On May 13, 8:02=A0am, Jennie Kermode <"Jennie
Kermode"@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> Of course, whenever a female candidate
> is involved, her apparent *** appeal (or lack thereof) also becomes a
> factor and many male voters turn into morons.
It's a bit of a cliche, but I don't think most men are as prone to mix
up ***uality with political, economic, or social status. They don't
expect the powerful to be ***y or the ***y, powerful. They're just as
prone to fawn over celebrities, but the *type* of celebrity tends to
differ - mostly, women who are famous for being ***y (whether they
really are or not). Look at our own dear Heinz (aka #57, for you
furriners).
The particular nastiness men are more prone to in this area, I think,
is the desire to see rich and powerful women humiliated ***ually. I
don't think many people find Hillary Clinton terribly attractive or,
despite what some will say, unattractive, but people who dislike her
often express their dislike in particularly crude and sometimes
vicious ***ual terms.
Likewise, I'm not sure anyone wanted to see the Paris Hilton *** tape
because they found her attractive or the *** enticing, I think they
thought of its unintended (by her, anyway) release as degrading to her
and found the idea of participating in the ***ual degradation of the
ultimate Rich ***** to be irresistable.
> Nobody ever seems to ask
> us queer people which politicians we fancy.
You know, I don't think I can think of a single queer person
(regardless of *** or orientation) talking about politicians in those
terms in my hearing.
- Endymion
|
