🐪  Hump Day Memes

🎂  Happy Birthday Memes

🍁  La Croix Meme

🥺  Loss Memes

🎓  School Memes

🤔  Roll Safe Meme

heels Memes

Missuniverse
Missuniverse
Legging
Legging
Plank
Plank
Knee
Knee
Socks
Socks
And
And
i love him
i love him
knees
knees
legs
legs
wear
wear 

    
                    

                

            
        
    

    
    
    






            

            
            

                

                    
                

                

                    
                    
                    

                        


	


    🔥 Popular | Latest






    

    
    
    

        

            








        

    

    
    

        

            








        

    

    
    

        

            









    

        
        
        
        
        
        
        
    

    

        legitimatelala:
a-snarling-slytherin:

satanstrousers:

sweaterkittensahoy:


leaper182:


jenovaii:


littlekiwi37-archive:


nicole-coenen:
Women Self Defense in 1947

I’m not sure what’s the best part of this video: the fact that she’s in heels, the fact that she does the whole thing looking like she don’t give a fuck, that chick in the back just exercising and enjoying the show, or the fact that both men and women are observing this and the girls are laughing and the guys look concerned/pensive as fuck as they watch all their tactics get shut down like nothing is even happening.


… msties is it just me or is this familiar?


Some of these are moves I haven’t seen before.


Some of this looks similar to the self defense I learned in a course three or four years ago. It’s definitely got some judo in it (arm bars, throws, fighting to and from the ground). I love this lady. She is rad. I feel like she, much like the rad lady I had as my self defense teacher, would also warn the women that if they don’t think they can gouge out someone’s eyes, don’t start trying because you’ll attack better with something you can follow through on.


crimelords I’m sorry I couldn’t not reblog this for you


The cheerful music makes it even better 



Exactly the music sets it off
: legitimatelala:
a-snarling-slytherin:

satanstrousers:

sweaterkittensahoy:


leaper182:


jenovaii:


littlekiwi37-archive:


nicole-coenen:
Women Self Defense in 1947

I’m not sure what’s the best part of this video: the fact that she’s in heels, the fact that she does the whole thing looking like she don’t give a fuck, that chick in the back just exercising and enjoying the show, or the fact that both men and women are observing this and the girls are laughing and the guys look concerned/pensive as fuck as they watch all their tactics get shut down like nothing is even happening.


… msties is it just me or is this familiar?


Some of these are moves I haven’t seen before.


Some of this looks similar to the self defense I learned in a course three or four years ago. It’s definitely got some judo in it (arm bars, throws, fighting to and from the ground). I love this lady. She is rad. I feel like she, much like the rad lady I had as my self defense teacher, would also warn the women that if they don’t think they can gouge out someone’s eyes, don’t start trying because you’ll attack better with something you can follow through on.


crimelords I’m sorry I couldn’t not reblog this for you


The cheerful music makes it even better 



Exactly the music sets it off

        

            
            

                
                
                    legitimatelala:
a-snarling-slytherin:

satanstrousers:

sweaterkittensahoy:


leaper182:


jenovaii:


littlekiwi37-archive:


nicole-coenen:
Women Self Defense in 1947

I’m not sure what’s the best part of this video: the fact that she’s in heels, the fact that she does the whole thing looking like she don’t give a fuck, that chick in the back just exercising and enjoying the show, or the fact that both men and women are observing this and the girls are laughing and the guys look concerned/pensive as fuck as they watch all their tactics get shut down like nothing is even happening.


… msties is it just me or is this familiar?


Some of these are moves I haven’t seen before.


Some of this looks similar to the self defense I learned in a course three or four years ago. It’s definitely got some judo in it (arm bars, throws, fighting to and from the ground). I love this lady. She is rad. I feel like she, much like the rad lady I had as my self defense teacher, would also warn the women that if they don’t think they can gouge out someone’s eyes, don’t start trying because you’ll attack better with something you can follow through on.


crimelords I’m sorry I couldn’t not reblog this for you


The cheerful music makes it even better 



Exactly the music sets it off
: legitimatelala:
a-snarling-slytherin:

satanstrousers:

sweaterkittensahoy:


leaper182:


jenovaii:


littlekiwi37-archive:


nicole-coenen:
Women Self Defense in 1947

I’m not sure what’s the best part of this video: the fact that she’s in heels, the fact that she does the whole thing looking like she don’t give a fuck, that chick in the back just exercising and enjoying the show, or the fact that both men and women are observing this and the girls are laughing and the guys look concerned/pensive as fuck as they watch all their tactics get shut down like nothing is even happening.


… msties is it just me or is this familiar?


Some of these are moves I haven’t seen before.


Some of this looks similar to the self defense I learned in a course three or four years ago. It’s definitely got some judo in it (arm bars, throws, fighting to and from the ground). I love this lady. She is rad. I feel like she, much like the rad lady I had as my self defense teacher, would also warn the women that if they don’t think they can gouge out someone’s eyes, don’t start trying because you’ll attack better with something you can follow through on.


crimelords I’m sorry I couldn’t not reblog this for you


The cheerful music makes it even better 



Exactly the music sets it off

                    
                    

                    
                
            

            
            
        

    

    

        
Save

    



        

    

    
    

        

            








        

    

    
    

        

            








        

    

    
    

        

            








        

    

    
    

        

            









    

        
        
        
        
        
        
        
    

    

        goat-yells-at-everything:
nickyvmlp:


segasister:


nickyvmlp:

goat-yells-at-everything:


cannibalgurlcreations-blog:

This is for those of you saying “We only have so many cases, why are we shutting stuff down?” It’s so it doesn’t do anymore growing so you stay at “we only have so many cases”. It’s also so you don’t spread it to grandma, grandpa, mom, dad, Uncle Bob with diabetes, your pregnant cousin Jill, etc.

Now go wash your hands and follow the last two hashtag. You follow it, the other hashtags will lead to the first 4 happening. 

#dontkillgrandpa #dontkillgranma #dontkillunclebob #dontkilljillandbaby #quitwhining #quitbeingaselfishprickhttps://www.instagram.com/p/B917299FaDC8eS04vGFUId0N-NaQ1Hk6JXXs6c0/?igshid=1a5wx8z2b3qkq

Note: These are CONFIRMED cases from testing. These are not the actual numbers because;
a) many people (especially those in late 20s to mid 30s) are a-symptomatic which means you can be infected with the virus and NOT KNOW IT because YOU DONT GET SICK but you can still spread it to others!
b) many people will have mild symptoms and just treat themselves at home (which is absolutely what you SHOULD be doing. you only need to go to the ER if you are having serious issues) and so are not being tested. Though, a lot of these people are just assuming they have a cold or allergies and still going out.
THATS why they’re shutting things down. Its to keep people from congregating in closed spaces where the virus can move from person to person easily.
So wash your hands, stay home, and just cool your heels for now.



Dang, why’s Louisiana taking it so hard?

NY is taking it harder than everyone else though



Yea but were tiny down here.



New Orleans is a major international port and tourism mecha, though. Small population but high tourism so a lot of activity and movement to pass it around.

And here’s a chart comparing the death rates to the seasonal flu so if y’all could shut the absolute fuck up about them basically being the same thing that would be great. Remember we have reliable vaccine and treatment for the seasonal flu. This is a novel coronavirus. Novel in this instance means new. We are not nearly as equipped to deal with it as we are with the flu and it’s proving to be far more deadly already.: goat-yells-at-everything:
nickyvmlp:


segasister:


nickyvmlp:

goat-yells-at-everything:


cannibalgurlcreations-blog:

This is for those of you saying “We only have so many cases, why are we shutting stuff down?” It’s so it doesn’t do anymore growing so you stay at “we only have so many cases”. It’s also so you don’t spread it to grandma, grandpa, mom, dad, Uncle Bob with diabetes, your pregnant cousin Jill, etc.

Now go wash your hands and follow the last two hashtag. You follow it, the other hashtags will lead to the first 4 happening. 

#dontkillgrandpa #dontkillgranma #dontkillunclebob #dontkilljillandbaby #quitwhining #quitbeingaselfishprickhttps://www.instagram.com/p/B917299FaDC8eS04vGFUId0N-NaQ1Hk6JXXs6c0/?igshid=1a5wx8z2b3qkq

Note: These are CONFIRMED cases from testing. These are not the actual numbers because;
a) many people (especially those in late 20s to mid 30s) are a-symptomatic which means you can be infected with the virus and NOT KNOW IT because YOU DONT GET SICK but you can still spread it to others!
b) many people will have mild symptoms and just treat themselves at home (which is absolutely what you SHOULD be doing. you only need to go to the ER if you are having serious issues) and so are not being tested. Though, a lot of these people are just assuming they have a cold or allergies and still going out.
THATS why they’re shutting things down. Its to keep people from congregating in closed spaces where the virus can move from person to person easily.
So wash your hands, stay home, and just cool your heels for now.



Dang, why’s Louisiana taking it so hard?

NY is taking it harder than everyone else though



Yea but were tiny down here.



New Orleans is a major international port and tourism mecha, though. Small population but high tourism so a lot of activity and movement to pass it around.

And here’s a chart comparing the death rates to the seasonal flu so if y’all could shut the absolute fuck up about them basically being the same thing that would be great. Remember we have reliable vaccine and treatment for the seasonal flu. This is a novel coronavirus. Novel in this instance means new. We are not nearly as equipped to deal with it as we are with the flu and it’s proving to be far more deadly already.
        

            
            

                
                
                    goat-yells-at-everything:
nickyvmlp:


segasister:


nickyvmlp:

goat-yells-at-everything:


cannibalgurlcreations-blog:

This is for those of you saying “We only have so many cases, why are we shutting stuff down?” It’s so it doesn’t do anymore growing so you stay at “we only have so many cases”. It’s also so you don’t spread it to grandma, grandpa, mom, dad, Uncle Bob with diabetes, your pregnant cousin Jill, etc.

Now go wash your hands and follow the last two hashtag. You follow it, the other hashtags will lead to the first 4 happening. 

#dontkillgrandpa #dontkillgranma #dontkillunclebob #dontkilljillandbaby #quitwhining #quitbeingaselfishprickhttps://www.instagram.com/p/B917299FaDC8eS04vGFUId0N-NaQ1Hk6JXXs6c0/?igshid=1a5wx8z2b3qkq

Note: These are CONFIRMED cases from testing. These are not the actual numbers because;
a) many people (especially those in late 20s to mid 30s) are a-symptomatic which means you can be infected with the virus and NOT KNOW IT because YOU DONT GET SICK but you can still spread it to others!
b) many people will have mild symptoms and just treat themselves at home (which is absolutely what you SHOULD be doing. you only need to go to the ER if you are having serious issues) and so are not being tested. Though, a lot of these people are just assuming they have a cold or allergies and still going out.
THATS why they’re shutting things down. Its to keep people from congregating in closed spaces where the virus can move from person to person easily.
So wash your hands, stay home, and just cool your heels for now.



Dang, why’s Louisiana taking it so hard?

NY is taking it harder than everyone else though



Yea but were tiny down here.



New Orleans is a major international port and tourism mecha, though. Small population but high tourism so a lot of activity and movement to pass it around.

And here’s a chart comparing the death rates to the seasonal flu so if y’all could shut the absolute fuck up about them basically being the same thing that would be great. Remember we have reliable vaccine and treatment for the seasonal flu. This is a novel coronavirus. Novel in this instance means new. We are not nearly as equipped to deal with it as we are with the flu and it’s proving to be far more deadly already.: goat-yells-at-everything:
nickyvmlp:


segasister:


nickyvmlp:

goat-yells-at-everything:


cannibalgurlcreations-blog:

This is for those of you saying “We only have so many cases, why are we shutting stuff down?” It’s so it doesn’t do anymore growing so you stay at “we only have so many cases”. It’s also so you don’t spread it to grandma, grandpa, mom, dad, Uncle Bob with diabetes, your pregnant cousin Jill, etc.

Now go wash your hands and follow the last two hashtag. You follow it, the other hashtags will lead to the first 4 happening. 

#dontkillgrandpa #dontkillgranma #dontkillunclebob #dontkilljillandbaby #quitwhining #quitbeingaselfishprickhttps://www.instagram.com/p/B917299FaDC8eS04vGFUId0N-NaQ1Hk6JXXs6c0/?igshid=1a5wx8z2b3qkq

Note: These are CONFIRMED cases from testing. These are not the actual numbers because;
a) many people (especially those in late 20s to mid 30s) are a-symptomatic which means you can be infected with the virus and NOT KNOW IT because YOU DONT GET SICK but you can still spread it to others!
b) many people will have mild symptoms and just treat themselves at home (which is absolutely what you SHOULD be doing. you only need to go to the ER if you are having serious issues) and so are not being tested. Though, a lot of these people are just assuming they have a cold or allergies and still going out.
THATS why they’re shutting things down. Its to keep people from congregating in closed spaces where the virus can move from person to person easily.
So wash your hands, stay home, and just cool your heels for now.



Dang, why’s Louisiana taking it so hard?

NY is taking it harder than everyone else though



Yea but were tiny down here.



New Orleans is a major international port and tourism mecha, though. Small population but high tourism so a lot of activity and movement to pass it around.

And here’s a chart comparing the death rates to the seasonal flu so if y’all could shut the absolute fuck up about them basically being the same thing that would be great. Remember we have reliable vaccine and treatment for the seasonal flu. This is a novel coronavirus. Novel in this instance means new. We are not nearly as equipped to deal with it as we are with the flu and it’s proving to be far more deadly already.
                    
                
            

            
            
        

    

    

        
Save

    



        

    

    
    

        

            









    

        
        
        
        
        
        
        
    

    

        a-snarling-slytherin:

satanstrousers:

sweaterkittensahoy:


leaper182:


jenovaii:


littlekiwi37-archive:


nicole-coenen:
Women Self Defense in 1947

I’m not sure what’s the best part of this video: the fact that she’s in heels, the fact that she does the whole thing looking like she don’t give a fuck, that chick in the back just exercising and enjoying the show, or the fact that both men and women are observing this and the girls are laughing and the guys look concerned/pensive as fuck as they watch all their tactics get shut down like nothing is even happening.


… msties is it just me or is this familiar?


Some of these are moves I haven’t seen before.


Some of this looks similar to the self defense I learned in a course three or four years ago. It’s definitely got some judo in it (arm bars, throws, fighting to and from the ground). I love this lady. She is rad. I feel like she, much like the rad lady I had as my self defense teacher, would also warn the women that if they don’t think they can gouge out someone’s eyes, don’t start trying because you’ll attack better with something you can follow through on.


crimelords I’m sorry I couldn’t not reblog this for you


The cheerful music makes it even better 
: a-snarling-slytherin:

satanstrousers:

sweaterkittensahoy:


leaper182:


jenovaii:


littlekiwi37-archive:


nicole-coenen:
Women Self Defense in 1947

I’m not sure what’s the best part of this video: the fact that she’s in heels, the fact that she does the whole thing looking like she don’t give a fuck, that chick in the back just exercising and enjoying the show, or the fact that both men and women are observing this and the girls are laughing and the guys look concerned/pensive as fuck as they watch all their tactics get shut down like nothing is even happening.


… msties is it just me or is this familiar?


Some of these are moves I haven’t seen before.


Some of this looks similar to the self defense I learned in a course three or four years ago. It’s definitely got some judo in it (arm bars, throws, fighting to and from the ground). I love this lady. She is rad. I feel like she, much like the rad lady I had as my self defense teacher, would also warn the women that if they don’t think they can gouge out someone’s eyes, don’t start trying because you’ll attack better with something you can follow through on.


crimelords I’m sorry I couldn’t not reblog this for you


The cheerful music makes it even better 

        

            
            

                
                
                    a-snarling-slytherin:

satanstrousers:

sweaterkittensahoy:


leaper182:


jenovaii:


littlekiwi37-archive:


nicole-coenen:
Women Self Defense in 1947

I’m not sure what’s the best part of this video: the fact that she’s in heels, the fact that she does the whole thing looking like she don’t give a fuck, that chick in the back just exercising and enjoying the show, or the fact that both men and women are observing this and the girls are laughing and the guys look concerned/pensive as fuck as they watch all their tactics get shut down like nothing is even happening.


… msties is it just me or is this familiar?


Some of these are moves I haven’t seen before.


Some of this looks similar to the self defense I learned in a course three or four years ago. It’s definitely got some judo in it (arm bars, throws, fighting to and from the ground). I love this lady. She is rad. I feel like she, much like the rad lady I had as my self defense teacher, would also warn the women that if they don’t think they can gouge out someone’s eyes, don’t start trying because you’ll attack better with something you can follow through on.


crimelords I’m sorry I couldn’t not reblog this for you


The cheerful music makes it even better 
: a-snarling-slytherin:

satanstrousers:

sweaterkittensahoy:


leaper182:


jenovaii:


littlekiwi37-archive:


nicole-coenen:
Women Self Defense in 1947

I’m not sure what’s the best part of this video: the fact that she’s in heels, the fact that she does the whole thing looking like she don’t give a fuck, that chick in the back just exercising and enjoying the show, or the fact that both men and women are observing this and the girls are laughing and the guys look concerned/pensive as fuck as they watch all their tactics get shut down like nothing is even happening.


… msties is it just me or is this familiar?


Some of these are moves I haven’t seen before.


Some of this looks similar to the self defense I learned in a course three or four years ago. It’s definitely got some judo in it (arm bars, throws, fighting to and from the ground). I love this lady. She is rad. I feel like she, much like the rad lady I had as my self defense teacher, would also warn the women that if they don’t think they can gouge out someone’s eyes, don’t start trying because you’ll attack better with something you can follow through on.


crimelords I’m sorry I couldn’t not reblog this for you


The cheerful music makes it even better 

                    
                    

                    
                
            

            
            
        

    

    

        
Save

    



        

    

    
    

        

            








        

    

    
    

        

            








        

    

    
    

        

            









    

        
        
        
        
        
        
        
    

    

        oatscarwilde:

blackstar:

blackstar:
once every few weeks i remember exactly how bad the narrator of fight club wanted tyler durden to raw him and wake up in a cold sweat haunted by the hordes of straight dudes who thought that this character was heterosexual
straight dudes: boy, fight club sure does speak to our specific, heterosexual form of masculinity! what a classic!
fight club’s actual narrator: i am in love with a man

Slammed In the Ass By The Alternate Personality I Created to Vent My Frustration With Consumer Culture and My Confused Sense of Masculinity by Chuck Tingle
: "Don't worry," Tyler says. "The clear layer is glycerin. You can mix the
 glycerin back in when you make soap. Or, you can skim the glycerin off."
 Tyler licks his lips, and turns my hands palm-down on his thigh, on the
 gummy flannel lap of his bathrobe...
 "You can mix the glycerin with nitric acid to make nitroglycerin," Tylen
 says
 I breathe with my mouth open and say, nitroglycerin.
 Tyler licks his lips wet and shining and kisses the back of my hand.
 "You can mix the nitroglycerin with sodium nitrate and sawdust to make
 dynamite," Tyler says.
 The kiss shines wet on the back of my white hand.
 Dynamite, I say, and sit back on my heels.
oatscarwilde:

blackstar:

blackstar:
once every few weeks i remember exactly how bad the narrator of fight club wanted tyler durden to raw him and wake up in a cold sweat haunted by the hordes of straight dudes who thought that this character was heterosexual
straight dudes: boy, fight club sure does speak to our specific, heterosexual form of masculinity! what a classic!
fight club’s actual narrator: i am in love with a man

Slammed In the Ass By The Alternate Personality I Created to Vent My Frustration With Consumer Culture and My Confused Sense of Masculinity by Chuck Tingle

        

            
            

                
                
                    oatscarwilde:

blackstar:

blackstar:
once every few weeks i remember exactly how bad the narrator of fight club wanted tyler durden to raw him and wake up in a cold sweat haunted by the hordes of straight dudes who thought that this character was heterosexual
straight dudes: boy, fight club sure does speak to our specific, heterosexual form of masculinity! what a classic!
fight club’s actual narrator: i am in love with a man

Slammed In the Ass By The Alternate Personality I Created to Vent My Frustration With Consumer Culture and My Confused Sense of Masculinity by Chuck Tingle
: "Don't worry," Tyler says. "The clear layer is glycerin. You can mix the
 glycerin back in when you make soap. Or, you can skim the glycerin off."
 Tyler licks his lips, and turns my hands palm-down on his thigh, on the
 gummy flannel lap of his bathrobe...
 "You can mix the glycerin with nitric acid to make nitroglycerin," Tylen
 says
 I breathe with my mouth open and say, nitroglycerin.
 Tyler licks his lips wet and shining and kisses the back of my hand.
 "You can mix the nitroglycerin with sodium nitrate and sawdust to make
 dynamite," Tyler says.
 The kiss shines wet on the back of my white hand.
 Dynamite, I say, and sit back on my heels.
oatscarwilde:

blackstar:

blackstar:
once every few weeks i remember exactly how bad the narrator of fight club wanted tyler durden to raw him and wake up in a cold sweat haunted by the hordes of straight dudes who thought that this character was heterosexual
straight dudes: boy, fight club sure does speak to our specific, heterosexual form of masculinity! what a classic!
fight club’s actual narrator: i am in love with a man

Slammed In the Ass By The Alternate Personality I Created to Vent My Frustration With Consumer Culture and My Confused Sense of Masculinity by Chuck Tingle

                    
                
            

            
            
        

    

    

        
Save

    



        

    

    
    

        

            








        

    

    
    

        

            








        

    

    
    

        

            








        

    

    
    

        

            








        

    

    
    

        

            








        

    

    
    

        

            








        

    

    
    

        

            








        

    

    
    

        

            








        

    

    
    

        

            








        

    

    
    

        

            








        

    

    
    

        

            









    

        
        
        
        
        
        
        
    

    

        mintedpotters:

oldred100:


eschergirls:

olgaulanova:

americanninjax:

isaia:

mybodythehandgrenade:

brinconvenient:

gailsimone:

chrishaley:

Done and done.
(Not pictured: “Butt window”, but trust me, it’s there.)

You have no idea how much this cheered me up just now.

I for one, think this is a major improvement. Look how empowered he is! And it’s relevant to the character as someone who is powered by the sun, he’d want to maximize the amount of sunlight he receives, right? It’s not like it makes sense for him to cover himself from chin to toe. In fact, I think some strappy sandals might be an improvement.

strappy high heeled sandals would increase his height making him closer to the sun. and if wonderwoman can fight in heels it can’t be that hard, right?

SO EMPOWERING

Felt a dire need to contribute to the hilarity.

Now I can tell right away he’s a strong male character. Whew! No more confusion.


+1 for him doing the boobs and butt pose too.

glad you covered up his arms though, can’t have him looking too bare.


What an Empowered Male Character!! I feel so inspired!!
: Following
 @GailSimone
 I am giving Superman a boob window, a
 belly window, and a butt window. I like
 windows!
 Reply t. Retweet ★ Favorited
 More
 RETWEETS
 FAVORITES
 17
 40
 4:46 AM-8 May 2014

 CH
mintedpotters:

oldred100:


eschergirls:

olgaulanova:

americanninjax:

isaia:

mybodythehandgrenade:

brinconvenient:

gailsimone:

chrishaley:

Done and done.
(Not pictured: “Butt window”, but trust me, it’s there.)

You have no idea how much this cheered me up just now.

I for one, think this is a major improvement. Look how empowered he is! And it’s relevant to the character as someone who is powered by the sun, he’d want to maximize the amount of sunlight he receives, right? It’s not like it makes sense for him to cover himself from chin to toe. In fact, I think some strappy sandals might be an improvement.

strappy high heeled sandals would increase his height making him closer to the sun. and if wonderwoman can fight in heels it can’t be that hard, right?

SO EMPOWERING

Felt a dire need to contribute to the hilarity.

Now I can tell right away he’s a strong male character. Whew! No more confusion.


+1 for him doing the boobs and butt pose too.

glad you covered up his arms though, can’t have him looking too bare.


What an Empowered Male Character!! I feel so inspired!!

        

            
            

                
                
                    mintedpotters:

oldred100:


eschergirls:

olgaulanova:

americanninjax:

isaia:

mybodythehandgrenade:

brinconvenient:

gailsimone:

chrishaley:

Done and done.
(Not pictured: “Butt window”, but trust me, it’s there.)

You have no idea how much this cheered me up just now.

I for one, think this is a major improvement. Look how empowered he is! And it’s relevant to the character as someone who is powered by the sun, he’d want to maximize the amount of sunlight he receives, right? It’s not like it makes sense for him to cover himself from chin to toe. In fact, I think some strappy sandals might be an improvement.

strappy high heeled sandals would increase his height making him closer to the sun. and if wonderwoman can fight in heels it can’t be that hard, right?

SO EMPOWERING

Felt a dire need to contribute to the hilarity.

Now I can tell right away he’s a strong male character. Whew! No more confusion.


+1 for him doing the boobs and butt pose too.

glad you covered up his arms though, can’t have him looking too bare.


What an Empowered Male Character!! I feel so inspired!!
: Following
 @GailSimone
 I am giving Superman a boob window, a
 belly window, and a butt window. I like
 windows!
 Reply t. Retweet ★ Favorited
 More
 RETWEETS
 FAVORITES
 17
 40
 4:46 AM-8 May 2014

 CH
mintedpotters:

oldred100:


eschergirls:

olgaulanova:

americanninjax:

isaia:

mybodythehandgrenade:

brinconvenient:

gailsimone:

chrishaley:

Done and done.
(Not pictured: “Butt window”, but trust me, it’s there.)

You have no idea how much this cheered me up just now.

I for one, think this is a major improvement. Look how empowered he is! And it’s relevant to the character as someone who is powered by the sun, he’d want to maximize the amount of sunlight he receives, right? It’s not like it makes sense for him to cover himself from chin to toe. In fact, I think some strappy sandals might be an improvement.

strappy high heeled sandals would increase his height making him closer to the sun. and if wonderwoman can fight in heels it can’t be that hard, right?

SO EMPOWERING

Felt a dire need to contribute to the hilarity.

Now I can tell right away he’s a strong male character. Whew! No more confusion.


+1 for him doing the boobs and butt pose too.

glad you covered up his arms though, can’t have him looking too bare.


What an Empowered Male Character!! I feel so inspired!!

                    
                
            

            
            
        

    

    

        
Save

    



        

    

    
    

        

            









    

        
        
        
        
        
        
        
    

    

        callmeblake:
mcrmyhollywoodscans:
JUNE 2004 - SKRATCH
Photo Credit: Derrick Santini
: My Chemical Romace
 ..usually burn...
 My Chemical Romance are goniuses. I will say it go) on any givan "roality TV show, which
 again: geniuses! They wrote this catchy song about one would it be and why?
 not being okay. Can you imagine anything striking a FRANK: GROWING UP GOTTI, cause I'm a quar-
 deeper chord with the key high-school-aged record- ter Polish and three-quarters mobster.
 buying demographic? I swear, they must be managed
 by Steve Forbes or something. I'm not dissin'-I'm SKRATCH: Does anyone in the band have
 just jealous! Do you realize how many underage an obnoxious girlfriend? What makes her
 girls these guys must have swarming around their so lame?
 tour bus?! It boggles the mind. Anyway, I had a really FRANK: What, are you kidding me? You're gonna
 great e-mail exchange with guitarist Frank Lero. He's get me into trouble with this one. Fine: Mikey's girl-
 got a great sense of humor and he believes in evolu- friend. Ha ha, l'm callin' you out, Jeanna bait! Yeah,
 tion-so, as far as l'm concerned, he deserves to live that's right-I went there.
 a happy, normal life. Judge for yourself, though.
 SKRATCH: If you had to wear either high
 SKRATCH: Late at night when you think heels or a bra on a regular basis, which
 of the Warped Tour, what do you think of? would you pick, and why?
 FRANK: The lack of showering, rad Porta-Potties, FRANK: Dang. Neither, really. I have bad ankles,
 and friendship.
 so the heels are not even a question; and bras just
 seem like a hassle,
 SKRATCH: You guys are kinda pale.
 Are you worried about sunburn on the SKRATCH: Do you believe in evolution?
 Warped Tour? What will you do to prevent FRANK: Yes, because it happened. Next
 it? Or are you looking for a little color?
 FRANK: Um, I don't know It's really not something SKRATCH: If you killed someone, where
 I'm too concerned about...butI do usually burn, would you hide the body? Do you think
 especially on my face, and that's never any fun...so you'd get away with it?
 maybe I should come up with some sort of a plan.
 FRANK: I would hide the body in a voting booth.
 Apparently, intelligent people haven't stepped foot
 in those things for years.
 SKRATCH:I love the way your music video
 looks like a film trailer. If they were to ac-
 tually make the film being "advertised,"
 what would the plot be? What character And that way, if Ashcroft is running for any sort of
 office, the body can do a little last-minute campaign
 FRANK: There would be absolutely no plot whatso- ing! Ha ha ha. Oh, man, I'm fucking funny. Is that too
 ever. It would be lots of close-ups of Gerard, some heady a reference for a Warped Tour guide? Well,
 more of Mikey, a car would blow up, and it would be take your mind off it by checking out My Chemical
 Romance all summer long on this year's Warped
 Tour! And throw my man Frank some sunscreen
 when you see him. I worry about hirm, you know?
 would each member of the band play?
 over. I would audition for the part of Godzilla.
 SKRATCH: Man, didn't high school suck?
 FRANK: [Tou hit the] nail on the head, sister.
 SKRATCH: If you could go (or had to
 www.skratchmagazine.com
 By Jeff Penalty /Photo by Derrick Santini
 playing 6/18-8/1S
 www.theimmortalityproject.com
callmeblake:
mcrmyhollywoodscans:
JUNE 2004 - SKRATCH
Photo Credit: Derrick Santini

        

            
            

                
                
                    callmeblake:
mcrmyhollywoodscans:
JUNE 2004 - SKRATCH
Photo Credit: Derrick Santini
: My Chemical Romace
 ..usually burn...
 My Chemical Romance are goniuses. I will say it go) on any givan "roality TV show, which
 again: geniuses! They wrote this catchy song about one would it be and why?
 not being okay. Can you imagine anything striking a FRANK: GROWING UP GOTTI, cause I'm a quar-
 deeper chord with the key high-school-aged record- ter Polish and three-quarters mobster.
 buying demographic? I swear, they must be managed
 by Steve Forbes or something. I'm not dissin'-I'm SKRATCH: Does anyone in the band have
 just jealous! Do you realize how many underage an obnoxious girlfriend? What makes her
 girls these guys must have swarming around their so lame?
 tour bus?! It boggles the mind. Anyway, I had a really FRANK: What, are you kidding me? You're gonna
 great e-mail exchange with guitarist Frank Lero. He's get me into trouble with this one. Fine: Mikey's girl-
 got a great sense of humor and he believes in evolu- friend. Ha ha, l'm callin' you out, Jeanna bait! Yeah,
 tion-so, as far as l'm concerned, he deserves to live that's right-I went there.
 a happy, normal life. Judge for yourself, though.
 SKRATCH: If you had to wear either high
 SKRATCH: Late at night when you think heels or a bra on a regular basis, which
 of the Warped Tour, what do you think of? would you pick, and why?
 FRANK: The lack of showering, rad Porta-Potties, FRANK: Dang. Neither, really. I have bad ankles,
 and friendship.
 so the heels are not even a question; and bras just
 seem like a hassle,
 SKRATCH: You guys are kinda pale.
 Are you worried about sunburn on the SKRATCH: Do you believe in evolution?
 Warped Tour? What will you do to prevent FRANK: Yes, because it happened. Next
 it? Or are you looking for a little color?
 FRANK: Um, I don't know It's really not something SKRATCH: If you killed someone, where
 I'm too concerned about...butI do usually burn, would you hide the body? Do you think
 especially on my face, and that's never any fun...so you'd get away with it?
 maybe I should come up with some sort of a plan.
 FRANK: I would hide the body in a voting booth.
 Apparently, intelligent people haven't stepped foot
 in those things for years.
 SKRATCH:I love the way your music video
 looks like a film trailer. If they were to ac-
 tually make the film being "advertised,"
 what would the plot be? What character And that way, if Ashcroft is running for any sort of
 office, the body can do a little last-minute campaign
 FRANK: There would be absolutely no plot whatso- ing! Ha ha ha. Oh, man, I'm fucking funny. Is that too
 ever. It would be lots of close-ups of Gerard, some heady a reference for a Warped Tour guide? Well,
 more of Mikey, a car would blow up, and it would be take your mind off it by checking out My Chemical
 Romance all summer long on this year's Warped
 Tour! And throw my man Frank some sunscreen
 when you see him. I worry about hirm, you know?
 would each member of the band play?
 over. I would audition for the part of Godzilla.
 SKRATCH: Man, didn't high school suck?
 FRANK: [Tou hit the] nail on the head, sister.
 SKRATCH: If you could go (or had to
 www.skratchmagazine.com
 By Jeff Penalty /Photo by Derrick Santini
 playing 6/18-8/1S
 www.theimmortalityproject.com
callmeblake:
mcrmyhollywoodscans:
JUNE 2004 - SKRATCH
Photo Credit: Derrick Santini

                    
                
            

            
            
        

    

    

        
Save

    



        

    

    
    

        

            









    

        
        
        
        
        
        
        
    

    

        what-the-fandomm:

2sunchild2:

kukumomoart:
chancethereaper:

aglassroseneverfades:

pmastamonkmonk:

schnerp:

feminism-is-radical:

auntiewanda:

brithwyr:

auntiewanda:

brithwyr:

auntiewanda:

houroftheanarchistwolf:

aawb:

starsapphire:

is it time for frank cho and milo manara to die or what

That’s basically a naked woman I’m YELLING

What a pervert. What the FUCK does he not know how clothes work? What the hypothetical fuck is she wearing then if we can see all that?

It’s like how bath towels in comics miraculously wrap completely around breasts. Or how even when injured and dead on the ground women in comics have to be twisted into “sexy” poses. Or how women in comics walk like they’re in high heels even barefoot. 
It’s the only way men know how to draw women, because to them female characters are only there to be sexy. They only think of “women” as exploitative costumes and camera angles, high heels and titillation. Sex objects to ogle, plot objects to further male heroes’ narratives and drama, not heroes to cheer for. 

I’m sorry, I was labouring under the impression that this was the crowd that thought women should wear what they want..?

And that applies to fictional women who are depicted by men how? You can’t apply agency in the plot to something metatextual when it comes to fictional characters. 

Come on, let’s not pretend this is a male exclusive thing.

We’re going to have this argument are we? Not to mention you’re deviating from the original point that attributing agency to fictional characters’ clothing is asinine. 
What you have here are images of power, and do you really believe these characters are designed with titillating heterosexual women and bisexual and homosexual men in mind? Because I don’t think you do.
This is why the Hawkeye Initiative exists. Take common female poses in comics, put a man in the role, and see how “empowering” and “strong” it actually looks: 
Also: 

He got the painting for fighting against ‘censorship.’ Note that they handed him a gross design of a female being objectified, because at the end of the day, that is all they really want, to be allowed to objectify women. They don’t care about censorship in general it is about their ability to sexualise and degrade women without consequence.


You can see her butthole for chrissakes

I think the best imagery I’ve seen to explain the difference between what men think male objectification is vs what women actually want to see is the Hugh Jackman magazine covers.
Hugh Jackman on a men’s magazine. He’s shirtless and buff and angry. He’s imposing and aggressive. This is a male power fantasy, it’s what men want to be and aspire to - intense masculinity.
Hugh Jackman on a women’s magazine.  He looks like a dad. He looks like he’s going to bake me a quiche and sit and watch Game of Thrones with me. He looks like he gives really good hugs.
Men think women want big hulking naked men in loin cloths which is why they always quote He-Man as male objectification - without realizing that He Man is naked and buff in a loin cloth because MEN WANT HIM TO BE. More women would be happy to see him in a pink apron cutting vegetables and singing off-key to 70s rock.
Men want objects. Women want PEOPLE. 

This is the first time I have EVER seen this false equivalence articulated so well. Thank you.

bro you can literally see every fold of her pussy that just isn’t how fabric works

Lol body painting literally


Clothes don’t suction themselves around tiddies.If that was the case I’d be wearing hoodies all year

i mean there is dangerous objectification for male characters, but it’s not prevalent in written or drawn sources because that doesn’t harm the person and therefore isn’t relevant. it’s only something to bring into the conversation when you’re talking about how it affects the actors.male actors are sometimes forced to starve for days so that they can get scenes where their muscles are stood out (there’s a really good post with article links about this i’ll try to find it), but these drawings don’t affect an actual personit’s a completely different subjectand i mean for god’s sake you can’t counter the fact that someone deliberately drew her with her coochie out with some bullshit about how male characters are hyper-masculine in a glorified way: Frank Cho added 2 new photos with Frank D Cho.
 2 hrs
 Well, this just happened.
 Milo Manara, master artist and storyteller, came in at the last ten minutes of
 my Art and Women panel and handed me a special gift in appreciation for
 fighting censorship- an original watercolor painting of Spider-Woman. The
 packed auditorium went wild.
 Wow. I'm just speechless
 CHO!
 NERT SE
 prasLE THE
 caMERa 2G
 CRap! IG a
 stock N HEET
 CRP SERNG P
 1RT
 ENTM
 FR
 MA
 RA
what-the-fandomm:

2sunchild2:

kukumomoart:
chancethereaper:

aglassroseneverfades:

pmastamonkmonk:

schnerp:

feminism-is-radical:

auntiewanda:

brithwyr:

auntiewanda:

brithwyr:

auntiewanda:

houroftheanarchistwolf:

aawb:

starsapphire:

is it time for frank cho and milo manara to die or what

That’s basically a naked woman I’m YELLING

What a pervert. What the FUCK does he not know how clothes work? What the hypothetical fuck is she wearing then if we can see all that?

It’s like how bath towels in comics miraculously wrap completely around breasts. Or how even when injured and dead on the ground women in comics have to be twisted into “sexy” poses. Or how women in comics walk like they’re in high heels even barefoot. 
It’s the only way men know how to draw women, because to them female characters are only there to be sexy. They only think of “women” as exploitative costumes and camera angles, high heels and titillation. Sex objects to ogle, plot objects to further male heroes’ narratives and drama, not heroes to cheer for. 

I’m sorry, I was labouring under the impression that this was the crowd that thought women should wear what they want..?

And that applies to fictional women who are depicted by men how? You can’t apply agency in the plot to something metatextual when it comes to fictional characters. 

Come on, let’s not pretend this is a male exclusive thing.

We’re going to have this argument are we? Not to mention you’re deviating from the original point that attributing agency to fictional characters’ clothing is asinine. 
What you have here are images of power, and do you really believe these characters are designed with titillating heterosexual women and bisexual and homosexual men in mind? Because I don’t think you do.
This is why the Hawkeye Initiative exists. Take common female poses in comics, put a man in the role, and see how “empowering” and “strong” it actually looks: 
Also: 

He got the painting for fighting against ‘censorship.’ Note that they handed him a gross design of a female being objectified, because at the end of the day, that is all they really want, to be allowed to objectify women. They don’t care about censorship in general it is about their ability to sexualise and degrade women without consequence.


You can see her butthole for chrissakes

I think the best imagery I’ve seen to explain the difference between what men think male objectification is vs what women actually want to see is the Hugh Jackman magazine covers.
Hugh Jackman on a men’s magazine. He’s shirtless and buff and angry. He’s imposing and aggressive. This is a male power fantasy, it’s what men want to be and aspire to - intense masculinity.
Hugh Jackman on a women’s magazine.  He looks like a dad. He looks like he’s going to bake me a quiche and sit and watch Game of Thrones with me. He looks like he gives really good hugs.
Men think women want big hulking naked men in loin cloths which is why they always quote He-Man as male objectification - without realizing that He Man is naked and buff in a loin cloth because MEN WANT HIM TO BE. More women would be happy to see him in a pink apron cutting vegetables and singing off-key to 70s rock.
Men want objects. Women want PEOPLE. 

This is the first time I have EVER seen this false equivalence articulated so well. Thank you.

bro you can literally see every fold of her pussy that just isn’t how fabric works

Lol body painting literally


Clothes don’t suction themselves around tiddies.If that was the case I’d be wearing hoodies all year

i mean there is dangerous objectification for male characters, but it’s not prevalent in written or drawn sources because that doesn’t harm the person and therefore isn’t relevant. it’s only something to bring into the conversation when you’re talking about how it affects the actors.male actors are sometimes forced to starve for days so that they can get scenes where their muscles are stood out (there’s a really good post with article links about this i’ll try to find it), but these drawings don’t affect an actual personit’s a completely different subjectand i mean for god’s sake you can’t counter the fact that someone deliberately drew her with her coochie out with some bullshit about how male characters are hyper-masculine in a glorified way
        

            
            

                
                
                    what-the-fandomm:

2sunchild2:

kukumomoart:
chancethereaper:

aglassroseneverfades:

pmastamonkmonk:

schnerp:

feminism-is-radical:

auntiewanda:

brithwyr:

auntiewanda:

brithwyr:

auntiewanda:

houroftheanarchistwolf:

aawb:

starsapphire:

is it time for frank cho and milo manara to die or what

That’s basically a naked woman I’m YELLING

What a pervert. What the FUCK does he not know how clothes work? What the hypothetical fuck is she wearing then if we can see all that?

It’s like how bath towels in comics miraculously wrap completely around breasts. Or how even when injured and dead on the ground women in comics have to be twisted into “sexy” poses. Or how women in comics walk like they’re in high heels even barefoot. 
It’s the only way men know how to draw women, because to them female characters are only there to be sexy. They only think of “women” as exploitative costumes and camera angles, high heels and titillation. Sex objects to ogle, plot objects to further male heroes’ narratives and drama, not heroes to cheer for. 

I’m sorry, I was labouring under the impression that this was the crowd that thought women should wear what they want..?

And that applies to fictional women who are depicted by men how? You can’t apply agency in the plot to something metatextual when it comes to fictional characters. 

Come on, let’s not pretend this is a male exclusive thing.

We’re going to have this argument are we? Not to mention you’re deviating from the original point that attributing agency to fictional characters’ clothing is asinine. 
What you have here are images of power, and do you really believe these characters are designed with titillating heterosexual women and bisexual and homosexual men in mind? Because I don’t think you do.
This is why the Hawkeye Initiative exists. Take common female poses in comics, put a man in the role, and see how “empowering” and “strong” it actually looks: 
Also: 

He got the painting for fighting against ‘censorship.’ Note that they handed him a gross design of a female being objectified, because at the end of the day, that is all they really want, to be allowed to objectify women. They don’t care about censorship in general it is about their ability to sexualise and degrade women without consequence.


You can see her butthole for chrissakes

I think the best imagery I’ve seen to explain the difference between what men think male objectification is vs what women actually want to see is the Hugh Jackman magazine covers.
Hugh Jackman on a men’s magazine. He’s shirtless and buff and angry. He’s imposing and aggressive. This is a male power fantasy, it’s what men want to be and aspire to - intense masculinity.
Hugh Jackman on a women’s magazine.  He looks like a dad. He looks like he’s going to bake me a quiche and sit and watch Game of Thrones with me. He looks like he gives really good hugs.
Men think women want big hulking naked men in loin cloths which is why they always quote He-Man as male objectification - without realizing that He Man is naked and buff in a loin cloth because MEN WANT HIM TO BE. More women would be happy to see him in a pink apron cutting vegetables and singing off-key to 70s rock.
Men want objects. Women want PEOPLE. 

This is the first time I have EVER seen this false equivalence articulated so well. Thank you.

bro you can literally see every fold of her pussy that just isn’t how fabric works

Lol body painting literally


Clothes don’t suction themselves around tiddies.If that was the case I’d be wearing hoodies all year

i mean there is dangerous objectification for male characters, but it’s not prevalent in written or drawn sources because that doesn’t harm the person and therefore isn’t relevant. it’s only something to bring into the conversation when you’re talking about how it affects the actors.male actors are sometimes forced to starve for days so that they can get scenes where their muscles are stood out (there’s a really good post with article links about this i’ll try to find it), but these drawings don’t affect an actual personit’s a completely different subjectand i mean for god’s sake you can’t counter the fact that someone deliberately drew her with her coochie out with some bullshit about how male characters are hyper-masculine in a glorified way: Frank Cho added 2 new photos with Frank D Cho.
 2 hrs
 Well, this just happened.
 Milo Manara, master artist and storyteller, came in at the last ten minutes of
 my Art and Women panel and handed me a special gift in appreciation for
 fighting censorship- an original watercolor painting of Spider-Woman. The
 packed auditorium went wild.
 Wow. I'm just speechless
 CHO!
 NERT SE
 prasLE THE
 caMERa 2G
 CRap! IG a
 stock N HEET
 CRP SERNG P
 1RT
 ENTM
 FR
 MA
 RA
what-the-fandomm:

2sunchild2:

kukumomoart:
chancethereaper:

aglassroseneverfades:

pmastamonkmonk:

schnerp:

feminism-is-radical:

auntiewanda:

brithwyr:

auntiewanda:

brithwyr:

auntiewanda:

houroftheanarchistwolf:

aawb:

starsapphire:

is it time for frank cho and milo manara to die or what

That’s basically a naked woman I’m YELLING

What a pervert. What the FUCK does he not know how clothes work? What the hypothetical fuck is she wearing then if we can see all that?

It’s like how bath towels in comics miraculously wrap completely around breasts. Or how even when injured and dead on the ground women in comics have to be twisted into “sexy” poses. Or how women in comics walk like they’re in high heels even barefoot. 
It’s the only way men know how to draw women, because to them female characters are only there to be sexy. They only think of “women” as exploitative costumes and camera angles, high heels and titillation. Sex objects to ogle, plot objects to further male heroes’ narratives and drama, not heroes to cheer for. 

I’m sorry, I was labouring under the impression that this was the crowd that thought women should wear what they want..?

And that applies to fictional women who are depicted by men how? You can’t apply agency in the plot to something metatextual when it comes to fictional characters. 

Come on, let’s not pretend this is a male exclusive thing.

We’re going to have this argument are we? Not to mention you’re deviating from the original point that attributing agency to fictional characters’ clothing is asinine. 
What you have here are images of power, and do you really believe these characters are designed with titillating heterosexual women and bisexual and homosexual men in mind? Because I don’t think you do.
This is why the Hawkeye Initiative exists. Take common female poses in comics, put a man in the role, and see how “empowering” and “strong” it actually looks: 
Also: 

He got the painting for fighting against ‘censorship.’ Note that they handed him a gross design of a female being objectified, because at the end of the day, that is all they really want, to be allowed to objectify women. They don’t care about censorship in general it is about their ability to sexualise and degrade women without consequence.


You can see her butthole for chrissakes

I think the best imagery I’ve seen to explain the difference between what men think male objectification is vs what women actually want to see is the Hugh Jackman magazine covers.
Hugh Jackman on a men’s magazine. He’s shirtless and buff and angry. He’s imposing and aggressive. This is a male power fantasy, it’s what men want to be and aspire to - intense masculinity.
Hugh Jackman on a women’s magazine.  He looks like a dad. He looks like he’s going to bake me a quiche and sit and watch Game of Thrones with me. He looks like he gives really good hugs.
Men think women want big hulking naked men in loin cloths which is why they always quote He-Man as male objectification - without realizing that He Man is naked and buff in a loin cloth because MEN WANT HIM TO BE. More women would be happy to see him in a pink apron cutting vegetables and singing off-key to 70s rock.
Men want objects. Women want PEOPLE. 

This is the first time I have EVER seen this false equivalence articulated so well. Thank you.

bro you can literally see every fold of her pussy that just isn’t how fabric works

Lol body painting literally


Clothes don’t suction themselves around tiddies.If that was the case I’d be wearing hoodies all year

i mean there is dangerous objectification for male characters, but it’s not prevalent in written or drawn sources because that doesn’t harm the person and therefore isn’t relevant. it’s only something to bring into the conversation when you’re talking about how it affects the actors.male actors are sometimes forced to starve for days so that they can get scenes where their muscles are stood out (there’s a really good post with article links about this i’ll try to find it), but these drawings don’t affect an actual personit’s a completely different subjectand i mean for god’s sake you can’t counter the fact that someone deliberately drew her with her coochie out with some bullshit about how male characters are hyper-masculine in a glorified way
                    
                
            

            
            
        

    

    

        
Save

    



        

    

    
    

        

            








        

    

    
    

        

            









    

        
        
        
        
        
        
        
    

    

        Her profile said she was into RPGs: Sat, Jun 22, 18:36
 Hello traveller, I am your guide. Are you
 ready to begin your quest?
 Hello stranger, what do I need to do,
 to complete your request.
 You have to recover a long time
 lost manuscript held by a famous
 necromancer. Your journey begins in a
 forest. The left of you is a mountain with
 a large boulder blocking it's entrance,
 in front of you is an ancient graveyard.
 Some of the greatest heroes of the
 realm rest there
 I would like to investigate the grave-
 yard of it looks chill or haunted. Not
 strong enough to push that boulder
 As you enter the graveyard you notice
 old tombstones crumbling, scribed in
 language too ancient to be known by
 any living creature. While searching
 around you find a crypt, the front door
 has been knocked open, you can hear
 a soft gust of wind coming from inside.
 I copy the ancient text, best as
 possible. I use 'produce flame' when I
 enter the crypt.
 As you go in the light from your spell
 fills the room, you notice the coffins that
 adorn the walls and a spiral staircase
 that leads further down, at the bottom
 of it lies a large room, broken pillars,
 and a statue of Sild, the Warlock. A very
 powerful wizard from centuries past.
 Further away, with barely any light
 around it, you see a creature in a black
 robe facing away, as it ignores you on
 purpouse. There's a corpse on an alter
 in front of it, and it's hands deep inside
 it
 As I enter the room I go "excuuuuuse
 me, but it's not nice to sacrifice
 people" en hold my flame ready to
 attack if he would attack me...
 The creature in black turns annoyed
 by your interference, you see a
 beetle crawl out of it's eye socket, it's
 deformed face makes your stomach
 sick, as you think that eating all those
 fries before entering a graveyard was
 a bad idea. A purple light starts forming
 as he moves his hands together
 With a quick look around you notice a
 large floating orb 3 meters above the
 creature's head. You remember the
 old legend of Sild's orb, which he used
 teleport anywhere in the world.
 Nasty! God damn it those fries! I shoot
 my flame to the orb so the bug guy
 can't escape. And pull out my scimitar
 ready to attack
 As your flame hits, the orb shatters into
 what seems to be glass spikes, flying
 everywhere, further damaging the
 room. Some hit the creature, tearing
 his black robes just to reveal pieces of
 rotting flesh. The stench of death takes
 over the room, you can't hold those
 fries anymore, as you make an effort
 to not puke onto your brand new heels
 -and you hear your own voice in your
 head WHY WOULD YOU GO INTO A
 GRAVEYARD USING HEELS WOMAN ?
 As you get distracted, the creature
 fires his spell, you quickly block it with
 your scimitar, but it flies away from
 your hand. You are disarmed and the
 creature starts running in your direction
 "I DON'T I WANTED SOMETHING
 DIFFERENT THEN THE USUAL
 SNEAKERS as I replied to my own
 question. I take them of hold them
 as a weapon ready to defend myself
 against the ugly bug dude. And try to
 figure out if I can back to my scimitar.
 As you dual-wield your brand new
 puke-free heels you notice a two fast
 moving shadows moving behind the
 creature. Desperation starts to hit as
 you are outnumbered and your scimitar
 is nowhere to be seen, suddenly the
 shadows jump onto the creatures head
 and start attacking him. IT'S YOUR
 FAMILIARS, your thank yourself for
 installing that catdoor years ago.
 The creature loses balance just as it
 reaches you, slipping and faceplanting
 your puddle fries and cola that rested
 on the floor.
 You plunge it's head with both heels. It
 explodes and the creature slowly starts
 turning into ashes... You give a well
 deserved pet to them. The comforting
 purring sounds fills the room, you feel
 safe now. One of your familiars starts
 digging into the ash pile, as he found
 something of value there.
 IT'S A FORTUNE COOKIE!
 I go like "Oooh cookie!" I break it open
 and eat the cookie while I read. And
 also keep petting them, like a good
 rub under the chin.
 You slowly chew the cookie, the slight
 chocolate taste is well welcome at this
 moment, unravel the note, and it says
 , hit me up for fries &
 movies sometime.
 Sept
Her profile said she was into RPGs
        

            
            

                
                
                    Her profile said she was into RPGs: Sat, Jun 22, 18:36
 Hello traveller, I am your guide. Are you
 ready to begin your quest?
 Hello stranger, what do I need to do,
 to complete your request.
 You have to recover a long time
 lost manuscript held by a famous
 necromancer. Your journey begins in a
 forest. The left of you is a mountain with
 a large boulder blocking it's entrance,
 in front of you is an ancient graveyard.
 Some of the greatest heroes of the
 realm rest there
 I would like to investigate the grave-
 yard of it looks chill or haunted. Not
 strong enough to push that boulder
 As you enter the graveyard you notice
 old tombstones crumbling, scribed in
 language too ancient to be known by
 any living creature. While searching
 around you find a crypt, the front door
 has been knocked open, you can hear
 a soft gust of wind coming from inside.
 I copy the ancient text, best as
 possible. I use 'produce flame' when I
 enter the crypt.
 As you go in the light from your spell
 fills the room, you notice the coffins that
 adorn the walls and a spiral staircase
 that leads further down, at the bottom
 of it lies a large room, broken pillars,
 and a statue of Sild, the Warlock. A very
 powerful wizard from centuries past.
 Further away, with barely any light
 around it, you see a creature in a black
 robe facing away, as it ignores you on
 purpouse. There's a corpse on an alter
 in front of it, and it's hands deep inside
 it
 As I enter the room I go "excuuuuuse
 me, but it's not nice to sacrifice
 people" en hold my flame ready to
 attack if he would attack me...
 The creature in black turns annoyed
 by your interference, you see a
 beetle crawl out of it's eye socket, it's
 deformed face makes your stomach
 sick, as you think that eating all those
 fries before entering a graveyard was
 a bad idea. A purple light starts forming
 as he moves his hands together
 With a quick look around you notice a
 large floating orb 3 meters above the
 creature's head. You remember the
 old legend of Sild's orb, which he used
 teleport anywhere in the world.
 Nasty! God damn it those fries! I shoot
 my flame to the orb so the bug guy
 can't escape. And pull out my scimitar
 ready to attack
 As your flame hits, the orb shatters into
 what seems to be glass spikes, flying
 everywhere, further damaging the
 room. Some hit the creature, tearing
 his black robes just to reveal pieces of
 rotting flesh. The stench of death takes
 over the room, you can't hold those
 fries anymore, as you make an effort
 to not puke onto your brand new heels
 -and you hear your own voice in your
 head WHY WOULD YOU GO INTO A
 GRAVEYARD USING HEELS WOMAN ?
 As you get distracted, the creature
 fires his spell, you quickly block it with
 your scimitar, but it flies away from
 your hand. You are disarmed and the
 creature starts running in your direction
 "I DON'T I WANTED SOMETHING
 DIFFERENT THEN THE USUAL
 SNEAKERS as I replied to my own
 question. I take them of hold them
 as a weapon ready to defend myself
 against the ugly bug dude. And try to
 figure out if I can back to my scimitar.
 As you dual-wield your brand new
 puke-free heels you notice a two fast
 moving shadows moving behind the
 creature. Desperation starts to hit as
 you are outnumbered and your scimitar
 is nowhere to be seen, suddenly the
 shadows jump onto the creatures head
 and start attacking him. IT'S YOUR
 FAMILIARS, your thank yourself for
 installing that catdoor years ago.
 The creature loses balance just as it
 reaches you, slipping and faceplanting
 your puddle fries and cola that rested
 on the floor.
 You plunge it's head with both heels. It
 explodes and the creature slowly starts
 turning into ashes... You give a well
 deserved pet to them. The comforting
 purring sounds fills the room, you feel
 safe now. One of your familiars starts
 digging into the ash pile, as he found
 something of value there.
 IT'S A FORTUNE COOKIE!
 I go like "Oooh cookie!" I break it open
 and eat the cookie while I read. And
 also keep petting them, like a good
 rub under the chin.
 You slowly chew the cookie, the slight
 chocolate taste is well welcome at this
 moment, unravel the note, and it says
 , hit me up for fries &
 movies sometime.
 Sept
Her profile said she was into RPGs
                    
                
            

            
                
                
Her profile said she was into RPGs

                
            
            
        

    

    

        
Save

    



        

    

    
    

        

            








        

    

    
    

        

            








        

    

    
    

        

            









    

        
        
        
        
        
        
        
    

    

        thicc-waifu:

smoldepressedfrenchfry:

thespectacularspider-girl:


hokuto-ju-no-ken:

abdullahqutbedden:
Daily reminder that Gizmodo is a piece of shit website that doesn’t let people enjoy anything. 
Gizmodo author, through gnashing teeth and tears: I’d treat her right…

Look, we’re all hot for Helen but you don’t fucking disrespect Bob like this.


Bob is one of the best dads and husbands in media today and I will fight anyone who says otherwise

this is a pro-bob blog. idiot anti-bobs dont interact.


The rationale is such bullshit too. “Oh he’s a bad husband because he wasn’t completely head over heels thrilled for her getting to live out his dream that he wanted more than anything and she wasn’t even interested in”Wow you mean he had a human reaction and still swallowed his pride and did what he had to do to support his family? What a piece of shit.: Incredibles 2's
 Elastigirl deserves
 a better husband
 than Bob
 Gizmodo
 19 hours ago
thicc-waifu:

smoldepressedfrenchfry:

thespectacularspider-girl:


hokuto-ju-no-ken:

abdullahqutbedden:
Daily reminder that Gizmodo is a piece of shit website that doesn’t let people enjoy anything. 
Gizmodo author, through gnashing teeth and tears: I’d treat her right…

Look, we’re all hot for Helen but you don’t fucking disrespect Bob like this.


Bob is one of the best dads and husbands in media today and I will fight anyone who says otherwise

this is a pro-bob blog. idiot anti-bobs dont interact.


The rationale is such bullshit too. “Oh he’s a bad husband because he wasn’t completely head over heels thrilled for her getting to live out his dream that he wanted more than anything and she wasn’t even interested in”Wow you mean he had a human reaction and still swallowed his pride and did what he had to do to support his family? What a piece of shit.
        

            
            

                
                
                    thicc-waifu:

smoldepressedfrenchfry:

thespectacularspider-girl:


hokuto-ju-no-ken:

abdullahqutbedden:
Daily reminder that Gizmodo is a piece of shit website that doesn’t let people enjoy anything. 
Gizmodo author, through gnashing teeth and tears: I’d treat her right…

Look, we’re all hot for Helen but you don’t fucking disrespect Bob like this.


Bob is one of the best dads and husbands in media today and I will fight anyone who says otherwise

this is a pro-bob blog. idiot anti-bobs dont interact.


The rationale is such bullshit too. “Oh he’s a bad husband because he wasn’t completely head over heels thrilled for her getting to live out his dream that he wanted more than anything and she wasn’t even interested in”Wow you mean he had a human reaction and still swallowed his pride and did what he had to do to support his family? What a piece of shit.: Incredibles 2's
 Elastigirl deserves
 a better husband
 than Bob
 Gizmodo
 19 hours ago
thicc-waifu:

smoldepressedfrenchfry:

thespectacularspider-girl:


hokuto-ju-no-ken:

abdullahqutbedden:
Daily reminder that Gizmodo is a piece of shit website that doesn’t let people enjoy anything. 
Gizmodo author, through gnashing teeth and tears: I’d treat her right…

Look, we’re all hot for Helen but you don’t fucking disrespect Bob like this.


Bob is one of the best dads and husbands in media today and I will fight anyone who says otherwise

this is a pro-bob blog. idiot anti-bobs dont interact.


The rationale is such bullshit too. “Oh he’s a bad husband because he wasn’t completely head over heels thrilled for her getting to live out his dream that he wanted more than anything and she wasn’t even interested in”Wow you mean he had a human reaction and still swallowed his pride and did what he had to do to support his family? What a piece of shit.
                    
                
            

            
            
        

    

    

        
Save

    



        

    

    
    

        

            









    

        
        
        
        
        
        
        
    

    

        permanentfilemugglethings:
  WOW! These Shoes are Soooo Cute  Comfy 
Have you heard of Socofy? It is a famous designer brand for hand-made women leather shoes. In this video, we will present you how a comfy leather shoes is made by craftsman with details. Cannot find some different styles of chic shoes? Want to free yourself from the pinch on high heels? Then Socofy is your perfect choice. Socofy embraces the ideal of “so comfy” and wants all ladies can walk confidently and comfortably. It has all the types of leather shoes including flats, loafers, sandals and boots for different seasons. Socofy has ingeniously combine chinese folk elements with western fashion style, which will impress you with some different fashion experience.  
click to buy！！！
20% OFF Limited time coupon code ： June20
: permanentfilemugglethings:
  WOW! These Shoes are Soooo Cute  Comfy 
Have you heard of Socofy? It is a famous designer brand for hand-made women leather shoes. In this video, we will present you how a comfy leather shoes is made by craftsman with details. Cannot find some different styles of chic shoes? Want to free yourself from the pinch on high heels? Then Socofy is your perfect choice. Socofy embraces the ideal of “so comfy” and wants all ladies can walk confidently and comfortably. It has all the types of leather shoes including flats, loafers, sandals and boots for different seasons. Socofy has ingeniously combine chinese folk elements with western fashion style, which will impress you with some different fashion experience.  
click to buy！！！
20% OFF Limited time coupon code ： June20

        

            
            

                
                
                    permanentfilemugglethings:
  WOW! These Shoes are Soooo Cute  Comfy 
Have you heard of Socofy? It is a famous designer brand for hand-made women leather shoes. In this video, we will present you how a comfy leather shoes is made by craftsman with details. Cannot find some different styles of chic shoes? Want to free yourself from the pinch on high heels? Then Socofy is your perfect choice. Socofy embraces the ideal of “so comfy” and wants all ladies can walk confidently and comfortably. It has all the types of leather shoes including flats, loafers, sandals and boots for different seasons. Socofy has ingeniously combine chinese folk elements with western fashion style, which will impress you with some different fashion experience.  
click to buy！！！
20% OFF Limited time coupon code ： June20
: permanentfilemugglethings:
  WOW! These Shoes are Soooo Cute  Comfy 
Have you heard of Socofy? It is a famous designer brand for hand-made women leather shoes. In this video, we will present you how a comfy leather shoes is made by craftsman with details. Cannot find some different styles of chic shoes? Want to free yourself from the pinch on high heels? Then Socofy is your perfect choice. Socofy embraces the ideal of “so comfy” and wants all ladies can walk confidently and comfortably. It has all the types of leather shoes including flats, loafers, sandals and boots for different seasons. Socofy has ingeniously combine chinese folk elements with western fashion style, which will impress you with some different fashion experience.  
click to buy！！！
20% OFF Limited time coupon code ： June20

                    
                    

                    
                
            

            
            
        

    

    

        
Save

    



        

    

    
    

        

            








        

    

    
    

        

            








        

    

    
    

        

            








        

    

    
    

        

            








        

    

    
    

        

            








        

    

    
    

        

            








        

    

    
    

        

            








        

    

    
    

        

            








        

    

    
    

        

            








        

    

    
    

        

            









    

        
        
        
        
        
        
        
    

    

        friendly-neighborhood-patriarch:

hominishostilis:

abstractandedgyname:
siryouarebeingmocked:

mississpithy:

bogleech:

notyourmoderate:

angrybell:

thinksquad:


http://archive.is/5VvI5


Huffpo, everybody. 




Can someone tell me what high crime or misdemeanor Trump has committed that merits this? Or is the HuffPo just publishing outright fantasies?

God dammit, I’m now in the position of defending Huffington. I didn’t want to be here. Okay, @angrybell … actually, @ literally everyone who reblogged this uncritically as a tacit endorsement and agreement. Such as @the-critical-feminist that I reblog this from.My first question has to be: are you serious? Don’t read that with a tone, don’t read that as an attack. That’s my first question: Are you asking a serious question about what high crimes or misdemeanors Trump has perpetrated? Are you asking a sincere question or is this the sort of rhetoric that doesn’t translate well into text? And, if you are actually asking this question, are ou going to hear the answer or are you going to immediately start concocting your counter-argument because you just know in your heart that anyone who disagrees with you must be wrong, so you start formulating a plan to prove them wrong before you actually hear what they have to say?Next: did you read the article that was posted in the link you responded to? Because the author of that article does a reasonable job of explaining their thought process behind the headline. Or did you lash out before you read the article? Okay, presuming that you did read the article in good faith, evaluate its points, perform the follow-up research to understand context, and still disagree with the central tenets and simply believe that the author’s reasoning does not hold up for whatever reasons you have chosen not to state, and you believe their source information is falsified for whatever reason you have chosen not to state, I will move on. After I have given you and yours every conceivable benefit of the doubt and every charitable assumption. Because if the article itself doesn’t convince you, there’s the fact that Donald Trump has broken literally every federal law against corruption and conflict of interest. Not one or two, not most, not all but a few. Literally every single law we have against corruption, from the Constitution to the informal guidelines circulated as a memo from the White House ethics scholars. He’s broken literally every one of those rules. He’s openly traded favors for money and favors for months now. Hell, that Chinese influence-peddler that paid him off for sixteen million dollars should have been enough to get him convicted of treason. Sharing code-word level classified information with a government on the opposite side of an ongoing military conflict isn’t *necessarily* treason, unless the information was part of a share program with an allied nation and wasn’t his to distribute. That’s aiding a foreign aggressor at the expense of a military ally, and that’s treason. Giving aid and comfort to enemies of the nation. Obstruction of justice is pretty clear-cut, that’s an impeachment, except that the justice in question is also a matter of national security, so that’s treason. Again. Defaming the former president? Misdemeanor, impeachable. The way he drags his heels nominating posts in Justice and State could be prosecuted as dereliction of duty. If he has tapes of Comey, he’s on the hook for contempt, if he doesn’t then he’s on the hook for witness tampering. Hell, deleting the covfefe tweet is destroying federal records, which is a misdemeanor, and impeachable. The man doesn’t go a week without bringing on an impeachable offense. Strictly speaking, every time he goes to Mar-A-Lago he’s committing grand larceny by fraud, because he’s taking millions of dollars of American funds for his own benefit, after promising not to do that. There are dozens, hundreds maybe, of impeachable offenses already in this 140 days, “high crimes and misdemeanors”. Actual counts of treason, punishable by death by hanging, is probably only five or six counts. Only five or six counts of high treason by our sitting president. His job does not put him above reproach. His job is to *be* above reproach. And he’s failing that job. 

Trump’s supporters probably believe he’s done nothing impeachable or treasonous because they spent eight years claiming on no grounds whatsoever that Obama was impeachable and treasonous, just because they didn’t like him. They now probably convince themselves that these facts about Trump are as fake as their Obama theories and they’ve ruined the gravity of these terms for themselves.





“

His job does not put him above reproach. His job is to *be* above reproach. And he’s failing that job.


“






I like how Bogleech doesn’t know many Trump supporters are former Obama supporters.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/04/us/obama-trump-swing-voters.html
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/10/16/17980820/trump-obama-2016-race-racism-class-economy-2018-midterm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obama-Trump_voters
It’s not even a secret. But why am I not surprised bogleech - that intellectual titan - failed to do basic research?
And last time I checked, no nation required their politicans to be perfect. Which is what NYM is asking for with that quote; perfection. That’s what ‘above reproach’ means. An impossible standard, considering people “reproach” Trump for feeding fish wrong, for his skin color, for any and every little thing, even if they have to twist reality into a pretzel to do it. In fact, I’ve seen people take pictures of kids in cages from 2014, and blame Trump for it.

So this:


Are you asking a serious question about what high crimes or misdemeanors Trump has perpetrated?


Is a question of this:


Can someone tell me what high crime or misdemeanor Trump has committed that merits this?


Seems you missed the part that says “merits this”.


Next: did you read the article that was posted in the link you responded to? Because the author of that article does a reasonable job of explaining their thought process behind the headline. Or did you lash out before you read the article? 


(The underlined is in the subtitle, not the headline.)


Okay, presuming that you did read the article in good faith, evaluate its points, perform the follow-up research to understand context, and still disagree with the central tenets…
Context? Central tenets? Do you not know how highlighting works? You don’t need to know the context, or any other point, when you’re indicating a specific, explicit, and isolated quality.
The subtitle called for Trump’s execution, we’re 5 paragraphs in and you haven’t even acknowledged that part yet. Or at all, I’m guessing, because I’m not reading further. You keep talking around it. You accuse others, preemptively, of not hearing the answer and pre-”concocting” a response, and yet you’re waffling on about shit around the one, sole, isolated thing that was indicated in the first place.
This isn’t about ignoring context, this is about criticising one thing. Which is a thing people are allowed to do, by the way, just because people criticise one thing, doesn’t mean they’re criticising everything about the everyone involved, and everything said before, adjacent to, and after that one thing, and therefore are required to include all of those things in their consideration and assessment of this one thing.
The specific criticism of the indicated quality is the advocation of Trump’s execution. That’s it. No context is needed to understand that this is what was said, especially since that which was said, which is being criticised, is explicit. No amount of, “So, click-bait subtitle that you don’t see until you’ve already clicked on the article link out of the way, here’s what I actually meant when I said I wanted this person tried and executed,” could excuse the use of that language, let alone actually believing in it.
It’s like… it’s like if someone makes a typo, someone else is like, “Oh, seems you made a typo,” you’d jump in like, “But what about they’re perfectly reasonable spelling everywhere else? Hm? Forced to ignore contextual perfect spelling I see. They’re lack of typos everywhere else explains this typo, and vindicates it”.
You and what’s his face, James, fuckin ReasonAndEmpathy or whatever now, y’all keep saying “but what of the context?” when the criterion of criticism is isolated, atomic, specific, and/or explicit. No amount of context invalidates the very specific, singular words explicitly spoken. “Sure he called for Trump to be executed, but he explains himself.” Fucking and? When did the death sentence become ok? When did that happen? Moderates are ok with the death sentence now? Aight, weird.


Man this fucking post aged like fine wine, take a SIP 

Delicious

This was quite a ride: Jason Fuller, Contributor
 Working to bring about the best in America, both on-line and off.
 Impeachment Is No Longer Enough;
 Donald Trump Must Face Justice
 Impeachment and removal from office are only the first steps;
 for treason and-if convicted in a court of law-executed.
 06/11/2017 10:39 pm ET
 for America to be redeemed, Donald Trump must be prosecuted
 Donald Trump has been President of the United States for just shy of six months now. I
 think that most of us among the electorate knew that his presidency would be a relative
 disaster, but I am not sure how many among us expected the catastrophe our nation now
 faces.
friendly-neighborhood-patriarch:

hominishostilis:

abstractandedgyname:
siryouarebeingmocked:

mississpithy:

bogleech:

notyourmoderate:

angrybell:

thinksquad:


http://archive.is/5VvI5


Huffpo, everybody. 




Can someone tell me what high crime or misdemeanor Trump has committed that merits this? Or is the HuffPo just publishing outright fantasies?

God dammit, I’m now in the position of defending Huffington. I didn’t want to be here. Okay, @angrybell … actually, @ literally everyone who reblogged this uncritically as a tacit endorsement and agreement. Such as @the-critical-feminist that I reblog this from.My first question has to be: are you serious? Don’t read that with a tone, don’t read that as an attack. That’s my first question: Are you asking a serious question about what high crimes or misdemeanors Trump has perpetrated? Are you asking a sincere question or is this the sort of rhetoric that doesn’t translate well into text? And, if you are actually asking this question, are ou going to hear the answer or are you going to immediately start concocting your counter-argument because you just know in your heart that anyone who disagrees with you must be wrong, so you start formulating a plan to prove them wrong before you actually hear what they have to say?Next: did you read the article that was posted in the link you responded to? Because the author of that article does a reasonable job of explaining their thought process behind the headline. Or did you lash out before you read the article? Okay, presuming that you did read the article in good faith, evaluate its points, perform the follow-up research to understand context, and still disagree with the central tenets and simply believe that the author’s reasoning does not hold up for whatever reasons you have chosen not to state, and you believe their source information is falsified for whatever reason you have chosen not to state, I will move on. After I have given you and yours every conceivable benefit of the doubt and every charitable assumption. Because if the article itself doesn’t convince you, there’s the fact that Donald Trump has broken literally every federal law against corruption and conflict of interest. Not one or two, not most, not all but a few. Literally every single law we have against corruption, from the Constitution to the informal guidelines circulated as a memo from the White House ethics scholars. He’s broken literally every one of those rules. He’s openly traded favors for money and favors for months now. Hell, that Chinese influence-peddler that paid him off for sixteen million dollars should have been enough to get him convicted of treason. Sharing code-word level classified information with a government on the opposite side of an ongoing military conflict isn’t *necessarily* treason, unless the information was part of a share program with an allied nation and wasn’t his to distribute. That’s aiding a foreign aggressor at the expense of a military ally, and that’s treason. Giving aid and comfort to enemies of the nation. Obstruction of justice is pretty clear-cut, that’s an impeachment, except that the justice in question is also a matter of national security, so that’s treason. Again. Defaming the former president? Misdemeanor, impeachable. The way he drags his heels nominating posts in Justice and State could be prosecuted as dereliction of duty. If he has tapes of Comey, he’s on the hook for contempt, if he doesn’t then he’s on the hook for witness tampering. Hell, deleting the covfefe tweet is destroying federal records, which is a misdemeanor, and impeachable. The man doesn’t go a week without bringing on an impeachable offense. Strictly speaking, every time he goes to Mar-A-Lago he’s committing grand larceny by fraud, because he’s taking millions of dollars of American funds for his own benefit, after promising not to do that. There are dozens, hundreds maybe, of impeachable offenses already in this 140 days, “high crimes and misdemeanors”. Actual counts of treason, punishable by death by hanging, is probably only five or six counts. Only five or six counts of high treason by our sitting president. His job does not put him above reproach. His job is to *be* above reproach. And he’s failing that job. 

Trump’s supporters probably believe he’s done nothing impeachable or treasonous because they spent eight years claiming on no grounds whatsoever that Obama was impeachable and treasonous, just because they didn’t like him. They now probably convince themselves that these facts about Trump are as fake as their Obama theories and they’ve ruined the gravity of these terms for themselves.





“

His job does not put him above reproach. His job is to *be* above reproach. And he’s failing that job.


“






I like how Bogleech doesn’t know many Trump supporters are former Obama supporters.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/04/us/obama-trump-swing-voters.html
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/10/16/17980820/trump-obama-2016-race-racism-class-economy-2018-midterm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obama-Trump_voters
It’s not even a secret. But why am I not surprised bogleech - that intellectual titan - failed to do basic research?
And last time I checked, no nation required their politicans to be perfect. Which is what NYM is asking for with that quote; perfection. That’s what ‘above reproach’ means. An impossible standard, considering people “reproach” Trump for feeding fish wrong, for his skin color, for any and every little thing, even if they have to twist reality into a pretzel to do it. In fact, I’ve seen people take pictures of kids in cages from 2014, and blame Trump for it.

So this:


Are you asking a serious question about what high crimes or misdemeanors Trump has perpetrated?


Is a question of this:


Can someone tell me what high crime or misdemeanor Trump has committed that merits this?


Seems you missed the part that says “merits this”.


Next: did you read the article that was posted in the link you responded to? Because the author of that article does a reasonable job of explaining their thought process behind the headline. Or did you lash out before you read the article? 


(The underlined is in the subtitle, not the headline.)


Okay, presuming that you did read the article in good faith, evaluate its points, perform the follow-up research to understand context, and still disagree with the central tenets…
Context? Central tenets? Do you not know how highlighting works? You don’t need to know the context, or any other point, when you’re indicating a specific, explicit, and isolated quality.
The subtitle called for Trump’s execution, we’re 5 paragraphs in and you haven’t even acknowledged that part yet. Or at all, I’m guessing, because I’m not reading further. You keep talking around it. You accuse others, preemptively, of not hearing the answer and pre-”concocting” a response, and yet you’re waffling on about shit around the one, sole, isolated thing that was indicated in the first place.
This isn’t about ignoring context, this is about criticising one thing. Which is a thing people are allowed to do, by the way, just because people criticise one thing, doesn’t mean they’re criticising everything about the everyone involved, and everything said before, adjacent to, and after that one thing, and therefore are required to include all of those things in their consideration and assessment of this one thing.
The specific criticism of the indicated quality is the advocation of Trump’s execution. That’s it. No context is needed to understand that this is what was said, especially since that which was said, which is being criticised, is explicit. No amount of, “So, click-bait subtitle that you don’t see until you’ve already clicked on the article link out of the way, here’s what I actually meant when I said I wanted this person tried and executed,” could excuse the use of that language, let alone actually believing in it.
It’s like… it’s like if someone makes a typo, someone else is like, “Oh, seems you made a typo,” you’d jump in like, “But what about they’re perfectly reasonable spelling everywhere else? Hm? Forced to ignore contextual perfect spelling I see. They’re lack of typos everywhere else explains this typo, and vindicates it”.
You and what’s his face, James, fuckin ReasonAndEmpathy or whatever now, y’all keep saying “but what of the context?” when the criterion of criticism is isolated, atomic, specific, and/or explicit. No amount of context invalidates the very specific, singular words explicitly spoken. “Sure he called for Trump to be executed, but he explains himself.” Fucking and? When did the death sentence become ok? When did that happen? Moderates are ok with the death sentence now? Aight, weird.


Man this fucking post aged like fine wine, take a SIP 

Delicious

This was quite a ride
        

            
            

                
                
                    friendly-neighborhood-patriarch:

hominishostilis:

abstractandedgyname:
siryouarebeingmocked:

mississpithy:

bogleech:

notyourmoderate:

angrybell:

thinksquad:


http://archive.is/5VvI5


Huffpo, everybody. 




Can someone tell me what high crime or misdemeanor Trump has committed that merits this? Or is the HuffPo just publishing outright fantasies?

God dammit, I’m now in the position of defending Huffington. I didn’t want to be here. Okay, @angrybell … actually, @ literally everyone who reblogged this uncritically as a tacit endorsement and agreement. Such as @the-critical-feminist that I reblog this from.My first question has to be: are you serious? Don’t read that with a tone, don’t read that as an attack. That’s my first question: Are you asking a serious question about what high crimes or misdemeanors Trump has perpetrated? Are you asking a sincere question or is this the sort of rhetoric that doesn’t translate well into text? And, if you are actually asking this question, are ou going to hear the answer or are you going to immediately start concocting your counter-argument because you just know in your heart that anyone who disagrees with you must be wrong, so you start formulating a plan to prove them wrong before you actually hear what they have to say?Next: did you read the article that was posted in the link you responded to? Because the author of that article does a reasonable job of explaining their thought process behind the headline. Or did you lash out before you read the article? Okay, presuming that you did read the article in good faith, evaluate its points, perform the follow-up research to understand context, and still disagree with the central tenets and simply believe that the author’s reasoning does not hold up for whatever reasons you have chosen not to state, and you believe their source information is falsified for whatever reason you have chosen not to state, I will move on. After I have given you and yours every conceivable benefit of the doubt and every charitable assumption. Because if the article itself doesn’t convince you, there’s the fact that Donald Trump has broken literally every federal law against corruption and conflict of interest. Not one or two, not most, not all but a few. Literally every single law we have against corruption, from the Constitution to the informal guidelines circulated as a memo from the White House ethics scholars. He’s broken literally every one of those rules. He’s openly traded favors for money and favors for months now. Hell, that Chinese influence-peddler that paid him off for sixteen million dollars should have been enough to get him convicted of treason. Sharing code-word level classified information with a government on the opposite side of an ongoing military conflict isn’t *necessarily* treason, unless the information was part of a share program with an allied nation and wasn’t his to distribute. That’s aiding a foreign aggressor at the expense of a military ally, and that’s treason. Giving aid and comfort to enemies of the nation. Obstruction of justice is pretty clear-cut, that’s an impeachment, except that the justice in question is also a matter of national security, so that’s treason. Again. Defaming the former president? Misdemeanor, impeachable. The way he drags his heels nominating posts in Justice and State could be prosecuted as dereliction of duty. If he has tapes of Comey, he’s on the hook for contempt, if he doesn’t then he’s on the hook for witness tampering. Hell, deleting the covfefe tweet is destroying federal records, which is a misdemeanor, and impeachable. The man doesn’t go a week without bringing on an impeachable offense. Strictly speaking, every time he goes to Mar-A-Lago he’s committing grand larceny by fraud, because he’s taking millions of dollars of American funds for his own benefit, after promising not to do that. There are dozens, hundreds maybe, of impeachable offenses already in this 140 days, “high crimes and misdemeanors”. Actual counts of treason, punishable by death by hanging, is probably only five or six counts. Only five or six counts of high treason by our sitting president. His job does not put him above reproach. His job is to *be* above reproach. And he’s failing that job. 

Trump’s supporters probably believe he’s done nothing impeachable or treasonous because they spent eight years claiming on no grounds whatsoever that Obama was impeachable and treasonous, just because they didn’t like him. They now probably convince themselves that these facts about Trump are as fake as their Obama theories and they’ve ruined the gravity of these terms for themselves.





“

His job does not put him above reproach. His job is to *be* above reproach. And he’s failing that job.


“






I like how Bogleech doesn’t know many Trump supporters are former Obama supporters.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/04/us/obama-trump-swing-voters.html
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/10/16/17980820/trump-obama-2016-race-racism-class-economy-2018-midterm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obama-Trump_voters
It’s not even a secret. But why am I not surprised bogleech - that intellectual titan - failed to do basic research?
And last time I checked, no nation required their politicans to be perfect. Which is what NYM is asking for with that quote; perfection. That’s what ‘above reproach’ means. An impossible standard, considering people “reproach” Trump for feeding fish wrong, for his skin color, for any and every little thing, even if they have to twist reality into a pretzel to do it. In fact, I’ve seen people take pictures of kids in cages from 2014, and blame Trump for it.

So this:


Are you asking a serious question about what high crimes or misdemeanors Trump has perpetrated?


Is a question of this:


Can someone tell me what high crime or misdemeanor Trump has committed that merits this?


Seems you missed the part that says “merits this”.


Next: did you read the article that was posted in the link you responded to? Because the author of that article does a reasonable job of explaining their thought process behind the headline. Or did you lash out before you read the article? 


(The underlined is in the subtitle, not the headline.)


Okay, presuming that you did read the article in good faith, evaluate its points, perform the follow-up research to understand context, and still disagree with the central tenets…
Context? Central tenets? Do you not know how highlighting works? You don’t need to know the context, or any other point, when you’re indicating a specific, explicit, and isolated quality.
The subtitle called for Trump’s execution, we’re 5 paragraphs in and you haven’t even acknowledged that part yet. Or at all, I’m guessing, because I’m not reading further. You keep talking around it. You accuse others, preemptively, of not hearing the answer and pre-”concocting” a response, and yet you’re waffling on about shit around the one, sole, isolated thing that was indicated in the first place.
This isn’t about ignoring context, this is about criticising one thing. Which is a thing people are allowed to do, by the way, just because people criticise one thing, doesn’t mean they’re criticising everything about the everyone involved, and everything said before, adjacent to, and after that one thing, and therefore are required to include all of those things in their consideration and assessment of this one thing.
The specific criticism of the indicated quality is the advocation of Trump’s execution. That’s it. No context is needed to understand that this is what was said, especially since that which was said, which is being criticised, is explicit. No amount of, “So, click-bait subtitle that you don’t see until you’ve already clicked on the article link out of the way, here’s what I actually meant when I said I wanted this person tried and executed,” could excuse the use of that language, let alone actually believing in it.
It’s like… it’s like if someone makes a typo, someone else is like, “Oh, seems you made a typo,” you’d jump in like, “But what about they’re perfectly reasonable spelling everywhere else? Hm? Forced to ignore contextual perfect spelling I see. They’re lack of typos everywhere else explains this typo, and vindicates it”.
You and what’s his face, James, fuckin ReasonAndEmpathy or whatever now, y’all keep saying “but what of the context?” when the criterion of criticism is isolated, atomic, specific, and/or explicit. No amount of context invalidates the very specific, singular words explicitly spoken. “Sure he called for Trump to be executed, but he explains himself.” Fucking and? When did the death sentence become ok? When did that happen? Moderates are ok with the death sentence now? Aight, weird.


Man this fucking post aged like fine wine, take a SIP 

Delicious

This was quite a ride: Jason Fuller, Contributor
 Working to bring about the best in America, both on-line and off.
 Impeachment Is No Longer Enough;
 Donald Trump Must Face Justice
 Impeachment and removal from office are only the first steps;
 for treason and-if convicted in a court of law-executed.
 06/11/2017 10:39 pm ET
 for America to be redeemed, Donald Trump must be prosecuted
 Donald Trump has been President of the United States for just shy of six months now. I
 think that most of us among the electorate knew that his presidency would be a relative
 disaster, but I am not sure how many among us expected the catastrophe our nation now
 faces.
friendly-neighborhood-patriarch:

hominishostilis:

abstractandedgyname:
siryouarebeingmocked:

mississpithy:

bogleech:

notyourmoderate:

angrybell:

thinksquad:


http://archive.is/5VvI5


Huffpo, everybody. 




Can someone tell me what high crime or misdemeanor Trump has committed that merits this? Or is the HuffPo just publishing outright fantasies?

God dammit, I’m now in the position of defending Huffington. I didn’t want to be here. Okay, @angrybell … actually, @ literally everyone who reblogged this uncritically as a tacit endorsement and agreement. Such as @the-critical-feminist that I reblog this from.My first question has to be: are you serious? Don’t read that with a tone, don’t read that as an attack. That’s my first question: Are you asking a serious question about what high crimes or misdemeanors Trump has perpetrated? Are you asking a sincere question or is this the sort of rhetoric that doesn’t translate well into text? And, if you are actually asking this question, are ou going to hear the answer or are you going to immediately start concocting your counter-argument because you just know in your heart that anyone who disagrees with you must be wrong, so you start formulating a plan to prove them wrong before you actually hear what they have to say?Next: did you read the article that was posted in the link you responded to? Because the author of that article does a reasonable job of explaining their thought process behind the headline. Or did you lash out before you read the article? Okay, presuming that you did read the article in good faith, evaluate its points, perform the follow-up research to understand context, and still disagree with the central tenets and simply believe that the author’s reasoning does not hold up for whatever reasons you have chosen not to state, and you believe their source information is falsified for whatever reason you have chosen not to state, I will move on. After I have given you and yours every conceivable benefit of the doubt and every charitable assumption. Because if the article itself doesn’t convince you, there’s the fact that Donald Trump has broken literally every federal law against corruption and conflict of interest. Not one or two, not most, not all but a few. Literally every single law we have against corruption, from the Constitution to the informal guidelines circulated as a memo from the White House ethics scholars. He’s broken literally every one of those rules. He’s openly traded favors for money and favors for months now. Hell, that Chinese influence-peddler that paid him off for sixteen million dollars should have been enough to get him convicted of treason. Sharing code-word level classified information with a government on the opposite side of an ongoing military conflict isn’t *necessarily* treason, unless the information was part of a share program with an allied nation and wasn’t his to distribute. That’s aiding a foreign aggressor at the expense of a military ally, and that’s treason. Giving aid and comfort to enemies of the nation. Obstruction of justice is pretty clear-cut, that’s an impeachment, except that the justice in question is also a matter of national security, so that’s treason. Again. Defaming the former president? Misdemeanor, impeachable. The way he drags his heels nominating posts in Justice and State could be prosecuted as dereliction of duty. If he has tapes of Comey, he’s on the hook for contempt, if he doesn’t then he’s on the hook for witness tampering. Hell, deleting the covfefe tweet is destroying federal records, which is a misdemeanor, and impeachable. The man doesn’t go a week without bringing on an impeachable offense. Strictly speaking, every time he goes to Mar-A-Lago he’s committing grand larceny by fraud, because he’s taking millions of dollars of American funds for his own benefit, after promising not to do that. There are dozens, hundreds maybe, of impeachable offenses already in this 140 days, “high crimes and misdemeanors”. Actual counts of treason, punishable by death by hanging, is probably only five or six counts. Only five or six counts of high treason by our sitting president. His job does not put him above reproach. His job is to *be* above reproach. And he’s failing that job. 

Trump’s supporters probably believe he’s done nothing impeachable or treasonous because they spent eight years claiming on no grounds whatsoever that Obama was impeachable and treasonous, just because they didn’t like him. They now probably convince themselves that these facts about Trump are as fake as their Obama theories and they’ve ruined the gravity of these terms for themselves.





“

His job does not put him above reproach. His job is to *be* above reproach. And he’s failing that job.


“






I like how Bogleech doesn’t know many Trump supporters are former Obama supporters.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/04/us/obama-trump-swing-voters.html
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/10/16/17980820/trump-obama-2016-race-racism-class-economy-2018-midterm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obama-Trump_voters
It’s not even a secret. But why am I not surprised bogleech - that intellectual titan - failed to do basic research?
And last time I checked, no nation required their politicans to be perfect. Which is what NYM is asking for with that quote; perfection. That’s what ‘above reproach’ means. An impossible standard, considering people “reproach” Trump for feeding fish wrong, for his skin color, for any and every little thing, even if they have to twist reality into a pretzel to do it. In fact, I’ve seen people take pictures of kids in cages from 2014, and blame Trump for it.

So this:


Are you asking a serious question about what high crimes or misdemeanors Trump has perpetrated?


Is a question of this:


Can someone tell me what high crime or misdemeanor Trump has committed that merits this?


Seems you missed the part that says “merits this”.


Next: did you read the article that was posted in the link you responded to? Because the author of that article does a reasonable job of explaining their thought process behind the headline. Or did you lash out before you read the article? 


(The underlined is in the subtitle, not the headline.)


Okay, presuming that you did read the article in good faith, evaluate its points, perform the follow-up research to understand context, and still disagree with the central tenets…
Context? Central tenets? Do you not know how highlighting works? You don’t need to know the context, or any other point, when you’re indicating a specific, explicit, and isolated quality.
The subtitle called for Trump’s execution, we’re 5 paragraphs in and you haven’t even acknowledged that part yet. Or at all, I’m guessing, because I’m not reading further. You keep talking around it. You accuse others, preemptively, of not hearing the answer and pre-”concocting” a response, and yet you’re waffling on about shit around the one, sole, isolated thing that was indicated in the first place.
This isn’t about ignoring context, this is about criticising one thing. Which is a thing people are allowed to do, by the way, just because people criticise one thing, doesn’t mean they’re criticising everything about the everyone involved, and everything said before, adjacent to, and after that one thing, and therefore are required to include all of those things in their consideration and assessment of this one thing.
The specific criticism of the indicated quality is the advocation of Trump’s execution. That’s it. No context is needed to understand that this is what was said, especially since that which was said, which is being criticised, is explicit. No amount of, “So, click-bait subtitle that you don’t see until you’ve already clicked on the article link out of the way, here’s what I actually meant when I said I wanted this person tried and executed,” could excuse the use of that language, let alone actually believing in it.
It’s like… it’s like if someone makes a typo, someone else is like, “Oh, seems you made a typo,” you’d jump in like, “But what about they’re perfectly reasonable spelling everywhere else? Hm? Forced to ignore contextual perfect spelling I see. They’re lack of typos everywhere else explains this typo, and vindicates it”.
You and what’s his face, James, fuckin ReasonAndEmpathy or whatever now, y’all keep saying “but what of the context?” when the criterion of criticism is isolated, atomic, specific, and/or explicit. No amount of context invalidates the very specific, singular words explicitly spoken. “Sure he called for Trump to be executed, but he explains himself.” Fucking and? When did the death sentence become ok? When did that happen? Moderates are ok with the death sentence now? Aight, weird.


Man this fucking post aged like fine wine, take a SIP 

Delicious

This was quite a ride
                    
                
            

            
            
        

    

    

        
Save

    



        

    

    
    

        

            









    

        
        
        
        
        
        
        
    

    

        thewickedverkaiking:
aglassroseneverfades:

pmastamonkmonk:

schnerp:

feminism-is-radical:

auntiewanda:

brithwyr:

auntiewanda:

brithwyr:

auntiewanda:

houroftheanarchistwolf:

aawb:

starsapphire:

is it time for frank cho and milo manara to die or what

That’s basically a naked woman I’m YELLING

What a pervert. What the FUCK does he not know how clothes work? What the hypothetical fuck is she wearing then if we can see all that?

It’s like how bath towels in comics miraculously wrap completely around breasts. Or how even when injured and dead on the ground women in comics have to be twisted into “sexy” poses. Or how women in comics walk like they’re in high heels even barefoot. 
It’s the only way men know how to draw women, because to them female characters are only there to be sexy. They only think of “women” as exploitative costumes and camera angles, high heels and titillation. Sex objects to ogle, plot objects to further male heroes’ narratives and drama, not heroes to cheer for. 

I’m sorry, I was labouring under the impression that this was the crowd that thought women should wear what they want..?

And that applies to fictional women who are depicted by men how? You can’t apply agency in the plot to something metatextual when it comes to fictional characters. 

Come on, let’s not pretend this is a male exclusive thing.

We’re going to have this argument are we? Not to mention you’re deviating from the original point that attributing agency to fictional characters’ clothing is asinine. 
What you have here are images of power, and do you really believe these characters are designed with titillating heterosexual women and bisexual and homosexual men in mind? Because I don’t think you do.
This is why the Hawkeye Initiative exists. Take common female poses in comics, put a man in the role, and see how “empowering” and “strong” it actually looks: 
Also: 

He got the painting for fighting against ‘censorship.’ Note that they handed him a gross design of a female being objectified, because at the end of the day, that is all they really want, to be allowed to objectify women. They don’t care about censorship in general it is about their ability to sexualise and degrade women without consequence.


You can see her butthole for chrissakes

I think the best imagery I’ve seen to explain the difference between what men think male objectification is vs what women actually want to see is the Hugh Jackman magazine covers.
Hugh Jackman on a men’s magazine. He’s shirtless and buff and angry. He’s imposing and aggressive. This is a male power fantasy, it’s what men want to be and aspire to - intense masculinity.
Hugh Jackman on a women’s magazine.  He looks like a dad. He looks like he’s going to bake me a quiche and sit and watch Game of Thrones with me. He looks like he gives really good hugs.
Men think women want big hulking naked men in loin cloths which is why they always quote He-Man as male objectification - without realizing that He Man is naked and buff in a loin cloth because MEN WANT HIM TO BE. More women would be happy to see him in a pink apron cutting vegetables and singing off-key to 70s rock.
Men want objects. Women want PEOPLE. 

This is the first time I have EVER seen this false equivalence articulated so well. Thank you.

MEN WANT OBJECTS WOMEN WANT PEOPLE
: Frank Cho added 2 new photos with Frank D Cho.
 2 hrs
 Well, this just happened.
 Milo Manara, master artist and storyteller, came in at the last ten minutes of
 my Art and Women panel and handed me a special gift in appreciation for
 fighting censorship- an original watercolor painting of Spider-Woman. The
 packed auditorium went wild.
 Wow. I'm just speechless
 CHO!
 NERT SE
 prasLE THE
 caMERa 2G
 CRap! IG a
 stock N HEET
 CRP SERNG P
 1RT
 ENTM
 FR
 MA
 RA
thewickedverkaiking:
aglassroseneverfades:

pmastamonkmonk:

schnerp:

feminism-is-radical:

auntiewanda:

brithwyr:

auntiewanda:

brithwyr:

auntiewanda:

houroftheanarchistwolf:

aawb:

starsapphire:

is it time for frank cho and milo manara to die or what

That’s basically a naked woman I’m YELLING

What a pervert. What the FUCK does he not know how clothes work? What the hypothetical fuck is she wearing then if we can see all that?

It’s like how bath towels in comics miraculously wrap completely around breasts. Or how even when injured and dead on the ground women in comics have to be twisted into “sexy” poses. Or how women in comics walk like they’re in high heels even barefoot. 
It’s the only way men know how to draw women, because to them female characters are only there to be sexy. They only think of “women” as exploitative costumes and camera angles, high heels and titillation. Sex objects to ogle, plot objects to further male heroes’ narratives and drama, not heroes to cheer for. 

I’m sorry, I was labouring under the impression that this was the crowd that thought women should wear what they want..?

And that applies to fictional women who are depicted by men how? You can’t apply agency in the plot to something metatextual when it comes to fictional characters. 

Come on, let’s not pretend this is a male exclusive thing.

We’re going to have this argument are we? Not to mention you’re deviating from the original point that attributing agency to fictional characters’ clothing is asinine. 
What you have here are images of power, and do you really believe these characters are designed with titillating heterosexual women and bisexual and homosexual men in mind? Because I don’t think you do.
This is why the Hawkeye Initiative exists. Take common female poses in comics, put a man in the role, and see how “empowering” and “strong” it actually looks: 
Also: 

He got the painting for fighting against ‘censorship.’ Note that they handed him a gross design of a female being objectified, because at the end of the day, that is all they really want, to be allowed to objectify women. They don’t care about censorship in general it is about their ability to sexualise and degrade women without consequence.


You can see her butthole for chrissakes

I think the best imagery I’ve seen to explain the difference between what men think male objectification is vs what women actually want to see is the Hugh Jackman magazine covers.
Hugh Jackman on a men’s magazine. He’s shirtless and buff and angry. He’s imposing and aggressive. This is a male power fantasy, it’s what men want to be and aspire to - intense masculinity.
Hugh Jackman on a women’s magazine.  He looks like a dad. He looks like he’s going to bake me a quiche and sit and watch Game of Thrones with me. He looks like he gives really good hugs.
Men think women want big hulking naked men in loin cloths which is why they always quote He-Man as male objectification - without realizing that He Man is naked and buff in a loin cloth because MEN WANT HIM TO BE. More women would be happy to see him in a pink apron cutting vegetables and singing off-key to 70s rock.
Men want objects. Women want PEOPLE. 

This is the first time I have EVER seen this false equivalence articulated so well. Thank you.

MEN WANT OBJECTS WOMEN WANT PEOPLE

        

            
            

                
                
                    thewickedverkaiking:
aglassroseneverfades:

pmastamonkmonk:

schnerp:

feminism-is-radical:

auntiewanda:

brithwyr:

auntiewanda:

brithwyr:

auntiewanda:

houroftheanarchistwolf:

aawb:

starsapphire:

is it time for frank cho and milo manara to die or what

That’s basically a naked woman I’m YELLING

What a pervert. What the FUCK does he not know how clothes work? What the hypothetical fuck is she wearing then if we can see all that?

It’s like how bath towels in comics miraculously wrap completely around breasts. Or how even when injured and dead on the ground women in comics have to be twisted into “sexy” poses. Or how women in comics walk like they’re in high heels even barefoot. 
It’s the only way men know how to draw women, because to them female characters are only there to be sexy. They only think of “women” as exploitative costumes and camera angles, high heels and titillation. Sex objects to ogle, plot objects to further male heroes’ narratives and drama, not heroes to cheer for. 

I’m sorry, I was labouring under the impression that this was the crowd that thought women should wear what they want..?

And that applies to fictional women who are depicted by men how? You can’t apply agency in the plot to something metatextual when it comes to fictional characters. 

Come on, let’s not pretend this is a male exclusive thing.

We’re going to have this argument are we? Not to mention you’re deviating from the original point that attributing agency to fictional characters’ clothing is asinine. 
What you have here are images of power, and do you really believe these characters are designed with titillating heterosexual women and bisexual and homosexual men in mind? Because I don’t think you do.
This is why the Hawkeye Initiative exists. Take common female poses in comics, put a man in the role, and see how “empowering” and “strong” it actually looks: 
Also: 

He got the painting for fighting against ‘censorship.’ Note that they handed him a gross design of a female being objectified, because at the end of the day, that is all they really want, to be allowed to objectify women. They don’t care about censorship in general it is about their ability to sexualise and degrade women without consequence.


You can see her butthole for chrissakes

I think the best imagery I’ve seen to explain the difference between what men think male objectification is vs what women actually want to see is the Hugh Jackman magazine covers.
Hugh Jackman on a men’s magazine. He’s shirtless and buff and angry. He’s imposing and aggressive. This is a male power fantasy, it’s what men want to be and aspire to - intense masculinity.
Hugh Jackman on a women’s magazine.  He looks like a dad. He looks like he’s going to bake me a quiche and sit and watch Game of Thrones with me. He looks like he gives really good hugs.
Men think women want big hulking naked men in loin cloths which is why they always quote He-Man as male objectification - without realizing that He Man is naked and buff in a loin cloth because MEN WANT HIM TO BE. More women would be happy to see him in a pink apron cutting vegetables and singing off-key to 70s rock.
Men want objects. Women want PEOPLE. 

This is the first time I have EVER seen this false equivalence articulated so well. Thank you.

MEN WANT OBJECTS WOMEN WANT PEOPLE
: Frank Cho added 2 new photos with Frank D Cho.
 2 hrs
 Well, this just happened.
 Milo Manara, master artist and storyteller, came in at the last ten minutes of
 my Art and Women panel and handed me a special gift in appreciation for
 fighting censorship- an original watercolor painting of Spider-Woman. The
 packed auditorium went wild.
 Wow. I'm just speechless
 CHO!
 NERT SE
 prasLE THE
 caMERa 2G
 CRap! IG a
 stock N HEET
 CRP SERNG P
 1RT
 ENTM
 FR
 MA
 RA
thewickedverkaiking:
aglassroseneverfades:

pmastamonkmonk:

schnerp:

feminism-is-radical:

auntiewanda:

brithwyr:

auntiewanda:

brithwyr:

auntiewanda:

houroftheanarchistwolf:

aawb:

starsapphire:

is it time for frank cho and milo manara to die or what

That’s basically a naked woman I’m YELLING

What a pervert. What the FUCK does he not know how clothes work? What the hypothetical fuck is she wearing then if we can see all that?

It’s like how bath towels in comics miraculously wrap completely around breasts. Or how even when injured and dead on the ground women in comics have to be twisted into “sexy” poses. Or how women in comics walk like they’re in high heels even barefoot. 
It’s the only way men know how to draw women, because to them female characters are only there to be sexy. They only think of “women” as exploitative costumes and camera angles, high heels and titillation. Sex objects to ogle, plot objects to further male heroes’ narratives and drama, not heroes to cheer for. 

I’m sorry, I was labouring under the impression that this was the crowd that thought women should wear what they want..?

And that applies to fictional women who are depicted by men how? You can’t apply agency in the plot to something metatextual when it comes to fictional characters. 

Come on, let’s not pretend this is a male exclusive thing.

We’re going to have this argument are we? Not to mention you’re deviating from the original point that attributing agency to fictional characters’ clothing is asinine. 
What you have here are images of power, and do you really believe these characters are designed with titillating heterosexual women and bisexual and homosexual men in mind? Because I don’t think you do.
This is why the Hawkeye Initiative exists. Take common female poses in comics, put a man in the role, and see how “empowering” and “strong” it actually looks: 
Also: 

He got the painting for fighting against ‘censorship.’ Note that they handed him a gross design of a female being objectified, because at the end of the day, that is all they really want, to be allowed to objectify women. They don’t care about censorship in general it is about their ability to sexualise and degrade women without consequence.


You can see her butthole for chrissakes

I think the best imagery I’ve seen to explain the difference between what men think male objectification is vs what women actually want to see is the Hugh Jackman magazine covers.
Hugh Jackman on a men’s magazine. He’s shirtless and buff and angry. He’s imposing and aggressive. This is a male power fantasy, it’s what men want to be and aspire to - intense masculinity.
Hugh Jackman on a women’s magazine.  He looks like a dad. He looks like he’s going to bake me a quiche and sit and watch Game of Thrones with me. He looks like he gives really good hugs.
Men think women want big hulking naked men in loin cloths which is why they always quote He-Man as male objectification - without realizing that He Man is naked and buff in a loin cloth because MEN WANT HIM TO BE. More women would be happy to see him in a pink apron cutting vegetables and singing off-key to 70s rock.
Men want objects. Women want PEOPLE. 

This is the first time I have EVER seen this false equivalence articulated so well. Thank you.

MEN WANT OBJECTS WOMEN WANT PEOPLE

                    
                
            

            
            
        

    

    

        
Save

    



        

    

    
    

        

            








        

    

    
    

        

            








        

    

    
    

        

            








        

    

    
    

        

            









    

        
        
        
        
        
        
        
    

    

        carollineasdasff:
Do You Know the Story of Socofy?
As the brand name Socofy tells, “so comfy” is exactly the ideal this brand is in pursuit of. Socofy want ladies can walk on leather high heels without feeling any pain.
Distinct from other brands, Socofy features bold and original design which ingeniously combines mordern western fashion style with Chinese ethnic elements.  You can easily find Chinese folk style  in the color matching as well as the decoratvive pattern of Socofy shoes. Numerous Bohemian lovers are addicted to Socofy styles.

Want to Explore More about Socofy Shoes? Click here ⇓
➷ SPRING COLLECTION OF SOCOFY SHOES
Extra 15% Discount Code For You: Alex15
: carollineasdasff:
Do You Know the Story of Socofy?
As the brand name Socofy tells, “so comfy” is exactly the ideal this brand is in pursuit of. Socofy want ladies can walk on leather high heels without feeling any pain.
Distinct from other brands, Socofy features bold and original design which ingeniously combines mordern western fashion style with Chinese ethnic elements.  You can easily find Chinese folk style  in the color matching as well as the decoratvive pattern of Socofy shoes. Numerous Bohemian lovers are addicted to Socofy styles.

Want to Explore More about Socofy Shoes? Click here ⇓
➷ SPRING COLLECTION OF SOCOFY SHOES
Extra 15% Discount Code For You: Alex15

        

            
            

                
                
                    carollineasdasff:
Do You Know the Story of Socofy?
As the brand name Socofy tells, “so comfy” is exactly the ideal this brand is in pursuit of. Socofy want ladies can walk on leather high heels without feeling any pain.
Distinct from other brands, Socofy features bold and original design which ingeniously combines mordern western fashion style with Chinese ethnic elements.  You can easily find Chinese folk style  in the color matching as well as the decoratvive pattern of Socofy shoes. Numerous Bohemian lovers are addicted to Socofy styles.

Want to Explore More about Socofy Shoes? Click here ⇓
➷ SPRING COLLECTION OF SOCOFY SHOES
Extra 15% Discount Code For You: Alex15
: carollineasdasff:
Do You Know the Story of Socofy?
As the brand name Socofy tells, “so comfy” is exactly the ideal this brand is in pursuit of. Socofy want ladies can walk on leather high heels without feeling any pain.
Distinct from other brands, Socofy features bold and original design which ingeniously combines mordern western fashion style with Chinese ethnic elements.  You can easily find Chinese folk style  in the color matching as well as the decoratvive pattern of Socofy shoes. Numerous Bohemian lovers are addicted to Socofy styles.

Want to Explore More about Socofy Shoes? Click here ⇓
➷ SPRING COLLECTION OF SOCOFY SHOES
Extra 15% Discount Code For You: Alex15

                    
                
            

            
                
                
carollineasdasff:
Do You Know the Story of Socofy?
As the brand name Socofy tells, “so comfy” is exactly the ideal this brand is in pursu...

                
            
            
        

    

    

        
Save

    



        

    

    
    

        

            








        

    

    
    

        

            








        

    

    
    

        

            








        

    

    
    

        

            








        

    

    
    

        

            









    

        
        
        
        
        
        
        
    

    

        shattered-angel456:

periegesisvoid:

socialnetworkhell:

buzzfeed:

Here Are Some People Who Are Very Confused About What “No Makeup” Looks Like

Woman: wearing foundation, powder, blush, bronzer, highlight, false lashes, mascara, nude lipstick, brow powder eyeshadow 
Man: she doesn’t have red lipstick on so that means no makeup

like 3 of them are wearing very visible winged eyeliner i’m screaming

Literally goes to show men don’t actually give a shit or even notice the make up, men aren’t the ones asking for women to wear all this make up, it’s women choosing it to compete with other women. If all women everywhere stopped wearing it, men wouldn’t even care and would accept it as the new standard. : Tyler
 Follow
 Really_Silent
 Kylie Jenner looks so much better without
 makeup to me idk why. Im prob just weird

 *
 Follow
 @hereforsmolder
 Nikki looks better without makeup, we can see
 her natural beauty.
 DI
 YCA
 FOX
 hre Jlive
 LAD
 DFOX
 WILDFOX
 YKE UP
 AYK
 RETWEET
 LIKES
 4

 dark skin king
 @sluttyblackboy
 Follow
 The fact that she probably isn't wearing any
 makeup and is still stunning.... Jesus Christ.

 This is a picture of Jenna Jameson before all the surgeries and without makeup.
 11Wow. (SFW) G.imgur.com)
 submitted 3 years ago by owenstumor
 1007 comments share pocket
 I was afraid you guys would t
 anything but, wears Stila Four Pan
 hinn was too
 is
 Bronze Set and
 Frieda Sheer Blonde
 Curvaceo

 HEAD OVER HEELS WITH
 Mick O'Hara
 오. Follow
 Ken Doll
 GKenyeWest15
 #
 . Follow
 mick_ohara
 aylor swift without makeup on
 #TaylorSwift
 Yo, Taylor Swift without makeup caught me by
 surprise. She's way prettier without it
 www.cambio.com
 Wonderland.
 Wonderlain
 Pinit
 TAYLOR
 55 PM-21 Nov 2014
shattered-angel456:

periegesisvoid:

socialnetworkhell:

buzzfeed:

Here Are Some People Who Are Very Confused About What “No Makeup” Looks Like

Woman: wearing foundation, powder, blush, bronzer, highlight, false lashes, mascara, nude lipstick, brow powder eyeshadow 
Man: she doesn’t have red lipstick on so that means no makeup

like 3 of them are wearing very visible winged eyeliner i’m screaming

Literally goes to show men don’t actually give a shit or even notice the make up, men aren’t the ones asking for women to wear all this make up, it’s women choosing it to compete with other women. If all women everywhere stopped wearing it, men wouldn’t even care and would accept it as the new standard. 
        

            
            

                
                
                    shattered-angel456:

periegesisvoid:

socialnetworkhell:

buzzfeed:

Here Are Some People Who Are Very Confused About What “No Makeup” Looks Like

Woman: wearing foundation, powder, blush, bronzer, highlight, false lashes, mascara, nude lipstick, brow powder eyeshadow 
Man: she doesn’t have red lipstick on so that means no makeup

like 3 of them are wearing very visible winged eyeliner i’m screaming

Literally goes to show men don’t actually give a shit or even notice the make up, men aren’t the ones asking for women to wear all this make up, it’s women choosing it to compete with other women. If all women everywhere stopped wearing it, men wouldn’t even care and would accept it as the new standard. : Tyler
 Follow
 Really_Silent
 Kylie Jenner looks so much better without
 makeup to me idk why. Im prob just weird

 *
 Follow
 @hereforsmolder
 Nikki looks better without makeup, we can see
 her natural beauty.
 DI
 YCA
 FOX
 hre Jlive
 LAD
 DFOX
 WILDFOX
 YKE UP
 AYK
 RETWEET
 LIKES
 4

 dark skin king
 @sluttyblackboy
 Follow
 The fact that she probably isn't wearing any
 makeup and is still stunning.... Jesus Christ.

 This is a picture of Jenna Jameson before all the surgeries and without makeup.
 11Wow. (SFW) G.imgur.com)
 submitted 3 years ago by owenstumor
 1007 comments share pocket
 I was afraid you guys would t
 anything but, wears Stila Four Pan
 hinn was too
 is
 Bronze Set and
 Frieda Sheer Blonde
 Curvaceo

 HEAD OVER HEELS WITH
 Mick O'Hara
 오. Follow
 Ken Doll
 GKenyeWest15
 #
 . Follow
 mick_ohara
 aylor swift without makeup on
 #TaylorSwift
 Yo, Taylor Swift without makeup caught me by
 surprise. She's way prettier without it
 www.cambio.com
 Wonderland.
 Wonderlain
 Pinit
 TAYLOR
 55 PM-21 Nov 2014
shattered-angel456:

periegesisvoid:

socialnetworkhell:

buzzfeed:

Here Are Some People Who Are Very Confused About What “No Makeup” Looks Like

Woman: wearing foundation, powder, blush, bronzer, highlight, false lashes, mascara, nude lipstick, brow powder eyeshadow 
Man: she doesn’t have red lipstick on so that means no makeup

like 3 of them are wearing very visible winged eyeliner i’m screaming

Literally goes to show men don’t actually give a shit or even notice the make up, men aren’t the ones asking for women to wear all this make up, it’s women choosing it to compete with other women. If all women everywhere stopped wearing it, men wouldn’t even care and would accept it as the new standard. 
                    
                
            

            
            
        

    

    

        
Save