Oh, Come On, Folks, This Is Just Unacceptable:

As of now, 27 comments on the post about a possible Rehnquist retirement; 21 on the post about hate crimes; 11 on originalism, precedent, and the views of blogger Matthew Yglesias; but on my three posts about the Law of French Kissing, 1, 1, and 0.

Didn't you read the instructions? Meaningless titillation is supposed to be what draws the attention! Enough with the substance — aren't you interested in sex? I am so disappointed.

Anonymous Coward:
Sex? I'm in!
7.8.2005 10:36pm
Lyn Yarbrough (mail):
First the Kansas Courts take over the schools and then they make "French Kissing" a felony. Isn't that what the legal profession terms prima facie evidence for "Intelligent Design"?
7.8.2005 10:58pm
Petro (mail):
I'm not interested in sex, I'm married.
7.8.2005 10:58pm
A non-Volokh:
Sure, I'm interested in sex, but not with you. Nothing personal, you understand, you're just not my type.
7.8.2005 11:03pm
Humble Law Student:
I dont know . . . For some reason, talking about sex on a legal blog just doesn't do it for me. I guess I'm not kinky enough.
7.8.2005 11:18pm
lucia (mail) (www):
Come on! What do you expect? Don't you know the posts got everyone who read them they immediately grabbed a partner and got busy with something other than comments?
7.8.2005 11:19pm
I agree with Humble. I just thought of baseball. Only room for one boring topic with the tittilation.
7.8.2005 11:22pm
reid (mail):
well, at least it's not a post about rehnquist french kissing. that would have equal parts repulsion and freakish meaningless titilation.
7.8.2005 11:28pm
Humble Law Student:

That was hilarious and disturbing!
7.8.2005 11:30pm
Benquo (mail) (www):
Petro, was that supposed to be funny?
7.9.2005 12:07am
I responded, and even in a vaguely substantive manner.

I think everyone else is just a little up tight.
7.9.2005 12:31am
Bill (mail):
Eugene: For my part, I was shaken by the proximity of your posts on kissing and treason. I don't know why your blithe endorsement of the treason accusation unsettled me but it did.
7.9.2005 12:32am
Cory (mail):
So you write about sex and your audience immediately thinks of ... legal issues! Admit it, you weren't suprised. If you want a response, try posting something on Dungeons and Dragons. I know I'd be there in a blink.
7.9.2005 1:00am
Adam K (mail):
Eugene, please bear in mind that some of us are studying for the bar, and at this point, if we were to so much as think about sex, we'd spontaneously combust.
7.9.2005 1:44am
Anonymous Law Student:
I'm posting in the comments to a law blog at 11:30 PM on a Friday night... do you think that I'm interested in sex?
7.9.2005 3:31am
The Dude:
Prof. Volokh, you misspelled "titillation"
7.9.2005 10:26am
Elliot (mail):
Perhaps the lack of comments on those posts was due to goal of your comments policy. Sure, the kissing decision seems quite ridiculous - but ridiculous in a way that does not lend itself well to avoiding "rants, invective, and substantial and repeated exaggeration pand making it difficult to stick] with substance [that] will make the comments more helpful to other readers, and more pleasant."
7.9.2005 10:30am
Stephen M (Ethesis) (mail) (www):
Sure, I'm interested in sex, but not with you. Nothing personal, you understand, you're just not my type.

Nicely put. Better than what I was going to say.
7.9.2005 11:05am
Eugene Volokh (www):
Thanks to The Dude for the spelling correction -- I've fixed the post.
7.9.2005 12:43pm
LiquidLatex (mail):
Government enacts likely unconstitutional law with good intentions but is far over-reaching in scope. Law will likely not be successfully challenged due to political motives and lack of anyone with the power to eliminate this kind of policy. The People are sadly not surprised.
7.9.2005 1:14pm
Proud Generation Y Slacker:
We're interested in sex, just not when you talk about it.
7.9.2005 2:31pm
NickM (mail) (www):
Comments are not a suitable measure of interest. Commenting on a sex thread may be used against you during a hostile workplace environment sexual harassment suit.

7.9.2005 10:12pm
Law Guy At Heart (mail):
No sex please. I'm British.

Well, at least since 7/7.
7.10.2005 2:07am
I've found other sex sites that are more interesting.

But I do have to say that I found the Kansas decision pretty damn disturbing. If the Kansas Legislature wants to charactarize French kissing as lewd touching, shouldn't they just come out and say so, rather than the court stretching the definition? If someone commits a violation that confers a long prison sentence, and probably registration as a sex offender, they should have the benefit of a law that clearly spells out that their conduct is a crime.
7.11.2005 2:58am
... (mail):
I can see why you would be disappointed -- this site is slowly degenerating into posts by Prof. Volokh about sex, genitals, nudity, perversion, etc. -- frankly, I'm not going to indulge your sick tastes
7.11.2005 6:17pm