Does a “slut uniform” come with all items included, or do you have to buy each piece separately?

Via The Sexist:

In the US, a university student was denied a rape kit after reporting she was drugged and sexually assaulted at a party. Luckily, we have a concerned citizen to point out the very sensible reason she was denied: stiletto heels! Her rape doesn’t matter because she was wearing stilettos!

You know god-damned well a woman today on a weekend night looks and acts like a prostitute. (tramp stamp/tongue ring/stiletto heels . . . This article is about a woman who wasn’t even sure if she was raped. She thinks she was, but she doesn’t know. The Doctor, who has important things to do, made the decision to turn this woman away. That is his prerogative. I don’t blame him. Imagine if you will, a young woman coming into your clinic, drunk to the gills, stiletto heels, a pound of make-up, dressed like a prostitute, and expecting a rape kit. Too bad! . . . If she is shitfaced and wearing a slut uniform (tramp stamp/tongue ring/nipple piercing/one pound of make-up/stiletto heels) then whatever happens to her is her responsibility.

That skankbag was dressed like a big slutty slut, and was gagging for it but putting all her goodies out on display.

Oh, except for the fact that she actually wasn’t wearing stilettos…..Yeah….

And even if she was, who gives a fuck? What footwear is acceptable? What footwear isn’t slutty enough to prompt rape (which stilettos totes do, y’all), and but also wholesome enough to warrant you getting a rape kit when that non-existent rape (because you wont be wearing slutty shoes) does happen? I’m pretty sure we can rule out any kind of Doc Martens/heavy boots, because that just makes you a lesbian, don’t you know?

Amanda talks about how this case subverts the general script that rape apologists tend to follow:

This is the general script for rape apologists:

1. Isolate a detail about the rape victim—it could be her appearance, her attire, her level of intoxication, her upbringing, her sexual history, or her presence at a particular party—really, anything will do.

2. Decide that that particular detail designates her as a less-than-perfect rape victim.

3. Assert that this rape doesn’t matter because the victim was asking for it / wasn’t taking charge of her own safety / is lying / doesn’t deserve any of the limited amount of the sympathy we extend to “real” victims of rape.

This troll has reversed that script. First, decide that you don’t care about the rape. Then, assume that the rape victim must conform to one of the accepted cultural markers of an “imperfect” victim (short skirt / stiletto heels / sexually promiscuous / had been drinking / has a piercing / in a bad neighborhood / has a tattoo—on the lower back! / wears make-up / and good luck if you’re transgender).

And I think this is an excellent breakdown of how rape apologists roll.


  1. Katherine says:

    Thanks for bringing Amanda’s article to my attention, it was well worth the read. Pity about some of the comments over there though.

    • steph says:

      Yeah, far too many of the “Oh, i totally agree, women shouldn’t be blamed for rape, but you have to admit sometimes they bear some responsibility” crap. You know, the ‘I am so sympathetic and feminist and care about women, but actually then negate all of my previous statement with a huge serving of woman-hating victim-blaming’. I loathe that as much as the overt victim-blaming, because it is so slimy and disingenuous.