Erick Erickson and Melissa Clouthier have stirred up a hornets’ nest by criticizing the sartorial choices of women at CPAC, and the rampant drunken hookuppery that takes place there. Joy has written about it at Little Miss Attila, and Stacy’s written at substantial length about it, too, because . . . just don’t get him started on the HHS abortifacient mandate. Among the culpable is Tina Korbe, the blond conservette for whose writerly services and glamor Hot Air went through a certain amount of equal opportunity kabuki. And, hey . . . Stacy’s alright with that, in a Mene, Mene, Tekel u-Pharsin way. Photographic evidence suggests that all of these writers are correct when they say that Tina Korbe’s skirt was remarkably short, though I’m not sure it’s correct to say that it offered a straight-line view of her hoo-ha, for those properly positioned.
None of these otherwise very astute people seems to understand the point of Tina Korbe’s short skirt, because they underestimate the degree to which a woman’s couture can express her politics. Sure, a woman’s clothing can suggest, among many other things, that she’s available and randy as a goat. Other clues would consist of, ahem, boink-me stilettos and the unmistakable scent of Paris Hilton’s signature fragrance, Skank (by Paris Hilton). In this case, though, you have to consider the context. Here is Tina Korbe on stage interviewing notorious social conservative Rick Santorum. Will notorious social conservative Rick Santorum try to sneak a peek at her hoo-ha? Wouldn’t that be hypocritical?
Goodness knows, I’ve been tested by cleavage, and I’ve discovered that no matter how prominently displayed (and it acts as a sort of cosmosexual black hole, sucking the gaze into its relentless maw), women still prefer that one address himself to the face, which in many cases requires effort almost preternatural. Women wear tight skirts (I think I’ve mentioned this in relation to Norah O’Donnell before) and it’s as though they’re emblazoned with the flashing caption: “Stop looking at my bum!” We are trapped; we are tortured. Fifteen minutes after initiating a conversation with an intelligent, beautiful woman displaying a chasm of cleavage, dots of perspiration begin to appear on our brows. Twenty minutes in, it materializes on our upper lip. At twenty-five, small rivulets of sweat begin to trickle through the backs of our collars, and finally we resort to desperate measures to extricate ourselves from this nightmare of self-control by muttering something about an emergency phone call, so that we can go outside into the soothing air and have a smoke.
Meanwhile, inside the male brain:
This is why, at the McCain-Collins Institute for Therapeutic Breast Staring, we don’t just hire any doxy off the street. These must be women who are happy to have their breasts stared straight at for times ranging from 5 minutes to 30 minutes, while in that entire time maintaining a neutral if not pleasant facial aspect, because many of these men—and you ladies may not even be aware of this—suffer from a form of PTSD that the afore-described exertions have brought on them. Nothing substitutes for such meat-space therapy sessions, but many men attempt to self-medicate by gazing on pictures of women, and many of them are doomed to failure because they choose pictures of persnickety waifs whose corrugated brows denote unhappiness with this visual violation.
No, no, what these poor men need is copia and compassion—abbondanza, if you will. Cultures of yore understood this well. Take a look at some of the classics of nude painting converted by the magic of Photoshop to the proportions now in vogue:
[See also Enoch's theorizing on the subject]
Ladies! We cry you mercy! We also surreptitiously snap a cell phone picture of your cleavage so that we can gaze at it in peace while we have that cigarette.
And NEVER let anyone photograph you eating a corn dog.





Starless on February 16, 2012 at 1:52 pm said:
I’m gonna assume that Mr. Erickson and Ms Clouthier have ever, ever, ever, ever been to any sort of convention where there was men, women, and alcohol in close proximity to each other.
Meep on February 16, 2012 at 2:51 pm said:
If they think CPAC was bad, they should check out business conferences…. heh
Starless on February 16, 2012 at 3:09 pm said:
Exactly.
Bob Belvedere on February 16, 2012 at 6:32 pm said:
Bravo, Dano – well done.
EBL on February 16, 2012 at 7:32 pm said:
Dan would find the best photos, wouldn’t he!
Joy McCann on February 16, 2012 at 8:25 pm said:
He might have had help this time . . .
EBL on February 18, 2012 at 5:35 pm said:
I foolishly call myself “evilbloggerlady.” I bow to the true master!
Tina Korbe: The legs that launched a million hits…
jefferson101 on February 16, 2012 at 8:37 pm said:
Two thoughts. ( And be it noted, I’m not criticizing anyone, either here or anywhere else.)
First thought would be that, given all the speakers and events at CPAC, why is this what we are talking about? Didn’t anything else happen there?
Second thought is that I’m clearly not a classic “Social-Con”, apparently. I will not offer any approval to the lifestyle that some folks are apparently living, but I’ll be damned if I will snark and gripe at people who are on my side because I don’t necessarily approve of their lifestyle. I was young once too, and I don’t approve of my lifestyle at that juncture any more.
We try to be an example….(Or, in my case, make it clear that I am not one.) and we go on. If you have a problem with the parties after the day’s events, go back to your room and read a farging book or something, why don’tcha?
And if you think the women are under-dressed, you should also go back to your room and read a book or something. Who died and left you to be the Morals Police? As long as you behave yourself, that’s all you are accountable for, by my lights.
As Conservative as I am, I am not a morals Cop, and I don’t need anyone else to be either. I’d rather see us dealing with the issues, instead of trivial bullbutter.
And that’s the name of that tune.
Starless on February 17, 2012 at 8:39 am said:
First thought would be that, given all the speakers and events at CPAC, why is this what we are talking about?
Maybe because it’s about sex.
EBL on February 19, 2012 at 6:28 pm said:
Apparently nothing else of consequence happened at CPAC.
CCR on February 16, 2012 at 11:47 pm said:
Isn’t there an campaign prior to an election going on?
What concerns me the most about this is how many people, who ought to be on the same side, are now at each other’s throats. Over Tina Korbe’s skirt length. Yes, IMHO she should have worn something more demure. But is it that big of a deal?
Really?
I mean… really?
This is getting way beyond ridiculous.
EBL on February 19, 2012 at 6:29 pm said:
Sometimes you just have to laugh.
jefferson101 on February 19, 2012 at 8:21 pm said:
It’s either laugh, snark, or start shooting at them. And the “start shooting” part seems way premature to me at this juncture.
As long as I’m pointing, laughing, and hooting? It’s still all very civil. Come the day that I stop pointing and laughing, I’ll probably be pointing something with a .30 caliber bore, actually.
So far, though? I do wonder why some folks haven’t gone and visited their local City Board or School Board with a bucket of tar and a bag of feathers. Or two buckets and bags, as necessary……
The Leftoids need to learn that lesson. Play Stupid Games, Win Stupid Prizes. It’s time that total dumbazz behavior has some consequences for the dumbazz folks doing that stuff.