Confused about the Slutwalk

ragdish
atheist
ragdish's picture
Posts: 461
Joined: 2007-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Confused about the Slutwalk

The whole Slutwalk was the consequence of a Toronto police officer who callously told young women that if you dress provocatively, then you're asking to be sexually assaulted. The guy is an asshole and no matter what a woman wears, no one has the right to violate her. We all deserve to be treated as human beings regardless of attire. And so we have the Slutwalk with hundreds of women marching in protest in scantilly clad attire:

 

But here's the part where I get confused. If a woman wears the sexy clothes and marches for this noble cause, won't there be male onlookers who will ogle and objectify them? Won't the said women end up as ornaments of male desire, an image that feminists want to erase? And what about the feminist argument that women dress this way because their sexual narratives have been negatively dominated by a patriarchical society?

Among all of the social justice movements (ie. civil rights, LGBT rights, etc..), feminism has got to be the most contradictory. What is anti-feminist is feminist and vice versa. And I ask the most important question. Will the Slutwalk achieve the positive social transformative change that these women so desire? Or will it end up as images for male (and also female) masturbation?

Instead of the Slutwalk, why didn't these women instead collectively challenge the courts to stop blaming the victim based on her attire? Why not pursue the matter through legal means via groups in Ontario such as the National Action Committee on the Status of Women?


RatDog
atheist
Posts: 573
Joined: 2008-11-14
User is offlineOffline
ragdish wrote: Will the

ragdish wrote:

 Will the Slutwalk achieve the positive social transformative change that these women so desire? Or will it end up as images for male (and also female) masturbation?

Can't it be both, or neither.  


ragdish
atheist
ragdish's picture
Posts: 461
Joined: 2007-12-31
User is offlineOffline
RatDog wrote:ragdish

RatDog wrote:

ragdish wrote:

 Will the Slutwalk achieve the positive social transformative change that these women so desire? Or will it end up as images for male (and also female) masturbation?

Can't it be both, or neither.  

It can be both but IMO, heavily skewed towards tissues and KY jelly. If a busty young girl in boy shorts, bearing her cleavage approaches me, my response is "Yeah I totally get it. You're all about social justice. Now excuse me while I go spank the monkey".


RatDog
atheist
Posts: 573
Joined: 2008-11-14
User is offlineOffline
ragdish wrote:RatDog

ragdish wrote:

RatDog wrote:

ragdish wrote:

 Will the Slutwalk achieve the positive social transformative change that these women so desire? Or will it end up as images for male (and also female) masturbation?

Can't it be both, or neither.  

It can be both but IMO, heavily skewed towards tissues and KY jelly. If a busty young girl in boy shorts, bearing her cleavage approaches me, my response is "Yeah I totally get it. You're all about social justice. Now excuse me while I go spank the monkey".

Maybe your reaction(and other people's reaction) to their method is actually helping their cause.  If they had protested in a normal way would you be spending time thinking about it, or starting an Internet thread about it(I generally ignore most protests).  I had never even heard about this protest until you made this thread, so their methods allowed them to get their message to at least one more person(probably a lot more then one person).   Maybe their methods are bad for feminism(at least some forms of feminism), but their issues isn't exactly a purely feminist issue.  I imagine that a lot of people who are not feminist would still support the message that it is bad to rap people regardless of what they are wearing. 


Kapkao
atheistSuperfan
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
ragdish wrote:Among all of

ragdish wrote:
Among all of the social justice movements (ie. civil rights, LGBT rights, etc..), feminism has got to be the most contradictory. What is anti-feminist is feminist and vice versa.

All of the social movements you named have their own radical and/or self-defeating elements. 'Perez Hilton', NAACP, "gay mafia", Al Sharpton, Allen Ginsberg, so on and so forth. The Jury's still out on Spike Lee, but judging by his reaction to Katrina it looks like he fits right in this group. Perez Hilton is so heavily despised by fellow (adult, older) gays primarily because of the bad rap he gives the movement, that he would almost be a nonfactor, except he also has enormous visibility. There's also Allen Ginsberg's endorsement of NAMBLA back in 94. These sorts of clusterfucks aren't quick to disappear, and they are exactly the sort of ammunition lobby groups and evangelical organizations look for when attacking gay rights amongst the general public.

Civil rights could make some headway, but there are far too many vile parasites like the ones I named that tarnish the remaining movement. Most vitally, a great deal of the pioneering work in civil rights is now out of the way, and also the oft-lamented white majority is now history, so the priority on racial equity has gone down quite a bit.

Feminism on the hand, has had a few boons in the 21st century. Andrea Dworkin is now dead, and in truth, you could not give a better gift to the movement. Kitty McKinnon and Robin Wright are still alive and mentally competent, so their are still some headaches remaining. Robin Wright, in particular, is a liability that nobody in their right mind wants. Fortunately, she isn't all that visible. Alas, you have the death of Molly Ivins, one of the more credible and influential members of the movement. Her absence leaves a vacuum in the movement.

The most damaging act feminism has done to itself was ally with evangelicals, so I'd say -if anything this 'Slutwalk' will give it a more moderate and shinier public image, though not a necessarily more respectable one.

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


Kapkao
atheistSuperfan
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
RatDog wrote:Maybe your

RatDog wrote:

Maybe your reaction(and other people's reaction) to their method is actually helping their cause.  If they had protested in a normal way would you be spending time thinking about it, or starting an Internet thread about it(I generally ignore most protests).  I had never even heard about this protest until you made this thread, so their methods allowed them to get their message to at least one more person(probably a lot more then one person).   Maybe their methods are bad for feminism(at least some forms of feminism), but their issues isn't exactly a purely feminist issue.  I imagine that a lot of people who are not feminist would still support the message that it is bad to rap people regardless of what they are wearing. 

Grabbing at someone's attention just for the sake of the attention isn't inherently beneficial. Publicity can be perhaps the easiest route to a general public vote of disapproval.

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15771
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
I don't give a shit if the

I don't give a shit if the unwanted touching is not even sexually related, such as hitting another person. NO ONE has the right to hit you or touch you, no matter what you say or what you wear.

Now having said that, I see NOTHING wrong with sexy cloths, just be able to pull it off. And if you do wear sexy cloths, don't complain if people are merely looking at you. They certainly don't have the right to touch you without your consent, but merely looking is not physical contact.

Even in everyday life, on a buss, or subway, or simply walking down the street, BOTH men and women look, some more obvious than others. I've undressed women with my mind wearing even business suits or summer dresses. State of dress doesn't stop people from looking.

I think far too many people get bent out of shape about dress. I think TIME PLACE AND CONTEXT certainly matters. But it is that same false dichotomy of I don't like what they wear, so therefore no one should ever do it.

EVEN if you are at a swingers party or nudist beach, the same rules of "don't touch unless invited" would apply.

The attire in the picture is fine for a protest(in this case) or casual party, but I think they also know that they wouldn't wear it to a formal business meeting or formal wedding. So it isn't either or or right or wrong. TIME PLACE AND CONTEXT.

Right now I am watching Covert Affairs and the lead actress is sexy as hell and certainly masturbation material, and she in the show is more covered up, that doesn't stop me from thinking about fucking her. But in reality if I met her face to face, I most certainly WOULD NOT act on my thoughts. Having the thoughts is not the crime.

I do not think it is "objectifying" thinking about natural sexual desires.

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15771
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
If the women could read the

If the women could read the minds of men even in mundane situations where they aren't dressed like that they would know it doesn't fucking matter. We can and do undress you in our minds no matter what state of dress you are in.

There is a CNN international broadcast on early in the morning when I wake up, and there is one hell of a hot female anchor that gives me a boner. And Robin Mead(SP) on Headline News has huge knockers I'd love to play hide the sausage with.

BUT AGAIN, those are thoughts, and why should I be ashamed of thinking "boy I'd like to fuck that person", even though I know I never will. I don't think women should be as hung up on what other women wear and I don't think men have any right to tell women what to wear.


 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Now having

Brian37 wrote:

Now having said that, I see NOTHING wrong with sexy cloths, just be able to pull it off.

 

I agree some cloths are sexier than other.  Take organza, a silk/cotton blend, a stretchy soft cotton blend, lace or netting.  Wool is not sexy.  I like wearing wool when it is cold and wet outside, but it isn't sexy.  My husband thinks a flannel nightgown is sexy on me, but he is probably the only person on earth who thinks so. 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
@op

I don't know your background, Ragdish, so I am not sure where you are coming from nor why you should care about feminists one way or another.  If you think their attitudes and opinions are contradictory, why is that important?

If it were my town, and we had some stupid guy on the police force say that, I probably would probably join their march.  I wouldn't dress like that as no one would think I looked slutty - just old.

The word is "ironic" in the sense of: "Poignantly contrary to what was expected or intended: madness, an ironic fate for such a clear thinker."  Expected or intended might be women dressed in burkas or business suits, what you get is women showing off their tats.  So why am I not getting attacked on the street, stupid police officer!

As already pointed out, it doesn't matter what you wear, you are a sexual being as well as all the other attributes you may have.  Denying the sexuality does not make it go away.

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3929
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
ragdish wrote:  Will the

ragdish wrote:

 

 

Will the Slutwalk achieve the positive social transformative change that these women so desire? Or will it end up as images for male (and also female) masturbation?

Let me finish cleaning off my computer screen and I'll answer that....

 

OK. The answer is no Slutwalk won't make any change at all. However, this technology will do the job:

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504763_162-20008347-10391704.html

 

Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen


ragdish
atheist
ragdish's picture
Posts: 461
Joined: 2007-12-31
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote:I don't know your

cj wrote:

I don't know your background, Ragdish, so I am not sure where you are coming from nor why you should care about feminists one way or another.  If you think their attitudes and opinions are contradictory, why is that important?

If it were my town, and we had some stupid guy on the police force say that, I probably would probably join their march.  I wouldn't dress like that as no one would think I looked slutty - just old.

The word is "ironic" in the sense of: "Poignantly contrary to what was expected or intended: madness, an ironic fate for such a clear thinker."  Expected or intended might be women dressed in burkas or business suits, what you get is women showing off their tats.  So why am I not getting attacked on the street, stupid police officer!

As already pointed out, it doesn't matter what you wear, you are a sexual being as well as all the other attributes you may have.  Denying the sexuality does not make it go away.

 

cj,

Despite my hyper-critical rants on this and prior threads regarding feminists, I do have respect for the lot of them. And I am sympathetic to a lot of their issues (reproductive rights, violence against women, etc...). Yet again and again the issue of how a woman dresses takes center stage among certain mainstream feminists. The argument goes like this:

 A woman has the right to dress whatever way she likes but her decision to choose a sexually revealing attire is ultimately the product of a patriarchical culture.

To me this is a contradiction that women are ultimately forced to dress certain ways (by men) and that they have the right to do so. It is these sorts of conflicting messages from feminists that IMO detract society from more pressing issues. Maybe you're right. Maybe I shouldn't care. Maybe the whole feminist movement is on the way out. I dunno. But I'm raising 2 boys and I do want the progressive messages to resonate with them as they grow older and interact with the opposite gender. The conflicting messages will only confuse another generation of boys as they become men.


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
ragdish wrote: if you dress

ragdish wrote:

 if you dress provocatively, then you're asking to be sexually assaulted.

 

That is likely from someone who has great difficulty and probably less desire to control their own base urges, in a sense "anti-social". I would also say their societal values are suspect but this is just my opinion.

Rape, pedophilia etc are a product of the lack of self control in many instances I would imagine.

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


wingless_sephiroth
atheist
wingless_sephiroth's picture
Posts: 117
Joined: 2011-04-03
User is offlineOffline
People have the right to

People have the right to think what they want to think, as long as they don't extend that into doing what they want to do. Undress that young woman in your mind, not with your hands without consent. I mean, gay men objectify each other all the time. For instance, a fellow fag may slap my ass when I bend over for the water fountain at some party, and afterwards we will discuss the finer points of how globalisation will affect future economic growth in the developing world. And then we'll fuck. Objectification is an essential part of the sexual courting, at one point or another. Unless you're a lesbian, in which case a recent study has shown some lesbians considering holding hands a form of making love.

Women have it tough. I know several people have already made their points clear that kids like me are just trying to be cool, but radical feminism makes sense. We live in a culture, which like almost all cultures, degrades women in a ridiculous amount of ways, although it gets a little better every day. However, it's elements of that culture we need to attack, not the fact that almost all men (and what some studies suggest, almost all women) find women to be attractive. There is nothing wrong with finding a woman attractive, even if it doesn't really make much sense since they're weird and look like hobbits.

There is no thought police. Undress whom you will, but be liberal with the fabric softener.


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
ragdish wrote:cj wrote:I

ragdish wrote:

cj wrote:

I don't know your background, Ragdish, so I am not sure where you are coming from nor why you should care about feminists one way or another.  If you think their attitudes and opinions are contradictory, why is that important?

If it were my town, and we had some stupid guy on the police force say that, I probably would probably join their march.  I wouldn't dress like that as no one would think I looked slutty - just old.

The word is "ironic" in the sense of: "Poignantly contrary to what was expected or intended: madness, an ironic fate for such a clear thinker."  Expected or intended might be women dressed in burkas or business suits, what you get is women showing off their tats.  So why am I not getting attacked on the street, stupid police officer!

As already pointed out, it doesn't matter what you wear, you are a sexual being as well as all the other attributes you may have.  Denying the sexuality does not make it go away.

 

cj,

Despite my hyper-critical rants on this and prior threads regarding feminists, I do have respect for the lot of them. And I am sympathetic to a lot of their issues (reproductive rights, violence against women, etc...). Yet again and again the issue of how a woman dresses takes center stage among certain mainstream feminists. The argument goes like this:

 A woman has the right to dress whatever way she likes but her decision to choose a sexually revealing attire is ultimately the product of a patriarchical culture.

To me this is a contradiction that women are ultimately forced to dress certain ways (by men) and that they have the right to do so. It is these sorts of conflicting messages from feminists that IMO detract society from more pressing issues. Maybe you're right. Maybe I shouldn't care. Maybe the whole feminist movement is on the way out. I dunno. But I'm raising 2 boys and I do want the progressive messages to resonate with them as they grow older and interact with the opposite gender. The conflicting messages will only confuse another generation of boys as they become men.

 

Well, two things.

First, how one dresses is how one dresses.  Sexy or slutty or provocative are in the mind of the beholder.  And there isn't a damn thing anyone can do about those beholding.  They are going to be looking at you whenever you leave your house - or turn on your cell phone.  Even covering yourself head to toe will not stop the looking.  So I might as well wear what I want to wear and to hell with you all if you don't like it.

I don't think dressing provocatively is the product of a patriarchal society.  I think men and women dress provocatively because they want to be perceived as being provocative.  I used to dress that way frequently because it was fun and I enjoyed the reactions of some of the people around me.  My intent was not to get raped, nor to be a prick tease, but to have fun.  It usually was fun.

Secondly, raising boys.  I seem to have done okay - I have three who are all adults now.  I tried to tell them the truth - some young women like to tease but that doesn't mean it is okay to make someone do something they don't want to do.  Sex with a willing partner is fun, but sex with an unwilling partner is disgusting, against the law, and only fun if you are some perverted freak.  No apologies to any of the perverts reading this.

This is part of the entire attitude you insist your children learn as they grow.  No pulling the cat's tail.  No tormenting the dog.  And you, the parent,  don't tease and torment your children beyond some gentle fun.  And they aren't allowed to tease and torment their siblings beyond some gentle fun.  Respect for each other, for one's family and for all living things.  And then having respect for some hot girl will be a lot easier to do even if the hormones are on over load.

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


Atheistextremist
atheist
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5133
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
I think choice of attire

 

allows a woman to variously express her fertility and her freedom to do so should be sanctioned by law. I imagine in the days of full or mostly nudity/figleaves/skin cloaks, etc, this was the style du jour and men's hyper awareness of female fertility has obvious evolutionary significance.

Personally, I think women should be able to wear what they like without comment. I once went to a party where a lovely young woman was dressed in nothing but blue paint and it was considered a wondrous thing tho' I had a hard time getting it off my shirt.

And a nude bicycle rally in Madrid was a thrill. They don't shave much in Spain so it was all very 1980s which suited me.

People who are offended should utilise their necks and look the other way.

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15771
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
wingless_sephiroth

wingless_sephiroth wrote:

People have the right to think what they want to think, as long as they don't extend that into doing what they want to do. Undress that young woman in your mind, not with your hands without consent. I mean, gay men objectify each other all the time. For instance, a fellow fag may slap my ass when I bend over for the water fountain at some party, and afterwards we will discuss the finer points of how globalisation will affect future economic growth in the developing world. And then we'll fuck. Objectification is an essential part of the sexual courting, at one point or another. Unless you're a lesbian, in which case a recent study has shown some lesbians considering holding hands a form of making love.

Women have it tough. I know several people have already made their points clear that kids like me are just trying to be cool, but radical feminism makes sense. We live in a culture, which like almost all cultures, degrades women in a ridiculous amount of ways, although it gets a little better every day. However, it's elements of that culture we need to attack, not the fact that almost all men (and what some studies suggest, almost all women) find women to be attractive. There is nothing wrong with finding a woman attractive, even if it doesn't really make much sense since they're weird and look like hobbits.

There is no thought police. Undress whom you will, but be liberal with the fabric softener.

But even with the case of gay men, it is STILL not ok, regardless of sexuality to touch someone without consent .

I was at a pro choice rally in DC, a bunch of us were invited to stay at a gay couple's apartment to save money on hotel. The couple was extremely hospitable, but invited a jackass to the party who grabbed my ass without asking. He was a jackass in for the same reason a man is a jackass when he grabs a woman's ass without her permission. They were embarrassed and apologized and kicked him out. I wasn't mad at them, I was mad at him, just as a woman would be if a man did that to them.

Consent is what counts, not what a person wears or their sexuality.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
 An attractive woman who is

 An attractive woman who is dressed provocatively has a lot of power over me... yet despite this knowledge I still find myself supporting the slut walk. Guess I just don't want power.

 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


ragdish
atheist
ragdish's picture
Posts: 461
Joined: 2007-12-31
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote:ragdish wrote:cj

cj wrote:

ragdish wrote:

cj wrote:

I don't know your background, Ragdish, so I am not sure where you are coming from nor why you should care about feminists one way or another.  If you think their attitudes and opinions are contradictory, why is that important?

If it were my town, and we had some stupid guy on the police force say that, I probably would probably join their march.  I wouldn't dress like that as no one would think I looked slutty - just old.

The word is "ironic" in the sense of: "Poignantly contrary to what was expected or intended: madness, an ironic fate for such a clear thinker."  Expected or intended might be women dressed in burkas or business suits, what you get is women showing off their tats.  So why am I not getting attacked on the street, stupid police officer!

As already pointed out, it doesn't matter what you wear, you are a sexual being as well as all the other attributes you may have.  Denying the sexuality does not make it go away.

 

cj,

Despite my hyper-critical rants on this and prior threads regarding feminists, I do have respect for the lot of them. And I am sympathetic to a lot of their issues (reproductive rights, violence against women, etc...). Yet again and again the issue of how a woman dresses takes center stage among certain mainstream feminists. The argument goes like this:

 A woman has the right to dress whatever way she likes but her decision to choose a sexually revealing attire is ultimately the product of a patriarchical culture.

To me this is a contradiction that women are ultimately forced to dress certain ways (by men) and that they have the right to do so. It is these sorts of conflicting messages from feminists that IMO detract society from more pressing issues. Maybe you're right. Maybe I shouldn't care. Maybe the whole feminist movement is on the way out. I dunno. But I'm raising 2 boys and I do want the progressive messages to resonate with them as they grow older and interact with the opposite gender. The conflicting messages will only confuse another generation of boys as they become men.

 

Well, two things.

First, how one dresses is how one dresses.  Sexy or slutty or provocative are in the mind of the beholder.  And there isn't a damn thing anyone can do about those beholding.  They are going to be looking at you whenever you leave your house - or turn on your cell phone.  Even covering yourself head to toe will not stop the looking.  So I might as well wear what I want to wear and to hell with you all if you don't like it.

I don't think dressing provocatively is the product of a patriarchal society.  I think men and women dress provocatively because they want to be perceived as being provocative.  I used to dress that way frequently because it was fun and I enjoyed the reactions of some of the people around me.  My intent was not to get raped, nor to be a prick tease, but to have fun.  It usually was fun.

Secondly, raising boys.  I seem to have done okay - I have three who are all adults now.  I tried to tell them the truth - some young women like to tease but that doesn't mean it is okay to make someone do something they don't want to do.  Sex with a willing partner is fun, but sex with an unwilling partner is disgusting, against the law, and only fun if you are some perverted freak.  No apologies to any of the perverts reading this.

This is part of the entire attitude you insist your children learn as they grow.  No pulling the cat's tail.  No tormenting the dog.  And you, the parent,  don't tease and torment your children beyond some gentle fun.  And they aren't allowed to tease and torment their siblings beyond some gentle fun.  Respect for each other, for one's family and for all living things.  And then having respect for some hot girl will be a lot easier to do even if the hormones are on over load.

 

cj,

I always love your down to earth straight talk. You give great advice. Now if I can only get them to reduce the TV watching, read more and get my older one to swim.


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3929
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote: An

Beyond Saving wrote:

 An attractive woman who is dressed provocatively has a lot of power over me... yet despite this knowledge I still find myself supporting the slut walk. Guess I just don't want power.

 

That's why the Taliban need to dress women in Burqas, they don't want women having any power over men.

I think women that dress like sluts that are not really sluts(aka teases) are really bad just for using men for a power trip. It's false advertising. I also think using sex to sell things that are not sex(i.e. crappy beer, cancer sticks) should be illegal for being bait and switch advertising. But then again almost all advertising is bait-and-switch.

Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen


wingless_sephiroth
atheist
wingless_sephiroth's picture
Posts: 117
Joined: 2011-04-03
User is offlineOffline
Brian37

Brian37 wrote:

wingless_sephiroth wrote:

People have the right to think what they want to think, as long as they don't extend that into doing what they want to do. Undress that young woman in your mind, not with your hands without consent. I mean, gay men objectify each other all the time. For instance, a fellow fag may slap my ass when I bend over for the water fountain at some party, and afterwards we will discuss the finer points of how globalisation will affect future economic growth in the developing world. And then we'll fuck. Objectification is an essential part of the sexual courting, at one point or another. Unless you're a lesbian, in which case a recent study has shown some lesbians considering holding hands a form of making love.

Women have it tough. I know several people have already made their points clear that kids like me are just trying to be cool, but radical feminism makes sense. We live in a culture, which like almost all cultures, degrades women in a ridiculous amount of ways, although it gets a little better every day. However, it's elements of that culture we need to attack, not the fact that almost all men (and what some studies suggest, almost all women) find women to be attractive. There is nothing wrong with finding a woman attractive, even if it doesn't really make much sense since they're weird and look like hobbits.

There is no thought police. Undress whom you will, but be liberal with the fabric softener.

But even with the case of gay men, it is STILL not ok, regardless of sexuality to touch someone without consent .

I was at a pro choice rally in DC, a bunch of us were invited to stay at a gay couple's apartment to save money on hotel. The couple was extremely hospitable, but invited a jackass to the party who grabbed my ass without asking. He was a jackass in for the same reason a man is a jackass when he grabs a woman's ass without her permission. They were embarrassed and apologized and kicked him out. I wasn't mad at them, I was mad at him, just as a woman would be if a man did that to them.

Consent is what counts, not what a person wears or their sexuality.

 

 

Agreed. I stick to everything I said, except that the person(s) didn't have the right to slap my ass.


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
ragdish wrote:cj,I always

ragdish wrote:

cj,

I always love your down to earth straight talk. You give great advice. Now if I can only get them to reduce the TV watching, read more and get my older one to swim.

 

Thanks.  What worked for us was totally getting rid of the TV.  There was a lot of griping, so I told them to go to work and save up their money and buy their own.  I would not object.  It was amazing - the number of fights dropped off to darn near zero.  And the reading and grades went up a lot. 

I don't know about the swimming - no advice.

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
 So there is a recognized

 

So there is a recognized human right for young chicks to dress like sluts in public?

 

The UN commission on human rights needs to take notice of this right away.

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


Nikolaj
Superfan
Nikolaj's picture
Posts: 503
Joined: 2008-04-27
User is offlineOffline
ragdish wrote:Despite my

ragdish wrote:

Despite my hyper-critical rants on this and prior threads regarding feminists, I do have respect for the lot of them. And I am sympathetic to a lot of their issues (reproductive rights, violence against women, etc...). Yet again and again the issue of how a woman dresses takes center stage among certain mainstream feminists. The argument goes like this:

 A woman has the right to dress whatever way she likes but her decision to choose a sexually revealing attire is ultimately the product of a patriarchical culture.

To me this is a contradiction that women are ultimately forced to dress certain ways (by men) and that they have the right to do so. It is these sorts of conflicting messages from feminists that IMO detract society from more pressing issues. Maybe you're right. Maybe I shouldn't care. Maybe the whole feminist movement is on the way out. I dunno. But I'm raising 2 boys and I do want the progressive messages to resonate with them as they grow older and interact with the opposite gender. The conflicting messages will only confuse another generation of boys as they become men.

 

The feminist movement today is about as monolithic as Christianity. That is to say, not at all. There are the Catholics, the Lutherans, the 7th day Adventists, Southern Babtists, the Free Presbiterians, the locked up Presbiterians, the Quakers, the Bakers, the Candlestick makers...

 

When you say the feminists argue: "A woman has the right to dress whatever way she likes but her decision to choose a sexually revealing attire is ultimately the product of a patriarchical culture." then you are probably right that some do, but not all.

 

The girls who have arranged the Slutwalk in Canada are more than likely Sex Positive Feminists. Within the broader feminist community they are about as accepted as the Mormons are by the rest of X-ianity.

 

I have seen on youtube, and read on messageboards crazy flamewars between sex positive feminist and prudish anti-man feminists, that would make our debates with Religionists on here look like afternoon tea. Trust me when I say, just because some feminists argue A woman has the right to dress whatever way she likes but her decision to choose a sexually revealing attire is ultimately the product of a patriarchical culture does not mean all of them do. Sex positive feminists are perfectly happy to say: A woman has the right to dress whatever way she likes, and men have the right to find it attractive, and as long as nobody hurts eachother, people can do and think whatever they like.

 

Be careful not to judge feminists as a monolithic group. That would be as unfair as judging all atheists as thinking the same.

 

I have followed alot of the debates among selfdescribed feminists, particularly sorrounding prostitution and it's implications, on Youtube, and I've participated in them on messageboard-debates here in Denmark, where man-hating feminism AND sex positive feminism are both quite abundant, along with a plethora of other women (and men) who fall everywhere on the spectrum between the two, and I can tell you, I have seen and talked to people who feminists, among whom some have been the most angry, selfrightious, illogical, aggresive and judgemental women I've ever met, while others have been the most powerful, selfconfident, intelligent and empathic women I've ever met.

 

And both are selfprofessed feminists, though the sex-positive girls sometimes escew the label, because they want to be judged on their arguments, and not be lumped in with the other group, while the judgemental prudes, in typical fundementalist no-true-scotsman fascion, simply refuse to acknowlegde that a feminist can be anything other than a person who hates men. Well, I say a person, but really they mean a woman, because they would never recognize that men can be feminists as well.

Well I was born an original sinner
I was spawned from original sin
And if I had a dollar bill for all the things I've done
There'd be a mountain of money piled up to my chin


RatDog
atheist
Posts: 573
Joined: 2008-11-14
User is offlineOffline
Kapkao wrote:RatDog

Kapkao wrote:

RatDog wrote:

Maybe your reaction(and other people's reaction) to their method is actually helping their cause.  If they had protested in a normal way would you be spending time thinking about it, or starting an Internet thread about it(I generally ignore most protests).  I had never even heard about this protest until you made this thread, so their methods allowed them to get their message to at least one more person(probably a lot more then one person).   Maybe their methods are bad for feminism(at least some forms of feminism), but their issues isn't exactly a purely feminist issue.  I imagine that a lot of people who are not feminist would still support the message that it is bad to rap people regardless of what they are wearing. 

Grabbing at someone's attention just for the sake of the attention isn't inherently beneficial. Publicity can be perhaps the easiest route to a general public vote of disapproval.

I thought they were grabbing people's attention to promote a cause, and not because they just wanted attention.  

I guess the point they are making isn't very clear.  Maybe the whole thing was a bad idea after all.  

 

 

 

 

 


ex-minister
atheistHigh Level Moderator
ex-minister's picture
Posts: 1710
Joined: 2010-01-29
User is offlineOffline
ragdish wrote: A woman has

ragdish wrote:

 A woman has the right to dress whatever way she likes but her decision to choose a sexually revealing attire is ultimately the product of a patriarchical culture.

To me this is a contradiction that women are ultimately forced to dress certain ways (by men) and that they have the right to do so. It is these sorts of conflicting messages from feminists that IMO detract society from more pressing issues. Maybe you're right. Maybe I shouldn't care. Maybe the whole feminist movement is on the way out. I dunno. But I'm raising 2 boys and I do want the progressive messages to resonate with them as they grow older and interact with the opposite gender. The conflicting messages will only confuse another generation of boys as they become men.

I have been corrected by a few woman, including my wife on this one. Women don't dress for men, they dress for women. As little girls they grow up interacting with each other and judging each other. They are more concerned about how other women will look at them they they are about how men will look at them. What is worn in a strip club is more how men would want women to dress.

 

cj,

What are your thoughts on this?

Religion Kills !!!

Numbers 31:17-18 - Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.

http://jesus-needs-money.blogspot.com/


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3359
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
ragdish wrote: cj,Despite

ragdish wrote:

 

cj,

Despite my hyper-critical rants on this and prior threads regarding feminists, I do have respect for the lot of them. And I am sympathetic to a lot of their issues (reproductive rights, violence against women, etc...). Yet again and again the issue of how a woman dresses takes center stage among certain mainstream feminists. The argument goes like this:

 A woman has the right to dress whatever way she likes but her decision to choose a sexually revealing attire is ultimately the product of a patriarchical culture.

To me this is a contradiction that women are ultimately forced to dress certain ways (by men) and that they have the right to do so. It is these sorts of conflicting messages from feminists that IMO detract society from more pressing issues. Maybe you're right. Maybe I shouldn't care. Maybe the whole feminist movement is on the way out. I dunno. But I'm raising 2 boys and I do want the progressive messages to resonate with them as they grow older and interact with the opposite gender. The conflicting messages will only confuse another generation of boys as they become men.

I agree.

I personally do not see anything wrong with displays of sexuality or with enjoying and appreciating it with my eyes.

I do find something wrong with people like this cop trying to blame that on rape. Ridiculous. Hell, when I was working in Florida one year, half the women on the beaches looked far more scantily dressed than these women in the slutwalk. Did I do alot of watching ? Oh Yes ! Did the thought of making unwanted advances even cross my mind once ? Nope.

I believe in the equality of women, I believe in their rights to choose what they should and should not do with their own bodies. But I do not believe that displays of sexuality is sexist. What about all these HE-men that go around in tight shorts and tank tops, showing off their muscles ? Is it objectifying if women choose to look at that ?

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3359
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:If the women

Brian37 wrote:

If the women could read the minds of men even in mundane situations where they aren't dressed like that they would know it doesn't fucking matter. We can and do undress you in our minds no matter what state of dress you are in.

There is a CNN international broadcast on early in the morning when I wake up, and there is one hell of a hot female anchor that gives me a boner. And Robin Mead(SP) on Headline News has huge knockers I'd love to play hide the sausage with.

BUT AGAIN, those are thoughts, and why should I be ashamed of thinking "boy I'd like to fuck that person", even though I know I never will. I don't think women should be as hung up on what other women wear and I don't think men have any right to tell women what to wear

 

HEY ! I like Robin Meade. That's my girl, stop watching her.  Laughing out loud

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
ex-minister wrote:ragdish

ex-minister wrote:

ragdish wrote:

 A woman has the right to dress whatever way she likes but her decision to choose a sexually revealing attire is ultimately the product of a patriarchical culture.

To me this is a contradiction that women are ultimately forced to dress certain ways (by men) and that they have the right to do so. It is these sorts of conflicting messages from feminists that IMO detract society from more pressing issues. Maybe you're right. Maybe I shouldn't care. Maybe the whole feminist movement is on the way out. I dunno. But I'm raising 2 boys and I do want the progressive messages to resonate with them as they grow older and interact with the opposite gender. The conflicting messages will only confuse another generation of boys as they become men.

I have been corrected by a few woman, including my wife on this one. Women don't dress for men, they dress for women. As little girls they grow up interacting with each other and judging each other. They are more concerned about how other women will look at them they they are about how men will look at them. What is worn in a strip club is more how men would want women to dress.

 

cj,

What are your thoughts on this?

 

I may be the wrong one to ask.  When in high school, I worried about what the other girls thought.  By the time I was 20, I didn't give a rat's ass.  I suspect the fashionistas are all worked up about what other women think about what they wear - but I think most of them just look stupid.

I did go through a stage where I wore what I thought of as costumes.  Outrageous - daring - half naked at times.  But that was long ago.  And I still didn't wear those clothes for other women, but for me.

I dress for me - work clothes are slacks, nice sweater or blouse, flats.  I like to be color coordinated and I have a tendency to choose solids or checks over floral or striped patterns.  Around home or town, jeans.  No makeup because I am allergic.  Boring. 

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


UpstateNYatheist
UpstateNYatheist's picture
Posts: 5
Joined: 2011-06-13
User is offlineOffline
Awesome!

 I completely understand this; it's a fun, satisfyingly immature way to just rub it in certain people's faces that women will dress however they like, and that men are now expected to act like adults and control themselves regardless.  It mocks the downfall of the  insidious, childish argument at the root of misogyny that women are somehow responsible for the behavior of men; that a good woman should concern herself only with helping the man who owns her achieve advancement morally, spiritually, economically, etc, with no consideration to her own advancement or development as an independent entity.  Awesome!

"You keep using that word; I do not think it means what you think it means."
--Inigo Montoya


Recovering fund...
atheistSuperfan
Recovering fundamentalist's picture
Posts: 196
Joined: 2011-03-14
User is offlineOffline
ragdish wrote:The whole

ragdish wrote:

The whole Slutwalk was the consequence of a Toronto police officer who callously told young women that if you dress provocatively, then you're asking to be sexually assaulted. The guy is an asshole and no matter what a woman wears, no one has the right to violate her. We all deserve to be treated as human beings regardless of attire. And so we have the Slutwalk with hundreds of women marching in protest in scantilly clad attire:

 

But here's the part where I get confused. If a woman wears the sexy clothes and marches for this noble cause, won't there be male onlookers who will ogle and objectify them? Won't the said women end up as ornaments of male desire, an image that feminists want to erase? And what about the feminist argument that women dress this way because their sexual narratives have been negatively dominated by a patriarchical society?

Among all of the social justice movements (ie. civil rights, LGBT rights, etc..), feminism has got to be the most contradictory. What is anti-feminist is feminist and vice versa. And I ask the most important question. Will the Slutwalk achieve the positive social transformative change that these women so desire? Or will it end up as images for male (and also female) masturbation?

Instead of the Slutwalk, why didn't these women instead collectively challenge the courts to stop blaming the victim based on her attire? Why not pursue the matter through legal means via groups in Ontario such as the National Action Committee on the Status of Women?

Saying it's a woman's fault if she gets assaulted because she's dressed "slutty" - would be like saying that if a Ferrari owner gets his car stolen, it's his fault because he owns an expensive car. It's just an excuse that losers who can't get a girlfriend use to justify acting like a pervert toward women, and it's bullshit. If a man won't control his own behavior and needs to make excuses for his vices, then he's not much of a man to begin with.

But this "slut fest" is pointless and won't solve anything. It's more of just an excuse to have Mardi Gras

Optimism is reality, pessimism is the fantasy that you know enough to be cynical


lordcheetah (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
"If a woman wears the sexy

"If a woman wears the sexy clothes and marches for this noble cause, won't there be male onlookers who will ogle and objectify them?" *facepalm* So they should cover up so they won't be objectified? You just blamed the victim, just like the cop did. It's not contradictory for them to dress provocatively and not want to be objectified.

"Instead of the Slutwalk, why didn't these women instead collectively challenge the courts to stop blaming the victim based on her attire?" How do you know they didn't and why can't they do both? This is way more visible and gets people talking way more than a court case would.


ragdish
atheist
ragdish's picture
Posts: 461
Joined: 2007-12-31
User is offlineOffline
lordcheetah wrote:"If a

lordcheetah wrote:

"If a woman wears the sexy clothes and marches for this noble cause, won't there be male onlookers who will ogle and objectify them?" *facepalm* So they should cover up so they won't be objectified? You just blamed the victim, just like the cop did. It's not contradictory for them to dress provocatively and not want to be objectified.

"Instead of the Slutwalk, why didn't these women instead collectively challenge the courts to stop blaming the victim based on her attire?" How do you know they didn't and why can't they do both? This is way more visible and gets people talking way more than a court case would.

So I just blamed the victim? WTF? Nowhere in my post did I justify in any way that a woman be violated based on her attire (clad or unclad). I merely stated a fact. There will be male onlookers who will indeed carry those images of scantilly clad women in their heads and then proceed to jerk off at home. There is absolutely nothing that can stop this from happening. This is the unintended effect of the slutwalk and I question whether this will have the positive social transformative change. An analogy is Jen McCreight's Boobquake which was hilarious in poking fun of the Islamists who claimed that women's scantilly clad attire led to the earthquake. But again the unintended effect is that men will simply use those cleavage images for self gratification. Please educate me as to where did I "blame the victim".


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1970
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
If there began a pandemic

If there began a pandemic decline in the ability of women to titillate men, there would be a whole lotta women that would be absolutely mortified.

They know how to 'chum the waters'...

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


Recovering fund...
atheistSuperfan
Recovering fundamentalist's picture
Posts: 196
Joined: 2011-03-14
User is offlineOffline
redneF wrote:If there began

redneF wrote:

If there began a pandemic decline in the ability of women to titillate men, there would be a whole lotta women that would be absolutely mortified.

They know how to 'chum the waters'...

This. Any woman who dress hot does want to be looked at, regardless of what she tells you - and looking at a woman does not make her a victim. That'd be like saying some guy who drives a Cadillac with $1000 rims DOESN'T want his car to be looked at. Baloney. Now stealing a car just because it has nice rims, does make the car owner a victim. That's my best rape analogy.

Optimism is reality, pessimism is the fantasy that you know enough to be cynical