Of course. If it was purely about uncontrollable sexual drive, the rapist could just go find a prostitute.
Counterproposal: Don't dress like a slut...
- Thread starter visceral_instinct
- Start date
Of course. If it was purely about uncontrollable sexual drive, the rapist could just go find a prostitute.
Creeptology
Registered Member
Yeah amen to that. I personal think sniffy and phlo have answered your question AND backed up and fully supported their argument. It seems to be you who are not happy with such answers and desperately hold onto your own misinformed wrong views and when people put forth arguments that can be backed up in reality you still dismiss them.
The expensive suit in nefarious area is a stupid analogy to draw here anyway. Women are picked on the basis of being an easy target/weaker target so that's not something you can reduce by changing clothing. The suit analogy is to do with theft in an area were it is prevalent, the victims are picked on the basis of looking like they are a viable target and have something of value. Women who are raped could only "avoid it somehow" if they never left the house and cut off contact with people in close situations. Are you actually suggesting it's womens fault for knowing a rapist, marrying one or simple for leaving the house? The only clothing that would make them less of a target is a fucking harry potter magical invisibility cloak, ridiculous until you consider a lot of your other ideas are not based in reality but some fantasy dreamworld.
Thank you, as is obvious, I am new to this forum, so I was not aware of previously relevant threads. It does clarify what I perceived as reluctance to address the points I raised.... Thanks again
Really? This is what I was trying to discuss, or rather the antithesis... However, this comment definitely sparked an idea - see below...
You are right - women get raped whether they dress conservatively or not, whether
in a bikini or a burqa, whether they are at the beach or in a church - ad infinitum... We get it... and we agree, at least I do.
What I do not agree with is the inappropriateness of using hypotheticals to help illustrate a viewpoint, especially when communicating with someone that is, ermmm, let's see... Not the sharpest knife in the drawer?
In that spirit, let's try to get back on topic... In fact, let's try something radical...
Let's suppose, for the sake of discussion, that we were dealing with a particularly perplexing case (hypothetically , of course, sniffy...)
There exists a certain, extremely unstable and self destructive, female that (hypothetically, try not to freak out people - it is a gedanken boys and girls) LIKES, WANTS and DESIRES to be raped....
I ask you, if that were the case, could she influence her fate? In other words, if the objective was the exact opposite of what has been discussed so far, is there anything (in terms of dressing a certain way) that this woman could do to further her ends? Obviously, if she could provoke this violent act if she wanted, than why, pray tell, could she not take some steps to lessen the probability that she is harassed? This in no way is an indication of her desire, merely a reflection of her prudence....
OMG! How stupid of me... Imagine equating "easy" with "viable"... sheeeshhh...
I do not think this thread was designed solely to point out that rape has no equivalent, equal, nearly equal, or even comparable crimes or actions that would be meaningful in a discussion about:
Can a woman do anything, anything at all, in terms of dress, to mitigate the probability of sexual harassment, including rape? Again, think of the corollary to this assumption - she couldn't do anything to increase her chances of being raped, if for some twisted reason she wanted to...
Even the most adamant of the participants here seem to feel that womend could reduce the chance of rape, i.e. by never leaving the house. Obviously, this is an extreme and hardly enjoyable alternative, but at least it grants the point that a woman (may I say person?) can influence their own future!
If a woman can not reduce her chances of sexual abuse by being realistic about this sometimes evil world (not by becoming a hermit, refusing to associate with the opposite sex, etc., but just taking sensible precautions), then her fate is totally out of her control!!!! Is that what you are trying to say? Women are helpless? I don't think so.....
I guess the prevailing attitude is that rape is merely, totally and completely a random act, not at all dependent or related to anyone besides the rapist... That seems to be a pretty pessimistic point of view.
I maintain that anyone, male or female, can mitigate their chances of being harmed by others in any situation through their own prudent actions. Does no one else agree with this? :shrug: (Note: Mitigate, not eliminate / avoid / prevent, etc...)
Creeptology
Registered Member
no I am not saying that at all. I am pointing out the view of dressing scantily increases the chances of rape. That attire actually makes a difference to a rapist. This is nonsense.
Your analogy I pulled not on the point it's equating rape with theft but because you talk about attire affecting choice of victim which it can in that case, but in the case of rape it doesn't hence your analogy is wrong.
It's clear attire doesn't affect it. There is your answer, if you still dispute it no proof in the world will suffice to change your mistaken views.
Your analogy I pulled not on the point it's equating rape with theft but because you talk about attire affecting choice of victim which it can in that case, but in the case of rape it doesn't hence your analogy is wrong.
It's clear attire doesn't affect it. There is your answer, if you still dispute it no proof in the world will suffice to change your mistaken views.
Simon Anders
Valued Senior Member
Yes, let's focus on this way of wondering about and contemplating rape because....
it's a distraction. You can learn a lot about someone by what they want to focus on.
Cite your source!!! Certainly not common sense, especially if you believe that sexual arousal is a component of rape.... (My understadning is that it is not the driving factor, if it's relevant at all, in most sexual crimes)
Even if you you agree that rape is not about sex, but rather violence and control, then you are still left with refuting the analogy illustrating (by your own admission) that violence upon a male can be influenced by attire...
Simon Anders
Valued Senior Member
What you want is for everyone here to just take what you are doing at face value. Like you are simply interested in finding the truth about women's behavioral effect on the liklihood of rape. But what you are doing and how you want to be seen are two different things. The bizzare and really very angry male urge to have discussions about what a woman could have done to have reduced the liklihood of rape VASTLY overshadows their interest in looking at what makes it, for example, more likely for men to want to rape at all.
These men who want to have this 'intellectual' discussion think that the discussion is contextless and is objective on their side, which is not the case.
Why the hell do you want to focus on the issue in this way?
It is pretty obvious from the outside.
If everyone got down on their knees for you and decided that your statistical ideas and implied ideas are correct, your whole interest in rape as an issue would stop.
It is possible that the behavior of some slaves made it more likely for them to get whipped. And when they gathered together in their shacks a discussion about how not to get on the wrong side of they guy with the whip might have been useful.
But a bunch of non-slave owning white guys to sit around in Charlestown and try to get abolitionists to admit that the slaves who got whipped probably could have reduced the liklihood of it by this or that behavior
ARE UP TO SOMETHING.
It might be good for your own growth to figure out what you are really up to, rather than just getting pissed off that no one want to be as rational and contextless as you think you are.
Of all the positions you could take on the wide variety of issues out there you want women and men to admit that women could reduced the liklihood of getting raped.
Why would it make you feel good to hear that?
You can kneejerk attack this argument and pretend what I am saying about you is bullshit for all I care, but on your own, in private, where none of us will notice that you are doing it, take a look at your self.
Cause 1) it is adding to the BS in the world and 2) it is not doing you any good either.
White noise.
What are you doing?
OK, so anticipating such shallow reactions and specifically disclaiming them obviously make no impact....
Lets try it straight again, this time with quotes:
http://www.selfdefensewithanattitude.com/through-a-rapists-eyes/
"1. The first thing men look for in a potential victim is hairstyle. They are most likely to go after a woman with a ponytail, bun, braid or other hairstyle that can easily be grabbed. They are also likely to go after a woman with long hair. Women with short hair are not common targets.
2. The second thing men look for is clothing. They will look for women whose clothing can be quickly and easily removed. Many said they carried scissors specifically to cut clothing." (Note "clothing" doesn't necessarily imply "scanty, or "lack thereof", as I tried to illuminate by analogy...)
I still believe that a being (geez, woman, man, chimpanzee, whatever) can influence the consequences of interacting in a dangerous environment by taking care with their appearance and demeanor...
Stop confusing the issue! This is not about whether people (women if you prefer) have the right to dress and appear as they choose without harrasment! It is about whether their choices influence their likelihood of staying safe... Isn't it? OMG, it's not... sorry...
Ummmm... I didn't start the thread, you imbecile - I just replied like you did....
However, I guess I wasn't aware of the rules.... Never again will I presume to discuss an emotional, inflammatory issue like rape logically again (or was it "rationally" SA? - I forget) ....
Yes suh, massuh, I sho have learned my lesson...
*let's see - Randwolf starts thread about some totally noncontroversial feelgood subject so everyone can avaoid objectivism..."
NOT!
However, I am bored with this topic - all rhetoric, no substance...
What about paedophiles then? They're committing a "sexual act" too, is there something the child "should have done" to prevent being abused? What if that child didn't have that pre-pubescent body or wear those ponytails? Sexual predators don't care about appearance. The fact that a small minority of men think the way women dress could or might provoke being raped show that those small minority of men obviously think rape is about sexual satisfaction. And that's scary.
Source: http://www.woar.org/rape_facts.asp
Source: http://www.woar.org/campus_rape.asp
So, the organisation Women Against Rape state many precautions but interestingly enough none of them involve the way a woman dresses. Now since this organisation's sole function is to councel and help women survivors of rape, wouldn't their duty be to tell a woman not to dress a particular way if that was in fact a governing factor in her being raped? If they didn't state this they'd be doing these women a huge disservice. It's just not true. It's as stupid a concept as saying "all black men eat babies" or "all Muslims are terrorists". Ideas founded on massively ignorant misconceptions.
Source: http://www.woar.org/rape_facts.asp
Source: http://www.woar.org/campus_rape.asp
So, the organisation Women Against Rape state many precautions but interestingly enough none of them involve the way a woman dresses. Now since this organisation's sole function is to councel and help women survivors of rape, wouldn't their duty be to tell a woman not to dress a particular way if that was in fact a governing factor in her being raped? If they didn't state this they'd be doing these women a huge disservice. It's just not true. It's as stupid a concept as saying "all black men eat babies" or "all Muslims are terrorists". Ideas founded on massively ignorant misconceptions.
This is illogical. If she concedes to sex it's not rape. The described scenario can not exist.
She does not "improve her chances" by dressing a certain way. Most men, in fact, would not rape a woman that's passing by. She could jeopardise her safety by contacting the local "rehabilitated" rapist.
Why does everyone keep trying to "blame the victim"? The point is not that someone "should have done" to prevent attack...
My question is, can someone do anything (limited in this discussion to appearance) to mitigate their risk of violence?
No one, at least not me, disagrees in any way that rape is about violence and control - I have asserted this multiple times...
It just seems that to mention prudent measures invites others to accuse you of "condoning" this or that crime... Or else, the examples, analogies and counterpoints are poh-poohed, or worse yet, taken to represent some sort of repressed psychopathy.
Let me ask you - how can we validly discuss how someone can prevent / minimize the risk of violence, in this case rape? People mention self defense as an alternative - GREAT!!! Now we are getting somewhere...
How about a considered mixture of situational awareness, environmentally appropriate dress and behavior, a well thought out plan for "what if", self defense classes, etc....
Why is there such stigma attached to some of these preventative measures, but not others? Why is someone attacked for discussing, not advocating a possible countermeasure?
I would be the last person on this earth to restrict someone else's freedom of expression through speech, dress, or whatever... However, I would be the first to examine different points of view...
That being said, I have to admit, I have seen the error of my ways... It makes absolutely no difference if a women walks the inner-city in full battle dress or completely naked - her chances of getting raped are exactly the same!!!
Maybe I still have it wrong --- her chances of getting assaulted in a bikini are much less than if she was dressed in non-descript clothes, or again the bizarrely extreme - flak vest, etc...
We can all agree on this, certainly???
My question is, can someone do anything (limited in this discussion to appearance) to mitigate their risk of violence?
No one, at least not me, disagrees in any way that rape is about violence and control - I have asserted this multiple times...
It just seems that to mention prudent measures invites others to accuse you of "condoning" this or that crime... Or else, the examples, analogies and counterpoints are poh-poohed, or worse yet, taken to represent some sort of repressed psychopathy.
Let me ask you - how can we validly discuss how someone can prevent / minimize the risk of violence, in this case rape? People mention self defense as an alternative - GREAT!!! Now we are getting somewhere...
How about a considered mixture of situational awareness, environmentally appropriate dress and behavior, a well thought out plan for "what if", self defense classes, etc....
Why is there such stigma attached to some of these preventative measures, but not others? Why is someone attacked for discussing, not advocating a possible countermeasure?
I would be the last person on this earth to restrict someone else's freedom of expression through speech, dress, or whatever... However, I would be the first to examine different points of view...
That being said, I have to admit, I have seen the error of my ways... It makes absolutely no difference if a women walks the inner-city in full battle dress or completely naked - her chances of getting raped are exactly the same!!!
Maybe I still have it wrong --- her chances of getting assaulted in a bikini are much less than if she was dressed in non-descript clothes, or again the bizarrely extreme - flak vest, etc...
We can all agree on this, certainly???
Damn good point whitewolf... that was really illogical of me, and I am not being facetious...
However, in defense of my intended point, if you are interested, I would like to amend the semantics in this illustration...Let's say she "wants or desires to be physically molested" (please allow me the slight liberty with the word "molested"?) I know you are aware that what I was asking is simply the converse of the "usual" argument - i.e. "Can a woman reduce her chances of encountering rape / violence by altering her appearance?" transforms to "Could a woman increase her chances of encountering problems?" My whole point is simply that whether we like it or not, whether it represents the majority or a small minority of sexual violence, it seems self evident that people have some control over their likelihood of encountering violence, including how they handle their appearance.[/QUOTE]
Another excellent, if self evident, point. The only way I know to get at what seems to be sticking in my craw... is simply to ask it outright....
Given two similar women, acting in similar fashion, in similar neighborhoods, with similar numbers of "rehabilitaed" rapists hanging about, do you feel that they have equal probabilities of being harassed if one is dressed in a bikini and the other in an overcoat?
I believe that the women here are going to have the best insight into this, next to hardcore statistics and facts, which I do not posess. If y'all say it's true, I will certainly accept it for now, although it seems counterintuitive....
Randwolf
I understand the argument you're making and I also don't have the statistics to show anything either way, but suppose that wearing a bikini did raise the probability of a sexual assault. Wouldn't you expect to see extraordinarily high rates in beach towns? Wouldn't Daytona and South Beach just be complete bedlam? The French Riviera? Seems to me that it's more of a crime of opportunity than one easily provoked by dress, or rather state of undress.
I understand the argument you're making and I also don't have the statistics to show anything either way, but suppose that wearing a bikini did raise the probability of a sexual assault. Wouldn't you expect to see extraordinarily high rates in beach towns? Wouldn't Daytona and South Beach just be complete bedlam? The French Riviera? Seems to me that it's more of a crime of opportunity than one easily provoked by dress, or rather state of undress.
Makes sense...
However, I think it ignores the central question... Whether it be Harlem, southside Detroit or South Beach, given two similar situations in similar neighborhoods, etc...
Obviously, taken to the extreme, the "high rates in beach towns" rationale would lead one to believe that the highest incidence of violence would be in the home, due to freedom of "undress" there... Obviously, this does not seem sensible, probably because we are taking two factors out of context. If you hold the "dangerousness" of the environment constant, and vary only appearance, one could isolate the variables...
I am sure someone knows these statistics, again, I do not. When I googled for it, I got references that "only a small number of sexual assaults are influenced by appearance" with associated percentages of 2% - 11%. However, that is really not my point, I only question whether any significant decrease in risk can be achieved by altering one's dress, and if so, it is time that we admitted that to ourselves and everyone else. I think people (well maybe some people) are capable of distinguishing between "risky behavior" and "desiring / asking for it". What if it really did make a difference? Shouldn't we know this? Shouldn't women know it? It certainly (IMO) would not detract from their "right" (or my desire - lol) to dress however they want, but perhaps it might prevent some violence if people were aware?
However, I think it ignores the central question... Whether it be Harlem, southside Detroit or South Beach, given two similar situations in similar neighborhoods, etc...
Obviously, taken to the extreme, the "high rates in beach towns" rationale would lead one to believe that the highest incidence of violence would be in the home, due to freedom of "undress" there... Obviously, this does not seem sensible, probably because we are taking two factors out of context. If you hold the "dangerousness" of the environment constant, and vary only appearance, one could isolate the variables...
I am sure someone knows these statistics, again, I do not. When I googled for it, I got references that "only a small number of sexual assaults are influenced by appearance" with associated percentages of 2% - 11%. However, that is really not my point, I only question whether any significant decrease in risk can be achieved by altering one's dress, and if so, it is time that we admitted that to ourselves and everyone else. I think people (well maybe some people) are capable of distinguishing between "risky behavior" and "desiring / asking for it". What if it really did make a difference? Shouldn't we know this? Shouldn't women know it? It certainly (IMO) would not detract from their "right" (or my desire - lol) to dress however they want, but perhaps it might prevent some violence if people were aware?
dunno
lets dress in red and venture into crip territory and find out, shall we?
Dress-Related Behavioral Problems and Violence in the Public School Setting: Prevention, Intervention, and Policy--A Holistic Approach (pdf)
lets dress in red and venture into crip territory and find out, shall we?
Dress-Related Behavioral Problems and Violence in the Public School Setting: Prevention, Intervention, and Policy--A Holistic Approach (pdf)
I wish I was "authorized" to read the whole article, but I am going to assume (uh-oh) that....
OMG - you are saying that if I am a female wearing "blood colors" and I wander into crip territory, that I am *gasp* more likely to be accosted? Oh no, the one dimensional purists on this thread will have your head!
That's not "really" rape - that's retaliation - that doesn't count!
What they mean is, no self-respecting "real" rapist would concern himself (/herself?) with the appearance of their victim... Amazing how narrow tunnel vision can get...
Or maybe, this article is about violence, which they say is influenced by dress, but rape is.... influenced by... ahhh, I don't know, but let's not talk about it ANYMORE!
OMG - you are saying that if I am a female wearing "blood colors" and I wander into crip territory, that I am *gasp* more likely to be accosted? Oh no, the one dimensional purists on this thread will have your head!
That's not "really" rape - that's retaliation - that doesn't count!
What they mean is, no self-respecting "real" rapist would concern himself (/herself?) with the appearance of their victim... Amazing how narrow tunnel vision can get...
Or maybe, this article is about violence, which they say is influenced by dress, but rape is.... influenced by... ahhh, I don't know, but let's not talk about it ANYMORE!
a link to the pdf is given in #237
i have uncovered the feminazi's insidious agenda
the dowdy old frumps over at now are insisting that they too have as good a chance as any in getting raped
/scoff
i have uncovered the feminazi's insidious agenda
the dowdy old frumps over at now are insisting that they too have as good a chance as any in getting raped
/scoff
popular at last
popular at last
thank god almighty
we are popular at last
popular at last
thank god almighty
we are popular at last
Last edited:
I am truly apologetic Gustav, but I get: [the synopsis and]
"You are not currently authorized to access this article. Login to JSTOR
If you have recently purchased this article using the Publisher Sales Service, please enter your token or email address to access it. "
Am I doing something wrong?
Not that it matters, it looks like the local wildlife has scattered.....