|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|
If Weinstein was a handsome "ladies man"would there be as many (or indeed any) complaints about sexual harrasment?
Indirect proof of this is the total silence about harrasment issues with any "ladies man" so far.
99% of recent complaints against males have very homely males at their centre.
Even Weinstein's bald spot isn't on straight and the guy is pock marked, mangy looking and obese etc. He is no ladies man.
Sexual harassment isn't about looks. It's about selfishly using your power, control etc. and seeing what you can "get away with".
I guess some men who don't have women lined up to have sex with them, because their personality or looks aren't that attractive, use whatever means they have available to get their needs met.
Often that's their status, wealth, power, manipulative abilities or physical strength. All of those completely disregard the other person.
I agree but there seems to be an instinctual hypnotic effect at play whereby females become temporarily blinded by wealth and power. It occurs in the animal kingdom as well as can be seen in any David Attenborough special on higher mammals.
In Asia for example most females are helplessly drawn to wealthy men even if the man is decrepit. The Asian population is over half the planet's population. Similar phenomena occur in many other countries.
My experience of Asian women is that they are far more pragmatic than Western women. They place finding a husband who's a good provider above romantic notions of finding a soulmate. Who's to say there's anything wrong with that, it's their choice.
I don't believe the "cool sexy men" are forgiven for sexual molestation. Cool sexy men do not need to resort to that kind of behaviour in the first place, because they have no difficulty attracting women by other means. If they get the brush-off, they have plenty more to choose from.
Another observation - you seem to be assuming that only handsome men can be sexy. That's a fundamental misunderstanding of what women find attractive.
I don't know how abusing children got included in the mix, that's a different topic altogether.
Let's not limit the discussion just to sexual harrasment against women. So far occasional men's harrasment against men has been discussed in the media.
Certainly harrasing children is of the worst category.
Men and women both know that highly sexually attractive males can grab a woman without even asking to. Maybe years later one or two out of hundreds of women might make a complaint about a "brad pitt" who grabbed them but it is highly unlikely.
They are easily forgiven. My argument is it related to the DNA breeding instinct in women.
Technically grabbing a woman without her permission is assault. We have all witnessed ladies men doing so in real life and also the movies. I knew of a very sleazy ladies man who regulatly had women sit on his lap without a word being spoken. This was usually followed by immediate intimacy. This man was highly misogynistic and insulting to women but not one complained.
Further if a playboy wannabe actress is classed as a "prostitue" can they legally claim sexual harrasment? Usually a prostitute has only actual assault and rape left to complain about. In other words they invite sexual advances therefore can't complain any longer about sexual harrasment.
Yes you're right in saying "it's their choice".
Sexual harrasment is not just happening to women but also men and also children.
The current debate in the media is looking at the entire spectrum.
My point here is that if we examine the current controversy we can see 99% of accused are not cool sexy ladies men but plain homers.
Yes there is a 1% anomaly.
Yes it's not just about good looks but also money and power. Just as David Attenborough has observed in the wild with mammals we see females attracted to the best looking or the most powerful or the best provider.
Human beings boil it down to looks or money.
This gives a male a subconscious animal magnetism due to the DNA.
Such males are let off the hook much easier than their homer counterparts. Brad Pitt is left untouched. Hefner is an icon. MJs music is everywhere etc.
I've never understood why Hefner is an icon. It seems to me that it's men who admire him, the average woman thinks he was a sleazeball.
I'm really kind of surprised knowing the woman's libber point that they aren't jumping all over this as a sexist thread , pretty lame talking about the "good looking" or rich guy getting all the girls with the not so good looking one's as - Not getting the girl , I've known sexual charisma as actually being from some of the -not so good looking men- who seem to always get the girls on their arms. I've seen it .
But your stating women only accuse the ugly dudes , I think not ?
I am beginning to think this whole ' Me Too " thing is very politically motivated however , It sure isn't that women's lib has just hit the streets , Let's ask Gloria Steinmann ............:-}
I'm not being sexist.
I'm being a David Attenborough and looking at the biological forces involved.
Looks and money/fame is the thing. If you are a male with both it makes you almost impregnable to the kind of criticism we are seeing levelled against the "bad specimens".
In the West being a rich but bad specimen doesn't seem to cut it. In China yes wealth is beyond looks.
Surely you can see the bizarre irony in Brad Pitt getting away with alleged child abuse "scott free" by women?
Or the irony in Hefner becoming an icon to women?
Or playboy actresses/porn stars (as described by the women here in this forum) complaining of sexual harassment?
In terms of sexual power plays I also note that most of the actresses complaining are now aging rapidly. The younger actresses may now try to fill the sexual power vacuum just as an aging lioness might be forced out of the harem etc.
It seems to be classic Attenborough wildlife stuff.
My personal opinion is that the "Weinsteins''/ Hefners/ Pitts and the playboy posing actresses are ALL equally sleazy.
Where has Hugh Hefner ever been an icon to women?
http://dailycaller.com/2017/09/28/liste … scinating/
Hugh Hefner might have been an icon to a few shallow sluts who buzzed around him for his money. There will always be women AND men eager to fawn over rich people for their money. I'd hate to think they were the majority, because if so the human race is pathetic.
I had never heard of Brad Pitt being accused of child abuse but on looking it up, it appears he was cleared after an investigation - it wasn't hushed up, and no one was paid off. If you look deeper into it,Angelina Jolie was using the allegation as a weapon to get sole custody of the kid, so she had an agenda. Furthermore, the "abuse" was physical (he supposedly smacked his son), not sexual. I don't get how that could be described as sleazy. Have you considered the fact that he might actually have been innocent?
By the way, I've never been a great Brad Pitt fan myself.
I agree but there are many women who wouldn't agree.
Hefner died recently and was hailed an icon by many commentators.
Your point about Jolie is accurate however this same point you just made is what alleged "sexist" males have been saying about other women. There can be ulterior motives.
The point is there was barely a ripple about child abuse allegations against ladies man Pitt and he was easily forgiven and forgotten. This is in stark contrast to other males.
Many famous actresses complaining today were playboy centerfold and knowingly entered the playboy mansion fully aware of Hefs power to further their careers etc. See my previous link. Famous well known females all.
I'm trying to focus on the biology factor.
I'm curious to see who will fill the sexual power vacuum. Will we soon see quasi pre nuptial agreements/affairs between moguls and other new aspiring actresses?
Will aging actresses start to get even more vicious like old lionesses being forced out?
What I have observed (anthropologically) is that women become literally spellbound by great male wealth, success or good looks. It's as if an instinct takes over. The DNA or something seems to take away their ability to discern.
It's like the "beer goggle" effect. Once they called it "animal magnetism".
The females don't seem to be fully aware of it when it is happening.
Then later, sometimes years later, the penny drops and some of them (not all) build a resentment up to events.
This is not about rape but "seduction" or powerful instinctual forces at work.
Don Burke had extraordinary success with women as well as being a sleaze bag. I have recently witnessed a handsome "ladies man" who looks like David Beckham, expressing ruthless misogyny in front of women who were literally lining up for their "turn". He could insult or humiliate women but the overpowering attraction most women had for him temporarily blinded them to it. I have seen this effect before. This man told me that occassionally he met what he referred to as a "bunny boiler" who seemed to both RESENT him and accept him at the same time during intercourse.
I've seen this phenomena before and it seems to be the case that (out of the literally hundreds of women who get bedded by these lucky "ladies men") a few women take offense when the penny drops or when this successful type of man gets really ugly with his power. But this is a few out of hundreds of women.
So basically, you have the same idea about women as the fired Google guy's misogynistic rant about us: "women become literally spellbound by great male wealth, success or good looks. It's as if an instinct takes over. The DNA or something seems to take away their ability to discern".
Again, what you seem to be missing is the element of consent. Sure, some women intentionally go after rich, powerful men - just like rich men go after beautiful women. For instance, you can't tell me that our Secretary of Treasury's new wife, Ms. Lipton, is married to him for any other reason than he is a powerful man with money. And while beautiful women like her and Melania Trump can sometimes force themselves to eventually 'love' their rich husbands - we all know that they are not initially drawn to them for that reason. I mean, The Donald already had that funky hair before Melania came along. Trust me, he has never had 'sexy' hair, LoL!
HOWEVER, it is highly-unlikely that either of those women were ever raped by their current husbands. While their guys may have gotten a little 'gropey' in public - like most boyfriends & husbands do, on ocassion (and yeah, usually ONLY those two kinds of guys can get away with it; but even they can get in trouble, LoL!) - those trophy wives were probably never FORCED to do anything they didn't want to do... To get a wife like that, you had better be laying on the charm and dishing out megabucks on top of that. (Mistresses are a little different; and can be getting paid - with their consent - to 'put up with' certain unwanted/abusive behaviors - or specificially to perform sexual favors, fetishes, etc.)
Why should Michael Jackson get off scott free? Because 1) he went to court and was not convicted due to the lying reputation of his accusers; and 2) he has had young men who worked with him stick up for him. Both Corey Feldman (who has made some serious pedophilia accusations toward Hollywood mongrels for years - that have also been ignored) and Alfonso Ribeiro insist he never touched them; and Alfonso's father was supposedly offered a million dollars to accuse him. In fact, more than one person was offered money to accuse MJ of stuff: https://www.lipstickalley.com/threads/r … tv.993527/
No proof, just accusations - and that is often all there is left over. This is one of the main reasons why so many kids & women don't report sexual assault right away - if ever. Since You Asked, Roy Moore, Here Is Why Victims Of Sexual Violence Wait Decades To Come Forward https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/si … 46c52e6ae6
I'm not sure why you are on Weinstein's side, there are not many people who are anymore. He's looking pretty guilty regarding the non-consentual stuff. Of course, since most of it happened years ago and/or can't be proven without a doubt, he probably won't pay much of a real price - like go to prison.
Still, men in Hollywood and politics are running scared because the entire world has been their oyster/locker room to act as disgusting as they please for centuries. Maybe they will stop now, but I doubt it. It is more likely that this type of stuff will go deeper underground and become even more 'controlled' - thanks to people like you who enable these men and insist that everything is all the fault of girls. After all, we DESERVE it - one way or another - don't we?!!
Sure, women can 'ruin' the careers of men, now... Let's not give a crap about the affect the non-consentual actions of these men have had on the women & children they forced to do their bidding. That is how life goes regarding these things. Congratulations on your attempt to maintain mainstream ideology. I hope all of you who insist on perceiving things this way - fail miserably.
I am not defending Weinstein. He is sleazy but so is Hefner. Nothing happened to Hef.
The theme here is the lack of protests about the Brad Pitts and the MJs when the same accusations have been levelled against them.
MJ paid out alimony style settlements to silence victims but you admit that's all ok.
Brad Pitt is accused of some kind of child abuse but you are ok with that.
AS a man , I'm no ladies type man believe me , But there is a good point being made here . a lifetime of observations from my side of the bench shows that there is a radiating sexual power in some men and women . Mix that up with a job situation ; it all can hit the fan . I mean ,Matt Lauer ? There is very well often an agenda of tit -for- tat on all the job sights , I've witnessed that.
Lets look at the old saying '......"..hell hath no fury like a woman scorned "............? except maybe what we're seeing today ,sexual power paybacks?
You got me ? Glad I'm retired .
Yes it's mixed up with power play and a new brutal "battle of the sexes". News items have been reporting that women have the "power" to destroy careers etc.
1% of the males in the firing line are ladies men but 99% are unattractive physical specimens.
Famous male celebrities are noticeably quiet on this topic. For example Mick Jagger. How many groupies and drug fuelled parties would have Mick seen? Thousands. No complaints because Micks cool like Hefner.
Is everyone still listening to Michael Jackson's music? Yes because he's MJ. No talk of removing MJ from the radio.
When Angelina Julie claimed that Brad Pitt abused her kids there wasn't a ripple felt. No banning of Brad from work.
This issue is filled with inconsistencies but there is one consistent point regarding if the male in question is popular with the ladies.
http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/08/15/b … legations/
What are you suggesting? That woman would be happy to be groped or molested by a handsome man? I don't think that's a logical conclusion.
The logical conclusion is that a handsome man doesn't need to resort to groping, molesting, or telling lies to get women into sexual situations. If a woman is interested in him, he'll only have to hint to get her into bed. If she's not interested, he can afford to walk away and move on, because he gets enough offers already.
That said, the latest scandal breaking in Australia involves Don Burke. He is a grey-haired old man now, but these complaints date back to when he was regarded as a bit of a catch.
Yes Burke was used to astounding success with females and wouldn't accept rejection.
I've met several "ladies men" and seen the effect they have on nearly every woman they meet. They literally have women sitting on their lap as soon as they meet and instant sex etc
A recent photo of Burke shows one of the women willingly sitting on his lap. I've tried to get a photo of it here but for some reason it's been heavily edited. I will re post it when I find the unedited image.
Do you listen to Michael Jackson's music?
Lets face a fact or three people , America has learned 'Sexual Harassment Training'
since the eighties in corporate America , I did not attend college or business school but I know that you had your training there too , Yet , we all know that being Taught something these days is far , far from being the same thing as Learning something especially in our younger people more attuned to the hormone course.
By now everyone is in the know !
Now let's talk about the weaponization of sexuality on the job , of all genders?
Sure, let's talk about how SOME women have used sex against men to gain career ground or social status. Let's talk about how out-of-balance sexual abuse of women is compared to men; and WHY do those women feel a need to resort to such male-inspired measures?
If a woman uses sex against a man, it is SELDOM done without the consent of that man. Many woman are 'forced' by being given a choice, such as casting couch mentality: either do this for me, willingly; and I will promote you - or you're fired.
Is it our fault that some men can be so easily manipulated? Whose fault is it when that happens? Usually, its the woman's fault because SHE 'seduced' the guy. HE has little fault for controlling his own actions - often while being married with children. No, a MAN can't be expected to think with his brain in such situations. Its ALL the fault of the woman...
Is it our fault that some women can be so easily manipulated? Whose fault is it when that happens, when women accept an offer of a promotion for sex? Usually the man is blamed because HE made the offer. She has little fault for accepting the deal, often while being married with children. No, a WOMAN can't be expected to behave herself in such situations. It's ALL the fault of the man...
I trust you detect the irony and sarcasm. Outside of forcible, violent rape we all have choices to make and we are all responsible for those choices.
We are talking about alleged violent rape (among other 'lessor' sexual abuses) that seems to have actually happened to more than one of Harvey's marks - though it does ALSO seem like some people want to make it out to be something much less violent than that.
"He's JUST LIKE TRUMP - just another locker room buddy! Give him a freakin break!"
From your post: "Many woman are 'forced' by being given a choice, such as casting couch mentality: either do this for me, willingly; and I will promote you - or you're fired.". That doesn't sound like violent, forced rape to me. Neither does "Is it our fault that some men can be so easily manipulated?" (also from your post).
But of course if you're talking about forced, violent rape instead of a deal to sell sex for a promotion then it's a whole different ballgame. Manipulation isn't a part, there is no offer, there is no voluntary acceptance and being married is irrelevant. And in such cases a woman's behavior is acceptable whether she submits, screams, fights or kills her rapist in cold blood.
And if you're talking about alleged violent rape then until it is proven to be the case there isn't much to talk about. Maybe how long ago, what evidence might be produced, etc.
"Many woman are 'forced' by being given a choice, such as casting couch mentality: either do this for me, willingly; and I will promote you - or you're fired.". That doesn't sound like violent, forced rape to me."
No, that would be considered your basic 'sexual harassment' - which is also very VERY illegal in the workplace and elsewhere for reasons that are obvious to me; but probably are not nearly so obvious to you, LoL!
There actually is nothing as beautiful as watching a real lady shoot down a man's sexual advances , nor as ugly knowing some men are idiots to try forcing it , some people can be diplomatic , some can't. Sexual relations is all powerful , whether passive aggressive or more nastily aggressive it can easily be the fault of both sexes .
A little playing the 'victim violin' going on in Holly-wood , DC too. I'm sure.
"A little playing the 'victim violin' going on in Holly-wood , DC too. I'm sure."
We have already talked about this... Sure there is much victimizing going on right now; because it causes us to fight about it. This is one example of why that is happening - because men really have no respect for beautiful women, especially if they are dressed 'provocatively'.
But, I don't care whether you are a beautiful model; or the only 'ugly' female engineer in the room available to become sexually-aggressive with - it is NEVER OKAY to force ANYONE to engage in a sexual act (or even a SEMI-sexual act) with you! (Oh come on, its not like making someone watch you masturbate can be considered a rape - buck up!)
Get that part of things OUT of your heads, then the rest of your arguments beyond that might get more attention. But really, the way I see it, any argument on behalf of this particular person (it would be the same with Bill Cosby, for me) - is to condone or approve of his behavior.
I can't imagine why anyone would want to do that. He had a reputation to begin with! Its mindboggling, with ALL the different Hollywood people - including men like Brad Pitt (who defended his then-girlfriend Gwynth Paltrow YEARS AGO when Harvey harassed HER) - have said that they knew about it or heard about it. It hasn't just been women.
Why would anyone WANT to argue on Harvey Weinstein's behalf? Ludicrous. Please stop it.
I'm not defending Weinstein ,
Know what I think ? I believe there's a huge difference between how liberal women as a Party "group think" , as against an individual woman's beliefs. The hypocrisy of the party --when it was Bill and Hilary's Clinton destroying his accusers reputations of even violent rape --- You and your party destroyed many women's reputations ! But now individual democratic women want the whole world to be offended because they have had an experience decades old ? Let's ask Wanita Broaderick how she feels , maybe Paula Jones , how about some other "individual "women ? Maybe it's time to look at your party affiliation for one thing ?
Well, ya know, when you're ready to take responsibility for every creep in your party, maybe we'll do the same. You can start with Trump and work your way down.
Clinton, by the way, suffered consequences for his behavior. Maybe not to the extent that he should have, but hey, impeachment is about the most damaging thing you can do to a sitting president.
Oh no , I have a broken heart , Garrison Kieller now stands accused of it , "Prairie Home Companion " , He aledgedly touched a woman's 'low cut 'bare back while consoling here ,her being in tears .
Anybody think this is a new war front of women who feel the political defeat of both parties , perhaps some kind of political rejection of all women's voice ?
I believe it to be a new power play in the battle of the sexes but in a very small sliver of western cultures.
I'm trying to focus the discussion on why only certain men are being targeted. The only commonality is that an ordinary male appearance elicits a strong negative response from women.
By any definition Hefner was the worst sexual harrasser in USA history but he is hailed as an icon. He pressured thousands of women for sex. Weinstein pressured a few dozen but he is hailed a rogue.
It's a biological phenomena. If women worship the man he can do what he likes. It's about DNA and instinctual forces.
As a average man , I think you are oversimplifying , one , the general insecurities of women around men or women and two , the obvious physical strength of men over women and you're apt to see a shift in a woman's feeling of safety and secure presence. I don't think it's fair to generalize all women's situational presence.
I'm not sure what you mean here.
Are you saying because certain women feel insecure around men they give in to sex?
My focus here is why mainly plain men are being targeted and not the Pitts or Hefners.
That's pretty much a B.S. point you're making . Bill Clinton had a ton of charisma ,
There are and will be plenty more , wait patiently and you'll see the "pretty boys " accused too . is Matt Lauer good looking ? Sean Connery took a pretty good licken'.
My answer of OP., wait patiently ,.........Pitt will probably be accused too.
I'm honestly not sure of the point you previously tried to make.
I've said that 99% of accused males are homers.
Yes 1% might be ladies men.
Do you see Hefner as an icon? He was the harasses in chief but is now anointed as some kind of wonderful man.
What is it with you insisting the Dems are my party?!! I've said this before... MANY people who voted for Clinton (I only voted for him ONCE) were very angry with him; AND they didn't like Hillary's decision to stay married to him. Stop believing Fox News. It simply isn't true that we 'gave Bill a pass'.
If you don't invite the sexual attention, its harassment. If you don't want the sex, it's rape. End of.
An invitation to a date is not harassment, In many cases, neither is a second one. Likewise, there are a great many cases where one or the other submits to sexual relations out of a sense of duty, of love, or even selling it for money (as in prostitution) where it is not truly desired (I have a headache!) but is still not rape.
I'm pretty sure I already covered that above... We are talking about violent rape, since the 'not as naughty or violent stuff' is meaningless to you.
The theme of this forum is why there is no persecution of the Hefners, MJs and Brad Pitts.
It's not about rape.
Hefner was dubbed as an icon, MJs music is still played everywhere, Brad Pitt stands accused of child abuse etc.
That's the theme of this forum.
Why was there no persecution of Hefner? Because his industry was all about sex, loose sex, easily available sex and celebration of the objectification of women. No woman would have entered that world without eyes wide open.
Anyone having anything to do with MJ could not have been unaware of the oddity of his behavior and the suspected pecadillos. I, personally, would hold the parent more responsible for anything happening with that man. Only a fool or a person unconcerned with their child's welfare would have allowed their child to be alone with that man.
Brad Pitt stands accused by Angelina Jolie. Enough said.
These are not cases where forced sex or unwelcome advances were demanded for job advancement. I am a firm believer that women can, and do, put themselves in situations and allow them to continue past the point of propriety. But, there are women who are, genuinely, offended and have suffered because they will not accept this type of behavior.
I love how men just don't get it.
Right, as I've said... CONSENT makes all the difference. It seems as if the men in here are angry with 'loose' women who were AWARE of the sexual escapades at the Playboy Mansion - and walked into it, willingly, anyway; WHILE ALSO being angry with women who chose to try and take a less-provocative and theoretically 'safer' avenue to their stardom dreams without going through the Hef-hassle...
Who the hell are those women to try and 'make it' without wanting to be mauled by men in authority?!! I mean, they are REQUIRED to DRESS PROVOCATIVELY even without expecting sex to be part of the equation!! How is ANY MAN - ugly or gorgeous - supposed to endure that?!!
It doesn't matter what any guy looks like - although that seems to be what you are insisting this question is about. I've explained about MJ - he was a huge controversy, no one gave him an easy ride through his trial. Maybe his fans stood by him and supported him. That's what fans do. (Do you even know what an 'alimony' payment is?!) Michael Jackson has NEVER been an especially attractive man for most women - he's always had a scrawny body; and just look what he did to his face. Michael's fans were all about the music. I can't imagine ANY woman - past or present, black or white - having obsessive sexual fantasies about him. And if there ever were, there weren't very many of them.
Catch a clue!
The allegations against Harvey are EQUALLY serious ones regarding RAPE... and EVEN IF he had 'only' made women watch him masturbate (a much less violent action according to wilderness and apparently others of you in here) we women would STILL be coming unglued.
Why? Because 'lessor' offenses are not actually lessor - they just seem that way to people who haven't been through the trauma of sexual assault. If you have never been in that situation, you really have no business discussing this issue on the side of the abusers.
Btw, Brad Pitt has been cleared of child abuse allegations; AND he currently has joint custody of his kids with Angelina - he has been CLEARED of that crime. We women are AWARE of his issues with drugs; and how Angelina has put up with and been dealing with them for years - and if leaving him was what she had to do in order to get him to wake up, get a grip on his life, and become the father his kids needed him to be - then we support her, especially since it seems to be working. Brad has been nothing but contrite and improving his life since their split. That is a guy we women can now semi-respect. It doesn't have a damn thing to do with his looks - which are waning as he ages. He is no longer the pretty boy he once was.
One last thing about Brad Pitt... He was one of the first guys, years ago when he was with Gwyneth Paltrow, who called Weinstein OUT after he had assaulted her. We women LOVE men like that - HEROS - who call other men out; because when you tell one of your OWN to knock-it-the-fluck-OFF - you're telling every single pig out here that it is unacceptible behavior. (Plus, you're letting other women know that you're NOT all like that.)
So yeah, Brad also has that going for him.
Your ignorant generalizations are not working for this subject, Oztinato.
I think this conversation is indicative of why there is a problem. Men want to be supportive, but they can seem clueless of what is,and is not,a problem.
Here is a brief list of famous actresses who (according to your definition) you allege prostituted themselves to Hefner:
Please Google the entire list of names and see how many actresses and others are now complaining about sexual harrasment.
The line is blurry and confused between what you claim is acceptable and what isn't.
Brad Pitt for example made some kind of undisclosed compromise about his alleged child abuse but that's ok? MJ made payments similar to alimony to children but that's ok?
There are obviously unconscious forces at work here.
There's enormous contradictions in this debate. In the one hand people are admitting here that many women willingly put themselves in dangerous compromising positions. On the other hand the lines blur between prostitution and career.
On the one hand Brad Pitt and MJ had good excuses for no career losses. On the other the Weinsteins and others had to be dissociated from their creative work.
No one here is saying that all women are prostitutes only that many competitive women behave in a sexually aggressive manner. Each case differs. Some are innocent some are not.
The final outcome is that the less sexy males are destroyed and condemned but the cool sexy men are forgiven without further censure.
It has to be related to instinctual DNA inspired preferences and unconscious forces.
There is no personal hatred or dislike in my attitude at all just a scientific view of the facts.
I think you might want to look up the definition of 'scientific'. I don't think it means what you think it means.
Women who do not speak up and speak out do not have, in my opinion, a bone to pick. If a man puts his hand on your butt, and you don't remove it and ensure they understand that is not wanted, you can't complain if it happens again. If you stand in a room where a man is walking around naked and you don't remove yourself, you can't complain if he does it again. If a man does anything (or a woman, for that matter) that makes you uncomfortable and you don't speak up, you cannot be surprised if it is repeated and, or, something more uncomfortable happens. There is no science there. It's just common sense.
I don't now that Brad Pitt is accused of sexual harassment. If he has pushed himself on a woman against her will, then he is in the wrong and should be charged for a crime. Michael Jackson, to my knowledge, has not been accused of sexual harassment toward a woman. The fact that he got away with what we think he did is that all adult parties involved allowed it.
So ugly people find less people willing to participate in consensual sex. That, too, has nothing to do with science. It is the result of personal preference. Being ugly and rich does not give you the right to force yourself on someone. Moaning about the fact that ugly rich people get accused of harassment when they do force themselves on others is (in my opinion) ridiculous.
That said. If a man did not force himself onto a woman when she said no, in no uncertain terms, I think we need to take into account the behavior of both parties before deciding how much blame to lay on either.
Well now we are getting closer to the truth but only in general.
We agree it is to be judged case by case.
My specific point re ugly vs ladies man is being proved percentage wise as we speak.
MJ sexually harassed children but his work remains untreatened. He is an icon.
We don't know enough about Brad Pitts accusations against children but his work too remains untreatened and he is seen as a good example (!).
The list grows longer every day.
Wanting to pick a bone with someone is not a legal case. A person can't change their mind decades later just to pick a bone.
According to your definition of sexual harrasment Hefner was king. Many of Hefners girls are the same actresses now making accusations about others
Are you angry at Hefner? No. Is anyone angry at Hefner? No. Has Hefners legacy been threatened? No. Is Hefner an Icon? Yes.
It's a very very blurry line.
This recent phenomena is limited to a narrow sliver of western culture and focuses on uncool unpopular looking men 99% of the time.
Yes there is awful sleazy behaviour involved.
Yes it's unacceptable.
However women being sleazy with cool good looking sleazy men and then complaining about uncool sleazy people is just hypocritical.
Please examine the complete list of former playboy girls to see who's who.
A chicken can be temporarily transfixed by a mere straight line.
Can great power and wealth or beauty also temporarily transfix a person?
Terms such as "being starstruck" and "animal magnetism" and charisma etc have been used to explain this biological phenomena.
Got to be careful oversimplifying this , being rather intuitive I have seen many situations , in fact maybe most , where women immediately feel insecure , inferior and even physically afraid when alone with a strange man , And yes even "beautiful " women .The fact that on average a woman has what 35% less physical mass than a man ? I can understand a woman's insecurities , And, being a man and knowing men , I see the whole realm of male ego, sexual desperation and even physical vanity.
I can't see the point you are trying to make.
If women feel that way why did they keep turning up at the playboy mansion disrobed?
My point is the difference in attitude to Hefners sexual harrasment versus other plain ordinary homers. It's a very visibly huge difference.
Are you saying that in the near future all of MJs music will be banned? Or perhaps playboy magazines will be shredded? If not why? Hef was a bigger sleaze than Weinstein etc
Your taking the act of prostitution , one form or another , out of the context of sexual roles between man and women , maybe it's all you're capable of doing . But that role of playboy's or Heffner's and some blond tootsies is the exception certainly not the norm . I think this thread speaks more to the attitude and of dominance of some mens attitudes that women are all prostitutes or something .
Better get that checked out.
Here is the latest ugly male star to have accusations made against him.
So far the count would be 200 homers to 2 brads.
The statistics speak for themselves.
Maybe some have neither looks nor riches and that may be where this thread originates comes from , the envious . Rich men no matter how unblessed in looks , can have anything they want . You can't tell me that a rich ugly guy can't have a playboy bunny on his arm if he pays enough , Fact ,There are millions of men and women out there with low moral and ethical standings , I say Big deal for either sex involved.
It's called , " I can do anything I want with what I have ". or " I'm using what I got "
Now throw politics , Money , fame and stardom into the mix ?
We are largely in agreement.
This is not about sexism at all. It's about biological forces.
Yes money or "power" is potent and I believe it causes a strong biological reaction in women that transfixes them uncontrollably to the point of a hypnotic effect. They become pliable, consenting and often physically faint etc.
When the effect is broken by time, the penny drops and they later realise what they did to get ahead.
This is not always the case in recent controversy but it explains many of the alleged incidents of men "abusing their power".
The combination of perfect looks AND money AND power/fame makes such men almost impregnable to accusations. The lesser and lesser of such qualities is an algorithm re who gets accused.
Handsome may reign supreme as it is closest to the original animalistic mammalian urge to breed even if this is now largely subconscious.
Remember we are dealing with men and women who are ambitiously driven and hughly competitive.
You're right , There IS something devious going on here with the political / celebrity influences , either "sexual assault " has become the newest pop- experience or the whole 'Me Too " thing is morphing into a wet t- shirt contest .
I am bothered that with all of the " Sexual Harassment " Training in recent decades that there is still any kind of a " I didn't know I was doing something wrong " scenario , is still an excuse.
I have great sympathy for truly innocent victims both female and male.
However we are dealing with a highly predatory ambitious industry which is cut throat. All these people are involved with ruthless power, big money and social politics etc.
They are not "Innocent people" in the true sense.
The list of playboy bunny actresses is long and makes interesting reading. Can a woman who is basically prostituting herself legally claim sexual harrasment? No. She only has physical assault or rape left to complain about. This is why there are actually almost no actual court cases as the character of a witness will be discussed etc
Can a homer expect to do what Hefner did? No.
The root causes are biological.
List of playboy bunny actresses:
I think, when people attain power and position, they forget the norms which corralled them when they were ordinary people.
This entire thread is an insult to those you are labeling ugly and an insult to women who have been, honestly, taken advantage of.
I'm sorry you feel that way.
The current controversy demands full cold analysis
Mammals are uncontrollably attracted to the fittest most poweful specimens. We are mammals. This now takes place largely in the subconscious.
Yes there are of course genuine cases in both sides.
However one type of superior breeding male has less chance of accusations or lasting incrimination even after they harass a female.
This is why I tend to see both males and females who ambitiously compete and crave money and power/fame as equal in the debate.
The former aggressively ambitious playboy model turned actress has a very weak argument against men she may have cooperated with to get ahead.
The innocent woman has more of an argument.
Yes famous homers can't take it for granted they can do what the Hefners and Pitts do. The homers are taking a huge fatal risk.
Superior breeding? Do you read the stuff you write? Are the ones you label attractive bred? Are they the fittest?
Personally, I don't think you understand what constitutes harassment.
If you read back a few posts we have posts by a female who claim that playboy models are "sl**s and no better then prostitutes but I gave a link detailing the 70 plus actresses who appeared in playboy centerfold. Perhaps that female who posted was unaware of this.
Many are now complaining about harrasment.
Previously in these posts females have agreed that "sl**ty" females can't be taken seriously regarding such allegations as they worked for Hefner who exchanged career favours for sex etc.
I pointed out how blurry this line is.
I pointed out that biologically there are subconscious forces involved e.g..now aging actresses are becoming vicious in the same manner as say an old lioness who is losing her sexual dominance.
This forum is about animalistic biological forces of natural selection amongst highly predatory females and males.
I have little sympathy for such ruthless people.
I have great sympathy for actual innocent victims both female and male.
Is all now so easily forgiven against Ben Affleck because he is a 10 ?
Is this proof of the eugenics theory of "natural selection" at work in Hollywood?
Male lions attack each other over dominance.
Ben Affleck had an extramarital affair.Are you comparing that to rape?
You, unfortunately, are demonstrating the problems with how some men think about women in our culture. Maybe you could step back and read carefully through this thread with an open mind to see that you are conflating consensual acts with non consensual. There is a huge difference.
I have repeatedly defended innocent women.
Other women have agreed here that former playboy "model" actresses are sl**s whose complaints can't be taken seriously from a legal point. Perhaps they didn't realise at the time how many actresses appeared in playboy but the record stands here as to what was said so yes we all need to read back over the posts to see the true themes here.
The main theme here is that the cool sexy handsome players are forgiven and forgotten or womansplained but the homers are seen as guilty without redemption. I'm saying that both the homers and the brads are equally culpable but their treatment differs. Both are sleazy in a sleazy industry.
And for the record that yes the playboy world is also sleazy and the "actresses" who worked for Hefner are also just as sleazy as the brads and homers.
Biologically speaking it's the homers at the bottom of this heap of sleaze.
No one is being defended here except truly innocent victims whose character can be upheld in a court of law.
Here's a link to legal complainant Courtney Love crowdsurfing naked amongst men. Is she a reputable witness?
www.google.com.au/amp/s/www.pinterest.c … 377070894/
People called out Ben Affleck as soon as the video of him touching Hilarie Burton’s breast resurfaced and I’ve not seen one person say it’s “forgiven.” I feel like you’re just picking and choosing what you see happening to fit your theory. That doesn’t make it factually correct.
There's been no follow up at all about Affleck by the current frenzy.
He has been easily forgiven and totally forgotten. It's a fact.
Hefner is still an icon, MJs music is still being played, Brad Pitt is forgiven (apparently it is seen as all Jolies fault by other women blinded by Brads good looks?). A post by a female earlier blamed Jolies accusations of child abuse on Jolie. No one including Jolie can stay mad at Brad for long even for child abuse. If we say his alleged child abuse hasn't been proven in court then this should apply to all the current homers: but it doesn't! No court cases have even started but all the homers have lost jobs and are seen as guilty!
But not the brads.
The theory holds up.
You need to compare people who have committed the same “sins” in order for the discussion to actually have any substance. Being accused of child abuse, then being investigated and cleared, is much different than being accused of sexual harassment and assault by multiple people.
What about Kevin Spacey? Not ugly in the slightest and he was taken off multiple projects. What about James Toback? Just as physically unappealing as Harvey Weinstein but has not seen any professional reprecussions as of yet.
With respect Kevin Spacey is a homer therefore not easily forgiven.
James Tobak actually looks like homer! If there hasn't been any court cases there shouldn't be any repercussions. Maybe its a start.
Also there hasn't been any court cases as yet!
but all homers lost their jobs and are assumed guilty. No court cases as yet.
Please digest "there hasn't been any court cases yet".
MJ and Pitt made out if court settlement re child abuse allegations. During Brads controversy there was no female attacks or job loss.
Pamela Anderson (a woman) has made accurate statements regarding the character of the female accusers of Weinstein.
She is the equivalent of a dominant lioness in the Hollywood jungle.
Court cases are not required to relieve someone of their job.
Kevin Spacey is clearly more physically attractive than Weinstein or Toback, how are you deciding what level of attractiveness is “good enough”? Seems really hard to argue anything when you just pick up the goalpost and move it around whenever you want. I also find it funny that you’re claiming that all unattractive men have lost their jobs when, again, James Toback has suffered no professional repercussions... and also when perhaps the most notable example of Hollywood sexual abuse, Woody Allen, has been doing just fine professionally for 20-something years. I’ll go ahead and assume that your explanation for that is not his strapping good looks.
I’m not even going to address your points about Pitt anymore, they are not objectively comparable.
I'm not saying "everyone has lost their job" but that there has been a frenzy lately and statistically speaking there is a marked difference between the way the homers are treated; and the number of homers compared to numbers of brads etc.
Brad did not lose his job when the child abuse controversy was ongoing prior to his court case.
I note you have failed to discuss Pam Anderson's comments.
Because you didn’t actually say what they were. You just made a vague statement. If you want people to comment on her comments specifically then post what they are rather than expecting people to take the time to go look it up.
http://www.nme.com/news/pamela-anderson … ts-2167435
It is easy to find these things on Google. It is common knowledge now to Google news.
Great. One woman sticks up for him, and that proves you right. Basically, Pamela says that if you're a woman who was led into a 'private' audience with a man with a reputation like Weinstein - its your fault for walking through the door.
Nevermind what you may have been told, nevermind that you may be expecing other people at the meeting, nevermind that you might be 'new' and not be aware of predicaments like this, yet... After that point, your rights no longer exist - and you have supposedly willingly submitted yourself to a sexual predator who now has every right to assault you. And again, if he does - its your own damn fault.
I would say that might have been true for the girls who went to the playboy mansion. I would even imagine that there were nondisclosure clauses involved, etc. Pamela isn't talking for the entire female gender when she speaks. She isn't the only one who has been through variations of this crap, nor is she in the majority on her opinion - nor is she right to give people like you this 'out'.
So far the main legal case against Weinstein is from a person who says she returned to his apartment alone after a previous first alleged rape. This is a very weak case.
As you say it might be true of the character of the "girls who went to the playboy mansion" but nearly every accuser so far were girls who once worked in porn at the playboy mansion. I've posted links several times here re the enormous list of playboy "actesses" who work in Hollywood. From a legal perspective this does not speak highly of the character of many accusers.
Courts look at the character of alleged victims and circumstances of alleged events.
These are nearly all sleazy men and women in a grossly competitive industry.
Genuine innocent victims deserve our sympathy. Such people have good moral character.
Homers are copping the brunt of blame but brads are forgiven. The ration of homers to brads is 99% homers and 1% brads.
The homers ARE sleazy too but so are the accusers.
What I find interesting is that you think you have the right to define Homer and Brad. You label Affleck a Brad, although he has the mind of a Homer, so he is a Homer. You label Spacey a Homer, where I'd call him a Brad.
There are serious flaws in your argument. But, you've proven an inability to either recognise,or admit, them. Plus, you don't appear to understand the difference between consensus relationship and sexual harassment.
I'd pack it in, if I were you.
I was thinking exactly the same thing. I don't think he has paid any attention to any of the counter-arguments proposed. What's the point of proposing a theory if you're not prepared to explore it?
Here is more math proof. Incidentally these things are well known to scientists.
Please supply any maths proofs regarding your own theories.
http://sites.uci.edu/cumberbatchwatch/2 … of-beauty/
Here is Tom cruise with the math ratio superimposed
I don't know your counter arguments as they haven't been presented except for a single sentence to the effect "it's about consent". I've responded clearly to that in legal terms regarding the character of the alleged victim and the circumstances.
So far there are no other counter arguments.
Well I believe my theory is based on facts.
As seen below scientists have known for a long time the ratio of the brad effect.
Other commentators have also inadvertently been saying the same thing re the sheer weight of homers.
It can be tested mathematically as seen below hence algorithms would prove beyond doubt the truth of this factor.
Yes the sleaze goes deeper but becomes important in only 1% of cases.
This is about mainly the benefit bestowed on the brads vs the visceral hate for the homers.
Please refer me to any math that contradicts the above ratios
You seem to be of the opinion that beauty is skin deep and everyone should therefore be equally shallow. That explains everything.
If you read my posts I certainly did not say that. I presented in detail a coherent theory based on evolution and math explaining why so many homers are getting accused.
You seem to blame another woman (Angelina Jolie) for making false Brad accusations. This is a startling exception. This contradicts your own viewpoint.
I still haven't seen any counter arguments except for a single sentence about consent. What about evolution, biology and now maths ratios?
Below is a link to another actress who has claimed part of the problem is that "some" actresses will do anything to get ahead of the rest in the Hollywood sleaze jungle.
https://www.msn.com/en-au/entertainment … ailsignout
Check for yourself re Weinsteins face on
with this attached photo.
It is rated as ugly.
It's math not "my theory".
Biologically women and men want to subconsciously "breed" when they see the golden ratio. Such perfect faces are seen much more favourably.
You are missing the point completely, Oztinato, and over-simplifying our instincts.
Of course I'd much rather "breed" with Brad Pitt than Weinstein, even though Brad is not really my type. What that means is, if Weinstein tried to chat me up at a party, I'd brush him off - whereas if Brad tried to chat me up, I'd be receptive and might even go home with him.
IT DOES NOT MEAN THAT IF BRAD SHOVED ME UP AGAINST A WALL AND GRABBED ME BY THE *****, I'D SMILE SWEETLY AND ACCEPT IT!
You see, you're forgetting that women's instincts make us look for two things from a man - sje wants him to be attractive, but he also has to be a caring protector for herself and their offspring. A man who would force a woman to have sex is not going to be good " protector" material, because he's lacking respect - so the woman would be foolish to " breed" with him, and is therefore just as likely to slap him in the face as Weinstein.
This is not borne out in the posts here. Regardless of your own claimed reactions to being manhandled by Brad Pitt the point is that you and others here defend Pitt against another woman and child due to your admitted breeding preferences. ie biological reasons
But you don't victim blame the woman at the current centre of the only legal case against Weinstein.
Therefore you and others are not fully aware of certain subconscious forces at work in decisions other than being manhandled.
Many women would probably admit to wanting to be manhandled by Brad Pitt but nearly all women admit to victim blaming Jolie and defending brads side of the story.
This won't happen to homers.
Oh, thank you very much. Women are too weak and foolish to understand their subconscious desire to be shoved up against a wall and raped by a handsome man. What poor creatures we are. As I said before, I do hope there is not a woman in your life, I feel extremely sorry for her if there is. Perhaps you've found some timid mouse who's happy to pretend she's a brainless sex doll.
Of course, there are many women who enjoy the sexual fantasy of submissiveness. It is just that - a sexual fantasy, and the difference between that and real life is that THEY get to make the choice when to be submissive and when not to. And it's not a fetish that every woman enjoys.
And by the way, Hugh Hefner tried to present HIMSELF as a champion of women's rights. Amongst women, there is violent disagreement on that topic.
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/hug … 72046.html
https://www.salon.com/2017/09/29/hugh-h … e_partner/
You are totally misrepresenting me and making personal attacks. Your attacks ironically are becoming a type of sexual harrasment against me.
It will be reported.
This is about sexual harrasment not rape.
Limit yourself to the forum topic as not doing so is another breach.
Hefner emerged largely unscathed and has enough support by enough woman to be an "icon". I don't approve of Hefner or the women who worked for him.
Men are also subject to subconscious forces.
Enlightened people don't base their lives on these animalistic tendancies.
Sorry, you can't take back what you said. You said that most women would not object if Brad Pitt pushed them up against a wall and grabbed them ...etc.
Report me by all means. You are attacking the whole of womankind in a demeaning, insulting way - you deserve some of your own medicine.
Did you read those articles? Men may think Hefner is an icon but women do not.
There are numerous women supporting Hefner in other online articles for decades. Many older accusing actresses supported him and posed for him.
Why? He rates highly on the ratio test and was wealthy/powerful plus he advanced careers etc.
The vast majority of both men and women did not accuse him of any significant issues.
There are numerous articles written by women who claim he was a liberator of women. Did you read them too? No.
Recently due to the inclusion of a transgender "model" Hefner was proclaimed as a champion of transgender equality etc.
I'm certainly not criticising innocent women only sleazy playboy models and such.
Certainly a male with a 90% plus rating can get away with serious harrasment and in Pitts case can cause women to victim blame Jolie and her children in an actual legal case about child abuse of some kind and cruelty accusations and assault etc.
I'm not victimising Jolie but you and others here are. I think it was a case of a handsome sleaze Pitt getting away with it. This proves my point that he can get away with serious harrasment.
Grabbing a woman is not rape by the legal definition of rape.
Tell us all why you victim blame Jolie in darling Brads case only. No? It's only about the 10th time I've put this question to the forum.
I'm very interested in highly charged irrational emotional reactions to a math algorithm and natural selection. It could be the basis for another forum so I will log all formal complaints when the forum ends in order to gather more data.
Then why don't I find him particularly sexy? People aren't robots - different women find different kinds of men sexy. Just as well, really. Statistics say that women are MORE LIKELY to be attracted to the perfect ratio - not that ALL women are attracted to it, or that we're not attracted to anything else.
I don’t either! Sometimes being too pretty isn’t all that appealing. Plus he’s about as interesting as a bag of socks.
The current controversy is about why so many homers are getting accused.
In accusations against brad women took brads side and victim blamed another woman (Jolie).
They are still doing it online here in this forum.
This can be proven by math to be due to facial ratios and biology.
Wait a minute - how many women accused Brad of child abuse? I'm not aware of "allegations" plural. As far as I'm aware, we're talking about one isolated incident where he smacked his child (not sexual abuse).
If there is just one accuser and one accused, then I would expect any reasonable person to be cautious about accepting the word of the accuser. I would be suspicious of anyone who made an accusation, if (like Jolie) they had something to gain from it being believed.
Give me an example of where a handsome man is getting off scot-free when he's had multiple accusations of sexual abuse, then we'll be comparing like with like.
Oh, there's Trump of course - but he's not handsome, is he? So why is he getting away with it?
We don't know the details of the brad vs Jolie case. The facts here are that any accusations against brad are defended by women as you have just done: downplayed, excused, and even victim blaming jolie and a child etc.
The biological forces are not just looks but power/wealth . Trump has great power but his facial ratio is probably not over 90% so his alleged harrasment accusers are still in play and there are still outstanding lawsuits.
Don't forget biologically speaking in Asia money/power outweighs looks. I mention this to remind us all that the current western examples are a part of the picture.
If Trump had a facial golden ratio of 99% he would be almost impervious to female attacks. As it stands his great power and wealth has lessened the impact and statistics show he had a large female voter turnout despite allegations of sexual misconduct and video etc.
His cases are lingering and showing signs of continuing. He doesn't have the magic combination of wealth and looks. He's therefore still not out of the woods.
I will do the online face test for Trump and post the results.
Results for Kevin Spacey are 73% but his reading shows the following.
Good face shape
Forehead too big
Good interocular distance
Good nose for face
Mouth too small for nose
Chin too small
Poor face symmetry
From this we can say scientifically that a male below 90% is judged more harshly by biology and subconscious forces.
This equates accurately with mammals in the wild where the top percentages only are allowed to breed. Sometimes humans can't even see the minute differences in various mammalian or bird suitors.
Certainly a human male with a 99% score or perfect 100% would be almost impervious to criticism by females.
This is born out by serious handsome criminals like Charles Manson and Josef Fritzel who recieved hundreds of marriage proposals by women blinded by their cute math ratios.
Yes, you can generally assume that women will find a man who looks like Brad Pitt to be more attractive than a man who looks like Harvey Weinstein. You can even assume that since a woman finds Brad more attractive than Harvey she will be more likely to want to have sex with him, which is my theory as to why “Brads” are much less likely to be accused of sexual assault. Not because they commit it at the same rate as the men who look like Harvey and just don’t get called out for it, but because women are more receptive to their advances. And if they’re not, an exceptionally attractive man (a 90% according to your statistics) can probably pretty easily go find another woman who will have consensual sex with him.
All you’re implying by showing that certain facial features and characteristics are statistically more attractive is that women find some of those things more attractive than others. Well, duh. There are similar statistics out there for women, too. I’m not sure why you think that shows any correlation with men being “forgiven” for sexual assault. It’s a huge jump.
The record shows that female posts here victim blame Angelina Jolie regarding the allegations against brad. This hasn't occurred with Weinstein or other homers but just in Brads case.
This is self evident proof of the math ratios and biological forces at work.
Brad wasn't stood down from his job while accusations were made and other females leapt to his defence. The females went quiet and blamed Jolie because brad is too cute.
It's contradictory too saying "it went to court and a settlement was reached" as not one homer is yet in court and women are not generally leaping to Weinsteins defence.
Blinded by the perfect ratio Brad is forgiven and Jolie is still blamed. In Brads case women are blaming or demonizing a female "victim"!
Trumps face receives 73% and is classed as "pretty" on the app.
This puts him in a strong position when paired with great wealth.
This partially explains the high female vote even after sexual misconduct allegations and the probable continued high female support.
First of all, that app is bunk if it classes Trump as “pretty”. *shudders*
Secondly, you literally just said this about Spacey who scored 73%, the same as Trump; “From this we can say scientifically that a male below 90% is judged more harshly by biology and subconscious forces.”
So you’re using Spacey’s 73% as a negative but trying to spin Trump’s as a positive? Sigh. At least try to be consistent.
There are of course other factors.
Spacey admitted to some really bad things about underage boys which worked against him. Also he certainly doesn't have the power/wealth of Trump.
I didn't give an actual % to Spacey but it was below Trump at just 70%.
Trump is still not off the hook even with all that money and power and a 73% rating.
The theory goes that even a 99% broke criminal becomes almost impervious to female criticism as was the case recently with an actual from whose mugshot launched him into a lucrative modelling career.
The golden ratio is a scientific formulae.
The Golden Ratio: Phi, 1.618
If you're expecting debate you have to counter science with science.
I haven't made up this stuff. These are actual demonstrable formulas.
So why do you say women victim blamed Jolie but not rose McGowan?
Completely broke down and out convicted criminal is now a famous model due to female comments making his mugshot go viral while in jail.
Normal ugly crim who didn't get viral female support.
Proof of the golden ratio
Rubbish, of course it's not proof of the golden ratio. It's proof that an obviously good-looking male is more attractive to look at than those awful teeth. That's just common sense.
I'm not convinced the science about the golden ratio has actually been proved, anyway. I know there are lots of apps and web pages using it, (and there's been a plastic surgeon trying to get publicity for himself recently by using it) but that doesn't mean it has a solid scientific basis. Can you link to some scientific studies please?
http://www.businessinsider.com/the-gold … U&IR=T
Even if the science is real - which I doubt - you can't use it in isolation out in the real world. It's common sense that women are more likely to be attracted to good-looking men - but that's when they're looking at photos, and they're being asked to make a judgment on the image alone. The vast majority of women make a judgment about men based on numerous other factors.
For instance, while that photo did go viral, I'm willing to bet the MAJORITY of women would not want to have a real relationship with a criminal, no matter how gorgeous he looked.
The handsome felon Jeremy Meeks was convicted of seriously assaulting a minor!
This has not affected his popularity with women in general.
Assaulting innocent children is supposed to be in the worst category of behaviour. It is not just skin deep ugliness it is ugliness of personality and soul but it hasn't stopped Meeks from becoming admired by mainly women.
What you say is "common sense" has scientific reasons behind it and as females have admitted here is a preference to "breed" with good looking and/or very wealthy makes. Such golden ratios can be found to occur in ancient art as well.
Meeks crimes are of a far worse category than sexual harrasment. He was convicted as well but he is immensely popular with women
I agree. Any app that labels Trump attractive is defective.
The many valid points supported by proven science give accurate readings. The bigger golden ratio plus wealth equals less criticism.
A 90% score sees women forgiving brad Pitt and victim blaming Jolie etc. Or writing love letters to sex monster Josef Fritzel.
Ok tell us all why millions of women voted for Trump after his voluminous sexual harrasment allegations or why you victim blame Jolie or why Fritzel gets thousands of love letters.
No? No facts, no science, no responses, no arguments.
Predictable personal attacks have begun against myself for making great points.
Dude, there were a ton of responses to your "scientific" premise. You just didn't like them. Give it up.
The record shows you have steadfastly refused to respond to any questions or argument points.
You have no explanation as to why except "dude give up". Brilliant.
Can't tell you why any other woman voted for Trump. I certainly didn't vote for the lizard looking guy because I found him attractive. I voted to keepa pathological liar and corrupt politician out of the office.
What you are doing is ignoring reality in order to pretend this app proves a point.
It's not just about the app for the 20th time. You need to add biology, money etc to the mix.
There are many such "face" ratio apps ALL based on the same proven science. It's an algorithm that works and gives predictable results. It does not say every woman will always be attracted to a 75% who is not wealthy, but it certainly shows that a 90% plus scorer probably will arouse the majority without wealth (see above info re handsome felon). Certainly a 99% or 100% certainly gets the female hormones completely activated. ie brad Pitt.
This is why in his case he avoided criticism from all women who all victim blamed Jolie etc
That said Trump managed to attract enough women with his added money/power factor.
You admit you "don't know" but I say with confidence that I DO know.
I have another theory for you to explain to me.
I've noticed 99% of complaints about house breaking are made about poor people. Why does no one complain when rich people break into houses? It's the same thing. There are no complaints because it happens so rarely - a rich man has no need to house break, he has access to enough money already. Likewise, a handsome man has no need to pressure or force women into having sex, they have access to enough sexual activity already.
If you can see a flaw in that argument, I'm all ears.
The house breaking analogy doesn't relate to sexual harrasment and this forum.
However in response Jeremy Meeks the handsome felon is forgiven and loved by women because of his perfect golden ratio good looks. Meeks was found guilty of assaulting a minor. All forgiven and we'll loved.
Other ugly felons as shown are not forgiven and loved by women.
Your other point directly relates to the topic and has been discussed here many times already.
However to reiterate: there is a very blurry line between what a brad does to seduce a woman and what a homer does. Both at some point need to proposition a woman. The mere act of propositioning a woman may result in the loss of career for a homer but success for brad. Other initial overtures like hugging or touching a woman's hand may likewise have the same oppositional affect and result in either harrasment allegations against homer or success for brad. This blurry line increases in intensity the higher up the scale we go into forceful mishandling and to sex itself. It is then up to the law to decide on the character of the complainant and the circumstances of the allegations. I have already discussed this in detail and linked to the astounding number of actresses who worked in Hefners porn industry thus diminishing their character. Complainant Courtney Love crowd surfs nude in male audiences! Rose McGowan posed nude for playboy and appeared almost publicly nude at an awards ceremony etc. This diminishes their character and weakens their cases considerably. This was agreed to by female forum posters here in this very forum.
I have categorically labelled the homers as sleaze but also most of the complainants who posed for playboy.
Hollywood is a sleazy industry with sleazy people who are ready to turn in each other.
Older females who begin to lose their sexual allure and fame are particularly unreliable.
It's all been thoroughly discussed in previous posts.
Propositioning a woman in an appropriate manner is unlikely to result in extreme consequences for anyone, ugly or not.
An appropriate example might be, “would you be interested in taking things to a romantic level with me?”
An inappropriate example would be answering the door for a “meeting’ dressed in your bathrobe or proposing a threesome.
Also worth noting that if you’re in a position of power over someone even the normally appropriate propositions are inappropriate. If the person in the “lesser” position is interested they can take that first step.
Context is super important when it comes to hugging/touching, I don’t believe a professional relationship should ever consist of either (beyond a formal handshake) unless the personal relationship has extended beyond that, in which case both parties would have spent enough time together to either judge the situation correctly or be able to correct someone without filing a sexual harassment case if they misjudged.
Honestly it makes absolutely no difference if a woman poses nude in a magazine or does whatever she wants with her body if she is making that choice for herself. The second anyone touches her against her will it’s a violation and she’s no more deserving of it than anyone else. Your attitude is a HUGE part of the problem - assuming that because a woman is open with her body and her sexuality means that she was asking for it in some way. Like if you don’t want men to assume they can treat you like a sex toy you need to dress or act a certain way, when in reality that should just be common courtesy extended to every woman, regardless of what she chooses to do with her own body.
As for this: “Older females who begin to lose their sexual allure and fame are particularly unreliable”... man, I don’t even know what to do with that. You’re starting to kind of sound like a crummy individual. I might even call your character into question, which makes you unreliable by your own standards. I guess this discussion is done, whew.
There are numerous photos online of women being willingly hugged and held by Weinstein and often by the same women who complained.
It is very common these days to meet and greet with a hug.
There are also a large number of accusations that sexual harrasment involves propositioning a woman or such small things as putting an arm around a waist or winking etc. You might be surprised to know that Sharia law forbids such things.
Thankfully some older women have come out with statements criticising other women's behaviour and character.
Vicious competitive Hollywood females are being very ruthless as their power wanes.
It's not just a matter of posing nude but the fact that Hefner institutionalised the exchange of career advancement for sexual favours. Hence from a legal stand point this makes the character of such women slovenly, low and unreliable as witnesses.
No comment about the character of plaintiff Courtney Love? No of course not.
Courtney Love as character witness??
"There are numerous photos online of women being willingly hugged and held by Weinstein and often by the same women who complained." Yes, many of them were WORKING with him; and are paparazzi pics for film promotions, etc. Those images are not such a shocker.
"It is very common these days to meet and greet with a hug." We're not talking about that; and your continued attempts to insist that we are - are very weak.
"There are also a large number of accusations that sexual harrasment involves propositioning a woman or such small things as putting an arm around a waist or winking etc. You might be surprised to know that Sharia law forbids such things." I'm not surprised at all. Again, we're not talking about exchanges of 'touching' familiarity between friends.
"Thankfully some older women have come out with statements criticising other women's behaviour and character." Yeah, and so have some men regarding Weinstein's behavior.
"Vicious competitive Hollywood females are being very ruthless as their power wanes." Not all of the women who have accused Weinsteirn are OLD; and those that are have some pretty convincing stories: When Daryl Hannah appeared in the Weinstein-produced Kill Bill: Vol. 1 in 2003, Hannah said, Weinstein pounded on the door of her hotel room at the Cannes Film Festival to try to gain entrance on more than one evening, prompting her to escape out a back entrance one night and to barricade herself in her room using furniture another night. A year later, at the Italian premiere of Kill Bill: Vol. 2 in Rome, Hannah said, she was in her hotel room with a male makeup artist when Weinstein allegedly used a key to "burst in like a raging bull." Hannah said, "I know with every fiber of my being that if my male makeup artist was not in that room, things would not have gone well." Later that night, Weinstein allegedly asked if he could feel Hannah's breasts, a request she forcefully denied. According to Hannah, she faced immediate repercussions, as her flight to Cannes and hotel reservation were canceled. "I think that it doesn't matter if you're a well-known actress, it doesn't matter if you're 20 or if you're 40, it doesn't matter if you report or if you don't, because we are not believed," Hannah said. "We are more than not believed — we are berated and criticized and blamed."
"It's not just a matter of posing nude but the fact that Hefner institutionalised the exchange of career advancement for sexual favours." Hef did not start, nor single-handedly 'institutionalized' misogyny. Hollywood was well-known for its casting couch policies long before Harvey came along; and those ideals have certainly never been confinded to Hollywood - as you are demonstrating.
"Hence from a legal stand point this makes the character of such women slovenly, low and unreliable as witnesses. No comment about the character of plaintiff Courtney Love?" As far as I can tell, Courtney Love isn't a plaintiff. What is it with you using legal terms the wrong way? Is English not your first language? Everything is all about the woman's 'questionable character'; but no judgement against this man aside from trying to drum up support for his alleged actions?
At this point, I think you're just an internet troll who delights in arguing on whatever side is the least popular. Whether you believe women report 'ugly' men more often than pretty men for sexual assault is completely beside the point - sexual assault is never okay; and men who can't control themselves while working around women in skimpy clothing should probably be working elsewhere.
Oztinato,of course you can come up with examples of women who prostitute themselves for money or fame or whatever.
What we are all furious about is that you seem to be saying the majority of women are of such character. I'd love you to tell me I've misjudged you on that score -but in the meantime, I'm deeply insulted. I trust you are not married to some poor woman because you obviously consider us inferior beings.
I'm not disputing the existence of the Golden Ratio. The question is, does it have anything to do with attractiveness?
I can't see any evidence in the Wikipedia article that says so - just because Leonardo da Vinci and some other ancient scholars thought so, doesn't make it so. They had a lot of ideas about the universe that turned out to be wrong, remember?
As for the other article - again, it talks about the Golden Ratio as if its relationship to attractiveness is an established fact, but it's not. Thank you for that link, though, because it did contain this quote:
"A university study (PDF) by Pamela M. Pallett, Stephen Link and Kang Lee at the University of Toronto and University of California, San Diego announced that a “new” golden ratio had been found in perceptions of beauty in the human face. The study also said there was “little support for the Golden Ratio” that “dates back to antiquity, when the ancient Greeks believed beauty was represented by a Golden Ratio of 1:1.618.” Science Daily, in reporting on this study, quoted the one of the researchers as saying “People have tried and failed to find these ratios since antiquity” and “there was never any proof that the golden ratio was special. As it turns out, it isn’t.”
The website then goes on to claim that the study does, in fact, support the theory of the golden ratio, even though the researchers themselves don't agree. Methinks the researchers should know best.
So, I'm still waiting for you to give me the scientific proof that the Golden Ratio has anything to do with attractiveness. As far as I can see, it's just a pop culture connection.
You've misread it. The rule has been clarified and redefined by modern science.
The analysis of the handsome faces shown here indicates that math ratios fit the examples.
No one doubts this anymore they just debate about small tweaks. There is very little known about ancient ratios but that means little.
Updating and refining the ratios with modern computers "works".
Even without the scientific proof no one can deny that the handsome convicted felon is still able to attract females who turn a blind eye to his serious assault against a minor.
As it's clear you have misunderstood what the science is saying I can only recommend you re study it.
No contrary science has been offered by others here. Pop culture is not solid scientific data with predictable outcomes
There are many other valid points as well that you don't respond to e.g. why females still victim blame Jolie (and her child)in this debate here in this forum; the occurrence in other mammals of selection of the best specimens; why the handsome felon is adored by women for an actual conviction worse than Weinstein; the issue of the character and circumstances of the accusers; comments made here in this forum to the effect that playboy girls are unreliable "sl**s; etc
In other words there is a lot of evidence that superficial appearances are a major factor in current sexual harrasment allegation controversy and it's not a one sentence analysis re "consent".
I'm not defending Weinstein. He is sleazy but so are many of the women in these scenarios.
Yes Courtney Love complained legally!
Yes the casting couch was a mutual agreement between actresses and moguls until only recently. Hefner who you defend was one of the worst "sexual harrassers" in the USA but it's "just good old cool Hef". He made the casting couch an institution but escaped criticism and was made an icon by women who hailed him as a champion of women's rights!
So why aren't you talking about your own victim blaming of Jolie? It's because it's proof of the theory about very good looking males. You blamed a female victim and her child but not darling brad. See?
Why no comments about the hunky thug criminal who assaulted a minor? Because it proves my theory.
I will report your personal attack against me here re insulting me with the term "troll".
Why are you getting emotional about proven science ie natural selection and math formulas and legal terms? Relax.
Things such as women voting for Trump or women proposing to Josef Fritzel; and Charles Manson's appeal to a harem of women and getting letters of support from women etc can all be explained by the breeding instinct.
Several older actresses agree regarding the poor character of some legal complainants and the circumstances surrounding their accusations.
Ladies man Charles Manson rates 82% on the face test!! See below
You are pretty!
Good face shape
Forehead too big
Good interocular distance
Good nose for face
Normal mouth size
Good face symmetry
Here's the most symmetrical photo of Josef Fritzel available. This gets a score of 90% from the face test. See below
You are beautiful!
Good face shape
Normal forehead size
Good interocular distance
Good nose for face
Normal mouth size
Good face symmetry
The score of 90% from a symmetrical photo gives the monster Fritzel the visual appeal of a movie star matinee idol.
This must explain why he retained immense popularity with women even after hideous crimes.
So tell us all your explanation as to why monster Josef Fritzel receives thousands of love letters in jail after being convicted of the most heinous level of sex crimes?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article … tters.html
Best guess is there are over 7 billion people on the planet. Not everyone thinks alike.
You're guessing but the ugly truth is thousands of women in Germany still fell in love with Fritzel after hideous sex crimes.
The numbers were of course affected by other factors such as his actual crimes. Apparently the many lovelorn females made excuses for his behaviour and victim blamed just as in the milder case of Brad Pitt.
He gets thousands of letters. There are billions of women on this planet. Those women are sick - their condition is a recognized psychological disorder. You can't use them as a valid example of normal behaviour.
Why? are you interested in dating me? Please send me an email ⚘
I note no comments about the scientific results corroborating the reasons for Mansons and Fritzels popularity with women.
Men of course are also attracted to the female golden ratio.
Oh I don’t think that would go very well, what with us living on different continents and not agreeing on anything at all. Plus my husband probably wouldn’t care much for it.
I was just trying to see if there might be something motivating you to push this particular theory.
I note you haven't responded to any scientific points or valid observations I've brought up; You have a strong sense of defeat about you.
Asking a man online if you want to exchange photos usually means romantic intent or in this case a low form of sexual harrasment by you.
So will you tell us all why you think one of the worst examples of humanity Josef Fritzel receives thousands of love letters in jail by lovelorn women?
No? No science or valid points?
Ok we can now predict personal attacks against myself will continue. Predictable.
Jeez, this got weird. Please let me be clear that I never requested a photo of you or expressed any interest in a romantic relationship with you.
Anyway, yes, you have successfully defeated me. My brain is so fried I need to get away from you. Like, really really fast. Have a nice day. Or don’t. Whichever makes me seem less in love with you or less like a personal attack or whatever.
What can we expect from the ratio test applied to Hugh Hefner: an impressive 80%
This shows how reliable the test is in regards with general popularity with women
Even old her gets an impressive 72%
A true ladies man with looks AND money
Such high scorers as Hef and Fritzel and Charles Manson still attract women even after convictions for sexual crimes.
Roy Moore rates 75% on the face test + he is powerful = enough support by women to succeed against harrasment accusations.
These are not my ideas but are based on science including biologists noting that powerful males in higher mammals are more successful.
Why do you think Roy Moore is doing so well despite awful sex harrasment allegations?
This whole thread is based on the premises of a "Golden Ratio" that some artists (like Leonardo da Vinci) thought was the basis of beauty. But remember, many of the things people believed back then have turned out to be wrong.
Recently, a plastic surgeon used the Golden Ratio as a publicity stunt and it spawned a lot of interest, including apps and websites. However, there is NO science which proves the concept of the Golden Ratio is valid. None. And that's in spite of it being investigated for centuries.
There is ONE modern study which a magazine writer has chosen to interpret as supporting the Golden Ratio. However, the researchers who did the study drew the opposite conclusion, so make up your own mind.
Since the Golden Ratio is a load of bunkum, the whole premise of this argument falls apart, unless the OP is able to present some actual, solid scientific evidence.
As usual you misrepresent me.
It's about the ratio AND biological female attraction to power AND legal definitions.
The golden ratio has been refined and improved by modern science. All it does is give a math algorithm for beauty.
Biological forces have been studied for well over a century and natural selection is accepted science.
I note again you haven't responded at all about any issues regarding Roy Moore, Charles Manson, Josef Fritzel etc.
If you stopped changing your argument, I might. But as long as you persist with this Golden Ratio nonsense, I can't be bothered.
And you still haven't presented ANY evidence of the ratio having been "refined and improved by modern science". Where's the proof? There isn't any, except that one study where the researchers themselves disagree with you.
If your logic in that is SO flawed, how can I take anything else you say seriously?
I don't see any sane women falling in love with Roy Moore or Josef Fritzel. Roy Moore gets away with it because other politicians have political reasons for supporting him. Nothing to do with sexual attraction. Neither of them is handsome anyway so your point is?
I've sent comprehensive links about the hard science behind the ratio several times. You have never referenced to it.
As usual no mention about natural selection.
My argument has been rationally consistent and answers all the questions about women's attraction to certain felons who fit the ratio particularly 90% and over.
No reference to why Moore and Trump etc still get a high percentage of female support.
Why it upsets you to think that thousands of women fell in love with Fritzel or millions vote for Trump etc is a psychological question. Perhaps it is disquieting to realise so many women (and men) are under the powerful sway of subconscious biological forces.
It's not my fault!!
The Moore's and Weinsteins are sleazy but so are the Brads and many accusers.
Someone is actually claiming that people voted for Donald Trump because he’s “attractive.” What a time to be alive.
Just letting you guys know that I used an app to analyze my face probably very scientifically cuz like there were numbers and stuff, and I scored 89% so I figure that will let me get away with a pretty serious crime. Hmmm, should I start with a bank robbery? Maybe invite Brad Pitt to drive the getaway car?
Good looks are very helpful for getting off of crimes, oztinato has proven it.
I'm sure your gender and biology will also help avoid any serious consequences! If you get caught then just flutter your eyelashes while wafting your pheromones at the police officers (make sure they get a good view of your childbearing hips too) and they'll be sure to let you go without any difficulty...
In fact better than that, they may even write your character statement should you need one.
Funny you should say that as studies have shown that is actually a major factor in day to day interactions and that better looking people are treated better etc. It's a truism.
Of course that bias exists. The problem is that you're taking it to the extreme.
Sure, there are several thousand women who are attracted to criminals, but they are still a tiny minority of the female population. And they're recognized as suffering from an abnormal condition (hybristophilia). To draw any conclusion from their behaviour and apply it to normal women is bizarre - not to mention deeply insulting.
The thing about the internet is that it makes minorities visible. How many people who believe the earth is flat? Several thousand - and if you Google, you'll see they get a lot of publicity. But in a world with billions of people, they are a tiny minority, in spite of the noise they make. The same goes for those women - they get publicity because their behaviour is titillating, that's all.
You are more likely to be treated better by most men.
Men usually don't complain about sexual harassment by women.
As this forum is about sexual harrasment we need to stick to topic (which is a hub rule).
Pot calling the kettle black. You keep including an example which involves Brad Pitt smacking his child. Not sexual harassment. You include pictures of criminals who attract crazy women - not sexual harassment. You can't complain about other people going off-topic if you do.
Al Franken scores a dismal 51% on the face algorithm test.
The sympathy factor for him among women is almost non existent. He does not have the combination of high ratio and high wealth. He is not recieving love letters like the monster Fritzel yet his harrasmemt pales in comparison.
Another sleazey homer bites the dust.
Trent Frank rates only 60% on the face algorithm far too low to protect him. He also has a bad hair lip which makes it worse.
Yes he's a sleaze, a homer sleaze not a brad sleaze.
Here's a link to a review of the violent sex scene in blade runner between handsome leading man Harrison Ford and the female lead.
No complaints were made at all.
Such violent "seduction scenes" are common in Hollywood movies with the handsome lead male "in charge".
https://www.rogerebert.com/balder-and-d … ade-runner
I love Blade Runner. Love it. Like, it’s one of my all-time favourite movies. I’ve seen it a hundred times. You can not possibly use a fictional story about a man navigating a relationship with a “replicant” human being and apply it to real life. That scene is literally there to make you feel uncomfortable. His entire relationship with her is supposed to be emotionally complex and draining. Have you even seen the movie? Have you thought about it for more than 5 minutes? Get a freaking grip.
Did you read the review? No. You keep thinking it's all about me.
You are totally wrong. It was a just another love scene between handsome lead male and beautiful female lead in a Hollywood movie. It is there to titillate and excite the viewers.
If you were to replace the scene with an ugly fat Weinstein it would have been an horrific rape scene without any changes to the acting. Maybe with changes to the background music with psycho violins etc. People's stomachs would be churning.
The reason you are blind to the implications is that the subconscious is so ruled by biological forces.
In most James bond movies the same thing occurs with bond slapping women, throwing them around, bullying etc but the female (and males) viewers love it. It's sexy bond so it's ok.
Cease all personal attacks as they are adding up to a very large haul.
People have said for years that women often like the "bad boy" meaning the handsome bad boy not the greasy fat repulsive bad boy.
Yes things are changing. I don't think there'll be any more lovey dovey sexual assault scenes like 50 Shades of Grey. Or will there? Maybe we'll see a fat bald ugly Weinstein leading man in the next 50 Shades style movie instead of a devilishly handsome leading man? Eer....no.
I keep thinking that you get snippy awfully quickly when someone else brings something “off topic” to the discussion and yet here you are talking about androids.
I read the article. It’s still not relevant to what you think you’re saying. The article is written within the context of the movie itself, not the actors playing the characters. The entire underlying theme of Blade Runner is what makes a person a person? Is Rachael a “real” person even though she’s not? The way that real humans treat the replicants changes and adjusts throughout. The main character is not always a good person in the way that he treats her but that’s the whole point of the movie. The author of the article apparently missed it the first few times around but that does not mean that the scenes where he’s not a good person were just randomly slipped in because they could be. They serve a purpose that contributes to the theme of the movie... not to your little argument here on HubPages.
Attractive people are cast for most roles, unless it specifically calls for a less physically attractive person, because people in general prefer to look at pretty faces. Not just women. And not just in situations where attractive men are being aggressive. But again, you’re talking about fictional characters in movies. Not real life.
You haven't responded to the various points I have made regarding victim blaming Jolie, defending Hefner, natural selection etc etc.
A discussion is a two way street when you get around to responding to the valid issues I've raised previously then of course I will engage you in the discussion. Otherwise.........
by Jack Lee7 months ago
Where are the others? This news is not news at all. This has been going on forever ever since the early days of film...It is only now that people are coming out to speaking about it...The big question is who else? Will...
by Tigercub68412 months ago
Can a gay man be attracted to a specific girl, but not women in general, and still be gay, not bi?As a writer, i'm wondering if it's possible for a gay or straight character to be attracted to a person of the gender...
by Sharifa Mayle2 years ago
Hello I am bisexual and I have the most interesting conversations with males...... it is like I am the inside look to the female mind or something. "You are like one of US that is cool.... we can talk about...
by Lady MJ6 years ago
Why do men look for porn or images of other women when they have a nice looking wife?
by Ronnie wrenchBiscuit23 months ago
Many women find me sexually attractive and exciting. I have no explanation for this as I consider myself just an ordinary guy. But I am a master of the art of seduction and satisfaction. I understand what women want,...
by ngureco3 years ago
Why Do Women Go Against The Word Of God And Seek To Preach In Churches? (1 Corinthians 14:34-36)
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.