Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
And anyone with two cents will tell you that Trump was referring to using his money and power to force women into "letting" him do it. That's not real consent. Ask Fox News how well that works out.
There was nothing in the tape to suggest what you are making up.
"Let" was there indicating consent.
There was nothing there indicating force.
You obviously didn't watch the Gretchen Carlson interview the other night.
Nope.
Furthermore, if you think that the money and power and fame require "force" to get a man come special consideration, I have more bad news for you.
I'll take your word for it.
Nope I won't. I'll take the word of all the women accusers of Bill Clinton, Roger Ailes, and Donald Trump... among many others.
YOu are seriously doubting that fame, money and power get you different treatment from women?
Fine.
From that right wing rag the Huffington post.
Study: Do Women Want Rich Men? | The Huffington Post
"How money plays into sex, dating and marriage is an often-studied topic. A report by Dr. Catherine Hakim released in January showed that women are choosing richer husbands, or “marrying up” more today than they did in the 1940s. And a controversial 2009 study found that while several factors affected a woman’s reported enjoyment of sex, the most influential was her partner’s income."
Catch that? Knowing the guy had money made the women enjoy sex more.
"Just because women know the conspicuous spender is primarily looking for a fling, that doesn’t mean they won’t try to turn that fling into something more.
“They want the resources, so they’ll think ‘Maybe I can love him in the way that makes him stay long-term,’” Fisher explained.
A study Fisher helped conduct with Match.com found that a third of respondents reported having a one-night stand that turned into a long-term relationship. With those numbers in mind, he posited that women might take a chance on the Porsche guy. Just like men, women have dating strategies, and in this instance, the pay-off would be big.
“He had to really work to get that Porsche, and that’s his bait, and she sees the bait,” Fisher said. “She reels him in, and he thinks it’s short term. She has sex with him, and he falls for her. Now her babies can ride around in a Porsche.”
I hope I haven't crushed your romantic soul.
Your denial, in the context of your blind partisanship in the rest of this thread has zero credibility.
My point about your pretense of confusion over the meaning of the word "racism" stands.
You are engaged in race bating propaganda, because you know that you cannot defend your lefty policies and positions based on their merits.
You are substituting insults and smears For serious or honest debate.
That makes you the lying troll, asshole.
Your tears taste so salty! I don't even need to label Sessions a racist. The Senate confirmation committee already did that for me. Makes you made doesn't it?
Your Logical Fallacy of Appeal to Authority has already been noted, dismissed and even ridiculed.
Yet you continue to ignore all of that and repeat your "point".
THAT is the Logical Fallacy of Proof by Assertion.
There are not debating techniques. They are at best failures of reasoning, or more likely purposeful propaganda.
Appeal to Authority? I simply use them as a supporting argument since they were actually at the hearing and heard all of the evidence. I read what testimony I could find and made my opinion. Which no matter what I say, you are going to say it is wrong.
I asked you simple questions that were yes or no... and your answers for both was "it depends." If you don't have the balls to answer a yes or no question, then you have absolutely no room to criticize my stance on the issue.
That you thought it was a simple yes or no question, and I disagreed is not evidence of cowardice on my part.
Though it is evidence of some failing on your part.
No, you failed to take a stance on something simple. Is saying a white lawyer who defends a black man is a race traitor racist? There is no "depends" in that equation. It either is or it isn't.
A white man calling Black men "boy" in the south is very racist. Yet you say "it depends."
Just the fact that you are so much a Trump supporter that you argue the most trivial things, for you to even say "it depends" tells me you KNOW it is racist, but you just won't admit it.
There was nothing in the tape to suggest what you are making up.
"Let" was there indicating consent.
There was nothing there indicating force.
You obviously didn't watch the Gretchen Carlson interview the other night.
Nope.
Furthermore, if you think that the money and power and fame require "force" to get a man come special consideration, I have more bad news for you.
I'll take your word for it.
Nope I won't. I'll take the word of all the women accusers of Bill Clinton, Roger Ailes, and Donald Trump... among many others.
YOu are seriously doubting that fame, money and power get you different treatment from women?
Fine.
From that right wing rag the Huffington post.
Study: Do Women Want Rich Men? | The Huffington Post
"How money plays into sex, dating and marriage is an often-studied topic. A report by Dr. Catherine Hakim released in January showed that women are choosing richer husbands, or “marrying up” more today than they did in the 1940s. And a controversial 2009 study found that while several factors affected a woman’s reported enjoyment of sex, the most influential was her partner’s income."
Catch that? Knowing the guy had money made the women enjoy sex more.
"Just because women know the conspicuous spender is primarily looking for a fling, that doesn’t mean they won’t try to turn that fling into something more.
“They want the resources, so they’ll think ‘Maybe I can love him in the way that makes him stay long-term,’” Fisher explained.
A study Fisher helped conduct with Match.com found that a third of respondents reported having a one-night stand that turned into a long-term relationship. With those numbers in mind, he posited that women might take a chance on the Porsche guy. Just like men, women have dating strategies, and in this instance, the pay-off would be big.
“He had to really work to get that Porsche, and that’s his bait, and she sees the bait,” Fisher said. “She reels him in, and he thinks it’s short term. She has sex with him, and he falls for her. Now her babies can ride around in a Porsche.”
I hope I haven't crushed your romantic soul.
Why? Because you posted something from the Huffington Post? I saw the interview with Gertchen Carlson and a couple other women... The lawsuits and settlements of the women who won sexual harassment cases says otherwise. Does that hurt your feelings buttercup?
Your tears taste so salty! I don't even need to label Sessions a racist. The Senate confirmation committee already did that for me. Makes you made doesn't it?
Your Logical Fallacy of Appeal to Authority has already been noted, dismissed and even ridiculed.
Yet you continue to ignore all of that and repeat your "point".
THAT is the Logical Fallacy of Proof by Assertion.
There are not debating techniques. They are at best failures of reasoning, or more likely purposeful propaganda.
Appeal to Authority? I simply use them as a supporting argument since they were actually at the hearing and heard all of the evidence. I read what testimony I could find and made my opinion. Which no matter what I say, you are going to say it is wrong.
I asked you simple questions that were yes or no... and your answers for both was "it depends." If you don't have the balls to answer a yes or no question, then you have absolutely no room to criticize my stance on the issue.
That you thought it was a simple yes or no question, and I disagreed is not evidence of cowardice on my part.
Though it is evidence of some failing on your part.
No, you failed to take a stance on something simple. Is saying a white lawyer who defends a black man is a race traitor racist? There is no "depends" in that equation. It either is or it isn't.
Actually, i said it sounds like an out of context joke.
A white man calling Black men "boy" in the south is very racist. Yet you say "it depends."
And I claimed to have first person experience of an example that proved that. Which you showed no interest in.
Odd that.
Just the fact that you are so much a Trump supporter that you argue the most trivial things, for you to even say "it depends" tells me you KNOW it is racist, but you just won't admit it.
Actually, I have a pet peeve about lefties like you peppering normal conversation with numerous lies, in a variant of the Logical Fallacy of Proof by Verbosity and thus have a long history of going point by point though the bs filled posts of liberals to refute their points one at a fucking time.
That has nothing to do with Trump.
YOu can easily verify that by searching my old posts and seeing me enter threads and then they bog down as I don't let shit go unchallenged like more reasonable conservatives.
White Racism is an effectively dead force in this society.
For example the ONLY time we hear from David Duke, most well know leader of the klan in generations, is when you lefties need him to smear your ideological enemies.
NO one EVER cites him, or gives him air time except for LIBERALS who are looking to use him as a weapon.
Note that liberals are NEVER worried that by giving him air time that they are inflating his importance, or helping him recruit or even "normalizing" him.
BECAUSE they know that he is completely irrelevant, harmless and safe to work with, like a badger that has been killed, stuffed and mounted.
It wont' bite. Because it can't.
You obviously didn't watch the Gretchen Carlson interview the other night.
Nope.
Furthermore, if you think that the money and power and fame require "force" to get a man come special consideration, I have more bad news for you.
I'll take your word for it.
Nope I won't. I'll take the word of all the women accusers of Bill Clinton, Roger Ailes, and Donald Trump... among many others.
YOu are seriously doubting that fame, money and power get you different treatment from women?
Fine.
From that right wing rag the Huffington post.
Study: Do Women Want Rich Men? | The Huffington Post
"How money plays into sex, dating and marriage is an often-studied topic. A report by Dr. Catherine Hakim released in January showed that women are choosing richer husbands, or “marrying up” more today than they did in the 1940s. And a controversial 2009 study found that while several factors affected a woman’s reported enjoyment of sex, the most influential was her partner’s income."
Catch that? Knowing the guy had money made the women enjoy sex more.
"Just because women know the conspicuous spender is primarily looking for a fling, that doesn’t mean they won’t try to turn that fling into something more.
“They want the resources, so they’ll think ‘Maybe I can love him in the way that makes him stay long-term,’” Fisher explained.
A study Fisher helped conduct with Match.com found that a third of respondents reported having a one-night stand that turned into a long-term relationship. With those numbers in mind, he posited that women might take a chance on the Porsche guy. Just like men, women have dating strategies, and in this instance, the pay-off would be big.
“He had to really work to get that Porsche, and that’s his bait, and she sees the bait,” Fisher said. “She reels him in, and he thinks it’s short term. She has sex with him, and he falls for her. Now her babies can ride around in a Porsche.”
I hope I haven't crushed your romantic soul.
Why? Because you posted something from the Huffington Post? I saw the interview with Gertchen Carlson and a couple other women... The lawsuits and settlements of the women who won sexual harassment cases says otherwise. Does that hurt your feelings buttercup?
THe topic was your belief system that women who let men with money, fame and power, sexually touch them, because the men use that money and power to FORCE THEM.
I was not citing the Huffington post. I was citing the information contained in the article with was drawn from scientific studies.
Are you seriously claiming to NOT see who that data is relevant to the topic?
Dont you understand why it seems that race relations worsened? Think... when else were race relations really bad, when did they spike? During the civil Right she movement... when all the crap was brought to the surface.Blacks had a similar line of thought when Obama was elected 8 years ago.
Somehow, even with him in charge, race relations worsened
Because lefties have been screaming racism ever time some republican engages in partisan politics.
THis divides the nation, between blacks who feel increasingly under attack, liberals who are outraged by their false perception of racism, and republicans who are increasingly sick and tired of being vilely slandered by assholes.
Funny, no one is calling Romney a racist... just a sell out. He started the #NeverTrump campaign, and is now visiting Trump trying to get a job.
Correct. LEFTIES falsely called him a racist when he was running for the Presidency, because that is what they do.
NOW, in this election, as Romney, as part of the Party elite, worked to sabotage first the Primary Process and then tried to sabotage our candidate, ie betrayed those who he should have supported, he was fairly called a "Sell out".
Fun fact... which I have told you multiple times. The Senate was Republican controlled and he still couldn't get the confirmation when it went to a full Senate vote. So guess what? Not just Lefties wrote him off as racist.
Edit: sorry I thought we were still on the Sessions discussion.
I don't recall Lefties calling Romney racist... I remember them saying he was too rich and out of touch to relate to the poor.
Dont you understand why it seems that race relations worsened? Think... when else were race relations really bad, when did they spike? During the civil Right she movement... when all the crap was brought to the surface.
Because lefties have been screaming racism ever time some republican engages in partisan politics.
THis divides the nation, between blacks who feel increasingly under attack, liberals who are outraged by their false perception of racism, and republicans who are increasingly sick and tired of being vilely slandered by assholes.
Funny, no one is calling Romney a racist... just a sell out. He started the #NeverTrump campaign, and is now visiting Trump trying to get a job.
Correct. LEFTIES falsely called him a racist when he was running for the Presidency, because that is what they do.
NOW, in this election, as Romney, as part of the Party elite, worked to sabotage first the Primary Process and then tried to sabotage our candidate, ie betrayed those who he should have supported, he was fairly called a "Sell out".
Fun fact... which I have told you multiple times. The Senate was Republican controlled and he still couldn't get the confirmation when it went to a full Senate vote. So guess what? Not just Lefties wrote him off as racist.
Edit: sorry I thought we were still on the Sessions discussion.
I don't recall Lefties calling Romney racist... I remember them saying he was too rich and out of touch to relate to the poor.
Lefties call EVERYONE that is a problem for them racist. If you haven't got that yet, start keeping track. They will prove it for you in time.
Much was made of the fact that when Romney was a young man, with no authority in his church, that his church did not accept black people.
For one example.
Your Logical Fallacy of Appeal to Authority has already been noted, dismissed and even ridiculed.
Yet you continue to ignore all of that and repeat your "point".
THAT is the Logical Fallacy of Proof by Assertion.
There are not debating techniques. They are at best failures of reasoning, or more likely purposeful propaganda.
Appeal to Authority? I simply use them as a supporting argument since they were actually at the hearing and heard all of the evidence. I read what testimony I could find and made my opinion. Which no matter what I say, you are going to say it is wrong.
I asked you simple questions that were yes or no... and your answers for both was "it depends." If you don't have the balls to answer a yes or no question, then you have absolutely no room to criticize my stance on the issue.
That you thought it was a simple yes or no question, and I disagreed is not evidence of cowardice on my part.
Though it is evidence of some failing on your part.
No, you failed to take a stance on something simple. Is saying a white lawyer who defends a black man is a race traitor racist? There is no "depends" in that equation. It either is or it isn't.
Actually, i said it sounds like an out of context joke.
A white man calling Black men "boy" in the south is very racist. Yet you say "it depends."
And I claimed to have first person experience of an example that proved that. Which you showed no interest in.
Odd that.
Just the fact that you are so much a Trump supporter that you argue the most trivial things, for you to even say "it depends" tells me you KNOW it is racist, but you just won't admit it.
Actually, I have a pet peeve about lefties like you peppering normal conversation with numerous lies, in a variant of the Logical Fallacy of Proof by Verbosity and thus have a long history of going point by point though the bs filled posts of liberals to refute their points one at a fucking time.
That has nothing to do with Trump.
YOu can easily verify that by searching my old posts and seeing me enter threads and then they bog down as I don't let shit go unchallenged like more reasonable conservatives.
White Racism is an effectively dead force in this society.
For example the ONLY time we hear from David Duke, most well know leader of the klan in generations, is when you lefties need him to smear your ideological enemies.
NO one EVER cites him, or gives him air time except for LIBERALS who are looking to use him as a weapon.
Note that liberals are NEVER worried that by giving him air time that they are inflating his importance, or helping him recruit or even "normalizing" him.
BECAUSE they know that he is completely irrelevant, harmless and safe to work with, like a badger that has been killed, stuffed and mounted.
It wont' bite. Because it can't.
I love it... how you think you discredit facts about these people with a wave of the hand like it magically disappears. Lies? Show me where I have posted lies. Everything you have asked me to back up with sources I have.
Of course you are going to dismiss David Duke... that doesn't fit your agenda does it? That an Ex-KKK Grand Wizard supports Trump? That other White Nationalist support Trump? Yeah... who cares if Trump ran a campaign to attract those types of people? Trump is President now, so it is time to distance ourselves from them... right?
Nope.
Furthermore, if you think that the money and power and fame require "force" to get a man come special consideration, I have more bad news for you.
I'll take your word for it.
Nope I won't. I'll take the word of all the women accusers of Bill Clinton, Roger Ailes, and Donald Trump... among many others.
YOu are seriously doubting that fame, money and power get you different treatment from women?
Fine.
From that right wing rag the Huffington post.
Study: Do Women Want Rich Men? | The Huffington Post
"How money plays into sex, dating and marriage is an often-studied topic. A report by Dr. Catherine Hakim released in January showed that women are choosing richer husbands, or “marrying up” more today than they did in the 1940s. And a controversial 2009 study found that while several factors affected a woman’s reported enjoyment of sex, the most influential was her partner’s income."
Catch that? Knowing the guy had money made the women enjoy sex more.
"Just because women know the conspicuous spender is primarily looking for a fling, that doesn’t mean they won’t try to turn that fling into something more.
“They want the resources, so they’ll think ‘Maybe I can love him in the way that makes him stay long-term,’” Fisher explained.
A study Fisher helped conduct with Match.com found that a third of respondents reported having a one-night stand that turned into a long-term relationship. With those numbers in mind, he posited that women might take a chance on the Porsche guy. Just like men, women have dating strategies, and in this instance, the pay-off would be big.
“He had to really work to get that Porsche, and that’s his bait, and she sees the bait,” Fisher said. “She reels him in, and he thinks it’s short term. She has sex with him, and he falls for her. Now her babies can ride around in a Porsche.”
I hope I haven't crushed your romantic soul.
Why? Because you posted something from the Huffington Post? I saw the interview with Gertchen Carlson and a couple other women... The lawsuits and settlements of the women who won sexual harassment cases says otherwise. Does that hurt your feelings buttercup?
THe topic was your belief system that women who let men with money, fame and power, sexually touch them, because the men use that money and power to FORCE THEM.
I was not citing the Huffington post. I was citing the information contained in the article with was drawn from scientific studies.
Are you seriously claiming to NOT see who that data is relevant to the topic?
Are you claiming that the excess number of sexual harassment cases against these guys like Ailes, Trump, and Clinton have no validity? Many of which have been settled for lots of money?
"Yes or no, in the South, if you are a white man and you call Black men "boy" is that racist?"
In much of the South/West "boys" is used the same as "guys" would be in the North/East as example: "You guys come by the house later." In that contex it would be erroneous to assume racist or sexist intent regardless of whether "boys" or "guys" were used.
I'll take your word for it.
Nope I won't. I'll take the word of all the women accusers of Bill Clinton, Roger Ailes, and Donald Trump... among many others.
YOu are seriously doubting that fame, money and power get you different treatment from women?
Fine.
From that right wing rag the Huffington post.
Study: Do Women Want Rich Men? | The Huffington Post
"How money plays into sex, dating and marriage is an often-studied topic. A report by Dr. Catherine Hakim released in January showed that women are choosing richer husbands, or “marrying up” more today than they did in the 1940s. And a controversial 2009 study found that while several factors affected a woman’s reported enjoyment of sex, the most influential was her partner’s income."
Catch that? Knowing the guy had money made the women enjoy sex more.
"Just because women know the conspicuous spender is primarily looking for a fling, that doesn’t mean they won’t try to turn that fling into something more.
“They want the resources, so they’ll think ‘Maybe I can love him in the way that makes him stay long-term,’” Fisher explained.
A study Fisher helped conduct with Match.com found that a third of respondents reported having a one-night stand that turned into a long-term relationship. With those numbers in mind, he posited that women might take a chance on the Porsche guy. Just like men, women have dating strategies, and in this instance, the pay-off would be big.
“He had to really work to get that Porsche, and that’s his bait, and she sees the bait,” Fisher said. “She reels him in, and he thinks it’s short term. She has sex with him, and he falls for her. Now her babies can ride around in a Porsche.”
I hope I haven't crushed your romantic soul.
Why? Because you posted something from the Huffington Post? I saw the interview with Gertchen Carlson and a couple other women... The lawsuits and settlements of the women who won sexual harassment cases says otherwise. Does that hurt your feelings buttercup?
THe topic was your belief system that women who let men with money, fame and power, sexually touch them, because the men use that money and power to FORCE THEM.
I was not citing the Huffington post. I was citing the information contained in the article with was drawn from scientific studies.
Are you seriously claiming to NOT see who that data is relevant to the topic?
Are you claiming that the excess number of sexual harassment cases against these guys like Ailes, Trump, and Clinton have no validity? Many of which have been settled for lots of money?
I am claiming that, like Trump, the famous, tall, billionaire said, that when you are famous and rich, that women are much more likely to "let" you sexually touch them.
"Let" in the standard english usage of the word, that we can reasonable assume that Trump was using, ie NOT THAT HE FORCED THEM.
I am not addressing the others you raise. They are completely irrelevant, as I have not claimed that rich men NEVER harass women, but that women are far more likely to give consent to certain men than you might expect.
"Yes or no, in the South, if you are a white man and you call Black men "boy" is that racist?"
In much of the South/West "boys" is used the same as "guys" would be in the North/East as example: "You guys come by the house later." In that contex it would be erroneous to assume racist or sexist intent regardless of whether "boys" or "guys" were used.
YOu are seriously doubting that fame, money and power get you different treatment from women?
Fine.
From that right wing rag the Huffington post.
Study: Do Women Want Rich Men? | The Huffington Post
"How money plays into sex, dating and marriage is an often-studied topic. A report by Dr. Catherine Hakim released in January showed that women are choosing richer husbands, or “marrying up” more today than they did in the 1940s. And a controversial 2009 study found that while several factors affected a woman’s reported enjoyment of sex, the most influential was her partner’s income."
Catch that? Knowing the guy had money made the women enjoy sex more.
"Just because women know the conspicuous spender is primarily looking for a fling, that doesn’t mean they won’t try to turn that fling into something more.
“They want the resources, so they’ll think ‘Maybe I can love him in the way that makes him stay long-term,’” Fisher explained.
A study Fisher helped conduct with Match.com found that a third of respondents reported having a one-night stand that turned into a long-term relationship. With those numbers in mind, he posited that women might take a chance on the Porsche guy. Just like men, women have dating strategies, and in this instance, the pay-off would be big.
“He had to really work to get that Porsche, and that’s his bait, and she sees the bait,” Fisher said. “She reels him in, and he thinks it’s short term. She has sex with him, and he falls for her. Now her babies can ride around in a Porsche.”
I hope I haven't crushed your romantic soul.
Why? Because you posted something from the Huffington Post? I saw the interview with Gertchen Carlson and a couple other women... The lawsuits and settlements of the women who won sexual harassment cases says otherwise. Does that hurt your feelings buttercup?
THe topic was your belief system that women who let men with money, fame and power, sexually touch them, because the men use that money and power to FORCE THEM.
I was not citing the Huffington post. I was citing the information contained in the article with was drawn from scientific studies.
Are you seriously claiming to NOT see who that data is relevant to the topic?
Are you claiming that the excess number of sexual harassment cases against these guys like Ailes, Trump, and Clinton have no validity? Many of which have been settled for lots of money?
I am claiming that, like Trump, the famous, tall, billionaire said, that when you are famous and rich, that women are much more likely to "let" you sexually touch them.
"Let" in the standard english usage of the word, that we can reasonable assume that Trump was using, ie NOT THAT HE FORCED THEM.
I am not addressing the others you raise. They are completely irrelevant, as I have not claimed that rich men NEVER harass women, but that women are far more likely to give consent to certain men than you might expect.
I like how you added "tall." How about you add that he also wears a raccoon on his head?
Why? Because you posted something from the Huffington Post? I saw the interview with Gertchen Carlson and a couple other women... The lawsuits and settlements of the women who won sexual harassment cases says otherwise. Does that hurt your feelings buttercup?
THe topic was your belief system that women who let men with money, fame and power, sexually touch them, because the men use that money and power to FORCE THEM.
I was not citing the Huffington post. I was citing the information contained in the article with was drawn from scientific studies.
Are you seriously claiming to NOT see who that data is relevant to the topic?
Are you claiming that the excess number of sexual harassment cases against these guys like Ailes, Trump, and Clinton have no validity? Many of which have been settled for lots of money?
I am claiming that, like Trump, the famous, tall, billionaire said, that when you are famous and rich, that women are much more likely to "let" you sexually touch them.
"Let" in the standard english usage of the word, that we can reasonable assume that Trump was using, ie NOT THAT HE FORCED THEM.
I am not addressing the others you raise. They are completely irrelevant, as I have not claimed that rich men NEVER harass women, but that women are far more likely to give consent to certain men than you might expect.
I like how you added "tall." How about you add that he also wears a raccoon on his head?
Trump might not have said that, but many women do consider height in their calculation of what is or is not a welcome advance.
My above point stands. do you wish to address it?
DO you have any female friends you could ask about this? In general, not specifically, as I'm sure most of your friends are screaming liberals. NO offense.
And also, as documented in the article, real racist are so small and insignificant that any actual racist that manages to rise to a position of responsibility, will be completely isolated from other like minded individual and will know that they will only keep their job by conforming to the non-racist culture around them.
The real racists are taking over the White House. You've elected a President with close affiliations with the KKK, and the racists are out in the open now.
There was nothing in the tape to suggest what you are making up.
"Let" was there indicating consent.
There was nothing there indicating force.
You obviously didn't watch the Gretchen Carlson interview the other night.
Nope.
Furthermore, if you think that the money and power and fame require "force" to get a man come special consideration, I have more bad news for you.
I'll take your word for it.
Nope I won't. I'll take the word of all the women accusers of Bill Clinton, Roger Ailes, and Donald Trump... among many others.
YOu are seriously doubting that fame, money and power get you different treatment from women?
Fine.
From that right wing rag the Huffington post.
Study: Do Women Want Rich Men? | The Huffington Post
"How money plays into sex, dating and marriage is an often-studied topic. A report by Dr. Catherine Hakim released in January showed that women are choosing richer husbands, or “marrying up” more today than they did in the 1940s. And a controversial 2009 study found that while several factors affected a woman’s reported enjoyment of sex, the most influential was her partner’s income."
Catch that? Knowing the guy had money made the women enjoy sex more.
"Just because women know the conspicuous spender is primarily looking for a fling, that doesn’t mean they won’t try to turn that fling into something more.
“They want the resources, so they’ll think ‘Maybe I can love him in the way that makes him stay long-term,’” Fisher explained.
A study Fisher helped conduct with Match.com found that a third of respondents reported having a one-night stand that turned into a long-term relationship. With those numbers in mind, he posited that women might take a chance on the Porsche guy. Just like men, women have dating strategies, and in this instance, the pay-off would be big.
“He had to really work to get that Porsche, and that’s his bait, and she sees the bait,” Fisher said. “She reels him in, and he thinks it’s short term. She has sex with him, and he falls for her. Now her babies can ride around in a Porsche.”
I hope I haven't crushed your romantic soul.
Why? Because you posted something from the Huffington Post? I saw the interview with Gertchen Carlson and a couple other women... The lawsuits and settlements of the women who won sexual harassment cases says otherwise. Does that hurt your feelings buttercup?
You obviously didn't watch the Gretchen Carlson interview the other night.
Nope.
Furthermore, if you think that the money and power and fame require "force" to get a man come special consideration, I have more bad news for you.
I'll take your word for it.
Nope I won't. I'll take the word of all the women accusers of Bill Clinton, Roger Ailes, and Donald Trump... among many others.
YOu are seriously doubting that fame, money and power get you different treatment from women?
Fine.
From that right wing rag the Huffington post.
Study: Do Women Want Rich Men? | The Huffington Post
"How money plays into sex, dating and marriage is an often-studied topic. A report by Dr. Catherine Hakim released in January showed that women are choosing richer husbands, or “marrying up” more today than they did in the 1940s. And a controversial 2009 study found that while several factors affected a woman’s reported enjoyment of sex, the most influential was her partner’s income."
Catch that? Knowing the guy had money made the women enjoy sex more.
"Just because women know the conspicuous spender is primarily looking for a fling, that doesn’t mean they won’t try to turn that fling into something more.
“They want the resources, so they’ll think ‘Maybe I can love him in the way that makes him stay long-term,’” Fisher explained.
A study Fisher helped conduct with Match.com found that a third of respondents reported having a one-night stand that turned into a long-term relationship. With those numbers in mind, he posited that women might take a chance on the Porsche guy. Just like men, women have dating strategies, and in this instance, the pay-off would be big.
“He had to really work to get that Porsche, and that’s his bait, and she sees the bait,” Fisher said. “She reels him in, and he thinks it’s short term. She has sex with him, and he falls for her. Now her babies can ride around in a Porsche.”
I hope I haven't crushed your romantic soul.
Why? Because you posted something from the Huffington Post? I saw the interview with Gertchen Carlson and a couple other women... The lawsuits and settlements of the women who won sexual harassment cases says otherwise. Does that hurt your feelings buttercup?
Does it hurt your feelings that some women (and men) will say or do anything for money? What reality are you living in?
Nope.
Furthermore, if you think that the money and power and fame require "force" to get a man come special consideration, I have more bad news for you.
I'll take your word for it.
Nope I won't. I'll take the word of all the women accusers of Bill Clinton, Roger Ailes, and Donald Trump... among many others.
YOu are seriously doubting that fame, money and power get you different treatment from women?
Fine.
From that right wing rag the Huffington post.
Study: Do Women Want Rich Men? | The Huffington Post
"How money plays into sex, dating and marriage is an often-studied topic. A report by Dr. Catherine Hakim released in January showed that women are choosing richer husbands, or “marrying up” more today than they did in the 1940s. And a controversial 2009 study found that while several factors affected a woman’s reported enjoyment of sex, the most influential was her partner’s income."
Catch that? Knowing the guy had money made the women enjoy sex more.
"Just because women know the conspicuous spender is primarily looking for a fling, that doesn’t mean they won’t try to turn that fling into something more.
“They want the resources, so they’ll think ‘Maybe I can love him in the way that makes him stay long-term,’” Fisher explained.
A study Fisher helped conduct with Match.com found that a third of respondents reported having a one-night stand that turned into a long-term relationship. With those numbers in mind, he posited that women might take a chance on the Porsche guy. Just like men, women have dating strategies, and in this instance, the pay-off would be big.
“He had to really work to get that Porsche, and that’s his bait, and she sees the bait,” Fisher said. “She reels him in, and he thinks it’s short term. She has sex with him, and he falls for her. Now her babies can ride around in a Porsche.”
I hope I haven't crushed your romantic soul.
Why? Because you posted something from the Huffington Post? I saw the interview with Gertchen Carlson and a couple other women... The lawsuits and settlements of the women who won sexual harassment cases says otherwise. Does that hurt your feelings buttercup?
Does it hurt your feelings that some women (and men) will say or do anything for money? What reality are you living in?
No, what I don't like is that some men with money think they can do whatever they want to women because they do have money and power.
THe topic was your belief system that women who let men with money, fame and power, sexually touch them, because the men use that money and power to FORCE THEM.
I was not citing the Huffington post. I was citing the information contained in the article with was drawn from scientific studies.
Are you seriously claiming to NOT see who that data is relevant to the topic?
Are you claiming that the excess number of sexual harassment cases against these guys like Ailes, Trump, and Clinton have no validity? Many of which have been settled for lots of money?
I am claiming that, like Trump, the famous, tall, billionaire said, that when you are famous and rich, that women are much more likely to "let" you sexually touch them.
"Let" in the standard english usage of the word, that we can reasonable assume that Trump was using, ie NOT THAT HE FORCED THEM.
I am not addressing the others you raise. They are completely irrelevant, as I have not claimed that rich men NEVER harass women, but that women are far more likely to give consent to certain men than you might expect.
I like how you added "tall." How about you add that he also wears a raccoon on his head?
Trump might not have said that, but many women do consider height in their calculation of what is or is not a welcome advance.
My above point stands. do you wish to address it?
DO you have any female friends you could ask about this? In general, not specifically, as I'm sure most of your friends are screaming liberals. NO offense.
I've talked to several woman about this issue, and I didn't find a single one that thought Trump's comments were harmless. Even the Republican supporters. Some still voted for him, because they didn't want Hillary... but they still thought his comments were a way of saying he could freely sexually assault women.
and to be honest... they all believe all his wives were beautiful and only believe they were with him because of his money.
So yeah, there might be some woman that will be with him because of his money... but women also believe that he can get away with acting stupid arounomen because he does have money.
