the improper

anonymous asked:

Is this the first time Bucky and Steve have ever been openly mad at him for an extended period of time? And Tonys almost alienated himself so that cant ve good for the poor boy even though he is in the wrong

They’re not even really mad; they’re just frustrated. They want to understand but all Tony says is “his duty is to his country” and “it’s improper” and leaves it at that. If he could explain why “it’s improper” or what exactly his duty means they’d be happy to listen to him, but Tony just reiterates what he said because to him it makes perfect sense as-is.

(Have you seen my past posts about this because I went through a long drawn-out angsty explanation about it)

i still retain that the absolute worst part of secret life of pets was the moral, aka there really is none and its basically shown by the rabbits character arc. he’s introduced as a sort of…villainy antihero? he runs an underground rebellion of abandoned and mistreated animals against humans. he’s established as a villain because he thinks humans are bad and wants the main characters to join his cause, but they don’t want to because they know their humans are Good, so basically then they run away and the rabbit is out to get them.

fastforward to the end of the movie and we get a little girl wanting to keep the rabbit and this happens, turns out he’s good! he just needed to open up to humans 

partnered with the shots in the movie of fish in tiny bowls, birds in tiny cages, and a turtle in a deplorable enclosure, the movie frankly paints a picture that ‘the mean animals hated humans just because they didnt know any better’ and that people are good and it was just up to them to see it. yes thats a plot thats been done of a rehabilitated animal finding a good home,but no human was really at fault for anything in the movie. theres no lesson to be learned that people also need to take good care of their pets, every animal just needs to be hugged! i dont know, something about the presentation in this movie really rubbed me wrong way

this movie was made for people who just like to look at cute animals and frankly that demographic constantly overlaps with improper pet ownership and impulse buying..

This is the way the world ends. Not with a bang, but with a:

Grammar, Stanley.”

Grimdark Mario theory: The spikes on Bowser’s back is actually his shell pyramiding due to him having an improper diet for a koopa and not getting enough UV light in his castle.


anxiety always wonders, in the back of their mind, if they could be something other than a boy. sure, they dont mind being referred to as “he/him”, but they just… want to try something out. they had been reading up on it for months now, gathering information and trying to connect themselves with the definitions thrown at them.

it feels hopeless when they cant work it out right away.

anxiety learns “genderfluid” and thinks maybe. however, it doesnt feel right.

they gather up the courage to ask a favour from the one person they trust not to spill their secret. as theyre asking, anxiety cant help but to feel as if though theyre faking. still, they push through it.

the logical side nods, unaffected by anxiety’s request. they bite their lip to contain their joy.

logan only refers to them with gender neutral pronouns now, after getting the all-clear to use it in front of the others. anx feels happy - but the “what if” continues to nag at their mind.

after a couple of weeks, he/him sounds like nails on a chalkboard and they flinch every time they’re referred to as such. they dont correct anyone, and instead spends more time around logan. he never pushes about anxiety’s gender, but sometimes they wish he did so they can finally talk about it with someone.

they blurt the new pronouns out in the middle of an argument, unable to contain it. they feel sick as they do it, because /what if/ the others see them as a faker? however, patton claps them on the back and calls them “kiddo”. roman asks if they’re alright with his gendered disney references, and they shrug, hiding a smile because they’re so damn pleased.

anxiety decides that they/them is much easier on the ears.

the search for a word that describes themselves continues, but with help. anxiety still feels the what ifs gnawing on their bones because when someone out of the loop sees them as a boy, they dont mind as much as they feel they should.

they toss the term “demiboy” inside their head and tuck it away. to anxiety, thats too complicated and no one would believe them anyway. if they could find something more understandable to other people, then that would ease their nerves. or so they told themselves.

logan brings up the idea of nonbinary. anx searches it up and sees that its more of an umbrella term for genders that arent strictly female/male. (they also find out from google that yes, demiboy does count as nonbinary.) they decide to go by that for now.

having a word, even if its a broad one, calms them. for a while.

anx starts to worry again, because surely there must be a better word. or what if they’re faking? occasionally they slip up and misgender themselves, so to anx, its a possibility. patton reassures them that whatever they end up as, theyll still be his kiddo, and somehow, thats the most comforting thing theyve ever been told.

(demiboy, they think as they stare at the screen. partially boy and something else.)

the definitions arent “clicking” like theyve heard it should. because what if what if what if.

they toss the idea of using both he/him and they/them, but then the anxiety (hah) comes back twice as hard. now everyone will truly believe they’re faking. they push the thought aside, even though it makes them a little sick in doing so.

roman sends them a text late at night with a link. anx opens it, reads the information on the page, and then feels excitement bubble up inside.

“demiboy - this can mean two things: halfway between androgynous and boy on the spectrum, or gender fluid with the primary gender being boy and occasionally feeling feminine, androgynous or any other gender”

the last bit resonates with them. they want to shout it from the rooftops.

nonbinary demiboy. it makes sense to them.

(the three other sides are put into a groupchat at 3am by anxiety who uses capslock for the first time ever. “I FOUND A DEFINITION THAT MAKES SENSE!!!” followed by the link then “im pretty sure im demiboy and look! theres other people like me!! im not alone”.)

the next day, they reintroduce themselves as a demiboy who uses they/them pronouns, followed by their name.

Kuroshitsuji (Black Butler): Furnishings in the Manga and their History

(The goal of this little side stepping of posts is to go over the furnishings in black Butler and talk about the history of these actual Victorian and Edwardian house hold items that can be seen throughout the series. We’re starting with the Chapter title pages since they’re the easiest to see and then to splash pages or pages where the furniture is an obvious part of the scene. )

Chapter 125 and 126: Ciel and Soma, Agni and Sebastian on a Tête-à-tête, or Courting (Conversation) Bench.

So in chapter 125 and 126 we’re introduced to a rather interesting image. Ciel and Soma sitting on a strange looking couch or bench, where Ciel is facing away from Soma, as he leans over to talk to him. The following chapter gives the reverse of this where Angi is in silent meditation and prayer while Sebastian is leaning over and whispering things in his ear.

What’s interesting is not only the dynamic of the character set up with this: Soma trying to talk to ciel who is trying to cut him out by not facing him, his back to the audience as well, and Sebastian whispering sweetly into Agni’s ear, possibly denoting some sense of temptation. But you have a perfect example of how this bench can work for both a common conversation (Soma and Ciel) and a more intimate one (Sebastian and Agni).

The Tête-à-tête (or head to head in French) bench is a rather interesting couch as its history is not that long or convoluted like a lot of other historical chairs. Built in the 19th century its design is in an S shape for the very reason of its existence, to keep people from eavesdropping on conversations, as well as allow courting couples to speak to each other without having to sit awkwardly on a traditional bench.

The idea of the Courting couch came about as a means of making conversation easier for those at parties or balls. Normally when one was at an event, one would take a seat if one was tired of dancing or standing talking. Benches were longer as were couches, allowing for three people to sit and the issue really became for women whose hair and clothing style made it harder for them to turn their heads and talk to their gentlemen admires. The Conversation couch alleviated much of that by essentially placing to chairs back to back and side to side, so that the two people talking could converse without looking like they were doing more than just that.

The distance between the seats allowed for both a sense of personal space as well as intimate discussion. There’s an arm shared between them, so that if a lady were to put her hand up, her admirer could potentially place his on hers with the utmost of discretion. The person would have to lean over some to whisper into another person’s ears if need be, ala Sebastian to Agni, or just easily converse as Soma is to Ciel, since the person that is seated opposite you would have their ear closer to your mouth, thus easier to hear what you had to say.

These benches were favored among people during the Victorian era as it allowed them to keep their distance, so that they could keep up their good decorum, while still allowing for a couple to make plans with one another and flirt. This was the ultimate in romance at the time for younger couples who wanted to be together at events but couldn’t do what was seen as improper at the time, such as cuddling and all that.

For those that were non couples the Conversation bench could allow for whispers for a business deal, gossip or other discussion that one did not want to be heard by your fellow party goers. This piece is still in use today and is making a small sort of comeback, though it’s not as big as it once was due to some aspects of the bench’s limitations.

Modern versions of the Tête-à-tête show up as sofas allowing for a longer space, and in some cases some very interesting chairs. Conversation couches need more space than traditional couches as they have to have space for the legs of the two people and can’t be put up against a wall, so normally it’s in the center of a room, or part of a set that is off the wall. One also needs to make sure that both sides are facing something interesting, so that the people sitting will not be facing a blank wall, or feel boxed in.

There are a number of variations in modern times of the Tête-à-tête as seen below:

goals in life: to find someone tht will gaze at me with the same admiration tht jeon jungkook has when he stares at his smol husband, park jimin

Free Roaming Was A Mistake: Two Years Later

This morning, I watched Kaiju emerge from her burrow, yawn, and walk around her cage. She soaked in her swimming pool for a while, got out, drank some water, played with her feeder puzzle and got some breakfast, basked, dug a hole, moved to the other side of her cage, dug another hole, and then flopped on her log to bask again. Watching her dig made me think a bit, and then I looked back at my lizard records and realized that hey, it’s two years to the day since I put her in the cage, and that made me think a little bit more. 

Namely, it made me think about the year I spent letting her free-roam all the time. It’s something I want to talk about here for a few reasons. One, I think it’s important to talk about why it was a mistake so that nobody else tries it. Two, I think it’s important for me personally because a lot of the Pet Experience™ on the internet is cute pictures and videos and talk about how amazing your animal is. Pet owners like to present themselves as experts in excellence, and I think particularly here, that contributes to a lot of the toxicity and hostility that goes around in the petblr tags. Many private challenges to our way of doing things go ignored or are met with hostility; public challenges tend to devolve into ad hominem arguments and fighting that ultimately doesn’t change the animal’s care. But everybody makes mistakes. Nobody’s perfect, and even husbandry decisions that are made with careful planning and forethought can be a huge mistake. Sometimes you back the wrong horse. 

When I was looking into tegus for the first time, a commonly recurring theme was free-roaming. While most of the community supports caging, there is a small, vocally adamant subsection that says that free-roaming works for them. They talk about how they do it, how they set up hot spots and humid zones, and how their animal is part of the family. That loud minority really seemed inspirational to me- like they were so dedicated to their animal’s experience and mental well-being that they converted their own home. I thought I could do that, too, and maybe it could have worked out long-term, but you know what? I don’t care. There’s a lot of what ifs left, alternate universes I don’t have much of an interest in exploring. It’s an irresponsible, foolish gamble. There’s no what ifs about her health- I know that she’s got the humidity and heat she needs for her organs to function properly. There’s no point in looking back or trying to figure out a work-around to facilitate full-time free roaming. 

Here’s what I know: While the year she spent free-roaming caused no problems based on bloodwork and imaging analysis, there’s no telling what could have happened in the long run. Tegus are tanks and it can take a long time before improper care takes its toll on them. This is the post I saw that made me change my mind; the tegu here had been free-roaming for six years before his health rapidly declined. That’s what made me decide that even if I did everything “right” to keep letting Kaiju free-roam, it just wasn’t worth it. Sometimes, even if you think you’re doing the right thing, it’s valuable to take a step back and say “ok, but is this really the right thing?” It’s said a lot by petblr bloggers that your ego shouldn’t ever come before your pets’ health, but sometimes these decisions aren’t based on ego- sometimes they’re based on just plain being wrong. And there’s nothing wrong with admitting that! It’s ok to be wrong. Nobody’s right all the time. But have the courage to reevaluate your husbandry practices and the honesty to fully consider the risks- and if you realize you need to make a change, then make it. Your animal’s worth it.

English Fun Fact of the Day:

Do you use singular ‘they’? For example, would you say something like “Every student should do their homework before they go out to play”? Now, were you ever told that this was wrong?
Most of us are taught that this singular usage of “they” is improper and especially unacceptable in formal settings like essays or books. The reason most cited for the incorrectness of this usage of “they” and “their” is that a plural pronoun simply cannot be used as a singular pronoun. It just cannot be done!
But let me tell you why that’s a bunch of nonsense.
In Old English and Middle English, there were two sets of second-person pronouns. One singular and the other plural. There was thou/thee/thy/thine and also ye/you/your/yours. Three guesses which was the plural set.
That’s right!
Ye/you/your/yours were plural you’s. That is to say that you’d use “you” when referring to a group, not a single person. Later in Middle English, “you” and its forms began to be used like the French “vous” still is today. You could use the plural form “you” to refer to a superior, even in the singular, or a group of people.
Eventually, around the 17th century, “thou” passed out of fashion entirely in standard English, but “you” remained for both singular and plural usage.
So, the next time that a teacher tells you not to use the singular they, just show them this post and reassure them of the historical linguistic precedent for plural pronouns being used as singular.
Forbidden love: The WW2 letters between two men - BBC News
Love letters written during World War Two and discovered in a trunk in Brighton reveal a forbidden relationship between two men.

While on military training during World War Two, Gilbert Bradley was in love. He exchanged hundreds of letters with his sweetheart - who merely signed with the initial “G”. But more than 70 years later, it was discovered that G stood for Gordon, and Gilbert had been in love with a man.

At the time, not only was homosexuality illegal, but those in the armed forces could be shot for having gay sex. The letters, which emerged after Mr Bradley’s death in 2008, are therefore unusual and shed an important light on homosexual relationships during the war. What do we know about this forbidden love affair?

Wednesday January 24th 1939

My darling,

… I lie awake all night waiting for the postman in the early morning, and then when he does not bring anything from you I just exist, a mass of nerves…

All my love forever,


Information gleaned from the letters indicate Mr Bradley was a reluctant soldier. He did not want to be in the Army, and even pretended to have epilepsy to avoid it. His ruse did not work, though, and in 1939 he was stationed at Park Hall Camp in Oswestry, Shropshire, to train as an anti-aircraft gunner.

He was already in love with Gordon Bowsher. The pair had met on a houseboat holiday in Devon in 1938 when Mr Bowsher was in a relationship with Mr Bradley’s nephew. Mr Bowsher was from a well-to-do family. His father ran a shipping company, and the Bowshers also owned tea plantations. When war broke out a year later he trained as an infantryman and was stationed at locations across the country.

February 12 1940, Park Grange

My own darling boy,

There is nothing more than I desire in life but to have you with me constantly…

…I can see or I imagine I can see, what your mother and father’s reaction would be… the rest of the world have no conception of what our love is - they do not know that it is love…

But life as a homosexual in the 1940s was incredibly difficult. Gay activity was a court-martial offence, jail sentences for so-called “gross indecency” were common, and much of society strongly disapproved of same-sex relationships. It was not until the Sexual Offences Act 1967 that consenting men aged 21 and over were legally allowed to have gay relationships - and being openly gay in the armed services was not allowed until 2000.

The letters, which emerged after Mr Bradley’s death in 2008, are rare because most homosexual couples would get rid of anything so incriminating, says gay rights activist Peter Roscoe. In one letter Mr Bowsher urges his lover to “do one thing for me in deadly seriousness. I want all my letters destroyed. Please darling do this for me. Til then and forever I worship you.”

Mr Roscoe says the letters are inspiring in their positivity. “There is a gay history and it isn’t always negative and tearful,” he says. “So many stories are about arrests - Oscar Wilde, Reading Gaol and all those awful, awful stories. "But despite all the awful circumstances, gay men and lesbians managed to rise above it all and have fascinating and good lives despite everything.”

February 1st, 1941 K . C. Gloucester Regiment, Priors Road, Cheltenham

My darling boy,

For years I had it drummed into me that no love could last for life…

I want you darling seriously to delve into your own mind, and to look for once in to the future.

Imagine the time when the war is over and we are living together… would it not be better to live on from now on the memory of our life together when it was at its most golden pitch.

Your own G.

But was this a love story with a happy ending?

Probably not. At one point, Mr Bradley was sent to Scotland on a mission to defend the Forth Bridge. He met and fell in love with two other men. Rather surprisingly, he wrote and told Mr Bowsher all about his romances north of the border. Perhaps even more surprisingly, Mr Bowsher took it all in his stride, writing that he “understood why they fell in love with you. After all, so did I”.

Although the couple wrote throughout the war, the letters stopped in 1945.

However, both went on to enjoy interesting lives.Mr Bowsher moved to California and became a well-known horse trainer. In a strange twist, he employed Sirhan Sirhan, who would go on to be convicted of assassinating Robert Kennedy. Mr Bradley was briefly entangled with the MP Sir Paul Latham, who was imprisoned in 1941 following a court martial for “improper conduct” with three gunners and a civilian. Sir Paul was exposed after some “indiscreet letters” were discovered.Mr Bradley moved to Brighton and died in 2008. A house clearance company found the letters and sold them to a dealer specialising in military mail.

The letters were finally bought by Oswestry Town Museum, when curator Mark Hignett was searching on eBay for items connected with the town. He bought just three at first, and says the content led him to believe a fond girlfriend or fiancé was the sender. There were queries about bed sheets, living conditions - and their dreams for their future life together. When he spotted there were more for sale, he snapped them up too - and on transcribing the letters for a display in the museum, Mr Hignett and his colleagues discovered the truth. The “girlfriend” was a boyfriend.

The revelation piqued Mr Hignett’s interest - he describes his experience as being similar to reading a book and finding the last page ripped out: “I just had to keep buying the letters to find out what happened next.” Although he’s spent “thousands of pounds” on the collection of more than 600 letters, he believes in terms of historical worth the correspondence is “invaluable”. “Such letters are extremely rare because they were incriminating - gay men faced years in prison with or without hard labour,” he says. “There was even the possibility that gay soldiers could have been shot.”

Work on a book is already under way at the museum, where the letters will also go on display. Perhaps most poignantly, one of the letters contains the lines: “Wouldn’t it be wonderful if all our letters could be published in the future in a more enlightened time. Then all the world could see how in love we are.”