'Slut' Parade

[JonnWood]

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.

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

I'm sorry if I was too insensitive x_x Not sure how to adjust the post without loosing the point

No, I'm just addressing the double standard, and adding anecdata. I'm cool. Carry on.

 

[JonnWood]

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).

You're equated to sociopath and psychopaths in statistical significance. Jeezus.

Boy, people sure do misinterpret you a lot.

 

[Epic Fail 1977]

Your argument is that if I orgasmed from anal rape then felt confused, it would disprove my point? How exactly?

 

[Jimbo1212]

I think it is about time someone condemns these women for dressing like that as it is not acceptable and the majority of the world would agree with me on that point.

That is a huge assumption you are making. Why do you care how someone dresses? How does it effect you or anyone else? Oh wait. It doesn't.

It tells you a huge amount about the person and what they are like. Being a slut is not a good or healthy thing to be, hence the negative connotation.

Why isn't it good? Is there something bad about sexuality? What is it? In practical, actual demonstrable terms. How does sex make you a worse person?

As a shrink .

 

[Terminal Blue]

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.

Firstly, that's not universally correct and entirely dependent on the specifics of the encounter and how people behave. In fact I'd go so far as to say it's outright incorrect, at least in 'scene' level BDSM. Maybe not so much for people experimenting at home.

If you were beating someone up in a club and they were telling you to stop, people would almost certainly intervene. Club etiquette is pretty fucking rigid on this for very good reasons, namely that clubs are meant in large part to be a safe place for people who don't know each other to have casual encounters. Consent is utterly key to the whole process, and breaking consent will get you physically kicked out of most clubs I'm aware of.

Secondly, the D/s pretence of unwillingness is something not everyone gets off on, even those who are really into D/s. A lot of the time it can be considered quite pretentious and childish. In fact, a lot of people into D/s actually get off on making people ask or beg for things. I'm not into D/s at all so I wouldn't know there.

Also, there comes a point in most BDSM relationships where you generally stop using safewords altogether because they no longer need them. Heck, I've never used them. Once you know someone well, how much they can take, how far you can push them, all the little things about their behaviour, tone of voice and so forth which indicate whether they're faking it or being deadly serious.. it doesn't really take very long to acquire that kind of knowledge of someone.

BDSM is not just about humiliating or degrading people, and the people for whom it is tend to get a reputation for being idiots. Even the most ridiculous 'true dom' ever has to ultimately come to terms with the fact that they must respect the human being who places themselves in their hands. In most cases the relationship is far more about servicing the needs of the submissive than just the dominant getting their own way.

 

[Epic Fail 1977]

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).

You're equated to sociopath and psychopaths in statistical significance. Jeezus.

Boy, people sure do misinterpret you a lot.

There's that last refuge again.

Victim blaming is abhorrent and anyone who does it should feel thoroughly ashamed of themselves.

And who is victim blaming here, Mr Funk? You're an authority figure here, of a sort, so I'd appreciate it if you'd give my posts more than just a cursory glance before responding (assuming, of course, that it is my posts you're responding to).

 

[conflictofinterests]

Victim blaming is abhorrent and anyone who does it should feel thoroughly ashamed of themselves.

Depends on your theoretical backing. I'm of the school of thought that the only stupid question is an unasked one, so this avenue of thought should be fully explored (and I also feel that thorough exploration will end up yielding results to back your sentiments). A lesson always sticks better when someone goes through all the nooks and crannies of their own accord.

 

[Sejs Cube]

I am quite happily pro-slut. Even joking aside, women taking ownership of their own sexual identity and drives is a good thing. Granted it's not one of those kinds of attitudes that can change overnight, but any progress is good.

Though from the article, the marches against rape seem ... if noble, somewhat counter productive. It's not as though the people who commit rape do so as a rational decision to begin with. Makes it a bit hard argue with. Yes, it's a terrible thing, but no taking to the streets and holding a sign won't bring that message to the thinking part of a rapists brain such that they'll stop themselves.

And the whole provocative dress is silly. Yes, around normal people feel free to dress however you wish. Really, do. But at the same time realize that there are people seeded throughout the populace that are not normal. And being provocatively dressed around these people does not in any way excuse what they do, but it can be a causative factor. Walking through a bad neighborhood at night with a big roll of cash might get you robbed, too. Fancy that.

 

[Terminal Blue]

Your argument is that if I orgasmed from anal rape then felt confused, it would disprove my point? How exactly?

No, my point is that you wouldn't orgasm from anal rape, just like you wouldn't orgasm from vaginal rape.

Seriously, give me a fucking reference or just drop that point. Because right now I can only conclude that you have absolutely zero understanding of how human bodies work.

 

[Belated]

There is nothing wrong with a slut parade. And by the way, "slut" is a totally derogatory term. It implies that there's something wrong with dressing sexy or being promiscuous. NO. There is nothing wrong with that. If a woman wants to look her best and get laid a bunch, she should be able to. What's the big deal? If she's happy doing it, let her do it. And NO. It is not a woman's fault she got raped. It doesn't matter how sexy she looked. If you rape a woman, it is on you. A woman should be able to dress how she wants to without feeling like she's endangering herself. It's not her fault if somebody rapes her, and she shouldn't have to expect that to happen.

The police shouldn't be discouraging alternate lifestyles. Those who trade freedom for safety deserve neither. By the policeman's logic, if somebody breaks into my house and steals my TV set, I should never own another TV as long as I live because somebody might steal it. That's what he's implying. So apparently we should all be a bunch of cowards, afraid of doing anything fun because crime might happen.

No. That's dumb. And it implies that the victim is at fault. I have a better idea. 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.

You go girl.

 

[Kahunaburger]

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.

I'm more curious about why some other people are obsessed with others *not* getting their parkour gunwoman on.

 

[RN7]

I really have nothing to say about the topic other than, choosing the moniker "slut" for women who dress however they want probably isn't the best idea...

OT: What the Hell is the check in the picture doing with her head? I mean, it's sheerly comical.

 

[Arkonnan]

The victim-blaming argument that dressing provocatively gets you raped is
a)untrue (its about power) and
b)most rapes are by someone the victim knows, so that doesn't really factor into the equation.

 

[conflictofinterests]

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.

Firstly, that's not universally correct and entirely dependent on the specifics of the encounter and how people behave. In fact I'd go so far as to say it's outright incorrect, at least in 'scene' level BDSM. Maybe not so much for people experimenting at home.

If you were beating someone up in a club and they were telling you to stop, people would almost certainly intervene. Club etiquette is pretty fucking rigid on this for very good reasons, namely that clubs are meant in large part to be a safe place for people who don't know each other to have casual encounters. Consent is utterly key to the whole process, and breaking consent will get you physically kicked out of most clubs I'm aware of.

Secondly, the D/s pretence of unwillingness is something not everyone gets off on, even those who are really into D/s. A lot of the time it can be considered quite pretentious and childish. In fact, a lot of people into D/s actually get off on making people ask or beg for things. I'm not into D/s at all so I wouldn't know there.

Also, there comes a point in most BDSM relationships where you generally stop using safewords altogether because they no longer need them. Heck, I've never used them. Once you know someone well, how much they can take, how far you can push them, all the little things about their behaviour, tone of voice and so forth which indicate whether they're faking it or being deadly serious.. it doesn't really take very long to acquire that kind of knowledge of someone.

BDSM is not just about humiliating or degrading people, and the people for whom it is tend to get a reputation for being idiots. Even the most ridiculous 'true dom' ever has to ultimately come to terms with the fact that they must respect the human being who places themselves in their hands. In most cases the relationship is far more about servicing the needs of the submissive than just the dominant getting their own way.

I don't think I communicated what I was trying to say well enough... The lecture was probably also somewhat out of date... And I've never been to one of these clubs. In any case you still hit on a point I would like to highlight. "all the little things about their behaviour, tone of voice and so forth which indicate whether they're faking it or being deadly serious." One cannot rely on the word "no" alone to communicate whether or not some action is acceptable. In any case, roleplaying rape fantasies requires the "victim" to resist up to a point, and that was more of what I was trying to get at. I truly understand that a D/s relationship is arguably one of the ones that requires the MOST trust and understanding out of its participants. I did not mean to imply that it did not. Only that "no" is not a term that effectively communicates the needs and desires of participants in this lifestyle.

 

[Epic Fail 1977]

To further elaborate, lest I be continually misunderstood:

I have given both facts and opinions that suggest (but do not prove) that women may, on some level, enjoy rape or aspects of being raped. That is not the same as saying that women want and/or deserve to be raped.

As this is a gaming site I'll use games as an example of what I mean. Almost all games involve violent killing. Why? Because on some level, we (especially men) enjoy violently killing people. Does that mean that each of us, taken as whole person, want to go around violently killing each other? Obviously not. Does it mean that we are "fucked up"? I'd say so.

 

[Kahunaburger]

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.

This stuff is easy to find. IIRC the two 50% stats are right there on Wikipedia, with the relevant studies linked. Just google them. The 25% one was from an article I read. I can't remember where that was, so I just did a quick google instead and found this: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090901162513AA8s1lj (see the bottom of the answer for the source).

And, shockingly, the actual source quoted in the article makes it clear that you appear to be making your numbers up. Go figure.

 

[John Funk]

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).

You're equated to sociopath and psychopaths in statistical significance. Jeezus.

Boy, people sure do misinterpret you a lot.

There's that last refuge again.

Victim blaming is abhorrent and anyone who does it should feel thoroughly ashamed of themselves.

And who is victim blaming here, Mr Funk? You're an authority figure here, of a sort, so I'd appreciate it if you'd give my posts more than just a cursory glance before responding (assuming, of course, that it is my posts you're responding to).

I was responding to no post in particular. But slut-shaming is, again, abhorrent.

Though suggesting that women enjoy one of the most traumatic experiences someone can have is kind of problematic on its own. Did you know that some paralyzed women who have no sensation below the waist can still orgasm even though they can't feel it? It's a physical reaction and nothing more.

 

[Epic Fail 1977]

Your argument is that if I orgasmed from anal rape then felt confused, it would disprove my point? How exactly?

No, my point is that you wouldn't orgasm from anal rape, just like you wouldn't orgasm from vaginal rape.

Now I'm really confused. I'm not intentionally being an idiot, I just don't get where you're coming from.

Seriously, give me a fucking reference or just drop that point. Because right now I can only conclude that you have absolutely zero understanding of how human bodies work.

I've said a lot. Which part(s) did you want reference(s) for?

 

[John Funk]

There is nothing wrong with a slut parade. And by the way, "slut" is a totally derogatory term. It implies that there's something wrong with dressing sexy or being promiscuous. NO. There is nothing wrong with that. If a woman wants to look her best and get laid a bunch, she should be able to. What's the big deal? If she's happy doing it, let her do it. And NO. It is not a woman's fault she got raped. It doesn't matter how sexy she looked. If you rape a woman, it is on you. A woman should be able to dress how she wants to without feeling like she's endangering herself. It's not her fault if somebody rapes her, and she shouldn't have to expect that to happen.

The police shouldn't be discouraging alternate lifestyles. Those who trade freedom for safety deserve neither. By the policeman's logic, if somebody breaks into my house and steals my TV set, I should never own another TV as long as I live because somebody might steal it. That's what he's implying. So apparently we should all be a bunch of cowards, afraid of doing anything fun because crime might happen.

No. That's dumb. And it implies that the victim is at fault. I have a better idea. 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.

You go girl.

^ Pretty much all of this.

 

[agrajagthetesty]

Then I think you're fairly shallow for needing apparel to derive confidence from, rather than taking it from - for example - your achievements, mentality or natural physical appearance.

Thanks, but I have plenty of pride and self-confidence deriving from my achievements and mentality. That doesn't mean I can't sometimes derive the same from clothing as well as from those other sources. Also, natural physical appearance is hardly entirely divorced from clothing. The clothing is used to highlight what is already there.

See? That's exactly what I'm talking about. You dress to kill because it makes you feel good and gives you confidence in yourself, and you don't even realise why it does! Sooo fucked up.

Without you offering your explanation of the deep lingering reasons behind my personal psyche (so deep and lingering, apparently, that I am unaware of them while you, a stranger on the internet, know exactly how my mind works) I find this response difficult to reply to. But given this post:

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

and also this:

Women feel good when they look good because men like them when they look good.

I'm guessing that you're saying that my belief that I dress up purely to feel good in myself is in fact completely wrong, and my feeling good stems only from my desire to please men.

Well, guess what? I do dress up when nobody is there to see it. I put on my favourite outfits and do my hair and paint my nails and then sit inside on the internet all day. It makes me feel nice to look nice, end of story.

In addition, even when I do dress up when I go out, it's never to impress men. It might be because I've been having a tough time and could do with feeling good about myself, or it might be because the clothes are new and I want to try them out, or it might be a special occasion and I consider it appropriate. I'm not at all concerned about impressing men in any of these situations - in fact, I deal with attention and flirtation very poorly, and it makes me feel uncomfortable for the rest of the day. In the latter situation in particular, attention from men would be the last thing I want. If I've dressed up for a friend's birthday party, I don't want to be chatted up, I want to spend time with my friend. But I dress up anyway because special occasions deserve special clothes.