🥴  Drunk Meme

⏱  Waiting Meme

📢  Motivational Memes

🐸  Evil Kermit Meme

🧝‍♂️  Elf On The Shelf Meme

😴  Sleep Meme

homosexual Memes

Hurrican
Hurrican
Flood
Flood
tonys
tonys
man-or-woman
man-or-woman
natural disasters
natural disasters
hate group
hate group
disaster
disaster
tony
tony
support
support
leader
leader 

    
                    

                

            
        
    

    






            

            
            

                

                    
                

                

                    
                    
                    

                        


	


    🔥 Popular | Latest






    

    
    

    

        

            



        

    

    

    

        

            



        

    

    

    

        

            



        

    

    

    

        

            



        

    

    

    

        

            




    

        
        
        
        
        
        
        
    

    

        Beautiful, Crime, and Girls: Princess Qajar.
 A symbol of beauty in Persia.
 13 young men killed themselves
 because she rejected them.
bigsleevescollects:
kyojinofbraveos:

sighs…..
Internet is back at it, again…..
When someone says harem to people, these kind of paintings come up in people’s mind.
L.F. Comerre. (1850 - 1916)
But, people who drew these paintings, they are called orientalists, have never seen a harem because NO STRANGER WERE ALLOWED TO ENTER THE HAREM UNLESS THEY WANT TO LOSE THEIR HEAD. So they painted what they dreamt of, since they were grown up with Western beauty concepts, they painted Harem girls as what their culture accepted beautiful.
BUT, at 19th century Persia, the Western beauty standards were not dominant. So of course, they had their own beauty standards and their own concept of beauty.
The more masculine a woman was, more beautiful she was accepted. The opposite was also true for men. Women with heavy brows and faint mustaches considered so attractive that they were sometimes painted on or augmented with mascara and young beardless men with slim waists and delicate features. In 19th century portraits of lovers, the genders are barely distinguishable, identified only by their headgear.
Young men without beards were the idols of beauty that time. Sexual mores and erotic sensibilities of 19th century Iran permitted homosexuality between these young men and older men.
BUT, after Iran started to be more modern, aka more Westernized, this beauty standards were lost. West beauty standards started to be more dominant and homosexuality was no longer permitted. Today, it is a crime to be homosexual at Iran.
This book, women with mustaches and men without beards, is about the beauty standards of Persia at Qajar dynasty. If you are interested, you can buy it and read. HERE is an interview with the author, Afsaneh Najmabadi.
At that time, Qajar princess was considered beautiful. Today, uncultured internet memers are making fun of her.  Shame @ all of you.
EDIT: That’s not Pricess Qajar ffs….. Qajar is the name of dynasty, not the princess….

Her name is  Zahra Khanom Tadj es-Saltaneh, she was the daughter of the King of Persia in the early 19th century. Not to forget that she had a university education.

        

            
            

                
                
                    Beautiful, Crime, and Girls: Princess Qajar.
 A symbol of beauty in Persia.
 13 young men killed themselves
 because she rejected them.
bigsleevescollects:
kyojinofbraveos:

sighs…..
Internet is back at it, again…..
When someone says harem to people, these kind of paintings come up in people’s mind.
L.F. Comerre. (1850 - 1916)
But, people who drew these paintings, they are called orientalists, have never seen a harem because NO STRANGER WERE ALLOWED TO ENTER THE HAREM UNLESS THEY WANT TO LOSE THEIR HEAD. So they painted what they dreamt of, since they were grown up with Western beauty concepts, they painted Harem girls as what their culture accepted beautiful.
BUT, at 19th century Persia, the Western beauty standards were not dominant. So of course, they had their own beauty standards and their own concept of beauty.
The more masculine a woman was, more beautiful she was accepted. The opposite was also true for men. Women with heavy brows and faint mustaches considered so attractive that they were sometimes painted on or augmented with mascara and young beardless men with slim waists and delicate features. In 19th century portraits of lovers, the genders are barely distinguishable, identified only by their headgear.
Young men without beards were the idols of beauty that time. Sexual mores and erotic sensibilities of 19th century Iran permitted homosexuality between these young men and older men.
BUT, after Iran started to be more modern, aka more Westernized, this beauty standards were lost. West beauty standards started to be more dominant and homosexuality was no longer permitted. Today, it is a crime to be homosexual at Iran.
This book, women with mustaches and men without beards, is about the beauty standards of Persia at Qajar dynasty. If you are interested, you can buy it and read. HERE is an interview with the author, Afsaneh Najmabadi.
At that time, Qajar princess was considered beautiful. Today, uncultured internet memers are making fun of her.  Shame @ all of you.
EDIT: That’s not Pricess Qajar ffs….. Qajar is the name of dynasty, not the princess….

Her name is  Zahra Khanom Tadj es-Saltaneh, she was the daughter of the King of Persia in the early 19th century. Not to forget that she had a university education.

                    
                
            

            
                
                
bigsleevescollects:
kyojinofbraveos:

sighs…..
Internet is back at it, again…..
When someone says harem to people, these kind of paintings c...

                
            
            
        

    

    

        
Save

    



        

    

    

    

        

            



        

    

    

    

        

            



        

    

    

    

        

            



        

    

    

    

        

            



        

    

    

    

        

            



        

    

    

    

        

            




    

        
        
        
        
        
        
        
    

    

        Clothes, Dad, and Feminism: 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
        

            
            

                
                
                    Clothes, Dad, and Feminism: 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

    



        

    

    

    

        

            



        

    

    

    

        

            



        

    

    

    

        

            



        

    

    

    

        

            



        

    

    

    

        

            



        

    

    

    

        

            



        

    

    

    

        

            



        

    

    

    

        

            



        

    

    

    

        

            



        

    

    

    

        

            




    

        
        
        
        
        
        
        
    

    

        Alive, Bad, and College: Side Effects
 Follow
 ECTS @SideEffectsNews
 Why aren't millennials giving blood?
 bit.ly/2fRZG5i
 5:14 PM 28 Sep 2017

 Belinda Blumenthal
 @philomenapunk
 Follow
 because we all gay
 ide Effects @SideEffectsNews
 Why aren't millennials giving blood? bit.ly/2fRZG5i
 11:29 AM 3 Oct 2017
 3,199 Retweets 11,051 Likes
agapantoblu:

somecunttookmyurl:
creaturethatcries:


dr-dendritic-trees:

karnythia:

voidbat:

genderfuckt:


optimysticals:

the-fury-of-a-time-lord:

luidilovins:

the-modern-satyr:

seedydemigod:

captainfunkpunkandroll:

the-real-eye-to-see:
Didn’t even know people are not allowed to give blood if they are gay


That’s been the thing for years. The HIV scare of the ‘80s prohibited us from donating blood. And they still hold that against us despite the fact that that claim has been debunked over and over again.

the wording on the paperwork is “Are you a man who has had sexual intercourse with a man after 1980” or “Are you a woman who has had sexual intercourse with a man who has had sexual intercourse with another man since 1980” (this was a blood drive at my college  where majority of the students werent Alive in 1980.) I donated all the time back when I was a virgin, because o- , but now I’m not allowed to. So a better question for this article is “Why won’t baby boomers let queer people donate blood, even though all the blood gets screened for HIV and aids anyway?” though, theres a lot of room for loopholes in the wording of it   


This fucking matters. Bias in medicine is bias that should not exist. Fucking fix it.


This is disgusting 

hey trans people can’t give blood either. was banned from a plasma place for having the nerve to show up and be trans. “we don’t serve you people”.

This is one of the reasons why it was painful for a LOT of Queer people after the Pulse shooting. We kept seeing messages calling for blood donations but so many of us can’t donate. We couldn’t even help our own community. 


!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


as someone who has received money and/or drugs in exchange for sex, i have a lifetime ban on giving blood. FURTHERMORE, my whore blood is so filthy that if you’ve had sex with me in the past year, YOU can’t give blood!
and that’s a federal goddamn guideline, folks! 

If you lived in Europe for 3 months between 1980 and 1996 you can’t donate blood which basically takes out everyone who ever served in the military and was stationed overseas, anyone who studied abroad or anyone who had a job overseas during that period. The Red Cross is always announcing they have a shortage of blood donors but they create the shortage with the byzantine array of restrictions that they refuse to revisit. 

Okay, the above stuff is stigma and total crap, we have efficient screens for HIV and things now, the blood will be screened anyway, banning people for their sexual history is completely prejudice and its wasteful, and those rules really need to go.
But the last one, the ban on donation for people living in Europe, is actually done for a reason. Its an attempt to limit the spread of vCJD, which we don’t have a way of screening for right now.


Last i went you could donate blood if trans, I was openly trans at my blood clinic and they took me. So its probably just that particular clinic, which I say so that other trans people arent discouraged from trying to donate.
Also… as long as its the only question you lie on… if theres a blood shortage emergency I really dont see why not lie on that one question. Like its terrible to have to do that and im not trying to make you feel bad if you avoiding donating because of it, but since we know its not scientifically founded it seems perfectly moral to me to lie on that one question if you want to donate. There’s not really a way for them to fact check that.


I really never understood why people don’t just LIE
“Heartbroken they couldn’t-“ JUST LIE ON THE FORM

I’m an openly queer woman in Italy and I’ve never lied on my form, but also, my form doesn’t even ask the gender of my partner. All the questions are phrased “have you had any heterosexual or homosexual intercourse in the past six months?”, “have you changed partner in the past six months?” They are willingly phrased to work for all people because there’s literally no scientific reason as to why straight blood would be safer than gay blood.It’s just a formality. Honestly, you could write you just had an orgy and as long as you claim you’ve practiced safe sex they’ll give you the green card to donate. At most, they mark your sack for a more thorough venereal diseases screening in case you couldn’t affirm for sure that you’re 100% clean.The whole “but after the AIDS scare” discourse is bullcrap. They give AIDS informative flyers to all donors once a year and they screen for HIV all the sacks. Whenever you donate, you get the analysis results back and if you check, straight or gay, there’s always the results for the HIV test. Because medicine knows that straights and gays are all equally likely to be affected, it’s how it is.If you’re gay, you can donate. If you’re trans, the most that can happen is that your doctor allows you two yearly donations, roughly six months apart, if you are having your period; otherwise you’re allowed three yearly donations, roughly four months apart. That’s it.If the forms are like those provided in Italy, you won’t have even have to lie. If you live in some dumbass country that thinks you cannot donate if you’re queer, though, yeah, just fucking lie about it because there is no valid reason that says you cannot give blood.It’s an whole different matter if we’re talking about restrictions based on where you were at X date.These questions are common worldwide because they refer to viruses and infections that cannot be screened. This is not made because the Red Cross is mean and cruel and whatever the fuck; it’s because they cannot be sure your blood is not contaminated and since the blood is going to someone who, it stands to reason, is already compromised on their own, they cannot fight their own battle and add more. That’s why you cannot donate. My uncle died because he was fighting leukemia and was injected a transfusion of infected blood. DO NOT LIE ON THE FORM ABOUT ILLNESSES YOU HAD OR PLACES YOU’VE BEEN TO. YOUR WISH TO DONATE IS WORTH JACK SHIT IF YOU CONTAMINATE SOMEONE BECAUSE YOU WEREN’T HONEST.
        

            
            

                
                
                    Alive, Bad, and College: Side Effects
 Follow
 ECTS @SideEffectsNews
 Why aren't millennials giving blood?
 bit.ly/2fRZG5i
 5:14 PM 28 Sep 2017

 Belinda Blumenthal
 @philomenapunk
 Follow
 because we all gay
 ide Effects @SideEffectsNews
 Why aren't millennials giving blood? bit.ly/2fRZG5i
 11:29 AM 3 Oct 2017
 3,199 Retweets 11,051 Likes
agapantoblu:

somecunttookmyurl:
creaturethatcries:


dr-dendritic-trees:

karnythia:

voidbat:

genderfuckt:


optimysticals:

the-fury-of-a-time-lord:

luidilovins:

the-modern-satyr:

seedydemigod:

captainfunkpunkandroll:

the-real-eye-to-see:
Didn’t even know people are not allowed to give blood if they are gay


That’s been the thing for years. The HIV scare of the ‘80s prohibited us from donating blood. And they still hold that against us despite the fact that that claim has been debunked over and over again.

the wording on the paperwork is “Are you a man who has had sexual intercourse with a man after 1980” or “Are you a woman who has had sexual intercourse with a man who has had sexual intercourse with another man since 1980” (this was a blood drive at my college  where majority of the students werent Alive in 1980.) I donated all the time back when I was a virgin, because o- , but now I’m not allowed to. So a better question for this article is “Why won’t baby boomers let queer people donate blood, even though all the blood gets screened for HIV and aids anyway?” though, theres a lot of room for loopholes in the wording of it   


This fucking matters. Bias in medicine is bias that should not exist. Fucking fix it.


This is disgusting 

hey trans people can’t give blood either. was banned from a plasma place for having the nerve to show up and be trans. “we don’t serve you people”.

This is one of the reasons why it was painful for a LOT of Queer people after the Pulse shooting. We kept seeing messages calling for blood donations but so many of us can’t donate. We couldn’t even help our own community. 


!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


as someone who has received money and/or drugs in exchange for sex, i have a lifetime ban on giving blood. FURTHERMORE, my whore blood is so filthy that if you’ve had sex with me in the past year, YOU can’t give blood!
and that’s a federal goddamn guideline, folks! 

If you lived in Europe for 3 months between 1980 and 1996 you can’t donate blood which basically takes out everyone who ever served in the military and was stationed overseas, anyone who studied abroad or anyone who had a job overseas during that period. The Red Cross is always announcing they have a shortage of blood donors but they create the shortage with the byzantine array of restrictions that they refuse to revisit. 

Okay, the above stuff is stigma and total crap, we have efficient screens for HIV and things now, the blood will be screened anyway, banning people for their sexual history is completely prejudice and its wasteful, and those rules really need to go.
But the last one, the ban on donation for people living in Europe, is actually done for a reason. Its an attempt to limit the spread of vCJD, which we don’t have a way of screening for right now.


Last i went you could donate blood if trans, I was openly trans at my blood clinic and they took me. So its probably just that particular clinic, which I say so that other trans people arent discouraged from trying to donate.
Also… as long as its the only question you lie on… if theres a blood shortage emergency I really dont see why not lie on that one question. Like its terrible to have to do that and im not trying to make you feel bad if you avoiding donating because of it, but since we know its not scientifically founded it seems perfectly moral to me to lie on that one question if you want to donate. There’s not really a way for them to fact check that.


I really never understood why people don’t just LIE
“Heartbroken they couldn’t-“ JUST LIE ON THE FORM

I’m an openly queer woman in Italy and I’ve never lied on my form, but also, my form doesn’t even ask the gender of my partner. All the questions are phrased “have you had any heterosexual or homosexual intercourse in the past six months?”, “have you changed partner in the past six months?” They are willingly phrased to work for all people because there’s literally no scientific reason as to why straight blood would be safer than gay blood.It’s just a formality. Honestly, you could write you just had an orgy and as long as you claim you’ve practiced safe sex they’ll give you the green card to donate. At most, they mark your sack for a more thorough venereal diseases screening in case you couldn’t affirm for sure that you’re 100% clean.The whole “but after the AIDS scare” discourse is bullcrap. They give AIDS informative flyers to all donors once a year and they screen for HIV all the sacks. Whenever you donate, you get the analysis results back and if you check, straight or gay, there’s always the results for the HIV test. Because medicine knows that straights and gays are all equally likely to be affected, it’s how it is.If you’re gay, you can donate. If you’re trans, the most that can happen is that your doctor allows you two yearly donations, roughly six months apart, if you are having your period; otherwise you’re allowed three yearly donations, roughly four months apart. That’s it.If the forms are like those provided in Italy, you won’t have even have to lie. If you live in some dumbass country that thinks you cannot donate if you’re queer, though, yeah, just fucking lie about it because there is no valid reason that says you cannot give blood.It’s an whole different matter if we’re talking about restrictions based on where you were at X date.These questions are common worldwide because they refer to viruses and infections that cannot be screened. This is not made because the Red Cross is mean and cruel and whatever the fuck; it’s because they cannot be sure your blood is not contaminated and since the blood is going to someone who, it stands to reason, is already compromised on their own, they cannot fight their own battle and add more. That’s why you cannot donate. My uncle died because he was fighting leukemia and was injected a transfusion of infected blood. DO NOT LIE ON THE FORM ABOUT ILLNESSES YOU HAD OR PLACES YOU’VE BEEN TO. YOUR WISH TO DONATE IS WORTH JACK SHIT IF YOU CONTAMINATE SOMEONE BECAUSE YOU WEREN’T HONEST.
                    
                
            

            
            
        

    

    

        
Save

    



        

    

    

    

        

            




    

        
        
        
        
        
        
        
    

    

        Click, Facts, and Funny: 26+ Smashing Tumblr Posts That Are Not To Be Missed
 biggest-gaudiest-patronuses
 seduce me with ridiculous history facts
 chrownox
 Pineapples used to be so expensive that people would rent them for partys as
 prestige decoration
 biggest-gaudiest-patronuses
 that's the shit
 goldengaypotato
 Upwards of 90% of all giraffe sex is homosexual, with some males even
 developing intimate relationships that include fawning and cuddling with their
 necks.
 biggest-gaudiest-patronuses
 my first thought was "this can't possibly be based on fact" and then
 Giraffes
 Further information: Giraffe § Social life and breeding habits
 Male giraffes have been observed to engage in remarkably high frequen ci es of homosexual
 behavior. After aggressive "necking", it is common for two male giraffes to caress and court each
 other, leading up to mounting and climax. Such interactons between males have been found to be
 more frequent than heterosexual coup ling [79] In one study, up to 94% of observed mounting
 inciden ts took pla ce between two males. The proportion of same sex activities varied between 30
 and 75%, and atany given time one in twenty males were engaged in non-combative necking
 behavior with another male. Only 1% of same-sex moun ting inciden ts occurred between
 females leol
 biggest-gaudiest-patronuses
 this has nothing to do with history
 unclefather
 Historically, giraffes are gay
 Source:biggest-gaudiest-patronuses #welp
 47,652 notes
 Sarcasm Goal
 Click to see full list
26+ Smashing Tumblr Posts That Are Not To Be Missed #funny #lol #memes #humor #tumblr
        

            
            

                
                
                    Click, Facts, and Funny: 26+ Smashing Tumblr Posts That Are Not To Be Missed
 biggest-gaudiest-patronuses
 seduce me with ridiculous history facts
 chrownox
 Pineapples used to be so expensive that people would rent them for partys as
 prestige decoration
 biggest-gaudiest-patronuses
 that's the shit
 goldengaypotato
 Upwards of 90% of all giraffe sex is homosexual, with some males even
 developing intimate relationships that include fawning and cuddling with their
 necks.
 biggest-gaudiest-patronuses
 my first thought was "this can't possibly be based on fact" and then
 Giraffes
 Further information: Giraffe § Social life and breeding habits
 Male giraffes have been observed to engage in remarkably high frequen ci es of homosexual
 behavior. After aggressive "necking", it is common for two male giraffes to caress and court each
 other, leading up to mounting and climax. Such interactons between males have been found to be
 more frequent than heterosexual coup ling [79] In one study, up to 94% of observed mounting
 inciden ts took pla ce between two males. The proportion of same sex activities varied between 30
 and 75%, and atany given time one in twenty males were engaged in non-combative necking
 behavior with another male. Only 1% of same-sex moun ting inciden ts occurred between
 females leol
 biggest-gaudiest-patronuses
 this has nothing to do with history
 unclefather
 Historically, giraffes are gay
 Source:biggest-gaudiest-patronuses #welp
 47,652 notes
 Sarcasm Goal
 Click to see full list
26+ Smashing Tumblr Posts That Are Not To Be Missed #funny #lol #memes #humor #tumblr
                    
                
            

            
            
        

    

    

        
Save

    



        

    

    

    

        

            



        

    

    

    

        

            



        

    

    

    

        

            



        

    

    

    

        

            



        

    

    

    

        

            



        

    

    

    

        

            



        

    

    

    

        

            



        

    

    

    

        

            




    

        
        
        
        
        
        
        
    

    

        80s, Apparently, and Books: ladylisa:
gemfyre:

lauralandons:

thereadersmuse:

jehovahhthickness:

lightning-st0rm:

pearlmito:

smootymormonhelldream:

stripedsilverfeline:

anti-clerical:

ramirezbundydahmer:

When the Nazi concentration camps were liberated by the Allies, it was a time of great jubilation for the tens of thousands of people incarcerated in them. But an often forgotten fact of this time is that prisoners who happened to be wearing the pink triangle (the Nazis’ way of marking and identifying homosexuals) were forced to serve out the rest of their sentence. This was due to a part of German law simply known as “Paragraph 175” which criminalized homosexuality. The law wasn’t repealed until 1969.

This should be required learning, internationally. 

You need to know this. You need to remember this. This is not something to swept under the carpet nor be forgotten. 
Never. Too many have died for the way they have loved. That needs stop now. 
Make it stop? 

I did a report on this in my World History class my sophomore year of high school. It was incredibly unsettling.

My teacher shown the class this. Mostly everyone in the class felt uncomfortable. 

I have reblogged this in the past, but it is so ironic that it comes across my dash right now. I a currently working as a docent at my city’s Holocaust Education Center (( I say currently because I’ve also done research and translation for them )) and out current exhibit is one on loan from the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum ((USHMM)). This is a little known historical fact that Paragraph 175 was not repealed after the war and those convicted under Nazi laws as a danger to society because they were gay were not released because they had be convicted in a court of law. There was no liberation or justice for them as they weren’t considered criminals, or even victims for that matter. They were criminals who remained persecuted and ostracized and kept on the fringes of society for decades after the war had been won. Paragraph175 wasn’t actually repealed until 1994. And it was only in May 2002, that the German parliament completed legislation to pardon all homosexuals convicted under Paragraph175 during the Nazi era. History has forgotten about these men and women — please educate yourselves so this does not happen again. Remember this history. Remember them.

@mindlesshumor ok how the fuck did I miss this when I’ve studied The Holocaust like nobody’s business??? wtf

Because the history we have left regarding it is literally the contents of this first hand account.
It is a thin little book.
When I first opened it, I wondered why it was so thin.
Why there wasn’t other books like it.
Other first hand accounts.
By the time I finished it, I didn’t wonder anymore.

Further reading:
I, Pierre Seel, Deported Homosexual: A Memoir of Nazi Terror by Pierre Seel
An Underground Life: Memoirs of a Gay Jew in Nazi Berlin by Gad Beck
The Pink Triangle: The Nazi War Against Homosexuals by Richard Plant
Branded By The Pink Triangle by Ken Setterington
Bent by Martin Sherman (fiction; however, it’s often credited with bringing attention to gay Holocaust victims for the first time since the war ended)

This is one of the memorial sculptures in Dachau.  It was erected in the early 60s and is missing the pink triangles.  Because in the early 60s, homosexuality was still a crime in most of the world.Our tour guide explained why the pink triangles have not been added later - if they were, then folks would assume that they had always been there.  This way people ask “why aren’t there pink triangles?” and somebody can explain why - because in some ways, the rest of the world was as bass-ackwards as Nazi Germany.


Apparently, this wasnt taught in schools in the 70s-80s, cuz when I mentioned it to my mom, she had no idea that gays were held in concentration camps. She thought it was just jewish people. 

        

            
            

                
                
                    80s, Apparently, and Books: ladylisa:
gemfyre:

lauralandons:

thereadersmuse:

jehovahhthickness:

lightning-st0rm:

pearlmito:

smootymormonhelldream:

stripedsilverfeline:

anti-clerical:

ramirezbundydahmer:

When the Nazi concentration camps were liberated by the Allies, it was a time of great jubilation for the tens of thousands of people incarcerated in them. But an often forgotten fact of this time is that prisoners who happened to be wearing the pink triangle (the Nazis’ way of marking and identifying homosexuals) were forced to serve out the rest of their sentence. This was due to a part of German law simply known as “Paragraph 175” which criminalized homosexuality. The law wasn’t repealed until 1969.

This should be required learning, internationally. 

You need to know this. You need to remember this. This is not something to swept under the carpet nor be forgotten. 
Never. Too many have died for the way they have loved. That needs stop now. 
Make it stop? 

I did a report on this in my World History class my sophomore year of high school. It was incredibly unsettling.

My teacher shown the class this. Mostly everyone in the class felt uncomfortable. 

I have reblogged this in the past, but it is so ironic that it comes across my dash right now. I a currently working as a docent at my city’s Holocaust Education Center (( I say currently because I’ve also done research and translation for them )) and out current exhibit is one on loan from the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum ((USHMM)). This is a little known historical fact that Paragraph 175 was not repealed after the war and those convicted under Nazi laws as a danger to society because they were gay were not released because they had be convicted in a court of law. There was no liberation or justice for them as they weren’t considered criminals, or even victims for that matter. They were criminals who remained persecuted and ostracized and kept on the fringes of society for decades after the war had been won. Paragraph175 wasn’t actually repealed until 1994. And it was only in May 2002, that the German parliament completed legislation to pardon all homosexuals convicted under Paragraph175 during the Nazi era. History has forgotten about these men and women — please educate yourselves so this does not happen again. Remember this history. Remember them.

@mindlesshumor ok how the fuck did I miss this when I’ve studied The Holocaust like nobody’s business??? wtf

Because the history we have left regarding it is literally the contents of this first hand account.
It is a thin little book.
When I first opened it, I wondered why it was so thin.
Why there wasn’t other books like it.
Other first hand accounts.
By the time I finished it, I didn’t wonder anymore.

Further reading:
I, Pierre Seel, Deported Homosexual: A Memoir of Nazi Terror by Pierre Seel
An Underground Life: Memoirs of a Gay Jew in Nazi Berlin by Gad Beck
The Pink Triangle: The Nazi War Against Homosexuals by Richard Plant
Branded By The Pink Triangle by Ken Setterington
Bent by Martin Sherman (fiction; however, it’s often credited with bringing attention to gay Holocaust victims for the first time since the war ended)

This is one of the memorial sculptures in Dachau.  It was erected in the early 60s and is missing the pink triangles.  Because in the early 60s, homosexuality was still a crime in most of the world.Our tour guide explained why the pink triangles have not been added later - if they were, then folks would assume that they had always been there.  This way people ask “why aren’t there pink triangles?” and somebody can explain why - because in some ways, the rest of the world was as bass-ackwards as Nazi Germany.


Apparently, this wasnt taught in schools in the 70s-80s, cuz when I mentioned it to my mom, she had no idea that gays were held in concentration camps. She thought it was just jewish people. 

                    
                
            

            
            
        

    

    

        
Save

    



        

    

    

    

        

            



        

    

    

    

        

            



        

    

    

    

        

            




    

        
        
        
        
        
        
        
    

    

        Clothes, Dad, and Feminism: 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

        

            
            

                
                
                    Clothes, Dad, and Feminism: 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

    



        

    

    

    

        

            



        

    

    

    

        

            



        

    

    

    

        

            



        

    

    

    

        

            



        

    

    

    

        

            



        

    

    

    

        

            



        

    

    

    

        

            



        

    

    

    

        

            



        

    

    

    

        

            



        

    

    

    

        

            



        

    

    

    

        

            



        

    

    

    

        

            



        

    

    

    

        

            



        

    

    

    

        

            



        

    

    

    

        

            




    

        
        
        
        
        
        
        
    

    

        Girls, Life, and Love: Jane Austen more more likely to
 have had sex with a woman than a
 man, says historian
 'People often long to know if the eternal spinster Jane
 Austen ever had sex with a man. The answer is almost
 certainly not,' says Lucy Worsley

 The idea that Charlotte Brontë, the apparent goddess of hetero-
 sexual romance, was in love with a woman for most of her life, in
 a way that would today be described as lesbian, might come as a
 shock, yet it is not entirely new. Most notably, E.F. Benson in
 his biography of Charlotte Brontë, written in 1932, described
 her relationship with Ellen Nussey as 'an emotional thread that
 for years was the vividest colour in Charlotte's life'. More
 directly, he assessed it as 'one of those violent homosexual
 attachments' and found it 'reasonable to conclude that for a
 considerable period of her life, her emotional reactions were
 towards women rather than men'. Even earlier, Vita Sackville-
 West, a lesbian herself, who kept a photograph of Charlotte
 Brontë on her desk, wrote in her Journal that the letters of
 Charlotte to Ellen were 'love-letters pure and simple' and left
 little doubt in one's mind as to what Charlotte's tendencies
 really were'2 Ernest Raymond in his book In the Steps of the
 Brontes (1948) described Charlotte's feelings for Ellen as 'a hot

 In Little Women, Alcott based her
 heroine "Jo" on herself. But whereas Jo
 marries at the end of the story, Alcott
 remained single throughout her life. She
 explained her "spinsterhood" in an
 interview with Louise Chandler Moulton,
 "I am more than half-persuaded that l
 am a man's soul put by some freak of
 nature into a woman's body because
 I have fallen in love with so many pretty
 girls and never once the least bit with
 any man." However, Alcott's romance
mysong5:alright!!!!!
        

            
            

                
                
                    Girls, Life, and Love: Jane Austen more more likely to
 have had sex with a woman than a
 man, says historian
 'People often long to know if the eternal spinster Jane
 Austen ever had sex with a man. The answer is almost
 certainly not,' says Lucy Worsley

 The idea that Charlotte Brontë, the apparent goddess of hetero-
 sexual romance, was in love with a woman for most of her life, in
 a way that would today be described as lesbian, might come as a
 shock, yet it is not entirely new. Most notably, E.F. Benson in
 his biography of Charlotte Brontë, written in 1932, described
 her relationship with Ellen Nussey as 'an emotional thread that
 for years was the vividest colour in Charlotte's life'. More
 directly, he assessed it as 'one of those violent homosexual
 attachments' and found it 'reasonable to conclude that for a
 considerable period of her life, her emotional reactions were
 towards women rather than men'. Even earlier, Vita Sackville-
 West, a lesbian herself, who kept a photograph of Charlotte
 Brontë on her desk, wrote in her Journal that the letters of
 Charlotte to Ellen were 'love-letters pure and simple' and left
 little doubt in one's mind as to what Charlotte's tendencies
 really were'2 Ernest Raymond in his book In the Steps of the
 Brontes (1948) described Charlotte's feelings for Ellen as 'a hot

 In Little Women, Alcott based her
 heroine "Jo" on herself. But whereas Jo
 marries at the end of the story, Alcott
 remained single throughout her life. She
 explained her "spinsterhood" in an
 interview with Louise Chandler Moulton,
 "I am more than half-persuaded that l
 am a man's soul put by some freak of
 nature into a woman's body because
 I have fallen in love with so many pretty
 girls and never once the least bit with
 any man." However, Alcott's romance
mysong5:alright!!!!!
                    
                
            

            
            
        

    

    

        
Save