Of course, with judicial commentary like this, no fashion statement is warranted...just female presence....after our apparent curfew:

http://www.newser.com/story/153729/ariz-…

I don't know what the point is exactly. Are they trying to take the sting out of the word or are they saying that everyone is a slut? I wouldn't want to be a slut regardless of my sex, but if that's the badge of honor you want to wear - go right ahead and wear it. The woman with the 99% pasties is getting quite a leer from the guy behind her. Is that a good thing? Is there irony if the people this is directed toward don't play along?

So is a slut someone who likes sex...lot of sex with different people or is a slut someone who likes to dress like they're selling it for $50/hr?

I don't understand Slut Walk. You want to state that a woman can dress however she wants and it doesn't mean that she's inviting rape. (At least that's what I'm getting from these photos.) Okay, fine. But you go out and march in the most skin-exposing fashion... just because you can? To rub it in? To dress in the worst stereotype of women? Isn't that the same thing as gay men marching dressed as the worst sex-24/7 stereotype people have of them? (Or used to have, increasingly now. And remember when we used to have that debate?) I can appreciate the idea of personal freedom and not being penalized for who you are, but this isn't who these women are, by and large. I'm going to assume that they don't go to QFC dressed like this. Couldn't they have made the same point by marching with the same signs but dressed as they would on a typical night out? Frankly, I just think that dressing like this only reinforces the stereotypes and prejudices people have of modern young women and that it takes away from their message. It gets the attention, but I think what was meant to be the main message gets drowned out in the spectacle of the "slut" outfits.

(And isn't "slut" a word women are trying to free themselves from? We were all up in arms when Rush Limbaugh used it on Sandra Fluke.)

Yeah, like floater @7, I'm not sure I'm understanding this either. Letting people know that no woman is ever "asking" to be raped is a good and necessary message. But this looks kind of like a chaotic mess. What is going on here?

oh, i thought this was a walk to promote acting slutty. Slut positive culture.

Apparently everyone is missing that it doesn't matter what a person is wearing when they were raped. People need to stop blaming victims and blame the rapist. Too often we see in the media "She was wearing a short skirt in a bad part of town, she deserves what she got!" which is bullshit.

The point is to de-stigmatize those who like sex. What these people are challenging, and which is still pervasive, is the idea that if you're a woman who likes sex, or even appears to like sex, you shouldn't complain if you're raped.

Personally, I don't see what's so hard to understand about that.

@12, I get that, I just can't get over the very bad taste so many people in Seattle have when it comes to picking out slutty or sexy out of their wardrobe. Put some effort into it.

The SlutWalk has its origins in irony and juxtaposition. It used to be a large group of women dressing in their most exposed, sleaziest to provoke a reaction that they're not looking to get raped just because they dressed like this. Even the name SlutWalk is a bit of irony in that its not an embracing of the name slut, so much as it is a defiance of the label slut. "If you're going to label us sluts, then we'll dress like sluts with placards that we're not actually sluts" type mentality.

Even though it is about women taking pride in their womanhood and making themselves humanized. It isn't a celebration of womanhood, so much as a condemnation of their status as "slut" and "asking for it" and "willing victim." Where one can argue that gay pride is all about being who you are in the face of opposition, one can argue that SlutWalk is about shoving stereotypes in the face of the mainstream culture and making them see how wrong that culture is.

I'm a feminist and a woman and I agree with 7 & 8. This is a time for women to be legitimately angry, serious, and demanding of change, and I feel like the message is totally getting lost in the fun, cutesy panty parade of all the recent feminist marches.

It seems like women are so afraid of being viewed as angry harpies or whatever we're called for having opinions that make men uncomfortable, and so they're playing that shit down by making themselves all sexy and dude-approved, and having these slutwalks, boobythons, and nude revolutionary events. I want to feel empowered by the resurgence of a feminist movement, but this one just makes me depressed.

The point of their clothing is to let mouthbreathers know that it is not okay to rape a woman no matter what she is wearing.

@13 one man's tacky is another man's sexy.

Some of those sluts are HOT! I'd love to have consensual sex with them that doesn't push any boundaries that they're not comfortable with.

For everyone confused about slutwalk: Google "slutwalk" and read the first entry. Jesus.

The origin is actually a little over a year old. Some policeman told a group that "women should avoid dressing like sluts in order not to be victimized." People got together and wore what they were wearing when they were raped so that it was obvious it wasn't about what they were wearing at the time. It's gone through some changes and the founding members have left so the message may have changed to what it is currently.

@21 Huh. I had thought SlutWalk was older than that...I could have sworn this was something women did at my college, along with Reclaim/Take Back the Night.

Personally, I'm really tired of seeing rape statistics only representing the number of victims. It's time to enumerate the assailants. Based on statistics, what percentage of men have raped or will rape in their lifetime? Are there any steps we can take to send the message to men that no matter who they are or where they are or what they're wearing or what time of day it is, that they're no supposed to rape anybody?

We really need to get past the 'no means no' rhetoric and teach both men and women that they shouldn't be waiting for a NO, but rather requiring a clear YES when it comes to determining and engaging in consesual sex.

I like the Slut Walks; it's a nice little 'fuck you' to cultures of misogyny and purity and hypocrisy that insist that women are only deserving of respect if we conform to someone else's notion of how we're supposed to behave or dress. You see it in comments like, "If this protest is about saying that women should be treated with respect regardless of what they're wearing or not wearing, then why are they dressed like sluts and whores?" That's really the whole point: fuck you and your assumptions and your categorizing and denegration of women as sluts and whores. Fuck you and our culture that defines and degrades women as sluts, but doesn't define and degrade men as rapists, and talks about rape as something that 'happens to women' as though it were a natural phenomenon like cancer or being struck my lightening.

Are any of you who don't understand the use of the word "slut" in this event old enough to remember when advice letters to Dan were addressed "Hey Faggot"?

Or am I just really old?

In case you'd like some video from the march:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MOWI-ifyx…

sure is a shame about that 4th girl's teeth. she needs some legitimate braces

@30 Thanks for sharing the video!
@Haters #1, 3-8, 11, 14-17, 23, 24, 31, 33, 35 & 36: At least some of you are courageous enough to admit you don't "get" SlutWalk, but it's your own judgmental attitudes about sluts that are stunting your intelligence. To spell it out, a "slut" is a woman with the sexual morals of a man. But to me, SlutWalk is also about something deeper: STOP TELLING OTHER PEOPLE WHAT TO WEAR! Seriously, who the fuck are yous? You're not being, protective, cautionary, kind, compassionate or even well-meaning feminists. You're being intolerant, controlling, sex-negative, and dare I say it, jealous of the fearless pride we take in ourselves, our bodies, our statements, our expressions, and our sexuality. We sluts get you more than you get us, so you're in no position to judge.

OK, sorry, the chick in the green mohawk does NOT deserve the hate. She is fucking hot. I called my husband into the room to appreciate her picture, because damn girl. If you're not into rivet girls, don't fuck one. Certainly don't fuck WITH one. Fixt.

Also, I love you, Gandhi Jones.

@ 7,8: One of the points of "slutwalk" is to address the specific argument that women should never dress "provocatively," and that if they do then the rape is on them. Dressing "slutty" during the protest is nothing more than a tongue-in-cheek way to counter this argument.

In a nutshell, they're saying: "I can dress however I want; I can even go so far as to walk around in assless chaps with electrical tape on my tits, and it would STILL be no excuse for someone who makes the conscious decision to walk over and rape me." There's a difference between "rubbing it in" and using some mild shock value to really drive a point home.

And yes, when it comes to the word "slut," context is relevant. There's a very obvious difference between women saying "we're all sluts" ironically vs. bitter misogynists calling a woman a "slut" out of vitriol.

32: If you're having problems pleasing any women (from 'taliban' to 'sluts'), then that's your fault; not feminism's fault.

Sit down, #31/37/17(?), I need to break something to you. Women HAVE evolved. What saddens you and Ariel Levy is feeling left behind in the shifting pop zeitgeist. Look at the pictures again, and all around you; never has there been a more diverse spectrum of styles and gender conformity levels in our culture, and they shamelessly branch in multiple directions, but you single out any "female slut" style as socially regressive in particular. If you believe the future of feminism must involve more pantsuits and less skin, you'll wake up one morning finding yourselves in bed with the Religious Right. It'll turn out that future sexual equality, empowerment and liberation won't appear the way you've envisioned it. Free-thinking and autonomous sluts don't choose the way they dress to represent other people, they do it to represent themselves, and it's their business, not yours. Good luck trying to put the "tasteful" toothpaste back in that tube.
SlutWalk is also more relevant vis-à-vis politics than you give it credit for. Legal bans on prostitution and anti-nudity laws reflect a projection of antiquated puritanical values from leaders we collectively fail to prevent from seizing office. Attacks on women's sexuality (from any socio-political angle), sex education and access to contraception reach beyond the pretenses of family values, religious freedom, the role of Government, or protection of children. Our problem isn't that we're being too sexy, but too repressive. No wonder the pussy riots.
Finally, don't let the clown wig and blue-tinted glasses fool you; this dude approves of this talk as serious fun, and there's plenty of sexy to be found in intellectual discourse.

45: No they're not. They are wearing a variety of outfits, from pantsuits to pasties. As with any gradient, some of it is going to coincide with what "the patriarchy" finds sexy. But this doesn't mean that they are cow-towing to it, especially when you factor in how SlutWalk, specifically, aims to mimic "sexy" dress that is so often derided as a rape-invitation in order to argue that it is NOT a rape-invitation. So abiding by patriarchal definitions of "sexy" (at least for the duration of the walk) is sort of the point there.

And despite your ridiculous objections in 41, feminism IS about choice. Did you really think that feminism is nothing more than an alternate, competing set of rigid rules that women "must" follow? Do you think that the mission of feminism was to FORCE women to join the workforce regardless of their own preferences? To FORCE women not to have children? How would these be any different from your desire to force women to avoid "objectifying" clothes, regardless of their own preferences? The whole idea here is to END rigid patriarchal rules; not merely replace them with slightly different ones.

Therefore feminism, like it or not, IS about women choosing their own lifestyles and not being forced to conform to a set of styles and behaviors based on their sex, whether it's for the sake of adhering to patriarchal values or for the sake of avoiding just that. If an individual woman's choice in clothing happens to conform to objectifying standards of sexiness, so be it. A lack of choice is exactly what burqa-clad sisterwives and naked sex-trafficking victims have in common.

Avoiding objectification doesn't mean showing less skin; it means that all women are regarded as individuals and therefore freely choose what they want to wear and what they want to do with their lives. The result (just like Ghandi Jones pointed out) will be a gradient; some women will choose to be scantily-clad; some will choose to show no skin at all; some will seek the lust of men and others will avoid it; some will be stupid and short-sighted and others will be intelligent and wise; some will be spineless and others will be tough; some will want marriage & kids and others will want to avoid both; and everything in between.

Telling any woman that she shouldn't be "allowed" to do something because she's a woman is grossly anti-feminist, regardless of the specific thing you're trying to stop her from doing. Yet this is exactly what you confess to wanting when you deride the idea that feminism is about choice.

trying to hard. the same new seattle way.

Many props to ignatz ratzkywatzky, Bonefish, and Ghandi Jones for telling it.