sixpenceee
sixpenceee:

The spider catches the bee and the bee stings the spider. Both are dead, with the bee’s stinger still in the spider.  This is a great example showing why honey bees die after stinging something only once. Their stinger/venom sac are attached to other organs inside the bee, so when the stinger’s barbs lodge into something, everything gets pulled out, potentially including gut, etc and leaving a gaping hole in the bees abdomen. (From Here) 

sixpenceee:

The spider catches the bee and the bee stings the spider. Both are dead, with the bee’s stinger still in the spider.  This is a great example showing why honey bees die after stinging something only once. Their stinger/venom sac are attached to other organs inside the bee, so when the stinger’s barbs lodge into something, everything gets pulled out, potentially including gut, etc and leaving a gaping hole in the bees abdomen. (From Here) 

phobs-heh

littlelimpstiff14u2:

The Mystical World Of Mushrooms Captured In Photos

Most people consider mushrooms to be the small, ugly cousins of the plant kingdom, but theirs is  surprisingly beautiful and wonderful world waiting to be explored. These beautiful mushrooms, captured by enthusiastic nature photographers, are a far cry from the ones you find in the woods or your local grocery store.

Most mushrooms, as we know them, are actually just the reproductive structure of the fungus they belong to – their fungal networks expand far further underground, and some fungi don’t even sprout the sort of mushrooms that we’re used to seeing. In fact, depending on your definition of “organism,” the largest living organism in the world is a fungus – there’s a honey mushroom colony in Oregon that occupies about 2,000 acres of land! ( Bored Panda )

rhube

rhube:

MARINA SIRTIS: Well, you have to remember that we were shooting a show about the 24th century in the 20th century, so you have to bear that in mind. My thing was because to be honest, I don’t know about Gates’ experience with the producers, but I never got an acting note—ever. I would get a call from the producer, “Did you change your lipstick? Did you do something different with your hair?” For “The Boys” in the office it was all about how I look, I knew that from the get-go. So being that as I am very “woman’s libby” as we used to call it in my day, I wanted to portray that you could be an attractive woman and still be a strong person. So for me it was really important that there was someone in the position of power and authority and obviously respect who also cared about her appearance. Because that is me—that’s me, I care about my appearance, but I also care more about society, politics and the world, so I don’t think the two are exclusive, and that’s what I wanted to show.
GATES McFADDEN: Um, I just basically wanted to look good… Actually, as most of you probably know I got let go because I was a feminist. So, second season I wasn’t there because I disagreed with the writer, I felt he was writing the character of Crusher—I had said to him, “I raised this kid on my own; he might be obnoxious about it, but he has saved the ship about 6 times. And there has to be some of those genes that are Beverly Crushers, so why is it every time anything with any wisdom is said it’s a male character who talks to him.” And it’s only me that is only about the mother, which believe me mothering is like that’s number one, just love him—no problem with that. Because I thought that had not been really portrayed on a TV show. I have a son and we have whole other disconnect sometimes where it’s just talking about things, and it’s not to do with, “oh you’re a mom, and you’re my son.” Basically we disagreed, I was asked to you know, go, I certainly did it, and I wasn’t trying to be strident. I was used to working in theatre departments where everybody respected everybody and you basically did talk about things. You can talk about script things that didn’t mean you were going to get your way. It’s like what happens right now in rehearsals, I could be directing something and I can have four actors saying completely different things, and really arguing about it. I don’t take it personally, it’s like they’re arguing for their character—that makes sense to me. Anyway, I did just really want to look good but it didn’t work out.
Marina Sirtis & Gates McFadden, on doing a 24th Century show in the 20th Century, and the reason Gates was fired in the second season. (Spoiler Alert: the producer was then fired and Gates was asked to come back (fan letters et al.) [watch here]

I had NO IDEA this is why she went away. o_O

GOOD ON HER. I love her all the more.

rhube
masterprinter:

coelasquid:

comicsalliance:

WHY BIG SUPERHERO MUSCLES AREN’T ‘THE SAME THING’ AS SEXY CURVES
By Andrew Wheeler
As a man who reads superhero comics, I confess that I share a commonly-held prurient interest in big-chested, long-legged heroes in skin-baring costumes that barely cover their naughty bits — or as I like to call him, Namor.
Sadly, Namor is pretty much alone in his category. Contrary to the perception that male heroes in comics are frequently sexually objectified, it’s my experience that even Namor is only rarely presented as someone to lust over. Yet I’m fortunate that my tastes run towards the Hemsworth end of the scale. Like many straight men, I admire the kind of buff dudes that are the staple of superhero comics, even though they are rarely sexualized. If I shared the tastes of most of the women I know, I think I’d find superhero comics an even more frustratingly sexless wasteland.
Big muscles are a male fantasy. That’s not to say that women aren’t ever into them, but let’s face facts; women have never been the primary target audience for superhero comics, and male heroes are drawn with big muscles anyway. Make no mistake; women are there. But those big muscles are not there for women. They’re there for men; straight men who find male power exhilarating. If women didn’t exist, superheroes would be drawn just as buff as they are today — because as far as most superhero comics are concerned, women as consumers do not exist.
Yet I’ve seen it said more times than I can count that male heroes are objectified, sexualized, idealized, just the same as the women — because they’re big and ripped and dressed in tight costumes. It’s an idea that’s completely tied up in the narcissistic notion that androphile women are attracted to the same qualities that men find appealing.
Talk to a few women, and you’ll find that’s broadly untrue.
READ MORE

I realized at some point in a long history of being around guys who call every attractive dude they see “gay”, an unsettling number of straight dudes feel super uncomfortable around what is clearly supposed to be a sexually appealing man. Even if there’s a complete absence of evidence that he’s even gay at all and he’s completely minding his own business and not interacting with them in any way, it’s like if someone is attractive enough that this particular subsect of straight dudes are aware that he is desirable they freak out with insecurity at the fact that he’s handsome and they noticed.
Best example of it I can think of was this one time sitting in a restaurant with some friends and this group of dudes who looked like Russian models or something in white tank tops and jeans walked past us and sat down at a table on the other side of the room. There was kind of a moment of silence while they were passing, and as soon as they got out of earshot a lot of guffawing like “Ha ha they’re SO GAY am I right?” followed. And it was just like… Why? Because they’re so hot that your brain unwittingly acknowledged them as sexually appealing people? That sounds like a personal problem dude, I dunno. But that kind of behaviour is so normalized and so totally accepted in at least North American culture that companies will bend over backwards to accommodate these guys. I have no idea what market share “straight dudes who are super squicked out by sexy men” make up, but I can’t imagine they’re as much of a driving economic force as they’re given credit for.
So like… People can argue about the physiques being equally idealistic up and down the block, catering to that audience that freaks the fuck out out like they just saw a big gross bug when they see an attractive man presented in an alluring way are always going to push this false equivalency angle instead of acknowledging that if men in comics were on average actually as sexualized as women in comics regularly are, everything at your LCS would look like a Glen Hanson pinup



I may be okay with this hypothetical outcome, ‘cause, dang. 
(but yes, there’s definitely some homophobia going on here, and fear that they may themselves find it attractive and therefore… may be gay?! I also feel like a lot of men who’ve been presented as being attractive in the main stream media lately have been presented as attractive for the gay dude gaze, as opposed to necessarily the female? Might just be my own perception though, and I haven’t thought about it deeply)

masterprinter:

coelasquid:

comicsalliance:

WHY BIG SUPERHERO MUSCLES AREN’T ‘THE SAME THING’ AS SEXY CURVES

By Andrew Wheeler

As a man who reads superhero comics, I confess that I share a commonly-held prurient interest in big-chested, long-legged heroes in skin-baring costumes that barely cover their naughty bits — or as I like to call him, Namor.

Sadly, Namor is pretty much alone in his category. Contrary to the perception that male heroes in comics are frequently sexually objectified, it’s my experience that even Namor is only rarely presented as someone to lust over. Yet I’m fortunate that my tastes run towards the Hemsworth end of the scale. Like many straight men, I admire the kind of buff dudes that are the staple of superhero comics, even though they are rarely sexualized. If I shared the tastes of most of the women I know, I think I’d find superhero comics an even more frustratingly sexless wasteland.

Big muscles are a male fantasy. That’s not to say that women aren’t ever into them, but let’s face facts; women have never been the primary target audience for superhero comics, and male heroes are drawn with big muscles anyway. Make no mistake; women are there. But those big muscles are not there for women. They’re there for men; straight men who find male power exhilarating. If women didn’t exist, superheroes would be drawn just as buff as they are today — because as far as most superhero comics are concerned, women as consumers do not exist.

Yet I’ve seen it said more times than I can count that male heroes are objectified, sexualized, idealized, just the same as the women — because they’re big and ripped and dressed in tight costumes. It’s an idea that’s completely tied up in the narcissistic notion that androphile women are attracted to the same qualities that men find appealing.

Talk to a few women, and you’ll find that’s broadly untrue.

READ MORE

I realized at some point in a long history of being around guys who call every attractive dude they see “gay”, an unsettling number of straight dudes feel super uncomfortable around what is clearly supposed to be a sexually appealing man. Even if there’s a complete absence of evidence that he’s even gay at all and he’s completely minding his own business and not interacting with them in any way, it’s like if someone is attractive enough that this particular subsect of straight dudes are aware that he is desirable they freak out with insecurity at the fact that he’s handsome and they noticed.

Best example of it I can think of was this one time sitting in a restaurant with some friends and this group of dudes who looked like Russian models or something in white tank tops and jeans walked past us and sat down at a table on the other side of the room. There was kind of a moment of silence while they were passing, and as soon as they got out of earshot a lot of guffawing like “Ha ha they’re SO GAY am I right?” followed. And it was just like… Why? Because they’re so hot that your brain unwittingly acknowledged them as sexually appealing people? That sounds like a personal problem dude, I dunno. But that kind of behaviour is so normalized and so totally accepted in at least North American culture that companies will bend over backwards to accommodate these guys. I have no idea what market share “straight dudes who are super squicked out by sexy men” make up, but I can’t imagine they’re as much of a driving economic force as they’re given credit for.

So like… People can argue about the physiques being equally idealistic up and down the block, catering to that audience that freaks the fuck out out like they just saw a big gross bug when they see an attractive man presented in an alluring way are always going to push this false equivalency angle instead of acknowledging that if men in comics were on average actually as sexualized as women in comics regularly are, everything at your LCS would look like a Glen Hanson pinup

image

image

I may be okay with this hypothetical outcome, ‘cause, dang

(but yes, there’s definitely some homophobia going on here, and fear that they may themselves find it attractive and therefore… may be gay?! I also feel like a lot of men who’ve been presented as being attractive in the main stream media lately have been presented as attractive for the gay dude gaze, as opposed to necessarily the female? Might just be my own perception though, and I haven’t thought about it deeply)