|
me, as a professional rapist just wanna say, that i prefer slutty girls more, because they make me horny, they're just more attractive to me and i will more likely rape them.
so if you want to improve your chance to get raped, just show a lot of skin and stuff.
greetings
|
On April 05 2011 02:36 Silmakuoppaanikinko wrote:
Do people have a right to dress in a sexually provocative way, assuming that this actually incites rape?
As soon as I read this question, I felt as if this is a more of a personal property issue. People have the right to look like whatever they want even if it incites ill will towards you. If a woman dressing slutty gets raped, that isn't her fault.
I don't believe in an afterlife so when a rapist ruins the life of a poor woman, he is squelching the very preciousness of life.
It's sad really, just because a woman wears a skirt doesn't mean you can flip it over and fuck her.
This conversation is asinine. There is no excuse for rape.
|
Canada13378 Posts
On April 06 2011 09:30 Redox wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2011 08:14 ToxNub wrote:On April 06 2011 08:02 RoosterSamurai wrote:On April 06 2011 07:59 ToxNub wrote:On April 06 2011 07:50 RoosterSamurai wrote:On April 06 2011 06:39 AraMoOse wrote:
Bravo to all the people in here who defend women's rights by the way. It`s easy to look at all the progress women have made and tell ourselves that the journey is over. It's nice to be a part of a community where a majority recognize that this is as much a male issue as a female one.
The question to me seems to be a purely ethical one. Does rape cause suffering? Yes! Therefore rape is undesirable (Yes ok we'd really be interested in how much suffering it causes compared to the well-being it causes, but we'd end up with the same answer). That one's a no brainer.
Does limiting people's rights cause suffering (In this case more specifically limiting their right to dress as they please)? Yes. No Brainer again, so don't do that.
Does women dressing in revealing clothing cause suffering? No, I'd even say it causes quite an increase in well-being; particularly amongst heterosexual males.
It doesn't even make a difference if there's a correlative or causal link to be traced. We enjoy when women dress nice, women enjoy dressing nice. What we want is a society where women can dress sexy and not have to worry about sexual predators.
A man who is incapable of controlling his sexual urges to the point that he has to assault women because he can see their titties has no place in a civil society to begin with.
I don't really think that dressing slutty is a major milestone in terms of female rights...In fact, I think it's a step in the opposite direction of what true, dedicated rights activists are trying to accomplish for women. You utterly miss the point. Women getting raped for dressing slutty is (or that being the excuse) is 100% in the domain of what true, dedicated rights activists are trying to accomplish for women. How nice of you to leave that little minor piece of info out. You're right, nobody would care if it wasn't a major problem. There really is no such thing as "the right to not get raped." That is why it is illegal to rape people, regardless of what they were dressed as. Conviction is a different thing, but all I am saying is that I wouldn't consider women's right to dress slutty a civil right milestone. That's all I'm saying. Way to jump down my throat without thinking for two seconds about my post. Believe it or not, it's not just literal rights that women's rights activists fight for, it's also cultural perceptions. This thread is a shining example of how fucked up our culture really is. Your post is tainted with very same judgments, and slyly implies that rights are selective things, only granted to those with moral allies. As if women's rights activists wouldn't care about rapes because they were sluts anyway. And that, my friend, boils down the very same argument the misogynist assholes in this thread are using. User was temp banned for this post. 100% agree with this post, finaly someone who has understood what this is about. Just ridiculous that he was temp banned for this.
He was temp banned for the last sentence which was wholly inappropriate regardless of how any of us feel towards those who perpetuate the stereotype and perspective that women who dress revealingly somehow entice being sexually assaulted.
|
On April 06 2011 07:50 RoosterSamurai wrote:
I don't really think that dressing slutty is a major milestone in terms of female rights...In fact, I think it's a step in the opposite direction of what true, dedicated rights activists are trying to accomplish for women.
Tell that to women living under the Taliban. Your clothes are a part of your identity. I would not let others decide for me what I can and cannot wear, would you?
How about this, from now on YOU are no longer allowed to wear shorts or short sleeved shirts.
Because women or homosexuals might be tempted to rape you... Do you intend to follow my prohibition? How's that for a double standard.
|
On April 06 2011 11:26 AraMoOse wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2011 07:50 RoosterSamurai wrote:
I don't really think that dressing slutty is a major milestone in terms of female rights...In fact, I think it's a step in the opposite direction of what true, dedicated rights activists are trying to accomplish for women.
How about this, from now on YOU are no longer allowed to wear shorts or short sleeved shirts. Because women or homosexuals might be tempted to rape you... Do you intend to follow my prohibition? How's that for a double standard. Yap, I've not been outside in that since I was like 4 years old.
Shorts and short sleeves hardly qualify as 'slutty' for women by the way.
Anyway, there's some reason to it, some other feminists for instance dislike the pressure women sometimes have to reveal, wear makeup, wear bras and all that just to be appealing to men.
|
On April 06 2011 09:08 Silmakuoppaanikinko wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2011 07:07 KwarK wrote:On April 06 2011 03:50 Silmakuoppaanikinko wrote:http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=32696¤tpage=632#12659Another grand one, seriously, it was a poster in a thread who put forth some actual arguments and actually tried to debate the matter, comes with a personal anecdote as a casus, and gets banned for it, if he had just made it a hypothetical situation but denied it ever took place no one would ban him. Again, it's your forum, you can do whatever you want, but banning people for providing stories in which they were dicks to serve as arguments in threads isn't exactly going to foster an intellectual or academic debate. Neither is banning 'no-names' who have some criticism on 'respected members of the community'. Edit: And I'm still replying to the point of being asked to cite bans of which I think they are outrageous. Especially in this case the crown being the immensely intellectual and well-argued "reason" for the ban given. He raped a girl. That's really in the eye of the beholder, and she didn't mind to begin with. It's really a classic case of 'I mind, so you should mind too.' That said, even if he raped her, even if she violently resisted and he told it, it's still presented as a vessel for debate, scaring people from posting morally apprehensive things they have done as a vessel for debate just counters any intellectualism and discourse.
do you really think having sex with someone who is too fucked up to even know isnt morally reprehensible, whether or not consent could be given after the fact?
"she didnt mind to begin with" to begin with? you couldn't possibly know, the poster admits he violated her without her even being aware at the time. its not like he asked politely to the kind unconscious lady if he could have some fun with her body
AlexDeLarge:
She ended up smoking a lot of weed and passed out almost completely (was maybe 10% conscious). I tried to make her feel comfortable, carried her to bed cuz she obviously wasn't feeling well, gave her a light massage etc.
But then i started getting a little bit horny. So i said, ahh what the hell. Fucked the shit out of her while she was 90% unconscious (this was basically our first date).
|
|
|
On April 06 2011 12:03 Gene wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2011 09:08 Silmakuoppaanikinko wrote:On April 06 2011 07:07 KwarK wrote:On April 06 2011 03:50 Silmakuoppaanikinko wrote:http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=32696¤tpage=632#12659Another grand one, seriously, it was a poster in a thread who put forth some actual arguments and actually tried to debate the matter, comes with a personal anecdote as a casus, and gets banned for it, if he had just made it a hypothetical situation but denied it ever took place no one would ban him. Again, it's your forum, you can do whatever you want, but banning people for providing stories in which they were dicks to serve as arguments in threads isn't exactly going to foster an intellectual or academic debate. Neither is banning 'no-names' who have some criticism on 'respected members of the community'. Edit: And I'm still replying to the point of being asked to cite bans of which I think they are outrageous. Especially in this case the crown being the immensely intellectual and well-argued "reason" for the ban given. He raped a girl. That's really in the eye of the beholder, and she didn't mind to begin with. It's really a classic case of 'I mind, so you should mind too.' That said, even if he raped her, even if she violently resisted and he told it, it's still presented as a vessel for debate, scaring people from posting morally apprehensive things they have done as a vessel for debate just counters any intellectualism and discourse. do you really think having sex with someone who is too fucked up to even know isnt morally reprehensible, whether or not consent could be given after the fact? I don't believe in morality. I'm just working with the framework you give me.
"she didnt mind to begin with" to begin with? you couldn't possibly know, the poster admits he violated her without her even being aware at the time. its not like he asked politely to the kind unconscious lady if he could have some fun with her body AlexDeLarge: Show nested quote + She ended up smoking a lot of weed and passed out almost completely (was maybe 10% conscious). I tried to make her feel comfortable, carried her to bed cuz she obviously wasn't feeling well, gave her a light massage etc.
But then i started getting a little bit horny. So i said, ahh what the hell. Fucked the shit out of her while she was 90% unconscious (this was basically our first date).
'Alright, i should mention that the vibe of that night was that it was definitely ON between us. If she hadn't passed out, we would have sex anyway.'
|
There's a huge difference between things that can reasonably be considered possible to involuntarily incite, and things that require a deliberate choice to enact. You might incite less-than-courteous looks or other *cough* physical reactions by dressing immodestly, and you will certainly incite certain mindsets about you - like "slut" - but the choice to rape someone always belongs to the rapist.
That said, this controversy... isn't. The officer is entirely correct in the sense that immodest dress may make you a target where modest dress would not. Interpreting his statement to mean that dressing immodestly encourages rape is an uncharitable interpretation of what he said, which - as denizens of the Internet - we all know is a great way to cause any kind of conflict the troll in question desires.
|
On April 06 2011 10:30 RoarMan wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2011 09:30 Redox wrote:On April 06 2011 08:14 ToxNub wrote:On April 06 2011 08:02 RoosterSamurai wrote:On April 06 2011 07:59 ToxNub wrote:On April 06 2011 07:50 RoosterSamurai wrote:On April 06 2011 06:39 AraMoOse wrote:
Bravo to all the people in here who defend women's rights by the way. It`s easy to look at all the progress women have made and tell ourselves that the journey is over. It's nice to be a part of a community where a majority recognize that this is as much a male issue as a female one.
The question to me seems to be a purely ethical one. Does rape cause suffering? Yes! Therefore rape is undesirable (Yes ok we'd really be interested in how much suffering it causes compared to the well-being it causes, but we'd end up with the same answer). That one's a no brainer.
Does limiting people's rights cause suffering (In this case more specifically limiting their right to dress as they please)? Yes. No Brainer again, so don't do that.
Does women dressing in revealing clothing cause suffering? No, I'd even say it causes quite an increase in well-being; particularly amongst heterosexual males.
It doesn't even make a difference if there's a correlative or causal link to be traced. We enjoy when women dress nice, women enjoy dressing nice. What we want is a society where women can dress sexy and not have to worry about sexual predators.
A man who is incapable of controlling his sexual urges to the point that he has to assault women because he can see their titties has no place in a civil society to begin with.
I don't really think that dressing slutty is a major milestone in terms of female rights...In fact, I think it's a step in the opposite direction of what true, dedicated rights activists are trying to accomplish for women. You utterly miss the point. Women getting raped for dressing slutty is (or that being the excuse) is 100% in the domain of what true, dedicated rights activists are trying to accomplish for women. How nice of you to leave that little minor piece of info out. You're right, nobody would care if it wasn't a major problem. There really is no such thing as "the right to not get raped." That is why it is illegal to rape people, regardless of what they were dressed as. Conviction is a different thing, but all I am saying is that I wouldn't consider women's right to dress slutty a civil right milestone. That's all I'm saying. Way to jump down my throat without thinking for two seconds about my post. Believe it or not, it's not just literal rights that women's rights activists fight for, it's also cultural perceptions. This thread is a shining example of how fucked up our culture really is. Your post is tainted with very same judgments, and slyly implies that rights are selective things, only granted to those with moral allies. As if women's rights activists wouldn't care about rapes because they were sluts anyway. And that, my friend, boils down the very same argument the misogynist assholes in this thread are using. User was temp banned for this post. 100% agree with this post, finaly someone who has understood what this is about. Just ridiculous that he was temp banned for this. Honestly rape is wrong. Period. Women should be allowed to wear what ever they please and not feel like they're obligated to be raped. Is this so much for them to ask for?
In the ideal world, this would be perfect. Tell us when you can control the urges of every messed up person on the planet.
However, in the real world, sometimes it is necessary to protect oneself. If the police came on the television reporting car theft in your neighborhood, you would (probably) lock your car doors at night if you didn't already. Likewise, if they reported a burglar, and recommended locking your doors at night, you'd do that. You are under no obligation to follow their recommendations, but this is the suggestion they give.
In this case, the police officer could've given better advice. He could've phrased his advice better. But it doesn't change the fact that they do not need to follow it. If they want to continue dressing as they are now, no one opposes it - they just don't recommend it.
|
Just because you wear a shirt that says "I'm hungry" doesn't give people the right to forcefully stuff food into your mouth.
-Philly D
|
On April 06 2011 13:07 jstar wrote:
Just because you wear a shirt that says "I'm hungry" doesn't give people the right to forcefully stuff food into your mouth.
-Philly D
So when are fat people going to go out and protest against Health Canada recommending they eat three servings of fruit and vegetables a day?
|
I think the debate is a lot simpler than people are making it:
Dressing revealingly never causes someone to Rape someone...ever.
Dressing revealingly can cause the rapist to choose you, instead of her, simply because the criminal will choose the most attractive target available.
So basically, you could personally lower the risk by dressing down, however, you would never reduce the actual risk of rape occurring, only reduce it happening to you personally.
|
On April 06 2011 10:30 RoarMan wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2011 09:30 Redox wrote:On April 06 2011 08:14 ToxNub wrote:On April 06 2011 08:02 RoosterSamurai wrote:On April 06 2011 07:59 ToxNub wrote:On April 06 2011 07:50 RoosterSamurai wrote:On April 06 2011 06:39 AraMoOse wrote:
Bravo to all the people in here who defend women's rights by the way. It`s easy to look at all the progress women have made and tell ourselves that the journey is over. It's nice to be a part of a community where a majority recognize that this is as much a male issue as a female one.
The question to me seems to be a purely ethical one. Does rape cause suffering? Yes! Therefore rape is undesirable (Yes ok we'd really be interested in how much suffering it causes compared to the well-being it causes, but we'd end up with the same answer). That one's a no brainer.
Does limiting people's rights cause suffering (In this case more specifically limiting their right to dress as they please)? Yes. No Brainer again, so don't do that.
Does women dressing in revealing clothing cause suffering? No, I'd even say it causes quite an increase in well-being; particularly amongst heterosexual males.
It doesn't even make a difference if there's a correlative or causal link to be traced. We enjoy when women dress nice, women enjoy dressing nice. What we want is a society where women can dress sexy and not have to worry about sexual predators.
A man who is incapable of controlling his sexual urges to the point that he has to assault women because he can see their titties has no place in a civil society to begin with.
I don't really think that dressing slutty is a major milestone in terms of female rights...In fact, I think it's a step in the opposite direction of what true, dedicated rights activists are trying to accomplish for women. You utterly miss the point. Women getting raped for dressing slutty is (or that being the excuse) is 100% in the domain of what true, dedicated rights activists are trying to accomplish for women. How nice of you to leave that little minor piece of info out. You're right, nobody would care if it wasn't a major problem. There really is no such thing as "the right to not get raped." That is why it is illegal to rape people, regardless of what they were dressed as. Conviction is a different thing, but all I am saying is that I wouldn't consider women's right to dress slutty a civil right milestone. That's all I'm saying. Way to jump down my throat without thinking for two seconds about my post. Believe it or not, it's not just literal rights that women's rights activists fight for, it's also cultural perceptions. This thread is a shining example of how fucked up our culture really is. Your post is tainted with very same judgments, and slyly implies that rights are selective things, only granted to those with moral allies. As if women's rights activists wouldn't care about rapes because they were sluts anyway. And that, my friend, boils down the very same argument the misogynist assholes in this thread are using. User was temp banned for this post. 100% agree with this post, finaly someone who has understood what this is about. Just ridiculous that he was temp banned for this. Honestly rape is wrong. Period. Women should be allowed to wear what ever they please and not feel like they're obligated to be raped. Is this so much for them to ask for?
In a perfect world. Unfortunately, we don't live in a perfect world and I personally think that provocative behavior elicits more aggressive responses. There is no correlation to this that I can find but it does seem like common sense. If dressing provocatively didn't cause more aggression in men, then why would women do it in the first place?
Sure rape and sexual assault are illegal but there are still scumbags out there. It really boils down to concern towards women, not any attempt to take away their rights.
And legally,as long as Indecent Exposure laws aren't violated, they can dress as they wish, but they won't be looked at the same way by bystanders.
|
On April 06 2011 10:30 RoarMan wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2011 09:30 Redox wrote:On April 06 2011 08:14 ToxNub wrote:On April 06 2011 08:02 RoosterSamurai wrote:On April 06 2011 07:59 ToxNub wrote:On April 06 2011 07:50 RoosterSamurai wrote:On April 06 2011 06:39 AraMoOse wrote:
Bravo to all the people in here who defend women's rights by the way. It`s easy to look at all the progress women have made and tell ourselves that the journey is over. It's nice to be a part of a community where a majority recognize that this is as much a male issue as a female one.
The question to me seems to be a purely ethical one. Does rape cause suffering? Yes! Therefore rape is undesirable (Yes ok we'd really be interested in how much suffering it causes compared to the well-being it causes, but we'd end up with the same answer). That one's a no brainer.
Does limiting people's rights cause suffering (In this case more specifically limiting their right to dress as they please)? Yes. No Brainer again, so don't do that.
Does women dressing in revealing clothing cause suffering? No, I'd even say it causes quite an increase in well-being; particularly amongst heterosexual males.
It doesn't even make a difference if there's a correlative or causal link to be traced. We enjoy when women dress nice, women enjoy dressing nice. What we want is a society where women can dress sexy and not have to worry about sexual predators.
A man who is incapable of controlling his sexual urges to the point that he has to assault women because he can see their titties has no place in a civil society to begin with.
I don't really think that dressing slutty is a major milestone in terms of female rights...In fact, I think it's a step in the opposite direction of what true, dedicated rights activists are trying to accomplish for women. You utterly miss the point. Women getting raped for dressing slutty is (or that being the excuse) is 100% in the domain of what true, dedicated rights activists are trying to accomplish for women. How nice of you to leave that little minor piece of info out. You're right, nobody would care if it wasn't a major problem. There really is no such thing as "the right to not get raped." That is why it is illegal to rape people, regardless of what they were dressed as. Conviction is a different thing, but all I am saying is that I wouldn't consider women's right to dress slutty a civil right milestone. That's all I'm saying. Way to jump down my throat without thinking for two seconds about my post. Believe it or not, it's not just literal rights that women's rights activists fight for, it's also cultural perceptions. This thread is a shining example of how fucked up our culture really is. Your post is tainted with very same judgments, and slyly implies that rights are selective things, only granted to those with moral allies. As if women's rights activists wouldn't care about rapes because they were sluts anyway. And that, my friend, boils down the very same argument the misogynist assholes in this thread are using. User was temp banned for this post. 100% agree with this post, finaly someone who has understood what this is about. Just ridiculous that he was temp banned for this. Honestly rape is wrong. Period. Women should be allowed to wear what ever they please and not feel like they're obligated to be raped. Is this so much for them to ask for?
I honestly don't see why anyone would get angry when they're given advice. It's not like he's saying: "Do not wear exposing clothes or you'll get raped"
|
I don't see what the big deal is here - a girl that dresses provocatively is displaying herself as a sex object, whether she "intends" to or not. Most normal guys get a physiological reaction when they see a girl like that...so yes, slutty outfits increase the chance that guys will want to mess with a given girl, or at least think dirty thoughts about her.
And for all the people saying "RAPE IS WRONG, BLAH BLAH" - honestly, yes, rape is wrong, but that doesn't mean you should condone slutty dressing from girls...that's called a straw man argument. Girls should understand that they're marketing themselves as sex objects when they dress like that; at the same time, guys should refrain from raping sluttily-dressed girls. Both parties have to watch themselves.
Although I really think that lotsa girls dress like sluts without understanding what it does to the guys that look at them...it's a sad load of female ignorance that we can thank the media for, I guess. Some girls get it, but some don't because they're just copying what they've been taught to do.
|
On April 06 2011 14:49 skypig wrote:
I don't see what the big deal is here - a girl that dresses provocatively is displaying herself as a sex object, whether she "intends" to or not. Most normal guys get a physiological reaction when they see a girl like that...so yes, slutty outfits increase the chance that guys will want to mess with a given girl, or at least think dirty thoughts about her.
And for all the people saying "RAPE IS WRONG, BLAH BLAH" - honestly, yes, rape is wrong, but that doesn't mean you should condone slutty dressing from girls...that's called a straw man argument. Girls should understand that they're marketing themselves as sex objects when they dress like that; at the same time, guys should refrain from raping sluttily-dressed girls. Both parties have to watch themselves.
Although I really think that lotsa girls dress like sluts without understanding what it does to the guys that look at them...it's a sad load of female ignorance that we can thank the media for, I guess. Some girls get it, but some don't because they're just copying what they've been taught to do.
Dressing sluttily should send you the signal that they may want to have a fun time with an enjoyable one-night stand with you, not that they want to be raped.
|
On April 06 2011 15:13 Ropid wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2011 14:49 skypig wrote:
I don't see what the big deal is here - a girl that dresses provocatively is displaying herself as a sex object, whether she "intends" to or not. Most normal guys get a physiological reaction when they see a girl like that...so yes, slutty outfits increase the chance that guys will want to mess with a given girl, or at least think dirty thoughts about her.
And for all the people saying "RAPE IS WRONG, BLAH BLAH" - honestly, yes, rape is wrong, but that doesn't mean you should condone slutty dressing from girls...that's called a straw man argument. Girls should understand that they're marketing themselves as sex objects when they dress like that; at the same time, guys should refrain from raping sluttily-dressed girls. Both parties have to watch themselves.
Although I really think that lotsa girls dress like sluts without understanding what it does to the guys that look at them...it's a sad load of female ignorance that we can thank the media for, I guess. Some girls get it, but some don't because they're just copying what they've been taught to do. Dressing sluttily should send you the signal that they may want to have a fun time with an enjoyable one-night stand with you, not that they want to be raped. (not (equal? sex-object rape-object))
For most people it means exactly that, someone to have a one night stand with, then never speak again.
And I love how no one reads my precious definitions I took good care of in my op, arses.
|
On April 06 2011 15:13 Ropid wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2011 14:49 skypig wrote:
I don't see what the big deal is here - a girl that dresses provocatively is displaying herself as a sex object, whether she "intends" to or not. Most normal guys get a physiological reaction when they see a girl like that...so yes, slutty outfits increase the chance that guys will want to mess with a given girl, or at least think dirty thoughts about her.
And for all the people saying "RAPE IS WRONG, BLAH BLAH" - honestly, yes, rape is wrong, but that doesn't mean you should condone slutty dressing from girls...that's called a straw man argument. Girls should understand that they're marketing themselves as sex objects when they dress like that; at the same time, guys should refrain from raping sluttily-dressed girls. Both parties have to watch themselves.
Although I really think that lotsa girls dress like sluts without understanding what it does to the guys that look at them...it's a sad load of female ignorance that we can thank the media for, I guess. Some girls get it, but some don't because they're just copying what they've been taught to do. Dressing sluttily should send you the signal that they may want to have a fun time with an enjoyable one-night stand with you, not that they want to be raped.
You're right that dressing in revealing clothes =/= "I want to be raped" in most instances.
I don't know that you're right about dressing in revealing clothes = "I want to have a one-night stand." I think that's an interpretive leap, but you're welcome to make it if you'd like.
However, in any case, the motives of the girl for dressing how she dresses is irrelevant. It does not matter what "signal" she thinks her outfit is sending. It does not matter a bit. What matters, in relation to this thread, is whether or not dressing in revealing clothes is a risk factor for being raped. In other words, what matters is how potential rapists interpret those signals.
I happen to think that outfit is not a significant risk factor for rape cases. But that doesn't mean that I agree, in the abstract, with the notion that advising women to avoid risk factors for rape equates to blaming rape-victims and/or excusing rapists, which seems to be a common refrain in this dialogue.
Take something that actually is a risk factor for rape: alcohol.
Advising a young woman to avoid heavy drinking (and likewise avoid heavy drinkers) in a potentially compromising situation is actually good advice (If I had a daughter, I would tattoo that little directive on the back of her hand). But the rhetoric of many of the pro-slutwalkers in this thread would string me up: "How dare you say that a woman who drinks wants to get raped!" "Women should have the right to get as drunk as they want and not be sexually assaulted!"
As to the first assertion, I'm not saying that. As to the second, no shit.
And that is why, in principle, I can't condone the slutwalk. Perhaps the policeman is a craven misogynist. I don't know. But perhaps he's just a run-of-the-mill, not-too-bright cop who has seen more than his share of tragic sexual assaults and wants to offer some piece of advice, any piece of advice that might help obviate future ones.
Instead of entertaining this second possibility, though, people are just jumping on the chance to publicly decry a widely disapproved statement (for which there are, admittedly, wonderful compensations in the form of emotional satisfaction and group-inspired reassurance). I just can't get behind that.
People can wage some campaign of awareness where we're going to educate the public into rooting out and eradicating rape (which has been a fact of human existence since prehistory). Or they can make sure that their female loved ones don't needlessly participate in behavior that might endanger them. I know which route I prefer.
|
On April 06 2011 15:30 Silmakuoppaanikinko wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2011 15:13 Ropid wrote:On April 06 2011 14:49 skypig wrote:
I don't see what the big deal is here - a girl that dresses provocatively is displaying herself as a sex object, whether she "intends" to or not. Most normal guys get a physiological reaction when they see a girl like that...so yes, slutty outfits increase the chance that guys will want to mess with a given girl, or at least think dirty thoughts about her.
And for all the people saying "RAPE IS WRONG, BLAH BLAH" - honestly, yes, rape is wrong, but that doesn't mean you should condone slutty dressing from girls...that's called a straw man argument. Girls should understand that they're marketing themselves as sex objects when they dress like that; at the same time, guys should refrain from raping sluttily-dressed girls. Both parties have to watch themselves.
Although I really think that lotsa girls dress like sluts without understanding what it does to the guys that look at them...it's a sad load of female ignorance that we can thank the media for, I guess. Some girls get it, but some don't because they're just copying what they've been taught to do. Dressing sluttily should send you the signal that they may want to have a fun time with an enjoyable one-night stand with you, not that they want to be raped. (not (equal? sex-object rape-object)) For most people it means exactly that, someone to have a one night stand with, then never speak again. And I love how no one reads my precious definitions I took good care of in my op, arses.
And, Silm, just for you, I'll answer your OP question:
Do people have a right to dress in a sexually provocative way, assuming that this actually incites rape?
Of course they do, silly! 
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
