Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Feedback


Everything posted by kdub87

  1. I’m not sure what the details are but if it’s simply a suit for employment discrimination I doubt she’ll go to jail, probably just a hefty fine. Unfortunately. Allegedly.
  2. Totally left field but I’d love to see someone like Leigh Anne Pinnock or Jade Thirlwall. People that can actually sing! Yes I stan little mix.
  3. Because all the performances these days are wholly forgettable. There’s nothing iconic about any of them. We are still talking about the Slave VMA performance 20 years later, and by we I mean us Britney fans and the general public. These days? I can’t even tell you wtf happened at last years VMAs. Or any from the last decade tbh. Music now is made for a quick hit, then dies out as soon as it came in.
  4. Because unlike valid examples of body autonomy, hers and many others decision to not get the vaccine impacts everyone else they come into contact with! Why should mine and others health be put at risk because of dweebs like her? The pandemic will never fkn end because of sh it like this
  5. lmao she probably doesn’t even know what’s in chewing gum. Why do these people act like they’re gonna know a single thing about vaccine composition lol?
  6. Probably call it Glory 2.0 or some sh it. I’m totally here for the Glory era vocals though can’t lie
  7. This is mind blowing it feels like yesterday... I was 14 and remember talking about it at school with a my mates and I now realize I’m old as fk is euthanasia still legal in Holland? Bye
  8. I can't hear any Britney like vocals, just sounds like generic backing music for tv shows imo
  9. I come from a very poor background in the UK, parents never had jobs and lived on welfare, in and out of prison etc so I pretty much had to fend for myself. Moved out at 16, got a job and scraped by for years and never had money to do anything. Funny enough, my splurges were concerts (Britney, primarily). Some weeks Id have to decide between the electric bill or eating. It was horrible. Then I got married to an American and moved to California. He's super wealthy, homes all over the country, sports cars, all that shebang. I haven't had to worry about bills or expenses or anything financially since. It felt surreal for the longest time but the funny thing with money (or any situation really) is that you get accustomed to it and it becomes your new normal. Im in a position where I can buy almost anything I want and go anywhere I want on a whim, and I don't want to. Things that I used to dream of being able to afford like MacBooks and jewelry and all that crap are now meaningless. Now I can afford it all I don't really want it. The downside of it all is I used to attribute so much of my depressive episodes and anxiety to being so financially unstable and not knowing where my next meal was coming from. Now I have it all and Im still depressed and anxious. The things that do make me happy are things that money can't buy, like seeing my friends, reading a good book, walking in the woods near my house. Simple sh it. My point is, money may make life easier, but it doesn't make it happier per se. Ask anyone with a lot of money and Im sure they will tell you the same thing.
  10. Yet here we are celebrating a cute little baby boy you're entitled to your opinion, but please don't push your beliefs onto others.
  11. What the world, needs now, is love, sweet love. How can you not stan Little Mix? Even Helen Kellers wig would be in orbit
  12. 34, been a fan since BOMT first dropped on the radio. I was awakened…
  13. I’ve given this more time than I’d have liked, and I think it’s silly that I even have to explain something that should be so obvious to any sane minded person. Feeling like I have to defend people like my nana for having a picture of me as a naked toddler atop her fireplace. Or the pictures my mother has of me in the bathtub wearing a bubble beard and not much else. I’m sorry that people like yourself twist such things into something sinister just because where YOUR mind goes. It’s sad. You’re right about one thing, you definitely wouldn’t be welcome in my circles. You’d probably try to have my nana arrested for possession of “child ****ography”
  14. @IForgotYouExisted I wasn’t comparing the acts at all, I was comparing the reaction/response. Obviously one is 1000x worse than the other. The point I was trying to make is that pedophiles are going to do what they do regardless and trying to limit what is considered normal, everyday material to try and curb their behaviors is pointless. Sorry that you were unable to understand the analogy.
  15. My question was bland but you’re talking about taps in a basement..are you honestly unable to see the difference between this image and real child ****ography? Like what is being lost in translation here? Anyway, I wasn’t comparing the acts of p*******a and ***ual fetishes, that’s silly. I was comparing the reactionary responses, but again you’re going over the top and trying to twist my words to justify you’re fake internet outrage lol. Doing away with an album cover isn’t going to cure the world of p*******a, just like covering your feet won’t deter foot fetishes, or banning horror movies to deter would be murderers, it’s futile (does this help you understand the point I was making?) I’d also disagree that the context is open to interpretation. The context is pretty transparent. They shot a picture of a baby for an album cover. There’s not much more to it than that. No $exualization, no $exual exploitation, nothing nefarious whatsoever. But go off sis, there’s plenty of internet SJWs that’ll join in you the manufactured outrage if you’re bored.
  16. There are literally thousands of people who find feet arousing, who find a female bust arousing, blond hair arousing. Is the answer to do away with everything that could cause ***ual attraction? We’d all be walking around in burkas though I bet there’s people that find that arousing too. In which case, let’s just never leave the house lol.
  17. It was for an album cover though, not some seedy basement shots taken in secret for untoward purposes, therein lies the difference. The intent is clear and the way it’s presented is clear. Taking things wholly out of context can make ANYTHING seem nefarious. Unfortunately pedophiles exist, but to suggest that we censor everything and anything that may or may not ‘arouse’ them is impossible. If we were to follow that train of thought, nothing would be left on the table. It’s like saying we can’t have horror movies as it will arouse those with homicidal tendencies, it’s futile. Of course exploitative imagery should be prevented and those possessing it be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, obviously. I’m not trying to get into arguments over it because I don’t care enough about it as in my mind this is just a petty, shameless cash grab but your comparisons sound a little over the top/sensationalized and very much akin to the unnecessary feigned outrage we see from the cancel culture gang. Of course taking pictures of pubescent teenagers in a ‘dark chamber’ is nothing like taking a picture of a baby for an album cover and drawing such parallels is disingenuous. I’m not insinuating you’re a pervert at all I don’t know anything about you, but the artists intent is VERY clear here and it goes without saying that context is EVERYTHING. I very much doubt you perceive this image $exually but I also feel your reaction is unwarranted. Anyway, each to their own! I actually agree that there wasn’t really a need for the babies genitals to be visible and think the edited version with them removed has the same visual impact. However, do I find it offensive or nefarious in nature? Not at all.
  18. Its completely dependent on how you interpret it though. I look at that image and see it as an artistic shot for an album cover, who ever sees babies swimming underwater? It’s a novelty, which makes it stand out. When I was a kid we’d play in paddling pools naked, some of which were in an album my cousins uploaded to Facebook. I’d be so disturbed if anyone tried to twist those into something sinister. Making something so innocent seem so corrupt is just more over the top SJW’ing imo. The vast majority of people don’t look at something like this and think ***ual thoughts. It’s just the overly loud minority yet again with their cancel culture fighting invisible battles. I want to reiterate, anyone viewing this image and interpreting it in any prnographic or $exually exploitative way rather than a simple art shot, please get help in understanding why that’s where your mind goes, it’s abnormal.
  19. They’re gonna do it regardless, people can’t live their lives tip toeing around the perversions of others. People jack off to feet so should we all stop wearing flip flops? The most prolific artists of all time depicted babies, children, women and men nude and we take it as it was intended, as art. The intention of this album cover was in the same vein. I get where you’re coming from, but at the end of the day there will always be bad actors around. Letting them dictate how we live isn’t something anyone should be willing to do.
  20. I disagree wholeheartedly. I don’t see how anyone with a normal mind can look at such a picture and see it as $exual. It’s art, and the scene isn’t anything to do with $ex nor is it remotely suggestive of it. If I’m honest, I feel like anyone that looks at a picture like this and feels that it’s arousing or suggestive should probably seek therapy or self reflect on why they are $exualizing pictures of kids in their mind. I can’t say such thoughts would EVER enter my mind when looking at a naked baby. My nana had a picture of me as a baby naked in the garden above her fireplace, I’m not gonna sue her for child ****ography This guys out for a pay day, his claims are absolute nonsense.
  21. If you know for sure he didn’t meet someone else, then the only other answer is it ran it’s course. Nothing lasts forever, and you’ll have people around you or online that will try to analyze the minutia of the relationship to find a different answer because the real answer isn’t that comforting. You will meet plenty more people over your lifetime, just try not to waste too much of your time grieving over past relationships. Easier said than done I’ll admit, my past breakups felt like they had no end in sight and I was sure I’d be miserable forever. I was wrong lol. I feel when we are looking for relationships, we tend to overlook things that are going to be detrimental just because we want a relationship. Let it happen organically, not through dating apps and all that stuff. Especially when you’re in a fragile state, you may put too much pressure on it. Just have fun, as hard as it is right now, and don’t be so quick to write off hookups or one time things. Sometimes that’s just what you need
  22. Honestly? He most likely met someone else. You just have to give it time, it always feels like you’ll never get over it until you do. And you will get over it. I don’t believe in “one person forever” personally, I think it’s a pipe dream. Some people are able to convince themselves that that’s the thing to strive for in relationships, but at the end of the day they’re still fighting against their basic human instincts. You had a long relationship, got a lot out of it, now it’s ended and time to move on. My advice? Go out on some dates, have fun. One day you’ll be too old to do that and you’ll wish you did.
  • Create New...

We noticed you're using an ad blocker  :badthoughts_gun_kris_genner_thinking_debating:

Thanks for visiting Exhale! Your support is greatly appreciated 💜  

Exhale survives through advertising revenue. Please, disable your ad block extension to help us and continue browsing Exhale. 🙏

I've disabled ad block