I made no personal attacks against any GCer.

I did comment on how if Clinton slept with Pamela Anderson instead, the Constitution would have been ammended to make him King.

That got deleted.

I also commented on hoe Monica Lewinsky is so huge that she looks like she could be a starting linebacker for the Greenbay Packers.

That was deleted, even though it violated no rules of this forum.

In fact, the rules of this forum indicate that only bashing each other is prohibited.

Look, Russ. Several things here. One, Green Bay. Not Greenbay.

Two, Ms. Lewinsky is nowhere near the size of a linebacker for the Pack in terms of height alone. She also isn't in weight.

You spelled Amendment wrong too.

Anyway, back to the issues - a lot of women on GC, fat and thin, short and tall, felt your post was out of line. You're no Brad Pitt, and even if you were, that doesn't give you the right to criticize Monica for her appearance.

And as I so sweetly pointed out to the H&A last night . . . most of y'all were giving props to JFK for sleeping with Marilyn Monroe. Ms. Monroe, at her largest, was a size 14 . . . the equivalent of a 10/12 today because of vanity sizing. The exact size, in fact, that that James -- and you, I believe -- were ripping on in this thread before it got deleted. I think most of us would agree that Marilyn was gorgeous throughout her career, yes?

Furthermore, I would like to point out the fact that there is not a single woman in the entire world who looks favorably on men bitching about the way women look. I assume none of y'all are looking to get laid by GC women, but I hope you don't use this technique offline with the women you ARE trying to pick up. I suppose that would explain some things . . .

All I have to say is this:
http://www.iownjoo.com/freeimghost/u...d%20detail.jpg

For many of us, it wasn't about the sex. That is irrelevant.

It's that he lied under oath. Saying it's about sex is avoiding the real question.

It's perjury that he was impeached for, not adultery.

I think that the posts about Monica Lewinsky's size were rude. She isn't the size of a linebacker. She isn't huge. She is probably the size of the average American woman.

I am really sick of men criticizing women for their appearance. People who are self-confident and have respect for women don't say or write superficial and cruel things like that. And it is cruel to be so judgmental.

I couldn't have said it better, PnC.

I don't you'd ever hear a woman say, "I don't find men who wear above a pant size of 34 to be attractive." Imagine if someone posted that on GC. We'd get an onslaught of posts from the GC men talking about how their body frame doesn't allow them to have a pant size less than 34. Guess what? Same with women. We're all built differently. Some women will work out everyday and have relatively low body fat but will still be a size 12 because of their height and bone structure.
It's unfair to say women who are a size 12 are not considered "normal".
Just for the record, I think Monica Lewinsky is beautiful and not at all overweight.

Listen people can't control certain things right? Honestly if a guy is a 34 and up he should really be working on losing that weight. If not, he's a fat ass, accepts it, and you can say what you want. But we all judge on looks. We all judge on things people can change and things they can't. Girls are even nastier about it - check any thread on a celebrity (ie Paris Hilton the hottest woman ever).

-Rudey

Exactly. And to be lectured on judging woman by there looks, by woman who go through through the daily rigors of applying makeup, is just one more level of hypocrisy.

There are many women out there who wear makeup because they like it. There are also many women out there who don't wear makeup. Your argument is ridiculous. The vast majority of women don't wear it to look good for men . . . they wear it to look good for themselves and feel more self-confident.

Of course people judge people by their looks. That's not in question. Nobody in this thread is saying, "You must find Monica sexually attractive, and have sex with her." They're saying, "Hey, it's kind of rude to rip on someone's looks as harshly as you have, calling her fugly when, actually, a lot of people find her cute and especially when you probably couldn't even get a date with a woman that looks like that, let alone a woman who looks better . . . that's kind of ghey, and furthermore, it's going to vastly decrease your chances of getting laid by ANY women, not just the ugly ones." (Also, especially when you've made it clear that you have no idea what a size 12 actually translates to in real life . . . James, I'm looking at you.)

The girls-ripping-on-girls culture is another issue entirely (one I don't condone, personally), competition-based, and doesn't excuse -- or relate to -- what guys say about women's looks. Unless those guys happen to be gay.

AGREED!

The argument is not ridiculous. If you don't want to be judged on looks, don't incorporate a daily capitulation to society's judgement of looks into your life.

Dieting, Working out, makeup, taking care to dress nicely, making sure snots aren't hanging out of your nose, wearing deordorant, BATHING... etc.

All are capitulations to society... why don't you stop doing all that? Why don't we all get back to our NATURAL selves. I'm sure you men would love it if the ladies stopped shaving armpits and getting bikini waxes.

I am betting there are some "capitulations" men are not willing to give up for the sake of argument.

Actually it is ridiculous. You're implying that if a woman stops wearing makeup, she will no longer be judged by her looks. That's ridiculous because she will still be judged by her looks anyway and you know it. I mean, are you telling us that you'd stop calling Monica a linebacker if she didn't wear makeup? I don't think so.