*f-cking dead* Amber Rose Organizing "? Walk" Protest To Combat ? -Shaming
Options
Comments
-
The user and all related content has been deleted.
-
Judge_Judah wrote: »
It's easier to attack the non issues the hard ones like white supremacy take too much work. -
Knives Amilli wrote: »The Lonious Monk wrote: »desertrain10 wrote: »The Lonious Monk wrote: »I don't understand this ? . What is wrong with ? shaming? If you are a ? , you should be ashamed. People seem to think they have to be applauded for everything they do.
U have ur opinion, but I just don't see how discouraging women from expressing themselves and exploring their sexuality is healthy for anyone
She could be just doing this to market herself and her book ... But I like the thought
She does raise some interesting questions. Why is she, Amber Rose, the woman both of whom had serious relationships with, now this "? " or "thot" according to Wiz, Ye ... Is it because she has sexual agency and chooses not let the men in her life govern her actions?
Simply expressing and exploring sexuality does not make a chick a ? . Only the most conservative and prudish people claim that. ? whoever whenever with little to no discrimination makes a chick a ? and that's not good or healthy for anyone.
I don't know if she's a ? or thot or not, but she's embracing it. If she wasn't a ? , you'd think she'd make the argument that she's not, denounce actual sluttery, and stick up for what she actually considers herself to be. But again, she is embracing that term, so there it is.
Once again we gotta define ? and to take it further., you do know that term was invented to shame women from exploring their sexuality and also police their behavior? The term "? " has no merit in reality/
Responses like this are funny because the key issue is basically flying by you. The word "? " is not important. This issue is not about a word. What this is about is some women believing that they should be able to live promiscuous and sexually amoral lives and not be called out on it or thought poorly because of it. That's an unrealistic and frankly stupid expectation. If you want to live that lifestyle, that's fine. A woman has the right to do whatever she wants with her life just like a man. What you don't have the right to do is mandate that everyone else looks at the choices you make and applaud you for them.
Overly sexually promiscuous lives by both men and women are shameful and they absolutely do harm society. How do you think STDs manage to spread the way they do? How do you think all the illegitimate and poorly treated kids come to be? Again, there is nothing wrong with women exploring their sexuality, but ya'll are being silly if ya'll are acting like its praiseworthy for chicks (or dudes for that matter) to be out here ? like most people shake hands. -
In addition to the Khloe incident, Rose claims Kanye's "30 Showers" comment is also a great example of making women feel less-than because of their actual (or perceived) sexual history.
"It's important for me because I deal with it every day," Rose told Entertainment Tonight. "I deal with it via social media, people out on the street. I recently dealt with that with my ex saying he had to take 30 showers after he'd been with me. [As for Khloe] She didn't have to tweet 11 times and try to humiliate me."
While Rose's intentions are likely in the right place, she has also been accused of ? -shaming herself, as she's brought up Kim's sextape as a way to dig at the reality star before.
-
The user and all related content has been deleted.
-
You ungrateful negros don't see the blessing that Amber has bestowed upon you. This heaux should be celebrated for her forward thinking......cheered for her contributions to all things perverted and scumbaggish. Thanks to Amber's diligent work and expertise.....all hoes and ? will be assembled in one location at the same damn time....ripe for the picking in all of their promiscuous glory. She has taken the concept of "shooting fish in a barrel" & transmogrified it into an event of epic playa proportions. Pimps, tricks, players, simps, lames, pervs, squares.....all manner of man should be able to prosper from this grand assembly if they so choose to.
-
lol If you like ? with hoes and ? , you really don't need to have something like this to find them congregated. They are everywhere.
What we need is a grouping like this of respectable and feminine ladies because those are becoming harder to find. -
I don't understand why black women defend her when she says she ain't black
-
The Lonious Monk wrote: »desertrain10 wrote: »The Lonious Monk wrote: »I don't understand this ? . What is wrong with ? shaming? If you are a ? , you should be ashamed. People seem to think they have to be applauded for everything they do.
U have ur opinion, but I just don't see how discouraging women from expressing themselves and exploring their sexuality is healthy for anyone
She could be just doing this to market herself and her book ... But I like the thought
She does raise some interesting questions. Why is she, Amber Rose, the woman both of whom had serious relationships with, now this "? " or "thot" according to Wiz, Ye ... Is it because she has sexual agency and chooses not let the men in her life govern her actions?
Simply expressing and exploring sexuality does not make a chick a ? . Only the most conservative and prudish people claim that. ? whoever whenever with little to no discrimination makes a chick a ? and that's not good or healthy for anyone.
I don't know if she's a ? or thot or not, but she's embracing it. If she wasn't a ? , you'd think she'd make the argument that she's not, denounce actual sluttery, and stick up for what she actually considers herself to be. But again, she is embracing that term, so there it is.
As long as a woman or man is practing safe sex and getting reg check ups, I don't see how a woman exploring her sexuality with whomever she pleases, whenever she pleases is any a more a threat to public safety than when men does it
Yet men are encouraged to sleep with as many women as possible
That's the problemBlack_Samson wrote: »
Just cause it was serious for her dont mean it was.desertrain10 wrote: »The Lonious Monk wrote: »I don't understand this ? . What is wrong with ? shaming? If you are a ? , you should be ashamed. People seem to think they have to be applauded for everything they do.
U have ur opinion, but I just don't see how discouraging women from expressing themselves and exploring their sexuality is healthy for anyone
She could be just doing this to market herself and her book ... But I like the thought
She does raise some interesting questions. Why is she, Amber Rose, the woman both of whom had serious relationships with, now this "? " or "thot" according to Wiz, Ye ... Is it because she has sexual agency and chooses not let the men in her life govern her actions?
The fact that kanye treated her like community ? also takes away feom the point u are attemtpng to make.
With kim ye worships her like a lincoln continental with suicide doors.
With amber he was just showing off a 97 honda civic and the body kit he bought for it.
I dunno ...around the time of their "breakup" wasn't he on tour crying, talking about Amber? Lol
Now all the sudden she's this ? hoe
Wiz obviously is the biggest offender
I just find it funny how one minute she's rewarded by these men for her behavior, the next she's shamed
It's just so counterproductive and self serving
-
desertrain10 wrote: »The Lonious Monk wrote: »desertrain10 wrote: »The Lonious Monk wrote: »I don't understand this ? . What is wrong with ? shaming? If you are a ? , you should be ashamed. People seem to think they have to be applauded for everything they do.
U have ur opinion, but I just don't see how discouraging women from expressing themselves and exploring their sexuality is healthy for anyone
She could be just doing this to market herself and her book ... But I like the thought
She does raise some interesting questions. Why is she, Amber Rose, the woman both of whom had serious relationships with, now this "? " or "thot" according to Wiz, Ye ... Is it because she has sexual agency and chooses not let the men in her life govern her actions?
Simply expressing and exploring sexuality does not make a chick a ? . Only the most conservative and prudish people claim that. ? whoever whenever with little to no discrimination makes a chick a ? and that's not good or healthy for anyone.
I don't know if she's a ? or thot or not, but she's embracing it. If she wasn't a ? , you'd think she'd make the argument that she's not, denounce actual sluttery, and stick up for what she actually considers herself to be. But again, she is embracing that term, so there it is.
As long as a woman or man is practing safe sex and getting reg check ups, I don't see how a woman exploring her sexuality with whomever she pleases, whenever she pleases is any a more a threat to public safety than when men does it
Yet men are encouraged to sleep with as many women as possible
That's the problem
Who said it was more of a threat than when men do it? And who encourages men to sleep with as many women as possible? My dad never told me to ? every chick I met. I don't plan on telling my son (if I have one) to ? every chick he sees. I've never actually heard any guy say that. Now granted there are dudes with that mindset, but it's not like there is a mandate out there for guys to be like that. Some dudes are ? , some are prudes, and most lie somewhere in the middle, just like with women.
So no, that's not the problem. The problem is that instead of trying to strive for a world where virtues still mean something and doing a better job of holding men to a higher standard, ya'll women want to make the lower standard some women live by more acceptable. That ? is absolutely ridiculous to me. lol -
I cant take the word slutwalk serious. I was smoking a blunt at 4am and laughed myself to a kush nap at that banner in the London picture. Everytime I see the word ? I think of the slutty pumpkin
-
The Lonious Monk wrote: »desertrain10 wrote: »The Lonious Monk wrote: »desertrain10 wrote: »The Lonious Monk wrote: »I don't understand this ? . What is wrong with ? shaming? If you are a ? , you should be ashamed. People seem to think they have to be applauded for everything they do.
U have ur opinion, but I just don't see how discouraging women from expressing themselves and exploring their sexuality is healthy for anyone
She could be just doing this to market herself and her book ... But I like the thought
She does raise some interesting questions. Why is she, Amber Rose, the woman both of whom had serious relationships with, now this "? " or "thot" according to Wiz, Ye ... Is it because she has sexual agency and chooses not let the men in her life govern her actions?
Simply expressing and exploring sexuality does not make a chick a ? . Only the most conservative and prudish people claim that. ? whoever whenever with little to no discrimination makes a chick a ? and that's not good or healthy for anyone.
I don't know if she's a ? or thot or not, but she's embracing it. If she wasn't a ? , you'd think she'd make the argument that she's not, denounce actual sluttery, and stick up for what she actually considers herself to be. But again, she is embracing that term, so there it is.
As long as a woman or man is practing safe sex and getting reg check ups, I don't see how a woman exploring her sexuality with whomever she pleases, whenever she pleases is any a more a threat to public safety than when men does it
Yet men are encouraged to sleep with as many women as possible
That's the problem
Who said it was more of a threat than when men do it? And who encourages men to sleep with as many women as possible? My dad never told me to ? every chick I met. I don't plan on telling my son (if I have one) to ? every chick he sees. I've never actually heard any guy say that. Now granted there are dudes with that mindset, but it's not like there is a mandate out there for guys to be like that. Some dudes are ? , some are prudes, and most lie somewhere in the middle, just like with women.
So no, that's not the problem. The problem is that instead of trying to strive for a world where virtues still mean something and doing a better job of holding men to a higher standard, ya'll women want to make the lower standard some women live by more acceptable. That ? is absolutely ridiculous to me. lol
So we don't live in a culture where young men are encouraged to "sow their wild oats", men who sleep with a lot of women are celebrated as "playas", and male virgins are chastised
While women are expected to keep their legs closed and "act like a lady"... Otherwise she's a "hoe","? ", "thot", etc
Ur being disingenuous
-
desertrain10 wrote: »
So we don't live in a culture where young men are encouraged to "sow their wild oats", men who sleep with a lot of women are celebrated as "playas", and male virgins are chastised
While women are expected to keep their legs closed and "act like a lady"... Otherwise she's a "hoe","? ", "thot", etc
Ur being disingenuous
That's not what I said. Men are expected to go out and get the promiscuity out of their systems in hopes that when they do settle down they won't have that urge anymore. That is not the same thing as saying that men are encouraged to go out and ? any and everything. Again, whether its men or women, simply having premarital sex does not make you a ? .
I've explained the "playa" thing a ton of times on here and why it's stupid that women constantly bring that up as a so called double standard. I can explain it again if you want, but to keep this present titangraph reasonable I'll skip it.
At the end of the day traditional gender roles when it comes to sex probably do need to be redefined, and there is nothing wrong with women striving to do that. Here's my problem. There are two ways that women could combat the old ways. They could do their part to destroy those gender roles. That means instead of waiting for some dude to come along and pick them up. They can be more proactive in securing what they want. That gives them the power to choose what they want and to do what they want while also allowing them to not be seen as someone that just gives it up to anyone who asks. The other option is to maintain the status quo as far as the roles go but strive to get the poor behavior exhibited by some males to be seen equally acceptable for females. Everything you're arguing is in support of that second option, when I believe women as a whole would display much more class and character in going that first route. -
The user and all related content has been deleted.
-
Never see girls that AREN'T ? complain about ? shaming.. Hmm.
But on some real ? , no one here hate ? . They play their position. The issue is when they expect girlfriend or wife treatment. -
Hopefully this slutwalk is in New York City during the summer.
-
The user and all related content has been deleted.
-
The Lonious Monk wrote: »desertrain10 wrote: »
So we don't live in a culture where young men are encouraged to "sow their wild oats", men who sleep with a lot of women are celebrated as "playas", and male virgins are chastised
While women are expected to keep their legs closed and "act like a lady"... Otherwise she's a "hoe","? ", "thot", etc
Ur being disingenuous
That's not what I said. Men are expected to go out and get the promiscuity out of their systems in hopes that when they do settle down they won't have that urge anymore. That is not the same thing as saying that men are encouraged to go out and ? any and everything. Again, whether its men or women, simply having premarital sex does not make you a ? .
I've explained the "playa" thing a ton of times on here and why it's stupid that women constantly bring that up as a so called double standard. I can explain it again if you want, but to keep this present titangraph reasonable I'll skip it.
At the end of the day traditional gender roles when it comes to sex probably do need to be redefined, and there is nothing wrong with women striving to do that. Here's my problem. There are two ways that women could combat the old ways. They could do their part to destroy those gender roles. That means instead of waiting for some dude to come along and pick them up. They can be more proactive in securing what they want. That gives them the power to choose what they want and to do what they want while also allowing them to not be seen as someone that just gives it up to anyone who asks. The other option is to maintain the status quo as far as the roles go but strive to get the poor behavior exhibited by some males to be seen equally acceptable for females. Everything you're arguing is in support of that second option, when I believe women as a whole would display much more class and character in going that first route.
Lol
Believe what u want
Fact remains a double standard exist
And I'm not totally getting how women becoming more "proactive with securing what they want" in the realm of love, sex and relationships would help change the minds of ppl who ? shame, subscribe to the double standard
What is comes down to is we live in a patriarchy. Men define what's acceptable or not.
Most guys grow up believing they are entitled to govern over women's bodies
? shaming is just a syptom of that
Things won't change until we as soceity begin to view women's sexuality in the same light as men's
-
Funny how she uses the term ? walk instead of hoarwalk
-
Double standards are sometimes good things. All societies place limitations on human behavior not just legally but socially. There are certain behaviors that are discouraged.
Modern society is heading for a down fall. It's following a pattern that heralds it's death. The removal of social constraints leads to decadence then to downfall. It's happened over and over throughout history.
And feminism is playing a major part in this.
Feminism at best wants to create an egalitarianism between the sexes that cannot nor has it ever existed. At worst Feminism is misandry -
If men and women are not allowed to feel they have the right to govern over the bodies of the opposite sex then why should a man get married???? Or any woman for that matter.
Women's sexuality is women's sexuality and men's are men's we are not the same. Like it or not biology dictates that men will always have a certain greater level of sexual freedom. -
Y'all in for disappointment. Only butchy ass feminist are going to show up at this. The real ? will be mocking those ? online between gag sessions.
-
desertrain10 wrote: »The Lonious Monk wrote: »desertrain10 wrote: »
So we don't live in a culture where young men are encouraged to "sow their wild oats", men who sleep with a lot of women are celebrated as "playas", and male virgins are chastised
While women are expected to keep their legs closed and "act like a lady"... Otherwise she's a "hoe","? ", "thot", etc
Ur being disingenuous
That's not what I said. Men are expected to go out and get the promiscuity out of their systems in hopes that when they do settle down they won't have that urge anymore. That is not the same thing as saying that men are encouraged to go out and ? any and everything. Again, whether its men or women, simply having premarital sex does not make you a ? .
I've explained the "playa" thing a ton of times on here and why it's stupid that women constantly bring that up as a so called double standard. I can explain it again if you want, but to keep this present titangraph reasonable I'll skip it.
At the end of the day traditional gender roles when it comes to sex probably do need to be redefined, and there is nothing wrong with women striving to do that. Here's my problem. There are two ways that women could combat the old ways. They could do their part to destroy those gender roles. That means instead of waiting for some dude to come along and pick them up. They can be more proactive in securing what they want. That gives them the power to choose what they want and to do what they want while also allowing them to not be seen as someone that just gives it up to anyone who asks. The other option is to maintain the status quo as far as the roles go but strive to get the poor behavior exhibited by some males to be seen equally acceptable for females. Everything you're arguing is in support of that second option, when I believe women as a whole would display much more class and character in going that first route.
Lol
Believe what u want
Fact remains a double standard exist
And I'm not totally getting how women becoming more "proactive with securing what they want" in the realm of love, sex and relationships would help change the minds of ppl who ? shame, subscribe to the double standard
What is comes down to is we live in a patriarchy. Men define what's acceptable or not.
Most guys grow up believing they are entitled to govern over women's bodies
? shaming is just a syptom of that
Things won't change until we as soceity begin to view women's sexuality in the same light as men's
It's funny how women are often (sometimes wrongfully) accused of being illogical and feminist arguments seem to have no logic to them.
You ask me how women being proactive will change minds. Well tell me, if people believe that ? are loose women who give it up to anyone, how could they possibly believe that if women start to exercise their own selectivity and therefore make the pool of sexual partners an exclusive group instead of any dude that comes along at the right time with the right lines?
How can a guy continue to believe they are entitled to govern a woman's body, if the only way he has access to that body is on a woman's terms?
How could this so-called double standard exist if women started to hold men to the same standards as women are held?
How is it that men are defining everything when women have all the power when it comes to sex?
The ? ya'll feminists say makes no sense. Why would you accept an oppressive gender role and protest the perceptions associated with that role instead of just throwing off the role altogether? lol That would have been like slaves choosing to be slaves as long as they were no longer called "? " instead of just fighting to no longer be slaves. Again, it's ridiculous. -
-
![[Deleted User]](https://w1.vanillicon.com/v2/15efd8efe08bb34aae25f1808aaf5018.svg)
https://youtu.be/AZb9GLUYp2k