The great debate: National Review's own John Derbyshire weighs in on the attractiveness of teenage girls here (about halfway down the page), setting off a lengthy debate in Sullyworld.
The most pertinent questions here - no, it's not the perkiness of Jennifer Aniston - deal with the proper display of sexuality, I think.
The Derb seems to be invoking a double-standard: it's perfectly okay for him to state as 'fact' that heterosexual men do not find women visually appealing after age 20 (this, by the way, is not the Tacitean's opinion), but, on the other hand, he has previously urged gays and lesbians to keep similiar opinions to themselves. If he admits that homosexuality is innate, Derbyshire's stance is complete hypocrisy.
I think tact and decency extend to all sexual orientations. The current cultural impulse that would have us share everything all the time is not healthy. It desensitizes us. It also hardens the heart and senses to the true aesthetic of beauty, placing shallow physical arousal above a true appreciation of beauty.
Again, in terms of pop culture, this impulse has the horrible effect of 'democratizing' standards of arousal and beauty so as to make them bland, flat, and plastic. I don't want popular opinion to tell me what I should find attractive and then produce 10 popstars and 10 actresses in that exact same mold.
Derbyshire, as a good conservative, should be counted upon to defend these sentiments, rather than offer a winking apology for his attraction tothe latest Lolita.