Photo
xysciences:

An example of a Koch snowflake, where as the amount of triangles added are increased, the circumference tends to infinity but the area stays roughly the same. 
[Click for more interesting science facts and gifs]

xysciences:

An example of a Koch snowflake, where as the amount of triangles added are increased, the circumference tends to infinity but the area stays roughly the same. 

[Click for more interesting science facts and gifs]

(Source: xyprogramming, via defluxion)

Quote
"

In fact a mature person does not fall in love, he rises in love. The word ’fall’ is not right. Only immature people fall; they stumble and fall down in love. Somehow they were managing and standing. They cannot manage and they cannot stand – they find a woman and they are gone, they find a man and they are gone. They were always ready to fall on the ground and to creep. They don’t have the backbone, the spine; they don’t have that integrity to stand alone.

A mature person has the integrity to be alone. And when a mature person gives love, he gives without any strings attached to it: he simply gives. And when a mature person gives love, he feels grateful that you have accepted his love, not vice versa. He does not expect you to be thankful for it – no, not at all, he does not even need your thanks. He thanks you for accepting his love. And when two mature persons are in love, one of the greatest paradoxes of life happens, one of the most beautiful phenomena: they are together and yet tremendously alone; they are together so much so that they are almost one. But their oneness does not destroy their individuality, in fact, it enhances it: they become more individual.


Two mature persons in love help each other to become more free. There is no politics involved, no diplomacy, no effort to dominate. How can you dominate the person you love? Just think over it. Domination is a sort of hatred, anger, enmity. How can you think of dominating a person you love? You would love to see the person totally free, independent; you will give him more individuality. That’s why I call it the greatest paradox: they are together so much so that they are almost one, but still in that oneness they are individuals. Their individualities are not effaced – they have become more enhanced. The other has enriched them as far as their freedom is concerned.


Immature people falling in love destroy each other’s freedom, create a bondage, make a prison. Mature persons in love help each other to be free; they help each other to destroy all sorts of bondages. And when love flows with freedom there is beauty. When love flows with dependence there is ugliness.

"

— Osho  (via freespiritfly)

(Source: psych-facts, via the-rose-reaper)

Photo
Photo
megazal:

the universe within (via TommyOshima)
Video

roidyraw:

As soon as I learned Nicki Minaj voiced Sugilite, I had to

(via crystallizedtwilight)

Photo
illhater:

this is probably the only sex gif i will every reblog, because for some reason i feel like it’s more than just sex. i don’t know if it’s how they’re actually looking at one another or the way they can’t get close enough. he’s actually looking at her like a person and not just a sex object. but then again, it could be all in my head. i mean, this is how i would want it to be. but that’s just me

illhater:

this is probably the only sex gif i will every reblog, because for some reason i feel like it’s more than just sex. i don’t know if it’s how they’re actually looking at one another or the way they can’t get close enough. he’s actually looking at her like a person and not just a sex object. but then again, it could be all in my head. i mean, this is how i would want it to be. but that’s just me

(Source: donniemadness, via alexis-bleu)

Photo

(Source: asthetiques, via isol8r)

Quote
"We all have the potential to fall in love a thousand times in our lifetime. It’s easy. The first girl I ever loved was someone I knew in sixth grade…The last girl I love will be someone I haven’t even met yet, probably. They all count. But there are certain people you love who do something else; they define how you classify what love is supposed to feel like. These are the most important people in your life, and you’ll meet maybe four or five of these people over the span of 80 years. But there’s still one more tier to all this; there is always one person who you love who becomes that definition. It usually happens retrospectively, but it always happens eventually. This is the person who unknowingly sets the template for what you will always love about other people, even if some of those lovable qualities are self-destructive and unreasonable. You will remember having conversations with this person that never actually happened. You will recall sexual trysts with this person that never technically occurred. This is because the individual who embodies your personal definition of love does not really exist. The person is real, and the feelings are real—but you create the context. And context is everything."

— Chuck Klosterman, Killing Yourself to Live: 85% of a True Story  (via isol8r)

(Source: wordsnquotes.com, via isol8r)

Photo

(Source: 2eo, via isol8r)

Quote
"Words do not express thoughts very well. They always become a little different immediately after they are expressed, a little distorted, a little foolish."

— Hesse, Herman. Siddhartha.  (via wordsnquotes)

(Source: wordsnquotes, via isol8r)

Photo
sanagii:

Latina power!

sanagii:

Latina power!

(via marctheknight)

Photoset

asylum-art:

Moisés Mahiques: Large Scale Drawings  

(via isol8r)

Photo
poppet-prince:

gallifrey-feels:

alliartist:

rifa:

prokopetz:

nebcondist1:

prokopetz:

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.

FASHION HISTORY IS HUMAN HISTORY OK

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

Wait. So, you’re telling me that the reason straight boys dress horribly is because they’re not over a 100 year old gay panic?
You’re telling me that the gross, baggy, shapeless menswear that has been almost singlehandedly ruining my life is the result of a bunch of dudes in the 1900’s collectively going ‘AAAAH WHAT IF THEY THINK WE’RE GAY’
Fuck that shit. BRING BACK MENS HEELS
BRING BACK MENS TIGHTS
MAKE MEN SEXY AGAIN

That last comment speaks to me so deeply that it puts the ocean to shame v.v Seriously straight boys, get your shit together. I could go on a rant about the hideous so called “style” that is men’s clothing. ugh.

poppet-prince:

gallifrey-feels:

alliartist:

rifa:

prokopetz:

nebcondist1:

prokopetz:

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.

FASHION HISTORY IS HUMAN HISTORY OK

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

Wait. So, you’re telling me that the reason straight boys dress horribly is because they’re not over a 100 year old gay panic?

You’re telling me that the gross, baggy, shapeless menswear that has been almost singlehandedly ruining my life is the result of a bunch of dudes in the 1900’s collectively going ‘AAAAH WHAT IF THEY THINK WE’RE GAY’

Fuck that shit. BRING BACK MENS HEELS

BRING BACK MENS TIGHTS

MAKE MEN SEXY AGAIN

That last comment speaks to me so deeply that it puts the ocean to shame v.v Seriously straight boys, get your shit together. I could go on a rant about the hideous so called “style” that is men’s clothing. ugh.

(via rainispoison-sexisdeath)

Photoset

xshiromorix:

Just a reminder:

When Prophet Muhammad (sallahu alayhi wa sallam) was travelling on the road with his cousin, Al-Fadl ibn Abbas, a woman stopped him to ask him a question.  The woman was very beautiful, and Al-Fadl couldn’t help but stare at her.

Seeing this, Prophet Muhammad reached out his hand and turned his cousin’s face away.

He didn’t tell the woman to cover her face.

He didn’t tell her to change her clothing.

He didn’t tell her that her appearance was too tempting or indecent.

He averted his cousin’s impolite stare.

(via alexis-bleu)

Photo
witches-garden:

☾