What does hate fuck mean ?
when hate someone so much you fuck them
The tulip fuck the buzzing bee that steals it sugars
❓

No title available
Aqua Utopia|海の底で記憶を紡ぐ
hello vonnie

Product Placement

gracie abrams
Keni
No title available

roma★
occasionally subtle
🩵 avery cochrane 🩵
KIROKAZE
Fai_Ryy

bliss lane
Sweet Seals For You, Always

No title available

titsay
Show & Tell
tumblr dot com
untitled

Love Begins

seen from Canada
seen from Argentina
seen from United States

seen from United States
seen from Japan

seen from United Kingdom

seen from Poland
seen from Russia
seen from Bangladesh
seen from United States

seen from United States
seen from Japan
seen from Philippines

seen from T1
seen from Russia
seen from Australia

seen from Australia
seen from Colombia
seen from United States

seen from Iraq
@tiredbiguy
What does hate fuck mean ?
when hate someone so much you fuck them
The tulip fuck the buzzing bee that steals it sugars
❓
i don't remember what originally inspired me to start on this gramophone girl, but recently i found her in my wip folder and decided to finish the project. also finally got a chance to test this shiny copper filament and i love how it looks.
smoking my bong i equipped with an eject button and someone knocks at my front door only to hear the faint yet distinctive thud of a body hitting the ceiling
love this site
It’s unfortunate that you do actually have to make use of your weekdays unless your long-term plan is becoming a local eccentric
I think one of the funniest things about Jane Eyre and Pride and Prejudice is that people act like Jane Eyre and Elizabeth Bennet are complete opposites.
They’re really not.
Yes. On paper, they couldn’t be more different.
Elizabeth is witty. Jane is reserved. Elizabeth grew up surrounded by family. Jane grew up alone. Elizabeth’s story is bright, social, and full of banter. Jane’s is gothic, lonely, and haunted. But underneath all of that, they’re fighting the exact same battle. Neither of them will let someone else decide what their life should look like.
“I refuse to marry someone I do not love wholeheartedly, and I refuse to do something just because society says so.”
Elizabeth refuses Mr. Collins. Not because he’s poor. Not because he’s cruel. But because marrying someone she doesn’t love would mean giving up the right to choose for herself.
Jane refuses St. John. Not because he isn’t respectable. Not because he isn’t kind. But because she knows marrying him would slowly erase who she is. And I think that’s where the two novels quietly agree.
People tend to describe Elizabeth as someone who marries for love. I don’t think that’s entirely true. She marries for respect. Love follows.
The reason she rejects Darcy the first time isn’t because she doesn’t love him. She doesn’t know him well enough to love him. She rejects him because she believes he lacks the qualities she refuses to compromise on. Only after Darcy changes—and only after Elizabeth realizes she judged him unfairly—can they meet as equals.
Jane follows the same pattern. People love talking about Rochester’s redemption. But I don’t think Jane Eyre is actually Rochester’s story.
It’s Jane’s.
Every major choice she makes is a refusal to lose herself. She leaves Gateshead. She leaves Lowood. She leaves Thornfield. Not because she’s running away. Because she refuses to compromise the one quality that defines her. Throughout the novel, Jane is self-affirming even amid the gravest adversities. That quality is impossible to repress. Even when she loves Rochester, she refuses to become his mistress because she knows that love at the cost of her own principles isn’t really love.
That’s what makes both novels feel surprisingly modern.
Neither heroine allows love to become the loss of self.
And I think that’s why both women are constantly described as “stubborn.” It’s funny how literature has a habit of calling women stubborn whenever they insist on having standards. Elizabeth is criticized for rejecting Mr. Collins and initially refusing Darcy. Jane is told she’s foolish for leaving Rochester and later for refusing St. John.
From everyone else’s perspective, they’re throwing away perfectly good futures. Security. Status. Comfort. From theirs, they’re protecting something far more valuable.
Themselves.
Both novels quietly argue that losing yourself is far more dangerous than losing an opportunity.
Maybe that’s why Jane Eyre and Elizabeth Bennet have endured for centuries and are still being shown in media today. Not because they found the perfect man. But because people almost always succumb to peer pressure and allow society to reshape their opinions.
They don’t.
Jane never lets anyone else’s expectations define her conscience. Elizabeth never lets anyone else’s expectations define her judgment. They stay strong and keep to what they believe in, through thick and thin, no matter what.
They don’t become admirable because they fall in love. They become admirable because they refuse to become someone else in order to be loved. And maybe that’s the real romance both novels are trying to defend. Not finding the right person. But refusing to become the wrong version of yourself while looking for them.
Back in the naughties, especially in New Atheist circles, you used to see the line a lot that the reason religious people invented the afterlife was because they were scared of dying and they needed a comforting lie to sleep better at night. Incidentally, that's not true; aside from the problem that people in the past generally believed in their religion, and this whole line of reasoning (along with "religion was invented solely to control the masses") assumes a level of cynicism by religious leaders that historically is actually quite rare, we have a pretty good cognitive framework for why human beings tend to come up with a belief in spirits, ghosts, and gods, and why that tends to lead to a belief in an immaterial spirit world and (quite naturally from there) an afterlife.
Research into the cognitive aspect of spiritual beliefs has explored human intuitions about the self include its partability and permeability, which I think I've mentioned here before; our intuitions about ascribing agency to phenomena in our environment, even when no agency is immediately evident (a sort of overly-cautious tripwire for evading predators) and our overactive tendency toward pattern-matching lend themselves naturally to belief in invisible, intelligent agents shaping the world around us. When you combine that natural tendency to believe in such agents, plus intuitions about a self that can include a separate immaterial component, and the ways in which (for example) the feeling of a familiar presence can be triggered by some stray bit of sensory input or a misinterpreted environmental cue, it is very common for societies to develop a belief that the dead continue to exist in some form and continue to act in the world, possibly from some invisible spirit realm, because that is something that people are just straightforwardly experiencing on a day-to-day basis. In that sense, belief in something like a soul and something like an afterlife is more like a belief in rainbows or solar eclipses--sure, people might get the underlying phenomenological explanation for what they're seeing wrong, but they're not speculating, they're doing their best to interpret the actual experience of feeling the presence of dead loved ones and their apparent agency in the world.
That said, in the case of Christianity, we also know historically the framework that motivated the development of specifically Christian doctrines about the afterlife, which emerges from the context of Second Temple Judaism at the turn of the era. Here, the motivation was not one of comfort stemming from fear of death, it was one of morality and the problem of evil. Earlier thinking in the sort of broader Levantine cultural sphere had mostly envisioned the problem of evil as being one related to divine favor and punishment; God or the gods rewarded the righteous and punished the wicked in this life (cf., for instance, all the narratives in the Old Testament where God sends this or that conqueror to punish the people for their sins). Increasing philosophical sophistication, literature grappling with the ways in which the world could be patently unjust (like the Book of Job), and political circumstances like the conquest of Judea by the Romans and the evident lack of divine retribution against these oppressors, all led to dissatisfication in some quarters with that earlier theodicy. IIRC the influence of Greek philosophy and Greek thinking about the afterlife also played a role here.
Transposing the balancing of the moral scales to the afterlife, as some Second Temple-era thinkers did, helped construct what felt like a more intuitively correct theodicy: the wicked still got their comeuppance, even if you didn't get to personally witness it, and the righteous still got their reward. The exact nature of that comeuppance was up for grabs for a long time--there are like three different competing visions of what damnation looks like in the New Testament, and it's not until later that "eternal conscious torment" wins out as the favored position among most Christians. The righteous were always guaranteed salvation; but we know this wasn't a sop to people who were frequently scared of death because the idea that martyrdom guaranteed salvation was so compelling you had Christians begging the Roman authorities to put them to death, and even groups like the Circumcellions who attacked armed soldiers with clubs in the hopes that they could provoke martyrdom-by-cop. And you could paint these guys as fanatical outliers, but again, people in the past generally believed their religions, and we have mountains of writing, art, poetry, and music by Christians over the course of two thousand years where people are worried about a lot of things related to death (did I live a good life? will I go to heaven?) but who do not seem to be philosophically troubled by the question of whether the afterlife actually exists.
And of course the conflict between reflective and intuitive cognition is relevant here; one might reflectively believe in the afterlife, but intuitively recoil from deadly harm. I do not want to suggest that religious belief can trivially overwhelm human instinct to survive. But "the afterlife was invented as a comforting lie" is overly dismissive and flattens a complex phenomenon. It is, in its own way, a comforting lie--the lie that people in the past were all stupid, superstitious rubes, that we are infinitely smarter and more sophisticated than them, that progress will ultimately consign all such supernatural thinking to the dustbin of history. That such thinking is quite deeply rooted in our cognition and we may never be able to dispense with it entirely is very much at odds with a lot of the 2000s era all-religion-is-indoctrination children-are-born-atheist triumphalist cliches.
*guy who has never heard of Hamilton* I don’t know why you guys are all shipping random founding fathers with each other and not Lewis and Clark who were definitely fucking in a tent every chance they got on that trip Brokeback Mountain style
*guy who just found out about Hamilton* haha no I totally knew you were talking about the musical, I was just joking. no, I don’t think about Lewis and Clark’s relationship as doomed yaoi. that’d be weird.
has anyone noticed that sometimes you take incorrect or undesirable actions instead of the correct and desirable ones? what's up with that
its 2026 i cannot handle any more fucking "author A obviously ripped off author B" discourse by people Who Have Only Seen the work of author B and admit themselves that they have no further knowledge of the literary landscape they are moving in. like.
You can begin this process at any time, regardless of how old you have become.
Like. Look. Listen. I have taught introductory quantum physics at a university level, and I need you all to incorporate this into your trans advocacy: There are situations where you need to make a decision to prioritize being comprehensible to your target audience above being The Most Unassailably Correct.
You can try to teach a toddler about germ theory or you can get them to wash their hands because "yucky"
Teaching a toddler to wash hands because yucky when the Ethics Understander crashes through the roof. "STOP RIGHT THERE," the Ethics Understander shouts at me. "The disgust response is not a legitimate substitute for a considered value judgment, and in fact, weaponizing disgust instead of grounding those judgments in a more rigorous framework is fundamental to reactionary rhetoric!"
The toddler looks at me. "You are a fascist, auntie. I have seen the light and will now go eat chewing gum from the pavement, unless you can educate me on a rigorous framework on the microbiology of pavement chewing gum this very instant."
This is a hyperbolic example but here's a more real one:
You are trying to explain the trajectory of research on trans issues, and how the informed consent model came about as a wildly successful alternative to the gatekeeping model because time and again, people with clinical experience who actually cared about their patients found that just letting trans people transition was easier and the fear that it would lead to something bad was unfounded.
The Principle Understander is shouting at you that the medicalization of trans people is inherently unjust, and even the informed consent provider is still a gatekeeper, just a more lenient one.
You are already aware of this.
You are talking to someone who, as a first priority, needs to know what the worse gatekeeping model looks like.
The person you're talking to is asking "but isn't it good to give patients more time to think before making irreversible changes?" because they didn't hear the part where you explained that asking patients about their masturbation habits has nothing to do with anyone's safety. They missed it because the Principle Understander was on a tangent about the necessity of abolishing capitalism because paying for medication is bad, which again, yes but this is really not the time or place for that.
This has the funniest name btw.
There's an Emily Dickinson poem about this:
Tell all the truth but tell it slant— Success in Circuit lies Too bright for our infirm Delight The Truth's superb surprise As Lightning to the Children eased With explanation kind The Truth must dazzle gradually Or every man be blind—
This can also be understood as "speaking their language" or "meeting them where they are." And not to sound like I'm shitposting, but you want to know one of the best examples of this that's ever been posted on tumblr.com?
"What the fuck do you think freedom MEANS, Earl?"
Earl could have gotten an earful about gendered clothing colors being a social construct or how the queer community has its own clothing subculture, and he wouldn't have heard or internalized a word of it. But for the kind of redneck who goes to tractor-pulls? Yeah, "what the fuck do you think freedom means" really only touches the most superficial layer of Mister Pink John Deere Hat, but Earl heard that. And maybe next time he sees a guy dressed like Daisy Duke chilling at a tractor-pull he'll remember it and think "isn't it great to live in a free country" and mind his business. Maybe he'll even ask where the guy got his pink hat and learn something more.
No person who ever said “my beliefs come from God” was ever moved left by “God doesn’t exist”.
"We need positive male role models, which is just like a good person but not a woman about it" wrong!! 8100 we're being more like women NOW!!! choose a woman to look up to!! read a boooook
“Gender is a shell game. What is a man? Whatever a woman isn't. What is a woman? Whatever a man is not. Tap on it and it's hollow. Look under the shells: it's not there.” ― Naomi Alderman, The Power
We gotta get rid of the oppositional binary that has evolved at this point to be one group that cares about other people and the other group that doesn't.
close your eyes and imagine freshly roasted root vegetables perfectly seasoned and crispy as far as the eye can see
Sam trying to get Frodo to take one more step
Sam psychologically tormenting Gollum
I feel so bad for the annoying women at work. Like I actually feel sick when we’re interacting and I feel the annoyance occurring in my brain like she really doesn’t mean to be this way and she just doesn’t want to feel alone or rejected. you can tell she’s experienced being an outsider everywhere she goes it’s only a matter of time. And it’s not cool chic or edgy but in the ugliest most desperate and dehumanizing way. They always start hopeful. they want to connect and they go searching for someone receptive to her so she can find her people but everyone turns away from her slowly and u hear it in her voice. It’s happening again. she starts hesitating to speak and when she does you hear a shaky child ending every sentence like it’s a question. Testing the waters to know if she’s wrong for even trying. And then I realize I took her smile for granted now that it’s gone.. I have to make it up to her I can’t let something like this continue. Life is so hard for people everywhere, so building a tolerance for being irritated is nothing in comparison especially if the reward is less pain and loneliness in the world I will always be the bestie you have my word
People who flinch at this or jump to hating on OP have never been completely honest with themselves and it shows. Like, you know this person. You've met this person. The under socialized outcast who everyone thinks is kinda annoying and weird, including you. People think that acknowledging their own annoyance towards someone who's essentially harmless is the same as killing someone and being ontologically bad. Like, as long as you don't shun that person you're good. Actually, that's exactly what OP is fucking talking about. They acknowledge and see that this woman is the way she is and also express sympathy, but because there's no over the top performative moralizing everyone thinks it's mean when it's just a true assessment of the situation. Like, two things can be true at once—yes, this person is annoying and they make me cringe and yes, I'm not gonna be an asshole about it because I know that's not right. I have a sneaking suspicion that the reason everyone got so fired up about this is because they're scared that they might've been the annoying coworker in someone else's story. And guess what you probably were. Yeah. Sit with that. Did you die? Did the discomfort kill you?
I feel so bad for the annoying women at work. Like I actually feel sick when we’re interacting and I feel the annoyance occurring in my brain like she really doesn’t mean to be this way and she just doesn’t want to feel alone or rejected. you can tell she’s experienced being an outsider everywhere she goes it’s only a matter of time. And it’s not cool chic or edgy but in the ugliest most desperate and dehumanizing way. They always start hopeful. they want to connect and they go searching for someone receptive to her so she can find her people but everyone turns away from her slowly and u hear it in her voice. It’s happening again. she starts hesitating to speak and when she does you hear a shaky child ending every sentence like it’s a question. Testing the waters to know if she’s wrong for even trying. And then I realize I took her smile for granted now that it’s gone.. I have to make it up to her I can’t let something like this continue. Life is so hard for people everywhere, so building a tolerance for being irritated is nothing in comparison especially if the reward is less pain and loneliness in the world I will always be the bestie you have my word
Building a tolerance for annoyance is a beautiful intention, and you phrased it so well. This truly made me want to be kinder, thank you.