Still in two minds about 'slut walk' but i thought this post was very good

[Sunshinetoast]

here

I have been in several minds about the whole 'slut walk' thing. Didn't like the name, or the idea of reclaiming a term that is so loaded with hatred. But then I know several women who felt inspired to act who had never been involved in active feminism before so that must count for something. (and I know that not everyone taking part is trying to reclaim anything).

I thought the article was thoughtful

dont' mean to post and run but my daughter is waking up...

Sigh, she completely misses the point doesn't she. It's a shame as I usually like what she has to say.

Rape is NEVER about what you are wearing it's about power. We know this, so why does it still come down to what a woman is wearing? Why can't women wear whatever the fuck they like without fear of men? A man doesn't have to worry about being assaulted if he goes shirtless so why should a woman if she wears a short skirt? We have to keep pushing these stupid prejudices and push and push and push until society gets it. WOMAN ARE EQUAL, WE HAVE JUST AS MUCH RIGHT TO WEAR WHAT WE LIKE WHEN WE LIKE JUST AS MEN DO!

And more from the ever-interesting Hugo Schwyzer:

hugoschwyzer.net/2011/06/13/feminism-porn-and-slutwalk-part-one-of-a-conversation-with-meghan-murphy/

He's discussing the walk with Meghan Murphy, a Canadian feminist who runs a weekly radio show in Vancouver. Murphy's concern (at least what the two are talking about) is whether Slutwalk might have inadvertently encouraged prostitution or pornography. I think the issue is that by being overly inclusive, there was no disapproval voiced about these things. It's yet another ambiguous aspect of the event.

Poor victimised men

I'll be supporting SlutWalk, not as a feminist but as a woman protecting my right to choose for myself without being accused of 'asking' to be raped. It offends me that the clothes I wear, my past sexual history, and even my personal background could all be used against me in the event that I was raped. It's sickening that men's abuse of women is justifiable if the victim displays any form of sexuality. No one deserves to be raped, it's an archaic concept entertained by abusive men and insecure women. Whilst I'm on a rant, this issue is hardly helped by the overt sexualisation of women through the sex industry- portraying women as sexual objects will inevitably breed the concept that any woman who displays a sexuality is nothing more than a glorified Fleshlight.

I've been having a debate elsewhere online about this - the latest post is from a mother of two teenage boys who said, and I quote; 'I do believe it is the responsibility of us all [women] to make sure we do not put ourselves in temptation's way. After all, there are people out there who are tempted sexually and it really doesn't help these people to flaunt our bodies provocatively. I actually really object to girls wearing really short skirts for school uniform and have already complained to the powers that be. I have 2 young teenage boys who don't need that kind of temptation put before them to give them wrong ideas. At that age hormones are raging and they have a bigger battle against what they know is wrong - lustful desire - when young girls/women dress this way. '

The debate has been raging on but this post in particular made me see red!

I've been thinking about this slutwalk thing for a while now, and I actually like Yasmin Alibhai-Brown's article. I can't help thinking that while the aims of the slutwalk are good, the execution of it carries resonances of teenage girls doing pole dancing, etc, because they're 'liberated'.

I also doubt that the people who need to hear the message are hearing it from Slutwalk. It's like the married Hollywood couple, where the wife was offered a role which involved nudity. She told her husband about it and he said: "Honey, I don't mind you doing nude scenes in this film. But just remember, while you may be going topless for artistic reasons, the audience will just be looking at your tits."

I think it's possible to support women's right to dress as they please, and to fight against the lie that women who drink/ dress in skimpy clothes are courting sexual attack. I think it's possible to support these things without stripping off. I would also teach my daughter the many reasons why I would not want her to dress in an overtly sexual way.

There's going to be a naked cycle ride in my town this year. Ouch! I am a cyclist, and I totally get the point of doing the ride nude: it's to demonstrate the vulnerability of cyclists on the road. I get it, but I won't be doing it. All that the passers-by will remember is seeing a bunch of droopy naked people on bikes.

MadameBoo - I find that post interesting, not enraging. I don't know what I think about the teenage boys thing, but will have to work out my thoughts in the next 10 years or so before my DS gets there!

Off the top of my head, if I were going to spend time with a hormonal teenaged boy I think I would be more conscious about not showing cleavage. As it happens I show just a little bit, but even that I think would be enough for the wild imagination of a confused, hormonal teen. So out of consideration for them I'd probably cover up a bit more. I don't have a problem with this, and I don't think it makes my unliberated.

I do think that on the one hand teenaged girls who hoik their skirts up to their crotches are just experimenting with their sexuality, and everyone does this in one way or another. But I do think that at the moment it really goes too far - it's like they're trying to get a bigger 'hit' by revealing as much flesh as one possibly can without being actually naked. I find it appalling. There is no real liberation in putting your body on show to be ogled (or in ending up being groped by vile strangers who just want to cop a feel).

I do like this story, though. (You'll have to scroll down).

I also have a young son Speedy, and I want to raise him to have a healthy attitude towards his female peers, and to take responsibilty for his own actions. If he was to sexually assault one of them then I certainly wouldn't be siding with him and saying that she was in some way to blame because she was wearing a short skirt. I think that's why I got cross, given the context of the debate.

Well the excerpt of the debate that you posted obviously doesn't have any context, however I didn't see anything in that post that attributed blame towards teenage girls. Is this what the poster said elsewhere, then? There's an ocean of difference between hormonal gawping (which is bad enough) and attacking a girl 'because of the way she's dressed'. And I don't think it's helpful to attribute blame in either context, but as you say, responsibility for one's own actions is what's important. For both males and females.

No she didn't actually (attribute blame to teenage girls) - maybe I judged her too harshly.

Mmm. Firstly I have had a terrible nights sleep so accept I am horribly grumpy...but.

I hate the Alibhai-Brown article, which also ignores just about every other article about slutwalk which acknowledge that loads of women on slutwalk have subjected to rape.

If I have to teach my DD not to dress in anything overtly sexual, I will be distinctly pissed off. Particularly if I perceive it to be because some other mama thinks she can't engage her 'hormonally challenged' sons...so somehow it becomes ny daughters responsibility to manage....

Teenage girls have the right to be as tasteless, crass and sexual as they want, society should be able to give them the freedom to be. Also....even if they do behave, and repress themselves into tasteful, safe packages...they still have far too high a risk that they are going get sexually assaulted or raped anyway.

saying that that the overt sexualisation/objectification of girls/women into a very singular view of sexuality, at the moment is still a big pile of poo...and for me part of the problem.

I agree with your last post Snowmama...
But I don't think we can ignore the fact that the only reason the Slutwalks are getting any attention at all is because they give men hard-ons.

Which kind of defeats the purpose.

Reclaim the NIght... I'd never even heard of it until this feminist topic opened because ultimately society doesn't give a shit about violence against women.

THe problem I have with slut walk... now bear with me here... is that the concept of "repressed" "frigid" and "prude" or "assexual" were terms coined by men who wanted access to women's vaginas... psychoanalysts invented the idea that women could be sexually repressed if they weren't up for it with men.

They failed to mention the fact that men were often inept lovers or that women could get pregnant and men couldn'T. They also failed to mention that women and men can have a sex life without intercourse... which is safer for the woman.. Obviously it was important that women were allowed to have boyfriends and not be tarnished with the word slut for expressing their sexuality at all... but that just goes back to men not liking women's sexuality unless it serves them and it's on their terms.

And that's the problem with sexuality .. it's always going to be women who get pregnant and carry the babies, which is why being "up for it" and not "repressed" ultimately, only serves men.. who want to stick their dicks in women.

I think the concept or "repression" is a load of bollocks, women's sexuality is limitless and endless compared to men"s...

So I don't think women being "repressed" or "sexual" is the problem...

[are you still following this

The problem is that men think they have a right to intercourse with women... convincing women that intercourse was good was huge male-led movement in the Victorian times... and actually it was thought to prevent rape...
Get women to "like" it, get the wives to be "up for it" and the problem of men being deprived of intercourse goes away... it was a huge (fascinating) campaign in the Victorian era to get wives to "like" it, and those who didn't were branded as abnormal.

Anyway, my point is that there is nothing transgressive about a load of women saying they should be allowed to like intercourse.. In fact it plays into the patriarchy's hands perfectly.

I hear what you are saying Sakura, but probably unsurprisingly - we are not on the same page with this .

What you are in effect saying to me is, is if I as a woman say that I am a 'sexual woman' and will act accordingly, than I will get one of two responses:

a) you are a whore who cannot complain if you get raped because you were 'up for it ' anyway
or
b) you are a patriarchal compliant dope

Which means my 'endless and limitless' sexuality worth a grand sum of absolutely fuck all unless I am asexual or a lesbian. Both are valid, but if they are not your actual, authentic sexuality, it is a bit of a bugger.

Which I am afraid reduces me to a big teenage mass of unreasonableness, of 'FUCK OFF' (not to you Sakura) just a big shout of frustration, because from my perspective, it appears that my actual sexuality and right to express it, has been entirely erased and replaced with some cod-sexuality of 'lap dancing is fun' or something similar, and if I say I think this is as repressive as say, being expected to wear high heels or make up, I am told that I am playing into patriarchy's hands.

... and actually the thing about SlutWalk is in the main they were not doing the 'lapdancing is fun' schtick.. they were saying I have the right to wear whatever I want, and not be raped, and they do.

... and also sorry, I do think it is transgressive for women to say they like sex - when not referring to their husband or monogomous partner - but that is taking us along a slightly different tangent...

Sorry, this is the last of crazy multiposting ..

It is actually possible for a woman to have sex with a man or a woman, or any combination of the two.. completely on her own terms.

Similarly, I said this on the other thread, it must be equally acceptable for women to be celibate without being dismissed as fridgid/repressed etc.

As you rightly pointed out Sakura, this is also made problematic by Patriarchy and must not be, however these are not mutually exclusive positions.

I am very willing to hear the 'other' option is though. It is not the first time by a long shot that I have heard Sakura's argument. However, when I ask to hear what that translates into in terms of what a female sexuality should look like, how should I raise my daughter, dress, perception etc - I am actually given nothing.

I also think that 'sex loving sex positive' is often translated into pro-porn/pro sex-industry and excludes a far more simple conversation about being able to recongnise a part of your psyche.

If there is a third way of having this conversation, I would love to know what it is, because I geniunely don't know is being proposed.

Ok, so where does that get us.. because otherwise we are simply silenced and others will dicate the answer onto us.

I personally don't think it is that polarised btw, which is why I am a bit stumped with why 'I am a sexual woman' should be in anyway a problematic statement in a feminist context.

What do you think polarises this issue? What for you is problematic about discussing sex as a feminist.

When I say you - I am not badgering you Prolesworth- I am trying to think of a question that willl engender a different discussion, because I will openly admit I am struggling with what appears to be a discourse of 'sex=all about male satisfaction/requirements, and nothing about female agency'

"What you are in effect saying to me is, is if I as a woman say that I am a 'sexual woman' and will act accordingly, than I will get one of two responses:

a) you are a whore who cannot complain if you get raped because you were 'up for it ' anyway
or
b) you are a patriarchal compliant dope"

Well.. it's the patriarchy telling you that, of course, not feminists...

"I am a sexual woman" is not problematic in a feminist context.. in fact it was feminists who first fought for the right for women to have a sexual response... before the Victorian"getting wives to like intercourse" campaign a lot of men were basically disgusted if their wives had a sexual response at all.. that was for the whores...

So it was feminists who first wrote about female sexuality.. well a lot of them were having sex with other women, of course, and finding the sex to be better than anything they'd experienced with a man

...but if you're heterosexual (like me ) then it does put you in a bit of a conundrum... Have the sex, I say... you only live once...(although try not to have intercourse if possible... that would be a test whether a man was worth going to bed with or not, wouldn't it!) but I just don't think that women calling themselves sluts helps anything

I know it was in response to that idiot police officer, but still, I just don't think it's going to work. Men already think all women are sluts, basically.

I did like the point you made earlier about the girls seeming to let-go a bit with their fashion in a way they haven't been able to do before because of all the rigid rules surrounding female dress.

Just musing, really.

I have read a lot of anecdotal evidence of abusive men being disgusted by their spouse's sexual response.. so if they partner got aroused during sex they would get turned off or angry. I think that is why a lot of men visit prostitutes to be honest.. they want to do things to women that they know women don't like, such as anal sex...

I suppose my point is that whether women are seen as sexual or not is all irrelevant because until we crush the P we are always going to be running blindly around men and what they want

ETA we are always going to be running blindly around men and ending up doing what they want us to anyway