'Slut' Parade

[Grimlock Fett]

[http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/23/memesthelogicofsad.jpg/]

. [http://imageshack.us]


When I read this piece yesterday (Hipster) I immediately thought of this picture!!

Just felt the need to quote this from Break, as he/she put it pretty well:

...It's never worth saying. Not even once. It starts from the assumption that a woman's chastity is something to be guarded, whereas a man's ability to stick his dick in things is something to be lauded, and piles on the misogyny from there. Don't worry about making sure it's said. It only makes you look like a jackass.

I'd also like to add that basing your opinion on the acceptable frequency of sex by concentrating on the shape of a person's genitalia is deeply stupid.

The picture just made me laugh! I couldn't care less how often a person of either sex has intercourse! HOW EVER, it doesn't change the FACT that it is easier for a women to be an actual slut than a man to be a "stud"/(manslut) Why they feel the need to "own" the word is beyond me but as a straight white male I guess I don't know much about oppression!

 

[maninahat]

Someone's been reading their logical fallacy handbook a bit too much.

I post on JREF.

I didn't move the "goalposts"; Despite the fact that I was talking about the minority of cases regarding women being raped by strangers, taht doesn't change the original point that women in general are at greater risk when dressed slutty, as it increases the chances of them being targeted.

They're not. Most rapists don't give a hoot. Since most of the time women aren't dressed sexily, that would indicate that one is more likely to to be raped when wearing sober clothing, or there is no real connection between clothing and likelihood of rape.

Then you have critically misunderstood how statistics work. What you are saying is the equivalent of claiming that since statistically most people are killed by lightning aren't standing on top of an exposed hill holding a golfclub aloft, it doesn't make any difference if you do stand on a hill holding a club up in a storm. Whilst yes, outfits down't come into the majority of cases (where rapes are committed in a home by people who know the person personally), that doesn't change the fact that there are factors that increase the odds of a woman being attacked in those rarer situations. Wearing scanty clothes, getting drunk, and travelling alone in a night time social scene is the equivalent of waving a 9 iron at the heavens.

As for assumptions, you might notice I said a "it doesn't take a HUGE leap of logic", meaning it is not much of an assumption to think the following: that a rapist, in say a nightclub or a bar, is likely to target a woman he finds the most sexually attractive, which will probably the one dressed loosely.

Considering that most rapists already knew the victim, your analogy is a minority case.

Which I ackowledged. It changes nothing.

While it is "possible" that a woman may be targeted because she was wearing a miniskirt and kinky boots, it's not enough of a probability to be concerned about any more than it would be if she was wearing a burqa.

Well dress is only one factor, and probably more minor. Many women dress scantily on nights out and have never had a problem, but that is because they are usually taking other precautions, like travelling with friends and watching what they drink.

 

[Grimlock Fett]

[http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/23/memesthelogicofsad.jpg/]

. [http://imageshack.us]


When I read this piece yesterday (Hipster) I immediately thought of this picture!!

OT What is it with everyone wanting to take words back? Is it only straight white males who have no beef? Except *porch monkey! I'm taking that back!!!
(*Movie reference I'm not a racist)

...I'm confused, is the bottom qoute about the locks agreeing or mocking the top quote?

Its saying that it takes some kind of skill to have sex with alot of women but not alot to get f*cked by a lot of guys! Not 100% accurate but I found it pretty funny!

 

[Jimbo1212]

And this is what I do not understand.

Clearly.

If someone walks into a lions den covered in meat and they get killed, then yes it is the lions fault, but how stupid was the person to do that in the first place?

Pretty dumb, since lions like meat, and will attempt to eat it whenever it's convenient. Rapists, in the overwhelming majority of cases, don't care what their target is wearing. Analogy fail.

Some rape cases are the same as this

Not enough to base a policy on. It's like the amount of people who get hit by cars despite walking on the sidewalks, not jaywalking, and waiting for all the crossing lights. It happens, but would you stay off the sidewalk because of it?

and the victim took such stupid risks that I have little sympathy for them. However, I think the result of them being raped, although always terrible, will guarantee they will not make such a stupid mistake again. And this leads me back to my original point, that it is alarming that some people can be so void of common sense that they need something as horrible as rape to happen to teach them to be careful.

Except that as you refuse to acknowledge, dressing "carefully" doesn't mean anything to a rapist. Most of them (89%) don't even remember what the victim was wearing, and say the victim didn't entice them in any way. If a woman wanted to be "careful", she would have to spend most of her time with complete strangers, since she's more likely to be raped by someone she knows. In fact, it's a lot more likely than being raped because she dressed sexily.

No no, the cases that LEAD TO A CONVICTION do not involve the woman dressing like a slag, however how many cases fail to lead to a conviction.....
Again, cases that lead to a conviction are by people the person knows...because they can identify them etc.

From experience and examples I have read about, sluts are most likely the ones to take the risk of going home with a stranger after flirting with them all night. If the police can make women not dress as sluts, then this might have a domino effect and prevent other problems.

If the policeman wanted to advise women not to go home with strangers, he should have said that.

If a police man has to say that then those women are idiots and a lost cause (in my opinion of course).

 

[Trolldor]

fine by me, remember "to each his own." Sorry if i like to follow societal norms instead of rebelling against it.

There is a distinct irony in you using posting that bearing the name and likeness of a gunslinging priest.

lol ah you caught me good sir! I follow societal norms in the outward appearance only

Lets just say i don't go getting the wrong kind of attention

I am reminded of Dave Chappelle's skit on a whore's uniform.

i don't mine them dressing to they way they do so long as they don't object to me treating them like a whore.

Meaning you walk up to them and ask how much for the night?

well you cant be that direct as soliciting is quite illegal, but yes more or less. Dont be mad if you get treated that way is all im saying.

Then you can't object to me treating you as I see fit based on what I think of you, no matter how insulting it might be.

if how im dress lets you think that, of course not. I was asking for it

Oh, that's not only what I'm going to judge you on.
Maybe I just don't like the way you walk. Or the sound of your voice. Maybe you have a lisp.
I love judging people for arbitrary reasons and taking a high road for it.

fine by me, remember "to each his own." Sorry if i like to follow societal norms instead of rebelling against it.

I know man! Aren't societal norms just the greatest?

Girl on the left is such a slut, right?

and exactly what is wrong with what the woman on the right is wearing compared to what the women on the left is wearing? Or the simple fact that they following their social norms has any bearing on how you live your life or your particular sensibilities?

you must live in a pretty idealized world if you think strangers don't pass judgement on you based solely on your outward appearance. Do you know what a first impression is?

You can dress as a skank if you want, and i'm all for it. But to believe any stranger will treat you as a classy lady doing so is pure naivete. I do believe in never judge a book by its cover, but if the cover is a naked woman, i'm going to expect it to have some naked women inside the book too.

watch the dave chappelle skit will ya?

I've seen it,I was unimpressed when I was teenager and I'm unimpressed by it now.
I've seen funnier, more intelligent ideas expressed by wood rot.
You must live in a fairly narrow world if you presume that your personal opinion is a 'societal norm'. I disagree with you, so do many other people on this thread. How many other people might we find in your society who disagree with you?
I find it hilarious that you assume your judgement should just be accepted.

Oh, and you completely failed to understand the point of the image, which doesn't surprise me.

 

[JonnWood]

No no, the cases that LEAD TO A CONVICTION do not involve the woman dressing like a slag, however how many cases fail to lead to a conviction.....

How many? What's the percentage? How much would be a representative sample? What's the margin of error on rape cases? You need all of those facts, otherwise you're just making stuff up.

Again, cases that lead to a conviction are by people the person knows.

Which doesn't explain all the convictions where the rapist was a complete stranger. Until they committed rape, of course.

If a police man has to say that then those women are idiots and a lost cause (in my opinion of course).

ah, yes, the "MY OPINION" gambit. Just working your way down the passive-aggressive jerk checklist, aren't you?

 

[Jimbo1212]

No no, the cases that LEAD TO A CONVICTION do not involve the woman dressing like a slag, however how many cases fail to lead to a conviction.....

How many? What's the percentage? How much would be a representative sample? What's the margin of error on rape cases? You need all of those facts, otherwise you're just making stuff up.

Again, cases that lead to a conviction are by people the person knows.

Which doesn't explain all the convictions where the rapist was a complete stranger. Until they committed rape, of course.

If a police man has to say that then those women are idiots and a lost cause (in my opinion of course).

ah, yes, the "MY OPINION" gambit. Just working your way down the passive-aggressive jerk checklist, aren't you?

If I recall, the stats and links were early on in this post and I can not be bothered fishing though the pages. Though if in doubt just google it.

As I have said, some rapists are strangers, some are not. The circumstances can vary greatly so there is no point in labelling every case the same.

And I think that common sense is something that everyone should have and if you do not have it then there is something seriously wrong either with the person or society.

 

[JonnWood]

Then you have critically misunderstood how statistics work. What you are saying is the equivalent of claiming that since statistically most people are killed by lightning aren't standing on top of an exposed hill holding a golfclub aloft, it doesn't make any difference if you do stand on a hill holding a club up in a storm.

Most people who get struck by lightning are out in the open, which includes your hypothetical person standing on a hill. Therefore, someone standing on a hill is already at higher risk of getting struck by lightning than someone indoors. All you had to do is make the conditions specific enough for your straw man.

http://www.strikealert.com/LightningFacts.htm

Most lightning deaths involve people working outdoors and outdoor recreationists

Now, I believe you were criticizing my logic?

Whilst yes, outfits down't come into the majority of cases (where rapes are committed in a home by people who know the person personally), that doesn't change the fact that there are factors that increase the odds of a woman being attacked in those rarer situations.

Statistics, please.

Wearing scanty clothes, getting drunk, and travelling alone in a night time social scene is the equivalent of waving a 9 iron at the heavens.

Yet many people do it all the time, without injury. Weird.

Well dress is only one factor, and probably more minor. Many women dress scantily on nights out and have never had a problem, but that is because they are usually taking other precautions, like travelling with friends and watching what they drink.

Statistics please. Cause you keep making assertions, but I see no backing for them.

 

[Caiti Voltaire]

Speaking as a woman: Simple fact of the matter is that if you dress in provocative and "slutty" ways, you encourage people to act in lewd and untoward matter towards you. Does it excuse rape? No, it doesn't. But on the other hand, you don't do yourself any favours by encouraging these kinds or people, either.

 

[JonnWood]

As I have said, some rapists are strangers, some are not. The circumstances can vary greatly so there is no point in labelling every case the same.

I'm not the one saying women dressing sexily increases their odds of being raped. It doesn't. There's no way to soft-shoe around this.

And I think that common sense is something that everyone should have and if you do not have it then there is something seriously wrong either with the person or society.

Problem is, a lot of people think they have common sense when they're just holding onto their own convictions.

 

[Dags90]

Whilst yes, outfits down't come into the majority of cases (where rapes are committed in a home by people who know the person personally), that doesn't change the fact that there are factors that increase the odds of a woman being attacked in those rarer situations. Wearing scanty clothes, getting drunk, and travelling alone in a night time social scene is the equivalent of waving a 9 iron at the heavens.

In those minority of stranger rapes, being alone is probably the biggest factor. But it's extremely offensive to suggest that women not go out on their own "for their own protection". Especially when they're more likely to be abused by someone they know anyway. It's cherry picking. Only around 20% of all rapes in the U.S. are even stranger rapes to begin with, and there's no data specifically linking stranger rapes to provocative dress, so it's just a massive assumption.

I don't think it's safe to make massive assumptions in a topic so plagued by "false facts" and incorrect "common wisdom" as rape.

 

[Trolldor]

Speaking as a woman: Simple fact of the matter is that if you dress in provocative and "slutty" ways, you encourage people to act in lewd and untoward matter towards you. Does it excuse rape? No, it doesn't. But on the other hand, you don't do yourself any favours by encouraging these kinds or people, either.

Speaking as a man how a woman dresses is irrelevant to how she ought to be treated by a man, and in no way does her manner of dress excuse the behaviour of boys.

 

[Lionsfan]

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

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".

2 Reasons- 1: Being a slut is easy, just open your legs. Being a male stud is tough.
2- A key that opens a lot of doors is called a "Masterkey" and a door that gets opened with a lot of keys is called "A shitty lock"

Oh ha ha ha. That's so funny and original, I've never heard that before. /sarcasm

That's the worst reasoning out there. It's sexist and has no real weight in an argument, it's just an unfair double standard that get's thrown around

I personally get why women are upset. No one deserves to have a target painted on their heads because they happen to wear a certain thing.

However.

I'm a minority that happens to live near New York City. I remember when I was told what I could and couldn't wear in certain places for the very real reason of being jumped at best or being killed at worst. When I asked why, they asked me was it more important that I got to wear Red or Blue that day, or if I wanted to live?

The cop was wrong to say what he did. Plain and simple. However, it does not change the fact that some people will hone in to certain things. It's up to the individual with how much risk they are willing to incur on themselves vs their personal freedom.

A woman should be able to wear what she wants without having something horrible happen to them and being blamed for it. I and many people should be able to walk down Time Square and not look at every car and wonder if there's a bomb in there. People in the Middle East should be able to go to the damn Market and not be shot to pieces just because they wanted salad that night. We can not live in a world of 'shoulds' because that's not our world. We live in a very dangerous, sick place and we have to acknowledge it and act accordingly.

TLR version. Women, wear what you want, but don't be ignorant to the fact that most rapists are sick and will take almost ANYTHING as a provocation. Rational people do not rape, so thinking about it rationally will not save anyone.

That's all fine and dandy about the clothing, but like you said in your TLR; Rapists will take anything as provocation, and there isn't any proven link to apparel choice and rapes

 

[Kpt._Rob]

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.

In a perfect world this would simply be taken in stride and not a person would care, sexism is only sexism long as you consider it that way. If you think man versus woman you shall see sexism if you don't, no sexism TA DAH!

To quote the old internet saying "LOL WUT?!" This is like saying "well yeah, if the slaves didn't notice that only black people were getting enslaved, it wouldn't have been racist." The idea that sexism exists only because we perceive its existence is the kind of dismissive conservative nonsense which has allowed its existence to continue. Sexism is the genuine gender inequalities which are present within our society.

Dealing with diversity, whether it be gender, racial, or any other sort is a difficult issue because while there are genuine differences between these groups (often these are sociological, but that doesn't mean they're not real), we still have to treat all the different groups as equal. To recognize and celebrate difference, but treat all entities the same, at times that's a seemingly paradoxical task. But that doesn't mean that it's unimportant, and ignoring or pretending it doesn't exist it is not the solution. The solution is to recognize difference but look past it to the core of who a person is.

When you say, however, that someone got raped because they were "dressed like a slut." You're not looking at that person as a person at all. You're just looking at them as a slut, and we don't use pejorative terms like "slut" against people who we intend to treat as people. It is sexist because it's treating a group of people (victims of a horrendous crime nonetheless) without the respect and love that they deserve on the basis of a sociologically imposed gender difference.

 

[DTWolfwood]

fine by me, remember "to each his own." Sorry if i like to follow societal norms instead of rebelling against it.

There is a distinct irony in you using posting that bearing the name and likeness of a gunslinging priest.

lol ah you caught me good sir! I follow societal norms in the outward appearance only

Lets just say i don't go getting the wrong kind of attention

I am reminded of Dave Chappelle's skit on a whore's uniform.

i don't mine them dressing to they way they do so long as they don't object to me treating them like a whore.

Meaning you walk up to them and ask how much for the night?

well you cant be that direct as soliciting is quite illegal, but yes more or less. Dont be mad if you get treated that way is all im saying.

Then you can't object to me treating you as I see fit based on what I think of you, no matter how insulting it might be.

if how im dress lets you think that, of course not. I was asking for it

Oh, that's not only what I'm going to judge you on.
Maybe I just don't like the way you walk. Or the sound of your voice. Maybe you have a lisp.
I love judging people for arbitrary reasons and taking a high road for it.

fine by me, remember "to each his own." Sorry if i like to follow societal norms instead of rebelling against it.

I know man! Aren't societal norms just the greatest?

Girl on the left is such a slut, right?

and exactly what is wrong with what the woman on the right is wearing compared to what the women on the left is wearing? Or the simple fact that they following their social norms has any bearing on how you live your life or your particular sensibilities?

you must live in a pretty idealized world if you think strangers don't pass judgement on you based solely on your outward appearance. Do you know what a first impression is?

You can dress as a skank if you want, and i'm all for it. But to believe any stranger will treat you as a classy lady doing so is pure naivete. I do believe in never judge a book by its cover, but if the cover is a naked woman, i'm going to expect it to have some naked women inside the book too.

watch the dave chappelle skit will ya?

I've seen it,I was unimpressed when I was teenager and I'm unimpressed by it now.
I've seen funnier, more intelligent ideas expressed by wood rot.
You must live in a fairly narrow world if you presume that your personal opinion is a 'societal norm'. I disagree with you, so do many other people on this thread. How many other people might we find in your society who disagree with you?
I find it hilarious that you assume your judgement should just be accepted.

Oh, and you completely failed to understand the point of the image, which doesn't surprise me.

at this point i've already lost track of what tangent your on but please enlighten me, what is the point of the image? and what does it have to do with what i originally said about sluts and there choice of clothing.

i really thought my message was very simple.

You want to dress like a slut, i'll assume and treat you like a slut. you don't want that kind of attention, don't dress like a slut/whore/skank.

exactly y is that such a foreign concept to you?

i'll repeat this a third time, I'm completely fine with how anyone, including you, perceives me. if i get attention that i don't want, i'll correct it. I don't just keep doing the same thing and expect a different result. I believe they call that insanity.

end of the day you and i have differing opinions, that is excellent, because to each his own [http://www.wisegeek.com/what-does-to-each-his-own-mean.htm]

 

[Alorxico]

I love how people get up-in-arms about this topic. Here, let's try it this way.

If I walk out of the house in a long, flowing robe and a sari over my head, then people would say I am dressed like a Muslim. I am NOT a Muslim, I do not follow the believe system and have not been raised in that environment, BUT I would be DRESSED as one.

Now, if I go walking down the street, people are going to TREAT my like a Muslim because I am dressed that way. They are going to assume, wrongly, that I am something based on how I dress. This does NOT condone their treatment, especially if it is poor treatment, but that is the logic people follow when they don't have time to ask someone something.

Do you see what I am getting at here? It's a word. A word to describe something that exists in the world. A 'slut' is a promiscuous woman NOT a woman who dresses in hot-pants and bikini tops.

If you want to dress in clothes that might as well NOT be there, FINE! If you want to where low-cut see-through tops and shorts that on any other day are thongs, FINE! But do NOT call yourself SLUTS unless you fit the definition! You are NOT helping the issue by labeling yourself as a slut! You are making it WORSE by doing that!

People are trying to get AWAY from fashion statements being associated with promiscuity! And you are RE-INFORCING it! STOP! Just STOP!

 

[Caiti Voltaire]

Speaking as a man how a woman dresses is irrelevant to how she ought to be treated by a man, and in no way does her manner of dress excuse the behaviour of boys.

I agree, I honestly do. But if there are steps a person can take to protect themselves, and they choose not to take them, there's a lesson in that too.

It's like knowing you're going in a live fire area and refusing to wear kevlar body armour: its not your fault if someone else shoots you, but you still bear some responsibility for not having properly protected yourself.

 

[cobra_ky]

so if a drunk girl flirting with a guy can get raped, and a sober girl doing nothing at all can get raped, what makes one victim more or less responsible than the other?

Very true, but what good is it just to say that? These men still exist. They are still out there and still a danger, hence why the cop warned women as there is little he can do until it is too late. but of course these women did to stop to think about that before jumping into the feminist bandwagon.

he didn't say "don't get drunk and go home with drunk men", he said "don't dress like a slut". there's no good to saying that either, since how you dress has little to do with how likely you are to be raped.

Look at above example.
One person puts themselves in the position of danger through lack of thinking, and the other is just in the wrong place at the wrong time and only luck comes down to avoiding such a horrific crime.
From experience and examples I have read about, sluts are most likely the ones to take the risk of going home with a stranger after flirting with them all night. If the police can make women not dress as sluts, then this might have a domino effect and prevent other problems.

hey, and if police made women never leave the house, i bet they'd never get raped!

your argument is a complete non-sequitur. slutty clothing doesn't make people go out, it doesn't get them drunk, and it doesn't make them have sex with each other. revealing clothing doesn't make rape more likely, it just makes it easier for society to dismiss. Police resources are spent on more effective means of preventing rape.

 

[LondonBeer]

She spelt slut wrong.

While 'women should be allowed to dress how they want' reality means wearing revealing clothes provokes violence. Much like wearing football colours.

When violence ceases to exist sure ladies wear what you want. Until then dress in a reasonable manner please.

Define "reasonable manner".

I have yet to meet or see a woman who inspires me to rape, and no healthy human being would feel obliged to attack a woman because of how she was dressed.

You know alot of reasonable human beings do you ? Pyschologists, sociologists and anyone whos ever left their basement would disagree. By and large the mass of humanity is ratshit crazy. 60% beleive in angels, more beleive that invisible zombie carpenters are watching them & listen to their whispers.

Reality was the key word in my statement. Its nice to see you ignored that.

find me any reputable psychologist or sociologist who would say that any significant proportion of the male population is inclined to commit rape.

also, please define "reasonable manner".

Why people care about this is beyond me.

If they want to tempt fate, that's their own choice.

If they get raped, they shouldn't have gotten piss-drunk.

No sympathy for those, on my part.

nobody deserves to be raped, ever. it's that simple.

People don't call a girl a slut just because she's wearing revealing clothes or just because she is exceptionally flirty. They call a girl a slut because she does both of these things and more. The word slut gets thrown around a lot so some people don't really understand what a slut really is anymore.

Yes they do. That's why the word has been thrown around so much. Nobody really understands what 'slut' means, because people will use it against any woman they perceive as sexually immoral.

Ah, but well all know that a burka is over the top. However if you have a drunk guy and girl in the same room, and the girl has been flirting with him all night and has gone home with him.....not all drunk men could say no, which is the problem.

those men have no business drinking. you're still responsible for your actions while drunk, whether you can control them or not.

God you again. Again your argument is REDUNDANT. It doesnt require a large percentage of the population apparentelly it only requires a minority. Hence the figures we have in reality. When NO ONE is a sociopath or any other variant of nutter then women can dress in an unreasonable manner. As that is unlikely to happen mebbe people who dont want raped should avoid overt sexual imagery. You know like men do ?

Reasonable BTW would be defined as unable to tell the colour and type of her panties, The size of her nipples or whether shes an innie or an outie & I dont mean belly buttons.