The 'Provocative Clothing' Rape Defense

[Sir Thomas Sean Connery]

No rational and sensible person has ever made that argument.

The blame goes on the aggressor.

However, precautions can still be taken. You wouldn't walk down a back alley in a bad neighborhood wearing incredible expensive clothing as it would increase the likelihood of robbery. If it happens, of course it's still the robbers fault, but victims can still take preventative measures.

And while granted, there is no scientific evidence of this, it isn't something that can really be tested. Furthermore, this position makes much more sense than the alternative where clothing has absolutely nothing to do with how people are perceived.

Even if the increase profile is incredibly minute, it only makes sense for it to be there.

 

[Smeatza]

It's strange how in all other aspects of life we encourage risk management based on fact and statistical evidence, whereas when it comes to rape we base our "advice" on prejudice, lies, and scaremongering.

No we don't, we don't walk our kids to and from school because it's likely they will be abducted, just because it's a possibility. We don't stop playing golf in a thunderstorm because it's likely we will get struck by lightning, just because it is a possibility

It's been pointed out many times in this thread that the majority of rape is committed by someone known to the victim, that the "stranger jumping out of a bush" rape is comparatively rare, and that there is no evidence to suggest that wearing "provocative" clothing increases your chance of being raped. Yet these ideas still persist, born of the idea that all men are incapable of controlling their lust and are predisposed towards rape, and women are stupid to lead them on by dressing a certain way or having breasts that are too large or having a sexually active history or smiling too flirtatiously.

Yeah that's all obvious stuff I already know, doesn't mean stranger rape doesn't happen though. You're more likely to get raped if people notice you, and you are less likely to be noticed wearing non-provocative clothing.
I'd encourage all people to practice stealth ninja skills to avoid becoming victims of crime but they aren't common knowledge so being as inconspicuous as possible will have to do.
Plus you cannot really prepare and manage the risk of someone you know and trust raping you, short of becoming paranoid, but that's neither here nor there.

Your "risk management" advice may as well be, "offer a prayer to the Hindu monkey god Hanuman, turn around three times counter-clockwise and throw some salt over your left shoulder in order to avoid being raped".

No, go out in groups, do not get too drunk, make sure someone knows where you are, if you can't do these things be inconspicuous (like not wearing provocative clothing, fancy dress, flashing lights etc.)

It's not a matter of risk management. If it could be proved conclusively that wearing a miniskirt gave you a 50% higher chance of being raped then, yes, I would advise against miniskirts. But it hasn't. And as has been pointed out, "stranger in the bushes" rape is a vanishingly small proportion of rapes, so they whole argument about not making yourself a target is a fucking waste of time and distracts from the actual issues.

Like I said to Boots, we don't walk our kids to and from school because it's likely they will be abducted, just because it's a possibility. We don't stop playing golf in a thunderstorm because it's likely we will get struck by lightning, just because it is a possibility. Risk management applies to everything, no matter how rare or freak of an occurrence, including stranger rape.

Worse than that, attempts at victim blaming (and most advcie about how to dress IS victim blaming) is demonstrable harmful to both the victim and the legal process. Rape victims sexual habits, sexual fantasies, dress, flirtatiousness and behaviour have all been used in court as evidence that it "wasn't really rape". Numerous victims have comitted suicide after having their sexual history dragged out in court, with the implication that they were asking for it. It is NOT and never has been just risk management.

First of all, the idea of an individual's past sex life being taken into account is abhorent to me. If it's wrong to take past convictions into account, then it is wrong to take past sexual activity into account (unless it's directly related to the case).
Second of all, the claim "well she was dressed provocatively so she deserved it/it wasn't rape/she was asking for it etc. etc." is nothing short of barbaric.
However saying "she was dressed provocatively so it wasn't rape" is not the same as saying "it was not rape, it was consensual sex, and the way they were dressed supports that."
If I may elaborate, people better educated than I have pointed out that in false rape accusation scenarios it will be necessary for the defense to show that consent was given, and one way to indicate this is by showing the victim had the intention of having sex with the defendant, in this case evidenced by how they dress.
"most advcie about how to dress IS victim blaming" - Not true at all, a gross over-simplification and not relevant, especially considering the advice in question is aimed at those who have not become victims of rape as of yet.

Because wearing more clothes isnt risk management. Door locks are a physical barrier. So are car doors. Clothes do NOTHING to stop rape in a practical sense. At any point has someone said "Oh damn there are all these clothes in the way of this girl, i just cant rape her its too much hassle to take em off, DAMN IM FOILED AGAIN!". The idea behind the advice is the same as advising you put a huge sign saying "ROB THE CAR BEHIND ME IT HAS BETTER STUFF".

It's about being noticed, not physical barriers. You are more conspicuous if you are wearing sexually suggestive clothing. Making you more likely to be the victim of crime, any crime, including stranger rape.

Youre not making yourself "safer". Youre just making some other poor innocent person the target instead of you. Its not the same as a lock because it isnt a physical barrier. It cant, by itself, stop anything or make it harder for someone to rape you. Its just misdirection. An attempt to shift the crime onto someone else. Unless youre wearing chainmail it isnt a defence.

Rapists don't have a quota. By making yourself a less likely to be a victim of crime, you are not making others more likely to be victims.

 

[Smeatza]

Incorrect.

The vast majority of stranger rape is opportunistic in nature, meaning the rapist goes after the first woman they think they can get away with raping. There is zero evidence that how the victim is dressed plays a factor in the choice.

Lol you confirmed my point with your reply.
"The vast majority of stranger rape is opportunistic in nature, meaning the rapist goes after the first woman they think they can get away with raping."
So if the potential victim was never noticed in the first place, the rapist was never given an opportunity, and the risk management of not being noticed (which includes not dressing provocatively, not wearing fancy dress, not singing to yourself at full volume as you walk down the street etc.) payed off.

Please stop passing off your personal beliefs about "sluts" as facts.

This is nothing to do with sluts, feminism or any kind of ethics. This is about cold, hard practicality. And if you weren't so wrapped up in feminist dogma you would see that.

 

[Haukur Isleifsson]

I think people need to try and understand "why" even in situations where the "why" is simply not an issue. I think that we need to be really careful to not convey any message that implies guilt on behalf of the victim. There is no need for that and it is harmful.

If you can't help but point out any and all correlations that you come across than please when it comes to rape keep your mouth shut.

 

[electric_warrior]

I think when people say this that they're not excusing the rapist, just giving a word of advice to women that it makes them a target. Kind of like advising someone not to dress up like a moose in hunting season.

 

[Lilani]

Lol you confirmed my point with your reply.
"The vast majority of stranger rape is opportunistic in nature, meaning the rapist goes after the first woman they think they can get away with raping."
So if the potential victim was never noticed in the first place, the rapist was never given an opportunity, and the risk management of not being noticed (which includes not dressing provocatively, not wearing fancy dress, not singing to yourself at full volume as you walk down the street etc.) payed off.

The opportunity for rape is presented by the woman simply being there, not by how much clothing she is wearing. You can argue that not walking in sketchy places alone can lower your chances of being raped, however the idea that clothing she happens to be wearing has anything to do with is is just ridiculous.

I think when people say this that they're not excusing the rapist, just giving a word of advice to women that it makes them a target. Kind of like advising someone not to dress up like a moose in hunting season.

And the same goes with you. It's frustrating how many people run around saying it's somehow making them more of a target when the only thing that makes them a target is they happen to be a female in a vulnerable situation. If a rapist sees a chance and he thinks he can get away with it, he's going to take the opportunity whether she's wearing stilettos and a miniskirt or a frock and combat boots.

 

[HellbirdIV]

How do people still believe in this?

Because people are dumb.

People are dumb because some of them are crazed, radical "feminists" who accuse all men ever of being rapists just for the crime of having a dick.

People are dumb because, when confronted by such crazy people, they believe that the only response is to add even more crazy, such as suggesting that women should be held accountable for "tempting" men to rape them, like men are hard-wired to want to rape women if they see tits on display and therefore women should know to protect their vaginas by hiding their tits.

People are dumb because sex is a weird thing. It's a topic that makes us, as a culture, as people, get a little stiff, a little uncomfortable, because it's such a big deal.

Sex is a weird thing, a big deal, and therefore any crime dealing with sex becomes blown out of proportion. Some people have a knee-jerk reaction towards rapists, suggesting things like they are somehow worse than murderers.

And for every action there is an equal, opposite reaction. For each idiotic accusation there's an equally idiotic defense.

 

[Froggy Slayer]

People are dumb because sex is a weird thing. It's a topic that makes us, as a culture, as people, get a little stiff

I see what you did there.

 

[PirateRose]

Women can cover themselves head to toe in Burqa and she will be still under threat of rape just as much as the woman walking around in a bikini. A woman can be accompanied by a male friend and she can still be raped to hell and back (see recent bus rapes in India.)

It makes no difference to a rapist what the woman is wearing. There is a woman to be powerful over, there is a woman to control and put into lower status to make him feel strong. When a rapist says, she was wearing skimpy cloths, she deserved it, it's the same thing as a rapist saying, some of her hair strayed from her veil, she deserved it.

It's nothing to do with appearance, little to do with sex, everything to do with the very existence of being a woman makes one deserving of rape and to be put in "proper" place beneath a man.

 

[Blow_Pop]

Just like no one deserves to be robbed (well usually) no one deserves to be raped, but there are simple things you can do to prevent such thigns from occuring.

I have a right to walk in gang territory, but it would be a pretty stupid thing to do.

A) You do have a fairly good point with that last sentence however, some people don't have the choice due to where they live.

B) Addressing that first one. No there aren't. If someone is going to rape someone else all they need is opportunity. And provocative clothing really has nothing to do with it. I've been raped once in "provocative clothing"(I'm sorry 100+degree Fahrenheit heat I'm not wearing a shit ton of clothes and have the right to tank tops and shorts)by my running partner and twice by boyfriends in which I was wearing jeans, baggy tshirts, and converse. Are any of those outfits "asking" for it? No. The thing I've learned about rapists(besides the fact that not all rapists are men and not all people who are raped are women)is that no matter what if they have the opportunity they will do it. The clothing defense gets used because they believe if you slut shame a woman (because let's face it most of the time when this is talked about it is about a man raping a woman) then it shifts the blame to her. When in reality, ALL the blame should be on the rapists fault. How many times do you hear it asked of a man who was raped(in the rare instances he comes out and says he was AND people actually believe him because let's face it, our society sucks) "well what were you wearing?". Compared to how many times you hear it from when a woman says she was raped. In the first instance, never. In the second all the time. Rapists usually have a specific type they go for and anyone who fits that type can be their victims given the opportunity. And contrary to beliefs don't always exhibit certain behaviours of rapists. Some of them are very good at hiding their motives and themselves from everyone else. It is all in the social programming of our society that we severely need to change.

And that turned out a lot longer than I wanted....shit.

 

[ImperialSunlight]

the man is still entirely at fault for, you know, having such little self-control that he has to fuck a woman the second that he gets a boner.

Not to be overly PC about things, but men can be rape victims also. This seems to imply otherwise.

 

[Froggy Slayer]

the man is still entirely at fault for, you know, having such little self-control that he has to fuck a woman the second that he gets a boner.

Not to be overly PC about things, but men can be rape victims also. This seems to imply otherwise.

I know that, but this 'excuse' is only ever used when a man rapes a woman.

 

[Smeatza]

The opportunity for rape is presented by the woman simply being there, not by how much clothing she is wearing. You can argue that not walking in sketchy places alone can lower your chances of being raped, however the idea that clothing she happens to be wearing has anything to do with is is just ridiculous.

You'll note in a previous post I wrote that not being there was preferential to managing your appearance.
By their very definition an opportunistic rapist will not be out explicitly looking for people to rape, they see an opportunity, and they take it.
People who dress in a provocative manner are more conspicuous than those who don't.
It's why I've made sure to include "don't dress in fancy dress and don't have clothes that light up" with my examples.
Wearing provocative clothing will not get you raped, but the extra attention it affords you might.
Please note (like I said before) that I would advise somebody (male or female) who is looking to reduce their chances of being mugged to not wear provocative clothing.

The only thing that matters is whether or not you're going to get noticed by rapists. Again, if you want to provide evidence that shows wearing "provocative clothing" means an increased chance of rape, please go ahead. Otherwise, stop stating it like it's fact.

You hit the nail on the head with the part in bold
Being conspicuous makes you more likely to be a victim of crime, that is a fact. Wearing provocative clothing is conspicuous in some situations/areas.
Like I said in previous posts, that is usually only when you are alone and in a high crime area.

By telling people that dressing a certain way will reduce their chances of rape, you are telling lies. Well-intentioned lies, but lies nonetheless, and lies which help perpetuate the idea that only certain types of girls get raped.

I'm not lying, I'm not even exaggerating, and I'm certainly not perpetuating that "only certain types of girls get raped." I am saying that being conspicuous, when you are on your own, and in a high crime area, will make you more likely to be the victim of crime (which obviously includes rape) than otherwise. It applies to men and women, in many different ways, one of which is dressing provocatively.
And yeah, it's only a very small chance, but I personally wouldn't take it.

Until you present evidence that it is possible to dress so that one would not be noticed, and that skimpy clothing causes someone to be noticed, and that this is a larger factor in someone's likelihood of being raped then circumstances (where they are, if they are alone or with a group, etc) then your argument is pure fantasy.

Whoa whoa whoa? Who said it was a larger factor than where they are and if they are alone? It doesn't even come into play until you're in a situation where you have to go out alone in a high crime area. I touched on that in my previous post.

Sorry, I'm not wrapped up in feminist dogma. I'm wrapped up in facts as presented by crime-prevention organizations that have studied rapes. Try again, and this time don't waste my time with assumptions about which tribe you think I'm in, please.

You could have fooled me.

 

[DrOswald]

My exact words in my first post: "The advice that you should wear less revealing clothing to avoid being raped is stupid."

Now that we have that out of the way, now that you understand that I am on your side on this, please pay attention.

You are making the exact error I was talking about.

My entire post was about how the anti rape movement is full of reactionaries that blow the smallest comment out of proportion, viciously attacking people who are on our side over a comment that is taken out of context. Like you just did.

These vicious attacks prevent actual discussion of actual useful rape prevention. Especially among those with the ability to significantly sway public opinion.

Your exact words also include that it's completely reasonable to say that wearing provocative clothing is a risk-increasing factor.

And it is. In the absence of any evidence either way, it is reasonable to take a position backed up by logic. By better understanding why someone might take a certain position we can better address the problem.

There's absolutely nothing reasonable about making statements like that that when you yourself admit you haven't got any evidence at all to back it up.

There's nothing blown out of proportion. You make comments that only reinforce the idea that victims weren't acting completely reasonable and you get called out for them. That's all there is.

You can keep on saying that your statement 1, that provocative clothing is a risk-increasing factor, attaches no blame but that doesn't make it true. It makes the utterly retarded assumption that the victim's clothing was a choice she could have picked better. That there was something, anything, she could have done to prevent the whole thing if only she hadn't worn that skirt. That's attaching blame. Not much blame. But it is attaching blame, regardless of you stressing that it doesn't.

Stop making stupid statements like that and you'll stop getting attacked by people you believe on your side (hint: those actually on this side don't say your statement 1 is reasonable).

In the absence of evidence, it is reasonable to take the position backed up by the strongest logic.

This is why so many people have taken the stance that revealing clothing might make you more likely to be targeted in certain types of rapes. It is the most logical position.

Once again, it is a reasonable, logical statement. THAT DOES NOT MEAN THAT IT IS TRUE. And it certainly does not mean we should act on the statement. Logic is not evidence and reasonable does not mean true or right. In fact, many logical and reasonable things are abhorrent.

For example, it would be logical to harvest the organs of societal undesirables and give them to "more deserving" citizens. After all, the organs of one undesirable could save many lives. And yet anyone in their right mind would find such a thing abhorrent. Not because it is illogical, not because the reasoning is poor, but because on the level of emotion and morality we know it is wrong. The ban on organ harvesting is emotionally driven and counter to logic. But that does not make it wrong.

It is vital that we understand the reasoning and logic that causes problems so we can quickly and effectively correct the error of thinking and them move on to the more important issue. All your ranting about longer skirts and burqa means nothing because you are failing to address the actual core concern. You are endeavoring to counter logic with logic, but logic is not on your side for this one. You have no evidence and your position is counter to logic. You should approach this on a level of morality and ethics. All the other stuff, all your efforts to prove that clothing has nothing to do with it simply lessens the strength of the actual message you should be talking about. In fact, your hostile words cause people to shutdown and ignore everything you have to say. The only thing you accomplish is in driving someone away from the anti rape movement.

This is a matter of ethics and morality. The principle we need to teach is that just because additional risk management was possible does not mean there was fault in the victim. Because there will be cases when a woman failed in risk management. And it is still not their fault.

I personally knew a woman who was raped by a stranger. She accepted a drink, it was drugged, and she was raped. The fact is that the rape could have been prevented if she had acted differently.

Statement: "A woman is more likely to be raped if she accepts drinks from strangers."

However, despite the failure in risk management, she is not to blame. This is the truth that actually matters. This is what we need everyone to understand. Because once everyone accepts this idea then we will be able to effectively teach risk management, victim blaming will occur less and less, and we will have made significant strides against rape culture.

 

[Hagi]

In the absence of evidence, it is reasonable to take the position backed up by the strongest logic.

No.

In the absence of evidence, it is reasonable to do some fucking reading and research to find some evidence.

As for the rest of your post, I don't think you really know what logic is. Logic is just a set of rules of reasoning. It's incapable of functioning on it's own because it does not incorporate a starting point.

Your 'conclusion' that harvesting organs from society's undesirables isn't purely logical. It's based on the starting point that the lives of undesirables are of minimal value compared to those of others. There's nothing logical about that starting point, nor is there anything logical about any other starting point. It simply is. From that starting point onward the logic starts and you end up at the conclusion of harvesting their organs.

It's no more or less logical than saying "If it's black and white then it's a penguin. A panda is black and white. Thus a panda is a penguin." Because the starting point, "If it's black and white then it's a penguin.", isn't correct the entire thing that follows logically isn't correct either.

You don't have to have an opinion on everything. If you don't have any evidence, meaning a solid starting point, then it's completely acceptable and fine to just say you don't know.

You don't have to start from a point you haven't the faintest clue about whether or not it's actually true and start applying logic in the delusional belief that that alone is more than enough to come up with truth.

If you don't have any evidence then the reasonable thing is to simply say you don't know. Until you do some research and reading to come up with a solid starting point to start reasoning from.

It's okay to not know. You don't have to mindlessly apply logic based on axioms you haven't the faintest clue about.

 

[Lilani]

You'll note in a previous post I wrote that not being there was preferential to managing your appearance.
By their very definition an opportunistic rapist will not be out explicitly looking for people to rape, they see an opportunity, and they take it.
People who dress in a provocative manner are more conspicuous than those who don't.
It's why I've made sure to include "don't dress in fancy dress and don't have clothes that light up" with my examples.
Wearing provocative clothing will not get you raped, but the extra attention it affords you might.
Please note (like I said before) that I would advise somebody (male or female) who is looking to reduce their chances of being mugged to not wear provocative clothing.

Unless there's an official prototype for an invisibility cloak, the very fact that the person is there is going to be "conspicuous" enough.

If what you are suggesting is more along the lines of "women should disguise themselves so the rapists can't tell they are women after dark," I think it should be noted that in most cases if a woman is walking in someplace sketchy after dark, it is very likely she did not set out to find herself there. Something changed in her plans and for some reason or another, she's having to stick it out in that area alone. Most women I know, myself included, don't just have in our belongings at any given moment a set of clothing that can easily hide my gender. So if I happen to find myself alone downtown after dark, which I do try to prevent but sometimes things just don't go as planned, I'm stuck with whatever I'm wearing. And even my baggiest jeans and my shittiest T-shirts are not going to hide my figure or my hair.

Expecting women to bundle up like they're wearing burqas is not only unreasonable and not aligned with how stranger-rape occurs, but it also completely falls to pieces because if even one woman in that area fails to properly disguise herself then that's the one the rapist will go after. Disguising women doesn't prevent rape so much as deflect it to another victim. There will always be women who find themselves in bad places after dark, and there will always be ones among them who can be spotted as women.

I get what you're trying to say here, but that's just not how things work in reality.

 

[RJ Dalton]

People like to say that men have no control over themselves, therefor it's up to women to make sure that they don't tempt men. In the broadest sense, yeah, if you wear provocative clothing, you are going to attract attention and it's likely that sooner or later it's going to be the sort of attention you don't want, but that's basically like saying "If he didn't want me to steal from him, he shouldn't have owned such awesome stuff." It doesn't work as a either a logical or legal defense.

Of course, this is really only applicable in the limited context of casual date-rape. Most incidents of rape are not motivated by sexual lust, but are based in twisted power fantasies. That's why you get dumbass judges offhandedly commenting "Why was she raped? She's not that pretty." Actual lust isn't so much a factor as is the desire to have power over another human being, so in general cases, how you dress or look isn't going to make a difference to the rapist.

 

[Drizzitdude]

I don't get why people still use this as a defense for rape. Why do people try to shift the blame onto the women in a situation where the man is still entirely at fault for, you know, having such little self-control that he has to fuck a woman the second that he gets a boner. This is a defense that's still used, and yet, it's one that already assumes that the man is guilty of rape; it simply tries to shift the blame for the crime onto the victim. How do people still believe in this?

Nobody actually does, it is a pathetic excuse and they know it.

 

[LiftYourSkinnyFists]

Quite a few people I know who've "raped" or been "raped" either were doing it wrong or misinterpreting signals... this is a total of three people I know (women, man man).

 

[Azex]

There is no defense or justification for rape /thread