Made rebloggable by request.
I don’t know about “heterophobia,” but I definitely get scared almost every time I come out to a straight person. And I bet if I were not cis, I’d be pretty scared of the extremely high levels of physical violence perpetrated against trans people by cis people, to say nothing of the other kinds of violence and discrimination I would suffer by cis oppression. (Ableism gives me the most trouble. If any of this is offensive for the way I used phobia, I’m sorry and I will change it at request.)
Reverse racism is real, though. With racism, white people oppress people of color. In reverse racism, people of color are oppressed by white people.
I do defend the use of the term misandry, because I think it serves a purpose in illuminating the breadth of feminism, but I often cede that most of the accusations of misandry are sexism by another name, mansplanations, and patriarchal boo-hoos. I should probably just start talking about it in a different way, but I prefer the shorthand of writing misandry over the alternatives.
Trigger warning: rape, slut shaming discussion
One reason the term “slut shaming” so so ridiculous to me is that it’s used predominantly by feminists to create a world where women can wear skimpy clothing without being judged, because it’s’just skin’ and ‘males have it too’, even though last I checked, it’s not socially acceptable for males to go out in public in a mini skirt, stilettos, a see-through shirt, etc..
Being fully realistic, skimpy clothing is not the reason women are raped; rapists are why women are raped. If you take the rapist out of the equation, there is no rape.
However, who is a rapist more likely to target?
Yesssss. Some people actually get it. You, you’re awesome.
This makes me want to throw up. Sexual assault occurs in an alarming matter in the armed forces. These women wear the issued uniform and have access to the best self-defense classes in the world. (Watch “The Invisible War”.) The idea that it is up to a woman to prevent rape is ridiculous.
Basically, you’re blaming the victim saying that she shouldn’t wear skimpy clothes if she doesn’t want to be raped. Hey, rape is defined as sexual assault that is UNwanted.
If I were to dress up in a tight skirt and whatever for a party and I wore those clothes because they flattered my body in a way that made me feel hot and confident. I want to look good when I go out. I am not making my attire invitation for sex. So if I got raped wearing those clothes, would you say it is my fault? Would you call me a slut? Nothing about my sexual history (or really lack of) would indicate so.
Rape is often not about sex but about dominance. Rapists target who they believe to be vulnerable. Rapists take what is not theirs because they think it is entitled to them. Isn’t that insane? Rapists believe that despite refusal or nonresponsiveness, someone’s body or sex is owed to them.
I’m a feminist. And I wear sweats and hoodies half the time. I almost never dress in skimpy clothes and while I think that there is a time and place for certain attire, I don’t think girls who are wearing such clothes are asking to be raped.
I’m going to give you a minute to actually read what I said. I know it’s difficult, and I know it’ll take a moment to process, but
Do you really think that the reason men are expected not to wear mini skirts, stilettos and see-through shirts has anything to do with an expectation of modesty? That would be a whole other feminist conversation.
And the last time I checked (here in America at least) men are the ones allowed to show their nipples in public, because they are clearly drastically different from women’s nipples.There is a double standard, but I don’t think it balances quite the way you describe. I (as a cis guy) can go outside without a shirt, without pants even, and I can feel pretty confident that no one will think I’m a slut. They’ll judge me, sure, but they won’t assume anything about my sexuality simply because I went outside in my underwear. However, if a woman goes outside with her midriff and thighs showing, many of us infer things about her sex life.
Insofar as I can tell, the reason feminists rail against slut shaming is not so that they can afford women some special right to dress without modesty, but so that they will have the same right as men not to have their clothing seen as indicating their openness to sex when really, maybe they just like to wear those clothes.
By the way, I’m not sure if you realized this, but you made a huge mental leap between your first to second paragraphs. You were talking about slut shaming, which is about judging women’s sexual history based on their clothing. In your second paragraph you bring up rape. The connection between slut shaming and rape is tangential, but only directly connected if you subscribe to the ideology that clothing choices bring about rape. Don’t get me wrong, though, your second paragraph is the one I most agree with, I just don’t see why it’s there. I mean, even if a man actually knew a woman’s sexual history, not just inferring from their “skimpy clothing,” it still would not be acceptable to rape her.
As far as your question (which is apparently “not rhetorical,” though it definitely serves a rhetorical purpose, even if you want an actual answer), a rapist is most likely going to rape a person he sees as lacking agency. A person he views as subordinate to his whims, or as someone who ought to be. A person who he devalues because they both exist in a culture where the predominant belief is that slut shaming is ridiculous, because girls ought to cover up, be modest, and all the while consider themselves equal to the shirtless men who walk around without any worry of being “targeted.”