'Slut' Parade

[Terminal Blue]

Did you know that 25% of female rape victims had an orgasm during the rape? That's what I'm talking about.

Considering your lack of knowledge about how female bodies work, I presume you're a guy.

Anyway, let's do a test.

1) Take an electric meat grinder.
2) Stick your cock in it.
3) Turn it on.

Did you notice how despite the fact that an object is touching your penis, it's not very pleasurable and did not give you an orgasm? In fact, it probably hurts a lot and you are likely seriously injured. I know.. weird isn't it. Do you see how all contact on a sensitive area is not necessarily pleasurable?

Now, imagine you had an organ a bit like a penis but inverted and inside you. Only it's a lot less sensitive than a penis and for most people any degree of contact with it without also stimulating other parts will never give them an orgasm at all.

This organ has a very strong set of muscles around it which are normally contracted very tightly unless they are consciously relaxed. You can probably approximate what it is like to possess such a set of muscles by the fact that you have an arse. In fact, your anus is much easier to relax than a vagina. Of course, you probably don't have the advantage of having trained yourself to relax in that way, which will provide a relatively convincing simulation of the effects of fear during rape.

Since you've had time to recover from the meat grinder experiment. Try sticking an object about 6 inches long and 5 inches in circumferance into your arse. Don't piss around with foreplay and relaxation exercises, a rapist wouldn't. If it doesn't want to go in, force it. Like the aforementioned inverted penis (which we'll call a 'vagina') the inside of your anus is mildly lubricated with mucus. However, in either case it's probably not enough to make this process comfortable. Do you notice how much it hurts?

Once your chosen object is inside your arse, get someone else to stand behind you and manoeuvre it vigorously in any way they want. You'll notice there are certain angles which are more bearable than others, but that's why you've got someone else to do this. Make sure they understand than under no circumstances are they to take any account of your reaction or allow you to move into a more comfortable position. In fact, it may help if they're actually trying to hurt you, as a lot of rapists get off on that.

'But', I hear you cry.. 'I can't have an orgasm from my arse, how is this a fair test!' Well, actually you can. In fact, it's far far easier for you to have an orgasm from anal penetration than it is for a woman to have an orgasm solely from vaginal penetration because the inside front wall of your anus can be used to stimulate the prostate, a wonderful organ which most women don't have (some have an organ which is thought to be a vestigal prostate, but it's in a completely different place). In fact, this a far better, more intense and more reliable way to get you off than touching your cock.. not that you probably will get off because you're likely in incredible pain, and your partner doesn't care.

Now do you see why the statement you made is fucking ludicrous?

 

[Epic Fail 1977]

rape fantasies and rape role play are actually very different than being fucking raped. I'm sure you're smart enough to understand that.

Occam's Razor: the simplest explanation tends to be the right one.

The facts:
1) 50% of women fantasise about rape.
2) 50% of women orgasm more often than not during voluntary sex.
3) 25% of women orgasm during rape. Note that 50% multiplied by 50% is 25%.

 

[Risingblade]

What is this suppose to accomplish? I know it relates to rape and how it doesn't matter how you dress but...the point? I don't get it :/

 

[edman270]

Because dressing like a slut connotates promiscuity. I'm sure your reply will be something to the effect of challenging me over why promiscuity is a negative behaviour, so let me address that now: I see it as cheapening and devaluing relationships for all parties involved. Of course, people are free to act as they please, just as I'm free to think less of them for that.

Well then you'll understand if I think less of you for being judgmental.

Or we could all play nice for a change

 

[Agayek]

Couple of problems here, number one everybody seems to assume that women are raped more frequently when they wear "sluttier clothes". No one I have seen has backed this up with statistical evidence. In fact, I'd say this assumption betrays the idea that the rapist is somehow understandable in his actions. I mean look at her! Shaking her ass, wearing revealing clothes, how can these men control themselves?!

Again, I'd love to see some statistical evidence here.

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?

Now I could be wrong, since I am (and most everyone else is) missing a great deal of context, but I was under the impression the original comment that spawned all this was essentially a "practice common sense to limit your risk of being attacked" over a "it's your fault you got raped because of what you were wearing".

To put it another way, you don't walk through a dark alley in the ghetto with a wad of $100 bills in your hand. That's just being stupid and begging to be mugged.

Similarly, a lone woman shouldn't go wandering through dark alleys in provocative clothing or exposing themselves to needless risk. If/when they get attacked, it's certainly not their fault, but that doesn't change the fact that they were being stupid.

The moral of the story is, practice common sense and you will almost always be safe.

 

[Steppin Razor]

As for the orgasm being involuntary, I suggest you see my previous reply on that subject.

Look up the Autonomic Nervous System and then get back to us when you have a basic understanding of what orgasms being autonomic means. Until then, don't comment. All you're doing is proving that you know fuck all about anything.

Young people - particularly women - need to realise that they have a responsibility to themselves to keep safe. No, a man should never be excused from assaulting you because you were dressed like you were "asking for it", or whatever ridiculous excuse he might try to use. But that doesn't change the fact that a women dressed in a provocative manner is more likely to be a target than a woman who isn't. It's unfair, but it's the truth, and unfortunately there isn't really a way of stopping it from being the truth.

No, it's not actually. It's a baseless argument that only serves to shift some of the blame to the victim. Go back through this thread and you'll see numerous scientific studies being cited that all come to the same conclusion - women raped because they were wearing slutty clothing make up a minimal amount of rape victims.

 

[conflictofinterests]

Nope, I don't see why it should be socially acceptable for men to sleep around, yet if a women does they're a "slut" or a "slag".

Well when it comes down to it, women really do hold all of the cards when it comes to sex. We can go tit for tat but a woman is much more likely to turn down a man's advances than vice-verse. Another thing to consider is how much more work it takes to be a "man-whore" than to be a "slut."

To be a "man-whore" you need to look somewhat decent, be interesting enough to catch someone's eye, and money most of the time.

What do you need to be a "slut?" A vagina and the word yes somewhere in your vocabulary.

This brings to mind a lesson I recently had in my linguistics class. It was all about the uselessness of the word "no" and the power dynamics inherent in it. It gave three examples as follows:


1) A woman being propositioned by a man.

In this case, in most Western cultural settings, the only "appropriate" response for a woman is "no," even if she would indeed like to have sex with this man. If she says yes, then she is a slut, and there are many negative connotations with that. If she says no, and means no, then she will spend the rest of the encounter, if not the rest of her time around this male, repeating herself, because there are a number of "virtuous" women who say no, but mean yes.


2) A man being propositioned

The main example brought up was that of "gay terror," that a man whose place was to proposition, when put in the position of answerer (by a homosexual propositioning him) would be so confused, and so out of place, that subsequent violent rage (potentially resulting in the murder of the gay man) is seen as unavoidable, and therefore appropriates a reduction in sentence for connected crimes committed.
Apparently during the "free love" years, when women were again trying to redefine notions of sexuality and power, groups of women would stand on streets and catcall men (as one sees men do occasionally nowadays) with a result that men would generally become extremely agitated.

3) BDSM

The lecture went on to talk about in a BDSM relationship, where all relationships of power and social norms are mutable, "no" is a useless safeword. Especially when roleplaying domination and submission, the submissive is supposed to cry "no" a number of times, and this signifies that the dominant is performing correctly.

 

[Epic Fail 1977]

Hmm, while I typed that last post I got quite a few replies, most of which have descended into simple insults - the last refuge of a person who's argument has failed. I'll reply to the answers that convey something beyond simple malice. Give me a minute.

 

[JonnWood]

Wow, The Escapist has surprised me again. I knew this place was a bit of a sausage fest but I never thought we had this much sexism :-/

Clearly you haven't been reading the Brink or Other M threads haha.

I'd really, really like to know why some people are so obsessed with getting their parkour gunwoman on.

 

[JonnWood]

That's extremely insulting of you. I suggested no such thing. In fact I explicitly stated that I do not condone rape under any circumstances, and not anywhere did I suggest that women bring rape on themselves. What I did say is that women are fucked up. These seem like two very different statements to me. Don't put words in my mouth that were never there.

I was responding to implications and subtext.

As for the orgasm being involuntary, I suggest you see my previous reply on that subject.

As for the women being traumatized by their intellectual denial of sex and the orgasm resulting from it: if the orgasm is a purely physical and involuntary thing (like bleeding) then why the trauma? Where's the conflict?

The trauma arises from the conflict.

So you're saying that she (or anyone) would dress up even if nobody were there to see it?

I dunno. Ask her. And no, I'm not saying that.

You're saying that if if a girl was lost at birth and raised by wolves in the wild, she'd still like to dress up (assuming she found some dresses lying around somewhere)?

Nice try with the derail. We are specifically talking about women who do like to dress up, and why. I don't know much about feral children and their sartorial preferences, even if it were relevant.

 

[LiquidGrape]

Hmm, while I typed that last post I got quite a few replies, most of which have descended into simple insults - the last refuge of a person who's argument has failed.

That's funny. I could say the same about lifting statistics out of the air.

 

[conflictofinterests]

if the orgasm is a purely physical and involuntary thing (like bleeding) then why the trauma? Where's the conflict?

There's no shame the first time a girl gets her period? She thinks she's wetting herself, then she finds this pool of blood in her panties?

Just because something is autonomic doesn't mean we don't attach value and emotions to it.

 

[Dark Knifer]

I can see what they are getting at but I was under the impression the word slut was more behaviour rather then appearance. Anyway, is one police officer's stupid thinking worth getting really angry at? Just one guy who was really stupid doesn't seem like enough motivation to start up a huge protest. If it was someone in a significant position sure but one cop?

 

[Epic Fail 1977]

I'm not saying it's about me/men, I'm saying it's because of me/men. Women feel good when they look good because men like them when they look good. That's not the same as saying that women dress up purely to attract the attention of men. I don't see why the distinction is so hard to grasp.

Counterpoint: asexuals and lesbians. I'm a dude who feels better about himself when he dresses up, and as far as I can tell it has nothing to do with whether girls like it. I don't see why that couldn't be the case with women.

I'm not sure how either you or lesbians are counterpoints. I didn't say that looking good was something that only heterosexual women like. Also, the statement "women are fucked up" is obviously a sweeping generalisation. There will be counterexamples on both sides.

Asexuals are a pretty tiny minority (less than 1%). You might as well bring psychopaths and sociopaths into the argument.

I have a pretty average libido I think; I'm just more honest about it than most guys (who have been conditioned, in conversations like this one, to lie about this stuff).

Ah, yes, that old chestnut. "Everyone has the same opinions as me, they just won't admit it!" "The lurkers support me in email!" "The public knows 9/11 was a conspiracy!"

I qualified my statement with "I think". Last time I checked, there was no machine that rates your libido out of 10 and tells you what percentile of the population you fall within.

 

[Gottesstrafe]

It's probably the feminine response to this:

 

[conflictofinterests]

I can see what they are getting at but I was under the impression the word slut was more behaviour rather then appearance. Anyway, is one police officer's stupid thinking worth getting really angry at? Just one guy who was really stupid doesn't seem like enough motivation to start up a huge protest. If it was someone in a significant position sure but one cop?

It's not just the cop. His sentiments are quite common. They started up protests to challenge this pervasive concept. Also, I believe the protests were going on before he made that statement... But I could be wrong.

 

[JonnWood]

rape fantasies and rape role play are actually very different than being fucking raped. I'm sure you're smart enough to understand that.

Occam's Razor: the simplest explanation tends to be the right one.

The facts:
1) 50% of women fantasise about rape.
2) 50% of women orgasm more often than not during voluntary sex.
3) 25% of women orgasm during rape. Note that 50% multiplied by 50% is 25%.

So you're trying to mollify a sexual assault using math.

SO CREEPY.

SO VERY CREEPY.

 

[Dags90]

Occam's Razor: the simplest explanation tends to be the right one.

The facts:
1) 50% of women fantasise about rape.
2) 50% of women orgasm more often than not during voluntary sex.
3) 25% of women orgasm during rape. Note that 50% multiplied by 50% is 25%.

Your math doesn't add up. "50% of women orgasm more often then[sic] not" could be as low as just over 25% chance of orgasm during intercourse.

 

[JonnWood]

Apparently during the "free love" years, when women were again trying to redefine notions of sexuality and power, groups of women would stand on streets and catcall men (as one sees men do occasionally nowadays) with a result that men would generally become extremely agitated.

Speaking as a guy who's been subject to sexual harassment, I just winced.

 

[conflictofinterests]

Asexuals are a pretty tiny minority (less than 1%). You might as well bring psychopaths and sociopaths into the argument.

I am somewhat offended. D: Just because I don't find the human body sexually attractive, I'm equated to psychopaths and sociopaths? (It's easier to say I'm clinically fetishistic and bisexual than to explain that I don't find people sexually attractive but I do have a libido (for my fetishes).