Hi. My name is Iris or Ashley. I like to travel. I like kittens. I like all types of people. I am open to try almost anything at least once.
Oh, I'm a writer too. Currently I'm working on a dumb side project that closely resembles playing Skyrim......I have no life....
Anyway, thanks for visiting me.
If you want to talk, send me an ask or fan mail or whatever your little heart desires.

 

So comes snow after fire, and even dragons have their endings.

J.R.R. TolkienThe Hobbit  (via etrezomp-ni—kelted)

Sounds like inspiration for another series….something about a throne made of swords. And playing lots of games. Hm..

(Source: diaphanee)

theoddmentemporium:





Engraving of occultists John Dee and Edward Kelley ”in the act of invoking the spirit of a deceased person” (1806)




16th Century Necromancers
Edward Kelley was an ambiguous figure in Renaissance occultism, a self-declared spirit medium who worked with John Dee in his magical investigations. Besides the professed ability to summon spirits in a crystal ball, which Dee so valued, Kelley claimed to possess the secret of transmuting base metals into gold. Dee was a mathematician, astronomer, astrologer, occultist, navigator, imperialist and consultant to Queen Elizabeth I. He devoted his life to the study of alchemy, divination and Hermetic philosophy, straddling the worlds of science and magic just as they were becoming distinguishable.
Kelley approached Dee in 1582. Dee had unsuccessfully been trying to contact angels with a crystal ball but Kelley professed the ability to do so, impressing Dee with his first trial. They subsequently devoted huge amounts of time and energy to these “spiritual conferences”. A year later, Kelley appeared with an alchemical book and some red powder which, he claimed, he had been led to by a “spiritual creature”. With the powder Kelley believed he could prepare a red “tincture” which would allow him to transmute base metals into gold. He reportedly demonstrated its power a few times over the years.
Dee and Kelley lived a nomadic life in Europe, seeking the patronage of various monarchs but ultimately failing to impress. Eventually their involvement in necromancy caught the attention of the Catholic Church, and they were required to defend themselves in a hearing with the papal nuncio. Dee handled the interview with tact, but Kelley infuriated the nuncio by criticising the “poor conduct of many … priests.” The nuncio noted in a letter that he was tempted to toss Kelley out of the window, defenestration being a common tradition in Prague at the time. 
Then, possibly as an act to end the fruitless spiritual conferences so that he could concentrate on alchemy, which was beginning to make him wealthy, Kelley revealed to Dee that the angels had ordered them to share everything they had—including their wives. Anguished, Dee broke off the conferences, though he did share his wife. This “cross-matching” occurred in 1587, as noted in Dee’s diary. Nine months later Dee’s wife gave birth to a son and although there was speculation that the child was actually Kelley’s, it was raised as Dee’s. 
Though it seems the two shared a basically cooperative and innocent partnership, it was often characterised as “quarrelsome” and “tense”. Kelley left Dee at Trebon in 1589, possibly to join the emperor’s court at Prague and Dee returned to England. They did not see each other again.

theoddmentemporium:

Engraving of occultists John Dee and Edward Kelley ”in the act of invoking the spirit of a deceased person” (1806)

16th Century Necromancers

Edward Kelley was an ambiguous figure in Renaissance occultism, a self-declared spirit medium who worked with John Dee in his magical investigations. Besides the professed ability to summon spirits in a crystal ball, which Dee so valued, Kelley claimed to possess the secret of transmuting base metals into gold. Dee was a mathematician, astronomer, astrologer, occultist, navigator, imperialist and consultant to Queen Elizabeth I. He devoted his life to the study of alchemy, divination and Hermetic philosophy, straddling the worlds of science and magic just as they were becoming distinguishable.

Kelley approached Dee in 1582. Dee had unsuccessfully been trying to contact angels with a crystal ball but Kelley professed the ability to do so, impressing Dee with his first trial. They subsequently devoted huge amounts of time and energy to these “spiritual conferences”. A year later, Kelley appeared with an alchemical book and some red powder which, he claimed, he had been led to by a “spiritual creature”. With the powder Kelley believed he could prepare a red “tincture” which would allow him to transmute base metals into gold. He reportedly demonstrated its power a few times over the years.

Dee and Kelley lived a nomadic life in Europe, seeking the patronage of various monarchs but ultimately failing to impress. Eventually their involvement in necromancy caught the attention of the Catholic Church, and they were required to defend themselves in a hearing with the papal nuncio. Dee handled the interview with tact, but Kelley infuriated the nuncio by criticising the “poor conduct of many … priests.” The nuncio noted in a letter that he was tempted to toss Kelley out of the window, defenestration being a common tradition in Prague at the time.

Then, possibly as an act to end the fruitless spiritual conferences so that he could concentrate on alchemy, which was beginning to make him wealthy, Kelley revealed to Dee that the angels had ordered them to share everything they had—including their wives. Anguished, Dee broke off the conferences, though he did share his wife. This “cross-matching” occurred in 1587, as noted in Dee’s diary. Nine months later Dee’s wife gave birth to a son and although there was speculation that the child was actually Kelley’s, it was raised as Dee’s.

Though it seems the two shared a basically cooperative and innocent partnership, it was often characterised as “quarrelsome” and “tense”. Kelley left Dee at Trebon in 1589, possibly to join the emperor’s court at Prague and Dee returned to England. They did not see each other again.

kingkitsu:

smoothierox:

ifollowbadblogs:

"you’re an adult now"

image

"you need to choose a career"

image

"you need to make your own doctor’s appointment"
image

guiselore:

lesbianathogwarts:

bashdoard:

fuckyeah-bill:

Promoing at the beach

Ancient Roman prostitutes did something similar, but usually they would have phalluses inscribed in their sandals. So, if you were ever in the mood, you could just look down and follow the dicks.

follow the yellow dick-road

I love history lessons on tumblr.


Before the romans were doing this, the Greeks did it. Only they actually did say “follow me” just like those flip flops. Usually those were the lowest class prostitutes though, found in the city “red light district” much like Amsterdam today. Also, the highest class were well educated and often spent time in gardens or on stoa with groups of philosophers. She could decide if she was there to sing, dance, entertain the philosophical mind or have sex. She was most often in charge of her own finances too.

guiselore:

lesbianathogwarts:

bashdoard:

fuckyeah-bill:

Promoing at the beach

Ancient Roman prostitutes did something similar, but usually they would have phalluses inscribed in their sandals. So, if you were ever in the mood, you could just look down and follow the dicks.

follow the yellow dick-road

I love history lessons on tumblr.

Before the romans were doing this, the Greeks did it. Only they actually did say “follow me” just like those flip flops. Usually those were the lowest class prostitutes though, found in the city “red light district” much like Amsterdam today. Also, the highest class were well educated and often spent time in gardens or on stoa with groups of philosophers. She could decide if she was there to sing, dance, entertain the philosophical mind or have sex. She was most often in charge of her own finances too.

(Source: sve-sto-imam-nemamm)

dammitmishaa:

So my friend came into school one day wearing a dress that had straps and the vice principal came up to her and said “You need to either change or cover your shoulders up because it’ll distract the boys” to which she replied “Well I find boys faces distracting, do they have to cover them up?” and the vice principal said “Maybe you should focus in class more.”

If that doesn’t tell you that things are messed up, then I don’t know what does. 

(Source: deanwinchesteroffiicial)

ignoranthipster:

jerusalemcameos:

ignoranthipster:

jerusalemcameos:

dentistlegs:

After an announcement yesterday outlining what girls (and only girls) could and could not wear to school today (even though it was 80 degrees and the school would not turn on the air conditioner) someone posted this in a stairwell. A lot of girls were supportive of these posters, seeing as some teachers were sending down absolutely any girls wearing shorts.


OK so, I really like this but there are three things that need to be considered and one that just needs to be adressed. First is the question of is this a school in a community with high crime rate? If so it makes more sense to protect young women. I don’t mean to sound like what you were has an effect on that but young women don’t always realise the consequences of basic actions. Second is this a junior high or high school? If its a junior high girls(and boys) are at a prime time to do whatever. That includes dressing in ways the may regret. The third and possibly most prevalent is this. Is the school public or private? If t is a private institution then it is most likely A)held to a higher standard and so students should dress appropriately and or B)a religious institution as well as scholarly and so religious beliefs can be implemented. The final thing I wan to mention as a member of student government who works closely with the administration to make them gel with the student body I know how they think when making policy. They have to think of the average student and in some cases the least common multiple. In order to protect and help as many students as possible succeed they sometimes need to do things that don’t appeal to everyone. Its like in a sport, your coach makes you run sprits because one person is late. Its not because the whole team was late but now you are all better runners because of it. So when you find things n the internet and most importantly in real life look at the details and the story from a new perspective before you make any actions. Please and Thank you

Ok. I get the religious/private school thing. But. No. What would be “better for everyone” is if schools taught people not to rape and why not to and why what a girl is wearing shouldn’t matter  when it comes to that and how it shouldn’t be her responsibility to not get raped instead of teaching girls that they need to cover up if you want to avoid it and make them feel objectified and then really end up getting raped/harassed anyway because believe it or not it happens to all women no matter how they are dressed. Not to mention that analogy with the coach is only making it sound like you’re punishing them all as whole because they’d be better off for it because it would change them. Like they did something wrong. You compared wearing shorts to being late for class and compared getting fit/healthy to covering up my limbs so I’m not sexually objectified.

You are totally correct but as I was just explaining to my sister is that it is a Lott easier and less messy for the school to ask girls to cover their cleavage then to ask guys to not objectify women. You can’t change someone’s thoughts as easily as dress code. I wish I could say that the schools need to get on that, and I hope they do, but until the time when men are as respectful as they should there needs to be rules in place.

Ok. So. Wow. Since it is easier we are going to contibute to the objectification of women and continue to just let men keep having the upper hand. Those rules aren’t helping. Those rules aren’t making men any less respectful than they would be with some cleavage showing. Those rules are set in place everywhere and the rate of rape and harassment is constantly GROWING anyway. Not to mention this specifically is talking about shorts and tanktops. They are sexualizing legs and shoulders. They are saying every single part of you is made for sex. As a woman, you’re legs and shoulders are sexual so you must cover them up. Literally, the only thing it is doing is making it worse. It is letting men go off thinking that these rules are set in place to teach women how to dress if they don’t want to get raped. So they will go out into the world and say well if they chose not to follow those rules she won’t mind being raped. And that’s why a large percentage of men who rape don’t even believe they are actually raping.

I CANNOT BELIEVE MY FORMER HIGH SCHOOL HAS FALLEN TO THIS BULLSHIT. NO. FUCK YOU. I AM NOT PROUD TO BE A LAKEWOOD TIGER. I AM ABSOLUTELY DISGUSTED. To the brave young girl who had the guts to put this up, YOU are what this world needs. I’ve heard that you’ve received threats to be raped and “put in your place” because of this and let me tell you that you have done nothing wrong. As a graduate of LHS, I am shocked at this. But honey. You fucking tell the administration what they’re doing is wrong.

ignoranthipster:

jerusalemcameos:

ignoranthipster:

jerusalemcameos:

dentistlegs:

After an announcement yesterday outlining what girls (and only girls) could and could not wear to school today (even though it was 80 degrees and the school would not turn on the air conditioner) someone posted this in a stairwell. A lot of girls were supportive of these posters, seeing as some teachers were sending down absolutely any girls wearing shorts.

OK so, I really like this but there are three things that need to be considered and one that just needs to be adressed. First is the question of is this a school in a community with high crime rate? If so it makes more sense to protect young women. I don’t mean to sound like what you were has an effect on that but young women don’t always realise the consequences of basic actions. Second is this a junior high or high school? If its a junior high girls(and boys) are at a prime time to do whatever. That includes dressing in ways the may regret. The third and possibly most prevalent is this. Is the school public or private? If t is a private institution then it is most likely A)held to a higher standard and so students should dress appropriately and or B)a religious institution as well as scholarly and so religious beliefs can be implemented. The final thing I wan to mention as a member of student government who works closely with the administration to make them gel with the student body I know how they think when making policy. They have to think of the average student and in some cases the least common multiple. In order to protect and help as many students as possible succeed they sometimes need to do things that don’t appeal to everyone. Its like in a sport, your coach makes you run sprits because one person is late. Its not because the whole team was late but now you are all better runners because of it. So when you find things n the internet and most importantly in real life look at the details and the story from a new perspective before you make any actions. Please and Thank you

Ok. I get the religious/private school thing. But. No. What would be “better for everyone” is if schools taught people not to rape and why not to and why what a girl is wearing shouldn’t matter when it comes to that and how it shouldn’t be her responsibility to not get raped instead of teaching girls that they need to cover up if you want to avoid it and make them feel objectified and then really end up getting raped/harassed anyway because believe it or not it happens to all women no matter how they are dressed. Not to mention that analogy with the coach is only making it sound like you’re punishing them all as whole because they’d be better off for it because it would change them. Like they did something wrong. You compared wearing shorts to being late for class and compared getting fit/healthy to covering up my limbs so I’m not sexually objectified.

You are totally correct but as I was just explaining to my sister is that it is a Lott easier and less messy for the school to ask girls to cover their cleavage then to ask guys to not objectify women. You can’t change someone’s thoughts as easily as dress code. I wish I could say that the schools need to get on that, and I hope they do, but until the time when men are as respectful as they should there needs to be rules in place.

Ok. So. Wow. Since it is easier we are going to contibute to the objectification of women and continue to just let men keep having the upper hand. Those rules aren’t helping. Those rules aren’t making men any less respectful than they would be with some cleavage showing. Those rules are set in place everywhere and the rate of rape and harassment is constantly GROWING anyway. Not to mention this specifically is talking about shorts and tanktops. They are sexualizing legs and shoulders. They are saying every single part of you is made for sex. As a woman, you’re legs and shoulders are sexual so you must cover them up. Literally, the only thing it is doing is making it worse. It is letting men go off thinking that these rules are set in place to teach women how to dress if they don’t want to get raped. So they will go out into the world and say well if they chose not to follow those rules she won’t mind being raped. And that’s why a large percentage of men who rape don’t even believe they are actually raping.

I CANNOT BELIEVE MY FORMER HIGH SCHOOL HAS FALLEN TO THIS BULLSHIT. NO. FUCK YOU. I AM NOT PROUD TO BE A LAKEWOOD TIGER. I AM ABSOLUTELY DISGUSTED.
To the brave young girl who had the guts to put this up, YOU are what this world needs. I’ve heard that you’ve received threats to be raped and “put in your place” because of this and let me tell you that you have done nothing wrong. As a graduate of LHS, I am shocked at this. But honey. You fucking tell the administration what they’re doing is wrong.

rapunzelie:

catcalls and other street harassment are a form of violence and expressed hatred for women and don’t ever think of it as anything but that because a man on the street can go from “hey baby you look sexy tonight” to “bitch don’t fucking ignore me” in .002 seconds
it’s not about appreciating a woman’s beauty or boosting her ego with a little compliment, it’s intimidation and a source of empowerment for them

spookyfiretruckingcupcake:

miss-love:

if I ever see a girl in public who is clearly going for something really bold with her look (crazy hair, makeup, outfit) and looks like she’s maybe uncomfortable or nervous about rocking it, I make sure to go up to her and tell her she looks fierce. It took a lot of courage to go out like that and somebody ought to notice.

changes lives. be sure to do that at least once a day.

you’re the type of person this world needs

bless you

spookyfiretruckingcupcake:

miss-love:

if I ever see a girl in public who is clearly going for something really bold with her look (crazy hair, makeup, outfit) and looks like she’s maybe uncomfortable or nervous about rocking it, I make sure to go up to her and tell her she looks fierce. It took a lot of courage to go out like that and somebody ought to notice.

changes lives. be sure to do that at least once a day.

you’re the type of person this world needs

bless you