I've always had a theory that Jihwa lied about his sexuality to prevent himself from receiving the same treatment as Seungho and chap 83 has only added to it.

What if Jihwa had met with Lord Song, who I believe "corrects" young boys who show homosexual tendencies though the most terrible conversion methods, and the experience was so awful that Jihwa lied and said he was corrected just so he wouldn't see Lord Song again?

It seems plausible because earlier in the comic it was stated that Jihwa had the same "disease" as Seungho yet Jihwa was never treated like he was diseased. In fact it seems like his father cares for him and believes everything is Seungho's fault.

This is probably why Jihwa isn't seen in any of the orgies. It's not that he thinks he is too good for it, it's because he trying his best to appear straight and to keep rumors about his sexuality to a minimum. Rumors spread fast in their small town and the only people who seem to know about the orgies outside of the young nobles are servants too scared to speak about it.

I've also theorized before that this was one of the reasons Seungho was able to push away Jihwa so easily. He can only meet Jihwa in secret because Jihwa is denying his sexuality in the pubic eye. I can't help but think that a part of Seungho had possibly hated Jihwa for doing this because it makes it seem like homosexuality CAN be "cured".

If Jihwa can be "cured" why not Seungho? And the fact that Seungho can't be "cured" is most likely way he is the source of blame and is labeled as a sodomizing lunatic.

If this is true, I think one of the many things that needs to happen is Jihwa announcing that he is indeed not straight to his father. Him coming out might change how people view Seungho

You've got a point, but I must remind you that in chapter 82, Lord Lee (Jihwa's father) blamed Seungho's behaviour on Nakyum and dismissed the thought that Jihwa may have played a part in it.

The nobles are so full of themselves that they blame everything on the lowborns, just like Jihwa did with Nakyum when he lost Seungho.

So in the end I think that Lord Lee could be the same and that he is denying his son's sexuality and blaming his son's "condition" on Seungho so he doesn't have to face the truth and the shame

According to the CDC, in 10 percent of those drownings, the adult will actually watch the child do it, having no idea it is happening. Drowning does not look like drowning—Dr. Pia, in an article in the Coast Guard’s On Scene magazine, described the Instinctive Drowning Response like this:

This doesn’t mean that a person that is yelling for help and thrashing isn’t in real trouble—they are experiencing aquatic distress. Not always present before the Instinctive Drowning Response, aquatic distress doesn’t last long—but unlike true drowning, these victims can still assist in their own rescue. They can grab lifelines, throw rings, etc.

Look for these other signs of drowning when persons are in the water:

So if a crew member falls overboard and everything looks OK—don’t be too sure. Sometimes the most common indication that someone is drowning is that they don’t look like they’re drowning. They may just look like they are treading water and looking up at the deck. One way to be sure? Ask them, “Are you all right?” If they can answer at all—they probably are. If they return a blank stare, you may have less than 30 seconds to get to them. And parents—children playing in the water make noise. When they get quiet, you get to them and find out why.

Source/article: [x]

Follow Ultrafacts for more facts!

BOOST FOR THE SUMMER. PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE.

Can I just say thank you to OP for putting such a detailed description on this?

I’ve been a lifeguard for 6 years now and of all the saves I’ve done, maybe two or three had people drowning in the stereotypical thrashing style. And even those, like the save I made last weekend, it was exactly like OP describes where the person’s head is going in and out of the water but it isn’t long enough to get any air. Mostly you recognize drowning by the look on someone’s face. If someone looks wide eyed and terrified or confused, chances are they’re drowning. That look of “oh shit” is pretty easily recognizable. And even if you can’t tell for sure: GO AFTER THEM ANYWAY. I’ve done “saves” where a kid was pretending to drown and I mistook it for real drowning, but that’s preferable to a kid ACTUALLY drowning.

Also please remember that even strong swimmers can drown if they have a medical emergency, get cramps, or get too tired. If your friend knows how to swim but they’re acting funny get them to land. And even if someone can respond when you ask them if they need help, if they say they do need help? GO HELP THEM.

However . If the victim is a stranger, I can’t recommend trying to get them. Lifeguards literally train to escape “attacks,” because people who are drowning can freak the fuck out and grab you and make YOU drown as well. If you do go in after someone, take hold of them from the back and talk to them the whole time. IF YOU ARE GRABBED: duck down into the water as low as you can get. The person is panicking and won’t want to go under water and should release you. Shove up at their hands and push them away from you as you duck under. Don’t die trying to save someone else.

Please guys, read and memorize this post. Not all places have lifeguards. Being able to recognize drowning is such an important skill to have and you can save someone’s life.

Just incase!

In a water park once, I was suddenly grabbed by a child and he dragged me under the water without warning. I was going to get angry with him when I resurfaced because I thought he was being an ass, until I looked at him go back in and out hyperventilating the entire time. I grabbed him under his arms and began trying to drag him out while screaming for the lifeguard.

When the lifeguard got us both out, a woman came running down and accused me of harming him and said he had been completely fine in the water. That there was no reason to drag him out of there. The lifeguard had to explain to her that her son had been drowning, to which her response was to say that she didn’t hear him call for help.

People seriously need to learn the signs.

“Why do people like a character who’s committed war crimes but hate this other character just because they’re annoying” because it’s fiction Susan, and being annoying in fiction is a greater sin than being a supervillain, because it won’t make me want to read about them. It isn’t difficult to understand

“It is absurd to divide people into good and bad. People are either charming or tedious.” (Oscar Wilde)

The war crimes are fictional but my annoyance is real.

sorta related but i dont like that tumblr has made “unhealthy relationship” mean “one person is an abuser and the other is a victim”

unhealthy relationship means just that. a relationship that is unhealthy. whether because a party is uninterested, both parties bring out the worst in eachother, theres just no more spark, etc

just stop using “unhealthy relationship” as if its perfectly synonymous with “abusive relationship”

abusive relationships are DEFINITELY unhealthy relationships but not all unhealthy relationships are abusive, ya dig?

Important post.

Not everyone you don’t get along with is an abuser.

this goes beyond “important post”, and i have more than half a mind to put it in my queue repeatedly.

just because a relationship didn’t go the way you hoped it would or wanted it to, you don’t get to call attack a person for years / get your friends to / coordinate bullying / wage a campaign of ‘let’s ruin this person’s life’ a person “an abuser”. or, worse.

because you know what that also does? it undermines and causes harm to actual abuse victims/survivors, and the irony and unselfawareness of those who perpetrate the shit OP is talking about isn’t lost on me. and that is the most important part of all of this.

“Not everyone you don’t get along with is an abuser.”

Women have more power and agency in Shakespeare’s comedies than in his tragedies, and usually there are more of them with more speaking time, so I’m pretty sure what Shakespeare’s saying is “men ruin everything” because everyone fucking dies when men are in charge but when women are in charge you get married and live happily ever after

I think you’re reading too far into things, kiddo. Take a break from your women’s studies major and get some fresh air.

Right. Well, I’m a historian, so allow me to elaborate.

One of the most important aspects of the Puritan/Protestant revolution (in the 1590’s in particular) was the foregrounding of marriage as the most appropriate way of life. It often comes as a surprise when people learn this, but Puritans took an absolutely positive view of sexuality within the context of marriage. Clergy were encouraged to lead by example and marry and have children, as opposed to Catholic clergy who prized virginity above all else. Through his comedies, Shakespeare was promoting this new way of life which had never been promoted before. The dogma, thanks to the church, had always been “durr hburr women are evil sex is bad celibacy is your ticket to salvation.” All that changed in Shakespeare’s time, and thanks to him we get a view of the world where marriage, women, and sexuality are in fact the key to salvation. 

The difference between the structure of a comedy and a tragedy is that the former is cyclical, and the latter a downward curve. Comedies weren’t stupid fun about the lighter side of life. The definition of a comedy was not a funny play. They were plays that began in turmoil and ended in reconciliation and renewal. They showed the audience the path to salvation, with the comic ending of a happy marriage leaving the promise of societal regeneration intact. Meanwhile, in the tragedies, there is no such promise of regeneration or salvation. The characters destroy themselves. The world in which they live is not sustainable. It leads to a dead end, with no promise of new life.

And so, in comedies, the women are the movers and shakers. They get things done. They move the machinery of the plot along. In tragedies, though women have an important part to play, they are often morally bankrupt as compared to the women of comedies, or if they are morally sound, they are disenfranchised and ignored, and refused the chance to contribute to the society in which they live. Let’s look at some examples.

In Romeo and Juliet, the play ends in tragedy because no-one listens to Juliet. Her father and Paris both insist they know what’s right for her, and they refuse to listen to her pleas for clemency. Juliet begs them – screams, cries, manipulates, tells them outright I cannot marry, just wait a week before you make me marry Paris, just a week, please and they ignore her, and force her into increasingly desperate straits, until at last the two young lovers kill themselves. The message? This violent, hate-filled patriarchal world is unsustainable. The promise of regeneration is cut down with the deaths of these children. Compare to Othello. This is the most horrifying and intimate tragedy of all, with the climax taking place in a bedroom as a husband smothers his young wife. The tragedy here could easily have been averted if Othello had listened to Desdemona and Emilia instead of Iago. The message? This society, built on racism and misogyny and martial, masculine honour, is unsustainable, and cannot regenerate itself. The very horror of it lies in the murder of two wives. 

How about Hamlet? Ophelia is a disempowered character, but if Hamlet had listened to her, and not mistreated her, and if her father hadn’t controlled every aspect of her life, then perhaps she wouldn’t have committed suicide. The final scene of carnage is prompted by Laertes and Hamlet furiously grappling over her corpse. When Ophelia dies, any chance of reconciliation dies with her. The world collapses in on itself. This society is unsustainable. King Lear – we all know that this is prompted by Cordelia’s silence, her unwillingness to bend the knee and flatter in the face of tyranny. It is Lear’s disproportionate response to this that sets off the tragedy, and we get a play that is about entropy, aging and the destruction of the social order.  

There are exceptions to the rule. I’m sure a lot of you are crying out “but Lady Macbeth!” and it’s a good point. However, in terms of raw power, neither Lady Macbeth nor the witches are as powerful as they appear. The only power they possess is the ability to influence Macbeth; but ultimately it is Macbeth’s own ambition that prompts him to murder Duncan, and it is he who escalates the situation while Lady Macbeth suffers a breakdown. In this case you have women who are allowed to influence the play, but do so for the worse; they fail to be the good moral compasses needed. Goneril, Regan and Gertrude are similarly comparable; they possess a measure of power, but do not use it for good, and again society cannot renew itself.

Now we come to the comedies, where women do have the most control over the plot. The most powerful example is Rosalind in As You Like It. She pulls the strings in every avenue of the plot, and it is thanks to her control that reconciliation is achieved at the end, and all end up happily married. Much Ado About Nothing pivots around a woman’s anger over the abuse of her innocent cousin. If the men were left in charge in this play, no-one would be married at the end, and it would certainly end in tragedy. But Beatrice stands up and rails against men for their cruel conduct towards women and says that famous, spine-tingling line - oh God, that I were a man! I would eat his heart in the marketplace. And Benedick, her suitor, listens to her. He realises that his misogynistic view of the world is wrong and he takes steps to change it. He challenges his male friends for their conduct, parts company with the prince, and by doing this he wins his lady’s hand. The entire happy ending is dependent on the men realising that they must trust, love and respect women. Now it is a society that is worthy of being perpetuated. Regeneration and salvation lies in equality between the sexes and the love husbands and wives cherish for each other. The Merry Wives of Windsor - here we have men learning to trust and respect their wives, Flastaff learning his lesson for trying to seduce married women, and a daughter tricking everyone so she can marry the man she truly loves. A Midsummer Night’s Dream? The turmoil begins because three men are trying to force Hermia to marry someone she does not love, and Helena has been cruelly mistreated. At the end, happiness and harmony comes when the women are allowed to marry the men of their choosing, and it is these marriages that are blessed by the fairies.

What of the romances? In The Tempest, Prospero holds the power, but it is Miranda who is the key to salvation and a happy ending. Without his daughter, it is likely Prospero would have turned into a murderous revenger. The Winter’s Tale sees Leontes destroy himself through his own jealousy. The king becomes a vicious tyrant because he is cruel to his own wife and children, and this breach of faith in suspecting his wife of adultery almost brings ruin to his entire kingdom. Only by obeying the sensible Emilia does Leontes have a chance of achieving redemption, and the pure trust and love that exists between Perdita and Florizel redeems the mistakes of the old generation and leads to a happy ending. Cymbeline? Imogen is wronged, and it is through her love and forgiveness that redemption is achieved at the end. In all of these plays, without the influence of the women there is no happy ending.

The message is clear. Without a woman’s consent and co-operation in living together and bringing up a family, there is turmoil. Equality between the sexes and trust between husbands and wives alone will bring happiness and harmony, not only to the family unit, but to society as a whole. The Taming of the Shrew rears its ugly head as a counter-example, for here a happy ending is dependent on a woman’s absolute subservience and obedience even in the face of abuse. But this is one of Shakespeare’s early plays (and a rip-off of an older comedy called The Taming of a Shrew) and it is interesting to look at how the reception of this play changed as values evolved in this society. 

As early as 1611 The Shrew was adapted by the writer John Fletcher in a play called The Woman’s Prize, or The Tamer Tamed. It is both a sequel and an imitation, and it chronicles Petruchio’s search for a second wife after his disastrous marriage with Katherine (whose taming had been temporary) ended with her death. In Fletcher’s version, the men are outfoxed by the women and Petruchio is ‘tamed’ by his new wife. It ends with a rather uplifting epilogue that claims the play aimed:

The Taming of the Shrew and The Tamer Tamed were staged back to back in 1633, and it was recorded that although Shakespeare’s Shrew was “liked”, Fletcher’s Tamer Tamed was “very well liked.” You heard it here folks; as early as 1633 audiences found Shakespeare’s message of total female submission uncomfortable, and they preferred John Fletcher’s interpretation and his message of equality between the sexes.

So yes. The message we can take away from Shakespeare is that a world in which women are powerless and cannot or do not contribute positively to society and family is unsustainable. Men, given the power and left to their own devices, will destroy themselves. But if men and women can work together and live in harmony, then the whole community has a chance at salvation, renewal and happiness.  

In the immortal words of the bard himself: fucking annihilated.

I agree with everything, except that I feel like you guys have overlooked a major element. Shakespeare was a writer under the reign of the fucking first queen of England : Queen Elizabeth. And under her rules, not only did the aesthetic of baroque happened, but also the very well know Elizabethan theater, which Shakespeare was part of. And this explains why the women in Shakespeare were written this way, because some of those plays were litteraly performanced in front of the queen herself! Which means that there was a certain pressure on artists at the time to not have overtly sexist messages. Macbeth being the exception because it was done to ridicule the culture that Elizabeth was at war with, the Scottish, and you know… Kinda justify why she beheaded her cousin Mary of Scotts. Macbeth wife here being more close to Mary than being anywhere near a parody of Elizabeth herself. Same goes for Cleopatra in Julius Ceasar btw.

In fact, having this trend of women who went mad because of love or are using men for power was beneficial to Elizabeth, which was a known virgin and Bachelorette. Well, history says otherwise, as she had many “favorites”. But basically, the one Elizabeth was married to, was England itself. So showing a powerful woman in comedies, which was funny, witty, attractive but still a positive force in her community and basically an all powerful mother figure. It was great propaganda for the Queen, which adored Shakespeare and many of his contemporaries which had similar themes.

Shakespeare was only different from the other in a way that he manages to connect with the poorer audiences, with crass but often hidden political critique of the Queen and her court. Mostly through his jester characters, which were not meant to be taken seriously by the nobles which usually don’t really paid attention during those parts which were like… Interlude gags. Comic reliefs if you will. And mostly were there for the drama and plot heavy content.

So, if you think that Shakespeare was just a bootlicker, he was actually not as much of a bootlicker as his contemporaries and had his fair share of hidden jabs at the power in place. Mostly because of how the artistic patron system worked at the time and the Queen was the biggest patron of all.

On the left we have the lyrics from Robin Thicke’s Blurred Lines. On the right we rape survivors participating in Project Unbreakable, showing the various things that were said to them by their rapist.

From the Mouths of Rapist: The Lyrics to Robin Thicke’s Blurred Lines

i think this is the most powerful photoset i’ve ever seen on tumblr.

Reblogging until you understand why this song is so vile

Wattpad writer : So then they realised they were soulmates-

Wattpad reader : And then?

Wattpad writer:And then they had a huge amount of sex!

Wattpad reader:NOOOICE!!

I'm dying!!😂😂😂

Any minor inconvenience in my life: happens

Me and my sensitive ass:

how dare people call me distant. i’m having full on conversations and debates with everyone at all times in my head it’s not my fault you don’t know how to read my mind telepathically

Art credit: @e_m.w on Instagram

Please remember to support the artist on their page too! 💕

They're all so cool and beautiful🤩

And he looks

The man has the legs for it honestly

WORK IT KING!!!

we stan a legend

reblogging for the last part (and also he DOES have the legs for it)

Everything's Fake

Hey everyone! Hope you are doing alright!

I am here with a kinda analysis/theory post after chapter 105 trying to explain something once and forever completely although I kinda explain it before too but now this is the complete analysis one of one of the most important part of ONS story and that's the reason of existence of the vampire generation.

what about fuckboy eren

Oh my! Look at HIM!! Shydjysvocd4hjjeauni😍😳

Hello fellow person who was told they were a gifted kid when they were younger and so has since based their entire worth on academic validation which has turned them into absolute perfectionists who don’t organize their time well and get very little sleep because the middle of the night is the only time when they have time to unwind and have some peace and they either haven’t picked up a book in a year and a half, or devour fantasy novels as a means to escape reality...how does that bicuriosity and caffeine addiction feel?

Headcanon: When Mika needs blood, he always goes to Yuu. Without hesitation Yuu, unbuttons his collar and let’s him drink as much as he needs. Mika won’t drink anyone else’s blood, he’s VERY addicted to Yuu’s and only craves his blood. They always go somewhere private to do this.

Bonus: Whenever Mika tells Yuu he needs his blood, Yuu gets extremely turned on. Once Mika bites down, Yuu can’t help but cry out. At first Mika thought this was a cry of pain, but soon he came to realize that it was actually a cry of pleasure. He takes advantage of Yuu knowing this.

Listen I'm just saying-- (spoilers for the OnS manga)

When Yoichi was possessed, Yuu (and Guren tbh) helped him snap out of it with the Power of Friendship (and also reminding him that he didn't want to be the scared kid hiding under the bed anymore).

Then, when Yuu was rampaging as a Seraph, Shinoa (under Guren's direction) got him to chill with the Power of Hug.

So now we got demon Mika, and I'm just saying that if we're continuing with the escalation, Yuu's just gonna have to kiss Mika back to his senses, I'm just saying.

I don't make the rules.

I mean where’s the lie? 👀

Idk if this has already been done (most likely).

»»———————>»»——⍟——««<———————««

•••

•••

Especially this⬇

They're so canon to me😍

I also loved the fixed scene of chapter 99. I wish it was real...😣