|
I really don't know how you dress has anything to do with your level of promiscuousness. I read about this, and I also find the officers terminology awkward, 'to dress like a slut', how does a slut dress really? It's almost as silly as saying 'to dress like a black person' or something like that. 'Slut' means that you have sex easily with different people. I don't really see that these people dress in an instantly recognisable fashion.
That you show a lot of flesh doesn't mean you are promiscuous, that you are promiscuous doesn't mean that you show a lot of flesh.
That said, I don't really have troubles when people call me a 'slut', I suppose that's true, and if you call it a 'slut' or 'promiscuous', it means the same thing, it's all quibble with words, like freedom fighter vs terrorist, it means the same thing and call it what you like. I don't display any more flesh than my hands, feet and face though.
And also, I really doubt that people get raped more when they display more flesh, I've seen no credible research that indicates that. Rapists seem to go more after shy and timid people, people whom they can control.
|
I understand why people would be upset about this, but at this point it seems that people will find any excuse to have a rally/walk/march for something in Toronto.
|
On April 05 2011 01:53 Jathin wrote:
A protest, in the form of women dressing up according to what is colloquially referenced as "slutty," in response to a police officer's implying women dressing as sluts are 'asking for it' -- absolutely, 100%, positively, is tongue in cheek.
A protest in women dressed in their normal day-to-day clothing would not be.
What would the point be if they were dressed in normal clothing?
|
On April 05 2011 01:51 Kimaker wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2011 01:48 QuothTheRaven wrote:
Terminology notions aside, blaming victims of sexual assault cases is a serious issue in almost every country and is worthy of the attention. The catch slogans and signs are just ways of getting attention and raising awareness. I agree completely, but the title produces FAR more humor than outrage. Then you read what it's about, and...I don't know, just feels like they could have come up with something a bit less distracting from the issue?
No, it was the perfect answer.
And nothing is distracting there, they got there message across just fine.
That police guy will never again make such dumb statements publicly.
|
I can understand the point they are trying to make in that they should be treated the same by the police. What I don't understand is how you can disagree with the quote that the officer made at the university. I would think it to be pretty common sense that the less clothing you wear the more likely someone would get the urge to assault you.
|
|
|
On April 05 2011 01:59 Jathin wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2011 01:57 yoonyoon wrote:On April 05 2011 01:53 Jathin wrote:
A protest, in the form of women dressing up according to what is colloquially referenced as "slutty," in response to a police officer's implying women dressing as sluts are 'asking for it' -- absolutely, 100%, positively, is tongue in cheek.
A protest in women dressed in their normal day-to-day clothing would not be. What would the point be if they were dressed in normal clothing? My only point is that the protest is tongue-in-cheek.
No, it's not.
|
On April 05 2011 01:48 DarkGeneral wrote:
It is an atrocity to even suggest that because someone wants to live their life a certain way, as harmless as wanting to wear what they WANT, is justification to harm that person.
Its absurd. Its ludacris.
Anyone assaulting a person for what they like to wear, or not wear for that matter, should be punished to the full extent of the law, with ZERO blame on the person who wore the harmless garment.
I just want to point out that, from my understanding, the officer never said people who dress like sluts "deserve" to be raped, nor did he justify it. I think he was making a statement that they were instigating it on some level.
|
On April 05 2011 01:56 Silmakuoppaanikinko wrote:
I really don't know how you dress has anything to do with your level of promiscuousness. I read about this, and I also find the officers terminology awkward, 'to dress like a slut', how does a slut dress really?
lol, really bro? you don't have any ideas as to how to dress slutty?
On April 05 2011 02:00 bonifaceviii wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2011 01:59 Jathin wrote:On April 05 2011 01:57 yoonyoon wrote:On April 05 2011 01:53 Jathin wrote:
A protest, in the form of women dressing up according to what is colloquially referenced as "slutty," in response to a police officer's implying women dressing as sluts are 'asking for it' -- absolutely, 100%, positively, is tongue in cheek.
A protest in women dressed in their normal day-to-day clothing would not be. What would the point be if they were dressed in normal clothing? My only point is that the protest is tongue-in-cheek. No, it's not.
it's an opinion.
anyways I agree with you. however, I think the women are likely dumb as shit and shouldn't dress slutty if they want to drop their odds of being raped.
|
On April 05 2011 01:59 ragingfungus wrote:
I can understand the point they are trying to make in that they should be treated the same by the police. What I don't understand is how you can disagree with the quote that the officer made at the university. I would think it to be pretty common sense that the less clothing you wear the more likely you are to be assaulted.
Beware of common sense, uncommon sense is much more valuable.
The officers comment is disagreeable because it implies that rape is somehow the victim's fault, which is not and is never the case. Period.
|
|
|
In the article: "Just like sexual assault is not about appearance."
That made me lol, I'm 100% sure appearance has some relevance to it. No one is going to sexually assault a 400 pound gorilla of a women are they? Anyways I agree with the officer, stop dressing like damn sluts, it doesn't help matters at all.
|
The problem with his statement isn't that women who dress provocatively are more likely to get raped. The problem is that the officer's words place some of the culpability for rape on the victim's behavior.
In particular, the officer's usage of the word "sluts" implies a certain level of victim-blaming. I don't know if he meant to blame the victim or not, but his unfortunate word choice certainly suggests that he did.
|
|
|
I think what the officer said was perfectly fine.
Saying:
“Women should avoid dressing like sluts in order not to be victimized.”
is perfectly acceptable imo. I mean, he's not saying that dressing "slutty" means you deserve to be assaulted, but it may be a fact that it increases the likelihood of it occurring.
|
On April 05 2011 02:02 The KY wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2011 01:59 ragingfungus wrote:
I can understand the point they are trying to make in that they should be treated the same by the police. What I don't understand is how you can disagree with the quote that the officer made at the university. I would think it to be pretty common sense that the less clothing you wear the more likely you are to be assaulted. Beware of common sense, uncommon sense is much more valuable. The officers comment is disagreeable because it implies that rape is somehow the victim's fault, which is not and is never the case. Period.
I disagree with the fact that it was implying anything. For example if I had a list of everything someone could do to lower their chances of being assaulted this would be part of that list. Are you saying I should leave this one off the list because theres no way I can say it without implying something?
|
I think people are reaching for reasons to be offended. I don't think the officer was trying to place blame on the victims of sexual assault by dressing in a particular way. I don't see any problem with what he said and in fact, I think he's 100% right. How often to nuns get raped? I'm sure it happens but I bet a lot less than women who dress like "sluts." Get over it people. You don't have a right to not be offended. Just because it upsets you doesn't make it any less right.
|
I don't understand the disagreement with the officer...
You dress like a slut, guess what you're more prone to rape, that's all he's saying. Everybody is stretching too far to really see the implication that it's the "woman's fault", that's total nonsense. I didn't hear him say "you're not allowed to dress like sluts, else you will be raped"...
It's real simple, straight men who rape get turned on more by attractive woman who dress, less...
As for the slutwalk, epic facepalm at humanity right there.
|
On April 05 2011 02:02 travis wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2011 01:56 Silmakuoppaanikinko wrote:
I really don't know how you dress has anything to do with your level of promiscuousness. I read about this, and I also find the officers terminology awkward, 'to dress like a slut', how does a slut dress really? lol, really bro? you don't have any ideas as to how to dress slutty? Read the rest of the post, I perfectly know what the prejudice is how how 'sluts' dress and what everyone thinks.
I'm just not convinced that there is a significant correlation between being promiscuous and revealing a lot of flesh.
Basically, it's a self-fulfilling prophecy, as soon as you see someone revealing a lot of flesh, you'll be like 'Ohh, she's a slut', and the thousands of sluts you saw on your way to work that didn't reveal a lot of flesh you don't notice, thus strengthening the stereotype. One of your co-workers who dresses quite plainly might have sex with 5 different people per week, you can't know eh.
And the rest of the point, I've also never seen any credible research that indicates that people that dress revealingly are more prone to be raped.
A lot of stories of rape victims seem to involve people who dress quite modestly but are simply shy and insecure and thus easy to be controlled. (not that a lot of slutty behaviour can also stem from insecurity and needing confirmation)
|
When I read this I laughed, the officer was right. Women are inviting themselves to certain behaviours by men if they dress a way that promotes that.
If someone were to dress horribly downtown, then their chances of getting mugged are a lot less than a person who looks like they have wealth. Same goes with women, why do you think women can't wear skirts in catholic high schools anymore? Men look at their thongs when they go up stairs and whatnot.
I made a joke to my brother, I told him why don't girls just wear grannie panties or something to make it very hard for someone to do something if they are so worried 
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
