"Slutwalks" in N. America

[Cyclone]

It certainly is.

 

I guess it is, although it should mean that they hate themselves unless they're a massive hypocrite.

[MC Spyda]

Are some sexual assaults not serious?

[Cyclone]

Certainly.

If a woman grabs your arse in a club, that's a sexual assault. It's not serious though as you've suffered no real harm and will likely get over it with a stiff drink. Unless you're a particularly delicate individual of course.

 

Obviously most trivial cases like this are never reported or prosecuted. I wanted to distinguish between this and you being dragged down an alley and taken advantage of, clearly an entirely different scenario.

[Streamline]

Court clears postman who delivered a kiss

 

A postman who stopped his delivery bicycle and kissed a woman acquaintance in the street has been cleared of both sexual assault and battery.

 

Alan Pearson, 41, gave the woman what his counsel described as a "harmless peck on the cheek". But the woman objected and told her husband, who contacted police.

 

Mr Pearson was charged with the two offences, both of which he denied, and elected trial by jury at Bristol Crown Court.

[Cyclone]

Thanks for that. I guess it shows that courts do show common sense some times.

[Streamline]

Thanks for that. I guess it shows that courts do show common sense some times.

 

Had the genders been reversed it would have never got to court such is the misandrist society we live in.

[danot]

Well, no. Firstly we have no evidence that dressing to make themselves attractive increases the risk of a serious sexual assault.

Well would you say dressing sluttish increases the chance of being harassed by hot blooded males who naturally become aroused by women dressing like the women that rightly or wrongly sexualise themselves for a living?

 

Posted by Cyclone

Secondly that opinion about the sexualisation increasing the risk appears to be just an opinion as well.

And possibly the most important point, nobody has had the balls to define what dressing like a whore, or slut, actually means.

An opinion is all we can offer Cylone.

 

Also, I've just defined above what dressing like a whore actually means... in my opinion.

[evildrneil]

Being an opinion doesn't make it a reality. It does make it useful as a defence though. A simple point which you seem to be trying to misunderstand very hard.

 

It's a simple point and a totally irrational one. You accept that this opinion is ingrained enough to be used and affect the behaviour and judgement of the defence team, rapist, jury (and presumably judge) after the event but not to affect the behaviour and judgement of the rapist prior to the event. Can you honestly see any shred of logic or rationality in that position?

 

Your continuing argument would seem to suggest otherwise, I don't think I made any more than a small leap.

 

Understanding a position in society and that it may have an effect in certain situations does not in any way imply agreement with that position.

 

No. Can you not see the point I'm trying to make?

 

Yes - I can see the point you have been making. But as I've said many times before it's completely irrational.

 

You have refused to define what it means about a dozen times, maybe you can do so now to avoid me misinterpreting it again?

 

There's really no need is there - it's a perfectly commonplace term that you have give a pretty standard definition for.

 

Simple, but it requires several assumptions to be made which you won't or can't support.

 

Such as? The only one you seem to have come up with and refer back to frequently is your (unsupported and totally irrational) assumption that a ingrained opinion will only have an effect on judgement and behaviour when used after the fact as a rationalisation rather than before the fact.

 

Talking about vulnerability, in a misogynistic offensive way. And I thought we'd already established that the giving of such 'advice' allows for blame to be cast if the 'advice' is ignored.

 

No - you had agreed that with yourself. Culpability may be inferred if you are given advice about something which only you have control over (don't go free climbing the Eiffel tower - oh you did, oh you fell that was silly wasn't it) not not if the outcome is in someone else's hands (don't go free climbing the Eiffel tower - oh you did and someone jumped on your fingers and kicked you off well aren't they a git).

 

lol, pot, kettle.

 

Really? Perhaps you could point out where I have said that everyone using a given term is "common"?

 

It doesn't of course. But if I say you are dressed like a Richard, then the implication is that you are a Richard, unless you're at a fancy dress party just pretending to be a Richard. Or do you disagree with that as well?

 

The implication isn't that you are a Richard - the perception is that you are a Richard. Which is pretty much what I've been saying - if you dress as a slut you will be responded to as such but that doesn't in any way mean that you are a slut.

 

You're argument veers between unsupported assumptions and deliberately ignoring the implications of statements whilst attacking me personally several times for objecting to calling womens clothing slutty.

I think you need to take a step back and calm down.

 

And I think you need to actually read the thread - and try to follow simple reasoning. Oh and and certainly look at your own posts before you cry "personal abuse"!

[Jessica23]

I believe that's an ironic use of the word.

 

Ironic and/or reclaimed.

 

Something that's been entirely ignored in this whole debate (to my knowledge - I haven't read the whole thread) is the fact that some women laugh in the face of terms like slut as they're traditionally employed - i.e. to shame women who have had more than a few sexual partners, or women who openly enjoy sex, or women who are sexually proactive and confident.

 

So much of traditional discourse around sexuality is predicated around the (damaging and false) assumption that men's sexual urges are stronger, more pressing and more aggressive than women's; that men are or should be the initiators of sexual contact; that men who have sex with multiple partners are somehow less liable to be condemned for it than women...and so on.

 

All the usual ill-thought out gender-biased nonsense, of course.

 

''Slut-shaming'' is something that goes on a lot. It's as pathetic as most of what passes for concern about women's safety on this thread.

[quisquose]

Ironic and/or reclaimed.

 

Something that's been entirely ignored in this whole debate (to my knowledge - I haven't read the whole thread) is the fact that some women laugh in the face of terms like slut as they're traditionally employed - i.e. to shame women who have had more than a few sexual partners, or women who openly enjoy sex, or women who are sexually proactive and confident.

 

So much of traditional discourse around sexuality is predicated around the (damaging and false) assumption that men's sexual urges are stronger, more pressing and more aggressive than women's; that men are or should be the initiators of sexual contact; that men who have sex with multiple partners are somehow less liable to be condemned for it than women...and so on.

 

All the usual ill-thought out gender-biased nonsense, of course.

 

''Slut-shaming'' is something that goes on a lot. It's as pathetic as most of what passes for concern about women's safety on this thread.

 

Well said.

 

What seems to be forgotten is that women who wear sexy clothes do it because they bloody well want to. They are not ignorant of the fact that men will "have a neb", in fact some might positively welcome it.

 

The purpose of law is to protect our freedoms, not restrict them. The police officer was advocating the restriction of freedoms, with the unevidenced threat of rape, which is totally contrary to the objectives of the police ... as well as being offensive misogynistic nonsense.

 

It is cowardly easy for person A to excuse the idea of person B's harmless freedoms being restricted, but the same logic can always been turned against the freedoms enjoyed by person A on something else.