Sponsored links

JudgyBitch

The radical notion that women are adults

I kind of hope Johnny Depp DID punch Amber Heard – I’m guessing she begged for it

One of the things I find most annoying whenever the topic of domestic violence comes up is the idea that men should never, ever hit women; that masculinity itself depends on never smacking a chick no matter how badly she asks for it. It’s just so damn patronizing. The idea that women should never, ever be hit is infantilizing. We’re not children, and we are perfectly capable of provoking and deserving a slap across the head, just as men are. This attitude is particularly frustrating in the context of martial arts training, but surprisingly common. Lots of men will not spar enthusiastically with women, out of fear of ‘hurting’ us. Well, getting punched hurts. It’s supposed to hurt. Experience is a great teacher – get the fuck offside, learn to slip, block and angle away. Reluctant ‘gentlemen’ on the mats are not doing me any favors by refusing to punch at level. Obviously, no one expects anyone else to go 100% on anyone, man or woman, but going way too light on women is shitty training that harms more than it helps.
This whole Johnny Depp/Amber Heard story smells like gold digger bullshit, but I have to say, the defense of Depp as being too much of a gentleman to ever hit a woman is just the flip side of the coin above. I can understand Depp’s daughter coming to his defense, insisting that her Daddy is gentle and lovely and would never hurt her, but why the fuck shouldn’t he hit Amber, if she asked for it? Depp has a rather checkered past when it comes to violence, after all. He’s been known to trash a few hotel rooms, get arrested for bar fights, and just generally wreak havoc wherever he goes. Depp’s former wife, Vanessa Paradis, has written a letter indicating that Depp was never once violent with her during their 14 years marriage and relationship, but that doesn’t mean he wasn’t violent with Heard. There’s actually a very good, and likely explanation for why Depp was completely non-violent with Paradis, but slap-happy with Heard: he’s a man who doesn’t hit first, but he does hit back.
Whether a woman hits a man first is an excellent predictor of whether a woman is going to experience domestic violence: turns out that plenty of men don’t buy into the whole ‘never hit a woman’ crap, and most certainly will hit a woman who hits them, as they bloody well should.
As in many studies of IPV, the OYS found that much IPV is bidirectional (meaning both are violent), and in unidirectional abusive relationships, the women were more likely to be abusive than the men.
The study found that a young woman’s IPV was just as predictive of her male partner’s future IPV as the man’s own past IPV. In other words, whereas we often think of men as the only abusers and also as serial abusers, the OYS found that a woman’s violence against her man was as predictive of his violence to her as his own history of violence.
Those same men will go on to have peaceful, non-violent relationships with other partners, provided the new partner doesn’t hit them.
Moreover, the study found that men’s physical aggression changes significantly when they find a new partner. Instead of a man being either a batterer or not, often it was his female partner’s violence or nonviolence which heavily influenced whether he would be violent to her.
A simple solution to domestic violence? Teach women not to hit men.
Adobe Flash Player or an HTML5 supported browser is required for video playback.
Get the latest Flash Player
Learn more about upgrading to an HTML5 browser
I’m guessing that Heard took a swing at Johnny, and got served back what she served up. Let’s think for a moment about why she might want to do that: three days after Depp’s mother died, Heard filed for divorce, and requested spousal support. The couple had no pre-nup, and Heard stands to walk away with millions and millions of Johnny’s fortune. After a marriage that lasted a whopping 15 months. The timing was epically shitty and Heard came off as a complete and utter cunt. She was getting some bad press, and then lo and behold, the DV story materialized. Now Heard is the innocent victim, Depp is the monster and no one wants to talk about the truckload of cash this little whore is gonna walk away with. Look at her face, coming out of a four hour meeting with her lawyer. She’s just busted up over this, isn’t she?
amberdepp2
On the balance of probability, I think Depp probably did whack the little bitch, and I think she deserved at least that much. Depp is an idiot, obviously, for marrying the little tart, and for being so egotistical he actually believed she was in love with anything other than his money, fame and influence. Not having a pre-nup is on him, and he is a moron, full stop. Depp is no innocent, fleeced victim here, is what I’m saying. He was a fool, and he will pay for that. But Heard isn’t innocent here either. Far from it. She is going to waltz off with millions of dollars she didn’t earn and is not entitled to by any sane definition of marriage. After 15 months, what exactly did she contribute to that wealth? She suckered a rich man into marrying her, whispered the sweet nothings she needed to whisper to cash in, and he fell for it.
That’s on him. 100%
But why the fuck should those millions be free? Why should Heard get to rape Depp’s bank account and tarnish his reputation and future earning potential and cast him as the monster?
Depp was a fool and fell for a beautiful face, as many man have done before him. He will pay for that foolishness to the tune of possibly $20 million dollars. And Heard?
All it cost her was a light bash across the face that scarcely even bruised her.
$20M for a little redness that disappeared two days later?
I’d take it.
And obviously, so would Heard.
Nice work, if you can get it.
Lots of love,
JB

Sponsored links

We were unable to load Disqus. If you are a moderator please see our troubleshooting guide.
Avatar
Join the discussion…

  • in this conversation
⬇ Drag and drop your images here to upload them.
        Media preview placeholder
        Log in with
        or sign up with Disqus or pick a name
        ?

        Disqus is a discussion network

        • Disqus never moderates or censors. The rules on this community are its own.
        • Your email is safe with us. It's only used for moderation and optional notifications.
        • Don't be a jerk or do anything illegal. Everything is easier that way.
        By signing up, you agree to the Disqus Basic Rules, Terms of Service, and Privacy Policy.
        By posting, you agree to the Disqus Basic Rules, Terms of Service, and Privacy Policy.
        • Radium 2 hours ago
          There is another element to this story. In Hollywood, there are three ways to make money. You can entertain people, you can find a way to exploit those who entertain, or you can find a way to protect those who entertain from those attempting to exploit them. The scam usually involves some form of blackmail that will harm the reputations, and therefore, the earning potential of the mark. Truth is irrelevant. Marketability of the "story" is all that matters. The truth of an individual story is mostly unknowable because the media will not do due diligence before reporting.
            see more
            • StoneCutter 5 hours ago
              Doh! And all these years I thought "cash cow" meant something else.
                see more
                • Eva Fosse 11 hours ago
                  my god, you really are an uncultured, primitive woman. have you never heard of the old, aristocratic custom of honour that denands that a true lady should slap a man when he insults her honour or cheats on her? if she does not, then it insinuates that she is a whore (and usable\rapable) or that she commends extramarital affairs. a born and bred gentleman is supposed to take this humiliation without hitting baxk, because he is the stronger sex. he needs lik he does in the military, in order to control and purify his innate masculine dominance. a weak female hand is his guide in this. american trash culture has made us forget the attitude of being a lady or a gentleman. it should never involve slut shaming of another woman or expectatuons of sex from a man if he buys dinner. speaking of asking for it; you and suzy mccarley are spreading so nuch hate on the net, that we are eagerly waiting for some redneck masculibiats to slap some respect into you, wgich is what you seem to yearn for. ha!
                    see more
                    • Mencken's Ghost > Eva Fosse 3 hours ago
                      Another vaunted tradition often missing nowadays is grammar, such as in your semi-decipherable posts, Microchip Fosse. Apparently, a scriptkiddie for artificial UNintelligence has been developed by the Ministry of Truth. I suppose that means that JudgyBitch-dot-comment is putting a minor tsunami into the clickstream. Sofa king awsum.
                        see more
                          • Jason Wexler > Eva Fosse 7 hours ago
                            I can find no evidence of any culture which actually believed the above at a time it was attributed to them, in most cases it was an anachronism attributed by the Victorian prudes of the late 19th century. However, lets take at face value your fatuous claim, and point out that the same cultures also believed that male sexual and relational fidelity was a sign of impotence. While that claim is better evidenced in historical records, than yours; it's also probably false, never-the-less it serves to illustrate that just because an idea is old, traditional or "civilized", that it isn't necessarily good or right, or perhaps has ceased to be good, right or useful for our culture as it currently exists.
                              see more
                                • artiefischel > Viki Samoja 4 hours ago
                                  No, just someone who desperately needs attention.
                                    see more
                                    • David Sutton > Viki Samoja 8 hours ago
                                      No, of course it isn't! We all know that situational equality is what everyone is after. Feminists have told us over and over that the dictionary definition of the Holy Church of Feminism is canon and therefore cannot be denied. Does Eva have to slap the crap out of you you make you see that? If you were a "born and bred gentleman," you would take it with a smile.
                                        see more
                                        • Eva Fosse > David Sutton 8 hours ago
                                          No honey. European gentlemanly ideal behaviour predates feminism by about 2-300 years. And this is not a joke. The issue is physical strength, versus moral right. If someone has moral right, then they have a right to defend it. If someone has superior physical strenght, then they have no right to use it against the weaker -or lesser in number - but they must endure the moral lesson of being slapped by a lady when they forget to behave like gentlemen. The idea behind this old aristocratic practice was that a woman was not physically strong enough to defend herself. The slap of her hand would not harm a man. It is the humiliation inherent in her gesture that hurts. Preferably done before a third party, to witness the lady`s defense of social standards and ethical behaviour and testify to how the man took it. If he hits back, then he has written himself out of good company, even if he still has a title. See, all these ridiculous masculinist pages go on and on and on about the rights of men and patriarchy ad nausea, but they have no understanding of the various historical versions that patriarchy has taken, or what true gentlemanliness or aristocracy means. Come to think of it, even the British Prince Andrew is clueless by now, despite of his fancy-pants title. Eton-educated actor Tom Hiddleston has bettter gentlemanly manners (and an erotic sense of romantic humor) than Prince Andrew. He also has more fangirls. Women want gentlemen with class and learning. And Tom Hiddleston once admitted that he had been slapped by a lady.He was very proud of it, because it proved that he was a little bad, as boys should be. I am also pretty sure that he did not hit back. That`s breeding for you.
                                            see more
                                            • Bill98 > Eva Fosse 6 hours ago
                                              Sorry Sweetie, but irrespective of the history, the whole notion is a joke. A sad joke, to be sure. Made even sadder by the fact that you don't seem to see that.
                                                see more
                                                • Samantha Stephens > Eva Fosse 6 hours ago
                                                  Sorry Zsa Zsa - but I must politely disagree. Being wailed on by some bitch does not make you a "gentleman." It makes you a door mat. It is not a sign of "breeding." It is a sign that you are servile lap dog.
                                                  "Women want gentleman with class and learning" - very true. It's also true that men want women who conduct themselves like ladies, and no true lady slaps anyone.
                                                    see more
                                                    • David Sutton > Eva Fosse 7 hours ago
                                                      Thank you, sweetie. Haven't we all learned that ALL of history is written by.the patriarchy, and is therefore null and void? Doesn't feminism teach that WOMEN are not only equal in all things, but that the "gentlemanly" behavior that you bleat about is nothing than an attempt by men to seduce WOMEN? As I wrote before, it's situational equality you're arguing for, and gentlemanly behavior for the Eton-educated
                                                        see more
                                                        • Eva Fosse > David Sutton 7 hours ago
                                                          Haven`t you heard that seduction can be a good and positive thing when it is carried out with respect? :-) You now have the American rape culture, the porn ideology and the sex industry because men have forgotten how to seduce women while keeping in mind that seduction does not necessarily mean manipulation. It means communication on a subconscious level, as well as a conscious one. I fear for the future of my children, who will grow up in this anti-seductive culture. It means that my sons will most likely become abusers, and moan about a genocentric universe when they get a prison sentence, while my daughters will most likely be victims, who are silenced by slut shaming. Fortunately, I have met a man who truly did seduce me. And he never used manipulation or invested a lot of money into doing it. I am one of the last lucky women alive. And I told him on the first date that if he ever cheats on me, then I will slap him! He seemed fine with it. It turned out that his grandmother had slapped his grandfather too, across the family dinner table during a grand event. (He comes from an old family).
                                                            see more
                                                        • Viki Samoja > Eva Fosse 7 hours ago
                                                          So you are saying that gynocentrism existed for centuries before Feminism? Gosh thanks for enlightening me, i really didn't know that, but you are missing one key event in your chronology, it's called white feather campaign and it forever shattered this idea of women as morally superior beings, since the very idea was taken and reshaped into a hammer to strike men down with impunity, that's why chivalry is dead, it died there on the blood soaked fields of the first world war, as women cheerfully shamed their men into enlisting to die like chattel for someone else's interests.
                                                            see more
                                                            • Eva Fosse > Viki Samoja 7 hours ago
                                                              The idea of women as morally superior beings has never been universal in Western culture, other opinions on what it means to be female (and male) have competed with various ideas. You Americans know so little about history.
                                                                see more
                                                                • Viki Samoja > Eva Fosse 7 hours ago
                                                                  Lol, i'm European, and yes,women were always considered morally superior,and still are, only charged political literature presents any other view, mainly as a strawman that it can later debunk and congratulate itself on how progressive it is, in every other kind of literature including such writers as Dostoevsky and Kafka, who was known for his cynicism, women are always shown as morally superior, or at the very least significantly less morally repugnant then anyone else, even Greek and Roman writers and artists were showing female goddesses as always more pure and morally superior in comparison to male gods.It's you who knows nothing about history, which is normal, since you have been fed feminist propaganda sloth for most of your life like most people, instead of actual factual history.
                                                                    see more
                                                                    • Eva Fosse > Viki Samoja 6 hours ago
                                                                      You realize you are talking to a professional historian, right? :-) Roman matronas were considered responsible for family honour on a day-today basis, hence Hestia was a pure virgin goddess, because she guarded the family hearth. Dostoyevskiy and Kafka are products of 19th century morality, when the idea that women could better the world through their moral example became widespread. Florence Nightingale was a cultural hero and a representation of this idea of female mercy. Other historical periods had other ideas, but - not even European culture was uniform. One author had one opinion, another had another opinion, then there were fashions of ideas. I think these are what you are talking about. Many Protestant thinkers had a very negative view of women, and opposed female sovereigns and aristocratic female leaders based on their sex. Mary Queen of Scots had this problem with a Protestant clergyman.
                                                                        see more
                                                                        • Viki Samoja > Eva Fosse 6 hours ago
                                                                          So, as a historian show me one regime where women ruled that thrived instead of crumbling, last time i checked Scots were conquered by English, then English started crowning queens, where is their empire now? Habsburgs, Spanish, Egypt, i could go on, show me one empire where women not only sustained but improved upon it, as opposed to so many that were weakened from the inside and either fell apart or got conquered. Our history was orchestrated to support a certain narrative, we all heard about women's suffrage but nobody heard about the aforementioned WFC that Suffragettes were knee deep in. We all heard about Marie Curie, but nobody heard of her husband Pierre who died first and she took on his work, we all heard about Rome being invaded by barbarians, but nobody heard of Romen's very own MGTOW movement which forced certain Roman emperor into enacting bachelor tax in order to shame men into marrying. It did not save Rome and it won't save the west, our culture is built on the principle of male disposability, for all of history whenever something hard or dirty or dangerous needed to be done it was always men who were sent to do it, and they internalized this message so hard that they never even wondered if there could be another way. But men are fed up, fake wrapping of honor and duty that has kept them in the box for so long has fallen off and men can finally see the turd behind it, and they are not going to fight for that turd any longer. You can try to put the wrapping back on, you can even try to lie to us there is really a delicious cake inside, but we saw what we really get, fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice shame on me, we won't forget what we saw, not now not ever, the jig is up.
                                                                            see more
                                                                            • Eva Fosse > Viki Samoja 6 hours ago
                                                                              Show me one empire that has lasted for ever, while being run by male expertize. It is in the nature of empires to fall, crops to fail, humans to die in the thousands, etc. It doesn`t have anything to do with gender roles, or philosophy, or declarations of rights and duties, or whatever. It has to do with something completely else, lying hidden on the bottom, which every book lover forgets: crop yields, winter and summer temperatures, humidity, and natural catastrophes. Before you know it, you have massive population death, entire tribes on the move, wars to win more efficient territory, and all that goes with it. All that human evil is connected to one basic need: the need to eat and drink! And the war for territory and future state and empire is won by those who have the most children. Cold, hard numbers rule history.
                                                                              Most of our cultural history has just been rethorics to make people accept the status quo and go fighting to the death, because there was no other way. It really doesn`t matter if a man or a woman is on the throne. Queens Elizabeth and Victoria did decent jobs. Queen Zenobia rebelled heroically against Rome`s superior military might. And she fought like a man, not like the seductress Cleopatra (who was also unusually intelligent, by the way).
                                                                              And did you know that Rome could partly be overrun by barbarians in the end, because they did not have enough people to man their limes? Romans preferred male heirs over girl children and kept killing girls until there was a great imbalance between the sexes in the end. Too few mothers to produce soldiers. Someone has calculated this number, I don`t remember it now.
                                                                              But keeping scores over wether men or women have suffered worst through history is just stupid. We are a bi-gendered species. It speaks for itself that that makes us one species. We are in it together. Porn and prostituition makes men enemies of women. Unequal pay and working conditions make women enemies of men, etc.
                                                                              This is an intolerable situation, that is threathening the future of our civilization.
                                                                              These anti-genocentric and masculinist pages are the morally worst and ethically most stupid answer that you can give to the problem.
                                                                              Many feminists were on to very important problems, and often formulated them well. Then discussion stopped at some point. I don`t know why.
                                                                              But neither current feminism, nor Christianity, nor these massively misogynystic pages, nor sex industry legalization can offer any solution moral enough to protect family integrity or physical integrity in the future.
                                                                              Your page is a failure, and you are spreading these delusional rethorics all over the world, which is why it disturbs me so much.
                                                                              Something dangerous is happening here. Call me stupid, but my historian instincts are telling me that.
                                                                                see more
                                                                                • Jason Wexler > Eva Fosse 6 hours ago
                                                                                  Your initial comment is unworthy of the intelligence and erudition expressed here. How can you be so reasonable and educated here, and yet so flimsy and absurd to start with?
                                                                                    see more
                                                                                    • Eva Fosse > Jason Wexler 5 hours ago
                                                                                      Because there are circumstances when a true born lady should never hesitate to slap a man :-) Its not because she is abusive, because she would not hit him with a stick, or stab him with a knife, or throw him out a window. It is not because she is strong and can show her superior strenght. It is because she has moral right on her side, since no man has the right to treat any woman as a whore, or to cheat on her (unless they have made an arrangement), or do something utterly despicable. Being hit by the weaker sex means that they SEE a strength that you have become blind to. A lady protects her dignity by slapping a man who deserves it, and if he hits back, then he is even less deserving of respect than before he made his big boo-boo. He has abused his superior physical strength to silence moral criticism. Not good, according to the old book on good behaviour. Be careful when you face gangsters, though. Thez have definitely never heard of Victorian manners and they have guns and run brothels. This is behaviour restricted to ladies and gentlemen, and is one of those "secret handshakes" by which you can recognize them.
                                                                                        see more
                                                                                        • TMT NYC-DA REAL GHOSTBUSTERS > Eva Fosse 3 hours ago
                                                                                          There are BDSM men who would pay you good money just to slap them. You should start advertising yourself!
                                                                                            see more
                                                                                            • Jason Wexler > Eva Fosse 5 hours ago
                                                                                              I don't accept your premise about morality and chivalry but for the sake of argument aren't you making an is/ought distinction that isn't justified by reality? "...a true born lady..." is not every woman, and therefore all we have to do to substantiate Andrea's premise is to demonstrate that Ms. Heard isn't a lady. I am a frequent thorn in the side of this blog as a constant voice of disagreement, and on this particular issue my disagreement with Andrea and others is that of the two fair and equal options available I prefer the one not presented, that no one should commit violence against anyone, it is not an appropriate way to solve problems or express disagreement. So I can't accept the argument a "lady" true born or otherwise, has any more right to violence then anyone else. However, as I say the reality is that lady and woman are not synonymous, woman can be aggressive and abusive and initiate unfounded violence.
                                                                                                see more
                                                                                        • Bill98 > Eva Fosse 6 hours ago
                                                                                          "Professional historian"? Perfect definition of an oxymoron.
                                                                                            see more
                                                                                            • Eva Fosse > Bill98 6 hours ago
                                                                                              Some youtube historians have no education, beside reading history magazine. I have education with papers to show for it, published articles, scholarships, etc. So there.
                                                                                                see more
                                                                                                • Michael G > Eva Fosse 6 hours ago
                                                                                                  One would think that for being such an educated historian you'd have a lot more facts to back your evidence on and not continuously fall back to "but I'm a historian, so I should know." Appealing to authority is the most unattractive of fallacies.
                                                                                                    see more
                                                                                                    • Eva Fosse > Michael G 6 hours ago
                                                                                                      I know what you`re saying, but have you noticed the nature of this blog? Also, one does not write long answers on blogs. I still think I gave more facts than some.
                                                                                                      You can see some of my work here:
                                                                                                      On second thought, I deleted my link to my professional page. These types of blogs attract haters (not necessarily you).
                                                                                                      But if you read my previous answer carefully, you will notice that I try to explain an important premise for historical research here.
                                                                                                      The previous poster made the argument that states run by women are mismanaged somehow.
                                                                                                      I try to counter the logic of the argument by pointing out a logical phallacy in it. This is the idea that history depends on historical personages. To a certain extent it does, but in much lesser extent than anyone want to believe, because we have an innate psychological need for heroes and villains. We want to think they determine the future.
                                                                                                      No, they don' t. They react to biological realities of agriculture or climate change, and try to find a solution. Mostly, humanity manages, but some state, or empire or civilization always falls in the end.
                                                                                                      One of the first things one must learn as a historian, is not to attribute history to individuals alone. The second one must learn, is that people are more influenced by unconcious cultural ideas and attitudes than they would like to think.
                                                                                                      So anything you post on the internet, will have an effect on someone somewhere.
                                                                                                      The ideas of judgybitch are not just anti-humanist in the Enlightenment sense, or anti-Liberal, (I am not sure if she is a Christian), but she is deeply immoral in her thinking. I attribute it to the confused nature of her thinking, that has been influences by American media terror, which aims at brainwashing people into buying stuff and voting for stuff that harms them and generally treats people as factory products that can be used for entertainment purposes.
                                                                                                      Your culture is blind to innate human worth or the dignity of the human body. That produces many dangerous phenomenons, and confused ranters like mrs. Bloomfield, who can't make sense of the culture of lies she was raised in.
                                                                                                      And you have spread this all over the world, with your media coporations, pop tarts, fake poseur punk rockers, etc.. I don't know how to counteract it, but I'm trying.
                                                                                                      I also love authentic American culture that carries real human insight. I am not as blind to the good qualities of the American people as you might think I am. I also realize that Americans generally have bad manners, and their art therefore communicates truth through vulgarity. I am open to any authentic truth, even when it is communicated vulgarly. I love art and people, and raw honest insight into the human condition.. But I detest lies.
                                                                                                        see more
                                                                                                        • Radium > Eva Fosse an hour ago
                                                                                                          I'm confused. So what's the formula for justifiably striking someone? It sounds like moral outrage (aka someone who dishonors me, treats me like a whore, or cheats on me) plus lessor strength? Does one need a vigina? If yes, does trans count? And if trans counts, do I need to actually get a new drivers license changing my gender from an "M" to an "F" before striking or is my intent to transition good enough? Would I need to document my intention before I strike or can I document it afterwards if asked?
                                                                                                          And if the person I intend to strike is physically weaker than me, would it be possible to temporarily handicap myself before striking? Let's say I tied one hand behind my back, can I then hit a someone who committed a moral outrage against me if he or she had both hands unrestrained or must I limit any physical force only to those without viginas? And what do you think is the minimum handicap I should employ before striking? Does drunkenness count as a handicap? If yes, what is the minimum level of intoxication I should have before striking someone?
                                                                                                          Any insight you might have into clarifying this matter would be greatly appreciated. One never knows when one might be dishonored or have an SO cheat on him. It's good to know your options so that you can accurately weigh all of my options before taking a particular action.
                                                                                                            see more
                                                                                                            • Michael G > Eva Fosse 6 hours ago
                                                                                                              Do you honestly think that you'll win any form of debate on anything other than the strength of your argument though? It's not your education that's up for debate, it's your opinion. If you can't mount a defensible position then what use was bringing your education into the discussion in the first place?
                                                                                                                see more
                                                                                                                • Eva Fosse > Michael G 5 hours ago
                                                                                                                  Someone said that I lacked information about history, because I had been brainwashed by feminists. I bet you loved that argument. And it wasn't an argument. So, what is your argument? We've heard judgybitch, and she has proven nothing so far, except for a total lack of understanding of what patriarchy has meant through the ages (many things), and a total lack of class. She is not very ladylike, while she is slut shaming and ridiculing other women for their problems. I've brought many arguments now. Let's hear yours, Michael G. I'll answer it tomorrow.
                                                                                                                    see more
                                                                                                  • Jason Wexler > Eva Fosse 7 hours ago
                                                                                                    I think what you are talking about is inbreeding.
                                                                                                      see more
                                                                                              • artiefischel 11 hours ago
                                                                                                You don't get this from experienced MAs right? Just from the new guys?
                                                                                                  see more
                                                                                                • geode 11 hours ago
                                                                                                  damn girl, you even know how much income heard contributed to the marriage? why arent they calling you up for depp's defense? thats right no one takes a harridan's bedroom fantasies spurted all over her cuntrag of a blog seriously
                                                                                                  by now, youre also really smudging the line on your already flimsy "just because its justified doesnt mean it should be legal" point about smacking people around. speculation dont mean shit in the courtroom no matter whos the target of your ire and jealousy.
                                                                                                  > inb4 feminist libtard beta cuck YOU MUST BE SWIFT AS THE COURSING RIVER or whatever frozen horseshit makes for a rebuttal round here
                                                                                                    see more
                                                                                                  • Samantha Stephens 11 hours ago
                                                                                                    If you hit someone - male or female - you deserve and should expect to get hit back - MALE OR FEMALE. The idea that a man should never hit a woman when he is being physically attacked is insane. We are presently living in a culture where men are told not to, and are no longer allowed to even defend themselves from injury or death inflicted on them by a woman. The message of "never, never is it alright to hit a woman " is even echoed by the President of the United States. Men no longer even have basic human rights. The first step in dehumanizing any group of human beings is treating them as inferior, the second step is removing their basic human rights - where men are concerned ...... how much longer before the camps and ovens come into play?
                                                                                                      see more
                                                                                                    • Jmarie 12 hours ago
                                                                                                      Couldn't have said it better myself (The post).
                                                                                                        see more
                                                                                                        • TMT NYC-DA REAL GHOSTBUSTERS 12 hours ago
                                                                                                          A famous person once said "Broads don't hit back".
                                                                                                            see more
                                                                                                          • Justmom 12 hours ago
                                                                                                            Why does she need "support" if she didn't even have any of his children? I think the settlement represents the community property accumulated during the marriage. Not that she deserves one bit. There should be a 20 year minimum for community property split. Otherwise you get what you put in.
                                                                                                              see more
                                                                                                            • Mencken's Ghost 12 hours ago
                                                                                                              When the whole spiel is over, they can make a movie of it - starring Monsieur Depp - titled, "Whore Games: The Only Way To Win Is Not To Play".
                                                                                                                see more
                                                                                                                • Jason Wexler 12 hours ago
                                                                                                                  "After 15 months, what exactly did she contribute to that wealth? She
                                                                                                                  suckered a rich man into marrying her, whispered the sweet nothings she
                                                                                                                  needed to whisper to cash in, and he fell for it."
                                                                                                                  THIS!!!
                                                                                                                  More than any other thing we talk about, about how divorce is a crapper on men, this is the thing that really demonstrates why we need to push to show why support is a bad thing. I know you disagree, but I can at least see a reasonable case for a woman like you and in your position seeking and receiving post divorce support, because you actually did work to support your husbands career so he could support you. But, marrying a millionaire ought not get you access to his money. Plus what Acethepug said about pre-nups being worthless anyway. Maybe Depp wasn't stupid, maybe he knew any pre-nup would be ignored and he would get divorce raped for millions no matter what, and saw no point in in spending a few extra thousand dollars and time arguing to get a useless pre-nup.
                                                                                                                    see more
                                                                                                                  loading Cancel
                                                                                                                  Post was not sent - check your email addresses!
                                                                                                                  Email check failed, please try again
                                                                                                                  Sorry, your blog cannot share posts by email.
                                                                                                                  :)
                                                                                                                  0%
                                                                                                                  10%
                                                                                                                  20%
                                                                                                                  30%
                                                                                                                  40%
                                                                                                                  50%
                                                                                                                  60%
                                                                                                                  70%
                                                                                                                  80%
                                                                                                                  90%
                                                                                                                  100%