freshest-tittymilk:

bambooearring:

stfusunshine:

pussyrican:

创世纪

Real life problems though. I feel.

Michiko is a good ass anime.


Yeah… Dis a shoopStop this.

freshest-tittymilk:

bambooearring:

stfusunshine:

pussyrican:

创世纪

Real life problems though. I feel.

Michiko is a good ass anime.

Yeah… Dis a shoop

Stop this.

theoneblackfriend:

War soon come my yute

theoneblackfriend:

War soon come my yute

del-sin:

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.

also another thing, it was a display of wealth. Good, nice heels weren’t cheap, not every peasant could afford them.It was, like many things, a status symbol, and most often displayed by wealthy men. (And may actually be something that women were not supposed to wear at all due to the fashions being dresses and long skirts, so seeing the female leg, especially one that was displayed well by a nice heel, was not something that happened).


Lmfaoo I’m sorry but rip to heels them shits is dead doa

del-sin:

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.

also another thing, it was a display of wealth. Good, nice heels weren’t cheap, not every peasant could afford them.

It was, like many things, a status symbol, and most often displayed by wealthy men. (And may actually be something that women were not supposed to wear at all due to the fashions being dresses and long skirts, so seeing the female leg, especially one that was displayed well by a nice heel, was not something that happened).

Lmfaoo I’m sorry but rip to heels them shits is dead doa

hiphopfightsback:

Andre 3K tells it how it is.

lion:

The original Grove Street

lion:

The original Grove Street

risingconfidence:

ultraviol-et:



urbanarboriculture:

Artist Peter Cook, grew this living garden chair using tree shaping methods, primarily training a living tree through constricting the direction of branch growth. The chair took about eight years to grow.



he’s wearing crocs

He grew a tree into a chair. He can wear whatever the fuck he wants.


Crazy

risingconfidence:

ultraviol-et:

urbanarboriculture:

Artist Peter Cook, grew this living garden chair using tree shaping methods, primarily training a living tree through constricting the direction of branch growth. The chair took about eight years to grow.

he’s wearing crocs

He grew a tree into a chair. He can wear whatever the fuck he wants.

Crazy

Lmfao “bro”

Lmfao “bro”

ilovewomenido:

FOLLOW R - - - -> MUSIC BLOG | 1Up Records Sunglasses | Cool Tees | & more - - ->  21-Shades.com Chanel, Burberry . . Spitfire | on iTunes - - - > “No Introduction"

ilovewomenido:

FOLLOW R - - - -> MUSIC BLOG | 1Up Records

Sunglasses | Cool Tees | & more - - -> 21-Shades.com Chanel, Burberry . .

Spitfire | on iTunes - - - > “No Introduction"

wolveswolves:

By KDC123
euoria:

blushetc:


A white man carries a black girl on his shoulders during a march with Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Alabama, ca. 1965.

This has to be one of my favorite things ever

OMG this picture is so precious


That’s what I’m talking about love for all

euoria:

blushetc:

A white man carries a black girl on his shoulders during a march with Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Alabama, ca. 1965.

This has to be one of my favorite things ever

OMG this picture is so precious

That’s what I’m talking about love for all

nevver:

I feel fine/nothing