theo

God I fucking hate Olaf the snowman so fucking much holy shit. Holy shit, every frame he's in, every scene, every gif, every jpeg, he's got this painfully vacant, stupid as shit, fuckass look on his stupid lumpy face. Absolutely no part of his ugly as sin piece of shit character design is endearing. His stupid fucking legs? Who the hell makes a snowman with legs. His dumb flaily fucking twig arms? His shitty, lumpy bastard head? The three thousand percent unnecessary dumbass shitass fucking SNOW BUCK TOOTH that no snowman has EVER FUCKING HAD IN tHE HISTORY OF GOD'S GREEN FUCKING EARTH? God, I hate him. I hate him so much. So FUCKING much. Every time I see a stuffed toy Olaf or an Olaf gif or a shitty goddamn commercial, it ignites my primal rage response and I'm overcome by the need to punt this shitty little homunculus into the fucking sun. "Bhurr blur, I'm Olaf the fuckshit snow fucker, I like warm hugs". Fuck you. Fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you. You look like Tow Mater summoned a patronus. Your dumb fucking twig hair makes your whole shitty head look like a hairy skin tag. I hate your dumb fucking lumpy carrot nose and your stupid, empty googly eyes and your over-the-top goofy ass upbeat asshole personality. Any scene he's sad it invokes all the wrath and fury of a spoiled child having a meltdown over a chocolate bar in a w*lmart checkout line. And I know its irrational. That's the worst part. I know he's just a shitty fucking side character in a stupid fucking children's movie, I know it doesn't matter, I know I shouldn't care. But that's part of the problem. The part where no matter the might and fury of my hatred, the locus of my homicidal intent is alltogether inconsequential. I find myself laying awake in the dark in the early hours of the morning consumed by the spirit of Wrath itself, all the force and might of a flaming hurricane directed at a bottle of piss in a ditch by the highway. The absurdity of it all burns me to my core. What better things could this energy be directed towards? And yet my disdain for this stupid, useless, insubstantial failure of endearing character design utterly eclipses the intrigue of all other pursuits. I hate him. I hate him on a level of my mind reserved for the worst of the world's array of sinners, and I can't even begin to justify it. Shitstick the snow dick is, for all intents and purposes, the animated corpse of all of humanity's saccharine pretenses- every condescending, passive-aggressive statement of meaningless upper middle class suburban drama distilled into a single, hateable form. The fucking. Fuck. I have no words. There is no cuss or epithet in any language that can encapsulate the height of the emotions I am experiencing. God, I hate him so much. I hate him so, so fucking much. I want to light his ugly little dumpster body on fire. I want to graphically beat him to death with his own stupid fucking nose. I want to punch him to death. You know that weird feeling you get, when you see a picture of something so cute you find yourself overcome with the bizarre, inexplicable urge to squeeze it? It's EXACTLY like that, except instead of cuteness it's disgust. The wordless knowledge that his existence as a fictional work is evidence of all the failures of mankind. I find myself possessed by the will of a Holy Angel gone rogue with the belief that God has made a mistake, and I alone must correct it. This is the trial by which Samael himself fell from grace. This wild, meaningless rage. A thousand blades of shining steel cast with inhuman force in the direction of a plastic grocery bag floating on a breeze. What horrors must I have committed in a past life to be plagued by this torment now? I must Unmake this fictional snowman

holy shit you’re not wrong

I'd feel better about this whole rant if Olaf weren't queer-coded. It might be largely the voice acting – the lisp, the inflection especially – but he's got massive "harmless gay sidekick" vibes. And if you're actively critiquing that? Sure, great, go all out. Hate whom you will. Say whatever you want about how "gay" is equated with "harmless silly sidekick used for comic relief, with no serious bearing on the plot, literally inhuman and treated by Serious Human Characters as... well,a sidekick, peripheral to your life and safe to ignore.

But if you're not engaging critically with that aspect of his character and are just overwhelmed with hatred whenever you see or hear or think about the queer-coded character and his mannerisms make you feel violent, that is a little bit. Uncomfortable. At best.

what on God's green earth are you talking about

See sometimes I wonder why I’m still on this website, and then posts like this come along. Amazing. 

me reading this post like

my bf’s addition has me choking

halfblood remus lupin one day telling pureblood james, sirius and peter that muggles have gone to the moon, he spends first 2 hours convincing them that it's true, another 2 rolling his eyes as the other marauders debate whether he would be a "full time moony" if he had gone to the moon and another 2 hours throwing pillows across in the dorm that night at james and peter who keep saying shit like "did sirius land on the moon yet?"

Afternoon Tea by Sydney Smith

Canadian artist

The duality of the Maurice fandom never fails to surprise me cause it's really like

Tik Tok and Twitter: omg i love clive he's my wittle cinnamon roll it's fine boo you did nothing wrong he was only scared i love young hugh grant so much just look at him smiling read the symposium to me clive I love ur hair omg maurice is such a sad movie i cried the whole time cause they didn't end up together 🥺🥺🥺🥺

Tumblr: I Hate Clive Durham So Fucking Much That Little Twink

Marvel Comics #1000: We’re Calling Him Ben

I feel this is an important addition. He saves so many people on a regular basis that this just keeps happening. And he feels so much for his uncle that the answer is always the same.

…. This hits different when you realise he’s canonically Jewish

Can you please elaborate ? I’m curious as to what it means

You can read a pretty good summary of it here, but as (most likely) Ashkenazi Jews, PP probably follows the minhag (custom) that says “that by naming a newborn child after a deceased loved one, the soul lives on through the child.” (Quoted from the site linked above.) And given how his Uncle Ben died, it just makes it all the more sadder tbh.

another fine distinction is that the soul isn’t thought to be reincarnated, it’s that the memory of the loved one is kept alive and more good deeds in life can be inspired by (and thus partially attributed to) the dead. ‘may their memory be a blessing’–the memory of the deceased is honored, respected, and who they were is retold as inspiration to the next generation. 

ben’s memory is a blessing. that’s extremely jewish. spiderman is inspired not just by the shame of his death, but by the moral teachings he’d given peter in life. and his name given to these babies is another part of it: babies named in spiderman’s honor are also very honestly and truly named in his honor, and continue to be blessings to the world. 

it’s very joyous, i think. very sweet.  

I swear to God I get happy tears every time I see these panels, and the commentary makes it even better

Brad Meltzer, the writer for these panels, is Jewish, so this is all very intentional.

tumblr on ios, 2021 colorized

obsessed with this

Anyway, if you read marriage certificates from church records, a full 85% of first marriages for young women were around 18-19 years old. The rest skewed higher, into the early twenties, with only a few being below that age and only one in a thousand was younger than 16. 

The age of puberty has declined over the centuries as girls get better nutrition, as well, so throughout the middle ages the age at which a girl could expect her first period was around 16, where modern girls often get it much younger. 

The idea that women in earlier ages were married and mothers in their early teens is a myth. Marriages of children were usually only between noble families, and made for political reasons, or creepy old bastards who wanted a child-wife and could get away with it because they were rich and powerful. They often would point to the fact that the Roman elite did the same thing as justification. The Romans, of course, would point to the Greeks doing the same thing as justification, the Greeks pointed at the Assyrians, and so on back through the ages. 

It was considered disgusting by normal people then and still is. 

This myth is still brought out and touted by sick fuckers. Know it for what it is; a falsehood. 

And EVEN among the nobility marriages at such a young age were a much rarer occasion than those apologists would make you believe.

Let’s look an an egregious example, Henry the bloody VIII:

First marriage:

He was 18, Katharine of Aragon was 23.

Second marriage:

He was 40/41, Anne Boleyn, depending on which theory you believe, was anywhere between 24 to 32.

Third marriage:

He was 44, Jane Seymour was 28.

Fourth marriage:

He was 48, Anne of Cleves was 25

Fifth marriage:

He was 48, Catherine Howard, depending on which source you believe, was between 17-22. And yes, people at the time actually were squicked out by this age difference. And rightly so.

Sixth marriage:

He was 51, Catherine Parr was 31. 

Even the most notorious LECHER and WIFE MURDERER in history did not marry teenagers in at least 5 if not 6 out of 6 marriages. 

And here’s another Tudor tidbit, both Henry VII and VIII knew how traumatic and damaging it is for women marrying/having children too young. Henry VII’s mother was married at 12 and gave birth to Henry VII at 13. It caused so much damage and trauma that she never had another child after him despite being married three times.

So yes CUT THAT SHIT OUT. Teenage girls are NOT adults and anyone preying on them is pure evil.

YOU 

I LIKE YOU

And as for the marriage of Elizabeth Woodville to King Edward IV, she was 27 at the time. He? Was 22. 

She had been married before, and did marry young…at the age of sixteen or seventeen, to Sir John Gray, who was about five years her senior. 

@systlin This is good information, but do you have a source for the information about how most marriages back in the day were not actually usually from a younger age? I tried Googling it but I can only find things talking about modern day issues.

Well, if you don’t want to spend months crawling through digitized copies of marriage records preserved in church archives from the 12th through 18th centuries from England, Italy, Germany, France, ect (which you can do, and it will show you I’m right) you can go read  “ Medieval Households” by David Herlihy, Harvard University Press, 1985. He did the archive crawling for you. 

Also  Peter Laslett’s book “The World We Have Lost”, where he details over a thousand marriage certificates, and he dug through many more in the writing of the work. 

Wait. I am spanish. Do they actually think henry/enrique VII married fucking katherin/catalina de Aragón as a teenager?

You know we see films about this in school and every one is pretty much adult there, both fisically and in the story.

There’s this…really weird trend in a lot of pseudo-European fantasy/ ‘historical’ books to have girls marry like…really young, to vastly older dudes. Like at about 13, getting married off to like 30 year olds. And then say “Well that’s what it was like back then.” 

(Sideyes G.R.R.M)

And…no. No it wasn’t. That’s gross. England was creeped TF out when Henry VIII married Catherine Howard when she was between 17 and 22 and he was 48 as stated above, and rightly so. 

All of this is excellent, and there is one thing I would add:

When you DID have these super-young marriages between nobility, it was more or less the same thing we do today when we scream “DIBS!” over who gets the TV remote. You might have a 13-year-old lord marrying a 14-year-old girl, but they weren’t expected to actually act as husband and wife, not yet. He had schooling to finish, she had to learn how to run a household. The union was purely political and not to be consummated until later–you know, at a point when they were 18 or 19 and she could carry a child without dying of it and he could actually support a wife.

I think one of the major causes of many misconceptions like this is because people have been basing their preceptions on life in the past off of works of FICTION written in the past. When I was studying Early Modern literature in undergrad, this topic was brought up regarding the presence of sexual abuse. There were many plays and what not that implied things such as this, however the scene in the play WAS CONSIDERED SHOCKING to people back then too. It would be like someone 500 years from now watching some grimdark noire mopey antihero cop drama in a city of sin, and then thinking that it demonstrates what the everyday life of today’s world is. No one in this thread is saying things like that NEVER happened back then, it was just… not as common as historical fiction and fiction written 500 years ago might have you believe. As OP mentioned, historical documents from the time have far fewer child marriages and sexual abuse than literary works from the time do.

Rebloging for A+ history. 

The real villain

Quick and simple lifehacks.

I don’t get how ppl take quick power naps. When I nap I literally never wake up

suspect number one: