A long post on John Derbyshire, adolescent sexuality, and "salad days" -- UPDATED

I'm really on a Dar Williams kick this morning.

Both Amanda and Lauren* take issue with the stunning comments of National Review columnist John Derbyshire on the subject of women, age, and sexual attractiveness:

Did I buy, or browse, a copy of the November 17 GQ, in order to get a look at Jennifer Aniston's bristols?** No, I didn't. While I have no doubt that Ms. Aniston is a paragon of charm, wit, and intelligence, she is also 36 years old. 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.

It is, in fact, a sad truth about human life that beyond our salad days, very few of us are interesting to look at in the buff. Added to that sadness is the very unfair truth that a woman's salad days are shorter than a man's — really, in this precise context, only from about 15 to 20.

Yikes.  First off, I wish I were the first (one of Amanda's commenters, Lubbock Troll beats me to it) to point out that Derbyshire misuses the notion  of "salad days."  While today, folks associate the phrase with youth and vitality, the original line is from Shakespeare's Antony and Cleopatra: "My salad days,/When I was green in judgment: cold in blood,/To say as I said then".   Salad, for Shakespeare, meant "unripe", "immature", literally and figuratively "green".  It is not a phrase designed to recall a happy youth at the pinnacle of beauty, but a reminder that (thank God), the young and the "green" mature and grow riper and wiser.

But it's my baby brother who's the Shakespeare scholar.

Lauren* and Amanda and their commenters skewer Derbyshire from a variety of angles, and almost all of the criticisms are richly deserved.  There is much that he says in those two short paragraphs that is objectionable.  First off, since it's clear he means "salad days" in the modern sense as referring to the peak of a young woman's attractiveness, it's vital that we acknowledge that he does speak for all too many contemporary men who do fetishize teenage girls.   I'm told that the most popular term on internet porn search engines is "teen", and that "schoolgirl" isn't far behind.  The popularity of the "Barely Legal" niche of erotica is undeniable -- Larry Flynt sells a very successful porn mag with that title.  And of course, as with porn, so with the broader culture that has little problem depicting teenage girls as particularly desirable.

I'm not going to dispute that many men -- including those of Derbyshire's age (he's in his forties) -- are sexually attracted to adolescent girls.  What I will dispute is that that is purely a function of biology.  From an evolutionary standpoint, it makes little sense.  Most of the pornography in the "barely legal" genre seems to emphasize that "their girls" are barely developed.  It's not as if these young women have the wide hips that symbolize fertility!  Furthermore, as plenty of other commenters have pointed out, our cultural obsession with adolescent girls comes along with a fetishization of hairlessness.  More and more young women, inspired by porn, are "going Brazilian" (removing all pubic hair, sometimes permanently).   Folks, hairlessness has zero connection to reproductivity; indeed, it symbolized lack of maturity, girlishness, childhood. 

The contemporary male fascination with the pubescent and the hairless is not defensible on evolutionary grounds.  It's all too obviously, as I've pointed out in my many prior posts about older men and younger women, about power.   Men who are threatened by adult women with adult needs, adult desires, and adult voices will invariably direct their sexual energy towards the young, the vulnerable, the "green", the safe.  The obsession with the still-developing adolescent (remember, Derbyshire includes fifteen year-olds) is about what Barbara Ehrenreich calls the male "flight from responsibility."  What is appealing about the young and the virginal is not firm flesh, it's a fragile and still-unformed sense of self that an older man imagines he can mold.   The virginal and the young are "unspoiled", not yet "bitter" from bad experiences with men.  Older men also eroticize youth because they long to be the first -- and thus safe from unflattering comparisons to a woman's previous lovers.  The obsession with virginity and youth is inextricably linked not only to fear of adult women and the challenges they offer, but also to a profound insecurity.

Reading Derbyshire, I wonder how many actual teenage girls he really knows.  Between teaching confirmation classes and leading Wednesday night youth groups these past six years, I've spent a heck of a lot of time with a heck of a lot of high school girls.  Every week, I'm surrounded by 14, 15, 16, and 17 year-olds.  These girls are real people -- not the caricatures of adolescence portrayed on MTV and in the Abercrombie and Fitch catalogues.  Most of "my girls" are not poised.  They are in varying stages of adolescence, but all are still, in a very real sense, "green".  Don't get me wrong: I love these girls with all of my heart, just as I love their brothers.  I'm not yet a biological father -- in a very real sense, these are my kids.   

As I spend time with these girls, I'm mystified as to how any adult man could respond to them sexually.  It's not that I'm repressing some forbidden desire!  Nor is it because I am now happily married to a wife to whom I'm powerfully drawn.  I worked with teens when I was single, and when I was going through a painful divorce.  At no time did I find myself responding sexually -- not even for one half-second -- to a single one of my teens.  I've built a legacy of credibility on this blog by sharing a lot about myself, so I think I can say this and be believed.  And frankly, I'm confident that the other male youth leaders with whom I've worked are also absolutely "safe" in this regard. When I look at "my girls", I see teens -- not children any longer, but not adults yet.  And I cannot eroticize the young, the developing, and the vulnerable.  I know these kids far too well for that.   In my experience, when you spend quality time with teenagers, listening to them and interacting with them and supporting them and praying for them, it's impossible to respond to them sexually.   Honestly, a whole lot of men might benefit from spending MORE time (not less) around teenagers.  It might help them separate their powerful and natural desire to protect and nurture from their sexual desires.  It's easier to objectify what you don't know and don't love!

So Derbyshire's commentary makes me sad. As an adult man, I disagree with him on a personal level about women, age, and desirability.   As a feminist, I'm frustrated by the great number of men who do agree with Derbyshire.  I don't see their sexual attraction to teen girls as based on biology, but on fear.  Fear of adult women, fear of egalitarian relationships, fear of personal transformation.  Only those who are confident enough to challenge us can help us grow; when we men eroticize the young, the tentative, and the innocent we are really eroticizing our own reluctance to transform!  And that's heartbreaking.  So many people lose in this scenario!  Adult ("older") women are seen as "past their expiration date" and suffer from a sense of lost sexual desirability.  Teenage girls (who are still "green" in the real sense of "salad days") are sexualized and exploited by older men, forced to become mistrustful of most adult males and forced to deal with their own sexuality far too early.  And men?  Men miss the opportunity to match their libidos and their hearts.  They miss the chance to grow that only relationship with an equal can offer.

All that said, there's one thing about Lauren*s post that upset me.  Commenters at both sites draw attention to Derbyshire's looks (Lauren* even posts a picture). Several folks make fun of the fact that, well, John Derbyshire is not a conventionally handsome man.  The implication is that his comments about women's looks are particularly inappropriate, presumably because the unattractive have even less right to make sexist and degrading remarks.  But the problem lies in the reverse implication: if Derbyshire were strikingly good-looking, would that mitigate the offensiveness of his words?  Do handsome older men have a special right to objectify teens that their homelier peers do not?  A forty-something man responding sexually to a fifteen year-old (while dismissing the charms of a thirty-six year old woman) is always offensive, whether that man looks like Brad Pitt or John Derbyshire.   

Look, I understand the desire to make fun of one's opponents.  I understand the temptation to point out the stunning gall of an unattractive older man finding Jennifer Aniston insufficiently desirable because of her age.  But really folks, we can do better than that!  I've never been a "fight fire with fire" kind of pro-feminist.  I'm not above a little snarkiness, but I think that posting the Derbyshire picture sets a dangerous precedent.  It reminds me too much of how misogynists often posted pics of Andrea Dworkin and connected her presumed homeliness to her radical feminism.  I didn't like that.  And I don't like it done to John Derbyshire.

*Apologetic Update:  In my first version of this post, I attributed the Feministe post to Jill, not Lauren.  Such a confusion is an excellent way to annoy everyone and embarrass oneself, so mea culpas all 'round and noodle lashings for the scribe.

Second Update:  In truth, as I read the comments of those defending the use of the photo of Derbyshire, part of me is reactive because, frankly, I worry about the same thing being done to me.  Like lots of bloggers, I have plenty of pictures of myself up and about on the blog -- some more flattering than others.  Several MRA blogs still use that darned see-saw picture of me.  I realize I could avoid this by not having any public photos available on the blog, but I do think pictures help us  to "flesh out" the person whose work we're reading.  But it hurt when it was done to me.  And even more honestly, though this will sound self-serving, it also bothers me when some folks on the professor rating sites have said that my looks factor into my generally laudatory teacher ratings.  So for all these reasons, I'm oddly protective of Derbyshire -- on this issue alone...

Comments

[Jill]

The post on Debyshire was Lauren's, not mine.

Jeez. You're critical of me, and it's not even about something I did. We're through, Schwyzer!

[Hershele Ostropoler]

Older men also eroticize youth because they long to be the first -- and thus safe from unflattering comparisons to a woman's previous lovers

Like* I said over at Feministe, not only previous lovers. I had a much better idea of what good sex was and what bad sex was at 20 than at 15, and I hadn't had sex yet.

*I am quite clear on the difference between "like" and "as."

[Hugo]

Jill, I am so embarrassed. Sigh. Mea culpa and all that! I'll change the post around. I'm sorry we're through; it was nice while it lasted. ;-)

[barb]

Great post, Hugo!

[zuzu]

Come on, the picture's funny because it looks like Nick Nolte's mugshot.

And I do think his looks are fair game if he's going to sniff about "view-worthiness." As the saying goes, he's no Brad Pitt. Who doesn't seem to have a problem with women over 30, including Ms. Aniston (discounting that divorce thing).

And if he did look like Brad Pitt? Frankly, I doubt he'd be writing this kind of Comic Book Guy piece if he had any sort of confidence in his own attractiveness -- this piece of writing is just dripping with bitterness toward women.

As I spend time with these girls, I'm mystified as to how any adult man could respond to them sexually.

A friend of mine who recently married a woman with a teenaged daughter told me he was a little concerned at first about sharing a house with a girl that age. He quickly realized that she didn't register as a sexual being with him at all.

[sparklegirl]

I think the reason Lauren posted the picture of Derbyshire was not to make fun of his looks, but to point out the double standard--that women are held to a much higher standard of attractiveness than men are, so much so that a man as unnatractive as John Derbyshire thinks it's ok for him to call Jennifer Aniston ugly.

[norbizness]

I've been using that picture for ages, not from an attractiveness-bias standpoint, but it helps to explain why Derbyshire comes up with the weird, unhinged shit he does... the dude is totally 'shrooming!

[barb]

Also the picture points out how old he is himself.

[Hugo]

I hear you, folks -- I just think it's an unnecessary distraction from what is genuinely offensive about Derbyshire.

[Lauren]

Sparklegirl nails my intent there. To be fair, his picture is from his gun license (and who takes good pics at a public licensing facility -- my DL makes me look like a horse) and he makes fun of it himself on his own website.

[Uzzah]

I've been using that picture for ages, not from an attractiveness-bias standpoint, but it helps to explain why Derbyshire comes up with the weird, unhinged shit he does

Ahh. I get it. If you are old and unattractive, you are weird and 'unhinged'

Gotcha..

It always helps that when you disagree with someone's statements, that you can drag out a unflattering pic of them and 'shame' them a little. Belittleing people always help get your point accross....

[Hugo]

Fair enough, Lauren. I think my issue may be less with you, and more with some of the comments at your place and Amanda's, where folks have been very nasty about Derbyshire's appearance.

[norbizness]

Uzzah: I meant weird, unhinged shit he writes. It's not a function of his age or his looks, obviously. It's a function of the two quarts of psychedelic mushroom iced tea he drinks every day.

I mean, you do who this guy is and who he writes for, right?

[Tony Vila]

Hugo, don't worry, bringing up Derb's pic for purposes of mocking is clearly a bad idea and any reasonable people can see that. We poo-poo the MRA's for doing that to you, and I'm sure the comments you refer to mocking Derb's photo are used as ammo on right wing blogs to dismiss all the feminists posters.

Even if it was a matter of "fighting fire with fire" (which it isn't because he's not dismissing Anniston's arguments because of looks, just discussing looks), it would still be important not to fall to that level.

Derbyshire is what you'd call a "target rich environment". Is it really that hard to find something to say besides "he looks froopy!"?

[Lauren]

Hugo, regarding your recent update: I've been troubled by the same thing with my own pictures, which is why I went out of my way to expose my photoshopping habit. Not only did it feel dishonest (especially on a feminist website where I reguarly disdain photo-mods), but I also wanted to show how I as a feminist feel compelled to be attractive in this public space. As far as I know, no one has done anything to my pics yet, but it has occurred to me.

I didn't even think of your see-saw picture. I kind of like it. Playful. ;)

[JodyTresidder]

Hugo,
While acknowledging the scrupulous fairness of your Derbyshire photo comments, there is another justification for its use.

Derbyshire is skilled with language. He takes pains in his piece to position himself somewhat as a twinkly old duffer twanging - as it were - our garter straps with his faux-merry references to Aniston's "unsupported bust" and "bristols".

I was inclined to give him a positively ageist benefit of the doubt when I assumed - from his arch vocabulary - that he was of advanced years.

The evidence of that unfortunate photo was more shocking for what it revealed about his true age rather than his lack of gorgeousness.

Here was NOT a slyly cackling grandpa by a long shot. But rather a man on the wrong side of any exculpating dotage.

[Hugo]

Jody, interesting point -- there is an affected curmudgeonliness to his writing, isn't there?

Lauren, wow. This could be a whole other post -- probably should be. We should all be talking about this more. I think we're all awkwardly aware that those women who are perceived to be attractive in the blogosphere can draw a large audience on that alone. At the same time, a world where we ignore our bodies and our faces (our incarnational reality, as my seminary friends put it) is not ideal either.

It would be a good, if self-referential topic, for all of us with photos (or albums, or Flickr accounts): what do we imagine others see? What are the pitfalls of posting our pics?

[Glitch]

I have no other commentary on the issue, but just a couple of clarifications. For the sake of self-disclosure I'll add that I am a regular reader of NRO and NRODT, and while I find myself disagreeing with Derbyshire's positions often, I like his writing style and honesty.

A. Derb is actually, IIRC, in his early sixties.

B. I agree with you regarding the use of his photo to mock the man. It's facile and pathetic. Derb himself, though, uses the photo often. You might find it interesting that he emails to photo to abusive emailers. It's from his NYS pistol permit.

Again, I disagree with Derbyshire on this particular issue and many others, but I do enjoy the man's writing. He is a British conservative (note, lower case "c"), and therefore is well out the the mainstream of even most American conservative writers. Derbyshire, for instance, is outspoken in the utter contempt he has for proponents of Intelligent Design. He thinks the war in Iraq is a colossal error, though he favored military action as a repriseal measure against Saddam Hussein (an old English tradition of warfare). You get the idea. He probably finds the brohaha (sp?) over his offhanded comment on Ms. Aniston's "Bristols" to be terribly amusing.

Andrew Sullivan claims to despise him, the two have a LOT in common. Obviously not their political opinions with regard to social issues. But even a casual reading of both writers reveals a similarity in humor, frankness and ways of looking at the world. They're both on my list of daily reads.

Just an observation. As always, Hugo, keep up the good work.

[Thomas]

Hugo, I thought Sparklegirl's comment (which Lauren adopted) gets at a deeper layer: the consumer-product nature of objectification. John Derbyshire is not young and is not attractive (he could not argue based on his own appearance, for example, "men keep their looks better," the way someone like Sean Connery or Timothy Dalton could). He feels he can judge Aniston because he believes her physical appearance is a public performance, an entertainment product, for which he is the consumer. Now, that feeling is warranted: when I watch boxing, I criticize a talent like Zab Judah for his failings. I can't do any of what he does, and yet I do not hesitate to be critical. I feel that way because what he does _is_ a performance, for which I _am_ the audience.

Now, one could say that, for Jennifer Aniston, being sexually attractive to a large part of her audience is part of the job. But it seems to me that many men carry that over to the way they look at and talk about women who are not public figures, and whose jobs do not involve being sexually attractive.

I'm well aware that women look at men with a critical, appraising eye as well. What I'm skeptical of is whether they bring to it the same sense of entitlement.

ps Hugo, if my masculinity were constantly appraised by opponents the way yours has been, I would only allow myself to be photographed driving race cars, climbing mountains, and perhaps rescuing babies from burning buildings. I think it must take real strength not to be more defensive.

[Hugo]

Thomas, you write: "I'm well aware that women look at men with a critical, appraising eye as well. What I'm skeptical of is whether they bring to it the same sense of entitlement."

An excellent observation. And thanks for the kind words. The photo of me running shirtless is as close as I'll go, though should I ever have occasion to be filmed rescuing a small child from a burning building, I shall post the image at once.

[sparklegirl]

Just for the record, Hugo, I think the picture of you on the see-saw is adorable. If the MRAs don't like it, then it just shows they have no appreciation of palyful fun.

[Rob]

"The contemporary male fascination with the pubescent and the hairless is not defensible on evolutionary grounds."

You're not a biologist, right? Have you seen the strange things sexual evolutionary pressures select for in the animal realm? Neoteny is trivial by comparison, and there's good reason to think proto-humans selected for just that -- it's why we have realitively long lifespans and why we look like infant apes.

At what age did most women marry (or local equivalent) throughout human history? It's not exactly a contemporary male fascination. Look at the prototypical flapper in the 1920s. At what age would Mary (mother of Jesus) have been married?

I agree that most high school girls are not appealing. The current trends may be culturally induced, or they may be a return to long-term responses. I don't know that anyone has done the controlled studies to figure it out, and I'm not sure the controlled studies are either possible or ethical.

[Hugo]

Rob, here's the census data on average age at women's first marriage by decade. Not sure how that affects your query.

Women:
1890: 22.0 years old
1900: 21.9
1910: 21.6
1920: 21.2
1930: 21.3
1940: 21.5
1950: 20.3
1960: 20.3
1970: 20.8
1980: 22.0
1990: 23.9
2000: 25.1

Medieval women -- excluding royalty -- got married much later than we imagine. The notion that Mary, mother of God, was an adolescent is a later assumption, unsupported by biblical evidence. That's not to say she wasn't young, but I've heard folks say "She was about 15" with remarkable assurance. Given that average age for menarche was a good deal higher in the human past than it is now... well, I think we have to be careful.

If you have any evidence that small breasts, narrow hips, and hairlessness are helpful reproductive qualities for women from the perspective of evolutionary biology, let's see it. It cuts against most evolutionary biology arguments...

[Mr. Bad]

Hugo, got a citation for those numbers you list? As a Ph.D., you should know better.

Also, I'm going to invoke mythago's rule, i.e., that "serial anecdote does not equal proof" and call bullshit on 90% of the stuff you say in your original post. I mean, come on, really, re. all the shaming 'guys are threatend by and afraid of adult women so they got for the children' blah blah blah? I've got news for you Big Fella: It ain't so for most of us. Shaved pubes? Who wants a mouth full of smelly hair? Firm breasts? Biology Dr. English major. Etc. You have so many things wrong in your post I just can't take the time to list them all right now, but I'm sure we've been over much of this before. About the only thing that you got right was the comment re. how tacky it is to get all snarky about a person's looks. I mean, really, feminists harshing on men's appearance? Can you say Andrea Dworkin? Sheesh. Amanda is (IMO) pretty cute, but for the most part the appearance of feminsits is nothing special.

Look, I know you're writing and pandering to your (mostly) female and feminist audience, but please don't generalize your own personal quirks onto the rest of us. The vast majority of us regular guys are not threatened by nor afraid of 'mature, adult women,' we're just not impressed with ordinary women who think they're hot shit. We may consider younger, firm women more attractive to saggy old bitties, but you have to remember that much - if not most - of the time, the saggy old bitty is also an insufferable harridan. The outside reflects the inside, for both the old and the young, and from my experience most of us men prefer women who aren't jaded b*tches.

[evil_fizz]

here's the census data Was that not sufficient for a cite?