Slut March

So, a Toronto Police Officer told a "personal protection" class not to dress like sluts.  Now the backlash.  We're inundated with idiotic repetition of the mantra that 'Women can dress however they want' in newspapers, TV and radio.  Is it totally lost on the marchers that women's bodies are basically biological instruments that constantly send messages to others?  Is it not the case that dressing 'like a slut' only sends those signals more strongly and the signals specifically suggest sexual readiness?

In this day and age where it is almost impossible to criticize women, it is ALWAYS seen as victim blaming to suggest that a woman's behaviour has anything to do with her risk of rape.  It is ridiculous when it seems that the only thing a woman has to prove in some places is that she had one drink to many to provide consent.  I imagine (or I like to), that most victims of rape did not provoke it in any way in much the same way that most dog bites are unprovoked.  However, a little education (which the cop mishandled mightily) can go a long way in preventing both.

I've lived with big dogs since i was a small boy.  I've learned not to tease dogs through their fences or cages and not to look a nervous dog in the eye.  Maintain a height difference if possible and carefully hold your hand out lower than a dogs mouth to let him sniff you.  Usually, this will avert any aggressive behaviour but it does not always prevent it.

By feminist logic, I have no responsibility for any bites that occur if I wander near a dog park after soaking my clothes in the drippings of prime rib roast.  If I were to do so, it would not excuse the owner if I were to have my legs chewed off by his pit bull.  But, I nobody would ever tell me that it was a smart thing to do. 

In case you're confused about the analogy, the woman is the person soaked in beef juice, the dogs are men's libidos and the dog owners are the men themselves. Yes, each man is responsible for his behaviour and it doesn't matter what the circumstances are.  It is true that a woman could walk down the street with no clothes on whatsoever and that does not give any excuse for rape.  However, it should be acknowledged that said woman is sending a message by dressing (or not) in that manner.  The message clearly is inviting sexual advances. 

It's all well and good to go around saying that women have the right to dress how they please with out facing any consequences.  However, society has become unable to criticize women for any overt sexual behaviour at any age no matter how outrageous lest we provoke the kind of reaction found at the Slut March. (I think we've generally lost the ability to even think critically at all).  The bottom line is that I wouldn't want my daughter (if I had one) dressing like a slut, at least until she's mature enough to understand and deal with the consequences of sending those types of signals.  One point most people miss is that as a father of two boys, I am also concerned that my sons will be receiving such signals from young women before they are able to deal with them.  Nobody wants to acknowledge that aggressive female sexuality can have damaging impact on boys - well, at least nobody would care about that if it were acknowledged.
I find that the current dilution of the definition of rape, becoming synonymous with the broader term sexual assault, along with the campaigns such as the one above are hurting the real victims of rape by trying to include many normal (albeit negative) aspects of sexuality.  I mean, calling it rape when a girl has a few too many drinks and has sex because she is too inebriated to consent to sex is an insult to Kimberly Proctor and other victims of sexual psycopaths.