The S-word
A series of demonstrations known as Slut Walks have or will soon be held in many major cities. They started because of a statement made in January of this year by a representative of the Toronto Police that "women should avoid dressing like sluts in order not to be victimized." While I find the original comment to be abhorrently indicative of victim-blaming, the walks themselves really don't resonate for me and I'm hoping that in writing about it I'll be able to put my finger on why.
One piece that's been making the rounds points out the racial element: As a word used to shame white women who do not conform to morally conservative norms about chaste sexuality, the term very much reflects white women’s specific struggles around sexuality and abuse. Although plenty of Black women have been called “slut,” I believe Black women’s histories are different, in that Black female sexuality has always been understood from without to be deviant, hyper, and excessive. Therefore, the word slut has not been used to discipline (shame) us into chaste moral categories, as we have largely been understood to be unable to practice “normal” and “chaste” sexuality anyway.
I don't identify as a woman of color*, but a similar idea applies in that "slut" feels just as irrelevant to me as a woman who doesn't date or have sex with men.
Now, I've experienced enough street harassment to be decidedly aware of just how ignorant the police comment was. The utter irrelevance of what someone's wearing (beyond it containing female gendered markers) to whether one experiences sexual harassment became crystal clear to me during high school, when I was catcalled while walking down the street wearing a one-size-fits-all broomstick skirt and an oversized t-shirt (a burlap sack would probably have been more form fitting and shown more skin). But harassment and assault aren't about sex appeal, they're about macho cred, so my long hair and skirt were enough to make me a target.
But the least physically safe that I've felt, by far, is when wearing gender non-conforming clothing (and I'm still pretty solidly on the female side of the spectrum, the occasional flannel shirt or cargo pants notwithstanding)*. After all, as another piece I read points out, "men often target those they believe to be the least powerful in the social hierarchy and, therefore, least likely to report them to (or be believed by) the police." The organizers of SlutWalk DCare certainly correct when they say that "No one should equate enjoying sex with attracting sexual assault." But I'm most concerned about assault in exactly the opposite context, when my gender expression is interpreted as a sign that I don't enjoy sex with men. So while I'd encourage anyone who's so inclined to attend (D.C.'s is scheduled for August 13th), I don't plan to do so myself.
* This isn't to say that I'm oblivious to the threat of attack when I'm wearing my clothes that are less on the butch side; few woman are. But even those clothes don't tend to be particularly tight or revealing, so "slut shaming" still doesn't feel like it has a lot of personal relevance for me.
One piece that's been making the rounds points out the racial element: As a word used to shame white women who do not conform to morally conservative norms about chaste sexuality, the term very much reflects white women’s specific struggles around sexuality and abuse. Although plenty of Black women have been called “slut,” I believe Black women’s histories are different, in that Black female sexuality has always been understood from without to be deviant, hyper, and excessive. Therefore, the word slut has not been used to discipline (shame) us into chaste moral categories, as we have largely been understood to be unable to practice “normal” and “chaste” sexuality anyway.
I don't identify as a woman of color*, but a similar idea applies in that "slut" feels just as irrelevant to me as a woman who doesn't date or have sex with men.
Now, I've experienced enough street harassment to be decidedly aware of just how ignorant the police comment was. The utter irrelevance of what someone's wearing (beyond it containing female gendered markers) to whether one experiences sexual harassment became crystal clear to me during high school, when I was catcalled while walking down the street wearing a one-size-fits-all broomstick skirt and an oversized t-shirt (a burlap sack would probably have been more form fitting and shown more skin). But harassment and assault aren't about sex appeal, they're about macho cred, so my long hair and skirt were enough to make me a target.
But the least physically safe that I've felt, by far, is when wearing gender non-conforming clothing (and I'm still pretty solidly on the female side of the spectrum, the occasional flannel shirt or cargo pants notwithstanding)*. After all, as another piece I read points out, "men often target those they believe to be the least powerful in the social hierarchy and, therefore, least likely to report them to (or be believed by) the police." The organizers of SlutWalk DCare certainly correct when they say that "No one should equate enjoying sex with attracting sexual assault." But I'm most concerned about assault in exactly the opposite context, when my gender expression is interpreted as a sign that I don't enjoy sex with men. So while I'd encourage anyone who's so inclined to attend (D.C.'s is scheduled for August 13th), I don't plan to do so myself.
* This isn't to say that I'm oblivious to the threat of attack when I'm wearing my clothes that are less on the butch side; few woman are. But even those clothes don't tend to be particularly tight or revealing, so "slut shaming" still doesn't feel like it has a lot of personal relevance for me.