I’m not quite sure what you mean. Who is the stan in this scenario: the bigot or the critic? And are famous women being critiqued for their own conduct, or are others being critiqued for how they treat famous women?

Sorry; I didn’t mean to imply that it was the same level of violation. My point was simply that it was a private matter and nobody’s business, and that he shouldn’t have been subjected to public commentary and scrutiny over it. It may not have been as profound, but intimate personal information about him (that may or…

If you think the possibility of someone perjuring themself because they can’t bear to tell the truth is delusional, then I think you’re delusional, but we could go around in circles forever like that, it would appear.

Yeah, whatever whatever legalese, all I’m saying is that it’s totally unfair for Katy to now be obligated to go to court and “testify truthfully” when that could mean having to disclose something so deeply personal and painful. “Unfair” in the sense that it’s cruel, not in the sense that it’s illegal.

Again, I get that none of this is in any way her doing, and I get that it’s massively unfair to her, and I agree that it’s no one’s business who else might have been abused by Dr. Luke unless those people come forward of their own accord. I think it was wrong for The Blast to publish the contents of these documents,…

You gotta be kidding me.

“Look around this room. Every single camera except one is manned by a guy.”

Really? I would just take it as a strong indication that our justice system is still utterly failing victims of sexual harassment, assault, and abuse. And frankly, I don’t think the onus should be on Perry to corroborate anything.

You don’t have to like someone to feel bad for them when something like this happens, especially when they had no say in any of it.

I agree, but now that the information has been reported, it’s relevant to the trial. It’s a terrible, horrible, awful, messy, awkward, deeply sensitive situation no matter how it plays out from this point, and that in itself makes it noteworthy.

Let me get this straight:

Very. Which is worse, though: having misogynists raise a girl or a boy? Or a non-binary kid, for that matter?

Oh, it’s “zed” in EVERY FREAKING ANGLOPHONE COUNTRY IN THE WORLD except the U.S., which is indeed VERY weird, but not half as weird as the fact that most Americans go their whole lives having no idea that the rest of the world calls this letter by a different name.

It suddenly occurs to me that the entire Quiverfull movement (i.e. the Duggar-model folks who believe in having maximum kiddos because Jesus Says So) is likely due for a reckoning with the disproportionate number of gay sons they must be having as a direct result of their Being Fruitful and Multiplying. Of course, the…

-_-

I’m glad you liked it! I’m just another cliché millennial whose highest aspiration is to be recognized as a curator of quality Content. :P

Seriously?

If it’s a religious thing, I sure hope they’re the rare breed of “traditional” religious folk who are A-O.K. with The Gay. ’Cause you know a woman’s chance of giving birth to a gay son goes way up with each male child... With this many, I’d be surprised if less than half are gay.

Best post on that theme: https://jezebel.com/1826743761

Did anyone ever have any reason to see Tarantino’s next film? As far as I’m concerned, he’s one of those ancient Hollywood directors who just keeps making unremarkable movies because no one even bothers asking if his work is worthwhile anymore.