+1
The second question is easier to answer. First of all, there may be no connection at all. If someone does a study and it proves that, across all situations, women are equally likely to be raped regardless of what they’re wearing, then I will be vaguely surprised, but certainly won’t feel like the rational foundations of my universe have been rocked beyond recovery. And that will be the end of that topic. That said, there are at least two reasons why it seems quite plausible to me that there could be a connection: (1) Women who dress provocatively are more sexually attractive. Therefore men who view them are more likely to be sexually aroused and/or covetous, and therefore, more likely to rape. (2) Women who dress in attire that is stereotypically “slutty” (as somewhat distinct from provocative) might be perceived by men as giving out signals of “that woman is looking for sex”. That would cause more men to approach her in the first place, and (the key point) more men, particularly drunk men, to convince themselves “well, she clearly really wants it”. Now, I don’t claim to have proven anything here. I’m just making some arguments as to plausibility. The main discussion I’m interested in is “assume that there’s a connection, how can we discuss the topic without ‘blaming the victim’, etc.”, which is an interesting discussion that can proceed without resolving whether there actually is a connection in the first place.
As for your first question (what in god’s name is provocative clothing), well the fact that you’re asking that in the way you are is, to me, pretty much the entire point of the thread. There’s no way that you literally have no idea what that concept means. What could possibly be the point of asking it, other than to get me to attempt to make absolute statements of some sort, to which you can of course find counterexamples, thus making me look silly. So, most obviously, I think (as do you) that OVERALL, ON AVERAGE, clothing that reveals more skin is more provocative. That’s a general guideline. But once I start tossing out statements like that you can go nuts nitpicking and corner-casing and pretending ignorance, as if you don’t agree with the basic statement, and we end up in some utterly inane pissing contest about a topic that at some level we agree about to begin with. So I have to ask you… what are you honestly trying to accomplish by asking that question? Getting me to agree that it’s hard to precisely define what “provocative” and “slutty” mean with respect to clothing? Well, mission accomplished, I agree. Getting me to admit that, so far, I’m not doing a very productive job of conveying useful day-to-day information and guidance to the women of the dope who are for some reason looking to me for wardrobe assistance? Again, I agree.
Does this count as my first pitting in the ten years I’ve been here? If so, I’m honored.
Ok, first of all, nitpicking is not a fallacy. It is a rhetorical device known as
cetus non est piscis est mammal.
There is a fallacy that hot women shouldn’t dress like sluts. Clearly if they did not dress like sluts we wouldn’t know they are hot. But, hot women dressed like sluts tend to be fellatious.
‘Woman shouldnt dress flarny’ is not a fallacy. It is flarnacy, but logically consistent.
The traffic in Boston is terrible, ergo, using the principle of vocavi terribilis in traffic dibs, the traffic in Calgary cannot be.
If you can’t tell the difference between long hair and short hair, you shouldn’t be discussing the subject.
It’s not that simple though. Hair that would be short on my head would be long on my feet (hobbits notwithstanding). On this issue, I think it’s best to exclude the middle though.
I just threw up in my mouth a little, because your mention of Hobbits gave me the mental image of Gimli’s beard braids, only relocated south for the winter.