That was awesome.

Ever notice that when the gender roles are reversed, it's funny (and unlikely).
If that was a man, no one would be laughing, even if it was meant to be funny.

I work in a office where I am the only male. I constantly get comments about me being only a man and watch as they put up their all-male (almost nude) firefighter calenders..., and this is considered no problem. If the gender roles were reversed, I'm sure lawyers would be introduced.

By the was, I am in no way complaining, my view is live and let live, I don't care what they do or say, I laugh it off. I have noticed though how careful I have to be as a male in an office of 12 other women.

Just my 2¢

For some reason, I can't help finding her obnoxious and extremely attractive at the same time.

>> ^Sagemind:
I have noticed though how careful I have to be as a male in an office of 12 other women

What's going on here?

>> ^Debacle:
>> ^Sagemind:
I have noticed though how careful I have to be as a male in an office of 12 other women
What's going on here?


Sounds like my group a while ago. 4 gals + me (male). DOH. However, they're not my types.

Ant: Not ladybugs?

The guy whose pants Chelsea stuck her hands in looks like Timothy McVay. Just sayin'.

is this supposed to be funny?

Yo! And at the supermarket checkout, waiting in line, what magazines are displayed? Three out of four blatently advertise sexual articles for women's consumption. If they were articles for men's consumption they would NOT be displayed! Where did we go wrong guys? Larry Flint - DO SOMETHING!!!

She can assault my staff anytime.

>> ^Don_Juan:
Yo! And at the supermarket checkout, waiting in line, what magazines are displayed? Three out of four blatently advertise sexual articles for women's consumption. If they were articles for men's consumption they would NOT be displayed! Where did we go wrong guys? Larry Flint - DO SOMETHING!!!


Where did we go wrong? By going mainly for visual sexual stimuli in our magazines. By going for primarily verbal stimuli, women's mags have the advantage of being relatively safe around young children--either they can't read, or they don't have the context (frequently) to understand what's going on.

You have to take the time to read for the stimuli aimed at women, whereas one only need a pair of eyes and a brain reasonably functional at interpreting visual images to ingest the stimuli aimed at men.

Yes indeed, sex is yet another area where the industrious efficiency of men shows our consistent superiority to the energy-wasting, inefficient methods of the weaker sex.

(To those who don't get the ironic barb in the above, one of us is stupid. There's no telling whether it's you or me.)

It's you.

>> ^HadouKen24:
Where did we go wrong? By going mainly for visual sexual stimuli in our magazines. By going for primarily verbal stimuli, women's mags have the advantage of being relatively safe around young children--either they can't read, or they don't have the context (frequently) to understand what's going on.
You have to take the time to read for the stimuli aimed at women, whereas one only need a pair of eyes and a brain reasonably functional at interpreting visual images to ingest the stimuli aimed at men.

Mmm, this is some good pop psychology crap. To prepubescent children, a half-naked woman/man doesn't mean more than a harlequin novel. Yes they understand the words, yes they see the nakedness, but they don't assign sexual meaning to these stimuli by themselves, at least not anything they are conscious of or can act on. They have to be told what to think of it, and every Dr. Phil and Reverent Nutjob is eager to have his say. And the worst you can do isn't showing them some naked pictures or an article talking about sex, but to tell them it's wrong or unnatural to see/read it and have feelings about it, feelings that they don't even have yet: you're training them to think as wrong something they will unconsciously seek and have an urge for later, namely "sex" (in all its forms). You can't help it, they won't be able to help it, and trying to shield them from it is idiotic at best and criminally negligent at worst. What is even worst is preaching prudishness and then buying the worst magazines: not Playboy where girls are paid to be naked, but magazines where girls are half-naked to sell you something. The first is simple prostitution (consumption), whereas the second is akin to pimping (exploitation). You're telling them exploiting women/men is O.K. if you're hypocrital about it.

*femme *sexuality

Adding video to channels (Femme, Sexuality) - requested by maatc.

Funny. Unlike feminazis.

I have noticed though how careful I have to be as a male in an office of 12 other women.

Welcome to PC-liberal "freedom!"

I would write to BEST emails if I had a boss checking my work like that.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Chelsea Handler, sexual assult, tv' to 'Chelsea Handler, sexual assault, tv, nice, noodle, boop' - edited by calvados

Yarr, 'tis a fine screenshot!

/bewbs

>> ^HadouKen24:
>> ^Don_Juan:
Where did we go wrong? By going mainly for visual sexual stimuli in our magazines. By going for primarily verbal stimuli, women's mags have the advantage of being relatively safe around young children--either they can't read, or they don't have the context (frequently) to understand what's going on.
You have to take the time to read for the stimuli aimed at women, whereas one only need a pair of eyes and a brain reasonably functional at interpreting visual images to ingest the stimuli aimed at men.
Yes indeed, sex is yet another area where the industrious efficiency of men shows our consistent superiority to the energy-wasting, inefficient methods of the weaker sex.
(To those who don't get the ironic barb in the above, one of us is stupid. There's no telling whether it's you or me.)


Fail.

I'll tell you why:

Yes, men's magazines have barely clothed women on them. However, there are numerous women's magazines at the checkout that feature women in bikinis - like Shape or Women's health. So no, women's magazines are no no more "safe" then Men's.

(I'm referring to Stuff, Maxim and FHM)

The simple matter is, most guys don't mind the sexual attention of a female (as long as it doesn't go too far if you are already in a relationship, but even then most guys would tend to just ask them to stop, but still be flattered), whereas most females don't want the attention of the majority of men in their office.

Women are the pursued, men are the pursuers... in the majority of cases.

Face it, most guys watching this video wouldn't mind being the guys in it, whereas most women looking at a role reversal of this would be repulsed.

this should probably be marked nsfw

meh

joining the ranks of the meh

Chelsea Handler photos

*promote

Promoting this video back to the front page; last published Tuesday, May 13th, 2008 12:03pm PDT - promote requested by EDD.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Chelsea Handler, sexual assault, tv, nice, noodle, boop' to 'Chelsea Handler, sexual assault, tv, bewbs, nice, noodle, boop' - edited by calvados

*dead

This video has been declared non-functional; embed code must be fixed within 2 days or it will be sent to the dead pool - declared dead by dingens.

Awarding kronosposeidon with one Power Point for fixing this video's dead embed code.

Nothing's showing for me. Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I think this is *dead.

This video has been declared non-functional; embed code must be fixed within 2 days or it will be sent to the dead pool - declared dead by kymbos.

Awarding oritteropo with one Power Point for fixing this video's dead embed code.

*length=2:15

Original title:
Jewess Chelsea Handler Does Howard Stern Type Libertine National TV Sex Skit With Her Staff see text

The fix is the same embed, they've just updated their codes.

The duration of this video has been updated from unknown to 2:15 - length declared by oritteropo.

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by oritteropo.