Omg Why
Omg Why

Omg Why

Consequences
Consequences

Consequences

Carols
Carols

Carols

mess up
 mess up

mess up

mistake
 mistake

mistake

sponges
 sponges

sponges

deliver
 deliver

deliver

drawers
 drawers

drawers

homed
homed

homed

grounded
grounded

grounded

🔥 | Latest

consequence: The consequence of not watering the plants
consequence: The consequence of not watering the plants

The consequence of not watering the plants

consequence: The consequence of not watering the plants
consequence: The consequence of not watering the plants

The consequence of not watering the plants

consequence: Frank Cho added 2 new photos with Frank D Cho. 2 hrs Well, this just happened. Milo Manara, master artist and storyteller, came in at the last ten minutes of my Art and Women panel and handed me a special gift in appreciation for fighting censorship- an original watercolor painting of Spider-Woman. The packed auditorium went wild. Wow. I'm just speechless CHO! NERT SE prasLE THE caMERa 2G CRap! IG a stock N HEET CRP SERNG P 1RT ENTM FR MA RA what-the-fandomm: 2sunchild2: kukumomoart: chancethereaper: aglassroseneverfades: pmastamonkmonk: schnerp: feminism-is-radical: auntiewanda: brithwyr: auntiewanda: brithwyr: auntiewanda: houroftheanarchistwolf: aawb: starsapphire: is it time for frank cho and milo manara to die or what That’s basically a naked woman I’m YELLING What a pervert. What the FUCK does he not know how clothes work? What the hypothetical fuck is she wearing then if we can see all that? It’s like how bath towels in comics miraculously wrap completely around breasts. Or how even when injured and dead on the ground women in comics have to be twisted into “sexy” poses. Or how women in comics walk like they’re in high heels even barefoot.  It’s the only way men know how to draw women, because to them female characters are only there to be sexy. They only think of “women” as exploitative costumes and camera angles, high heels and titillation. Sex objects to ogle, plot objects to further male heroes’ narratives and drama, not heroes to cheer for.  I’m sorry, I was labouring under the impression that this was the crowd that thought women should wear what they want..? And that applies to fictional women who are depicted by men how? You can’t apply agency in the plot to something metatextual when it comes to fictional characters.  Come on, let’s not pretend this is a male exclusive thing. We’re going to have this argument are we? Not to mention you’re deviating from the original point that attributing agency to fictional characters’ clothing is asinine.  What you have here are images of power, and do you really believe these characters are designed with titillating heterosexual women and bisexual and homosexual men in mind? Because I don’t think you do. This is why the Hawkeye Initiative exists. Take common female poses in comics, put a man in the role, and see how “empowering” and “strong” it actually looks:  Also:  He got the painting for fighting against ‘censorship.’ Note that they handed him a gross design of a female being objectified, because at the end of the day, that is all they really want, to be allowed to objectify women. They don’t care about censorship in general it is about their ability to sexualise and degrade women without consequence. You can see her butthole for chrissakes I think the best imagery I’ve seen to explain the difference between what men think male objectification is vs what women actually want to see is the Hugh Jackman magazine covers. Hugh Jackman on a men’s magazine. He’s shirtless and buff and angry. He’s imposing and aggressive. This is a male power fantasy, it’s what men want to be and aspire to - intense masculinity. Hugh Jackman on a women’s magazine.  He looks like a dad. He looks like he’s going to bake me a quiche and sit and watch Game of Thrones with me. He looks like he gives really good hugs. Men think women want big hulking naked men in loin cloths which is why they always quote He-Man as male objectification - without realizing that He Man is naked and buff in a loin cloth because MEN WANT HIM TO BE. More women would be happy to see him in a pink apron cutting vegetables and singing off-key to 70s rock. Men want objects. Women want PEOPLE. This is the first time I have EVER seen this false equivalence articulated so well. Thank you. bro you can literally see every fold of her pussy that just isn’t how fabric works Lol body painting literally Clothes don’t suction themselves around tiddies.If that was the case I’d be wearing hoodies all year i mean there is dangerous objectification for male characters, but it’s not prevalent in written or drawn sources because that doesn’t harm the person and therefore isn’t relevant. it’s only something to bring into the conversation when you’re talking about how it affects the actors.male actors are sometimes forced to starve for days so that they can get scenes where their muscles are stood out (there’s a really good post with article links about this i’ll try to find it), but these drawings don’t affect an actual personit’s a completely different subjectand i mean for god’s sake you can’t counter the fact that someone deliberately drew her with her coochie out with some bullshit about how male characters are hyper-masculine in a glorified way
consequence: Frank Cho added 2 new photos with Frank D Cho.
 2 hrs
 Well, this just happened.
 Milo Manara, master artist and storyteller, came in at the last ten minutes of
 my Art and Women panel and handed me a special gift in appreciation for
 fighting censorship- an original watercolor painting of Spider-Woman. The
 packed auditorium went wild.
 Wow. I'm just speechless
 CHO!
 NERT SE
 prasLE THE
 caMERa 2G
 CRap! IG a
 stock N HEET
 CRP SERNG P
 1RT
 ENTM
 FR
 MA
 RA
what-the-fandomm:

2sunchild2:

kukumomoart:
chancethereaper:

aglassroseneverfades:

pmastamonkmonk:

schnerp:

feminism-is-radical:

auntiewanda:

brithwyr:

auntiewanda:

brithwyr:

auntiewanda:

houroftheanarchistwolf:

aawb:

starsapphire:

is it time for frank cho and milo manara to die or what

That’s basically a naked woman I’m YELLING

What a pervert. What the FUCK does he not know how clothes work? What the hypothetical fuck is she wearing then if we can see all that?

It’s like how bath towels in comics miraculously wrap completely around breasts. Or how even when injured and dead on the ground women in comics have to be twisted into “sexy” poses. Or how women in comics walk like they’re in high heels even barefoot. 
It’s the only way men know how to draw women, because to them female characters are only there to be sexy. They only think of “women” as exploitative costumes and camera angles, high heels and titillation. Sex objects to ogle, plot objects to further male heroes’ narratives and drama, not heroes to cheer for. 

I’m sorry, I was labouring under the impression that this was the crowd that thought women should wear what they want..?

And that applies to fictional women who are depicted by men how? You can’t apply agency in the plot to something metatextual when it comes to fictional characters. 

Come on, let’s not pretend this is a male exclusive thing.

We’re going to have this argument are we? Not to mention you’re deviating from the original point that attributing agency to fictional characters’ clothing is asinine. 
What you have here are images of power, and do you really believe these characters are designed with titillating heterosexual women and bisexual and homosexual men in mind? Because I don’t think you do.
This is why the Hawkeye Initiative exists. Take common female poses in comics, put a man in the role, and see how “empowering” and “strong” it actually looks: 
Also: 

He got the painting for fighting against ‘censorship.’ Note that they handed him a gross design of a female being objectified, because at the end of the day, that is all they really want, to be allowed to objectify women. They don’t care about censorship in general it is about their ability to sexualise and degrade women without consequence.


You can see her butthole for chrissakes

I think the best imagery I’ve seen to explain the difference between what men think male objectification is vs what women actually want to see is the Hugh Jackman magazine covers.
Hugh Jackman on a men’s magazine. He’s shirtless and buff and angry. He’s imposing and aggressive. This is a male power fantasy, it’s what men want to be and aspire to - intense masculinity.
Hugh Jackman on a women’s magazine.  He looks like a dad. He looks like he’s going to bake me a quiche and sit and watch Game of Thrones with me. He looks like he gives really good hugs.
Men think women want big hulking naked men in loin cloths which is why they always quote He-Man as male objectification - without realizing that He Man is naked and buff in a loin cloth because MEN WANT HIM TO BE. More women would be happy to see him in a pink apron cutting vegetables and singing off-key to 70s rock.
Men want objects. Women want PEOPLE. 

This is the first time I have EVER seen this false equivalence articulated so well. Thank you.

bro you can literally see every fold of her pussy that just isn’t how fabric works

Lol body painting literally


Clothes don’t suction themselves around tiddies.If that was the case I’d be wearing hoodies all year

i mean there is dangerous objectification for male characters, but it’s not prevalent in written or drawn sources because that doesn’t harm the person and therefore isn’t relevant. it’s only something to bring into the conversation when you’re talking about how it affects the actors.male actors are sometimes forced to starve for days so that they can get scenes where their muscles are stood out (there’s a really good post with article links about this i’ll try to find it), but these drawings don’t affect an actual personit’s a completely different subjectand i mean for god’s sake you can’t counter the fact that someone deliberately drew her with her coochie out with some bullshit about how male characters are hyper-masculine in a glorified way

what-the-fandomm: 2sunchild2: kukumomoart: chancethereaper: aglassroseneverfades: pmastamonkmonk: schnerp: feminism-is-radical: au...

consequence: Teacher: You have to make an innocent computer game! Me: Hose/lose from zach gage loselose is a game about choice and consequence, and b what it means to sucoeed or fail You play the role of a space captain on a seemingly endless quest to dectroy aftacking aliens. You receive one point for each alien you kil You have one life, and if an allen touches you, you ill esplode. Tyou manage to kil al of the stera without dying, you wil win th game Authough loselose is a video-game, everything that happens whl while you play is rea Each aien is procedurally generated out of a Sie on your computer. When you kill an alen, the fie it was created from is destroyed On the other hand, if you are kiled, the applcation itat wil be di stroyed 00:54 Lose/Lose is a video-game with real life consequences. Each alien in the game is created based on a random file on the players computer. If the player kills the alien, the file it is based on is deleted. If the players ship is destroyed, the application itself is deleted Although touching aliens will cause the player to lose the game, and killing aliens awards points, the aliens will never actually fire at the player. This calls into question the player's mission, which is never explicitly stated, only hinted at through classic game mechanics. Is the player supposed to be an aggressor? Or merely an observer, traversing through a dangerous land? Why do we assume that because we are given a weapon an awarded for using it, that doing so is right? By way of exploring what it means to kill in a video-game, Lose/Lose broaches bigger questions. As technology grows, our understanding of it diminishes, yet, at the same time, it becomes increasingly important in our lives. At what point does our virtual data become as important to us as physical possessions? If we have reached that point already, what real objects do we value less than our data? What implications does trusting something so important to something we maderoviad menetichave? AH YES. MY FAVOURITE FRIENDLY COMPUTER GAME
consequence: Teacher: You have to make an innocent
 computer game!
 Me:
 Hose/lose
 from zach gage
 loselose is a game about choice and consequence, and b
 what it means to sucoeed or fail
 You play the role of a space captain on a seemingly endless quest to
 dectroy aftacking aliens. You receive one point for each alien you kil
 You have one life, and if an allen touches you, you ill esplode.
 Tyou manage to kil al of the stera without dying, you wil win th
 game
 Authough loselose is a video-game, everything that happens whl
 while you
 play is rea
 Each aien is procedurally generated out of a Sie on your computer.
 When you kill an alen, the fie it was created from is destroyed
 On the other hand, if you are kiled, the applcation itat wil be di
 stroyed
 00:54
 Lose/Lose is a video-game with real life consequences. Each alien in the
 game is created based on a random file on the players computer. If the player kills
 the alien, the file it is based on is deleted. If the players ship is destroyed, the
 application itself is deleted
 Although touching aliens will cause the player to lose the game, and killing aliens
 awards points, the aliens will never actually fire at the player. This calls into
 question the player's mission, which is never explicitly stated, only hinted at
 through classic game mechanics. Is the player supposed to be an aggressor? Or
 merely an observer, traversing through a dangerous land?
 Why do we assume that because we are given a weapon an awarded for using it,
 that doing so is right?
 By way of exploring what it means to kill in a video-game, Lose/Lose broaches
 bigger questions. As technology grows, our understanding of it diminishes, yet, at
 the same time, it becomes increasingly important in our lives. At what point does
 our virtual data become as important to us as physical possessions? If we have
 reached that point already, what real objects do we value less than our data?
 What implications does trusting something so important to something we
 maderoviad menetichave?
AH YES. MY FAVOURITE FRIENDLY COMPUTER GAME

AH YES. MY FAVOURITE FRIENDLY COMPUTER GAME

consequence: Frank Cho added 2 new photos with Frank D Cho. 2 hrs Well, this just happened. Milo Manara, master artist and storyteller, came in at the last ten minutes of my Art and Women panel and handed me a special gift in appreciation for fighting censorship- an original watercolor painting of Spider-Woman. The packed auditorium went wild. Wow. I'm just speechless CHO! NERT SE prasLE THE caMERa 2G CRap! IG a stock N HEET CRP SERNG P 1RT ENTM FR MA RA thewickedverkaiking: aglassroseneverfades: pmastamonkmonk: schnerp: feminism-is-radical: auntiewanda: brithwyr: auntiewanda: brithwyr: auntiewanda: houroftheanarchistwolf: aawb: starsapphire: is it time for frank cho and milo manara to die or what That’s basically a naked woman I’m YELLING What a pervert. What the FUCK does he not know how clothes work? What the hypothetical fuck is she wearing then if we can see all that? It’s like how bath towels in comics miraculously wrap completely around breasts. Or how even when injured and dead on the ground women in comics have to be twisted into “sexy” poses. Or how women in comics walk like they’re in high heels even barefoot.  It’s the only way men know how to draw women, because to them female characters are only there to be sexy. They only think of “women” as exploitative costumes and camera angles, high heels and titillation. Sex objects to ogle, plot objects to further male heroes’ narratives and drama, not heroes to cheer for.  I’m sorry, I was labouring under the impression that this was the crowd that thought women should wear what they want..? And that applies to fictional women who are depicted by men how? You can’t apply agency in the plot to something metatextual when it comes to fictional characters.  Come on, let’s not pretend this is a male exclusive thing. We’re going to have this argument are we? Not to mention you’re deviating from the original point that attributing agency to fictional characters’ clothing is asinine.  What you have here are images of power, and do you really believe these characters are designed with titillating heterosexual women and bisexual and homosexual men in mind? Because I don’t think you do. This is why the Hawkeye Initiative exists. Take common female poses in comics, put a man in the role, and see how “empowering” and “strong” it actually looks:  Also:  He got the painting for fighting against ‘censorship.’ Note that they handed him a gross design of a female being objectified, because at the end of the day, that is all they really want, to be allowed to objectify women. They don’t care about censorship in general it is about their ability to sexualise and degrade women without consequence. You can see her butthole for chrissakes I think the best imagery I’ve seen to explain the difference between what men think male objectification is vs what women actually want to see is the Hugh Jackman magazine covers. Hugh Jackman on a men’s magazine. He’s shirtless and buff and angry. He’s imposing and aggressive. This is a male power fantasy, it’s what men want to be and aspire to - intense masculinity. Hugh Jackman on a women’s magazine.  He looks like a dad. He looks like he’s going to bake me a quiche and sit and watch Game of Thrones with me. He looks like he gives really good hugs. Men think women want big hulking naked men in loin cloths which is why they always quote He-Man as male objectification - without realizing that He Man is naked and buff in a loin cloth because MEN WANT HIM TO BE. More women would be happy to see him in a pink apron cutting vegetables and singing off-key to 70s rock. Men want objects. Women want PEOPLE. This is the first time I have EVER seen this false equivalence articulated so well. Thank you. MEN WANT OBJECTS WOMEN WANT PEOPLE
consequence: Frank Cho added 2 new photos with Frank D Cho.
 2 hrs
 Well, this just happened.
 Milo Manara, master artist and storyteller, came in at the last ten minutes of
 my Art and Women panel and handed me a special gift in appreciation for
 fighting censorship- an original watercolor painting of Spider-Woman. The
 packed auditorium went wild.
 Wow. I'm just speechless
 CHO!
 NERT SE
 prasLE THE
 caMERa 2G
 CRap! IG a
 stock N HEET
 CRP SERNG P
 1RT
 ENTM
 FR
 MA
 RA
thewickedverkaiking:
aglassroseneverfades:

pmastamonkmonk:

schnerp:

feminism-is-radical:

auntiewanda:

brithwyr:

auntiewanda:

brithwyr:

auntiewanda:

houroftheanarchistwolf:

aawb:

starsapphire:

is it time for frank cho and milo manara to die or what

That’s basically a naked woman I’m YELLING

What a pervert. What the FUCK does he not know how clothes work? What the hypothetical fuck is she wearing then if we can see all that?

It’s like how bath towels in comics miraculously wrap completely around breasts. Or how even when injured and dead on the ground women in comics have to be twisted into “sexy” poses. Or how women in comics walk like they’re in high heels even barefoot. 
It’s the only way men know how to draw women, because to them female characters are only there to be sexy. They only think of “women” as exploitative costumes and camera angles, high heels and titillation. Sex objects to ogle, plot objects to further male heroes’ narratives and drama, not heroes to cheer for. 

I’m sorry, I was labouring under the impression that this was the crowd that thought women should wear what they want..?

And that applies to fictional women who are depicted by men how? You can’t apply agency in the plot to something metatextual when it comes to fictional characters. 

Come on, let’s not pretend this is a male exclusive thing.

We’re going to have this argument are we? Not to mention you’re deviating from the original point that attributing agency to fictional characters’ clothing is asinine. 
What you have here are images of power, and do you really believe these characters are designed with titillating heterosexual women and bisexual and homosexual men in mind? Because I don’t think you do.
This is why the Hawkeye Initiative exists. Take common female poses in comics, put a man in the role, and see how “empowering” and “strong” it actually looks: 
Also: 

He got the painting for fighting against ‘censorship.’ Note that they handed him a gross design of a female being objectified, because at the end of the day, that is all they really want, to be allowed to objectify women. They don’t care about censorship in general it is about their ability to sexualise and degrade women without consequence.


You can see her butthole for chrissakes

I think the best imagery I’ve seen to explain the difference between what men think male objectification is vs what women actually want to see is the Hugh Jackman magazine covers.
Hugh Jackman on a men’s magazine. He’s shirtless and buff and angry. He’s imposing and aggressive. This is a male power fantasy, it’s what men want to be and aspire to - intense masculinity.
Hugh Jackman on a women’s magazine.  He looks like a dad. He looks like he’s going to bake me a quiche and sit and watch Game of Thrones with me. He looks like he gives really good hugs.
Men think women want big hulking naked men in loin cloths which is why they always quote He-Man as male objectification - without realizing that He Man is naked and buff in a loin cloth because MEN WANT HIM TO BE. More women would be happy to see him in a pink apron cutting vegetables and singing off-key to 70s rock.
Men want objects. Women want PEOPLE. 

This is the first time I have EVER seen this false equivalence articulated so well. Thank you.

MEN WANT OBJECTS WOMEN WANT PEOPLE

thewickedverkaiking: aglassroseneverfades: pmastamonkmonk: schnerp: feminism-is-radical: auntiewanda: brithwyr: auntiewanda: brith...

consequence: deliamelodyofficial: goldaquarius: thesunsword: jehovahhthickness: jessnesquik: jehovahhthickness: Stop dating abusive women 2018 Hardly any women are gonna reblog this tbh 🙃 A lot of women behave like this and think this ain’t abuse But let a nigga slap them, damage their clothes and pour a drink on them, all hell will break loose. EVERYONE CAN BE A VICTIM OF DOMESTIC ABUSE! Buddy has the soul of an angel and composure out of this world Just in case anyone wants the context: He has been making music in Chicago, he recently performed to a large audience and met London on da track, who offered him an opportunity in LA. She didn’t want to leave Chicago because of her business there. He told her that she doesn’t have to go, he just needs to do this for his music. She got upset because he straight up told her that he valued his career over their relationship and she did this.  Now I’m not a relationship expert, but I will never understand how some of y’all expect people to put you above the shit they have to do. Always put your career, your job, your livelihood first. This was all kinds of fucked up, really fucking abusive and manipulative, he should definitely go to LA with or without her.  Many women *WILL* reblog this, because part of feminism is acknowledging that women are just as capable of being abusive as men. Acting as though women cannot be abusive is misogyny, and relies on the misogynist tropes that women are frail, and innocent in comparison to men. Any true feminist must acknowledge that neither of these things are necessarily true and that a woman is in fact capable of being abusive whether it’s to another woman, a man, or a nonbinary person.The reason we focus on abuse from men towards women is that it is more prevalent, and institutionally encouraged, justified, and allowed without consequence, while a woman even “talking back” to a man is to be “put in her place.”Don’t bring your weak, fragile “Few women will reblog this” shit up in here. We know what abuse looks like when we see it.
consequence: deliamelodyofficial:

goldaquarius:

thesunsword:

jehovahhthickness:


jessnesquik:


jehovahhthickness:

Stop dating abusive women 2018

Hardly any women are gonna reblog this tbh 🙃


A lot of women behave like this and think this ain’t abuse 
But let a nigga slap them, damage their clothes and pour a drink on them, all hell will break loose. 
EVERYONE CAN BE A VICTIM OF DOMESTIC ABUSE! 


Buddy has the soul of an angel and composure out of this world 

Just in case anyone wants the context: He has been making music in Chicago, he recently performed to a large audience and met London on da track, who offered him an opportunity in LA. She didn’t want to leave Chicago because of her business there. He told her that she doesn’t have to go, he just needs to do this for his music. She got upset because he straight up told her that he valued his career over their relationship and she did this. 
Now I’m not a relationship expert, but I will never understand how some of y’all expect people to put you above the shit they have to do. Always put your career, your job, your livelihood first. This was all kinds of fucked up, really fucking abusive and manipulative, he should definitely go to LA with or without her. 

Many women *WILL* reblog this, because part of feminism is acknowledging that women are just as capable of being abusive as men. Acting as though women cannot be abusive is misogyny, and relies on the misogynist tropes that women are frail, and innocent in comparison to men. Any true feminist must acknowledge that neither of these things are necessarily true and that a woman is in fact capable of being abusive whether it’s to another woman, a man, or a nonbinary person.The reason we focus on abuse from men towards women is that it is more prevalent, and institutionally encouraged, justified, and allowed without consequence, while a woman even “talking back” to a man is to be “put in her place.”Don’t bring your weak, fragile “Few women will reblog this” shit up in here. We know what abuse looks like when we see it.

deliamelodyofficial: goldaquarius: thesunsword: jehovahhthickness: jessnesquik: jehovahhthickness: Stop dating abusive women 2018...

consequence: Myths About Men That Need To Be Eradicated 1. That we don't like cuddlin'. I will cuddle your brains out. I will cuddle you so good you will walk funny the next day 2. We're not all emotionally stunted, sex driven idiots who think that women are some enigma 3. Men are worse parents, and less nurturing, than women 4. Just because I need to be physically attracted to a girl I'd like to date doesn't imply I only like girls for their looks 5. That if we like kids, we're pedophiles. 6. "Men shouldn't cry." Screw you, I ain't made out of stone 7. That men cannot ever be victims of sexual assault. 8. That men cannot ever be the victims of domestic abuse by a female partner. 9. That men can't be affectionate, we just fake it for sex. 10. That we don't get harshly judged for our appearance, and specifically our height. 11. I'm not talking to you just because I want to bone you 12. That, as a man and father, I'm incapable of changing diapers, feeding and nurturing my children, taking my kids to the park, am generally clueless when it comes to making decisions about household matters, can't grocery shop, can't sew or cook, and generally have no clue what to do with my kids/house/money 13. Ladies, really, we have no idea what we did. Stop being mad and explain 14. Commercials make us look like bumbling idiots who can't dress ourselves. 15. When women say we ALL stereotype women, which is really them stereotyping men 16. That men think about sex every 7 seconds I/. All men like sports 18. That by being sexually attracted to you, we are somehow dehumanizing you, or objectifying you. This can happen, but it is not an automatic consequence of a man's sexuality 19. Having a boner doesn't always mean that we're excited, it can just happen for no goddamn reason and it doesn't make us more perverted than you girls! 20. That enjoying effeminate things and enjoying women are mutually exclusive srsfunny:Some Men Want To See The World Demystified
consequence: Myths About Men That Need
 To Be Eradicated
 1.
 That we don't like cuddlin'. I will cuddle
 your brains out. I will cuddle you so good
 you will walk funny the next day
 2. We're not all emotionally stunted, sex
 driven idiots who think that women are
 some enigma
 3. Men are worse parents, and less
 nurturing, than women
 4. Just because I need to be physically
 attracted to a girl I'd like to date doesn't
 imply I only like girls for their looks
 5. That if we like kids, we're pedophiles.
 6. "Men shouldn't cry." Screw you, I ain't
 made out of stone
 7. That men cannot ever be victims of
 sexual assault.
 8. That men cannot ever be the victims of
 domestic abuse by a female partner.
 9. That men can't be affectionate, we just
 fake it for sex.
 10. That we don't get harshly judged for our
 appearance, and specifically our height.
 11. I'm not talking to you just because I want
 to bone you
 12. That, as a man and father, I'm incapable
 of changing diapers, feeding and
 nurturing my children, taking my kids to
 the park, am generally clueless when it
 comes to making decisions about
 household matters, can't grocery shop,
 can't sew or cook, and generally have no
 clue what to do with my
 kids/house/money
 13. Ladies, really, we have no idea what we
 did. Stop being mad and explain
 14. Commercials make us look like bumbling
 idiots who can't dress ourselves.
 15. When women say we ALL stereotype
 women, which is really them
 stereotyping men
 16. That men think about sex every 7
 seconds
 I/. All men like sports
 18. That by being sexually attracted to you,
 we are somehow dehumanizing you, or
 objectifying you. This can happen, but it
 is not an automatic consequence of a
 man's sexuality
 19. Having a boner doesn't always mean
 that we're excited, it can just happen for
 no goddamn reason and it doesn't make
 us more perverted than you girls!
 20. That enjoying effeminate things and
 enjoying women are mutually exclusive
srsfunny:Some Men Want To See The World Demystified

srsfunny:Some Men Want To See The World Demystified

consequence: A MARINES LETTER TO THE NFL I've been a season pass holder at Yankee Stadium, Yale Bowl, and Giants Stadium I missed the '90-'91 season because I was with a battalion of Marines in Desert Storm, 14 of my wonderful Marines returned home I’ve been a season pass holder at Yankee Stadium, Yale Bowl and Giants Stadium. I missed the ’90-’91 season because I was with a battalion of Marines in Desert Storm. 14 of my wonderful Marines returned home with the American Flag draped across their lifeless bodies. My last conversation with one of them, Sgt Garrett Mongrella, was about how our Giants were going to the Super Bowl. He never got to see it. Many friends, Marines, and Special Forces Soldiers who worked with or for me through the years returned home with the American Flag draped over their coffins. Now I watch multi-millionaire athletes who never did anything in their lives but play a game, disrespect what brave Americans fought and died for. They are essentially spitting in the faces and on the graves of real men, men who have actually done something for this country beside playing with a ball and believing they’re something special! They’re not! My Marines and Soldiers were! You are complicit in this! You’ll fine players for large and small infractions but you lack the moral courage and respect for our nation and the fallen to put an immediate stop to this. Yes, I know, it’s their 1st Amendment right to behave in such a despicable manner. What would happen if they came out and disrespected you or the refs! I observed a player getting a personal foul for twerking in the end zone after scoring. I guess that’s much worse than disrespecting the flag and our National Anthem. Hmmmmm, isn’t it his 1st Amendment right to express himself like an idiot in the end zone? Why is taunting not allowed yet taunting America is OK? You fine players for wearing 9-11 commemorative shoes yet you allow scum on the sidelines to sit, kneel or pump their pathetic fist in the air. They are so deprived with their multi-million dollar contracts for playing a freaking game! You condone it all by your refusal to act. You’re just as bad and disgusting as they are. I hope Americans boycott any sponsor who supports that rabble you call the NFL. I hope they turn off the TV when any team that allowed this disrespect to occur, without consequence, on the sidelines. Time to change the channel. Col Jeffrey A Powers US
consequence: A MARINES
 LETTER TO THE NFL
 I've been a season pass holder at Yankee
 Stadium, Yale Bowl, and Giants Stadium
 I missed the '90-'91 season because I was
 with a battalion of Marines in Desert Storm,
 14 of my wonderful Marines returned home
I’ve been a season pass holder at Yankee Stadium, Yale Bowl and Giants Stadium. I missed the ’90-’91 season because I was with a battalion of Marines in Desert Storm. 14 of my wonderful Marines returned home with the American Flag draped across their lifeless bodies. My last conversation with one of them, Sgt Garrett Mongrella, was about how our Giants were going to the Super Bowl. He never got to see it. Many friends, Marines, and Special Forces Soldiers who worked with or for me through the years returned home with the American Flag draped over their coffins. Now I watch multi-millionaire athletes who never did anything in their lives but play a game, disrespect what brave Americans fought and died for. They are essentially spitting in the faces and on the graves of real men, men who have actually done something for this country beside playing with a ball and believing they’re something special! They’re not! My Marines and Soldiers were! You are complicit in this! You’ll fine players for large and small infractions but you lack the moral courage and respect for our nation and the fallen to put an immediate stop to this. Yes, I know, it’s their 1st Amendment right to behave in such a despicable manner. What would happen if they came out and disrespected you or the refs! I observed a player getting a personal foul for twerking in the end zone after scoring. I guess that’s much worse than disrespecting the flag and our National Anthem. Hmmmmm, isn’t it his 1st Amendment right to express himself like an idiot in the end zone? Why is taunting not allowed yet taunting America is OK? You fine players for wearing 9-11 commemorative shoes yet you allow scum on the sidelines to sit, kneel or pump their pathetic fist in the air. They are so deprived with their multi-million dollar contracts for playing a freaking game! You condone it all by your refusal to act. You’re just as bad and disgusting as they are. I hope Americans boycott any sponsor who supports that rabble you call the NFL. I hope they turn off the TV when any team that allowed this disrespect to occur, without consequence, on the sidelines. Time to change the channel. Col Jeffrey A Powers US

I’ve been a season pass holder at Yankee Stadium, Yale Bowl and Giants Stadium. I missed the ’90-’91 season because I was with a battalio...

consequence: able. T% last t ship, she was or fire. A blackened hull sinking beneath the waves We had a deal, Jack contracted you to deliver cargo on my behalf, you chose to liberate it People aren't cargo, mate Andhyou incurred a heavy debt to raise her up again, didn't you? Jack was employed into service for the East India Trading Company and was given command of the Wicked Wench. However, after he set free a cargo of slaves, his employer, Cutler Beckett, had Jack branded as a pirate and the Wench set aflame and sunk. After failing to rescue the Wench, Sparrow struck a bargain with the ghostly captain of the Flying Dutchman, Davy Jones, to resurrect his beloved vessel. Jones returned the ship to Jack in near perfect condition except for the permanently charred hull. This prompted Jack to rename her the Black Pearl (via) Jack Sparrow just got way cooler. BABE Yo, this is why Norrington said he's the worst pirate I've ever heard of" and then Jack followed it up with, "But you have heard of me." Because Jack was branded a Pirate because he freed people rather than stealing anything. So Norrington, with his sense of duty, knows that Jack has been branded a criminal for actively not being a terrible human being. Norrington is torn between his duty as a naval officer and knowing that Jack is right He freed exactly 100 people, that's why his debt to Jones was 100 souls. Davy has a sick sense of irony after all. Jack freed 100 souls and as a consequence his ship got sunk. Now his ship has been raised and as a consequence, he has to enslave 100 souls. This explains his reluctance to actually pay back the debt. VIA THEMETAPICTURE.COM you should probably go to TheMetaPicture.com srsfunny:Jack Sparrow Just Got Way Cooler
consequence: able. T% last t ship, she was or fire.
 A blackened hull sinking beneath the waves
 We had a deal, Jack contracted you to deliver cargo on my
 behalf, you chose to liberate it
 People aren't cargo, mate
 Andhyou incurred a heavy debt to raise her up again, didn't you?
 Jack was employed into service for the East
 India Trading Company and was given
 command of the Wicked Wench. However,
 after he set free a cargo of slaves, his
 employer, Cutler Beckett, had Jack branded as
 a pirate and the Wench set aflame and sunk.
 After failing to rescue the Wench, Sparrow
 struck a bargain with the ghostly captain of the
 Flying Dutchman, Davy Jones, to resurrect his
 beloved vessel. Jones returned the ship to
 Jack in near perfect condition except for the
 permanently charred hull. This prompted Jack
 to rename her the Black Pearl
 (via)
 Jack Sparrow just got way cooler.
 BABE
 Yo, this is why Norrington said he's the worst pirate I've ever
 heard of" and then Jack followed it up with, "But you have
 heard of me."
 Because Jack was branded a Pirate because he freed
 people rather than stealing anything. So Norrington, with his
 sense of duty, knows that Jack has been branded a criminal
 for actively not being a terrible human being. Norrington is
 torn between his duty as a naval officer and knowing that
 Jack is right
 He freed exactly 100 people, that's why his debt to Jones was 100
 souls. Davy has a sick sense of irony after all. Jack freed 100 souls
 and as a consequence his ship got sunk. Now his ship has been
 raised and as a consequence, he has to enslave 100 souls. This
 explains his reluctance to actually pay back the debt.
 VIA THEMETAPICTURE.COM
 you should probably go to TheMetaPicture.com
srsfunny:Jack Sparrow Just Got Way Cooler

srsfunny:Jack Sparrow Just Got Way Cooler

consequence: 4G 21:39 rueplumet i love prince eric. from the little mermaid. he's hilarious. because he seems like one of the most mild-mannered and unassuming princes in the disney canon, but he is also one of the few to actively kill the bad guy. most disney villains die by consequence of the final battle but are not directly killed by the hero/ heroine. most of them fall to their deaths or cause their own demise, and sometimes the hero is indirectly responsible because they ll launch them into that direction or something, but they still don't bring knife to heart directly but then a couple do. and prince eric is my fave out of those few because up until the final act, he is the most chill motherfucker u ever seen. like he is quick to spring to action during the storm scene n stuff, but otherwise? he's really quiet n sensitive and runs along the beach playing the flute for his big shaggy dog n he smiles like a lil nerd and gets all cute around ariel and he's so sweet n everything AND THEN IN THE FINAL BATTLE THAT MOTHERFUC KER STRAIGHT UP DRIVES A SHIP THROUGH URSULA LIKE WH ONE IS TRYIN TO LAY SIEGE TO HIS KINGDOM!! ALL THE NEIGHBOURS ARE LIKE "HOLY SHIT DON'T GO THERE! PRINCE ERIC IS A BEAST! HE'LL STRAIGHT UP AT!!!! NO WONDER NO 17 4G 21:39 THERE! PRINCE ERIC IS A BEAST! HE'LL STRAIGHT UP DRIVE A BOAT THROUGH YOUR BITCH!" i love him lainybunbuns At the beginning of the movie Prince Eric, without hesitation, jumps into the ocean, in the middle of a storm, and climbs onto a ship that's on fire, all to rescue his dog Then when he's convinced some mystery woman saved him, he starts looking for her just to thank her. On his way, he meets some mute naked teenage girl who can't even walk or dress herself, confirms that she's not the girl he's looking for, then brings her to stay at his castle anyway, for no particular reason No one questions this, just like they don't question when he shows up three days later with a mysterious woman one morning and says he's getting married that same day. At said wedding, several witnesses see his fiance turn into a sea monster, which he then murders by piloting a submerged ship pulled up from the bottom of the ocean straight into her. A week later, he marries the mute girl and the god of the sea himself rises from the ocean to give his blessings Again, no one questions this 17 4G 21:39 piloting a submerged ship pulled up from the bottom of the ocean straight into her. A week later, he marries the mute girl and the god of the sea himself rises from the ocean to give his blessings Again, no one questions this I'm convinced that Eric had to have done some crazy in sane stunts on a regular basis, cause despite him being so chill and relaxed normally, no one bats an eyelash at any of his ridiculous decisions or incredible feats during the course of the film. Clearly they're all used to it, and rumours of him marrying an ocean princess would only dissuade potential enemies of his country even further. a-kent a common conversation around the kingdom "Did you hear what Prince Eric did this morning?" "Oh gods, not again. jumpingjacktrash prince eric is a retired epic level player character Fuente: rrueplumet 115,535 notas 17 "...what the hell are you up to now, Eric?" "Y'know, the ush."
consequence: 4G 21:39
 rueplumet
 i love prince eric. from the little mermaid. he's
 hilarious. because he seems like one of the most
 mild-mannered and unassuming princes in the disney
 canon, but he is also one of the few to actively kill the
 bad guy. most disney villains die by consequence of
 the final battle but are not directly killed by the hero/
 heroine. most of them fall to their deaths or cause
 their own demise, and sometimes the hero is indirectly
 responsible because they ll launch them into that
 direction or something, but they still don't bring knife to
 heart directly
 but then a couple do. and prince eric is my fave out of
 those few because up until the final act, he is the most
 chill motherfucker u ever seen. like he is quick to spring
 to action during the storm scene n stuff, but otherwise?
 he's really quiet n sensitive and runs along the beach
 playing the flute for his big shaggy dog n he smiles
 like a lil nerd and gets all cute around ariel and he's so
 sweet n everything
 AND THEN IN THE FINAL BATTLE THAT MOTHERFUC
 KER STRAIGHT UP DRIVES A SHIP THROUGH URSULA
 LIKE WH
 ONE IS TRYIN TO LAY SIEGE TO HIS KINGDOM!! ALL
 THE NEIGHBOURS ARE LIKE "HOLY SHIT DON'T GO
 THERE! PRINCE ERIC IS A BEAST! HE'LL STRAIGHT UP
 AT!!!! NO WONDER NO
 17

 4G 21:39
 THERE! PRINCE ERIC IS A BEAST! HE'LL STRAIGHT UP
 DRIVE A BOAT THROUGH YOUR BITCH!"
 i love him
 lainybunbuns
 At the beginning of the movie Prince Eric, without
 hesitation, jumps into the ocean, in the middle of a
 storm, and climbs onto a ship that's on fire, all to rescue
 his dog
 Then when he's convinced some mystery woman saved
 him, he starts looking for her just to thank her. On his
 way, he meets some mute naked teenage girl who can't
 even walk or dress herself, confirms that she's not the
 girl he's looking for, then brings her to stay at his castle
 anyway, for no particular reason
 No one questions this, just like they don't question when
 he shows up three days later with a mysterious woman
 one morning and says he's getting married that same
 day. At said wedding, several witnesses see his fiance
 turn into a sea monster, which he then murders by
 piloting a submerged ship pulled up from the bottom of
 the ocean straight into her.
 A week later, he marries the mute girl and the god of the
 sea himself rises from the ocean to give his blessings
 Again, no one questions this
 17

 4G 21:39
 piloting a submerged ship pulled up from the bottom of
 the ocean straight into her.
 A week later, he marries the mute girl and the god of the
 sea himself rises from the ocean to give his blessings
 Again, no one questions this
 I'm convinced that Eric had to have done some crazy in
 sane stunts on a regular basis, cause despite him being
 so chill and relaxed normally, no one bats an eyelash at
 any of his ridiculous decisions or incredible feats during
 the course of the film. Clearly they're all used to it, and
 rumours of him marrying an ocean princess would only
 dissuade potential enemies of his country even further.
 a-kent
 a common conversation around the kingdom
 "Did you hear what Prince Eric did this morning?"
 "Oh gods, not again.
 jumpingjacktrash
 prince eric is a retired epic level player character
 Fuente: rrueplumet
 115,535 notas
 17
"...what the hell are you up to now, Eric?" "Y'know, the ush."

"...what the hell are you up to now, Eric?" "Y'know, the ush."

consequence: STEPHEN HAWKINGS LAST WORDS WELIVEINTHEMATRI If you asked an astrophysicist today to describe what happened after the Big Bang, he would likely start with the concept of “cosmic inflation.” Cosmic inflation argues that right after the Big Bang — we’re talking after a teeny fraction of a second — the universe expanded at breakneck speed like dough in an oven. But this exponential expansion should create, due to quantum mechanics, regions where the universe continues to grow forever and regions where that growth stalls. The result would be a multiverse, a collection of bubblelike pockets, each defined by its own laws of physics. “The local laws of physics and chemistry can differ from one pocket universe to another, which together would form a multiverse,” Hertog said in a statement. “But I have never been a fan of the multiverse. If the scale of different universes in the multiverse is large or infinite the theory can’t be tested.” Along with being difficult to support, the multiverse theory, which was co-developed by Hawking in 1983, doesn’t jibe with classical physics, namely the contributions of Einstein’s theory of general relativity as they relate to the structure and dynamics of the universe. “As a consequence, Einstein’s theory breaks down in eternal inflation,” Hertog said. Einstein spent his life searching for a unified theory, a way to reconcile the biggest and smallest of things, general relativity and quantum mechanics. He died never having achieved that goal, but leagues of physicists like Hawking followed in Einstein’s footsteps. One path led to holograms. Instead of the 'standard' description of how the 'universe' unfolded (and is unfolding), the authors argue the Big Bang had a finite boundary, defined by string theory and holograms. The new theory - which sounds simplistically like the world of the red-pill-blue-pill Matrix movies - embraces the strange concept that the universe is like a vast and complex hologram. In other words, 3D reality is an illusion, and that the apparently "solid" world around us - and the dimension of time - is projected from information stored on a flat 2D surface.
consequence: STEPHEN HAWKINGS
 LAST WORDS
 WELIVEINTHEMATRI
If you asked an astrophysicist today to describe what happened after the Big Bang, he would likely start with the concept of “cosmic inflation.” Cosmic inflation argues that right after the Big Bang — we’re talking after a teeny fraction of a second — the universe expanded at breakneck speed like dough in an oven. But this exponential expansion should create, due to quantum mechanics, regions where the universe continues to grow forever and regions where that growth stalls. The result would be a multiverse, a collection of bubblelike pockets, each defined by its own laws of physics. “The local laws of physics and chemistry can differ from one pocket universe to another, which together would form a multiverse,” Hertog said in a statement. “But I have never been a fan of the multiverse. If the scale of different universes in the multiverse is large or infinite the theory can’t be tested.” Along with being difficult to support, the multiverse theory, which was co-developed by Hawking in 1983, doesn’t jibe with classical physics, namely the contributions of Einstein’s theory of general relativity as they relate to the structure and dynamics of the universe. “As a consequence, Einstein’s theory breaks down in eternal inflation,” Hertog said. Einstein spent his life searching for a unified theory, a way to reconcile the biggest and smallest of things, general relativity and quantum mechanics. He died never having achieved that goal, but leagues of physicists like Hawking followed in Einstein’s footsteps. One path led to holograms. Instead of the 'standard' description of how the 'universe' unfolded (and is unfolding), the authors argue the Big Bang had a finite boundary, defined by string theory and holograms. The new theory - which sounds simplistically like the world of the red-pill-blue-pill Matrix movies - embraces the strange concept that the universe is like a vast and complex hologram. In other words, 3D reality is an illusion, and that the apparently "solid" world around us - and the dimension of time - is projected from information stored on a flat 2D surface.

If you asked an astrophysicist today to describe what happened after the Big Bang, he would likely start with the concept of “cosmic infl...

consequence: did you know? In Finland, speeding tickets are calculated based on your income - causing some Finnish millionaires to pay fines of over $100,000 ? did-you-kno In Finland, speeding tickets are calculated based on your income causing some Finnish millionaires to pay fines of over $100,000. Source redbloodedamerica This is what equality" looks like in that liberal fairy tale land of Finland. They punish you proportionately to how successful you are. Sounds really "fair." alternian-neverland Except... it is fair? Because it's proportionate. I don't get what's difficult about that. An impoverished person paying $400 dollar fine isn't the same as a millionaire paying the same amount. For the poor person, $400 dollars could mean starving. Would you really claim it would have the same consequence for a rich man? Would it even be noticeable to him, while the absence of food in their stomach would be glaring to a poorer man? Would it be fair for a man to starve for the same crime as a man that would be having a three course meal? By taking income into account, it allows the impoverished able to still survive while paying any fines they may incur. And, ultimately, while $100,000 dollars would be noticeable to a millionaire, they would still get by. And, assuming the law is properly implemented, they would be paying the same equivalent of their yearly income that a poorer person would. That's what makes it fair. They woulc be impacted the same way but you are looking at the amount rather than the equation. Also, it's important to make sure that even the rich would pause at the cost of a fine. They need to fear the law just as a poor man does. prochoice-or-gtfo Oh no... rich people facing fines that might actually make them consider not doing illegal things because the punishments might actually hurt them... how unfair Did you know about the liberal fairy tale land of Finland?
consequence: did you know?
 In Finland, speeding tickets
 are calculated based on your
 income - causing some Finnish
 millionaires to pay fines of
 over $100,000
 ? did-you-kno
 In Finland, speeding tickets are calculated based on your income causing
 some Finnish millionaires to pay fines of over $100,000. Source
 redbloodedamerica
 This is what equality" looks like in that liberal fairy tale land of Finland. They
 punish you proportionately to how successful you are. Sounds really "fair."
 alternian-neverland
 Except... it is fair? Because it's proportionate. I don't get what's difficult about
 that. An impoverished person paying $400 dollar fine isn't the same as a
 millionaire paying the same amount. For the poor person, $400 dollars could
 mean starving. Would you really claim it would have the same consequence for
 a rich man? Would it even be noticeable to him, while the absence of food in
 their stomach would be glaring to a poorer man? Would it be fair for a man to
 starve for the same crime as a man that would be having a three course meal?
 By taking income into account, it allows the impoverished able to still survive
 while paying any fines they may incur. And, ultimately, while $100,000 dollars
 would be noticeable to a millionaire, they would still get by. And, assuming the
 law is properly implemented, they would be paying the same equivalent of their
 yearly income that a poorer person would. That's what makes it fair. They woulc
 be impacted the same way but you are looking at the amount rather than the
 equation.
 Also, it's important to make sure that even the rich would pause at the cost of a
 fine. They need to fear the law just as a poor man does.
 prochoice-or-gtfo
 Oh no... rich people facing fines that might actually make them consider not
 doing illegal things because the punishments might actually hurt them... how
 unfair
Did you know about the liberal fairy tale land of Finland?

Did you know about the liberal fairy tale land of Finland?

consequence: did you know? In Finland, speeding tickets are calculated based on your income - causing some Finnish millionaires to pay fines of over $100,000 ? did-you-kno In Finland, speeding tickets are calculated based on your income causing some Finnish millionaires to pay fines of over $100,000. Source redbloodedamerica This is what equality" looks like in that liberal fairy tale land of Finland. They punish you proportionately to how successful you are. Sounds really "fair." alternian-neverland Except... it is fair? Because it's proportionate. I don't get what's difficult about that. An impoverished person paying $400 dollar fine isn't the same as a millionaire paying the same amount. For the poor person, $400 dollars could mean starving. Would you really claim it would have the same consequence for a rich man? Would it even be noticeable to him, while the absence of food in their stomach would be glaring to a poorer man? Would it be fair for a man to starve for the same crime as a man that would be having a three course meal? By taking income into account, it allows the impoverished able to still survive while paying any fines they may incur. And, ultimately, while $100,000 dollars would be noticeable to a millionaire, they would still get by. And, assuming the law is properly implemented, they would be paying the same equivalent of their yearly income that a poorer person would. That's what makes it fair. They woulc be impacted the same way but you are looking at the amount rather than the equation. Also, it's important to make sure that even the rich would pause at the cost of a fine. They need to fear the law just as a poor man does. prochoice-or-gtfo Oh no... rich people facing fines that might actually make them consider not doing illegal things because the punishments might actually hurt them... how unfair Did you know about the liberal fairy tale land of Finland?
consequence: did you know?
 In Finland, speeding tickets
 are calculated based on your
 income - causing some Finnish
 millionaires to pay fines of
 over $100,000
 ? did-you-kno
 In Finland, speeding tickets are calculated based on your income causing
 some Finnish millionaires to pay fines of over $100,000. Source
 redbloodedamerica
 This is what equality" looks like in that liberal fairy tale land of Finland. They
 punish you proportionately to how successful you are. Sounds really "fair."
 alternian-neverland
 Except... it is fair? Because it's proportionate. I don't get what's difficult about
 that. An impoverished person paying $400 dollar fine isn't the same as a
 millionaire paying the same amount. For the poor person, $400 dollars could
 mean starving. Would you really claim it would have the same consequence for
 a rich man? Would it even be noticeable to him, while the absence of food in
 their stomach would be glaring to a poorer man? Would it be fair for a man to
 starve for the same crime as a man that would be having a three course meal?
 By taking income into account, it allows the impoverished able to still survive
 while paying any fines they may incur. And, ultimately, while $100,000 dollars
 would be noticeable to a millionaire, they would still get by. And, assuming the
 law is properly implemented, they would be paying the same equivalent of their
 yearly income that a poorer person would. That's what makes it fair. They woulc
 be impacted the same way but you are looking at the amount rather than the
 equation.
 Also, it's important to make sure that even the rich would pause at the cost of a
 fine. They need to fear the law just as a poor man does.
 prochoice-or-gtfo
 Oh no... rich people facing fines that might actually make them consider not
 doing illegal things because the punishments might actually hurt them... how
 unfair
Did you know about the liberal fairy tale land of Finland?

Did you know about the liberal fairy tale land of Finland?

consequence: rob-anybody tumblr Follow broadlybrazen unpretty another dumb headcanon: superman is nice to birds because of course he is, and helps out birds who are in distress. also he can fly around with them. birds see a lot more of superman than they do of most people, basically. the unexpected consequence of this is that the crows of metropolis recognize superman as a friend. sometimes crows just follow him around like a weird flock or try to give him shiny things. but mostly please just imagine luthor trying to gloat while threatening superman with kryptonite only to have a crow steal it. or just, generally, lex luthor getting attacked by crows. if that does not improve your day i don't know what to tell you unpretty What is that? Superman followed the direction of Batman's gaze. A crow had landed on the rooftop beside them, and dropped a bottlecap near Superman's feet. "Ohl Hey Francis. Is that for me?" Caw," said Francis Do you have a pet crow? Batman asked. No, I don't have pets," Superman said as he bent down to retrieve the bottlecap You named it. Not this specific one," Superman explained. "1 just call all the crows Francis. ...why Caw, caw," said Francis with a flap of its wings I don't know. Just calling them 'crow felt rude after a while. l'd name them individually but I can't actually tell them apart. Except for Old Francis and One Eyed Francis." Superman tucked the bottlecap into a small pocket on the back of his pants. Why Francis?" Superman shrugged. It's gender neutral. I don't want to misgender them just because they're birds Of course you don't," Batman sighed, looking back out at Metropolis Caw," Francis added Do you keep dog treats in your utility belt?" Superman asked Why would I do that. .. in case you meet a dog that needs to know he's a good boy? Superman suggested. Batman shook his head, but opened a small pouch on his belt and held out a small treat. "See, it was a yes or no question, I don't know why everything has to be such a production with you," Superman said as he took it. He tossed it over by the bird's feet. "Here you are, Francis. Keep up the good work." Caw, caw," Francis said. When it realized no more treats were forthcoming, it flew away in a fiutter of black wings. You're unbelievable," Batman said, shaking his head again. Superman took his eyes off the departing crow to look back at Batman, and frowned. "You know," he said, "it's really weird seeing you in costume during the day Don't start." It's like seeing your teacher at the mall." Don't think I won't take care of Poison Ivy without your help, if I have to Superman shrugged. T'm just saying voxmyriad But...what if the crows also recognized him as Clark Kent? This mild-mannered reporter who doesn't seem to do anything in particular to the crows that would make them like him, but they're not afraid of him at all, and they keep trying to give HIM things, and Clark being a nice guy, he just. Accepts the bottlecap. Says thank you. Keeps walking. Lois adds another factoid to her "Weird Stuff About Clark Kent" file Maybe he tries to convince his coworkers that everyone is friendly with crows in Smallville. That the farmers discovered how smart crows are and decided to make friends with them instead of chasing them off Maybe he tries to talk the crows into palling around with him as Superman but going their separate ways as Clark Kent. Please imagine Superman on top of a building holding Clark Kent's glasses and trying to explain the concept of a secret identity to a flock of attentive birds Source: unpretty #my favorite post #dc universe #my superman 32,061 notes Hey DC, I would watch this movie
consequence: rob-anybody
 tumblr
 Follow
 broadlybrazen
 unpretty
 another dumb headcanon: superman is nice to birds because of course he is,
 and helps out birds who are in distress. also he can fly around with them. birds
 see a lot more of superman than they do of most people, basically. the
 unexpected consequence of this is that the crows of metropolis recognize
 superman as a friend. sometimes crows just follow him around like a weird flock
 or try to give him shiny things. but mostly please just imagine luthor trying to
 gloat while threatening superman with kryptonite only to have a crow steal it. or
 just, generally, lex luthor getting attacked by crows. if that does not improve your
 day i don't know what to tell you
 unpretty
 What is that?
 Superman followed the direction of Batman's gaze. A crow had landed on the
 rooftop beside them, and dropped a bottlecap near Superman's feet. "Ohl Hey
 Francis. Is that for me?"
 Caw," said Francis
 Do you have a pet crow? Batman asked.
 No, I don't have pets," Superman said as he bent down to retrieve the
 bottlecap
 You named it.
 Not this specific one," Superman explained. "1 just call all the crows Francis.
 ...why
 Caw, caw," said Francis with a flap of its wings
 I don't know. Just calling them 'crow felt rude after a while. l'd name them
 individually but I can't actually tell them apart. Except for Old Francis and One
 Eyed Francis." Superman tucked the bottlecap into a small pocket on the back of
 his pants.
 Why Francis?"
 Superman shrugged. It's gender neutral. I don't want to misgender them just
 because they're birds
 Of course you don't," Batman sighed, looking back out at Metropolis
 Caw," Francis added
 Do you keep dog treats in your utility belt?" Superman asked
 Why would I do that.
 .. in case you meet a dog that needs to know he's a good boy? Superman
 suggested. Batman shook his head, but opened a small pouch on his belt and
 held out a small treat. "See, it was a yes or no question, I don't know why
 everything has to be such a production with you," Superman said as he took it.
 He tossed it over by the bird's feet. "Here you are, Francis. Keep up the good
 work."
 Caw, caw," Francis said. When it realized no more treats were forthcoming, it
 flew away in a fiutter of black wings.
 You're unbelievable," Batman said, shaking his head again.
 Superman took his eyes off the departing crow to look back at Batman, and
 frowned. "You know," he said, "it's really weird seeing you in costume during the
 day
 Don't start."
 It's like seeing your teacher at the mall."
 Don't think I won't take care of Poison Ivy without your help, if I have to
 Superman shrugged. T'm just saying
 voxmyriad
 But...what if the crows also recognized him as Clark Kent? This mild-mannered
 reporter who doesn't seem to do anything in particular to the crows that would
 make them like him, but they're not afraid of him at all, and they keep trying to
 give HIM things, and Clark being a nice guy, he just. Accepts the bottlecap. Says
 thank you. Keeps walking. Lois adds another factoid to her "Weird Stuff About
 Clark Kent" file
 Maybe he tries to convince his coworkers that everyone is friendly with crows in
 Smallville. That the farmers discovered how smart crows are and decided to
 make friends with them instead of chasing them off
 Maybe he tries to talk the crows into palling around with him as Superman but
 going their separate ways as Clark Kent.
 Please imagine Superman on top of a building holding Clark Kent's glasses and
 trying to explain the concept of a secret identity to a flock of attentive birds
 Source: unpretty #my favorite post #dc universe #my superman
 32,061 notes
Hey DC, I would watch this movie

Hey DC, I would watch this movie

consequence: ALL SONGS PRODUCED BY: KANYE WEST Except Tracks 10 & 36 1. Intro feat. Free of 106 & Park 2. Live From Irving Plaza, NY- Talib Kweli/ Kanye West/ Mos Det 3. Guess Who's Back? Freestyle- 50 Cent 4. Jesus Walks (snippet). Kanye West 5. Through The Wire (Still Standing) feat. Chaka Khan/ Elton John 6. 2 Words. Kanye West feat. Mos Det/ Freeway/ Harlem Boys choir 7. Show Go On. Freeway/ Twista 8. Champions. Dame Dash presents Kanye West/ Young Chris Beanie Sigel/ Cam'Ron/ Twista 9. Live From Tweeter Center, IL Jay Z/ Kanye West 10. The Bounce- Jay Z feat. Kanye West 11. Poppin' Tags Jay Z feat. Twista/ Outkast 12. A Million Freestyle- Kanye West 13. '03 Bonnie & Clyde Jay Z feat. Beyonce Knowles 14. BR Right- Trina feat. Ludacris 15. Brown Sugar- Mos Def 16. Good To You- Talib Kweli 17. The Good, The Bad, The Ugly- Consequence/ Kanye w 18. Dead Or Alive- Cam Ron 19. Takeover Freestyle Cam'Ron 20. Got Nowhere State Property 21. Poppa Was A Playa- Nas 22. Home- Kanye West 23. Reebok Commercial- Scarface 24. Heaven- Scarface feat. Kelly Price 25. In Cold Blood- Scarface 26. My Way Kanye West These are the songs from my tatoo: 27. You Made Me- Harlem World feat. Carl Thomas 28. My Life Foxy Brown 29. Ghetto- Madd Rapper feat. Raekwon/ Carl Thon 30. The Truth Beanie Sigel 31. This Can't Be Life. Jay Z 32. Nothing Like It- Beanie Sigel feat. Harlem Boys' C 33. Izzo (H.o.V.A.) Unplugged Version- Jay Z 34. Heart of The City (Ain't No Love) Unplugged Ve 35. Never Chage Jay Z feat. Kanye West 36. My Life, My Love GLC of the GoGetters ROC A FELLA RECORDS produced by Timbaland produced by Devon Ha EXECUTIVE PRODUCER: KANYE WEST for Kanma Co Execs: John Monopoly for Hustle. & Don C. for H Hustie ixed By Mustafa Rocks & Vaughn Woods for 87emP HUSTLE
consequence: ALL SONGS PRODUCED BY: KANYE WEST
 Except Tracks 10 & 36
 1. Intro feat. Free of 106 & Park
 2. Live From Irving Plaza, NY- Talib Kweli/ Kanye West/ Mos Det
 3. Guess Who's Back? Freestyle- 50 Cent
 4. Jesus Walks (snippet). Kanye West
 5. Through The Wire (Still Standing) feat. Chaka Khan/ Elton John
 6. 2 Words. Kanye West feat. Mos Det/ Freeway/ Harlem Boys choir
 7. Show Go On. Freeway/ Twista
 8. Champions. Dame Dash presents Kanye West/ Young Chris
 Beanie Sigel/ Cam'Ron/ Twista
 9. Live From Tweeter Center, IL Jay Z/ Kanye West
 10. The Bounce- Jay Z feat. Kanye West
 11. Poppin' Tags Jay Z feat. Twista/ Outkast
 12. A Million Freestyle- Kanye West
 13. '03 Bonnie & Clyde Jay Z feat. Beyonce Knowles
 14. BR Right- Trina feat. Ludacris
 15. Brown Sugar- Mos Def
 16. Good To You- Talib Kweli
 17. The Good, The Bad, The Ugly- Consequence/ Kanye w
 18. Dead Or Alive- Cam Ron
 19. Takeover Freestyle Cam'Ron
 20. Got Nowhere State Property
 21. Poppa Was A Playa- Nas
 22. Home- Kanye West
 23. Reebok Commercial- Scarface
 24. Heaven- Scarface feat. Kelly Price
 25. In Cold Blood- Scarface
 26. My Way Kanye West
 These are the songs from my tatoo:
 27. You Made Me- Harlem World feat. Carl Thomas
 28. My Life Foxy Brown
 29. Ghetto- Madd Rapper feat. Raekwon/ Carl Thon
 30. The Truth Beanie Sigel
 31. This Can't Be Life. Jay Z
 32. Nothing Like It- Beanie Sigel feat. Harlem Boys' C
 33. Izzo (H.o.V.A.) Unplugged Version- Jay Z
 34. Heart of The City (Ain't No Love) Unplugged Ve
 35. Never Chage Jay Z feat. Kanye West
 36. My Life, My Love GLC of the GoGetters
 ROC A FELLA
 RECORDS
 produced by Timbaland produced by Devon Ha
 EXECUTIVE PRODUCER: KANYE WEST for Kanma
 Co Execs: John Monopoly for Hustle. & Don C. for H
 Hustie
 ixed By Mustafa Rocks & Vaughn Woods for 87emP
 HUSTLE
consequence: pokpok of color @catharticwords If you think a woman can only have an abortion if she was raped,youre saying a woman has to be violated before she has rights to her body L1 desisupremacy Repost from @desisupremacy: "(TW: rape mention, abortion) Here are my two cents on this reasoning that I've been thinking lately. So most anti-choicers have at least accepted that it is acceptable for a rape victim to have an abortion. Regardless of who gets an abortion, you are still preventing the formation of a potential child. So the common anti-choice argument of "killing an innocent baby" fails with this logic. In other words, if an anti-choicer can accept a rape victim getting an abortion, they clearly are not as concerned about the fetus' life as they claim. They are against people with a uterus who CHOSE to have sex. They believe that because a woman (or a person considered as a woman in a cisnormative society) is paying a punishment for consenting to sex when she-he-they get pregnant, and that said pregnant person should be forced to undergo this consequence of consenting to sex. With that said, I call bullshit on most (key word) anti-choicers "concern for the child" and really just link their opinion on abortion to their hatred of female sexuality. They can't argue against the vulnerability of a rape survivor so they accept the survivor getting an abortion, but a person who got pregnant from consensual sex is "selfish and immoral" and should therefore be punished by controlling their bodily autonomy. ~S"
consequence: pokpok of color
 @catharticwords
 If you think a woman can only have
 an abortion if she was raped,youre
 saying a woman has to be violated
 before she has rights to her body
 L1 desisupremacy
Repost from @desisupremacy: "(TW: rape mention, abortion) Here are my two cents on this reasoning that I've been thinking lately. So most anti-choicers have at least accepted that it is acceptable for a rape victim to have an abortion. Regardless of who gets an abortion, you are still preventing the formation of a potential child. So the common anti-choice argument of "killing an innocent baby" fails with this logic. In other words, if an anti-choicer can accept a rape victim getting an abortion, they clearly are not as concerned about the fetus' life as they claim. They are against people with a uterus who CHOSE to have sex. They believe that because a woman (or a person considered as a woman in a cisnormative society) is paying a punishment for consenting to sex when she-he-they get pregnant, and that said pregnant person should be forced to undergo this consequence of consenting to sex. With that said, I call bullshit on most (key word) anti-choicers "concern for the child" and really just link their opinion on abortion to their hatred of female sexuality. They can't argue against the vulnerability of a rape survivor so they accept the survivor getting an abortion, but a person who got pregnant from consensual sex is "selfish and immoral" and should therefore be punished by controlling their bodily autonomy. ~S"

Repost from @desisupremacy: "(TW: rape mention, abortion) Here are my two cents on this reasoning that I've been thinking lately. So most...