# Poverty Apologists / Apologetics **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 5, 2016, 7:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/poverty-apologists-apologetics/751287 "2016-04-05T19:52:51Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 18
**Author:** ![andros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e480ec/32.png) [@andros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/andros)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2016, 3:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/poverty-apologists-apologetics/751287/341 "2016-04-18T15:56:40Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Dr. Maslow answered your page. He said you should look up the definition of the word “hierarchy” and get back to us. Sure. You’re arguing that someone at the base of the hierarchy is stupid for wanting to grasp for something higher. Sorry, not _stupid_, just not a _grown-up_. ---
**Author:** ![monstro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba9def/32.png) [@monstro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monstro)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2016, 4:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/poverty-apologists-apologetics/751287/342 "2016-04-18T16:01:51Z")
> [@bump](#): > > And that is bullshit. EVERYONE I know pretty much went to school, _maybe_ changed majors once, and then got out and competed with all the other graduates of all the other local schools for the jobs that were out there. Nobody called up daddy or their daddy’s buddy and got a cushy job. It doesn’t have to be “daddy”. It can be frat brother, friend-of-a-friend, or mother’s-best-friend’s-sister. You’re essentially saying that “It’s not what you know, it’s who you know” is a myth, even though research shows that [more than 70% of jobs are obtained through networking](http://www.npr.org/2011/02/08/133474431/a-successful-job-search-its-all-about-networking). Why do middle-class people beat down the doors to gain admission into Ivy League schools? Because they ain’t crazy. If you want to get a foot into the best social networks in the country, you’ll get it by attending an Ivy League institution. Do you deny this? I find it hilarious how the people who are the most vocal against AA and other “hand-outs” are usually the most blind to how they’ve been helped by their own environments. I don’t know a thing about you, but I do know that you and your friends didn’t get jobs by pulling your own lone individual bootstraps, with no guidance or assistance from anyone else. Everyone who has reached success in this life has been “hooked up” in some shape or form, _especially_ the non-poor. A poor student who goes to a no-name “easy” college is not well-placed for any kind of “hook up”. You can call this “bullshit” all you want, but I think you’d be the only person on this board who’d challenge such a incontrovertible assertion. ---
**Author:** ![Saint\_Cad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saint_cad/32/18907_2.png) [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2016, 4:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/poverty-apologists-apologetics/751287/343 "2016-04-18T16:02:06Z")
> [@Blalron](#): > > You may find this hard to believe Saint Cad, but I’m a fairly well read and intelligent individual. I know full well from an intellectual standpoint that if I completely forgo purchasing Pabst Blue Ribbon beer, and instead put that money in an mutual fund, I would have a pretty good sum of money in 5 to 10 years. Oftentimes I wake up in the morning and resolve to myself that I’m going to do this. But then I clock off my shift tired and stressed out, I end up saying to myself “fuck it”, and buy the beer anyway. From your point of view this may be an indulgent luxury, but from my point of view it helps make my life just a little bit more tolerable. Choosing between beer and an investment is NOT choosing between a non-essential and an essential-to-survive necessity. But that is the strawman that always seems to get brought up in these discussions. There are three types of poor people. 1. People scraping by because of circumstances or maybe a bad decision or two. These are the people that work two jobs or take the best job they can as crappy as it is but their family has a roof over their head and food on the table and clothes for school. 2. Poor but not survival mode. These are people that can take care of the necessities of life but not much else. A few bucks at the end of the month but will never put away the down payment for a house or a really nice car or pay out-of-pocket for school, etc. You sound like you’re in this group. 3. The group that really is (or at least should be) under discussion. These are the people that have to go to the food bank or they won’t have food the last four days of the month but they buy a dog. They buy a new expensive truck but can’t afford the gas to get to work. They can’t afford the utility bills but go to the movies at full price with popcorn and coke. They can’t afford their full rent but buy needless (or needlessly expensive gifts) for people. And they are always begging for money to cover the necessities. Some people lump all of these groups together, but I think that when it is the poor or poverty mentality that it is being discussed it is the third group. Yet when I complain about my SIL who spent a ton of money on a kids birthday at an amusement park then needed my wife to give her money to buy gas to get there, someone counters with yeah but my husband took all our money and left me with three kids and doesn’t pay support … So LIMITING ourselves to group number three, my question still stands. Is it ever a valid choice to pick a non-essential item (movie, expensive dinner out, etc.) if it meas you cannot afford essential items? ---
**Author:** ![andros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e480ec/32.png) [@andros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/andros)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2016, 4:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/poverty-apologists-apologetics/751287/344 "2016-04-18T16:03:32Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > The poverty apologists Also, to be perfectly clear: I’m not a “poverty apologist,” whatever you and **bump** and whoever else thinks that term means. I _understand_ the choices people in poverty make. That doesn’t mean I support their making those choices or want them to continue doing so. ---
**Author:** ![andros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e480ec/32.png) [@andros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/andros)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2016, 4:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/poverty-apologists-apologetics/751287/345 "2016-04-18T16:06:12Z")
> [@Saint\_Cad](#): > > Is it ever a valid choice to pick a non-essential item (movie, expensive dinner out, etc.) if it meas you cannot afford essential items? I get where you’re coming from. I think the question really hinges on the word “valid.” It’s an entirely _understandable_ choice. It’s possibly–probably–a poor one. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2016, 4:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/poverty-apologists-apologetics/751287/346 "2016-04-18T16:08:10Z")
> [@andros](#): > > … I can’t get behind the idea that someone is unworthy of help just because they might be spending some of what money they do have on things that are beyond the barest scraping minimums. Hey, if you want to buy the movie-goer’s groceries, go right ahead. I don’t want to. There are lots of people in tough situations that are “worthy of help”. Those people almost certainly don’t make perfect decisions, suppress every impulse, avoid every mistake, or otherwise perform at an unrealistic level well beyond their abilities. I don’t begrudge someone the occasional PBR after a long day, or even a little luxury here or there. The scenario given was “A person goes to the movies **every** Friday but cannot afford food.” I might help this person the first weekend, and possibly the second, but after weeks and weeks of seeing them blow their grocery money at the movies (when going to the movies is a luxury for me that I enjoy maybe once a month) I’m probably going to say, “screw you buddy, I’m not going to help you anymore”. I think that’s pretty basic human nature. ---
**Author:** ![Saint\_Cad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saint_cad/32/18907_2.png) [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2016, 4:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/poverty-apologists-apologetics/751287/347 "2016-04-18T16:10:39Z")
> [@andros](#): > > Sure. You’re arguing that someone at the base of the hierarchy is stupid for wanting to grasp for something higher. Sorry, not _stupid_, just not a _grown-up_. No what we are saying (or at least I am) is that when it comes to priorities, take care of the base first THEN higher levels as you can afford it. ---
**Author:** ![Saint\_Cad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saint_cad/32/18907_2.png) [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2016, 4:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/poverty-apologists-apologetics/751287/348 "2016-04-18T16:19:57Z")
And like HurricaneDitka, I’ll help out occassionally like invite them and pay when we go to the zoo or offer to meet them for dinner and pay for the meal. But I don’t have sympathy for someone who takes their family of four to a very expensive restaurant ($60/person plus drinks) and talks during dinner about how they have to go to the food bank the next day because the father of the children (who lives with her) refuses to pay any bills, buy any groceries, watch his own kids and makes her pay for the babysitter. Oh yes, she was treating him to the dinner for his birthday. ---
**Author:** ![Velocity](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/velocity/32/18006_2.png) [@Velocity](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Velocity)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2016, 4:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/poverty-apologists-apologetics/751287/349 "2016-04-18T16:20:12Z")
Oftentimes, arguing on behalf of the poor ends up reducing sympathy for the poor. It’s a conundrum. ---
**Author:** ![Velocity](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/velocity/32/18006_2.png) [@Velocity](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Velocity)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2016, 4:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/poverty-apologists-apologetics/751287/350 "2016-04-18T16:23:05Z")
> [@andros](#): > > I can’t get behind the idea that someone is unworthy of help just because they might be spending some of what money they do have on things that are beyond the barest scraping minimums. Yes - but they are not entitled to shift responsibility on to someone else - _“I spent $20 on movie tickets, so I have no money for dinner - if you don’t give me money I’ll go hungry.”_ ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2016, 4:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/poverty-apologists-apologetics/751287/351 "2016-04-18T16:41:46Z")
> [@andros](#): > > Sure. You’re arguing that someone at the base of the hierarchy is stupid for wanting to grasp for something higher. Sorry, not _stupid_, just not a _grown-up_. Maslow didn’t talk about a hierarchy of people, but a hierarchy of needs. You probably should check your references before you make them. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Slash1972](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slash1972/32/6461_2.png) [@Slash1972](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Slash1972)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2016, 5:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/poverty-apologists-apologetics/751287/352 "2016-04-18T17:01:29Z")
> [@Broomstick](#): > > _\>sigh\<_ > > Are you aware that birth control _costs money?_ Not just for the pills people usually mean by “birth control”, a doctor has to prescribe those pills. If you don’t have health insurance getting an appointment will likely cost you in the neighborhood of $100. While some version of birth control pills are as low as $9/month some are more expensive, closer to $50/month, and you can only get what the doctor prescribes. If you have Medicaid hope meddling moralizers haven’t carved out birth control as something the state medical coverage won’t pay for. That’s why Planned Parenthood is so damn important, they help poor women obtain birth control and yet you have moralizing assholes trying to shut them down. > > There are, of course, other types of birth control that don’t require a doctor to get. You really think loser men are going to be talked into wearing a condom? The morning after pill runs about $48/dose in the store I work in, we have to put the boxes in security devices to cut down on theft. We have condoms and sponges and spermicide walking out the door unpaid for on a daily basis. SOMEONE is using all that. Some folks are apparently motivated enough to use birth control they’ll _steal_ it. > > Birth control isn’t free. Let’s see - you’re having trouble paying the rent, the bills, buying food… where is the money for this supposed to come from? Which is more important, birth control pills or feeding the screaming toddler already in the world? > > For someone middle-class the cost is trifling. For the poor it can be an onerous expense. That’s the point some of us keep trying to make. If you have money you have a lot more options, and money really can fix certain problems and allow certain mistakes that poor people have to suffer through. Middle Class Lady forgets to take her pills for a couple days, or a condom breaks, she can afford to get Morning After Pill. Poor woman can’t afford birth control pills or a condom breaks if she hasn’t got $50 she doesn’t get the morning after pill. Getting an abortion costs hundreds. I’m fairly certain that Medicaid pays for birth control. I’m also fairly certain that Planned Parenthood will provide free or extremely cheap birth control for people. I’m also fairly certain that saying “No condom means no sex” is also free. I’ll chalk this up to excuse #1 in your list of excuses dealing with poor people behavior. ---
**Author:** ![Slash1972](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slash1972/32/6461_2.png) [@Slash1972](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Slash1972)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2016, 5:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/poverty-apologists-apologetics/751287/353 "2016-04-18T17:02:42Z")
> [@Broomstick](#): > > Good lord. > > You really think one of those loser types who pride themselves on viable sperm are going to take “no” for an answer? One of two things is likely to happen: either he dumps the girl and finds one who won’t ask him to wear a rubber, or she gets a fist to the teeth. > > Also, women want to fuck just as much as men do. After awhile, a lot of women are going to say screw it and do it bareback just because they’re so damn tired of being horny. > > When you’re poor sex is free - and not much else that is fun is free. Not much else that makes you feel good, even for a few minutes, is free. It makes it even harder to say “no”. > > I’m not saying that every poor man is a wife-beater, or unwilling to wear a condom, or doesn’t take responsibility for any children he fathers. Those aren’t the ones you’re talking about here, and that’s the problem. Guys who father children and blow money that should go to child support on booze and fancy tire rims are not guys who really give a damn about the woman’s position in all this. This will be excuse #2 - “Poor girls HAVE to have unprotected sex with loser assholes because they have no choice” ---
**Author:** ![bump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7c8e57/32.png) [@bump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bump)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2016, 5:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/poverty-apologists-apologetics/751287/354 "2016-04-18T17:04:09Z")
> [@monstro](#): > > It doesn’t have to be “daddy”. It can be frat brother, friend-of-a-friend, or mother’s-best-friend’s-sister. > > You’re essentially saying that “It’s not what you know, it’s who you know” is a myth, even though research shows that [More than 70% of jobs are obtained through networking](http://www.npr.org/2011/02/08/133474431/a-successful-job-search-its-all-about-networking). > > Why do middle-class people beat down the doors to gain admission into Ivy League schools? Because they ain’t crazy. They know good and well that if you want to get a foot into the best social networks, you’ll get it by attending an Ivy League. No, I’m saying that the vast majority of middle-class college students end up building their own networks in school and afterward in the working world. It doesn’t really come into play right out of school for that first job, unless your parents are somehow much more connected than most middle-class people are. There’s no reason a poor person in the same situation can’t or won’t do the same thing- if anything, I’d think the poor person would do a better job, as networking seems to be a more important skill in poor parts of town than in middle class areas, where you can just go to the auto shop, and don’t have to find a friend of a friend’s uncle who knows how to work on cars. Once you’re out and working, it’s more about your own network, which is mostly people you went to school with and people you met during your career, which is a network entirely within your control to build and nurture how you see fit. That’s where those 70% of jobs through networking from, not entry-level jobs from recent college grads. ---
**Author:** ![Slash1972](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slash1972/32/6461_2.png) [@Slash1972](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Slash1972)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2016, 5:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/poverty-apologists-apologetics/751287/355 "2016-04-18T17:04:49Z")
> [@Broomstick](#): > > Granted that I never had kids, I see stuff all the time in “various media” I’d like but I’ll never have. I want a flying car like Chitty-Chitty-Bang-Bang. I want to fly into space. I want to speak 14 languages fluently. I want to be a suave secret agent like James Bond 007. I want to sing like Adele. None of that will ever happen for me. > > Just because people see something in movies or on TV doesn’t mean they’ll ever think they’ll have a realistic chance of _getting_ that thing, even growing up like I did in a middle-class household. > They think they can’t have that because everything in their life tells them they can’t have that. They’re told they have to go to college to get those things, but won’t be able to do that because they don’t have the grades or the money to go to college. They’re told they have to read to get good grades but they have no one to take them to the library and no books in the house. They can’t pay for a tutor. They can’t go on this or that field trip because they don’t have the money for “activities”. They see people making it big in the performing arts but the schools have cut art, music, drama, and all that stuff for rote learning for tests. Their families can’t afford to go away on vacation, or send them to summer camp, so they literally spend their whole lies in the same neighborhood with other poor, desperate people. Yes, the idiot-box or the movies show them a better world but their _reality_ is the same few blocks and run down neighborhood. > > And that’s why “enrichment” programs are so important for the poor, and mentors, and other programs - that’s what shows the kids there can be something better in _reality_. That’s why internet access is important, so if they can’t get to a library they can still find things to read and answer to questions and see and hear from people who aren’t all in the same hole. > > The kids are already living under the stick, you have to not only show them the carrot, you have to convince them it’s real. If you can’t tell the difference between seeing people going to college in the media and wanting that, and seeing a FLYING CAR in a movie and wanting that, then I suggest you read some more or something. As for no one to tell them about things, it is too bad their is not some sort of counselor that offers guidance in schools that might help them out. Excuse #3 - “Nobody tells the poor how to get ahead” ---
**Author:** ![Slash1972](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slash1972/32/6461_2.png) [@Slash1972](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Slash1972)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2016, 5:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/poverty-apologists-apologetics/751287/356 "2016-04-18T17:06:33Z")
> [@Broomstick](#): > > Yes. > > That is the reality for some women. > > They can either be celibate forever or have sex with loser guys because that’s the only kind of guys they come into contact with. Said guys might well think it unmanly to wear a condom, feel birth control is solely the woman’s problem, and may or may not be prone to violence. > > Just where do you think there is a venue for poor girls to meet middle class and higher quality guys interested in more than a one night stand? > > And yeah, it might be the only pleasure a poor woman gets. That, or food, which has something to do with poor people being overweight. If you feel like crap because of a shit job and little hope and food helps make you feel better you’re going to eat. Same for sex. > > This is also why poor women who can get a sugar daddy try to keep him - sure, it’s a type of whoring but damn at least she can get a place to live, nice clothes, nice food, and get her bits rubbed on a regular basis. That may be her best option in life. Again, I can’t say I approve but there is a certain logic to that path in life. Excuse #4 - “poor girls can’t meet nice middle class men, so they HAVE to fuck loser assholes with no job without protection because that’s the only pleasure they have in life” ---
**Author:** ![andros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e480ec/32.png) [@andros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/andros)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2016, 5:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/poverty-apologists-apologetics/751287/357 "2016-04-18T17:07:37Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Maslow didn’t talk about a hierarchy of people, but a hierarchy of needs. Quite correct. _You’re_ the one talking about a hierarchy of people. ---
**Author:** ![Slash1972](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slash1972/32/6461_2.png) [@Slash1972](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Slash1972)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2016, 5:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/poverty-apologists-apologetics/751287/358 "2016-04-18T17:11:47Z")
> [@Broomstick](#): > > Really? > > IF you have extraordinary good grades or extraordinary athletic skills you can get a scholarship. > > If you don’t, you need to take out loans which will need to paid back and at least adequate grades. If you don’t finish college you’ll be left with debt that you can’t get out of and no better prospects for income than if you’d never gone to college at all. > > If you don’t have adequate grades no one but a diploma mill will take you, and there are numerous threads on this forum about employers who view such degrees as worthless and won’t hire people with them. There are many good community colleges that have open admission that will accept less than stellar grades. There are many need-based scholarships and grants that an aspiring college student can get. Excuse #5 - “Poor people can’t get good grades, and cannot pay for college no matter what they do” > [@](#): > > If you never finished school you’ll have to get your GED first. Not an insurmountable obstacle (my spouse did that, then went on to eventually get a master’s level education) but difficult when your relatives are screaming at you to quit that nonsense that _they_ didn’t need and get a job. Excuse #6 - “Poor people can’t get an education because their relatives are ignorant morons” > [@](#): > > You would approve of, say, an 8 year old walking through an urban neighborhood on her own to the library? What if the 8 year old has to walk a mile or two through gang territory to reach the local branch? Because, remember, the parents need to work, that’s why a lot of kids are either in after-school programs or latch key kids whether the parents are poor or middle-class. As a prior poster noted, the stay-at-home parent is a thing of the past among all but the wealthy. > > SOME kids can walk to the library, a lot can’t. Excuse #7 - “Poor kids can’t walk to libraries because of the most extreme example I can think of cause them to not be safe” > [@](#): > > That is one of the saddest statements I’ve heard all week. I meant I can’t speak on the quality of performing arts programs or the chances of success with them. But continue being sad for me. > [@](#): > > Bravo for the DC area. Not true everywhere. You will really think a state like Illinois, where colleges are threatening to shut down because the state, which has not budget, hasn’t sent any promised funding their way for 8 months or more are going to be paying for anyone to go to summer camp? [After 2 minutes of googling](http://www.ehow.com/info_8078674_summer-youth-camps-chicago-illinois.html) Excuse #8 - “Poor people can’t afford to go to camps” ---
**Author:** ![Blalron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/35a633/32.png) [@Blalron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blalron)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2016, 5:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/poverty-apologists-apologetics/751287/359 "2016-04-18T17:12:14Z")
> [@Shagnasty](#): > > It is a fallacy and a travesty to think any individual person doesn’t have options to do better because they almost always do. Current American Liberal thinking wants to make poor people completely dependent on the state because that wins votes but it isn’t necessary. > > Because I grew up in a very poor area, I do not have the same paternalistic view of the poor that many liberal elites do because I have seen too many people break out of it just because they wanted to do something better. A lot more chose not to. I believe they can do much better as long as they learn some very simple middle-class values. Those can be taught even into adulthood. I’m all in favor of upward mobility. I simply disagree with you on how to achieve this goal. If you look at the [statistics](http://www.epi.org/publication/usa-lags-peer-countries-mobility/), countries with a strong social safety net have a higher degree of upward mobility than the United States. Someone born in the bottom 20 percent in Denmark is about twice as likely to end up in the top 20 percent later in life than a person in the USA. ---
**Author:** ![Slash1972](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slash1972/32/6461_2.png) [@Slash1972](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Slash1972)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2016, 5:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/poverty-apologists-apologetics/751287/360 "2016-04-18T17:16:50Z")
> [@Broomstick](#): > > Men are attracted to women with rounded curves and tits and smooth skin and all those other features that Hollywood starlets cultivate. I find this statement to be highly sexist and stereotypical. ALL men are attracted to the same thing? Are you a woman with rounded curves and tits and smooth skin and all those other Hollywood starlet features? If not, why is your husband attracted to you then, since ALL men are attracted to that? > [@](#): > > Women, on the other hand, Again, you speak for ALL women? ALL women are the exact same? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/poverty-apologists-apologetics/751287.md?page=17) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/poverty-apologists-apologetics/751287.md?page=19)