
@theartofmadeline
d e v o n
noise dept.

Janaina Medeiros
let's talk about Bridgerton tea, my ask is open

⁂

Product Placement

祝日 / Permanent Vacation
Jules of Nature
tumblr dot com
Monterey Bay Aquarium

No title available

JBB: An Artblog!
No title available
h
Mike Driver
taylor price
Cosmic Funnies

No title available
hello vonnie
seen from Malaysia

seen from United Kingdom

seen from United States

seen from United States

seen from Netherlands

seen from Malaysia
seen from United States
seen from Spain
seen from United States
seen from Italy
seen from United States

seen from United States

seen from Malaysia
seen from United States

seen from India
seen from Colombia

seen from United Kingdom

seen from United States

seen from Malaysia
seen from United States
@astonishingmanes
If a worker who isn't the owner says ANYTHING similar to "I'm not really supposed to do this but-" and then does something that helps you, under no circumstances inform the business, including through reviews. You tell them that the worker was polite, professional, the very model of customer service and why you like to go there. You do not breathe a word of the rulebreaking.
Employee-customer solidarity
Even if they don't- Your review can be the thing that wrecks someone up accidentally;
"Janie was so helpful when I wanted to buy a new washing machine on Friday, she stayed with me for half an hour and wasn't pushy at all, we had a good laugh about our cats' silly antics and she got Adam and Suzy to carry it to the car for me- 10/10 excellent service, I'd come back any day!"
-But Management has a policy that workers should spend no more than 10 focused minutes on any customer at a time, and that they should always try to upsell the insurance and the higher price model, so Janie was breaking policy.
-And they aren't supposed to have their phones on the sales floor, so now Janie is going to be quizzed on whether she was showing photos of her cat to a customer.
-Adam is a warehouse worker and shouldn't have been in the front-of-house at all, Suzy is a porter, and store policy is both to use a trolley to move heavy items, and that only the porters should do it, so now Janie is in trouble for pulling Adam off-task, Adam is in trouble for walking through the shop floor, and Suzy is in trouble for poor handling procedure. Maybe the store even has a paid delivery service that Janie was supposed to upsell as soon as you said "I can't put this in my car without help", so this was all against policy.
Your review should always be as bland as possible, "10/10, five star service, will shop here again, thank you to Janie at the Town Street branch" You NEVER know what was technically a rule-break, capitalism is not your friend, the review process is part of the panopticon.
FIVE STARS, TEN OUT OF TEN, VERY GOOD, NOTHING MORE.
I know a lot of people think that Michael is the subbiest sub to ever sub (and the bottomiest bottom and it all gets kind of mixed up because people think they’re the same thing, I guess). But tbh, I love the idea that in the bedroom they both get to have something that they don’t get a lot outside of it. Michael gets to have some of the control he often feels like he doesn’t have, and Alex gets to let go and not be constantly thinking at least one step ahead.
you can advocate for free menstrual products without undermining the struggle it took for HIV/AIDS activists to make condoms freely available. if i hear “sex is a choice, menstruation isn’t” one more time I’m gonna snap. BOTH are essential for public health. learn your history.
when you say “sex is a choice, menstruation is not” you are victim-blaming the hundreds of thousands of people who died from AIDS-related illness, and anyone else who contracts STIs through sex. this is serophobic and homophobic rhetoric. it is also the same rhetoric used by abstinence-only sex ed and anti-abortion right wingers - “because sex is a choice, any consequences are their own fault, and they should have just chosen not to have sex.” please don’t tell me i need to explain why this is bad. being free to have safe consensual sex is a human right and no one should be shamed for it.
even if you don’t know the history of free condoms, which i can’t blame you for given that it’s not often taught in schools, it’s just a nonsensical and unneccesary comparison to make. anyone who knows what condoms are for should understand that their availability is not a “male privilege” thing. they prevent STIs for ANYONE who has penetrative sex (thousands of women died during the AIDS crisis as well!). dental dams are also often made freely available along with condoms for non-penetrative sex. and condoms prevent pregnancy, so anyone who is pro-choice should be very invested in supporting free access to condoms.
there is not an “equivalent” to menstruation. a comparison is just not needed here. make your argument for free menstrual products without bringing a completely unrelated topic into it.
this is beautiful, but the bit about calling sex a human right is a bit off to me. framing it that way could be used to call not having sex with your partner a human rights issue
when sexual acts between partners of the same sex are criminalized, THAT’S A HUMAN RIGHTS ISSUE. when access to contraceptives that allow people control over whether or not they get pregnant when they have sex is restricted, THAT’S A HUMAN RIGHTS ISSUE. when sex workers are arrested just for having condoms in their purses, THAT’S A HUMAN RIGHTS ISSUE. when governments try to police what adults do with their own bodies and with other consenting adults, THAT’S A HUMAN RIGHTS ISSUE. everyone has the human right to do what they want with their own bodies, that includes the right to choose whether or not to have sex. one person’s rights end where another person’s begins, one cannot use the claim of their own human rights to override that of someone else’s. sex is a natural biological function whether it is for pleasure or procreation. being free to have safe consensual sex is a human right. don’t fucking twist that statement into something it’s not.
the social norm of “its your ethical responsibility to be constantly aware of, and angry about, every bad thing happening in the world at all times, even if you can’t possibly do anything about it” is possibly the best way I can imagine to create burnout and cynicism and depression in a population, so good job guys
On the postivie side, with c*rina being gone I don’t think we need to worry about m*lexa becoming canon ‘cause that was a very real fear I had, with all the joking about m/m/a buying a mattress for their bed and her suddenly wanting to represent poly community. She said she’s fueled by hate and writes things out of spite so who knows what she’d try in s3. She also looks like someone who thinks a bi character needs to be loved by both a man and a woman to be happy so we kinda dodged a bullet here
I have to agree. I was actually very terrified of her attempting that, though I stand by my previous statement that Tyler would be more likely to leave the show. While being poly is 100% valid, the way that both Alex and Michael are just doesn't seem plausible to me. Maybe if it wasn't so uncomfy, maybe if Maria didn't look scared shitless the next morning, maybe if Alex didn't leave looking like he was about to cry, maybe if Michael didn't seem like he was saying what he thought he was supposed to the whole time and if he didn't look confused, but it was not a vibe. We could've EASILY had poly rep with Maria/Isobel/Kyle or Max/Liz/Kyle, but she decided to attempt it with the least plausible people in the damn show. Head empty no thoughts.
was there any other way to see it? alex asked michael to leave several times, he said please, and michael just ignored alex’s wishes and imposed his will to be with alex above what alex was asking for. i’ve been here since day one and i know things are complicated since alex’s dubious consent in 2x06 but this isn’t romantic. it’s harmful. and i never thought you’d write michael doing that to alex on purpose.
Anon. My darling anon. Stop worrying, and please allow me to explain.
I’ve said this time and time again on my blog because in this era of PC-ness, people seem to forget the value of context, but I assure you; context does matter.
Had Alex been saying no to sex, absolutely. No means no. Had Michael been a stalker and refused to leave Alex because he couldn’t hear the refusal or because he just wanted to harm Alex, then yes again; Alex demanding that Michael leave should’ve been enough to get him to leave.
But who’s our character here? Alex Manes. And Alex Manes is terrible at asking for what he wants, especially from Michael.
We’ve all have had to sit through Michael consistently choosing somebody else. How many times have people, myself included, written metas about the way Michael never fights for Alex, never lowers any of his walls, never says how he really feels and just accepts whatever Alex tells him because it’s easier than trying for him? How many times have we written about the both of them being disappointed with the other for not fighting?
Now. Tell me. You want Michael. To come in on Alex. Seen what he’s done to his house and himself while on his own. And then leave because Alex asks him to?
If Michael did that in season 3, I’d be furious. He cared for M*ria, actually tried to be closer to her, but when it comes to Alex, it’s the same thing every time. Alex wants him to go, so he goes. Doesn’t bother asking to stay, doesn’t bother trying to fight. In my book -- just in mine, it doesn’t matter to me how everyone else wants season 3 to play out, just personally -- I will not be satisfied with Malex getting back together unless Michael pushes. Unless Michael fighting is the reason they got back together. Because that’s the only way to resolve all that’s happened.
In my fic, Michael hears Alex’s words, and they hurt, but he also knows that Alex doesn’t really want him to leave. That Alex is afraid of being abandoned again, and so he lashes out and demands that Michael goes before he breaks his heart again. But Michael doesn’t want to. Not because he wants to ignore Alex’s wishes, but because he knows that what Alex says and what he feels are often different things, because Michael’s the same way himself. It’s because he knows what Alex’s wishes really are. And that bit of context matters.
I want Michael to push. I want him to really try, because Alex is self-sacrificing, and does not believe he deserves love, no matter how much of it he gives out.
The fact of the matter is, if I screamed at someone I loved, that I thought didn’t love me, to leave, if I thought I’d been abandoned, and then he went away in my worst moments just because I asked him to, I would be convinced that that person didn’t really care for me or love me at all. Michael ignored Alex’s pleas, yes, because he loved Alex too much to leave him alone. And I thought the ending depicted Alex’s relief that Michael had stayed, that he’d held on.
All I know is that Michael didn’t push at all in season 2, didn’t try for Alex. I know Alex will probably end up pushing Michael away again in season 3 (and rightfully so, after the things Michael’s done), but I want Michael to hold on with everything he has. After everything, I want Michael to fight for him. Alex will always ask people to leave. I want Michael to be the one who refuses to.
Joe: As the second eldest of the group-
Nile: Only by, like, three years
Joe: Like I said, as the second eldest of the group,
Joe: Intergenerational dating isn’t always easy, but we make it work
Nile: (deep breath) Not only are you from the same generation of immortals, you are also from the same generation, period.
Nicky: You’re not mad that I’m dating a boomer, are you?
Nile: YUSUF IS NOT A BOOMER
Nicky: I’m a… How do you say it, Nile?
Nile: For the last time Nicky, you are not a sugar baby. Joe’s barely older then you. You guys have the same job.
malex shots that i like: 203 good mother
Thanks for this, Claire! 🥰 | 🎥 Claire’s IG stories
Take me away…
Sweet 🍭 + Spicy 🌶
A DNA study of inhabitants of ancient Rome found some surprising results, and helps chart mass migration dating back 9,000 years.
Surprise. :)
romans: conquer a shitload of the known world, including parts of africa and the middle east
romans: institute a policy that says that conquered peoples are allowed to gain citizenship by military service, but also can’t serve in their home areas (because armed native soldiers + angry locals = revolt), thus requiring everyone who wants to be a citizen to work abroad for years of their lives, creating diversity.
racists: a single black person in an educational video about rome is unrealistic and i feel attacked.
LISTEN...A LEVEL 10 STUNNER