[Closed] Slutwalking?

First off no girl deserves to be raped. Easy one.

I think slutwalk is aimed more at the kinds of people who think how a girl dresses has a bearing on what happens to her rather than at the sorts of scumbags who would actually rape a woman. Personally I don't think it makes a difference. I could be attacked just as easily on my bike as I could walking home from a bar. The sorts of men who do this sort of thing have such a ****ed up view of women anyway.

First off no girl deserves to be raped. Easy one.

I think slutwalk is aimed more at the kinds of people who think how a girl dresses has a bearing on what happens to her rather than at the sorts of scumbags who would actually rape a woman. Personally I don't think it makes a difference. I could be attacked just as easily on my bike as I could walking home from a bar. The sorts of men who do this sort of thing have such a **** up view of women anyway

^ This

I think it's horrendous that we still have a culture of blaming the victim when it comes to rape - had they been drinking, were they in a dodgy area, how were they dressed? A lot of people seem to ask these questions, then rank victims according to how 'deserving' they were of their attack. People say 'use common sense', but where do you draw the line?

Should Muslims and Jews not wear clothing associated with their faith, because bigots might attack them? Should football fans not wear their team's shirt because they might get attacked by opposing fans? If a cyclist is hit in broad daylight by a dangerous driver, did they deserve it because they weren't wearing a helmet or high-vis vest? What sort of top crosses the line from wanting to stay cool in summer to saying 'I'm up for teh sexings?'

A person's clothing should never justify an attack against them, whether it's physical or verbal. I do understand why people say, "But it's not an ideal world, people should exercise caution", but my worry is that as long as there's that attitude, there's going to be an element of blaming the victim.

I know two women who were raped as children, and one who was nearly raped at a party but thankfully someone walked in and stopped it. None of them reported their attackers, because they felt they wouldn't be believed, or would be blamed themselves. They're all pretty messed up now when it comes to relationships.

Interesting topic going on here.
From what I gather the blame rests solely on the person being raped yeah? Is that correct? For me it makes not one jot of sense that. What difference does it make how/what the woman (or man) wears, it’s purely down to the person/potential attacker to have the morals NOT to attack that person. The attackers own decision to pursue and force themselves on the woman (or man) is singularly down to their own decision to do such. Using the defence of “she/he was gagging for it, look at the way they dress” is abhorrent. This society should have the moral backbone to accept the freedom of expression (in whatever form that maybe) without fear of recrimination and without ramification.
Slutwalking, whom ever thought that terminology up needs a better understanding of the society they occupy.

A person's clothing should never justify an attack against them

Of course it shouldn't, don't think anyone is saying rape is justified in any circumstances, in fact it's absurd even suggesting that anyone is.

That isn't the same as suggesting that a person's clothing may be relevant in whether someone picks them out to be a victim.

So in the meantime, Bikebouy, while we build this society where everybody respects each other and freedom of expression does not offend or incite anyone to do anything, do you have any practical advice as to how to conduct oneself in a way that avoids confrontation?

People say 'use common sense', but where do you draw the line?

At dressing in such a way as you could easily be confused for a prostitute, getting so drunk you can barely stand up, then wandering around alone in a city centre at 3am?

Look, I wouldn't consider it very sensible for [i]me[/i] to wander around totally wasted on my own in a city centre at 3am, and I'm a fairly big bloke with a shaved head. If you happen to walk around a city centre (mine anyway) on a saturday night when you're sober, you will see that they are fairly scary places filled with drunken idiots. Staying away from horrible drunken idiots generally lessens your chances of something bad happening.

:shrug:

I don't see why you can't say that, [i]and[/i] say there are no excuses or mitigating factors for rape, ever. It seems a bit of a Dubya style 'you're either with us or you're against us' fallacy.

This Slutwalking thing just seems part of what is to me a bullshit distortion of feminism. It seems to be 'ok you can't have equal pay for doing the same job, but look you can empower yourself by living up to cliched male sexual fantasies (which you are bombarded with in media largely run by men). You go girl!'

So ... I'm assuming that very few of you have experienced the joys of having a teenage daughter?

No, thank god.

Here is some BBC advice about how to prevent being a victim of mugging:

Most muggings happen in the street or on public transport
Most happen between 6pm and midnight.
So don't walk the streets or use public transport alone at night. Obviously.
Even if you're in a group, stick to well-lit areas.
The most common items to be nicked are wallets, mobile phones and jewellery, so keep them hidden.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio1/advice/factfile_az/mugging_theft

Now before anyone starts, I'm not saying mugging is 'the same' as being raped. But surely this advice is shifting the blame onto the victim of the mugging - surely we shouldn't have to change our behaviour at all because of these awful people? Or is it just about exercising a bit of common sense?

Should football fans not wear their team's shirt because they might get attacked by opposing fans?

To use your example, depends on the situation - normally probably fine - but maybe after an acrimonious defeat, going into a rival team's pub might not be the most sensible plan.

f a cyclist is hit in broad daylight by a dangerous driver, did they deserve it because they weren't wearing a helmet or high-vis vest?

Not at all, but wearing a helmet and a high vis vest is probably a good idea.

Yes, I have had a teenage daughter.
I've also been a pretty teenage boy myself and been in some unpleasant situations (I used to hitchhike alone throughout Europe; it was common in the late 60s / 70s) - so I know that crime is down to the perpetrator, not the victim.

Started reading this thread. It's great eh, bandying about opinions like it's a competition who can be the most right. Me me me! I'm the rightest!

edit: looks like brought back on track after some flouncing!

No, no I've no advice on how to construct a moral society.. I thought we lived in one already, I'm wrong of course and/or deluded.
I've never known anyone whose been raped and neither, to my knowledge, known anyone whose even had thoughts of such violation against another person.
I've chosen not to have kids so I don't know what it's like to have teenagers to look after either. Therefore I've no idea what the thought pattern is in them for wearing what they wear or possibly what they are trying to achieve by it, except a freedom of expression.

Having had a bit of time to think about this now,

DeadlyDarcy hits the nail on the head.

There's a world of difference between saying that someone was foolish, and using that as a defence for a crime. We need to be careful what we're discussing here exactly, or we end up arguing about different things.

As an example (and I'm not saying that this is a comparable crime, it's just an example to explain where I'm coming from):

A little while ago, I had my car broken into. The potential thieves were looking for a satnav, and presumably targeted me because I drive a newish car and had a circular mark on the windscreen left by a mount suction cup.

Now. In hindsight, I was foolish. I could have taken steps to better ensure that I wasn't a victim of crime. I should've cleaned the windscreen before I left, and I should perhaps have parked in a more public area.

However, critically, [i]that does not excuse the crime,[/i] not even slightly. If the scrote was caught and taken to court, "well your honour, he was asking for it, he was flaunting the fact that he had a satnav" would not be an acceptible defence.

Going back to the original topic; in an ideal world girls should be free to wear what they like. I should be able to drive a nice car without some 'stick throwing a brick through the window. I should be able to leave my front door open for five minutes without fear of someone nicking my bike. But sadly, we don't live in an ideal world, we have to share it with bastards. This is why cars have immobilisers, doors have locks, why I'm not going to walk through Moss Side whilst typing away on an iPad, and why girls wandering around in their underwear drunk and on their own at 2am is a bad idea.

Protest against the "they were asking for it" defence, absolutely. Frankly I'm surprised and shocked that it still exists. But protesting for the 'right' to wear what they want and not get molested by bastards, well, that's not really a rights issue, is it.

+1 cougar

No, it's fine. It's a terrible indictment on our society that some people feel they can take what they want, when they want it, including sex.

I would probably castrate rapists.

That doesn't mean that I find it inconceivable that a womans actions might exaggerate the risk of rape, but even if it did, they are still in no way to blame for it, ever.

Edit: what cougar said

Does anyone fancy going down to London on the 4th?

Quite a few of those ladies look like they're right up for a bit of hanky panky.

I’ve read some, but not all of this topic and I think it is important to draw a distinction between “blaming the victim” and applying some common sense. There is never any justification for rape, never, none, simple. It is not, and never will be the fault of the victim, it is entirely down to the attacker and this can never be questioned. Women and men should be able to go wherever they want, in whatever state they want and not be under any threat, but unfortunately that is not the case

What (I think) you can say is that there are ways of minimising risk. I realise that there shouldn’t be a risk, but there is, so you have to look at ways of minimising that. So for instance, I don’t think being intoxicated, in a bikini or pair of speedo’s and alone in a city at 3am in a sensible thing to do. I don’t think it is being demeaning or insulting to say that.

So yes, it is never the fault of the victim but taking some personal responsibility is no bad thing.

Quite a few of those ladies look like they're right up for a bit of hanky panky.

I'd probably quite like to see them in the flesh, so to speak, is looking still allowed?

I've not read the thread beyond Right-on Fred's utterly predictable early input, using his misinterpretation of darcy to champion himself for the female cause.

Anyway, here's my "I'll speak but CBA listening" input:

Is anyone saying that a woman is responsible for being raped if she acts/dresses inappropriately?

The point is surely that if she does so she may be more likely to get the wrong kind of attention & worse (but I am guessing no-one knows teh relation between doing so an dbeing raped). That's far short of perfect but is the reality, just like leaving the handbag out in the parked car. It shouldn't mitigate any sentence, but may be something for the individual to think about.

Sorry, what sort of rape are we talking about here?

Man jumps out the bushes rape,

or "I was half pareletic to the point of being barely able to walk, went back to his flat, got into bed with him and woke up in the morning in the wet patch" type rape?

It's the kind of rape where the woman says doesn't want to have sex but the man doesn't listen, is there any other kind?

From my limited experience rape is about power and opportunity not targeting victims by dress. Rapists do not select their victims by clothing so to suggest clothing choice increases the risk or contributes to the crime is purely blaming the victim for no good reason save that it makes the blamer feel distant from the risk and morally superior.

The anti mugging advice quoted by Grum is about reducing opportunity . how a woman dresses does not provide opportunity so is irrelevant. better advice is not to go on dates with the sort of man who believes that you should put out if he buys dinner . Not to sleep in the same bed as drunks who fancy you not to stay in relationships with control freaks.

There is little valid advice about stranger rapes that is different to Grum's anti mugging advice and no wearing skimpy clothes is not the same as showing off your iphone wallet or ego watch any one old enough to feel sexual urges knows a woman has a body whether it's hidden by a burca or shown off in a thong. Anyone should take care not to get incoherently drunk particularly in a place where they would be vulnerable to strangers but that applies to both sexes and many crimes.

or "I was half pareletic to the point of being barely able to walk, went back to his flat, got into bed with him and woke up in the morning in the wet patch" type rape?

Behave.

From my limited experience rape is about power and opportunity not targeting victims by dress. Rapists do not select their victims by clothing

Nobody in this thread seems to know whether that's true or not though, presumably there must be research out there though I guess it's quite hard to do. I'd imagine behaviour is much more of a factor, but none of us actually know do we.

so to suggest clothing choice increases the risk or contributes to the crime is purely blaming the victim for no good reason save that it makes the blamer feel distant from the risk and morally superior.

I think that's insulting and unhelpful.

Rapists do not select their victims by clothing

It's not (specifically) about rape, let's be clear. Somewhere along the way, we've just made that up. The comment from the police officer which sparked all the jerking knees was thus, "women should avoid dressing like sluts in order not to be victimised." The Guardian article (correctly or incorrectly, I don't know) interprets this as harassment, not rape.

Going from a police officer saying that it might be a idea for young girls to consider that dressing provocatively might garner some unwanted attention, to said girls organising a rally in order to protest against the idea that victims deserve to be raped, is perhaps something of an interpolation, n'est-ce pas?

how a woman dresses does not provide opportunity so is irrelevant.

But it might provide the motive.

On the flipside, this is interesting (and frightening),

A 2009 Home Office report into violence against women in the UK found that 36% of people believed a woman should be held wholly or partly responsible for being sexually assaulted or raped if she was drunk, and 26% if she was in public wearing sexy or revealing clothes.

I'm confused as to what's implied by 'responsible' here.

In my example above, I didn't deserve to have my window smashed, but I could've taken steps to better protect against it. Am I partly responsible for the crime? Is this paragraph saying that I deserved to be victimised, or just that I could've minimised my risks better?

Perhaps the difference is in established causality. I know that if I went on holiday for a fortnight and left my front door wide open, then came home to find I'd been burgled, that there's a fairly high chance that these two events would be related. Seems from comments here that the same isn't true of provocative dress and harassment.

Hm. It's a tricky one, isn't it.

Started reading this thread. It's great eh, bandying about opinions like it's a competition who can be the most right. Me me me! I'm the rightest!

What, like this stupid nonsense?

I've not read the thread beyond Right-on Fred's utterly predictable early input, using his misinterpretation of darcy to champion himself for the female cause.

So, speaking out against the attitude that women who dress in a particular manner are provoking attacks against them is somehow wrong, then?

That some people really cannot distinguish between a crime like rape and burglary or theft is disturbing. I think Mrs Toast, Cougar, Crankboy and one or two others make some very good points. Is swiping a pen from the stationery cupboard at work the same as rape then? Dodging import duty on some cheap bike bits from the US?

At dressing in such a way as you could easily be confused for a prostitute

So, d'you think it's acceptable to rape prostitutes then? That somehow prostitutes have less rights than other women?

Answer the questions

That some people really cannot distinguish between a crime like rape and burglary or theft is disturbing.

MrsToast can't distinguish between rape and a cyclist being run over, using your (hopeless) logic.

So, d'you think it's acceptable to rape prostitutes then? That somehow prostitutes have less rights than other women?

Yes, of course. 🙄

Is swiping a pen from the stationery cupboard at work the same as rape then?

This is really some of the poorest argument I have ever seen on STW - bravo.

anyway, there's always an excuse for murder too. can we do that one next? I've gotta go to work...

So, d'you think it's acceptable to rape prostitutes then? That somehow prostitutes have less rights than other women?

PC: When did you realise you'd been raped madam?
SW: When the cheque bounced!

So, d'you think it's acceptable to rape prostitutes then? That somehow prostitutes have less rights than other women?

That's an entirely different argument, and you're moving well away from the original point.

I'll answer though; rape is never acceptable, but for a prostitute to argue, successfully, that they were raped would be exceptionally difficult. After all, to say that they did not intend to have sex with the attacker would be somewhat oxymoronic if said attacker was a paying customer. I suspect the CPS would take the view that the prostitute willingly put themselves in danger and therefore would be unwilling to prosecute the case as they'd have such a slim chance of success.

Obviously if a prostitute were attacked outside of the world of commercial sexual transactions then I can't see why anyone would differentiate between them and anyone else.

From my point of view comparing rape with things like breaking into a car ( no matter how well meaning) is pretty insulting. I don't deserve to be attacked or raped AT ALL regardless of where I am or what time of day it is. Rape is almost entirely done by men to women. You lot could probably walk home from a bar smashed out of your heads naked and get home safely. All women want is the SAME. We don't want special treatment we just want not to be harmed by men

The fact that some men feel that what I am wearing is an excuse are just trying to justify themselves. that' this has gone on for 3 pages on this is pretty shocking TBH.

I read somewhere that most rape is done by people who the victim knows anyway rather than strangers on the street.

I don't deserve to be attacked or raped AT ALL regardless of where I am or what time of day it is.

Whereas people do deserve to get mugged, beaten up, robbed? I'm sorry but I don't buy the argument that rape is a special crime that you cannot compare with anything else - [b]the effect is undoubtedly horrendous and massively psychologically damaging compared to the other things mentioned[/b], but that doesn't mean there are no parallels. There are lots of people who have been mugged/beaten up who suffer lasting psychological damage, albeit generally not in the same league - lets not demean them though eh?

The fact that some men feel that what I am wearing is an excuse are just trying to justify themselves. that' this has gone on for 3 pages on this is pretty shocking TBH.

Try actually reading what people have written rather than using your own prejudices to decide what you [i]think[/i] they've written.

Elfinsafety - Member
What, like this stupid nonsense?

Really?

ditch_jockey - Member

I totally agree with the perspective that [u]victims of rape shouldn't be seen as responsible for their attack, and that the perpetrator is 100% to blame.[/u]

Elfinsafety - Member
So, speaking out against the attitude that women who dress in a particular manner are provoking attacks against them is somehow wrong, then?

You've completely ignored what he said.

You've also confused the thread with your needless and irrelevant drivel in a continuation of your usual campaign to be seen as the "most right-on" here.

Go you!

Oh and stupidest I've read has to go to:

emsz - Member

The fact that some men feel that what I am wearing is an excuse are just trying to justify themselves. that' this has gone on for 3 pages on this is pretty shocking TBH.

Who's doing that exactly?

You are quite right that most rapes are be people known to the victim awhich suggests that what is being worn at the time may be of limited relevance.

I don't deserve to be attacked or raped AT ALL

I don't disagree but I'm puzzled as to how is this any different to victims of other crimes. Do they deserve it, then?

You lot could probably walk home from a bar smashed out of your heads naked and get home safely

Of course, men never get attacked. I, for instance, have never been set upon by a gang of lads in Burnley for the heinous crime of having long hair and a leather jacket, nor subsequently chased through the streets trying to escape a kicking.

I suppose at least, if we were naked then there's little chance of getting mugged.

The fact that some men feel that what I am wearing is an excuse

Can you show me where anyone's actually said this, because I seem to have missed this "fact." There are no excuses for rape or harassment, any more than there are excuses for any other intentional crimes. I could be wrong but apart from the usual trolls I don't see anyone claiming otherwise.

...are just trying to justify themselves.

I'm insulted at the implication that we've done anything that requires justification. I've never knowing harassed strangers, be they male, female, wearing a boob tube and daisy dukes or wearing a parka, drunk, asleep or on fire.

It's completely crazy to be attacking people for "saying rape is the same or stationary theft or mugging" because

a) they're aren't saying that

and

b) IT'S WORSE! Everybody knows that and it's bizarre that I've just typed it. So how does it being much, much worse mean we can't discuss taking some common sense decisions to reduce the risk, just like people do with every other risk in their lives?

Is there some crime abhorence inversion where suddenly the despicability of the offender means potential victims don't have to think about it?

How absolutely bonkers does that sound?

There are lots of people who have been mugged/beaten up who suffer lasting psychological damage,

As an anecdotal aside just to back this up,

My uncle is a big, strapping bloke. He one stood up for a woman he didn't know who getting roughed about by a bloke in a pub, in a "calm down mate, hey?" sort of way. A bit later on, he went to the loo and the bloke followed him in with a couple of mates and kicked the shit out of him.

It took several years for him to be able to go out on his own without getting panic attacks. Even now, if he's out with a group he'll always position himself defensively (eg, in a pub he'll sit with his back to the wall, where he can see the doors and no-one can sneak up behind him).

Rape is a nasty, violent crime, there are few things worse that you can do to a fellow human being. But there's other unpleasant things too.

You lot could probably walk home from a bar smashed out of your heads naked and get home safely

What makes you think that?

I don't think anyone is saying that rape is exactly the same as any other crime, but it has [b]some [/b]things in common with other crimes. For example that of lack of consent, and statistical probabilities. So we can introduce other crimes because of their commonality. Why are these analogies invalid? Beyond the rhetoric of 'They just are, moron!!'

What makes you think that?

What are you going to steal from them? Even if they've got a mobile phone, I'm not sure I'd want it.

Can you rephrase that so it more directly answers the question?

Who are you asking, sorry?

You, and it really is just for clarification.

Oh, ok, sure.

"I don't think that."

Not sure what else I can do elaborate on that really; the original statement wasn't mine.

hmmmmm, definitely not going to compare crimes with other crimes as I don't see the point.

Wearing whatever or even nothing is never going to come slightly even close to a 'she was asking for it' justification, and I don't think I've read (skimmed) anything in this thread that would suggest that.

As for caution, well, I exercise caution by having my keys out ready before I get to my front door, not being completely plastered, automatically lock the car doors if I'm sitting in the passenger seat by myself etc. I do this because I know some people would take the opportunity to attack, mug, rape me and I want to minimise risk.

In my 'common sense' mode - I think that girls who wear not very much or who dress to show all their flesh perhaps should anticipate more attention, but I'm fairly sure it's also a women's attitude/body language that contributes to how they are treated by people.
for some reason I feel I have to separate the clothes issue and the drinking issue. I see getting so drunk you don't know where you are/who you're with as pretty reckless whether you're male or female.

One of my friends is South African and she won't walk home alone in the dark, she crosses the street to avoid men, etc. We live in a fairly safe neighbourhood but her attitude is understandable as she has friends who have been raped and assaulted. thus I feel it's hard to define an 'acceptable' level of precaution.

I see nothing wrong with education or prevention strategies, but I don't think clothing [b]by itself[/b] has much relevance. I'm also not saying people shouldn't drink, but if you're partially incapacitated I think you should put strategies in place to make sure you get home safely - prevent yourself getting hit by a car, falling down a ditch, etc.

Oh, ok, sure.

"I don't think that."

Not sure what else I can do elaborate on that really; the original statement wasn't mine

but you responded to my question about it. But, Ok if you think the original statement was not true, then fine.

get a room you two 😛

YES! 😀

Thread RIP 😎

First support for the Slutwalkers. Yes girls, you can wear what you like and no I won't take it as an invitation to rape you.

Now something that won't go down as well with some. Some men and women do like to be dominated, some do like to be mistreated (but don't see it as mistreatment because they like it). So guys and girls, how far are you prepared to go in being drawn into someone else's game and how big a risk are you prepeared to take? Because if you judge the situation wrong either you'll end up in clink or you'll leave a very disappointed lady or guy. I've never wound up in clink but I'm certain I've disappointed.

Things are rarely black and white and you're on your own to decide if the provocation includes consent. One thing you can be certain of if you are male, if you judge wrong and the lady cries rape then no-one is going to believe you.

Therefore I've no idea what the thought pattern is in them for wearing what they wear or possibly what they are trying to achieve by it, except a freedom of expression.

I suspect that [i]'freedom of expression'[/i] is pretty low down the list of reasons why you can go into any city centre on a weekend and see carbon copy girls in broadly the same outfits teetering about pished. For better or worse, social trends have shifted the definition of [i]glamorous[/i] from Audrey Hepburn to Katy Price, from relatively demure to overtly sexualised. Alongside that, there appears to be a definite tendency to sexualise girls at an increasingly earlier age.

I'll probably get roasted for this, but when you couple this sexualisation with the increasing availability of material for men which presents women as [i]easy and available[/i], you're creating a social powderkeg in which girls who are guilty of nothing other than following fashion and getting a bit drunk find themselves the [b]victims[/b] of men who are encouraged to think that being sexually aggressive is normal.

Women should have the freedom to go about their business free from the unwanted attentions of sexually aggressive men. By all means they should protest loudly and publicly when social attitudes or lawmakers inhibit that freedom - I'm just not convinced that doing so under the banner of a term that people tend to associate with sexual availability is really going to further that cause.

If sluts began to "dress down", how would we know they're sluts ?

Fred's gawn awful quiet, hazzunt he?

yeah, maybe someone asked him a question.

but you responded to my question about it.

If you genuinely thought my reply was in any way serious, I hope you recover soon from your recent humourectomy.

sorry, my fault. I hadn't noticed it was funny. Looking back at it I can see it was hilarious.

Some men and women do like to be dominated, (etc)

That's a whole other discussion but,

a) I'd suggest that this isn't generally a first-date / one night stand issue. I know many people of... shall we say "non-standard" sexuality and I can say with some authority that the core component is invariably trust. If I "went back to her place" with a girl and she told me all about her date-rape fantasy, the only thing I'd be beating would be a hasty retreat.

b) generally, if you were walking the darker path, you'd have safeguards in place. A safe word for instance, so you can scream "no, stop" as much as you like with both parties safe in the knowledge that they don't really mean "stop" unless they shout "lemons" or something.

If I shout "lemons" will this thread stop?

no but Elfin and Ernie might come back

*spins 3 times and says "kaesae"*

sorry, my fault. I hadn't noticed it was funny. Looking back at it I can see it was hilarious.

Humour is subjective, as you demonstrate.

Don't see any point in reacting to some of the comments on here, but saddened that so much of it mirrors the debates and arguements that women were having 20 odd years ago but it still hasn't changed. A couple of points to consider though:

- 'common sense' behaviour ie not being out alone at night in the city or not wearing 'skimpy / revealing' clothing. There is a very fine line between what is being suggested as 'common sense' and a legitimate right for women to go about their business. When I was a student in Leeds, 20 odd years ago, there was a series of rapes in the local area and thd police advised women not to go out alone after dark - well it was winter so dark at about 5pm - is that restriction acceptable or a total infringement of women's liberty?

- re 'skimpy clothing' - the last time I got sexual hassle of a group of guys was when I was wearing Lycra shorts and a vest top road riding in hot weather - how far is it acceptable to ask women to choose what they wear so as too avoid unwanted attention?

- if nothing else the years and rape evidence should have shown us that restricting women in either their behaviour, dress, or location will never stop rape from occuring. The only way to reduce the incidence of rape is to put more resources and effort into addressing the causes on rape which centre around a small percentage of men's attitudes towards control and violence towards women.

Humour is subjective, as you demonstrate

Some good points here (thread in general) and some predictable blandness.

This is a typical emotive single issue discussion. The problem is far bigger than cause and effect as it has been made to be. Motives are a good place to start:

Why would a woman choose to dress in such a way? Where are the images of femininity she copies coming from? Why does a man feel he can openly comment, respond or pursue a woman because he feels like it?

We objectify women horrendously, which is then adopted (look up eating disorders, dysmorphia, rise in plastic surgery etc.)and perpetuated. This has become normal and some males feel it is justified to treat females as they wish.

OP, you sound like you don't know anyone who has been sexually abused. It's a pretty good way to fu*k someone up for a very very long time. A number of people close to me have experienced it and the damage takes many years to repair.

As long as we continue to have females objectified and subordinate in our culture, this will happen at the level it does.

Let's fight inflammatory with inflammatory: when a paedophile attacks a child, wasn't the child "asking for it?". Discuss. Still stand by your original point OP?

Rape has been trivialised and our gender stereotypes are ridiculous. people need to be educated and empathetic to one another. But then again surely all the women at the local pool should be wearing these: I swear they were all GAGGING for it.
[img] [/img]

Junkyard +1.

CM, your performance on this thread has been a bit of a shame really.

Some men and women do like to be dominated, (etc)

I've been avoiding this thread because it's such a highly emotional topic and you lot argue anything but the comments you've made in your post edukator actually made me blow my top for the first time since I've been on this forum.. As cougar says sub/Dom activity (which is what you are making reference to) is such a different topic, your comment is incredible. You clearly know nothing about BDSM. there is an absolute difference between someone choosing to be dominated or dominating as part of a lifestyle choice and someone being forced to have sex with someone against their WILL. Way off the mark

Herman Shake - well put. I would also add that it isn't just related to recent images / stereotypes of what is considered 'feminine'. Our culture is historically founded on the subjugation of women. For example it is only fairly recently been recognised that 'wifes' can be raped by their husbands, as for a long time our society decreed that in marrying a women gave a man the right to have sex with her any time her wanted to, whether she consented or not.

my questions have only ever been to try to get to the root of people's difference in beliefs. It helps the discussion and avoids bickering if the crux of the disagreement can be identified. They might not have been the most incisive of questions, but I have tried to answer the questions asked of me. if mine were banal,then they could be answered simply.

i really don't mean to troll, but i really can't see anything wrong with my line of questions. I've had some elss than kind response directed at me, and have tried to respond appropriately. It would be a formative experience for me if DD or JY could point out where i have acted shamefully.

Interesting thread

Rape is an incredibly emotive subject and I'm yet to meet anyone who doesnt have a strong opinion on it... in fact even though i sometimes work with rapists as part of my job I'm still yet to meet someone who doesnt think its wrong. So maybe the people arguing can take a breath and remember we all think rape is wrong and the effects are horrendous.

Men get raped too, a lot more than is reported. Consider all the prisons in the worlds and the gay community plus the rape of men by women. I'm under the impression that female victim numbers are (and if you consider all the cultures in which women don't get a say in sex) higher, I'm guessing it will probably always be higher 🙁 The fact it happens at all is upsetting, so before reacting please remember all I'm attempting to point out is that this thread has created the impression that rape is nearly always a man-rapes-woman situation, statistics would suggest so but:

Personally I'm son of, brother to and friends of close to ten ladies/girls who have been raped. I've cared for (in my job) many women who have been raped and several men (mainly from the gay community, a couple from the prison services). One of my closest friends was raped by a girl as his "first time". So in my 'real life' experience of rape the numbers of men and women who have been raped is much much closer than any stats would suggest... just something to consider?

Most of those people were raped by people they knew and the clothes they were wearing at the times, from what I understand of their stories, had nothing to do with the rape... neither was wandering around drunk at 3am.

With regards to objectifying women, the western culture (the one of which I am most familiar) seems to still find it socially acceptable. Pornography is more accessible than ever with the internet and free websites streaming hardcore content. A lot .. well I'll go out on a limb and assume most pornography is written and directed by men, the content reflects a very male dominant mindset... If conversations with young guys are anything to go, by their perception of good sex revolves around acts in which the men are dominant the the women perform degrading/submissive acts... that can't be a healthy sign for the future?

Lots of opinion going on but not much to back it up.

http://www.cer.truthaboutrape.co.uk/3.html

If we're discussing the 'she was asking for it as she was dressed like a slut' type of rape (to go back to the OP and the link to Slutwalking) then I was surprised that 97% of callers to Rape Crisis lines knew their assailants and by the look of the other stats on the site most woke up next to him the previous morning.

EDIT cannot get link to work

Can anyone go along to these walks as a spectator?

probably not worth it...

[img] http://www.flickr.com/photos/hc916/5608075672/sizes/m/in/photostream/ [/img]

http://www.flickr.com/photos/hc916/5608075672/sizes/m/in/photostream/

There is a very fine line between what is being suggested as 'common sense' and a legitimate right for women to go about their business.

Absolutely.

police advised women not to go out alone after dark ... is that restriction acceptable or a total infringement of women's liberty?

It's neither. It's advice. Had they followed up with "so you're all under curfew and if you're seen on the streets you'll be arrested" then you're into liberty infringement territory. I don't really see that "look, there's a rapist at large, you might want to take a few extra precautions until we catch the bugger" is a restriction in any way; would you prefer that they'd said nowt and the criminal had subsequently claimed a few more victims instead?

Honestly. If the police advised me not to wear shorts for a couple of weeks in case I got forcibly dry-bummed by a passing lunatic, I'd be going out in motorcycle leathers with a metal tea-tray stuffed down my pants.

giantalkali - Member

probably not worth it...

http://www.flickr.com/photos/hc916/5608075672/sizes/m/in/photostream/

I don't know, check out the legs on her on the right..And the double chin on the bloke? Phwoar!

I'd be going out in motorcycle leathers with a metal tea-tray stuffed down my pants.

genuine lol 😆 what a vision 🙂

giantalkali- Absolutely. Most women rape victims are raped by someone they know (born out by the stats).

It is a crime of power... not about sex. Thus it is largely irrelevent what a woman is wearing. I think this debate is a function of how defence lawers defend their clients. In court they will say anything to discredit the sexual character of the victim.

Until only fairly recently, spousal rape and homosexual rape was not recognised in law. Thankfully this has changed. However, surely as our definition of rape has expanded then so *should* have conviction rates. Sadly this isn't the case. The simple truth being that it is very easy to accuse whilst paradoxically being extremely difficult to prove.

giantalkali- Absolutely. Most women rape victims are raped by someone they know (born out by the stats).

It is a crime of power... not about sex. Thus it is largely irrelevent what a woman is wearing.

OK fine - I wondered about that way back in the thread. Am I still allowed to think that dressing in a way that panders to male sexual objectification isn't particularly healthy (while defending women's right to do that if they really want), or does that make me a rapist?

Herman Shake - well put.

What, hysterical nonsense like this?

Let's fight inflammatory with inflammatory: when a paedophile attacks a child, wasn't the child "asking for it?". Discuss. Still stand by your original point OP?

what a vision

Hey, don't oppress me, I'll wear what I like!!

nice one jackson, there's a lot of high horses and trolls and not much in the way of considered thought going on here.

I could've taken a shortcut home the other night, but on reaching the entrance to a narrow and ill lit passage I thought, 'No, looks a bit rapey' and took the long way. I still arrived dripping wet and panting though...

most pornography is written and directed by men, the content reflects a very male dominant mindset

There's a reason for that other than sexism though, it's genetic. [i]Generally [/i]speaking, men are more responsive to visual stimuli, whereas women are more predisposed to words and emotions. There are exceptions of course.

No it doesn't. It makes your argument ridiculous.[i]Reductio ad absudum[/i]

You can think what you like about how a woman dresses, but short skirts/tight tops etc. seems (statistically at least)to have little effect on the risk of rape.