She has a great voice. Are these guys a small "local" band or something?

I recently got her album as well and it's quite good. She's got a great voice and she clearly is passionate about her music.

He's been on QI a fair bit, as well as some radio/tv comedyquiz type shows. And yes, he is very funny. Great voice too.

If I hadn't seen him I would have guessed it was Harry Shearer.>> ^doogle:

This guy has a great voice for radio. Great looks for it too.

This guy has a great voice for radio. Great looks for it too.

great voice she does have.

How the frig does anyone DO THAT? Top stuff... great voice, nice song, talented fricken cup noises

As for the arguments about the title. I almost didn't even watch this because it was yet another bloody video with 'cute girl... ' in the title. I too hate that she is reduced to being cute just for the votes.

But I'm glad I watched, because besides the dick title it was a great vid

This video has been seconded as a duplicate; transferring votes to the original video and killing this dupe - dupeof seconded with isdupe by bareboards2.

The opening is pretty brutally dense -- but I think reading the whole parable is worthwhile (from my comment on the stream):

I recommend starting with this sentence, partway down:

A man has the privilege of walking past a group of strange women without worrying about being catcalled, or leered at, or having sexual suggestions tossed at him.

There follows a parable that I found pretty dang compelling.

Just reading that sentence is kind of a tl,dr summary. The parable fleshes it out.

In reply to this comment by MarineGunrock:
@StimulusMax -yes I can. And I didn't read that article. Is there a tl;dr version?

This video has been nominated as a duplicate of this video by Hybrid. If this nomination is seconded with *isdupe, the video will be killed and its votes transferred to the original.

*dupeof=http://videosift.com/video/Cute-Girl-With-Great-Voice-Does-You-re-Gonna-Miss-Me

Thank-you. I also edited my comment as you were replying.

I don't think it's sufficient to say "what if the tables were turned". It's a completely different context. Angua1's link above illustrates this fallacy. I agree that calling a girl cute is relatively harmless (relative to what?), and given the nature of the sift, where we're encouraged to make our videos as a appealing and watchable as possible in order to win votes, it makes sense that we are going to try to use sex appeal. Can you, however, acknowledge that it must be frustrating for women to always be judged through the lens of their appearance and sexual desirability, rather than for the skills and talents that they have worked hard to cultivate? This girl's routine should be enough to impress us, regardless of her "cuteness".

>> ^MarineGunrock:

@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/StimulusMax" title="member since May 29th, 2010" class="profilelink">StimulusMax - you make very valid points. I think at this stage in the thread, we're diluting the basic point that someone has pointed out - men are visual animals, and in the grand scheme of things, calling a girl "cute" isn't that big of a deal. If a woman were to post a video of a "cute" guy doing this same thing, I (and probably most people) wouldn't get offended, though honestly, it probably would not get a whole lot of votes, simply because the poster emphasized the attractiveness of the guy, making it seem like it's the predominant quality of the video.

You are my new favorite person. This is great.

In reply to this comment by StimulusMax:
You suggest that men are "intrinsically 'horndogs'," because, like all other animals, we want to pass on our genetic material. I understand how that might explain why we're predisposed to want to mate, but that doesn't explain why it's considered acceptable (or natural) for men to act like "horndogs". What if our society's courtship rituals necessitated a great deal of respect and reverence for the intelligence of those we courted? Acting like a "horndog" would be contrary to the aim of passing on our genetic material.

Let me ask you this: Women, as animals, also have a fundamental desire to pass on their genes. Why, then, in our society*, is it not considered normal for women to act as "horndogs?" (I'm not suggesting women don't lust after men, they of course do. It's not, however, considered socially acceptable** for them to portray that lust in the same manner).

* I use the term society loosely to mean Western Society, but of course there are sub-societies and sub-cultures and we all come from different places.
** Again, a generalization, but I think we can all agree that the portrayal of men as objects of lust occurs much less than women.

You suggest that men are "intrinsically 'horndogs'," because, like all other animals, we want to pass on our genetic material. I understand how that might explain why we're predisposed to want to mate, but that doesn't explain why it's considered acceptable (or natural) for men to act like "horndogs". What if our society's courtship rituals necessitated a great deal of respect and reverence for the intelligence of those we courted? Acting like a "horndog" would be contrary to the aim of passing on our genetic material.

Let me ask you this: Women, as animals, also have a fundamental desire to pass on their genes. Why, then, in our society*, is it not considered normal for women to act as "horndogs?" (I'm not suggesting women don't lust after men, they of course do. It's not, however, considered socially acceptable** for them to portray that lust in the same manner).

* I use the term society loosely to mean Western Society, but of course there are sub-societies and sub-cultures and we all come from different places.
** Again, a generalization, but I think we can all agree that the portrayal of men as objects of lust occurs much less than women.

EDIT: Furthermore, are you suggesting that men's drive to procreate overrides all other desires? Have we, as a species, not overcome that drive at all? Do we not have alternative pursuits and drives? What about those people who find it satisfactory to leave a legacy though their work, rather than through their children?

EDIT 2: And do you really think that drive to pass on our genetics is sufficient to explain human sexuality? How do you explain people having sex for pleasure? Homosexuality? Birth control? I see so many holes in the biological justification for behaviour.

>> ^MarineGunrock:

No. Absolutely not. Well, okay. maybe something. But men are intrinsically "horndogs." We're predisposed to pursue women. It's a fact of life that males of all species exist to pass on their genetic material.

<edit> I'm not saying this makes it right, but merely a face of life.</edit>
>> ^StimulusMax:
...
...
...
seriously?
You don't believe that socialization has something to do with how we behave?
>> ^deathcow:
things will never change unless the behavior is removed from human dna

No. Absolutely not. Well, okay. maybe something. But men are intrinsically "horndogs." We're predisposed to pursue women. It's a fact of life that males of all species exist to pass on their genetic material.



<edit> I'm not saying this makes it right, but merely a face of life.</edit>

>> ^StimulusMax:

...
...
...
seriously?
You don't believe that socialization has something to do with how we behave?
>> ^deathcow:
things will never change unless the behavior is removed from human dna