Posted on 12/09/2013 3:17:48 AM PST by markomalley
Puritanism is dead, long live the Puritans
(with semi-apologies to actual Puritans, though they tended to have limited ideas of what God can do)
And as soon as the ‘rats’ finish implementing Sharia law the problem will go away as all females will be cloaked in black from head to foot.
When contacted by Rickey Rocket of our own staff about the study, Michael D. Dodd privately commented that he was just in on the study to get some 'tail'.
"You know, all them fem chicks like a sensitive guy they can dominate sexually."
And anyhow they don’t know what’s going on in the guy’s head, whether it’s “oh I’d love to go do some naughties with her” or “praise God for the beauty.” They have “objectified” mankind itself. What hypocrites!
Yeah, it’s ingrained. So long as it isn’t done like a creep, it is part of human nature. Shoot, I catch women checking me out all the time.
and hows about we butt admirers? How’s anyone gonna know if we’re doing that?
I will stop checking out women, when women stop checking out men.
Just imagine how upsetting it would be to a woman if no man ever again was to “check her out”
Beam me up... we are surrounded by morons.
Men ogle women because they are hard-wired for that impulse. Threats of severe punishment for simply obeying a categorical imperative shall prove to be ineffectual in the long run, and using some aspect of “science” to “prove” that some desired outcome can be achieved by ignoring very real basic fact demeans the scientific method, and is a call for failure.
There is no such thing as “settled science”. Any postulate, any theory, can be turned upon its ear by a more accurate assessment of existing basic fact, and in fact, has often happened. Denial of part of the spectrum of basic fact leads to selective blindness and erroneous conclusions, resulting in sometimes generations of individuals having a wholly skewed vision of the world.
So why don’t these research nerds set the example and never look at a female, or pictures of, again?
Yes, it’s human (read: mammal) nature for the male of the species to evaluate females with respect to their suitability for mating & childbearing. Curvaceous figures typically indicate fecundity. Why men have been attracted to such as Jean Harlow, Marilyn Monroe, Raquel Welch, Beyonce, J-Lo, Kaley Cuoco (Big Bang, yeah!). Stupid, ugly, undesirable Femi-Nazis.
They should talk to Harry Reid about this problem...
Libs want us to check out little boys, not ADULT females. Sorry Libs, I will be Politically Incorrect and check out ADULT females, if my wife lets me. :)
It’s the gals who don’t get looked at and the guys who don’t look at gals who are driving this effort.
Men naturally are inclined to conduct a preliminary evaluation of women as potential mates. Women do the same, so maybe it should be a hate crime to check out a guy’s shoes, car, or wristwatch.
This journal exists for no other purpose than to give a pseudo-academic sheen to radical feminist whining.
The article is not medical research, and ignores the huge body of knowledge of animal mating behavior. In most species, the males use various displays to attract the female. Both human sexes have displays--women try to make themselves look like flowers, and men display their strength and ability to provide for the woman. Where this article could have attempted to impartially describe the behavior, its authors chose instead to make it all about victimhood. There is nothing scientific here.
My husband and I were on a long flight last week. The gal who sat with us was stunning, really gorgeous. We started talking and her grandmother was Helen Thomas’s sister. All I could think of were the pictures posted on FR and how this genetic thing could gave happened.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.