Londons SlutWalk

[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, 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 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, 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 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 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!

[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!

Yea. Pretty much.

[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.