sexualisation of children vs slut shaming

Hopefully this won't open a huge can of worms but how would relationships start if someone didn't approach someone else? ( ok apart from the obvious but in a bar for example). This isn't leading anywhere, I'm just interested.

Is the problem being approached and asked if you'd like a drink or the fact that if you weren't interested and said go away, some people wouldn't listen?

Preying on the vulnerable is sickening. But isn't that exactly what is happening? It's all just bullying, on a sliding scale going all the way down into hell. Why else do men attack women in this way at all except to exploit a vulnerability? A vulnerability, in fact the whole power differential, which is reinforced in both genders in myriad ways through socialisation from birth. Men have to seek power in some way and the worse of them prey on those who are perceived as much weaker than they are. Some will make weaker attacks on those who are very vulnerable: others will make stronger attacks on those who are less so (or whatever).

And no, that's not an excuse either, it's an attempt to find reasons. It is much easier to tackle behaviour when you find the reason for it. Perhaps I'm wrong and it's all just totally mindless.

From my experience and others' I've heard of, I do think men home in on less confident, more vulnerable types.

That does not nevertheless make it their fault.

Male behaviour is wrong for their need to enjoy power trips and getting off on frightening and hurting others. Or even just that behaviour is wrong, whether perpetrated by males or females. It is never the fault of the victim however they are feeling or whatever they are wearing. Hope that helps to clarify.

still

What an incredibly stupid comment

My child has no confidence, very unassuming but does favour tight trousers...oh no wait it's fine, he is a boy and the odds of him being sexually assaulted are very low

Unlike my incredibly confident daughter who has already been inappropriately touched by a man. She just didn't realise that standing at the sweetie counter while picking her sweets made her fair game

So women show off about possessions.

Men do too, and a woman counts among his possessions,

I guess is the logical conclusion there. Not very comforting!

I was thinking more about this just now:

"Are you seriously telling me women do not get a personal rush being seen out with an attractive/desirable man?"

And it made me think of "trophy wives". That is used to describe when a man who is rich/powerful has a much younger, very attractive wife.

So the implications there are:

She has been "bought"
As something to showcase him, his power / money / influence, that he can do this.
So he has his "trophy" wife who is appealing to look at, presumably desirable to other men, to show off much as the same man might show off a yacht or an expensive watch or a hand-made suit.

So inherent in that phrase is the woman as an object, and that her worth is purely tied up in her desirability to other men. Women who have worth (in ways deemed important for men) in other ways - who are very intelligent, or earn lots of money, are not described as "trophy wives".

Men are very rarely described as "trophy husbands" and in the cases where rich powerful women pair up with much younger, very attractive men, the women are ridiculed and the men pitied (for (presumably) having to have sex with a much older woman).

Anyway. The phrase used earlier "Are you seriously telling me women do not get a personal rush being seen out with an attractive/desirable man? is all bound in with this isn't it. It's about a woman whose worth is in her physcial appeal to other men, and "showing her off" as a way to increase the man's standing.

I suppose the opposite is when women have men with lots of money, some show off about that via possessions, holidays and so forth.

It shows the dynamic up very clearly, I think.

A woman is more likely to "show off" to other women about branded goods, for instance, than about the hotness of the man on her arm.

This is all bound up very closely in our gender roles. (Stating the obvious there!).

WTF?

You are, without knowing me or any of my friends, saying that we were not assertive and confident?

And this is why it happened?

Rather than saying, oh well it could be luck, or a different area of the country or part of town, or different sorts of pubs and clubs, or because it was different years, or anything???

Again I would say, yes that is victim blaming!

The implication that a "certain sort" of female will get "trouble" and that she could have avoided it by being a "different sort" of female - that right there is victim blaming.

It puts all of the focus on the behaviour of the females and none on the behaviour of the males.

It says that the females could have avoided it if they had done x, y and z, and that as they didn't, well, what does that say about them.

To jump to the conclusion that there was something "wrong" with the girls rather than then men who would not just fuck off, that right there is victim blaming. And it's wrong isn't it. The assumption that this happened to girls who were doormatty and timnd (?) or whatever the idea is, is just incorrect. It was normal here, for all sorts of girls. Just what happened more often than not when you went out to the pub on a night it was lively.

So now we have two sorts of females identified on the thread who are asking for it:

• Ones who wear certain types of clothes (even if they're only 9)
• Girls who are lacking in confidence

OK well let's just say that's true. For a minute. How do we address this? Do we limit the clothing choices of females, and tell them they need to (magically) gain some innate confidence and if they can't do that they're better off not going out?

And if we take that action, will it reduce the number of incidents where men cause trouble for women/girls, whether at the milder or more illegal end of the scale?

I honestly think some people on here could do with examining their attitudes.

"Did you hear young Caitlin had some bloke following her in the pub and then home, and in the end she had to hide in the kebab shop and call someone to come get her?"

"Oh yes well she always did lack confidence"

Not "fuck off and die" but assertive, confident, sure of your own autonomy maybe. I went out dressed in all sorts from about 13 upwards. Often alcohol was involved I have never been sexuality assaulted.....My Dm always said "look like you know where you are going and if anyone lays a finger on you shout". This served both me and mY dsis well, and hot pants were a favourite of mine.

It also shows up the idea that actually women and girls who are not in a state of constant "fuck off and die" (not that that works but anyway) are automatically approachable.

This attitude amongst men is also part of the problem. When a women is quietly going about her own business in a standard way she should not be deemed "up for harassment". And oh look, if she's doing exactly the same but with a man by her side, she won't be either.

No your post told me it was my fault because my attitude was wrong. Your post said that if only me and my friends had adopted a different "attitude" it would never have happened, we would have been left alone.

That has made me angry.

And it's patent cobblers anyway. If calmly telling a man to fuck off right to his face (after telling him you're not interested etc) doesn't count as a "don't bother me" attitude then I don't know what does.

Because you said that you never got any unwanted attention due to your demeanour.

"Yes I'm blowing my own trumpet but possibly the icy "fuck off and die if you bother me" attitude that came with that look meant that I was not harassed."

Therefore any girls who did get unwanted attention could have avoided that if they had adopted the same "attitudue" as you did.

And so if they got harassed by persistent men, they could have stopped it if they wanted, and they didn't, so it's their own fault. It was avoidable. They didn't avoid it.

That's victim blaming.

Whirling "victim blaming" because my experience doesn't accord with yours?

Because it happened to you it must be a universal experience for all women?

I didn't say any of the things you have said. I can't help or comment on what happened to you but just because it did it doesn't mean it happens to all women.

It was a universal fact round here lass. Hence my statement.

I cannot imagine the situation being as you describe. So I'm not going to say yes that was totally incorrect because in my fairly large experience it is true (especially when you're about 14 - 25) that "The only way to get men to leave you alone is often to tell them you are "owned" by someone else".

And here you are saying that all the girls and women round here were behaving incorrectly in some way and brought this behaviour on themselves. Which has made me very angry. I hated it. My friends hated it. Don't you think if there had been a way of getting rid of them we would have done it FFS.

That's some victim blaming right there, surely. Man follows girl around giving her unwanted attention, she tells him to go away, leave her alone, she's not interested, ^ etc and so forth. He doesn't go away. This is her fault.

I think possibly, Lass, we're talking about different generational differences. Sexualisation has increased, male expectations of entitlement have increased. Things are in many ways getting worse. I was a teen in the 80s/ 90s, when was it for you?

DWH - it doesn't matter what a woman wears, she is public property, owned by men. I've been assaulted and shouted at wearing school uniform, jeans, a long dress and tights, a short skirt and no tights, a swimming costume, running gear, in fact every type of clothing you can think of. When I was raped I was wearing pyjamas.

What clothes you wear makes fuck all difference. But society likes to tell women that if they wear 'slutty' clothes then they're fair game because that makes life easier for sexual predators, most of whom are men.

Whirlpoolis bang on the button with experiences of being owned by the nearest male. The first time I had any unpleasant experience (nothing too serious, just groping and frottaging) was at the tender age of 8 or so, even then when I didn't know what the hell was going on I knew the way to get away from him was to declare that I'd seen my father and brother. And my parents' method of protecting me following my first stalker was to declare that I must be in my younger brother's company at all times.

The fact of male ownership affecting availability of women for harassment is deeply ingrained. I've just been watching all creatures great and small again, where at one point the flirtatious tTristan runs foul of a woman's big husband - his excuse is that he couldn't see a ring, he always checks. She'd taken it off for cooking. In Howl's Moving Castle, the hero protects a young woman from persistent soldiers by pretending to be her boyfriend. No male ownership= fair game. And yes in any pub, women on their own are fair game. Sound familiar at all? It would to most women. Because of course we're all just gagging for it off random strangers all the time and any random male has the right to harass women.

"go away I'm not interested" or similar has always worked.

yeah, round here when I was young, really really not. They were extremely persistent.

But magically, if a bloke arrived, they would disappear like a puff of smoke. The "I'm taken" thing doesn't always work easily, they quite often used to want evidence "I'm married" "where's your ring then?" or "I've got a boyfriend" "Really, what's his name, where does he live, where is he now then?" and so on.

I have told men to fuck off to their faces and with zero result in getting them to go away, only result is that they start to become aggressive. And they still won'r go away and now it's all got a bit scary actually.

For the benefit of PP who thinks clothes invite unwanted attention, I wore leggings, DMs and baggy jumpers when I was a teen / young woman!

No I am not accusing you of lying. I disagree with your presenting that statement as a universal fact.

If you tell a man to fuck off to his face that I don't see how that can be taken as "inviting attention".

I completely agree. Oh I know it's just my personal experiences and therefore of no importance but having said "go away I'm not interested " or similar has always worked. I disagree with your assertion that it is a universal experience.

I can see you don't agree with that.

We obviously have had very very different experiences.

And you can't actually "disagree" with someone elses experiences.Unless you are accusing them of lying, obviously.

"Are you seriously telling me women do not get a personal rush being seen out with an attractive/desirable man?"

That is the weirdest comment so far. No I don't.

So all the women and girls who have been bothered by men who won't leave them alone are simply doing it wrong are they lass?

I feel really angry about that actually. i got loads of shit when I was young, as did most girls I know, the idea that it was our fault for bot behaving correctly is infuriating and, well, incorrect.

If you tell a man to fuck off to his face that I don't see how that can be taken as "inviting attention".

The only way to get men to leave you alone is often to tell them you are "owned" by someone else

Sorry, I don't agree with that.

It may even be that when you go out in your normal clothes, you are subconsciously more relaxed, more yourself, knowing that you're not rendering yourself vulnerable to crap, and so they leave you alone. The worse kind of men do not want to bother confident relaxed types who will shrug off their harassment

Can I make a couple of points?

I know I'm vain and shallow but clothes and style mean a lot to me. It irritates me immensely ,no matter which side of the debate the comment comes from, that choosing to dress in a way one finds attractive is just man pleasing. That was and is not my motivation. My motivation has always been to avoid the mainstream, to be someone whose style turns heads - both women and men do that.

Re the post I have quoted. I don't know what the poster means by "normal clothes " but it's not particularly relevant.
One of my looks at university was described to me as "Kate Bush dressed as Debbie Harry" Yes I'm blowing my own trumpet but possibly the icy "fuck off and die if you bother me" attitude that came with that look meant that I was not harassed.

"That women must walk some weird dress code line between being 'owned' if they dress too sexy or 'owned' if they wear a burka?"

Yes?

The only way to get men to leave you alone is often to tell them you are "owned" by someone else,

If you are out in a pub and not with an "owner" then you will often get approached by men who will not leave you alone on your say-so, they need to see a male owner, or have one invoked ("sorry I'm married"). Just telling them to go away doesn't usually work, women don't have enough authority to get them to listen.

Many men seem to operate this way. It's incredibly infuriating.

& yes. Scantily clad women are often used as "objects" in advertising - use this spray and you will get these women! & of course burqas denote ownership, in Afghanistan women weren't (aren't?) allowed out without a male owner.