Brendan made an excellent point in the comments section of my Trapped in adulthood post:
The process of female reliance on peer group support and guidance will not be checked — it’s deep behavior, I think. The substance of the values of the peer group at present, however, are the problem.
This fits closely with a point my wife has often made; men have no idea how much their judgment of women impacts them. Women fear judgment from other women, especially those higher than them in the social hierarchy. However, even more than this they fear judgment from men. They don’t just fear judgment from men in the top of the male hierarchy, they fear judgment from any man who has the basic respect of other men (which is most men). Even women at the top of the female hierarchy fear the judgment of ordinary (respected by other men) men.
This is a form of power almost all men have but fail to exercise for a number of reasons, but of critical importance is the fact that most have no idea the power even exists. Feminists however do understand this, which is why they spend so much of their energy working to ensure that neither men nor women feel comfortable judging bad behavior from women. They have been wildly successful here, but they will always be extremely vulnerable to men figuring this out.
If you doubt this, consider the case of the slutwalks. Many (most?) have completely misunderstood what these are about. The stated point of the global demonstrations is to stop excusing rapists based on how women act or are dressed. However, note that there isn’t even a single case in the western world they can point to where a forcible rapist was let off or shown lenience because the woman he raped was a slut. If they had such an example, rest assured we would have heard all about it for months*.
So what is the global slutwalk temper tantrum really about? One respected man judged women in a minor gathering. Note that the officer who made the comments isn’t high ranking; when the feminists howled he was reprimanded and forced to attend “further training”. He didn’t even judge them in an overt way. The context of his statement acknowledged that there was such a thing as a slut, and that it isn’t a good thing to be one. Here are the exact words from a CBC article on the first slutwalk:
In January, Toronto Police Const. Michael Sanguinetti told a personal security class at York University that “women should avoid dressing like sluts in order not to be victimized.”
This is what the global temper tantrum is all about. A respected man acknowledged the existence of sluts. To men this is a throwaway comment. To sluts, it is a scathing indictment. It burns their souls and demands comfort to make the pain go away. They need the shelter of other women, but even more so they need to find a way to stop men from saying or even thinking such things ever again (emphasis mine):
Sanguinetti apologized for his comments, but his apology failed to satisfy walk organizer Sonya Barnett.
“It was evident that if you’re going to have a representative of the police force come out [and say that] then that kind of idea must be still running rampant within the force itself and that retraining really needs to happen to change that mentality,” she said.
A statement on the event’s website says: “Toronto Police have perpetuated the myth and stereotype of the slut, and in doing so have failed us.”
Barnett said she wants to use the walk to reclaim the word and also demand that victim-shaming change.
Don’t be misdirected. This has nothing to do with an actual rape case. Oz Conservative quoted Bonald at Throne and Altar to make the same point in his post How do we explain the slutwalks (emphasis mine):
The rape issue is a red herring. It has nothing to do with the real issue, which is the social legitimation of female promiscuity. These marches are not meant to intimidate potential rapists; they’re meant to intimidate social conservatives. The sluts are only tying together the issues of social disapproval and sexual violence as a rhetorical trick to cast themselves as victims even as they go on the attack…
The sluts are not victims; they are aggressors. Their victim is society itself. Their goal is social approval for female sexual promiscuity.
Most men don’t recognize this because the idea that a few words of mild unintended judgment from an ordinary cop would spark worldwide discomfort amongst sluts and their enablers is preposterous on its face. Why would avowed sluts fear being labeled as sluts? But the fact remains that it is true. They fear this instinctively. No matter how much they claim to have “taken back” the word, it still packs a punch to the gut that men simply can’t fathom. This is why Doomed Harlot is so intent on sheltering would be sluts by taking on the mantle of the term. Note however that even while she is doing this, she made it a point to inform us that she isn’t actually a slut. She tells us she has only kissed one other man than her husband in her life.
Again, men don’t understand this; the women proclaiming to have “taken back” this word seem quite confident in their professed morality. How could an avowed slut fear being called a slut in our thoroughly libertine culture? It makes no sense, so men discard the idea without giving it further consideration. But don’t take my word for it, Roissy makes a sexual living by sluts. Part of what he knows is how to avoid triggering a slut’s slut shield. Yes, even sluts are terrified of being identified as sluts. As Roissy wrote in his post No You Don’t Sound Bothered At All (crass site warning):
Sluts know this is true deep in the crevices of their souls, which is why, despite (or because of) their indignant protestations and transparent sophistry to the contrary, they really do get bothered when called out.
If Roissy’s word isn’t good enough for you, then consider the words of sex positive feminist and slut-in-chief Jaclyn Friedman. Jacklyn pleaded with the feminist community for moral support by posting the depths of her dysfunctional sex life for all to see. Of course begging for support for her actions wouldn’t fit her imagined mantle of feminist heroine, so she had to pretend she was being brave for others:
I’m telling you this because juries still think women who even look like they might possibly be sluts are “asking for it.”…
I’m telling you this because sluthood saved me, in a small but life-altering way, and I want it to be available to you if you ever think it could save you, too. Or if you want it for any other reason at all. And because even if you don’t ever want sluthood for yourself, you’re going to be called upon to support a slut. I’m telling you this because when that happens, I want you to say yes.
As you might recall, Susan Walsh instantly saw through this, which earned her a denunciation from NOW.
No matter how much formal power feminists wield, they are terrified of respected men judging them. They want nothing more than to convince you to voluntarily disarm yourself. Only a fool would do this.
Don’t be a fool.
*Note that even Jacklyn Friedman couldn’t find a legitimate case of a forcible rapist in the west being coddled because of the dress or actions of a slut. In her sentence above about women “asking for it” she is forced to link instead to a very strange corner case where one woman lifted the top of another. The author of the post she links to defines this as a “sexual assault”; feminists clearly have to dig deep on this one.
Dalrock, wonder if you sw USA today. There was a frontpage article dealing with demographic decline. If women fear the slut label what about the obvious judgement of being a childless loser. The newspaper all but judges women as failures for not reproducing enough. The article is nothing New to the manosphre, looks like even the msm is noticing.
[D: No, I didn’t. Is this the story?]
Sluts again!
Women (being women) want to flaunt their charms, but not wanting to be perceived as ‘easy’ then go into denial as to what their signals mean. It may be that they really cannot see the contradiction between their actions and their protestations.
I say this with some contempt because within a few months last year I was accused on the first occasion of being an Harrasser because I responded positively to frankly outrageous female flaunting and was thus ‘a freak’ and ‘a weirdo’, – and those epithets came from a woman who by any standards was hyper-promiscuous, and later, failed to respond to (another) female’s flaunting on which occasion I was accused – because of my lack of sexual interest – of insulting her ‘as a woman’. Can you imagine what response a man would receive if he complained to a woman he fancied that ‘you don’t fancy me’! – and that from someone who classifies herself as a Feminist!
Women are, I would say, as a group in the West – and within the last twenty years or so – out of control, and sadly there is not (as we know) a generation of older, steadier women to advise them and thus to some extent control their desires. The truth sadly is this: That by any historical or geographical standards, many, if not most, single women in the West, now adequately satisfy the definition of Whore, and frequently have the STDs to go with it.
This is just another example of SWPL temper tantrums because there’s nothing better to do. If any of these women had real problems, they wouldn’t have found themselves withing 5 miles of a slutwalk.
A SWPL feminist wouldn’t know Oppression if It stoned her to death in the public square for holding hands while unmarried.
I think you are missing the humor and joie de vivre of the “slutwalk.” I also think you are missing the more serious point that a public official who engages in slut shaming is doing more than possibly hurting people’s feelings. He is providing an indication of how he is likely to treat putative rape victims, and how he is likely to handle allegations of rape he is assigned to respond to and investigate. He is also placing an official stamp of approval on the commonly held idea that rape is less serious, or perhaps not even rape, if the victim dressed or acted “slutty.”
Excellent post, Dalrock! Thanks for linking. I’m actually working on a post where I once and for all define the word slut. The feminists keep claiming that the word holds power exactly because one cannot really define it, i.e. what is the acceptable number of partners? Last summer feminists taunted me with this question again and again.
Jaclyn F. spoke at the Boston slutwalk and called me out, referring to me as a “pearl-clutching blogger” who hates sluts, but sluts will not be stopped! I was surprised after all these months – I think it’s precisely that awareness of their own vulnerability on promiscuity that have feminists lobbing accusations.
Doomed Harlot, I have to say I’ve watched the coverage, seen the photos, heard the speeches. And you know what? The slutwalks weren’t funny, not at all. They were sort of creepy and militant. There was a lot of female sexual aggression on display, a lot of shouting. More pumping fists than smiles.
Amanda Marcotte is the one who started the claim that it’s all hilarious – since she doesn’t have a sense of humor, I think it’s just all a big understanding on feminists’ part.
Finally, I’ll stand up and say that women have responsibility to behave prudently in order to ensure their own safety. No one has the right to touch the body of a slut if she doesn’t agree, but her chances of being groped anyway are higher if she’s advertising her sexual assets.
I also appreciate the shout-out, misguided though it is. I can assure you that I do not care what some strangers on the internet think of me, so no, I did not make a “point” to establish my non-sluttiness. (Actually, I assumed my sexual history DID qualify me as a slut in the eyes of any traditionalist worth his salt. You folks are practically liberals. I thought having sex on the first date was a sure ticket to slut-hood.) I don’t remember the context in which I raised my sex life, but my purpose certainly wasn’t to get validation from a group of people whose values in this area I utterly oppose.
[D: Either way, it worked with Kathy.]
Thanks Susan. You really have gotten under their skin. What a crack up that Jacklyn F. was still smarting about your post all that time later. It really proves the point that even self professed sluts are very sensitive to being judged for being sluts. She writes about having to troll for men on craigslist to get sex, but what bothers her is that you called her out. Ironically the “pearl clutching” dig was really an acknowledgement that as a wife and mother you outrank her socially. Young women look up to you. Her situation is so tragic that I would feel bad for her if she weren’t actively trying to pull other young women down the path.
“He is also placing an official stamp of approval on the commonly held idea that rape is less serious, or perhaps not even rape, if the victim dressed or acted “slutty.”
That is YOUR and some illogical feminists interpretations. What he is saying is that rapists target women that dress sexually receptive, the prey and predator nature of rape just shows that a rapists will need an excuse to get a woman in a secluded place and being able to summit her, so a woman dressing in a way that shows sexual interest is more likely to engage in conversation when they approach and give him an excuse and a woman that binge drinks as well would be less coordinated to struggle with her rapist and less likely remember key elements to make a case. Prudence =/= victim blaming.
@ Doomed Harlot
The point is that he was never slut-shaming. He was advising women on ways to stay safer.
Is it ‘shaming’ to tell people that they shouldn’t wave fat wallets around in dark alleyways? Is it ‘shaming’ to tell people that they shouldn’t leave their money in their back pocket or backpack in European cities where pickpocketing is an issue?
Those sorts of suggestions are generally considered to be useful advisories to help protect oneself. Taking actions to lesser one’s chance of being robbed is considered prudent.
But god forbid anyone tell a woman how to act.
Suddenly, when it is how a woman dresses (slutty) or acts (drunk and unable to take care of self), it’s no longer acceptable to tell the woman how her actions contribute to her chances of being taken advantage of.
The cop made a useful comment from a person who tries to prevent crime – he said that in order to lessen their chances of being victimized, it would be prudent of women to not dress like sluts.
It doesn’t mean that it’s okay to rape. It doesn’t mean that a rapist of a scantily-clad woman will not be convicted. We convict burglars even as we tell people that locking their door is a good idea.
Rape is wrong. Rape is unacceptable. Our society should be strongly against it.
But until some magical future day in which it no longer exists as a threat, smart women will do what they can to mitigate their risk, just as we all try to mitigate our risk of other crimes.
No-one thinks it’s okay to steal things from a house with an unlocked door. They may think the owner was dumb to leave it open, but the burglar will be charged just the same, and police telling you to lock your doors does not mean that if you don’t they won’t consider it a crime. His comment by no means lessened the gravity of the crime of rape – it just suggested that it would be a good idea for women to do things to protect themselves.
It’s the same thing as saying that I, white upper middle class gringo, shouldn’t go walking alone at 1am in Anacostia (or hell, at 1pm). Doesn’t mean what would happen to me would not be a crime, or that it would be “justified”. But if I did such a thing, there would surely be people commenting as to why I was where I was alone, and shouldn’t I have taken better care of risk assessment.
It really is as simple as that.
It isn’t about justifying crime, it’s about risk assessment and encouraging prudence. This is something that law enforcement routinely does in other areas — reminding people to be especially vigilant to lock cars and homes before Christmas, for example, when thievery is commonly more rife. It’s prudential advice.
This rubs a certain sort of woman the wrong way because she has her nose put out that certain sexual expressions by women increase the risk of sexual assault because they *want* to behave like sluts, either because they like the sex, or they kind it “liberating” as a part of some kind of personal or ideological power trip, or they simply like the self-esteem boost/high they get from attracting so many male eyes by dressing like hookers (that’s the reason why hookers dress that way, too, by the way … good way to drum up business when you’re in the hooker field).
Note:
One can certainly question the usefulness of his advice – if in fact, the dress of the victim has nothing to do at all with the likelihood of rape, then his advice is useless. But it’s still not misogynist.
And while I believe that studies do tend to come up with the ‘rape is a crime of power, not sex, and the looks/dress of the victim is irrelevant’, I believe most of that focuses on the classic ‘stranger in a dark alley’ version of rape, which is not all that common, rather than the ‘acquaintance in the corner of a bar’ assault.
So women could be reasonable and question the veracity of his premise, but instead they’re up in arms that ‘some MAN’ might ever tell them what to do. What a bad showing..
“One can certainly question the usefulness of his advice – if in fact, the dress of the victim has nothing to do at all with the likelihood of rape, then his advice is useless.”
Well he is a police officer, chances are that a huge percentage of the women that go in tears reporting what happened to them were dressed on a way that he considered an avoidable pattern and poor bastard decided to say something. The acquaintance rape is probably dealt with other institutions, specially if the victim knows her rapists she might need protection and a lawyer.
Dalrock;
A lot of excellent points here. I would add that; it is not only feminists but women generally in our culture (who have swallowed feminist premises); who fear that the myth of their power over men is a paper tiger. This is the key to the whole MRM; demonstrating to men that WE also have the power, and that women’s real power rests on nothing.
Women believe themselves the ‘owners’ of sex; and men, a bunch of sex-crazed manaics who have no value except as sperm donors. As men realize that there is nothing—absolutely nothing—outside of sex that a typical American woman can offer in a relationship, they understand that we don’t even need them for that. Their power collapses, and men are liberated.
Right, Kai, the officer was just doing his job, giving useful advice to his constituency. Uh huh. That’s why he used the incredibly neutral term (“slut”) to describe a good proportion of the population he is supposed to serve.
And “don’t dress like a slut” is such useful advice! Even though I have no idea what his view of “dressing like a slut” might be! But at least I now know that this officer thinks that clothes of which he disapproves might somehow increase my chances of being assaulted. Very useful.
Of course, I have no idea if this guy’s “advice” has any basis in fact, rather than his own prejudices. (Indeed, in my experience in the criminal courts and as someone who has experienced street harassment, a woman’s dress seems to have little correlations with whether or not she is victimized.)
Kai, I didn’t see your follow up comment when I posted about how useless his advice. But I don’t buy that this was just a case of “dumb advice.” The use of the term “slut” conveys a pretty clear hostility towards women who don’t behave the way the officer likes.
[D: You are making my case. The objection wasn’t about the advice or “victim blaming”. It was the fact that he used a word that stung with judgment.]
Brendan,
This kind of advice rubs women the wrong way because we don’t just experience it as the occasional tip, like a guy being told not to walk through Bedford-Stuy alone. This kind of safety “advice” is pervasive throughout our lives — don’t go here, don’t go there, don’t go out after a certain hour, don’t go out alone, don’t work too late, have a man walk you from point A to point B, don’t wear this or that, etc. And it’s not similar to locking your car door; it’s more like locking yourself up!
I don’t think there’s a woman alive who hasn’t received a constant, loud, clear warning throughout her life that she is especially VULNERABLE and must be CAREFUL. That’s why a police officer saying something like, “Don’t dress slutty,” comes across as not only hostile (the word “slut”) but also clueless and condescending.
What often bends my nose out of joint is when people act as though there is only one correct way for a woman to manage her safety. A woman’s right to manage her safety her own way should be respected. Giving information is one thing: “Attacks on women in the street tend to happen more frequently after 9 p.m.” is useful information (if true). Saying, “Women should not go out alone after 9 p.m.” is disrespectful because another person really has no right to tell a woman what risks she should or should not take. Woman A may feel that locking herself up at 9 p.m. is too high a price to pay to insulate herself from risk. Woman B may prefer to avoid the risk and endure the loss of freedom. What women don’t need, especially when we are assaulted, is a whole chorus of people saying, “Oh my God, what was she thinking, leaving the house at 9 p.m.”
“Rich people shouldn’t be flaunting their money in poor neighborhoods if they don’t want to get mugged.”
What I’ve really done here is disenfranchise wealthy people, who don’t want to be held to the label of ‘rich’, which ignores their personhood.
Perhaps wealthy people could have ‘money walks’ where they stroll through the poorest parts of town, money bulging from their pockets suggestively, diamonds sparkling on every finger… demanding that people stop referring to ‘person’s of significant means’ with the hated moniker “Rich”.
Obviously a police officer offering advice to a wealthy person to stop strolling at 3 am in the worst neighborhoods is someone who requires some sensitivity training on wealth. Because obviously, wealth is no excuse for robbing someone.
It seems apparent this police officer is suggesting that he won’t give rich people a fair shake when they are robbed. He might even suggest they stop hanging out in poor neighborhoods in a tuxedo at 3am singing “We’re in the money” at the top of his lungs.
Who does he think he is?
Makes sense to me. 😉
Hey, the officer might like the behaviour of sluts very much. I think many guys do. I probably would if I were male and looking for easy sex..
I do think the officer was dumb for not understanding how people would take his comment. It’s happened enough times that you have to be really not thinking to use the word ‘slut’ in public. I assume that he must have been talking offhand with little preparation, or someone would have told him to pick another word for fear of the female freakout.
I think ‘slut’ does generally contain judgement, but hostility is taking it too far. I use it descriptively without hostility.
And while he may not have bothered to itemize the dress of which he spoke, I don’t think there are many people who can’t figure out a general idea of the meaning behind ‘dressing like a slut’.
This kind of advice rubs women the wrong way because we don’t just experience it as the occasional tip, like a guy being told not to walk through Bedford-Stuy alone.
That may be, but it isn’t my problem. If you want to take risks, then go right ahead and take them. Be my guest. Dress does have quite a bit to do with the kind of sexual assault that happens in bars and clubs and their aftermath, but we can also just shove that under the rug because it makes women feel uncomfortable. Fair enough, but then quit the bitching. Women bitching and moaning about the obvious is just more of the incessant chorus of bitching and moaning about anything and everything that seems to be constantly flowing from the feminist camp.
Dalrock,
Have you ever looked into E. Michael Jones’s Libido Dominandi? Subtitle: Sexual Liberation & Political Control
And it starts with the French Revolution.
So the lesson I take from this is that there is literally nothing a man can say towards women in general (even when it’s in her best interests to listen) that will not elicit a screaming purple-faced rant from some corner claiming to speak for all women.
Which is why I will no longer bother.
From now on I will keep my opinions to myself and let the chips fall where they may.
Thank you ladies for extinguishing the last bit of caring I had for your gender.
[D: Silencing you is certainly the intent of the feminists, but it is the opposite of my point.]
Kai, Well, I would hope straight men would enjoy female sexuality! But when men scold sexy women for being sluts, it sure doesn’t seem that way.
Brandon, I agree with you that the degree of risk I choose to take is not your problem. That is precisely my point. I am glad you are happy to mind your own business. But most women routinely come across scolds, busy bodies, authority figures, and others who hector, lecture, and attempt their behavior to try to conform to someone else’s standards of what risks are appropriate. And God forbid a woman is victimized, then all and sundry will weigh in – often to her detriment in very concrete ways if she seeks any kind of assistance or if there is a prosecution of her assailant.
Doomed Harlot,
You are forgetting the context of the police officer’s words. He was invited to speak on the topic of students remaining safe. Complaining that he should mind his own business about what people can do to stay safe kind of misses the mark…
I’d take Doomed Harlot Poseur’s demand for, like, total unjudgemental freedom if it came with total responsibility. But it doesn’t. I’ve seen strong, independent women more than once demand that men with guns come and save them from the results of a bad decision.
So here’s the way I see it: strong, independent women want the freedom to make any decision they choose, and have a man come and bail them out if something goes wrong.
These women want choices, but they do not want to take responsibility for any bad results. This is the attitude of a child, not an adult.
“tiredofitall says:
So the lesson I take from this is that there is literally nothing a man can say towards women in general (even when it’s in her best interests to listen) that will not elicit a screaming purple-faced rant from some corner claiming to speak for all women.”
You can typically safely say that women are more higher evolved and men should listen more and learn from them. That usually goes over quite well with women.
What you can’t possibly do is criticize or disagree in any way. That makes you a big bad man trying to oppress women.
Dalrock, I am not making your case. Your case is that women are just overly sensitive babies crying because their feelings are hurt. I submit a class of citizens who expect and rely upon equal protection under the law would be wise not to tolerate insults and passing of judgment by a public official speaking in his official capacity on a matter directly related to his duties to this class of citizens. This protest is also not just about this particular officer but rather a protest against the way the attitude he expressed pervades the justice system and our society. Now, you may disagree that this attitude is prevalent or that it affects the treatment of rape victims or rapists, but the point I am making is that this is not about hurt feelings.
That said, I am sure slut shaming does have emotional power over some, or perhaps many, women. I imagine it depends on a person’s upbringing. I’m immune from being shamed in this way because I grew up naively assuming that everyone shared my belief that the double standard is a silly, archaic worldview. But plenty of women probably have internalized the double standard, just as many of men have. And, as you point out, this vulnerability can be used to bully such women.
I grew up naively assuming that everyone shared my belief that the double standard is a silly, archaic worldview.
Not exactly. You believe there should be no standard.
Dalrock, It doesn’t seem to me that the officer was interested in providing any safety tips. He was interested in bitching about women of whom he disapproves.
Anonymous Reader, If I am attacked, that’s not the result of a bad decision on my part. That’s the result of someone choosing to attack me. And it is the job of the police (whom I pay big bucks to support, by the way) to get predators off the street so as to maximize the ability of innocent citizens to move about freely.
Brendan, You say I believe there should be no standard. Not exactly — I believe that sex should be safe and consensual, and that people should keep their promises (i.e. no cheating).
Also, I can see good reasons to argue against premarital sex for both sexes. Though it is not a view I hold myself, it is a view I can respect. The double standard, in contrast, is not a view for which I have any respect.
@Oak
Hey I got a blood dripping swimsuit and a ticket to shark infested seas that go very well with wealth walks… Darwin awards galore. 🙂
Dalrock, the link you put under my earlier post was indeed that article, thanks for linking to it.
Corey
“Perhaps wealthy people could have ‘money walks’ where they stroll through the poorest parts of town, money bulging from their pockets suggestively, diamonds sparkling on every finger… demanding that people stop referring to ‘person’s of significant means’ with the hated moniker “Rich”.”
LOL!
Why can’t women just keep their sexuality in the bedroom? How about if I was 450 lbs and decided to walk around with my disgusting flab hanging out for all to be offended at? When women dress like sluts and expose their bodies (the hot ones anyway, not the kind of women you see in those slut walks), it provokes a certain response in the male organism, which may or may not be something that man wants at that particular time and place. What right do you have to flaunt your tits and ass in someone else’s face when they didn’t ask for it? Why should all of society bend to your childish desire to impose your sexuality on others? Society doesn’t respect my desire to walk around with my penis out, so why should it respect yours?
And make no mistake, if you really are attractive, men will notice. You won’t have to wear skirts that threaten to expose your ass when you bend over to get the mail.
As to the word “slut”, it has a specific definition – a loose woman. The fact that it carries a pejorative connotation is a consequence of the roles of men and women with respect to each other. Men simply cannot reconcile “loose woman” with “someone to have a relationship with” (and by relationship I mean real relationship, not the kinds of ‘relationships’ young women have in mind when they hop from one guy to the next every 3 months), and forming relationships are what men and women are meant to do. We are not animals. Even some animals pair up for extended periods of time or for life. Sluts are no good for relationships because you can’t trust them. And even if you could, the meaning of your relationship with her is diminished if she’s had or plans to have countless others.
Why don’t bums protest the negative connotation of the word “bum”? Why don’t they collectively stand up and “own” it and “own” their right to get drunk and sleep on the sidewalk, and not to be “judged”? Because they know what they do is no good. Unlike women who want their bodies to be pin cushions for whoever they think is “hot” that night.
And make no mistake, if you really are attractive, men will notice. You won’t have to wear skirts that threaten to expose your ass when you bend over to get the mail.
& they’ll notice you even if you’re wearing baggy sweatpants, and they’ll try to inappropriately touch you or worse. In the middle of the afternoon.
Evil men exist; they aren’t an urban legend created by Feminism.
Police shouldn’t assume all girls that get physically assaulted are sluts that are asking for it because that’s rarely the case.
For example, the Daily News front page yesterday was about an 85 year old woman that got raped.
Was she dressed slutty in a club getting wasted? No. An evil man randomly assaulted her!
BF: No one is saying they don’t exist. The slut walks were about legitimizing promiscuity, not about rape or evil men or even, really, wearing revealing clothes. It’s about getting society to accept the promiscuity is ok.
BF: No one is saying they don’t exist. The slut walks were about legitimizing promiscuity, not about rape or evil men or even, really, wearing revealing clothes. It’s about getting society to accept the promiscuity is ok.
…the Slut Walks weren’t about promoting promiscuity. The Slut Walks were women protesting the “rape victims were asking for it” attitude.
Here’s an except from an article about the first Slutwalk:
“The idea that there is some aesthetic that attracts sexual assault or even keeps you safe from sexual assault is inaccurate, ineffective and even dangerous,” said Jarvis. She recalled a sign at the march that read: “It was Christmas day. I was 14 and raped in a stairwell wearing snowshoes and layers. Did I deserve it too?”
Was the teenage girl in layered winter clothes asking for it? How was she being promiscuous?
“…the Slut Walks weren’t about promoting promiscuity. The Slut Walks were women protesting the “rape victims were asking for it” attitude.”
There’s no reason to protest that, everyone agrees that rape is bad, the cop included. If he made a factual error in correlating slutty dress with rape then the slut walks would have been about statistics and maybe about correlation not being causation. Instead the walks were about the right to dress slutty and to be a slut. And about the word “slut”, which these women feel should not have a negative connotation.
“The idea that there is some aesthetic that attracts sexual assault or even keeps you safe from sexual assault is inaccurate, ineffective and even dangerous”
translated –
“The idea that there is some action you could take that limits unforeseen detrimental events or even keeps you safe from said unforeseen detrimental events is inaccurate, ineffective and even dangerous”
silly me I’ll keep doing that.
@Butterfly Flower
Was the teenage girl in layered winter clothes asking for it? How was she being promiscuous?
I’m starting to wonder if many women aren’t arguing with the voices in their heads on this issue. I saw the same thing on the Lara Logan post. No one here asserted that women who are forcibly raped were “asking for it”, even if they dressed or acted sluttily. Is this a preemptive argument, on the odd chance that someone does actually make such a point? Perhaps you are going to be away on vacation and want to make sure you rebut a hypothetical argument which might occur in your absence. Or are you just really, really, confused?
The best solution is to make & strictly enforce modesty laws, rather like what they have in Saudi Arabia & Persia. Such laws needn’t be Mahometan in nature, no need to require a burqa for instance, just that a woman must wear a loose dress that reaches the ankles & has sleeves that reach the elbows. A special Morals Police could be set up to enforce these laws. If one reads the newspaper from Kuwait for instance, one sees that women dressing like whores & degenerate perverts holding orgies & so forth can indeed be stopped. Just about any criminal behaviour can be curtailed by use of appropriate force. Of course there will always be a few that manage to get away with their crimes, working their iniquity in absolute secrecy & so on, but 8 out of 10 can & ought to be stopped. Depraved acts such as these slut walks are manifestations of a spiritual disease. They ought to be put down, just as the courageous Mayor of Moscow boldly put down the vile sodomites when they dared to try holding a “pride parade”. One doesn’t argue with or try to persuade the gangrene in an injured man’s limb. One cuts it out. The same attitude is necessary when dealing with those who demand “rights” & special privileges for evil. Arrest them en masse & make them clean up the roads, harvest crops & so on for a year or two. I bet that they would be a good deal less insolent after that.
@tspoon
translated –
“The idea that there is some action you could take that limits unforeseen detrimental events or even keeps you safe from said unforeseen detrimental events is inaccurate, ineffective and even dangerous”
silly me I’ll keep doing that.
I’m organizing a protest after I saw this insensitive sign!
You know, I think most men would be more than happy to let this one go if we still weren’t expected to be the “protectors” in society. And yes, it’s largely women who have this notion. I’m not a particularly big guy, yet I still get asked to chaperone women into bars, or walk them to their cars at night. (Even liberal women who, if not outright feminist, at least hold feminist ideals)
Why? Because I’m a champion kickboxer who would actualy have the ability to fend off an attacker? No. Because I have a Y chromosome.
I suspect the minute women stop holding men to gendered ideals, men might just do the same.
Dalrock, I never said dressing sluttily doesn’t have negative consequences/draws negative attention.
I’m just saying that the majority of rape cases are caused by evil men. Evil men randomly assault women, regardless of their appearance or attire.
Heck, a lot of women [who were dressed modestly and weren’t asking for it] don’t report their rapes because they feel ashamed and are afraid of getting blamed for the rape.
For example, in her autobiography “A Helluva High Note”, former American Idol judge Kara DioGuardi revealed she was date-raped by a “seemingly friendly” man. She never reported the rape because she was afraid it would look like she was starting trouble.
No one here asserted that women who are forcibly raped were “asking for it”
Kai compared dressing like a slut to walking around with your wallet sticking out in a bad neighborhood.
Dressing like a slut isn’t a good idea, but evil men assault women even if they aren’t dressed like a slut.
If every girl in the US suddenly dressed modestly, sexual assaults will still happen. Heck, the statistics probably would be the same.
Dalrock:
About that GGW video. I know quite a bit about it, as I researched this last year.
There’s alot that is not mentioned in that Curvature article(and by the way, the display of radical feminism in the comments is gold). Here’s what happened.
The lady involved entered the club in question with a friend. The club in question had a sign saying that in certain areas GGW was filming and that if you went in those areas it was implied consent to be filmed. The woman involved went into one of the areas with the signs, and started dancing. I forget if she was slightly intoxicated or not. Anyway, GGW’s photographer tried to get her to remove her top – you know flash her boobs. She did say no, but maybe it was a tease because as time went on and she danced she moved her top up and (and I saw the photos of this with my own eyes) exposed ONE nipple. Afterward, she continued dancing. I don’t know when or why but her female girl friend at one point removed her top completely. Now , she never sued or pressed any charges against her friend, nor did she ask the GGW camera person to remove that footage. And I will state it again: she had already exposed one of her nipples to the camera on her own. By the way, I don’t know about today, but back then she had nice tits as one male to another.
Fast forward at least five years, but if I recall correctly it was 7. Our violated female, here, is married and has at least one kid. So she’s a mommy now. One of daddy’s buddies sees a GGW video and guess whom he spots in it? Her. She’s embarrassed. And that’s what this whole thing was about. A woman’s right to retroactively sue you for something stupid she did years ago but did not complain about at the time.
You’ll notice none of that is referenced by that article on “The Curvature”. I’m surprised, honestly, they even mentioned it was a woman that did it. If you had followed PZ Meyers blog (http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/) last year you’d have thought (as many did at various blog and newspaper sites) that a GGW crew person was the one that removed the top without her consent. Oh you should have seen the rage and anger and the hellfire sent toward the jury. The Curvature gets it a little more right, but even they don’t have all the facts, and so it goes.
[D: Thanks for the context. I was guessing the jury saw something that made them rule that way. Even without this, it is noteworthy that this was the best example a professional feminist could dig up.]
The economy is terrible, there is hardly any well paid employment to be had, benefits have been and continue to be slashed, millions have lost their homes, Wall Street tanked everything with their unbelievable greed and stupidity, then walked away with huge bonuses thanks to our unbelievably corrupt and stupid government and NO ONE has been prosecuted for this Heist of the Century, the general populace is on the precipice of serious hardship and austerity and already in debt to their eyeballs, our food system is poisonous and disturbingly unethical, we are still involved in 3 useless but catastrophically expensive military actions, marriage is tanking, illegitimacy is exploding, obesity is destroying our health, and the weather seems to be becoming more and more apocalyptic.
And women have taken to the streets for the right to dress like whores without censure.
Also, I can see good reasons to argue against premarital sex for both sexes. Though it is not a view I hold myself, it is a view I can respect. The double standard, in contrast, is not a view for which I have any respect.
This a Christian would agree with, because in Christianity, there is no double standard, or moral “out” for men to “sow their wild oats”. That is a bio-social standard, but is not endorsed by Christianity (even though many Christians have practiced it over the years — there are hypocritical Christians as there are hypocritical feminists).
It is a pity, however, that when feminists sought to dismantle the biological/social double standard, they opted not for a new uniform standard of strictness but for a new uniform libertinism (“as long as its consensual and no-one breaks an express promise”). In all respects a dumbing down, and a sadly minimalistic view of human sexuality, really.
If every girl in the US suddenly dressed modestly, sexual assaults will still happen. Heck, the statistics probably would be the same.
Studies proving that or it’s just smoke.
Dalrock, excellent piece. It’s interesting that Jaclyn Friedmen should go out of her way to claim that casual sex “isn’t just for detached, unemotional women” – because I suspect that part of the distaste men have for sluttiness in women is exactly related to this. We have hopes in our relationships with women, part of which are related to sex, but part of which are also romantic/emotional (i.e. we want a woman who loves us). When we look on a woman who has casual sex with many men we think she has become emotionally detached about relationships; that she isn’t giving herself to a man she loves, but is so emotionally detached (or damaged) that she gives herself indiscriminately. It puts her out of the “nice girl” category (the type of woman you could imagine marrying) and into the “girl I’ll just use for sex” category. Which is why such women, when they do get serious about marrying, are so worred about admitting to their sexual history – they know that men do instinctively categorise women in this way.
Studies proving that or it’s just smoke.
“[…]According to the Federal Commission on Crimes of Violence, only 4% of the reported sexual assaults involved any participative behavior by the victim, and most of this consisted of nothing more than dressing or walking in a way that is socially defined as attractive.”
So there might be a 4% decrease in sexual assaults if all the women in the United States started dressing up in Burkas.
So there might be a 4% decrease in sexual assaults if all the women in the United States started dressing up in Burkas.
Great.
So slut away.
An excerpt of an interview with slut supporter Friedman – pure gold.
Friedman: Oh God. There is a type of feminist guy who is so eager to fall over himself to be deferential to women and to prove his feminist bona fides and flagellate himself in front of you, to the point that it really turns me off. And it makes me sad, because politically, these are the guys that I should be sleeping with! You know what I’m talking about?
Interviewer: YES.
Friedman: Everyone knows what I’m talking about. And some of them are even really cute! I want to say to them, “If you could be a person, like a whole, complicated person, who I feel like I could crack jokes around, then I would really like you.” But they’re so serious about their feminism at every moment that I don’t feel like a person to them. I feel like I’m on a pedestal, almost. I know that they’re not going to disagree with anything I say under any circumstances. And I don’t feel like I can make a raunchy joke about sex, because they’ll be horrified. . . . I hate to be critical of our allies in any way, because we need them, but there’s something about that certain kind of hyperfeminist guy that makes them unappealing to date, to me. I suspect it has something to do with our internal conceptions of masculinity, which is terrible on my part.
http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/2010/03/26/fucking-while-feminist-with-jaclyn-friedman/
“[…]According to the Federal Commission on Crimes of Violence, only 4% of the reported sexual assaults involved any participative behavior by the victim, and most of this consisted of nothing more than dressing or walking in a way that is socially defined as attractive.”
So the feminist are offended because the guy wanted to make sure they knew how to avoid 4% of the chances of getting raped? I don’t know about you but I would like to know everything that is within my power to keep me safe and as small as it is, I rather not being part of that particular minority, but I’m weird like that.
So the feminist are offended because the guy wanted to make sure they knew how to avoid 4% of the chances of getting raped? I don’t know about you but I would like to know everything that is within my power to keep me safe and as small as it is, I rather not being part of that particular minority, but I’m weird like that.
Feminists were offended because the officer implied that the other 96% of sexual assault victims, the ones who didn’t dress slutty – were somehow responsible for their own attacks.
Great.
So slut away.
How dare you imply I participate in promiscuous activities!
I throw rather tame Friday night sleepover parties.
Although I guess my friends and I can watch Caligula. That seems like a slutty activity.
Biggest threat to female fidelity… her no-good cheatin’ friends.
“Feminists were offended because the officer implied that the other 96% of sexual assault victims, the ones who didn’t dress slutty – were somehow responsible for their own attacks.”
Keyword implied, meaning that it was their interpretation, did anyone asked him to elaborate on his advice or try to find the flaws in the logic behind it? Nope they were directly to feel offended and bitch.
That is the issue, feminists are trying to create Feelingcracy: whatever way a woman’s feel about something must be validated by society regardless of the actual facts. That is not a good way for the world to be ruled, IMO.
@Butterfly Flower
Socially defined as attractive by whom? The rapists? The women who dress like sluts? Here you are saying women’s dress has nothing to do with sexual assault, and then you claim that women who are assaulted were dressed attractively.
Do any of these count as participative behavior?
Binge drinking
Separating from friends and going with strangers
Going upstairs to a bedroom at 3 a.m.
None of those choices mean that a woman deserves to be rape. But they sure increase the odds that she will be. Consider the case of Beckett Brennan, recently profiled on 60 Minutes:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/04/17/60minutes/main20054339_page3.shtml?tag=contentMain;contentBody
My comments from a post I wrote on the case:
I do not dispute whether the rape occurred, but I do question the choices Brennan made leading up to it. Here is what took place that night, by her own account:
1. She attended a party at some campus apartment, where she started the evening by taking six shots of vodka.
2. Later, she found herself stranded at a different party with no ride.
Note the passive “found herself.” Where were her friends? Why did she stay alone? Why did she not call a cab?
3. She accepted a ride from two basketball players, assuming they were going back to the original apartment.
She did not request a ride home, but to another party, although she did not inquire where the players were headed.
4. The players took her to their own apartment, which she entered willingly.
5. They led her upstairs, where she went willingly.
They raped her, another male arrived, shoved her into a closet, and raped her again.
Every parent should teach their daughter to avoid making every single one of these terrible errors in judgment. Beckett Brennan bears responsibility for reckless, imprudent behavior.
DH: I don’t remember the context in which I raised my sex life, but my purpose certainly wasn’t to get validation from a group of people whose values in this area I utterly oppose.
[D: Either way, it worked with Kathy.]
No it didn’t.. DH expressed her views politely and I responded in a polite manner.
Initially I was quite amused, at the (what I thought ) silly Moniker that she chose for herself, considering she was technically not a slut.
Just because I was polite does not mean that I agree with her stance, Dalrock..
You just can’t help bringing up my name , every time DH is mentioned.
However you are simply just wrong.. I do not agree with DH or the views she has espoused, and I have said as much, here.
I am a Christian. And as Brendan pointed out, Christians do not believe in “the double standard”
DH believes there is nothing wrong with being a slut (so long as one does not cheat in a relationship) I believe that is wrong. It is a sin to promote promiscuity. It is also a sin to engage in promiscuous behavior.. Male or female.
Show me where I have said otherwise Dalrock?
What has gotten up your nose, I think, is that I severely castigated GL for his promiscuous behavior.. And , why not, he gloated about it. Cheated on his LTR and thought nothing of it. Spoke of women as cunts.. So, I should applaud such behavior, and sympathize? NO WAY.
DH on the other hand, as someone as pointed out here, is just a poseur.. All talk..
Agreeing with slutty behavior and engaging in such behavior are two different things .Varying degrees of sinful behavior.
Would you place DH in the same category as a slut who had slept with a slew of men?
I don’t think so..
To put this another way…
If DH was young and single today and a virgin, would you not think that she would be a very good prospect for marriage.. As opposed to a slut who had a very high partner count? I am sure that she would not be short of suitors.
The irony here is that while DH is not a slut in the true sense, Women who ARE sluts do not believe themselves do be such.. Justifying their immorality through their female Hamster rationalizing..(I just haven’t found the right man yet, sort of rubbish.)
In the end, actions DO speak louder than words.
Socially defined as attractive by whom? The rapists? The women who dress like sluts? Here you are saying women’s dress has nothing to do with sexual assault, and then you claim that women who are assaulted were dressed attractively.
4 % is not a large percentage. That’s a little bit over the margin of error.
Why is it so difficult to establish that 96% percent of women that get sexually assaulted are not dressed like clubbing sluts?
“[…]Over 50% of reported rapes occur in the home. 80% of sexual assaults reported by college age women and adult women were perpetrated by close friends or family members.”
Over 50% of rapes occur in the home! Are you implying slutty clubbing rape victims somehow lead their attackers back to their homes?
“No one here asserted that women who are forcibly raped were “asking for it”
Kai compared dressing like a slut to walking around with your wallet sticking out in a bad neighborhood.”
Yes, I did. Are you saying that people who show they have money are *asking* to be robbed?
No-one *asks* to have a crime committed against them.
But since people will commit crimes regardless of that, it is logical to try to lower the risk.
Fear of man’s word? Or anger? I wouldn’t conflate the two like disgust for homos is spat on as homophobia(wtf)
Wage gap was much more of a farce than this travesty. And that was about numbers!!
“If every girl in the US suddenly dressed modestly, sexual assaults will still happen. Heck, the statistics probably would be the same.”
See.
“Over 50% of rapes occur in the home! ”
OMG!!
Again, the slut walks were not about protesting the mistaken notion (if it is really mistaken – we don’t know, because the priority was not to publish statistics to the contrary, but to do something else, as follows) that slutty dress leads to being raped. The slut walks were about shoving promiscuity as a valid choice in the face of society. The feminists were offended that a man, and a public speaker and civil servant at that, would have a negative opinion of promiscuous behavior by women and express it publicly. That’s what he was really chastised for. If it was really about what percentage of rapes are directly caused by slutty attire, then we would have had “rape statistics walks”. These fat ugly sluts would be holding signs saying “correlation is not causation” and “only 4% of rapes are directly caused by slutty dress” instead of signs saying “it’s my body and I do what I want”. (http://www.ikners.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/Boston-SlutWalk-0071.jpg)
Butterfly Flower: ““[…]Over 50% of reported rapes occur in the home. 80% of sexual assaults reported by college age women and adult women were perpetrated by close friends or family members.””
Of the 20% of rapes that are perpetrated by strangers, how many occur to the 4% of victims who are provocatively dressed or otherwise ‘participative’? This is important, because if, for instance, the sets overlap completely, then the policeman’s advice would help prevent 20% of all rapes by strangers. That would be stunningly good advice.
Still, for nearly everyone supporting them, the slut walks are entirely about pushing the promiscuity agenda. Only the aspergery, quantitative, literal types – who often struggle to understand people – care about the numbers.
I can’t help but suspect that the veracity of the stated 4% figure is highly dependent on methods of measuring, and of defining, the act of rape. In particular that the 4% figure is artificially low due to the practice of defining all sex in which the female cannot recall, or claims she cannot recall giving consent (i.e. drunken sex), as rape. Of course this suspicion still raises naughty judging talk about avoidability so we better not go there.
I should add that I have no backup study to prove this, and won’t be looking, being that it doesn’t affect me and I don’t care…
Butterfly Flower:
In that 50 percent or more of the rapes that are reported in the home, did the subtract out the amount of rapes that were reported during a divorce or custody battle?
It’s a well-know fact that lots of bogus things get alleged during divorce. And give then every year millions of people divorce I’d bet those statistics would look a bit different if that was factored out properly.
I can’t help but suspect that the veracity of the stated 4% figure is highly dependent on methods of measuring, and of defining, the act of rape. In particular that the 4% figure is artificially low due to the practice of defining all sex in which the female cannot recall, or claims she cannot recall giving consent (i.e. drunken sex), as rape. Of course this suspicion still raises naughty judging talk about avoidability so we better not go there.
I should add that I have no backup study to prove this, and won’t be looking, being that it doesn’t affect me and I don’t care…
Can you guys please do some research on Rape before drawing such inaccurate conclusions?
Rapists are motivated to commit rape for power reasons. A rapist does not commit rape because he’s sexually aroused or in the mood.
Here’s a quote from a “Rape Myths” article:
“Sexual assault is about violence and power. There is absolutely no data indicating that good looking or attractive women are assaulted at higher rates.”
Butterfly Flower: “I was 14 and raped in a stairwell wearing snowshoes and layers. Did I deserve it too?”
Was the teenage girl in layered winter clothes asking for it? How was she being promiscuous?”
Obviously she was not responsible and I hope they got the jerk.
According to: RAINN she was in the high risk group aged 12-34 (peak fertility years).
From that same page we learn that 15% of victims are under 12 and 80% under 30 giving us 65% of victims in the peak fertility years of 12 – 30.
I am going to go out on a limb and suggest that women in their peak fertile years are also the most attractive women. Since you assert that:
“A rapist does not commit rape because he’s sexually aroused or in the mood”
Why do they focus so disproportionately on the most attractive women? This would at least suggest that while rape might be partially motivated by power, sexual attraction definitely plays a role.
Butterfly Flower:
Please get thee to this page:
http://falserapesociety.blogspot.com/p/informative-sources.html
For more information at a later date:
http://www.feministcritics.org/blog/category/rape/
and http://toysoldier.wordpress.com/category/sexual-violence/
Now, I don’t know about the other commenters on here, but I’ve been reading studies of rape incidences for a period of over ten years. It’s a signficant issue, and not something that can be adequately researched by going to one or two advocacy websites. I’ve also got a study or two more topical I’d like to post, but I’m tired and going to bed.
Dalrock, when you get to your blog later today please check your spam filter for a post of mine with 3 links in it. Thanks.
Dear BF, I did some reasearch but all I could find was this…
“date rape is a particularly problematic case for the not-sex theory. Most people agree that women have the right to say no at any point during sexual activity, and that if the man persists he is a rapist — but should we also believe that his motive has instantaneously changed from wanting sex to oppressing women?”
“but should we also believe that his motive has instantaneously changed from wanting sex to oppressing women?”
Some feminists have gotten creative to work around this: they claim all heterosexual sex is rape. Therefore is was never about sex and always about oppressing women. Yes, this is dumb.
Rapists are motivated to commit rape for power reasons.
Which is the feminist ideological take on things, and something you’ve obviously internalized.
Prof. Stephen Pinker of Harvard, a leading cognitive scientist, has debunked this ideological approach in his book “The Blank Slate” — a link describing his critique is here: http://robertwiblin.wordpress.com/2010/05/25/steven-pinker-on-the-motivations-for-violence/
Parroting the feminist party-line, or citing feminist-motivated government studies (or other feminist-motivated studies, which are legion because they are easy to get grants for in political terms) is good way to fit in with the current culture, but really indicates you are just beginning to approach these issues intellectually, which isn’t surprising given your age.
From the wikipedia page on “Motivation for rape”:
There is no single theory that conclusively explains the motivation for rape; the motives of rapists can be multi-factorial and are the subject of debate. Researchers have attempted to explain the motivation of a rapist in terms of socioeconomics, anger, power, sadism, sexual pleasure, psychopathy, ethical standards, attitudes toward women and evolutionary pressures.
It’s a topic that seems to attract political theorists rather than disinterested research.
Anyway here is an article about two eminent researchers who disagree that rape is about power alone rather than sex.
I have just come across the following on the Net, and thought immediately of this thread. In America it is apparently the fashion for certain young men to wear their trousers (pants as I believe Americans say) beneath their underwear. I am not quite sure how the Trousers do not fall down, but apparently not. It transpires that the Fort Worth Transportation Authority has barred men so dressed from travelling on their buses. Passengers do not like it. No one is suggesting that their posterior flesh is showing, and of course what is acceptable dress on the beach is not necessarily acceptable in a shopping-mall.
I fail to see any difference between the attitude of the young men of Fort Worth and the young women of the Toronto Slut March. Both are being provocative. Both are giving off signals. It seems however that only the men can be criticised for their behaviour, and indeed find their possibility of getting around town restricted.
Am I missing something?
“Can you guys please do some research on Rape before drawing such inaccurate conclusions?”
Doomed Harlot–
Yes, the rape of a highly promiscuous woman with fifty partners is less serious than the rape of a girl with none, or only one, her fiance or husband. It’s highly likely to have far less traumatic impact upon her.
This is particularly true in the small subset of feminist claimed date rapes that actually were rapes – that is she was either unconscious or clearly and unambiguously said no (as opposed to moaned no’s that then stopped, which she responded to his kisses and fingering her. With the real nos, after she’s allowed him to remove her top and bra, and responded to his kisses and caresses, if he then doesn’t heed her sharp and lound no’s, yeah then it’s a kind of rape. A rather minor kind when she’s had 30 prior partners, was obviously turned on by the guy, but just didn’t want to go all the way so quickly in hopes that might work better for encouraging him to stick around and have a relationship.
When he drops her like a hot potatoes and decides it was rape after all (since she’s pissed at him): 1) I’ll be inclined not to believe her – she has a motive to lie; and 2) even if I do believe her, I’d not consider it much of a rape. Misdemeanor rape kind of thing.
Yeah, some rape is pretty damn minor, and I sick and tired of feminists privileging themselves and bs date rape.
“Yes, the rape of a highly promiscuous woman with fifty partners is less serious than the rape of a girl with none, or only one, her fiance or husband. It’s highly likely to have far less traumatic impact upon her.”
Well said Doug. I certainly agree.
You reap what you sow, comes to mind.
Pingback: Weekly wisdom round up* «
Butterfly Flower–
Complete feminist projecting horseshit. More feminist lying. Feminists lie all the freaking time. Most of what feminists say are lies. Rapists use power to enable them to obtain non consensual sex.
Women experience rape as a loss of female power and self determination to greater male physical power. That DOES NOT MEAN that that’s why some, a tiny minority of men, are principally motivated to rape. The do it to have sex.
Butterfly Flower–
Articles by rape hysterical feminists are useless lies.
I thought that there had been some research showing that more porn meant less rape…sounds like rape is about sex to me.
Doomed Harlot–
Don’t act dumb feminist. It’s obviously context dependent. Wearing a skimpy bikini on a beach whether many others are doing the same is different from strolling down the street on the edge of a bad part of town after nightfall, without a coverup and shirt over it. Nightclub dance wear is one thing inside the club and just outside it waiting for a taxi, but dicey to go on a long walk in late at night back to a girl’s apartment, particularly if she’s alone.
Rapists use power to enable them to obtain non consensual sex.
Women experience rape as a loss of female power and self determination to greater male physical power. That DOES NOT MEAN that that’s why some, a tiny minority of men, are principally motivated to rape. The do it to have sex.
Indeed and this is the point Pinker makes on both sides.
It’s about power in the sense that (1) women experience it as being about power because they are overpowered by a man physically and (2) the rapist uses his greater physical power to do so. It’s about sex, however, in that the motive of the rapist is to use his power to get sex, just like the motive of a mugger is to use his power to rob and steal. The muggee also experiences a mugging as a very frustrating powerlessness due to facing superior power that can’t be resisted (usually involving weapons as well), but that doesn’t mean the mugger is motivated by wielding power, primarily — he’s motivated by the desire to steal.
I wouldn’t doubt that rapists who use physical power to forcibly rape women also get off, sexually, to a certain degree by using that power, but, again, that’s a sexually “getting off” that would be the main motive there, as well.
It’s also interesting to note that Pinker considers himself to be a feminist, and is generally supportive of feminist ideas — but, when feminists depart from what he considers to be the truth, he calls them out on it, and has taken a lot of lumps from official/academic feminism for doing so.
Doomed Harlot–
There’s noting silly about it. Men and women aren’t the same. It takes skilz to be a stud, but only being easy and not requiring commitment or at indications that is coming, to be a slut. Sluts can be good for casual sex. They are much riskier for marriage.
Had a few comments on this, but before I get to them, I’ve gotta call BS on that study about 4% being due to dress/actions. Mostly because it doesn’t seem to exist. I keep figuring out new ways to try to find the “Federal Commission on Crimes of Violence”, but I can’t. Everyone that lists it doesn’t give any hint where to attribute it to. So, someone needs to bring up a full cite & report, otherwise the number is made up from thin air. (Ignoring the fact there’s no real way to quantify what they’re saying; was it interviews with Rapists?)
If you want some actual stats on this, though they’re roughly 15+ years out of data now (latest large analysis by the FBI that seems to be generally cited): http://www.mincava.umn.edu/documents/sexoff/sexoff.html
The important table is Table 4. 24.4% of Rapes were by people unknown to the victim. Then back in Table 3, you find that 56.6% of rapes happened in a residence known to the victim. And Table 2 tells us 67% of them happen between 6 pm and 6 am. I don’t have the cross-tables nor the inclination to union out the data, but the basic suggestion that signaling (which is what the slut comment by the cop was about) is only 4% sounds really bogus. And it doesn’t really address much of anything.
You can find a lot of these “Rape Myths” pages, which all seem to quote data sets running about 20 years old (so before the massive drop off in Violent Crimes that started in the early 90s) and that don’t necessarily say what they think they say. I knew the stats had been trumped up a lot, but I really didn’t know how badly. I guess no one really fisks stats on Rape, as it’s not something you generally want to be associated with being critical of, at least in the media-shaming sense.
Then you have to get into the categorization issue. There are different types of Rape. Especially with the drunk coed issue involved, you have to define what you’re actually talking about when it comes to what the cop was responding to in the original situation. In the Unknown Attacker scenario, signalling is going to be very important. (http://www.nononsenseselfdefense.com/five_stages.html should give you a general idea how the current practical self-defense by avoidance works) That’s what the cop was talking about, which is why most guys went “huh” to all of this. The whole “Slutwalk” stuff comes off as really beside any actual point related to what the cop said.
Here’s a better example why it comes off as odd or stupid. “Stranger Danger”. How many people teach their children, or the society burns into the kids, to not talk to strangers? What’s the likelihood that if your child is abducted, it’s by non-family member? Only about 25% (though getting the hard numbers is a little hard), but the “stereotype” ones is even lower. (Ones where the attacker isn’t known at all) So, it’s a serious issue that society takes precautions against and… it’s really not a common occurrence. The danger is a relative/neighbor. (Much like the person most likely to kill you is a relative)
So, bringing this back to what the cop was implying is straight forward: to him, “Slut” covered a set of actions/dress that increase signaling in the situation where the “stereotypical” rape is more likely to occur (Violent, unknown Attack, with a weapon; the “dark alley” type). This is what the reaction is to and why it’s stupid. Self-defense, for the majority of *avoidable* crimes, is about not putting yourself into situations where the odds of a crime happening increase dramatically. Getting into a stranger’s car is an example of a dangerous situation, for a child or a female.
The sad bit is that the cop was being nice. They’d have gone more nuts if he’d actually said the real truth: don’t drink alcohol and be in places where others are drinking it. He definitely meant it in the comment about “sluts”, but more by association than “being a slut”. So, I think some of the other Bloggers are onto the right idea. This is about establishing that women don’t have to take any culpability for their actions when it comes to sex & alcohol. As in the case that Susan Walsh pointed to (and that made the news), the girl didn’t deserve to be raped (which is a Straw Man argument that’s definitely thrown around a lot) but she did everything in her power to create the scenario most likely to lead to her getting raped. Stupidity has consequences, a lot of them deadly. (Go to Break.com if you want to laugh at those stupid choices played out with explosives.)
As to the “Rape is about Power & Violence” issue. That’s more complex and never provable. So it’s just a concept, of which there’s a lot of holes to work around. The Violence theory is only in part of Rapes. Those are in the “stereotypical” type that involves Use of Force. In the non-consent types, i.e. the woman is passed out drunk or unable to consent, there’s effectively no physical brutality involved, so you can’t argue it’s really about that. (If they beat the woman while they’re in the act, then yes, there’s implicitly intended brutality)
The Power theory aspect seems more of a confluence than a direct reasoning issue. (This completely ignores the fact that humans don’t normally undertake *any* action for singular reasons but for multi-part reasons, but that’s a completely different issue.) It also is a strange definition for Power. There is definitely an aspect of Power to overcoming another physically in the act of Rape, but Power, as generally understood, is a state people attempt to keep. In a Rape, the power is very time-limited. Power is more of a direct reason if kidnapping/detention happens, but as pointed out already in this thread and my previous stats, these are also not the majority of rapes.
Rape is far better understood as a Gratification issue in a number of the scenarios. Using a Gratification approach to “Reasons for Rape”, you can encompass most of the major categories and a lot of the minor categories of Rape. You can cover Pedophiles, Prison Rape, Date Rape, Violent Rape and Marital Rape fairly effectively under the rubric. It also allows for a construction to understand the Serial Killers that rape or torture (or both) their victims first. It’s not a perfect approach, but it’s much better for actually explaining the behavior than saying it’s about Power.
Thinking even a bit more on all of this, I think the Straw Man that keeps being brought up (that people are actually arguing the victims “deserved” to be raped) is really most of the issue. The Straw Man is there for two reasons: 1) to avoid having to actually talk about anything logical and 2) to attack any notion of culpability for “known” risk increases. Having to take no regard for your actions is what a child does, generally because they don’t necessarily know the consequences for those actions. An adult generally has an idea when actions will have negative consequences. Avoiding any discussion of consequences for actions is to avoid holding the people involved responsible for their choices. Oy, this is becoming a repeat of the Girl’s Night Out arguments over at Athol’s place. Weird how that happened?
A few stray thoughts on all of this:
– Would we be having this discussion if the cop had said “don’t dress like a whore”?
– Men generally don’t use the word “slut”, compared to women. Men will use “slutty”, but they generally skip from “easy” to “whore”, or use “slut” as something more like a verb or adverb (“she really slut it up”). This is all from my own experiences, so your mileage will vary, but calling a woman a slut is normally something I’ve heard other woman do. Maybe the Slutwalks are more directed at other women?
– This reminds me a bit of the Tunisian man who set himself on fire and started the “Arab Spring”. The result is complete upheaval in the Middle East, but he was raging at the government requirement for a license to sell apples. It’s weird what can set off massive events these days.
Doomed Harlot–=
Yeah and I’m not in favor of doubling or tripling the size of our police forces so you don’t have to exercise some prudence.
Doomed Harlot–
No, you and the rest of the slutwalk supporting feminists are clueless ones. He’s right. He’s speaking from stats. Women who dress slutty in a context where most women aren’t dressed that way, do make themselves a more likely rape target. Probably for two reasons: 1) they excite the lust in the potential rapist more (younger, nubile women are more often raped as well); and 2) in the minds of potential rapists they deserve less respect, and they look experienced, so what’s one more.
Brendan–
Agreed.
Butterfly Flower–
True. They tend to be sociopathic and lacks sympathy for their victims. Some however lack more sympathy for some types of female potential rape victims than others. E.g. girls dressed in a particularly slutty way for the time and place, and prostitutes.
Wrong. It’s not fully random at all. Sometimes it’s not random whatsoever. Rape victims tend to be young, fertile looking and attractive, and dressed sluttier than most other women for that time and place (as that Toronto cop said). They also strongly tend to be alone, away from groups of people.
Although it happens, not many 60 something women are raped compared to twenty somethings.
Butterfly Flower–
That’s not remotely credible. It has the high stench of feminist distortion and weasel wording. Who did and wrote up the rape portion of that federal commission study? A rape radical feminist perhaps. In virtually every date rape there’s been participative behavior by the victim.
This certainly isn’t saying that in only 4% of rapes was a woman dressed in a sexier manner than most around her. It’s weasel wording.
Doomed Harlot, I am totally on board with you on this. I think that no one should be shamed for exercising their freedom of expression. I believe it is my right and decision to leave my car unlocked with the keys in the ignition whenever I go someplace. Car keys in my pocket cramp my style and feel uncomfortable. Yet, unfortunately, there are bigoted law-enforcement officials who advise me to lock my car and take the keys with me whenever I park it, particularly when I park in a high-crime area. Not just this, but if my car gets stolen or valuables are taken from it, there are assholes who tell me I “deserved it” simply because of my “key-free” lifestyle choice. Ummmm…hello people, I’m not the one stealing cars. This is yet another example of the rampant victim-blaming that goes on in our society, and it needs to be stopped. I’ve been inspired by the slut-walks, and I propose that there be “unlocker park-ins” where car-key-averse citizens band together and demonstrate to defend their automotive lifestyle choice from ignorant victim-blaming authorities. Car theft is a serious crime, and its time we focused on stopping car thieves rather than shaming the owners of unlocked cars.
[D: Nicely played. Is there any truth to the rumors that you don’t actually leave your car unlocked, and only encourage others to make this foolish choice?]
@ Opus
There are no walks dedicated to the right of these men to wear their pants around below the underwear. Notice too, the Fort Worth bus system had the full weight of its institutional authority against this form of dress. There are no organized marches for the men to be allowed to dress this way. The slutwalks, on the other hand, were instigated by an offhand comment that is NOT officially endorsed by the Toronto Police Department. A comment that sparked feminist organizations to organize rallies and attract media attention.
The takeaway here is that much greater resistance to men’s dress produces much less response than resistance to women’s dress. Dalrock’s argument in the OP tries to connect the dots. Based on the relative overreaction of the feminists/sluts, doesn’t it seem reasonable for him to conclude that they feel much more threatened by much less resistance?
Doomed Harlot
“And “don’t dress like a slut” is such useful advice! Even though I have no idea what his view of “dressing like a slut””
Assuming you’re not a disingenuous liar (I can’t rule this out), I’m happy to say that I can help you out here. Or, in fact, it’s better than that; all the women on the slut walks know what dressing like a slut looks like…why not ask them? They didn’t need a grownup to tell them, why do you?
Pray tell, do you prefer to be seen as an ignorant child (who is genuinely unknowing) or a lying adult?
I only ask as, to me at least, teh wimminz prefer the rights of an adult and the responsibilities of a widdle child.
I’d really like women to ‘grow some’ or stay in the wendy house, know what I mean?
Hang on, you’ve previously demonstrated a desire to feign wilful ignorance…so let’s be clear; WITH rights come responsibilities. So, are you an adult or a child?
Oh NOES,
BF and DH are trying to fight de menz with factz and logicz (and liez) this isn’t going to end well (for them).
If you’re going to believe blank-slaters that men and women are the same (despite all real-world experience to the contrary)…well, prepare for the possibility of defeat. That’s putting it mildly for your gentle souls, in case you are going to faint when you hear something that you don’t like. Feminists do that (or so they claim).
Anonymous Reader, If I am attacked, that’s not the result of a bad decision on my part.
So you bear zero responsibility for your own safety, is that correct?
That’s the result of someone choosing to attack me.
True. However, if you choose to place yourself in a location where there is a higher probability of people who would choose to attack you, wouldn’t your own actions be contributory to the attack in some way?
And it is the job of the police (whom I pay big bucks to support, by the way) to get predators off the street so as to maximize the ability of innocent citizens to move about freely.
No. You are wrong. There is no duty for the police to protect any particular, individual person. That’s not my opinion, that’s the opinion of multiple courts all the way up to the US Supreme Court. Didn’t you learn that in law school?
I suppose that if Doomed Harlot Poseur were to go to a beach where signs were posted to the effect of “Warning! Sharks! Do not swim!” she’d insist that by golly, she has a right to swim anywhere she pleases, and if she’s attacked by a shark then the lifeguards (whom she pays big bucks to support) darned well better come and save her. And if a shark chooses to attack her, that’s got nothing to do with any of her choices whatsoever.
The mindset that the officer, perhaps unwittingly, can be indicative of a larger problem. (He represents law and order. If people do not feel they can trust him or others in his field, then he and other officers become ineffective. There are large groups of people who avoid the police because of profiling of various types.) He should have presented his views in an intelligent manner. If someone is going to commit a rape, that person ultimately doesn’t care what the target is wearing, unless the rapist knows how to benefit from the prejudices in society. Some people who are raped, including men, never get help because they know they are going to be ridiculed, regardless of how much they tried to protect themselves.
There are repercussions to being branded a slut, a rapist or a pedophile, along with other scathing terms. Someone being incensed at having those terms lobbed at him/her does not mean the label automatically fits the individuals. I sincerely hope that each of you who are quick to label others will not in turn be categorized in a way that is damaging to your reputation and your overall livelihood.
Good comment by Grerp about priorities.
One wonders how much sympathy people who wear “the wrong colors” in the wrong places get after they get assaulted.
If they are men? One bets not a whole hell of a lot
Yes dear (octavia), thank you dear, for your valuable ‘insight’.
Anytime you wish to return to reality and address facts, we’ll be waiting.
I won’t hold my breath, if it’s all the same to you. Men know how tedious addressing reality can be…we’d like some more women to come share the burden, we’ll wait patiently, oh, so patiently
Doug1 says:
June 4, 2011 at 7:44 am
Yeah, some rape is pretty damn minor, and I sick and tired of feminists privileging themselves and bs date rape.
Alright, you took a stance. Great. Go ahead and define the situations you define as “pretty damn minor.”
@ Gendeau says: June 4, 2011 at 1:11 pm
You’re so charming!
By the way, your myopia is especially noticeable in the echo chamber of this thread. You’re welcome to enjoy my valuable insight because you obviously need to be enlightened.
15 year old boy, 15 year old girl…all consensual ’til daddy finds out?
Oh and you women keep telling us how women mature quicker, right?
Woman dragged into bushes at knife point and gang-raped is the same as man and wife have sex and she decides to accuse him of rape ‘cos she wants a divorce because she’s ‘unfulfilled’. They are EXACTLY comparable, are they?
There’s just a chance that you are full of shit, consider it a distinct possibility
“myopia is especially noticeable in the echo chamber”
I did quite enjoy you mixing short-sightedness with echo chamber though…amusing.
Makes you look dumb, but hey, not for the first time…
Susan Walsh says: June 3, 2011 at 11:09 pm
I read your thread that mentioned Beckett Brennan. Let me just say that it was quite memorable.
Now, it’s best when everyone acts in a responsible fashion. Everyone. However, there are some actions that are so heinous that to turn criticism to the victim can look like you’re endorsing the crime, regardless of how many times you say you’re not. Even if you think there’s contributory actions to someone being raped, how you address the situation might end up being counterproductive to helping that person and/or the rest of your target audience.
Gendeau says: June 4, 2011 at 1:40 pm
Oh, I see. You only responded (poorly) to the part of my post you thought you could understand. Run along now…
I’ve come to the conclusion that women, as a whole, simply hate being judged by men, notwithstanding what they are being judged for or which side of the judgment they are on.
Even though male judgment benefits women of character tremendously, and women of character would derive the most benefit from separating themselves from women of low character, the power of male judgment is so strong and viscerally uncomfortable that women as a whole seek to eradicate its power entirely.
Thus Doomed Harlot erroneously takes up the “slut” moniker in an attempt to confuse and de-tooth the term. And an otherwise reasonable woman like Mrs Dalrock opposes paternity testing because of the “judgment” factor, that her character might be impugned for even a split second even though she’d pass the acid test. And women allow whores to be counted among ladies and then demand men treat them all with presumptive respect.
Octavia—
Utter baladerdash.
First of all rapists tend to rape when there’s a target of opportunity. She’s walking or jogging alone, there aren’t other people about to see, and so on. But after that large hurdle is satisfied, and it’s by far the biggest thing, a potential rapist meeting up with having that opportunity and being strongly in the mood, he’s most likely to pick as his target a young, nubile, fertile looking girl who’s dressed in a sexy manner. Further for many rapists I think they have less respect for girls that dress provocative manner that they conclude are sluts, or for prostitutes, as I said above. It helps them get over any remaining morsel of empathy for the potential victim, and to feel it won’t be such a big deal for them. Some rapists tell themselves that a slutty girl’s likely to like it, I’ve read from actual accounts.
Octavia,
“Now, it’s best when everyone acts in a responsible fashion. Everyone. However, there are some actions that are so heinous that to turn criticism to the victim can look like you’re endorsing the crime, regardless of how many times you say you’re not. Even if you think there’s contributory actions to someone being raped, how you address the situation might end up being counterproductive to helping that person and/or the rest of your target audience.”
I just want to note that it’s now on the record that you think it’s better that we spare the “feelings” of someone who made massively bad judgments than that we help other women learn how to keep themselves safe.
Octavia–
The Toronto officer wasn’t branding any particular woman a slut, or was he branding any particular group of women. He was leaving it up to his female university campus listeners for themselves to decide what constitutes dressing in a slutty manner for a particular time and place.
“there are some actions that are so heinous that to turn criticism to the victim can look like you’re endorsing the crime, regardless of how many times you say you’re not”
only to a moron like you.
“Oh, I see. You only responded (poorly) to the part of my post you thought you could understand.”
The rest was pure bullshit, didn’t you realise that?
How about answering my examples of grades of rape?
Badger says: June 4, 2011 at 1:55 pm
“Even though male judgment benefits women of character tremendously, and women of character would derive the most benefit from separating themselves from women of low character, the power of male judgment is so strong and viscerally uncomfortable that women as a whole seek to eradicate its power entirely.”
What are the benefits of male judgment for women of character? I don’t want to assume that I know what you mean. Please explain,
Octavia–
Too bad. What Dalrock said just above.
“might end up being counterproductive to helping that person and/or the rest of your target audience.”
All your faux-outrage at the word slut shows how much you are worried about helping other women avoid rape.
Men, women and children, you’d push them all under the bus if it’s convenient.
If someone is going to commit a rape, that person ultimately doesn’t care what the target is wearing, unless the rapist knows how to benefit from the prejudices in society. Some people who are raped, including men, never get help because they know they are going to be ridiculed, regardless of how much they tried to protect themselves.
Octavia, I missed your comments! You’re one of the few ladies on the manosphere that I actually agree with. You usually say what I’m thinking, but unable to correctly articulate [I’m dyslexic].
Anyway, statistically [as in, trialed and sentenced rapists getting interviewed and studied] most rapes appear to be an act of violence unrelated to the victim’s behavior. Sexual Assault victims do not lead their attackers on.
The statistics aren’t flawed or politically motivated. What’s the political motivation behind: “Evil Men exist, Evil Men sometimes attack innocent women”?
I never said all men are evil rapists. I just said there’s a small percentage of evil men in the world that harm women for absolutely no reason.
Would you defend a serial rapist serving a life sentence? Were all his victims “asking for it”?
“What are the benefits of male judgment for women of character? I don’t want to assume that I know what you mean. Please explain,”
Facing up to, and dealing with, reality. It’s a male thing…sadly for you. There must be lots of things that you need explained, pity you never listen to the answers.
Being a slut is nothing to be proud of, just as being a PUA is not.
How long ’til you realise (belatedly) that you’ve lost the arguments and run away, like BF and DH?
Feminism; never having to face up to the inconvenient facts. Lie, lie and lie ’til shown up and then run away…gutless.
Ooops speak of the devil, BF is back still inventing ‘facts’.
“If someone is going to commit a rape, that person ultimately doesn’t care what the target is wearing, unless the rapist knows how to benefit from the prejudices in society.” – proof? Or just a convenient ‘femi-fact’
“What are the benefits of male judgment for women of character? I don’t want to assume that I know what you mean. Please explain,”
Read my post on Ladder Theory.
http://badgerhut.wordpress.com/2011/06/03/ladder-theory-for-men/
Men have two lists – women they’d date and seek to marry, and a larger list of women they’d sleep with but with whom they have no interest in a relationship. (There’s a short third list for women they have no interest in at all).
The benefits of being on the first list should be obvious – a real relationship, added social and financial security, his personal commitment to you, the opportunity to bear his children and have a healthy home in which to raise them, the support of his family, the jealousy of the other girls in her group, the list goes on.
In short, men are in awe of women on list 1 and really sell out for them. As much as feminists try to shame away, for women on list 2, men don’t put much more into her than their penis (and the effort required to get to that point).
Women seem to think that if they can de-claw the power of male judgment, men will have to put every woman on the first list. (The sex pozzies have openly said this; they want to make every woman slutty so that men won’t have the option of judging at all.)
But men aren’t doing that; men who are paying attention are putting more and more women on lists 2 and 3, and making it harder for women to move to list 1. Women are destroying their own collective value by keeping low-character women in the club.
One of the litmus tests of a woman’s character is whether she defends women without it. It’s in Dalrock’s list of criteria. It’s an absolute criterion for me.
Ooops speak of the devil, BF is back still inventing ‘facts’
I’m not inventing facts; I’m quoting actual government research studies:
“More than half of all rapes of women occur before age 18; 22% occur before age 12. (Full Report of the Prevalance, Incidence, and Consequences of Violence Against Women, Findings from the National Violence Against Women Survey, November, 2000)”
The idea that “most rape victims are drunk clubbing sluts asking for it” just doesn’t fit in with the statistics.
Why is that notion so unfathomable?
“The idea that “most rape victims are drunk clubbing sluts asking for it” just doesn’t fit in with the statistics.”
NO ONE SAID THEY WERE
this is a STRAWMAN argument.
You are attempting to defend the indefensible by changing the subject to the defensible.
As usual, listening to all this blather about slutwalks and rapes proves again that NAWALT is lot of baloney. It’s no accident that women reflexively defend sluttiness and howl about rape in the same breath. When women are taught that they are the ‘owners of sex’ and ‘have all the power in relationships’, the superficial paradox is a perfectly logical conclusion. They are sluts to prove that they can dispose of their bodies anyway they please; but fear rape because no man has the right to take that same power.
The one thing they can’t tolerate, though, is a committed monogamous relationship with a man, since that (to them) is sharing the power with a detested male pig.
Women have exactly the same attitudes towards reproduction; which again, is why the same ones who jealously guard the so-called ‘right to choose’ are the first to scream for stronger obligations against men in child-support cases. And these same women, when they do have kids, shovel them into daycares without an afterthought.
Bottom line: avoid American women like the plague!
Eric,
As MCoy used to say (kinda) “It’s logic Jim, but not as we know it”.
Have you listened to
http://geniusrealms.com/reasoningshow/show10.htm
It’s a show with guests Rich Zubaty and Sue Hindmarsh talking about feminism and misandry.
It will blow your mind what SHE says. He’s great, but she amazes, listen to it.
I’m surprised that those two and the host weren’t assassinated by the ‘thought’ police.
Doug1 says: June 4, 2011 at 1:59 pm
The rapists who convince themselves their victims like it have even more significant hurdles to understanding they are ultimately responsible for their behavior. A rapist can think the victim deserved that act of violence for a number of reasons. Why should society rush to consider those reasons to be valid? What has the rapist done to earn that kind of consideration?
It is important to focus on the action and not be overwhelmed by the circumstances surrounding the action. Why? There are millions of people who see others in various states of undress and will never assault/rape another human being. Rape is the crime. Wearing certain kinds of clothing deemed slutty (which is a definition that’s a moving target) is not.
Each person has to protect him/herself as much as possible. Regardless of what measures are taken, only certain actions are defined as crimes. To decide to prosecute based upon how well a victim protected him/herself would leave many people (non-criminals) out in the cold.
In addition, a significant portion of rapists are already familiar with the individuals they want to target. They don’t meet them out in an alley, see them out jogging, etc. They live with them, have classes on campus with them, work with them, etc. At the end of the day, the attitudes present in society allow rapists to minimize the damage they do. Many people distance themselves from this reality because to look closer at the issue might reveal that they know someone who has been raped and/or someone who did rape. Ignoring this is a folly that many people commit. Otherwise, if the company you (universal) keep is indicative of what you value, you just might have some acquaintances that seriously tarnish you. Too many think that all kinds of crimes happen to “other people” who were doing something “wrong.”
But men aren’t doing that; men who are paying attention are putting more and more women on lists 2 and 3, and making it harder for women to move to list 1. Women are destroying their own collective value by keeping low-character women in the club.
I’m not a feminazi defending slutty drunk women in a club; I’m defending the modestly dressed sexual assault victims that weren’t “asking for it”!
….I’m defending myself.
A year ago, a strange man randomly walked up to me and put his hands on me. In broad daylight, with other people around, a man started feeling me.
I wasn’t looking at him. I didn’t flirt with him. I didn’t lead him on. I wasn’t wearing tight revealing clothing or make up. I wasn’t out at night. I wasn’t alone.
Don’t you dare tell me I was asking for it. Don’t you dare tell me I deserved it.
As usual, listening to all this blather about slutwalks and rapes proves again that NAWALT is lot of baloney. It’s no accident that women reflexively defend sluttiness and howl about rape in the same breath.
I’m defending the victims of sexual crimes. I’m not defending sluts!
Unless you think victims of sexual crimes are sluts….
If that is the case, then I hope you enjoy an afterlife that involves fire and brimstone. That’s such an evil and demented thought-pattern there’s no way St. Peter would ever allow you past the pearly gates.
BF,
If you read the thread carefully, you will see that Octavia and I are no longer discussing rape. We are discussing the benefits of character for women, and why women of character should not try to de-value terms of male judgment like “slut.” This line of discussion has little to do with who “deserved rape” (which as long as it’s mentioned again is a total strawman argument.)
“If that is the case, then I hope you enjoy an afterlife that involves fire and brimstone. That’s such an evil and demented thought-pattern there’s no way St. Peter would ever allow you past the pearly gates.”
You are blaspheming. It is very clear in the Gospels that God, not humans and especially not sophomoric sassy-mouths like yourself, will decide who is admitted to heaven.
“Don’t you dare tell me I was asking for it. Don’t you dare tell me I deserved it.”
WHO SAID THAT?
“Unless you think victims of sexual crimes are sluts….”
AND THAT?
uh huh Strawmen again.
You lost the argument, now you’re making it about you (assuming that you’re telling the truth, and I don’t owe you belief).
So, I guess that the guy is in gaol now then?
I’m sure that St Peter knows the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth…so everybody is going to get eternal justice, which is nice
Badger says: June 4, 2011 at 2:00 pm
“I just want to note that it’s now on the record that you think it’s better that we spare the “feelings” of someone who made massively bad judgments than that we help other women learn how to keep themselves safe.”
That is an incorrect summary of my statement. I pointed out that the manner in which you choose to address the actions of the victim could backfire. In other words, your tactics matter. Not everyone is skilled in addressing the various interests in volatile situations. That is why people with certain temperaments make excellent counselors, hostage negotiators, etc.
Doug1 says: June 4, 2011 at 2:04 pm
Me: There are repercussions to being branded a slut, a rapist or a pedophile, along with other scathing terms.
You: “The Toronto officer wasn’t branding any particular woman a slut, or was he branding any particular group of women. He was leaving it up to his female university campus listeners for themselves to decide what constitutes dressing in a slutty manner for a particular time and place.”
My sentence you highlighted is a general comment about the consequences of using certain terms, especially if there’s no evidence that the label is warranted. Libel and slander exist.
….WHO SAID THAT?
Kai brought it up the strawman argument first. Susan Walsh also said my statistics were wrong. She said sexual assault victims are mostly drunk clubbing college girls and linked to an article about a promiscuous drunk college girl that cried “rape”.
Heck, you said I was posting fake statistics! Why did you accuse me of posting fake statistics? I wasn’t.
Another point many are missing here is that the cop in question was discussing advice to college women.
The college environment has very specific and stereotyped risk patterns for women wrt sexual assault. These largely involve alcohol (both impaired judgment and total inability to physically resist), semi-anonymous sexual activity where one’s SOP is impossible to know a priori, and confusing or misread sexual signalling on both sides. It is this last point where a woman’s dress and demeanor are important.
Discussions of getting groped on the street in broad daylight are simply not germane to the topic at hand. The risks and countermeasures of, say, a middle-aged woman in a bad neighborhood are different than a college woman who is trying to have a good time, is not 100% sure how far she wants to go, and isn’t well-versed in communicating that to men and to choosing partners who can read her communications properly.
“Each person has to protect him/herself as much as possible”
that’s news coming from you…changed your tune there then. So, people should consider protective measures? – teh smart thinking.
“A rapist can think the victim deserved that act of violence for a number of reasons.”
Nobody said that the rapist would be right. Unless you’re listening to the voices in your head (again).
“Why should society rush to consider those reasons to be valid?”
NOPE, nobody said they should. Which is why you have no quotes.
“What has the rapist done to earn that kind of consideration?”
Nothing…but then nobody said otherwise.
You have NO INTEGRITY (look it up, it’s a character thing)
“and linked to an article about a promiscuous drunk college girl that cried “rape”.”
NO NO NO. The woman in that case WAS raped. She contributed mightily to the risk factors, but a true crime was committed against her.
The term “cry rape” is defined as a false accusation, usually involving consensual sex a woman wants to cover up by retroactively redefining it as rape.
Badger says: June 4, 2011 at 2:31 pm
Thanks for the explanation on this thread. I wanted to find out more about what you had in mind. At any rate, I’m going to read your post on Ladder Theory.
Still claiming that all rapes are the same, are you? Still haven’t answered that one.
I think the real question is, how exactly does promiscuity effect sexual assault statistics?
If promiscuous behavior significantly impacts sexual assault statistics – then Sex-Positive feminism is even more harmful to women than we first thought!
The Slutwalks were originally a protest of the “rape victims were asking for it” attitude the police officer displayed.
Sex-Positive feminists hijacked the protest to promote promiscuity.
“protest of the “rape victims were asking for it” attitude the police officer displayed.”
NO HE DID NOT
As Octavia says, “Each person has to protect him/herself as much as possible”.
And in that vein; He pointed out that, that here in the real world, what you wear CAN affect what happens. Same as walking around with your wallet hanging out in the ‘wrong’ area – You don’t deserve to get robbed, but hiding you money is smarter.
He did NOT say that it SHOULD affect what happens. Could vs Should, can you see the differant words there? They are differant words because they mean differant things, pffft who knew, right?
He gave his audience the benefit of the doubt and assumed that they could be told adult facts – and THAT is the start and the end of what he did wrong.
Then the femiscum decided to crucify a man who cared about women, for their own amusement and agenda.
“I think the real question is”
wow, I hardly detected the abandonment of all the other ‘vital questions’, dubious claims, projection and strawmen.
If we were on a feminist site you’d just have had me kicked off as soon as you started losing, wouldn’t you?
You think men don’t notice these things?
But you demand equal respect though, yeah?
How about earning respect? On a level playing field, using facts and truth? Manning-Up is the feminist phrase du jour, I believe.
Then you wouldn’t have to fear the judgement of men – which weirdly enough was the purpose of the post.
A female wearing revealing attire signals that she is not attached, i.e. she has no significant other ready to exact violence on the perpetrator of the rape. A female dressed with some thought to her appearance signals that indeed, someone will be seeking repercussions of an extreme nature, all of which is consciously or unconsciously noticed by a would be rapist.
Really the entire process here by slut-protesters / apologists is that of establishing some form of ‘right’ to have their safety underwritten by others, whilst simultaneously denying the underwriters themselves any ‘right’ to choose what level of risk they wish to assume in that underwriting.
When most people refer to the idea of underwriting risk, insurance companies are what comes to mind. Of course the analogy falls down there because people PAY to have their risk underwritten by insurance companies, whereas sluts want their risk underwritten for free and to be able to solely define what form the underwriting takes.
tspoon,
yes I agree. They want rights equal to men, but responsibilities equal to children.
In the clip I linked to; http://geniusrealms.com/reasoningshow/show10.htm
Rich Zubaty says he doesn’t think that people that won’t fight for a country should have no vote in the country. Hitlery wants to be POTUS but doesn’t need to register for the draft.
It’s a great listen, but it’s what Sue Hindmarsh says that will blow the tiny brains of DH, Ocky and BF. I wouldn’t go as far as Sue, I doubt that many here would…tempted you yet? I think it’s a mainstream Aussie show, no troofers or anything like that.
Anyway best wishes and good night.
@Butterfly Flower
The Slutwalks were originally a protest of the “rape victims were asking for it” attitude the police officer displayed.
Sex-Positive feminists hijacked the protest to promote promiscuity.
Nonsense. Sex-Positive feminists have been running the slutwalks from day 1. Read the quote from the organizer of the first one in the post. It was always about promoting promiscuity. You are either a troll, or have been badly suckered by the feminists.
From the why page on the website of the first slutwalk (the Toronto one):
I am enormously impressed by the contributions to this thread by Badger and by Eric. Bearing in mind that women control access to sexual intimacy I have begun to ask myself about the situation where a man is offered sexual intercourse by a woman and the man just is not interested – this would be, to use the analogy of the male list, because she is just not sufficiently high on his list (or on it at all). To reject a woman must be one of the hardest things for a woman to endure (as Shakespeare observed) – men, however, get used to rejection. To reject a woman is in effect to say that the woman does not have the power that she assumed was hers. The slut marchers, from what I have seen of them, appear to be women who few men would be intereted in. It is, I would suggest, not only that women are at little risk of sexual assault, but wishful thinking that they are desirable to the average male – that no man (all men being insatiable) can resist them. It is rather sad. I detect Rape-Fantasy.
“We are tired of being oppressed by slut-shaming…”
You know this is so bizarre, no one is telling that sluts can’t vote, own property, become president or that a sluts deserves to by paid less doing the same work as a virtuous woman…just that men will have sex with sluts but no serious relationships or marriages. If marriage is an oppressive institution for women and a woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle, why do they feel oppressed? Really what they hell are they complaining about? Slut shaming doesn’t have any effects on the laws or on women’s rights. It makes no logical sense at all.
“it has primarily been women who have suffered under the burden of this label.”
What I find ironic about this issue is that women are the prime users of the term “slut” to cut down other women’s sexual market value (or more accurately, smear their marital market value). One of the mind-blowing experiences for me was hearing women trash other women as “sluts” who were engaging in the exact same sexual patterns as the women doing the labeling. It was solipsism on parade – it was OK for HER to have a bang in the bathroom, but the other girl who did it was a slut.
As far as men go, it’s not that men actively and verbally “shame” women they judge to be slutty. It’s that they sleep with them but won’t invest in them further. And I think that’s what the sex pozzies are really pissed about.
Thank you, Opus. Please check out my blog if you are interested.
Slut shaming doesn’t have any effects on the laws or on women’s rights. It makes no logical sense at all.
The reason is reflected in Dalrock’s original post here. It’s because they are very sensitive to disapproval.
I still don’t understand this. If I am going into high risk areas — which I used to have to do as part of my job — I wore clothing that blended in. (I can’t do anything about being white. I can choose not to wear a suit). In high risk/high crime/ high asshole areas (Bradford, for instance) I’d dress more conservatively.
I’d advise my daughter and grand daughter to dress conservatively (with twists: the punk reuse of blundstones is so useful, particularly if you choose the version with a steel toecap) and be at code yellow. Hand on the mace. Not trusting anyone until proven (ie verify before trust). Walking in packs. Staying sober. Reading the street.
This is simple self preservation. If you go to bad places, bad things happen. To you. This is advice (DH note) that people need, regardless of how it makes them feel. Now… I would have been nastier “ well you can dress like Lady Gaga or the other MTV babes, yeah, but they have 280lb steroid freaks paid to protect them from pests and you do not”
When times get hard, crime goes up. Dress like a local. Hide your wealth. Display your beauty to only those you can trust. If in doubt, attack: it is easier to defend yourself in front of 12 live men if you have not had your brains bruised by the beating that accompanied any theft or violation.
“A few stray thoughts on all of this:
– Would we be having this discussion if the cop had said “don’t dress like a whore”?
– Men generally don’t use the word “slut”, compared to women. Men will use “slutty”, but they generally skip from “easy” to “whore”, or use “slut” as something more like a verb or adverb (“she really slut it up”). This is all from my own experiences, so your mileage will vary, but calling a woman a slut is normally something I’ve heard other woman do. Maybe the Slutwalks are more directed at other women?”
Yes, I think ‘whore’ would have been as bad.
‘slut’ and ‘whore’ are like ‘nigger’. You only get to say it if you are part of the group to which it could apply.
(Note that I am stating the social norm – not expressing support for it)
The “Federal Commission on Crimes of Violence”, if it ever actually existed, seems to have not done any work since the 1970’s. I have found one reference to it in a work published in 1976, but have not yet found the Commission itself.
At best, any citations of this Commission are referring to statistics from the Nixon and Ford administrations, (35 years ago) and therefore they might be a wee bit out of date. That’s the best case.
The FBI Uniform Crime Report (UCR) is published yearly and therefore might be more useful in this context. Of course, it’s full of hard words and numbers, and as Barbie says “Math is HARD!” so the UCR might not be as useful to some.
“Badger says:
You are blaspheming. It is very clear in the Gospels that God, not humans and especially not sophomoric sassy-mouths like yourself, will decide who is admitted to heaven.”
I disagree. I see no suggestion that she truly believes that she has the power to do the judging. I think it’s more of a prediction. ‘Since god said this is how people will be judged, and since you are dong this, I’d say it’s pretty likely that he will judge you as that, and thus will be your end’. That’s not blasphemy. That’s a guess.
@Chris
Are you telling me that men don’t go around doing whatever they like with the protection of their patriarchy shields? Get out of here!
Everyone knows that men are completely safe and protected and nothing bad ever happens to a man that places himself on a vulnerable position…the penis is the ultimate crime stopper. 😉
“Butterfly Flower says:
Kai brought it up the strawman argument first. ”
No, you failed to comprehend my statement, and answered something other than what I said.
I said that ‘increasing your risk’ is not equivalent to ‘asking for it’. You never answered my question above – are you saying that someone leaving their house open is *asking* for their stuff to be stolen? I sure don’t think it’s *asking* for it – but it sure is increasing the risk. And I’d rather not do that.
Let me break it down for you a little more simply.
In an ideal world, no-one would rape, and there would be no concern.
You don’t live in an ideal world.
In the world we do live in, some people commit sexual assaults of various sorts with no provocation. Some people do it utterly completely randomly. some people do it when sexually stimulated.
Perhaps there is some percentage of rapes that are totally insanely random, and there’s nothing at all that a person could do about it.
but there is another some percentage that is not fully random.
Here’s how it works.
My name is RapistBob. I’m going out to rape someone tonight. She’s not going to ask for it, because of course, no-one ever asks to be raped, but I’m going to do it anyways. I deserve to be punished by the legal system afterwards, but that won’t change the fact of what will have happened.
I don’t feel like making it any more difficult for myself than necessary.
So here’s the question – if I am going to rape someone tonight, who will not ask for it, and after which I will fully deserve my punishment… do you want it to be you? It’s going to happen to someone. Would you rather pretend to live in fantasyville where no rapes ever happen and all is well and how a woman acts and dresses is her own business and has nothing to do with anything? Or would you rather accept the world you live in, and take the steps that you can take to try to make it less likely that the girl I find to rape tonight is not you?
‘slut’ and ‘whore’ are like ‘nigger’. You only get to say it if you are part of the group to which it could apply.
(Note that I am stating the social norm – not expressing support for it)
The difference is that in upper middle class circles no-one uses the word “nigger”, but most of the women freely use words like “slut” and “whore”, and yes it is mostly women who do, and yes it is based on male judgment to a significant degree. Boo. Hoo.
Leaving aside the rape issue and addressing the slut part, the real problem I see with the slutwalks is that women are playing in the wrong frame. They shouldn’t seek and apology for being called sluts, they would be far better declaring themselves proud while calling out the foolishness of the Michael Sanguinetti.
I mean, which man in his five senses calls and shuns sluts? There’s only two kind of men looking sluts down: the bittered beta that wasn’t able to bang the girl other one actually could, and the unsufferable white knights sporting the other band’s cause believing that’s the way they are going to score. Other than that, the real issue is that men actually don’t have any issue with the slutty attitude itself; quite the contrary, we rejoice. Having an outlet of free, sincere and unshackled sex is too much important to not be thankful for it and much better than the supposedly chaste ones believing their pussy is good enough to be worth falling into a lifelong trap of submissive servitude and numbing I-follow-the-herd confort.
Slutwalks… separating actions from consequences since 2011.
Wait… feminism…separating actions from consequences since Betty Friedan.
Hell, it’s all too confusing for me.
Modern feminism explained… you’ll like the ending.
“Brendan says:
The difference is that in upper middle class circles no-one uses the word “nigger”, but most of the women freely use words like “slut” and “whore”, and yes it is mostly women who do, and yes it is based on male judgment to a significant degree. Boo. Hoo.”
I am not entirely sure where you are going with this. Especially with the ‘boo hoo’.
I was merely suggesting that there is precedent for a group freely using a term within the group but considering it unacceptable for someone outside that group to use the same term. I think it’s illogical regardless of the group or term in question.
Slut seems to have a number of different uses these days. I hear women use it jokingly (or almost affectionately) with their friends, I hear it used as a light non-serious insult, and I hear it as a description for ‘any woman who has sex more than the speaker’. (any woman who has less sex is, of course, frigid or similar).
I happen to see it as a simple descriptive term. Whether you consider it a good or a bad descriptive term largely depends on what you think of female promiscuity.
Pingback: Linkage is Good for You: Unfathomable Pain Edition
Kai–
Bullshite. I say it any time I feel like it. There is no effective taboo against men saying it.
However I don’t generally want to say it because I find having sluts about to be useful. I just ain’t about to marry one, or fall in love in a LTR with one.
Octavia–
Too bad for you Octavia. Boo hoo.
Not for calling someone who has had a number of sexual partners in not such a long period of time, or who regularly puts out on first dates, or who wears much sluttier clothes at certain times and places, etc., they don’t. It’s a matter of opinion and a fuzzy, relative term.
“Doug1 says:
Kai–
‘slut’ and ‘whore’ are like ‘nigger’. You only get to say it if you are part of the group to which it could apply.
Bullshite. I say it any time I feel like it. There is no effective taboo against men saying it.”
Is it really that hard? You can choose to say ‘nigger’ any time you feel like it too. I’m not interested in policing your speech. I’m just saying that women think they can use it, but get annoyed if a man does. Similar deal. It is true that other men do not tell you not to use it as do other whites.
@ javert
Sluts don’t really worry about condemnations from “bitter betas” or “white knights”. Their worry is that attractive, marriage-minded men will pass over them in favor of “good girls” when they decide to settle down.
Retrenched said: “Their worry is that attractive, marriage-minded men will pass over them in favor of “good girls” when they decide to settle down.”
Damn straight. Women who screw around before marriage are highly likely to screw around during marriage (and also to find they’re “not happy” and want the kids and “half” when they do).
Retrenched said: “Their worry is that attractive, marriage-minded men will pass over them in favor of “good girls” when they decide to settle down.”
Anonymous
Damn straight. Women who screw around before marriage are highly likely to screw around during marriage (and also to find they’re “not happy” and want the kids and “half” when they do).
And this brings things full circle. Because the more that men learn about the true nature of women the less likely that most will be to consider high-partner-count women, also known as “sluts”, for marriage or even a long term relationship. And I join others in suggesting that this is the real reason for the “slutwalks”. Jacquie Friedman has admitted for herself that she desires all women to become classified as ‘sluts’ so that men have no choice but to trust one.
PS: Once again we see that the reality of Game opens the eyes of men to the true nature of not only women, but feminism.
Anonymous Reader said: “Jacquie Friedman has admitted for herself that she desires all women to become classified as ‘sluts’ so that men have no choice but to trust one.”
Talk about a pyrric victory… men would just trust porn (or hookers or sex androids or whatever by that time) then. Either that or our society collapses and people accept Shariah to have order out of chaos (that’s our jihadist buddies’ take on all this anyway).
One of the connotations of a slut is someone who can’t be trusted to keep her feeeelings in check in a way that is necessary for a man to commit to her.
It seems like it is the aspect that is never mentioned by women/feminists, but still the one that matters most to them.
“Reclaiming” or redefining the term slut is all about making that part of human female nature as hard to see as possible. It is not about solidarity in the sense “if men feel that some women cannot be trusted for LTRs, we do not want men to trust us either, even if that means never having a man committing”.
““Reclaiming” or redefining the term slut is all about making that part of human female nature as hard to see as possible.”
I think is also a way to take away choices for men, they know very well that a low count partner will be first on a man’s mind and the want that are planning to slut it up and settling down don’t want to have any barrier for when they choose to do it. If there are women more fit for marriage they know they will have to choose from what is left, feminists want to have their cake and eating it too. Only women should have a choice, men just should be waiting for them to pick and choose anytime they want to. Again the feminist fantasy of Puppet-Sex-Toy-“equal” partner, YMMV.
“We are tired of being oppressed by slut-shaming…”
But who really are the slut-shamers?
http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=13670851
http://feck-blog.blogspot.com/2011/03/slutty-studs.html
@ namae nanka:
Any solid study of ancient or older cultures makes one thing clear very quickly: you control the Young Men by controlling the Young Women. You control the Young Women via the Older Women. I discovered this when studying the change in the Arab Peninsula from the Vedic to Islamic culture. Mohammed basically offered better access to the nookie via war, which is *still* the animating principle behind so much of Islam’s problems. (Don’t take the 72 virgins thing unseriously, it’s an animating principle to Sunni Islam’s radical side, but not Shia Islam [where they have legal prostitution])
Further, Young Women aren’t a threat to men, but they’re something they want. Older Women have to defend their turf on this regard. It’s very basic supply & demand from there. Men have demand (i.e. Testosterone) and Women have supply (i.e. the nookie). The social order orients around that. If the supply suddenly increases rapidly, the “cost” drops through the floor (i.e. 1968 on in Western Culture). It then becomes a Buyer’s market, which is why men can be selective. The anti-Slut-shaming is about confusing the Buyer. If Men can’t decide who’s good & who’s bad, it’s to the advantage of the Seller. If they can, it’s to the advantage of the Buyer.
It’s a little sad to be breaking people down to Buyer/Seller in the SMP, but that’s really what’s going on. Women that “slut it up” and become easy are trying to encourage repeat sales not long term investment. That’s a bad strategy when your Sale Value decreases over time.
Which means are lot of women are being ruined by the feminists and most of the men don’t have any loss by changing this. True Alphas get everything they wants (sex w/o committment), full Betas get to feel like they’re being helpful (by being doormats) and the White Knights get to act like their White Knights (which is the reason they do it). The only people arguing against this dynamic is the social conservatives (but they’re behind the 8ball) and the Game community (they’re using the knowledge difference to get more advantage). We might actually end up with a strange new social version of the Bootleggers & Baptist alliance from the Prohibition era. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bootleggers_and_Baptists ) Both sides would get something out of a more traditional approach to dating (the Game guys would be at even more of an advantage, actually, as less women would know they’re being Game’d). I guess life does make strange bedfellows.
Oh yeah, since this is sort of aligned with the issue but doesn’t come up much: Monogamy is something achieved when the *men* become equal in the society, not the women. There’s a reason they called Polygamy & Slavery the twin relics of Barbarism. In a Polygamous society, the men are destroyed by the more powerful males. If you have a passing knowledge of the LDS sects that practice plural marriage, you know there is a group of mainstream LDS members that run a charitable organization to place the Boys with a good foster family when they’re violently kicked out of the cult. If they aren’t the first-born male child, they’ll be removed. (Some are killed, too)
So, yes, anyone that suggests polygamy is a good thing is arguing for the destruction of a democratic or representative society and the assent of an authoritarian regime. It is the direct & natural consequence of polygamy. It’s a side note to the discussion, but it’s part of the reason the Supply & Demand aspect is there in such a way. You don’t hear many arguments for polygamy among the Game set because it will lead to all of the Game men being left out of the equation. It’s a bad thing for everyone, but especially the males that want to be higher status.
Here’s a link to Butterfly Flower’s study, I think.
http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/183781.pdf
It’s a phone study, with all the methodological errors there–who exactly talks about their rape with a stranger on the phone, after all? It also mixes any number of kinds of assault with the forcible rape we’ve been talking about, and it allows the survey participants (“victims”) to define whether they had been promiscuously dressed–if that doesn’t qualify as a possible reporting bias, I don’t know what does.
Now I don’t have trouble with the idea that immodest dress is not a big factor in rape, as I’d have to guess that they key issue in the mind of the rapist is “can I get away with it?”, not “is she cute enough?”, and immodest dress suggesting that the proposed victim has no means of defense or escape is only one sign of vulnerability. That said, I don’t know that the study BF is referring to can prove this.
Pingback: Chivalry and protecting the weak. | Dalrock
Dalrock:
I apologize if I quoted too much text from you, please inform me and I won’t do it again.
http://quietgirlriot.wordpress.com/2011/06/13/walking-the-walk/#comment-4403
I left a comment at the blog above about my opinion of the slutwalks and linked to you and quoted a bit at length. Of course I think my comment goes further than yours did, and you might find it interesting.
[D: Thanks. No worries on the quoting; I take it as a compliment. As you say your comment took it a step further. I hadn’t considered it from that angle, but it does make sense.]
Here’s a study that might interest you.
It comes to a strong conclusion that two parents are better than one, but it doesn’t seem to make a difference if the parents are same sex or opposite sex:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2009.00678.x/full
I know this is a relatively old post to be commenting on, but when I first read it, it didn’t really go in. Then the other day, I was having a conversation with a female friend of mine. I was talking about my experience of going skydiving, and how unbelievably scary it was the moment we actually stepped out of the plane. I said something along the lines of “for that moment, despite everything you intellectually know, your body is convinced it is about to die. That’s why it’s so intense – all that rush, adrenaline etc, all coming from your body and hindbrain being the most terrified they’ve ever been”.
She then said, “I don’t know, I think I’d be more scared of being rejected socially than that.” No kidding, that’s practically verbatim.
I couldn’t quite believe what I’d heard, and figured she must have misunderstood, so I pointed out that I meant the instinctive side of the brain – intellectually I knew that I was safe (well, as safe as possible).
But she came back again – “No, you’re not listening. I know you were scared more by falling out of a plane, but I really mean I’d be more scared of rejection”.
This had me absolutely lost for words, and it’s really stuck with me. Putting aside that I still reckon, if she were to fall from a couple of miles, she’d likely be a damn sight more scared than of social rejection, it really shows just how damn STRONG that fear can be. Stong enough to convince someone it’s worse than (unconsciously) thinking you’re about to die. Unbelievable.
Pingback: Defining sluthood | Dalrock
“We are not animals”
HAHAHAHAHAHHA
bl son
Dalrock, you’re my hero. You’re saving lives like Superman. That’s all for today.
Pingback: The College Boyfriend | Dalrock
Pingback: One Pill, Two Pill, Red Pill, Blue Pill « Elephants & Trees
Pingback: Slut! | Dalrock
The femtards are getting predictable through the years.
This is because they have no argument of substance,just for the long term record.
Someday someone will read this and say:”That was a crazy time,glad women are acting decently now.”
Because they are going to have to:
This man-hating cannot seemingly perpetuate forever.
The species would die off,and no one would read this later….
Pingback: Women Care What You Think « stagedreality
Pingback: Expect Femininity | On the Rock
Pingback: When you give a slut a cookie … | Zippy Catholic
Pingback: One at a time, please. | Dalrock
Pingback: Roundup | Eternity Matters
Pingback: Punch harder on abortion. | Dalrock
Pingback: Susan Smith eats, wipes her mouth, and says, “I have done no wickedness.” | Dalrock
Pingback: Funny because it is true. | Dalrock
Pingback: Starting World War G: the gender wars
Pingback: We tighten the leashes on men while raising feral women - Fabius Maximus website
Pingback: Tales from the front: “He Asked Permission to Touch, but Not to Ghost” - Fabius Maximus website
Pingback: Women are liberated. But they still need men. - Fabius Maximus website