E-mail
Comment
File
Password(Password used for file deletion)
  • See stuff I like
  • Maximum file size allowed is 2048 KB.
  • Images greater than 250x250 pixels will be thumbnailed.
  • Read the rules and FAQ before posting.
  • Currently 9001 unique user posts.
  •  

    1. officialmillerhighlife:

norcalnoise:

ianoshea:


phrux:

shinigamihime:

oliasis:

notyour-sidekick:

kleenexwoman:

did-you-kno:

Source

I have a few copies of “Playboy” from the 1970s stashed away somewhere. One of them has a letter where a guy writes in saying, “I met this really gorgeous, sweet woman, and we were planning to get married, but she sat me down yesterday and told me that she had a sex change before she met me. Mr. Hefner, should I marry someone who used to be a man?” and the response was, “So she had a sex change, big whoop. Would you be asking this question if she’d made any other change in her life before she met you? You love the woman she is now, and that’s all that should matter. If you want kids you can adopt or something.”

I feel so conflicted right now



Do you guys SERIOUSLY not know that Hugh Hefner is super respectful of women and doesn’t play around with peoples misogynistic bullshit?

just because you want to be surrounded by hot ladies 24/7 doesn’t mean you’re a douchebag


not being a douchebag is the best way to be surrounded by hot ladies 24/7

Should also be noted, from watching The Girls Next Door, the Playmates decide on everything they do. All photoshoots and all the spreads in the magazines and calendars are their ideas and their doing. Hef is only there to give his stamp of approval.
None of those girls do things they don’t want to do, and he’s supportive of whatever.

i actually love this man
      >> ; Expected (Notes: 312987) 23/04/14(Wed)8:15:21 Go to Post

      officialmillerhighlife:

      norcalnoise:

      ianoshea:

      phrux:

      shinigamihime:

      oliasis:

      notyour-sidekick:

      kleenexwoman:

      did-you-kno:

      Source

      I have a few copies of “Playboy” from the 1970s stashed away somewhere. One of them has a letter where a guy writes in saying, “I met this really gorgeous, sweet woman, and we were planning to get married, but she sat me down yesterday and told me that she had a sex change before she met me. Mr. Hefner, should I marry someone who used to be a man?” and the response was, “So she had a sex change, big whoop. Would you be asking this question if she’d made any other change in her life before she met you? You love the woman she is now, and that’s all that should matter. If you want kids you can adopt or something.”

      I feel so conflicted right now

      Do you guys SERIOUSLY not know that Hugh Hefner is super respectful of women and doesn’t play around with peoples misogynistic bullshit?

      just because you want to be surrounded by hot ladies 24/7 doesn’t mean you’re a douchebag

      not being a douchebag is the best way to be surrounded by hot ladies 24/7

      Should also be noted, from watching The Girls Next Door, the Playmates decide on everything they do. All photoshoots and all the spreads in the magazines and calendars are their ideas and their doing. Hef is only there to give his stamp of approval.

      None of those girls do things they don’t want to do, and he’s supportive of whatever.

      i actually love this man

      (via overup)


    2. >> ; Expected (Notes: 21) 23/04/14(Wed)6:00:59 Go to Post

      About Ramsay’s girlfriend

      nyualbert:

      becauseofnina:

      I won’t ever accept *her* as Ramsay’s girlfriend unless she truly loves him/trust him and he cold bloody cuts her throat for annoying him. I hate the idea that:

      1) His character is softened (by having him cute and happy with Myranda(?) yes it softened him), and if his character is softened the viewer will seek reasons to his madness and reasons to justify his crimes and abused. And no. Just no.

      2) The viewer will mistaken Ramsay’s behavior for the average Bolton behavior and no, nope, Ramsay is way worst than the average Bolton. He’s not just a bastard trying to get recognition, he is a sociopath.

      3) His girlfriend (Myranda?) is there killing girls for jealousy. Ramsay’s killing is justified in a way and I don’t know if it was to appeal feminists or idk (because yeah, a man killing and innocent girl blahblah) but it’s not right at all?? I mean I like even less seeing a woman killed an innocent girl out of jealousy to satisfy her and her man (Ramsay enjoy the hunt and she knows it), that Ramsay a concrete MONSTER killing an innocent girl because no reason in particular he just likes to kill. There for my feminist rant.

      GRRM actually wrote that episode and Myranda into that part. To counter your points, or at least quell your anger about what it does to Ramsay’s character, Rolling Stone wrote a good section about it.

      1) Mostly show-viewers have already tried to justify Ramsay’s psychopathic behavior, with his father not accepting him as his heir. Not to mention the show casted an absurdly good-looking actor to what the book described as an ugly man, inside and out. Myranda’s character did no damage that wasn’t already done.

      2) “Average Bolton behavior” I mean Roose raped Ramsay’s mother, I think it’s just a fact that some Bolton’s can control themselves better than others. In this case, Ramsay who lived most of his life in a mill, had no reason to control himself while his father has his lands and lordship to protect. Other than that we don’t really see or experience any other Boltons besides these two, both who are already adept at doing bad things.

      3) Myranda joining him in the killing is hardly a feminist move. I think it was the showrunners and GRRM trying to make Ramsay a more “modern” psychopath. Casting a good-looking actor along with including a just as cruel woman references this famous serial killing/raping pair (as explained in Rolling Stone).

      Overall including the woman just increases the number of Boltons the North has to contend with. We’ll see how the show goes along with this.


    3. >> ; Expected (Notes: 15) 23/04/14(Wed)3:45:19 Go to Post

      litwoojczyznomoja:

      I was a bit scared to find a latex glove full of water this afternoon.


    4. >> ; Expected (Notes: 4114) 23/04/14(Wed)11:15:25 Go to Post

      (Source: cosmarxpolitan, via yggdrasill)


    5. >> ; Expected (Notes: 482) 23/04/14(Wed)10:30:14 Go to Post

      (Source: cardboard-crack, via mtgthings)


    6. >> ; Expected (Notes: 55348) 23/04/14(Wed)9:45:15 Go to Post

    7. >> ; Expected (Notes: 29131) 22/04/14(Tue)6:00:38 Go to Post

      petitepasserine:

      white women of hollywood, reducing japan and japanese culture to cupcakes, sexy ”costumes” and submissive sex-kittens since god knows when

      (via fucknofetishization)


    8. >> ; Expected (Notes: 16188) 22/04/14(Tue)12:45:17 Go to Post

    9. art-of-swords:

Sword Facts & Myths
All Medieval swords weighed at least 12 pounds – FALSE
Most Medieval swords weighed around 2.5 lbs - even long hand-and-a-half and two-handed swords weighed less than 4 lbs.
Medieval swords were not sharp - FALSE
Some surviving samples of Medieval swords are still sharp - many are razor-sharp.
All swords should balance within 2” of the guard - FALSE
A sword’s balance should be determined by its function, not an arbitrary standard. Swords intended for cutting often balance 5 or 6 inches from the guard.
Swords were made to cut through armour - FALSE
Period armour was often work- and case-hardened and curved such that it is difficult to hit at a right angle. Late Medieval thrusting swords, even the ones with a reinforced point, were used to thrust into the gaps in armour, not through the plate.
Viking swords were heavier than Medieval swords - FALSE
The Viking sword was a very highly developed sword form. Often the blades were quite thin in cross section, and as a result, were often the same or lighter in overall weight than other similarsized swords.
There is no such thing as the “perfect” sword - TRUE
There are only “perfect” swords for their intended purpose and the tastes of the owner.
A “good” sword should be able to bend past 90 degrees without taking a set - FALSE
Flexibility is only one of the aspects of the steel properties that is important in a sword. Too flexible, and it is inefficient in the thrust and the cut. Too stiff and it is prone to breakage. Most makers are content if a sword will bend to 45 degrees without taking a set.
Real swordfights were just like they are in the movies - FALSE
Swordfights in movies are choreographed for entertainment not authenticity. Edge to edge parries and fancy techniques are designed to heighten drama in a scene. An actual swordfight would be short, brutal and much quieter.
Japanese swords are the sharpest and best swords ever made - FALSE
Japanese swords have many admirable qualities and were well-suited to their intended use, but they are not necessarily sharper or better than a properly designed and sharpened Medieval sword. 
Medieval swordmakers were uneducated barbarians - FALSE
It is apparent from even a cursory study of surviving Medieval swords that blademakers and cutlers were highly skilled artisans with a profound understanding of mathematics and proportion.
Not all swords should be as sharp as a razor - TRUE
The sword’s intended purpose is always the guide to use — thrusting swords are not intended for cutting, so some may not even have an edge at all, just a well-defined and reinforced point.
Swords were tempered in urine or blood - FALSE
The steels smelted in Medieval Europe required either clean water or oil for quenching. Urine or blood would not allow a blade to temper properly.
The “blood groove” is on a sword to release pressure in the wound and allow the sword to come back out - FALSE
"Blood groove" as a term is a recent invention — "fuller" is the proper name for the groove or grooves on a sword blade. The purpose of the fuller has nothing to do with "blood" — fullers reduce weight, assist in the proper distribution of mass in a blade, and help make the blade more stiff.
A good sword can cut through a concrete pillar - FALSE
Swords were intended to cut through flesh, clothing, and (in earlier swords) leather or mail armour. They are not intended to cut wood, concrete or metal pillars, even though that is often seen in films.
A sword will fall apart if you don’t clean the tang of the sword - FALSE
The tang of a sword, if properly made and the rest of the sword properly maintained, will not require any maintenance for generations of use. 
Japanese folded steel is superior to European sword steel - FALSE
Folding steel was a technique used by Japanese smiths to try to get the best steel they could from very poor ore sources. Folded steel blades are more likely than modern monosteels to have large, unseen inclusions of impurities that may in fact critically weaken a blade. By folding the steel billet many, many times, they achieved a more even distribution of carbon and worked most of the impurities out of the steel. The result is stunningly beautiful, but we have to believe that if a 16th C Japanese smith had access to modern monosteels, he would have switched in a heartbeat.
Pattern-welded steel is superior to mono-steel - FALSE
Like folding steel, pattern-welding was a technique used to try to get the best steel from very poor ore sources.  Pattern-welding is the art of hammering together, and then twisting and re-hammering layers of iron (often of varying carbon content). The Celts as far back as the 5th century BC may have made swords by pattern-welding, and this technique was used extensively until at least the end of the 10th century.  After this, better, more consistent iron ore was obtainable, and furnace technology improved, making this laborious technique unnecessary. Also like folded steel blades, pattern welded blades are more likely than modern monosteels to have large, unseen inclusions of impurities that may in fact critically weaken a blade.
Swords are just big knives - FALSE
The design of a sword is far more complex than a knife. Flexibility  balance and vibration are far more critical in a sword-length blade than in a knife-length blade.

Info source: © 2005 Albion Armorers, Inc.
Photo source: © Royal Armouries
      >> ; Expected (Notes: 15915) 22/04/14(Tue)12:00:37 Go to Post

      art-of-swords:

      Sword Facts & Myths

      • All Medieval swords weighed at least 12 pounds – FALSE

      Most Medieval swords weighed around 2.5 lbs - even long hand-and-a-half and two-handed swords weighed less than 4 lbs.

      • Medieval swords were not sharp - FALSE

      Some surviving samples of Medieval swords are still sharp - many are razor-sharp.

      • All swords should balance within 2” of the guard - FALSE

      A sword’s balance should be determined by its function, not an arbitrary standard. Swords intended for cutting often balance 5 or 6 inches from the guard.

      • Swords were made to cut through armour - FALSE

      Period armour was often work- and case-hardened and curved such that it is difficult to hit at a right angle. Late Medieval thrusting swords, even the ones with a reinforced point, were used to thrust into the gaps in armour, not through the plate.

      • Viking swords were heavier than Medieval swords - FALSE

      The Viking sword was a very highly developed sword form. Often the blades were quite thin in cross section, and as a result, were often the same or lighter in overall weight than other similarsized swords.

      • There is no such thing as the “perfect” sword - TRUE

      There are only “perfect” swords for their intended purpose and the tastes of the owner.

      • A “good” sword should be able to bend past 90 degrees without taking a set - FALSE

      Flexibility is only one of the aspects of the steel properties that is important in a sword. Too flexible, and it is inefficient in the thrust and the cut. Too stiff and it is prone to breakage. Most makers are content if a sword will bend to 45 degrees without taking a set.

      • Real swordfights were just like they are in the movies - FALSE

      Swordfights in movies are choreographed for entertainment not authenticity. Edge to edge parries and fancy techniques are designed to heighten drama in a scene. An actual swordfight would be short, brutal and much quieter.

      • Japanese swords are the sharpest and best swords ever made - FALSE

      Japanese swords have many admirable qualities and were well-suited to their intended use, but they are not necessarily sharper or better than a properly designed and sharpened Medieval sword. 

      • Medieval swordmakers were uneducated barbarians - FALSE

      It is apparent from even a cursory study of surviving Medieval swords that blademakers and cutlers were highly skilled artisans with a profound understanding of mathematics and proportion.

      • Not all swords should be as sharp as a razor - TRUE

      The sword’s intended purpose is always the guide to use — thrusting swords are not intended for cutting, so some may not even have an edge at all, just a well-defined and reinforced point.

      • Swords were tempered in urine or blood - FALSE

      The steels smelted in Medieval Europe required either clean water or oil for quenching. Urine or blood would not allow a blade to temper properly.

      • The “blood groove” is on a sword to release pressure in the wound and allow the sword to come back out - FALSE

      "Blood groove" as a term is a recent invention — "fuller" is the proper name for the groove or grooves on a sword blade. The purpose of the fuller has nothing to do with "blood" — fullers reduce weight, assist in the proper distribution of mass in a blade, and help make the blade more stiff.

      • A good sword can cut through a concrete pillar - FALSE

      Swords were intended to cut through flesh, clothing, and (in earlier swords) leather or mail armour. They are not intended to cut wood, concrete or metal pillars, even though that is often seen in films.

      • A sword will fall apart if you don’t clean the tang of the sword - FALSE

      The tang of a sword, if properly made and the rest of the sword properly maintained, will not require any maintenance for generations of use. 

      • Japanese folded steel is superior to European sword steel - FALSE

      Folding steel was a technique used by Japanese smiths to try to get the best steel they could from very poor ore sources. Folded steel blades are more likely than modern monosteels to have large, unseen inclusions of impurities that may in fact critically weaken a blade. By folding the steel billet many, many times, they achieved a more even distribution of carbon and worked most of the impurities out of the steel. The result is stunningly beautiful, but we have to believe that if a 16th C Japanese smith had access to modern monosteels, he would have switched in a heartbeat.

      • Pattern-welded steel is superior to mono-steel - FALSE

      Like folding steel, pattern-welding was a technique used to try to get the best steel from very poor ore sources.  Pattern-welding is the art of hammering together, and then twisting and re-hammering layers of iron (often of varying carbon content). The Celts as far back as the 5th century BC may have made swords by pattern-welding, and this technique was used extensively until at least the end of the 10th century.  After this, better, more consistent iron ore was obtainable, and furnace technology improved, making this laborious technique unnecessary. Also like folded steel blades, pattern welded blades are more likely than modern monosteels to have large, unseen inclusions of impurities that may in fact critically weaken a blade.

      • Swords are just big knives - FALSE

      The design of a sword is far more complex than a knife. Flexibility  balance and vibration are far more critical in a sword-length blade than in a knife-length blade.

      Info source: © 2005 Albion Armorers, Inc.

      Photo source: © Royal Armouries

      (via artist-refs)


    10. >> ; Expected (Notes: 2119) 22/04/14(Tue)11:15:15 Go to Post

      "

      Unfortunately, the show is wrong, on both counts. Changing a scene from consensual sex to rape is not just a pedantic issue of accuracy—it’s a problem with story. The Daenerys Targaryen who falls in love with a man who granted her respect when no one else would is different from the Daenerys Targaryen who fell in love with her rapist. It changes that relationship. (Dany falling in love with Drogo, and calling him her “sun and stars,” makes a whole lot more sense now, doesn’t it?)

      Similarly, Jaime is a figure of chivalric love in the books—despite his arrogance and ruthlessness, his devotion and sense of duty to Cersei, the only woman he has ever loved, is so fervent as to border on adoration. Admittedly, the show can’t rely on his point-of-view chapters, as the book does, to communicate that love. But given what we have seen Cersei Lannister capable of—her ex-husband is hardly the only man she’s had killed—is it even conceivable that she would stand for it? Jaime raping Cersei is a major anomaly for these two characters—even based purely on what we’ve seen in the show. It’s just not something that either character would do.

      "

      *tosses Bernioff and Weiss into a trashcan* (via tramampoline)

      EXACTLY HOW I FELT ABOUT IT. It doesn’t even seem right for EITHER character. Cersei would never stand for that and Jaime wouldn’t dare try. Ughhhhh

      (via miss-love)

      (via nyualbert)


    11. lizclimo:

spring is here! let’s have some fun. 
Drawn by Liz Climo [tumblr | twitter]
      >> ; Expected (Notes: 5186) 22/04/14(Tue)10:30:29 Go to Post

      lizclimo:

      spring is here! let’s have some fun. 

      Drawn by Liz Climo [tumblr | twitter]

      (via thefrogman)


    12. >> ; Expected (Notes: 64082) 22/04/14(Tue)9:45:28 Go to Post

      heyitsmario:

      moonlightstrike:

      cordelias-coriander-condiment:

      Who else misses Tumblr before it was this?

      I think everyone misses Tumblr before it turned into this hot mess.

      tumblr existed before this?

      I just assumed that tumblr IS this


    13. >> ; Expected (Notes: 7724) 21/04/14(Mon)9:11:03 Go to Post

    14. fireandlunch:

Let’s just take a second to reread this scene. Can everyone find the word “yes”? Apparently D&D couldn’t.
      >> ; Expected (Notes: 2162) 21/04/14(Mon)6:00:50 Go to Post

      fireandlunch:

      Let’s just take a second to reread this scene. Can everyone find the word “yes”? Apparently D&D couldn’t.

      (via toomanywants)


    15. >> ; Expected (Notes: 266190) 21/04/14(Mon)5:15:42 Go to Post

    [1] [2] [3] [4] [5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][351]
    Next »

    free counters