I asked my ex, now good friend, if she would ever have an open relationship and she said, “No, I don’t think I could do that” then after a pause and a smile, “but what about love affair friendships?” She went on to describe an impenetrable fortress of female friendship, her own group of best mates who’d known each other since school and had supported and loved each other through almost all of their lifetimes. They sounded far more bonded to, and in love with one another, than their respective husbands. It struck me that we don’t have the language to reflect the diversity and breadth of connections we experience. Why is sex the thing we tend to define a relationship by, when in fact it can be simple casual fun without a deep emotional transaction? Why do we say “just friends” when, for some of us, a friendship goes deeper? Can we define a new currency of commitment that celebrates and values this? Instead of having multiple confusing interpretations of the same word, could we have different words? What if we viewed our relationships as a pyramid structure with our primary partner at the top and a host of lovers, friends, spiritual soul mates, colleagues, and acquaintances beneath that?
- Rosie Wilby, “You’re More Polyamorous Than You Think” (via handslikeflowers)

(Source: sodisarmingdarling, via raeraenjma)

likeafieldmouse:

Ruud van Empel - World (2005)
Don’t fuck with boys who:

thedangerousautumn:

* are mean to their mothers
* are against feminism
* only want you for your body
* will/are leading you on
* think you owe them something
* think they are entitled to your body

(Source: war-allthetime, via acosmizt)

Above all, capitalism wastes human life. The U.S. spends billions to warehouse 2 million people—many of them young Black and Latino men—in overcrowded prisons. It provides sub-par education to millions of poor students, sending a message that their lives will amount to nothing.

Are people homeless in America because there’s a shortage of homes? And if that’s the case, is there a shortage of homes because we don’t have the concrete, the wood and the steel to build them?

The truth is that under capitalism, there’s no incentive to build low-cost housing for the homeless—because it isn’t profitable to do so.

The same goes for the more than 800 million people in the world who go hungry. It isn’t profitable to feed them. So food is stockpiled or destroyed rather than distributed to them.

- Is the free market efficient? (via afghangst)

(Source: jayaprada, via lil-tebastian)

I felt a tremendous distance between me and everything real.
- Hunter S. Thompson, The Rum Diary (via insanity-and-vanity)

(via abalonella)

blueberrymodern:

studio roos gomperts
dappertomboy:

Gives Way
benmcnutt:

Melanie Willhide