'Slut' Parade

[SilentCom]

I might be missing something here... What exactly is the definition of "slut" in this context? To my understanding, a slut is a prostitute and is often used to describe girls or women who are quick to engage in sexual intercourse.

If my understanding of the definition of slut is correct, then I don't understand why these women would feel the need to parade about saying they are proud for having low sexual standards.

 

[cobra_ky]

I feel the article and the parade itself is muddling their own point. Is the point of the parade reappropriation of a word or is it to raise awareness on rape? While I can get behind both messages, I feel that this is just not effective way of delivering it.

Both. The point is reclaiming the word so it can no longer be used to justify or excuse rape.

But I never thought that the word itself was the justification. I mean, I get that used in THAT context, it's supposed to paint a poor picture of the victims and so on but... I don't think reclaiming the word will make the victim slamming go away. That's what I mean. It's not just the word itself, it's the image that it brings. The image that brings forth by the word "slut", "whore", "harlot", etc all bring to mind a woman of loose morals, and sexual promiscuity and denigration of their character. Isolating a single word, in this context, I feel does nothing, and that's why I question the effectiveness of the message.

Again, I agree with the sentiment, but I'm not sure if this is an effective way to go about it.

The original Slutwalk in Toronto was specifically in response to a Toronto police officer suggesting that women could avoid rape by 'not dressing like sluts'. Over time it came to represent the much larger issue of how society in general views rape and the expression of female sexuality.

and besides, "Denigrating the Character of Sexually Promiscuous Women Walk" just doesn't have the same ring to it.

 

[Kakashi on crack]

I only use the word slut to describe someone who dresses in an extremely provocative manner without respect for their body or comfort in what they're wearing, and not even one of those women fall under said category for my definition of slut.

If a woman wants to wear booty shorts and a tank top with everything falling out, and they're comfortable, then whatever. If they're doing it out of peer pressure, or to garner attention, then they're a slut. *shrug* I don't use the term lighly.

I agree with what they're saying, but I feel they're going about it in a way that is demeaning to everyone.


Also, as a side note: Men can reproduce hundreds of times in nine months while a woman can only reproduce once. If we want to go back to the true origins of the demeaning manner of this word, then there you have it on a silver platter.

 

[Terminal Blue]

Well then, I stand corrected. Oh, and no, the education system prefers that students take a more..."interactive" or "hands-on" approach to sex education. Kinda sucks for losers like me, but eh, it beats child-rearing.

Sorry.. I didn't mean to sound patronizing.

A lot of people the world over have misconceptions about sex (including, unfortunately, people who have a lot more of it than they should). It shouldn't be anything to be ashamed of, and I'm sorry if I jumped down your throat.

Frankly, British sex education sucks pretty hard too. Fortunately, I had middle-class parents who were too embarassed to tell me things themselves, so they bought me a bunch of books on the subject instead. I'm quite lucky my parents know their books.

 

[nightwolf667]

Secondly, where do we draw the line? What's "too" enticing? What advice can we give to these woman on what they should wear? A fucking burka? Is anything less than a burka possibly enticing sexual assault?

No, because unfortunately not even the burka is enough. If a woman exists she's pretty much enticing sexual assault.

The less power women have the more common rape is.

 

[Epic Fail 1977]

Spoken like someone who has no understanding of what constitutes a proof.

I'll settle for any evidence at all.

I'm still waiting though.

And proof is perfectly possible in psychology to the extent that it's possible in any science. I don't get your point.

Then by all means, do explain it to me.

The clue is in the name. Look up what 'autonomic' means.

Seriously.. did you ever get a random erection in maths class (for example)? Would you assume that if someone did they were mentally aroused by maths and actually wanted to fuck their teacher or their maths textbook?

I didn't say that mental stimulation is the only kind of stimulation that counts.

Considering that you implied that a large proportion of the people can achieve orgasm through experiencing massive pain, serious physical injury or paralysis simply through 'mental arousal', you might need to clarify what you actually think here. Because I've lost the plot of what you're even saying.

Or are you implying that rape is actually not painful and causes both physical and mental arousal in a significant proportion of women? Because if so, damn.. I don't know where to start. I hope noone who has been through the experience ever has the misfortune to meet you.

Now you're just being ridiculous. I'm saying that the mind is a complicated thing, and that rape might meet several basic desires in women (as well as many things they don't desire, like pain and fear).

Oh and by the way, I know two (female) rape victims who've confided in me. Without me asking, I might add. It seems some (well, two) women find I'm the kind of guy they can talk to about this stuff. Maybe it's because I'm a rational person who doesn't go into knee-jerk rage at the slightest provocation? I really don't know, but I do know that your estimation of me as a person is way off.

As for the Autonomous (or Autonomic, if that's the proper name) Nervous System, I admit to knowing very little about it except that it controls automatic stuff like heartbeat. And, if some people in this thread are to be believed, orgasms. Great. And how does that disprove mental stimulation?

There are two conflicting assumptions here:
1) That a woman having an orgasm from rape is in no way related to her mental state.
2) That the above assumption is false.

Seriously, don't use Occams Razor if you don't know what it means.

Assumption 1 is an original assumption. It relies on an entirely new logical infrastructure to sustain it which is not well integrated into current understanding of the topic. Even the people who do claim (anecdotally) to be suggesting that orgasm does occur during rape are suggesting that it is not voluntary. You are making this assumption from nowhere, and it contradicts the vast, vast majority of established information.

Assumption 2 is not even an assumption, it covers a whole range of assumptions from across the board of existing understanding of the topic. It is the existing rule, it is sustained by tested logical infrastructure.

As said, Occams razor does not determine truth, but it is a good model to allocate the burden of the proof, and the burden of proof must always fall with the original assumption. A nuclear engineer doesn't get up in the morning and decide that the power plant he works at is powered by magic, the established assumption carries the most weight. Anyone who wants to claim that the power plant is powered by magic recieves the burden of proof.

It has yet to be evidenced to me that women do orgasm during rape. I cannot find a single reliable study suggesting it, just a bunch of anecdotal evidence. That evidence is hard to ignore, true, but a consistent point comes out of it. The people who experienced it did not want it. It did not bring them pleasure or joy. It is always described as unwanted physical arousal, as a betrayal of the mind by the body, or in similar terms.

Actually, the most common answer to the question of why this happens in the anecdotal cases is not that it represents not a voluntary desire for the act, but rather a bodily defence mechanism. This implies (with reasonably sound evidence from anyone who has ever got turned on) that the components of the response cycle are in some way linked, so in order to loosen or lubricate the vagina a person has to become aroused. If they become sufficiently aroused, they may orgasm. Forced penetration of the vagina is extremely painful and physically damaging, it may well be that the autonomic response is to attempt to lubricate the vagina, which may result in physical arousal.

That is an assumption. However, I'm inclined to take it infinitely more seriously than yours because it depends on fewer original assumptions to sustain it. We know that rape is terrifying, we know that it is painful, we know that it causes immense physical harm. We do not know of a correlation between light D/s practices and rape. Occams razor that.

Defense mechanism. Interesting. Then explain why some male rape victims said they got an erection during the rape. Exactly how does an erection serve as any kind of defense mechanism?

Anyway, Occam's razor. I've been trying to avoid your (false) accusations of misuse as they're completely beside the point and strike me as being little more than a futile exercise in point scoring and/or derailing, but since you insist on dragging it up over and over again...

You're correct in saying that Occam's razor is not a proof. However, as I've stated twice already, I am not (and never have been) attempting to prove my assumption. If I had proof then I would have no use for Occam's razor, which provides a way to reach reasonable conclusions by making the lowest number of assumptions.

We have these curiosities: that many women fantasise about rape, and that some women orgasm during rape. I say both qualify as curious because rape is ostensibly an unpleasant experience.

My explanation involves one assumption: that on some level women enjoy, if only in part, being raped.

The notion that the response is purely physical does not explain male arousal during rape, nor does it explain the shame that women feel over the orgasm, and it conveniently ignores the high rate of rape fantasising in women. The fact that rape is an awful, traumatic, painful experience seems to me to entirely beside the point, as I am not claiming total enjoyment/desire on the part of the victim. The fact that the women who had orgasms said that they didn't want to is also useless as it tells us only of their conscious mind state (and I do hope you're not suggesting that people have a complete understanding of their own subconscious desires).

So we're left, as I said, with one assumption. It seems entirely plausible that other factors are involved, but none of them seem like complete explanations to me.

 

[Xisin]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-13333013

So these women are proud of being sluts, think that there is nothing wrong with acting in that way, and rather then listening to advice on how to avoid rape, they want to protest?

Does anyone else find this type of behavior ridiculous and shows how warped/hedonistic parts of Western society is becoming?

...Did you read the article? A police officer said that women shouldn't dress like sluts and not that people should not rape them. They are attempting to take the word back, not saying something like: having unsafe sex with everyone is great fun.

Have you ever been to the beach or a pool? Should we cover everyone up when they are there, for their own protection? Blaming the victim is silly, always.

 

[WolfThomas]

One of the protesters' posters summed it up perfectly, there's too much emphasis on "don't get raped" in society rather than "don't rape".

Women and men, gay or straight, of all nationalities and religion should be able to wear whatever they want without fear of reprisal or violence. This doesn't mean people won't stop judging them in their minds eye. It just means that someone should never be afraid of being abused physically or verbally for dressing like a "slut, ****** or terrorist".

Best poster though was a man with "This Man takes no for an answer!".

 

[Death God]

The idea behind it, no. The way they are going about it, yes! "Sluts say yes"? Really? Are they that immature to being proud of sluts. Rape is always a bad thing and women should dress how they want but having a "slut parade" in protest is a bit too outrageous. Have signs about freedom of individuality or something, not full blown sluts. I think the saddest thing I've seen from this whole thing is a little girl with a shirt that says, "I support my mommy being a slut". Pull this protest back down about 6 notches or find a different word.

 

[A Free Man]

I think you've totally missed the point of the article, I support them on this. They should be able to choose how they dress without the worry of being raped.

But that is a silly idealistic notion to have in this world.
Sure, they should be able to wear what they want, but people will target them for rape, just like how you should be able to walk anywhere with your phone and wallet out in your hand,but you don't because someone will steal it.

Or to put it another way:
Would you feel sorry for someone who got mugged when they were walking down a rough neighborhood with cash strapped all over them?
So then why feel sorry for a girl who goes out wearing close to nothing and will be around drunken guys?

Look I understand what you are saying and I'm not an extremist one way or the other but you have to realise that what you just said is essentially equating a human being violated against their will and someone losing a few dollars. I'm not saying you meant to say this and I won't take what you said out of context and drag on about it I'm just saying you have to be careful when talking on topics such as this or you may well offend many people by saying something other then what you think.

 

[fletch_talon]

You wouldn't carry a big ass wad of $100 bills in full view because to do so is like a massive advertisment to anyone who is predisposed to, or has no qualms with mugging you.
It doesn't mean you will get mugged, and hiding/not carrying money doesn't mean you won't get mugged, but you reduce the risk.

Nobody is blaming the person who was mugged, but if you don't want to be mugged then it makes sense to reduce the risks as much as possible by not, shall we say, "arousing" the mugger's interests.

 

[gamer_parent]

Never before have I wanted to EXTERMINATE large sections of the Escapist's population. Now I do. Lets get buildin' some Daleks.

Put the hardware together and I'll program them for ya.

I like the idea of it however I honestly think it's going to be nearly impossible to flip a word like "slut" into something positive or neutral. Instead I wonder if it would be easier to coin a new word that has a positive connotation.

It probably would. But the overall effect of flipping a pejorative and widespread word into something positive would be much more powerful.

It would be, but I still doubt you could pull it off. Some people are still going to have the belief that women who are promiscuous are "immoral", "bad", etc and use slut as negative insult. Creating an entirely different word would be much easier because you'd separate people who have the former belief from those who think a women being promiscuous isn't a big deal.

Now what this word would be, I have no idea, someone come up with something that could become popular.

just to add to this. Remember how African Americans reappropriate the N word, but still the word carries heavy negative connotations when used by a white person? It's still offensive. Reappropriation just means that the group doing the reappropriating can use it, not that it loses it's bigoted sting.

 

[subtlefuge]

It must suck for a police officer to know that trends exist, but be unable to say anything to help potential victims.

The protesters have entirely valid points, but attacking the officer makes no sense whatsoever. It's out of line and disrespectful to the person who physically stops rapists and takes bullets from rapists. Seriously, the cop isn't the problem.

 

[wall5970]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-13333013

So these women are proud of being sluts, think that there is nothing wrong with acting in that way, and rather then listening to advice on how to avoid rape, they want to protest?

Does anyone else find this type of behavior ridiculous and shows how warped/hedonistic parts of Western society is becoming?

I'm pretty sure that you missed the point of the entire thing which was as follows: They were protesting the idea that a woman "asks" to be raped based solely on what she's wearing at the time.

I agree that taking the blame away from the RAPIST in the situation is detrimental. So I agree with them.

If I remember right, (I didn't read that specific article on it all the way through, but have read about this before), the whole "slut" thing came out of a judge calling a rape victim a slut because of how she dressed.

 

[Treblaine]

I don't mean to be insulting but how might this relate to Gay Pride Parades?

Gays also become victims of attack from the way they dress and act, and I've heard many conservative types say if they "kept it in the closet they wouldn't have so much trouble" which Bill O'Reilley has said repeatedly. And now this is an actual parade, in-your-face forcing acceptance but more importantly desensitising the public while simultaneously showing force of numbers.

The central issue is violent heterosexual males, lecherous towards females and bigoted towards homosexuals.

 

[General_Potatoes]

That parade seems like it'd be a good place to find a one night stand though ;D

Hopefully, they have one in Australia

 

[JonnWood]

Instead of discouraging dressing sexy, the police should be encouraging conceal carry licensing for women. They have a right to protect themselves, but they shouldn't have to give up something they enjoy in order to do it. So why not add something instead? Add a gun. And no, a gun is not a big deal. It's a tool. A tool for self-defense. People have a right to protect themselves. And no, an innocent person with a gun just trying to protect herself is not a danger to society.

Why specifically a gun? In most circumstances, canned mace is far more practical; it is cheap, it requires no training or maintenence to use accurately and effectively, it is unlikely to kill someone (so one can be less reluctant to use it in face of a threat), and it WORKS. When people think "self-defence", they are too quick to think "gun". Depending on your situation, there are more sensible options.

Not to mention all the countries where guns are difficult to get.

 

[Treblaine]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-13333013

So these women are proud of being sluts, think that there is nothing wrong with acting in that way, and rather then listening to advice on how to avoid rape, they want to protest?

Does anyone else find this type of behavior ridiculous and shows how warped/hedonistic parts of Western society is becoming?

I'm pretty sure that you missed the point of the entire thing which was as follows: They were protesting the idea that a woman "asks" to be raped based solely on what she's wearing at the time.

I agree that taking the blame away from the RAPIST in the situation is detrimental. So I agree with them.

If I remember right, (I didn't read that specific article on it all the way through, but have read about this before), the whole "slut" thing came out of a judge calling a rape victim a slut because of how she dressed.

On the other hand if you pull a lion's tail you can't be surprised it it turns round and rips your face off.

It is a truism that if men are "distracted" by women's bodies then that is DE JURE the man's problem (he must bear the burden of self-restraint), not the woman's. But when it comes to sexual harassment/assault that is when it becomes DE FACTO the woman's problem.

For example why is it OK for a Park Warden to lecture the family of a dead hiker "ooh well he shouldn't have provoked that wild bear by playing with it's cubs, that bear was only responding instinctively." when saying the equivalent for a human-human assault would be so insensitive? What is so special about humans compared to wild animals? Why is it because animals are EXPECTED to be animalistic is the burden of responsibility shifted to the human, yet with humans who are quite frankly insane do they retain responsibility.

A lot of males that are living freely in society are more like animals, they think with their base instincts and use violence to get what they want, you do not want to provoke these people even if you have every legal right. As when some sociopath with 50lbs more muscle than you attacks you then it's the law of the jungle and the strongest will prevail, not the just.

I think it is important in a functional society to know the extent and limitations of Civil Rights and Practical Rights.

The law is not and cannot be everywhere. The police cannot stop every assault, it cannot track down every rapist, hell It can't even give a proportional punishment for rape, there is no way of matching that.

This is why I think the power protecting rights - what makes civil rights practical rights - should be in the hands of people that actually need them. I think that extends to things like the 2nd Amendment, which are all about putting power in the hands of those that need it such as arming women to level the playing field with men who get what they want thanks to the testosterone induced strength advantage.

 

[Tanis]

You completely missed the point. The parade was to support rape victims and tear down the whole "she dressed like a slut, she was asking for it" stance.
"Just because I look hungry doesn't mean I want random people showing sausages down my throat".

Hahaha...love the analogy.