Audacious Otters



Ask me anything  
Reblogged from neyruto
Although you are very small and your kind have existed in the universe for only a short time, you are an important part of something very large and very beautiful. my astronomy text book getting real sweet  (via neybooto)

(Source: neyruto, via itsraininbritishmen)

Reblogged from dailyclassicdisney
Reblogged from leahblaine
Nobody tells an actor, ‘you’re playing a strong-minded man.’ We assume that men are strong-minded. A strong-minded woman is a different animal. Meryl Streep, on being told that she often plays “strong-minded women.” (via bellisaro)

(Source: leahblaine, via thecomposerrobertfrobisher)

Reblogged from intersectionalityis4lovers

intersectionalityis4lovers:

  • don’t trust men who have to insult other women in order to compliment you
  • a subset of this rule is don’t trust men who say ‘you’re pretty/smart/[adjective] for an indian/asian/[identity group]’
  • or ‘you’re not like other [identity group optional] girls’

(via thecomposerrobertfrobisher)

Reblogged from cracked
cracked:

brianjohnrose:

cracked:

"As the children and their guardians go to town on the wallpaper, [Willy] Wonka declares: ‘Lick an orange. It tastes like an orange. The strawberries taste like strawberries! The snozzberries taste like snozzberries!’ We laugh, because ‘snozzberries’ is obviously a fanciful, fictional word, and nobody knows what they really were. Except that Roald Dahl, the book’s author, knew exactly what snozzberries were: They’re dicks. Snozzberries are dicks. Willy Wonka made those kids lick dick-flavored wallpaper." #CrackedClassic
The Filthiest Joke Ever Hidden in a Children’s Movie

My mind is kinda blown.

Happy Boxing Day, dick joke fans!

cracked:

brianjohnrose:

cracked:

"As the children and their guardians go to town on the wallpaper, [Willy] Wonka declares: ‘Lick an orange. It tastes like an orange. The strawberries taste like strawberries! The snozzberries taste like snozzberries!’ We laugh, because ‘snozzberries’ is obviously a fanciful, fictional word, and nobody knows what they really were. Except that Roald Dahl, the book’s author, knew exactly what snozzberries were: They’re dicks. Snozzberries are dicks. Willy Wonka made those kids lick dick-flavored wallpaper." #CrackedClassic

The Filthiest Joke Ever Hidden in a Children’s Movie

My mind is kinda blown.

Happy Boxing Day, dick joke fans!

(via thecomposerrobertfrobisher)

Reblogged from puppylaheys
Reblogged from peashooter85
thefandomer:

cinque-spotted:

peashooter85:

What fighting like a girl was all about in Georgian Era Britain —- Elizabeth “Lady Bare Knuckles” Stokes
Think that women’s boxing or MMA fighting is a recent development in fighting sports?  Think again.  From the 18th to early 19th century it was not uncommon for women to fight in the ring as well as men.  Back then boxing was not the boxing of today, not by a long shot.  Venues tended to be saloons, pubs, small arenas, or even open streets and back-alleys.  Rules differed from venue to venue, but for the most part fights were done bare knuckled, and many fights were a no holds barred type setup.  Some fights even included deadly weapons such as clubs, swords, and staves.  Needless to say, injury and death was common.
One of the most famous female fighters in early 18th century Britain was Elizabeth Stokes (born Elizabeth Wilkinson), a mother and fighter whose career lasted mostly throughout the 1720’s.  In 1722 she was challenged by Hannah Highfield for a prize of three guineas.  Stokes accepted the challenge by offered a counter challenge,
 “I, Elizabeth Wilkinson of Clerkenwell, who had earlier had some words with Hannah Hyfield, ‘challenged and invited’ her adversary to meet her on the stage for three guineas. Each fighter would hold half-a-crown in each hand and the first to drop the money would lose the battle”
Elizabeth won after a 22 minute fight, giving Hannah Hyfield a savage thumping that caused her to drop her coin.  Later in the evening she won another fight against a woman named Martha Jones.
After the fight with Hannah Hyfield Stoke’s career took off, making her the most popular female fighter in Britain and earning her the name “Lady Bareknuckles”.  After marrying her husand James Stokes, the couple often fought in paired and tag-team matches.  Incredibly Stoke’s even fought men on a number of occasions, something that was rare in bareknuckle boxing.  Even more incredibly, she trounced them every time, beating the crap out of them with her swift and powerful fists.  Not only was she a master pugilist, Stokes was also skilled with weapons as well.  She was known to be particularly skilled with the cudgel and short sword.
By the mid 19th century women’s fighting had come to a close as professional organizations, rules, and Victorian Era prejudices against women drove the sport underground and turned fighting into a gentlemen’s sport.

#THIS IS FREAKIN COOL AS SHIT #can we just note the last paragraph #’victorian era prejudices against women drove the sport underground’ #you’re saying ‘turned fighting into a gentleman’s sport’ but all i’m seeng is VICTORIAN LADY FIGHT CLUB#WHERE ARE THE NOVELS? GIVE ME NOVELS #MAKE THE LADIES KISS#MAKE THE LADIES TELL THEIR HUSBANDS THEY’RE OFF TO SEE THEIR SISTERS FOR TEA #MAKE THE LADIES SWAP TIPS ON HOW TO BANDAGE THEIR KNUCKLES AND CONCEAL BRUISES WITH POWDER #MAKE THE LADIES PASS EACH OTHER FLASKS OF BRANDY WHILE THEY’RE SITTING ON THE SIDELINES TENDING THEIR INJURIES AND WATCHING THE NEXT FIGHT#MAKE THE LADIES WEAR LOOSE BREECHES AND PRACTICAL RIDING BOOTS#MAKE THE LADIES COME FROM ALL WALKS OF LIFE; MAKE A PICKPOCKET STRIKE UP A FRIENDSHIP SLASH RIVALRY WITH THE DAUGHTER OF A COUNTESS #MAKE THE LADIES KISS!!!!!!!!!!!!! #i’m fine. i’m fine. #history (via marthur)

did somebody say Martha Jones

thefandomer:

cinque-spotted:

peashooter85:

What fighting like a girl was all about in Georgian Era Britain —- Elizabeth “Lady Bare Knuckles” Stokes

Think that women’s boxing or MMA fighting is a recent development in fighting sports?  Think again.  From the 18th to early 19th century it was not uncommon for women to fight in the ring as well as men.  Back then boxing was not the boxing of today, not by a long shot.  Venues tended to be saloons, pubs, small arenas, or even open streets and back-alleys.  Rules differed from venue to venue, but for the most part fights were done bare knuckled, and many fights were a no holds barred type setup.  Some fights even included deadly weapons such as clubs, swords, and staves.  Needless to say, injury and death was common.

One of the most famous female fighters in early 18th century Britain was Elizabeth Stokes (born Elizabeth Wilkinson), a mother and fighter whose career lasted mostly throughout the 1720’s.  In 1722 she was challenged by Hannah Highfield for a prize of three guineas.  Stokes accepted the challenge by offered a counter challenge,

 “I, Elizabeth Wilkinson of Clerkenwell, who had earlier had some words with Hannah Hyfield, ‘challenged and invited’ her adversary to meet her on the stage for three guineas. Each fighter would hold half-a-crown in each hand and the first to drop the money would lose the battle”

Elizabeth won after a 22 minute fight, giving Hannah Hyfield a savage thumping that caused her to drop her coin.  Later in the evening she won another fight against a woman named Martha Jones.

After the fight with Hannah Hyfield Stoke’s career took off, making her the most popular female fighter in Britain and earning her the name “Lady Bareknuckles”.  After marrying her husand James Stokes, the couple often fought in paired and tag-team matches.  Incredibly Stoke’s even fought men on a number of occasions, something that was rare in bareknuckle boxing.  Even more incredibly, she trounced them every time, beating the crap out of them with her swift and powerful fists.  Not only was she a master pugilist, Stokes was also skilled with weapons as well.  She was known to be particularly skilled with the cudgel and short sword.

By the mid 19th century women’s fighting had come to a close as professional organizations, rules, and Victorian Era prejudices against women drove the sport underground and turned fighting into a gentlemen’s sport.

          (via marthur)

did somebody say Martha Jones

(Source: peashooter85, via thecomposerrobertfrobisher)

Reblogged from 021013

flawlesstrueperfection:

he’ll say “are you married?” we’ll say “wow those are pretty invasive questions for a snowman”

(Source: 021013, via collecting-data)

Reblogged from owlygem
milafawnkawaiielfgoddessangelic:

truthtellingtime:

Just so everybody knows, the mirror is actually more reliable than the camera. Even though people say “the camera never lies”, it distorts your photographs a little bit. It has to turn a 3d image (you in real life) to a 2d image (a photograph) and consequently skews the proportions a little bit.
Also, “photogenic” is a real thing. Certain faces photograph well and others don’t. It’s all down the angles, proportions and size of your features.
Have you ever seen someone stunning who looks great in professional photographs and not in candids? Yeah, that’s because there’s a huge difference between a professional and an amateur. Professionals know how to minimise the issues cameras have. Lighting, angles and even the distance you are away from the camera plays a part (the amount of distortion varies depending on how close you are).
TL;DR if you think you look great in the mirror but not in the photo, trust the mirror. You look great!

NOT ONLY THAT, but when you look in a mirror, you’re seeing your face in motion, how others would see it. In a photograph, you’re still, and it can make small flaws and the like seem a lot more prominent, despite them being quite minuscule in person.

milafawnkawaiielfgoddessangelic:

truthtellingtime:

Just so everybody knows, the mirror is actually more reliable than the camera. Even though people say “the camera never lies”, it distorts your photographs a little bit. It has to turn a 3d image (you in real life) to a 2d image (a photograph) and consequently skews the proportions a little bit.

Also, “photogenic” is a real thing. Certain faces photograph well and others don’t. It’s all down the angles, proportions and size of your features.

Have you ever seen someone stunning who looks great in professional photographs and not in candids? Yeah, that’s because there’s a huge difference between a professional and an amateur. Professionals know how to minimise the issues cameras have. Lighting, angles and even the distance you are away from the camera plays a part (the amount of distortion varies depending on how close you are).

TL;DR if you think you look great in the mirror but not in the photo, trust the mirror. You look great!

NOT ONLY THAT, but when you look in a mirror, you’re seeing your face in motion, how others would see it. In a photograph, you’re still, and it can make small flaws and the like seem a lot more prominent, despite them being quite minuscule in person.

(Source: owlygem, via thatdanishchick)

Reblogged from my-edits-have-no-remorse

yerablizzardharry:

maxistentialist:

"In order to shoot the dwarves and a large Gandalf, we couldn’t be in the same set. All I had for company was 13 photographs of the dwarves on top of stands with little lights – whoever’s talking flashes up. Pretending you’re with 13 other people when you’re on your own, it stretches your technical ability to the absolute limits. I cried, actually. I cried. Then I said out loud, ‘This is not why I became an actor’. Unfortunately the microphone was on and the whole studio heard.”

Sir Ian McKellen

IM LAUGJING SO HARD WHYYY

(Source: my-edits-have-no-remorse, via thatdanishchick)