Quick note, though -- Derb ends his 'peak attractiveness' period at 20, rather than at 25, as you do. Those years really aren't terribly aging in terms of the body -- if there's a difference between 20-year-olds and 25-year-olds, it's facial, and it's that the 20-year-olds still look baby-faced.
By indicating a strong preference for the under-20 crowd over the early-20s crowd, he's not asking for physical perfection -- there's as much of that around at 23 as there is at 18. He's asking for visible immaturity. Which, you know, ick.
(And obviously he's just chain-yanking, and who gives a fuck. But if someone says something icky for the purpose of chain-yanking, there's nothing wrong with saying "ick" rather than pretending it was unexceptionable.)
But if someone says something icky for the purpose of chain-yanking, there's nothing wrong with saying "ick" rather than pretending it was unexceptionable.
No, I think this is what I disagree with. This is one of the ways that what pass for "cultural" lines in the US are drawn: he says something borderline icky, and you can either ignore it or chuckle or yawn, or say "ick," and "ick" makes you a weenie, which is exactly what he wants you to be.
Yeah, but pretty 23 year-olds aren't still perfect because they're killing themselves at the gym, they're still perfect because age isn't hitting them yet. God knows what Derb's actual sexual preferences are, and no one cares, but the age limits he's giving here make sense for an immaturity preference, not for a perfection preference.
It's chain-yanking, and it's stupid, but it is a kind of gross thing to say.
I'm not sure I agree with this. Or at least, it isn't my personal experience.
People look different in their 30s than they do at 21, sure. But now that I'm on the far side of 35, I'm finding women in their 40s and 50s more and more attractive, in ways that weren't as obvious when I was younger. And it's the very signs of aging that are catching my eye - crows feet around the eyes, for example. Oddly (and perhaps self-damningly), much of it has to do with seeing hints of what somebody looked like when they were younger, I suppose, but there's also a certain grace, elegance, and beauty to women of that age that even the most bombastically hott twenty-somethings almost *never* possess.
Once between my marriages and once when I was in college, I had one-night-stands with significantly older women. While gravity is an inexorable force on the human body over the span of decades (and both expressed embarrassment at first about being seen naked by somebody younger), they still were strikingly beautiful and both experiences remain way more memorable than most of my hookups in my 20s.
Fundamental disagreement here. If objecting when boundaries are pushed makes me a weenie, so I shouldn't do it, then the boundaries move. So then someone pushes the new boundaries. Can I say "ick" yet? How far do the boundaries have to move before I can object without being a weenie?
I could give a fuck whether Derb thinks I'm a weenie (or Frank-Ruta's a weenie, given that he's likely reading her but not me.) I'll say 'ick' when he grosses me out, and ignore what doesn't bother me -- his perceptions of my ability to take it don't enter into my calculations at all.
LB's right. If I said that Iranians were assholes, and nobody said Ick, who could say Ick when I added Germans, the Dutch, and Mongolians to my list of assholes?
LB, I take your point about the boundaries moving, but this is all just a game (at least insofar as Derb isn't actually saying anything controversial) to get people to deny something that seems obvious to one group, so that the denying group can be made to seem out of touch with reality. That's why a response is fine, but an "ick" response, is, I think, not.
Also, I got that issue of GQ, and any red-blooded het-leaning male is a fricking fool not to spend some time admiring Jennifer Aniston's truly superb breasts (it's all side boob, but still). She's too skinny, but man what a rack.
I'm with ogged, except I like Derbyshire a lot better than I like Insta-fuckit. (Cranky old weird guy versus pusillanimous hack.)
But I think it's fair to say that Franke-Ruta is working the 'unbelievably outrageous' side of the journalism street. She's just doing what she evidently considers her job.
If objecting when boundaries are pushed makes me a weenie, so I shouldn't do it, then the boundaries move.
I would gather the point of objecting is reinforcing a social norm or stereotype (see vagenda); ogged is partly implicitly arguing the norm of 'ick' is wrong/goofy/self-refuting/whatever.
NB: looking at & fucking are two distinct actions, and yes, I know that everyone assumes one leads to the other.
That was why I made the point about 20 to 25 year-olds, to note that he really isn't just stating the obvious.
A further point on the 'not just stating the obvious' front is that 15-year-olds, as a class? Not that hot. Some 15 year-olds certainly look like adult women, and there's nothing particularly unusual about finding those 15-year-olds attractive, but they aren't the norm -- they're about as odd as, say, a 28-year old woman who is still at the peak of physical perfection she reached at 21. Lots of 15-year-olds, and I would guess the majority, still look like little girls at that age.
To put it another way, if you've got two stacks of magazines, one with pictures of women from 15-20, and the other with pictures of women from 18-25, someone who prefers the first over the second likes looking at pictures of little girls, not at pictures of physically perfect women.
So, Derb's statement? Not so much uncontroversial, and genuinely worth a passing 'ick'.
if you've got two stacks of magazines, one with pictures of women from 15-20, and the other with pictures of women from 18-25, someone who prefers the first over the second likes looking at pictures of little girls, not at pictures of physically perfect women
Yeah, agreed. I took Derb to be exaggerating a bit for effect.
I'm with LB on this one. Also, it's totally normal to ogle an attractive 15 year old, but I like that people also immediately feel shame and embarrassment right afterwards. I'm creeped out by people, for example, who go to a McDonalds or something where lots of high school kids come in; I'm not creeped out by people who go to restaurants where lots of 25 year-olds come in.
I don't have a personality, though, tom, just a set of tics.
Well, you're not missing much. I'm nine months into full personhood, and so far the only thing I've noticed is that I'm slightly fatter and weaker than I used to be.
minor nitpick: sharapova and lohan are 18 and 19, i believe. for me, there's a rather large difference between leering at a girl barely past puberty and an 18-year-old. anyone checking out hermione, for example, is officially a perv.
I disagree about men, though. Men reach their height of attractiveness at about age 59. They should be no taller than about 5'7" and about 30 pounds "overweight", and they should drink a lot.
Unfogged: always cutting edge, always pervy.
I've seen two immigrant Kournikova-types since I moved to rural Minnesota. (Russians seem to like cold, grumpy places.) One is dating my sulky 16-year-old nephew, who doesn't appreciate her properly because she interferes with his gaming. And I'm the perv because I understand what a mistake he's making! (According to rumor, her dad is a PhD/felon).
i always thought people perved on lohan, etc, precisely because when they were 15 they didn't exactly look like normal 15-year-olds. i think of myself and my friends at 15 and basically remember a lot of glasses and braces and zits. but who am i to say that's not hot? hermione, though, i do kind of get. she's a cutie.
At the risk of inciting the ick chorus, 15 was prime marrying age for almost all of recorded history and remains so in many parts of the world. 15-year-olds may not look like adults (by the 21st century American definition), but they rarely look like little girls.
huff. there's a man who doesn't really like tits, is my professional opinion as someone with a regulatory qualification of some kind, I forget what. Plenty of 36-year-old women have fantastic knockers.
(by Derbyshire's criterion, Debbie Harry was never worth looking at, which certainly isn't the way I remember the 70s).
Late to the game, but I agree with LB that the exclusion of the 20-25 year-old-set is suspicious and cause for the "ick", and I say this not totally out of self-interest. However, I do think for most women, the years 15-25 are a continuous upswing of attractiveness, and the downswing starts sometime at or after the 25 mark. I am nearly positive that I look better now than at any time during the 15-20 period, and this is not a case of "extending that half a decade through exercise." I mean, jesus people, it's not like boobs suddenly drop on the 20th birthday, for christ's sake.
A bit of oddness: Derby begins by talking about breasts, and claiming that they're best at 15-20, but then claims that those days of glory can be extended to ~25 by regular exercise. Does Derb expect that women become obese in their early 20s if not for regular exercise? If not, how is it that regular excercise affects a women's breasts in her early 20s that doesn't similarly affect them after that period? Or, perhaps, is Derby thinking of more than just breasts? This seems more likely, beyond our salad days, very few of us are interesting to look at in the buff. He's not just saying that breasts are affected early by gravity, he's seems to be saying that a woman naked is only worth effort to catch a glmpse of if she's under 20, or under 25 and excercises regularly.
I don't, therefore, think Ogged is right to assume this: Derb writes to provoke, so he doesn't take any pains to point out (besides that "precise context") what he's not saying: that older people can't still be attractive
Derb seems quite the outlier here on notions of female beauty.
And, not to be all whorish or anything, but I'm nearing 40, I birthed a 10-lb baby, and nursed him for 2 1/2 years, and I'm telling you: my tits look just. Fine. And I haven't been to a gym in at least fifteen years.
LB: Have you read Wolfson's blog? Do you really want him near your brief? I would like to see Wolfson's version of your brief, but I doubt your employer would.
Dude, the whole thing is a violation of my professional something or other -- I can't actually have some random philosophy grad student writing briefs for me. But I do appreciate the offer of the tit-shot.
And, not to be all whorish or anything, but I'm nearing 40, I birthed a 10-lb baby, and nursed him for 2 1/2 years, and I'm telling you: my tits look just. Fine.
I know where you live, ogged, and since apparently it's just a matter of time before I reveal it, why don't I just do so now?
(I was actually going to object to being called random—or not quite object, but observe that I am hardly some random philosophy grad student. In other news, I think I enjoyed mustard as such for the first time tonight.)
"than calling him sexist would be, if one were to do such a thing, which one, of course, never would, being as I like Ben. And I don't think he's sexist."
In other news, I think I enjoyed mustard as such for the first time tonight.
That so many people have blog crushes on you is something I am now trying to regard as part of the appealing whimsy of the universe. But sometimes you make it hard.
Well, one can coat a roast in a mustard-rosemary-olive oil, uh, coating. That's good, but you're not really taking the mustard as mustard. The way one might if it were on a sandwich. Or mustard seeds, unground, as a component: not really mustard.
Ben abused me incomprehensibly over at Kotsko's a while back, and ever since I have been stalking him on the internet. It is the sophistication of his brutishness that I find adorable.
'Tis merely the traditional Usenet yell of PPoSTFU. No seasonal festivities (such as the yearly display of the Madonna's new plastic titties) is complete without it.
Pass the eggnog.
ash
['For the record, by the way, not being a titman, or John Derbyshire, I am personally fond of most titties, except the kind that come attached to 350 pound women. Those, not so much.']
"I can't actually have some random philosophy grad student writing briefs for me."
Fitting smoothly in: I'm reminded of the then-recently-hired assistant managing editor (at the big name paperback publishing company I was then working at) whom we discovered was giving out proofreading jobs (they go to freelancers) to guys she had just met in bars. (Explains the state of many books you've read, does it?)
Hey -- I can't comment on your blog anymore, because there's some other LizardBreath out there who's keeping me from registering my pseud. (I suppose I could register under a different pseud, but that would annoy me.) The anonymous comments problem really annoys you that much?
"The anonymous comments problem really annoys you that much?"
Yes. I gave it another year or so in the past year, and it only got worse (nor did any of the various people who claimed that the former limitation prevented them from commenting ever comment). I gave something like a hundred individual posted reminders and warnings. I think I gave it more than long enough, more than futilely enough. I'm insufficiently interested in hearing from "anonymous" enough to put up with it any longer (I switched some weeks ago).
Everyone remains as free as ever to sign whatever name they like to the end of their comments, just as they always have. I'm sorry that the Blogger name slot has limits, but the software is full of limits. Either we can improvise around them, or we must suffer. (Or, yes, I could move to another service, and I'm certainly keeping that option on the backburner, but it's not a small amount of trouble to go to, nor without a certain amount of downside; meanwhile, on the Maslow scale, I'm afraid it's not quite at the top of mine.)
I do very much hope to see you back y'know where, LB.
Proving that you can still get a 150+ comment string even after LB said everything there was to say in #1. But I do have a little bit of a soft spot for Derbyshire. I suspect him of being one of those people with dubious social skills and/or limited exposure who says a lot of creepy things but is not, in fact, particularly creepy.
Anyone who thinks the Derb's comments deserve an "ick" should definitely NOT watch the (Spanish) Video Rola channel Saturday at 12:05-12:10 p.m. or 7:05-7:10 p.m. CST. Because you're going to see a video called "Cosas del Amor" by Sergio Vega (#9 on this week's countdown!). And you're gonna say "double ick."
Quick note, though -- Derb ends his 'peak attractiveness' period at 20, rather than at 25, as you do. Those years really aren't terribly aging in terms of the body -- if there's a difference between 20-year-olds and 25-year-olds, it's facial, and it's that the 20-year-olds still look baby-faced.
By indicating a strong preference for the under-20 crowd over the early-20s crowd, he's not asking for physical perfection -- there's as much of that around at 23 as there is at 18. He's asking for visible immaturity. Which, you know, ick.
(And obviously he's just chain-yanking, and who gives a fuck. But if someone says something icky for the purpose of chain-yanking, there's nothing wrong with saying "ick" rather than pretending it was unexceptionable.)
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 12- 1-05 11:40 AM
He says you can extend by "half a decade" through exercise.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 12- 1-05 11:43 AM
But if someone says something icky for the purpose of chain-yanking, there's nothing wrong with saying "ick" rather than pretending it was unexceptionable.
No, I think this is what I disagree with. This is one of the ways that what pass for "cultural" lines in the US are drawn: he says something borderline icky, and you can either ignore it or chuckle or yawn, or say "ick," and "ick" makes you a weenie, which is exactly what he wants you to be.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 12- 1-05 11:47 AM
Yeah, but pretty 23 year-olds aren't still perfect because they're killing themselves at the gym, they're still perfect because age isn't hitting them yet. God knows what Derb's actual sexual preferences are, and no one cares, but the age limits he's giving here make sense for an immaturity preference, not for a perfection preference.
It's chain-yanking, and it's stupid, but it is a kind of gross thing to say.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 12- 1-05 11:48 AM
but by 36 the bloom is definitely off the rose
I'm not sure I agree with this. Or at least, it isn't my personal experience.
People look different in their 30s than they do at 21, sure. But now that I'm on the far side of 35, I'm finding women in their 40s and 50s more and more attractive, in ways that weren't as obvious when I was younger. And it's the very signs of aging that are catching my eye - crows feet around the eyes, for example. Oddly (and perhaps self-damningly), much of it has to do with seeing hints of what somebody looked like when they were younger, I suppose, but there's also a certain grace, elegance, and beauty to women of that age that even the most bombastically hott twenty-somethings almost *never* possess.
Once between my marriages and once when I was in college, I had one-night-stands with significantly older women. While gravity is an inexorable force on the human body over the span of decades (and both expressed embarrassment at first about being seen naked by somebody younger), they still were strikingly beautiful and both experiences remain way more memorable than most of my hookups in my 20s.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 12- 1-05 11:49 AM
I'm with LB on this one, although ogged is right that "The term for people who like to ogle 15-25 year-olds is 'most people.'"
What I think is exceptionable about The Derb is that he's passing on Jennifer Aniston's boobies, sight unseen, on the grounds that she's too old.
Who wouldn't at least look and then, if she really has past her prime, say, "Eh"?
Posted by Matt #3 | Link to this comment | 12- 1-05 11:50 AM
Fundamental disagreement here. If objecting when boundaries are pushed makes me a weenie, so I shouldn't do it, then the boundaries move. So then someone pushes the new boundaries. Can I say "ick" yet? How far do the boundaries have to move before I can object without being a weenie?
I could give a fuck whether Derb thinks I'm a weenie (or Frank-Ruta's a weenie, given that he's likely reading her but not me.) I'll say 'ick' when he grosses me out, and ignore what doesn't bother me -- his perceptions of my ability to take it don't enter into my calculations at all.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 12- 1-05 11:52 AM
Huh -- I thought I'd quoted ogged's 3 in the first line of my 7. Anyway, 7 to 3.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 12- 1-05 11:54 AM
Yay TITTIES!
Posted by tweedledopey | Link to this comment | 12- 1-05 11:56 AM
LB's right. If I said that Iranians were assholes, and nobody said Ick, who could say Ick when I added Germans, the Dutch, and Mongolians to my list of assholes?
Posted by tweedledopey | Link to this comment | 12- 1-05 11:59 AM
LB, I take your point about the boundaries moving, but this is all just a game (at least insofar as Derb isn't actually saying anything controversial) to get people to deny something that seems obvious to one group, so that the denying group can be made to seem out of touch with reality. That's why a response is fine, but an "ick" response, is, I think, not.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 12- 1-05 11:59 AM
Rachel Wacholder: born 6/15/75
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 12- 1-05 12:00 PM
While firmer and trimer, nobody under 25 has a personality. I'm 35. I find 20-year-old women cute, but it's more around 30 that they get sexy.
I can't help liking the old paleocon. He's actually something like a voice of reason at NRO of late, which tells you more about NRO than about Derb.
Posted by Anonymous | Link to this comment | 12- 1-05 12:01 PM
Also, I got that issue of GQ, and any red-blooded het-leaning male is a fricking fool not to spend some time admiring Jennifer Aniston's truly superb breasts (it's all side boob, but still). She's too skinny, but man what a rack.
Posted by Chopper | Link to this comment | 12- 1-05 12:04 PM
I'm with ogged, except I like Derbyshire a lot better than I like Insta-fuckit. (Cranky old weird guy versus pusillanimous hack.)
But I think it's fair to say that Franke-Ruta is working the 'unbelievably outrageous' side of the journalism street. She's just doing what she evidently considers her job.
If objecting when boundaries are pushed makes me a weenie, so I shouldn't do it, then the boundaries move.
I would gather the point of objecting is reinforcing a social norm or stereotype (see vagenda); ogged is partly implicitly arguing the norm of 'ick' is wrong/goofy/self-refuting/whatever.
NB: looking at & fucking are two distinct actions, and yes, I know that everyone assumes one leads to the other.
ash
['.']
Posted by ash | Link to this comment | 12- 1-05 12:04 PM
Derbyshire's position is insensitive and asinine. Doesn't he realize that Jennifer Aniston can afford plastic surgery?
13: Wolfson is under 25
Posted by tom | Link to this comment | 12- 1-05 12:08 PM
Yeah, that's it. He's a nut, not a hack. I like nuts. Don't like hacks. Shine on you crazy diamond.
Posted by Anonymous | Link to this comment | 12- 1-05 12:09 PM
That was why I made the point about 20 to 25 year-olds, to note that he really isn't just stating the obvious.
A further point on the 'not just stating the obvious' front is that 15-year-olds, as a class? Not that hot. Some 15 year-olds certainly look like adult women, and there's nothing particularly unusual about finding those 15-year-olds attractive, but they aren't the norm -- they're about as odd as, say, a 28-year old woman who is still at the peak of physical perfection she reached at 21. Lots of 15-year-olds, and I would guess the majority, still look like little girls at that age.
To put it another way, if you've got two stacks of magazines, one with pictures of women from 15-20, and the other with pictures of women from 18-25, someone who prefers the first over the second likes looking at pictures of little girls, not at pictures of physically perfect women.
So, Derb's statement? Not so much uncontroversial, and genuinely worth a passing 'ick'.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 12- 1-05 12:09 PM
I am eight days younger than Rachel Wacholder, and she has that ass?
I am deeply shamed.
(I'm also kinda curious: is Derbyshire married, and if so, how old is his wife, and has she read this piece?)
Posted by Matt #3 | Link to this comment | 12- 1-05 12:09 PM
I think Yglesias takes the right approach. No one is going to think he's a weenie for finding and posting that picture.
Posted by andrew | Link to this comment | 12- 1-05 12:10 PM
I don't have a personality, though, tom, just a set of tics.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 12- 1-05 12:11 PM
if you've got two stacks of magazines, one with pictures of women from 15-20, and the other with pictures of women from 18-25, someone who prefers the first over the second likes looking at pictures of little girls, not at pictures of physically perfect women
Yeah, agreed. I took Derb to be exaggerating a bit for effect.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 12- 1-05 12:12 PM
And for that he gets the 'ick'.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 12- 1-05 12:13 PM
I'm with LB on this one. Also, it's totally normal to ogle an attractive 15 year old, but I like that people also immediately feel shame and embarrassment right afterwards. I'm creeped out by people, for example, who go to a McDonalds or something where lots of high school kids come in; I'm not creeped out by people who go to restaurants where lots of 25 year-olds come in.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 12- 1-05 12:14 PM
And for that he gets the 'ick'.
Weenie.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 12- 1-05 12:15 PM
Perv.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 12- 1-05 12:23 PM
Hey, I finally got LB to flirt with me.
Off to swim, don't bother responding!
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 12- 1-05 12:24 PM
I don't have a personality, though, tom, just a set of tics.
Well, you're not missing much. I'm nine months into full personhood, and so far the only thing I've noticed is that I'm slightly fatter and weaker than I used to be.
Posted by tom | Link to this comment | 12- 1-05 12:26 PM
don't bother responding!
This is the equivalent of the "push and run away" method of elementary school flirting, I think.
Posted by Matt F | Link to this comment | 12- 1-05 12:27 PM
lizurdbreth,
i like you do you like me to.
__yes __no
check one
ogged
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 12- 1-05 12:31 PM
minor nitpick: sharapova and lohan are 18 and 19, i believe. for me, there's a rather large difference between leering at a girl barely past puberty and an 18-year-old. anyone checking out hermione, for example, is officially a perv.
Posted by catherine | Link to this comment | 12- 1-05 12:37 PM
They weren't always that old, catherine.
And ogged's declared open season on Hermione.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 12- 1-05 12:38 PM
rather than perv, which has several uncivil connotations, why not substitute the word: ogletoddlerenbabyic.
As in, "ogged, I appreciate your candor in this instance, but I find leering at 15 yr olds to be a bit ogletoddlerenbabyic."
Posted by text | Link to this comment | 12- 1-05 12:46 PM
I disagree about men, though. Men reach their height of attractiveness at about age 59. They should be no taller than about 5'7" and about 30 pounds "overweight", and they should drink a lot.
Unfogged: always cutting edge, always pervy.
I've seen two immigrant Kournikova-types since I moved to rural Minnesota. (Russians seem to like cold, grumpy places.) One is dating my sulky 16-year-old nephew, who doesn't appreciate her properly because she interferes with his gaming. And I'm the perv because I understand what a mistake he's making! (According to rumor, her dad is a PhD/felon).
Posted by John Emerson | Link to this comment | 12- 1-05 12:46 PM
I didn't know they gave Ph.D's in Felony.
Posted by Matt F | Link to this comment | 12- 1-05 12:49 PM
i always thought people perved on lohan, etc, precisely because when they were 15 they didn't exactly look like normal 15-year-olds. i think of myself and my friends at 15 and basically remember a lot of glasses and braces and zits. but who am i to say that's not hot? hermione, though, i do kind of get. she's a cutie.
Posted by catherine | Link to this comment | 12- 1-05 12:49 PM
i always thought people perved on lohan, etc, precisely because when they were 15 they didn't exactly look like normal 15-year-olds.
I think that's right, and mostly what we're talking about. Perving on gawky dorks with braces and skin problems is definitely weird and wrong.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 12- 1-05 12:53 PM
At the risk of inciting the ick chorus, 15 was prime marrying age for almost all of recorded history and remains so in many parts of the world. 15-year-olds may not look like adults (by the 21st century American definition), but they rarely look like little girls.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 12- 1-05 12:53 PM
At the risk of inciting the ick chorus
A bunch of dead goldfish aren't going to do much to you.
Posted by Ugh | Link to this comment | 12- 1-05 12:55 PM
Derb is a multiculti!
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 12- 1-05 12:55 PM
huff. there's a man who doesn't really like tits, is my professional opinion as someone with a regulatory qualification of some kind, I forget what. Plenty of 36-year-old women have fantastic knockers.
(by Derbyshire's criterion, Debbie Harry was never worth looking at, which certainly isn't the way I remember the 70s).
Posted by dsquared | Link to this comment | 12- 1-05 12:59 PM
Apostropher, why bring history or nature into this debate? Pervert.
Posted by baa | Link to this comment | 12- 1-05 1:03 PM
Can we just come out and say that a man who categorically states that topless women in their mid 30s are not view-worthy is showing signs of teh Gay?
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 12- 1-05 1:05 PM
why can't we accept the sexual desirability of all women, from toddlers to octagenarians?
Posted by text | Link to this comment | 12- 1-05 1:12 PM
Michael--Derb would totally freak out at the thought that he might be gau-leaning. He's totally afraid of the homos.
Posted by bostoniangirl | Link to this comment | 12- 1-05 1:12 PM
43: It's Derbyshire, for crying out loud.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 12- 1-05 1:13 PM
"One is dating my sulky 16-year-old nephew, who doesn't appreciate her properly because she interferes with his gaming."
Sigh. As they say, youth is wasted on the young.
Posted by Anonymous | Link to this comment | 12- 1-05 1:16 PM
Apostropher, why bring history or nature into this debate? Pervert.
Well, what can you expect? After all, I am "the epitome of stupid f#ckups."
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 12- 1-05 1:22 PM
Late to the game, but I agree with LB that the exclusion of the 20-25 year-old-set is suspicious and cause for the "ick", and I say this not totally out of self-interest. However, I do think for most women, the years 15-25 are a continuous upswing of attractiveness, and the downswing starts sometime at or after the 25 mark. I am nearly positive that I look better now than at any time during the 15-20 period, and this is not a case of "extending that half a decade through exercise." I mean, jesus people, it's not like boobs suddenly drop on the 20th birthday, for christ's sake.
Posted by silvana | Link to this comment | 12- 1-05 1:25 PM
"One is dating my sulky 16-year-old nephew, who doesn't appreciate her properly because she interferes with his gaming."
Sigh. As they say, youth is wasted on the young.
But his reflexes will never be as quick as they are now!
Posted by tom | Link to this comment | 12- 1-05 1:29 PM
I didn't know they gave Ph.D's in Felony.
It comes from the school called The School of Hard Knocks.
Posted by Chopper | Link to this comment | 12- 1-05 1:29 PM
If he was educated in Russia, a degree in felony is not so surprising. But I'd have expected it to be a business degree.
Posted by eb | Link to this comment | 12- 1-05 1:38 PM
A bit of oddness: Derby begins by talking about breasts, and claiming that they're best at 15-20, but then claims that those days of glory can be extended to ~25 by regular exercise. Does Derb expect that women become obese in their early 20s if not for regular exercise? If not, how is it that regular excercise affects a women's breasts in her early 20s that doesn't similarly affect them after that period? Or, perhaps, is Derby thinking of more than just breasts? This seems more likely, beyond our salad days, very few of us are interesting to look at in the buff. He's not just saying that breasts are affected early by gravity, he's seems to be saying that a woman naked is only worth effort to catch a glmpse of if she's under 20, or under 25 and excercises regularly.
I don't, therefore, think Ogged is right to assume this: Derb writes to provoke, so he doesn't take any pains to point out (besides that "precise context") what he's not saying: that older people can't still be attractive
Derb seems quite the outlier here on notions of female beauty.
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 12- 1-05 1:38 PM
if derb knew anything, he'd know that exercise actually makes your boobs shrink.
Posted by catherine | Link to this comment | 12- 1-05 1:41 PM
PhD first, felony later. Russian PhD's are extremely unfunded these days, so they hang with the boys in the hood more.
Posted by John Emerson | Link to this comment | 12- 1-05 2:50 PM
anyone checking out hermione, for example, is officially a perv.
Indeed.
Posted by ahem | Link to this comment | 12- 1-05 3:52 PM
Wow.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 12- 1-05 4:20 PM
Am I allowed to call John Derbyshire sexist?
And, not to be all whorish or anything, but I'm nearing 40, I birthed a 10-lb baby, and nursed him for 2 1/2 years, and I'm telling you: my tits look just. Fine. And I haven't been to a gym in at least fifteen years.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 12- 1-05 6:33 PM
Bitch, John Derbyshire is NOT sexy.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 12- 1-05 6:46 PM
No, but Christopher Guest kinda is.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 12- 1-05 6:56 PM
I can't believe TWO WHOLE comments have gone by and we haven't had a "show us your tits!"
Speaking to B, of course (or I would have said, "again").
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 12- 1-05 7:19 PM
You wish. Anyway, I'm obviously far, far too old for you.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 12- 1-05 7:20 PM
Too, too true, B.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 12- 1-05 7:23 PM
Whew. Another bullet dodged, then.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 12- 1-05 7:26 PM
I don't suppose either of you two want to quit bantering and write this brief for me? Have I ever mentioned that I really, really, don't enjoy my job?
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 12- 1-05 7:56 PM
Show us your briefs!
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 12- 1-05 7:58 PM
I'll write your brief if Dr. B shows me her tits.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 12- 1-05 7:59 PM
What's in it for me?
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 12- 1-05 8:06 PM
My undying gratitude?
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 12- 1-05 8:07 PM
I thought I already had that. But if you want to pimp me to Ben, I'm willing.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 12- 1-05 8:11 PM
Youre not too old for me, B.
What's in it for me?
You'd be joining, well, pretty just me in The I Showed My Tits at Unfogged Club. That's gotta be worth something.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 12- 1-05 8:12 PM
pretty much just me
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 12- 1-05 8:12 PM
LB: Have you read Wolfson's blog? Do you really want him near your brief? I would like to see Wolfson's version of your brief, but I doubt your employer would.
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 12- 1-05 8:12 PM
Wait a minute, apo, I think the deal is for B to show Ben her tits. What's in it for us?
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 12- 1-05 8:14 PM
LizardBreath: High-powered Manhattan lawyer by day, internet pimp by night. I'm sure your kids suspect nothing.
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 12- 1-05 8:14 PM
What's in it for us?
Ben will, of course, share.
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 12- 1-05 8:15 PM
No doubt Wolfson would just come up with some long, rambling story ending with a pun on "boxer briefs" or something like that.
Posted by eb | Link to this comment | 12- 1-05 8:15 PM
#71: Actually that's a fairly attractive prospect. But I can just imagine my tit-shot going up on PD's blog, so, um, no public viewings.
I'm not too old for most sexually mature men, including the 24-year old I was fucking last summer. Ogged is just really, really weird.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 12- 1-05 8:16 PM
Wait a minute, apo, I think the deal is for B to show Ben her tits. What's in it for us?
I might be easier to get along with for a brief spell.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 12- 1-05 8:18 PM
And I'd really, really like to see Ben's version of the point headings. Sadly, the deal seems to have fallen through.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 12- 1-05 8:24 PM
You're not much of a negotiator, LB.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 12- 1-05 8:25 PM
No, I said private viewings. I don't give a rat's ass about emailing Ben a tit-shot. I'm just not going to post the damn thing on the internets.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 12- 1-05 8:26 PM
You haven't seen me in action. I am devastating.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 12- 1-05 8:26 PM
However, Ben *does* have to post the brief on the internets, if that's not a violation of LB's professional somethingorother.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 12- 1-05 8:27 PM
Hey, this is fine. If Ben gets the picture, it's just a matter of time before a Wolfson Indiscretion Error, which will reveal it to the world.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 12- 1-05 8:28 PM
Dude, the whole thing is a violation of my professional something or other -- I can't actually have some random philosophy grad student writing briefs for me. But I do appreciate the offer of the tit-shot.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 12- 1-05 8:28 PM
I believe you are impugning Ben's honor. Is that better, as bad, or worse than calling him sexist?
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 12- 1-05 8:28 PM
Am I allowed to call John Derbyshire sexist?
Isn't he an ageist?
And, not to be all whorish or anything, but I'm nearing 40, I birthed a 10-lb baby, and nursed him for 2 1/2 years, and I'm telling you: my tits look just. Fine.
Since no one else will say it: post proof.
ash
['Breasts Anonymous.']
Posted by ash | Link to this comment | 12- 1-05 8:29 PM
#87 is for #85.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 12- 1-05 8:30 PM
Um, ash?
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 12- 1-05 8:31 PM
Random=dishonorable? I should expect Ben to regard the epithet 'random' as rather a badge of honor than the reverse. It's certainly richly deserved.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 12- 1-05 8:31 PM
Ben's version of the point headings
No, Ogged's the one with the pointy head.
Is that better, as bad, or worse than calling him sexist?
Ben is NOT the sexiest! He's not!
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 12- 1-05 8:32 PM
I know where you live, ogged, and since apparently it's just a matter of time before I reveal it, why don't I just do so now?
(I was actually going to object to being called random—or not quite object, but observe that I am hardly some random philosophy grad student. In other news, I think I enjoyed mustard as such for the first time tonight.)
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 12- 1-05 8:33 PM
"than calling him sexist would be, if one were to do such a thing, which one, of course, never would, being as I like Ben. And I don't think he's sexist."
How's that?
Mustard is good.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 12- 1-05 8:34 PM
Is it better if I say that you are a philosophy grad student, who, in my estimation, exhibits a quite uncommon degree of randomness?
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 12- 1-05 8:34 PM
Thanks for sticking up for me, Apo.
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 12- 1-05 8:35 PM
What's it like enjoying mustard not 'as such'? Is that when you enjoy something and are then chagrined to find out that it contained mustard?
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 12- 1-05 8:36 PM
I think I enjoyed mustard as such for the first time tonigh
Doubtful if you refer to it generally as "mustard" and do not specify which type.
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 12- 1-05 8:36 PM
In other news, I think I enjoyed mustard as such for the first time tonight.
That so many people have blog crushes on you is something I am now trying to regard as part of the appealing whimsy of the universe. But sometimes you make it hard.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 12- 1-05 8:36 PM
I gotcher back, Michael. That's just how I roll.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 12- 1-05 8:37 PM
Tim, you too?
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 12- 1-05 8:37 PM
Who else has a blog crush on Ben?
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 12- 1-05 8:38 PM
Um, ash?
Um, what? I'm late? I was going to say that before. Um, I'm an idiot? No news to me. :>
Hey, it's not my fault I don't have broadband.
ash
['It's not. I'm too far from the local loops. Bastards.']
Posted by ash | Link to this comment | 12- 1-05 8:38 PM
101. Timbot has ben *PWNED*.
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 12- 1-05 8:38 PM
Better late than early.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 12- 1-05 8:38 PM
#102: Girl27 and someone else, no?
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 12- 1-05 8:38 PM
Re: mustard, Sausagely and I tried out the recipe Ben posted a day or two ago. Didn't fuck it up too badly.
Posted by Armsmasher | Link to this comment | 12- 1-05 8:39 PM
sometimes you make it hard.
Beavis laugh.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 12- 1-05 8:40 PM
I am aware of other blog crushes on Ben.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 12- 1-05 8:40 PM
Whom are you quoting in 94, Bitch?
What's it like enjoying mustard not 'as such'?
Well, one can coat a roast in a mustard-rosemary-olive oil, uh, coating. That's good, but you're not really taking the mustard as mustard. The way one might if it were on a sandwich. Or mustard seeds, unground, as a component: not really mustard.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 12- 1-05 8:41 PM
108, and I think 104&101: I saw that prior to posting and left in there for the monkeys. 'Cause I'm a giver.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 12- 1-05 8:41 PM
Well, I have a bit of a blog crush on Ben, but then I'm fairly indiscriminate that way, so it counts for nothing.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 12- 1-05 8:41 PM
What about mustard greens? I eat those all the time.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 12- 1-05 8:42 PM
It's hard to have a blog crush on mustard greens.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 12- 1-05 8:42 PM
111: Monkeyfucker.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 12- 1-05 8:43 PM
I am aware of other blog crushes on Ben.
Self-knowledge is important.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 12- 1-05 8:43 PM
#94 responds to #92, and basically I'm quoting what I was actually thinking, rather than what I said.
Mustard greens: also good.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 12- 1-05 8:43 PM
Not your best work, Timbot.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 12- 1-05 8:43 PM
I ♥ mustard greens.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 12- 1-05 8:44 PM
118: I am aware of that, too.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 12- 1-05 8:45 PM
Of course you ♥ mustard greens, but is that enjoying mustard qua mustard? One might argue it's the very truest expression of mustard.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 12- 1-05 8:49 PM
Thanks Ben, mighty gay of you.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 12- 1-05 8:49 PM
"I am aware of other blog crushes on Ben."
Ben abused me incomprehensibly over at Kotsko's a while back, and ever since I have been stalking him on the internet. It is the sophistication of his brutishness that I find adorable.
Back to lurking, wistfully.
Posted by bob mcmanus | Link to this comment | 12- 1-05 8:49 PM
Shit, wrong thread.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 12- 1-05 8:49 PM
In my browser 119 seems to say "I bar mustard greens."
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 12- 1-05 8:50 PM
There will be no barring of mustard greens, thank you very much.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 12- 1-05 8:50 PM
Better late than early.
'Tis merely the traditional Usenet yell of PPoSTFU. No seasonal festivities (such as the yearly display of the Madonna's new plastic titties) is complete without it.
Pass the eggnog.
ash
['For the record, by the way, not being a titman, or John Derbyshire, I am personally fond of most titties, except the kind that come attached to 350 pound women. Those, not so much.']
Posted by ash | Link to this comment | 12- 1-05 8:51 PM
On 350 pound men, on the other hand...?
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 12- 1-05 8:52 PM
OMG, Ash is John Derbyshire??? I can't decide if that's completely freakishly impossible, or if it inspires sudden clarity.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 12- 1-05 8:53 PM
Mustard greens rock, BTW. But then, I like collards.
Kale, not so much.
ash
['Mustard, habanero hot sauce, and oyster sauce, condiments of champions.']
Posted by ash | Link to this comment | 12- 1-05 8:53 PM
All greens are good.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 12- 1-05 8:55 PM
OMG, Ash is John Derbyshire???
Ok, now you're being mean.
Anyways, everybody knows I'm Matthew Yglesias.
ash
['I just can't stop talking.']
Posted by ash | Link to this comment | 12- 1-05 8:56 PM
Well, if you're Matthew Yglesias, you already know what my tits look like.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 12- 1-05 8:57 PM
On 350 pound men, on the other hand...?
titties are more Wolfson's thing.
['Rum, sodomy and the lash, goddammit!']
Posted by ash | Link to this comment | 12- 1-05 8:57 PM
Sausagely got to see them while your faithful meeteruppers didn't even get cleavage? There is no justice.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 12- 1-05 8:58 PM
Well, if you're Matthew Yglesias, you already know what my tits look like.
Ummm...
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 12- 1-05 8:58 PM
Well, if you're Matthew Yglesias, you already know what my tits look like.
DAMN! It's a fair cop. I forgot that. I gotta get Laura to stop spiking my drinks.
ash
['Alcoholics Anonymous, ha! I've got the button kid! Woo-wee!']
Posted by ash | Link to this comment | 12- 1-05 8:59 PM
All greens are good.
I dunno. Ever since swiss chard, I haven't really been able to respect spinach.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 12- 1-05 9:00 PM
How old was MY last summer?
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 12- 1-05 9:01 PM
Fifteen.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 12- 1-05 9:01 PM
I'm missing some pertinent information here, aren't I?
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 12- 1-05 9:02 PM
Fifteen.
Hott!
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 12- 1-05 9:03 PM
Ever since swiss chard, I haven't really been able to respect spinach.
That's because Swiss chard is totally, utterly, completely, teh gay.
ash
['Especially when applied rectally.']
Posted by ash | Link to this comment | 12- 1-05 9:08 PM
What if there were a commenter named dhphctib? There's someone who could come across with the goods.
Posted by Chopper | Link to this comment | 12- 1-05 9:17 PM
Who else finds Ash's signoffs to be annoying?
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 12- 1-05 9:17 PM
dhphctib
Sounds like a way to spoof IPs if you ask me.
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 12- 1-05 9:19 PM
They're a signature deal. He's been doing it since you were in your nappies.
['Not as annoying as diung this, though. -ed.]
Posted by Chopper | Link to this comment | 12- 1-05 9:19 PM
I like Ash's signoffs.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 12- 1-05 9:21 PM
Who else finds Ash's signoffs to be annoying?
Lots of people.
ash
['You make that sound like a bad thing.']
Posted by ash | Link to this comment | 12- 1-05 9:21 PM
{sigh}
['Especially when applied rectally.']
ash
['Which would give a whole new meaning to the phrase 'getting your salad tossed'.']
Posted by ash | Link to this comment | 12- 1-05 9:23 PM
"I can't actually have some random philosophy grad student writing briefs for me."
Fitting smoothly in: I'm reminded of the then-recently-hired assistant managing editor (at the big name paperback publishing company I was then working at) whom we discovered was giving out proofreading jobs (they go to freelancers) to guys she had just met in bars. (Explains the state of many books you've read, does it?)
Posted by Gary Farber | Link to this comment | 12- 1-05 11:02 PM
Hey, at least she was having them proofed at all.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 12- 1-05 11:04 PM
Hey -- I can't comment on your blog anymore, because there's some other LizardBreath out there who's keeping me from registering my pseud. (I suppose I could register under a different pseud, but that would annoy me.) The anonymous comments problem really annoys you that much?
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 12- 1-05 11:06 PM
"The anonymous comments problem really annoys you that much?"
Yes. I gave it another year or so in the past year, and it only got worse (nor did any of the various people who claimed that the former limitation prevented them from commenting ever comment). I gave something like a hundred individual posted reminders and warnings. I think I gave it more than long enough, more than futilely enough. I'm insufficiently interested in hearing from "anonymous" enough to put up with it any longer (I switched some weeks ago).
Everyone remains as free as ever to sign whatever name they like to the end of their comments, just as they always have. I'm sorry that the Blogger name slot has limits, but the software is full of limits. Either we can improvise around them, or we must suffer. (Or, yes, I could move to another service, and I'm certainly keeping that option on the backburner, but it's not a small amount of trouble to go to, nor without a certain amount of downside; meanwhile, on the Maslow scale, I'm afraid it's not quite at the top of mine.)
I do very much hope to see you back y'know where, LB.
Posted by Gary Farber | Link to this comment | 12- 2-05 12:16 PM
Proving that you can still get a 150+ comment string even after LB said everything there was to say in #1. But I do have a little bit of a soft spot for Derbyshire. I suspect him of being one of those people with dubious social skills and/or limited exposure who says a lot of creepy things but is not, in fact, particularly creepy.
Posted by DaveL | Link to this comment | 12- 2-05 5:42 PM
Anyone who thinks the Derb's comments deserve an "ick" should definitely NOT watch the (Spanish) Video Rola channel Saturday at 12:05-12:10 p.m. or 7:05-7:10 p.m. CST. Because you're going to see a video called "Cosas del Amor" by Sergio Vega (#9 on this week's countdown!). And you're gonna say "double ick."
Posted by CHARLES GUEST LOTS | Link to this comment | 12- 2-05 9:28 PM
I suspect that a pre-emptive double-ick in is order here.
Posted by Jackmormon | Link to this comment | 12- 2-05 10:06 PM