whatshouldwecallme:

This is me.

whatshouldwecallme:

(Source: lmaogtfo)

Yep.

mightybitz:

What I Don’t Like About Pinterest

1) That after decades of force-fed third-party “thinspiration”, women are now perpetuating it via their own means, with their own Photoshop/tech skills, on their own time.

2) That it’s no longer enough to call out “the media” for perpetuating…

On Tuesday, I came across this New York Magazine article about the [my] generation, the one so taken with comedy that every awkward silence functions as both material and opportunity for a joke about the discomfort at hand. A friend had also just read the article, proposing that the merit of comedy was in its readily apparent authenticity. This is super smart. I also think it is the opposite of true.

Let me preface this by saying I don’t do comedy. My respect for those who do, particularly for those who improvise, is beyond massive and deeply ingrained. I go to a lot of shows. A lot. So many that it would be unfair to call me a comedy nerd but instead much more reasonable to call me a comedy hanger-onner. What began as a fascination in college has followed me to New York, where it has secured itself as a Chelsea-bound preoccupation. I have dated funny people, lived with funny people, worked and written with funny people and can say without exaggeration that I think humor is the highest art form because it’s the hardest. This is also why it’s the most ungenuine.

Comedy is avoidance. Putting yourself out there, revealing your most shameful secrets and perennial flaws to an audience of mostly strangers feels real. Really real. What could be more authentic than exposition, especially if its shaming? This is the pretense, conscious or otherwise, of the comedian. What is constructed to seem like an absolute truth is, in actuality, a buffer between it and the subject. In the theater of comedy, acting like yourself keeps you from yourself.

Sheer brilliance.

Legit.

worsethandetroit:

Off II / 2010 : Johan Rosenmunthe

“Through digital communication like Facebook, Twitter, online dating and personal websites, the representation of our personality becomes more and more streamlined. We have the possibility to project an idea of how we are as a person into the world around us, but with the constant option of censoring information and invent fictional characteristics. Never have we had access to so much information about each other, and never has the information been so unreliable. In this project I have downloaded pictures of ‘friends’ that I only know through the Internet, and given them a new context. The persons are only visible through a digital representation, while the surroundings are as analog as possible.”

me:  wait how will we stay for free in begas

 Matthew: lou begas’ apartment?

kelly lou is a friend but I have to say don’t get too hung up on him. he carouses with many women

me:  vegas jesus christ

Matthew:  Jessica, Monica, the list goes on

Sandra in the sun

me:  i want candy

Matthew:  that’s your second inadvertent early 2000’s pop hit reference of this gchat

Thanks, JA, for reminding me to nudge Kierkegaard back onto the reading list last night.

housingworksbookstore:

Ames pulled out letters he’d written to an Australian friend in 1990. He explained they’d bonded over their appreciation for German writer Thomas Mann and that Amesh had, for a time, imagined himself a “young gentleman” out of The Magic Mountain or Brideshead Revisited. “I couldn’t keep up with you and Thomas Mann and I thought you would find me lacking as an intellectual foil,” he read. “I felt embarrassed I wasn’t as interested in Mann and this made me insecure. I know this sounds ridiculous, but this is the truth.” (via Snail-mail celebration as Rumpus starts subscription service where readers get letters from notable authors | Capital New York)

Photo: Stephen Elliott by Dan Rosenblum

What backlash?!

newyorker:

In Defense of Liz Lemon

Well, I can’t get on board the hate train, especially after last week’s tour-de-force episode, in which Liz morphed from a crazy old subway lady (every New Yorker’s dream: she gets her way at every turn) into Heath Ledger’s Joker. Someone needs to speak up for the Lemon, and for the Fey. Because from the beginning Liz Lemon was pathetic. That was what was enthralling, and even revolutionary, about the character. Unlike some other adorkable or slutty-fabulous characters I could name, Liz only superficially resembled the protagonist of a romantic comedy, ready to remove her glasses and be loved. She was something way more interesting: a strange, specific, workaholic, NPR-worshipping, white-guilt-infected, sardonic, curmudgeonly, hyper-nerdy New Yorker. In the first episode, Jack nails her on sight as “a New York third-wave feminist, college-educated, single-and-pretending-to-be-happy-about-it, over-scheduled, undersexed, you buy any magazine that says ‘healthy body image’ on the cover and every two years you take up knitting for … a week.” Even Liz had to admit he scored a point.

- There’s been a backlash to “30 Rock” this season, particularly the character of Liz Lemon; which is why you should read the rest of Emily Nussbaum’s impassioned 1,700-word defense of her: http://nyr.kr/xDdxKc

Although (or especially because?) I am a pagan, I am abstaining from alcohol this Lenten season. Here are some initial responses from my best friends:

• “ ಠ__ಠ  ”
• “im against this. btw.”
• “you’re the worst. is this related to your iphoneless weekend? I’m pretty sure you’re not supposed to benefit from the thing you give up for Lent. Like… I’m giving up skipping dinner to eat candy and not doing my job. That’s not for jesus. Give up toilet paper. That’s for jesus.”
• “didnt jesus drink wine?”
• “well, call me for the lent-breaking bender!”
• “the worst idea ever.”
• “WHY WOULD YOU DO THAT?!”

Thanks to all for your continued love and support.

Lemme see!

riverheadbooks:

We’re going to work on building the second one of these libraries in our publicity director Jynne’s office. Come by 375 Hudson if you want to help with construction and thanks Flavorwire for the terrific post!

Rahzel & String Section + Das Racist, Carnegie Hall

If you haven’t read this Atlantic article on the “eternal truths” the rapid growth of the porn industry reveals about men and women, don’t. Natasha Vargas-Cooper (I think) intends to reject or at least rewrite the dead horse “porn is bad for women’s sexuality” narrative. This in itself is admirable. She reveals herself as comfortable with and liberal about her own sexuality. Also admirable. What is not admirable is Ms. V-C’s treatment of heteronormativity. The concepts of masculinity and femininity can and should be applied wherever fitting without regard to gender. What the author of this piece fails to do is disassociate her perception of masculinity from men. A sampling:

p. 2 “Consuming Internet porn, then, mimics many of the sensations found in sex. It’s overpowering and immediate; it is the brute force of male sexuality, unmasked and untethered.”

p. 2 “Yes, it’s a natural, human function, and one from which both partners can derive enormous pleasure, but it is also one largely driven by brute male desire and therefore not at all free of violent, even cruel, urges.”

p. 3 “And it’s largely a grim parade of what women will do to satisfy men.”

Each of these statements assumes an inherent male sexual aggression that women are forced to react to since they can’t counter it with their own, which apparently doesn’t exist. The latter point, though, enrages me to most. What gives the author license to assume that what she perceives as debasing is done purely for the male participant onscreen and the male viewer offscreen? Had she done her research, she would have come across a number of recent studies proving that female sexuality is in fact more fluid and more heavily influenced by self-arousal than male sexuality. Vargas-Cooper’s incredibly narrow view of human sexuality also does a great job of excluding any non-heternormative and especially intersex readers. Which is too bad because how many of us are truly heternormative?

The general point is valid, certainly: “But equality in sex can’t be achieved. Internet porn exposes that reality.” The notion that this is something to bemoan, rather than embrace and explore is so, so wrong. The most redeeming aspect of this essay is a nonchalant use of the word “bethonged,” and for this I applaud you, Natasha Vargas-Cooper.

This is gorgeous.

awesomepeoplehangingouttogether:

 Johnny Carson and James Brown

Dreamboat.

brokelyn:

Who are you sending an extra crafty, DIY Brokelyn Valentine to this year? 

“Wyatt Cenac. So devestatingly well-proportioned. Also a talented comedian”.

- Kelly Murphy

(Tip for dudes: Make her laugh.)

image [via]

meganamram:

For a holiday invented by Mary Todd Lincoln and a yellow M&M according to this Wikipedia page on “Valentine’s Day” I just wrote, Valentine’s Day sure can be a drag. It just makes you feel so alone if you’re not lucky enough to have a significant other or committed conjoined twin (I only have a…

Cheapskate swag.

brokelyn:

Two Brokelyn scoops on one New York Magazine page!

1. Bed Stuy salon offers free cuts to job seekers and 2. Kelly’s review of her n+1 personals date.

Get at me, print media!

brokelyn:

Welcome to Brokelandia: Episode 1: Did You Eat It?