If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Celebitchy)   Scarlett Johansson: "Marriage isn't important." How YOU doin'?   (celebitchy.com) divider line 76
    More: Interesting, Scarlett Johansson, Dolce & Gabbana  
•       •       •

6477 clicks; posted to Entertainment » on 01 Jan 2013 at 6:38 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



76 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-01-02 06:57:15 AM

cheap_thoughts: Occam's Disposable Razor: NetOwl: Some people actually like the idea of falling in love with someone and sharing a lifetime of memories and family.

You'll understand when you're 30. If not, I feel sorry for you.

I'm 27 and married to a lovely woman with two great kids. I'm content. I also harbor no delusions that I wouldn't run around in a hedonistic frenzy if I had the money/power to pull it off. My wife's cool, she'd probably come along for the ride. Honestly, I hope that epiphany hits within the next three years because the settled life is terribly dull. Not unhappy, just kind of boring.

You should try swinging. And by swinging, fark other married people. Tell your wife to get a boyfriend, a boy toy. Tell her to get wild and crazy. Then fark her boyfriends wife. In the ass.


I tried this. Didn't work out so well. Make sure you trust your wife and yourself to not get attached or things can get very messy very quickly.
 
2013-01-02 07:21:09 AM
imstars.aufeminin.com

she's gorgeous
 
2013-01-02 08:04:16 AM

Popcorn Johnny: [i.imgur.com image 500x645]


Needs more cowbell.
 
2013-01-02 09:02:15 AM

HotIgneous Intruder: She's pretty much an uneducated person.
That's fine for a while, but would grow thin after a time.

Example:
Me: "Kurt Vonnegut died."
Her: "Who's that?"

/This actually happened to me.


www.ticketini.com

Whoever *did* write your post doesn't know the first thing about Kurt Vonnegut!
 
2013-01-02 09:38:28 AM

dittybopper: HotIgneous Intruder: She's pretty much an uneducated person.
That's fine for a while, but would grow thin after a time.

Example:
Me: "Kurt Vonnegut died."
Her: "Who's that?"

/This actually happened to me.

[www.ticketini.com image 266x198]

Whoever *did* write your post doesn't know the first thing about Kurt Vonnegut!


Wouldn't that be the the last thing about Kurt Vonnegut?
 
2013-01-02 10:28:56 AM

mmagdalene: Are most men honestly this opposed to marriage? From what I can tell, a man's quality of life is generally greatly enhanced by marriage (assuming it's a happy one). Women these days tend to have more education than their male counterparts, and while we certainly don't earn money on par with men, why on Earth do men think that women are trying to "trap" them into marriage, only to take half "their" stuff? In many marriages, it's still the women who do the heavy lifting; working, the physical toll of pregnancy and childbirth, child-rearing, keeping the household running and maintaining the family's social connections. Frankly, it's often women who get the short end of the stick, so to speak


If any of what you just wrote is remotely true, you have just destroyed my soul and my will to live. On the other hand, if any man is married to your strawperson with all of the aforementioned attributes, he probably has to hear about it every day.
 
2013-01-02 10:36:20 AM

Psycoholic_Slag: Says the smoking hot crazy chick who can't keep a man.


She can try and fail with me any day.
 
2013-01-02 10:38:38 AM
She's right. It's not. Half of them end in divorce, so why bother?
 
2013-01-02 10:54:14 AM

TeddyRooseveltsMustache: She's right. It's not. Half of them end in divorce, so why bother?


What do the other half end up in??
 
2013-01-02 10:56:43 AM

mmagdalene: Are most men honestly this opposed to marriage? From what I can tell, a man's quality of life is generally greatly enhanced by marriage (assuming it's a happy one). Women these days tend to have more education than their male counterparts, and while we certainly don't earn money on par with men, why on Earth do men think that women are trying to "trap" them into marriage, only to take half "their" stuff? In many marriages, it's still the women who do the heavy lifting; working, the physical toll of pregnancy and childbirth, child-rearing, keeping the household running and maintaining the family's social connections. Frankly, it's often women who get the short end of the stick, so to speak.


The statement that I bolded is true. But everything you've said afterward will assure that the marriage is not a happy one. I felt married again just reading it. *shudder*
 
2013-01-02 11:03:18 AM

jaytkay: debug: There's just no real purpose for making a relationship legally binding. It's a useless construct.

Until you share property and kids.


Because gay people never share property or adopt kids?

It's not necessary to make your relationship legally binding in order to divide up property or workout custody arrangements if the relationship ends. Like I said, it's an unnecessary construct.
 
2013-01-02 11:08:04 AM

ram.1500: TeddyRooseveltsMustache: She's right. It's not. Half of them end in divorce, so why bother?

What do the other half end up in??


Pushing their spouse around Wal-Mart all day in a wheel chair.
 
2013-01-02 12:09:37 PM

Tickle Mittens: HotIgneous Intruder: She's pretty much an uneducated person.
That's fine for a while, but would grow thin after a time.

Example:
Me: "Kurt Vonnegut died."
Her: "Who's that?"

/This actually happened to me.

While I've enjoyed Vonnegut, principally Cat's Cradle, I'm not so sure that's a big deal. What is the relevence of being well read when so much of our culture is spread across so many forms of other media. Is a familiarity with Vonnegut so much more valuable than a familiarity with surrealists like Breton? It's closer in time, but is the expression of the post WWII/cold war culture that much more valuable than the post WWI expressions. There are so many good things to experience, it's hard for me to think less of a person for missing one. It's an artifact of the rich period we had the good fortune to be born in. Sure, it's a reason to be suspicious of a librarian, but the pedegree or character of a movie star?


Vonnegut is about as popular and "easy-listening" as literature gets. Not knowing who he is is a pretty bad sign.
 
2013-01-02 12:25:48 PM

ram.1500: TeddyRooseveltsMustache: She's right. It's not. Half of them end in divorce, so why bother?

What do the other half end up in??

DEATH*


*best read in Nathan Explosion's voice
 
2013-01-02 12:28:28 PM

debug: jaytkay: debug: There's just no real purpose for making a relationship legally binding. It's a useless construct.

Until you share property and kids.

Because gay people never share property or adopt kids?

It's not necessary to make your relationship legally binding in order to divide up property or workout custody arrangements if the relationship ends. Like I said, it's an unnecessary construct.


actually, this is a very serious problem. usually, only one of the partners can adopt the child, leaving a very significant gap of equity in the event the parent passes. and, co-ownership is less nuanced than a marital or community property regime.

standard contracts cannot recreate all of the effects of marriage. plus, should ever couple need a lawyer's guidance (and expenses) to create a relationship contract?
 
2013-01-02 01:05:41 PM
Ahh, non-monogamy. It's like a breath of fresh air.
 
2013-01-02 01:13:39 PM

PsyLord: FTA: 'Would I get married again?' It's really not important to me. It has no relevance to me right now. I'm not having kids any time soon

Like biology stops when you aren't married.

[upload.wikimedia.org image 220x269]

Also:

[photos.posh24.com image 425x318]

Scarlet, Imma gonna let you finish, but reproductive biology doesn't work that way. Just ask my babby momma.


It looks like somebody set Keith Haring loose with a wood burning tool.
 
2013-01-02 02:33:10 PM

PsyLord: Scarlet, Imma gonna let you finish, but reproductive biology doesn't work that way. Just ask my babby momma.


Which one? Lots to choose from....
 
2013-01-02 04:12:14 PM

pute kisses like a man: debug: jaytkay: debug: There's just no real purpose for making a relationship legally binding. It's a useless construct.

Until you share property and kids.

Because gay people never share property or adopt kids?

It's not necessary to make your relationship legally binding in order to divide up property or workout custody arrangements if the relationship ends. Like I said, it's an unnecessary construct.

actually, this is a very serious problem. usually, only one of the partners can adopt the child, leaving a very significant gap of equity in the event the parent passes. and, co-ownership is less nuanced than a marital or community property regime.

standard contracts cannot recreate all of the effects of marriage. plus, should ever couple need a lawyer's guidance (and expenses) to create a relationship contract?


It may be more complex, but it will never be necessary and that's the point. It's an unnecessary construct that people have been told all their lives that it's something they have to do and that's just not true.
 
2013-01-02 04:50:51 PM

debug: pute kisses like a man: debug: jaytkay: debug: There's just no real purpose for making a relationship legally binding. It's a useless construct.

Until you share property and kids.

Because gay people never share property or adopt kids?

It's not necessary to make your relationship legally binding in order to divide up property or workout custody arrangements if the relationship ends. Like I said, it's an unnecessary construct.

actually, this is a very serious problem. usually, only one of the partners can adopt the child, leaving a very significant gap of equity in the event the parent passes. and, co-ownership is less nuanced than a marital or community property regime.

standard contracts cannot recreate all of the effects of marriage. plus, should ever couple need a lawyer's guidance (and expenses) to create a relationship contract?

It may be more complex, but it will never be necessary and that's the point. It's an unnecessary construct that people have been told all their lives that it's something they have to do and that's just not true.


all constructs are unnecessary, but that doesn't mean they aren't useful. you don't need insurance for your house, but it sure is nice when something happens.

marriage is a big deal when it comes to children. if you want any kind of risk management and predictability for a child, than marriage helps out a lot. a will that says, "my child shall go to my partner in the event of my death" is only a suggestion and easily overcome by an interested relative. however, if i'm married, my will could be blown up and I could die intestate, and my child would stay with my spouse with minimal interference.

furthermore, there are tax advantages to marriage. and visiting and decision making privileges when it comes to healthcare emergencies. would you rather your estranged step father having more control of your end of life care then your partner?

just because you don't want the rights and duties conferred by marriage doesn't mean that they aren't extremely helpful for other people.
 
2013-01-02 05:21:49 PM
If I had say... $5 million +, at a certain point marriage does become a liability.  It becomes a trap to steal half your money.

Buuuuuuuuuuuuuut
For us mortals.....  Split costs, two people raising a child, you know.  Half the cooking, half the cleaning.
 
2013-01-02 06:13:50 PM

pute kisses like a man: debug: pute kisses like a man: debug: jaytkay: debug: There's just no real purpose for making a relationship legally binding. It's a useless construct.

Until you share property and kids.

Because gay people never share property or adopt kids?

It's not necessary to make your relationship legally binding in order to divide up property or workout custody arrangements if the relationship ends. Like I said, it's an unnecessary construct.

actually, this is a very serious problem. usually, only one of the partners can adopt the child, leaving a very significant gap of equity in the event the parent passes. and, co-ownership is less nuanced than a marital or community property regime.

standard contracts cannot recreate all of the effects of marriage. plus, should ever couple need a lawyer's guidance (and expenses) to create a relationship contract?

It may be more complex, but it will never be necessary and that's the point. It's an unnecessary construct that people have been told all their lives that it's something they have to do and that's just not true.

all constructs are unnecessary, but that doesn't mean they aren't useful. you don't need insurance for your house, but it sure is nice when something happens.

marriage is a big deal when it comes to children. if you want any kind of risk management and predictability for a child, than marriage helps out a lot. a will that says, "my child shall go to my partner in the event of my death" is only a suggestion and easily overcome by an interested relative. however, if i'm married, my will could be blown up and I could die intestate, and my child would stay with my spouse with minimal interference.

furthermore, there are tax advantages to marriage. and visiting and decision making privileges when it comes to healthcare emergencies. would you rather your estranged step father having more control of your end of life care then your partner?

just because you don't want the rights and duties conferred by marriage ...


Lots of things are helpful. Doesn't make them important. It's not a question of if marriage provides benefits. Everyone knows it does. Her statement was "marriage is not important" and I happen to agree and can assure you that I will never get married. It's unimportant and unnecessary to how I want to live my life.
 
2013-01-02 07:43:25 PM

ristst: PsyLord: Scarlet, Imma gonna let you finish, but reproductive biology doesn't work that way. Just ask my babby momma.

Which one? Lots to choose from....


How is babby formed?
 
2013-01-03 09:28:51 AM

Occam's Disposable Razor: NetOwl: Some people actually like the idea of falling in love with someone and sharing a lifetime of memories and family.

You'll understand when you're 30. If not, I feel sorry for you.

I'm 27 and married to a lovely woman with two great kids. I'm content. I also harbor no delusions that I wouldn't run around in a hedonistic frenzy if I had the money/power to pull it off. My wife's cool, she'd probably come along for the ride. Honestly, I hope that epiphany hits within the next three years because the settled life is terribly dull. Not unhappy, just kind of boring.


That's because you assume if you were single and in your 30's you'd be running around, slaying ass. But you wouldn't be because, here's a newsflash, you learn that sex is little better than your hand, but you have to somehow tell them to leave without coming off as a jerk (even though you are). And if you go the other route of actually pursuing multiple women to have some sex, that's just as expensive as having a wife. But the upside, and there is an upside, is that you have freedom to do what, when, who, and how you want. Not sure there's a price on that.

/Would be nice to have someone to split the chores, though.
 
2013-01-03 11:27:12 PM
Complaining that a person doesn't know who Kurt Vonnegut is is kind of like complaining that someone doesn't know who Rick Springfield is. For all his talent, Vonnegut was still pop culture, still media, still ENTERTAINMENT and therefore not on everyone's radar.

I personally am not very interested in Vonnegut, and I'm a published author. He was just never my thing. Frankly, I think he's one of those writers that people (especially college-age people) refer to when they want to seem intellectual without actually proving it outside of listing the names of authors and books they've read because they were assigned to in their Intro to American Literature class (or because Oprah told them to).

A far more impressive reference would be to Richard Matheson, if you ask me. Laird Koenig would impress me, too. I'd be shocked if a potential mate expressed a love for Joel Rosenberg (the fiction author, not the political prat) or Gregory McDonald. Spitting out trite references to Vonnegut, Hemmingway, Elliot, or any other "reading list" author is hardly marking yourself as the pinnacle of intellectualism and original thinking.

Jeez. If you're going to judge people on whether or not they know of Kurt Vonnegut, you might as well get pissy when they can't recite the lyrics to Rebecca Black's "Friday", too. I'm not saying Vonnegut's on par with Black, but that they're both pop culture icons who have about the same level of obscurity outside certain circles, and that people who don't "tune in" to those media sources aren't necessarily stupid for not knowing anything about them.
 
2013-01-04 02:10:55 PM

Marisyana: I'm sure this statement had nothing to do with her ex-husband remarrying a newer model.  Nothing whatsoever.


Actually, some of the things brought up in TFA might be the real reason they split; I've heard more than a few times now (albeit from gossip sites) that Ryan Reynolds is intentionally trying to torpedo Blake Lively's career because he wants her to quit acting and be a stay-at-home wife and mom. I wouldn't be surprised at all if that's what happened when he married Scarlett, and she responded with a hearty "Fark that noise".
 
Displayed 26 of 76 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report