|
Context: http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2011/04/04/protesters-march-in-toronto-slutwalk/
And edit: http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/canada/breakingnews/manitoba-judge-criticized-for-saying-victims-clothing-attitude-factors-in-rape-116853198.html (thanks to gnial)
First and foremost, let us clarify (synchronize) terminology for the sake of debate.
slut/promiscuous person: These basically mean the same thing, the former term being loaded, the latter politically correct. It's basically a person who has more sexual partners than is normal in his or her culture, leaving gender destinctions out of it for the moment.
Easy person/one who enjoys sex a lot: This is a person who is easy to convince to have sex with, this is slightly different from the above as it doesn't imply multiple sexual partners. These two may or may not coincide in the same person. For instance, people might exist who don't feel like sex often at all, but when they feel, the partner might be anyone, such a person could be a slut, but not easy.
Person who dresses revealingly: Basically someone who reveals a lot of flesh in his or her clothing, often exposing some-what intimate parts. Almost only applies to women in practice.
It stands to yet be proven that there is any significant correlation between any of these categories. A belief in this is a self-fulfilling prophecy until a real statistical research into this surfaces. There may be a lot of promiscuous people who dress modestly, of whom you are then not aware that they are relatively promiscuous, thus propagating the fallacy.
The controversial quote of the officer:
“Women should avoid dressing like sluts in order not to be victimized,”
Obviously, with more precise terminology, the officer meant to say 'avoid dressing revealingly'
Aside the consideration if people are responsible for their own likelihood of being raped. It still is to be proven if people who dress revealingly are more prone to being raped, anyone who believes this has the burden of proof in this case. I have never seen any proper statistical research that alone establishes a correlation between how much flesh people reveal and how likely they are to being raped. Let alone a causation. In fact, most studies seem to indicate that people who are shy and insecure (and thus could be said to not show their flesh a lot) are more likely to be raped as they can be more easily controled.
As 'common sense' as it may be that you incite rape by dressing revealingly, such 'common sense' things haven proven to be wrong throughout history a variety of time. Punishing people hard for their crimes doesn't teach them not to do it no matter how much 'common sense' this idea might hold. Putting people on a tight schedule doesn't increase productivity at work and so forth. The situation might be more complicated than this and there might be no correlation at all between how much people reveal and how likely they are to be raped, maybe even the reverse.
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x8ndgy_kelly-putty-rape-victim-forgives-at_webcam
If you look at these people, and in the 'related vidoes', they don't at all look like sexpots, they look like typical people in the end.
Then comes the issue of if one is responsible for being raped? I don't know? There are a lot of cases where you incite crimes against you in some way. Can you say to someone who's expensive car is stolen 'Well, don't get a nice Porsche like that then and don't display it with pride everywhere!', can you say to Blizzard when their games are pirated, 'Well, don't make such damned good games then!'?
Also, there is a slight nuance to be added to my above definitions, people who dress revealingly in a sexual context or not. There's revealing, and deliberate revealing to be sexually provocative, certainly both are distinct for the purpose of this debate. Do people have a right to dress in a sexually provocative way, assuming that this actually incites rape?
|
On April 05 2011 02:36 Silmakuoppaanikinko wrote:
Also, there is a slight nuance to be added to my above definitions, people who dress revealingly in a sexual context or not. There's revealing, and deliberate revealing to be sexually provocative, certainly both are distinct for the purpose of this debate. Do people have a right to dress in a sexually provocative way, assuming that this actually incites rape?
I don't think this can even be discussed until a causal relationship between dressing provacatively and getting sexually assaulted can be proven.
|
On April 05 2011 02:41 bonifaceviii wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2011 02:36 Silmakuoppaanikinko wrote:
Also, there is a slight nuance to be added to my above definitions, people who dress revealingly in a sexual context or not. There's revealing, and deliberate revealing to be sexually provocative, certainly both are distinct for the purpose of this debate. Do people have a right to dress in a sexually provocative way, assuming that this actually incites rape? I don't think this can even be discussed until a causal relationship between dressing provacatively and getting sexually assaulted can be proven. That's basically the tone of the OP. People always assume that dressing like that incites rape, but it's far from proven, and if you look at rape victims, they don't at all dress like that it seems.
|
On April 05 2011 02:41 bonifaceviii wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2011 02:36 Silmakuoppaanikinko wrote:
Also, there is a slight nuance to be added to my above definitions, people who dress revealingly in a sexual context or not. There's revealing, and deliberate revealing to be sexually provocative, certainly both are distinct for the purpose of this debate. Do people have a right to dress in a sexually provocative way, assuming that this actually incites rape? I don't think this can even be discussed until a causal relationship between dressing provacatively and getting sexually assaulted can be proven.
not that im a rapist or anything but that seems to be a pretty easy link to prove. im not saying its the womans fault by any stretch, people can dress however they want - but it just seems like something thats kinda obvious but doesnt get talked about much because people always get hysterical talking about sex.
|
There isn't actually any statistical data that support the theory that dressing provocatively increases your likelihood to being raped. Over 70% of reported rapes have a situation where the attacker knows the victim personally so unless some new outfit a women is wearing is super special one day I don't think it significantly. affects things
On April 05 2011 02:50 turdburgler wrote:
not that im a rapist or anything but that seems to be a pretty easy link to prove. im not saying its the womans fault by any stretch, people can dress however they want - but it just seems like something thats kinda obvious but doesnt get talked about much because people always get hysterical talking about sex.
Stop, stop it now. People always use the "well it makes sense when you think about it " line of reasoning but history has proven that wrong AGAIN AND AGAIN.
|
On April 05 2011 02:50 turdburgler wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2011 02:41 bonifaceviii wrote:On April 05 2011 02:36 Silmakuoppaanikinko wrote:
Also, there is a slight nuance to be added to my above definitions, people who dress revealingly in a sexual context or not. There's revealing, and deliberate revealing to be sexually provocative, certainly both are distinct for the purpose of this debate. Do people have a right to dress in a sexually provocative way, assuming that this actually incites rape? I don't think this can even be discussed until a causal relationship between dressing provacatively and getting sexually assaulted can be proven. not that im a rapist or anything but that seems to be a pretty easy link to prove. im not saying its the womans fault by any stretch, people can dress however they want - but it just seems like something thats kinda obvious but doesnt get talked about much because people always get hysterical talking about sex. Like the OP said, things that are obvious by common sense are quite wrong quite often in practice.
The human inference organ of 'common sense' is simply a very bad tool to draw conclusions in comparison to tangible research.
There isn't any data supporting this as far as I know, I've searched a lot, if it were so easy to prove it should exist, there exists a lot more data to the contrary.
Most rape victims are insecure and shy people, rape is usually an issue of control. Or do you think you can just pick a sexpot from the street and she doesn't start screaming?
|
Do people have a right to dress in a sexually provocative way, assuming that this actually incites rape?
Of course they have the right to either way, but IF it does incite rape they should be aware of the repercussions of doing so. It's sort of a rights vs responsibility sort of question. I have the right to free speech but if I go out on the street and slander a group of gang members I should be aware that they might try to retaliate in some way or another.
In my opinion dressing more revealing is a way to advertise promiscuity or "being easy", which by itself does not incite rape however I would not at all be surprised if dressing in such a fashion increased one's chance of being sexually assaulted for a myriad of reasons.
Notice how the officer said victimized. What I believe he said is truth, he could have used dress more revealing over dress like a slut. People who dress more revealing are often times become the victims of sexual assault and scapegoating among other things. Is it their fault? of course it isn't but they should be aware that some males will be strongly attracted to someone who dresses revealingly because that is a way to advertise "being easy" or being promiscuous.
YES there is NO justification for rape or sexual assault.
|
I think it should be made clear that dressing provocatively or like a slut will certainly make that person appear less professional in his/ her surroundings (jokes aside, please). People will judge others based on many things, clothing included.
However, there is never a justification for rape (i.e. "She was asking for it; look how she was dressed!"), since everyone has a right to dress how they please (assuming it agrees with any given dress code), and no one has a right to force sex on another person.
|
On April 05 2011 02:51 Nothingtosay wrote:There isn't actually any statistical data that support the theory that dressing provocatively increases your likelihood to being raped. Over 70% of reported rapes have a situation where the attacker knows the victim personally so unless some new outfit a women is wearing is super special one day I don't think it significantly. affects things Show nested quote +On April 05 2011 02:50 turdburgler wrote:
not that im a rapist or anything but that seems to be a pretty easy link to prove. im not saying its the womans fault by any stretch, people can dress however they want - but it just seems like something thats kinda obvious but doesnt get talked about much because people always get hysterical talking about sex. Stop, stop it now. People always use the "well it makes sense when you think about it " line of reasoning but history has proven that wrong AGAIN AND AGAIN.
What about the other roughly 30%? The ones where the victim doesn't know the attacker. Sorry, I can't edit my tone in type, but that is supposed to be more of a serious question. Does anyone know the statistics on "random" rape? Also, do you guys have any sources for the argument that the common sense explanation is wrong? People keep posting it like it's a fact. And, it very well might be, but sources help.
|
One isn't to blame for being sexual harassed by another because of how they dress, but it's just common sense that dressing promiscuously is going to increase your odds of being a victim of sexual harassment.
Also, you can argue that there is no evidence that dressing promiscuously increases one's chances of being raped, but rape is just one form of sexual harassment (probably one of the, if not the most extreme).
It seems like if you want to argue that dressing promiscuously has no effect on one's probability of sexual harassment, then you probably don't recognize sexual desire as a contributing factor to any form of sexual harassment. You'd probably have to deny conformance to the cultural norm and looking down upon those who publicly reject it as a factor as well.
Also, the post below me makes a good point for the rape case.
|
I think it is worth exploring more deeply why people think dressing more revealingly increases the chances of being raped.
Many people believe the following: Man sees provocatively dressed woman, Man's animal instincts are inflamed, woman is raped. The provocative clothing, by inciting the man, has in some sense caused the rape.
What is far more likely is that the desire to rape already exists in the mind of the rapist. Wearing provocative clothing may make him more likely to strike, but the reason is not because it arouses him - the reason is because he knows that it will enable him to cast aspersions on the character of the victim if he is ever caught and brought to trial. Their clothing did not "cause" the rape - it simply made them an easier target.
The policeman's statement is offensive because historically, discussions of the behavior of the victim in rape cases have operated more on the first set of assumptions given above than the second. The fact that he used the word "slut" shows that he is continuing in this shameful tradition.
An analogy:
Someone who walks alone into a dangerous neighborhood at night may be displaying poor judgement, but no one believes that the robber deserves a lighter sentence because of this. Unfortunately, in rape cases, many times, the rapist has gotten a lighter sentence or been able to convince the jury that he is really not culpable after all, due to the decisions of his victim. This is why criticizing the dress of women is such a loaded issue.
The protest sounds like big success - its appearance of absurdity has sparked debate. The goals of the protesters are of the kind that can only really be achieved by educating society, not simply by passing laws, so this debate can only help them.
(Edited after more closely reading the OP - my apologies)
|
On April 05 2011 03:06 HCastorp wrote:
I think you are mistaken about the relationship between how someone dresses and rape.
You seem to be positing something like the following: Man sees provocatively dressed woman, Man's animal instincts are inflamed, woman is raped. The provocative clothing, by inciting the man, has in some sense caused the rape.
What is far more likely is that the desire to rape already exists in the mind of the rapist. Wearing provocative clothing may make him more likely to strike, but the reason is not because it arouses him - the reason is because he knows that it will enable him to cast aspersions on the character of the victim if he is ever caught and brought to trial. Their clothing did not "cause" the rape - it simply made them an easier target.
The policeman's statement is offensive because historically, discussions of the behavior of the victim in rape cases have operated more on the first set of assumptions given above than the second. The fact that he used the word "slut" shows that he is continuing in this shameful tradition.
An analogy:
Someone who walks alone into a dangerous neighborhood at night may be displaying poor judgement, but no one believes that the robber deserves a lighter sentence because of this. Unfortunately, in rape cases, many times, the rapist has gotten a lighter sentence or been able to convince the jury that he is really not culpable after all, due to the decisions of his victim.
The protest sounds like big success - its appearance of absurdity has sparked debate. The goals of the protesters are of the kind that can only really be achieved by changing people's minds, not by passing laws, so this debate can only help them.
Against whom in this thread is this post exactly?
|
see edit, again, my apologies.
|
|
|
I think it's pretty obvious that a horny guy is more likely to rape someone than a guy that isn't horny.
And I think it's also pretty obvious that dressing like a slut makes most guys horny.
|
I really don't get what this protest is about. If it's about the justice system and allowing "provocative dress" as a legitimate defense, then sure. Protesting half-naked seems kinda hot so go for that too, wouldn't know 'cause I didn't see it, though.
If it's about people being unable to face the fact that provocative dress might increase the likelihood of being targeted for sexual assault, then why the hell do you need a protest? "Hey rapists, please start raping women dressed in sweaters too." I don't think so. The police officer was probably right, despite the poor delivery. If something reduces the chances of being assaulted and you don't do it, well, that's a tough one. A few bad people shouldn't make everyone live in fear, but by the same token, the way any justice system works is that you can commit any crime you want, if you're willing to take the risk of being prosecuted.
By all appearances, people need to be educated in how to avoid being sexually assaulted. If people protest against the police when they make a comment suggesting that sexual assault is not a crime committed against random women, that's an even greater reason to lay out the common sense for people who don't seem to have much of it. If going out wearing next to nothing is dangerous, people have the right to know it is, even if they choose to act on it by being careful, staying with friends, etc. instead of dressing differently.
|
On April 05 2011 03:15 travis wrote:
I think it's pretty obvious that a horny guy is more likely to rape someone than a guy that isn't horny.
And I think it's also pretty obvious that dressing like a slut makes most guys horny.
This pretty much sums it up.
|
You get what you ask for. I don't really get the point of this protest. I mean would you rather rape someone who dresses revealing then someone wearing sweaters and jeans?
|
On April 05 2011 03:15 travis wrote:
I think it's pretty obvious that a horny guy is more likely to rape someone than a guy that isn't horny.
And I think it's also pretty obvious that dressing like a slut makes most guys horny.
This ends this thread. Also while women do fantasize about being overpowered by a strong man, there is a big difference between that and being actually forcefully raped by someone. The psychology article above pretty much outlines that.
However, the cop's statements were completely out of line IMO, doesn't matter what anyone is doing with regards to ANYTHING, they should be protected by the police and not blamed.
|
On April 05 2011 03:15 travis wrote:
I think it's pretty obvious that a horny guy is more likely to rape someone than a guy that isn't horny.
And I think it's also pretty obvious that dressing like a slut makes most guys horny. If this is that obvious? Then why has no one been able to produce even the slightest statistical evidence or indication for it?
There is no statistical evidence for this, and indeed, far more evidence for the inverse case.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
