Whats a fuck boy? i’ve heard many meanings but I want the exact one.

whoisjfx316:

rubyreed:

mattjosephdiaz-blog:

A fuckboy is a weakass dude who ain’t shit.

A fuckboy is the guy who will go around calling women “thirsty hoes” but like 30 profile pictures in a row and comment “hot” under one of them because he thinks somehow it’ll get him laid.

A fuckboy is the guy who calls girls sluts but goes around begging chicks for nudes out of fucking nowhere.

A fuckboy is the guy who sends unrequested dick pics with no context to women he’s barely spoken to.

A fuckboy is a guy who regularly uses phrases like “bros before hoes”

A fuckboy is a guy whose idea of flirting is “what would u do if i was there right now lol” 

A fuckboy can often be spotted by his asking if you want to play “the 21 questions game” which is a trap to ask if you’re a virgin or not

A fuckboy is a guy who will call you a prude if you don’t want to fuck anyone, but call you a slut if you want to fuck someone who isn’t him.

A fuckboy is a guy who will disrespect you and try and get with you in the same breath.

A fuckboy is a guy whose idea of foreplay is kind of touching your clit twice before he tries to move on to sex

A fuckboy is a guy who tries to text you even when he already has a girl

A fuckboy is a guy who continues to hit on you even when you’ve said no

A fuckboy is a guy who pretend to invite you over for “Netflix and pizza” which is a bummer because it’s totally ruined legitimately inviting people over for Netflix and pizza

A fuckboy is any guy who’s ever told you “smile, beautiful” while you’re just walking down the street minding your own fucking business

A fuckboy is the kind of guy you have to lie about having a boyfriend to in order to get him to leave you alone.

A fuckboy is a guy who will tell you “you’re not like the other girls” like that’s a compliment because he doesn’t have any respect for them.

A fuckboy is a guy who will tell you “my exes were all crazy” even though you know them to be totally fine, kind, measured people.

A fuckboy is a guy who will tell you “guys don’t like it when you -bullshit bullshit bullshit-” and try to shame you because of your weight, hair, style, use of makeup or anything else that you do in order to express yourself because in their tiny fuckboy minds you only exist to attract them.

This is a beautiful manifesto. Bless you and bless this post. 

Ladies, looks like you have the blueprint now. Kinda no excuse to deal with any of those shitheads anymore.

A fuckboy is a guy who reads a list of descriptions of fuckboy characteristics and immediately places all responsibility on women to avoid men who act like that, rather than on men to not be fuckboys.

outosumi:

Two women talking about a tranwoman using women’s restroom.

Lady A: He is in there only to peep on women.

Lady B: Were you there to peep on other women?

Lady A: No.

Lady B: Neither was she.

Lady A: She is a he!

Lady B: Are you a he?

Lady A: No.

Lady B: Neither is she.

Lady A: But he has a penis!

Lady B: Have you seen her penis?

Lady A: Yes!

Lady B: Then I firmly believe you are the one who did the peeping.

k-pagination:

Can we talk about how autism discourse often revolves around throwing people with intellectual disabilities (and other cognitive stuff) under the bus? Like I’m reading something and it involves literally saying “well at least autistic people can actually be really smart and not have cognitive/intellectual disabilities!”

First, autism and intellectual disability are not mutually exclusive.

Second, intellectual disability does not preclude meaningful lives. Intellectual disability does not mean people cannot have input on their own lives and choices.

Stop talking about it like autism is higher up on a hierarchical scale and that’s why autistic people are worth something.

People are worth something because they are people.

On Kindness, On Intention, and On Anger in Children’s Writers

aimmyarrowshigh:

“It is not my intention today to hurt anyone. I would never want to cause anyone pain.”

Jane Resh Thomas, a well-respected children’s writer of the 20th century, benefactor of a scholarship on critical analysis, and professor at Hamline University’s Master of Fine Arts in Writing for Children (MFAC) program, began her lecture, “On Kindness: Writing in the Age of Disgruntlement,” this way today.

She then spent just over an hour ardently telling students – students of color, students who are queer, students who are women, students with learning disabilities, students with mental illness, students who have backgrounds she does not know and cannot assume – that those who have been oppressed, those whose essential humanity has been denied, silenced, literally erased from history and society, must grant to their oppressors Kindness and Empathy, Because We Are All Equals.

With all due respect: no, we are not. That’s the goal. That’s the hope. I believe, even right now, in my anger, that it is also Jane’s hope. I believe that Jane believes it is true, even.

But Jane believes in that level playing field because she is granted the privilege of visibility. She is white. She is straight. She because of those privileges, she has had the opportunity to be eminent in her field. Because she has had that privilege, her voice has been heard, and heard with reverberation and influence, echoes of Jane Resh Thomas bouncing in arcs around the field of Children’s Literature to this minute. And beyond.

And that is why I am so angry that she would use that voice to say, Those who have never been heard must still hear me. People whose voices have never been heard because if they speak up, they are in danger, must allow those who put them in danger to hold the megaphone still.

I am angry that I had to listen to someone whose job is to teach me to write with clarity and empathy and resonant word choices say that the word “redneck” is comparable to the word “n******.” I am appalled that she called another professor a c**t to get a laugh. I am appalled that she got it, although I think so much of it was a funereal giggle – that laugh that bubbles up in the face of discomfort and fear of consequences. But there are no funereal jokes.

I am angry that someone whose job is to teach critical analysis argued that the historical significance of the Confederate flag meant that it earned its place to fly simply because it once flew, completely disregarding the historiographical significance that it did not fly over the South Carolina capitol until nearly a century after the Civil War and the cultural and critical implications of its continued and violent use to harm human beings. There was no attempt at the analysis of culture and place here, and that rightful outrage was spoken about like a temper tantrum.

We are children’s writers. Honestly, we need to honor the emotional validity of temper tantrums, too. Even if you don’t want to listen.

I am angry that someone who speaks every semester on writing gently and truthfully about pain placed her own need to feel heard over the pain of others – including the children we all are learning to write for. I am angry that someone with the comfort and privilege of a position of power above us students gave this lecture On High about how others’ pain can be invalid… if we cannot personally feel it. Or rather, if an old, straight, white woman cannot feel it.

“I would never want to hurt another person.”

I have seen Jane speak a number of times now, and I always come away uncomfortable with her ostensible assertion that the nature of pain is that all pain is equal and all pain is transient. Even as she spoke of the Fisher King, with his open wound, she asked for black culture to “get over” slavery. To “move past it.”

In the first lecture of hers that I saw, Jane posited that rape was not a “real” cause of trauma, that those who are strong enough can somehow “use” the experience to learn to be “better people.” Every time I have seen her speak, she asks for the (mandatory, captive) audience to write an exposure piece about their wounds. As though the place for that, for everyone, is always that place, at that time. For those wounds.

Some wounds do not close. The maggots that she talked about infesting the flesh of the burned are made of words and actions and, yes Jane, microaggressions (which are real, by the way). These maggots made of denial of privilege and leveraging of power over the powerless make a feast of all of us… but some more than most. Our, and their, pain runs the deepest and the hottest because those crawling parasites make their way past the bones and into the marrow of our culture’s consciousness. They are why an old white woman can feel that young black students opposed to any lauding of the Confederacy on their campus are “silly.”

They are why so many people in our own community jump down their own throats so far they speak out of their buttholes to defend sexist adult white men against young women calling them “sexist.” They are why people who wish to silence others can claim the word “kindness” and people trying so fucking (yes! fucking!) hard to speak cannot even claim their anger.

I am angry.

I am angry that by making her intentions a disclaimer, we are meant to act like Jane is absolved of her results.

I am angry that my safe place, for the last year, does not feel safe anymore.

But I will say that I think this experience taught our program one very, very valuable lesson about writing with “kindness” that Jane did not intend:

As content creators, as conscientious content creators, our intentions do not matter. Our executions matter. Jane did not set out to hurt people today.

But a lot of people in our community are hurting today.

And a lot of people in our community hurt all the time.

Not all wounds can be cleaned of maggots. Not even by burning them at the hot stove.

castiel-knight-of-hell:

sinbadism:

montrealgod:

the shade is real 🌚

holy shit hilary was a fucking young republican

In 1964 Bernie Sanders was 23 years old, graduating college, and had developed his own life and ideals as an independent adult.

In 1964 Hilary Clinton was a 17 year old high school student, being influenced by her family and school teachers who were mostly conservative republicans. By the time she was 23 she had been active in the anti-war campaign for years, during law school she worked on civil rights issues, and by the time she graduated Yale Law she had fully changed her political alignment to be a liberal democrat.

Once again, people are pitting an adult male against a teenage girl and denouncing the teenager for not having reached the same level of maturity and life experiences as the grown man. I do think Bernie Sanders is the better choice for president but we should be showing this through their current politics, not by claiming that a 17 year old girl should have had all of her political views fully sorted out before graduating high school. The real life experiences that shape our political views usually happen in our early 20s, it’s not uncommon for someone to change their mind about political issues during this time.

geekzyllah:

moniquill:

asgardreid:

takashi0:

ifinddelightinthegruesomeandgrim:

this is literally both sides of any political argument

This is literally how the average tumblr user’s mindset works

One of these sides was pretty objectively right though.

Don’t you love it when a group of people violently repelling confirmed murderers from their community and the group of confirmed murderers (who expressly in the narrative came to steal resources) are portrayed as ‘equally bad and wrong’?

^^^

Also can we just pay attention to the part where “they are evil” and “they can’t be trusted” are IN NO WAY the same thing?  The English are saying “they’re not like us, so we already know everything we need to know about them and can proceed with their destruction” and the Native Americans are saying “they’re not like us, so we need to stay alert and pay attention because they might not have the same cultural assumptions that we do.”  HOW is this equivalent AT ALL?

Hey people who write / read tumblr writing blogs, here is a tip

gogglor:

pantslessking:

pantslessking:

Stop writing perfect future utopia sci-fi worlds where there are no disabled people. Stop “fixing” something that wasn’t even fucking broken in the first place.

Stop writing perfect worlds where there is nothing wrong with engineering Perfect Babies, because that is a literal form of eugenics, which is a nazi-related concept.

Stop implying getting rid of people with physical disabilities, neurological disorders, mental illnesses and the like is easier than giving people with those things the accommodations they need. That’s absolutely terrifying to be looked at that way. 

Y’know, if being asked to stop portraying the systematic murder of disabled people as excusable in your fiction offends you, that says A LOT about what you think of the feelings of disabled people and disabled people IRL in general. Have fun being shitballs, everybody in my inbox, you’re all disgusting

Disclaimer: Not disabled, but this shit has bothered me since FOREVER.

The options in sci-fi for dealing with disabilities always seem to fall into four categories: “We cured them”, “We fixed the ‘broken’ bits with robotics,” “I hand-wave them out of existence,” or “My dystopia kills them all.” Let’s take them one by one.

1) LOADS of problems with this. For starters, some people with disabilities do not need/want ‘curing,’ e.g., the Deaf community, the autistic community, the Aspergic community. Secondly, there are some conditions where any cure, short of eugenics, is impossible. Take Down Syndrome for example – the disability is in an extra chromosome. You can’t get rid of that without straight-up changing a massive amount of someone’s DNA, which brings up a lot of ethics about whether changing that much DNA is the same as changing someone’s personhood. Finally, while I’m sure there are plenty of, for example, paraplegics who’d love a medical cure that’d enable them to walk, there’s always going to be some people who, for various medical, religious, or personal reasons, can’t or won’t use your sci-fi-future-magic treatment. They should be around too.

2) I am totally down with prosthetics becoming more responsive, badass, and generally awesome, but if you’re just going to be giving everyone robo-legs/eyes/arms that are functionally indistinguishable from fleshy ones, then you’re really just using disabled people for colorful future-scenery. No robotic part, however badass, will ever be exactly the same as one you’re born with, in some ways that are good and in some ways that are bad. If (here’s lookin’ at YOU, Star Trek) you’re going to show off how your blind character can now see UV and infrared light as well as visual-spectrum light thanks to his robo-prosthetic, you should probably also talk about how he can’t take it with him to the pool, or when it breaks, how expensive it is/long it takes to replace, or how edges get blurry when its batteries are running low. In general, you need to ask yourself if that character you wrote with the super-strong-robo-arm (here’s lookin’ at YOU, Cowboy Bebop) is there so you can waggle your fingers and go “FUUUuuuuUUUUttuuuRRReee,” or so you can actually represent people with disabilities.

3) I understand the impulse to do this because pretty much every single piece of popular culture ever made does exactly this, and it’s just so darned easy to say “there happen to be no disabled people anywhere in my story because shut up.” But, it still means you’re reinforcing a status quo that erases the experiences of people with disabilities, which makes you kind of a dick.

4) This trope, done right, could create a horrifying, thought-provoking dystopia. More often than not, though, it’s just thrown in to avoid dealing with people with disabilities. To figure out which camp you’re in, just answer this question: are you going to take a significant amount of time to address and give examples of how horribly fucked up this is? Like, more than two pages/3 minutes? If not, gtfo.

teamroquette:

molly-ren:

snailchimera:

donotchoosesidesyet:

enigmaticagentalice:

theheroheart:

glitterpill:

dropkicks:

lesbianmooncolony:

sinbadism:

capcomofficial:

maxofs2d:

guitarbeard:

alexxdz:

GO WATCH A MOVIE

Next up on Worth Reading: The other team should just fucking let me win when I play baseball. 

well this isn’t necessarily a bad point. there are games with great stories and really awful shoehorned fighting sequences. then you also have handicapped/disabled gamers who don’t necessarily have the dexterity to finish a game but would still like to be able to.

optional “cakewalk” modes aren’t that bad of an idea.

what if i want to just see the story of the game and dont want to actually play it? like??

as it is i would never pay for a bioshock game or a fallout game but i am very interested in the story. so i just watch youtube videos of it. they could get money from me if they sold the skip combat mode

i’m a games developer and an avid gamer and i really really think games should let you skip combat

honestly one of my favourite things about la noire was when you failed a sequence twice the game was like “yo do you just wanna skip this bit?”

the gaming industry/community has a huge problem with accessibility tbh. like, thank god for standardised control schemes (although bring back full customisation jfc not enough games have that anymore) but fights require time, literacy in both that type of gaming & in the individual game, you need to be able to navigate the system which can be anywhere from slightly difficult to hellish for people with visual/audio processing disorders. and tbh sometimes you just wanna enjoy the story and not get stressed the hell out doing the sAME FIGHT 700 times. it’s why i always put a game on easy/casual when I’m replaying unless i’m specifically going for difficulty based achievements.

not to mention SO MANY GAMES have either poorly designed battles or fights that have been shoved in for no reason other than to pad out the game (dxhr & da2 come to mind immediately) that sometimes it’d honestly improve the gameplay to just skip them altogether

Imagine if you were a gamer with arthritis or MS or some other disability that took away your ability to click buttons quickly, and every fight became as frustrating as THAT GODDAMN DA: ORIGINS OH FUCK I’M ON FIRE SLIDE PUZZLE. 

Yeah. Skipping combat might seem like a not bad idea then.

Mass Effect 3 has this:

image

[Screenshot from a Mass Effect 3 menu, with title: “Choose Your Experience”, showing the options ‘action’, ‘role playing’ and ‘story’.]

‘Action’ makes most story choices for you and conversations become straight up cutscenes. ‘Role playing’ is the default experience, both challenging gameplay and character/story building. And ‘story’ has the roleplaying but very easy combat, letting you breeze through it. (You also have a ‘casual’ difficulty setting that’s a bit more rewarding but still pretty easy.)

The thing about video games (particularly RPGs or in general games that allow you to explore or direct the story) is that the interactivity is what makes it different from movies or watching LPs on youtube. And I’ve played games that got FAR stronger emotional reactions out of me simply because I had to carry out the actions myself rather than just watching. And that experience should be more accessible.

Because SHOCKINGLY: games aren’t always about winning, or being good at it. It’s about having fun. This is kindergarten education here.

Yeah, it always baffles me when I see people react so negatively to a perfectly reasonable suggestion like this.

Why the hell shouldn’t games let you skip combat if you want to? Why shouldn’t there be a super-duper-easy-peasy mode for everything? No-one is gonna force YOU to play it like that if you don’t want to! Continue to be as hardcore as you like!

I just don’t understand the resistance at all. What we’re talking about is simply having more options for gamers. You’re adding something that would make games more accessible and fun for loads of new fans, and you’re not taking ANYTHING away from existing fans.

Like…do you…not want more people to enjoy these games?? Do you really hate the idea of other people having fun so much that you’ll rile against it even when it literally has no effect on you or your experience whatsoever?? Are you honestly that selfish??

The more people look to video games for compelling stories and entertainment, the more they actually want to participate in this new and growing medium, the more the old guard hisses like a cat in a rain storm and resists.

Gamers want to be taken seriously until that actually starts to happen.

It would also be nice, though admittedly far more effort, to have games with multiple forms of combat, so you could pick the one you can actually do and still feel accomplished.

I’ve found puzzle games (sometimes!) can hit the sweet spot between “good story” and “actions leading to a feeling of accomplishment” without having to worry about combat. 

ok now I wanna play Mass Effect 3