Kae
27 years old
white
genderfluid
they/them/their pronouns
queird
trans rights activist
proud chinchilla parent
fruity
rainbow beast
colorful
ridiculous
imperfect
different
tattooed
squishy
compassionate

fatmf:

goldenheartedrose:

strawberrypatty:

messier-104:

kate-wisehart:

In my eleven years as a professional stagehand and twenty years as a participant in fandom, I have never been treated with this much respect and dignity by a performing member of the entertainment industry. Kim Rhodes (Jody Mills on Supernatural) made me cry today, in the best of ways.

This is how you ally. Thank you, Kim, you made me feel like a human being. I can’t imagine a better mother for your daughter; she’s in great hands.

[tweets]

And my esteem of Kim Rhodes has gone up by a million. I thought she was pretty cool before, but this makes her amazing. I have immense respect for someone who is willing to listen to someone’s opinion and actually let it change their own.

This is fantastic and might have made my whole day.

Wow

This is how one “allies” (yes I used it as a verb) - this was absolutely beautiful

Reblogged from fatsexybitch  13,505 notes
fatsexybitch:

heatherbat:

moniquill:

saucefactory:

verysharpteeth:

chandra75:

agent-mizzle:

Every time I post something about Norman Reedus and it gets reblogged you fangirls just gotta swoon and add your own cutesy caption. Nothing against fangirls but here’s a challenge. Swoon over this! Good luck.

That’s fucking hot as hell. 

LOL. That’s not the one to pick for no swooning.
YOU DON’T KNOW US AND OUR LIVES. WE HAVE FANGIRLED OVER ROADKILL FOR HIM.

SOMEONE JUST NEEDS TO HITCH THAT SKIRT UP AND BITE HIS INNER THIGHS AND THEN SUCK HIM UNTIL HE’S SOBBING, UNTIL HIS PRETTY EYESHADOW RUNS DOWN HIS FACE.

OP, it is clear that you have a fundamental misunderstanding of one or more of the following:
'fangirls'
'swooning'
'challenge'
I mean we could probably use this as a really interesting launching point for the fundamental disconnect between ‘what people actually find hot’ and ‘what society/patriarchy presumes is hot’ and how the assignations of gender roles and sexuality fuck with that. Like the presumption that the female gaze doesn’t even exist, or if it does that women-intersted-in-men find the same things about men sexy that men-interested-in-women presume they do/should.
I mean, how many ‘porn for straight women’ magazines have tried to launch and asked a bunch of self-identified straight women what they wanted in porn - and gotten answers of ‘smiling dudes’ ‘dudes giving bedroom eyes’ and ‘visible erect cock’ (startlingly enough the kind of things often seen in porn produced with an intended audience of gay men) - only to then said ‘yeah no, you don’t actually want that. we’re giving you tough, aloof/agressive-looking shirtless guys with power muscles and weapons instead (because regardless of what any of you say you want we know that the majority of you want tough looking guys with power muscles and weapons because that’s what masculinity is because sexiness is feminine-coded. I mean obviously the only reason a man would display in a (so totally feminine, totally) sexually-inviting way (as opposed to an aggressive way or a disinterested way) is if he’s trying to attract a man! Ergo anything in which a man is display in a sexually inviting or (gasp) submissive way is gay gay gay gay gay and thus the anti-masculine and no woman would ever want it (and if you do you’re probably not a real woman, you’re fundamentally broken somehow and should be ashamed). We know better than you what you like and want and find sexy)’ and then failed and blamed the failure on the totally legit and well known phenomenon that women just don’t get off on visual stimuli they’d rather read erotica (by which we of course mean cishet romance novels. Nothing else exists and if it did no one would be interested in it so there’s no point marketing it.)
That’s a conversation we could have.
But I’m too busy getting off on images like the above.

::slowclap::

fatsexybitch:

heatherbat:

moniquill:

saucefactory:

verysharpteeth:

chandra75:

agent-mizzle:

Every time I post something about Norman Reedus and it gets reblogged you fangirls just gotta swoon and add your own cutesy caption. Nothing against fangirls but here’s a challenge. Swoon over this! Good luck.

That’s fucking hot as hell. 

LOL. That’s not the one to pick for no swooning.

YOU DON’T KNOW US AND OUR LIVES. WE HAVE FANGIRLED OVER ROADKILL FOR HIM.

SOMEONE JUST NEEDS TO HITCH THAT SKIRT UP AND BITE HIS INNER THIGHS AND THEN SUCK HIM UNTIL HE’S SOBBING, UNTIL HIS PRETTY EYESHADOW RUNS DOWN HIS FACE.

OP, it is clear that you have a fundamental misunderstanding of one or more of the following:

'fangirls'

'swooning'

'challenge'

I mean we could probably use this as a really interesting launching point for the fundamental disconnect between ‘what people actually find hot’ and ‘what society/patriarchy presumes is hot’ and how the assignations of gender roles and sexuality fuck with that. Like the presumption that the female gaze doesn’t even exist, or if it does that women-intersted-in-men find the same things about men sexy that men-interested-in-women presume they do/should.

I mean, how many ‘porn for straight women’ magazines have tried to launch and asked a bunch of self-identified straight women what they wanted in porn - and gotten answers of ‘smiling dudes’ ‘dudes giving bedroom eyes’ and ‘visible erect cock’ (startlingly enough the kind of things often seen in porn produced with an intended audience of gay men) - only to then said ‘yeah no, you don’t actually want that. we’re giving you tough, aloof/agressive-looking shirtless guys with power muscles and weapons instead (because regardless of what any of you say you want we know that the majority of you want tough looking guys with power muscles and weapons because that’s what masculinity is because sexiness is feminine-coded. I mean obviously the only reason a man would display in a (so totally feminine, totally) sexually-inviting way (as opposed to an aggressive way or a disinterested way) is if he’s trying to attract a man! Ergo anything in which a man is display in a sexually inviting or (gasp) submissive way is gay gay gay gay gay and thus the anti-masculine and no woman would ever want it (and if you do you’re probably not a real woman, you’re fundamentally broken somehow and should be ashamed). We know better than you what you like and want and find sexy)’ and then failed and blamed the failure on the totally legit and well known phenomenon that women just don’t get off on visual stimuli they’d rather read erotica (by which we of course mean cishet romance novels. Nothing else exists and if it did no one would be interested in it so there’s no point marketing it.)

That’s a conversation we could have.

But I’m too busy getting off on images like the above.

::slowclap::

Reblogged from foreverqueird  6 notes

foreverqueird:

image

No! You and Vinny have all the cute. You’ve absorbed all the cute from everyone else and are now a supercute power couple. Yep!

vincentvalmontvandel - you hear that! WE ARE A SUPERCUTE POWER COUPLE!!  WE HAVE AAALLLLLLL THE POWER! WWOOOO! 

OMG.  I JUST THOUGHT ABOUT IT.  IF I ABSORBED ALL OF THE CUTE FROM EVERYONE ELSE - WHERE DID IT ABSORB INTO?  THAT EXPLAINS…..

image

THIS!!!

Reblogged from charleydarling  302,441 notes

ink-and-roses:

ahumblebard:

doxian:

I want a movie about a little girl, aged like 11-12, going through the stuggles of prepubescent girl life, with her entire inner monologue is narrated by Samuel L. Jackson.

Shot of disgruntled adorable little girl.

SLJ: I knew that Susie was a backstabbin’ motherfucker, and if anyone was going to ruin my chances of being Miss Sugar Drop Queen, it was that asshole. 

I didn’t know I needed this in my life until now.

This is never not funny