YAY FOR 500 FOLLOWERS THATS HUGE CONGRATS!!!!!! 🎉 maybe for doodle requests, mb in some colourful clothes? presaux or art gifted them to it perhaps? dealers choice if it actually likes them or not
no no, i get it. i can see why you're confused- I want the CANON to be completely platonic, fucked-up exploration of intimacy that transcends human sexuality but never includes human sexuality.
So every year, my aquarium does a captive lobster hatchery project (hence all the loblings). The reason we’re doing it is because in the wild, loblings only have a 1 in 25,000 chance of surviving their larval phase. They’re plankton as babies and everything eats them. Additionally, as the Gulf of Maine warms, they are having even lower survival rates because the blooms of copepods they feed on as babies are happening earlier in the year, and they’re missing it.
Obviously, the goal of this experiment is to grow the lobsters until they’re big enough to settle to the seabed and then release them, because they have a much higher likelihood of surviving to adulthood when they’re able to hide. Ideally, captive lobster hatcheries can boost the wild population and keep things stable, so we don’t have a major crash in a decade or two.
The first year we tried this was pretty bad. We had a lot of eggs, but very few babies. It turned out that the CO2 levels in the building spiked as more guests visited throughout the summer, and that settled into the water and threw off the pH and caused a chemical reaction that prevented a lot of the eggs from hatching. I think we ended up releasing three baby lobsters (which is still better than their wild survival rate but not great).
The second year was a little better. We added a de-gasser to the aquarium and got a ton of larval lobsters, but right as they were settling to the bottom we had a disease outbreak that killed most of them. We ended up releasing four babies at the end of the season.
But this year? Oh boy. We have so many lobsters that we had to release the first round early (usually we wait till September or October so guests can see them). We just released a total of FIVE HUNDRED AND TWENTY FIVE baby lobsters, and we still have over a hundred who haven’t settled to the bottom yet. I genuinely don’t even have words to explain how cool this is. OVER FIVE HUNDRED. We just added hundreds of lobsters to the wild population that wouldn’t have been there otherwise.
OP: We never found another phone this interesting after that. Let me show you the last glow of the millennium. (cr ETO数码)
When Chinese netizens talk about the millennium era, there’s always a lot of wistful reflection. In China, the so-called millennial generation (千禧一代qian xi yi dai)mostly refers to people born between 1985 and 1995. Their life experience differs greatly from Western Millennials, because China underwent lightning-fast leaps in society and technology while they were growing up. The shift hit them far harder on a personal level.
Specifically, their sense of time sets them apart from generations before and after. They spent their childhood fully immersed in the analog age—the kind of offline, street-side daily life you see in shows like Neighbour Ma Dajie. Back then, most families didn’t own computers or broadband. The urban-rural divide was massive. You waited for cartoons to air on fixed TV schedules, or bought DVDs if you didn’t want to wait. Music came from cassette tapes, CDs and MP3 players. Newspaper and magazines were the main sources of information. Waiting for things was simply normal.
Yet through their teens and young adulthood, they watched the digital explosion unfold right in front of them: the arrival of QQ, the rise of internet cafes, early blogs, campus forums and countless Flash mini-games. This shift didn’t creep up slowly; it was an abrupt jump. Their lifetimes span the full migration path of modern information civilization: physical books - television - desktop computers - the internet - smartphones - AI or LLM.
Within just over a decade, the world raced forward to mobile payments, global social platforms and e-commerce. Their formative years straddled two entirely separate worlds, two opposing rhythms of life, ways of socializing and accessing information. Both realities are etched into their memories, leaving them with two distinct ways of perceiving time.
Media describes them as the last generation of Chinese people to have a pre-internet childhood, and the first generation to fully embrace the online world as adults. They are like a living bridge between eras.
ive had trans men ask me before how to overcome the insecurity/fear that they are transitioning just to escape misogynist treatment and wondering about the validity of their identity. the simple solution is that u must continue to engage and fight misogyny even when you are not a woman. prove your fear wrong
u really cannot out-validate an insecurity that u do not do the work to fight against the structure that supports it u know. i am the gender i am simply because it looked fucking yummy. the reason i dont experience doubts w it in this way is because any time i do i turn around to face the thing im 'running from' and punch it
Why is there a diarrhea parasite outbreak in America?
Because Donald Trump and his Republican allies cut funding to disease prevention and control.
Why is measles back in America?
Because Donald Trump and his Republican allies, including RFK Jr, cut vaccine and measles prevention funding and programs.
Why is the New World Screwworm infecting cattle in Texas, when it had previously been eliminated from the area?
Because Donald Trump and his Republican allies, including Elon Musk, cut USAID funding, which in part worked to monitor and prevent screwworm outbreaks.
Why was there a flu outbreak in our armed forces?
Because Donald Trump and his Republican allies, including Pete Hegseth, cut vaccination requirements for our armed forces, putting all of them at risk alongside our military readiness.
What contributed to the Covid outbreak?
Donald Trump and his Republican allies cut funding to a pandemic prevention program in his first term because Barack Obama had created it.
“America first” sends its regards. Trump voters, please learn your lesson. And if you don’t, it’ll be taught to you again with yet another diarrhea outbreak.
The amphibians are returning to the wild 17 years after a deadly fungus nearly wiped them out.
It’s been 17 years since the bright yellow Panamanian golden frog (Atelopus zeteki) hopped through its native habitat.
But after nearly two decades of hard work, conservationists are finally reintroducing a new generation of the tiny fluorescent amphibians back into the tropical island’s ecosystem.
It wasn’t that long ago that golden frogs were staring down almost certain extinction. The saga began in the late 1980s, when an invasive fungus called Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis (Bd) arrived in lower Central America. Soon, Bd spores spread throughout Panama.
The fungal spores had no difficulty traveling through water—and because golden frogs only live close to streams, they soon encountered the fungus themselves...
I just saw a comment on fb that ran off the misconception that dowries were a sexist subjugation of women for the purposes of buying and selling them like objects, and since this morning I would rather die than engage with a stranger on fb I'm going to talk on here instead about dowries as they were around Jane Austen's era/regency England.
Basically: dowries were an inheritance. It was a way to give a daughter what they would need to live comfortably at the time when they were most likely to need it - leaving their father's care and support and beginning a home elsewhere. In Austen terms we're generally talking about a sum of money, but dowries can also include items for a household like linens and China (goods like this were called a trousseau from at least the 1830s onward). Dowries very materially improved the life of a woman as they were meant to.
Some of the ways they did this were actually before marriage. We tend to call every inheritance a woman was to receive a dowry but that's incorrect, most of Austen's heroines don't have a dowry, though we know how much they'll inherit upon the death of their father and/or mother. Fortune =/= dowry. The Bennets of Pride and Prejudice, the Dashwoods of Sense and Sensibility, Anne Elliot in Persuasion, and even Emma Woodhouse in Emma all will inherit a little to a great deal of wealth but not as a dowry. This means that even Emma, who will one day have the staggering amount of thirty thousand pounds, would not be bringing wealth immediately into a marriage (though in her circumstances she has a father who would hardly let her live impoverished if she had chosen to marry a penniless man).
For women as poor as the Bennets in Pride and Prejudice (though they should've had more money each, if their parents weren't useless, as has been discussed) the distinction between dowry and eventual inheritance didn't mean much: a max of fifty pounds per annum in interest was literally less than what some servants were paid so couldn't alleviate the need for their husbands to have an independent income. But what money a woman could bring into a marriage definitely increased the likelihood of her preferences being realised. Northanger Abbey's Catherine Moreland, who "would have three thousand pounds" means she has enough of a fortune to "smooth the descent of [General Tilney's] pride" and make him consent to the marriage of his son to her. She certainly would've been glad her parents saved this money for her, instead of feeling that she was an object being bought or sold. It empowered her choices, rather than reduced them.
That the inheritance of a woman is presented as a dowry also reduces the chances a woman and the man she loves will need to wait to marry until either of them inherit something or he makes a living. If Anne Elliot of Persuasion had had a dowry, instead of a future inheritance (a "share of ten thousand pounds which must be hers hereafter"), would she have broken off that original engagement? In ch23 she tells Captain Wentworth she would've been engaged to him when he had only "a few thousand pounds" and the likelihood of more thanks to an advantageous posting. If she would receive her own few thousand pounds upon marriage would that've been enough to remain engaged from the first, and perhaps even marry once he had added a few more thousands to that instead of needing to wait for Wentworth to build their shared fortune himself?
We can also see that a dowry was an inheritance parents provided for their daughter's benefit, rather than a sale price, by how carefully marriage articles were drawn up. This could legally define pin-money (how much money a woman would receive for her private usage and upkeep from her husband), and often specified that the husband couldn't diminish the bulk sum of his wife's fortune, only use the interest it generated, so that there would always be something to support the wife and her children no matter how spendthrift he was. Think of it like an old-fashioned pre-nup or family trust.
This is a huge reason why eloping was so bad, it meant there hadn't been articles drawn up beforehand and so the legal default of 'everything the wife has is now the husband's in full' applied instead of the chance to preserve her rights to her own fortune. If Wickham had succeeded in eloping with Georgiana Darcy in Pride and Prejudice her thirty thousand pounds would've become his in full when she turned twenty-one, though her guardians could've withheld it before then, and he could've spent it all and left her penniless without legal consequence.
There are plenty of historical examples of husbands without the regulations of marriage articles squandering the fortune and selling off assets, leaving the wife eventually destitute. Marriage articles are a response to that as father's wanted to protect their daughters and her future children. It actually limited the power of a husband in favour of preserving the comforts and rights of his wife, so was opposite of misogyny (though the society and laws which required these extra protections was undeniably sexist and male-centred)
Nor was receiving an inheritance upon marriage a specifically female-only practice. Eldest sons would generally receive the bulk of their inheritance when their father died, but it was common in this time and for centuries beforehand for them to be confirmed as heir or given a set income from their father (or one of their father's lesser estates, if we're talking nobility and the ultra rich) as part of the marriage articles (which would generally benefit the wife for the remainder of her life, either as a jointure or dower). Younger sons, if not already provided for, could also be given something upon their marriage and may have a commission in the army or a church living bought for them, to give them some independence. In Sense and Sensibility, after accepting the engagement of Edward and Elinor, Mrs Ferrars gives her son ten thousand pounds "towards augmenting their income" and this allows the marriage to occur. No one accuses Mrs Ferrars of selling Edward off in matrimony, even though what she's doing is so similar to a dowry that the narration points out it's exactly what "had been given with [her daughter] Fanny".
Fortune hunters and those marrying purely for money and a comfortable lifestyle definitely existed, as they do now, but dowries were not a socially and legally mandated way to give women to men to benefit them financially. 'Mercenary' marriages were frowned upon, and women were taught to look out for fortune hunters (like Wickham). Nor was it considered only men who might marry primarily to benefit from their spouse's wealth (Charlotte Lucas being a sympathetic female example). That both men and women could have inheritances gifted upon marriage, and were represented as seeking to marry for money, helps show that the practice of dowries wasn't a sexist practice which reduces women to little more than livestock.
In fact, there's an argument to be made that the very existence of large dowries being a cultural norm indicates that daughters were valued and loved. Instead of leaving everything they could to the sons (which would be expected if daughters were worthless objects to be given away at any price) these daughters were considered worth saving for, worth drawing up legal contracts to protect the living standard of, and worth leaving an inheritance often equal or greater than what younger sons would receive (as they could earn their own income). A dowry didn't reduce the humanity of a woman, it empowered her choices and protected her future. It was the women without dowries or an inheritance that were in danger of needing to marry whomever would take them.
Liushen would have a lot less sex than Bingqiu, only because Binghe is an expert at reading when Shizun wants to have sex but isn’t brave enough to ask for it, vs Shen Yuan has to spell it out for Liu Qingge when he’s horny (very rare for him to be that desperate). Shen Yuan is good at reading Liu Qingge’s micro expressions, but not good enough to tell the difference when he’s pouting for something. His eyes are slightly sadder than usual? He wants attention, but impossible to say how.
The majority of Liushen sex happens when they’re tucked in to sleep and in the leg tangle Shen Yuan accidentally rubs Liu Qingge’s very sensitive T-dick with his thigh, and immediately jumps on the chance “oh, shidi sounds so bullied, do you want me to help me that? It would be so cruel to ignore you, it’s my duty as a Shixiong to take responsibility. I wouldn’t want Shidi to go to bed unsatisfied, it leads to bad sleep.” Because he cannot just admit to wanting to have sex for the sake of feeling good. Unfortunately for them they’re both big fat bottom pillow princesses who don’t care for the idea of topping, so they mostly do hand stuff. Shen Yuan insists on always being the little spoon, because while he’s finds with discovering Liu Qingge’s arousal and helping him with it, he refuses to let other people find out he gets horny. The idea is simply too mortifying.
"For years Black parents believed that getting our children into better schools and neighborhoods was the surest path to opportunity. But now many of us are wondering: what does it cost to be the only Black child in the room?
Look, our kids being in predominantly white spaces can open doors. There’s no question about that. But we must understand that there is an underside to those opportunities. The question many parents should be asking isn’t just what our children gain from these spaces, but also what they might lose if we aren’t intentional about keeping them grounded in their own culture.
Let’s face facts. When we talk about raising Black kids in predominantly white spaces, we usually focus on academics and future opportunities. What we also need to discuss is what constantly being “the only one” does to a child’s sense of identity.
Research shows us that Black children as young as 10 are viewed as older and less innocent than white children. (10! They are only babies.) That means many of our kids learn early that they have to think about how they’re perceived in ways their classmates who need sunblock 3000 to go outside in the summer never do. They become experts at managing how the present themselves to others before they are even old enough to understand why.
But there is another, greater danger. And it’s something much quieter that you might not know is happening before it’s too late."
Article HERE
Because I've been asked about it, Imma share this article that came across my dash. 👍🏾
anti abortion propaganda that tries to like scare you into feeling guilty by reminding you that the fetus has body parts are so funny. "uwu please don't abort me I have eyes at 4 weeks old 🥺" nice try sucker I don't care if you see it coming
origamiaround
romaincrisis
discoholicmusic
2087
snowghoul
gummygunk
turnnoffyourmind
prguitarman
izzy806
