No... This is wrong.
No... This is wrong.
so-ende:

ウルトラジャンプ 2014年 05月号 表紙 Cover: Ultra Jump May 2014 (842x1200)

so-ende:

ウルトラジャンプ 2014年 05月号 表紙
Cover: Ultra Jump May 2014 (842x1200)

venusaurphobia:

Being a Christian doesn’t mean you have to be anti-science. I do believe in The Big Bang Theory, I just don’t think it’s funny or deserves six seasons.

aruberutoo:

The EEVEE Journey!


devon aoki for self service #31 f/w 09-10, ph. by max farago

devon aoki for self service #31 f/w 09-10, ph. by max farago

Coffee and Cigarettes (2003)


Bedouins by John Singer Sargent, watercolour, c. 1905–1906.

Bedouins by John Singer Sargent, watercolour, c. 1905–1906.

funnyanimeshit:

Some creative anime fansubs 

If we’re still conflating harassment with attraction, then the point has not been made clear enough: harassment is about power, not about sex. When making lewd comments to a woman he doesn’t know on the street, a man is not flirting. He’s asserting his dominance. He’s reminding that woman of her “place.” He’s performing a masculinity based on control. This isn’t sexual liberation.

the more i learn about rape culture, and especially pornography, the more disgusted i get with kinks i used to be interested in because i now understand that by allowing a partner to humiliate and dominate me in a bdsm setting, even with the liberal definition of consent, i am enabling a behavior that is a reflection of how our society views sexual violence

it’s not about just fucking someone it’s about hurting, humiliating, and putting them beneath you and those attitudes aren’t inherent to us they are ingrained in us and i personally can’t turn a blind eye to that anymore

tanacetum-vulgare:

idiottbaby:

thestolencaryatid:

All the talk about consent in u.s. feminist discourse should be discarded altogether and replaced with a more fruitful term that takes institutions customs people situations into account; ‘consent’ is literally the most fragile inadequate vacant concept because a) it’s Kantian in a way that is not salvageable, the concept presupposes that there is an act one assents to and that the assent or agreement is what determines the legitimacy of the act - this carries social contract baggage about individuals entering into an agreement about some relation or other they are about to /but have not yet/ create(d). Does no one see how outdated and wrong this is. People can consent to whatever the hell they want - they can consent to exploitation that’s what the whole point of ‘free labor’ is and like wow sorry to bring up Marx but remember how in one sphere of society, I.e. the market - the surface area, workers and bosses seem to be entering an agreement, but in another sphere, production (as well as social reproduction for women) there is exploitation at its barest form? Why is there exploitation (not *what* is exploitation but *why* does it happen)? Because people aren’t encountering society as atomized subjects making choices there are also property relations and someone who owns capital has the power to create terms of agreement that you appear to be consenting to. You are consenting yes because you either work or starve. Why is patriarchy any different? Why is market logic permeating all of your feminisms? Rape isn’t about consent it is about access to bodies and power over these bodies and this oppressive phenomenon happens to be gendered as well as many other things

God I’m so sick of garbage feminism

Someone should put this into simple terms so I can understand it better maybe I’m dumb idk

OK I’ll take this on. You’re not dumb, you just aren’t familiar with the concepts being used here yet. There are some big steps to work through so let’s see if I can manage it…  

The concept of consent depends on a few basic assumptions that are pretty questionable. It begins with a certain understanding of what individuals are, and how they enter into relationships with one another and the world around them. It assumes that relationships between individuals are based on something called the “social contract.” The idea of the social contract presumes that individual subjects are completely free agents who agree to certain rules of conduct for the sake of mutual benefit, and it assumes that what an individual subject desires is completely transparent to themselves, that individual desires unproblematically “belong” to the individual, and doesn’t account for how desires are actually formed in relation to history and to other people. There are at least two key problems with this way of understanding the relationship between individuals and others:

1.) It doesn’t take into account that subjectivity and individual desires are actually formed through relationships, through pre-existing realities that they could never have consented to. 

2.) It presumes that individuals are fundamentally driven by calculating self-interest, and that we enter into the social contract consensually because it maximizes potential well-being, wealth, and security. 

To make a long story short, these assumptions are the basis of the liberal capitalist worldview. The OP is arguing that this way of understanding relationships completely misses the mark. We can all “consent” to just about anything, but that doesn’t account for where desires come from and how they’re formed. By uncritically adopting this framework, feminists reproduce capitalist social relationships instead of challenging them.

Feminism that uncritically adopts liberal capitalist understandings of the basis of social relationships doesn’t far enough in terms of understanding or challenging the basis of gendered oppression. It perpetuates it. Oppression is “structural,” it’s built into the fabric of existing social relationships, so if we uncritically adopt the basic framework for explaining and navigating relationships we just prop up the very structure of gendered oppression. If we want to challenge structures of oppression we need a more incisive understanding of the relationship between individuals, and the formation of subjectivity. Consent isn’t good enough. Of course that doesn’t mean we should just throw it out the window (no still means no,) but it’s just not the golden ticket to developing non-oppressive relationships. We have to go deeper than that.