Slutwalk

[????]

Foooking hell.

Anyone, anyone, fucking anyone, man or woman, in the world should be able to wear what they want, however tasteless, however naff, however provocative, without the fear of being assaulted......that's stage 1.

But then to suggest that for wearing something you're somehow culpable in your own assault is beyond any sort of defence isn't it?

Good on the slutwalk I say.

[Jeremy]

maxxi Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Slutwalk will hopefully

> make some men think about their own attitudes to

> women dressed as 'sluts' - i.e.that they retain

> the same right to safety and freedom from

> molestation and violence as a woman in a tweed

> twinset.

Of course I totally agree in that everybody has a right to safety, regardless of how they dress. If these protests will educate some people in that regard, then great. I'm not 100% convinced, but good luck nonetheless.

[Otta]

???? Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Foooking hell.

>

> Anyone, anyone, @#$%& anyone, man or woman, in the

> world should be able to wear what they want,

> however tasteless, however naff, however

> provocative, without the fear of being

> assaulted......that's stage 1.

>

> But then to suggest that for wearing something

> you're somehow culpable in your own assault is

> beyond any sort of defence isn't it?

>

> Good on the slutwalk I say.

Quite.

[Huguenot]

Seems a bit rich to me that women half way around the world are marching on the basis of what some idiot Canadian police officer said.

It smacks unhealthily of a gang saying 'SEE you're ALL like THAT'.

Frankly, go to hell.

Whilst the points others have made about this terrible crime are really valid, I fail to see how a march is likely to resolve it.

The comments about bhurkas are more about western sensibilities than oppression. Most of the locals I've met who wear them think they're pretty coquettish.

The clothing debate is a bit harsh. If I wear a West Ham shirt in South Bermondsey I'm going to get twatted. I can sit on my righteous horse all night, but I'll still get twatted.

[Alan Medic]

RosieH Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> To describe the criminal act of rape as shagging

> someone is about as ignorant as it gets.

It would be if that's what I was describing.

>

> As for judging the 'class' or otherwise of a

> woman's attire, how's about you post a picture of

> one of your outfits on here and we'll all decide

> whether it shows the same wit, style and yes,

> class, as your posts?

Where did I associate class with attire?

>

> And if we don't like it, you know, well maybe

> someone will leap off a roof and brutalise you.

> And to think you could have prevented it simply by

> paying heed to the pages of GQ...

I don't like violence in any form.

[Alan Medic]

If you think that clothes can be provocative then I disagree with you. Provocation of any sort is rarely intended with a good purpose in mind.

[RosieH]

Huguenot you're such a shit-stirring cunt.

Did you read the stats that I quoted of attitudes FROM THE UK? Did ya, did ya? Women are pissed off, and sick and tired of being judged, and rightly so.

The postcode lottery of the attrition rates (1% anyone) suggests that it's not just a problem with policefolk in Canadia. Now stop being such a macho cunt and fetch me some shoes.

[LadyDeliah]

Alan Medic, the point is, that if the woman wants to dress in a way that might attract a sexual partner, she has the right to choose who she allows to shag her, or decide she's not really feeling like a shag anymore, whatever. No man has a right to decide that he can just shag her regardless of her wishes on the matter.

That's what is meant by a woman being allowed to express her sexuality, without some dickhead thinking it's open season.

The attitude of many societies towards women as mens' property means that women who want to take control of their own sex life and shag who they like, are often violently condemned.

I see the slutwalk as a small fight against this.

[RosieH]

Alan Medic Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> RosieH Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > To describe the criminal act of rape as

> shagging

> > someone is about as ignorant as it gets.

>

> It would be if that's what I was describing.

And a man jumps on her from another rooftop and shags her. He is guilty of a crime.

Ahhh sorry, sorry, my bad. You were describing the criminal act of parkour sex, no?

[LadyDeliah]

I think for those of you who are confused about this, try thinking about it this way.

If for example a Jewish man were to walk down the road in clothing that identified him as being Jewish, and he happened to live in an anti-semetic country/area, would it be his fault if he got beaten up by Nazis?

Some people might say it would be sensible to hide the fact that he was Jewish and keep his head down to avoid provoking such an attack, but he might feel that he didn't want to live like that. He might not want to skulk about pretending he wasn't who he was.

Most right minded people nowadays would recognise this as religous persecution and consider it wrong for him to have to live that way.

I believe that women have a right to sexual satisfaction and to express their sexuality as adult, sentient beings. If a woman wants to express her sexuality in a way that makes it obvious to others by wearing 'sexy' clothing then she is entitled to do so without being told that she is provoking attack.

Some women might want to be seen as 'sexy' but fear the reprisals of a society who are on the whole, anti-sluttish, so, try to dress in a way that doesn't offend. Just as many Jews felt they had to in the past. That is up to them, but the women who take a stand and say no, this is not who we are, should not be condemned for trying to shed light on their own persecution.

[LadyDeliah]

It might be a good idea to learn how to defend yourself though when standing up to any oppressors!

[mockney piers]

Alot of these are poor analogies. A woman does have the right to wear whatever she likes without being attacked, but of course that doesn't mean she should wear things like that whenever she wants just because she can, and these two things seem to be being conflated.

If someone turned up in stockings and a basque to my mums funeral shed get a verbal attack for sure.

As for the Jew in, well I'm not sure what hypothetical area is being described, Hamas HQ, but the situation you describes applies to large parts of Belfast and experience has taught people it doesn't matter what your rights are, you don't flaunt things in the wrong part of town, and though we can all agree that it is wrong that one gets attacked, that person has indeed brought it on themselves in the full knowledge that that what was going to happen regardless of the right or wrong of the situation.

I reiterate here that this analogy simply doesn't apply to a woman wearing 'provocative' clothing whatever that means.

It is incorrect for this topic. That analogy would apply if women marched for the right to walk down deserted back allies at night in dodgy estates regardless of dress. Yes we should all be allowed to do it without fear of attack, but anyone with half a brain doesn't exercise it.

I'll ponder az while for a better analogy for this topic.

[LadyDeliah]

Belfast is not the same. That is a situation of 2 opposing tribes. The minority Jew in an anti-semetic state and sexual woman situation are about oppression of a minority by the majority and deep seated loathing of that minority by the majority.

Those things are always worth fighting against.

[mockney piers]

I would have thought deep seated sectarian hatred is worthybof fighting against too. In fact there it's the tyranny of the extreme minority against the vast majority, 'just opposing tribes' is staggeringly dismissive and patronising.

Now you talk of an anti Semitic, or I guess oppressive to women, state. That's a while different kettle of fish.

I'm reminded of my time at uni when the women's society released thousands of balloons saying 'stop women's rape in bosnia', whilst I applauded the sentiment I couldn't imagine a more impotent or futile gesture, unless there happened to be a Bosnian Serb general wandering through Stoke experiencing a damascene moment upon seeing a balloon.

I suggested they're better off volunteering at the UN or joining up in Sarajevo and got an earful for my troubles.

Anyway, in my attempts to curb digression I seem to have become the worst offender.

[mockney piers]

Btw I'm not comparing the slut march to the balloons. I rather like outlandish gestures that challenge social mores and give witnesses pause for thought. I think it does have a chance of affecting the way people think, and if it means one less rape happens then it's worth doing.

But mostly it provokes this sort of debate and that can only be healthy.

[Alan Medic]

RosieH Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Alan Medic Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > RosieH Wrote:

> >

> --------------------------------------------------

>

> > -----

> > > To describe the criminal act of rape as

> > shagging

> > > someone is about as ignorant as it gets.

> >

> > It would be if that's what I was describing.

>

> And a man jumps on her from another rooftop and

> shags her. He is guilty of a crime.

>

> Ahhh sorry, sorry, my bad. You were describing

> the criminal act of parkour sex, no?

Yes you've got it.

I agree entirely LadyD, as would the vast majority of men. However when some women get up on their high horses it appears they seem to think they are fighting all men.

[sagatelsagouni]

I agree with Mickney peirs, debate is great, this sort of things encourages that. Too many little turds stiffling it if you ask me. In regard to " if the woman wants to dress in a way that might attract a sexual partner " I would go as far to say that we all generaly do that, those that don't generally smell of wet biscuits.

[Marmora Man]

I agree with the oft stated position ? judge the criminal not the victim.

I agree entirely that rape is a horrible crime that hurts the victim in so many and complicated ways. It is also usually unwitnessed and thus more difficult to prove. Entering into a discussion about it leaves any message / input open to misinterpretation or re-interpretation. I wondered whether to post at all but wanted to put, what I see, as a little common sense back into the discussion.

The risk of being a victim of crime, of all sorts, is reduced by taking sensible measures. I have teenage / early 20 year old sons ? my advice to them as they started to become young men and venture into bars, pubs and some of London?s seedier areas was and is:

➢ Walk with friends, stay in well lit areas, do not flash your iPhone, upmarket watch or laptop bag ? this will reduce the likelihood of mugging.

➢ In London crowds ? keep your wallet in an inside pocket to avoid pick-pockets.

➢ Leave pubs and bars relatively sober and well before the vertical drinking, testosterone and alcohol fuel, almost, inevitable violence.

If I had a daughter ? I would probably add to that list something about not dressing / behaving too provocatively in the wrong place and to avoid getting into risky areas on their own.

Is that me being misogynist, over protective, mistaking personal freedom of choice in dress for invitation, being unnecessarily restrictive of my, hypothetical. daughter's right's or is it natural parental concern - and thus, by extension, a natural concern of anyone with the best interests of women in mind?

Edited for spelling

[LadyDeliah]

mockney piers Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Btw I'm not comparing the slut march to the

> balloons. I rather like outlandish gestures that

> challenge social mores and give witnesses pause

> for thought. I think it does have a chance of

> affecting the way people think, and if it means

> one less rape happens then it's worth doing.

>

> But mostly it provokes this sort of debate and

> that can only be healthy.

I agree.

By the way, when I mentioned the tribalism of Belfast I didn't intend to sound dismissive, of course that should be fought against also, I was just saying that it is not a good analogy for the sexual woman in a patriarchal/ant-sluttish society as I think openly sexual women are a minority living amongst the oppressive majority, rather in their own ghetto, so to speak.

There has been a lot of research into the oppression of women's sexuality and I find it quite shocking that despite fighting for sexual equality for over a century, women are still not entitled to own their own sex lives without (sometimes violent) condemnation in many countries around the world.

In the UK, the so-called feminists such as Harriet Harmen, who stood on a platform of infantalising prositute women and calling for the criminalisation of all clients to supposedly protect women who chose to use their bodies in this way, has set back women's sexual equality by decades.

Their conflation of sexual exploitation and prostitution did no-one any good. There are huge numbers of people trafficked into the UK for exploitation in many industries, the sex industry being but one of them. The majority of people kept in servitude are in other industries, such as domestic work, farming, dvd sales, illegal drugs industry and cockle picking and as many men as women are trafficked for these purposes.

I think the focus of these mysogynist, so-called-feminists, who seem to have put themselves forward as the avenging angels on behalf of the poor, misguided, women who choose to work in the sex industry, has resulted in a more conservative attitude to all women's sexuality and is a retrograde step in my opinion.

That is why I was very glad to hear about the slutwalk and am glad that the debate has been opened up.

[Huguenot]

I understand your point RosieH, but I think you're misreading the data.

Of the people who think a woman is partially or totally responsible for the crime she has suffered, I'll be betting that almost none of those think the woman is totally responsible. Those that do are wrong in the head, and no slutwalk is going to change that.

Of the vast majority that think a woman is 'partially' responsible, I think we'll find that what they are actually thinking about is not the criminalisation of the victim or oppression of women, but in fact trying to stumble through an argument that whilst women are very much entitled to their 'rights', that this should be balanced be some consideration of 'responsibility'.

This balance of rights vs responsibility is the same one that means we've got little sympathy for the drunk who got punched because he was standing in the middle of the bar shourting c*** at passers-by.

Hence many people read your data as inflammatory, and proof of the oppression of women. Conversely I think it's equally plausible that it's not that at all.

Regards the attrition rates on rape, we've been though it all before - conviction rates aren't great for many crimes.

Conviction is about 'reasonable doubt'. Unless you take the view that people accused of rape are fundamentally dishonest (find them guilty by accusation???) there's no reason why the woman's word should be taken as any more valid than the mans.

A change to that balance would be a catastrophe to society.

[LadyDeliah]

I think rape is different from many other crimes because often the perp is known to the victim and fully beleives that because he wants what he wants and she may be a bit 'loose' or whatever, that he is justified in taking it.

For me, that is the issue. Changing the mentality of the men who still believe that what they are doing is not actually a crime.

Most people who commit crimes such as mugging, assault etc are aware that what they are doing is a crime, but choose to do it anyway. I think that because of the attitude to women and their sexuality, many men and possibly women too, don't actually think they have done anything wrong.

There are still men who belieive that if someone they have been drinking with gets herself too drunk to consent to sex, then it's ok to take advantage. Many do not think that they have committed a crime if they have sex with a comatose woman.

Similarly, some men who see a woman dressed in a sexual manner, because of their social conditioning believe that she has consented to sex, merely because of her clothing.

I think it needs to be talked about, so that the type of men and women who do not have a respectful attitude to sexual women can start to understand that sex is not something a man takes from a woman, but something that both parties have an equal right to consent to and enjoy. I am sure most women would like fullflling sex lives, but sex is still often seen as something that men need and women supply rather than something that women need too.

The practicalities of daily violence to both men and women should not detract from the right of women to own their own sex lives and have equality in sexual fulfillment.

It is something that some women have fought for, for decades.

[KidKruger]

So, are any of you currently slutting-it up on the slutwalk ?

I think it's happening around now isn't it ?

[Huguenot]

I think if there are men out there who don't think rape is a crime, then they are unlikely to be swayed by a 'slutwalk'.

It's quotes like these that get my goat, this one from the slutwalk London organisers.

'All over the world, women are constantly made to feel like victims, told they should not look a certain way, should not go out at night, should not go into certain areas, should not get drunk, should not wear high heels or make up, should not be alone with someone they don't know.'

'Not only does this divert attention away from the real cause of the crime - the perpetrator - but it creates a culture where rape is OK, where it's allowed to happen... after all, she must have been asking for it, right?'

Judging by the middle class appearance of the 'protestors', I suspect that very few of these are 'constantly' made to feel like victims, I suspect they haven't been told to 'look a certain way' since their Dad did when they were 14.

I'm guessing that none of them have ever been told not to go out at night, and none of them have been told not to get drunk.

I'm also guessing that none of them have been told not to wear high heels or make up. And getting drunk with complete strangers is something that your average bloke wouldn't do either.

There is no way in which rape is considered 'okay' and allowed to happen.

If they're going to make protests against situations in other countries and other cultures, then they should be aware that prancing around in your undies in Trafalgar Square isn't going to do anything.

So this is all just ridiculous, aggressive, confrontational bullshit. They shouldn't be surprised to discover that it completely alientates people from their cause, and turns potential supporters away from them.

Tilting at windmills.

[LadyDeliah]

The thing is Hugo, they may not have been told to dress a certain way for a while, if ever, but most women are pressured into being 'nice' girls because otherwise they won't get a 'nice' husband etc. They will be branded.

I think a lot of women want to be able to express their slutty/sexual side and maybe the march is an excuse to get their tits/arse etc out in public, but I think if that is the case, it is a sign of the oppression that makes most women feel that they have to be 'nice' girls in the first place.

I have noticed that most 'nice' women love the opportunity to dress up a bit tarty at theme parties etc. It's a time when permission is granted for them to do so. I've never been interested in being a 'nice' girl myself, so have never felt the need to wait until I'm given such permission, but this is a real form of oppression.

Maybe this will acheive nothing. I've been involved in sexual freedom campaigns myself in the 90's and saw Harriet et al swing things backwards since, so I'm not holding my breath.

And maybe the organisers are not aware of the wider historical fight for sexual equality, but at least it's got people talking about it which might bring about some change in perception.

If not, well at least the marchers got a chance to feel like they are allowed to be full-blooded women with like-minded women for the day.

A really good book about the repression of women's spirit is called, "Women Who Run With The Wolves: Contacting the Power of the Wild Woman". It is an interesting study of how women (and in my opinion men also in recent history) have been neutered and tamed throughout history.

[karter]

Erm, 100?