Tumblr City, dead ahead!

Just a place to put up pics, links, and posts about things I want to share with my buddies out there :D

buckysexual:

 (via hobbitkaiju)

What always struck me about this scene is that he didn’t start tearing up until Pierce started ordering for him to be wiped. He has tears in his eyes, like he is honestly terrified, and by now any semblance of resistance has been shocked out of him. Like when he lashed out at the beginning of the scene, he was having memories, Bucky memories, so upon waking he wasn’t The Asset. The way the scientist talk to Pierce about him being erratic tells us that this is very, very odd behaviour for The Asset, completely out of the norm.

But here, he is The Asset, but not, coz even if they made him obedient and ‘the perfect weapon’, he’s still a human and he knows agony is coming. He’s confused and lost and he’s being punished for it and he knows what is coming. Right after this, when they lower him, he’s hyperventilating even before the machine is fully in place.

Like idk how much of it is him giving up so much as the Winter Soldier does not have a concept of resistance. Resistance requires personal agency and autonomy. He has neither of those things, so he does what he is told. But he can still fear pain, which says a lot about how agonizing the machine is. He can walk into gunfire and play on a freeway without even blinking, but Pierce says “wipe him, start over” and he has honest to God tears in his eyes.

I’ve rambled and kinda got lost but just…he’s lost, he’s confused, and he’s scared, and the Winter Soldier has no idea that he can stop this, has no concept of stopping this, because he could. He could slaughter everyone in that room in seconds.

But it’s obvious with the way Pierce nearly smacks him right out of the chair and the Winter Soldier just takes it that the Winter Soldier just…has no concept of rebellion, and he’s been programmed to be that way, has had all semblance of rebellion literally fried out of him.

This movie fucked me up. This whole scene and its implications fucked me up. It was so startlingly dark and heartbreaking.

(Source: mishasminions)

adorkable111:

ratujone:

10 Golden Rules for BDSM Negotiations

Worthy of frequent reblogs - Subs especially please read!

Thought this would go well with that thing about 50 Shades. BDSM is not at all supposed to be the same thing as abuse.

socialjusticekoolaid:

Can’t stop, won’t stop: Protesters in Ferguson rally again, seeking justice for Mike Brown. More than a month and a half after his death, his killer, Darren Wilson, is still a free man. (Pt 2) 

Because it wouldn’t be a protest in Ferguson without fuckery from the police. A driver plowed his car through protesters, grazing several and running over a young boys foot. Beyond taking several hours to transport the boy to the hospital, they took even longer to arrest the motorist. Who did they not wait long to arrest? Two of the protesters who had been documenting the altercation for the world to see. If you’re not angry, you’re not paying attention. #staywoke #farfromover #nojusticenopeace

lorrainelola:

My friend wrote this article on Reddit and it is now going viral everywhere. She really did nail it. Reblog the shit out of this and spread it like wildfire!

lorrainelola:

My friend wrote this article on Reddit and it is now going viral everywhere. She really did nail it. Reblog the shit out of this and spread it like wildfire!

When you’re at the pool lounging on a beach chair and some little kids are running and the lifeguard screams out “no running” do you respond “excuse me, not all of us are running”? No, you don’t. The lifeguard didn’t have to specifically state who they were talking to because you’re intelligent enough to comprehend that the comment wasn’t being directed at you.

Found a quote that shuts down that “not all men” argument pretty well. (via mykicks)

Lolll

(via adr0itness)

thosenerdyfeels:

beeishappy:

Stephen Colbert on Late Night with Seth Meyers

image

TCR | 2007.03.12 | It reads: “Dear Stephen, As editor-in-chief of Marvel, I am burdened with the handling of our character’s estates and the sad event that a hero should perish before his time. Captain America’s will was read last Friday, and while heavy hearted, I am proud to announce the star spangled Avenger has bequeathed his most valuable possession, his indestructible shield, to the only man he believed had the red, white, and blue balls to carry the mantle. Stephen Colbert. Welcome to the Marvel Universe. Sincerely, Joe Quesada.

How can you but just love this?

coelasquid:

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.

It’s funny because men’s cowboy boots and motorcycle boots both have relatively high heels (at least as high as the heels in those earlier art examples). I had an old teacher who was a little 5’2” bodybuilder that always wore cowboy boots and we would rib him that they were “acceptably masculine high heels” and that kind of thing. They seem to pass under the radar because they’re attached to such chest-poundingly masculine pastimes, they’re like the footwear version of “No homo”.

coelasquid:

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.

It’s funny because men’s cowboy boots and motorcycle boots both have relatively high heels (at least as high as the heels in those earlier art examples). I had an old teacher who was a little 5’2” bodybuilder that always wore cowboy boots and we would rib him that they were “acceptably masculine high heels” and that kind of thing. They seem to pass under the radar because they’re attached to such chest-poundingly masculine pastimes, they’re like the footwear version of “No homo”.