The 'Provocative Clothing' Rape Defense

[MrBrightside919]

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

Just once...

 

[Superbeast]

You know, if clothing had any bearing on rape, you would think that something would be mentioned about it, yet there is absolutely nothing at all regarding clothing on Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Factors_associated_with_being_a_victim_of_sexual_violence
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_sexual_violence
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Initiatives_to_prevent_sexual_violence

If it really were a logical and/or well-documented occurrence then something should be mentioned. Yes, it is only Wikipedia, but it is a good jumping-off point thanks to the sourcing of the articles.

Although it is somewhat facetious, I am partial to the argument that, if rape was influenced by how provocative a woman's clothing was, then there would be greatly reduced frequency of rape in countries which legally enforce conservative clothing on women (be it a burqa or something else). Yet they do not. Also, one never sees the argument of "but they were wearing skimpy/provocative clothing" wheeled out when it comes to male victims of rape, which surely would still apply if clothing were indeed a factor in determining someone's visibility and/or vulnerability to a rapist.

 

[scw55]

Usually rape threads get locked quite quickly due to the internet can't help rape discussions.

Anyone who rapes is evil.
However, dressing in a seductive manner does not help things.

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

These are two separate issues which happen to overlap. However, my experience of being on the internet is that as a man, I have no right to have an opinion how women dress.

 

[AuronFtw]

it would be great if all men would learn that rape is fucking wrong.

Because men are the only rapists on earth.

Fact.

 

[repeating integers]

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!"

At this point a single additional post isn't going to make any difference. It's like throwing a bucket of water into an overflowing river.

 

[DjinnFor]

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.

Huh? You know rape is a bit more complex than "domineering man forces himself on unwilling victimized woman", right?

And no, people don't use it as a defense for rape, they have never used it as a defense for rape. They use it to justify or support a defense for rape, one that goes something like "I didn't know she didn't want to have sex".

Here's an example: "my friend introduced her to me at a club, she was dressed very revealing and looking like she wanted to have a good time, and she looked into me after we chatted it up for a bit so we hooked up later in the bathroom/my house/the car/whatever, and I never got the impression that she didn't want it".

Then the prosecution responds with "she was too intoxicated to give informed consent, you should have known better".

And the man responds with "well she was dressed like a slut so I thought she was looking for sex".

And people read nothing but the last part because that's the only thing newspapers report, and they imagine someone kidnapping and raping some woman off the street and trying to excuse their behavior with "she was asking for it" when that wasn't the case at all.

 

[wearesoneutralthatithurts]

Sigh, it's not a defence. You've misread what they've said and just completely corrupted their words. And... egh... just... let's just say that a rape is going to happen one night. There is a man out with the intention of raping a girl. Wearing provocative clothes is just bringing attention to you, wearing unprovocative clothes isn't going to make you invisible, but you may put yourself higher on the list of potential targets if you wear clothes that provoke.

And then there's the hoo-haa about slut walks, yeah, ladies should be able to wear whatever they want. I agree. Let's tell young men not to rape. I also agree. But don't act like you can't understand that Canadian police officer who suggested to make yourself less of a target.

... huh. I didn't notice it was unpopular opinion time already.

first: picures often say more than words:

DUUUDE, that wrong. studies showed that the victims of rape-the rape which occurs between stranger (so aybe 15-20% of all cases of rape) didnt shine out or wore special sexy clothing. ist like more the opoosite way-raspist are often serial rapists and ist not about sex, its about power. so these people seek their victims and like other "hunter" they tend to search for victims which look ordinary- so that other people tend to overlook them. they search for victims which look insecure-and people which wear plan old and wide clothing to hide their bodys seem to look like that.
if it were about the sexy clothing, there wouldn't be much rape in muslim countrys because trhe women wear hijab-but that wrong.

and a quote:

A Federal Commission on Crime of Violence Study found that only
4.4% of all reported rapes involved provocative behavior on the part
of the victim. In murder cases 22% involved such behavior (as simple
as a glance).

- Most convicted rapists do not remember what their victims were wearing.

- Victims range in age from days old to those in their nineties,
hardly provocative dressers

http://www.usu.edu/saavi/docs/MYTHS%20AND%20FACTS.pdf


and why rape myths are a problem:
http://www.chicagonow.com/recipes-for-the-home-cook/2013/01/does-a-womans-clothing-really-make-men-want-to-rape-them/
http://jiv.sagepub.com/content/25/11/2010.abstract

http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=16885786

(This study investigated the effects of participant sex, victim dress, and attitudes influencing the tendency to blame a marital rape victim. College undergraduates completed the Attitudes toward Marriage Scale, an intervening cognitive task, and a read fictitious scenario of a marital rape incident where the victim was dressed somberly or seductively. Participants then completed a brief questionnaire. As predicted, males rated the victim more deserving of the attack than females. As predicted, the suggestively dressed victim was rated more responsible and deserving than the somberly dressed victim. As predicted, participants holding more traditional attitudes toward marriage were more likely to assign more victim responsibility and deservingness than participants with more egalitarian attitudes. These findings are discussed within an attitudinal framework.]

and here abstract but i think you can look at the whole study:
http://ctr.sagepub.com/content/14/4/276.abstract

Results of this study document existence of a belief in, and potential effects of, rape myths. Since belief in rape myths is likely to interact with clothing cues to affect perceptions of a victim, it is important that a rape victim's clothing not be allowed as evidence in a trial.

http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview/id/776945.html


if you want to find more, search rape-myth + clothing.


sigh.. I cant eat enough as much as I want to vomit.


and here are more rape myths and the truth for educational purpose-because PEOPLE BELIEVE THIS BULLSHIT.
sadly, infuriating, but true. poeple believe this bs.
http://www.icasa.org/docs/rapemyths_fact_sheet.pdf

 

[Thaluikhain]

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)

 

[Spoonius]

It's never the victim's fault they got raped. That said, OF COURSE the way people dress is a factor. You don't walk through a black neighbourhood wearing a KKK outfit, or through a high-crime area wearing expensive jewellry and designer watches.

Telling potential victims to reconsider their attire is totally acceptable IMO. You don't want to make yourself any more of a target than you need to be. But acquitting the perp because of the victim's clothing is just wrong.

 

[wearesoneutralthatithurts]

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. .

question: did she feel uncomfortable?
you know, fucking isnt like a contract, you can refuse your given consent every time you want.

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.

you know, consent can be refused. The guys could say "go away, dont touch me in that kind of way, i dont want that"

and you know, sex isnt something you deserve or you have a ritht to-this time is over since 1992 and thats very good.
if you ar in a relationship with someone that doenst mean you have any right to have sex with this person. PERIOD.

and thes grls can behave anyway they want if they dont say i want sex with you or i want to kiss you nobdy has the right to fuck them or kiss them, PERIOD.

and a little inforation because ypu lack it if it seems.

if you have sex with your girlfriend and she say 2stop it i dont want ist" than YOU HAVE TO STOP. you cant say: "but you gave consent 5 minutes before" because its not a contract and consent can be refused every tie one or the other wants to. PERIOD!

so if your sister had sex and then while she had sex, felt that she didnt wanted any more and said this to this guy but he refused to oblige than it was rape.


I was in that kind of situation, this guy nagged and chewed my ear of but i didnt wanted-but is wasn't total crystal clear and well, I stayed because it was 2 o clock in the morning and my house was in another city 40km away, it was winter and i didn't want to stay outside in the cold until the next bus drives to the central station..
i was kinda dismissive but not total and openly and after we went to sleep he started but i didn't say anything-well he was older than me and very trained and strong so i waited and let it happen.

i dont feel traumatized or an angry at him but i think that any women which were in this kind of situation has a right to be angry or to complain about that.
I am a bit angry at myself that i didn't said in this situation that he shop go fuck himself and leaved so it was kind misguided communication. And i dont think that he is evil but i think that it would be better to tell this because-obviously some people have problems to accept that a consent is not for granted and that anybody has the right to withdraw consent anytime this person wants to.


After that I sweared/mad an oath to myself that this will never happen to me again and that i don't have any obligation to fuck with someone even if i stay at his home and sleep with him in one bed. and een if i had sex with someone before, this don´t mean that he can see sex as granted.

don't be a dick tease

Dont be an asshole? Dont be a rapist? dont think because some person starts dick teasingyou that this person wants sex.
Because that is about power too.

Don´t mind it if you think these women are ass holes and mean because they play with the power they have about other ppls arousal.
I think dick teasing isn´t proper behaviour and i think if i were a men i´d be angry because its not nice if someone plays with your feelings and this also applies to the feeling of being aroused (and if its against sour will and this is sexual harassment)

dress sexy but not like hooker (slutty sexy) but more like Helen Mirron (classy sexy).

Yeah, because you are clearly the person which can dictate womyn how to dress and how to behave. thank you for your mansplaining...

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.

The one who acts is the one who´s resposible. So the rapist is responsible for raping. PERIOD.

 

[The Material Sheep]

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)

To your first point, it just seems so antiquated that people are not recognizing rape in certain areas. That was an issue back in the 90s but for the most part date rape, spousal rape and other things that were previously trying to be argued as not rape are just not the case anymore. Other then dumb ass talking heads I don't think I've ever wondered into a conversation or overheard a conversation where people were advocating physically forced or drug induced sex acts as not rape. At least not in a while.

To the second it's fairly easy to determine what is provocative. Clothes that highlight or draw eyes to the breasts and backside. The standard points of fixation for those attracted to women. It has nothing to do with the rate of rapes or anything, but that is a general answer to what provocative clothing can be defined as.

 

[Vegosiux]

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

I'll admit I have trouble with details sometimes in vague cases. Like, having sex with someone that's intoxicated - now if you got them drunk to get into their pants, yeah, that's pretty clear. But if they happened to already be drunk and proceeded to throw themselves at you, I have trouble seeing it as an equal thing, since there's a lack of intent to get into someone's pants against their will on your part. To make a crass analogy, if you steal something, you stole it, but if someone tossed something at you casually, then came back accusing you of stealing it, you have every reason to go "WTF is up with you nincompoop?"

Still, the pragmatist in me will say, better keep your pants on in such a case, because it's just a recipe for disaster anyway. But yeah, I do consider intent to be a rather crucial part of it all...

Myeh, iffy business.

 

[wearesoneutralthatithurts]

I remeber something i´ve read...

in egypt where "eve teasing"=sexual harassment and rape are a big problem are many women which wear hijab or more-nikab or burqas.

And the victim blaiming prevails

"she should t have gone out on her own(e.g. for shopping), she should only go out with her husband or her brother or some male relative to protect her."
or: "she shouldn't go out. women should stay at home where its safe and should send men or their employees to do the buying for them (eg saudi arabia)"

There was this girl at a demonstration on tahir-place which wore hijab and long plain clothing. She was beaten and stripped down to her bras by civil cops.
and what was is that most older people said: "she should not have gone out to protest at all, i mean we know that there were men which are capable to do this. a good girl would have stayed home so she deserves it as a reminder of her right role."

this is the same bs like here.. shouldt go out alone in the streets at night etc.

maybe we should say: we need more police at night and more telephones so there are less criminals and possible rapist aroung?

 

[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. There's a conflict between studies investigating it.

Take an honest listen to yourself. You're spouting protection advice that doesn't work, has been shown not to work, and you're still insisting on spouting it. Why would you do that? Why would you insist on telling people to do something that won't protect them? The only reason I can think of is because hearing your own voice and feeling important is something you value more than actually reducing real people's physical and psychological trauma.

Or because, since it's impossible to prove otherwise because no actual scientific STUDY (as in attempting to reproduce a scenario to actually determine probability) has been conducted or will be conducted. You can not take current rape statistics, mash it all together and think you'll come up with a constant motivation for rape.

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.

Of course it doesn't apply to ALL rapes, but it doesn't have to - it only needs to apply to some rapes to make the statement "less revealing dress may reduce the chance of being the target of sexual assault and/or rape". It most certainly applies to sexual assault, you just need to attend a club to see that in action first hand.

 

[Altefforr]

Historically, humans didn't wear coverings. So, the "provocative clothing" defense is pretty much out the window as last attempt douchebaggery excuse used by filthy fucks who don't have the heart to hire a prostitute; yet somehow have the heart to force sex upon an unwilling receiver.

 

[upgrayedd]

Quick Question, Am i able to use the "He had a punchable face" excuse? because my neighbour....

 

[PrototypeC]

Yeah, because you are clearly the person which can dictate womyn how to dress and how to behave. thank you for your mansplaining...

I'm completely with you on everything you said, like about how consent can be given and taken away freely and at any time (that shouldn't even be an opinion thing, it should just be considered FACT at this point!!) but please don't use the word "mansplaining". I know he's looking at it very much from a man's perspective and a poorly considered one at that, but that's kind of derogatory towards men. We're not all that foolish.

Anyway, you know that Canadian (Toronto) cop whose comments got a lot of people into an uproar (mentioned a few pages ago)? I was one of the people uproar-ing. I don't blame the cop for saying that, or hate him, or anything like that (like some do, seriously what), but what he said was absolutely undefendable. The stance that "sexier" clothing leads to being targeted by rapists has no leg to stand on. When someone is out to rape, they'll take whoever they can, not the "sexiest" or whatever. They just need to sate their fucked up urge and they will do so however they can. Hell, if someone's wearing more revealing clothing or shorter skirts or whatever is considered "targetable" by the Toronto cops, then more eyes are on them and they're probably going to be harder to attack. The person nobody's paying attention to? They're probably in more danger.

If someone's confident in her sexuality, swaggering about in a short skirt or a tight blouse, or whatever, they shouldn't have to excuse that if they get attacked. Taking a shortcut through a dark alley? Taking a ride from a stranger (or more likely, someone they know)? Getting drunk and passing out? These things would go much higher on a list of "things one shouldn't do to avoid rape". But you know what? No such list should exist. There has always been rape. There will always be rape. Those of a weak constitution stop reading, because guess what? All a rapist wants is an accessible, warm hole. What a person's wearing doesn't matter. It never has.

 

[Atmos Duality]

*chuckles* I guess it's time for a gangland-style beatdown of "Rape Culture" this week.
"If Less Clothing correlated to More Rape, then nudist colonies would be rape factories."

 

[Schadrach]

The contreversial thing about rape is that it's difficult to prove, and can be used as a weapon. Some girl who goes to bed with some guy and is ashamed, or has to justify it to daddy or a boyfriend or whatever can say "well he raped me" and put tons of pressure on the guy involved whether he did any such thing or not.

Jesus christ, in what fucked up world do you think this happens? The Justice Department estimates that fewer that 4% of rape accusations are falsified; considering that only about half of all rapes are even reported and fewer that 5% of all rapists face even one day in jail for their crimes, your view that somehow the justice system is tilted towards women instead of DRAMATICALLY AGAINST them is ridiculous and bizarre.

FBI had claimed 8%, putting it four times higher than the average for index crimes.

You also need to watch definitions: It's one of those rhetorical tricks where they use a specific definition of "false" that is unintuitive to define "falsely accused" then suggest that that rate has anything to do with the likelihood of an accused person's guilt.

For example, read: http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-accused-20110626,0,7042051.story

He got a finding of factual innocence (that is, being found innocent beyond a reasonable doubt) for the rape he was accused of. He was not, however, "falsely accused" by the definitions commonly used for stats. Not "falsely" accused =/= actually guilty. In fact, in most studies on the topic, whether someone was "falsely" accused has nothing to do with the accused at all (let alone the guilt of the accused or lack thereof).

Almost all studies done on the issue have come up with a figure between 3% and 7% for rape claims that are false - it should be pointed out that the highest bracket is definitely skewed by a few outliers. Overall, I'd say about 5% of rape claims being untrue is a good figure; please note that this includes both malicious claims, which the DOJ claims account for about %1-%2 of all claims, as well as the majority, which are claims made earnestly (almost always regarding events that took place under intoxication) that are later shown to be false.

Studies have ranged everywhere from ~1.5% to >40%, depending on the methodology used and definition of "false". To quote a convenient table from WP:

A selection of findings on the prevalence of false rape allegations. Data from Rumney (2006).

	Number	False reporting rate (%)
Theilade and Thomsen (1986)	1 out of 56 4 out of 39	1.5% (minimum) 10% (maximum)
New York Rape Squad (1974)	n/a	2%
Hursch and Selkin (1974)	10 out of 545	2%
Kelly et al. (2005)	67 out of 2,643	3% ("possible" and "probable" false allegations) 22% (recorded by police as "no-crime")
Geis (1978)	n/a	3-31% (estimates given by police surgeons)
Smith (1989)	17 out of 447	3.8%
U.S. Department of Justice (1997)	n/a	8%
Clark and Lewis (1977)	12 out of 116	10.3%
Harris and Grace (1999)	53 out of 483 123 out of 483	10.9% ("false/malicious" claims) 25% (recorded by police as "no-crime")
Lea et al. (2003)	42 out of 379	11%
HMCPSI/HMIC (2002)	164 out of 1,379	11.8%
McCahill et al. (1979)	218 out of 1,198	18.2%
Philadelphia police study (1968)	74 out of 370	20%
Chambers and Millar (1983)	44 out of 196	22.4%
Grace et al. (1992)	80 out of 335	24%
Jordan (2004)	68 out of 164 62 out of 164	41% ("false" claims) 38% (viewed by police as "possibly true/possibly false")
Kanin (1994)	45 out of 109	41%
Gregory and Lees (1996)	49 out of 109	45%
Maclean (1979)	16 out of 34	47%
Stewart (1981)	16 out of 18	90%

It was only very recently (1992 in the US) that men could be charged with raping their wives, until then consent was assumed, and a lot of people still lean towards that view.

Ironically, just a couple of years ago a French court gave a woman a financial judgement in their divorce because he wasn't sleeping with her (so apparently a man actually *does* have a duty to sleep with his wife, at least in France?). I can only imagine the news coverage if a judgment was made along those lines against a woman though -- we'd be talking about whether it's OK to be fined for not being raped.

Shortly before that, the cheerleader in Texas kicked off her cheerleading squad for refusing to cheer for her rapist, was harassed by her community because she brought them into disrepute.

To be fair, in the case you are talking about, the rapist in question had been brought up for indictment for that incident, and the prosecutor failed to indict (this means that after an initial investigation the prosecutor, unopposed, could not present sufficient evidence for the court to formally charge him). So, for all intents and purposes the court had ruled that there wasn't enough evidence to warrant charging him with a crime.

So what should the cheerleading teams rule have been? You don't have to cheer for anyone you don't particularly want to? Anyone you've accused of a crime? Draw the line for me, but remember as far as anyone who wasn't that girl was concerned, he was a guy who had been accused of rape which an investigation did not turn up enough evidence to charge him with (this eventually changed and he was found guilty, but not until *after* the whole refusing to cheer thing). Should the accusation alone have any formal power?

Of course now, by not assuming her accusation is true unless there's significant evidence to disprove it (and not merely not enough evidence to formlly charge him), they'd be discriminating against her in education with respect to sex, and falling foul of Title IX (yay for the Dear Colleague letter and making it a preponderance of the evidence to destroy someone's education).

Hell, look at people like Mike Tyson and Roman Polanski. There's no question that they are guilty, but they've got plenty of apologists and they've gone on with their film careers. That's exactly what would not happen if the mere accusation was enough to stigmatise a rapist.

Someone else already covered what's happened to them, though it's fair to note that we don't generally hold celebrities to the same standards as everyone else anyways, as messed up as that is too.

it would be great if all men would learn that rape is fucking wrong.

It would be great if all humans would learn that rape is wrong. By explicitly stating men you are falling prey to, or at least implying, the stereotype of it always being men forcing themselves on women. Having known several rape victims I know it is not a matter to be trivialized in any way and by focusing only on women who are raped we do ourselves and the ignored victims a great disservice.

To be fair, thanks to the rhetorical trick in which we alternate between colloquial and technical/legal definitions whenever it helps our case I can say this: In a hypothetical world where 90% of sexual encounters completed through force, the threat of force, or while the victim is unconscious, intoxicated, or otherwise incapable of consent were female perpetrators forcing themselves on male victims, most rapists would be male. Why? Because penis.

With regards to the "don't get blind drunk!" advice, I feel that bringing this up specifically with regard to rape prevention is pointless, and again puts the responsibility on women not to become "targets" for rapists. This advice should be given to everyone, not just women, and when you give this advice to women only it implies that men can consume dangerous amounts of alcohol or drugs consequence-free. Getting completely and utterly off your face can lead to a whole mess of things - from alcohol poisoning to wandering out in front of cars or jumping off high stuff for a dare, all of which is just as likely if not more likely to occur as being raped.

And finally, giving all this advice to women just contributes to the wide misconception that only women can get raped. All of these precautions should be taken by men as well.

I agree with everything you just said here. "Don't get blind drunk, you're likely to do something you'll regret when sober!" is good general advice for everyone. What I find interesting is the underlying idea that women, and only women, doing "something you'll regret when sober" are victims in a way that doesn't apply to men (I'd once seen an article on Shakesville that literally in the same paragraph stated that a high/drunk woman was incapable of consent and thus raped but being high/drunk does not excuse her boyfriend of responsibility for raping her and that the reverse view [that being high/drunk meant he was incapable of consent and her being high/drunk did not absolve her of her actions] was misogyny and rape apology -- the woman in question was agreeing to testify to rape as part of a plea bargain). There's a term for it, where we assign women less agency to and responsibility for their actions than we do men (also one of the reasons women get lesser sentences for a given crime), but I can't think of the word.

 

[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.