[dropcap] I[/dropcap] am a man, employed in a high-skill job. I am not rich, but I command a healthy salary. Last night, I dressed in my finest bling, downed 4 glasses of whiskey, and went for a stroll in the roughest parts of my city, alone. I was, of course, stabbed and mugged, and left for dead in an alley – because that’s what happens to drunk flashy idiots who don’t take responsibility for themselves.

Actually, that didn’t happen, because I’m not a moron, and I don’t wander around drunk inviting disaster.

To do so would be the male equivalent of the unfortunately common female behavior of dressing to deliberately attract the sexual attention of men, getting drunk and placing myself in unfamiliar uncontrolled surroundings. Women and girls do this routinely. Girls do this because it is everybody’s right to do whatever they want. Behaving stupidly is everybody’s right, and most of the time, they suffer no worse fate than a hangover. Unfortunately, sometimes, they get raped.

The word “slut” is sometimes used for an insult, and other times as a form of casual praise. Unlike many other insults, slut has a distinct meaning. It does not simply mean “person of bad repute”. It means “sexually irresponsible jackass”.

Self described sluts took to the streets last month to protest a police officer’s tactless, but correct admonition that personal behavior and attire influenced potential bad outcomes from irresponsible behavior. Such as being sexually victimized. The complaint seems to be that an argument in favour of personal responsibility is actually an argument in favor of rape.

Im not making this up. To feminist sluts, an argument for personal responsibility is the same as an argument in favor of rape. Last month, Patrick John Doran wrote an article on this site[1] addressing the Toronto slut walk, and it was featured in the last 24 hours on a feminist facebook page. http://www.facebook.com/pages/SlutWalk-Hamilton/215516551797309

It attracted a torrent of moronic vitriol from feminists, incensed that anybody should say a bad word about parading around for the right to dress like fools and never taste a hint of personal responsibility. I’ll offer the definition of slut again, this time from a dictionary: “a dirty, slovenly, or untidy woman”

[quote float=”right”]I regard my own definition of slut as more accurate and modern. A sexually irresponsible jackass.[/quote]

In truth, the practice of women dressing in “sluttish” attire outside the context of parades through Toronto’s downtown, is purposeful. A woman dressing in a deliberately sexually provocative style is flaunting her sexual power over men. She is saying, in a language older than any spoken or written:

“I am an object of sexual desire, and I am a person of protected status”

Except, sometimes, if she’s exceptionally stupid, drunk, alone, she might discover that social convention against sexual victimization breaks down under the influence of drugs, alcohol, and provocation.

Dressing provocatively, provokes a reaction. Sometimes not a good one. Certainly, nobody deserves to be raped, and everybody has the “right” to dress however they please, but if we’re not moronic children, we understand personal responsibility for the situations we find ourselves in.

Feminists, according to the Facebook site which delivered so much traffic today to AVFM claim they want to “take-back” the word slut. To erase the negative connotation, and put a positive shine on acting like a sexually irresponsible jackass.

I support them. I think they should also reclaim another traditionally negative word.


[1] The Slutwalk Revelations by Patrick John Doran

[button bg_color=”red” text=”dark”]Addendum[/button]

A link to this article was posted on /r/mensrights by AVFM’s founder and editor, Paul Elam, and unsurprisingly, a lively discussion ensued in the comment thread of the posting.

As the author of this article, what did surprise me was that much of the debate barely touched on the substance of this article’s content, but focused on my use of apparently rough language.

To quote: “I agree with the spirit of the article… however, the language put me off a bit. When I see good, thought-provoking articles, I like to put them on facebook for my friends and family to see. It would be easy for people to interpret this negatively. More mature language would definitely drive the point home better.”

Seriously? People are worried about my immature language? Women are the majority of registered and active voters, and they control 65% of disposable income, and rather than protest illegal wars, or child abuse by the catholic church, or 60 years of genocide in Palestine, they protest a cop’s slightly impolite advice to take personal responsibility for personal safety?

And when I write about this in less-than-polite language, the problem is not the content but the language?

Here’s some language: Fuck you, idiotic hypocrites, your priorities are quite obviously fucked.

The article is about 585 words.
“moron” and “moronic” appear in the article 4 times.
“idiots” appears once.
“Asshole” does not appear.
“shit” and “bullshit” do not appear.
“cuntpickle” does not appear.
“fuck” did not appear, until I added it, now it shows up 3 times.

Thank you for your kind attention.

Publishers addendum: Fuck your friends and family. If they cannot handle this article, they are part of the problem.

Recommended Content

Skip to toolbar