• commentary
  • TUESDAY MARCH 22 2011 3:58 PM

The Slut-Shaming Cycle Ends at Home

Submitted by SG_Blog

Edited by nicole_powers

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.


"Mom, I'm a nerd." He said to me as he climbed in the backseat of our car. He sounded resolute. Like, some deal had been sealed and all there was left to do was accept the consequences. But, really, being a nerd has never bothered him before. His version of nerd has a lil swagger to it. But today there was none of that, "girls don't like me. I'm too nerdy. I'm not cool enough. Not dangerous. Not s..." and that is when the gush of words stopped abruptly.

"Were you about to say sexy? You're worried about not being sexy? Really, E, are you supposed to be sexy in the 5th grade?"

"Some people are!"

"Ya? Like who?"

After making me promise I wouldn't call the school and make a deal about it, he confided in me that some of his classmates were kissing after school. He then told me about a girl in his class, Z, and how she had kissed 3 boys this year, "3, Mom! Can you imagine? And everybody knows. She just kisses whoever she wants and her sister is so embarrassed. I don't blame her, I would be ashamed to have my sister act like that! Sheesh."

Wait? What? This is where it gets interesting for me as a sex positive parent. My son just went from wishing he was sexy to shaming a girl for being just that? I rolled up my sleeves and got ready to do some unpacking.



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:


A reputation acquired in adolescence can damage a young woman's self-perception for years. She may become a target for other forms of harassment and even rape, since her peers see her as "easy" and therefore not entitled to say "no." She may become sexually active with a large number of partners (even if she had not been sexually active before her reputation). Or she may shut down her sexual side completely, wearing baggy clothes and being unable to allow a boyfriend to even kiss her.



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/.

  • PERMALINK
  • PRINT
  • Digg This
  • Email To A Friend
 

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6

Next

Comments
Psyche

Psyche

SUICIDEGIRL

California, USA

MAR 24, 2011 02:08 PM

Thistle said:
The way someone is dressed should never, ever have any weight in sentencing or convicting her rapist. Never. Not even if she's wearing a shirt that says "please rape me."



Really. It's basically the same thing as saying that I'm inviting rape by posing naked on the internet.

People find it difficult to grasp the concept that even prostitutes can, and very often do, get raped. So I don't care if she was a slut-ass ho with triple F cups banging 80 cocks and a donkey all at once on film. EVEN THEN, that STILL doesn't warrant sexual assault. Period.

Mythos_

Mythos_

Germany
March 2008

MAR 24, 2011 02:21 PM

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)

Morgan

Morgan

SUICIDEGIRL

Illinois, USA

MAR 24, 2011 02:37 PM

Mythos_ said:
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.



If the accused was truly "confused", the right thing to do would have been to seek a clear and uncoerced "yes", thus removing any question about consent. Assuming that someone has consented when you're unsure is at the very least creepy behavior and at the worst flat out rape. Seriously, what kind of person reacts to a potential sex partner acting uncomfortable or unsure with anything but a "are you sure you want to do this?" or something similar?

Mythos_ said:
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.



You are ignorant and it has nothing to do with "the differences of the genders". Women and men are raped without any injuries at all. Not having an injury is irrelevant.

Mythos_ said:But this makes this rape a lot different from other cases of rape where the victim tried to defend itself



Why? It's still rape.

Thistle

Thistle

SUICIDEGIRL

California, USA

MAR 24, 2011 02:46 PM

Mythos_ said:
Thistle: Why?



Because someone saying no or indicating in the present that they do not want to have sex trumps any impression their clothing might make. I can't believe I have to spell that out for you.

People have the right to wear whatever clothing they want, whenever they want, without fear of being raped as a result.

motorfirebox

motorfirebox

Pittsburgh, PA
March 2004

MAR 24, 2011 03:08 PM

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.

Mythos_

Mythos_

Germany
March 2008

MAR 24, 2011 03:27 PM

Morgan said:

Why? It's still rape.


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."

Thistle said:

Because someone saying no or indicating in the present that they do not want to have sex trumps any impression their clothing might make.


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.

BDeyeD

BDeyeD

Toronto, ON
January 2007

MAR 24, 2011 03:36 PM

I think this is pretty relevant:

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


Boys are told from a young age that whatever they do will be excused under the “boys will be boys” mantra, and that “boys will be boys” mentality leads to what I call the “boiling frog” problem of women’s sexual boundaries. I call it that because if you put a frog into a pot of boiling water, it will jump right out, but if you put a frog into a pot of room-temperature water and slowly heat it to a boil, the frog will acclimate as it heats and never jump out, eventually boiling to death. Similarly, when we learn as young girls to tolerate “low-level” boundary violations like the ones we often are forced to suffer in silence at school, at home and on the street – bra-snapping, boob-grabbing, ass pinching, catcalling, dick flashing “all in good fun” relentless violations that adults and authorities routinely ignore – it makes it harder for us to notice when even greater boundaries are being violated, eventually leading to the reality that many women who are raped just freeze and fall silent, because that’s what they’ve been taught to do over and over since day one. You tell me what’s more infantilizing: repeatedly letting boys (and grown men) off the hook for their behavior because “boys will be boys” and we can’t ever expect any differently, or creating a consent standard in which all partners take active responsibility for their partner’s safety, and which acknowledges the truly diseased sexual culture we’re soaking in every day.
http://yesmeansyesblog.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/the-nonexistent-terrible-horrible-no-good-very-bad-consequences-of-enthusiastic-consent/ (via zoemelisa)

Truth.

(via edman)

(Source: femmeglitterati)




Mythos_

Mythos_

Germany
March 2008

MAR 24, 2011 04:18 PM

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)

Sal_

Sal_

USA
October 2009

MAR 24, 2011 04:37 PM

Mythos_ said:

Morgan said:

Why? It's still rape.


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."

Thistle said:

Because someone saying no or indicating in the present that they do not want to have sex trumps any impression their clothing might make.


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.



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.

BDeyeD

BDeyeD

Toronto, ON
January 2007

MAR 24, 2011 04:45 PM

The point is, this bullshit blaming of the victim for not screaming, biting, clawing, or generally heading off the situation before it gets to rape, is all bullshit. I've been in shady situations with guys I was uncomfortable with but wasn't sure at which point I would be able to "politely" disengage without incurring the wrath of my peers for being a psycho bitch. Women and girls are generally taught (but not always directly, that would be too easy to speak out against and change) that it's better to not be rude than it is to clearly define our physical boundaries with every one at all times. And heaven forbid they disengage but not the "proper way", whateverthefuckthatmeans.

I'll give a plausible example:

Imagine you're a guy and you're at a party with your friends. Two hot chicks come to the party and you start talking up one of them. Your best friend is hanging with the other one. The girl you're talking up is pretty, she's friendly, she's funny - awesome. Her friend is being kind of quiet and cold. Your friend is trying to get her to loosen up and enjoy the party. The girl suggests you four should go skinny dipping. Awesome. Her friend smiles and nods - great, she's finally getting into the party mode. In the car on the way there, the hot girl has her hand on your lap - giggity. Then the girl in the backseat starts yelling at your friend. What the fuck? She's saying he's being too handsy and she wants out. Whatevs, she was just kissing him five minutes ago.

Imagine at any point through this scenario or beyond that the other friend made a scene by telling your friend off. He's your best friend, where the fuck does she get off on being such a bitch? How uptight does someone have to be to go all psycho at a party? Can't any girls just take a compliment any more?

Does that clarify at all how this rape culture doesn't protect women and their ability to say no?

CoyoteMike

CoyoteMike

Iowa City, IA
May 2006

MAR 24, 2011 05:15 PM

Mythos_ said:

Morgan said:

Why? It's still rape.


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."

Thistle said:

Because someone saying no or indicating in the present that they do not want to have sex trumps any impression their clothing might make.


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.



Ok, I am not getting this "degree of guilt" argument. There are only two kinds of sexual acts: consensual and nonconsensual, aka rape. Consensual sex requires that all participants know what is going on and agree to the actions. They have not been forced, coerced, drugged, or tricked.

Everything else is rape/sexual assault. If one side does not, or cannot consent, it is rape. If one side changes their mind, anything that happens after that point is rape.

The things that do not matter, and should not be brought up in any trial include (but are not limited to):
Gender/Sex/sexual identity
Clothing
Previous activities

Morgan

Morgan

SUICIDEGIRL

Illinois, USA

MAR 24, 2011 05:31 PM

motorfirebox said:
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.



According to this, she did in fact say no. Multiple times, in fact.

Morgan

Morgan

SUICIDEGIRL

Illinois, USA

MAR 24, 2011 05:34 PM

Mythos_ said:
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."



"Negligent Rapist" is such a bullshit term, and I'm shocked you think it's an okay differentiation to use. Rape doesn't just happen because someone goes "whoops, didn't know she didn't want this". You're making people like this this who don't take consent seriously or don't truly seek consent sound like nothing more than bumbling idiots when in fact it is much more serious than that.

DevilsReject

DevilsReject

Cleveland, OH
February 2007

MAR 24, 2011 06:30 PM

Mythos said:
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.



No.

Rape is Rape. Plain and simple. There is an inherent difference between the two examples you used. Brutality or the lack of it doesn't make it "nice" rape. It's still rape.

Your first example of the moron who runs with the "Unless she says NO, she means yes" will be convicted of a rape, a singular victim.

The second example, the man who forces sex with "them" is now guilty of multiple rape charges. He will serve a more severe sentence because of the multiplicity of his crime.

You can't "kind of" rape someone as much as you can't "accidentally intentionally murder" someone.

motorfirebox

motorfirebox

Pittsburgh, PA
March 2004

MAR 24, 2011 06:43 PM

Morgan said:

motorfirebox said:
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.



According to this, she did in fact say no. Multiple times, in fact.


Another article, same publication says she didn't. It also links to the 88-page ruling, which I don't have time to read tonight.

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6

Next

featured interviews