Women's Fight to Vote Tied to Declining SMV

Off Topic
141

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

Also, men and women are NOT more or less-inclined toward authority or nurture or anything like that as a matter of genetics or sex or whatever. Those differences ONLY exist as a social construct. The fact is that many women do not exhibit the same ability to lead groups and all that shit that men do because they haven’t typically been placed in those roles to the same extent that men are.

[/quote]

You think like a woman.

Seriously.

If you are insulted you are sexist -----> double bind, yayyyy

“havent been placed in those roles”?

Fo realz?

You think leaders “are placed in roles”?

Ya, but they place themselves-[/quote]

And how does a woman think?

Leaders aren’t placed in roles, they earn them. What I meant, and what you are clearly not intelligent enough to understand, is that men in general have been given access to the public sphere that women have not had up until about 30 or 40 years ago.

Women are not typically found in leadership roles for myriad reasons, not the least of which is that men have traditionally dominated the workforce. Now that women are entering the corporate world at a much higher rate than ever before, we are seeing more and more women in positions of leadership: Hillary Clinton, Meg Whitman, Marissa Meyer and Gina Rommetti, to name a few.

Those women have placed themselves in those roles on their own merit. Now, are you trying to argue that there is some sort of biological predisposition that men have toward leadership roles that women don’t? Are you trying to insinuate that there is some sort of “leadership” gene or something like that which is only found in men?

If I recall correctly, there are 20 female CEOs in the Fortune 500. That is a record amount of women on that list. I GUARANTEE you that ten years from now that number will be bigger. Ten years after that, it will be even bigger and so on. The point is that as more and more women enter the corporate world and more and more men realize that leadership isn’t an exclusively male phenomenon, there will be more and more women “placing” themselves in leadership roles.[/quote]

First of all, and you are clearly not clever enough to understand that, MAN BUILT THE FUCKING PUBLIC SPHERE.

Men will always have a natural advantage because of that alone.

Then, 20 out of 500?

Impressive.

It might even double?

Fuck me, I guess its settled then.

And no, there is no “leadership” gene, but there is such a thing as social dominance and that actually is kind of hard to pull off if you have the testosterone level of a hamster.

If you have equal intelligence, dominance and the natural ability to fit into hierarchies matters.

Also, women are basically hypergamic, meaning they fuck upwards, almost with no exception, which means men will always have a stronger incentive to rise to the top because it makes their options increase, whereas womens options decrease the higher they climb.

Summary:

Men have more to gain, reproductively speaking, therefore have the instincts to pull it off and the drive to do so.

Voila, men make more money. [/quote]

I’m not clever enough to understand that men built the public sphere? I’ve only stated as much several times in this thread already.

And thank you for making my point for me. I could never be as succinct as you have been.

Men created the public sphere. They created it and kept women out of it because women were a threat to the scarce jobs available. It was not a naturally constructed concept that evolved on its own. Men consciously kept women from working. Women were not excluded because they were incapable of working but simply because they were women. The fact is that women were better at many industrial jobs than men were and men initially stayed at home.

Your claim that women are hypergamic is rooted entirely in assumption and innuendo, something I am starting to see is a pattern here with you. You start with a totally false premise and your conclusion builds from that. I love how these premises are such that they can never be quantified either. You are completely intellectually dishonest in this respect. How the FUCK can anyone prove that women only fuck upwards? Especially given that women in general earn less than men and as such, are much more likely to fuck someone earning more than them no matter what.[/quote]

First of all, what we call “feminism” is nothing new.

Whenever the public sphere got safer, women started to play a bigger role in it.

Second, hell no, it is not a natural concept, nothing we call civilization is.

Then, nobody “kept” women from working. The simple fact of the matter is that most jobs not so long ago where hard, back breaking physical labor and due to such highly relevant factors like strength, aerobic capacity, bone density and whatnot women simply could not compete.

Not that they were eager to climb down a mine or plow a field, I doubt that the men were.

My claim that women are hypergamic is actually very well documented:

  • Geneticists now believe that 80% of all women procreated, but only 40% of all men.

http://www.psy.fsu.edu/~baumeistertice/goodaboutmen.htm

  • There is an iron link between sexual dimorphism and polygamy. The bigger the male compared to the female, the fiercer the competition is.

We are not THAT polygamous, but we most certainly are and in part because females always have chosen to be the second or third partner of a high ranking male than to accept inferior genes with no hope of acquiring the resources to raise their offspring.

142

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

What I meant in the previous thread was that forcing a child to occupy a male gender role if he is in fact transgendered can be horrific.

What I mean in this thread is that there is no correlation between how a gender role is identified and happiness.

The claim was that women in a “traditional” gender role in which they are relegated to the private sphere leads to increased happiness. I argued otherwise based on the fact that countries with much less distinction between gender roles than what we have here have FAR higher levels of happiness, according to the HPI.

There is a difference between deciding for women what their gender role entails and deciding for your child what gender he/she is without regard to what gender they actually are.[/quote]

And what is the difference? I’m not getting where the transition occurs.
[/quote]

What is there not to get?

If a woman is born into the female gender role, what exactly that role entails is pretty much already decided for her. Women are supposed to be nurturing, better suited for motherhood than men and not as well-suited for leadership roles or whatever, according to the prevailing opinion in this thread.

With a transgendered child who is not allowed to wear a dress to school, the gender ITSELF is what is being decided without input from the child, not what the gender role entails. The child is basically told that he cannot wear a dress because boys don’t wear dresses. Is that defining the gender role itself? Sure, but it ignores the fact that the child itself may not be of the male gender to begin with, so defining what the male gender role is to him is completely irrelevant.

My argument was that societies in which gender roles are delineated as sharply as they are here compared to other societies do not have the same levels of happiness as those other societies. The argument put forth to me was that societies where women and men occupy different spheres (public vs private) have higher levels of happiness. That is not the case, as I have argued with actual evidence instead of totally unverifiable assertions, which is what Raj, yourself and Orion are guilty of.

143

[quote]therajraj wrote:
LOL dude, why don’t veer outside once in a while and observe if this is true before doubting the study.

Go compare women in academia to women you see working as waitresses, hostesses, bartenders, strippers.

9 times out of 10 who would you rather see naked, the 31 year old woman behind the bar serving you drinks, or the 31 year old partner-tracked lawyer? There’s a reason women are never seen as both competent and feminine. [/quote]

While I’ll agree with the fact that academia doesn’t seem to attract the most attractive people (male or female), I’ve known a couple really hot lawyers, and in the tech industry I’ve run into a number of very successful, VERY VERY good, very feminine women in leadership roles.

Now, I will say that the average stripper/waitress/hostess/bartender is hotter than the average engineer/product manager/lawyer/doctor… but I’ve personally known several exceptions.

But from talking with a couple of them, I know they struggled for awhile with being strong at traditionally masculine skills, and still wanting to be feminine. Eventually they found a balance, but it was a personal struggle for all of the ones I talked to.

Personal experience has shown that highly ambitious people – male or female – tend to be very competent and do very well with traditionally male roles. However, I would say that in the case of above-average but not exceptionally high ambition, men seem to ‘accomplish’ more.

144

I’ve had a female boss and male bosses in the past.

I noticed with the female boss that stereotypical feminine traits were observable in her management style. She was “nurturing”, connected with employees emotionally, placed a high value on the collective image of her group et cetera.

For lack of a better term, she was motherly to the people she managed and in this gender role she had strengths and weaknesses.

She was excellent at training and developing, encouraging et cetera. Her only downfall here was that she could be taken advantage of if you played her emotions against her, which was a legitimate weakness in her role at the company for sure.

On the other hand, when it came to areas of conflict, she was extremely weak handed. She was naturally mousy and timid when reprimanding employees, answering to her management after a negative critique, had a hard time “taking charge” and delegating and on and on. When called upon to fulfill this side of management, she had to work up the muster and overcompensate as super bitch, though it was clearly an act and a very emotionally draining one for her at that.

The men on the other hand tend to be more objective than nurturing when training and developing and though they don’t particularly enjoy reprimanding employees can do it without feeling guilty or what ever as part of the job.

They tend to command more respect than mutual “liking” and friendship and aren’t tethered by emotional binds to employees.

I know these are very broad comments with a very limited scope of experience considering the world at large but in my experience, men are able to NATURALLY manage efficiently, effectively and objectively much easier than women, as a group.

That is not to say women can’t be effective managers, but their style is one that requires cutting through a lot of fluff in my observation and I believe this to be the general truth over an individual personality.

You can find studies to show any slant you want, data can be organized very creatively when much of the issue is subjective rather than objective. Sometimes real life experience and common sense trumps a statistical analysis, especially an analysis with a clear cut motive to prove as opposed to unbiased observation.

145

Also, I would like DB to adress why the dominant sex in Hyenas is female, dripping clits and all, and why their dominance structure quickly reasserted itself when Hyenas that had no “role models” to speak of where left alone to figure it out themnselves.

I would also like to know why the human penis is shaped like it is, why we have psychological adaptions regarding mate guarding like jelaousy, why human males pump 2-3 times as much sperm into a woman if they could not mate guard for a few days, why women go for more masculine men if they are ovulating, why 90% of all sperm does not even try to impregnate da wimmenz but to block or attack other sperm if women throughout the history of the human race have not

CONSTANTLY BEEN ON THE HUNT FOR ALPHA COCK.

146

[quote]orion wrote:
Also, I would like DB to adress why the dominant sex in Hyenas is female, dripping clits and all, and why their dominance structure quickly reasserted itself when Hyenas that had no “role models” to speak of where left alone to figure it out themnselves.

I would also like to know why the human penis is shaped like it is, why we have psychological adaptions regarding mate guarding like jelaousy, why human males pump 2-3 times as much sperm into a woman if they could not mate guard for a few days, why women go for more masculine men if they are ovulating, why 90% of all sperm does not even try to impregnate da wimmenz but to block or attack other sperm if women throughout the history of the human race have not

CONSTANTLY BEEN ON THE HUNT FOR ALPHA COCK.[/quote]

Excellent post, and the ending has me laughing really really hard.

147

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

Also, men and women are NOT more or less-inclined toward authority or nurture or anything like that as a matter of genetics or sex or whatever. Those differences ONLY exist as a social construct. The fact is that many women do not exhibit the same ability to lead groups and all that shit that men do because they haven’t typically been placed in those roles to the same extent that men are.

[/quote]

You think like a woman.

Seriously.

If you are insulted you are sexist -----> double bind, yayyyy

“havent been placed in those roles”?

Fo realz?

You think leaders “are placed in roles”?

Ya, but they place themselves-[/quote]

And how does a woman think?

Leaders aren’t placed in roles, they earn them. What I meant, and what you are clearly not intelligent enough to understand, is that men in general have been given access to the public sphere that women have not had up until about 30 or 40 years ago.

Women are not typically found in leadership roles for myriad reasons, not the least of which is that men have traditionally dominated the workforce. Now that women are entering the corporate world at a much higher rate than ever before, we are seeing more and more women in positions of leadership: Hillary Clinton, Meg Whitman, Marissa Meyer and Gina Rommetti, to name a few.

Those women have placed themselves in those roles on their own merit. Now, are you trying to argue that there is some sort of biological predisposition that men have toward leadership roles that women don’t? Are you trying to insinuate that there is some sort of “leadership” gene or something like that which is only found in men?

If I recall correctly, there are 20 female CEOs in the Fortune 500. That is a record amount of women on that list. I GUARANTEE you that ten years from now that number will be bigger. Ten years after that, it will be even bigger and so on. The point is that as more and more women enter the corporate world and more and more men realize that leadership isn’t an exclusively male phenomenon, there will be more and more women “placing” themselves in leadership roles.[/quote]

First of all, and you are clearly not clever enough to understand that, MAN BUILT THE FUCKING PUBLIC SPHERE.

Men will always have a natural advantage because of that alone.

Then, 20 out of 500?

Impressive.

It might even double?

Fuck me, I guess its settled then.

And no, there is no “leadership” gene, but there is such a thing as social dominance and that actually is kind of hard to pull off if you have the testosterone level of a hamster.

If you have equal intelligence, dominance and the natural ability to fit into hierarchies matters.

Also, women are basically hypergamic, meaning they fuck upwards, almost with no exception, which means men will always have a stronger incentive to rise to the top because it makes their options increase, whereas womens options decrease the higher they climb.

Summary:

Men have more to gain, reproductively speaking, therefore have the instincts to pull it off and the drive to do so.

Voila, men make more money. [/quote]

I’m not clever enough to understand that men built the public sphere? I’ve only stated as much several times in this thread already.

And thank you for making my point for me. I could never be as succinct as you have been.

Men created the public sphere. They created it and kept women out of it because women were a threat to the scarce jobs available. It was not a naturally constructed concept that evolved on its own. Men consciously kept women from working. Women were not excluded because they were incapable of working but simply because they were women. The fact is that women were better at many industrial jobs than men were and men initially stayed at home.

Your claim that women are hypergamic is rooted entirely in assumption and innuendo, something I am starting to see is a pattern here with you. You start with a totally false premise and your conclusion builds from that. I love how these premises are such that they can never be quantified either. You are completely intellectually dishonest in this respect. How the FUCK can anyone prove that women only fuck upwards? Especially given that women in general earn less than men and as such, are much more likely to fuck someone earning more than them no matter what.[/quote]

First of all, what we call “feminism” is nothing new.

Whenever the public sphere got safer, women started to play a bigger role in it.

Second, hell no, it is not a natural concept, nothing we call civilization is.

Then, nobody “kept” women from working. The simple fact of the matter is that most jobs not so long ago where hard, back breaking physical labor and due to such highly relevant factors like strength, aerobic capacity, bone density and whatnot women simply could not compete.

Not that they were eager to climb down a mine or plow a field, I doubt that the men were.

My claim that women are hypergamic is actually very well documented:

  • Geneticists now believe that 80% of all women procreated, but only 40% of all men.

http://www.psy.fsu.edu/~baumeistertice/goodaboutmen.htm

  • There is an iron link between sexual dimorphism and polygamy. The bigger the male compared to the female, the fiercer the competition is.

We are not THAT polygamous, but we most certainly are and in part because females always have chosen to be the second or third partner of a high ranking male than to accept inferior genes with no hope of acquiring the resources to raise their offspring.[/quote]

Again, you’re working on false premises. Most factory jobs were better suited for women. There were smaller moving parts that women’s smaller hands (along with children’s, hence the explosion in child labor at the outset of the Industrial Revolution) worked with better.

The textile industry was the largest of the early industrial age and women primarily worked in textile factories while men stayed at home tending the fields and so forth. While men may be physically stronger, the nature of work in a factory of any sort was not such that women were incapable of performing it.

Women were forced out by men not due to their inferior physical strength but because the self-sustaining farmer became almost extinct. Technological advances made small, family-owned and operated farms obsolete, so as men looked for work in the cities they found themselves competing with women, who were actually BETTER suited for those jobs. Because men and women did not have the same rights within society it was not difficult for men to effectively disenfranchise women from the workforce so they could work instead.

Many machines in factories were rebuilt so that the levers and buttons and so on were higher off the ground, making it harder for women to operate them. At the same time, there was a shift in attitude regarding why poverty existed. It was seen as a moral failing, not a social phenomenon. The same attitude was applied to women who worked, and as such, virtuous women did not work.

This did not happen overnight, but as it slowly evolved more and more women in the middle and upper classes began to buy into this mentality, namely because they had been born into a society that had already adopted such an attitude. At the same time, children were starting to be seen less as small, physically-underdeveloped adults and more as people who needed nurturing and so forth in order to grow into an adult. This shift lined up perfectly with the growing opinion that women did not belong in the labor force. Naturally, this meant that they DID belong at home, where children spent much more time than previous generations who depended on the entire family working in order to survive.

So the burden fell onto women to raise children. In Germany, this eventually led to the development of kindergartens (children gardens) where women were the teachers. But teaching was not seen as work but rather as a familial duty that women were best suited for. Of course, there was no legitimate basis for this assumption other than that women did NOT belong in the workforce, so by default they belonged at home.

148

[quote]orion wrote:
Also, I would like DB to adress why the dominant sex in Hyenas is female, dripping clits and all, and why their dominance structure quickly reasserted itself when Hyenas that had no “role models” to speak of where left alone to figure it out themnselves.

I would also like to know why the human penis is shaped like it is, why we have psychological adaptions regarding mate guarding like jelaousy, why human males pump 2-3 times as much sperm into a woman if they could not mate guard for a few days, why women go for more masculine men if they are ovulating, why 90% of all sperm does not even try to impregnate da wimmenz but to block or attack other sperm if women throughout the history of the human race have not

CONSTANTLY BEEN ON THE HUNT FOR ALPHA COCK.[/quote]

I’d like you to explain to me why the biological attributes of a hyena has any bearing on the biological attributes of a human being.

I’d also like you to explain to me what pumping sperm and all that has to do with the leadership capabilities of men and women.

What does what women are attracted to have to do with any of this? I’m arguing that women are not biologically inferior leaders. Are they attracted to masculine men? Sure. And men are attracted to effeminate women, for the most part.

What does that have to do with the points I’ve made?

L

149

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

What I meant in the previous thread was that forcing a child to occupy a male gender role if he is in fact transgendered can be horrific.

What I mean in this thread is that there is no correlation between how a gender role is identified and happiness.

The claim was that women in a “traditional” gender role in which they are relegated to the private sphere leads to increased happiness. I argued otherwise based on the fact that countries with much less distinction between gender roles than what we have here have FAR higher levels of happiness, according to the HPI.

There is a difference between deciding for women what their gender role entails and deciding for your child what gender he/she is without regard to what gender they actually are.[/quote]

And what is the difference? I’m not getting where the transition occurs.
[/quote]

What is there not to get?

If a woman is born into the female gender role, what exactly that role entails is pretty much already decided for her. Women are supposed to be nurturing, better suited for motherhood than men and not as well-suited for leadership roles or whatever, according to the prevailing opinion in this thread.

With a transgendered child who is not allowed to wear a dress to school, the gender ITSELF is what is being decided without input from the child, not what the gender role entails. The child is basically told that he cannot wear a dress because boys don’t wear dresses. Is that defining the gender role itself? Sure, but it ignores the fact that the child itself may not be of the male gender to begin with, so defining what the male gender role is to him is completely irrelevant.

My argument was that societies in which gender roles are delineated as sharply as they are here compared to other societies do not have the same levels of happiness as those other societies. The argument put forth to me was that societies where women and men occupy different spheres (public vs private) have higher levels of happiness. That is not the case, as I have argued with actual evidence instead of totally unverifiable assertions, which is what Raj, yourself and Orion are guilty of.

[/quote]

Cool, you like totally destroyed our arguments with your superior intellect and criticizing of the studies that were provided without even providing any of your own, and stuff.

Now, if you don’t mind directly addressing the testosterone thing that keeps getting brought up over and over again, that’d be cool.

150

[quote]LoRez wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:
LOL dude, why don’t veer outside once in a while and observe if this is true before doubting the study.

Go compare women in academia to women you see working as waitresses, hostesses, bartenders, strippers.

9 times out of 10 who would you rather see naked, the 31 year old woman behind the bar serving you drinks, or the 31 year old partner-tracked lawyer? There’s a reason women are never seen as both competent and feminine. [/quote]

While I’ll agree with the fact that academia doesn’t seem to attract the most attractive people (male or female), I’ve known a couple really hot lawyers, and in the tech industry I’ve run into a number of very successful, VERY VERY good, very feminine women in leadership roles.

Now, I will say that the average stripper/waitress/hostess/bartender is hotter than the average engineer/product manager/lawyer/doctor… but I’ve personally known several exceptions.

But from talking with a couple of them, I know they struggled for awhile with being strong at traditionally masculine skills, and still wanting to be feminine. Eventually they found a balance, but it was a personal struggle for all of the ones I talked to.

Personal experience has shown that highly ambitious people – male or female – tend to be very competent and do very well with traditionally male roles. However, I would say that in the case of above-average but not exceptionally high ambition, men seem to ‘accomplish’ more.[/quote]

Perhaps the reason why women in academia tend to be less attractive has nothing to do with any biological differences between men and women at all.

Men and women both tend to get less attractive as they age, right? Well, the time it takes to earn a PhD, which is basically a prerequisite for becoming a college professor, is significant. It takes 4-6 years to graduate with a bachelor’s degree, perhaps another 2 years to obtain a master’s degree, and then several more years to earn a PhD.

At the university I attended (Pepperdine University) virtually all of my professors in both departments that I obtained degrees in did not attend school without a break between each degree. I’m sure the same holds true for professors in general. The fact is that most professors are already in their late 30’s at least by the time they actually get a job within “academia”.

So the fact is that most women in academia are much older than their counterparts at the strip club or tending bar or waiting on tables. Shit, the chances are halfway decent that the hottie pouring your drink is paying her way through grad school with her bartending job.

Either way, it’s yet another dishonest, disingenuous argument on Raj’s part to say that women in academia are less attractive because that is where less attractive women feel most comfortable or whatever.

151

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

Men and women both tend to get less attractive as they age, right? [/quote]

Sexually attractive?

No.

I mean, women yes, men, no.

152

1024×768 33.6 KB

.

153

Ha, girl I was talking to last night is infatuated with Connery.

154

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

What I meant in the previous thread was that forcing a child to occupy a male gender role if he is in fact transgendered can be horrific.

What I mean in this thread is that there is no correlation between how a gender role is identified and happiness.

The claim was that women in a “traditional” gender role in which they are relegated to the private sphere leads to increased happiness. I argued otherwise based on the fact that countries with much less distinction between gender roles than what we have here have FAR higher levels of happiness, according to the HPI.

There is a difference between deciding for women what their gender role entails and deciding for your child what gender he/she is without regard to what gender they actually are.[/quote]

And what is the difference? I’m not getting where the transition occurs.
[/quote]

What is there not to get?

If a woman is born into the female gender role, what exactly that role entails is pretty much already decided for her. Women are supposed to be nurturing, better suited for motherhood than men and not as well-suited for leadership roles or whatever, according to the prevailing opinion in this thread.

With a transgendered child who is not allowed to wear a dress to school, the gender ITSELF is what is being decided without input from the child, not what the gender role entails. The child is basically told that he cannot wear a dress because boys don’t wear dresses. Is that defining the gender role itself? Sure, but it ignores the fact that the child itself may not be of the male gender to begin with, so defining what the male gender role is to him is completely irrelevant.

My argument was that societies in which gender roles are delineated as sharply as they are here compared to other societies do not have the same levels of happiness as those other societies. The argument put forth to me was that societies where women and men occupy different spheres (public vs private) have higher levels of happiness. That is not the case, as I have argued with actual evidence instead of totally unverifiable assertions, which is what Raj, yourself and Orion are guilty of.

[/quote]

Cool, you like totally destroyed our arguments with your superior intellect and criticizing of the studies that were provided without even providing any of your own, and stuff.

Now, if you don’t mind directly addressing the testosterone thing that keeps getting brought up over and over again, that’d be cool.
[/quote]

I recommended two books to you. I have provided links to the HPI below. You have provided nothing but demands that I address testosterone. What do you want me to address? The fact there is no link to testosterone and leadership qualities? And how could there be? Leadership qualities are a totally subjective, arbitrary concept. Aggression and nurturing are both qualities that a leader should possess, in my opinion.

If you ask me, I don’t think the qualities of a good leader are exclusively a masculine phenomenon. As I have pointed out, there are all sorts of women who are and have been great leaders throughout history. There are also many, many examples of men who were NOT great leaders.

So unless all of the women I previously listed (and I could fill an entire thread with lists of women in leadership roles if I performed about ten minutes of research) are biological oddities, as are men like Hitler, Mussolini, President Obama, President Bush (not trying to equate the dictators with the Presidents), Mao, Pol Pot, Ngho Din Diem and so forth, there is no merit to the argument that men, by nature, are better suited to be leaders than women are.

http://www.happyplanetindex.org/assets/happy-planet-index-poster.pdf

155

Joshka Fischer, ex foreign minister, girlfriend…

156

[quote]LoRez wrote:
Ha, girl I was talking to last night is infatuated with Connery.[/quote]

I’m infatuated with him!

157

Salman Rushdie, girlfriend

158

[quote]orion wrote:
Joshka Fischer, ex foreign minister, girlfriend…

[/quote]

Lol.

159


Salman Rushdie, ex girlfriend

I could do this all day…

160

[quote]Cortes wrote:
.[/quote]

Of course, there are statistical outliers. I find Stephanie Seymour to be extremely attractive despite pushing, what, almost 50? Sharon Stone really did it for me up until about 5 or 6 years ago.

I find it strange that you would post a picture of Sean Connery and not, I don’t know, Helen Mirren or something like that.