endlessme:

National Geographic, 1969

mantischildren:

sometimes babey is allowed a small honey snack

faketumor:

m-in-a-moonrock:

aegipan-omnicorn:

tenitchyfingers:

“We chose the term “asexual” to describe ourselves because both “celibate” and “anti-sexual” have connotations we wished to avoid: the first implies that one has sacrificed sexuality for some higher good, the second that sexuality is degrading or somehow inherently bad. “Asexual”, as we use it, does not mean “without sex” but “relating sexually to no one”. This does not, of course, exclude masturbation but implies that if one has sexual feelings they do not require another person for their expression. Asexuality is, simply, self-contained sexuality.”

— The Asexual Manifesto, Lisa Orlando and Barbara Getz, 1972

Note the date, people:

That’s 1972

29 years before AVEN was started online,

and 47 years before the present.

And that’s only the date that Manifesto was written, so asexuals as members of a community must have existed at least some time before that.

So, no: we are not just Tumblr trenders. Get out of here with that.

Also note how this clearly states that the words asexual was chosen specifically because others words implied that sexuality was bad or that the person might have made a “superior” choice in giving it up, and that IS NOT part of being asexual. 

Associating sexuality and sexual attraction to something bad has never been inherently part of asexuality unlike what aphobic people on here keep saying. It has always been their own internal shame and issues about sex that they keep projecting on to us.

shrimpsisbugs:

hey! i’m happy to explain. some of this may be slightly boiled down 

so like, right off the bat, my central ethos about dog ownership/adoption is that 

1. people should get dogs who are the right fit for them as a person, for their household, and for their lifestyle. not every home is good for every dog and not every dog is good for every home. 
   
   
2. all dogs deserve to be in circumstances that maximize their likelihood to have a home.
   
   this means making sure that dogs end up in appropriate homes to begin with, that dogs are successful in their current homes and don’t need to be rehomed, and that if they need to be rehomed, they have the highest possibility of quickly finding a new home

another right-off-the-bat statement: for many people, a dog at a shelter or rescue will be a wonderful fit, and that’s great! homeless dogs deserve homes. there is no argument here that is anti-dog adoption for those who want a shelter dog.

so like, two key points here:

• not all dogs are interchangeable and not all homes are interchangeable
  
  
• responsible and reputable breeders contribute positively to both ethical principles i mentioned above
  

what you have to understand about dog homelessness is that it’s not just, like, an arithmetic problem. it’s not like there’s, let’s say, 5 million dogs coming into existence and 4 million prospective adopters and if we could just have a million fewer dogs then all our problems could be solved. 

the reasons dogs become homeless (and the reasons dogs have trouble finding homes) could frankly be their own essay. i do want to particularly note marginalization, impoverishment, and a lack of resources for vulnerable dog owners – sometimes keeping a dog in a home can be as simple as fronting someone the money for a pet deposit. 

other reasons include things like behavioral issues, health issues, and breed. 

in many areas – like mine – the issue is not necessarily that there are all these adopters simply choosing not to adopt all these available dogs who would be a good fit for them, but that there are not many adopters for whom those dogs would be a good fit. 

for some people who are buying a dog for a specific reason, notably service dogs and other working dogs, like herding dogs, a purpose-bred dog is most likely to succeed in their situation. 

for other people, they need a certain amount of predictability or stability and can’t take on the risk of a shelter dog who won’t be appropriate for their situation. 

and some people are just passionate about a specific kind of dog and that’s the dog they’re going to be happy with! i don’t think those people should be obligated to get an animal they don’t want out of guilt.

so really quickly, i want to define what i mean when i talk about a responsible breeder. a responsible breeder:

• performs all of the health tests that are appropriate for their breed
  
  
• breeds temperamentally sound, relatively predictable dogs
  
  
• has a clear purpose and vision for their breeding program (why are they breeding this breed? why are they breeding these dogs in particular? what are they hoping to accomplish?)
  
  
• screen their owners to ensure that they and the dog will likely be good fits for each other 
   
• are willing to take back their dogs at any time should the dog need to be rehomed (many breeders require this)
  
  
• are actively working on early socialization and behavioral development – the first 12 weeks of a puppy’s life are developmentally crucial, and breeders have an extraordinary ability to set their puppies up to be successful down the line
  
  
• are a resource for their puppy buyers for the lifetime of the dog (i deliberately chose a breeder who i think is more knowledgeable and a better trainer than i am!)

breeders who do these things are not a part of the dog homelessness problem, they are part of the solution.

• they are choosing homes for their dogs where they are likely to succeed and are unlikely to be rehomed. 
  
  
• they are willing to provide the dog a home if the dog should become homeless. 
  
  
• they are providing their dogs a foundation in terms of health and behavior that will make it most likely that the dog stays in their home or is adopted if the dog should be rehomed. 
  
  
• they are giving puppy buyers guidance to raise dogs that are likely to be well-adjusted and healthy, which maximizes the likelihood of the dog staying in the home or being adopted if the dog should be rehomed.

if all dogs were bred under these circumstances, or even most, it would be a net positive for dogs individually and as a population. supporting good breeders is, for me, an arm of preventative animal welfare along with behavioral care and access to low-cost resources. 

hope this helps! i know it’s long lol

pinklemonache:

hiya my names Cloudy and my life is in fucking shambles. I’m trying to get a job but after being “approved” yet getting no call for 2 weeks I’m having to start my job search up again and all my funds have run out

I currently have $4 in my bank account, and owe $457 dollars in student loans and I haven’t eaten a decent meal in like 2 weeks

if you can spare just $3 I can do a bust sketch for you of whatever the fuck you want

like seriously. whatever the hell you want Im not joking

just $3 please everything helps and I hate that I have to ask for this but I’m at the end of my rope I was supposed to have a job by the end of fucking october

https://ko-fi.com/hibiscushavoc

tokyo-fashion:

Japanese college student Shusuke on the street in Harajuku wearing a punk wide knit sweater from Dog Harajuku, remake “Only Anarchists Are Pretty” patched jeans, and New Rock boots. His accessories are from the punk inspired fashion brands BlackMeans and 99%IS-. Full Look

xxviii-xi-mcmxcviii:

semitics:

semitics:

Not to be dramatic or anything but as a lesbian what saved my life was realizing that attraction is supposed to feel good

If your attraction to men makes you viscerally uncomfortable, distressed, and feels like a fulfillment of a default obligation rather than something that produces good and exciting feelings, perhaps it isn’t attraction

This needs to be read by lesbians, bisexual and straight women. Attraction is supposed to be a good thing. Don’t ever force yourself to be with a man you don’t like and doesn’t respect you.