Stumble ThisAfter the news of Eliot Spitzer broke, Chelsea decided to show her unusual office greeting methods.
Chelsea Handler Sexually Assults Her Staff Related Videos
 Sexual Harassment Panda |  Nico Sings "Chelsea Girls" in the Chelsea Hotel |  Sebastien Tellier - Sexual Sportswear |
tags:
Comments 
playlists with this video
Amooosing by cheesemoo
• what. by cheesemoo
• Giirls by marinara
who voted for this video
eric3579
- Constitutional_Patriot
- twiddles
- apans
- Crosswords
- BoneyD
- JAPR
- Zonbie
- gorgonheap
- dystopianfuturetoday
- deathcow
- jongala
- Nebosuke
- Mysling
- youdiejoe
- Gunter
- berticus
- Chumtoad
- Tofumar
- Stingray
- Sarzy
- ex-jedi
- Debacle
- Fjnbk
- nyenyec
- lucidgroove
- cheesemoo
- rottenseed
- ChosenOne
- legacy0100
- tasseo4
- waxxx
- Bakalex
- pho3n1x
- jwray
- GeertJan
- EnemyCombatant
- BenyBen
- ashes2flames
- Bleedingsnowman
- Lendl
- RedSky
- gwiz665
- chilaxe
- YouMakeKittyMad
- wjolson
- littledragon_79
- MarineGunrock
- laura
- grahamslam
- schmawy
- DavidRaine
- syncron
- Don_Juan
- Majortomyorke
- omnistegan
- NetRunner
- sl666
- LadyDeath
- woebane
- marinara
- CalebMatthews
- blutruth
- EDD
- Jordass
- drattus
- b0ost
- debu
- lavoll
- gemini70
- rubadub
- Tiver
- dw1117
- RhesusMonk
- cybrbeast
- reiz
- Fred_Chopin
- pigeon
- Kuga
- Aemaeth
- Sketch
- dpedro
- wingnut
- Kevlar
- Smugglarn
- quantumushroom
- viewer_999
- calvados
- spoco2
- rbar
- mefa
- Astr0
- reallyboredofcollege
- arsenault185
- Napalm
- Duckhunter75
- Farhad2000
- enon
- WolfCoast
- Birdman
- sometimes
- HoRnO
- K0MMIE
- SlipperyPete
- Kerotan
- guessandcheck
- randomize
- vespertine
- coreburn
- Spoon_Gouge
- Obsidianfire
- sanderbos
- buzz
- sbchapm
- Unsung_Hero
- Fedquip
- dennisj
- MSeven
- Xick
- gorillaman
- supersaiyan93
who voted against this video
ant
- swampgirl
- choggie
who has this post bookmarked
legacy0100
- Nebosuke
Top New Videos by Vote
Subscribe
Top 15 Sifters of All Time
Top 15 Sifters of the Past Week
VideoSift Links
If that was a man, no one would be laughing, even if it was meant to be funny.
I work in a office where I am the only male. I constantly get comments about me being only a man and watch as they put up their all-male (almost nude) firefighter calenders..., and this is considered no problem. If the gender roles were reversed, I'm sure lawyers would be introduced.
By the was, I am in no way complaining, my view is live and let live, I don't care what they do or say, I laugh it off. I have noticed though how careful I have to be as a male in an office of 12 other women.
Just my 2¢
I have noticed though how careful I have to be as a male in an office of 12 other women
What's going on here?
>> ^Sagemind:
I have noticed though how careful I have to be as a male in an office of 12 other women
What's going on here?
Sounds like my group a while ago. 4 gals + me (male). DOH. However, they're not my types.
Yo! And at the supermarket checkout, waiting in line, what magazines are displayed? Three out of four blatently advertise sexual articles for women's consumption. If they were articles for men's consumption they would NOT be displayed! Where did we go wrong guys? Larry Flint - DO SOMETHING!!!
Where did we go wrong? By going mainly for visual sexual stimuli in our magazines. By going for primarily verbal stimuli, women's mags have the advantage of being relatively safe around young children--either they can't read, or they don't have the context (frequently) to understand what's going on.
You have to take the time to read for the stimuli aimed at women, whereas one only need a pair of eyes and a brain reasonably functional at interpreting visual images to ingest the stimuli aimed at men.
Yes indeed, sex is yet another area where the industrious efficiency of men shows our consistent superiority to the energy-wasting, inefficient methods of the weaker sex.
(To those who don't get the ironic barb in the above, one of us is stupid. There's no telling whether it's you or me.)
Where did we go wrong? By going mainly for visual sexual stimuli in our magazines. By going for primarily verbal stimuli, women's mags have the advantage of being relatively safe around young children--either they can't read, or they don't have the context (frequently) to understand what's going on.
You have to take the time to read for the stimuli aimed at women, whereas one only need a pair of eyes and a brain reasonably functional at interpreting visual images to ingest the stimuli aimed at men.
Mmm, this is some good pop psychology crap. To prepubescent children, a half-naked woman/man doesn't mean more than a harlequin novel. Yes they understand the words, yes they see the nakedness, but they don't assign sexual meaning to these stimuli by themselves, at least not anything they are conscious of or can act on. They have to be told what to think of it, and every Dr. Phil and Reverent Nutjob is eager to have his say. And the worst you can do isn't showing them some naked pictures or an article talking about sex, but to tell them it's wrong or unnatural to see/read it and have feelings about it, feelings that they don't even have yet: you're training them to think as wrong something they will unconsciously seek and have an urge for later, namely "sex" (in all its forms). You can't help it, they won't be able to help it, and trying to shield them from it is idiotic at best and criminally negligent at worst. What is even worst is preaching prudishness and then buying the worst magazines: not Playboy where girls are paid to be naked, but magazines where girls are half-naked to sell you something. The first is simple prostitution (consumption), whereas the second is akin to pimping (exploitation). You're telling them exploiting women/men is O.K. if you're hypocrital about it.
I have noticed though how careful I have to be as a male in an office of 12 other women.
Welcome to PC-liberal "freedom!"
/bewbs
>> ^Don_Juan:
Where did we go wrong? By going mainly for visual sexual stimuli in our magazines. By going for primarily verbal stimuli, women's mags have the advantage of being relatively safe around young children--either they can't read, or they don't have the context (frequently) to understand what's going on.
You have to take the time to read for the stimuli aimed at women, whereas one only need a pair of eyes and a brain reasonably functional at interpreting visual images to ingest the stimuli aimed at men.
Yes indeed, sex is yet another area where the industrious efficiency of men shows our consistent superiority to the energy-wasting, inefficient methods of the weaker sex.
(To those who don't get the ironic barb in the above, one of us is stupid. There's no telling whether it's you or me.)
Fail.
I'll tell you why:
Yes, men's magazines have barely clothed women on them. However, there are numerous women's magazines at the checkout that feature women in bikinis - like Shape or Women's health. So no, women's magazines are no no more "safe" then Men's.
(I'm referring to Stuff, Maxim and FHM)
Women are the pursued, men are the pursuers... in the majority of cases.
Face it, most guys watching this video wouldn't mind being the guys in it, whereas most women looking at a role reversal of this would be repulsed.