okay yeah no @squidnarcs - Tumblr Blog

ham-and-cheese-studios

Liminal mormon spaces from zion part ?

Source

ham-and-cheese-studios

Liminal mormon spaces part ?

Source

ladyeliserose

Disney princess gift guide part 7: Ariel

Spectrum Collections The Little Mermaid 12 piece brush set

Lush Ocean Salt body scrub

Skinnydip clam shell hair brush

Mermaid Hair’s pro waver styling wand

Eleanor Bowmer Shell Vase

Lush Mermaid tail bubble bar

Ouai sea salt mist

PMS international mermaid fish tail cosmetics brush sky blue

Lush salty body spray

Tarte rainforest of the sea deep sea hyaluronic serum

Canmake SPF50 mermaid skin gel

Farsali skin tune blur

Lush BB Seaweed face mask

Urban Decay Holographic disco stick

The Body shop natural curl comb

Bumble and bumble foam surf wash shampoo and conditioner

Stoneglow natures gift sea scented gel candle

Set of three urchin shells via LiveLaughLove

Silk’s white satin pillow cases

Personalised silver sea shell pendant necklaces via Not on the High street

Wooden Storage trunk via Amazon

Mermaids; The myths, legends and lore by Skye Alexander

MAC holographic lip gloss in Oyster

Isle of Wight distillery green mermaid gin

Lilac Shell candle via Etsy

Lush Big Blue and Melusine bath bombs

Mermaid tail blanket via Amazon

World globe via Amazon

Lulu Guinness Ivory shell clutch bag

Pastel blue crosley record player

Pearl necklace via Etsy

#mermaid

marzipanandminutiae

reading letters from 1818 is wild

“it’s that time of the year when I get colds for no apparent reason again” have some Clairitin hon

marzipanandminutiae

But also we’re not becoming allergic to everything nowadays like certain white moms fear. Allergies have always existed. They were just talked about differently

Like “oh clams always ~turn my stomach~”. Or “what a pity he was taken from us at age 5”

rosslynpaladin

“Well we didn’t have all this fancy chronic illness stuff in the Olden Days, what did people do then??”

They died, Ashleigh.

explorerrowan

This is a picture tracking bullet holes on Allied planes that encountered Nazi anti-aircraft fire in WW2.

At first, the military wanted to reinforce those areas, because obviously that’s where the ground crews observed the most damage on returning planes. Until Hungarian-born Jewish mathematician Abraham Wald pointed out that this was the damage on the planes that made it home, and the Allies should armor the areas where there are no dots at all, because those are the places where the planes won’t survive when hit. This phenomenon is called survivorship bias, a logic error where you focus on things that survived when you should really be looking at things that didn’t.

We have higher rates of mental illness now? Maybe that’s because we’ve stopped killing people for being “possessed” or “witches.” Higher rate of allergies? Anaphylaxis kills, and does so really fast if you don’t know what’s happening. Higher claims of rape? Maybe victims are less afraid of coming forward. These problems were all happening before, but now we’ve reinforced the medical and social structures needed to help these people survive. And we still have a long way to go.

twodotsknowwhy

This is one of my favorite anecdotes to show how clever rewording of statistics can make them say the opposite of what they mean:

Every time a state makes riding a motorcycle without a helmet illegal, the number of ER patients seriously injured in motorcycle accidents skyrockets. Every single time.

When you phrase it just right, it makes it sound like it’s more dangerous to ride a motorcycle with a helmet than without one. Of course, the reality is that before those laws, those patients were going to the morgue, not the ER.

tomcats-and-tophats

wait what's wrong with the split attraction model? if it makes people happy then it makes people happy, esp ace folx who find themselves needing a way to explain that they're not aro or aro folx who need a way to explain they aren't ace. like... if it isn't hurting people then what's the purpose of making fun of/actively targeting people who are just trying to use words to describe themselves?

The split attraction model hinges on an over-literal reading of words that were pathologically applied to LGBT people to describe our orientation as a whole, in a way that coercively sexualizes us. And, because people are still missing this, “-sexual” refers to gender, not solely “wanting to bang”.

Think of, like, every negative stereotype you know attached to the words “bisexual” and “homosexual”. They probably have something to do with us being sexually ravenous predators with no real regard for our partners. It’s almost like there’s a reason that the latter is considered offensive at best, and a full-on slur by many.

When you decide “bisexual” isn’t enough, or that “gay” isn’t enough, and that you also need “biromantic” and “homoromantic”, you are suggesting that “romance” is not inherently included (or, at the very least, prioritized) within gay and bisexual identities. Can you not see how this is deeply hurtful and plays into some of the most significant stereotypes about us? Not to mention, the idea that romantic and sexual attraction are so easily separated makes it VERY easy for many of us to push ourselves deeper into the closet. Thank FUCK I wasn’t on this site as a young teenager, because instead of confronting the reasons why I was terrified of the idea of dating another girl (surprise: it was fear of homophobic repercussion), I would’ve just said I was a “heteromantic bisexual” and called it a day and thus set myself back five years.

You can be a bisexual ace, or a gay ace, or, yes, even a straight ace, because who you’re attracted to - which is literally All That These Labels Are Supposed To Mean - is not the same thing as how you are attracted to them. The identities do not contradict each other, and to claim that they do is to claim truth in some age-old homophobic garbage.

tl;dr the split attraction model is actually actively hurtful, and also, “folks” is a gender neutral word

raygeigrr

inspired by this tweet

💀💀💀

laztotro-deactivated20260219

Just a dumb idea I just created about Spinel chucking smile dip down thank you for looking at it and patiently scroll down imma run bye...

And yeah based on this

birdofprey1234

WHEN I THINK ABOUT ALL THE WASTED TIME I SPENT, I WANNA BE, DISOBEDIENT

*Do not repost/Reupload my art to other blogs or websites*

thexxit

Keep reading

cryptogamist

In shitty but unsurprising news, men leaving their wives who have been diagnosed with cancer is 5x more common than women leaving their husbands who have been diagnosed with cancer.

insertlennyfacehereee

where are you getting your stats? what source of information brought you to this conclusion? none I assume, but I would love for you to prove me wrong.

suspiciously-cislesbain

It’s literally a hyper link to the study

justanoldacc

“Chamberlain and his team found that although overall divorce rates of couples with one seriously ill spouse were comparable to the general divorce rate in the US, there was a marked difference depending on which partner had received the diagnosis. In cases where the husband became seriously ill, divorce rates were actually far lower than average at three per cent. However, a staggering 21 per cent of wives who had been diagnosed with serious illness ended up separated or divorced within the same time frame.

In fact, Chamberlain’s study revealed that in ninety per cent of post-diagnosis divorce cases, the wife was the sick party. The researchers suggested that a possible explanation for this striking difference could be that men find it harder to take on a care-giving role.”

WHAT THE FUCK!?!? this is goddamn horrifying.

auntiewanda

“Find it harder to take on a care-giving role.”

Bullshit.

They don’t want the burden of a sick wife who won’t be taking care of them. Like good ‘ol “sanctity of marriage” Newt Gingrich divorcing his wife who developed cancer.

sespursongles-deactivated201906

I always want to point out that not abandoning your wife is the lowest possible bar, and husbands who don’t do it are unfortunately not necessarily supportive beyond this bare minimum—I once read a blog article by a guy who volunteered at a breast cancer resource centre (he was their first male volunteer, ever) and who wrote, about the boutique where the women tried on wigs:

Many clients came in with female family members or friends. These clients only came in with female family members or friends. During my two years at the center, I never once saw a client go into the boutique with a husband or male relative. I asked the staff about it. One manager said, “Same as the volunteers: guys won’t go near the wigs. Guys are wimps.” Sometimes a woman would come in for a wig… nervous, uncomfortable…and she’d get help from me or the staff, total strangers… and you could see her husband out in the parking lot… sitting in the car, listening to the radio; they couldn’t even come inside.

I’m also reminded of that study on organ donation rates across Europe, that found that among married hetero couples, 36% of women who could donate a kidney to their husband did so, while only 6.5% of clinically suitable men donate a kidney to their wives.