reserve society

A Daughter’s Lament

You could have loved me,
The way my skin was just as brown,
As the amber glow of the sunless city
Where you birthed me.

You could have loved me,
The way the flickering low wattage
Light bulbs always broke beneath my fingers,
You didn’t raise me to be so clumsy hearted.

Though, you could have loved me,
The way oceans sloshed from my tear ducts,
The way singing sounds like crying
If you don’t listen close enough.

You could have loved me.
The way my skin is the same color
Of the drink you love,
My smile just as intoxicating.

You could have loved me,
The way my callused fingers shattered glass
far better than your drunken stumble
danced around rhythmlessly.

You could have loved me,
The sorrow in my voice echoed
in the silence you wanted drowned.
You chose not to listen.

You chose the color of wheat,
A shade of brown I could never be.
I went seeking sunlight,
And you decided not to love me.

You chose broken light switches,
The way starless skies spun,
And 40 watts burned a dingy orange
over bandaged fingertips.

You chose confinement in a solitary sea,
Of frothy brown water, too salty to drink.
And the sound of waves clapping
Against the cliffs from which you hung me.

A recently discovered photograph that some believe shows Amelia Earhart alive and well on an atoll in the Marshall Islands has exhumed the never really buried mystery about the pioneering aviator’s disappearance after her Lockheed Electra vanished in the South Pacific on July 2, 1937.

But while feverish speculation about how she died has long dominated her story, breeding ghoulish theories including that her body was eaten by giant coconut crabs, it might be more enlightening to look at what she liked to eat on those long 15-hour solo flights across the oceans.

It was a topic of keen interest to American women at the time.

“A question I’m asked frequently concerns what a pilot eats on long flights,” Earhart said in a radio interview she gave sometime between 1935 and 1937 . “This aspect of ‘aeronautical housekeeping’ particularly interests women.”

Her answer was simple and surprising. “Tomato juice is my favorite 'working’ beverage, and food too,” said Earhart. “In colder weather, it may be heated and kept hot in a thermos.”

Amelia Earhart’s Travel Menu Relied On Three Rules And People’s Generosity

Photo: Louis Van Oeyen/Western Reserve Historical Society/Getty Images

anonymous asked:

Could you do headcanons on each couples pdas? Or of they even do pdas? (public displays of affection)

Jobro Random Headcanons #11 (SFW)

Hell yeah anon, thank you for the request!

Jonadio: Jonathan grew up in a very reserved society. Women can’t show their ankles and Jonathan definitely can’t get handsy with his boyfriend. But, it really has never stopped him for reaching for Dio’s hand, of which, Dio seems to be against. Though he claims that he doesn’t care about what other people think. Jonathan never gives it too much thought. Dio prefers to retreat into back alleys, be in a greasy pub, or on the landscape of their home making out then trying to do so in public. Jonathan isn’t someone who would try to insinuate sex out of the home but he would love to be affectionate to Dio no matter where he went.

Caejose: Joseph is honest, open, and goofy and he displays pda like crazy. That’s because he isn’t “out in public” he’s in the Joseph’s world. If Caesar does something cute or looks at him a certain way he’ll just kiss him without thinking. He doesn’t do it to show off or anything because he hates guys who are sugary sweet and lovey dovey. Which Caesar is with women but not with Joseph. Caesar isn’t ashamed of his relationship but his image is much different when he kisses Joseph in restaurants and by fountains in the middle of Rome. Besides even if he were to be deep and romantic with Joseph in public it wouldn’t go well. Joseph would just laugh at him. A part of me wants to say they are affectionate openly because of their cultures (American and Italian) but in time they were adults the world was still anti-pda.

Jotakak: These two, no, they wouldn’t be very affectionate in public. Not because they aren’t attracted to one another or they hate it etc…Honestly they aren’t very touchy feely behind close doors either. They fall into rhythms where they are intimate but their relationship comes from just having each other around. Kakyoin grabs Jotaro’s hand occasionally when they’re walking. When they walk home Jotaro might lay a kiss on Kakyoin’s cheek and Kakyoin reciprocates with a full kiss on their door step and says, “Text you later.” or “See you tomorrow.” 

Josuyasu: Josuke is definitely more affectionate in public, I’d argue he’s more affectionate all around. Josuke is confident and unfazed by what other people say, unless of course what they’re talking about is his cool ass hair. Okuyasu isn’t ashamed of his relationship with Josuke actually he’s pretty proud. It’s just Okuyasu gets nervous and he has a hard time blending friendship with relationship. Josuke understands that the two aren’t all the different when you take out the getting a boner when you see the other naked thing or the, “Wow he’s so cute, I wanna kiss him.” thing. Josuke is very cuddly, giving Oku hugs or rubbing his cheek with his thumb. Or just kissing him when he feels like it. Okuyasu always responds but he’s always super red when he does. When they hang out with Yukako and Koichi it’s almost a competition to see who can be the most affectionate. 

Giomis: Giorno isn’t very affectionate in public, he’ll return or give a kiss but not much beyond that. He isn’t big on handholding especially with the likes of Mista whose palms sweat a lot. Mista is much more affectionate he wouldn’t mind French kissing outside a coffee shopping mid day but he knows Giorno prefers to keep it modest.

Dear Ambiverts...

Dear Ambiverts,

I’m sorry your existence has been denied for so long within the MBTI system. I’m here to tell you that Ambiversion does exists in the world, I’ve seen it.

While trying to type yourself, you probably face a problem when it comes to those I vs E labels. Half the time you really do want to be alone and you kinda do hate people, but then at the same time, everything you do is focused outwardly. Or maybe you are in your head more than the average extrovert, but you love to be around people and can spend extended periods of time with them. With so many possibilities for Ambiversion a problem arises in the “MBTI” system that people discuss. In this post I intend to help explain MBTI’s apparent flaw and help all the Ambiverts out there find their type.

Let me begin by saying that MBTI is not flawed (at least in this area), the people who discuss it are just flawed in their thinking. In the past, I have fallen victim to MBTI’s strict “Ambiverts don’t exist” policy. Thankfully, I have come to realize they do exist, just not in the MBTI system because MBTI uses different definitions for introversion and extroversion than the ones society typically recites.

Within MBTI, Introversion means “Dominant Introverted function.” It means when it comes down to it, you find yourself relying on either Ti, Fi, Si, or Ni before anything else. It doesn’t mean you are shy, quiet, hate people, or a hermit- it just means your natural tendency is to go within yourself (towards your inward logic (Ti), towards your personal ethics (Fi), towards your past experiences (Si), towards your personal, intuitive conclusions(Ni)) before reaching towards the outer world. In many cases, this can make an “I” quieter and more reserved, but for others, it is merely a method of processing and not necessarily a lifestyle.

Within MBTI, Extroversion means “Dominant Extroverted Function.” It means when it comes down to it, you find yourself relying on either Te, Fe, Se, or Ne before anything else. It doesn’t mean you are loud, talkative, love everyone, or live to party- it just means your natural tendency is to reach into the outside world (towards tools of efficiency and order (Te), towards group harmony (Fe), towards your present, sensory experiences (Se), towards the array of possibilities you see around you (Ne)) before reaching within yourself. In many cases, this can make an “E” more talkative and open, but for others, it is merely a method of processing and not necessarily a lifestyle.

Ok, so now we have discovered “Introvert” and “Extrovert” don’t mean what everyone thinks they mean within MBTI- instead they are merely a code embedded within your cognitive processing. So where do the Ambiverts fit in? Well… wherever their dominant function lies. Are you an Ambivert and your first cognitive reaction is Fi then soon after Ne or Se? Then you’re in ISFP or an INFP. It doesn’t mean you’re an “Introvert”, it just means you rely on Introverted feeling as your instinctive method of processing.

Let’s say though, you can’t decide which one you use more Fi or Se, because you really do just use both about the same amount of time. No problem, look at your inferior function, or your tertiary function. See where you fall when you’re in the grip and where you are when you are looping.

When you are “in the grip” are you in the grip of Ni? If so, you are an ESFP. If you’re in the grip of Te, then you’re an ISFP.
If you’re “loop” is Se-Te, you’re an ESFP. But if your loop is Fi-Ni, then you are an ISFP.

For now, I have not seen a place where this thought process doesn’t work well enough to nail down a type. I don’t encounter many Ambiverts…most of the time their preference for one function over the other is obvious even if their actions are “stereotypical” introvert or extrovert.

I have typed two Ambiverts. One is an ENFP and the other an ESFJ. I struggled with their type for so long because they honestly just didn’t fit the type. But they weren’t INFP or ISFJ either, and they looped like extroverts and feel into the grip like extroverts. So what was the problem? I was wrongly using the definitions of I vs E outside of MBTI’s system.

Within MBTI, Ambiverts do exist, they just aren’t called Ambiverts. Within MBTI, introverts exists but they aren’t actually recognized as “shy, reserved people” as society sees them. Within MBTI, extroverts exists but they aren’t recognized as “loud, people oriented” individuals as society claims they are. There are two definitions at play and that is the problem.

So, Ambiverts, you exist and the MBTI system doesn’t exclude you. It may be harder for you to type yourself because of how the Internet and people discuss MBTI introverts and extroverts, but if you remember those definitions are wrong and it’s really just deciding between function preferences, then MBTI works the way it was always intended.


PS: If you have questions, I’d be glad to follow up on this topic. It won’t be in the form of a reply most likely, but simply through another post like this one :).

anonymous asked:

How would the allies ( and Canada ) react if their s/o was actually perverted and mischievous in the bedroom?

Alfred | America: He’d be totally ecstatic about it. A little mischief in the bedroom has never hurt anyone, so why would he be bothered by it? He’d be willing to try out just about anything his partner brings to the table.

Arthur | England: He’d be rather surprised, especially if his partner is usually shy and reserved in society. He’d be quick to adjust to it and eventually would show his animalistic side to them when it came to getting down and dirty.

Francis | France
: He would grin and chuckle a bit, not really being surprised by the fact that his partner was perverted in the bedroom. He’d find it extremely attractive, because it would open a whole new world of ideas and opportunities.

Ivan | Russia: He would be taken aback at first, a face of slight perplexity crossing his features for a few moments before letting a smile linger on his lips. He wouldn’t mind this little side of his partner in the slightest. 

Yao | China:
He’d be unsure of what to think at first, because he’s always seen his partner as this cute little innocent being. To think that they’d be kinky in the bedroom just sounds foreign to him, but he’d slowly get used to it.

Matthew | Canada
: He’d blush and gawk at his partner in bewilderment once they start doing something naughty during intimate moments. However, he’d be willing to fulfill their every wish, as long as he wasn’t hurting them.


Child’s dress, ca. 1855-1858 by KSU Museum

Red, green and ivory plaid wool twill with black silk face velvet hem.

American, ca. 1855-1858.

Gift of the Western Reserve Historical Society.

anonymous asked:

Hi I love your theories. But just one thing nags at me. Who was Touka visiting at the hospital if not Hide? There is no other human for her to visit.


I can go on about how Nishiki is desperately after Torso because Troso loves scarred bodies, Kimi’s is scarred because of Nishiki, Torso attacked her, but she managed to get out of this alive and is in the hospital, yatta, yatta, people have made quite some good posts about this already, so I won’t bore you.

But lets talk a bit about Kimi and Touka, because there is something really cool going on with them. Kimi was the first human to accept Touka as a ghoul.

Up until that point Touka was very reserved towards human society, evident in her thoughts in the 1st novel, 2nd story, “Bento”. She didn’t tell Yoriko and she didn’t allow Kaneki to tell Hide about them being ghouls because she was afraid that they won’t be accepted just because of their nature. This once happened to her in her childhood, when, despite that she and Ayato were children in a peaceful family, they were mercilessly attacked by humans and called monsters. So her fear is very justified. This is a trauma that carries on in TG and doesn’t allow Touka to fully trust humans, because she is scared they will never accept her and always view her as a monster.


ch.46, pg.15-16

Kimi reacts completely unexpectedly, startling and confusing Touka to the point that she just leaves. Because the impossible happened: for the first time in Touka’s life a human saw her true nature and accepted her. Kimi saw the kagune and kakugan, yet she called the parts of Touka that make her a ‘monster’ ‘beautiful’ which greatly shakes Touka’s believes about this world and humans’ way of thinking.

Kimi was the first one to show Touka there are people that go beyond the boundary between the two natures and can appreciate somebody despite them being different. And that is what Touka has wanted all along. By meeting Kimi Touka starts to ‘allow’ herself to dream of a better and brighter future. As we can see, Kimi’s behaviour greatly influences Touka and she begins to consider her nature and the relationship between humans and ghouls on a greater level.

ch.46, pg.17

So I think Kimi is very important to Touka and her development, even if their relationship wasn’t shown after the church accident. But if Touka didn’t try to kill her after that it means she trusts Kimi and believes in her honesty and in the bond she shares with Nishiki. I think because of this, Kimi is a person with whom Touka can develop a carrying relationship and is definitely a person Touka would worry over if something were to happen to her.

(also thank you for the support! .u.)

Watch on

One elder looks to pass on his legacy; but in a culture defined by custom, where do tradition and progress meet and can they coexist?

(Text/Video via: Hopi – A documentary in progress)

The name Hopi is a shortened form of their autonym, Hopituh Shi-nu-mu (“The Peaceful People” or “Peaceful Little Ones”) … Hopi is a concept deeply rooted in the culture’s religion, spirituality, and its view of morality and ethics. To be Hopi is to strive toward this concept, which involves a state of total reverence and respect for all things, to be at peace with these things, and to live in accordance with the instructions of Maasaw, the Creator or Caretaker of Earth. The Hopi observe their traditional ceremonies for the benefit of the entire world.

(Text via: wikipedia)

In light of what’s been happening in the States recently regarding racially motivated police brutality, I wanted to pen a short reflection that is personal and related to WestAllen, since that’s the subject of my blog. I’m aware people may be visiting the tags as a form of escape from current events, so I do apologize if this is an intrusion of your self-care, but I hope you will see where my intentions were with this post after reading it.

I could probably write essays upon essays detailing why I love the character of Iris West and why I haven’t been infatuated with a pairing like Barry and Iris in a really long time. Such essays would no doubt admire Iris’s personal characteristics of bravery, righteousness, and confidence and squeal over the healthy love, childhood friends-to-lovers trope, and adorable nature that defines WestAllen’s relationship.

What I also cannot pass over when discussing Iris and her relationship with Barry is the role the color of her skin plays in why she resonates with me. I am not going to deny that Iris being black is a big reason why I have taken such a fondness to her. The fact of the matter is that we rarely get to see women of color as leading ladies on our screens. It’s not very often that fictional women of color are simultaneously depicted as romantic interests, as daughters, as friends, as sisters, as the human beings that real women of color are. That Iris is portrayed by dark-skinned Candice Patton with features that enforce that she is undoubtedly black only adds to the significance of her character in an entertainment industry that values lighter skin and European white attributes as the ultimate and only standards of beauty.

Regarding her relationship with Barry, the heteronormative values of our society that tend to stigmatize love between two individuals of a difference race also seep into the entertainment we consume. Seldom do we see a loving relationship between an interracial couple represented on television or in film, which is an additional reason why WestAllen holds a special place in my heart. I confess that I have often wondered if the reason I tend to take a liking to interracial couples is dehumanizing or fetishizing or projecting some symbolic significance onto them that is unfair and that I wouldn’t do for any other couple, and I am always trying to keep this in check. But I really feel that they resonate with me because they are not portrayed as often as other couples in fiction, and it is always comforting to see authentic love between two people in a world that often enforces the rhetoric that differences lead to oppression, hatred, and clash rather than harmony, equality, and love.

Neither WestAllen nor any other interracial pairing have to make a statement with their relationship and shouldn’t be expected to, but they do represent something in the span of typical heteronormative society relationships and in the racist infrastructure that characterizes America and the West. I’ve been feeling really down lately with my own mental health struggles and the news doesn’t help much. It’s hard to be reminded of the brutal (and lethal) systemic prejudice and injustice around us, but at least we have this escape where black characters like Iris West can be themselves and thrive. And at least we can watch Barry and Iris love each other with no reservations from the society they live in.

If I said anything offensive or problematic I do apologize and I welcome correction or explanation as to why if I did say so, as I am constantly learning.

Mirandagate: why the BBC's 'Newsnight' pulled trans debate

Last night, I was asked to appear on Newsnight in a debate surrounding the decision by Frank Maloney to tell the world that she now wishes to be known as Kellie Maloney. The piece is on the Daily Mirror website.

When I arrived at the studio, the producer advised me that the two other speakers, Fred McConnell and Paris Lees, had elected to boycott the show. Here are their tweets explaining why they decided to do this:

I’ve turned @BBCNewsnight down as I’m not prepared to enter into a fabricated debate about trans people’s right to exist/express themselves.

— Paris ★ Lees (@ParisLees)

August 11, 2014

Was going to go on @BBCNewsnight but thanks to this awesome trans community, found out it basically a TERF-filled trap.

— Fred McConnell (@fred_dash)

August 11, 2014

This is what Ian Katz, the editor of the show, had to say:

@jennie_kermode @Sarah_Jane_Artt #newsnight was never debating whether trans people have right to exist…that’s a ludicrous misrepresentation

— Ian Katz (@iankatz1000)

August 11, 2014

Or to put it another way:

@evilfelicity @planetsmart009 long story. Basically, twitter got wind Miranda was going to be on, shat itself, paris lees pulled out

— QueenThingy (@QueenThingy)

August 12, 2014

I feel very sad that the debate was cancelled because Fred (a transman) and Paris (another transwoman) were unwilling to speak with me. This was a great opportunity to show the country (and the world) that there is intelligent debate to be had around trans issues, and communicate some of the complex ideas and issues that exist within our community to a wider audience. And there would have been three trans people having the debate.

I had prepared some notes in the 90 minutes I was home yesterday (and in that time I managed to shower, do a shop, feed and cuddle my cats and actually have some dinner). Here are the notes, which in something rougher than sketch form set out the debate I would have argued, and these are the three points I wished to bring to the table:

  1. Kellie’s choice to do this is her own personal decision. I know from first-hand experience what a hard road it is to go through this process, and I wish her all happiness for the rest of her life: good on her. It is important that people can lead their lives how they want to, allowing them to exercise their own freedoms. It is very progressive that people can do what they want, and I support this.
  2. In the Daily Mirror piece, Kellie speaks of ‘being born in the wrong body’ and says that she has ‘always known I was a woman’. This raises the question, what does it mean to be a woman? Is Kellie saying that she has a ‘woman’s brain’? What are the implications of asserting that one has a ‘female brain’ for women as a class?
  3. Women are socialised as female, and men as male: if men and women were socialised in the same way, we’d all just be humans! This is an idea at the heart of feminism. At what point does someone who has been socialised as a male, which is a violent socialisation, lay claim to womanhood, lay claim to the places society reserves for women, like toilets, changing rooms? The demand for unrestricted access to female spaces, spaces that exist for the dignity, comfort and protection of women, concerns me greatly. I am not saying that all men are violent, being masculine is not innate (just like being feminine is not innate) and so male violence is not innate.

These are just three points for debate about what it means to be trans. It saddens me we are unable to have this discussion, it sends out the message that the trans community is so uncertain of itself that we are unable to analyse ourselves. This has got to be fundamentally wrong.