Hey John Lennon

Aug 31

(Source: pleasanttrees, via jessicaannedavis)




When we live in a world where you can access free content of naked consenting women in less than 5 seconds, why are people still invading the privacy of non-consenting women for nudes?

Hint: It has something to do with people feeling entitled to making any woman their personal porn, even if it violates or humiliates her in the process.

(via hermionejg)


A Proposed General Rule about Pictures of Naked People



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.

Seemed a good day to reblog this.

(via inturretandtree)




Anonymous said: What do you think about the recent posts by social justice bloggers trying to demystify John Lennon and them calling him sexist,wife beater,racist,ableist, and a hypocrite for preaching peace and love but not being the ideal father to Julian? I'd like to know your opinion because you're usually a very objective person. Us Beatles fans surely know he was not an angle, but where do you draw the line between morality and artistic appreciation/admiration?


I don’t think that he was a very good person while in his twenties. He wasn’t a good husband or father at all. But I think it’s important that we look at him in historical context, because typically, a working-class young man from a broken home in post-war Britain would not have the education or the enlightenment that we as people in the internet age have. That doesn’t excuse his actions, but it does explain them.

He started to become a better person after he met Yoko and I think she taught him a lot about respecting women and being less of a shitty asshole (but he still wasn’t a perfect person though and did some rotten things).

In the end, it’s only up to his partners (Cynthia, Yoko, May Pang), and his children (Julian and Sean) to decide what kind of husband and father he was. I would advise anybody who isn’t in the Beatles fandom to read their books/social media accounts instead of putting words in their mouths and defining their relationships with John for them.