Is Not
Is Not

Is Not

Was
Was

Was

Bill Kristol
Bill Kristol

Bill Kristol

The First
The First

The First

The
The

The

Found It
Found It

Found It

Learning
Learning

Learning

Not
Not

Not

But
But

But

That
That

That

🔥 | Latest

America, Beautiful, and Fucking: Lateef LateefSaka We never gave dreamworks enough credit for not whitewashing Prince of Follow Egypt and Joseph: King of Dreams. GIF :39 AM-12 Jun 2018 6,144 Retweets 14,086 Likes 00 The Mother of Dragging @AdrianXpression Followv Who were the voice actors? Lateef @LateefSaka We never gave dreamworks enough credit for not whitewashing Prince of Egypt and Joseph: King of Dreams Show this thread 5:39 AM -14 Jun 2018 654 Retweets 1,741 Likes The Prince of Egypt 1998 Drama/Fantasy 1h 40m OVERVIEW CAST SOUNDTRACK REVIEWS SIMILAR Val Kilmer Ralph Fiennes Sandra Bullock Moses, God Ramses Miriam Michelle PfeifferSteve Martin Jeff Goldblum Zipporah Hotep Aaron mybattledress: theimpossiblescheme: libertarirynn: libertypical: cisnowflake: theambassadorposts: *pretends to be shocked* Who The FUCK CARES?! they deliberately left out Danny Glover, Whitney Houston, and Mariah Carey and forgot to mention that Sandra Bullock and Jeff Goldblum have Jewish heritage In a story important to Jews and Christians, they hired Jews and Christians Also completely left out Ofra Haza who played Moses’ mother and is legit 100% Israeli. You guys are fucking exhausting. The Prince of Egypt: *consults with countless scholars from all three Abrahamic religions to make sure they were telling the story correctly, hires notable black and Jewish talent for the voice cast, taps the guy who played Coalhouse Motherfluffing Walker in “Ragtime” (a show all about racial tensions in America) on Broadway to sing one of the film’s most beautiful songs, taps the same Israeli singer to reprise her role as Yochaved in almost every foreign dub of the film, and is generally much more respectful to its source than any live-action Biblical epic released in the past fifty years* Tumblr: “But why are there white people???????” Also Ofra Haza, the absolute queen she was, sings in every dub of this film. In every language. Queen.
America, Beautiful, and Fucking: Lateef
 LateefSaka
 We never gave dreamworks enough
 credit for not whitewashing Prince of
 Follow
 Egypt and Joseph: King of Dreams.
 GIF
 :39 AM-12 Jun 2018
 6,144 Retweets 14,086 Likes 00

 The Mother of Dragging
 @AdrianXpression
 Followv
 Who were the voice actors?
 Lateef @LateefSaka
 We never gave dreamworks enough credit for not whitewashing
 Prince of Egypt and Joseph: King of Dreams
 Show this thread
 5:39 AM -14 Jun 2018
 654 Retweets 1,741 Likes

 The Prince of Egypt
 1998 Drama/Fantasy 1h 40m
 OVERVIEW CAST SOUNDTRACK REVIEWS SIMILAR
 Val Kilmer
 Ralph Fiennes
 Sandra Bullock
 Moses, God
 Ramses
 Miriam
 Michelle PfeifferSteve Martin
 Jeff Goldblum
 Zipporah
 Hotep
 Aaron
mybattledress:
theimpossiblescheme:

libertarirynn:

libertypical:


cisnowflake:


theambassadorposts:
*pretends to be shocked*
Who
The FUCK

CARES?!


they deliberately left out Danny Glover, Whitney Houston, and Mariah Carey and forgot to mention that Sandra Bullock and Jeff Goldblum have Jewish heritage 
In a story important to Jews and Christians, they hired Jews and Christians


Also completely left out Ofra Haza who played Moses’ mother and is legit 100% Israeli. 
You guys are fucking exhausting.

The Prince of Egypt: *consults with countless scholars from all three Abrahamic religions to make sure they were telling the story correctly, hires notable black and Jewish talent for the voice cast, taps the guy who played Coalhouse Motherfluffing Walker in “Ragtime” (a show all about racial tensions in America) on Broadway to sing one of the film’s most beautiful songs, taps the same Israeli singer to reprise her role as Yochaved in almost every foreign dub of the film, and is generally much more respectful to its source than any live-action Biblical epic released in the past fifty years*
Tumblr: “But why are there white people???????”


Also Ofra Haza, the absolute queen she was, sings in every dub of this film. In every language. Queen.

mybattledress: theimpossiblescheme: libertarirynn: libertypical: cisnowflake: theambassadorposts: *pretends to be shocked* Who The FUC...

Music, Tumblr, and Work: darktripz: The Epic Of Gilgamesh In Sumerian The EPIC OF GILGAMESH is the earliest great work of literature that we know of, and was first written down by the Sumerians around 2100 B.C. Ancient Sumer was the land that lay between the two rivers, the Tigris and Euphrates, in Mesopotamia. The language that the Sumerians spoke was unrelated to the Semitic languages of their neighbors the Akkadians and Babylonians, and it was written in a syllabary (a kind of alphabet) called “cuneiform”. By 2000 B.C., the language of Sumer had almost completely died out and was used only by scholars (like Latin is today). No one knows how it was pronounced because it has not been heard in 4000 years. What you hear in this video are a few of the opening lines of part of the epic poem, accompanied only by a long-neck, three-string, Sumerian lute known as a “ngish-gu-di”. The instrument is tuned to G - G - D, and although it is similar to other long neck lutes still in use today (the tar, the setar, the saz, etc.) the modern instruments are low tension and strung with fine steel wire. The ancient long neck lutes (such as the Egyptian “nefer”) were strung with gut and behaved slightly differently. The short-neck lute known as the “oud” is strung with gut/nylon, and its sound has much in common with the ancient long-neck lute although the oud is not a fretted instrument and its strings are much shorter (about 25 inches or 63 cm) as compared to 32 inches (82 cm) on a long-neck instrument. For anyone interested in these lutes, I highly recommend THE ARCHAEOMUSICOLOGY OF THE ANCIENT NEAR EAST by Professor Richard Dumbrill. The location for this performance is the courtyard of Nebuchadnezzar’s palace in Babylon. The piece is four minutes long and is intended only as a taste of what the music of ancient Sumer might have sounded like. “The Sumerians” by Grendel Dark
Music, Tumblr, and Work: darktripz:

The Epic Of Gilgamesh In Sumerian

The EPIC OF GILGAMESH is the earliest great work of literature that we know of, and was first written down by the Sumerians around 2100 B.C. 

Ancient Sumer was the land that lay between the two rivers, the Tigris and Euphrates, in Mesopotamia. The language that the Sumerians spoke was unrelated to the Semitic languages of their neighbors the Akkadians and Babylonians, and it was written in a syllabary (a kind of alphabet) called “cuneiform”. By 2000 B.C., the language of Sumer had almost completely died out and was used only by scholars (like Latin is today). No one knows how it was pronounced because it has not been heard in 4000 years.

What you hear in this video are a few of the opening lines of part of the epic poem, accompanied only by a long-neck, three-string, Sumerian lute known as a “ngish-gu-di”. The instrument is tuned to G - G - D, and although it is similar to other long neck lutes still in use today (the tar, the setar, the saz, etc.) the modern instruments are low tension and strung with fine steel wire. The ancient long neck lutes (such as the Egyptian “nefer”) were strung with gut and behaved slightly differently. The short-neck lute known as the “oud” is strung with gut/nylon, and its sound has much in common with the ancient long-neck lute although the oud is not a fretted instrument and its strings are much shorter (about 25 inches or 63 cm) as compared to 32 inches (82 cm) on a long-neck instrument. 

For anyone interested in these lutes, I highly recommend THE ARCHAEOMUSICOLOGY OF THE ANCIENT NEAR EAST by Professor Richard Dumbrill. 

The location for this performance is the courtyard of Nebuchadnezzar’s palace in Babylon. The piece is four minutes long and is intended only as a taste of what the music of ancient Sumer might have sounded like.

“The Sumerians” by Grendel Dark

darktripz: The Epic Of Gilgamesh In Sumerian The EPIC OF GILGAMESH is the earliest great work of literature that we know of, and was first...

Apparently, Dude, and Fucking: wha!? Sl BAPU BAPTIST CHUR(H SUS DISGUST MyCHILD Dortyouatti? SaSin!God condemns W all! BRIAN heed to have a talk 0 CHRISTIANS CELEBRATE TH ISLAMIC TEMPUE I didnt die ona Cross for this BS RADICAL righte homoSexvality ar the last 2.000 yearsold. prismatic-bell: the-spoopy-ghost-of-raejin99: prismatic-bell: broken-bits-of-dreams: prismatic-bell: aiko-mori-hates-pedos: artbymoga: Throwback to all these Jesus comics I drew in 2012… Good post OP Good post, OP, and if you ever decide to do another may I please suggest “NOT IN HEBREW IT DOESN’T” as a punchline? So much of the Old Testament is HORRIFICALLY translated from the Tanakh, it drives me batty. WAIT WAIT WHAT DOES IT SAY?????? I NEED TO LIKE,, DESTROY MI MUM FOR BEING REALLY HOMOPHOBIC Okay, so, strictly speaking, the infamous Leviticus 18:22 does say “forbidden.” Here’s the thing: 1) The word translated as “forbidden” is “toevah.” While that translation isn’t … wrong, it’s sort of like saying “McMansion” means “really big house.” There are a lot of connotations in that word. The specific issue with toevah is that we … sort of … don’t know anymore exactly what it meant. Based on context, it seems likely that the word referred to something ritually forbidden. This part of Torah was written not only as a guide for future generations, but also to say “so, look around, see your neighbors? DON’T DO THAT.“ Thus, if we interpret “toevah” to mean something that’s forbidden to do as a ritual before G-d, then the verse says nothing whatsoever about Adam and Steve and their two kids and their dog–it’s saying you shouldn’t have sex with another man in the Temple as a sacrifice. 2) Following the same “this is ritually forbidden” logic of toevah, this verse may also be interpreted as “don’t do sex magic,” which was a thing in. Like. A lot of fucking cultures at the time. 3) Hebrew is a highly gendered language, and the grammatical gender in this verse is really really weird. One of the “men” in this verse is given female grammar. Why? Who fucking knows, man, this isn’t the only grammatical oddity in Torah. (There are also places where G-d is referred to as plural, and also as female.) One suggestion is that this is a way of creating a diminutive–that is, that the verse should be read as “a man should not lie with a boy.” Now, it’s worth noting that modern secular scholarship has concluded the written Torah was written down around the 6th century BCE, and most non-Orthodox Jewish scholars are like “yeah, all things considered, that sounds pretty legit.” Do you know what else was happening around the 6th century BCE? What laypeople tend to mean when they say “ancient Greece” was happening. Do you know what happened a lot in that time period in Greece? Dudes forming relationships with younger boys, like ages 10-15, and using them for sex in exchange for financial gifts, mentorship, etc. While we don’t know just how young some of these younger boys may have been, we do know some were prepubescent. In light of this, and also something I mentioned under the first point–”see your neighbors? DON’T DO THAT,” if this verse is interpreted to say “a man should not lie with a boy,” then it’s pretty clearly “my dudes, my fellows, my lads, don’t be fucking pedophiles.” 4) Because of the grammar I mentioned in #3, it’s also possible that “should not lie with a man as with a woman” is actually referring to a place, not an abstract personhood: a man shouldn’t have sex with another man in a woman’s bed. In the time period, a woman’s bed was sort of like–that was her place, her safe sanctuary. It was also a ritually holy place where babies were made. By having sex in her bed, you’re violating her safe space (and also introducing a man who may not be a male relative, thus forcing her into breaking the laws of modesty). If this verse is read this way, then it should be taken to mean “don’t sexually violate a woman’s safety and modesty.”5) And as an offshoot of #4, this may be a second verse relating to infidelity. Which woman’s bed is any random dude in 600 BCE most likely to have access to? His wife’s. But laws were administered differently based on whether the person they pertained to was slave or free, male or female, and so on–thus, a man committing adultery with a woman would be treated differently than man committing adultery with a man (especially because the latter would carry no chance of an illegitimate pregnancy). So you’ll note, there are a lot of ways to read this verse, and only a one-to-one translation with no cultural awareness produces “being gay is wrong, all of the time”.(You’ll also notice the word “abomination” is nowhere to be found. That’s like … a straight-up fiction created for who only knows what reason.) Apparently tumblr mobile doesn’t want to show @prismatic-bell ’s long and in-depth essay, so here’s the screenshots, because it still shows up on mobile browsers: Much appreciated.
Apparently, Dude, and Fucking: wha!?
 Sl
 BAPU
 BAPTIST
 CHUR(H
 SUS
 DISGUST
 MyCHILD

 Dortyouatti?
 SaSin!God
 condemns W
 all!
 BRIAN
 heed to
 have a
 talk
 0

 CHRISTIANS
 CELEBRATE TH
 ISLAMIC TEMPUE
 I didnt
 die ona
 Cross for
 this BS
 RADICAL

 righte
 homoSexvality
 ar the last
 2.000 yearsold.
prismatic-bell:
the-spoopy-ghost-of-raejin99:


prismatic-bell:


broken-bits-of-dreams:

prismatic-bell:


aiko-mori-hates-pedos:

artbymoga:
Throwback to all these Jesus comics I drew in 2012…

Good post OP


Good post, OP, and if you ever decide to do another may I please suggest “NOT IN HEBREW IT DOESN’T” as a punchline? So much of the Old Testament is HORRIFICALLY translated from the Tanakh, it drives me batty.


WAIT WAIT WHAT DOES IT SAY?????? I NEED TO LIKE,, DESTROY MI MUM FOR BEING REALLY HOMOPHOBIC

Okay, so, strictly speaking, the infamous Leviticus 18:22 does say “forbidden.” Here’s the thing: 

1) The word translated as “forbidden” is “toevah.” While that translation isn’t … wrong, it’s sort of like saying “McMansion” means “really big house.” There are a lot of connotations in that word. The specific issue with toevah is that we … sort of … don’t know anymore exactly what it meant. Based on context, it seems likely that the word referred to something ritually forbidden. This part of Torah was written not only as a guide for future generations, but also to say “so, look around, see your neighbors? DON’T DO THAT.“ Thus, if we interpret “toevah” to mean something that’s forbidden to do as a ritual before G-d, then the verse says nothing whatsoever about Adam and Steve and their two kids and their dog–it’s saying you shouldn’t have sex with another man in the Temple as a sacrifice.

2) Following the same “this is ritually forbidden” logic of toevah, this verse may also be interpreted as “don’t do sex magic,” which was a thing in. Like. A lot of fucking cultures at the time.

3) Hebrew is a highly gendered language, and the grammatical gender in this verse is really really weird. One of the “men” in this verse is given female grammar. Why? Who fucking knows, man, this isn’t the only grammatical oddity in Torah. (There are also places where G-d is referred to as plural, and also as female.) One suggestion is that this is a way of creating a diminutive–that is, that the verse should be read as “a man should not lie with a boy.” Now, it’s worth noting that modern secular scholarship has concluded the written Torah was written down around the 6th century BCE, and most non-Orthodox Jewish scholars are like “yeah, all things considered, that sounds pretty legit.” 

Do you know what else was happening around the 6th century BCE? What laypeople tend to mean when they say “ancient Greece” was happening. 

Do you know what happened a lot in that time period in Greece? Dudes forming relationships with younger boys, like ages 10-15, and using them for sex in exchange for financial gifts, mentorship, etc. While we don’t know just how young some of these younger boys may have been, we do know some were prepubescent. In light of this, and also something I mentioned under the first point–”see your neighbors? DON’T DO THAT,” if this verse is interpreted to say “a man should not lie with a boy,” then it’s pretty clearly “my dudes, my fellows, my lads, don’t be fucking pedophiles.” 

4) Because of the grammar I mentioned in #3, it’s also possible that “should not lie with a man as with a woman” is actually referring to a place, not an abstract personhood: a man shouldn’t have sex with another man in a woman’s bed. In the time period, a woman’s bed was sort of like–that was her place, her safe sanctuary. It was also a ritually holy place where babies were made. By having sex in her bed, you’re violating her safe space (and also introducing a man who may not be a male relative, thus forcing her into breaking the laws of modesty). If this verse is read this way, then it should be taken to mean “don’t sexually violate a woman’s safety and modesty.”5) And as an offshoot of #4, this may be a second verse relating to infidelity. Which woman’s bed is any random dude in 600 BCE most likely to have access to? His wife’s. But laws were administered differently based on whether the person they pertained to was slave or free, male or female, and so on–thus, a man committing adultery with a woman would be treated differently than man committing adultery with a man (especially because the latter would carry no chance of an illegitimate pregnancy).


So you’ll note, there are a lot of ways to read this verse, and only a one-to-one translation with no cultural awareness produces “being gay is wrong, all of the time”.(You’ll also notice the word “abomination” is nowhere to be found. That’s like … a straight-up fiction created for who only knows what reason.)


Apparently tumblr mobile doesn’t want to show @prismatic-bell ’s long and in-depth essay, so here’s the screenshots, because it still shows up on mobile browsers:








Much appreciated.

prismatic-bell: the-spoopy-ghost-of-raejin99: prismatic-bell: broken-bits-of-dreams: prismatic-bell: aiko-mori-hates-pedos: artbymog...

Being Alone, America, and Click: Jason Fuller, Contributor Working to bring about the best in America, both on-line and off. Impeachment Is No Longer Enough; Donald Trump Must Face Justice Impeachment and removal from office are only the first steps; for treason and-if convicted in a court of law-executed. 06/11/2017 10:39 pm ET for America to be redeemed, Donald Trump must be prosecuted Donald Trump has been President of the United States for just shy of six months now. I think that most of us among the electorate knew that his presidency would be a relative disaster, but I am not sure how many among us expected the catastrophe our nation now faces. friendly-neighborhood-patriarch: hominishostilis: abstractandedgyname: siryouarebeingmocked: mississpithy: bogleech: notyourmoderate: angrybell: thinksquad: http://archive.is/5VvI5 Huffpo, everybody. Can someone tell me what high crime or misdemeanor Trump has committed that merits this? Or is the HuffPo just publishing outright fantasies? God dammit, I’m now in the position of defending Huffington. I didn’t want to be here. Okay, @angrybell … actually, @ literally everyone who reblogged this uncritically as a tacit endorsement and agreement. Such as @the-critical-feminist that I reblog this from.My first question has to be: are you serious? Don’t read that with a tone, don’t read that as an attack. That’s my first question: Are you asking a serious question about what high crimes or misdemeanors Trump has perpetrated? Are you asking a sincere question or is this the sort of rhetoric that doesn’t translate well into text? And, if you are actually asking this question, are ou going to hear the answer or are you going to immediately start concocting your counter-argument because you just know in your heart that anyone who disagrees with you must be wrong, so you start formulating a plan to prove them wrong before you actually hear what they have to say?Next: did you read the article that was posted in the link you responded to? Because the author of that article does a reasonable job of explaining their thought process behind the headline. Or did you lash out before you read the article? Okay, presuming that you did read the article in good faith, evaluate its points, perform the follow-up research to understand context, and still disagree with the central tenets and simply believe that the author’s reasoning does not hold up for whatever reasons you have chosen not to state, and you believe their source information is falsified for whatever reason you have chosen not to state, I will move on. After I have given you and yours every conceivable benefit of the doubt and every charitable assumption. Because if the article itself doesn’t convince you, there’s the fact that Donald Trump has broken literally every federal law against corruption and conflict of interest. Not one or two, not most, not all but a few. Literally every single law we have against corruption, from the Constitution to the informal guidelines circulated as a memo from the White House ethics scholars. He’s broken literally every one of those rules. He’s openly traded favors for money and favors for months now. Hell, that Chinese influence-peddler that paid him off for sixteen million dollars should have been enough to get him convicted of treason. Sharing code-word level classified information with a government on the opposite side of an ongoing military conflict isn’t *necessarily* treason, unless the information was part of a share program with an allied nation and wasn’t his to distribute. That’s aiding a foreign aggressor at the expense of a military ally, and that’s treason. Giving aid and comfort to enemies of the nation. Obstruction of justice is pretty clear-cut, that’s an impeachment, except that the justice in question is also a matter of national security, so that’s treason. Again. Defaming the former president? Misdemeanor, impeachable. The way he drags his heels nominating posts in Justice and State could be prosecuted as dereliction of duty. If he has tapes of Comey, he’s on the hook for contempt, if he doesn’t then he’s on the hook for witness tampering. Hell, deleting the covfefe tweet is destroying federal records, which is a misdemeanor, and impeachable. The man doesn’t go a week without bringing on an impeachable offense. Strictly speaking, every time he goes to Mar-A-Lago he’s committing grand larceny by fraud, because he’s taking millions of dollars of American funds for his own benefit, after promising not to do that. There are dozens, hundreds maybe, of impeachable offenses already in this 140 days, “high crimes and misdemeanors”. Actual counts of treason, punishable by death by hanging, is probably only five or six counts. Only five or six counts of high treason by our sitting president. His job does not put him above reproach. His job is to *be* above reproach. And he’s failing that job. Trump’s supporters probably believe he’s done nothing impeachable or treasonous because they spent eight years claiming on no grounds whatsoever that Obama was impeachable and treasonous, just because they didn’t like him. They now probably convince themselves that these facts about Trump are as fake as their Obama theories and they’ve ruined the gravity of these terms for themselves. “ His job does not put him above reproach. His job is to *be* above reproach. And he’s failing that job. “ I like how Bogleech doesn’t know many Trump supporters are former Obama supporters. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/04/us/obama-trump-swing-voters.html https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/10/16/17980820/trump-obama-2016-race-racism-class-economy-2018-midterm https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obama-Trump_voters It’s not even a secret. But why am I not surprised bogleech - that intellectual titan - failed to do basic research? And last time I checked, no nation required their politicans to be perfect. Which is what NYM is asking for with that quote; perfection. That’s what ‘above reproach’ means. An impossible standard, considering people “reproach” Trump for feeding fish wrong, for his skin color, for any and every little thing, even if they have to twist reality into a pretzel to do it. In fact, I’ve seen people take pictures of kids in cages from 2014, and blame Trump for it. So this: Are you asking a serious question about what high crimes or misdemeanors Trump has perpetrated? Is a question of this: Can someone tell me what high crime or misdemeanor Trump has committed that merits this? Seems you missed the part that says “merits this”. Next: did you read the article that was posted in the link you responded to? Because the author of that article does a reasonable job of explaining their thought process behind the headline. Or did you lash out before you read the article? (The underlined is in the subtitle, not the headline.) Okay, presuming that you did read the article in good faith, evaluate its points, perform the follow-up research to understand context, and still disagree with the central tenets… Context? Central tenets? Do you not know how highlighting works? You don’t need to know the context, or any other point, when you’re indicating a specific, explicit, and isolated quality. The subtitle called for Trump’s execution, we’re 5 paragraphs in and you haven’t even acknowledged that part yet. Or at all, I’m guessing, because I’m not reading further. You keep talking around it. You accuse others, preemptively, of not hearing the answer and pre-”concocting” a response, and yet you’re waffling on about shit around the one, sole, isolated thing that was indicated in the first place. This isn’t about ignoring context, this is about criticising one thing. Which is a thing people are allowed to do, by the way, just because people criticise one thing, doesn’t mean they’re criticising everything about the everyone involved, and everything said before, adjacent to, and after that one thing, and therefore are required to include all of those things in their consideration and assessment of this one thing. The specific criticism of the indicated quality is the advocation of Trump’s execution. That’s it. No context is needed to understand that this is what was said, especially since that which was said, which is being criticised, is explicit. No amount of, “So, click-bait subtitle that you don’t see until you’ve already clicked on the article link out of the way, here’s what I actually meant when I said I wanted this person tried and executed,” could excuse the use of that language, let alone actually believing in it. It’s like… it’s like if someone makes a typo, someone else is like, “Oh, seems you made a typo,” you’d jump in like, “But what about they’re perfectly reasonable spelling everywhere else? Hm? Forced to ignore contextual perfect spelling I see. They’re lack of typos everywhere else explains this typo, and vindicates it”. You and what’s his face, James, fuckin ReasonAndEmpathy or whatever now, y’all keep saying “but what of the context?” when the criterion of criticism is isolated, atomic, specific, and/or explicit. No amount of context invalidates the very specific, singular words explicitly spoken. “Sure he called for Trump to be executed, but he explains himself.” Fucking and? When did the death sentence become ok? When did that happen? Moderates are ok with the death sentence now? Aight, weird. Man this fucking post aged like fine wine, take a SIP Delicious This was quite a ride
Being Alone, America, and Click: Jason Fuller, Contributor
 Working to bring about the best in America, both on-line and off.
 Impeachment Is No Longer Enough;
 Donald Trump Must Face Justice
 Impeachment and removal from office are only the first steps;
 for treason and-if convicted in a court of law-executed.
 06/11/2017 10:39 pm ET
 for America to be redeemed, Donald Trump must be prosecuted
 Donald Trump has been President of the United States for just shy of six months now. I
 think that most of us among the electorate knew that his presidency would be a relative
 disaster, but I am not sure how many among us expected the catastrophe our nation now
 faces.
friendly-neighborhood-patriarch:

hominishostilis:

abstractandedgyname:
siryouarebeingmocked:

mississpithy:

bogleech:

notyourmoderate:

angrybell:

thinksquad:


http://archive.is/5VvI5


Huffpo, everybody. 




Can someone tell me what high crime or misdemeanor Trump has committed that merits this? Or is the HuffPo just publishing outright fantasies?

God dammit, I’m now in the position of defending Huffington. I didn’t want to be here. Okay, @angrybell … actually, @ literally everyone who reblogged this uncritically as a tacit endorsement and agreement. Such as @the-critical-feminist that I reblog this from.My first question has to be: are you serious? Don’t read that with a tone, don’t read that as an attack. That’s my first question: Are you asking a serious question about what high crimes or misdemeanors Trump has perpetrated? Are you asking a sincere question or is this the sort of rhetoric that doesn’t translate well into text? And, if you are actually asking this question, are ou going to hear the answer or are you going to immediately start concocting your counter-argument because you just know in your heart that anyone who disagrees with you must be wrong, so you start formulating a plan to prove them wrong before you actually hear what they have to say?Next: did you read the article that was posted in the link you responded to? Because the author of that article does a reasonable job of explaining their thought process behind the headline. Or did you lash out before you read the article? Okay, presuming that you did read the article in good faith, evaluate its points, perform the follow-up research to understand context, and still disagree with the central tenets and simply believe that the author’s reasoning does not hold up for whatever reasons you have chosen not to state, and you believe their source information is falsified for whatever reason you have chosen not to state, I will move on. After I have given you and yours every conceivable benefit of the doubt and every charitable assumption. Because if the article itself doesn’t convince you, there’s the fact that Donald Trump has broken literally every federal law against corruption and conflict of interest. Not one or two, not most, not all but a few. Literally every single law we have against corruption, from the Constitution to the informal guidelines circulated as a memo from the White House ethics scholars. He’s broken literally every one of those rules. He’s openly traded favors for money and favors for months now. Hell, that Chinese influence-peddler that paid him off for sixteen million dollars should have been enough to get him convicted of treason. Sharing code-word level classified information with a government on the opposite side of an ongoing military conflict isn’t *necessarily* treason, unless the information was part of a share program with an allied nation and wasn’t his to distribute. That’s aiding a foreign aggressor at the expense of a military ally, and that’s treason. Giving aid and comfort to enemies of the nation. Obstruction of justice is pretty clear-cut, that’s an impeachment, except that the justice in question is also a matter of national security, so that’s treason. Again. Defaming the former president? Misdemeanor, impeachable. The way he drags his heels nominating posts in Justice and State could be prosecuted as dereliction of duty. If he has tapes of Comey, he’s on the hook for contempt, if he doesn’t then he’s on the hook for witness tampering. Hell, deleting the covfefe tweet is destroying federal records, which is a misdemeanor, and impeachable. The man doesn’t go a week without bringing on an impeachable offense. Strictly speaking, every time he goes to Mar-A-Lago he’s committing grand larceny by fraud, because he’s taking millions of dollars of American funds for his own benefit, after promising not to do that. There are dozens, hundreds maybe, of impeachable offenses already in this 140 days, “high crimes and misdemeanors”. Actual counts of treason, punishable by death by hanging, is probably only five or six counts. Only five or six counts of high treason by our sitting president. His job does not put him above reproach. His job is to *be* above reproach. And he’s failing that job. 

Trump’s supporters probably believe he’s done nothing impeachable or treasonous because they spent eight years claiming on no grounds whatsoever that Obama was impeachable and treasonous, just because they didn’t like him. They now probably convince themselves that these facts about Trump are as fake as their Obama theories and they’ve ruined the gravity of these terms for themselves.





“

His job does not put him above reproach. His job is to *be* above reproach. And he’s failing that job.


“






I like how Bogleech doesn’t know many Trump supporters are former Obama supporters.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/04/us/obama-trump-swing-voters.html
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/10/16/17980820/trump-obama-2016-race-racism-class-economy-2018-midterm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obama-Trump_voters
It’s not even a secret. But why am I not surprised bogleech - that intellectual titan - failed to do basic research?
And last time I checked, no nation required their politicans to be perfect. Which is what NYM is asking for with that quote; perfection. That’s what ‘above reproach’ means. An impossible standard, considering people “reproach” Trump for feeding fish wrong, for his skin color, for any and every little thing, even if they have to twist reality into a pretzel to do it. In fact, I’ve seen people take pictures of kids in cages from 2014, and blame Trump for it.

So this:


Are you asking a serious question about what high crimes or misdemeanors Trump has perpetrated?


Is a question of this:


Can someone tell me what high crime or misdemeanor Trump has committed that merits this?


Seems you missed the part that says “merits this”.


Next: did you read the article that was posted in the link you responded to? Because the author of that article does a reasonable job of explaining their thought process behind the headline. Or did you lash out before you read the article? 


(The underlined is in the subtitle, not the headline.)


Okay, presuming that you did read the article in good faith, evaluate its points, perform the follow-up research to understand context, and still disagree with the central tenets…
Context? Central tenets? Do you not know how highlighting works? You don’t need to know the context, or any other point, when you’re indicating a specific, explicit, and isolated quality.
The subtitle called for Trump’s execution, we’re 5 paragraphs in and you haven’t even acknowledged that part yet. Or at all, I’m guessing, because I’m not reading further. You keep talking around it. You accuse others, preemptively, of not hearing the answer and pre-”concocting” a response, and yet you’re waffling on about shit around the one, sole, isolated thing that was indicated in the first place.
This isn’t about ignoring context, this is about criticising one thing. Which is a thing people are allowed to do, by the way, just because people criticise one thing, doesn’t mean they’re criticising everything about the everyone involved, and everything said before, adjacent to, and after that one thing, and therefore are required to include all of those things in their consideration and assessment of this one thing.
The specific criticism of the indicated quality is the advocation of Trump’s execution. That’s it. No context is needed to understand that this is what was said, especially since that which was said, which is being criticised, is explicit. No amount of, “So, click-bait subtitle that you don’t see until you’ve already clicked on the article link out of the way, here’s what I actually meant when I said I wanted this person tried and executed,” could excuse the use of that language, let alone actually believing in it.
It’s like… it’s like if someone makes a typo, someone else is like, “Oh, seems you made a typo,” you’d jump in like, “But what about they’re perfectly reasonable spelling everywhere else? Hm? Forced to ignore contextual perfect spelling I see. They’re lack of typos everywhere else explains this typo, and vindicates it”.
You and what’s his face, James, fuckin ReasonAndEmpathy or whatever now, y’all keep saying “but what of the context?” when the criterion of criticism is isolated, atomic, specific, and/or explicit. No amount of context invalidates the very specific, singular words explicitly spoken. “Sure he called for Trump to be executed, but he explains himself.” Fucking and? When did the death sentence become ok? When did that happen? Moderates are ok with the death sentence now? Aight, weird.


Man this fucking post aged like fine wine, take a SIP 

Delicious

This was quite a ride

friendly-neighborhood-patriarch: hominishostilis: abstractandedgyname: siryouarebeingmocked: mississpithy: bogleech: notyourmoderate: ...

Bad, Fucking, and God: Sexy Bible Quotes, Inspired by Some Birds my Friend saw Fucking Outside her House, ao3tagoftheday: oxymoronicromantic: ao3tagoftheday: [Image Description: Tags reading “sexy bible quotes, inspired by some birds my friend saw fucking outside her house”] The AO3 Tag of the Day is: This is one hell of a non-sequitor “On the day when the Lord spoke to Moses in the land of Egypt, 29 the Lord said to Moses, “I am the Lord; tell Pharaoh king of Egypt all that I say to you.” 30 But Moses said to the Lord, “Behold, I am of uncircumcised lips. How will Pharaoh listen to me?” 7 And the Lord said to Moses, “See, I have made you like God to Pharaoh, and your brother Aaron shall be your prophet. 2 You shall speak all that I command you, and your brother Aaron shall tell Pharaoh to let the people of Israel go out of his land.” …I don’t think it’s telling anyone that they’re doing activism wrong???? Anyways. Song of Songs is sexier. Ok! First off, thanks for putting the verses in; that makes my life easier! Second, Song of Songs is undoubtedly sexy, but the phrase “uncircumcised lips” is much sexier. Here’s why:“Uncircumcised lips” is a literal translation of the Hebrew, and scholars have spent millennia trying to figure out what the fuck it means. Because, like, it’s a weird fucking phrase, let’s be real. Actually, let’s all take a moment to imagine what that might physically look like. We deserve it.Anyway, back on topic. Most scholars have ended up interpreting it as saying that Moses has some kind of speech impediment. But that’s really a stretch. I mean, if that’s what was meant, why not say, “a man of broken speech” or something like that? No, I think the meaning of that phrase is a lot simpler.Circumcision is the sign of the Jewish covenant with G-d. In this period of the Bible, after G-d and Abraham made the covenant but before the Law was given at Mt. Sinai, circumcision was the single, defining thing that set the Jewish people apart from everyone else. So what does it mean to have uncircumcised lips? I submit that to speak with uncircumcised lips is to speak with a non-Jewish voice.But Moses is Jewish! Why would his voice not be? Because, Moses is unique among the Jewish people. He wasn’t raised as a slave. That’s what the Jewish people are in this period and have been for hundreds of years. They’re slaves. For generations, that slavery has defined and warped their culture. Moses has never been a slave and has never lived among his people who are. He may be Jewish, but his understanding of his people, and therefore his ability to speak for them, is non-existent.So G-d tells Moses to speak to Pharoah on behalf of the Jewish people and Moses says no. How will he speak for his people, advocate for them, demand their freedom, when he can’t speak with their voice? He can’t do it and he tells G-d no. No, I won’t speak for the slaves when I am free. It’s not my place.So what does G-d say? He says Moses is right. He tells Moses to give G-d’s message to Aaron, a man who has been a slave all his life, and let Aaron go to Pharoah and speak for the Jewish people. Because Aaron is of them, understands them, their pain, their oppression, in a way that Moses, a free man, can’t and never will. Aaron speaks with a truly Jewish voice, with circumcised lips, so he must be the one who speaks for the Jewish people.So basically, G-d tells Moses to speak over an oppressed group he isn’t a part of, Moses says “no that’s bad activism”, and G-d says “you’re right oppressed people should speak and direct their own fight against oppression.”In conclusion, sure, the Song of Songs is sexy, but have you ever tried telling G-d that he needs to work harder to prioritize marginalized voices?
Bad, Fucking, and God: Sexy
 Bible Quotes, Inspired by Some Birds my Friend saw
 Fucking Outside her House,
ao3tagoftheday:

oxymoronicromantic:

ao3tagoftheday:

[Image Description: Tags reading “sexy bible quotes, inspired by some birds my friend saw fucking outside her house”]

The AO3 Tag of the Day is: This is one hell of a non-sequitor 

“On the day when the Lord spoke to Moses in the land of Egypt, 29 the Lord said to Moses, “I am the Lord; tell Pharaoh king of Egypt all that I say to you.” 30 But Moses said to the Lord, “Behold, I am of uncircumcised lips. How will Pharaoh listen to me?”
7 And the Lord said to Moses, “See, I have made you like God to Pharaoh, and your brother Aaron shall be your prophet. 2 You shall speak all that I command you, and your brother Aaron shall tell Pharaoh to let the people of Israel go out of his land.”
…I don’t think it’s telling anyone that they’re doing activism wrong????
Anyways. Song of Songs is sexier.

Ok! First off, thanks for putting the verses in; that makes my life easier! Second, Song of Songs is undoubtedly sexy, but the phrase “uncircumcised lips” is much sexier. Here’s why:“Uncircumcised lips” is a literal translation of the Hebrew, and scholars have spent millennia trying to figure out what the fuck it means. Because, like, it’s a weird fucking phrase, let’s be real. Actually, let’s all take a moment to imagine what that might physically look like. We deserve it.Anyway, back on topic. Most scholars have ended up interpreting it as saying that Moses has some kind of speech impediment. But that’s really a stretch. I mean, if that’s what was meant, why not say, “a man of broken speech” or something like that? No, I think the meaning of that phrase is a lot simpler.Circumcision is the sign of the Jewish covenant with G-d. In this period of the Bible, after G-d and Abraham made the covenant but before the Law was given at Mt. Sinai, circumcision was the single, defining thing that set the Jewish people apart from everyone else. So what does it mean to have uncircumcised lips? I submit that to speak with uncircumcised lips is to speak with a non-Jewish voice.But Moses is Jewish! Why would his voice not be? Because, Moses is unique among the Jewish people. He wasn’t raised as a slave. That’s what the Jewish people are in this period and have been for hundreds of years. They’re slaves. For generations, that slavery has defined and warped their culture. Moses has never been a slave and has never lived among his people who are. He may be Jewish, but his understanding of his people, and therefore his ability to speak for them, is non-existent.So G-d tells Moses to speak to Pharoah on behalf of the Jewish people and Moses says no. How will he speak for his people, advocate for them, demand their freedom, when he can’t speak with their voice? He can’t do it and he tells G-d no. No, I won’t speak for the slaves when I am free. It’s not my place.So what does G-d say? He says Moses is right. He tells Moses to give G-d’s message to Aaron, a man who has been a slave all his life, and let Aaron go to Pharoah and speak for the Jewish people. Because Aaron is of them, understands them, their pain, their oppression, in a way that Moses, a free man, can’t and never will. Aaron speaks with a truly Jewish voice, with circumcised lips, so he must be the one who speaks for the Jewish people.So basically, G-d tells Moses to speak over an oppressed group he isn’t a part of, Moses says “no that’s bad activism”, and G-d says “you’re right oppressed people should speak and direct their own fight against oppression.”In conclusion, sure, the Song of Songs is sexy, but have you ever tried telling G-d that he needs to work harder to prioritize marginalized voices?

ao3tagoftheday: oxymoronicromantic: ao3tagoftheday: [Image Description: Tags reading “sexy bible quotes, inspired by some birds my friend...

Baby, It's Cold Outside, Bad, and Birthday: emilysidhe Baby It's Cold Outside discourse is the same as Macbeth discourse dont-spoop-yourself Explain? emilysidhe OK, so one of the big debates in Macbeth involves the scene in which Lady Macbeth talks Macbeth into killing King Duncan. People debate strenuously over whether it's a scene of Lady M pressuring her reluctant husband into it, or whether it's a scene of her sensing, due to their emotional intimacy, that this murder is something her husband secretly wants and has partially internally decided to do, and is arguing him into it in order to help him give himself permission to do it, in the same way that people see their loved ones wavering over the dessert menu and jump in with things like, "Go on, get the cheesecake, it's your birthday!" Readers and scholars disagree strenuously about this - we even studied an incident in college in which two 18th century illustrators attended the same performance and happened to draw the scene the day after, producing two images that advanced opposite interpretations even though they'd seen the exact same actors do the exact same performance. It's a big deal In the same way, the Baby, It's Cold Outside discourse is about whether this is a song about sexual harassment, or whether it's a woman singing about how she wishes she could spend the night with the guy she just had an excellent date with if only the neighbors wouldn't talk, and him responding, "Stay, baby, it's cold out! No one could expect you to go home in this!" ms-demeanor I really don't know (baby stab his side) King Duncan's a bro (baby cut through his hide) I like him a lot (That decrepit old sot?) This plan ain't so great (But what a king you'd make!) The guards might worry (Darling, do it in a hurry!) His sons will rush the door (So knock them on the floor.) I'm not such a knave (Bash his head with a stave) But l'd be a good king (Now you're starting to think) The dukes might all talk (But their chatter means naught) Say, love, what do you mean (You'd make such a king) I simply must go (baby cut through his hide) There's a war on you know (baby cut through his hide) But what of his wife? (And what of his life?) It feels like bad luck (But that don't mean much) l've got a bad premonition (And l've got a mission) But that's just superstition (My love, you're a vision) The witches said l'd rule (If they lied they were cruel) So babv let's stab Stab his siiiide! I figure someone mightve posted this before, but its still appropriate for Christmas.
Baby, It's Cold Outside, Bad, and Birthday: emilysidhe
 Baby It's Cold Outside discourse is the same as Macbeth discourse
 dont-spoop-yourself
 Explain?
 emilysidhe
 OK, so one of the big debates in Macbeth involves the scene in
 which Lady Macbeth talks Macbeth into killing King Duncan. People
 debate strenuously over whether it's a scene of Lady M pressuring
 her reluctant husband into it, or whether it's a scene of her sensing,
 due to their emotional intimacy, that this murder is something her
 husband secretly wants and has partially internally decided to do,
 and is arguing him into it in order to help him give himself permission
 to do it, in the same way that people see their loved ones wavering
 over the dessert menu and jump in with things like, "Go on, get the
 cheesecake, it's your birthday!" Readers and scholars disagree
 strenuously about this - we even studied an incident in college in
 which two 18th century illustrators attended the same performance
 and happened to draw the scene the day after, producing two images
 that advanced opposite interpretations even though they'd seen the
 exact same actors do the exact same performance. It's a big deal
 In the same way, the Baby, It's Cold Outside discourse is about
 whether this is a song about sexual harassment, or whether it's a
 woman singing about how she wishes she could spend the night with
 the guy she just had an excellent date with if only the neighbors
 wouldn't talk, and him responding, "Stay, baby, it's cold out! No one
 could expect you to go home in this!"
 ms-demeanor
 I really don't know (baby stab his side)
 King Duncan's a bro (baby cut through his hide)
 I like him a lot (That decrepit old sot?)
 This plan ain't so great (But what a king you'd make!)
 The guards might worry (Darling, do it in a hurry!)
 His sons will rush the door (So knock them on the floor.)
 I'm not such a knave (Bash his head with a stave)
 But l'd be a good king (Now you're starting to think)
 The dukes might all talk (But their chatter means naught)
 Say, love, what do you mean (You'd make such a king)
 I simply must go (baby cut through his hide)
 There's a war on you know (baby cut through his hide)
 But what of his wife? (And what of his life?)
 It feels like bad luck (But that don't mean much)
 l've got a bad premonition (And l've got a mission)
 But that's just superstition (My love, you're a vision)
 The witches said l'd rule (If they lied they were cruel)
 So babv let's stab
 Stab his siiiide!
I figure someone mightve posted this before, but its still appropriate for Christmas.

I figure someone mightve posted this before, but its still appropriate for Christmas.

England, Fucking, and Stephen: A Portrait of James Il's 'Husband' Has Reappeared in Glasgovw "I desire only to live in this world for your sake," the king wrote to him. BY NATASHA FROST SEPTEMBER 25, 2017 A LOST PORTRAIT OF THE man whom English king James I referred to as his "husband," "sweet heart," and the one he loved "more than anvone else" has emerged from conservation work and been authenticated, after having been mistaken for a copy for centuries, the BBC reports. George Villiers, the first Duke of Buckingham, rose to prominence in court after catching the king's eye at a hunt. This 17th-century painting of him, now known to be by the Flemish great Peter Paul Rubens, had been concealed by layers of dirt, as well as later "improvements." In the painting, Villiers is depicted wearing an elaborate lace collar and a sash. He was known for his good looks, and had been described as "the handsomest-bodied man in all of England," with a "lovely complexion." James I lavished attention and care on him, and called him "Steenie" after St. Stephen, who was said to have had the face of an angel. However, whether Villiers and James I were lovers in the modern sense of the word has been a source of some contention. In their letters, James I states how he wept so profusely at their parting "that I can scarcelv see to write. But scholars have argued that such sentiments are not atypical of male friendship in the 17th and 18th centuries. The rumors flared up upon the 2008 discoverv of a secret passage in one of the king's homes linking their bedchambers. runawayrat: squidsticks: King James I: *builds secret tunnel connecting his room to the room of a man he calls his husband* Historians: it’s very hard to tell what kind of relationship they would have had, let’s not look at this through a 21st century lens Im fucking deceased
England, Fucking, and Stephen: A Portrait of James Il's
 'Husband' Has
 Reappeared in
 Glasgovw
 "I desire only to live in this world for
 your sake," the king wrote to him.
 BY NATASHA FROST SEPTEMBER 25, 2017

 A LOST PORTRAIT OF THE man whom English king
 James I referred to as his "husband," "sweet heart," and
 the one he loved "more than anvone else" has emerged
 from conservation work and been authenticated, after
 having been mistaken for a copy for centuries, the BBC
 reports. George Villiers, the first Duke of Buckingham,
 rose to prominence in court after catching the king's eye
 at a hunt. This 17th-century painting of him, now known
 to be by the Flemish great Peter Paul Rubens, had been
 concealed by layers of dirt, as well as later
 "improvements."

 In the painting, Villiers is depicted wearing an elaborate
 lace collar and a sash. He was known for his good looks,
 and had been described as "the handsomest-bodied man
 in all of England," with a "lovely complexion." James I
 lavished attention and care on him, and called him
 "Steenie" after St. Stephen, who was said to have had
 the face of an angel. However, whether Villiers and
 James I were lovers in the modern sense of the word has
 been a source of some contention. In their letters,
 James I states how he wept so profusely at their parting
 "that I can scarcelv see to write. But scholars have
 argued that such sentiments are not atypical of male
 friendship in the 17th and 18th centuries. The rumors
 flared up upon the 2008 discoverv of a secret passage in
 one of the king's homes linking their bedchambers.
runawayrat:

squidsticks:

King James I: *builds secret tunnel connecting his room to the room of a man he calls his husband*

Historians: it’s very hard to tell what kind of relationship they would have had, let’s not look at this through a 21st century lens


Im fucking deceased

runawayrat: squidsticks: King James I: *builds secret tunnel connecting his room to the room of a man he calls his husband* Historians: i...

England, Stephen, and Tumblr: squidsticks A Portrait of James l's Husband' Has Reappeared in Glasgow "I desire only to live in this world for your sake," the king wrote to him. BY NATASHA FROST SEPTEMBER 25, 2017 0) A LOST PORTRAIT OF THE man whom English king James I referred to as his "husband," "sweet heart," and the one he loved "more than anyone else" has emerged from conservation work and been authenticated, after having been mistaken for a copy for centuries, the BBC reports, George Villiers, the first Duke of Buckingham, rose to prominence in court after catching the king's eye at a hunt. This 17th-century painting of him, now known to be by the Flemish great Peter Paul Rubens, had been concealed by layers of dirt, as well as later improvements." In the painting, Villiers is depicted wearing an elaborate lace collar and a sash. He was known for his good looks, and had been described as "the handsomest-bodied marn in all of England," with a "lovely complexion." James I lavished attention and care on him, and called him Steenie" after St. Stephen, who was said to have had In the painting, Villiers is depicted wearing an elaborate lace collar and a sash. He was known for his good looks, and had been described as "the handsomest-bodied man in all of England," with a “lovely complexion." James I lavished attention and care on him, and called him Steenie" after St. Stephen, who was said to have had the face of an angel. However, whether Villiers and James I were lovers in the modern sense of the word has been a source of some contention. In their letters James I states how he wept so profusely at their parting, "that I can scarcely see to write." But scholars have argued that such sentiments are not atypical of male friendship in the 17th and 18th centuries. The rumors flared up upon the 2008 discovery of a secret passage in one of the king's homes linking their bedchambers King James I: *builds secret tunnel connecting his room to the room of a man he calls his husband* Historians: it's very hard to tell what kind of relationship they would have had, let's not look at this through a 21st century lens Fuente: squidsticks 117,177 notas Dammit straight people
England, Stephen, and Tumblr: squidsticks
 A Portrait of James l's
 Husband' Has
 Reappeared in
 Glasgow
 "I desire only to live in this world for
 your sake," the king wrote to him.
 BY NATASHA FROST SEPTEMBER 25, 2017
 0)

 A LOST PORTRAIT OF THE man whom English king
 James I referred to as his "husband," "sweet heart," and
 the one he loved "more than anyone else" has emerged
 from conservation work and been authenticated, after
 having been mistaken for a copy for centuries, the BBC
 reports, George Villiers, the first Duke of Buckingham,
 rose to prominence in court after catching the king's eye
 at a hunt. This 17th-century painting of him, now known
 to be by the Flemish great Peter Paul Rubens, had been
 concealed by layers of dirt, as well as later
 improvements."
 In the painting, Villiers is depicted wearing an elaborate
 lace collar and a sash. He was known for his good looks,
 and had been described as "the handsomest-bodied marn
 in all of England," with a "lovely complexion." James I
 lavished attention and care on him, and called him
 Steenie" after St. Stephen, who was said to have had

 In the painting, Villiers is depicted wearing an elaborate
 lace collar and a sash. He was known for his good looks,
 and had been described as "the handsomest-bodied man
 in all of England," with a “lovely complexion." James I
 lavished attention and care on him, and called him
 Steenie" after St. Stephen, who was said to have had
 the face of an angel. However, whether Villiers and
 James I were lovers in the modern sense of the word has
 been a source of some contention. In their letters
 James I states how he wept so profusely at their parting,
 "that I can scarcely see to write." But scholars have
 argued that such sentiments are not atypical of male
 friendship in the 17th and 18th centuries. The rumors
 flared up upon the 2008 discovery of a secret passage in
 one of the king's homes linking their bedchambers
 King James I: *builds secret tunnel connecting his room
 to the room of a man he calls his husband*
 Historians: it's very hard to tell what kind of relationship
 they would have had, let's not look at this through a 21st
 century lens
 Fuente: squidsticks
 117,177 notas
Dammit straight people

Dammit straight people

Asian, Climbing, and College: ingu: marrymejasonsegel: I wrote a college paper once about gender dynamics in Disney films, and part dealt with the emphasis of androgyny in this film. Mulan is an outsider and unsure of her position of the world when she is adhering to both a total feminine role (the matchmaking scene) and a total masculine role (disguised as a male soldier) and it’s only when she’s able to embrace both sides that she is able to fully showcase her abilities and ultimately save the day.  The entire climax, from climbing the poles using sashes, counting on Shan Yu’s complete dismissal of women to get the Emperor to safety, to this scene where she literally uses a symbol of womanhood (within the movie at least) to disarm the villain of his symbol of masculinity and beat him at his own game, shows Mulan relying on the aspects of her femininity that she has grown up adhering to and adapting the tactical knowledge and fighting skills that she learned disguised as a male soldier to those aspects. The result is a unique and innovative view of the world and her course of action that leads her to save the day when the male soldiers failed and the women wouldn’t even have been allowed to try.  This commentary is so curious to me because it’s such an excellent example of white/western cultural bias in portrayals of other cultures. Because fans by themselves are a gender neutral object in Ancient China, especially the large type that Mulan uses in this particular scene is actually masculine if you must code it historically, and in Chinese hands would be used as a tool to support her masculinity and not the other way around. These paper fans are used in general by (male) scholars and artists who decorate its surface with art and calligraphy. It is a symbol of (masculine) intellectual power and the intellectual elite. And if you look to Asian martial arts films, they are a common and almost exclusive weapon of men. Yet the movie takes this deeply cultural object and either willingly or ignorantly makes it an object of womanhood or femininity. To the extent of my knowledge, this is mostly reflective of western social history. And draws from the coquettish ways Georgian? Ladies would use the fan to signal their romantic interest and all the history and influence around it. The equivalent object for the Chinese lady would in fact be the handkerchief, or a hairstick if you want something pointy. And it’s all the more curious because at the end of the day it’s a western depiction of a foreign story made for western consumption. It is not a story made by and for Chinese little girls, but to empower and inspire those in the West. Which provides the context for the above (excellent) analysis. It does not need to fully take Chinese history into context because it was never made for us, despite being explicitly about us.
Asian, Climbing, and College: ingu:
marrymejasonsegel:

I wrote a college paper once about gender dynamics in Disney films, and part dealt with the emphasis of androgyny in this film. Mulan is an outsider and unsure of her position of the world when she is adhering to both a total feminine role (the matchmaking scene) and a total masculine role (disguised as a male soldier) and it’s only when she’s able to embrace both sides that she is able to fully showcase her abilities and ultimately save the day. 
The entire climax, from climbing the poles using sashes, counting on Shan Yu’s complete dismissal of women to get the Emperor to safety, to this scene where she literally uses a symbol of womanhood (within the movie at least) to disarm the villain of his symbol of masculinity and beat him at his own game, shows Mulan relying on the aspects of her femininity that she has grown up adhering to and adapting the tactical knowledge and fighting skills that she learned disguised as a male soldier to those aspects. The result is a unique and innovative view of the world and her course of action that leads her to save the day when the male soldiers failed and the women wouldn’t even have been allowed to try. 

This commentary is so curious to me because it’s such an excellent example of white/western cultural bias in portrayals of other cultures. Because fans by themselves are a gender neutral object in Ancient China, especially the large type that Mulan uses in this particular scene is actually masculine if you must code it historically, and in Chinese hands would be used as a tool to support her masculinity and not the other way around. These paper fans are used in general by (male) scholars and artists who decorate its surface with art and calligraphy. It is a symbol of (masculine) intellectual power and the intellectual elite. And if you look to Asian martial arts films, they are a common and almost exclusive weapon of men.
Yet the movie takes this deeply cultural object and either willingly or ignorantly makes it an object of womanhood or femininity. To the extent of my knowledge, this is mostly reflective of western social history. And draws from the coquettish ways Georgian? Ladies would use the fan to signal their romantic interest and all the history and influence around it. The equivalent object for the Chinese lady would in fact be the handkerchief, or a hairstick if you want something pointy.
And it’s all the more curious because at the end of the day it’s a western depiction of a foreign story made for western consumption. It is not a story made by and for Chinese little girls, but to empower and inspire those in the West. Which provides the context for the above (excellent) analysis. It does not need to fully take Chinese history into context because it was never made for us, despite being explicitly about us.

ingu: marrymejasonsegel: I wrote a college paper once about gender dynamics in Disney films, and part dealt with the emphasis of androgyny ...

England, Stephen, and Target: A Portrait of James Il's 'Husband' Has Reappeared in Glasgovw "I desire only to live in this world for your sake," the king wrote to him. BY NATASHA FROST SEPTEMBER 25, 2017 A LOST PORTRAIT OF THE man whom English king James I referred to as his "husband," "sweet heart," and the one he loved "more than anvone else" has emerged from conservation work and been authenticated, after having been mistaken for a copy for centuries, the BBC reports. George Villiers, the first Duke of Buckingham, rose to prominence in court after catching the king's eye at a hunt. This 17th-century painting of him, now known to be by the Flemish great Peter Paul Rubens, had been concealed by layers of dirt, as well as later "improvements." In the painting, Villiers is depicted wearing an elaborate lace collar and a sash. He was known for his good looks, and had been described as "the handsomest-bodied man in all of England," with a "lovely complexion." James I lavished attention and care on him, and called him "Steenie" after St. Stephen, who was said to have had the face of an angel. However, whether Villiers and James I were lovers in the modern sense of the word has been a source of some contention. In their letters, James I states how he wept so profusely at their parting "that I can scarcelv see to write. But scholars have argued that such sentiments are not atypical of male friendship in the 17th and 18th centuries. The rumors flared up upon the 2008 discoverv of a secret passage in one of the king's homes linking their bedchambers. squidsticks: King James I: *builds secret tunnel connecting his room to the room of a man he calls his husband* Historians: it’s very hard to tell what kind of relationship they would have had, let’s not look at this through a 21st century lens
England, Stephen, and Target: A Portrait of James Il's
 'Husband' Has
 Reappeared in
 Glasgovw
 "I desire only to live in this world for
 your sake," the king wrote to him.
 BY NATASHA FROST SEPTEMBER 25, 2017

 A LOST PORTRAIT OF THE man whom English king
 James I referred to as his "husband," "sweet heart," and
 the one he loved "more than anvone else" has emerged
 from conservation work and been authenticated, after
 having been mistaken for a copy for centuries, the BBC
 reports. George Villiers, the first Duke of Buckingham,
 rose to prominence in court after catching the king's eye
 at a hunt. This 17th-century painting of him, now known
 to be by the Flemish great Peter Paul Rubens, had been
 concealed by layers of dirt, as well as later
 "improvements."

 In the painting, Villiers is depicted wearing an elaborate
 lace collar and a sash. He was known for his good looks,
 and had been described as "the handsomest-bodied man
 in all of England," with a "lovely complexion." James I
 lavished attention and care on him, and called him
 "Steenie" after St. Stephen, who was said to have had
 the face of an angel. However, whether Villiers and
 James I were lovers in the modern sense of the word has
 been a source of some contention. In their letters,
 James I states how he wept so profusely at their parting
 "that I can scarcelv see to write. But scholars have
 argued that such sentiments are not atypical of male
 friendship in the 17th and 18th centuries. The rumors
 flared up upon the 2008 discoverv of a secret passage in
 one of the king's homes linking their bedchambers.
squidsticks:
King James I: *builds secret tunnel connecting his room to the room of a man he calls his husband*

Historians: it’s very hard to tell what kind of relationship they would have had, let’s not look at this through a 21st century lens

squidsticks: King James I: *builds secret tunnel connecting his room to the room of a man he calls his husband* Historians: it’s very hard ...

Batman, Desperate, and Fake: Just remember. There is no such thing as a fake geek girl. There are only fake geek boys. Science fiction was invented by a womarn. Specifically a teenage girl. You know, someone who would be a part of the demographic that some of these violently rejecting boys are foxsan Isaac Asimov. simOnbaz yo mary shelley wrote frankenstein in 1818 and isaac asimov was born in 1920 so you kinda get my point divinedorothy If you want to push it back even further Margaret Cavendish, the duchess of Newcastle (1623-1673) wrote The Blazing World in 1666, about a young woman wheo discovers a Utopian world that can only be accessed via the North Pole- oft credited as one of the first scifi novels Women have always been at the forefront of literature, the first novel (what we would consider a novel in modern terms) was written by a woman (Lady Muraskai's the Tale of Genji in the early 1000s) take your snide "Isaac Asimov reblogs and stick it even in terms of male scifi authors, asimov was predated by Jules Verne, HG Wells, George Orwell, you could have even cited Poe or Jonathan Swift has a case but Asimov? PbbBFFTTBBBTBTTBBTBTTT so desperate to discredit the idea of Mary Shelly as the mother of modern science fiction you didn't even do a frickin google search For Shame validcriticism And if you want to go back even further, the first named, identified author in history was Enheduanna of Akkad, a Sumerian high priestess. gunthatshootsennui Kinda funny, considering this Isaac Asimov quote on the subject: Mary Shelley was the first to make use of a new finding of science which she advanced further to a logical extreme, and it is that which makes Frankenstein the first true science fiction story Even Isaac Asimov ain't having none of your shit, not even posthumously touchofgrey37 You know what else was invented by women? Masked vigilantes, the precursor to the modern superhero. Baroness Emma Orczy wrote The Scarlet Pimpernel in 1905. The character would later inspire better known masked vigilantes such as Zorro and Batman. Got that? Stick that in your international pipe and smoke it la-knight I have literally been telling people this for over a year the first extended prose piece- ie a not, as many male scholars will shout, Don Quixote (1605) but The Tale of Genji (1008) written by a woman novel, was thepsychicclam The first autobiography ever written in English is also attributed to a woman, The Book of Margery Kempe (1430s). itsnotjustpms: I’d like to title this stream “Dear Geek Guys” - if you don’t like women in geek culture, get out because it’s not yours. Also, a well-read woman will ALWAYS school you when you try to act the misogynist so go sit down… and read a book written by a woman.I’m not sure if the autobiography portion is correct though. I know there was a Korean woman who wrote a diary that was published…not sure if it counts as autobiography though, perhaps memoir? 
Batman, Desperate, and Fake: Just remember. There is no such thing as a
 fake geek girl.
 There are only fake geek boys.
 Science fiction was invented by a womarn.
 Specifically a teenage girl. You know,
 someone who would be a part of the
 demographic that some of these
 violently rejecting
 boys are
 foxsan
 Isaac Asimov.
 simOnbaz
 yo mary shelley wrote frankenstein in 1818
 and isaac asimov was born in 1920 so you
 kinda get my point
 divinedorothy
 If you want to push it back even further
 Margaret Cavendish, the duchess of
 Newcastle (1623-1673) wrote The Blazing
 World in 1666, about a young woman wheo
 discovers a Utopian world that can only be
 accessed via the North Pole- oft credited as
 one of the first scifi novels
 Women have always been at the forefront
 of literature, the first novel (what we would
 consider a novel in modern terms) was written
 by a woman (Lady Muraskai's the Tale of Genji
 in the early 1000s) take your snide "Isaac
 Asimov reblogs and stick it
 even in terms of male scifi authors, asimov
 was predated by Jules Verne, HG Wells,
 George Orwell, you could have even cited Poe
 or Jonathan Swift has a case but Asimov?
 PbbBFFTTBBBTBTTBBTBTTT so desperate
 to discredit the idea of Mary Shelly as the
 mother of modern science fiction you didn't
 even do a frickin google search For Shame
 validcriticism
 And if you want to go back even further,
 the first named, identified author in history
 was Enheduanna of Akkad, a Sumerian high
 priestess.
 gunthatshootsennui
 Kinda funny, considering this Isaac Asimov
 quote on the subject:
 Mary Shelley was the first to make use of a
 new finding of science which she advanced
 further to a logical extreme, and it is that
 which makes Frankenstein the first true
 science fiction story
 Even Isaac Asimov ain't having none of your
 shit, not even posthumously
 touchofgrey37
 You know what else was invented by women?
 Masked vigilantes, the precursor to the
 modern superhero. Baroness Emma Orczy
 wrote The Scarlet Pimpernel in 1905. The
 character would later inspire better known
 masked vigilantes such as Zorro and Batman.
 Got that?
 Stick that in your international pipe and smoke
 it
 la-knight
 I have literally been telling people this for over
 a year
 the first extended prose piece- ie a
 not, as many male scholars will shout, Don
 Quixote (1605) but The Tale of Genji (1008)
 written by a woman
 novel, was
 thepsychicclam
 The first autobiography ever written in English
 is also attributed to a woman, The Book of
 Margery Kempe (1430s).
itsnotjustpms:

I’d like to title this stream “Dear Geek Guys” - if you don’t like women in geek culture, get out because it’s not yours. Also, a well-read woman will ALWAYS school you when you try to act the misogynist so go sit down… and read a book written by a woman.I’m not sure if the autobiography portion is correct though. I know there was a Korean woman who wrote a diary that was published…not sure if it counts as autobiography though, perhaps memoir? 

itsnotjustpms: I’d like to title this stream “Dear Geek Guys” - if you don’t like women in geek culture, get out because it’s not yours. Al...

Asian, Climbing, and College: ingu: marrymejasonsegel: I wrote a college paper once about gender dynamics in Disney films, and part dealt with the emphasis of androgyny in this film. Mulan is an outsider and unsure of her position of the world when she is adhering to both a total feminine role (the matchmaking scene) and a total masculine role (disguised as a male soldier) and it’s only when she’s able to embrace both sides that she is able to fully showcase her abilities and ultimately save the day.  The entire climax, from climbing the poles using sashes, counting on Shan Yu’s complete dismissal of women to get the Emperor to safety, to this scene where she literally uses a symbol of womanhood (within the movie at least) to disarm the villain of his symbol of masculinity and beat him at his own game, shows Mulan relying on the aspects of her femininity that she has grown up adhering to and adapting the tactical knowledge and fighting skills that she learned disguised as a male soldier to those aspects. The result is a unique and innovative view of the world and her course of action that leads her to save the day when the male soldiers failed and the women wouldn’t even have been allowed to try.  This commentary is so curious to me because it’s such an excellent example of white/western cultural bias in portrayals of other cultures. Because fans by themselves are a gender neutral object in Ancient China, especially the large type that Mulan uses in this particular scene is actually masculine if you must code it historically, and in Chinese hands would be used as a tool to support her masculinity and not the other way around. These paper fans are used in general by (male) scholars and artists who decorate its surface with art and calligraphy. It is a symbol of (masculine) intellectual power and the intellectual elite. And if you look to Asian martial arts films, they are a common and almost exclusive weapon of men. Yet the movie takes this deeply cultural object and either willingly or ignorantly makes it an object of womanhood or femininity. To the extent of my knowledge, this is mostly reflective of western social history. And draws from the coquettish ways Georgian? Ladies would use the fan to signal their romantic interest and all the history and influence around it. The equivalent object for the Chinese lady would in fact be the handkerchief, or a hairstick if you want something pointy. And it’s all the more curious because at the end of the day it’s a western depiction of a foreign story made for western consumption. It is not a story made by and for Chinese little girls, but to empower and inspire those in the West. Which provides the context for the above (excellent) analysis. It does not need to fully take Chinese history into context because it was never made for us, despite being explicitly about us.
Asian, Climbing, and College: ingu:

marrymejasonsegel:

I wrote a college paper once about gender dynamics in Disney films, and part dealt with the emphasis of androgyny in this film. Mulan is an outsider and unsure of her position of the world when she is adhering to both a total feminine role (the matchmaking scene) and a total masculine role (disguised as a male soldier) and it’s only when she’s able to embrace both sides that she is able to fully showcase her abilities and ultimately save the day. 
The entire climax, from climbing the poles using sashes, counting on Shan Yu’s complete dismissal of women to get the Emperor to safety, to this scene where she literally uses a symbol of womanhood (within the movie at least) to disarm the villain of his symbol of masculinity and beat him at his own game, shows Mulan relying on the aspects of her femininity that she has grown up adhering to and adapting the tactical knowledge and fighting skills that she learned disguised as a male soldier to those aspects. The result is a unique and innovative view of the world and her course of action that leads her to save the day when the male soldiers failed and the women wouldn’t even have been allowed to try. 

This commentary is so curious to me because it’s such an excellent example of white/western cultural bias in portrayals of other cultures. Because fans by themselves are a gender neutral object in Ancient China, especially the large type that Mulan uses in this particular scene is actually masculine if you must code it historically, and in Chinese hands would be used as a tool to support her masculinity and not the other way around. These paper fans are used in general by (male) scholars and artists who decorate its surface with art and calligraphy. It is a symbol of (masculine) intellectual power and the intellectual elite. And if you look to Asian martial arts films, they are a common and almost exclusive weapon of men.
Yet the movie takes this deeply cultural object and either willingly or ignorantly makes it an object of womanhood or femininity. To the extent of my knowledge, this is mostly reflective of western social history. And draws from the coquettish ways Georgian? Ladies would use the fan to signal their romantic interest and all the history and influence around it. The equivalent object for the Chinese lady would in fact be the handkerchief, or a hairstick if you want something pointy.
And it’s all the more curious because at the end of the day it’s a western depiction of a foreign story made for western consumption. It is not a story made by and for Chinese little girls, but to empower and inspire those in the West. Which provides the context for the above (excellent) analysis. It does not need to fully take Chinese history into context because it was never made for us, despite being explicitly about us.

ingu: marrymejasonsegel: I wrote a college paper once about gender dynamics in Disney films, and part dealt with the emphasis of androgyny...

England, Stephen, and Tumblr: A Portrait of James Il's 'Husband' Has Reappeared in Glasgovw "I desire only to live in this world for your sake," the king wrote to him. BY NATASHA FROST SEPTEMBER 25, 2017 A LOST PORTRAIT OF THE man whom English king James I referred to as his "husband," "sweet heart," and the one he loved "more than anvone else" has emerged from conservation work and been authenticated, after having been mistaken for a copy for centuries, the BBC reports. George Villiers, the first Duke of Buckingham, rose to prominence in court after catching the king's eye at a hunt. This 17th-century painting of him, now known to be by the Flemish great Peter Paul Rubens, had been concealed by layers of dirt, as well as later "improvements." In the painting, Villiers is depicted wearing an elaborate lace collar and a sash. He was known for his good looks, and had been described as "the handsomest-bodied man in all of England," with a "lovely complexion." James I lavished attention and care on him, and called him "Steenie" after St. Stephen, who was said to have had the face of an angel. However, whether Villiers and James I were lovers in the modern sense of the word has been a source of some contention. In their letters, James I states how he wept so profusely at their parting "that I can scarcelv see to write. But scholars have argued that such sentiments are not atypical of male friendship in the 17th and 18th centuries. The rumors flared up upon the 2008 discoverv of a secret passage in one of the king's homes linking their bedchambers. squidsticks: King James I: *builds secret tunnel connecting his room to the room of a man he calls his husband* Historians: it’s very hard to tell what kind of relationship they would have had, let’s not look at this through a 21st century lens
England, Stephen, and Tumblr: A Portrait of James Il's
 'Husband' Has
 Reappeared in
 Glasgovw
 "I desire only to live in this world for
 your sake," the king wrote to him.
 BY NATASHA FROST SEPTEMBER 25, 2017

 A LOST PORTRAIT OF THE man whom English king
 James I referred to as his "husband," "sweet heart," and
 the one he loved "more than anvone else" has emerged
 from conservation work and been authenticated, after
 having been mistaken for a copy for centuries, the BBC
 reports. George Villiers, the first Duke of Buckingham,
 rose to prominence in court after catching the king's eye
 at a hunt. This 17th-century painting of him, now known
 to be by the Flemish great Peter Paul Rubens, had been
 concealed by layers of dirt, as well as later
 "improvements."

 In the painting, Villiers is depicted wearing an elaborate
 lace collar and a sash. He was known for his good looks,
 and had been described as "the handsomest-bodied man
 in all of England," with a "lovely complexion." James I
 lavished attention and care on him, and called him
 "Steenie" after St. Stephen, who was said to have had
 the face of an angel. However, whether Villiers and
 James I were lovers in the modern sense of the word has
 been a source of some contention. In their letters,
 James I states how he wept so profusely at their parting
 "that I can scarcelv see to write. But scholars have
 argued that such sentiments are not atypical of male
 friendship in the 17th and 18th centuries. The rumors
 flared up upon the 2008 discoverv of a secret passage in
 one of the king's homes linking their bedchambers.
squidsticks:
King James I: *builds secret tunnel connecting his room to the room of a man he calls his husband*

Historians: it’s very hard to tell what kind of relationship they would have had, let’s not look at this through a 21st century lens

squidsticks: King James I: *builds secret tunnel connecting his room to the room of a man he calls his husband* Historians: it’s very hard ...

Ass, Chill, and Dude: spring-day6: lyrica-in-nerdvana: daysofstorm: pilgrim-soulinyou: jeremyyyallan: fagraklett: Chinese emperor Ai of Han, fell in love with a minor official, a man named Dong Xian, and bestowed upon him great political power and a magnificent palace. Legend has it that one day while the two men were sleeping in the same bed, the emperor was roused from his sleep by pressing business. Dong Xian had fallen asleep across the emperor’s robe, but rather than awaken his peaceful lover, the Emperor cut his robe free at the sleeve. Thus “the passion of the cut sleeve” became a euphemism for same-sex love in China. — R.G.L. get you a dude who will fuck up his own clothing for you NO OKAY THIS IS REALLY COOL SO SHUT UP AND LISTEN KIDS. Ancient China was super chill about homosexuality okay. Like we have gay emperors and feudal lords, lesbian princesses who were girlfriends with their serving maids, gay ass poets who wrote lots of poems about that one courtesan who played the guzheng so well.In fact homosexuality was so okay that in Shiji, which is basically the Bible of Ancient Chinese history, there is an entire section dedicated to the gay lovers of emperors. What’s the best part? All the laws and criticism about homosexuality in Ancient China were all about shit like prostitution and rape. These laws were  outlawing homosexual stuff were all very specific. For example, there were laws banning male prostitution, but no laws against homosexuality. These laws were passed to stop the spread of prostitution and laws targeting prostitution in general were pretty common in Chinese history. There were also really strict laws about male rape. Rape was punishable by death, regardless of the gender of the victim. Rape a girl, you die. Rape a guy, you die. Have sex with a minor, you die regardless of whether it was consensual. The lightest sentence you could get was slavery where you were bound to the army.Also scholars wrote essays criticising the boyfriends of emperors, saying that they distracted the emperor from work blah blah blah but THEY ALSO DID THE SAME FOR THE CONCUBINES. That’s right - the issue wasn’t homosexuality but rather the hormones of the emperor. They didn’t care about the gender of the emperor’s favourite lover but rather the fact that the emperor was too horny to get shit done.“But WAIT, Modern China is a hardass about homosexuality!!!! How do you explain that!”Yes. That. That’s because of the late Qing years where Western influences entered the country and brought their gross ass homophobic attitudes with them. And the Qing government was so anxious to seem modern and be seen as equals to their Western counterparts. So they adopted Western ways and discarded their previous attitudes about homosexuality. Hence you have Modern China.So the next time someone tries to tell you that being LGBT is wrong because it goes against traditional Chinese values, tell them to go fuck themselves with 3000 years of Chinese queerness.  Here are all the illustrations of historical gay couples by Ryan Grant https://www.advocate.com/arts-entertainment/artist-spotlight/2012/08/11/ryan-grant-longs-history-gay-love#slide-0 This is one of the best things I have ever read. @dn-a @lesbianblossomjimin @flowerboyjjk @jinglehoonie @blushingkunoichi @connie-the-marshmellow @confessionsofashyfangirl @delicatelykeenbouquet @fooderaser
Ass, Chill, and Dude: spring-day6:

lyrica-in-nerdvana:

daysofstorm:

pilgrim-soulinyou:

jeremyyyallan:

fagraklett:

Chinese emperor Ai of Han, fell in love with a minor official, a man named Dong Xian, and bestowed upon him great political power and a magnificent palace. Legend has it that one day while the two men were sleeping in the same bed, the emperor was roused from his sleep by pressing business. Dong Xian had fallen asleep across the emperor’s robe, but rather than awaken his peaceful lover, the Emperor cut his robe free at the sleeve. Thus “the passion of the cut sleeve” became a euphemism for same-sex love in China. — R.G.L.


get you a dude who will fuck up his own clothing for you

NO OKAY THIS IS REALLY COOL SO SHUT UP AND LISTEN KIDS. Ancient China was super chill about homosexuality okay. Like we have gay emperors and feudal lords, lesbian princesses who were girlfriends with their serving maids, gay ass poets who wrote lots of poems about that one courtesan who played the guzheng so well.In fact homosexuality was so okay that in Shiji, which is basically the Bible of Ancient Chinese history, there is an entire section dedicated to the gay lovers of emperors. What’s the best part? All the laws and criticism about homosexuality in Ancient China were all about shit like prostitution and rape. These laws were  outlawing homosexual stuff were all very specific. For example, there were laws banning male prostitution, but no laws against homosexuality. These laws were passed to stop the spread of prostitution and laws targeting prostitution in general were pretty common in Chinese history. There were also really strict laws about male rape. Rape was punishable by death, regardless of the gender of the victim. Rape a girl, you die. Rape a guy, you die. Have sex with a minor, you die regardless of whether it was consensual. The lightest sentence you could get was slavery where you were bound to the army.Also scholars wrote essays criticising the boyfriends of emperors, saying that they distracted the emperor from work blah blah blah but THEY ALSO DID THE SAME FOR THE CONCUBINES. That’s right - the issue wasn’t homosexuality but rather the hormones of the emperor. They didn’t care about the gender of the emperor’s favourite lover but rather the fact that the emperor was too horny to get shit done.“But WAIT, Modern China is a hardass about homosexuality!!!! How do you explain that!”Yes. That. That’s because of the late Qing years where Western influences entered the country and brought their gross ass homophobic attitudes with them. And the Qing government was so anxious to seem modern and be seen as equals to their Western counterparts. So they adopted Western ways and discarded their previous attitudes about homosexuality. Hence you have Modern China.So the next time someone tries to tell you that being LGBT is wrong because it goes against traditional Chinese values, tell them to go fuck themselves with 3000 years of Chinese queerness. 

Here are all the illustrations of historical gay couples by Ryan Grant https://www.advocate.com/arts-entertainment/artist-spotlight/2012/08/11/ryan-grant-longs-history-gay-love#slide-0


This is one of the best things I have ever read.


@dn-a @lesbianblossomjimin @flowerboyjjk @jinglehoonie @blushingkunoichi @connie-the-marshmellow @confessionsofashyfangirl @delicatelykeenbouquet @fooderaser

spring-day6: lyrica-in-nerdvana: daysofstorm: pilgrim-soulinyou: jeremyyyallan: fagraklett: Chinese emperor Ai of Han, fell in love wi...