Kim Kardashian files for divorce after 72-day, $10-million marriage

Marriage is sacred. So sacred, that only straight, white, beautiful people should be able to engage in it. It is a cherished, flawless institution upheld with the highest regard in our society. No one would ever manipulate the holiness of marriage just to stay popular and rich.

No one.

Somehow, Kim has one-upped the Bachelors / Bachelorettes in gaudy, self-aggrandizing publicity-marriage. Wedded bliss is a privilege reserved for straight people, simply so they can trample all over their "test marriage" and make millions from selling the fantasy of wedded bliss to the masses. Marriage is for sale, and business is good.

This wouldn't bother me so much if the arguments against gay marriage weren't about the sacricity and holiness of it.
Also, I hate Kim Kardashian being famous simply for being famous.
I guess Kim could never cheat on her one true love, the public eye.

A wedding, just an excuse to play dress-up for the cameras? LIES!

Frankly I'm shocked it lasted 72 days. People stopped talking about it after 45 or so, I can imagine that was just terrifying for her.

Hey, she didn't even come close to having the shortest marriage in the world. Some people only take a week before deciding that the whole thing was a bad idea.

Those silly gay people thinking they can come and ruin marriage.

And we're supposed to care about these people why, exactly?

EileenK98 wrote:

And we're supposed to care about these people why, exactly?

I don't think "care" is the right word. It doesn't properly describe the sensation of fixating your attention upon something simply because it is so loud and flashy that you cannot focus upon anything else. "Be perpetually distracted by", perhaps?

EDIT: also, because they are a shining example of "the sanctity of marriage" or whatever that means.

Also, because their wedding cost 10 million dollars, very little of which they actually paid for (Kim Kardashian, sponsored by Perrier and Vera Wang!) Yet they made even more than the wedding itself cost in advertisements, magazine editorials, exclusive photos, reality TV, etc. 17.9 million, actually. Kim Kardashian is a Corporate Romantic. She, like a voluptuous Disney, has turned fantasy and the idea of perfect romance into profit.

Some pissed off Leafer idjit wrote:

Kim Kardashian, sponsored by Perrier and Vera Wang!

Did someone seriously named their company "Vera Wang"?

But seriously, when did she break up with Reggie Bush?

I repeat what Eileen said, except in harsher terms: Who fucking cares? 72 days, too? That's over two months. It's not like Rudolph Valentino or Britany Spears and their HOURS long marriages.

If I were a conspiracy theorist, I'd say this was a ploy to distract WGWers from more important squabbles, such as hockey.

Maximilia wrote:

I repeat what Eileen said, except in harsher terms: Who fucking cares? 72 days, too? That's over two months. It's not like Rudolph Valentino or Britany Spears and their HOURS long marriages.

If I were a conspiracy theorist, I'd say this was a ploy to distract WGWers from more important squabbles, such as hockey.

FUCK YOU DON'T TALK ABOUT HOCKEY AROUND ME

Mikey Go WOOGA wrote:

Did someone seriously named their company "Vera Wang"?

Vera Wang is a person.

Hmm, so....

1. Find some dude to marry, sign a prenup
2. Make millions marketing the wedding and ETERNAL LOVE
3. Divorce not long after while wedding is just on the edge of being forgotten by the media
4. Get more money selling the break-up story
5. Give the dude his share
6. PROFIT!
7. Promote next sister into becoming more famous then rinse and repeat

Hawaiian Shirt wrote:

Frankly I'm shocked it lasted 72 days.

You and me both, brother. I was figuring it would self-destruct after 72 hours. There's something about the sisters in general and Kim in particular that eventually drives men off screaming into the night; ten to one Khloe and Lamar Odom call it quits before Thanksgiving.

EileenK98 wrote:

And we're supposed to care about these people why, exactly?

I find it ironic that the sockpuppet of the man who has posted far less interesting things in the News section and is utterly obsessed with some pathetic autistic man child he's never met is complaining about someone posting a news article no one should care about.

I just picked up on this.

Sakurelf wrote:

Marriage is sacred. So sacred, that only straight, white, beautiful people should be able to engage in it.

Uh, I don't know how it is in your backwater, frigid butthole of a country, but in America, ugly and funny colored people get married all the time. In Kentucky, it seems to be exclusively ugly and funny colored people getting married.

Dial the autism back just a bit, will you?

Mikey Go WOOGA wrote:

I just picked up on this.

Sakurelf wrote:

Marriage is sacred. So sacred, that only straight, white, beautiful people should be able to engage in it.

Uh, I don't know how it is in your backwater, frigid butthole of a country, but in America, ugly and funny colored people get married all the time. In Kentucky, it seems to be exclusively ugly and funny colored people getting married.

Dial the autism back just a bit, will you?

Mikey, I'm going to ask you to not speak to me like that. I find it disrespectful, and though I've treated you as a welcome member of this board up until now, I'm really getting tired of your attitude. I personally see your behaviour as pointlessly aggressive and inflamatory.

Do you want me to respond to what you have to say, or do you want me to block you along with the many other members of this board?

Now, let me unpack the statement you teem to have taken issue with. When I say "reserved for beautiful white people" I refer to the industry I am entering after university: the fashion industry. Wedding gowns, and the bridal indistry in general advertise the thin, white, heterosexual ideal like no other. You don't see Vera Wang sponsoring celebrity gay marriage by donating a $20,000 dress, or a fat bride, or a even have that many non-white models, despite being asian herself. As I've said before, in my industry, white = normal and right. If you showcase or advertise a non-white model, you are clearly making a statement or trying to target a non-white customer.

That is one of the insidious things I find about fashion and racism, that I am currently steeped in and taught every day. To sell a dress on a white girl means you're selling it to everyone. To sell a dress on a black girl means you're specifically selling to black girls.

This mixes in with these luxury companies using a person / event like Kardashian as a giant billboard to sell their product. I don't care about celebrity buzz, as much as I care about the economics of this wedding. I'm greatly insulted by her not paying a cent for the actual cost of her wedding, the media shoving it in our faces, then her profiting off of the media shoving her face into our face.


And Mikey, commenting on straight/white supremacy and economic shittery in wedding fashion / media has nothing to do with autism or being autistic. Don't try and make cheap shots like that to me in the future. I don't appreciate it.

Hawaiian Shirt wrote:

Maximilia wrote:

I repeat what Eileen said, except in harsher terms: Who fucking cares? 72 days, too? That's over two months. It's not like Rudolph Valentino or Britany Spears and their HOURS long marriages.

If I were a conspiracy theorist, I'd say this was a ploy to distract WGWers from more important squabbles, such as hockey.

FUCK YOU DON'T TALK ABOUT HOCKEY AROUND ME

..What team do you support?

Sakurelf wrote:

When I say "reserved for beautiful white people" I refer to the industry I am entering after university...

Wait wait wait wait. Gonna stop you right there.

This can be related to the rest of us how? Are we also entering into this industry so know exactly your feeling on the subject? making a sweeping statement and then blindly backing it up later based only on personal experience is a very poor way to make an argument.

We are not in your classes, we are not doing your degree, we are not in the fashion industry in any way shape or form, in fact I can say with some confidence that the lions share of this forums regulars do not give a flying fuck what the fashion industry does, avoid anything to do with fashion on the tell like the plague and only ever glance at those trashy fashion magazines because the problems pages always have some epically stupid letter asking if swallowing during oral can get you pregnant.

You are very alone in this world of your when you post on here Elf, either start explaining yourself more carefully and your rational form the word go or expect to have nobody to blame but yourself when your blood pressure hits the roof because somebody miss understood what the hell you are talking about for the umpteenth time.

TLDR:- Proper explanation in primary post = Less headaches for all in future posts.

Somath Cegem wrote:

Wait wait wait wait. Gonna stop you right there.

This can be related to the rest of us how? Are we also entering into this industry so know exactly your feeling on the subject? making a sweeping statement and then blindly backing it up later based only on personal experience is a very poor way to make an argument.

We are not in your classes, we are not doing your degree, we are not in the fashion industry in any way shape or form, in fact I can say with some confidence that the lions share of this forums regulars do not give a flying fuck what the fashion industry does, avoid anything to do with fashion on the tell like the plague and only ever glance at those trashy fashion magazines because the problems pages always have some epically stupid letter asking if swallowing during oral can get you pregnant.

You are very alone in this world of your when you post on here Elf, either start explaining yourself more carefully and your rational form the word go or expect to have nobody to blame but yourself when your blood pressure hits the roof because somebody miss understood what the hell you are talking about for the umpteenth time.

TLDR:- Proper explanation in primary post = Less headaches for all in future posts.

I tried typing out several responses, but all I can really say at this point is "fuck you".

I mean really? Your only response to what seems a rather reasonable post is "FASHION IS DUMB! IT'S DUMB AND IT'S DUMB AND I THINK IT'S DUMB CUZ IT'S DUMB AND IT'S DUMB!" and "SAKURELF ELABORATED ON WHAT SHE MEANT? WHEN SHE COULD'VE MADE IT CLEARER IN HER FIRST POST!?!?!!? THIS MAKES ME SURPRISINGLY BUTTHURT!!!!!"

Somath Cegem wrote:

Sakurelf wrote:

When I say "reserved for beautiful white people" I refer to the industry I am entering after university...

Wait wait wait wait. Gonna stop you right there.

This can be related to the rest of us how? Are we also entering into this industry so know exactly your feeling on the subject? making a sweeping statement and then blindly backing it up later based only on personal experience is a very poor way to make an argument.

We are not in your classes, we are not doing your degree, we are not in the fashion industry in any way shape or form, in fact I can say with some confidence that the lions share of this forums regulars do not give a flying fuck what the fashion industry does, avoid anything to do with fashion on the tell like the plague and only ever glance at those trashy fashion magazines because the problems pages always have some epically stupid letter asking if swallowing during oral can get you pregnant.

You are very alone in this world of your when you post on here Elf, either start explaining yourself more carefully and your rational form the word go or expect to have nobody to blame but yourself when your blood pressure hits the roof because somebody miss understood what the hell you are talking about for the umpteenth time.

TLDR:- Proper explanation in primary post = Less headaches for all in future posts.

While at the same time, I don't expect everyone on the board to understand every nuanced meaning in my posts, I also cannot pre-emptively explain everything about my posts to those that don't understand about what it all means. I can make an attempt, but I may be assuming they would misunderstand the wrong points, and veer off the in the wrong direction. I am not a mind reader, and neither is Mikey.

All I ask is that if people are confused by my choice of words, they ask me to explain further or unpack my statements before making cheap shots at my autism.
That's not being all defensive, that's just clarifying, and I would certainly rather clarify a specific point as asked, than try to predict what everyone on this board is going to misunderstand individually. My posts would all be a mile long and highly redundant.

Or, ya know, you could word your posts better in the first place, the rest of us seem to manage it pretty well.

Somath Cegem wrote:

Or, ya know, you could word your posts better in the first place, the rest of us seem to manage it pretty well.

How am I supposed to know what people here do and do not understand before I even make my post?

"Guys, I'm going to make a post about fashion, media and economics. Are you ok with it? Is everyone ok with it? Are there any points I should cover so you don't feel left out? Does anyone here not understand the phrase "white privilege"? If not, here's a helpful link for you. Ok, I'll make this post tomorrow after everyone has done their reading on it."

It is absolutely unreasonable to ask me to try and reasearch what Mikey, or you do or do not know about fashion just so that I can cater the content of my posts to you, so that I don't have to be insulted by you misunderstanding my content. I get that what i say may come off as offensive to some people some times. But it may be a misunderstanding that could be easily explained with a bit of dialogue before retaliation is necessary. Believe me, I am not trying to escape accountability for my statements here. By all means, hold me to my words. But not before you understand what I'm actually saying. If you don't understand what I mean, ask.

Sakurelf wrote:

Somath Cegem wrote:

Or, ya know, you could word your posts better in the first place, the rest of us seem to manage it pretty well.

How am I supposed to know what people here do and do not understand before I even make my post?

"Guys, I'm going to make a post about fashion, media and economics. Are you ok with it? Is everyone ok with it? Are there any points I should cover so you don't feel left out? Does anyone here not understand the phrase "white privilege"? If not, here's a helpful link for you. Ok, I'll make this post tomorrow after everyone has done their reading on it."

It is absolutely unreasonable to ask me to try and reasearch what Mikey, or you do or do not know about fashion just so that I can cater the content of my posts to you, so that I don't have to be insulted by you misunderstanding my content. I get that what i say may come off as offensive to some people some times. But it may be a misunderstanding that could be easily explained with a bit of dialogue before retaliation is necessary. Believe me, I am not trying to escape accountability for my statements here. By all means, hold me to my words. But not before you understand what I'm actually saying. If you don't understand what I mean, ask.

That's it, you're hopeless, I'm outta here.

Bye then.

Somath Cegem wrote:

Sakurelf wrote:

Somath Cegem wrote:

Or, ya know, you could word your posts better in the first place, the rest of us seem to manage it pretty well.

How am I supposed to know what people here do and do not understand before I even make my post?

"Guys, I'm going to make a post about fashion, media and economics. Are you ok with it? Is everyone ok with it? Are there any points I should cover so you don't feel left out? Does anyone here not understand the phrase "white privilege"? If not, here's a helpful link for you. Ok, I'll make this post tomorrow after everyone has done their reading on it."

It is absolutely unreasonable to ask me to try and reasearch what Mikey, or you do or do not know about fashion just so that I can cater the content of my posts to you, so that I don't have to be insulted by you misunderstanding my content. I get that what i say may come off as offensive to some people some times. But it may be a misunderstanding that could be easily explained with a bit of dialogue before retaliation is necessary. Believe me, I am not trying to escape accountability for my statements here. By all means, hold me to my words. But not before you understand what I'm actually saying. If you don't understand what I mean, ask.

That's it, you're hopeless, I'm outta here.

Another 'esteemed' member of the boards who won't be missed.

I don't know, I wasn't aware of any fashion industry background but the point of 'straight, white and beautiful' was pretty clear to me anyway. I thought -I think- that Mikey was just making a smartass comment for the sake of being a smartass.


And he never even said anything else and this explodey'd anyway. I tip my hat to you, Sir.