'Slut' Parade

[LondonBeer]

You completely missed the point. The parade was to support rape victims and tear down the whole "she dressed like a slut, she was asking for it" stance.

"Just because I look hungry doesn't mean I want random people showing sausages down my throat".

but if dressing like a slut increases your chances of getting raped and you don't want to get raped, then it's pretty obvious to not dress like a slut right?

and if i were a homeless person and was very hungry, i wouldn't mind random people giving me food. the metaphor isn't really as applicable.

You've twisted the metaphor. Being very hungry and looking hungry are completely different things. Just like dressing like a slut doesn't mean you want to get raped.

yes, i agree about the dressing part, in a perfect world everyone should be able to wear whatever they want. but if it actively increases your chances of getting raped by doing so, then it's a pretty small and easy step to wear something else instead. keep the sexy stuff at home for your partner.

How dare you. Rape is not about sex. Rape is about assault. How the woman dresses or does not dress has nothing to do with it. Fucking is not the fucking point. Don't you dare blame the victim of a crime for the actions of the criminal.

EDIT: suggesting that the manner of dress or the actions of the victim of a rape is the cause of the rape - even if only partially - is also to suggest that the rapist would be a fine, upstanding individual were it not for the woman's state of dress. It is to suggest that your house would not have been burglarized if not for your desire to have nice things. It is to suggest that the victim of murder would not have been murdered were it not for his desire to be alive.

ah internet, when will you ever learn to read?

if dressing like a slut increases your chances of getting raped

As people have told you, it doesn't. When will you learn to read?

then why would girls hold a slut parade as protest that women should be able to wear whatever they like without fear of getting raped?
did you even read the article?

and still you didn't READ. IF. IF it does, THEN.

High five dude . Agree & isnt it sad so few people can follow a logical arguement.

 

[LondonBeer]

You can't be an unintentional troll.

All you need is the mentality that whatever says to you, you're right. People agree with you? Because you're right. People disagree with you and ask for irritating little things like evidence and logic? It's because they can't handle the truth you know to be true.

yes, i agree about the dressing part, in a perfect world everyone should be able to wear whatever they want. but if it actively increases your chances of getting raped by doing so, then it's a pretty small and easy step to wear something else instead. keep the sexy stuff at home for your partner.

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.

It doesn't, statistically. If there is any casality between clothing and rape, a woman is actually more likely to be raped for wearing demure clothing than sexy hawtness.

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/jump/18.282803.11101292

Your argument was that people don't rape for power, because they can get it legally. If that's true then people don't rape for sex as they can also get that legally.

Don't bother. He just keeps moving goalposts.

Your citation is :-
a) American therefore doesnt apply to other geographic locations.
b) 23 years old.
c) Adolescent rapists.

You wanna bring a little something newer and at least semi relevant? I find it hard to beleive that women dressing in psuedo lingerie dont make more than a few rapists 'activate' and begin their process to go rape someone. Just cause A didnt get raped doesnt mean A's behaviour and look didnt cause B to get raped. Worlds a little more complex than your tiny little viewpoint.

 

[Treblaine]

*snip*

I hope I had myself clear in my initial post but I agree with what you say and have done all along.


You seem to have misconstrued a LOT of what I have said.

 

[JonnWood]

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.

Except that there's no correlation between dressing sexily and being raped. Most rapists said they couldn't even remember what the vic was wearing, which is odd if "she was asking for it".

then why would girls hold a slut parade as protest that women should be able to wear whatever they like without fear of getting raped?
did you even read the article?

They're protesting the popular conception that sexy clothes and/or sexual promiscuity causes, justifies or mollifies rape in some way.

and still you didn't READ. IF. IF it does, THEN.

I was informing you that it does not.

 

[Caiti Voltaire]

Except that there's no correlation between dressing sexily and being raped. Most rapists said they couldn't even remember what the vic was wearing, which is odd if "she was asking for it".

Except that until you can provide something more than ancedotal evidence, you're really just kind of speaking your opinion here. Which is fine, if you don't try to pass it off as fact. Which you are.

 

[JonnWood]

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.

Which you have yet to produce.

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?

So women shouldn't dress how they want because they might set some nutjob off. Glad that's cleared up.

In all seriousness, you've moved to "all women" down to "woman who might be seen by sociopaths for which the sight of a little leg will drive them into a frenzy".

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.

I love how you talk about "reasonable manner" as if it's universal. There are plenty of countries where a woman in long jeans and a t-shirt is considered scandalous.

By your logic, I shouldn't walk on the sidewalk because I could get hit by a car. It only requires a minority, right?

Your citation is :-
a) American therefore doesnt apply to other geographic locations.

I take it you looked up the report and found their sampling criteria, right? Or did you just base that conclusion off the title?

b) 23 years old.

Please, produce a newer one with contrary figures. I'd honestly like to see it.

c) Adolescent rapists.

No, the report that references it is talking about adolescent rape. If I'm writing a report on orange sales, and I include statistics for sales, the statistics could just as easily be talking about tangerine sales. Or orange sales in Portland alone. Or worldwide citrus fruit sales. What does the report say?

You wanna bring a little something newer and at least semi relevant?

You're the one making the claim that it's invalid. The burden of proof lies on you to produce contrary evidence.

I find it hard to beleive that women dressing in psuedo lingerie dont make more than a few rapists 'activate' and begin their process to go rape someone. Just cause A didnt get raped doesnt mean A's behaviour and look didnt cause B to get raped. Worlds a little more complex than your tiny little viewpoint.

Argument from incredulity, special pleading. Just because you can't believe it doesn't mean it's not true9ironic that you accuse me of having a small mind), and women are more likely to get raped wearing regular clothes then sexy clothes. The amount of men it "activates" is indicatively so small as to be not worth considering. Oh, and Ad Hominem.

 

[JonnWood]

You completely missed the point. The parade was to support rape victims and tear down the whole "she dressed like a slut, she was asking for it" stance.

"Just because I look hungry doesn't mean I want random people showing sausages down my throat".

but if dressing like a slut increases your chances of getting raped and you don't want to get raped, then it's pretty obvious to not dress like a slut right?

and if i were a homeless person and was very hungry, i wouldn't mind random people giving me food. the metaphor isn't really as applicable.

You've twisted the metaphor. Being very hungry and looking hungry are completely different things. Just like dressing like a slut doesn't mean you want to get raped.

yes, i agree about the dressing part, in a perfect world everyone should be able to wear whatever they want. but if it actively increases your chances of getting raped by doing so, then it's a pretty small and easy step to wear something else instead. keep the sexy stuff at home for your partner.

How dare you. Rape is not about sex. Rape is about assault. How the woman dresses or does not dress has nothing to do with it. Fucking is not the fucking point. Don't you dare blame the victim of a crime for the actions of the criminal.

EDIT: suggesting that the manner of dress or the actions of the victim of a rape is the cause of the rape - even if only partially - is also to suggest that the rapist would be a fine, upstanding individual were it not for the woman's state of dress. It is to suggest that your house would not have been burglarized if not for your desire to have nice things. It is to suggest that the victim of murder would not have been murdered were it not for his desire to be alive.

ah internet, when will you ever learn to read?

if dressing like a slut increases your chances of getting raped

As people have told you, it doesn't. When will you learn to read?

then why would girls hold a slut parade as protest that women should be able to wear whatever they like without fear of getting raped?
did you even read the article?

and still you didn't READ. IF. IF it does, THEN.

High five dude . Agree & isnt it sad so few people can follow a logical arguement.

I've been leaving a few minor logical holes in my posts and waiting for you to notice. You still haven't.

 

[JonnWood]

Except that there's no correlation between dressing sexily and being raped. Most rapists said they couldn't even remember what the vic was wearing, which is odd if "she was asking for it".

Except that until you can provide something more than ancedotal evidence, you're really just kind of speaking your opinion here. Which is fine, if you don't try to pass it off as fact. Which you are.

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.282803-Slut-Parade?page=2#11101292

No. I ain't.

 

[Caiti Voltaire]

Except that there's no correlation between dressing sexily and being raped. Most rapists said they couldn't even remember what the vic was wearing, which is odd if "she was asking for it".

Except that until you can provide something more than ancedotal evidence, you're really just kind of speaking your opinion here. Which is fine, if you don't try to pass it off as fact. Which you are.

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.282803-Slut-Parade?page=2#11101292

No. I ain't.

I can post links with excerpts of unverified sources too, its a common practice in politically and/or emotionally charged debates, the fact remains that unless you have a substantive body of evidence which proves which something taken as red is not true, then I'm still going to dismiss your opinions as the unfounded internet trolling that they are.

 

[JonnWood]

Except that there's no correlation between dressing sexily and being raped. Most rapists said they couldn't even remember what the vic was wearing, which is odd if "she was asking for it".

Except that until you can provide something more than ancedotal evidence, you're really just kind of speaking your opinion here. Which is fine, if you don't try to pass it off as fact. Which you are.

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.282803-Slut-Parade?page=2#11101292

No. I ain't.

I can post links with excerpts of unverified sources too, its a common practice in politically and/or emotionally charged debates, the fact remains that unless you have a substantive body of evidence which proves which something taken as red is not true, then I'm still going to dismiss your opinions as the unfounded internet trolling that they are.

I'd honestly like to see a newer study with contrary numbers. I've asked for one repeatedly, and tried to find it myself. The report quoted exists, just Google. Until I have something newer, that's the best I've got.

 

[Treblaine]

...humans, on the other hand, are expected to be humane...

people who aren't mentally competent are a different matter.

people who can't handle that simple responsibility have no place in society and should be separated from the general public for the safety of all.
...

this is all well and good until rapists start carrying guns.

Sorry to cut down your response like that but that basically sums it up.

There are crazy people, insane people, evil people out there and to spite our best efforts they cannot be kept locked up forever nor even lock them up BEFORE they even attempt to commit a crime. Or at least not without turning into an oppressive police state.

I'm just being pragmatic, it's all well and good saying "you can't do that" but won't do much good if you are killed... or worse.

As to rapist with guns (assuming they don't ALREADY have weapons) Guns don't cancel each other out. A rapist with a gun tried to rape a woman with a gun, the result is not rape but a gunfight. Sounds shitty I know considering it may endanger the woman's life more but if may allow her to escape unharmed and in all likelihood the second the rapist sees his target is armed he'll run away.

Rapist want power and control, dodging bullets kinda ruins that. It's kinda like how no one would hunt deer if they could shoot back - not saying that hunters are rapist but that rapist see themselves as hunters.

I don't believe weapon prohibition works very well, especially for those with "inherent weapons" like how a man can easily be stronger than a woman. Or how the violently insane mind will always be able to arm themselves even if just a shard of broken glass.

 

[Treblaine]

you are 100% insane,

the law is not everywhere? yes it is. this is what gives the law its authority, the very fact that it is consistent and everywhere. hence: the rule of law.

men are not bears. men are men who are capable of controlling them selves, bears are animals who should not be poked.

there are no limits on your civil rights. there is no such thing as "practical rights"
rights are impractical, which is among the reasons why they are so imported.

the fact that humans are animals does not mean we have no humanity. we are communicating on computers, bears have no computers. we are self aware, bears are bears.

you don't understand what the word "animal" implies, you don't understand women rights, you don't understand law, you sound like an uneducated, black and white thinking; genetic-determinist.

one final thought; a gentleman will always call evil by its name. if you encounter a 501lb person (who would probably be a blob not a rock but anyway) who is raping a woman,the moral thing to do is call the cops. not just say "well, that's the way of the jungle". everyone knows this, which is why its the law.

you, sir, are no gentleman.

I'll have you know I have been in situations where the law may technically be valid but it is not and cannot be enforced. That is what I mean by "the law cannot be everywhere" as in the police cannot be everywhere.

A man who rapes gives into his inhuman animal instincts, certainly makes him less human.

"bears have no computers."

Hmm, I don't think you are understanding this analogy very well... or this is some kind of subtle trolling I haven't seen before.

"if you encounter a person raping a woman, the moral thing to do is call the cops. not just say "well, that's the way of the jungle"."

Who said I would do that? Why bring me personally into this analogy as a bystander and FUCKING DARE, HOW DARE YOU suggest I would just let it happen. I'll have you know I won't wait for the cops. Who the fuck could just call the cops and leave it at that? YOU!?! I'll grab him by the testicles and do to him what they did to Jeffrey Dahmer.

Fix your brain.

 

[Keith Reedy]

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.

You missed my point so hard you landed in a different galaxy. I was saying in a perfect world not only would we not think of this man versus women sexism but the events that caused them wouldn't of happened. The same goes for racism, if the world was perfect no slavery, no black versus white no racism. Same for sexism, good world, no bad treatment of women, no sexism no rape. Maybe one day we will stop thinking this way and doing the things that cause us to continue to think in this manner such as the terrible crime of rape. Then this won't be an issue and we won't have stupid cops saying things like this.

 

[maninahat]

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.

How is it offensive? It is fairly good advice for men as well as women; going out alone at night in an urban area is potentially risky, especially if you live in a bad area.

So there is no data, but it is not a massive assumption at all. I can say with all confidence that men tend to prefer to have sex with voluptuous and attractive women, and a women who dresses in such away as to emphasize her "assets" is thus going to command greater interest whilst out on the town. That is blindingly obvious and should go without saying. The only real assumption I'm making is that the rapist prefers to go after vulnerable targets who he finds to be sexually appealing: it is hardly a stretch of the imagination is it? How exactly is one supposed to survey a rapist's sartorial preferences, I don't know. Until then, I think I am safe to make such a small assumption.

 

[blazedart]

I agree that rape is wrong and that women can wear whatever they want, but I'm just putting this out what if one of these women decide to go out with a skirt and no panties on what would you think about that?

 

[JonnWood]

the rapist prefers to go after vulnerable targets who he finds to be sexually appealing[/b]: it is hardly a stretch of the imagination is it? How exactly is one supposed to survey a rapist's sartorial preferences, I don't know. Until then, I think I am safe to make such a small assumption.

The critical error, here, is not trying to find sources to prove, support, or disprove your assertion. In fact, you assume that even finding out a rapist's clothes preferences would be difficult or impossible, because you can't think of how to go about it(Argument from incredulity.), despite the study already quoted here.

And it's not a small assumption, not that one of those would be any less correct or incorrect. Let's see if we can find anything on the bolded portion of your post, shall we?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motivation_for_rape
Plenty of citations.

The research on convicted rapists has found several important motivational factors in the sexual aggression of males. Those motivational factors repeatedly implicated are having anger at women and having the need to control or dominate them.[1]

Factors increasing men's risk of committing rape include alcohol and drug consumption, being more likely to consider victims responsible for their rape, being less knowledgeable about the impact of rape on victims, being impulsive and having antisocial tendencies, having an exaggerated sense of masculinity, having a low opinion on women, being a member of a criminal gang, having sexually aggressive friends, having been abused as a child and having been raised in a strongly patriarchal family.

If you don't like Wikipedia, how about a paper, cited by other papers as recently as 2009?

http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/abstract/134/11/1239

Accounts from both offenders and victims of what occurs during a rape suggest that issues of power, anger, and sexuality are important in understanding the rapist's behavior. All three issues seem to operate in every rape, but the proportion varies and one issue seems to dominate in each instance. The authors ranked accounts from 133 offenders and 92 victims for the dominant issue and found that the offenses could be categorized as power rape (sexuality used primarily to express power) or anger rape (use of sexuality to express anger). There were no rapes in which sex was the dominant issue; sexuality was always in the service of other, nonsexual needs.

 

[Kahunaburger]

I agree that rape is wrong and that women can wear whatever they want, but I'm just putting this out what if one of these women decide to go out with a skirt and no panties on what would you think about that?

How would I know they this hypothetical woman isn't wearing panties?

 

[maninahat]

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.

It is entirely about the specifics: a person who throws around statistics without taking into consideration the context is wasting their time. The point of my (baseless) hypothetical was to illustrate how you fail to examine the context of statistics; That the odds can be altered by confounding variables which need to be considered.

Whilst yes, outfits don'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.

Do I really have to? Do I need to provide statistics to prove that a woman is far less likely to be raped whilst isolated on a desert Island, or can you at least take that for granted? No, I don't have data for finding out a rapist's sartorial preferences, I'm simply making what I thought were obvious observations.

Wearing scanty clothes, getting drunk, and traveling 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.

At least read the next paragraph before passing comment; I went to the trouble of providing a qualifier. To go back to my analogy, a man could easily go his whole life not being struck by lightning whilst holding up his club, but it still would be advisable for him not to do so.

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 traveling with friends and watching what they drink.

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

And you seem very confident to ignore any suggestion (no matter how self-evident) if it lacks statistics. Some assumptions can be safely made without research. [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cQ7J7UjsRqg] Is it much of a stretch to assume a rapist is less likely to attack a woman who is among a group of people? Or that he is less likely, on proposing to a woman at a club, to try to take advantage of her if she is sober and clearheaded? Finally, is it too much to guess that a rapist might be more attracted to a sexy looking woman?

 

[JonnWood]

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.

It is entirely about the specifics: a person who throws around statistics without taking into consideration the context is wasting their time. The point of my (baseless) hypothetical was to illustrate how you fail to examine the context of statistics; That the odds can be altered by confounding variables which need to be considered.

Well, that's strange. I could've sworn we were discussing the role of sexy clothes vs. non-sexy clothes in causing rape. That's fairly simple. If you add in dangerous situations, drunkenness, night, being alone, and we're suddenly talking about something much different than with we started with.

Whilst yes, outfits don'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.

Do I really have to?

Yep.

o I need to provide statistics to prove that a woman is far less likely to be raped whilst isolated on a desert Island, or can you at least take that for granted?

Depends. Is there anyone else on it?

No, I don't have data for finding out a rapist's sartorial preferences, I'm simply making what I thought were obvious observations.

You know how it's obvious Chameleons change color as camouflage? It's actually in response to heat. The camo thing is the "obvious observation". It's also, in this case, wrong.

Wearing scanty clothes, getting drunk, and traveling 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.

At least read the next paragraph before passing comment; I went to the trouble of providing a qualifier. To go back to my analogy, a man could easily go his whole life not being struck by lightning whilst holding up his club, but it still would be advisable for him not to do so.

In fact, it would be a good idea for him not to be outside in the first place, as I pointed out. Just being outdoors increases his risk of being struck by lightning as opposed to the alternative (going inside). No such correlation exists with sexy clothing and rape.

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 traveling with friends and watching what they drink.

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

And you seem very confident to ignore any suggestion (no matter how self-evident) if it lacks statistics.

It's called "asking for evidence", and is a standard tool in a debate.

Some assumptions can be safely made without research. [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cQ7J7UjsRqg]

Which does not mean that all of them can The assumption that women who dress sexily are at higher risk for rape is not borne out by the statistics, and it is based on an assumption of rape psychology(ie: rape is about sex) that is itself false. The only way you've been able to make it so is to create a specific situation where it would be true.

Is it much of a stretch to assume a rapist is less likely to attack a woman who is among a group of people? Or that he is less likely, on proposing to a woman at a club, to try to take advantage of her if she is sober and clearheaded? Finally, is it too much to guess that a rapist might be more attracted to a sexy looking woman?

Nope. However, without any actual evidence, they are just assumptions, and should not be given the same weight as actual arguments supported by evidence.

Bottom line, you've admitted you're pulling facts out of your bum. Good day!