hrrgagrrga
baldboygrunt
hrrgagrrga

Fuck these people jumping on you. I was molested when I was a child. I believe my mother didn’t know what was going on but she should have. There were plenty of signs of creepy behavior but she worked nights and it was easier to leave this person to watch me and not ask any questions. My best friend was raped by her

Of course there are all kinds, that’s why I stressed the “for some men” bit. I was simply responding to the idea that sexual harassment/assault has nothing to do with whether a woman is attractive when in some cases it very specifically does. Many men in positions of power, particularly in an industry that revolves

Her character’s name is Amy Farrah Fowler, so she does actually have a last name. I’ve seen like 3 episodes of that show (because it’s awful) but I know that. And while I agree that her article is problematic at best, there is some truth to the idea that beauty plays a part in sexual harassment/assault - for some men.

I imagine they’d get you patched up down there, but no way is that a serious enough injury to postpone your execution. So you’re not going to live any longer AND you’re going to die with torn up junk. Even when it comes to Death Row masturbation, moderation is the best policy.

I’m likely going to catch hell for saying this, but she didn’t deserve to be included. Alexis Arquette didn’t make any significant contribution to film. She wasn’t a particularly good actress and didn’t have any significant roles in any significant films. The only conceivable reason to include her in the first place

While I agree with, and even applaud, the general point of this article I do have some minor issues with it. First, that whole confused & misguided“trade reporting” argument is ridiculous and doesn’t really help in making the greater point IMO. It should’ve been removed. Second, the tone of this article seems to

The rule doesn’t explicitly prevent an advisor from receiving a commission, though it does complicate matters. But I agree with the gist of what you’re saying, that it doesn’t really do much to protect the average investor. It’s still valuable though, and there is literally no good reason to get rid of it.

To say that this has nothing to do with gender because many women voted against Hillary is silly and just shows the ignorance that so many women, particularly those in liberal stronghold cities and states, have about other women and their attitudes about gender. I look around my small rural Kansas town and some of the

I do have a problem with the new Ghostbusters but it has nothing to do with vaginas. The biggest issue with this movie is Paul Feig, one of the most overrated talents in Hollywood. The movie has a great cast and there are lots of genuinely funny jokes and some decent, if somewhat underwhelming, action scenes. But

Here's the thing. Yes, these guys are deplorable and hate women. My first (over)reaction to this is we should track them down & forcibly remove their tiny little manbits. Probably not a good idea but it makes me feel better to think of it. However, the truth is these guys are just assholes and a very small portion of

Yes, but Two-Face's code is leaving it up to chance so it doesn't fall under the heading of Lawful. If you're code is Chaos then you are Chaotic even if you're following a code. While I get, and agree with, the gist of what you and Audiophile81 are saying, Two-Face is actually a really bad example imo.