Newsletter
Enter your email address here to receive updates from the team.
Poll
Jobs
Policy | Charity & Fundraising | Research | Education | Executive | Media | Social Care | Communications
User login
RSSLet’s get those sluts walking
Sex is not the problem. Sexism is. Arbitrary moral divisions are being renewed between "innocent" women and "sluts".
By Laurie Penny Published 10 June 2011 14:12
What is a slut? In the past, the word was used simply to mean any woman who didn't behave: a woman who was "dirty, untidy or slovenly", a slack servant girl, a woman who failed to keep her house in order and her legs closed before marriage, a woman who invited violence and contempt. Today, in a world sodden with images of shorn and willing female bodies, a slut is any woman with the audacity to express herself sexually. That should tell you everything you need to know about modern erotic hypocrisy.
On 11 June, London hosts a SlutWalk. The phenomenon began in Toronto after a local policeman instructed a group of female university students
to stop "dressing like sluts" if they didn't want to be raped, a point of view not unique among men in positions of power. The protest that followed has infected the imagination of women in cities around the world, from Dallas to Delhi, who are sick of being bullied and intimidated into sexual conformity.
We like to think that we live in a liberal, permissive society - that, if anything, the problem is that there is too much sex about. This is a cruel delusion. We live in a culture that is deeply confused about its erotic impulses; it bombards us with images of airbrushed models and celebrities writhing in a sterile haze of anhedonia while abstinence is preached at the heart of government.
In Britain, the release of an official report declaring that girls are being too "sexualised" has coincided with parliamentary lobbies for young women to be "taught to say no". Join the dots with police officers telling women that "no" is insufficient if they happen not to be dressed like a nun and an ugly picture begins to form. What we're looking at is a concerted cultural backlash against female sexual liberation.
Give us protection
Sex is not the problem. Sexism is. Arbitrary moral divisions are being renewed between "innocent" women and "sluts". Young women, in particular, are expected to look hot and available at all times, but if we dare to express desires of our own, we are mocked, shamed and threatened with sexual violence, which, apparently, has nothing to do with the men who inflict it and everything to do with the length of skirt we have on. Some of us have had enough.
Faced with savage public opprobrium, told that our sexuality is dirty and dangerous, today's young women would do well to take inspiration from the gay rights movement.
For decades, LGBT protesters have marched to demand the right to express their sexuality without fear of victimisation and to show that, whatever society thinks of them, being queer is not a source of shame, a threat to innocence or an invitation to violence. Like them, sexually active women deserve protection just as much as those whom polite society considers "pure".
Some may wish to reclaim the word "slut" to celebrate its implications of bad behaviour. What's more important is that we refuse to let the word sting, or draw distinctions between "good" and "bad" women, based on outdated notions of sexual purity. Now, more than ever, it's time for "sluts" to walk - and walk tall.
Related articles
Pop culture and radical politics with a feminist twist
Latest Posts by our Bloggers
From the magazine
-
Jason Cowley -
Sophie Elmhirst -
Martha Gill -
Rafael Behr -
George Eaton -
John Pilger -
Will Self -
Bryan Appleyard -
Samira Shackle -
Rafael Behr
Elsewhere on the Blogosphere
- ConservativeHome
Could George Osborne's leadership ambitions deliver a referendum on the EU? - Political Scrapbook
Latest data shows recession worsen after Tory HQ attempt to spin figures - Coffee House
The coalition: two years in - Left Foot Forward
Spending watchdog slams Regional Growth Fund waste - James Kirkup
LOL: David Cameron's love-texts to Rebekah Brooks could mean voters laugh out loud – at his expense
Blogroll
- Alastair Campbell
- Benedict Brogan
- Coffee House
- Comment Central
- Conservative Home
- Dave's Part
- Gary Gibbon
- Guardian Politics
- Hopi Sen
- Iain Dale
- Labour List
- Labour Uncut
- Left Foot Forward
- Liberal Conspiracy
- Liberal Democrat Voice
- Luke Akehurst
- Neil Clark
- Next Left
- Our Kingdom
- Paul Waugh
- Penny Red
- Pickled Politics
- Political Betting
- Political Scrapbook
- Simon Fletcher
- The Bleeding Heart Show
- Think Politics
- UK Polling Report
Latest tweets
More from New Statesman
- Tools and services:
- Polls
- Predictions
- Jobs
- Archive
- Magazine
- PDF edition
- RSS feeds
- Subscribe
- Special supplements
- Stockists
113 comments
Ivan if mal alsiee .is the case, do your duty and, say your up for it,if the can't get any
Mr Divine,because it's not fatually true.
Isobel, I agree that there is another 'message' being given by those who dress sexily. It says: 'Want me.' Sometimes dressing sexily is about lack of self-esteem , not a lot of it. I'm afraid there will always be those who feel that sexily-clad women are 'asking for it.' They just may be asking for love as well as inciting lust. In that way, such self-advertisement can be 'sad.' In the real sense of the word.
I think there are a couple of key distinctions here. Men and women although equal are NOT the same. The word slut is a derogatory term used by both men AND women to describe promiscous women and thus possibly not suitable for this particular group. In my view, neither men or women should be availing themselves for casual sex left, right and centre therefore to place such importance on the right to express sexual assertiveness seems to be missing the point a little. I would like to think that the majority of people (male or female) would distance themselves entirely from the assertion that the way a woman is dressed removes any blame whatsoever from the perpetrator of such a heinous crime as rape. That said if that attitude does exist or is even perceived to be prevalent then of course this should be challenged head on as that view is frankly outrageous. I appreciate where this protest is coming from but to me it seems to strike a few bum notes, particularly the use of the word slut. I'm open minded but this is my gut instinct.
"The only one close to being a tart in recent weeks is that Ryan Giggs, who strugling to keep his snake in his underpants, the bluddy long john he is".
Yes But who did he get his snake out with?
A very outdated argument for someone with nothing better to say. And yes I know, porography on the website and lap dancing etc are art and not sexual provocation untill you swipe her arse with your credit card.
And capitalism is to blame for this because...?
From the pictures I have seen they are quite safe!
I agree echtee
What is it about this damn blog that won't let certain patterns of words post? /me grumbles "
"[A] local policeman instructed a group of female university students
to stop "dressing like sluts" if they didn't want to be raped, a point of view not unique among men in positions of power."
If anything, I hear this from women more than men (albeit older women looking down their noses at the younger generation).
That's pretty sad.
This pattern of argument is so damn boring from whichever side it happens to play itself out. The image of the 'pure' or 'innocent' woman, quite right, is long gone. It's utterly laughable that the idea keeps coming back, so apparent is its non-existance and non-possibility.
It is true however that consumer culture is confused about sex - but consumer egalitarianism too is confused about sex in that it mutilates sex so that equality can exist. 'Sex' exists inside violence and power, and violence and power exist inside sex. There is no 'equality' in sex - or not in the way we create sex.
"but if we dare to express desires of our own, we are mocked, shamed and threatened with sexual violence, which, apparently, has nothing to do with the men who inflict it and everything to do with the length of skirt we have on."
I wish there were more men involved in the backlash against that policeman's ridiculous comments, and more 'men against sexual violence' in general.
Part 2:
'Sexual expression' and 'slut-walks' are themselves acts of sexual power and violence - the woman sexually dressed is herself a violent act and an incitement to violence. This is of itself implicit in words like 'hot' - heat starts fires. To get a bit Stevie Bernstein about it:
David Vinter
You are so picky!
you guys all neeed to chill out no matter how mcuch you moan you will still die. for only the dead know the truth about death. you guys should focus on the real issues like all those alliens the US govement including Barrack are bumming in area 51.
"Sex is not the problem. Sexism is. Arbitrary moral divisions are being renewed between "innocent" women and "sluts". Young women, in particular, are expected to look hot and available at all times, but if we dare to express desires of our own, we are mocked, shamed and threatened with sexual violence, which, apparently, has nothing to do with the men who inflict it and everything to do with the length of skirt we have on. Some of us have had enough.'
WELL SAID LAURIE!
brilliantly put.
Oh wow david vinter you are hil-ar-ious. really, i read the same comments as your one on the daily mail slutwalk argument around 67 times.
@T R
"That said, In_Negative seems to be writing a first draft on an interesting essay on (a) male sexuality"
I thank god someone noticed. I was starting to feel a bit drowned in the flacid pantomime.
"(making just the basic mistake of assuming that his experience is universal)."
I don't think I did make this error as I'm more than aware of all the various positions. If I gave this impression, it was due to my clumsiness. My single intention was to defend just one position which is being suffocated by a frankly tedious retrospective engagement with sexual politics and culture generally. The slutwalk hasn't understand its own meaning, let alone the meaning of that which it claims to critique/demonstrate against.
"Bernstein "dirty old man" mode is a truth, yes, but not the only truth out there..."
I completely agree. You see in the above lots of points of view that are coming from wholly different natures and understandings of lust and inter-relational activity. 'sex-positivists', relationalists, the promiscuous v fidelity structures. None of these languages however are that novel and as such are pretty easy to defend/familliar in their patterns. Nor are any of these perspectives really endangered or particularly under attack.
"more egalitarian sexual interplay positions (pun unintended) exist, albeit require entering an actual interactive, living, changing relationship,"
Agreed, though my aesthetic interests tend to gravitate towards the alienated and virtual given that there is a very real case for the idea that 'the real' and communal are disintegrating, being radically reformed/remade, particularly in cyberspace.
"distinctly different from an alienated peeping-tom position that both subscribes to the cultural values and remains their alienated observer/onanist executor."
I don't think my position is that of the basic 'peeping tom' as previously manifested - though it probably contains his ego and modes of conflict resolution. My interests lie in sexuality as it virtualizes, finds itself at once disembodied and embodied. One of the most interesting things to be happening to sexuality at the moment is its alienation and virtualisation. There are possible areas of reciprocity in this that the sort of hystericism reflected above appears to suffocate.
Virtuality is making certain truths more congruent both in the real and the virtual. As such, these truths have social status.
"But you are absoluttely right, the level we deal with these issue has barely started to scratch the surface of the complexities of these issues."
Same for the possible realities of careful and responsible engagement with them.
Blog: http://innegative.wordpress.com/
What on earth are these women trying to reclaim - the word "SLUT"? Utter tosh! When has this word ever been used in a positive light.Whats next "Whore", "Slag"...LOL! Even if a woman walks down the street naked, she does not deserve to get raped or attacked...however this "Slut Walk" is only self destructive bahaviour and counter productive...its not modern day feminism and dont try and make out like it is! If women or men want to put their sexuality on display for the world to see.. expect some backlash..hey its the flip side to the women who wear the burka and are ridiculed and chastised for doing so!..
Although I doubt there will ever be a government policy which bans women from displaying too much flesh..seems to be a concern for society if you do the complete opposite ie: cover yourself up!
All or any of the men, two questions 1) why are you not more annoyed that the implication is that you have no self control whatsoever and will of course rape any women you deem attractive enough?
2) Do you really not realise that rape is not about sex, or sexuality, but about power, and power, and power
Part 3 (For some reason, Bernstein won't post)
Such is the pain of sex and its expression as violence.
So consumerism sells it and egalitarian is is the ground on which it's pseudo-neutralised and sold.
You lead upto your conclusion with this:
"Young women, in particular, are expected to look hot and available at all times, but if we dare to express desires of our own, we are mocked, shamed and threatened with sexual violence, which, apparently, has nothing to do with the men who inflict it and everything to do with the length of skirt we have on. Some of us have had enough."
But I don't believe the problem today has anything to do with men not being held accountable for the ways they act. It seems to me a more pressing problem that a certain kind of feminist feels it ok to disavow all affective responsibility in this process of pain and lust, thereby participating in the whole destruction of sexual action itself. In itself, the neutralisation of male desire is an act of sexual violence.
Part 4: (Comment box didn't like the words, the vid will have to do.)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YXSalBD0iIs#t=0m43s
Full Post (I hoped I'd have a conclusion on why things didn't post sometimes, alas, no conculsions):
This pattern of argument is so damn boring from whichever side it happens to play itself out. The image of the 'pure' or 'innocent' woman, quite right, is long gone. It's utterly laughable that the idea keeps coming up anywhere, so apparent is its non-existance and non-possibility.
It is true however that consumer culture is confused about sex - but consumer egalitarianism too is confused about sex in that it mutilates sex so that equality can exist. 'Sex' exists inside violence and power and violence and power exist inside sex. There is no 'equality' in sex - or not in the way we create it.
'Sexual expression' and 'slut-walks' are themselves acts of sexual power and violence - the woman sexually dressed is herself a violent act and an incitement to violence. This is of itself implicit in words like 'hot' - heat starts fires. To get a bit Stevie Bernstein about it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YXSalBD0iIs#t=0m48s
Such is the pain of sex and its expression as violence.
So consumerism sells it and egalitarian is is the ground on which it's pseudo-neutralised and sold.
You lead upto your conclusion with this:
"Young women, in particular, are expected to look hot and available at all times, but if we dare to express desires of our own, we are mocked, shamed and threatened with sexual violence, which, apparently, has nothing to do with the men who inflict it and everything to do with the length of skirt we have on. Some of us have had enough."
But I don't believe the problem today has anything to do with men not being held accountable for the ways they act. It seems to me a more pressing problem that a certain kind of feminist feels it ok to disavow all affective responsibility in this process of pain and lust, thereby participating in the whole destruction of sexual action itself. In itself, the neutralisation of male desire is an act of sexual violence.
Sex is not the problem
Sexism is
Sexism is not the problem
Sex is
Everything is a problem
Nothing is
I agree with Laurie in this article. However, I do think that the marketing of sexual clothing and other items to young girls, even as young as toddlers, is incredibly sexist, when boys get to be children for much longer.
Parents who think it's "cute" to buy push-up bras and thongs for their eight-year-old girl have nothing but contempt from me. Girls aren't making the choice to dress like that, they're told that the only thing that matters is looking "pretty" and pleasing the male gaze.
-- A man.
When the Earth froze for millions of years
There was only one cold living thing
Volcanic fire came
And set a lit life
Also, I don't believe the word 'slut', in the mouths of men at least, or in the limbic mouth, has any rational componant. It isn't a moral judgement so much as it is a linguistic extension of the sexual act. To say 'slut' is to penetrate without contact. It's function is erotic and in that context what the policeman said makes a different sort of sense.
And life was all that came.
Caitlin: I was on the Glasgow SlutWalk, and I'm a man. I wasn't the only one, either.
What was your reasoning for being on said walk Poz?
''but if we dare to express desires of our own, we are mocked, shamed and threatened with sexual violence,''
Errrrmmm.... no not really. Not in my world or any other bloke's with an IQ above room temperature.
Hyperbole is all very well, but never confuse it with fact.
Slut-walks are hyperbole confused as facts... That, or hysterical simulations drawn from 1952 confused as facts.
Or that's the language they use to express themselves. What is actually going on is something very different.
your problem is mr divine,you are a imperial sexist..
>>> Mr devine >>> hi, well I'm afraid I think public vulgarity is wrong! You can be extremely dissmissive, yet witty. Using gross language just shows an inability to express oneself & having listened to L Penny on the radio, I have witnessed this alright!!!!
As a participant in the 'Reclaim the Night' marches in the '80's, I am saddened that this is still an issue. However, as an feminist, I am troubled by the number of girls who feel the need to look 'hot' - we seem to be moving backwards to a place where a woman's value is defined by how sexually attractive men find her. That, to me, is the more important issue.
seems the Brits now "do sex". Unfortunately, we're doing it in a pale copy of that schizophrenic F-Up 'across the Pond' way, which after all the dust settles, unsurprisingly tends to leave traditionalistic, conservative values and groups on top.
the only way to prevent that is constant explanation, education, and expression. Mz Penny, well done. :)
>> A Meadows....hi, not sure I understand what you're saying but I guess you know what the expression means.... It really applies to L Penny perfectly,I do admit I grow tired of 'single issue' parties/politicians/journalists etc... Apart from men on-going men bashing propaganda, there is nothing there.... & if you want a real giggle....try & listen to her on the radio ...'like', 'I mean', 'actually'. 'you know'...in every sentence, appears as articulate as a 16 year old Xbox adict...(don't have to believe me - just listen!!)
@in_negative
Thanks for the blog link, will peruse. Too late for me to reply at lenght and give your comments the careful and responsible engagement that you mention. In this I agree, and kind of meant it included in my comment of complexeties we are not addressing. My post itself was not free from clumsy turns of phrase either...
But I think I fundamendally disagree with you about the pointlessness of acts like the Slutwalk in the real world, as confusedly multimodal as it might be, noise from the silent other, undeniable, disturbing activity from the culturally asssigned passive object IS undeniably important, how ever incremental the impact. You just have to scan the majority of flacid/roused commentary here to see the value of the action. After all, could we really say that all marches for change, even the successful ones, have fully been grasped by even its participants at the time...? Reality is messy, that is why we take refuge in our own panopticons.
I can't help but wonder as to why the walk irritates so much someone like yourself who is clearly engaged with the issues it manifests, in a more unique, fresh way that 99% of the sexual discourse flotsam usually visible?
By the way, I hugely appreciate your honesty in your reply, as mine was at times on purpose provocative. We all contain all the positions as we are all products of a shared culture and basic physical impulses, but how we position ourselves to them varies, both from individual to another as well as within an individual over time. Unlike the mainstream debate would like to have it - we are not born with a classifiable sexuality, but to large degree also cultivate our sexualities (culturally as well).
Again, I think your point about the effect of virtual real & cyber alienation is very much on the money. Although I think there might be a danger to overstate the disintegration of the 'real' and communality. Lone journeys from the armchair into the opium pipe world of hyper sex are something we should as a culture really look at but our bodies do, somewhere in there, know the difference unless you were brought up in a plastic cocoon all your infancy. Real is not so easily lost.
Nice one Des Demona.
stuart: are you back? if so where have you been? imperial sexist .. what books have you been reading now!
Ivan: I'm not too sure if vulgar language is wrong but I must admit it can be sort of yucky (another word for bad).
ET: Did you see the Sex and the City episode with the Archbishop of Canterbury? Or did you watch it alone?
John P Reid - you have misremembered. The joke in the Simpsons episode was that Marge was disappointed that none of the bikers found her sexually attractive, even though she was a centrefold in their Cycle Slut Magazine. As the John Goodman Character said "not even a little"
AND...to be added with utter lack of oratory skills, first class vulgarity. She called her co-panellist a c**t (original word censored once!!) during a recent debate (january) -- see the link: http://thethirdestate.net/2011/01/on-being-called-a-c**t-by-laurie-penny/... waste of space altogether! (must replace ** with un in the attached link!)
@Sean: 'for only the dead know the truth about death'
How do you know this? Is it possible that you could be wrong?
Ivan, I've been thinking about Laurie and the C word that she directed at one of the fellow guests. In fact I've been laughing at it. I can imagine radio 5 is high brow and they have all sorts of mealy mouthed academic types bullshitting on.
"Today, we have with us a young lady, a public school educated, Oxford University graduate, and distinguished bloggist ... Laurie Penny'
'You Kant'
The fact that she has a very 'feminine' voice is even more funny and says things such as 'y'know what I mean'. You can't say you don't get your money's worth from her.
I can't wait for her next indiscretion.
david I'm sure it weant' her blue hair pushed back, It may have made her look sexually aivaliable, but she had the right tosay no, Even though she was upset they weren't interested.
Actually ET I've been chasing after a Llama/alpaca cross. I ordered one yesterday and it came round. But it had real problems settling in as my ram started butting it. It was a real possibility that it would jump the fence and head off. After 45 minutes of chasing it around the field we eventually caught it and the owner has taken it back to its mob.
Now I'm thinking of getting a donkey instead. It's a pity because alpacas are really cute and cuddly.
I think these double standards are representative of the wider attitudes of the power bases. such as the government telling us "were all in this together" while the rich get richer on the back of the poor. Ho hum nothing really different except the depth of hipocrisy
that govern this world - beam me up scotty.
Oh come on Ivan, there is nothing wrong with being vulgar. If we were all watching our ps and qs it would be boring. Besides all she was saying was that the other person was bad. People call other people bad all the time. It doesn't matter what words they use, the meaning is just the same ... you're 'bad'.
Indeed the word 'slut' is a word to describe someone as being 'bad'. There are hundred of words to describe someone as being 'bad'.
The women who paraded as 'Sluts' were saying that just because you dress in a certain way you shouldn't be called 'bad'.
So many assumptions in the article. Young women are not to "look hot and available at all times". You are overlapping the people - both men and women - who see the blantant oversexualisation of society, and this includes both men and women being overtly promiscuous just because they can - with the seedy who love to see short skirts and women acting with no inhibitions. There are no double standards here, only the ones you make.
You've convinced me ET, a donkey it is.
Post new comment