idopaint-themgreen:

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

lgbtqblogs:


Two brides have become two of the most kickass women in the world by marrying to protest against homophobia in Russia.
Alina Davis, a 23-year-old trans woman, and Allison Brooks, her 19-year-old partner, donned matching white floor-length bridal gowns and married at a civil registry office earlier this month.
As Davis is still legally regarded as male, the office had no choice but to hand them a marriage certificate.
The couple said officials chided them, and appeared to be violent.
‘She called us the shame of the family and said we need medical treatment … I was afraid my pussycat [an affectionate pet name in Russian] would beat the fuck out of her,’ Davis said on her VK page.
But the couple were allowed to sign the papers, meaning a gay couple in Russia are legally recognized as married – even if it’s through a loophole. ‘This is an important precedent for Russia,’ Davis said.
Russia banned same-sex marriage and outlawed ‘gay propaganda’ in 2013.


holy jesus look at these two warrior princesses
they are my heroes
YOU GO GIRLS

"Oh, you don’t wanna recognize my gender? Okay then lol guess you have to recognize my marriage"
that is amazing

idopaint-themgreen:

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

lgbtqblogs:

Two brides have become two of the most kickass women in the world by marrying to protest against homophobia in Russia.

Alina Davis, a 23-year-old trans woman, and Allison Brooks, her 19-year-old partner, donned matching white floor-length bridal gowns and married at a civil registry office earlier this month.

As Davis is still legally regarded as male, the office had no choice but to hand them a marriage certificate.

The couple said officials chided them, and appeared to be violent.

‘She called us the shame of the family and said we need medical treatment … I was afraid my pussycat [an affectionate pet name in Russian] would beat the fuck out of her,’ Davis said on her VK page.

But the couple were allowed to sign the papers, meaning a gay couple in Russia are legally recognized as married – even if it’s through a loophole.

‘This is an important precedent for Russia,’ Davis said.

Russia banned same-sex marriage and outlawed ‘gay propaganda’ in 2013.

holy jesus look at these two warrior princesses

they are my heroes

YOU GO GIRLS

"Oh, you don’t wanna recognize my gender? Okay then lol guess you have to recognize my marriage"

that is amazing

(via alchemicalalice)

septembriseur:

Wow, it’s so hard to understand why a woman-written comic about a female superhero who wears a sensible costume, writes fanfic, and stuffs her face with tasty gyros is so popular and trendy, while a cover for a forthcoming male-written book that portrays its female superhero as sexxily posing for porn sexxx in a suit that clings to every anatomical feature of her 22-inch waist and ass is widely derided. I mean, the thing is that it’s just really mysterious. It’s like how audiences say they’re interested in Black Panther and Ms. Marvel movies, when really what they want is even more white male superheroes. People are so confusing! 

(via coveredinsnow-)

pizzumi:

[x]
prokopetz:

nebcondist1:

prokopetz:

I’ve seen this image going around, and I feel compelled to point out that it’s only half-right. It’s true that high heels were originally a masculine fashion, but they weren’t originally worn by butchers - nor for any other utilitarian purpose, for that matter.
High heels were worn by men for exactly the same reason they’re worn by women today: to display one’s legs to best effect. Until quite recently, shapely, well-toned calves and thighs were regarded as an absolute prerequisite for male attractiveness. That’s why you see so many paintings of famous men framed to show off their legs - like this one of George Washington displaying his fantastic calves:

… or this one of Louis XIV of France rocking a fabulous pair of red platform heels (check out those thighs!):

… or even this one of Charles I of England showing off his high-heeled riding boots - note, again, the visual emphasis on his well-formed calves:

In summary: were high heels originally worn by men? Yes. Were they worn to keep blood off their feet? No at all - they were worn for the same reason they’re worn today: to look fabulous.

so then how did they become a solo feminine item of attire?

A variety of reasons. In France, for example, high heels fell out out of favour in the court of Napoleon due to their association with aristocratic decadence, while in England, the more conservative fashions of the Victorian era regarded it as indecent for a man to openly display his calves.
But then, fashions come and go. The real question is why heels never came back into fashion for men - and that can be laid squarely at the feet of institutionalised homophobia. Essentially, heels for men were never revived because, by the early 20th Century, sexually provocative attire for men had come to be associated with homosexuality; the resulting moral panic ushered in an era of drab, blocky, fully concealing menswear in which a well-turned calf simply had no place - a setback from which men’s fashion has yet to fully recover.

prokopetz:

nebcondist1:

prokopetz:

I’ve seen this image going around, and I feel compelled to point out that it’s only half-right. It’s true that high heels were originally a masculine fashion, but they weren’t originally worn by butchers - nor for any other utilitarian purpose, for that matter.

High heels were worn by men for exactly the same reason they’re worn by women today: to display one’s legs to best effect. Until quite recently, shapely, well-toned calves and thighs were regarded as an absolute prerequisite for male attractiveness. That’s why you see so many paintings of famous men framed to show off their legs - like this one of George Washington displaying his fantastic calves:

… or this one of Louis XIV of France rocking a fabulous pair of red platform heels (check out those thighs!):

… or even this one of Charles I of England showing off his high-heeled riding boots - note, again, the visual emphasis on his well-formed calves:

In summary: were high heels originally worn by men? Yes. Were they worn to keep blood off their feet? No at all - they were worn for the same reason they’re worn today: to look fabulous.

so then how did they become a solo feminine item of attire?

A variety of reasons. In France, for example, high heels fell out out of favour in the court of Napoleon due to their association with aristocratic decadence, while in England, the more conservative fashions of the Victorian era regarded it as indecent for a man to openly display his calves.

But then, fashions come and go. The real question is why heels never came back into fashion for men - and that can be laid squarely at the feet of institutionalised homophobia. Essentially, heels for men were never revived because, by the early 20th Century, sexually provocative attire for men had come to be associated with homosexuality; the resulting moral panic ushered in an era of drab, blocky, fully concealing menswear in which a well-turned calf simply had no place - a setback from which men’s fashion has yet to fully recover.

(via thegirlwithgoldeyes)

"I think we should have more sexual education. Can you imagine if we didn’t have driver’s ed and people drove cars like they saw in the movies? Porn is adult entertainment, not education."

— James Deen (via theneverbird)

(via ohdeargodwhy)

thegenuflector:

Anna Faris and Chris Pratt are a pretty great couple.

(via ohdeargodwhy)

  • Lady on the bus next to me: Tell me again- what are you not going to do in daycare today?
  • Little boy: I will not hit the teacher with a light saber.
  • Lady: And why are you not going to hit her with a light saber?
  • Boy: It is my toy, and my choice, but if I hit her with the light saber, I'm acting like a Sith.
  • Lady: Do you want to be a Sith?
  • Boy: No! I am Obi-Wan!
lewstonewar:

stuckinabucket:

I keep seeing a lot of justifications for the “Peter Quill forgot he had a passenger” thing that boil down to “No, it’s a totally cool way to illustrate that the character’s an asshole!  You know, for character development!” and it’s just like…not really, people.
I mean, yes, that is a way that you can demonstrate a character is a total asshole.  (There are also other ways to demonstrate that same thing that doesn’t come off as an “lol fuck you” directed squarely at half your audience, but that’s a different argument.)  But the problem with that is that otherwise he doesn’t come off as the sort of asshole who’d do that sort of assholish thing.  He’s immature and dysfunctional and venal, yes.  But the first time we get any sort of character scene for him, he’s got a black eye from getting into a righteous-anger fight over a dead frog.  He’s surrounded by what appears to be a loving family in the throes of grief, from whom he’s summarily kidnapped by what turns out to be a gang of space-pirates.
He spends the rest of the film coming off like the sort of person who’s had to play The Functional One for the crew of the HMS Warp Factor Clusterfuck for over half his life.  I don’t know if the repeated comments about eating him were meant to be taken absolutely at face value—there’s an argument to be made for reading them as some seriously fucked-up emotional blackmail rather than a genuine threat—but the dialogue about Yondu killing him if he gets out of line clearly isn’t a joke.  Whatever affection or use the pirates have for him, it’s explicitly not enough to keep him safe from them.  It’s not exactly an accident that the first instinct we see him showing almost every time there’s trouble is to try to smooth things over.
Rocket starts planning the escape from prison, and what happens? Groot straight-up rips something out of the fucking wall right in front of the guards.  Drax engages in some good old ultraviolence.  Gamora comes back with a device that was hardwired into somebody’s nervous system without batting an eye.  Peter…pays a guy a (judging by other sums mentioned) sizable chunk of money in exchange for the thing he needs.  Attempting to beat the dude up and take his stuff never even seems to occur to him.
He tries to talk everybody down when the other inmates are planning to murder Gamora.  He tries to talk everybody down when Rocket and Drax start fighting.  He’s the one who calls the Nova Corps to warn them instead of just showing up with what looks like an invasion fleet.  When Rocket pulls the “I need your prosthetic” thing again, Peter jumps in the middle and shuts it down like he’s apologizing for his racist grandma. 
He comes off like a guy who’s had to invest way too much energy, for way too long, into figuring out how everyone can go home happy and nobody needs to die today.  Like, how many times has he seen some variation on the psychic arrow vs. Kree soldiers scene play out with Yondu because he couldn’t defuse a situation?
Peter Quill isn’t supposed to be a huge asshole. (That would be Rocket, for those of you playing along at home.)  He’s supposed to be a fuck-up who’s figuring out that there can be more to his life than chasing the next thrill, pathologically flouting authority, and dodging his abusive foster-family.

Now I agree that Peter is a peacemaker but for me the “I totally forgot you were here” did not come across to me like “I’m an asshole, women are disposable to me.” 
To me it was “Wow, was that just last night?” He is a guy who does more in few hours than most people do in a week. Say she slept a full 8 hours. He’s a very kinetic guy. In that time he slept 2-3 hours, did some routine maintenance on ship, got the info he was waiting for about the orb, plotted a course. Did a dance break, Had a little dinner. Gathered some supplies. He is guilty of a little out of sight, out of mind with his friend  (who I take to be a friend with benefits rather one night stand)  when he sets out for the location of the orb. Later she is wearing the shirt which is obviously as precious to him as his walkman that he has kept it in very good condition for 20 years with no fuss. No awkwardness detected later on the trip home they are comfortable together but Peter is still a busy guy.

lewstonewar:

stuckinabucket:

I keep seeing a lot of justifications for the “Peter Quill forgot he had a passenger” thing that boil down to “No, it’s a totally cool way to illustrate that the character’s an asshole!  You know, for character development!” and it’s just like…not really, people.

I mean, yes, that is a way that you can demonstrate a character is a total asshole.  (There are also other ways to demonstrate that same thing that doesn’t come off as an “lol fuck you” directed squarely at half your audience, but that’s a different argument.)  But the problem with that is that otherwise he doesn’t come off as the sort of asshole who’d do that sort of assholish thing.  He’s immature and dysfunctional and venal, yes.  But the first time we get any sort of character scene for him, he’s got a black eye from getting into a righteous-anger fight over a dead frog.  He’s surrounded by what appears to be a loving family in the throes of grief, from whom he’s summarily kidnapped by what turns out to be a gang of space-pirates.

He spends the rest of the film coming off like the sort of person who’s had to play The Functional One for the crew of the HMS Warp Factor Clusterfuck for over half his life.  I don’t know if the repeated comments about eating him were meant to be taken absolutely at face value—there’s an argument to be made for reading them as some seriously fucked-up emotional blackmail rather than a genuine threat—but the dialogue about Yondu killing him if he gets out of line clearly isn’t a joke.  Whatever affection or use the pirates have for him, it’s explicitly not enough to keep him safe from them.  It’s not exactly an accident that the first instinct we see him showing almost every time there’s trouble is to try to smooth things over.

Rocket starts planning the escape from prison, and what happens? Groot straight-up rips something out of the fucking wall right in front of the guards.  Drax engages in some good old ultraviolence.  Gamora comes back with a device that was hardwired into somebody’s nervous system without batting an eye.  Peter…pays a guy a (judging by other sums mentioned) sizable chunk of money in exchange for the thing he needs.  Attempting to beat the dude up and take his stuff never even seems to occur to him.

He tries to talk everybody down when the other inmates are planning to murder Gamora.  He tries to talk everybody down when Rocket and Drax start fighting.  He’s the one who calls the Nova Corps to warn them instead of just showing up with what looks like an invasion fleet.  When Rocket pulls the “I need your prosthetic” thing again, Peter jumps in the middle and shuts it down like he’s apologizing for his racist grandma. 

He comes off like a guy who’s had to invest way too much energy, for way too long, into figuring out how everyone can go home happy and nobody needs to die today.  Like, how many times has he seen some variation on the psychic arrow vs. Kree soldiers scene play out with Yondu because he couldn’t defuse a situation?

Peter Quill isn’t supposed to be a huge asshole. (That would be Rocket, for those of you playing along at home.)  He’s supposed to be a fuck-up who’s figuring out that there can be more to his life than chasing the next thrill, pathologically flouting authority, and dodging his abusive foster-family.

Now I agree that Peter is a peacemaker but for me the “I totally forgot you were here” did not come across to me like “I’m an asshole, women are disposable to me.” 

To me it was “Wow, was that just last night?” He is a guy who does more in few hours than most people do in a week. Say she slept a full 8 hours. He’s a very kinetic guy. In that time he slept 2-3 hours, did some routine maintenance on ship, got the info he was waiting for about the orb, plotted a course. Did a dance break, Had a little dinner. Gathered some supplies. He is guilty of a little out of sight, out of mind with his friend  (who I take to be a friend with benefits rather one night stand)  when he sets out for the location of the orb. Later she is wearing the shirt which is obviously as precious to him as his walkman that he has kept it in very good condition for 20 years with no fuss. No awkwardness detected later on the trip home they are comfortable together but Peter is still a busy guy.

(via marvelmeta)

Tags: interesting

gurihiru:

Rocket Raccoon
asylumharbour:

Sir Ian McKellen brings me joy on a daily basis.

asylumharbour:

Sir Ian McKellen brings me joy on a daily basis.

(via hannahrhen)

"If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also"

Matt 5:39

This specifically refers to a hand striking the side of a person’s face, tells quite a different story when placed in it’s proper historical context. In Jesus’s time, striking someone of a lower class ( a servant) with the back of the hand was used to assert authority and dominance. If the persecuted person “turned the other cheek,” the discipliner was faced with a dilemma. The left hand was used for unclean purposes, so a back-hand strike on the opposite cheek would not be performed. Another alternative would be a slap with the open hand as a challenge or to punch the person, but this was seen as a statement of equality. Thus, by turning the other cheek the persecuted was in effect putting an end to the behavior or if the slapping continued the person would lawfully be deemed equal and have to be released as a servant/slave.   

(via thefullnessofthefaith)

THAT makes a lot more sense, now, thank you. 

(via guardianrock)

I can attest to the original poster’s comments. A few years back I took an intensive seminar on faith-based progressive activism, and we spent an entire unit discussing how many of Jesus’ instructions and stories were performative protests designed to shed light on and ridicule the oppressions of that time period as a way to emphasize the absurdity of the social hierarchy and give people the will and motivation to make changes for a more free and equal society.

For example, the next verse (Matthew 5:40) states “And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well.” In that time period, men traditionally wore a shirt and a coat-like garment as their daily wear. To sue someone for their shirt was to put them in their place - suing was generally only performed to take care of outstanding debts, and to be sued for one’s shirt meant that the person was so destitute the only valuable thing they could repay with was their own clothing. However, many cultures at that time (including Hebrew peoples) had prohibitions bordering on taboo against public nudity, so for a sued man to surrender both his shirt and his coat was to turn the system on its head and symbolically state, in a very public forum, that “I have no money with which to repay this person, but they are so insistent on taking advantage of my poverty that I am leaving this hearing buck-ass naked. His greed is the cause of a shameful public spectacle.”

All of a sudden an action of power (suing someone for their shirt) becomes a powerful symbol of subversion and mockery, as the suing patron either accepts the coat (and therefore full responsibility as the cause of the other man’s shameful display) or desperately chases the protester around trying to return his clothes to him, making a fool of himself in front of his peers and the entire gathered community.

Additionally, the next verse (Matthew 5:41; “If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles.”) was a big middle finger to the Romans who had taken over Judea and were not seen as legitimate authority by the majority of the population there. Roman law stated that a centurion on the march could require a Jew (and possibly other civilians as well, although I don’t remember explicitly) to carry his pack at any time and for any reason for one mile along the road (and because of the importance of the Roman highway system in maintaining rule over the expansive empire, the roads tended to be very well ordered and marked), however hecould not require any service beyond the next mile marker. For a Jewish civilian to carry a centurion’s pack for an entire second mile was a way to subvert the authority of the occupying forces. If the civilian wouldn’t give the pack back at the end of the first mile, the centurion would either have to forcibly take it back or report the civilian to his commanding officer (both of which would result in discipline being taken against the soldier for breaking Roman law) or wait until the civilian volunteered to return the pack, giving the Judean native implicit power over the occupying Roman and completely subverting the power structure of the Empire. Can you imagine how demoralizing that must have been for the highly ordered Roman armies that patrolled the region?

Jesus was a pacifist, but his teachings were in no way passive. There’s a reason he was practically considered a terrorist by the reigning powers, and it wasn’t because he healed the sick and fed the hungry.

(via central-avenue)

(via shirozora-lives)

"I think the question of what makes a ‘strong female character’ often goes misinterpreted. And instead we get these two-dimensional superwomen, who maybe have one quality that’s played up a lot."
- 15-year-old Tavi Gevinson, A Teen Just Trying To Figure It Out (March 2012)

(Source: milafranco, via actualmenacebuckybarnes)

crusherccme:

found this gem in the 1996 Cornell Women’s Handbook. it’s what to say when a guy tries to get out of using a condom

crusherccme:

found this gem in the 1996 Cornell Women’s Handbook. it’s what to say when a guy tries to get out of using a condom

(via plannedparenthood)