Recently there has been something of a kerfuffle among libertarians surrounding a video by Julie Borowski on why there are so few women in the libertarian movement. Some libertarian feminists, notably Sarah Skwire and Steve Horwitz, have criticized Borowski for promoting stereotypical views of women and denigrating women’s choices. But Thomas Woods is not pleased with Skwire and Horwitz, and contends in a recent blog that they are “Libertarian Thought Police.”
Among other objections, Skwire and Horwitz contend that Borowski “slut shames women who engage in casual sex.” Woods seems confused by this and writes, “Shows how sheltered I am: evidently there are people in the world who use the phrase ‘slut shames.’” He then sarcastically dismisses the idea that casual sex is a legitimate choice made by women.
Now, I’m one of the “people in the world who use the phrase ‘slut shames.’” And since the concept is apparently totally foreign to Dr. Woods, I hope I can explain to him why I think libertarians ought to oppose slut shaming. Slut shaming is the denigration of women as unacceptably sexual, often perpetuated using epithets like “slut” and “whore.” While it is typically associated with shaming women for activities like casual sex, women can be slut shamed for practically anything. Dressing a particular way, having large breasts, flirting, rebuking sexual advances, being bisexual, and more can all be used as the impetus for slut shaming. Any woman can be slut shamed and there is no concrete definition of a “slut,” leading some feminists to argue that it is more accurate to simply refer to slut shaming as “woman hating.”
But whatever we call it, slut shaming can have dire consequences. It certainly did for Hope Witsell. After this 13-year-old girl sent a topless photo to a boy she had a crush on, she faced persistent slut-shaming and harassment from her peers. While school administrators did little to stop this harassment, they did see fit to suspend her for sending the photo. Hope eventually committed suicide. And she’s not alone. Felicia Garcia, Jessica Laney, and Amanda Todd are a few other teenage girls who have committed suicide in response to persistent slut shaming.
The tragic impacts of slut shaming can also be seen in many rape cases. Women who are deemed “sluts” are treated as no longer credible witnesses, because if they want sex or have lots of it, it is apparently inconceivable that they might ever not consent to it. This form of slut shaming was seen in a 2010 gang rape case that was dismissed when it was revealed that the victim had fantasized about group sex. The judge said of the victim, “her credibility was shot to pieces.” In a 2008 sexual battery case in Georgia, the judge made the victim reveal a litany of intimate details about her sex and dating history. This was used to slut shame and humiliate the victim.
Slut shaming is even wielded against the youngest rape victims. When the New York Times covered of a case in which an 11 year old was gang raped, the paper of record saw fit to focus on the girl’s makeup and clothing. Later in the same case, defense attorney Steve Taylor blamed this 11 year old girl for being gang raped, comparing her to a spider luring men into her web.
And these are just the stories we can read about in the news. But there are likely plenty more instances of rape survivors being slut shamed that we will never read news stories about. After all, 54% of rapes and sexual assaults are never reported to the police, according to data from the National Crime Victimization Survey. This under-reporting can be understood as partially a response to a culture that slut shames and degrades rape survivors who come forward. YouTube user chescaleigh recently posted a video about her experiences with slut shaming after her rape. She provides a powerful look at how rape survivors are slut shamed in the cases that never make it into news media.
And this is why slut shaming ought to be opposed by libertarians. Woods writes that, “The core libertarian value is nonaggression.” I hope we can all agree that rape and sexual assault are clear acts of aggression. Slut shaming and victim blaming are cultural practices that make the victims of this aggression suffer more, all while helping the perpetrators of aggression escape accountability. We should vigorously oppose slut shaming and victim blaming in the same way we should oppose any excuses offered for state violence.
That reminds me: Slut shaming also functions as an excuse for state violence. In particular, it relates closely to the state’s persistent use of violence against sex workers. A recent Human Rights Watch report examined four major US cities where cops will use a woman’s possession of condoms as evidence that she is a sex worker. Because apparently, in the slut shaming minds of police, being prepared to practice safe sex means you’re a prostitute. And apparently being a prostitute means you can be “legitimately” targeted for state aggression. In addition to the usual statist practices of kidnapping people at gun point and locking them in cages, the report also found that police sexually assaulted suspected sex workers. Transgender women were regularly profiled as sex workers, showing how gender stereotypes structure state violence.
Now, none of this necessarily proves that Borowski was in the wrong, as her video did not contain the kind of overtly destructive slut shaming discussed here. Indeed, all she said was that media promotes casual sex and that casual sex is not empowering. It could be argued that Borowski was just making a point that many feminist media critics have also made. However, Borowski made her point in a way that easily could also be seen as denigrating women who choose casual sex and makeup, thus furthering a cultural climate of slut shaming.
But this is not an issue that can simply be dismissed as irrelevant, minor, or “just a joke.” Studies have shown a relationship between sexist humor and sexist attitudes or actions. Casual slut shaming preserves the social environment that makes more severe forms of slut shaming powerful.
Think what you will about Julie Borowski’s video. Whether she promoted slut shaming in it is debatable. But I believe libertarians should conclude that slut shaming, and the social environment it creates, are worth opposing. Because we care deeply about aggression, we should seek a world where aggressors are held accountable and the victims of aggression are not shamed and degraded. Slut shaming stands directly in the way of such a world.
Moreover, as a libertarian I favor human dignity. Slut shaming is a real threat to human dignity. For many teen girls, it means relentless and vicious harassment in public school halls, largely unimpeded by school administrators, who are more likely to punish the victims for their sexuality. As we have seen, this can end in suicide. For rape victims, slut shaming means a shifting of blame. It means their sexual history, their fantasies, and their appearance are all turned into weapons to degrade them when they are already wounded by sexual violence. And for those targeted by police, slut shaming can mean that they will be kidnapped, sexually assaulted, and locked in a cage all under the cover of law. It can even mean that their attempts to practice safe sex become used as evidence to legally justify caging and abusing them. This is what a slut shaming culture looks like. Libertarians must join with feminists to stop it.
So arguing against casual sex is slut shaming? Sorry if i'm not convinced this is a huge issue. You do realize teenage boys commit suicide at a much higher rate than girls? Why are we not talking about the reverse of slut shaming, known as the "creep" label?
Lot's of valuable points, but I'm curious about one thing.
In the Skwire and Horowitz article, they asserted that Borowski had, but did they offer a quote or reason to believe she had? The only evidence I've seen is that she doesn't think casual sex is empowering. Is that a sufficient reason for thinking someone is a woman hater?
Silly me, I thought past sexual behavior or history wasn't able to be revealed anymore in rape cases… It certainly should be considered irrelevant as to showing consent or lack thereof, in my opinion.
So in order to be a True Libertarian(tm), we also have to be politically-correct leftists? The non-aggression principle isn't enough? Or perhaps you're saying that speech is aggression. Even the U.S. gov't isn't that fascist.
It certainly doesn't help that nearly any photographic depiction of a woman is considered sexist and 'objectifying' women – turning them into mere sexual objects – by feminists, when the standard of that evaluation – even by enlightened libertarian atheists – is almost universally influenced by centuries of Christian dogma making everyone feel shame and guilt about anything even remotely sexual. Feminism can't simultaneously damn slut shaming while damning anything even remotely sexual as sexist and shameful.
I presume that you do advocate shaming of some people for some things? If so, then is shaming a form of aggression or is it not? It seems like you are against shaming in this case just because he doesn't share Wood's personal values, no?
In any case, Woods (and it at least sometimes seems like Horwitz, Skwire, Borowski, and others in this debate) are wrong. The core libertarian value is not non-aggression. It is non-state aggression. Libertarianism is a political theory.
I agree that we should be against slut shaming, but not because we are libertarians.
Rather, we should be libertarians because we are against state enforcement of some peoples values against others..
Nathan, do you have reading comprehension abilities? It makes one wonder when you derived this:
"He [Woods] then sarcastically dismisses the idea that casual sex is a legitimate choice made by women."
From a passage that clearly says nothing of the sort. Woods was pointing out Horwitz and Skwire's scolding of Borowski as if their point should be so obviously correct to libertarians, when clearly they're not.
And then there's your whole diatribe about slut shaming, which can only be seen as hilariously ironic in light of what Borowski was pointing out. Don't you think the easiest way to avoiding slut shaming is to, well, not act like a slut? Some women can make those kinds of decisions and be comfortable with whatever repercussions may come, but many women (and especially many teen girls) are not, but that's the pressure those magazines tend to put on them to do anyway.
Yet it's shameful for Borowski to dare tell libertarians that they can tell girls that it's okay not to act that way?
>Whether she promoted slut shaming in it is debatable.
Not really…She said casual sex wasn't empowering. She didn't even say it was denigrating, and if she had, that still wouldn't come close to so called "slut shaming". Absolute nonsense.
Good article though on reasons Libertarians shouldn't "slut shame".
I think slut shaming hurts the liberty movement mostly because it's super douchey, and is a big part of the reason we're seen as douches. Hating on other women's sexual choices is all lose, no gain. Because it promotes animosity, I'm against it.
Julie Borowski has posted a new video where she makes the point that libertarians can have different social views while remaining a part of the movement (in particular that one can disagree with a practice such as casual sex without trying to ban it). http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VHWSrdSFq2I&li…
http://intentious.com/2012/03/18/the-nobility-in-…
"Any woman can be slut shamed.." Not true, you can't shame an intelligent virtuous woman.
Although you are flagrantly disregarding the legal arguments and current events as evidences of the points in this article simply to seemingly find a reason to disagree and assert your own cause to champion, I am actually interested in this new "creeper" "creepy" label you mention.
If you would like to undertake the pains of writing a well-researched article and provide an appealing argument, such as this one, about the "creepy" label, I would honestly be interested in reading such a piece. I do think there is value in reducing our labels that make people the "bad guy" without any reasonable behavior to justify such a harsh alienation.
As a side note: I am a rape survivor who has been shamed for being a "slut." You don't have to be "convinced" of the truth in reality for it to still be real to a great many people. And, as a man, you are statistically less likely to be ever slut shamed for having been raped, so please take a moment to reflect how you have no real claim to even ask for anyone to justify and provide evidence to your satisfaction of the problem. It is an option, rather than attempt to silence others as you have tried to do here, to remain silent about things of which you have no experience, and allow those who have been harmed a space to assert that they are rightfully angry and shall not be harmed further. The cause doesn't need haters and is already a real cause whether you like it or not. Thanks.
I am a registered Libertarian. A woman. And, a rape survivor who has had others attempt to shame me for being a slut simply for having been raped. I do not ask for you to "believe" in slut shaming, I have experience it for myself. I have witnessed this abuse perpetrated upon other women. My experience IS evidence that it has and does happen, it is a reality separate from your belief of its existence.
It is a social illness to shame anyone for ANYTHING based on your individual set of morals. You have no right and lay no claim toward a right to place your values upon another person.
Freedom of Speech is limited to the point where that speech is libelous, slanderous, constitutes a threat, or harasses another person. That is the law of our land and "traditional values" we set for our country. By those values, slut shaming *can* function as libelous, slanderous and harassing behavior.
As a registered Libertarian, I would say that the value judgement of a person's moral character is beyond the scope of a political party that values liberty and freedom as its core premise. It is a political illness to allow any individual's set of morals function in an official capacity and outweigh the right of another person to exist, free from harassment or attempts make them conform in any way to anything OTHER than our most basic regulations and legislated rules of acceptable behavior in this country.
By our country's most core principle of liberty, you are FREE to behave, believe and conduct yourself in any manner you see fit. Your only limitations to your behavior are at the point where your behavior harms others. The sky is the limit, otherwise.
It is not illegal and does not tangibly harm others for you/me/anyone to be a "slut.," or otherwise conduct our sexual business to the limits of the shared interests of our consenting partner(s). It IS illegal and tangibly harmful to others to verbally, physically, or sexually harass people. It IS illegal to molest, rape or otherwise sexually exploit another. THAT is the limits of the American justice system and our officially recognized values of our country. ALL other personal morals, judgments and values are irrelevant to the political discussion.
The flaw in our legal system is that the court room is allowed to practice the law as the prosecutors, defenders, private lawyers and judges see fit, including by their personal value systems. Our system of justice is abusing their privileges, because the public trusts that they will exorcise our laws AS THEY ARE WRITTEN. No one's sexual history is supposed to be allowed into court as evidence or argument as a character assassination, by LAW. The legal system has even acknowledged its own flaws in this regard, they are not shy about recognizing the problem even though they appear to not be actually fixing the problem.
You do not HAVE to agree. You are free to feel/believe/behave how you would like and reject the truth and reality as you see fit. Ignorance is bliss, I hope you enjoy bliss if that is your chosen pursuit of happiness.
I'm a registered Libertarian.
Our liberty is founded upon the freedom to do whatever your heart contents to the LIMIT of it harming another/others. We have several limitations upon our freedom, to include Libel, Slander, and Harassment. Slut shaming can and does rise to the level of violating our freedom FROM these harms upon us.
We are limited in our ability to assert our own, personal/individual, moral values upon another, SPECIFICALLY in a legal or political context.
The sexual business of consenting adults is not relevant to the law or the politics, and is specifically not allowed into a court of law as a character assassination to discredit the truthfulness of the testimony of a witness. Our courts and officers of the court have violated the public trust by practicing law according to their personal value systems rather than practice the spirit in which the law was intended and via the written word of the law. We should be OUTRAGED that the court would have such gal to behave in such a manner.
Similarly, the easiest way to avoid being killed by a cop is to do as you're told, which is also the easiest way to avoid a beating from massah. The easiest way to avoid time for drug offenses is to not do drugs.
Cool, so we can stop wasting our time with worries about police violence, abolition, and the war on drugs.
I firmly believe that treating people in a way that one knows, or should know, is likely to provoke violence against them is something to which anyone who opposes aggressive violence should object. That's surely a sufficient reason to reject slut-shaming.
I'd only add that another perfectly good reason to avoid this kind of behavior is that those targeted by slut-shaming have not, as a class, done anything wrong, anything objectionable. Perhaps some particular person who engages in casual sex has done so in a way that involves deception or the violation of a promissory obligation, but deception and the violation of promissory obligations are in no way integral to casual sex.
Contra Borowski, it seems to me that taking responsibility for achieving one's goals, including the goal of experiencing the kind of pleasure or human connection realizable through casual sex, certainly can be empowering.
Men who have been raped (and it does happen, although less) are more likely to face what may be called "wimp-shaming" from what I understand-i.e. a "real man" would have been able to stop it from happening, and so its their fault again. Not the same response or as common to occur, but despicable nonetheless.
"Slut-shaming" IS woman-hating, simple as that. In all respect though, I'm quite disturbed by the way many on the left having taken up "feminism", where the emphasis is on being "sex-positive" rather than dismantling the sex class that women are under patriarchy. Most of the "sexpoz" feminism does absolutely nothing to destroy the patriarchy, because it's merely an imitation of the sex slavery women are currently subordinated to, and I've experienced firsthand how such a thing becomes appropriated by men as a means of getting into women's pants. TokenLibertarianGirl is correct that casual sex does not liberate women. Free love and polyamory do not liberate women either and in many ways are used to reinforce male dominance (i.e. lefty men feel that they are entitled to women and promote "sexpoz" as a means of going about it).
Historically speaking, oppression of women pre-dates political and economic oppression (statism). Women were the first class, and dominating men were the first states. Any consistent anti-statist should support radical feminism for this reason.
My recent post Random Ramblings #4
Does the author of that stinking pile call themselves a libertarian?
Because, if so, let me just say to them: don't be on my side.
Rape shield laws are a gross violation of the constitution and due process and it is precisely because they are so inconsistent with a fair trial that I will vote to acquit the defendant any time I sit on the jury of a rape trial.
I'm I the only one who finds "feminist libertarian" a total contradiction in terms?
If we had the freedom of associacion we could exclude sluts from our society if we wanted to. Or if you prefer to live with sluts, you could invite them to your village. Maybe sluts are more productive than monogamous women, so your village would prosper. Maybe sluts are more fun to to live with, so everybody in your village would have more fun. Think about that.
So if we had the freedom of associacion "slut shaming" would not undermine liberty at all. People with same moral standards would associate, and people with different moral standards would separate.
Well you could argue that a feminist wants to free women from a kind of suppression. Feminists think that suppression of something in women is caused by men. Libertarians also think that mankind is suppressed, especially economically by the state. Libertarians and feminists both have no clue about sexuality, thats what they have in common.
Yes, Slut shaming should be condemned –but it is not a libertarian issue. Libertarianism is a political theory concerned with the use of violence by the one societal institution which is permitted to use force and violence –the state. Issues like "slut shaming" are of no concern to libertarianism, unless there is an effort to get the government to move against this behavior. That does not mean that libertarians can not take a position against slut shaming, but they should take off their libertarian hat when doing so.
*sigh* Seems like there's still a lot of work to do
I think it is a stretch to say that Borowski's video was slut shaming. She said casual sex doesn't empower women. Did she promote some stereotypes of young women? Yes. But I really don't think she meant it to denigrate women at all.
"we"? Like the democratic "we"?
I do not think that word means what you think it means.
Good article. Woods' entire article bugged me, as did the video he was defending. I do not believe that Borowski was engaging in slut-shaming, and in fact I agree with her that having sex outside a committed romantic relationship is not empowering for anyone, male or female. Slut-shaming is a real problem though, especially when it comes to rape cases.
I have to object to this part, however:
"But whatever we call it, slut shaming can have dire consequences. It certainly did for Hope Witsell. After this 13-year-old girl sent a topless photo to a boy she had a crush on, she faced persistent slut-shaming and harassment from her peers. While school administrators did little to stop this harassment, they did see fit to suspend her for sending the photo."
The school was right to suspend her. The other students were right to dislike her. What she did was sexual harassment, and that stuff needs to be punished. If a boy sent a picture of his dick to a girl he was attracted to, he would be lucky not to be expelled. And I doubt anyone would defend him, either. No one should defend what this girl did.
And sure, she's young, and people in her age group are still working on becoming sexually mature. All that means is that it's more important to discipline her, so she can learn that that behavior isn't okay, and doesn't walk around sexually harassing men when she grows up.
But aside from that, I definitely think this whole idea that a rape victim should be blamed for the crime if she was wearing revealing clothing is profoundly anti-liberty. Everyone has a right to show as much skin as they want, even go naked if they feel like it, and still have the full protection of the law.
Maybe libertarians should oppose racial integration because African Americans are more likely to rape whites than whites African Americans.
This is retarded. You do realize that "slut shaming" has absolutely nothing to do with rape apology? Jesus Christ, the extent to which you left-anarchists will go to in order to prove that libertarianism must be culturally marxist…
You never answered his question "So arguing against casual sex is slut shaming?"