Arguing that slutty clothes cause rape argues that the clothing induces a response in a man which results in rape, and to avoid rape the woman has to avoid risks by dressing in a more conservative fashion. If the mere sight of a miniskirt is the cause of rape, then the man has control issues. It’s logical. Of course the myth itself is stupid.
And questions about ‘risks’ assumes that men are some kind of inanimate force, like rain, and that rape is an obstacle in a woman’s path which she merely has to avoid. Rapists are sentient creatures who choose to rape, and often—contrary to this thread----choose to rape women in long skirts and at home.
Until rapists begin wearing signs, the only way for a woman to substantially reduced her chances of encountering a rapist who will rape her is associate only with women, and some women commit rape as well.
I’m all in favor of rapists wearing signs. Unless one knows that a rapist is present, however, one has to live in fear, apparently, because people argue simultaneously that men cannot control themselves around provocative dress, and yet must be granted the freedom to attack as often as they wish. Strangely enough, feminists often get accused of saying all men are rapists, but frequently ludicrous advice to ‘protect one’s self from rape’ is circulated which in fact assumes that all men have the potential to commit rape if given the opportunity. One cannot argue that slutty clothing provokes rape without admitting that such an argument is based on the belief that men are prone to being provoked.
Also, let’s assume for a second that women who are dressed provocatively are at a higher risk for rape (which I don’t necessarily believe.) If that’s the case, how do we know that dressing provocatively is not a confounding factor here? Maybe it’s just that attending a party with strangers is what really increases the risk, and women at parties are more likely to dress provocatively than those who aren’t. In that case, should women stop going to parties with strangers? To what extent should a woman modify her behavior to protect herself from the possibility of rape? Should she deliberately attempt to make herself less attractive to the opposite sex, to minimize the risk of rape? How much skin is too much? How much cleavage is too much? Should we stay away from red lipstick, too? Should we all be wearing potato sacks, or what?
The more I think about this, the more ridiculous it seems. Especially given the paucity of actual data we have on risk factors for rape and sexual assault. Show me evidence, controlling for environment, that women who dress provocatively are at a higher risk for rape and sexual assault, and then maybe we can have a meaningful conversation about this.
The problem is you keep saying “men this” and “men that”, as if it’s males that are at issue. It’s not. It’s rapists. And when you make posts with that verbiage, it gives the impression that you think all men are potential rapists, like we walk around with this urge to rape women and most of us are adept at suppressing it all the time while rapists are the few that let this urge slip through unchecked.
That’s not the case at all. Most men, the non-rapists, don’t have that urge at all. It’s not something we think about. What you need to understand, margin, is that rapists are uncontrollable and irresponsible. They’re everywhere, and we don’t know who is who. So we, as a society, can’t possibly catch them all. There aren’t enough cops and mind-readers out there for that. So it’s unreasonable to assume that all responsibility for safety falls outside of the personal realm.
Let me be clearer: You give me the impression that you think that we think of a single pool of people called “men” and when women take certain actions around them, that some of those men take on the traits of “rapist”. But that’s not the argument at all. The argument is that there is a pool of “regular men” and a pool of “rapists” and that these are separate, discrete sets of people. And the simple fact of the universe is that the latter set of people will do what they do- they will rape people. Of course, they’re the scum of the earth, but that’s beside the point. Of course we should do everything possible to protect the rest of us from these people, but that’s also beside the point. The point is that rape is going to happen. And women have a duty to look after their own safety by avoiding that second group of people, the rapists, is reasonable ways.
When you view it as good men being transformed into rapist (i.e. when you say “[women] themselves do indeed tell their sons to not commit rape”), it’s easy to shoot the argument down. But when you view it as “there are rapists and they’ll do what they do”, you’ll get a lot closer to what people in this thread are actually saying.
You just confirmed by argument by calling rapists 'uncontrollable and irresponsible' and 'everywhere.' You want to have it both ways. You're more interested in defending men and making excuses for rapists---they're not in fact the scum of the earth. Rapists are often perfectly ordinary guys, who go to school, go to work, get married, have kids, and commit rape. Rape doesn't 'happen'. That's passive voice. Rapists rape. You apparently know absolutely nothing about rape because you seem to think that women aren't protecting themselves, aren't working to eradicating rape, aren't doing anything. And I guess men don't have a duty to actually read a book or two about rape instead of relying on locker room fallacies like 'rape happens'.
When you say rapists are the scum of the earth you're employing the common technique of someone who doesn't know what he's talking about when he talks about rape. [Meet the predators.](http://yesmeansyesblog.wordpress.com/2009/11/12/meet-the-predators/) As many as six out of seven rapes are committed by men known to the victim. Meanwhile, the premise of this thread is that certain clothing is 'asking for it'. How much more simple does it have to get for you to get it? "Asking for it" does not specify nice guy or the popular myth-guy who's lurking in a dark alley. "Asking for it" implies many different things, but all of them contain some element of provocation. Unless the woman is pointing a gun at the guy, what on earth could she possibly be doing?
What men can do about rape, if they really wanted to do anything about it, was to inform themselves about rape and clamp down on the behavior that encourages rapists----ever made a rape joke? Ever been around sexist guys? Do you even know what sexism is? Have you bothered to read a book about either that or rape? Because what got you angry was not rape per se, but grammatical nitpicks—and that ‘tell their sons’ referred to ‘people’, not women. “Rape happens” according to you. How does it ‘happen’, exactly? Just one of those things, like bad weather, that ‘just happens’? You’ve just removed the rapist from the picture, leaving women in the position to just deal with it and avoid something that just happens.
Your insistence that women just need to take basic precautions means you’re doing nothing about rape and leaving women to fend for themselves. Meanwhile you get wound up about semantic issues ----that affect men. In your own words, cops and mind readers are needed to find rapists. Yet the onus is on women to defend themselves from them.
This, on the other hand, is a fairly persuasive post. I phrased the questions the way I did because I pretty much agree with you. Some risk factors can be controlled for with trivial inconvenience: I lock my car when I leave it in the parking deck not because car thieves are inanimate objects whose lust for my valuables can’t be controlled, but because doing so mitigates my risk of car theft and because locking my car is a trivial action.
Changing one’s dress, however, isn’t a trivial action. It’s a pretty significant action, as folks’ dress conveys a lot about who they are as a person.
And you’re right that we don’t have the evidence that dress is a risk factor for rape. Folks have said it’s plausible, and I agree that it’s a plausible risk factor for certain kinds of rape (most especially acquaintance rape), but plausibility does not equal data.
A huge portion of the problem is the mere definition of the term “rape” itself. While I usually abhor words-lawyering, this is a serious case of murky water. Some people take the term to mean any unwanted contact of sexual nature, while others feel that it only should apply in classic sense of an unknown attacker lurking in the bushes. Most of us, I should think, fall somewhere in between. Really when discussing attire we are nearly always discussing date or acquaintance rape, in which it is fair to discuss the conduct involved. It’s only fair because the key is consent. Has a woman who initially agrees to sex, then changes her mind but fails to vocalize her change of mind been raped? What if they are both falling down drunk? If so the term loses all meaning and merely becomes "Whatever the “victim” thinks it should be.
The problem with attire is isn’t about blaming the victim, it’s all part in determining if there was a crime in the first place, and if so, how much restitution should they receive. In a free society we all can dress as we please, and we also should be cognizant of the fact that an outfit deliberately designed to entice and tease will garner more attention than everyday wear. That is the POINT of those types of garments. That is why we have such things as formal wear, club gear, office attire, and casual clothing. They convey both a look and a message.
I would not be surprised at all if dress was a confounder for rape. That’s why in my first post in this thread I emphasized “independently associated”.
LHoD, I think the reason why the question of what women should do to protect themselves from rape is annoying because rape seems singled out for this kind of treatment.
What can people do to avoid collisions with drunk drivers? If most drunk driving occurs at night, why don’t we put out advisories telling people to avoid driving between the hours of 10 pm and 2 am? Is it because we as a society take it for a granted that driving at night isn’t the problem, but rather the drunks who choose to get behind the wheel? Yes, I’m betting it is. Not only is it unreasonable to expect people to stop driving late at night, it also would be unfair to tell the law-abiding to change their behavior so drunks can travel without the inconvenience of a car wreck.
The idea that women even need PSA’s telling them about the dangers lurking out there is also amusing. It’s not like we aren’t told from infancy about being suspicious around men, not going out alone in the dark, closing our legs, being lady-like, not being easy, staying away from creeps and jerks, etc. Maybe if women did all of these things, rapes would become exceptionally rare. But then I’d hate to think how little fun regular men would be having in bars and clubs with only themselves to socialize with after 10 pm. Bye bye one-night stands. Want to dance with a hot woman? Forget about it.
Can you please clarify this before I draw definite conclusions about this paragraph? Because by my reading, it seems like you are saying that the way a rape accuser is dressed determines whether its likely she was raped or not. In other words, there are some outfits a woman can wear that say “have sex with more now regardless of the words coming out of my mouth”. And so, based on this logic, if a woman is wearing the former, she can’t credibly claim to having been raped.
What I am saying is that in the types of rape *in which dress might even be considered *as a factor to be determined, we often have a more difficult time in defining whether the crime actually occurred. All she has to do is say “no” at any time and if her partner fails to stop then they are of course committing rape. As I said before in this thread, NOTHING excuses or justifies rape. However, I have significantly less pity for a woman who indulges in flirty, sexually charged activity all night than one who merely was out for a normal pleasant evening out with a date. Stating that there is effectively no difference in the complex personal interactions that can result in a date rape is doing a terrible disservice to the victims of such crimes. It isn’t a terribly difficult concept to understand. Dress overtly sexy, and act overtly sexy, you will receive far more sexual attention than someone dressed normally.
You have no right to put your hands on another human being who does not wish for you to do so. I do not care how someone dresses. keep your hands to yourself.
Because ‘asking for it’ is such a reasonable thing to say of a woman and her clothing. Especially when the word is ‘slutty’. Hey, go ahead, ignore every myth about rape that exists. Knock yourself out.
Sounds like a threat. And are guys still whining about blue balls? Didn’t that go out in the Fifties? You’re saying that a cocktease is asking for it and that if you dress sexy you have to put out.
What types of rapes are those? This statement doesn’t have a lot of meaning to me. You might as well be talking about the types of rape in which the color green might be considered as a factor. (Leprachaun rapists out there are provoked by that, so I hear.)
So here we get to the nitty gritty. Can you explain why you have less pity for a rape victim who was being flirty and sexual? Because this right here is exactly what “slut shaming” is all about. There’s no reconciling the belief that there is no justification for rape, no means no, and a woman has the right to change her mind at any point…with withholding sympathy from a rape victim whose only crime was being flirty with her assailant before he revealed himself to be a rapist. Truly it’s like reconciling fire and water.
Okay, but sexual attention is not rape. It’s not an ethical or legal crime to be sexy, and this thread isn’t about attracting attention. It’s about rape. A woman wearing a pair of transluscent mini-shorts literally bearing the words “LOOK AT MY ASS” on them is drawing attention to her ass, but she’s not giving anyone permission to take out their dicks and rape her. There’s no comparing the two.
Don’t put words in my mouth. I’m saying that all actions, including acting like a cocktease have repercussions that we should ultimately bear some responsibility for. A woman or man never has to put out if they don’t want to. They also, in my opinion don’t have the ethical right to go about acting in a deceptive manner merely to entertain themselves. Particularly so if that action may place them into a very real danger of becoming a stronger target for assault. If a guy shoots his mouth off at a bar all night and ends up getting punched, he was assaulted, and the attacker is 100% responsible for his or her actions. The victim is also responsible for acting like a tool all night and I have a lot less pity for him then the guy who was minding his business when some guy mistook him for someone else and decked him. I have every right to walk down alleys late at night waving money around. If I’m robbed it’s all the robber’s fault. It’s also my fault that I did something stupid and foolish to place myself into a bad situation. That doesn’t excuse my robber.
Of course she isn’t and In my first post in this thread I stated so.
I was making the point that there are consequences to our choices, and the current attitude I often see in these threads of “A woman should be able to do whatever she likes at any time and never ever have to deal with unwanted attention” is blatantly ridiculous. That is why I am careful to separate blame from responsibility. The whole point of acting slutty is to garner sexual attention, either directly, or deriving some sort of warped self confidence and empowerment through manipulating others. Men and women who are confident in themselves and their sexuality do not need to flaunt it to feel good about themselves. As someone who is confident I assume that women who are dressed sexy and acting sexy are interested in sex, not in playing around with me for jollies.
How would you know if a raped woman had been a cocktease, unless she told explicity told you that she’d been leading the guy on for sport? Or is this something that you would just know based on what she’d been wearing?
Tell me if I have this wrong. Cockteases wear provocative clothing. They accept drinks and humor guys with conversation too. Maybe they accept the invitation to go back to his place. And they do, as if they are all game for sex, but then they say no when the moves are made. Is this it? These are the ones who get less pity from you when they end up raped?
Let’s hope these ladies aren’t saying no because decapitated heads are in the guy’s freezer.
So once again you damage your point by conflating attention with rape.
Of course there are consequences to our choices. If I go outside right now to empty the trash, my risk of rape probably goes up by some unknown percent. And? Does this mean I shouldn’t go outside? No. Does this mean I’m less deserving of sympathy if I do get raped? No.
I don’t see why you can’t appraise, in the same way, a flirty woman who decides too late to change her mind about a guy who ends up raping her. It doesn’t even require the sight of decapitated head to make this change of heart justified. There’s no point that she has to ride out the consequences of her earlier behavior just because the guy wants to have sex.
You might be saying stuff like “no means no”, but you keep following it up with ideas that suggest you really believe “no means no…unless you’re a cocktease/slut/flirty woman…then you get what you have coming to you”.