Slut walk

[2canchew]

r_s426, a woman walking alone at night through Regent Park is putting herself at risk REGARDLESS of what she is wearing. Wearing something slutty does not make her risk any greater. Certainly women should take responsibility for their safety and not put themselves in dangerous situations--but dress has got nothing to do with rape.

I believe that a woman dressed slutty in a club is more likely to be GROPED, but she is *not* more likely to be raped. There is actually data on this that Gen posted in the other thread on this topic.

The idea that the way a woman dresses has anything to do with whether or not she gets raped is actually a myth.

We are not just talking about bad areas ( Regent Park ) so your point is mute. It can happen anywhere, however, if your dressing slutty, not sexy but SLUTTY, how do the women know what kind of men are in a bar or restaurant or a board room. They don't know what mental state some men are in bars, they see a slutty dressed woman, who only dress like that to get the attention of the male population of the bar ( and maybe the female population too ) then that man gets rejected because he thought the way she is dressed it's automantic lay, considering the amount of money he spent, wants what he wants no matter what the girl says.
What about the Board Room, big time exec, the girl dress slutty to get a promotion, drinks start, the boss thinks " hay, she gives me the impression that she is easy" allllright ! Then she says no, he thinks if you want your job you will do what I want. It's called the impression that you give. If you dress like a easy slutt then your going to give that impression. One more thing, and this is a biggy, NO WHERE DID I SAY THAT ANY OF THESE WOMEN THAT I USED TO MAKE MY POINT DESERVERED TO BE RAPE OR SEXUALLY ASSUALTED, THE POINT IS THIS," YOU NEVER, EVER KNOW THE MENTAL STATE OF SOME MEN, DON'T PUT YOURSELF IN A DANGEROUS SITUATION !

PS thank you for proving my point, Groping is sexual assault

 

[genintoronto]

This debate has been done to death. Women should realize that they are increasing their risk of being sexually assaulted by dressing provocatively and men should realize that sexual assualt is a crime no matter how the victim is dressed. Is there much more to say?

It must be nice to have the privilege of not living with the constant threat of being sexually assaulted, and yet believe that you have a better grasp than women do of the threat we face on a daily basis.

 

[fuji]

PS thank you for proving my point, Groping is sexual assault

Absolutely it is. But it's not rape, and, again, there's no evidence anywhere that women who dress slutty are more likely to be raped. Rapists are generally motivated more by a desire to feel powerful, than attraction.

 

[genintoronto]

51% of all Canadian women have experienced at least one incident of sexual or physical violence. Close to 60% of these women have survived more than one incident of violence (Statistics Canada, 1993, "Violence Against Women Survey", The Daily, 18 November, p. 1, 3)

The Canadian Panel on Violence Against Women found that 38% of sexually assaulted women were assaulted by their husbands, common-law partners or boyfriends. (Canadian Panel on Violence Against Women, 1993)

Of sexual assaults reported to police in Canada in 2002, • 64% took place in a residence • 26% in a public place • 10% in commercial places (Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics, 2003)

In cases reported to police, 80% of sexual assault survivors knew their abusers. About 10% were assaulted by a friend and 41% were assaulted by an acquaintance. 28% were assaulted by a family member, while the remaining 20% were assaulted by a stranger. (Statistics Canada, 2003, The Daily, 25 July)

Most sexual assaults (60%) occur in a private home and the largest percentages of these (38%) occur in the victim’s home. The idea that most sexual assaults fit the ‘stranger-in-a-dark-alley’ stereotype can lead to a false sense of security. (D. Kinnon, “Report on Sexual Assault in Canada, “Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women, Ottawa, 1981)

Victimization surveys show that less than 10% of women who are sexually assaulted report the assault to the police. (Federal/Provincial/Territorial Ministers Responsible for the Status of Women, 2002, Assessing Violence Against Women: A Statistical Profile, p.19)

It is estimated that over 80% of women who are sexually assaulted do not report due to humiliation or fear of re-victimization in the legal process. For women of colour, that fear is worsened by the experience of racism. (Ontario Women's Directorate, 2002, Sexual Assault: Reporting Issues)

----

But why let those pesky facts get in the way of the convenient myth that men rape because women enticed them to, especially if this slut shaming/victim blaming helps in preventing women from reporting the violence done to them and helps men who rape to get away with it?

---

"Men are committing the rapes. Let them be put under curfew.” — Golda Meir, Prime Minister of Israel 1969-73, in response to a suggestion by a member of the cabinet that women be put under curfew to protect them from an epidemic of violent rapes.

 

[burt-oh-my!]

I find this walk to be a bit on the silly side- becaue I thought the police disavowed the comment of this lone police officer. So his comments do not reflect tht of the police force.

 

[brett_d]

This begs the question; If I present myself dressed in KKK or Nazi attire - shouldn't I expect people around me the treat me like a racist? Similarly, if I dress in a uniform - don't people seek out your influence and authority? I don't understand why dressing in scantily clothing DESIGNED TO ATTRACT ATTENTION somehow falls into a different classification?

Now, this does not pardon any criminal or disrespectful act - to the contrary. People have to assume accountability for their actions. But it's a two way street here...

 

[rld]

This begs the question; If I present myself dressed in KKK or Nazi attire - shouldn't I expect people around me the treat me like a racist? Similarly, if I dress in a uniform - don't people seek out your influence and authority? I don't understand why dressing in scantily clothing DESIGNED TO ATTRACT ATTENTION somehow falls into a different classification?

Now, this does not pardon any criminal or disrespectful act - to the contrary. People have to assume accountability for their actions. But it's a two way street here...

Your logic completely fails. Totally and utterly and it is really quite sad.

If you dress in a KKK uniform or Nazi attire you could well be expected to be treated like a racist.

But you could not reasonably expect to be beaten to death by a black man or a jew.

Same thing about the uniform. You may put on the uniform but it does not give you the right to make an arrest etc.

People can treat you any way they like, within the law. Once they go outside the law they must be punished.

The acts are prohibited for good reasons. And the CCC doesn't make exceptions for dress etc.

Perhaps you think we should amend the code:

No sexual assualt unless one is dressed in a 'slutty' manner.

No fraud except against people who drive a nice car or have a nice house, they deserve it.

No assualt except against annoying people.

And it is not a "two way street." You have a right to dress as you choose. Our system also confirms your right to be free of unwanted sexual touching. It's actually really simple...

Clearly our school system is failing us.

 

[69Shooter]

Wow, things seemed much simpler when we were just debating the merits (or lack therefore) of randomly approaching women for sex at the mall!

 

[AMOR VINCIT OMNIA]

This thread is stupid. The arguments are circular and show, generally, a strong emotional attachment to a fixed position. There are no hard statistics that support either side. We all agree that rape is evil and that sexual assault is too. What some of us disagree on are the laws of cause and effect. To dress "sluttily" is to dress provocatively. What is provocatively? A provocateur intends to provoke some response - what response does dressing "sluttily" intend to provoke? If nothing else, to attract attention beyond the norm. Such attention being achieved, is it not reasonable to assume that the achiever of that attention might be more susceptible to being the target of unwanted attention? Hence, the act of wearing "slutty" clothes might serve to act to focus the attention of someone who might have evil intent on his/her mind. Besides, is there anyone out there who can assert, with absolute certainty, that the manner in which a victim was dressed was NEVER IN THE HISTORY OF MANKIND the cause of a rape? Hence this argument is moot and is a kneejerk response of a group of individuals who don't want to admit that they might bear more than a little responsibility in some uncomfortable situations. The analogies used in the arguments are all valid, because they all refer to appearance as a factor in focusing attention be it wanted or unwanted. The slutty-dressed individual, ideally, should be prepared to deal with any attention created, rather than blame it on the person who notices her/him. This argument will never be lost or won - it is deeply seated in the fallacy that "I should be able to do what I want and not have to suffer any consequences."

 

[rld]

This thread is stupid. The arguments are circular and show, generally, a strong emotional attachment to a fixed position. There are no hard statistics that support either side. We all agree that rape is evil and that sexual assault is too. What some of us disagree on are the laws of cause and effect. To dress "sluttily" is to dress provocatively. What is provocatively? A provocateur intends to provoke some response - what response does dressing "sluttily" intend to provoke? If nothing else, to attract attention beyond the norm. Such attention being achieved, is it not reasonable to assume that the achiever of that attention might be more susceptible to being the target of unwanted attention? Hence, the act of wearing "slutty" clothes might serve to act to focus the attention of someone who might have evil intent on his/her mind. Besides, is there anyone out there who can assert, with absolute certainty, that the manner in which a victim was dressed was NEVER IN THE HISTORY OF MANKIND the cause of a rape? Hence this argument is moot and is a kneejerk response of a group of individuals who don't want to admit that they might bear more than a little responsibility in some uncomfortable situations. The analogies used in the arguments are all valid, because they all refer to appearance as a factor in focusing attention be it wanted or unwanted. The slutty-dressed individual, ideally, should be prepared to deal with any attention created, rather than blame it on the person who notices her/him. This argument will never be lost or won - it is deeply seated in the fallacy that "I should be able to do what I want and not have to suffer any consequences."

You are dead wrong Amor.

The argument is, I live in a society that guaruntees that I can dress in the fashion described and prohibits sexual violence as a response to the way I dress.

People should not have to make choices based on the potential actions of violent/depraved individuals.

Trying to bring victim blaming back into fashion?

Your attempts to broaden the argument are intellectually dishonest.

 

[AMOR VINCIT OMNIA]

I am not blaming the "victim." I am merely suggesting that, while you have the right to wear what you want, others might be stimulated to malevolence by that choice and while that malevolence is reprehensible, it cannot be ruled out. Legislated out, perhaps, but there are no external controls on the evil that lives inside man. When it comes down to where the rubber meets the road, you still bear the prime responsiblity for your own safety. You (we) can't expect the law to be proactive at this level. (And if it were, would we really want to live in such a state?) All I am suggesting is that one must live with the choices she/he makes and that there are bad people out there. Besides, do you really think that I am my brother's keeper? Yes, society "prohibits sexual violence as a response to the way I might dress" (and rightfully so), but it does not GUARANTEE that you will not be victimized. I.e., It will punish the wrongdoer after the fact but can not exempt you from harm. Never accuse me of intrellectual dishonesty! Your ad hominem approach carries no water.

 

[rld]

I am not blaming the "victim." I am merely suggesting that, while you have the right to wear what you want, others might be stimulated to malevolence by that choice and while that malevolence is reprehensible, it cannot be ruled out. Legislated out, perhaps, but there are no external controls on the evil that lives inside man. When it comes down to where the rubber meets the road, you still bear the prime responsiblity for your own safety. You (we) can't expect the law to be proactive at this level. (And if it were, would we really want to live in such a state?) All I am suggesting is that one must live with the choices she/he makes and that there are bad people out there. Besides, do you really think that I am my brother's keeper? Yes, society "prohibits sexual violence as a response to the way I might dress" (and rightfully so), but it does not GUARANTEE that you will not be victimized. I.e., It will punish the wrongdoer after the fact but can not exempt you from harm. Never accuse me of intrellectual dishonesty! Your ad hominem approach carries no water.

It's not an ad hominem approach at all. You decided to broaden your opponent's argument to make a false point, you unfairly twisted your opposition's point and I quote (again):

"I should be able to do what I want and not have to suffer any consequences."

Nobody said that. What you did was intellectually dishonest.

And your approach does blame the victim. Flat out. You, and others, suggest they bear "some responsiblity" for dressing in a certain fashion.

That precise mentality is part of the problem, and no part of the solution.

 

[burt-oh-my!]

If you are dressing , in their own words, "slutty', by definition that is in a fashion designed to appeal to sexual interests. So some of those sexual interests will be harmeless, but some might not.

 

[rld]

If you are dressing , in their own words, "slutty', by definition that is in a fashion designed to appeal to sexual interests. So some of those sexual interests will be harmeless, but some might not.

And the point is?

 

[burt-oh-my!]

Well, you know what the point is: if you receive more unwanted attention in those circumstances than you normally would you ought not to be surprised. If everything about you screams "notice me sexually" - well, duh! men are going to notice you sexually, all kinds of men.

It doesn't matter - if a woman is convinced that dressing that way has no effect on her safety, be my guest. If anything happens to her, then to her her dress had nothing to do with it, fair enough. What's the issue? It would of happened anyways.

Those who believe otherwise can dress otherwise, and they too will experience what they experience.

 

[rld]

Well, you know what the point is: if you receive more unwanted attention in those circumstances than you normally would you ought not to be surprised. If everything about you screams "notice me sexually" - well, duh! men are going to notice you sexually, all kinds of men.

It doesn't matter - if a woman is convinced that dressing that way has no effect on her safety, be my guest. If anything happens to her, then to her her dress had nothing to do with it, fair enough. What's the issue? It would of happened anyways.

Those who believe otherwise can dress otherwise, and they too will experience what they experience.

Yes, perhaps we should put our women in hijabs to protect them from lustful men...

I trust you agree there is a distinction between "unwanted attention" and sexual assualt?

 

[burt-oh-my!]

Yes, perhaps we should put our women in hijabs to protect them from lustful men...

I trust you agree there is a distinction between "unwanted attention" and sexual assualt?

Huh?

I am not going to put them in anything - what makes you think you or I have the right to decide that? They can make their own assessment of the risks, and whether they are increasing or decreasing their risks by what they wear, or for that matter by what they do, and act accordingly. That's what we ALL do in fact for ALL kinds of crimes - we judge the risks, and take whatever precautionary measures we deem appropriate. Some people need steel bars on their windows to feel safe from burgularies. It's up to them.

Distinction! I'd call it a lot more than a friggin DISTINCTION! LOL, sexual assault is obviously an illegal form of unwanted sexual attention.

 

[fuji]

TIf nothing else, to attract attention beyond the norm.

Sure that's true, but that's different than rape. The unwanted(?) attention the woman is going to get means getting hit on, stared at, cat called, possibly even an unwanted physical contact, like a squeeze. Now while you could categorize the unwanted physical contact as sexual assault (it legally is), it's not on the same order as rape.

The myth is that rapists are just super horny guys who can't control themselves. They are far more motivated by insecurities and a desire to physically dominate a woman, violently if necessary, to achieve a feeling of power and superiority. Rape is also such an extreme crime that rapists don't often get the chance to be picky about what their victim is wearing, or often even who she is--it's hard enough for them to isolate a woman in a situation where she can be raped without the rapist being caught that there aren't too many opportunities to pick and choose what she's wearing--even if she's known to the attacker, which she usually is.

Certainly a woman who dresses slutty is going to get some extra attention--but the notion that it will amount to rape is just wrong.

 

[GPIDEAL]

This begs the question; If I present myself dressed in KKK or Nazi attire - shouldn't I expect people around me the treat me like a racist? Similarly, if I dress in a uniform - don't people seek out your influence and authority? I don't understand why dressing in scantily clothing DESIGNED TO ATTRACT ATTENTION somehow falls into a different classification?

Now, this does not pardon any criminal or disrespectful act - to the contrary. People have to assume accountability for their actions. But it's a two way street here...

Apples and oranges.

A Nazi or a KKK member is by definition a racist.

A woman dressed in a mini-skirt and heels is not asking or wanting for sex (or from just anyone for that matter).

 

[GPIDEAL]

This debate has been done to death. Women should realize that they are increasing their risk of being sexually assaulted by dressing provocatively and men should realize that sexual assualt is a crime no matter how the victim is dressed. Is there much more to say?

Yes. A free and democratic society loses as a whole if we expect women not to dress a certain way because we can't civilize, educate, or protect them from, modern-day neanderthals.