Counterproposal: Don't dress like a slut...
- Thread starter visceral_instinct
- Start date
so you're admitting you're incapable of intelligent discussion, because the plight of women and disgustingness of rape are too consuming and important?
NO FUCKING WONDER I COULDN'T HAVE A DISCUSSION ABOUT THIS SHIT.
yep, the only way to prove one's innocence is to never discuss things from an EVIL PERSONS perspective. basically if i say rapist, and don't include 'rape is bad, womens rights are awesome, lets kill all the rapists' in the same sentence, i must be in league with the devil.
when did i say rape is a lovely thing that everyone should do? when did i say rapists should never be prosecuted depending on what women wear?
you both caught me. i am a rapist. and i rape women who dress sluttily (most attractively in my opinion). hookers are too expensive, and girlfriends are too much work. i have proved my argument. seems the only way to do it.
can you prove there aren't other rapists just like me? that rape people purely out of sexual urges, and are therefore influenced by the clothing of the women?
being a slut isn't gender specific. see how your caught up in womens rights? by the way, you're only assuming i'm sexist cos of the connotations of my posts, not because of what i've actually said. its like saying 'terrorists had reasons', doesn't mean i support terrorism.
if you can't deal with a word i use, that's your problem. i don't care about your needs. don't enter a thread with slut in the title, then tell me i can't use the word slut.
A Personal Note for Phlog and Codanblad
A Personal Note for Phlog and Codanblad
On the one hand, as Codanblad noted, the word appears in the title.
To the other, I would suggest a few points of consideration:
I went to see Iron Maiden last night. It was a good show. And there was a broad range of what we used to call "metal sluts" or "metal chicks". Or I might recall Geezerfest last year, when a bunch of pre-grunge Seattle bands hauled themselves out and played sets, some for the first time in twenty years. There was this woman who dropped my jaw. She looked like a proper metal chick straight out of 1985. Bad makeup, a ton of Aqua Net, fishnets, high-heeled boots, leather skirt, and the classic short-sleeved blouse unbuttoned to show hints of a lacy black bra. And, yeah, she caught me staring. What could I possibly say? "That is awesome," I told her, and gave her devil horns.
It was a costume. Pure and simple. She wanted to dress up like a metal slut for a special occasion. And she said so. Even used the words "metal slut". And that's the thing: she appreciated being received in the proper context. Somehow I just don't think she would have taken it the same way if I'd said, "Damn, what do I have to do to hit that?"
And certainly there is a kind of eros about such appearances, but the proposed solution, that women should not dress provocatively, accomplishes nothing in terms of reducing rape in general. Statistically speaking, it does very little for any given individual in terms of preventing rape. There are certainly more dangerous behaviors, and if the reality is that a woman should not consume intoxicants in the presence of men, or be alone with a male, or even go out on dates—because these behaviors all present opportunities for a determined rapist—that suggests a deeper societal problem. The failure of the attire advocates to address this aspect suggests much about their priorities. The whole precaution argument is left open-ended—this is the very problem the topic post addresses—and while its advocates seem to resent the implications of misogyny, they really don't seem interested in establishing the boundaries of their argument.
Thus:
There are plenty of precautions for people to take, but there comes a point when people say, "Fuck that!" Because none of those precautions do a damn thing about whatever threat people are attempting to protect themselves against.
I think at some point it becomes incumbent upon the attire advocates to proscribe the boundaries of their precaution argument as they see it. This would help others understand something about what seems so obvious to them. But left as a general, potentially infinite cycle of suppressing oneself for fear, it really does seem a strange argument difficult to justify.
Anyone should be able to feel sexy without inviting anyone and everyone to hop on. It was absolutely wonderful to see hundreds of metal chicks. Certainly the Iron Maiden concert, and seemingly life itself, would be diminished greatly if the prescribed solution was that kind of self-suppression.
The only self-suppressing answer acceptable is impossible: that the rapists should learn to control themselves.
Life goes on. Do we cower in fear or seek effective means of reducing the threat?
A Personal Note for Phlog and Codanblad
Phlogistician said:
On the one hand, as Codanblad noted, the word appears in the title.
To the other, I would suggest a few points of consideration:
• The use of slut in the title refers in part to the argument put forth by others that the topic starter wished to explore.
• Most of us, by now, get the hint and have even grown tired of seeing the word over and over and over again. It is explicitly part of the proposition, and the only reason to keep hammering it into the discussion is because someone chooses to. A question arises as to why.
• The descriptions of a slut we've encountered so far range from stereotype to caricature.
• Largely absent from the discussion is the concept of provocative. At some point, it starts to seem that a pair of jeans that complements a woman's ass qualifies as slutty, and that would be just silly.
• What, according to whom, qualifies as slutty?
• Most of us, by now, get the hint and have even grown tired of seeing the word over and over and over again. It is explicitly part of the proposition, and the only reason to keep hammering it into the discussion is because someone chooses to. A question arises as to why.
• The descriptions of a slut we've encountered so far range from stereotype to caricature.
• Largely absent from the discussion is the concept of provocative. At some point, it starts to seem that a pair of jeans that complements a woman's ass qualifies as slutty, and that would be just silly.
• What, according to whom, qualifies as slutty?
I went to see Iron Maiden last night. It was a good show. And there was a broad range of what we used to call "metal sluts" or "metal chicks". Or I might recall Geezerfest last year, when a bunch of pre-grunge Seattle bands hauled themselves out and played sets, some for the first time in twenty years. There was this woman who dropped my jaw. She looked like a proper metal chick straight out of 1985. Bad makeup, a ton of Aqua Net, fishnets, high-heeled boots, leather skirt, and the classic short-sleeved blouse unbuttoned to show hints of a lacy black bra. And, yeah, she caught me staring. What could I possibly say? "That is awesome," I told her, and gave her devil horns.
It was a costume. Pure and simple. She wanted to dress up like a metal slut for a special occasion. And she said so. Even used the words "metal slut". And that's the thing: she appreciated being received in the proper context. Somehow I just don't think she would have taken it the same way if I'd said, "Damn, what do I have to do to hit that?"
And certainly there is a kind of eros about such appearances, but the proposed solution, that women should not dress provocatively, accomplishes nothing in terms of reducing rape in general. Statistically speaking, it does very little for any given individual in terms of preventing rape. There are certainly more dangerous behaviors, and if the reality is that a woman should not consume intoxicants in the presence of men, or be alone with a male, or even go out on dates—because these behaviors all present opportunities for a determined rapist—that suggests a deeper societal problem. The failure of the attire advocates to address this aspect suggests much about their priorities. The whole precaution argument is left open-ended—this is the very problem the topic post addresses—and while its advocates seem to resent the implications of misogyny, they really don't seem interested in establishing the boundaries of their argument.
Thus:
• Don't want your car stolen? Don't own a car.
• Don't want to get mugged on the streets? Don't go out.
• Don't want to be raped by your husband? Don't get married.
• How do you protect your children from the ever-looming threat of sexual abuse and assault? Don't have kids.
• Don't want to die of cancer? Kill yourself now.
• Don't want to get mugged on the streets? Don't go out.
• Don't want to be raped by your husband? Don't get married.
• How do you protect your children from the ever-looming threat of sexual abuse and assault? Don't have kids.
• Don't want to die of cancer? Kill yourself now.
There are plenty of precautions for people to take, but there comes a point when people say, "Fuck that!" Because none of those precautions do a damn thing about whatever threat people are attempting to protect themselves against.
I think at some point it becomes incumbent upon the attire advocates to proscribe the boundaries of their precaution argument as they see it. This would help others understand something about what seems so obvious to them. But left as a general, potentially infinite cycle of suppressing oneself for fear, it really does seem a strange argument difficult to justify.
Anyone should be able to feel sexy without inviting anyone and everyone to hop on. It was absolutely wonderful to see hundreds of metal chicks. Certainly the Iron Maiden concert, and seemingly life itself, would be diminished greatly if the prescribed solution was that kind of self-suppression.
The only self-suppressing answer acceptable is impossible: that the rapists should learn to control themselves.
Life goes on. Do we cower in fear or seek effective means of reducing the threat?
Grow up, ... you overused the word, you failed to quote it, and you seem to imply that there really are women who it's OK to call 'sluts' (and despite your recent claim, you have only referred to women in such a way.)
If you had a point to make, you went about it in the most clumsy, insensitive way, and failed to see that you were digging yourself a hole you couldn't get out of, and then, this last little pathetic rant of yours, as if digging yourself even deeper is going to get you out of the other side.
Violence on males based on attire (which I would assume is associated with either gang 'culture' or with intent to rob) is not the same as rape although both are equally abhorrent.
All you are trying to do randwolf if score a wee point about attire. Oh perhaps if the woman hadn't been wearing a ponytail that day her attacker wouldn't have been able to grab her, push her to the ground and rape her.
OK here's a hypothetical for you. Let's suppose all the women of the world suddenly stop wearing ponytails. Do you think rapes will go down statistically?
Or lets put it another way. If all women donned a burkha and stood stock still in only in brightly lit places that rapes would go down statistically?
You see trying (and failing) to hammer home your trivial point does not trivialise the impact of rape. Nor does it alter the fact that the largest % of rapes are not committed by strangers out in the dark scanning for a victim in a pony tail/short dress/hign heels. The majority of rapists have ready access to a victim handily sitting with them at home or in the house of a friend or relative.
In another thread on this forum there is a discussion by actual victims of rape. Perhaps you'd like to give your well thought out advice on attire to them and see if they feel it may have had an impact on their experiences?
Perhaps you might be able to score a discussion point against some blade that's not as sharp as you, eh?
• Don't want your car stolen? don't park in crime ridden areas. take public transportation
• Don't want to get mugged on the streets? safety in numbers. take a friend. carry a gun
• Don't want to be raped by your husband? press charges then divorce the guy
• How do you protect your children from the ever-looming threat of sexual abuse and assault? educate them
• Don't want to die of cancer? diet, exercise and preventive measures
a nuanced take and more realistic options i think
tiassa
pardon but is the template for this discussion some utopian paradise? i mean, i know i have the right of way at the crosswalk when the green light comes on. yet that fact does not preclude an obligatory check on my part.
knowing there are predators out there, anyone who does not caution those known to be at risk of being victimized is doing them a disservice. if dressing down can be shown to produce results, i would get the word out. its what moms tell their daughters. they know that boob tops and mini skirts get more cat calls over conservative attire. mom would like her little girl to be safe from any untoward attention which can then easily escalate into any number of things, rape being one.
now
until considerations of this nature are inadmissible across the board, without any exceptions.......
The jurors said such attire might have brought on the attack.
Nature of Clothing Isn't Evidence In Rape Cases, Florida Law Says
until these irrational perceptions are no longer held....
subjects who were presented with the photograph of Jennifer dressed provocatively were more likely to indicate that she was responsible for John's behavior than were subjects in the two other photograph conditions,
Similarly, there was a greater tendency to agree that John's behavior was justified among subjects in the provocative condition than among subjects in the conservative or no photograph condition,
Subjects who saw Jennifer dressed conservatively or who saw no photograph of her were more likely to agree that John raped Jennifer than were subjects who saw Jennifer dressed provocatively,
The influence of victim's attire on adolescents' judgments of date rape
..i would have all err on the side of caution.
life itself is a risky venture. a balancing act of sorts. only fools rush in, with blinders on, hoping for the best
• Don't want to get mugged on the streets? safety in numbers. take a friend. carry a gun
• Don't want to be raped by your husband? press charges then divorce the guy
• How do you protect your children from the ever-looming threat of sexual abuse and assault? educate them
• Don't want to die of cancer? diet, exercise and preventive measures
a nuanced take and more realistic options i think
tiassa
pardon but is the template for this discussion some utopian paradise? i mean, i know i have the right of way at the crosswalk when the green light comes on. yet that fact does not preclude an obligatory check on my part.
knowing there are predators out there, anyone who does not caution those known to be at risk of being victimized is doing them a disservice. if dressing down can be shown to produce results, i would get the word out. its what moms tell their daughters. they know that boob tops and mini skirts get more cat calls over conservative attire. mom would like her little girl to be safe from any untoward attention which can then easily escalate into any number of things, rape being one.
now
until considerations of this nature are inadmissible across the board, without any exceptions.......
The jurors said such attire might have brought on the attack.
Nature of Clothing Isn't Evidence In Rape Cases, Florida Law Says
until these irrational perceptions are no longer held....
subjects who were presented with the photograph of Jennifer dressed provocatively were more likely to indicate that she was responsible for John's behavior than were subjects in the two other photograph conditions,
Similarly, there was a greater tendency to agree that John's behavior was justified among subjects in the provocative condition than among subjects in the conservative or no photograph condition,
Subjects who saw Jennifer dressed conservatively or who saw no photograph of her were more likely to agree that John raped Jennifer than were subjects who saw Jennifer dressed provocatively,
The influence of victim's attire on adolescents' judgments of date rape
..i would have all err on the side of caution.
life itself is a risky venture. a balancing act of sorts. only fools rush in, with blinders on, hoping for the best
Last edited:
ok i will
you will love the next episode where i run you feminazis over with a steamroller
/snicker
Living in constant fear is no way to live
Indeed. But the equivalent would be, perhaps, to look over your shoulder to see who is walking behind you. If it's a rapist, bolt. This is similar to, say, looking both ways before crossing the street, spying a car careening out of control in your general direction, and trying to get the hell out of the way.
And many parents set an age limit at which their daughters will be allowed to go on dates. We're back to staying home and hiding from the world.
I won't discredit the article for being eighteen years old. Rather, it shows well how prevalent certain attitudes are in society. Let us consider for a moment, please, misogyny in general. Certainly cultural influences are strong, but that only begs the question. The reality is that a tremendous amount of misogyny—much like homophobia, racism, and religious hatred—is learned in the home.
Keeping that notion close at hand, I have in the past suggested that even if we were able to educate rape out of the culture, we would not eliminate rape. The diversity of nature renders a total elimination of sexual abuse and assault impossible.
However, I would propose that, for instance, a tremendous portion of the thousands of rapes taking place on and around American college campuses each year—mostly date rapes—could be eliminated in the future if our society and families spent more resources educating our children in the nature and necessity of basic human respect. Many date rapists simply don't understand what they've done wrong. And if they do, they find within the culture plenty of ammunition with which to defend themselves. Playing hard-to-get? You could tell by her eyes? And, yes, this or that about whatever she was wearing at the time.
What are the precautions, then? Dress conservatively, don't be alone with males, don't go on dates. In other words, get frumpy and hide in your room.
As I said, these precautions are an open-ended proposition. And they fail to address the perpetuation of ideas justifying or even encouraging rape. It's like that old anti-drug commercial: "Who taught you to do this stuff?" You, alright? I learned it by watching you!
One looks at his son and says, "What the hell were you thinking? Where the hell do those ideas come from?" And then the son replies with any number of strikingly familiar phrases. The father hears, in his son's words, his own voice.
Yeah. People should always take precautions. In this case, however, the open-ended proposition is untenable:
Looking both ways before crossing the street takes a mere second. Hiding away in fear can be your whole life, if you let it.
The question, as I see it, should be, "Until considerations of this nature are inadmissible? Well, what is it going to take to achieve even that?"
It would, compared to the alternative put forth in theories of precaution, be a start.
Gustav said:
Indeed. But the equivalent would be, perhaps, to look over your shoulder to see who is walking behind you. If it's a rapist, bolt. This is similar to, say, looking both ways before crossing the street, spying a car careening out of control in your general direction, and trying to get the hell out of the way.
And many parents set an age limit at which their daughters will be allowed to go on dates. We're back to staying home and hiding from the world.
I won't discredit the article for being eighteen years old. Rather, it shows well how prevalent certain attitudes are in society. Let us consider for a moment, please, misogyny in general. Certainly cultural influences are strong, but that only begs the question. The reality is that a tremendous amount of misogyny—much like homophobia, racism, and religious hatred—is learned in the home.
Keeping that notion close at hand, I have in the past suggested that even if we were able to educate rape out of the culture, we would not eliminate rape. The diversity of nature renders a total elimination of sexual abuse and assault impossible.
However, I would propose that, for instance, a tremendous portion of the thousands of rapes taking place on and around American college campuses each year—mostly date rapes—could be eliminated in the future if our society and families spent more resources educating our children in the nature and necessity of basic human respect. Many date rapists simply don't understand what they've done wrong. And if they do, they find within the culture plenty of ammunition with which to defend themselves. Playing hard-to-get? You could tell by her eyes? And, yes, this or that about whatever she was wearing at the time.
What are the precautions, then? Dress conservatively, don't be alone with males, don't go on dates. In other words, get frumpy and hide in your room.
As I said, these precautions are an open-ended proposition. And they fail to address the perpetuation of ideas justifying or even encouraging rape. It's like that old anti-drug commercial: "Who taught you to do this stuff?" You, alright? I learned it by watching you!
One looks at his son and says, "What the hell were you thinking? Where the hell do those ideas come from?" And then the son replies with any number of strikingly familiar phrases. The father hears, in his son's words, his own voice.
Yeah. People should always take precautions. In this case, however, the open-ended proposition is untenable:
If only I hadn't opened the door thinking it was the Amazon.com delivery! What the hell is she supposed to say? "I'm sorry, I'm all alone in here. Please come back when there are other people are here to protect me!" And, hell, what about the precaution of never exposing your weakness? A-ha! says the rapist. She's all alone in there!
Looking both ways before crossing the street takes a mere second. Hiding away in fear can be your whole life, if you let it.
The question, as I see it, should be, "Until considerations of this nature are inadmissible? Well, what is it going to take to achieve even that?"
It would, compared to the alternative put forth in theories of precaution, be a start.
How silly of me - score a point about attire - ummmm, isn't the entire premise of this thread built around the impact (if any) of attire on rape?
Why would I try to stay on topic, you obviously don't, you seem to be much more concerned with saying the "politically correct" thing and not considering the idea that if attire does significantly impact sexual assaults, then perhaps this would be useful information...
Yes, of course, this obviously follows from the contention that rape is infuenced, to some degree, by attire...
However, this still leaves the question of does it make sense to do this? Is it what we want to do? If you ask my personal opinion, hell no! Does my personal opinion change the reality that we as sapient beings can influence our likelihood of violence? Hell no!
But it would seem that if the consensus was that attire can influence the probability of rape, and women were aware of the correlation, then they could take appropriate (given their mindset and circumstances) precautions to reduce this probability. What the hell is so radical about this concept?
Statistically speaking, again...
Yes, see above times two... No one, at least not me, is advocating that women should immediately, or ever, set about engaging in this sort of behavior. Never the less, intellectually speaking, are you seriously contending that "If all women donned a burkha and stood stock still in only in brightly lit places" that rapes would not go down statistically? For real?
Trivialize?!?!? You jackass, I am trying to minimize the likelihood, not trivialize the outcome!!! If anything, it would seem to me that affecting an attitude of "Oh, don't you worry little chicky, you can't do anything to reduce your chances of being raped, you are powerless, but we men will be here to support you if the bad man gets you" would be the epitomy of trivializing it!!!! Can't anyone else see this?
There you go again, focusing on the percentages that don't apply. In effect, going off topic. No one is contending that your statement is not true!!!
However, are you implying that since the "largest % of rapes are not committed by strangers out in the dark scanning for a victim in a pony tail/short dress/hign heels", that therefore we should ignore the percentage that are? Or the common sense idea of taking precautions?
Are you that fixated on making sure that all women are walking around all the time in all neighborhoods and all situations in high heels and a short dress? Is that what it is coming down to, i.e. your little fantasy of scantily clad women prancing about? Perhaps you should do some introspection....
Bahhhhh... The bleating of sheep....
And not that it will do any good, but I must, of course, put in the disclaimers...
Disclaimers: I do not endorse, advocate, pardon, forgive, overlook or in any other way condone rape or sexual assault of any sort.
Last edited:
Great idea - seriously. This addresses one subcategory of rapes, and offers a suggestion on how to reduce the likelihood...
Imagine, though, if some idiot came up with the idea of not walking through bad neighborhoods in the nude as a way of reducing the chances of being raped...
Well, of course "Aaaahhhhhh... kill the misogynist!!! he obviously condones rape, how dare he say these things!!!! AAAAHHHH!!!!
Hyperbole, I know, but there seems to be a lot of that on both sides...
Anyway, Tiassa, correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be in agreement that some prudence is in order, and that women can have some influence over the likelihood of sexual assault.
If this is true, wouldn't this topic be better served by a discussion on the appropriate responses / precautions? You know, balancing everyone's desires, rights and sense of "what should be" against the harsh realities of life and the fact that some psychos are going to single you out (for whatever reason) and assault you?
Wouldn't this be more productive?
you are such a bloody noob
That's it sniffy, avoid any actual discussion here. 
Oh, BTW just continue to ignore my entire post, you might actually have to think about the issues... :bugeye:
You're really way over your head here... It's ok though, we understand your limitations. :m:
Oh, BTW just continue to ignore my entire post, you might actually have to think about the issues... :bugeye:
You're really way over your head here... It's ok though, we understand your limitations. :m:
politically correct feminazi slut
Keep the labels coming cos you haven't found the right one yet.
I have a little surprise for you randers. There is something that society can do to minimise violence and there are many organisations doing just that. They know very well that violence (not 'skimpy' clothes or pony tails) begets violence; abuse begets abuse; misogyny begets misogyny; racism begets racism.....they also know that although there is plenty that can be done to support victims; blaming them for random acts of violence is not helpful. In fact blame is not a useful tool at all. The most useful thing is to look at the causal effects.
Now there might well be incidents where someone has 'whacked' somebody else because they were say wearing red. The wearing of red is not the reason for the 'whacking'. Even if you legislated against all shades of red the underlying problem; that of gang related violence would not have been addressed in any way whatsoever. The gangs would just choose some other identifying marker and the violence would continue until the entire rainbow was exhausted.
Keep the labels coming cos you haven't found the right one yet.
I have a little surprise for you randers. There is something that society can do to minimise violence and there are many organisations doing just that. They know very well that violence (not 'skimpy' clothes or pony tails) begets violence; abuse begets abuse; misogyny begets misogyny; racism begets racism.....they also know that although there is plenty that can be done to support victims; blaming them for random acts of violence is not helpful. In fact blame is not a useful tool at all. The most useful thing is to look at the causal effects.
Now there might well be incidents where someone has 'whacked' somebody else because they were say wearing red. The wearing of red is not the reason for the 'whacking'. Even if you legislated against all shades of red the underlying problem; that of gang related violence would not have been addressed in any way whatsoever. The gangs would just choose some other identifying marker and the violence would continue until the entire rainbow was exhausted.
That's it sniffy, avoid any actual discussion here.
Oh, BTW just continue to ignore my entire post, you might actually have to think about the issues... :bugeye:
You're really way over your head here... It's ok though, we understand your limitations. :m:
Shame you can't see your own.