Part of it is what's mentioned in the article, if you read it. Part of it, and this is more personal to me, is that it portrays BDSM in a pretty terrible way. Yes, maybe people will read it and then decide to do more research and find out that 50 Shades is not, in fact, about BDSM at all. But other people won't do…

Firstly, I'd like to say:

How could it be good? Like you have to just be trolling or something, and not even very well...

All sexualities are classifications of sexual, not romantic, attraction. Romantic attraction is something else altogether. I was mistaken in assuming pansexuality encompasses romantic attraction. Pansexuality just means sexual attraction to all genders. Bisexuality can mean sexual attraction to all genders, too, or…

Very true about romantic alignments.

Those definitions of bisexuality aren't accurate, though. The bisexual community has been using "the sexual attraction to the same and other genders" for decades now. For some reason, as much as we keep trying to explain that to people, it falls on deaf ears.

Bisexuality and pansexuality aren't the same thing, but bi doesn't mean binary. I think this article doesn't do bisexuality any favors in assuming that's what it means. The bisexual community has been using the definition "the sexual attraction to the same and other genders" for decades now. So it can mean your gender…

That "bisexuality is transphobic" thing annoys me so much. Bi doesn't mean binary. It means "the same and other genders." The bisexual community has been using this definition for decades and for some reason we aren't heard.

I've always assumed that pansexuality referred to not just sexual but romantic/emotional attraction, and that bisexuality is purely sexual. I really think that defining pansexuality as somehow more inclusive than bisexuality is really shitty. The bisexual community has been using the "same and other genders"…

Most people fall on a spectrum of sexuality. And most are not 100% straight or 100% gay. So your assertion that non-monosexual people are just a tiny portion of the population is patently false.

Bisexual people don't exclude non-binary people. For decades now, the bisexual community has said that being bisexual means,"the sexual attraction to the same and other genders." Bi doesn't necessarily mean binary. "The same" means the gender identity of the bisexual person and "other genders" means any other…

Even if everything you say is true and he's not a danger to her, he's still pretty dangerous to himself. I doubt that car crash was caused by anything but his own driving. So maybe he does need help if he's going to keep getting into situations that put him (and anyone else on the road) in harm's way.

I tend to think that if you agree with Donald Trump on any issue, big or small, you're an irredeemable fuckwit. This goes double for all of those bros who are convinced that this all-female cast is a sign of the end times.

I also call bullshit on "by the book," there's no way a flashbang and SWAT gear is part of normal protocol. They just wanted to look cool for the cameras. And in all their preparations to look cool, they forgot the most important preparation of all - make sure you have the right fucking apartment.

Could be only in certain jurisdictions. It could also be because they decided to use it to create more drama for the cameras.

You're missing important pieces. The police, who are trained to find the suspect, went into the wrong apartment. That's their mistake, regardless of whether Aiyanna's uncle was guilty or not. It was also being filmed as part of reality television, which is why they used the flashbang and went in with SWAT gear and…

It wasn't "for some reason." It was because they were filming for a TV show and they wanted it to be as dramatic as possible. This is the cost of a culture that puts more value in shitty reality television than it does the lives of black children.

Didn't I say that it was right for the children to be taken away? If they're in danger, they need to be removed from the situation. Full stop. I meant to start a larger discussion about how difficult it is for victims of abuse to have their children returned to them once they've found stability.

I've said again and again that it wasn't wrong for her children to be taken away. They were in danger. If she couldn't get them out, someone had to. I just meant to start a larger discussion about the way abused parents are treated. Often, they don't get their children back, even after they've managed to escape.

She didn't. I think most people don't have a clear understanding about the way abuse works. I'm not saying her choices were good ones - I am saying is that it's way more complicated than you're making it out to be.