sapphic-alcina-dimitrescu:

ultimatebottom69:

dankmemeuniversity:

She has played by the rules.

Chaotic lawful.

(via omgbeersforqueers)

afeelgoodblog:

A family of pigs going on an adventure

(via kaphka)

bakwaaas:

my hot take is that you don’t have to love being single or love being alone. if you can’t spend a second in your own company there’s a problem, but wanting love and companionship is completely normal and natural. you’re not weak or mentally unstable for feeling lonely or yearning for partnership and friendship. we do need each other, we need community, we need love, it’s part of our dna to be social creatures.

(via omgbeersforqueers)

theparadigmshifts:

imsobadatnicknames2:

I want slower packages delivered by transportation workers who are paid more to work less and I’m not kidding

@mortuarybees​: #i think its deeply important for all of us to come to terms with the fact that its actually fine to be mildly inconvenienced

(via beyonception)

homerforsure:

“Wild Pear Tree” by Kaveh Akbar from Calling A Wolf A Wolf

(via beyonception)

froody:

froody:

froody:

doomsday preppers always keeping rusty tins of food in their basement but never building springhouses and smokehouses and paddocks for future livestock 🤨 those canned peaches are only going to bring you so far babe

are you going to study medicinal herbs and their cultivation or are you just going to keep stockpiling weapons like a little bitch 😩

going to shoot your way out of an infected cut, dumbass?

(via beyonception)

Anonymous asked:

Which do you perfer cartoon dogs that wear pants but no shirt, shirt but no pants, shirt and pants, or no clothes at all.

Also sorry if this brings weirdos i just wanna know your opinion on fictional dog design

pictures-of-dogs:

funnydwagon:

scarred-but-still-smiling:

pictures-of-dogs:

I think I’ve said this before, but when a cartoon animal is half-clothed, it just draws more attention to the fact that they’re half-nude. Like animals don’t usually wear clothes at all so it looks normal when they’re completely naked, but when they’re wearing ONLY a shirt or ONLY pants it just makes you aware of the fact that they’re not fully clothed. It almost makes them seem more naked than if they weren’t wearing anything.

But I think only pants is actually worse than only a shirt.

For example, with Winnie the Pooh here wearing only a shirt, you can still see that he’s not, uh…. anatomically correct below the waistline. He has nothing to hide.

But when you see Smokey wearing only pants, it implies that there is something to hide. It’s like he’s covering up his lower half because he has to. If you get what I mean.

That is to say, it would be fine to see Winnie the Pooh take off his shirt, but it would definitely not be fine to see Smokey take off his pants.

With that said, I think fully clothed and fully nude are equally “safe,” if that makes sense. Just a shirt isn’t bad either, but just pants is inherently suggestive in my opinion. I wouldn’t say any option is “better” design, it just depends what you’re going for.

If you can’t tell, I’ve thought about this a lot.

What I’m getting from this post is that Smoky there is, uhh, sexycoded

Smokey the bear is is the Forest Service’s fursona

moonbroth:

sad to still see so many people talk about how gross signs of aging are and people aging “poorly”. those are signs of a life that has continued to live and it is a blessing. age is coming for you too btw

(via joshpeck)

spacesapphist:

museum studies goofs, 1/?

(via toast-the-unknowing)

alkthash:

rnorningstars:

The last play I watched before the pandemic was a Beauty And The Beast adaptation and when Gaston proposed to Belle there was this little boy in the audience who yelled NOOO DON’T SAY YES, so when Belle naturally turned him down Gaston turned to the boy with his hands on his hips and said “well, now look what you’ve done”  

#no one breaks the fourth wall like gaston

(via toast-the-unknowing)

dankmemeuniversity:

(via toast-the-unknowing)