elusify

[elusify]

💖 ctto. (at Tayabas, Quezon)

[elusify]

Sometimes, I think we get lost: lost in our thoughts, lost in love, lost in life. And we spend our entire lives just trying to find ourselves again, to find that person who we once were or that person we want to be. Some people, they find themselves fast, they find out who they want to be, what kind of people they like, whether they like their coffee black and their tea strong. Others, they take their time, and it may take them years to perfect how they tie their shoelaces, find out how they prefer their coffee, what smells are soothing, and what sounds agitate them. And some of us, we never find ourselves, we stumble over a little of everything, we’re clumsy and indecisive, trying to figure out whether we like blue over black, cheesecake over pie, tea over coffee, or even if it’s a little of both. We struggle to establish who we are in a world full of strong opinions, and instead of finding ourselves, we just get lost inside a sea of personalities and opinions and views that are not our own.

a diary of a thousand insecurities (via elusify)

[elusify]

I’m going on a date with my boyfriend for V-Day! Help me pick a outfit:

Dresses

One 

Two

Three

Shoes

One

Two

Three

[elusify]

i wonder if magic is real, but only in a really mundane way.

when i was little i could almost inerringly switch back to disney channel right as the ads ended when i was channel surfing.

maybe youve never accidentally crushed a ladybug underfoot. maybe your microwave popcorn never burns. maybe you can spin around lots and lots of times before you get dizzy.

is that magic??

honestly im not sure if these are magic or just small, invisible skills. im not sure which i like better.

[elusify]

Future is Female Tee

White Elephant Print Tee

[elusify]

Mädchen in Natur 

English:

Girls in Nature

Flowers and girls are synonymous. Everyone thinks we are dainty and beautiful things to look at, but we are not. Flowers endure downpours and droughts, frigid and searing temperatures, soil depleted of needed nutrition and neglectful caretakers. Women endure desecration of their existence either maiming themselves or allowing others to maim them to force them into fitting the aforementioned non-confrontational beauty ideal society has for them. Naturally, the harshness of the world has an adverse effect on both. The flower’s petals tear and fall to the ground and the stems from the plants that hold them lose their strength. Then, they become shriveled and droopy shells of something that once was. Women are painted, cut, impregnated, silenced and disheartened on every corner of this earth in one way or another. Any attempt to rebel is met with grave consequences, but yet signs of their internal struggle break through the façade either they created or what was created for them.

Through the digital darkroom I combine film photographs to illustrate the narrative of flowers and women being intertwined. They are put on top of each other and they are blended into each other to reflect their relationship. The model is painted with makeup, but she is not passive or serving as delicate beauty for the viewer. Instead, she tells them that she is fading away and that she is not leaving without you remembering her existence.

I wrote this at 1am with my brain on death row. English is not easy to write in for an academic setting when it’s your third language, but I still managed to write a decent artist statement to prove to my photography teacher who never seemed to like a damn thing I created for his stupid class.

[elusify]

[elusify]

[elusify]

[elusify]

[elusify]

I want to know your coffee order and your favorite shops. I want to know your favorite month and why. I want you to tell me about the books that changed you and the music that kept you alive. I want to know which side of the bed you like best. I want to know the lines of poems that give you chills and which shade of the sky makes you feel at peace. I want to know the people and places you call home. I want to know if you like the crust on your sandwiches. I want to know if you pour too much sugar in your tea. I want to know if you feel the same way about me.

[elusify]

Click here for more

[elusify]

Someone who has been emotionally abused will:

• Constantly apologize • Hide their feelings in fear of upsetting you • Break down during small disagreements thinking it will explode • Need a lot of reassurance Please be patient, we are trying.

[elusify]

[elusify]

ok here’s what happened because i’m seeing misleading posts:

what happened? 

tonight (4/6) the united states navy launched 59 tomahawk missiles from the mediterranean at a syrian air base. the strike was approved by trump, but was not approved by congress (we don’t know whether or not congress was notified prior to the strike or not). 

the us launched this strike as a response to syrian president assad’s chemical warfare on his own people that killed approx 70. the strike was aimed at the air base we believe carried out the chemical warfare. so far, no casualties are reported. in 2013, a similar chemical attack happened. i believe approx 1400 died then and syria was forced to hand over its chemical weapons, though obviously they didn’t hand over all of them. 

it is also important to note that in 2013 obama asked congress to approve a similar strike, but congress ignored him. this week, hillary condoned such a strike. the strike is being described by military experts as a “proportional response.” 

what does this mean?

the strike is intended to show us power on the world stage and to further force assad from attacking his own people. 

with concern about russia–assad’s closest ally–it is notable that the russian military was given advanced notice of the strike and it doesn’t appear that any russians were killed. the death of russians, obviously, would have other implications due to our precarious relationship with them atm. 

the strike could potentially put american troops in danger of syrian military retaliation. 

we don’t know if further strikes will ensue. i wouldn’t necessarily bet on it, but it’s possible.

is this constitutional? 

not sure. the legal situation is unsure. usually, a president would go through congress for this, but if the administration can spin it to say that they were concerned abt the welfare of american troops, it could be constitutional. as i’ve said, though this sounds like a huge deal, it’s actually the most minor proportional response to assad, according to experts.

democrats are already voicing concern about trump and the administration’s flip on syria (earlier this week, trump said it was up to the syrian people if assad remains president and he has a history of tweeting that he wouldn’t interfere in syria while obama was president).

also:

it’s notable that michael flynn was replaced by mccaster as national security advisor and steve bannon no longer holds a position on the national security council.

it’s also extremely that important that while the trump admin says it won’t tolerate assad’s abuse of his people, he also doesn’t want to let refugees in.

here’s a washington post article on the strike: [x]

here’s some places to help syria out: doctors w/o borders and SAMS

all of this is intended to clarify the situation without personal opinions attached

updated on 4/7 at 12:15AM

[elusify]

ok here’s what happened because i’m seeing misleading posts:

what happened? 

tonight (4/6) the united states navy launched 59 tomahawk missiles from the mediterranean at a syrian air base. the strike was approved by trump, but was not approved by congress (we don’t know whether or not congress was notified prior to the strike or not). 

the us launched this strike as a response to syrian president assad’s chemical warfare on his own people that killed approx 70. the strike was aimed at the air base we believe carried out the chemical warfare. so far, no casualties are reported. in 2013, a similar chemical attack happened. i believe approx 1400 died then and syria was forced to hand over its chemical weapons, though obviously they didn’t hand over all of them. 

it is also important to note that in 2013 obama asked congress to approve a similar strike, but congress ignored him. this week, hillary condoned such a strike. the strike is being described by military experts as a “proportional response.” 

what does this mean?

the strike is intended to show us power on the world stage and to further force assad from attacking his own people. 

with concern about russia–assad’s closest ally–it is notable that the russian military was given advanced notice of the strike and it doesn’t appear that any russians were killed. the death of russians, obviously, would have other implications due to our precarious relationship with them atm. 

the strike could potentially put american troops in danger of syrian military retaliation. 

we don’t know if further strikes will ensue. i wouldn’t necessarily bet on it, but it’s possible.

is this constitutional? 

not sure. the legal situation is unsure. usually, a president would go through congress for this, but if the administration can spin it to say that they were concerned abt the welfare of american troops, it could be constitutional. as i’ve said, though this sounds like a huge deal, it’s actually the most minor proportional response to assad, according to experts.

democrats are already voicing concern about trump and the administration’s flip on syria (earlier this week, trump said it was up to the syrian people if assad remains president and he has a history of tweeting that he wouldn’t interfere in syria while obama was president).

also:

it’s notable that michael flynn was replaced by mccaster as national security advisor and steve bannon no longer holds a position on the national security council.

it’s also extremely that important that while the trump admin says it won’t tolerate assad’s abuse of his people, he also doesn’t want to let refugees in.

here’s a washington post article on the strike: [x]

here’s some places to help syria out: doctors w/o borders and SAMS

all of this is intended to clarify the situation without personal opinions attached

updated on 4/7 at 12:15AM

[elusify]

ok here’s what happened because i’m seeing misleading posts:

what happened? 

tonight (4/6) the united states navy launched 59 tomahawk missiles from the mediterranean at a syrian air base. the strike was approved by trump, but was not approved by congress (we don’t know whether or not congress was notified prior to the strike or not). 

the us launched this strike as a response to syrian president assad’s chemical warfare on his own people that killed approx 70. the strike was aimed at the air base we believe carried out the chemical warfare. so far, no casualties are reported. in 2013, a similar chemical attack happened. i believe approx 1400 died then and syria was forced to hand over its chemical weapons, though obviously they didn’t hand over all of them. 

it is also important to note that in 2013 obama asked congress to approve a similar strike, but congress ignored him. this week, hillary condoned such a strike. the strike is being described by military experts as a “proportional response.” 

what does this mean?

the strike is intended to show us power on the world stage and to further force assad from attacking his own people. 

with concern about russia–assad’s closest ally–it is notable that the russian military was given advanced notice of the strike and it doesn’t appear that any russians were killed. the death of russians, obviously, would have other implications due to our precarious relationship with them atm. 

the strike could potentially put american troops in danger of syrian military retaliation. 

we don’t know if further strikes will ensue. i wouldn’t necessarily bet on it, but it’s possible.

is this constitutional? 

not sure. the legal situation is unsure. usually, a president would go through congress for this, but if the administration can spin it to say that they were concerned abt the welfare of american troops, it could be constitutional. as i’ve said, though this sounds like a huge deal, it’s actually the most minor proportional response to assad, according to experts.

democrats are already voicing concern about trump and the administration’s flip on syria (earlier this week, trump said it was up to the syrian people if assad remains president and he has a history of tweeting that he wouldn’t interfere in syria while obama was president).

also:

it’s notable that michael flynn was replaced by mccaster as national security advisor and steve bannon no longer holds a position on the national security council.

it’s also extremely that important that while the trump admin says it won’t tolerate assad’s abuse of his people, he also doesn’t want to let refugees in.

here’s a washington post article on the strike: [x]

here’s some places to help syria out: doctors w/o borders and SAMS

all of this is intended to clarify the situation without personal opinions attached

updated on 4/7 at 12:15AM