Her whim was denied by someone. Worse, her whim was denied by a MAN. So of course “she’s been seriously oppressed”. The satisfaction of her whim is her RIGHT. If anyone dares REFUSE to satisfy her desire, THEY are violating her. Her desires are supreme and absolute. Everyone MUST submit to them.

“Either refuse to do neck tattoos on ANYONE, or just do the damned thing.”

Because your life is NOT your own and thus YOU don’t get to choose. I (and the rest of your OWNERS) will decide for you, because you are OUR property. But hey, I’ll be ‘generous’ and ALLOW you to choose between TWO of my dictates. See, you’re…

“refusing service based on gender, that’s a legal issue”

Just goes to show that the principle of slavery is still alive and well in America.

“they don’t HAVE to serve you”

But she WANTS it. So they HAVE to submit the absolute which is her whim.

What’s odd about it? It’s her body, after all. So she has a right to demand HE submit to her whims in regard to it. How is that ‘odd’?

It’s no more ‘odd’ than slavery.

AND she illustrates the other times people said NO to her without incident.

“you are missing the main point which is consent. ...the fact that someone else made a decision for her and stripped her of the agency over her own body is the problem here.”

The ONLY problem here is YOU “missing the main point which is consent”. You REJECT the SAME “agency” of the tattoist over HIS body, and DEMAND he…

Funny. You just declared that the artist’s body is NOT his to do with what HE wants. You’ve just declared him a SLAVE to “her choice”.

So much for your defense of a person’s right to their body.

Interesting. Please provide the quote which states I wish to “ban” either. let alone both.

You can’t? What a surprise that you just made up crap. Oh, wait. It’s not surprising at all, looking at the history of your posts. Seems that’s pretty much all you’ve been doing - spewing absurd crap.

“not knowing that they’d just make it worse.”

So if it DIDN’T “make it worse” then you wouldn’t have a problem with banning such things? If you would have a problem with banning even if it didn’t make it worse, then your point is meaningless. If you would not have a problem with banning if banning didn’t make it worse,…

“can’t imagine this does anything but encourage the real deal. Practice if you will..”

Kill all you want but don’t you -dare- LOOK at a girl you IMMORAL person!!!

“whether we should be spending our resources trying to save it, or moving on to another pale blue dot.”

Start with a totalitarian premise and none of the ideas are going to be ‘good’.

Move Iceburgs with sails? Get with the modern times people! Salvage 1!

“In the encyclical, or “teaching letter,” Francis single-handedly bitch-slapped the politicians and corporations worldwide who question the scientific realities of what humanity hath wrought unto our planet. As the Times reports, the encyclical also called out global greed, invoking “the reckless pursuit of profits”…

Ah. Well, you responded to me, not to him. :)

“Isn’t talking about “feminine” and “masculine” traits kinda archaic in the first place”

James apparently doesn’t think so. In fact, he declares this show is important -because- it is supposedly “defies” these “gender barriers in media”. As such, the questions that I asked of his post - and its glaring omissions - are…

“Steven is never ostracized for that by any other character in the series, but instead embraced for his openness in embracing the feminine and masculine sides of himself equally”

Funny that James takes great pains to point out the ‘feminine’ parts of Steven, going so far as to state “Steven is portrayed as anything but…

Where can I sign up to get paid by “Oil” for posting to Gawker sites! :D

LOL