Anonymous asked: who are you
Anonymous asked: who are you
Anonymous asked: you saved my life. thank you.
Miracle on 23rd St.
Anonymous asked: How do I keep my pussy wet?
the cells in your vagina that make it wet are long and thin. they align with one another so that all their tips are facing the same direction, like stacked bottles of wine. deep inside the cells, their nuclei unspool the region of your DNA that encodes the recipe for vaginal lubricant. the nucleus exposes this region of DNA as a long noose, which is found by a transcription enzyme. this enzyme makes a copy of your DNA and other enzymes shuttle it out of small holes in the nucleus. once outside of it, one end of the transcribed recipe is fed into the open jaw of a ribosome. the ribosome snaps shut and begins to read the recipe. the strand is pulled through the the mouth of the ribosome and a mechanism in the ribosome’s body reads the series of thee genetic bases that each correspond to a command like ‘GET THIS AMINO ACID’ or ‘GET THAT AMINO ACID’ or ‘STOP READING THIS RECIPE IT IS FINISHED.’
at the other end of the ribosome, a protein strand is assembled from amino acids in a long chain, the sequence of which was encoded in the recipe. the protein strand is attracted to itself in several strategic places, and as it is squirted out of the ribosome, it begins to fold into a shape unique to that sequence of amino acids.
at the same time, blood begins to engorge the walls of your vagina. so much blood flows into the vessels near the interior surface of your vagina that the vessels start to leak. serum, the watery component of your blood that is centrifuged off when you donate, starts to pour into your vagina.
back in the lubricating cells, the proteins that your DNA caused to be manufactured are piling up. the proteins have been designed to cover themselves in water molecules and expand into enormous, criss-crossing networks of protein mesh. this loose meshwork of protein and trapped water slides over and through itself very easily and dries out much less quickly than ordinary water. this is how it lubricates. the thin cells collect the proteins in large, spherical balloons called vesicles. the vesicles migrate towards the other end of the cells and, one by one, they burst through the cell wall and spray their lubricating protein into your vagina. the proteins unfurl and trap the serum that has leaked from your vagina’s engorged blood vessels, creating the well-known lubricant.
all this production is very hard on the thin cells, and after around four days their machinery starts to break down. they begin to produce incorrect sequences of protein, which in turn curl into the wrong shape for lubrication. the cell detects these errors and sets into motion a chain of events that eventually causes the DNA in its nucleus to unspool a noose containing the recipe for killing the cell it inhabits. the cell commits suicide and a new cell takes its place.
to make your pussy wet you are relying on the deaths of millions of cells who gave their lives to keep it that way. who lived and died so that when the walls of your pussy become engorged, the bloodless blood that leaks from them will become slippery and stick around.
the lesson to take from your cells killing themselves so that you can remain comfortably lubricated is to (like ezra pound) MAKE IT NEW. remember also that you’re shedding blood to stay wet.
Anonymous asked: will you repost that html giant thing where you said what kind of feminism you believe in?
Sure, but I don’t pretend to understand what something like feminism is when there are as many ways of subscribing to it as there are interested parties.
What I do understand is the incredible stability of systems when they are attacked on their own terms.
One system we all live in assumes that women can be treated as a bloc. It understands women as creatures who share a common, female essence that gives each woman her female traits. These are things like frailty, irresponsibility, vanity, and above all, the need for a type of security—emotional and material—that men are uniquely equipped to provide. The system says: ‘Act as though these presumptions were true, and I will reward all of you with an immensely stable set of relationships between men and women.’
Now, if you find these assumptions about women to be totally false and patronizing, the obvious question is: well, how do you change things? I can think of a couple of ways that people try to do this. However, most of the time they’re just engaging the system they despise on terms it can easily repel. Most of the time they’re just changing themselves and leaving the system untouched…
Instead, you should do something with a lever:
Gandhi has something interesting to say about struggles. Very early on (1909) he pointed out that a struggle against injustice invariably wins the sort of outcome it deserves. So, the victory won by the violence of the French Revolution was The Terror. And the victory delivered by Napoleon as he conquered most of Europe—in the name of the Revolution’s ideals of liberty and democracy—was (surprise!) an Empire. Gandhi put it like this:
If I want to deprive you of your watch, I shall certainly have to fight for it; if I want to buy your watch, I shall have to pay for it; and if I want it as a gift, I shall have to plead for it; and, according to the means I employ, the watch is either stolen property, my own property, or a donation.
So, the way you fight determines the world you make for yourself after you’ve won. (Obv. Gandhi wasn’t the first to realize this, cf. ‘Live by the sword, die by the sword,’ etc.)
A trivial way of interpreting this would be to say: “If you want to change the system by policing the opinions that support it, you’re going to create a society where people have to watch what they say.” This might be true, but who cares: we’ve had political correctness for decades now and it doesn’t work. A deeper way of looking at it would be to say that it reveals a lever by which a small number of people can enormously magnify their own power. This is what Gandhi saw, and it’s what led to non-violent resistance.
In effect, Gandhi’s line about means works in reverse: What he pointed out is true not only for those who struggle against injustice but also for the system that perpetrates it. So, if there is a lie at the heart of any system of inequality, then it is the job of people who want to destroy that system not to expose the lie, but to reveal how that lie poisons every benefit made possible by it. Now, if the lie is that South Africans or Indians are inferior to the British who rule them, then Gandhi’s job is to show how any act of force undertaken against him by the British is cruel and blatantly illegitimate. This he accomplished by offering no provocation to violence and simply allowing calm and unarmed crowds to be beaten by policemen who were expecting savages. By doing this, as is well known, Gandhi flipped the British imperial system on its back and forced everyone to confront its repellant underside. And to flip something big when you are small, you need a lever.
The challenge that faces you if you’re disgusted by the system we live in is not how to explain or justify your disgust, but instead how to force that system to reveal itself as rotten. A system of inequality has infected our society and made women less valuable than men. And I think that anyone who wants to kill this system ought to be racking their brains to find the levers that its destruction will require.
Because: a powerful machine with a great deal of momentum is all the more vulnerable, and liable to fly apart, when a wrench is thrown into it.
Anonymous asked: what do you think about jason segel playing dfw in a movie with jesse eisenberg?
If I wanted to design a personal hell for David Foster Wallace, I would
valdemarlethin asked: Is painting dead, and if so is capitalism to blame?
It would be easy to talk about ‘the death of painting’ in the sense that
but these are all easy answers.
Orozco (J.C., not Gabriel) has a line in his memoirs that’s something like,
Everything should be done against the grain and against the current. And if some moron advocates a solution that would do away with difficulties, we must crush him no matter what the cost, for civilization itself is at stake!
I think that’s basically right. Civilization or human progress or whatever you want to call it is not indexed by benefits, but by difficulties. This means that what we conventionally call ‘landmarks of development,’ like photography or higher education or modern medicine are in fact most valuable to us when we come to the edge of their power and are forced to confront the same old problems all over again.
Painting, dead or not, has a pretty spectacular batting average when it comes to depicting the fixed stars that shine down on all progress.
What are you?
What’s the difference between going to school and learning something?
You’re going to die, so what’s the point?
Anonymous asked: What is one afraid of?
Anonymous asked: I don't think I'm insightful enough to understand the things you say here. But I have a question. I'm scared about going abroad to get a masters because I'm afraid I'll end up alone by dedicating my 20s to study and career. It might sound shallow, but living a loveless life is no fucking joke. Is this a valid concern?
false distinction. what seems like two choices is only one prison with two ways in
either get off the treadmill or learn to live with the fact that you’re living only for yourself
Anonymous asked: where are you from??
One time I was in New York City with a friend. We went to the Bronx, up above Spuyten Duyvil to see someone who was housesitting.
It was about ten o’clock in the morning and the sky was low and dark gray. We arrived at the house, which was set into an odd-shaped lot. The lawn was mown and everything else was overgrown. There were bare trees whose trunks were wet. The house was a two story white-plank and didn’t have a front. We walked up to a sliding glass door on a brick pathway that had veins of moss living in the mortar.
The inside of the house didn’t have a plan. There was a long, unfinished wooden table with mismatched dining chairs. There was a wide-brimmed hanging lamp whose single bulb was quite close to the surface of the table. The gray light shone through the windows and met the yellow light from the lamp on a worn Persian carpet. The border between the two lights got lost in the pattern on the rug.
There were yellow and gray plank bookcases on every wall. They were filled with hundreds of books. The books had been in their cases for such a long time that they had taken on the soft colors that the room produced.
The three of us ate bagels, cream cheese, and smoked fish at the long table. The bagels weren’t sliced. We tore them up piece by piece, spreading the cream cheese and placing the fish on the ragged ends.
After we had eaten we got up and stood in front of the bookcases and tilted our heads to the right. We called out the titles of books we’d read and books we hadn’t. We asked if this book was any good. Sometimes we pulled out books that we had liked and read the first lines to each other.