rdj kissing josh brolin on the lips is such a power move. the man doesn’t give a single fuck. he’s the male protagonist archetype of this century but he will kiss as many guys as he pleases because he can and there’s nothing hollywood can do about it
i love how the media has rdj as this manly hetero Man Of Iron™ but he lives on a diferent dimension where sexuality is whatever the fuck he wants it to be. he will kiss man and women as he pleases. he will dress in pink and yellow and not give a single fuck.
MIRA–
Y SU FAVORITO–
robert has always not given a single fuck for people’s views in what he should wear and how openly affectioned he can be with men. he’s not here for fragile masculinity and heterosexuality. he will continue to kiss, hug and shower them all with love.
😍
Since the photos above focus on him kissing men, I feel the need to also add a few examples of his i don’t give a fuck outfits:
1) he’s a fashion disaster
2) all the guys getting kisses from him are literally b e a m i n g . they love it. they want more
This is on my dash again and the only day I don’t reblog this is the day I’m dead.
peter parker, expressing his affection as any teen would: thor i would die for you 🙂
thor, gripping his shoulders with the intensity of ten thousand burning suns: i would never let that happen
peter parker, later that week: i would die for you loki
loki, looking him dead in the eye: you will.
drax: [really bad joke]
peter parker: mr. drax? I would die for you
drax, with a pause spent determining that peter is probably joking and then a hearty guffaw: but my muscles and fighting power is several times your own! your death would be meaningless!
peter parker, in the middle of battle with no regard for his own safety: i would die for you
t’challa, who has lived with shuri long enough to know exactly what answer peter is looking for: then perish
Maybe I’m biased because I make my own clothes, but skirts are better than trousers because you can put bigger pockets in skirts. With trousers, you’re limited to the size of your leg but with skirts you can just fill it up and people will just assume you’re wearing a petticoat until they hear the crunch of the Dorito bags.
Just once I’d like the see an historical heroine be asked if it bothers her that she has to wear skirts and have say, “Not really. I couldn’t fit this in a waistcoat.” and just pull out a loaf of bread or something and start eating it right in front of the baffled male lead.
It would work great in the 1700s with those removable pockets, you could fit a couple of Italian loaves in there.
POCKETS ALL
Why were these taken from us
Short answer: sexist politics.
Long answer:
One way to look at the transfiguration of women’s tied-on, capacious pockets of the mid-eighteenth century into the early nineteenth century’s tiny, hand-held reticule is to consider that this transformation occurred as the French Revolution, a time that violently challenged established notions of property, privacy, and propriety. Women’s pockets were private spaces they carried into the public with increasing freedom, and during a revolutionary time, this freedom was very, very frightening. The less women could carry, the less freedom they had. Take away pockets happily hidden under garments, and you limit women’s ability to navigate public spaces, to carry seditious (or merely amorous) writing, or to travel unaccompanied.
The whole article is FASCINATING–and it points out that pockets have been an aspect of feminism from the beginning.
The Chaos Bitches 