noworld42mro:

emily-adomestic:

I made these to put up around my school for my school’s GSA. They are quotes from some little known bisexuals about their bisexuality.

Lets stop bisexual erasure and remember, bisexuality is real!

Bisexual erasure is a huge thing, even in the LG community. Let’s raise the awareness!

(via xxxabbynormalxxx)

asker

charvanha asked: I apologize if you've explained this before but what does MOGII stand for? I've never heard of that acronym for the non cishet community. I'm only familiar with LGBTQIAP+ and GSRM

hobbitkaiju:

saathi1013:

stonewallexodus:

chrysalisamidst:

cease-and-de-cis:

strawberreli:

genderpunkrock:

There’s a little backstory here. Take a seat, grab a cup of coffee.

LGBT(QIAP)+, as you probably realize, is long, unwieldy, and often leaves marginalized peoples out. It also tends to fetishize the L, prioritize the G, criticize the B and forget the T+.

An alternative, GS(R)M was proposed. Proposed in 1966, it stood for Gender, Sexuality (and Romantic) Minorities, and it seemed like a great fit! Until people learned that it was coined by a pedophile, who also wanted to include cishet kinksters, pedophiles, and even rapists in the acronym, as well as other criticisms of the acronym itself. So that was obviously out of the question.

Then MOGII came along, but that one had some evolution. The original term was MOGA, for “Marginalized Orientation and Gender Alignments”. That was cool, but then people began to use MOGAI to include intersex folks who are often left out of important discussions (MOGA… and Intersex). Then it was pointed out that the “A” was somewhat unnecessary and allowed shitty allies a way to weasel themselves in. So, MOGII was born. MOGII stands for Marginalized Orientations, Gender Identity, and Intersex. It’s an excellent catch-all, uses no reclaimed slurs, and makes it entirely about the minorities.

hey so this is hella cool and gets around using the gross term “minority” by using “marginalised” and also doesn’t allow people to be gross by sticking rapists and child rapists into the acronym! hell yes!

Is that pronounced “Mo-gee”? 

I.. think I actually like this one. 

MOGII

yooo….

Dammit, and I have been using GS(R)M, too.  Still, better late to know than never.  And MOGII seems both precise and inclusive, yay!

:O SO MUCH BETTER

prometheanronin:

a-lolitas-life:

A new look at polyamory
by: Stephanie Pappas

Researchers estimate that as many as 5 percent of Americans are currently in relationships involving consensual nonmonogamy — that is, permission to go outside the couple looking for love or sex.
The boundaries in these relationships are remarkably varied, with some couples negotiating one-off “swinging” or partner-swapping experiences. and others forming stable bonds among three, four or five partners simultaneously. The latter is a version of polyamory, relationships in which people have multiple partnerships at once with the full knowledge of all involved.
Polyamorous people have largely flown under the radar, but that’s beginning to change as psychologists become intrigued by this unusual group. The first annual International Academic Polyamory Conference takes place Feb. 15, 2013 in Berkeley, Calif., and ongoing studies are examining everything from how jealousy works in polyamorous relationships to how kids in polyamorous familes fare. Though there’s a lot left to learn, initial findings are busting some myths about how love among many works.
Myth 1: Poly people are unsatisfied

When someone goes outside a relationship looking for companionship or sex, it’s natural to assume there’s something missing from their romance. But that doesn’t appear to be the case for polyamorous individuals.
Melissa Mitchell, a graduate student in psychology at the University of Georgia, conducted research while at Simon Frasier University in Canada on 1,093 polyamorous individuals. The participants were asked to list a primary partner and a secondary partner (more on that later), and they averaged nine years together with their primary and about two-and-a-half years with their secondary.
Mitchell and her colleagues surveyed their participants about how satisfied and fulfilled they felt in their relationships. They found that people were more satisfied with, felt more close to and more supported by their primary partner, suggesting that their desire for a secondary partner had little to do with dissatisfaction in the relationship. And satisfaction with an outside partner didn’t hurt the primary relationship. [6 Scientific Tips for a Successful Marriage]

“Polyamorous relationships are relatively independent of one another,” Mitchell said in January at the annual meeting of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology in New Orleans. “We tend to assume in our culture that if you have your needs met outside your relationship, some kind of detrimental effect is going to result, and that’s not what we find here.”
 

Myth 2: Poly people are still paired up

Many polyamorous people do form relationships that orbit around a committed couple, with each person having relationships on the side. But the primary partner/secondary partner model is an oversimplification for many poly relationships, said Bjarne Holmes, a psychologist at Champlain College in Vermont.
“I’d say about 30 percent or so of the polyamorous population would say they think of one partner as being primary,” Holmes told LiveScience. “A large part of the population would say, ‘No, I don’t buy into that idea of primary or secondary.’”
Many polyamorous people resist that hierarchy and say they get different things out of different relationships, Holmes said. There are also many people who live in triads or quads, in which three or four people have relationships with each other or with just one or a few members of the group.
“What I’ve come across most is actually configurations of two males and a female living together,” Holmes said.
Myth 3: Polyamory is a way to avoid commitment

Research by Amy Moors, a graduate student at the University of Michigan, finds that people whose relationship style involves little emotional entanglement often say they’d love a polyamorous relationship, thinking that they could have the benefits of coupledom without too much attachment.
Wrong. Joining a polyamorous relationship and thinking it’s going to be a commitment-free breeze would likely be a huge mistake. For one thing, plenty of polyamorous relationships are very serious and stable — Holmes says he’s interviewed people who’ve been legally married for 40 years and in a relationship with a second partner for 20.
Secondly, successful polyamorous partners communicate relentlessly, Holmes said: “They communicate to death.” It’s the only way to ensure that everyone’s needs are met and no one is feeling jealous or left out in a relationship that involves many people.
Myth 4: Polyamory is exhausting

The monogamists in the crowd may be shaking their heads. Isn’t all that communication and negotiation exhausting? It’s true that polyamorous relationships take lots of time, said Elizabeth Sheff, a legal consultant and former Georgia State University professor who is writing a book on polyamorous families.
“Even if you’re able to hang out together, giving four relationships the amount of care and feeding and maintenance they need can be a full-time job,” Sheff told LiveScience. [Life’s Extremes: Polyamory vs. Monogamy]
But people who thrive in polyamory seem to love that job, Holmes said. Polyamorous people report feeling energized by their multiple relationships and say that good feelings in one translate to good feelings in others.
“I had someone describe to me that love breeds morefeelings of love,” Holmes said.

Myth 5: Polyamory is bad for the kids
One big question about polyamory is how it affects families with children. The answer to that is not entirely clear — there have been no large-scale, long-term studies on the outcomes of kids growing up with polyamorous parents.
But some early research is suggesting that polyamory doesn’t have to have a bad impact on the kids. Sheff has interviewed more than 100 members of polyamorous families, including about two dozen children of polyamorous parents ranging in age from 5 to 17 years old.
Parents list some disadvantages of the polyamorous lifestyle for their kids, namely stigma from the outside world and the danger of a child becoming attached to a partner who might later leave the arrangement, a risk most tried to ameliorate by being extremely cautious about introducing partners to their children.
For their part, kids in the 5- to 8-year-old range were rarely aware that their families were different from the norm, Sheff found. They thought about their parents’ boyfriends and girlfriends as they related to themselves, not as they related to mom or dad.
“A 6-year-old may not think of someone as mommy’s girlfriend, but think of that person as ‘the one who brings Legos’ or ‘the one who takes me out to ice cream,’” Sheff said.
From ages 9 to 12, kids became more aware of their families as different, but mostly said it was easy to stay “closeted,” because people tend to mistake polyamorous arrangements as blended families or other relics of modern relationship complexity. The teens in the 13- to 17-year-old crowd tended to take a more in-your-face approach, Sheff said, “an approach of, ‘If you think this is wrong you’re going to have to prove it to me. My family is fine.’”
Some teens indicated that they’d consider polyamory for themselves; others weren’t interested at all.
Both parents and kids saw advantages to the polyamorous lifestyle as well. For parents, having more than two adults on hand to help with child-rearing could be a lifesaver. Kids also reported liking having multiple adults whom they trusted — though they complained that with so much supervision, they couldn’t get away with anything. Children also spoke of the advantages of growing up knowing they could make their own decisions about how to build their families.
The results are likely somewhat optimistic, Sheff said, as dysfunctional families are usually less likely to volunteer for studies. But the lack of widespread trauma among the children of polyamorous families suggests that polyamory is not, by definition, terrible for kids.
“One of the main things this does indicate to me is that these families can be really good places to raise children,” Sheff said. “Not necessarily that all of them, definitionally, are, but that they may be, depending on how families work it out.”
[source]
___________________________________________________________________
I’d like to add that my personal writing on the Poly topic can be found HERE under number 1.
With this weeks events on Marriage Equality I feel it’s important to remember the poly dynamics are part of these changes and I, for one, and anxiously waiting for the world to step into 2013…finally.
I hope you enjoy the read as Daddy and I have!
xoxo,
Lolita





Just because this has made its way through the people I follow to the people of mutual followship and knowing others would find it easy. Polyamory has always been an interesting topic, with some of my favorite people having been in them, so I always think its interesting to hear people’s thoughts on it.

prometheanronin:

a-lolitas-life:

by: Stephanie Pappas

Researchers estimate that as many as 5 percent of Americans are currently in relationships involving consensual nonmonogamy — that is, permission to go outside the couple looking for love or sex.

The boundaries in these relationships are remarkably varied, with some couples negotiating one-off “swinging” or partner-swapping experiences. and others forming stable bonds among three, four or five partners simultaneously. The latter is a version of polyamory, relationships in which people have multiple partnerships at once with the full knowledge of all involved.

Polyamorous people have largely flown under the radar, but that’s beginning to change as psychologists become intrigued by this unusual group. The first annual International Academic Polyamory Conference takes place Feb. 15, 2013 in Berkeley, Calif., and ongoing studies are examining everything from how jealousy works in polyamorous relationships to how kids in polyamorous familes fare. Though there’s a lot left to learn, initial findings are busting some myths about how love among many works.

Myth 1: Poly people are unsatisfied

When someone goes outside a relationship looking for companionship or sex, it’s natural to assume there’s something missing from their romance. But that doesn’t appear to be the case for polyamorous individuals.

Melissa Mitchell, a graduate student in psychology at the University of Georgia, conducted research while at Simon Frasier University in Canada on 1,093 polyamorous individuals. The participants were asked to list a primary partner and a secondary partner (more on that later), and they averaged nine years together with their primary and about two-and-a-half years with their secondary.

Mitchell and her colleagues surveyed their participants about how satisfied and fulfilled they felt in their relationships. They found that people were more satisfied with, felt more close to and more supported by their primary partner, suggesting that their desire for a secondary partner had little to do with dissatisfaction in the relationship. And satisfaction with an outside partner didn’t hurt the primary relationship. [6 Scientific Tips for a Successful Marriage]

“Polyamorous relationships are relatively independent of one another,” Mitchell said in January at the annual meeting of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology in New Orleans. “We tend to assume in our culture that if you have your needs met outside your relationship, some kind of detrimental effect is going to result, and that’s not what we find here.”
 
Myth 2: Poly people are still paired up

Many polyamorous people do form relationships that orbit around a committed couple, with each person having relationships on the side. But the primary partner/secondary partner model is an oversimplification for many poly relationships, said Bjarne Holmes, a psychologist at Champlain College in Vermont.

“I’d say about 30 percent or so of the polyamorous population would say they think of one partner as being primary,” Holmes told LiveScience. “A large part of the population would say, ‘No, I don’t buy into that idea of primary or secondary.’”

Many polyamorous people resist that hierarchy and say they get different things out of different relationships, Holmes said. There are also many people who live in triads or quads, in which three or four people have relationships with each other or with just one or a few members of the group.

“What I’ve come across most is actually configurations of two males and a female living together,” Holmes said.

Myth 3: Polyamory is a way to avoid commitment

Research by Amy Moors, a graduate student at the University of Michigan, finds that people whose relationship style involves little emotional entanglement often say they’d love a polyamorous relationship, thinking that they could have the benefits of coupledom without too much attachment.

Wrong. Joining a polyamorous relationship and thinking it’s going to be a commitment-free breeze would likely be a huge mistake. For one thing, plenty of polyamorous relationships are very serious and stable — Holmes says he’s interviewed people who’ve been legally married for 40 years and in a relationship with a second partner for 20.

Secondly, successful polyamorous partners communicate relentlessly, Holmes said: “They communicate to death.” It’s the only way to ensure that everyone’s needs are met and no one is feeling jealous or left out in a relationship that involves many people.

Myth 4: Polyamory is exhausting

The monogamists in the crowd may be shaking their heads. Isn’t all that communication and negotiation exhausting? It’s true that polyamorous relationships take lots of time, said Elizabeth Sheff, a legal consultant and former Georgia State University professor who is writing a book on polyamorous families.

“Even if you’re able to hang out together, giving four relationships the amount of care and feeding and maintenance they need can be a full-time job,” Sheff told LiveScience. [Life’s Extremes: Polyamory vs. Monogamy]

But people who thrive in polyamory seem to love that job, Holmes said. Polyamorous people report feeling energized by their multiple relationships and say that good feelings in one translate to good feelings in others.

“I had someone describe to me that love breeds morefeelings of love,” Holmes said.

Myth 5: Polyamory is bad for the kids

One big question about polyamory is how it affects families with children. The answer to that is not entirely clear — there have been no large-scale, long-term studies on the outcomes of kids growing up with polyamorous parents.

But some early research is suggesting that polyamory doesn’t have to have a bad impact on the kids. Sheff has interviewed more than 100 members of polyamorous families, including about two dozen children of polyamorous parents ranging in age from 5 to 17 years old.

Parents list some disadvantages of the polyamorous lifestyle for their kids, namely stigma from the outside world and the danger of a child becoming attached to a partner who might later leave the arrangement, a risk most tried to ameliorate by being extremely cautious about introducing partners to their children.

For their part, kids in the 5- to 8-year-old range were rarely aware that their families were different from the norm, Sheff found. They thought about their parents’ boyfriends and girlfriends as they related to themselves, not as they related to mom or dad.

“A 6-year-old may not think of someone as mommy’s girlfriend, but think of that person as ‘the one who brings Legos’ or ‘the one who takes me out to ice cream,’” Sheff said.

From ages 9 to 12, kids became more aware of their families as different, but mostly said it was easy to stay “closeted,” because people tend to mistake polyamorous arrangements as blended families or other relics of modern relationship complexity. The teens in the 13- to 17-year-old crowd tended to take a more in-your-face approach, Sheff said, “an approach of, ‘If you think this is wrong you’re going to have to prove it to me. My family is fine.’”

Some teens indicated that they’d consider polyamory for themselves; others weren’t interested at all.

Both parents and kids saw advantages to the polyamorous lifestyle as well. For parents, having more than two adults on hand to help with child-rearing could be a lifesaver. Kids also reported liking having multiple adults whom they trusted — though they complained that with so much supervision, they couldn’t get away with anything. Children also spoke of the advantages of growing up knowing they could make their own decisions about how to build their families.

The results are likely somewhat optimistic, Sheff said, as dysfunctional families are usually less likely to volunteer for studies. But the lack of widespread trauma among the children of polyamorous families suggests that polyamory is not, by definition, terrible for kids.

“One of the main things this does indicate to me is that these families can be really good places to raise children,” Sheff said. “Not necessarily that all of them, definitionally, are, but that they may be, depending on how families work it out.”

[source]

___________________________________________________________________

I’d like to add that my personal writing on the Poly topic can be found HERE under number 1.

With this weeks events on Marriage Equality I feel it’s important to remember the poly dynamics are part of these changes and I, for one, and anxiously waiting for the world to step into 2013…finally.

I hope you enjoy the read as Daddy and I have!

xoxo,

Lolita

Just because this has made its way through the people I follow to the people of mutual followship and knowing others would find it easy. Polyamory has always been an interesting topic, with some of my favorite people having been in them, so I always think its interesting to hear people’s thoughts on it.

(via xxxabbynormalxxx)

useyourwordsasher:

stovestalker:

noshamejustlove:

zorobro:

shota-purinsu:

zorobro:

linzthenerd:

theguilteaparty:

crippledcuriosity:

itsfondue:

Isn’t it nice how people twist their religious scripture to suit their weds but when it’s used against them it’s suddenly not okay

I talked to a monk about this quote once (we have mutual friends, and he came to a New Year’s Eve party at my shared art studio). He said this isn’t even talking about homosexuality. That the bible never actually says homosexuality is wrong. What that passage means is this:

Women were treated as subservient and it that you shouldn’t treat other men as subservient, like they are beneath you. It is not talking about homosexuality. If it was, it would say it outright since the bible lists other things outright.

I take the word of a monk who have studied the bible extensively more than a self proclaimed Christian.

The above text, I would like to point out is from the point of view of this translation of the original Hebrew. I spoke with my cousin’s rabbi on the matter and his response was different, saying that it was a mistranslation. See, the true translation says that a man shall not lie with another in the bed of a woman, which is to say, the Hebrews had a shit ton of rules about when a man was or was not allowed in a woman’s bed and private quarters (including, if she didn’t want you there, you weren’t allowed there. Hebrew women were also allowed to divorce their husbands and the image of the ‘oppressive Hebrew people’ is an image that was propogated by Christianity which, historically speaking, doesn’t treat the Jewish people too well and liked to paint them as being rather barbaric and backwards and cultish with their traditions, which, another piece of fun info, their traditions were one of the main reasons why the Jewish people were less likely, in medieval times, to die of the plague. Because washing your hands and avoiding the dead and vermin and the like was a lot of help. Of course the Christians persecuted them for not dying but that’s another matter. I’m sidetracked). So the verse is literally saying ‘Don’t fuck in some lady’s bed because that’s just goddamn rude’

Also, whenever a Christian brings the book of Leviticus up, you should feel free to point out that these are rules that were given to make the Hebrew people prepared for when the son of God came to earth. In Christianity, it’s believed the son of God was Jesus. So by following the rules set in Leviticus or pushing them as things we should follow, they’re saying that Jesus was not the son of God, and that Jesus did not, in fact, die for our sins. Jewish people believe, in their faith, that the son of God hasn’t yet been born, so many choose to follow these rules.

Most people of course roll their eyes when I explain the translation of the verse (full breakdown found here) but it’s always fun to point out the nature of the rules in Leviticus and the implications of following them. 

I’m a theology student and I am on the verge of crying because of how accurate this commentary is. Historical context is simultaneously the most interesting and most important part of interpreting any texts. 

Most religious people seem to base their beliefs on things that are severely mistranslated. I wish they would do their research before using the bible for hate.

I studied theology extensively and was going to become a theologist until I switched majors. The above commentary is 100% accurate and what I try to stress in a lot if conversations with Bible Thumpers.

Jesus also affirms the homosexual relationship between the Roman Centurion and his “slave”. The particular Greek word used to refer to this special slave was “pais”. Greek language studies and contexts show that a “pais” was a male love slave. Regular slaves were called “dolos”. The Centurion makes this distinction clearly when he asks Jesus to heal his slave (pais), and then to prove his status he tells Jesus that his slaves (dolos) go when he tells them to. But this slave (pais) was special. He was the Centurion’s lover.

Hearing this, Jesus was so amazed he says he had not found ANYONE ELSE who had such great faith. He then blesses the Centurion and heals his male lover.

Matthew 8:5-13

THIS IS WHAT THE BIBLE REALLY TEACHES ABOUT SAME SEX COUPLES.

In short, the English adaptation is a mistranslated farce.

^^^^this

reblogging for the comments ^^^^^^

EXCUSE ME WHILE I REBLOG THIS FIFTY MILLION TIMES

Christians really mostly don’t get it about Jesus.

This is largely because they don’t get it about his Jewishness.

Also about things like Bible Societies being the ones who translate their sacred texts, and all of the well-known ones translating to fit specific religious agendas. Like, go take one single semester of Hebrew, and then tell me how “very clear” your NIV translation is, asshole.

(via mysticstar)

consulting-idjits-in-the-tardis:

controlandcake:

dorismindpalace:

mousinainteasy:

domiiik:

  • gay guys don’t have to be disgusted by vagina
  • lesbians don’t have nightmares after seeing cock
  • gay guys can appreaciate beautiful women
  • lesbians can appreciate handsome men
  • it doesn’t make them less gay

straight guys can appreciate handsome men

straight girls can appreciate beautiful women

it doesn’t make them less straight

BLESS THIS POST

Asexual people can appreciate attractive people. 

image

(via fucked-my-way-to-drama-school)

sonicpinballparty:

mcbushpig:

when i was 8 i drew this comic about two girls kissing and my mom was out raged and i thought it was because my art wasn’t good enough so i kept trying to draw girls kissing and she sent me to therapy and my therapist tried explaining homosexuality to me and i didn’t even know what that had to do with my art skills

image

(via sayserasera)

swampgallows:

swampgallows:

The 30 Day Asexuality Challenge asked what I’d imagine asexual pride looked like, and I thought an introductory campaign of sorts combating the erasure and invalidation asexuals experience upon coming out would be a good start. So I whipped these up! A couple of these I feel I need to remind myself of now and again, so I feel like they might be helpful to both aces and non-aces.

Feel free to distribute, but please don’t reupload to Tumblr; use the reblog function instead. 

Edit: I had put “opposite” gender for straight when it should say “different”. It’s now been corrected. My apologies!

Please reblog the corrected set!! Thank you :)

(via sayserasera)

Let me explain sexuality to you

jessie-beth:

adeadmanandhisfriends:

Through gifs.

Everyone gets straight and gay, so I’m leaving those out.

Bisexual:

image

Pansexual:

image

Asexual:

image

You are now informed.

Actually, this really clears it up for me.

(via owesomejj)

tristifere:

himteckerjam:

intersectionalfeminism:

Acephobia in the LGBT+ Community from the documentary (A)sexuality. 

It is just…so fucking weird how threatened people feel when it comes to Asexuality.  I still can’t wrap my mind around it.

I’m so happy this post is being reblogged by LBGT+ people who aren’t asexual. I keep on reading posts by non-ace LGBT+ people of support to the ace community, and of being stunned by this reaction by a movement which should know better than to judge. AND THAT MAKES THIS ACE SO FREAKING HAPPY. The woman in the first photo expresses my sentiment. I know I belong in the queer/LGBTQIA movement. I want to belong. But I just don’t know if I’m welcome. I’m so happy that there are so many people on Tumblr who do not fall into the catagory of outright refusal of asexuality.

I know not a lot of people understand asexuality. And I know there’s confusion about it, about our experiences, and about how we fit in the movement. But let’s talk about this. Let’s have this conversation.

(via toriandrelativedimensionsinspace)

viridian-genesis:

heteroic:

glowcloud:

blogoftheplanetoftheapes:

bronte-saurous:

punkrockluna:

bunreal:

bunreal:

ANNE FRANK WAS BI

HOW DID NO ONE EVER TELL ME THIS

I FEEL FUCKING ROBBED

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_bisexual_people:_A-F#cite_note-221

!!!!!!!!!!

Excuse me while I memorize this list

I keep trying to tell people this but nobody believes me.

haha yea they edited bits of her diary out which included anne expressing attraction to girls and it’s even been banned from schools because of this!! fun fact

Looked this up and yeah it’s legit!

Unconsciously, I had these feelings even before I came
here. Once when I was spending the night at Jacque's, I could
no longer restrain my curiosity about her body, which she'd
always hidden from me and which I'd never seen. I asked her
whether, as proof of our friendiship, we could touch each
other's breasts. Jacque refused.

I also had a terrible desire to kiss her, which I did.
Every time I see a female nude, such as the Venus in my art
history book, I go into ecstasy. Sometimes I find them so
exquisite I have to struggle to hold back my tears. If only I
had a girlfriend!"

I own a copy of her diary in which these bits were not edited out. Reading her diary is a particularly emotional experience for me, and I feel a connection to Anne Frank, because she is a Queer Jew, just like I am. The fact that she is queer is an integral part of who she is, and it is inexcusable that it is hidden. It is a crime. And this censorship of her diary is just as disrespectful to her as tearing these books apart, as was done in Japan a few weeks ago. Her voice was silenced once by those who hated her for who she was. Do not let her be silenced yet again for the same reason.

(via amorphinetoast)

soloontherocks:

people who think bisexuals change sexuality based on who we’re fucking are not invited to our future bisexual pirate kingdom in the bahamas

(via petratodd)

ejacutastic:

people who think lesbians are more accepted in society than gay men are idiots 

lesbians are more sexualized. they’re seen as a hot thing for straight men to watch but only if both girls are conventionally attractive. otherwise, it’s seen as disgusting or unnatural. that is not acceptance. that is fetishization. 

(via xxxabbynormalxxx)

erikfuckinglensherr:

dullaidan:

what im saying is that bisexuals, pansexual, and asexuals should all join together so we can be in the fictitious trifecta. enough people will say we’re not real and we’ll all converge together in a massive, fierce mass only spoken of in myth.  dont come near us or you too will cease to exist

image

(via eyesfilledwithstars)

nullgrade:

This is a Venn diagram.

nullgrade:

This is a Venn diagram.

(via toriandrelativedimensionsinspace)

Sherlock Holmes, again, must have sexual impulses because human beings tend to — most human beings, not absolutely all, but that’s the majority. The fact is, he decides to put all that in an iron box to make his brain work better. Of course, the fact that that iron box bounces around and shakes and bangs from the inside is what makes the story interesting. He wants to rise above us like a snowcapped mountain, but he’s actually a volcano, and that’s where the story is. That’s where the story is. You know, you shove Irene Adler in front of him, and he just falls apart like most men would. — Steven Moffat (x)