People are a problem

she/her

[koiagain]

Stop Humidity the air is trying to touch me Inappropriately

[moleshow]

[wrenhavenriver]

the cat was sleeping cutely so i took a picture and went to show it to my mom and she burst out laughing and pulled out her phone and showed me a near identical one she'd taken a few minutes before

[wrenhavenriver]

self-proclaimed free thinkers when the cat is doing a snooze:

[bogleech]

Why are there just blobs of fake rubber meat that a bunch of unrelated microbes can build in the dirt but they've only ever been found in china and can't be classified any further than "biological objects"

[quelanalalesbiana]

Leaked storyboards of censored scenes featuring Kai from the Pixar cartoon Win or Lose, 2024

[totallynotobsessedwithfandoms]

IM LITERALLY CRYING THEY TOOK THIS FROM US

also as a genderfluid person YEA that’s what the fuck it feels like it’s like my face and body is falling apart and is just WRONG when the dysphoria hits

[milquetoaast]

source

[yanguang]

[nohoperadio]

You know how when you're really thirsty you drink some water and then you're like ahhhhhhhh, yeah, that was just what I needed. That sounds vacuous but I mean about how in that moment you're suddenly very aware that all drinks apart from straight-up normal water are mere toys, and water is all you really need to drink, water is the one true object of all the thirsts you've ever thirsted and ever shall thirst. It's just what you need. Well basically I really wish that same thing existed for food, I guess I'm fine with the endless variety of food that exists, it's allowed to exist, but there should be one perfectly basic food substance underlying them all that always feels right to eat when you're hungry, that just gives uncomplicated reliable hunger-satisfaction and is actually the correct answer to "what should I eat". I'm pretty sick of the fact that you have to actively vary the food you eat and try to have a healthy balanced diet, I'm even sick of having to figure out what foods I like and preferences and cravings change randomly and stuff like that. I want one food. Water is so good.

[urie]

im about to catsit next month for a (lovingly) crazy woman who is so deeply obsessed with her cat's care its touching truly. he needs insulin shots and she is telling me that shes going to send voice notes to my phone of her saying "copo! baby! its time for your insulin!" "come here handsome!" "its insulin time sweetie!" so that he feels safe getting his insulin from a stranger. im like girl i love it. i love this

[urie]

she was telling me yesterday "sometimes i look at him and he looks at me and i feel like we can hear each other's thoughts. is that crazy" and i was like "no of course not"

[nepenthean-sleep]

straight white people making a romance movie: haha what if it was illegal to have sex? wait what's lawrence v texas. wait what's mclaughlin v florida. wait what's loving v virginia

[ninewheels]

As preposterous and stupid as this fucking movie's premise sounded (for a light-hearted rom-com, and not The Handmaid's Tale) I didn't want to think about it too much until the movie actually came out, and then I could see if it was somehow more intelligent and subversive than the trailer let on, but guess what, it's even worse!

One Night Only review: Pull out from this sex-negative rom-com

If this is what it takes to get a rom-com greenlit these days, maybe we should just let them die.

Sex workers are thrown under the bus, shown only as thieves who fleece men in the woods at night, while queer sexuality is relegated to a few scenes with Allie’s roommate (a woefully underused Quintessa Swindell) and a handful of pans past blurry same-sex extras making out in the background. “This night is for the straights,” Swindell’s character says to Allie, before saying that queer people have worked around straight laws for centuries.  This is supposed to be a nod to queer resilience, but largely comes off as straightwashing the history of anti-LGBTQ legislation in this country that led towards raids of queer clubs and incarceration of queer people in the not-too-distant past (let alone the current barrage of anti-Trans and LGBTQ legislation currently in the works and on the books). It’s also ignorant of the long and fraught fight for the normalization of age-of-consent laws, which, by the way, did not happen in all states in this very country until 2003. Yes, that’s not even thirty years ago.  By the end, our intrepid protagonists have not had sex with anyone, because this is a film about Romance with a Capital R (and I guess sex is not part of romance!) and for that very same reason they ultimately embrace the fascist state of things. They aren’t the only ones who refuse to fight back. No one in this cursed film is protesting this mandate beyond “repeal” signs in various windows and some creative graffiti (...) (...) If we are supposed to believe that the film is making some subversive statement about the state of sex and bodily autonomy in this country, it cannot end with its leads embracing their chains. That’s just warmed-over conservatism running around in sheep’s clothing.

[nepenthean-sleep]

yeah i wrote this post having only seen the trailer, but jesus christ. was this movie a psyop LMAO??

also, for the unaware: mclaughlin v. florida was a 1964 supreme court case that struck down a florida anti-miscegenation law that criminalized cohabitation (and thus, as implied, sex) between white people and people of color of opposite genders. anti-miscegenation laws made marriage and sexual relationships between white people and people of color, most often specifically black people, a FELONY in several states in the united states up until the 1950s and 1960s. though it was already struck down by the supreme court, the state of alabama didn't repeal their law until 2000! there were THREE ATTEMPTS at codifying anti-miscegenation into the us constitution!

like yes, the issue here is partially straight white people's ignorance on the united states's history of homophobic policy, but it's also really important to recognize that arguably the majority of the issue here is straight white people's ignorance of the united states's history of codifying eugenics and antiblack racism.

the premise could have been interesting as a serious dystopian story, especially taking that history into account, but it wasn't written that way at all. this movie should never have been a fucking romcom making light of the violence the united states (and many other countries) has enacted on any kinds of sexual relationships it deems undesirable.

[nepenthean-sleep]

can y’all maybe reblog this version i feel like people are forgetting about the racism and just focusing on the homophobia

[aropride]

people make jokes about how people who weren’t allowed to watch spongebob as a kid are always talking about how they weren’t allowed to watch spongebob but as one of the aforementioned people who wasn’t allowed to watch spongebob my insight on the matter is: you would not BELIEVE the amount of times spongebob comes up in normal adult conversations. i don’t often think about him of my own accord but people reference him and i have to say. what? and they say. it’s from spongebob?? and i say. oh i never watched spongebob. and they say why? and i say. i wasn’t allowed to. and then a few weeks later it happens again

[eilooxara]

Oat milk was discovered much more recently than you may have known. Like many now-familiar technologies, it was found by accident during the Apollo program when NASA learned what a zero-g environment does to goat milk.

[galileosballs]

It wouldn't even make the top 80% of the worst consequences of cultural fatphobia, but how dare we have made a world in which it is not broadly considered a compliment to compare someone to the beautiful and noble whale

[creekfiend]

no gender for me thanks i'll just have a glass of water

[lichfucker]

always a dread omen seeing the comments on a post saying "I love when the alt text is part of the joke!" bc nine times out of ten the alt text is not part of the joke, nor does it accurately translate a visual joke into language while maintaining the humor, but instead it is tangential to or a digression from the image being described and is only funny if you can both see the image and read the alt text, and therefore is actually a joke at the expense of everyone relying on alt text because they can't see the image.

[charlataninred]

I need people to learn what death of the author actually is. It isn’t “jkr who? Harry Potter was written by Daniel Radcliffe” or whatever the fuck. It means “I don’t care what jkr says she intended or not, the Harry Potter books are riddled with misogyny and ableism and racism.” It means “I don’t give a fuck that Andy Weir claims to not put politics in his books, Project Hail Mary has a shit ton of political statements in it. Stratt being a woman is a political/social statement. Which countries are involved with the petrova task force is political. The fact they get funding is political.”

Death of the author just means that you’re focusing on the reader’s interpretation of the work, not the author’s intention. It can also ignore the author’s history/beliefs, yes, and you can absolutely critique that, but that is why it is a literary theory and just ONE way to interact with literature, not the end-all-be-all of literary criticism

[pmamtraveller]

Mammal in a Sunday Dress, by Georgina M. Cox, 2026

[originalaccountname]

Mammal in a Sunday Dress explores the uneasy relationship between femininity, civilisation, and the animal body. At first glance, the figure appears modest and withdrawn. Her posture is composed, her gaze seemingly lowered towards her bare feet, recalling the conventions of nineteenth-century portraiture where women were often depicted as passive objects of observation. Yet as the viewer moves closer, the illusion collapses. Her eyes are not lowered at all. She is looking directly back. The delayed eye contact transforms the encounter. The viewer approaches believing they are safely observing a woman; instead, they realise they have been observed themselves. The work refuses the traditional power dynamic of portraiture, denying the comfort of anonymous spectatorship. Looking becomes a reciprocal act. For Cox, the painting considers humanity's persistent desire to separate itself from the rest of the animal kingdom. The title quietly undermines this distinction. A "mammal" is not another creature—it is us. The Sunday dress, rich with cultural associations of femininity, morality, and respectability, becomes an attempt to distinguish ourselves from nature. Yet clothing cannot alter biology. Beneath lace and ritual remains the same vulnerable animal body. The work also reflects on the historical relationship between women and nature. Across art, religion, and philosophy, women have repeatedly been positioned as closer to instinct, emotion, reproduction, and the body itself, while men have been aligned with reason, culture, and civilisation. Mammal in a Sunday Dress does not reject this comparison. Instead, it questions why proximity to nature has so often been treated as something lesser. Chiaroscuro isolates the figure within darkness, allowing the luminous dress to symbolise the performance of civilisation while the bare feet quietly return the body to the earth. Neither is presented as more truthful than the other. The painting exists in the tension between performance and instinct, refinement and biology. Mammal in a Sunday Dress ultimately asks a simple but unsettling question: if every layer of culture were stripped away, what would remain? Not a king. Not a saint. Not a gentleman or a lady. Only another mammal, looking back.

source

[dramatic-dolphin]

one thing that really annoys me (potentially enough to drop the whole story over it) is when someone creates a sci-fi/fantasy culture that's matriarchal, and then goes and gives a 'reason' for the matriarchy. like oooh the women can do [x magic] or have psychic powers, and men don't, so they're stronger! makes it seem like patriarchy is the Natural State Of The World written into our biology, and therefore upsetting it should mean women have some inherent superiority this time (instead of men, like they do in real life, apparently). 😐 ok well i don't think that's true.