🔥 | Latest

Clothes, Dad, and Feminism: Frank Cho added 2 new photos with Frank D Cho. 2 hrs Well, this just happened. Milo Manara, master artist and storyteller, came in at the last ten minutes of my Art and Women panel and handed me a special gift in appreciation for fighting censorship- an original watercolor painting of Spider-Woman. The packed auditorium went wild. Wow. I'm just speechless CHO! NERT SE prasLE THE caMERa 2G CRap! IG a stock N HEET CRP SERNG P 1RT ENTM FR MA RA what-the-fandomm: 2sunchild2: kukumomoart: chancethereaper: aglassroseneverfades: pmastamonkmonk: schnerp: feminism-is-radical: auntiewanda: brithwyr: auntiewanda: brithwyr: auntiewanda: houroftheanarchistwolf: aawb: starsapphire: is it time for frank cho and milo manara to die or what That’s basically a naked woman I’m YELLING What a pervert. What the FUCK does he not know how clothes work? What the hypothetical fuck is she wearing then if we can see all that? It’s like how bath towels in comics miraculously wrap completely around breasts. Or how even when injured and dead on the ground women in comics have to be twisted into “sexy” poses. Or how women in comics walk like they’re in high heels even barefoot.  It’s the only way men know how to draw women, because to them female characters are only there to be sexy. They only think of “women” as exploitative costumes and camera angles, high heels and titillation. Sex objects to ogle, plot objects to further male heroes’ narratives and drama, not heroes to cheer for.  I’m sorry, I was labouring under the impression that this was the crowd that thought women should wear what they want..? And that applies to fictional women who are depicted by men how? You can’t apply agency in the plot to something metatextual when it comes to fictional characters.  Come on, let’s not pretend this is a male exclusive thing. We’re going to have this argument are we? Not to mention you’re deviating from the original point that attributing agency to fictional characters’ clothing is asinine.  What you have here are images of power, and do you really believe these characters are designed with titillating heterosexual women and bisexual and homosexual men in mind? Because I don’t think you do. This is why the Hawkeye Initiative exists. Take common female poses in comics, put a man in the role, and see how “empowering” and “strong” it actually looks:  Also:  He got the painting for fighting against ‘censorship.’ Note that they handed him a gross design of a female being objectified, because at the end of the day, that is all they really want, to be allowed to objectify women. They don’t care about censorship in general it is about their ability to sexualise and degrade women without consequence. You can see her butthole for chrissakes I think the best imagery I’ve seen to explain the difference between what men think male objectification is vs what women actually want to see is the Hugh Jackman magazine covers. Hugh Jackman on a men’s magazine. He’s shirtless and buff and angry. He’s imposing and aggressive. This is a male power fantasy, it’s what men want to be and aspire to - intense masculinity. Hugh Jackman on a women’s magazine.  He looks like a dad. He looks like he’s going to bake me a quiche and sit and watch Game of Thrones with me. He looks like he gives really good hugs. Men think women want big hulking naked men in loin cloths which is why they always quote He-Man as male objectification - without realizing that He Man is naked and buff in a loin cloth because MEN WANT HIM TO BE. More women would be happy to see him in a pink apron cutting vegetables and singing off-key to 70s rock. Men want objects. Women want PEOPLE. This is the first time I have EVER seen this false equivalence articulated so well. Thank you. bro you can literally see every fold of her pussy that just isn’t how fabric works Lol body painting literally Clothes don’t suction themselves around tiddies.If that was the case I’d be wearing hoodies all year i mean there is dangerous objectification for male characters, but it’s not prevalent in written or drawn sources because that doesn’t harm the person and therefore isn’t relevant. it’s only something to bring into the conversation when you’re talking about how it affects the actors.male actors are sometimes forced to starve for days so that they can get scenes where their muscles are stood out (there’s a really good post with article links about this i’ll try to find it), but these drawings don’t affect an actual personit’s a completely different subjectand i mean for god’s sake you can’t counter the fact that someone deliberately drew her with her coochie out with some bullshit about how male characters are hyper-masculine in a glorified way
Clothes, Dad, and Feminism: Frank Cho added 2 new photos with Frank D Cho.
 2 hrs
 Well, this just happened.
 Milo Manara, master artist and storyteller, came in at the last ten minutes of
 my Art and Women panel and handed me a special gift in appreciation for
 fighting censorship- an original watercolor painting of Spider-Woman. The
 packed auditorium went wild.
 Wow. I'm just speechless
 CHO!
 NERT SE
 prasLE THE
 caMERa 2G
 CRap! IG a
 stock N HEET
 CRP SERNG P
 1RT
 ENTM
 FR
 MA
 RA
what-the-fandomm:

2sunchild2:

kukumomoart:
chancethereaper:

aglassroseneverfades:

pmastamonkmonk:

schnerp:

feminism-is-radical:

auntiewanda:

brithwyr:

auntiewanda:

brithwyr:

auntiewanda:

houroftheanarchistwolf:

aawb:

starsapphire:

is it time for frank cho and milo manara to die or what

That’s basically a naked woman I’m YELLING

What a pervert. What the FUCK does he not know how clothes work? What the hypothetical fuck is she wearing then if we can see all that?

It’s like how bath towels in comics miraculously wrap completely around breasts. Or how even when injured and dead on the ground women in comics have to be twisted into “sexy” poses. Or how women in comics walk like they’re in high heels even barefoot. 
It’s the only way men know how to draw women, because to them female characters are only there to be sexy. They only think of “women” as exploitative costumes and camera angles, high heels and titillation. Sex objects to ogle, plot objects to further male heroes’ narratives and drama, not heroes to cheer for. 

I’m sorry, I was labouring under the impression that this was the crowd that thought women should wear what they want..?

And that applies to fictional women who are depicted by men how? You can’t apply agency in the plot to something metatextual when it comes to fictional characters. 

Come on, let’s not pretend this is a male exclusive thing.

We’re going to have this argument are we? Not to mention you’re deviating from the original point that attributing agency to fictional characters’ clothing is asinine. 
What you have here are images of power, and do you really believe these characters are designed with titillating heterosexual women and bisexual and homosexual men in mind? Because I don’t think you do.
This is why the Hawkeye Initiative exists. Take common female poses in comics, put a man in the role, and see how “empowering” and “strong” it actually looks: 
Also: 

He got the painting for fighting against ‘censorship.’ Note that they handed him a gross design of a female being objectified, because at the end of the day, that is all they really want, to be allowed to objectify women. They don’t care about censorship in general it is about their ability to sexualise and degrade women without consequence.


You can see her butthole for chrissakes

I think the best imagery I’ve seen to explain the difference between what men think male objectification is vs what women actually want to see is the Hugh Jackman magazine covers.
Hugh Jackman on a men’s magazine. He’s shirtless and buff and angry. He’s imposing and aggressive. This is a male power fantasy, it’s what men want to be and aspire to - intense masculinity.
Hugh Jackman on a women’s magazine.  He looks like a dad. He looks like he’s going to bake me a quiche and sit and watch Game of Thrones with me. He looks like he gives really good hugs.
Men think women want big hulking naked men in loin cloths which is why they always quote He-Man as male objectification - without realizing that He Man is naked and buff in a loin cloth because MEN WANT HIM TO BE. More women would be happy to see him in a pink apron cutting vegetables and singing off-key to 70s rock.
Men want objects. Women want PEOPLE. 

This is the first time I have EVER seen this false equivalence articulated so well. Thank you.

bro you can literally see every fold of her pussy that just isn’t how fabric works

Lol body painting literally


Clothes don’t suction themselves around tiddies.If that was the case I’d be wearing hoodies all year

i mean there is dangerous objectification for male characters, but it’s not prevalent in written or drawn sources because that doesn’t harm the person and therefore isn’t relevant. it’s only something to bring into the conversation when you’re talking about how it affects the actors.male actors are sometimes forced to starve for days so that they can get scenes where their muscles are stood out (there’s a really good post with article links about this i’ll try to find it), but these drawings don’t affect an actual personit’s a completely different subjectand i mean for god’s sake you can’t counter the fact that someone deliberately drew her with her coochie out with some bullshit about how male characters are hyper-masculine in a glorified way

what-the-fandomm: 2sunchild2: kukumomoart: chancethereaper: aglassroseneverfades: pmastamonkmonk: schnerp: feminism-is-radical: aunti...

Funny, God, and Head: jumpingjacktrash: arrghigiveup: cimness: China's netizens are all in a twitter over the account of a carpenter who was commissioned to make a cinnabar red high-backed chair with the finials at the top to be "in the shape of dragons' heads" (chéng lóngtóu Unfortunately, he misinterpreted the directions to mean "lin the shape ofl Jackie Chan's head" ("Chénglóng tóu ) (via Language Log Reanalysis, Jackie Chan edition) LMAO ok so to elaborate on this absolute gem, notice how the characters provided for "in the shape of dragons' heads" and "lin the shape of Jackie Chan's head" are identical? That wasn't a typo The thing you need to understand about Chinese names is that they all have meaning. And I don't mean that in the sense of "if you trace the etymology back through two languages it has its roots in a Hebrew phrase that means "God is my " that many Western names have. I mean that in the sense of "almost all of these words are still in regular use today and my parents very literally named me "pretty [and] wise" in Chinese. (Sidenote: This is why we get annoyed at made up 'Chinese' names that just pull two random vaguely Chinese-sounding syllables together. It is blindingly obvious when it's not a real name). (chéng) means "to become", "to turn into" L (lóng) is "dragon". Thus, Jackie Chan's Chinese stage name, (Chénglóng), literally means "become dragon". ((tóu), of course, means "head") (Further sidenote: This is actually a bit of a pun/reference. Specifically, it is a reference to Bruce Lee, whose stage name was (Xiãolóng), or, "Little dragon". So Jackie's chosen stage name means both "become dragon", and "become [like] Bruce Lee") The other thing you need to know about Chinese is that we don't put spaces between terms in written text. What all this means is that the way you'd write "Icarvel into dragon heads" can be identical to the way you'd write "Icarvel Jackie Chan's head", and literally the only difference would be where you pause when you vocalise it: before lóngtóu, or after chénglóng. XD i think the chair turned out great 25 Funny Tumblr Posts to Make You Laughing Today
Funny, God, and Head: jumpingjacktrash:
 arrghigiveup:
 cimness:
 China's netizens are all in a twitter over the
 account of a carpenter who was
 commissioned to make a cinnabar red
 high-backed chair with the finials at the
 top to be "in the shape of dragons' heads"
 (chéng lóngtóu Unfortunately, he
 misinterpreted the directions to mean "lin
 the shape ofl Jackie Chan's head"
 ("Chénglóng tóu )
 (via Language Log
 Reanalysis, Jackie Chan
 edition)
 LMAO ok so to elaborate on this absolute gem,
 notice how the characters provided for "in the
 shape of dragons' heads" and "lin the shape of
 Jackie Chan's head" are identical? That wasn't a
 typo
 The thing you need to understand about
 Chinese names is that they all have meaning.
 And I don't mean that in the sense of "if you
 trace the etymology back through two
 languages it has its roots in a Hebrew phrase
 that means "God is my " that many
 Western names have. I mean that in the sense
 of "almost all of these words are still in regular
 use today and my parents very literally named
 me "pretty [and] wise" in Chinese.
 (Sidenote: This is why we get annoyed at made
 up 'Chinese' names that just pull two random
 vaguely Chinese-sounding syllables together. It
 is blindingly obvious when it's not a real name).
 (chéng) means "to become", "to turn into"
 L (lóng) is "dragon". Thus, Jackie Chan's
 Chinese stage name, (Chénglóng),
 literally means "become dragon". ((tóu), of
 course, means "head")
 (Further sidenote: This is actually a bit of a
 pun/reference. Specifically, it is a reference to
 Bruce Lee, whose stage name was
 (Xiãolóng), or, "Little dragon". So Jackie's
 chosen stage name means both "become
 dragon", and "become [like] Bruce Lee")
 The other thing you need to know about
 Chinese is that we don't put spaces between
 terms in written text.
 What all this means is that the way you'd
 write "Icarvel into dragon heads" can
 be identical to the way you'd write "Icarvel
 Jackie Chan's head", and literally the only
 difference would be where you pause when
 you vocalise it: before lóngtóu, or after
 chénglóng. XD
 i think the chair turned out great
25 Funny Tumblr Posts to Make You Laughing Today

25 Funny Tumblr Posts to Make You Laughing Today

Fucking, Funny, and Sherlock Holmes: IWONDER WHAT THE CODE IS. 3 5 4 # 4wincherlockedintardis even with those four numbers there are countless possible combinations good luck with figuring out which one is the right one you punk eatsleepcrap straightens calculator It's pretty likely that it's a four digit number, and as there are four digits chosen there, that means that there cannot be any repetition. This mean that there are: n!/(n-4)! possible orders. As 'n' is 4 (number of digits available). 41/0! which becomes 4x3x2x1/1 which simplifies to 24. That means that there are 24 possible combinations of codes. This would take you about two or three minutes to input all possible codes. syd224 Unless an alarm goes off if you don't get it right in 3 tries eatsleepcrap straightens calculator again Kick the fucking door in my-weeping-angel Deactivated well 'technically' the code is most likley 1970. statistically, a majority of people, when told to choose a 4 digit code will choose their birth year. and this key pad is obviously a few years old to put it nicely, thats most likley it everyonesfavoriteging some sherlock holmes shit just went down over here heroscafe BBC No, no, no. Don't base your deductions of psychology. Let's talk chemistry. When you first press a button, there's more of the natural oils on your skin, and therefore it wears down the numbers on the keys faster. Obviously 0 is the first one, then. Try 0791 first. Sherlock out. perks-of-being-chinese woah. trypophobic-canine it got better twistedthicket1 and this is why the sherlock fandom could either rule the world or end it.. badgerdash-cumberquat Those deductions are great and all, but unnecessary. The light is green. The door is already open. winchester-kelly And that's why we have a John Watson. STRANGEBEAVER.com C0 D 00 * 25 Sherlock Holmes Funny Quotes #Sherlock Holmes #Funny
Fucking, Funny, and Sherlock Holmes: IWONDER WHAT THE CODE IS.
 3
 5
 4
 #
 4wincherlockedintardis
 even with those four numbers there are countless possible combinations good
 luck with figuring out which one is the right one you punk
 eatsleepcrap
 straightens calculator
 It's pretty likely that it's a four digit number, and as there are four digits chosen
 there, that means that there cannot be any repetition. This mean that there are:
 n!/(n-4)! possible orders. As 'n' is 4 (number of digits available). 41/0! which
 becomes 4x3x2x1/1 which simplifies to 24. That means that there are 24
 possible combinations of codes. This would take you about two or three
 minutes to input all possible codes.
 syd224
 Unless an alarm goes off if you don't get it right in 3 tries
 eatsleepcrap
 straightens calculator again
 Kick the fucking door in
 my-weeping-angel Deactivated
 well 'technically' the code is most likley 1970. statistically, a majority of people,
 when told to choose a 4 digit code will choose their birth year. and this key pad
 is obviously a few years old to put it nicely, thats most likley it
 everyonesfavoriteging
 some sherlock holmes shit just went down over here
 heroscafe
 BBC
 No, no, no. Don't base your deductions of psychology. Let's talk chemistry.
 When you first press a button, there's more of the natural oils on your skin, and
 therefore it wears down the numbers on the keys faster. Obviously 0 is the first
 one, then. Try 0791 first.
 Sherlock out.
 perks-of-being-chinese
 woah.
 trypophobic-canine
 it got better
 twistedthicket1
 and this is why the sherlock fandom could either rule the world or end it..
 badgerdash-cumberquat
 Those deductions are great and all, but unnecessary.
 The light is green.
 The door is already open.
 winchester-kelly
 And that's why we have a John Watson.
 STRANGEBEAVER.com
 C0 D
 00
 *
25 Sherlock Holmes Funny Quotes #Sherlock Holmes #Funny

25 Sherlock Holmes Funny Quotes #Sherlock Holmes #Funny

Bitch, Click, and Dating: guiltlessdeviant: aaliyahbreaux: big-mood-energy: aaliyahbreaux: girldont: flyandfamousblackgirls: drdrunkpigeon-phd: abstractandedgyname: libertarirynn: paradise-dream222: flyandfamousblackgirls: Shae Scott: “This is why I don’t date ugly guys..” I’ve dated an ugly guy before and he was just a WASTE of my time. He didn’t get cocky, but he should’ve been a lil more appreciative of me. Seeing that no other girl would even look at him before I did. Holy fuck y’all are conceited. Those men are dodging bullets. Hey, my boyfriend may not be conventionally attractive or the most attractive in the world but it’s almost as if when your personalities really click they become so attractive to you! But obviously, yall can’t do that as you need a personality to begin with. This bitch fully is under the impression that she should date an attractive boring guy rather than an ugly boring guy, as if looks are the only defining things in relationships. How about, date an ugly [fun, interesting, caring, sex god] guy vs a hot [boring, simple, arrogant, sexually incompetent] guy. Maybe all the ugly you’ve dated have been ugly on the inside too, must be if they date such a wretched creature as yourself, but news flash lady! Everyone is different for fuck sake !!!! So when guys say women are too tall, too dark, too fat, hair not long enough, hair too “nappy”, her teeth, because she has tattoos or weave, because she wears makeup or they don’t wanna date her because she’s trans….Thats ok. But women are obligated to accept any man as he is? Interesting…yall are proving her point. Imagine openly saying you don’t find your SO physically attractive, that’s embarrassing for yourself and the person you’re with. studies show no matter how old men get typically they are most attracted to women in their twenties whereas women are most attracted to men around their age. and yet, women are seen as being superficial and shallow for just wanting to be with someone attractive… yes, basing whether or not you date somebody on their looks is shallow. it’s the definition of shallow, in fact. shallow is dating some entirely for their looks. dating someone you find attractive is just how attration works Ugly. You need to be attracted to the person you date. That’s just logic. Don’t settle for someone you’re not attracted to. The issue here is not just saying “you should someone you find attractive”, the issue is saying “don’t date ugly guys” as though that’s some sort of objective classification and acting like you’re literally better than people because you’re more physically attractive and they should be thanking the gods if you even grace them with your presence. That’s the conceited bullshit. Also for most people attraction has to be more than physical. Physical can be a part of it but there are plenty of hot assholes.
Bitch, Click, and Dating: guiltlessdeviant:

aaliyahbreaux:


big-mood-energy:


aaliyahbreaux:


girldont:


flyandfamousblackgirls:

drdrunkpigeon-phd:


abstractandedgyname:


libertarirynn:

paradise-dream222:

flyandfamousblackgirls:

Shae Scott: “This is why I don’t date ugly guys..”

I’ve dated an ugly guy before and he was just a WASTE of my time. He didn’t get cocky, but he should’ve been a lil more appreciative of me. Seeing that no other girl would even look at him before I did. 

Holy fuck y’all are conceited. Those men are dodging bullets.



Hey, my boyfriend may not be conventionally attractive or the most attractive in the world but it’s almost as if when your personalities really click they become so attractive to you! But obviously, yall can’t do that as you need a personality to begin with.
This bitch fully is under the impression that she should date an attractive boring guy rather than an ugly boring guy, as if looks are the only defining things in relationships. How about, date an ugly [fun, interesting, caring, sex god] guy vs a hot [boring, simple, arrogant, sexually incompetent] guy.
Maybe all the ugly you’ve dated have been ugly on the inside too, must be if they date such a wretched creature as yourself, but news flash lady! Everyone is different for fuck sake !!!!


So when guys say women are too tall, too dark, too fat, hair not long enough, hair too “nappy”, her teeth, because she has tattoos or weave, because she wears makeup or they don’t wanna date her because she’s trans….Thats ok. But women are obligated to accept any man as he is? Interesting…yall are proving her point.

Imagine openly saying you don’t find your SO physically attractive, that’s embarrassing for yourself and the person you’re with.


studies show no matter how old men get typically they are most attracted to women in their twenties whereas women are most attracted to men around their age. and yet, women are seen as being superficial and shallow for just wanting to be with someone attractive…


yes, basing whether or not you date somebody on their looks is shallow.
it’s the definition of shallow, in fact.


shallow is dating some entirely for their looks. dating someone you find attractive is just how attration works Ugly. 


You need to be attracted to the person you date. That’s just logic. Don’t settle for someone you’re not attracted to.

The issue here is not just saying “you should someone you find attractive”, the issue is saying “don’t date ugly guys” as though that’s some sort of objective classification and acting like you’re literally better than people because you’re more physically attractive and they should be thanking the gods if you even grace them with your presence. That’s the conceited bullshit. Also for most people attraction has to be more than physical. Physical can be a part of it but there are plenty of hot assholes.

guiltlessdeviant: aaliyahbreaux: big-mood-energy: aaliyahbreaux: girldont: flyandfamousblackgirls: drdrunkpigeon-phd: abstractan...

Bitch, Click, and God: flyandfamousblackgirls: drdrunkpigeon-phd: abstractandedgyname: libertarirynn: paradise-dream222: flyandfamousblackgirls: Shae Scott: “This is why I don’t date ugly guys..” I’ve dated an ugly guy before and he was just a WASTE of my time. He didn’t get cocky, but he should’ve been a lil more appreciative of me. Seeing that no other girl would even look at him before I did. Holy fuck y’all are conceited. Those men are dodging bullets. Hey, my boyfriend may not be conventionally attractive or the most attractive in the world but it’s almost as if when your personalities really click they become so attractive to you! But obviously, yall can’t do that as you need a personality to begin with.This bitch fully is under the impression that she should date an attractive boring guy rather than an ugly boring guy, as if looks are the only defining things in relationships. How about, date an ugly [fun, interesting, caring, sex god] guy vs a hot [boring, simple, arrogant, sexually incompetent] guy.Maybe all the ugly you’ve dated have been ugly on the inside too, must be if they date such a wretched creature as yourself, but news flash lady! Everyone is different for fuck sake !!!! So when guys say women are too tall, too dark, too fat, hair not long enough, hair too “nappy”, her teeth, because she has tattoos or weave, because she wears makeup or they don’t wanna date her because she’s trans….Thats ok. But women are obligated to accept any man as he is? Interesting…yall are proving her point. Who the absolute fuck said any of that shit in this thread?
Bitch, Click, and God: flyandfamousblackgirls:

drdrunkpigeon-phd:

abstractandedgyname:

libertarirynn:

paradise-dream222:

flyandfamousblackgirls:

Shae Scott: “This is why I don’t date ugly guys..”

I’ve dated an ugly guy before and he was just a WASTE of my time. He didn’t get cocky, but he should’ve been a lil more appreciative of me. Seeing that no other girl would even look at him before I did. 

Holy fuck y’all are conceited. Those men are dodging bullets.



Hey, my boyfriend may not be conventionally attractive or the most attractive in the world but it’s almost as if when your personalities really click they become so attractive to you! But obviously, yall can’t do that as you need a personality to begin with.This bitch fully is under the impression that she should date an attractive boring guy rather than an ugly boring guy, as if looks are the only defining things in relationships. How about, date an ugly [fun, interesting, caring, sex god] guy vs a hot [boring, simple, arrogant, sexually incompetent] guy.Maybe all the ugly you’ve dated have been ugly on the inside too, must be if they date such a wretched creature as yourself, but news flash lady! Everyone is different for fuck sake !!!!

So when guys say women are too tall, too dark, too fat, hair not long enough, hair too “nappy”, her teeth, because she has tattoos or weave, because she wears makeup or they don’t wanna date her because she’s trans….Thats ok. But women are obligated to accept any man as he is? Interesting…yall are proving her point.

Who the absolute fuck said any of that shit in this thread?

flyandfamousblackgirls: drdrunkpigeon-phd: abstractandedgyname: libertarirynn: paradise-dream222: flyandfamousblackgirls: Shae Scott: ...

Girls, Instagram, and Jealous: paradise-dream222: libertarirynn: paradise-dream222: flyandfamousblackgirls: Shae Scott: “This is why I don’t date ugly guys..” I’ve dated an ugly guy before and he was just a WASTE of my time. He didn’t get cocky, but he should’ve been a lil more appreciative of me. Seeing that no other girl would even look at him before I did. Holy fuck y’all are conceited. Those men are dodging bullets. @libertarirynn Lol lemme clarify my statement was very limited to what truly went down in that relationship. Him being unattractive to me was just on the surface. He did also turn out to be jealous, an alcoholic, and very controlling as well. My expectations then (age 18) were on the selfish side because I felt that an “ugly” guy would basically worship a pretty girl, seeing that he hadn’t dated many girls before me. Also I desperately wanted to be in a relationship because of my foolish insecurities. Trust me I take the L and I understand that it was apart of my karma the overall outcome, because I went about that relationship all wrong. BUT he is still at fault for being a terrible boyfriend, because even though now I can openly say I wasn’t attracted to him. I did not mistreat him at all, I never told him to his face I thought he was ugly. It was my internal feelings towards him. OK then the issue is that he’s a shitty boyfriend, not that he’s ugly. So why are you bringing up his “ugliness” as though that’s a factor for why relationship didn’t work out or acting like he should’ve worshiped you because you were more attractive? He could’ve been handsome as fuck and still had all of those personality flaws you mentioned.
Girls, Instagram, and Jealous: paradise-dream222:

libertarirynn:

paradise-dream222:
flyandfamousblackgirls:

Shae Scott: “This is why I don’t date ugly guys..”

I’ve dated an ugly guy before and he was just a WASTE of my time. He didn’t get cocky, but he should’ve been a lil more appreciative of me. Seeing that no other girl would even look at him before I did. 
Holy fuck y’all are conceited. Those men are dodging bullets.

@libertarirynn Lol lemme clarify my statement was very limited to what truly went down in that relationship. Him being unattractive to me was just on the surface. He did also turn out to be jealous, an alcoholic, and very controlling as well. My expectations then (age 18) were on the selfish side because I felt that an “ugly” guy would basically worship a pretty girl, seeing that he hadn’t dated many girls before me. Also I desperately wanted to be in a relationship because of my foolish insecurities. Trust me I take the L and I understand that it was apart of my karma the overall outcome, because I went about that relationship all wrong. BUT he is still at fault for being a terrible boyfriend, because even though now I can openly say I wasn’t attracted to him. I did not mistreat him at all, I never told him to his face I thought he was ugly. It was my internal feelings towards him. 

OK then the issue is that he’s a shitty boyfriend, not that he’s ugly. So why are you bringing up his “ugliness” as though that’s a factor for why relationship didn’t work out or acting like he should’ve worshiped you because you were more attractive? He could’ve been handsome as fuck and still had all of those personality flaws you mentioned.

paradise-dream222: libertarirynn: paradise-dream222: flyandfamousblackgirls: Shae Scott: “This is why I don’t date ugly guys..” I’ve dat...