Courtney Sacco watched the first Boston Slut Walk, whose goal was to "reclaim the term 'slut' and promote sex-positive thinking."
Copyright Courtney Sacco. Posted in the Universal Hub pool on Flickr.
God bless 'em.
"Reclaiming the term slut" does not really clarify what this was about. The SlutWalk was a march against rape culture and victim blaming, and the idea that how one dresses is an acceptable invitation for violence.
Check out the event FB page:
Yes this is what I had read about it too. It seems more dedicated to undermining the concept of slut than reappropriating it.
Hmm... you got a point, hard to reclaim something that was never yours in the first place. I never heard "slut" was ever a positive word.
I dont think its so much about making "slut" a good word, but to show that more skin doesnt mean the person is a slut. And of course, even the real sluts arent asking to be raped.
Reappropriate is the word
To further clarify the purpose of the walk, here are some of the chants from today:
"However we dress, wherever we go, yes means yes and no means no!"
"Hey hey, ho ho, (misogyny/victim blaming/rape culture) has got to go!"
"(Womens' rights/ abortion rights/ victim's rights) are under attack! What do we do? Stand up, fight back!"
sounds like a ton of fun.
If one has to try so hard to explain the idea then the marketing concept might be flawed from the start.
Personally, I never got the idea of civil rights. They didn't do such a good job of explaining it to me.
They're chants also used for the "Take Back the Night" rallies. You can also often find them with the Clothesline Project, an effort to help end domestic violence-to everyone.
Well here's a concept that's going to have a long shelf life.
(I include myself in the following, in case anyone wants to know; as a matter of fact, most men, barring the obvious: eunuchs, gay men, those with amazing Shaolin monk-like self-control.)
A man's brain functions most strongly sexually when given visual stimuli. Thus, it should be expected that most men, when shown more skin than they might otherwise have been expecting, will react in ways that may or may not be in keeping with a woman's expectations when she dressed.
That is to say, if you are a woman and you have cleavage showing, or your butt crack / tramp stamp visible, or a camel toe, or whatever else some dude finds interesting, then don't be surprised if said dude tries to hit on you and said dude is surprised when you feign innocence at the idea that you wished to be hit upon.
Am I saying that women have no right to dress as they wish unless they are willing to fend off attacks from unwilling suitors? Not that harsh, certainly, but to say that guys should understand that you aren't putting your meat on the market when you dress that way is just a trifle unrealistic. Throughout history, the women who have dressed that way have usually been doing just that - putting their meat literally on the market - and to expect that you can dress like a prostitute and not be treated like one is bizarre thinking. It's akin to me wearing a mask into a bank and not expecting a guard or a cop to pull a gun.
I always assume that sane people look in the mirror while dressing and consider what effect their choice in clothing might have on those with whom they come into contact. Maybe it would be a nicer world if we didn't have to think of that, but it is what it is. We affect others via our appearances. And, if you dress in skanky ho clothes, well...
FWIW, BTW, I think the term "slut" should not be a pejorative. I've always enjoyed the company of women who were likely to be identified by others as "sluts". Same goes for "cocksuckers". I think it's a lovely service to perform for someone, and to use it as invective just makes it all the harder to get someone to do it. Perhaps I'll organize a march someday.
Finally, I realize my grampa-like ass isn't likely to arouse any of the women involved, so I realize I have no real stake in this.
Thanks for listening. I'll go take my meds before the flames start.
I think that they are not demonstrating against sexuality or flirting, but rather against violence and rape.
They are talking about sexual assault, violence, and rape.
And there's no excuse for assault or violence of any kind, and such behavior should be punished to the full extent allowable. But when you carry signs saying "My Outfit Is Not An Invitation", you're either being very naive or very unaware of human nature. That's what I was getting at in way too many words.
Outside. The reduction in clothing should be considered an attempt at avoiding heat-stroke, not for your benefit.
And sometimes a woman does enjoy dressing provocatively. May be a invitation to look, but not touch.
And as to human nature; yes, left entirely to their own devices, humans can be downright beastly. This is why we developed civization. Unless you were raised in a barn by a bear, it really doesn't seem too much to expect you to behave in a civilized manner and not go groping the nearest person who tickles your sexual fancy unless you've been properly invited to do so. And no, a pluging neck line shouldn't be considered, in and of itself, such an invitation.
There's actually no correlation between what a woman wears and her chances of getting raped. Stop it with this crap about how men are incapable of controlling themselves the moment they see midriff.
What I said was that men react strongly to visual stimuli, and to expect that to change because some women don't understand the concept is most likely naive. Given what has been considered a visual come-on for the past thirty or forty centuries, most men will likely react the same way they did during those thirty or forty centuries.
I didn't say a damn thing about rape, other than to say, in a follow-up comment, that there was no excuse for it and that it should be punished to the full extent of the law.
If you wish to believe I said something else, then have fun.
Thanks, I will have fun.
You're the one who's being naive. The whole "It's just nature" excuse is the same sort of crap used to justify racism and sexism. You're skirting (lol) around the issue by using this stupid doublespeak--"No no I didn't say men can't control themselves I just said they react strongly to short skirts and tight shirts! I'm not saying women shouldn't dress like sluts, I'm just saying they should expect to be treated like the conniving whores they're dressing like! Rape? Who's talking about rape? I'm talking about whistling at the gal as she walks down the street."
Go to sleep, gramps.
I guess ageism doesn't concern you as much as sexism. Oh, well. I'll go water the cat, wind my plants, and put out the alarm clock. When you get to be my age, I hope you enjoy all the snarky youngsters as much as I do now.
Maybe by that time you will have acquired guts enough to be more than an anon, also? Ah, what the hell. The apocalypse is this Saturday. God bless you!
Regardless of the tone of the above exchange, the whole "men do this because they are men and women just don't understand (and vica versa)" thing really doesn't hold water when subjected to actual scientific methods. Read scienceblogs sometime, and you will find actual scientists skewering the various "just so" stories told in the media about "all men this all women that" that have little or no scientific basis. They're just sciency-flavored bullshit and nice tight little stories that some people like to hear because they avoid all those messy complications that make actual reality so hard to figure out.
The reality is that there are broad spectrums of preferences in male and female populations, and the overlap is substantial. So called "evolutionary psychology", when appearing in actual journals, is somewhat for real. The kind of Evo Psych crap in service of misogyny and racism of the type spewed by Pinker and Murray and their ilk in their books (because it wasn't publishable as peer-reviewed science) is really just speculation and a bunch of fairy tales.
is the correct Sham 69 lyric. Update headline to reflect that, plz.
I didn't get the headline from them (which was pretty easy, since I've never heard of them), but from the classic lefty protest chant, "The people united, will never be defeated," which is then typically followed by something like "hey, ho, hey ho, [whoever] has got to go!" or "1, 2, 3 4, we don't want your stinkin' war."
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Copyright 2021 by Adam Gaffin and by content posters.Advertise | About Universal Hub | Contact | Privacy