"Bees, signifying immortality
"Bees, signifying immortality
I earned my yellow belt!!!! YAY!!!! I’m so excited!!!!! :D
Latin American Studies Majors:
Religious Studies Majors:
Women & Gender Studies Majors:
Have you ever been to earth?
On earth, we use the word “burrito” to describe a tortilla filled with things you eat. Pretty simple stuff, and I’m surprised you at least got that part right. My burrito was, in fact, filled with food. In this, you and I agree and are friends. But this is also where my lifelong hatred begins for you and anyone else whose brain has been repeatedly scrubbed with the same mixture of bleach and Pop Rocks as yours has. Because that should have killed you, but left you around long enough to do what you did to me today. Let me explain:
You’re an idiot.
Let me further explain:
Burritos are eaten from one end to the other. So that means when you assemble a burrito with motherfucking ZONES of ingredients going that direction, you create a disgusting experience for the burrito’s end user. When you make a burrito, you should put the ingredients in layerslengthwise. That way, every bite has AT LEAST A FUCKING CHANCE of getting at least two types of ingredients, and there is little chance of becoming almost hopelessly trapped in a cilantro cavern.
Have you ever eaten one of the things you make all fucking day? You should try one. They are pretty good WHEN YOU ARE NOT WILLING YOURSELF THROUGH THE FUCKING EMPIRE OF SOUR CREAM ONLY TO END UP IN LETTUCE COUNTRY.
When you eat a burrito, you don’t stand it up and bite down on it lengthwise like a fucking Rancor. Humans can’t usually dislocate their jaws, and I’m not a fucking pelican. But you must think that’s how it’s done, since that would be THE ONLY FUCKING WAY to take a bite of your crapstrosity and have it taste like a burrito.
And guess what else, player? You probably can’t guess anything, because I’m pretty sure you’re just a mop with a hat on it that fell over and spilled some shit into a tortilla, but just in case, here’s what:
Humans also don’t eat burritos like fucking corn on the cob. Like a fucking typewriter from one end to the other a little at a time and then DING next line. But today I wish I had tried that. Because at least THEN I would be able to eat some rice, then beans, then be all like HEY BEANS I’LL BE RIGHT BACK JUST GOING OVER HERE TO THE GUACAMOLE FOR A SECOND.
My experience was more like HEY BEANS IT’S JUST GOING TO BE YOU AND I FOR A MINUTE UNTIL I CAN FUCKING EXCAVATE THE RICE FROM BENEATH YOU BUT BY THEN YOU WILL BE A FADING MEMORY OH HEY I WAS WRONG I’M IN THE FUCKING CHEESEOSPHERE NOW RICE MUST BE NEXT I HOPE IT’S NOT ANOTHER FUCKING SALSA POCKET.
You built this thing like a fucking pack of LifeSavers.
And don’t even fucking think I’m about to open this shit up and re-engineer your nonsense 90 degrees. I ALREADY PUT A HOLE IN IT WITH MY FUCKING MOUTH. YEAH. THAT’S HOW I DISCOVERED YOU FUCKING SUCK AT LOOKING AT THINGS. I AM NOT GOING TO DO FUCKING TORTILLA ORIGAMI TO GET THIS SHIT BACK TOGETHER, ONLY TO END UP WITH A BURRITO THAT’S BEEN SHOT IN THE GUT AND IS BLEEDING YOUR INEPTITUDE.
What’s that? I should ask you to mix it up first next time? IS THIS JAMBA JUICE? I DON’T WANT TO DRINK MY FUCKING BURRITO THROUGH A BENDY STRAW, AND I DON’T WANT A PILE OF BURRITO SOUP IN A FLOUR CAN.
I just want a burrito.
You’re the worst thing that has ever happened to the universe, you owe everyone everywhere an apology for this burritobomination, and I hope your babies look like monkeys.
UPDATE FOR EVERYONE WHO SAID “JUST EAT IT WITH A FORK”:
A fucking fork?
I DIDN’T ORDER THE FUCKING COBBURRITO SALAD.
If anyone ever handed me a burrito with a fork, THEY WOULD BE WEARING A BRAND NEW BURRITO HAT FROM MY FALL COLLECTION TEN SECONDS LATER.
That’s like buying a car and having them hand you a fucking wrench with the keys. Like YEAH WE KNOW THIS MOTHERFUCKER’S GOING TO EXPLODE AND BE SPREAD ACROSS EIGHT LANES AS SOON AS YOU HIT THE GAS, BUT SHIT, WE GAVE YOU A WRENCH, SO BE COOL.
Jesus already gave me two burrito forks. One at the end of each arm. They’re called fucking HANDS.
A fork. My god. I haven’t cried since I was six, but I’m fucking sobbing now.
People eat burritos with forks?
God is sorry he made us.
I always need this on my blog.
I can’t be laughing this hard in the morning.
This is the single greatest rant in the world.
Mosquito Valley, Nuuk - Greenland by northbound
I’m going to be out of the country next week (SO MANY PICTURES WHEN I GET BACK) so I won’t be around. BUT if you’re interested in submitting for the project (details here) or you know you just wanna say hi, whatevs, I won’t be able to answer you until I come back, so sit tight because I’ll get right on it upon my return and after I deal with my jet lag.
i told my mom that god has killed babies in the bible and she didn’t believe me so i searched it up and to my surprise
there’s a list???
JESUS FUCKING CHRIST
in conclusion god is an asshole
okay well I mean ten murders is still bad though so
god gambles with your souls pass it on
when she says she doesn’t send nudes
when guys objectify women and expect them to send nudes
when someone asks you about your nuclear plans for russia
When Russia sends you nudes
Ellen had to do a huge favor for a good friend of hers during the show today. We’d like to thank Michelle’s husband for taking the time to talk with us!
my first thought before I saw Obama was “oh my god, Ellen is friens with michelleakin
First off: I do think there’s some value in the “primary/secondary” terminology, in that it does make for an easy shorthand. Some people find the term “non-primary” in place of “secondary” or “tertiary” to be less hierarchical. I don’t personally see a great deal of distinction between the two, but I prefer to look at a “primary” partner as someone with whom I might share resources and responsibilities (e.g., finances, shared living arrangements, child-rearing) and a “non-primary” partner as someone who is not less important but with whom I have fewer of those day-to-day sorts of ties.
The primary/non-primary model is also, I think, a helpful tool for some previously-monogamous people as they venture out of their safety zone and into the murky waters of non-monogamy. (I do agree that it can come at the price of inadvertently prioritizing relationships, and perhaps empower those “primary” partners do assert power or control over other, non-primary partners.)
For example, when Blondie and I first opened our marriage up, she was very concerned about reinforcing the idea that we were each other’s primaries. I believe that to be not out of desire to influence or hold veto power over my other relationships, but out of concern that she might come to mean less to me (certainly she hasn’t). While she still very much considers me her primary partner, I think she’s come to understand that our relationship is more important than the terminology…and my status as primary doesn’t mean there is no chance that she might grow just as close to someone else over time.
I think some people understand relationship anarchy—and to some extent polyamory, for that matter—to mean they have to explore any and every potential relationship. In an imaginary world where one has infinite time and resources, that sort of “OMG I have to let myself love EVERYBODY!” model might be workable, but in reality, we all still have to prioritize how much of our limited time and resources we give to our various friends/partners/whatevers.
If you haven’t yet read it, I highly recommend The Thinking Asexual’s Relationship Anarchy Basics post for further reading and some differing points of view. But I like this statement:
RA’s see all of their personal, loving relationships—meaning, any relationship that isn’t professional or casual in nature—as equally important, unique, fulfilling different needs or desires in their life, and as possessing similar or identical potential for emotional/physical/mental intimacy, love, and satisfaction. A relationship anarchist does not place an emotional ceiling on nonromantic/nonsexual friendship or on a sexual friendship that’s devoid of “romance.” A relationship anarchist does not limit physical/sensual affection in their nonsexual relationships just because they’re nonsexual or nonromantic. A relationship anarchist does not expect to spend most of their time with just one sexual partner/romantic partner or with their romantic/sexual partners in general, nor does an RA assume that the romantic/sexual relationships (if they have any) automatically deserve or get more time and prioritization than the nonsexual/nonromantic relationships.
So, I don’t look at relationship anarchy as a set of specific goals a person would have to meet, but rather as a mechanism by which I can evaluate my own needs, motives, and interests within my relationships. Is my relationship with this person the way it is because this is what legitimately and honestly works best for us, or are we falling into the pattern of conforming to some outside expectation that might not be ideal for us?
That all being said, I’m not so convinced there’s a huge difference in practice between polyamory and relationship anarchy. For example: I love Blondie to death; she’s amazing and she’s very important to me and I enjoy spending time with her. That has nothing to do with the fact that we have a piece of paper tucked away in a folder somewhere that says we’re married, and everything to do with the fact that the things we do together seems to be the dynamic that works out best for us.
I simply think that the relationship anarchy emphasizes the lack of inherent need for distinction between our various relationships. I also find value in the idea of rejecting the conventional teaching that sexual/romantic relationships must inherently take precedence over relationships that don’t involve sex/romance. Or that a deeply meaningful, long-term relationship that doesn’t involve sex is inferior to a similar relationship that does involve sex. Or that a relationship that might swing back and forth between sexual and non-sexual or romantic and non-romantic is inherently problematic. It certainly doesn’t imply that you shouldn’t seek reassurance from those you care about, or that you should assume every relationship you have with anyone to be transient or tenuous in nature. We all need stability in our lives, but I also think we can have that stability in our relationships while declining to limit our relationships to predefined types.
These are the words I have been trying to say.