Is Bruce Jenner Trolling?

[heliumclinton]

Pretty big thing to most people in this country. Most people care if their wife is slobbing on someone's knob on video and all of their friends, family, coworkers, future sons and daughters will see it.

Which is why her intentions on not sharing it is deceitful regardless of how you feel. She knows how society views it and withholding it is shady.

So you cool knowing she gave oral before as long as it's not recorded? Idgaf what society thinks, she's marrying me not society. Funny people pick and choose when to follow society rules. Society says buy a diamond and have a big wedding but now everybody want to go against the grain

 

[elecrelaxation]

 

Pretty big thing to most people in this country. Most people care if their wife is slobbing on someone's knob on video and all of their friends, family, coworkers, future sons and daughters will see it.

Which is why her intentions on not sharing it is deceitful regardless of how you feel. She knows how society views it and withholding it is shady.

So you cool knowing she gave oral before as long as it's not recorded? Idgaf what society thinks, she's marrying me not society. Funny people pick and choose when to follow society rules. Society says buy a diamond and have a big wedding but now everybody want to go against the grain

Your son might care about it. Your daughter might care about it. They might be made fun of in school. It's an important topic to discuss. Your father might care about it.

It doesn't even matter if you care about it because she hasn't told you. She's not even letting you decide whether you care about it or not. That's what's deceitful.

 

[johnnyredstorm]

Yall in here worrying too much about people Yall won't ever meet. Let Teflon Bruce cook with his estrogen.

 

[heliumclinton]

 

Pretty big thing to most people in this country. Most people care if their wife is slobbing on someone's knob on video and all of their friends, family, coworkers, future sons and daughters will see it.


Which is why her intentions on not sharing it is deceitful regardless of how you feel. She knows how society views it and withholding it is shady.

So you cool knowing she gave oral before as long as it's not recorded? Idgaf what society thinks, she's marrying me not society. Funny people pick and choose when to follow society rules. Society says buy a diamond and have a big wedding but now everybody want to go against the grain

Your son might care about it. Your daughter might care about it. They might be made fun of in school. It's an important topic to discuss. Your father might care about it.

It doesn't even matter if you care about it because she hasn't told you. She's not even letting you decide whether you care about it or not. That's what's deceitful.

So then where is the line drawn? I have to tell my wife everything I have done and let her decide whether she cares or not?

 

[Jordan8]

Yall in here worrying too much about people Yall won't ever meet. Let Teflon Bruce cook with his estrogen.

You callin him Teflon because he killed somebody 2 months ago and distracted yall by cutting his penis off right?

 

[heliumclinton]

Yall in here worrying too much about people Yall won't ever meet. Let Teflon Bruce cook with his estrogen.

You callin him Teflon because he killed somebody 2 months ago and distracted yall by cutting his penis off right?

Still has a penis though

 

[DCAllAfrican]

Yall in here worrying too much about people Yall won't ever meet. Let Teflon Bruce cook with his estrogen.

Says the man that watches wrestling from countries he has never even been to.

 

[jape]

So you cool knowing she gave oral before as long as it's not recorded? Idgaf what society thinks, she's marrying me not society. Funny people pick and choose when to follow society rules. Society says buy a diamond and have a big wedding but now everybody want to go against the grain

You don't see the difference between having sex and having sex on tape for money?
So you're the guy that capes these types of broads. Lmao now I know why we don't see eye to eye.

 

[elecrelaxation]

Quote:

 

 

 

Pretty big thing to most people in this country. Most people care if their wife is slobbing on someone's knob on video and all of their friends, family, coworkers, future sons and daughters will see it.


Which is why her intentions on not sharing it is deceitful regardless of how you feel. She knows how society views it and withholding it is shady.

So you cool knowing she gave oral before as long as it's not recorded? Idgaf what society thinks, she's marrying me not society. Funny people pick and choose when to follow society rules. Society says buy a diamond and have a big wedding but now everybody want to go against the grain

Your son might care about it. Your daughter might care about it. They might be made fun of in school. It's an important topic to discuss. Your father might care about it.

It doesn't even matter if you care about it because she hasn't told you. She's not even letting you decide whether you care about it or not. That's what's deceitful.

So then where is the line drawn? I have to tell my wife everything I have done and let her decide whether she cares or not?

The line is somewhere after pornstar and before everything. You act like there's not a huge margin between those two.

You definitely tell someone if you were a porn star. Nobody on this planet wants to get blindsided with that information from someone else.

That's something you're INTENTIONALLY not telling someone. There's no way that doesn't come up in conversation unless you purposefully are withholding it because you know most people would be bothered by it.

 

[RIP sleazyy]

And there you have it. NT has officially regressed to the 17th century

  Some of these responses make me feel like i accidentally went into a time machine. The ignorance in this thread is mind-blowing.


Anytime someone brings up Illuminati, it's basically a lazy explanation for something they don't understand and don't agree with.

Dudes can't learn about the occult now? That stuff is interesting. And lionblood you sound simple.

All this ignorance! Makes drastic overreaching statement immediately after

 

[Peep Game]

So you cool knowing she gave oral before as long as it's not recorded? Idgaf what society thinks, she's marrying me not society. Funny people pick and choose when to follow society rules. Society says buy a diamond and have a big wedding but now everybody want to go against the grain

You don't see the difference between having sex and having sex on tape for money?
So you're the guy that capes these types of broads. Lmao now I know why we don't see eye to eye.

This is why a good amount of women feel like they can use dudes as doormats They make it so easy

 

[DCAllAfrican]

 
Quote:

The line is somewhere after pornstar and before everything. You act like there's not a huge margin between those two.

You definitely tell someone if you were a porn star. Nobody on this planet wants to get blindsided with that information from someone else.

That's something you're INTENTIONALLY not telling someone. There's no way that doesn't come up in conversation unless you purposefully are withholding it because you know most people would be bothered by it.

He isn't budging man. We have been going at it for 2 pages. He doesn't see it as deception. Just leave him alone about it at this point.

But I don't think he is serious, honestly.

 

[johnnyredstorm]

Son is on fleek with them goldilocks b

 

[mr marcus]

Yo I forgot all about him killing those folks!!!!!

 

[tomdiginson]

You don't see the difference between having sex and having sex on tape for money?
So you're the guy that capes these types of broads.

Dude capes for these chicks every single thread.
I thought he was trolling at first, but soon came to realize he is serious.

Dudes can't learn about the occult now? That stuff is interesting. And lionblood you sound simple.

All this ignorance! Makes drastic overreaching statement immediately after

He is one of those individuals where if he he doesn't agree with you, he labels you as ignorant. Could you imagine if he were in a position of power governing people? He would have people in shackles and chains if they didn't agree with him. When he himself is the same thing he claims to despise.

 

[johnnyredstorm]

Family guy predicted this

 

[KingdomFlatbush]

South Park predicted Satanic gay agenda?

 

[SC kid]

Family guy predicted this

Oh snap illoominaty

 

[Methodical Management]

It occurs to me that much of the irrational fear surrounding sexuality stems from the preservation of straight male privilege. 

Though each dimension of social inequality is unique, it's nonetheless reminiscent of the hysteria that has historically been directed towards interracial children and relationships.  In the same way that interracial unions threatened to queer the category of race, the concept of sexuality as a spectrum that includes LGBTQ disrupts and challenges the male/female binary from which sexism is derived.  

In a country that attempts to enforce White/Non-White dichotomy, the prospect of "not knowing" someone's race, or of a "racial spectrum" is terrifying.  In deploying a "one drop" rule, Whiteness (a social construct) became genetically recessive.  Is it any wonder, then, that anti-miscegenation laws were in place until 1967?  

If you look at American popular culture, especially during the Reconstruction era, a special sort of scorn was reserved for those who represented "race mixing."  You would be presented as "unnatural," the chimeric product of an unholy union with no rightful, biologically determined place in this world.  (Look at how Lydia and Silas Lynch were portrayed in "Birth of a Nation," for example, or the trope of the "tragic mulatto.")

Interracial relationships posed an existential threat to a social order where one's place in society was dictated by inherited traits such as skin color.  Someone capable of "passing" for White could infiltrate the bastions of segregation.  And, if someone who was "1/8th" Black could attend school with White children, what's next?  Full integration?  "What about our bathrooms?"  "What about our sports teams?"  "What about the children?"  

To make slavery (and the quasi-slavery that existed afterward) appear even remotely appropriate or ethical, people relied on the concept of "natural slavery."  Aristotle and Sepulveda, among others, suggested that slaves were better off under the rule of others.  Slavery could be considered "just" by presenting those so conscripted as inherently uncivilized beasts of burden whose standard of living could only be elevated if harnessed as brute labor and thereby incorporated into "civil society."  (Hopefully, you can appreciate the parallels to sexist gender roles, suggesting that women are "better off" in the custody of men, or that children "require" a "strong male presence" to develop properly.) 

We now know how arbitrary complexion-based racial categorization truly is.  It is hardly a "natural" or a sensible means of partitioning humanity.  The concept that your complexion compelled you towards intellectual vs. physical labor, or that it warranted the assignment privilege and social capital, has been thoroughly discredited.  

Even so, there are still those who seek to police racial categories as a means of preserving the unearned privilege and status associated with Whiteness.  

Is it any surprise, then, that people are similarly resistant to relinquishing sex and gender privilege?  

Gender is a social construct.  Newborn girls don't emerge from the womb with dresses and make up.  The same people who are threatened by the idea of a female-headed household or a female president are menaced by the "breakdown of gender roles."  

Different axes of social inequality are not interchangeable, but they do intersect and function in similar ways.  A poor White male is disadvantaged in one way, and privileged in others.  It's, in part, for this reason that many poor Whites are resentful of the very notion that racism persists in contemporary society and manifests itself in law enforcement, housing, education, career opportunities, and so on.  A poor White male may reason that he's known true hardship in a way that Oprah Winfrey does not and that, therefore, any worldview that presents her as disadvantaged due to race or gender is "an excuse" that only exemplifies the injustice he faces - and that the "preferential treatment" Oprah purportedly receives as a minority accounts for the poor White male's inability to prosper.  

Dr. King once told his jailers, who were working class White men, "You are put in the position of supporting your oppressor, because through prejudice and blindness, you fail to see that the same forces that oppress Negroes in American society oppress poor white people. And all you are living on is the satisfaction of your skin being white, and the drum major instinct of thinking that you are somebody big because you are white. And you're so poor you can't send your children to school. You ought to be out here marching with every one of us every time we have a march."

Du Bois referred to this as the "public and psychological wage" of Whiteness.  

There exists a public and psychological wage for males, for cisgendered persons, and for straight people.  

The idea that "this is your lot in life because you have a Y chromosome" is in jeopardy.  So many people have been socialized to believe that their masculinity is the very core of their identity, and perhaps even the source of their power and potency.  

The prospect that masculinity, as it exists in our culture, is an affectation rather than some primal expression of innate identity is threatening.  It threatens people's sense of self.  It threatens their sense of privilege and empowerment.  

And that, I think, is where much of the fear and defensiveness comes from.  

This is how it hurts us... In my opinion. Calling this behavior "courageous" means that it is ok for transgendered people to get into relationships and not be forthcoming. This, in turn, could lead to violence when people find out.

I think what some people are really afraid of here is the possibility that they could fall in love with or be physically intimate with someone who is in any way "male."  It's perceived as a threat to their sexuality.  (Hence the infamous Jim Carrey "crying game" scene in the epitome of mature cinema, Ace Ventura, Pet Detective.)

If that's the case, why must the burden of disclosure fall exclusively on transgender people?  Maybe if you're the one with a problem, perhaps you should just make it a point to say, on every first date, "I'm terrified of accidental intimacy with a man, so, please tell me if you're transgender."  I'm sure there are a lot of cisgender women would appreciate such a disclosure, so they can know right away if they're dealing with someone who is sexually insecure and potentially homophobic.  

 
The term HATE CRIME is a media created monster. Anyone with sense doesn't take that phrase serious.

Just like the supposed knock out game that black people used as a hate crime vs. white folks

Media created monster?  Hate crime legislation began with the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  It is, in part, a response to "Southern Justice."  Many lynchings in America have been perpetrated with either direct assistance or complicity from local law enforcement.  Think about the likelihood of convicting a murderer of a racially motivated hate crime in Alabama in 1965 at the state level, then compare that to the likelihood of conviction if prosecuted at the federal level.  This year alone, we've seen some farcical indictment proceedings associated with killings that were likely racially motivated or, at least, racially influenced.  

Please make the effort to at least familiarize yourself with the purpose and origins of hate crime legislation before characterizing it as the superfluous creation of a special "protected class" entitled to preferential treatment under the law.  We all know that justice can be difficult to come by in this country, especially if you're not a member of the majority.  

 

[DCAllAfrican]

 
I think what some people are really afraid of here is the possibility that they could fall in love with or be physically intimate with someone who is in any way "male."  It's perceived as a threat to their sexuality.  (Hence the infamous Jim Carrey "crying game" scene in the epitome of mature cinema, Ace Ventura, Pet Detective.)

If that's the case, why must the burden of disclosure fall exclusively on transgender people?  Maybe if you're the one with a problem, perhaps you should just make it a point to say, on every first date, "I'm terrified of accidental intimacy with a man, so, please tell me if you're transgender."  I'm sure there are a lot of cisgender women would appreciate such a disclosure, so they can know right away if they're dealing with someone who is sexually insecure and potentially homophobic.  

You can't be serious man.

So it is up to the male to ask each women he meets whether or not she has been male?

For one, nobody thinks it is a high probability that will happen.

But in the event it DOES happen, why is it up to the male to ask.

I don't understand that at all.

And why must you use the "Insecure and homophobic" card in that situation? So because someone doesn't want to (as you say) accidentally fall in love with another man, means they are insecure and/or homophobic?

Please clear that up because that is what I am seeing from you.

 

[DCAllAfrican]

 
Media created monster?  Hate crime legislation began with the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  It is, in part, a response to "Southern Justice."  Many lynchings in America have been perpetrated with either direct assistance or complicity from local law enforcement.  Think about the likelihood of convicting a murderer of a racially motivated hate crime in Alabama in 1965 at the state level, then compare that to the likelihood of conviction if prosecuted at the federal level.  This year alone, we've seen some farcical indictment proceedings associated with killings that were likely racially motivated or, at least, racially influenced.  

Please make the effort to at least familiarize yourself with the purpose and origins of hate crime legislation before characterizing it as the superfluous creation of a special "protected class" entitled to preferential treatment under the law.  We all know that justice can be difficult to come by in this country, especially if you're not a member of the majority.  

Go to the last page. I cleared up what I meant.

My point was every situation against someone isn't a HATE crime. The media is usually the ones that appoint whether or not something is a hate crime, in 2015.

And someone else also mentioned, if a male is decieved by a trans, and that male does physical harm, the media WOULD in fact call that a hate crime.

My point was, everything done to a trans, can't be called a hate crime. The media overuses that phrase

 

[Methodical Management]

 

 
I think what some people are really afraid of here is the possibility that they could fall in love with or be physically intimate with someone who is in any way "male."  It's perceived as a threat to their sexuality.  (Hence the infamous Jim Carrey "crying game" scene in the epitome of mature cinema, Ace Ventura, Pet Detective.)

If that's the case, why must the burden of disclosure fall exclusively on transgender people?  Maybe if you're the one with a problem, perhaps you should just make it a point to say, on every first date, "I'm terrified of accidental intimacy with a man, so, please tell me if you're transgender."  I'm sure there are a lot of cisgender women would appreciate such a disclosure, so they can know right away if they're dealing with someone who is sexually insecure and potentially homophobic.  

You can't be serious man.

So it is up to the male to ask each women he meets whether or not she has been male?

For one, nobody thinks it is a high probability that will happen.

But in the event it DOES happen, why is it up to the male to ask.

I don't understand that at all.

And why must you use the "Insecure and homophobic" card in that situation? So because someone doesn't want to (as you say) accidentally fall in love with another man, means they are insecure and/or homophobic?

Please clear that up because that is what I am seeing from you.

It seems to me that you're the one with the problem.  

You're the one with the fear.  

You're not dealing with a pedophile, because the relationship involves two consenting adults who share a mutual attraction.  You're not dealing with a concealed STD, because there's nothing physically harmful about your interactions with a healthy transgender person.

Is it so wrong of them to act as though the two of you are just human beings who are attracted to each other?  In reality, that's what it is.  

If I'm afraid of the childish, Ace Ventura "ick" factor of kissing Lois Einhorn, that is my problem, isn't it?  

Why does the rest of society have to go out of its way to cater to those who have that fear?  

If you're a White person afraid of interracial relationships and you're about to kiss someone who you believe is White, do they have to warn you, "oh, by the way, my birth mother was Black... so.... you know..."?  

 

[KingdomFlatbush]

EMEETEEAICHODEE Man doing what I'm too lazy to do because I'm on mobile

 

[DCAllAfrican]

My issue is why do you have to label it as a FEAR. 

I just don't like how every form of non-acceptance of that lifestyle has to be classified as a FEAR (phobia).

I don't think it is fair to call someone SCARED because they want to know up front if the person they are spending their time with was once another sex.

 

[elecrelaxation]

Great dating advice. Ask every girl you're seeing if she use to be a man. I'm sure that will go over really well.