Tumblelog by Soup.io
Newer posts are loading.
You are at the newest post.
Click here to check if anything new just came in.

May 23 2018



“I’m not really mentally ill, I’m just faking this.” - A mentally ill proverb

i said this to my therapist and she just looked at me and said “so do you think i went to clown school”


shout out to my mutuals of 6+ years who probably have like CIA level dirt on me from when we were all into homestuck

May 22 2018

Punk Rock Alien Cock is LIVE







Alright folks, let’s get wrecked!

Punk Rock Alien Cock is a fantasy sex toy company specializing in tentacles and xenophile delights.  If you wanna rock with something slick, bulging, and a little wiggly, we’re your hook-up.

All our toys are hand-molded, colored, and cast by our hobbyist cocksmith, Erin.  We’re currently working on expanding our product line, so make sure to check back to see what’s fresh out of the test tube.

Also, we do commissions!  If you’ve got a specific niche you need filled, hit us up here or at punkrockaliencock@gmail.comFlash us a little cash, and we’ll see what we can do for you!

Please check out our About Page and our Product Line (still a work in progress).  And tell your friends.  Your special friends.  The friends what you talk about alien sex toys with.  Signal boosts are appreciated!

Hey all!  If you remember my previous toy launch post, well, now Punk Rock Alien Cock has a more permanent home.  Update your follows and bookmarks accordingly.

Next day reblog!


would you prefer dongwrangler?  wang slinger?  lead cockcept artist?

wait shit i should’ve gone with that last one dammit

5482 4559 500


I painted my sweet Puddin’ Pop ♥️

on calls to boycott the Bohemian Rhapsody movie


Based on a 90-second teaser trailer and a few assumptions, the calls have gone out that we should boycott Bohemian Rhapsody for queer erasure.

“The trailer doesn’t show any gay content, only het stuff!”
There’s a split-second shot of Freddie hugging his girlfriend at one point. There’s also multiple shots of him obviously flirting with guys. The contention that the trailer is queer erasure is mostly coming from cis gay (white) men mad that the movie seems to be depicting Freddie Mercury as bisexual and capable of loving women at all, but given how significant his relationship with Mary Austin was to his life, it would be a disservice to everyone to exclude it.

Also, the cast list includes several male characters listed as “Freddie’s Lover,” as well as Jim Hutton, his partner in his final years.

“They’ve said the movie is going to ignore the AIDS crisis!”
No. What’s been said is that the movie ends in 1985. Once this information was released, people immediately jumped to assume that because the movie wasn’t going to chronicle Freddie’s illness and death in detail, it was avoiding the subject entirely. But the AIDS crisis was in full swing in ‘85, and Freddie of all people was extremely aware of it. The description of the trailer (the first teaser trailer!) even alludes to it.

It’s a fair point that they haven’t mentioned AIDS by name yet, but also, the only materials they’ve released so far are some promo images and one teaser trailer.

In this context, for people wondering why the creative team or the remaining band members don’t come out to “put the matter to rest” by assuring us the film deals with AIDS, it might help to remember that the media has in the past been extremely tawdry and exploitative in its treatment of Freddie Mercury’s illness and death (have you not seen all the “HIS TRAGIC AIDS STORY!!!” videos floating around Youtube? Not read the biographies that linger in lurid, dubiously sympathetic detail?). It makes sense to me that if Brian May and Roger Taylor have a heavy hand in the making of the film (which they seem to), they’d ask for a more subtle approach.

Also, again: we have six months till the movie comes out and only one teaser trailer at this point. Be concerned if you feel the need, but it’s a little early to call for a boycott.

Do not tell people to shun queer content because you have decided, six months in advance with very little information, that it won’t be up to your standards when it comes out.




I hate in the MCU or anything when the aliens or whatever are attacking and everyone’s just ‘oh yeah we be chilling just cowering over here’ as if seventy percent of humanity isn’t really angry all the time like catch these hands motherfucker I’ve bitten people for trying to steal my chips you think you can just steal my whole fucking planet YEET HERE COME MY TEETH film people be using responses to natural disasters but I promise if human sized things came to throw down humanity would be ready to fuck them up like yeah you got laser guns I got this dope ass stick I just found let’s go you ugly fuck

silentwalrus1: #yeah bicht!!!!!!#gimme the battle of new york with fuckin chitauri comin down and the shift manager of the times sq H&M has finally had Enough#Tracie bout to kill this alien with a traffic cone#’ JUST PRETEND THEY’RE TOURISTS’ she screams choking out goddamn Lizard Lite with her lanyard#10 feet away a park slope mom is beating an alien to death with her four year old’s knockoff eco friendly razr scooter#every single retail employee gets ten years’ worth of therapy in one day#captain america’s kill count: 83 aliens#kathleen from accounting: 94 and also her boss

This post is a gift.




It’s a pity they didn’t cast Ryan Reynolds as Jay Gatsby, since he’s both the green lantern and deadpool…

what the fuck kind of mutant ass pun bullshit is this

It took way too long to get this and when I did the noise I made was unholy



Why is social dysphoria not talked about a lot?

Because people would rather present trans people as suffering due to an inherent aspect of our existence rather than address the transphobia in our society. Similar reason to why gender dysphoria is presented as a universal trans experience and gender euphoria is never remotely addressed



Proposal: a gameshow where straight couples compete for a romantic getaway vacation by getting up in front of a panel of five lesbians and talking about their relationship for five minutes. Each of the judges has a buzzer in front of them and if at any point they think the guy isn’t pulling his weight or the girl could do better they’re encouraged to press their button.

Once the first button press happens (it always happens) the real game begins.

A trap door springs loose under the guy dropping him into an arena in the orchestra pit. The judges’ buzzers now control a light in front of each judge and the woman now has to justify why she hasn’t dumped her boyfriend over the remaining time. If she lets anything slip during this period that the judges deem invalid (e.g. “he puts the laundry away sometimes!”) then they slam their buzzer and another threat gets introduced to the orchestra pit.

First a snake.

Then bees.

A hyena.

More bees.

If all five judges switch on their lights the word “BEARS” flashes on screen and the woman has the choice to save her partner or leave him to his fate. If she jumps into the pit to save him then the door behind it opens on a pair of dancing hairy men in classic leather gear. The couple is told they’ve won the prize alongside five complimentary sessions of relationship counselling to the sound of applause and cheering.

If she chooses to dump his ass then that door opens on a pair of grizzlies.

that’s a terrible thing to do to some poor hyena or an innocent swarm of bees.

can i interest you instead in some buzzsaw arms and/or a flamethrower?




If a Jew does good things and is well-liked, odds are a lot of people won’t know that they’re Jewish.

If a Jew is hated and and does bad things, everyone will know they’re Jewish.

“If my theory of relativity is proven successful, Germany will claim me as a German and France will declare me a citizen of the world. Should my theory prove untrue, France will say that I am a German, and Germany will declare that I am a Jew.” - Albert Einstein 

This is the reason why people have broken their spines bending backward trying to prove that Hitler’s grandfather might’ve been Jewish, yet Gentile feminists use Lise Meitner not getting credit for discovering nuclear fission as an example of sexism in STEM when she was a Jewish-born woman living in Germany at the time of the Nuremberg laws.





the cha cha slide in full metal armor

“sliiide to the left”

*indescribably loud screeching of metal against asphalt*

“one hop this time”


“two hops this time”

*clonk clonk*

“everybody clap your hands!”


5539 a422 500


Finally got around finishing this piece of my GW2 sylvari, Mauld, for mermay \o/ !  They are a cross between an indo-pacific sailfish and a marlin >:^) It wasn’t planned but it also goes well with shuuzaar’s piece, which you can check out >> right here <<



me when im working on something: oh i am so fucking genius,

me looking at the completed work: absolute fucking garbage who allowed my hands to make this

me coming up with concepts and ideas: this is so fucking good wtf

me actually having to work on it: what kind of fucking bullshit 

5555 7c77 500


I can’t breathe from laughing at this


If you truly and genuinely want to help male victims of abuse, you will start speaking about them independently. You will stop bringing them up only when women are talking about their own abuse. You will stop using them as a ‘gotcha’ to discredit claims of male violence. You will stop saying things that you know are are factually incorrect such as “If the victim were a woman, everybody would be talking about this.” or “If the victim were a woman, this already would have been dealt with.” Your misogyny is thinly veiled, and everybody knows your true intentions. 


power move: exclusively referring to sports played by women as “sports” and all the men’s sports exclusively as “men’s sports”

9316 26a0 500

May 21 2018

9360 c19d 500
9380 591a 500






Because of the Fifth Amendment, no one in the U.S. may legally be forced to testify against himself, and because of the Fourth Amendment, no one’s records or belongings may legally be searched or seized without just cause. However, American police are trained to use methods of deception, intimidation and manipulation to circumvent these restrictions. In other words, cops routinely break the law—in letter and in spirit—in the name of enforcing the law. Several examples of this are widely known, if not widely understood.

1) “Do you know why I stopped you?”
Cops ask this, not because they want to have a friendly chat, but because they want you to incriminate yourself. They are hoping you will “voluntarily” confess to having broken the law, whether it was something they had already noticed or not. You may think you are apologizing, or explaining, or even making excuses, but from the cop’s perspective, you are confessing. He is not there to serve you; he is there fishing for an excuse to fine or arrest you. In asking you the familiar question, he is essentially asking you what crime you just committed. And he will do this without giving you any “Miranda” warning, in an effort to trick you into testifying against yourself.

2) “Do you have something to hide?”
Police often talk as if you need a good reason for not answering whatever questions they ask, or for not consenting to a warrantless search of your person, your car, or even your home. The ridiculous implication is that if you haven’t committed a crime, you should be happy to be subjected to random interrogations and searches. This turns the concept of due process on its head, as the cop tries to put the burden on you to prove your innocence, while implying that your failure to “cooperate” with random harassment must be evidence of guilt.

3) “Cooperating will make things easier on you.”
The logical converse of this statement implies that refusing to answer questions and refusing to consent to a search will make things more difficult for you. In other words, you will be punished if you exercise your rights. Of course, if they coerce you into giving them a reason to fine or arrest you, they will claim that you “voluntarily” answered questions and “consented” to a search, and will pretend there was no veiled threat of what they might do to you if you did not willingly “cooperate.”
(Such tactics are also used by prosecutors and judges via the procedure of “plea-bargaining,” whereby someone accused of a crime is essentially told that if he confesses guilt—thus relieving the government of having to present evidence or prove anything—then his suffering will be reduced. In fact, “plea bargaining” is illegal in many countries precisely because it basically constitutes coerced confessions.)

4) “We’ll just get a warrant.”
Cops may try to persuade you to “consent” to a search by claiming that they could easily just go get a warrant if you don’t consent. This is just another ploy to intimidate people into surrendering their rights, with the implication again being that whoever inconveniences the police by requiring them to go through the process of getting a warrant will receive worse treatment than one who “cooperates.” But by definition, one who is threatened or intimidated into “consenting” has not truly consented to anything.

5.) We have someone who will testify against you
Police “informants” are often individuals whose own legal troubles have put them in a position where they can be used by the police to circumvent and undermine the constitutional rights of others. For example, once the police have something to hold over one individual, they can then bully that individual into giving false, anonymous testimony which can be used to obtain search warrants to use against others. Even if the informant gets caught lying, the police can say they didn’t know, making this tactic cowardly and illegal, but also very effective at getting around constitutional restrictions.

6) “We can hold you for 72 hours without charging you.”
Based only on claimed suspicion, even without enough evidence or other probable cause to charge you with a crime, the police can kidnap you—or threaten to kidnap you—and use that to persuade you to confess to some relatively minor offense. Using this tactic, which borders on being torture, police can obtain confessions they know to be false, from people whose only concern, then and there, is to be released.

7) “I’m going to search you for my own safety.”
Using so-called “Terry frisks” (named after the Supreme Court case of Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1), police can carry out certain limited searches, without any warrant or probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed, under the guise of checking for weapons. By simply asserting that someone might have a weapon, police can disregard and circumvent the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches.

U.S. courts have gone back and forth in deciding how often, and in what circumstances, tactics like those mentioned above are acceptable. And of course, police continually go far beyond anything the courts have declared to be “legal” anyway. But aside from nitpicking legal technicalities, both coerced confessions and unreasonable searches are still unconstitutional, and therefore “illegal,” regardless of the rationale or excuses used to try to justify them. Yet, all too often, cops show that to them, the Fourth and Fifth Amendments—and any other restrictions on their power—are simply technical inconveniences for them to try to get around. In other words, they will break the law whenever they can get away with it if it serves their own agenda and power, and they will ironically insist that they need to do that in order to catch “law-breakers” (the kind who don’t wear badges).

Of course, if the above tactics fail, police can simply bully people into confessing—falsely or truthfully—and/or carry out unconstitutional searches, knowing that the likelihood of cops having to face any punishment for doing so is extremely low. Usually all that happens, even when a search was unquestionably and obviously illegal, or when a confession was clearly coerced, is that any evidence obtained from the illegal search or forced confession is excluded from being allowed at trial. Of course, if there is no trial—either because the person plea-bargains or because there was no evidence and no crime—the “exclusionary rule” creates no deterrent at all. The police can, and do, routinely break the law and violate individual rights, knowing that there will be no adverse repercussions for them having done so.

Likewise, the police can lie under oath, plant evidence, falsely charge people with “resisting arrest” or “assaulting an officer,” and commit other blatantly illegal acts, knowing full well that their fellow gang members—officers, prosecutors and judges—will almost never hold them accountable for their crimes. Even much of the general public still presumes innocence when it comes to cops accused of wrong-doing, while presuming guilt when the cops accuse someone else of wrong-doing. But this is gradually changing, as the amount of video evidence showing the true nature of the “Street Gang in Blue” becomes too much even for many police-apologists to ignore.


One of the biggest realizations with dealing with cops for me was the fact that they CAN lie, they are 100% legally entitled to lie, and they WILL whether you’re a victim of crime, accused of committing a crime or anything else

Everyone needs to reblog this, it could save a life.


Seriously if you ever find yourself in custody don’t say shit until you’ve got some counsel with you. No cop is your friend in that situation.

9407 3dbd 500
Older posts are this way If this message doesn't go away, click anywhere on the page to continue loading posts.
Could not load more posts
Maybe Soup is currently being updated? I'll try again automatically in a few seconds...
Just a second, loading more posts...
You've reached the end.

Don't be the product, buy the product!