It means there is something glaringly obvious and important to consider that you missed. Also sometimes phrased as the “800 pound gorilla in the room”.
I guess the answer to the OP is almost certainly that some woman, somewhere and somewhen was raped because she was dressed provocatively where she would not have been raped had she dressed in a more dowdy fashion.
So?
Well here’s something from the book The Dark Side of Man (I’m not trying to promote the book but it is a really good one and I don’t read that much so I don’t have many other sources lol). There was a female cook for a captive male orangutan. The orangutan jumped onto the lady and, after a period of time of rhythmic motion, ejaculated on her. That’s the gist of it (just not 100% sure about the ejaculation part) but you get the idea. Is that rape? It fits the definition perfectly except I don’t think there was intercourse. Most people wouldn’t consider it rape as the cook and her husband didn’t take offense from that.
Sure this topic has some disturbing implications but I do think there are insights to be had.
Whack-a-Mole - thanks for the clarification, lol.
Well even thus far, several people have disagreed to that completely so…
Legally rape must include sexual penetration (among a few other requirements).
What the orangutan did would be deemed sexual assault. Gross but whatever…dogs hump people’s legs. I doubt any see it as attempted rape.
Not sure what any of that has to do with the question at hand.
Yeah, I think that’s a rather naive way to look at it. Rape is specifically sexual. You can have power over someone by beating them up, holding their job over their head as their boss, etc… Rape is sexual. It is about sexual power.
Well…it is very hard to determine that how the woman dressed was the primary cause for her getting raped. That if she had not the rape would not have occurred.
I think given all the rapes that ever happened there would be some cases where had the woman dressed less sexy she would not have gotten raped. But determining that is near impossible and, I would expect, likely relatively few cases. More importantly it DOES NOT MATTER how she dressed. It is an irrelevant distinction.
Well the orangutan used violence, not excessive, to get his way and without the consent of the cook so it fills several criteria though admittedly not all. But in the end, that story is there just to introduce more scenario of sexual assault which people don’t consider. I’m sure that story wouldn’t come up in many other discussions so there’s where its place is.
You seem to be nitpicking at my points so I shall do the same. Need I remind you there were never any questions to which you have been repeatedly referring to?
In the end, if you don’t like where this is going, you can always stop reading. You can say “So what?” to any thread so I don’t see the point of your generic, skeptic remark.
Though I completely agree with you, I think the word naive is kind of condescending and I’m just trying to lighten up the mood. This topic always gets too serious XD.
*Well…it is very hard to determine that how the woman dressed was the primary cause for her getting raped. That if she had not the rape would not have occurred.
I think given all the rapes that ever happened there would be some cases where had the woman dressed less sexy she would not have gotten raped. But determining that is near impossible and, I would expect, likely relatively few cases. More importantly it DOES NOT MATTER how she dressed. It is an irrelevant distinction.*
I’m not saying you’re wrong, no one is arguing against you. It’s like if you argued 1+1 = 2. No one is disproving your argument and you’ve missed my point amidst that. For (I think) the third time, that was just to get the topic started and there’s no need to refer back to it especially after other comments were made which were started by it (played its role perfectly until you came back, lol). How about you just drop that for now?
In your original post you said (bolding mine):
I have responded directly to your “women + revealing clothing → higher probability of rape”.
I have pointed out “rape” is a rather broad category and invited you to be more specific. You have not.
I asked you to what purpose such a question will take us. You have not really answered beyond it being perhaps an exploration of some sort.
Myself and others have pointed out such a question has disturbing implications. You hand waved those away.
I responded directly to you bringing up horny orangutans.
You may not like where your thread going but them’s the breaks. Your debate has been answered though I think and then some.
OK, I can’t speak for every man who’s a potential rapist, but here’s my take.
I speculate that for some men, part of the appeal of rape is the ability to access that which is denied, to uncover that which is covered, to take that which is not offered. This means that for such a rapist, a woman who is covered up may be more desirable than one who has her goodies hanging out.
On the other hand, the man who thinks a scantily clad woman is asking for it may be misunderstanding social norms, or may have an attitude that women are there for the taking in general. The last case is going to be a problem even if most women are in modest clothing.
No you do not get to hand wave inconvenient arguments you do not like away. Does not work like that around here.
The OP has been answered. You have been asked repeatedly what the goal is of your debate. You have not answered beyond merely wanting to talk about it. Well, it has been talked about, it has been answered, I see no disagreement from anyone, even from you.
We then get the non sequitur of horny orangutans (was the orangutan titillated by the human cook’s outfit?).
In short what is the debate?
If we’re including date rape (and why wouldn’t we?) then what a woman wears and how she acts becomes part of the discussion. Like murder, rape is never justified but what if there were different levels of rape? Like First and Second degree murder. (Maybe there are and I don’t know it.)
IANAL but rape is rape I think.
What she was wearing and how she acted and other circumstances might be considered as mitigating factors at sentencing. It does not make the rapist not guilty though.
We’re done here.
Well, I believe that a woman is likely to improve her chances of getting raped by wearing seductive clothing.
After all, it arouses me. Fortunately I have cultured restraints, but not every guy does.
Rape statistics are usually misleading for a whole list of reasons of course, but it occured to me that if I could locate a set of statistics that were broken down by incidence per month, i was likely to find a higher incidence of rape during the summer months when women are out in their bikinis and halter tops etc.
I found even better, except I’m having trouble linking to a PDF.
If you are interested, you can google "Temperature and Aggression: Ubiquitous " and click on the second result which is the PDF file.
This is a study using monthly data (for one analysis level) for violent crime murder and rape to test a hypothesis linking temperature to aggression. There is no suggestion in this study concerning women’s clothing, with rape considered one of several types of violent crime.
If you go to page 82, you’ll find a graph showing low relative incidence of rape, violent crime and murder in the winter, peaking in the summer and then dropping off again.
What is interesting is that the graph for rape shows a much steeper and higher climb towards the summer than the other two violent crimes.
The graphs for violent crimes and murder are almost identical.
This would suggest to me that if the field data for rape, a violent crime as well, shows more pronounced change of incidence than the other two violent crime stats then something else is going on.
Seasonal testosterone levels have been ruled out because they do not correlate to the data.
I suggest that the dramatic seasonal variance over and above temperature effects on the stats for the other two violent crimes may well be due to summertime seduction.
Here (PDF)Page 18; Myth 14.
It also directly answers the OP’s (non) question.
Rape, including date rape, is predominantly planned. The attacker decides to rape the woman before she decides what she’s going to wear.
All relevant studies and cites are in the file.
It’s a text version of a smiley. I’ve never been able to see it as anything other than “Ecks Dee” though.
As far as the OP goes, yes it makes it more likely, but probably not by much. Opportunity is logically going to be more important.
As far as the “rape is about power/violence” idea, as far as I know that’s a unsupported, politically motivated dogma when applied to most rape. The exception being rape that’s part of a deliberate campaign; not rape performed by random thugs. Rape is about sex, most of the time.
The statement in the article is pretty wishy-washy:
Although some “date rapes” occur in the heat of moment, many date and acquaintance rapists go on dates or pick up women with the absolute intention of having sex and with no intention of respecting the woman’s protestation if she is not equally interested.
I’d like to see what the study was based on and hear an informed dissenting opinion. Otherwise we could be dealing with something similar to the “rule of thumb” malarkey.
Well, to borrow from your reasoning, they’re eating, aren’t they? (Rape requires sex, doesn’t it?)