**** walk..?
- Thread starter CDNBear
- Start date
I have discussed this topic in another forum before. The general consensus seemed to be that the cop was uneducated, insensitive, and somewhat offensive with his remarks. It was a continuation of the stereotyping of women based solely on the way they dress and the way many men treat them as sex objects.
So a group of women getting together, dressed scantily, and having a "sl!twalk" does what to stop the objectification of women?
I think that those who objectify women will and those that don't won't. It may change a few people but the greater majority will continue on as if it never happened.
I think the statement these ladies are trying to make is that it doesn't matter how they are dressed they shouldn't be treated as objects.
Last edited:
Many new years mornings ago a bunch of us went to the Ho in Nanaimo prior to taking our kayaks over Englishman River falls. Anyway we mostly had omlettes and one guy had ordered a ham &cheese&mushroom ommlete. When it came he discovered that there were no mushrooms in it so he called the waitress over. She peered around in it and said "they're magic and left.
I'm going out on a limb here, I take it you meant to say "shouldn't be".
How does prancing down Toronto streets in their underwear do that?
So do you believe that women bear no accountability if they are raped, because of their attire, their actions?
Last edited:
For anyone who's interested, this is an excerpt from an interview with a former FBI profiler (link to the full interview below). It's interesting to note that no where in the points of advice does he mention anything regarding choice of clothing.
"What about helping them to behave in a low risk manner?
It's simple. Use common sense. You don't go home with strangers. You don't go to bad parts of town. You don't go someplace and smoke dope.
I can give you some prevention suggestions, too.
Interview with Roy Hazelwood: Profiler of Sexual Crimes — Women and Sexual Offenders — Crime Library on truTV.com
"What about helping them to behave in a low risk manner?
It's simple. Use common sense. You don't go home with strangers. You don't go to bad parts of town. You don't go someplace and smoke dope.
I can give you some prevention suggestions, too.
- If you live alone, then you need to put a male voice on the answering machine. If you object to that, then have a dog barking in the background. If you don't own a dog, go next door and kick the neighbor's dog while making your recording. The biggest deterrent to burglars and rapists are dogs.
- If you're staying in a hotel and you get a phone call that they want to send someone up to check your air conditioning, you call back to the desk and confirm that.
- You don't park next to a van in the mall. If that's the only spot available, you get out on the side away from the van. Vans are favorite types of vehicles for a rapist.
Interview with Roy Hazelwood: Profiler of Sexual Crimes — Women and Sexual Offenders — Crime Library on truTV.com
Thanks for the correction..bit of an oops there that doesn't sound so good as it is written. I think I must edit that before I get hung.
I have no idea how it helps, I just know that is what it is about from one of the organizers on the other forum.
Yes, I believe they can walk around naked and should not get raped. Actions may have some bearing but even then....I can control myself as a man and have no respect for men that can't.
Really?
That's not what you say here...
According to you there. Women should bear accountability. While you almost completely exonerate the criminal of culpa ability.
Wow, bringing in a quote from a dfferent thread on a different topic....very creative.
First let me say I do not exonerate the criminal of liability in any way, I use the legal principle of 'causative effect' to bring the Rev into joint liability. The murder is still wrong and should be punished accordingly.
The way a women dresses should have no effect on her safety in our western society. Our values are to accept the freedom to dress as we please.
Correction, very germane.
Do you really want to stick to that, or would you like to go and reread that thread first?
But freedom of expression doesn't get that same liberty?
Oh wait, dress is expression. So is burning a bible.
Either you support freedom of expression, or you don't. Or you suffer from moral relativism.
Correction....germain, not germane
I don't believe I said anywhere that the murders themselves should be excused, in fact I said they were wrong and I don't condone murder in any way.
IMHO I would call burning a bible or other religious text in an attempt to inflame an entire religion a hate-crime and therefore freedom of expression would not be applicable.
Hate crimes (also known as bias-motivated crimes) occur when a perpetrator targets a victim because of his or her perceived membership in a certain social group, usually defined by racial group, religion, sexual orientation, disability, class, ethnicity, nationality, age, gender, gender identity, social status or political affiliation.[1]
I would say the differentiating factor is the expectancy of the result. She does not expect to be raped just becuase she has a mini-skirt on but the pastor expected a strong response from his actions.
How did this get to murder, hate crimes and bible burning?
I thought it was about "dressing safely"?
I thought it was about "dressing safely"?
Bear quoted me from the thread on the quran burning to represent a different opinion on a different situation.
I think he was just trolling.....
If my daughter dressed skanky while burning a Quran or Bible on the Shabbat I'd still be the most pissed about dressing like a skank.