ask   about   


mangoestho:

mymodernmet:

One Day Young series by Jenny Lewis

Beautiful portraits of mothers and their one-day-old babies.

(via littleblackcloak)

— 5 hours ago with 4665 notes

helloradness:

if white people hate kanye west for being “self-obsessed” and “arrogant” why dont they hate robert downey jr too

(Source: gaydicks420, via ohbowie)

— 5 hours ago with 17963 notes
lesbianseparatist:


'The Lie,' Andrea Dworkin. 1979. Letters From A War Zone, 1993. 

lesbianseparatist:

'The Lie,' Andrea Dworkin. 1979. Letters From A War Zone, 1993. 

(via thechocolateprincess)

— 5 hours ago with 330 notes

masturbraiding:

Do you ever catch yourself thinking rude things about someone or judging them and you’re like “hey stop that, that’s not nice don’t u do that”

(via bastille)

— 5 hours ago with 64175 notes

lacigreen:

onemaytolerateaworldfullofdemons:

The only sort of pictures you should be reblogging of Jennifer Lawrence

have unfollowed 20+ blogs on here already and i will unfollow anyone else who reblogs nude photos taken NON-CONSENSUALLY from these women.  it is sexual violation (fueled by the objectification of women) and anybody who participates that is the literal scum of the earth

(via bastille)

— 5 hours ago with 85607 notes

brobecks:

i like wearing lipstick because you leave marks on literally everything omg. kiss a boy’s cheek? my boy now. drink out of a cup? my cup forever. don’t even think about having coffee out of that thing. it’s like marking your territory

(via fake-mermaid)

— 15 hours ago with 248452 notes
This is why you shouldn't click on the naked photos of Jennifer Lawrence →

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 ohbowie)

— 15 hours ago with 13709 notes

809:

why is this so hard for people to understand

(via ohbowie)

— 15 hours ago with 74372 notes
"In 2008, VanWyngarden broke up with his girlfriend of three years, found himself homeless (he didn’t want to get another apartment since he was touring all the time) and contracted pneumonia. “That was the most debaucherous time for me, in terms of drug use, and I feel like my body still hasn’t recovered, he says. “1 think I took so much Ecstasy that I’m more prone to depression now.” One night, during a phase when he was doing a lot of E and Valium (a combination of drugs that feels like heroin-lite), he found himself in Barcelona drinking a bottle of wine and sobbing. He took off for L.A. and started wearing sundresses to screw with his gender identity. “I drove to Joshua Tree, because I thought I was going to find something out there, but nothing happened.” he says. His tour manager asked him where he wanted to go next. “I said. I don’t know, man, just send me to Transylvania.’” He didn’t speak to another person for a week. “I got a massage at the hotel, by a hairy Romanian guy in a white-tile room with fluorescent lights and no towels.” he says. “That place felt like it was run by aliens."
— 16 hours ago with 119 notes
#mgmt  #andrew  #bae 

1like1prayer:

"what do you even do on kim kardashian hollywood?"image

(via hypocrisyvevo)

— 16 hours ago with 6120 notes

ruinedchildhood:

send this to your crush with no context

(Source: xeppeli, via bastille)

— 16 hours ago with 248043 notes
#LOL 
"My favorite definition for bisexuality so far is the one popularized by (the wonderful) bisexual activist Robyn Ochs. Ochs says, “I call myself bisexual because I acknowledge that I have in myself the potential to be attracted—romantically and/or sexually—to people of more than one sex, and/or gender, not necessarily at the same time, not necessarily in the same way, and not necessarily to the same degree.”

This is by far the broadest and most enabling definition of bisexuality that I’ve found to date. Its strength is in the way it enables anyone who wants to identify as bisexual to do so. (In other words, it reassures people.)

In a world in which bisexuality is usually very narrowly defined, many people who experience bisexual desire, and want to identify as bi, often feel afraid to start (or keep) identifying as such, as they feel as though they “don’t qualify.” The role that an enabling definition for bisexuality can fulfill to counter these feelings of internalized biphobia is invaluable—and I feel that Ochs’s definition does just that. It reassures people that they are “allowed” to identify as bisexual if they wish to do so."
Shiri Eisner, from her 2013 Book ”Bi: Notes for a Bisexual Revolution (p. 21-22)

(Source: bisexualmind, via koyyuh)

— 16 hours ago with 18364 notes
"The boys, they call me Lolita.
They come to me with their dark hair and beautiful cheekbones.
They say ‘Lolita, baby. C’mon, hike that skirt up. Yeah, show me those stockings.’
‘Lolita, you kill me. Turn around sweetheart.’
‘Lolita, go and grab me a beer. You’re the best chaser I’ve ever had hunny, you taste like cherry soda straight from the shop.’
They know everything of my shaky, wandering hands, peppermint lips and olive skin
but nothing of my anxious soul, my love for 7-up, my eyes that cry salt.
The priest, the one with sins falling from his eyelashes, he tells me girls like me are not meant to be loved. We are candy, made to be devoured.
I go home and I put on a long t-shirt and I paint.
I paint the boys’ dirty hands, their cigarette lips and eager but dying eyes.
I do not tell them I make them into art; I don’t want to scare them away.
Girls like me, we have blood draining out our eyes. Desire hides in the crevices of our palms,
to us love is the color black."
Abbie Nielsen, For the Girls Who Have Been Used (viapassionandcoffeestains)

(via koyyuh)

— 16 hours ago with 1677 notes