Huh?!?!

I just got wind of this story from Workbench and my brain is still boggling. Apparently, Jennifer Aniston recently posed partially nude on the cover of GQ and conservative columnist John Derbyshire expressed his distaste for it. Not because it was indecent or immoral, mind you, but because she's in her mid-thirties:

"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. The Nautilus and the treadmill can add a half decade or so, but by 36 the bloom is definitely off the rose."

I'll repeat my post title query: HUH?!?!

Most of the reactions to this comment has been along the lines of the irony for a National Review columnist to be expressing such Lolita-ish tendencies. My gripe is much more basic: How the hell can you call this woman unattractive? I do not count myself among her many ardent fans, but I can recognize beauty and she's in no way lacking in that department. Heaven forbid this guy watch the remake of Thomas Crown Affair lest he become physically ill when 45 year old Rene Russo gets nekid.

If this is the kind of grand divide between liberals and conservatives, then vive la difference! Still, it makes me worry about those poor fifteen year olds in red states.