Not even Bill Clinton wants to see that

Young pup, ain'tcha? ;)

FYI - females are visual too, just not quite to the extent that men are. And I know MANY women who have never picked up a romance novel in their lives unless they wanted to purge an indulgent lunch.

Well aware of that, but not to the level men are.

Do a count, how many strip clubs are there in your town that feature male vs female dancers? I bet the female dancers far out number the males ;)

I also bet that you would have a far easier time finding a copy of playboy vs playgirl magazine.

Now try finding a romance novel or a soap opera aimed at men, things flip around. The covers on those novels and the actors in the soaps will show that their is a visual piece to it too, but not to the same level as with men, and definitely not in regards to the level of clothing involved.
 
At least I think that's what he meant, given the two names mentioned.

No, I was talking about the guys. I was making the point that no one would be making this suggestion or making these comments about the male candidates for the Presidency, no matter how ugly they are.
 
No, I was talking about the guys. I was making the point that no one would be making this suggestion or making these comments about the male candidates for the Presidency, no matter how ugly they are.
*applause*
 
No, I was talking about the guys. I was making the point that no one would be making this suggestion or making these comments about the male candidates for the Presidency, no matter how ugly they are.

At least not now with Romney and Edwards out of the race. There hasn't been nearly the discussion of Clinton's looks as there had been about Romney and Edwards.

CNN 2008
Is Mitt Romney too good looking for his own good? Or, does being a political hunk make for a slam dunk? CNN's Jeanne Moos takes a look.


CNN 2004
KURTZ: So it's style?
SIMON: Yeah. John Edwards is this sunny, bright...
KURTZ: And optimism and good hair?
SIMON: ... optimistic guy. Actually, the public likes George Bush's hair more than they like Kerry's hair. Go figure.
 
Typical, really. The blatant subtext here is "Clinton is a woman. The thing we should be most concerned about is how pretty she is." It's not something people mention about male candidates. The other part of it is "She's not pretty, so she's not a real woman." As far as it goes, get real. She's over sixty. She hasn't looked like she's twenty in, well, forty years.

As far as it goes I'm more interested in what Dennis Kucinich has going for him. His wife is damned fine looking, a lot younger and smiles a lot. He's got to be doing something right.
 
The 'something right' will probably be bank balance related :D. Sexism exists on both sides of the divide, it's just that the parameters vary.

As I have said several times tho', I don't know why America goes through all this hoopla - since elections began, with almost no exceptions, it's been the tallest candidate that won. So it's 'hightism' that should be on the table rather than sexism ...

Oh and just for the record, for an amoral 'shark' of a human I thought Hilary was quite pretty as far as her 'type' goes (not my taste). She could look like Kim Basinger tho' and if I was eligible I would not vote for her unless under threat of torture - then again, that applies to more or less any politician drawing breath :lol:.
 
Haha! Hillary Clinton is a very attractive woman. President Clinton is a very lucky man to have her as his wife. Now, IF Clinton gets the nomination by getting the super delegates to vote for her, then I will NOT vote for her in the general election. But that will be only because the Party has disrespected the popular vote. If so, then screw them.

I tell my friends, though, "Whenever I see Senator Clinton on tv, and I see that sweet butt go back and forth, OH! I can hardly control myself!!!"
 
Back
Top