Are we not gonna talk about Isaac’s being out of the board?
#no b/c i’m way more interested in the sunchips left out#the nogitsune getting distracted from Evil Plans by an unopened bag of sunchips in stiles’ room#ends up hanging around longer than intended just eating chips#PROBABLY IS EATING SUNCHIPS IN THE LOFT RIGHT NOW WHILE IT WAITS#they probably track it by the lingering scent of#EVIL#CHAOS#AND SUNCHIPS#after they do—whatever at the loft#derek looks around his loft and finds crumbs EVERYWHERE#he probably doesn’t even own a vacuum cleaner (via whittenomore)
reblogging for the tags
why is the bad girl in high school movies always the popular preppy cheerleader why cant we have a movie where the villain is the nerdy girl who thinks shes superior to everyone else because she watches doctor who and drinks tea and is “not like other girls”
CGI technology has brought the late Audrey Hepburn back to the screen, as she stars in a TV advertisement for the chocolate company, Galaxy. Hepburn’s sons, Sean Ferrer and Luca Dotti, said regarding the project: “Our mother often spoke about her love of chocolate and how it lifted her spirit, so we’re sure she would have been proud of her role as the face of Galaxy.” (watch the commercial here)
I wanna bring this back and remind everyone that the entire commercial is in CGI, not just Audrey.
Well, that’s.. Really, really creepy.
Even if she loved chocolate more than anything, which, sure, I can give to that because chocolate is great
bringing back people from the dead to advertise is just really, really creepy.
I’ve found this process disturbing ever since Fred Astaire danced for a vacuum cleaner company.
this whole thing just screams “uncanny valley” to me,
How many of those ancient points of light were the last echoes of suns now dead? How many have been born but their light not yet come this far? If all the suns but ours collapsed tonight, how many lifetimes would it take us to realize that we were alone?Carl Sagan (via ratmessiah)
I have a few things to say about sex (yes, the gay boy is writing about sex, how stereotypical).
Somewhere in a high school classroom, there sits a young student in health class—probably a freshman or sophomore, but (as in my own case) could be a junior. S/he is utterly clueless about sex or gender or anything of the sort. The health teacher goes over the body parts:
"A woman has a vagina and ovaries. A man has a penis and testicles. To engage in sexual intercourse, the man puts the penis—which gets longer and stiffer with sexual arousal—into the vagina, which lubricates itself with sexual arousal."
That’s it. That’s sex ed. The aforementioned student could be queer (which is an umbrella term for the LGBTQA2 community). Sex ed teaches young teenagers only what the hetero-normative idea of the mechanics of sex is. Sex ed does not teach students that sex should come with love or what it will feel like at first. And they certainly do not give queer students a heads up that it is very, very different.
I read a paper today that said that little girls are taught to believe that sex is expected of them and that little boys are taught to expect sex. I can agree that children/teenagers are not exactly taught healthy ways to go into their sexual awakenings. They are taught that love comes from sex, not that sex is an accompaniment to romantic love—which is what it should be like.
However, sex is important. Sexual compatibility, for one thing. One partner might have a higher libido than the other partner. I know that in gay relationships, there are two roles in sex that can be interchanged. Some men are exclusive to one role and that can create tension in the relationship due to one or both men being reluctant to take on the opposite role of their choosing, resulting in less sexual activity in the relationship. Dr. Clair mentioned Lesbian Bed Death in class the other day. Apparently, lesbians stop having sex. Personally, I don’t know any lesbians that have been in a relationship long enough to actually quit. And in straight relationships, I’ve noticed that one of them almost always has a higher libido.
I’m not saying that when you enter a relationship with someone, that you should just be ready to have sex with them. I’m saying that we cannot pretend and/or teach children that sex is not important. Any/every romantic relationship is going to have an expectation of eventual sex—maybe not immediately, but eventually.
Another thing that is not taught in sex ed is the emotional part of sex. They basically teach (just like our New Psychology of Love books do) that sex is a biological function, meant to create new people. And it is not. Sex is the melding of two people in mind and body to express their love for each other. (Yeah, I just got sappy and stupid.) Sex feels good—most of the time—and should be taught that it’s not only meant to produce babies. That’s just one of it’s functions, at least, when done by straight people.
- Sex is important in romantic relationships.
- Sex ed is bullshit because it does not cover all the necessary information.
- Have sex with someone you’re in love with; it’ll feel so much better.
Note: If you are asexual, then I apologize and am totally aware that you and your partner/future partners will engage in no sexual activities.
It is important to teach people that it’s perfectly fine to not be into sex or not have sex and that your romantic relationship isn’t a failure because it doesn’t include sex. Sex isn’t important to everyone or important to every relationship. People of any orientation may or may not be interested in having sex or find it important. That’s how some people are and they should be assured that it’s a fine way to be. And if it’s possible, as your note seems to suggest, that a (most likely) romantic relationship with an asexual person is apparently fine without sex then why wouldn’t any romantic relationship be fine without sex?
Which… asexuality. A sexual orientation where a person does not experience sexual attraction. Not where a person does not have sex.
Though many asexuals do not have sex, or are repulsed by sex, some do have sex. Some have sex they don’t want or aren’t interested in because it’s been drilled into their heads that the only way to have a successful relationship, esp a romantic one, is to have sex. Some have sex because they’re indifferent, but their (most likely romantic) partner is into it. Some have sex because they like it. Some have sex because they like it while experiencing neither sexual nor romantic attraction (nice erasure of aromantics) to the other person.
Some aromantics of any sexual orientation have perfectly wonderful sex without being in love.
Some people who aren’t asexual or aromantic do the same thing.
Just because being “in love” enhances your experience with sex doesn’t mean that it enhances everyone’s. It’s a fine thing to talk about, but not as though it’s universal.
Sex may be important to many people. Not having it in a relationship may be a deal breaker for many people. (and I’m all for people who are incompatible (in any way) to find people who they are compatible with instead of trying to tough it out.) But it is not the only way things can be done. And the idea that it is is born from a society steeped in rape culture and compulsory sexuality.
And while I do agree that we need more comprehensive sex ed and to get past the idea that sex is only for baby production… assuming that piv sex = straight people sex is cissexist. So you might want to watch that line of thinking too.