@bareboards2
you totally misunderstood my comment.
my point is that it is the ATTENTION that is the main focus,not the penis.

let me try this another way.

what if the girl was lesbian?
would male attention be her focus?
seewhatimsaying?

this attention seeking behavior usually starts young,when a young girl is unsure,insecure and vulnerable.(just like every other teen).
maybe they were the first girl in class to sprout boobs.
maybe she was a late bloomer and was nerdy and gangly all through high school.

in any scenario you wish to portray there will always be the common denominator that at one point she began to receive attention and that attention validated her as desirable,sexy even.
this may have led to dressing more "sexy" to garner even more attention.

the danger here is that the beauty of youth is transitory....it always results in entropy and if a woman finds validation solely in the form of attention,she will find it harder and harder to get the validation she has become accustomed to receiving.
this may lead to even more dramatic practices i.e:higher degree of provocative dress.bargaining flirtations for sexual promiscuity.actively seeking attention by way of nightclubs,bars and other venues where a source of attention may congregated.

we all wish to be desirable in one way or another and attention can be a powerful validation that we are desirable.the problem arises when the girl/guy is unaware of their own motivations to be validated and in the process allows themselves to become objects rather than human beings.

attention=validation *no penis required

men can be just as vulnerable to this validation seeking but our culture does not impose the same amount of pressure that young women have to endure and ultimately over-come.

what i believe you are saying,and its a point i agree with.is that young women should be more self-aware and be comfortable with who they are rather than what society thinks they should be.

the fact that i am male should not automatically disqualify me from expressing an opinion on female matters.i may fall short due to not owning a uterus but i feel my point is valid

wtf? have you all lost your minds?

1. you can't compare a womans vagina to a wad full of cash. but presuming that you could... just because i flashed my wad full of cash does not make it less wrong or even permissible for someone to steal it. your rights end where mine begin.

2. women don't get raped because they're scantily clad. rape is less about sexual gratification and more about power and control. i was a wild ass teenager and i put myself in a lot of unwholesome situations, i experienced my fair share of unwanted, boundary violating sexual advances. i was also a raging tomboy/baby crusty... my clothing didn't have anything to do with the creeps who wanted/tried/did take advantage, it was ALWAYS about power and superiority and control. ALWAYS about some mental defect that made dudes get off on the ability to overpower.

3. you can't blame anyone for mistaking your flirtation with interest. anyone who does is probably being a bitch. but flirting and be provocative is not "stepping into the lion's den and asking to get bit" and you're not contractually obligated to put out... anyone who thinks that it is does is a defective asshole and possibly predatory and almost certainly has issues with women and their ability to own their sexual power, again.. its about power and dominance and control.

4. i sort of agree with the notion that you attract what you put out there. like i chat it up with a lot of mentally ill/homeless men... so a lot of these guys tend to want to marry me.... when i go dancing at the hip hop club, i dont get offended when i get balls rubbed on my leg or some horny drunk guy wants to take me home.... i just go find a girl to dance with after that.... when i go dancing at the gay bar looking like a big dyke, i dont get pissed off when a lesbian flirts with me... i go bowling a lot, i dont get mad when bowling alley people hit on me.... if you dress and behave in a certain way in a certain place, you're bound to attract someone.. you have no right to be surprised or offended when that happens... it may even be what you're looking for.. ... but it does not negate someone else's responsibility to control themselves and respect your words more than your tits. and anyone who doesn't see that, has issues with women and their sexual power. and rape is, once again, about power and control. it is not about cleavage or temptation.

edit: there is also offensive language... i dont get mad if you thought i was flirting with you and expressed an interest, i do get mad if you don't speak to me with respect. again, its about power and control ooorrr maybe you're a social piarha with no idea how interact with people, either way, you're getting turned down and that doesnt make me a tease. it's your problem.

that was utter bullshit.
how can this even be remotely considered science?
where is berticus?
i bet his head is exploding due to the inanity in this video.
where is the consideration that maybe, MAYBE, the women with a partner were more secure in themselves and hence might be more prone to flirtation if only because they were not hampered by insecurity..or worse..desperation.
or..
maybe they were more confident with their dancing skills.
did these supposed "scientists" ever think to question the women on how they perceive themselves in relation to sexually and their self-image?

i could to do this all day...
a professor at a university????
W.
T.
F.

okay, so, man + prosthetic tits - women's clothes + auto shop + flirtation with sexy girls = lesbian. I think I understand, but the mathematics of sexual identity I find baffling sometimes.


In reply to this comment by marinara:
RLY? He's in drag AS A LESBIAN A country music lesbian apparently with fully tooled auto garage. I'm not familiar with the automotive lesbian stereotype but...

In reply to this comment by schmawy:
Is that a lesbian? I thought it was a man? I'm still so confused.

In reply to this comment by marinara:
funny thing about promoting videos, is that little things make the difference, but brute force doesn't. So, yes, I'm redoing my lesbian garage video!

In reply to this comment by TheFreak:
Always take the time to investigate sources.

"The Acton Institute is an ecumenical think-tank dedicated to the study of free-market economics informed by religious faith and moral absolutes."
Who funded the Acton Institute?
The Bradley Foundation: $225,000 (laissez-faire capitalist organization)
Philip Morris: $10,000
ExxonMobil: $30,000

No thank you Acton Institute. You're assertions are rejected. Not because your points are short sighted, naive and laughable and you show an obvious agenda towards promoting corporate power through manipulation of religion...no wait, that is the reason.

while i agree knowing and vetting a source is valuable. information should not be dismissed out of hand based soley on that factor.
is it your contention that what america has now is a free market?
that what has transpired in the past few years could not remotely be considered a flirtation with plutocracy?
while i am not a purest when it comes to capiltalism,what we have now has become an abomination.

I think I can fill out most of the list:

#1. The House Sergeant at Arms (left), and I think he's accompanied by the Senate Sergeant at Arms.
#2. Special guests
#3. From left to right, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL), Senator Chuck Shumer (D-NY), and in front of them looks like Supreme Court Justice Sam Alito.
#4. From left to right, Defense Secretary Robert Gates, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geitner, and HRC herself (Secretary of State).
#5. In the middle is Congressman Charlie Rangel (D-NY), I'm guessing he's with other House Representatives from NY.
#6. Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT) currently also Chairman of the Senate Banking Committee (kinda important atm)
#7. From left to right, House Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R-VA), and House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH). These two are the current Republican House leadership.
#8. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV).
#9. Senator Judd Gregg (R-NH), who had a brief flirtation with being Obama's Commerce Secretary.
#10. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY). He's the current Republican Senate leadership.
#11. Earl Devaney, the new Inspector General Obama was talking about seconds before (who helped bust Jack Abramaoff)
#12. Not sure who the guy picking at his ear is, but the other two are Housing and Urban Development Secretary (HUD) Shaun Donovan, and Labor Secretary Hilda Solis.
#13. Juggs magazine. Or the text of the speech he's listening to. Oh, and it's Senator Richard Shelby (R-AL), who's the ranking Republican on the Senate Banking Committee (and former chair).
#14. The infamous Joe Lieberman (I-CT), former Democrat who campaigned for John McCain.
#15. Senator Arlen Spector (R-PA), one of the 3 Republicans to vote for the Stimulus bill.
#16. Senators Evan Bayh (D-IN), and Roland Burris (D-IL) the latter of Blagojevich fame.
#17. Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) in the middle, not sure of anyone else. He's the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee.
#18. I'm forgetting his name, but he's a House Republican, and most likely so is the woman next to him.
#19. Peter Orszag, new Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), formerly Director of the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). Chief of Staff Rahm Emmanuel is to his left.
#20. Chuck Shumer again.
#21. Secretary of Veterans Affairs (VA) Eric Shinseki
#22. Not sure, I think he's a House Republican.
#23. Energy Secretary Steven Chu.
#24. Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA)
#25. Don't know.
#26. Don't know. I'll wager a guess it's a House Democrat though.
#27. Senator Carl Levin (D-MI)
#28. Don't know.
#29. Senator Dick Lugar (R-IN)
#30. Don't recognize him, but he must be an Obama cabinet member, since that's who he's sitting amongst.
#31. Evan Bayh (D-IN) again.
#32. On the left is Congressman Jesse Jackson Jr. (D-IL), not sure who's next to him.
#33. Don't know.
#34. Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC), buddy of John McCain.
#35. From left to right, Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar, Defense Secretary Bob Gates, Treasury Secretary Tim Geitner, and Hillary something or other.
#36. I only know the one on the left, Admiral Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, but those are the *cough* Joint Chiefs of Staff; the heads of the Navy, Army, Air Force, and Marines (in that order unless I've misidentified the uniforms).
#37. No clue, but it's likely they're part of the JCS organization.
#38. Dunno, but he's sure to be on this list somewhere. To his left is Ted Strickland, Governor of Ohio (D).
#39. Don't know. I think that's the Republican House section, though.
#40. Don't know.
#41. Captain Sully Sullenberger. Pilot of this plane.
#42. Mayor Bob Dixon, from Greensburg, Kansas; the city Obama's talking about.

Phew.

In reply to this comment by NetRunner:
I guess he's done with his flirtation with decency.


Was a VERY brief romance.... whoops... sorry meant to post this with the video...

I guess he's done with his flirtation with decency.

>> ^Irishman:
How do you think this event will be percieved around the world?
Moving the venue to a football ground and filling it with 75,000 'adoring fans' does have the whiff of fanatacism about it.
I'm sure many Europeans will see this event echoing 1930s Germany.
I think it's right that this be raised and discussed. Obama's speech in Israel followed by this event is sending out a very particular type of message.
It's not about what I personally think, it's about the alarm bells that this kind of stunt rings around the rest of the world. It's about perception.


So to my original point, normally nomination acceptance speeches are given before a crowd of 20,000...why is adding 55,000 more people nefarious?

Don't things like torture, ignoring habeas corpus, domestic spying, propaganda, consolidating power, and open flirtation with starting a war with Iran send a bigger message?

We've got an election where McCain is endorsing all of those things either overtly in his rhetoric, or tacitly by refusing to vote against them, and Obama speaks out about ending all of the above, and votes against it when he has the opportunity.

Given that, shouldn't Europeans be more concerned that there's still a pretty significant chance McCain could win, not because Obama plans to give a speech before a crowd less than half the size of the one he attracted in Germany?

>> ^Constitutional_Patriot:
This is what you should expect from CFR candidates.


I see it more as this is what you should expect when candidates are worried about their image as an "appeaser", and their strength amongst Jewish voters.

This is probably the worst bit of pandering I've seen out of Obama. All signs up till now have pointed to a softer hand in dealing with Iran, right down to what his advisers say. I'd bet this is more politics than policy, but I'll definitely be paying a lot of attention in the future when he speaks about Iran.

However, contrast this flirtation with tough talk from Obama, and the constant beating of war drums from McCain. No question about what he'll do.

If they're all the same, why would CFR permit any daylight? For that matter, if they're worried war with Iran is unpopular, why have either candidate talk about it now? Why not just surprise us, like with Bush?

This is silly and serves only to divide the DNC up more than it already has. He should have said something on the order of, "I will endorse whichever democratic candidate gets the nomination," rather than succumbing to this grade-school flirtation with whats-her-name over something that, as jwray echoes, shouldn't have any significance in the first place.

I agree. I haven't watched the L Word but I imagine lesbians would find it either too tame by half or patronising.

Reminds me of that woeful sitcom Will and Grace, where overly camp gay characters mince about but never actually kiss or do anything other than to suggest a flirtation with gay stereotypes.