But how much blame can you lay at the feet of a person who cannot legally consent to getting their ears pierced or to smoke cigarettes because they are not fully functioning beings?

See also: An entire documentary on R. Kelly's abuse, and the men and women who enabled him by defending him against his victims, and the industry that covered it up. 

I didn't imply that women will keep men from being rapists, or that women are responsible for the rape that occur by men. I said that if the blame the victim or outright slander victims then they are enablers. Jezebel wrote an entire article about the men and *women* that enabled Josh Duggar to molest and abuse…

Josh Duggar- Jezebel wrote an entire article about all of the people that enabled him. Why is this any different? 

1) Phylicia Rashad called Cosby’s victims “shameless” for coming forward.

One wouldn’t exist without the other, and when women verbally abuse victims by calling them names (“shameless”, for example) they become cogs in the machine for cover ups. We're beyond the passive woman, just trying to make it in a man's world- when you defend the abuser and abuse the victims, you're an enabler. 

It seems to me that if they’re going to *CHOOSE* to be the gatekeeper by publicly defending the rapist, and shaming his victims during interviews, then those women should be considered enablers. It wasn’t a one-time defense either- she slammed his victims at least 3 different times in 2015, prior to his conviction,…

Ok Claire Huxtable was a fictional character, but as Doctor Phylicia should have know what those pills were for.

So what is the Huxtable story trying to do here? It both defends Phylicia Rashad and gives her shit in the same paragraph without even making a cursory “everyone is grey” argument. I don’t even mean this as a burn - like I just want to know what this is trying to actually do.

“With enough weed or just a very big bottle of water, I thought, I would be happy to partake in all of the attractions.”

Seems like they missed a little bit of the point. You might shop at the mall and spend some extra bucks to take a ride on a coaster or something. But you don’t go to an amusement park and the mall. It’s one or the other.

Great comment, especially as I’m having a “come to Jesus” with myself over my interest in Twitter, Instagram cats and this website. I’ve deleted Facebook but I’d be lying if I said it was for any other reason than my old friend from high school, Laura, who looks the same, appears to do nothing but travel with her…

For my circle of friends (we are going into our 40's) we’re mostly angry at the way we’ve been manipulated to A) wanting to look like her, B) then becoming jealous of her, C) then laughing at her downfall, only to them D) repeat with someone else. I’ve known a small circle of my friends going back to elementary school…

One of the things I really like about Mall of America is that it’s a big rectangle (now with a stupid appendage that I resent, but still). Despite being huge, it’s pretty much impossible to get lost in because it’s shaped so sensibly. Is this the secret to its popularity?? Okay, obviously not, but I wish more mall…

You’re making shit up and arguing points that NO ONE has made. I'm done with you, fuck off.

I didn’t write that only poor people can shop at thrift stores, so stop making shit up so that you can write a wall of text (that I honestly don’t have the desire to read all of the way through) to make yourself feel better

No one said they were empty, but making shit up and arguing empty points has been what you've been doing this entire time.

It’s more like the take a penny tray- it's there for anyone who needs it, but you aren't supposed to use it to supplement your payment. But sure, go to the extreme to make yourself feel better for abusing the system. 

I’m questioning your reading comprehension at this point, as you’re continually pulling arguments that have no basis in any point that anyone is making.

1) Given the issues being presented in the article, no there isn’t “plenty of stuff left over”. That is, quite literally, what the article is about.