The 'Provocative Clothing' Rape Defense

[ace_of_something]

I'm just going to weigh in as a police officer we call that 'blaming the victim' when i hear or even sense someone eluding to 'they were asking for it because x...' it takes all my will power to not grab their jaw bone and snap it off and say "oh your mouth just sounded so stupid it was asking to be broken"

 

[Abomination]

[Not at all, we might as well attach a warning to all alcohol purchases that state "May cause rape" because that certainly has had proven links to rape occurrences. But we know such methods would be commercial suicide.

That being said I never advocated such a thing. A video game does not CAUSE homicidal insanity, it could only provide inspiration or motivation to one who already has such a deposition.

Oh, OK. So the label should read, "May trigger killing spree." Got it.

You can't really get out of this one. If you say that we should warn all women not to dress like sluts "just in case this thing I can't prove happens to be true", we should also have warnings on video games that connect them to killing sprees. Just in case. Of course, it would probably help to perpetuate unfair stereotypes about gamers and needlessly demonise video games, but it's worth it to be on the safe side, right?

Incidentally, alcohol packaging does contain warnings to "drink in moderation", just as tobacco packaging contains warnings about lung cancer and other adverse health effects. Do you know why? Because we can prove the link between alcohol and alcohol poisoning, and smoking and lung cancer.

I wouldn't condone putting warning labels on video games causing violence in some individuals as much as I wouldn't put warning labels on hot pants for potentially making some rapists believe the individual wearing them is "up for it".

I wouldn't tell someone not to buy a violent video game because even if it did make them 'snap' it wouldn't be them who was the victim. Advising a woman to take precautions is because you do not want them to become a victim. Believe it or not it stems from concern because you don't trust other people, not because you don't trust the woman.

This comes entirely from my perspective as a heterosexual male who has spent many a time in clubs and bars in years past. I have even had those thoughts (when I was in my early 20s) of "she's dressed like THAT so she's probably out looking for a sexual partner or is just a tease... either way it's 50-50 I think I'll go talk to her". Not being a violent person or inclined towards taking advantage of others I would never forcefully act on that synopsis of a woman's character but I am certain those with those inclinations WOULD take it into consideration.

I've seen the dudebro douchbags make the majority of advances towards the girl in hot pants and a bikini top but leave the girls in the more concealing yet still appealing dresses alone. A significant majority of the time I had to intervene between a guy getting too touchy for a woman's liking the lady in question has been wearing more revealing attire than the average pundit in the establishment at the time. If it's a motivation/encouragement for what can be described as "sexual assault" it can't be too far off to also apply it towards rape also. For what is rape if not sexual assault taken to the maximum?

I will hold on to these beliefs because I have seen what I consider to be evidence enough that a woman's attire provokes the more base urges of a male and it seems logical that in the most extreme circumstance it would also hold true.

I will need an "all other things remaining equal" study to convince me otherwise, which I am certain can not be provided at this point in time.

 

[Abomination]

Would you mind re-writing that in a more coherent form? I can't tell what you're trying to say.

You suggested that the advice of a woman dressing more appropriately is harmful. Given the topic I take it the "harm" you mentioned is a higher chance of her being raped. If that is the case then how can attire both sway and not sway a rapist's decision making process?

Just because a belief is employed poorly by some as an excuse (which in itself must be taken into consideration as grounds for it having some effect) does not suddenly debunk or make the stance destructive.

Don't faff about. You failed to demonstrate evidence for your claim. If you can't provide evidence for your claim that a woman dressed "sexy" increases their likelihood of being raped, then you have no argument. Quit trying to be philosophical, back up your claim with evidence. If you can't find evidence, stop making the claim.

The claim can have no direct irrefutable evidence due to the nature of the tests that would need to be conducted to either prove or entirely debunk the claim. All it takes is for a rapist to say "I chose her because what she was wearing rather than the other girls I saw" to give the claim credit. Given the number of defences where the appearance HAS been used as an attempt to escape justice suggests that an individual can be motivated in such a manner. The objective is to get out of prosecution via calling into question the victim's character based on their appearance, comparing them to a demographic that does tend to share the dress code alluded to AND suffers significantly higher rape statistic than those who are not part of that demographic - prostitutes.

Do not question my motivations for my beliefs and opinions in such a manner.

What would you say the motivations of someone who has misrepresented three different studies as evidence for things they aren't evidence for and doggedly insisted what he believed was true despite there being multiple studies that disconfirm it and not a single one that confirms it? At some point, one just has to ask what your stake in the false myth is for you to keep trying to claim it's true.

The studies indicate that in those cases the appearance of the victim did not seem to affect the chances of being raped. That does not mean appearance does not affect that chance of someone being raped. This is because you can NOT conduct a study exploring that avenue in a correct scientific method and the motive and situations of "unknown victim & assailant" rape being so varied prevents statistical analysis expanding beyond "we infer".

almost all avenues need to be explored to reduce it.

No, they don't. The impact of oatmeal breakfasts on rape don't need to be explored. The impact on ankle freckles on rape don't need to be explored. The only avenues that need to be explored are the avenues that we have reason to believe have an impact. The evidence doesn't say we have reason to believe clothing is a factor in rapes. In fact, the evidence says clothing is not a factor in rapes. So why are you so insistent on ignoring the evidence?

A rapist is highly unlikely to know what the victim had for breakfast and ankle freckles would also be such an insignificant thing that they don't bare being mentioned. They also are never mentioned by defence in court for rape cases. Clothing is something a rapist can clearly see before the rape, many men take clothing into consideration as to the nature of the female in question and it is mentioned in court as an attempt at defence. It isn't ignoring evidence to insist there must be a link that studies are missing if it is frequently mentioned in rape cases and plays a significant role in the evaluation of strangers.

Even if it has no effect at least the defence could not try and use "She was dressed in a provocative manner" to sway a jury should it reach trial.

Seriously, think about that for a moment. You've spent this whole thread trying to argue that clothes make people a target. Now, after utterly failing to provide a shred of evidence for that claim in the face of evidence contradicting it, you're trying to argue that somehow your faith in the myth that clothing makes women a target will protect them from that same myth being used against them in court? Seriously, just parse through the logic, because at this point it's starting to sound like you'll say anything to try and avoid admitting you were wrong.

Of course it would protect them from it... a lawyer couldn't make a bold faced lie to a court room that the victim was dressed in a way she was NOT dressed in and expect it to help his case.

If a method doesn't prevent or encourage rape but at least assists in putting rapists behind bars it's still a victory ? repeat offenders and all that.

How on earth would a myth that lacks evidence put a rapist behind bars? You were wrong. Admit it. The only shame in being wrong is when you refuse to face the facts.

How many rapists have been able to walk due to the jury taking account of the woman's attire before the rape and using that as a reason to distrust her testimony due to her character and reach a not-guilty verdict? Such cases can be overturned by a straw on a camel's back. People just need to believe that a woman in revealing clothing was asking or encouraging sex and it becomes a defence on grounds of consent. If she wasn't in revealing clothing such a defence can gain no traction - not that it ever should... but we all know some regions have demographics where it can and that's why it's used as a defence.

 

[Abomination]

I wouldn't condone putting warning labels on video games causing violence in some individuals as much as I wouldn't put warning labels on hot pants for potentially making some rapists believe the individual wearing them is "up for it".

But that is exactly what you are suggesting. You are suggesting that we warn women not to wear hot pants in case they get raped. It doesn't matter if you put the warning on the product or on a pamphlet, the message is still there and the evidence is still insubstantial.

I never suggested warning labels at all, that was YOUR idea - not mine. A word of concerned warning to a girl about what she's wearing is not the same as putting a label on every piece of clothing that could be considered potentially seductive. The former is far more situational and the latter is terribly impractical.

This comes entirely from my perspective as a heterosexual male who has spent many a time in clubs and bars in years past. I have even had those thoughts (when I was in my early 20s) of "she's dressed like THAT so she's probably out looking for a sexual partner or is just a tease... either way it's 50-50 I think I'll go talk to her".

I can't quite communicate to you how immensely depressing it is that those are the only two options you think of when you see a woman in a short skirt. "She must want to have sex with someone. If she doesn't, then she's deliberately being a pricktease."

As I said, I was a lot younger and fuelled by far more base desires. Early 20s, late teen male? The social and hormonal pressure to have sex is somewhat oppressive. I'm certain you can understand upon my reflection of my own character at the time and considering the nature of other men that they could take those thoughts to FAR darker places.

Not being a violent person or inclined towards taking advantage of others I would never forcefully act on that synopsis of a woman's character but I am certain those with those inclinations WOULD take it into consideration.

"If I were a rapist, I'd probably go for someone like that." Nice. Though you seem to be ignoring all the evidence that people have supplied in this thread that rapists do not target the sexiest woman they see, but the most vulnerable.

At the time I was in incredible shape, nearly all the women there I would have considered near equal in vulnerability compared to me. You might recollect my constant mention of "all other factors remaining equal". Consider two women EQUALLY vulnerable in different attire. If the tipping point between one or the other is based on their attire then you've got your evidence one way or the other.

I've seen the dudebro douchbags make the majority of advances towards the girl in hot pants and a bikini top but leave the girls in the more concealing yet still appealing dresses alone. A significant majority of the time I had to intervene between a guy getting too touchy for a woman's liking the lady in question has been wearing more revealing attire than the average pundit in the establishment at the time. If it's a motivation/encouragement for what can be described as "sexual assault" it can't be too far off to also apply it towards rape also. For what is rape if not sexual assault taken to the maximum?

Aside from the fact that all of this is entirely related to date rape and has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on stranger rape, you're basing your reasoning on the idea that rape is the natural extension of a guy in a bar pinching a girl on the butt, and that both actions must therefore have the same motivations. Just ... no. Sorry, I don't have time to point out all the logical disconnects in that.

Meeting someone for the first (as in a stranger) in a club somehow turns it from stranger rape into date rape because a club was involved? Sexual assault and rape are incredibly linked, so close in fact that in some legal definitions the difference between one and the other is only separated by penetration with a penis. I am not talking about a guy just pinching a girl on the butt either, I'm talking about forced kissing, groping of breasts, attempting to remove clothing and forceful dry humping to name some but not all. Some girls were up for it... many weren't.

I will hold on to these beliefs because I have seen what I consider to be evidence enough that a woman's attire provokes the more base urges of a male and it seems logical that in the most extreme circumstance it would also hold true.

I will need an "all other things remaining equal" study to convince me otherwise, which I am certain can not be provided at this point in time.

Look, let me make this as simple for you as I possibly can, even if that method hasn't seen much success so far.

Oh take it elsewhere. I have not insulted anyone here yet it seems everyone feels entitled to do it to me.[/quote]

You have no evidence whatsoever to support your claim that provocative clothing increases a risk of rape. You have admitted this.

No, I have said no study has been performed that proves it without a doubt in either direction because such a study would be ethically unacceptable to perform.

You have even admitted that you have no interest in proving it, because you don't think that such proof is possible to obtain.

I am interested in proving it but I just do not believe any present method available to us would allow us to without serious ethical issues.

And yet you are happy to act on this unproven claim by telling women what they should and shouldn't wear.

Women SHOULD be able to wear whatever they want. It is the actions of other men I concern myself with.

You want women to place restraints upon their own personal liberties on the basis of ... well, nothing really.

My concerns for their safety are not "nothing really" and I don't want to restrain anyone's liberty, I only want women to not get raped.

Just a feeling.

From years of observation.

You are happy to perpetuate the ideology that women who were certain types of clothing are obviously looking for sex

I said, in past tense, that I USED to think that and that I know many males DO think that - which you can NOT deny

and therefore inviting rape

I never said women EVER invite rape. Take that somewhere else and stop accusing me of saying women want to be raped.

with nothing but "well, it might be true" to back it up.

Knowledge of my own psyche and the concerns I have for others with far less restraint than me is what I base it upon. The only good time to be a man in a discussion about rape it seems is when you're trying to explore the motivations for it because you do occasionally encounter a dark thought in your head.

What is your definition of "provocative clothing"? God knows. Some might limit it to miniskirts and crop tops, but others will scold a woman for wearing jeans that hug her ass too tightly, or a blouse with too much cleavage, or a racy shade of lipstick.

It is pretty subjective, I know... and is entirely up to the rapist, I guess.

Should we play on the absolute safe side and go around dressed from head to toe in black robes with only our eyes exposed ... oh, but wait, women in burqas get raped all the time. Huh.

Yeah, they also happen to live in the Middle East with some societies that consider rape not only excusable but encourage it as a form of justice. The dress code there is evidence of female oppression, not as a means of preventing the rape of women (rather of preventing men from being tempted to rape? sounds like the same thing but I didn?t immediately add ?by women? after ?attempted to rape?)

Maybe we should just stay inside all the time ... oh, but wait, the majority of rapes happen in someone's home. It's almost like nowhere is completely safe.

In those cases it clearly wouldn't matter what someone was wearing as the individual had already decided they were going to rape whoever was in the house no matter what they were or were not wearing... their reasons for doing so should be explored though.

Here is my radical idea. Since there is no evidence that rapists care what their victims are wearing

Ever? Not one man has ever thought "that dress would be real easy to slip one up and under, I don't think she's wearing any panties either - the slut - that'll make this easy"? You don't believe that scenario is possible AT ALL?

women should wear whatever they feel comfortable in.

I agree.

Men get overly touchy when they see a woman they think looks "easy"?

SOME men. The ones we can not predict nor intervene their actions.

It is not my job to prevent this situation by making myself look as undesirable as possible so that they target another woman.

It's nobody's job but I'm certain you can imagine a scenario where a father would rather it happen to another woman than his daughter... hence for the words of caution.

Instead, we should educate the guys who are invading people's space that certain clothing does not, to use your lovely binary, automatically mean "slut or pricktease". How do we do that? Hell if I know. Maybe shove this image in front of their faces until they finally get the message:

Spoiler

To turn the logic right back at you, what proof do you have that such images reduce rape? You're entitled to believe so and you can tell other people to spread the word to further what you believe will reduce rape but I fear such practices will just be preaching to the choir.

 

[Twilight_guy]

Why do people believe this? They want to have some way to justify to themselves that they aren't rapists. Nobody wants to be a rapist or a bad person so they have to have some reasoning for why they aren't. This is an excuse to try and make themselves feel better.

 

[Jake0fTrades]

I don't think it's really meant to excuse or justify rape. I think it's more like saying "If you dress like a wh*re, don't be surprised when people treat you like one."

 

[Not G. Ivingname]

I don't get why people still use this as a defense for rape. Why do people try to shift the blame onto the women in a situation where 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. This is a defense that's still used, and yet, it's one that already assumes that the man is guilty of rape; it simply tries to shift the blame for the crime onto the victim. How do people still believe in this?

I have yet to hear of a single case that has used this defense in any kind of court of law. You can only allow defenses the judge and the law approves of. Most judges and all laws says that what the person is wearing is irrelevant to determining if a person has committed rape or not. Did a person put something into another person reproductive organs, was the accused the person who did it, and did the person on the receiving end of it consent (or was able to consent) is all that legally matters.

It gets more complicated when it is say, Woman raping men and Women raping women, do to still standing views on gender and the "strength" or "weaknesses" of them. That, however, is a different discussion all together.

 

[Abomination]

You assume wrong. The harm in you spreading the groundless mythology of women's clothing affecting their likelihood of being raped is that it implies women can reduce their likelihood of being raped by changing how they dress. You are literally advocating a protective measure which you cannot provide a shred of evidence actually protects. You may as well offer people a rock that keeps tigers away.

I can see that as being 'restrictive' but certainly not 'harmful'. I am advocating or encouraging a choice the woman can make, not forcing her to dress in a manner I deem "more rape proof".

That's actually not even enough, because rapists can lie.

So we can't trust ANYTHING the rapists say so any cause for motivation is purely speculation? Perhaps the numbers simply fell on that side of the statistics that decade? I know the evidence indicates an individual is more likely to be raped by someone they already know and I agree that it is more likely the case but the measures an individual can take to protect themselves from the "known" rapist (that they didn't know was going to be a rapist) are terribly limited due to potential and immeasurable determinate from a trusted friend.

And their defense lawyers can lie to help get their clients off the hook. But funny how you haven't provided any of this hypothetical evidence either.

Given the number of defences

Still waiting on evidence to back up this claim.

Are you telling me it has NEVER been used as a defence? The title of the thread is cause enough for us to agree it is used with enough frequency to raise concern. I have no idea how to obtain the exact figure of the number of times "she was dressed like a slut" was used as a defence or rationale for someone accused of rape but I am certain it is cause for concern.

Clothing is something a rapist can clearly see before the rape, many men take clothing into consideration as to the nature of the female in question and it is mentioned in court as an attempt at defence.

Until you provide evidence, this is baseless speculation. Please don't waste our time with speculation. Women don't deserve to have their safety played around with by people who believe in myths and legends. They deserve facts.

You were comparing it to what the victim had for breakfast or the ratio of freckles on her ankles. I am certain that there are far more significant factors when it comes to determining a victim for a rape attack but clothing would be one of those factors - even if just from a logistical perspective.

How many rapists have been able to walk due to the jury taking account of the woman's attire before the rape and using that as a reason to distrust her testimony due to her character and reach a not-guilty verdict? Such cases can be overturned by a straw on a camel's back. People just need to believe that a woman in revealing clothing was asking or encouraging sex and it becomes a defence on grounds of consent. If she wasn't in revealing clothing such a defence can gain no traction - not that it ever should... but we all know some regions have demographics where it can and that's why it's used as a defence.

This is ridiculous, and imposes an absurd restriction on women. Perhaps next you'll be suggesting that since black men can get shot for wearing hoodies, that black men should stop wearing hoodies, just in case some paranoid racist wants to shoot them for it.

Hey, if a black man wearing a hoodie got him shot then in retrospect if he hadn't worn the hoodie he might not have been shot. I can understand though that the primary motive for the shooting likely had far more to do with race or perhaps gang-related colours... what colour was the hoodie? Might be a good idea to not wear blue hoodies in a red gang area.

But back to the supposed restrictions on women, this isn't about a law change so there is no restriction being encouraged - merely caution. This also isn't about what a woman should be able to do but is based on what certain scum of people THINK about women and their attire. Because of those scum do I encourage caution, nothing more and nothing less. I think women should be able to wear what they want but I know that some individuals do not share that perspective.

 

[Abomination]

Meeting someone for the first (as in a stranger) in a club somehow turns it from stranger rape into date rape because a club was involved?

Yes. It does. 9 pages into this thread and you don't know this yet? 'Stranger rape' refers to the very rare "rapist in a dark alley/bush/unmarked van" scenario. You do not "meet" the rapist in that scenario, unless you count him grabbing the victim by the hair and dragging them off to be a meeting.

Haven't been to many clubs have you? You don't exactly 'meet' people in clubs either and the grabbing hair and dragging off to an alley can be comparable to the style of approach I have seen in clubs employed by certain scum.

I will hold on to these beliefs because I have seen what I consider to be evidence enough that a woman's attire provokes the more base urges of a male and it seems logical that in the most extreme circumstance it would also hold true.

Oh, lovely, there's that word "provoke" again.

As in give rise to, inspire within, difficult to resist urge. Don't go twisting this into me saying it was intentional on the woman's behalf, it is becoming quite droll - please respect me as a partner in this discussion, stop trying to paint me as a victim-blaming rape-sympathiser.

Knowledge of my own psyche and the concerns I have for others with far less restraint than me is what I base it upon. The only good time to be a man in a discussion about rape it seems is when you're trying to explore the motivations for it because you do occasionally encounter a dark thought in your head.

You're claiming to know the "psyche" of a rapist because you are male and you figure that rape is just what every male would do if he didn't exercise self-control or fear punishment? You're starting to sound like a radfem. Again, this has no basis in fact or research into what motivates rapists, it's all "gut feeling" and "instinct", but you seem to think it's sufficient evidence to make a ruling decision about what women should and shouldn't wear.

I understand what urges a man feels when he's at a certain age, I can understand how such urges would get the better of men and what would inspire those urges. If and how quickly people revert to their most base nature without any form of judicial structure or threat of punishment varies from person to person. Most men don't - they're not the ones I'm concerned of.

Yeah, they also happen to live in the Middle East with some societies that consider rape not only excusable but encourage it as a form of justice. The dress code there is evidence of female oppression, not as a means of preventing the rape of women (rather of preventing men from being tempted to rape? sounds like the same thing but I didn?t immediately add ?by women? after ?attempted to rape?)

The burqa is an extreme case. Even in our oh-so-progressive Western world, countless women are raped when jeans and a hoodie, or many layers, or pyjamas, or a T-shirt and shorts, or a bikini, or any other type of clothing because there is no evidence to suggest that rapists target their victims based on what they are wearing.

They're raped because there's no evidence? Well why are you arguing with me? Quick, let's find some evidence and stop the rape!

Dark humour aside, a woman being raped who was wearing jeans doesn't disprove the concept that when all other things are equal a rapist would take a less-clothed individual over a more modestly clothed individual. The "all other things are equal" thing is the important part.

Maybe we should just stay inside all the time ... oh, but wait, the majority of rapes happen in someone's home. It's almost like nowhere is completely safe.

In those cases it clearly wouldn't matter what someone was wearing as the individual had already decided they were going to rape whoever was in the house no matter what they were or were not wearing... their reasons for doing so should be explored though.

See, now you're so close to getting it. This is not restricted to rape inside someone's house. In the case of opportunistic rape, which is the rape we're talking about here, the rapist has already decided that they are going to rape someone.

Actually they have most likely decided they are going to rape a particular person - 70% of rapes being known by the victim and all.

women should wear whatever they feel comfortable in.

I agree.

So long as they don't feel comfortable in clothes that you or other men might consider "provocative".

No, I want them to wear whatever they want, I fear some men will take certain choices as queues to try something they might not have otherwise.

It is not my job to prevent this situation by making myself look as undesirable as possible so that they target another woman.

It's nobody's job

No, wrong. It is the creep's job to prevent this situation by not creeping. It is the job of those who sexually harass because they think it's OK to realise that sexual harassment isn't OK and subsequently to not sexually harass people.

That's a JOB? I've been working on the clock at not-raping or not-sexually harassing women all my life... how much in back pay am I owed?

You are right that the responsibility is clearly on the attacker, I don't think anyone here has denied it and if they have I certainly don't agree with them. I concern myself with their motivations for their attacks though and would seek to mitigate that what would encourage them. A girl's skirt needing to be an inch longer is a crime but if it would stop something horrible from happening to her I hope she was lucky enough to wear the longer skirt that day.

 

[Extra-Ordinary]

I'm just going to weigh in as a police officer we call that 'blaming the victim' when i hear or even sense someone eluding to 'they were asking for it because x...' it takes all my will power to not grab their jaw bone and snap it off and say "oh your mouth just sounded so stupid it was asking to be broken"

Same here.
Well, not the police part, just holding the same stance here.
I find victim blaming just... disgusting.
Maybe I just don't get out enough but I have never heard of ANY instance where blaming the victim, THE VICTIM of all things, actually made sense logically.

 

[WindKnight]

I don?t get how anyone can ?want? to be raped either, considering that goes against the very definition of rape being ?against your will?. Unless it?s part of a fantasy and you got a partner/sex buddy to do it, but then, that wouldn?t be rape, would it? It would be more akin to consensual rough sex.

Pretty much... anytime I hear talk of a 'rape fantasy', the big, important operative word there is FANTASY. Whats described is pretty much rough sex with a touch of domination by a good looking partner with limits and/or safewords in place.

 

[Naeras]

I have no idea why people try to shift the blame over to the women by grossly insulting men. I mean, they're implying that men have no control over their impulses and will sexually assault anything that's not dressed like an eskimo. On top of that, it's flat out wrong that how a woman dresses will affect your likelihood of her getting assaulted. If you don't believe me, I can get a handful of studies on the subject.

Seriously, to anyone who use that excuse/argument/whatever, fuck you. Fuck you for lying about this topic, fuck you for insulting women like that, fuck you for insulting men (and by that extension me personally) like that, and fuck you for being assholes.

 

[John Patraw]

What most people fail to mention when they say this is it is not what they believe but what usually what rapists say and how they defend their actions that their victim wanted them even if they were pretending they did not

 

[Madara XIII]

How do people still believe in this?

Some people will simply say anything to make themselves seem like the victim or not take responsibility for their actions. Plus stupidity runs rampant when they try every feeble attempt at defending themselves and they know it's bullshit.