SlutWalk: the enemy exposed

I’m glad this is happening; I prefer my enemies out in the open.  Laura Wood makes good points about how the sluts’ demands–that how they dress and act should not have any effect on how men treat them–are unrealistic, and how women’s best hope of safety is to stop despising men and accept their protection.  I would like to address another issue.  The issue has been framed around the physical safety of loose women, but this doesn’t particularly concern me.  It’s not to protect them from rapists that we demand that women adhere to our culture’s standard of modesty.  The point of the law is to protect society, to preserve a public, visible moral consensus.  That’s what interests me as a conservative.

On the public purpose of codes of modesty, I have said before

For example, all cultures have codes of modesty which require that some parts of the body by covered in public and that the conjugal act by protected by some veil of privacy.  Its meaning is to recognize the dignity of persons as separate centers of subjectivity.  Through modesty, we acknowledge that each person is a “secret world” unto himself and that he can reveal himself through his body in a unique way in the marital act.  Ironically, it is the very fact of concealment which trains us to recognize this dimension of depth in each person.  Clothes remind my eyes how little of a person I can really see….

[Modesty] codes varies from culture to culture.  In some aboriginal cultures women bare their breasts, while in some Arab cultures women cover their faces.  This doesn’t scandalize the traditionalist, any more than one would worry that different languages have different words for the same thing.  The thing itself is always the same, but to communicate effectively a community must agree on a word…I can only respond to these realities through the rules of a particular culture.  Without these rules, words like “dignity”, “respect”, and “honor” are practically meaningless.  Within a culture, one can know exactly what they demand.  And within that culture the demands of tradition carry the full force of the natural law.  It really is wicked for a woman to publicly show her knees or her breasts in one part of the world even though it is unproblematic in other lands.

Against agitation by Swedish feminists for topless public swimming pools, I said

It was thought discriminatory that men should be allowed to swim bare breasted and not women.  Notice the title quote of the article:  “They’re just breasts.”  Although framed as an issue of equality, the issue is really one of reverence.  Does a woman’s body belong to the first level of being (raw material for her and our benefit) or the third (endowed with intrinsic objective meanings).  (See here for a further explanation of these terms.)  The chaste and pious man sees every woman as a sacred mystery.  As with all sacred things, her body is set apart from the profane world; it may only be approached by a centain man, and even for him only for centain purposes and with a centain reverential attitude.  The goal of these bare-breasted radicals is to tear the female body out of the realm of the sacred and throw it into the profane realm.  This is the act of desecration.

Deliberately flouting a culture’s standards of modesty is an assault on the community’s moral consensus.  It is an aggressive act, and the community has the right to protect itself through the law.  One might worry that the affront isn’t always intended. Perhaps a woman is just trying to catch a man’s eyes, or–even more innocently–she has just been careless.  Thanks to SlutWalk, we now know that for many women–all the ones attending these marches–their indecent dress and behavior is deliberate malice.  They proudly embrace the title, not only of shameless dressers, but of indiscriminate fornicators.  Their explicit goal is to exempt female sexual behavior entirely from the community’s moral sense.  In public at least, we are to be forced to embrace every form of reckless and selfish behavior, so long as the perpetrator is a woman and sex is involved.  This is an attack on our civilization, which is based on monogamous marriage.

So let’s keep our sights clear.  These shameless loose women are not silly, misguided girls who we’re trying to protect from their own imprudence.  They are nihilist revolutionaries bent on our culture’s destruction.  They are the enemy.

6 Responses

  1. should have rounded them up and put them in the millions of mancages that they — and their “conservative” enablers — have constructed for men and boys over the past century

    may never get another chance, with so many professional haters gathered conveniently in their sub-herds, dressed for easy collecting

    oh well, guess it’ll have to wait, look on the bright side…. there’s always hell


  2. oh well, guess it’ll have to wait, look on the bright side…. there’s always hell

    Isn’t that a tad, er, uncharitable, Ray?

  3. It may be uncharitable, but I can detect some appropriate sarcasm there. It’s hard not to give some when one sees something so stupid.

  4. It sounds to me like these people want attention.

    As a father, Bonald, you will know the most effective way to respond to attention-seeking behaviour.

  5. […] or the dignity of women as Plan Nine From Outer Space has to do with Italian neo-realism: their real goal is the destruction of gender roles, the family, and indeed any and all attitudes to love, sex, and […]

  6. Erm.
    You are obviously an idiot.

    Please go stick your head in the sand and never have an opinion on anything ever again.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: