Have you ever paid really close attention to the twins when they were in immediate danger or in a situation where they were getting nervous or a little freaked out?

Because if you look closely, you see this happening a lot:

Whenever they get freaked out it’s like their natural reaction to hold onto each other.






And it’s not just that. Oh no, the twins get even more adorable, because have you seen the way Dipper looks after his sister?

Even from episode one, he always taken the time to look back and grab Mabel by the hand just to make sure she’s with him.

It happens throughout the whole season.

And if you notice it’s always Dipper leading, pulling his sister out of danger.

Mabel has saved him before too, of course. I’m not saying that she hasn’t. But what I am saying is that Dipper actively looks after her on an almost moment-to-moment basis. It’s like, Dipper sees danger and his first reaction is to grab Mabel.


But this makes sense! They are twins, so no one is really the “older sibling,” to a significant amount. This isn’t the standard “I must protect my younger sibling”. If anything, Mabel is older than Dipper. However, if you know anything about Dipper you have at least a general idea of how his mind works. He’s much more cautious than Mabel. He likes to think things through, and put pieces together. He pays attention to people and the world around him, unlike his sister who often lives in her own world.

It makes sense that he would take it upon himself to keep the two of them safe on their adventures. After all, he likes to think of himself as a hero, and when it comes to protecting his sister, he often is.

Don’t fully believe me yet?

When danger approaches, who stands in from of whom?




I’m not saying Mabel isn’t a hero, or is weak, or needs her brothers help. I’m saying Dipper is a kid who takes protecting his sister very seriously.

He cares about her and loves her.

They need each other. Both to balance each other’s polarized views of the world, and for comfort and security.

And this is never more obvious than in the devastating looks on their faces, and the way they try desperately to cling to each other’s hands, as they are torn apart.

(via tortoisefeet)

Source: dp-shrine-in-closet-girl




Obama on gay adoption 

yeah totally ruining this country what a horrible guy

Fun fact: Obama has attempted to fix almost everything that he promised to fix, but the republicans have voted almost all of his bills out of congress. He’s not the problem.

That fact isn’t very fun





Obama on gay adoption 


yeah totally ruining this country what a horrible guy

Fun fact: Obama has attempted to fix almost everything that he promised to fix, but the republicans have voted almost all of his bills out of congress. He’s not the problem.

That fact isn’t very fun

(via bitch-i-mike-be)

Source: holymaurymotherofgod




this is all i need from life i am content

(via mrpen15)

Source: cute-overload







I’ve seen this image going around, and I feel compelled to point out that it’s only half-right. It’s true that high heels were originally a masculine fashion, but they weren’t originally worn by butchers - nor for any other utilitarian purpose, for that matter.

High heels were worn by men for exactly the same reason they’re worn by women today: to display one’s legs to best effect. Until quite recently, shapely, well-toned calves and thighs were regarded as an absolute prerequisite for male attractiveness. That’s why you see so many paintings of famous men framed to show off their legs - like this one of George Washington displaying his fantastic calves:

… or this one of Louis XIV of France rocking a fabulous pair of red platform heels (check out those thighs!):

… or even this one of Charles I of England showing off his high-heeled riding boots - note, again, the visual emphasis on his well-formed calves:

In summary: were high heels originally worn by men? Yes. Were they worn to keep blood off their feet? No at all - they were worn for the same reason they’re worn today: to look fabulous.

so then how did they become a solo feminine item of attire?

A variety of reasons. In France, for example, high heels fell out out of favour in the court of Napoleon due to their association with aristocratic decadence, while in England, the more conservative fashions of the Victorian era regarded it as indecent for a man to openly display his calves.

But then, fashions come and go. The real question is why heels never came back into fashion for men - and that can be laid squarely at the feet of institutionalised homophobia. Essentially, heels for men were never revived because, by the early 20th Century, sexually provocative attire for men had come to be associated with homosexuality; the resulting moral panic ushered in an era of drab, blocky, fully concealing menswear in which a well-turned calf simply had no place - a setback from which men’s fashion has yet to fully recover.


Thank you, history side of tumblr. That “stay out of blood” thing has been driving me mad.

It’s funny because men’s cowboy boots and motorcycle boots both have relatively high heels (at least as high as the heels in those earlier art examples). I had an old teacher who was a little 5’2” bodybuilder that always wore cowboy boots and we would rib him that they were “acceptably masculine high heels” and that kind of thing. They seem to pass under the radar because they’re attached to such chest-poundingly masculine pastimes, they’re like the footwear version of “No homo”.

(via mrpen15)

Source: makemelaughblog
Photo Set

¡Sois libres!


Time to hit up the AA (Animorphs Anonymous)

Facebook - Twitter - UP and OUT subreddit - Patreon

(via springdasie)

Source: jeremykaye
Photo Set




This is like installing Windows on a Mac.

I am physically required to reblog this or my heart will stop beating.

oh my god

(via catbountry)

Source: poyzn
Photo Set


Being good to each other is so important, guys.

Source: nateswinehart

snail snail snail snail snail [x]