I don't understand the "Slutwalk"

[Kodachi]

While I agree somewhat with the OPs comparisons and though I also agree that the crime just shouldn't happen which really is the core of the matter, there's a big difference between a woman putting on a mini skirt and leaving the front door of your house unlocked. While both **may** increase the risk of a crime, the average culture doesn't put any pressure on you to leave your door unlocked.

From what I gather, the "Slutwalks" are really to highlight the awkward position women are in. Yes, women have the "choice" to wear whatever they like but in reality, there's a lot of societal pressure to essentially find a partner. Unlike men who generally need to exhibit power or security to be seen as "desirable", women are, at the very root of society, still seen as desirable in direct relation to their sex appeal. So we, as a culture, pressure women to look as sexy as possible, thus it's only natural they would be upset when we then blame them when they're attacked.

Yes I know individual relationships may vary but the vast majority of relationships follow this pattern.

 

[dorkette1990]

There is actually a stronger correlation between a woman's physical attributes than her choice of dress. For example, most women who are raped have longer hair, which was worn in a ponytail. Why? Because ponytails are easier to grab.
And since rape has almost nothing to do with sex (assuming we're talking about someone who looks for a victim as opposed to the guy who has sex with a drunk girl), it doesn't matter what the woman wears. Sure, the violence may be geared toward sluttier dressed girls because the rapist psychologically feels a draw, but the same can be said of frumpily dressed woman.
I personally support the slutwalk.... but that could be because I'm from an area where walking around naked is acceptable because we're all hippies.

 

[Periodic]

Think about it. Do you really think that most rapists are men who were walking down the street and see a woman wearing a miniskirt and go "ooh she's so sexy I could resist if she was wearing something more modest but with that miniskirt I just can't help myself"? No, that's stupid.

The fact is that there is no evidence towards the idea that women who dress sexily are more likely to be raped. "Common sense" can be misleading.

And it doesn't matter if people who say these things "don't think it should be a mitigating factor", they are shifting blame on the victim where there is NO EVIDENCE that they should be doing so. Even if nobody wants blame to be shifted LEGALLY, they still are affecting the way people think, and spreading ideas that are outright WRONG.

That being said, the Slutwalk is full of idiots. You don't change minds by shoving a caricature of your position in the faces of the already misinformed, a problem this movement shares with various gay pride parades. Feminism is not going to make any progress if feminists keep acting like shitheads.

 

[CM156_v1legacy]

That being said, the Slutwalk is full of idiots. You don't change minds by shoving a caricature of your position in the faces of the already misinformed, a problem this movement shares with various gay pride parades. Feminism is not going to make any progress if feminists keep acting like shitheads.

While I wouldn't call them... *ahem* "shitheads"... *cough* *cough*, I do agree.

He (or she) who is the loudest or the most audacious is not, by definition, the one who is correct. And therein lies my problem with this movement. And I agree with you about the parades.

You need to have a rational discussion about the issue. Not invoke the worst extreme view.

 

[ResonanceSD]

snip

The idea behind it is that it's not the victim's fault. This is correct. It is never the victim's fault. That's why they're the f'ing VICTIM.


"Certainly, there are more factors than appearance when it comes to rape, and women shouldn't be victimized, but if you dress provocatively, you are more likely to be singled out."


The idea that you've so wonderfully missed is that there are no mitigating factors for a rapist. "because of the way she dressed" is not a good reason. there are NO good reasons. Why's that hard to grasp?

Are you implying that Pierce said that there were mitigating factors for a rapist?.. Cuz I really don't see where he did.

Ok, read what I said again. In that, "how can you not understand this, there are no excuses".

Don't put words in my mouth.

 

[spartan231490]

It's crap. People are judged based on their clothing, that's the way the world works. Period! If a man wears black jeans, black muscle shirt, and a pink mohawk, it leave a certain impression. The same is true of wearing provocative clothing. They should stop trying to "redeam" the word: slut. It's bad, it always will be, it should be. It's like trying to redeam the word: pimp. yeah, there is nothing good about blaming the victim, and there never will be, but guess what: that's not what the guy even originally said. He said that if you dress provocatively you are more likely to get raped. i don't know if that's true, but it makes sense, just like if I leave my doors unlocked, I'm more likely to be robbed. That doesn't make it any less the fault of the rapist/robber, it just means that the victim is also a moron. If I run down the street in the most dangerous part of NYC insulting people and asking them to kill me, it is no less murder when someone obliges me, it just makes me a moron. Stop dressing like sluts, or stop bitching about being treated like a slut. You can't have it both ways.

 

[Cain_Zeros]

Certainly, there are more factors than appearance when it comes to rape, and women shouldn't be victimized, but if you dress provocatively, you are more likely to be singled out.

That's not true though. Rape isn't an act caused by sexual arousal. It's not about the pleasure of the attacker: it's about control. Rapists don't care about what their victims look like. The only care about inflicting pain and suffering.
However, sexual harassment, which is in fact motivated by sexual arousal, does scale with provocativity of the victim's clothing. But rape and harassment are really comparable in the way most would think. There's an order of magnitude of difference between them. And the motivations and victimology tend to be significantly disjoint and distinctive.

These protestors seem to think that people assume that dressing sluttish-ly means "I want to get raped." But it's a simple fact: if you dress like a slut, you're more likely to get raped.

I'm not saying that it's a good thing. But it's true. Women, in a perfect world, would be able to dress however they want without fear. But this is far from a perfect world. Dressing provocatively means you'll be more likely to get raped. Sure, people who don't may still get raped. But they're less likely to.
Thoughts?

No, you are 100% wrong. There is no correlation between dress and likelyhood to be raped.

Serial Rapists (the rarest) follow a specific MO.

Date Rapists (the most common) rape their date, no matter what she happens to be wearing. Wearing more revealing clothes doesn't alter that in any way.

Rape as part of another crime (robbery, assault, etc) is based on the target having valuables or being attacked for some other reason. Wearing slutty clothes has no impact on that either - in fact, it can have a negative impact (make you look less wealthy). Generally, assault is personal, so again, your dress has nothing to do with it because your attacker knows you.

So NONE of the main types of rape have anything to do with how you're dressed.

Yet, people persist in making ignorant comments about how one's dress makes them okay to assault. This is offensive and these women (and myself) are doing our best to draw attention to this idiotic, outdated, and chauvinistic belief.

These two summed up what's wrong with any sort of clothing-related statement as far as rape goes pretty damn well. It's not about sex, and it doesn't matter at all what the victim was wearing. If you have an orifice, a man might rape you.

 

[Bobbity]

It's protesting victim blaming. The idea is that what they wear is irrelevant; there are other factors at play. Specifically there are more important factors, such as the rapist's psychology. The slutwalk is designed to raise awareness for rapists getting off easier, or even completely, and the predominance of women being told it's their fault they were physically and emotionally violated. And the actual numbers of reported rape incidences suggest there is in fact no correlation between what women we and if they get raped. On top of which, provocative is an entirely subjective term, because where do you draw the line between modest and seductive?

Nicely said. If I remember correctly, these walks started after a case in which a police officer - or was it a politician? - in the Southern states blamed the victim in a rape case, and criticised her for wearing such a provocative dress, saying that she could expect to be raped, or somesuch.

These walks protest the blaming of a victim in a rape case, which is something that happens depressingly often in the more backwards areas of the world. The idea is that it's entirely the rapist's fault, and that the woman should be able to dress however she bloody well pleases, without fear of sexual assault. Seems fair enough to me.

Off topic: Ads in our captchas now? Really?

 

[spartan231490]

Certainly, there are more factors than appearance when it comes to rape, and women shouldn't be victimized, but if you dress provocatively, you are more likely to be singled out.

That's not true though. Rape isn't an act caused by sexual arousal. It's not about the pleasure of the attacker: it's about control. Rapists don't care about what their victims look like. The only care about inflicting pain and suffering.
However, sexual harassment, which is in fact motivated by sexual arousal, does scale with provocativity of the victim's clothing. But rape and harassment are really comparable in the way most would think. There's an order of magnitude of difference between them. And the motivations and victimology tend to be significantly disjoint and distinctive.

These protestors seem to think that people assume that dressing sluttish-ly means "I want to get raped." But it's a simple fact: if you dress like a slut, you're more likely to get raped.

I'm not saying that it's a good thing. But it's true. Women, in a perfect world, would be able to dress however they want without fear. But this is far from a perfect world. Dressing provocatively means you'll be more likely to get raped. Sure, people who don't may still get raped. But they're less likely to.
Thoughts?

No, you are 100% wrong. There is no correlation between dress and likelyhood to be raped.

Serial Rapists (the rarest) follow a specific MO.

Date Rapists (the most common) rape their date, no matter what she happens to be wearing. Wearing more revealing clothes doesn't alter that in any way.

Rape as part of another crime (robbery, assault, etc) is based on the target having valuables or being attacked for some other reason. Wearing slutty clothes has no impact on that either - in fact, it can have a negative impact (make you look less wealthy). Generally, assault is personal, so again, your dress has nothing to do with it because your attacker knows you.

So NONE of the main types of rape have anything to do with how you're dressed.

Yet, people persist in making ignorant comments about how one's dress makes them okay to assault. This is offensive and these women (and myself) are doing our best to draw attention to this idiotic, outdated, and chauvinistic belief.

These two summed up what's wrong with any sort of clothing-related statement as far as rape goes pretty damn well. It's not about sex, and it doesn't matter at all what the victim was wearing. If you have an orifice, a man might rape you.

A man might rape you. A bit of sexism going on there. And I tend to disagree with your point on date-rapists. If a man is willing to go that far for sex, he's probably going to try to get the sexiest/sluttiest date that they possibly can.

Regardless, i think trying to redeem the word slut is very wise. and far more importantly, as i said in my other post, you can say that it's stupid to leave your doors unlocked, without it being any less the robber's fault when he steals your shit, and ect. Just because people are saying it's more likely that you will be raped if you wear slutty clothes, it doesn't mean they think it's ok to rape you. Women get raped more than men, no one ever said it was ok to rape women but not men because of that. If it's inaccurate, then it shouldn't be said because it won't help women, but if it is accurate, it should be said, because it arms women to protect themselves. regardless of accuracy, the statement has absolutely nothing to do with the belief that it's ok to rape women dressed like sluts. that's faulty logic.

 

[spartan231490]

sorry, my internet really fucking blows, double post.

 

[Cain_Zeros]

Certainly, there are more factors than appearance when it comes to rape, and women shouldn't be victimized, but if you dress provocatively, you are more likely to be singled out.

That's not true though. Rape isn't an act caused by sexual arousal. It's not about the pleasure of the attacker: it's about control. Rapists don't care about what their victims look like. The only care about inflicting pain and suffering.
However, sexual harassment, which is in fact motivated by sexual arousal, does scale with provocativity of the victim's clothing. But rape and harassment are really comparable in the way most would think. There's an order of magnitude of difference between them. And the motivations and victimology tend to be significantly disjoint and distinctive.

These protestors seem to think that people assume that dressing sluttish-ly means "I want to get raped." But it's a simple fact: if you dress like a slut, you're more likely to get raped.

I'm not saying that it's a good thing. But it's true. Women, in a perfect world, would be able to dress however they want without fear. But this is far from a perfect world. Dressing provocatively means you'll be more likely to get raped. Sure, people who don't may still get raped. But they're less likely to.
Thoughts?

No, you are 100% wrong. There is no correlation between dress and likelyhood to be raped.

Serial Rapists (the rarest) follow a specific MO.

Date Rapists (the most common) rape their date, no matter what she happens to be wearing. Wearing more revealing clothes doesn't alter that in any way.

Rape as part of another crime (robbery, assault, etc) is based on the target having valuables or being attacked for some other reason. Wearing slutty clothes has no impact on that either - in fact, it can have a negative impact (make you look less wealthy). Generally, assault is personal, so again, your dress has nothing to do with it because your attacker knows you.

So NONE of the main types of rape have anything to do with how you're dressed.

Yet, people persist in making ignorant comments about how one's dress makes them okay to assault. This is offensive and these women (and myself) are doing our best to draw attention to this idiotic, outdated, and chauvinistic belief.

These two summed up what's wrong with any sort of clothing-related statement as far as rape goes pretty damn well. It's not about sex, and it doesn't matter at all what the victim was wearing. If you have an orifice, a man might rape you.

A man might rape you. A bit of sexism going on there.

Well, as far as female rapists go the range is pretty much the same, considering a male victim of a female rapist would still have an orifice, and of course female victims of female rapists have orifices. An orifice is just more important for a male rapist.

 

[Berethond]

I assume you've heard about the Slutwalks going on worldwide. If you haven't, look it up.
I just don't understand it. These protestors seem to think that people assume that dressing sluttish-ly means "I want to get raped." But it's a simple fact: if you dress like a slut, you're more likely to get raped.
Imagine the following: A rapist sees two women, one at each end of a street. Both are alone. One is wearing pants/jeans and a t-shirt/longsleeve shirt, while the other is wearing a tube-top and a mini-skirt. Which, in your opinion, would be raped? The one dressed provocatively. If I leave my doors unlocked, I'm more likely to get robbed. If I cross the street, I'm more likely to get hit by a car.
I'm not saying that it's a good thing. But it's true. Women, in a perfect world, would be able to dress however they want without fear. But this is far from a perfect world. Dressing provocatively means you'll be more likely to get raped. Sure, people who don't may still get raped. But they're less likely to.
Thoughts?

You couldn't be more wrong.
Rape is rarely, if ever, a sexually-motivated act. It's about domination. People who dress conservatively are more likely to be raped because it adds another layer to the rapist's domination of them.

 

[BrailleOperatic]

I have an interesting question to add to the thought pool going on here: how are we all quantifying slutty?
I consider it something like that generic prostitute garb you see the whores where on cop dramas. I personally don't find low cut necks or high cut dresses to be slutty, simply due to intent: They're meant to turn heads, not tighten trousers. we're saying these hypothetical women getting raped are dressed like sluts, what exactly do we think they're wearing?

 

[Keldon888]

blaming the victim is ridiculous.

How women dress should be a completely different topic than rape. And anyone that suggests otherwise is retarded.

But I do reserve the right to treat a woman like a dumb slut if she wears stuff out of a porn film, just like I treat men like they can't breathe and walk at the same time if they wear incredibly baggy clothes and tank tops.

 

[Terminal Blue]

But it's a simple fact: if you dress like a slut, you're more likely to get raped.

If it's a simple fact, then can you support it with any numbers?

As far as I'm aware:

1) The jury is out on whether clothing has any impact on the likelihood of being raped. Since stranger rape (not 'date rape', fuck you Charles Clarke) is relatively rare and dealing with victims raises ethical problems, it would be extremely difficult to perform any kind of balanced research on the subject. Sure, if you were willing to brave an ethics board, you might be able to produce a rough idea of how many of a sample of stranger rape victims were wearing 'slutty' clothes at the time, but that means nothing without other numbers.

2) The vast majority of rape cases are not stranger rape. In the majority of rape cases, the victim and the attacker have a previous sexual relationship, in most other rape cases the victim and the attacker have known each other for a significant period of time. Stranger rape is a tiny fraction of overall rape cases, and yet since it's the most likely to be reported that tiny fraction is already massively overeported relative to other forms of rape.

An enormous majority of people who are raped will be raped by people who already know them and have seen them in a range of clothes already. Again, there is no evidence that it is in any way statistically significant.

But all this is besides the point..

If I leave my doors unlocked, I'm more likely to get robbed. If I cross the street, I'm more likely to get hit by a car.

A female body (or male body, let's not be narrow minded) is not a car. It's not a piece of jewellery. It's not a handbag. It isn't a possession to be owned or stolen. It's amazing how common it is in rape discourse to see people comparing female bodies to commodities with logic along the lines of 'well, I lock my car to discourage thieves so you should wear an unflattering top to discourage rapists'.

No. That kind of discourse is not helpful, in fact it's worse than unhelpful in that it's actively promoting the kinds of attitudes which often make rape justifiable to those who do it. Rape is not a preventable theft which you can solve by metaphorically locking your car. The preventive logic of theft does not apply, and if you apply it (without any real evidence, I might add) then you send the message to society that an uncovered female body is fair game.

Yes, you lock your car. But you never have to go out wearing a burlap bag because if you don't random guys might assume you want to be stabbed in the stomach. And if that happened, I'd presume you wouldn't expect everyone around you to tut and tell you that you should have been wearing your bag. I'd hope in that situation you'd have the spine to assert your right not to have to wear the burlap bag, especially if there was no real evidence that those guys wouldn't have stabbed you anyway. This is exactly what these women are doing, and fucking power to them!

 

[WolfThomas]

There is actually a stronger correlation between a woman's physical attributes than her choice of dress. For example, most women who are raped have longer hair, which was worn in a ponytail. Why? Because ponytails are easier to grab.

Snopes did a thing on that and it was suggested to be false.

http://www.snopes.com/crime/prevent/rape.asp

If there is indeed any correlation it's probably because women in general have long hair (we call that selection bias in statistics).

 

[Jodah]

Most of the people here that are against the "Slutwalk" aren't saying the victim should be blamed or that the rapist should get off easier. Even if sexual attraction only factors into 1% of rapes its enough that people should take precautions against it. No, they shouldn't have to but it can't hurt to do it.

I shouldn't have to lock my doors at night but I do anyways because I don't want someone walking off with my TV.

Recommending precautionary measures is not the same as blaming the victim.