7:51 am - Thu, Jul 31, 2014

GDL: gloriously sarcastic and also wonderfully honest.

From the July 29th #AskGareth Q&A day

Comments

7:45 am
69 notes
- So, am I right in thinking that you and he...
- We...dabble.

Now where’s that CCTV footage…?

(Source: bossybear, via isagra)

Comments

1:08 am
2,407 notes

spicyshimmy:

all you need to know about the star trek fandom is that one time i made a joke post about butt dialing on command consoles on starfleet spaceships cause jim kirk likes to sit on everything that isn’t a chair and it generated a massive reblog chain with folks seriously discussing the future technology of command consoles and outlining the scientific developments necessary to prevent butt dialing from happening

Same vein as seriously scientifically explaining how a transporter beam would separate a person’s pattern from organic matter nearby.

(via theblueboxonbakerstreet)

Comments

1:04 am
234,837 notes

metalheadswaltzing:

mcgonagirl:

kdaziz:

purgatoilet:

beenwandering:

help I’m having emotions about a cartoon antidepressant trying to be useful

DID YOU GUYS SERIOUSLY GIF AN ABILIFY COMMERCIAL 

yes but look at it, it cares about her and just wants to help her be able to function. It’s like “I know you’re sad. here, I’ll help you.”

LIKE OKAY THOUGH can I explain why this is exceedingly brilliant??  Because when anti-depressants work right, that’s what they DO.  They don’t make you happy or emotionless or unhealthy in any way, they make you FUNCTIONAL.  They make it so that a depressed person who can barely get out of bed can start to support themselves again and more importantly, start to THINK for themselves again without the permeating presence of depression.

Depression is a cyclical disease, that tells you to think a certain way, and, because you’re depressed, you generally believe it, and then things get worse and worse.  The ONLY thing anti-depressants do is to STOP that cycle in its tracks!!  Which is something to be ecstatic about and celebrated, even if you don’t realize it at the time, because when you’re depressed, getting out of bed is climbing Mount Everest.  Antidepressants help stop that cycle so that one day soon, getting out of bed can JUST be getting out of bed.  They don’t even expedite the recovery process in most cases, they just make recovery POSSIBLE IN THE FIRST PLACE.  So this little guy is portrayed with a fuckton more accuracy than I ever expected from a commercial.

^^ this

(via crowleys-moose-and-squirrel)

Comments

12:59 am
164,505 notes
darkly-stark:

ivorysorrows:

lil-miss-choc:

bonerack:

princessnecrophilia:

weeaboo-chan:

vhscars:

protest-resources:

50 Shades of Abuse Flyer - Canada
Use, redistribute, print. 
Click image and magnify for large version.

Okay. I understood all the flack Twilight got for being an abusive relationship. Because it was and it was being read by a very young and impressionable audience. But ffs, 50 Shades is an ADULT NOVEL. Iit is about a BDSM couple. Which - newsflash - do exist. It is a completely consensual form of dominate/submissive sex play. The whole concept of domestic violence and abuse is that one side exerts control over an unwilling victim. I don’t recall Anastasia, or whatever she’s called, protesting to Christian’s form of sex. If I remember correctly, she quite enjoyed it! So before you condemn a work of romanticizedfiction, actually consider it’s audience and remember that they are mature and capable enough to know the difference between reality and fiction.

so i guess you didn’t read the parts where he coerces her and the part where he continues after she has used her safeword and acts like a fucking creep whenever they aren’t having sex
it is the worst possible introduction to BDSM i could imagine
i know my shit okay

im hoping the people defending this book are 1. never getting into BDSM 2. not currently into BDSM 3. havent read the book bc i dont want to believe anyone is that fucking stupid

Let me
just
fucking
drop
some fucking
knowledge on you right now.
Wanna know the BDSM mantra? Safe, sane, consensual.
So let me explain why this book was devoid of all three of these things.
Safe - In the first few chapters of the novel, Christian Grey tracks Ana’s cell phone to find her at a club. Takes her home when she’s drunk, changes her when she’s so intoxicated she doesn’t remember him doing so,and informs her he will be keeping tabs on her for her own benefit. This is not the behaviour of a respectable Dominant. This is the behaviour of a power hungry, abusive asshole who really can’t take no for an answer.
Sane - One of the most important parts of BDSM is aftercare. Scenes can be extremely traumatizing and intense for the submissive. Aftercare is anything from petting to cuddling to holding to sweet talking, whatever degree of gentleness a bottom would need to pull them out of “subspace”. How does Christian provide aftercare? He submits Ana to a traumatizing first time spanking experience AND THEN FUCKING LEAVES. AND GETS MAD THAT SHE DIDN’T TELL HIM SHE WAS UPSET. He’s the one who should fucking know better! That, again, is not the act of a responsible Dominant. It’s the act of a selfish abuser.
Consensual - Did I mention he undressed her when she was belligerently drunk? Tracked her phone to locate her? He also buys her a new car despite her saying no countless times. Now, consent is important for any kind of sexual activity at all. Consent means informed, consent means enthusiastic. Informed, enthusiastic consent. This is crucial in a BDSM setting. Scenes can be extremely intense, especially for the bottom. What is Christian’s form of obtaining consent? Handing Ana a fucking contract highlighting all the things he wants to do her asshole and asking her to sign it. She was a virgin (Don’t even get me fucking started.) who had never before been exposed to BDSM. Entering in that kind of relationship takes a gargantuan amount of trust and knowledge so you know exactly what you’re getting into. Not reading a list of kinks on a piece of paper and signing your rights to say no away. Christian didn’t offer her resources, he didn’t offer her information. He gave her an ultimatum. That is not the sort of consent a responsible Dom/me would seek from their submissive.
Fuck. This. book. It’s written in a shitty way, it’s a terrible example of a BDSM relationship (ask anybody already involved in the lifestyle and watch them go blue in the face just thinking about it), which is already faced with enough prejudice and misunderstand, and it romanticizes and glorifies abuse.

And this post is going into my bookmarks, because it is beautiful.

What scares me most is the fact that people, misinformed and ignorant people, will now try to enter the community/find play partners with the dangerous ideas of what BDSM is. They won’t respect a sub, they won’t listen.
And that can seriously hurt people. People can DIE.

Thank fuck, I love this post


Consent is never a shade of grey.  Jfc they went and made a movie about the damn thing?!

darkly-stark:

ivorysorrows:

lil-miss-choc:

bonerack:

princessnecrophilia:

weeaboo-chan:

vhscars:

protest-resources:

50 Shades of Abuse Flyer - Canada

Use, redistribute, print. 

Click image and magnify for large version.

Okay. I understood all the flack Twilight got for being an abusive relationship. Because it was and it was being read by a very young and impressionable audience. But ffs, 50 Shades is an ADULT NOVEL. Iit is about a BDSM couple. Which - newsflash - do exist. It is a completely consensual form of dominate/submissive sex play. The whole concept of domestic violence and abuse is that one side exerts control over an unwilling victim. I don’t recall Anastasia, or whatever she’s called, protesting to Christian’s form of sex. If I remember correctly, she quite enjoyed it! So before you condemn a work of romanticizedfiction, actually consider it’s audience and remember that they are mature and capable enough to know the difference between reality and fiction.

so i guess you didn’t read the parts where he coerces her and the part where he continues after she has used her safeword and acts like a fucking creep whenever they aren’t having sex

it is the worst possible introduction to BDSM i could imagine

i know my shit okay

im hoping the people defending this book are 1. never getting into BDSM 2. not currently into BDSM 3. havent read the book bc i dont want to believe anyone is that fucking stupid

Let me

just

fucking

drop

some fucking

knowledge on you right now.

Wanna know the BDSM mantra? Safe, sane, consensual.

So let me explain why this book was devoid of all three of these things.

Safe - In the first few chapters of the novel, Christian Grey tracks Ana’s cell phone to find her at a club. Takes her home when she’s drunk, changes her when she’s so intoxicated she doesn’t remember him doing so,and informs her he will be keeping tabs on her for her own benefit. This is not the behaviour of a respectable Dominant. This is the behaviour of a power hungry, abusive asshole who really can’t take no for an answer.

Sane - One of the most important parts of BDSM is aftercare. Scenes can be extremely traumatizing and intense for the submissive. Aftercare is anything from petting to cuddling to holding to sweet talking, whatever degree of gentleness a bottom would need to pull them out of “subspace”. How does Christian provide aftercare? He submits Ana to a traumatizing first time spanking experience AND THEN FUCKING LEAVES. AND GETS MAD THAT SHE DIDN’T TELL HIM SHE WAS UPSET. He’s the one who should fucking know better! That, again, is not the act of a responsible Dominant. It’s the act of a selfish abuser.

Consensual - Did I mention he undressed her when she was belligerently drunk? Tracked her phone to locate her? He also buys her a new car despite her saying no countless times. Now, consent is important for any kind of sexual activity at all. Consent means informed, consent means enthusiastic. Informed, enthusiastic consent. This is crucial in a BDSM setting. Scenes can be extremely intense, especially for the bottom. What is Christian’s form of obtaining consent? Handing Ana a fucking contract highlighting all the things he wants to do her asshole and asking her to sign it. She was a virgin (Don’t even get me fucking started.) who had never before been exposed to BDSM. Entering in that kind of relationship takes a gargantuan amount of trust and knowledge so you know exactly what you’re getting into. Not reading a list of kinks on a piece of paper and signing your rights to say no away. Christian didn’t offer her resources, he didn’t offer her information. He gave her an ultimatum. That is not the sort of consent a responsible Dom/me would seek from their submissive.

Fuck. This. book. It’s written in a shitty way, it’s a terrible example of a BDSM relationship (ask anybody already involved in the lifestyle and watch them go blue in the face just thinking about it), which is already faced with enough prejudice and misunderstand, and it romanticizes and glorifies abuse.

And this post is going into my bookmarks, because it is beautiful.

What scares me most is the fact that people, misinformed and ignorant people, will now try to enter the community/find play partners with the dangerous ideas of what BDSM is. They won’t respect a sub, they won’t listen.

And that can seriously hurt people. People can DIE.

Thank fuck, I love this post

Consent is never a shade of grey. Jfc they went and made a movie about the damn thing?!

(via adorabucky)

Comments

12:55 am
276,116 notes

illaminati:

"maybe you shouldnt eat all of tha-"

image

Classic Tom and Jerry. Love me a triangular mouse :)

(via adorabucky)

Comments

6:59 pm - Wed, Jul 30, 2014
100,450 notes

Comments

6:56 pm
32,783 notes

zoewashburne:

What were your inspirations, especially since [Tauriel] is a completely created character; what brought you to bring that power because there were a lot of ways you could have played that role that would have been along the lines of what we usually see for a girl in an action movie where she’s not in the adventure, she’s the prize…?

 

(Source: halfabubble, via stephstiel)

Comments

6:54 pm
189,069 notes

(via oreogeek)

Comments

6:18 pm
53 notes
oreogeek:

riennynn:

pointless-letters:

TOP TIP: Have you written a letter to a newspaper in which you stand up for people complaining about having to endure the horror of seeing a man kiss another man in a first-world nation in the 21st frigging century and then follow that up by railing against “pro-gay” people having a voice in celebrating it? Are you worried that people might think you’re homophobic? No problem! Just sign off your letter as “Not Homophobic” and hey presto! No-one will think you’re being homophobic at all because you’ve said right at the end that you’re not homophobic.

It’s not called being “pro gay”, it’s called being a decent human being who doesn’t judge someone else’s sexuality.

People are praising it because you don’t see much same sex people kissing. To the OP, yes you can be
Homophobic and still support gay rights, or love Neil Patrick Harris/John Barrowman/Ellen Degeneres but hate gay rights and homosexuality
Just like you can be still be racist even though you have a black friend, or hate hip-hop with a passion but not racist
Or be sexist but support the pay equality in the US, or even love Robin Thicke’s “Blurred Lines” but support women getting birth control by their insurance company
But people praise because it’s still illegal to be gay in certain places and to marry a person of the same sex. 
Rant about homosexuality and why it’s a big deal below:

What also what pisses me off is when people say ”It was inappropriate to do in front of children”. Is it the fact that he kissing a man or the fact that he is kissing someone? Well, there are a lot of heterosexual kissing in children’s shows, movies, and books. And the UK promoted a heterosexual couple getting married. It’s really not hard to explain to kids that girls can like girls and guys can like guys.
In “Kids React to Gay Marriage" by the FineBros, the kids responded to it like:



And it’s a big f@#$%ing deal because one person’s sexuality is treated as weird, sinful, and bad. People cause suicide over their sexuality, kids are disowned and kicked out for their sexuality, and people are trying to be “corrected” for their sexuality.

*rant over*
But hopefully, we’ll be in a time where this event is just a kiss between two men. A kiss, that’s it. The reaction shouldn’t be no different if they were of a different race or gender. Hell, we did it for interracial marriage and relationships in the United States. We accepted that people can like people of other races and it’s no big deal now. The president of the US is a result of an interracial couple.  
PS: If want to tell what is so wrong with it, tell me or IM me. I’m all ears and if you disagree with me, that’s fine. I won’t put labels on you.

Once again, oreogeek strikes with a well-reasoned and cohesive argument.

oreogeek:

riennynn:

pointless-letters:

TOP TIP: Have you written a letter to a newspaper in which you stand up for people complaining about having to endure the horror of seeing a man kiss another man in a first-world nation in the 21st frigging century and then follow that up by railing against “pro-gay” people having a voice in celebrating it? Are you worried that people might think you’re homophobic? No problem! Just sign off your letter as “Not Homophobic” and hey presto! No-one will think you’re being homophobic at all because you’ve said right at the end that you’re not homophobic.

It’s not called being “pro gay”, it’s called being a decent human being who doesn’t judge someone else’s sexuality.

People are praising it because you don’t see much same sex people kissing. To the OP, yes you can be

  • Homophobic and still support gay rights, or love Neil Patrick Harris/John Barrowman/Ellen Degeneres but hate gay rights and homosexuality
  • Just like you can be still be racist even though you have a black friend, or hate hip-hop with a passion but not racist
  • Or be sexist but support the pay equality in the US, or even love Robin Thicke’s “Blurred Lines” but support women getting birth control by their insurance company

But people praise because it’s still illegal to be gay in certain places and to marry a person of the same sex. 

Rant about homosexuality and why it’s a big deal below:

What also what pisses me off is when people say ”It was inappropriate to do in front of children”. Is it the fact that he kissing a man or the fact that he is kissing someone? Well, there are a lot of heterosexual kissing in children’s shows, movies, and books. And the UK promoted a heterosexual couple getting married. It’s really not hard to explain to kids that girls can like girls and guys can like guys.

In “Kids React to Gay Marriage" by the FineBros, the kids responded to it like:

And it’s a big f@#$%ing deal because one person’s sexuality is treated as weird, sinful, and bad. People cause suicide over their sexuality, kids are disowned and kicked out for their sexuality, and people are trying to be “corrected” for their sexuality.

*rant over*

But hopefully, we’ll be in a time where this event is just a kiss between two men. A kiss, that’s it. The reaction shouldn’t be no different if they were of a different race or gender. Hell, we did it for interracial marriage and relationships in the United States. We accepted that people can like people of other races and it’s no big deal now. The president of the US is a result of an interracial couple.  

PS: If want to tell what is so wrong with it, tell me or IM me. I’m all ears and if you disagree with me, that’s fine. I won’t put labels on you.

Once again, oreogeek strikes with a well-reasoned and cohesive argument.

Comments

4:03 pm
6 notes

mustang-sal:

So I forgot to post this before. Ermahgerd mert Jehrn Berrermern! 

My compulsive earliness paid off for once! After a weekend of seeing such great Supanova pictures, I was feeling sad that I hadn’t been able to attend. The panel I was most miffed to have missed was John Barrowman’s, but I just knew that if I went I would spend far too much money (which I was supposed to be saving for my trip). I was at the airport the day after the con wrapped, though, and who should I see? JB himself and his husband, Scott.

Not wanting to ambush them in immigration where they couldn’t escape, I went through security ahead of them and loitered around in the duty free shopping area, feeling like a creepy stalker.

Eventually Scott came up and I approached him, asking if he thought John would mind if I said hello. I am sensitive to the fact that this sort of thing might not be welcome, and that Supanova guests have various contractual rules they’re meant to stick to regarding photography and who knows, maybe it would extend into the following day? But Scott said he was sure it would be fine with John. 

We talked for a little while as we waited for John to come out of security. Scott was as nice as he always seems in John’s posts. He asked me a few things about myself (probably sensing my nervousness) and just let me babble nervously for several minutes. It didn’t occur to me until later that I’d made it sound as if I’d been waiting around at the airport for them to turn up! (It certainly didn’t help my case that I was hours early for my flight!)

We were waiting well over ten minutes, and started to wonder what was holding up John, speculating that security must be putting him through the ringer. Finally he arrived, and (tragedy of tragedies!) he had split his pants right down the back! I don’t know the full story, however I know that they were ceremonially binned in the Qantas lounge later on.

John was very gracious but understandably distracted, so I didn’t take up too much of his time. He did however let me get a photo with him. As a huge Doctor Who, Torchwood and Arrow fan (as well as musical theatre enthusiast) I was absolutely delighted. I don’t think I could’ve had a better start to my trip to the UK!

(Second picture sourced from John’s whosay account here)

You had the chance to chat with shy Scottie :D. Lovely story!

Comments

4:01 pm
53 notes
pointless-letters:

TOP TIP: Have you written a letter to a newspaper in which you stand up for people complaining about having to endure the horror of seeing a man kiss another man in a first-world nation in the 21st frigging century and then follow that up by railing against “pro-gay” people having a voice in celebrating it? Are you worried that people might think you’re homophobic? No problem! Just sign off your letter as “Not Homophobic” and hey presto! No-one will think you’re being homophobic at all because you’ve said right at the end that you’re not homophobic.

It’s not called being “pro gay”, it’s called being a decent human being who doesn’t judge someone else’s sexuality.

pointless-letters:

TOP TIP: Have you written a letter to a newspaper in which you stand up for people complaining about having to endure the horror of seeing a man kiss another man in a first-world nation in the 21st frigging century and then follow that up by railing against “pro-gay” people having a voice in celebrating it? Are you worried that people might think you’re homophobic? No problem! Just sign off your letter as “Not Homophobic” and hey presto! No-one will think you’re being homophobic at all because you’ve said right at the end that you’re not homophobic.

It’s not called being “pro gay”, it’s called being a decent human being who doesn’t judge someone else’s sexuality.

Comments

7:17 am
203,380 notes

hobbitballerina:

chelseawelseyknight:

witchesbitchesandbritches:

lifeundefeated:

Yea it’s clearly our “generation that’s making homosexuality a trend.” Seriously, pisses me off when people say that. look at this! It’s always been around, it’s not a trend, it’s real. It’s beautiful.

These are really beautiful images.

This makes me really happy

There’s a long history of lesbian-like activity in the West.  In the 19th century US, especially after the Civil War killed off so many young men, middle-class and other genteel girls were encouraged in Boston marriages — relationships with other women of similar educational and class backgrounds.  Since women were considered naturally chaste and disinterested in sex, these love affairs were seen as innocent and spiritual.  Women’s lives were wholly separate from men’s that young women infrequently had male friends who weren’t considered a marriage prospect.  They were encouraged to keep to all-female social circles, and the advent of women’s colleges further encouraged that.  Women were expected to mentor each other, love each other, dance with each other, with the older woman acting as the cavalier, the man in the relationship, protecting and guiding the younger, pursuing her and courting her in ways not unlike how young men would court their brides.  But the prevailing cultural wisdom was that these relationships would be limited to kisses and poetry — women were incapable of sexual desire, they tolerated sex in heterosexual marriages because men were sex-driven beasts who demanded it of them.  Without a man, it was presumed that these relationships would be chaste, innocent, and wholly emotional.  Lesbian-like behaviour is most tolerated when women are perceived as less sexual than men.  Homosexual behaviour becomes threatening when sex is involved — when, in the 1920s, women were seen as able to have sexual drives and the idea of sexually companionable marriages came onto the landscape, Boston marriages suddenly became unnatural and disgusting because they directed women’s sexual interests towards other women instead of to the proper channels: towards men.  The flapper was all about the sexually available (to men) young woman.  She contributed to the demise of widely accepted lesbian or lesbian-like relationships.  As soon as the flapper was capable of wanting sex herself instead of tolerating it from her male partner, lesbian/lesbian-like relationships were threatening, deviant, and ruined young women’s chances to become good wives and mothers.

So remember this as you look at the pre-1920s images.  Those women were allowed these passionate loves, even encouraged in them (sometimes after they managed to get a husband, Eleanor Roosevelt in particular), all because the patriarchy was convinced that women weren’t capable of sexual feelings towards one another.  As long as women were seen as desexed, as creatures of sentiment and emotion instead of passion and desire, lesbianism wasn’t a threat.  The minute women were regarded by patriarchal culture as having a natural sex drive, lesbian-like behaviour became deviant and damning.

We didn’t invent homosexuality in the past 20 or 30 or 50 years.  But we continue to labour under the belief and cultural expectation that women’s sexuality is something owed to and owned by men, forever de-legitimising women’s relationships unless men in some way benefit. 

(Source: babycocodill, via thehomoadventuresofdestiel)

Comments

7:15 pm - Tue, Jul 29, 2014
551 notes

fangfan62:

Awesome!!

That last gif :D

(Source: captainoftheteas)

Comments

7:04 pm
33,740 notes

loky-sexual:

Supernatural season 9 gag reel

(via adorabucky)

Comments

Likes
View more things Ri likes
Install Headline