Then it was very poorly-done satire, and if the tables were turned on another site, you guys would be writing an opinion piece on how wrong it was. You have no idea how much it pains me to agree with the anti-GM trolls on this one, but... you’re just wrong here.

Short answer: No.

Was it? I don't see how it could be viewed as satirical. If it was, what was the point?

just curious...and i mean this with no snark...

“Would U this tween warg?”

If this was a 16 year-old girl, Jezebel would rip apart any publication that sexualized her. I see no reason why they should treat a male child any differently.

Seriously, can we fucking not

I think it’s best if this post is just deleted and never talked about ever again.

Can we not unneccessarily sexualize an underage boy please? I find this headline/subhead completely tasteless.

Would U this tween warg?

Remember how we always think this is gross when a man is saying it about a teen girl? I remember.

Dude.

gross, guys. i’m out.

That’s such an interesting capitalist slant on their demise.

There are so many better options than Lululemon at their price point and below: Zara Terez, The Upside (my personal favorite), Onzie, Splits59, Adidas x Stella McCartney — and these are just for bottoms.

These are really, really important points.

Not to mention, I don’t really want an incurable disease in my body for life, thanks.

“very treatable, and once on Valtrex, the vast majority of people with the disease have extremely rare outbreaks or even none at all after contracting it.:

I thought they were suing a celebrity, though...