Canada exports SlutWalks to the US

Yorick said:
Ignoring for a moment the concept of absolute right and wrong, an invitation to do it makes it more likely. A robber is checking out this neighborhood for potential targets. This guy comes home, all in a rush because he forgot his keys, and pulls out his hide-a-key from under the potted plant in front of his house. The robber sees him do this, and knows there is a key kept there now. Do you really not think that there's going to be even more incentive now?
Click to expand...

the most telling point is the fact that a burglar who's caught cant use the defense of "well the door was open"

incentive could be simply the fact that they're women like the cases I posted where it's a senior citizen being raped by a teenager. rape isnt about sex it's about control and exerting power over someone else. to simply write it off as "they cant control their urges because hey sluts" implies it's out of their control with is BS because so many of us can walk around life without raping people willy nilly
 
I think the main issue here is that the officer and the people who do this are placing the majority of the responsibility on the shoulders of the victim.

"Well, people are going to rape... that's what those guys do. That's why it's the woman's fault for enticing the rapists to do what they do best. Shame on that woman for dressing so provocatively."

Instead of an outlash against the rapists, it's an outlash against the women. Complete complacency about the rapists... "they're there, they're going to do what they do, especially if you provoke them... so don't provoke them or it's your fault completely, because you already know the nature of rapists!"

"Oh, your house got robbed? Well you know robbers exist... you shouldn't have made yours the most appealing one on the block... shouldn't have filled it with such nice stuff. You know the nature of robbers, and you only offered them enticement."
 
DROP THE GUISE, YORICK. WE KNOW WHAT'S UP.

btw me and some pals are gonna go out and round up some whores to cornhole in a non-consensual fashion. Drop me a text if you need a pickup.

Raziaar said:
"Well, people are going to rape... that's what those guys do. That's why it's the woman's fault for enticing the rapists to do what they do best. Shame on that woman for dressing so provocatively."
Click to expand...

Point me to where this was said.

I understand that some of this dialogue can sound like pushing the blame onto the victim (although only if you're stretching IMO). But if you read carefully, that's not what's being said. As for the officer, I'm only going off of what was quoted in the article. If he actually said something to that effect, then shame on him. But all I see is a statement that's been misconstrued. Maybe he could have expressed it differently since simply using the word "slut" likely attracted a lot of the heat. But even if his statement was retarded, the returning argument that him and others are giving a pass on rape or - as one dimwit in a photo argued - that men need to be told that rape isn't okay, is ****ing disingenuous and insulting.

"Exercise caution" is not code for siding with rapists.
 
Raziaar said:
I think the main issue here is that the officer and the people who do this are placing the majority of the responsibility on the shoulders of the victim.

"Well, people are going to rape... that's what those guys do. That's why it's the woman's fault for enticing the rapists to do what they do best. Shame on that woman for dressing so provocatively."

Instead of an outlash against the rapists, it's an outlash against the women. Complete complacency about the rapists... "they're there, they're going to do what they do, especially if you provoke them... so don't provoke them or it's your fault completely, because you already know the nature of rapists!"

"Oh, your house got robbed? Well you know robbers exist... you shouldn't have made yours the most appealing one on the block... shouldn't have filled it with such nice stuff. You know the nature of robbers, and you only offered them enticement."
Click to expand...

No, see, you're missing the point completely. It's about protection, and a large part of that is being aware. If you have nice stuff, maybe you should have a security system. If you don't want to be raped/mugged/whatever, maybe you should know how to defend yourself.
 
Stylo said:
I think he's referring to the ones that go around in practically nothing and act like total whores while they're out. I mean, I kinda see his point, these types of women pretty much objectify themselves.
Click to expand...

And in the process perpetuate female objectification.

Plain truth of the matter is women are subjugated through peer pressure as to personal appearance, far more so than men. It's a terrible thing, but it is a reality. If a woman dresses like a porn star audition she is unfortunately going to be viewed as one by men, and there in lies the problem. Now, sure rape is always ultimately the act of the aggressor, but at the same time if you choose to put yourself on display in a provocative manner you will unfortunately attract (unwanted) attention.

I don't think the police officers advice was necessarily wrong, just not well worded.

@Viperidae

+1 for Dave Chapelle
 
Yorick said:
No, see, you're missing the point completely. It's about protection, and a large part of that is being aware. If you have nice stuff, maybe you should have a security system. If you don't want to be raped/mugged/whatever, maybe you should know how to defend yourself.
Click to expand...

Being raped/mugged whatever does NOT depend on dressing provocatively or having money. Unkempt, ugly women and old women get raped as well. Those women don't dress provocatively... they're just women. Maybe to protect themselves they should have a reconsideration of their gender. Oh, so your argument then is just that they should act wisely by not putting themselves in jeopardy by being in bad parts of town? Fair enough but it completely has nothing to do with dressing provocatively. And what about those women who are raped in public areas that would normally be considered safe? It happens, it happens ALL THE TIME. Their fault for not protecting themselves?

Also, people without money get mugged. "If you don't want to lose your money, don't take it with you or you're just offering enticement to a mugger. Oh what's that? You instead chose to not carry any money at all and you got punished with abuse or even death because you didn't carry any or not enough money? Well maybe you should have carried some mugger cash instead."

People with visible wealth get targeted. They get mugged. People without any visible wealth get targeted as well. And of course they get mugged as well... and sometimes, they even get murdered for not having enough money and is seen as an insult to the muggers. That happened last year to a newspaper delivery man the same time I was delivering newspapers. Completely his fault right? Putting himself in a dangerous situation... early morning delivering newspapers... and not carrying cash.
 
Viper, you can join my rape club too. And then after we take the town we can make VSnares-style hardcore tracks with names like "Slut **** Had It Coming" and "Whore-Invading Mutant Penis Obelisk" about our adventures.
 
Viperidae said:
No one here said it did. Stop shoving words in people's mouths.
Click to expand...

Then what's their point? They're saying that dressing provocatively invites rapists... which you're claiming that they're not saying. That's the entire ****ing crux of their argument.
 
Absinthe said:
Viper, you can join my rape club too. And then we can make VSnares-style hardcore tracks with names like "Slut **** Had It Coming" and "Whore-Invading Mutant Penis Obelisk".
Click to expand...
Let's get Trevor Brown to do the cover art. And Vegeta can be our spokesperson for underage affairs.
 
Rape happens in a variety of contexts. Yes, old ugly women can also be attacked. Sometimes it's completely unavoidable. But I would argue that there are definitely risk factors involved. Given the same scenario, I'm sure a woman who dressed like a prostitute is more likely to attract an attacker than Plain Jane. Supposition? Maybe. I'll admit that I don't have an Excel sheet with numbers on that. But an unstable pervert, particularly one who might be under the influence of alcohol or some other drug, will probably be tempted by the flashiest thing in the room.

I think that's all worth debating. What I don't like in your posts is the constant accusation that we're placing the blame for the crime on the victim, or that we're somehow forgiving of rape. Nobody has said that. That's not fair play. If you think the arguments are bunk, then address them. Don't make up some insidious shit on top of it all.
 
Absinthe said:
What I don't like in your posts is the constant accusation that we're placing the blame for the crime on the victim, or that we're somehow forgiving of rape. Nobody has said that. That's not fair play. If you think the arguments are bunk, then address them. Don't make up some insidious shit on top of it all.
Click to expand...

Right... okay Absinthe whatever you say.

That's rape food for thought.

Absinthe said:
He's saying if you don't want want to be victimized, maybe you shouldn't dress as rape food.

And really, these people are idiots.



What the ****? Huh?
Click to expand...
 
Absinthe said:
Rape happens in a variety of contexts. Yes, old ugly women can also be attacked. Sometimes it's completely unavoidable. But I would argue that there are definitely risk factors involved. Given the same scenario, I'm sure a woman who dressed like a prostitute is more likely to attract an attacker than Plain Jane. Supposition? Maybe. I'll admit that I don't have an Excel sheet with numbers on that. But an unstable pervert, particularly one who might be under the influence of alcohol or some other drug, will probably be tempted by the flashiest thing in the room.
Click to expand...
You are possibly correct about "risk factors." I would also say that not wearing a bicycle helmet at all times night and day is a risk factor for receiving brain damage from happening to hit your head on something. Women should not be criticized for the way they dress due a perceived chance in a potential rapist targeting them over other women. Women should not be told to wear conservative clothing to fend off imaginary rapists and I should not be told wrap bubble wrap around my skull in case I happen to pass a building site and a someone drops a hammer.
 
That comment wasn't really supposed to be taken so seriously. Stern made an outlandish accusation - one which you are repeating at the moment - and I felt a similar response was in due order.
Besides, the thought of actual "rape food" was one I found funny. :p

It's bluntness aside though, I don't see what's wrong with the core of that sentiment.
 
It seems like some people will do anything to put the blame on somebody that isn't themselves.
 
Yorick said:
Implying we're rapists? Take your head out of your ass.
Click to expand...
I was not trying to imply that.

Otherwise, while that police officer as stated in the original post did word things wrong to them (somewhat), I still believe the whole SlutWalks thing (while having a good message) won't do that much.
 
ríomhaire said:
You are possibly correct about "risk factors." I would also say that not wearing a bicycle helmet at all times night and day is a risk factor for receiving brain damage from happening to hit your head on something. Women should not be criticized for the way they dress due a perceived chance in a potential rapist targeting them over other women. Women should not be told to wear conservative clothing to fend off imaginary rapists and I should not be told wrap bubble wrap around my skull in case I happen to pass a building site and a someone drops a hammer.
Click to expand...

What part of my previous post where I said I was personally fine with women dressing that way did you take as me wanting to women back to the Victorian era? Wear whatever the **** you want, but understand there might be risks involved, ranging from the extreme heinousness (and unlikeliness) of rape to other comparatively mild forms of sexual harassment. No, that's not right or just. But that's the world, and it doesn't hurt to be aware of potential safety issues.

Context is a big factor. If you're going out with your friends with a reliable means of getting home, I'm not going to raise any concerns. If you're moving through a bad neighborhood or find yourself alone in a club with drunk pervs, you're likely more at risk. Be aware and use your discretion. I honestly do think that many rape cases, particularly among youth, can be partly attributed to young women not fully understanding how the opposite sex is perceiving them.

You think I'm trying to enforce or create a rule for women. I'm only advocating advisement.
 
ríomhaire said:
You are possibly correct about "risk factors." I would also say that not wearing a bicycle helmet at all times night and day is a risk factor for receiving brain damage from happening to hit your head on something. Women should not be criticized for the way they dress due a perceived chance in a potential rapist targeting them over other women. Women should not be told to wear conservative clothing to fend off imaginary rapists and I should not be told wrap bubble wrap around my skull in case I happen to pass a building site and a someone drops a hammer.
Click to expand...
Sigh. Sigh sigh. I really didn't want to get into this argument. I'm going to regret doing it. BUT

You're comparing incidental damage caused by accident to damage caused by intent. Women, to a large extent, dress certain ways to signal to males their attractiveness and availability for sex. This is a cultural (perhaps anthropological?) construct. Some women do this to gain attention when they otherwise wouldn't, some do it because they are actually looking for sex, and some do it because they are prostitutes.

Now I'm going to give this officer the benefit of the doubt (which I shouldn't, since he's just as guilty in all this for being vague), but I'm going to assume that when he said "don't dress slutty" he was thinking of not just dress, but the whole set of behaviours that women who dress like that perform.

If a girl dresses a certain way, acts a certain way, and goes to establishments that promote the kind of behaviour that is condusive to "sluttiness," then yes, she is directly putting herself in danger of being preyed upon my males who, upon being rejected, resort to rape.

To put it better in your analogy: if I spend all my day in a construction yard, loitering around dangerous equipment, while not wearing a helmet, well then yes, the likelihood of my getting killed by falling objects is greatly increased.

Your analogy suggests that women wear a slutty outfit, go out in broad daylight, and immediately get snatched up. You should wear a helmet, you say, because the chances of getting hit by something dropping on you are always there. Well yes, the chance of anything dangerous happening to you is always there. But this discussion focuses on women in culture, not on random, incidental events happening to random people.

Dressing slutty is part of the larger picture of our culture's women's self-objectification. It goes hand in hand with binge drinking, pub crawling, tramp stamping, and all that assorted nonsense. But dressing differs from these as it is the most culturally potent signifier of identity. We assume an enormous amount of information based on how someone presents themselves to us. If you met someone with a white pointed hat and white robes, the cultural identity he is assuming is of a KKK member, whether he actually lynches black men or not. Whether or not women who dress slutty do or want to have sex is irrelevant: the way our culture currently defines prostitution or easiness is by low cut blouses and short skirts, and thus a woman who dresses that way is identifying herself as a prostitute, or at the very least, a girl who in our culture is "slutty" and is inclined to sex.

So, I agree with the officer's sentiment that dressing as one group, not denying said group's behaviours and tendencies, and then acting surprised when, well, shit happens, is a bad strategy. If this kneejerk "rally" were trying to redefine "sluttiness" as something else, i.e. women who like unusual fashion, or frisbee, or something, then its supporters would be in the right. But they're not. They're on rollerskates wearing lingerie. Objectifying themselves. They're basically proving the officer's premise, i.e. that women who dress "slutty" are identifying themselves as sex objects.

Some feminists argue that women empower themselves by dressing the way they want, regardless of how culture views them. I wish them luck with that. The best way for a group to empower itself is to redefine what that signifier means. And if women truly, truly want to empower themselves by redefining "slutty" dress, then they're doing a damned bad job of it.

Does this excuse rapists? No. But that's not what the point of the officer's lecture was, now was it? He was trying to advise women on how to NOT GET RAPED. He wasn't excusing men. In the analogy, ultimately, yes, it's primarily the foreman's fault for not escorting me off the construction site before I got hurt. But it's also my fault for putting myself in a position that greatly increases my chance of danger.

Apologies to sociologists who actually study this. I'm sure you could make points much better than mine.
 
If we had sociologists on this board then we might actually have interesting arguments.
 
I agree with the officers statement. Obviously, 100% of the moral blame lies with the rapist, but if it can be statistically shown that dressing a certain way increases a womens chances of being raped then women should be made aware of that fact.
 
Obviously the matter is that black and white. You're either pro-slut or pro-rape and there is no in between issue. Ever.
 
So I came into this thread expecting to mock a bunch of people for getting their panties in a bunch (heh) over some stupid police officer's stupid comment.

Then a read a couple posts.

Yorick said:
I'm not saying that the rapist isn't at fault since he's, you know, a rapist, but it kind of is the victim's fault, too, in cases like this. If you're not taking care to protect yourself (not paying attention, not having a mace license, and/or dressing in a provocative way) then it definitely is your fault what happens to you.
Click to expand...

Seriously, WHAT THE ****?!?

jesus it's the entire thread i am dumbfounded
 
picardfacepalm.jpg
 
do you also have a headache due to the direct and unabashed victim blaming?

Also, are you Captain Jean-Luc Picard?! for realz??!?
 
Do they even know what the word slut means?
 
Acepilotf14 said:
Do they even know what the word slut means?
Click to expand...

Sluts tend to have sex with people they intend to have sex with. It's intentional over-exaggeration and it's used because slut is a provocative term.
 
Viperidae said:
Dressing slutty is part of the larger picture of our culture's women's self-objectification. It goes hand in hand with binge drinking, pub crawling, tramp stamping, and all that assorted nonsense. But dressing differs from these as it is the most culturally potent signifier of identity. We assume an enormous amount of information based on how someone presents themselves to us. If you met someone with a white pointed hat and white robes, the cultural identity he is assuming is of a KKK member, whether he actually lynches black men or not. Whether or not women who dress slutty do or want to have sex is irrelevant: the way our culture currently defines prostitution or easiness is by low cut blouses and short skirts, and thus a woman who dresses that way is identifying herself as a prostitute, or at the very least, a girl who in our culture is "slutty" and is inclined to sex.
Click to expand...

I don't really agree with the KKK analogy, as that's a uniform, and prostitutes don't really have "uniforms." They dress and behave a certain way to attract sexual encounters because it's their job; this isn't directly analogous to a woman who might dress in a similar way to attract sex for enjoyment. The mind sets, at the very least, are quite different.

But yeah, this isn't exactly my area of expertise either, so.~

Erestheux said:
Seriously, WHAT THE ****?!?
Click to expand...

Thanks for pointing this out.

Yorick, bro, contrary to what you started saying after Absinthe came into the thread and incorrectly stated that no one was saying the victim is to blame, you were saying that, multiple times in fact. Do you not think maybe that's what sparked some of the initial aggro?

That's not to say I necessarily disagree with anything else you or Absinthe are saying, or to agree with Stern's silly victimization, but to inject a little irony: don't you think you were kind of asking for it? :)
 
Stylo said:
Yeah, I don't think Yorick is referring to EVERY woman that dresses THE SLIGHTEST BIT SEXY.

I think he's referring to the ones that go around in practically nothing and act like total whores while they're out. I mean, I kinda see his point, these types of women pretty much objectify themselves.

He's not saying it's entirely a woman's fault for dressing sexily, he's saying that slutty women are rapist attractors.
Click to expand...
This is bizarre, outrageous, and insulting. "Women objectify themselves" "act like total whores"

How on earth can you even seriously make these judgements? You know what makes someone a whore? If they regularly have sex for money. So ****ing what if a woman wants to dress in a way that you consider "objectifying herself"? Maybe that makes her feel good, maybe she likes it when people treat her as a sexual object. You're allowed to say "man, she's dressed too provocatively for my tastes", but

"these types of women"

Jesus.
 
There is way too much butthurt going down in this thread.
 
Viperidae said:
Sigh. Sigh sigh. I really didn't want to get into this argument. I'm going to regret doing it. BUT

You're comparing incidental damage caused by accident to damage caused by intent. Women, to a large extent, dress certain ways to signal to males their attractiveness and availability for sex. This is a cultural (perhaps anthropological?) construct. Some women do this to gain attention when they otherwise wouldn't, some do it because they are actually looking for sex, and some do it because they are prostitutes.

Now I'm going to give this officer the benefit of the doubt (which I shouldn't, since he's just as guilty in all this for being vague), but I'm going to assume that when he said "don't dress slutty" he was thinking of not just dress, but the whole set of behaviours that women who dress like that perform.

If a girl dresses a certain way, acts a certain way, and goes to establishments that promote the kind of behaviour that is condusive to "sluttiness," then yes, she is directly putting herself in danger of being preyed upon my males who, upon being rejected, resort to rape.

To put it better in your analogy: if I spend all my day in a construction yard, loitering around dangerous equipment, while not wearing a helmet, well then yes, the likelihood of my getting killed by falling objects is greatly increased.

Your analogy suggests that women wear a slutty outfit, go out in broad daylight, and immediately get snatched up. You should wear a helmet, you say, because the chances of getting hit by something dropping on you are always there. Well yes, the chance of anything dangerous happening to you is always there. But this discussion focuses on women in culture, not on random, incidental events happening to random people.

Dressing slutty is part of the larger picture of our culture's women's self-objectification. It goes hand in hand with binge drinking, pub crawling, tramp stamping, and all that assorted nonsense. But dressing differs from these as it is the most culturally potent signifier of identity. We assume an enormous amount of information based on how someone presents themselves to us. If you met someone with a white pointed hat and white robes, the cultural identity he is assuming is of a KKK member, whether he actually lynches black men or not. Whether or not women who dress slutty do or want to have sex is irrelevant: the way our culture currently defines prostitution or easiness is by low cut blouses and short skirts, and thus a woman who dresses that way is identifying herself as a prostitute, or at the very least, a girl who in our culture is "slutty" and is inclined to sex.

So, I agree with the officer's sentiment that dressing as one group, not denying said group's behaviours and tendencies, and then acting surprised when, well, shit happens, is a bad strategy. If this kneejerk "rally" were trying to redefine "sluttiness" as something else, i.e. women who like unusual fashion, or frisbee, or something, then its supporters would be in the right. But they're not. They're on rollerskates wearing lingerie. Objectifying themselves. They're basically proving the officer's premise, i.e. that women who dress "slutty" are identifying themselves as sex objects.

Some feminists argue that women empower themselves by dressing the way they want, regardless of how culture views them. I wish them luck with that. The best way for a group to empower itself is to redefine what that signifier means. And if women truly, truly want to empower themselves by redefining "slutty" dress, then they're doing a damned bad job of it.

Does this excuse rapists? No. But that's not what the point of the officer's lecture was, now was it? He was trying to advise women on how to NOT GET RAPED. He wasn't excusing men. In the analogy, ultimately, yes, it's primarily the foreman's fault for not escorting me off the construction site before I got hurt. But it's also my fault for putting myself in a position that greatly increases my chance of danger.

Apologies to sociologists who actually study this. I'm sure you could make points much better than mine.
Click to expand...

I skimmed through most of the posts in this thread, but I can tell that this is by far the most reasonable post in here. Thank you.
 
Maestro said:
There is way too much butthurt going down in this thread.
Click to expand...
Thanks for your fantastic contribution to the thread. In future, try to actually add to the discussion instead of sitting at the back yelling "lol u mad"
 
kineaesth said:
This is bizarre, outrageous, and insulting. "Women objectify themselves" "act like total whores"

How on earth can you even seriously make these judgements? You know what makes someone a whore? If they regularly have sex for money. So ****ing what if a woman wants to dress in a way that you consider "objectifying herself"? Maybe that makes her feel good, maybe she likes it when people treat her as a sexual object. You're allowed to say "man, she's dressed too provocatively for my tastes", but

"these types of women"

Jesus.
Click to expand...

I'm just going to start directing everyone to Viperidae's post as well because he put what everyone who agrees with Yorick is trying to say in the best possible way.

His post which I don't think people seem to be reading.
 
eh,people,rape is the act of sex imposed on others whitout theyr consent,and thats a crime,and I think it doesnt matter how the woman was wearing or if she was drunk and flashing her bare ass on the street,it still a crime you know that things that are not allowed to happen

is like if man tryes to rape you but you say that you are not gay but them the man rapes you anyway and them people say to you "well you where asking for it cuz you looked a bit gay"

so yeah the whole thing on blaming womans for "asking for it" is cuz is still a crime

is like if someone get mugged but them the police say is his fault cuz he was wearing a shirt saying he hates materialism or something like that
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top