EPTToronto's SlutWalk [?SFW]
| Forum Index > Closed |
|
Jathin
United States3505 Posts
| ||
|
Zorkmid
4410 Posts
It's in protest of a Toronto Police Officer who suggested that women are inviting rape and sexual assault by dressing provocatively. | ||
|
Jathin
United States3505 Posts
| ||
|
GreEny K
Germany7312 Posts
| ||
|
Zorkmid
4410 Posts
On April 05 2011 01:42 Jathin wrote: Yes I understand that. It's in the article. Put it in your OP then, its misleading. | ||
|
Kimaker
United States2131 Posts
| ||
|
bonifaceviii
Canada2890 Posts
| ||
|
floor exercise
Canada5847 Posts
![[image loading]](http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2011/images/04/04/t1larg.slutwalk.ctv.cnn.jpg) I didn't know anybody wanted the word slut | ||
|
Phelski
United States142 Posts
haha | ||
|
Jathin
United States3505 Posts
| ||
|
wzzit
United States201 Posts
On April 05 2011 01:42 Jathin wrote: Yes I understand that. It's in the article, but it is ridiculous that the leaders of this movement are "taking the word back" There is nothing in the article that indicates that the leaders of this movement are "trying to take the word back." The name "Slutwalk" is clearly a tongue-in-cheek reference to the constable's inappropriate remarks about rape and sexual assault. | ||
|
DarkGeneral
Canada328 Posts
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. | ||
|
QuothTheRaven
United States5524 Posts
| ||
|
bonifaceviii
Canada2890 Posts
This is not an isolated incident. Anti-victim bias results in sexual crimes not getting reported and justice not being done. | ||
|
Kimaker
United States2131 Posts
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? | ||
|
Ferrose
United States11378 Posts
No rapist would try to rape someone in public in a huge crowd >.> Also, I would be ashamed of myself if I was ever associated with a group called "Slut Walk." | ||
|
Jathin
United States3505 Posts
| ||
|
bonifaceviii
Canada2890 Posts
On April 05 2011 01:51 Kimaker wrote: 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? Where is the distraction? The police officer told a crowd of university students that they could avoid getting raped if they don't dress like sluts. This is a direct reaction to that incident and the anti-victim bias that it embodies. | ||
|
QuothTheRaven
United States5524 Posts
On April 05 2011 01:51 Kimaker wrote: 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? Well, for what it's worth, if they had come up with something less provocative, we--and many others--probably wouldn't be talking about it, because it would be just another one of many rallies of this kind. | ||
|
Kimaker
United States2131 Posts
On April 05 2011 01:53 QuothTheRaven wrote: Well, for what it's worth, if they had come up with something less provocative, we--and many others--probably wouldn't be talking about it, because it would be just another one of many rallies of this kind. Fair. I concede the point. On April 05 2011 01:53 bonifaceviii wrote: Where is the distraction? The police officer told a crowd of university students that they could avoid getting raped if they don't dress like sluts. This is a direct reaction to that incident and the anti-victim bias that it embodies. Just the idea of attaching such a huge societal problem to a specific incident, of which I'd not heard of before, sorta puts the focus on the incident and not on the problem. Thus far my feelings on this have gone (as I understood it more): Hilarious, Curious, Confused, Befuddled, Understanding, Sympathy with the cause. Bit of a roundabout way of getting there, that's all I'm saying. | ||
|
Silmakuoppaanikinko
799 Posts
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. | ||
|
arterian
Canada1157 Posts
| ||
|
yoonyoon
Korea (South)1065 Posts
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? | ||
|
Redox
Germany24794 Posts
On April 05 2011 01:51 Kimaker wrote: 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. | ||
|
ragingfungus
United States271 Posts
| ||
|
Jathin
United States3505 Posts
| ||
|
bonifaceviii
Canada2890 Posts
On April 05 2011 01:59 Jathin wrote: My only point is that the protest is tongue-in-cheek. No, it's not. | ||
|
RoosterSamurai
Japan2108 Posts
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. | ||
|
Deleted User 3420
24492 Posts
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? 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. | ||
|
The KY
United Kingdom6252 Posts
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. | ||
|
bonifaceviii
Canada2890 Posts
A link for Jathin. | ||
|
Kamais_Ookin
Canada4218 Posts
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. | ||
|
wzzit
United States201 Posts
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. | ||
|
Jathin
United States3505 Posts
| ||
|
Jonoman92
United States9105 Posts
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. | ||
|
ragingfungus
United States271 Posts
On April 05 2011 02:02 The KY wrote: 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? | ||
|
Magic_Mike
United States542 Posts
| ||
|
braheem
Canada81 Posts
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. | ||
|
Silmakuoppaanikinko
799 Posts
On April 05 2011 02:02 travis wrote: Read the rest of the post, I perfectly know what the prejudice is how how 'sluts' dress and what everyone thinks.lol, really bro? you don't have any ideas as to how to dress slutty? 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) | ||
|
Jiver
Canada48 Posts
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  | ||
|
bonifaceviii
Canada2890 Posts
On April 05 2011 02:08 Jathin wrote: How does that at all prove your point? If anything, it agrees with mine: valid cause that gets derailed. Tongue-in-cheek protests are effective because they are provocative, but because of that very fact its motivation gets derailed into things like, "We're taking the word back." and "Slut and proud of it!" Interesting interpretation, when the writer is basically making the point that the word is so powerful that it affects people's behaviour and reactions (as it certainly has yours). | ||
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
If people want to have a mature discussion on this, starting with a good OP, then go ahead but I'll still be monitoring it. | ||
| ||
