Joan Crawford as Joan “Montana” Prescott
MONTANA MOON (1930) Directed by Malcolm St. Clair Costume design by Adrian
Not today Justin

oozey mess
One Nice Bug Per Day

Product Placement

shark vs the universe
Claire Keane
hello vonnie
almost home

pixel skylines
todays bird
Sade Olutola

PR's Tumblrdome
d e v o n

Love Begins
$LAYYYTER
Aqua Utopia|海の底で記憶を紡ぐ

Kiana Khansmith
i don't do bad sauce passes
Xuebing Du

seen from Iceland
seen from Iceland
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States

seen from Switzerland

seen from Malaysia

seen from United States

seen from Indonesia
seen from United States

seen from United States
seen from Taiwan
seen from United Kingdom
seen from France
seen from United States
seen from Barbados

seen from Maldives
seen from Tunisia

seen from France
seen from United States
@florabotwin
Joan Crawford as Joan “Montana” Prescott
MONTANA MOON (1930) Directed by Malcolm St. Clair Costume design by Adrian

Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
Free to watch • No registration required • HD streaming
Ladies of the Big House (1931) Dir. Marion Gering
Edvard Munch a) Buried Skull b) Girl Kissing a Skull Indian ink and crayon 1896
Carl Frederik Sørensen (Danish, 1818–1879), "Danish Ships in Rough Seas" (details), 1877
”potentially mature content” what the hell, sure

Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
Free to watch • No registration required • HD streaming
Rosengarten Massif, Dolomites, South Tyrol, Hugo Hodiener (1886-1945)
idk perhaps this is too early 2000s internet safety module of me but the amount of information you guys demand from each other is weird
if you are a left-leaning person in a political debate/argument with someone (a normal person - not an avowed fascist but someone who is being polite and open to hearing you out), there are a few questions you need to get comfortable and reliable about asking yourself:
am i treating the other person like it's their first day in the real world and need to be taught what to think, or am i doing the basic decent thing and assuming they have put some amount of thought into their existing beliefs with which i must contend and out-reason?
am i advocating for something, or am i just trying to make this other person feel small or stupid?
in the process of this discussion, have i actually made the case that what i'm advocating for will improve the other person's life in a material way?
and if the answer to some or all of these is "no," what you are doing is venting, preaching, or otherwise not helping to make a persuasive case for your beliefs. as we get closer to the midterms in november, it's going to be important to convince and persuade people to support various issues, and the first thing to do is not enter into those conversations with the attitude that all americans are temporarily embarrassed socialists who just need to be lectured about their own moral turpitude until they agree with me. contrary to popular belief within a not-insignificant subset of the internet, persuasion is not capitulation, it's just politics. if people don't see you as someone who genuinely has their best interests at heart, they will eye you and everything you're espousing with suspicion at best and outright anger at worst. and hostility and grandstanding doesn't convince anyone who isn't already on your side! so once again, i really gotta urge people to try to be thoughtful about the language and rhetoric they use to communicate their platforms to others. use accessible language to advocate for policies in a way that meets folks where they're at and assumes their best intentions. most importantly, again, don't treat people like they're stupid - treat them like you're trying to help them. because ultimately, you are.
(i've made this point before and gotten called everything but a child of god for it, but all i can say is i helped raise over $30 million last year at work that went to unambiguously good programs and causes, so i do know what i'm talking about in terms of persuasive communication. i would like democrats to win a majority this election season, and i think we can do this if we behave like serious people. and if you're not american, i especially don't want to hear from you in the notes. this is a triage election, not a pie-in-the-sky one.)

Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
Free to watch • No registration required • HD streaming
if you are a parent, or may become one, or you are otherwise likely to arrive in the situation of caring for a child while they eat, promise me this: if a child doesn't like a certain food or food group, you will ask them WHY. and specifically, you will pay attention to either confirming or ruling out "it makes my mouth itch" or "it makes my stomach hurt," both of which are medically important info that children may not provide unprompted. which i know because this PSA has been brought to you by "i spent my entire childhood and much of my early teens eating peas and lentils while wondering why everyone else liked the Violently Itchy Mouth Sensation so much, like were they a bunch of legume masochists or something, before i finally realized that Violently Itchy Mouth Sensation was in fact a sinister demon appearing only to me, and her true demonic name was: Legume Allergy"
there's an old anne rice interview circulating on twitter rn that i remember reading ages ago where she makes a pretty salient point about how submissive men who have bdsm fantasies etc will go to a sex worker and basically order the ala carte version of their fantasy to be performed in real life but women don't really have that same option and certainly not at the same point of availability so they read her horny books instead. and honestly that argument has been in the back of my mind every time people get on their high horses about the popularity of booktok romantasy novels or heated rivalry or whatever the "women are horny and we're upset about that" cultural property du jour is ever since. women, especially straight women, have so few outlets for their sexual desires, especially if they have a partner who doesn't share them, and i will never understand why "someone ELSE'S private sexual fantasy makes me uncomfortable and therefore they should not be allowed to engage with it, even if i am in no way being affected by it or even aware of it at all" is such a popular party line among allegedly progressive young people.
[“… attachment theories like the kind that undergird parenting advice still categorize people who did not receive attentive, loving parenting into a range of attachment styles, including “avoidant” and “anxious.” Such theories, though, are a bit like a personality test: these categorizations mirror our internal realities back at us and give us a comforting set of classifications through which we might understand tendencies that previously felt confusing or deviant. They provide recognition, a way of making sense. But that doesn’t mean they provide us with the original image of what they reflect. Theories of how human relationships evolve and take shape may give us language to describe our experiences, but they can also trap us in cultural attitudes that are neither fixed nor liberatory. What may be more valuable is recognizing how we turn to certain disciplines—for instance, psychology—to confirm the status quo rather than to offer us tools to challenge what we consider to be “normal.”
In an essay for Gawker on how Americans grew so attached to attachment theory, Danielle Carr, a scholar who studies capitalism and neuroscience, writes that “attachment theory offers the consolations of the heuristic, a kind of rough-draft outline for a larger essay on our internal life. This is true of almost any Grand Theory of Everything that explains the unknowable—in this case, the interiority of the other—using a few rough-hewn concepts.” Attachment theory is nevertheless used to explain both parenting (usually relying on the mother-child dyad) and romance (usually relying on the man-woman dyad), which furthers the theory’s hetero-patriarchal feel and allows us to blame even our sexual and romantic relationship problems on our mothers.
At best, however, attachment theory is merely a tool for explaining how growing up in a hetero-patriarchal culture tends to create certain personality types, outcomes that are loosely linked to how our caregivers behaved when we were kids, or how we perceive them to have behaved years later, when we grow into adults and consult the attachment playbooks. At worst, attachment theory can be used to reify bad behavior that emerges from living in a sexist society, tracing it all back to Mom and Dad—but usually Mom. “What are the odds that the vast majority of heterosexuals would sort so neatly into what look like gender-coded slots—the women frantic for explanations for their romantic woes self-identifying as ‘anxious’ and slapping the ‘avoidant’ label on guys who seem to be just not that into them? Does this remind you of anything?” Carr asks. “The whole thing smacks of gender.”
Not surprising, given that the theories we have available on how human development, psychology, and relationships both form and function are all inherited from white men. “I think a lot of that science is bad science,” Kate Manne has said about the sexism that continues to plague contemporary studies on how men and women supposedly perceive the world differently because of biological difference. “There’s no control group in a patriarchal culture,” Manne points out. “There’s no group of women raised such as not to have sexist theories and misogynistic enforcement mechanisms operating on them. Of course some differences will show up. But it doesn’t lead to an enhanced kind of epistemic state, where we know something interesting and new about two different groups.” The same is true for how we interpret the science that says secure attachments with our mothers makes us well-adjusted later in life. Who is to say this is not the result of growing up living in a family that felt “normal,” judged by standards that relegate women to positions of inferiority in motherhood?”]
amanda montei, from touched out: motherhood, misogyny, consent, and control, 2023
🏳️🌈🏳️🌈🏳️🌈
vintage Yuva magazine covers
Artwork from Vaddadi Papaiah for Yuva (Telugu magazine)

Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
Free to watch • No registration required • HD streaming
happy pride month to the fuck tree I guess
[“When everything runs smoothly, the housewife fades away—becomes the background. Cleanliness maintains the ghostly character of women’s work, keeps it systematically hidden. Even critics of capitalist work have failed to take note of the labor that takes place beyond the factory gates. The political philosopher Hannah Arendt pointed out, for instance, that Karl Marx, following public opinion at the time he wrote, characterized the work that took place in the home as unproductive labor, which left “nothing behind.” Arendt noted that Marx and many other male philosophers exalted work performed outside the home as the only real form of work, while they characterized domestic work “as parasitical, actually a kind of perversion of labor” because it “did not enrich the world.”
Arendt saw this hierarchy of work as a fundamental misunderstanding of what happens in the home—a misunderstanding that arose from the unique temporal features of care work and housework: the labor performed in the home moves so quickly, and produces so rapidly, Arendt wrote, that “its effort is almost as quickly consumed as the effort is spent.” Ancient political philosophers, Arendt writes, at least recognized the vital productivity of their servants, who, they believed, left behind “nothing more or less than their masters’ freedom or, in modern language, their masters’ potential productivity.” In antiquity, the work performed in the home was understood as constant, life-sustaining work that always produced: indeed, it produced the very possibility of public productivity; it created the possibility of shared communal life outside the home.”]
amanda montei, from touched out: motherhood, misogyny, consent, and control, 2023