NEWS: The Slut-Shaming Cycle Ends at Home

CULTURE: The Slut-Shaming Cycle Ends at Home

by Keith Daniels

"Slut-shaming" is exemplified by the double-standard that says that if a man has many sexual partners, he's a hot stud, while if a woman does the same, she's a filthy skank. It's a heavily entrenched idea in our society, and it's constantly and often subtly reinforced by both men and women. Even the word I just used, "stud," demonstrates the problem. How many words can you think of that positively refer to a promiscuous man? How many, without qualifiers, can you think of for a woman? Few can say we've never been guilty of propagating this bias, oftentimes born out of jealousy, insecurity, and shame about our own desires.




So how do we rid ourselves of this antiquated thought process? As with many intuitive but revolutionary ideas, shaping the next generation's minds probably offers better hope than teaching old dogs new tricks, but talking to your children about sex at all is notoriously awkward and difficult - much less raising them to be sex positive and unencumbered by gender bias. Luckily, we've got amazing mothers like Good Vibrations Magazine's Airial Clark to show us how it can be done.

Slut-shaming has serious consequences. Barely a month ago, a Canadian judge gave a convicted rapist zero jail-time because he thought the victim had given a "perceived invitation" because her revealing clothing indicated "sex was in the air," and dismissed the rape as "inconsiderate." This is sadly far from the only example of this sort of injustice. Slut-shaming is often done, it's believed, out of a misguided attempt to encourage healthy behavior in so-called "good girls," but as Leora Tanenbaum says in her book Slut! Growing Up Female with a Bad Reputation, the use of a "bad reputation" as a form of sexual control can cause lasting damage:

Let's just hope that, with moms like Airial on the job, fewer women will have to face this problem in the next generation.

Images borrowed from Lesandrist and FuriousFanBoys.com/.

I agree wholeheartedly.

WTF? You want me to TALK to my kid?

I don't know if i like this.

Unfortunately, that Canadian judge is not the only douchebag giving us a bad name:

Fortunately, that idiotic statement gave birth to Slut Walk Toronto. There will also be satellite walks for those who cannot attend in Toronto. I think this could be a great way to protest against both slut-shaming and victim blaming!!!

These kind of comments from police and judges do make me ponder.
Does that mean that by people should avoid using nudist beaches to avoid rape/assault? Silly.

The slut-shaming cycle ends here, kids.

Ooh good call. Wish I had known about that group, I'd have linked to it in the article.

While I do agree with the general statement, I don't think this is a good example. As I read the story there is no proof against the facts lying like this: She went with him into the woods and was okay with kissing and foreplay but then decided that she does not really want this ... however since he was so much bigger and stronger and overall seamed aggressive she was to afraid to say that clear and unmistakably, much less decided to physically resist.
And since in cases of rape the burden of proof lies on the accused he was sentenced guilty because he should have read her mind (well probably he could have read her body language and scared looks if he hadn't been a drunk, dumb fool but that should not be punishable), or should not have looked so aggressive, that she is afraid of stopping it during the foreplay.

And to the defense of the judge's words: If the victim does not unmistakably say that she does not want to, the "rapist" has to judge from other sources, whether she is condensing. And both, the victim's closes and her prior behavior play a role in this.
Now, if "she had it coming, dressing like this" was the only thing the judge said about it, this would be a bad judgment but that part takes 5 seconds to say and a good juristic opinion takes like 3 to 5 minutes and I guess he said something in the remaining 2 Minutes 55 to put that into context.


As far as my opinion goes, here I have no gender bias, I would have the same opinion if a man was saying he was raped, because he was afraid to tell a woman / other man that he does not want to and -if necessary- to defend himself. (just that I never heard a case like that)

I have no problem with any clothes, I like looking at good looking women in sexy clothes, I'm just saying, if your closes seam "Fuck me", and you don't want to, you have to shout "No! Stop!" even louder. I see no Slut-Shaming there.

This. I am so sick of people acting as though the impaired judgement of being drunk is an excuse for vastly inappropriate & destructive behaviour.

You know what? I've gotten really hammered before. And yet I have never raped or sexually assaulted someone, I've never killed anybody, and I've never said racist stuff. (And I've been fucking wasted.) All three are behaviours routinely chalked up to "being drunk". NO. Being a rapist makes you a rapist, not being drunk.

Sorry, I was metaphorically. I'm not very good at this.

And even if you say I still fit the description although the only difference I make between the genders here is that I speak about cases of women actually and men only theoretically, I do not say: "It's less criminal to rape slutty dressing people" or something.
I just say that simply because someone says that slutty clothes play a role in the fair level of the punishment in some cases, this is no general statement that "It's less criminal to rape slutty dressing people".

I know, I take my trust in humanity and "in doubt for the accused" very far here but I don't want to think of this in probabilities but possibilities. As a support, the linked news even says: "He said Rhodes never threatened the woman, didn't have a weapon..."
Given enough alcohol in her blood and enough darkness in the forest at night and a late enough decision on her part not to want sex, maybe that does not even need too much stupidity.
As a further support, the only mentioned injury was to the knee. Maybe I overestimate my ability of imagination but I guess if I got raped I would have far worse injuries and the attacker would not dream about pleading that he did not realize that I do not want. But maybe I'm to much ignorant to the differences of the genders here.

Well, the judge sentenced him guilty (do they have criminal law or common law in Canada?), so it was probably at least punishable negligent. But this makes this rape a lot different from other cases of rape where the victim tried to defend itself or the crime was committed with so much planing and insidiousness that it had no chance. And I think 2 years on probation, 1 year house arrest, that is definitely enough punishment for a negligent crime by someone who has never committed a crime before (*check* well, at least this Canadian sex offender registry is not public).
But I'm such a heartless person, who thinks that punishment should not depend on the victim at all and if it prevents further crimes as good as a higher sentence it should always be the lowest possible sentence because everything else is just revenge and no justice.

Thistle: Why?

And think of an extreme example of an accused who actually uses his outfit to signalize his willingness to have sex and an victim that is a combination of too scared and too drunk say anything when she realizes that she does not want sex.
Accused: "How should I have known she has acted exactly like I would act if I wanted it."
Victim: "I am allowed to dress however I want, you should have read my mind, instead of drawing conclusions from the only evidence you see and your own personality."

In any case, the dress is definitely the least in a number of coincidental circumstances, which is why I said, that in the case above the judge should have better spend only the 5 seconds statement about the clothes, that were quoted in the article while spending the main part of his opinion on more important facts like the prior behavior, most of all the lack of any resistance and thus the offenders unawareness of what he is doing.
(And not "morally unawareness in a sociopathical sense" as Morgan hints to, with "Plenty of rapists don't think they did anything wrong" above, but actual unawareness of facts)

I think the issue in this case is the law itself. In Canada, if consent is not given, then sex is legally non-consensual (ie, if they don't say yes, then they're considered to have said no). The question is what defines consent, and that's not a simple matter under Canadian law. Consent doesn't have to be verbal; if 'reasonable grounds' exist that indicate the accuser was consenting, then consent is assumed to exist.

So it's this weird combination of a really tough anti-rape stance that still blames the victim. If you don't have consent, you're committing rape! But if she looks like she's consenting, and she doesn't try to stop you, then she must have been consenting. Which is the problem--by taking the victim's clothing and demeanor into consideration, the judge was doing exactly what Canadian law says he should do.

In this particular case, I don't think the rape charges would have stood in any US court. As best I can tell, the victim did not say "no" at any point. She didn't make any direct indication that she didn't want to have sex. This isn't a case of "she said no, but her miniskirt said yes", this is a case where the victim kissed the accused and held hands with him and, at some point, decided she didn't want to have sex with him but didn't tell the guy she'd been kissing about her decision.

Yes, but at a different level of guilt and thus needing a different level of punishment. That's really important for a juristic system. The guy who thinks that "unless she says NO, she means yes" needs a different lesson from society, then the boss who thinks that he owns his illegal workers so he can force sex with them, who again needs a different lesson then the psychopath who keeps a victim in his cellar for years, regularly beating and raping her - plus the public safety demands other punishment here.

And that's only one point for "rape is not all the same". You also want to prevent an 'In for a penny, in for a pound' mentality, where a negligent rapist notices half way: "Oh shit, she just said no and was serious. - Damn but I already did it, so my punishment is determined. But if I now start through extra brutal now, maybe it traumatizes her enough so that she does not tell anyone."

Yes, thank you, that is exactly the point, I was trying to make. That any verbal communication trumps impressions based on looks (and even behavior).

And I go even further and say that even in the total absence of any verbal communication the victim has not done anything wrong and this is how you should word it. But what the victim has done is irrelevant anyway. The guild of the attacker matters.
And just because I'm saying, that in this rare circumstance, the accused has less guilt, this does not mean, the victim has the rest of the guilt. A crime does not carry a fixed, inherent amount of guilt, that has to be somehow distributed, in some there is less involved.

I think this is pretty relevant:

http://weretelling.tumblr.com/post/3638386355/boys-are-told-from-a-young-age-that-whatever-they

That's an interesting point there. I though the gender roles were probably introduced by movies. You know, if a men gets raped it's (either just fun and not made closer subject of discussion or it's) the start of a bloody revenge, Pulp Fiction-like. But if a woman gets raped in the movies the is more often a traumatized victim until the end And that it's more "life imitating film" here then the other way around.

But that it's coming from childhood behavior sounds possible too and bothers me. Girls should be able to "will be boys", too, so to say. ... And neither should be to much "will be boys" of course, liberties are good but some boundaries are needed, too.

PS: Oh and the frog metaphor is wrong, btw, they will jump out. (I did not try it myself, says wikipedia)

Dude...

WTF?

are you really not understanding the concept that a woman(or man) has the right to say no at anytime and it should be respected by the partner/other party?

is it really that hard a concept to absorb, assimilate and understand?

Something tells me you support the "skinny jeans" defense too.


there is never a mitigating circumstance that would somehow "lessen" the seriousness of rape.