Well. I’ve found out about Denim Day and the Slut Walk this week.
I cannot believe people are still blaming the victims of sexual assaults. Next year I hope I can organize a Denim Day and a Slut Walk in my city.
The Boston walk has been in the news lately – especially non-mainstream places like the Phoenix. The name has some people upset, although they agree with the sentiment.
Awfully well-clothed for a slut walk. Wouldn’t it make more sense to all dress as sluts, showing how it doesn’t cause rape? Maybe not everyone, but you’d think some people would do it.
And the horniness of men would get it on the front page of all major news organizations, as well as Fox News.
Judging from the women I saw on the news, I think I would be more afraid they would rape me.
Well-clothed for who? Some would say that anyone not covered head to toe was dressed like a slut.
Just look at those sluts! They deserve to be raped! All of them! Where are the rapists!? Haven’t they been informed of this event!?
Suggesting that the victim of a crime deserved it or was asking for it: Blaming the victim.
Suggesting that the victim of a crime could have done something to be safer: Not blaming the victim.
Why is it that when a fireman says “Don’t leave cooking unattended,” or a nurse says “always use a condom,” it’s sensible advice, but when a cop says “Lock your car doors” or “Don’t dress provocatively”, it’s blaming the victim?
Dressing provocatively has never been shown to cause rape, that’s the difference. Do you have evidence otherwise?
Any cop that would tell a woman not to dress provocatively is just asking for some time off… Or maybe he has plans to go work for Big Ben…
Isn’t identifying as and affirming “sluts” kind of accepting the notion that a woman’s clothing and appearance are determinative of something?
[ul]
[li]Where have you heard someone claim that a police officer telling you to lock your car doors is “blaming the victim”? In my area, it is actually illegal to leave your keys in the car when you leave it.[/li][li]As long as defense attourneys are using a woman’s behavior or mode of dress to say that his/her client isn’t guilty of the crime of rape, people, especially people who are in some sort of position of responsibility as far as crime goes (police officer, judge, politician), need to avoid any implication that the woman’s actions provoked the man’s actions. If a lawyer proposed that a car owner was “asking for it” by leaving his keys in a car, and that his client was innocent because of that, he’d either be laughed out of court or shot.[/li][li]He didn’t say “don’t dress provocatively”, he said “don’t dress like a slut”. The more derogatory term shows that he’s making a moral judgement, not an observation-based comment.[/li][/ul]
It’s also worth noting that he had already been told to not say that.
::shrug:: Still seems like people getting in a tizzy just 'cause they can. A bit of recreational outrage, methinks.
Try to imagine this scenario - you’ve gotten mugged and went to report it to the police. The policeman taking your statement acts like you’re wasting his time. The mugger is caught and goes on trial, but gets off because the defense attorney argues that you asked to be mugged. Then a policeman comes to a class that you are in and says that only idiots get mugged.
Then your anger is dismissed as “recreational outrage”. :rolleyes:
When I first heard of SlutWalk, I was quite intrigued until I found out what it was about, at which point I lost all interest.
Talk about false advertising.
This is an issue where there will never be any kind of agreement.
Some people take the position that if they let the door open even the smallest crack on anyone being able to link appearance or behavior with getting raped it will allow some shifting of responsibility, however large or small, onto the victim.
From this perspective you get the general position that no actions of any kind in terms of dress, or behavior, personal sobriety, or anything can be considered to increase the risk of being sexually assaulted. In this logical context the actions of the person being raped, and the actions of the person who is considered to be the rapist are utterly non-related in terms of causation.
While there is certain internal logic to this perspective in that it allows the victim to take the position that that they are utterly without blame for what happened to them, whether they were attacked randomly, or passed out drunk and half naked in a room full of gang bangers, people in the real world do make common sense distinctions about actions that might put you at greater or lesser risk of being assaulted.
The problem here is the slippery slope of real life in that there are very few hard points in dress or personal behavior where someone can say “here is where rape danger is” and “here is where there is no rape danger” so the position is adopted by some that there is never any rape danger originating from dress or behavior.
People can vary in their opinions about whether this blanket logic makes any sense or not. In my personal opinion I suppose it might hold some therapeutic utility in helping rape victims deal with the aftermath of being assaulted. On the other hand I do worry about some women coming to believe that behavior and personal sobriety, and risk of assault are divorced from each other and putting themselves in harms way with risky behavior.
Define dressing provocatively. Some cultures think women should be covered from head to toe in public. The men would get fired up by seeing an ankle, I suppose.
I went with a cop for ten years. He arrested many a person suspected of commiting sexual assault. When the perp started mouthing off about how the victim asked for it our cops gave their standard response:
YOU DON’T NEED A PARTNER IF YOU GOT A GOOD HAND.
In a perfect world you could leave your car door unlocked all and come back to find your deck still there. In a perfect world a pretty young women should be able to walk buck naked through the roughest part of town and not get touched. I a perfect world there should not be a rough part of town. It ain’t a perfect world.
I’d take it even further than that. I don’t know why people continue to use the false equivalence of theft when the current research literature indicates that rape is one of the most traumatic events a person can experience, resulting in dramatically higher rates of PTSD than other traumatic events. It’s used as a standard instrument of political oppression for a reason, folks - because it’s highly effective at breaking people psychologically. It would be more accurate to say,
‘‘Suppose you’re walking in the park and someone tackles you to the ground and tortures you horrifically for an extended period of time. The policeman taking your statement acts like you’re wasting his time. The torturer is caught and goes on trial, but gets off because the defense attorney argues that you asked to be tortured horrifically. Then a policeman comes to a class that you are in and says that only idiots get tortured. And your anger is dismissed as recreational outrage.’’
(The Cite. I’m tired of typing it out every time.)
But risk and blame are distinct concepts. Every time you get in your car you’re taking on risk, but if some lunatic crashes into you while you’re stopped at a light, the blame is all on him.