This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
Can of Worms: Should young women stop dressing so 'slutty'?
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
Squishalot
I understand where Squish is going with the analogy.
Nobody asks to be robbed, beaten up or raped literally, but criminals are always going to do criminal activities, so it's about taking steps to make yourself a less opportunistic target.
Eg: Making sure your house is locked up and secure when you are not home will make it less inviting for a robber, than your next door neighbour that leaves his door/window open. Same as keeping your wallet/phone/keys in your pocket when not in use will make them a less likely target.
Going out on the town with a mate, or in a group will make you a less likely target for someone looking for a fight, than if you are walking/travelling on your own.
By the same theory, a rapist will be less likely to prey on the girl wearing the jeans/pants etc, then the girl wearing the really short skirt, really high heels etc.
For the criminal, it's about being oportunistic.
That about cover it Squish?
In theory, pretty much. As I said before, the idea of opportunistic rape isn't really that conclusive, so I'm happy to downgrade the comment to "the girl wearing the jeans/pants is less likely to get unwanted attention than the girl wearing the really short skirt, really high heels, etc.", but it moreorless accounts to the same thing.
Post by
asakawa
The problem is, I think it's absurd to suggest that anyone thinks that women 'literally' ask for it, yet it seems that a lot of people who participated / organised the Slutwalk movements appear to believe that that's what a) the cop thought, and b) what a lot of people think. They couldn't be further from the truth.
They may believe that or they may not I'm sure that there are
some
who really believe that the provocatively dressed woman is to blame but it's to be expected that activists take a strong approach to making their point.
When activists make a big deal out of news stories that come up it's potential jurors that they're trying to reach by trying to just edge into the zeitgeist enough for the general populace to be aware of an issue.
From their point of view they would be doing a terrible job if they were to let a news story like your police officer go by without making people think about the implications.
Post by
Squishalot
Definitely, but I think they hurt their cause more by being unnecessarily aggressive and irrational in their reactions. Hence the reason why labelling something as 'feminist' can somehow be thought of as an attempt to marginalise :)
Post by
164232
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
asakawa
Definitely, but I think they hurt their cause more by being unnecessarily aggressive and irrational in their reactions. Hence the reason why labelling something as 'feminist' can somehow be thought of as an attempt to marginalise :)
Well, that's a rather condescending thing to say. Perhaps you've seen something I haven't but everything I've seen regarding the slutwalk movement has been relatively level-headed and actually quite good-natured given the serious implications of the subject.
When I suggested that your calling it a feminist issue was marginalising it I meant because it isn't just an issue for feminists, the rape of young women is an issue for everyone. Again you appear to be putting things in a box marked "feminist" and calling them aggressive and irrational.
Unless I'm wildly misunderstanding what you're subtext...(##RESPBREAK##)8##DELIM##asakawa##DELIM##
Post by
Squishalot
Well, that's a rather condescending thing to say. Perhaps you've seen something I haven't but everything I've seen regarding the slutwalk movement has been relatively level-headed and actually quite good-natured given the serious implications of the subject.
I disagree, for the following reason:
They may believe that or they may not I'm sure that there are some who really believe that the provocatively dressed woman is to blame but it's to be expected that activists take a strong approach to making their point.
This is my point. Activists shouldn't be taking a strong approach just for the sake of taking a strong approach. Anyone who abuses the cop for assigning blame to rape victims *is* being aggressive and irrational, feminist or otherwise. I don't think that's appropriate.
When I suggested that your calling it a feminist issue was marginalising it I meant because it isn't just an issue for feminists, the rape of young women is an issue for everyone.
Ah, I thought you meant that I was trying to trivialise the argument (i.e. "they're feminist, therefore we can ignore them"). It wasn't my intention to do either. The point I was making about marginalising (that you thought was condescending) was an ironic point about the fact that often people associate 'feminist' views in the "rah rah, whatever, heard it all before, nothing new" vein, which is what I thought you thought I was thinking :P
Post by
Swekaka
No, it's their choice if they want to wear '@#$%ty' clothes.
Post by
asakawa
^_^
I love that we misunderstand each other so often. It's amusing (and incredibly interesting) that speaking the same language isn't necessarily the largest part of communication sometimes.
I see what you're saying but without knowing what the cop specifically said or what the response was I can only imagine that they were doing a similar thing to what happens in these threads. If you see a small piece of hypocrisy or an inkling of bigotry, you draw attention to it in the hope that people understand why even a small reference is a bad thing.
Whether you think it was an overreaction or not, we're talking about it and, if anyone who has read this thread were called to jury service tomorrow, it's a discussion and an issue that they're now aware of.
Post by
Squishalot
Heh, yeah. Did you ever have the 'joy' of discussing anything with HSR?
I agree that it's good that it's become a discussion topic, but I still disagree with the means of doing it. They've basically crucified a police officer for saying the equivalent of "you should lock your doors at night to avoid being stolen from".
Post by
MyTie
I voted 'Yes', and here is why:
To help her express herself.
So often, 'self expression' is the reason given for a woman dressing scantly. The same reason is given for stripping, posing for playboy, doing drugs, etc etc. The reason seems to be: 'If that is who she is'. It is as if, society has accepted that the physical representation of someone is broad enough to define that person, or allow them to communicate fully. To a degree, I agree. When I pick out a tie to wear, or match my shoes to my belt, I am attempting to communicate to people around me. I put my personality into my haircut, my sunglasses, my watch, the way I walk, and everything that is optional about my physical appearance. To insist that how you dress is not a proper means of self expression would be shallow. However, I am not who my tie says I am. My shoes do not summarize my personality. If shoes could define who I was, and I wore a giant shoe as an outfit, people wouldn't take me seriously. Then I'd cry, "BUT THIS IS WHO I AM! I AM SHOE!". But then again, I'm not defined by my clothes. If I could be defined by my shoes, I still wouldn't make my outfit obnoxious, because I have quite a bit more depth that can be discovered by getting to know me. Shoving my outfit in someone's face like that's all it takes to know who I am is counterproductive. Telling young women that they can somehow communicate who they are with a ripped up pair of jeans and a bra is deafeningly stupid. If you believe that this will somehow help them communicate, instead of hinder it, then you cheapen what a woman is.
Because society demands morality.
Is it a personality trait that should be looked up to? Is it a style that should be encouraged? I would say not. We, as a society, look down on casual sexuality, irresponsibility, immoral behavior, and rude disregard for decor, perhaps not as individuals, but as a collective. Companies don't hire felons as often as non felons, we don't smile at unmarried women who have 7 kids with all different dads, we preach to people about abstinence, we demand credit ratings before loaning, and that's just a start. As a society, we DEMAND responsible people, but we seem to encourage young people to push the limits of responsibility. We encourage our young women to express hyper sexuality, but frown on them when they partake in hyper sexuality. A line has to be drawn somewhere. We need to stop sending mixed signals.
Because I have a daughter
You sick pigs that image sexual intercourse with her 2 seconds after you meet her, after I spend years nurturing her intellect and strength, do not deserve to meet her.
Summary
You don't spray paint a smiley face on the Mona Lisa and parade it around a gas station parking lot insisting to the world that this is how you enlighten people with art. You might as well just !@#$ on your face in the morning instead of brushing your teeth. When everyone tells you that you smell like $%^&, you can just explain to them that is who you are, and you don't appreciate them judging you. Tell them they can keep their morals to themselves, and that you aren't hurting anyone. You read that right: &*!@ on your face.
Post by
Squishalot
You know, I do wish you were around more often, MyTie. Keep on sharing your thoughts.
Post by
Magician22773
Im a little late to the party on this one...and I did just have to skim the pages, so this all has probably been covered....sorry :-)
I voted yes...but kind of on a "knee jerk" reaction. The question has a bit of open-endedness to it. First...what is considered "young". I find it "disturbing" at some of the outfits that I see pre-teen girls wearing. It is not uncommon to see middle-school age girls here wearing skirts that barely cover their underwear, and tops that are just a glorified bra. I believe that at this age (say...14 and under), a girl should not be concerned with dressing "sexy" in any way. There are many other ways they can dress to be "attractive" or "stylish", without expressing sexuality.
You then have a grey area there...say 15-18. At this point, you have to look at things honestly, and face some hard facts. At this age, most girls have matured, and many are sexually active. They are dressing in a provocative manner, but they are (hopefully) looking to attract the attention of boys in their age range. Unfortunately, that are also attracting men outside of that age group as well. The issue isn't with the 40 yr old, that really shoudn't be looking, even if they were of age, but with the 18-22 yr old, that may not be able to tell wether he is looking at a 16 yr old, or 20 yr old.
To keep this from becoming a wall o text...I'll footnote my entire opinion with this. Regardless of how a girl, or woman, dresses, no means no. And their appearance is no defense for any sexual crime...ect. But if a girl dresses in a way that is expected to draw attention to themsleves, they should not be surprised, or offended if that attention comes from someone they were not intending it to come from.
Post by
Lenience
They can wear what they want.
Post by
MyTie
They can wear what they want.
The question is 'should they', not 'can they'. I know the difference has been blurred lately. "I can do whatever I want and no one can tell me any differently" has been the mantra of society for a solid 40 years. But, there really is a difference.
If you can eat a steaming bowl of diarrhea, that doesn't mean you should, even if you want to. Me telling you that you shouldn't ladle diarrhea into your stomach doesn't mean you HAVE to listen to me, but it would behoove you. This unquestioning self pride above common sense is eating morals alive. Young ladies intentionally lowering themselves to a purely sexual image is as damaging to their self value as a fresh Hershey squirt is to your health. I know what your thinking: "That's jest yer opnion and you can keep it to yerself". Right? I mean, who am I to tell you what is right and wrong, moral and immoral. You know good and well what is right and wrong.
Case in point, when asked if stuff like
this
should be different, I say yes, you say:
They can wear what they want.
Not well thought out, not explained, not considering consequences. However, I'll extend you the only branch of solace I know of: Society has been ignoring consequences for so long, and applauding immoral activity, and even CONDEMNING anyone who mentions moral, that how could you be expected to think independently?
So I leave you with two possible critiques of your viewpoint, each of them purely subjective based on my personal experiences:
Either
1) You have a shameful view of life, love, and women, so harsh and cheap that you disgust me
or
2) You just say what everyone around you says, like a mindless cockatiel.
Post by
Azazel
Or, he could just be saying that it should be the individual's choice to wear what clothes they like, #$%^ty or not.
Post by
606231
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Azazel
Not for mods.
Post by
MyTie
Or, he could just be saying that it should be the individual's choice to wear what clothes they like, #$%^ty or not.
My point is, that is not the question. The question wasn't:
A people forced by mutant alien robots to dress a certain way?
If that WERE the question (it isn't), then "people can wear what they want" would be an appropriate answer.
However, the question was: "Should young women stop dressing so '@#$%ty'?"
And, my ENTIRE FRIGGIN POINT, is that his answer doesn't satisfy the question. Let me give you an example:
Q: Should you eat feces?
A: You can eat whatever you want.
The answer is still a resounding NO, but artistically shrouded in a way that makes it appear to be the affirmative, as if your desire to eat feces is all that matters.
Post by
Jubilee
I think it's a fine answer, MyTie. "Can" is not always used to simply mean raw ability, and I think everyone who is using that in their answer knows that. They obviously don't want to say "They shouldn't stop dressing *!@#tily" so they need to throw in a different word than "should" to show how exactly they are answering. They could use "may" but I don't believe that conveys the meaning they want either, since may often carries the connotation of some higher power allowing such. "Can" is I believe the best choice, and most of them seemed to think so too.
Think of it in more colloquial terms. If a child asks her parent what she
should
do with box she is carrying, a natural response from the parent could be that the child
can
place the box wherever she wants. It's a way of redirecting the responsibility of judging the situation from the parent to the child. Likewise in the scenario, to say "they can wear whatever they want" is to redirect the responsibility of judging from the third party to the subject herself.
Post by
MyTie
The language itself is horrible. Look at what you are saying. They obviously don't want to say "They shouldn't stop dressing *!@#tily" If they DID say that, they would be honest. Horrible? Yes, but at least honest. Instead the language is changed to mask the approval of irresponsible behavior. The answer doesn't indicate a specific approval of the actions, but does indicate a desire to approve of the ability to choose to do something irresponsible and at the same time make a very distinct effort to not condemn it. It's the same language change that goes on with the abortion debate. People need to be honest and straight forward with their answers, instead of "not wanting to say" what they are actually saying, because what they are actually saying is horrible. In fact, now that I think about it, language is used to mask irresponsibility all the political world:
Illegal immigrant = undocumented worker
Wasteful spending = Entitlement programs
Inmate = Institutionalized
Abortion advocate = Pro-Choice
When people don't want to admit that they stand for something terrible, they make a pro-ability to choose terrible/ anti-morality statement.
Case in point:
Q: Should little girls dress !@#$ty?
A: Little girls can do what they want.
Disgusting and dishonest.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.