I’m going to begin by saying that I am wholly against “Barely Legal”-emblazoned attire for anyone, of any age or gender. I don’t care if you’re 18 or 87, it’s just, well, gross. The concept ‘barely legal’ in and of itself is simply a porn-y, it’s-legal-so-its-okay loophole that supports the covert and overt sexualization of very young girls, and encourages and emboldens the closeted pedophiles who salivate over them. Just thinking about it makes me feel like I want to take a shower, quite frankly.

So I probably don’t need to explicate the manner and degree to which my head exploded when I saw the following post on Reddit under the title, “Looking for shirts for my 4 y/o daughter, I found this and physically cringed…”

At a second hand store. Toddler size 4. I grabbed it without even registering what the label said, it just looked like a good night shirt for the summer. Carried it around for about 5 minutes before I read the text and threw up in my mouth a little.

Who. The. F**k. buys this for their daughter?!?

Oh WHO indeed, sir.

It’s not hard to find the adult versions of this t-shirt around the web, but looking at the size of the man’s hand in the photo relative to the size of the shirt, it’s clear that this isn’t something an adult could wear. The Reddit user who posted the photo also mentioned in comments that there was a tag on the shirt indicating it was a Hustler-brand product, not something a single individual screen-printed at home.

I suppose some would argue that this is simply a joke or novelty t-shirt, but yeah, I’m kind of failing to find the humor in it.

What do you think, parents? Funny or foul?

Read more at MamaPop!

• Kim Kardashian To Take Newborn On Kanye’s World Tour, LOL
• ‘The Great Gatsby’ And The Great American Whiteness
• Just What We Didn’t Need: Sony To Release ‘Angry Birds’ Movie in 2016
• The Venn Diagram of Divorce Guilt [Essay]
• Arizona Restauranteurs Have Awesome ALL CAPS Facebook Meltdown

And follow MamaPop on Facebook, Twitter, and Tumblr

Photos: imgur.com, impressiontees.com

Nationally recognized blatant objectifier of women and hot wings purveyor Hooters announced on Tuesday that it would let moms eat free at its establishments all across this great boob-loving land on Mother’s Day, May 12th, 2013. (With a drink purchase.) (Value of Mom’s meal must be less than $10.) (Must have a kid in tow.) (Void where prohibited, etcetera etceteragaaaah.)

I don’t know about you people, but I can think of SEVERAL better ways to impress mom.

Klassy! (Yes, I just pulled out the with-a-K Klassy. And I think you’ll agree, this situation MORE than merits that pointed damning-via-misspelling.)

In a press release, Chief Marketing Officer of Hooters of America (!!!) Dave Henninger boldly uses words like “special” and “delicious” and “entrée” in describing this Mother’s Day deal:

“Kids of all ages are encouraged to invite their mothers to Hooters for special treatment on Mother’s Day… The free entrée deal is just one way for Hooters to show its appreciation for hard-working moms and to provide a relaxed atmosphere to enjoy a delicious meal with the family.”

Yes, what mom WOULDN’T want to to have her Mother’s Day dinner at an establishment whose entire existence is founded on reducing women to their anatomy? Oh wait, I misspoke – to ONE SPECIFIC PIECE of their anatomy. I mean, it’s just good horse sense: Moms = people with breasts. Breasts = instruments of child nourishment and male ogling enjoyment. = MOTHER’S DAY AT HOOTERS.

MATH! SCIENCE! INDISPUTABLE!

And it seems a lot of moms out there actually have no problem making the leap in logic from Restaurant That Openly Demeans Women to Mother’s Day: “Based on the tremendous response to last year’s Mother’s Day offer, Hooters anticipates treating more than 20,000 moms to a complimentary meal this Mother’s Day.” TWENTY. THOUSAND. Yep.

We have truly entered a post-feminist bizarro world, my friends. Up is down, white is black, Hooters is for moms.

Would you go to Hooters for Mother’s Day? OR! Would you go to Hooters on Mother’s Day and bring a copy of The Second Sex or The Feminine Mystique or something to enjoy along with your wings, in protest? (Please?)

Read more at MamaPop!

• Painted Ladies: Why Do Female Sports Reporters Wear So Much MakeUp?
• We Are All Nerds: My Life As A Geek-Jock [Essay]
• Texas High School Student Goes On Rant; A Schoolyard Hero Is Born
• Abercrombie And Fitch’s New Slogan: “No Fatties”?
• Dating Married Couples, As A Married Couple [Essay]

And follow MamaPop on Facebook, Twitter, and Tumblr

If you’re anything like me, right now you’re essentially organizing your life around two things: 1) Trying to take advantage of the gorgeous Spring weather, and 2) HBO’s series Game of Thrones (SUNDAY SUNDAY SUNDAAAAY!). And as much as I love planting flowers in our garden and having the windows open again in our house, I have to admit, it’s a loooong six days between GoT episodes, Spring-y weather or no. So how does a fan like me fill all those GoT-less hours? By scouring the internet, looking for amusing GoT video parodies, of course!

Here are my Top 5 GoT parody favorites (note, may contain spoilers!):

Where Are My Dragons?

It’s a new show from TLC, starring ‘single mom’ Daenerys Targaryen and her oft missing dragons!

Game of Thrones meets Seinfeld

Watching this, it’s sort of incredible to realize what a difference a laugh track (cue gratuitous Joffrey Baratheon slapping!) makes:

Game of Thrones Season 3 – “Princess Bride Promo”

What happens when you take a classic movie like The Princess Bride and mix in some Game of Thrones? PURE MAGIC, that’s what:

Game of Thones: A Westeros Rom-Com

Can a show full of barbarism and abject human misery be made into a Romantic Comedy? Yes, yes it can:

Game of Thrones – 1995 Style

Aaaand it can also be made into a 90s-era drama with a cheesy, hard rock soundtrack:

Finally, if you haven’t seen the amazing Gay of Thrones “recaps” over at Funny or Die, well, you just aren’t living. *z-snap*

So what did I miss? Which are your favorites, GoT fans?

Read more at MamaPop!

• American Girl Dolls Have Taken A Turn For The Milquetoast
• Can Zach Braff Borrow Ten Bucks From You? He’d Like To Make A Movie
• Celebrities Who Probably Shouldn’t Take Ben Affleck’s $1.50 Poverty Challenge
• Eye Candy: Here’s One Of The Men Saudi Arabia Deported For Being Too Handsome
• Diane Keaton Sets The Record Straight About Tantric Sex On “Ellen”

And follow MamaPop on Facebook, Twitter, and Tumblr

You’ve probably seen the new “Sketches” campaign from Dove by now, but if you haven’t, the premise is a simple one: that women’s self-image and sense of their own attractiveness is seriously borked. The underlying whys of that borkedness of course range from My Mom Told Me I Wasn’t Pretty When I Was 9 to Modern Advertising Has Told Me I’m Not Attractive Enough Since The Day I Was Born, but the upshot remains the same. Women, generally-speaking, don’t see themselves as others see them at all, and what they DO see in the mirror when they look at themselves is riddled with imperfections and flaws.

By contrast, it could be argued that men – who have never had their value as a human being appraised by others relative to their physical beauty in the ways that women historically have – live in a self-image bubble. And existing as they do outside the relentless, self-image-battering criticism/critique that women endure every day coming at them from all sides, is it surprising that men’s sense of their own attractiveness might be, well, just a little out of whack?

The video is funny, no doubt, but it does also serve to underscore something very real and not-so-funny: the massive gender gap that exists between men and women relative to body image. Brass tax, women aren’t hard on themselves because it’s natural or normal or we’re born that way — we’re trained by society to be ultra-critical and hyper-anxious about our bodies, and men simply aren’t. Or at least aren’t anywhere near to the extent that women are. Sure, there are guys out there who are style and image conscious, men who work out fanatically at the gym to achieve some ideal physique, but I think it’s fair to say that the average dude thinks hard and critically about how His Attractiveness about as often as he gets an oil change for his car. But for women… well, there’s a ceaseless daily drone in our heads (and on TV, and in magazines, and in movies, and – perhaps most disturbingly – coming from other women) about whether we’re too fat, or too thin, or if our hair is shiny enough, and does this lipstick make me look pretty or cadaverous (ad infinitum, applied to every facet of our physical being)? It’s exhausting, frankly.

Of course it’s a billion dollar industry, making sure women think there’s something wrong with how they look so that corporations can supply a product that will “fix” it, so I don’t think we can expect the You’re Not Good Looking Enough messages directed at women via the media to change any time soon. But as the mother of a daughter on the cusp of entering young adulthood, I surely wish there was some way to shield my kid’s self-esteem from the onslaught of female-body-related negativity she’ll soon be subjected to. Is there any realistic way to do that though, when that criticism really is everywhere, and coming from all sides?

Read more at MamaPop!

• Does Pregnancy Place Kim Kardashian Beyond Criticism?
• Is Amanda Bynes Punking Us?
• Why No One Needs a ‘Friends’ Reunion
• I Defy You To Say “Meh” After Watching The New Man Of Steel Trailer
• Michael Bay’s Victoria’s Secret Commercial

And follow MamaPop on Facebook, Twitter, and Tumblr

Man, Gwyneth Paltrow can’t catch a break. First, the backlash over her cookbook, and now she tops the list of Star magazine’s annual “Most Hated” readers poll – beating out Chris Brown AND Kim Kardashian, both of whom didn’t even make the the list’s top 10.

So who else ranked high on the hater’s list? Here are the “winners,” in descending order of Most Hated:

• 

  Gwyneth Paltrow

  Most Hated Rank: #1

  /babble-voices/mamapop-all-access/2013/04/17/gwyneth-paltrow-named-most-hated-celeb-in-star-magazine-poll/#gwyneth-paltrow
• 

  Kristen Stewart

  Most Hated Rank: #2

  /babble-voices/mamapop-all-access/2013/04/17/gwyneth-paltrow-named-most-hated-celeb-in-star-magazine-poll/#kristen-stewart
• 

  Jennifer Lopez

  Most Hated Rank: #3

  /babble-voices/mamapop-all-access/2013/04/17/gwyneth-paltrow-named-most-hated-celeb-in-star-magazine-poll/#jennifer-lopez
• 

  John Mayer

  Most Hated Rank: #4

  /babble-voices/mamapop-all-access/2013/04/17/gwyneth-paltrow-named-most-hated-celeb-in-star-magazine-poll/#john-mayer
• 

  Katherine Heigl

  Most Hated Rank: #5

  /babble-voices/mamapop-all-access/2013/04/17/gwyneth-paltrow-named-most-hated-celeb-in-star-magazine-poll/#katherine-heigl
• 

  Matt Lauer

  Most Hated Rank: #6

  /babble-voices/mamapop-all-access/2013/04/17/gwyneth-paltrow-named-most-hated-celeb-in-star-magazine-poll/#matt-lauer
• 

  Madonna

  Most Hated Rank: #7

  /babble-voices/mamapop-all-access/2013/04/17/gwyneth-paltrow-named-most-hated-celeb-in-star-magazine-poll/#madonna
• 

  Justin Bieber

  Most Hated Rank: #8

  /babble-voices/mamapop-all-access/2013/04/17/gwyneth-paltrow-named-most-hated-celeb-in-star-magazine-poll/#justin-bieber
• 

  Anne Hathaway

  Most Hated Rank: #9

  /babble-voices/mamapop-all-access/2013/04/17/gwyneth-paltrow-named-most-hated-celeb-in-star-magazine-poll/#anne-hathaway
• 

  Kris Jenner

  Most Hated Rank: #10

  /babble-voices/mamapop-all-access/2013/04/17/gwyneth-paltrow-named-most-hated-celeb-in-star-magazine-poll/#kris-jenner

And in case you were wondering who else was on the list that didn’t make the top 10, here are the stragglers:

11. Kim Kardashian
12. LeAnn Rimes
13. Ashton Kutcher
14. Jay Leno
15. Angelina Jolie
16. Lindsay Lohan
17. Shia LaBeouf
18. Taylor Swift
19. Jesse James
20. Chris Brown

I’m a little shocked that Chris Brown barely even made the list at #20, and Angelina Jolie at #15 whaaat?

Also, I can’t be alone in not understanding the massive JLo haterade flowing out there, can I?

Who tops your Most Hated celeb list (whether they’re represented here or not)?

Read more at MamaPop!

• Heidi Klum Pays Her Kids To Eat Healthy Food
• ‘Cargo’ Offers Parenting Tips For the Zombie Apocalypse
• Dress Like Your Television: Shoshanna Shapiro Of ‘Girls’
• Psy’s Latest Video Cements Me In The HATE HIM Camp
• Is This Pic Of A Topless Angelina Jolie Really Worth $38K?

And follow MamaPop on Facebook, Twitter, and Tumblr

Image source: wikimedia commons

Naughty underthings purveyor Victoria’s Secret is again under the media microscope this week after announcing it’s dropping model (and wife of actor Orlando Bloom) Miranda Kerr, electing to not renew her 3-year $1m ‘Angels’ contract. Though speculation about the reasons for this have mostly centered on Kerr’s reputation for being a bit of a prima donna and not selling as well as some of her Angels cohorts, what’s also clear is that, historically, Victoria’s Secret isn’t keen on keeping older models.

And by “older” I of course mean anyone who inches past the big 3-0. Because after that, let’s face it, you’re in Early Bird Special Buffet-eating, Murder She Wrote-watching, Doans Pills-taking territory, oldster. Just put on your white quilted granny panties and quietly accept your fate already, m’kay?

And though the average age of ‘retirement’ for a Victoria’s Secret Angels model, 28 years, is almost elderly when compared to that of VS’s other models (who are lucky if they stay on the VS roster past age 24), it still gives one pause to realize just how narrow and rigid VS’s line regarding age is. As a company devoted to selling its wares to a broad cohort of women, including women who are most certainly well over 30, what are we to glean from the fact that as one creeps closer to 30 one is deemed no longer fit to represent VS’s particular brand of scantily-clad hottness?

Let’s explore the options:

1. Women over 30 are viewed as saggy and droopy and diminished in attractiveness, and therefore are not to be seen in sexy underwear, because eww.

2. Women over 30 are viewed as saggy and droopy and diminished in attractiveness, and therefore don’t appeal to other women and make them want to run out and buy sexy underwear.

3. Women over 30 are viewed as saggy and droopy and diminished in attractiveness, and therefore don’t appeal to men as catalog fap material (oh c’mon, we all know where those catalogs disappear to).

4. Women over 30 are still just as attractive as ever, but don’t want to make 1m dollars by strutting around in sexy underwear anymore and have better things to do, like making out with their husband Orlando Bloom.

I really wish the truth was #4 you guys. But upon reviewing the evidence, logic and reason suggest otherwise.

And yes, I know: the modeling industry is an industry built on youth, yada yada. But Victoria’s Secret isn’t high fashion haut couture or anything even close to that. It’s a freakin’ store at the mall, a company that has a mail-delivery CATALOG, a la JC Penney and Newport News. Victoria’s Secret is really about as Average Middle Class American Woman as it gets. So why are women - VS’s customers and potential customers, its Target Demographic - okay with this company consistently marketing its goods to us in a way that is almost certain to make most of us feel inadequate and lesser-than? Because I challenge you to leaf through one of their catalogs and not walk away from the experience thinking about your love handles and stretch marks. (Oh and PS: YOU’RE TOO OLD.)

Are we okay with that?

Read more at MamaPop!

• Peter Robbins, The Original Voice Of Charlie Brown, Pleads Guilty To Stalking Girlfriend (AAUGH!)
• Rebel Wilson Tells Jay Leno How Russell Crowe Told Her To “F**k Off”
• About FX’s “The Americans”: I Have Questions
• Liza Minelli Was Invited To Lindsay Lohan’s Intervention
• There Will Be A ‘Point Break’ Remake, Which Is Why You Need To Watch The ‘Elysium’ Trailer

And follow MamaPop on Facebook, Twitter, and Tumblr

Image source: Victoria’s Secret

After taking heat for her somewhat painfully restrictive new cookbook, It’s All Good: Delicious, Easy Recipes That Will Make You Look Good and Feel Great – which the New York Post dubbed “the manifesto to some sort of creepy healthy-girl sorority with members who use beet juice rather than permanent marker to circle the ‘problem areas’ on each other’s bodies” — Gwyneth Paltrow has taken to her website/newsletter/whateveritis GOOP to proclaim that she is NOT a Food Nazi with her kids. JUST SO YOU KNOW.

In fact, far from being controlling and obsessive about what her kids put into their bodies, she’s gracious enough to let them scarf Cheetos and one (1) Coke a week! SO LAY OFF ALREADY. JEEZ.

Of her children’s nutrition, Paltrow says:

I tried to start them off with all of the right foods but as they got older, the lure of Oreos and cotton candy outweighed the lure of carrots with hummus. And that’s all a part of childhood and I love Oreos too, so I completely understand. I try to make sure that what is on their plate at home is nutritious and tasty and then I loosen way up on the reigns when we are out. They love a brown rice stir-fry but they also love their ‘Coke of the week’. My daughter gravitates toward fresh fruit and raw nuts but will inhale a bag of hot Cheetos at the airport. It’s all about balance.

Which actually sounds… sane? I mean, isn’t this what we all try to do to some extent or other as parents – steer our kids away from junk and toward healthy food choices? I have a difficult time taking issue with that. And while allowing only one Coke a week and just an occasional snack bag of Cheetos (or whatever) seems leaning a wee bit more toward draconian than balanced (particularly when viewed from the perspective the average middle class American’s diet), trying to get your kids to eat better isn’t being “mean.” It’s looking out for their health and long-term well-being. Which is kind of the job description of Parent, right?

And though I’m sure plenty of people will continue to take issue with Paltrow’s overall concept of nutrition, excluding as it does meat, dairy, gluten and sugar — ie, the most beloved staples of the American diet — I for one am over the generalized, knee-jerk Paltrow hating. And for the record, I can’t stand GOOP. (I in fact have a theory that GOOP was the tipping point for her in terms of The Haters. She launched a ridiculously privileged luxury lifestyle e-pub right smack in the middle of the worst economy since the Great Depression, when most of us were struggling to keep jobs and make rent. It came off as very Let Them Eat Cake… while we fly off to St Barts for the weekend WHEE! Bad timing, Gwennie.) But I can’t hate on a mom for wanting to do what they believe is right for the health of their children, however extreme it might seem to me. And overall, it seems stupid to hate someone for simply being who they are and living the life they have, however ridiculously privileged. As Paltrow has said herself in the past, “I am who I am. I can’t pretend to be somebody who makes $25,000 a year.” And maybe that’s okay?

What about you? Are you Team Gwyneth or Team Gwyneth Haters? (CHOOSE AND BE DESTROYED!)

Read more at MamaPop!

• Hadoken-ing Meme May Give You Street Cred With Your Kid
• Hate Watch Files: Another One Bites The Dust At ‘The View’
• Kristen Bell & Dax Shepard Exercise Their Celeb Baby Naming Rights By Naming Daughter After President With An Epic Beard
• Trailer For Ke$ha’s New MTV Reality Show About As Crazy As You’d Expect
• Justin Bieber Spits On Neighbor, Threatens To “F**king Kill Him”

And follow MamaPop on Facebook, Twitter, and Tumblr

Image source: wikimedia commons

But that wasn’t the spoiler. The spoiler is WHO?

(Which I don’t know. So calm the hell down.)

But yes, it’s true. At least according to reputable E! dot com. (You know it’s trustworthy, what with the exclamation point and all.) The Mad Men season 6 skinny:

Fortunately for you, we’ve seen the episode and can assure you it’s worth the wait! Here are five things you can expect to see: a wedding, two deaths, Megan rocking several colorful bikinis, a dramatic physical transformation from Betty and one character dropping an F-bomb (is that even allowed on AMC?!). As for the finale’s big question—did Don cheat on Megan?—let’s just say that will no longer be a question by the end of the two-hour premiere.

Oooh intriguing, am I right?

So place your bets now! Who dies? And further, who’s getting married? Or, I guess: who do you WISH would die and/or get married on Mad Men?

My picks to get the axe?

MEGAN DRAPER.

For crimes against patterned clothing and general whiney-annoyingness. Plus, Zou Bisou Bisou, anyone? *shudder*

HENRY FRANCIS.

For being boring, and also dumb enough to marry Betty. There oughta be a law, or a Surgeon General’s Warning, or something.

Interesting, isn’t it, that they made the new spouses of Don and Betty so dreadfully unlikeable? I mean, not that Don OR Betty are likeable themselves (nor are a lot of other characters on the show), but still, regarding both Megan and Henry: DO NOT WANT.

All I have to say is that they’d better not touch one hair on the heads of Joan or Peggy, or WRATH! FIRE AND WRAAAATH!

As for the wedding… well, I’m stumped. What do you think? Who gets hitched, and who gets offed?

Read more at MamaPop!

• MILFs Ahoy! The “Cougar Cruise” Movie Night Schedule
• New ‘Star Trek Into Darkness’ Trailer Reveals Alice Eve
• American History Vex: Celebrating ‘White History Month’
• Eye Candy: Missing Ryan Gosling Already Edition
• Rob Kardashian Debuts “Arthur George” Sock Collection. Yes, Sock Collection.

And follow MamaPop on Facebook, Twitter, and Tumblr

image sources: AMCTV; AMCTV

It’s been a long time coming: Paul Rudd and Tina Fey finally – nay, blissfully – united in a single film. As love interests. And yes, for the record, there is kissing involved.

Based on the novel by Jean Hanff Korelitz, Admission centers around Fey’s Portia, a tightly-wound Admissions Officer at Princeton who resembles Liz Lemon in her neuroticism, frumpy dress, and feminist leanings, but without the comic timing and off-beat winsomeness that made the latter character likable. In many ways, Fey’s Portia is a very typical Hollywood portrayal of the Middle-Aged Working Woman — one too consumed by her career (in this instance, the very serious business of deciding who gets into Princeton’s class of 2016) and whose life outside of work is primed to unravel.

And the unraveling begins when Portia encounters former college classmate and globe-trotting, Peter Pan complex-suffering single dad John (Paul Rudd) on a tour of high schools. At John’s super-crunchy alternative school, New Quest, she’s introduced to a quirky, promising student with not-so-promising grades named Jeremiah (played wonderfully by Nat Wolff), who John wants to help get into Princeton (with a little help from Portia). As the story unfolds in a somewhat convoluted fashion, John discovers that Portia is in fact Jeremiah’s biological mother, the product of a youthful error in judgement. Reeling from this revelation, Portia rushes to a reception she and professor husband Mark (Michael Sheen) are hosting at their home, only to have Mark announce he’s leaving her for another woman in front of all assembled.

At a crisis point, Portia gives in to John’s pleading to help Jeremiah get into Princeton, and the majority of the subsequent plot revolves around Portia’s dilemma therein: how can she do right by brilliant Jeremiah, who is so deserving of a champion, and still not compromise her ethics at work? There’s also a brilliant turn by Lily Tomlin as Portia’s straight-talking old school feminist mother Susannah, the very awkward and amusing birth of a calf, and some inevitable-feeling romance between Fey and Rudd, with little chemistry or sparks. (At least on screen, between them. There’s hardly a better way to rev up MY engine than watching Paul Rudd kiss ANYONE.) (Usually.)

Admission is a film that had everything going for it: two fantastic (and attractive! and funny!) actors, a hugely talented supporting cast, and director Paul Weitz (About A Boy). But Fey and Rudd – who should be the internal combustion engine of the movie – come off as one-dimensional and stiff, and the viewer has to struggle to connect with their characters and believe in their romance, let alone feel any heat from it. Which (*sigh*)… a cryin’ shame.

Is Admission a decent date night movie? Yes, it probably is. But is it also filled with missed comedic opportunities and poor scripting choices that make it a less-than-satisfying experience? Most definitely.

Hey, anybody wanna watch Anchorman?

Admission will be in theaters March 22, 2013.

Read more at MamaPop!

• 7 Awful St. Patrick’s Day Movies To Drive You To Drink
• Singer Jewel Teaching Her Toddler Son “Anger Management Skills” Before Potty Training
• Tiger Blood Crazy: Charlie Sheen Asks Twitter To Bully 9 Year Old Girl Who Bullied His Daughter
• Justin Bieber Continues Downward Spiral, Posts Rant On Instagram Dissing Lindsay Lohan
• Should Your Kids Go On Your Diet? Let’s Ask Gwyneth Paltrow

And follow MamaPop on Facebook, Twitter, and Tumblr

Well FINALLY, right?

Yes, Demi Moore has at last gotten around to filing for divorce from husband of 6 years, Ashton Kutcher. Her response to Kutcher’s original filing some three months ago was submitted Thursday (3/7) to Los Angeles Superior Court, citing the usual “irreconcilable differences.”

screenshot source: TMZ

But what IS surprising about this filing is that Moore – who is reportedly worth upwards of $150m, thanks films like “Ghost” and “G.I. Jane” in the 80s and 90s – is requesting spousal support, AND that Kutcher pay all of her legal fees associated with the divorce. Kutcher, it should be noted, is estimated to be worth only about $135m, comparatively.

…Did that sound like the instigating shot in what will doubtless be a long, drawn out court battle, or am I just imagining things?

The reasons Moore elected to go for spousal support shouldn’t be dismissed as merely vindictive or emotional, however (though there’s probably a bit of that going on as well). Though Kutcher’s amassed fortune at age 35 may indeed be smaller than Moore’s at age 50, Kutcher is currently the highest paid actor on television, raking in over $24m just this past year (who knew “Two and a Half Men” was so… profitable?). And with Kutcher’s sweet spokesperson deals for Nikon and others, his income is likely to handily surpass that figure in years to come. While Moore’s earnings… umm, what exactly was she last in again?

A source told the New York Post: ‘Ashton made a lot of money after marrying Demi – a lot more than she made – but despite him becoming just as famous through her, he believes he doesn’t owe her that much.’

‘Ashton has been very difficult during the talks. You could even say he has been hostile.’

‘After over a year of attempting to reach a settlement, Demi is definitely ready to move on. It’s hoped lawyers for both sides can reach a settlement this spring, otherwise the divorce will go into litigation and trial.’

Translation: grab some popcorn, because this shiz is gonna get UGLY, and fast.

Though rumors swirled regarding the state of their marriage for months prior to the split, the pair announced their separation (on Twitter, as one does) in November of 2011. In the many, MANY months since, Moore checked into rehab and dated a much younger man, while Kutcher (among other things) played Steve Jobs in a movie and started dating one-time “That 70s Show” co-star Mila Kunis. A LOT can happen in a-year-and-change, people.

The pair had reportedly been “mostly amicable” in their split prior to yesterday’s filing. I guess we’ll see how amicable things stay after this, huh?

Read more at MamaPop!

• Kids Post Racist And Anti-Gay Videos To YouTube Because SMART
• Chelsea Handler: Taylor Swift’s a Virgin; Angelina Jolie’s a Demon
• Kanye West Is Not Happy About Being Number 7 On MTV’s Hottest MC’s List
• Because You’re Worth It: A $900 Skin Cream Formulated With ‘Space Diamonds’ Exists
• Honey Boo Boo Joins Girl Scouts, Giving Us One Less Reason To Mock Her

And follow MamaPop on Facebook, Twitter, and Tumblr

source, photo credit