Never Grow Up

rosalarian:

I’ve been wearing more makeup lately than I used to, and inevitably, I more often get to hear:

“Oh, you don’t need makeup. You’re beautiful without it!”

And I talk a lot of beauty and loving myself just how I am. Some people feel these two things are hypocritical, to love yourself and wear makeup. And okay, yes, let’s acknowledge that there are women who feel pressured to wear it despite not wanting to. This happens. But a lot of the time, women wear makeup for themselves. It’s fun! It’s expressive. It’s artistic. It’s not “necessary,” but neither is pizza.

I’m not trying to cover anything up the same way an artist isn’t putting paint on a canvas for the sake of covering the canvas.

fuckyeahsexpositivity:

aubreyli:

moniquill:

saucefactory:

verysharpteeth:

chandra75:

agent-mizzle:

Every time I post something about Norman Reedus and it gets reblogged you fangirls just gotta swoon and add your own cutesy caption. Nothing against fangirls but here’s a challenge. Swoon over this! Good luck.

That’s fucking hot as hell. 

LOL. That’s not the one to pick for no swooning.

YOU DON’T KNOW US AND OUR LIVES. WE HAVE FANGIRLED OVER ROADKILL FOR HIM.

SOMEONE JUST NEEDS TO HITCH THAT SKIRT UP AND BITE HIS INNER THIGHS AND THEN SUCK HIM UNTIL HE’S SOBBING, UNTIL HIS PRETTY EYESHADOW RUNS DOWN HIS FACE.

OP, it is clear that you have a fundamental misunderstanding of one or more of the following:

‘fangirls’

‘swooning’

‘challenge’

I mean we could probably use this as a really interesting launching point for the fundamental disconnect between ‘what people actually find hot’ and ‘what society/patriarchy presumes is hot’ and how the assignations of gender roles and sexuality fuck with that. Like the presumption that the female gaze doesn’t even exist, or if it does that women-intersted-in-men find the same things about men sexy that men-interested-in-women presume they do/should.

I mean, how many ‘porn for straight women’ magazines have tried to launch and asked a bunch of straight women what they wanted in porn -and gotten answers of ‘smiling dudes’ ‘dudes giving bedroom eyes’ and ‘cock’ - only to then said ‘yeah no, we’re giving you tough,aloof-looking shirtless guys with power muscles and weapons instead (because regardless of what any of you say you want we know that the majority of you want tough looking guys with power muscles and weapons because that’s what masculinity is because sexiness is feminine-coded. I mean obviously the only reason a man would display in a sexually-inviting way (as opposed to an aggressive way or a disinterested way) is if he’s trying to attract a man! Ergo anything in which a man is display in a sexually inviting or (gasp) submissive way is gay gay gay gay gay and thus the anti-masculine and no woman would ever want it. We know better than you what you like and want and find sexy) and then failed and blamed the failure on the totally legit and well known phenomenon that women just don’t get off on visual stimuli they’d rather read erotica.

But I’m too busy getting off on images like the above.

Reblogging because smart people who call society on its sexist bullshit make me swoon.

Reblogging because gorgeous commentary and ridiculously attractive person.

—BB

club-kushi:

club-kushi:

i dont think anyone understands

he pressed the button and took multiple pictures of himself

see 

notorious-reign:

stepchildofthesun:

cocaine-and-insulin:

miakosamuio:

mishastolemywormstache:

sandandglass:

CNN actually researched how much it would cost to go to Hogwarts

#NO WONDER THE WEASLEYS ARE FUCKING BROKE

How exactly did they “research” this? Looks like they just pulled a bunch of random figures out of their butts.

It’s stated in the books that tuition to Hogwarts is “free for all children in Britain”. I don’t know why they thought it wouldn’t be - it’s a British high school, not a college. So there, you just saved yourself $42,024.

In Chamber of Secrets, Mrs. Weasley emptied her entire bank account which contained only two galleons [£10 / US$20] and she managed to buy all five children’s entire set of books and potion ingredients with this, as well as Ginny’s robes, hat, clock, cauldron, and wand!!! And we know she bought all of these as she mentioned having to buy them. The fact that she bought all of these with only £10 pretty much proves how absolutely ridiculous CNNs estimation is.

If you want more proof, the actual cost of Harry’s want is far over estimated here, and the exact price in both pounds as US dollars can easily be found right within the books! Harry’s wand is bought for seven galleons, a galleon being worth about five pounds [mentioned by JK Rowling in an interview and in FBAWTFT/QTTA] means that his wand was £35, or US$53. So there’s some straight-out-of-the-books-and-word-of-god proof that the figures CNN have given are way off the mark. Not to mention the fact that even if you don’t go to Hogwarts, as a magical human you’re gonna have to buy a wand anyway if you want to do magic.

As for the school books, I’ve done an approximation based on various prices given through-out the books and on Pottermore. While these prices involve a substantial amount of guess-work, I think you’ll agree that my calculation is far more accurate than CNNs:

The Standard book of Spells costs one sickle [29p / US59c]. On the back of my comic relief copy of Fantastic Beasts and Where To Find Them it says it costs fourteen sickles [£4.60 / US$8.26]. One Pottermore, all text books are one galleon [£4.97  / US$10.17] - however Pottermore currency only uses galleons so it’s likely they have rounded off. Lockhart’s books, the most expensive in the series, are five galleons on Pottermore meaning that the exchange rate in the books puts them around two galleons and fourteen sickles [£14.60 / US$20.80]. If we put a high average on this and assume that all textbooks are approximately a galleon [they are likely much less], and that each year has around seven required reading books, the entire price for seven years worth of books would be forty-nine galleons, which equals approximately £243, or US$367 - and remember, this is the maximum estimated price for the textbooks.

For the minimum, we need to consider that the Weasleys get a lot of things second hand, with Ginny’s copy of A Begginers Guide To Transfiguration being described as “a very old, very battered copy” - likely no more than five sickles. If they got all their books around that price, it would cost them no more than £14 / US$21 for the entire seven years worth! So school books, far from being US$516, fall somewhere between US$14 and US$367 for the entire seven years at Hogwarts.

Next we have robe, glove, cloak, and hat prices - these are never mentioned in the books or on Pottermore, so I can’t account for that. However I seriously doubt it’s as a high as they’ve got here. Considering books in the wizarding world are generally much cheaper than in the muggle world, I think it’s fairly safe to assume that clothing is as well. Likely a maximum of a galleon for a single set of robes.

They’ve also forgotten a huge number of things - cauldrons, potion ingredients, scales, and star charts, among others.

So yeah, I really don’t know where they came up with these figures. It looks like some guy just wanted to make a story about how expensive Hogwarts would be and put a bunch of American college figures together and thought “yeah, this looks good.”

Do not fuck with a fandom.

I LOVE EVERYONE IN THIS FANDOM.

ALSO FUCK CNN

Y’ALL KNOW WHY

areyoutryingtodeduceme:

napoleonbonerhard:

aqueenamongstkings:

Star Trek Fashion. by ~CrudelyDrawnSky

i’ve never wanted fem!spirk so much in my life as i do right now

HOLY SHIT WANNA COSPLAY DIS