Latest Tweets:
Real mature, you guise.
I remember when the Anthony Wiener scandal first broke. Everyday I could feel the glee rolling off the Post. They couldn’t believe their luck. As terrible as the Post is, they can do wiener based puns well.
(Source: cute-overload, via magdolenelives)
(Source: fullbodiedfashion)
butts: I wonder how many people identify as genderqueer in Somalia
Oh, wait. I forgot. Those people have actual problems. I’m from a “third world country” and to add to that I’m from a very conservative predominantly Muslim country. I’m about to drop a BOMB SHELL on you, bro. There are gay people. There are genderqueer people. There are trans* people. But they can’t be open about it for the most part because they may even be shunned by their own family. We are all products of our society and there is ABSOLUTELY nothing wrong with exploring yourself and your feelings and your identity. If it’s safe and you can share it why the fuck not? Because if someone has the audacity to put a name to their identity then we can’t deal with poverty or racism? No shut up. Also here are some more fun facts: All this and I’m still worried about silly things like racism, sexism and cissexism! And I still think you’re ridiculous and have made absolutely zero points! I’m sorry you think we’re too primitive to know about gender identity. (via simplydalektable)
Dress
James Galanos, 1996
The Philadelphia Museum of Art
Dalek has a soft spot for you.
Evening Ensemble
James Galanos, 1954
If Earth Had Rings
First off, they would be really pretty to look at. They would also dominate the sky in both night and day at exactly the same place as they would never rise nor set. And at night you would see the Earth’s shadow swing across the rings, like in the 4th photo here.
However, life would be very different on Earth if this were the case. Nocturnal animals would have a hard time being nocturnal, as the light reflecting from the rings would illuminate the night.
Because we are closer to the Sun than Saturn is, the rings would be more rocky than ice, making them less bright but still pretty bright. In fact, you would see far less stars at night (living anywhere other than the equator or the arctic circle) because of the light pollution and not to mention ruin most meteor showers because of that.
During the day the rings would block sunlight in certain regions of the planet creating wild weather cycles and effecting plant life as well. So basically, they would be definitely pretty to look at but they would also make a whole lot of things screwy.
Illustrations by Ron Miller // io9
— Click the photos for captionsDANGIT EARTH! WHY YOU NO HAVE RINGS!
(via ozyreads)
Ensemble
James Galanos, 1966
![thefrogman:
[reddit]](http://24.media.tumblr.com/a5170abcedb352dc1aad4d1238949456/tumblr_mmjjplX62r1s5lg4ho1_500.jpg)
Dress
1888-1889
The Metropolitan Museum of Art
Dress
James Galanos, 1962
The Philadelphia Museum of Art
Lina Cavalieri (25 December 1874 – 7 February 1944) was an Italian operatic soprano known for her great beauty.
Born Natalina Cavalieri in Viterbo, Latium, Italy, she lost her parents at the age of fifteen and became a ward of the state, sent to live in a Roman Catholic orphanage. The vivacious young girl was extremely unhappy under the strict raising of the nuns, and at the first opportunity she ran away with a touring theatrical group.
Blessed with a good singing voice, a young Cavalieri made her way to Paris, France, where her stunning good looks opened doors and she obtained work as a singer at one of the city’s café-concerts. From there she performed at a variety of music halls and other such venues around Europe while still working to develop her voice for the opera. A soprano, Cavalieri took voice lessons and made her opera debut in Lisbon, Portugal, in 1900, the same year she married her first husband, the Russian Prince Bariatinsky. Eventually she followed in the footsteps of Hariclea Darclée as one of the first stars of Puccini’s Tosca. In 1904 she sang at the Opéra de Monte-Carlo then in 1905, at the Sarah Bernhardt Theatre in Paris, Cavalieri starred opposite Enrico Caruso in the Umberto Giordano opera, Fedora. From there, she and Caruso took the show to New York City, debuting with it at the Metropolitan Opera on 5 December 1906.Cavalieri remained with the Metropolitan Opera for the next two seasons performing again with Caruso in 1907 in Puccini’s Manon Lescaut. Renowned as much for her great beauty as for her singing voice, she became one of the most photographed stars of her time. Frequently referred to as the “world’s most beautiful woman,” she was part of the tightlacing tradition that saw women use corsetry to create an “hour-glass” figure. During the 1909–1910 season she sang with Oscar Hammerstein’s Manhattan Opera Company. Her first marriage long over, she had a whirlwind romance and marriage with Robert Winthrop Chanler (1872–1930), a member of New York’s prominent Astor family. However, this marriage lasted only a very short time and Cavalieri returned to Europe where she became a much-loved star in pre-Revolutionary St. Petersburg, Russia, and in the Ukraine.
During her career, Cavalieri sang with other opera greats such as the Italian baritone Titta Ruffo and the French tenor Lucien Muratore, whom she married in 1913. After retiring from the stage, Cavalieri ran a cosmetic salon in Paris. In 1914, on the eve of her fortieth birthday — her beauty still spectacular — she wrote an advice column on make-up for women in Femina magazine and published a book, My Secrets of Beauty. In 1915, she returned to her native Italy to make motion pictures. When that country became involved in World War I, she went to the United States where she made four more silent films. The last three of her films were the product of her friend, the Belgian film director Edward José.
(information gathered from the french sampler)
The Problem with 'Boys Will Be Boys'
For months, every morning when my daughter was in preschool, I watched her construct an elaborate castle out of blocks, colorful plastic discs, bits of rope, ribbons and feathers, only to have the same little boy gleefully destroy it within seconds of its completion. No matter how many times he did it, his parents never swooped in BEFORE the morning’s live 3-D reenactment of “Invasion of AstroMonster.” This is what they’d say repeatedly: “You know! Boys will be boys!” “He’s just going through a phase!” “He’s such a boy! He LOVES destroying things!” “Oh my god! Girls and boys are SO different!” “He. Just. Can’t. Help himself!” I tried to teach my daughter how to stop this from happening. She asked him politely not to do it. We talked about some things she might do. She moved where she built. She stood in his way. She built a stronger foundation to the castle, so that, if he did get to it, she wouldn’t have to rebuild the whole thing. In the meantime, I imagine his parents thinking, “What red-blooded boy wouldn’t knock it down?” She built a beautiful, glittery castle in a public space. It was so tempting. He just couldn’t control himself and, being a boy, had violent inclinations. She had to keep her building safe. Her consent didn’t matter. Besides, it’s not like she made a big fuss when he knocked it down. It wasn’t a “legitimate” knocking over if she didn’t throw a tantrum. His desire — for power, destruction, control, whatever- - was understandable. Maybe she “shouldn’t have gone to preschool” at all. OR, better if she just kept her building activities to home. I know it’s a lurid metaphor, but I taught my daughter the preschool block precursor of don’t “get raped” and this child, Boy #1, did not learn the preschool equivalent of “don’t rape.” Not once did his parents talk to him about invading another person’s space and claiming for his own purposes something that was not his to claim. Respect for her and her work and words was not something he was learning. How much of the boy’s behavior in coming years would be excused in these ways, be calibrated to meet these expectations and enforce the “rules” his parents kept repeating? There was another boy who, similarly, decided to knock down her castle one day. When he did it his mother took him in hand, explained to him that it was not his to destroy, asked him how he thought my daughter felt after working so hard on her building and walked over with him so he could apologize. That probably wasn’t much fun for him, but he did not do it again. There was a third child. He was really smart. He asked if he could knock her building down. She, beneficent ruler of all pre-circle-time castle construction, said yes… but only after she was done building it and said it was OK. They worked out a plan together and eventually he started building things with her and they would both knock the thing down with unadulterated joy. You can’t make this stuff up. Take each of these three boys and consider what he might do when he’s older, say, at college, drunk at a party, mad at an ex-girlfriend who rebuffs him and uses words that she expects will be meaningful and respecte, “No, I don’t want to. Stop. Leave.” The “overarching attitudinal characteristic” of abusive men is entitlement. (Source: lastlifeinuniverse, via lostintrafficlights)
