Are the Kardashians bad influences?

[Anonymous]

I think the Kardashians and the Duggars are on different sides of the same bad influence coin.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh look, a debate about the ethics of being a single mom is about to start.

I don't think being a single mom is wrong. I think starting out a child's life at a deficit deliberately and ESPECIALLY when these Kardashian-style women don't have an income to support their kids or their households is wrong.

For the record - I think shows like Teen Mom are also horrible influences.

I'm pretty sure they have incomes that are much higher than yours. Also, the dads play an equal part in this. They choose not to be present.

Great point. They didn’t just go to the local sperm bank and deliberately choose to be single moms. They were involved with someone and got pregnant by someone (someone who has an income to support their kids and their households) but their relationship didn’t pan out.

I think you'd be surprised.

Most of those influencer chicks are renters one boyfriend away from being kicked out of their digs. Remember when Jordyn Woods (Kylie Jenner's BFF) got kicked out of Kylie's house? Where did she go? She's been squatting in her parent's place and now has a new rental so far out in the hills.

The KARDASHIANS are rich because of their show and their momager's knowledge of contracts. Most influencers don't have a Kris at their backs.

So they can afford to be octomoms if they want.
What’s the problem?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are better reasons that the Kardashians are bad influences than being single moms.

Stop saying "spread their legs" what a gross term.

Well it describes gross women.

When you use that term, it says far more about you (and nothing good) than it does about the alleged leg-spreaders.

If you say so. You’re offended by the term not me. Maybe you lay there like a fish.

Um, no. You don’t get to claim that you’re being sex-positive in using the term. It has a long history of being misogynistic and shaming. You’re disingenuous and arguing in bad faith.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh look, a debate about the ethics of being a single mom is about to start.

I don't think being a single mom is wrong. I think starting out a child's life at a deficit deliberately and ESPECIALLY when these Kardashian-style women don't have an income to support their kids or their households is wrong.

For the record - I think shows like Teen Mom are also horrible influences.

I'm pretty sure they have incomes that are much higher than yours. Also, the dads play an equal part in this. They choose not to be present.

Great point. They didn’t just go to the local sperm bank and deliberately choose to be single moms. They were involved with someone and got pregnant by someone (someone who has an income to support their kids and their households) but their relationship didn’t pan out.

I think you'd be surprised.

Most of those influencer chicks are renters one boyfriend away from being kicked out of their digs. Remember when Jordyn Woods (Kylie Jenner's BFF) got kicked out of Kylie's house? Where did she go? She's been squatting in her parent's place and now has a new rental so far out in the hills.

The KARDASHIANS are rich because of their show and their momager's knowledge of contracts. Most influencers don't have a Kris at their backs.

So they can afford to be octomoms if they want.
What’s the problem?

The point is THEY. CAN'T.

First year - the baby is cute and all but it gets harder, then they have another one, and then they can't find anymore boyfriend 'sponsors'.

End up like this.

Kimbella evicted on Thanksgiving



She didn’t post THAT on Instagram! Inside the former home of glamorous blogger that 'appalled' landlords claim she left covered in dog faeces and make-up stains - and with £5K rent unpaid

[Anonymous]

Are the Kardashian’s influencing kids to shoot up schools or to use meth or to commit hate crimes or to commit suicide?
It’s a lot worse shit out here that kids are being influenced to do than have a damn baby outside wedlock. A lot of their classmates come from single parent households - are you vilifying those moms and refusing to let your kids socialize with their kids for fear of bad influence?

[Anonymous]

I don't love the fact that my young teenage daughter follows all of them on instagram and seems to know way more about their lives than she should. I find them very tacky, but at the same time very business savvy. But there is a huge price for fame (look at what happened to Kim in Paris).

My DD seems to think she doesn't need to go to college to be rich and famous and the Kardashians/ Jenners are all everywhere. Their every move is plastered for the world to see. They're all filthy rich. It gives the impression that with an instagram account you too can become a mega rich "influencer" and lead a fabulous life full of nice things, fun vacations, and tons of beauty. And no topic is too sacred to air on tv or the internet for money, nothing. How much is it worth to basically sell your soul and all your private moments?

I have had to talk to her about the fact that all of them were rich already before they became famous, and that only Kim has her family intact. That raising a child as a single parent is very hard for most people, but this family has the money and the manpower (there are so many of them) to make it much easier than normal. It's not real life.

I do get the impression that family is very important to them, at least the Kardashians, and they seem to always be together and in each other's business.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No. Women get pregnant all the time and don’t marry so what.

It’s practically a subcultural norm in the AA community, and the Kardashians seem to have embraced AA hip hop and sports celebrity culture.

Just like it’s the norm to have abortions if you are white.

[Anonymous]

Yes they are. Trash. All of them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are better reasons that the Kardashians are bad influences than being single moms.

Stop saying "spread their legs" what a gross term.

Well it describes gross women.

When you use that term, it says far more about you (and nothing good) than it does about the alleged leg-spreaders.

If you say so. You’re offended by the term not me. Maybe you lay there like a fish.

Um, no. You don’t get to claim that you’re being sex-positive in using the term. It has a long history of being misogynistic and shaming. You’re disingenuous and arguing in bad faith.

I’m not using it as anything but what it is; you spread your legs to have sex. Simple. I’m not claiming or hinting at being sex positive bc idc. I also don’t care if you view it as shaming or misogynistic. You’re offended by the term, I’m not. You want to read into bc maybe someone shamed you for spreading your legs. I really don’t care about you or your desire not to use the term. Your personal thoughts on the term are irrelevant and yours alone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No. Women get pregnant all the time and don’t marry so what.

It’s practically a subcultural norm in the AA community, and the Kardashians seem to have embraced AA hip hop and sports celebrity culture.

Seriously?! This is not just in the AA community. Let’s make a list of all the white single mothers in Hollywood. I’ll go first, Kate Hudson, who by the way has multiple baby daddies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are better reasons that the Kardashians are bad influences than being single moms.
Stop saying "spread their legs" what a gross term.

Well it describes gross women.

When you use that term, it says far more about you (and nothing good) than it does about the alleged leg-spreaders.

If you say so. You’re offended by the term not me. Maybe you lay there like a fish.

Um, no. You don’t get to claim that you’re being sex-positive in using the term. It has a long history of being misogynistic and shaming. You’re disingenuous and arguing in bad faith.

I’m not using it as anything but what it is; you spread your legs to have sex. Simple. I’m not claiming or hinting at being sex positive bc idc. I also don’t care if you view it as shaming or misogynistic. You’re offended by the term, I’m not. You want to read into bc maybe someone shamed you for spreading your legs. I really don’t care about you or your desire not to use the term. Your personal thoughts on the term are irrelevant and yours alone.

No on cares if it's technically correct. I don't like the term because I associate the phrase with church ladies who are using it in a judgy manner with intent to shame the woman (and as if she were always a willing participant). There are a million other phrases that aren't explicit one uses when they aren't shaming.

[Anonymous]

Kim is reinventing herself. We may see Kanye West as vp of trump or even a presidential candidate after trump

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No. Women get pregnant all the time and don’t marry so what.

It’s practically a subcultural norm in the AA community, and the Kardashians seem to have embraced AA hip hop and sports celebrity culture.

Seriously?! This is not just in the AA community. Let’s make a list of all the white single mothers in Hollywood. I’ll go first, Kate Hudson, who by the way has multiple baby daddies.

She has 3 kids by 3 different men. I think Kate Winslet does too. Gross.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are better reasons that the Kardashians are bad influences than being single moms.
Stop saying "spread their legs" what a gross term.

Well it describes gross women.

When you use that term, it says far more about you (and nothing good) than it does about the alleged leg-spreaders.

If you say so. You’re offended by the term not me. Maybe you lay there like a fish.

Um, no. You don’t get to claim that you’re being sex-positive in using the term. It has a long history of being misogynistic and shaming. You’re disingenuous and arguing in bad faith.

I’m not using it as anything but what it is; you spread your legs to have sex. Simple. I’m not claiming or hinting at being sex positive bc idc. I also don’t care if you view it as shaming or misogynistic. You’re offended by the term, I’m not. You want to read into bc maybe someone shamed you for spreading your legs. I really don’t care about you or your desire not to use the term. Your personal thoughts on the term are irrelevant and yours alone.

No on cares if it's technically correct. I don't like the term because I associate the phrase with church ladies who are using it in a judgy manner with intent to shame the woman (and as if she were always a willing participant). There are a million other phrases that aren't explicit one uses when they aren't shaming.

Welp, that’s your baggage. So as was previously said, your personal thoughts are irrelevant and yours alone. No one cares if your feelings are hurt by a term.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are better reasons that the Kardashians are bad influences than being single moms.
Stop saying "spread their legs" what a gross term.

Well it describes gross women.

When you use that term, it says far more about you (and nothing good) than it does about the alleged leg-spreaders.

If you say so. You’re offended by the term not me. Maybe you lay there like a fish.

Um, no. You don’t get to claim that you’re being sex-positive in using the term. It has a long history of being misogynistic and shaming. You’re disingenuous and arguing in bad faith.

I’m not using it as anything but what it is; you spread your legs to have sex. Simple. I’m not claiming or hinting at being sex positive bc idc. I also don’t care if you view it as shaming or misogynistic. You’re offended by the term, I’m not. You want to read into bc maybe someone shamed you for spreading your legs. I really don’t care about you or your desire not to use the term. Your personal thoughts on the term are irrelevant and yours alone.

No on cares if it's technically correct. I don't like the term because I associate the phrase with church ladies who are using it in a judgy manner with intent to shame the woman (and as if she were always a willing participant). There are a million other phrases that aren't explicit one uses when they aren't shaming.

Welp, that’s your baggage. So as was previously said, your personal thoughts are irrelevant and yours alone. No one cares if your feelings are hurt by a term.

I'm not the same poster, I've just heard it often enough to agree.
When's the last time you said to a married person announcing their pregnancy, "Congratulations on a successful leg spreading!"?