continuons

adult . joined 2012 . periodically deletes all posts . it is my goal to block every single person on this cursed website, some day i will block you too . (icon by emmet-appreciation)

[ieatratsyummy]

They could never make me hate you, complex female character whose reaction to trauma was not pretty and digestible like how people think it should be.

[rhinco]

i love you semicolon. no one look at my 80 word sentence

[mikufanclub]

remember when teachers would tell you to fold paper hamburger or hotdog style. kind of sounds like some fake shit but just another example of burger centric american thinking

[mikufanclub]

non americans in the tags doubting if this is true. you think burger is a fucking joke to us??

[mygreenhousevibes]

Aurea Plants

[professional-egg-layer]

They should make it easier for trans women

[hungry-hobbits]

go my brick 🫳︵🧱

[starrynet]

that’s his little guy!!

[littleguysdaily]

I wish I had what they have...

[fuer-diesen-sommer]

Information

[clawmarks]

Illustrirtes Mustertauben-Buch : enthaltend das Gesammte der Taubenzucht - Gustav Prütz; Christian Förster - 1884 - via Internet Archive

[fernand0adnan]

[thegikitiki]

State of Technology…

   UNIVAC 1107, 1960s

[socialistfremenist]

[64mpg]

bro you are acting unbeautifully towards me

[renthony]

Via Authors Against Book Bans - May 29, 2026

Three federal book ban bills are currently alive in the United States Congress:

HR 7661

Status: Passed out of committee; to be introduced in the House Would amend the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) to prohibit federal funds from being used for any material deemed “sexually oriented.” Buried within that definition is language that includes material that “involves gender dysphoria or transgenderism.” While framed as protecting children, the bill opens the door to banning books that include LGBTQ+ characters, defining trans existence as inherently inappropriate, and narrowing literature toward a prescribed, limited canon. In short: Would treat any LGBTQ+ identity as sexual content.

HR 2616

Status: Passed the House; referred to a Senate committee Would withhold ESEA funding from schools that “teach or advance concepts related to gender ideology,” using definitions from Executive Order 14168. It frames itself as protecting children. In practice, it represents another attempt to eliminate not only trans and nonbinary books, but also any acknowledgment of gender non‑conforming people in public education. In short: Would deny the existence of trans and nonbinary people.

HR 8705

Status: Passed out of committee; to be introduced in the House Rather than naming specific books or categories of literature, it blocks federal funding for American History and Civics Education from being used to promote what it calls “discriminatory equity ideology” or “gender ideology,” definitions drawn from a January 29, 2025 executive order. Likely impacts would include fewer books on racism and civil rights, less discussion of sexism and inequality, narrower civics curricula, and publishers pulling back on diverse perspectives. In short: A funding lever that shapes whose version of history gets taught.

HR 7661 and HR 8705 are still in the House, so please call your representative and tell them to oppose both bills. Click here to find the phone number of your representative’s office.

HR 2616 passed the House, and has been introduced to a Senate committee. Please call your senators and tell them to oppose the bill. Click here to find the phone numbers for your senators’ offices.

[houndmother]

once you start learning about indigenous history. you cant help but want to abolish the nation of canada.

[scribefindegil]

I was in a long-term relationship that fell apart partially because I was ace and my partner was very much not, and every time we looked for relationship help we got told that I was the problem. Not just that a significant mismatch in sexual desire could be a problem in a relationship, but that it was My Fault, Specifically, for not being willing to suck it up and have a bunch of sex I didn't want. To my ex's credit, he cared about consent much more than any of the professionals we talked to and refused to pressure me even when my (lesbian, billed as progressive and pro-LGBT) therapist was actively telling him to.

But it meant that we had absolutely no help or support when we were trying to work on the relationship in ways that *did* value my autonomy. There's basically no advice for people who want to try to make a relationship where there's a big desire gap work that isn't "well you should just have sex anyway" or "just break up lol". And that sucks!

Sometimes breaking up is necessary, and that's what ended up happening with us because there were other reasons we worked better as friends, but there *should* be better frameworks for discussing what people want and need that don't automatically assume that one partner's feelings are automatically more important or valuable than the other's.

[geese-in-flight]

I was dating someone who wanted to be accommodating and work with me to figure things out but lacked the EQ to do so in any effective way. It was my first relationship and I was still figuring out what being ace meant for me. It’s been eight or nine years, but I still remember very clearly the moment I realized we’d been approaching the entire discussion as if my orientation was the problem to be solved, and that it would be equally as valid to say that hers was.

She was significantly less impressed with this revelation than I was, but I tried to hold on to it ever since (although obviously the real problem wasn’t either one of us, but the mismatch and the lack of tools to deal with it). I think it’s super important to remember that we aren’t the ones in the wrong while our theoretical partners are the ones in the right. I was surprised by how much I’d internalized the assumption and I don’t think I’m the only one.

[makingqueerhistory]

Botswana officially erases ban on same-sex intimacy

Dick Bayford, Botswana's attorney general, removed anti-gay language that courts struck down years ago. (Photo courtesy of the Sunday Standa

Local LGBTIQ+ organisation LEGABIBO welcomed the government’s move, describing it as “a necessary and long-overdue step toward restoring dignity and aligning our legal framework with constitutional values of equality and human rights.” The group said the change sends “a clear message that LGBTIQ+ persons are not criminals, and that their lives and relationships deserve protection, not punishment.” LEGABIBO noted that the colonial-era provisions had long cast a shadow over the lives of LGBTIQ+ people in the country.