Londons SlutWalk

[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, here, and here), research (here) 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/...illover-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.

[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.

[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 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.

[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 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.

[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.

[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..

[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...

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?