Reblog if you would watch a Disney movie with a homosexual protagonist.
- No subtext.
- No alluding.
- No “they-could-possibly-be-gay”.
Full-blown, love interest is the same gender, out and proud, homosexual protagonist.
guys lets make disney & pixar see this omfg
Lesbian. Disney. Princesses.
i can go from cute to a pervert in exactly 0.2 seconds
We have a new goal for Christmas break.
“Start on January 1st with an empty jar. Throughout the year write the good things that happened to you on little pieces of paper. On December 31st, open the jar and read all the amazing things that happened to you that year.”
I’m reblogging this again, to remind people that reblogged this earlier in the year with the “I’M GOING TO DO THIS” comments. Now, here it is. I’m reminding you. You said you would do this. Now join me and start this Tuesday.
I genuinely love this idea. I am going to do this. I will post pictures of my jar and everything.
oh wow this is a beautiful idea
I actually did this this year, it’s almost time to open it
I’m sorry Madoka… “It’s okay if you don’t understand anything I’m saying. But please, please let me protect you.”
Something else I’ve been thinking about, wrt Pacific Rim and its resonance with millennials.
It’s a disaster movie, an apocalypse movie, that’s not afraid of technology. Machines, computers, the work of human hands—they’re going to save us all.
This isn’t a story about robots turning on their creators. This is a story where the most intimate connection you can experience with another person, the Drift, exists because somebody built a machine to make it happen.
You get so many apocalypse movies that are a little bit afraid of technology, of robots, of science. Where the too-proud scientists went too far and called disaster down upon us, or humanity tried to play god and created a plague/a weapon/woke something bigger and greater than us.
This is an apocalypse movie where (besides one throwaway line about the atmosphere) the end of the world isn’t our fault. Where the things that humanity strives for, to gain more knowledge, to make us greater, don’t all backfire on us due to hubris, they actually make us greater.
And maybe previous generations are used to being told that the end of the world isn’t their fault, but for us? It’s all cell phones, iPods, computer games, bloggers, they’re ripping society apart at its seams. Movies give us zombie viruses and Skynet and Cylons and culture tells us convenience is bad, it’s greedy, it’s wrong even as we’re inundated with new technology on every side.
This is a movie where humanity didn’t accidentally destroy the world by wanting more. Where technology, the sort of thing our generation grew up loving and using and surrounding ourselves with, the sort of thing that older generations are still a little afraid of, isn’t evil.
We’re not evil, as humans, as people who are curious, who want to invent, who like gadgets and wires and talk to each other through machines. Curiosity-technology-innovation may be dangerous, drifting with a Kaiju may be dangerous, but it saves the world. Giant robots save the world.
Score one for the generation that grew up on the internet.
*searches for an item of clothing*
*clicks the ‘plus size’ search option*
ARE YOU WITH THE RIGHT PARTNER?
During a seminar, a woman asked,” How do I know if I am with the right person?”
The author then noticed that there was a large man sitting next to her so he said, “It depends. Is that your partner?”
In all seriousness, she answered “How did you know?”
“Let me answer this question because the chances are good that it’s weighing on your mind.” replied the author.
Here’s the answer:
Every relationship has a cycle… In the beginning; you fall in love with your partner. You anticipate their calls, want their touch, and like their idiosyncrasies. Falling in love wasn’t hard. In fact, it was a completely natural and spontaneous experience. You didn’t have to DO anything. That’s why it’s called “falling” in love.
People in love sometimes say, I was swept of my feet. Picture the expression. It implies that you were just standing there; doing nothing, and then something happened TO YOU.
Falling in love is a passive and spontaneous experience. But after a few months or years of being together, the euphoria of love fades. It’s a natural cycle of EVERY relationship.
Slowly but surely, phone calls become a bother (if they come at all), touch is not always welcome (when it happens), and your spouse’s idiosyncrasies, instead of being cute, drive you nuts. The symptoms of this stage vary with every relationship; you will notice a dramatic difference between the initial stage when you were in love and a much duller or even angry subsequent stage.
At this point, you and/or your partner might start asking, “Am I with the right person?” And as you reflect on the euphoria of the love you once had, you may begin to desire that experience with someone
else. This is when relationships breakdown.
The key to succeeding in a relationship is not finding the right person; it’s learning to love the person you found.
People blame their partners for their unhappiness and look outside for fulfillment. Extramarital fulfillment comes in all shapes and sizes.
Infidelity is the most common. But sometimes people turn to work, a hobby, friendship, excessive TV, or abusive substances. But the answer to this dilemma does NOT lie outside your relationship. It lies within it.
I’m not saying that you couldn’t fall in love with someone else. You could. And TEMPORARILY you’d feel better. But you’d be in the same situation a few years later.
Because (listen carefully to this)
The key to succeeding in a relationship is not finding the right person; it’s learning to love the Person you found.
SUSTAINING love is not a passive or spontaneous experience. You have to work on it day in and day out. It takes time, effort, and energy. And most importantly, it demands WISDOM. You have to know
WHAT TO DO to make it work. Make no mistake about it.
Love is NOT a mystery. There are specific things you can do (with or without your partner), just as there are physical laws of the universe (such as gravity), there are also laws for relationships. If you know how to apply these laws, the results are predictable.
Love is therefore a “decision”. Not just a feeling.
Remember this always: the universe determines who walks into your life. It is up to you to decide who you let walk away, who you let stay, and who you refuse to let go!
why doesn’t this have more notes
climb a mountain together
This was something I really needed right now.
Love is therefore a “decision”. Not just a feeling. MY FRIENDS THINK I’M CRAZY WHEN I SAY THIS, BUT IT’S TRUE!!!
Want. Don’t care. Want.
^fucking spread this shit!!!! Every furry needs this!!!!
I’m having lots of feelings about how isolation seems to be a primary trait that the majority of the princess films share. Not total isolation, but isolation from peers in particular. They have their parents (or parental figures) and sometimes siblings. But no real friends.
- Snow White? Isolated as a maid
- Cinderella? Isolated as a maid
- Aurora? Isolated for her own safety.
- Ariel? Initially she’s not seen as isolated but in the 2nd sequel (which functions as a prequel) it shows how Triton isolates her and her sisters from the rest of the kingdom supposedly for their safety.
- Belle? Isolated (though different in that others shun her, she is not hidden away like the earlier three).
- Jasmine? Isolated. She even says she doesn’t have any friends (“except you, Raja”).
- Mulan? Not explicitly isolated but she doesn’t have any visible friends.
- Tiana? Isolated but more by choice than by design. I wouldn’t call her relationship with Lottie a friendship for many reasons. But she certainly doesn’t have a social life.
- Rapunzel? Isolated by the villain
- Merida? Difficult to say but she isn’t given any friends either. Her relationship with the majority of her family is healthy but on her days off from princess training, she runs away by herself to climb mountains and explore. No friends. Solitary.
- Anna and Elsa? Both isolated.
Only Pocahontas has an explicit friend in her film. Not a friend of convenience, but a real live actual friend. Nakoma is clearly a close companion. They are seen playing, goofing around, joking. The concern they have for each other is clear in their interactions. Nakoma worries about Pocahontas. Pocahontas forgives Nakoma’s mistake because she loves Nakoma and knows that Nakoma loves her.
And even in other instances of female leads there is a lot of isolation. I’m thinking majorly of Lilo, Jenny, Meg, Penny.
I’m super tired so I can’t really pontificate on what that means but it’s a little suspicious yknow
Basically just peer to peer social interaction is really important to fostering self esteem and the majority of disney women aren’t shown to have that. :/
This specifically refers to a hand striking the side of a person’s face, tells quite a different story when placed in it’s proper historical context. In Jesus’s time, striking someone of a lower class ( a servant) with the back of the hand was used to assert authority and dominance. If the persecuted person “turned the other cheek,” the discipliner was faced with a dilemma. The left hand was used for unclean purposes, so a back-hand strike on the opposite cheek would not be performed. Another alternative would be a slap with the open hand as a challenge or to punch the person, but this was seen as a statement of equality. Thus, by turning the other cheek the persecuted was in effect putting an end to the behavior or if the slapping continued the person would lawfully be deemed equal and have to be released as a servant/slave.
THAT makes a lot more sense, now, thank you.
I can attest to the original poster’s comments. A few years back I took an intensive seminar on faith-based progressive activism, and we spent an entire unit discussing how many of Jesus’ instructions and stories were performative protests designed to shed light on and ridicule the oppressions of that time period as a way to emphasize the absurdity of the social hierarchy and give people the will and motivation to make changes for a more free and equal society.
For example, the next verse (Matthew 5:40) states “And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well.” In that time period, men traditionally wore a shirt and a coat-like garment as their daily wear. To sue someone for their shirt was to put them in their place - suing was generally only performed to take care of outstanding debts, and to be sued for one’s shirt meant that the person was so destitute the only valuable thing they could repay with was their own clothing. However, many cultures at that time (including Hebrew peoples) had prohibitions bordering on taboo against public nudity, so for a sued man to surrender both his shirt and his coat was to turn the system on its head and symbolically state, in a very public forum, that “I have no money with which to repay this person, but they are so insistent on taking advantage of my poverty that I am leaving this hearing buck-ass naked. His greed is the cause of a shameful public spectacle.”
All of a sudden an action of power (suing someone for their shirt) becomes a powerful symbol of subversion and mockery, as the suing patron either accepts the coat (and therefore full responsibility as the cause of the other man’s shameful display) or desperately chases the protester around trying to return his clothes to him, making a fool of himself in front of his peers and the entire gathered community.
Additionally, the next verse (Matthew 5:41; “If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles.”) was a big middle finger to the Romans who had taken over Judea and were not seen as legitimate authority by the majority of the population there. Roman law stated that a centurion on the march could require a Jew (and possibly other civilians as well, although I don’t remember explicitly) to carry his pack at any time and for any reason for one mile along the road (and because of the importance of the Roman highway system in maintaining rule over the expansive empire, the roads tended to be very well ordered and marked), however hecould not require any service beyond the next mile marker. For a Jewish civilian to carry a centurion’s pack for an entire second mile was a way to subvert the authority of the occupying forces. If the civilian wouldn’t give the pack back at the end of the first mile, the centurion would either have to forcibly take it back or report the civilian to his commanding officer (both of which would result in discipline being taken against the soldier for breaking Roman law) or wait until the civilian volunteered to return the pack, giving the Judean native implicit power over the occupying Roman and completely subverting the power structure of the Empire. Can you imagine how demoralizing that must have been for the highly ordered Roman armies that patrolled the region?
Jesus was a pacifist, but his teachings were in no way passive. There’s a reason he was practically considered a terrorist by the reigning powers, and it wasn’t because he healed the sick and fed the hungry.
Alan Cumming spoke at length about his sexuality in a new Instinct interview.
Here’s his why-is-this-so-tough-for-y’all-to-grasp moment of explaining that you do not magically become un-bisexual despite being in a monogamous relationship:
"I have a healthy sexual appetite and a healthy imagination," Cumming told the magazine. "I still define myself as a bisexual even though I have chosen to be with Grant. I’m sexually attracted to the female form even though I am with a man and I just feel that bisexuals have a bad rap.”
It’s really weird when you give Blathers more than one item to display at a time and he says you don’t have to worry about taking it out of your pockets, that the museum will take care of that.
I just image you like, leaving the museum and throughout the day just randomly feeling someone rummaging around in your pockets and you turn around and it’s Blathers and he’s just staring all wide eyed, slowly removing his hands from your pockets and then runs away with a big dinosaur skull and some fish
Someone on my Facebook feed shared this article about how trying to be a “Supermom” is bullshit.
And like, I guess I agree, but it’s clearly an upper-class white lady who wrote this article.
Because every woc mother I know (and I’ll bet poor white mothers have this fear too, to a degree) lives in fear of child protective services taking their kids away.
Even me, when my daughter was about two and my husband and I were both in school full time and working full time, someone called cyfd with an anonymous tip that we were neglectful parents.
Citing, amongst other concerns, that our living room was usually cluttered with toys (I repeat, we were both working full time, going to school full time, and our daughter was two) and our window blinds were broken (we also have cats, who broke the blinds, as cats are wont to do, and we were already planning on replacing them with curtains on the next paycheck).
So, you’ll excuse me if I do care that my house is clean, that my kid’s hair is always brushed, and her clothes are always clean. You’ll bet I make sure my kid is polite.
Like, yeah, I’m sure the pressure one feels to be perfect because they watch too much Martha Stewart is awful. But it’s nothing compared to the fear that the state might break up your family.