They did this because Tyga couldn’t close his mouth for .004 seconds.

So they did this because Kris didn’t want to include Caitlyn in the picture but knew if she didn’t it would make her look bad, right?

Remember that time I kept getting told I had pneumonia and my back pain was “unrelated” and we don’t know what’s causing it, but take some Aleve we guess, and then I was diagnosed with STAGE IV CANCER? hahahahahahahafuckyoudoctors

And of course now I remember how women are usually let in pain for longer or told that they are over reacting 70% longer tan males.

Jesus, I always forget that Schwyzer was a Jezebel writer. And that many people who criticized him or mentioned any of the more horrible things he’d said or done were quickly banned. It might not be the site’s low point (I’m not sure anything will ever beat the post about how the 12-year-old child Roman Polanski raped…

Yes, Jezebel’s anti body snarking policy made it famous, made it covered on GMA and CNN. As did the Faith Hill story. Such an about-face re: the Lena Dunham bounty was distressing.

They do have a single editorial vision on many feminist issues, though, however unofficial and unannounced. Take a look at, for example, Burt’s position on female celebs who don’t call themselves feminists: before she was a writer, she was pretty clear that she didn’t think that calling them out and mocking them was…

There’s a lot here to unpack, but first question now . . .

Yeah, but everyone here loves some sweet, misguided self-righteousness, so good luck telling people that. One thing, though—the meaning of “say, what’s in this drink” is not really a comment on the beverage:

“While we can’t know the author’s intent for sure, “what’s in this drink” most likely, for the time period, meant there was more liquor or an additional liquor that the drinker wasn’t expecting rather than an exclamation of the delicious flavor.”

why should it be treated as such?
I mean its a matter of fact that its NOT about date rape. just because a whole lot of people are too dumb (yes, dumb) to accept and understand that in the context it was written, it had a different meaning than the same words would have now, does not change what it means.

he who…

The line “I ought to say no no no. At least I’m gonna say that I tried” is really the deciding factor. She knows she should say no to save face, and will basically blame him for it, but she wants to stay so dammit she’s going to.

Uh, because it makes it clearly not a song about rape, but about overcoming gender expectations to get laid? Should all songs referencing inequality be dismissed as “fucked up” by people unable to judge them in their own time?

That’s not a “disturbingly real” version of the song, it’s a rather outlandish satire based on how 40s language sounds to modern ears. It’s funny because it’s over-the-top. Frank Loesser wasn’t writing about duct-taping and raping his wife, of course, but the idiom is a little archaic, and lends itself to exaggeration…

I go back and forth on this song, but what always brings me back to liking it is the line “at least I’m gonna say that I tried.”

How is “a woman afraid of what society thinks eventually overcomes that fear and does what she wants” not an improvement over “a man roofies and rapes a woman who just wants to get home to her family”?

Someone on Twitter recently (I wish I could remember who) pointed out that, the way it was originally written and performed, what this song is really about is a woman who wants to buck social norms of propriety and stay with him but feels pressured to leave so she doesn’t suffer social consequences and stigma. And…

So a rich woman should accept less than a rich man? That makes (no) sense. I know you are a troll but just so you know... you are also a creep.

Oh, fuck off, and read the damn piece. She acknowledges her privilege.

You have to be the type of person completely oblivious to how your actions affect others. Like people who stop in front of revolving doors or at the top of escalators.