Women Should Dress Modestly Or Expect To Entice A Rapist

[Deleted]

Aug 31, 2015 13:17:11 GMT -5 midjd said:

Aug 31, 2015 13:10:29 GMT -5 @xmascookie said:

I think there are certain behaviors that can up the odds that you get raped, or mugged.

I think you are a fool if you ignore that.

Thanks, but that wasn't what I asked.  

Oh, sorry. I thought you were talking about the real world, the one we actually live in.

[Virgil Showlion]

Aug 31, 2015 13:07:17 GMT -5 midjd said:

since people ought to be able to engage in any legal behaviour without being raped.

And you disagree with this premise?

Of course I agree with it.

But in YMAM, you don't have to agree with it to be a blamer of victims. It's sufficient that you're male and you reject the above premise as sufficient reason to never associate behaviours with increased likelihood of rape.

You must never associate legal behaviours with increased likelihood of rape, for to do so is to acknowledge that avoiding certain behaviours mitigates the risk of rape, which in turn implies a degree of responsibility in avoiding these behaviours, which in turn imputes blame to the victims if they fail in this responsibility.

It's victim blaming, plain and simple. Optimist, Happyhoix, and even Thyme (et tu, Thyme?) have all been snared. I suppose we can't also conclude they're raging misogynists, given they're all women. Or are they?

[midjd]

That's a bit hyperbolic, don't you think?

[Virgil Showlion]

Aug 31, 2015 13:24:59 GMT -5 deminmaine said:

Other than the semantics of it, I don't really see any disagreement here.

Yeah, people should be able to dress and behave as they wish, as long as they are not hurting others by their behavior.

However, a young woman dressing in provocative clothes, getting tipsy or more, and getting into a vehicle with strange men is NOT prudent behavior, and makes the odds of getting sexually assaulted greater. Most of us would recommend against doing that.

We would still advocate for charging the strange men with rape if they committed such an act of course.

Where were these so-called champions of prudence in the frat house arcs of the Subway thread?

They were hiding under their couches is where. Trembling in fear they might be labeled victim blamers.

[Virgil Showlion]

Aug 31, 2015 13:28:43 GMT -5 midjd said:

That's a bit hyperbolic, don't you think?

On YMAM, no.

Anywhere else, almost certainly.

I'm truly shocked by the boldness with which posters are asserting "she shouldn't have done that" when 'she' is a rape victim.

And I notice that 90% of the "prudence = blaming the victims" cohort is nowhere to be found in this thread. I don't understand that either.

ETA: The final paragraph might be a tad dramatic.

[happyhoix]

Aug 31, 2015 13:03:11 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Aug 31, 2015 10:42:09 GMT -5 happyhoix said:

I agree, Hynde is not responsible for what happened to her. She is responsible for poor judgment in agreeing to go with these guys to the party, but that doesn't mean she deserved what happened to her.

You're blaming the victim too!

You can't claim she exercised "poor judgment" and then fall back to "that doesn't mean she deserved what happened to her". You're acknowledging that her judgment directly contributed to the rape. Clearly what you're saying is that had she made another judgment, she wouldn't have been raped. YMAM precedent is clear: you are guilty of victim blaming.

Your attempt to disguise your crime as pragmatism may grant you some leniency during sentencing.

No, I stated very clearly she isn't responsible for what happened to her. The guys she was with raped her, they are the ones at fault.

I do think if she had been more cautious, things might have turned out differently. It's unfortunate that she wasn't more cautious, but that does not make her responsible for what happened.

However, I do know lots of situations where cautious girls who hung out in packs or refrained from getting too drunk still found themselves in bad situations. Being cautious doesn't make up for shitty people willing to screw you over being at large in the world.

[happyhoix]

Aug 31, 2015 13:32:39 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Aug 31, 2015 13:24:59 GMT -5 deminmaine said:

Other than the semantics of it, I don't really see any disagreement here.

Yeah, people should be able to dress and behave as they wish, as long as they are not hurting others by their behavior.

However, a young woman dressing in provocative clothes, getting tipsy or more, and getting into a vehicle with strange men is NOT prudent behavior, and makes the odds of getting sexually assaulted greater. Most of us would recommend against doing that.

We would still advocate for charging the strange men with rape if they committed such an act of course.

Where were these so-called champions of prudence in the frat house arcs of the Subway thread?

They were hiding under their couches is where. Trembling in fear they might be labeled victim blamers.

Sorry I must have missed that thread....

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Aug 31, 2015 12:53:30 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Aug 30, 2015 20:58:01 GMT -5 Opti said:

She's apparently an idiot. Really, who thinks a biker gang is into free transportation to parties of your choice no matter how you are dressed?

You realize we're on a board where advocating prudence is considered blaming the victim?

To the best of my understanding, recommending avoidance of any behaviour that leads to an increased likelihood of rape constitutes blaming the victim, since people ought to be able to engage in any legal behaviour without being raped. The logic is unassailable.

Why would you blame the victim here, Optimist?

Yes.  If you haven't noticed my modus operandi by now it is to keep repeating the same truths over and over again in hopes that in a moment of weakness, people will agree with me and have a better life as a result. 

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Aug 31, 2015 13:07:17 GMT -5 midjd said:

since people ought to be able to engage in any legal behaviour without being raped.

And you disagree with this premise?

Oh, no of course not.  When you say words like "ought".  What I disagree with is that people may engage in behavior that makes them the target of a predator and they can be assured that they will not be assaulted simply because it wouldn't be their fault if they were.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

If you are a pedestrian and you begin crossing at the corner, within the crosswalk, and with a clear lighted "Walk" signal-- about as prudent as you can be-- and you are run over by an inattentive driver that ignores the red light, it is 100% not your fault.  You are still 100% run over by a car.  Prudence has nothing to do with whose fault it is, and everything to do with self preservation.  It is not a contradiction in the least to say, "be careful", and to list some things one might do to reduce the risk of being run over by a car, or targeted for a crime; but that if you are a victim- it is still not your fault.

[Phoenix84]

You ultimately have responsibility for your own safety.  How you carry out that responsibility is up to you, but you have a responsibility to make reasonable effort to ensure your own safety against any number of hazards, including sexual assault.  

I don't think dressing immodestly is necessarily "negligence" by itself, but it can be a contributing factor to not being "safety conscious."

[midjd]

What I disagree with is that people may engage in behavior that makes them the target of a predator and they can be assured that they will not be assaulted simply because it wouldn't be their fault if they were.

I don't know anyone -- at least any woman -- who ever feels "assured" she won't be assaulted, regardless of dress (or lack thereof).

And that's the point. One can be dressed like a member of the LDS clan on the last page and still find themselves the target of a rapist. It's nice to pretend that by avoiding provocative dress and staying out of dark alleys, one can completely eliminate their risk of sexual assault, but that is not the case. Which is why stories like that in the OP are (IMO) misguided at best. 

Reducing one's risk of harm by looking both ways before crossing the street, guarding one's drink, locking one's car, etc. are all fine and dandy. But when 99% of the focus of any sexual assault discussion is on ways people women can allegedly reduce their risk of harm by avoiding legal activities, and maybe 1% on ways we can reduce the number of people causing harm by committing illegal acts, the perspective guiding the discussion seems a little skewed. 

Otherwise, perhaps the next "active shooter in a movie theater" thread can focus on why the victims should have just watched the movie on Netflix instead.

[Opti]

Aug 31, 2015 12:53:30 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Aug 30, 2015 20:58:01 GMT -5 Opti said:

She's apparently an idiot. Really, who thinks a biker gang is into free transportation to parties of your choice no matter how you are dressed?

You realize we're on a board where advocating prudence is considered blaming the victim?

To the best of my understanding, recommending avoidance of any behaviour that leads to an increased likelihood of rape constitutes blaming the victim, since people ought to be able to engage in any legal behaviour without being raped. The logic is unassailable.

Why would you blame the victim here, Optimist?

I could have phrased it better, but my thought is if she wanted to blame herself for the rape, what she was wearing wasn't even in the top two reasons of what she could have done better.

1) Never ask a biker gang to transport you somewhere.

2) Do not ask strangers for assistance when high on drugs.

At best what she was wearing should be #3 in the, what I should not have not done list.

A rapist is always fully to blame.

She's blaming herself so I'm merely commenting on where the emphasis should be.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Aug 31, 2015 15:25:13 GMT -5 midjd said:

What I disagree with is that people may engage in behavior that makes them the target of a predator and they can be assured that they will not be assaulted simply because it wouldn't be their fault if they were.

I don't know anyone -- at least any woman -- who ever feels "assured" she won't be assaulted, regardless of dress (or lack thereof).

And that's the point. One can be dressed like a member of the LDS clan on the last page and still find themselves the target of a rapist. It's nice to pretend that by avoiding provocative dress and staying out of dark alleys, one can completely eliminate their risk of sexual assault, but that is not the case. Which is why stories like that in the OP are (IMO) misguided at best. 

Reducing one's risk of harm by looking both ways before crossing the street, guarding one's drink, locking one's car, etc. are all fine and dandy. But when 99% of the focus of any sexual assault discussion is on ways people women can allegedly reduce their risk of harm, and maybe 1% on ways we can reduce the number of people causing harm, the perspective guiding the discussion seems a little skewed. 

Those are some pretty bold assertions. Do you have any evidence to back up your theory that ALL women are EQUAL targets of rape?  

And I'm all for reducing the number of rapes that happen through more stringent punishment that will neutralize offenders, and deter would-be offenders.  I don't know a guy that wasn't warned when we turned 18 in highschool or shortly after that "17 will get you 20" (re: statutory rape).  

I do see a problem, mostly on the part of liberal feminists, with trivializing rape through unfounded concepts like "rape culture" based what we know to be entirely false allegations of rape.  When a crime is made a punchline, and victims are marginalized by the irresponsible behavior of a handful of attention-starved non-victims-- it can create an environment where it is more difficult to prosecute real cases of rape.

[justme]

What I wouldn't give to have had someone do a study on the outfits worn when women are raped and how provocative it is. I have a feeling the image of what the world thinks rape victims wear when assaulted does not match what they were actually wearing.

[Tennesseer]

I doubt the nun was wearing come-fuck-me-pumps when she was raped and murdered.

Nun, 86, is gang-raped and murdered when robbers break in to steal from her missionary in South Africa

[Tiny]

Does this guy's family deserve justice or not ... maybe he shouldn't have been wearing that color - he was obviously asking for trouble...
www.abc2news.com/news/crime-checker/baltimore-city-crime/gang-member-who-killed-man-for-wearing-the-wrong-color-gets-life-in-prison

[Tiny]

So, can we extend the "what you are wearing CONTROLS how I treat you" rule to what men wear?

Can I, as a woman, go up to a man showing too much butt crack and pull up his pants? And make nasty comments about how maybe he should take better care of himself?
Can I, as a woman, leer at well dressed guys?
Can I, as a woman, stalk and corner that nicely dressed young man for a feel or two or maybe just ask him out for a date cause he's soooo hot!! ?

It's obviously NOT my fault - I couldn't help feeling up that guy - it was the clothes he was wearing - he was ASKING for it... why else would he spend all that money on nice clothes and trips to the gym?

Personally,  I think we should have a National Day or maybe a National Week - when women can openly say the kind of stuff to men that men say to women - about their clothes, their bodies, what their eating, etc...
Totally. And for that day/week - men just have to suck up the discomfort because, you know, they DESERVE (or are ASKING) for it - based on how they look or what they are wearing.

[mmhmm]

Aug 31, 2015 16:10:08 GMT -5 justme said:

What I wouldn't give to have had someone do a study on the outfits worn when women are raped and how provocative it is. I have a feeling the image of what the world thinks rape victims wear when assaulted does not match what they were actually wearing.

I can assure you, attire had nothing to do with the majority of women who presented themselves to our ER post-rape (or post rape attempt). That's anecdotal but it covers a goodly number of rape/near rape victims.

[zibazinski]

I think of all the dumb things I did in college. It's a miracle it didn't happen to me. Trust me, my skirts were up to my vajayjay and I went and drank myself silly at frat parties. So I , in effect, " asked for it" and was damn lucky to escape unscathed. I'm more careful now to avoid areas and situations where problems could occur but I'm not as situationally aware as I should be even now. My CCP instructor said to avoid areas where you think you should take a gun to!! But I warned DD much more than I ever was. In fact I never was except for watching my drink.

[Deleted]

Aug 31, 2015 10:43:16 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Aug 30, 2015 20:48:22 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Q: If a rape occurs, who is to blame
A: The rapist.

Q: If a woman (drunk or not, dressed or in her underwear) willingly goes someplace with someone, who is responsible for her going to that someplace with that someone (ignoring what happens or doesn't happen when they get where they are going... just placing responsibility for her being where she is and in what state {drunk/sober, dressed conservatively or in lingerie} she is in)?
A: The woman.


It's all about WHERE you are assigning blame and to WHAT.

In regards to Ms. Hynde's encounter with the biker gang... maybe she shouldn't have gone off with them. It's not like they forced her to go.

It was fraud in the inducement- which does make it kidnapping. The people that raped her are ultimately the ones who made the moral choice to do an evil thing. They committed a crime.  I do think she overstates her role. She is 100% not responsible for her rape. However, it's kind of like "right of way". I have explained to my kids w/ re: to walking / biking about the right of way. I have also explained to them "gross vehicle weight right of way". You can be right, and still be dead. So, she's not responsible. She still got raped. I doubt that's any consolation to a rape victim.  Are we so PC that we cannot accurately explain to a young woman sensible ways to ensure she does not become a victim?  In my opinion, a person would have to be pretty sick to say no. I certainly would not want it on my conscious that I was so 'enlightened' that I refrained from helping anyone lest someone get offended.

Doesn't matter that it was fraud in the inducement. She willingly chose to go with them.

They are responsible for all the bad things they did to her, of that I have no disagreement with. She is at fault for thinking that going with them was a good idea.

[Deleted]

Aug 31, 2015 13:07:17 GMT -5 midjd said:

since people ought to be able to engage in any legal behaviour without being raped.

And you disagree with this premise?

There's a difference between "disagreeing with that premise" and "understanding the reality of how the world actually works, and that this is nor some sort of Utopia where people can do as they please, consequence free".

I agree with the premise that that's how the world SHOULD work... I just understand that it's not how it DOES work.

[fishy999]

What a load of crap this is- don't want to get raped wear a burqa?

Quite tired of victim shaming in this country.

[Deleted]

Aug 31, 2015 21:43:21 GMT -5 fishy999 said:

What a load of crap this is- don't want to get raped wear a burqa?

Quite tired of victim shaming in this country.

Please point out anyone that has said any variation of this. Thanks.

[thyme4change]

Aug 31, 2015 8:31:06 GMT -5 NomoreDramaQ1015 said:

Miley Cyrus, selling records because she is shoving her bum in someone's face.

Madonna strapped herself to a cross on stage and wore a bodice with pointy boob cones.

Elvis swung his hips around in a provocative manner

Every generation has their chosen scapegoat for the evils of society and how they are leading our poor young people astray.

And her "Truth and Dare" movie was pretty much soft porn.  So, we weren't all peaches and cream in the 80's either.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Aug 31, 2015 16:10:08 GMT -5 justme said:

What I wouldn't give to have had someone do a study on the outfits worn when women are raped and how provocative it is. I have a feeling the image of what the world thinks rape victims wear when assaulted does not match what they were actually wearing.

Perhaps, perhaps not. I would be willing to bet that there are commonalities among rape victims that add up to: easy target.  This is not to say that it is even conscious, foolish, poor judgment or any of that on the part of the victim.  I would simply guess that, given human nature, predators don't go out of their way to pick difficult targets.  They would not, for example, likely pick a woman out of a group of women in broad daylight. Again, I don't know- but I'm guessing commonalities like- alone, no one nearby, dark, distracted / little or no situational awareness etc- would come into play.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Aug 31, 2015 20:56:31 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Aug 31, 2015 13:07:17 GMT -5 midjd said:

And you disagree with this premise?

There's a difference between "disagreeing with that premise" and "understanding the reality of how the world actually works, and that this is nor some sort of Utopia where people can do as they please, consequence free".

I agree with the premise that that's how the world SHOULD work... I just understand that it's not how it DOES work.

Precisely.  Again, when you insert the word "ought" you are almost by definition asking about an ideal.  You may as well say, "In theory".  Of course, a woman "ought" to (in theory) be able to wear whatever she likes, get high, get loaded, party hardy, etc; and not have to worry about being raped.  In reality, we all have to conduct ourselves in such a way that we are not easy prey for predators. Even us big old men folk.

[Opti]

Aug 31, 2015 13:03:11 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Aug 31, 2015 10:42:09 GMT -5 happyhoix said:

I agree, Hynde is not responsible for what happened to her. She is responsible for poor judgment in agreeing to go with these guys to the party, but that doesn't mean she deserved what happened to her.

You're blaming the victim too!

You can't claim she exercised "poor judgment" and then fall back to "that doesn't mean she deserved what happened to her". You're acknowledging that her judgment directly contributed to the rape. Clearly what you're saying is that had she made another judgment, she wouldn't have been raped. YMAM precedent is clear: you are guilty of victim blaming.

Your attempt to disguise your crime as pragmatism may grant you some leniency during sentencing.

You are falling into the usual mistake of thinking that if a victim of a crime could have done something different to be less of a target that whoever committed the crime on them is less guilty. Not true.

The rapist is going to be 100% at fault.

The person sexually assaulted may have made it easier or harder for that assault to occur, but will never be 100% at fault or even 50% at fault if you decide to apportion blame. Prevention is not 100% certain.

[Opti]

Sept 1, 2015 8:06:22 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Aug 31, 2015 16:10:08 GMT -5 justme said:

What I wouldn't give to have had someone do a study on the outfits worn when women are raped and how provocative it is. I have a feeling the image of what the world thinks rape victims wear when assaulted does not match what they were actually wearing.

Perhaps, perhaps not. I would be willing to bet that there are commonalities among rape victims that add up to: easy target.  This is not to say that it is even conscious, foolish, poor judgment or any of that on the part of the victim.  I would simply guess that, given human nature, predators don't go out of their way to pick difficult targets.  They would not, for example, likely pick a woman out of a group of women in broad daylight. Again, I don't know- but I'm guessing commonalities like- alone, no one nearby, dark, distracted / little or no situational awareness etc- would come into play.

I think most people want to believe that so they can believe they are safe based on their actions. But I think that is not true often enough, it is silly and not mature to believe such things. Some men want to rape women simply because they are mad at them. No one should be expected to predict or control someone's behavior. A woman shouldn't have to refuse a promotion so she doesn't get raped by the guy who was passed over anymore than no one should ever be fired because someone might go postal and kill co-workers.

The only commonality all rape victims share is that they were raped. Much like victims of car accidents. And both have their I'm at home doing nothing wrong outliers. The car that drives into someone's living room, a elderly woman raped by a burglar just because. Commonality, nah.

[Virgil Showlion]

Sept 1, 2015 8:37:03 GMT -5 Opti said:

Aug 31, 2015 13:03:11 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

You're blaming the victim too!

You can't claim she exercised "poor judgment" and then fall back to "that doesn't mean she deserved what happened to her". You're acknowledging that her judgment directly contributed to the rape. Clearly what you're saying is that had she made another judgment, she wouldn't have been raped. YMAM precedent is clear: you are guilty of victim blaming.

Your attempt to disguise your crime as pragmatism may grant you some leniency during sentencing.

You are falling into the usual mistake of thinking that if a victim of a crime could have done something different to be less of a target that whoever committed the crime on them is less guilty. Not true.

The rapist is going to be 100% at fault.

The person sexually assaulted may have made it easier or harder for that assault to occur, but will never be 100% at fault or even 50% at fault if you decide to apportion blame. Prevention is not 100% certain.

You're missing the point that the YMAM definition of "victim blaming" is insinuating in any way that the victim might have averted rape by modifying his/her behaviour. That's also how "victim blaming" is defined by the charities in the OP.

Unfortunately none of the militant cohort espousing this view has dared broach this thread.