That logic does make sense, at least from my personal experience, but I don't really see it as a bad thing.

Yeah, that's what I always think when I see these pieces. Everybody's like, "They don't really care about our self-esteem! They just want to sell us shampoo!" Obviously. Advertising will always exist, so it's better if it has a positive message than a negative one. Still trying to sell stuff.

Yup, the Madame Bovary Effect has a venerated tradition long predating the Streisand effect.

My family will say "his person" or "her person," especially to distinguish that one person who is really bonded with the dog, as opposed to the whole family that jointly "owns" the dog.

Why don't you try actually reading Amanda's really informative post before getting angry about it? She was explaining how things generally work in a case of consensual sex, with the assumption that this case was probably mis-classified as consensual.

Thank you for this. There is more than enough to worry about with the plot, the characters, the style, the tone, the dialogue, the morals - intended and unintended, without having to worry about pleasing every special interest group out there.

No, those just came up since the ban was enacted. Apparently there is a workaround using html tags.

I was more disappointed when I learned that Christina Hendricks isn't a real redhead.

Damn, I wish you hadn't told me that. I would have liked to believe everyone is just telling him he's a fucking idiot, and that there's no possible "side of the story" that justifies what he did.

I'm not sure it's a question of degree of cynicism. I'd almost prefer your take to be true, that he's just a run of the mill scumbag, than imagine that he can't even understand that he's responsible for his own actions. The former would mean that he's merely self-centered enough that he just doesn't care about other…

I'm having trouble even parsing his state of mind. If he had tweeted, "That bitch deserved it!", I would think he was a piece of shit, but at least I could comprehend his mode of thinking. Instead he's saying that he is so saddened that he was unlucky enough to beat her. As if it was something that happened to…

Yeah, those tweets were actually the part of the story that made me most angry. The pictures were horrific, of course, but the tweets paint a picture of a seriously disturbed man who feels no remorse, who doesn't even understand that what he did was wrong. It's like he thinks he was required to beat them both, and…

Good to know!

I think combining it with the black light makes it ring very strongly of the Guardians joke, though it does seem to be a coincidence.

Gamora: Your ship is filthy. [walks away]

The Jackson Pollock joke was in Guardians of the Galaxy. I suppose it could be a coincidence.

If you steal a joke from a movie that just grossed $94 million in it's opening weekend, we will notice.

Good job capturing those images. I always notice that with all of these videos, but I'm usually too lazy to actually grab the images to demonstrate it. I actually think she looks best in the middle picture. She still has a very distinctive face, just the best version of it with hair/make-up/lighting. Once the…

Yes, it always annoys me in those videos like the one above, which purport to demonstrate how drastic the effect of Photoshop is, the greatest part of the transformation always comes from the hair and make-up. When the picture is actually taken, 90% of the difference from 'before' to 'after' has already occurred.

If you demand, "Dove must label all Photoshopped images," that would apply to all types of digital alteration. Obviously it is not the intention to target pictures in which the only changes were to the background, but it is a flaw in the logic. Hence why I pointed it out.