"Slutwalks" in N. America

[Cyclone]

That depends entirely on the advice.

 

If I advice you not to jump of a cliff and you do then I would blame you. If however it's a situation where following the advice may help but not necessarily then no. Lets take a real world example:

 

From the BUPA website.

 

 

 

If someone chooses not to take the folic acid that they "should" and has a baby with a neural tube defect would they be blamed? Of course not. Some people can take the folic acid and still have babies with neural tube defects and others will not take the folic acid and have babies that are fine.

 

The difference is between a situation where you have complete control of the risks (do you jump off the cliff or not) and a situation where the risks are outside of your control but you may be able to mitigate some of the risks through your actions.

 

I prefer your earlier examples, free climbing the Eiffel tower for example, it's more in keep with reality since we know for a fact that jury's blame women for their assault, particularly if they hadn't followed this oft given advice about how they should dress.

[quisquose]

I'm afraid I find that to be utter rubbish! He was talking about safety and ameliorating risk - there is nothing misogynistic or apportioning blame about it at all. It's absolutely no different from the safety advice that people get all the time (for example this from the US embassy about reducing the risk of having the contents of your pockets stolen) where no-one bats an eyelid but bring in rape which is infinitely worse than merely losing a few quid and suddenly you are accused of being "misogynistic" and "apportioning blame".

 

For a moment there, in #253, I was willing to think that we were just looking at this from different perspectives, that we just had a different opinion on "safety". That for you it was akin to unwanted attention, whilst for me it was sexual violence. I even called your arguments "eloquent", and was on the point of conceding some points.

 

But then you post the above, and it reminded me that we've been here before when you defended the judge that let off the rapist, and said the following:

 

"A clear no should of course always mean no, however if (for example) someone is dressed to pull, deeply flirtatious and expresses a "desire to party" but doesn't actually give an absolute yes or no is that rape or normal "one night stand" behaviour?" and "Now I know this is going to make me unpopular but if the case is that the victim went voluntarily with the man, was flirtatious and provocative, wasn't unconscious due to drink and didn't give an unequivocal no when sex was initiated then she bears some responsibility for what happens."

 

I was wrong to give you the benefit of doubt. I think you hold views which, whilst all too commonly held, intuitive even, are still morally reprehensible.

 

If you cannot tell the difference between the US Embassy advice on avoiding pickpockets, and the police officer's advice to women to avoid being raped then I will tell you.

 

Only one advice is given to everybody equally, irrespective of sex, and is based on actual evidence of reducing risk. Only one advice is capable of reducing risk, whilst the other might actually increase it by perpetuating the misogynistic lie that blame can be apportioned, and planting the idea in the minds of potential offenders that some women are "asking for it".

 

[quisquose]

However, I would respond by saying that women are already far more aware of their safety than men because they have to be. Women more than men, understand where they are more safe and where they are less safe. It is always in the back of their heads, something men don’t have to worry about much at all tend to worry about as much even though they should. But no man has the right to attack and violate a woman, no matter what she is wearing, and neither do they have a right to tell them what is safe to wear.

I'm not sure that this is correct, men are much more likely to be the victim of a violent assault than women, and I suspect that assault takes place much more often than sexual assault.

 

You are right. I worded it poorly.

 

Women naturally feel more vulnerable, so are genrally more aware of their own safety than men. Women that choose to flaunt their sexuality, dress up, have some fun, know that how they dress does not increase their risk of violence. Drinking to excess does, walking home alone does, and advice not to do these things can be given equally to everybody.

[John X]

It might seem counter intuitive, but I suspect you are right.

 

Not sure how counter-intuitive it is.

 

A socially/sexually inadequate potential rapist is more likely to avoid sexually confident women and go more for a woman who seems 'insecure and vulnerable' as someone said earlier.

 

John X

[quisquose]

Not sure how counter-intuitive it is.

 

A socially/sexually inadequate potential rapist is more likely to avoid sexually confident women and go more for a woman who seems 'insecure and vulnerable' as someone said earlier.

 

John X

 

Well it obviously doesn't seem counter-intuitive to you or me, but it must seem counter-intuitive to those that think the way a women dresses increases her risk of rape. That's all I mean.

 

Indeed, Frank Sidney has on a number of occasions posted videos of girls strutting confidently down the high street in their underwear/bikinis as an example of, well, something, err, well, girls dressing in what he thinks is a dangerous manner I guess.

 

That might be his intuitive feeling, but I suspect cowardly violent sexual predators would run a mile from such confident women.

[quisquose]

The interesting thing about the whole debate is what does the word 'slut' mean and why is there even a concept of 'slut'. Why can women be sluts, but not men?

 

Probably this deserves a thread of its own.

 

Within the concept of what women wear, it seems that two women can wear exactly the same items of clothing and one can be a 'slut' and not the other based on a number of things. Age, weight, climate, bra size, ass size, money, surroundings, seem to determine what women should wear, as much as the clothing itself.

 

[sarcasm]A woman can sit in her shorts and bikini on a beach and not be a 'slut', but if she wanders into the beach shop to look at some flip-flops then she's crossing the line, and if she wanders 100 yards further into the high street ... definitely a 'slut'. Any woman in possession of DD or larger, simply should never entertain a T-Shirt or it will be assumed that she is "asking for it".[/sarcasm]

 

It's so confusing, to the point of irrelevant. In fact it is irrelevant.

 

The only real attempt at answering the question of what is a 'slut' has been given in video form:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ON9C_a2YSyU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tZbB1PdajLU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TrPf31x8rME&feature=related

 

IMO these are girls who are dressed with the intention of attracting attention of men..There's nothing wrong with that, but if that's what they want, they will probably get some attention..

 

[Riche]

Me thinks people know what it is to have class and be sexy without lookin like a street walker. The fact is a lot of girls are over weight, insecure and lookin for luv. They flash the flesh to get boys attension, if they get the right boys attension then yippee if on the other hand they get some dweeb or creep copin a feel then well. Dress how you want but we all know what some men think like so get real. It will never change. Asian youths are the worst for treatin girls like meat IMO.

[evildrneil]

I prefer your earlier examples, free climbing the Eiffel tower for example, it's more in keep with reality since we know for a fact that jury's blame women for their assault, particularly if they hadn't followed this oft given advice about how they should dress.

 

I don't think that is more in keeping with reality at all. And obviously it is incorrect for a jury to blame women for assault based on what they wear but they also need to be taught the difference between vulnerability and culpability and slutwalk and the like by conflating the two (he said X may help therefore if we don't do X he is saying we are to blame) is actually propagating the confusion rather than helping to dismantle it.

[evildrneil]

"A clear no should of course always mean no, however if (for example) someone is dressed to pull, deeply flirtatious and expresses a "desire to party" but doesn't actually give an absolute yes or no is that rape or normal "one night stand" behaviour?" and "Now I know this is going to make me unpopular but if the case is that the victim went voluntarily with the man, was flirtatious and provocative, wasn't unconscious due to drink and didn't give an unequivocal no when sex was initiated then she bears some responsibility for what happens."

 

So do you think that given the scenario outlined the woman would not bear any responsibility for what happens and if not why not. Surely her actions and decisions had some bearing on the outcome and as such does she not bear some responsibility for them?

 

If you cannot tell the difference between the US Embassy advice on avoiding pickpockets, and the police officer's advice to women to avoid being raped then I will tell you.

 

Only one advice is given to everybody equally, irrespective of sex, and is based on actual evidence of reducing risk. Only one advice is capable of reducing risk, whilst the other might actually increase it by perpetuating the misogynistic lie that blame can be apportioned, and planting the idea in the minds of potential offenders that some women are "asking for it".

 

Firstly I assume you haven't actually read the link as it gives specific advice for women not "Only one advice is given to everybody equally, irrespective of sex".

 

Secondly, how is giving someone advice that something may help to reduce risks plants the idea that some women are "asking for it"? Only if there is a conflation of advice to reduce vulnerability and apportioning blame which groups like slutwalk seem to do very well. As for giving advice to women only - well we are talking about a situation that occurs in about 80% of cases to women so don't you think that specific advice for women is perfectly reasonable? If not then surely we shouldn't give advice about pregnancy or breast feeding because by your argument it is misogynistic! You give advice to those who would most benefit from it.

 

Finally as for whether it reduces risk or not - there are many rape trials where clothing is entered as a pseudo-defence from which is should seem perfectly obvious that in the case of (for want of a better term) casual rape clothing is indeed a factor in attracting the attention of the rapist. Here we are not talking about the balaclava clad, knife wielding serial rapist but the drunken would be casanova on a night out who wildly misreads sexual signals and thinks no means yes. This is in no way trying to excuse the action of the "drunken would be casanova" but to think that such people aren't attracted to individuals by what they perceive to be sexual signals including scanty/revealing clothing is somewhat ridiculous.

[Cyclone]

You're basically arguing that no "I told you response" exists, when I think most people would accept that it's a basic part of the human psyche.

 

If you give advice which is then ignored, blame will be attributed to the person ignoring the advice.

 

Women should not have to dress in order to avoid assault (if such a thing is even possible, which seems to be in dispute). So they should not be told (or given advice) to do so.