If they don’t reply to your texts — they’re not interested in you.

If they don’t call you — they’re not interested in you.

If they forget your birthday — they’re not interested in you.

If they’re hung up on their ex — they’re not interested in you.

If they’re obsessed with being single — they’re not interested in you.

If they don’t want to meet your friends — they’re not interested in you.

If they don’t want you to meet their friends — they’re not interested in you.

If they don’t ask questions about your life — they’re not interested in you.

If they don’t tell you things about their life — they’re not interested in you.

If they only speak to you when they want to have sex with you — they’re not interested in you.

If they only have sex with you when they’re drunk — they’re not interested in you.

If they say “should we just keep this between us?’ after you have sex with them — they’re not interested in you.

If they don’t have sex with you — they’re not interested in you.

If they can always find a psychobabble rationale about who “I am” or “you are” or “we are” as reason why you can’t be together — they’re not interested in you.

If they have said for more than six months that they would like to be with you “BUT” — they’re not interested in you.

And if you still need convincing — think of it this way. Think of what the real day-to-day of life is taken up by. Life is birthday parties at terrible pubs. Life is losing your credit card and the annual Melbourne Cup sweepstake in the office. Life is hen’s nights, bucks’ nights, sitting on the phone for three hours to get U2 tickets and not getting them, the apartment upstairs flooding your house, interval training, calorie counting, cancer scares, illegal mini cabs, Secret Santa, rail replacement buses and Dido albums. Dogs die, cars crash, bin liners break, contracts end, curtain rails collapse, trains get delayed, football teams lose. Divorce happens and so do earthquakes and so does An Audience With Michael Bublé. Landlords put rent up, phones get stolen and the supermarket often completely runs out of hummus.

Now, taking all of the above into account — you look me dead in the eye and tell me the truth. Do you really have enough spare energy to pursue someone who isn’t interested in you? Do you really want to waste any more time on top of all of that? No. Me neither. So give it up, my friend. It’s a loser’s game. Delete their number. Don’t go on any more dates with them. Stop lurking their Facebook page. Feels good, doesn’t it?

Dolly Alderton (via mrsfscottfitzgerald)

Searched my 6000 favorites for this post

(via europesugarpowerfighter)

(Source: gaslightgoodbye)

(Reblogged from adayinthelesbianlife)

(Source: atmagaialove)

(Reblogged from mydrunkkitchen)

nikeswooshes:

explain this atheists

it’s math

(Source: risingtensions)

(Reblogged from soothing-terrors)
So, here’s another change for you: if you really think feminism, or women, are destroying games, or that LGBT people and LGBT relationships have no place in games, or that games in any way belong to you or are “under attack” from political correctness or “social justice warriors”: please leave this website. I don’t want your clicks, I don’t want your hits, I don’t want your traffic. Leave now and please don’t come back.

I’m asking politely. You’re free to think whatever you like and to complain about whatever you like, but do it somewhere else. Comments are closed on this article, because this isn’t up for debate. I’m not seeking any input on this, or any carefully worded thoughts on how we need to take these concerns seriously or to hear “both sides of the story”. As long as I am in charge of this ship, I will happily admit to pushing an agenda: I want better representation in games. That’s my agenda. That’s our agenda.

I hope you’ll stay. I hope you’ll be part of a glorious future where a game that treats women and LGBT groups with respect won’t be held up as some weird oddity to praise and encourage. A future where female gamers don’t have to disguise their voice on raid chat, where game developers won’t be threatened with rape. Where people won’t be asking for a “gay filter” on their games because homosexuality makes them uncomfortable. I hope you’ll stick around for that.

But if you’re not on board with that, leave. If you’re not on board, find another ship, and good luck to you because that ship will be sailing against the wind.
(Reblogged from brutereason)

alliartist:

rifa:

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.

FASHION HISTORY IS HUMAN HISTORY OK

Thank you, history side of tumblr. That “stay out of blood” thing has been driving me mad.

(Reblogged from passionisaplagiarism)

aviculor:

savvymavvy:

legitknits:

mcguirkthejerk:

kristinethequeen:

jimmysnowvakk:

This is what pisses me off about Tumblr. You all say you’re so accepting and you don’t want to offend anyone, but then thousands of people reblog something like this because Christians aren’t the minority. You wouldn’t want to offend a Muslim, and if this were offensive to them or another minority, there’d be so many comments about it. But everyone is completely fine with offending a non minority. “You’re not oppressed, you can’t talk!” You know what? I’m a Christian and this offends me and my faith, but nobody’s going to care about that because I’m not oppressed. Tumblr is hypocritical and that needs to stop.

Amen to the comment

Oh my precious lambs:

Examine why you are being offended. Because this is literally how a sunset works. There is not room for debate on this question. There is less room for debate on this than there is on just about any other thing. We are not reblogging because Christians aren’t the minority, dear ones. We are reblogging because after the debate a few days ago, creationists were given the opportunity to pose a question for non-creationists. One of these questions was:

"How can you explain a sunset if their is no god?" (sp.)

Questions, we assume, are posed so that someone might answer them. And yes, there is an answer of how exactly one can explain a sunset given the absence of a divine force. Now, you can certainly posit that God is the creator of all things and so all things came from him including the sun and light refraction and anthrax and kittens and famine and all that jazz.

But you don’t get to deny that THIS IS HOW A SUNSET WORKS, and of the necessary elements of this equation (Sun + Atmosphere + Angle = Sunset), God is not one of them. That’s because everything else is an observable phenomenon, and God is not. You can explain a sunset without God. You can go ahead and believe that God’s part of it all. That’s cool. Lots of people believe stuff like that, and I encourage you to delve into the ways that people make science and their faith jive. But if you are offended by being shown the basic scientific principals behind a sunset, you must be offended by damn near everything. And that seems exhausting. 

In short:

People getting butthurt over science, fucking love it.

"Stop teaching science, it offends me" 

(Reblogged from bonechaos)
We tend to believe that accusations of privilege imply we have it easy, which we resent because life is hard for nearly everyone. Of course we resent these accusations. Look at white men when they are accused of having privilege. They tend to be immediately defensive (and, at times, understandably so). They say, “It’s not my fault I am a white man,” or “I’m [insert other condition that discounts their privilege],” instead of simply accepting that, in this regard, yes, they benefit from certain privileges others do not. To have privilege in one or more areas does not mean you are wholly privileged. Surrendering to the acceptance of privilege is difficult, but it is really all that is expected. What I remind myself, regularly, is this: the acknowledgment of my privilege is not a denial of the ways I have been and am marginalized, the ways I have suffered.
Roxane Gay, Bad Feminist (via brutereason)
(Reblogged from brutereason)
You don’t necessarily have to do anything once you acknowledged your privilege. You don’t have to apologize for it. You need to understand the extent of your privilege, the consequences of your privilege, and remain aware that people who are different from you move through and experience the world in ways you might never know anything about. They might endure situations you can never know anything about. You could, however, use that privilege for the greater good—to try to level the playing field for everyone, to work for social justice, to bring attention to how those without certain privileges are disenfranchised. We’ve seen what the hoarding of privilege has done, and the results are shameful.
Roxane Gay, Bad Feminist (via brutereason)
(Reblogged from brutereason)

HAPPY BIRTHDAY BECKY!!!

(Reblogged from dangolding)

tittily:

my little cousin got bit by a house spider and she was crying so i went to get some stuff to soothe and numb it but before i could even walk out the door i heard her quietly whisper ‘i can’t handle the responsibility of being spiderman’

(Reblogged from passionisaplagiarism)
On Periods: Let’s put this shit to bed right now: Women don’t lose their minds when they have period-related irritability. It doesn’t lower their ability to reason; it lowers their patience and, hence, tolerance for bullshit. If an issue comes up a lot during “that time of the month,” that doesn’t mean she only cares about it once a month; it means she’s bothered by it all the time and lacks the capacity, once a month, to shove it down and bury it beneath six gulps of willful silence.

Shakesville: Feminism 101 (via andotherdoublemeanings)

BOOM

(via lagertha-lodbrok)

THIS

(via quixoticlyqueer)

And when we have our periods our ‘male’ hormone (testosterone) is actually at its highest level…soooooo…

(via a-ghra-geal)

^ not actually true, testosterone peaks when you ovulate (x).  you don’t need testosterone to not tolerate bullshit, either.  passivity is socialized in women, not a result of biology.

(via lacigreen)

(Reblogged from bonechaos)

Best. Hommous. Ever.

Prepare to dye!