MEOW

Wut.

733 notes

You know, if there was, in fact, reputable scientific evidence that rape is “natural”, ie, it is an evolutionarily developed trait that confers an advantage, the correct solution is not to put the burden on women to protect themselves… we have plenty of natural solutions for animals that can’t control themselves. We made wolves into docile pet dogs by killing all the ones who were aggressive against humans, and we’re still doing it.
I can easily believe that rape could confer enough of an evolutionary advantage that some men would have a predisposition to commit it. Forced sex exists in nature; for instance, up to 53% of duck copulations may be forced on the female by the male. But only in the world where men are the default human, and all men have inalienable human rights, and women are just an afterthought, could this “fact” (if it is in fact true) be interpreted to suggest the solution “women should avoid sexual displays around men.” If women are the ones with the inalienable human rights and men are understood to be violating those rights when they rape, and rapists are perceived to be genetically predisposed predators who “cannot help themselves”, they would have to be killed, or at least sterilized and imprisoned for life, their children (if they had any) monitored carefully for any tendencies to rape and punished just as harshly as their fathers were. Because we would see the “natural” tendency as something that has to be bred out of the human population, and therefore rapists could not be permitted to remain in the gene pool.
The implications of the idea that “rape is natural” are staggering and awful, all right, but in a world where women were actually seen as human beings, they would be staggering and awful for *men*. Men could be legally presumed to be potential rapists until proven otherwise, the way dogs are legally presumed to be dangerous animals unless under the control of a human. Men might suffer from curfews or restrictions on how many men they can be gathered with at any time or other such terrible violations of their civil liberties. Only in a construction of reality where men, like all humans, are in control of their own actions and cannot be absolved of responsibility for any crime on the grounds that they can’t help themselves, can men be granted basic human rights.
These researchers are so deep into a patriarchal, only-men-count paradigm that they don’t even *see* how men being biological predators would have to change how women treat them. Humans do not avoid predators, we *kill* them. We take the territories we want and we displace any creature that preys on humans. The logic of “men are hardwired to prey on women” results in “men, unlike women, are not rational actors who can be trusted to respect other humans’ bodies, and therefore, men must be controlled”… except in patriarchal clown logic, where the rules that humans apply to every other predator on the planet don’t apply to men because men are human and women aren’t.

comment by Alara Rogers on yesmeansyesblog’s article ‘Against Nature’. (via official-mens-frights-activist)

omg

(via fake-it-real)

(Source: misandry-mermaid, via fake-it-real)

Filed under rape rape culture rape tw patriarchy

22,190 notes

A Proposed General Rule about Pictures of Naked People

fishingboatproceeds:

I mean, I’m not saying that we can enforce this as law or anything. I also might be wrong about this. But:

Just as a general rule, I feel like we should not look at pictures of the breasts or genitalia of people who would rather we not look at pictures of their breasts or genitalia.

As a corollary to that general rule, I would add that I don’t see anything wrong with looking at pictures of breasts or genitalia of people who have invited us to do so. There seem to be plenty such pictures for us to get a reasonably good grasp of, like, the diversity of unclothed human anatomy without having to look at people who wish we wouldn’t.

This seems pretty straightforward to me. Yes, the photographer(s) who photographed Kate Middleton’s grainy distant breasts were violating her privacy. But so do people who choose to look at those pictures.

So maybe we can just agree not to? And this goes not only for princesses, I would argue, but also for people who send things to their romantic partners, who turn out to be jerks and release those photos publicly. Or people whose phones are hacked. etc.

In this world where most every curiosity can be satiated, it seems to me genuinely heroic to resist the urge to look at everything that can be seen, and instead to respect the wishes of those who feel violated or hurt by the availability of images they wish were private.