*advertiser censored* Walk Toronto

[believe09]

I just feel like the greater point is being missed.
Women should feel safe to be wherever whenever - that's one issue.

The next issue is women should feel proud of their bodies but should value in themselves to not cheapen themselves. I don't see the line between *advertiser censored* and out and out trashiness, and I'm not sure what the point is in being proud to be a *advertiser censored*. I think being proud to be a woman is something to be valued. Yes, a terribly old fashioned idea but one that I'm not ashamed of holding or passing on.

Hmmm...I dont want to impose choices on someone. Let's take for example Quiverfull, or FLDS women, or women in burqas. One could certainly take the position that they are proud to be women and they are modestly dressed to for many reasons, but also to avoid enticing men into regrettable actions.

If the sight of women in certain garb or any garb for the matter incites men to regrettable action, well there is something wrong with the men. I can be proud to wear a bikini or nothing for that matter and still be proud to be a woman. What does clothing (or lack of) have to do with this subject I wonder?

How many times as a teen or young woman were you catcalled and whistled at? When someone stared you up and down? Used to enrage me-who do they think they are that they think they can reduce me to an object in this fashion? It had nothing to do with what I was wearing-I am not much of a flashy dresser lol. Again, it had nothing to do with my clothing...it was a mindset, and not mine.

 

[Charlie09]

Hmmm...I dont want to impose choices on someone. Let's take for example Quiverfull, or FLDS women, or women in burqas. One could certainly take the position that they are proud to be women and they are modestly dressed to for many reasons, but also to avoid enticing men into regrettable actions.

If the sight of women in certain garb or any garb for the matter incites men to regrettable action, well there is something wrong with the men. I can be proud to wear a bikini or nothing for that matter and still be proud to be a woman. What does clothing (or lack of) have to do with this subject I wonder?

How many times as a teen or young woman were you catcalled and whistled at? When someone stared you up and down? Used to enrage me-who do they think they are that they think they can reduce me to an object in this fashion? It had nothing to do with what I was wearing-I am not much of a flashy dresser lol. Again, it had nothing to do with my clothing...it was a mindset, and not mine.

http://www.rightsidenews.com/201105...e-day/muslim-rape-culture-and-lara-logan.html fascinating article on the rape culture in the islamic world. That's not what we are discussing here.

I think all the outrage would be better served on our law makers to make rape and it's consequences more serious.

 

[Quiche]

There seems to be an intent effort made to twist my point. But I find that common anytime I say there should be personal responsibility.

No one is justifying rape. No one ever deserves rape.

There are times that women should take care to not put themselves into compromising situations.

I don't consider the *advertiser censored* walk to be a compromising situation, just silliness about a serious topic.

I am not twisting, but responding to your posts. I fundamentally disagree-- admitting that a woman can even be in a "compromising situation" indicates there is a predator in her midst. The problem is the predator, not the woman.

The point of the SlutWalk is to use the power of irony to illustrate that women who are raped are not *advertiser censored*, nor are they responsible for rape.

MOO

 

[Charlie09]

I am not twisting, but responding to your posts. I fundamentally disagree-- admitting that a woman can even be in a "compromising situation" indicates there is a predator in her midst. The problem is the predator, not the woman.

The point of the SlutWalk is to use the power of irony to illustrate that women who are raped are not *advertiser censored*, nor are they responsible for rape.

MOO

When someone relies only on another person thinking and acting, morally, legally and sanely - then there will be incidents that could be prevented.

There are plenty of times that even the most insane compromise of thinking and actions ends up escaping all harm, and someone taking groceries in their home gets attacked. There's no rhyme or reason to a rapist's thinking.

However, doing what one can to protect themselves is showing true value of one self.

The *advertiser censored* walk brings attention to bodies, not the real issue - which should be swifter justice. This is about being outrageous because there's an outlet to do so.

 

[Quiche]

When someone relies only on another person thinking and acting, morally, legally and sanely - then there will be incidents that could be prevented.

There are plenty of times that even the most insane compromise of thinking and actions ends up escaping all harm, and someone taking groceries in their home gets attacked. There's no rhyme or reason to a rapist's thinking.

However, doing what one can to protect themselves is showing true value of one self.

The *advertiser censored* walk brings attention to bodies, not the real issue - which should be swifter justice. This is about being outrageous because there's an outlet to do so.

bbm

This is exactly why there's a walk... whatever the walk is called, it's to bring attention to backward thinking. Women who are raped, are victims of violence, not of their own sexuality. mo

 

[believe09]

http://www.rightsidenews.com/201105...e-day/muslim-rape-culture-and-lara-logan.html fascinating article on the rape culture in the islamic world. That's not what we are discussing here.

I think all the outrage would be better served on our law makers to make rape and it's consequences more serious.

Thank you. We are discussing the antiquated notion that the consequences of attire is rape. Of course there is rape in the Islamic world. There is rape everywhere. In spite of the attire that is worn.

Slutwalk is provocative and is delivering on a promise to inspire a dialogue. I think it was genius. It is an easy concept to get behind.

 

[Charlie09]

bbm

This is exactly why there's a walk... whatever the walk is called, it's to bring attention to backward thinking. Women who are raped, are victims of violence, not of their own sexuality. mo

It's cheapening oneself to a stereotype, if that gives some posters value, have at it - Not to me.

 

[Quiche]

It's cheapening oneself to a stereotype, if that gives some posters value, have at it - Not to me.

bbm
Now if this statement just lacked that "a" I'd believe it. :twocents:

 

[kline]

There seems to be an intent effort made to twist my point. But I find that common anytime I say there should be personal responsibility.

No one is justifying rape. No one ever deserves rape.

There are times that women should take care to not put themselves into compromising situations.

I don't consider the *advertiser censored* walk to be a compromising situation, just silliness about a serious topic.

I completely get what your saying and I agree.
Of course no one 'invites' rape by how they dress or how they look and in a Perfect World anyone should be able to go anywhere and look and behave anyway they want without consequence...however I get the feeling sometimes that is being used to say that women have no responsibilty to use good judgement in some of the situations they find themselves in.
Its like the old debate is a woman who goes to a frat house on campus and flirts with every guy at the party and then drinks herself unconcience asking to be raped?
Of course not.
Is she indulging in reckless stupid behavior? In my opinion in this very imperfect world, yes.

 

[believe09]

I completely get what your saying and I agree.
Of course no one 'invites' rape by how they dress or how they look and in a Perfect World anyone should be able to go anywhere and look and behave anyway they want without consequence...however I get the feeling sometimes that is being used to say that women have no responsibilty to use good judgement in some of the situations they find themselves in.
Its like the old debate is a woman who goes to a frat house on campus and flirts with every guy at the party and then drinks herself unconcience asking to be raped?
Of course not.
Is she indulging in reckless stupid behavior? In my opinion in this very imperfect world, yes.

BBM-I agree that reckless stupid behavior does not lead to permission to be raped. That is exactly what this thread is about.

I disagree that clothing choices can be categorized as reckless stupid behaviour, however. And I think that we should absolutely shoot for a perfect world where we do not play to the lowest common denominator and assign blame to someone who has a right to believe that when he/she is in a state of vulnerability, he/she also has a right to NOT be taken advantage of. They should not expect to be raped because they "flirt" with everyone. Because they drink themselves into unconsciousness.

I know that there are many different opinions on what constitutes pride in oneself, especially as a female. That is where I think all of the grey areas are...imo.

 

[Charlie09]

I completely get what your saying and I agree.
Of course no one 'invites' rape by how they dress or how they look and in a Perfect World anyone should be able to go anywhere and look and behave anyway they want without consequence...however I get the feeling sometimes that is being used to say that women have no responsibilty to use good judgement in some of the situations they find themselves in.
Its like the old debate is a woman who goes to a frat house on campus and flirts with every guy at the party and then drinks herself unconcience asking to be raped?
Of course not.
Is she indulging in reckless stupid behavior? In my opinion in this very imperfect world, yes.

I just had to pick my jaw up from the floor - we agree on something?

 

[Charlie09]

BBM-I agree that reckless stupid behavior does not lead to permission to be raped. That is exactly what this thread is about.

I disagree that clothing choices can be categorized as reckless stupid behaviour, however. And I think that we should absolutely shoot for a perfect world where we do not play to the lowest common denominator and assign blame to someone who has a right to believe that when he/she is in a state of vulnerability, he/she also has a right to NOT be taken advantage of. They should not expect to be raped because they "flirt" with everyone. Because they drink themselves into unconsciousness.

I know that there are many different opinions on what constitutes pride in oneself, especially as a female. That is where I think all of the grey areas are...imo.

Then why play to the lowest common denominator with the *advertiser censored* walk?

 

[believe09]

Then why play to the lowest common denominator with the *advertiser censored* walk?

Because of the term *advertiser censored* or the concept of the walk?

 

[Donjeta]

Then why play to the lowest common denominator with the *advertiser censored* walk?

It's the attention value.
Consider where it started from:

BOSTON (Reuters) – The dress code is casual, but the message is serious: no matter what you are wearing, no one invites sexual assault.

Thousands of marchers are expected on Saturday in Boston for "Slutwalk" the provocative name for a movement begun after a Toronto policeman suggested in January that women could avoid sexual assault by not dressing like a "*advertiser censored*."

Since the point was to object to the notion that "sluttily" dressed women are asking to be raped I think a bunch of modestly dressed ladies marching down the avenue holding signs wouldn't have had the same effect.

 

[believe09]

I would be willing to believe that there were some modestly dressed women in the crowd.

 

[Charlie09]

It's the attention value.
Consider where it started from:



Since the point was to object to the notion that "sluttily" dressed women are asking to be raped I think a bunch of modestly dressed ladies marching down the avenue holding signs wouldn't have had the same effect.

Oh, I thought the point repeated in this thread was you didn't have to be dressed as a *advertiser censored* (whatever that is, it is apparently so subjective no one wants to define it) to be raped. It was supposed to be an awareness raising campaign.

*advertiser censored* by definition means a promiscuous woman - so if you are celebrating the right to sleep with whomever you choose, whenever you choose with no responsibility, go for it - but not under the guise of rape awareness.

 

[Emma Peel]

*advertiser censored*. A shocking, ugly label intentionally meant to degrade a woman as a sexual object.

Slutwalk. A shockingly ugly label for a pro-woman's rights demonstration against shockingly ugly, bigoted, puritanical, ignorant society misconceptions that a woman's manner of dress, flirtation, or socializing is a cause of her violent sexual assault and victimization.

IMO, the name Slutwalk is intentionally meant to be an assault on the senses.

Knock folks upside the head and make them THINK about who, exactly, asks to be a victim of sexual violence and therefore is less deserving of the protection of society and/or the law.

Tongue-in-cheek. And completely serious. At the same time. A powerful one-word statement, about a serious issue, if you ask me.

Take back the demeaning label, own it, and un-mean it - normalize it, neutralize it - with a vengeance.

There is no such thing as a *advertiser censored* who asks for it. There are only ignorant people who wish there was such a thing, because it makes them less fearful.
Labeling women is NOT an acceptable way to explain sexual violence against women. Changing society's attitudes about that myth is.

:cow:

 

[Emma Peel]

Oh, I thought the point repeated in this thread was you didn't have to be dressed as a *advertiser censored* (whatever that is, it is apparently so subjective no one wants to define it) to be raped. It was supposed to be an awareness raising campaign.

*advertiser censored* by definition means a promiscuous woman - so if you are celebrating the right to sleep with whomever you choose, whenever you choose with no responsibility, go for it - but not under the guise of rape awareness.

Whoops, there it is.

 

[Donjeta]

I would be willing to believe that there were some modestly dressed women in the crowd.

Yes, quite likely. What I mean is, they want to make a point that women's "slutty" clothing choices or behaviors (whatever it means to different people) do not mean an invite to rape and it is easier to do if they themselves identify with the "*advertiser censored*" yet are very clearly and definitely far from inviting rape and hotly against it. By owning the term *advertiser censored* (and slutty clothing choices, for those who prefer) the participants make the *advertiser censored* "us", and not "them", "some other people who are fundamentally different from us", and "You should not rape us" is more direct and more effective than "you should not rape them".

If they'd called it Modestly Dressed Walk and waved signs saying "It is very wrong to say sluttily dressed women invite rape but of course we never dress slutty because we value ourselves as women and do not participate in reckless behaviors..." the "but" would have cancelled much of the effect of the previous statement.

Even if I don't value myself as a woman no one has any right to rape me.

 

[Donjeta]

Oh, I thought the point repeated in this thread was you didn't have to be dressed as a *advertiser censored* (whatever that is, it is apparently so subjective no one wants to define it) to be raped. It was supposed to be an awareness raising campaign.

*advertiser censored* by definition means a promiscuous woman - so if you are celebrating the right to sleep with whomever you choose, whenever you choose with no responsibility, go for it - but not under the guise of rape awareness.

I'm not sure where this post is coming from, I don't see the relationship to my quoted post. But I think you are completely missing the point if you believe the Slutwalk campaign is meant to celebrate the right to sleep with whomever you choose, whenever you choose with no responsibility. I don't see it like that at all.

IMO it is meant to celebrate your right to NOT sleep with someone you wouldn't have chosen but who forces it upon you, and to make a point that if you're victimized you're going to be further victimized if people say it happened because you're a *advertiser censored*. That's all.

I do not believe that all the participants are promiscuous in their personal lives. Some of them may be but it is irrelevant. I think most people agree that a woman's promiscuity is not a licence to rape and it's very odd that it still continues to be brought up as if it were. The whole notion also ends up hurting a great many victims who were not promiscuous under anybody's definition of slutty.