I disagree with the assertion of ill intent of my post.

Implicit in Godcam's post is that he thinks highly of Ms Myles. Thus a post was made to highlight the qualities deemed admirable. Also implicit in his post is the invitation to show agreement or disagreement.

Castro accepted the invitation and offered his disagreement in the form of criticism as to whether or not she photoshops her image. This comment that can be interpreted, properly so, as disagreement with the assessment of her assets. While the responding with a video of emphasizing/proof of au naturale can be viewed as bolstering the implied view of her greatness. The discourse is merely an exchange. Support of a viewpoint was given.

Similarly, my statement offered an opposing view to the initial statement of esteem. Analogous to video support, I provided photographic evidence emphasizing my disagreement. Dissimilar to the interpretation of Castro's statement, my statement was deemed as an attempt to facilitate destructive competition between fine examples of (B)lack womanhood. This interpretation is incorrect.

Due to years of male insensitivity to the effects of sexism. A predisposition to interpret discourse that concerns women in a negative light exists. It is from this lens that my exchange has been incorrectly interpreted. My intent was not to create or perpetuate an insensitive, sexist exchange that causes harm. Nor is it my intent to contribute to the destructive rape culture that plagues our society.

Because my statement was misinterpreted. I clarify. Bruh she a baddie. Peep Uchemba. She bad af.

For the older among us, circa '05, the African American poet laureate Kane of the Ying Yang Twins:

"That hoe's fine but this hoe killa"