Toronto 'slut walk' spreads to U.S.

[alp227]

Source: CBC News

An international series of protests known as slut walks, sparked by a Toronto police officer's flippant comment that women should avoid dressing like "sluts" to avoid being raped or victimized, is taking root in the United States.

Some women and men who protest dress in nothing more remarkable than jeans and T-shirts, while others wear provocative or revealing outfits to bring attention to "slut-shaming," or shaming women for being sexual, and the treatment of sexual assault victims.

"It was taking the blame off the rapist and on the victim," said Nicole Sullivan, 21, a student at the University of Massachusetts-Boston and an organizer of the SlutWalk planned Saturday in that city. "So we are using these efforts to reclaim the word 'slut."'

The police officer made his comments in January to a group of York University students at a safety forum. He later apologized, but his comments were publicized widely on Facebook and Twitter. They inspired a march in Toronto last month that drew more than 3,000 people, as well as slut walks since then in Dallas, Asheville, N.C., and Ottawa, Ontario.

Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2011/05/06/slut-walk.html

[no_hypocrisy]

1. Maybe I should throw on a burka before I leave my house.

[Angry Dragon]

2. If you did that they would just arrest you as a terrorist

[gratuitous]

24. The logic seems to boil down to

If a woman didn't want to be raped, why did she leave her house with her vagina? A clear enticement to some hapless man who can't be faulted for his natural urges.

I really thought we'd gotten a handle on most of this back in the 1970s. Sexism is nothing if not persistent.

[stevenleser]

40. LOL, well put. n/t

[bobbolink]

72. Its all back in vogue... sexism, racism, classism, etc.

In general, getting high from putting down others.

Its what's happenin', baby.

:(

[October]

90. Excellent post. So well-stated. /nt

[HankyDubs]

103. +1

[fredamae]

122. Dammit! I mistook "Slut Walk" to Refer To Pols

on Corp and Tax Payer's Teat.

[buddysmellgood]

3. But won't all the rapists gather and meet them?

[sudopod]

8. HURRR nt

[SoapBox]

4. It's all about getting women back under the control of men...

And just like abortion...Love the fetus, Hate the child.

The want the women available for all the sex they want, when they want it...but other than that, don't even think of acting like a woman.

Oh ya...you guys (it's always men) want to outlaw abortion...then out law Viagra.

[BlueIris]

5. I'm not wearing a bra.

And I'm in my own home and everything. SHAME ON ME. Shame.

:sarcasm:

[valerief]

6. Slut. nt

[bigwillq]

18. LOL

:rofl:

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

9. Pics or it didn't happen.

[hootinholler]

10. Worthless without pictures

:rofl:

-Hoot

[buddysmellgood]

15. Neither am I. What else are you not wearing?

[BlueIris]

16. Well I'm not wearing a sign that says RAPE ME. But since I'm also not wearing a bra,

I guess that's all the invitation rapists need. So I will deserve it if I am assaulted today.

:sarcasm:

[Name removed]

20. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Solly Mack]

21. Me neither.

Or even undies.

I'm such a tramp.

[seabeyond]

123. with our oh so sexually sophisticated left wing men, one would think woman could say braless

without a call to see boobies.

isnt that in essence sluttifying women (without womans consent) which is what is being protested?

[cemaphonic]

7. The article says that one is planned for Seattle

If it doesn't somehow involve the S.L.U.T. line, I'll be sorely disappointed.

[Dr Fate]

11. I hope they have one in SF. I'd watch it. n/t

n/t

[Forkboy]

12. My ex-girlfriend and her daughter just did this last weekend here in Mass.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

13. I approve of this.

:thumbsup:

[KamaAina]

14. Our very own lightningandsnow participated in the original Slutwalk in T.O.

:loveya:

[Nye Bevan]

17. This is a great idea. These protests should be highly encouraged. (nt)

[Odin2005]

19. K&R +1,000,000,000,000

[socialist_n_TN]

22. It is OK to look right?

:) And no, nobody deserves to be raped, no matter WHAT she's wearing or WHAT her sexual practices are.

[Book Lover]

23. And so many of the very *best* of DU's men are here to proudly say

"Hell yeah! Dress like a slut and let me watch you walk around!"

Geez. Somehow I don't feel empowered. :shrug:

[socialist_n_TN]

25. It's a fact that, sexually, men are visually oriented

So it surprises me not that the very *best* of DU men would proudly say that. I'm not going to be dishonest and say that I wouldn't look.

I've got a wife and 2 daughters who dress at times in a manner that I'm sure some people would consider "slutty". As they were growing up, my wife would always let the daughters know that they should expect "looks" from guys when they wore some types of clothing. It's an inevitibility that's not worth worrying about.

However, I would venture to say that ALL men who post regularly on DU would know and believe that "No" means "No".

[seabeyond]

27. men are visually oriented... no more so than women. nt

[socialist_n_TN]

31. Then you would look too?

nm

[Name removed]

89. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[quakerboy]

94. I like your name

and I have a question.

Does it then follow that anytime you look at a non attractive woman, you are not objectifying them?

Is it possible that one might take notice of another persons physical attractiveness as a prelude to wanting to find if they have intelligence and heart to match? (from my phrasing, I obviously think the answer is yes) And if they do that, is it still "objectifying"? And if it is still objectifying, is it a bad thing?

I dunno. I think about the word objectify, and I translate that to my own experience. I would say that I have often been objectified, though rarely as a potential sexual object. It seems to me that people see other people and try to fit them into their own experience of life. This is a friend, this is a classmate, this is the creepy guy at work I don't talk to. All are mental object classes, as is "this is a person who is attractive to me". And I cannot think of any way around that mental process. I think perhaps its how we are taught to translate this, the structure of thinking we deserve or should have power over others that is the problem, not objectification itself.

I dunno. School me. Point out the flaws of my thinking. Or don't, as this has the potential to be a very touchy topic and we could easily misunderstand each other.

[Name removed]

97. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[quakerboy]

99. On that point I disagree

Taller men, more attractive men, are hired with less scrutiny and promoted more rapidly. More attractive people are considered smarter. I pulled up the following link with a quick google search, but I have read better articles on the topic.

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/200903/beautiful-people-are-more-intelligent-i

From the article "First, children as young as kindergarteners share the perception that beautiful people are more competent. Asked to choose between two teachers, one more physically attractive than the other, many kindergarteners prefer the more attractive teacher because they believe she is more competent and nicer. Second, more importantly, among adults, the common perception holds both within and between the sexes."

As a self classified "Non attractive American" I can personally attest to experiencing this effect. It doubles up for those of us who are fat as well. It serves me well when it comes to unexpectedly beating people at strategy games, but less well when it comes to being chosen for teams I want to be on.

So I disagree that we don't look at attractive people and think "he might be smart" or the converse with an unattractive person. I make a point of trying not to overestimate people just because they would look good in a company photo or underestimate them just because they would look crappy in a family photo. But every once and a while I catch myself doing it anyway.

I do agree that sexism and sexual objectification are institutionalized and pervasive in society.

Sexism is something that needs to die, and I think it is something that we may change, though doing so will not be easy. But I think we are making progress and will continue to do so. I was talking with a WWII vet this morning, who told me a story about his mother working at a Postal office, Running it, but being unable to be officially titled "postmaster" because that was not a position for women. We have long to go, but as a culture, I think we have made progress.

Where I struggle is as to whether that the sexual objectification part is necessarily bad or avoidable. I kinda think we objectify anyone we do not know intimately well as a person, and possibly them as well, and that Sexuality is an integral part of most of us, possibly making sexual objectification unavoidable.

[ThomCat]

102. Actually, Everyone guages intelligence by attractiveness.

Studies have repeatedly shown this.

When shown photos of people and asked to guess how smart they are, people always guess that the attractive people are smarter. Always.

[bettyellen]

106. but when we see someone who is attractive (to us) many of us do look further for more signs

that their personality - including but not limited to their intellegence level- is also appealing to us.
Of course, some look no furhter than the surface, but for many of us, therein lies the spark.

[ThomCat]

101. No.

Whether a woman is attractive or not is mostly irrelevant.

Whether or not YOU want to have sex with her in particular has nothing at all to do with whether or not she has been socially and politically reduced in very significant ways to very little more than a walking sex organ because she is female. This is something that happens in many ways to all women simply because they are women.

It may happen in some additional ways to specific women when you specifically objectify them by being interested in them and deny them their humanity face to face, but that at that level it's just once more layer of objectification on top of many layers that already exist.

You can start talking about how women are objectified in society by looking at how women are treated differently in laws. Men are considered rational, capable of taking care of their own affairs. But the whole abortion debate centers around the idea that women ARE NOT considered capable of taking care of their own decisions, their own lives, their own bodies.

Women need to be legally stripped of the assumption of intelligence. Women need to be legally stripped of the assumption of rationality. Women need to be legally stripped of the assumption of independence. Women need to be legally stripped of their ability to make choices without having men there to make that choice there with them, or for them, because men are presumed to be intelligent, rational, and independent.

There are many other examples of biases in law that still seem to be there with the goal of forcing women to be non-people compared to men, merely family objects for men, creating their children. That is the ultimate objectification, when women lose their identify and become an object for men, and yet, that seems to be an active goal.

On the social level you can see that goal in lots of traditional forms of prejudice. You can see it in the slurs that are used against women routinely, for which there are no equivalents for men.

Let's be honest, there is no male equivalent to slut, whore, c*nt, bitch, etc. Even if these might occasionally be used against a guy as a joke, or with a much lesser meaning or effect, that is nothing compared to the meaning that attaches to these when used to describe women in anger.

To speak very simply about it, the fact that the advertising industry spends billions of dollars every year just to convince women that they exist solely to make themselves beautiful for men, and that they aren't successful unless men find them attractive means that they are being taught that their identity comes from being objectified. Men must find them attractive as sex-objects for them to have any meaning or value.

Girls grow up in this social environment in which objectification is taught as the acceptable goal. Boys are raised in this same environment in which objectifying girls and women is just what you do. Many guys simply don't have any idea what else you do in the company of women except objectify them, if they haven't had sisters or friends that were girls when they were young to teach them otherwise, and teach them that girls are people too.

So by the time you get to a face to face encounter with a woman, and you're considering whether she's attractive or ugly in your eyes, you're simply considering whether or not to add more objectification to what she's already received and/or internalized.

[quakerboy]

104. I agree with you on that point

straight men by and large objectify women by classing them as attractive or not. So whether I find a woman attractive, or you do not, I have considered it on some level, which is objectification.

I agree with you that we live in a Fuckedupedness of legalities trying to strip women of humanity and equality. I hope that you would agree that there has been improvement on that in your lifetime and mine. The mere fact that a woman can live a successful and happy life sans a man, financially and otherwise is progress. The laws are still unfair, and there is massive bias out there. I see it on a daily basis.

Similarly with your "male equivalent" words. I would argue that they are out there, based on being on the butt end of them. But on the male side they are more in the realm of "faggot" etc, which opens up a whole separate can of worms. I would imagine there are similarities in that at some point you can grow out of them, taking it on knowing and being secure in self, not caring what anyone else thinks. But perhaps that is not true. Never been a woman, despite having been mistaken for one on occasion.

I don't know, and I don't have an solution. I think through things like what you have said. My brain on occasion feeds me through a very similar thought process. But I do not have a solution. Women are both the same and different than men. I would hate to see us "fix" the problem by applying the same standard to bring men to the same level of inhumanity, but it seems to me that is our particular society's preferred MO for "Fixing things.

I guess I see objectification as natural, not necessarily negative, but just an act of mental categorization that helps us try to deal with an existence far vaster than any one of us can fully comprehend. Its what happens from that point that I see as the problem. Do we make that instant visual judgment and stop there, trying to force others to live by the mold we have mentally created, or do we continue to treat each other with humanity and provide the opportunity to reset it with further information based on the individual and their interaction with us? I was tempted to try an analogy as I think I do better explaining my thoughts that way, but deleted it based on being so tired I can barely see straight and it not making sense even to me.

[stevenleser]

116. I agree with you on all your law points, but on the face to face encounter points no way

"So by the time you get to a face to face encounter with a woman, and you're considering whether she's attractive or ugly in your eyes, you're simply considering whether or not to add more objectification to what she's already received and/or internalized."

If you are trying to control or penalize people for what they think, particularly in terms of what they find attractive and how their sexual response works in their heads (as opposed to actions, for which people SHOULD be responsible), you are trying to control them entirely too much and it is not going to work.

People are sexually attracted to each other and, yes, a lot of it is physical, and it is not a bad thing.

[ThomCat]

117. By claiming that a lot of it is physical you just contradicted yourself

regarding objectification.

[stevenleser]

118. No, I didnt. n/t

[ThomCat]

119. By the very definition, when you are dealing with someone purely

on a physical level, only because of their physical attributes, you are objectifying people.

If your only reasons for being with anyone are measurements, visual attributes, or second-hand assumptions about her life, then yes, there would be no denying the she is being objectified. Absolutely objectified.

It happens to most young attractive women every weekend. Deny something that obvious and you might as well try to deny the sun tomorrow morning.

[socialist_n_TN]

128. Well, how can you even JUDGE intelligence by looking?

Most people don't wear their PHDs tattooed on thier forehead, so judging intelligence by looking is an impossibility.

Call it objectifying all you want, but attractiveness is a big part of sexual pairing (at least initially and at least for young people of both sexes), so if it IS objectifying, then the only way to get rid of it is to get rid of sex. That's going to be pretty difficult to do.

For most relationships of all sorts, for most people, attractiveness is only one aspect of the relationship though.

[stevenleser]

32. I disagree...

I think men are much more willing to discount many/most/all of a woman's flaws if they find her particularly attractive. I don't see women doing that. Consider in particular a man who is smart, between the ages of 40-55 who is wealthy and successful. The chances of that person deciding to be with a woman between the ages of 18-29 who is gorgeous but unaccomplished and a complete jerk are exponentially higher than a woman who is smart, between the ages of 40-55, wealthy and successful deciding to be with a man between the ages of 18-29 who is gorgeous, unaccomplished and a complete jerk.

And it really doesnt have anything to do with being "shallow" (that seems to be the standard followup accusation to this kind of argument). For whatever reason, the things that attract men and women about each other evolved to be different. I remember watching a show about the mating practices of a particular kind of frog. It turned out the females wanted to mate with the frog that had the lowest frequency chirp (or whatever else you call the noise that frogs make). People and animals are attracted to what they have evolved to be attracted to and there are genetic variations as we all know.

[socialist_n_TN]

37. Well, this will probably get me spanked, but........

I've always thought that since men evolved to look, that it stood to reason that women evolved to be looked AT. It just seemed sensible to me.

[stevenleser]

39. I think that is true in a sexually positive, non repressed culture (i.e. Europe)

In the US, sex is dirty so...

[Warren DeMontague]

41. What a crock of utter bullshit.

The idea that the US is fucked up on sex but, say, Europe isn't is ridiculous.

[socialist_n_TN]

43. I don't know for a fact because I've never been

but it SEEMS that Europe is less fucked up than the US. Not saying it's not fucked up, just less so.

[Warren DeMontague]

44. I think it depends on where (both here & there) and how you define fucked up.

The national mental breakdown over Clinton's blowjob was not our finest hour, to be sure.

[stevenleser]

56. Ten largest cities in europe vs ten largest cities in the US? Rural areas of most of europe vs rural

areas of most of the US? Willingess of European parents to have their children get sex education versus the political deathmatch such a topic requires in many school districts here in the US?

Availability of birth control and abortion and the lack of controversy of both in 99% of European countries and districts versus the all out war in the US over those topics?

The acceptance of gay civil unions and gay marriage in Europe vs the US?

I really dont get where your nasty objection comes from.

[Warren DeMontague]

60. Sorry if it sounded nasty. Really.

I agree to some extent, I just get tired of over-simplified cliches.

[JoeyT]

74. Practically declaring a national emergency over

an appearance by Janet Jackson's nipple didn't do us any favors either.

[Warren DeMontague]

75. Yeah. that was pretty absurd.

You got me there.

[stevenleser]

76. Yes, a complete non-event if it occurred in Europe. Europeans are not embarrassed by the human body

or consensual sex between adults.

[stevenleser]

48. You're kidding, right?

If not, I'll be happy to provide links that back me up.

[Warren DeMontague]

55. I think neither the US or "Europe" conforms to any monolithic stereotype.

But, sure, I'll look at your links.

[stevenleser]

61. Lets start off with Gay Marriage

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage

Virtually every country in Europe recognizes either gay marriage or gay civil unions.

Unfortunately, will have to wait until I get home to provide the rest. Work proxy blocking the pages...

[Warren DeMontague]

66. I think that, fortunately, the US is trending in the right direction on that.

There has been massive change in the past 10 years. 10 more years I suspect we'll see full marriage equality for LGBT citizens across the board, and well past time.

That said, yeah, unfortunately several factors are at play in the US, not the least of which is that our Federal Government is pretty much designed to skew in favor of rural, conservative voters. Witness the 400,000 WY residents having the same 1/50th representation in the US Senate as 34 Million Californians. And liberal, progressive, open-minded voters are concentrated in high population districts, like Los Angeles County. I think if you took a poll on where most Americans are on the issues, it would look awfully different from where our assorted government institutions are.

But, like I said, I think the trends are going in the right direction.

[socialist_n_TN]

70. I don't think there's any DOUBT that

if you took a poll on where Americans are on the issues, it would look different from where our assorted government institutions are. In fact, most polls show EXACTLY that.

It's one of the reasons that I think that some sort of revolution is inevitable. And by revolution I don't necessarily mean something violent. I just mean a complete overthrow of existing structures. As long as 60+% of the people are stymied in getting what they want FROM government, eventually that will boil over.

[seabeyond]

47. so a man OWNS his sexuality and the woman gives the man her sexuality to be sexual. wow. nt

[stevenleser]

50. How did you get that from anything we wrote? n/t

[seabeyond]

54. man owns his sexuality being turned on and womans role to turn man on.

seems to me you created a scenario that it is ALL about the man

turning a man on allows her her sexuality

how i got that was you saying mans job to look, her job to present self

[stevenleser]

58. I dont think either of us said that. n/t

[seabeyond]

59. really? sounds like exactly what you said

thought that since men evolved to look, that it stood to reason that women evolved to be looked AT.

[stevenleser]

63. You are looking to try to twist what we are saying to mean that. n/t

[seabeyond]

65. no. i am not. that is exactly what you are saying. mans job to be turned on by the woman

her job to turn you on

where am i wrong.

her sexuality is wrapped up, not in her turn on, but YOUR turn on

you said it. evolution. means, gotta be so.

[stevenleser]

67. Nope, its both of their jobs to turn on each other.

The methodology might be different.

[seabeyond]

68. what would it be for a man? because you men have decided "hottness" is not important

to women.

[stevenleser]

69. From observation, it seems like women are most turned on by confidence.

Mind you, I don't have empirical research to back me up at this moment. I could research.

[seabeyond]

71. lol. nt

[stevenleser]

73. LOL, it's funny that you find that funny! n/t

[Name removed]

82. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[stevenleser]

111. The same authority anyone in a discussion forum has, including yours expressing doubt

What gives you the authority to post a response doubting me?

[reggie the dog]

113. I try to look hot for women

i work out an wear clothes that lets women see where i lack flab and where i have muscles

[Orrex]

110. In most other species, it's the male's job to attract the female

And human males have overcome this evolutionary predisposition, and we're being criticized for it? :wtf:




And if you think I'm serious, then I have a bridge to sell you! But I object to the sarcasm smiley on principle...

[seabeyond]

46. except when they actually hook up the brain and see what happens the women are not only more visual

looking straight at the body and staying on it (opposed to men starting at the eyes) but they will get turned on by either gender and men only to their specific preference. ergo, women more visual

[stevenleser]

53. Perhaps we should exchange links? n/t

[Liquorice]

87. You seem confused about the fact that you live in an artificial construct

called patriarchy. Males are the ones who are naturally supposed to call attention to themselves to attract mates--have you ever seen a male peacock? Females generally choose in nature, that's why men had to create an artificial environment in which they could choose. Think about it: why in the world would a female have to try to attract a mate in nature? There's absolutely no reason. She is the one who risks her life to have babies and therefore she is the one who must be choosy about her mate(s). Our current artifical system, which is a very recent thing, is not in keeping with nature.

[fishwax]

88. "women evolved to be looked AT"?

wow.

[seabeyond]

45. hen women were not allowed to educate or work they were put in a position where survival

was a LITTLE more important. amazing in all our evolutional gotta be, in just a couple decades women have been able to evolve..... ergo take care of themselves and no longer be independent on man, and such things as his wealth no longer has the draw it did in the past. they can afford to resort to eye candy a little more than the past

just amazing how evolution MADE women biologically for it to all go along the wayside once they were no longer restricted

[quakerboy]

96. I do

Go to any high school or college, workplace, or bar. The attractive lout far more often charms his way into the temporary good graces of the females than the unattractive nice guy. I have watched far too many friends go out and date the most attractive jerk they could find, over a less attractive option.

I think your example speaks more to a power/perception differential between men and women than anything else. And I strongly suspect that the numbers of middle aged wealthy successful women picking out boy toys lags less far behind that of men doing the equivalent each and every year.

[WatsonT]

34. I think a parade of average nude women would draw far more men

to watch than a parade of average nude men would draw women.

Just consider strip clubs catering to each gender; both exist, obviously, but not in a ratio you'd expect given that men and women are about equal in population.

[seabeyond]

49. and one has, from beginning of time, been conditioned to feel it is their privilege to be entertain

by women. that is her role, that is her place, specifically for men... and women have not been conditioned in the same privilege nor have men adopted that role, readily

that too is changing.

[stevenleser]

51. I dont think that has anything to do with what one finds stimulating. n/t

[Book Lover]

28. Defensive much? (nm)

[socialist_n_TN]

30. I don't know if I'm too defensive or not, but..........

you did seem to imply that it was wrong to look. I was just pointing out that it was a natural response.

[stevenleser]

35. I'm not sure what the right affect is in response to sexually negative attitudes

I don't think Europeans would find the idea of men or women looking at each other as somehow offensive or sleazy. They are pretty sexually positive in their viewpoints. Regarding violence, however...

[Duppers]

77. ?

:shrug:

[quakerboy]

93. I wish I could believe that

But with as many males as post here regularly, Im pretty sure you are wrong.

I would feel optimistic that we would do better than the average. But "all" is statistically unlikely.

[seabeyond]

26. kinda like reinforced what officer was saying and creating exactly that, huh. nt

[socialist_n_TN]

33. It seems to me to be a stretch to conflate.........

looking with calling for rape.

[seabeyond]

52. the protest is on the officer creating a womans dress as a slut, and you men are saying, be a slut

for me

i just went thru the whole thing with my 18 yr old niece. not hard for her to get, as she is listening to you mens comments, and not hard for her to get the women that clarified on this subthread.

[socialist_n_TN]

78. I'm still not sure what the problem is...........

Maybe it's because I'm a guy, albeit a guy from a VERY matriarchial background. So it's NOT OK to look? And as a woman, it's not OK to be looked at? And yes, that could be turned around very easily too.

One thing I have learned in a long and sexually active life, is that sexuality is pretty much of a personal thing and it's not NECESSARILY gender based. I've known homosexual and hetereosexual persons of BOTH genders who liked to look and liked to be looked at. Ergo, I don't make judgements about INDIVIDUALS.

What I say is be a slut if you so desire. Don't do it for me or anybody else, but do it for yourself. A woman who is VERY sexually experienced in this society is usually that way because of one of two reasons. They either have VERY good self esteem or very LOW self esteem. IOW, they're empowered enough to do what they want in SPITE of societal disapproval OR they look to OTHERS for a definition of self worth through sexual experience.

Personally, ALL of the women I've ever been with have been VERY experienced. Quite often even more experienced than myself. They've all been of the empowered kind. That's what Im attracted to.

[seabeyond]

79. you men on this thread reducing all these women to your porn. look how you address the women.

people. human beings. this whole protest of women have been reduced to porn.... for you.

the one woman, expressing her own bodily freedom by saying she isnt wearing a bra, was reduced to porn, for the men.

this is not about being attracted. this is men talking to these unknown, unseen women as your porn.

there is nothing natural, and there is nothing respectful, it is all about male empowerment and reducing these women to your jack off

they are making a statement that their dress does not reduce them to sluts. and the comments reduce them to just that, for you, without their consent.

[socialist_n_TN]

85. I thought it was all about RECLAIMING the word

slut.

Guess what? I'm a slut and I'm male. But I am Sexually Liberated, Ultra Talented. :)

[seabeyond]

86. i dont have an issue with the word slut. it is an equal gender word for me. and not a "bad"

word either. it is what it is.

regardless.

you ignored my point

[Name removed]

84. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[reggie the dog]

114. what is wrong with women dressing sexy or sluty?

what is wrong with a woman dressing in a way to get mens attention?

what is wrong with a woman saying to herself "i am horny, i want to see how hot of a guy i can pull for tonight, i think i will wear this short lamé dress and be able to get some hot boy tonight?

isnt that all part of the fun of sex?

[demmiblue]

29. Yep. n/t

[readmoreoften]

36. Yeah, I'm sure the men in short skirts at the Slut March are making all the straight guys drool.

As someone who has known many who were sexually assaulted for being sex workers and even one "nice" girl who police wouldn't look for after an abduction because she was wearing a short dress, I feel very empowered and grateful to the brothers who started this march.

[socialist_n_TN]

38. Actually that sounds like something I would do.......

If they have one in Nashville, I'm in. Hairy legs and all. :)

[seabeyond]

57. i am betting those men are not reducing the women to things for their entertainment, either. nt

[stevenleser]

62. Quite frankly, I think men and women are supposed to be each others entertainment...

Or for same sex couples, men are mens entertainment, women are women's entertainment.

[seabeyond]

64. i ahve noticed the mens clothes getting baggier and the womens clothes getting tighter

you think?

[Name removed]

81. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[seabeyond]

83. wink....

you are so sweet. lol

[reggie the dog]

115. my students, male and female, wear jeans as tight as the guys

in megadeth wore back in the day. i have nice tight jeans so women can check out my ass, i work out to have a nice ass by biking so i may as well let the ladies have some eye candy

[Warren DeMontague]

42. Or, don't.

People like sex. Sex isn't going away. Why that bothers the crap out of so many other people, I have no idea.

[Chipper Chat]

98. "Jane you ignorant slut"

Dan made it sound like a sweet compliment.

[Name removed]

80. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Warren DeMontague]

92. "Chock"

As in, "Chock Full O' Nuts is the Heavenly Coffee"

[stevenleser]

112. No doubt, the people who disagree with you are those to whom you would apply the label n/t

[aj_cd]

91. Well shit!!!

I swore I was going to not get on one of my rants for awhile, newbee and all. BUT, being a survivor of rape (and no, I am not shamed to tell it, it is NOT my shame) I think I can speak on this a little. Being sexual or sexy is not required for rape, shall I tell you about comatose patients in nursing homes being raped? That is what the slut walks are about.
looking ain't the problem.

Look, don't touch!
No means NO.
period, simple, end of it.
the rest is noise and a whole nother debate.

and it is not man/woman or Europe/US or any other thing. shall I explain some power plays that happen in prisons? No women required.
I am going to stop now. I got lots more.....

[Egnever]

95. That was a perfectly good rant

If ya got more like that please dont hold back!

Welcome to DU!

[socialist_n_TN]

125. Well, I've always been taught that rape is a power........

thing, NOT a sexual thing. So that would negate the Toronto cop's observations right there.

I have no problems or disagreement with any of you middle paragraph. That's what I've ALWAYS believed, even when I was a kid.

[seabeyond]

126. reducing women to a thing is a dominant, power display, not a sexual thing. when men

yell out boobies, want to see boobies, you are placing her in a denigrated place to have dominance over her

[socialist_n_TN]

130. Looking doesn't reduce a woman to a thing and is not

a power trip. Most of the time it's an admiration thing. It's a "This person is someone I might like to get to know better" thing. But it IS only ONE aspect for most people when considering a relationship. For me, I'm a friendly guy. If I'm thrown together with someone, male or female, attractive or unattractive to me sexually, I'll do my best to get to know them better. Because I enjoy getting to know people.

In pair bonding, I won't dicount the fact that looks are an IMPORTANT aspect and maybe even the MOST important aspect (at least at first) for BOTH genders, but for most people, I don't think that it's the ONLY thing. And if you want to get rid of attractiveness (which IS individualized and involves looking by definition) as AN aspect, you're going to have to get rid of sex and pair bonding in general. Good luck with that.

It's actually pretty simple. Even in pair bonding and for BOTH genders, don't make attractiveness the ONLY criterion for pursuing a relationship. Having been in long term relationships a few times, I know for a fact that attractiveness is only one aspect of making a relationship work and, actually, winds up being one of the LEAST important aspects of a working relationship. But it DOES start with looking most of the time.

[seabeyond]

131. the discussion on this subthread were the comments made by men reducing women

to the role of their slut with their comments which is exactly what this protest was decrying

i am outta here, will read and discuss rest of your post later

[Initech]

100. The "blame the victim" mentality in this country fucking disgusts me.

[Orrex]

109. Yes, it underlies just about every analysis of power-vs-powerlessness

Again and again, even here on DU, I hear the claim that so-and-so "deserved" a particular outcome because of the decisions that she or he had made, or else that the person is the victim of her or his own "bad choices." It's why people are poor, it's why they lost their jobs, it's why they're on food stamps, etc.


The sentiment pops up in countless different formulations, of which the mantra "she was asking for it" is perhaps the most hideous and obvious--and obviously wrong.

[DesertDiamond]

105. The guy apologized??? Too late dude! You already opened your mouth and showed your stupidity!

[dotymed]

107. The GOP way, always

blame the victim...

[JJW]

108. Sarah Palin

Stop imitating Sarah Palin. Slut walkers is pretty nice summation of the duo Mavericks' campaign.

[Prof Lester]

120. Putting justification into the hands of rapist scum is insane!

Blaming the victims again! This reminds of something: years ago interrogating men arrested for sex crimes against kids to determine if they were suitable for treatment (very very few of them are), I noted that generally one hears from the offender that the child "seduced" or "provoked" the offense(s)! The most common thing to hear from rapists is that the woman "asked for it" or even the most improbably of all: "she enjoyed it". This has NOTHING to do with what the victims were wearing. Rape is not a sexual thing (ie at the psychological level). It is raw, naked power. Fascism at the personal level. Raw violence. Rape of innocent children and old people is common. Obviously it has nothing to do with the victims "dressing like sluts". Obviously it is about a psychopathic predator locating a victim in a helpless situation. Nothing else. That officer needs retraining.

[felix_numinous]

121. K&R For women standing their ground!!

It's time again for people to stand up for their rights to just be themselves, be safe in society, and not to be judged or denied rights for the superficial stupid standards of the RW. Their desire to create a privileged class by shaming, excluding and cowing as many people as they can is such a desperate act.

[HopeHoops]

124. I thought that was called "Real Housewives of (wherever)".

[joeybee12]

127. Big problem is that this cop isn't the only one with this mentality...that florida congresswoman

who said that 11-year-old asked to get raped by the way she dressed.

[90-percent]

129. This type of things is helpful to me

I'm prone to clumsy social gaffes. And I've got a perverse outlook on everything. I had lessons early in life and a good public education that has helped.

So, I like to have enough knowledge to realize when I'm doing something offensive.

I consider myself fortunate that I grew up around some pretty happy and accomplished women. I never saw a lot of male vs. female hierarchy stuff. it seemed pretty democratic and the women didn't seem viciously repressed.

also, since i was young i like the company of women better than men - maybe 60-40 or something. i don't like the alpha male dominant bully personality in so many males. However, I think the younger people may be much better in the male female thing - it seems more fair these days. kids don't have as much meanness as what i remember when i was young.


-jim

[aj_cd]

132. I like the "let's learn" theme of your post.

I posted pissed or frustrated late at night. let me see if this makes more sense.

I don't believe a normal, healthy male is ever just going along minding his own business and is so overcome with how a woman is dressed or looks and no matter how turned on he gets, he rapes her. The reason, I threw in example of comatose patients being raped is, with rapist, nothing matters they rape, who ever they see as weak or think they can control. Also example of men in prisons is violent men use rape to margainalize, terrorize, control etc. When in totally male place, the violent will use rape as a weapon. Rape is about violence and control.
Sexiness or sexuality often is as much a part of the act of rape as having a penis is. It may be used, but if not, will use whatever else is handy.

The demoralizing of women, the cutting down to size, objectifying is a whole nother aspect of society. It may be part of rape, but not always. Yes, I sometimes have looked at man as object, I have never been lead from that to wanting to rape and I don't think non rapeist men do either. Objectifying is one subject under broad umbrella. It may or may not be a part of rape.

But always, always, rape is an act of violence. period.
That is what policeman and all need to get. And that is what I think these marches are about.
And that is what I should have said, instead of just having my little rant.