'Slut' Parade

[Crazy_Man_42]

If they want to dress the way they do they can but if their blaming their clothing for being rape is just well, being lazy.

If they don't want to get rape then KEEP A TAZER OR GUN WITH YOU OR LEARN A MARTIAL ART. It's called self-defense ladies it's a better way to stop rape then protesting about it.

I took a women's self-defense class, and there are plenty of ways short of becoming Chun Li to prevent rape. Mostly, be aware of your surroundings at all times, and never go somewhere where you'll be at a disadvantage. Watch your drink, have your keys out before you get to your car or door, the buddy system, tell someone (parents, roommate, whatevs) where you're going and when to expect you back whenever you go out... Little things. Yeah, mace is good, and EVERY SINGLE PERSON should learn the methods of escaping common holds, but there are a number of people that will go out looking for a fight after they take up an offensively focused martial art.

Well I would say that they should learn Taekwondo because it's a defense based martial art well more of a counter attack martial art because we mainly wait for the enemy to attack then we attack.

But a class designed for it is better for it then the other things I said.

 

[nebtheslayer95]

I have an idea: these women should take the effort they put into rallying and doing all this protest stuff, and use it to a)educate women about rape, b)educate men about rape, and c)support any anti-rape organizations. if you can eliminate rapists (unlikely but what the hell I guess it could happen), then you wont have to protest about your clothing choice being frowned upon. just a thought...

 

[gmaverick019_v1legacy]

Well if they feel there is nothing wrong with being treated as nothing more than a tool, than fine, whatever. Like I give a shit.

Edit: Ok, now that I've actually taken a gander at the article itself, scratch what I said before. Sure they can wear what they want. I'm not sure they're going about this the right way though. I don't see how taking back the word 'slut' is going to help anything. Then again, to me being a 'slut' is more about a manner of behavior than it is a manor of dress.

right on the nose.


still, if someone comes dressed as the fucking clown from IT i am going to be ready to kick that fucker in the nutz if he comes near me, the same preconception goes about to someone "dressed" like a slut. (without the nut kicking part)

 

[maninahat]

By contrast, women are exalted for refraining from sex, while men are mocked and denigrated. For some reason, a lot of the people crusading against the whole "dressing like sluts" thing seem to have no complaint about that.

Correct, but that would fall within the pervue of people crusading for "acceptance of male virginity". It is the other side of the issue and not of immediate concern to sluts, who merely haven't expressed a view on it.

 

[maninahat]

Penis goes in, then out, then in. Orgasm happens.

Fairly accurate: Usually only takes me that long.

 

[Terminal Blue]

Some people aren't liking what I'm saying and are asking for "proof" in an attempt to "win" the argument, but I already stated that I have no proof (no amount of stats could prove this, it's psychology ffs)

Spoken like someone who has no understanding of psychology.

I'm not terribly keen on a lot of psychology, and I won't say that it's always terribly accurate (evolutionary psychology being a great example). But psychology is an empirical science. It follows the same rules as any other science, i.e. in order to make an assertion you need some kind of transparent evidence gathered through empirical study. It can be a single case study of a particular individual, but to be taken seriously on any level it has to be transparent. We need to know who these people are, how they've been selected and how the information about them was gathered.

Any 'statistics' you can throw out which can't ultimately provide this are just random numbers. The credibility of a statistic rests on where it comes from, the existence of a theoretical number, however widely quoted on the internet, tells us nothing.

Nobody else has produced jack shit by way of a counter-argument, unless you count the existence of the autonomous nervous system which is pretty fucking ridiculous given that 10% of women can't orgasm at all, and some women can orgasm without any physical stimulation whatsoever.

You've totally misunderstood the autonomic nervous system.

Okay.. how about this for evidence. Orgasms can be chemically influenced. A common side effect of anti-depressants, for example, is the massively increased difficulty of achieving orgasm regardless of level of 'mental' arousal. See here [http://www.aseanjournalofpsychiatry.org/pdf/9am_19Feb2011_OrgasmicDysfunctionAntidepressantREVISED%5B1%5D%5B1%5D%5B1%5D%5B1%5D%5B1%5D.pdf] for example. Proposing that every time someone orgasms it's because they're 'mentally' aroused also requires it to be true that every time someone fails to orgasm they are insufficiently aroused, am I correct? Because that is very definitely not true.

But such engagement is besides the point. To quote occams razor back at you, the burden of proof is on you as the one proposing an original assumption. You need to produce some actual evidence before the burden shifts to anyone else to counter it, or your argument cannot be taken seriously.

 

[Kahunaburger]

Some people aren't liking what I'm saying and are asking for "proof" in an attempt to "win" the argument, but I already stated that I have no proof (no amount of stats could prove this, it's psychology ffs)

Spoken like someone who has no understanding of psychology.

I'm not terribly keen on a lot of psychology, and I won't say that it's always terribly accurate (evolutionary psychology being a great example). But psychology is an empirical science. It follows the same rules as any other science, i.e. in order to make an assertion you need some kind of transparent evidence gathered through empirical study. It can be a single case study of a particular individual, but to be taken seriously on any level it has to be transparent. We need to know who these people are, how they've been selected and how the information about them was gathered.

Any 'statistics' you can throw out which can't ultimately provide this are just random numbers. The credibility of a statistic rests on where it comes from, the existence of a theoretical number, however widely quoted on the internet, tells us nothing.

QFT. You could even go so far as to say that the reason stuff like evolutionary psychology is so sketchy is because they involve a lot of non-empirical analysis.

 

[Kahunaburger]

I have an idea: these women should take the effort they put into rallying and doing all this protest stuff, and use it to a)educate women about rape, b)educate men about rape, and c)support any anti-rape organizations. if you can eliminate rapists (unlikely but what the hell I guess it could happen), then you wont have to protest about your clothing choice being frowned upon. just a thought...

This is basically A) and B), because apparently some people don't understand why rape happens or whose fault it is.

 

[jboking]

Biologically speaking, no, he has nothing to be worried about. He can walk away and he could not see her ever again and it would not affect him.
However morally and socially he does......but that is something new.

It's not really new. We haven't lived in a purely Biological world for centuries. There have always been consequences for men that spread their seed to everyone they can find. These days it comes as social scorn. In the old days, it came as a blade through the gut.

 

[chif-ii]

Penis goes in, then out, then in. Orgasm happens.

Fairly accurate: Usually only takes me that long.

Can I get a hell yeah, sista?!

snip'd

Or is there something I'm not understanding about what happens during rape? My thought of how it worked was that orgasming was kinda like peeing, where you could delay it or something, but sooner or later it's gonna cum out.

Wow.. I'm told you don't get much sex education in the states, but..

An orgasm is an autonomic response, it's thought to be quite similar to a sneeze in fact. It's the culmination of what is called the 'sexual response cycle', which is a series of physiological changes people undergo when they're sexually aroused and stimulated.

The sexual response cycle is incredibly individualistic. People can require radically different levels of excitement and stimulation in order to orgasm. Generally and in popular culture, the common male experience is that of orgasming in every sexual encounter, usually quite quickly (within 2 minutes of penetration), hence the emphasis being on 'delaying orgasm'. A significant number of men, however, take a lot longer or even can't achieve climax at all through penetrative sex (I'll admit to being one of them, not that I'm complaining).

For women, the general experience is very different because their primary sexual organ (the clitoris) is not heavily stimulated at all during penetrative sex. Thus, most women cannot physically have an orgasm purely from being penetrated. This is why foreplay is so important in most people's sexual experience, because it not only allows the woman to become sufficiently excited to achieve orgasm but also increases the erectness and sensitivity of the clitoris so that it is better stimulated during penetration, making it more likely the woman will achieve orgasm through indirect stimulation.

Some women (not all) reporting having a 'g spot', a point about six inches deep on the inside wall of the vagina which can give them orgasms. More likely, this is a misunderstanding of the nature of the clitoris. The clitoris actually extends right up inside the body, meaning its likely that hitting a particular angle along the inside wall of the vagina can stimulate the clitoris to some degree and possibly even produce orgasms.

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.

 

[Epic Fail 1977]

Some people aren't liking what I'm saying and are asking for "proof" in an attempt to "win" the argument, but I already stated that I have no proof (no amount of stats could prove this, it's psychology ffs)

Spoken like someone who has no understanding of psychology.

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

Nobody else has produced jack shit by way of a counter-argument, unless you count the existence of the autonomous nervous system which is pretty fucking ridiculous given that 10% of women can't orgasm at all, and some women can orgasm without any physical stimulation whatsoever.

You've totally misunderstood the autonomic nervous system.

Then by all means, do explain it to me.

Okay.. how about this for evidence. Orgasms can be chemically influenced. A common side effect of anti-depressants, for example, is the massively increased difficulty of achieving orgasm regardless of level of 'mental' arousal. See here [http://www.aseanjournalofpsychiatry.org/pdf/9am_19Feb2011_OrgasmicDysfunctionAntidepressantREVISED%5B1%5D%5B1%5D%5B1%5D%5B1%5D%5B1%5D.pdf] for example. Proposing that every time someone orgasms it's because they're 'mentally' aroused also requires it to be true that every time someone fails to orgasm they are insufficiently aroused, am I correct? Because that is very definitely not true.

I didn't say that mental stimulation is the only kind of stimulation that counts. That would be a pretty ridiculous assertion, don't you think? The fact that there are other stimuli counts for nothing against my assertion that mental stimulation is a stimulus (and, I believe, a very important one).

But such engagement is besides the point. To quote occams razor back at you, the burden of proof is on you as the one proposing an original assumption. You need to produce some actual evidence before the burden shifts to anyone else to counter it, or your argument cannot be taken seriously.

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.

Neither assumption has any inherent validity that would cause the other to receive the burden of proof.

 

[Gunner_Guardian]

So I read the article and I'm to comment on it.

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.

I mean I'd argue that already there are popular terms for promiscuous men that have a negative connation such as skirt-chaser, man-whore, and man-slut.

 

[BeerTent]

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.

I still honestly believe that you know very, very little about BDSM. I could sit here and nit-pick at you, but I've decided it's waste of time at this point because when I'm done proofreading my post, there's a new page of posts. Bottom line: That lecture you mentioned, forget it. Please? For the new guy at least? It was just someone talking out of their ass because they couldn't get laid. Happy to see that you understand at least one thing about it though.

On topic, I also feel what these women are doing right, and not because I'm a little lecherous. It shouldn't matter who you are, anyone should be able to dress up how they please. It's their image. Not to mention, that, well... Rape is kind of a crime, you know. It's not my fault if someone jacks my wallet while I'm sober. I think it's absolutely pathetic that some women feel they need things like pepper-spray or an alarm. As human beings, we're better than that. Well, we should be, even though we're not, it seems.

I also find it pathetic that, as it has been stated before, the double-standard of "It's good for guys to sleep around, but it's bad for women to sleep around." I never understood that. But then again, I believe that both genders are equal.

When people think "self-defence", they are too quick to think "gun". Depending on your situation, there are more sensible options.

I think that's the US culture shining right there, but now I'm just trolling.

I would really love to see a documentary of someone trying to live as a stud or slut while maintaining a relationship. Could be interesting.

Aye, though something more basic but interesting is the age old test of getting a girl to ask every guy she see's if they will sleep with her and then get a guy to do the same with women. The results are the same every time. The women say 'no', and about 3/4 of the men say ' Yes', and the other 1/4 ask her out for a date. It is just how men and women are wired.

This made me laugh. They're called "Open relationships." Yes, they exist. Yes, I've been in one. No, she didn't leave me for another guy, and I didn't leave her for another girl. We were pretty damn happy too.

 

[lostzombies.com]

and rather then listening to advice on how to avoid rape, they want to protest?

The piece of "advice" you refer to, against which they are protesting, is a police officer telling them that "if they don't want to get raped, they shouldn't dress like sluts." That, incidentally, is not advice, it's sexism at its worst. It's blaming the victim. Honestly, it's not all that far from the passage in the bible where it says that if a woman gets raped in the city and doesn't scream loud enough she should be put to death because she should have screamed louder. It's the worst kind of patriarchal bullshit, and it's the kind of attitude that people do need to stand up against.

I don't know that attempting to "reclaim the word slut" is the right way to go about it, but nonetheless, it's important that people stand up and point out that saying things like that isn't going to be tolerated in a civilized society.

But would saying 'If you don't want your car stealing, don't leave it in the middle of the road with the doors open' be wrong? It's exactly the same. It would be nice to live in a world where bad things dont happen but we do.

If you leave your stuff on display then chances are someone will eventually take it.

 

[Scars Unseen]

You know, rude as that police officer was, he had a point. And I agree with it, even if I don't share the emotion behind it. Look, I think people should be able to dress however they want without judgement. And in no way would I ever imply that a woman should be blamed for getting raped based on her attire. But you should at least be aware of the risks. When you put yourself in public view wearing attire designed to attract attention, there is the chance that you will attract unwelcome attention. In other words, you are increasing the risks that you will become a victim.

Don't take this for more than it is. I do the same thing when I choose to speed in order to get to work on time. We all take risks to varying degrees. Just be aware that you are taking a risk. And if you are comfortable with that risk, then by all means, ignore those that would condemn you for your behavior. Personally, I enjoy the eyecandy.

 

[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.

Totally agreed. Though I can't argue with the logic that when a woman dresses slutty, they appear to be telegraphing to tohers that they want a sexual encounter; thus "inviting" perverts. That doesn't give rapists any excuses for their actions, but it does mean that a slutty dressed girl should be aware of what they are conveying to total strangers. They should know the risk, even when there shouldn't be one in a decent society.

I think that society needs to be more accepting female promescuity, and not treat casual sex as acceptable just for men.

Those who trade freedom for safety deserve neither.

I hate that phrase. It is almost always used by people from very safe (and free) worlds. Try telling a starving, diseased person in a war torn, developing country to favour liberty over basic survival. Security breeds democracy, liberty and moderation; insecurity breeds extremists, tyrants and demagogues - people who will exploit desperation by promising drastic and simple solutions. Nazis, communists and Islam fundamentalists can never gain real power in a stable society, but they will always gain opportunities in times of stress or calamity.

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.

I may have used that quote, but that does not mean I'm suggesting total anarchy. And total anarchy is what it would take for our society to degenerate into the societies existing in the kinds of countries you refer to. In fact, it would take more than that. Because the American people grow more open-minded and intelligent with each generation. Yes it's true that we can't be allowed to do EVERYTHING we want to. Like riding a bull into a crowded mall. Or giving away free rocket-propelled grenade launchers. But there are some things that people should totally be able to do, that should fall under freedom. And dressing sexy is one of them. If somebody used the quote to defend total anarchy, they were using the quote wrong. But me using it to defend people's rights to dress how they want? I'm using it right.

As for firearms, well it's because a gun is the strongest form of self-defense. You can stop an assailant very quickly, and from a decent range away. Also, learning to oil, clean, and fire a gun is not impractical in the name of self-defense. And just because mace is cheaper doesn't make it more practical. A rock is also cheaper. So is a box of graham crackers. Now it's true that some things are too expensive to be practical, but that's more like Subaru vs. Ferrari, not mace vs. gun. There are different kinds of guns and not all of them are unaffordable. A gun is also a lot scarier than a knife or mace. If you pull a knife or mace on your assailant and yell "DON'T MOVE" or "GET OFF ME", he might keep going anyway, because you can get past a knife or mace. But pull out a gun in that situation, he's gonna stop immediately, and chances are you won't even have to shoot. He won't continue to assail somebody who's pulled a gun on him. If he does, he will likely get shot. And if he is stupid enough to assault an innocent woman who's pointing a gun in his face, his death is not tragic, just natural selection.

All this being said, although I did say "gun", I didn't mean to imply that a gun is the only way to go. There's nothing wrong with picking mace or a knife or a taser or a hypno-ray or shurikens over a firearm if you prefer those things. But a gun will always be the strongest way, and that's why I usually default to firearms when talking about self-defense.

Let's not deviate too far from topic though. The point is, police should not discourage dressing sexy, but encourage some form of self-defense. Be it a gun, or mace, or kung-fu mastery, or whatever.

 

[Nifarious]

So much of people's responses just demonstrate what's fuels the 'she had it coming' excuse to belittle women as property whose bodies are there for the taking. Too much facepalming going on here to warrant writing any more than just reposting this.

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.

Looks like they've missed the point too.
There was a thread on a similar topic recently, so I'll just re-post what I put there for my thoughts on the topic:

A guy is walking through a rough neighbourhood waving a wad of cash around, and he gets mugged.
Now, obviously the one who mugged the guy is in the wrong 100%. That was illegal, and he should be punished.
And the guy should have the right to wave around money as much as he wants without fear of being attacked and robbed. But it's a naive and dangerous game to play. Ideally, I should be able to leave my doors unlocked, my keys in my car, and my money on my counter. But it's asking for trouble if I do any of those things.

Again, not my fault if someone robs me. I have the right to leave my door unlocked, my money out, and my keys in my car. But, at the risk of sounding redundant, it's dangerously naive to do any of those things.

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?

 

[carletonman]

I wanted to hold a protest against placards, but I wasn't sure how... Uhh, where was this going? Oh, right. Dress however you want, be as liberal with the amount of fabric you wear (or don't), but for god sakes, just pay attention to your surroundings; society isn't 100% safe! Shit happens, but there are things you can do to mitigate the circumstances in which they happen.