Win Ben Stein's Sanity

The contest for "worst spin on the Mark Foley scandal" (not counting Foley's own) is over. The winner is Ben Stein.

If there were an Academy Award for Hypocrisy, the surefire favorite for 2006 would be the Democratic Party... We have a Republican man in Congress who sent e-mails to teenage boys asking them what they were wearing, and an entire party, the Democrats, whose primary constituency, besides the teachers' unions, is homosexual men and lesbian women. I hope it won't come as a surprise to anyone that a big part of male homosexual behavior is interest in young boys.

Yes, he says this without even mentioning Gerry Studds. Examples are incidental to his point - the Democrats are creepy homo-lovers, and what's the difference between, like, ensuring partner benefits to monogamous gay couples, and using your office to hunt for teenage kicks?

But what pushes this from the realm of the clueless to Stein's own special Outer Limits is the follow-up.

Don't get me wrong. My very best friend is gay.

Well, of course.

Comments

smacky | October 2, 2006, 11:32am | #

Butt what pushes this from the realm of the clueless to Stein's own special Outer Limits is the follow-up.


Nice typo, David. Uh, huh. And what's on your mind this morning? Freudian slip, eh?

Ruthless | October 2, 2006, 11:33am | #

I've been waiting for the chance to pile on Ben.
First I hated the articles he used to write for Barron's magazine.
Next, his daddy was the one who helped Nixon install wage and price controls, wasn't he?

smacky | October 2, 2006, 11:33am | #

Butt what pushes this from the realm of the clueless to Stein's own special Outer Limits is the follow-up.


Nice typo, David. Uh, huh. And what's on your mind this morning? Freudian slip, eh?

David Weigel | October 2, 2006, 11:35am | #

Monday I got buttocks on my mind. And, of course, server squirrels who prefer I never correct the post.

thoreau | October 2, 2006, 11:37am | #

I can't believe I lost 5-4 to that guy :)

Rich Ard | October 2, 2006, 11:45am | #

Foley's spin sure looks like a boilerplate apology to me. I was hoping for something funnier.

Ruthless | October 2, 2006, 11:46am | #

David W.,
You should have left the butt in or in the butt... whatever.

smacky,
Is it too soon to mention junk in the trunk?

James Anderson Merritt | October 2, 2006, 11:48am | #

So did Thoreau actually go up against Ben to Win His Money? I flew down to LA in one of the worst rainstorms ever just to audition, and made it all the way to the last round before being told, in essence, that I wasn't goofy enough. Which is confusing, because that's quite the opposite of what I get told here!

Y'ask me, Stein's a coward.

Timothy | October 2, 2006, 11:49am | #

What you gonna do, what you gonna with all that junk, all that junk up in your trunk?

David | October 2, 2006, 11:50am | #

Don't get me wrong. My very best friend is gay.

The old "Not that there's anything wrong with that." bit. Except that Ben thinks that all gays are pedophiles.

smacky | October 2, 2006, 11:57am | #

"Don't get me wrong. My very best friend is gay."

The old "Not that there's anything wrong with that." bit. Except that Ben thinks that all gays are pedophiles.


Therefore, (by his definitions), Ben Stein is best friends with a pedophile! He's a witch!! BURN HIM!!!!


Ruthless, it's never too soon if you're doing the talking.

ChicagoTom | October 2, 2006, 11:59am | #

I hope it won't come as a surprise to anyone that a big part of male homosexual behavior is interest in young boys.

This is a surprise to me. I suppose then it also goes without saying that it should be no surprise to anyone that a big part of male heterosexual behavior is interest in young girls.

What a vile piece of shit Ben Stein is. Instead of properly condeming this creepy predator (Foley), Republicans and their sympathizers -- you know the 'values' crowd -- are bending over backwards to defend this guy.

Wouldn't a more proper GOP response be to repudiate his behavior and take the moral high ground?? To come out against this type of behavior from elected officials (even within their own party) and take a 'one bad apple does not spoil the whole bunch' approach?? Oh yeah....they can't since the GOP leadership -- you know the ones protecting America's values -- have been busy covering up Foley's behavior for at least a year now.

Ruthless | October 2, 2006, 12:00pm | #

Timothy,
smacky said it was MY turn!

Ted Barlow | October 2, 2006, 12:06pm | #

I'm disgusted with the hypocrisy of the left. Here they are condemning Mark Foley for inappropriate emails and IMs, but how many of them use emails and IMs themselves? Some of them have the gall to criticize Foley by sending emails!

How low the party of Harry Truman has fallen.

Brian | October 2, 2006, 12:10pm | #

After "But Clinton!" the fallback position seems to be "how'd this homo get in God's Own Party?"

I read this idea somewhere: if Democrats had 1/4 of a brain, they'd be setting up all kinds of sting operations to catch all the Alt-Lifestyle Republicans. Any you know there's a ton of them. Gay escorts, pretending to be 14-year-olds on the internet, etc. Come on losers, this stuff isn't hard.

lunchstealer | October 2, 2006, 12:20pm | #

Ugh. Seriously Ben, think before you speak. Because if you had, in this case you'd probably have realized that you were being a sick bastard and that maybe, just maybe, being into children isn't any more an acceptable part of homosexuality than it is of heterosexuality.

That was one of the things that creeped me out about the Lewinsky affair. It violated the half-plus-seven rule. However, if you break half-plus-seven you're just creepy. This guy is violating the "fiteen'll get you twenty" rule, which is a much more serious violation.

Ben, the guy is over the line. Even you should be marking it zero.

Xmas | October 2, 2006, 12:21pm | #

Brian,

Haven't you ever watch the movies. Setting up stings of hypocritical Republican congressmen is how you wind up killed by the NSA wet-workers. But luckily the disc with the video of the sting winds up in the hand your step-sister's autistic 10 year-old son. Then Bruce Willis rescues the kid after your step-sister dies in a hail of gunfire. He gives the disc to "60 minutes". They then procede to throw the disc in the trash because a Rupert Murdoch-esque executive is told by someone on the phone that the story must be quashed, for National Security Reasons.

Luckily the autistic kid saw the video and he has an uncanny ability to mimic voices.

Brian | October 2, 2006, 12:23pm | #

Stein also called the media "grave robbers" for, you know, writing about the soldiers who died and the mess in Iraq:

http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=9877

Note this quote:
And the media like to criticize because they know -- in their hearts -- that they will never have the guts that the man and woman in uniform have. I think media envy of your loved ones' courage has a lot do with media mockery of the war.

Instapundit linked approvingly to this on Memorial Day. That same day, CBS correspondent Kimberly Dozier was severely injured and two cameramen were killed in an attack while out reporting in the field.

Stein and the media? One of them lacks guts. One of them ain't the media.

DrSinker | October 2, 2006, 12:27pm | #

I'm sure Ben's best friend also has lots of friends who happen to be bigots.

Jil In Pattaya | October 2, 2006, 12:29pm | #

Yeah Ben, and I hope it won't come as a surprise to you that a big part of male heterosexual behavior is interest in banging cheerleaders and prom queens.

(Not that there's anything wrong with that.)

joe | October 2, 2006, 12:30pm | #

So...

Dave...

Care to take another crack at that article about the Republican Culture of Corruption fizzling out as a campaign issue?

Baylen | October 2, 2006, 12:35pm | #

Curiously, when you click on the photo of Stein above it plays an audio file of Diana Ross's "I'm Coming Out".

lunchstealer | October 2, 2006, 12:36pm | #

Dunno joe, the question is whether voters actually equate their guy locally with covering up for Foley. I wouldn't be suprised if there wasn't a big backlash about this, just from the 'all politics is local' concept. Sure those guys in Congress are bad, but not my guy.

Dylan | October 2, 2006, 12:37pm | #

I need excitement and I need it bad!!!

Kevin Breen | October 2, 2006, 12:45pm | #

It seems amazing to me, yet I would suppose it just follows. If someone believes that homosexuality is deviant, how is one to separate it from other forms of sexual deviance?

The answer is that homosexuality is (usually) between two consenting adults, and it is victimless. But so is prostitution and drug use.

Anonymous | October 2, 2006, 12:47pm | #

"I suppose then it also goes without saying that it should be no surprise to anyone that a big part of male heterosexual behavior is interest in young girls."

As a matter of fact, yes. One of the Big Lies of our times is the enforced belief that women and men are at their most sexy sometime in their later twenties or thirties. Or as a female friend of mine (with man troubles) once put it, "they say Cindy Crawford but they mean Winnie from the Wonder Years."

I don't know about you, but I was better looking at seventeen than today. In fact on those school days we had to dress up I would deliberately wear the blue blazer with the school patch, and red, white, and blue striped tie (rather than just any old suit) because there was no better chick magnet than dressing up as the little schoolboy (and, truth be told: it was the best way to get the stores in the gay part of town to sell you cigarettes, and beer).

I know people believe that the new war on sexual predation is somehow the mark of an enlightened society, but unlike say slavery or child labor there is a biological imperative here, and western civilization has tended to work in cycles on this question. For most of the past 1500 years, Christian civilization tolerated if not enculturated heterosexual ephebophilia (sexual relations with teenagers, as opposed to pedophilia [which by definition involves pre-pubescent minors]), and tolerated if not enculturated homosexual ephebophilia within the Church (do you really think that the fondling of altar boys behind the rectory started sometime during the 1950s?: what is new is the crackdown).

The West goes through long periods of social cohesion (which happen to overlap with cultural golden ages), and long but usually less-long periods of multiculturalism. One of the leading indicators of the transition from an age of cohesion to an age of multiculturalism is an increasing intolerance for sexual relations between adults of adolescents (although there was no such thing as adolescence until the 19th century). When classical Greece became Hellenistic, it wasn't just the death knell for the "Greek miracle" (know any good 3rd century BC Greek tragedies? anyone notice the decline in American culture recently? [don't think it won't continue]) and the city-state (in much the way that we are witnessing the end of the nation-state), but the pederasts were thrown out of the Lyceum (they'd eventually be welcomed into the Catholic Church after centuries of bad treatment).

We're entering a multi-century age of American civilization (call it Empire if you want). It will be a time of stability, prosperity, and complete banality, echoing in many ways the Hellenistic Age and to an even greater extent the Roman Empire that followed. Most of the cultural productivity and genius we take for granted, from Hemingway to the Beatles, will disappear, become relics of a lost golden age. We will have to make due with the Coliseum, reality TV and video games.

But human beings are fickle. And eventually they'll long for a new cohesion. Christendom is crumbling, but a new religion will emerge, and with it a new social order (worldwide, and probably interplanetary). The pederasts will be invited back into the temple, and the wider society. They will look back upon these times with regret.

Timothy | October 2, 2006, 12:51pm | #

I don't think 16 really counts as "child", but the power relationship between congress critters and pages makes it an issue. And the laws Foley helped pass make it illegal to do what he did, so heh, but I don't think 16 counts as child.

thoreau | October 2, 2006, 12:54pm | #

So did Thoreau actually go up against Ben to Win His Money? I flew down to LA in one of the worst rainstorms ever just to audition, and made it all the way to the last round before being told, in essence, that I wasn't goofy enough. Which is confusing, because that's quite the opposite of what I get told here!

I drove down from Santa Barbara to audition, after passing a test in a phone interview. I took a written test, then did a practice game, and got into their roster of potential contestants. That was in October or November of 2000. In February of 2001 I went back to LA to tape my episode. I made it to the final round with $850 and then lost 5-4. But at least I got to keep the $850.

Todd | October 2, 2006, 12:56pm | #

That's a really deep thought in reaction to "Ben Stein thinks all homos are pedophiles."

Brandon Berg | October 2, 2006, 12:58pm | #

This is a surprise to me. I suppose then it also goes without saying that it should be no surprise to anyone that a big part of male heterosexual behavior is interest in young girls.

Well...yeah. We're not talking about 8-year-olds; the one boy that I know of was 16. I know I find 16-17-year-old girls attractive, and I think most other men do, as well. On top of that, it's legal for an adult to have sex with a sixteen-year-old in Maryland or D.C. (but not Virginia).

Sam McManus | October 2, 2006, 1:04pm | #

I hope it won't come as a surprise to anyone that a big part of male homosexual behavior is interest in young boys.

Actually, I can see the merit in this statement. A large part of male heterosexual behavior is interest in young girls, right? I guess the "young" part and how you define that is the crux of the matter, but generally, guys think that younger women are more attractive than older ones. There's a point where this stops, of course, but Anonymouse at 12:47 makes a good distinction: pedophilia is a lot different than thinking a 17 (16? both? I'm not quite sure) year old is hot.

Ben Stein misses the point here, as a lot of people have mentioned. The point is not that it was a guy, or that it was a young guy, the point is that it was a congressman approaching his employee, using the power his constituents granted him for personal gain.

CLS | October 2, 2006, 1:08pm | #

As the saying goes: With friends like this who need enemies? What is absolutely funny is that a Republican gets caught acting in ways which his party dislikes intensely. But somehow the fault belongs to Democrats and liberals.

CLS | October 2, 2006, 1:18pm | #

I hope it won't come as a surprise to anyone that a big part of Republican behavior is bigotry toward others.

Don't get me wrong. My very best friend is Republican.

ChicagoTom | October 2, 2006, 1:18pm | #

Despite what some of you may want to believe...I don't see Ben making the point that homosexual males are attracted to 16 year old males....he is instead making a blanket statement:

That homosexual males are attracted to young boys...not young men, not post-pubescent, not post/older adolescent---he used the phrase young boys. 'Young boys' may be a 16 year old but it also most definately can be a 8,9, 12, 13 or 15 year old year old. Ben's sloppy wording makes no distinctions, so let's please not try and give nuance to a statement that was void of any. So while some people try to bend over backwards to justify and explain away this bigoted comment about homosexuals...the implication is clearly that homosexuals are inherently attracted to minors of the same sex -- thus equating them with pedophiles and child molesters.

And despite what Anonymous will have you believe...most heterosexual adult males are not attracted to "young girls" -- so please stop projecting. (sure there may be some that we can acknowledge are objectively attractive...but that doesn't mean we are attracted to them as partners) In the same way that I can look at a baby and think its adorable without having the urge to fuck it, most normal adults can acknowledge the attractiveness of an adolescent without being attracted to that person.

graeerga | October 2, 2006, 1:21pm | #

xmas, that cracked me up. id definitely see that movie.

Nancy Pelosi | October 2, 2006, 1:31pm | #

Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker!
As a mother and gandmother...
Mr. Speaker!
Somebody please pay attention to me!

dhex | October 2, 2006, 1:32pm | #

"anyone notice the decline in American culture recently?"

no.

fuckface.

John | October 2, 2006, 2:00pm | #

I don't that what Stein is saying is any worse than what Andrew Sullivan had to say. Sullivan blames Foley trolling for teenagers on the fact that he is in the closet. According to Sullivan, any homosexual who doesn't advertise their sexuality to the world and maintain sense of personal privacy is liable to turn into a pedophile. But of course there is nothing about homosexuality that is associated with pedophilia. Okay Andrew.

Anonymous is right. There is an obsession by men on both teams with teenagers. Look at a magazine rack in Barnes and Noble sometime. All of the magazines marketed at hetero men have girls on the cover who look like they should be in high school and all of the gay magazines are filled with pubescent boys. Demand seems to create supply.

Diddy Bonepages | October 2, 2006, 2:19pm | #

Apprently the FBI is examining former Rep. Foley's e-mail exchanges with teenagers to determine if they violated federal law. That should get to the bottom of the matter, and I hope they have assigned crack investigators who will ass the right questions. Has Foley expressed regret for any innuendos contained in the e-mails/IM's? If not, that's pretty cheeky of him. Of course, the Republicans hope to get this matter behind them; they are pretty bummed out--as well they should be, considering they will be the butt of all kinds of jokes.

Putting aside the tongue in cheek humor, If I were a Republican, I would be upset that the House Republican leadership did not strongarm this Gross Old Pervert into retiring rather than seeking re-election or, failing that, recruiting and supporting a primary challenger.

Diddy Bonepages | October 2, 2006, 2:19pm | #

Apprently the FBI is examining former Rep. Foley's e-mail exchanges with teenagers to determine if they violated federal law. That should get to the bottom of the matter, and I hope they have assigned crack investigators who will ass the right questions. Has Foley expressed regret for any innuendos contained in the e-mails/IM's? If not, that's pretty cheeky of him. Of course, the Republicans hope to get this matter behind them; they are pretty bummed out--as well they should be, considering they will be the butt of all kinds of jokes.

Putting aside the tongue in cheek humor, If I were a Republican, I would be upset that the House Republican leadership did not strongarm this Gross Old Pervert into retiring rather than seeking re-election or, failing that, recruiting and supporting a primary challenger.

Diddy Bonepages | October 2, 2006, 2:19pm | #

Apprently the FBI is examining former Rep. Foley's e-mail exchanges with teenagers to determine if they violated federal law. That should get to the bottom of the matter, and I hope they have assigned crack investigators who will ass the right questions. Has Foley expressed regret for any innuendos contained in the e-mails/IM's? If not, that's pretty cheeky of him. Of course, the Republicans hope to get this matter behind them; they are pretty bummed out--as well they should be, considering they will be the butt of all kinds of jokes.

Putting aside the tongue in cheek humor, If I were a Republican, I would be upset that the House Republican leadership did not strongarm this Gross Old Pervert into retiring rather than seeking re-election or, failing that, recruiting and supporting a primary challenger.

John | October 2, 2006, 2:39pm | #

Diddy,

It is a classic example of the good old boy system. "Well Foley is such a nice guy, we couldn't do anything to hurt him." I am livid at the Republican leadership for not going after this guy as soon as they suspected anything. Congress on both sides of the isle think they are above the law or any form of standard behavior. I love it now they guy has gone into alchohol rehab. Yes, "I am addict that is why I was trolling for pages." What a scumbag. I hope the FBI nails him and dries out and pursues his perversions in a federal prison somewhere.

Rob | October 2, 2006, 2:49pm | #

I'm just amazed he didn't mention Bill Clinton.

Not once!

Russ 2000 | October 2, 2006, 2:54pm | #

Ben Stein should never be forgiven for giving us Jimmy Kimmel - now filling a much-needed void in late-night television.

Rob | October 2, 2006, 2:57pm | #

Whoa, my mistake.

Just read the whole Stein article. And of course, Bill's name is the second one mentioned (right after Foley's).

That argument boils down to, "Democrats are hypocritical because they are led by a man who had sex with a woman, so they have no right looking down on a man who tried to solicit sex with a young boy."

Something tells me Stein is quite gay himself.

plunge | October 2, 2006, 3:00pm | #

See, I don't get it. There can't me much question here: people that think gay people are especially interested in younguns are bigots, right? Why can't we just say that without them fucking whining about being called bigots?

John | October 2, 2006, 3:06pm | #

"Something tells me Stein is quite gay himself"

Stein gay? Oh come there nothing effeminate or gay about that guy. Not at all. There is nothing about a short, nerdy meticulously dressed middle-aged man with an effeminate whiney voice that would set my GADAR off at all. Nothing. Although his has a pretty hot wife for a short nerdy middle aged guy.

Shem | October 2, 2006, 3:20pm | #

On top of that, it's legal for an adult to have sex with a sixteen-year-old in Maryland or D.C. (but not Virginia).

The DC law makes exception for cases where a 16 or 17 year-old has sex with an older partner. In that situation, the older partner cannot be more than 4 years older, otherwise it's considered rape.

That age of consent website is going to get somebody locked up one of these days.

Lamar | October 2, 2006, 4:27pm | #

A lot of homosexuals do have an "interest" in young boys much the same way that heterosexual men have an "interest" in young girls. Tell me, how many supermodels are pushing 40? Why is Lindsay Lohan on anybody's radar? Hell, our entire culture has a fetish with some Oil of Olay bastardized vision of youth. Where Stein goes wrong is the smug implication that homosexuals only like young boys or are unique in their ability to defile young boys. Though ChicagoTom has a good point, I didn't read Stein's comments so narrowly.

OB-Wan | October 2, 2006, 4:28pm | #

And as mentioned in passing before - According to the Internet law that Foley co-sponsered (getting his name on it for political reasons no doubt), talking dirty to a minor on-lines is a federal crime.

And the law carries a definition of a minor - anyone under the age of 18 regardless of local/state laws.

So even if 16 is borderline or legal in your state the cons decided that they would ignore that and set their own standard.

Petards, Petards, everywhere I look there's petards to hoist them on.

OB-Wan | October 2, 2006, 4:29pm | #

And as mentioned in passing before - According to the Internet law that Foley co-sponsered (getting his name on it for political reasons no doubt), talking dirty to a minor on-lines is a federal crime.

And the law carries a definition of a minor - anyone under the age of 18 regardless of local/state laws.

So even if 16 is borderline or legal in your state the cons decided that they would ignore that and set their own standard.

Petards, Petards, everywhere I look there's petards to hoist them on.

OB-Wan | October 2, 2006, 4:29pm | #

And as mentioned in passing before - According to the Internet law that Foley co-sponsered (getting his name on it for political reasons no doubt), talking dirty to a minor on-lines is a federal crime.

And the law carries a definition of a minor - anyone under the age of 18 regardless of local/state laws.

So even if 16 is borderline or legal in your state the cons decided that they would ignore that and set their own standard.

Petards, Petards, everywhere I look there's petards to hoist them on.

dhex | October 2, 2006, 4:36pm | #

"Stein gay? Oh come there nothing effeminate or gay about that guy."

john?

wtf?

really, wtf? wtf you, wtf license plate guy, wtf internet, wtf habeas corpus, wtf world?

John | October 2, 2006, 4:38pm | #

The end is near Lamar, we actually agree on something. You are absolutely right about our whole society being sexually obsessed with teenagers.

Timothy | October 2, 2006, 4:42pm | #

The waitress I had last night? Probably 17, definitely well-proportioned, completely legal in Texas. Would I? Probably not, because mid-20s and in high school are a LONG way apart in terms of maturity and place in life, so I think you have to be a little emotionally retarded to want somebody so far behind yourself in life. But, at the same time, let's not pretend that finding nubile 17-year-olds pretty to look at is somehow outside of the norm.

OB-Wan | October 2, 2006, 5:05pm | #

Sorry about the triple post earlier, I'm so used to DSL that I forgot about patience.

If this is against the rules I apologize in advance, but I was reading the blogs last night and since I run a small home business for Tshirts and stuff I dashed a design off.

Go to rare-e-tees.com and click on the link to see all of our designs. You'll find a picture of Reynolds, Boehner & Hastert doing the ol' "See no evil, hear no..." - you get the idea. No smart-ass text just their names & a picture. It's available on shirts and a bumper sticker.

Again, I apologize if that breaks the rules.

I find it silly that they're now trying to say that they didn't know how serious the problem was considering that pages were warned about Foley as early as 2001 & they didn't notify any Dems on the rules, pages or ethics panels.

No matter how they try to spin it, its obvious to anyone with a clue that they were more interested in retaining another seat in their slim majority than really finding out if Foley had a problem.

All they said was "Don't do that!" and then walked away.

And just for the straw poll, I agree - gay does not equal pedophile.

Mark Foley | October 2, 2006, 5:41pm | #

ChicagoTom: I can look at a baby and think its adorable without having the urge to fuck it

Really? But... how?

Akira MacKenzie | October 2, 2006, 9:06pm | #

Anonymous is right. There is an obsession by men on both teams with teenagers.

And there is a damn good reason. If you're a hetrosexual male, who would you rather fuck: An athletic, energetic, healthy, 16-year-old with good skin, perky breasts, and a red-hot libido to boot?

Or....

A 30+ year-old douche bag with tits that hang down past her heavily bunioned feet, a cottage cheese ass, and "I have a headache" attitude about sex?

Don't strain your brain trying to decide.

John | October 2, 2006, 9:30pm | #

Jesus Akira,

All women over 30 or even 40 don't meet that description. In addition, the older ones may not have the perky body of the 16 year old, but a lot of them still have pretty good bodies and all of them know a hell of a lot more about sex than the 16 year old and are ussually about 100 times more confident about using that knowledge than the 16 year old. I had my share of 16 year olds when I was 16, as fun as it was, and God it was fun, being with older women is not without its advantages over that. Also, after you have sex with them, women have this annoying habbit of wanting you to pay attention to them and actually talk to them. Even if the sex was that much better, I would still have to talk to and hang out with the 16 year old and that would get real old real fast.

Jennifer | October 2, 2006, 9:31pm | #

I'm curious, Akira: on a scale of 1 to 10, how would you (honestly) rate the attractiveness of the last three women who slept with you? You can either give individual numbers or add them all together, whichever sounds better.

Akira MacKenzie | October 2, 2006, 9:55pm | #

I would still have to talk to and hang out with the 16 year old and that would get real old real fast.

Who said anything about talking with them? ;)

I'm curious, Akira: on a scale of 1 to 10, how would you (honestly) rate the attractiveness of the last three women who slept with you? You can either give individual numbers or add them all together, whichever sounds better.

Fine, the one and only girlfriend was a three at best

Pro Libertate | October 2, 2006, 10:09pm | #

Akira,

My girlfriend is 36, and she's perfectly honeylicious. I think many women hold up better and longer than you're giving them credit for. Now that I think about it, the previous two girlfriends were very attractive, too, and the they were 30 and 33 at the time.

Aside from the attractiveness and hotability of "older" women, I can't understand AT ALL the appeal of a 16-year old girl. I'd go freakin' crazy trying to deal with someone that age romantically, even for a short time. Even as far as looks are concerned, a girl really doesn't hit the pinnacle of young hotness until her 20s, in my opinion.

Foley should be doing time. And any GOP or other idiots that were protecting him should leave office. Now.

Akira MacKenzie | October 2, 2006, 10:16pm | #

I would still have to talk to and hang out with the 16 year old and that would get real old real fast.

Who said anything about talking with them? ;)

I'm curious, Akira: on a scale of 1 to 10, how would you (honestly) rate the attractiveness of the last three women who slept with you? You can either give individual numbers or add them all together, whichever sounds better.

Fine, you've got me. The one and only girlfriend I've ever had was a "4" at best in the looks department. Like a love-starved dimwit who never got a chance to date until he was 23, I did the whole "beauty is only skin deep" thing and focused on our similar interests, shared experiences, and other less "superficial" qualities.

Of course, I got burned--badly!

So screw all the hearts and flowers bullshit, it didn't get me anywhere. From this point on, I just want to fuck. I'm sorry if my standards are unrealistically high and hypocritical. I don't care! Crucify me! I just know what turns me on. Besides, since I'll never get laid again to begin with, lusting after the young, gorgeous ones won't be that big a change in my lifestyle.

smacky | October 2, 2006, 10:43pm | #

A 30+ year-old douche bag with tits that hang down past her heavily bunioned feet, a cottage cheese ass, and "I have a headache" attitude about sex?

[naively]:

Wow, is this what I have to look forward to when I turn 30?

*blink*

Akira MacKenzie | October 2, 2006, 10:52pm | #

Please, don't take anything I say this evening seriously. I'm really depressed tonight and I get really touchy when I'm down. Right now I don't know if I want to lash out at the whole damn world or blow my brains out.

If I post again tomorrow, you'll know which path I chose.

John | October 2, 2006, 11:13pm | #

Akira,

Cheer up man. It can't be that bad. If nothing else you have one of the coolest names of anyone I have ever met.

Akira MacKenzie | October 2, 2006, 11:16pm | #

Wow, is this what I have to look forward to when I turn 30?

No, what you'll have to look forward to is being, bitter, old, and pathetic.

Oh wait, that's me.

dhex | October 2, 2006, 11:17pm | #

"A 30+ year-old douche bag with tits that hang down past her heavily bunioned feet, a cottage cheese ass, and "I have a headache" attitude about sex?"

dear akira:

it has come to our attention that you need to get laid. more than that, you need to have an emotionally fulfilling relationship with something other than your basement apartment. the bitter misogyny thing is fun at parties but it won't get you any play with the ladies (unless you're fucking amazing at it and handsome to boot) and it becomes a habit that's hard to drop, like cigarettes. you will be old and grey and never know what birthday anal feels like without a condom if you keep this up.

thank you for your consideration of this matter,
dhex + the internet

joe | October 2, 2006, 11:23pm | #

Akira,

"Who said anything about talking with them? ;)"

Seriously, this puts Foley's behavior into perspective. You know how you have to talk to a girl you're dating and trying to sleep with? Over coffees, or taking them somewhere, or staying up late and just blah blah blah blah blah.

Have you had a conversation of any length with a 16 year old recently? Or seen a couple of them having a conversation with each other? Imagine a middle aged man doing the great listener thing about whatever a 16 year old cares about - not getting along with some clique or something. That's the reality here of what Foley was doing with these kids.

These aren't bodies that look hot in pictures. It isn't the plot to porn. This was the real deal, one person scamming on someone else. The scammer was a Congressman in his 50s, and the scamee was a kid. No, not a pre-adolescent. But still, a kid.

Shem | October 2, 2006, 11:48pm | #

Y'know Akira, there are always prostitutes.

Akira MacKenzie | October 3, 2006, 12:28am | #

Y'know Akira, there are always prostitutes.,

Right, now I just have to worry about 1) paying said hypothetical hookers the money I don't make, 2) getting caught by a largely unsympathetic, anti-sex, government.

I think the only reason prostitution is legal in Nevada is because it's priced so high to keep demand low. At $10,000 an hour, you better be a high-roller before thinking about getting some trim.

Akira MacKenzie | October 3, 2006, 12:33am | #

unless you're fucking amazing at it and handsome to boot

[Akira looks in the mirror. Sees a fat, ugly, troll staring back.]

Sigh... I'm SO going to die a "technical" virgin.

Akira MacKenzie | October 3, 2006, 12:39am | #

Cheer up man. It can't be that bad. If nothing else you have one of the coolest names of anyone I have ever met.

Well, you can thank my friend's long-running Traveller campaign for that. That's where this handle got started.

My real name is far more... mundane.

highnumber | October 3, 2006, 2:37am | #

Right now I don't know if I want to lash out at the whole damn world or blow my brains out.

Akira,
Check yourself.
You seem to be an interesting person and you say intelligent things. Neither lashing out nor blowing brains out are necessary. Keep seeking. You're doing fine.

Pro Libertate | October 3, 2006, 9:44am | #

Akira,

Well, we like you. If you want some unsolicited advice, legally change your name to your handle and get into exercise (improves your appearance and your state of mind). Women can be surprisingly impressed by intangibles like brains and character, you know. It just takes more work when you don't look like Rainier Wolfcastle :)

And no more Traveller! Though Star Fleet Battles is okay :)

smacky | October 3, 2006, 11:37am | #

Right, now I just have to worry about 1) paying said hypothetical hookers the money I don't make, 2) getting caught by a largely unsympathetic, anti-sex, government.


You forgot 3) Venereal disease.


Akira,

Pro Libertate gives good advice. Exercise can do wonders to improve your outlook and mood. When I was in one of my all-time biggest slumps, I went to the gym quasi-religiously, and not only did it even out my mood, but I earned a pretty hot bod, too. Just don't overdo it on the exercise or else you'll suffer a stroke and that would be bad.

clear eyed | October 3, 2006, 11:38am | #

Funny. I worked with Ben in the early nineties on a series of commercials I won't name. Had to laugh, the limo driver complained about spending too much time in the parking lots of Dallas strip clubs and the production company couldn't get over the idea that he actualy stole the wardrobe...(expensive mark shale sportcoats and button down shirts - jeeeezzzzz
what a guy!

Pro Libertate | October 3, 2006, 11:56am | #

smacky, you're lucky the "hot bod" comment was made in a lower, diminishing thread. Otherwise, you'd suffer the fate of linguist, who made the mistake of talking about her amplitudeness. There's a lot of lust here at Hit & Run for some reason. Not sure why, but maybe it's a libertarian issue.

Fortunately, I transcend such things :)

Keith Wolter | October 3, 2006, 12:08pm | #

Back to Ben Stein. Did anyone else read the rest of that article? It took me a while - I too was apoplectic about his suggestion that "the party of gays" needed to rally to Foley's defense. Like that makes any political sense: "Dems to defend pedophile gay-bashing gay lawmaker, claim him as their own." Once I got over THAT hump, and the jaw-droppingly hilarious cliche, "Don't get me wrong. My very best friend is gay." (Um, not anymore, Ben, unless he is a self-hater akin to, say, Mark Foley...) I read on to his defense of Senator Macaca and his luv for all things Confederate:

"To millions of our fellow citizens, this flag has zero to do with racism. It is entirely about respect for a time of unbelievable horror in our society, The Civil War, and respect for men who fought so brilliantly for a cause that was unquestionably -- by decent standards -- a bad cause. Moreover, the stars and bars are a beautiful design and show nothing whatsoever about a person's views about non-whites. For him to be judged by what historical relics he owns is pure thought crime."

Really, Ben? Great. Cause I think the design of the swastika on this Nazi flag is really, really beautiful. I'm sure Ben Stein, or for that matter, the newly non-goy Sen. Allen, would not judge me for proudly owning it. After all, I am just honoring the bravery of all those Axis soldiers, who after all, fought brilliantly for a bad cause, at least "by decent standards". Anyone who is upset by this would be guilty of a thought crime. Did I mention how beautiful it is?

Keith Wolter | October 3, 2006, 12:11pm | #

Back to Ben Stein. Did anyone else read the rest of that article? It took me a while - I too was apoplectic about his suggestion that "the party of gays" needed to rally to Foley's defense. Like that makes any political sense: "Dems to defend pedophile gay-bashing gay lawmaker, claim him as their own." Once I got over THAT hump, and the jaw-droppingly hilarious cliche, "Don't get me wrong. My very best friend is gay." (Um, not anymore, Ben, unless he is a self-hater akin to, say, Mark Foley...) I read on to his defense of Senator Macaca and his luv for all things Confederate:

"To millions of our fellow citizens, this flag has zero to do with racism. It is entirely about respect for a time of unbelievable horror in our society, The Civil War, and respect for men who fought so brilliantly for a cause that was unquestionably -- by decent standards -- a bad cause. Moreover, the stars and bars are a beautiful design and show nothing whatsoever about a person's views about non-whites. For him to be judged by what historical relics he owns is pure thought crime."

Really, Ben? Great. Cause I think the design of the swastika on this Nazi flag is really, really beautiful. I'm sure Ben Stein, or for that matter, the newly non-goy Sen. Allen, would not judge me for proudly owning it. After all, I am just honoring the bravery of all those Axis soldiers, who after all, fought brilliantly for a bad cause, at least "by decent standards". Anyone who is upset by this would be guilty of a thought crime. Did I mention how beautiful it is?

Keith Wolter | October 3, 2006, 12:13pm | #

Back to Ben Stein. Did anyone else read the rest of that article? It took me a while - I too was apoplectic about his suggestion that "the party of gays" needed to rally to Foley's defense. Like that makes any political sense: "Dems to defend pedophile gay-bashing gay lawmaker, claim him as their own." Once I got over THAT hump, and the jaw-droppingly hilarious cliche, "Don't get me wrong. My very best friend is gay." (Um, not anymore, Ben, unless he is a self-hater akin to, say, Mark Foley...) I read on to his defense of Senator Macaca and his luv for all things Confederate:

"To millions of our fellow citizens, this flag has zero to do with racism. It is entirely about respect for a time of unbelievable horror in our society, The Civil War, and respect for men who fought so brilliantly for a cause that was unquestionably -- by decent standards -- a bad cause. Moreover, the stars and bars are a beautiful design and show nothing whatsoever about a person's views about non-whites. For him to be judged by what historical relics he owns is pure thought crime."

Really, Ben? Great. Cause I think the design of the swastika on this Nazi flag is really, really beautiful. I'm sure Ben Stein, or for that matter, the newly non-goy Sen. Allen, would not judge me for proudly owning it. After all, I am just honoring the bravery of all those Axis soldiers, who after all, fought brilliantly for a bad cause, at least "by decent standards". Anyone who is upset by this would be guilty of a thought crime. Did I mention how beautiful it is?

Shem | October 3, 2006, 3:52pm | #

You forgot 3) Venereal disease.

This is why God invented condoms.