Clothing dictates sexual assault/abuse?

[yviedarling]

A couple days ago I got into an argument with this woman who says if girls show their legs or shoulder's, it's obvious they'll get attacked because they're looking for attention.

The argument started when I was riding the bus, and this guy tried to grope this girl who looked about 15. I say tried because she pretty much beat him up afterwards. Of course people were freaked out at the sudden attack, and asked what happened. She said he tried to grab at her and defended herself. The guy admitted it, but then he said it was her fault for wearing shorts and a tank top. This lady (she looked about 18 or so) behind me said she deserved it for showing so much skin (nevermind it was 70 degrees out) and "looking like a slut".
I was super disgusted that a person, especially another female, would say that about a person. Me and the stranger argued back and forth until I got off, and but I made no progress in changing her mind whatsoever.

What do you guys think? Does clothing really make a good excuse for this kind of behavior? I still don't think so, and I never will, but I'm curious what others think.

[Harry Smith]

It's terrible that anyone can try and justify rape/sexual harrasment by blaming women for what they wear. There's only one person to blame and that's the attacker.

[Stronk Serb]

No, it doesn't justify it. It's like a murderer saying he killed a man because the victim looked at him funny.

[Dannibabi]

If that's the case then I can light you on fire and it's your fault for wearing such flammable clothing.

[Miserabilia]

If that's the case then I can light you on fire and it's your fault for wearing such flammable clothing.

lol! :D made my day

Seriously though, that's ridiculous. I've heard the theory of "It's her fault because of her clothes" before, in countries where women are forced to wear burka's!

[JamesSuperBoy]

A couple days ago I got into an argument with this woman who says if girls show their legs or shoulder's, it's obvious they'll get attacked because they're looking for attention.

The argument started when I was riding the bus, and this guy tried to grope this girl who looked about 15. I say tried because she pretty much beat him up afterwards. Of course people were freaked out at the sudden attack, and asked what happened. She said he tried to grab at her and defended herself. The guy admitted it, but then he said it was her fault for wearing shorts and a tank top. This lady (she looked about 18 or so) behind me said she deserved it for showing so much skin (nevermind it was 70 degrees out) and "looking like a slut".
I was super disgusted that a person, especially another female, would say that about a person. Me and the stranger argued back and forth until I got off, and but I made no progress in changing her mind whatsoever.

What do you guys think? Does clothing really make a good excuse for this kind of behavior? I still don't think so, and I never will, but I'm curious what others think.


No it does not - but sadly many thinks so - Amnesty International had a campaign to highlight this.

http://www.endviolenceagainstwomen.org.uk/

[Blood]

Well that's complete bullshit. If it were true the only people getting raped would be the girls/guys who show skin, but that's obviously not the case.

[sqishy]

Makes no sense at all. I don't see how clothing will have anything to do with this.

[abc983055235235231a]

It's really just an excuse. Rapists would rape people regardless of what clothes their victims were wearing.

[conniption]

I've heard this same thing so many times and I always react wth disgust. There is absolutely no justification for sexual assault.

[Melodic]

An horrrible example to an even more horrible opinion. I mean it's not like she's the only one who owns a tank top and shorts.

A public bus though.. really? *sigh*

[xxdrakeTxx]

that has got to be the stupidest thing ive ever seen. a old lady was raped for no reason that being said do you think that old lady was wereing provocative clothing. now i know some girls wear stuff that shows off skin to get a little attention from boys not all girls do this however and sexual assualt or any other act of violence is wrong no matter what exuse you have and when they say the victim deserved it i honestly think they need to give him life in prison with stacks of self help books

[Gamma Male]

Gawd, I hate people who don't know what the fuck their talking about. This is a complete double standard. What about men who dress in skimpy clothing? What about guys who wear shorts and tank tops and have sex with lots of women? Do we criticise them, or call them "whores" or "sluts? No. This isn't just about rape, it's about sexism. When a woman is sexually active, she's a slut. When a guy is sexually active, he's a "player" or a "stud".

This whole hypocritical, sexist, blame-the-victim mentality needs to be taken out back and shot between the eyes.

[ksdnfkfr]

The person who's not wearing a potato sack up to their neck, is not doing anything wrong of course. But you can unintentionally make yourself a target to some perv. That even happens on forums based on what kinds of selfies a user posts.

[radsniper]

this is a problem that needs to be stopped i love dannibabi's post and agree with gammamale that there should be no double standard

[EddietheZombie]

Wearing provocative clothing will catch eyes and you will get more attention, so in theory, there is some truth to that. Does it make it right? Fuck no. Is it the girls fault? No. But if you wear a tank top and shorts, then you will catch eyes and be more of a target than if you wore jeans and a hoodie. Now, does it never happen to the latter? No, it does. But it makes it more likely that the first would be a more of a target, especially on a bus.

[Mob Boss]

Let me find this crumb and castrate him with a plastic straw. Firstly, he had a sense of self-control that he chose to ignore and then cowered behind the excuse that it was the victim's fault. Fuck that. The girl could have dressed any which way and there is NO excuse his hands should have been on her in any shape or form. That is her body. Her's. Not his. And because she merely revealed parts of her body is not an unspoken gateway allowing her to be touched. Are women supposed to be shameful of their bodies or uncomfortable of them out of fear that someone will take that as a hint to assault them? Hell no. That old woman was in the wrong as well as the man.


Utah State University Sexual Assault and Anti Violence Information

Myth: Rape victims provoke the attach by wearing provocative clothing

- A Federal Commission on Crime of Violence Study found that only
4.4% of all reported rapes involved provocative behavior on the part
of the victim. In murder cases 22% involved such behavior (as simple
as a glance).

- Most convicted rapists do not remember what their victims were wearing.

- Victims range in age from days old to those in their nineties,
hardly provocative dressers.


source (http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview/id/776945.html)

Let's start blaming murder victim's for being alive in the first place to be murdered. That entire belief, that dressing provocatively in any sense provokes sexual assault, is disgusting and pathetic. This, unfortunately, is not a new concept, blaming the victim for the crime, and it doesn't make it any less completely baffling to hear. There are no words to describe the people that blame the victim. DOing so essentially degrades the experience (an already degrading one) of those that have been victimized. Perpetrators should be blamed, not clothing choice. End of. And creating these excuses just allows for more of this behavior and even more victims of it. It's disgusting.

[EddietheZombie]

Let me find this crumb and castrate him with a plastic straw. Firstly, he had a sense of self-control that he chose to ignore and then cowered behind the excuse that it was the victim's fault. Fuck that. The girl could have dressed any which way and there is NO excuse his hands should have been on her in any shape or form. That is her body. Her's. Not his. And because she merely revealed parts of her body is not an unspoken gateway allowing her to be touched. Are women supposed to be shameful of their bodies or uncomfortable of them out of fear that someone will take that as a hint to assault them? Hell no. That old woman was in the wrong as well as the man.



Let's start blaming murder victim's for being alive in the first place to be murdered. That entire belief, that dressing provocatively in any sense provokes sexual assault, is disgusting and pathetic. This, unfortunately, is not a new concept, blaming the victim for the crime, and it doesn't make it any less completely baffling to hear. There are no words to describe the people that blame the victim. DOing so essentially degrades the experience (an already degrading one) of those that have been victimized. Perpetrators should be blamed, not clothing choice. End of. And creating these excuses just allows for more of this behavior and even more victims of it. It's disgusting.
That "source" is eight years old..... And I get dressing for comfort, but I never knew heels, a miniskirt, and a tank top were comfortable in the winter.....

[Mob Boss]

That "source" is eight years old..... And I get dressing for comfort, but I never knew heels, a miniskirt, and a tank top were comfortable in the winter.....

So the world has changed so much in 8 years that wearing a miniskirt is now a valid excuse to rape someone? Absolutely not. Someone's fashion choice, in any weather, has absolutely nothing to do with it. It's one's self-control and morality and ability to differentiate what is right an wrong in society as well as in themselves that comes entirely in to play. It is NOT a matter of the person they are doing these acts to, the ones they are victimizing and lay grounds for psychological and physical harm to, it is not a result of the victim's eye color, the handbag they chose or hairstyle or the way they paint their nails or if their ass is hanging out of their shorts. They are merely victims. And if you think what someone wears isn't classy or appropriate for a certain weather or that it provokes others or draws stares to the point that sexual assault on them would be even an iota excusable, then shame on you.

[phuckphace]

Let me find this crumb and castrate him with a plastic straw.

that's pretty violent. would you be okay with a guy punching a girl for not making him a sandwich? how is this any different exactly?

╔═════════════════ ೋღ☃ღೋ ════════════════╗
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Repost this if ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ you are a strong independent womyn ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ who don’t need no man ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
╚═════════════════ ೋღ☃ღೋ ════════════════╝

[EddietheZombie]

The world has changed in eight years..... Look at what is on television..... Look at people alone. How much has bullying, racial accusations, and murder has gone up..... And blah blah blah I never said it was a good excuse for them to use, I said it make you more of a target. The fact that women do have to dress a certain way is sickening, but you aren't going to stop rapists. Think of animals blending in with their surroundings(Camouflage). It's the same principle. Will it stop it all together? No. But if you have a better idea to lower it, id like to hear it. Personally I think that rapists should be killed via Electric Chair, not that weak fucking lethal injection.

[Mob Boss]

that's pretty violent. would you be okay with a guy punching a girl for not making him a sandwich? how is this any different exactly?

╔═════════════════ ೋღ☃ღೋ ════════════════╗
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Repost this if ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ you are a strong independent womyn ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ who don’t need no man ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
╚═════════════════ ೋღ☃ღೋ ════════════════╝


joke jōk/
noun
1.a thing that someone says to cause amusement or laughter

Sit down and calm yourself, child. No one is here to start a feminist agenda except you and your keyboard symbols.

[Vlerchan]

Wearing provocative clothing will catch eyes and you will get more attention, so in theory, there is some truth to that.
You'll find that there's a large difference between:

(i) One noticing a girl because she dresses 'provocatively', and
(ii) One going out and raping a girl because she dresses 'provocatively'.

The world has also not changed enough during the course of the last 8 years to invalidate Honey Nut Feelios' source. Or it hasn't changed in areas relevant to her claim, at least.

that's pretty violent. would you be okay with a guy punching a girl for not making him a sandwich? how is this any different exactly?
You'll find that there's a rather large difference between:

(i) Sexual assualt, and
(ii) Refusing to prepare a snack for another individual.

You're not entitled to a prepared snack. You are entitled to your legal-rights.

[Bolwing]

No. No, no, goddamnit, no. "Looking like a slut" doesn't make it okay to grope or assault the "slut-like" person in any way imaginable. And it's fucking disgusting that this sorry excuse for a human being had the fucking audacity to grope a girl on a public bus, and then claim that it was her fault. And it's nearly just as disgusting that the woman you mentioned basically took the pervert's side.

[Typhlosion]

SURE, THE ATTACKER IS DOING WORNG, HIS FAULT, YADDA YADDA. PROBLEM IS, HE EXISTS. HE, IN FACT, WILL ALWAYS EXIST.

Let me be a bit less aggressive. Abusers will always exist, and saying that it's his fault is just redundant. Proposing better education to decrease abuse is off-topic. Since they exist, women can make themselves more or less prone to becoming a victim. Example: either carry a notebook in your bag or walk around the streets using it. The villain has no right to take it, but is more prone to take it in the second case, If the people either carried notebooks in bags and out, those who carry 'em out would be the greater target. Equally, those who expose more their "assets" will be a preferred target. If you desire to expose yourself, be wary of the increased risk you are at. And accept that risk, it will always be aloft.

[phuckphace]

joke jōk/
noun
1.a thing that someone says to cause amusement or laughter

Sit down and calm yourself, child. No one is here to start a feminist agenda except you and your keyboard symbols.

calm down. I thought you were referring to a guy who said that women who dress slutty are inviting rape, not a rapist. my bad!

[Harry Smith]

. , those who expose more their "assets" will be a preferred target. I

What your doing is justifying rape-that's not one. Sexual assault isn't about sex-it's largely about power

“Everything in the world is about sex except sex. Sex is about power.

When an 80 year old women gets raped in her home is that because she's revealing herself to men? Or when a 13 year old schoolgirl gets raped in a park?

I'd happily walk around shirtless on a beach-does that mean that a man would have a right to rape me because I'm showing off my 'assets' as you say. Your point about the

http://www.rapecrisisscotland.org.uk/image/1/639/0//images/Chartrgb1.jpg

[Gigablue]

What your doing is justifying rape-that's not one. Sexual assault isn't about sex-it's largely about power

He wasn't justifying rape at all. There is a big difference between asking the question about whether clothing, or any other factor, increases the likelihood of someone being raped, and saying that someone deserves to be raped because of their clothing. It may be that people who dress more provocatively are more likely to be raped, or it may be that they are not. Either way, that in no way justifies rape or makes it the victim's fault.

We don't really know if clothing increases the chances of someone being raped. There aren't any solid, well performed studies looking at it. We shouldn't say that there is no correlation between clothing and rape, because we don't have enough evidence to say that.

We also shouldn't make the fact that victims are never to blame dependant on any correlation or lack thereof. Rape victims are never to blame. Period. It doesn't matter what the circumstances are, they simply aren't to blame. However, that doesn't mean that there are not certain factors that influence the chance of being raped. We need to separate the scientific questions, which are still under investigation, from the moral question, which is already settled.

[Harry Smith]

He wasn't justifying rape at all. There is a big difference between asking the question about whether clothing, or any other factor, increases the likelihood of someone being raped, and saying that someone deserves to be raped because of their clothing. It may be that people who dress more provocatively are more likely to be raped, or it may be that they are not. Either way, that in no way justifies rape or makes it the victim's fault.

We don't really know if clothing increases the chances of someone being raped. There aren't any solid, well performed studies looking at it. We shouldn't say that there is no correlation between clothing and rape, because we don't have enough evidence to say that.

We also shouldn't make the fact that victims are never to blame dependant on any correlation or lack thereof. Rape victims are never to blame. Period. It doesn't matter what the circumstances are, they simply aren't to blame. However, that doesn't mean that there are not certain factors that influence the chance of being raped. We need to separate the scientific questions, which are still under investigation, from the moral question, which is already settled.

He was-did you read the first line of his statement. I'll re-quote it for you

SURE, THE ATTACKER IS DOING WORNG, HIS FAULT, YADDA YADDA

The highly sarcastic nature implies that the attacker isn't 100% to blame for an extremely sadistic and violent crime. If he didn't mean that then I've misrepresented it.

I'd also disagree that now is the time for some cold scientific study because there's a clear correlation in sexual assault cases that it's becoming a very serious problem. I'd even go on a femenist platform and say that if we did a rough investigation about rape we'd only limit women's role and ability based on the fact they could be raped e.g don't go to a bar-women get raped there, don't wear a dress women get raped wearing that. It feeds into a culture of victim blaming and in turn that of a rape culture.

This was based on a study carried out on rapists through interviews etc.

Some rape to feel powerful, others gang rape to demonstrate their “manhood” (defined as powerful, dominant, violent, virile, and not gay) to each other and fraternally bond, some become aroused by sadistically bringing sex and violence together, others seek to harm an entire race, community or nation by using sexual assault as a political weapon, still others seek revenge against someone other than the rape victim.

[Gigablue]

The highly sarcastic nature implies that the attacker isn't 100% to blame for an extremely sadistic and violent crime. If he didn't mean that then I've misrepresented it.

I didn't interpret it as sarcasm, though I could be wrong. If he intended it to be sarcastic, then I would agree with you.

I'd also disagree that now is the time for some cold scientific study because there's a clear correlation in sexual assault cases that it's becoming a very serious problem. I'd even go on a femenist platform and say that if we did a rough investigation about rape we'd only limit women's role and ability based on the fact they could be raped e.g don't go to a bar-women get raped there, don't wear a dress women get raped wearing that. It feeds into a culture of victim blaming and in turn that of a rape culture.

Society is slowly moving away from victim blaming. It still happens far more than it should, but it is getting better. I think things will continue to get better, and that having a better understanding of rape and it's causes will help, not hinder, the cause.

I also think that we should examine the factors that increase the likelihood of someone being raped. The more we learn, the more people can protect themselves. It isn't the victim's responsibility to protect themselves from rape, but if they want to, they should, be able to. In the same way that people lock their doors to prevent theft, if there is something that makes women less likely to be raped, they should at least know about it. Women should be able to make free choices, and not be blamed, in the same way that leaving your door unlocked does not justify a burglar breaking in.

This is an extremely complex issue, but I don't think we should avoid studying it. The more we know, the more we can fight against rape. The fact that victims aren't to blame is very solid, but sadly isn't recognized anywhere near as widely as it should be.

[yviedarling]

I threw up a little in my mouth at all the people who seriously think clothing has anything to do with rape. Plain and simple: Rape is about power, not lust.

Clothing doesn't change a thing, if someone wants to assault another, they will.

[Synyster Shadows]

That's ridiculous. Most girls wear what they do because they want to, is that not true? It's rarely, if ever, the victim's fault they are abused. The only exception would be if they did something to the aggressor first, but that still doesn't make it right. That's absolutely ridiculous.

[Vlerchan]

There aren't any solid, well performed studies looking at it.
I don't think such is possible. Or at least I don't have any proposals as how to create a controlled study of rape.

[Gigablue]

I don't think such is possible. Or at least I don't have any proposals as how to create a controlled study of rape.

It would be very hard to do well, and you probably couldn't prove anything with a single study. You would have to do many studies looking at specific aspects, then interpret them together.

Ideally, people would be randomized to different groups, where everything except the independent variable is kept constant. However, when studying something like clothing, this would not work. No one would want to be in a study where researchers dictated what clothing they had to wear.

Instead, it would be necessary to look at rape victims and the circumstances surrounding the rape. Then, you could compare them against the general population and try to see and patterns, further studies would have to be done to verify any patterns that emerged.

This approach would have problems, the biggest of which is that victims would likely be reluctant to talk about what they were wearing, doing, etc., for fear of being judged. It would be a difficult experiment to do, and would require a lot of consideration on the part of the researchers, but it wouldn't be impossible.

[Typhlosion]

He was-did you read the first line of his statement. I'll re-quote it for you
SURE, THE ATTACKER IS DOING WORNG, HIS FAULT, YADDA YADDA The highly sarcastic nature implies that the attacker isn't 100% to blame for an extremely sadistic and violent crime. If he didn't mean that then I've misrepresented it.That is not sarcasm, I was just calling attention on an overtly repeated statement. Saying rape is the attacker's fault is obvious, but previous posts seemed not to wrap around the idea that clothing could be a factor into victim selection without making the victims to blame.
He wasn't justifying rape at all. There is a big difference between asking the question about whether clothing, or any other factor, increases the likelihood of someone being raped, and saying that someone deserves to be raped because of their clothing. It may be that people who dress more provocatively are more likely to be raped, or it may be that they are not. Either way, that in no way justifies rape or makes it the victim's fault. Exactly. I do believe so [that people who dress more provocatively are more likely to be raped].

[Harry Smith]

I do believe so [that people who dress more provocatively are more likely to be raped].

That's simply not true, and it's also a pretty stupid statement to make. I could go on a rant again saying how it's you taking the first step in justifying the victims actions and saying 'oh she dresses badly it's going to happen-that leads to 'she dresses badly it should happen. Read the Handmaids tale-it's a very good book about a totalitarian society that is created to protect women when in fact it doesn't. Where does it stop? It's an extremely dangerous path-heck I could say ' women who are alive are more likely to get raped'

I citied this earlier-I assume you ignored it.

Some rape to feel powerful, others gang rape to demonstrate their “manhood” (defined as powerful, dominant, violent, virile, and not gay) to each other and fraternally bond, some become aroused by sadistically bringing sex and violence together, others seek to harm an entire race, community or nation by using sexual assault as a political weapon, still others seek revenge against someone other than the rape victim. http://broadblogs.com/2011/09/26/does-provocative-dress-ever-cause-rape/

Rape can and does strike anyone at anytime. Age, social class, ethnic group and has no bearing on the person a rapist chooses to attack. Research data clearly proves that a way a woman dresses and / or acts does not influence the rapists choice of victims. His decision to rape is based on how easily he perceives his target can be intimidated. Rapists are looking for available and vulnerable targets.
Statistics were obtained from various sources including the study Rape in America, 1992, National Victim Center, The Federal Bureau of Investigations and the National Crime Survey.

I'll go back to my example of a beach-do you think that a man who goes Topless on a beach is more likely to get raped?

[Typhlosion]

That's simply not true, and it's also a pretty stupid statement to make. I could go on a rant again saying how it's you taking the first step in justifying the victims actions and saying 'oh she dresses badly it's going to happen-that leads to 'she dresses badly it should happen. Read the Handmaids tale-it's a very good book about a totalitarian society that is created to protect women when in fact it doesn't. Where does it stop? "she dresses badly it should happen"... never would it evolve to such.

I citied this earlier-I assume you ignored it.

http://broadblogs.com/2011/09/26/does-provocative-dress-ever-cause-rape/Didn't notice it. A blog with no references doesn't help much on your case, but Around 90% of rapes are committed by known men. (https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/an-overview-of-sexual-offending-in-england-and-wales) probably does. What abot this? SEXY DRESSING REVISITED: DOES TARGET DRESS PLAY A PART IN SEXUAL HARASSMENT CASES ? (http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1109&context=djglp)
I'll go back to my example of a beach-do you think that a man who goes Topless on a beach is more likely to get raped? Yes.

[Vlerchan]

Around 90% of rapes are committed by known men. (https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/an-overview-of-sexual-offending-in-england-and-wales)
This doesn't support your claim.

[URL="http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1109&context=djglp"]SEXY DRESSING REVISITED: DOES TARGET DRESS PLAY A PART IN SEXUAL HARASSMENT CASES ?
You're going to need to highlight the relevant material in this report because I'm having a hard time finding it.

[Harry Smith]

"she dresses badly it should happen"... never would it evolve to such.

Didn't notice it. A blog with no references doesn't help much on your case, but Around 90% of rapes are committed by known men. (https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/an-overview-of-sexual-offending-in-england-and-wales) probably does. What abot this? SEXY DRESSING REVISITED: DOES TARGET DRESS PLAY A PART IN SEXUAL HARASSMENT CASES ? (http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1109&context=djglp)
Yes.

As Vlerhan mentioned the 90% figure has fuck all to do with your argument, if anything it proves your whole theory to be wrong. If it was to do with clothing then it would be more likely to occur randomly but if you knew the person they'd most likely be wearing different clothes on different days you know. But thanks for that. I'll highlight the paragraph again to show you. The source you also highlight is for sexual harassment-not sexual assault. There's a massive difference

ge, social class, ethnic group and has no bearing on the person a rapist chooses to attack. Research data clearly proves that a way a woman dresses and / or acts does not influence the rapists choice of victims. His decision to rape is based on how easily he perceives his target can be intimidated. Rapists are looking for available and vulnerable targets.
Statistics were obtained from various sources including the study Rape in America, 1992, National Victim Center, The Federal Bureau of Investigations and the National Crime Survey.

Do you disagree with this research? Or do you know so much more than them? And btw your starting to come across as rape apologist in my eyes. That's just my view but yeah you may want to tone down the anti-women, pro rape rhetoric

[Gigablue]

Exactly. I do believe so [that people who dress more provocatively are more likely to be raped].

That's simply not true, and it's also a pretty stupid statement to make.

Neither of your claims are supported. We can't say that clothing increases the probability of being raped, and we can't say that it doesn't. We simply don't know. There are few studies looking at this specifically, and none of them are anywhere near being definitive. It is possible that clothing has an effect, and it is possible that it doesn't. If it does, it certainly isn't the dominant factor, but is isn't unreasonable that it may play a role.

Do you disagree with this research? Or do you know so much more than them? And btw your starting to come across as rape apologist in my eyes. That's just my view but yeah you may want to tone down the anti-women, pro rape rhetoric

I wouldn't call what you posted 'research'. It didn't really prove anything. Also, the ad hominem is completely unnecessary. Saying that clothing may change the probability of being raped is not the same thing as saying that rape victims deserve it because of their clothing choices. The latter is anti-women, while the former is not. And where exactly is this 'pro rape rhetoric'? If you disagree with someone, fight back with evidence, not ad hominems.

[Harry Smith]

Neither of your claims are supported. We can't say that clothing increases the probability of being raped, and we can't say that it doesn't. We simply don't know. There are few studies looking at this specifically, and none of them are anywhere near being definitive. It is possible that clothing has an effect, and it is possible that it doesn't. If it does, it certainly isn't the dominant factor, but is isn't unreasonable that it may play a role.



I wouldn't call what you posted 'research'. It didn't really prove anything. Also, the ad hominem is completely unnecessary. Saying that clothing may change the probability of being raped is not the same thing as saying that rape victims deserve it because of their clothing choices. The latter is anti-women, while the former is not. And where exactly is this 'pro rape rhetoric'? If you disagree with someone, fight back with evidence, not ad hominems.

It was university level research, I'll post the extract of it again which proves that clothing doesn't increase the likely-hood of being raped

His decision to rape is based on how easily he perceives his target can be intimidated. Rapists are looking for available and vulnerable targets.

http://www.d.umn.edu/cla/faculty/jhamlin/3925/myths.html.

I wouldn't say that my argument was ad hominem, I was just pointing out that the tone of his argument was trying to move the tone away from the real debate and rape, and create it into one which limits the victim

[Typhlosion]

This doesn't support your claim.As Vlerhan mentioned the 90% figure has fuck all to do with your argument, if anything it proves your whole theory to be wrong. The source you also highlight is for sexual harassment-not sexual assault. There's a massive difference I play a fair game.

The first one may imply that most victims aren't chosen by chance, i.e., clothing won't influence.You, Harry Smith, gave a unreliable (blog) source for your argument and I helped. Not only you, but the debate, even if it is the sake of my argument. I don't want to win, I want to learn the truth. Whether I defend the correct argument or or not little matters, if I stay open-minded then the arguing will truly be fruitful.Do you disagree with this research? Or do you know so much more than them? I still believe that clothing is a factor, even if such sources do make very good points that I do acknowledge.And btw your starting to come across as rape apologist in my eyes. That's just my view but yeah you may want to tone down the anti-women, pro rape rhetoricAlso, the ad hominem is completely unnecessary. Saying that clothing may change the probability of being raped is not the same thing as saying that rape victims deserve it because of their clothing choices. The latter is anti-women, while the former is not. And where exactly is this 'pro rape rhetoric'? If you disagree with someone, fight back with evidence, not ad hominems. Whoa, I am NOT pro-rape by any means. I just believe that rapists act in a certain form (clothing selectivity). (Thank you, Gigablue!)

[Gigablue]

It was university level research, I'll post the extract of it again which proves that clothing doesn't increase the likely-hood of being raped

http://www.d.umn.edu/cla/faculty/jhamlin/3925/myths.html.

I wouldn't say that my argument was ad hominem, I was just pointing out that the tone of his argument was trying to move the tone away from the real debate and rape, and create it into one which limits the victim

Where exactly is the research. You first posted a blog article, then a list of myths and facts. That isn't research. Sure, the latter was posted on a university site, but that doesn't mean very much. Can you give something with a more reputable source?

If anyone is trying to shift the tone of the argument, it would be you, the original topic of the thread was whether clothing affects one's susceptibility to rape. If you want to make your case, you should use well sourced evidence, rather than accusing your opponent of victim blaming.

[Harry Smith]

I play a fair game.

The first one may imply that most victims aren't chosen by chance, i.e., clothing won't influence.You, Harry Smith, gave a unreliable (blog) source for your argument and I helped. Not only you, but the debate, even if it is the sake of my argument. I don't want to win, I want to learn the truth. Whether I defend the correct argument or or not little matters, if I stay open-minded then the arguing will truly be fruitful. I still believe that clothing is a factor, even if such sources do make very good points that I do acknowledge. Whoa, I am NOT pro-rape by any means. I just believe that rapists act in a certain form (clothing selectivity). (Thank you, Gigablue!)

The Blog wasn't unreliable-it citied a study that was carried out on prisoners. Just because it's a blog doesn't make it a untrustworthy source, and I also noted another source that I had to back up my point.

The author of the blog is in fact... I have a Ph.D. from UCLA in sociology (emphasis: gender, social psych, women's psych). I currently teach sociology and women's studies at Foothill College in Los Altos Hills, CA. I have also lectured at San Jose State University. And I have blogged for Ms. Magazine, The Good Men Project and Daily Kos. http://en.gravatar.com/broadblogs
http://www.linkedin.com/pub/georgia-platts/18/a6b/956

His decision to rape is based on how easily he perceives his target can be intimidated. Rapists are looking for available and vulnerable targets.

Nothing to do with clothing.

Where exactly is the research. You first posted a blog article, then a list of myths and facts. That isn't research. Sure, the latter was posted on a university site, but that doesn't mean very much. Can you give something with a more reputable source?

If anyone is trying to shift the tone of the argument, it would be you, the original topic of the thread was whether clothing affects one's susceptibility to rape. If you want to make your case, you should use well sourced evidence, rather than accusing your opponent of victim blaming.

I answered the point about the blog source-just because it's a blog doesn't make it bad. That's the first-pitfall of source work. I referenced a statement to move the argument on so I really don't understand what your saying-it had the source further codified in it. You want solid evidence

Research data clearly proves that a way a woman dresses and / or acts does not influence the rapists choice of victims. His decision to rape is based on how easily he perceives his target can be intimidated.
Statistics were obtained from various sources including the study Rape in America, 1992, National Victim Center, The Federal Bureau of Investigations and the National Crime Survey.

Rapists look for easy, vulnerable targets. Thinking that women provoke attacks against them by the way they dress transfers blame from the perpetrator to the victim. Research shows that this particular myth helps others feel better because they think that rape couldn’t happen to them.

I'll happily admit that there is a severe shortage of cold studies on this because obviously it's something that is entirely hard to measure but this pretty much sums up the jist of the argument

Wonder if anyone has stats on the number of rapes/sexual assaults that occur at Nudist/Naturist Resorts? I'm willing to bet that the stats would be so low that they surprise the Purity Advocates.

I also think the fact that 90% of rapists are know, according to an earlier source and something. The fact that 15% of rapes are towards under 12's show that it's not about clothing but it's about the individual and power over the individual. The whole idea that clothing dictates rape implies that rape is a purely sexual crime when in fact it's much more complex, and as the Oscar Wilde point showed about power

[Typhlosion]

It was university level research, I'll post the extract of it again which proves that clothing doesn't increase the likely-hood of being raped
http://www.d.umn.edu/cla/faculty/jhamlin/3925/myths.html.The Blog wasn't unreliable-it citied a study that was carried out on prisoners. Just because it's a blog doesn't make it a untrustworthy source, and I also noted another source that I had to back up my point.

The author of the blog is in fact... http://en.gravatar.com/broadblogs
http://www.linkedin.com/pub/georgia-platts/18/a6b/956 Anyone can post anything on the internet under any alias. Plus, how do you know if her P.h.D. amounts to anything? I know a doctor whose thesis was and adaptation of my father's work (that was already published!) Who's to say that any of her work is legitimate, the internet? Herself? Nah. And its only source is a news report on some unpopular website. As for the university's work, it is only a guarantee that who posted it is from a university, not that it was reviewed or anything. And why the bulldog?His decision to rape is based on how easily he perceives his target can be intimidated. Rapists are looking for available and vulnerable targets.

Nothing to do with clothing.I would interpret "available" as showing off.

[Harry Smith]

Anyone can post anything on the internet under any alias. Plus, how do you know if her P.h.D. amounts to anything? I know a doctor whose thesis was and adaptation of my father's work (that was already published!) Who's to say that any of her work is legitimate, the internet? Herself? Nah. And its only source is a news report on some unpopular website. As for the university's work, it is only a guarantee that who posted it is from a university, not that it was reviewed or anything. And why the bulldog?I would interpret "available" as showing off.

Sign what do you want me to do? I'll call her up if you want and ask her to send over her degree if you want. It's like when I read the Guardian newspaper If a see an online article written by a known writer I don't spend 20 minutes saying 'wait-he may be lying, the Wikipedia article and 12 other sources are completely wrong'. She has high student ratings

http://www.ratemyprofessors.com/ShowRatings.jsp?tid=239290

http://elizabethhallmagill.wordpress.com/2013/07/16/an-interview-with-professor-and-blogger-georgia-platts/

http://www.foothill.edu/bss/directory.php?s=1&rec_id=812

No matter what I present your going to claim it's wrong aren't you? Because it goes against your own argument. As much as I would love to visit and present you with a paper record we're having a debate on an internet forum-I can only use evidence provided by the internet.

I would interpret "available" as showing off

No, just no. Are the 15% of rape victims who are under 12 showing off? Or the 7% raped by family members?Available means that there's no physical barrier and in the context of a rape debate it's pretty perverse to use the word as it implies that rape is somehow limited.

I also see how you've dropped the whole '90%' argument about it being known people-which proves it's about the target herself not what she's wearing. Just look at the Congo-the entire DRC rape saga dismisses your entire point

[Rallo]

Rape, there's no excuse ever for that. No matter what they're wearing. I don't care if the girl was walking down the street naked, if they say no, it's a no. A 'no' is always a 'no', that doesn't depend on what they're wearing.

Sexual harassment however, I see that slightly differently. If a girl's wearing extremely revealing clothes it's only natural that guys will be interested. It's only a matter of time before an interested guy comes up and actually does something, that's the point where it gets quite complicated. Depending what they do, in my opinion, at this stage it can still be classed as not quite sexual harassment yet. For example, a quick touch (not squeeze, there's a different) of a girls ass, that I don't see as sexual harassment in that situation. However, if the girl shows she isn't accepting of it or is showing any kind of resistance (verbally (stop, no, etc) or physically (hitting the male, pulling away or pushing the male away, etc) and the male continues, I believe then it's unarguably sexual harassment.

Side-note: This may be a highly bias opinion due to the amount of girls I've seen claim they've been sexually harassed after a less 'popular' guy touches them after seeing a fair few 'popular' guys do the same. If a girl's wearing revealing clothes, you've seen more than one other guy doing it (one's more a relationship, so isn't overly counted), is a male doing the same in that case really sexual harassment the first time they try, if they stop when the female shows any kind of resistance?


Edit: This post seems to be getting quoted at with people coming across like they think my opinion is 'wrong'. This is simply my opinion, it's not wrong or right. However, it is quite bias due to the schools I used to go to. Girls would let the more 'popular' guys touch them up (without asking, even if they'd never spoke), though if a less popular guy did, boy would they make a scene out of it.
My post was more saying if you're going to allow any guys to take that chance with you, don't start acting like you've been sexually harassed when others do as well. The amount of times I saw this type of thing happen in only a year at a school I used to go to was insane.

[Lovelife090994]

To me rape inexcusible no matter what. Rape is never good.

[Gigablue]

I'll happily admit that there is a severe shortage of cold studies on this because obviously it's something that is entirely hard to measure but this pretty much sums up the jist of the argument

I do acknowledge the evidence you have cited. It definitely supports your point, but I wouldn't call it proven just yet. We can't definitively rule clothing out as a factor, but we can definitely say that if it has an effect, it is very minor. Further studies may well rule out any effect entirely. I think we should reserve final judgment on the issue until more evidence is available.

I also think the fact that 90% of rapists are know, according to an earlier source and something. The fact that 15% of rapes are towards under 12's show that it's not about clothing but it's about the individual and power over the individual. The whole idea that clothing dictates rape implies that rape is a purely sexual crime when in fact it's much more complex, and as the Oscar Wilde point showed about power

This is a straw man. No one is saying that clothing 'dictates' rape, or that rape is a 'purely sexual' crime. All that has been claimed is that clothing may play a role. It certainly, isn't the only factor, and it certainly isn't even a dominant factor, but it hasn't been completely ruled out.

Rape, there's no excuse ever for that. No matter what they're wearing. I don't care if the girl was walking down the street naked, if they say no, it's a no. A 'no' is always a 'no', that doesn't depend on what they're wearing.

Sexual harassment however, I see that slightly differently. If a girl's wearing extremely revealing clothes it's only natural that guys will be interested. It's only a matter of time before an interested guy comes up and actually does something, that's the point where it gets quite complicated. Depending what they do, in my opinion, at this stage it can still be classed as not quite sexual harassment yet. For example, a quick touch (not squeeze, there's a different) of a girls ass, that I don't see as sexual harassment in that situation. However, if the girl shows she isn't accepting of it or is showing any kind of resistance (verbally (stop, no, etc) or physically (hitting the male, pulling away or pushing the male away, etc) and the male continues, I believe then it's unarguably sexual harassment.

Side-note: This may be a highly bias opinion due to the amount of girls I've seen claim they've been sexually harassed after a less 'popular' guy touches them after seeing a fair few 'popular' guys do the same. If a girl's wearing revealing clothes, you've seen more than one other guy doing it (one's more a relationship, so isn't overly counted), is a male doing the same in that case really sexual harassment the first time they try, if they stop when the female shows any kind of resistance?

This stance is dangerously close to victim blaming. Women should be able to weta whatever they want without having to deal with unwanted advances. If a guy is interested, instead to touching her, he should talk to her. Ask once, and if she says no, more on. It's that simply. Touching someone without their consent is simply creepy, and women should have the right to be free of it.

[Harry Smith]

Sexual harassment however, I see that slightly differently. If a girl's wearing extremely revealing clothes it's only natural that guys will be interested. It's only a matter of time before an interested guy comes up and actually does something, . For example, a quick touch (not squeeze, there's a different) of a girls ass, that I don't see as sexual harassment in that situation?

That's plain wrong-touching a girls ass is sexual harassment. If you mean to touch it for sexual gratification and not by accident then it's sexual harassment. If an interested guy wants to go up he should go and talk to them, not touch them. Assuming your a guy how would you feel if a guy came up to you and felt you up?

And don't act like men can't control their sexual urges-they can! That's just an excuse cocked up by the pro-rape lobby to blame women.

[workingatperfect]

Clothing does make a difference.. I'd probably be more likely to be raped in a floor length dress than say.... A romper. Or on a beach, a bikini vs. a one piece. Not because of the sexualization of either, but because of the effort it takes to get them out of the way.

I read some article a long time ago, so no - no source and I can't even directly quote it. Anyway, it was the findings of a compilation of interviews with convicted rapists about what will deter or attract them to possible victims. It basically said I'm more likely to be raped if my hair is in a braid, and less likely if I have an umbrella. And a bunch of other stuff along those lines, you get the gist. It's about access and ease.

So, does it really matter what increases your chances of being raped? No. What matters is that men are taught by society (even if it isn't outright) that not only are they naturally more deserving of sex, but that their desires outweigh the rights of women, or men seen as less masculine. Even if they don't consciously think these things. Is it ALWAYS about that? No, because women can sexually assault people as well.

Can we change it? Somewhat. Rape will always be a thing, just like prejudice will always be a thing. But it can be minimized by putting out the right messages from an early age in media, in school, everywhere. Particularly the message that your masculinity or femininity does not determine the respect you deserve. Period. It's already improved to a small degree. You can tell that just by how many men consider themselves feminists now a days compared to before.

[Typhlosion]

Sign what do you want me to do? Not to quote blogs... simple. I'll call her up if you want and ask her to send over her degree if you want.Unnecessary. It's like when I read the Guardian newspaperIt's a BLOG. Don't you think The Guardian is also reviewed?If a see an online article written by a known writer I don't spend 20 minutes saying 'wait-he may be lying, the Wikipedia article and 12 other sources are completely wrong'. She has high student ratings

http://www.ratemyprofessors.com/ShowRatings.jsp?tid=239290

http://elizabethhallmagill.wordpress.com/2013/07/16/an-interview-with-professor-and-blogger-georgia-platts/

http://www.foothill.edu/bss/directory.php?s=1&rec_id=812 Links: irrelevant, blog, irrelevant.No matter what I present your going to claim it's wrong aren't you? Because it goes against your own argument. As much as I would love to visit and present you with a paper record we're having a debate on an internet forum-I can only use evidence provided by the internet. I also see how you've dropped the whole '90%' argument about it being known people Look, I provided sources in favour of your argument. IN FAVOUR.which proves it's about the target herself not what she's wearing. Two things: one, the rapist has many contacts and even if yhe rapist knows the target he knows many more, couldn't clothing influence anything? Plus, what about the other 10%? Or 35% (according to the bulldog)? Just look at the Congo-the entire DRC rape saga dismisses your entire point You cannot say that if it does not apply to a certain case means that it does not apply to any case, majority or minority. And, since rape is so prevalent, who's to say that a rapist cannot choose between possible victims?No, just no. Are the 15% of rape victims who are under 12 showing off? Or the 7% raped by family members?Available means that there's no physical barrier and in the context of a rape debate it's pretty perverse to use the word as it implies that rape is somehow limited. Possibly. Suddenly children can not be deemed as available? Ask paedophiles!

[Harry Smith]

Not to quote blogs... simple.Unnecessary.It's a BLOG. Don't you think The Guardian is also reviewed? Links: irrelevant, blog, irrelevant. Look, I provided sources in favour of your argument. IN FAVOUR. Two things: one, the rapist has many contacts and even if yhe rapist knows the target he knows many more, couldn't clothing influence anything? Plus, what about the other 10%? Or 35% (according to the bulldog)? You cannot say that if it does not apply to a certain case means that it does not apply to any case, majority or minority. And, since rape is so prevalent, who's to say that a rapist cannot choose between possible victims? Possibly. Suddenly children can not be deemed as available? Ask paedophiles!
Your making the fundamental mistake of assuming that a blog is bad source without reviewing the nature, origin or purpose of said source. You can't just apply a broad stroke to every single blog out there and claim that they're all terrible because that's simply not true.

The links are also not irrelevant-you asked for proof she was a professor-I provided you with proof and evidence of that. Are you going to retract the claim that she doesn't exist and it's an elaborate plot by myself to further my argument

[Typhlosion]

Do you study any sort of subject that deals with source work? Your making the fundamental mistake of assuming that a blog is bad source without reviewing the nature, origin or purpose of said source. You can't just apply a broad stroke to every single blog out there and claim that they're all terrible because that's simply not true.

The links are also not irrelevant-you asked for proof she was a professor-I provided you with proof and evidence of that. Are you going to retract the claim that she doesn't exist and it's an elaborate plot by myself to further my argument This is going off-topic, but you proved me that she is a professor. OK, is she a good one? Is she truly the author of the blog? Can't tell. Sorry for being so meticulous on it, but I had to write a scientific article and in no way blogs are accepted. At all.

On-topic, I just noticed the title of the thread, I say no, clothing does not dictate sexual abuse in general terms. However, I am very cautious not to dismiss it as a factor.

[Body odah Man]

That is SUCH crap. It falls within the 'rape doesn't lead to pregnancy' bullshit. Fuckin dumbass woman. I'm glad that girl defended herself too