The royal family isn’t “widely seen as “obselete”

I was going to say something nice about the look on Kate’s face when she looks at her children, but then I started worrying about getting nasty replies because I know there are people who can find something negative to say even about a mother's adoration of her kids

For those having trouble following the distinctions, here’s an explanation in comic form

I wouldn’t trust us either and I’m saying this as someone who advocates for POC’s every day. Look at the white fuckers lining up to go to brunch at Zella’s on Clybourn Ave. in Lincoln Park, Chicago. They piss me off so damn much.

There’s nothing wrong or gross about sharing your life with others via social media, especially if you have something big going on. More than that, people who begrudge other people’s joy at sharing these things, no matter how mundane to you personally, tend to be complete assholes. So your friend has a baby and wants…

A forger working for CVS accuses a woman of being a forger.

he did just say “can’t take this” and she stayed in the store to argue about it. so essentially its whitey tries to get last word and when thats not exceptable AND the person is black then the cops are called. if it was a white person he would have debated till the cows come home.

theres been a few of these cops…

I don’t get all the Kylie hate. She’s the least offensive of the crew and good for her for getting rich enough to pay for the lifetime of therapy she will need eventually.  

From the Daily News piece someone else linked to. Jesus Fucking Christ. Why someone would want to send this man a selfie of any kind is beyond me. And his wife, the reporter, is, if anything even more singularly precious. I feel so sorry for the wretched and delusional woman who wanted to signal her inexplicable…

AND although she didn’t use the woman’s real name, she did make sure to include enough identifying characteristics that other people would recognize her. Seriously unprofessional.

...Gustav Courbet’s famously explicit lush vulva painting, “L’Origine du Monde,” a close-up view of a supine woman’s genitals, thighs and abdomen.

These two deserve each other. They are dreadful and pompous. Part of me is surprised that this guy found one woman to sleep with him, let alone another to cyber sleep. And reading his 800 page novel would be my personal vision of hell. Seriously, if I kill someone someday (and I’m not planning to) I’ll be reading that…

I’m just going to call out that these women are taking pics of their VULVAS, not their vaginas (Unless, of course, they are using a camera that can be inserted). Distilling women’s genitalia to just a hole is pretty misogynistic, IMHO. I wish people, ESPECIALLY WOMEN, would stahp with that already. Why can’t the NYT co…

Yeah and the weird debate about lighting and all this weird shit, so like sure I’d be annoyed if my partner told me he received an unsolicited pic but I would also expect him to to say “hey I’m with someone please don’t send me these types of pics anymore” but this was just... mean? I mean sending unsolicited pics is…

Holy CRAP was that article pompous!!!!  They named their apartment “The Ivory Tower”???!?!?  

So the vibe (heh) I’m getting from this situation is:

The entire piece reads like this wife became unhinged about the picture sent to her husband and pitched the whole trend story to the Times, in order to be like “this woman is crazy and this vagina picture is awful, right?!!?!?” to about 50 people and get paid to do it. 

Why does everyone think the photo was unsolicited? The reference to “cyber-infidelity” makes it seem more like her husband got caught cheating because of an inopportune text and since she stayed with him she is taking her anger out on this other woman - who she takes care to mention was also cheating on her partner.…

If you ever want revenge porn laws to be workable in this country, yes.

So ... journalism ethics aside ... NYT doesn’t want “Vivien” to sue the fuck out of them, right?