Possible to be sexy in comfortable shoes?

[Gob]

I think feminists should embrace the idea that it's OK for women to invite sexual attention by dressing and acting seductively. Such behaviour shouldn't be condemned as harmful to the cause of female equality.

There, I said it. Now I will hide under my desk. I expect volleys of outrage, much of it accusing me of supporting women's right to wear bustiers and miniskirts just so others can appreciate the view.

More about that later. First, let's examine the merits of the question. It's become part of a spirited debate within the feminist movement, triggered by the recent surge of marches known as SlutWalks. A lively downtown forum on the subject attracted a crowd of 110 in Washington last week, four days after the city's first Slut-Walk.

If you're unaware of the phenomenon, demonstrators have staged dozens of Slut-Walks in numerous countries. They march to oppose ''slut shaming'', or blaming victims and their clothing or behaviour for provoking sexual assaults or harassment.

The first rally, in April in Toronto, adopted the provocative word ''slut'' because the protest was sparked by a police officer who told university students to ''avoid dressing like sluts'' or risk being raped. Many marchers, though typically a minority, embrace ''sluttiness'' by wearing skimpy or otherwise alluring clothing.

SlutWalks have opened fissures - partly generational - in the women's movement. To begin with, many activists can't tolerate the title. They view the word ''slut'' as hateful and irredeemably anti-female.

''It's a violent word. I don't think it's possible to reclaim it,'' Erin Prangley, who identified herself as ''a 41-year-old activist'', said at the forum. Prangley said the young marchers reminded her of herself two decades ago, but she warned, ''I wonder if winning the battle is worth losing the war.''

Others defended ''slut'' because it has proved so effective in attracting publicity and stimulating a burst of grass-roots activism.

''The big S-L-U-T word is what got us here, so I'd say it was pretty successful,'' said Aiyi'nah Ford, a radio commentator and activist in her mid-20s.

The controversy includes disagreements on whether it's appropriate for feminists to flaunt their sexuality. Some activists think it's self-indulgent and trivialises important issues to make a show of cleavage or wearing spike heels.

The DC Rape Crisis Centre faulted the Washington Slut-Walk on those grounds, even though it endorsed the rally as positive overall.

SlutWalks risk ''getting lost in a focus on a frivolous and individualistic message of the 'right to wear what I want to', ignoring the deeper societal structures that support sexual violence,'' the centre said.

But promoting the right to be openly sexy helps attract younger women to the movement. Supporters say sexuality is more visible in mass media today than during the feminist activism of the 1970s, and young women want to be a part of it.

''Feminists of today are functioning in a much different culture, and it's one that is a lot more sexual,'' said Carmen Rios, 21, an American University student who was the media officer for the Washington SlutWalk. ''I think sex positivity in the feminist movement is something that we're working on now. It's what's now relevant to women's lives.''

I side with the SlutWalkers, and I hope other women's advocates ultimately accommodate them. The movement can't afford disunity, and I applaud the younger generation for its healthy attitude about sex.

Moreover, activists need to come together so they can focus their energies on the real source of the problem, which, after all, is men. Not all men, of course. But it's almost entirely men who rape. Who fondle when it's unwelcome. Who catcall and leer. Who, when challenged, insist that a woman was ''asking for it'' because she looked so hot.

The fact is, a flirtatious outfit can, indeed, mean a woman is ''asking for'' something - attention, perhaps, or even a polite approach from an admirer. There's nothing wrong with that. What's wrong is when a man goes further than the woman wants in providing such attention. That happens far too often.

Men should be happy that women want to look sexy. Men should return the favour by treating women with respect, and they should back off instantly when told no. That's a cause worthy of support from both sexes.



Read more: http://www.watoday.com.au/opinion/socie ... z1VtUEEAiY

[Liberty1]

Slut walks are one of the stupidist lefest causes to date.

Analysis here.

http://www.zombietime.com/deconstructing_slutwalk/

the whole womens movement of the 60s and 70s was to allow ugly women into the mainstream of society and really has nothing to do with this.

[rubato]

I think feminists should embrace the idea that it's OK for women to invite sexual attention by dressing and acting seductively. Such behaviour shouldn't be condemned as harmful to the cause of female equality.

There, I said it. Now I will hide under my desk. I expect volleys of outrage, much of it accusing me of supporting women's right to wear bustiers and miniskirts just so others can appreciate the view.

This question was addressed > 30 years ago.


yrs,
rubato

[Scooter]

Slut walks are one of the stupidist lefest causes to date.

I agree. It's really stupid that we're into the second decade of the 21st century (had to edit that!) and police still haven't learned that women are not to blame for being raped.

[dales]

Second decade of the 20th century?

Flappers and bath tub gin......woo-hoo!

[Scooter]

What can I say, AIDS dementia.

[Gob]

Pan Am on U.S. network ABC is set in the early 1960s at a time when jet travel was glamorous rather than groan-inducing; The Playboy Club on rival NBC features 1960s Bunnies in Chicago; Charlie's Angels storm back to ABC from the 1970s in a modern remake; and if drab post-war London is your cup of tea, you will find it in 1950s thriller The Hour from Britain's BBC.



Writer and producers deny they are in the copycat business, despite widespread admiration in Hollywood for the stylish but slow burning Mad Men.

But the critical success of the 1960s advertising drama -- despite its tiny audience of less than four million viewers -- has inspired others to mine a period ripe with social change.


"There was an enormous amount of American exceptionalism and hope and desire, and dreams that we were going to go to the moon. And yet the kettle was absolutely coming to a boil," said Thomas Schlamme, one of the creators of Pan Am.

Christina Ricci, who plays one of the young flight attendants on the show, agreed. "There's that sense of excitement and freedom that goes with this sense of travel and everything being new."

Ironically, what was seen entertainment wise on American television in the 1960s rarely captured the social, sexual, women's and civil rights revolutions of the era, said Robert Thompson, pop culture professor at Syracuse University.



"1960s television was all about talking horses, monsters in the suburbs, flying nuns, witches and genies. It is as though the exciting '60s happened, but the entertainment television made at the time totally ignored all those things.

"What Pan-Am and The Playboy Club can do is show an era in a TV series in a way that the actual era could never have done because of tighter standards and content rules at that time," Thompson said.

SEXY OR SEXIST?

But some of the behavior and attitudes considered standard in the early 1960s are seen differently through modern eyes.

The Playboy Club (and to a lesser extent Pan Am) are already under attack for portraying women as sex objects.

Some critics have suggested that both shows are going after big audiences simply by showing pretty young women in Playboy Bunny and stewardess costumes that are regarded as sexy.

The shows' backers reject the accusations. Playboy Club executive producer Chad Hodge described his show as "all about empowering, and who these women (Bunnies) can be, and how they can use their position to get it."



Schlamme of Pan-Am said the various ways women were treated by men in the early 1960s provided a great source of drama with multiple storylines.

Different problems faced the updated Charlie's Angels and a 2011 American remake of the British police drama Prime Suspect that originally starred Helen Mirren in the early 1990s.

NBC's Prime Suspect is playing down the overt sexism among police toward women officers-in-charge that marked the original series.

Creator Alexandra Cunningham said the new version with Maria Bello would be more humorous and would "try to make it more realistic, because sexism isn't gone. It's kind of more subtle and insidious in a modern world."

The Charlie's Angels remake will bring the glamorous trio of female crime fighters closer to solid ground than their 1970s counterparts by focusing on character, producers said.

TV executives say comparisons to Mad Men begin and end with the period setting of many of the new offerings. But as Americans struggle to emerge from recession, nostalgia is clearly back in fashion.

"The early 60s were a very hopeful time, with all kinds of things beginning, and that's what (The Playboy Club) is about," said executive producer Ian Biederman. "And that's why people are attracted to it right now -- to take a little break from the way things are today"



Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/tv- ... z1VvNQzTLb

[Liberty1]

It's really stupid that we're into the second decade of the 21st century (had to edit that!) and police still haven't learned that women are not to blame for being raped

So you condemn the whole of the worlds police for the comments of one ignorant Dudley Do-Right. Nice.

[Scooter]

If it were only one ignorant cop it wouldn't have struck such a chord with women in cities all over the world.

[Liberty1]

I'd like to see how many in those walks have really been raped. It's just the leftest mob mentality like the ones of the past, looking for anything to feel a part of. It's been going on for years, you know the mob of the French Revolution, the maoist gangs looting villages and impaling babies in China, the KKK terrorizing Republicans and blacks in the South, the LA riots with 50 dead and a $B in damage because of Rodney King, the violent riots at the 1968 DNC Convention, the mobs smashing up Seattle when bankers came to town, 500,000 illegal aliens marching under a foreign flag in LA, left-wing protesters destroying property and attacking delegates at the 2004 and 2008 Republican National Conventions.

You know just everyday leftest stuff. They've even got a community organizer, those who stir up mobs, as the prez.

[Scooter]

I'd like to see how many in those walks have really been raped.

They certainly number more than you, who having never been raped proclaims himself the expert on how women are treated by police when they have been.

[rubato]

I'd like to see how many in those walks have really been raped. It's just the leftest mob mentality like the ones of the past, looking for anything to feel a part of. It's been going on for years, you know the mob of the French Revolution, the maoist gangs looting villages and impaling babies in China, the KKK terrorizing Republicans and blacks in the South, the LA riots with 50 dead and a $B in damage because of Rodney King, the violent riots at the 1968 DNC Convention, the mobs smashing up Seattle when bankers came to town, 500,000 illegal aliens marching under a foreign flag in LA, left-wing protesters destroying property and attacking delegates at the 2004 and 2008 Republican National Conventions.

You know just everyday leftest stuff. They've even got a community organizer, those who stir up mobs, as the prez.

Where ever you live is worse for your presence in it. Excusing rape is abominable.


yrs,
rubato

[Liberty1]

Where ever you live is worse for your presence in it. Excusing rape is abominable.

What a total ASS, and I mean that in the worst way. and anyone here or at the CSB or any other forum I've partcipated can testify that I am not a name caller. Tell me exactly where I condoned rape.

No didn't think so. You just didn't like me pointing out the violent and group think tendencies of the left.

[Guinevere]

I think feminists should embrace the idea that it's OK for women to invite sexual attention by dressing and acting seductively. Such behaviour shouldn't be condemned as harmful to the cause of female equality.

There, I said it. Now I will hide under my desk. I expect volleys of outrage, much of it accusing me of supporting women's right to wear bustiers and miniskirts just so others can appreciate the view.

This question was addressed > 30 years ago.


yrs,
rubato

+1

And yes, it is possible to be sexy in comfortable shoes. Of course, it's sexier to not be wearing shoes at all

[dales]

Possible to be sexy in comfortable shoes?

Only when I'm at home with the curtains closed.

[loCAtek]

I can't help being sexy; not on my dirtiest, sweatiest day.

I was once told my donning a hard hat and other PPE was "cute".

[Gob]

Possible to be sexy in comfortable shoes?

Only when I'm at home with the curtains closed.

Pictures, or it never happened...

[The Hen]

NOOOOOOOO!

What has been seen can never be unseen.

[Sean]

It never happened... It never happened... It never happened... It never happened... It never happened... It never happened... It never happened... It never happened... It never happened... It never happened... It never happened... It never happened...