I’m sorry, I wasn’t clear. I don’t mean that you’re defining it incorrectly. I mean it’s absurd that you’re doing it at all.
For starters, if you’re going to stake out the “pro” position, then you should probably call it something other than “slut shaming”. Maybe something like “societal pressure against promiscuity”?
This Ron Jeremy? He wasn’t always Super Mario with a pecker.
And Hugh Hefner is rich, which to a certain sort of woman is even more important in a stud than looks.
We’re kicking around definitions here, but I do think that both “slut” and “stud” could be defined quantitatively. A “slut”, for instance would be a woman who sleeps with X number of guys in Y period of time, with values for X and Y to be arrived at through debate and agreement. You could also say that particular acts might qualify one for categorical sluthood, such as the interval between partners being measured in minutes rather than days or weeks or months.
All of this, by the way, presupposes active consent. Rape victims are just that, and even a porn star has a right to say, “Yes, I do, just not with you.”
Brave New World indeed …
When it comes to the criminal justice system, there are a few things going on.
Undoubtedly some defendants (through their lawyers) aren’t above trying to appeal to socially conservative judges or members of a jury who (the defendant hopes) might be the type of people who do frown on “slutty” behaviour, in the hope they will reach an inappropriate verdict based on lack of sympathy with the victim. That’s very wrong for a whole raft of reasons.
However, people often assume that this sort of “slut shaming” tactic is being deployed when in reality the defendant is actually arguing that the sex was consensual (which the defendant is entitled to do).
So for example the defendant might say the evidence shows that the woman came voluntarily to his apartment in extremely skimpy clothing, had condoms in her handbag etc. He says they then had consensual sex but she claimed rape when her husband walked in.
This sort of case all too often gets portrayed by the media (which can’t get court reports right for all the tea in China) as “rapist gets off because a woman who is slutty isn’t a victim”. In reality, the jury may have thought the picture as a whole left a reasonable doubt about consent because her conduct was consistent with her turning up to have consensual sex (not that it was necessarily consensual, but that it was consistent to an extent sufficient to give rise to doubt).
I’d have to see cites to accept this. All too often this is what the victim hears, but not what is said. As I alleged above.
I don’t think anyone has said you should “expect” it but surely you know that any time you choose to get unconsciously drunk you put yourself at increased risk of theft or physical harm? How is that statement in any way controversial?
Perhaps blame is too loaded a word. Lets say that in such circumstances you took a course of action that made an incident more likely and hindered your ability to avoid it.
I bet if I offered that last sentence to you regarding a theft you’d have no problem with it. I’m not sure why sexual crimes would be any different.
Is this an American thing?
No, more of a judeo-christian motif.
That’s what Blake said. I’m not going to ignore that either, because the sentiment lies at the heart of the phenomenon under discussion.
It isn’t controversial on its face, but surely you agree that when women are lectured to with “uncontroversial statements” over and over again, the message they receive is that when they do anything that raises their risk of rape–even if it’s just an iota and even when it occurs under circumstances where a reasonable person would assume a safe environment (like a friend’s house)–then they are acting irresponsible in some way. That is where the shaming comes in.
It’s easy to say from afar “well, duh, being drunk increases your risk of theft or physical assault”. But if everyone truly acted on this principle as if they really believed it, we’d be all too paranoid to form deep friendships. Drunk or not, we’d be so conscious of our vunerabilities that we would not let anyone get too close out of fear they could hurt us.
Why would I ever be alone with a guy if I thought there was a reasonable likelihood he would rape me if I passed out on his couch? He could take advantage of me if I was simply napping on his couch or God forbid, 100% awake and simply weaker than him.
[slut-shaming logic] Well, clearly the answer is that I shouldn’t be alone with men. Any woman who likes the company of men is playing with fire and is asking to be burned eventually. We should question this kind of woman’s morals as well; she wants sympathy for being “raped” after sniffing around men like a bitch in heat? What a joke. I could understand if this chick was a librarian type who goes to bed at 9:30p, knits in her free time, and wears sensible shoes like a good girl. But we’re talking about a woman who obviously likes to party and put herself on display on people’s couches and then wants to act surprise when she’s raped. Riiiight. [/slut-shaming logic]
No one consciously thinks they are perpetuating this thought process when they talk about women lowering their chances of rape risk. But very often, that is what they are doing. A “partying woman” takes on the same level of offensiveness as a man provoking others to punch him, for no reason except that we still have deep-seated hang ups about women who feel entitled to behave as freely and fearlessly as men do. It’s an ugly thing to contemplate, but when a woman like that “gets what she has coming to her”, it’s as if this tragedy validates women staying in their place and being afraid of men.
I think there’s a large element of magic thinking involved. Obviously, nobody wants to get raped. So when they hear about somebody being raped, they want to be able to reassure themselves that it couldn’t happen to them. So they think something like “Oh, that woman went to a bar alone and got raped. I never go to bars alone. Therefore, I won’t get raped.”
I think this has a lot to do with female attitudes, certainly. Also, a lot of women internalize the idea that women who go to bars alone are slutty/reckless/stupid/etc., and so they have no problem tut-tut-tuting when such women “get what’s coming to them”. It makes them feel better about the many limits they put on themselves, ranging from not drinking, not dressing to be sexy, not being adventurous or open to new experiences, not socializing with men, not being passive in dating, not having premarital sex…
I am a practicing attorney and I only represent victims of domestic and sexual violence. If “I hear” is not an acceptable cite, I think you’re going to have your needs unfulfilled.
But thank you for the explanation.
That is a perfect example of slut shaming; the defendant is arguing that her clothing choice counts as consent to sex. That’s simply wrong on the face of it, no one gives up their right to say ‘no’ just because they’re wearing ‘skimpy clothing’. The condoms part is even more absurd, it’s arguing that a woman who’s even marginally concerned about sexual health obviously must obviously have wanted the D. Your example is not of a defendant arguing that sex was actually consensual, but of a defendant arguing that women who aren’t dressed ‘appropriately’ or who are conscious of sexual health are just sluts who clearly couldn’t say no to him.
Because of pregnancy and STD that lead to infertility women bear most of the risk of pre-marital sex. Therefore it is in the collective interest of young women to establish a norm to not engage in pre-marital sex. However, once the norm is established those young women who choose to flaut that norm would become more popular with young men and thus be more likely to get better suitors. So slut shaming is how women enforce the norm that makes them all better off. In economic terms it is the enforcement behaviour of a cartel.
Ah, well that’s okay then.
What’s the plan, stone these sluts to death?
No, the fact is that guys like sluts. They don’t want to marry them, but otherwise do not find them objectionable. Women, on the other hand, do largely dislike them because they undercut the value of their own sexual favors.
Not wanting to marry a “slut” suggests men do find them objectionable. Their value is diminished because they are permanently tainted somehow…in a way that men doing the exact same thing (and more) are not. But I gotta love how we ignore that in favor of attributing thousands of years of patriarchal tradition to women. As if this thread is teeming with women who are using categories like slut and stud as if they are taxonomic terms.
I’m not sure, but I wonder if the term 'moral hazard", used by insurance companies, has any relevance in this discussion.
I’m not sure of the derivation, but the “moral” in the term does not seem to refer to “morals” exactly.
Actually, this is the definition I was thinking of-