Home

TheSinner.net

Slutwalk

This message board is for discussing anything in any way remotely connected with St Andrews, the University or just anything you want. Welcome!

Slutwalk

Postby Hennessy on Mon May 09, 2011 3:02 pm

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... t-10663819

Even the Guardian finds the idea of this half-baked, though being the Guardian tries to find a way round it through its own brand of tedious feminism before linking to the mildly disturbing site tubecrush.net, where men are snapped without their knowledge on the underground then submitted for rating by an audience of women and presumably gay men. I think a site where men took surreptitious photographs of female tube-riders would however not be to the Guardian's taste.

I can't help but think the police officer whose "mis-speaking" kicked off this whole thing was guilty of not having enough tact, and that was his only fault. It's revealing he started his sentence with "I was told not to say this", before going on to tell women they are more likely to be raped if they go around dressed like a rapist's favourite fantasy victim.

This is the same logic by which our bumbling police officer probably advises people not to leave laptops, mobile phones or other expensive technology lying on the front seats of cars. We accept that it is more likely the case that an opportunist will break into the car if he can see something he wants clearly displayed than if he has no idea what's in there - it's a case of seeing his reward just within reach or taking a risk which might yield him little.

It's bitter, I know, to compare the crimes of breaking and entering to rape, but isn't the logic sound from the point of view of a rapist who probably spends his whole life objectifying the opposite gender? Thus our Toronto policeman was more guilty of the crime of speaking straight in our culture of massaging words and statistics to make them more palatable than anything else.

March on sluts! Just be back before dark.
The Sinner.
"Apologies in advance for pedantry."
Hennessy
User avatar
 
Posts: 1012
Joined: Fri Feb 29, 2008 12:08 pm

Re: Slutwalk

Postby RedCelt69 on Mon May 09, 2011 5:47 pm

The subject of rape has long been a confusion to me. From the looks of it, it is also a confusion to you. As a non-rapist, I and (by the looks of it) you see rape as the procurement of sex with someone who didn't voluntarily want to have sex; it seems to be a unilaterally-perceived "sexy time" with someone not as horny as the rapist.

But that isn't how the story unfolds in the rapist's mind, from all accounts. There are lots of "unsexy" victims of rape... by which I mean that a (sexually "normal") man would really struggle to "get there". The argument is; it isn't about sex, sexiness, allure or availability. It's about power.

In that sense, the valuables-in-the-car argument is a non-argument. They are breaking into the car because they get-off on having the power to get in the car... not for what valuables they can get their hands on.

Non-rapists don't get that simple premise and think that how a woman (or a man) dresses is part-and-parcel of a rapist's justification. Except it isn't. That policeman didn't get it. You didn't get it. I also didn't get it. I mean... I think I do now, but I remain confused. The valuables-in-the-car argument seems to make more sense. But it usually will for non-rapists.
Tho' Nature, red in tooth and celt
With ravine, shriek'd against his creed

Red Celt's Blog
RedCelt69
User avatar
 
Posts: 947
Joined: Tue Jul 29, 2008 4:28 pm

Re: Slutwalk

Postby LonelyPilgrim on Sat May 14, 2011 5:37 am

RedCelt is quite right. The literature on rape tends to suggest that opportunity is more important than allure. The rapist gets off on the act of rape, not the appearance or 'normal' appeal of the victim. Fundamentally, a rapist views women as sexually available by default, and what a woman is or is not wearing is irrelevant. In some mindsets, being more demurely dressed could spur a rapist to want to use his power over a woman to demonstrate her true nature as a whore, and expose her affectation of decency.

The idea that 'dressing like a slut' would prompt sexual assault makes sense to normal minds, but rapists don't have normal minds. For many a woman is a slut, is property, regardless of how she may adorn herself: the matter is moot.

You cannot hope to understand rape unless you can understand (though hopefully not ascribe to) this premise: women are not human beings. That is the starting point to begin to make sense of things.
Man is free; yet we must not suppose that he is at liberty to do everything he pleases, for he becomes a slave the moment he allows his actions to be ruled by passion. --Giacomo Casanova
LonelyPilgrim
 
Posts: 1266
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2004 5:49 am
Location: Nevada, USA

Re: Slutwalk

Postby Hennessy on Sat May 14, 2011 4:51 pm

Not being a particularly active or able rapist, I guess I can't comment then, although by that logic every other non-rapist is also discounted of their views. It did strike me as a bit unfair it was the policeman giving the talk on ways to avoid rape was criticised quite so much though. In the end he was trying to sensibly advise women, albeit bluntly. Would that his words weren't turned into an oblique rallying cry rather than his message heeded in the direct & serious manner he intended.

The whole thing just irritates me, though every time I try to set out why I can't get a decent answer.
The Sinner.
"Apologies in advance for pedantry."
Hennessy
User avatar
 
Posts: 1012
Joined: Fri Feb 29, 2008 12:08 pm

Re: Slutwalk

Postby G13 on Sat May 14, 2011 11:05 pm

RedCelt and Lonely Pilgrim are quite right.

There are a number of reasons for the outcry over what the policeman said. Firstly, as a "rape avoidance" tactic, not "dressing like a slut" is entirely useless, as incidents of rape are not correlated to what the woman was wearing at the time. Secondly, why should anyone have to regulate their dress to avoid having violence done to them? In revealing outfits, personally, I'd be unsurprised by leering, unbothered by a direct "you wanna have sex with me?", and ragingly livid at anyone's attempt to grab, maul or force me into any sexual act that I did not agree to with them. A body on display (deliberately or otherwise) does not give anyone the right to physical contact with that body. A body deliberately on display does not waive the owner's right or ability to decide what happens to that body. Thirdly, someone who makes any kind of sexual choices is certainly not then public property, available for whoever might want to have sex with them, incapable of discerning their own partner choice, or waiving the right to make that choice. Fourthly, someone who is perceived to make certain sexual choices does not necessarily fit that perception. Fifthly, "slut" is a policing insult thrown at women who have somehow upset some group of people or broken some expected behaviour, and the actual character and behaviour of a person receiving that insult varies wildly. Sixthly, "rape avoidance" is objectionable because it is not the minding-their-own-business receiver of violence's responsibility to avoid that violence, but the person committing it who just shouldn't. The description of rape victims and their behaviours is so varied that there is no possible course of action to take to ensure that one is not raped.

These points tend to hit very raw nerves, as rape victims mostly seem not to be able to get away from suggestions that they should have done something different to avoid rape, and questions like "what were you wearing" and "did you flirt" get asked. It shouldn't matter what someone was wearing when someone Else decided to inflict violence. It's also not about trying to deflect the rabid uncontrollable sexual desire of men: that view of men is pretty damn insulting to men, and it's not women's job or natural orientation to be sexual "gatekeepers", ooh, yikes, mustn't risk tempting those poor helpless men who won't be able to resist... Nope, rape is about a kind of ownership, an assumed right to do what one wants with another's body, and that transcends any clothing that body comes in.

The slutwalks are about trying to make all these points. For some people, they're also reclaiming the word slut (trying to remove the stigmatisation of the word), declaring that there's nothing wrong with being or appearing to be a sexually active or promiscuous person and that that does not make someone less of a person, more deserving of violence, or confer less right on them to make choices about their body and partners.

There were good reasons why that police officer was told not to say what he said. Clearly, the people telling him that knew rather more about the subject than he did. His view may be a common one, but that doesn't make it correct or useful.
G13
 

Re: Slutwalk

Postby LonelyPilgrim on Sun May 15, 2011 7:55 pm

Very good post G13.

One quibble: there are things one can do, and a wise person should do, to reduce the chance of being raped. For example, don't get drunk with strangers and don't go walking along alone at night. The fact that such things should be avoided doesn't change the fact that, morally, they shouldn't need to be avoided.

The double standard on rape pisses me off: if I, as a man, were to go into a shady part of town and be mugged, almost everyone would lay the blame on the mugger, despite the fact that it may have been unwise of me to be in that part of town. On the other hand, it's all too common for a woman in a shady part of town to get raped, and for a great many people to say, "Well, she should have known better than to be there, so it's at least partly her fault." The fact that, yes, it may have been unwise for her to be there does not make it her fault.

As you've alluded to, making women responsible for what is done to them removes the responsibility from men. As a man, I find it ridiculous and insulting that society seems to feel I can't control my own sexuality. It implies that I am either a sub-human monster or lazy, and I rather fancy myself to be neither.
Man is free; yet we must not suppose that he is at liberty to do everything he pleases, for he becomes a slave the moment he allows his actions to be ruled by passion. --Giacomo Casanova
LonelyPilgrim
 
Posts: 1266
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2004 5:49 am
Location: Nevada, USA

Re: Slutwalk

Postby RedCelt69 on Sun May 15, 2011 8:38 pm

LonelyPilgrim wrote:The double standard on rape pisses me off: if I, as a man, were to go into a shady part of town and be mugged, almost everyone would lay the blame on the mugger, despite the fact that it may have been unwise of me to be in that part of town. On the other hand, it's all too common for a woman in a shady part of town to get raped, and for a great many people to say, "Well, she should have known better than to be there, so it's at least partly her fault." The fact that, yes, it may have been unwise for her to be there does not make it her fault.


Hmmm. Gender differences aside (men can also be raped), let's look at the situation you put forth.

You say that it is unwise to have placed yourself in a shady part of town. What else is that lack of wisdom if it isn't a proportion of the blame for creating the circumstances by which you were mugged/raped? You chose to put yourself there, therefore (surely) the blame for what happened must be shared: in (a large part) with the offender, but also (to a smaller part) yourself. Doing something unwise, but denying any blame whatsoever is a strange thing to do.

It was unwise of me not to wear my seatbelt. But when that car pulled out of that junction into my path, causing a collision. My travelling through the windscreen is not, in its entirety, the fault of the other driver. I must share some blame for my lack of wisdom.

It was unwise of me to leave a child alone in the house with a box of matches and lighter fluid. When I returned to the house to find it a burnt-out shell with a dead child inside, I must take a proportion of the blame for what happened. Even though it wasn't I who started the fire.
Tho' Nature, red in tooth and celt
With ravine, shriek'd against his creed

Red Celt's Blog
RedCelt69
User avatar
 
Posts: 947
Joined: Tue Jul 29, 2008 4:28 pm

Re: Slutwalk

Postby wild_quinine on Sun May 15, 2011 10:41 pm

RedCelt69 wrote:You say that it is unwise to have placed yourself in a shady part of town. What else is that lack of wisdom if it isn't a proportion of the blame for creating the circumstances by which you were mugged/raped? You chose to put yourself there, therefore (surely) the blame for what happened must be shared: in (a large part) with the offender, but also (to a smaller part) yourself. Doing something unwise, but denying any blame whatsoever is a strange thing to do.


I think my inclination is that no poor decision on your part should really be said to reduce the level of responsibility for the mugger. There are two ways to look at this, that I can see.

Firstly, one could take the opinion that blame is not reduced in the sharing. One could accept some blame, whatever that is, for making a poor choice of dark alley, and still hold that no amount of blame on your side reduces the level of moral agency of the person who mugged you.

Secondly, one could take the opinion that responsibility to oneself is discrete from blame. I find this less convincing, but I've heard it argued well. Essentially that a person simply should do as much as can be reasonably expected to secure themselves, and that not doing so is, in some way, the failure to discharge a personal responsibility. But it is not in itself cause for blame.

Here's a thought experiment: you're drunk, you're alone, and you've got a pocket full of fifties. There's a dark alleyway in front of you, which is by some distance the quickest way home. You walk down the dark alley. Halfway along, a rooftile dislodges from an adjacent building, and neatly brains you.

Are you to blame?

It's clear that this unfortunate circumstance is the direct result of your decision to take an insalubrious shortcut. But could you really have foreseen or controlled such a thing?

Since you have no more power over the moral agency of a would-be mugger than of a piece of slate, how can you be held any more to blame if, the rooftile having missed you by a hair, you are mugged thirty yards further down the alley?
wild_quinine
User avatar
 
Posts: 216
Joined: Sun May 10, 2009 11:57 pm

Re: Slutwalk

Postby QueerCommunist on Sun May 15, 2011 11:18 pm

@RedCelt and Gender Differences

According to official statistics 91% of people raped are female, compared to 9% male. The total of female "sex offenders" accounts for 2% off all sex offences, which includes -but is not limited to- rape. Note that this are the official government issued numbers, which are based on officially reported instances. As being affected by sexualised violence is linked to various traumatic and negative psychological factors, the real numbers may be higher. Either way, 98% of the perpetrators are male.

Which we should keep in mind as the social context when it comes to rape. There has to be some socialisation that makes men much more likely to be perpetrators and thus would suggest that arguing for (even partially) blaming the women as well would miss the bigger picture that men seem to assume that women (and sometimes men) are their property to be taken.
QueerCommunist
 

Re: Slutwalk

Postby RedCelt69 on Mon May 16, 2011 12:39 am

wild_quinine wrote:Here's a thought experiment: you're drunk, you're alone, and you've got a pocket full of fifties. There's a dark alleyway in front of you, which is by some distance the quickest way home. You walk down the dark alley. Halfway along, a rooftile dislodges from an adjacent building, and neatly brains you.

Are you to blame?


Blame is an interesting word when you remove a moral agent from the equation. But it still applies. Or perhaps you could use the word "responsibility".

Who is to blame, or who is responsible? The person who fitted the tile (if they made a bad job of it) is partly to blame. The person who didn't maintain their roof is partly to blame. The kid who threw a stone onto the roof, causing the tile to slip its moorings is partly to blame. And you are partly to blame for walking up that alleyway.

Replace the word "blame" with "responsible", if it makes it easier. It is a matter of cause and effect. Premonition isn't in the equation. You don't know that the tile will fall, but you made the choice to walk up that alley; you must share part of the blame/responsibility for what occurred. Even if the level of blame/responsibility is a very small one. You were one of the (possibly many) agents responsible for that end result.

The person who invented sloped roofs is also partly to blame, btw. :)
Tho' Nature, red in tooth and celt
With ravine, shriek'd against his creed

Red Celt's Blog
RedCelt69
User avatar
 
Posts: 947
Joined: Tue Jul 29, 2008 4:28 pm

Re: Slutwalk

Postby G13 on Mon May 16, 2011 1:27 pm

Lonely Pilgrim,

- "there are things one can do, and a wise person should do, to reduce the chance of being raped" - uh, no, and not the examples you gave. Only a minority of rapes are committed by a stranger, so taking measures to combat that event does nothing to tackle the far more likely and common not-stranger rape. In St Andrews, referencing a place that I imagine we're all familiar with, the likelihood of being raped while out walking alone at night is pretty low. I'm well aware that it happens, yes, but I'm saying that going for a walk alone at night is unlikely to end in being raped, and most rapes do not happen in that situation, so eliminating that situation does very little to reduce one's chance of being raped.

There are also serious problems with our society giving that as reasonable advice to people. The general safety measure of avoiding dodgy areas is given to everyone, and indeed seems to be a wise move for personal safety (although what people who live in those areas are expected to do, I have no idea). This advice covers risks of being in any way physically harmed, threatened, or having one's stuff nicked. However, "rape avoidance" advice is usually aimed solely at women. The general thought is, "a woman should not walk alone at night". Effectively, this curtails the freedom of a group of people. According to this advice, a woman is only able to be out of the house in the dark if she can be accompanied by someone she lives with (or there may still be a 2-minute walk between people's houses), has the fortune to know a man who would escort her home, or has the money to pay for a taxi (public transport may not be available, or if it is, is often considered unsafe). If that situation was the case for everyone, then I don't think much of that society, but if it affects only one group, that's a form of oppression on that group.

The problem with having things that reasonable people "should" do to lower their chance of being raped is that a woman never seems to have done enough. There seems to be always Something that a rape victim should have done differently, and this is used to blame her for what happened, to withhold help and support from her, and to provide an excuse for not pursuing the rapist or condemning their behaviour. If a woman is accompanied home by a male acquaintance to avoid walking alone and he attacks her, people question the wisdom of being alone with a man, question whether she surely must have known that he wasn't a good man, a sensible woman does not take a man alone near her house, maybe she actually wanted it... Sometimes a woman is attacked by a taxi driver, and somebody claims she should have vetted her taxi company better. It's never-ending. Of course I'm not saying that Everybody says All these things, Always, but unfortunately, Somebody does always say some of them, and as a result, rape and sexual assualt victims do not get the support that they need from society in general.

Of course there are occasions when someone who got drunk with strangers was raped by a stranger. I think there are more stories, though, of someone who got drunk with people they thought were their friends being raped by one or more of them. Not getting drunk with strangers is no protection. Not getting utterly blitzed with strangers is probably a good way of taking care of oneself of any gender to ensure one still has all one's possessions the next morning, etc, but around the issue of rape, "drunk" is problematic. There are too many cases where someone had a small amount of alcohol, was raped, and the alcohol was used as get-out, saying, they'd been drinking, they don't remember saying yes, everyone was equally drunk, it was all an equal drunken mistake. Also, heavens, most of us have had extremely enjoyable evenings where we've met some folk for the first time over a few drinks: do we really want to suggest that this is denied to women? If a woman attempts to follow all of the "rape avoidance" advice, for many folk, the result would be a greatly restricted life.

Those restrictions, given to one group of people, are unacceptable, because if a society chooses to oppress that group of people, it can do so by policing their lives at the threat of violence. If l lived in a society where a woman walking around at night was highly likely to be raped or sexually assualted, I would not do so, because my immediate personal safety would win out; however, the response to this situation is not to spread the message in said society that women should not go out alone after dark, but to change the societal situation so that it is safe to do so. Demanding that a group changes its behaviour in response to violence victimises them further and allows the violence to continue relatively unchallenged.

A note about gender and sexual assault, as RedCelt and then QueerCommunist brought it up explicitly. It is absolutely true that, due to the overwhelming patterns of the gender of those affected and those assaulting, any conversation about it is going to be gendered, and should be, as society's view of gender, and the roles inhabited/expected of people have a huge impact on the situation and on each of our individual angles on it. I believe that I've (at least mostly) managed to write "men" "women" "people" and "person who is assaulted" when I meant to. At the same time, the individual experience of sexual assault is exactly that, whatever the gender of the person affected (although a person is likely to experience the results differently at least partly according to their gender, their own view of that gender, and society's expectations of that gender). I'm trying to say that yes, absolutely men experience rape and sexual assuault too, and it makes me indescribably angry when that is so often completely erased, ignored and denied, and individual men cannot find any kind of support. On a systemic level, gender is entirely relevant to discussions of attitudes to sexual assault and rape, but on an individual, personal-story disclosing level, I don't give a flying monkey what gender an assaulted person is, they receive my compassion and understanding just the same, and their gender is irrelevant to that compassion and understanding. I come across people who seem willing and able to combine these two approaches far, far too rarely.
G13
 

Re: Slutwalk

Postby Anon. on Mon May 16, 2011 11:51 pm

G13 wrote: For some people, they're also reclaiming the word slut (trying to remove the stigmatisation of the word)


What I thought was quite an interesting article by our former Rectorial candidate on the origins of the word:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/women ... dirty.html
Anon.
 
Posts: 2779
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 1970 12:00 am

Re: Slutwalk

Postby macgamer on Tue May 17, 2011 8:58 am

I see that Ms Greer writes:

'Historically, the term "slut" has carried a predominantly negative association. Aimed at those who were sexually promiscuous, be it for work or pleasure, it has primarily been women who have suffered under the burden of this label. We are tired of being oppressed by slut-shaming; of being judged by our sexuality…'

She later go on to describe how in mixed-sex university accommodation it is the the women who are the first to crack and clean. Perhaps a generalisation and a stereotype, but I see her point.

It is unfair that when women are promiscuous they are called 'loose' or a 'slut', when men do the same they're a 'player'. Or when when women are untidy they are dirty and unkept, but when men act this way it is a case of 'boys will be boys'.

This is discrimination - society should reanalyse whether it considers sexual promiscuity acceptable or not. If it does, then why this imbalance in casting moral opprobrium?

As for female appearence and rape. I'd say men are more visually stimulated than women, so women should take that into account. The women should ask themselves, given that men are so visually stimulated, should I dress in a manner that it likely to attract attention that I do not want? However, this should have no bearing in the judgement of a man in the case of rape. Men should exercise self-control and keep custody of their eyes. However as RedCelt noted, rapists seem to exhibit a psychological pathology that is not primarily driven by lust.
"Progress should mean that we are always changing the world to fit the vision, instead we are always changing the vision."
- G.K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy, 1908
macgamer
User avatar
 
Posts: 584
Joined: Thu Nov 18, 2004 5:08 pm

Re: Slutwalk

Postby jollytiddlywink on Tue May 17, 2011 9:18 pm

G13, I read your post with interest, and I'd like to say that it seems, to me at least, to have covered several relevant topics admirably, clearly, and compassionately. Thanks. I must note that this post will doubtless fall a long way short of yours.


I am surprised to see that macgamer has recognised an incidence of gender discrimination (but not one concerning the lack of female priests), although he doesn't realise the half of it. Not only does society apply a double standard in that men are allowed to be promiscuous but women are not, but there is also, it seems, a double standard of what constitutes promiscuity in each gender, in that men can sleep with more partners than a woman can before the 'promiscuous' label is applied. Lastly, women are doubly caught between being 'a slut' and being 'frigid', when no such label is applied to a man who rejects sexual advances or otherwise does not pursue sexual activity.

macgamer wrote:As for female appearence and rape. I'd say men are more visually stimulated than women, so women should take that into account. The women should ask themselves, given that men are so visually stimulated, should I dress in a manner that it likely to attract attention that I do not want? However, this should have no bearing in the judgement of a man in the case of rape. Men should exercise self-control and keep custody of their eyes. However as RedCelt noted, rapists seem to exhibit a psychological pathology that is not primarily driven by lust.


I scarcely know where to begin. Surely you won't react badly if I note that catholic priests are visually stimulated, so choir-boys should take that into account. They should ask themselves, given that priests are so visually stimulated, should they dress in a manner likely to attract attention that they do not want? This is, after all, your argument, word for word.

If you have ever worn a suit, you, macgamer, have been guilty of just the same visual provocation you are accusing women of. You have purposefully, wantonly, worn clothes which accentuate the sexual characteristics of men, namely, broad shoulders and a narrow waist and an inverted triangular shape of the torso. Would you have borne responsibility if you had been raped while wearing a suit?

Ultimately, what actually matters is that rape is not a crime of lust at all, so much so that in the US and Canada, there are legal restrictions in rape trials on cross-examining the victim on what they were doing or wearing at the time of the alleged rape, because it is recognised as being irrelevant. Rape is a crime of power and violence. To say anything else, especially to blatantly say that women ought just to dress more conservatively (in burqas, perhaps?), is to blame the victim. It is reprehensible.
jollytiddlywink
 
Posts: 297
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2008 12:23 am

Re: Slutwalk

Postby jollytiddlywink on Tue May 17, 2011 9:41 pm

Surprise, surprise. Everyone's favourite dark-age thinker, Aquinas, argued that masturbation was much worse than rape, because rape was a procreative act, and presumably therefore makes god smile.
It seems that reading Aquinas will rot your conscience as well as your brains.
jollytiddlywink
 
Posts: 297
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2008 12:23 am

Re: Slutwalk

Postby macgamer on Wed May 18, 2011 8:35 am

Once again you have picked certain sentences that I wrote and used them to say what you want them to. Note that I said:
macgamer wrote:However, this [women's appearence] should have no bearing in the judgement of a man in the case of rape.


I agree with the sentiments of G13's comment:
G13 wrote:However, the response to this situation is not to spread the message in said society that women should not go out alone after dark, but to change the societal situation so that it is safe to do so. Demanding that a group changes its behaviour in response to violence victimises them further and allows the violence to continue relatively unchallenged.


jollytiddlywink wrote:I am surprised to see that macgamer has recognised an incidence of gender discrimination (but not one concerning the lack of female priests), although he doesn't realise the half of it.

'Surprised to see' - that was a bit catty even by your standards, but I love you too JTW.

jollytiddlywink wrote:Not only does society apply a double standard in that men are allowed to be promiscuous but women are not, but there is also, it seems, a double standard of what constitutes promiscuity in each gender, in that men can sleep with more partners than a woman can before the 'promiscuous' label is applied. Lastly, women are doubly caught between being 'a slut' and being 'frigid', when no such label is applied to a man who rejects sexual advances or otherwise does not pursue sexual activity.

If a woman can be called a 'slut' or a 'whore' for promiscuious behaviour, when a man does the same, he should expect to be labelled a 'man-slut' or 'man-whore'. He certainly shouldn't expect to be called a gentleman anyway. Did the '60s happen? Where has the ideal of 'free-love' gone? Perhaps even a secular society, that doesn't listen to the likes of me, should discourage promiscuity out of the fact that it increases the spread of STIs. Pragmatism.

macgamer wrote:I scarcely know where to begin. Surely you won't react badly if I note that catholic priests are visually stimulated, so choir-boys should take that into account. They should ask themselves, given that priests are so visually stimulated, should they dress in a manner likely to attract attention that they do not want? This is, after all, your argument, word for word.

I will repeat what I repeated above for the sake of clarity: 'However, this [women's appearence] should have no bearing in the judgement of a man in the case of rape.' The appearence of a woman does not provide just cause for rape or even mean that she bears responsibility. My comment was an appeal to pragmatism. We do not live in a perfect society, although you being the liberal-progressive should be working to bring that about should you not?, so we must be pragmatic even if that means sacrificing certain freedoms such as dressing provocatively.

In perfect society we could go about naked and no one would give a second glance, no one would be stimulated visually because they would maintain custody of their eyes or not entertain lustful thoughts about people. It is the same when one considers the difference between art and pornography: art is portraying beauty in all its forms, pornography is distorting the essence of beauty in order to titilate. One could find certain pieces of art titilating, but either there something wrong with the art or there is something wrong with you.

jollytiddlywink wrote:If you have ever worn a suit, you, macgamer, have been guilty of just the same visual provocation you are accusing women of. You have purposefully, wantonly, worn clothes which accentuate the sexual characteristics of men, namely, broad shoulders and a narrow waist and an inverted triangular shape of the torso. Would you have borne responsibility if you had been raped while wearing a suit?

I cannot speak on behalf of women, but I'm of the opinion that a well fitting suit of a good cut, improves the appearence of any man. As with art and pornography, there is a difference in clothing between making the wearer appear smart or dapper and revealing every shape of one's body. I notice that even in men's clothing there is a trend to more tight fitting items. So yes men can be guilty of it, but I don't consider a suit that fits properly i.e. not tight and spivvish, is provocative. If it is, there is something wrong with the observer. I'm discussing this because, people are visually stimulated, so we should be conscious of that. Ideally it wouldn't be an issue, but we don't live in an ideal world. This situation could be improved.

jollytiddlywink wrote:Ultimately, what actually matters is that rape is not a crime of lust at all, so much so that in the US and Canada, there are legal restrictions in rape trials on cross-examining the victim on what they were doing or wearing at the time of the alleged rape, because it is recognised as being irrelevant. Rape is a crime of power and violence. To say anything else, especially to blatantly say that women ought just to dress more conservatively (in burqas, perhaps?), is to blame the victim. It is reprehensible.

I'm not sure that you could say that lust plays no part in it, I've already acknowledged that in serial rapists there is a psychological pathology detached from lust that drives them to rape. However there is non-consensual sex carried out by people without the psychological pathology of a rapist. For example, two drunk parties, the sex is driven by lust, one thought consent was given, the other doesn't remember giving consent.
"Progress should mean that we are always changing the world to fit the vision, instead we are always changing the vision."
- G.K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy, 1908
macgamer
User avatar
 
Posts: 584
Joined: Thu Nov 18, 2004 5:08 pm

Re: Slutwalk

Postby macgamer on Wed May 18, 2011 8:42 am

jollytiddlywink wrote:Surprise, surprise. Everyone's favourite dark-age thinker, Aquinas, argued that masturbation was much worse than rape, because rape was a procreative act, and presumably therefore makes god smile.
It seems that reading Aquinas will rot your conscience as well as your brains.

'Dark-age' really? When will people abandon that ridiculous term.

As for Aquinas, I can't remember where exactly he said that, perhaps he was just philosophising rather than making a definitive statement on morality, I would need to review the context. I can see what he is saying on a certainly level, but rape is primarily violence against a person.

Aquinas may be a Doctor of the Church, but that doesn't mean everything he wrote is de fide and infallible.

So much ire on your part JTW, you should calm down, although I do find all the sarcasm and bile strangely attractive...
"Progress should mean that we are always changing the world to fit the vision, instead we are always changing the vision."
- G.K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy, 1908
macgamer
User avatar
 
Posts: 584
Joined: Thu Nov 18, 2004 5:08 pm

Re: Slutwalk

Postby RedCelt69 on Wed May 18, 2011 8:50 am

Regarding the gender differences... I know all too full well that the vast majority of rape is performed by men against women. The same is true of domestic violence.

I (in part) tried to remove the gender recognition of the victims because male representation (by many) is ignored completely. I'm more familiar with this pattern than I might usually be because I've been reading feminist literature recently. It is all too familiar a story that whenever a societal injustice is mentioned, the victimisation is entirely concentrated on the female side; and, by "concentrated" I mean that male victimisation is ignored, or pretended to be non-existent. When reading such accounts, I'd be a lot happier if it wasn't painted as man's fault. It is the fault of the abuser, not the abuser's gender.

Some (ardent) feminists argue that all heterosexual intercourse is a form of rape; that men, because they're men, are all either rapists in fact or rapists in desire. As a man, that fucks me right the way off the Irate Chart.

When some say that society limits the freedom of women because they must take precautions that men don't need to take, remember that it is genetics to blame and not society. As has already been very clearly outlined, rape is about power. With rape and domestic violence, the strong(er) are abusing the weak(er). Men, by build are generally stronger than women. I mean, there are plenty of strong women who could bounce a lot of weak men around... but, generally (and predominately) men are stronger. So, of course, rape and domestic violence (an abusive extension of strength) occurs more frequently by men against women.

But that doesn't make all men evil, avoidable and untrustworthy - whether late at night or in the middle of the day.

Nor does it make men responsible for the reduction in women's freedoms.
Tho' Nature, red in tooth and celt
With ravine, shriek'd against his creed

Red Celt's Blog
RedCelt69
User avatar
 
Posts: 947
Joined: Tue Jul 29, 2008 4:28 pm

Re: Slutwalk

Postby macgamer on Thu May 19, 2011 7:00 am

"Progress should mean that we are always changing the world to fit the vision, instead we are always changing the vision."
- G.K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy, 1908
macgamer
User avatar
 
Posts: 584
Joined: Thu Nov 18, 2004 5:08 pm

Re: Slutwalk

Postby RedCelt69 on Thu May 19, 2011 12:49 pm

Tho' Nature, red in tooth and celt
With ravine, shriek'd against his creed

Red Celt's Blog
RedCelt69
User avatar
 
Posts: 947
Joined: Tue Jul 29, 2008 4:28 pm

Next

Return to The Sinner's Main Board

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 23 guests

cron