Some of the topics I follow in the news, like jihadists killing yet another group of infidels, tend to lead me occasionally to sites like the Daily Mail. There, you get bombarded with "related links" that normally lead to gossip about celebrities, mixed up with acts of terrorism, rape, divorce scandals and whatever else floats the boat of your typical Daily Mail reader.
What I found remarkable, though, is that no matter how old a woman they do an article on is, she is always "gorgeous". This might be an adequate assessment if it's some 20 year-old air head. However, they don't change the wording even when they write on a woman in her 50s. For a case in point, look at the "impressive physique" of this 50-year old named Emma Forbes. It would presumably fall under "fair use" to paste a picture here, but I don't want to expose you to that material without warning. Keep in mind that the other links are even harder to stomach.
It only gets worse. Here are the "impressive curves" of 47 year-old Julia Roberts. I have the suspicion that many more guys would find her former 20 year-old self much more attractive. The Daily Mail moves into downright absurd territory when it celebrates the "rear of the year", by 54 year-old "bombshell" Carol Vorderman. I have never touched the rear of a woman that old. However, if someone did a blind test where random guys had to touch that "rear of the year" and a woman in her 20s who is in decent shape, in order to determine which one feels better, I suspect the outcome might not be what politically correct feminist writers for trashy tabloids want to hear.
You look at this stuff and wonder if you're browsing a spoof of a tabloid web site that replaces every picture of a young, hot female by one showing a woman close to retirement age. Of course, the problem is not not age per se. We are all going to age, and eventually die. However, I find it more than dubious that there are websites out there that claim that those women who are well past their prime are sexually desirable, when they are clearly not. The entire (biological) point of having sex is procreation. Those women can no longer have offspring, and thus nature saw it fit to arrange that they are much less appealing than they would have been 30 years ago. This is a fact of life, and no feverish feminist reporter will change anything about it.
What do you think? Let me know in the comments below!
(Also, if you’ve got a comment that is off-topic or only tangentially related to this article, then please post in the most recent Open Thread. Thank you.)