Do All Men Have Wondering Eyes?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Okay, 16 pages in one day over this?!?!?!?!?

You guys really need to get real jobs! :rolleyes:

To answer the original question though...

"Do all men have wandering eyes?".

Gawd, yes I hope so!!!!

At least all of us who are attracted to the opposite sex anyway.

observer "she's young enough to be your daughter".

Me, "yeah, I know, but the point is SHE ISN'T".
 
Last edited:
kevin47881 said:
Here's the thing, Matt, not all see all things the same. While you and I may see this as political, that does not mean Geico did. Yes, he did in fact make all the statements you post here but again, how one defines "political" may be different how another defines "political". I can't read the man's mind.
Click to expand...

It's simple: It takes logical contortions (the size and difficulty of which, I'm uncertain, but it must be significant) to say that impugning the leadership ability of a political leader, or the example set by a political leader, or the standards adhered to by a political leader -- with a sprinkling of foreign relations added on top -- is anything other than political in nature. I suppose one can define "political" however they'd like, but me? I'll stick with the dictionary, and by that definition, there's absolutely no question that it's a political discussion. End of story. :dunno:

kevin47881 said:
He submitted his mea culpa publicly and that carries a lot of weight with this one person on this one board.
Click to expand...

And that's great, and it carries some significance with me too. However, to argue that the post I pointed out isn't political just doesn't pass basic logical scrutiny. It just doesn't. :dunno:
 
Perhaps this will put this whole issue to bed: (So to speak)

A few years back, I read a theory that "all males, no matter what their age, be it two years old or a hundred years old, will be attracted to any female in her child bearing years."

Then there is the old advertising thing. "There are three things that will attract a readers attention: Round circles, furry animals, or sex." These will be effective for drawing the eye of both men and women. In printed media, a female or male, in their prime child bearing years will attract they eye of the reader. Even if the picture shown is nothing more than a portrait, even more so if they are smiling.

John
 
mikea said:
There was the girl in very minimal yellow bikini in the Miami background on Burn Notice last night...not that there's anything wrong with that.

Oh, and Fi wore a gown so sheer it looked like her tiny black top and bottom underneath were part of the pattern.
Click to expand...

She puts the Fi in FIOS, and was worth all the money for the HDTV. On the one hand I think she's too skinny for my taste, but she grows on you.
 
Oh, sorry I missed this thread... I've been too busy staring at that picture all day. :D

My eyes definitely wander, I work at a University. I'm not married though... I don't even want to guess how steingar deals with it. :D
 
kevin47881 said:
I'll take Geico at his word. Why you choose to believe otherwise is between you and the man in your mirror.
Click to expand...
I take him at his word that he now sees that the OP was a bunch of garbage and a rush to condemn and he now recognizes that. The rest of his post is exactly the type of stuff that he is accusing others of. To him I say you might wish to check out your reflection.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
Let he who is without sin cast the first stone. I'll bet my Aztec it's not you. So, don't cast stones.



And women don't? ;)
Click to expand...
I'll take that bet and the Aztec. To sin means that you have violated G-d's law. To do so one must first prove there is a G-d and if you cannot do that then sin is but a fictional concept and ergo no one has sinned.

When do you want me to come by and pick up the plane? ;)
 
Ted DuPuis said:
And women don't? ;)
Click to expand...

Actually, I seem to recall reading a study many years back that concluded that women actually look more than men do. We just don't notice because we're...

...oblivious

and

...too busy looking at butts.
 
Lord, I drop off-line for a day, and see where you all go.

Sheesh.

I truly cannot tell what is worse, the conclusion drawn from the original photo, or the pot-stirring claptrap that followed.

To all I say this: Don't feed the troll.... and don't BE the troll.
 
SCCutler said:
Lord, I drop off-line for a day, and see where you all go.

Sheesh.

I truly cannot tell what is worse, the conclusion drawn from the original photo, or the pot-stirring claptrap that followed.

To all I say this: Don't feed the troll.... and don't BE the troll.
Click to expand...
I like boobs.
 
I enjoy "observing" men all the time. And I'd expect my husband to do some observing too, otherwise how would he know how good he's got it? :rolleyes:
 
smigaldi said:
No but his demanding the president act more presidential does make it political. He is dinging the subject of the photo purely for political reasons. His intent and subject are political.

Had someone come on here and spoken about George Bush picking his nose in public. As shown in this picture

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph/multimedia/archive/00648/news-graphics-2007-_648946a.jpg

Then complained that the 'president was a nose picking fool', that too would have been political and masses of PoA people who are pro-right would have gotten their painties in a huge nuclear bunch.
Click to expand...

So, Scott, do you always try to tell people what their intentions are...as if you know better than Spike what his intentions are? I wonder...:rolleyes:

Its one thing to analyze a person's sentence...quite another to tell the person what their own intentions are...
 
Last edited:
dmccormack said:
Your opinion is not universal:

But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart.
Click to expand...

The God I believe in created all these beautiful bodies, and why shouldn't we appreciate them? They are, after all, the works of a master.
 
HeatherCFI said:
Trust me.... we do. Most women are pretty good at hiding it though. I, on the other hand, make it completely obvious when I'm checking someone out. I figure if guys can do it, so can I.
Click to expand...

Well I've never seen a woman checking me out, so it must not be true. Oh . . .wait. . . um.. . nevermind :blush: :frown3: :redface:
 
TMetzinger said:
OK, everyone watch Heather at OSH and say "gotcha" when you see her checking someone out (at least until your throat is sore).
Click to expand...


LOL. I'm usually staring into the sky at OSH, or have my head inside some airplane. But that doesn't mean I miss out on checking out a hottie. :blush:

Sometimes after I've had just a few too many, I just start smacking rear-ends. That makes it REALLY obvious. :rofl::rofl::rofl:
 
bockwoman3 said:
So, Scott, do you always try to tell people what their intentions are
Click to expand...
His words give away what his intentions are. As he wrote in the post

Geico266 said:
Mr. President, would you like men dreweling over your daughters?
Click to expand...

Pretty clear that his intent was to spark a political commentary about the behavior of a president, not the behavior of a man.

I calls them as I sees them and this one is crystal clear.

Had he intended this to be a drooling man issue he simple would have framed his observation as such.

It is not just my opinion of his intent.

ReverendSlappy said:
You can take him at his "word" -- and ignore the actual words in his post and the fact that the circulation of this whole issue began on right-wing (you know, political) websites -- if you wish. But in this universe -- the one that both I and the man in my mirror live in -- discussing how a political leader "sets an example", what "standards" he adheres to "in public, in a foreign country" and how he "represents" the country and anything to do with the quality of "him being a leader" is and always will be unambiguously and easily-understood to be political. And the only thing I have to do to (quite easily) draw that clear-as-day conclusion is to read the words of that post -- something that perhaps you didn't do. :dunno:
Click to expand...

As Matt had noticed the entire issue started on blogs and other right wing websites as a way to enrage the right's base over alleged behavior, that has since been proven false, of the president. The entire issue was one of political one upmanship.
 
Last edited:
So what was the point of the thread?

Cueing off of Spike's comments, let's stay on topic - and the topic is not "sniping" at each other, nor is it politics. Continuing down those roads will most likely result in the thread being closed or deleted.
 
Leslie says that men's eyes wander. Deal with it. And a strong black woman (read "Michelle") wouldn't put up with squat anyway. Non-issue!
 
wsuffa said:
So what was the point of the thread?
Click to expand...

Sometimes you just have to accept that its time to (yes, to steal a phrase) 'put it to sleep'!

Dang, I was soo proud I hadn't gotten into this one...til now!

Close it, Bill!
 
Some things are like the sun, you shouldn't stare at them for too long! :D
 
A few thoughts:

* If he was checking her out, well, I must say that the president has excellent taste. :yes:

* It's quite clear from watching the video that he was not staring, at least, and doesn't appear to have been looking at all, as he kept looking at the same spot after she was gone.

* Yes, all men have wAndering eyes. And if you don't want your daughters being looked at - Well, make them dress in something that doesn't flaunt it. I bet they hate you for it, and that they dress that way specifically to get checked out. (Shocking, I know. And BTW, Geico, this is not addressed at you specifically, but at the entire group of fathers who feel this way.)

* Is there REALLY anything wrong with looking? Sheesh.

* Save me a seat in hell, guys. Ted, you're right, it'll be a lot like Scholler or the North 40 except it'll be less humid. :rofl:

* Yes, girls do it too! One memorable experience from college: I was walking down Oakland Ave., going from Engineering back to my fraternity house, and there was a cute girl going the other way. We exchanged smiles as we passed, and a few steps later we both simultaneously turned around to check each other's asses out... So then we exchanged sheepish grins and went on our merry way. :rofl:

* I find it ironic that the folks who are squawking about this thread needing to go to SZ are the SZ denizens, and those who don't go to the SZ haven't said a word. I bet this thread would be half the size it is without that argument!

That is all.
 
TMetzinger said:
She puts the Fi in FIOS, and was worth all the money for the HDTV. On the one hand I think she's too skinny for my taste, but she grows on you.
Click to expand...

Yep. Agree 100%... when they shot her from the back and you could see her vertebrae and I swear, her entire nerve network.

All I gotta say is if the scenery in Miami is really like that I'd hate to have an office with a window. :blush:
 
mikea said:
All I gotta say is if the scenery in Miami is really like that I'd hate to have an office with a window. :blush:
Click to expand...
It is. I went to Miami on a consulting trip last year and did some work for a high dollar hotel on the beach. Holy crap was that nice. Only IT team I've ever seen with HUGE windows and a view of the beach. Everyone was *really* good looking there. I clearly, did not fit in :)
 
smigaldi said:
His words give away what his intentions are. As he wrote in the post



Pretty clear that his intent was to spark a political commentary about the behavior of a president, not the behavior of a man.

I calls them as I sees them and this one is crystal clear.

Had he intended this to be a drooling man issue he simple would have framed his observation as such.

It is not just my opinion of his intent.



As Matt had noticed the entire issue started on blogs and other right wing websites as a way to enrage the right's base over alleged behavior, that has since been proven false, of the president. The entire issue was one of political one upmanship.
Click to expand...

It's not like they caught him NOT COVERING HIS HEART!!!!

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/anthem.asp
http://www.pilotsofamerica.com/forum/showthread.php?t=22474&highlight=obama+pledge

If they did such with the endless tongue wagging with GW it would have required 17 full time 24 hour cable channels.
 
smigaldi said:
As Matt had noticed the entire issue started on blogs and other right wing websites as a way to enrage the right's base over alleged behavior, that has since been proven false, of the president. The entire issue was one of political one upmanship.
Click to expand...

It's not like they caught him NOT COVERING HIS HEART!!!!

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/anthem.asp
http://www.pilotsofamerica.com/forum/showthread.php?t=22474&highlight=obama+pledge

If they did such with the endless tongue wagging with GW it would have required 17 full time 24 hour cable channels.
 
Geico266 said:
You are right Harry, after reviewing the video I agree. It seems I too have been a rush to judgment. All I saw was the picture which looks terrible! No man should be staring at a young girl in any way except that which an adoring father's eyes would gaze.
Click to expand...

Nice to see this -- few people on this board are capable of admitting when they were wrong. Being able to do so is worth a lot in my book.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
* I find it ironic that the folks who are squawking about this thread needing to go to SZ are the SZ denizens, and those who don't go to the SZ haven't said a word. I bet this thread would be half the size it is without that argument!
Click to expand...

The rules is the rules. I don't think there's anything ironic or really otherwise too scandalous about noting what one believes to be a contravention of them. :dunno:
 
Geico266 said:
Looking at a person's eyes or hair is not the same as staring at her behind or breasts like a salvating dog, I think that is an important distiction,...... hence the thread. Besides your GF is looking at what is on the menu, clearly a 16 year old girl is not.
Click to expand...
Sorry, but I think some folks are bringing their own issues to the table here - he was hardly doing that, it's normal for males to look at females and vice versa.

All the qualifiers some folks are using seem to call out their own issues. Good luck with that.

As for the father in the casino with the daughter: his behavior probably caused her MUCH more embarrassment and emotional bruising than she would have "suffered" from being looked at, which was happening ANYway. All he did was foolishly compound the problem.

EDIT: I'm glad to see the video clearly showing that, once again, Obama's actions have been grossly misconstrued and the flapdoodle over all this is, once again, undeserved.

And a year ago all those same websites were yowling about "bush derangement syndrome", and what we've gotten from them in the last 6 months is many times worse... hypocrisy at its worst.
 
Last edited:
wbarnhill said:
Oh, sorry I missed this thread... I've been too busy staring at that picture all day. :D

My eyes definitely wander, I work at a University. I'm not married though... I don't even want to guess how steingar deals with it. :D
Click to expand...

My lab is near the hospital, and far away from where most of the undergraduates take classes. I teach all my courses in the winter.

Even so I am now schooled in subtle glances. It was not always so; in my youth I took my motorcycle to examine another one for sale at San Diego State University. I almost ran into a post.

It is truly a fine line. Woman do to an extent like to be viewed, and often set themselves up for such. However, there is a reasonable objection to objectifying those of the opposite sex; one must not loose sight of the person within or allow the objectifying to get in the way. And yes, it can be considerably more difficult for a man when working among attractive young women.

I don't think there is a guy alive who would mind in the least being viewed as a sex object. Women have it good.
 
steingar said:
Even so I am now schooled in subtle glances. It was not always so; in my youth I took my motorcycle to examine another one for sale at San Diego State University. I almost ran into a post.
Click to expand...

A few years ago, I had a smokin' hot, VERY well-endowed girlfriend, and I got to see the other side of the equation for the first time: Us guys are, on average, HORRIBLE at disguising our glances. :yes: Walking around next to her and never seeing a guy look at me, or above her chest, was quite revealing. :eek:

Hasn't stopped me, either. :rofl:
 
flyingcheesehead said:
A few years ago, I had a smokin' hot, VERY well-endowed girlfriend, and I got to see the other side of the equation for the first time: Us guys are, on average, HORRIBLE at disguising our glances. :yes: Walking around next to her and never seeing a guy look at me, or above her chest, was quite revealing. :eek:

Hasn't stopped me, either. :rofl:
Click to expand...

:confused::confused::confused:

:D:D:D
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top