I’ve said this before and I’ll point it out again -

Menstruation is caused by change in hormonal levels to stop the creation of a uterine lining and encourage the body to flush the lining out. The body does this by lowering estrogen levels and raising testosterone.

Or, to put it more plainly “That time of the month” is when female hormones most closely resemble male hormones. So if (cis) women aren’t suited to office at “That time of the month” then (cis) men are NEVER suited to office.

If you are a dude and don’t dig the ladies around you at their time of the month, just think! That is you all of the time.

And, on a final note, post-menopausal (cis) women are the most hormonally stable of all human demographics. They have fewer hormonal fluctuations of anyone, meaning older women like Hilary Clinton and Elizabeth Warren would theoretically be among the least likely candidates to make an irrational decision due to hormonal fluctuations, and if we were basing our leadership decisions on hormone levels, then only women over fifty should ever be allowed to hold office.

timemachineyeah (via ask-pauli-amorous)

Anonymous asked:

Just an FYI - not all homosexuals support "gay marriage" either. Why should we want to be part of a religious ceremony that has been used against us for so long? I'm fine just committing to my partner without all the bullshit paperwork and legal garbage that goes with a ceremony. Get all marriage out of law, and leave it as a religious thing, imo. That's not homophobic, it's disagreement with the principal of marriage at all.



it’s 2014 can we please stop acting like marriage is strictly a religious thing bc it isn’t anymore and u still have to go through bullshit paperwork if you want to be married under the law anyway that post/ask was about actual people not wanting same gender couples to be able to have the same rights and liberties as straight people like do you honestly think bible bashing homophobes would drop the subject if we stopped calling it marriage all together bc they wouldn’t they would just try and find another way to fuck with us

this isn’t about goddamn terminology this is about real people wanting same gender couples to suffer because of who they are

I’ve heard a similar argument before from a queer person ( or I believe they were queer; they wouldn’t give me a totally straight answer, no pun intended ). They claimed they didn’t want to “imitate” straight couples, so they weren’t interested in gay marriage, preferring civil unions. It was a new one on me.

Both that argument and the one nonny provided have a major flaw ( well, many flaws, but primarily— ): They’re trying to push their preference on their fellow same-gender-loving folks. There are, in fact, religious queer people who are just as invested in the idea of one day having that grand, religious wedding, maybe on a beach, and, for some, in the church their parents wed. Personally, I don’t like the ban in itself. I have no interest in ever marrying, unless my future-likely-strong-willed girlfriend has her way, but I am not okay with being denied the same rights —and ‘civil union’ is not the same. It’s a constellation prize of a category.


I think the biggest problem people have with you claiming how good you look is that they think you’re claiming it in comparison to them. people don’t realize you can coexist and look good as hell without competing with the person next to you….so anyways point is I look so fucking good