Tumblelog by Soup.io
Newer posts are loading.
You are at the newest post.
Click here to check if anything new just came in.

July 15 2017

an-angry-lesbian:

lesbianbun:

e-cryptid:

prophetofslaughter:

terfzilla:

e-cryptid:

Not shaving and not wearing make up are literally nonbehaviors. They’re a complete lack of action. But literally doing nothing is considered masculine because men are the only ones who are allowed to just be.

Men are allowed to exist, women have to perform.

@e-cryptid

Last time I checked, default men for some reason don’t have full beards and long hair which naturally occur in human males.

Unshaved men not being associated with muslims or homeless people in fashion are a relatively new thing and I’m not sure if normies have caught up (also bearded men in fashion tend to have over-engineered haircuts and suits, so they are hardly just allowed to be).

Anti-male hate ad by Nivea - (from 2017!). If you have a natural male head, you’re not “civilized” (completely ignoring that it’s savages that are most fanatical about attacking and deforming their bodies, not civilized people).


Cisco Netacad website displays relentless fanatical hatred of male body.


All males in this White House photo are grotesquely deformed. Infantilisation of face and arbitrarily limited hair length are especially prominent.

Also, what’s the deal with that thing on their necks?


In contrast, what should be norm if the world wouldn’t be degenerate:

Adult male in natural form. Long hair, full beard, practical clothes (probably includes cargo pants).

I can’t believe I’m responding to an argument claiming that bearded men are marginalized but here goes.

Okay, you’re expected to shave your face. I have facial hair that I’m expected to remove, too, and I’m seen as a freak if I don’t, not just untidy. I’m also expected to shave my legs, my armpits, my stomach, my pubic hair, my knuckles and to thin out the hair on my arms as well as wear makeup and clothing that, as someone who has consistenty worn both men’s and women’s clothes, I promise you is 10x less practical than anything you’re expected to wear. All of this would take me over an hour a day. Shaving your face takes maybe five minutes.

Also a bunch of your examples are racism and not general marginalization of men. White guys are not assumed to be Muslims because they have beards, lmao, and that one ad is more than anything calling natural black hair uncivilized, not natural male hair.

Just imagine men’s shaving products advertisement that NEVER shows actual facial hair.

I saw this while I was out and then started deliberately taking note of men with facial hair. I literally couldn’t go more than about 10 seconds in a mildly busy city without seeing facial hair. Every group of men I saw had at least one bearded member. I googled “male celebrities” and 13/20 of the first image results are men with noticeable facial hair (all white American or British I think). Obviously this will change depending on where in the world you are and I’m not sure where everyone in this thread is coming from culturally but I think this is pretty representative of like western countries which is my personal perspective. The attitudes towards men with facial hair is nowhere near similar as those towards women with body/facial hair. I saw a woman on a morning news show once being interviewed about her leg hair because apparently a women not shaving is so shocking it needs to be reported on and shared on one of the most popular shows in the country.

captainfunkpunkandroll:

baehraini:

karneolius:

baehraini:

slimedealer:

tiqerboy:

tiqerboy:

if you’re lgbt and a transmisogynist like i’m really sorry you’re an idiot and don’t realize trans women literally created this community cause that’s really sad, like we wouldn’t have a community without them. you waving your pitchfork and incomprehensible rhetoric  to thank them is sad. and all i’m gonna feel in response is utter secondhand embarrassment for how stupid you are. like you’re dumb bye

don’t just like this, reblog it! let trans women know you love and support them in this community!

U can support trans women and make positive posts for them without making it sound like gay people did nothing for themselves/ didn’t have a community before trans women bc that’s false and a huge oversimplification of LGBT history !!

^^^^ like even from the oversimplified idea that the community just fucking appeared after marsha threw a brick at stonewall… marsha didn’t instigate stonewall. her efforts weren’t limited to stonewall. she wasn’t the only one there.
but don’t bother op & friends will either say “shut the fuck up” or “pee ur pants”, or call u a terf for even speaking about the reality of US LGBT history.

This is literally All Lives Matter bullshit and I will not stand for it.

Yeah like hell gay and lesbian people are constantly questioned and questioned about even belonging in this community, hated for what they are, and misgendered IN LGBTQ+ SPACES.

Calm the fuck down.

thanks for calling me a “cis gay”, nice assumption there
anyways no, this is literally “this is historical revisionism and claiming everyone owes the existence of the LGBT community to trans women bc of stonewall is ignoring that the rioters were mostly gay people and was instigated by a butch lesbian of colour, when marsha came in the riot had already started, and the LGBT community was definitely not started by stonewall, at all” not “literally All Lives Matter bullshit”

the rest of ur argument is just a strawman. no one made claims like that. correcting historical inaccuracy isn’t claiming anything about our experiences as gays and lesbians.

The first major picture to come out after that fateful first night (the night that went down in the history books) showed a bunch of gay men, some GNC (gender non conforming)/androgynous, others in half-drag (like a guy in the far back had a blouse on). The one thing staggering about the pic was of Jack Whitehall (aka Jackie Hormona), the androgynous gay street kid who is seen confronting a cop.

MOST who were there that night were gay men and they agree with many of Marsha’s involvement in Stonewall (David Carter’s book, Stonewall: The Riots That Sparked the Revolution, basically listed her as one of the three individuals whose actions set the vanguard of the uprising including Hormona and another black “street queen”, Zazu Nova; whose picture has been erroneously cited as Marsha). At the time of the riots, Marsha identified as a “gay transvestite”. In Carter’s book, both Johnson and Nova are called “gay transvestites” due to the terminology of those days.

Then you have those who helped to instigate “the vanguard”: the white Stonewall patron that was the first to be arrested (Williamson Henderson), the GNC lesbian butch biracial woman who fought with cops (Storme Delarverie), the gay Latino man who manhandled the cops before being sent to jail (Raymond Castro), the gay Puerto Rican man who threw the cobblestone at the window (whose name has only been referred to as Gino). These actions preceded what Marsha did but they didn’t happen chronologically. Then after the actions of Jackie, Marsha and Zazu (who again David Carter referred to as “the vanguard” of Stonewall that morning) led the street youth, the “drags” and “queens” to engage in action against homophobic and transphobic cops, leading some of them to be shocked that they never expected “the f*gs” to fight like that. And Marsha continued her rebellion the following night throwing a heavy object (some say it was a hand bag) slamming a cop car’s front window so her contribution in Stonewall is remembered heavily by the gay activists of that time.

But anyway, the LGBT rights movement didn’t start at Stonewall at all. Gay activism went back as far as the 1920s in the United States and some gay activism stretched back to the late 1800s in other countries like England. The Mattachine Society and Daughters of Bilitis helped to set up the first successful LGBT rights organizations leading to groundbreaking moments in the gay civil rights movement. Transgender activism could go as far back as Christine Jourgensen in the 1950s and taking place at San Francisco’s Compton’s Cafeteria in 1966 where the majority already identified as women/trans women whereas Stonewall’s most famous catalyst called herself a “transvestite” and drag queen and continued to do so until she died. She never lived to see the word transgender being used in the mainstream.

What Marsha (and mostly Sylvia, since she really was the brain behind it) did that should be of importance is they manage to create one of the first LGBT SHELTERS with the S.T.A.R. House in 1972 (a year after they had formed the S.T.A.R., or Street Transvestites Action Revolutionaries) to help gay and trans people who were runaways living in the streets after being kicked out of their parents’ houses for being either gay or transgender. Their fight with the gay movements that wanted to assimilate was that they wanted to help those who were probably considered “too gay” for their movements (the queens, transgender people and androgynous gay people). In fact what went on then could be compared to how some gays have this ridiculous transphobic “no femmes” policy and in 1970s terms, Marsha & Sylvia would’ve been shown the “no femmes” sign. Sylvia became something of a direct action revolutionary while Marsha basically was the shelter’s “drag mother” helping to give them food and clothing. It was short lived because the abandoned apartment complex they had been able to rent, they couldn’t do it anymore because the renter had went to jail.

It was short lived but it helped to pave the way for many LGBT organizations to create shelters for LGBT people. Marsha & Sylvia’s continued activism should be acknowledged more than what they did at Stonewall. Marsha for becoming something of a cultural icon due to her Warhol connection, her defiant “pay it no mind” slogan and her tenure with the Hot Peaches troupe (the New York version of the Cockettes basically) and then her courageous activism to battle the AIDS virus being one of the founding members of ACT UP in the 1980s that lasted until her death. And Sylvia for her fight to include transgender people in gay rights bills in New York, her protest rally following Matthew Shepard’s death which led to her being arrested over a trumped up charge from the ‘70s in 1998, and her continued fight for the homeless gay and trans youth until her death. Yeah Sylvia put herself in the Stonewall myth but she wasn’t there, still doesn’t take away from what she did the last 32 years of her life, which was pretty revolutionary.

Point is, yes GAY and LESBIAN people did fight for our rights, let’s not exclude them either. And TRANS people did the same thing for trans rights. And they’re all revolutionary for what they did so we can see how far we’ve come and how far we still have to go. Let’s not give credit to just one group just because of exclusion (which happens and needs to stop), instead, let’s just educate ourselves on LGBT history. It is more than Stonewall. Marsha & Sylvia would rather people focus on the great things they did than have people argue about whether or not they were at Stonewall.

gizensha:

kyraneko:

rizaoftheowls:

thatlittleegyptologist:

rudjedet:

thoodleoo:

quousque:

thoodleoo:

i hate when people in movies/tv are reading ancient languages and they translate everything really smoothly and poetically, as if when people who study ancient languages aren’t consulting three different commentaries and sobbing profusely when we read

ok so like…. it says

“come you all into the deepest cavern, or maybe that’s fireplace, depends on usage, and having come may you give your…. treasures? Skin? Pants? I don’t know, something…. to the….. about-to-be-adored guy, that one who…. okay, he either causes earthquakes or sleeps a lot, I think this might be an idiom….”

“ok, sorry that took so long and i hate to disappoint but i’m still not entirely sure what it means, like, it could be something about a religious ceremony or it could be a dick joke. leaning towards dick joke, might be both. knowing the ancients, probably both. this could very well be an ancient dick temple and we should probably leave.”

Funnest part is when you get shit like this:

Why yes that is a text comprised of almost exclusively crocodile hieroglyphs.

We also can’t get a coherent translation because the grammar makes absolutely no sense. Participles and Participial statements all the way. Sobek who is Crocodile of Crocodopolis who advances the Crocodile for the Crocodiles….

The crocodile hieroglyph is also used to write sovereign and an adjective meaning power…so the text is suuuuuuuper confusing.

As someone who knows nothing of hieroglyphics, I would assume this meant “There’s a lot of crocodiles here, you should probably leave.”

Buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo, ancient Egyptian style.

…Yeah, with 0 knowledge of hieroglyphs, that’s clearly a metajoke about either Egyptian language generally, or hieroglyphics in specific, that exists purely to illustrate that you can write a sentence this way and it’s ridiculous.

Buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo, or Pass the pasta pastor, depending on if it works when said and read or just read (though pass the pasta pastor only works when said)… Or it might be an Ancient Egyptian equivalent of that French literary movement that set themselves ridiculous writing challenges like writing a piece with no e in it, or a book that was entirely palindromic, etc.

4218 9d04

okayto:

bregma:

kevinrfree:

charlienight:

commanderbishoujo:

bogleech:

prokopetz:

johnlockinthetardiswithdestiel:

truthandglory:

assbanditkirk:

whoa canada

someone needs to turn down that sass level

Two things to know about Canada!

  1. We are smart enough to know hot things should be hot.
  2. We are sorry if you don’t

fun story about the reason they do that (at least in America)

once this lady spilled her McDonald’s coffee on herself and ended up getting like 3rd degree burns and since there was no warning on the cup she was able to claim she didn’t know it would be hot (or at least that hot) and won a lawsuit against McDonald’s for $1 million

That’s what the media smear campaign against her would have you believe, anyway. The truth of the matter is that the McDonald’s in question had previously been cited - on at least two separate occasions - for keeping their coffee so hot that it violated local occupational health and safety regulations. The lady didn’t win her lawsuit because American courts are stupid; she won it because the McDonald’s she bought that coffee from was actively and knowingly breaking the law with respect to the temperature of its coffee at the time of the incident.

(I mean, do you have any idea what a third-degree burn actually is? Third-degree burns involve “full thickness” tissue damage; we’re talking bone-deep, with possible destruction of tissue. Can you even imagine how hot that cup of coffee would have to have been to inflict that kind of damage in the few seconds it was in contact with her skin?)

Yeah I’m tired of people joking about either the “stupid” woman who didn’t know coffee was hot or the “greedy” woman making up bullshit to get money.

She was hideously injured by hideous irresponsibility, it was an absolutely legitimate lawsuit and the warning on the cups basically allows McDonalds to claim no responsibility even if it happens again. Every other company followed suit to cover their asses.

So they can still legally serve you something that could sear off the end of your tongue or permanently demolish the front of your gums and just give you a big fat middle finger in court. “The label SAID it would be HOT, STUPID.”

obligatory reblog for the great debunking of the usual ignorance spouted about this case

obligatory mention that the media smear campaign to twist teh facts on this case and get public opinion against the victim was deliberate and fueled by the right wing tort reform movement

it was seized upon to limit the rights of consumers to hold giant corporations accountable for wrongdoing

watch the documentary Hot Coffee, it lays out all of the facts and examines the response to this case and explains why everything you think you know about this case is bullshit, and explains why tort reform is bullshit in an entertaining and informative manner

The woman injured in Liebeck v. McDonald’s Restaurants was 79 years old at the time of her injuries, and suffered third-degree burns to the pelvic region (including her thighs, buttocks, and groin), which in combination with lesser burns in the surrounding regions caused damage to an area totaling a whopping 22% of her body’s surface. These injuries that required two years of intensive medical care, including multiple skin grafts; during her hospitalization, Stella Liebeck lost around 20% of her starting body weight.

She was uninsured and sued McDonald’s Restaurants for the cost of her past and projected future medical care, an estimated $20,000. The corporation offered a settlement of $800, a number so obviously ridiculous that I’m not even going to dignify it with any further explanation.

The settlement number most often quoted is not the amount that the corporation actually paid; the jury in the first trial suggested a payment equal to a day or two of coffee revenues for McDonald’s, which at the time totaled more than $1 million per diem. The judge reduced the required payout to around $640,000 in both compensatory and punitive damages, and the case was later settled out of court for less than $600,000.

Keep in mind that at the time, McDonald’s already had over 700 cases of complaints about coffee-related burns on file, but continued to sell coffee heated to nearly 200 degrees Fahrenheit (around 90 degrees Celsius) as a means of boosting sales (their selling point was that one could buy the coffee, drive to a second location such as work or home, and still have a piping hot beverage). This in spite of the fact that most restaurants serve coffee between 140 and 160 degrees Fahrenheit (60 to 71 degrees Celsius), and many coffee experts agree that such high temperatures are desirable only during the brewing process itself.

The Liebeck case was absolutely not an example of litigation-happy Americans expecting corporations to cover their asses for their own stupidity, but we seem determined to remember it that way. It’s an issue of liability, and the allowable lengths of capitalism, and even of the way in which our society is incredibly dangerous for and punitive towards the uninsured, but it was not and is not a frivolous suit. Please check your assumptions and do your research before you turn a burn victim’s suffering into a throwaway punchline.

jesus, i actually didn’t know about any of this, thanks for clearing that up

Liebeck v. McDonald’s Restaurants at the American Museum of Tort Law

The McDonald’s Hot Coffee Case: Know the Facts at Consumer Attorneys of California

World realises Americans don’t use egg cups, loses its collective mind

masteroftherandomreblog:

tartapplesauce:

alex51324:

iwilltrytobereasonable:

bnprime:

bogleech:

As an American I was literally going to ask the other day if anybody in the world DID use egg cups because I’ve only seen them in one scene of an episode of the Flintstones and one reference to them in a book even older than that. I had no idea this wasteful and senseless sounding item was still common on our planet.

Why the hell do you need a thing specifically to eat an egg out of??? You peel the shell off and put the egg in your mouth. Two bites at most.

if you have an egg cup, you’re less likely to spill the yolk,
since you don’t need to peel it all in one go with no mistakes. 
and if you have an egg in an egg cup, with its top off
you can add condiments to the yolk (salt) to make it even yummier
or dip bits of toast in there. 

The answer is: Americans don’t eat soft boiled eggs. The closest we ever get is eggs easy over. (I think sunny side up cooks the yolks more.)

If we boil our eggs, the yolk gets cooked too.

I learned through this discussion that Brits sometimes call soft-boiled eggs “dippy eggs,” which in (my region of the) US means a fried egg with a soft yolk, aka Sunny Side Up or Over Easy.  So my answer is very similar to iwilltrytobereasonable’s:  we don’t use egg cups because we cook our dippy eggs without the shell and eat them on a plate.  

HOW DO YOU NOT EAT EVEN A HARD-BOILED EGG WITHOUT AN EGG-CUP?

Okay, yes, if you’re making a salad, you peel the hard-boiled egg and cut it up.  But for breakfast, with toast and tea, you eat it out of an egg-cup with a spoon like a normal civilised human and not shove it in your mouth like a caveman!

Even egg-spoons have gone the way of the dodo (people use ordinary teaspoons now), so I suppose I should not be surprised at what Americans do.

Boiling water on the cooker, making tea in the microwave, and now this - how did you lot get to be a world power?

The egg also wont roll over the whole plate on the ground when it sits in a tiny egg holder. I mean, ever tried to carry an egg on a plate when your hands are full? I can almost hear the egg singing “They see me rollin’ they hatin’” The worst part is when you like your egg yolk soft and then when the egg will fall you need to clean it up before your dog can eat it. It also looks nicer

I usually just put the whole soft-boiled egg on toast and cut it up, rather than dipping pieces of toast in, but that’s mostly because don’t know where the hell any of our eggs cups are because I’m really bad at getting soft-boiled eggs right and I hate hard-boiled eggs, so I don’t make them very often.

I wouldn’t go and buy one, I guess if I found one I would use it.

4219 5172 500

parskis:

ngl this has probably been my favorite headline of today

vaspider:

jenroses:

languages-georg:

So I used to have a Russian friend who had a pretty thick accent and like a lot of Russians tended to eschew articles. She would say things like “Get in car.” And stuff.

Well one day this asshole who had been kind of tagging along with us asks her why she talks like that because it makes her sound dumb and I still remember her response word for word.

“Me? Dumb? Maybe in America you have to say get in THE car because you are so stupid that people might just get in random car, but in Russia we don’t need to say that. We just fucking know because we are not stupid.”

The thing is that in colloquial speech a lot of people lose like 97% of an article anyway. You know, how, “Get into the car” becomes “get in’eh car, losing a whole bunch of consonant sounds along the way. If I’m talking fast to my kids, I might say, “’m go-n’a store” to convey, “I am going to the store” because the vast majority of those noises are inessential to meaning. 

There’s times and places where correcting people’s grammar is appropriate, and casual conversation is almost never one of them. Speaking to small children? Yes. Gently repeat back the correct version of what they’re trying to say as a meaning check and to reinforce the correct sounds. (”Me wanty loodles!” “‘I want noodles?”)

With language learners who are not children, if you are close enough and you know they are actively working at improving language skills, you can ask, “Do you want me to help you with correct grammar when I hear something off?” And again, the correction is “Get in car” “Get in the car?” and not mocking. 

Mocking people’s accents/dysfluencies is a REALLY good way to create language anxiety in anyone. Don’t be that asshole.  

Source: Fowl Language

One of the things I’ve realized my spouse and I both do, and only when talking to each other, is we say “Time is it?”

We fucking know that ‘what’ goes in that sentence, but like, “Time’s’it?” covers it in two syllables. We know what is meant. 

Efficient speech, damnit.

4220 81e0 500

bestfunny:

They told us there was no God but… God was here the whole time

4221 9550 500

politicalprof:

Ta-Nehisi Coates being smart.

4222 2e3b

thecaptainoutoftime:

Steves on a Plane

moist4cake:

passionpeachy:

paper-mario-wiki:

u ever think about how ur skeleton is always wet

this post ruined my life

Except when you die and your skeleton becomes….
Bone dry.

dont-expect-it-to-tango:

berlynn-wohl:

ismenetruth:

berlynn-wohl:

arandomguy163:

Its like the 80’s all over again, a remorseless madwoman runs the UK, a maniacal bastard runs the US, the world’s on the brink of nuclear war and all I want to do is listen to synthpop

star wars, ghostbusters, and mad max all pass the bechdel test now tho

that helps with the deja vu but tragically not the crushing fear of nuclear apocalypse

try the synthpop again

Reblogging for the last comment

4224 ffa8 500

millennial-review:

I just wanna respond to this because you won’t let me reblog it I took a nice little screenshot.

Impeachment isn’t punishment for a crime, it can be, but it’s also a mechanism for congress to remove a president for political actions that aren’t necessarily breaking the law. There doesn’t have to be any “real crime” committed. As far as I can tell working with Russians to disrupt our election isn’t NECESSARILY a crime (depends on how you read a lot of things so there are definitely lawyers on both sides of the issue). It might not be a crime to meet with Russians, but it’s definitely a political action that is totally impeachable.

Donald Trump could legitimately be impeached right now. That’s not just my opinion. That’s not just some person with a decent sized blog spouting off. There are real legal experts like Zephyr Teachout who view emoluments issues as very legitimate challenges to Donald Trump. George W. Bush’s chief ethics lawyer has thrown around the “I” word. Democratic politicians have as well, and that’s largely without bringing the Russia stuff into it all.There are also lawyers who have said no crime has been committed and this is all overblown, but the fact that there is even a debate at all is telling.

The fact is, we don’t have to wait for something real to happen for impeachment to become a reality. Republicans just need to decide politically they want to impeach or Democrats need to take control of congress. If Democrats controlled the House and the Senate I guarantee you there would be real impeachment hearings already. It could end up being like when Bill Clinton was impeached and in the end nothing real happens and it was literally years of dirty politics. It could also end with a new president.

The point though is that no matter how impeachment ends, we’re legitimately at the point where that’s an option. Whether Republicans ever take it there or not is another matter entirely, but the fact that there aren’t too many Republican members of congress defending Donald trump Jr. might be telling.

July 13 2017

novemberhush:

geckogirl89:

swietlik:

Do you still remember early mcdanno days, when Steve was so obsessed with Danny, like, 

  • making him work with him 
  • driving his car from day one 
  • checking out his lunch
  • crushing his apartment all the time
  • draggin him around everywhere
  • looking at him like he’s some freaking art piece
  • letting him crush on the couch and suggesting him to stay 
  • giving him gifts
  • being so genuinely happy when Danny showed his affection towards him 
  • ‘bookem danno’ business 
  • hearty eyes

I just love how they started and how Steve was at this point in his life that he didn’t had anything to hold on to and there he came, Danny, his smol partner in crime, best thing that happend to him. Started so rough, but it brought them back to life. They brought the love, healed each other, in their crazy way, but still and nobody ever will convice me that they are not meant to be. 

Remember the pilot when Steve, minutes after meeting Danny, told the governor, while looking right at him, that he found something that changed his mind? How at the end of the pilot he was like, “oh, here’s a voucher to stay for three days at a really nice hotel with your daughter (who I haven’t even met yet)” with bonus heart eyes. How Steve was basically like this towards Danny from the get go:

It was love at first sight, man.

And this is why they nicknamed him Smooth Dog…

July 12 2017

5212 5ed5

tissueoflies:

McDanno in sync

1000diodesinatrenchcoat:

truefactsaboutlies:

one of the best tips for Real Life that I’ve ever picked up is to always highball your estimate whenever someone asks you “when can you get this done by” by about 25% (if you can get away with it). that way, if it ends up being harder than you thought, you’ve got extra time to figure things out and if you were right about how much time it takes then you get to look like an absolute genius instead of just a simply competent person.

what you may not have realized is that I learned this crucial piece of life advice from an episode of Star Trek where Scotty is telling Geordi that whenever he told Kirk something on the Enterprise was at full capacity, it was always only ever a notch or so below full capacity so that Scotty looked like the god of all engineers when he was able to magically hack the warp drive to run a little beyond what he’d told everyone else was “full capacity” and honestly that one throwaway gag from Star Trek has changed my life.

I was about to start nerding about that exact moment before I scrolled down

shotgunbattleax:

greeneyedfeelsmonster:

so apparently when jrr tolkien was a professor on the first day of class he’d wait until his students were in the lecture hall and seated and starting to wonder whether they were all in the wrong room before throwing open the doors at the back of the hall and striding down the aisle reciting the first 50 lines of beowulf in old english so moral of the story if you don’t know anything about jrr tolkien aside from lotr you are missing out my friend

according to diana wynne jones who had a class taught by him, he was actually a very good teacher but he refused to teach. He would plant his nose into the black board and start making intricate charts about plot and character and how it pertained to classical literature, but he was 80% in his head and was still trying to get lord of the rings down so he saw teaching as an obstacle between him and writing. He mumbled, constantly.

This might be controversial on Tumblr, but I’ma say it.

eshusplayground:

I am no longer giving media creators ally cookies just for saying a character is or could be bisexual while retaining plausible deniability in the media itself.

I need to see it in the source material.

If these people want ally cookies, I want genuine bisexual representation. I want these characters’ attractions to and/or relationships with two or more genders to be portrayed as fully legitimate.

And I don’t mean in a fetishistic, “Aw yeah! Threesome!” kinda of way, either.

3096 5dbf

lareinecersei:

See you on the other side.
Always.

Anne Bonny Appreciation Week   

Day 3 - Favorite Relationship - Anne/Jack - Rackhanne

Older posts are this way If this message doesn't go away, click anywhere on the page to continue loading posts.
Could not load more posts
Maybe Soup is currently being updated? I'll try again automatically in a few seconds...
Just a second, loading more posts...
You've reached the end.

Don't be the product, buy the product!

Schweinderl