# Slut Walks



## punisher73 (May 6, 2011)

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42927752/ns/us_news-life/?gt1=43001

Thoughts? Is our culture to "permissive" on rape?

If a man walks down the street with $100 bills hanging out of all his pockets and gets robbed, we would say that he bears some responsibility. Should it be the same standard that if a woman wears extremely revealing clothing that, even though completely wrong, she has a small part in what happened?



Just asking questions, this is *NOT *a "she had it coming" viewpoint.


----------



## bushidomartialarts (May 6, 2011)

I think the difference is in severity.

A man walks through Harlem with $100 bills hanging out of his pocket. We'll punish the robbers, but we'll also chide him for being foolish....but we wouldn't chide him if the robbers also beat him severely.

Rape is assault, not robbery. A more apt analogy would be a woman dressed provocatively getting felt up on a crowded subway train....a situation where I think you'll see the exact same response as the $100 bill example above.


----------



## Flea (May 6, 2011)

A "slut walk" strikes me as a strange phenomenon, but I think I get where they're coming from.  It's a similar approach to a gay pride rally - turning a taboo into a positive, with the ultimate goal of removing the stigma altogether.  Given enough marches, the mainstream view might just budge a little.  If one came to my town I think I'd dust off my "Boobquake" shirt and join in.


----------



## Flea (May 6, 2011)

bushidomartialarts said:


> I think the difference is in severity.
> 
> Rape is assault, not robbery. A more apt analogy would be a woman dressed provocatively getting felt up on a crowded subway train....a situation where I think you'll see the exact same response as the $100 bill example above.



Nah.  There's another side to "severity," and that's the intrusiveness.  You can't put sexual violence on par with a robbery.


----------



## Empty Hands (May 6, 2011)

The analogy doesn't hold up on the facts.  Most women are raped by men they know.  Most rape victims are under 18, with a very significant minority of that under age 11.  Stranger-rape of an attractively dressed woman walking down a dark alley are such a minority of rapes that they are barely worth talking about.

So no, dressing in stained sweats (or even kids clothes, as it turns out) will not protect you from rape.


----------



## Touch Of Death (May 6, 2011)

"Reclaim the word slut"... That's hilarious. And by the decree of the greater slaterniani we hear by claim the word SLUT as our own.
Sean


----------



## Tez3 (May 6, 2011)

The most common usage of the word slut used to be to describe a woman who was untidy, dirty even, dishevelled and slatternly. It's seems to be an Americanism that we've copied that it now has a 'sexual' meaning. We've always tended used the word 'slag' for _that_ type of female or the expression I like 'she's no better than she ought to be', one of those sayings you don't actually know what it means!

Rape is more often about power and control, rarely is about the sexual act itself which is used as something to humilate and degrade the victim. 
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-12857539

Rape is not just an assault it's a hate crime which leaves lifelong trauma.


----------



## LuckyKBoxer (May 6, 2011)

This is just ridiculous to me.

while I feel that people should be allowed to be people, as long as in their doing so it doesnt change or effect my way of living directly, there are some things that common sense should tell you is wrong.

look a person can have racist views as much as he wants, its a free country, If a black racist walks by me with a shirt that says "whitey sucks!" I will laugh at him the same as some fool white guy walking down the street with a shirt embroidered with a swastika.
but if that black guy does the same thing at a KKK rally, or if that white guy goes to say oakland and does that, well they are idiots and probably going to be beaten or worse.. are they to blame? They are after all exercising their freedom of speech? Of course they are to blame for being idiots, stupid, whatever you want to call it.

now a woman dressing provacatively is one thing, doing it and acting provacatively is another, doing it, acting it, and then leaving with some guy she just met and getting raped? horrible... but she has some blame for her actions.
It is obvious not all rapes are because some guy was lead on by a woman dressed like a "slut" or acting like a "slut" and teasing them either directly or indirectly. But there is definitely a percentage that happen that way. Some people need to use self defense and not put themselves in bad situations then expect to have no blame when things go south.

I think today people are way to sensitive, I see it on this forum all the time. Someone says something and immediately a large group of people take it the worst possible way it could possibly be interpreted. Its like everyone has a damn chip on their shoulder and is looking to make others seem as evil as possible to help themselves feel better. I am not exempting myself from this either, I try really hard to read what is written and react off of that, but sometimes its hard not to read something and see an extreme version of what it can be. 

I guess this seems so ridiculous because the word slut is a derogatory term... its used to describe poor behavior, tacky dress, etc.. for people to defend it seems ridiculous... I mean why not have a Pimp walk day, a wife beater day, a child neglector day, a day without drug dealers, etc.etc.  it just seems stupid. have a day to support respect amongs humans, or a day to support free speech, or a day to support successful marriages, or a day to celebrate school graduates, or a day to celebrate any other set of positive morals.... this?? just lame


----------



## Touch Of Death (May 6, 2011)

LuckyKBoxer said:


> This is just ridiculous to me.
> 
> while I feel that people should be allowed to be people, as long as in their doing so it doesnt change or effect my way of living directly, there are some things that common sense should tell you is wrong.
> 
> ...


Slut exactly translated means slat, and for people that don't like the C word, I don't know why people would want to be called by a description for their private parts.
Sean


----------



## bushidomartialarts (May 6, 2011)

LuckyKBoxer said:


> I mean why not have a Pimp walk day, a wife beater day, a child neglector day, a day without drug dealers, etc.etc.  it just seems stupid. have a day to support respect amongs humans, or a day to support free speech, or a day to support successful marriages, or a day to celebrate school graduates, or a day to celebrate any other set of positive morals.... this?? just lame



I love your second set of examples...the world needs more of that.

But being sexually promiscuous (or dressing like you might be) doesn't belong on the same list as wife beating and child neglect.


----------



## LuckyKBoxer (May 6, 2011)

bushidomartialarts said:


> I love your second set of examples...the world needs more of that.
> 
> But being sexually promiscuous (or dressing like you might be) doesn't belong on the same list as wife beating and child neglect.


 
I will freely agree to that point.. I was not putting a huge amount of thought into it.. I was trying to simply list poor traits... and while the last two are indeed poor traits, I would agree they are in a different category.


----------



## Tez3 (May 6, 2011)

However wearing short skirts and boob tubes aren't always the attractive sight some wish they were. Tbh very few females wearing short skirts etc look very appealing, with their blue mottled legs, muffin tops, builders bums etc. With both male and female Chavs there is a huge amount of violent drunken behaviour involved.

The Great British Chav (female version)


----------



## LuckyKBoxer (May 6, 2011)

Tez3 said:


> However wearing short skirts and boob tubes aren't always the attractive sight some wish they were. Tbh very few females wearing short skirts etc look very appealing, with their blue mottled legs, muffin tops, builders bums etc. With both male and female Chavs there is a huge amount of violent drunken behaviour involved.
> 
> The Great British Chav (female version)


 

I will see your Chav?? and raise you a Snooki!


----------



## mook jong man (May 6, 2011)

Cor Blimey they're right scrubbers aren't they.


----------



## Tez3 (May 6, 2011)

Ugh! sometimes you know I think the Burka idea isn't so far wrong! I support people doing their own thing and tbh I wouldn't want to be told what to wear in my own time but whether or not dressing in such tiny clothes is provocative or not, I really think many girls should cover up to save the rest of us  having to see them. I'm torn between admiring the confidence of girls who squeeze a hundred pounds of flesh into a tiny top and skirt but on the other hand it just appalls me.
Up in some of our northern cities it's common for girls to go shopping in their pajamas so much so that some supermarkets have banned them from wearing them in their shops.
In the sixties like most girls then I wore mini skirts, it didn't seem such an issue and people were more prudish then. 

Here at least it's less the clothes that are an issue but the drunken yobbish behaviour. It's common to drink till you fall into a coma, this makes girls vulnerble. Many girls aren't sober enough to make an informed decision as to whether they want sex or not, many will shag a guy when they are drunk that they wouldn't even speak to if sober. Many don't even know the guy they shag. all inhibitions go out of the women, a guy intend on having sex doesn't need to rape, he just waits till a girl literally falls at his feet.


----------



## granfire (May 6, 2011)

Glory days when people actually dressed up when they left the house....


----------



## JohnEdward (May 6, 2011)

This is a really old argument for sure, and sadly is resurrected when something like this happens. 

In my experience, I think there is a truth to the cop's "flippant" comment. I speak unbiasedly.  We can say the cop was out of line and should have said something less demeaning and politically correct to the woman by saying, by the overtly sexual way you are dressing, possibly for attention based mostly on what seem to be on a lacking of self esteem, or you are struggling with understanding good sense fashion, the attention you are getting you can't control. By dressing the way you are, realize many men and women see you as being highly sexually promiscuous and available to them sexually. These people lack the control to restrain themselves from forcing you to have sex with them. Sure Lil' Kim, Lady Gaga and other entertainers you admire are praised dress that way to be noticed and get attention, and you see dressing like that is a successful way of getting attention you want, but they have bodyguards, and people always around them to protect them. You don't. If you want to dress in this overtly exploitive manner, you may want to do it in a more controlled environment where their are not any  sexual predators and crazies who can't control their sexual urges and will force sex upon you. You don't want to swim in shark infested waters looking like and acting like a seal.  

Now how unreasonable is all that to say to a woman who has self-esteem issues, and hasn't learned the art of dressing for the occasion, or for the environment.  How many men (gay or not) can walk into a Redneck bar, dressed as Perez Hilton in a cop uniform and not get beat to an inch of their life, raped, or both. There are some realities that exist. We many not like it. But they do. If a women is dressed in a sexually provocatively manner on the street she will draw quickly dangerous attention, sad and true fact. Something those people protesting don't understand. The cop's comment or his attitude isn't the real problem. It is the fact sick and dangerous people are out there, and you have to protect yourself, and not make yourself vulnerable, or as a neon sign target. Sadly, the street isn't the perfect Utopia where everyone is nice to each other no matter what signals we send out.  In my view, yea it was a flippant comment, but it spoke a truth very succinctly.  Let me add, I don't see rape as a consequence or a burden on the victim. Instead as a matter in terms of risk management and personal safety.  No one deserves or asks to be raped or attacked, but it happens anyway to all sorts of women which is a sad reality and threat women have to be aware, and manage the risks in terms of personal safety. I really wish things where different, as a husband, and father.


----------



## Flea (May 10, 2011)

I saw this elsewhere and couldn't resist passing it along:

[yt]WGnGPAZcsqE&feature[/yt]


----------



## Big Don (May 10, 2011)

What is really sad about this is people being proud of being scum. The lack of shame in today's society is a big problem.


----------



## Sukerkin (May 10, 2011)

As I can't see the images/video Flea linked to I can't comment in context but in general terms I do agree with Don about one of the consequences of generations of "Me First Last and Always" is that people do not properly consider how what they do and how they behave reflects upon themselves.  Nor do they consider how their right to do as they please, anti-social or not, impacts upon the rights of others not to have to put up with that sort of thing.


----------



## Empty Hands (May 10, 2011)

Big Don said:


> What is really sad about this is people being proud of being scum. The lack of shame in today's society is a big problem.





Sukerkin said:


> As I can't see the images/video Flea linked to I can't comment in context but in general terms I do agree with Don about one of the consequences of generations of "Me First Last and Always" is that people do not properly consider how what they do and how they behave reflects upon themselves.



How does having sex with multiple people (but only if you are a woman) make you "scum" or reflect on you poorly?


----------



## Big Don (May 10, 2011)

Empty Hands said:


> How does having sex with multiple people (but only if you are a woman) make you "scum" or reflect on you poorly?


That doesn't, being proud to be a slut, does.


----------



## Empty Hands (May 10, 2011)

Big Don said:


> That doesn't, being proud to be a slut, does.



Being proud of being a slut only makes you scum if being a slut is in fact at or near the scum-worthy level itself.  If being a slut was not a negative thing, then how could being proud of it be a negative thing?  Like saying that there is nothing wrong with eating hamburgers, but being proud of being a hamburger-eater makes you scum.

So again, why does having sex with multiple people (but only if you are a woman) make you a bad person?

Like there can even be a neutral understanding of the word slut that isn't drenched in misogyny.  I've seen women called sluts who were dressed in sweats, walking to class.  It's a word used to attack women full stop.  Otherwise what is the "slut number"?  5?  10?  1000?  I've even heard of women being called sluts who were still virgins.

That's the whole reason for these walks and "reclaiming the word".


----------



## granfire (May 10, 2011)

It's like being proud of being a redneck...

We have slowly moved to embrace the lowest possible denominator.

Not too long ago calling man 'dog' would have earned you 5 across the lips, same as the female equivalent. 'Slut' isn't that far of a leap anymore.

I mean, I am all for expressing oneself, but some stuff does not need to be shown in public....
But it takes somebody with some cloud to proclaim that underwear should only be seen dressing/undressing...(I guess there goes the market for decorated 'whale tails')


----------



## Sukerkin (May 10, 2011)

Empty Hands said:


> How does having sex with multiple people (but only if you are a woman) make you "scum" or reflect on you poorly?


 
I *said* in general terms, carefully stating that I was speaking out of context, that I thought that selfish and inconsiderate behaviour was a bad thing, *EH*.  

In specific contextural parameters, then, aye, I'm a bit old-fashioned in that I think 'sleeping around' is disreputable whichever gender is doing it.  There might be some convincing biological arguments for men behaving that way when we were likely to end up dead before too long and so our genes were eager to get passed on.  Nowadays we need, as in so many other things, to rise above our 'caveman' programming.

:blush:  I'm still capable of "Outraged of Hemel Hempstead" moralising when the mood takes me it seems .


----------



## Touch Of Death (May 10, 2011)

Empty Hands said:


> Being proud of being a slut only makes you scum if being a slut is in fact at or near the scum-worthy level itself.  If being a slut was not a negative thing, then how could being proud of it be a negative thing?  Like saying that there is nothing wrong with eating hamburgers, but being proud of being a hamburger-eater makes you scum.
> 
> So again, why does having sex with multiple people (but only if you are a woman) make you a bad person?
> 
> ...


By starting with the assumption that society celebrates men that sleep with multiple women, you are creating a false argument. It is unsafe for both sexes. Secondly, you don't reclaim a word that never was in your favor. It has always been a slam, and always will be.
Sean


----------



## Flea (May 10, 2011)

From an evolutionary perspective, sexual promiscuity is ideal because genetic diversity promotes survival of both the individual and the species.

From the extremely newfangled and novel public health perspective, not so much because of the "social diseases" that have been with us as long as sex itself.

But this thread is not about putting women on trial as sexual beings.  Waxing poetic about chastity or finger-shaking about short skirts puts us right down to the level of the officer who made the original comment that prompted the marches to begin with.  People - including people with vaginas - have the right to make their own decisions about what to wear and how they associate.  

There is no justification for an unprovoked violent crime, and showing a little more skin than is expected under a particular social standard is _not_ provocation.  It's an excuse, and a completely unacceptable one at that.


----------



## WC_lun (May 10, 2011)

I don't care if a woman walks bare assed naked down the street, men have to be responsible for thier actions.  Is it the smartest thing a woman could do?  Of course not.  However, it in no way makes her responsible if she gets raped.  That is 100% on the man who would do such a thing.  For me saying that a scantily clas woman contributed to her own rape by virtue of adding temptation is just adding an excuse for the man's behaviour.  There is no excuse for rape. None.


----------



## Empty Hands (May 10, 2011)

Sukerkin said:


> I *said* in general terms, carefully stating that I was speaking out of context, that I thought that selfish and inconsiderate behaviour was a bad thing, *EH*.



Then I don't understand, since I've seen no selfish and inconsiderate behavior discussed in relation to the OP - except for the cop, of course.



Sukerkin said:


> In specific contextural parameters, then, aye, I'm a bit old-fashioned in that I think 'sleeping around' is disreputable whichever gender is doing it.



Why?


----------



## Empty Hands (May 10, 2011)

Touch Of Death said:


> By starting with the assumption that society celebrates men that sleep with multiple women, you are creating a false argument. It is unsafe for both sexes.



Social celebration and safety are separate arguments and points.  Why did you conflate them?

It isn't really disputable that women are held to a higher sexual standard then men, individual exceptions aside.  However, that has nothing to do with the question I asked - why is sexual promiscuity immoral?



Touch Of Death said:


> Secondly, you don't reclaim a word that never was in your favor. It has always been a slam, and always will be.



The point is that it is a sexist slam, inconsistently applied almost solely to women.  It's only true meaning is "woman I want to put in her place."  If it actually meant something, then it wouldn't be applied to virgins and college students dressed in sweats and t-shirts.  

Also, slurs obviously are so re-claimed, like "******" and "******", so you are wrong on the facts.


----------



## Sukerkin (May 10, 2011)

Finally seen the video clip, *Flea* - nice and effective without being preachy or going out of it's way to demonise all men.


----------



## Sukerkin (May 10, 2011)

Empty Hands said:


> It isn't really disputable that women are held to a higher sexual standard then men, individual exceptions aside.  However, that has nothing to do with the question I asked - why is sexual promiscuity immoral?



In modern times it is more a public health issue than anything else, if you are seeking only practical reasons.

There is still the hangover too of the inate need for men in particular to know that they are expending resources to raise offspring that actually contain their genes and not those of some other man.

I don't think tho' that we are cleaving too well to the topic with this digression.

Those that don't want to hear that a certain mode of behaviour carries a risk will never hear it and those that will always believe that women dressed a certain way will also behave a certain way will likely never be convinced either.

The good points have largely been made already on both those platforms, as far as I am concerned, at least.


----------



## Touch Of Death (May 10, 2011)

Empty Hands said:


> Social celebration and safety are separate arguments and points.  Why did you conflate them?
> 
> It isn't really disputable that women are held to a higher sexual standard then men, individual exceptions aside.  However, that has nothing to do with the question I asked - why is sexual promiscuity immoral?
> 
> ...


The word means slat, and if you want to lay claim, thats fine by me, but your proof has been hidden from my view; so, I still have no clue what you are talking about.
Sean


----------



## Touch Of Death (May 10, 2011)

Empty Hands said:


> Social celebration and safety are separate arguments and points.  Why did you conflate them?
> 
> It isn't really disputable that women are held to a higher sexual standard then men, individual exceptions aside.  However, that has nothing to do with the question I asked - why is sexual promiscuity immoral?
> 
> ...


Sexual promiscuity directly effects the family. If you choose to believe family is unimportant in modern times then, for you, sexual promiscuity is not immoral; however, family oriented people know otherwise. Its all in the eye of the beholder. You get to believe what ever you want, but expecting us to follow along with your thought process is going to get you no where.
Sean


----------



## Empty Hands (May 10, 2011)

Sukerkin said:


> In modern times it is more a public health issue than anything else, if you are seeking only practical reasons.



Is smoking immoral?  Is overeating immoral?  Are extreme sports or riding motorcycles immoral?  All public health issues, yet it is rare that any of those issues are treated the same way as promiscuity.

I am curious if you have any reasons other than the practical yourself, since I know that you like me don't hold with a God laying down religious rules for behavior.

At the end of the day, I know perfectly well why everyone treats promiscuity the way they do.  It is essentially an irrational prejudice, and I would like people to start thinking about their irrational prejudices.  Especially when those prejudices hurt women.


----------



## Empty Hands (May 10, 2011)

Touch Of Death said:


> Sexual promiscuity directly effects the family. If you choose to believe family is unimportant in modern times then, for you, sexual promiscuity is not immoral; however, family oriented people know otherwise.



If that were the real reason, then young women without families of their own yet would not be called sluts.  "Promiscuity" is very, very different from "cheating", which is indeed immoral because it is lying that hurts those close to the cheater.  Promiscuity is not lying.



Touch Of Death said:


> You get to believe what ever you want, but expecting us to follow along with your thought process is going to get you no where.
> Sean



That's kind of funny, because what I've been doing over and over again is asking people to justify their conclusions - to explain their thought process.  The few reasons that have been put forward, like yours above, just don't hold up logically.


----------



## Touch Of Death (May 10, 2011)

Empty Hands said:


> If that were the real reason, then young women without families of their own yet would not be called sluts.  "Promiscuity" is very, very different from "cheating", which is indeed immoral because it is lying that hurts those close to the cheater.  Promiscuity is not lying.
> 
> 
> 
> That's kind of funny, because what I've been doing over and over again is asking people to justify their conclusions - to explain their thought process.  The few reasons that have been put forward, like yours above, just don't hold up logically.


Its not about having or not having a family. If you value the family, then you don't engage in promiscuity. It's that simple. I said nothing of lying and cheating. You brought that in and shot it down all by your self. This is also why the logic doesn't match; you missed it.
sean


----------



## Empty Hands (May 10, 2011)

Touch Of Death said:


> Its not about having or not having a family. If you value the family, then you don't engage in promiscuity. It's that simple. I said nothing of lying and cheating. You brought that in and shot it down all by your self. This is also why the logic doesn't match; you missed it.
> sean



Then you're going to have to explain it, because it doesn't make any sense.


----------



## Touch Of Death (May 10, 2011)

Empty Hands said:


> Then you're going to have to explain it, because it doesn't make any sense.


You will notice that all ten of The Ten commandments also, directly effect the family as well, but for some reason or another, a value is placed on being chaste until married. If we can't get that we like the idea that our mates showed some loyalty to the boyfriend or girlfriend they had before us. Its just the way we as a people think. The last choice for a marriage partner is the person sleeping with multiple people. It is simply a character flaw no matter how you slice it, when you think in terms of the family. The whole Hippy free love thing collapsed in on itself because it lacked substance or any real alternative plan to what existed before... the family.
Sean


----------



## Empty Hands (May 10, 2011)

Touch Of Death said:


> If we can't get that we like the idea that our mates showed some loyalty to the boyfriend or girlfriend they had before us.



Again, you conflate promiscuity with cheating.  Hint: not everyone dates the people they have sex with.  Not all promiscuous people date or have sex with multiple people at the same time.  Another Hint: there exist a certain number of couples with open marriages, at least one of which that I know of that has children.  They do more or less the same as other couples.  Not everyone conceives of sex and family in the narrow way you do, and thus your views cannot be universalized.



Touch Of Death said:


> It is simply a character flaw no matter how you slice it, when you think in terms of the family.



You have put no arguments forward as to how it is a character flaw, so no it isn't obvious to me.  I know of promiscuous people who have families (polyamory and the like) that have loving family lives, and monogamous families which are miserable.  You have put nothing forward to make promiscuity a character flaw in respect to the family or anything else.


----------



## Touch Of Death (May 10, 2011)

Empty Hands said:


> Again, you conflate promiscuity with cheating.  Hint: not everyone dates the people they have sex with.  Not all promiscuous people date or have sex with multiple people at the same time.  Another Hint: there exist a certain number of couples with open marriages, at least one of which that I know of that has children.  They do more or less the same as other couples.  Not everyone conceives of sex and family in the narrow way you do, and thus your views cannot be universalized.
> 
> 
> 
> You have put no arguments forward as to how it is a character flaw, so no it isn't obvious to me.  I know of promiscuous people who have families (polyamory and the like) that have loving family lives, and monogamous families which are miserable.  You have put nothing forward to make promiscuity a character flaw in respect to the family or anything else.


My case is already universalized. You are the one coming up against the status quo. Secondly, I'm sure you know of anecdotal cases where people are happy sleeping around, but it defies the sense of community people who think like me like to create and maintain. Sluts and Manwhores get shunned. Lastly the family overides a person's individual happiness, and part a what religion is and does is to help ease the pain of losing the right to run around screwing everyone in sight, in favor of playing a the role of Mother, Father, husband and wife. The very word husband means banded to the hussy. Marriage is an agreement to value your children over yourself.
Sean


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (May 10, 2011)

Empty Hands said:


> Again, you conflate promiscuity with cheating. Hint: not everyone dates the people they have sex with. Not all promiscuous people date or have sex with multiple people at the same time.


 
I'm writing this as a devil's advocate of sorts. I'm still on the fence about the whole open marriage/polyamory can of worms. That said, within the context of Western society, I think that it's generally expected that sex and dating imply a relationship of at least some level of commitment. That's the norm, the expectation. So arguably, someone who dates multiple people or just has casual sex is disregarding these expectations of the other person. 

We've all heard of hook ups and friends with benefits, but I think those are still regarded as behaviors that are part of a stage, or as outliers. The norm remains to be the one-person-at-a-time dating.



> Another Hint: there exist a certain number of couples with open marriages, at least one of which that I know of that has children. They do more or less the same as other couples. Not everyone conceives of sex and family in the narrow way you do, and thus your views cannot be universalized.


 
I don't see why anything has to be universalized. All of this discussion is within the context of Western culture. Again, within our culture, single dating is the norm, and a promiscuous person conflicts with that. I'm not saying it's "immoral" per se, but I can see how hurt feelings and jealousy would be an inherent risk, and thus within the context of our culture develop the stigma that you're now questioning. 

My attempt at explaining the viewpoint, feel free to refute.


----------



## Sukerkin (May 10, 2011)

Whilst pondering the aspects of this thread, I looked a little deeper into what is on YouTube, of all places,about this issue.  I came across a short advert, I'm guessing that was South Africa transmission only, that had Charlize Theron fronting the message that 1 in 3 SA women are the victims of rape.

I know that base impulses lurk in us all (male and female) and that some  are only constrained from doing evil by the rule of law but words cannot describe my reaction to that.  Even allowing for the figure to be an exageration ... say WHAT!?  

I've not considered myself to have had a sheltered upbringing but I cannot get my head around a statistic like that.

The technical quality of the video is not great as the audio is out of synch but that really does not matter:

[yt]5oZpuY97i_k[/yt]


----------



## Sukerkin (May 10, 2011)

Empty Hands said:


> Is smoking immoral?  Is overeating immoral?  Are extreme sports or riding motorcycles immoral?  All public health issues, yet it is rare that any of those issues are treated the same way as promiscuity.



I don't think that the examples you give are really comparing like with like, *EH*.  

Such examples as passive smoking are not the same playing field, for the public health issue of promiscuity is one of hidden disease.  It is a 'stealthy' risk factor, a danger that cannot easily be avoided without breaching an awful lot of social mores and codes of conduct.  After all, you can't really ask up front "Well?  Have you got any STD's I should know about?"

Labelling it (promiscuity) as "immoral" is emotive but I wouldn't argue all that strongly against so styling it.  It is immoral in the same way as driving whilst inoxicated is, for such behaviour puts others directly at risk.  

What must not be concluded from my words is that I countenance any perjorative difference between a "Tom" cat or an "Alley" cat.  Both genders indulging in such behaviours generate similar risk factors for all those they come in 'contact' with during their 'adventures'.


----------



## Touch Of Death (May 10, 2011)

Sukerkin said:


> I don't think that the examples you give are really comparing like with like, *EH*.
> 
> Such examples as passive smoking are not the same playing field, for the public health issue of promiscuity is one of hidden disease.  It is a 'stealthy' risk factor, a danger that cannot easily be avoided without breaching an awful lot of social mores and codes of conduct.  After all, you can't really ask up front "Well?  Have you got any STD's I should know about?"
> 
> ...


Not to mention the example you set for others.:ultracool


----------



## Flea (May 10, 2011)

Suke ... 1 in 3 ... wow.  I had a time of it with harassment when I was there, but I didn't realize it was that bad.

I don't remember where I heard the figure, but I believe its the same proportion in the US military.  Sobering.


----------



## Sukerkin (May 10, 2011)

Sobering indeed, *Flea*.  

Given the inarguable fact that rape is almost exclusively (the exceptions are pretty rarified) an act of violence perpetrated upon women, I am ashamed of my gender that such offences are so common.


----------

