'Slut' Parade

[Cowabungaa]

If you dress in a way to attract attention from members of the opposite sex dont be surprised when you attract attention from members of the opposite sex.

"Attracting attention" is a far cry from "being forced to commit sexual conduct".

Fact is, we live in a society that values freedom. That includes the freedom of being able to wear what you want to wear without the fear of getting raped. As if rapists are just poor victims of those eeeevil women with their powers of lust.

 

[agrajagthetesty]

What you fail to realise is that some victims really do need blaming, and I'm fairly certain that a statement being 'obvious' and 'logical' is fairly good grounds for it still being held valid even if there aren't any statistics to back them up.

If you're really going to get into it then any statistics discerning crime are automatically to be held with skepticism due to what is referred to as 'the dark figure of crime', that being the difference between the crimes that are reported and the crimes that actually happen, see, not all crimes are recorded and presented in statistics (due to various factors such as criminals who get away, crimes which aren't seen as important enough, crimes where no action is taken by the police or crimes where the victim simply doesn't come foward to speak to the police out of fear or concern for their safety, all of which happen far more often than you may want to think), when you can back your opinion up with more than statistics which by their very nature must be held in suspect then I may be inclined to agree with you.

If you need a better analogy, were you ever told to dress warm when going outside in winter because you'll catch a cold? Well, medically speaking you can't actually catch colds as a result of the temperature outside but you'd still be an idiot to defy this 'common sense' advice because of all the other bad shit that can happen to you insted.

Dressing like a slut may not get you raped (although it might, 11% isn't an insignificant number if we're gonna trust your stats) but it could get you mugged, abducted, solicited for prostitution, drugged, be stolen from and all other assortments of lovely street crime (yeah, that can happen to anyone, but drawing attention to yourself with the way you dress certainly doesn't help matters).

Also wearing revealing clothing in winter means you'll probably catch a cold on top of that too.

I'm sorry, but I refuse to accept that "some victims really do need blaming". Rape is a terrible, horrible crime, and it is never all right to blame the victim. Not ever, not even if she was wearing nothing but nipple tassels, not even if she was stark naked. There is no excuse for rape. Also, you misunderstood me. I was trying to say that just because you think something is "obvious", that doesn't make it reality. In fact, overwhelmingly rape is not motivated by sexual desire, and therefore provocative clothing is not a factor.

Yes, statistics are prone to distortion. I'm quite aware of the shockingly high proportion of rapes which go unreported. But I'd still take my side of the argument, which has some evidence to back it up, over yours, which has had no evidence offered for it so far other than "it's common sense". Why do I need to back my opinion up with "more than statistics" when you haven't even gone that far?

Other "bad stuff" might happen if you dress provocatively, notably things like catcalls, stares, negative attention and so on. Ideally, there would not be so much stigma associated with dressing this way, so some of these factors may go away as attitudes change. But none of those things are even slightly comparable to rape, especially when considering motivation. A man might (for example) catcall a woman because a) he is attracted to her and/or b) he considers her clothing to be inviting a certain treatment. Hopefully, with more protests like this "slut parade" and more people standing up for the right to dress how they want, fewer people will be motivated by b), and when men start to have more respect for women they will find a better way to deal with a) without resorting to crude yelling. But neither a) nor b) is relevant to a rapist, and since rape is what the police officer who spawned the protest was discussing, rape is the only example of "bad stuff" relevant to this thread.

You've also misinterpreted the figure of 11%. Not all of those victims will have been targeted because of their clothing; the figure includes all those who were viewed by their rapist as having somehow "provoked" them. Which can include their attitude, their body language, what they've said, or any number of factors. These are rapists talking - they're sick people, and I wouldn't be surprised if they interpreted all sorts of behaviours as "provoking" them.

Please provide evidence that dressing "like a slut" makes you more likely to be mugged/abducted/etc. Otherwise these are just baseless claims and shouldn't be used to justify an attempt to control how women dress.

 

[Hive Mind]

If you dress in a way to attract attention from members of the opposite sex dont be surprised when you attract attention from members of the opposite sex.

"Attracting attention" is a far cry from "being forced to commit sexual conduct".

Fact is, we live in a society that values freedom. That includes the freedom of being able to wear what you want to wear without the fear of getting raped. As if rapists are just poor victims of those eeeevil women with their powers of lust.

Mmmm. It seems the rapist gets a free pass because the victim should have know better. That's funny. I don't seem to remember asking to be raped. My fault, I guess. I must have been wearing my jacket seductively.

 

[dibblywibbles]

you're obviously missing the point. the point of it was after a recent string of events in canada(man gets community service for raping a woman because she was asking for it according to the judge) was simple. to demonstrate that what you wear should have no bearing on a criminal case of sexual assault. clothes don't mean you're "asking for it".

 

[Hive Mind]

Your absolutely right... I should walk around in budgie smugglers & when women mention it, i should get all offended & then get some guys to march down the street with me...

Yes, because the way I was raped and assaulted are CLEARLY the equal to someone pointing out my clothing?

 

[hitheremynameisbob]

What is it with people and the blatantly invalid comparisons here?

Actually my comparrision is spot on & you'd have known that if you knew anything about the original story, rather then the editorialized version you a reading here. The original slutwalk occured after a police officer said that in the future the women in question should wear more situationally appropriate clothing if they wanted to avoid undue attention from men. Nothing about rape what-so-ever. An the cop was spot on... If women do not want to be looked at as sexual objects, then they should not dress up to be looked at like sexual objects, end of fucking conversdation mate... The fact that some Aussie borards in a stroke of genius though "hey lets copy them... We get to walk donw the street in our Bras... GIRL POWER!"

I'm not sure what you mean by "the original story." To quote the article,

"Thousands of women in the US and Canada have marched in response to a Toronto police officer's comment that women should try not to dress like "sluts" to avoid being raped or victimised."

This has clearly been about rape since the first post.

 

[Justforonething]

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?

Way to completely miss the point, OP.

They're protesting a Canadian police officer essentially saying that rapes happen because women dress like "sluts." Apparently, males are barely-restrained rape machines with the vision of Tyrannosaurus, except instead of being sensitive to movement, we're sensitive to miniskirts.

No, but rapists ARE.
Men are not. Rapists, who are often men, evidently do not have the same degree of self control as most men. It's like a soldier dressing like a soldier when there are snipers around. If you don't want to get shot, take off the uniform.

Yeeaaahhh. That's not how rape works; a rapist doesn't just see a pretty girl and decide to rape her.

Nice try, though?

No? Prove me otherwise. As I understand rape, it's forceful sex. Rapists tend to be people of a certain character, or possess mental illness in some way. They are triggered, and to many, provocative dress is the trigger. Not always.

 

[Hive Mind]

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?

Way to completely miss the point, OP.

They're protesting a Canadian police officer essentially saying that rapes happen because women dress like "sluts." Apparently, males are barely-restrained rape machines with the vision of Tyrannosaurus, except instead of being sensitive to movement, we're sensitive to miniskirts.

No, but rapists ARE.
Men are not. Rapists, who are often men, evidently do not have the same degree of self control as most men. It's like a soldier dressing like a soldier when there are snipers around. If you don't want to get shot, take off the uniform.

Yeeaaahhh. That's not how rape works; a rapist doesn't just see a pretty girl and decide to rape her.

Nice try, though?

No? Prove me otherwise. As I understand rape, it's forceful sex. Rapists tend to be people of a certain character, or possess mental illness in some way. They are triggered, and to many, provocative dress is the trigger. Not always.

Statistics vary, but most agree that somewhere around 50% of rapes are upon children. Of the rapes upon adults, only about 11% are committed by strangers. The remaining 39% are committed by family and friends of the victim. Study after study have shown and all psychologists agree that not only does rape have nothing to do with sex, physical attractiveness has nothing to do with it.

 

[hitheremynameisbob]

THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH FUCKING RAPE! IT NEVER DID! READ THE FUCKING ORIGINAL ARTICLE PROPERLY!

Okay, first off, the article doesn't quote the cop directly, so if you've got another source for that, please provide it. But that doesn't even matter. Even if the cop in this specific case didn't say that, it wouldn't have been the first time a police officer made the suggestion. And setting that aside, the article still clearly says that, regardless of what this particular police officer said, the MOVEMENT in question is partly responding to the idea that women are somehow to blame for rape. If you'd like other examples of officials suggesting that provocatively dressed women are at fault, I can provide them.

So yeah, the article is still about rape, and you're claiming it's not.

 

[Justforonething]

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?

Way to completely miss the point, OP.

They're protesting a Canadian police officer essentially saying that rapes happen because women dress like "sluts." Apparently, males are barely-restrained rape machines with the vision of Tyrannosaurus, except instead of being sensitive to movement, we're sensitive to miniskirts.

No, but rapists ARE.
Men are not. Rapists, who are often men, evidently do not have the same degree of self control as most men. It's like a soldier dressing like a soldier when there are snipers around. If you don't want to get shot, take off the uniform.

Yeeaaahhh. That's not how rape works; a rapist doesn't just see a pretty girl and decide to rape her.

Nice try, though?

No? Prove me otherwise. As I understand rape, it's forceful sex. Rapists tend to be people of a certain character, or possess mental illness in some way. They are triggered, and to many, provocative dress is the trigger. Not always.

Statistics vary, but most agree that somewhere around 50% of rapes are upon children. Of the rapes upon adults, only about 11% are committed by strangers. The remaining 39% are committed by family and friends of the victim. Study after study have shown and all psychologists agree that not only does rape have nothing to do with sex, physical attractiveness has nothing to do with it.

If you source this, I may believe you.
Still don't think women should dress like that though.

 

[Char-Nobyl]

Well, you are right about one thing. It's fundamentally about responsibility. Yes, in case of rape (if it actually is rape) the legal responsibility (accountibility) rests with the man. Responsibility is not only a legal matter though. If a woman dresses sexually provocative that is her choice and reasonably she doesn't have to expect to be raped for it.

Here's where the big "but" (no pun intended) comes in. I hope you're not the naive type. A woman instinctively knows/ accepts that by dressing provocatively she exercises "a certain power" over men and that not all men are equally capable in remaining unaffected (empirical knowledge). The woman in question de facto puts herself at risk (how high depends on further circumstances, like the neighborhood). Especially so if she is unlucky enough to encounter a mentally ill (and possibly sexually frustrated) man.

I'll admit, wandering across the railroad tracks while wearing a miniskirt is a poor idea. But the sort of people who would force themselves on a lone woman would do so even if she was wearing a trenchcoat. They're not suddenly becoming bad people because they saw a tube-top.

Not sure how "you might run into a horny retard, so never wear anything but trousers" is a valid example, though.

Do you smoke near a fuelling station? Do you drive like a madman in the middle of the night with lights out? You don't do these things because you are capable of risk-assessment and minimization. If a woman knows that she's having an effect on men, that men are not eunuchs/ monks or Vulcans (Star Trek) and she doesn't know the mental state/ history of the men....it is possible that she is in fact smoking near a fuelling station. Women are still responsible for their risk assessment...or lack of it.

But if you've reached that point, the rapist is already a ticking timebomb. Most human beings aren't on the edge of their sanity, ready to unleash the one-eyed monster in their trousers when a pair of high-heels brush away their last shred of restraint.

By that logic, you should never fire anyone from their job on the off-chance that they brought a gun to work.

Sure, one might hold that men should exercise more self-restraint/ control...but really that is a statement that is gender neutral and is applicable to women just as easily. You can't possibly hold that it's totally okay for women to play the unrestrained goddess relishing in her sexuality (nymphomania)...while simultaneously men must be practically a-sexual.

Ehh...I can argue the opposite. Women certainly have more opportunities than men to dress provocatively, but men certainly get the better end of the deal when it comes to actual sex. Because I love analogies so much, consider this: a key that opens many locks is a master key, but a lock that is opened by many keys is a shitty lock.

Men being what they are (sexual beings, just like women) and life being what it is (unpredictable)...it really is best to be cautious. Wearing a shirt with "FUCK ME" written on it in big gold letters is anything but cautious. It's a terrible risk-management decision that, combined with other circumstances, might end up in a tragedy.

Or it could be the best joke ever ("fuck me" as in "no way...I don't believe it"). It depends on a lot of things. You just never now when somebody takes it literally and decides to act on it.

If an undercover cop approaches you and tries to sell you drugs, he can't press charges if you do so. That would be entrapment. But at the same time, police routinely leave a car or bike unattended in a rough neighborhood, and arrest anyone who tries to steal it. This is not entrapment because the accused are not being offered something illegal and accepting: they're being left in the presence of something perfectly legal and normal and choosing to do something illegal with it.

Similarly, if a provocatively-dressed woman walks up to you, bends over, and tells you to bone her, you're not going to be charged as a rapist. You might be charged with such things as "the luckiest bastard on the planet," but that's not relevant to the point. If that same woman simply walks by you without a word, and you decide to hop aboard the Rape Train, your next destination is going to be the state pen, and with good reason.

 

[Hive Mind]

If you dress in a way to attract attention from members of the opposite sex dont be surprised when you attract attention from members of the opposite sex.

"Attracting attention" is a far cry from "being forced to commit sexual conduct".

Fact is, we live in a society that values freedom. That includes the freedom of being able to wear what you want to wear without the fear of getting raped. As if rapists are just poor victims of those eeeevil women with their powers of lust.

Mmmm. It seems the rapist gets a free pass because the victim should have know better. That's funny. I don't seem to remember asking to be raped. My fault, I guess. I must have been wearing my jacket seductively.

THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH FUCKING RAPE! IT NEVER DID! READ THE FUCKING ORIGINAL ARTICLE PROPERLY!

Rape is dreadful & we shouldn't blame the victim. However if you dress like you are easy, people are going to treat you like you are easy. This is why women wear sexually provoctive clothings, to attract a partner. No problem with that, but that clothing doesn't suddenly stop saying that once she's tired of trying to attract a partner. This march was nothing more then a responsibility shifting exercise, where the responsibility for the impression women make by the clothing they wear is pushed from her to everyone else. thats not enlightened its a fucking retarded double standard.

-M

Calm down, sweetie.

Now, could you calmly tell me how "Attract[ing] a partner," is at all similar to 'asking to be raped'? Or are men incapable of self control? Were my jacket and jeans too slutty?

 

[Hive Mind]

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?

Way to completely miss the point, OP.

They're protesting a Canadian police officer essentially saying that rapes happen because women dress like "sluts." Apparently, males are barely-restrained rape machines with the vision of Tyrannosaurus, except instead of being sensitive to movement, we're sensitive to miniskirts.

No, but rapists ARE.
Men are not. Rapists, who are often men, evidently do not have the same degree of self control as most men. It's like a soldier dressing like a soldier when there are snipers around. If you don't want to get shot, take off the uniform.

Yeeaaahhh. That's not how rape works; a rapist doesn't just see a pretty girl and decide to rape her.

Nice try, though?

No? Prove me otherwise. As I understand rape, it's forceful sex. Rapists tend to be people of a certain character, or possess mental illness in some way. They are triggered, and to many, provocative dress is the trigger. Not always.

Statistics vary, but most agree that somewhere around 50% of rapes are upon children. Of the rapes upon adults, only about 11% are committed by strangers. The remaining 39% are committed by family and friends of the victim. Study after study have shown and all psychologists agree that not only does rape have nothing to do with sex, physical attractiveness has nothing to do with it.

If you source this, I may believe you.
Still don't think women should dress like that though.

"Rape is considered a 'crime of youth,' where fifty to sixty-three percent of reported rapes were of women under age 18, while sixteen to twenty-nine percent were under age 12." (Greenberg, Bruess and Haffner, 572; Lips, 233)

"Seventy-four percent of females under age 14 who have had 'sexual relations' are survivors of rape." (Greenberg, Bruess and Haffner, 572)

"Females ages 16-24 have the highest likelihood of rape - two to three times higher." (Norment, 152; Rathus, Nevid and Fichner-Rathus, 565)

"Teens 16 to 19 were three and one-half times more likely than the general population to be victims of rape, attempted rape or sexual assault." (National Crime Victimization Survey. Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice, 1996.)

"According to the Justice Department, one in two rape victims is under age 18; one in six is under age 12." (Child Rape Victims, 1992. U.S. Department of Justice.)

One quarter of rapes in the U.S are committed by a stranger (US Bureau of Justice Statistics)

I don't know why you feel women should not wear the clothes they like because you don't like them and see them as sexual, but that is your opinion.

 

[Char-Nobyl]

Way to completely miss the point, OP.

They're protesting a Canadian police officer essentially saying that rapes happen because women dress like "sluts." Apparently, males are barely-restrained rape machines with the vision of Tyrannosaurus, except instead of being sensitive to movement, we're sensitive to miniskirts.

No, but rapists ARE.
Men are not. Rapists, who are often men, evidently do not have the same degree of self control as most men.

Okay...but if you're an attractive woman on the wrong side of town, I don't think that wearing jeans and a sweatshirt are going to be the magical shield that protects you from a rapist.

"Hey, man, check out that chick. Wanna take her?"

"Nah, man. Look closer."

"Shit. She's wearin' a sweater. ***** was good lookin', too."

"It's alright, man. Hey, look! That one's wearing heels!"

"ALRIGHT! IT'S TIME FOR A DICKING!"

It's like a soldier dressing like a soldier when there are snipers around. If you don't want to get shot, take off the uniform.

Except that soldiers are generally only present in war zones. During, you know, states of war. And somehow I don't think rapists target women specifically because of their clothing. It generally has more to do with them being alone and having the right number of holes.

 

[Adam28]

Although I can kind of understand why they are protesting, I find it kind of ridiculous how this all started from a poor choice of words for some advice. The protest just seems a little pointless to me.

 

[Hive Mind]

Although I can kind of understand why they are protesting, I find it kind of ridiculous how this all started from a poor choice of words for some advice. The protest just seems a little pointless to me.

'Sluts are asking for it' is more than a poor choice of words. It's a very dangerous opinion.

 

[hitheremynameisbob]

Although I can kind of understand why they are protesting, I find it kind of ridiculous how this all started from a poor choice of words for some advice. The protest just seems a little pointless to me.

As I said before, even if this was just a slip of the tongue or if it's been misinterpreted, this wouldn't have been the first time the suggestion that provocative clothing "causes" rape has been made. The movement is more to end that perception on the whole, and not just to respond to this particular articulation of it.

 

[Amarok]

snip

Well, you are right about one thing. It's fundamentally about responsibility. Yes, in case of rape (if it actually is rape) the legal responsibility (accountibility) rests with the man. Responsibility is not only a legal matter though. If a woman dresses sexually provocative that is her choice and reasonably she doesn't have to expect to be raped for it.

Here's where the big "but" (no pun intended) comes in. I hope you're not the naive type. A woman instinctively knows/ accepts that by dressing provocatively she exercises "a certain power" over men and that not all men are equally capable in remaining unaffected (empirical knowledge). The woman in question de facto puts herself at risk (how high depends on further circumstances, like the neighborhood). Especially so if she is unlucky enough to encounter a mentally ill (and possibly sexually frustrated) man.

Do you smoke near a fuelling station? Do you drive like a madman in the middle of the night with lights out? You don't do these things because you are capable of risk-assessment and minimization. If a woman knows that she's having an effect on men, that men are not eunuchs/ monks or Vulcans (Star Trek) and she doesn't know the mental state/ history of the men....it is possible that she is in fact smoking near a fuelling station. Women are still responsible for their risk assessment...or lack of it.

Sure, one might hold that men should exercise more self-restraint/ control...but really that is a statement that is gender neutral and is applicable to women just as easily. You can't possibly hold that it's totally okay for women to play the unrestrained goddess relishing in her sexuality (nymphomania)...while simultaneously men must be practically a-sexual.

Men being what they are (sexual beings, just like women) and life being what it is (unpredictable)...it really is best to be cautious. Wearing a shirt with "FUCK ME" written on it in big gold letters is anything but cautious. It's a terrible risk-management decision that, combined with other circumstances, might end up in a tragedy.

Or it could be the best joke ever ("fuck me" as in "no way...I don't believe it"). It depends on a lot of things. You just never now when somebody takes it literally and decides to act on it.

If sex happens and it's non-consensual, it's rape. If sex happens and it is consensual, but it takes a non-consensual turn (for example, uninvited anal penetration) it becomes rape. Rape is any part of sex that is not permitted, consented or desired by either party. Not protesting loud enough does not negate rape. Not fighting back does not negate rape. If you're in a sexual situation you don't want to be in, you are being raped.

I'm not naive, I know that women expect a reaction from men when they dress provocatively. But they do not expect to be raped. Nobody sets themselves up to be raped, that is not logical. If you're unsure of what kind of reaction these women might be expecting, then draw from the well of wisdom the age-old saying "look, but don't touch."

If a woman is raped, it makes NO DIFFERENCE if she was sitting alone in her house wearing a burqa and someone smashed though the window, or if she was out partying with a few of her girlfriends wearing a skirt-so-short-it's-a-belt and a low-cut top.

The whole point of this protest is to refute a police officer who said that women have to take partial blame for rape. They do not.

If there is a "sexually frustrated/mentally ill" bloke lurking about who ambushes her after, or drugs her during, her night out then the sexually frustrated/mentally ill bloke is 100% at fault. Not even the tiniest fraction of blame should go to the woman.

Also you've conjured that "women get to be nymphos, men have to be asexual" thing out of thin air. I dress like a slut on nights out TOO, brother.

 

[Char-Nobyl]

They're protesting a Canadian police officer essentially saying that rapes happen because women dress like "sluts."

See above statement for where you went wrong.

Alrighty. Let's see what you said.

What is it with people and the blatantly invalid comparisons here?

Actually my comparrision is spot on & you'd have known that if you knew anything about the original story, rather then the editorialized version you a reading here. The original slutwalk occured after a police officer said that in the future the women in question should wear more situationally appropriate clothing if they wanted to avoid undue attention from men. Nothing about rape what-so-ever. An the cop was spot on... If women do not want to be looked at as sexual objects, then they should not dress up to be looked at like sexual objects, end of fucking conversdation mate... The fact that some Aussie borards in a stroke of genius though "hey lets copy them... We get to walk donw the street in our Bras... GIRL POWER!" makes it no less stupid

If you're telling the truth about the original quote, than you're right, to a degree. I would appreciate seeing the original quote, though.

As I've already stated, though, rape isn't something that happens because of a tube-top and miniskirt. Unless your definition of "situationally appropriate" clothing includes a chastity belt and muzzle, a reasonably attractive woman in jeans and a sweatshirt is no safer alone on the wrong side of town than a less-modestly dressed equivalent. Regardless of how they dress, most women are pretty easy to distinguish from men, and rapists aren't famous for snubbing targets because of high standards or the possibility that "she might be a really girly dude."

 

[Adam28]

Although I can kind of understand why they are protesting, I find it kind of ridiculous how this all started from a poor choice of words for some advice. The protest just seems a little pointless to me.

'Sluts are asking for it' is more than a poor choice of words. It's a very dangerous opinion.

Did he actually say 'Sluts are asking for it', I am sorry if I missed this. I just find it kind of ridiculous how there are protests over the statement "Don't dress like sluts", although unnecessary it kind of just reminds me of things like "Don't walk home in the dark alone", I should be able to but I am still at risk of a mugging or whatever.