Slutwalks and Feminism

[TheMason]

So I read an article by a feminist arguing that Slutwalks represent the best hope for modern feminism. She argues that Slutwalks are young women organizing themselves and not older feminists overseeing the political organizing of college-age women. Thus a new generation of feminist thinkers and activists are in the making.

Now a little history. Slutwalks started in Toronto as a protest against a police officer saying that women who do not want to be sexually assaulted should not dress like "sluts". This coupled with a judge's leinancy on a convicted rapist because of the victim's attire, drinking and party atmosphere; instigated the protest by two female students. Women were encouraged to express themselves however to show they oughta be able to wear what they want and behave how they want without falling victim to rape.

Now, I agree emphatically that:
1) No one should be forced into sex or sexually assaulted because of the way they are dressed or because they like to party.
2) How a victim was dressed or the venue they were assaulted at should diminish the severity of punishment a rapist gets.

However, I do not think that Slutwalks are a mature response to real oppression in the case of the police officer's comments. I think the officer was by and large correct in what he was saying. If women are concerned with their safety then they should take steps that protect themselves from predators. This starts with their external appearance.

We know there are people with psychotic sexual drives. They have sexual triggers that are at odds with the law, societal norms and morals. They see a woman dressed in heels, short skirt and skin tight top...they do not see another person but an object. An object that in their mind they are justified in forcing themselves upon.

It is not right...but they are out there. And if you are worried about being preyed upon...why dress in a manner that would provoke attack by a predator? You don't go into battle wearing day-glow yellow clothing and a giant American flag. You don't hunt lions or jump in a sharkcage wearing a suit of bloody meat (well maybe if you're Lady Gaga).

Yes, it sucks whenever a person cannot express themselves fully without risking hostility from others in society. But this is not the way the world is.

Which brings back to the feminist's point that Slutwalks are good for feminism because they are young women organizing themselves. She seems to believe that when younger women do the organizing themselves they will stay with feminism and keep the ideology going for the rest of their lives.

But what happens when they young people grow-up and see their righteous indignation as the wasted zeal of idealistic youth? What happens when they see their cause was the twenty-something equivalent of a child throwing a temper tantrum because they don't get to wear their princess or cowboy costume in public? It could (hopefully) damage overzealous and blind, ideological-driven feminism as these women tell their daughters not to dress like lest they tempt rape.

Which also brings into sharp focus (for me) why I have always struggled with modern-day liberalism. So much of their ideology sounds great. It is a utopian vision of how the world oughta be. In many ways I wish it would work because war, crime and poverty all suck. However, their solutions to many of these ills are what oughta work on paper...not what works in the realworld.

[lapis]

At 6/12/11 05:46 PM, TheMason wrote: 2) How a victim was dressed or the venue they were assaulted at should diminish the severity of punishment a rapist gets.

I hope you forgot a "not" in this sentence.

Yes, it sucks whenever a person cannot express themselves fully without risking hostility from others in society. But this is not the way the world is.

What fatalism. What do you say to gay people who want to publicly hold hands in Croatia or Serbia? Don't do it because it might provoke homophobes to beat you up? What do you say to people who had go into hiding because the Muhammad cartoons they drew prompted serious death threats? Don't exercise your freedom of expression because people might get offended and want to kill you for it?

I don't think these women seriously believe that they can completely end all sexual harassment worldwide with their slut walks. What they want to achieve is to fight a culture of tacit mitigation of completely criminal responses to what is not at all a crime. Maybe by raising public awareness they can motivate some people to intervene in a harassment situation who otherwise might have justified walking away and doing nothing to themselves by thinking "ah well, they were sluts anyway". If only one sexual assault is ended by intervention because these slut walks pushed the bystanders over the fence then these walks were vindicated.

By the way, I have to point out that Egyptian women that dress in headscarves and loose clothing still get harassed. The problem is not the way women dress, the problem is culture and attitude. The way that you mitigate the severity of sexual assault by saying that women who dress in a less-than-conservative fashion "provoke attack by a predator, women in Egypt who are not publicly escorted by a brother or husband are tacitly seen as fair game for sexual assault. Where's the line here? Is the argument really that when people around you might feel provoked by some action, carrying out this action makes you less of a victim?

I to some extent agree, however, that feminism as a political movement is obsolete. Back in the 1900s they really had government decisions to fight against, but currently they are more than equals to males for as far as the law is concerned. Still, I can't blame them for wanting to change people's mentality in the few cases where it's necessary. I can approve of the message behind these slut walks not because of the larger implications for feminism but because it's the right thing to do. You say that "you don't go into battle wearing day-glow yellow clothing and a giant American flag", but the streets of our cities shouldn't be treated as if they were war zones.

Which also brings into sharp focus (for me) why I have always struggled with modern-day liberalism. So much of their ideology sounds great. It is a utopian vision of how the world oughta be. In many ways I wish it would work because war, crime and poverty all suck. However, their solutions to many of these ills are what oughta work on paper...not what works in the realworld.

Kind of a non-sequitur, don't you agree? Along the lines of: I don't like the Iranian government actively concerning itself with its citizens' moral wellbeing, hence I don't like US conservatives.

[Iron-Hampster]

I think their protest was more about the fact that the rapists sentence was effected by the way they were dressed. I don't care if you kill someone for walking around in a shirt that says "kill me i'm suicidal" you killed some one and you should go to jail for it all the same, regardless of weather or not the person was stupid and asking for it or not.

[Al6200]

I don't really understand their response to the officer's comment. By pointing out ways for women to reduce their likelyhood of getting raped, he was not condoning rape nor was he saying that the women had an obligation to wear conservative dress. It seems like they may have misunderstood his comments.

For example, I could point out that driving on New Year's morning is somewhat unsafe since drunk driving is more common that morning. That wouldn't be condoning drunk driving or telling people that it is their responsibility to not drive on that morning. It is merely pointing out that one can reduce the risk of being hurt by a drunk driver.

[RydiaLockheart]

There are men who see women as nothing more than objects. Keeping that in mind, one of the best ways for women to prevent rape and sexual assault is to use common sense and not get themselves into situations where something could happen. For instance, don't walk down a dark alley at night alone dressed as a hooker, go drinking alone, or get in a car with a stranger. There are several more examples but those are the first ones that come to mind.

Looking at this, I think their logic is counterproductive. They don't want to be seen as objects, so what do they do? Give their little protest a derogatory name. There are several issues involving violence against women that do need to be addressed, but this is not the way to do it.

Like Mason says, I think this is somewhat of a temper tantrum. Even if you're not a slut or a hooker, dressing like one will make you look bad to other people and potential employers, too. If employers don't want to hire someone tatted and pierced beyond recognition, they're not gonna want to hire a woman who thinks a tube top and one of those tiny Hustler skirts is acceptable attire. If those girls continue dressing that way, they're in for a rude awakening come graduation.

[Korriken]

Women dressing like sluts and not expecting men to think of them as such is like walking through town dressed like this and not expecting minorities to get upset.

I suppose this is the culture we've created over the last 100 years or so, a society that think they can do as they please without consequences.

If you dress like a hooker, people will think you're a hooker, much in the same way as dressing in a clown costume is going to make people think you are indeed a clown of some sort.

These women need to do 3 things.

1. Wake up. its a dangerous world we live in, provoking others with words, dress, and actions can be hazardous to your health.

2. Grow up. Seriously, dressing like a whore to protest a cop's stating of the obvious is as childish as throwing your toy across the room when mommy tells you to put it up and go to bed.

3. Wise up. you're not protected by anything or anyone. You can be raped or killed at almost any time, any where. Dressing like a whore and acting like a whore only increases the likelihood of someone raping you, that much is obvious. Also, if you want respect, dressing like a piece of street meat is NOT the way to go.

Sadly, this is what our society produces, though. People who want to dress like tramps, party like rock stars, and act like total scum, but want to be respected too.

Can't have both.

[Camarohusky]

I am quite mixed on the subject.

I most definitely agree with these women on the idea that 5a woman's attire should not effect the criminal's punishment. Here in the US we long ago changed the perspective of the victim's consent from the defendant to the victim.

However, I totally agree with the officer. I believe that people have to be aware of their surroundings and not uneccesarily subject themselves to danger. Two cases in point, Freshman girls who go to Frat parties, get shit faced drunk and then wake up raped. I highly sympathize and understand that it is terrible, but what did these girls expect? Bubbles, diamonds, and fairytales? Frat parties are sex-aimed events. It is common knowledge that many of the partygoers are looking for sex first, partying second. Second case is Natalie Halloway. What the hell was she thinking? White girl from upper class Alabama partying without supervision in a Carribean Island? Really? Just because many people get in and out of these situations unscathed doesn't mean they are safe.

Victims carry the responsibility to do their best to not attract criminal attention. Sadly, the punishment for failing to do so is becoming the victim of a crime. Ignoring the need to avoid, or at least not attract such attention is both naive and counter productive. Instead of walking around angrily in skimpy clothes, these women should be teaching their bretheren about how to protect themselves.

Now now, I can here some people shouting "double standard!" but that just ain't so. There are things I, even as a large white male, wouldn't do. I wouldn't go into certain parts of town at night and start shouting at random groups of people in the alleyways. I wouldn't wear racist shirts pretty much anywhere. I wouldn't have 100 dollar bills taped all over my clothes. All of these are akin to walking in skimpy clothes alone at night.

[Astronesthes]

At 6/12/11 06:38 PM, lapis wrote:

At 6/12/11 05:46 PM, TheMason wrote:

Yes, it sucks whenever a person cannot express themselves fully without risking hostility from others in society. But this is not the way the world is.

What fatalism. What do you say to gay people who want to publicly hold hands in Croatia or Serbia? ;Don't do it because it might provoke homophobes to beat you up? What do you say to people who :had go into hiding because the Muhammad cartoons they drew prompted serious death threats? :Don't exercise your freedom of expression because people might get offended and want to kill you :for it?

Now, I think that Mason was trying to say that they shouldn't NOT dress that way, but they shouldn't be surprised if shit should hit the fan. If you're walking through a homophobic neighborhood, holding hands isn't exactly the safest thing to do. He didn't say "don't hold hands", he said "It's probably not the safest thing to do", edited for the situation you gave. The world isn't perfect you know, and you can't force people to accept you. I'm not anti-gay, anti-slut, anti-Muhammad drawings either, but to ignore the potential risk of a situation is just irresponsible.

I don't think these women seriously believe that they can completely end all sexual harassment worldwide with their slut walks. What they want to achieve is to fight a culture of tacit mitigation of completely criminal responses to what is not at all a crime. Maybe by raising public awareness they can motivate some people to intervene in a harassment situation who otherwise might have justified walking away and doing nothing to themselves by thinking "ah well, they were sluts anyway".

Is that really a realistic reason for people walking away? I think a more reasonable answer is that they were afraid of getting hurt themselves. Imagine seeing a 230 pound muscle-built rapist raping someone, gun or knife clearly visible and at the ready. Are you really going to charge right at him? It would be noble, sure, but I doubt most people would have the balls. I know I certainly wouldn't.

By the way, I have to point out that Egyptian women that dress in headscarves and loose clothing still get harassed. The problem is not the way women dress, the problem is culture and attitude. The way that you mitigate the severity of sexual assault by saying that women who dress in a less-than-conservative fashion "provoke attack by a predator, women in Egypt who are not publicly escorted by a brother or husband are tacitly seen as fair game for sexual assault. Where's the line here? Is the argument really that when people around you might feel provoked by some action, carrying out this action makes you less of a victim?

He didn't say it made them less of a victim, but it did make them irresponsible. Egypt is a whole new area, without nearly the amounts of social etiquette that we have instilled into our society. Over there it IS culture, but over here it can also be blamed on the psyche of a rapist. As I said earlier, it's just irresponsible and unsafe to dress skimpy when rapists are not uncommon in the headlines.

You say that "you don't go into battle wearing day-glow yellow clothing and a giant American flag", but the streets of our cities shouldn't be treated as if they were war zones.

Which is true, the streets aren't warzones and shouldn't be treated as such, and a rapist's sentence should not be effected by a woman's clothing. I just think a bit of common sense would do some girls some good out there, which is what I think mason was trying to say as well.

[RydiaLockheart]

At 6/12/11 09:03 PM, Camarohusky wrote: Second case is Natalie Halloway. What the hell was she thinking? White girl from upper class Alabama partying without supervision in a Carribean Island? Really? Just because many people get in and out of these situations unscathed doesn't mean they are safe.

I also blame her parents. Who in their right mind lets their kid go party in a foreign country? Let's face it, "chaperone" is basically French for "clueless" so the presence of chaperones on that trip was a joke. What school in their right mind sponsors these trips anyway? Lots of lawsuit possibilities even if the kid comes back safe.

Victims carry the responsibility to do their best to not attract criminal attention. Sadly, the punishment for failing to do so is becoming the victim of a crime. Ignoring the need to avoid, or at least not attract such attention is both naive and counter productive. Instead of walking around angrily in skimpy clothes, these women should be teaching their bretheren about how to protect themselves.

Totally agree, but people also need to know that protecting yourself does not have to mean paranoia or constantly living in fear. Again, common sense.

[TheMason]

At 6/12/11 06:38 PM, lapis wrote:

At 6/12/11 05:46 PM, TheMason wrote: 2) How a victim was dressed or the venue they were assaulted at should diminish the severity of punishment a rapist gets.

I hope you forgot a "not" in this sentence.

Good catch! Sorry...there should be a "not". I do NOT believe that dress or venue should mitigate a rapist's sentence.

Yes, it sucks whenever a person cannot express themselves fully without risking hostility from others in society. But this is not the way the world is.

What fatalism. What do you say to gay people who want to publicly hold hands in Croatia or Serbia? Don't do it because it might provoke homophobes to beat you up? What do you say to people who had go into hiding because the Muhammad cartoons they drew prompted serious death threats? Don't exercise your freedom of expression because people might get offended and want to kill you for it?

It's not fatalism...it's realism. There are realworld consequences to your actions. Furthermore, the law (of any society/country) cannot prevent one from becoming victimized for their actions. So if gays in homophobic societies want to make a stand and out themselves...then they should know the consequences of their actions will be hurtful to them. If the cartoonist decides to draw Muhammad then he needs to know he won't be able to live as free of a life because of the threat radicals pose to him.

No it is not right that they will get hurt for making their stands...but it also makes them heroes.

I to some extent agree, however, that feminism as a political movement is obsolete. Back in the 1900s they really had government decisions to fight against, but currently they are more than equals to males for as far as the law is concerned. Still, I can't blame them for wanting to change people's mentality in the few cases where it's necessary. I can approve of the message behind these slut walks not because of the larger implications for feminism but because it's the right thing to do. You say that "you don't go into battle wearing day-glow yellow clothing and a giant American flag", but the streets of our cities shouldn't be treated as if they were war zones.

Two things here:
1) I know women who think the streets are battlezones and inside every man lays a rapist or molester.
2) Be careful about overstating allegory and metaphor. My point was when you are going into a situation you have to do a risk assessment and think about all the ways to mitigate the risk of something bad happening to you. When a person goes out drinking they know they are putting themselves at risk for bad things to happen. You take a cab to the bar so you aren't tempted to drive home. So how is saying to oneself: "I'm not going to dress in a way that makes me more of a target to a sexual predator" so different from taking any other responsible measure.

Which also brings into sharp focus (for me) why I have always struggled with modern-day liberalism. So much of their ideology sounds great. It is a utopian vision of how the world oughta be. In many ways I wish it would work because war, crime and poverty all suck. However, their solutions to many of these ills are what oughta work on paper...not what works in the realworld.

Kind of a non-sequitur, don't you agree? Along the lines of: I don't like the Iranian government actively concerning itself with its citizens' moral wellbeing, hence I don't like US conservatives.

No...not really no.
1) You're comparing political thought between two vastly different cultures, whereas the same cannot be said of something started in Canada.
2) This seems like so much of American liberalism (where it has spread). The Left points to things they do not like in order to address problems while ignoring the real causes because they are uncomfortable and do not fit into a rose-colored view of the world.

[Ravariel]

Rape is not about sex. It is about power and thrill and harm.

There has been no study able to correlate any relationship between dress and instance of rape.

Ergo, how a woman dresses has no relationship to the likelihood of her being raped. Any insinuation, however subtle, that a woman puts herself in more danger by dressing seductively is exactly what these walks are designed to protest.

[Camarohusky]

At 6/12/11 10:17 PM, Ravariel wrote: Any insinuation, however subtle, that a woman puts herself in more danger by dressing seductively is exactly what these walks are designed to protest.

Then I would have to say that they have failed catastrophically.

[SadisticMonkey]

At 6/12/11 10:17 PM, Ravariel wrote: Ergo, how a woman dresses has no relationship to the likelihood of her being raped. Any insinuation, however subtle, that a woman puts herself in more danger by dressing seductively is exactly what these walks are designed to protest.

No, these walks are deigned to address the view that dressing like a 'slut' justifies the actions of the rapist.
Of course, anyone which half a brain (ie. not the slutwalkers) can realise that, however incorrect, claiming that dressing like a slut makes you more of a target for rapists does not mean in any way you are blaming the victim for being raped or condoning the rapists action.

If I say you should avoid dark alleyways at night to avoid getting mugged, does this means that I believe you deserve to get mugged for walking down said alleyways?

No, of course not, and yet strangely no one would lose their shit over this and call me a victim blamer and demand some right to walk down whatever alleyways they want to without being raped (though, yes, of course they should have this right).

[Elfer]

At 6/12/11 08:30 PM, Korriken wrote: 3. Wise up. you're not protected by anything or anyone. You can be raped or killed at almost any time, any where. Dressing like a whore and acting like a whore only increases the likelihood of someone raping you, that much is obvious.

I hate to be the lazy one not doing research here, but is this actually backed by any statistics or research? It's something that would seem to make sense intuitively, but I've never seen it supported with real evidence, and it's contrary to the most prevalent opinion about the psychology behind rape (i.e. rape is about control/power, not about intercourse).

For example, rapists might target a victim more for the appearance of being vulnerable rather than the appearance of being sexually provocative. In any case, saying that your conclusion is "obvious" is pretty brash without having something to back it up.

[Korriken]

At 6/12/11 11:10 PM, Elfer wrote:

I hate to be the lazy one not doing research here, but is this actually backed by any statistics or research? It's something that would seem to make sense intuitively, but I've never seen it supported with real evidence, and it's contrary to the most prevalent opinion about the psychology behind rape (i.e. rape is about control/power, not about intercourse).

For example, rapists might target a victim more for the appearance of being vulnerable rather than the appearance of being sexually provocative. In any case, saying that your conclusion is "obvious" is pretty brash without having something to back it up.

depends on the circumstances. you have the control freaks out there, then you have the "I'm going to get her drunk and take her to a motel room" situation. It happens more often than most would think.

Scientists try to explain everything and do so as if they know everything. Human psychology is a complicated matter. Many rapists are power freaks, but not all.

It is however, more often than not a matter of opportunity. Some wait for the opportunity to happen, some make the opportunity happen.

in, say, a bar or club situation, a man is going to go after the "easy target" ie the woman wearing a skimpy short skirt and skin tight tube top. He most likely won't target the woman wearing long, properly fitting pants and non revealing t shirt. And the odds of him going after the fat smelly woman in the corner are very slim, unless he has a fetish.

He finds out if she is alone, gives her drink after drink, slips a drug in if he is so inclined. Once she is intoxicated or otherwise mentally incapacitated, he works to move her out of the bar and into his vehicle. then he takes her away to have a little fun... and yes this scenario plays out more often than you think.

this situation would be more of a question of attractiveness, rather than "dressing like a slut' but having your boobs hanging out and shorts cut off at the buttocks is going to send the "I'm easy" signal to most guys.

Another situation where clothing might come into play would be the "attack, rape, run" scenario. If you're wearing a miniskirt with a thong underneath, you are very, uhhh, accessible. get tackled to the ground, a tug on the thong and you're exposed. One might say "a dress is no different" to some extent its true, but they got a lot more fabric to move.

Also, I love how people are running around screaming "it doesn't contribute at all, its all about power"

Problem is, each rapist has his own reason to rape. Some for power, others for the thrill of breaking the law, some may even do it because masturbation just isn't good enough.

Much like the cases where someone's boyfriend or cousin or whatever rapes their child. Opportunity? yes. Is it about power? not necessarily. It might just be an opportunity to do something utterly sickening and it turns them on, for whatever reason, be it the thrill of "no one will ever find out" or "the kid won't understand what is happening, and might even enjoy it and want to do it again!"

Sometimes rape is indeed about the sex.

[Jinzoa]

An aspect of these "Slutwalks" that seems more than pointless is the attempt to reclaim the word slut itself.

Sadly though the concept of risk management seems to elude most of the people in these protests, as plenty of examples have been given in this thread.

[lapis]

At 6/12/11 09:23 PM, Astronesthes wrote: Now, I think that Mason was trying to say that they shouldn't NOT dress that way, but they shouldn't be surprised if shit should hit the fan.

Okay, so instead of "don't do it" he said "don't do it unless you want to get raped". Thanks for the extra nuance.

The world isn't perfect you know, and you can't force people to accept you.

Oh, what nonsense. If that attitude had prevailed since the 1500s we would still be burning witches. Let me ask you: why did public assault of homosexuals/non-Christians/vulnerable women become less prevalent in the West throughout the past few centuries? Is that just this natural ebb and flow of ideas that we simple mortals have zero control over?

Is that really a realistic reason for people walking away?

No, it's a realistic excuse for people walking away.

I think a more reasonable answer is that they were afraid of getting hurt themselves. Imagine seeing a 230 pound muscle-built rapist raping someone, gun or knife clearly visible and at the ready. Are you really going to charge right at him?

Sorry, I had not realised that in every instance of sexual harassment the perpetrator carries an assault rifle. There are plenty of situations in which three or more people who as a group could put a stop to harassment all ignore the situation because they don't want to be the first to step in and have to face the assailant alone, and then justify their inaction after the fact not by admitting that they were pussies but because the woman somehow had it coming. If you can prevent one such instance with a slut walk then the slut walk was a success.

Over there it IS culture, but over here it can also be blamed on the psyche of a rapist.

What "psyche of a rapist"? Because he sees some exposed female flesh, he cannot be expected to control himself? Then why shouldn't all women wear burqas? Better yet, why should they not at all times be escorted by a male relative or husband whenever they leave the house? I mean, leaving the house alone could just as well be considered irresponsible.

I mean, if it's not culture, then I'd really to hear some good biological justification why exposing, say, cleavage makes you irresponsible while exposing your hair does not. Apparently, cleavage reminds rapists of sex which amounts to provocation. But in a country where 90%+ of the women wear headscarves female hair reminds rapists of sex. So maybe every women on earth should dress like a slut, then the association between female flesh and sex is gone. Except that this wouldn't work at all because, contrary to what you may think you know about the "psyche of a rapist", fat, ugly, loose-clothed women still get raped.

At 6/12/11 09:57 PM, TheMason wrote: No it is not right that they will get hurt for making their stands...but it also makes them heroes.

Heh, okay. First time I ever heard someone refer to sluts as heroes.

Two things here:
1) I know women who think the streets are battlezones and inside every man lays a rapist or molester.

Okay.

2) (...) So how is saying to oneself: "I'm not going to dress in a way that makes me more of a target to a sexual predator" so different from taking any other responsible measure.

Like wearing a burqa and never leaving the house without a male chaperone? Let's distinguish a few different things that you could say about this issue. The first is that dressing like a slut increases the likelihood of getting raped. As a statement, this might be true (although it would be nice to see it statistically substantiated). Secondly, however, there is the question of why this is a valid statement. I argue that this is culture and not some sort of natural, biological phenomenon that we humans have zero control over. If we were to accept this statement, then we need to talk about how to change people's mind sets. Maybe slut walks aren't the best way to do this, but that hasn't even been argued yet.

I mean, this thread was clearly made in response to the slut walk(s). The walking sluts need not believe that dressing like a slut does not have an impact on you getting raped. They primarily believe that dressing like a slut should not have an impact on you getting raped. Your response seems to be "the world sucks and it's silly of us to think we can change that". But attitudes toward public violence against gays and whatnot did change in the past few centuries, and I don't see why we have reached some sort of natural limit on how tolerant we can get.

No...not really no.
1) You're comparing political thought between two vastly different cultures, whereas the same cannot be said of something started in Canada.

Eh? Despite the language barrier, an evangelical from Idaho might have more in common politically with an Iranian moderate Islamist than with these walking sluts.

2) This seems like so much of American liberalism (where it has spread). The Left points to things they do not like in order to address problems while ignoring the real causes because they are uncomfortable and do not fit into a rose-colored view of the world.

Really, "real causes"? Women dressing like sluts are the "real causes" here? Here is a nice quotation to conclude the post:

Unveiled Women Are Like Uncovered Meat. So said Sheikh Hilali, an Egyptian-Australian Muslim religious teacher, in 2006. "If you take uncovered meat and put it on the street, on the pavement, in a garden, in a park or in the backyard, without a cover and the cats eat it, is it the fault of the cat or the uncovered meat? The uncovered meat is the problem. If the meat was covered, the cats wouldn't roam around it. If the meat is inside the fridge, they won't get it. If the meat was in the fridge and it (the cat) smelled it, it can bang its head as much as it wants, but it's no use. If the woman is in her boudoir, in her house and if she's wearing the veil and if she shows modesty, disasters don't happen."

[Elfer]

At 6/13/11 12:04 AM, Korriken wrote: Also, I love how people are running around screaming "it doesn't contribute at all, its all about power"

I didn't say that it is never a contributing factor ever, I'm just wondering if it's as significant as people are making it out to be in this thread, i.e. if manner of dress will have a realistic impact on the probability of rape.

As I mentioned, I was asking for actual data, not an explanation of why you think it would make sense. I've been trying to find data on rape statistics with regard to clothing, but I can't find original studies, just figures being quoted in feminist documents, so I'm very hesitant to use that as a source because there's no way to evaluate bias.

[afuckingname]

i went to protest here and shouted that this 'slut' culture and fashion is designed by males to appeal to their perversions, and that means that men 'own' them. that they are infact the 'dominated' in the dominator culture

[afuckingname]

... and i guess it's much like blacks and the n-word, gays and the f-word etc, instead of rejecting these detrimental cultural things, they are going to ride it out and try to convert dominator apes with primal sexual urges. civilization is a failure, we have all the documents to prove it. and the graphs showing all the "rare earth elements" that will be "used up" in under a hundred years. ones that are integral in keeping this system running

[TheMason]

At 6/13/11 07:43 AM, lapis wrote:

At 6/12/11 09:23 PM, Astronesthes wrote: The world isn't perfect you know, and you can't force people to accept you.

Oh, what nonsense. If that attitude had prevailed since the 1500s we would still be burning witches. Let me ask you: why did public assault of homosexuals/non-Christians/vulnerable women become less prevalent in the West throughout the past few centuries? Is that just this natural ebb and flow of ideas that we simple mortals have zero control over?

I think this sums up the argument nicely.

In all honesty Lapis I think you're too entrenched with "the way the world oughta be" for the way the world is.

Yes, since the enlightenment things have gotten been for historically oppressed groups (mostly in the West). However, this does not mean that deviancy has been eliminated. There is a certain percentage of the population who have psychotic and anti-social impulses. The problem is authority cannot protect the individual from bad stuff happening to them.

The educator cannot teach every child to be nice and accepting of everyone, no matter how different they are. Environmental factors in the home can overpower what is done in the classroom. Thus kids from racist, sexist or homophobic households grow up to be racists, sexists or homophobes.

The police officer cannot be everywhere at once and stop every violent crime. I have many cop friends and more often than not their job is to take a report and supervise the clean-up rather than stop the crime.

The judge may sentence a murder to death and a rapist or homophobe who assaulted a gay teen to the max sentence. But those victims are still dead, raped or possibly handicapped.

In the end it is how YOU, the individual make decisions and risk assessments that has a huge impact on bad things happening to you. No a woman cannot avoid a serial rapist who randomly targets women in their home. But they can make the grown-up decision to avoid situations where they binge drink and loose consciousness or are otherwise vulnerable. They can make themselves less of a target by not dressing like a hooker.

In the military we talk about hard and soft targets. If you wear day-glow clothing, no armor and a giant American flag on your Humvee on patrol you're going to stand out and you're not protected from bullets or shrapnel. No soldier does that. It'd be stupid and suicidal...just inviting bad stuff to happen.

So then why is telling girls and young women:
* Don't wear clothing that, essentially, reduces you to a sexual object.
* Avoid drinking copious amounts of booze.
* Watch your drink at all times

Why is this oppressive and sexist? To me it is simple risk avoidance.

[TheMason]

At 6/12/11 10:17 PM, Ravariel wrote: Rape is not about sex. It is about power and thrill and harm.

There has been no study able to correlate any relationship between dress and instance of rape.

There is a problem with the studies. Rape is a very hard issue for even psychologists to study largely because the sample population (or "n" in statistical parlance) is problematic. Because of victim shame and the intensely private/personal nature of the crime...the vast majority of rapists go unpunished because the victims do not report the crime.

This leads to the question: is there something fundamentally different about the cases that are reported that seperates them from the majority that are not? For example, it is believed that most victims know their attacker...so could this mean that the motives are different between a stranger and someone well known to the victim? Thus it is very possible that the data that can be studied is skewed towards the power motivation? Ie: a person who rapes random women do it out of anti-social or psychotic urges rather than purely sexual urges and since the woman is raped in her home or a parking garage are more likely to go to the authorities instead of a girl who wore something her Daddy didn't approve of and her bf couldn't control his sexual urges.

Ergo, how a woman dresses has no relationship to the likelihood of her being raped. Any insinuation, however subtle, that a woman puts herself in more danger by dressing seductively is exactly what these walks are designed to protest.

Actually, I think you miss the point of these walks. I've read multiple stories about these Slutwalks and their motivation is:
That how a woman dresses is NOT something that should be used to defend a rapist (something I whole-heartedly agree with).

Now what started it was the insinuation by a Toronto police officer that a woman's manner of dress make them a more appealing target to sexual assault. This motivation...I do not agree with. As a man I know several men who are ruled by their sexual urges and if not for the legal consequences they would rape at will. Now, what about those who are actually predators who have another psychosis at play or are too narcissistic to believe they are subject to the law and can have whatever woman they please? Or get drunk and they themselves are no longer able to make rational decisions?

I'm not saying that these abnormal sexual urges are a defense either...but them being in jail does not eliminate the emotional and/or physical scars of the rape/assault.

At 6/13/11 10:06 AM, Elfer wrote: As I mentioned, I was asking for actual data, not an explanation of why you think it would make sense. I've been trying to find data on rape statistics with regard to clothing, but I can't find original studies, just figures being quoted in feminist documents, so I'm very hesitant to use that as a source because there's no way to evaluate bias.

That's a problem I've been having too. Most of the "studies" I've seen throw out descriptive statistics and then proceed into ideological hyperbole about how a woman's dress is used to defame her in court and defend the rapist. The majority of what I've seen are less psychological or sociological science and more ideological rants.

[Ravariel]

At 6/13/11 07:37 PM, TheMason wrote: There is a problem with the studies. Rape is a very hard issue for even psychologists to study largely because the sample population (or "n" in statistical parlance) is problematic. Because of victim shame and the intensely private/personal nature of the crime...the vast majority of rapists go unpunished because the victims do not report the crime.

While a certainly valid point, this ambiguity does not lend any weight to the assumption that dress style has any effect on the instances of rape. Rape happens everywhere, to people of all dress styles, even in countries where full coverage is the norm.

Thus it is very possible that the data that can be studied is skewed towards the power motivation? Ie: a person who rapes random women do it out of anti-social or psychotic urges rather than purely sexual urges and since the woman is raped in her home or a parking garage are more likely to go to the authorities instead of a girl who wore something her Daddy didn't approve of and her bf couldn't control his sexual urges.

Possible? Yes. Probable? Not to my mind. Even in cases of "date" rape, where the dress excuse is most prevalent, there is significant data that points to power being the main motivator of the act. I do not believe that the inclusion of those instances not reported would change that much at all. Our sample size, while small, is large enough to gain significant statistical knowledge.

Actually, I think you miss the point of these walks. I've read multiple stories about these Slutwalks and their motivation is:
That how a woman dresses is NOT something that should be used to defend a rapist (something I whole-heartedly agree with).

Yes, but there is also the underlying assumption that dress style is inherently dangerous when it comes to sexual predation. You, yourself, have listed dress style as a preventative measure a woman should be conscious of, as though she were wearing a napalm shirt in a forest fire or wearing a deer costume during hunting season (if you'll pardon the metaphorical hyperbole).

[FatherTime89]

About those psychotics who can be triggered by attire, yeah I don't think they're as many of them as you think.

There are psychos out there that can be triggered by all sorts of things.

For example a woman was triggered by a spider into drowning her kids (she thought it was a sign from God).

[Magic-Mushroom]

I agree that you shouldn't rape someone regardless.
But still if you get drunk out late at night at a party with a bunch of strangers it's kinda your fault for putting yourself in a position like that.

[afuckingname]

our data etc

sounds like you want to include yourself, what have you accomplished

psychos out there that can be trigerred

Any kind of mental affectation or derangement; especially one which cannot be ascribed to organic lesion or neurosis. In modern use, any mental illness or disorder that is accompanied by hallucinations, delusions or mental confusion and a loss of contact with external reality, whether attributable to an organic lesion or not.

not sure if these people can be described as 'psychotic'. and if so how do you have any say on how this person perceives things. but really "loss of contact" sounds like sensory deprivation and they wouldn't be able to find their way around

try walking into people on the street and see how many (with a clean criminal record) will assault you

the women were conditioned into dressing like that, and the men were conditioned to be attracted to that and have an exaggerated perception of how attractive it is, mostly through media and for the procreation

there are selective rapists, and this can be their selection

if you were in prison, you wouldn't want to make your self look or dress in a way that the consensus might deem 'promiscuous'. attracting the attention of

[afuckingname]

At 6/14/11 02:03 AM, afuckingname wrote:
the women were conditioned into dressing like that, and the men were conditioned to be attracted to that and have an exaggerated perception of how attractive it is, mostly through media and for the procreation

have to add on to this, at one point i was into this 'exaggerated perception'
since then i have had experiences of altered perceiving and raised visual acuity and now humans just look strange and rather ridiculous, i mean this "sexual body language" is the same seen in "lesser animals"

and this culture and media has gotten to the point where it seems like the people are attracted more to selective images that are heavily photoshopped than the real person

they have bought into culture and have been perverted by the illusions it sets up
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/e n/wiki/Hyperreality#Significance

[Rahmemhotep]

Yeah, I heard about this and me and my wife have three words to say: Fuck those bitches.

[lapis]

At 6/13/11 07:13 PM, TheMason wrote: So then why is telling girls and young women:
* Don't wear clothing that, essentially, reduces you to a sexual object.
* Avoid drinking copious amounts of booze.
* Watch your drink at all times

I see that drinking heavily is being thrown in there like it's entirely comparable to dressing like a slut, but I argue that the two are fundamentally different. There are good biological reasons why you shouldn't drink too much alcohol unless you have sober-ish (male?) friends around you to ensure you get back home safely. Drinking reduces your ability to evaluate situations, resulting you ending up in some random guy's bedroom where you have no means to stop any advances, and it impairs your ability to defend yourself, to run away, even to scream for help in the worst cases of inebriation.

On the other hand, the very concept of dressing like a slut is cultural. The only thing I have heard here so far against dressing indecently is that it might "trigger" a lunatic, but if you do not want to risk triggering a lunatic then you might prefer not leaving your house altogether. Hell, a nasal voice might trigger some psychopath who always had a Fran Drescher obsession. The only thing really relevant here is the existence of a culture of tacit ambivalence, mitigation or apathy which might encourage unwillingness to do everything one can to help among bystanders during an assault or policemen after the fact. The only valid response to oppose such a culture then is that "rape is wrong", period. Not "rape is wrong BUT you could have tried not dressing like a harlot".

I mean, can we at least agree that the following advice for women who do not want to get raped is even better than yours:

* do not leave the house leaving any flesh or hair exposed
* do not leave the house without your husband or a male relative as a chaperone
* do not drink any alcohol, and, if your male chaperone is welcome to suggestions, advise him in a calm and indirect manner not to do so as well

The former bit of advice might reduce the amount of sensual triggers that a pychopath could feel to the minimum and the latter two signficantly reduce the vulnerability of the woman.

I mean, most cultures agree that there is a line somewhere between being chained to an iron ball in the kitchen and leaving home naked except for a buttplug sticking out your derriere where you go from being a slut to a dignified woman but I'm just curiuous as to where, scientifically speking, this boundary is supposed to be.

[afuckingname]

that talk of 'triggers' makes it sound like they're just walking down the street not intent on any raping and then look they got triggered. while talking about "bystanders" not doing anything, i'm sure this would in a more private area

how are you going to use science to find the "line" between someone held against their will and someone not wearing any clothes, and that "all cultures" have a consensus. even though with many of them, women aren't wearing a thing. and the rape isn't occuring not because "they're ugly"