allthingslinguistic:

Practice with Pronouns is a site that lets you practise subject, object, possessive, and reflexive forms of English third person pronouns. It comes with a few of the most common options, but you can also fill in whatever pronouns you like. Useful for both English learners and people wanting to practise using nonbinary pronouns.  
As if it couldn’t get any more delightful, it often uses quotes from Welcome to Night Vale in the practice sentences, which is definitely far more entertaining than See Spot Run. The feedback sentences are also very cute. 
(Hm, I’m pretty sure the second blank in that screenshot should have said “xyr”, in retrospect.)

allthingslinguistic:

Practice with Pronouns is a site that lets you practise subject, object, possessive, and reflexive forms of English third person pronouns. It comes with a few of the most common options, but you can also fill in whatever pronouns you like. Useful for both English learners and people wanting to practise using nonbinary pronouns.  

As if it couldn’t get any more delightful, it often uses quotes from Welcome to Night Vale in the practice sentences, which is definitely far more entertaining than See Spot Run. The feedback sentences are also very cute. 

(Hm, I’m pretty sure the second blank in that screenshot should have said “xyr”, in retrospect.)

(via twotickets)

tomismonochromaticallyfabulous:

Look at this blast of the past.
OMG it’s baby Hiddles in the countryside looking all cute and stuff, but then thOSE TROUSERS WHAT IS WROG WITH YOU BOY AM I GLAD THE ’00s ARE OVER BECAUSE THEY ARE POSITIVELY HORRID.
I mean, where is the crotchular constriction? Just NO.
If this is all the casualwear you own, no wonder you stopped wearing it, dear because no. NO. NONONONO. No wonder you look so uncomfortable.
It is after seeing things like this that I am eternally grateful to Loki for bringing dapper monochromatic James Bondian style to your wardrobe.
A+ on the baby spaghetti curls and Scottish countryside, though. 

tomismonochromaticallyfabulous:

Look at this blast of the past.

OMG it’s baby Hiddles in the countryside looking all cute and stuff, but then thOSE TROUSERS WHAT IS WROG WITH YOU BOY AM I GLAD THE ’00s ARE OVER BECAUSE THEY ARE POSITIVELY HORRID.

I mean, where is the crotchular constriction? Just NO.

If this is all the casualwear you own, no wonder you stopped wearing it, dear because no. NO. NONONONO. No wonder you look so uncomfortable.

It is after seeing things like this that I am eternally grateful to Loki for bringing dapper monochromatic James Bondian style to your wardrobe.

A+ on the baby spaghetti curls and Scottish countryside, though. 

tomismonochromaticallyfabulous:

The truth has been finally revealed! Thomas actually sleeps in casual clothes, thus killing the myth that he sleeps in Barney Stinson-like suitjamas.
We can now confirm that his fabulous monochromaticness also extends to his nightwear. The plain white tee makes an appearance again, showing enough cleavage to allow us to see his twelve chest hairs. Tone it fucking down, Thomas.
And that hoodie is probably the only casualwear our dear Tom owns. I’m glad he at least wears it to bed, although I resent that it covers some of his wonderful FUCKING WILD I MEAN WHAT ON EARTH IS GOING ON HERE curls.
And THAT ADORKABLE FACE OMG I CAN’T BREATHE WHY ARE YOU SO ADORABLE WITH THAT STUBBLE AND SLEEPY HAIR AND DORKY WINK.
I’M DYING HERE.

tomismonochromaticallyfabulous:

The truth has been finally revealed! Thomas actually sleeps in casual clothes, thus killing the myth that he sleeps in Barney Stinson-like suitjamas.

We can now confirm that his fabulous monochromaticness also extends to his nightwear. The plain white tee makes an appearance again, showing enough cleavage to allow us to see his twelve chest hairs. Tone it fucking down, Thomas.

And that hoodie is probably the only casualwear our dear Tom owns. I’m glad he at least wears it to bed, although I resent that it covers some of his wonderful FUCKING WILD I MEAN WHAT ON EARTH IS GOING ON HERE curls.

And THAT ADORKABLE FACE OMG I CAN’T BREATHE WHY ARE YOU SO ADORABLE WITH THAT STUBBLE AND SLEEPY HAIR AND DORKY WINK.

I’M DYING HERE.

tomismonochromaticallyfabulous:

Thomas, you look worried. Why do you look worried, Thomas?
MAYBE IT’S THE TOTAL LACK OF CONSISTENCY IN THIS PHOTOSHOOT, WHAT IS EVEN GOING ON
I mean the suit is sharp as fuck, and the shirt is crisp and bleached and buttoned but then no tie? Not even a bOwTiE??? No wonder he’s worried, he probably feels naked.
And then there’s the beanie, which, frankly can have no explanation for being in the shot other than a bad hair day. Maybe the photographer thought that his dreamy blond curls would distract from the rest of the shot which would have been 100% accurate.

tomismonochromaticallyfabulous:

Thomas, you look worried. Why do you look worried, Thomas?

MAYBE IT’S THE TOTAL LACK OF CONSISTENCY IN THIS PHOTOSHOOT, WHAT IS EVEN GOING ON

I mean the suit is sharp as fuck, and the shirt is crisp and bleached and buttoned but then no tie? Not even a bOwTiE??? No wonder he’s worried, he probably feels naked.

And then there’s the beanie, which, frankly can have no explanation for being in the shot other than a bad hair day. Maybe the photographer thought that his dreamy blond curls would distract from the rest of the shot which would have been 100% accurate.

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.

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.

(via forevercodswallop)