SlutWalk organizers are given permit, but are fighting for the
right to not to have to use it
What, are they trying to organize IdioticSlutWalk?
The article has been updated to say that they don't need a
permit.
The truth is that women get raped and molested whether or not
they were scantily-clad. There was little difference. The
perpetrators are often people they know and they don't get
'switched on' by the sight of skin, it's premeditated.
We shouldn't perpetrate the myth that covering up can prevent
sexual assault (this much I concede to the organisers), BUT women
cannot dress to attract attention but try to discriminate those who
look and assume what they're thinking.
The organisers and their supporters clamour for the right "to
express our sexuality freely". But does it have to be through
garments, which people use to identity us and which we use to
create identities for ourselves? If you claim you're not a porn
star or streetwalker, don't want people to think you are but dress
like one, what does that make you - an actor, or a hypocrite
("Don't judge me but you're a prude/pervert")?
You're trying to make people negate the showing of skin as a
sign of sexual availability. How can you hope to do that when it's
still used in less-than-savoury industries, when flaunting one's
assets elicits a very primal response? You can fight for whatever
rights you want but you have to exercise them responsibly and bear
out the consequences.
The organisers and feminists should stop at dispelling myths
about crimes against women and the victim-blaming mentality. By
muddling that with the issue of clothing and values, they're only
giving undue credit to that unfounded link.
(I'll post this elsewhere if you think it's more productive to
do so)
