The Slut Movement - Should it be allowed?

. . . why is the word "loli" on some of your sentences?

Because he's talking to me.

He's on a crusade to root out secular behavior in women. He thinks women can only respect themselves if they dress amish or something.

While I do agree that a significant portion of the types of women who will dress like streetwalkers are usually insecure, you're posting in a thread about the correlation between attire and rape. The facts are the facts, kiddo. Unless a woman explicitly states consent, keep it in your pants. Don't tell me that it's okay to go around 'disrespecting' women because 'clearly their dress implies they don't respect themselves'.

How about I start going around collecting genitals from all guys who wear socks with sandals? Their attire is implying they never want to arouse a woman ever again. They won't be needing their penis.

Incorrect on several accounts, for one, I don't believe dressing in that fashion is secular(ie: Modern) behavior, it's just disgusting. I'll say it again: There's a place for the short corsets and the overly revealing skirts: The bedroom, at best, as far as public consumption goes: A bar or maybe one of those adult porn/prostitution shops.

I have nothing wrong with a woman who reveals herself, infact, it's one of my greater fetishes. I just find that it loses all meaning on every porn video and if it becomes mere public display. I shouldn't have to explain why, right?

It goes back to women being special, and then for the woman's body to be "free for all" to gawk at, well, that's no longer special.



Where did I say it was okay? It is a Natural Social Law, and not only as far as sexuality, how about trying to get a job and going to an interview. What do you think your prospective employeer would think of you, if you dressed like that?

He'd think you're unprofessional, you're not committed to the job, etc. And you'd be told to go home. If you think there's no correlation between attire, appearance and perception, then it's worse than I thought: You're not living in reality, AT ALL.

Oh and BTW, as far as the job example, the same goes for us men. We can't get a job in most fields if we dressed in baggy jeans and a loose T-Shirt. These laws exist for us, just the same.

Rape is a Psychological Crime, wherein the insecure male violates a woman, temporarily relieving him of that same insecurity. How a woman dresses wouldn't necessarily change the factor of the insecure predator. However, it would give off a sense of security and confidence from the woman, which in some cases(not all) would turn away the said insecure predator.

Kidnapping, who kidnaps a grown adult? Few cases Children? Many. Why is that? The psychological insecurity of the kidnapper, and the psychological perception of inferiority of the small child.






I think you mean without socks, because the person who wears socks with sandals doesn't want you to smell his smelly feet. That's what socks are for, to protect the soles of the shoes(in this case, sandals). And while there are some people with a foot fetish, let's get serious, whether you reveal your foot or not is not going to sexually arouse or tempt some insecure pervert of either gender :D.

If you wanted to make this argument, it should've been against men who didn't wear their shirts. But the reason you didn't make the argument is precisely my point:Where do you see men without shirts on? Two places, the beach, or their home.(if not a beach, the swimming pool.)

Very rarely will a male degrade themselves, and the males who do? Those are your prime candidates for rapists.

Except that in almost all cases of dressing what you and other conservative minded people deem "slutty", they're covered enough to legally be in public.

The "whipping dick out" likening doesn't work here. That would be illegal, as would female genitalia showing. If anything, women get the short end of the stick in public dressing laws: we can't show our bare breasts, while men may.

Maybe because men don't have breasts, but rather a chest. Even among the female community, do amuse me if you think that even a buff chest is all that 'attractive'? As a male, when I think about myself coming out of a shower I realize that a masucline body is infinitely inferior to a female's(and I'm bisexual). I just like to put the masquerade that I'm "sexy".

That's why females call males "handsome", not "beautiful".

Also, the excuse that 'they're covered enough legally to be public' is a poor excuse, it's horrible taste in clothing, it's not really admired by the male community outside of the bedroom(except by perverts). It might be legal, but asking the male community to respect such poor taste in clothing is just as disrespectful of our own rights.(Though the male community hardly professes to it's own dignity these days)

As for me? I have a higher sense of quality in what I expect from a woman.

1. That's your opinion.
2. It's also incorrect. I'm not sure what planet you've been living on where men don't like scantily clad women, but it sure as hell isn't this one. There are entire movies based on the premise of scantily clad women.



Firstly, it doesn't make any sense at all that you think it's disrespectful for women to demand respect, because of or despite dressing in a skimpy manner. The average heterosexual male will do pretty much anything to see a naked woman, or nearly naked. You're taking your very anachronistic opinion and pretending it's also the opinion of the majority of men. Which could not be farther from the truth.

Good luck finding your virtuous suburban housewife. O_o

The 'freedom to dress whatever way we choose' is also an opinion, and in my mind it's a flawed one. Yes, you can dress whatever way you choose. But dress in a disrespectful manner and I can't look at a woman like that too highly: No, I don't look at you as a 'sex thing'(everytime I see that public fucking commercial on the bottom of my screen. I get so disgusted, I couldn't possibly contemplate having sex with a person like that.) But fair or not: I don't see that person as 'very smart', and most certainly wouldn't be among my close friends or associates.

Men(including myself) may be a fan of scantily clad women, but if you haven't noticed by the conservative backlash yet, we insist: The bedroom. It's inappropriate anywhere else, actually it borderlines on hideous

There are some very sexy formal gowns that express feminine beauty just fine, while also embarking on a unique concept called 'respecting your body'. You might want to consider such a concept. Your beauty shouldn't compromise your own integrity to yourself.






And, what exactly do we have to blame for the downfall of men? You don't want to hear it, but I'll tell you anyway: The consequent lack of care on the female's part. The 'dressing however we want in public' mentality, the 'casual sex' mentality. If you haven't noticed yet, even a grade school child would say that you're disrespecting yourself.

Males in turn, have made the social 'adjustment'. What's the result? More teenage pregnancies than there ever have been, more declining and impoverished families and children. I find it quite ironic that Margret Sanger promoted this world, to prevent the very things she complained about.

Feminism, had the reverse effect of destroying society's core values. And as for your subtle jab at me, you've got a point: I don't have much expectation for my counry's women. I mean, if your opinion is of the majority....Enough said.

Now, more than ever. I'm thinking of an international relationship, specifically the Asian female community. They haven't yet, decided they should give up everything under some guise of 'freedom'. Rather, the expression of their feminine nature is the true sense of freedom.

As for America, it was nice knowing what my ancestors created. What America is, today, does indeed tempt me to jump off the sinking ship

AHAHAAHHAHAH. Please, ensure you have a basic education before making such remarks.

Men sure as hell have breasts. How else would they have the anatomical parts that make one up, and how would they also be able to have breast cancer?





Lustful, now I just don't get angry over the fallacies you spew: I feel true pity for your ignorance.

I'm sorry, I can't talk to you anymore... it's far too apparent that your opinion has no real place in this era of reality. If you want to move to Asia to find a nice little subservient mouse to mate with and create nice little subservient children bent on completing your sexually repressive crusade.. be my guest. You won't be missed. Good luck trying to foster a relationship with a woman with your grotesquely limiting expectations. You will never truly be able to love someone until you let go of these expectations and embracing a woman's personhood.

I pray for your sake that you find yourself madly in love with a woman who defies your every 'rule', just so you can finally understand what it means to accept a person for who they are, and you can let go of these ridiculous, unrealistic, and foolhardy ideas of what constitutes a decent woman. Times are changing, kid. Those who aren't willing to embrace the future will be mauled to death by it.

Era of reality? Could you be anymore arrogant and delusional? It's an era of failure of epic proportions. A lack of social and sexual appreciation for yourself is the furthest thing from personhood. Upon thinking about your misconception of personhood, it got me thinking about the Creationist VS Evolution debate.

For my part, I can't debate to a certain creator, but no doubt we were created in some way in some intricate, intelligent decision(this world didn't come by through mere chance.) So I wonder: If a creator, or many creators or perhaps, the universe itself created life, what was the purpose of creating the male and female species?

If, we are to adapt "personhood" as a concept, then we thereby defy any sense of masucline or feminine value. The only purpose, could then have been for reproductive purposes. So in other words, while for example Margret Sanger was decrying women being reduced to "reproductive baby making machines"

This artificial world, that she's supported, the world you call an "era of reality" has actually made you into the reproductive baby making machines that you rejected.

This artificial state of "personhood" has made the masucline, once the defender of women into the worst violators and offenders. This too, is your world(Don't accept the 'positives', while rejecting it's negatives).

This artificial state of "personhood" has actually violated your persona and makes humanity into nothing more than mere artificial intelligence. Quite a downgrade from being a Human Being.





Your sad excuse of a 'future', will not be mine. And I imagine that even among the females of the world, there are many who can't see this artificial future of nonexistence as positive. There's nothing foolhardy about a self-respecting woman, who respects herself, her body, the bedroom and the man she chooses to love. Just as there's nothing foolhardy about respecting that woman, her beauty and protecting her.

Want to know what's truly foolhardy? Dressing during an inappropriate time or place(such as the march that this thread is inspired by), bringing attention to yourself, casually treating sex as just a thing. And then having the idiocy to even pretend that type of woman demands respect.

Idiocy doesn't even come close to the amount of sheer stupidity the 'movement' has erected. As I said, with this 'thought' mainstream, America's a sinking ship. And the new 'era of reality' is the captain of that sinking ship.

I would just like to point out, the main idea behind the march was to get people to stop blaming the victim when the comes to rape. I don't see what is so bad about that

Only, the police officer was not blaming the victim at all, nor is anyone else here. I mentioned before how rape is a Psychological Crime, wherein the Rapist is insecure.

Nothing could provoke a rapist more than a woman whose walking alone, late at night, and add to that, wearing loose clothing. Hell, just the walking alone factor is enough, as it regards insecurity.

So, socially, the one way to counter Rape,a psychological crime of insecurity is for the female to feel secure in herself. To dress in a manner consistent with decency for herself. Or, if she's going to dress in a raunchy manner, out late at night, at least go home with several friends. There's strength in numbers.

I shouldn't have to explain any of this, which is the proof of the "new era of reality", this level of thought should be obvious to a competent adult.

With the "Slut Movement" though, I'm heavily overestimating the western adult females and their intelligence.

Where do you come up with such baseless presumptions?! Do you hear yourself?! You're implying that women are helpless. Damsels in distress. You could not be more wrong on that point.



You know absolutely nothing about women. Pretty much everything you say on this topic is just your bullshit opinion. It's not based on fact, it's not based on anything except your presumption that all women are helpless and in dire need of support. You are presuming that these women are 'insecure' and whether you realize it or not, you're just as bad as the people who think rape is the victim's fault for 'inviting it nonverbally'.

Women shouldn't have to adhere to someone else' standard in order to be percieved as 'strong'. Strength does not come from 'dressing sensibly'. If you knew anything at all about this topic, you would know that very few occurances of rape are legitimately attributed to scantily clad women. The majority of rapes are completely random, made against women who could not be more modest and undeserving, and occur at any time, anywhere. Not just dark alleys behind sleazy bars.



This is probably the only sensible thing you've ever said on this subject. It's also just plain common sense.




Intelligence and how a person expresses themself through dress are not even remotely related. I can understand drawing the conclusion 'She's probably not very smart' from a drunk blonde who seems to have lost all motor functions, but the way you carry on, it's apparent that you feel women are the root of all evil. You place so much responsibility on women and none on men. The way you see it, there are no such thing as 'people' it is all 'big strong men' and 'dainty, delicate, dumb women'.

Yes, women should be allowed to dress slutty if they wish (and if it complies with certain laws of the country). For example, since America is supposed to be a "freedom" country, women should be allowed to freely dressed however they want. On the other hand, if they live in a country like North Korea or China they may be looked down upon and not allowed at all.

Also, with freedom calls for great responsibility. Therefore, if a woman dresses slutty then she ought to know the risks associated with that kind of action. And if an establishment (such as a school) forbids them to dress slutty, then they should abide by the rules that is has set for whatever reasons it has (as long as it's just. Such as 'it being distracting to others' and whatnot).

I believe all of this applies to other freedoms as well since I think the above is pretty ambiguous in 'allowing freedoms' boundaries.

Now you're just attacking me, well, as far as arguments go, they say after being attacked, your opponent will finally come to agree with you. I'm not implying 'women are helpless', or anything of the sort. What I am implying, and this is also "common sense", is that men are typically much more physically built than men, much more programmed to be violent through TV, movies, etc.

So of course, if you have a male rapist with a lone individual female, the chances of that female escaping aren't that great. Also, the only thing I implied is the male rapist *IS* insecure, again, this is basic psychology.

A combination of a sexually, emotionally(or hell, even economically) distressed and insecure male, along with a female walking alone vulnerably, and you'd be an idiot to think such a scenario couldn't play itself out.




Yes, Lolikittie, because the criminal is so going to say "I raped her because of her inappropriate dress."(Of course not, that isn't even a plausible defense under insanity laws.). Oh, and it's not my standard, it's the standard of society. To prove the point, I'll ask you this:

You have two males, both are equally respectful and kind, both adhere to your romantic/sexual requirements. One is dirt ass poor, the other is rich. Which one will you choose?

There are some females who would be sympathetic and date the poor guy, but most females would go for the guy who has a much better financial setting(And before you assume, this isn't a bad thing. It's actually a great moral decision on the female's part. It's the poor guy's fault for being poor in the first place.)

The point of my exercise is that those who hold themselves respectfully, are approved. And those who don't, simply fall by the wayside. Don't like it? Tough, that's the way society's been and that's the way it's going to be.

Rape is not a target-specific crime, I don't know where you got the idea that I ever believed that(or insofar as said it or even vaguely implied as such). There is no safeproof way for females to protect themselves from rape, but dressing in a respectful manner is a measure she can take. I'll equate it to skin cancer.

There's absolutely no guarantee sun block is going to save someone from getting skin cancer, but we can take the measure and with that idea of security, we can live our lives.






Please don't replace your theory and beliefs with my own, you're the one who doesn't believe in persona identity(through the social elimination of a female's identity and role in society). I've never said women are the "root of all evil", I've said modern day feminism has distorted what the feminine is, and thereby feminism no longer exists

Intelligence and how a person expresses themselves through dress is intimately related. Even in the above example of a poor person, if that poor person has dignity, even in his situation he'll still try to dress to impress.

Nor do I believe women are daintly and dumb, actually, when it comes to North American women, I'll be honest and say I do. Your Era of Reality is so perverse, so anti-feminist in it's existence that it actually promotes degeneration of the feminine.

You depreciate yourselves so much, yet you don't even realize it. My ideal of a woman is one who is smart, graceful and understanding. She'll be by my side, and I by her's. We'll overcome obstacles together, build a healthy family and hopefully have a long, healthy relationship.

Most men, do not have a plan for their immediate let alone long-term future and they don't look at women as prospective significant others, they look at them as sex toys. If there's anything we men could do, is we need leadership among the male community about respecting a significant other, respecting the woman that we fall in love with.

Unfortunately, should a male go out publically with these views on male and female social interaction, responsibility and the integration of the genders, I have no doubt he would meet opposition similar to yours. So males can't really affect social change, despite our "numbers".


Well, you said it perfectly yourself. This is your "Era of Reality", this sinking ship belongs strictly to the feminist movement now, so it can't strictly be a feminist movement anymore. You'll have to be the ones to encourage males to take responsibility for their decisions, you'll have to reach out to the community.

Or, you could always turn back. It's not too late to reject Sanger's insane drivel and return to a society of self-respect for both genders.

Social elimination of a female's role in society? You sound like the type of guy who feels women belong barefoot in their kitchens baking pies. You need to grow up and realize that personhood and gender roles are not the same thing. Not even close. It's extremely unhealthy and unrealistic to have a static definition of what a woman is. You place no value on freedom or the individual. Your values are not admirable or rooted in any amount of compassion. You are completely fixated on the idea that what you think a woman should be, is how every woman everywhere should be.

For anyone to have such a deeply-rooted and absolute definition of any individual, let alone half of our species... it surpasses questionable and soars right past delusional. It's unhealthy because regardless of your feelings, each person is going to deviate in varying measures from said ideal. I say again, [size=14]you cannot possibly love a woman with these beliefs, because you refuse to accept a person's right to their own honest self-expression and by extension, their own happiness.[/h]



You say this, hiding behind a guise of 'what's morally admirable', but the reality is, you are trying to make your own subjective interpretation of someone else' choices as irrefutable truth - a static ideal for others to adhere to. Rather than attempting to understand anyone's choices, you are claiming that 'if a person looks like this, clearly they're that. Only someone who does this could possibly think this way about themselves'. You completely ignore things like free will or differing taste. I hate to break it to you, junior but your standard of what a self-respecting woman looks like is completely meaningless in the big picture. You cannot possibly know what someone feels until you find out, but you don't want to because in your deluded mind, the person is worthless. Simply for deviating from what you yourself want to see.



I'm just going to point out here that whenever you describe your ideal woman, you use non-physical attributes that are intangible qualities and have absolutely nothing to do with how a woman looks on the outside or conducts herself. Deep inside you know that a woman can be kind, graceful, and strong without looking and behaving like a princess. And, I'm sorry but a healthy relationship is very literally impossible to maintain unless you let go of per-conceived ideals and accept a person for exactly who and what they are.



And here again, you claim that we and we alone are responsible for the whole of this 'degenerating society'. You claim absolutely no responsibility. The truth is, we shape each other and are equally responsible. Men want sex objects? We dress and behave like sex objects. You have completely ignored this fact. As males and females, we are equally responsible for our respective changes in behavior and outlook. As people, however.. we all reserve the right to be who we are, dress in the way that reflects our personal tastes and interests. No one, not even you, reserves the right to limit anyone's, male or female, basic personal freedoms.

Period.

Lustful has truly derailed this thread to the worst degree. Dude: we get that you want a pure, moralistic woman as your future wife, but stop projecting your lack of one onto the entirety of womankind. It's just childish.

On topic, I'm adding some more statistical information to the thread. Rape culture is reality, and the slut movement is wise to challenge it.

Reposting this from the SD thread on rape.


Male or female, these statistics should scare you.

You're incorrect, take away what identifies you as a woman. Let's say your parents barred you from wearing lipstick, any sort of exotic feminine clothing of any sort. After that, what are you? A "person"? Perhaps, but one without a social ethos, identity and thereby a purpose. Our Gender serves, as the rock on which everything else is built on. Our identity is a part of what makes us human, humans. Without it, on what grounds could our society be formulated?

And for the last time, it's not my thoughts. It's the collective society as a whole, it's the survival mechanism humanity has created since the dawn of time. In Paux intellectual-idealism, the 'feminist' ideal is trying to rebel against the organic, systematic societial format.

The result, again, has been the social decline of America and most western societies. To say that I don't place value on freedom or the individual is incorrect. A person can act anyway he/she wants, dress he/she wants. What I've said however is that when acting, dressing, etc. There's a time and a place, there's a standard that both males and females have to uphold.






Am I supposed to suspend logical thought now? If a person attempts to dress respectfully, of course that person has pride in him/herself. Of course, a person could dress in a poor fashion and feel prideful, but does that mean we acknowledge his pride? Out of curiosity, you didn't answer the question I posed to you, because you knew what your answer would be.

Society can say all good things about how "people are different", but in the end we don't accept those differences, we have social expectations that need to be fulfilled to a certain degree and for good reason: Without these expectations, sloth, laziness, corruption and utter filth would permeate our society.




Uh, when one speaks of a morally strong, ethic woman I believe I'm referring extensively to how she conducts herself. Nor do I endorse or believe in controlling a significant other. This is why 'dating' exists, you see Lolli, I'm not of the belief that I should just choose any woman. But rather a woman who fits X-qualities, so that I don't have to go through the trouble of accepting ideals that go contrary to my own. Or even if a woman holds ideals that are radically different from mine, as long as they can relatively fit in our household and our image of a healthy family, why would I oppose?

But you see, with the women in this country I find that relatively impossible. I don't think of heck, the people in this country as any bright. Politically speaking for example, this is a country that hadn't even voted 15% for a third party in decades. Decades! This, as they often complained about how the parties are "all the same".

Tell me, what should I think about this country and the people living in it? I'll admit this: I admire what our Founders created, I admire the aristocracy of centuries past and when I look at my generation, and I see the teenage pregnancy, the rapes, and the lack of care or concern from females such as yourself.

You might think of it as a new era, I think of it as a epic fail of magnificent proportions. To be honest: With my daughters and sons, I would have them look at this past generation and era as an example of what NOT to become.




Incorrect, I said ideally we men should take some leadership and we should demand that males take some kind of pride and sense of responsibility in who they date, how they conduct themselves and especially in a sexual manner. But you yourself said, in respecting the feminine to it's highest levels, that I am a sexist. That means that males cannot appear publically to defend the feminine.

You took the steering wheel of the ship, and you are now the captain. The feminine has longed to be the captain. Well, I'm sad to say there are responsibilities that come with that job. We men would be more than happy to take it back, it fills those of us with dignity a great sense of pride. I, as an Alpha Male in particular would be more than happy to the defend the feminine as well as instill some decent male pride.

If you want us to take some responsibility, let us. Don't take away responsibility and then ask us to take responsibility at the same time. It doesn't work like that.

So getting back on topic from yet ANOTHER dumb derailing.
I can agree with the movement, HOWEVER there needs to be a feeling of sensibility present for what you wear.

People are going to think certain things when people wear particular clothes. Is that assumption true? Not necessarily, but people are going to think so regardless.

As far as it being a rapist's excuse to rape, thats unreasonable that people actually buy that shit.

I'm sorry, Lustful"Angel", but taking away a person's gender identity does not rob them of a purpose or place in society. The fact that you think so just shows how completely out of touch with reality, you really are. Because, by saying that to have no 'defined gender role' is to 'not have a purpose', you are very literally saying that a person's purpose is to fit a sexual role.

You could not be more misguided and out of touch. A person is more than what's between their legs. A person's ultimate purpose has nothing to do with their gender. If I wasn't allowed to be feminine, I wouldn't feel lost. Maybe a little resentful simply because I was being prohibited from something, but any time you prohibit a kid from anything at all, they're going to be resentful.

The future is going to tear down all ideas of gender roles. The future is one of inherent ambiguity. People will define themselves based on how they truly feel. You can either accept this as fact and have a truly fulfilling life, embracing everything at face value, or you can bury your head a little deeper in the sand and go on thinking that it's everyone else who's gone mad.

It saddens me that you're so dismayed at the thought of this future. I hope for your sake that you can one day see the beauty in a truly liberated human race.

Love and compassion care not for boundaries, societal 'norms', or physical limitations. People are people, and people deserve love. Flesh or virtue have no real meaning. You can reject this idea as perverse, but doing so will keep you from ever truly connecting with your race. [Human]