I asked “WWJD?”

Jesus said: “I’d hit that.”

Taking up where Ron may or may not have left off, Finn, don’t get all ideological on us. Be mature about human nature: men and women are driven by physiological urges that are quite normal and natural, and without which none of this would be possible. As atheists, we do not fear the truth, as base and crude as genteel breeding might have it seem. We carry our civilized demeanor only so far–to the bedroom door to be precise (for some not that far). I was raised in a sexually-repressed religious culture, so I react, from the gut, with mild disgust at the way some men talk amongst themselves, but that’s my problem.

Gabriel has it right: if a woman presents herself for public inspection, she will be critiqued. I’m old-fashioned enough to frown down on such a spectacle, as I would if it was my daughter, but this young lady has every right to parade her paltry paps in Playboy so long as she doesn’t have to see all the young boys pounding their penises to the outlines of her see-though panties.

Seriously, you live in a world with men. You’re always surrounded by drooling pigs.

I understand what you’re saying, which is why I pointed out that when the “fwoar, she’s a hottie” gets under my skin, I just turn the channel, so to speak. Also, I didn’t mean to imply anything about you by mentioning the Bad Astronomer’s “mancrushing”…I really wasn’t sure where you were going with your original comment, but I can see it now – thanks for clarifying.

The last sentence of your post is a good one, by the way…and I agree.

You’re right about what you say, but I didn’t mean to imply that posting about men would threaten Hemant’s heterosexuality. I love Phil’s blog just as much as I love this one. I simply meant that since Hemant is in fact heterosexual, it’s not right to denigrate him for posting about women he finds attractive, or to get on to him for not posting about attractive men. It’s his personal blog, for crying out loud. It’s where he expresses himself.

Both the left wing and the right wing have their prudes, but the prudes on the various sides express their prudery differently. Right wing prudes attack sex in the name of “tradition”, while left-wing prudes attack sex in the name of “equality”. I don’t think “non-traditional thinking” means you can’t discuss sex or express one’s sexual attractions. Sex isn’t “traditional”, and it’s not a matter of “gender politics” (because sex isn’t always about gender); it’s biological, and it’s just part of life. People who are offended by it are offensive to me.

Nothing Hemant or anyone else said is even vaguely sexist. Finn’s childish name-calling and her allegation that “it seems nothing short of repulsive to suggest a woman shouldn’t pursue athletics because it’ll make her less attractive in your estimation” are sheer buggering nonsense, seeing as no one said anything even vaguely like that. All Gabriel said was that he didn’t find her attractive. That’s not sexist. It’s just a personal taste. If finding people not sexually attractive is sexist, then we’re all sexist, and the word has no meaning, because no one can control their sexual preferences.

If Hemant or others had made crude generalizations about women or something like that, then I would totally understand if there were outrage. But getting outraged because someone expressed their personal sexual feelings is just plain, old prudery. Whether the prudery is in the name of religion or feminism makes no difference at all to me.

I do agree that a woman who poses for Playboy or the like is a viable target for appearance-related comments, but I also agree it gets a little old hearing about tits and ass all the time when all you need to to see the aforementioned bits is look in the mirror. So when this happens I just go read another blog. Anyone ever noticed that Phil Plait is kind of hot?