Over at the Other McCain, R.S. nails the point/counterpoints of two women on the subject of nailing. Though his RoboSchlong joke will be the takeaway for most readers, the money quote is his spelling out the difference between philosophies of is and ought:
In other words, the ideal advocated by Williams requires that the existing reality of actual teenage human beings— an “is” — be completely transformed into an “ought” that, even if it could possibly be achieved, isn’t going to be achieved by the time some mouth-breathing pimply high-school sophomore boy asks your daughter out on a date Saturday night.
Whereas the ideal espoused by Jennifer Moses can be achieved immediately, merely by parents acting the way reponsible [sic] parents of young girls have always acted:
Not that his strong argument needs strengthening but Williams betrays her argument as one from the land of philosophical ought (where you can’t miss that familiar whiff of bullshit) in her penultimate sentence:
I want them to know it’s not the length of your skirt that matters; it’s what’s going on between your ears.
Mary, as a man who in my day attempted to partake in maximal amounts of sexual debauch, let me be the first to tell you that the boys will be eager to reiterate your skirt length lesson.
In fact, the old ‘It’s your mind, not the length of your skirt that matters. So let’s get on with hiking that skirt right up, up, up and off’ trick was one of our most effective and frequently employed.
But that’s beside the point. No, it’s the absolutism of Williams’ sentence which makes it so obvious that her point is one of philosophical ought. Regardless the efficacy of her future lesson to her daughters, there may come a skirt so short the length will indeed matter. This fact won’t make Williams a prude, or render the goop in her kids heads’ less important, it will just be a too short skirt. At that point, as McCain prescribes, the simple parental remedy will be sponsoring a one way trip to the bedroom.