The 'Provocative Clothing' Rape Defense

[Shadowstar38]

Am I the only person here that thinks Abomination might have a point despite the way he's presenting it?

If you're a hetero male and you see a woman with her tits hanging out and a tiny skirt, its likely to make you sexually aroused. If you're the kind of person that doesn't have enough impulse control to not go around raping people, you're likely to attack the one that triggered your arousal.

That's not a scientific thing we can do studies on. That's just a simple sine of thought.

 

[Sonofadiddly]

Finally Feminism 101 - A glorious blog with the answers to all of your questions about rape and feminism. I am not affiliated with it (not self promoting!!!)

http://finallyfeminism101.wordpress.com/2007/03/15/faq-what%E2%80%99s-wrong-with-suggesting-that-women-take-precautions-to-prevent-being-raped/

"Well, the obvious answer: Rape keeps happening because rapists keep doing what they?re doing. Because it works. So how can what they?re doing work if we have all these strong warnings about?

The warnings women get are misleading. They leave out the acts of the rapist himself. They focus on the situation. They also may focus on the ?kind of man? the potential rapist is. If he?s a friend of a friend, or your uncle, he?s ?safe.? It?s the stranger who?s the threat."

 

[Thaluikhain]

Am I the only person here that thinks Abomination might have a point despite the way he's presenting it?

If you're a hetero male and you see a woman with her tits hanging out and a tiny skirt, its likely to make you sexually aroused. If you're the kind of person that doesn't have enough impulse control to not go around raping people, you're likely to attack the one that triggered your arousal.

That's not a scientific thing we can do studies on. That's just a simple sine of thought.

So why aren't there lots more rapes at beaches where women are wearing bikinis? Or at nude beaches?

 

[Shadowstar38]

Am I the only person here that thinks Abomination might have a point despite the way he's presenting it?

If you're a hetero male and you see a woman with her tits hanging out and a tiny skirt, its likely to make you sexually aroused. If you're the kind of person that doesn't have enough impulse control to not go around raping people, you're likely to attack the one that triggered your arousal.

That's not a scientific thing we can do studies on. That's just a simple sine of thought.

Sorry but this anecdotical thoughtgames and stories hold no ground.

You assume a train of thought based off a normal, heterosexual male. A rapist does not operate under the same thoughts. Afterall, rape is not a crime for sexuality but because the rapist wants to dominate his target. The clothes play no role in it.

Didn't you just now make an assumption about rapists? Have you heard them say its always about power?

Am I the only person here that thinks Abomination might have a point despite the way he's presenting it?

If you're a hetero male and you see a woman with her tits hanging out and a tiny skirt, its likely to make you sexually aroused. If you're the kind of person that doesn't have enough impulse control to not go around raping people, you're likely to attack the one that triggered your arousal.

That's not a scientific thing we can do studies on. That's just a simple sine of thought.

So why aren't there lots more rapes at beaches where women are wearing bikinis? Or at nude beaches?

You mean brightly lite public places where it's more likely to get caught? Gee. Not sure why.

 

[Shadowstar38]

Am I the only person here that thinks Abomination might have a point despite the way he's presenting it?

Not at all, I'm sure there are loads of people who didn't bother to read the freaking thread.

If you're a hetero male and you see a woman with her tits hanging out and a tiny skirt, its likely to make you sexually aroused. If you're the kind of person that doesn't have enough impulse control to not go around raping people, you're likely to attack the one that triggered your arousal.

This presumes a lot of stuff that's already been shown to be untrue. For a start, the assumption that opportunistic rapists rape because they can't control their impulses, and not because they've selected a vulnerable person to assault.

That's not a scientific thing we can do studies on. That's just a simple sine of thought.

And now you've bought into Abomination's weak-ass dodge to protect his completely unsubstantiated claims from being questioned. Yes, an experimental study of the effects of clothing on rapists can't be done. So what? We can study things outside of a lab. By say, examining crime reports and statistics. Which have been done in this thread already. And they already showed no effect for victim clothing.

What Abomination is doing is saying, "You can't study it so that means you can't say I'm wrong and therefore even though I don't have a shred of evidence I'm right!" And you shouldn't be trying to agree with him because that claim is obviously complete bollocks.

Calm down.

I didn't read the whole 12 pages. Just the first, then followed the last 3 where everyone was ganging up on one guy.

By any account, I'm not even trying to prove a point. I only think that what abomination was saying sounded reasonable.

 

[Shadowstar38]

I only think that what abomination was saying sounded reasonable.

On the face of it, it might.

But it starts to fall apart once you realize there's no evidence to support the notion that dressing provocatively increases one's chances of being raped.

Advocating a precaution to help stop rape is a waste of time if there's no evidence to suggest that the precaution is actually going to be effective.

You might as well advise people to strap bread to their head, as a way to ward-off rapists.
There is of course no evidence to suggest that such a measure actually does ward-off rapists.

Abomination's answer to this would be "But you can't prove that it doesn't!"
And we're back to square-one.

Why does this man have bread taped to his head in the first place?

 

[Thaluikhain]

I mean otherwise saying feminist in front of Utopia seems redundant, I mean we all wish we wouldn't have to think about ever being assaulted.

Missed this part before.

In theory, certainly, in practice, not so much.

It's all very well and good to say "we all", and some people mean it when they say it, but very often "all people" means "all people like me". Not too many people say "all people except X" and sit there twirling their moustaches.

I'd go so far as to say that if the woman in the story was black, "feminist utopia" wouldn't include her, you'd have to specify "black feminism" or "womanism". In theory, feminism supports the rights of all women, in practice, a lot of white middle class straight able bodied feminists quietly ignore any women who aren't white middle class straight able bodied women. Black women tend to get excluded by both feminism and black rights movements. If they are lesbians they get overlooked by gay rights movements as well.

So, yeah, shouldn't need to specify, unfortunately the way things are, you can't assume otherwise.

 

[chiefohara]

The individual just has to be female in -every- case of rape? Not attractive, vulnerable, alone or any other potential variable? Just female? Every rapist has the EXACT same motive and desire?

It isn't the case, the cause for such things are so varied, unpredictable and immeasurable that all the advice in the world couldn't stop a rapist who just happened to have a hankering for women who wear bananas in their ears.

If the advice worked it helps the person who didn't get raped. It essentially translates to "Avoid making yourself a target".

This was an elderly Nun on her way to a 100th birthday party who was raped and killed.

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/elderly-nun-raped-and-killed-26065185.html

Her clothes being a nuns attire certainly weren't provocative.

Her age and physical shape certainly wouldn't have been attractive.

Considering she was on her way to attend a 100th birthday party she wasn't out clubbing or crusing in areas where sex crazed men dosed up on alcohol and cheap drugs were looking for the first attractive woman to jump on.

Rapist animal Scum target women who they think they can easily overpower. Not women dressed in a certain way.

 

[Superbeast]

So in this hypothetical situation of me being a rapist (that I am not outside of this hypothetical situation) I would target women who were alone and defenceless,

Having established this as a primary criteria, would you as a (hypothetical) rapist target a woman alone and defenceless wearing a business suit (who might fight back, you cannot tell), or a drunk and boisterous (i.e. clearly looking for a fight) but otherwise alone and defenceless woman in a short skirt and boob-tube?

If you would go for the woman in the short skirt then not only are you a bad rapist (targeting someone more likely to kick up a fuss) but you are also saying that clothing matters more to a rapist than vulnerability (which was your stated reason for targeting them in the first place). If you would go for the woman in the suit then clearly clothing played no factor in whether that woman got raped or not, which is contrary to your argument as a whole.

with preference towards them wearing more revealing or skimpy attire.

Having established this as a secondary criteria (which is one debated in this thread), are you saying that as a (hypothetical) rapist you would target a lone and vulnerable butt-ugly troll in a short skirt over your own personal definition of the perfect woman in more conservative clothing?

If you would, then your later statements about attractiveness are just bullshit and obfuscation to try to sway people to your argument that clothing matters. If you would not, you yourself have just proven that clothing does not matter.

I make note of the attire because there is a higher chance they are more comfortable being sexually active, potentially have more sexual partners and I am more certain as to their attractiveness.

So, as a (hypothetical) rapist who is out to attack random women in an act that is known to be life-destroying, you are expressing concern for their comfort?

This justification for why you bring up clothing sounds dangerously close to "slut-shaming", i.e. blaming the victim, because why else would you bring up multiple sexual partners?

I also worry about you if you have to see a woman in minimal clothing to establish their attractiveness. I have met a great many attractive women, and have seen virtually none of them naked, and very few in skimpy attire - yet I still would label them as attractive.

Also, what if the rapists' trigger is virgins (or those more likely to be virgins)? If we are arguing that clothing is a factor, then you have directly made (some) women more unsafe by encouraging them to dress more conservatively than the "some women" you were hoping to avoid getting raped. Given that you can cite no figures, I posit that (in the context of clothing being a factor, which I dispute) both scenarios have an equal rate of prevalence. Ergo, choice of clothing of a potential victim has no bearing whatsoever as it is utterly dependant on whether a "slut rapist" or a "virgin rapist" is on the prowl at that moment. Thus your advice, even if it were based on sound logic, holds no positive effect whatsoever.

These would be useful in either discrediting her accusations that I do rape her or give me leverage to tell her she won't be believed if she tells the police anyway.

But what about assault, drug, and murder rapes wherein there is no living/remembering victim to go to the police? This excuse is purely backing up the already-established incorrect assumption. What if the local police force do not buy into that misogynistic bullshit regarding clothing?

The attractiveness level is important because if I'm going to get caught it might as well be because I did a hot chick than an ugly one.

Yeah, this clearly shows that you simply do not understand the motivations for rape. Particularly as you are (inexplicably) linking clothing choice and attractiveness.

I based the probabilities of being more sexually active and having more sexual partners on my previous experiences in the past when I partook in the nightlife and nightclub scene.

Why, if you are looking to force someone to have sex against their will, do you care about how sexually active they are and how many partners they have had?

If you are raping them, then they are not going to be enjoying it - thus (and I know this is not universally true, biological reactions being what they are and all) there's going to be no difference (for you, as a hypothetical rapist) between someone with little sexual experience and someone with a lot.

That was a hypothetical situation, of course. I am not really a rapist. I realise that not every rapist would think exactly like that but if I was one that would be how I would conduct myself.

Whilst you are putting in a lot of qualifiers to protect yourself, I hardly think that anybody here thinks you are a rapist - particularly as you seem to understand very little about rape to begin with. Also, your hypothetical is complete folly (not that I did not have fun tearing it apart of course) - you are basing it around an idea of reciprocity and engaging in rape for purely sexual satisfaction - the first of which is insane (it's rape!) the second of which is something you have failed to prove as a motivator for rape. But ultimately, the reason your hypothetical fails is that you cannot get your head around having sex with someone you do not find attractive - when it is opportunity that matters most to your stranger-rapist.

 

[Boris Goodenough]

Missed this part before.

In theory, certainly, in practice, not so much.

It's all very well and good to say "we all", and some people mean it when they say it, but very often "all people" means "all people like me". Not too many people say "all people except X" and sit there twirling their moustaches.

I'd go so far as to say that if the woman in the story was black, "feminist utopia" wouldn't include her, you'd have to specify "black feminism" or "womanism". In theory, feminism supports the rights of all women, in practice, a lot of white middle class straight able bodied feminists quietly ignore any women who aren't white middle class straight able bodied women. Black women tend to get excluded by both feminism and black rights movements. If they are lesbians they get overlooked by gay rights movements as well.

So, yeah, shouldn't need to specify, unfortunately the way things are, you can't assume otherwise.

Well Utopia and all that being somewhat theoretical

As much as I appreciated your explanation, it wasn't quite what I meant. I meant it more general, in context of men being assaulted more often and rape of women don't happen so often when out going for walks as in the home. Tatsuya has a tendency to make hyperboles to get points across, or well he does it all the time, so I assume it's for effect.

 

[Thaluikhain]

The closest thing we've been able to find in terms of a connection between appearance and rape is that quite a few opportunistic rapists (who, again, only account for 4% of all rapes) have said that they look out for girls with long hair or ponytails, because that hairstyle is easier to grab onto and drag the victim down. Which means that "shave your head" is a more legitimate advisory precaution than "don't wear that skirt".

I'm led to believe that's not true, that it's a wide-spread myth.

 

[Smeatza]

Then don't chime-in in the middle of a discussion and ask people to repeat themselves.

You can't expect people to spoon-feed you.

Read my posts and you'll see I didn't.

Don't chime in on someone else's discussion unless you actually know what you're responding to.

You can't expect people to have to endure such hot-headedness.

I'll say it again, is anybody aware of any scientific studies that indicate that rape never has anything to do with sexual attraction in any situation ever?
I keep reading people's posts stating that the evidence for it is being ignored so I would like to see it.

I've read a number of studies addressing rape and power, there is definitely good reason to believe that the vast majority of rape is about power/anger. But even they seem acknowledge that in some situations sexual attraction can play at the very least a tiny part in some rapes.

Enough of the sensational, blanket statements and bring on the evidence I say.

 

[Smeatza]

You explicitly said that you couldn't be bothered to go back and actually read the thread. This is a discussion that has been going on for 12 pages, and you've waltzed in on the last couple of pages.

You assume I haven't been following it as it goes along. You think I memorised where the links were?
Anyway I did have a look back through and the studies I've read so far are either agree with what I'm saying.

That question is irrelevant. This is a discussion of the provocative clothing rape defence and the related issue of whether opportunistic rapists are "provoked" by certain clothing types. To which the resounding answer has been no, and that answer has been supported with evidence.

You know as well as I do that the discussion evolved, progressed and branched out. Don't play dumb.

This thread would probably have ended already if you hadn't jumped in with your ridiculous strawman of "Oh, so you're saying that NO rape EVER has EVER been caused by sexual attraction?!"

Stawman? are you being serious?
"Convicted rapists have been interviewed in prison and not one of them listed sexual attractiveness as a factor in how they chose the victims."
That's a direct quote, from you.

Just like this one.

Just a general thought I've been having, not aimed at anyone in particular, but I think that it's important to understand what the word subtext means before you accuse people of not understanding subtext.

Please note you then proceeded to use both the terms "proving a negative" and "stawman" incorrectly.
I only highlight this as it leads me onto my next point.

It couldn't be more obvious that you are deliberately trying to derail the thread. Either stay on topic or stay out.

If you think I'm derailing the thread don't tell me, just flag the post. I believe telling me is against the COC. Your constant sarcastic snipes are as well (lol, possible hipocracy).

In any case I'm not derailing the topic at all, I'm just pointing out the copious amounts of pretension in this thread.
Many people (including yourself) are asserting something as scientific fact when it simply isn't.

 

[Smeatza]

This is true.

As a general trend, not comprehensively.

It does not mean that sexual attraction can never, ever, ever be factor in rape, it just means that opportunistic rapists do not go out and play America's Next Top Model on the street, looking for the girl with the nicest hair or the most shapely bosom. Many, many studies have shown that attraction and a simple desire to get their rocks off is rarely the motivation for rape. Here's one [http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/800685?uid=3738032&uid=2&uid=4&sid=21101783760621], for example:

That's what I was chasing.

Wow, took enough posts but you finally came around to the less sensational side of things.
You may not believe it but I do thank you for your discussion, has been enlightening in a few ways.