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 - MemberI 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 - MemberThe 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.
