Twitch Streamers Plan 'SlutStream' To Raise Awareness Of Online Harassment

Kaceytron (Image: Instagram)

Wednesday, a veteran Twitch streamer is organising a day called “SlutStream” for women gaming online to band together and deflate the power of the word “slut.”

For over a decade, the word “slut” has been under siege. At annual SlutWalks, thousands march in “sexy” attire to protest the idea that women’s clothing or lifestyles could in any way invite sexual violence.

In high schools, teenagers are battling the notion that young women who violate dress codes are distractions or unfit for education. Now, Twitch streamers are launching their own effort to highlight how the word “slut,” or slut-shaming generally, can make it hard to live and work online.

“I’ve had a lot of people ask, ‘Why call it SlutStream? That’s just offensive,’” said Kacey “Kaceytron” Kaviness, a longtime Twitch streamer with 500,000 followers. “The whole idea of calling it ‘SlutStream’ is taking the name back and giving less power to it.”

Kaviness, who has mockingly referred to herself as a “titty streamer,” made a name for herself on Twitch around 2013 trolling and mocking Twitch culture. “People who are upset about female streamers wearing low-cut tops will see [my stream] and say, ‘Oh, yeah, she’s making fun of female streamers acting like sluts for views,’” Kaviness told Kotaku for a 2018 profile.

“The way I see it is, it’s making fun of the people who get upset about that.” Eliciting fury and vitriol from self-serious gamers, Kaviness has for years satirised the widespread stereotype that women on Twitch are leveraging their goods for clicks.

Wednesday, Kaviness and fellow streamer Isabella “IzzyBear” O’Hammon are leading a cadre of Twitch streamers in talking about the word “slut” on the interactive gaming platform. Hosted the same day as World Day Against Trafficking in Persons, #SlutStreamDay is raising money for Freedom 4/24, a U.S. nonprofit raising awareness of sex trafficking and exploitation.

“We want any and all streamers who stand against the constant harassment and slut shaming of women to stream dressed in ways that make them feel comfortable and raise awareness for a good cause, Kaviness and O’Hammon wrote on Twitter. Kaviness says harassment on Twitch happens no matter how women dress: “If you’re a female on this website, you’re going to be slutshamed by somebody.”

#SlutStreamDay will take place Wednesday. Over the phone, Kaviness and O’Hammon strategised on what to do if Twitch’s algorithms rain on their parade.

Despite streamers’ efforts, it’s ultimately on the company to govern the harassment that takes place on it — an effort that’s can clearly be improved as harassers continually bypass whatever protections are currently in place. O’Hammon says she can’t write the word “slut” in a stream title; Kaviness, who is a Twitch partner, says she can. “Just put a dash where the U is,” O’Hammon suggests.


Comments

    I am organising NeckbeardStream where me and other beta males will take back the slur 'neckbeard' and deflate its power.
    During the stream, we will don our favourite fedoras, critically analyse hentai and of course, study the blade.
    Approved waifus only.

      Don't forget the incels! Been a favourite derogatory term weaponised by feminists and the left, over the last 12 months to demonise men who don't fall in line. I feel that the incel community should stand together and reclaim the slur!

      countdown til it degrades into "your waifu is trash" in 3...2...

        realistically it would degrade into that before you could even type that witty comment =P

      Came to make similar point, found someone doing it better.
      Well done, good colleague.

    This is the first time i've heard of this and it sounds... strange to me.

    Slutwalks, where women dress up in sexy attire so people don't look at them as... sexy?

    This is confusing. Do whorewalks come next after this word has been "deflated"?
    I understand the goal, but the way its done is odd to me.

      Slutwalks have nothing to do with whether people look at them as sexy, they're about asserting that victim blaming and slut shaming are unacceptable. What someone wears is never an invitation nor excuse for sexual assault, and even if someone was a 'slut' they're no less a person because of it and they deserve to be treated the same as everyone else.

        Fine work, m'lord.

        Ahh woops this was supposed to be in response to Charlie's comment. Now awaiting approval

        Last edited 30/07/19 2:19 pm

        and back in reality, a slutwalk is usually a chubby shuffle of rabid feminists railing against the fringe belief that dressing "slutty" may contribute to your chances of being sexually assaulted, and the completely made up idea that anybody thinks what you wear excuses sexual assault.

        Find me 1 person that is not an extremist Islamist with a shitty interpretation of the Quran that believes the way someone is dressed excuses sexual assault, because i have never heard anyone say that i think your making up porkies to push your ideology.

        Slutwalks don't really have anything to do with the problems on twitch in any case, you have a handful of women who are deliberately and overtly sexualising themselves for money and the vast majority of legitimate female streamers are coping shit for it. If the idea was to change this behavior where every girl that streams in a low cut top gets fucking harassed maybe you should help get the thots tossed off the platform so their behavior isn't impacting everyone else negatively.

          I'll do better than one person, I'll give you seven.

          - In 2006, a rapist in Canada was given no jail time because the judge claimed the victim's tube top and high heels constituted a 'perceived invitation'.

          - In 2012, a Catholic priest in Italy made a statement in response to the statistic that over 100 women we killed by domestic violence that year, that those victims provoked violence and brought it on themselves, following up by questioning the clothing they wore.

          - In 2013, a woman was sexually assaulted at a nightclub in Colombia. The owner of the nightclub tried to excuse it because she was wearing a miniskirt.

          - Also in 2013, University of Arizona student Dean Saxton held a sign saying 'you deserve rape' and said "they should realize that they do have partial responsibility, because I believe that they're pretty much asking for it".

          - In 2015, Chrissie Hynde of the Pretenders said "if I'm walking around in my underwear and I'm drunk, who else's fault can it be?"

          - In 2017, fashion designer Donna Karan defended Harvey Weinstein of all people, saying women are 'asking for it' by the way they act and dress.

          - In 2018, the judge on the rape case of a 17 year old victim claimed the fact she was wearing a lace thong as an indication of her consent. This one you should definitely have heard of, it sparked enormous protests.

          I appreciate that you don't see it much, and for that I think we should both be grateful, but this isn't some rare backwater attitude, it exists everywhere.

            Forgot to include: the country in the last one was Ireland.

              Could of even included the one from here with the grand mutfi back in the early 00s when he compared women in "skimpy" clothing was the same as leaving out fresh meat around cats

            Like right here in this comments section apparently.

            Man, there's never a good asteroid around to wipe out the planet when you need it...

              apparently there are loads of them i guess they have shit aim :S

            give me 1 example is admittedly a stupid question and i have heard this sort of shit before, usually it's the police trying to explain that being out alone at 3am wearing revealing clothing tends to increase your chances of being assaulted, which is then taken by feminists as victim blaming, I assumed you were doing the same thing.

            I realise that this attitude exists the world is full of stupid people who believe in all kinds of whacky shit like alien abductions and socialism, i had never heard of any of these examples specifically before i will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume they exist rather than look them up myself, however i'm pretty sure i know the kind of website you got these off anyway to the matter at hand.

            The 2 judges really shocked me they should be sacked immediately and investigated, hopefully that would lead to their imprisonment. The Harvey thing is an odd one because he is undoubtedly a serial rapist but at the same time some of the women involved were more than happy to prostitute themselves to advance careers, some are going to be labelled as willing when in reality they were under duress and he used his power over them. The people who talk about this are not defending Harvey they are usually religious people railing against how Hollywood turned sex into a transnational commodity, they see people like Harvey as an obvious product of this environment. If i was you i would save a spot on this list for whatever judge Harvey gets because this guy deserves bare minimum life in prison without parole and i'm pretty sure he will get off with some probation bullshit, i won't be watching the trial myself i prefer not to deliberately make myself nauseous.

            You provide a myriad of examples of people at the very least victim blaming and in most of these cases excusing sexual assault, i stand corrected there are a lot more people that think this way than i was aware. I mean it's still a minuscule minority but sure keep pretending it's mainstream opinion just because you can find 7 examples.

            I know you think this proves your point and that is my fault for asking you to provide 1 example but this is not a popular opinion and slutwalks combat nothing they showcase the worst of feminism. I have seen these walks and apart from a bunch of women who have no business dressing that way and a lot of breasts we have the signs "kill all men" "1/4 women get raped" that is complete bullshit btw and my favorite one "man = rapist". This is irrelevant anyway have your slutwalk or your slut stream ignore the problem and attack the strawman changing nothing i don't know why i bother responding sometimes.

          For someone named nobully, you sure do like to assert your opinions about how women are less than you.

          Congratulations on removing any don't that you're part of the problem.

            your a misogynist wah wah wah

            do i win the argument...

            nope you ate shit again good try though

            ps doubt not don't

      Yeah its like the whole "stop seeing women as sexual objects" being protested by women showing off more than normal cleavage and very short skirts.

      Still doesnt invite sexual assault of any kind.

        errm...it's impossible to consent to or invite sexual assault. That's kind of the point.

        Sounds like a topless protest that happened in a park in Brisbane last year. Bunch of woman had a picnic in the park while topless to try show that woman's chests aren't sexual objects, and then complained that all the guys that showed up were perverts. You can't have it both ways, either they're not sexual objects, so the guys can't possibly be perverts by that logic, or they are, and they shouldn't have been topless in the first place.

          I don't think that invalidates the point. It doesn't sound like they were upset because anyone saw their breasts, they were upset because people showed up exclusively to see breasts and it was disruptive to their protest. Believing that women's breasts aren't sexual objects that should be hidden doesn't mean you have to sit there and be ok with random creeps. I don't believe feet are sexual objects that must be hidden away but if someone with a foot fetish is staring at my feet I'm going to ask them to stop. At no point do I have to accept that their fetishization is the same as my feet being inherently sexual objects.

          That's one of the big meta points behind the whole normalising the breast idea. Women deal with open objectification on so many fronts and the response is usually to put the blame, or at least the responsibility for resolving it, on the woman. You don't want random creeps staring at your chests? Wear a bra. They still stare at your chest? Don't show any hint of cleavage. They still stare? Don't wear anything that shows off your figure.
          I like to think that even if they don't say it most people do think the creep is a problem, but it doesn't change the fact that most attempts at resolution involve telling her to accept that her body is a collage of porno magazine cut outs and that any attention it gets is her own fault. When you think about how those sorts of attitudes apply to all sorts of ways women are viewed in society you can see why some women think that normalising the breast is an important stepping stone towards normalising the idea of being female.

            Oh, I totally agree that woman doing their own thing should absolutely be able to go about their lives without being objectified in public, but the logic starts to fall apart if you're arguing people can't stare at your bare chest when you're the one who's walking around topless.

        I keep seeing people say that gaming didn't have a misogyny problem and those people invariably have misogynistic shit to say.

        Coincidence?!

          And here ladies and gentleman we have what appears at first glance to be a white knight on a glorious steed of absolute female defence. But upon further inspection turns out to be just a jester on a donkey.

      Slutwalking wasn't about that, it was/is a stand against the justifications of rape and shaming based on a persons choice of attire.

      The idea of embracing, changing and diminishing derogatory terms via acceptance and rejection isn't new, it's been happening for as long as we have used derogatory words.
      It might not be for everyone and the ways it's done may seem contradictory or differ between various groups but the effect is always the same.

      The story about egirls here recently was a good example, the term at its worst was pretty fucked up and was inevitably misused.
      Some chose to reject it and created a fashion culture from it while others chose to embrace the term.
      Some were confused then too that the second group was just doing the the "bad" things that earnt them the name but it's actually about accepting that the things they were doing aren't "bad" to begin with.
      No matter how you look at it the word egirl no longer has power over a large potion of people for whom it was used against.

      Some older examples include subcultures like goths and punks embracing the freak labels and a good one for Australia would be how a lot of younger guys took back the word "wog" as a positive.

      the joke here is that she's doing it 'ironically' but is in real life a massive slut. it's well known that she gets around. but whatever, play along everybody, just shove more money and success into this foul person.

    Used to live in Mayfield, Newcastle, relatively close to Islington road which was where all the pros worked. If you saw someone dressed as a "slut" in Mayfield it is very safe to assume they were a prostitute. No different than assuming someone dressed as a paramedic is one. Does not invite sexual assault as nothing ever does or should. But dress in the very well known uniform of any job and expect people to assume you are in that profession.

      Professional athletes drink water, but not everyone who drinks water is a professional athlete. Prostitutes wear sexy clothing, but not everyone who wears sexy clothing is a prostitute. That you think sexy clothing is a 'uniform' for sex work is a textbook example of the problem.

        Oh I am not just talking low cut tops. I have seen women, even teens, wearing very see through clothing and skirts so short you can actually see the base of their butt without them walking around. Sorry but that is not appropriate clothing in public.

        While I agree that people *should* be able to wear pretty much what they like without being assaulted or shamed, there are a couple realities that need to be considered. Humans are literally hardwired to find certain things arousing. The vast majority of people are civilised enough to override the impulses that creates. However, there are still a tiny minority that can't (for a variety of reasons). As such it seems logical to take a certain amount of care in how you appear in certain situations.

        Again, just to be clear. Someone dressing "like a slut" shouldn't be admissible as a defence if someone assaults them. But it should be in their mind before they walk home alone at 2am. It's no different to say, leaving a big wad of cash on the dash of you car and walking away. It *should* be safe to do so, but the reality is that it will inspire a certain type of person to commit a crime :(

          This reply straddles yours and an in-moderation reply from Andy, so I might be addressing things you didn't say directly. I realise that's a little confusing but I wanted to nail both these birds with the one stone.

          There's a difference between precaution and culpability. We can put extra locks on the doors and windows of our house and install a security system as precautions, but even if we don't do any of those, the culpability is still entirely on the burglar who broke in and stole shit.

          If, for example, your friend was walking home through a bad part of Redfern and he got beaten up and mugged (from Andy's moderated reply), it is not in any way his fault, and calling him an idiot for doing it is blaming the victim.

          As long as we're clear on that difference between precaution and fault, then I agree with you. We can take precautions to deal with a dangerous and unfair world. But if someone is mugged, or sexually assaulted, or burgled, the suggestion that they 'should have done X' carries with it an implicit portion of culpability that the victim doesn't deserve.

          That's what slutwalks were started to fight against - taking some of the blame from the perpetrator and putting it on the victim. You shouldn't have been out so late. You shouldn't have been wearing revealing clothes. You shouldn't have smiled at him earlier that night. Because none of those things are wrong, none of them mitigate what the other person did.

            When he knew full well there was a massive chance of it happening, yes he is an idiot. He said so himself. Took repsonsibility for the dumb decision he choose. As he should have..

              And as I said, that attitude is the problem. You're blaming the victim for something that was in no way his fault.

                You are just throwing any responsibility away and thats more of the issue. We dont live in some unicorn and rainbow world. There are world realities that if you choose not to live your life by you will get hurt. And yes when you are aware of those realities and choose to ignore them then you deserve some responsibility.

                  The mugger is fully responsible for their own actions, it was never your friend's responsibility to begin with.

                  He was responsible for putting himself into the situation.. If even my kids, that are only 2, 4 and 5, understand not to go near our dog when she is in her special spot or she will get cranky, or not to pull our cats tail or they will get scratched then I dont understand why adults cant understand similar things and accept their parts in the situations THEY put themselves in. I mean my kids arent victims in those situations. They are very silly because they KNEW it would happen. Just like my mate. And taking away any responsibility is just silly and not teaching people anything.

                  No different than "dont play on roads" or "look before crossing" simple things that if you dont do them and a bad thing happens then you have blame on you.

                  Dogs and cats have limited capacity to understand the things human society has determined to be right and wrong, which is why the responsibility if your animal harms someone is on you as the owner. But make no mistake, if your animal harms someone you are responsible (not the person your animal attacked), and that can result in criminal charges.

                Also I dont think a victim having any blame should be any kind of legal defense. More of a reckless action that shoukd be pointed out to the person. Not just allow them to walk away thinking they had no part to play.

                  I'm heading out so we'll have to leave the discussion here. I just wanted to say thanks for sharing your thoughts. I firmly disagree with you on some of them, but you seem willing to actually discuss the 'why' without drawing hard lines and I appreciate that. I'd love to keep seeing if I can persuade you of a better view on things, but it'll have to wait for another time!

                  "Sir did you have all your doors and windows locked"
                  "Why you asking me that? I got robbed I'm the victim!"

                  I have to agree with your position on this, personal responsibility for ones safety should never be diminished because, ultimately, when the shit hits the fan, all the other stuff goes out the window. If we raise kids with the "you have the right to go where you want when you want and be safe at all times" attitude then there's going to be a lot more victims of violent crime out there. @zombiejesus seems like a very nice chap, but gee he wouldn't last even a day in Port Moresby.
                  I also agree that none of this exonerates the perpetrator in any way at all. But again, in that moment (that none of us think will happen to us) where you are being subjected to random violence, all the idealistic unicorn world stuff is about as useful as a feather duster.

                So if I went walking in the dead of night, wearing all black, headphones in, probably reading kotaku on my phone and not paying attention, step out onto the road (not at a crossing) and get hit by a car that had no chance to stop, whose at fault? Me, the victim because I am now roadkill, or the driver who hit me?

                  I don't think a completely unavoidable thing (the car had no chance to stop) and a deliberate choice to commit a crime (sexual assault, robbery, etc) are comparable. If you stepped out in front of a car that did have the ability to avoid the accident but chose not to, then the driver is at fault.

                @zombiejesus @andy I can see what both of you are saying I would suggest both of you would say that no one deserves something bad happening to them but everyone can minimise their risk.

                It's why I don't leave my car unlocked with the keys in the ignition, do I deserve to have my car stolen if I do, no but if I had locked my car it would be less likely to happen.

                Now I'm not trying to compare sexual assault to Grand Theft Auto or mugging or someone breaking into your house, there is no real comparison that can be made for sexual assault.

                One thing I can think of though a woman born in say Saudi Arabia isn't going to walk around in "sexy" clothing she might be killed and quite possibly rapped, she doesn't deserve it but she could of minimised her risk.

                It's in no way fair to put responsiblity on a victim or on someone not becoming one, we don't live in a perfect world and unfortunately we have to take into account that people may wish to do us harm, it's not right and it's not an excuse it's just the reality we are forced to live in.

            I agree with you about precaution and culpability, that was what I was getting at originally. I do however, think that there are times when a victim deserves some blame. Yes I know I'm gonna get some hate for that, but I'll explain.

            I think walking home through a bad part of Redfern when you *know* it's a bad part of Redfern means you're an idiot and I'm all for blaming the victim in that case. They should have used an alternative, they *knew* there was a high risk and still chose to do it. That's not to exonerate their assailant, or reduce the seriousness of the crime. Just to say that the victim was dumb to have gone there in the first place.

            On the other hand if you didn't know it was a bad area then I'd say they were just a little naive. Though to be fair, it's probably not a good idea to be walking anywhere late at night all by your self. No matter the neighbourhood, you are increasing the potential risks you face.

              I'd edit, but it goes into moderation. Maybe blame isn't the right word, maybe admonishment?

              If your view is that someone walking through a bad part of a suburb is to blame for being mugged, then I'm sorry but that is clear-cut victim blaming and you're also part of the problem. I don't think you do agree with me about precaution vs culpability, because you've conflated one with the other here.

                Sorry, I didn't see your addendum for some reason. I still think what you're doing is victim blaming even if you don't use the word blame. To be clear, it's not Andy's friend's fault or responsibility or blame for someone else mugging him just for walking through a particular area. Yeah he could have taken precautions, but that's a separate thing.

                  And I still think victim blaming/admonishment has a place. If nothing else to educate people not to be risk takers. @Kasterix said it well in another post, too many people are failing to take personal responsibility for their own safety. Don't walk home alone at 2am through a bad part of town. Don't insult the scary looking bikie in the pub. Don't leave obvious cash on the dash of the car. Don't shake your ass at the pervy looking dude. They're all pretty common sense.

                  Absolutely nothing bad should happen to you. And absolutely the person(s) who perpetrate the crime on you are in the wrong and should be punished. But take some reasonable care to reduce the risk in the first place and maybe you won't be in the situation where you're trying to defend how you were dressed.

            Stepping away from clothes because quite frankly, slut walks are stupid. If a guy paraded around like that in front of children, he'd be a registered sex offender within the hour.

            I do want to reiterate that wearing certain clothing is not an excuse to sexually assault anyone. And I am firmly of the belief that those male (and female) perpetrators would have done so regardless of what their victim was wearing.

            In all fairness, some onus of responsibility must be taken by the alleged victim.

            If I got to America and wear an "I hate n*****" shurtand get physically assaulted or worse because of it, am I not partially to blame for it?

            If I go walking around at 3am in a dangerous part of town, knowing full well that it is not entirely safe to do so, would that constitute not taking precautions?

            If I leave my front door width open in the middle of the day and come home to it completely robbed, should I not be held somewhat responsible for not taking precautions?

            One thing I've learnt working in building maintenance is that, no matter how much precaution you take, if someone wants to get in badly enough, they will. But majority are impulsive and opportunistic. A flimsy wire door will detour 90% of break ins. More precautions, detour a lot more. And that goes across the board.

            Go out clubbing, have a few drinks, make sure you drink from a bottle with a cap, don't leave it unattended, what's the chances of being hit by a daterspe drip? That's precaution.

            The question is, how much of an easy target do you want to make yourself?

            All this zero victim shaming no matter the circumstances nonsense reminds of that idiot that wore meat on his feet at a pub, slipped and hurt himself and sued the pub and won. Or the burglars that hurt themselves robbing houses, sued and won. Ridiculous..

              What circumstances do you think justify shaming the victim of sexual assault or violent mugging?

                Sexual assault none. Mugging well that depends on lots of things. But this is more about the general zero blame on the victim of just about anything, not specifically sexual assault. Just because you are a victim does not mean you are blameless every time.

                  I don't think anyone in this conversation has said that. Provocation is a valid legal defence in some cases. Sexual assault is not one of them, and to the best of my knowledge neither is battery or robbery.

                Yeah not in this conversation no but I just see it very often where a female gets herself into a situation and is totally blame free. Dont agree with it. Like twitch streamers dressing sexy and in turn attracting drop kicks. Cause and affect. Not saying call them any names as thats very obviously wrong but they are attracting a certain type of people doing things the way they are doing them.
                Had ne er even heard of the above female twitch streamer so I googled her. Needless to say the pics paint her as someone trying very hard to attract male viewers.

                  A female what? Dog? Eggplant? Electrical fitting?

            Agree with you fully that culpability always lies with the criminal.

            My issue with these situations, is that in a lot of cases the whole "I should be able to do what I want without fear!" screamed by a lot of people very much has an inaudibly mumbled "And I shouldn't have to take any responsibility for my own safety!" attached to it. And THAT is where I draw my particular line.

            People who are all surprised when some scumbag takes advantage after they made the active choice to go out, get drunk and decide to walk home alone, etc. It SHOULD be perfectly safe to do, but it simply isn't so stop being daft.

            People refusing to take any responsibility for their own safety drives me up the damn wall. It's akin to stepping into traffic expecting drivers to stop for you, yet people tend not to do it because it's stupid and unsafe.

              Except one of those situations is an active decision to put yourself in immediate danger where nobody else involved has the power to stop the injury and the other party has no prior knowledge that is going to happen.

              The other situation is you living your life normally when another person makes a conscious effort to plan and execute an attack upon you.

              These are not the same things.

        By your logic if someone were to wear an explosive vest, they should be allowed to walk into an airport unaccosted, because anyone thinking anything negative would be part of the problem.

        Amazing how hyperbole works isn't it?

          Wearing an explosive vest into a public place is illegal. They are committing an illegal action. Your equivalency is false, even as hyperbole.

            It's about as false as equating an individuals deductive capacity to something as trivial as drinking water. After all, bears drink water - does that mean anything that drinks water is expected to hibernate after they re-hydrate?

              I think you’re inadvertently arguing the same point that ZJ was making, i.e. Bears drink water and hibernate, but not all things that drink water hibernate. Or, to bring it back to the original point: prostitutes stereotypically wear revealing clothing, but not everyone who wears revealing clothing is a prostitute.

          That's not my logic, no. My logic is to avoid affirming the consequent: 'if X then Y' does not also mean 'if Y then X', as in the example 'if they're an athlete they drink water' does not mean 'if they drink water they're an athlete'. There's neither false equivalence nor hyperbole here, the example perfectly illustrates the fallacy.

        Professional athletes don't drink water, they drink BRAWNDO, the thirst mutilator, because electrolytes.

    @zombiejesus

    Lived in Sydney near Redfern for a few years. Now we all knew that a certain part of Redfern (around the towers) was a no go zone when alone and walking on Friday and Saturday nights. You just didnt do it.

    Of course a mate of ours chose to do it one Saturday night as it was much quicker. Of course he got beaten up and mugged.

    Now we didnt all say, you poor guy, oh such a victim. We said you stupid idiot.

    So if it is well known that, as a female streamer, if you dress seductively and over sexy you attract a certain kind of douche bag audience can you really be a total victim when those people show up and make stupid remarks etc? Is there no culpability for your actions when you KNOW for a fact that this will happen? In the streamer situation I think there should be, or at least dont play the totally innocent victim.

    Now it should be safe for anyone to walk anywhere at any time and it should be safe to dress any way at any time anywhere without anything happening, but its just not and unfortunately nor will it ever be. You will always have those f'd up guys that see women as less than. As objects simply for their amusement. Just like you will always have people that pray on others that are alone.

    Ideal world there would be no violence, sexual or otherwise, but this is not an ideal world so you treat it as such. Sucks I know..

    The Kotaku article about this after it happens will be how 'trolls' raided the streams and destroyed the whole thing.

      Yes, The chat on this stream will be full of level headed intelligent people having respectful discussions.

        In all fairness, calling a stream "slut stream" and having your breasts out and proud won't exactly encourage "level headed intelligent people".

        Those people would not give two hoots about that stream because it's stupid.

        Don't worry, the WhiteknightStream planned for the same day will be there in force to defend them.

    So by reclaiming a word and destigmatizing it means that we’re all able to use it in a casual manner and no one can take offence because it’s a harmless word now? We’ve seen how well that’s worked with various other words. Not.

    god this whole thread is utter nonsense, GIVE ME 1 EXAMPLE just 1 time someone said well you got raped coz you dress like a whore and that means he did nothing wrong.

    stop lying and using the word excuse you either don't know what it mean or your a lying hypocrite.

      I've given seven examples in my reply to nobully above, if anyone else is interested.

      So nobully, been readin' up on all them good ol' boy judges down south in yankeeville, eh butch? Hmmm, thought not...

      You mean the 6 examples you already got where the legal system refused to give a shit about sexual assault on women?
      Every time I see your name in the comments now it's something about how weaponising sexual assault against women isn't a problem. You really seen to care about something that you think doesn't matter.

        you should probably look at the times of the post my dude because when i made these posts i hadn't read your reply.

        yet more abuse from you, accusing me of weaponising sexual assault now? i think it's time Kotaku kicked you off these forums. oh wait i forgot it's okay to accuse me of being pretty much any kind of degenerate scum but if i call you a spastic cunt ill get banned... seems fair

        So you can't be bothered to read when comments are posted then just assume i'm a moron and accuse me of being a disgusting human, because that is what your saying someone who would weaponise sexual assault or use someones attire as an excuse they had it coming is a total scumfuck, well i'm glad i never did that and that is just your fevered interpretation.

        Your first reply above with all the examples was a good one, too bad you immediately revert to the standard tactic of accusing your opponent of being the worst kinds of scum.

        stay classy

          Off topic but I always chuckle when I read or hear the word spastic.

    "Attire intended to be sexually suggestive and nudity are prohibited. Attire (or lack of attire) intended to be sexually suggestive includes undergarments, intimate apparel, or exposing/focusing on male or female genitals, buttocks, or nipples."

    https://www.twitch.tv/p/legal/community-guidelines/sexualcontent/

      We want any and all streamers who stand against the constant harassment and slut shaming of women to stream dressed in ways that make them feel comfortable and raise awareness for a good cause.

      Emphasis mine. Nothing in there at all about dressing in underwear or intimate apparel.

        I really want no part in this discussion... but can we not all agree that the image at the top is all about $ubs and nothing to do with "comfort"? There's nothing wrong with that, but can we not call it how it is? How many ladies are buying the fireman calendar to check out their hairstyles?

          They're not my clothes and it's not my body, I'm not going to pretend I can speak for someone else on whether they find something comfortable or not. Even if it was solely for subs, does that make her less of a person, or justify sexual harassment in chat?

          Not trying to drag you in to the discussion, those are rhetorical questions really. I think it should be plainly clear that the answer to both of them is no.

            Yeah fair points there and thanks for not jumping on the hypocracy of me replying to a discussion and saying i don't want a part in it :p
            Gender inequity is real and exists pretty much everywhere. im just not sure videogame streamers make for the best advocates. I (genuinely) wonder how female streamers who dress more "conservatively" feel about it?

              I guess I'm of the view that everyone who takes a stand against gender inequity and sexual harassment is a good advocate. The more common it is for people to speak out against it, the more clear it should be to the people who do it that it's not acceptable. Every little counts.

              I totally get not wanting to join the discussion, don't worry. Sometimes there's just one thing you want to say and you just don't want it to become a whole drawn out back and forth. I'm about to head to the pub myself, so this much is plenty!

            -Wrong comment replied too-

            Last edited 30/07/19 5:54 pm

              Attire (or lack of attire) intended to be sexually suggestive includes undergarments, intimate apparel, or exposing/focusing on male or female genitals, buttocks, or nipples.

              No she isn't, 'sexually suggestive' is defined. Breasts aren't genitals.

        Doesnt matter if it makes them feel comfortable.

        Twitch TOS is pretty clear but never enforced on them for some off reason. I wonder why?

        Attire intended to be sexually suggestive and nudity are prohibited.

          See my reply above. Not sure why you posted this same thing to me twice.

            Again.

            It does not matter if it makes them feel comfortable. If it breaks TOS it should be punished.

            Its twitch, Not chaturbate lite.

              Since you removed your earlier comment, I'll post the same thing I posted above: she's not breaking the TOS because the Twitch terms define what 'sexually suggestive' means:

              Attire (or lack of attire) intended to be sexually suggestive includes undergarments, intimate apparel, or exposing/focusing on male or female genitals, buttocks, or nipples.

              Breasts aren't genitals, and neither is cleavage. It doesn't matter what you think is sexually suggestive, it matters what the TOS says.

                Attire (or lack of attire) intended to be sexually suggestive includes

                Includes being the keyword in this sentence. That means these are examples. Not the only defined examples.

                But hey, If you want twitch to continue to devolve into Chaturbate go right ahead.

                  Of course they're examples. They also specifically mention nipples but not breasts, which should give you a big clue on where they draw the line.

                  You're not a Twitch moderator, nor did you write the guidelines. It's not up to you what constitutes 'sexually suggestive'. If you think that shot above breaks the TOS then report it and see if Twitch agrees. That's all you get to do, you don't get to decide if they're breaking the TOS by yourself.

                  We all know twitch won't do anything.

                  Alinity is a perfect example of that. Repeated TOS violations, Yet not a single punishment.

                  And to be blunt, if you think that shot at the top there is inappropriate, I hope you don't go outside. That kind of thing is perfectly fine to wear in public, and many women do. Which, incidentally, is another one of Twitch's thresholds for what they consider acceptable - if it'd be acceptable to wear it in public based on the activity.

                  2 second shot of a Hitler Minecraft skin? BANNED FROM TWITCH?

                  Show a dick on stream? Oh that's okay, Just remove the vod and youll be fine!

                  If you're arguing that Twitch is horribly inconsistent in enforcing its rules, I strongly agree and it's bullshit. That said, I still don't think it's up to you or me to decide for them what unlisted things in an open-ended list they meant. If it's something their terms are very clear on though (like dicks out), I'm right there with you.

                  My point is that twitch is terribly inconsistent when dealing with ToS violations especially with female streamers who have lots of viewers. Many of them regularly break ToS over many thing apart from clothing yet never seem to be punished.

                  It came out a while ago that twitch had to fire some people from its team because they were giving preferential treatment to some unnamed female streamers.

                  And given the lack of punishment particularly with Alinity, i cant help but feel its happening again.

                  Sure. It's hardly unique to women streamers though, as Dr Disrespect's case exemplifies, or Tyler1 being violent on stream and still allowed back on. It's just a Twitch problem.

                  They both fucked up a lot before they were finally punished, and there are plenty more that aren't in that top bracket of names everyone's heard of that still haven't been touched. That tweet reinforces my point that it's not a gender thing, since they're both women.

                  Other women have received suspensions for sexualised content though. The fact some haven't doesn't make it a gender problem, it makes it a consistency problem, which is exactly what most people criticise Twitch for.

                  As an aside, I don't think either of them were suspension-worthy. They were right not to suspend Alinity there for something she didn't do herself, had no knowledge of and immediately hid. Anomaly did do it himself even though he forgot, but he also immediately realised the mistake and they were wrong to give him a suspension.

                  To anyone reading this convo. Please do not downvote Zombie Jesus for his comments.

                  While I might disagree with him strongly. He has been nothing but respectful. I know some of you might want to but please dont.

                  In response to the penis that was clearly not her fault, I don't know any thing else that she's gone that could justify a ban but I watched the video and it wasn't her fault.

                  As for the Hitler skin I don't think he should of been banned either.

    Seriously what a joke. Yes sexual assault or violence of any kind is unacceptable, but if you're going to stick your tits out for the world to see on a live stream to generate revenue... there's not too many other words that can be used to describe you.

    You can't have it both ways, either you want to be taken seriously for your content and put a fuckin sweater on, or you shake your tits around on screen and call it what it is.

    No-one deserves violence or harassment, but the same people these fucking idiots are whining about are their target audience. If you don't want people calling you a slut, stop shaking your tits around on screen and then ask why people are making lewd comments about it.

    I thought "slut" just implied a girl that likes sex a little too much, rather than having anything to do with sexual assault. Was I wrong?

      Trying to hurt a person by making derogatory comments about their supposed sexual activity is sexual assault.

        No it is not.

          It is today. Anything you say to anyone that offends them is a hate crime and of the same intensity as murdering them and their entire family tree.

    So a girl with her tits almost falling out for subs and views is ok now? I suppose porn stars with tan lines are ok as well then. They just feel more comfortable naked.

    Beta males are real and they go on Twitch.
    Why try and take power back from the powerless?
    They are only strong behind keyboards. IRL they live with their mums, have Lego man haircuts, and fear women like cats fear cucumbers. Fuck them. Let them languish in their poorly lit rooms. It's not like they're gonna reproduce. Let them die out naturally.

Join the discussion!

Trending Stories Right Now