Now Playing Tracks

orionslegend:

couple-a-hundred-of-em:

As a college student, currently really hungry with nothing to eat, I understand how hard it can be to get food. Sometimes you really just don’t have the money to eat and when you do, you waste it all on fast food instead of stocking up on cheap things because you’re so tired of Ramen Noodes and canned food you could barf. So, I’ve composed a list of recipes and resources that will fit a college kid’s budget and appetite. Don’t go hungry! <3

Ramen Noodle Recipes:

Mug Meals:

Microwave Recipes:

Recipe Generators

Other Resources

I need to remember this for this fall

(Source: decently-interested-in-ghosts)

thisblackwitch:

fandomcollector:

electrikmoonlight:

mildserendipity:

WTF I LIETERALLY THOUGHT IT WAS ABOUT DOGS UNTIL NOW I AM 20 YEARS OLD

of course it was, why would he actually sing about real dogs and why they got out

No it isn’t. It’s actually talking about the men who predate upon women in clubs, calling them dogs, not ‘ugly women’. Just look at the lyrics:

And tell the fellas stop the name callin
Yepee ah yo
Then them girls respond to the call
I hear a woman shout out
Who let the dogs out
Woof, woof, woof, woof, woof

Or if that isn’t clear enough for you that it’s women quite clearly calling the men dogs then read this next bit:

Get back gruffy, mash scruffy
Get back you flea infested mongrel
Now I tell meh self dem man go get angry
Ah yepee ah yo
To hear them girls calling them canine

It’s saying that men who attack women for being ‘ugly’ or refuse to leave them alone are worse than stray mongrels! It plainly points out that women do not want or appreciate the attention and so taunt them with the verse of ‘who let the dogs out’ because they are both unable to control themselves and vile little creatures. Learn to do some fucking research.

It’s about how cat calling guys are awful.

(Source: ruinedchildhood)

thefingerfuckingfemalefury:

bert-and-ernie-are-gay:

kluckleberry:

#while bbc sherlock is at the stage where sherlock and john are finally discovering their love for each other #the movies have flown straight past flirting and into husband land

Interviewer: Tell us about your relationship with Robert Downey Jr on set.
Jude Law: Oh, I love him. I love him.
Interviewer: Yeah? You had a bit of a bromance going on there.
Jude Law: What is this new term everyone is using?
Interviewer: Bromance?
Jude Law: Oh, it’s a horrible term. What about just a romance?
Interviewer: No, it’s not the same.
Jude Law: Why not? Why?
Interviewer: Cause then you’d have to star in a romantic comedy together or something.
Jude Law: We just have. Have you not seen it? [x]

Jude Law does not have time for any of that ‘No Homo’ bullshit…

(Source: funkes)

loki-has-a-tardis:

This is honestly the best poster I have found in a while supporting breast cancer awareness. I am honestly so sick of seeing, “set the tatas free” and “save the boobies”. There is no reason in hell a life threatening, life ruining disease should be sexualized. “Don’t wear a bra day,” go fuck yourselves. You’re not saving a pair of tits, you’re saving the entire package: mind, body, and soul included. Women are not just a pair of breasts.

gigglesandanixi:

Lately, feminists like Annie Lennox, bell hooks and Emma Watson have taken issue with Beyoncé’s sexual openness. While trying to discredit Beyoncé as a feminist, they seem to have forgotten one of the most important parts of Chimamanda’s speech in ***Flawless.

"What does a lady dress like, exactly? And who decided what a lady looks like? What bearing should one’s clothing have on one’s identification as a feminist? This is exactly the kind of misogynist policing we’ve fought tooth and claw against for decades, and to level this line of “reasoning” at Beyoncé is not only antifeminist, it is despicable." (x)

But that’s not even what it is though. The fact is that she’s advertising acceptable blackness within a capitalistic framework.

She isn’t changing anything.

People mistake their love for the AESTHETIC and IMAGE of Beyonce with a legitimate feminist appreciation.

She’s a ‘life style’ feminist. Meaning that we’re going to attempt to say that we’re free WITHIN said framework without DISRUPTING the system.

That’s what Bell Hooks was trying to say.

Hooks was trying to point out that THIS type of beyonce is a MARKETING model and it represents the sort of lifestyle feminism that’s vapid and superficial.

It changes NOTHING and it is ONLY an aesthetic.

It has NOTHING to do with a woman not being able to be ‘sexual’ in the media. Hooks was trying to say that Beyonce CAN NOT be sexual within said framework because of those other factors.

MEANING that her ‘sexuality’ is fake. It’s marketing. Not an actual stance of liberation.

You guys have that SO messed up. Like I don’t understand why you guys don’t understand what Hooks was getting at.

Agree to disagree, it’s chill. But you guys misinterpreted why Hooks was criticizing her and Nicki.

Like SEVERELY.

Everyone took it as, “Bell Hooks is saying that women can’t be sexual in the media! Women can’t take back their sexuality in the media!”

MADONNA did this. JANET JACKSON did this. BRITNEY SPEARS did this. What is the DIFFERENCE between these women and Beyonce? The only difference is the GENERATIONAL appeal. Same concept for different generations and everyone, each and every time sees this as “revolutionary” and “progressive.”

(Source: thequeenbey)

We make Tumblr themes