Londons SlutWalk

[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)

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=odXZr3lBBOM

Shocking. 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, 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.

[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) 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)

[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 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...

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 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 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