Basically, a 40 year old woman was found not guilty (of any charges) after having a sexual relationship with a 14 year old (and offering to buy him the cocaine he requested, free of charge!) because the judge ruled that the boy had seduced her.
Yep, her marriage was bad and she was “lonely” and the teen gave her the attention she deserved so she acted on it- and that’s not a crime.
She’s a hebephile who was just told that as long as her marriage is bad and she’s lonely, she can go right ahead and fuck all the little kids (hebephiles do prefer 11-14 year olds) she wants.
Now, if she was a man…well, we all know what would happen now don’t we? Sure as fuck wouldn’t be a measely 5 year sex offender listing.
Salvation Army don’t like gays so don’t support them? Shit. I just scooped some loafers, a nice blazer, and a matching tie for $15 some how. A steal. This is like the Chik-Fil-A thing to me. Sure, the top of the pyramid feels a certain way. But workers don’t give a fuck. I’m black and if there was a food bank who didn’t like black people I probably wouldn’t patronize this food bank. But I recognize other races need help and not everyone is racist. I’d probably try to lobby this food bank with various techniques. But I wouldn’t do the not patronize. Looking at the civil rights movement, it’s about the principles. They sat in the businesses who didn’t want them there. Protests. Political lobbying. And like shitty ‘Black’ schools, separate but equal-the education system needed reform. You couldn’t ‘boycott’ a social need like education, you had to change it. I’m saying there will always be poor people and it’s not a good idea to take away an avenue to obtain necessities for cheap prices. It’s also not a good idea to endanger the jobs of people with criminal backgrounds or low skills. I fucking need the Salvation Army being a college grad on a tight budget trying to dress professionally.
Sigh. The ladies might not like this one. But a discussion on relationships. This is definitely applicable in Atlanta. To me anyway. I think I’m already done with pursuing traditional relationships.
Misogynistic? Sure. There are plenty of guys who aren’t bringing shit to the table and making plenty of demands for their women. And inversely there are plenty of women who are attractive who have outrageous demands while also bringing nothing to the table. Power of the pussy. At the end of the day a guy needs to be more stable and secure in order to get pussy. A woman doesn’t need the same. A guy has like 3-4 prerequisites to get sex. A woman has none essentially. Sure the pressure of being “pretty” and body image is more prevalent in minds of women but at the gym I go I see plenty of guys getting bulk; not for health purposes but for vanity. Obviously this doesn’t describe every single woman, but he makes solid points. While I’ll never know how it feels to be an attractive woman walking down the street I know attitude and undeserved entitlement when I see it. So. Again. Misogynistic? Sure. But I think it’s something else.
Nah. It’s nothing more than misogyny. Patrice, brilliant and funny as he is, makes several shitty claims here. To make the statement that he has to bulk himself up and have specific qualificiations to attain pussy, and that he was happiest when he got it for free and without struggle through prostitution, speak volumes. Patrice is simply pissed that he has to act like a somewhat decent human being to get it thrown at him. The fact that he kept calling women “bitches” throughout the whole video speaks volumes. The fact that he kept saying “I’m loveable!,” while essentially asserting that every female he tries to get it from is not says something. Like, why you tryna bed someone you’ve already deemed ain’t loveable? Isn’t that YOU being a douchebag? And at the end when he gets pissed at the notion of a woman saying “I let you eat the pussy.” Well, goddamn. That’s how it goes down. Your mouth wouldn’t be there without my permission. And, lastly. Men are so quick to say “man, getting the pussy is so hard wahhh wahhh.” But why not look at how that portrays your character. Ain’t it some weak-spirited, boyish shit to get up in arms because you have to work to get some? What does it say that it reduces a “man” to a sniveling jerk when that doesn’t happen?
Loveable my ass. You can keep that.
Yea, at the end of the day Patrice has said again and again he resents…the context of dating; basically he is sexist and dislikes women a bit. I’ll always respect your opinion Rattlingbone since you’re actually about that life. But I’ve come across shitty people. It works both ways I know. Guys can be repugnant. Women can too, but in different ways. Suffice to say I’m not trying to make any kind of gender debate.
As for your points specifically, I’m kinda whatever about “I let you do whatever.” It’s about context. For someone bringing nothing to the table aside from sex to be arrogant, it can be annoying for a partner to have the attitude. I wouldn’t say I let you suck my dick. But again, context. And no one is complaining about working hard. I know plenty about hard work and hard work never hurts. For me personally, when everything is material based when a chick looks at a dude that’s annoying as well, but I probably wouldn’t fuck with a shallow chick in the 1st place. But there is a huge discrepancy about fucking around and pursuing a long term relationship. This is critical when considering context. Lucky Ass Bitch by Mac Miller comes to mind. But no, it doesn’t reduce a man. I wouldn’t feel reduced.
I know you know they raped us. Numerous times. But did you know how much they raped us? Do you know that my sisters were repeatedly kidnapped all over this country, for their bodies, and their bodies only? I knew they raped us but damnit I didn’t know it was that much. Reconstruction, Jim Crow Era, Civil Rights. We talk about how they beat and lynched our men. That’s a normal part of the rhetoric when talking about these time periods. Why do we not talk about how our women were sexually assaulted almost to the point of normality by white men during these times? WHY? And I’m reading in this article that it was a political move to have black women remain silent when it came to their stories. What in the world? Not only were stories untold, but it seems that historians forgot to include in the details about what was going on during these time periods. This is really throwing me right now. Like. I’m reading that the goal was to enhance the image of the Black woman by showing that she is respectable and strong. Apparently you can’t be respectable if you were kidnapped, and gang raped by 7 white men last year. I could scream right now. The Black middle class during the civil rights movement did some fucked up shit. Man. How do you reduce these women to their bodies? I’m guessing that if the rape of the Black Woman was a natural part of the rhetoric just like lynching was than white men and women were going to be less apt to accept integration? Because of the airing of the dirty laundry? the sex laundry, with the bright, red blood all over it. So now in 2011 we still see the stereotype of Jezebel, but not of the group that started this blasphemous stereotype as an excuse for his treatment against Black women. Nobody wants to talk about how women were brutalized during this time period. Black men, historically y’all have been through and are still going through a lot. And you know, there are many times I’ve read that the issues that Black women cared about took a backseat to what Black men thought was important. But seriously this has to stop. We have got to start being there for each other. We have to. Sexism should have no place in our house. This country hates the BOTH of us.
No kidding:Newsweek’s cover on Rep. Michele Bachmann, the 2012 presidential candidate, has caused quite a stir on the interwebs over the past couple of days. It’s even inspired a couple of memes, though it’s mostly inspired anger over the magazine’s approach. Example: Terry O’Brien, the president of the National Organization for Women, said that “‘Queen of Rage’ is something you apply to wrestlers or somebody who is crazy.” Was this photo the best choice for the magazine’s cover? Take a look at the magazine’s own outtakes and judge for yourself. source
Yes, some of the outtakes are much better, but the woman looks crazy in like 6/9 photos. This is also a non issue ultimately. She gets publicity. Newsweek looks unbiased like most media. Sarah Palin is somewhere jealous.
Hey. Random Thoughts & Everything In Between. This blog is cool and laidback. Swag and passion describe my artistic style [the background is an art piece of mine]. Themes are art, politics, tech, people, art, news, and more.
Trying To Get My Shit Together.
I guess I want to be the real life version of "The Most Interesting Man In The World"
I co author a blog called whatiscollegefor.tumblr.com. Check it out.