The 'Provocative Clothing' Rape Defense
- Thread starter Froggy Slayer
- Start date
Recommended Videos
The fact that as many people still use this excuse as do is very worrying. Not only are they trying to excuse an utterly inexcusable act that needs to be dealt with extremely seriously, but victim blaming is very destructive behaviour. People are often reluctant to report their rape to begin with, but stuff like this only makes them more unlikely to and can cause them to blame themselves for horrific events that were not their fault. It's also the kind of statement that tries to unreasonably dictate to women what they can and cannot wear. It's all-round disgusting.
It depends on how drunk they are. If both partners are drunk, there can be poor decision-making on both sides, but if you're not drunk, you have more responsibility in a situation like that.MeChaNiZ3D said:
You don't necessarily know why the person has gotten drunk. They might be unused to alcohol, or drinking something they don't think has all that much alcohol. Or their drinks might even have been spiked.
But if someone gets so drunk they can't remember what happened, and can't remember giving consent, it's understandable why they might feel taken advantage of.
It doesn't necessarily mean the other person did something wrong, but these kinds of cases aren't always 'girl gives consent, regrets giving consent later and cries rape'.
You cant claim there is no evidence and then MAKE UP your own little fictional circumstance to use as evidence. Do you want me to find the state that show dress has no effect on the likelihood of rape? How about the interviews with actual rapists who aren't even aware of clothing and choose victims just out of opportunity?verdant monkai said:
What's worrying to me is that this whole conversation focusses only on "stranger inthe bushes" rape, and ignores the vastly higher acquaintance rape or date rape.
Take attitudes like this. This post is fucking disgusting. Why do you segue so smoothly from provocative dress to false accusations? How the is it relevant? Yes, false accusations are very very bad. But they yacht nothing to do with clothing.Deryl Owens said:
This is great, lets argue about whether the stupidest position on something has any merit.
There are people who think the sun is a tiny ball that moves around a flat earth. There are people who think a 2000 year old cult leader is going to come back and fuck the planet up any day now. There are people who think the Sandy Hill shooting was a staged deception using actors because middle income moms don't wear makeup, they must have been actors. If you look hard enough its pretty much possible to find someone who believes the most ridiculous shite you could imagine. Ridiculously stupid things are said every day.
The most I'd buy is that some backwater churches or minor theocratic hivetown thinks this brainfart sounds logical, but it would not only get laughed out of any modern court but the defendant would be admitting his own guilt and getting his ass thrown in prison instantly from using this as a defense.
This is the furthest thing from anything resembling a mainstream opinion, so if you really think this is something that "needs to be fought" you're almost as much of an idiot as the peanuts who think that's a legitimate argument.
Next we'll be debating the "I stoled fud cos it looked yummy" defense. Fml.
There are people who think the sun is a tiny ball that moves around a flat earth. There are people who think a 2000 year old cult leader is going to come back and fuck the planet up any day now. There are people who think the Sandy Hill shooting was a staged deception using actors because middle income moms don't wear makeup, they must have been actors. If you look hard enough its pretty much possible to find someone who believes the most ridiculous shite you could imagine. Ridiculously stupid things are said every day.
The most I'd buy is that some backwater churches or minor theocratic hivetown thinks this brainfart sounds logical, but it would not only get laughed out of any modern court but the defendant would be admitting his own guilt and getting his ass thrown in prison instantly from using this as a defense.
This is the furthest thing from anything resembling a mainstream opinion, so if you really think this is something that "needs to be fought" you're almost as much of an idiot as the peanuts who think that's a legitimate argument.
Next we'll be debating the "I stoled fud cos it looked yummy" defense. Fml.
Your argument here is a little flawed. Yes, what you're claiming is possible, but the entire point becomes a little questionable when you consider that Rape cases have notoriously low conviction rates. (roundabout 5% or less in most countries).Therumancer said:
This kind of undermines the assertion that it's easy to claim you've been raped. It isn't, and compared to other crimes it's actually easy to get out of it if it even goes to trial in the first place. (which isn't necessarily that likely, because a lot of actual rape victims feel ashamed, or find the thought of the legal process too traumatic.)
It's an interesting idea, but reality shows otherwise.
What disgusts me in this thread is how many who are continuing to front the rapists' cause while taking care to notify everyone that they do not support rape.
First point: the skimpy (or "slutty") clothing argument. There's no proof that skimpy clothing increases the risk of sexual assault. Absolutely none. So stop making theoretical situations where the rapist chooses based on your (somewhat disturbing) understanding of the mind of a rapist.
Second, even worse argument: rape allegations are usually women having second thoughts. Closely related to "it's not rape if you didn't struggle." Less than four per cent of all rape cases reported to the police end in a conviction. Does this mean that most accusations are false? No, it means that we are so focused on the rare case of assault rapes that we do not consider the much more common date/party rape as "real" rape. I do not have the US numbers, but in Norway 95% of the victims are female, most of the rapes happen while intoxicated on parties, 50% use more than a week to press charges, and perhaps most importantly: in most of the cases the victims knew the rapist, an in those cases an astounding 75% are previously registered felons, usually theft and narcotics; a statistic that proves bad boys are not only douches, but also dangerous. They see what they want, and take it. In these cases one could argue that not wearing revealing clothes, not drinking alcohol and staying at home could prevent rapes, but then we could as well make the women wear burquas.
In short: assaults are opportunistic, most rapes are committed by eastwards with an perverted view on sexuality. "It is always consensual if it's with me, baby! If she flirts, she puts out. "
The best way to prevent rape is to stomp down hard on your mates, or anyone else (such as internet forumgoers) showing signs of misogynistic ideas.
First point: the skimpy (or "slutty") clothing argument. There's no proof that skimpy clothing increases the risk of sexual assault. Absolutely none. So stop making theoretical situations where the rapist chooses based on your (somewhat disturbing) understanding of the mind of a rapist.
Second, even worse argument: rape allegations are usually women having second thoughts. Closely related to "it's not rape if you didn't struggle." Less than four per cent of all rape cases reported to the police end in a conviction. Does this mean that most accusations are false? No, it means that we are so focused on the rare case of assault rapes that we do not consider the much more common date/party rape as "real" rape. I do not have the US numbers, but in Norway 95% of the victims are female, most of the rapes happen while intoxicated on parties, 50% use more than a week to press charges, and perhaps most importantly: in most of the cases the victims knew the rapist, an in those cases an astounding 75% are previously registered felons, usually theft and narcotics; a statistic that proves bad boys are not only douches, but also dangerous. They see what they want, and take it. In these cases one could argue that not wearing revealing clothes, not drinking alcohol and staying at home could prevent rapes, but then we could as well make the women wear burquas.
In short: assaults are opportunistic, most rapes are committed by eastwards with an perverted view on sexuality. "It is always consensual if it's with me, baby! If she flirts, she puts out. "
The best way to prevent rape is to stomp down hard on your mates, or anyone else (such as internet forumgoers) showing signs of misogynistic ideas.
Wow, many of the responses in this thread are completely disgusting. Incidentally Escapist, how the fuck is "slut" not considered a sexist slur? Remember that clause in the Code of Conduct, eh? The bit about sexism not being tolerated? Please tell me what 50% of thread consists of.
What the fuck is dressing or behaving "like a slut" anyway? Showing ankles, wrists and hair? Having bare knees and arms? Showing thighs and cleavage? What is "acting slutty"? Smiling at a man? Being friendly, also known as "flirting"? Having had sex in the past?
I've been moderated for this before but I'll be damned if I'm not saying it again- This community has some serious fucking issues with women.
What the fuck is dressing or behaving "like a slut" anyway? Showing ankles, wrists and hair? Having bare knees and arms? Showing thighs and cleavage? What is "acting slutty"? Smiling at a man? Being friendly, also known as "flirting"? Having had sex in the past?
I've been moderated for this before but I'll be damned if I'm not saying it again- This community has some serious fucking issues with women.
Nothing is black and white bro. That's what the responses show. It's a whole spectrum of viewing the world, based on experience, reading and social surrounds. Yours is one view of the issue, but not necessarily the correct one, whatever "correct" means in this instance. These are many viewpoints fighting for dominancemanic_depressive13 said:
Yep. I've been kinda disappointed in the Escapists complete lack of moderation on these particular subject.manic_depressive13 said:
I also think it's hilarious how I've been accused of hating men, but the people suggesting here that clothes can be `asking for it` clearly think of those men as little more than animals.
Nobody asks to be raped.
If you have trouble with that concept, please do not date. Ever.
And I will take my warning like a boss if you wanna throw one at me.
But this still isnt a solution. No matter how many times you "swap" the target by wearing more nunlike clothes that man is still there and a rape happens. When you give advice like this all i hear is "Make sure he rapes the other girl". Youve not solved the issue at all in the slightest. If, we take your hypothetical and ran it a billion times, no matter what clothing ANY of them wore even if ALL were nuns one would still get raped because according to you that man has a mission. So the harm is equal no matter what you make the women wear. Being told to wear conservative clothing so "He rapes someone that isnt you" is so fucking abhorrent i feel sick. If something awful is going to happen you do EVERYTHING to PREVENT it not try and shift the horror onto another person via different tactics.Odgical said:
"So by not wearing such clothing, you have had no effect on the amount of rapes happening. You've just redirected it to an equally undeserving person. So it's still a really silly argument."
And this guy nails it.
I hate to use a slippery slope fallacy but telling women never to go places or wear things, taken to the ABSOLUTE EXTREMIS, will NEVER solve the issue because its all just mirdirection. How about police work HARD AS HELL to catch and punish ALL rapists to the FULL extent of the law. How about in society we make coming forward to talk about rape or a crime a show of STRENGTH rather than something to be ashamed of.
This is a HORRIBLE analogy and im so sorry. But when i was mugged i felt like shit. I was weak. Another person controlled me, took what was mine and let me go because THEY wanted to. I had no power. I didnt want to tell people because i was ashamed this happened to me. I imagine for rape its a quadrillion times infinitely worse. That sucks. I DIDNT TELL THE POLICE about it :C I can see why a woman might not want to either. And thats wrong. I was wrong to not tell the police. I shudder to think that people are scared to not raise their voice about these things. Do not let scum act with impunity. They deserve to be ashamed not you. You are innocent, they broke the law to pretend they are better than you, more WORTHY and then YOURE the one who is ashamed. Thats awful.
Heh, I'll remember that one for the next time this comes up.Saika Renegade said:
No, it's a very common and serious problem. Various jurisdictions (in the West) ban defence lawyers from mentioning what the victim was wearing because of this.Burnswell said:
Except provocative clothing has never been proven to have any impact on a woman's likelihood to get raped. Rape is about dominance and a need for control, not satisfying sudden sexual urges.Imperator_DK said:
And even if it were true, as someone else pointed out, it doesn't prevent a rape. It just deflects it to the next scantily clad woman nearby. So unless you're going to require all women to wear frocks and chastity belts, nothing is being prevented.
Yeah, I'm gonna show some solidarity with these two posts.Phasmal said:
A lot of posts here seem to take the line that women have to watch what they wear so that they don't provoke the poor rapists who just can't help themselves when they see a flash of leg. I mean, suggesting that a slut (whatever that implies) is asking for it is just... Ugh. What, because they're flirty and show off their body they're fair game? Yuck.
Comparing a girl getting raped due to the clothes she's wearing to someone's house getting robbed because they left the door open makes my fucking skin crawl.
People don't say it as a defence, they say it as a contributing factor for the rape occurring. It's not "ooh, I can see a lot of that girls flesh, must rape her", it's more like "I'm having issues, I see a woman wearing very little, so I'm thinking of having sex with her (cos every male does it), if I try to flirt I may get turned dow.. But rape is a sure fire way".Froggy Slayer said:
I take this view point only cos I belive its a contributing factor to rape. It's still the guys fault, undoubtedly! I just think women should be more cautious and try not to bring so much attention to themselves.
I'm 23 and for the first time I went out on a Saturday night, never drank alcohol though. I saw girls and women dressed up like cheap hookers, so drunk they couldn't walk straight, grinding there ass into guys crotches but refusing to kiss them and all I could think is "you're sexually teasing drunk men (so there not in there right mind), then turning them down. You're dressed provocatively and are in a vulnerable state" . These girls are so easy to rape its scary, I actually was nervous for the girls and didn't even know them.
The way I see it is if you leave your house empty and the door wide open, don't be surprised when you get robbed, to put it another way, don't run red lights and expect not to get in a car crash. Take precautions, be in a group, don't get legless drunk, don't be a dick tease, dress sexy but not like hooker (slutty sexy) but more like Helen Mirron (classy sexy).
Like I said it's still down to the guy but depending on the situation, 0.5% of the responsibility could be pointed at the woman. That's just my opinion though.
Nope, but a defense lawyer, a good one, needs to try anything, even when it's clear bullshit. When it's clear there's gonna be a conviction the lawyer might not spend his time and effort trying to plead innocence, but rather "mitigate" the situation and get a smaller sentence. In a rape case, that would be ONE (bad, in my opinion) argument to get an easier sentence, saying crap like "the victim was using extremely provocative clothing, which my client, a sick man who can not always keep hold of his urges, found impossible to resist the assault" basically, the blame was shifted slightly to the victim and the accused was turned into "a sorry bastard who can't hold himself". Don't blame the lawyer, it's his DUTY to do what he can for every client, even when he's 100% sure the dude is guilty, rather blame the few judges who accept this lame defense...King Billi said:
Depending on the country (or even the judge sometimes) that defense CAN and WILL free the agent of the crime, but that's a more complex matter, many times it will involve costumes and culture, maybe religion even, meaning that the people of that place a whole will most likely agree with the rapist and not the victim, but I believe this topic is talking about "western culture".
So, I can stomach the excuse as a desperate legal defense attempt. What I cannot stomach is such excuse being absorbed and accepted by SOCIETY. In Brazilian law, the crime "rape" used to have a term in its definition, it was "honest woman", meaning a whore, for instance, could not be raped (!!!) because she wasn't "honest". As culture changed, so did the law, and the term "honest woman" was taken away, it became "the forceful, non-consensual act of coitus (ONLY penis in vagina), with use of violence, physical or not" thus it was understood to some legalists that man COULD be raped by a woman, it was only hard to do so (due to the coitus definition), however women COULD be an active agent as the one who commits the violence (against another woman) while a man commits the penetration.
On a side note: oral sex, anal sex, the use of objects, and whatever your mind can fathom (sexually speaking), when done with no consent and with any form of violence was NOT considered rape, it was "Pudency Aggression" (roughly translating), and it was GREAT that things were this way (both men and women could be agents and victims): say a criminal grabs a woman, he forces her to do oral, and then follows to penetrate her vagina. Most judges would accept that the perp committed not one single continuous act, but TWO different crimes, what's more, both crimes (Rape and Pudency...) had the same penance, the same everything basically, meaning a rapist would get a heavy sentence, after all, he committed two crimes, two of the worst crimes in our Penal Code by the way.
Only good stuff don't last forever... A few years ago a this political figure or something (a WOMAN nonetheless), fucked it up, she proposed a change to the law and the congress accepted her changes (certainly she was just looking to make a name). Well, she decided it was better to condense both crimes as "rape", so nowadays men and women can be victims of rape because raping means not only penetration of the male genitalia in the feminine genitalia, but also anything else that holds a sexual nature to it and is one by means of violence or threat of violence. I AGREE it's cleaner now, easier to understand, etc nut this means that if a man grabs a woman and does hell to her in terms of sexual perversion, he only committed ONE CRIME, sadly it's easier on the criminal now, a few old school judges accepted the law but are willing to judge in accordance to the "old way", punishing two crimes, but it's harder because now they need the accuser to manage and point out that between one act and the other enough time passed that the crime ended and another brand new crime, albeit the same type of crime, started, thus allowing for another penance to be added.
In my opinion, rape is a crime to be treated with seriousness, I'm not talking about rape scenes in anime, or games like other topics are discussing, I'm talking about the real deal, real life, it's dirty and humiliating, justice must be swift and brutal towards the criminal, attempts to simplify the system, as I've pointed out, might just turn out for the worst. It's such a heavy subject that many women NEVER come forward, that's the reason, in Brazil, this crime can't be automatically "moved" by the public authorities, but rather requires the victim to come forward and inform the crime and her/his willingness to give start to the due process of law (in other words, if your neighbor was raped you can't go to the cops for them, the authorities can't do shit, of course there are exceptions, such as child/mentally challenged rape, rape followed by murder, so on).
Most people who see use this argument don't want to shift blame, they just see it as advice since they think it would make rape more likely. This may not actually be the case, but twisting it to them advocating rape or wanting to blame the victim is equally ridicolous.
Ding.sethisjimmy said:
Thread really didn't need to go past the post I've quoted above, and it was on page 1.
Rapists don't care how you dress. They just want to exert power over someone and abuse people. The clothing or personal appearance of the victim is statistically irrelevant.
My sister has been a victim of rape. Long story short : he got her drunk, brought her to his place and touched her in places and ways that made her feel uncomfortable. And that's nooo good.
Sister went to the police. Long story short : trial- guy is convicted.
Except that's not what realy happened.
4 years later my sister started feeling guilt over "a little lie". Apparently, she dressed provocatively because she wanted to get laid, she drank with the guy and told him she just had to get fucked by him. They went tohis place and had a good time. A few weeks later he was accused of rape, tried, and convicted. Guy losteverything and probably won't be able to work as a teacher ever again although his name is technically cleared.
What happened to my sister? Nothing, and this disgusts me to no end. My family decided to forgive and forget, but I can't. I could have been that guy.
Sister went to the police. Long story short : trial- guy is convicted.
Except that's not what realy happened.
4 years later my sister started feeling guilt over "a little lie". Apparently, she dressed provocatively because she wanted to get laid, she drank with the guy and told him she just had to get fucked by him. They went tohis place and had a good time. A few weeks later he was accused of rape, tried, and convicted. Guy losteverything and probably won't be able to work as a teacher ever again although his name is technically cleared.
What happened to my sister? Nothing, and this disgusts me to no end. My family decided to forgive and forget, but I can't. I could have been that guy.