“If you take out uncovered meat and place it outside on the street, or in the garden or in the park, or in the backyard without a cover, and the cats come and eat it ... whose fault is it, the cats’ or the uncovered meat?”

A simpler message. Photo: Getty Images

When Sheik Al-Hilali made these comments characterising the uncovered female body as meat to be consumed, he was brutally condemned. The public outcry was exceptional: the Sheik was imposing a set of archaic beliefs that had no place in a progressive Australia.

Well, just how progressive are we? Such rhetoric is not confined to the auspices of Sharia law - it can be found in media reports, in political speeches, even judicial decisions.  The implication is always the same: women must manage their sexuality appropriately, or face the risk of violence.

Today, thousands of people are expected to gather at Sydney Town Hall on the Queen’s Birthday for SlutWalk, an event to condemn the shaming of sexual assault victims. Whether or not you support the idea of reclaiming words like “slut”, the event is a timely reminder that we still have much further to go to challenge the social currency of sexual shame.

If a woman is sexually active, we label her a slut. If it is an incident of sexual assault, the female victim often becomes an object of public scrutiny and the subject of morality. Did she flirt with him? Was she drinking? Did she invite him home? Former AFL footballer Peter “Spida” Everitt’s tweet controversy is an apt reminder of this commonly held logic: “Girls!! When will you learn! At 3am when you are blind drunk & you decide to go home with a guy ITS NOT FOR A CUP OF MILO!”

For men marching in SlutWalk, it is a reminder of our own complicity, while not intentional, in facilitating misogyny and sexism. For heterosexual men, the shame levelled at women is transformed into praise when it comes to sexual activity. If a man is sexually promiscuous or assertive, we laud it as a statement of his masculinity.

We only need to look as far as a FHM quiz titled, “Are you man enough for her?” to locate this fusion of heterosexuality and masculinity.  One of the questions allocates “10 man points” for having sex with a woman when she has told you she does not want to (because she wants to get to know you first). While framed as a joke, the emphasis on aggression points to how popular culture still relies on ideas of masculinity that privileges coercion over respect.

Many men would agree that physical violence against women is reprehensible. Yet, we are reticent to hold ourselves accountable to the social predispositions that give rise to such violence. Whenever we try to, the discussion often concentrates on the “hypersexualisation” of young girls. The “logic” of this argument is fairly straightforward: men are going to be aggressive and demand sex when titillated by young women who dress provocatively at parties or who are overly flirtatious with them.

Responsibility is then assigned to women to manage their behaviour, or risk unwanted advances from men. Women are denied any space to enjoy or embrace their sexuality, let alone express one. If they do, it is perceived as a moral or social failure on the part of women. Men seem to lack any responsibility here.

Why does this continue to be the case? Perhaps it is because when we think about violence against women, we imagine a slap, a punch, or perhaps some more threatening forms of physical abuse. Those kinds of acts are easy to identify. Our thoughts and beliefs, however, are a lot more slippery. The challenge for us then is addressing the more complex social questions of consent, coercion, objectification and vilification.

Marching in SlutWalk will not provide easy answers to these questions. However, it does begin a dialogue that ending the victim blaming (and shaming) of women requires us to respect their right of women not just to say no, but their capacity to say yes as well.

In challenging the underlying sexism, misogyny and homophobia, we must not shy away from the term “slut”. We have to interrogate how the term is used to malign people on the basis of how they choose to live their lives.  After all, SlutWalk is about promoting a culture of respect and freedom of choice, not about confining ourselves to four simple letters.

176 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • Dave says:

      05:57am | 13/06/11

      “If a woman is sexually active, we label her a slut” - says who? I’ve never called a sexually active woman a slut… Has the author?

    • Erick says:

      11:04am | 13/06/11

      I haven’t, either.

      Exactly who is doing all this so-called “slut shaming”?

    • Dr. Larry Goldberg says:

      11:21am | 13/06/11

      Neither have I, Dave. In fact, the gender that i have observed calling sexually active girls ‘sluts’ most, is the female one.

      Why don’t they just have a little girly civil war to straighten things out? ‘Sluts’ vs ‘non-sluts’.

      It’s a win-win situation for us men. If the sluts win, we get laid every weekend. If they lose, then we go back to the good old traditional days where whores weren’t going around blaming us for their whorishness and the media wasn’t being misanthropist and man-shaming every single day.

      I’ve never seen anybody for a second try and argue that it is a woman’s fault for dressing slutty when she got raped. What these self-entitled feminist idiots have done is take somebody trying to give them advice for their own safety, and turn it into a global man-shaming event where they all get to go out and be proud of their womanhood and sticking it to the big bad patriachy!

      Of course, being proud of your manhood makes you an evil misogynist.

      Stay classy, 21st century.

    • Seen it .. Lived it says:

      05:29pm | 13/06/11

      I can’t believe there are some people posting on here that believe people should take personal responsibility for their own safety and well being!

      It’s like when the Victorian police told Indian students not to wander around at night with conspicuous displays of wealth (laptops, phones, etc.). The outrage!

      I know the first thing I do when I get to strange neighborhood is to hang a few $100 notes out of all my pockets, because, hey, it’s my right to show people how well off I am! If and when I finally get robbed I’ll be sure to shout about the unfairness of it all at the top of my lungs.

    • Jade (the other one) says:

      07:46pm | 13/06/11

      @Dr Larry Goldberg and others - the shaming occurs when a woman is interrogated on the stand about how many previous sexual partners she has had. It happens when she is asked how she was dressed that night, how much she had to drink, whether she had talked to her assailant, whether she knew her assailant.

      It occurs when she is asked on the stand why she was at a nightclub, why she was in that area, why she accepted a lift home with that man.

      Funnily enough, the alleged rapist is never asked why he was drinking at a nightclub, why he was wearing the clothes he was wearing. He is never asked how many previous sexual partners he has had.

      Similarly, victims of assault are not asked on a witness stand to ameliorate the guilt of the perpetrator in assault, theft or other charges. It is not deemed that you consented by default to having your car stolen if you leave it unlocked. The person stealing it still gets thrown in jail.

      Similarly, women should not feel that their rapist’s chances of going to jail are lessened by the fact that they wore a revealing dress, or were promiscuous at other times. However, in our society, that is the case. Because it is people like you in the jury box, who sympathise with a male claiming that the woman consented and just doesn’t remember. Or that the woman is lying. And you choose to believe him, because she may have had the same number of sexual partners as most typical males, or she may have been dressed in a manner of which you disapprove. What makes it so much more believable that a woman would lie than a man? Why should it be so much more believable that a man is telling the truth and a woman is lying?

    • John the Zombie says:

      11:13pm | 13/06/11

      Jade (the other one) last week a female fashion designer pointed out women were wearing to little and that they should change their habits and wear more as it was not a good look. Do you know how many outraged comments the article got. None not one.

      Also why is it the latest drinking adverts showing a women talking about how she is goin to spread rumours about another girl who is drunk.

      I agree with many as in most cases it women calling other women sluts

      I have also worked in female dominated industry and do you know what, the way women treat each other is horrible. They bully and bitch about each other is unbelievable. I remember once when i was working with these women and the news came on and was showing the miss world competition the comments about the women in the comp was they were all sluts and whores.

    • Lisa H. says:

      12:31am | 14/06/11

      I think the ‘slut walk’ smacks of uni-level indignation and half-baked idealism…but… there are PLENTY of rape victims in countries where women are forced by law to hide themselves under great swathes of cloth.

      So… the ‘draw the curtains’ analogy is a massive fail.

      Very importantly, the attitude of ‘draw the curtains’ has the direct and unfortunate effect of blaming the victim…basically for being a woman at all.

      Hiding women away, punishing them for being women, does not prevent the rape and abuse of women…in fact, looking at the culture of countries where women are forced to cover, it seems hiding women is actually likely to exacerbate a culture of rape and abuse.

      That being said, I still think ‘slut-walk’ is lame…would be much more interested in a walk that dealt with the incredibly huge issues of women in countries that are forced to cover.

      But…raising the issue of hard-core sexism and sexual violence globally would be culturally insensitive, perhaps? I would prefer to think of it as the next step for a genuine feminist movement.

    • Bev says:

      12:46am | 14/06/11

      Jade (the other one) says:07:46pm | 13/06/11
      I think you need to have a look at the sexual assault laws as they are now not way back when.  Almost everything you take about is no longer valid and cannot be used as defence. You are hopelessly out of date.

    • Jade (the other one) says:

      08:11am | 14/06/11

      @Bev, with special dispensation of the court, a woman’s sexual history can still be brought up in defence of a rapist.

      Furthermore, it is considered part of the rapist’s defence that she did in fact consent to bring up factors such as the way she was dressed, how much she had had to drink, her relationship to the rapist, whether she shared transport home with him, and what sex acts she consented to with him. None of which is at all relevant to whether she offered consent for sex.

    • Tim says:

      09:36am | 14/06/11

      Jade,
      I agree.
      It’s ridiculous that Police actually investigate alleged crimes and find out details about those alleged crimes.
      And how dare defence lawyers try to defend their clients with pertinent information. It’s not like the prosecution gets their own chance to examine the evidence too. 

      Don’t they know that a woman should be taken at her word and everything she says is the gospel truth. Outrageous.

    • Jade (the other one) says:

      10:23am | 14/06/11

      @Tim. Should a man wearing an Armani suit who is subsequently mugged in Redfern or Logan be interrogated on the stand about his clothing choices? That is pertinent - it attracted his muggers as they may have targeted him due to his expensive clothing choices.

      Should a woman who leaves her car unlocked be assumed to have consented to having it stolen because she didn’t lock her doors?

      An employer who gives his employee overtime or a bonus consents to having his petty cash raided?


      None of the above is in any way relevant. Similarly, clothing choice, how much a woman has had to drink, and the other sex acts she may or may not have consented to are irrelevant to whether this particular sex act with this person was consented to.

    • Tim says:

      11:02am | 14/06/11

      Jade,
      clothing choice and they other things you bring up are different issues.
      I don’t think many people link clothing choice to sexual assault because usually it’s not an issue.

      But the others are definitely relevant.

      How much a woman had to drink could imply her version of events was tainted.
      Previous sexual history goes to patterns of behaviour.

      Depending on the case, these can important areas to investigate.

      Remember our justice system is based on innocent until proven guilty and you have to show guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

      Just saying that you were raped is not enough.

    • Jade (the other one) says:

      11:35am | 14/06/11

      Why on earth is who she slept with or what sex acts she consented to relevant? What patterns of behaviour are relevant to whether she consented?

      The answer that is often brought up by jurors is “Well, if she consented to being groped, or giving a blow job, she probably agreed to sex.” And that is not good enough. That assumption, and those beliefs should not see a rapist go free. They are irrelevant to the case at hand. And the isolated incidence of whether she consented to the sex act that is the subject of the complaint.

      I fail to see how her choice to consent to any other sex act is relevant to whether she agreed to this one. I fail to see what patterns of behaviour consenting to a blow job, or a hand job, or a kiss or any of the other plethora of sex acts implies about whether she consented to any other.

      Do you think a decision to shake hands as an introduction implies a pattern of behaviour where a woman would be more likely to agree to sex?

    • Tim says:

      12:29pm | 14/06/11

      Jade,
      do you seriously think that a person’s previous behaviour does not often predict future behaviour?

      Innocent til proven guilty.
      Beyond reasonable doubt.

      These are the terms you need to learn.

      If you reguarly go home with men for sex, that implies a pattern of behaviour.
      If you then go home with a man and claim rape, then your previous history can be relevant. It doesn’t imply consent nor mean that rape has not been committed but it may have an affect on the doubt in the case. 

      You are talking about cases that often come down to a he said, she said.
      No one should be sent to jail unless there is compelling evidence that is beyond a reasonable doubt.

    • Gavin says:

      03:11pm | 14/06/11

      Jade, in many (most) rape cases, there is no physical DNA evidence. Nor audio-visual (tape recorded) evidence of the actual allegation. Nor eye-witness evidence of the actual allegation. Therefore, and unfortunately for victims, the ONLY evidence available to prosecutors is the testimony of the victim. Juries need to consider whether or not they believe the victim’s accounts of the allegation. The accused has every right to question that evidence.

      As Tim has said, the word of the victim is not infallible. The accused may ask about her character and test the reliability. So sexual history, state of intoxication at the time, behaviour on the night etc are all things the defence can ask of the complainant for the benfit of their case.

      On the other hand, you are right. The accused does not have to say why they were drinking at a club, or whatever. They don’t need to say anything, because by law they have no burden of proof. They did not bring the allegations to court, the prosecution did. It’s all on the prosecutor to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty.

      The accused does not have to prove a thing.

    • PW says:

      05:06pm | 16/06/11

      When I was at school MANY years ago, a nice girl was one who gets down with everyone, a slut was one who gets down with everyone except you.

    • Marissa says:

      04:58pm | 30/06/11

      right well, should i ever be raped - god forbid, i will be torn to shreds on the stand!

      there was a time when i was happy with one night stands, but you know what, in the past 12 months i have slept with 2 people so… have i broke my pattern of behaviour because honestly, my number is in the double didgets, which i’m fine with but what would a jury think?

      how i dress and whether or not i choose to sleep with someone DOES NOT mean i will sleep with everyone!

      unfortunately, i have caught myself thinking that i do not wear certain things or do certain things becasue they could be dangerous to my personal safety - what a dam shame.

    • Brando says:

      06:30am | 13/06/11

      If I was your local Police commander and you went on holidays for three months and left every last window and door open then come home to find you had been burgled I’d tell you that you are obviously an idiot and got what you deserved.

      I’d still attempt to find the offender and prosecute them to the full extent of the law. While you may be an idiot that still doesn’t release the other party form their responsibilities. Fortunately most people realise there are some bad people out there and act accordingly.

      Most women I know do realise that if it’s 3am and you are blind drunk & you decide to go home with a guy ITS NOT FOR A CUP OF MILO!”

    • marley says:

      10:10am | 13/06/11

      Well, you see, there’s the problem.  You think that a women wearing short skirts and tank tops is equivalent to leaving your house unlocked while you go on holiday.  But it’s not.  It’s equivalent to having a nice house with a few fancy gadgets, locking the door but having someone bust in on a home invasion.  Women shouldn’t have to give up dressing as they wish, anymore than you should have to give up your plasma TV, iPod and laptop - the one is no more an invitation to be raped than the other is an invitation to be robbed.

    • Carz says:

      10:32am | 13/06/11

      Well said Marley.

      And Brando, if a guy asked me in at 3am for a cup of Milo then it is entirely possible that I would assume that he wants to spend time with me over a cup of milo.

    • acotrel says:

      10:32am | 13/06/11

      I wonder if Casey Stoner is a better role model for our kids than Brendan Favola etc?

    • bec says:

      10:36am | 13/06/11

      Thank god you’re not a police commander, because your knowledge of criminal justice is laughable.

      There has never yet been a defendant in a burglary, theft or robbery charge that has been acquitted by using the defence that the house was unlocked, or that the car was too tempting to not steal. And yet, continued police and criminal justice research has proved that jurist attitudes towards rape victims getting “what they deserved” has led to a number of genuine rapists being acquitted due to shitty community attitudes.

    • Dr. Larry Goldberg says:

      11:23am | 13/06/11

      Marley, my family owns a big plasma-screen tv, and when we go away on holidays we close the curtains so nobody can see it and be tempted.

      Looks like you’re getting told hard today. Learn to use anecdotal hypothetical evidence a little bit better, my bleeding-heart delusional friend.

    • Condor says:

      12:07pm | 13/06/11

      Brando is right. While it is never right for a man to sexually assault a woman, we all need to take precautions to prevent the wrong elements of society from taking advantage of us.

      While it is reasonabe to expect most people act within the confines of the law, there will always be an element who don’t. It’s up to you to take precautions against those elements and don’t put yourself at unnecessary risk.

      We all need to take personal responsibility for our actions.

      Carz
      If you think a guy is really inviting you in for a cup of Milo then you are an idiot. He knows his chances of getting you inside will be drastically diminished if he says “Want to come inside for some hardcore rogering?” so he uses the Milo/coffee ploy.

    • Carz says:

      12:45pm | 13/06/11

      Condor says:    Carz
        If you think a guy is really inviting you in for a cup of Milo then you are an idiot. He knows his chances of getting you inside will be drastically diminished if he says “Want to come inside for some hardcore rogering?” so he uses the Milo/coffee ploy.

      So effectively men lie to get sex? And then they bitch when the woman objects or makes reports of sexual harassment/assault/rape? Well excuse me for expecting a little honesty and respect, which I believe most men have as intrinsic values. That you don’t seem to find it wrong to lie to a woman to get sex says a lot more about you than my basic desire to trust says about me.

    • marley says:

      01:09pm | 13/06/11

      @Dr. Larry - good for you, you close your curtains when you go on holiday.  But that just tells me you missed my point entirely.

      Do you keep your curtains closed day in, day out, so no one can see you’ve got a plasma TV?  Do you hide your mobile phone so no one knows you’ve got one?  Do you never take your laptop out of the basement, so no one knows you’ve got that either?  Do you live in the dark, afraid to let anyone into your house, ever, in case someone might spot the goodies?

      Or maybe you just behave like a normal human being and open the curtains during the day to let a little light in.  Or, given your somewhat troglodyte opinions, perhaps not.

    • Dr. Larry Goldberg says:

      01:48pm | 13/06/11

      marley, you’re just twisting the argument to try and convince yourself that you’re right. You already know that you’re wrong

      ‘opening the curtains and letting some light’ in this context would be akin to parading around in the city wearing short shorts and a singlet. Which hundreds of girls do every day. And zero of them get raped in the middle of George St. They only face the possibility of getting raped if they wander down a dark alley late at night.

    • Condor says:

      02:05pm | 13/06/11

      Carz
      If you’re only finding out now that men lie to get sex then there is something drastically wrong with you.

      Men have to lie to get sex because if they told the truth they’d get nowhere. It has nothing to do with lack of respect and everything to do with the game; which women participate in just as much as men and act as the gatekeepers far moreso than men so carry the burden of making the rules more than men.

      Men will continue to complain about false accusations of harassment/assault where necessary.

    • marley says:

      02:22pm | 13/06/11

      @Dr. Larry - well, let’s see now.  According to the 2004 survey on Sexual Assault in Australia, 52% of all sexual assaults on women were by someone they knew.  So, I guess it’s safer to dress down for strangers than for friends.

      Oh, and 67% of sexual assaults occurred in a residence, as opposed to 7% in the street, 3% on public transport, 3% in stores, and the rest in recreational facilities and elsewhere.  So, your dark alley sounds to me quite a bit safer than the home.  Even at night.

      Got any other uninformed and entirely anecdotal concepts you’d like me to correct?

    • Carz says:

      02:31pm | 13/06/11

      Dr. Larry Goldberg says:

            01:48pm | 13/06/11
      ....They only face the possibility of getting raped if they wander down a dark alley late at night.

      Larry you are so clueless it is scary. What proportion of rapes do you think really occur in dark alleys late at night with the victim wearing short shorts?

    • Dr. Larry Goldberg says:

      02:51pm | 13/06/11

      Carz, what situations exactly do you think the policeman was referring to in Toronto when this whole business started?

      Furthermore, marley, I wouldn’t dispute your 52% claim there because a large proportion of reported rapes or sexual assaults are actually women waking up in the morning feeling a bit embarrassed that they slept with this ugly guy so they’ll claim he raped them to save a bit of their dignity.

      Furthermore, i haven’t introduced any anecdotal concepts of my own. I was merely pointing out that even in the hypothetical scenario you have cherry-picked to facilitate your disillusioned point, your argument is very flawed.

      Carz, in your reply to ‘why do men lie to have sex’ - i doubt very much that there is a man or woman in Australia who would approach somebody they wanted to have sex with the line ‘Hi, would you like to have sex with me” and expect any reasonable success. It is a two-laned street, and either side is just as wide as the other.

    • Bev says:

      03:02pm | 13/06/11

      bec says:10:36am | 13/06/11
      jurist attitudes towards rape victims getting “what they deserved” has led to a number of genuine rapists being acquitted due to shitty community attitudes.

      A favorite feminist cry.  Men are getting away with rape! It’s all the fault of a patriarchal court system conspiring against women.

      The changes to sexual assault laws have broadened the definition and muddied the waters as to what constitutes sexual assault resulting in more he said ,she said cases, rather than open and shut cases. These are the cases where conviction is problematical.  Interestingly women jurors are less likely to convict than male jurors (well documented) in these cases.  How do you explain that. 
      If any rape victim is blamed men are far more likely to be blamed.
      A. He is a man why didn’t he fight him off?
      Which leads to :
      B. He must have had secret homosexual desires and wanted to be buggered.
      Again well documented if you look.

    • marley says:

      03:19pm | 13/06/11

      @Larry - no, true, you haven’t introduced any anecdotal evidence, because you haven’t introduced any evidence whatsoever.  Just a series of assumptions with nothing but your own prejudices to support them.

      Here’s a fact:  most sexual assaults occur in a home, either the victim’s or the perpetrators.  Here’s another fact:  the proportion of attacks within the residence as opposed to outside on the street is pretty much the same for male and female victims of sexual assault.  So, are you saying that the male victims are also lying, or just the females?  And how do you equate your unfounded assumption there with the fact that false allegations of rape are actually fairly rare?

      Look, if you want to spout your simplistic, unresearched prejudices, be my guest.  It’s an open forum.  But don’t have the unmitigated gall to assume that your opinions are anything more than prejudice.  Or that our comments are anything other than the work of someone too lazy to actually look anything up.

      By the way,  if you actually understood the meaning of the word “hypothetical”  you would know that hypotheses are never evidence, and you would also know that what I posted was neither hypothetical nor anecdotal but metaphorical.

    • Bev says:

      03:22pm | 13/06/11

      @Carz @Condor Oh come on you both know that it much more likely senario is they have probably been talking/dancing flirting with each other and there is some attraction. The invite has unspoken implications.  If he misreads signals (or her) they can walk away anytime and she has the absolute right to say no at any time. If he continues it is rape.  However if she decides later that it was rape it most probably wasn’t ,  just something she should write off as a bad experience.

    • AAAdam says:

      04:41pm | 13/06/11

      I can see what Brando is saying. Whilst no-one blames the victim, there is nothing wrong with giving people strategies/advice in an effort to reduce the risk of becoming a victim of crime. I actually think preventing people giving such advice on PC grounds is much worse than anything else. And whilst such advice might not guarantee you won’t become a victim, at the very least it will assist in reducing the likelihood. This is risk management 101 and applies to all crimes. Whether people take heed of such advice/strategies is up to them, but we should give them the info so they can, at the very least, make an informed decision.

      I noticed Marley provided some statistics. It’s too bad the statistics and underlying survey don’t provide much contextual data otherwise they might have been very useful for developing risk mitigation strategies for particular sexual assault situations/contexts. I wonder how many victims of sexual assault in a clubbing context where intoxicated, dressed provocatively or were otherwise separated from their friends? In a clubbing context I’d say this is probably the majority, however, even if it were just 20%, advising someone to avoid doing these things in the clubbing context would assist in reducing their risk of being sexually assaulted by 20% or more. I also wonder how many female victims of sexual assault in an outdoors context were jogging alone at a time when the footpath was scarcely populated (i.e. early morning or night) when some sicko jumped them? Again, I’d suggest that the majority of sexual assaults outdoors happened to people who are alone, however, even if this were just 50%, advising someone to jog with a few strong friends at times when the footpath is busy would assist in reducing their risk of being sexually assaulted in the outdoors context by 50%.

      Are we really becoming so PC we can’t inform people on how to reduce their risk of becoming a victim of crime? Does society really believe that promiscuous people who regularly end up in others beds naked are not at a higher risk of being sexually assaulted than a prude who stays at home reading books? And if so, how do they explain the ridiculously high levels of sexual assaults against unregulated sex workers? And do people really believe that they way they dress in no way draws additional sexual attention to themselves? And that the sexual attention they draw to themselves in no way increases their chance of sexual assault in certain contexts? That rape is “all about power” and people at clubs just take drunk, vulnerable individuals home for a power trip (not for sexual pleasure)? And how do they explain the sexual arousal necessary for a perpetrator to commit such an act?

    • Soames says:

      04:52pm | 13/06/11

      I agree with marley, somewhat. Women, (read females), are not free to dress as they please, nor should they. Particularly when they display their scantily clad genitals, by not wearing underwear, as so often happens on group binge nights. Females are required to obey the law regarding offensive behaviour, just as are males. There are other laws that favour one sex over the other. For instance, males are prohibited, while dressed as a female, from acting in a manner as to cause fear, e.g, entering a female toilet, dressing room, dormitory etc. (thankfully, most blokes don’t do this). Females, on the other hand, are not, in similar circumstances, and have been known to do so when drunk or affected by drugs, etc. Females, when spewing into the nearest sidewalk treeplant pot, pissing their pants, if any, evident by the pool in which they kneel, or fall, are not arrested and taken into custody by police, in the same proportion as males, and mostly left by disgusted but pragmatic police officers to the tender mercies of the paramedics and ambulance brigade, to their everlasting credit. What you’re doing here, is giving a green light to females to do exactly what you don’t want.

    • Jade (the other one) says:

      08:00pm | 13/06/11

      @ all of those suggesting that women should avoid dressing a certain way or getting intoxicated at clubs if they wish to avoid being raped. Or avoid going home with strangers or men they don’t know well for a cup of coffee. I would have more ability to swallow your pathetic line about it being safety advice if you were offering similar advice to men on ways to avoid being a rapist.

      For instance, most rapists are themselves under the influence when they rape someone. So perhaps some billboards and advertising suggesting that men should avoid drinking too much in case they rape someone. Perhaps telling men not to invite women home from the club, in case they rape them. Telling men not to go to the houses of friends and acquaintances alone, in case they rape someone. Telling men not to go jogging alone at night, or with other men, in case they rape someone.

      Funnily enough, despite the overwhelming statistical evidence which suggests that many men are fundamentally deficient on the understanding of the definition of consent, we never see educational programs or advertising putting the blame where it belongs. On those most predisposed to rape someone.

    • Erick says:

      11:01pm | 13/06/11

      While we’re at it, Jade, let’s also tell women how not to murder their children. Because, you know, any woman is a potential child-killer just like any man is a potential rapist.

    • Jade (the other one) says:

      09:01am | 14/06/11

      Erick, I am someone who is more harsh than most in how I believe women who murder their children should be treated. I also think more education of those women who fall into the brackets most likely to do so is required. And more acceptance of the unique stressors facing many mothers by society so that no stigma or shame is attached to accessing those services.

      I also believe that society needs to encourage young men to understand that there is no such thing as “leading them on” and there should never be an expectation that any one sex act or flirtation requires the woman to have sex. I believe that encouragement of a boy’s belief that they have a right to expect sex off a woman or girl because she “flirted with them/kissed them/gave them a blowjob/went home with them” from both men and women in our society is one of the greatest barriers to reducing the instance of sexual assault.

      Consent to one act is not consent to any act. And consent can be withdrawn at any point. Suggesting that a woman has a responsibility to follow through because of what came before, is to suggest that women should be subjugated sexually by men.

    • Adrian says:

      01:05pm | 16/06/11

      @Jade(theotherone)
      I believe that there is no such thing as leading on also… i dont reali pay attention to what clothes shes got on as long as she is interested, to say that all guys pounce at the first sight of skin is just as sexist as saying girls should cover up! Show me a girl with elegance and ill go for her over a scantly dressed individual anyday

      @all who are saying that if someone invites you home at 3am for a cup of milo…
      Are you guys serious!?! If some chick came over wearing close to nothing and asked “would you like to come home with me for milo” i would run and call the nearest mental instituion to see if a patient has gone missing!
      you have missed the point (which was if someone asks “Want to come home with me” its not for a cup of milo)
      If your saying you would go home with someone who asked “would you like to come home with me for milo” its darwins theory at its greatest

    • Septimus says:

      06:44am | 13/06/11

      Can I ask why The Punch do the same story over and over and over again?  Are you that devoid of ideas?

    • Tory Shepherd

      Tory Shepherd says:

      10:37am | 13/06/11

      Septimus, we’ve run four over the space of a month. One against, three in favour. Three women, one man. Hardly the same story over and over again.

      And in case you hadn’t noticed it’s been in the news just a little bit!

      Feel free not to read if it bores you.

    • Erick says:

      10:58am | 13/06/11

      That is true, Tory, but every single story has been from a feminist perspective.

      Yes, I know I could write one, but you also know my biggest failure - an inability to complete set work to deadlines. I’m good at on-the-spot improvisation, but I lose interest over time. That’s why I don’t have a column.

      But there are other people out there who have an alternative view, and don’t suffer from my disability. Would you like me to find some for you?

    • Tory Shepherd

      Tory Shepherd says:

      11:19am | 13/06/11

      @Erick - methinks disability is too strong a word there!

      If you know someone who can write, and would like to do a piece for us, give them my email address and we’ll see. I’d have no dramas running a well-written and argued piece from another perspective, as long as they don’t try to argue that women deserve to get raped! But of course would depend on timing etc.

      The Australian slutwalks were mostly on this weekend, so we’d need to do something fairly soon… or it could be broadened beyond the walks to look at the themes behind them…

    • Dr. Larry Goldberg says:

      11:24am | 13/06/11

      “One against, three in favour. Three women, one man. “

      any bets for which three were ‘for’ and which one was ‘against’?

    • Dr. Larry Goldberg says:

      11:29am | 13/06/11

      Tory, If you could give me your email address I’d be happy to write up a small column and send it to you to see if you think it’s any good. The Punch certainly needs a more diverse display of opinions, particularly on this matter.

      Despite the rather aggressive posting style I usually adopt, I’ll write it from a factual point of view and source my arguments.

      Can i give it a shot?

    • Richie says:

      11:35am | 13/06/11

      Got a big enough opinion of yourself there Erick?

    • Erick says:

      11:46am | 13/06/11

      @Tory - I was thinking in a more general sense - not about the slutwalks but about gender issues currently relevant. For example, the “Family Violence Bill” I keep going on about, which is in Parliament this month.

      The Australian-based Ezine4Males is all over this, and has several contributors who would probably be willing to write an article.

      Likewise, the Men’s Rights Agency is active in Australia, and it’s likely that some of its members could be willing to submit articles.

      I’ll contact these and some other groups, and see if they have able and willing authors available.

    • Tory Shepherd

      Tory Shepherd says:

      12:09pm | 13/06/11

      @ Larry Um, this one is by a man, and it’s for.

      Re. writing for us - can’t guarantee anything, but if you want to give it a crack we’ll need 600 - 800 words (that’s a flexible guidelines), a bio and a headshot. Make it Punchy, make it lively, and we’ll see how we go - shepherdt@thepunch.com.au

      @ Erick - feel free to pass on my email and the general instructions!

    • Erick says:

      12:16pm | 13/06/11

      Thank you, Tory, I shall (probably) do that!

    • Erick says:

      12:19pm | 13/06/11

      P.S. I would be pleased to provide sub-editing services to Dr Larry Goldberg, if he so desires. That’s a skill I learned in one of my past lives. smile

    • Dr. Larry Goldberg says:

      12:49pm | 13/06/11

      Erick, would you care to post your email so i could discuss with you the possible angles i might take?

      my email is winjaha@hotmail.co.uk

      also, Tory
      “@ Larry Um, this one is by a man, and it’s for. “
      for precisely this reason i think there needs to be a punctuation mark indicating irony

    • Erick says:

      02:04pm | 13/06/11

      @Dr. Larry - I’ll email it to you, since I don’t want to post it in the open for the trolls to see.

    • yuk says:

      07:14pm | 13/06/11

      Yeah lets turn the punch into erick hates women and others do too. It’ll be so fun.

    • Lisa H. says:

      12:36am | 14/06/11

      Feel free not to answer every comment that irritates you, Tory.
      Just turn the page!

      What? Passivity is not the best way for you to deal with your world?
      Wow, I wonder if that’s why the Christians complain so much….

    • Septimus says:

      04:02am | 14/06/11

      @ yuk

      You prefer the constant man hating articles?  They are some how more palatable?

    • Adrian says:

      07:13am | 13/06/11

      Cue whiny little half-men crying about “feminism” and “misandry” in 3..2..1…

    • Erick says:

      08:53am | 13/06/11

      Oh look, it’s anti-male shaming tactics time!

      What do we have hare? Looks like Code Blue with a dose of Code Lavender ... a sure sign of someone who doesn’t have a point.

    • Geoff - Brisbane says:

      09:04am | 13/06/11

      Adrian, are you sure your wife allowed you to be on the punch? Better not make her unhappy, quickly adrian back into the kitchen to fetch her breakfast in bed with a rose.

      Stand up for yourself mate. Thats what we do.

    • complete man says:

      10:25am | 13/06/11

      Adrian’s post: 10 words, 3 numbers.

      Erick’s reply: 33 words, 1 link.

      Geoff’s reply: 42 words, all of them puerile.

      Those “whiny little half-men” sure are predictable and rambling.

      And now the whiny little half-men will count the words in my post and try to mock me by mimicking it. Whatever you need to do to feel fulfilled, boys…

    • Dr. Larry Goldberg says:

      11:27am | 13/06/11

      actually, ‘complete man’, just because somebody doesn’t write a 2-page essay to detail their point or counter-point doesn’t make them any less of a man. In fact it makes their argument more persuasive as it is straight to the point and easy to swallow.

      Actually, since you spent the entirety of your post typifying the ‘anti male shaming’ that Erick detailed, i’d go as far as to place money on the possibility of you being a woman, and a bleeding-heart feminist at that.

    • complete man says:

      12:52pm | 13/06/11

      Silly boy, Larry. You’ve misinterpreted my post in its exact opposite. Once you’ve stopped hyperventilating give the thread another read, you might work it out.

      I don’t see that it matters, but I am indeed a man, a big, burly, butch straight man, at that. I expect speculating about me titillates you. I bet you’re turned on now, aren’t you honeybunch?

    • Bev says:

      01:05pm | 13/06/11

      Just asking. Have you tended to you trustly charger and polished your armour this morning? Got to look our best don’t we.  Point though feminist vitriol (acid) can have a devastating effect on your armour if you slip off the feminist dictated path.

    • Adrian says:

      04:31pm | 13/06/11

      @Erick,
      Oh look, it’s anti-male shaming tactics time!

      What do we have hare? Looks like Code Blue with a dose of Code Lavender ... a sure sign of someone who doesn’t have a point.


      Oh look, it’s a link to website for whiny little half men, blaming women for all of society’s ills.

      What do we have here? Looks like a knuckle dragging moron who has totally missed the point, which is that as long as people like you support the culture of misogyny that pervades our society women will never be free.

      Thank you for illustrating my point, Erick.

    • Adrian says:

      05:01pm | 13/06/11

      @Bev,

      If you think that supporting women in their struggle to be treated as equal human beings makes me a “white knight”, you are mistaken. White knights are men who think they can do a better job of being feminists than women can, not men who simply offer support for feminist causes.

      If you’re going to resort to ad hominems, at least make sure you know what your chosen insult means. Otherwise you end up looking stupid as well as irrelevant.

    • Bev says:

      05:35pm | 13/06/11

      @Adrian I do make a distinction those who have swallowed the feminist line hook line and sinker I call mangina’s as most take a very active role in trying to feminise men.  White Knights I consider useful idiots 9for feminists) who out of a sense of chivalry think all women are helpless damsels in distress needing to be rescued.  To use that now clichéd statement “didn’t you get the memo” from Eva Cox chivalry is dead (Q and A)

    • Adrian says:

      02:59am | 14/06/11

      @Bev,
      those who have swallowed the feminist line hook line and sinker I call mangina’s as most take a very active role in trying to feminise men.
      Says the person accusing others of feminising their opponents.

        White Knights I consider useful idiots 9for feminists) who out of a sense of chivalry think all women are helpless damsels in distress needing to be rescued.
      Criticising the views of people like Erick, who repeatedly make stupid sexist comments on this forum, doesn’t make anyone a “white knight”. Nor does it mean that they “think all women are helpless damsels in distress needing to be rescued.” Where on earth did you get this from?

        To use that now clichéd statement “didn’t you get the memo” from Eva Cox chivalry is dead (Q and A
      Feel free to show where I said or implied otherwise.

    • Adrian says:

      04:57am | 14/06/11

      @Geoff - Brisbane,

      Stand up for yourself mate. Thats what we do.

      Speak for yourself.

      I have nothing to “stand up” against. Nobody is victimising me, least of all my wife. As a well educated, white, heterosexual male I am very well aware of the priveleged position I occupy in our society. I’m not knocking it, nor am I prepared to give it up. I would much rather see everyone enjoy the same rights and freedoms that I do.

      Is that really so unreasonable?

    • Tim says:

      09:39am | 14/06/11

      Adrian,
      everyone does already enjoy those freedoms.
      Perhaps you’d like to join us in the 21st century?

    • Erick says:

      07:26am | 13/06/11

      Oh, this rubbish again.didn’t we debunk this silly walk enough in the last two weeks? Offering safety advice is not “blaming the victim”.

      How about addressing a serious issue, like the family law amendments before Parliament right now? Or false allegations of rape, which are just as prevalent and just as harmful as the real thing?

    • bec says:

      09:13am | 13/06/11

      Offering safety advice that applies to the bare minimum of cases which negates the fact (yes, fact) that the vast majority of rapists are known to their victims is victim-blaming because it continually asserts that they are doing something wrong to deserve being attacked - when, in reality, all that they’ve done is to be in the presence of a rapist.

      Simple, rational truth.

    • Carz says:

      09:18am | 13/06/11

      Hey Erick, why not get a new hobby horse to ride? Try the fact that the FBI’s definition of rape excludes men completely, therefore totally skewing the statistics.

      As to your serious issues…..
      Personally I am in favour of the changes to the Family Law Act. Often women are just too damn scared of the repercussions of reporting intimate partner violence and child abuse to police. They are just thankful that they have escaped alive. Being able to raise the past abuse in family law actions is important for their safety, especially when state based protection orders (which do not necessarily require police reports) are superseded by Family Law orders.

      There is no evidence that false rape allegations run at the same level of true rape reports. Official statistics say the level is about the same as for other crimes - between 2 - 7%. If you are talking about reports that are later retracted by the victim, not acted on by the police or courts, or result in a verdict of not guilty, then that is entirely different to a knowingly false report.

    • Fiona says:

      09:31am | 13/06/11

      You’re just as repetitive as the punch is for airing this story over and over.

    • Erick says:

      10:42am | 13/06/11

      Well, Carz and Fiona, now you know how I feel when I see the same feminist bleating over and over and over.

    • Bev says:

      11:10am | 13/06/11

      Carz says:09:18am | 13/06/11
      There is no evidence that false rape allegations run at the same level of true rape reports. Official statistics say the level is about the same as for other crimes - between 2 - 7%. If you are talking about reports that are later retracted by the victim,
      First off a retraction by the claiment (not victim) runs pretty close to a false claim would not you say? It can the same devastating effect for men.
      Second the incidence of false rape claims is about 2% to 10% depending on whose figures you use. regardless being accused of other crimes does not have the life destroying capacity of rape accusations.

      A recent large survey in the US estimated that 11% of American men have had the following false claims made against them rape, sexual assault of a child, domestic violence. These claims were false and these men are innocent but in many cases have had their lives trashed even before a trial because the moment these accusations come to light they are villified and deemed guilty. This not a few thousand men or a few hundred thousand men. This is tens of millions of men plus their families/friends who have suffered stress and anguish. To put it another light its as if every man, women and child in Australia had been accused of a serious crime. It puts what these women (it is mostly women) in an entirely different light and yet almost all the women making these claims have had no charges laid against them. No survey has been done in Australia and I don’t believe it would be as high.  Still there is bound to be a large number of men, women and children going through hell because of false claims.  False claims very definitely   are not trivial!

    • Carz says:

      11:27am | 13/06/11

      Bev says: First off a retraction by the claiment (not victim) runs pretty close to a false claim would not you say?

      No I wouldn’t. There are many reasons why victims retract rape accusations; fear of repercussions, fear of being re-traumatised, many times over, by the justice system, lack of support by friends and family. The list is endless and applies not just to female victims of rape.

    • Dr. Larry Goldberg says:

      11:33am | 13/06/11

      Bev, up to 50% of all reported rapes are fake.

      I am well aware of the number of rapes that go unreported, and that only a small number of rapists are actually prosecuted, which does irritate me heavily. But what this statistic says is that there is a very large female number that is exploiting the situation for monetary benefits, as the cost of a man’s reputation.

      If you ask me, the easiest way to remedy this would be to punish and false allegations just as harshly as any rapist. Even after a false allegation has been proved, a man’s reputation is ruined and so is possible his career. This is just as bad as being raped, to compare it to a woman’s perspective.

    • Sickemrex says:

      12:32pm | 13/06/11

      @Dr Larry: May I ask where you obtained your 50% figure please?

      Having investigated a number of rape complaints, I’ve observed that the majority that are withdrawn are due to the complainant not wanting to relive the experience in Court.  I’m talking about complaints supported by evidence that the investigator considers to provide a prima facie case.  Many rape trials end in a not guilty verdict which does not mean that the complaint was false.  Many child abuse trials end in NG verdicts too, I’m sure no-one would imply this means kids are making up the abuse complaint.

      Yes, some complaints are also made by women who have had sex with someone where the consent issue has been, shall we say, muddied by drunken waters, who later decide maybe it wasn’t rape after all, they just wish they hadn’t had sex with that bloke.  This is unfortunate, makes legitimate complaints look bad, and is terribly unfair on the bloke.

      As for safety advice, ok let’s not compare sex abuse victims to property crime victims.  And let’s remove the gender aspect.  If I knew of a particular place in a town where unsavoury types of no particular gender hung out and made a habit of assaulting people for shits, giggles and wallets, I would advise people to stay clear of that area.  If someone then got bashed and robbed, of course I would investigate accordingly.  I wouldn’t tell the victim it was their fault, or there were things they could have done to avoid it, but I would go on advising people to avoid the area for their personal safety.

      Wow, a whole paragraph with no men or women in it.

      In my personal and professional experience, clothing has nothing to do with rapes anyway.  Drugs and alcohol and poor choices do though.

    • Bev says:

      01:31pm | 13/06/11

      Sickemrex says:12:32pm | 13/06/11
      I myself use the 11% figure as is was the result of a properly conducted survey.  However the number of false rape claims one reads about in the media (including some very high profile one) would lead one to believe that that survey was conservative.  Further as the majority of false claims are not prosecuted due in part to the dififculty of proof. The figures therefore is probably a lot less than actual. As for the rest of your post I have no major disagreement with what you say. Though I will say that changes to sexual assault laws have made court appearances for women less traumatic in that they can be behind a screen, use a video link and may not be directly cross examined by the accused.  This along with the fact that her dress, the way she acted or her past sex life can no longer be brought up without special leave of the court should of and have made it far easier for women in court.

    • Tim says:

      08:11am | 13/06/11

      Wow,
      what a pretty strawman you’ve made.

      Just layer in a whole heap of competing messages and top it off with a
      “If you don’t agree with me then you’re a rapist/sexist/misogynist.”

      How dare people judge me on my behaviour in public and expect me to take some responsibility for my actions? It’s unbelievable.
      It’s 2011 people!
      I should be able to act any way I want to and you should respect and applaud me for it.

    • marley says:

      10:05am | 13/06/11

      Well, I might not applaud you if you wear shorts and no shirt in public, but I won’t rape you either.

    • Blind Freddy says:

      08:31am | 13/06/11

      Another straw-MAN is built and then has the proverbial kicked out of him.

    • acotrel says:

      08:41am | 13/06/11

      This article simply shows an appalling side of our culture.  Surely it’s time we taught our kids the concepts of manners, and respect! Let’s face it we’ve become a bunch of ferals who know the price of everything, and the value of nothing!

    • Carleen Corrie says:

      08:44am | 13/06/11

      And cue the comments on how telling women how to dress and behave in public is not sexist or victim blaming but safety advice.

      The reason why people connect, and focus on, appearance and behaviour in relation to sexual assault and harassment of young women is because it gives them a reason to separate themselves, their friends and family, from the victims, and therefore a reason why it would never happen to them. But the truth is that there is only one reason people, women or men, are raped or abused: Because the perpetrator decided to do it. That is uncontrollable by anyone else and that is what is feared the most. We like to believe that we can control our lives, and our children’s lives, to the extent that nothing bad will ever happen. If only life were so simple.

    • Carz says:

      09:08am | 13/06/11

      Ah crap, can’t believe I posted that under my full name.

    • acotrel says:

      09:11am | 13/06/11

      People must realise that ‘no means no’, regardless of dress, drunkeness, nice face, cups of milo, or anything else.  Raping someone belonging to me, carries substantial risk! And I don’t want to dpend the rest of my days in jail because of some moron.

    • BK says:

      04:12pm | 13/06/11

      If only every alledged rapist got a clear “no”, not a jumble of messages that Dr Phil couldn’t interpret, us blokes would be alot happier.

    • Jade (the other one) says:

      08:14pm | 13/06/11

      @BK if only men learned that if a woman has not said YES, they should clarify whether the woman wants to have sex with them before proceeding, perhaps men wouldn’t so readily become rapists.

      There are a multitude of reasons that women often won’t vocalise their non-consent. Some women are scared to upset the man, in case he reacts violently, some women don’t realise what has happened until it’s too late, some women are passed out, some women don’t believe that they have a right to say no. Some women hope that if they don’t say yes, the man will stop, some women are too scared of what is happening to do anything but lie there and wait til it is over.

      Perhaps instead of “No means no” the message should evolve to “Not saying yes means no.”

    • Tim says:

      09:59am | 14/06/11

      Jade,
      that is the biggest load of crap i’ve ever read.
      Do you vocalise a yes to your partner every time you have sex? I know I don’t. Does that make my girlfriend a rapist?
      Do men have to be mindreaders?
      Should we carry a consent form around and get women to sign it before we engage in sexual relations?

      Fair enough if someone is passed out but if you don’t say no then how is a man possibly to know that you haven’t given consent if you participate?
      You don’t get to change your mind the next morning.

    • Jade (the other one) says:

      10:31am | 14/06/11

      Perhaps if a woman has not said yes, the man could check with her that she is okay with this before proceeding. My partner has always ensured that I am consenting to any act before commencing it.

      Women do not exist in a default state of consent. In fact, the default state is non-consent. The assumption that a woman must vocally and loudly say NO or STOP suggests that women do exist in this default state of consent, whereby, if they haven’t said no, anything that a man wishes to do is fair game.

      Or Tim, are you suggesting that if someone being mugged, held up or assaulted physically does not say NO, that they are by default consenting? I think there are a lot of people who should be let out of jail if that is the case.

    • Tim says:

      11:08am | 14/06/11

      Jade,
      your partner makes sure that you are consenting every time?
      He asks you whether you would like to have sex and you say yes?
      Bullshit.

      Mugging or assaulting someone is always a crime, you cannot consent to it so your example is wrong.

      A better example would be if I asked to borrow a friends car and he throws me the keys.
      He can’t then say later that I stole it because he did not consent to it by saying yes.

    • Jade (the other one) says:

      11:39am | 14/06/11

      @Tim, in relation to your car analogy. A better example would be if your friend agreed to you borrowing the car on a particular day, and you took it on another day as well. Then your friend was told by the courts that what you did couldn’t be construed as stealing, since he had consented to you previously borrowing the car.

      My partners have always had the respect for my body and my person to confirm that I am alright with proceeding with sex. At any time, if I am not enthusiastic or giving obvious signs of enjoyment, they stop and check that I am okay. I think this makes the partners that I have had true men.

    • Tim says:

      12:12pm | 14/06/11

      Jade,

      Your change to my car example is wrong.
      The change makes it analogous to a seperate event.
      ie If you consent to having sex with someone on one day, you consent to having sex with them on another day. That’s not what we’re talking about.

      “Enthusiastic and obvious signs of enjoyment”?
      So now you want your partner to not only make sure you’re consenting (non- verbally) but also gauge your mood during the event? You’ve obviously never met a girl who’s a screamer or seen the variable reactions some people have while enjoying sex.

      You know that you could remove any grey areas if you just told them whether you were enjoying it or not?

      BTW. what you are talking about now is far in excess of consent. If you had to enjoy it every time, then I think there would be a lot of men and women in jail on sex crimes.

    • Carz says:

      07:44pm | 14/06/11

      Tim, there are other ways of showing that a person is not consenting besides saying no. If someone is crying, complaining of pain, shrinking away from you, pushing your hands or other parts of your body away, then in all probability they are not consenting. If you want to know about consent check out this link: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/ca190082/s61ha.html particularly section 7.

    • TChong says:

      09:20am | 13/06/11

      Give the guilt a rest Raj. Neither I , nor any bloke I know is complicit in
      any type of subjugation of women.

    • marley says:

      10:58am | 13/06/11

      @TChong - read some of the comments on this and the previous pieces on the subject.  Some people, male and female, just don’t get it.  That doesn’t mean you engage in the subjugation of women, but it does mean you don’t get what the issue here is.

    • Snake says:

      03:42pm | 14/06/11

      @marley: We don’t get the issue because there isn’t an issue to get.

      So many posts here from the bleeding heart feminazis its hard to know where to start.

      Firstly, how someone dresses sends a disctinct message. A blatantly short skirt where a woman cannot walk up stairs without flashing her underwear isn’t exactly a symbol of modest.

      Secondly, behaviour sends a message too. Grinding on some guys leg on the dance floor all night and rubbing your ass in his crotch says you are somewhat interested in him.

      Finally, being so drunk you can barely remember your name sends a message too. It screams “I’m vulnerable”.

      Before you sentence me to death by shooting squad, none of these things says “Yes I want to have sex with you” but it sure as hell doesn’t say NO. Keep in mind, if you successfully mastered all three things I listed, and then you went home with the guy, it’s pretty much a fact that you are interested in the horizontal tango.

      At some point all these non-verbal signals are sending a message and at times they conflict with what the woman in question is actually thinking. The sooner women stop being sluts acting like sluts, the sooner they will stop being targetted for easy sex.

      Granted none of this makes rape right, lets get that straight, but surely you can understand how in situations like this a victims behaviour did absolutely NOTHING to help her end plight.

      There was talk earlier about the victims previous sexual history. It is absolutely relevant. If she is known for giving blowjobs to 5 random strangers in the disabled toilet at a nightclub she frequents, it is hard to make a case for her modesty and disinterest in sex. Sure it is possible she didn’t want sex, but how credible is she? What does it say about her character?

      Women need to stop sending non-verbal signals out and then complain when their verbal “no” get’s lost in the mix. No means no, just make sure that’s what you’re saying across the board.

    • Mayday says:

      10:28am | 13/06/11

      About a third of my eldest sons mates are “sluts” whereas the remainder have been well brought up and do not take advantage of females who are off their faces on alcohol or drugs or are emotionally overwrought.

      Empathy serves us all well even at 3am when the milk is on the stove and the Milo is in the cup, a real man would never take advantage of a woman regardless of the time, place or condition she is in.

      I was sexually assaulted, aged 16 in the middle of the day on my lunch break, sheer bloody ignorance lead me into a dangerous situation and I have told both my sons how this came about.

      More women need to speak out about sexual assault and bring it closer to home because unfortunately it is all around us and needs to be exposed for what it is…..a power play by a weak individual.

    • Lisa H. says:

      12:50am | 14/06/11

      Exactly… a power play…

      unfortunately very many men see sex as a ‘game’ to win…sometimes at great personal cost to the other individual involved.

      Judging from my own dubious experiences in youth, and those of my friends, there are very, very many young women who have recently been pressured unduly,  isolated, prevented from leaving a sexual situation etc etc…

      Power is always an aspect of sexual expression… which makes border-line ‘date rape’ a fact of our current Western lifestyle for vulnerable, yet socially available, single women.

      The stereotypical picture of a rapist, as beanie-wearing misfit dragging a girl into the bushes, is really only a small part of the sexual landscape a woman must be wary of.

    • Bev says:

      10:33am | 13/06/11

      The incidence of rape has decreased in the Western world over the last 40 years. Example Since 1973 rape incidence in the US has gone from 2.5 rapes per 1000 to .5 rape incidents per 1000 other western countries are similar except South Africa which has gone dramatically the other way. Quite a dramatic decrease! You would think that feminists would cheering from the roof tops.  No way they tell us there is a “rape epidemic”.  In order to justify this they point to the raw numbers (which will increase as the population increases). They skew that stats even further by quoting reported rape rather than convictions (no all reported rape results in a conviction obviously) and by producing self serving studies. They then demand changes to the law and to the definitions of sexual assault to combat the “epidemic”.  Government do similar things with the road toll by pointing only at the raw numbers and using it to justify increasingly draconian road rules. If you examine accidents per kilometres traveled, accidents per 1000 population and accidents per 1000 cars a trend emerges, it is safer to drive now than it was before something the government will not publicize.
      So why would feminists be doing what they do? There really is only one conclusion its another man bashing, demonizing push of which slutwalk is just the latest example.

    • bec says:

      11:16am | 13/06/11

      Bev, I say this with all sincerity: I do more to help men on one day than you’ve done in your entire life. I say this as a card-carrying feminist.

      I have chosen to work exclusively with young men. Most are working to middle class, and nearly all are white. I am the person who goes to watch them play rugby when their parents can’t be arsed. I am the person who gets them to read their very first novel in their early teens. I am the one they ask to write references for when they want to apply for a job, or for entry to ADFA. I don’t care if my students are straight or gay, rugby players or drama nonces, I spend upwards of 50+ hours a week (mostly unpaid) making sure that a) they get to do something that will get them a job, b) they get to do something they like, and c) that someone will always be there to watch and support them wherever they go.

      I enjoy working with men and boys and don’t envision my life any other way. But you hold men to such a low standard that you view anything short of glowing, unreserved praise to be “bashing”. It’s not helpful to say that feminist critique is destroying boys. What’s destroying boys is a shitty neoliberal school of thought that takes away play equipment and sporting time due to concerns about litigation and public liability insurance. What destroys boys is the fact that they overwhelmingly receive inadequate and poor quality sex and relationships education which can prevent them from future abuse and harm. But most of all, what does them in is that fucking horrible “harden up” attitude we take towards them: that you’re not a real man unless you play rugby, or unless you punch up a fag in the playground.

      Enough of the “boys will be boys” horseshit. That’s just bigotry via low expectations. Boys will one day be adults, and the person that holds them to a high standard of personal conduct while arming them with the skills to navigate the world is going to be the one that does best for them - not some self-proclaimed anti-feminist who adopts their mantle to fit in with the cool kids.

    • Erick says:

      12:51pm | 13/06/11

      Bec, when man-haters “teach” boys, we would expect boys to do worse in school.

      This expectation turns out to be confirmed.

    • Bev says:

      12:56pm | 13/06/11

      I sincerely say good for you. 
      It has been my observation that many feminist programs for men and boys are more interested in feminising boys (“boys will be boys” suggests you agree with this) and while I agree with your point about equipment I would suggest that the educational bias against boys and the lack of fathers in boys lives (which affects girls too) is a large contributing factor.  Poor quality sex and relationships education which can prevent them from future abuse and harm is exemplified in the feminist inspired White Ribbon Campaign in schools which is an obsenity and is more likely to destroy their self esteem than build it up You may be very sincere personaly but one swallow does not a summer make.

      Interestingly you seem not to have addressed anything I have said and gone off on a completely different tangent.

    • bec says:

      01:44pm | 13/06/11

      Actually, Erick, from my own experience my students tend to have higher results than the average. Feminist pedagogy, which involves encouraging students to study subjects they naturally feel inclined to study as individuals (rather than pushing them to study a certain thing because they are male or female) works fantastically well. I teach subjects that aren’t typically seen as “masculine”, but they are nevertheless subjects that are tremendously important for higher-order thinking skills such as analysis and creativity - and more to the point, they’re vital for preparing any kid for the current service-based work environment. All I want is for students to be happy, to emerge as productive people, and to actually study a subject they like - rather than a subject that society believes they need to learn.

      I’ve tried a lot of the “boy-positive” pedagogy stuff. Some is useful, but a lot of it doesn’t actually give any results. I personally think socioeconomic class and family attitudes are far bigger contributing factors to educational success (and that it can tie into gender is obvious), and it gets incredibly frustrating to hear people continually whinge “oh, they’re just making boys sit still and be quiet and not learn, and this is feminising them”. Which, when considering the predominant model of western education over the last 200 years which has involved corporal punishment for the most minor infractions, does make me laugh. And drink. Actually, mainly drink.

      Finally, Erick, I’m sure you’ve seen the study that asserts that women who identify as feminist are less likely to hold negative views of men than women who don’t identify as feminist. I have, and it largely fits with the experiences I have. I don’t believe in a lot of gender stereotypes, negative or positive, about either gender. The idea that boys are dirty, or violent, or lacking in self control is one that isn’t conducive in the slightest to being able to successfully teach them. A dialogue about rape in which we say men cannot control themselves around women is one that is ultimately harmful and negative of men. http://psych.umb.edu/faculty/kogan/files/Anderson 2009_Are Feminists Man Haters.pdf

      Bev, I directly responded to what you said. You accused us of man-bashing and demonizing. Telling rapists not to rape isn’t man-hating. As you and Erick have asserted, men are not the only people who rape, and women are not the only people who are being raped. Presumably, via sound logic, both of you should be most offended by the notion that telling women to dress a certain way will stop them from being raped - given that there wouldn’t be a single male rape victim alive who would wear what is commonly perceived as sexually-alluring female clothing. The idea that rape would stop if women stopped dressing a certain way is frustrating to me as someone who works with male victims of assault. You continually talk about how we demonise, but you miss the very real fact that the damaging model that causes oppression of men is the same model that causes oppression of women.

      You also miss the fact that since the curriculum was “feminised” in an attempt to stop the woeful treatment of women in the curriculum that boys’ results have actually *improved* from what they were before. It turns out the change in the curriculum actually benefitted everybody in terms of mean scores. Educational disadvantage, as I mentioned above, has way more to do with class, migrant status, and the family culture towards work and education. Something definitely needs to be done for *those* boys, but it’s hard to argue that a boy in your average mid-tier private school or average-performing state school is experiencing any measurable degree of discrimination.

    • Bev says:

      02:36pm | 13/06/11

      bec says:01:44pm | 13/06/11
      Presumably, via sound logic, both of you should be most offended by the notion that telling women to dress a certain way will stop them from being raped

      You got that bit right. Though I don’t see that encouraging women to dress and act sluttishly is helping their self esteem or bringing respect from others.

      I hardly see the fact that more boys are increasingly dropping out of school and that female graduates now outway males by about 20% is indicitive of boys doing better in fact quite the reverse.  It is true that in the past girls didn’t do as well but the answer was to give girls a leg up rather than to suppress boys. This is not to say that what you do personaly is not OK (though I do detect some feminist justifications in your answers).  You are not everybody and quite possibly far removed from what I observe.

    • bec says:

      03:58pm | 13/06/11

      Bev, a lot of your comments really miss the point about what is actually happening.

      1. Slutwalk’s organisers have not really pushed the “come dressed as a slut” card. I personally don’t care what people dress like when they aren’t in a workplace, apart from the weird maternal instinct to make them put on a jumper because looking at exposed flesh makes *me* feel colder. I would hope that people wear clothing they feel comfortable in, whatever that might be.

      2. You missed my point about educational attainments. Rather than the system oppressing them or making them achieve poorer test results, the improvements to teaching styles over the last twenty years have actually led to improvements in boys’ test results. Yes, they aren’t going to university in the same numbers as women are. However, more young men are going into apprenticeships for trade careers that are likely to pay far more than many of the service-based jobs that a university qualification can give you. Blokes who dropped out in year ten when I was at school now out-earn me significantly despite the fact that I have more than six years of tertiary education up my sleeve.

      If anything, modern education isn’t alienating boys. It’s doing a far better job than the traditional model of sitting forty kids at individual desks and administering lashings for so much as looking askance at a kid beside them. The fact that we are now recognising kinaesthetic learners (of whom boys make up the majority) and cater to them in schools - and have done for the last fifteen to twenty years - means we are actually doing a better job by them. There’s still more we can do, but I suspect what it will take is addressing community attitudes towards education. I don’t find boys to naturally be unintelligent or less capable, but I do find it more challenging to work with boys who are from families who don’t value education or who have a poor understanding of the work ethic involved in school.

      (You might talk from personal experience, but mine is that boys tend to gravitate and respond best to people who will support them and push them to excellence. Teachers who are homophobic and traditionally rigid about gender expectations and roles are the ones that the kids detest and request a class transfer from. In our school, the teachers who the kids find the best - in terms of teaching ability and ability to form positive relationships with - are teachers who have some form of feminist pedagogy. They certainly wouldn’t use that terminology to describe it to boys or their parents, but it’s certainly what works at making kids interested in learning.)

    • jade (the other one) says:

      08:27pm | 13/06/11

      Bev, boys are dropping out of school in far larger rates because they need less education to earn more money than most women. Most male-dominated professions such as the trades, and mining have substantial incomes attached to them. And don’t require year 12, let alone university. It has very, very little to do with the method of education, and everything to do with the way in which education is valued by society at large, and the individual.

    • Bev says:

      12:58am | 14/06/11

      jade (the other one) says:08:27pm | 13/06/11

      Bev, boys are dropping out of school in far larger rates because they need less education to earn more money than most women.

      What load of…... Have you checked male versus female unenployment rates lately?
      Go try and get an apprentiship, good luck as you join the queue.

    • Jade (the other one) says:

      08:17am | 14/06/11

      @ Bev, I’m not talking about apprenticeships alone. I’m talking about the mining jobs which rake in $100,000 plus a year. I’m talking about labourers (which don’t require an apprenticeship) on $70,000 plus a year. And I’m talking about apprenticeships, which by the accounts of my male friends, who all have them, and all received them within a few months of dropping out/finishing school, are not as difficult to get as you would have us believe, provided you have the motivation.

      Furthermore, boys can often access school-based apprenticeships which means that they complete up to 2 years of their apprenticeship prior to leaving school. The professions which boys choose to do these apprenticeships in are far more lucrative than those that girls do or are geared towards doing.

    • Chris L says:

      10:53am | 13/06/11

      There’s one problem for men who are not aggressive. Women don’t find them attractive, let alone exciting.

    • Erick says:

      11:02am | 13/06/11

      Very well said, Chris L.

      Of course, the evolutionary consequences of this preference are quite predictable.

    • St. Michael says:

      11:09am | 13/06/11

      That depends what subset of women you’re trying to get into bed with.

    • Carz says:

      11:22am | 13/06/11

      Aggression is a turn off, not a turn on. Read stories from women who were battered and raped by intimates. Almost all say how the man changed from the early days of dating, that the abuse built up gradually over time. Many talk about how their abusers were pillars of the community. (Women’s Health Goulburn North East produced an excellent report about this but I can’t get the link to work. It is called Raped by a Partner.)

      There are ways to be exciting without being aggressive.

    • Alicia says:

      12:30pm | 13/06/11

      Where the hell did you get that idea from? I don’t find men who are aggressive attractive in any light! You can still be a man without aggression.

    • bev says:

      12:51pm | 13/06/11

      Eating dinner in Fortitude Valley last night, I saw two bogan dudes mouthing off at each other before attempting to swing blows - fortunately, stopped by bouncers.

      I did swoon, verily, if by “swoon” you mean “roll your eyes and make fun of them for being big flaming lamos”.

    • Bev says:

      02:14pm | 13/06/11

      bev says:12:51pm | 13/06/11

      Imposter. Don’t put words in my mouth or hijack my name please.
      At least I am honest in that I post using my real name. using all small letters doen’t cut it.

    • bec says:

      02:45pm | 13/06/11

      Sorry, it was actually me. No intention to impersonate - my defence is that the C and the V are right beside each other.

    • John the Zombie says:

      11:27pm | 13/06/11

      Carz as DMX says “why do good girls, like bad guys” and best example is the tosser from the amazing race. Srsly wat a jerk and the way he treats her is horrible yet she continues to be with him and the wedding plans r still on.

    • John says:

      12:03pm | 13/06/11

      Some how i don’t think women and men are the same species. Men are not entirely sexual beings, women are. For that sake, women only tend to understand and respond to men who are more consumed by their sexuality. Women want to be dominated and then conquered. So men who want to get laided, end up with more ladies, since coitus is what a women really desires. Men on the other hand seem be driven by emotional desire at first (love), then after interacting with opposite species he finds that she doesn’t not desire this, and that she is revolted by this. After millions of years of evolution, the nice guy still express’s his genetic expression! How strange. Maybe it’s became women lack the Y chromosome which makes them incapable of desiring love, while the X chromosome drives their primitive ape like sexual urges explaining why they respond to morally inferior dominating gorilla’s.

    • marley says:

      01:16pm | 13/06/11

      Oh geez - you do understand that the X chromosome has more genes on it than the Y chromosome, not fewer?  In fact, several thousand compared with a few dozen?  So if anything is missing, it’s from the small Y chromosome, not the larger X chromosome.

    • Erick says:

      02:10pm | 13/06/11

      @Marley - Without necessarily endorsing anything John says, I would like to point out that you are wrong about the Y chromosome.

      All men have the X chromosome, which also occurs in women. But only men have the Y chromosome, which carries extra genetic information that is not available to women, and is exclusively passed on from man to man.

      If it’s any consolation, mitochondrial DNA is passed on through the female line only.

    • Demoman says:

      03:48pm | 13/06/11

      Marley, in females one of the X chromosomes is inactivated whereas men have an active X and Y.

    • Anne says:

      12:12pm | 13/06/11

      Why do the comments in this thread presume their counterparts are either ‘slut shaming’ or ‘man hating’?

      I am a feminist - I believe in the revolutionary idea that women deserve the same political, social and economic as men. But by no means am I man hating! There are so many men in my life who I love and admire. On the same token, those men do not think that I hate them because I think women should not be raped.

      To achieve that crazy idea of equality, we need to move beyond blaming the other gender. And if people so readily jump into this false dichotomy of ‘slut shaming’ and ‘man hating’, perhaps it would be worth framing the debate around individual liberty. After all, without meaning to sound too High School Musical, we’re all in this together.

    • Bev says:

      05:14pm | 13/06/11

      Sounds terribly like feminist 101 the public message.  There is another more private message (highly simplified).
      Feminism think classes, men being one and women being the other.  This allows a feminist to hold two thoughts at once.  All the people she knows (men included) are intrinically good but all other men are those nasty ones feminism likes to talk about.  On the other hand since I as woman think I’m good so all other women are good though I will conceed the are a few bad women but all those nasty men made her that way. If that sounds a lot like marxism you right only the names have been changed. This method of thinking means that you will have a gender (class) war.
      The thing is a large number of people (men and women) think the majority of people are intrinsically good and should be able to achieve the best that they can on their own merits (important) without fear or favour.  They accept that since biologically men and women are different there are things that women are better at and things that men are better at with some overlap and working together men and women compliment each other. The word is complimentry not equal.

    • BK says:

      05:42pm | 13/06/11

      When I, as a man, can go to a party, big-note about sleeping around and attract the attention of a collection of women who will give me whatever I want, all in the hope of having sex with me, men and women will be equal.

    • Sickemrex says:

      07:27pm | 13/06/11

      @ Bev: I agree with most of that but I think the term you’re looking for is complementary.  Complimentary - gee your hair looks nice today.  Complementary - you have some skills, I have some different skills, let’s use them together effectively.

      Being serious, I think you and Anne are saying the same thing, we’re all in this together.  Didn’t some Greek guy say something about equality being giving everyone what they need as opposed to giving everyone the same thing.  Of course, he was been referring exclusively to Greek men and not women and other nationalities.

    • Carly says:

      12:12pm | 13/06/11

      I think a part of the problem that no one is acknowledging here is other women. Some women as well as men perpetuate the idea of the victim being responsible. I know because I’ve heard them do it. Let’s not just blame men but rest the onus directly on the shoulders of the entire community.  Everyone needs to understand that no means no and that the victim is in NO way responsible for the perpetrator’s actions.

    • Mason McCann says:

      12:30pm | 13/06/11

      @Dr. Larry Goldberg - “Bev, up to 50% of all reported rapes are fake.”
      Woah now, hoss.

      10 seconds of research tell me pretty clearly that you didn’t even read a skewed survey to end up with this statistic, you literally just made it up to push your ridiculous agenda of “oh god why won’t somebody think of the MEN involved in rape cases! Being accused of raping someone is just as bad as being raped!”

      First of all “Another large-scale study was conducted in Australia, with the 850 rapes reported to the Victoria police between 2000 and 2003 (Heenan & Murray, 2006). Using both quantitative and qualitative methods, the researchers examined 812 cases with sufficient information to make an appropriate determination, and found that 2.1% of these were classified by police as false reports. All of these complainants were then charged or threatened with charges for filing a false police report.” from http://www.ncjrs.gov/app/abstractdb/AbstractDBDetails.aspx?id=243182

      Secondly “The largest and most rigorous study was commissioned by the British Home Office and based on 2,643 sexual assault cases (Kelly, Lovett, and Regan, 2005). Of these, 8% were classified by the police department as false reports” from http://192.87.209.9/pdf/45316.pdf (direct link to PDF of study)

      You are wrong both objectively and morally. “False accusations of rape” are a ridiculously overstated phenomenon that is trotted out almost exclusively by male chauvinists to push an agenda that somehow tries to paint men as the REAL victims in situations where women have been raped.

    • Fi says:

      07:30pm | 13/06/11

      Larry, that is the most bullshit reference I have seen. I very much doubt you are a doctor of any sort, because medical doctors and phd doctors would both know to use peer reviewed statistics, not some website designed before the turn of the millenium.

    • Bev says:

      01:12am | 14/06/11

      Fi says:07:30pm | 13/06/11
      Haven’t checked them but they are probably lot more valid than the stuff feminists put out.  Much with very no or dubious foundation, grabbed out of thin air or if the do have some foundation rounded up so they have bear little resemblence to what the are based on. What was that one about the world cup. Something about how 20,000 women and children would be forcably brought to Africa for the world cup for prostitution. Truth less than 200 women were arrested for prostitution.

    • The Liberal Loafer says:

      12:42pm | 13/06/11

      Men are sluts.And thats only the men that have been proven that you can trust.

    • stephen says:

      01:02pm | 13/06/11

      You and many others I know use the words ‘sexually active’ as if , like having a dozen eggs, they are only an objective , (in the transitive sense).’.to eat’, as sex, similarly, is only for most women supposedly an objective,(according to popular usage) but there your ‘system goes awry : sex for men is thus, but for the girls, it’s nearly always a pathway to love.
      Sex, for a woman) is an important process of an emotional bonding with a man, (or a woman) that a man is mostly non-commital for.
      Women understand this.
      Alas, men rarely do.

    • Carz says:

      01:45pm | 13/06/11

      I’m a woman and I didn’t understand a thing you said.

    • stephen says:

      02:09pm | 13/06/11

      Typical.

    • Dr. Larry Goldberg says:

      02:09pm | 13/06/11

      Carz, you also use anecdotal evidence and expect to be taken seriously. At least stephen made an identifiable point, even though i disagree with it to a certain extent.

    • stephen says:

      06:55pm | 13/06/11

      She’s a woman Larry.
      Now that’s kinetic.

      Try me ?
      Do better : mediocrity is very predictable.

    • Just Sayin' says:

      01:42pm | 13/06/11

      If I put locks on my doors, and encourage others to do the same, am I blaming the victims of burglary?

      Crime exists, some people do horrible things, they should be the ones blamed and they should be held accountable.  But that doesn’t deal with the entire reality of bad things.  We also need to take some responsibility to minimise our risk of being the victim of a bad person.  Slutwalkers still have locks on their doors, right?

    • dw says:

      01:57pm | 13/06/11

      I may be a bit slow on the uptake, but the message of SlutWalk seems very convoluted to me.

      As a male - what is it that i, individually, am meant to be doing?...or not doing?

      I personally treat all people with respect.  Is that the point of SlutWalk? Or is it to legitimise the term ‘slut’?

      Seriously - I just don’t get it…

    • Semi Concerned Citizen says:

      04:54pm | 13/06/11

      DW I’m in your boat. It just makes litttle to no sense. Are they glorifying sluts? Are they attempting to change the meaning of the word? I’m not sure.
      When I was a wee tacker slut was hardly a form of endearment, I’m not that old now but I’m starting to feel out of touch . Is this the onset of old age?

    • other kate says:

      06:34pm | 13/06/11

      As a woman (and pro the slutwalk) I take the point to be just getting the message out there that it doesn’t matter what you are wearing, anyone can be a victim of rape or assault. I dont know that it is about legitimising the word slut as such, more saying that calling the victim of a rape or assault a slut shifts the blame from the attacker to the victim, and that is not and shouldnt be acceptable.

      Most men are great people who respect and love the women in their lives, I think the message to men in general is just about trying to end that dialogue that runs along the lines that women should be altering their behaviour/actions/dress in order to avoid assault, because it just isnt true. People (women, men, children, the elderly, the disabled) are assaulted because they were in the vicinity of a rapist, not because their dress or demeanor was an invitation.

    • jim morris says:

      02:04pm | 13/06/11

      I thought women have always had the right to be stupid .

    • Mayday says:

      04:28pm | 13/06/11

      Like most things men had this first and like the right to vote women had to work for it!

    • Demoman says:

      03:59pm | 13/06/11

      It is time we stopped shielding young women from the burden of being responsible individuals.

      If being dressed as sluts has been found to increase their chances of being raped and they still choose to dress as sluts, then that’s on them. I certainly don’t agree with raping people but I also do not agree with being being stabbed or robbed. The reality is that these things happen and people have to mitigate their risks rather than parade down a dark alleyway and proclaim their right to walk where they choose without being stabbed or robbed. No does of course mean no.

      The police officer who made the statement about dressing as a slut was simply making a reasonable suggestion on how to best mitigate ones risk. You are certainly not forced to take his advice.

      I certainly consider myself an upstanding individual and would never rape a women (although in future I may be accused of it falsely) and I too think that women that dress in a slutty manner are up for all sorts of things.

      As Dave Chappelle once said “She may not be a whore but that is a whores uniform”.

    • other kate says:

      07:17pm | 13/06/11

      but what is slutty dress? What one person thinks is fine/fashionable might be slutty as far as you are concerned. Should young women ponder over this each time they get dressed? Most young girls are concerned with looking pretty and fashionable, and wear clothes similar to those of their friends and peer group. Perhaps the fashion chains who target young women should have some role in mitigating this risk? Maybe when an outfit is purchased it should come with information on how you are likely to be percieved in said outfit? Clearly I am being silly here, but my point is; how can you say what outfit/dress puts one at risk of rape? If clothes caused rapes, the burqa would be a foolproof rape deterrent, and that is untrue.

    • BK says:

      04:23pm | 13/06/11

      The slut walkers argue that people are socialised to devalue women who sleep around or dress in revealing clothes. They assume that this leads to rapists failing to fully consider issues of consent, because they see her as “just a slut” or something similar.

      They also argue that wearing hookerwear deoesn’t acually increase a woman’s risk of sexual assault. However, if the first statement reflected the thinking of rapists, dressing in that way would increase a woman’s chance of being sexually assaulted.

      You can think one, or you can think the other (I agree with the second proposition), but you cannot logically argue both.

    • Salome says:

      02:21am | 14/06/11

      The first is ACTUALLY if a woman dresses/acts a certain way it is the police/courts/media/public which fails to consider issues of consent because she can be dismissed by being called a “slut”.  It has NOTHING to do with what a rapist thinks.

      And, there is NO correlation between clothing and rape.  It does not matter to the rapists, and it SHOULD NOT matter to police/courts/media/the general public.

    • Duff says:

      11:26am | 14/06/11

      @BK - that’s correct.  The rape statistics do not provide any evidence to back up the assertion that men falsely believe “hookerwear” implies consent As has been shouted from the rooftops: slutty clothing bears no significance as to whether a women might get raped.

      @Salome - don’t you see, this is where the whole idea behind “Slutwalk” falls down.  Where is the evidence that there is a generation of men out there who believe slutty clothing implies consent?  You can’t say on the one hand that we men regularly blame the victims (because we falsely believe clothing implies consent) and then on the other hand point to statistics that completely contradict that assertion.

      Rather, I think that the premise of the Slutwalk is totally misplaced.

    • Salome says:

      02:29pm | 14/06/11

      @ Duff, where did I say men?  I said police/courts/media/the general public.  When a woman is raped, assuming the police bother to take down the information, their FIRST question (and, might I add, the MOST COMMON question ANYone asks the victim) is “What were you wearing?”.  FYI, the most common question should be “Are you ok?” or “Has he/she been caught?” or “What can I do to help you?”.  Clothing makes no difference to rapists (male OR female) so we should not be asking victim’s about it.  It simply does not matter.  And, for the record, I do not know a single male victim of rape who was asked what HE was wearing, nor do I recall anyone caring what the rapist was wearing.

    • Duff says:

      03:30pm | 14/06/11

      @Salome - it makes no sense whatsoever to argue that there is, on the one hand, a widely held belief that slutty-dressed women are “asking for it” and yet, on the other hand, there is no evidence that men actually assault women on this basis.  Don’t you see the contradiction?  It is like saying that Australian’s drive too fast but that speed is not factor in road accidents.  If women are not being sexually assaulted because of what they wear then how can you say we are a nation that believes women who dress like sluts are “asking for it”?  It makes no logical sense.

    • Salome says:

      04:49pm | 14/06/11

      @ Duff, RAPISTS do not believe this, but 45% of the general population (ie NON RAPISTS) DO.  Please try to understand the difference here, and stop deliberately changing the conversation to suit your idea that the 2 thoughts are different thoughts by the same people.  They are the thoughts of non-rapists that are distorting the way sexual crimes are viewed, and the rapists are counting on this continuing because that way they can keep raping and receive no punishment for it.

      This survey has several faults.  They ONLY interview men, they DO NOT request to know what gender identity the victims were, it ONLY includes men with no criminal record, and it is based on self reporting, which may mean that their findings are skewed to the low side of the percentage of men who rape, but it is the most comprehensive one I have seen.

      http://yesmeansyesblog.wordpress.com/2009/11/12/meet-the-predators/

    • Outraged says:

      05:32pm | 13/06/11

      Men do indeed have to worry about being raped!

      Raped of their children, homes, money and freedom. Indeed every female is a Potential Financial Rapist.

      Remember, Feminists taught us that rape is “not about sex, but power”! Men fear powerlessness! Any man that has lost money to a woman during divorce proceedings has been raped…so how come men aren’t outraged and writing articles about it?

    • Snake says:

      04:20pm | 14/06/11

      @Outraged: We aren’t writing articles because we learnt the first time. Our houses are in trusts and we pay child support from the minimum wage we pay ourselves from our businesses.

      As Dick Masterson once said “Why is prostitution illegal, but alimony isn’t? Both times you’re just paying for the whore to leave”.

    • Sickemrex says:

      07:37pm | 13/06/11

      Your definition of rape is a bit different to the one in any Criminal Code or common law definition.

      I lost money (and a dog!  to a cat person!) in a divorce proceeding.  I’m a woman.  I didn’t feel raped by the process though.

      Your argument, if it even is one, is specious.  Any woman is a potential financial rapist?  Any man is a potential rapist?  Any person is a potential child abuser or murderer?

    • Luke says:

      09:16pm | 13/06/11

      Quick story for everyone…
      A girl in a bar is annoyed at the man hitting on her…
      She kisses me and pretends we are together as a way of getting him to go away…
      As a man with a committed girlfriend who ISNT HER…
      I say… NO MEANS NO! Deal with your own problems…
      I am considering organising a walk for every male who has to put with females who force them into this very uncomfortable position.
      Any takers?

    • Dr. Larry Goldberg says:

      10:31pm | 13/06/11

      sounds like ‘Nick and Norah’s Infinite Playlist’ to me

      huge double standards

      if a male went up and kissed some random girl in a bar >>>> jail

    • Luke says:

      12:47am | 16/06/11

      We should start our… “double standards” walk… for men who know women have double standards… and have suffered so dearly because of them…

    • Sony B Goode says:

      10:57pm | 13/06/11

      Progressive is leftist code word for regressive. Anything “progressive” will usual make whatever situation worse than it was.

      We need “progressive” like we need a hole in the head. Anyone calling themselves progressive is admitting to a world view that is so superficial that if it was playing chess they would get beaten by a 5 year old looking only at the current move.

      Progressive is for the dumb, the retarded and those looking for a free lunch.

    • DrCocoDeLaRenta says:

      11:27pm | 13/06/11

      To “Dr. Larry Goldberg” for one who has the fore thought to add “Dr.” to the beginning of his (probably false) name in order to command more respect/power your idiocy astounds me.

      As for the confusion over why it is called “SlutWalk” I would assume it has something to do with the fact that even if someone is regarded as sexually promiscuous; a “slut”, these people still have the right to say “no”, and not to be blamed when this right is taken away.

      In regards to clothing attracting rapists, I have never heard of anything more preposterous. Of course rape is about power/violence, and for the person above who suggested rape was sexual/about attraction, are you saying “unattractive” people are never raped?

      Furthermore, through attendance at police safety talks, it would seem to me as though the way criminals choose their targets is not decided by attire, but mostly by demeanor, does this mean “shy” or introverted individuals invite crime upon themselves? Definitely not, so I cannot see how rape can be blamed on attire.

      SlutWalk isn’t about “man-shaming” it’s about rapist shaming, and not victim blaming.

    • Danarelle says:

      02:35am | 14/06/11

      I was walking home from work in Melbourne at 730pm on a wednesday night. Wearing work suit which included trousers. Suburban street in camberwell. Hadnt had a drink. Was I asking for it when a guy jumped out of a car, grabbed me and assaulted me in the street? I fought, I screamed and no-one came out of their pretty suburban houses.
      For all you idiots out there that think it’s all about what you wear and how drunk you are: you’re wrong (and quite clearly stupid to boot).

    • Martin says:

      08:59am | 14/06/11

      Question: I ask parents of girls (say, teenagers) how they react, what they’d say to that girl, if when heading out for a night’s entertainnent she’s dressed in skimpy minimalist fashion, perhaps showing a lot of cleavage, perhaps also wearing a very short skirt covering very little. Would they not recommend (at least WANT to request) they ‘cover up’ a tad more, or would they not comment, and would the thought cross their (parents’) mind that the girl may attract the wrong kind of attention? Just a thought.

    • Jade (the other one) says:

      09:53am | 14/06/11

      The issue is that most rapes do not occur in situations such as this. The majority of rapes occur in a woman’s home or the home of someone she knows. They are also mostly perpetrated by people known to the victim.

      If people were giving women advice on how to avoid being raped; rather than attempting to control women’s sexuality, the advice would run something like this:

      Don’t ever be in the home, car, office, or in public with a male you know. Don’t ever be in your own home. Don’t go out in public. Don’t associate with male family members. Don’t associate with male colleagues. Don’t associate with male friends. Don’t speak to males or form acquaintances with them. Don’t go to the home of friends who are male, or who are married to or living with males.

      Sounds ridiculous doesn’t it? But stopping any one of the above practices will do more to prevent a woman from being raped than dressing less provocatively.

    • Duff says:

      10:55am | 14/06/11

      Raj, if Australian men actually do believe women are implying consent (ie. asking for it) by wearing slutty clothing, wouldn’t we see evidence of it in the rape statistics?  We do not, apparently.  So how can it be that all us men believe slutty clothing implies consent but none of us would ever go so far as to rape a women on the basis of this mis-held belief? 

      So either the statistics are wrong or the assumption that men believe slutty clothing implies consent is wrong.  Do you not see that if it is the later, which I believe it is, the Slutwalk has made a grave mistake in it’s leap of logic from taking a single PO’s mistaken comment and extrapolating it to men, worldwide, without a shred of evidence to justify that accusation.

      Can you not see how that might really piss us off?  To many Australian men what the Slutwalk is saying is an extremely offensive accusation to make.  Try to imagine a similar walk organised by men which essentially tags women in such an offensive way.  The “Women are Bitches” walk or something.  Can’t imagine that would be well received.

      SO, please, trust us when we tell you: we do not think women are implying consent when they wear slutty clothing.  They do not deserve to be “blamed” because they wore slutty clothing.  No one here is saying that.  What I think this is a storm in a teacup.  The Police Officer used the wrong word - slut - and he was wrong in the advice he was giving.  But what evidence do you have, besides that, to imply that Australian men believe women “deserve it” if they dress like sluts?  None.

    • Jade (the other one) says:

      11:28am | 14/06/11

      The SlutWalk is not aimed solely at men. It is aimed at a mentality that says, “Women should hide their sexuality.” And to hide the obvious subjugation of women in this idea, they couch it in a lie that if a woman does not, it means she will be raped.

      Many women, as well as men, fall into this trap. The idea of the day is to show support for the idea that women cannot be and should not be responsible for the decisions of a rapist. And to raise awareness of the very statistics that you cite - that women are less likely to be raped while drunk at a nightclub in skimpy clothing than they are while having a male friend over for coffee and biscuits.

      Many people believe (erroneously as you point out) that women who are raped are drunk/dressed provocatively/inappropriately promiscuous. They don’t believe that this means they deserve to be raped. But when a woman who is raped by a male friend who gives them a lift home from work, or a date after a few drinks, or while dressed in a revealing manner is brought before them, they are more likely to believe that she is lying, or that the poor man simply made a mistake and things got out of hand, or that given her behaviour, she must have consented.

      The whole point of the SlutWalk campaign is to eradicate dangerous comments like those of the police officer. Because they lead to a mentality where a rapist can walk by claiming she consented. And people buy into that belief because, well, she is a slut. She slept with 20 other men, she probably said yes to this one. Or she was obviously looking for sex, being in a nightclub, drinking and dressed skimpily, she is obviously touched with buyer’s remorse. Because she “must” have wanted it at the time or she wouldn’t have dressed that way.

      There is a difference between not believing that a woman deserves to be raped because of how she is dressed, and assuming that a woman consented to sex and now regrets it.

    • Duff says:

      12:01pm | 14/06/11

      @Jade - but don’t you see, you are saying that, on the one hand, there is this “mentality” mentality which is so prevalent in society that we need to have marches, worldwide, to eradicate the idea.  It is that bad.  Yet, even though we all have this “mentality” (ie. we believe that women are implying consent to sex when they dress like a “slut”) none of us actually act on that belief. 

      Perhaps the truth of the matter is that this “mentality” of which you speak is exaggerated and less of an issue than you imply.  Perhaps the Police Officer’s comments were not such a big deal and we didn’t need to turn this into yet another Us vs Them femi-nazi issue.

      Or perhaps it is that the marchers simply don’t understand human nature and how a confused a Police Officer’s well-meaning, but misguided, advice about personal safety might not be evidence of some horrific conspiracy of sexual oppression.

    • Ray says:

      02:52pm | 14/06/11

      Jesus Jade that’s deep. I wouldn’t like to see you do a thesis on an in depth issue. It would replace Chinese water torture.

      Breath the air smell, the roses have a nice day.

      Your analysis is crippled with ‘bent’ mind, ideology driven paranoia. Genuinely sad really.

    • Jackie McMillan says:

      11:30am | 14/06/11

      Brilliant! You hit the nail on the head exactly. Time for men to step up and assume some responsibility. The bonus will be, finally getting to see what women are like when they don’t have to be the responsible ones - and who knows what that will be? The rewards could outweigh the pain. Step up boys, here’s your chance to actually become men.

    • MichaelM says:

      03:36pm | 14/06/11

      I am a bloke and have never mistreated a woman. I’ve never even had “the wrong idea’, and always gotten the hint. I don’t prey on women, I don’t molest women and am always the guy “holding back the hair’, if you will. I take responsibility for my own actions.

      Some men don’t, and won’t - they’re germs. And they lurk at 3am in the morning, and they prey on young (and sometimes not so young) women who have had a bit to drink and seperated from their group, whose inhibitions are low and less discriminate and who find themselves in a vulnerable position and make choices they usually wouldn’t in sobriety.

      What happens when something goes wrong? What is the use in being sorry after the fact? What good is it to say “she should have been able to be drunk at 3am and be safe from harm”? Yes, that may be absolutely correct, but it’s not reality. Germy blokes exist, and many young girls love a party.

      But why oh why do some people take issue when young women are advise to be CAREFUL of the scum of the streets? NOTE: being advised to take care of themselves IS NOT tantamount to saying it is their fault when they are attacked or preyed upon. It’s just better to be safe and not sorry. There isn’t much that can be done by anybody after something has gone wrong.

    • Ray says:

      02:18pm | 14/06/11

      Jackie, are you on the right post?

      Women have been able to manipulate legislation to formalise their lack of need for responsibility.

      Step up and do what exactly. Accept sreroetypes of all men being rapists, all being paedophiles, all being drunken wife bashing gamblers, hiders of false bank accounts, and unfaithful ‘sluts’.

      Apparently that would fit your mould for all men.

      Our society has been brilliant for protyping these stereotypes with indoctrination into our social and educational frameworks.

      Step up boys to what? The use of more stereotypes for women to purloin further enhancement of their protected species status.

      Jackie you do not cut the mustard. Women’s accountability (read responsibility) has all been enshrined in legislation and wiped away in a practical sense. For example nil responsibility for infanticide, nil responsibility for murder under the cloak of battered wife syndome. nil responsibility for vexacious sexual (or any other ) claims, nil responsibility
      for the untapped pool of under age sex in positions of authority (or just your son’s mate for example).

      What someone might be trying to say here is, wear what you like, but hey you do owe yourself some peronal respect, and FFS don’t blame men.

      Not sure whether Tory will let me say so after a severe dressing down for my literary style, (Not referring to what I dress or don’t dress in), but if you act like a slu*, walk like a slu*, and dress like a slu*, you probably are a ............ well you know, not going to a church bible reading class. Like Mike Tyson and the girl he was convicted over - was she going to his room to play chequers?)

      The other option is for women to continue along their path of blame men (boys for Jackie) aided and abetted by a nil responsibility clause, You know, something like the other Punch article seeking the green light for a 40 year old married woman the right of a one night stand for for inner soul cleansing. (but she wouldn’t feel unfaithful).

      Ah what creatures they are.

      Aside for Tory: Discipline once a week will suffice.

    • Ray says:

      02:21pm | 14/06/11

      Oh and Jackie, I forgot to say, thank heavens I don’t have to step UP and become a woman.

      I went past that rung on the ladder when I was born, and it’s been upward and onward ever since. Never looking back.

    • Cameron says:

      09:13pm | 15/06/11

      I’m curious to know something: If women generally expect men to be assertive and even to compete with each other for the affections of women, to make the first move, to ask her out, all of that… The man’s role is to be assertive and the women’s role is to be more passive. Feminism and Gender Equality haven’t changed these roles very much at all.

      What happens to the shy ‘nice’ guys? I still at 28 years old have never had a girlfriend despite having a university education, plenty of money, and am at least reasonably attractive, and am liked and respected by my friends, colleagues and family.

      The messages that I get over and over from the media and our culture is that guys need to be LESS aggressive in our interactions with women. Not only that, I hear women complaining about the shortage of eligible single men (like myself) around, yet I have not once in my life been asked out on a date by a single woman who was interested in me. I’ve even heard of nice/shy guys being called jerks by women for not being assertive enough to ask her out and such.
      I also hear about guys who are complete jerks who manage to sleep with hundreds, even thousands of different women. They clearly benefit from being the sort of complete assholes who don’t respect women. Women clearly are more attracted to jerks (alpha-males) otherwise they wouldn’t be spending time with them, let alone sleeping with them.
      So which is it? - should guys be more assertive or less?

      I’m a guy who is a feminist. I treat the women in my life as equals. I don’t want to be an asshole or a jerk, but I don’t want to be alone and miserable either.

      Men shouldn’t be categorically condemned for the jerks who mistreat and disrespect women in my opinion…

      There’s little hope for the shy/nice guys like myself though. chances are that I’ll die alone and sooner rather than later… what a waste…

    • over it says:

      12:07pm | 08/08/11

      Dude, stop being a Pussy.
      to say your passive and shy is a cop out. have you ever challenged yourself to going out for the sole purpose of chatting to women, not picking up.
      i used to be a ‘shy ‘nice’ guy’ and i did always finish last. but i got burnt by women too many times so now i dicide who talks to me and not the other way round (this makes me sound like a wanker but atleast if i like a bird ill approach her).
      finally if you think you have shit to offer good chance she will to so dive in if your wrong hey theres another 1 billion eligible women out there

    • Matt says:

      03:09pm | 16/06/11

      All I can say is this: Guys, stop telling the girls to cover up…look but don’t touch until you get an invitation.

      On this topic, what is considered consenting to sex? My partner and I have sex and almost never explicitly consent to it…

    • Victoria Cooper says:

      11:17am | 19/06/11

      @Matt - Foreplay is non-verbal language on a complex biological level.  When done with consideration for the other person it is pretty clear whether there is real interest and more important, reciprocation.  That’s why the issue of alcohol and drugs “muddies the water” on consent- the receptors we have to understand what’s really going on are dulled, desensitised or in some cases entirely turned off.  The problem of men learning about sex through pornography is now also increasingly, according to research conducted in the UK, leading to more frequent misunderstanding about when and how women are sexually aroused, and when they are not happy about what’s happening, but also what is expected of men as lovers. Shame!

    • Mikki says:

      03:09pm | 20/06/11

      Wow, so many comments on here bleating on about what it is that rapists think like and how rape is all about ‘power’.  Are you all speaking from experience or just blowing hot air to serve your own skewed arguments?  I would think that the only person who truly know what is going through a rapists mind would be a rapist surely?  The rest of you are just full of shi*

 

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

ToryShepherd

Cheeky beers with morning papers in unexpected sunshine http://t.co/MD7VPRne

Anthony Sharwood

http://t.co/Zq0nGxkf nice pic of Thredbo this morning

Paul Colgan

@seamus yeah it's now called Smooth or Soft or Douchey Dad FM or something

Paul Colgan

It's a Sydney thing, but 95.3FM... Why? It used to be all Bohemian Rhapsody and Walk this Way; now it's Father to Son and Country Road. Wah.

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

We don’t deserve this huge, exciting scientific project

We don’t deserve this huge, exciting scientific project

I’d like to be able to say that sharing the world’s largest radio telescope with South Africa…

Mining money talks the loudest in Australian politics

Mining money talks the loudest in Australian politics

When North Queensland Liberal MP George Christensen got the idea of launching a new political organisation…

Please enter your password

Please enter your password

Help! I’ve succumbed to a crippling modern illness that can strike at any moment. Symptoms include:…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

Michael S says:

"A teacher at Geelong Grammar had criticised her for using words that were too long, which had left her confused and had made her doubt her ability to write essays. She became ''quite distressed'' when her English marks began to fall." I can sympathise. My scholastic mentors conveyed to me a causal relationship… [read more]

From: Welfare for breeders is a bonus for everyone

Change Up! says:

I have no problem paying my taxes. As a single, childless person on a very decent income, I can afford it and not have my life severely altered. Plus I understand that my taxes paying for things like schools, childcare and infrastructure is ultimately a good thing. A better community is better for me… [read more]

Gentle jabs to the ribs

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

A private school girl’s family is sueing her elite, extremely expensive private school for not… Read more

243 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free daily Punch newsletter