caseyanthonyofficial:

drunktrophywife:

caseyanthonyofficial:

drunktrophywife:

Is it illegal to have sex in a dressing room

I’ve gotten in trouble for jerking it in one so

But is it
illegal

I jerked off in a dressing room do I sound like a lawyer


Shared Sep 17 with 157,473 notes » via - source + reblog




dutchster:

if you bring a dog near me i’m sorry but i will pet it and talk to it like it’s a child and probably want to take it home


Shared Sep 17 with 10,501 notes » via - source + reblog




alliartist:

rifa:

prokopetz:

nebcondist1:

prokopetz:

I’ve seen this image going around, and I feel compelled to point out that it’s only half-right. It’s true that high heels were originally a masculine fashion, but they weren’t originally worn by butchers - nor for any other utilitarian purpose, for that matter.
High heels were worn by men for exactly the same reason they’re worn by women today: to display one’s legs to best effect. Until quite recently, shapely, well-toned calves and thighs were regarded as an absolute prerequisite for male attractiveness. That’s why you see so many paintings of famous men framed to show off their legs - like this one of George Washington displaying his fantastic calves:

… or this one of Louis XIV of France rocking a fabulous pair of red platform heels (check out those thighs!):

… or even this one of Charles I of England showing off his high-heeled riding boots - note, again, the visual emphasis on his well-formed calves:

In summary: were high heels originally worn by men? Yes. Were they worn to keep blood off their feet? No at all - they were worn for the same reason they’re worn today: to look fabulous.

so then how did they become a solo feminine item of attire?

A variety of reasons. In France, for example, high heels fell out out of favour in the court of Napoleon due to their association with aristocratic decadence, while in England, the more conservative fashions of the Victorian era regarded it as indecent for a man to openly display his calves.
But then, fashions come and go. The real question is why heels never came back into fashion for men - and that can be laid squarely at the feet of institutionalised homophobia. Essentially, heels for men were never revived because, by the early 20th Century, sexually provocative attire for men had come to be associated with homosexuality; the resulting moral panic ushered in an era of drab, blocky, fully concealing menswear in which a well-turned calf simply had no place - a setback from which men’s fashion has yet to fully recover.

FASHION HISTORY IS HUMAN HISTORY OK

Thank you, history side of tumblr. That “stay out of blood” thing has been driving me mad.

alliartist:

rifa:

prokopetz:

nebcondist1:

prokopetz:

I’ve seen this image going around, and I feel compelled to point out that it’s only half-right. It’s true that high heels were originally a masculine fashion, but they weren’t originally worn by butchers - nor for any other utilitarian purpose, for that matter.

High heels were worn by men for exactly the same reason they’re worn by women today: to display one’s legs to best effect. Until quite recently, shapely, well-toned calves and thighs were regarded as an absolute prerequisite for male attractiveness. That’s why you see so many paintings of famous men framed to show off their legs - like this one of George Washington displaying his fantastic calves:

… or this one of Louis XIV of France rocking a fabulous pair of red platform heels (check out those thighs!):

… or even this one of Charles I of England showing off his high-heeled riding boots - note, again, the visual emphasis on his well-formed calves:

In summary: were high heels originally worn by men? Yes. Were they worn to keep blood off their feet? No at all - they were worn for the same reason they’re worn today: to look fabulous.

so then how did they become a solo feminine item of attire?

A variety of reasons. In France, for example, high heels fell out out of favour in the court of Napoleon due to their association with aristocratic decadence, while in England, the more conservative fashions of the Victorian era regarded it as indecent for a man to openly display his calves.

But then, fashions come and go. The real question is why heels never came back into fashion for men - and that can be laid squarely at the feet of institutionalised homophobia. Essentially, heels for men were never revived because, by the early 20th Century, sexually provocative attire for men had come to be associated with homosexuality; the resulting moral panic ushered in an era of drab, blocky, fully concealing menswear in which a well-turned calf simply had no place - a setback from which men’s fashion has yet to fully recover.

FASHION HISTORY IS HUMAN HISTORY OK

Thank you, history side of tumblr. That “stay out of blood” thing has been driving me mad.

Shared Sep 17 with 154,296 notes » via - source + reblog




bucky-oh-bucky:

whatsbetterthanfantasy:

last-snowfall:

Yeah cats TOTALLY only like us for food and have no emotional dependency at all.

THIS IS SO CUTE I CANT

it’s like, human, excuse me, i would like you to pet me. thank you.

Shared Sep 17 with 588,273 notes » via - source + reblog
# I think I've discovered that cats liked bare skin# my cats love to sit on me when I have no pants or no shirt on and get on my skin




naamah-beherit:

avengerwho:

tastefullyoffensive:

Grandma caterpillar putting on lipstick. [via]

took me a minute

yeah, but when it does, you can’t unsee it

naamah-beherit:

avengerwho:

tastefullyoffensive:

Grandma caterpillar putting on lipstick. [via]

took me a minute

yeah, but when it does, you can’t unsee it

Shared Sep 17 with 40,168 notes » via - source + reblog
# ahhhhhhhhhh




Shared Sep 17 with 8,484 notes » via - source + reblog
# patd




it’s a constant struggle

Shared Sep 17 with 16,876 notes » via - source + reblog




sassy-spoon:

danielkanhai:

how many times do you think you’ve seen the same bird twice.

out of all the things on this website that have fucked me up this is one of the worst


Shared Sep 16 with 446,721 notes » via - source + reblog




dangerhamster:

JACK HARKNESS MEETING BUCKY AND STEVE IN THE 1940s AND FLIRTING FURIOUSLY WITH BOTH OF THEM

JACK HARKNESS SEEING THEM AGAIN IN THE 21ST CENTURY AND THEY’RE ALL EQUALLY CONFUSED AS EACH OTHER


Shared Sep 16 with 72,092 notes » via - source + reblog




shuckl:

sirruraccoon:

shuckl:

watchthelightfade:

shuckl:

just to avoid accidentally using offensive language i’m going to start using 90s surfer dude slang because inadvertently offending someone is totally bogus dude

people might not want to be called dude

you are radically right and that is so not tubular my friend i apologise

I find your poor grammar and spelling to be offensive to my eyes.

watch me catch this gnarly wave of i don’t care


Shared Sep 16 with 384,101 notes » via - source + reblog




shitshilarious:

Surprise Surprise
you better recognize
you might not like what you see
but its so good for your eyes
I’m a root of all evil
you just the root of all whack
My rhymes are locking you up
cuz Orange is the new Black

shitshilarious:

Surprise Surprise

you better recognize

you might not like what you see

but its so good for your eyes

I’m a root of all evil

you just the root of all whack

My rhymes are locking you up

cuz Orange is the new Black

Shared Sep 16 with 125,354 notes » via - source + reblog




2 months tomorrow me and my boyfriend will have been together. It feels like I’ve known him forever. I think I round my soulmate. Here’s to many more months together :3


Shared Sep 16 + reblog




jobhaver:

you: that is a nice ass shirt

me: thank you but, to be honest, its called “pants” and not an “ass shirt”


Shared Sep 16 with 81,922 notes » via - source + reblog




thebest-memes:

"No matter how bad you fuck up at work, you didn’t fucked up this bad"

thebest-memes:

"No matter how bad you fuck up at work, you didn’t fucked up this bad"

Shared Sep 16 with 111,012 notes » via - source + reblog




pr1nceshawn:

Shocking Truths Behind What Cat Behaviors Really Mean…

Shared Sep 16 with 26,925 notes » via - source + reblog
# cats