The 'Provocative Clothing' Rape Defense

[omega 616]

Just to throw a random question out there, how many rapists are going to say "why did I rape? Cos I couldn't get laid otherwise" or "I want to dominate and feel powerful"? Which sounds less pathetic? " Wanking just wasn't doing it and I couldn't get a date" or what everybody wants (except subs) , to be powerful and in control?

Wait, do think rapists consider rape to be morally ok but lies to be wrong? Yeah, inmates are the most trust worthy people....

Brilliant, you attack the methodology of how people find out without even knowing how they study this, just to prop up your own opinion based on jack shit.

Is it unreasonable to think criminals lie and that would effect the results?

Tell me, who do you think you are? Some educated genius who thinks of things no one else does? Do you think you deserve a Nobel prize for discovering a problem they may never have considered? But no, Internet 'genius' to the rescue to mention something they may have already accounted for!

If you asked a million people with tin foiling hats if the government was after them would conclude the government was after everyone? You ask ufo nuts if that is a weather balloon they see in a night sky and see how many say it is".

I'm sure your reasoning has put you in a good place in life. You know, comparing trying to question people to extract their personal motives with questioning crazy people not working in the government to find out whether they think there is a government conspiracy to see if there actually is a government conspiracy. And you know, continuously making the assumption that no one ever considered that criminals could lie, except for you. Do you want a pat on the head for that?

As for manipulating evidence have you seen the YouTube clip about the "8 billion dollar ipod"? Just cos you read it somewhere doesn't make it true!

"I made a criticism without reading things so I'm going to accuse you of accepting everything you read as truth just because you pointed out I made a pretty stupid assumption!"

Sorry dude, that just makes you look like you can't read since I never said that manipulation of evidence couldn't happen, nor did I say that if something was written somewhere it makes it true. I'm pointing out that you're making a really stupid criticism since you're assuming they didn't account for it without even reading what studies etc say this.

And I don't know where you got your education, but generally youtube clips aren't equivalent to peer reviewed studies.

That is exactly what I am, finally somebody understands! Was starting to think no one was going to notice.

A patient on the head would be okay, prefer a hand shake though.

Actually your post was nothing but a 1 liner, off topic criticism that never answered the question in any manner.

Yeah peer reviewed studies mean squat as well, the escapist has an article up now saying former FBI profiler says video games don't cause violence, in which the first half of the article says numerous bodies say video games cause violence but then it goes on to say FBI says it doesn't believe. .. As many other people have said.

Your post might not have said out right, it did imply it though

It's not off topic to point out you're criticizing them for something they may well have considered and accounted for.

It was perfectly on topic, your criticism was baseless and I pointed out why. Because you don't know their method for acquiring the information, you're attacking something people studied without actually seeing what it is they did or had to say.

They mean squat? Lol? Oh because the escapist has an 'article'! Oh god no who would have expected they would have an article! Well geez, an article exists I guess that totally destroys all of science when in fact an article about the FBI means jack shit in regards to peer reviewed studies unless you're going to provide some kind of logical link here.

I already told you what the logical link is and I thought it was pretty obvious, just cos you read something doesn't make it true. How can there be so many articles and peer reviewed studies saying video games cause violence but there are also as many saying the opposite.

Anyway, I can't be bothered using my phone to type out these essay length texts. This will be my last post on the topic, quote again if you like but be warned I won't read it.

 

[Hagi]

My exact words in my first post: "The advice that you should wear less revealing clothing to avoid being raped is stupid."

Now that we have that out of the way, now that you understand that I am on your side on this, please pay attention.

You are making the exact error I was talking about.

My entire post was about how the anti rape movement is full of reactionaries that blow the smallest comment out of proportion, viciously attacking people who are on our side over a comment that is taken out of context. Like you just did.

These vicious attacks prevent actual discussion of actual useful rape prevention. Especially among those with the ability to significantly sway public opinion.

Your exact words also include that it's completely reasonable to say that wearing provocative clothing is a risk-increasing factor.

There's absolutely nothing reasonable about making statements like that that when you yourself admit you haven't got any evidence at all to back it up.

There's nothing blown out of proportion. You make comments that only reinforce the idea that victims weren't acting completely reasonable and you get called out for them. That's all there is.

You can keep on saying that your statement 1, that provocative clothing is a risk-increasing factor, attaches no blame but that doesn't make it true. It makes the utterly retarded assumption that the victim's clothing was a choice she could have picked better. That there was something, anything, she could have done to prevent the whole thing if only she hadn't worn that skirt. That's attaching blame. Not much blame. But it is attaching blame, regardless of you stressing that it doesn't.

Stop making stupid statements like that and you'll stop getting attacked by people you believe on your side (hint: those actually on this side don't say your statement 1 is reasonable).

 

[Sir Thomas Sean Connery]

No rational and sensible person has ever made that argument.

The blame goes on the aggressor.

However, precautions can still be taken. You wouldn't walk down a back alley in a bad neighborhood wearing incredible expensive clothing as it would increase the likelihood of robbery. If it happens, of course it's still the robbers fault, but victims can still take preventative measures.

And while granted, there is no scientific evidence of this, it isn't something that can really be tested. Furthermore, this position makes much more sense than the alternative where clothing has absolutely nothing to do with how people are perceived.

Even if the increase profile is incredibly minute, it only makes sense for it to be there.

 

[Smeatza]

It's strange how in all other aspects of life we encourage risk management based on fact and statistical evidence, whereas when it comes to rape we base our "advice" on prejudice, lies, and scaremongering.

No we don't, we don't walk our kids to and from school because it's likely they will be abducted, just because it's a possibility. We don't stop playing golf in a thunderstorm because it's likely we will get struck by lightning, just because it is a possibility

It's been pointed out many times in this thread that the majority of rape is committed by someone known to the victim, that the "stranger jumping out of a bush" rape is comparatively rare, and that there is no evidence to suggest that wearing "provocative" clothing increases your chance of being raped. Yet these ideas still persist, born of the idea that all men are incapable of controlling their lust and are predisposed towards rape, and women are stupid to lead them on by dressing a certain way or having breasts that are too large or having a sexually active history or smiling too flirtatiously.

Yeah that's all obvious stuff I already know, doesn't mean stranger rape doesn't happen though. You're more likely to get raped if people notice you, and you are less likely to be noticed wearing non-provocative clothing.
I'd encourage all people to practice stealth ninja skills to avoid becoming victims of crime but they aren't common knowledge so being as inconspicuous as possible will have to do.
Plus you cannot really prepare and manage the risk of someone you know and trust raping you, short of becoming paranoid, but that's neither here nor there.

Your "risk management" advice may as well be, "offer a prayer to the Hindu monkey god Hanuman, turn around three times counter-clockwise and throw some salt over your left shoulder in order to avoid being raped".

No, go out in groups, do not get too drunk, make sure someone knows where you are, if you can't do these things be inconspicuous (like not wearing provocative clothing, fancy dress, flashing lights etc.)

It's not a matter of risk management. If it could be proved conclusively that wearing a miniskirt gave you a 50% higher chance of being raped then, yes, I would advise against miniskirts. But it hasn't. And as has been pointed out, "stranger in the bushes" rape is a vanishingly small proportion of rapes, so they whole argument about not making yourself a target is a fucking waste of time and distracts from the actual issues.

Like I said to Boots, we don't walk our kids to and from school because it's likely they will be abducted, just because it's a possibility. We don't stop playing golf in a thunderstorm because it's likely we will get struck by lightning, just because it is a possibility. Risk management applies to everything, no matter how rare or freak of an occurrence, including stranger rape.

Worse than that, attempts at victim blaming (and most advcie about how to dress IS victim blaming) is demonstrable harmful to both the victim and the legal process. Rape victims sexual habits, sexual fantasies, dress, flirtatiousness and behaviour have all been used in court as evidence that it "wasn't really rape". Numerous victims have comitted suicide after having their sexual history dragged out in court, with the implication that they were asking for it. It is NOT and never has been just risk management.

First of all, the idea of an individual's past sex life being taken into account is abhorent to me. If it's wrong to take past convictions into account, then it is wrong to take past sexual activity into account (unless it's directly related to the case).
Second of all, the claim "well she was dressed provocatively so she deserved it/it wasn't rape/she was asking for it etc. etc." is nothing short of barbaric.
However saying "she was dressed provocatively so it wasn't rape" is not the same as saying "it was not rape, it was consensual sex, and the way they were dressed supports that."
If I may elaborate, people better educated than I have pointed out that in false rape accusation scenarios it will be necessary for the defense to show that consent was given, and one way to indicate this is by showing the victim had the intention of having sex with the defendant, in this case evidenced by how they dress.
"most advcie about how to dress IS victim blaming" - Not true at all, a gross over-simplification and not relevant, especially considering the advice in question is aimed at those who have not become victims of rape as of yet.

Because wearing more clothes isnt risk management. Door locks are a physical barrier. So are car doors. Clothes do NOTHING to stop rape in a practical sense. At any point has someone said "Oh damn there are all these clothes in the way of this girl, i just cant rape her its too much hassle to take em off, DAMN IM FOILED AGAIN!". The idea behind the advice is the same as advising you put a huge sign saying "ROB THE CAR BEHIND ME IT HAS BETTER STUFF".

It's about being noticed, not physical barriers. You are more conspicuous if you are wearing sexually suggestive clothing. Making you more likely to be the victim of crime, any crime, including stranger rape.

Youre not making yourself "safer". Youre just making some other poor innocent person the target instead of you. Its not the same as a lock because it isnt a physical barrier. It cant, by itself, stop anything or make it harder for someone to rape you. Its just misdirection. An attempt to shift the crime onto someone else. Unless youre wearing chainmail it isnt a defence.

Rapists don't have a quota. By making yourself a less likely to be a victim of crime, you are not making others more likely to be victims.

 

[Smeatza]

Incorrect.

The vast majority of stranger rape is opportunistic in nature, meaning the rapist goes after the first woman they think they can get away with raping. There is zero evidence that how the victim is dressed plays a factor in the choice.

Lol you confirmed my point with your reply.
"The vast majority of stranger rape is opportunistic in nature, meaning the rapist goes after the first woman they think they can get away with raping."
So if the potential victim was never noticed in the first place, the rapist was never given an opportunity, and the risk management of not being noticed (which includes not dressing provocatively, not wearing fancy dress, not singing to yourself at full volume as you walk down the street etc.) payed off.

Please stop passing off your personal beliefs about "sluts" as facts.

This is nothing to do with sluts, feminism or any kind of ethics. This is about cold, hard practicality. And if you weren't so wrapped up in feminist dogma you would see that.

 

[Haukur Isleifsson]

I think people need to try and understand "why" even in situations where the "why" is simply not an issue. I think that we need to be really careful to not convey any message that implies guilt on behalf of the victim. There is no need for that and it is harmful.

If you can't help but point out any and all correlations that you come across than please when it comes to rape keep your mouth shut.

 

[electric_warrior]

I think when people say this that they're not excusing the rapist, just giving a word of advice to women that it makes them a target. Kind of like advising someone not to dress up like a moose in hunting season.

 

[Lilani]

Lol you confirmed my point with your reply.
"The vast majority of stranger rape is opportunistic in nature, meaning the rapist goes after the first woman they think they can get away with raping."
So if the potential victim was never noticed in the first place, the rapist was never given an opportunity, and the risk management of not being noticed (which includes not dressing provocatively, not wearing fancy dress, not singing to yourself at full volume as you walk down the street etc.) payed off.

The opportunity for rape is presented by the woman simply being there, not by how much clothing she is wearing. You can argue that not walking in sketchy places alone can lower your chances of being raped, however the idea that clothing she happens to be wearing has anything to do with is is just ridiculous.

I think when people say this that they're not excusing the rapist, just giving a word of advice to women that it makes them a target. Kind of like advising someone not to dress up like a moose in hunting season.

And the same goes with you. It's frustrating how many people run around saying it's somehow making them more of a target when the only thing that makes them a target is they happen to be a female in a vulnerable situation. If a rapist sees a chance and he thinks he can get away with it, he's going to take the opportunity whether she's wearing stilettos and a miniskirt or a frock and combat boots.

 

[HellbirdIV]

How do people still believe in this?

Because people are dumb.

People are dumb because some of them are crazed, radical "feminists" who accuse all men ever of being rapists just for the crime of having a dick.

People are dumb because, when confronted by such crazy people, they believe that the only response is to add even more crazy, such as suggesting that women should be held accountable for "tempting" men to rape them, like men are hard-wired to want to rape women if they see tits on display and therefore women should know to protect their vaginas by hiding their tits.

People are dumb because sex is a weird thing. It's a topic that makes us, as a culture, as people, get a little stiff, a little uncomfortable, because it's such a big deal.

Sex is a weird thing, a big deal, and therefore any crime dealing with sex becomes blown out of proportion. Some people have a knee-jerk reaction towards rapists, suggesting things like they are somehow worse than murderers.

And for every action there is an equal, opposite reaction. For each idiotic accusation there's an equally idiotic defense.

 

[Froggy Slayer]

People are dumb because sex is a weird thing. It's a topic that makes us, as a culture, as people, get a little stiff

I see what you did there.

 

[PirateRose]

Women can cover themselves head to toe in Burqa and she will be still under threat of rape just as much as the woman walking around in a bikini. A woman can be accompanied by a male friend and she can still be raped to hell and back (see recent bus rapes in India.)

It makes no difference to a rapist what the woman is wearing. There is a woman to be powerful over, there is a woman to control and put into lower status to make him feel strong. When a rapist says, she was wearing skimpy cloths, she deserved it, it's the same thing as a rapist saying, some of her hair strayed from her veil, she deserved it.

It's nothing to do with appearance, little to do with sex, everything to do with the very existence of being a woman makes one deserving of rape and to be put in "proper" place beneath a man.

 

[Blow_Pop]

Just like no one deserves to be robbed (well usually) no one deserves to be raped, but there are simple things you can do to prevent such thigns from occuring.

I have a right to walk in gang territory, but it would be a pretty stupid thing to do.

A) You do have a fairly good point with that last sentence however, some people don't have the choice due to where they live.

B) Addressing that first one. No there aren't. If someone is going to rape someone else all they need is opportunity. And provocative clothing really has nothing to do with it. I've been raped once in "provocative clothing"(I'm sorry 100+degree Fahrenheit heat I'm not wearing a shit ton of clothes and have the right to tank tops and shorts)by my running partner and twice by boyfriends in which I was wearing jeans, baggy tshirts, and converse. Are any of those outfits "asking" for it? No. The thing I've learned about rapists(besides the fact that not all rapists are men and not all people who are raped are women)is that no matter what if they have the opportunity they will do it. The clothing defense gets used because they believe if you slut shame a woman (because let's face it most of the time when this is talked about it is about a man raping a woman) then it shifts the blame to her. When in reality, ALL the blame should be on the rapists fault. How many times do you hear it asked of a man who was raped(in the rare instances he comes out and says he was AND people actually believe him because let's face it, our society sucks) "well what were you wearing?". Compared to how many times you hear it from when a woman says she was raped. In the first instance, never. In the second all the time. Rapists usually have a specific type they go for and anyone who fits that type can be their victims given the opportunity. And contrary to beliefs don't always exhibit certain behaviours of rapists. Some of them are very good at hiding their motives and themselves from everyone else. It is all in the social programming of our society that we severely need to change.

And that turned out a lot longer than I wanted....shit.

 

[ImperialSunlight]

the man is still entirely at fault for, you know, having such little self-control that he has to fuck a woman the second that he gets a boner.

Not to be overly PC about things, but men can be rape victims also. This seems to imply otherwise.