What do you think of "S***Walks"?

StThomasMore said:

the attitude of "I don't need my husband" is rreally a blaring bad example of the attitude of westernized marriage and what it has become

Click to expand...

You should move out east where they treat the women as women should be treated.

StThomasMore said:

the attitude of "I don't need my husband" is rreally a blaring bad example of the attitude of westernized marriage and what it has become

Click to expand...

So not needing my husband to go to the mall is a bad thing?

You know what, I don't need my husband, I could get by without him. But I WANT my husband. I choose him because I love him and want to make him happy, not because I NEED him. Need implies not having a choice. Sorry you think staying with him because I want to stay with him is a bad thing. I guess you think men are so insecure they have to make women helpless or else they can not keep a wife.

Personally, would much rather be wanted than needed. Being wanted is a testimony in my favor. Being needed may mean nothing more than that the other person is weak. You have to actually be *good,* and a decent person all around, to be wanted. All you need to be needed is to find somebody weaker than you, and exploit their weakness.

Mling said:

Yeah...darn womenfolk with these crazy thoughts that they're....you know...people, with the ability to do stuff on their own. How can those women not realize that they're unable to walk without holding their husband's hands? Do they not notice that, without a strong man by their side, they collapse in a flailing heap of uncontrollable tears?

Click to expand...

Such anger towards the ideal of chivalry in your posts. I guess you prefer women to be thrown out like garbage in the world and treated like sexual objects under the guise of 'independence'. You give the secular elites just what they want.

they obviously collapse in 50% of their marriages. Quite a collapse indeed I would say.

You see, marriage is something that is considering a union between man and woman. Union means one together. The man and woman become one, one unit, with one mind and function. Someone who thinks their independent of their spouse doesn't really understand the concept of what union and the meaning of marriage is in the first place.

If you wanna be independent, don't marry. Considering the westernized concept of independence(which is really just unrestricted indulgence and disregard) is contrary to what the essence of marriage means and is. Hence when the independent ideal is brought within marriages you end up with these high divorce rates, considering their ideals are at odds with how marriage works. A soccer player on a team isn't independent of his other comrades, and if he tries to play by himself he will fail and probably get kicked off the team.

pi_314 said:

Why are only atheists and agnostics responding? I agree with some of the above posts, but still, from a Christian standpoint, a person's sexuality should be kept in the bedroom with their spouse.

Click to expand...

I am afraid you are mistaken; each one of us expresses our sexuality in practically everything we do. Our hair is differentiated, our clothes are differentiated, our behaviour is differentiated; even the way we sit on chairs denotes whether we are male or female.

I think you are mistaking your terms here, therefore.

As for the S Walk, I am all in favour of it, although I would find it a bit tricky to join in myself, because of the word used. Too many people know that I am a Christian, and if I identified with the term used I would regard it as risking bringing my Lord into dishonour, so I would have to stand on the pavement at the side and applaud the ladies instead. I hope that doesn't sound too pompous; it is not easy to put this into words.

Rape is not a sexual crime, but one of domination and power. It has absolutely nothing to do with how women dress, and everything to do with one person wanting to dominate and humiliate another. It is never justified in any circumstances whatever.

CaliforniaSun said:

From a biblical standard, I suppose this protest would be considered sexually immoral.

Click to expand...

Protesting evil is never immoral, as long as it is done peacefully.

citizenthom said:

The statements:

1. Rape is wrong and rapists are responsible for their actions

and

2. Dressing provocatively is correlated with an increased risk of suffering a sexual assault

...are not mutually exclusive, folks.

No, a woman can't act any dang way she pleases if she wants to be as safe as possible from sexual assault, any more than anyone else trying to avoid a crime can. You don't go to certain areas at night if you don't want to get robbed; you don't marry or cohabitate with an abusive person if you don't want to get assaulted; and you don't dress in a way that attracts negative attention to yourself if you don't want to become a target for sexual assault.

And frankly these women who are trying to send the opposite message are horribly irresponsible and should be ashamed of themselves.

Click to expand...

All of which appears innocuous enough, until you realise that these same attitudes are why Islam insists its women wear a veil, and then hijab, and then niquab, and then denies girls an education; bit by bit eroding their humanity to a subhuman status.

It is all complete twaddle. If a man commits rape, he is a rapist, and the woman concerned is his victim. She did not ask for it, deserve it, want it or provoke it. As I said above, rape is not a sexual crime, but one of power and domination. A man is just as likely to want to dominate a respectably dressed woman as one dressed for a party. The clothes have precious little to do with it.

I can indeed dress and behave any way I choose to dress and behave. If any man steals from me, attacks me, or burgles my house, then he is a criminal. Unless we are barbarians living a barbaric life, which we are not, it is as simple as that.

In a civilised country, the victim is not responsible for the crime.

StThomasMore said:

Such anger towards the ideal of chivalry in your posts. I guess you prefer women to be thrown out like garbage in the world and treated like sexual objects under the guise of 'independence'. You give the secular elites just what they want.

they obviously collapse in 50% of their marriages. Quite a collapse indeed I would say.

You see, marriage is something that is considering a union between man and woman. Union means one together. The man and woman become one, one unit, with one mind and function. Someone who thinks their independent of their spouse doesn't really understand the concept of what union and the meaning of marriage is in the first place.

If you wanna be independent, don't marry. Considering the westernized concept of independence(which is really just unrestricted indulgence and disregard) is contrary to what the essence of marriage means and is. Hence when the independent ideal is brought within marriages you end up with these high divorce rates, considering their ideals are at odds with how marriage works. A soccer player on a team isn't independent of his other comrades, and if he tries to play by himself he will fail and probably get kicked off the team.

Click to expand...

Wow! Are you ever bad at guessing!

Rape is generally committed to exercise power over another, not to gratify sexual needs. A rapist is far more likely to target a meek/timid/quiet/submissive woman than a confident one with a "[bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]walk".

Click to expand...

Then why do rapists tend to rape young, healthy, attractive women as opposed to ugly ones?

All this attempt to disguise action on lust as some sort of psychological condition makes me UPSET! WITH THE LOGIC BEING USED!

Verv said:

Then why do rapists tend to rape young, healthy, attractive women as opposed to ugly ones?

All this attempt to disguise action on lust as some sort of psychological condition makes me UPSET! WITH THE LOGIC BEING USED!

Click to expand...

Where did you picj up that particular statistic? Do you know that it is actuqllytrue? Personally, almost every woman I've ever been close to has been raped, and they cover a wide range of attractiveness, by the conventional standards. What they have in common is that they were vulnerable: extremely young, blind, wheelchair-bound and on pain medication that altered her mental state (also, 12 years old), elderly, trusting and caught by surprise. etc.

StThomasMore said:

Such anger towards the ideal of chivalry in your posts. I guess you prefer women to be thrown out like garbage in the world and treated like sexual objects under the guise of 'independence'. You give the secular elites just what they want.

they obviously collapse in 50% of their marriages. Quite a collapse indeed I would say.

You see, marriage is something that is considering a union between man and woman. Union means one together. The man and woman become one, one unit, with one mind and function. Someone who thinks their independent of their spouse doesn't really understand the concept of what union and the meaning of marriage is in the first place.

If you wanna be independent, don't marry. Considering the westernized concept of independence(which is really just unrestricted indulgence and disregard) is contrary to what the essence of marriage means and is. Hence when the independent ideal is brought within marriages you end up with these high divorce rates, considering their ideals are at odds with how marriage works. A soccer player on a team isn't independent of his other comrades, and if he tries to play by himself he will fail and probably get kicked off the team.

Click to expand...

My objection to chivalry is that it restricts behaviors which should be universal to only half the population, and it enforces behaviors which are not actually respectful, as if they are.

Opening doors--simple politeness. I do it for anybody I see coming nearby, and I have no objection when other people do.it for me. But why should it somehow be *extra* polite when one type of person does it for another? I see no reason.

Carrying heavy objects-- if the person actually needs help, it's perfectly polite, but why, again, should it only be encouraged from one type of person to another? Wouldn't the world be better if everybody who is able to help somebody who needs it does so? If the person does *not* need help, it's degrading in a few different ways. It suggests that you think they *ought* to need help, but don't care enough about them as a person to find out if that's actually true. How would you feel if anytime you were doing something, people said or suggested that it's difficult for you, and didn't believe you when you said you were fine. Being "helped" against your will doesn't feel good at all. It feels like you're being called weak, or stupid, or incompetent in some other way.

My objectctions to chivalry follow those two patterns--the parts that are good should not be restricted to just how men treat women. I open doors for anybody who is near me, regardless of age or gender, and I don't object to anybody doing the same. Same with offering help to people who are actually struggling with something.

The parts that are bad are bad bevause they either suggest incompetence, or suggest that the person should not have the right to make their own decisions.

Interdependence can certainly exist among people with the same rights and responsibilities. It simply requires politeness and respect.

pi_314 said:

I was talking about the way the people in the [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]Walks encouraged people to "go sexy".

I have no problem with people protesting the cop's statement, but aside from condemning the acts of rapists or the cop's statement, they also put an "alternate theme" to it. I think its enough to say that "rape is horrible under all circumstances". That message is good enough.

Click to expand...

Yes, you're right, rape under any circumstance is a deplorable and terrible inexcusable act.

But stigmatizing others simply for dressing the way they wish within legal boundaries is also inexcusable.

CaliforniaSun said:

From a biblical standard, I suppose this protest would be considered sexually immoral.

Click to expand...

I think, from a Biblical standpoint, the protests are moral. The protests are largely targeted at people who demean others and treat them socially unjust by stigmatizing them with their own subjective perspective, ultimately a form of sexual discrimination, and from reading the Bible (correctly), sexual discrimination is wrong bc it precludes a certain level of sexual objectification, acknowledging that if a woman wants to feel sexy, people must also sexually objectify her (which is wrong; i can look at a hot, naked woman without sexually objectifying her). It also targets the rapists, who are also sexually objectifying for their own desire for gratification in the form of control and unwanted forced sexual advancement.

[bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]Walks seem to be an appropriate to a ridiculous notion. After all, just because a person dresses a certain way doesn't mean they consent to anything.

There is an underlying issue that I won't discuss, given tight restrictions on discussion of human sexuality in these forums. All I'm going to say is this: legalization and implementation of various institutions might alleviate the problem; and provide a constructive outlet for many members of the population.

I'm definitely not a believer of the you ask to be raped by dressing well, sexually, but there is a thing called respect. I fail to see how a girl walking around nearly naked will be perceived in a favorable manner by many people. From my own personal point of style, I don't want to be the girl a guy looks at and then all he will remember is my great boobs. There's a lot more to me than my body. I know there is a lot more to girls who dress provocatively as well, but come on, let's be obvious here, if a girl is walking around sexually I'm sure a lot of male minds will think of something sexual related than seeing this girl as being someone of a classy standard. That said, I do not place myself in any of a higher state of mind than those girls. I respect everyone but in life the way you act is the way you will perceived. Be it fair or not.

EndlessSerenade said:

I'm definitely not a believer of the you ask to be raped by dressing well, sexually, but there is a thing called respect. I fail to see how a girl walking around nearly naked will be perceived in a favorable manner by many people. From my own personal point of style, I don't want to be the girl a guy looks at and then all he will remember is my great boobs. There's a lot more to me than my body. I know there is a lot more to girls who dress provocatively as well, but come on, let's be obvious here, if a girl is walking around sexually I'm sure a lot of male minds will think of something sexual related than seeing this girl as being someone of a classy standard. That said, I do not place myself in any of a higher state of mind than those girls. I respect everyone but in life the way you act is the way you will perceived. Be it fair or not.

Click to expand...

^^^This, this, this!!! You hit the nail square on the head.

keith99 said:

There is a huge difference between comments and rape (and a lot of middle ground). If a woman dresses like a harlot and hangs out on street corners I'd say she has nothing to complain about if she gets propositioned.

If a harlot gets raped she still has a valid complaint.

Click to expand...

Gérald Tremblay he try to get law against girls that do S** walk. He hear the complaints from people that live near McGill universitet. Then when he try to get the law in counsel, that same people say who is decide what is a S** walk. I think Gérald Tremblay he only try to get political advantage over this.

Lokke said:

Gérald Tremblay he try to get law against girls that do S** walk. He hear the complaints from people that live near McGill universitet. Then when he try to get the law in counsel, that same people say who is decide what is a S** walk. I think Gérald Tremblay he only try to get political advantage over this.

Click to expand...

What?

EndlessSerenade said:

I'm definitely not a believer of the you ask to be raped by dressing well, sexually, but there is a thing called respect. I fail to see how a girl walking around nearly naked will be perceived in a favorable manner by many people. From my own personal point of style, I don't want to be the girl a guy looks at and then all he will remember is my great boobs.

Click to expand...

So what is it that you want to be remembered of you by a guy who merely looks at you?

There's a lot more to me than my body.

Click to expand...

No doubt. But unfortunately all someone else can see of you in this situation is your physical appearance.

I know there is a lot more to girls who dress provocatively as well, but come on, let's be obvious here, if a girl is walking around sexually I'm sure a lot of male minds will think of something sexual related than seeing this girl as being someone of a classy standard.

Click to expand...

And you are willing to bow down to the authority of those superficial men you think so lowly of?

That said, I do not place myself in any of a higher state of mind than those girls. I respect everyone but in life the way you act is the way you will perceived. Be it fair or not.

Click to expand...

I´m not quite getting this. When she is a girl with big boobs or polka dots or whatever, she will be perceived as a girl with big boobs or polka dots or whatever. Everything else you are interpreting into it her appearance is not perception of "the way she acts" but your making.

Is what you are trying to say:
1. people tend to judge a book by its cover.
2. I want to make sure that the cover represents the book accurately, in the assumed association chains of the majority of people?

quatona said:

So what is it that you want to be remembered of you by a guy who merely looks at you?

Click to expand...

I want to be remembered as a girl who looks classy that you can bring home to your parents and be proud of. It's the whole idea of I don't want to just been perceived as a girl who you'll have a good night with then that's that.

quatona said:

No doubt. But unfortunately all someone else can see of you in this situation is your physical appearance.

Click to expand...

Exactly. So you only get one shot to portray yourself a certain way.

quatona said:

And you are willing to bow down to the authority of those superficial men you think so lowly of?

Click to expand...

Firstly I don't think lowly of anyone. Male or female. I respect people and I respect myself. I'm not bowing down to anyone by dressing the way I FEEL like dressing up. I want to dress classy and I don't want to dress skanky. Not because it's wrong or right or whatever. That's just how I feel. I was just pointing out that you will be perceived a certain way ( via a male, a female, a 20 year old or a 70 year old etc) in most likely a sexual manner and that's not really what I want my intention to be. I don't want to come across as a loose individual. Why? Because that's not who I am. Why should I dress skanky when that's not the type of person I am.

quatona said:

I´m not quite getting this. When she is a girl with big boobs or polka dots or whatever, she will be perceived as a girl with big boobs or polka dots or whatever. Everything else you are interpreting into it her appearance is not perception of "the way she acts" but your making.

Is what you are trying to say:
1. people tend to judge a book by its cover.
2. I want to make sure that the cover represents the book accurately, in the assumed association chains of the majority of people?

Click to expand...

Yes correct. But please understand this, I don't dress this way simply for "making sure" of other people, I dress in a bit more classier way because that's what I enjoy as well and that's how I see myself. So it's only natural that I will then dress accordingly.