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?
@ 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!