Amber Rose Says There'e No Such Thing as a Hoe or ? ! Do you Agree?
Options
Comments
-
She aint dumb
She aint confused
These ' reality' stars, mostly TALENTLESS, PHYSICALLY DOCTORED, OVERRATED, WITH REALLY NOTHING TO SAY,
Live off... OUR TWEETS AND POST ABOUT THEM!!!
If that thread goes plat then AMBER ROSE WILL KEEP ON BEING RELEVANT.
She knew from the begining that her denying the thing she had walked for and fough for WOULD CREATE A TONS OF REACTIONS.
And voila.
If yall really want to put these hoes to there places, there REAL SOCIETAL VALUE, STOP ANLYSING AND DEBATING ABOUT THE SINGLE DECLARATION OR PHOTOSHOPED PIC THEY DO.
Look at Kim K when she is not photoshopped : she looks like ? !!!
-
Sick of this ? head ?
-
I don't think there is, women make their own decisions and I'm cool with that. If that decision is to ? around with numerous men then cool, do you.
Besides, it ain't like they're getting dents and scratches on them every time that they have sex, girls don't devalue like a 02 truck.
I'm not in this world to live up to anyone's else's expectations and neither are these women, I judge folk as I find them.
If I ? someone unlawfully, I'm a murderer. It doesn't matter if it was my decision or not. We can debate about whether or not being a ? is a bad thing, but there is no question as to whether or not ? exist. They do. -
Hoes say the darndest things.
-
EXACTLY what a hoe or a ? would say.
-
So much hate for this woman. I don't get it. Even Akademiks raising his voice seems unnecessary, like he knows he's got no shot so he's in his emotions.
She's a grown woman who makes her own money.
In all of this she has said that it's okay to be a freak/? /? for your man. I thoug tha sats how its supposed to be.
She's probably cleaner than Usher...
But at some point at 30 u have been alot of men freak or ? so now u just a ? in general -
These hoes be getting passes I swear
-
You guys have to STOP giving these females attention. Y'all realize this is the whole plan, right? Tune them out.
-
Nope. They dont understand.You guys have to STOP giving these females attention. Y'all realize this is the whole plan, right? Tune them out.
-
pissedoffnobody wrote: »Wish these ? was fighting to cook and clean the way they fighting to get they ? on.
You're implying women that can cook and clean can't also be cheating lying nymphos. If that were the case, divorce rates would be a lot lower. It's an old callback but "a ? is a ? and we all know/that a ? is a ? with a touch of ? so..." The problem is everyone is focused more on sex than relationships so folks are getting what they want but not learning enough about what they really need so at the very least they don't end up 40 years old, used up with no sound long term prospects.
what the hell is your deal man? -
It's in the dictionary. So I disagree.
-
-
You're comparing something imaginary to what basically boils down to an adjective. -
A ? is a noun
-
A ? is a noun
Well aware of that. Its definition specifies (describes) what type of woman, hence why I said it pretty much boils down to an adjective. Sasquatches are imaginary, ? ? exist lol, so the comparison is funny to me. -
LcnsdbyROYALTY wrote: »
What makes one qualify though? "Getting around" I would guess. I dont necessarily look at them as that simply because I choose who I deal with. In today's world I think thats all you can do. How many partners makes her a ? ? One person may think they are, someone else may not. Same basic thing with pretty much all labels. So in some ways she actually has points. None of this has anything to do with accepting particular behavior on an individual level though. Its just its their life Im not to big on derogatory labeling myself. Its just, there are more effective means than calling people names. Like avoiding whats not for you. I guess it is what it is though. -
LcnsdbyROYALTY wrote: »
But that's not because of the dictionary. His logic doesn't work. If being in the dictionary shows that something is real we would have to accept all kinds of mythical stuff. -
NoCompetition wrote: »LcnsdbyROYALTY wrote: »
What makes one qualify though? "Getting around" I would guess. I dont necessarily look at them as that simply because I choose who I deal with. In today's world I think thats all you can do. How many partners makes her a ? ? One person may think they are, someone else may not. Same basic thing with pretty much all labels. So in some ways she actually has points. None of this has anything to do with accepting particular behavior on an individual level though. Its just its their life Im not to big on derogatory labeling myself. Its just, there are more effective means than calling people names. Like avoiding whats not for you. I guess it is what it is though.
All that is up to individual interpretation, fam.
*shrugs* -
LcnsdbyROYALTY wrote: »NoCompetition wrote: »LcnsdbyROYALTY wrote: »
What makes one qualify though? "Getting around" I would guess. I dont necessarily look at them as that simply because I choose who I deal with. In today's world I think thats all you can do. How many partners makes her a ? ? One person may think they are, someone else may not. Same basic thing with pretty much all labels. So in some ways she actually has points. None of this has anything to do with accepting particular behavior on an individual level though. Its just its their life Im not to big on derogatory labeling myself. Its just, there are more effective means than calling people names. Like avoiding whats not for you. I guess it is what it is though.
All that is up to individual interpretation, fam.
*shrugs*
Yeah basically. Its like I dont disagree on the part of some behavior being unacceptable to deal with. But she has some points to me too... So its like ok I agree with her on the labeling but that doesnt make it acceptable. Thats my take on it anyway like you said. -
Tried to watch her segment on one of the recent Everyday Struggle episodes. Just simply couldn't take her serious. Her whole aura is wack as ? .
Her being thicker then a snicker just isn't enough anymore, and realistically shouldn't have been a big deal in the first place. Something is wrong if your relevant because of the ? that your walls have coated. -
pissedoffnobody wrote: »Smokey Tha Bandit wrote: »
they out here making ? up. who the ? calls a ? victim a ? ? the ? ? I think they just lookin for reasons or ways to eliminate the word so they can ? all they want and nobody bats an eye.
The same people who go the "she was asking for it" or "Well what was she wearing" or "well how many people has she slept with before" route of questioning when a woman says she was sexually assaulted. On the one hand it's good that you're naive about this...on the other it points to you not actually knowing what some women who have been assaulted actually go through. Just ask some women who have been through it...it happens
Then they are stupid. A ? victim, someone you have to physically and sexually assault, is the exact opposite of a ? who will put out for money/gifts or a ? who will put out for self validation/attention/temporary affection. Might as well accuse people who die of hypothermia of suffering heat stroke.
so someone you consider to be a "? " or "? " can't be ? or sexually assaulted? lol
-
I am inclined to agree with her.Busta Carmichael wrote: »She had the nerve to spin it and say that a woman should be able to express her sexuality without being called names lmao.
A ? is an immoral woman who sleeps around with no regard for their partner. Someone who would decieve their boyfriend/girlfriend that they love them while creeping behind their back and ? other people, sometimes close friends.
How tf is that expressing your sexuality? ? just evil.
That is NOT part of the meaning of it. -
Madame_CJSkywalker wrote: »pissedoffnobody wrote: »Smokey Tha Bandit wrote: »
they out here making ? up. who the ? calls a ? victim a ? ? the ? ? I think they just lookin for reasons or ways to eliminate the word so they can ? all they want and nobody bats an eye.
The same people who go the "she was asking for it" or "Well what was she wearing" or "well how many people has she slept with before" route of questioning when a woman says she was sexually assaulted. On the one hand it's good that you're naive about this...on the other it points to you not actually knowing what some women who have been assaulted actually go through. Just ask some women who have been through it...it happens
Then they are stupid. A ? victim, someone you have to physically and sexually assault, is the exact opposite of a ? who will put out for money/gifts or a ? who will put out for self validation/attention/temporary affection. Might as well accuse people who die of hypothermia of suffering heat stroke.
so someone you consider to be a "? " or "? " can't be ? or sexually assaulted? lol
Yes. ? can still say no. Lames get no from promiscuous women every day b. -
I agree with Rose 100%.
Unfortunately, we will probably never see a world where people stop shame g women for owning their sexuality. -
soul rattler wrote: »I agree with Rose 100%.
Unfortunately, we will probably never see a world where people stop shame g women for owning their sexuality.
I bet you a friend zone ass ? you.
