None that I’ve been able to find.
To the contrary:
http://www.usu.edu/saavi/docs/myths_realities.pdf
http://www.d.umn.edu/cla/faculty/jhamlin/3925/myths.html
If anything, encouraging your daughter to dress un-provacatively may *increase *her chances of opportunistic rape:
What dressing “provacatively” does is increase the level of blame that people put on the victim, not her chances of being raped:
ibid
But what about those men who simply cannot be educated? There are some men (a small number, but still large enough to worry about) who know exactly what they’re supposed to do and how they’re supposed to comport themselves in civilised society but they just don’t care. Furthermore, given their proclivities, these men have the power to inflict a level of harm that is grossly disproportionate to their relatively paltry numbers. Personally, I would liken such men very much to weather phenomena. Based on everything I’ve read on the subject, reasoning with a sexual sadist is every bit as futile as reasoning with a thunder storm. And if one of those men decides that he’s going to go out and rape someone then someone is going to get raped and that’s all there is to it. These men are just immune to education and the only thing you can do is try your best to make sure that they don’t attack you. Surely rape prevention advice (provided it is given as advice and not in a smug “I told you so” kind of a way) is necessary to help women protect themselves from these predators?
You know what that advice would look like, if we were honest?
Never be alone with your uncle. Or your brother. Or your father or your grandfather or your dad’s best friend from college. Never go on a date. Don’t go to college. Don’t go to parties, don’t have a job, never walk outside in public. Don’t go to school, don’t go to a friend’s house, but don’t stay at home, either. When you see a White man, cross the street to get away from him. Stay away from married men in their thirties. But mostly, number one, the best way to reduce rape, is to never ever be alone with a man you know. Because that’s who most rapists are. Not strangers, not guys in bars or parking garages or on the wrong side of town. Not slavering beasts who cannot help themselves. They’re men we know. They’re men just like you. Perpetrators of Sexual Violence: Statistics | RAINN
When a woman complains that no man finds her attractive, the first thing that people tell her is that she needs to fix yourself up. Wear make-up, get her hair done. Shed all that pathetic obesity. Dress more provocatively, so that guys will see what she’s working with. No guy wants to date a frumpy sow who’s insecure about her body. Especially at a bar.
The double-messages are crazy-making.
Tell me, if one of your baby girls ends up being victimized, are you going to ask her what she was wearing? If she were to fess up to wearing the form-fitting clothes that are in fashion today, what will your response be? I’m curious how these “common sense” lessons are passed down from father to daughter in a way that isn’t creepy.
I know. Somewhere in the region of about 95% of rapes are committed by men known to the victim. But what about the remaining 5%? Surely advice on how best to avoid the predations of those 5% is still worth sharing.
I think that’s fair enough, for those situations it applies to. A realistic, good faith perspective on all this stuff is a good thing, obviously. Stuff like this:
is not the enemy. The enemy is the perception that the above things are things that pertain, in any way, to the assaults that many victims experience or ways that those assaults would have been preventable in the real world.
As WhyNot says, this kind of advice, taken wholesale and applied in the way that would be most likely to actually prevent most rapes, would lead directly to exactly the kind of “all men are rapists” environment that the same folks who complain about unfair accusations of victim-blaming also complain about all the time. On the subject of avoiding rapes, the people most affected really can’t win.
Of course. But we can leave provacative dress out of it entirely, and I’m not sure geography or setting is real important, either.
Things that are important to teach that aren’t blaming are protection against intoxicants, primarily. Don’t accept drinks you didn’t order, keep a lid on your drink, don’t share a sip, don’t get drunk. I might even go so far as to suggest avoiding bars or parties where other people will be consuming intoxicants. Because all of those are things in your control that do put you at greater risk of sexual assault. Wearing a different skirt makes no difference. Walking after midnight is no more dangerous than walking at 9:00. That’s why it’s blaming, not advice.
It’s like if I gave you the advice to wear purple to avoid catching a cold. It’s got nothing to do with it. It’s ineffective. The only purpose it can possibly serve is to give me something to blame you for if you catch a cold. “Why weren’t you wearing purple? I told you to wear purple!”
And also…it’s passing the buck. It’s saying, “let him rape someone else.” Which, granted, I’d prefer that if someone has to be raped, it not be my daughter…but I don’t exactly feel good about hoping it’s someone else’s daughter.
Rape reduction interventions have to be aimed at preventing people from raping, not preventing people from being raped.
The behavior of the oppressed does not only directly impact the people doing the most directly oppressive thing when they cease to accommodate and instead start to take risks, etc.
Over the course of time, a larger and larger percent of the population ceases to see rape (etc etc) as something the victim brings upon herself through her behavior and instead sees rape as a political act that society should not tolerate.
Over time, the world such people live in shifts from a world where people would high-five them for giving the tart what she deserved to a world where people would pull him off and bash him up if they were around at the time to a world where even statements he might make that would excuse rapists’ behavior generate outrage and anger at him so that he learns to keep his decidedly atypical opinions to himself.
Over a longer stretch of time, people are increasingly born into a world that no longer collectively harbors a belief that rape happens to bad girls or irresponsible girls or foolish girls, a world that no longer believes that there are situations where a person relinquishes her right to decide if or when she wants to participate in sexual behavior.
There may always be a few people who are going to behave that way despite an almost absolute lack of societal agreement that what they’re doing is reasonable and permissible. That’s probably true of cannibalism as well as rape, but once the risk fades to a faint background risk, it ceases to be a social deterrent; the world has effectively been changed.
Not if it’s mostly useless, and has a wildly disproportionate effect of limiting your entire life. Look at these things from Jimmy Chitwood’s list:
If you strictly observe those things, there are whole worlds closed to you. Never drive to a city a few hours away to visit people? Never go anywhere by yourself if you might have to walk back to your car alone in the dark? My neighborhood is not “well-lit”–is it reasonable to ask me to never jog outside in the winter, when it gets dark by 6 or 7? Never travel alone for business, or with anyone you don’t know well (you’re sure to be alone with them)? Never go to work early or leave late? Never go to a party–even, presumably a party full of people you know–if you don’t have people to go with, and leave as soon as the first one wants to go?
That’s not advice anyone is really expected to follow, because it’d be impossible. It’s only there so that after the fact people can take comfort that it only happened to the person who broke the rules.
I want to point out that if this advice were given to everyone, men and women alike, because everyone, men and women alike, was so likely to be physically assaulted if they so much as frequented a bar or other places where people drink, or had a few themselves, it would be considered a total break down of law and order. A society would not be considered functional if it were just “common sense” that if you hang out in bars and get drunk, there’s a good chance someone, probably someone you know, would break your nose, and avoiding such “high risk behavior” was what all prudent people did.
The items Manda JO quoted from Jimmy’s linked list reminds me of some of the handouts of the campus security office 30 years ago… then again it WAS Baltimore in the 1980s and it was about crime in general… but I must disagree with Manda JO, they are NOT designed to enable blame. They are guidelines, not commands. I am a male and I don’t like the notion of finding myself alone in unfamiliar surroundings in conditions unfavorable to me, so I make sure that I have situational awareness and that, for instance, I let someone know I’m heading out and where did I park.
Think a moment: had it been a man you work with, would you have had the same impulse to say that, or perhaps conversely would you have felt more at ease going ahead and saying it? Because it does seem like some have mentioned, there is an additional burden in the case of women, that they are assumed to require much more advice on “defensive living” in general.
My point is that women are taught to treat everywhere, even a military base, is if it were Baltimore in the 80s. And if we don’t, and something bad happens, well, we knowingly assumed risk, so we shouldn’t be surprised.
ETA: True, and that’s a major problem.
…aaaand I just realized this sounded terrible there at the start. Obviously what I mean is that even though the guidelines are not ostensibly addressed at me, some of them ARE valid risk mitigation strategies no matter who you are, and no, they are not all unachievable or would shut someone in. There is no “or else don’t go anywhere” attached to the list EXCEPT, however in the sense that Jimmy Chitwood mentioned in his first post, that we have been socioculturally conditioned to understand that “or else” is tacitly attached. To me risk management advice is more along the lines of “don’t park out of the way in the dark if you have the choice to do so in a better location”.
Absolutely. The other day my wife and I were walking back from the Metro at night after a Nats game and passed a guy browsing his phone, not paying attention; my wife said “shit, maybe we should mug him, someone’s going to, might as well be us.”
What was the take? Did he have any cash on him? Anyway, at least the cell phone was worth something, right?
Oh, you didn’t actually mug him. I see. Why not, exactly? I mean, he was asking for it, right? It would have been his own fault.
Oh, you were in a hurry to get somewhere. Thanks, clears it up.
TokyoBayer I don’t think I said that I thought there was such a thing as “right” or “wrong” clothes are, but some women do make foolish choices that increase their risks in certain situations.
And WhyNot, there are plenty of men out there who would embarrass any self respecting bear or shark.
And both of you, thank you for exaggerating my remarks to illustrate the difficulty of discussing this topic, and reminding me why I generally forgo doing so.
Yes, because pointing out that someone is behaving recklessly is the moral equivalent of being a mugger. If you’re not paying attention to your surroundings and get mugged, it’s not that you deserve it, but it is in your own interest to look out for your own well being. No one else has as much of a vested interest in your safety as you.
What’s the point of making up shit that not only they didn’t say but goes completely against the entire message of what they’re saying? I do not understand this style of arguing. It’s used against me all the time, too.
Fuck, I’ll do it to you, too. Are you now equating rape and a guy checking out a woman? That’s what he says was inevitable. That men will check you out or comment on how you look. That’s going to happen if you dress nice.
Not too nice, is it? Me assuming the interpretation that makes your argument sound the stupidest. What is the point?
I am confused here by all the strawmen.
How about this?
My father warned me, a male, that when walking in certain neighborhoods I should be sure to “walk with purpose” and be aware of my surroundings. Was that potentially blaming me, making me responsible if I was mugged?
My adult son had someone rob him as he was doing as above, walking along from a train stop very late at night with his face buried in his phone. Was I wrong to reinforce his learning to never do that again? (Actually all I did was agree with his own assessment.) Was that telling him he was “asking for it” or that it was his fault he was mugged?
My now 14 year old daughter in four years goes out into the world, be it college or whatever, a young adult women. I reinforce with her the dangers of drinking to excess at parties or bars or with male friends even and the need to be aware of what may turn into a circumstance that she is not wanting to be in. I reinforce the statistics that a large number of young women end up being sexually assaulted before they turn 24 (debates about how many aside, the non-exaggerated number is still horrible), that the world is a dangerous place for a young adult woman, in and out of college, and that most are not rapes by boogiemen but someone the woman knows and may have even been dating but who forces sex without consent often with the aid of alcohol and/or drugs. Am I proactively blaming her? Am I absolving the perps of guilt and responsibility?
Okay, no question that rape is loaded with historic cultural baggage and that telling my son that his recklessness set him up to be mugged is different than telling a woman that her having gotten, of her own free will, passing out level drunk at a party or a bar, set herself up for being sexually assaulted.
But in principle it shouldn’t be.
Re self endangering risky behavior with respect to sexual assault I can understand the irritation re women getting advice about clothing, avoiding certain locations, not going walking at night alone etc. as these are things people should be able to do and choices they should (hypothetically) be able to make without getting assaulted, but I’m at a bit of a loss to understand the absolute shit storm over the cautions against drinking too much that Emily Yolfe underwent after her article in this subject.
College Women: Stop Getting Drunk
It’s common sense advice and yet she was accused of being a victim blamer. If you drink too much you make yourself essentially incompetent at managing your behavior and are effectively throwing yourself on the mercy of potential predators, which, like or not, do exist. If a man drinks too much and is beaten up or rolled because he was blotto few people will tell him it wasn’t partially his fault.
Why was Yolfe considered to be “blaming the victim” in issuing this seemingly common sensical advice?
Here’s the thing - tucked in at the very bottom of that article was a little paragraph saying, “Oh, and by the way, young men shouldn’t get sloshed at college parties either,” but it’s an afterthought. The idea that young men shouldn’t have “more than two drinks, sipped slowly - no shots!” isn’t considered realistic. Because we all know that young men will get drunk, and drunk young men are animals, and women aren’t the same, because women are on a special pedestal when it comes to moral matters like drinking, women have more control, so don’t fall off your pedestal, ladies, into that crowd of animal men.
Do you not see how ugly that sort of thinking treats both men and women?