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?
@qwert:
“Slut:
1) A person, especially a woman, considered sexually promiscuous.
2) A woman prostitute
3) a dirty slatternly woman
4) an immoral woman”
Again none of these things are in of themselves a “bad” thing. There is nothing wrong with being sexually promiscuous. There is nothing wrong with being a sex worker. Morality is subjective based on culture. So once again I’ll say to you, all of these things add up to a woman in charge of her sexuality who refuses to be put down by society. The word “slut” has a negative connotation because currently a woman who is sexually free is “dangerous” to the status quo. You’ve heard of slut-shaming haven’t you?
How exactly would it be a bad thing to have a society where women and men would be free to love/have sex whoever they please? Why would reclaiming the word slut lead to a decrease in women’s equality (as you claim)?
@ chocomintlipwax
“You can definitely control what you do with your eyes.”
Oh please stop.
If a firework explodes unexpectedly above my head I will look toward the sky. If an unknown voice calls my name I will turn to look in it’s direction. If a beautiful woman walks past me I will look at her. This is because I am biologically programmed to find women attractive.
At a point at which I am looking at her, or the firework, or whatever, I will have a concious thought where I recognise that I am, in fact, looking at what I am looking at. Only at this point in time am I able to control my eyes and choose to look away. The question is, is this the same point in time that the woman I’m looking at has the conscious thought that I am making her feel uncomfortable? At what point am I in the wrong here, does she define this point in time or do I?
Oh and I forgot to say, I LOVE the word “slatternly” and many of the other old english words for sexual women.
“I don’t however think it’s particularly beneficial, or desirable for a society to be made up of a bunch of rutting sluts.”
I’m curious about the kind mind that is bothered by the idea of other people having lots of consensual sex. Not deeply curious or anything, mostly just mildly puzzled. What an odd thing by which to be bothered.
And what a strange use of the word “altruist.”
Why? Don’t you want society to be made up of people like Holly Pervocracy, an EMT and hilarious writer? Clarisse Thorn, one of the kindest bloggers I know, who did nonprofit work in Africa? Edna St. Vincent Millay, probably America’s foremost sonneteer of the twentieth century? Madonna, an incredible musician and influence on pop music? Even the most dedicated slut can’t fuck for more than a couple hours a day, and you gotta do something with the rest of the time.
1) A person, especially a man, considered sexually promiscuous.
2) A male prostitute
3) a dirty slatternly man
4) an immoral man
What do we call this guy?
Also, slatternly, according to Merriam-Webster, means “of, relating to, or characteristic of a slut or prostitute.” So a slut is someone who exhibits the characteristics of a slut. Got it!
Oh, thanks, Ozy.
Now I’m contractually obligated to. >:(
“Oh please stop.
If a firework explodes unexpectedly above my head I will look toward the sky. If an unknown voice calls my name I will turn to look in it’s direction. If a beautiful woman walks past me I will look at her. This is because I am biologically programmed to find women attractive.”
Fucking self-control, how does it work?
And, yes, you are allowed to look at attractive ladies. You are just not allowed to leer at them. That’s not that difficult a distinction to make.
I don’t however think it’s particularly beneficial, or desirable for a society to be made up of a bunch of rutting sluts.
I don’t see why not.
But I thought QWERT WAS GOING HIS OWN WAY, so why are you concerntrolling us?
And by “not allowed” I mean “I can call you a creepy asshole.” I don’t even support leering being illegal, just socially disapproved of.
I really enjoyed AntZ story: victory for feminism! Harrassment is illegal, and the cops will respond to complaints. That’s awesome! How widespread is this phenomen?
There is no male equivalent of slut that carries the same connotation. By itself, this is a good reason for women to want to reclaim and redefine the term, or at least its implication. Other groups have engaged in similar reclamation efforts, most notably gay people with the word “queer.”
“But I thought QWERT WAS GOING HIS OWN WAY, so why are you concerntrolling us?”
It’s not enough to do your own shit, one has to incessantly let people know that you’re doing it.
Every professional insecure person knows that. 😉
“At what point am I in the wrong here, does she define this point in time or do I?”
Wow, what a hard question. Of course she defines it, you twit, you’re the one who’s staring.
@ ClioPersephone
That’s actually a very interesting perspective. I’d have to concede that it most likely isn’t in fact an essentially bad thing to be a slut, it would only be so in the eyes of someone hoping to retain the “status quo”, as you put it. Which, in all likely-hood, is a great many people. Now you appear to be saying that these people are wrong to think this, and I won’t argue this point, because I don’t think that they are either right or wrong here. In the eyes of these people being a slut is undesirable, to them. Like I said before the more sluts the merrier!
So a slut is someone who exhibits the characteristics of a slut.
Gotta love circular definitions!
“Oh, thanks, Ozy.
Now I’m contractually obligated to. >:(”
I just. died. laughing.
Thank you, NWO, for the most beautiful Manbooz memes…
I’d have to concede that it most likely isn’t in fact an essentially bad thing to be a slut, it would only be so in the eyes of someone hoping to retain the “status quo”, as you put it.
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?
VoiP: I would think that chafing might become a problem, but other than that…
@ 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?