Yeah, look don't touch seems like it shouldn't be taken at face value. Someone who says that is probably just looking for an excuse to start touching.

The last time I heard someone saying look but don't touch, they were using it to justify super inappropriate flirting at a work happy hour where they'd gone a few too many drinks in to realize that they were in fact touching their co-worker, like full open handed grab to the inner-thigh touching.

Right? I mean, I know they've done a few dance numbers together at awards shows and they both handled that whole bit of stupidity very graciously, but I'm pretty sure some folks who see that photo up above will be apoplectic at the thought that their Bey or their Tay-Tay might just be friends with each other.

Am I just imagining it or do many people dislike either Swift or Beyonce solely because they like the other party. When I read articles where people criticize one of them, it's like you have to pick a side in a war that neither of them has ever fought.They've both been pretty damn magnanimous towards each other in…

People say all sorts of offensive and dumb shit that isn't racist. They also say all sorts of offensive and dumb shit that is racist. When people decide to say something offensive and dumb, it's not because the parts of their brain that remind them that these things are racist to say are either developed enough to…

Human beings have a tendency to say dumb, offensive shit. It's really that simple.

Pew's own numbers on the popularity of various religions (which are drawn from intensive interviews with 35,000 people) says that 78.5 percent of Americans self-identify as Christian of some stripe. Which means that the preponderance of this belief is theoretically plausible, because yes, the virgin birth has…

Or perhaps WOC aren't making many of those criticisms in the first place for their own reasons?

I normally think people going on and on about "the vapidity of reality TV is what is wrong with our culture" are full of shit, but the snippets I've seen of this show on the other hand ...

That'll do Barb. That'll do.

The semantics of the difference between "rape" and "sexual assault" are not the issue here. The problem here is saying "will".

Actually, no the article we are talking about says:

That's a fair point. This article says "1 in 4 women will be raped". The study does not provide a reasonable basis for making that claim at all, though again, the story of her own that she shares and many of the other issues she highlight are still all worthy points to be made.

It's coming from a study. The authors of the study have pointed out that it should not necessarily be treated as a hard and fast number because of several limitations they had when building their estimates and that further study is required, but their methodology also was believable.

And to address issues at home, isn't to ignore the women's rights movement abroad.

What?

It hasn't been debunked so much as it requires further evaluation. The authors of the study themselves have acknowledged the limitations of their estimates, which are primarily that it's a projection based on studying a relatively smaller window of time for a few thousand women at only two universities.

look at my two gorgeous pups and tell me I could do better with human babies.

your pets are in no way a substation for actual human babies.

This is notable because it is, perhaps, the first time in history Fabolous has not worn 1000 chains.