Londons SlutWalk

[Strike For The South]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13739876

10 minutes later the Royal Marienes were dispatched leaving 27 sluts dead and 142 arrested with lashes a near certainity

Oh wait that didn't happen at all.

Anyway I was taught no means no and have never questioned it. Then again I don't need to put on some machismo bravado

Edit: On a more non tangental point.

How a society treats its women is a great marker of how advanced the society is. I try never to paint with a broad brush but it is an undispuitable FACT that the worse off countries in the world treat women (and the meek) like cattle.

Their are a few things this old cowboy won't budge on.

[PanzerJaeger]

5000 sluts gathered in one place? Are we sure this wasn't the casting call for the next season of Jersey Shore?

[Crazed Rabbit]

I recall a radio interview with the organizer of the Vancouver BC walk. The host asked if they were going to give out mace and the like to participants. The organizer said no, they wanted to change the culture, and how society viewed women.

Which is all well and good, but it seems to ignore the fact that most rapists don't care what society thinks of them. Yes, a lot of harassment can be from society's thoughts.

But there are scum who will do evil things without caring what anyone thinks, and it does not seem wise to ignore that in favor of high minded principles.

CR

[Strike For The South]

Meh, aren't most rapes committed by people the victims knows? Often a former lover/family member?

It doesn't seem to matter how dress then

[Skullheadhq]

One sign said Rape = Patriarchy. Should I be worried about this so called 'Patriarchy' thing? Anyway, let them walk, as long as it isn't going through my street I'm fine with it, sice I heard there were crossdressers in it :shame:

[Fragony]

5000 sluts gathered in one place?

Hundreds of thousands actually, ever been in London. Don't expect them to be pretty though

[Skullheadhq]

Hundreds of thousands actually, ever been in London. Don't expect them to be pretty though

I don't know, I heard taxes on alcohol were raised and prices of beer skyrocketed over there. They might have sobered up.

[Ronin]

I need more photos and video to........evaluate their issues in a more thoughtful way.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Yeah, the next time those women decide to march without tops on, campaigning against the opinions of judgmental jerks, they should really think twice before deciding if they want the world to know that their bitties sag.

[Vladimir]

No, English sluts, no! Nobody wants to see that. :laugh4:

"I am here (and not really queer) in solidarity. I can control myself - I am attracted to women but I don't feel the need to pressure them (so buy me a beer)."

So, this was organized by a 17 year old slut? I really need to visit London.

[Idaho]

Hundreds of thousands actually, ever been in London. Don't expect them to be pretty though

I've been all around the world, and I think that London has some of the best looking women anywhere. Although Amsterdam gets a few points too.

[Subotan]

I recall a radio interview with the organizer of the Vancouver BC walk. The host asked if they were going to give out mace and the like to participants. The organizer said no, they wanted to change the culture, and how society viewed women.

Which is all well and good, but it seems to ignore the fact that most rapists don't care what society thinks of them. Yes, a lot of harassment can be from society's thoughts.

But there are scum who will do evil things without caring what anyone thinks, and it does not seem wise to ignore that in favor of high minded principles.

CR
The Slutwalk isn't directed at the rapists as much as it is directed at society's tendency for victim-blaming in cases of rape. A substantial amount of the trauma rape victims experience isn't so much from the act itself but how people react to it.

[Skullheadhq]

This Vancouver policeman may very well be the most succesful troll alive.

[Vladimir]

Well you've seen what they do with flash/bang grenades. Right?

[Secura]

The Slutwalk isn't directed at the rapists as much as it is directed at society's tendency for victim-blaming in cases of rape. A substantial amount of the trauma rape victims experience isn't so much from the act itself but how people react to it.

It doesn't help when the defendant's solicitors play the inevitable "she was asking for it" spin too; there's precedence for men getting away with sexual assault on these grounds, making it difficult for women to pluck up the courage to approach the authorities even if they get past the social stigma.

Regarding the protests, I think that, first and foremost, it's about respect; wearing certain clothing, flirting or allowing someone to buy me a drink doesn't mean I wanna do the horizontal tango with them. This isn't a heterosexual phenomenon either, the LGBT community can be as bad with this at times. :<

[Husar]

Yeah, the next time those women decide to march without tops on, campaigning against the opinions of judgmental jerks, they should really think twice before deciding if they want the world to know that their bitties sag.

Yes, because we civilized men are all for women being treated equally as long as they're hot and everyone knows the value of a woman is dependant only on the perceived hotness of her body.

[Lemur]

Read a hilarious article about the slutwalk that sounded from start to finish like it was written by Grumpy McGrumpenstein of the Grump Clan in New Grumpia. Can't find the link now, which is a shame, but it quoted nothing but horrified old-school feminists from start to finish, with maybe one quote from a supporter buried amidst the avalanche of disapproval.

Personally, I think women being sex-positive without fear of assault is a good thing, pure and simple. Most everybody likes feeling desirable and desired; that shouldn't have to be paired with a worry about whether or not a great miniskirt will function as some creep's get-out-of-rape-free card.

Hooray for women taking ownership of their sexuality. Phooey on the grumps and the sexual fearmongers.

[Louis VI the Fat]

I don't need to put on some machismo bravadoSoon, I won't have to rummage through dumpsters to look for dirty magazines anymore so I can return to being my non-sexually frustrated non-eBravado self. :shame:


Personally, I think women being sex-positive without fear of assault is a good thing, pure and simple. Most everybody likes feeling desirable and desired; that shouldn't have to be paired with a worry about whether or not a great miniskirt will function as some creep's get-out-of-rape-free card.

Hooray for women taking ownership of their sexuality. Phooey on the grumps and the sexual fearmongers.This, exactly all of this.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Yes, because we civilized men are all for women being treated equally as long as they're hot and everyone knows the value of a woman is dependant only on the perceived hotness of her body.

Woosh.

[Askthepizzaguy]

Women want the freedom to dress provocatively in front of me without also being subjected to asinine arguments like "she was asking for it" if someone rapes them. I want women to have the freedom to dress provocatively in front of me without also being subjected to asinine arguments like "she was asking for it" if someone rapes them. And we all agree, it would be most preferable if no one rapes them. But in such an event, let's not defend the rapist and say it's okay to rape, as long as she's dressed provocatively.

And let's be honest, I'd be too chicken :daisy: to go down there and watch them walk around dressed provocatively. But I heartily support their right to do so.

[Arthur, king of the Britons]

Organisers of the worldwide events are trying to reclaim the word 'slut'

Did I unknowingly take a nap during my English classes? Because I could've sworn 'slut' always held a negative connotion...

Regardless I support their endeavour. From a safe distance.

[Subotan]

Did I unknowingly take a nap during my English classes? Because I could've sworn 'slut' always held a negative connotion...

Regardless I support their endeavour. From a safe distance.
...That's why they're trying to reclaim it. Because it has a negative connotation. If it had a positive connotation, they would not be able to reclaim it.

[Askthepizzaguy]

Seems to me, when a woman can do what men are proud of doing, and not feel shame about it, we will have advanced as a society.

Right now, they are called "sluts" for behavior men encourage among themselves, and get away with far worse. Look at mister Anthony Wiener. At best, he's being called unprofessional and a liar. No one even blinks that his behavior was slutty by the definition applied to women.

Men are accepted as sluts, women are not. Definition and over-use of the word needs to change. Truly "slutty" people might even just have a psychological disorder, too... a compulsive thing that can be treated.

I find the word demeaning towards women, as not only does it bash them personally, it implies they are less of a person than a man is.

[Noncommunist]

...That's why they're trying to reclaim it. Because it has a negative connotation. If it had a positive connotation, they would not be able to reclaim it.

But since it never had a positive connotation, wouldn't they simply be claiming the word as they never had it to begin with?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Seems to me, when a woman can do what men are proud of doing, and not feel shame about it, we will have advanced as a society.

Right now, they are called "sluts" for behavior men encourage among themselves, and get away with far worse. Look at mister Anthony Wiener. At best, he's being called unprofessional and a liar. No one even blinks that his behavior was slutty by the definition applied to women.

Men are accepted as sluts, women are not. Definition and over-use of the word needs to change. Truly "slutty" people might even just have a psychological disorder, too... a compulsive thing that can be treated.

I find the word demeaning towards women, as not only does it bash them personally, it implies they are less of a person than a man is.

Sluttishness upsets men because it lays bear our weakness - show a bit of boob and we are immidiately distracted, and twice as pliable. Being "slut" implies a woman using her body to influence men, which tends to upset a fair number of us if we don't like the way we are being used, doesn't it?

So let's every man here actually get off his high horse and honestly interrogate how he feels about this issue, and how he sees scantily slad women. Then let's be honest about why women might decide to show off their bodies by dressing provocatively.

I don't accept in any way that women are "asking for it" if they dress a certain way and are raped, but nor am I going to ignore the fact that women dressing in a certain way does provoke rage in some men because of their own weakness.

Also, no one has suggested that men shouldn't throw themselves around as much. Maybe the answer is more ridiculing of men who can't keep it in their pants - I don't personally value such men very highly.

[Idaho]

Sluttishness upsets men because it lays bear our weakness - show a bit of boob and we are immidiately distracted, and twice as pliable. Being "slut" implies a woman using her body to influence men, which tends to upset a fair number of us if we don't like the way we are being used, doesn't it?

So let's every man here actually get off his high horse and honestly interrogate how he feels about this issue, and how he sees scantily slad women. Then let's be honest about why women might decide to show off their bodies by dressing provocatively.

I don't accept in any way that women are "asking for it" if they dress a certain way and are raped, but nor am I going to ignore the fact that women dressing in a certain way does provoke rage in some men because of their own weakness.

Also, no one has suggested that men shouldn't throw themselves around as much. Maybe the answer is more ridiculing of men who can't keep it in their pants - I don't personally value such men very highly.

I might tweak a phrase here and a nuance there, but basically I agree.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I might tweak a phrase here and a nuance there, but basically I agree.

Must be true then.

Fancy ice skating in Hell later?

[Louis VI the Fat]

Sluttishness upsets men because it lays bear our weakness - show a bit of boob and we are immidiately distracted, and twice as pliable. Being "slut" implies a woman using her body to influence men, which tends to upset a fair number of us if we don't like the way we are being used, doesn't it?

So let's every man here actually get off his high horse and honestly interrogate how he feels about this issue, and how he sees scantily slad women. Then let's be honest about why women might decide to show off their bodies by dressing provocatively.

I don't accept in any way that women are "asking for it" if they dress a certain way and are raped, but nor am I going to ignore the fact that women dressing in a certain way does provoke rage in some men because of their own weakness.

Also, no one has suggested that men shouldn't throw themselves around as much. Maybe the answer is more ridiculing of men who can't keep it in their pants - I don't personally value such men very highly.Taliban philosophy.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Taliban philosophy.

No - because, crucially, I locate the responsibility for a man's actions with the man, not the "slutty" woman. My point is simply that, as most women will admit in their more candid moments, part of the way women dress is about influencing men's reactions.

Case in point: Women who show cleavage when they go out, on one level they want you to look, on another level they don't. I'm fairly sure what they really want though is to find the man who obviously wants to look, but manages to maintain eye contact.

Western men are still men Louis, I will quite happily raise my hand and admit, if I see boobs, I want to look. Not looking is a constant effort if I don't have something else to focus, like a pretty pair of eyes.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Case in point: Women who show cleavage when they go out, on one level they want you to look, on another level they don't. I'm fairly sure what they really want though is to find the man who obviously wants to look, but manages to maintain eye contact.My pupils don't move to eyelevel until she punches me on the chin. :shame:

[Viking]

First of all, I'll just say that I find the rape aspect of this dubious - people, men included, can control themselves to large extent.


I find the word demeaning towards women, as not only does it bash them personally, it implies they are less of a person than a man is.

Not less than a man, but different. It seems as if when men do something, then women should be doing the same. What such attitudes in an elusive manner relays, is that what men does is a neutral norm that women should aspire to meet in order to be fully human.

It must surely be coupled with the notion that since men have been the ones with power and has been at top of the society for a long time, what men do, is what any human would do if they had the freedom. Obviously, this builds on woman = man minus some physical aspects. This is really a bold claim, and - believe it or not - would be one easiest made by religious people, since you could then detach 'soul' from body. A biologically bound mind makes it more logical to think that females and males have different psyches - on average.

No, there does not have to be any major differences, but some of the claims that appear in the debate of gender equality are pretty bold and ahead of their time.

[Fragony]

Meh, aren't most rapes committed by people the victims knows?

No they most certainly aren't

[Banquo's Ghost]

No they most certainly aren't

Yes, they most certainly are.

Rape statistics (assorted citations in footnotes) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_statistics)

For example, the US:


From 2000-2005, 59% of rapes were not reported to law enforcement.[26][27] One factor relating to this is misconception that most rapes are committed by strangers.[28] In reality, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, 38% of victims were raped by a friend or acquaintance, 28% by "an intimate" and 7% by another relative, and 26% were committed by a stranger to the victim. About four out of ten sexual assaults take place at the victim's own home.[29]

This speaks to the inability of some men to understand boundaries and women's rights rather than anything to do with how they dress.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

This speaks to the inability of some men to understand boundaries and women's rights rather than anything to do with how they dress.

I dissagree, I think the two are linked, most rapes seem to be comitted by men who have a warped view of gender relations, this is my big beef with Femenism - because the way Femenism has developed does exactly that, it warps gender relations and creates a situation where the demands women place on men's behaviour can often be confusing and contradictory.

The fact is, women cannot control how men actually perciewv how they dress, only men can do that. You boys learn how to treat women from watching older male role models, if those role models objectify women then the result is obvious. It is the repsponsibility of men to say rape is aunaceptable, and to beat that idea into any man who doesn't get it.

Where women can influence the debate is in the image they present to men, and plunging necklines and rising hemlines just encourage men to view women as bodily objects rather than thinking, feeling, beings.

[Fragony]

@BG USA isn't Europe, like Norway is for example https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=odXZr3lBBOM

[Louis VI the Fat]

@BG USA isn't Europe, like Norway is for example https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=odXZr3lBBOMShocking. It is shocking thatall sexual attacks in Oslo where the assailant could be identified were committed by non-westerners. It is enough reason for me to support deporting all of them back to the pityful hellholes from whence they came.


However, my dislike of sexual predators is greater than my dislike of the foreign trash which roams the European streets. And yes, most assailants are familiar to the victim. It is all about date rape, about being invited to his house for dinner, about family members. White victims are mostly at risk from white predators. Bring back the death penalty.

[Subotan]

I dissagree, I think the two are linked, most rapes seem to be comitted by men who have a warped view of gender relations
Rape is not the aggressive expression of sexuality, but sexual aggression.

his is my big beef with Femenism - because the way Femenism has developed does exactly that, it warps gender relations and creates a situation where the demands women place on men's behaviour can often be confusing and contradictory.

How is DON'T RAPE RAPE IS BAD "confusing and contradictory?"


The fact is, women cannot control how men actually perciewv how they dress, only men can do that.
Totally wrong.


In terms of the first question - "do people perceive sexualized women differently?" - the answer is a resounding "yes." As I have talked about in previous posts (here (http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-big-questions/201008/sexualized-women-are-seen-objects-studies-find), here (http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-big-questions/201105/sexual-objectification-reduces-pain-concern), and here (http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-big-questions/201001/sexual-objectification-increases-perceptions-women-animals)), research (here (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ejsp.755/abstract)) shows that men and women rate these women as less intelligent, and even have less concern for their physical well-being. Women who are scantily dressed are even implicitly dehumanized (likened more to animals) compared to women who are not scantily dressed.


These studies are important because every time someone sees a sexualized image of a woman (which studies show are far more frequent than those of sexualized men), this likely is detrimental to how women are perceived.

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-big-questions/201106/the-sexual-objectification-spillover-effect


You boys learn how to treat women from watching older male role models, if those role models objectify women then the result is obvious. It is the responsibility of men to say rape is unacceptable, and to beat that idea into any man who doesn't get it.
That's pretty condescending. That idea is essentially that women are incapable of getting through to men that rape is bad (Either because of female or male stupidity; or maybe both), so we guys have to put on our white knight armour and ride to the rescue of the damsels in distress who are incapable of being feminists without descending into bigotry ourselves?


Where women can influence the debate is in the image they present to men, and plunging necklines and rising hemlines just encourage men to view women as bodily objects rather than thinking, feeling, beings.
This is exactly the same argument that Islamists use to justify hiding women from the world. You are arguing that women can't have the choice to be sexually attractive, as they are too naive to expect that they can dress in such a manner and not get sexually assaulted.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Rape is not the aggressive expression of sexuality, but sexual aggression.

That is not true, rape is about power and violence, not sex. Rape is a means of expressing dominance, completely seperate from sexuality and even sexual orientation. To rape someone is to express your will upon them, it is the purest and most vile form of objectifying another human being.


How is DON'T RAPE RAPE IS BAD "confusing and contradictory?"

Unlike you I don't compartmentalise rape, I said "gender relations", not rape specifically. The fact is, there used to be a whole protocol for how men and women interacted, a set of rules which allowed the two genders to comunicate despite largely occupying seperate social spheres. Now, obviously the fact that we now all try to rub along together is, by and large, a good thing - but many modern women and femenists in particular want to keep bits of the old rules and drop other bits. So, you have the situation where a woman doesn't want you to open a door for her, and yet expects flowers on Valentine's day, to be taken out, pampered and generally made a fuss of. You have other women who still expect you to carry the shopping for them, but insist on always paying ther own way. Yet others expect you to play the gallant when taking them out, but otherwise treat them just like a man.

Women who want a Knight in shining armour, but will explode if you suggest they can't open a jam jar, or put up some shelves.


Totally wrong.

A woman can choose to show cleavage, she can't choose whether or not men will stare. On the other hand, men can decide, collectively, that they shouldn't stare and enforce the standard.


That's pretty condescending. That idea is essentially that women are incapable of getting through to men that rape is bad (Either because of female or male stupidity; or maybe both), so we guys have to put on our white knight armour and ride to the rescue of the damsels in distress who are incapable of being feminists without descending into bigotry ourselves?

You have missed the point, utterly. I will repeat, it is the responsibility of men to say that rape is bad. It is the responsibility of men to say they should treat women with respect. It is the responsibility of men not to rape.

Are you suggesting it is the responsibility of women to ask not to be raped? I doubt that is your meaning, please try to appreciate mine.

also, men and women patently do struggle to communicate - Hugh Grant has had a successful film career exploiting that very fact.



This is exactly the same argument that Islamists use to justify hiding women from the world. You are arguing that women can't have the choice to be sexually attractive, as they are too naive to expect that they can dress in such a manner and not get sexually assaulted.

Don't you mean "sexually provocative"? The word "provocative" is in their for a reason. Fact is, men are (with noted exceptions) attracted to women, cover everything but the eyes and men will obsess and wax lyrical about those; cover everything and men will go mad imaging what's underneath. In societies where women walk around naked all day men don't bat an eye lid, in societies where women cover up a wrist or an ankle will cause a riot.

It's the way we are wired.

The issue about how women dress in the West has it's own unique points, here many women expose certain parts of their bodies for certain effects, those have certain side-effects. Hell, women don't wear tight minskirts for comfort or ease of movement, nor high heals.

[Dîn-Heru]

@BG USA isn't Europe, like Norway is for example https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=odXZr3lBBOM

The video is badly translated regarding the statistics. What they are saying is that all assault rapes in Oslo, ie rapes where the woman is attacked outside on the street by strangers are done by non-westeners. Rapes where the victim has met/knows the perpetrator and takes place in people's homes are also commited by white norwegians. (can't be bothered to dig for statistics right now, but I imagine the latter is more prevalent on a national level...)

In both cases of course the fault lies with men with a warped and horried view of women and other anti-social behaviour.

[Viking]

@BG USA isn't Europe, like Norway is for example https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=odXZr3lBBOM

The statistics are the same in Norway. (source (http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=auto&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nrk.no%2Fnyheter%2F1.7645888)) Assault rapes are generally commited by strangers, and assault rapes make up the minority of rapes. 1 out of 3 rapes rapported in Oslo in 2010 happened at parties. (source (http://translate.google.com/translate?js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&sl=auto&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nrk.no%2Fnyheter%2Fdistrikt%2Fostlandssendingen%2F1.7645185))

[Strike For The South]

Cactus 1 Tulip 0

[Fragony]

The video is badly translated regarding the statistics. What they are saying is that all assault rapes in Oslo, ie rapes where the woman is attacked outside on the street by strangers are done by non-westeners. Rapes where the victim has met/knows the perpetrator and takes place in people's homes are also commited by white norwegians. (can't be bothered to dig for statistics right now, but I imagine the latter is more prevalent on a national level...)

In both cases of course the fault lies with men with a warped and horried view of women and other anti-social behaviour.

Gotcha

[Secura]

This speaks to the inability of some men to understand boundaries and women's rights rather than anything to do with how they dress.

Which brings us back to the whole purpose of the SlutWalks, respect.


On the other hand, men can decide, collectively, that they shouldn't stare and enforce the standard.

I don't see how there can be a collective decision by men (or indeed, women) not to stare at boobs, bums, legs , crotches or whatever else; for every guy/gal that actually looks at your face when they're talking, there's going to be another who'd rather be staring at your chest... that's just how it is, it's just the way we're wired. :P


You have missed the point, utterly. I will repeat, it is the responsibility of men to say that rape is bad. It is the responsibility of men to say they should treat women with respect. It is the responsibility of men not to rape.

Again, sexual assault isn't a heterosexual phenomenon; just because we don't hear about them so much, doesn't mean that same-sex and female-male rape doesn't happen. I think it's everyone's responsibility to treat one another with respect; no means no, regardless of whether you're male or female.

[al Roumi]

I think it's everyone's responsibility to treat one another with respect; no means no, regardless of whether you're male or female.

Word.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Which brings us back to the whole purpose of the SlutWalks, respect.

Do you think it's working? I don't, the men who already respect women are a little bemused and the rest get a free oggle.

I'm not saying a woman shouldn't be able to walk down an alley at night and not be raped, even if in our fallen world she will always be safer in a group or escorted. Nor am I saying the way a woman dresses places some of the responsibility for a sexual assault on her.

None of that, however, means that a woman should dress provocatively, even if she should be safe to do so.


I don't see how there can be a collective decision by men (or indeed, women) not to stare at boobs, bums, legs , crotches or whatever else; for every guy/gal that actually looks at your face when they're talking, there's going to be another who'd rather be staring at your chest... that's just how it is, it's just the way we're wired. :P

So you're saying that if a woman shows cleavage men are wired to look - and women know this? :P

WE obviously do make collective decisions, as gender groups, religious groups, age groups. If the male gender decide that rape is ok, or women are just chattles there is a very limited amount which women can do to change that - unless some men decide women are worth listening to.

Note: I think women are worth listening to.


Again, sexual assault isn't a heterosexual phenomenon; just because we don't hear about them so much, doesn't mean that same-sex and female-male rape doesn't happen. I think it's everyone's responsibility to treat one another with respect; no means no, regardless of whether you're male or female.

I did nod to this, in my last post, actually but as we were talking about heterosxual men and women and have confined myself to that argument. Regardless, it is still all about power and objectifying the victim.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Which brings us back to the whole purpose of the SlutWalks, respect.

But is it that simple?

I don't really respect the "slutty" style of dressing, because of my values.

Yet I think that any man that so much as touches a woman (however she is dressed) without her consent should be visited upon by an angry mob and have his kneecaps smashed in.

[naut]

Do you think it's working? I don't, the men who already respect women are a little bemused and the rest get a free oggle.
None of that, however, means that a woman should dress provocatively, even if she should be safe to do so.
The first bit makes like it's mutually exclusive. Is it impossible to both respect women and oggle? Most straight blokes will enjoy the sight of strong, independent women dressed scantly or not-so-scantly. That doesn't mean we revert to cavemen banging drums and making sandwich jokes.

The second. Why not? It's her right to wear whatever she likes.

[Lemur]

Regardless, it is still all about power and objectifying the victim.
I always get a bit worried when I hear about "objectifying" as a universal, a priori (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_priori_and_a_posteriori) evil. If I strap on sparkly chaps and body glitter and dance onstage to a crowd of howling women, I am, in fact, hoping to be objectified in a very pleasant sort of way. I'm not abrogating my dignity as a human being, or defining myself strictly as an erotic cowboy dancer. I'm not making myself less of a human being. At that moment, in my chaps and body glitter, I am hoping to become an object of sexual desire for that crowd of women. But if we accept that all objectification is evil, then I'm somehow making myself sub-human. Which is bogus.

We all want to be desired at times; we all want to be objectified at times. What separates good from bad is volition and consent. And just because someone is dressed or is behaving in a way that excites a sexual response does not mean anybody has the right to force themselves on them.

At least that's how I see it.

[Fragony]

But is it that simple?

I don't really respect the "slutty" style of dressing, because of my values.

Don't like it either, hotpants are worst. Such a lack of class just depresses me like pretty things. It isn't even sexy.

Talking about London and England in general... certainly the worst 'offenders' both in clothing and behaviour, a Dutch girl would never dress up/get wasted like that..

[Dîn-Heru]

Gotcha

I'm sorry, did I misunderstand something about your post? I read it as you replying to BG saying that the majority of rapes in Oslo/Norway were done by strangers (in the form of non-westeners). All I pointed out was that the news segment was about a specific type of rape and although shocking that this type of rape is all done by non-westerners they are not the majority of rapes. I did not say it was not a shame and that the perpertators should not be hunted down.
Furthermore I did not say that all rapes where the victim "knew" the perpetrator were done by ethnic Norwegians, I'm sure there is a good mix of white and darker skin-colour among them...

PS, I'm not trying to pick a fight with you I'm just genuinely curious as to how you got me.

[Fragony]

nono, meant it as a 'thx for putting that straight' '

[Dîn-Heru]

nono, meant it as a 'thx for putting that straight' '

Ah, gotcha.

[Secura]

Do you think it's working? I don't, the men who already respect women are a little bemused and the rest get a free oggle.

I guess that how successful it is boils down to interpretation, but as a whole... I agree, the walks aren't going to change much, but then that's just the culture we live in, I don't think any form of medium will change that; if I ask people to stop being sexist on the internet, for example, I'm more likely to get "where's my sandwich?" than a positive response!


None of that, however, means that a woman should dress provocatively, even if she should be safe to do so.

Nor is there anything to say that she shouldn't, right?


So you're saying that if a woman shows cleavage men are wired to look - and women know this? :P

It's not just men though, women are wired to look at one another too, though the context might not be the same; while a man might be thinking about that plunging neckline, I might be thinking of how horizontal stripes don't flatter her figure, for example.

And yes, we know that people are going to look...


WE obviously do make collective decisions, as gender groups, religious groups, age groups. If the male gender decide that rape is ok, or women are just chattles there is a very limited amount which women can do to change that - unless some men decide women are worth listening to.

Can we really say that works on a gender level as it does with religion or culture? I don't think so, because these other factors get in the way; European and American men collectively saying that objectifying women is bad doesn't mean that their counterparts across the world are going to share the same view, particularly when there's things like religion that portray women in a certain fashion.


Note: I think women are worth listening to.

That's good to know. :3


Yet I think that any man that so much as touches a woman (however she is dressed) without her consent should be visited upon by an angry mob and have his kneecaps smashed in.

And what if it's a woman doing it to a man? Or another woman? Do they receive the same treatment? I don't think that mob justice would solve anything; paedophiles have been subjected to this alot over the years, but that hasn't deterred other people from doing it, and it won't work in this situation either.


If I strap on sparkly chaps and body glitter and dance onstage to a crowd of howling moderators, I am, in fact, hoping to be objectified in a very pleasant sort of way.

Well, that's the entertainment booked for the staff party... :laugh4:


Talking about London and England in general... certainly the worst 'offenders' both in clothing and behaviour, a Dutch girl would never dress up/get wasted like that..

Apart from the Dutch lady in that photograph who had her boobs out entirely, right?

[Kralizec]

Hundreds of thousands actually, ever been in London. Don't expect them to be pretty though

I've been to many capitals/great cities of Europe and I've never noticed a great difference in how good or bad the women look on average. It's been a while since I've been in London but from what I remember it was mostly average; ditto for north Italy for example (was dissapointed there to be honest).


If I strap on sparkly chaps and body glitter and dance onstage to a crowd of howling women, I am, in fact, hoping to be objectified in a very pleasant sort of way. I'm not abrogating my dignity as a human being, or defining myself strictly as an erotic cowboy dancer. I'm not making myself less of a human being.

Bingo.

[Tellos Athenaios]

Sluttishness upsets men because it lays bear our weakness - show a bit of boob and we are immidiately distracted, and twice as pliable. Being "slut" implies a woman using her body to influence men, which tends to upset a fair number of us if we don't like the way we are being used, doesn't it?

But I still don't get it. I don't see where in this scheme of things those upset men (or women, as Secura notes) lose their ability to keep their mind? I don't see how it follows that how she dresses “provocatively” is of any concern to you. Where exactly are you in any way disadvantaged if some random woman decides to walk around in naught but a few pasties?

[Viking]

I always get a bit worried when I hear about "objectifying" as a universal, a priori (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_priori_and_a_posteriori) evil. If I strap on sparkly chaps and body glitter and dance onstage to a crowd of howling women, I am, in fact, hoping to be objectified in a very pleasant sort of way. I'm not abrogating my dignity as a human being, or defining myself strictly as an erotic cowboy dancer. I'm not making myself less of a human being. At that moment, in my chaps and body glitter, I am hoping to become an object of sexual desire for that crowd of women. But if we accept that all objectification is evil, then I'm somehow making myself sub-human. Which is bogus.

We all want to be desired at times; we all want to be objectified at times. What separates good from bad is volition and consent. And just because someone is dressed or is behaving in a way that excites a sexual response does not mean anybody has the right to force themselves on them.

At least that's how I see it.

I am sure men are also objectified by women (though perhaps in different ways; what do I know). I think the key here is that for the average observer, "society" seems to sexualise females - from videos for popular music to commercials, and of course pornography. By 'sexualisation', I am here refering to the process where the sex becomes seen as a crucial part of female identity, much more so than for men. Of course, if this sexualisation is strong, then potential rapists are lessl likely to think twice about their acts - that it would help rapists in thinking that women are for sex and not much else.

[Askthepizzaguy]

If I strap on sparkly chaps and body glitter and dance onstage to a crowd of howling women, I am, in fact, hoping to be objectified in a very pleasant sort of way.

Request.... granted.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

The first bit makes like it's mutually exclusive. Is it impossible to both respect women and oggle? Most straight blokes will enjoy the sight of strong, independent women dressed scantly or not-so-scantly. That doesn't mean we revert to cavemen banging drums and making sandwich jokes.

The second. Why not? It's her right to wear whatever she likes.

I was using the word "oggling" to refer to unrestricted leering, not every wayward, or admiring, glance. "Oggling" is starring.


I always get a bit worried when I hear about "objectifying" as a universal, a priori (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_priori_and_a_posteriori) evil. If I strap on sparkly chaps and body glitter and dance onstage to a crowd of howling women, I am, in fact, hoping to be objectified in a very pleasant sort of way. I'm not abrogating my dignity as a human being, or defining myself strictly as an erotic cowboy dancer. I'm not making myself less of a human being. At that moment, in my chaps and body glitter, I am hoping to become an object of sexual desire for that crowd of women. But if we accept that all objectification is evil, then I'm somehow making myself sub-human. Which is bogus.

We all want to be desired at times; we all want to be objectified at times. What separates good from bad is volition and consent. And just because someone is dressed or is behaving in a way that excites a sexual response does not mean anybody has the right to force themselves on them.

At least that's how I see it.

Yes, objectifying is a universally bad thing - it is dehumanising. It is possible to look and oppreciate without turning someone into an agentless "object" without thoughts, feelings, or human rights. That is what some women invite from some men by the way they dress.


I guess that how successful it is boils down to interpretation, but as a whole... I agree, the walks aren't going to change much, but then that's just the culture we live in, I don't think any form of medium will change that; if I ask people to stop being sexist on the internet, for example, I'm more likely to get "where's my sandwich?" than a positive response!

Well, if it makes you feel better, I personally believe the proper position for a man, in relation to a woman, is on his knee, head down, arms crossed, sword on the floor in front of her; it looks better if you have a long cloak on.

Also, I do my own cooking and ironing.


Nor is there anything to say that she shouldn't, right?

Well, I don't know, I'm not a fan of using your physical body for effect on the opposite sex - men do it less than women, and in a completely differenet way - but I don't like it in either gender. A lot of the more revealing woman's clothes aren's just about showing what's there, but also emphasising and teasing (or taunting).


It's not just men though, women are wired to look at one another too, though the context might not be the same; while a man might be thinking about that plunging neckline, I might be thinking of how horizontal stripes don't flatter her figure, for example.

And yes, we know that people are going to look...

Yes, I know you know. Here's what I think though: Women dress to provoke a fairly primative response from men, as a sexualised way of showing off, and they judge each other as sexual competition. That's fine, but it somewhat cuts across the claim that women "want to be appreciated for their mind".

Men compete physically as well, but we do it by carrying things, putting up shelves, killing deer with javalins. So now we're coming back to the proposition that men and women are fundamentally different - and that we need an agreed pattern of behaviour to comunicate across the divide. Then you're only one step ahead of different gender roles.


Can we really say that works on a gender level as it does with religion or culture? I don't think so, because these other factors get in the way; European and American men collectively saying that objectifying women is bad doesn't mean that their counterparts across the world are going to share the same view, particularly when there's things like religion that portray women in a certain fashion.

Yes, I think we can because gender can cut across religion and politics too. Just because not all men think something doesn't mean that men cannot make collective decisions as a group.


That's good to know. :3

Doesn't mean I agree though :-D


But I still don't get it. I don't see where in this scheme of things those upset men (or women, as Secura notes) lose their ability to keep their mind? I don't see how it follows that how she dresses “provocatively” is of any concern to you. Where exactly are you in any way disadvantaged if some random woman decides to walk around in naught but a few pasties?

They don't. Just because a woman walks past in a miniskirt doesn't mean you have the right to put away the Guardian, hit her over the head with a rolled up playboy and drag her off by the hair. The point is, some men do do that at least figuratively. Pretending otherwise is potentially dangerous for a woman. My concern is that women are being encourage to disregard generations of inbred caution around men and flaunt themselves, just because they think they should be allowed to.

That's akin to me claiming I should be allowed to barge into 10 Downing Street and demand that David Cameron expalin why he has gutted out armed forces and raised tuition fees - and then complain when I get arrested.

Life just isn't like that.

[Tellos Athenaios]

@PVC: I think you are not giving enough credit to the ability of humans to look past basic instincts. The exact circumference of my chest or yours or that of Secura's might've been a vital cue about 200 thousand years ago, but right now behind a laptop screen I am probably better served by a decent command of the English language if I want to get a point across.

[Secura]

A lot of the more revealing woman's clothes aren's just about showing what's there, but also emphasising and teasing (or taunting).

That's the entire point, but not for the reasons that you think.

I guess the easiest way to summarise is accentuating the positive while eliminating the negative; revealing a part of the body we're happy with is a means of taking attention away from those we're not.


Here's what I think though: Women dress to provoke a fairly primative response from men, as a sexualised way of showing off, and they judge each other as sexual competition. That's fine, but it somewhat cuts across the claim that women "want to be appreciated for their mind".

Really? You think we dress to get a response from men? Is this a sweeping generalisation of the female dress code or just in terms of going out dressed "like a slut"?

Everyone wants to feel attractive, regardless of gender, just to varying extents and in different ways; I don't see how the way we might "dress to impress" should conflict with other things, though. A plunging neckline doesn't mean that's all you want to be recognised for.


Yes, I think we can because gender can cut across religion and politics too. Just because not all men think something doesn't mean that men cannot make collective decisions as a group.

But it's still restricted by religion, politics, the media and so on; I wasn't doubting that decisions could be made as a group, but whether they could be followed effectively when there's so many obstacles in the way.


Doesn't mean I agree though :-D

I wouldn't have it any other way.


My concern is that women are being encourage to disregard generations of inbred caution around men and flaunt themselves, just because they think they should be allowed to.

That's akin to me claiming I should be allowed to barge into 10 Downing Street and demand that David Cameron expalin why he has gutted out armed forces and raised tuition fees - and then complain when I get arrested.

While I liked the example, it's not really the same thing, is it? I get that both are centered around the freedom of expressing one's self, but I don't see where the two correlate; British law doesn't restrict what I wear (compared to say, Iran, where I'd have to cover my hair, arms and such), but it does stop me from giving David Cameron a slap. :3

[Lemur]

Yes, objectifying is a universally bad thing - it is dehumanising. It is possible to look and oppreciate without turning someone into an agentless "object" without thoughts, feelings, or human rights.
Obviously I disagree. A few thoughts:

Nobody knows anybody else completely. We all interact on constructs and models we make in our heads. It is, in fact, impossible to know someone in their totality, which means we are always "dehumanizing" other people. Worse, outside of a select few who reside in your monkeysphere (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunbar%27s_number), you dehumanize (or "objectify") all sorts of people in your life. The guys who take out your trash, for example. Do you pause when you see them, to consider the complexity of their lives, the depth of their emotions? And even if you do, what are you basing that on? You don't know them. On some level they are The Things That Take Away Trash.

So do we fret and sweat and get upset about this basic truth of human nature? Do we continue to declare that objectification is an absolute and inarguable evil? Or do we get real and admit that not only does everyone objectify others, but that it isn't necessarily a bad thing?

Let's say there's a girl you like. Do you want to think of your complex human nature and your conflicted thoughts on all sorts of subjects? Or would you rather she thought about your curvy ass and flat abs? It's nice to be objectified sometimes. We don't want to be the entirety of ourselves at all times to all people. This notion that any sort of reductionism is (a) evil, (b) permanent, and (c) a power-grab ... I dunno, it strikes me as hopelessly idealistic and fuzzy-headed.

Sex is dirty if you do it right. Objectification is fun if you do it right. As I said, the things that separate good objectification from bad objectification are volition and consent. If I burst out of a birthday cake wearing pasties and a thong, I am hoping in that moment to be objectified. Not for the rest of my life, not by the whole world; it's in that moment and in that context. And I don't want to be a three-dimensional well-rounded individual; I want to be a hot slab of man-beef. And there's nothing wrong with that, in that moment, in that context.

Consent matters. Context matters. But objectification between consenting adults can be a lot of fun. to argue otherwise is to wage war against human nature. Better luck boxing a cloud of plowing the sea.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Where exactly are you in any way disadvantaged if some random woman decides to walk around in naught but a few pasties?

Are you suggesting PVC has a strange fetish due to the fact he comes from Cornwall?

[Secura]

Are you suggesting PVC has a strange fetish due to the fact he comes from Cornwall?

The exact same image (http://www.lightningspider.co.uk/serv01/sheridansmith82/Galleries/01/2Pints10004.jpg) sprang to mind here, also. :3

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

That's the entire point, but not for the reasons that you think.

I guess the easiest way to summarise is accentuating the positive while eliminating the negative; revealing a part of the body we're happy with is a means of taking attention away from those we're not.

I get that - but that whole idea seems very much like making a woman's body into an art object. "I don't like my bum, but I have great boobs so..." or vice versa. Which brings me too:


Really? You think we dress to get a response from men? Is this a sweeping generalisation of the female dress code or just in terms of going out dressed "like a slut"?

Everyone wants to feel attractive, regardless of gender, just to varying extents and in different ways; I don't see how the way we might "dress to impress" should conflict with other things, though. A plunging neckline doesn't mean that's all you want to be recognised for.

Excuse me, I'm going to address this backwards:

That's another generalisation, possibly more sweeping than mine, "everyone" sounds reasonable when you look at women, but then take a look at men. Ratty uncut hair, poorly fitting clothes, unshaven, sometimes unwashed. Mainstream men's fashion is more about dressing down, the number of pockets and how quickly you can wear the hem off your trousers - not things I like but there you go. The majority of the men I know who make an effort are gay, the rest don't have a clue.

So, do I think women dress a certain way in order to get a response from men? No, I think the entire bloody discourse about women's fashion is about getting a response from men - presumably because at one time that was all that mattered. Showing off boobs or bum (or legs) is a choice between the three physical attributes men most often divide their own preferences by, I don't think that's a coincidence.

You may not want your plunging neckline to be your defining feature but it will be the first thing most men notice, it might be the only thing they look at. In such a context surely you have to wonder at the intent and thinking behind the person who designed that blouse, and the people selling it to you.

I think these sorts of clothes that women wear some of the time are geared towards sex and sexual competition, and I struggle to find a contemporary example in men's fashion. I can think of historical examples, but the doublet leggings and codpiece are not in vogue at the moment.


But it's still restricted by religion, politics, the media and so on; I wasn't doubting that decisions could be made as a group, but whether they could be followed effectively when there's so many obstacles in the way.

Those are in turn influence by gender though. Did you know that certain strands of Christianity attract different proportions of men and women? Evangelical Christianity is dominated by women, the Anglican High Church has many more men.


I wouldn't have it any other way.

If you ossilate between loving and loathing me in equal measure (platonically speaking) you'll be the same as all the women I see face to face.


While I liked the example, it's not really the same thing, is it? I get that both are centered around the freedom of expressing one's self, but I don't see where the two correlate; British law doesn't restrict what I wear (compared to say, Iran, where I'd have to cover my hair, arms and such), but it does stop me from giving David Cameron a slap. :3

I don't know, I can walk around topless - you can't. There are legal differences, and they are rooted in men's and women's bodies being viewed differently. It's not like I don't have nipples under all this thick back hair.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Obviously I disagree. A few thoughts:

Nobody knows anybody else completely. We all interact on constructs and models we make in our heads. It is, in fact, impossible to know someone in their totality, which means we are always "dehumanizing" other people. Worse, outside of a select few who reside in your monkeysphere (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunbar's_number), you dehumanize (or "objectify") all sorts of people in your life. The guys who take out your trash, for example. Do you pause when you see them, to consider the complexity of their lives, the depth of their emotions? And even if you do, what are you basing that on? You don't know them. On some level they are The Things That Take Away Trash.

So do we fret and sweat and get upset about this basic truth of human nature? Do we continue to declare that objectification is an absolute and inarguable evil? Or do we get real and admit that not only does everyone objectify others, but that it isn't necessarily a bad thing?

Let's say there's a girl you like. Do you want to think of your complex human nature and your conflicted thoughts on all sorts of subjects? Or would you rather she thought about your curvy ass and flat abs? It's nice to be objectified sometimes. We don't want to be the entirety of ourselves at all times to all people. This notion that any sort of reductionism is (a) evil, (b) permanent, and (c) a power-grab ... I dunno, it strikes me as hopelessly idealistic and fuzzy-headed.

Sex is dirty if you do it right. Objectification is fun if you do it right. As I said, the things that separate good objectification from bad objectification are volition and consent. If I burst out of a birthday cake wearing pasties and a thong, I am hoping in that moment to be objectified. Not for the rest of my life, not by the whole world; it's in that moment and in that context. And I don't want to be a three-dimensional well-rounded individual; I want to be a hot slab of man-beef. And there's nothing wrong with that, in that moment, in that context.

Consent matters. Context matters. But objectification between consenting adults can be a lot of fun. to argue otherwise is to wage war against human nature. Better luck boxing a cloud of plowing the sea.

I think we are having a verbal confusion. What you are talking about I don't consider "objectification" because it's not about reducing someone to an object, it is simply about being an object of attention. Even assuming this notional young woman is thinking about my trim waist, broad shoulders, my long legs and my strong by gentle hands...I'll stop there...she's of no interest if she only wants my for my, admittedly above average, body.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Are you suggesting PVC has a strange fetish due to the fact he comes from Cornwall?


The exact same image (http://www.lightningspider.co.uk/serv01/sheridansmith82/Galleries/01/2Pints10004.jpg) sprang to mind here, also. :3

I live in Devon - we aren't allowed to have pasties anymore.

Even if ours taste better.

[Vladimir]

The exact same image (http://www.lightningspider.co.uk/serv01/sheridansmith82/Galleries/01/2Pints10004.jpg) sprang to mind here, also. :3

*thinking of crude jokes about Cornish hens*

[Reenk Roink]

Maybe it's best they covered their faces. The ones in Canada (that they showed on camera) were all bad looking.

Look if you dare: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3vOCnZOcr8w

Look it's great that you are standing up for women's sexuality and against rape, but maybe let a prettier girl be the face of your campaign. Marketing 101.

[rory_20_uk]

When is the Yuppie walk?

Overtly rich individuals who want to be able to ostensibly flaunt their money when in dangerous areas or walking down dark alleys. Why can't they talk on new mobile phones with their wallets in their back pockets filled with £50 bills? Too long we are blaming the victim for being provocative and not doing enough to prevent crime.

And come to that, I keep being told not to leave my phone / sat-nav in the car on display? Why should I have to hide it? I'm not the ciminal!

~:smoking:

[Vladimir]

When is the Yuppie walk?

Overtly rich individuals who want to be able to ostensibly flaunt their money when in dangerous areas or walking down dark alleys. Why can't they talk on new mobile phones with their wallets in their back pockets filled with £50 bills? Too long we are blaming the victim for being provocative and not doing enough to prevent crime.

And come to that, I keep being told not to leave my phone / sat-nav in the car on display? Why should I have to hide it? I'm not the ciminal!

~:smoking:

Yea. Pretty much.

[Subotan]

Great article on the current debate:
(http://noseriouslywhatabouttehmenz.wordpress.com/2011/06/24/women-be-safe-vs-rapists-dont-rape/)

It’s not that all rapists just don’t give a :daisy: about right and wrong because they all entirely lack a conscience – instead, it’s that many of them have managed to rationalize to themselves that what they are doing is not actually rape, that everyone else is doing it, and thus, that what they are doing is not actually wrong. This article discusses a study (http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/2009/11/12/rapists-who-dont-think-theyre-rapists/) in which men will admit to rape, just so long as you don’t call it that.

And that’s key. Some of the perpetrators of these attacks aren’t operating on an entirely different moral code from the rest of us – some of them are rationalizing rape against the same moral code we all tend to agree upon! And when we understand this, it only follows that there are ways to approach things from the “Rapists, don’t rape!” perspective that doesn’t involve gathering little boys around a teacher’s knee and talking to them in a condescending and stigmatizing way that assumes that all little boys will grow up to be rapists if not taught otherwise. It involves a much broader and more global conceptualization of the problem – that it rests in the attitudes and ideas of the culture as a whole, and that’s where we need to tackle the problem, not by making little boys feel that they are somehow evil simply for being male.

[Scienter]

When is the Yuppie walk?

Overtly rich individuals who want to be able to ostensibly flaunt their money when in dangerous areas or walking down dark alleys. Why can't they talk on new mobile phones with their wallets in their back pockets filled with £50 bills? Too long we are blaming the victim for being provocative and not doing enough to prevent crime.

And come to that, I keep being told not to leave my phone / sat-nav in the car on display? Why should I have to hide it? I'm not the ciminal!

~:smoking:

Comparing rape to robbery just doesn't work. Rape is the only crime where the previous conduct of the victim is considered when defending the attacker. Rape is the only crime where the victim has to prove that they are innocent.

You don't hear about robbers getting lighter sentences because their victim was wearing an Armani suit or because they left their iPhone on the seat of their car in a bad neighborhood. No one asks a robbery victim, "What did you do to make him rob you? Are you sure you didn't lead him on?"

Do you honestly believe that a person who robs someone who was flaunting their money is some how less guilty of robbery than someone who robs a person who is dressed shabbily? Should the person who robbed the rich guy get less jail time, or perhaps not go to jail at all? That rich person totally deserved it, right? Because looking wealthy is the same thing as consenting to being robbed.

http://jiv.sagepub.com/content/early/2010/06/03/0886260510372945.abstract

[rajpoot]

This thread reminds me of a little incident that took place quite a few years back when I was in school. My friend and I used to go for extra classes in Physics to our teacher's house. It was a bad neighborhood. The only conveyance I had back then was bicycle while my friend used his brother's new motorbike (he had an old one that belonged to him, but he still used the new one).
Now you know those little anti-social kids who write vulgar words on the walls and throw stones at people just for kicks; A few of them lived near our teacher's house. He warned my friend a few times that shouldn't bring the new bike because the kids might break the mirrors or something. My friend however did not listen.
One fine day when we came out after class we saw a nice long scratch running the length of the bike's fuel tank. We tried to find out who did it, but no good came of it.
After that my friend used his old bike.

So he really wasn't guilty of anything. He just wanted to show off the new bike.

I don't think anyone ever considers the victims guilty. I haven't read the posts since my last in this thread, but I don't think anyone has said that the victims are guilty. All that is being advocated (and what anyone with any common sense would advocate) is to be careful. A person has the freedom to do whatever he wants, but if the chances of something bad happening to him by doing that are even a fraction more than what they would be if he did not do that thing, then he should consider not doing it unless it's very important.
Because I'm sure that a chap can see time just as well in a regular wristwatch as in a gold plated Rolex wristwatch.


Edit:
I see this is an entirely new thread. Wasn't there another thread where the whole debate started about the policeman who said stuff....

[Ronin]

went to the Lisbon slutwalk last weekend.
no sluts showed up that I would want to look at and boobies were definitely not on show...

I call shenanigans!

[Scienter]

I don't think anyone ever considers the victims guilty. I haven't read the posts since my last in this thread, but I don't think anyone has said that the victims are guilty. All that is being advocated (and what anyone with any common sense would advocate) is to be careful. A person has the freedom to do whatever he wants, but if the chances of something bad happening to him by doing that are even a fraction more than what they would be if he did not do that thing, then he should consider not doing it unless it's very important.
Because I'm sure that a chap can see time just as well in a regular wristwatch as in a gold plated Rolex wristwatch.


I'm not arguing that people think a rape victim is somehow guilty of his/her own rape, it's that the victim's conduct/manner of dress/etc is often used to lessen the guilt of the attacker. There's a difference. For me, it's a legal argument. Defense attorneys will do anything they can to get around the rape shield law of evidence. You don't see that with other crimes. Character evidence is considered prejudicial and is generally prohibited in criminal cases. But, sometimes they get around it by putting the onus on the victim to prove that s/he said "no," sometimes using discussions of her past sexual conduct to raise doubt as to whether she consented. Even if not brought up directly, sometimes it makes it to the jury room.

Re: the part of your quote that I bolded, it's so subjective to say what is dangerous. Especially when talking about rape.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I'm not arguing that people think a rape victim is somehow guilty of his/her own rape, it's that the victim's conduct/manner of dress/etc is often used to lessen the guilt of the attacker. There's a difference. For me, it's a legal argument. Defense attorneys will do anything they can to get around the rape shield law of evidence. You don't see that with other crimes. Character evidence is considered prejudicial and is generally prohibited in criminal cases. But, sometimes they get around it by putting the onus on the victim to prove that s/he said "no," sometimes using discussions of her past sexual conduct to raise doubt as to whether she consented. Even if not brought up directly, sometimes it makes it to the jury room.

Re: the part of your quote that I bolded, it's so subjective to say what is dangerous. Especially when talking about rape.

I think rape is alos the only crime that is frenquently reported for vindictive reasons though. To pretend that no woman has ever said "oh he raped me" either to get at a man or because she got drunk and got caught doing something she later regretted is naive. As horrible as it is for for genuine victims you can't criticise the defense or the judge for exploring that possibility, where apropriate.

[rajpoot]

I'm not arguing that people think a rape victim is somehow guilty of his/her own rape, it's that the victim's conduct/manner of dress/etc is often used to lessen the guilt of the attacker. There's a difference. For me, it's a legal argument. Defense attorneys will do anything they can to get around the rape shield law of evidence. You don't see that with other crimes. Character evidence is considered prejudicial and is generally prohibited in criminal cases. But, sometimes they get around it by putting the onus on the victim to prove that s/he said "no," sometimes using discussions of her past sexual conduct to raise doubt as to whether she consented. Even if not brought up directly, sometimes it makes it to the jury room.

Re: the part of your quote that I bolded, it's so subjective to say what is dangerous. Especially when talking about rape.

I was actually under the impression that the discussion was still about women complaining about people trying to curb their freedom to dress as they like.
I agree with what you're saying about defence attorneys and courts of law. It is disgusting, like many other things that are done by them to protect their clients. But I don't think that it's something that can be stopped.

And like PVC has stated, there are cases (even if it is one in thousand) where the accused is not all that guilty.

Edit:
Read an old news article yesterday about a slutwalk that was supposed to happen in Delhi on the 25th. Then read it was postponed till end of next month.
I hadn't thought about it before, and yesterday the whole thing sounded very silly to me (atleast in context to the place where I live).
Hundreds of scantily clad women taking to the streets, would cause such a commotion where rapes and rape victims would be the last thing to be talked about.
It's a pity so many people here follow the Western trends without thinking twice.....

[rory_20_uk]

Comparing rape to robbery just doesn't work. Rape is the only crime where the previous conduct of the victim is considered when defending the attacker. Rape is the only crime where the victim has to prove that they are innocent.

You don't hear about robbers getting lighter sentences because their victim was wearing an Armani suit or because they left their iPhone on the seat of their car in a bad neighborhood. No one asks a robbery victim, "What did you do to make him rob you? Are you sure you didn't lead him on?"

Do you honestly believe that a person who robs someone who was flaunting their money is some how less guilty of robbery than someone who robs a person who is dressed shabbily? Should the person who robbed the rich guy get less jail time, or perhaps not go to jail at all? That rich person totally deserved it, right? Because looking wealthy is the same thing as consenting to being robbed.

http://jiv.sagepub.com/content/early/2010/06/03/0886260510372945.abstract

You do hear burglers getting off if the door was unlocked as they then didn't break in. And they will ask you where one's property was, was it locked - and get the answers wrong and no money from one's insurance. Forget one window and it was all the victim's fault.

~:smoking:

[Scienter]

You do hear burglers getting off if the door was unlocked as they then didn't break in. And they will ask you where one's property was, was it locked - and get the answers wrong and no money from one's insurance. Forget one window and it was all the victim's fault.

~:smoking:

My crim law is a little rusty after all these years, but people don't get out of jail free if the home is unlocked. You're still 'entering.' At least in the US, if you are not legally allowed in the home, some states would still consider it breaking and entering. And if not breaking and entering, then trespass. If a person intends to commit a felony when entering a building unlawfully, that's burglary, even if the place is unlocked. Burglary is an intent-based crime, even if you don't actually steal anything, you can still be convicted if the prosecution can prove intent.


I think rape is alos the only crime that is frenquently reported for vindictive reasons though. To pretend that no woman has ever said "oh he raped me" either to get at a man or because she got drunk and got caught doing something she later regretted is naive. As horrible as it is for for genuine victims you can't criticise the defense or the judge for exploring that possibility, where apropriate.

The women who falsely accuse men of rape are sociopaths. They make it harder for real victims. There is a difference between exploring that possibility based upon evidence presented in the case before the jduge and approaching the situation with preconceived notions based upon what other people have done.

[rory_20_uk]

My crim law is a little rusty after all these years, but people don't get out of jail free if the home is unlocked. You're still 'entering.' At least in the US, if you are not legally allowed in the home, some states would still consider it breaking and entering. And if not breaking and entering, then trespass. If a person intends to commit a felony when entering a building unlawfully, that's burglary, even if the place is unlocked. Burglary is an intent-based crime, even if you don't actually steal anything, you can still be convicted if the prosecution can prove intent.

The women who falsely accuse men of rape are sociopaths. They make it harder for real victims. There is a difference between exploring that possibility based upon evidence presented in the case before the jduge and approaching the situation with preconceived notions based upon what other people have done.

Proving intent. Depends on the circumstance. If the door is open, harder to prove intent. So, one is being judged even if a crime was committed. Same with women.

Women who falsely accuse men are not all sociopaths. A lot of the problem is that men who sleep with everyone are Players - vaunted by other men, perversely attractive to many women. Women who do so are Sluts / Slags / Easy - often despised by other women and certainly not respected by men. In all studies that have asked men and women their number of sexual partners there is always a massive chasm. Men have a tendency to increase it, women to decrease it.

Found out your pregnant? Admit to one's parents you're having sex - or tearfully concoct a story that you were raped to your parents? By the time you're talking too the police it's too late to retract it.
Fucked a fugly? Come clean or say were so drunk you didn't say yes. Not reported to the police, but helps bolster those dreadful "unreported rapes". Men might not be thrilled, but since they screwed something the quality is a secondary consideration.
Even threatening someone with an allegation of rape is not in and of itself a sociopathic thing to do, as being a sociopath is a very specific condition. If it is a desperate desire to keep one's man that is not something a sociopath would do for example as they view people as objects.

The reason the conviction rate is so low is there is often no evidence to say categorically one way or the other - both parties say they had sex. One says they didn't want to. One partner tied up? Some like that sort of thing. Vaginal tears? Anal tears? Some like it rough (and hetrosexual women have a much greater propensity to do it both ways than hetrosexual men to do so). Several sexual partners? Some do that sort of thing. Most of the time it's simply not possible to prove beyond absolute doubt one way or the other.

~:smoking: