ivanswaginski:

hello everyone that needs to do their hw

do your homework!! you can do it!! after you’ve finished you can blog all you want!! DO YOUR HOMEWORK FRIEND YOU CAN DO IT

(Source: ivanswaginsky, via fallen-time-lords-in-westeros)

moonglade-poetess:

tastefullyoffensive:

Bop it, Twist it, Pull it, Spin it, Flick it.


fixed it.

moonglade-poetess:

tastefullyoffensive:

Bop it, Twist it, Pull it, Spin it, Flick it.

fixed it.

(Source: memewhore, via skintercorpse)

malkiewicz:

Synonyms are weird because if you invite someone to your cottage in the forest that just sounds nice and cozy, but if I invite you to my cabin in the woods you’re going to die.

(via fallen-time-lords-in-westeros)

fabulouslyfreespirited:

If you deliberately seek out any of these images, you are directly participating in the violation not just of numerous women’s privacy but also of their bodies.
In what’s being called the biggest celebrity hacking incident in internet history, more than 100 female celebrities have had their private nude images stolen and published online. The bulk of the images posted have been officially confirmed as belonging to Jennifer Lawrence, but a complete list of victims’ names - including Krysten Ritter, Kate Upton, Mary Elizabeth Winstead, Rihanna, Brie Larson and Kirsten Dunst - has been subsequently published. (Link does not contain pictures, only names.)
The images were first uploaded by an anonymous member of the underground internet sewer known as 4chan and have since been enthusiastically shared across platforms like Reddit and Twitter. A representative for Lawrence has confirmed the images are real, condemning the theft of them as a “flagrant violation of privacy” and adding that “The authorities have been contacted and will prosecute anyone who posts the stolen photos.”
There are a few different issues that a criminal act like this brings up, but before I get into them it’s necessary to make one thing clear: If you deliberately seek out any of these images, you are directly participating in the violation not just of numerous women’s privacy but also of their bodies. These images - which I have not seen and which I will not look for - are intimate, private moments belonging only to the people who appear in them and who they have invited to see them. To have those moments stolen and broadcast to the world is an egregious act of psychic violence which constitutes a form of assault.
The people sharing these images are perpetuating an ongoing assault. The people gleefully looking at them are witnessing and enjoying an ongoing assault. When you have been asked by victims of a crime like this not to exacerbate the pain of that crime and you continue to do so anyway, you are consciously deciding that your enjoyment, your rights and perhaps even just your curiosity are more important than the safety and dignity of the people you’re exploiting.
That out of the way, let’s get a few other things straight.
1. This is not a ‘scandal’
It’s a crime, and we should be discussing it as such. Some media outlets are salaciously reporting it otherwise, as if the illegal violation of privacy involving intimate images is little more than subject for gossip. When associated with sex, the word ‘scandal’ has been typically interpreted as something that assigns responsibility to all parties involved, a consensual act unfortunately discovered and for which everyone owes an explanation or apology. Remember when private nude photos of Vanessa Hudgens (whose name also appears on the list of victims) were leaked online and Disney forced her to publicly apologise for her “lapse in judgment” and hoped she had “learned a valuable lesson”? Never mind that Hudgens was an adult and a victim of privacy violation - the ‘scandal’ was painted as something for which she owed her fans an apology. Which leads us to:
2. These women do not ‘only have themselves to blame’
While depressing, it’s sadly unsurprising to see some people arguing that Lawrence et al brought this on themselves. Part of living in a rape culture is the ongoing expectation that women are responsible for protecting themselves from abuse, and that means avoiding behaviour which might be later ‘exploited’ by the people who are conveniently never held to account for their actions. But women are entitled to consensually engage in their sexuality any way they see fit. If that involves taking nude self portraits for the enjoyment of themselves or consciously selected others, that’s their prerogative.
Victims of crime do not have an obligation to accept dual responsibility for that crime. Women who take nude photographs of themselves are not committing a criminal act, and they shouldn’t ‘expect’ to become victims to one, as actress Mary E. Winstead pointed out on Twitter. 
Sending a photograph of your breasts to one person isn’t consenting to having the whole world see those breasts, just as consenting to sex with one person isn’t the same as giving permission for everyone else to fu*k you. Victim blaming isn’t okay, even if it does give you a private thrill to humiliate the female victims of sexual exploitation.
3. It doesn’t matter that ‘damn, she looks good and should own it!’
Stealing and sharing the private photographs of women doesn’t become less of a crime just because you approve them for fapping activity. I’m sure many of the women on this list are confident of their sexual attractiveness. It doesn’t mean they don’t value their privacy or shouldn’t expect to enjoy the same rights to it as everyone else. It also doesn’t mean they want strangers sweating over their images. That line of thinking comes from the same school which instructs women to either ignore of welcome sexual harassment when it’s seemingly ‘positive’ in its sentiments.
None of these women are likely to give a shit that you think their bodies are ‘tight, damn’. Despite what society reinforces to us about the public ownership of women’s bodies, we are not entitled to co-opt and objectify them just because we think we can defend it as a compliment.
I will not be seeking out these images out and I urge everyone else to avoid doing the same. I hope that all the women who have been victimised here are being appropriately supported by the authorities and their network of friends. And I hope sincerely that more people take a stand against this kind of behaviour.
Because this incident aside, it strikes me as deeply ironic that we will vehemently protest a free Facebook messenger app because we’re outraged at reports that it can access our phone’s numbers, and yet turn around and excuse the serving up of women’s bodies for our own pleasure. Our appreciation is no less disgusting just because it’s accompanied by the sound of one hand clapping.

(via mamaatheist)

Caitlin Stasey being the hero we all deserve.

(Source: brennacarver, via albinwonderland)

dduane:

teal-deer:

sunreon:

bottledspider:

sim0nbaz:

foxsan:

shuttersmiley:

sourcedumal:

jackthebard:

Just remember. There is no such thing as a fake geek girl.
There are only fake geek boys.
Science fiction was invented by a woman.

image

Specifically a teenage girl. You know, someone who would be a part of the demographic that some of these boys are violently rejecting.

Isaac Asimov.

yo mary shelley wrote frankenstein in 1818 and isaac asimov was born in 1920 so you kinda get my point

YEAH SO STRAP IN MOTHERFUCKERS I’M ABOUT TO TELL YOU ABOUT MARGARET “MAD MADGE” CAVENDISH

  • she wrote the first science-fiction novel, a century and a half before Frankenstein. It has bear-men and spider-men and ZOMBIE ARMIES and FISH-MEN WITH BOMBS.
  • she was the first woman to publish her autobiography
  • she was all into science and hung out with the Royal Society and was bros with Hobbes and Descartes
  • she was super-shy but at the same time wanted to be super-famous (“though I cannot be Henry the Fifth, or Charles the Second; yet, I will endeavour to be, Margaret the First: and, though I have neither Power, Time nor Occasion, to be a great Conqueror, like Alexander, or Cesar; yet, rather than not be Mistress of a World, since Fortune and the Fates would give me none, I have made One of my own”) and she wore CRAZY OUTFITS and Samuel Pepys was all like “I SAW THE DUCHESS OF NEWCASTLE TODAY YOU WOULD NOT BELIEVE THE CRAZY SHIT SHE WAS WEARING SHE’S REALLY HOT THO”
  • she wrote a TON of stuff, poetry and drama and natural philosophy and a lot of it wasn’t that good because she wasn’t educated and some people thought she was a nutcase for being a WOMAN who WROTE THINGS but she just COULD NOT STOP WRITING
  • this passage: “but of the second rank are for the most part those we call Insects, whose production proceds from such causes as have no conformity or likeness with their produced Effects; as for example, Maggots bred out of Cheese, and several others generated out of Earth, Water, and the like. But said the Empress, there is some likeness between Maggots and Cheese; for Cheese has no blood, nor Maggots neither; besides, they have almost the same taste which Cheese has. This proves nothing, answered they; for Maggots have a visible, local, progressive motion, which Cheese hath not. The Empress replied, That when all the Cheese was turned into Maggots, it might be said to have local, progressive motion. They answered, That when the Cheese by its own figurative motions was changed into Maggots, it was no more Cheese”
  • I know I’m forgetting more awesome stuff about her but tl;dr SHE WAS AWESOME

This post got better.

D&D inspiration 

*e* Also jesus christ dear dude who said Issac Asimov: Asimov wasn’t even the first MALE science fiction writer, you ever fucking heard of HG Wells and Jules Verne? Edgar Allan Poe? And these two ladies predated them all and inspired them all. Chriiiist. If you’re going to attempt to mansplain at least fucking know your genre. Fucking fake geek boys, get off my motherfucking lawn. 

(chuckle) Madge was a trip. I can just see her off in a corner of Heaven somewhere with Hypatia and all the FRS science bros, blowing things up.

(via gryphynshadow)

s1 Helena vs. s2 Helena

(Source: clonespiracy, via clxnesbians)

Worried? That I might do something drastic…to myself? To you?

(Source: alexanderobbins, via awdelphine)