Does being sexually open mean you give up your rights?

gargleblaster

Let's say I've posed nude for pictures. Let's say those pictures aren't for boyfriend/girlfriend type sharing but professionally shot or painted and r-rated versions are shared or sold by the artist - or have been published by myself for whatever reason.

Does this mean I've given up my right not to be treated with respect and consideration?

If I am a sexually open person, does this mean that I have no right to complain if people treat me in a way which shows they aren't taking my thoughts or feelings as a person into account? Does it give them the right to treat me as if the publicly visible side of my sexuality is all that matters, and not treat me as an equal?

Just curious because it does seem that that is what many people think. I think that whatever a person decides to share about themselves sexually, that that in no way grants strangers some special permission to treat them any differently than they would anyone else.

zeusnero

I think to a certain degree it's in the eye of the beholder - certainly there will be a percentage of people that will characterise a person who poses for R-Rated shots as being somewhat slutty, though the tastefulness of the shots will have an impact on the degree.

If someone is willing to put their sexual persona out there in the public domain, then they've got to be prepared for the consequences - and though it most certainly does not mean that strangers have special permission to treat the person in question any differently, in reality, given the society we live in, not expecting the occasional smart arse comment would be wishful thinking.

sambuka41

gargleblaster wrote: »

Let's say I've posed nude for pictures. Let's say those pictures aren't for boyfriend/girlfriend type sharing but professionally shot or painted and r-rated versions are shared or sold by the artist - or have been published by myself for whatever reason.

Does this mean I've given up my right not to be treated with respect and consideration?

If I am a sexually open person, does this mean that I have no right to complain if people treat me in a way which shows they aren't taking my thoughts or feelings as a person into account? Does it give them the right to treat me as if the publicly visible side of my sexuality is all that matters, and not treat me as an equal?

Just curious because it does seem that that is what many people think. I think that whatever a person decides to share about themselves sexually, that that in no way grants strangers some special permission to treat them any differently than they would anyone else.

How are you being treated different? Its a fact that what we put out there about ourselves, for the most part will define how people see us. If your open about your pictures and they are something your proud of, it is an aspect of how you are perceived socially so it will impact how people interact with you. And Ireland is still a little stuck in the past

Ickle Magoo

I don't think it does mean you give up your rights per say - but I think it means you have to be prepared to be judged for it.

Women seem to be constantly bombarded with evidence that sexual liberation has been found and shouldn't we all be delighted with the equality of it all - in tandem with being made all too aware that it still functions as a stick to beat with if needs be.

gargleblaster

Yes, I'm under no illusions that we're living in an ideal world or anything.

I was more wondering if anyone thought it was right or fair for people to treat strangers differently, based on that excuse - as opposed to simply observing that it will happen, given the state of things.

Morag

It's not right.
There is a difference in being open and interested in sex and sexuality and being promiscuous most dont' under stand that.
Just because a person has posed for a few riské photos does not mean they should be treated like a sex object.

It's the madonna/whore issue again.

metrovelvet

gargleblaster wrote: »

Let's say I've posed nude for pictures. Let's say those pictures aren't for boyfriend/girlfriend type sharing but professionally shot or painted and r-rated versions are shared or sold by the artist - or have been published by myself for whatever reason.

Does this mean I've given up my right not to be treated with respect and consideration?

If I am a sexually open person, does this mean that I have no right to complain if people treat me in a way which shows they aren't taking my thoughts or feelings as a person into account? Does it give them the right to treat me as if the publicly visible side of my sexuality is all that matters, and not treat me as an equal?

Just curious because it does seem that that is what many people think. I think that whatever a person decides to share about themselves sexually, that that in no way grants strangers some special permission to treat them any differently than they would anyone else.

Being sexually open and becoming a public figure are two different things.

saa

Maybe the phrase a right makes this a little difficult as a right is not actualized and implemented by the actions of others, so disregard that.

You can do this regardless of the judgements made by others, it is legal but that does not mean that you won't be stigmatised by others.

I don't like the fact people will treat me differently for one thing thats happened to me or I have done, to say I am a certain kind of person.


I think by doing or being anything you will give up the possibility of not being judged or treated differently by others because much of this is not logical or fair but there are always ignorant people and nothing can be done for them disagreeing with your choices.

I know you've said you're aware that we're not striving for some utopia.
People don't have to treat you fairly (they should) or respect you but they have to respect your right to do something legal and their judgements should not stop you, if they make you feel bad then its just a case of brushing that off and avoiding ignorant folk

gargleblaster

Yes, using the word 'right' doesn't really fit. Poor word choice on my part.

And yes people are often treated with double standards, and some people can be judgmental. I think the line is crossed when that kind of thinking crosses over into action. Giving your opinion in a discussion is all well and good, but it's using your opinion as an excuse to treat someone differently that I wonder about.

Most would be more cautious with their posessions around sneak thieves - and I think very few would find fault with anyone for that or for other variations on that more 'common sense' kind of theme - but when it comes to someone's sexuality and how someone treats them, that's what I'm more interested in. Maybe someone can justify treating strangers differently because of this. As of now I don't see any justification that would make it seem acceptable to me personally to do that.

I think it's reasonable to label that behavior as bad or wrong while acknowledging that it's still widespread. I'm curious as to whether there is anyone at least in this forum who thinks this stuff isn't bad or that it isn't wrong, and if so maybe they could explain how it makes sense.



metrovelvet - I'm curious about how being a public figure fits into this discussion - could you expand on that please?

metrovelvet

Because your first example is about professionally released photographs. When you do that, you are becoming a public figure, much like models and actors do, and being open to critcisim is part and parcel of that practise.

whydoibother?

The thing is nobody really has a general "right" to be treated with respect and consideration. It's a social rule that most people hopefully choose to abide by, but as long as I'm not breaking a specific law where I'm required to respect something in particular, I don't have to "respect" anybody. Same goes for consideration. As long as I'm not doing anything illegal, I'm under no obligation to be thoughtful towards anyone. I often choose to do both, because that's how I would like others to treat me and I think it's nice, but I don't have to.

However, some people, when they see that someone else has put themselves in a vulnerable position, and that there is a lot of merriment to be had with it, will abandon normal social rules, to take full advantage. They may be being nasty, but they can't always be stopped. I know you've already said that "right" wasn't the word, but it's the same idea. It's all to do with the idea that you're justified in expecting others to treat you in a particular way. In reality, people are fickle.

gargleblaster

metrovelvet wrote: »

Because your first example is about professionally released photographs. When you do that, you are becoming a public figure, much like models and actors do, and being open to critcisim is part and parcel of that practise.

I see. Yes, I wasn't referring to public criticism. Just personal, one-to-one interactions.


And yes, whydoibother, I do realize that nobody has a right, as you said I've acknowledged the poor word choice there. Nor do I think anyone is legally bound to behave in an ethical manner. Like I said I was only interested in whether anyone would say such actions are justified somehow. I do understand nastiness can't be stopped - I was only curious if anyone actually thought that doing it was fair or right.

Morag

Being open about sex and sexuality doesn't mean a person has no morals, is promiscuous or wants to be treated as a sex object. Unfortunately this distinction is one which many people fail to grasp.

whydoibother?

gargleblaster wrote: »

And yes, whydoibother, I do realize that nobody has a right, as you said I've acknowledged the poor word choice there. Nor do I think anyone is legally bound to behave in an ethical manner. Like I said I was only interested in whether anyone would say such actions are justified somehow. I do understand nastiness can't be stopped - I was only curious if anyone actually thought that doing it was fair or right.

I think my point though, leaving rights out of it, is that everybody makes up their own moral standards, so whether it's justified or not is an impossible question.

For me personally, I generally wouldn't think less of someone for being sexually open. I would think less of someone if they sold the photos for example, or if there was a commercial element. While the first example could be considered art, albeit art that I don't particularly appreciate, the second, for me, is cheapened in some way.

But my point is that as there is no fixed standard when it comes to social rules, so the person who's photos are taken would be naive to think that others will be as accepting of openness as they are. I don't know therefore if they can feel wronged if others who are entitled to react any way they like almost, react negatively. I'm not saying the person shouldn't do it, they should just evaluate whether they have a thick enough skin first.

gargleblaster

whydoibother? wrote: »

I think my point though, leaving rights out of it, is that everybody makes up their own moral standards, so whether it's justified or not is an impossible question.

Yes, everyone makes up their own moral standards, but my issue isn't with moral standards. Oliver Wendell Holmes said, "The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins." In that same vein, I think that other people's rights to have moral standards ends where they start personally interacting with me as a stranger. (Within reason, e.g. the sneak thief example above.) I have no problems with people's thoughts about whatever other people do, it's their actions that concern me.

For me personally, I generally wouldn't think less of someone for being sexually open. I would think less of someone if they sold the photos for example, or if there was a commercial element. While the first example could be considered art, albeit art that I don't particularly appreciate, the second, for me, is cheapened in some way.

That's a whole other kettle of fish, though.

But my point is that as there is no fixed standard when it comes to social rules, so the person who's photos are taken would be naive to think that others will be as accepting of openness as they are. I don't know therefore if they can feel wronged if others who are entitled to react any way they like almost, react negatively. I'm not saying the person shouldn't do it, they should just evaluate whether they have a thick enough skin first.

Here we disagree. Social norms do change, so in that way they aren't fixed, but norms are what they are due to the way the majority of people in any group view them.

I have no idea what the norm is as regards taking the pictures at all, or selling them - wouldn't even want to try to guess.

I did think, however, that treating a stranger differently based on such actions would be viewed as wrong and bad by most. That's why I asked, because I thought I had some idea about what the majority view was, and I'm curious to know what others think.

whydoibother?

gargleblaster wrote: »

I did think, however, that treating a stranger differently based on such actions would be viewed as wrong and bad by most. That's why I asked, because I thought I had some idea about what the majority view was, and I'm curious to know what others think.

I think I need to know what you mean by treating differently. I interpreted it quite broadly - I would classify merely privately losing respect for somebody in your own head as treating them differently. I wouldn't apologize to anyone for my thoughts. But maybe we have different ideas about what treating differently is. Maybe you have a higher threshold. If you're talking about actively hurling some sort of vile abuse at somebody, that's a very different matter altogether.

sambuka41

gargleblaster wrote: »

Yes, everyone makes up their own moral standards, but my issue isn't with moral standards. Oliver Wendell Holmes said, "The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins."

I have no problems with people's thoughts about whatever other people do, it's their actions that concern me.

I did think, however, that treating a stranger differently based on such actions would be viewed as wrong and bad by most. That's why I asked, because I thought I had some idea about what the majority view was, and I'm curious to know what others think.

I guess it depends on what you mean by their actions? What have people done?

There are plenty of people who have opinions, ideas, beliefs that I don't agree with out there and as a result i would probably treat them differently than those who I do agree with. Not hurtfully but different.

People can be very conservative about sexuality, esp in Ireland, some don't even like discussing it. So they may well disagree with what you have done, but won't even want to discuss it with you.

gargleblaster

whydoibother? wrote: »

I think I need to know what you mean by treating differently. I interpreted it quite broadly - I would classify merely privately losing respect for somebody in your own head as treating them differently. I wouldn't apologize to anyone for my thoughts. But maybe we have different ideas about what treating differently is. Maybe you have a higher threshold. If you're talking about actively hurling some sort of vile abuse at somebody, that's a very different matter altogether.

I don't want to get too specific as I think it unnecessarily limits the discussion. As for me, I would classify losing respect for someone as thinking differently of them as opposed to treating them differently.

It doesn't even have to be as obviously bad as vile abuse. Just using their sexuality as if your interpreatation of it grants you permission to treat them differently.

Here's a scenario. Let's say there's a woman who poses for certain magazines. Let's say someone happens to see that woman while out at a club. She's out on the dancefloor doing her thing. Does her having posed for such a magazine mean that that someone can think it's perfectly acceptable socially to walk up to her and start making lewd comments? (And again, I'm not saying it would be unpredictable or that it would be something she shouldn't expect - she should of course.)

This is an extreme example, but whether the variables are raised or lowered in severity, the same principle applies, I would think.

gargleblaster

sambuka41 wrote: »

I guess it depends on what you mean by their actions? What have people done?

There are plenty of people who have opinions, ideas, beliefs that I don't agree with out there and as a result i would probably treat them differently than those who I do agree with. Not hurtfully but different.

People can be very conservative about sexuality, esp in Ireland, some don't even like discussing it. So they may well disagree with what you have done, but won't even want to discuss it with you.

This isn't based on anything that has happened to me personally. I live in America, and I'm quite proud of the things I've done in this regard. I did have one incident where I experienced some indirect abuse from someone I considered a friend, and that did get to me. Other than that I've had no issues. I've had vile comments made and heard many compliments as well but that's not the point.

The point is more about what society considers acceptable when it comes to how people are treated - to make it personal - if someone had seen any pictures of me, does that make it socially acceptable for them to treat me as if I had asked to be viewed as a sex object first and foremost, as opposed to just another human being, an equal to themselves?

sambuka41

gargleblaster wrote: »

The point is more about what society considers acceptable when it comes to how people are treated - to make it personal - if someone had seen any pictures of me, does that make it socially acceptable for them to treat me as if I had asked to be viewed as a sex object first and foremost, as opposed to just another human being, an equal to themselves?

I think its very difficult to quantify the level of social acceptability with regards to how others perceive us. There is such a range, it becomes not acceptable when someone is overtly offensive (calling names, or their behaviour is over the top) but even then there is a level of subjectivity involved, as what is offensive to some is not to others.

You can't control how other people will perceive you. It used to really bother me when I was younger if I thought someone was misunderstanding where I was coming from or who I was. But really there is no controlling that. And it does say a lot about people and their own issues, depending on how they quantify you.

It seems to be the intricacies of human interaction.

Monty Burnz

gargleblaster wrote: »

if someone had seen any pictures of me, does that make it socially acceptable for them to treat me as if I had asked to be viewed as a sex object first and foremost, as opposed to just another human being, an equal to themselves?

Are you asking whether, having portrayed yourself as a sexually open person, is it fair that people perceive you as a sexually open person?

gargleblaster

sambuka41 wrote: »

I think its very difficult to quantify the level of social acceptability with regards to how others perceive us. There is such a range, it becomes not acceptable when someone is overtly offensive (calling names, or their behaviour is over the top) but even then there is a level of subjectivity involved, as what is offensive to some is not to others.

Well we're not talking about perceptions, but actions.

So I'm understanding that your opinion is that it's unacceptable when someone uses those perceptions to call you names, or for over-the-top behavior. I would tend to agree.

It's true that people have differing levels of what they consider offensive. However it seems to me that, as a society, we generally base the definition of what is offensive on the perception of the action by the offended, as opposed to the intention of the speaker.


And Monty, no. That is not what I mean. If you read over the thread you might get a better idea.

Monty Burnz

gargleblaster wrote: »

It's true that people have differing levels of what they consider offensive. However it seems to me that, as a society, we generally base the definition of what is offensive on the perception of the action by the offended, as opposed to the intention of the speaker.

I'm not sure that makes sense to be honest - it works in some cases, it doesn't in others. Another area with no hard and fast rules, I suppose.

gargleblaster wrote: »

And Monty, no. That is not what I mean. If you read over the thread you might get a better idea.

I read it. I'm guessing it was inspired to some degree by the discussion in the A&A forum? I was just trying to reduce it to a simpler level, obviously with some loss of nuance.

Fluorescence

It's not fair, but in many ways you're deemed a lesser person by society if you do. People in pornos are nothing more than shagging animals, slutty women can't be raped, and someone who posed for a nudey picture can't be outraged when all people associate with them for the rest of time is that photo. All bullshit of course and none of it true, but society seeks to liberate you with one hand (lest you be named frigid and dull) and condemns you with the other for being liberated. You can be a nun or a slapper and there's no in-between :rolleyes:. If you're sexually open you'll be judged for it and if you keep your legs clamped shut always you'll be judged for that too.

All you can do is make decisions in full knowledge of the likely consequences and consider your ability to live with them. It's unfortunate that no matter what you do or how you conduct, you'll always be judged for something.

gargleblaster

Monty Burnz wrote: »

I'm not sure that makes sense to be honest - it works in some cases, it doesn't in others. Another area with no hard and fast rules, I suppose.

Well here again, we're talking about societal rules.

To go back to my example above: Few people would say it's fine to walk up to a woman you don't know in a club, and start making lewd comments to her. So why would that be any different for a woman who had posed nude in magazines? The person approaching her doesn't know her, she doesn't know him, and there's no reason for him to think that this would be acceptable based on societal norms.

Now of course like I said it does happen, and she would expect such rude behavior because we can't expect that everyone will follow the rules laid down by society. My only question is - would anyone say that it actually wasn't rude, wrong, bad, etc? And if so, why not?

Of course its rude and ignorant to make unwanted and uninvited lewd comment to a woman, its dose't make any difference if the woman is sexually open or not and I doubt if you are going go get someone on here and saying that it is okay to make lewd comment to woman they didn't know just because she was sexually open.

We don't have though police so you can't stop people thinking what they want, its only our actions that can be judged not our thoughts.

Monty Burnz

gargleblaster wrote: »

Few people would say it's fine to walk up to a woman you don't know in a club, and start making lewd comments to her. So why would that be any different for a woman who had posed nude in magazines?

I don't see any difference - neither would be acceptable.

strobe

gargleblaster wrote: »

Yes, using the word 'right' doesn't really fit. Poor word choice on my part.

And yes people are often treated with double standards, and some people can be judgmental. I think the line is crossed when that kind of thinking crosses over into action. Giving your opinion in a discussion is all well and good, but it's using your opinion as an excuse to treat someone differently that I wonder about.

Most would be more cautious with their posessions around sneak thieves - and I think very few would find fault with anyone for that or for other variations on that more 'common sense' kind of theme - but when it comes to someone's sexuality and how someone treats them, that's what I'm more interested in. Maybe someone can justify treating strangers differently because of this. As of now I don't see any justification that would make it seem acceptable to me personally to do that.

I think it's reasonable to label that behavior as bad or wrong while acknowledging that it's still widespread. I'm curious as to whether there is anyone at least in this forum who thinks this stuff isn't bad or that it isn't wrong, and if so maybe they could explain how it makes sense.

I don't think it's a black and white question really Gargle. If there were two people, one a famous porn star and the other was Mary Whitehouse. Do I think it would be a terrible thing if I was to avoid mentioning anything of a sexual nature at all in Mary's presence knowing she would probably take huge offense to it, but was to tell a somewhat crude sexuality based joke in the porn stars presence knowing she would probably not bat an eyelid, I am treating the two of them differently based on what they put out in the public domain. Is that wrong? I don't believe so, personally.

If Mary was to have directed a made for TV erotic drama during the period she was campaigning to 'clean up TV', I would probably have felt she was being somewhat hypocritical.

This is an extreme example, but whether the variables are raised or lowered in severity, the same principle applies, I would think.

See my above post for why I believe it becomes a somewhat grey rather than black and white question when you go from talking about extremes to variable severity and applying a principle in unalterable broad brush strokes.

gargleblaster

strobe wrote: »

I don't think it's a black and white question really Gargle. If there were two people, one a famous porn star and the other was Mary Whitehouse. Do I think it would be a terrible thing if I was to avoid mentioning anything of a sexual nature at all in Mary's presence knowing she would probably take huge offense to it, but was to tell a somewhat crude sexuality based joke in the porn stars presence knowing she would probably not bat an eyelid, I am treating the two of them differently based on what they put out in the public domain. Is that wrong? I don't believe so, personally.

If Mary was to have directed a made for TV erotic drama during the period she was campaigning to 'clean up TV', I would probably have felt she was being somewhat hypocritical.



See my above post for why I believe it becomes a somewhat grey rather than black and white question when you go from talking about extremes to variable severity and applying a principle in unalterable broad brush strokes.

You're right, it's not black and white, but I notice that in your example, it's not a personal interaction between you and the other person, it's a group situation, and telling a joke isn't such a personal interaction as approaching them on a one-to-one basis.

It makes perfect sense that you could make some assumptions about what kind of jokes it would more than likely be acceptable to tell around certain people, based on what you know about them already.

The difference is to what degree the type of interaction depends on the person being a stranger to you. Telling a joke is something we can do around people we don't know, and knowing your audience is of course important in that situation.

Approaching them personally is rather a different matter, I'd say.

strobe

gargleblaster wrote: »

You're right, it's not black and white, but I notice that in your example, it's not a personal interaction between you and the other person, it's a group situation, and telling a joke isn't such a personal interaction as approaching them on a one-to-one basis.

It makes perfect sense that you could make some assumptions about what kind of jokes it would more than likely be acceptable to tell around certain people, based on what you know about them already.

The difference is to what degree the type of interaction depends on the person being a stranger to you. Telling a joke is something we can do around people we don't know, and knowing your audience is of course important in that situation.

Approaching them personally is rather a different matter, I'd say.

That's a fair point. But similarly I would hold the same opinion if I was to swap telling jokes for 'hitting on' (uggh) them. I would presume the porn star would be less likely to view being come on to negatively than Mary would. I may make a pass at the porn star (probably not actually but I'm locked into my examples at this stage) but I definitely wouldn't make a pass at Mary (even if in this hypothetical she looked identical to the other one) because I don't think it would be unreasonable (or wrong or horrible) to presume that the porn star would be more comfortable with it than Mrs Whitehouse would.

...if that makes sense?

Chuchoter

If you pose in what I'm presuming are pornographic (ie not tasteful nude type stuff) pictures, of course there are going to be repercussions. You step outside a social norm, there are consequences. To be honest, if you sell pictures of yourself naked, I think you can expect to be treated as a sex object. You've made yourself into one.

Morag

It doesn't have to be pictures, writing about sex and sexuality or it being known that you have an interest in sex and sexuality can be enough for a lot of people to jump to certain conclusions and treat you with a lack of respect and then blame you for their assumptions and actions.

lace

Personally, I wouldn't treat someone differently because they had been sexually open (whether that be by writing about sex, posing for photos, posing for paintings etc.).

However, I'm finding it difficult to decide whether it's "okay" for others to choose to treat such people differently or not.

For example - if someone goes out and does something positive for their community (let's say charity work) then it's taken that people may treat them differently by praising them, being extra kind etc. If someone goes out and does something negative for their community (let's say robbing a house) then it's a given that people will also treat them differently by shunning then/avoiding them etc.

I know these are broad, generalised and over-simplified examples but my point is that they are black and white because they are issues on which there is a general moral concensus - helping people = good, stealing = bad.

Where it gets difficult for me is around matters where society doesn't always agree. For example - I may find a sex column in my local newspaper interesting whereas my grandmother would find it downright offensive.

I know that when I've felt personally offended by someone (let's say a guy in a club calls me ugly) I have treated them differently. I have remembered what they did to offend me. I have avoided them and thrown the odd dirty look.

If my grandmother feels offended (as she so often does) by women posing on page 3 she is vocal about it and I have no doubt that if she were to see someone she knew on there she would be throwing dirty looks in Tesco the next day.

This doesn't mean she's necessarily right to feel the way she does or to act on it. But she is entitled to.

People who are sexually open in the public domain (public exhibitions, published pictures, articles etc) do so knowing that their sexual openness can now be accessed by the general public and that the general public do not always have the same general morals and values.

As for the issue of men in clubs and lewd comments - I've never had a naked picture or sex blog but I've received countless strings of lewd comments in clubs and pubs. It's sad to say but some men (just a few) view women as sexual objects anyway and a woman simply being in a club, dressed up and dancing, is reason enough to make a grab or slur a comment. It's not reserved for women who are sexually open.

gargleblaster

Excellent points, lace.

lace wrote: »

As for the issue of men in clubs and lewd comments - I've never had a naked picture or sex blog but I've received countless strings of lewd comments in clubs and pubs. It's sad to say but some men (just a few) view women as sexual objects anyway and a woman simply being in a club, dressed up and dancing, is reason enough to make a grab or slur a comment. It's not reserved for women who are sexually open.

This, I'd say, points to the crux of it. Access to women as potential sex partners is just expected, especially in such situations. Those few men are very obvious and rude about it, but the undercurrent in society is always there, and leads to all kinds of uncomfortable situations.

I only used the pictures as an example, and it also doesn't apply to simply being at a club. As Sharrow said, the merest hint of sexuality is enough to open the door to such treatment. I also like how fluorescence put it - you're either a nun or a slapper.

Monty Burnz

gargleblaster wrote: »

I also like how fluorescence put it - you're either a nun or a slapper.

According to whom?

Fluorescence

Monty Burnz wrote: »

According to whom?

The general public, I suppose. We're very quick to box people into very clear-cut categories as a society. For example, say a girl is in a nightclub ordering drinks when a total stranger comes up to her and starts feeling her up. If she lets him, she's easy, not to mention a slut; if she slaps his hand away and reprimands him she needs to loosen up and stop being such a dry-schite ("it was just a bit of fun :rolleyes:"). Do you see what I mean?

So, if someone has ever been in a porno or posed for a nudey photo, somehow that makes it more socially acceptable to treat them in an overly sexualised manner. Sure, they can't complain, can they? They had it coming! The same way that the girl who's always off having ONS had it coming when she got raped - it was her own fault for being so sexually available.

It's all bullshit, but you'd be really surprised (disgusted?) to learn just how many people subconsciously believe this.

Monty Burnz

fluorescence wrote: »

The general public, I suppose. We're very quick to box people into very clear-cut categories as a society. For example, say a girl is in a nightclub ordering drinks when a total stranger comes up to her and starts feeling her up.

I've never done this in my life, so I can't relate to to it. Maybe I'm not the the general public? I have had my ass pinched by women in pubs though.

rainbow kirby

Monty Burnz wrote: »

I've never done this in my life, so I can't relate to to it. Maybe I'm not the the general public? I have had my ass pinched by women in pubs though.

Just because you can't relate to it, doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

Monty Burnz

rainbow kirby wrote: »

Just because you can't relate to it, doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

I didn't deny that it happens. I just stated that it has happened to me!

Morag

Historically and culturally promiscuous women are seen and treated as being of lesser worth. A woman who talks about sex/sexuality (even in generic/general terms rather then personally) or who has at any stage presented herself as a sexual person or is open about having an alt sexuality (being bi or kinky) is considered to be promiscuous, even if she is not.

People treat such women differently, they make comments/offers they would not to 'nice girls'. When such a woman is raped/sexually assaulted even verbally they say 'well that did she expect'.

If a woman who can be implicated as promiscuous reports a rape or sexual assault, esp from someone she knows or was in a relationship with it chances are it will never see the inside of a court as she will be judged by the jury more then the accused and the DPP won't press a case if they think they can't win.

So you don't have to be a 'slapper/slut' just behave in a manner that people assume you are and you can end up being treated like one.