🔥 Popular | Latest

ryanthedemiboy: gahdamnpunk: The government does not care about minorities and poor folk. I understand why you’d caption it like that, but this is specifically about indigenous Americans and how the US treats them. The US hates other minorities and poor folk, but please don’t take attention from this. All those other people have a chance at being treated. But people on the reservations… don’t. They were literally given body bags. Here’s the Navajo and Hopi relief fund on gofundme You can also donate through here if you’d like to avoid supporting gofundme. Here is the official Navajo Nation relief fund, posted by their President on twitter (link to tweet). Oh, also, many of them don’t have running water (and never have). Link : ryanthedemiboy: gahdamnpunk: The government does not care about minorities and poor folk. I understand why you’d caption it like that, but this is specifically about indigenous Americans and how the US treats them. The US hates other minorities and poor folk, but please don’t take attention from this. All those other people have a chance at being treated. But people on the reservations… don’t. They were literally given body bags. Here’s the Navajo and Hopi relief fund on gofundme You can also donate through here if you’d like to avoid supporting gofundme. Here is the official Navajo Nation relief fund, posted by their President on twitter (link to tweet). Oh, also, many of them don’t have running water (and never have). Link

ryanthedemiboy: gahdamnpunk: The government does not care about minorities and poor folk. I understand why you’d caption it like that,...

Save
Why he hates Stuart Little: You got two bullets. You're in a room with Hitler, Bill Cosby, Cardi B, a massive spider and Stuart Little. Who you shooting? Your days are filled with fun and kindness as your loving parents try to nurture you in the most pleasant environment possible. One day you awaken one night to the smell of smoke, you open your eyes and begin to choke, you try to find your parents but you can't get past the toddler-proof gate in the doorway scream unable to accept your Screi doom. That's when Yesterday 10:31 pm Bill and hitler You lie down and Surely that's the only reasonable answer your father rushes in to collect you, you cling onto him for vou dear life as he takes you e and places you on the grass "IHAVE TO GO GET MUMMY!u Yesterday 10:49 pm Actually no! The correct answer is to shoot Stuart twice but I admire your conviction. He bt's the last you ever see back inside, but runs alas, of him You escape the ordeal with minor scarring, but it's nothing in mparison to the heartbreak you Today 12:40 am Can I get an explanation for that one pls sir felt that night. You have no grandparents, no aunties or uncles, no guardians whatsoever, and as a result, are forced to live in an orphanage. Today 1:11 am Sure can. Imagine this. You are four years old, and you've got a mother and father who love you very much. Type a message Send Type a message Send Iidppess IS. Day, weeks, months, years go by, and as you watch all the other orphans leave with their new foster parents, you're hopes of I'll never forget what Stuart Little took from me. having a happy life diminish more and more. One day a young Today 3:17 am couple come in, they remind you Can I change my answer डि ग कार सा much of your parents except ा they've already got a क पाCgical Be my guest son. But that's okay. You try extra hard to make an impression on this family a f your last chance at livinga shildhood, When the time has as Me so I never have to think about that again come for them to formally tell the which child orphanage matron they are going to adopt, you eagerly await your name to be announced. That's when they adopt A FUCKING RAT INSTEAD OF YOU. This destroys your morale, you give up, you run away from the orphanage, get raised by the streets as a petty pickpocket, you'll never remember what true happiness is. That's the spirit. Next time I can tell you about the time Shrek cyberbullied me if you want. Today 10:22 am Okay pls don't unmatch, this is important stuff now. But do you think it's sometimes better to ask forgiveness rather than permission? I'll never forget what Stuart Little took from me Yes Type a message Send Type a message.. Send Why he hates Stuart Little
Save
Why I hate Stuart Little.: 4:32 You got two bullets. You're in a room with Hitler, Bill Cosby, Cardi B, a massive spider and Stuart Little. Who you shooting? Wednesday 11:31 pm Bill and hitler Surely that's the only reasonable answer Wednesday 11:49 pm Actually no! The correct answer is to shoot Stuart twice butI admire your conviction. Today 1:40 am Can I get an explanation for that one pls sir Today 2:11 am Sure can. Imagine this. You are four years old, and you've got a mother and father who love you very much. Your days are filled with fun and kindness as your loving parents try to nurture you in the most pleasant environment possible. One day you awaken one to the smell of smoke, night you open your eyes and begin to choke, you try to find your parents but you can't get past the toddler-proof gate in the doorway. You lie down and scream, unable to accept your impending doom. That's when your father rushes in to collect you, you cling onto him for your dear life as he takes you outside and places you on the grass. "I HAVE TO GO GET MUMMY!" He bravely runs back inside, but alas, that's the last you ever see of him. You escape the ordeal with minor scarring, but it's nothing in comparison to the heartbreak you felt that night. You have no grandparents, no aunties or uncles, no guardians whatsoever, and as a result, are forced to live in an orphanage Day, weeks, months, years go by, and as you watch all the other orphans leave with their new foster parents, you're hopes of having a happy life diminish more and more. One day a young couple come in, they remind you much of your parents except they've already got a biological son. But that's okay. You try extra hard to make an impression on this family as this may be your last chance at living a fulfilled childhood. When the time has come for them to formally tell the orphanage matron which child they are going to adopt, you eagerly await your name to be announced. That's when they adopt A FUCKING RAT INSTEAD OF YOU. This destroys your morale, you give up, you run away from the orphanage get raised by the streets as a petty pickpocket, you'll never remember what true happiness Is I'll never forget what Stuart Little took from me Today 4:17 am Can I change my answer Be my guest Me so I never have to think about that again That's the spirit. Next time I can tell you about the time Shrek cyberbullied me if you want. Sent Type a message GIF Why I hate Stuart Little.
Save
white-throated-packrat: ungodlyobsessions: moistnoodles: i-march-mello: danim4ux: THE SHEET IS MADE OUT OF WOOD TOO Wendell Castle, Ghost Clock. 1985 THAT IS MAHOGANY I thought this was a joke until I read the description WHAT HTE FCUK It’s one of my favorite pieces at the Renwick. It’s a solid block of mahogany and you can see the impression of knobs under the cloth. : The Ghost Clock. I saw this in a museum in D.C. and it blew mind... my Wendell Castle born Emporia, KS 1932; resides Scottsville, NY Ghost Clock 1985 bleached Honduras mahogany and stain Smithsonian American Art Museum, Museum purchase through the Smithsonian Institution Collections Acquisition Program, 1989.68 At first glance, Ghost Clock appears to be a grandfather clock hidden by a large white sheet tied with a rope. A closer look, however, reveals a masterful deception: this entire sculpture was hand-carved from a single block of laminated mahogany. With meticulous detail, Castle re-created in wood the contours of soft, supple cloth, then completed the illusion by bleaching the "drapery" white and staining the base of the "clock" a walnut brown. This work is the last in a series of thirteen clocks the artist created in the 1980s; unlike the others, it lacks an inner mechanism. Its haunting stillness and silence suggest eternity-the absence of time. white-throated-packrat: ungodlyobsessions: moistnoodles: i-march-mello: danim4ux: THE SHEET IS MADE OUT OF WOOD TOO Wendell Castle, Ghost Clock. 1985 THAT IS MAHOGANY I thought this was a joke until I read the description WHAT HTE FCUK It’s one of my favorite pieces at the Renwick. It’s a solid block of mahogany and you can see the impression of knobs under the cloth.
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
Save
tikkunolamorgtfo: TFW your boyfriend is a 17th Century Catholic vampire who is NOT OVER™ the Glorious Revolution of 1688.: Me [25F] with my boyfriend [25M] of seven months. He has VERY bizarre opinions and I want help understanding him, and getting him to understand how others see him Relationships submitted 7 hours ago by throwaway47273747483 have been with my boyfriend, Henry, for around 7 months now, and he's an amazing guy etc. I really see this developing into a long and very serious relationship. There are no big problems or red flags. One thing that gets me though, are his political opinions. They are esoteric, somewhat incomprehensible, and frankly, bizarre. He is an ardent monarchist (we are in the UK) but not in the typical use of the word (ie liking the Queen being an impartial head of state), he literally believes in the divine right of kings and that it is the only natural form of government. He claims to recognise no monarch since James ll, and apparently the real legitimate successor is some guy called Francis who I've never heard of, who is also supposedly the rightful king of France and Greece. He never votes, saying he has no desire to assist his monarch in their choice of servants (which is technically how the UK government works, the Queen "chooses" whoever wins the election). He expressed disgust at Prince Harry's recent engagement, I pressed him as to why (I was slightly worried it was racist in nature) and he said both Meghan Markle and Kate Middleton are commoners who have no business marrying royalty, then made some remark about the Royal Family being a "ghastly bunch of arriviste Germans anyway, so I suppose it doesn't matter". It's just strange. It's like his worldview is so odd and so far removed from anything I can even begin to understand. I can name the current major Royals and a few of the more important historical ones, whereas he is an absolute expert. He will passionately debate anyone who wants to, though again it just makes him look strange. Friends at dinner will be discussing normal, contemporary political issues, and he will interject and go on some tangent about how this all relates to "King John's submission to Papal authority in 1213". He does seem to genuinely believe this stuff, but it gives an odd impression to those around us. No one can really reply beecause they don't know what he's talking about so he definitely gets the feeling he's winning these debates (he's far too well-mannered to be rude about it, but it's certainly an unspoken truth in his view) tikkunolamorgtfo: TFW your boyfriend is a 17th Century Catholic vampire who is NOT OVER™ the Glorious Revolution of 1688.

tikkunolamorgtfo: TFW your boyfriend is a 17th Century Catholic vampire who is NOT OVER™ the Glorious Revolution of 1688.

Save
lolzandtrollz: New And Necessary Punctuation Marks: The "I'm Not Angry" Mark Usage: When you need to be brief, but you're not angry Example We need to talk The Sinceriod Usage When you want to break out of your cycnical shell and be truly honest with someone. Example: Oh, wow, Thank you, This sweater is just what I wanted Sarcastises Usage The opposite of the sinceriod. Use when you want to be sarcastic, but in a way that's totally different and better from whatever system you're using now. Example: Oh, wow. Thank you. This sweater is just what I wanted. Hemi-Demi-Semi Colon Usage: If you don't know when it's appropriate to use a semi-colon, and you're too lazy to learn, you can use this in place of commas, semi-colons, and periods. Pretty much wherever you feel like it Eхample: Now I can act superior and avoid learning anything I'm a stain on humanity Andorpersand Usage: One simple symbol for "and/or" Example: Some people hate the very existence of the phrase "and/or, " but these people are uptight &o stupid Mockwotation Marks Usage: For quoting something that someone didn't say, but totally would say with the way they're being right now. The written equivalent of doing an impression of someone by saying "Look at me, I'm so-and-so" and wiggling your hands by your head, and speaking in a high-pitched voice. I'm Stacey. I'm going to complain about being hungry but not offer any suggestions of my own, said Stacey. Collegelf Superellipsis Usage: For an extreme dramatic pause. When you want the reader to wait a good 20 seconds before reading the next part of the sentence. Maybe even imagine the lights flickering and some thunder crashing. Example: He paused, cautiously, as he approached the superellipsis. On the other side he found... more words! Collegelm Morgan Freemark Usage: Reminds readers that they can read words in any voice they want, so maybe they should read these words in Morgan Freeman's voice. Example: And so, Kevin took this big swig of vodka and straight-up ran head-first into the wall you should probably go to TheMetaPicture.com lolzandtrollz: New And Necessary Punctuation Marks

lolzandtrollz: New And Necessary Punctuation Marks

Save
guiltlessdeviant: aaliyahbreaux: big-mood-energy: aaliyahbreaux: girldont: flyandfamousblackgirls: drdrunkpigeon-phd: abstractandedgyname: libertarirynn: paradise-dream222: flyandfamousblackgirls: Shae Scott: “This is why I don’t date ugly guys..” I’ve dated an ugly guy before and he was just a WASTE of my time. He didn’t get cocky, but he should’ve been a lil more appreciative of me. Seeing that no other girl would even look at him before I did. Holy fuck y’all are conceited. Those men are dodging bullets. Hey, my boyfriend may not be conventionally attractive or the most attractive in the world but it’s almost as if when your personalities really click they become so attractive to you! But obviously, yall can’t do that as you need a personality to begin with. This bitch fully is under the impression that she should date an attractive boring guy rather than an ugly boring guy, as if looks are the only defining things in relationships. How about, date an ugly [fun, interesting, caring, sex god] guy vs a hot [boring, simple, arrogant, sexually incompetent] guy. Maybe all the ugly you’ve dated have been ugly on the inside too, must be if they date such a wretched creature as yourself, but news flash lady! Everyone is different for fuck sake !!!! So when guys say women are too tall, too dark, too fat, hair not long enough, hair too “nappy”, her teeth, because she has tattoos or weave, because she wears makeup or they don’t wanna date her because she’s trans….Thats ok. But women are obligated to accept any man as he is? Interesting…yall are proving her point. Imagine openly saying you don’t find your SO physically attractive, that’s embarrassing for yourself and the person you’re with. studies show no matter how old men get typically they are most attracted to women in their twenties whereas women are most attracted to men around their age. and yet, women are seen as being superficial and shallow for just wanting to be with someone attractive… yes, basing whether or not you date somebody on their looks is shallow. it’s the definition of shallow, in fact. shallow is dating some entirely for their looks. dating someone you find attractive is just how attration works Ugly. You need to be attracted to the person you date. That’s just logic. Don’t settle for someone you’re not attracted to. The issue here is not just saying “you should someone you find attractive”, the issue is saying “don’t date ugly guys” as though that’s some sort of objective classification and acting like you’re literally better than people because you’re more physically attractive and they should be thanking the gods if you even grace them with your presence. That’s the conceited bullshit. Also for most people attraction has to be more than physical. Physical can be a part of it but there are plenty of hot assholes.: guiltlessdeviant: aaliyahbreaux: big-mood-energy: aaliyahbreaux: girldont: flyandfamousblackgirls: drdrunkpigeon-phd: abstractandedgyname: libertarirynn: paradise-dream222: flyandfamousblackgirls: Shae Scott: “This is why I don’t date ugly guys..” I’ve dated an ugly guy before and he was just a WASTE of my time. He didn’t get cocky, but he should’ve been a lil more appreciative of me. Seeing that no other girl would even look at him before I did. Holy fuck y’all are conceited. Those men are dodging bullets. Hey, my boyfriend may not be conventionally attractive or the most attractive in the world but it’s almost as if when your personalities really click they become so attractive to you! But obviously, yall can’t do that as you need a personality to begin with. This bitch fully is under the impression that she should date an attractive boring guy rather than an ugly boring guy, as if looks are the only defining things in relationships. How about, date an ugly [fun, interesting, caring, sex god] guy vs a hot [boring, simple, arrogant, sexually incompetent] guy. Maybe all the ugly you’ve dated have been ugly on the inside too, must be if they date such a wretched creature as yourself, but news flash lady! Everyone is different for fuck sake !!!! So when guys say women are too tall, too dark, too fat, hair not long enough, hair too “nappy”, her teeth, because she has tattoos or weave, because she wears makeup or they don’t wanna date her because she’s trans….Thats ok. But women are obligated to accept any man as he is? Interesting…yall are proving her point. Imagine openly saying you don’t find your SO physically attractive, that’s embarrassing for yourself and the person you’re with. studies show no matter how old men get typically they are most attracted to women in their twenties whereas women are most attracted to men around their age. and yet, women are seen as being superficial and shallow for just wanting to be with someone attractive… yes, basing whether or not you date somebody on their looks is shallow. it’s the definition of shallow, in fact. shallow is dating some entirely for their looks. dating someone you find attractive is just how attration works Ugly. You need to be attracted to the person you date. That’s just logic. Don’t settle for someone you’re not attracted to. The issue here is not just saying “you should someone you find attractive”, the issue is saying “don’t date ugly guys” as though that’s some sort of objective classification and acting like you’re literally better than people because you’re more physically attractive and they should be thanking the gods if you even grace them with your presence. That’s the conceited bullshit. Also for most people attraction has to be more than physical. Physical can be a part of it but there are plenty of hot assholes.
Save
flyandfamousblackgirls: drdrunkpigeon-phd: abstractandedgyname: libertarirynn: paradise-dream222: flyandfamousblackgirls: Shae Scott: “This is why I don’t date ugly guys..” I’ve dated an ugly guy before and he was just a WASTE of my time. He didn’t get cocky, but he should’ve been a lil more appreciative of me. Seeing that no other girl would even look at him before I did. Holy fuck y’all are conceited. Those men are dodging bullets. Hey, my boyfriend may not be conventionally attractive or the most attractive in the world but it’s almost as if when your personalities really click they become so attractive to you! But obviously, yall can’t do that as you need a personality to begin with.This bitch fully is under the impression that she should date an attractive boring guy rather than an ugly boring guy, as if looks are the only defining things in relationships. How about, date an ugly [fun, interesting, caring, sex god] guy vs a hot [boring, simple, arrogant, sexually incompetent] guy.Maybe all the ugly you’ve dated have been ugly on the inside too, must be if they date such a wretched creature as yourself, but news flash lady! Everyone is different for fuck sake !!!! So when guys say women are too tall, too dark, too fat, hair not long enough, hair too “nappy”, her teeth, because she has tattoos or weave, because she wears makeup or they don’t wanna date her because she’s trans….Thats ok. But women are obligated to accept any man as he is? Interesting…yall are proving her point. Who the absolute fuck said any of that shit in this thread? : flyandfamousblackgirls: drdrunkpigeon-phd: abstractandedgyname: libertarirynn: paradise-dream222: flyandfamousblackgirls: Shae Scott: “This is why I don’t date ugly guys..” I’ve dated an ugly guy before and he was just a WASTE of my time. He didn’t get cocky, but he should’ve been a lil more appreciative of me. Seeing that no other girl would even look at him before I did. Holy fuck y’all are conceited. Those men are dodging bullets. Hey, my boyfriend may not be conventionally attractive or the most attractive in the world but it’s almost as if when your personalities really click they become so attractive to you! But obviously, yall can’t do that as you need a personality to begin with.This bitch fully is under the impression that she should date an attractive boring guy rather than an ugly boring guy, as if looks are the only defining things in relationships. How about, date an ugly [fun, interesting, caring, sex god] guy vs a hot [boring, simple, arrogant, sexually incompetent] guy.Maybe all the ugly you’ve dated have been ugly on the inside too, must be if they date such a wretched creature as yourself, but news flash lady! Everyone is different for fuck sake !!!! So when guys say women are too tall, too dark, too fat, hair not long enough, hair too “nappy”, her teeth, because she has tattoos or weave, because she wears makeup or they don’t wanna date her because she’s trans….Thats ok. But women are obligated to accept any man as he is? Interesting…yall are proving her point. Who the absolute fuck said any of that shit in this thread?
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
Save