Don't dress like a slut if you want to avoid sexual assault - Page 8 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

All sociological topics not appropriate or suited to other areas of the board.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
By Pants-of-dog
#13636410
Thompson_NCL wrote:I think that particular quote is very relevant. A group of roccos following my then-lady to her house, shouting sexual taunts, abuse and on at least one occasion trying to grab her backside, is all proof that dressing in a certain manner will bring you the wrong sort of attention.

And she doesn't even dress provocatively, I mean an attractive woman in a skirt shouldn't be harassed. But they will be, that is the truth of it.


You are assuming that the men who did this did so because of the way she was dressed, and you are assuming that these men found her style of dress to be sexy (even though you are arguing that this is highly subjective).
User avatar
By ThereBeDragons
#13636417
Pants-of-dog wrote:You are assuming that these men found her style of dress to be sexy (even though you are arguing that this is highly subjective).

Just because some people are sexually aroused by greatcoats does not mean that society does not generally agree that some outfits are more "sexy" than others.

I'm just going to add two cents.

Does whether you are dressed in a more conservative or revealing manner affect how likely one is to be raped?
Inconclusive.

Can what a woman is wearing affect how likely she is to be raped? (Should we even consider the possibility?)
Probably. Whether or not you happen to be wearing a huge fucking sombrero will probably influence how likely you are to be raped in some direction or the other. The effect that wearing different kinds of more standard clothing may turn out to be of insignificant magnitude compared to other factors but I would hesitate before disregarding it entirely.

Even if absolutely miniscule, if wearing provocative clothing increases the chance that one will be raped by even an tiny tiny chance, the information should be disseminated anyway..
Not necessarily. Aside from "blaming the victim," there's another reason; facts compete in the mind for information and advice of practically negligible value may actually be detrimental beacuse it competes with more useful information and may delude listeners into believing that they have taken more significant action than they have. For example, if you believe that unplugging your cell phone charger when it's not in use saves energy (saving enough energy in three years to idle a car for thirty seconds, or something stupid like that,) this advice may actually on average increase the amount of energy utilized because of the opportunity cost involved in making these mental decisions.

Sexual appeal is subjective.
Well, yes.

Therefore advice to dress less "sexily" is useless.
Not really. Men and women alike tend to have a general sense of what is more or less sexy.

If women believe that more conservative clothing is safer they'll all end up in burkhas.
I mean, no.

Rapists tend to target submissive rather than assertive women.
Probably true.

The provocativity of one's clothing is a factor in determining how assertive a woman is likely to be.
Probably true.

Therefore, wearing more conservative clothing renders one more likely to be raped.
Inconclusive. There may not be correlation; even if there is correlation, it is not causation. The above two facts do not contradict the assertion that dressing more conservatively reduces one's risk of being raped.

Factors such as vulnerability aside, rapists will be more likely to target women they find more sexually attractive.
If they have a choice of targets, I find this to be plausible.

Rapists tend not to remember what clothing their target wore, so it's not a factor.
I don't remember what I wore two days ago. "That woman arouses my carnal desires" is a thought that can pass through a rapist's mind without actually paying attention to the specifics of what she is wearing.

The police officer in question probably shouldn't have said the precise words that he said.
I agree with this assessment.
User avatar
By yiwahikanak
#13636496
The ClockworkRat wrote:How about, instead of trying to fruitlessly tell women how they should dress (whilst also bombarding them with images of scantily clad models), try and work out why men rape women.



I think Thompson gives a fairly clear account of why he thinks men rape women:


Thompson_NCL wrote:Is it not possible that someone can provoke an urge in me, without me recognising that is what occured?


Men are provoked, without even recognising why and:


Thompson_NCL wrote: And if she gives me a flash of stockings, I'm barely able to contain myself. She looks amazing and she knows it.



Men can barely contain themselves (and some don't manage at all). Plus the woman in question knows this (thus is culpable).

So men rape women because women provoke men.



Now I doubt any man here would actually say this outright, but it's certainly been implied again, and again. But rather than deal with that, we have long treatises about how women should change their dress or face the consequences. That women who do not face up to the 'facts' that they are provoking men will get raped, and that is a logical consequence of their actions. In fact, it's SO logical, some men here will laugh about anecdotes of foreign women being raped, and then airlifted out of the country.
User avatar
By QatzelOk
#13636908
CWR wrote:A fucking burqa could be provocative to some people.

It was designed to be unprovocative.

It reveals nothing about the female form underneath. No ass crack, no cleavage, no camel toe, no long slender thighs or round protruding poop shoot.

"Liberated" fashions put all of these things front and center.
By Thompson_NCL
#13637109
But rather than deal with that, we have long treatises about how women should change their dress or face the consequences.


So you skipped over the parts where most of us stressed that we believe women should be able to wear what they want?

Men can barely contain themselves (and some don't manage at all). Plus the woman in question knows this (thus is culpable).


The difference being, she was attempting to turn me on. If there was a woman in the street who was wearing stockings and I accidently caught a flash of them, it's a whole different ball game!
User avatar
By Ter
#13637191
The ClockworkRat wrote:So presumably, there is no stranger rape in Muslim societies


You are most probably correct, mainly because in a traditional Muslim society women do not move around unaccompanied.
How much dress plays a role, or not, cannot be determined easily.

Ter
User avatar
By Suska
#13637248
People must control their behavior despite social pressures or we can't get along and if we can't get along there is no society, just a police state. But that means women too. In games where people try to get control over each other no one really wins. It's just ugly.

Also, perversity still cannot be assimilated. We can't go around thinking 'well maybe they will like it, some people do.' even if in reality some people really do seem to. Modest dress signals an attempt to do something in public without it having to do with sex. Provocative dress does the opposite. Really, it signals prostitution.
User avatar
By yiwahikanak
#13640222
Ahhh. Good old Canadian justice...a judge confirms this cop's statement..."don't dress like a slut if you want to avoid sexual assault".


WINNIPEG—A rape victim is slamming the controversial decision of a Manitoba judge who gave her attacker a lenient sentence on the basis she may have sent mixed signals about her sexual intentions.
...
Kenneth Rhodes was given a two-year conditional penalty last week which allows him to remain free in the community. The Crown wanted at least three years behind bars, citing numerous case precedents which suggest that is the starting point for a major sexual assault.


What were the 'mixed signals' you might ask?

Queen’s Bench Justice Robert Dewar disagreed, saying the victim gave out signs that “sex was in the air” through her suggestive attire and flirtatious conduct on the night of the attack. He called Rhodes a “clumsy Don Juan” who may have misunderstood what the woman wanted when he forced intercourse along a darkened highway outside Thompson, Man., in 2006.

“That’s bulls—,” the victim said Thursday. “I did say no to him. I kept saying no. He knew that I didn’t want (sex).”


But wait, the judge had more to say!

Rhodes and a friend met the woman and her girlfriend earlier that night outside a bar under what the judge called “inviting circumstances.”

Judge Dewar specifically noted the women were wearing tube tops with no bra, high heels and plenty of makeup.

“They made their intentions publicly known that they wanted to party,” said Judge Dewar. He said the women spoke of going swimming in a nearby lake that night “notwithstanding the fact neither of them had a bathing suit.”


Yes, all of this clearly means "fuck us, whether we consent or not!"

Or more accurately, the judge is saying that their 'attire and conduct' communicated consent.

Fucking scary.

The woman who was raped has this to say:

“I wasn’t dressed like a skank. I was like 20 years old, wearing a tube top. It was summer,” said the victim who cannot be identified as she is the victim of a sexual assault.



“This is a different case than one where there is no perceived invitation,” said Judge Dewar. “This is a case of misunderstood signals and inconsiderate behaviour.” Judge Dewar said he didn’t want to be seen as blaming the victim but that all of the factors surrounding the case must be viewed to assess “moral blameworthiness.”


So a rape is just 'inconsiderate behaviour' if you're dressed in a tube top. And he's not blaming the victim, just assessing her moral blameworthiness.

“I’m sure whatever signals were sent that sex was in the air were unintentional,” he said. The Crown has 30 days to file an appeal of Judge Dewar’s decision. No decision had been made as of Thursday.


So the judge admits that there is no evidence that any 'signals' or communicated consent were made intentionally...yet somehow women, by virture of their 'attire and conduct' gave out unintentional signals!?

But hey, this 'inconsiderate behaviour' is no big deal...after all, the perpetrator's lawyer says:

...Rhodes never threatened the woman, didn’t have a weapon and was simply “insensitive to the fact (she) was not a willing participant.”


Well golly...he was just 'insensitive' to the fact that she didn't want to fuck him! That's not a crime, right?

Judge Dewar agreed the case was not “typical” of ones the courts often see and shouldn’t be viewed as a precedent.


How nice of him to qualify himself, while the 'inconsiderate, insensitive not-rapist' walks around free on his conditional sentence.






But hey. This just confirms what so many of you guys already seem to know, hey? Women are just asking for it, even if they say no...and if you get this judge, he'll agree with you.

Rape away.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some thoughts on the ruling, and the judge who made it.

To borrow from the league-leading Alberta Court of Appeal, whose best minds are merely light-years ahead of the rest of the country in their treatment of sexual assault (not to mention in their use of plain and muscular English), the “starting point” for a discussion of Manitoba Judge Robert Dewar may just be that he is a blockhead.

...........
Among the common-sense conclusions from that three-member panel, all men, was this: “It is surely not provocation, for example, simply to be a woman, or to be attractive, or to be prettily attired.
......................

In 2007, [Parliament] removed from judges any power to grant conditional sentences for any sexual assault or other serious personal injury offence.

In other words, the sentence Judge Dewar handed Kenneth Rhodes, in that smarmy language, is now forbidden.

Mr. Rhodes had the good luck to rape – er, behave inconsiderately toward – his victim by a dark highway outside Thompson in 2006, the year before the law took effect.



Rulings like this cause Parliament to pass a law prohibiting judges giving conditional sentences for this sort of crime. Unfortunately the victim was raped before this prohibition came into effect. I certainly hope that upon appeal, the principles inherent in the prohibition are upheld despite the legal loophole in question.
Last edited by yiwahikanak on 25 Feb 2011 15:01, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
By yiwahikanak
#13640233
The ClockworkRat wrote:I'm sure my fellow danglers can explain this away.


I like this comment on the story:

Dressing like a 's--t' isn't an identifiable description. Clearly the judge felt that 'dressing like a s--t' was the same as 'being a s--t' which means what? A large number of sexual partners? Willingness to engage in sex? Showing a lot of skin doesn't indicate a willingness to engage in sex. Sometimes it's fashion trends or the weather. It was in the 50s in my town the other day (middle of winter!) so women were wearing short skirts, revealing tops - did the town suddenly get a whole lot s---tier or was it the weather? Sometimes I wear flats and a turtleneck (tuesday), sometimes I wear high heels and a short skirt (today) without correlation to any willingness to engage in sex. Some women have bodies that are going to look 'sl---y' regardless of the clothing. Hola early bloomers!

"Dressing like a s---" is the female version of "driving while black" and it's getting really old.
By JRS1
#13640236
All of which, TCR pay attention, suggests that the bobby was right in his observation.
User avatar
By yiwahikanak
#13640240
JRS1 wrote:All of which, TCR pay attention, suggests that the bobby was right in his observation.


*facepalm*
Last edited by yiwahikanak on 25 Feb 2011 16:14, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
By Rei Murasame
#13640303
JRS1, what?

And this exchange we just saw here is exactly why there is a burning need for women to continue to apply pressure through autonomous and independent organisations for the adoption of even more state feminist packages.
  • 1
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
Russia-Ukraine War 2022

@Potemkin They've spent the best part of two […]

Juan Dalmau needs to be the governor and the isla[…]

Whats "breaking" here ? Russians have s[…]

@Puffer Fish You dig a trench avoiding existin[…]