Do you think men are more effeminate?

Nautilus said:
I have it all figured out: This is a man. This is a woman.

View attachment 91136View attachment 91137
Click to expand...
No, Selleck is a sell-out moth@#fu#$&% who hawks rip-off reverse mortgages on TV, all the time talking about how he personally checked out the options with such mortgages!

This a-hole is worth around $45M. He NEVER checked out reverse mortgages other than to see how many millions he'd make hawking the company's dreck! Disgusting!

(FWIW: I know, in a very, very small percentage of cases, that a reverse mortgage can be a good idea. Thing is, I've read far more sad stories concerning them, than happy ones.)

Now, Sophia Loren----- Oh baby!
 
I don't know if there's any fans here of ''Cheyenne'' (Clint Walker). The character was my idea of the perfect man, he was rough when he needed to be but was gentle in his ways and very ethical and honest and had a lot of common sense (besides being tall and gorgeous). Wish I had met someone like him but it was not in my fate.
 
Rosemarie said:
It may be that men are now allowed to show their true natures. In the past, some of the fashions for men have been very feminine. Think of the cavaliers with their lace and frills, Regency days with their 'fops and dandys'. During the sixties 'Teddy boys' were always fussing over their appearance, so it's nothing new.
The differences between the genders are not well-defined. What bothers me is how many men think it's macho to be violent, as though men who are kind and sensitive are somehow less masculine.
Click to expand...
This is an exceptional post Rosemarie.
An opinion very well stated.
 
No, no, no, I'm not looking for a man. I'm not talking about the facade of "manly men". It seems the more effiminate natures and accepting aberrant and deviant behaviors are being stuffed down our thoats. If we choose not to accept them, (Don M .mentioned the Oscars) it seems we are the ones who are attacked for not approving. Maybe it is that the new generations have a softer life. Heck, I don't know! I still want to time travel back to 1959! Thanks guys! You guys are awesome!
 
Gaer said:
No, no, no, I'm not looking for a man. I'm not talking about the facade of "manly men". It seems the more effiminate natures and accepting aberrant and deviant behaviors are being stuffed down our thoats. If we choose not to accept them, (Don M .mentioned the Oscars) it seems we are the ones who are attacked for not approving. Maybe it is that the new generations have a softer life. Heck, I don't know! I still want to time travel back to 1959! Thanks guys! You guys are awesome!
Click to expand...
Maybe *I* am thinking your ultra-extreme reactionary and prejudiced views are being stuffed down my THOAT. And maybe I'm not. And maybe it is you who are used to attacking and judging others and want the freedom to continue to do so. Not awesome, no longer acceptable by a kinder, gentler society. Maybe.
 
Seems to me that some men have become pu****s while some women have become very maculine. I don't care for men being ladylike or women acting like John Wayne. Hey, I'm 73 so let the young have it their way. It's their world. I'm invisible!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Nautilus said:
Pretty sweeping statement. You know that for a fact or you're guessing...or jealous...or both?
Click to expand...
Educated guess. He's worth $45M. If he EVER thought about getting a reverse mortgage, I'll eat my hat and any other hats in the vicinity. If he EVER poured over reverse mortgages to understand them, I would be surprised, as well. Jealous? Hardly. Most of his shows were schlock. He did a few good movies, I think, but I only saw a few minutes of the baby one. Not for me.
 
Pepper: I'm sorry if I offended you. Sorry I left out my "R". as you pointed out. Wow! No one has ever called me those names. This is making me review my feelings. Maybe this is something I'm "not supposed to talk about". I'm not obsessed with this but I think Packerjohn has the best view! It's their world.
 
Gaer said:
Pepper: I'm sorry if I offended you. Sorry I left out my "R". as you pointed out. Wow! No one has ever called me those names. This is making me review my feelings. Maybe this is something I'm "not supposed to talk about". I'm not obsessed with this but I think Packerjohn has the best view! It's their world.
Click to expand...
You didn't offend me. Maybe I was being a grouch.
 
treeguy64 said:
Educated guess. He's worth $45M. If he EVER thought about getting a reverse mortgage, I'll eat my hat and any other hats in the vicinity. If he EVER poured over reverse mortgages to understand them, I would be surprised, as well. Jealous? Hardly. Most of his shows were schlock. He did a few good movies, I think, but I only saw a few minutes of the baby one. Not for me.
Click to expand...
Your fact has now become a guess? His net worth only goes to prove that he doesn't need the money he earns doing commercials. As for whether or not he understands reverse mortgages, I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. It's just not that complicated. If you take the time to review his body of work on the IMDB, you'd be surprised that he's ONLY worth $45M. Oprah Winfrey makes commercials for "O, That's Good" pizza but maybe she's never eaten pizza? She's worth $2.7 BILLION.
 
And another thing...

I think back to some guys I used to know in high school who were almost certainly gay. They were harassed and picked on for being "queer." Isn't it a lot better if kids like that can come out without being hassled? Does anybody really want a return to the old days on this front?
 
treeguy64 said:
No, Selleck is a sell-out moth@#fu#$&% who hawks rip-off reverse mortgages on TV, all the time talking about how he personally checked out the options with such mortgages!

This a-hole is worth around $45M. He NEVER checked out reverse mortgages other than to see how many millions he'd make hawking the company's dreck! Disgusting!

(FWIW: I know, in a very, very small percentage of cases, that a reverse mortgage can be a good idea. Thing is, I've read far more sad stories concerning them, than happy ones.)

Now, Sophia Loren----- Oh baby!
Click to expand...
Tom Selleck? 🥺
Nooooo! Say it ain’t so 😰
 
I apologize in advance, I know I am like a broken record about BPA but I think the answer is here .......

https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/what-is-bpa

And here ...........

BPA is an endocrine disruptor. It can imitate the body's hormones, and it can interfere with the production, secretion, transport, action, function, and elimination of natural hormones. BPA can behave in a similar way to estrogen and other hormones in the human body.

A child conceived in the early 70s, 80s and 90s was bombarded from conception with BPA in huge quantities. There is no way that could not affect that fetus or the child as it matured.

Just sayin'
 
gennie said:
A child conceived in the early 70s, 80s and 90s was bombarded from conception with BPA in huge quantities. There is no way that could not affect that fetus or the child as it matured.
Just sayin'
Click to expand...
And that explains the stable rate of homosexuality throughout millennia how?
 
Ferocious said:
You are one lucky fella, Win, I'll bet she has no problem cracking walnuts when you are both watching movies. 😊
Click to expand...
No, she can crack walnuts just by staring at them.
She doesn't read books. She just stares at them until they give her the information she wants.
And, when she does pushups, she doesn't lift herself up; she pushes the earth down.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top