channelmodern:

#it is not a true otp unless they have tried to kill each other at least once



Here’s A Look Inside The Amazing New York Central Perk Pop-Up Shop

On Wednesday, Sept. 17, a Central Perk pop-up shop will be opening in New York City in honor of the 20th anniversary of the premiere of Friends. Inside, the gift and coffee shop is modeled after the place Rachel, Ross, Monica, Chandler, Phoebe, and Joey spent most of their time. Yes, you can sit down on THE famous orange couch and enjoy a cup of coffee, courtesy of Eight O’Clock Coffee. You can also watch episodes while enjoying a special blend just for Friends fans, the Central Perk Roast.


onceandfuturekiki:

Oldest depiction of female form shows that modern archaeologists are pornsick misogynists : Reclusive Leftist

opinionatedfellow:

cannelledusoleil:

female-only:

plansfornigel:

Image and video hosting by TinyPic

Female figurine from the Hohle Fels cave near Stuttgart, about 35,000 years old. Interpreted as a pornographic pin-up.

“The Earliest Pornography” says Science Now, describing the 35,000 year old ivory figurine that’s been dug up in a cave near Stuttgart. The tiny statuette is of a female with exaggerated breasts and vulva. According to Paul Mellars, one of the archaeologist twits who commented on the find for Nature, this makes the figurine “pornographic.” Nature is even titling its article, “Prehistoric Pin Up.” It’s the Venus of Willendorf double standard all over again. Ancient figures of naked pregnant women are interpreted by smirking male archaeologists as pornography, while equally sexualized images of men are assumed to depict gods or shamans. Or even hunters or warriors. Funny, huh?

Consider: phallic images from the Paleolithic are at least 28,000 years old. Neolithic cultures all over the world seemed to have a thing for sculptures with enormous erect phalluses. Ancient civilizations were awash in images of male genitalia, from the Indian lingam to the Egyptian benben to the Greek herm. The Romans even painted phalluses on their doors and wore phallic charms around their necks.

Image and video hosting by TinyPicIthyphallic figure from Lascaux, about 17,000 years old. Interpreted as a shaman.

But nobody ever interprets this ancient phallic imagery as pornography. Instead, it’s understood to indicate reverence for male sexual potency. No one, for example, has ever suggested that the Lascaux cave dude was a pin-up; he’s assumed to be a shaman. The ithyphallic figurines from the Neolithic — and there are many — are interpreted as gods. And everyone knows that the phalluses of ancient India and Egypt and Greece and Rome represented awesome divine powers of fertility and protection. Yet an ancient figurine of a nude woman — a life-giving woman, with her vulva ready to bring forth a new human being, and her milk-filled breasts ready to nourish that being — is interpreted as pornography. Just something for a man to whack off to. It’s not as if there’s no other context in which to interpret the figure. After all, the European Paleolithic is chock full of pregnant-looking female statuettes that are quite similar to this one. By the time we get to the Neolithic, the naked pregnant female is enthroned with lions at her feet, and it’s clear that people are worshipping some kind of female god.

Yet in the Science Now article, the archaeologist who found the figurine is talking about pornographic pin-ups: “I showed it to a male colleague, and his response was, ‘Nothing’s changed in 40,000 years.’” That sentence needs to be bronzed and hung up on a plaque somewhere, because you couldn’t ask for a better demonstration of the classic fallacy of reading the present into the past. The archaeologist assumes the artist who created the figurine was male; why? He assumes the motive was lust; why? Because that’s all he knows. To his mind, the image of a naked woman with big breasts and exposed vulva can only mean one thing: porn! Porn made by men, for men! And so he assumes, without questioning his assumptions, that the image must have meant the same thing 35,000 years ago. No other mental categories for “naked woman” are available to him. His mind is a closed box. This has been the central flaw of anthropology for as long there’s been anthropology. And even before: the English invaders of North America thought the Iroquois chiefs had concubines who accompanied them everywhere, because they had no other mental categories to account for well-dressed, important-looking women sitting in a council house. It’s the same fallacy that bedevils archaeologists who dig up male skeletons with fancy beads and conclude that the society was male dominant (because powerful people wear jewelry!), and at another site dig up female skeletons with fancy beads and conclude that this society, too, was male dominant (because women have to dress up as sex objects and trophy wives!). Male dominance is all they can imagine. And so no matter what they dig up, they interpret it to fit their mental model. It’s the fallacy that also drives evolutionary psychology, the central premise of which is that human beings in the African Pleistocene had exactly the same values, beliefs, prejudices, power struggles, goals, and needs as the middle-class white professors and students in a graduate psychology lab in modern-day Santa Barbara, California. And that these same factors are universal and unchanged and true for all time.

Image and video hosting by TinyPicHohle Fels phallus, about 28,000 years old. Interpreted as a symbolic object and …flint knapper. Yes.

That’s not science; it’s circular, self-serving propaganda. This little figurine from Hohle Fels, for example, is going to be used as “proof” that pornography is ancient and natural. I guarantee it. Having been interpreted by pornsick male archaeologists as pornography because that’s all they know, the statuette will now be trotted out by every ev psycho and male supremacist on the planet as “proof” that pornography is eternal, that male dominance is how it’s supposed to be, and that feminists are crazy so shut the fuck up. Look for it in Steven Pinker’s next book. ***

P.S. My own completely speculative guess on the figurine is that it might be connected to childbirth rituals. Notice the engraved marks and slashes; that’s a motif that continues for thousands of years on these little female figurines. No one knows what they mean, but they meant something. They’re not just random cut marks. Someone put a great deal of work into this sculpture. Given that childbirth was incredibly risky for Paleolithic women, they must have prayed their hearts out for help and protection in that time. I can imagine an elder female shaman or artist carving this potent little figure, and propping it up somewhere as a focus for those prayers.

On the other hand, it is possible that it has nothing to do with childbearing or sexual behavior at all. The breasts and vulva may simply indicate who the figure is: the female god. Think of how Christ is always depicted with a beard, which is a male sexual characteristic, even though Christ isn’t about male sexuality. The beard is just a marker. Or, given the figurine’s exaggerated breasts, it may have something to do with sustenance: milk, food, nourishment.

The notion that some dude carved this thing to whack off to — when he was surrounded by women who probably weren’t wearing much in the way of clothes anyway — is laughable.

Good lord I am so glad I took ancient art from a female professor.

fysmite
This is why sexualizing ancient deities through a modern lens is historically incorrect and wrong. “But muh history.” Shut up and sit down.

It always fascinated me to see what archaeology says about this kinds of things, because I’ve taken a lot of classes on Art History, and it’s always taught that items like this, with exaggerated breasts/hips/belly/vulva/etc. are about fertility and usually have to do with something about reproduction, the spirituality of women and childbirth, and that they were objects generally owned by women, not men.



stopstealingmynames:

God bless those people who are INCREDIBLE writers but decide to use those skills to write gay fanfiction


Howard Stern Talks to Mindy Kaling About Love
  • Stern:Have you had great love in your life, where it just hurts that it didn't work out?
  • Kaling:Yeah, yeah.
  • Stern:Why did it not work out?
  • Kaling:Because, uh... this sounds so lame, it's not profound, but people are so different, and you can overlap in certain ways that are important but not... the ones that are the most important, or something.
  • Stern:Are you still in touch with this guy?
  • Kaling:Yes. Yeah.
  • Stern:Do you know what he's up to, do you know if he's married now, does he have kids...?
  • Kaling (laughing):Yeah, he's, he's not married, no.
  • Stern:Not married.
  • Kaling:No.
  • Stern:But you check on him.
  • Kaling:Yeah, he's a good friend of mine. Yeah.
  • Stern:Look at that smile! I think we can set you back up with this guy. I think you're in love.
  • Kaling:Yeah, well, he's my best friend, so it's... that's not...
  • Stern:He broke up with you or you broke up with him?
  • Kaling:...He broke up with me.
  • Stern:You would take him back.
  • Kaling:No... it was years ago when this break up happened.
  • Stern:Best sex of your life with this guy?
  • Kaling:Oh, man. It was pretty good. He's a smart and funny guy!
  • Stern:Were you upset when you broke up?
  • Kaling:I was so, so sad. Not angry-sad. Sad-sad. That was the hottest I'd ever looked, because I'd stopped eating...I'd wake up, get out of bed, and not care. We worked together...but I was real miserable.
  • ...
  • Stern:I think the guy you were in love with was the guy you co-starred with on the Office. [Kaling LAUGHS] Am I right or am I wrong?
  • Kaling:B.J.? He was... he was -
  • Stern:He was the guy.
  • Kaling:Well, he was, yes, you are correct, not that the mystery - you're not Sherlock Holmes or anything, Howard -
  • Stern:I'm Sherlock Holmes! That's right, that's what they call me.
  • Kaling:You're like, 'who have you known for ten years who you worked with...' No, but he legitimately is one of my best friends; he texted me before the show like 'Good luck on Howard,' he's been on my show, he was a producer on the pilot, I see him all the time.
  • Stern:If he asked you to marry him you would have.
  • Kaling:At the time? Yeah.
  • Stern:Wow.
  • Kaling:Yeah.
  • Stern:Wow.
  • Kaling:I mean, it would have been.. I was 24. But for the record, if anybody had asked me to marry them I would have...but he's a wonderful guy.
  • Stern:Well let's hope he calls you tomorrow and asks you to marry him!
  • Kaling:I! I would not - one thing about this is, I love him and think he's a good person, but I'm not holding a candle for him or anything...
  • Stern:I believe if he called you tomorrow and said, 'I made a terrible mistake; we must get back together and get married,' you would do it.
  • Kaling:I... I don't know. I don't know.
  • Stern:It's not a 'no.' That's it.
  • Kaling:Alright.
  • Stern:We'll get you a boyfriend, don't worry about it.


elixs:

my friend started using his gym card

elixs:

my friend started using his gym card



I’m Chinese, so I wonder if non-Chinese understand

itslikethatfrenchthing:

salvadorolliesout:

superjellycake:

mydollyaviana:

that in the Chinese version of Disney’s Mulan, the fake name she gives is “Ping”, but her family name “Fa” in English is “Hua” in Chinese, therefore her full name is “Hua Ping”, which is literally “Flower Vase”, and that’s why Shang is so bewildered because it’s a silly name.

image

but OP how could you not tell them the best part

“hua ping”/flower vase is chinese slang for “camp gay”

image
I—

image


Entertainment Weekly photoshoot with Robbie Amell


invaderotaku:

kalliat:

how do boys actually dry their ducks after they shower like

do you just grab it in the towel and roll it between your hands like a dough snake

or do you swing it around to air dry

I need to know

image


transhumanisticpanspermia:

the-goddamazon:

smidgetz:

kobetyrant:

pussylipgloss:

zlayaevreika:

paxamericana:

jesus fucking christ 

how did this even get on the market???who decided this was fashionable?smh

what the hell is wrong with people????

can someone fill me in on what this means? is this a symbol of an event that happened in America or

In 1970 Richard Nixon sent the Ohio National Guard to Kent State to break up a protest with force. They guards used deadly force resulting in 4 murders by hands of the National Guard, a paralyzing of one man, and wounding of others.

I just noticed the blood spatter. At first I was like “What’s wrong?” but then I saw. OMG Urban Outfitters is such GARBAGE how did they get away with this?
Who thought this was trendy or funny?

see, the design itself would actually have political power if it was being worn by people with personal investment in the incident - i.e. people whose lives were put at risk protesting on a campus during that period.
being mass marketed by urban outfitters, on the other hand… no.

transhumanisticpanspermia:

the-goddamazon:

smidgetz:

kobetyrant:

pussylipgloss:

zlayaevreika:

paxamericana:

jesus fucking christ 

how did this even get on the market???who decided this was fashionable?smh

what the hell is wrong with people????

can someone fill me in on what this means? is this a symbol of an event that happened in America or

In 1970 Richard Nixon sent the Ohio National Guard to Kent State to break up a protest with force. They guards used deadly force resulting in 4 murders by hands of the National Guard, a paralyzing of one man, and wounding of others.

I just noticed the blood spatter. At first I was like “What’s wrong?” but then I saw. OMG Urban Outfitters is such GARBAGE how did they get away with this?

Who thought this was trendy or funny?

see, the design itself would actually have political power if it was being worn by people with personal investment in the incident - i.e. people whose lives were put at risk protesting on a campus during that period.

being mass marketed by urban outfitters, on the other hand… no.


I’m Agent 13 of S.H.I.E.L.D.’s Special Service.