The Forgettable One

Damned cellular devices!

What You Crave vs What You Need

Chocolate:

Raw nuts/seeds.

Oily/Fatty Snacks:

Kale, leafy greens.

Soda/Carbonated Drinks:

Actual, literal bubbles.

Chips/Salty Food:

Topsoil.

Cookies:

Freudian psychology.

Sweet Tea:

A strong Southern gentleman to take care of you.

Pasta/Carbs:

Pasta/Carbs.

Ice:

The sweet release of death.

hieromancer:

xbox ps3
3ds nintendo wii

xbox ps3
3ds nintendo wii

sephiroth
sephiroth

(via shimmerfang)

My professor took us to a cooking class in the French Quarter yesterday. I was in charge of the Crawfish bread (of which I’m not a fan), but the jambalaya was great!
To get to a streetcar stop, we walked through wherever that big intersection was and we saw a wedding procession.

It was a nice day!

pixdi:

image

explain yourself nintendo

(via shimmerfang)

adventuretime:

archiemcphee:

Simply watching Adventure Time is often enough to make us hungry for sweets, but now we have an actual edible Candy Kingdom to tantalize our tastebuds. This mouthwateringly awesome Gingerbread Candy Kingdom was made by Redditor IHaveAFluffyCat (who actually does have an adorable fluffy cat).

The amount of time, effort, and candy that went into this work of edible art is amazing. It’s beautifully detailed from top to bottom, but we’re particularly impressed by the Gumball Guardians, whose sugar glass heads contain real gumballs.

Click here to see a complete gallery of step-by-step process photos.

[via Reddit]

A Gingerbread Candy Kingdom???

ARAHRRGHGAHGRHRGLHGAHLLLAAA

SCREAMING

losthitsu:

Just sharing a few photos of the Great Tapestry of Scotland, a 143m long work done largely by amateur volunteers depicting Scottish history from prehistoric times (and currently the largest tapestry in the world). They even let visitors try the stitching at some additional panels! Sadly it’s leaving Edinburgh in two days so I’m all the more happy I could still catch a glimpse.

That sounds like a great time!

(Source: ask-west)

chirart:

prokopetz:

phiasmir:

theanimatedraccoon:

missblackglass:

bands-and-anime:

missblackglass:

datsweetberrypunch:

scarecrows-art:

poppunklovesongs:

knee-say:

"I loved you, always.”

going to comment a little on this game: the overseeing voice talks as if it owns you, and defies your free will. if you follow its orders, you are praised, and the worldview becomes sharper and more detailed. if you don’t, you are chastised, and the world becomes more vague and difficult to navigate, but also more colourful and loud. it’s odd, and sort of eerie, but definitely interesting. take it as you will.

This game really unsettles me. It unsttles me that my first choice to obey, and when I played again and disobeyed, I got really emotional really fast. Failure hurt me more the more I disobeyed. It was… interesting to experience.

i’ve always said we are trained to obey more than to think.

holy shit. i reblogged this the first time without playing. then i played in and it is terrifying. i very much like this, but it will give you intense feelings. 

What’s the game??

you obey everything the game tells you too, even jumping into barbs and basically killing yourself. if you dont youre chastised and even the scolding is terrifying

So, essentially, it’s a game that illustrates what it’s like to be in an abusive parents or an abusive relationship - and how it affects you emotionally. That is horrific and ingenious - the next time someone negates the affects of emotional abuse, I’ll take them to this game and let them come to their own conclusions.

This game absolutely gets it. The most solid and reliable degradation is a gendered insult. The more you obey and co-operate, the better understanding you seem to have of your word, and things seem easier. But what really gets me is the contradiction. You are not allowed to have the correct answer. Are you a boy or a girl? The answer is no, I will give you the answer. even towards the end, your “praise” is “no, I will give you the answer. You earned this answer, but it is given to you by me.” Disobeying makes the world frightening and confusing and difficult, but beautiful in a world devoid of flavour.

Not just a gendered insult, either. The nameless voice that directs the player’s actions is supposed to be a hateful, abusive monster, and when the game’s designers asked themselves “okay, what’s the most degrading, dehumanising thing this voice could possibly do to the player?”, the answer they came up with was “deliberately misgender them”.

Played it both ways — one where I implicitly obeyed everything and the other where I defied wherever I could.

Both endings are abrupt and without any sort of contextual resolution. When you obey, you’re praised and you’re given a clear landscape and what appears to be a coin (so a reward), but with the clear knowledge everything is at the behest of the voice, who is so very pleased to own you. When you play the game defyingly, the voice that smugly tells you that it will make you beg ends up being the one that begs at the end. “Why do you hate me? I loved you.” “Where will you go? Will you stay close?” You’re given the choice between going and staying. If you choose to go, you’re given an unending corridor to walk through filled with the colorful glitchy distortion obscuring everything. It ends as you walk down it.

On one hand, you’re given the world you know, with all your needs met, but none of the will. On the other hand, you’re given a world of opportunity that’s entirely yours but it’s undefined, unknown, and unending.

It’s definitely an emotional experience.

(via earlgreystash)

coelasquid:

alliartist:

rifa:

prokopetz:

nebcondist1:

prokopetz:

I’ve seen this image going around, and I feel compelled to point out that it’s only half-right. It’s true that high heels were originally a masculine fashion, but they weren’t originally worn by butchers - nor for any other utilitarian purpose, for that matter.
High heels were worn by men for exactly the same reason they’re worn by women today: to display one’s legs to best effect. Until quite recently, shapely, well-toned calves and thighs were regarded as an absolute prerequisite for male attractiveness. That’s why you see so many paintings of famous men framed to show off their legs - like this one of George Washington displaying his fantastic calves:

… or this one of Louis XIV of France rocking a fabulous pair of red platform heels (check out those thighs!):

… or even this one of Charles I of England showing off his high-heeled riding boots - note, again, the visual emphasis on his well-formed calves:

In summary: were high heels originally worn by men? Yes. Were they worn to keep blood off their feet? No at all - they were worn for the same reason they’re worn today: to look fabulous.

so then how did they become a solo feminine item of attire?

A variety of reasons. In France, for example, high heels fell out out of favour in the court of Napoleon due to their association with aristocratic decadence, while in England, the more conservative fashions of the Victorian era regarded it as indecent for a man to openly display his calves.
But then, fashions come and go. The real question is why heels never came back into fashion for men - and that can be laid squarely at the feet of institutionalised homophobia. Essentially, heels for men were never revived because, by the early 20th Century, sexually provocative attire for men had come to be associated with homosexuality; the resulting moral panic ushered in an era of drab, blocky, fully concealing menswear in which a well-turned calf simply had no place - a setback from which men’s fashion has yet to fully recover.

FASHION HISTORY IS HUMAN HISTORY OK

Thank you, history side of tumblr. That “stay out of blood” thing has been driving me mad.

It’s funny because men’s cowboy boots and motorcycle boots both have relatively high heels (at least as high as the heels in those earlier art examples). I had an old teacher who was a little 5’2” bodybuilder that always wore cowboy boots and we would rib him that they were “acceptably masculine high heels” and that kind of thing. They seem to pass under the radar because they’re attached to such chest-poundingly masculine pastimes, they’re like the footwear version of “No homo”.

coelasquid:

alliartist:

rifa:

prokopetz:

nebcondist1:

prokopetz:

I’ve seen this image going around, and I feel compelled to point out that it’s only half-right. It’s true that high heels were originally a masculine fashion, but they weren’t originally worn by butchers - nor for any other utilitarian purpose, for that matter.

High heels were worn by men for exactly the same reason they’re worn by women today: to display one’s legs to best effect. Until quite recently, shapely, well-toned calves and thighs were regarded as an absolute prerequisite for male attractiveness. That’s why you see so many paintings of famous men framed to show off their legs - like this one of George Washington displaying his fantastic calves:

… or this one of Louis XIV of France rocking a fabulous pair of red platform heels (check out those thighs!):

… or even this one of Charles I of England showing off his high-heeled riding boots - note, again, the visual emphasis on his well-formed calves:

In summary: were high heels originally worn by men? Yes. Were they worn to keep blood off their feet? No at all - they were worn for the same reason they’re worn today: to look fabulous.

so then how did they become a solo feminine item of attire?

A variety of reasons. In France, for example, high heels fell out out of favour in the court of Napoleon due to their association with aristocratic decadence, while in England, the more conservative fashions of the Victorian era regarded it as indecent for a man to openly display his calves.

But then, fashions come and go. The real question is why heels never came back into fashion for men - and that can be laid squarely at the feet of institutionalised homophobia. Essentially, heels for men were never revived because, by the early 20th Century, sexually provocative attire for men had come to be associated with homosexuality; the resulting moral panic ushered in an era of drab, blocky, fully concealing menswear in which a well-turned calf simply had no place - a setback from which men’s fashion has yet to fully recover.

FASHION HISTORY IS HUMAN HISTORY OK

Thank you, history side of tumblr. That “stay out of blood” thing has been driving me mad.

It’s funny because men’s cowboy boots and motorcycle boots both have relatively high heels (at least as high as the heels in those earlier art examples). I had an old teacher who was a little 5’2” bodybuilder that always wore cowboy boots and we would rib him that they were “acceptably masculine high heels” and that kind of thing. They seem to pass under the radar because they’re attached to such chest-poundingly masculine pastimes, they’re like the footwear version of “No homo”.

(via earlgreystash)