Emily Nagoski.  (via rapeisnotajoke)

This applies to anyone, regardless of gender. 

(via vivalafaerie)

I…always have a problem with this line of thinking, actually. It’s not that I think it’s wrong. It’s absolutely true that a woman should be able to walk home at 4 in the morning blind drunk wearing only socks and not get assaulted. It’s absolutely true that her assault is not her fault for not adequately protecting herself, or for any reason at all. It’s absolutely true that the whole of the male sex is not a dick-driven maniac who can’t help but rape a woman.

However. However however. We cannot view assault as being only about principles and gender politics and sexism, these lofty concepts that we can think about right now, from the safety of sobriety and privacy behind our computer screens. It’s not about Mankind and Womankind, it’s about men and women who are real people, who are assaulted not by Mankind or Male Privilege, but by people who have the capacity to rape (who yes, may have been influenced by Mankind/Male Privilege, but you know most men are influenced by that, and they AREN’T rapists, so I think there is something else alongside cultural programming that causes rapists to rape). I think it is dangerous to not advise women on what to do if approached by someone who has the intent to rape them, with the belief that women SHOULDN’T be raped and that by advising them on escape strategies you are somehow putting the onus on them not to be raped. That’d be like saying that since people shouldn’t drive drunk, no one should wear a seat belt, and by telling someone to wear a seatbelt you would be blaming them for dying if they were T-boned by a speeding alcoholic while not wearing one. Or that because people shouldn’t commit arson, fire escapes shouldn’t be installed in buildings, and to suggest otherwise would be to blame the people who are burnt to death for being burnt to death.

The onus and blame falls on the perpetrator no matter what happens but I am still going to tell my children to use the buddy system and not leave their drink unattended and not go into sketchy areas at night (and to wear seatbelts). Because as much as I would like to think no one is capable of hurting my children or wants to hurt them, there are sick bastards out there who haven’t been caught and if my kids can avoid or outsmart or overpower them, I would rather that REAL PEOPLE be able to do that, then talk about how Womankind shouldn’t need to use safety measures. It’s absolutely true that she shouldn’t, and it is beyond absolutely true that whether she is a black belt in three different forms of martial arts or can’t lift two pens to save her life she is not to be blamed for being assaulted, but that doesn’t mean that rapes won’t happen even if we achieve legal and cultural gender equality, and it doesn’t mean that it isn’t a good idea to teach people how to protect themselves in the hopes that if it does happen to them, they might escape a traumatizing experience.

I think the problem here is that people believe that giving someone a semblance of control over their situation transfers all responsibility to them. That’s why people victim-blame if the victim was drunk or wore revealing clothing or was flirting with the attacker (because drinking and wardrobe and flirting are all controllable activities), and why other people don’t think it’s right to teach women how to protect themselves (because of reasons outlined above). None of that is true. The responsibility for an event always falls to the active party, in this case the assaulter. Escaping or avoiding assault is not a woman’s responsibility, it’s a way she can avoid pain if her exact, personal, real-time circumstances allow for her to pull it off. The same way wearing a seat belt is a way to avoid death if struck by a drunk driver, the same way a fire escape is a way to avoid death if someone sets your apartment on fire.