I would never view women as a sex object, there are individual parts.If it wasn’t for the sex, really, how many men would have anything to do with a women? If it wasn’t for babies, how many women would have anything to do with a man? Our society is cuckoo. Fleshbots and artificial insemination, brave new world ahead...
Left out two important pre-requisites:
A. It is completely normal for heterosexual men to be sexually attracted to heterosexual women.
B. It is completely normal for heterosexual women to be sexually attracted to heterosexual men.
Stop the press, men view women as beautiful, women view men as beautiful.
I have always had women say certain sexual things to me, hell you stand there and your as# is felt up.
Men love women, women love men. It is nature’s way, regardless of a panty hosed homo , liberal man or woman wanting it to be different.
Hello!
Isn't this what we do?
(And then we get a wife - daughters - nieces...)
There’s the weird leftist notion that “objectify” = “hate”.
Men are often very caring and affectionate toward objects - frequently to the neglect of people.
The vast majority of women try to use their sex appeal (to varying degrees) to get men to do what they want. Even further, a substantial percentage of women actively & shrewdly use their sex appeal for blatant personal gain. Which is why I never understood why women get so excited over gay men. You’d think they’d be horrified at a man they can’t manipulate in that manner.
A revered Detroit radio talker (R.I.P. Mark Scott) went to New York to work some decades ago. He ended up coming back to Detroit and realized how bad the environment was when he saw a bumper sticker on a car that said, "Reality Is Negotiable"
HOORAY Mark, HOORAY Dennis Prager
Some scientist somewhere - no doubt funded by a substantial government grant - discovered that men find women sexually attractive.
He might have read some early literature - assuming he could read ancient Sumerian - and saved himself the trouble and saved the taxpayers the expense.
And - like the modern man who fancies himself a woman and insists everyone else refer to him as a “transsexual” - these idiots insist that we all pretend Nature doesn’t exist.
Truth be told, I just clicked here for the pictures. Disappointing so far.
I would never view women as a sex object, there are individual parts."So why do so many women - and men - call Trump a misogynist?This reminds me of something I heard Prager say years ago. It was in reference to a couple of college professors who were animal rights movement fanatics. They stated and taught their students that there was absolutely no difference between a human baby and any other animal's young - that they were absolutely equal in both value and rights and that killing an animal was the moral equivalent of murdering a human being. They made it very clear they saw a newborn child as no more deserving of special consideration than any kitten or baby snake.Because he has so often described women in sexual terms. Because, as the charge goes, he "objectifies" women.
Now, before responding to that, it is worth noting that this clearly disturbs college-educated women and men far more than it does those who did not attend college, which either means the college-educated are wiser on this matter, or the non-college-educated are wiser.
As in most matters, my position is that college makes most people less wise. You have to go to college to think that men who see women they find attractive as sex objects hate women. Throughout history, women understood that men sexually objectify women, that this is male nature and has nothing - repeat, nothing - to do with hatred. Only the well-educated equate sexual objectification with hatred."
Prager's response to hearing this was classic and I've never forgotten it. It seems applicable in so much of what we hear from the Left and the SJWs on daily basis nowadays.
Dennis Prager: The foolishness of that statement I can only attribute to higher education. You have to have gone to college to say something that stupid.
Only “real” men view women as sex objects.
Good article. Thanks for posting it all.
Every single high school to early 20’s guy can attest, it’s not her body but her mind that they are initially atteacted to...
Don’t know if I could say the same for girls thinking but the chubby guys at that time always seemed to be by themselves.
Prager superbly stating the obvious.
It matters not how many reasons Liberals have for avoiding reality; the point is they avoid reality by creating a notion of reality that suits their dogma.
That observation led me to my Liberal Theory. The basic premise of the theory is that Liberals lack the human genome that allows humans process reality.
It is true that one can reality but it is also true that one cannot avoid the consequences resulting from reality avoidance.
A couple of adages come to mind when discussing the relationship between men and women.
Men see women as sex objects whilst women see men as success objects.
Women give sex to get love whilst men give love to get sex.
Trump’s words bring this reality to the surface; women like sex with successful men. What is sad about this observation is that it was previously unknown by Liberals. Now they know but they can’t accept the reality. Perhaps they lack a gene?
Don’t gay guys also objectify sexy women? And gay women objectify men by being tranny...? This is the same as fake news and global warming. It’s all bullshit.
Axel Foley: How long would it take to shave those legs?
Karla Fry: I suppose you're trying to be charming.
Axel Foley: Just offering my grooming services.
Obligatory HELEN THOMAS pics!!!???