i wouldn't even pot him as vegemite.

oh, the reporter didn't confuse the words, nor did pattinson. the reporter was saying that rob treats the word and his career, and in effect himself, like one of the worst words anyone can utter. only i'm pretty sure the reporter used a different word and then plastered the "acceptable" (NOT) version onto paper. it…

yep. that's exactly my take. why did the interviewer/reporter have to go there mentally, and why the fuck would any reporter think it's a great thing to include in an interview?

actually, that's probably not what he was saying. i know why you think both things and i really had to reread that a bunch of times to get past WTF!? to wtf, you're so stupid. what he really means, if you calm down and actually read the conversation and follow his train of thought, is that both words were spoken so…

that was a really weird statement, but also almost disingenuous, like the reporter changed the word for the article, and i cannot believe he all of a sudden says he's allergic to vagina. maybe he really never has had sex with a woman, which i bet is true. it's so gross that he's almost saying that he doesn't want to…

it's a mormon story.

i've read it in enough books and maybe even movies to actually boggle at how far back people are reaching. oh, and there was that horrible debacle a few months ago...some company that sells, i think, personalized hangers—like, you can have your kid's face printed onto some novelty hangers—decided to advertise their…

oh, no, no, no, not at all. and i do give some manual stimulation, of course. some guys really like it so i do a little bit of it but i really don't see the appeal and it gets so tiring after such a short time that i'd rather not be whiny.

pointing out what other religions have done centuries ago has no impact on what's happening today. it makes you seem like an asshole; it's like you're saying the current interpretations of the koran and islam may be killing women but that it doesn't matter because a few hundred years ago a different bunch of…

well, as a woman, i don't have time to waste on hand jobs, and i CAN'T STAND IT when a man puts his fingers on my clitoris. i really fucking can't, and i fucking hate it when my FWB insists on it every so often. i know guys think it's sexy but i have only ever met two who actually have a light touch. every other man i…

yeah, i didn't feel like typing that. the world is getting to me lately.

what's "a lot"? have you met those women? do you know a lot of them? it's really hard to deal with you generalizing like that...how would you know?

why do you call them sessions!? it's embarrassing and really just vile. it's like you see these women as things, not people. it's something high school and college kids say around adults! c'mon.

because all the advice is terrible. i mean, a woman is advocating rape handjobs. like, what!?

so, if you rarely orgasm, why is that? if you want us to really see your point, expound on that. is it because they leave pissy?

"sex session" is a term real adults ditch soon after college. you sound older. you probably aren't mature enough to have good sex.

oh, dear. don't tell them; now it'll be sharp fingernails on my clit all day and all night.

sessions=/=relationship or even "relationship"

i actually wouldn't be surprised if he's raped (coerced) feminists.

i love you, granddad. if i were your age and in your strip (or show) i'd marry you.