Naomi Campbell in the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Edition (1992)
trying on a metaphor
todays bird

oozey mess
Claire Keane
occasionally subtle
Cosimo Galluzzi
wallacepolsom
will byers stan first human second
DEAR READER
KIROKAZE

Origami Around
Aqua Utopia|海の底で記憶を紡ぐ

ellievsbear

JBB: An Artblog!
d e v o n

@theartofmadeline

⁂

shark vs the universe
styofa doing anything

Kiana Khansmith
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States

seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United Kingdom
seen from United States

seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from Paraguay
seen from Paraguay
seen from United States
seen from Netherlands

seen from Paraguay
seen from United States

seen from United States
seen from United States
@howabout-thatcupoftea
Naomi Campbell in the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Edition (1992)
Jen Mazza
http://jenmazza.com/
There’s that word again. Need. I need you. I need you to need me. How nauseating, to need another human being, as if their heart is in your throat. Love isn’t about need. Don’t romanticize the notion of desperation. Let me let you in on a secret: you don’t need me and I don’t need you. We can get through life just fine without each other. Love is not wanting to. We want each other, we want skin and hands and all our daily scars. We want intoxication and art museums and intertwined limbs. We want ferocity in our lips and tracing slow, small circles on our stomachs. I don’t need you in my life, but goddamn I want you in it.
All the Want in the World Cannot Fit in Our Hands (via queer-lust)
when you shake up a soda, do you blame the soda for bursting with pressure or the force that shook it?
A little louder for the racists in the back
a girl is a gun
Too bad you can’t clear your mind like blowing your nose. – Michael Lipsey
Michael Pitt, Eva Green and Louis Garrel photographed by Brandy Eve Allen / 2003
Pierrot le Fou (1965) dir. Jean-Luc Godard
Brain teasers for egalitarians/equalists.
Say I’m 32 years old and you’re 22 years old.
In how many years will we be the same age?
…
Silly question, right? If you define aging as a process that stops at death, the only way we’ll ever be the same age is if I die first. If you don’t, then we’ll never be the same age. Every time you age a year, I also age a year. Since our ages increase at the same rate, you will never catch up to my head start. We have achieved a total equality of aging, but that does not change the permanent inequality of our age.
Okay, say I have a million dollars and you’re completely broke. If we both get a dollar a day, how long will it take you to catch up with me?
Now, this one’s even sillier, because if you have no other resources, your dollar a day is going to be eaten up by basic living expenses that it doesn’t quite meet, and I have an excess of money that can be spent on money-making opportunities that pay off far better than an additional $365 a year. I could literally burn the dollar I’m getting as part of our Totally Equal Income and still make more money in a year than you do just by sticking my money in the bank.
But still: both of us getting a dollar a day is totally equal, right? It means we’re being treated exactly the same.
And now, final problem:
If we have a world that contains structural inequalities, systemic imbalances, disproportionate danger faced by some, and unequal access to resources and opportunities, is “treating everyone the same” really going to result in equality?
Show your work.
I may have reblogged this already but I don’t care it’s important.
No one is normal. Normal is a myth, a conspiracy, like the Loch Ness monster; people believe in it, but it’s not real.
Laurence Anyways, 2012.