I don't understand the "Slutwalk"

[Araksardet]

I'm rather offended by the implication that if a girl is dressed all slutty, I, as a man, will completely lose control over myself and just whip it out and start raping her.

Yeah, I've never quite gotten that. Saying that it's the women's fault means men have no self-control or morals or more or less any of the other things that makes a person an actual human being. Seems very strange for males claiming to be actual human beings to say that.

This was the kind of mentality that was widespread in the 1800s, though. Men were considered to be without self-control, and it was up to the more moral women to resist and "tame" the men. If they failed (i.e. put out), they had fallen, too weak to resist the man's wild nature in much the same way that weak houses can't resist the passage of time, or that weak trees get uprooted and knocked down in storms. It's not surprising men should propagate this kind of ideology, since it essentially absolves them of all guilt by saying "Boys will be boys, but girls should know better!"

Also, to those who think the walks are pointless: the very fact we are discussing the walks and the issues that spawned them (and that others, elsewhere, are doing the same) is proof that they are useful on at least one level - in generating, or maintaining, debate about the issue.

Ultimately, I think the (justified) point of the Slutwalks is to put the blame where it belongs - on the rapist. People like to say women should take precautions - but besides the obvious objection that most rape could not have been prevented by conservative dress, precautions only make sense to a certain extent. When it comes to crime, precautions only go so far before they turn into oppression and paranoia.

South Africa has a high murder rate, so should we say of murder victims there that "They knew what their country was like, they ought to have emigrated"?

Here in Germany, there have been a few cases of foreigners being murdered by right-wing thugs. Should they tell foreigners to stop speaking their native language on the streets, or to stop speaking at all if they have an accent that might give them away, or, gods forbid, to stay inside their homes because they look foreign? After all, otherwise, they just weren't being careful enough.

In China, the government likes to lock up dissenters. Should we dismiss the suffering of political prisoners because they knew what they were getting into, voicing their opinions like that?

Should the short kid with no friends who gets his lunch money stolen from him on a regular basis at school be told "Well, you should have found yourself some more friends, so don't complain about those bullies!"?

Even if it *were* true that provocative dress leads to some fraction of rape cases, the point of the Slutwalks is to say that, guess what, the way to solve the problem isn't to fight the victims' behavior and demand they plan their lives around rare contingencies caused by sociopaths; it's to fight the rapists's mentality and the culture and legal structures that keep them from being punished the way they deserve. It's about the need to stop seeing rapists hiding at every corner as the status quo.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Oh man, 1 in 3 south african women must dress like total hoebags, amirite OP?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_South_Africa#Sexual_violence

This not-all-too-thinly veiled misogynism is ridiculous. What counts as "slutty attire?" A V-neck a little too V-like? Wheres the line between skirt and mini-skirt?

Remember Lara Logan, the reporter gang-raped by Egyptian revolutionaries? Apparently that was because of displaying cleavage at an awards ceremony in the US.

I wish I was making that up.

 

[Lukyo]

I was rather confused when I head about these walks. You mean to tell me the victims are still be blamed for being raped? Why is that myth still around?

But I did have a question about the rally. I saw a news video clip where a person in the walk who refereed to the walk like this: "It's an attempt to reclaim the word 'slut' itself. Because once you reclaim it you take the power from it."

Can someone please explain to me what that means?

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

If you have an orifice, a man might rape you.

Equally a woman might.

If we're looking at equality, it's always best to look on both sides.

And anyone who responds with "Men are more likely to do it", really needs to look at why the "Slutwalk" happened. Outdated ideas. Sexual predators can be any gender or orientation. As can sexual victims.

 

[jyork89]

I can't say I really agree with the "slutwalk" and the whole statement that started it seems relatively true. I'm sorry but if you leave your door unlocked you are more likely to be robbed. If you walk around with your wallet bulging out of your back pocket you are more likely to be pick pocketed. Do you deserve to be robbed or pick pocketed? Of course not. However you are increasing risk factors.

I am not saying rapists should get off. It should not be a factor in their sentencing and all rapists should be treated the same. However, it's simply warning women to take care because we do not live in a perfect world. Just like you wouldn't send your 8 year old daughter to walk through central park in the middle of the night to visit a friends. If she was kidnapped, then the kidnapper should not get any reduced sentence. However one would ask why was the child sent to walk alone at night. That has NOTHING to do with the kidnapping or the sentencing.

Everyone owes themselves a reasonable duty of care. Rape is just as bad no matter the surrounding circumstances, but if steps can be taken to avoid it why shouldn't be taken. No court in the developed world will accept a defense of she looked attractive so I was tempted. Trust me, I have seen the scenario pop up repeatedly and it has always been rejected. The only conduct the court will look at is, say for example, midway through sex the woman changes her mind which raises a debatable issue. If there is no consent it is rape. It is simple as that. Consent must clearly given. If is not enough for her to wink at you or wave her butt at you or even flash.

Therefore there is nothing to protest. We recognize rape as a vile crime. Why shouldn't be allowed to give advise to help prevent it? When the police started recommending people bolting their windows with deadlocks nobody protested then saying it was placing the blame on the victims of the robbery. Why should rape be different?

 

[thiosk]

Remember Lara Logan, the reporter gang-raped by Egyptian revolutionaries? Apparently that was because of displaying cleavage at an awards ceremony in the US.

I wish I was making that up.

I also wish you were making that up.

 

[Colour Scientist]

There are more publically acceptable ways to protest this I think.

The point of the walks was to get this topic out on the open and to stimulate public debate and attention. Which they did, this thread is months after the original walk and there have been countless threads before this. There was always going to be a great number of people who would hate the idea but at least the subject got the publicity it deserved and now that it's out in the open maybe society can eventually develop from it.

 

[Dark Knifer]

Snip

I can't say I agree with the whole "it's increasing the likely hood thing" but I see where your coming from. How I see it if someone is deranged enough to perform the act of rape then what they wear is not going to be a deciding factor. They will just grab the first opportunity they have because rape isn't about sex, otherwise they'd look at porn or a dating website, it's about dominance and inflicting pain. What they wear won't make a difference and won't increase the likely hood, least that's how I see it.

 

[Pierce Graham]

Okay, I don't recall saying that women that dress provocatively deserve to be raped.... I was asking a simple question. If you want to be an asshole about it, just go and hate somewhere else.

 

[Pierce Graham]

Okay, and when did I say that it was the victim's fault? That people want to get raped? Citation, please.

 

[Pierce Graham]

Wow, seriously? You think that because I used a reference to objects, that I think women are objects? Unbelievable.

 

[Superbeast]

I can't say I really agree with the "slutwalk" and the whole statement that started it seems relatively true. I'm sorry but if you leave your door unlocked you are more likely to be robbed. If you walk around with your wallet bulging out of your back pocket you are more likely to be pick pocketed. Do you deserve to be robbed or pick pocketed? Of course not. However you are increasing risk factors.

I am not saying rapists should get off. It should not be a factor in their sentencing and all rapists should be treated the same. However, it's simply warning women to take care because we do not live in a perfect world. Just like you wouldn't send your 8 year old daughter to walk through central park in the middle of the night to visit a friends. If she was kidnapped, then the kidnapper should not get any reduced sentence. However one would ask why was the child sent to walk alone at night. That has NOTHING to do with the kidnapping or the sentencing.

Everyone owes themselves a reasonable duty of care. Rape is just as bad no matter the surrounding circumstances, but if steps can be taken to avoid it why shouldn't be taken. No court in the developed world will accept a defense of she looked attractive so I was tempted. Trust me, I have seen the scenario pop up repeatedly and it has always been rejected. The only conduct the court will look at is, say for example, midway through sex the woman changes her mind which raises a debatable issue. If there is no consent it is rape. It is simple as that. Consent must clearly given. If is not enough for her to wink at you or wave her butt at you or even flash.

Therefore there is nothing to protest. We recognize rape as a vile crime. Why shouldn't be allowed to give advise to help prevent it? When the police started recommending people bolting their windows with deadlocks nobody protested then saying it was placing the blame on the victims of the robbery. Why should rape be different?

The trouble is, clothing has no bearing on the target of a rapist.

If you've ever seen any of the TV crime dramas, you'll notice how they can profile a rapist, and their intended targets. This is based in reality, as rapists have a preferred "type" - tall, brunette 30-40s; short, blonde 15-25s etc. Not once, in real life nor on any of these shows, does the profiler say: "The potential victims we're looking for will be wearing a top cut to nipple-level and a mini-skirt of between 4-10 inches long".

If a woman is of the desired type of the rapist, then the factor of them being raped is down to the person's awareness, isolation from others and what opportunities for attacks present themselves. It matters not whether she was wearing a boob-tube and a mini-skirt or jeans and a jumper.

Thus arguing that women shouldn't dress "sluttily" (however one defines that - be it the aforementioned boob-tube ensemble, or showing a bit of ankle - or even, horrifyingly, knee) as a precaution is not grounded in reality. In fact, the only "precaution" that women can take against being raped, is to have a sex-change, along with enough hormones, surgery and work-outs to no longer look female (and then that may not totally work as they may be targeted by a male-oriented rapist).

Hell, if we are saying that clothing affects the chances of being raped, rape must be pretty damn rare in various countries in the Middle East where the burqa is required to be worn by law, right?

Hence the point of the "Slut Walk" - it is defending a woman's right to dress how she wishes without other people (who may well be called to serve on jury duty in a rape case) saying that they "deserve it" or "should have taken precautions by not dressing so"; by using a high-profile event that will garner media coverage to raise the general population's awareness that clothing has no bearing in terms of rape.

 

[Pierce Graham]

Finally, someone who doesn't immediately assume I'm a sexist/rape sympathizer. Some of these morons are just unbelievable.

 

[Cain_Zeros]

If you have an orifice, a man might rape you.

Equally a woman might.

If we're looking at equality, it's always best to look on both sides.

A point I conceded and addressed last time someone called me out on my word choice on that post.

 

[BRex21]

While blaming someones actions for any crime committed against them is just stupid, I've always assumed the slut walks were an excuse for immature women to act like drunken frat boys. We had one shortly after I came back to Winnipeg caused by the Kenneth Rhodes case, a woman was DRESSED PROVOCATIVELY (and incidentally asked a guy if he wanted to go skinny dipping alone with her had a friend drive the two of them out to the middle of nowhere while she made out with him) was raped and the judge handed down a reduced sentence because "sex was in the air." Yea, what I saw was a lot of sick girls who got off on showing there P*****s to any minors who happened to be in the area. Sadly they have a right to free expression so as long as they are in a group it isn't indecent exposure.

 

[Terminal Blue]

Wow, seriously? You think that because I used a reference to objects, that I think women are objects? Unbelievable.

Did anyone say that? Don't post controversial things and then grow a persecution complex about being called up on them.

I don't honestly care what you think women are. All I'm pointing out is that you used the logic of theft in a case of assault, to quote:

'If I leave my doors unlocked, I'm more likely to get robbed.'

You're not the only one. A lot of people have done the same thing.

Consider the implications of assuming that the same logic you use to protect your material possessions applies to a particular type of human body. Theft and assault may both be violations of your rights, but to compare them in this case is flawed and extremely problematic.

..caused by the Kenneth Rhodes case, a woman was DRESSED PROVOCATIVELY (and incidentally asked a guy if he wanted to go skinny dipping alone with her had a friend drive the two of them out to the middle of nowhere while she made out with him) was raped and the judge handed down a reduced sentence because "sex was in the air."

Do you understand what 'consent' means?

 

[BRex21]

..caused by the Kenneth Rhodes case, a woman was DRESSED PROVOCATIVELY (and incidentally asked a guy if he wanted to go skinny dipping alone with her had a friend drive the two of them out to the middle of nowhere while she made out with him) was raped and the judge handed down a reduced sentence because "sex was in the air."

Do you understand what 'consent' means?

Yes quite clearly, but doing everything in your power to get a man drunk, alone with you and naked kinda undermines your credibility when filing a charge. The sheer concept that anyone would think they could secure a conviction with nothing but circumstantial evidence that the crime DIDN'T happen is pretty ridiculous, and protesting that a judge said "sex was in the air" when a woman did everything in her power to lead a man alone into the middle of nowhere to "party" *ahem* the kind of party where a man and a woman are naked and alone with each other, kinda implies sex. In fact I would bet that if you said that last part to just about anyone that's the first thing they would think.

Also i think you miss the point of the quote 'If I leave my doors unlocked, I'm more likely to get robbed.' Namely there are actions you can take to prevent crime. I worked at a university and watched the local wymyns groups campaign against drug testing strip education and distribution as it is victim blaming. Failing to take steps to prevent a crime does not make it any less of a crime, but behaving in such a way as to prevent the crime altogether just makes sense.

 

[Terminal Blue]

The sheer concept that anyone would think they could secure a conviction with nothing but circumstantial evidence that the crime DIDN'T happen is pretty ridiculous, and protesting that a judge said "sex was in the air" when a woman did everything in her power to lead a man alone into the middle of nowhere to "party" *ahem* the kind of party where a man and a woman are naked and alone with each other, kinda implies sex.

And what does sex mean?

Because this is rapidly becoming a good case in point. If your attitude is that sex comprises a linear progression of actions towards penetration and that any move towards any of those actions constitutes consent for penetration then.. well.. you're kind of wrong.

Consent is never, ever, ever assumed. The situation doesn't matter. Whatever else the person consented to doesn't matter. A girl should have every right to strip off and kiss, pet or do whatever she wants with someone without them taking it as a sign that she wants to be violently fucked. If she doesn't want to be violently fucked, be it because she's missed the pill or because she is being coy or because she doesn't find it very pleasurable (many women don't) or she doesn't like her partner that much, then nothing else matters. If her partner goes ahead, consent has been violated. It's rape.

I understand that as a straight guy (I assume, apologies if I'm wrong) you'll probably never be put in the position of having to negotiate consent in this way, but let's try. If you allow your girlfriend to tie you up in a sexual context and she whips out a strap-on and pegs the shit out of you without you giving consent, the fault is unequivocally hers. Anything you did or consented to up to that point is irrelevant. The same principle applies no matter how heterosexual or vanilla the sex is.

Consent must be actively given or it is not there. If it's not there, you're on very fucking dangerous ground. A legal system which is not capable of enforcing consent does not deserve the authority to do so, it's an incredibly important legal principle.

Remember that the vast majority of rapes involve people who either do currently fuck on a regular basis or have done in the past. Consent applies regardless of the situation. You can be married to someone your entire life and have had sex with them thousands of times and you have no more right to do so without their consent than you did when you first met them. That is the only way the law can operate around consent.

 

[BRex21]

The sheer concept that anyone would think they could secure a conviction with nothing but circumstantial evidence that the crime DIDN'T happen is pretty ridiculous, and protesting that a judge said "sex was in the air" when a woman did everything in her power to lead a man alone into the middle of nowhere to "party" *ahem* the kind of party where a man and a woman are naked and alone with each other, kinda implies sex.

And what does sex mean?

Because this is rapidly becoming a good case in point. If your attitude is that sex comprises a linear progression of actions towards penetration and that any move towards any of those actions constitutes consent for penetration then.. well.. you're kind of wrong.

Consent is never, ever, ever assumed. The situation doesn't matter. Whatever else the person consented to doesn't matter. A girl should have every right to strip off and kiss, pet or do whatever she wants with someone without them taking it as a sign that she wants to be violently fucked. If she doesn't want to be violently fucked, be it because she has a headache or she's just being manipulative or whatever and her partner doesn't anyway, then nothing else matters. Consent has been violated. It's rape.

I understand that as a straight guy (I assume, apologies if I'm wrong) you'll probably never be put in the position of having to negotiate consent in this way, but let's try. If you allow your girlfriend to tie you up in a sexual context and she whips out a strap-on and pegs the shit out of you without you giving consent, the fault is unequivocally hers. Anything you did or consented to up to that point is irrelevant. The same principle applies no matter how heterosexual or vanilla the sex is.

Consent must be actively given or it is not there. If it's not there, you're on very fucking dangerous ground. A legal system which is not capable of enforcing consent does not deserve the authority to do so, it's an incredibly important legal principle.

Consent is often implied, or is this rape?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bGvuzxlkLAY

[youtube]bGvuzxlkLAY[/youtube]

You can easily infer from her reaction that she wants sex, but at no point in time does she give any form of consent. Yet if no means no and an absence of yes also means no, then rape. In this case "a linear progression of actions towards penetration" form the basis for what the vast majority of people on the planet would call consensual sex.
The issue in this particular case is that everything up until they were alone was an emphatic yes,at least according to witnesses who by the way included friends of the alleged victim, until they had sex that she does not know if she actually, in any way, objected to and in fact hinted at by saying she wanted to get him alone, naked and "party", something that if you ask anyone on the street they would probably say it was a euphemism for sex.
As per your example I would say it is still a matter of my objection, if i am UNABLE to object than it WOULD clearly be rape as it would if i objected at any time, but if I enjoy being tied up, hint at wanting to be penetrated and at no point in time object, here is where we fall into a grey area. But how about this for an example, I come home from a business trip in Massachusetts, and head over to my girlfriends place. The first thing she does when I get there is wrap her arms around me kiss me and lead me to her bedroom. We say virtually nothing to each other before having sex and at no point in time does either of us say ANYTHING that could be construed as an invitation or agreement to have sex. Does this mean I was raped because she initiated or that I am a rapist for assuming that her pulling me into the bedroom was consent? Does it change things that she was on top?

 

[Thaluikhain]

Because this is rapidly becoming a good case in point. If your attitude is that sex comprises a linear progression of actions towards penetration and that any move towards any of those actions constitutes consent for penetration then.. well.. you're kind of wrong.

Wouldn't really matter if it was. Even supposing that all her actions up until then were expressly intended to convey consent, she is still allowed to change her mind. Consent that cannot be revoked is not consent.