prisoner, if you’re getting your information about rape from The Sopranos, then you DESERVE to be ridiculed.
Dumbass.
I don’t know about anyone else, but I don’t agree that a woman has the responsibility to minimize the chances that she will be targeted for rape. I’m not even sure that such a thing is possible. From the numbers I’ve seen, the most effective precautions would be impractical – “Don’t be a woman.” “Don’t be alone with men you already know.” “Don’t be in your own home or the home of someone you know.”
Once a woman has already been targeted for rape there may, depending on the situation, be things she can do to increase her odds of escape. It could be argued that we all have a responsibility to ourselves to try to look our for ourselves when in danger. But that’s a responsibility to ourselves. I think it’s safe to assume that we’re all doing the best we know how, and saying “You’ve failed in your responsibility to protect yourself” when things go wrong doesn’t help anyone.
I have seen no indication that the woman’s style of dress has anything to do with the likelihood that someone will attempt to rape her. If you have evidence to the contrary you’re welcome to post it, but I do not believe that such evidence exists.
Oh, and a little note about what is evidence and what is not – fictional TV programs and Hollywood movies are not. Something that happened on The Sopranos would be, at best, an indication of what the popular conception of rape is like…not what rape is actually like. That you think otherwise indicates that the subject line here is pretty apt.
Bolding mine
Siege, you’re an idiot. The risk factor was always the same. What changed that day was that you realised the risk. I’m with prisoner on this.
So, I shouldn’t go to church wearing a skirt in broad daylight (OK, technically it was heavy snow) on a Saturday morning because someone might decide I’m available? Maybe that’s not what you meant, but that’s what I see being implied. Yes, the risk was always there. My point is that it shouldn’t be. By the way, the block in question is between two neighborhoods, one, the one the church is in, is very much a Yuppie neighborhood (Shadyside, for the Pittsburghers here); the other is not that good a neighborhood (East Liberty).
CJ
I think that this is all prisoner has said in his colored post. Reread it, and you might see that what he was really saying was “You all have stated it better than I did, and I agree with the conclusions you’ve reached.” At least that’s what I got out of it.
And if that’s so, then he’s more or less redeemed himself in my eyes.
I’m not seeing where anyone said that. I don’t think that anyone, including prisoner, said that you deserved to get assaulted in that situation.
Not to change the subject, but from your account the guy didn’t assault you. He tried to pick you up. There’s a world of difference.
Then again, I’m still half asleep, so maybe I’m just misreading everything this morning.
Well, what it looks like he said to me was “I was right the first time although I may have phrased it poorly, but really you all agree with me.”
And, as I said, I do not agree with him. Maybe someone else does, but I do not. I do not believe that I have a responsibility to predict what a rapist might try to use as a justification for raping me and modify my behavior accordingly in advance. I certainly do not believe that I have any obligation to follow a “Please don’t rape me” dress code, nor that there is any style of dress short of protective armour that could effectively discourage a rapist.
I do believe that if I’m in trouble then I should try to do what I can to get out of it – but that is basic self-preservation. It’s instinct. I do not need to be reminded of it. I do not need to be told that I’ve failed in my responsibility to myself if I can’t escape from danger. Not only is it not helpful, it’s no one else’s damn business if I let myself down.
It also has little to do with the way I’m dressed, except insofar as certain clothing might affect my ability to fight or run away. And clothing choice is the issue that started this whole thing – prisoner’s claim that if an adolescent girl wears sexy clothes she’s irresponsibly tempting men into raping her. He still insists that this is the case. The only concession he’s made is about how many percentage points that miniskirt is worth.
Thank you tdn and Dog80 for your support. You are quite correct. It is a responsibility to yourself. If you were unfortunately raped Siege, however you were dressed, the blame would rest entirely on the rapist. There are things that you might have done to prevent it, like not stepping outside. But then who knows, maybe then someone would have broken into your house to rape you there. You never know when it could happen. I’m just saying that each and every one of us needs to be wary. You must realize that if you dress particularily “slutty”*, as the original discussion was about, you might just attract some more seedy men than if you dressed more conservatively. I’m not saying that this would certainly lead to rape, but why attract the attention of men that don’t have the strongest of morals? You Siege were in the wrong place at the wrong time. It wasn’t your fault. But that’s the truth. Your dress had nothing to do with it, clearly. I’m very glad that God was so obviously looking after you. Sorry that you felt threatened.
*I’m in no way saying that you Siege were dressed slutty, especially going to church. I’m sure you were dressed very nice.
prisoner, I agree with everything in your last post, except this:
We’ve already discussed at length in this thread that dress may have little to do with “tempting” rapists, and the consensus seems to be that there is little correlation.
And a woman can dress as slutty as she wants and still not deserve rape, right? We’re all agreed on that? Good.
Now, will slutty dress attract seedy men? I think it’s an interesting question. I have no doubt that certain modes of dress will attract attention from the general population, men in particular. One can argue it’s designed to do just that. And mere random chance will dictate that some of those men will be “seedy.”
So here’s the question: Does such dress send a clear (yet false) message that “She’s looking for it”? I would guess that in some people’s minds, yes, it does. And if true, then such mode of dress might be considered risky behavior.
Once again, not to say this is something a victim should be blamed for, but when a woman decides to weigh risk vs. personal freedom, she might do well to take this into consideration.
Y’know, prisoner, I’d really like to believe that it was simply just a case of misunderstood words that got blurted out way too hastily. Hell, I do it myself, so I could totally buy that. But, I don’t think it was just posts from this thread that got you pitted. It contributed, don’t get me wrong. But there’s also this, and the way you consistently make arguments against yours into a personal attack against you.
My disagreeing with you does not mean I’m attacking you. I’m attacking your position.
Oh, and one last thing. Although it started out as a pitting, I’m glad this thread got started. It turned out to be a great discussion.
Keep in mind also that my defense of him has been based on the last several posts of this thread. I’m not going to visit the links you posted because, quite frankly, I have neither the time nor the inclination to indulge in past history.
Just so you know. 
Eh. I’m just pointing out that the fact that it isn’t just one little post or thread that started this. Really, I’m amazed the pitting was so long in coming.
I see that you have conveniently neglected to link to this, which would completely nullify the one link that supported your claim that I am a repeat offender. The other being to a response to a personal attack by someone. Hmmm. I forget who. Don’t remind me. I think it’s got to be someone that apparantly provokes me into responding in ways I don’t like to respond. You’ll have to forgive me. I seem to have blanked out that horrible part of my past. Oh blast, it’s coming back. I think I remember someone repeatedly just calling me names. Did I call him names, ever? Sounds like a personal attack to me. It doesn’t to you?
mmm hmmm
That sounds like you’re attacking me, not my position. Not one word about my position in that paragraph.
I’ve seen you respond since I had my epiphany Maureen. I’m pretty sure you saw that I recanted my position on SSM, especially since you just linked to the very discussion that includes it. Please give me a chance to show the shinier side of my coin. I made a clerical error in the “slut” discussion. Instead of looking at it as it was (and pulease, really. WHO blames the woman for the rape? Honestly? Did you REALLY think I blamed the woman? Boy! You all must think I’m a MONSTER! Even before reading the “slut” discussion.) you looked for proof that I haven’t changed. If making a mistake makes me an idiot to SDMB, then well since you all are so perfect, that’s your prerogative. As long as you can abide by the being perfect rules yourself, then I’m okay with being called an idiot by you. But if, as you say, you blurt things out in haste too, you have no right to call me an idiot, because that apparently makes you one too.
Oh, and this pitting isn’t the first I’ve had to endure. Link. I’m suprised that you forgot it Maureen. You were the first respondant in that discussion. You really don’t like me much, do you?
Long, long ago on another Internet discussion group I described “Lamia’s Law”. I think I’ve mentioned this on the SDMB before, but the expression hasn’t caught on. Still, I think it’s relevant here.
Lamia’s Law of Online Discourse: There is no position too horrible, offensive, unreasonable, wrongheaded, or stupid to be sincerely held by someone somewhere on the Internet.
Therefore, it is never safe to assume that your reader will recognize that you are joking or that you expressed yourself poorly just because you have posted something that looks horrible, offensive, unreasonable, wrongheaded, or stupid.
Yep
Good.
Sure.
Certainly. But there is only one kind of man that likes fishnet stockings. Okay, I’m generalizing. But you get my point here, I hope.
Agreed.
Of course.
Not to me.
Really? I can only think of horrible people blaming women for being raped.
Even if dressing slutty DOESN’T mean she deserves to be raped, dressing slutty is risky. And rape was only a small portion about the risk and consequenses of dressing slutty. At the very least, she can expect catcalls and lame pick up lines from greasy smooth talkers. If that’s what she wants, go her. More power to her! But she does so at her own risk. What happens when that smooth talker wants to do more than talk, and she doesn’t? I’m not saying that she is to blame for him forcing her. She is most certainly NOT to blame, not in the slightest. But if she never met him in the first place, it wouldn’t have happened. And the way she dressed is what attracted him to her because, as some of the women who responded to the original discussion alluded to, dressing up slutty is sometimes like role-playing. So it portrays a particular stereotype that she wants to play. And she is playing the part that seedy men like. She’s after the attention of men that want that sort of woman. Again, she’s not to blame if the guy wants to go farther than she does. Maybe she enjoys teasing and torturing the seedy men with her look but don’t touch attitude. Well, that’s up to her, but she has to be careful. At least take along some pepper spray.
Yes. How is that different from what I said? Well, some of the important parts I disagree with. But that was your point I think. Right? In the end, I think you and I do agree.
Maybe that’s my problem. Maybe I’m just too naive here. Too optimistic. I’ll try to remember the Law Lamia.
Alright. Your position and attitude toward the 13yo girl that was raped was insensitive, wrong headed and sanctimonious to the point of offensiveness. How’s that?
Alright. Everyone deserves a second chance. Sometimes even a third.
Actually, I believe I said I’d like to believe it was an error. But that everything else I’ve seen from you leads me to believe otherwise.
As a matter of fact, I think you’re a self righteous doofus. Why? Because as soon as you loftily proclaim that I am judging you too harshly, that I should give you the benefit of the doubt, and I think “well, maybe he really means it…”
I hit refresh and see this:
[quote]
She’s after the attention of men that want that sort of woman. Again, she’s not to blame if the guy wants to go farther than she does. Maybe she enjoys teasing and torturing the seedy men with her look but don’t touch attitude.
[quote]
How the hell do you know what this woman is after? How do you know what “sort of woman” she’s trying to be? Maybe she just thought she looked good.
Oh, and while we’re at it? Let me clue you in on what “type” of woman wears fishnets. Students. Housewives. Professionals. Grandmothers. The girl next door. Bad girls, nice girls, smart blondes, dumb red heads, sisters, daughters, wives. Why? Many reasons, but mostly because it’s fun. They wear them to work, to school, to bed, out to dinner…
Am I making my point, here? You are stereotyping a woman just because she happened to wear a pair of fishnets once? I think you need to realize, there is more than one motivating factor. And your judgemental little generalization is insulting in the extreme.
Actually, everything else you’ve seen from me is before I had a change of heart.
I did say that I was generalizing, right? What part of, “But you get my point here, I hope” do you not understand? And see, the original discussion wasn’t about whether or not women think they dress slutty. It’s addressed to women that know they are dressing the way the OP thought was slutty and why they choose to dress slutty.
You’re taking that out of context. I didn’t say ALL women want to be this way, I was talking about a specific type of woman who dresses slutty because she wants to role play.
And it was just an example. Where did I say that ALL women dress slutty to tease sleazy men?