...so they were just doing their job. In this case their job is an "evil" one, cleaning up after other people's messes(in this case, the homes they were unable to continue to pay for).

It's just another bottom feeder job no-one respects. What about the people whose job is to primarily offshore jobs? Would you people here, consider that role "evil" too?

Any and every job can be evil. Accountant? You could have been spending your time doing something more in touch with humanity, like peace work, instead of crunching numbers which helps only the business. Doctor? Why are you earning a living here, when you could be in an impoverished country that needs you more than the rich people here?

Internet tough guy? You could have been doing something USEFUL outdoors. I could go on forever here. Bottom line, the author's just another cog in the machine, just like we all are.

For once Broadsheet is not blaming men for women's woes. Article is incredible for this point alone. Keep up the good work.

With that aside - thinking positively sure, the real test comes when life deals you a harsh blow. Think positively at a funeral? Not quite an appropriate time.

How practical is it to live the way these women live? Can you afford these lifestyles on an average person's budget? What are the things that these happy photos don't show us about the trade-offs and things you give up, in return? Maybe these trade-offs are meaningless to them, but could mean a great deal to YOU. There's a lot going on behind the scenes that we don't see.

Is there someone/something behind the financing, or some powerful enabler, that allows these women, to do what they do?

...so she acted out. is that acceptable? It's a yes or no question. so white people get penalized less than blacks for the same offenses, well it's been that way forever, and for countless different examples, which black rap artists would be very happy to tell you.

So if Anna Kournikova did likewise, she'd probably be off the hook, being white, pretty, all the things that Serena Williams is not. Is this fair? "Fair" is irrelevant, we only know full well what the results are.

And please stop continually drawing comparisons between a man and a woman. Come on. Let's see more examples of other women tennis players having acted out(there's been tons of instances) and see how they were let off the hook, but Serena was not.

Once again BS shows it's bias, and immediately takes sides with the women, regardless of circumstances. Sorry BS, take a look at the news.

shrug, if she has advantages due to her physique is that her fault? All shapes and sizes, if she's a girl she's a girl. Hypothetically can she get pregnant and give birth? If the answer's yes, not much more to measure here.

now miley can grow up and get past the jailbait tag. sweet

...for creampie porn.

The actors/actresses are WELL aware of the risks they take with this line of work. New talent shows up constantly for porn, come on the risks are nothing new. Broadsheet - what do you truly know...about the porn industry? You really think these people are itching for sex all the time, especially when they do it for a living? Have you asked them? What's with the "danger window"? Might want to actually interview one of them and get their viewpoint on it, instead of spouting out things you truly don't know, namely their promiscuity off the job.

Oh and leave it up to Broadsheet to of course state only the females are at risk. Never the males eh? Could we please stop the bias?

The best way to shut all this down is begin withdrawing our support of Broadsheet. I think we've all had enough of these gender-biased articles that consistently attempt to demonize men and evangelize women in every article.

The article is very simple. Person defames woman. Woman engages legal team, only to discover her enemy is another women. Lawsuit dropped.

What makes Broadsheet so sure that your everyday man would deliberately pick a fight with a girl? Think of your father, your manager, your CEO...why would any of these men jeopardize their career/livelihood by doing such a thing? They'd be deep-sixed and shunned by other men.

OK so you're saying you have the right to bear arms. If you want to, you can, no one can argue otherwise.

So when Obama says something you don't agree with, and it really, really bothered you, is that enough justification for you to point your gun at him? Even if you only meant to say "take that back Mr. President", and just back up your words with arms?

Even if you truly had no intention of shooting the President? Just to prove you're ready to back yourself up(if need be)?

First of all about security.

Look around you at the "security" people who patrol the building where you work or where you live. These are just everyday people who wear a Security uniform, are paid next to minimum wage, and in many cases are not armed. In many cases these are the type of people who are not particularly physically fit.

When something happens, they are not to engage. They can't, and won't - their only role is to call in the big guns(law enforcement). By the time the cops arrive - they'll either reach you in time or they won't.

So if a rape occurs in a condominium complex, does that give the victim the right to sue the property management company that manages the building? How about an office building? This is going way out of whack. She's nailed the guy - why go after the hotel on top of that? It sounds opportunist.

Broadsheet blowing the situation out of proportion as usual.