

(She also hates Title IX. And Sandra Day O'Connor. She's kind of like an anti-feminist - I mean, obviously her politics are anti-feminist, but she's the **mirror image** of them. Humorless.)

Let us remember that he is talking about "Bristols" and uses the words "in this precise context". He is basically saying that tits are at their perkiest from about 15 to 20. Not too controversial.

He elaborates later in the Corner, I believe, and expresses that womens' less tangible assets become more apparent as they age.

It seems to me that this is the proper conservative attitude. One should certainly strive to look attractive, but not deny the effects of time. Therein lies the plastic horror that is Cher.

(Plus, she's always hyping Romney, and cold-dissing Rudy. That's not acceptable.)

While I agree with everyone's comments on KJL, I personally believe her most annoying trait is her crush on Mitt Romney.

NRO wouldn't be half as good without Derb. I happen to think Michelle Pfieffer looks better today than she did at 20, but she's probably the exception.

What you *hope* is that your tastes change as you age, but frankly, I think only he who never clicked on the Olsen twins coming-of-age clock has a right to cast a stone at Derb on this one. (And, frankly, their salad days were from 15 to about 20, as I recall).

Actually Knemon, isn't it fair to say that if she was a mirror-image of feminists, she'd be funny and jocular?

Or, at least, she'd have a goatee, like Evil Spock in the Mirror Universe?

(Damn. There I go again, with the Star Trek references. Thank GOD this isn't the Corner).

Cheers,
Dave at Garfield Ridge

I'm using "mirror image" in the non-goatee sense. As in, the opposite of something annoying is itself usually also something annyoing. We must hew to the Golden Mean.

*

Another counter-example to Derb's theory (in fairness, he didn't say this about "all" women, just most): Joan Allen. Yowza.

Personally, I think that Mr. Derbyshire adds an interesting perspective to a discussion. Sometimes he is dead on. For instance, when it was widely speculated that the recently elected President of Iran may have been one of the hostage-takers, Derbyshire pointed out that the mere fact that the hostage-takers were still alive is a sign that we aren't a serious nation.

As for "K-Lo," I find myself just skimming past her droppings. I gave up trying to make sense of her incoherent posts long ago. Her mother hen attitude Dave mentioned above also grates.

I like Derbyshire. The 15-20 year old thing weirded me out too, but he always takes a stand against ID, which that site badly needs, and he's a constant thorn in Andrew Sullivan's side. I would think that a site that despises Sullivan as much as this one would value Derb for causing Sullivan so much "heart-ache."

The one person that really annoys me on NRO is Tim Graham. Enough already with the media updates, and about how he remembers something that Wolf Blitzer said 12 years ago that reveals his left wing biases and is therefore proof of the left wing media conspiracy. I'm all for dumping on the MSM, but that guy is so fucking pick nose.

I'll definitely go along with the mother-hen complex as one of K-Lo's annoyances. And the Duran Duran fixation is something that she really ought to keep to herself, the way Dave does with his Powers Boothe man-crush.

The abortion thing gets to me precisely because she never has anything new to say on the topic. To be fair, I'm not sure anyone has said anything new or interesting on either side of the debate for the last thirty years. But she doesn't have to remind me sixteen times a freakin' day that she doesn't like abortion.

Basically, Jonah is the life of the party over at the Corner. If he ever quit, I doubt I'd be dropping by much at all.

For one thing, while certain female physical attributes may peak at an early age, others don't, and furthermore many women can stay at the 90-95% level of peak hotness for a while. Witness, as an Andrew Sullivan commenter pointed out, the MILF thing.

For another thing, for those saying "this is obvious and noncontroversial," then it hardly needs to be said. Why insult 35% of the population by saying something "obvious and controversial"?

There are a lot of things that make people less than 100% attractive. They're rather obvious. What is the point in alienating people by stating the obvious?

Allow me to say one thing about the physical attractiveness of 15-20 year old girls (or, 15-25, which I think is a better "sample," but still close enough to Derb's category).

We're all just talking about physical attractiveness, and pure animal desirability when it comes to sex. I agree completely with Allah-- there's no argument here, this is a "true fact," as they say.

That said, I wouldn't think twice of *dating* an 18-25 year old right now (or, uh, a 15, 16, or 17 year old-- I just play with them online). Women of that age just aren't very interesting. Which doesn't matter when *guys* are that age, because we don't care what their opinion about Camus is, if they even have one, as long as their tits and butts don't sag.

Today, however, at the ripe old age of 31, I find all sorts of women my age (or older) attractive. As the hormones start to wither and die (bastards!), the tastes change, they become less physical. Plus, older chicks dig orgasms better. It's science.

That doesn't mean there's any way I can tell a 35-year-old woman that they have the perfect body of a 20-year-old, because they don't. And, as long as guys have any (ahem) bones in their body that place a priority on physical beauty, all things being equal, the younger a woman is, the more physically attractive she will be.

Gee, this is, like, the biggest "duh!" statement in the history of INTERNET. I can't even believe I'm writing it.

Cheers,
Dave at Garfield Ridge

For one thing, while certain female physical attributes may peak at an early age, others don't, and furthermore many women can stay at the 90-95% level of peak hotness for a while.

True, and thanks to better nutrition and advances in cosmetics, never truer than it is right now.

We live in a golden age, my friends. An age in which hotties abound even among the thirtysomething set.

And Chris Klein has fucked them all.

If they let the fight play out normally, Spock would have wasted Kirk. Hands down.

No, allah, beyond the objectification of children by men, women are pissed that a bunch of homely looking, middle aged or rapidly approaching middle age, guys, most without jobs, who couldn't get a date with their own right hand are once again, going on and on about women's looks.

Two words to buttress Dave and Allah's point:

Jennifer Connelly

Is she good looking now? Of course, she is, but not like her days of The Rocketeer and early films.

Gee, Ace, just because everybody knows it's true, we shouldn't say it? How about a more spirited defense of self-censorship there?

The statement is obviously only non-controversial to *MEN*. Otherwise, there would have been no Boob-Ha-Ha, right? What, Derbyshire shouldn't have said it, why? Because he alienates women who still think they have the ass of a 20-year-old? Pardon the obvious, but since when is that Derb's demographic anyway?

Cheers,
Dave at Garfield Ridge

Gee, Ace, just because everybody knows it's true, we shouldn't say it? How about a more spirited defense of self-censorship there?

It's not about censorship. It's about tact and politeness.

Short men are less desirable than tall men, but I hardly see the point of a female writer going on and on about how she has no use for short men.

Like, okay, duh.

Okay, so we're having a circular argument, because we just arrived back where we started: Derbyshire has no tact. Whoa, news flash!

As for short men vs. tall men, c'mon, Maureen Dowd won a fucking *Pulitzer* for observations like that. You gotta lower your bar, pal.

Cheers,
Dave at Garfield Ridge

Today, however, at the ripe old age of 31, I find all sorts of women my age (or older) attractive. As the hormones start to wither and die (bastards!), the tastes change, they become less physical.

Agreed on that first sentence, Dave. Not so sure I agree with the second.

No, allah, beyond the objectification of children by men, women are pissed that a bunch of homely looking, middle aged or rapidly approaching middle age, guys, most without jobs, who couldn't get a date with their own right hand are once again, going on and on about women's looks.

Why should any of that disqualify us from going on about women's looks? "I'm homely, therefore I'm disqualified from observing homeliness in others"? Where's the logic in that?

We could go on and on about a lot of uncomfortable truths. We don't, generally, because they're uncomfortable.

It's one thing to say that we need to be more honest about Islam, because that's a pressing political question which might have some bearings on our success in a war on terror.

What pressing concern did Derb address when deciding that Jennifer Anniston -- one of the more attractive females on the planet earth -- was dried-up and sexually undesirable because she had reached the advanced age of 36?

What was the point? To have "moral clarity" in our important War on Females Older Than 20?

Look, tards: when I critique Derb's Eeyore routine that's not to say that I approve of K-Lo. That affirmative action hire couldn't write her way out of a wet paper sack. Period.

Like other red-hot celebrity types, I don't placate. Ever.

What pressing concern did Derb address when deciding that Jennifer Anniston -- one of the more attractive females on the planet earth -- was dried-up and sexually undesirable because she had reached the advanced age of 36?

I'm with Dave. Since when is "pressing concern" a requirement for blog posts? Didn't we just get done here with a multipost series on Dick Cheney's cock?

He saw his opportunity and he took it. That's Derb. An alpha heterosexual.

Guys, just because you're saying something that's "true" doesn't mean you're not an asshole.

Witness Chris Klein.

I knew a girl who, upon meeting a girl (whom she didn't like for one reason or another) who had a fucked up bulging-out defective eye, exclaimed, sarcastically, "What a lovely eye you have!!!"

Obviously, she was being truthful in sarcastically pointing out this woman had a congenital disfigurement in her eye. It was, in fact, kinda monstrous.

Was she not, however, a total asshole? (By the way, she's a lovely person and funny, I'm just saying this was a moment of high assholishness.)

Actually, it's the true things one says that are the most hurtful. I call my smart friends "stupid" all the time because it's harmless. I wouldn't call a dullard stupid, at least not if I gave a whit about his feelings.

(I don't care about Oliver Willis, so I don't mind saying he's stupid, untalented, and Shamu-shaped, but there is still little doubt I'm being an asshole in saying those things.)

Derb is an old Queen

I mean really. What kind of strait man would ever criticize these?

nsfw

"What was the point? To have "moral clarity" in our important War on Females Older Than 20?"

Ace, it's called blogging. We all say a lot of loose shit, inner monologue stuff all the time. You disagree with him having said it-- fine, I agree, it was tactless and probably should not have been said. Does that make it any less true? That's a different discussion, and obviously the one we're having here in your lovely and scenic comments section.

Allah-- RE: my "tastes change" comment, insofar as physical desire is concerned, younger women are still hot to me. That hasn't changed at all, and goodness, I hope it never does. That said, I find those "intangibles" of women my age and older more appealing than I did when I was younger and ruled more by the Spanish swordsman in my pants. THAT part has changed.

For instance, the whole concept of a MILF was pretty much lost on me at age 19. Now, I understand the concept VERY well. That's a big change right there.

Still, yeah, of course-- taking an 18-year-old coed for a spin would be an absolute delight, I'm sure. I just don't think I would want her to talk to me afterwards when we go out for the traditional post-coital McGriddle breakfast. If, you know, she earned it and all.

Cheers,
Dave at Garfield Ridge

But the only person Derb singled out was Jennifer Aniston. And somehow, I suspect she'll survive.

If uncomfortable truths are off the table based on possible offense to groups, then what the hell is there left to talk about?

Dave From It's Old:

Gotta agree with you on younger women being pretty damned boring -- at least for this getting-to-be-old guy. I recently got set up with the sister of a co-worker. She was mid-twenties, which is right at the "too young for me" stage (I'm 38).

Now, this lady was a recent college graduate (granted, a degree in Art Education, but give her some slack on that one), not bad too look at, and fairly well-spoken. But boring. Oh my various pagan Gods, was she boring! She knew nothing beyond the shallowest kind of pop culture, was an avid fan of People magazine (which made me wrinkle my nose as if she had just lofted a really nasty fart), and had an irritating way of talking like this? You know like every statement is a question? Even if it's a statement?

Yes, I will stipulate this is unfair; I barely knew her, so who am I to judge, right? And yet I could barely keep from nodding off as she burbled happily about (if I can recall) some celebrity breakup or other. At some point I stopped listening and started fantasizing about punching her in the throat just to turn off her braindead yapping cake-hole. I finally pretended that my on-call pager went off (I had it on vibrate), and then made up some excuse to cut the evening short.

As Jules said in Pulp Fiction: personality goes a long ways.

i cant spell

Meh. The guy doesn't think Jennifer Aniston is worth laying the lumber to. He's obviously gay--not that there's anything wrong with that.

“Post-coital McGriddle breakfast?” I don't need food to impress, man. It's a flash of a smile and a nice conversation. And at the end of the day, she's cooking the food.

K-Lo?

I might have tapped that, I don't really remember.

Derb?

Sorry, I don't placate alpha-males.

If uncomfortable truths are off the table based on possible offense to groups, then what the hell is there left to talk about?

Are you really saying we'll have a lack of stuff to bullshit about if labeling all women older than 20 as dried-up hags is taken off the table?

I'm not sure we've ever discussed this before... and yet we've seemed to manage, all across the blogosphere, without going on about how perky a 15 year old's breasts are.

Allah-- RE: my "tastes change" comment, insofar as physical desire is concerned, younger women are still hot to me. That hasn't changed at all, and goodness, I hope it never does. That said, I find those "intangibles" of women my age and older more appealing than I did when I was younger

Yeah, I guess. The only thing that really changes with age, I think, is the capacity to rationalize. E.g., "I can't get twentysomethings anymore; I can get thirtysomethings, but they're not as hot. How to make this psychologically palatable to myself? Ah yes -- by finding compensating 'intangibles' among the thirtysomethings."

It's kind of like what happened to Jack Black in "Shallow Hal," except we do it to ourselves; no Tony Robbins hypnosis required. Which is fine, I suppose. If we can make ourselves believe that a woman is hot, then she is hot. Problem solved, no?

Short men are less desirable than tall men, but I hardly see the point of a female writer going on and on about how she has no use for short men.

Like, okay, duh.

I love it when Ace unwittingly reveals something about himself.

Twenty is just too low. It should go up to the late twenties.

She ... was an avid fan of People magazine ..., and had an irritating way of talking like this? You know like every statement is a question? Even if it's a statement?

Just reading this makes my teeth hurt.

There's a reason older men do not "date" young ones. They stab themselves in the heart with the butter knife before the appetizers arrive.

I don't really know what "placate" means. I just heard it from a gay prostitute this morning as he took my cash.

Are you really saying we'll have a lack of stuff to bullshit about if labeling all women older than 20 as dried-up hags is taken off the table?

No, I'm saying that since pretty much everything else is on the table, why take this one particular thing off? Feminist blogs specialize in what they think are "uncomfortable truths," churning out post after post about "the patriarchy" and the Great Uterus-Harvesting Conspiracy, etc. So here comes Derb popping off with an uncomfortable truth of his own and suddenly we've got to get it off the table lest precious feelings be hurt? I don't get it.

No, allah, beyond the objectification of children by men, women are pissed that a bunch of homely looking, middle aged or rapidly approaching middle age, guys, most without jobs, who couldn't get a date with their own right hand are once again, going on and on about women's looks.

Oh please. As if there are a lot of hot women out there picking up copies of Geek Times. I am so tired of women whinning about men "objectifying" women while they drool over "hot" men.

Pretty people get looked at, men and women. It is what it is. That's why people spend such an inordinate amout of time trying to look pretty. If it weren't true you wouldn't have tossed in the gratuitous comment about homely men.

If none of this had any truth to it them glamour magazines would stop using 16-18 year old "women" as their models and women would stop trying to emulate their looks.

For the record, Derbyshire is worth keeping around if only for his utter fearlessness in labelling anyone and everyone pushing "Intelligent Design" as the hateful anti-science 'tards they are. Takes a certain sort of "fuck off" elan to pull that right in the the middle of National Review's official blog.

So here comes Derb popping off with an uncomfortable truth of his own and suddenly we've got to get it off the table lest precious feelings be hurt? I don't get it.

Do you have a 30-something lady-friend reading over your shoulder?

Derb's comment was what a lot of men think, but don't say. That he said it is not then end of the world, or even the 20th rudest thing I've read today - because it wasn't personal about an ugly/mediocre woman.

Men forget sometimes how sensitive women can be about their looks, at least in part because every overweight, balding, shapeless man in the world still thinks he's 'looking good' and is actually God's gift to women (even though they don't seem to realize it).

Actually, I'm not all that clear on this "alpha-male" thing, either. Does it mean there's no reach-around?

I am so tired of women whinning about men "objectifying" women while they drool over "hot" men.

Most women drool over rich, confident, reliable men.

Most women drool over rich, confident, reliable men.

Yup. One day at work I was bitching about this to a male co-worker as all the women were chattering excitedly over some douchebag sleaze from corporate. He just smiled and said, "I won't get pissed about that so long as they promise not to get pissed when I stare at some hot intern's ass."

Well said.

And yes, 16-17 year old girls can be quite hot. I hate to say it, but there it is. Doesn't mean I'm going to try to fool around with one.

Rich, reliable and confident. So what your saying is that most women are shallow in their own way.

Can't argue with that.

I'm sure that in his world, which apparently revolves around his penis - what he says is true.

NRO wouldn't be half as good without Derb.

Well, half of shitty is like, half-shitty.

Yeah, I said it.

I'm with Dave. Since when is "pressing concern" a requirement for blog posts?

But Allah -

Have you forgotten that there's a war on?

In fact I'm calling bullshit on this whole thing. The whole point of his comment is that MOST women are in their physical prime in their early years. I don't agree with his ages but to argue that MOST women don't look their physical best (leave aside the great personality arguements) is lunacy. They do. So do most men.

Perhaps there will be a Penthouse for the geriatric set soon. Or a Playgirl. Maybe the Chippendales will start taking on 50 year old men soon. All of these things will happen just as soon as there is a demand for them. As of now, not so much.

Tomorrow night Victoria Secret will be hosting their annual lingerie show on network television. It promises to be, as it is every year, one of the most watched shows on television. For the year. And there won't be a blue hair in a thong anywhere to be seen.

Just because its not PC does not make it true. Young bods, female and male, look better than older ones. As someone said earlier, and water is wet.
To see this level of angst over the obvious on a blog is mind boggling.

Oh and I have it on good authority that naked testicle spiderman is rich, confident and reliable.

To see this level of angst over the obvious on a blog is mind boggling.

It's not mind-boggling at all.

Some women are touchy about their looks, and they're one contingent of outrage at all of this.

But another factor is people (particularly parents) who are distressed at the sexualization of children. He said 15-20, not 18-25. Some people think that there should be a taboo against perving on 15 year olds. Right or wrong, that's part of what's going on here.

And yes, 16-17 year old girls can be quite hot.

But a hot 17 year old will become an even hotter 18 year old.

Considering Derby's fatuous devotion to Darwinism, you'd think he'd point out the natural-selection advantage to laying the ol' pipe in as many young, nubile and fertile women as possible. So long as he's being all scientific AND anti-P.C.

Probably because he knows he really would be subjected to some awfully shrill emails, and probably a Bobbitt when he got home.

Whether Derb's argument has any merit is almost beside the point. It's just fun to bait feminists.

Which reminds me. Karol tells me there's an event happening in the City this Wednesday at which a fair number of thirtysomething women should be present.

My question is, which brand of milk bones should I bring?

Some people think that there should be a taboo against perving on 15 year olds. Right or wrong, that's part of what's going on here.

Granted. And when 15 year olds are no longer being used as models, which they are, and in movies as sex objects, as they are, and people are no longer lapping it up, which they are, I will agree. Anna Kournikova anyone?

I have no interest in teenagers but to say that their looks are not popular is to deny the obvious.

Bill, you wrote:

"Well, half of shitty is like, half-shitty."

Ummm, I'm no John Derbyshire, but my math says that's a quarter-shitty.

Cheers,
Dave at Garfield Ridge

Really, you can read that quote such that he's limiting the '15-20' year old thing to the attractive of the female breast. That 'in this precise context' coming after the preceding paragraph's concentration on 'the unsupported female breast.' (not saying he definitely means this, but it's an escape route)

The surrounding language, the 36 being past the salad day, seems more generalized. And so blindingly obvious as that, in a sensible world, it would be uncontroversial.

As for the 15-20 year old breast is best - absolutely.

After that, they start to fail the pencil test.

And, apparently, I am a retard, as I just realized what you wrote.

Fuck this math-in-public shit, I need a drink. . .

Derb's just shooting his mouth off, then hand-waving it away by saying "that's just what we do in the Corner--air ill-thought out bullshit!"

Didn't he write a book about our declining culture? What a cock-faced butt queef.

Doug F gets it right, somewhere back up there.

"While I have no doubt that Ms. Aniston is a paragon of charm, wit, and intelligence, she is also 36 years old."

What? It's one thing to claim that, in general, women become less physically attractive as they age , but he's talking specifically about Jennifer Aniston and claiming that she isn't attractive because she's 36 years old.

Suppose you're walking through K-Mart with a pal, and he took a look at that GQ cover and said, "You know, I'm just not that interested in Jennifer Aniston's 36 year old body, but I do think the female form reaches peak sexual attractiveness at the age of 15." At the very least, you will probably not be inviting this fellow over to watch the Colts.

I am a middle aged, moderately sucessfull male, currently driving a 1965, blond white wife.

After 3 kids she is beginning to look her age. (Her Bristols are definately moving south) and theres more room in the cab, so to speak..

I guess at this point I should be looking to trade in on a 1985 to 1995 model.

Any suggestions?

Facts about John Derbyshire:

-- Has Fermat's 2nd to Last Theorem "Chicks are hottest between 3/8ths and 1/4 of their life expectancy" framed above his work desk.

-- Carries around an Andrew Sullivan bobble head doll with vacu-jack option in his Triumph T6

-- Secretly divides by zero

-- Wonders why it's called The Corner' when, in fact, it's linear.

Sorry, make that a 1985 to 1990 model.

(Don't want to seem like some kind of sicko!)

How many other NRO contributors are an uncredited thug in a Bruce Lee movie and have an entry in the Internet Movie Database (I tried to link to his entry, but the filter doesn't like indigo mike delta bravo)? Sure he got his butt kicked by Bruce Lee, but that's just because it was a movie and Bruce Lee is supposed to win.

Besides, Excitable Andy called him a pervert. Someone who puts his dorkfish up another man's butt is calling someone else a pervert. The laughs just keep on coming.

Two words to buttress Dave and Allah's point:

Jennifer Connelly

Is she good looking now? Of course, she is, but not like her days of The Rocketeer and early films.

Yeah, but that's because she stopped eating, got skinny, and her major league yabos shrank. I didn't even know that was her in Beautiful Mind when I first saw the trailer. Eat a sammich.

The Derb said nothing wrong. He is the man. The end.

I would like to revise and extend my comments. Appears that Miss Connelly might have had breast reduction surgery. I was reading Beautiful Atrocities' Guide to Jennifers and he mentioned she had the surgery. Still appears skinny, but that's not the only her breasts are smaller.

Two words to buttress Dave and Allah's point:

Jennifer Connelly

Two more words: Christina Applegate.

Catch her in Married With Children re-runs circa 1989 or 1990. She was 18 years old at the time, and a hotter bod on American television you will never see.

I'll stay out of the teenage girl discussion except to venture a hunch, and I could be completely wrong, that utron and allah aren't married, or at least not happily. Just a guess.

But I dispute the statement that everyone is more attractive in their teens. I know it's different for males and females, but I have never found any male under 30 to be sexually attractive, even when I was in my teens. (And no, I wasn't dating old pervs; I always dated guys my age but I considered them childish and zit-ridden. Of course, I was childish and zit-ridden, too. I looked a whole lot better at 30 when I got married.)

I guess I'm one of those few non-bisexual females ;-) because I like men who are really MASCULINE, and hairless unlined teenager boys seem juvenile/feminine to me, more like pederast bait.

I'll stay out of the teenage girl discussion except to venture a hunch, and I could be completely wrong, that utron and allah aren't married, or at least not happily. Just a guess.

MY IMAGINARY WIFE WORSHIPS THE GROUND I WALK ON.

YOU KNOW NOTHING OF OUR LOVE.

I hope Derby becomes the father of a 15 year old daughter with D cups. That is, if he ever has sex with women again in his lifetime.

And I hope she asks Daddy's permission for a tongue piercing and an ass tattoo.

I am familiar with a girl (not an actress or anything) who has excellent, pert (and unenhanced) Bristols at age 40. I suspect there are others like her. Derb the Perb must be hanging out with the wrong birds.

Derbyshire is a crank, and not the entertaining kind. I remember during the convention coverage when he got irritated that a rock band was performing. His comment was something to the effect of 'we're republicans so why are they playing this stuff?'

And yet Elvis Aaron Presley. Began courting his wife when she was 14, begged Nixon to let him enlist and the father of rock and roll. Dick Cheney? Bah. ELVIS.

Allah, I'm sorry I disparaged your relationship with your "wife". I'm sure you are Dick Cheney to her high-breasted, celluliteless perfection.
(Happy sigh) Ain't love grand.

There is nothing on Earth that is more overrated than teenage pussy...'cept maybe the FBI.

And there's nothing in Paradise more overrated than 72 virgins. I mean who wants a virgin? Give me an experienced woman who knows all the tricks and crazy positions than a virgin.

"every overweight, balding, shapeless man in the world still thinks he's 'looking good' "

Not all of us.

Some of us know exactly how we look.

Hence the endless stream of SHAMEFUL TEARS.

snif

Look, Derb is a moron whose only commentariat qualification is "He's British". But compared to Rod Dreher, he's WFB.

Dreher's mancrush on Murtha proved what I suspected all along: "crunchy conservative" is another way of saying "not conservative".

"When a woman isn't feeling good about herself and you combine that with her period, eventually she'll ask you if you like her flabby, thirtysomething body. You have to say no."

Only if you're not married to her - then you have to say YES, or you might as well go home and hang yourself. My husband and I once devised a sport for the Olympics that could be won by only the bravest of men - Wife Lugging. Each man, *with his wife standing by his side*, would have to publicly announce to the world what he estimates her weight to be, and then would carry her on his back in an endurance contest. So, as each man is staggering around under his burden (I've had 3 children, it does a few things to your metabolism), his wife would be berating him over why he can't carry a mere 105 lbs further than this!

I guess I'm one of those few non-bisexual females ;-) because I like men who are really MASCULINE, and hairless unlined teenager boys seem juvenile/feminine to me, more like pederast bait.

Hear hear!

I hope Derby becomes the father of a 15 year old daughter with D cups. That is, if he ever has sex with women again in his lifetime.

And I hope she asks Daddy's permission for a tongue piercing and an ass tattoo.

It would be poetic justice. I seriously doubt he'll ever get that far, though, with that attitude. Besides, even if he did manage to have sex with women again and actually procreate, he'd surely be gone at the first sign of pregnancy. 'Cause y'know, pregnant women don't fit Chester the Molester Derbyshire's teenaged ideal. Sick fuck.

No matter though. Who wants a mental midget like that (besides other mental midgets)?

You know, the more I read Allah's misogynistic comment thread rants (and he had some classics on other blogs), the more I wonder if his relationship to Islamic strictures wasn't more... straightforward than we thought.

My pregnant wife: God, I feel so unattractive. I mean, the thing is I don't look pregnant. I've just just gotten thicker around the middle so I look like a fat woman.

Me: You've put on some weight in your ass, too.

Wife: I will never, ever forget that you said that.

Warden - is your wife currently pregnant, or are you relating a story from the past?

Having a pregnant wife is certainly an adventure.

My wife: Wow. I've grown out of these pants.

Me: You've grown out of a lot of your clothes, and it's only going to get worse.

My wife: Time to die.

Low blow, someone. Did I not agree with Ace earlier that there are oodles of thirtysomething hotties walking around?

As for the milk bones comment, as I said, I like baiting feminists. Hey, I'm in milk-bone country myself.

And before you ask: I prefer Purina. Has a nice, smoky aftertaste.

Umm, you do know that he already is married? And has children? Right?

I've gotta ask one thing about the 20 year-old fetish, though. Do you guys actually get out often and see REAL women, or just the ones on TV, movies, magazines, and pr0n sites?

Because reality isn't quite as pretty as the "obvious" stereotype. I'm not pissed or personally offended, I'm just sayin'. It seems that *some* of you (but especially Derby) only see the "reality" in women of your own age or older.

Thanks, Ace (and others), for acknowledging that even though we "old" (39 here) women aren't always perfect (who is?), there's no need to alienate and insult us as a group. It's not a feminist grievance, that's just human nature--and not slagging women over 30 or 35 or whatever is just being a decent human being whose parents raised you better than others' did.

Warden - is your wife currently pregnant, or are you relating a story from the past?

No, this happened just a couple of weeks ago. This will be our first child.

I wasn't trying to be cruel or anything. Sometimes I just say stuff, you know?

But, yeah, it's quite a trip. I've never before felt so filled up with both dread and excitment at the same time. I sincerely hope I don't fuck this all up, as I truly believe that my greatest purpose in this world is to be a good husband and father.

Congratulations.

My wife's 23 weeks pregnant with our first. It does mess with your head. My wife and I were all worried this morning because she hadn't felt the baby move for hours. Fortunately, she had an appointment this afternoon and we heard the heartbeat on that doppler gadget.

I can't believe how vulnerable this whole fatherhood thing makes me feel, to be honest. I mean, if something happens to that kid...God, I don't even want to think about it.

Congrats, Slu. Best of luck to you both.

If it's a boy, may I suggest naming it ... "Hugh"?

And if it's a girl, Kathryn Jean.

You've got it.

And congrats to the Warden, too.

40-ish old dad with two teen daughters, my initial reaction would pretty much shoot every one of you sumbitches and Derb too..

but I read more carefully.

congrats Warden, and of course, the slub-meister.

may they bring you as much grief in their teen years as I have enjoyed these past couple of..

I will need the laughs.

d in t

Bunch of wussies.

Love y'all. (except the perverts)

Derbyshire did get off at least one memorable funny a while ago:

"Breathes there man with heart so dead
He was not, in his twenties, Red?"

Unless he was stealing it from someone else. I don't want to google it - don't want my illusions shattered.

Good night, good night, sweet ladies, good night.

I suppose it won't surprise most of you that I like John Derbyshire.

Howard Stern is ten times worse than Derb yet most of you would consider Stern edgy and funny, not a "homophobic, racist asshole."

It really pains me to see righty bloggers use that term "Homophobe." It is a phony and over-used term used by the PC crowd to shun their ideological opponents. Homophobia is as real as Kwanza.

It really pains me to see righty bloggers use that term "Homophobe."

But does it fill you with heartache?

I think we use homophobe because it's so much easier to type than "John Derbyshire is a bigot who hates gay people."

Little boy: Mom, how come you're getting so big?

Mom: I'm having a baby, son, there's a baby in here.

Little boy: There's a baby in your ass?

Young girls lack certain essential talents. When I want to reminisce about young girls, I rub my junk against a cheese grater.

What evidence is there that he is a bigot?

What evidence is there that he is a bigot?

Maybe the fact that he says mindless bigoted-type stuff now and again.

Yes ace,

It can be unnecessarily off-putting to say things that are obvious and controversial, but that's a very different point than most of Derb's critics are making. In fact, it's the exact opposite. They are suggesting the substance of his point was both wrong and creepy. It's quite a step back to say okay, maybe it's not wrong and creepy, it's obvious.

Derbyshire is a preening ass, and although even an ass may bray on key every now and then, it isn't worth the effort to wade through his jackassery to find the occasional valid point. That's the trouble with Derb: whenever he says something that's manifestly true, it isn't original; whenever he says something original, it's simply a crotchety, ex cathedra pronouncement unsupported by evidence. He is Mencken without the style and wit, which leaves you with . . . well, with what you've got: an irrascible and basically humorless curmudgeon.

I am not a racist asshole.

Some of my best friends are chinks...hell, I even married one.

The last was really by me and was a cheapshot for humor's sake.

I think Derbyshire is many of the things posted here, but racist isn't one of them. He is willing to say what he thinks with little adulteration or need to be hip, and for that, whatever his other shortcomings, conservatives ought to appreciate him.

I don't think Derbyshire is a racist at all. I do believe, however, his writings on homosexuality sometimes cross the line from ideological and moral disagreement into bigotry. I don't use that word in a pejorative sense - if you read some of his writings on homosexuality, it's clear he has an irrational suspicion or disdain for them.

My wife and I were all worried this morning because she hadn't felt the baby move for hours.

Put your mouth to her belly and yell, WALKE UP! I'm not kidding. And/or, have your wife drink a glass of OJ. The sugar stimulates them. And last but not least, congratulations!

if you read some of his writings on homosexuality, it's clear he has an irrational suspicion or disdain for them.

I think it's difficult to discuss homosexuality at length, pro or con, without at least some of the content of the discussion becoming irrational. At least few such discussions I've ever witnessed remain purely logical. (This is probably true of most subjects, but especially of sexual preferences.)

The "them" in your sentence refers to people, whereas its antecedent is a behavior or orientation. Which do you mean Derbyshire suspects/disdains: homosexuality or the people who engage in it?

Also, what is the nature of his suspicion?

Oh please. As if there are a lot of hot women out there picking up copies of Geek Times. I am so tired of women whinning about men "objectifying" women while they drool over "hot" men.

Oh, please yourself. I mentioned the objectification of children. Or do you think as a male you are entitled to that? I don't see women in real life and on blogs go on and on how most men are overweight, balding, and have little dicks.

Pretty people get looked at, men and women. It is what it is. That's why people spend such an inordinate amout of time trying to look pretty. If it weren't true you wouldn't have tossed in the gratuitous comment about homely men.

It's not gratutitious at all. What's the matter? Don't like a little truth right back at ya'?

If none of this had any truth to it them glamour magazines would stop using 16-18 year old "women" as their models and women would stop trying to emulate their looks.

I think Derbyshire disdains both homosexuality and the people who engage in it, and is suspicious of their agenda/etc. I think there's a way to discuss the issue without getting into the irrational, but Derbyshire doesn't seem capable at times of doing it.

Slu: Congratulations, BTW.

If none of this had any truth to it them glamour magazines would stop using 16-18 year old "women" as their models and women would stop trying to emulate their looks.

Every day the msm slams our troops and what they are sacrificing their lives for. Therefore, if none of it had any truth to it, they would stop printing that crap. Good luck with that logic.

Why should any of that disqualify us from going on about women's looks? "I'm homely, therefore I'm disqualified from observing homeliness in others"? Where's the logic in that?

It doesn't. I can't stop you from writing what you write. Ignoring the fact that most women that you and others claim are unattractive are anything but, how about we go on and on about you being homely and because you are homely no one will ever find you desirable? Aren't you the one who suggested some women shd just drink bleach or draino?

Thanks, NK.

The lady was losing patience. Would I kindly give her a straight answer? If I lived in a state that put matters to referendum via a ballot initiative, and if there was a referendum to put a law against sodomy on the books, which way would I vote?

I said I would vote against, because I don't see much point having laws on the books if you aren't prepared to send people to jail for breaking them; and sending homosexuals to jail seems to me to be a really, really silly idea.

-- "Confessions of a Metropolitan Conservative"

Wow, what a homophobe. Same actual vote as Heartache Sully on criminal sodomy, though with more respect for federalism on the matter.

That I am in broad agreement with these folk about the inborn nature of their homosexuality therefore puts me in company with people who hate me, and whom I myself generally dislike.

...

I certainly do not believe, as around 40 percent of Americans say they do, that homosexual acts ought to be illegal.

I can't even agree with the Roman Catholic church that homosexuals are "called to chastity."

...

Tolerance is not approval; and while I do not agree with the pope that homosexuals are "called to chastity," I do think that they are called to restraint, discretion, reticence, and a decent respect for the opinions of the majority. I certainly do not think that they ought to be allowed to transform long-established institutions like marriage on grounds of "fairness." Nor do I think they should be allowed to advertise their preference to high-school students, as they do in some parts of this country. Nor should they be strutting about boasting of "pride." (How can you feel pride in something you believe you can't help?)

-- "Metaphysics, Science, Homosexuality"

Man, I can just feel the homophobia flowin' now! A general dislike of people who hate you? Disapproval? Bigoted demands for restraint? Discretion? Respect for opinions of the majority? What an asshole!

Come on, people. This is a guy who was willing to give Michael Jackson the benefit of the doubt. Hardly evidence of foam-flecked sodomite-hatred.

What evidence is there that he is a bigot?

Maybe the fact that he says mindless bigoted-type stuff now and again.

But apparently not enough of it that people might actually, you know, post quotes or links or something in response to a simple, direct inquiry...

I think Derbyshire disdains both homosexuality and the people who engage in it, and is suspicious of their agenda/etc. I think there's a way to discuss the issue without getting into the irrational, but Derbyshire doesn't seem capable at times of doing it.

I don't know. He no doubt finds the practice of homosexuality appalling, and despises the gay agenda, but I've seen him write some fairly moderate scribblings on homosexuality, in particular concerning the Catholic Church's requirement that homosexuals remain abstinent and how that's an unrealistic expectation.

I don't think he hates gay people so much as he would prefer not to have to deal with them. Closer to a sort of indifference.

Like how I feel about Paris Hilton.

Well, at least after she turned 21.

Hm. You seem to have taken this debate awfully personally.

"There is a fundamental human contempt towards a man who permits himself to be penetrated"

"Women expect a certain amount of penetration as coming with the territory of femaleness ... "

"Let us consider what is in people's minds - - - when homosexuality is mentioned? Buggery, that's what."

Similarly, the fact that many male homosexuals do not commit buggery does not alter the fact that buggery is, none the less, in the minds of most people, the defining act of homosexuality.

All quotes from The Houston Review, April 25, 2001

As I said, there is a good debate to be had over this issue. Derbyshire is not contributing to it.

Just looked at Derbyshire's comments and (*eyeing the exit*) they don't look so bad to me. Some of the meditations on this thread might be a source for hard feelings, but his points were:

1. "Even with the strenuous body-hardening exercise routines now compulsory for movie stars, at age 36 the forces of nature have won out over the view-worthiness of the unsupported female bust." Derb doesn't like sag. His business. Personally, I have no problem with eyeing JA's funbags but I'm not going to denounce someone whose tastes run to the pert. I'd guess that gravity is as important as age for these kinds of things and that Derbyshire's tastes might not run to the buxom, but the basic proposition doesn't seem controversial. Given her size, by 36 Anniston is either sagging or she's cheated.

2. "beyond our salad days, very few of us are interesting to look at in the buff." To this I would only add that a lot of us weren't so interesting in our salad days wither.

3. "a woman's salad days are shorter than a man's — really, in this precise context, only from about 15 to 20. " [emphasis mine] The first half of this I have learned to accept, having been so informed by scores of women. For the second part, the narrow topic he is clearly emphasizing is the peiod of time before gravity starts taking its toll on breasts. Again, I think this is the result of more than one variable, and that his timeline is a little off, but if you are just talking about this as a structural kind of question he's more right than wrong. And the timeline for other "precise contexts" is doubtlessly different from this one or the qualifier would not be necessary.

I didn't see the part where he announced he wanted to shag the babysitter or that he found his wife unattractive. Attraction is a pretty complicated business as you get older anyway. He's talking about buying a magazine to check out a stranger's mellons and saying that by age 36, the idealized rack on sale is certain to be slipping. All I get from that is Derb is maybe a breast man since the other fruits of "body-hardening exercise routines" don't seem to be as relevant as JA's "Bristols" and that he doesn't think pictures of sagging breasts are all that noteworthy.

So what?

Slu: Derbyshire contributes to a "thoughtful debate" through essays--no snippets taken from those essays.

For example, here is what follows ""Let us consider what is in people's minds - - - when homosexuality is mentioned? Buggery, that's what":

Like it or not — and I can quite understand that many homosexuals do not like it at all — buggery is, in the minds of the straight population, the defining act of the "homosexual lifestyle".

Now, this is not altogether fair. In the first place, a large proportion of homosexuals are women — that is, lesbians — who do not commit buggery. They cannot, at any rate in the strict meaning I intend here. In the second place, even if we restrict our attention to male homosexuals, there are many who do not practice buggery. Quentin Crisp told us he gave it up early in his career, finding he did not enjoy it. W.H. Auden seems to have favored fellatio exclusively, at any rate in middle age. We are pretty sure that Lord Byron buggered; but Oscar Wilde may not have, whatever the British press thinks. (See below. And if true, by the way, this last sentence rather spoils the point of Kenneth Tynan's priceless remark that: "Victorian literature began and ended with an anal scandal — Lord Byron up Annabella's bum, Oscar Wilde up Bosie's.") There is in fact a fastidious sub-category of male homosexuals — the late British comedian Kenneth Williams was an instance, according to Joe Orton — who do not give any physical expression at all to their sexual urges. And in the third place, a lot of heterosexual men practice buggery with their wives and girlfriends.

Link: http://olimu.com/WebJournalism/Texts/Commentary/Homosexuality.htm

(The third paragraph of my previous post should have been ital as Derbyshire's, too.)

Also: "Women expect a certain amount of penetration as coming with the territory of femaleness."

True or false?

That is true, but I think he could do so without using loaded terms. The debate is emotional enough without trying to deliberately anger those on the other side.

Plus, I'll admit to some pettiness here. The man's writing style grates on me. Not sure why. Maybe it's his overuse of hypens, commas and other line breaks.

The thing is, for any straight man, the idea of gay sex is somewhat repulsive, because we all do have that aversion to intimate contact with males.

But he's generalizing from his own experience, making his own revulsion some objective revulsion that all should feel, including gays.

Well, gays, rather obviously, are not revolted by the intimate touch of another man. This is sorta what makes them gay. So to continually slam on them for acting on their sex drives (different from Derb's and mine and maybe even slightly different from JeffB's) is bigoted and ignorant.

One can oppose the hardcore parts of the gay agenda without continuing the "Pervert/buggery" insults. He just chooses not to, for reasons unknown.

It's also true that a lot of guys like Derb are hung up on the "sodomy" thing, and yet, apparently, have little problem with heterosexual sodomy.

Look, if you're gay, and you want to have sex, sodomy is your only route. Men don't have vaginas.

Except JeffB, of course.

Look, if you're gay, and you want to have sex, sodomy is your only route.

Shd we assume that you like many of your readers were unaward that sodomy also covers oral sex? Or, are you pulling a Clinton?

slublog, congrats.

Thanks, Warden. It's an odd ride, as you know.

Also: "Women expect a certain amount of penetration as coming with the territory of femaleness."

True or false?

In my experience, sadly false.

But he's generalizing from his own experience, making his own revulsion some objective revulsion that all should feel, including gays.

Not at all: "In a 1996 Gallup poll 59% of the public believed that homosexual behavior is morally wrong, compared to 34% who believed that it is not morally wrong. I doubt if the first of those figures will ever get much lower; I doubt if the second will ever reach 50%."

And...

"Now, supposing I am right in my assertion that talk of homosexuality brings buggery to the front of most people's minds, it is not unreasonable to see why there is — as I believe there is — a widespread public distaste for homosexuality that can never be altogether eradicated. "

He has probably been proved wrong in the limits that the numbers have moved, but he doesn't say the feeling is universal.

Now as to the "objective revulsion," Slu has stated that Derbyshire's arguments are irrational. One or the other, folks. He posits health considerations and likens it to a risk behavior like cigarettes. That is a rational, if debatable, argument.

As I said before, I don't think people argue this subject in such terms. Perhaps "buggery" is a loaded, if descriptive, word, but suppose we were talking about legalizing sex with 12 year olds. How else would you talk about it? Remember that Lawrence was a case about sodomy.

To paraphrase Slu, one says buggery rather than writing out anal penetration of the penis over and over. It does as little harm to thoughtful debate as does characterizing one side as homophobic.

Or you could just use the term "sex." Because, like it or not, that's what they have.

Kronos,

You misunderstand; maybe I was unclear.

I'm saying that Derb has, obviously, a strong physical revulsion to the idea of being penetrated. Well, so do just about all straight men.

What he seems to be implying is that gays are defective for not sharing in this revulsion to, ahem, "buggery." That's what I mean about generalizing his personal feelings about it-- obviously, gays are NOT terribly upset at the thought of intimacy with a man, but he is taking his feeling ("Yuch! Disgusting") and suggesting that gays ought to join him in feeling that way.

Well, they don't. That's what makes them gay.

Also: "Women expect a certain amount of penetration as coming with the territory of femaleness."

True or false?

In my experience, sadly false.

Well, not when you are first introduced and only shake hands.

And Derb doesn't seem interested much in the "morality" of the act, either. He doesn't strike me as a religous or morally-interested guy. He seems to be a materialist utilitarian.

I have more respect for someone who has a moral objection to the act -- based on their religion -- than someone who is just objecting because it's not something he'd like to engage in.

As regards myself, sure, the idea of sex with a man is pretty unappetizing. But obviously there are people for whom that is not an unappetizing thought, and it just doesn't make sense to condemn them for not sharing my sexuality.

Whether or not one agrees with the religious moral objection to homosexual sex, at least there there's some external authority, not just one's personal "Ewwww!" response.

It's the personal "Ewwww!" response that continues the human race...

'cause who'd deal with women, without it?
[/Allah]

As regards myself, sure, the idea of sex with a man is pretty unappetizing.

Unless, of course, the Wilson brothers come a' courtin'.

To paraphrase Donald Rumsfeld........"look, you go into sex with the genitalia you have, not the genitalia you want to have."

(don't really have a point, but that comment by Rummy just popped into my head reading this thread. I'll go now.)

Sex makes you think of Rumsfeld?

That's just not right.

Derb, after all, is married to a tiny, flat-chested Asian woman. She's probably still got the chest of a 12-year-old boy even after bearing his children, but, well, she's NOT 15-20! How dull of her!

One can oppose the hardcore parts of the gay agenda without continuing the "Pervert/buggery" insults. He just chooses not to, for reasons unknown.

"Reasons unknown?" Here's your reason:

"I hold a lot of incorrect opinions about all sorts of things; and, having grown up in the age before PC, I have never internalized the necessary restraints nor mastered the necessary techniques of double-think. Looking at this new "hate-crimes" legislation coming up — bipartisan, of course! — I find myself wondering how much longer I shall be able to stay out of jail, much less be employable by any respectable organ of opinion."

-- "Not Enough of Us Hate America"

He grew up in rural post-War England, speaks how they spoke then, and sees no need to change that for people who'll hate him no matter how he speaks. I can hardly blame him.

So to continually slam on them for acting on their sex drives (different from Derb's and mine and maybe even slightly different from JeffB's) is bigoted and ignorant.

He's not slamming them for acting on their drives - he wouldn't even support the Pope's condemnation of that. I don't believe he give a rat's rear what strangers do in private in their bedrooms, absent provable harm (see the Michael Jackson link I gave, above). Tinkering with millenia-old social institutions through judicial fiat, to spare the feelings of an indignant 2% of the population does seem to irritate him, though.

Beyond that, he'll give up a bit of the stereotype Victorian-Brit act from time to time (perfidous onion-eating French, shifty conspiratorial Papists, etc.), but to judge him by that would be like judging this crowd by one of the flame war threads.

he is taking his feeling ("Yuch! Disgusting") and suggesting that gays ought to join him in feeling that way.

As long as he's civil about it, he can suggest whatever he feels like. Politely phrased suggestions don't equal bigotry, to me. He doesn't even feel disgusted enough for even a hypothetical vote to ban the conduct. Compare the stuff he's written about homosexuality to the stuff homosexuality advocates have written about him, and I know which side I see as closer to hate-mongering.

I have more respect for someone who has a moral objection to the act -- based on their religion -- than someone who is just objecting because it's not something he'd like to engage in.

? So, "don't eat your boogers in public, it's a terrible sin" is OK, but "don't eat your boogers in public, it's gross" isn't? And a little gentle mickey-taking of those who drone on endlessly about the glories of snot-eating and the hideous repression of those who object to it is OK in case 1, but not case 2?

And Derb doesn't seem interested much in the "morality" of the act, either. He doesn't strike me as a religous or morally-interested guy. He seems to be a materialist utilitarian.

I have more respect for someone who has a moral objection to the act -- based on their religion -- than someone who is just objecting because it's not something he'd like to engage in.

And yet your post on the guy who pled guilty in the horse-sex case didn't strike me as neutral or accepting. Extending your take against Derbyshire: "Of course most of us recoil at the idea of taking a back door delivery from Trigger, but other's don't. That's what makes them, errr, whatever the word might be." All well and good but that doesn't quite cover the matter, does it?

The "Ewwww" line may be moving for a lot of people, but it's still relevant if we are talking about public attitudes or shaping laws in the democratic process. I'm not a fan of Derbyshire's but I don't see where he sinned by acknowledging this.

And yet your post on the guy who pled guilty in the horse-sex case didn't strike me as neutral or accepting.

Just to be clear, that act resulted in the man's death.

There's also a cruelty-to-animals case to be made against such things (which some will agree with and some won't), which is why the Humane Society wants bestiality outlawed.

So really, I don't think that the two are comparable.

Thanks, Sandy. I always enjoy your comments. I think we disagree on this one, though.

that act resulted in the man's death.

So does autoerotic asphyxiation. Routinely. And yet ... no posts, no write ups in the news. And really, not all that funny. Hmmmmm.

There's also a cruelty-to-animals case to be made

Not a very good one in this case which is why it was never charged. The animal was fine and, IIRC, stud horses are routinely "worked on" manually for semen. No cruelty in that "violation." I think there is an understandable impulse to find a victim here to justify the nearly universal sense that this was deeply wrong, but it strike me as a rationalization.

I don't think that the two are comparable.

Maybe, but the difference would have to be something other than what you are offering.

My take is that this was a crime against nature in a time where people can still recognize them but have trouble articulating why they are wrong. These aren't offenses against public order or safety but offenses against what we expect from each other just as part of recognizing a common humanity. It's a gut thing, just like that sense of common humanity itself.

Homosexuality, IMHO, is still transitioning from "crime against nature" to a morally neutral "lifestyle choice" in a lot of ways. The shorthand for where a person's attitude happens to fall in the spectrum of acceptance appears to be "the Ewwwww factor."

We all see the problem with horse-guy. Buggery/anal sex between males/male on male anal sodomy/"that form of contact formerly known as ..." or watever you want to call it evokes different levels of disapproval depending on who is being asked. I don't see the problem with Derbyshire looking at the numbers and thinking about what they mean in these terms.

But maybe I'm just being insensitive about something. It wouldn't be the first time. :-)

Maybe, but the difference would have to be something other than what you are offering.

You win. I think you're on to something with the crime against nature stuff.

I don't see the problem with Derbyshire looking at the numbers and thinking about what they mean in these terms.

True, but...

I don't know. Given what I think about homosexuality (that it's not really a choice, and so on), and given that it's harmless (in and of itself; note that AoS HQ often complains about "gay agenda" stuff), it just seems wrong to me to do anything which promotes the notion of homosexuality as a crime against nature.

Maybe it's just PC conditioning or something, but I don't think so.

it just seems wrong to me to do anything which promotes the notion of homosexuality as a crime against nature.

But is it wrong to acknowledge the presence of those opinions in others or discuss how that presence colors policy debates? Derbyshire strikes me as a really geeky guy, so I'm inclined to take him exactly at face value when he writes something. I don't really see him "promoting" much in the quotes posted here. Maybe a sense of decorum, but that's about it.

BTW, flinging feces against your own walls is probably harmless and natural (at least to judge from the monkeys in the zoo), but those qualifications alone hardly make it acceptable. I'm not equating homosexuality with flinging crap; I'm just pointing out that "harmless and natural" doesn't strike me as a very strong defense of anything once it goes public.