|
|
Post by Crouton on May 16, 2014 17:57:04 GMT -6
But SJ don't you still think it's wrong that SHE was the one to be punished for this? None of this was her fault. Her dress was fine and met the standards of clothing met by the school, yet she was the one punished for the actions of older, probably married men. That's victim blaming at it's finest here. We aren't really arguing that men shouldn't become attracted to the female body, it's the fact that they spoke out about it, they were in the wrong and she's the one who got punished. This is how a society of victim blaming was formed. No wonder our rape culture isn't going away, when people keep blaming the victims. If a girl is raped people will say "oh, but she was wearing a strapless dress". So what? Dresses don't rape people... rapists do. It's the whole problem with this story. The men should have been punished for over-sexualising a young girl at an event where they were supposed to be the mature responsible ones, rather than the girl being punished by being kicked out when she did nothing wrong.
|
|
|
|
Post by sjfaerlind on May 16, 2014 18:52:20 GMT -6
I'm not sure that was interpreted correctly. From Clare's own words in the article: "In her own words, Clare writes that when she got to the prom, held at Shady Grove United Methodist Church in Mechanicsville, "some of the dads who were chaperoning had complained that my dancing was too provocative, and that I was going to cause the young men at the prom to think impure thoughts." It was Clare's boyfriend's interpretation that the chaperones were thinking they couldn't control themselves. That doesn't fit with what Clare herself said about why she was told to leave. I honestly don't know where this idea that men of any age "can't" control themselves in the presence of an attractive woman comes from anyway. Frankly, it's ridiculous! I have more faith in and respect for men than that. Surely to God these men deserve to have the same in themselves.  Seriously, I think we need to change the way we think about sexuality. I think that a person of either sex should be able to walk down the street naked without fear of being molested. I really take an issue with people thinking that anyone who dresses "provocatively" has somehow waived their right to say "no" to sex. Imagine if "no" unequivocally meant "no" for everyone and that not respecting that answer was just not an option. If that was our cultural standard, it wouldn't matter what anybody wore to a party now, would it? And no, it wouldn't matter what anyone wore to a party, and I don't think it should. I choose to remain as clothed as possible at all times, but other women choose to show off cleavage, booty cheeks out of their shorts etc, and there's nothing wrong with that. It just disgusts me that if a woman wants to dress in a manner that shows off her body that all of the sudden she seems to be "asking" for rape, or if she's drunk she's "asking" for rape. America seriously needs to get it's head out of it's butt and realize that no woman is EVER asking for rape and the only time she's asking for sex is if she literally asks for it or if she consents to it. "No" means "no" and that's that. I don't know how Canada is about sexuality, but I know that America is extremely warped. We show violence on TV without an issue, but if a woman shows a tit, it's all of the sudden rated R. Look at the The Walking Dead for instance. There's zombies, death, violence, and no sex. Sure, it has an MA rating, but it's on regular TV. Same with THe Vampire diaries. I can literally watch someone get their throat ripped out on that show, but it's on the CW. If any of those shows had graphic sex and not graphic violence on them, they'd have to be on HBO, Cinemax, or Starz. What is so wrong with the human body that I can watch it get torn to pieces on regular television, but if two people are having consensual sex, it automatically gets moved to subscription based TV? Oh I think our rules for what can and can't be shown on TV are about the same as they are in the USA, or least they are similar. Personally, I think there is an art to dressing in an attractive but also tasteful manner, which is the look I strive for. Though I can say I certainly wouldn't ever walk around with my butt hanging out of my shorts, I think we're in perfect agreement Liv: nobody should be assuming ANYTHING about people who do dress that way. |
|
|
|
Post by sjfaerlind on May 16, 2014 19:02:44 GMT -6
But SJ don't you still think it's wrong that SHE was the one to be punished for this? None of this was her fault. Her dress was fine and met the standards of clothing met by the school, yet she was the one punished for the actions of older, probably married men. That's victim blaming at it's finest here. We aren't really arguing that men shouldn't become attracted to the female body, it's the fact that they spoke out about it, they were in the wrong and she's the one who got punished. This is how a society of victim blaming was formed. No wonder our rape culture isn't going away, when people keep blaming the victims. If a girl is raped people will say "oh, but she was wearing a strapless dress". So what? Dresses don't rape people... rapists do. It's the whole problem with this story. The men should have been punished for over-sexualising a young girl at an event where they were supposed to be the mature responsible ones, rather than the girl being punished by being kicked out when she did nothing wrong. Oh I totally agree with you that she shouldn't have been punished for this!!! It's a societal problem, which is totally not her fault. On the other hand, I'm a mother. If I thought my daughter was in danger because some idiot might assault her, I wouldn't care who was at fault. I'd get her out of there and fast. I wouldn't care what she thought of that either. I'd do it because I'm her mother, I love her and it's my job to protect her until she's old enough to protect herself. It would be far better for her to have a few tears and yell at me for awhile than to have to deal with rape trauma syndrome for the rest of her life. Seriously, I think the only thing we can do about this is educate, educate, educate and keep drilling it into our kids that "no" means "no": no matter what! I think we also need to be careful what we as consumers support in society. |
|
|
|
Post by Crouton on May 16, 2014 19:05:16 GMT -6
It's such a shame that we live in a world where the women have to be "hidden away" to protect themselves rather than just counting on the fact that men are civilised humans and not wild animals.
|
|
|
|
Post by sjfaerlind on May 16, 2014 19:35:03 GMT -6
It's such a shame that we live in a world where the women have to be "hidden away" to protect themselves rather than just counting on the fact that men are civilised humans and not wild animals. Times are changing...albeit slowly. Attitudes toward women were waaay better in my generation compared to the stuff my mother's generation had to put up with. The stuff she tells me about how things were back then makes me shudder to think about. Being sent home from a prom is small potatoes compared to the stories I've heard of things that used to go on in the 1960s through the 1980s. |
|
|
|
Post by Crouton on May 16, 2014 20:10:30 GMT -6
It seems like it's almost getting worse in some countries and better in others. Although, it's not getting better fast enough.
|
|
|
|
Post by sjfaerlind on May 16, 2014 21:18:54 GMT -6
Here I think people are very much aware of the issue of possible sexual harrassment. The only overt, major problem I've ever seen with it in the workplace involved someone who had immigrated here from India... a country not exactly known for having a culture that respects women. Still, there is a definite undercurrent of fear of the human body here too. My daughter came home from kindergarten 2 years ago and solemnly told me that she wasn't allowed to wear her favourite tank top to school because it had spaghetti straps on the shoulders. Good grief! The kid was 5 years old!!!! She certainly wasn't wearing the shirt to be attractive or provocative, she just loved the colour of it. When I hear stuff like this I just roll my eyes and wonder when common sense went out the window.
|
|
|
|
Post by Crouton on May 16, 2014 21:38:49 GMT -6
That's ridiculous, a 5 year old should never have to worry about what they wear.
|
|
|
|
Post by Taliesin on May 17, 2014 8:16:04 GMT -6
Seriously, I think we need to change the way we think about sexuality. I think that a person of either sex should be able to walk down the street naked without fear of being molested. I really take an issue with people thinking that anyone who dresses "provocatively" has somehow waived their right to say "no" to sex. Imagine if "no" unequivocally meant "no" for everyone and that not respecting that answer was just not an option. If that was our cultural standard, it wouldn't matter what anybody wore to a party now, would it? Okay, first of all, I must say that I absolutely agree with everything you and the others have said here, sjfaerlind, but with one small caveat. As a red blooded male, there is no way in holy hell I'm ever going to stop myself from having impure thoughts if I see a woman walking down the street naked (or wearing a strappy dress with bouncy cleavage for that matter). And I wonder if that's partly why society has norms such as... well, "people must wear clothes". Otherwise, blokes probably wouldn't get much done because they're too busy ogling the nude (or half nude) chicks, and the women either because they're too busy laughing at the silly men's silly looking doodies. I just don't think we can realistically hope for a world where there wouldn't be ONE person somewhere who does take "provocative" dress as an invitation to rape. And I'm doubtful that we'll ever have a world where the victim of rape doesn't get the blame for what happened by some unkind soul. I just don't think it's going to happen, given the spectrum of ugly thoughts and biases that human nature is capable of. Yes, many men show great restraint and choose not to act on momentary biological attractions, but there are men who are just as capable of restraining themselves who flagrantly choose not to. And then there are the men AND women out there who will happily kick the victim while they're down, and excuse the actions of a rapist because "the slut had it coming". And these are people we know and dearly love who say things like this about those poor victims. It's downright disturbing. So, yeah, maybe I'm just the worst kind of cynic, but I simply don't believe that any amount of education education education is ever going to eliminate this problem entirely. Like you say, we are biologically programmed to notice certain things, and blokes notice women, and some choose to do the worst things because they insist (wrongly) that women are asking for it just by being women. Should we educate boys from when they're very young how to socialise with and respect the opposite gender? Absolutely. (And it should go both ways really.) Should we throw up our hands in hopelessness and not attempt to do anything about this problem? Of course not. Rape is completely and irrevocably unacceptable, and has no place in society. Ever. I'm really not advocating a defeatist attitude here. I just don't think that there'll ever come a time when rape and blaming victims of rape are a thing of the past. Not with the way we human beings are and always have been. It's a grand dream though, and like all good dreams that are worth having, we should do our damnedest to make that happen. |
|
|
|
Post by sjfaerlind on May 18, 2014 22:39:55 GMT -6
I think you might have missed my point, Tal. I'm not saying that people need to stop themselves from having so-called "impure thoughts". I honestly don't believe that is even possible, instinctive behaviours being what they are and all. I'm trying to suggest that people of both sexes just need to recognize when those thoughts aren't appropriate and practice some self control. I think most people do exactly that. Maybe the criminally insane don't have the impulse control that the rest of us do but then there's a reason those people are held separate from the rest of society. Still, I think there's a segment of the regular population that really still believes that the right to say "no" can be forfeited based on something as ridiculous as the clothing a person chooses to wear. That's a pretty flimsy excuse to justify an unwillingness to practice self control in my opinion. Any parent knows when they hear two little feet hit the floor in the middle of the night that they have about 5 seconds before their bedroom door is going to open. Continuing is just NOT an option at that point. If two people can immediately cease and desist under those circumstances, you won't convince me that others "can't" resist the urge to start something in the first place. As for clothing vs nakedness, it's all in what people get used to seeing and their attitudes toward it. I've never heard that rape was more common in nudist communities for example. One of my relatives actually used to live in one...lol. (BTW, to be clear: I am not advocating that our civilization become nudists or anything... I only picked an extreme example to make a point). |
|
|
|
Post by Taliesin on May 19, 2014 0:30:27 GMT -6
I reread what you wrote, sjfaerlind, and you're right. I think I did miss your point. My apologies! |
|
|
|
Post by Crouton on May 19, 2014 5:14:30 GMT -6
I found this quote relevent to this thread.
"When you send a girl home from school because her shorts or too short, or her clothing is immodest, you are telling her that hiding her body is more important than her education. You are telling her that making sure the boys have a distraction-free learning environment is more important than her education. In a way, you’re telling her that the boys are more entitled to an education than she is, and that isn’t acceptable.
|
|
|
|
Post by TAZ on May 22, 2014 5:46:06 GMT -6
i must be old.....
when i was young, the school uniform skirts were shorter than that....
|
|
|
|
Post by sjfaerlind on May 23, 2014 10:56:58 GMT -6
I found this quote relevent to this thread. "When you send a girl home from school because her shorts or too short, or her clothing is immodest, you are telling her that hiding her body is more important than her education. You are telling her that making sure the boys have a distraction-free learning environment is more important than her education. In a way, you’re telling her that the boys are more entitled to an education than she is, and that isn’t acceptable. Amen sista!!!! Kids get distracted in school (and everywhere else for that matter!) for any number of reasons, yet they learn that they have to concentrate on their work or there will be consequences. We expect them to learn to cope with every other distraction but not when they're sitting in the same room with someone they find attractive? I don't get it. I think the only reason why this is such a big deal is because society made it one. i must be old..... when i was young, the school uniform skirts were shorter than that.... yup...again, it's all what you get used to. My hubby tells me that young men don't need to see skin to get distracted by women anyway. Their fully-clothed presence is enough...lol. |
|
