I suspect women may be more likely to blame a woman, at least as far as her choice in attire, due to a belief in a Just World. Because if we can’t blame a woman for not dressing more conservatively, then we have to acknowledge it could happen to our daughters, sisters, and ourselves. As long as we can say “well maybe it wouldn’t have happened if she’d just had more clothes on” then we (as a gender, very generally) can also think “and so it won’t happen to me.”
Sounds plausible. There also might be some virtue signaling going on as in, “I would never dress like that.”
Also, humans tend to interpret the world through their own frame of reference. And most (not all) frames don’t involve attacking women. Even for dudes. Evidence: while rape-porn exists, it’s a fairly narrow niche interest. So many interpret this sort of criminal behavior based upon what they can imagine, i.e. a surprisingly scantily clad woman in public.
Going back to the article, there is certainly a perception that provocative clothing matters: Rule 412 bans discussion of clothing in cases of rape because they don’t want to bias the jury. Rule 412 does not apply in cases of sexual harassment though, as per the discretion of the Supreme Court. But for some reason, scanty clothing doesn’t come up often in that context (to the surprise of the author). She hypothesizes that those in workplace situations that are sexually harrassed don’t tend to wear provocative clothing. But who knows?
Back in reality, actual rapists apparently care less about provocative clothing than finding an easy victim, which is to say a submissive one. And as noted earlier, that doesn’t relate too well to provocative dress - in fact it’s the opposite.
The author notes though that extrapolating from rapists to sexual harassers is problematic, perhaps dubious. So I guess more research is necessary. In the mean time, I’d advocate circumspection.
If you had any interest in what I was responding to and actually wrote, you would have noticed that my first post was in response to a poster who decided that “scantily clad women are more likely to be gropped” actually meant “it was the woman’s fault”. And I was expressing my irrititation at PC people who turn what people write into something entirely different.
Not terribly surprisingly, you came to prove my point by deciding that when I wrote “scantily clad women are more likely to be gropped”, I meant, again, something different, namely in your case : “women should dress conservatively”.
Again, my purpose was quite clear if you actually had been reading what I wrote. Rather, you should probably explain to me why, when I wrote the sentence A, you read a different sentence or assumed a different meaning B.
A proper answer to my post would have been a demonstration of why I’m wrong to think that “PC people” are so caught up with their rhetorics that they’re unable to read a plain statement without distorting it into something that fits better in their worldview and allow them to express a satisfying amount of self righteous outrage (I mean, how boring would it be to discuss whether or not a scantily clad woman is more likely to be gropped when you can instead accuse someone of being a woman oppressor and gropping enabler while feeling good about your own enlightened views and showing to everybody that you’re one of these extraordinarily rare people who think that gropping women is wrong?).
Instead, you went on demonstrating that I was right by providing your own example of distorsion. I guess I should thank you.
I always thought the rules were pretty simple… Look but don’t touch. Is that too complicated or something?
Jesus motherfucking Christ on a camel, you are an asshole.
I’d say that her response, both the physical and the verbal, counts as not being “easy prey” wouldn’t you?
Her clothing has noting to do with being “easy prey”. Her working in a service industry does not count as “easy prey”.
SteveG1, looking (also known as leering or ogling) is best restrained some too. At least be discreet.
That’s also the rule at fucking strip clubs, for chrissake, where the employees literally cannot dress more scantily. Most pizza joints don’t have neckless guys ready to toss idiots out on their ass for violating this rule, but maybe they should.
No matter how scum-proof an environment is made there will always be a worse piece of scum to defeat it. B/c the problem is the scum, not the environment.
At a strip club, touching costs extra and I have little doubt that the clothing levels are meant to encourage that up sell.
This not always the case. Ohio for example has a “no touching” law, which is what recently got Stormy Daniels into trouble.
Do they also have to wear those paste-on nipple covers in Ohio?
From the latest reports it appears that several officers planning in advance to target her for violating a law that didn’t apply to her is what got her in trouble.
When I see an incident like this, two things happen: First, I laugh my ass off at this guy getting righteously owned. Second, I think, “What if she had really inflicted some damage on him?” Personally, I’d be too embarrassed to file a complaint, but this is a litigious society and people do a lot of dumb things. If he had ended up with significant dental bills, for example, could he have claimed that her response was disproportionate and that he was walking away? IANAL and I have no idea what could happen, but sometimes people react in a normal manner to someone else who’s aggressive and later think, “I should have filed a criminal complaint rather than shoot from the hip.” I’d hate to have my insurance company tell me that I was technically within my rights, but they’re going to pay the guy off because it’s easier and cheaper for them.
Mirror sunglasses 
Interesting. Can you elaborate? Like telling me why exactly I’m an asshole?
Look, I don’t care if a person is walking around naked, nobody has a right to touch them. Saying it was her fault has been used to justify mistreating women for centuries. Even today, some people say women invite rape by they way they dress and act, and even by “sending the wrong signal” (what was that even mean?).
Do you not lock your doors to your house and vehicle? Why should we have to do this because “someone else lacks self-control?” I can’t speak to whether clothing has any correlation to the likelihood of being a crime victim, as I have no idea whether it does or does not. However, the general premise of “don’t blame the victim” seems to have taken a rather absurd shift toward “don’t expect people to take precautions against crime.” That’s just out and out foolishness!
I took a day trip to NYC a while back with an elderly relative. While we were at the entrance to a subway terminal, I noticed that she had taken several envelopes full of money out of her purse and was counting out a bunch of fifties and hundreds. I chided her and told her to put it away—that you don’t advertise that you have cash on you in a public place like that. That’s not victim-blaming; that’s common sense! Saying “but the criminal is responsible for his crimes” does absolutely nothing to prevent you from becoming his next victim!
What style of dress counts as adequate precaution against sexual assault?
In what way does clothing function like a lock?
