lectorel

via http://ift.tt/2e2Gyjz:
You know what the reason for ‘partial-birth abortions’ was, Mr. Trump? So that mothers who were losing wanted pregnancies could hold their babies before they’re buried.

via http://ift.tt/2esCgkZ:
Yoda: [to Anakin] A crippling mood disorder I know you have but considered have you yoga and breathing deeply?

via http://ift.tt/2eoQJOK:
It is 80 degrees here in Chicago. It is the middle of fucking October.

via http://ift.tt/2eaUnvb:
cadesama:

ygrittebardots:

alrightanakin:

Yo how come when the Senate refused to take action when the Trade Federation was blockading Naboo it’s okay for Padme immediately loses faith in the government but when Anakin has very little faith in most politicians based on personal experiences with slavery his ideas are dangerous and wrong

Furthermore how come Padme loses faith in the government then continues to work in said government she has no faith in for another thirteen years instead of letting her experiences with injustice on Tatooine and violence and intolerance on Naboo act as formative experiences that shape her into a different kind of leader, and then use her place of privilege to make the kind of change Anakin is powerless to

I want to know what it would actually take to turn Padme against the Republic. Theoretically, yes, she should have been against them since TPM. I think it was an interesting choice to go with her as loyal opposition in AotC and RotS, instead of setting her up as a Separatist  and making that into the seed of the Rebellion. But the Republic is corrupt, unjust, and doing a disservice to the disadvantaged of the galaxy well BEFORE it starts breeding slaves to die in a war so citizens are not directly affected. As much as the Separatists are portrayed as evil at every turn, the Republic is inarguably in the wrong.

So what does it take to actually get Padme to say fuck it? To lead an insurrection within the Republic government or to ragequit and try to break down the government from outside?

#star wars#queue#i think one of my biggest problems with post-rots rebellion material#is that they pretend like the republic wasn’t a sack of shit#it may not always have been#it was obviously better in the past#but i really dislike the way they pine for a slave empire 

I am with you a hundred percent on that. I’m always picturing, behind the image of the Great, Lost Republic people talk about, is a bunch of annoyed former separatists holding up signs of ‘[Citation Needed]’

Honestly, the Rebellion must have had some blackly hilarious meetings, where Bail Organa and Mon Mothma have to deal with former Separatists who were there for tearing down the empire, but not the rebuilding of the republic. (Separatist: Yeah, about that ‘republic’ thing … that’s not gonna work for us.)

via http://ift.tt/2e0pvPx:
vaspider:

ohaugustine:

sherokutakari:

eighthdoctor:

sherokutakari:

eighthdoctor:

vortisaurus:

vortisaurus:

the idea of two aromantic platonic partners having a “convenience marriage” is like my favorite thing right now I’m both getting really excited and cracking up over the possibilities I mean just imagine:

“we got married because of tax benefits”

“we got married because it gave us an excuse to have sleepovers every night”

“we got married because it seemed convenient to ‘pool our assets’ (aka our library is now twice as big, as is our collection of Disney movies)”

“we got married because it gave us an excuse to ask for toasters from people as wedding gifts”

#we got married because weddings are really exciting and we can plan it how we want it and it doesn’t need to include kissing bc that can be weird#but it gives us an excuse to have a dessert table#because dESSERT TABLE#I just want dessert table festivities#festivities around a dessert table#ahh#desssseeeeerrrrrt#CHEESECAKES THOOOOOOOO#YOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 

this is the most important addition anyone has made to this post bless you and may the Force be with you my friend

#aromantic couple that learns about the practice of getting married again to ‘reaffirm your commitment’#and proceeds to get married every year#and every year the dessert table is bigger and more extravagent#and they start experimenting with variations on the ceremony (x)

#we got married because we only needed to buy one copy of each book #we got married because then no one goes to the movies alone #we got married because then we got to design WEDDING CLOTHES #we got married because pillow fights #we got married because this makes emergency contact info much easier #we got married because weirding out conservatives (x)

 We got married because broadway duets while doing chores, we got married because HALF AS MANY CHORES, we got married because surprise cookies on bad days, we got married because surprise cookies on GOOD days, we got married so we’d never have to ask the other if we could come over today again, we got married so our parents would stop asking (x)

#we got married because someone will get meds when we’re sick #we got married because secondary income #we got married because joint big finish account #we got married because two people can walk more dogs than one person which means more dogs #we got married because broadway duets while doing anything #we got married because only one of us likes cooking and the other is fine with dishes #we got married because both of us like cooking and we can trade off #we got married because help with disabilities and someone who doesn’t judge #we got married because of the satisfaction of hearing ‘have you found someone yet’ and getting to say ‘yes’ and hang up #we got married because anniversary parties are even more fun than weddings #MORE DESSERT TABLES #we got married because couples discounts on things

(

x

)

#we got married because two people can walk more dogs than one person which means more dogs PERFECT

I want y'all to pause for a moment and consider this: all of the things that people have cited above? Those are the things, in my experience, that make marriage ACTUALLY work in the long run. Splitting the work, taking care of each other, walking the dogs, sharing tasks because I am okay with folding laundry while my spouse hates it but he’ll carry the heavy baskets for me, because singing duets in the car is fun, because sometimes I worked all day and he’s on leave right now so he made dinner and made my favorite pasta dish with fresh tomatoes… those are the REAL reasons a marriage works.
So think about this for a moment because romance is, frankly, very secondary to what makes a marriage work in the long term. Partnership, task-sharing, friendship, all of those things are the true thing that will tell you whether a marriage will stand the test of time.
So it’s not that I’m saying that aromantic relationships are like taking a “normal” relationship and taking out the romance, I’m saying that IF YOUR RELATIONSHIP WOULD NOT STAND UP WITHOUT THE ROMANCE IN IT, DON’T GET MARRIED.
We should in fact consider the aromantic “platonic lifemate” as the ideal BASIS for a marriage in the long term. We should be looking at platonic lifemates and saying, “do we measure up to that standard? Is our love for each other aromantic TOO? Are we at that bedrock?”
Because you will go through periods in your life, and your marriage, where even if you love one another romantically and deeply, there won’t be much romance. Maybe, you know, your spouse just got part of her spine removed, or you are really stressed out by work, or a move, or your dog/cat/kid/mouse/pet tarantula is sick, or your neighbor is crazy and intruding on your space, and you will NEED EACH OTHER but there won’t be much romance in it.
If you can’t be platonic partners, if you don’t stand up to that ideal, seriously consider this. Consider BUILDING this as part of building your relationship – and use it as a good test for whether or not sex/romance is covering up serious communication issues, or abuse.
I submit that we should refer to this as the New Platonic Ideal.
Thank you.

via http://ift.tt/2eemGrH:
cr1mson5thestranger:

Okay, serious time.

My ex-boyfriend sexually assaulted me. I was conflicted over that ever since it happened. But hearing Anderson Cooper say that kissing women without consent and touching/grabbing their genitals is sexual assault…that solidified it in my head. And I consciously thought to myself, “My God, this man is just like my ex-boyfriend.” He will not apologize. He will never feel sorry. He will never be remorseful for what he’s done.

The kind of person who sticks his hand down a girl’s pants after she’s said “no” to him, because he thinks he’s entitled to a woman’s genitals, because he thinks he deserves sex, is running for president.

via http://ift.tt/2dR0r0s:
So, worst case scenario, I just gave 22 dollars to a pair of con artists. Best case scenario, I helped a newly homeless pair of adult siblings eat for the first time in two days. I can live with that.

via http://ift.tt/2dYbM9A:
shapeshiftersinc:

When I was a small person who read nearly everything, my cousin gave me a handful of hand-me-down fantasy paperbacks. Three of these were the start to David Eddings’ The Belgariad, a fantasy epic that in retrospect sparked my ongoing love for secondary characters.

And one was Anne McCaffrey’s Dragonsong.

I came into Pern by way of Half-Circle Seahold and Menolly the Harper-to-be. My first dragons were her nine singing fire lizards. Menolly left the harsh constraints of home when her father beat her for composing music. She immediately imprinted on a clutch of tiny dragon eggs, foraged and hunted for herself and her beasts until the Ninth Fall caught her outside. Her story ran parallel to the main Pern trilogy, filling in the gaps to a greater epic. (Secondary characters. They’re my favorites.)

Menolly named her gold fire lizard Beauty, an apt enough name but not one I wanted for my draconic gold binder. I went with Faranth, leader of the first clutch to defend Pern’s human colonies from the Fall. (Distant sci-fi backstories being another weakness of mine.)

I wish, I wish Pern fandom had been allowed to flourish. Like Menolly, fandom ached to create, created brilliant things in spite of all the restrictions set around it, and was beaten down in turn. McCaffrey was desperate for a film deal, and she and her publishers were convinced that derivative works would set a fatal precedent for the story to be taken from her. She had an active legal team which sent C&D letters to fanartists and fanfic authors for decades, had fan websites shut down, and enforced a series of draconian (ha) content rules on the few that were allowed to survive.

Like her fictional society, McCaffrey was also heavily and violently invested in strict gender roles. Straight women to gold and green dragons. Straight men to bronze and brown. Gay men to blue. Lesbians do not exist. Bisexuality is not real. These were not only canon standards; she explicitly forbade fanworks that transgressed any of these rules. Her lawyers enforced these on the fans - literal children, in many cases - who most needed an outlet for gender nonconforming fiction. 

(If any trans character made it into fanwork, that fan creator hid it well. There was never even an explicit prohibition.)

Queer fandom will never forgive McCaffrey for this. We’re all older now, and we remember.

The Faranth binder is a gold dragon for transmasculine people. It is at once a salute to an old fandom full of dragonlore where many talented creators began, and a middle finger to the canon where we did not exist.

If the McCaffrey estate comes after me for this, I’m renaming it Mokhachane.

via http://ift.tt/2d3D7X6:
Root canal went surprisingly well, minus the $300 price tag (out of $1000 total, thank fuck for insurance) Apparently the reputation for them sucking is like ten years out of date, and best practices and anesthetics have both improved. So, yay! Now the only thing left is getting a crown, and figuring out how to feed myself when I’m not allowed anything hard, crunchy, or sticky for fear of dislodging the temporary filling.

via http://ift.tt/2dz8dYJ:
hamelin-born:

After reading a bunch of stories featuring mercy, practicality, and ruthlessness in equal measure, I have to wonder.

At once point in time is it morally correct to eschew mercy - the hope that people can be BETTER - in favor of cold-blooded practicality? (Removing a threat before it has the chance to grow into something serious). I’ve seen people arguing both for and against this in various works.

My stance: Mercy without justice is unmerciful, justice without mercy is unjust.

When the aggressors are a threat that cannot be contained, mercy needs to mean protecting the immediate victims. That’s my hard line. Everything else can be taken on a case-by-case basis.