Slutwalkers and Saints
Saint ... or sinner?
The SlutWalks have not just driven many MRAs to distraction; they’ve also driven one of the bloggers at the Gates of Vienna to set aside her usual Islam-bashing for a few moments to take on the awful bullies marching in the SlutWalks. Yes, bullies, for how else can we describe young women who go out of their way to highlight their foul sexiness whilst denying their bodies to the helpless males who happen to catch sight of them?
According to the blogger who calls herself Dymphna:
Women who walk around in slutty clothing in order to “voice” their opinion about male sexual aggression are indeed acting out a hugely immature power trip. … Call it for what it is. Strutting your stuff and daring anyone to stop you isn’t real freedom. It’s a sneaking, sadistic bully-girl game.
So evil is the behavior of these slutbullies that if any man decides, upon catching sight of one of them, to grope or otherwise assault her, well, she’s at least as much to blame as the dude who lays his hands on her.
If the act of strutting your stuff results in an equal reaction, a girl must take at least half the responsibility for whatever transpires as a result.
Dymphna seems to mean this quite literally, suggesting that a slut who gets assaulted should be charged
as an accessory before the fact — i.e., if some dolt grabs her, then at the very least she is his partner in crime. And the offense in which they both participate is a serious transgression against civil order. Sadistic provocation is a breach of the peace.
Ironically, Dymphna the blogger has apparently named herself after Saint Dymphna, a 7th century Irishwoman who, legend has it, was murdered by her father after she refused to marry him.
In the light of Dymphna the blogger’s airtight logic, we have to wonder if Saint Dymphna was wearing something really, really slutty. I mean, what else could have inspired her father’s foul desires?
Posted on August 27, 2011, in antifeminism, antifeminst women, bullying, evil women, oppressed men, rape, rapey, reactionary bullshit, sluts. Bookmark the permalink. 326 Comments.
@ Hippodameia
“Wow, what a hard question. Of course she defines it, you twit, you’re the one who’s staring.”
But how can I be guilty of staring at someone if I’m not consciously doing so? Only at the point of realization can I be considered culpable.
@ clairedammit
“What do we call this guy?”
I’d call him a slut. What would you call him?
@ozymandias42
“Madonna, an incredible musician and influence on pop music? ”
God, that’s a good one. An incredible musician, fucking please, that’s beyond a stretch.
@ Nobinayamu
I’m not aware of a society or civilization founded upon promiscuous sex between sluts. I though that’s what monogamy, marriage and families was for.
@qwert:
Actually society/civilization was not founded upon marriage or monogamy. It was founded upon consolidations of power by groups of people to form a larger society (usually not nomadic). Marriage was created as a way for property to be shared/acquired and monogamy was not a part of marriage for the most part.
@ VoiP
“Then why is it a bad thing that society is full of people who have lots of consensual sex? You hate the status quo—at least the parts of it that interfere with your own desires and aims—that’s why you’re GYOW. Why protect it here?”
I think I may have confused a few people again. There is a difference between “lots of consensual sex” and lots of consensual sex between many, many people. A married couple, or couple in a relationship, can have lots of consensual sex with each other, this is not the same as a married couple or couple in a relationship who have lots of consensual sex with people they aren’t currently in a relationship with or are married to. I’m not speaking subjectively as in what I want society to be. I’m speaking objectively as in what I think might be to the benefit of society: as it is now or has been in the past.
Society can go and fuck itself for all I care personally.
qwert: If you don’t care about something personally, why the hell are you arguing it?
“I’m not aware of a society or civilization founded upon promiscuous sex between sluts. I though that’s what monogamy, marriage and families was for.”
Which would be relevant only if you’d actually expressed consternation about a society founded upon promiscuous sex between sluts. What you actually said was:
“I don’t however think it’s particularly beneficial, or desirable for a society to be made up of a bunch of rutting sluts.”
Without getting into an overly pedantic argument about semantics, you’ve back-tracked, subtly but crucially, from your initial statement. And, once again, since no one is or has ever argued that everyone has to, or even should want to, be a slut (however you choose to define the term) then why on earth do you care about the consensual sex that other people are having?
@ Nobinayamu
But if we agree that society and civilization are not founded upon promiscuous sex between sluts, then I don’t think it much of a stretch to say that a society or civilisation that accepts or encourages such ‘slutty behaviour’ is not going to be able to continue on as it has in the past. Something has got to give, or at least change. I would assume that the ‘slut walkers’ believe this because they appear intent on doing just that, on changing society. My question was if this change was to the benefit of society or to it’s detriment. It would probably be the case that it is to the benefit of the sluts, but even then it might not be, I doubt anyone would be able to confidently predict what effects such ‘slutty behaviour’ would actually bring about.
@ KathleenB
I’m unsure at this point why I’m even arguing this myself. I think it may be because I’m interested in finding out how the world works, or rather, how people work. I’ll let you know if I come up with an answer. As it happens, I’m enjoying articulating my thoughts, call it therapy if you like.
Are we back to praising slutwalker again?
I thought we went over this already. We get it already, women can’t control their sexuality while demanding men control their sexuality. Women dress and act sexually to attract men even if feminists deny this reality. Therefore, women are demanding to be praised for their lack of sexual control.
Go to the beach, or really just look at the way girls/women dress and act pretty much anywhere. They simply have no control of their sexuality. Anyone with half a brain would know this will cause sexual dysfunction/frustration in boys entering puberty. Obviously, women either don’t care or actually enjoy this behavior.
Slutwalker, feminists and the indoctrinated will say there’s no excuse for sexual assault. Fair enough. There’s also no excuse for girls/women conciously causing sexual frustration. Everyone knows virtually all living things have the drive to survive and the drive to reproduce. If you torment pretty much any male animal of any species with sexuality while telling them no, control yourself you filthy pig, you’ll wind up with some pretty mean animals.
So as you scream that woman shouldn’t be forced to control their sexuality while all men should be forced to control theirs, then cry you live in a rape culture, you’ll know why. By sexually frustrating boys starting at an early age, western women take pride in building the finest rapists in the world.
This is some serious circular reasoning and, half-assed back tracking, all in an attempt to give substance to your earlier remark. Our society changed long ago and the idea that the majority of people, regardless of gender, remain virgins until purely monogamous marriage is an illusion long since dashed on the rocks of reality. The only significant difference is that we don’t shame women quite as much as we used to. Not quite.
You are clearly bothered by other people having a bunch of consensual sex and are attempting to give your feelings a gravitas that they simply do not merit. You’re bothered by other people having a lot of consensual sex. It is what it is. A lot of people are bothered by the sex other people are having. This is one, among many, of the reasons that slut walks rankle so many throughout the blogosphere.
The slut walks are not about promoting slutty behavior or attempting to make slutty converts. It’s impossible to ascertain which, if any of the participants even engage in behavior that you might consider slutty. The entire point of the slut walks is: 1) that a woman’s sexuality is hers to do with as she see fits and 2) as a definitive descriptor of a woman -her worth, her level of promiscuity, her desirability (or lack thereof), and very importantly whether or not she has been a victim or deserves to be a victim of sexual assault- the term slut is archaic, ill-applied, and essentially meaningless.
What can you possibly know about the sexual habits of a young woman participating in these demonstrations who is holding up a sign that says “My ass is not an excuse for assault,” without relying purely upon conjecture?
Or let me put it differently: What can you know about anyone’s sex life, other than you’re own, that you aren’t imagining, and then judging?
NWO – How should I dress? What should I wear to not cruelly inflame the male passions?
I’m serious. I just don’t know. Like jeans. How do we feel about jeans? What if they’re tight jeans? How tight is tight? Does it matter if there’s stuff on the butt pockets? Does it matter how high cut they are? I can’t spare men the torture if I don’t know!
If its cruel for me to dress like a slut, then I want an extremely explicit and detailed definition of what that is.
Sexual frustration is the problem of the person, sexually frustrated and not the responsibility of anyone else. It’s one of the reasons that the genitals are a mere arms’ length away.
Sexual assault isn’t sexuality, NWO. If your sexuality requires sexual assault, seek therapy.
And weren’t you just defending Meller, yesterday, when he was arguing that women should strive constantly to appear more feminine, attractive, and alluring to men?
Hold on a second.
First of all, we have not conceded your original point, so don’t try to play as if we have. Your original point, by the way, confuses questions of fact, about how actual societies function and have functioned in real life, with normative questions. That’s a common conservative gambit (see Robert George’s discussion of whether gay marriage can be called marriage) but it’s also very tough to pull off. And as far as questions of fact are concerned, societies exist in which there is no marriage.
Secondly, even if you have demonstrated that society isn’t founded on something, that isn’t the same thing AT ALL as saying that that thing must not be present in order for society to continue.
There are two mistakes here. The first mistake is that you are confusing the lack of something with a prohibition against it. “American society wasn’t founded upon X-box, therefore we can’t have video games or everything will go to hell.” That’s just a terrible argument.
The second mistake is that you are assuming that past conditions should be a normative guide for the way we act now. That’s less crappy as a logical argument, but since it fails to address whether or not past conditions were desirable it also fails. American society was “founded,” if you want to use that word, on the unequal distribution of power between a tiny minority of rich white male freeborn citizens and everyone else, therefore let’s bring slavery back. That’s also a terrible argument.
You “don’t think it’s much of a stretch”? It’s a whole lot of logical fallacies at once. Son, I am disappoint.
Prove that rape is caused by sexual frustration. Prove it.
@ Nobinayamu
“You are clearly bothered by other people having a bunch of consensual sex and are attempting to give your feelings a gravitas that they simply do not merit.”
Please don’t use the word feelings when addressing me, I am not feeling anything here, I’m thinking. Big difference.
How so? I don’t care who a woman has sex with, how many people she has sex with, where she does it, what she does etc. etc. It’s not my concern. What I was saying, or rather asking was what will the effect on society be if this ‘slutty behaviour’ is normalised by society? This is what the ‘slutwalkers’ are doing when the are ‘reclaiming’ the word slut. They are saying that ‘slut’ as the word is defined to mean is not negative but positive in it’s connotations. I don’t personally think that this is a good thing for society. You may well disagree Nobinayamu, and I respect your opinion on the matter.
re the definition of slut: It was, originally, a generic word for woman (much like wench) though typically of the lower classes (upper class women having other generic words).
In the 16th century a “coverslut” was an apron, worn anytime a woman’s work might dirty her dress.
So it is a reclaiming of a word, it’s just that the time from when the word meant what it could mean again is so long ago no one at all recalls the original meaning (there are some districts in the Cotwsolds, IIRC, where wench has never lost it’s generic meaning, and has no sting of insult).
ClioPersephone: I hate to burst your bubble, but slatternly comes from the idea of physically dirty (e.g. a woman who didn’t wash her coverslut often enough).
The evolution of the word has more to do with the understanding that lower class women would me more likely to engage in sex for the fun of it.
For an example, see the role of Margaret in, “Much Ado About Nothing”.
Qwert: Right… you don’t think supporting the status quo is bad. If it’s misogynist, that’s ok.
Which is what I’ve been saying all along… you provide cover for misogynists. You are supporting them.
@Holly Pervocracy & Nobinayamu
The fact is women dress in less, perfume, make up, clothes that “flow” just right and everything else specifically to sexually arouse any man/boy within eyeshot. This is a womans sexuality, why do you continually deny this? So when women do this, as most women in the west are apt to do, this is a lack of sexual control. As I continually try to tell you, history shows this folly happening over and over again. When women show a complete lack of sexual control, eventually, so will men.
So when women do this, as most women in the west are apt to do, this is a lack of sexual control.
On the contrary, it’s nothing of the sort. You persist in equating women dressing in a sexy manner with men raping women. They are in no way comparable.
Qwert: But if we agree that society and civilization are not founded upon promiscuous sex between sluts, then I don’t think it much of a stretch to say that a society or civilisation that accepts or encourages such ‘slutty behaviour’ is not going to be able to continue on as it has in the past.
What an amusing set of assumptions.
1: Why should Nobinayamu say that society isn’t founded on such a thing.
1a: More to the point, how does the foundation of society relate to that.
2: How does accepting, “slutty” behavior damage the “foundations of society”
3: If you are going your own way, why do you care about the ways in which other people choose to go.
“Slut,” in its current usage, seems to be a word entirely defined by people’s reactions to a person or behavior. You can’t be a slut, on your own; you’re only a slut when other people treat you like a slut.
The differences between “someone who’s sexually active” or “someone who wears clothing of some sort” and “a slut” are entirely in the minds of the observers.
And observers vary.
So telling people to not act “slutty” is wrong not just because it’s unfair, but because it’s impossible. In a world where some of my friends run around naked and others cover their hair, where some of my friends are virgins and some have cracked three digits–I can’t predict what everyone will consider slutty.
NWO: Once again, you make no sense. “Women” are not an amourphous, all-inclusive group, and neither are feminists. You get pissy when men are referred to as one great big group of samey-samey rapist assholes, but it’s okay to call all women sluts?
On the contrary, it’s nothing of the sort. You persist in equating women dressing in a sexy manner with men raping women.
Meanwhile, he conflates female sexuality itself with women dressing in a sexy manner:
women dress in less, perfume, make up, clothes that “flow” just right and everything else specifically to sexually arouse any man/boy within eyeshot. This is a womans sexuality, why do you continually deny this? So when women do this, as most women in the west are apt to do, this is a lack of sexual control.
Therefore, for NWOSlave, women’s sexuality = getting raped.
Gods, I don’t even know why I bother, NWO has some sort of logic-proof shield. Anything that doesn’t agree with his preconceived notion of the world just bounce right off.
@Precunium: Well dang… :-( As a kid when I looked it up in the dictionary it just said “a slut or harlot.”
But I think I still love the word. I like the way it rolls off the tongue!
Yes, a woman who incites lust in a man is responsible for the man’s actions as a result of that lust. NWO would be right at home in Saudi Arabia.
The fact is women dress in less, perfume, make up, clothes that “flow” just right and everything else specifically to sexually arouse any man/boy within eyeshot. This is a womans sexuality, why do you continually deny this? So when women do this, as most women in the west are apt to do, this is a lack of sexual control. As I continually try to tell you, history shows this folly happening over and over again. When women show a complete lack of sexual control, eventually, so will men.
Dress in less than what? Than how much? Less than head to toe? Less than neck to toe? Less than neck to knee? I’m not kidding–if there’s a way to dress that offends you so, you should at a bare minimum know what that way even looks like!
Don’t wear perfume. Okay, now, that’s a solid recommendation. Not sure I understand it, as I mostly associate perfume with my grandma, but maybe granny was a slut. At least this one’s concrete!
The “flow” of clothing is pretty hard to control, and varies as much with body type, activity, and even wind as it does with clothing. But do you have any fabric or cut recommendations?
Then again, you go on to suggest that anything a woman wears will arouse a man, in which case I’m shit out of luck.
Today, I wore a brown and blue plaid button-down shirt over a white crew-neck undershirt with Levis and sandals. (No perfume.) Normally, I wouldn’t think of this as “slutty.” But a woman wore it! Does that make it slutty?
I’m not sure how it “flowed,” though. I suppose you could still tell I had breasts. That was pretty slutty of me.
@ Pecunium
I don’t fucking support the status quo at all. I don’t think supporting it is good or bad per se, everyone has their own vested interests in the society that they live in. Society is not centred around a single issue about gender relations. If you assume that as the status quo is misogynist (in your opinion) then someone who supports it supports misogyny, someone who doesn’t support it is therefore not supporting misogyny: ergo as I do not support the status quo then I do not support misogyny and am therefore not a misogynist. Where does that leave your logic now?
@Captain Bathrobe
“On the contrary, it’s nothing of the sort. You persist in equating women dressing in a sexy manner with men raping women. They are in no way comparable.”
A woman who doesn’t dress, act and flaunt sexuality is exercising sexual control. A man who doesn’t cat-call, grope or sexually assault is exercising sexual control.
Like I said there are 2 drives to pretty much all life, survival, (food/water) reproduction, (sex).
If ya tease men with survival, (food/water) you’ll get some pretty pissed off men.
If ya tease men with reproduction, (sex) you’ll get some pretty pissed off men.
Qwert – I don’t think we care what you are any more.
You’re not a misogynist? Awesome. High five. Go off and be not-misogynist.
Don’t prattle on for hours about how exactly misogyny is defined and why arguments A, B, and C about your misogyny is wrong and you’re not a misogynist and don’t support misogyny (except when you do).
Talk about something other than your damn self and prove your not-misogyny by your actions for once.
By sexually frustrating boys starting at an early age, western women take pride in building the finest rapists in the world.
This comment is stupid even by Slavey’s standards. Bravo, Slavey, and shine on you crazy diamond!
NWO, would you care to post one picture of a woman dressed in a way you would consider not “slutty,” “teasing,” or “flaunting sexuality”?
Just one. Bonus points if it’s of someone who’s part of the same general culture as you, but I’m really curious to see any.
Show me a not-slut!
If ya tease men with reproduction, (sex) you’ll get some pretty pissed off men.
So you’re contradicting the first part of your reply and saying that men can’t control their erections and women are to blame if they get sexually assaulted? Noted. If this isn’t your claim, then quit dancing around and flat out say that you don’t blame rape victims for their rapes, because you’re sending some seriously mixed messages – and you KNOW what happens to people who send mixed messages…
“The fact is women dress in less, perfume, make up, clothes that “flow” just right and everything else specifically to sexually arouse any man/boy within eyeshot. This is a womans sexuality, why do you continually deny this? So when women do this, as most women in the west are apt to do, this is a lack of sexual control. As I continually try to tell you, history shows this folly happening over and over again. When women show a complete lack of sexual control, eventually, so will men.”
NWO, my sexuality is made up of my desire for sex with men. I am a heterosexual female and I am attracted to men. I am attracted to men when I am in my sweat pants, I am attracted to men when I dress to go to work, I am attracted to men when I am dressed to work in my garden, I am attracted to men when I am dressed up for a night out on the town.
I am attracted to men whether or not my hair is done, whether or not my I have on makeup or perfume, whether or not I am in high heels or sneakers. I am sexually attracted to men and that is the sole determinant of my sexuality.
You cannot just make a word mean anything you’d like.
The way that I dress -and I am, admittedly, a woman who enjoys clothes and fashion- can be an expression of that sexuality. It is, on occasion. I also dress to express my mood, my creativity, sometimes (though rarely) simply for efficiency. But that is always a conscious decision over which I have complete control. I do not, nor have I ever, dressed to cause arousal in any “man/boy within eyeshot”. Their arousal is their reaction. My clothes are my clothes.
Your continuous conflation of sexual arousal and sexual assault is not just wrong, it’s disturbing, misandric, and confusing. How can you assert, on the one hand, that rape is a natural expression of men’s sexuality and their response to sexual frustration… while on the other hand being outraged when we present you with statistical information on the number of men who are rapists? Aren’t all men sexually frustrated at some point? Aren’t you, right now, arguing that all women are consciously causing men to sexually frustrated?
And, again, why were you defending Meller when he was arguing that women should constantly be dressed in a manner that attracts and allures men?
If the act of strutting your stuff results in an equal reaction, a girl must take at least half the responsibility for whatever transpires as a result.
I will never get this logic. How is attacking people an “equal reaction” to wearing a sexy outfit? Wouldn’t the “equal reaction” be for the guy to put on some skimpy clothes and strut his own stuff?
NWO, Qwert, that’s what you should do when you see one of those rutting sluts walking around like it’s not even a thing. Strut your funky stuff, brothers.
A question, Slavey: do you feel the same level of resentment towards the Dallas Cowboy Cheerleaders? Models in Playboy? Hooters waitresses? Are they all asking to be raped, too? I haven’t heard you say word one against porn. Why, pray tell, all the anger against the Slutwalkers when women in any of these professions is at least as likely to arouse lust in men?
“By sexually frustrating boys starting at an early age, western women take pride in building the finest rapists in the world.” – NWOSlave
Wow… I guess the only thing I have to say to that is:
Let me try this: NWO, I have men who are trying to hit on me when I’m wearing my glasses tell me that they think my glasses are sexy. Am I consciously attempting to arouse and then frustrate them, or am I trying to see?
Haha, NWO’s such a misandrist he doesn’t think men are able to decide not to rape someone.
If men are really that volatile and vulnerable, maybe we really shouldn’t trust them with major responsibilities. If NWO’s right, female domination is saving the world from chaos right now.
(Discussion question: if women are so good at manipulating men, why are we manipulating them to rape us?)
“1: Why should Nobinayamu say that society isn’t founded on such a thing.”
Thanks for picking that up where I dropped it, Pecunium. I was too busy pointing out so many of the other fallacies and bullshit and I wouldn’t want anyone thinking I’d conceded his opening statement.
@ Holly Pervocracy
“(Discussion question: if women are so good at manipulating men, why are we manipulating them to rape us?)”
It is not men who are rapists though is it? It’s rapists who are rapists, even though most of them happen to be men. Men are no more rapists than they are murderers or bank robbers.
@Qwert666: care who a woman has sex with, how many people she has sex with, where she does it, what she does etc. etc. Well, bully for you–an acknowledgement that lesbians exist! Go, you.
However, why are you only worried about the impact on society of women having sex with more than one person? After all, since lesbians are not the majority of women, most of the women choosing to have sex with people are having sex with men–why aren’t you criticizing the impact on society of men being promiscuous?
Is it because men who sleep around are called STUDS and not SLUTS?
This right here is an example of misogyny–assuming that women and men who do the same thing (i.e. sleep with more than one partner) are categorically different–that women’s sexual behavior is a PROBLEM for society, with never a mention of the PROBLEM of men’s sexual behavior.
*chalks up one point for the queer woman who gave up having sex with men in 1982 WOOT*
Hey Antz, the first thing that I thought of when I read your story was “uh, did you ever think that that could have been someone she has an restraining order against? As in it is against the order for him to communicate with her in any way verbal or nonverbal?” Because I have seen orders where it quite literally said for neither side to communicate-verbally, non-verbally, via vehicle, via third parties and via written or any other method of imparting one’s thoughts to another person. So the next time you are complaining about officers enforcing the law, think about the fact you have no fucking clue why someone calls the cops in the first place. Then shut up.
Qwert, that entire comment only makes sense in NWOland, and people from Earth are better off not thinking too hard about it.
“The fact is women dress in less, perfume, make up, clothes that “flow” just right and everything else specifically to sexually arouse any man/boy within eyeshot.”
I don’t think you understand why women wear what they do. Have you heard of this thing called, “fashion”? It’s a concept where people put on these clothes for a number of reasons, including what sub culture they follow (if any), what sort of clothing is comfortable based on the climate, what colors/cuts of clothing they like best, and what’s “trendy”. And no, “trendy clothing” =/= “clothing designed to make men suffer”. For example, I was at the mall the other day and couldn’t help but notice that ponchos and drape-y sorts of clothes seem to be getting popular. It’s woe unto me, since I have a petite frame and even the smallest size in these styles make it appear that I’m wearing a curtain.
“So when women do this, as most women in the west are apt to do, this is a lack of sexual control.”
What is it when guys wear skinny jeans? Are women being made to suffer when they go to the beach and are surrounded by shirtless men, flaunting their muscles? Are muscles-fitted tee shirts motivators of female sexual frustration?
Maybe you weren’t aware, but men are capable of (and quite often exercise their ability to) dress in a way that is construed as sexy/cute by women. And while I can’t speak for all women, I personally don’t have any complaints about that. Nor have I ever heard any from other women.
You feel that men are forced to control their sexuality while women aren’t, right? Yet men dress and behave in ways that are sexually appealing to women. You also discuss how women tease men on purpose, and that behavior illustrates how unrestrained female sexuality is. If you perceive teasing men then denying them sex to be how women demonstrate their absence of sexual control, and you perceive men raping women to be how men act when they don’t have any control over their sexuality, then I think that you don’t really understand sexuality at all. Male or female. This makes me sad for you.
NWO is also using some women’s behavior to justify raping all women. Those slutty slutty sluts are making men sexually frustrated, so if some guy rapes a nun, it’s still women’s fault.
@qwert: I think you’re completely missing Holly’s point. Her point isn’t that all men = rapists. She’s saying that if women were as manipulative as MRAs claim, why wouldn’t they keep rapists from raping them?
“It is not men who are rapists though is it? It’s rapists who are rapists, even though most of them happen to be men. Men are no more rapists than they are murderers or bank robbers.”
Tell that to NWO. He’s arguing, right here on this thread, that sexual assault and rape are an inherent aspect of male sexuality and a perfectly natural response to sexual arousal.
If men are really that volatile and vulnerable, maybe we really shouldn’t trust them with major responsibilities. If NWO’s right, female domination is saving the world from chaos right now.
You beat me to it, Holly. I was going to say that Slavey must be pretty damn fragile if he can’t tolerate the sight of an attractive woman without flying into a sexually frustrated rage.
Even as a adolescent, the sight of a hot woman was the kind of thing that made my day, whether or not I was actively having sex with her. It’s always odd to hear from men who are so angry and resentful towards women that they literally cannot stand the sight of them.
@ ithiliana
“However, why are you only worried about the impact on society of women having sex with more than one person?”
I’m not though am I?
“After all, since lesbians are not the majority of women, most of the women choosing to have sex with people are having sex with men–why aren’t you criticizing the impact on society of men being promiscuous?”
I thought I made it perfectly clear that I was talking about the ‘slutty behaviour’ of people i.e. both men and women. I don’t call promiscuous men “studs” any-more than I call promiscuos women “sluts”. It’s the ‘slutwalkers’ who want to call women sluts remember, not me.
@Holly Pervocracy
Don’t get all pissed at me Holly, I’m advocating nothing. I’m just telling you with full certainty what will happen if things continue on the present course. Really read history, particualrly the social aspects. Greece, Rome, Egypt, Persia, Ming. Every dynasty followed the same pattern.
In every single one women began to wield the power of the State. One of the final plays in Greece was the story of the kings daughter was a lesbian, (lesbians having a high status, higher than a man). The play told the tale of the daughter climbing to the top of the mountain with all the other lesbians to dance naked during some festival. The king wanting to see this spectacle climbed the mountain to watch. The story ends with the lesbians cutting of the kings head and dancing in his blood. Homosexuality was of course most welcome. Promiscuity was rampant. In the end, complete social collapse, rape was extremely rampant.
Every single society, that has followed the path we in the west are running to embrace, has met the same fate. They all became quite “liberal.” They all gave women great power within the State. They all allowed women unrestrained sexuality. And every single one of them met the same destructive fate.
@ Nobinayuma
“Tell that to NWO. He’s arguing, right here on this thread, that sexual assault and rape are an inherent aspect of male sexuality and a perfectly natural response to sexual arousal.”
Yes and he’s talking complete shit.
I’ll admit that seeing Matt Smith in full formalwear was… somewhat distracting. Evil man! Setting out to distract me from… erm… watching Doctor Who? Okay, that doesn’t make much sense. But I managed not to fall all over anyone and make them have sex with me today, despite the distractions of The Doctor. And Rory. And I assume MrB was equally distracted by Amy and River, and he managed to avoid raping me. So, if MrB and I can avoid raping people, so can anyone! NWO, you’re kinda full of shit.
That’s nice, honey.
Do you have any suggestions or are you just here to see the world burn? (and not-so-secretly enjoying it? I get the impression you’d be hideously disappointed if you learned society wasn’t disintegrating.)
I’m really curious to see a picture of a woman you WOULDN’T consider slutty.
Wow Slavey way to pervert history. I believe the pattern you are looking for actually has more to do with being overstretched politically, militarily, and monetarily. Or bad management and corruption at the head of the state.
I think you’re the one who needs to really take a look at history.
No. Actually, a woman who doesn’t sexually harass, grope, or sexually assault other people, and who makes sure she has consent before any sexual acts, is exercising control — in much the same way that a man who does the same is.
The way a woman — or a man — dresses is something else completely. It may be indicative of good fashion sense, bad fashion sense, a lack of fashion sense, a lack of interest, high self-esteem, low esteem, a sense of humor, a love of colors or certain trends or fabrics, an eye for detail, or any number of things, but it has absolutely nothing to do with one’s exercise of sexual control.
Slaveman: Do you even know what sexual control means?
Do you know any women? I’m just curious. I know that you know 1200 women, aunts, cousins, wives of friends, etc., but seriously. Do you know any women?
NWO: Call me crazy, but I seem to recall that the rampaging Goths has a good bit more to do with the collapse of the western part of the Roman empire. And something to do with lead in the pipes… But hey, I’ve only got a ladybrain, what do I know?
“Every single society, that has followed the path we in the west are running to embrace, has met the same fate. They all became quite “liberal.” They all gave women great power within the State. They all allowed women unrestrained sexuality. And every single one of them met the same destructive fate.”
Yeah, and that’s the only thing that happened to those societies. None of them engaged in colonialism and warfare. None of them overextended their empires or over taxed their citizens. There were no plagues, no changes in weapons technology, no advances or regressions in agriculture. There were never famines, civil wars, invasions, espionage, corrupt rulers, and weak monarchies.
The only thing that ever happened in any society or empire that ever failed throughout the entire history of humanity was their refusal to keep their women on a leash.
ClioPersephone, you and I are clearly the same cat.
“Hurrah for women’s lib, eh?”
“The lib?” Impatiently she leans forward and tugs the serape straight. “Oh, that’s doomed.”
The apocalyptic word jars my attention.
“What do you mean, doomed?”
She glances at me as if I weren’t hanging straight either and says vaguely, “Oh …”
“Come on, why doomed? Didn’t they get that equal rights bill?”
Long hesitation. When she speaks again her voice is different.
“Women have no rights, Don, except what men allow us. Men are more aggressive and powerful, and they run the world. When the next real crisis upsets them, our so-called rights will vanish like—like that smoke. We’ll be back where we always were: property. And whatever has gone wrong will be blamed on our freedom, like the fall of Rome was. You’ll see.”
@Nobinayamu: Clearly :3 Mrow!
Qwert: This is where you defend the status quo,”I’m speaking objectively as in what I think might be to the benefit of society: as it is now or has been in the past.”
And:
I don’t think it much of a stretch to say that a society or civilisation that accepts or encourages such ‘slutty behaviour’ is not going to be able to continue on as it has in the past. Something has got to give, or at least change. I would assume that the ‘slut walkers’ believe this because they appear intent on doing just that, on changing society
And you think slutwalks are bad, because they will harm society (the one you say can go fuck itself… so why do you care again?).
You are arguing against Slutwalks. Since Slutwalks are an attempt to change the status quo, you are, ipso facto supporting that status quo.
Yes and he’s talking complete shit.
With this I agree with you completely.
@Holly Pervocracy
“If men are really that volatile and vulnerable, maybe we really shouldn’t trust them with major responsibilities. If NWO’s right, female domination is saving the world from chaos right now.”
Well lets see how that stacks up against history which has already done that time and time again. Oh hell, lets look at today.
Are people wealthier today than say 40 years ago? No they’re not.
Are people healthier today than 40 years ago? No they’re not.
Do they have more leisure time than 40 years ago? No they don’t.
Are they happier than 40 years ago? Not a chance.
Do women wield far more social, political and economic power than men? Yes they do.
If women are our saviors, why does the world become shittier the more women are given power? Of course if you judge wealth, health, happiness and leisure by the number of men commiting suicide, things are just ducky.
Shorter NWO: LogicShield, ACTIVATE!
@ ClioPersephone
(I’ve tried to word the following as sensitively as possible for those who may have personal experience of rape.)
I know that Holly doesn’t believe all men to be rapists: she’s clearly a highly intelligent woman. But I don’t fully believe that all these ‘slutwalkers’ or their supporters don’t suspect all men to be ‘potential rapists’.
“She’s saying that if women were as manipulative as MRAs claim, why wouldn’t they keep rapists from raping them?”
As horrible a thought as it might be, I don’t actually believe that you can prevent rapists from raping, beyond imprisonment or execution that is. Up until the point a man (or woman) rapes he is just a man (or she a woman) not a rapist, this is not the same as being a ‘potential rapist’ but some men will believe it okay for them to rape, or at least they think they can get away with it. Others I doubt pay any consideration to any of these things, they just do because that’s what they are, unhinged, disturbed, whatever. So I think rape will always be with us and will always be a problem, this is of course, not to say that I think nothing should be done, or attempted to try and stop it from happening or lessen it’s frequency. I just think that there will always be rapists just as there will always be murderers. And I don’t believe that these ‘slutwalks’ are going to do much in the way to change this.
@Qwert: You talk about PEOPLE and you talk about WOMEN. You did say once you would call a promiscuous man a slut, but generally (see dictionaries plus common usage), the term slut is only used to shame women, and generally you are not talking about men ruining or changing society by their sexual behavior, and few do. And the slut-shaming can be done by men and women, although women are the target of it.
And the slutwalks are NOT about promoting a society of promiscuity. They’re challenging the idea that if women dress in a way that an observer finds sexually arousing, they (the women) deserve to be raped–and in a misogynistic rape culture, any woman can be accused of being a slut based on perceptions of her appearance — NOT her actual behavior. People have told you this before, but you seem remarkably resistant to the the purpose of the protests.
If two or more people are adults and consenting, then what they do with each other in their spaces is their own damned business–if you’re so set on going your own way and not being criticized for it, I think you ought to stop criticizing others who are going their own way (whatever that is) regardless of what a male-dominated society says.
And since NWO is posting out his ass and disagreeing with common reality again, I present to you: A man in a bear suit dancing on a seawall. During a hurricane. Because, presumably, he can.
The world has less poverty, starvation, and civil strife than it ever has before. There are still millions of people affected by warfare, hunger and poverty and these are things that humanity still needs to make great strides in but, in the aggregate, the world is in a better place than it has ever been.
Your failures are your own. Your unhappiness is your own. You have not been held back because you are heterosexual White man. You have failed to succeed, despite this.
You also have an understanding and knowledge of world history more shallow than the water accumulating on my patio.
Unions have also declined in influence over the past 40 years. I think the decline in leisure time and the increase in income inequality have more to do with that than with feminism.
“If two or more people are adults and consenting, then what they do with each other in their spaces is their own damned business–if you’re so set on going your own way and not being criticized for it, I think you ought to stop criticizing others who are going their own way (whatever that is) regardless of what a male-dominated society says.”
Now there you go again, Ithilana, using facts and logic!
Unions have also declined in influence over the past 40 years.
Unions are evil. And socialist. If unions had their way, we would all be calling each other ‘comrade’ and living on communes like dirty hippies. (all hippies are dirty, don’t you play Kingdom of Loathing?)
All men are potential rapists. And all men are potential trapeze artists. “Potential” isn’t an accusation.
The majority of men (despite what NWO says) are not LIKELY rapists. (And I am a slutwalker, so I can speak for at least a few of us.)