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

[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)

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.

[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.

[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. :<

[Subotan]

Great article on the current debate:

It’s not that all rapists just don’t give a 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 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!

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...72945.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...72945.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.

[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.

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.