I think this should fill the void.
Posted on 02/17/2015 2:29:24 AM PST by servo1969
On the happily few occasions when callers to my radio show make a particularly foolish comment, I ask them what graduate school they attended.
When they ask why I assume they attended graduate school, I respond, "Only someone who went to graduate school would say something that foolish."
Because it is never my intention to humiliate a caller, I always hasten to explain that my comment is not directed at the caller; it is directed at our universities. Moreover, I mean it literally. In order to say certain things that are so obviously foolish, one has to be taught them.
A prime example is a CNN article published to coincide with the release of the latest Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue, "Why no Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue of men?"
Without looking at the author's name or bio, I immediately assumed that a professor had written it.
The assumption was correct.
The article, a compendium of learned nonsense, was written by a woman identified as "an assistant professor of psychology at Weill Medical College of Cornell University and a former gender scholar at Stanford University." (I am not mentioning her name because, as with my callers, she is not the issue; the contemporary university is.)
In order to be labeled a "gender scholar" -- especially at a prestigious university -- one must have internalized every falsehood our universities teach about men and women. And you cannot get more false, indeed absurd, than to seriously inquire why there is no Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue featuring men in swimsuits.
Yet a Cornell University professor of psychology and Stanford "gender scholar" actually asks: "Why has no one created a counterpart magazine featuring a scantily dressed man? Why are men so rarely offered up as objects to behold?"
Now, even putting aside the fact that the readership of Sports Illustrated is overwhelmingly male, the question is unrelated to reality -- the reality that our grandmothers and grandfathers, who never went to college, perfectly understood: In the human species, the visual excites males much more than it excites females.
There is no swimsuit issue featuring men in skimpy swimsuits because the audience for such a magazine would overwhelmingly consist of gay men.
And therein lies one proof of why the Cornell professor's question is so foolish.
Men are visually stimulated. And not because of "socialization," as our universities teach, but because it is built in to male nature. Gay men prove the point. Gay men are as interested in viewing unclothed fit young male bodies as heterosexual men are in viewing unclothed fit young female bodies. On the other hand, unless a woman knows who the man is, and is interested in him in some way, women are not nearly as interested in looking at scantily clad -- let alone naked -- male bodies. Women aren't aroused solely by viewing a male leg, thigh, chest or backside of some male model or some anonymous male. Yes, a favorite actor taking his shirt off can be a turn-on for women. But an anonymous male great body does nothing for most women.
That's why in real life -- as opposed to Cornell or Stanford -- men who expose themselves to women are arrested, while women who expose themselves to men are either thanked or paid.
The only question that remains is: Why do the best educated believe nonsense about men and women?
The answer is: because they want to believe it.
Religious people are regularly accused of wishful thinking -- of wanting to believe in God, in divinely inspired scripture, in an afterlife, etc. But the secular intelligentsia never apply this critique to themselves despite the fact that it is at least as true for most secular intellectuals as it is for Jewish and Christian believers.
Regarding men and women, they want to believe that men and women are not only equals (something religious Jews and Christians also believe), but, aside from obvious physical characteristics, the same. Feminists and others on the intellectual left are frightened by many of life's truths, one of which is that the sexes are profoundly different.
That is why there will always be a swimsuit issue depicting women as, yes, sexual objects for men to look at, and there will never be a popular issue of great men's bodies in barely there swimsuits for women to look at.
That this even needs to be said -- and that it will be mocked and dismissed as "sexist" -- is one more sign of the intellectual decay at Cornell, Stanford, The New York Times and just about every other secular institution in America.
Love Dennis Prager, but he needs to refrain from using the term “gay” to describe homosexual men.
When I am in the check-out line at the grocery store, I turn around magazines that have offensive covers, something I observed my late mother doing when she was a senior citizen.
If a woman wants to look at good looking men in swimsuits or various states of undress, all she has to do is buy Cosmo or one of the thousand other women’s magazines that line the supermarket shelves.
I do that sometimes too.
I do that with Clinton and 0baMao books....and don’t try to disguise the fact, either...
I opened up one of those popular fashion magazines (cosmo or marie claire or something like that) at the dentist office the other day and was grossed out by a multi page spread of a handsome, sulky looking young man in a variety of ladies clothing - some that were barely covering pertinent detail. Yuk. I guess the subscriber base consists mainly of homos who’d drool over those pictures, but there’s no need for me to open that magazine again. Nothing there but sickness and that doesn’t interest me.
Women don’t spend much money or time for gawking at men in swim suits, and that leaves homosexual men as the main market, and being, what, 1 or 2 per cent of the population, the issue is not worth the expense.
I think this should fill the void.
I think all the metrosexuals at SI who would dearly love to have an issue devoted to that are a little scared their dwindling (I hope) subscribers who are probably less lib in their attitudes towards those things would cancel their subscriptions.
It’s really not even that complicated. The other 51 issues a year all focus on pictures of men, 1 issue a year is women.
It was just a thought. I’m sure we’ll learn on FR when it happens.
You'd think they would be all over a fag swimsuit issue!
‘Cause there aren’t enough homosexuals to make it commercially viable, what with porn so easy to get?
Not enough Bruce Jenner’s interested?
As we all should.
HOMOSEXUAL, because there's nothing GAY about it.
Five syllables to say something as opposed to one?
What is this, French?
OK, there's still queer available.
Um...because the target audience is young heterosexual men? Because the marketeers know what they're going? Because the magazine doesn't want to take a financial bath to satisfy some idiot academic's political fantasies?
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.