What disgusts me in this thread is how many who are continuing to front the rapists' cause while taking care to notify everyone that they do not support rape.
First point: the skimpy (or "slutty") clothing argument. There's no proof that skimpy clothing increases the risk of sexual assault. Absolutely none. So stop making theoretical situations where the rapist chooses based on your (somewhat disturbing) understanding of the mind of a rapist.
Second, even worse argument: rape allegations are usually women having second thoughts. Closely related to "it's not rape if you didn't struggle." Less than four per cent of all rape cases reported to the police end in a conviction. Does this mean that most accusations are false? No, it means that we are so focused on the rare case of assault rapes that we do not consider the much more common date/party rape as "real" rape. I do not have the US numbers, but in Norway 95% of the victims are female, most of the rapes happen while intoxicated on parties, 50% use more than a week to press charges, and perhaps most importantly: in most of the cases the victims knew the rapist, an in those cases an astounding 75% are previously registered felons, usually theft and narcotics; a statistic that proves bad boys are not only douches, but also dangerous. They see what they want, and take it. In these cases one could argue that not wearing revealing clothes, not drinking alcohol and staying at home could prevent rapes, but then we could as well make the women wear burquas.
In short: assaults are opportunistic, most rapes are committed by eastwards with an perverted view on sexuality. "It is always consensual if it's with me, baby! If she flirts, she puts out. "
The best way to prevent rape is to stomp down hard on your mates, or anyone else (such as internet forumgoers) showing signs of misogynistic ideas.
Before anyone freaks out and calls me a rape supporter, please read the whole post.
The reason people assume provocative clothing increases the likelihood of rape is simple and based on our understanding of the predator prey relationship. It rests on 2 vital assumptions:
1. The relationship between the rapist and the victim is that of a predator and prey.
2. Sexy clothing increases the desirability or visibility of a woman to the predator.
If either assumption is false, then the overall principle does not hold. So lets look at each of these assumptions.
If we focus on the situation of stranger rape we can assign the rapist the role of predator and the victim as prey, establishing a predator prey relationship. In fact, it would be difficult to justify assigning any other relationship. Because of this the prey is going to be identified and chosen using three criteria: Opportunity (a predator cannot commit a rape against prey he never comes in contact with,) difficulty of the target (which depends on the situation and defenses employed by the prey,) and desirability/visibility of a potential target (highly desirable/visible targets are more likely to be chosen for an attack,) in that order of priority.
Sexy clothing is designed to increase the desirability and visibility of a woman. It is not unreasonable to assume that sexy clothing does in fact do these things.
Both assumptions are highly likely to be true. In absence of significant evidence to strike these assumptions down it is only reasonable to assume they hold.
The assertion that sexy clothing makes a woman a more likely target for certain kinds of rape is founded on logic and reason. The assertion that this is not the case is an emotionally motivated belief counter to reasoning and logic with no evidence to back it up (unless, of course, someone has actually done a reliable study on this. If they have I can't find it and I have never seen anyone cite such a study.)
That all said, the advice that you should wear less revealing clothing to avoid being raped is stupid. It will make a minor difference at best and is often counter to the goal of the woman in the first place. A far better tactic is to increase difficulty by practicing basic rape defense and promoting ideas and practices among the general population (including among men) that make rape more difficult to commit.
A great deal of rape is easily prevented. I have personally known 3 victims of rape. 1 case would have been very difficult to prevent, but 2 of them were easily preventable if basic precautions were taken. One was a classic stranger rape scenario, the other was a case of parents failing to protect their child (the victim was a 7 year old girl.) We have failed as a society in teaching the possibility and importance of defense against rape.
In an ideal society, no defense against rape would be necessary. But we are actively trying to dismantle rape culture. I can think of no better way to further this goal than making it more difficult to commit a rape.
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".
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.
It seems that the responsibility only gets dissipated in male-on-female rape. The fact that all the "advice" for preventing rape only ever gets thrown at women just perpetuates the idea that only women can get raped.
Yeah, that's what I also take issue with. To say nothing of the threads from a while ago, about a female teacher having sex with one of her underage student, you know how the things would have gone if it was gender-reversed, but I was appalled at how many people all but went "Well, I had a hot teacher I wanted to fuck in high school too, so, way to go bro!"
Now, of course, fact is that male-on-female rape is a lot more prevalent than the other way around, and if I recall correctly (don't have the source in my head), even in most of the cases where a man is a rape victim, the perpetrator was also male, so nobody's doing anyone any favors by any line of rhetoric as this "dressing provocatively" nonsense.
Or in other words; "You not being able to keep your pants on is not a problem with how she was dressed but a problem with you not having the self-control to keep your pants on. Don't blame it on her clothes, and for fucks sake, don't try to act as if any other man would have done the same."
Oh and also this.
Katatori-kun said:
So everyone trying to defend this uninformed bit of rape mythology really needs to educate themselves. And shut up. And listen. Perhaps this is the most important point that needs to be made. There are a lot of men who have never been victims of rape telling other people what happens in rape, not because they know and have done the research but because it's what they believe. And I understand, you're giving this (faulty, inaccurate) advice because you want to limit rape. You want to be part of the solution. You don't like to see your loved ones being victims (as someone very close to me was raped, I completely understand). But you can't solve this problem just by ignorantly running off your mouth at women about how they dress. You won't take away the pain by giving advice that doesn't erase a rape that already happened and will never prevent a future rape. You can't just fix this by blustering in and shouting at the top of your lungs.
Sigh, it's not a defence. You've misread what they've said and just completely corrupted their words. And... egh... just... let's just say that a rape is going to happen one night. There is a man out with the intention of raping a girl. Wearing provocative clothes is just bringing attention to you, wearing unprovocative clothes isn't going to make you invisible, but you may put yourself higher on the list of potential targets if you wear clothes that provoke.
Most rapists rape people they already know or see frequently. What the person is wearing has little or nothing to do with who gets raped.
Also -
thaluikhain said:
Doesn't work like that. Firstly, most (90%+) rapes are committed by someone the victim knows. Secondly, the ones that aren't tend to be opportunistic, not based on clothing.
Oh. Thanks thaluikhain. You ninjaed me two days ago, and did an excellent job of it. Which I guess is the problem with seeing this thread two days late.
Your argument here is a little flawed. Yes, what you're claiming is possible, but the entire point becomes a little questionable when you consider that Rape cases have notoriously low conviction rates. (roundabout 5% or less in most countries).
This kind of undermines the assertion that it's easy to claim you've been raped. It isn't, and compared to other crimes it's actually easy to get out of it if it even goes to trial in the first place. (which isn't necessarily that likely, because a lot of actual rape victims feel ashamed, or find the thought of the legal process too traumatic.)
It's an interesting idea, but reality shows otherwise.
Not really, because your also labouring under the assumption that most, or at least a lot of, the people who "get out of" a rape accusation were guilty. Something which of course goes back to the entire question of sympathy for those who claim to have been raped (mostly women) and how it loads the justice system.
Rape is one of those crimes where being found innocent isn't nessicarly the end of it, being an accused rapist is almost as bad as being a convicted one, and that can be the entire point of why someone might want to make a false accusation to begin with, and also helps bring into question quoted statistics in this arguement like how "only 4% of rape accusations are false" and so on.
Ask yourself, if it wasn't an accusation of rape, do you think people would be quite so picky about the results on average when someone is found innocent?
It is also very easy to claim you've been raped, and comes with a lot of positive aspects (sympathy) especially when it's not true. All you need to do is bring the charge, especially seeing as it's a crime you can accuse someone of where there is little expectation of physical evidence, and even if the guy gets off he's going to suffer a major stigma just from having been accused. Everyone shows up to white knight the alleged victim as we see in this case, and nobody wants to believe that someone claiming to have been raped is a liar. A society wide issue.
Which of course all gets back to my central point about the presumpsion of innocence and how our legal system works in all cases (not just rape). Whatever the actual statistics might be, or what are simply societal notions, become irrelevent, we can argue all of that and it's been rendered irrelevent by intent. At the end of the day the US Justice system as far as goverment mandated punishment goes works entirely based on evidence with the burden of proof being placed squarely on the shoulders of the accuser when it comes to criminal matters. In any case, whether it's as petty as Jaywalking or as extreme as Rape or Murder, the accused goes to trial under a persumpsion of innocence and the accuser whether it be the state, or the state representing a crime against a citizen, is forced to prove otherwise beyond an innocent doubt, facing a major disadvantage in court.
As I said, whether you think it's right or wrong, and what happens in society as a result, the crux of the US legal system is that it's better to let 1000 guilty men go free, than 1 innocent man be convicted. That's it's principle. How well it functions in practice, and as I said what it does to society, those are other questions. As are what changes you could in theory make to the system.
Also understand that in the US there is huge backlash towards any suggestion that the system be changed, as anything more assertive tends to create visions of police states and inevitably leads to Godwin's law coming up in a discussion sooner rather than later.
Case in point, let's say I suggest we legalize profiling and blank warrents. Something a lot of european countries have done, and actually comes close to how law enforcement worked (even if it wasn't formalized) back in the 1940s and 1950s in the US... you know the generation that actually went to war and STOPPED Hitler and represented freedom and all that good stuff. People would scream bloody murder. After all this would mean that by being a creep some guy going on trial for say rape could have his profile used as evidence to prove the likelyhood of guilt, and that profile would also have allowed the police to say search his house/crime scenes/etc... almost immediatly under a blank warrent system without needing to delay to get permission from a judge, making it far less likely the guy could conceal the signs of say raping someone in his bedroom and more evidence could be uncovered faster. Likewise it also means that you could do things like single out Muslims for airport security and the like and not harass tons of other people and create a lot of these problems we see making the news due to some symbolic gesture being nessicary to make liberals happy.
See, in the US Law Enforcement and things like it's presumsion of innocent and the game that we're turned search and seizure into is something that people have grown used to. We've basically trained ourselves to want relatively powerless police, and so that using common sense in law enforcement and count proceedings has become almost an anathema. The US has basically taken the approach that the privacy of some gang banger and not having the police check him out pre-emptively based on patterns of behavior, or consider things like religious affiliation when conducting searches, etc... is MORE important than things like murders, the proliferation of drugs, human traffiking, and other crimes, INCLUDING rape (understand profiles tend to include far more than just race and/or religion or whatever despite stereotypes).
Given the political leanings on this site, you see outcries about rapes and such, but anyone who actually suggested changes to the laws (understand they have to be universal and apply to everyone) that could make a differance, would also be attacked as some kind of facist that wanted to turn the US into a police state. Even if ultimatly those changes simply borrowed ideas from law enforcement in the rest of the western world, or involved simply dialing policies back a few decades. Putting the genie back into the bottle so to speak.
While it's a side point, understand that this kind of thing that we're argueing about is the price being paid for a lot of those "civil liberties victories" of the past. What happens with rapists and such is one small part of it. An idealogy that was supposed to lead to a lot more peace, freedom, and safety, arguably had exactly the opposite effect. Sure the stereotypical "pig cop" might not be ruining your fun as much as he used to, but as a result we also have more rapes, murders, gang activity, human trafficking, and everything else because in many cases the police can't even begin to investigate despite common sense due to what is oftentimes a crazy criteria, and when they can, the time it takes to get permission to search (warrents, etc...) gives the criminals plenty of time to prepare. People talk about police corruption, in terms of empowering law enforcement being a problem, but the ironic thing is that dirty cops hide behind the same protections the criminals do, in reality IA and other protective watchdogs need to jump through the same kind of hoops. You can't weed out dirty cops effectively for the same reason someone can run a crack house and shoot rival dealers periodically with relative imputiny, it all comes down to playing the game and bureaucratic protection.
And you're labouring under the assumption that most accusations made are false, and also that making such an accusation carries no penalty for the person making it, isn't at all traumatic, and in short, is easy to do.
Also, as fascinating as your statement on the US justice system may be, I don't live in the US, and given that you are making comparisons to countries whose laws I am much more familiar with than those of the US, which, despite your implications have similar issues surrounding rape, and I still don't think you have much appreciation for what even the threat of being raped is about.
Given how closely the conviction rates for rape have some rather odd correlations with the who the alleged victim was, this leads to the conclusion that many legal systems are biased towards the idea that only certain types of people get raped, and anyone else is probably lying about it somehow.
Well, anyway, I hope you never have to find out for yourself what it means to be subject to even the mildest form of abuse that could ever be called 'rape'. - Ah, but wait, you're in the US. So according to your legal system, you can't be raped, no matter what someone does to you. (Well, assuming my assumption about you being male is correct, anyway.)
Don't you just love legal technicalities?
The assertion that sexy clothing makes a woman a more likely target for certain kinds of rape is founded on logic and reason. The assertion that this is not the case is an emotionally motivated belief counter to reasoning and logic with no evidence to back it up (unless, of course, someone has actually done a reliable study on this. If they have I can't find it and I have never seen anyone cite such a study.)
Yeah... It's not like it's on wikipedia or anything...
"Victim blaming" is holding the victim of a crime to be in whole or in part responsible for the crime. In the context of rape, this concept refers to the Just World Theory and popular attitudes that certain victim behaviours (such as flirting, or wearing sexually provocative clothing) may encourage rape.[44] In extreme cases, victims are said to have "asked for it", simply by not behaving demurely. In most Western countries, the defense of provocation is not accepted as a mitigation for rape.[45] A global survey of attitudes toward sexual violence by the Global Forum for Health Research shows that victim-blaming concepts are at least partially accepted in many countries. In some countries[which?], victim-blaming is more common, and women who have been raped are sometimes deemed to have behaved improperly. Often, these are countries where there is a significant social divide between the freedoms and status afforded to men and women.[46] Amy M. Buddie and Arthur G. Miller, in a review of studies of rape myths, state:
Rape victims are blamed more when they resist the attack later in the rape encounter rather than earlier (Kopper, 1996), which seems to suggest the stereotype that these women are engaging in token resistance (Malamuth & Brown, 1994; Muehlenhard & Rogers, 1998) or leading the man on because they have gone along with the sexual experience thus far. Finally, rape victims are blamed more when they are raped by an acquaintance or a date rather than by a stranger (e.g., Bell, Kuriloff, & Lottes, 1994; Bridges, 1991; Bridges & McGr ail, 1989; Check & Malamuth, 1983; Kanekar, Shaherwalla, Franco, Kunju, & Pinto, 1991; L'Armand & Pepitone, 1982; Tetreault & Barnett, 1987), which seems to evoke the stereotype that victims really want to have sex because they know their attacker and perhaps even went out on a date with him. The underlying message of this research seems to be that when certain stereotypical elements of rape are in place, rape victims are prone to being blamed.
However, they also state that "individuals may endorse rape myths and at the same time recognize the negative effects of rape."[47] A number of gender role stereotypes can play a role in rationalization of rape. In the case of male-on-female rape, these include the idea that power is reserved to men whereas women are meant for sex and objectified, that women want forced sex and to be pushed around,[48] and that male sexual impulses and behaviors are uncontrollable and must be satisfied.[49] In the case of female-on-male rape, the victim may either be perceived as weak or, in cultures where men acquire status by sexual conquest, as fortunate.
It has been proposed by Dr Roxanne Agnew- Davies, a clinical psychologist and an expert on the effects of sexual violence, that victim-blaming correlates with fear. "It is not surprising when so many rape victims blame themselves. Female jurors can look at the woman in the witness stand and decide she has done something 'wrong' such as flirting or having a drink with the defendant. She can therefore reassure herself that rape won't happen to her as long as she does nothing similar."[50]
What many of the people here seem to be doing (not you, I did read the rest of your post). It's not the extreme case of saying she asked for it. But they're still blaming the victim for not acting smarter by dressing more appropriately.
It's not based on logic. It's based on a well known and researched fallacy known as the Just World hypothesis, a bias most people have. Based on the supposed 'logic' that if something bad happens to one person but not another then surely there must've been something that one person did as well to cause that bad thing to happen to them specifically.
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....
The assertion that sexy clothing makes a woman a more likely target for certain kinds of rape is founded on logic and reason. The assertion that this is not the case is an emotionally motivated belief counter to reasoning and logic with no evidence to back it up (unless, of course, someone has actually done a reliable study on this. If they have I can't find it and I have never seen anyone cite such a study.)
Yeah... It's not like it's on wikipedia or anything...
"Victim blaming" is holding the victim of a crime to be in whole or in part responsible for the crime. In the context of rape, this concept refers to the Just World Theory and popular attitudes that certain victim behaviours (such as flirting, or wearing sexually provocative clothing) may encourage rape.[44] In extreme cases, victims are said to have "asked for it", simply by not behaving demurely. In most Western countries, the defense of provocation is not accepted as a mitigation for rape.[45] A global survey of attitudes toward sexual violence by the Global Forum for Health Research shows that victim-blaming concepts are at least partially accepted in many countries. In some countries[which?], victim-blaming is more common, and women who have been raped are sometimes deemed to have behaved improperly. Often, these are countries where there is a significant social divide between the freedoms and status afforded to men and women.[46] Amy M. Buddie and Arthur G. Miller, in a review of studies of rape myths, state:
Rape victims are blamed more when they resist the attack later in the rape encounter rather than earlier (Kopper, 1996), which seems to suggest the stereotype that these women are engaging in token resistance (Malamuth & Brown, 1994; Muehlenhard & Rogers, 1998) or leading the man on because they have gone along with the sexual experience thus far. Finally, rape victims are blamed more when they are raped by an acquaintance or a date rather than by a stranger (e.g., Bell, Kuriloff, & Lottes, 1994; Bridges, 1991; Bridges & McGr ail, 1989; Check & Malamuth, 1983; Kanekar, Shaherwalla, Franco, Kunju, & Pinto, 1991; L'Armand & Pepitone, 1982; Tetreault & Barnett, 1987), which seems to evoke the stereotype that victims really want to have sex because they know their attacker and perhaps even went out on a date with him. The underlying message of this research seems to be that when certain stereotypical elements of rape are in place, rape victims are prone to being blamed.
However, they also state that "individuals may endorse rape myths and at the same time recognize the negative effects of rape."[47] A number of gender role stereotypes can play a role in rationalization of rape. In the case of male-on-female rape, these include the idea that power is reserved to men whereas women are meant for sex and objectified, that women want forced sex and to be pushed around,[48] and that male sexual impulses and behaviors are uncontrollable and must be satisfied.[49] In the case of female-on-male rape, the victim may either be perceived as weak or, in cultures where men acquire status by sexual conquest, as fortunate.
It has been proposed by Dr Roxanne Agnew- Davies, a clinical psychologist and an expert on the effects of sexual violence, that victim-blaming correlates with fear. "It is not surprising when so many rape victims blame themselves. Female jurors can look at the woman in the witness stand and decide she has done something 'wrong' such as flirting or having a drink with the defendant. She can therefore reassure herself that rape won't happen to her as long as she does nothing similar."[50]
What many of the people here seem to be doing (not you, I did read the rest of your post). It's not the extreme case of saying she asked for it. But they're still blaming the victim for not acting smarter by dressing more appropriately.
It's not based on logic. It's based on a well known and researched fallacy known as the Just World hypothesis, a bias most people have. Based on the supposed 'logic' that if something bad happens to one person but not another then surely there must've been something that one person did as well to cause that bad thing to happen to them specifically.
The article you copied is about victim blaming, not about actual evidence supporting one of the two possible positions on risk increasing clothing. It actually says absolutely nothing about risk increasing clothing. I asked for a study on the probability of a woman being raped based on clothing choice. You cited a wikipedia article that talks about the probability of victim blaming based on circumstances like clothing choice.
My point was that when there is no evidence either way the most reasonable position is the position backed up by logic.
Lets take two statements:
1. A woman is less likely to be raped if she does not wear sexy clothing.
2. That woman deserved to be raped because she was wearing sexy clothing.
statement 1 is the logical statement based on reasoning (note that is it based on reasoning, not evidence.) You will notice that there is no accusation or placement of blame. It is a simple statement of fact (or at least purposed truth.) Statement 2, on the other hand, takes the purposed truth of statement 1 and twists it into an illogical victim blaming statement. The idea is that because provocative clothing increases the chance of being targeted that any victim that was wearing provocative clothing deserved to be raped. There is no logical justification for that stance. It is an emotionally motivated and illogical belief.
Now, why does all this matter? Why defend statement 1 when it can so easily be perverted into statement 2? Because the general well meaning reaction to statement 2 is another irrational emotionally motivated statement. We will call this statement 3:
3. Any suggestion that a rape could have been avoided by the victim is victim blaming.
The depressing truth is that the anti rape movement, with the best of intentions, is inadvertently working against developing a culture that makes it more difficult to rape. No one is discussing defense against rape. We do not allow it. After all, any suggestion that rape can be defended against is victim blaming. No one is allowed to detailing warning signs parents can look for in potential predators. Women are left uninformed on simple measures that can be taken to protect themselves from being drugged at a bar. People are not adopting simple attitudes and behaviors that would make it much more difficult to commit rape under certain circumstances.
This is our fault. We did this. We have trained those in a position to effect actual change that it simply is too dangerous to try. How can we expect anyone to attempt to say anything on the subject when we publicly crucified the last 5 people to do so, even the ones who were trying to be on our side?
Our unchecked zeal to do what is right is turning into our greatest obstacle. We need to be more responsible with the weight our combined voices can bring to bear. This starts with our learning to be reasonable and consistent professors of truth instead of hate spewing, profane, and unreasonable reactionaries.
I doubt someone's gotten away with it as a base argument, but its probbly swayed some opinions. a jury or any legal process relying on humans isnt infallible.
OT: I think its a dumb excuse, however I think it can also hurt the rapee's case. I remember when one of the sports guys here was accused of rape, the story that came out was the girl was there in a college bar (illegally drinking underage), blitzed out of her skull, wearing provacative clothing, and had a nametag with the letters DTF (down to fuck) on it. was she raped? No, I dont think so. charges were never officially filed and he never went to court, and I think that in all honesty she saw who he was and in her drunk state (though i doubt she needed to be drunk to feel her actions were good) she wanted to have sex with the sports star (he was VERY big name and in pro league).
I dont think he even had sex with her in the end. point is, its not a defense at all, but its not exactly helpful to the victim and could lead against them. I personally think that anyone can sue for rape after engaging in sex after being in impaired state of mind on their own accord just because they regret it to be fucking retarded and a major flaw in the system. And I dont really pity someone who dresses very provacitively knowing the effect is (and wanting that effect) that a party you are looking to attract will give you attention and you are intentionally misleadinga nd teasing them. but that doesnt justify them being raped.
... so no, Its not a justification, but its a double edged sword.
The assertion that sexy clothing makes a woman a more likely target for certain kinds of rape is founded on logic and reason. The assertion that this is not the case is an emotionally motivated belief counter to reasoning and logic with no evidence to back it up (unless, of course, someone has actually done a reliable study on this. If they have I can't find it and I have never seen anyone cite such a study.)
Yeah... It's not like it's on wikipedia or anything...
"Victim blaming" is holding the victim of a crime to be in whole or in part responsible for the crime. In the context of rape, this concept refers to the Just World Theory and popular attitudes that certain victim behaviours (such as flirting, or wearing sexually provocative clothing) may encourage rape.[44] In extreme cases, victims are said to have "asked for it", simply by not behaving demurely. In most Western countries, the defense of provocation is not accepted as a mitigation for rape.[45] A global survey of attitudes toward sexual violence by the Global Forum for Health Research shows that victim-blaming concepts are at least partially accepted in many countries. In some countries[which?], victim-blaming is more common, and women who have been raped are sometimes deemed to have behaved improperly. Often, these are countries where there is a significant social divide between the freedoms and status afforded to men and women.[46] Amy M. Buddie and Arthur G. Miller, in a review of studies of rape myths, state:
Rape victims are blamed more when they resist the attack later in the rape encounter rather than earlier (Kopper, 1996), which seems to suggest the stereotype that these women are engaging in token resistance (Malamuth & Brown, 1994; Muehlenhard & Rogers, 1998) or leading the man on because they have gone along with the sexual experience thus far. Finally, rape victims are blamed more when they are raped by an acquaintance or a date rather than by a stranger (e.g., Bell, Kuriloff, & Lottes, 1994; Bridges, 1991; Bridges & McGr ail, 1989; Check & Malamuth, 1983; Kanekar, Shaherwalla, Franco, Kunju, & Pinto, 1991; L'Armand & Pepitone, 1982; Tetreault & Barnett, 1987), which seems to evoke the stereotype that victims really want to have sex because they know their attacker and perhaps even went out on a date with him. The underlying message of this research seems to be that when certain stereotypical elements of rape are in place, rape victims are prone to being blamed.
However, they also state that "individuals may endorse rape myths and at the same time recognize the negative effects of rape."[47] A number of gender role stereotypes can play a role in rationalization of rape. In the case of male-on-female rape, these include the idea that power is reserved to men whereas women are meant for sex and objectified, that women want forced sex and to be pushed around,[48] and that male sexual impulses and behaviors are uncontrollable and must be satisfied.[49] In the case of female-on-male rape, the victim may either be perceived as weak or, in cultures where men acquire status by sexual conquest, as fortunate.
It has been proposed by Dr Roxanne Agnew- Davies, a clinical psychologist and an expert on the effects of sexual violence, that victim-blaming correlates with fear. "It is not surprising when so many rape victims blame themselves. Female jurors can look at the woman in the witness stand and decide she has done something 'wrong' such as flirting or having a drink with the defendant. She can therefore reassure herself that rape won't happen to her as long as she does nothing similar."[50]
What many of the people here seem to be doing (not you, I did read the rest of your post). It's not the extreme case of saying she asked for it. But they're still blaming the victim for not acting smarter by dressing more appropriately.
It's not based on logic. It's based on a well known and researched fallacy known as the Just World hypothesis, a bias most people have. Based on the supposed 'logic' that if something bad happens to one person but not another then surely there must've been something that one person did as well to cause that bad thing to happen to them specifically.
The article you copied is about victim blaming, not about actual evidence supporting one of the two possible positions on risk increasing clothing. It actually says absolutely nothing about risk increasing clothing. I asked for a study on the probability of a woman being raped based on clothing choice. You cited a wikipedia article that talks about the probability of victim blaming based on circumstances like clothing choice.
My point was that when there is no evidence either way the most reasonable position is the position backed up by logic.
Lets take two statements:
1. A woman is less likely to be raped if she does not wear sexy clothing.
2. That woman deserved to be raped because she was wearing sexy clothing.
statement 1 is the logical statement based on reasoning (note that is it based on reasoning, not evidence.) You will notice that there is no accusation or placement of blame. It is a simple statement of fact (or at least purposed truth.) Statement 2, on the other hand, takes the purposed truth of statement 1 and twists it into an illogical victim blaming statement. The idea is that because provocative clothing increases the chance of being targeted that any victim that was wearing provocative clothing deserved to be raped. There is no logical justification for that stance. It is an emotionally motivated and illogical belief.
Now, why does all this matter? Why defend statement 1 when it can so easily be perverted into statement 2? Because the general well meaning reaction to statement 2 is another irrational emotionally motivated statement. We will call this statement 3:
3. Any suggestion that a rape could have been avoided by the victim is victim blaming.
The depressing truth is that the anti rape movement, with the best of intentions, is inadvertently working against developing a culture that makes it more difficult to rape. No one is discussing defense against rape. We do not allow it. After all, any suggestion that rape can be defended against is victim blaming. No one is allowed to detailing warning signs parents can look for in potential predators. Women are left uninformed on simple measures that can be taken to protect themselves from being drugged at a bar. People are not adopting simple attitudes and behaviors that would make it much more difficult to commit rape under certain circumstances.
This is our fault. We did this. We have trained those in a position to effect actual change that it simply is too dangerous to try. How can we expect anyone to attempt to say anything on the subject when the last 5 people to do so were publicly crucified, even the ones who were trying to be on our side?
Our unchecked zeal to do what is right is turning into our greatest obstacle. We need to be more responsible with the weight our combined voices can bring to bear. This starts with our learning to be reasonable and consistent professors of truth instead of hate spewing, profane, and unreasonable reactionaries.
Yeah... Wikipedia is so hard to find... And it's not like I left all the references in there so you could easily look them up...
Statement 1 still propagates the idea that the woman could have done something better. She could've worn less provocative clothing, but she didn't. She could have avoided the whole ordeal if she'd worn something else, but she didn't. That's blaming the victim right there.
Besides all the evidence that clothing worn has nothing to do with rape, for which I'd recommend starting for basics by looking through the references provided in say the wikipedia article on rape which shouldn't be hard at all, any advice on clothing doesn't prevent rape at all. That rapist doesn't magically disappear when women everywhere go around in burqas. Hell, countries where all women do go around in burqas feature much higher rates of rape.
That rapist is still there. Best case scenario he targets someone else and there's still a rape. Rapes prevented: 0. Worst case scenario, as has been pointed out by decades of research, the rapist is an acquaintance of the victim and doesn't give a shit about what's she's wearing. Rapes prevented: 0.
If you actually want to prevent rape then stop giving the victims the idea that they could've done something differently. That if they had just worn a slightly longer skirt everything would've been fine and their life wouldn't be in shreds. Instead give them actual tools that actually help.
You know what happens when that rapist targets a victim who hasn't been taught to dress conservatively but has been taught to effectively defend herself? He fails at raping someone, the rape is prevented. It doesn't happen to someone else instead. It doesn't still happen to the same person because rape provably has other motives. It stops.
You know what happens when that rapist targets a victim whose parents aren't on the lookout for slutty clothing but are watching for actual real signs that something's wrong? He gets reported and arrested, the abuse stops. He doesn't have the option to target some other child who does dress provocatively, not that he cares about that. He doesn't keep on going because the parents believe everything's fine as long as their child dresses conservatively. It stops.
Those are actual real solutions. Clothing is not. It doesn't do anything. It doesn't matter. Not to the rapist, he has other well-documented motives. Not to the statistics, rape still happens just as frequently regardless of clothing worn by women.
It's bullshit reasoning that takes attention away from the actual real problems that involve rape. It makes anyone wishing to improve the situation waste precious time explaining again and again and again that what these people who haven't done a shred of research or even read a basic wikipedia article concoct with their 'amazing reasoning' is simply blatantly false and only adding to the problem of extremely low report rates because of the utterly retarded idea that the victim could have done something differently. That her choice of clothing mattered.
There are several big problems with debating this issue in my opinion:
1. The 'defence' mentioned isn't normally used the way it is presented here. The so-called defence is normally mentioned when balancing the probability of rape versus drunk-or-otherwise consensual sex. This is made because all you have in most rape cases is one person's word against another's so it comes down to a balance of probability; was this more likely to be rape or consensual sex? In that case you can tell a lot about whether someone was looking for sex (in general, not necessarily with the defendant) by where they were, how they acted and how they dressed. Remember here that the jury is looking for the odds on the plaintiff having consented to sex and a good first stage is figuring out whether they were even looking to pick someone up. By all means debate its' relevance but realise it's not a case of 'you were asking for rape by dressing like a slut', it's a case of 'we only have your word versus his and does your dress among other factors make it more or less likely that you were looking for consensual sex?'
2. The advice to dress more conservatively to avoid trouble is normally well intentioned. I'm a man, a good number of my friends are men and we all share an unspoken understanding of what clothes will get you in trouble in certain settings. When I hang around with women in varying positions in my life I'm always struck by just how blissfully unaware of danger they are, whether walking drunkenly back to my house from a club or answering back to guys twice their size and clearly coked up. As a young man who liked goth fashion and long hair one of the first lessons I learned is that wearing the wrong top in the wrong place will land you in shit; a lesson my football-loving mates have learnt too. I've also learnt which areas of town are off-limits and what kind of guy to avoid in a pub. All of these are lessons we shared with each other and that I'm always mystified when women completely ignore. Generally the passing on of this advice to a newbie is a sincere effort to warn them of danger and is meant with the best of intentions, the problem is that rape doesn't quite follow the same pattern as random beatings and muggings and that the advice unfortunately sounds like trying to control what women wear through implicit threat of violence rather than what it actually is. However, the police chief's advice to dress down to avoid 'trouble' is pefectly sound advice for practically every other drunken pub-situation.
3. Rape is an emotive subject. Contrary to theories on 'rape culture' and such rape is one of the few crimes left that actually horrifies people. Therefore whenever the subject of minimising risks is debated the debater has to be careful to emphasise how much they despise rape and how little they condone it...you don't even have to do this with torture or genocide. Newsflash: No one condones rape, they may debate about the difference between rape and regrettable sex, or offer advice but they're not condoning rape and suggesting they are is like the tactical use of 'racist'; a tool to put a debating opponent on the defensive. The second troublesome idea is that women should be able to walk around naked with nothing happening. In theory I agree. In theory, because in practice this is an unbelievably stupid idea that will never be true for women and has never been true for men. Idealism isn't pragmatic and it's not going to achieve anything. Neither gender really sees the shitty end of living like the other gender, they just see the bits they envy. I don't honestly think life is really safe for anyone.
4. Pressure groups on both sides lie. we have a rough idea of the rape conviction rates and the drop-off rate for reported incidents but both feminists and men's rights activists concentrate on the figures that scare them. Feminists concentrate on the conviction rate of total reported cases and constantly round down on their previous roundings. Feminists play on the fear that rape isn't taken seriously because I can imagine that's terrifying for women; to know you could have that done to you and no one would listen. MRA concentrate on the number of false allegations and round up. AS a man I can definitely tell you that if it ever comes down to someone's word versus mine I want to know our words are of equal initial worth, the idea that a woman will be taken more seriously because she's a woman is terrifying, particularly with the stain on your record rape causes. Both of these cases are illustrative of a single central point: Don't just believe what a pressure group tells you because it meshes with what you believe. The single characteristic that defines both of the above groups is that they both want something, that something is obtained by swaying public opinion and that since each group knows they're right they see no problem in lying to get the correct result.
My personal stance on most debates is one of caution and skepticism, I don't really have a formed opinion here except that it's almost impossible to debate something this complex with so little actual evidence in such a layman setting.
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? If you asked a million people with tin foiling hats if the government was after them, would you 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".
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!
Yeah... Wikipedia is so hard to find... And it's not like I left all the references in there so you could easily look them up...
Statement 1 still propagates the idea that the woman could have done something better. She could've worn less provocative clothing, but she didn't. She could have avoided the whole ordeal if she'd worn something else, but she didn't. That's blaming the victim right there.
Besides all the evidence that clothing worn has nothing to do with rape, for which I'd recommend starting for basics by looking through the references provided in say the wikipedia article on rape which shouldn't be hard at all, any advice on clothing doesn't prevent rape at all.
That rapist doesn't magically disappear when women everywhere go around in burqas. Hell, countries where all women do go around in burqas feature much higher rates of rape.
That rapist is still there. Best case scenario he targets someone else and there's still a rape. Rapes prevented: 0. Worst case scenario, as has been pointed out by decades of research, the rapist is an acquaintance of the victim and doesn't give a shit about what's she's wearing. Rapes prevented: 0.
If you actually want to prevent rape then stop giving the victims the idea that they could've done something differently. That if they had just worn a slightly longer skirt everything would've been fine and their life wouldn't be in shreds. Instead give them actual tools that actually help.
You know what happens when that rapist targets a victim who hasn't been taught to dress conservatively but has been taught to effectively defend herself? He fails at raping someone, the rape is prevented. It doesn't happen to someone else instead. It doesn't still happen to the same person because rape provably has other motives. It stops.
You know what happens when that rapist targets a victim whose parents aren't on the lookout for slutty clothing but are watching for actual real signs that something's wrong? He gets reported and arrested, the abuse stops. He doesn't have the option to target some other child who does dress provocatively, not that he cares about that. He doesn't keep on going because the parents believe everything's fine as long as their child dresses conservatively. It stops.
Those are actual real solutions. Clothing is not. It doesn't do anything. It doesn't matter. Not to the rapist, he has other well-documented motives. Not to the statistics, rape still happens just as frequently regardless of clothing worn by women.
It's bullshit reasoning that takes attention away from the actual real problems that involve rape. It makes anyone wishing to improve the situation waste precious time explaining again and again and again that what these people who haven't done a shred of research or even read a basic wikipedia article concoct with their 'amazing reasoning' is simply blatantly false and only adding to the problem of extremely low report rates because of the utterly retarded idea that the victim could have done something differently. That her choice of clothing mattered.
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.
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.
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
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
