Toronto Slut Walk Last Saturday

[Selene]

Carol, where is your field report?

http://youtu.be/3vOCnZOcr8w

Adam

[Peter]

It was a huge turnout but what is wrong with those women? There was no snow on the ground, yet not one woman was naked on a horse. This is an outrage! And that mannish woman was definitely not "doable."

Only seriously sensuous sluts should be allowed to strut in a slut walk.

Peter

[syrakusos]

I am with the women on this issue:

Yes means yes

No means no,

whatever I wear

Wherever I go.

If you see a woman whom you know comes from a Muslim home, but she is not wearing a burka, is it ok to rape her? Where do you draw the line? What is "slutty" dress. It is showing cleavage? Or knee? Or ankles? I mean, if you as a man went out in a short sleeve shirt, is that a signal that you want other man to rape you?

Just because a female of any species gives mating signals, means only that she is ready to select a mate. It expressly does not mean that she will accept any mate.

Moreover, it is possible that woman might be dressing to attract another woman, not a man at all. (Or a dancing pole. What's it to you?)

I am sorry. I like Adam and I appreciate the opportunity to share in just about any idea, but this is out of bounds. It smacks of the conservative macho which in fact empowers imperialist jingoism and runs within Objectivism.

It is clear from context, that they were using the word "slutty" the way we use the word "capitalist." Greed is good. Slutty is good. Endorsing capitalism is not an invitation to rip-offs, scams, and bunko. Dressing like a slut should not make you a victim.

Edited May 7, 2011 by Michael E. Marotta

[syrakusos]

As the city’s major protective service, the Toronto Police have perpetuated the myth and stereotype of ‘the slut’, and in doing so have failed us. With sexual assault already a significantly under-reported crime, survivors have now been given even less of a reason to go to the Police, for fear that they could be blamed. Being assaulted isn’t about what you wear; it’s not even about sex; but using a pejorative term to rationalize inexcusable behaviour creates an environment in which it’s okay to blame the victim.

http://www.slutwalktoronto.com/

[studiodekadent]

I agree with the "Slut Walk."

Wearing skimpy clothes doesn't mean "yes, anyone has permission to have sex with me, irrespective of what I say."

I'm gothic, but my clothes don't mean "yes, I have an AK47 beneath this oh-so-stylish black leather trenchcoat."

The "she was dressed like a slut" argument does two things;

1) Treats someone's clothes as more important than someone's actual statements, and

2) Plays the 'I'm a man, I can't help it' card.

And "I'm a man, I can't help it" is so demeaning to men it isn't funny. Men aren't animals controlled by their penises. We do have brains. Men that claim their cock overrides their brains and thus renders them not-responsible for rape are insulting every man on the planet.

[william.scherk]

The trigger for the Slut walk was some reported remarks by a Toronto Police constable. He was speaking to some kind of 'campus safety' meetup at a TO law school. The Guardian cites his remarks:

"You know, I think we're beating around the bush here," Michael Sanguinetti began, blandly enough, as he addressed the 10 students who turned up for the pep talk. Then he said: "I've been told I'm not supposed to say this – however, women should avoid dressing like sluts in order not to be victimised."

That is apparently the spark for last month's TO slutwalk. The constable has apologized for the remarks, but he probably deserves some credit for bringing the issue into the open once again . . .

See the AP story reposted to Lawofficer.com for details on other slutwalks bruited for America, and check out the TO slutwalk site for a list of actions planned a few dozen US and Canadian burgs (and some coming online in the UK, Sweden, Netherlands, Argentina, New Zealand and Australia).

Those kooky Canucks.

Edited May 7, 2011 by william.scherk

[syrakusos]

I will have more to say on this at length later, but for now, I point out that violence against women is sexualized, but it is not sexual. There is a difference. It is important to understand because the behavior is reflected deeply throughout culture. For a bully, looter, or moocher, the excuse or justification is only a statement after the fact. The primary motivation remains. A perpetrator victimizes other people. The modes, means, and methods are secondary: they are expressions, not motives.

Just as following quack medicine prevents real cures, quack sociology about slutty clothing also displaces rational solutions to the causes of violence.

Edit added 3:20 PM

Adam,

Lacking voice and gesture, we can be misunderstood. I apologize for misreading your call to "Carol" (whoever that is) and then allowing that to be colored by Peter Taylor's reply.

Best wishes,

Mike M.

Edited May 7, 2011 by Michael E. Marotta

[Selene]

Salon has chimed in with a well written piece here on the word "slut." From it's "power" in the bedroom in the "right" hands" to the shaming in school. even when it is completely inaccurate.

Interesting piece.

"All of this made me wonder how people feel these days about the word, which originated in the 15th century to describe "a dirty, untidy, or slovenly woman." When I began asking around, I found that the slur is so radioactive for some women they can hardly talk about it; for others, it's simply too antiquated to make them feel much of anything. But most fell somewhere in-between those two poles -- seeing it as anything from a term of endearment to a titillating word in the bedroom."

"The trouble is that everyone has a different idea of where that line is. It's all very subjective, because how many partners is too many? How much cleavage is too much? When does flirting cross the line? As feminist activist Jaclyn Friedman explained in her SlutWalk Boston speech, "That's how the word 'slut' usually works. If you ask 10 people, you get 10 different definitions" -- and, of course, therein lies its power."

Adam