The 'Provocative Clothing' Rape Defense

[scw55]

Pretty much EVERYONE knows that rape is wrong. They don't need to be taught. There doesn't need to be campaigns of awareness. People who rape other people don't do it out of ignorance. The endless blathering on about how we need to make people aware of this problem is just....ignorant. Go into a public place and say the word "rape" in a slightly raised tone of voice and every head within hearing distance will turn.

Of course people recognise rape is wrong. The problem is that a lot of people won't recognise acts as rape.

You know when there's a high profile fatal shooting, and people argue if it was right or not? Nobody argues that murder isn't wrong, but people will argue that this case wasn't murder.

As for the subject of women wearing revealing clothes/slutty clothes/just enough clothes pasted to themselves to avoid being arrested, they are almost certainly not asking to be raped. On the other hand, they are begging to be leered at, jeered at, propositioned, hit upon, judged, and possibly harassed. Those who say they aren't are delusional. As a humorously exaggerated example, someone who walks around in public wearing a neon sign saying "Look At Me!" should not claim that they don't want people staring at them.

Who determines what provocative clothes are, though?

With regards to paedophiles, individuals who dress more maturely than their age (if they're under-aged) is very unwise.

I don't think that's true. Not an expert, but I'm led to believe that pedophiles prefer under-aged people who look under-aged. Dressing in an adult manner makes them look like adults, and thus less attractive.

(Also, this seems only to be applied to girls, not boys, though)

I used the wrong term. Men who are then accused of being Paedophiles because the girl was dressing like a mature lady. And the girl themselves being into having a none-teenage man.

 

[MrBrightside919]

Just once i'd like to come onto this website and NOT see the most commented thread being about RAPE...

Just once...

"Which is why I decided click on it, add my own comment, and bump it back up to the top of the forum!"

Pretty much, yeah...

 

[Abomination]

Protip: we can be certain, because people have studied it. You don't have to make someone rape in order to study the phenomenon, you can study past rapes. People have. Clothing is not a factor. This was established on this thread many pages ago.

The exact opposite was also established in this very same thread.

Show me the evidence.

A woman's appearance IS a contributing factor to the likelihood of her being targeted in certain rape scenarios. DrOswald on page 7 of this thread presented this conflicting study.

Evidence, please.

Page seven of this thread, post 229.

 

[Abomination]

I think a turnip would prevent a few rapes, it would certainly give a rapist pause and I haven't heard of a single rape where a victim was wearing a turnip on their head before, during or after the attack. Statistically then turnips on heads prevent rape.

So you're saying you're arguing statistics when you don't even know that correlation does not equal causation? Seriously, if you know that little of the subject, don't even bother.

Actually the same logic is applied to rapes involving the appearance of the victim. Only, of course, the statistics fall on the side of appearance not being a factor and thus the idea that appearance could be a factor in SOME of the attacks, namely the ones where appearance of the victim was used as an attempt at defense in court, is not considered.

Not every rapist is the same, not every rapist has the same motivation or incentive, not every rapist has the same factors that would determine if they are encouraged or discouraged from raping a particular woman but to state that there is NO chance in any way that a woman's appearance is not a factor a rapist could consider IS a foolish stance to take. I understand how people just wish, wish, wish it was not a factor because a woman should be allowed to wear whatever she wants - and I certainly agree she should - but it isn't "slut shaming" to suggest caution to dress appropriately for the location you plan on visiting.

 

[TK421]

A girl dressing provocatively is never an excuse to even think about raping her. All dressing like that should do is make people think you're a slut, which you probably are.

 

[PeterMerkin69]

Guys, there's a real quick thought experiment for this. LOok:

First, let us accept these two axioms:

Women in slutty clothes get raped by rapers.
Women in wholesome clothes get raped by rapers.

Now, imagine two women, one dressed like a slut and the other dressed in whatever the Amish wear, getting raped.

If you remove the clothing from both women, do the women getting raped by rapers still get raped? yes [x] no []
If you remove the rapers, do the women still get raped by all those no rapers? yes [] no [x]

Yep. Looks like they're getting raped by rapists.

 

[Therumancer]

[

And you're labouring under the assumption that most accusations made are false, and also that making such an accusation carries no penalty for the person making it, isn't at all traumatic, and in short, is easy to do.

Also, as fascinating as your statement on the US justice system may be, I don't live in the US, and given that you are making comparisons to countries whose laws I am much more familiar with than those of the US, which, despite your implications have similar issues surrounding rape, and I still don't think you have much appreciation for what even the threat of being raped is about.

Given how closely the conviction rates for rape have some rather odd correlations with the who the alleged victim was, this leads to the conclusion that many legal systems are biased towards the idea that only certain types of people get raped, and anyone else is probably lying about it somehow.

Well, anyway, I hope you never have to find out for yourself what it means to be subject to even the mildest form of abuse that could ever be called 'rape'. - Ah, but wait, you're in the US. So according to your legal system, you can't be raped, no matter what someone does to you. (Well, assuming my assumption about you being male is correct, anyway.)
Don't you just love legal technicalities?

Again, the principle of the US Justice System is INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY. It doesn't matter of it's theft, rape, homicide, or anything else for that matter the entire system is based around the idea that the accusations are false and that the burden of proof falls on the accuser, with the defendant only having to raise a reasonable doubt. In the US Justice system it doesn't matter if someone's guilt is 90% likely, of even nessicarily what the Jury thinks on that grounds, but whether the defendant created a reasonable doubt.

That's not *my* standard, that's the standards of the country. A point a lot of people argueing with me seem to miss.

As far as rape goes, too late, already happened. As I've said before, when I was a little kid I was raped by an older kid. Wound up blocking it out, but I know it happened. I really dislike it when people hear me discuss certain subjects they naturally assume things like this. To be brutally honest with you this information has a lot to do with why I at one time had the ambition of going into Forensics and studied for that in school before financial problems made it so I couldn't finish. It's also why I've spent a lot of time looking into the issue of homosexuality, groups like NAMBLA, and other assorted things that come up in other posts. That said, in this case what I'm telling you isn't even contreversial, or based on some obscure piece of information, it's no less than the basis for the entire American criminal justice system. In a practical sense the system assumes the accusor is always a liar, and the defendant is innocent, before anything happens, and this applies to all cases, as a universal principle excepting matters of
national security or trials conducted under martial law or during a declared state of emergency.

 

[Abomination]

...

Antecedents of sexual victimization: factors discriminating victims from nonvictims.

Synovitz LB, Byrne TJ., J Am Coll Health. Jan;46(4):151-8. (1998)

Partial abstract:

The variables found to be related to women's being sexually victimized were (a) number of different lifetime sexual partners, (b) provocative dress, and (c) alcohol use.
An Examination of Date Rape, Victim Dress, and Perceiver Variables Within the Context of Attribution Theory

Workman JE, Freeburg EW., Sex Roles, Volume 41, Numbers 3-4, 261-277 (1995)

This study found in part that the way a woman choose to dress is sometimes taken as a statement about her character including vulnerability, desire and/or willingness to have sex and provocation of males which consequently affects the likelihood of rape, including date rape.

The effects of clothing and dyad sex composition on perceptions of sexual intent: Do women and men evaluate these cues differently.

Abbey, A., Cozzarelli, C., McLaughlin, K., & Harnish, R. J. (1987) Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 17, 108?126.

Partial abstract:

A laboratory study was conducted in which subjects viewed a photograph of two students in a classroom. As predicted, male subjects rated female targets as more sexy and seductive than did female subjects. Also as predicted, female targets who wore revealing clothing were rated as more sexy and seductive than those wearing nonrevealing clothing. Female targets were rated higher on sexual traits regardless of the gender of their partner.
The study went on to infer that provocative dress can lead to an increased chance of date or spousal rape in some situations (primarily spousal and/or date rape).

Several studies have been made in regards to this but all agree on the same thing - it is impossible either way to determine if clothing is or is not a factor due to accurate tests being near impossible to produce. Introducing a scenario of "all other factors being equal" would be too unethical to be conducted. Demanding evidence from a study that would require such testing to prove or disprove - then claiming that as evidence against the hypothesis - is poor scientific reasoning.

 

[ChewOnStu]

Well, nobody wants to rape someone wearing Eskimo clothes.

 

[Abomination]

This study found in part that the way a woman choose to dress is sometimes taken as a statement about her character including vulnerability, desire and/or willingness to have sex and provocation of males which consequently affects the likelihood of rape, including date rape [Does it? Where's the evidence for this? Looks like a baseless claim to me].

A laboratory study was conducted in which subjects viewed a photograph of two students in a classroom. As predicted, male subjects rated female targets as more sexy and seductive than did female subjects. Also as predicted, female targets who wore revealing clothing were rated as more sexy and seductive than those wearing nonrevealing clothing. Female targets were rated higher on sexual traits regardless of the gender of their partner.
The study went on to infer that provocative dress can lead to an increased chance of date or spousal rape in some situations (primarily spousal and/or date rape).

Those parts in bold right there more or less sum up the fallacious thinking that so many in this thread seem to enjoy engaging in. "Well, if people look sexier then surely they're more likely to be raped, right?" Go ahead and find a study that proves that, instead of one where the researchers simply inferred it, and then we'll talk.

Several studies have been made in regards to this but all agree on the same thing - it is impossible either way to determine if clothing is or is not a factor due to accurate tests being near impossible to produce. Introducing a scenario of "all other factors being equal" would be too unethical to be conducted. Demanding evidence from a study that would require such testing to prove or disprove - then claiming that as evidence against the hypothesis - is poor scientific reasoning.

"It's impossible to prove, so let's just assume that it's true and act based on that assumption."

How about no? How about you don't limit the personal freedoms of an entire gender and imply victim responsibility on the basis of "well, it seems pretty likely to me"?

We know that rapists use date rape drugs, so we can advise people on how to recognise date rape drugs. We know that people who are on their own are more likely to be raped than people who are with a group, so we can advise people not to walk around on their own in rough areas. In the case of stranger rape, there's evidence that rapists sometimes back off if they experience physical resistance or their victim calls for help, so we can advise people to do those things.

All of those factors are things that can - and have - been proven. The "provocative clothing" argument? Not so much.

Again, it is impossible to prove one way or the other without engaging in seriously unethical studies. This is not poof for OR against the nature of attire having an effect on a rapist's discrimination between victims.

The location, method, character and company of rape victims can be recorded in an ethical manner very easily but the INCENTIVE for a rapist is very difficult to discern as we are already dealing with an untrustworthy individual.

This is not an argument stating that the attire of a women will ALWAYS determine if she is raped or not but it can be safely stated that it MAY be a determining factor as there is no way to prove either way if it is true or not. No study has shown that it does contribute but no study has shown that it most certainly does NOT contribute to ANY rape.

This is why caution is advised - it is an area that "you never know what will set one of them off" but clothing COULD be one.

 

[Abomination]

OK, let's use an analogy here to try and make you understand this. Another thing that is difficult to prove is whether or not playing video games cause violence.

In a select few cases it most certainly would encourage or contribute to violence in some derranged individuals. Perhaps they would go out and perform the violence anyway without video games but to state that it has NO influence or impact on the violent individual would be foolish.

A violent video game will not turn a non-violent person into a violent person but there is a possiblility it can have an effect on an already violent person.

A woman's attire will not suddenly turn a non-rapist into a rapist but it there is a possibility it can have an effect on a rapist's choice of victim.

 

[Abomination]

In a select few cases it most certainly would encourage or contribute to violence in some derranged individuals. Perhaps they would go out and perform the violence anyway without video games but to state that it has NO influence or impact on the violent individual would be foolish.

A violent video game will not turn a non-violent person into a violent person but there is a possiblility it can have an effect on an already violent person.

A woman's attire will not suddenly turn a non-rapist into a rapist but it there is a possibility it can have an effect on a rapist's choice of victim.

So you agree that we need a "May cause homicidal insanity" warning label on all video games? Guess we've arrived at that impasse.

Not at all, we might as well attach a warning to all alcohol purchases that state "May cause rape" because that certainly has had proven links to rape occurances. But we know such methods would be commercial suicide.

That being said I never advocated such a thing. A video game does not CAUSE homocidal insaity, it could only provide inspiration or motivation to one who already has such a deposition.

Face it: You're wrong. You spoke without knowing what you're talking about. Better to learn from what experts are actually saying than to persist in supporting a false mythology that does not protect women from harm (and indeed, endangers them, shames them, or blames them for their own victimization). At some point you need to ask yourself if you actually care about preventing harm, or just like seeing your opinion posted.

You're going to need to show or explain how a woman dressing in more situational appropriate attire endangers her. Either clothing does have an influence or it doesn't, it not having an influence is not evidence that it has one.

Just because a belief is employed poorly by some as an excuse (which in itself must be taken into consideration as grounds for it having some effect) does not suddenly debunk or make the stance destructive.

Do not question my motivations for my beliefs and opinions in such a manner. Your indirect accusations are distasteful and insulting.

Rape is a terrible thing; almost all avenues need to be explored to reduce it. That is my motivation and I would encourage avenues that would put even the smallest dent into rape statistics.

Even if it has no effect at least the defence could not try and use "She was dressed in a provocative manner" to sway a jury should it reach trial. If a method doesn't prevent or encourage rape but at least assists in putting rapists behind bars it's still a victory ? repeat offenders and all that.