...but what does that word mean to you?
Colloquially, I find that "slut" often refers to a certain kind of dress, or a certain kind of behaviour that the speaker believes the subject engages in. It is a negative term. In other words, you (you being the generic, colloquial speaker) believe a woman sleeps with "too many" people, or "sleeps around", and disapprove of this behaviour, deeming it "sluttish". Or, you believe that a certain way of dressing indicates that a woman is willing to or does engage in such "sluttish" behaviours.
The problems I, personally, have with this viewpoint are as follows. Firstly, how many is "too many", and who are you to judge? Seriously. Who gets to judge?
In my opinion, the person in question. That person, and that person alone, is the one who can decide if they are sleeping with "too many" or "too few" people. While their potential sexual partners do get an opinion on this, ie, whether this is, to them, an acceptable level of risk for them to engage in (as you do, in a very real sense, have intimate sexual contact with your partner's previous partners), or an acceptable level of experience for them to be comfortable in seeking a relationship with this person, that should not be a judgement. It is a decision, based on factual information and a personal opinion.
A personal anecdote to make this clearer; a previous sexual partner of mine had had many more sexual partners than myself. He had had twenty-three, while I had had ten. This made it uncomfortable for us to engage in a relationship, because, in my opinion, this discrepancy in experience was too great. The fact that, in sleeping with him, I would have intimate sexual contact with twenty-two other women was too many for me personally, despite all precautions taken. It was a personal judgement call, but it was not a judgement on him. More, an acknowledgement that we had different opinions regarding sexual intimacy, and my lack of comfort with this discrepancy made it a bad idea for us to engage in this with each other (we did anyway; it really did not end well. Always trust your personal judgement in these cases, it has your best interests at heart).
So, if you think I've had "too many" sexual partners, great. Good for you. We probably shouldn't attempt any kind of romantically intimate relationship with one another. It's no reason for name calling.
"Slut" is also used to describe people who engage in what the speaker deems unsafe sexual habits - for instance, multiple partners with inadequate precautions. Although STDs are a concern, again, name calling is not appropriate. Rather than label the person in question, why not either offer help or keep to yourself? There should really be no other options.
SlutWalks are marches through cities in which women attempt to reclaim the word slut, much like some racial slurs have been reclaimed. Although the onus should not be on the victim to decide not to be offended, if we do, if we shrug and say "so what?" when we are called sluts, the word will lose power.
As an example; you have green hair. Imagine someone saying that to you, or whispering it about you, or telling someone else that they think that of you. You'd shrug, think that they were strange, and move on with your life, because you know perfectly well that you do not, in fact, have green hair, and, even if you did, so what?
(Of course, if you do have green hair, you may wish to reread that previous paragraph imagining another colour).
Now imagine if we could all react to sexual slurs like "slut", or "frigid", or "homo", or "lesbo", or "trannie" like that. Just shrug, and be puzzled, and know that either you're not, or that there's nothing wrong with it. Imagine if being called a homo had all the impact of someone shouting "You love your mother!" and expecting a reaction other than "yeah, and?".
As I said above, the onus should not be on the victim to decide not to take offence, or to fight back. But, unfortunately, we do not live in an ideal world, with people who know that sexual slurs are inappropriate, inaccurate, and none of their business. An analogy; I would love to live in a world in which I do not expect to be attacked. Since I do not, however, live in that world, I study Krav Maga.
The above video is another way of achieving a similar goal.
I would love to live in a world where no one cast judgement on other people's sexual choices or clothing or anyone else, where it was understood that this was not acceptable. Since I do not live in that world, I want to help strip the word of all meaning, to have everyone understand - particularly younger girls, who may be more vulnerable to internalising such judgements than adults - that they can simply think "I sleep with more people than you deem appropriate, and/or my clothing makes you believe that I sleep with more people than you deem appropriate? And?".
I wish the world would understand that this was unacceptable. However, I feel it will work better to make the word unusable for the current purposes described in this post.
To explain another reason why I wish to make this viewpoint, that 'slut' is not appropriate thing to call people, mainstream, and to strip it from all power, I must explain where the idea of Slutwalks originated.
This statement - "women should avoid dressing like sluts in order not to be victimised" - is the problem. It is both inaccurate and dangerous.
It is inaccurate because it makes the assumption that women are raped, or sexually attacked, because of how they dress. The fact of the matter is, that the concept of a stranger raping a woman from lust is so rare as to be a total fiction. Women are commonly raped by people they know - according to the US Department of Justice, 73% of rapes are committed by a non-stranger. Even if they were due to lust, that lust was highly unlikely to have suddenly arisen from a change of clothing. And how likely do you think it was that the decision to rape the person in question came from what they happened to be wearing one day out of however many the perpetrator knew them?
In short, telling women to avoid dressing "sluttily" to prevent or reduce the chance of rape is like telling someone to stay home to reduce accidents. Most accidents occur in the home (quite a few rapes, too - 40%), and it is totally unreasonable to blame someone for not taking that insane level of precaution.
The sad fact is that far too many people believe this deluded and inaccurate viewpoint. One person felt the need to explain the following;
Of course, as I have pointed out above, this advice isn't practical, and nor is it comparable to keeping an iPod hidden. It is impractical because so few rapes occur because of a sudden lust brought on by clothing. It is not comparable to keeping an iPod hidden for the same reason. People are not going to suddenly decide to rape me because the way I dress make them realise I am female or desirable. Rape is not a crime of opportunity in the same way that theft is.
Nor does dressing in a stereotypically sexy way impede my safety - in fact, it would be far easier to run away in a miniskirt, or to injure someone with heels in self-defence (as one fellow Krav Maga student found out a few weeks ago, when a few well-placed kicks punctured her would-be attacker's testicles).
The silly thing is, this young man was so certain that this viewpoint was right that he didn't look at the statistics, or examine the statement. Instead, he assumed that the group of woman involved in the Slutwalk - many of them with personal experience of sexual assault - would be unaware of what the policeman was getting at. This is obviously not the case. We know what he meant. We simply disagree, and find the viewpoint quite dangerous, which is why we want to expose it as the ludicrous fallacy it is.
Why dangerous? Well, firstly, it leads to the idea that women can prevent or reduce the likelihood of sexual attacks by a change of clothing. This blaming of the victim - particularly if it becomes internalised - can be incredibly damaging. Many women who feel that they caused their rape, or could have prevented it, will injure themselves in some way. Some develop eating disorders, and others - including myself - will attempt to disfigure themselves, in order to destroy their looks, which they see as the cause of the attack. Then there's the fact that, if internalised in others, it can negatively affect the chances of a rapist coming to trial, and being found guilty and sentenced appropriately, something that already occurs far too rarely.
Warning: This poem using imagery which is far more triggering and powerful than anything I have written.
The current use of the word 'slut' promotes this viewpoint, as well as the idea that dress and sexual activity is something that it is appropriate for other people to pass judgement on. It isn't. It is, generally speaking, and much like sexual orientation, absolutely none of your fucking business.*
In short, my point is this; to some people, I am a slut. To some people, you are. That women who has had one sexual partner all her life is a slut for sleeping with him before marriage. That girl who has never had sex is a slut for flirting with someone. That girl wearing a mini-skirt, a cleavage and naval-bearing top, and thigh-high boots is a slut, and so is that girl with one button undone to show a bit of chest. That girl with the pierced naval is a slut. That girl who could use a good friend rather than an unasked-for judgement is a slut. That girl who wanted to feel pretty today is a slut.
This post covers incidences of rape and sexual assault. Please be aware that this may be triggering for some readers.
Colloquially, I find that "slut" often refers to a certain kind of dress, or a certain kind of behaviour that the speaker believes the subject engages in. It is a negative term. In other words, you (you being the generic, colloquial speaker) believe a woman sleeps with "too many" people, or "sleeps around", and disapprove of this behaviour, deeming it "sluttish". Or, you believe that a certain way of dressing indicates that a woman is willing to or does engage in such "sluttish" behaviours.
The problems I, personally, have with this viewpoint are as follows. Firstly, how many is "too many", and who are you to judge? Seriously. Who gets to judge?
 |
| This image is taken from Laci Green's Sex +, which I highly recommend. |
In my opinion, the person in question. That person, and that person alone, is the one who can decide if they are sleeping with "too many" or "too few" people. While their potential sexual partners do get an opinion on this, ie, whether this is, to them, an acceptable level of risk for them to engage in (as you do, in a very real sense, have intimate sexual contact with your partner's previous partners), or an acceptable level of experience for them to be comfortable in seeking a relationship with this person, that should not be a judgement. It is a decision, based on factual information and a personal opinion.
A personal anecdote to make this clearer; a previous sexual partner of mine had had many more sexual partners than myself. He had had twenty-three, while I had had ten. This made it uncomfortable for us to engage in a relationship, because, in my opinion, this discrepancy in experience was too great. The fact that, in sleeping with him, I would have intimate sexual contact with twenty-two other women was too many for me personally, despite all precautions taken. It was a personal judgement call, but it was not a judgement on him. More, an acknowledgement that we had different opinions regarding sexual intimacy, and my lack of comfort with this discrepancy made it a bad idea for us to engage in this with each other (we did anyway; it really did not end well. Always trust your personal judgement in these cases, it has your best interests at heart).
So, if you think I've had "too many" sexual partners, great. Good for you. We probably shouldn't attempt any kind of romantically intimate relationship with one another. It's no reason for name calling.
"Slut" is also used to describe people who engage in what the speaker deems unsafe sexual habits - for instance, multiple partners with inadequate precautions. Although STDs are a concern, again, name calling is not appropriate. Rather than label the person in question, why not either offer help or keep to yourself? There should really be no other options.
SlutWalks are marches through cities in which women attempt to reclaim the word slut, much like some racial slurs have been reclaimed. Although the onus should not be on the victim to decide not to be offended, if we do, if we shrug and say "so what?" when we are called sluts, the word will lose power.
As an example; you have green hair. Imagine someone saying that to you, or whispering it about you, or telling someone else that they think that of you. You'd shrug, think that they were strange, and move on with your life, because you know perfectly well that you do not, in fact, have green hair, and, even if you did, so what?
(Of course, if you do have green hair, you may wish to reread that previous paragraph imagining another colour).
Now imagine if we could all react to sexual slurs like "slut", or "frigid", or "homo", or "lesbo", or "trannie" like that. Just shrug, and be puzzled, and know that either you're not, or that there's nothing wrong with it. Imagine if being called a homo had all the impact of someone shouting "You love your mother!" and expecting a reaction other than "yeah, and?".
As I said above, the onus should not be on the victim to decide not to take offence, or to fight back. But, unfortunately, we do not live in an ideal world, with people who know that sexual slurs are inappropriate, inaccurate, and none of their business. An analogy; I would love to live in a world in which I do not expect to be attacked. Since I do not, however, live in that world, I study Krav Maga.
The above video is another way of achieving a similar goal.
I would love to live in a world where no one cast judgement on other people's sexual choices or clothing or anyone else, where it was understood that this was not acceptable. Since I do not live in that world, I want to help strip the word of all meaning, to have everyone understand - particularly younger girls, who may be more vulnerable to internalising such judgements than adults - that they can simply think "I sleep with more people than you deem appropriate, and/or my clothing makes you believe that I sleep with more people than you deem appropriate? And?".
I wish the world would understand that this was unacceptable. However, I feel it will work better to make the word unusable for the current purposes described in this post.
To explain another reason why I wish to make this viewpoint, that 'slut' is not appropriate thing to call people, mainstream, and to strip it from all power, I must explain where the idea of Slutwalks originated.
When a police officer from Toronto went on a routine visit to Osgoode Hall Law School to advise the students on personal safety, little did he know that he would unwittingly inspire a movement that has caught fire across Canada and the US.
"You know, I think we're beating around the bush here," Michael Sanguinetti began, blandly enough, as he addressed the 10 students who turned up for the pep talk. Then he said: "I've been told I'm not supposed to say this – however, women should avoid dressing like sluts in order not to be victimised."
This statement - "women should avoid dressing like sluts in order not to be victimised" - is the problem. It is both inaccurate and dangerous.
It is inaccurate because it makes the assumption that women are raped, or sexually attacked, because of how they dress. The fact of the matter is, that the concept of a stranger raping a woman from lust is so rare as to be a total fiction. Women are commonly raped by people they know - according to the US Department of Justice, 73% of rapes are committed by a non-stranger. Even if they were due to lust, that lust was highly unlikely to have suddenly arisen from a change of clothing. And how likely do you think it was that the decision to rape the person in question came from what they happened to be wearing one day out of however many the perpetrator knew them?
In short, telling women to avoid dressing "sluttily" to prevent or reduce the chance of rape is like telling someone to stay home to reduce accidents. Most accidents occur in the home (quite a few rapes, too - 40%), and it is totally unreasonable to blame someone for not taking that insane level of precaution.
The sad fact is that far too many people believe this deluded and inaccurate viewpoint. One person felt the need to explain the following;
Of course, as I have pointed out above, this advice isn't practical, and nor is it comparable to keeping an iPod hidden. It is impractical because so few rapes occur because of a sudden lust brought on by clothing. It is not comparable to keeping an iPod hidden for the same reason. People are not going to suddenly decide to rape me because the way I dress make them realise I am female or desirable. Rape is not a crime of opportunity in the same way that theft is.
Nor does dressing in a stereotypically sexy way impede my safety - in fact, it would be far easier to run away in a miniskirt, or to injure someone with heels in self-defence (as one fellow Krav Maga student found out a few weeks ago, when a few well-placed kicks punctured her would-be attacker's testicles).
The silly thing is, this young man was so certain that this viewpoint was right that he didn't look at the statistics, or examine the statement. Instead, he assumed that the group of woman involved in the Slutwalk - many of them with personal experience of sexual assault - would be unaware of what the policeman was getting at. This is obviously not the case. We know what he meant. We simply disagree, and find the viewpoint quite dangerous, which is why we want to expose it as the ludicrous fallacy it is.
Why dangerous? Well, firstly, it leads to the idea that women can prevent or reduce the likelihood of sexual attacks by a change of clothing. This blaming of the victim - particularly if it becomes internalised - can be incredibly damaging. Many women who feel that they caused their rape, or could have prevented it, will injure themselves in some way. Some develop eating disorders, and others - including myself - will attempt to disfigure themselves, in order to destroy their looks, which they see as the cause of the attack. Then there's the fact that, if internalised in others, it can negatively affect the chances of a rapist coming to trial, and being found guilty and sentenced appropriately, something that already occurs far too rarely.
Warning: This poem using imagery which is far more triggering and powerful than anything I have written.
The current use of the word 'slut' promotes this viewpoint, as well as the idea that dress and sexual activity is something that it is appropriate for other people to pass judgement on. It isn't. It is, generally speaking, and much like sexual orientation, absolutely none of your fucking business.*
In short, my point is this; to some people, I am a slut. To some people, you are. That women who has had one sexual partner all her life is a slut for sleeping with him before marriage. That girl who has never had sex is a slut for flirting with someone. That girl wearing a mini-skirt, a cleavage and naval-bearing top, and thigh-high boots is a slut, and so is that girl with one button undone to show a bit of chest. That girl with the pierced naval is a slut. That girl who could use a good friend rather than an unasked-for judgement is a slut. That girl who wanted to feel pretty today is a slut.
Not one of them is asking to be raped.
*pun not originally intended, but then noticed, and intentionally kept in.
No comments:
Post a Comment