Women, revealing clothes, rape

I’m making this topic in hopes for a healthy debate on the relationship between the three things listed in the title and anything that might branch off from it. Comparisons with men would inevitably be included if people were to participate. This topic is perhaps too broad and I probably should have made it more specific but I guess this is just a start to include all who would be interested.

I’m sure there will be very many people that will be angered at the sight of the word rape but I’m hoping we can all maintain rationality while proposing our opinions. I guess a starting point would be:

women + revealing clothing --> higher probability of rape

I know this may infuriate people but again, it’s just a starting point and by no means is it necessarily true.

Rape isn’t inspired by sexual desire, but by sickness and a desire for power over another person.

Unless you have an empirical study, I don’t see any reason to believe it. You can always read about elderly women getting raped in their own homes by strangers in any city newspaper. I doubt grandma was out flaunting her tatas at the rapist.

Presumably, there is no rape wherever women wear burqas, then.

That’s not rape - it’s women asking for a stoning.

I’d venture to guess that revealing clothes do make one more likely to be raped, but that this is pretty low on the ingredient list for a rape to occur.

The main ingredients are stress, obsession, and access (i.e. the believed ability to pull it off without getting caught.) If you don’t have a particular target that you are obsessed with, most likely you’re going to hire and rape any other prostitute. If you are obsessed with someone, stress and access will be the main factors, with revealing clothing contributing to the stress angle a slight amount, perhaps.

Just another point in favor of the OP’s relationship, then!

It’s an odd situation in Thailand. The Thais pretty much all agree on it being a given that revealing clothing is the foremost cause of rape and will look at you like you’re from Mars if you try to explain otherwise. If a girl is raped while wearing any sort of revealing clothing, the Thais are quick to blame the victim. (Unless it happens to their daughter, in which case it suddenly becomes a different matter.)

On the other hand, university girls always try to get away with the shortest skirts imaginable. Uniforms are standard at unis here, but apparently there’s some leeway regarding skirt length, and lots of girls go for the micro-mini. It’s quite a contradiction. Some universities have tried to institute rules on skirt lengths, but the girls always seem to get around them. If nothing else, the uni administration will warn girls if they can’t dress “decently,” then they have only themselves to blame if they get raped.

Lol I know this isn’t a laughing matter but I find it quite hilarious how if the administration can’t fight it, they just declare the removal of their responsibility from it.

Ooo so much to pick on here XD. First of all, I do have empirical study (second hand) from a book The Dark Side of Man. I know basing my opinion on one source is dangerous but when it makes sense with logic, it becomes a good source. Would you consider something like:
Newspaper = media = based around money = maintains itself from ratings = explores UNCOMMON areas
I’d like to emphasize the uncommon part because based of what I read (and deep down we all know) that granny rapes are less than 2% of all rapes (probably much less than 1% but I’m just trying to be safe lol).

And where might you get that information from? I know it’d been commonly discussed by the media but is that a source you can always trust? It has also been concluded by psychologist or some kind of social scientist but can you say that all their conclusions are correct? I find several social scientific conclusion tend to be loaded with bull because there just isn’t much you can conclusively state, in something you can’t really measure, that would also catch people’s attention (stand out from the norm - after all, we’d expect rape to be associated with sexual desires).

Here’s something to think about (also from the book mentioned earlier): What criteria is necessary for an offense to be considered rape? By definition and social influence, sexual intercourse would have to be involved.

I originally stated:
women + revealing clothing → higher probability of rape

A key word there is higher which could be a factor of 1%. Some people noticed it but many others didn’t and took it as:
women + revealing clothing → rape

In the end, that equation was meant as a starting point and I think it played its role pretty well. =)

That would be a college course entitled “Psychology 1300”.

That’s not odd, it’s paternalistic and reactionary. Most developing countries are like that.

Does the OP think that a man is driven to wanting to rape because of clothes? Does he think that a guy goes out with no intention of doing anything and is driven to it by a bare bellybutton?

Or is it more likely that the guy has planned to rape someone, and the circumstances contribute far more to the selection of the victim than clothing. Do you think a rapist passes up covered up women for a shot at one in more revealing clothes?

When you think of it that way, the hypothesis isn’t very likely, is it?

I think you need to define “rape” a bit better. What constitutes rape can be a bit slippery. A woman dressed all sexy that a guy hits on her, buys her a lot of drinks and takes her home and has sex may have been said to have been raped because she could not give proper consent in her impaired state. One might also say because she was dressed all sexy she attracted the guy when she might not have otherwise (or led him to believe she was of somewhat loser morals).

Then there is the other extreme where a guy jumps out of the bushes and rapes some passerby. Somehow I doubt dressing sexy has much, if anything, to do with this guy attacking the woman.

At the end of the day though what is the point of the question? To argue that women need to wear Burkhas to lessen the chance of being assaulted? Rape is rape…what she was wearing is of no matter.

Actually, I meant the odd part was the combination of a prevailing attitude of blaming the victim and a contradictory desire on the part of so many comely lasses to show lots of skin.


Cannibalism is associated with hunger.

Ooo so much to pick on here XD.[/QUOTE]

What does XD mean?

And can you not even post an explanation of the methodology used in the book and what it’s results were? Perhaps there’s a link on the web you can find that discusses the book?

Deep down, I don’t know anything of the sort, since I’ve never done a study of the relevant crime statistics. What I do know is that I’ve seen enough reports of prison rapes, elderly rapes, nursing home rapes and the like, all of which would have little relevance to the way the victim was dressed, to make me doubt your hypothesis.

I didn’t say all social science conclusions are bull. Plus would you say ALL cannibalism is associated with hunger with no exception? And by hunger would you differentiate that from starvation?

Some good points but I mean it’s all just for discussion and expanding our horizons. Do any of us get anything accomplished by visiting forums?

Read my response a few posts before yours. By the way what does OP stand for? I saw it come up in another thread on this site.

And would you say EVERYTHING you learned from that course has been 100% practical and completely proven with no room for false whatsoever?

Even if it’s true, so what? You could also argue that going out rather than staying home on any given day increases the risk of rape irrespective of sartorial modesty. Again, so what? The elephant in the room of course is the suggestion that deliberate actions that can be plausibly argued to increase the likelihood of rape in microscopic ways somehow translate into women sharing some of the blame. I’m sure the OP will be right along to deny he ever meant to imply any such thing, but then why make this thread at all? It’s either a trivial observation whose impact is so minor as to be impossible to measure or an attempt to be (checks forum) deliberately provocative.

Edit: OP stands for original poster, i.e. Ted_Y.

lol ya i just figured out what OP stands for before I read your post but thanks for clearing it up for me.

Well I’m trying to be provocative to others as well as myself of others’ opinions. Again, that was just the starting point, and perhaps that leans closer to the meaningless side, but I’m hoping for something more meaningful or at least interesting to arise.

The elephant in the room of course
I don’t get that part lol.

I could just as easily tell all of you not to blinding listen to the media and other publications but it wouldn’t be thread-material and I’m hoping for people to learn it rather than just being told that - which contradicts the message.

Well actually here’s a thought: Can you ever not listen to a publication that’s telling you not to listen to publications?
In that sense, “Don’t blindly listen to publications.” is an ultimate truth that cannot be proved wrong.

We are all for exploring various issues here sometimes just for the sake of exploring them. However, this question has some disturbing implications with no revealing insights to be had. Placebo nailed it better than I could have just above.