The 'Provocative Clothing' Rape Defense

[Abomination]

My beliefs in the motivations of rapists, however, I base upon my own experiences, my own thought processes as a male attracted to females and my distrust in the rationale and moral compass of criminals.

So it's based on your own gut feeling and nothing more, because you have nothing else to base it on?

Keep going, you're making a really convincing argument here. What do I know with my boring old studies and statistics. You've got thought processes.

Gut feeling? No. I said experiences and recognising what motivates me to be sexally active. I have drawn my conclusions from those.

I guess I'll have to generate a terribly hypothetical situation: if I was a rapist.
This is a hypothetical situation. I am not actually a rapist. I do not condone being a rapist.

So in this hypothetical situation of me being a rapist (that I am not outside of this hypothetical situation) I would target women who were alone and defenceless, with preference towards them wearing more revealing or skimpy attire. I make note of the attire because there is a higher chance they are more comfortable being sexually active, potentially have more sexual partners and I am more certain as to their attractiveness. These would be useful in either discrediting her accusations that I do rape her or give me leverage to tell her she won't be believed if she tells the police anyway. The attractiveness level is important because if I'm going to get caught it might as well be because I did a hot chick than an ugly one. I based the probabilities of being more sexually active and having more sexual partners on my previous experiences in the past when I partook in the nightlife and nightclub scene.

That was a hypothetical situation, of course. I am not really a rapist. I realise that not every rapist would think exactly like that but if I was one that would be how I would conduct myself.

I advise it as an optional precaution.

The crux of the argument that's been levelled against you in this thread, is that there's no point in advising an optional precaution if there's no evidence to support the notion that the precaution is actually going to be effective.

You have yet to refute this argument.

There's no evidence it isn't going to be effective either.

We are dealing with belief here as there has been no study that has not given inconclusive results. Only "no link shown" rather than "no link possible". That does not disprove it, only highlights there has been no proof found.

 

[Abomination]

I would say they wouldn't get raped as much if they didn't hang out on street corners wearing clothing that identified themselves as prostitutes.

What if conservative pantsuits became the new identifier for prostitutes? Do you think there would still be a decrease in rape of prostitutes?

If it was widely recognised? No. I do think we might see a strange side-effect of more businesswomen getting raped though.

So, dressing 'sexy' has no impact on a womans likelyhood to be raped then, by your own admission. You're simply basing this on what you think prostitutes dress like.

Not me, the general consensus that has been well established by media. Of course your hypothetical situation of prostitutes wearing dress pants would be terribly unlikely to occur since it would hinder one of their primary forms of advertising.

Why do you think rape has anything to do with attraction? Do you think man on man prison rape has anything to do with attraction?

We were not talking about prison rape, we were talking about an area specifically OUTSIDE of prison. The motivations for prison rape vary from men just wanting to get their rocks off to punisments for tresspasses but they also can include attraction. At the same time, why do you think rape would never have anything to do with attraction?

Because rape is about power? I thought that much was obvious. Why is rape outside of prision different than rape inside prison?[/quote]Because the social dynamic of prison is incredibly different to outside of prison? Rape isn't always about power, but it certainly involves power. Because rape occurs far more frequently in prison. Because there?s a stigma that rape is EXPECTED in prison. If you go to prison there is a far higher chance you will be raped than if you are not in prison. That changes the dynamic substantially.

Tell me, how do you imagine most prostitutes dress? There is a particular highway in my area that has a reputation, as it were. I have driven down this highway at night before. And I gotta tell you, I would not be able to identify any of the women in that area as prostitutes based on their clothing. I could however be able to tell if I pulled my car over and waited for one of them to approach me. Do you see where I am going with this?

The identifier for prostitutes isn't their clothing, its their behavior.

I know that prostitutes can dress in a variety of ways depending on their geographical location or accepted "style". Some areas the prostitutes dress in far more revealing manners, in others they do not. Either way, the term "don't dress like a prostitute" still holds water.

As for behaviour of prostitutes? When they're not 'working' prostitutes are still women, still people and behave just like everyone else. They're sometimes mothers, sometimes even wives, they go shopping for groceries and pay their electric bill. They're not always women, of course, but in this circumstance they're the demographic we are discussing.

This isn't about MY definition of prostitutes either, this is about a rapist's.

How does 'don't dress like a prostitute' hold water if there is no commonly accepted identifier of a prostitute based on clothing?[/quote][/quote]How do prostitutes dress where you live?

Don't dress like that. Don't dress in a manner that the average person could confuse you with a prostitute. It is a fairly simple exercise.

This isn't about MY definition of prostitutes either, this is about a rapist's.

No it's not. Your understanding of rapists' motivations and thought processes isn't based on studies or interviews with them at all, but rather on an abstract thought exercise of, "Well if I was a rapist then this is what I'd do."

Are we talking about a rapist's definition of prostitutes or what I would do if I was a rapist? Because those are two different things.

Also, what other motivation could I apply? It has been established we can not trust what a rapist says their motivation was. The only one I can trust is my own.

 

[Jux]

Not me, the general consensus that has been well established by media. Of course your hypothetical situation of prostitutes wearing dress pants would be terribly unlikely to occur since it would hinder one of their primary forms of advertising.

Still doesn't change that you admitted that you don't think it would change the incidence of rape, now does it? If pantsuits became the new go to fashion for prostitutes, do you think rape of women that wore 'sexy' clothes would change in rate?

Because the social dynamic of prison is incredibly different to outside of prison? Rape isn't always about power, but it certainly involves power. Because rape occurs far more frequently in prison. Because there?s a stigma that rape is EXPECTED in prison. If you go to prison there is a far higher chance you will be raped than if you are not in prison. That changes the dynamic substantially.

None of this has anything to do with why you think rape is based on attraction.

How do prostitutes dress where you live?

Derp.

And I gotta tell you, I would not be able to identify any of the women in that area as prostitutes based on their clothing.

Also, what other motivation could I apply? It has been established we can not trust what a rapist says their motivation was. The only one I can trust is my own.

Why can't a rapist be trusted to be truthful on his motivation? Frankly, I'd sooner trust a rapist to tell me his motivation than someone that isn't a rapist hypothetically pretending to be a rapist to tell me the motivation of a rapist.

 

[Abomination]

The burden of proof is on you because it is quite literally impossible to prove a negative, which is the point that I'm trying to make (and you keep dodging) with my friend Geoffrey the Gnome. You, on the other hand, are trying to argue a positive. You are trying to argue that something exists - in this case the link between provocative clothing and rape. And you've failed to come up with anything better than, "If I was a rapist, this is what I'd do."

What could provide a link then? Conduct a study asking 10,000 men with images of women "Which one would you rape?" and go with that statistic? This isn?t some debate about a god or the origin of the universe. This is something the world deals with every day, these opinions only need be present in a few rapists. Given the dark rationale of them it wouldn?t be surprising if they were.

A test isn't impossible, it's just ethically impossible.

To me the link is solid as it would increase chances of success and reduce chances of being caught while providing "quality control". I can not imagine a sane person not making the same decision in the same circumstance. If it is a consideration for me it could easily be a consideration for another person. I wouldn't claim I am the only person to think a certain way.

That's all it takes, for others to think the same as me. I also wouldn't be surprised if someone who thought similar to me was a criminal.

 

[Jux]

-snip-

Why would a test be ethically impossible? Get a bunch of convicted rapists in prison to volunteer. Posit different visual senarios and see what they pick. Do interviews. You don't use a group of non rapists as a sample to test. That makes no sense.

 

[Abomination]

-snip-

Why would a test be ethically impossible? Get a bunch of convicted rapists in prison to volunteer. Posit different visual senarios and see what they pick. Do interviews. You don't use a group of non rapists as a sample to test. That makes no sense.

If it was so easy it would have been done by now.

A test where criminals know they are being tested? Come on, the results are already unreliable.

The only way to be certain is to conduct a test where the criminals do NOT know they are being tested and those scenarios require unethical practices and risks.

Are we talking about a rapist's definition of prostitutes or what I would do if I was a rapist? Because those are two different things.

And both are dependent upon your fun little "If I was a rapist" thought exercise, which - in case you were wondering - still holds about as much water as a sieve.

Explain how.

Also, what other motivation could I apply? It has been established we can not trust what a rapist says their motivation was.

Oh, was that established? When? Is there a study that shows that rapists are always compulsive liars, or even have a greater chance of being compulsive liars? Add that to the list of evidence that you have to come up with to support your blind assertions.

You honestly believe that rapists can be trusted to give a truthful account as to their reasons for rape? 100% of the time? Because that's what it requires. All you need when you ask the question is one of them to agree that the dress someone was wearing gave them more cause to rape them.

The only one I can trust is my own.

Arrogant much? You are quite literally saying that you have a deep and profound insight into the criminal mind purely by virtue of being a heterosexual male (because only heterosexual males can rape people, obviously), and that your personal imaginings are more reliable than psychological and sociological studies of actual rapes cases and actual rapists.

We are talking about the claims of criminals here. Yes I do not trust them and of course I only trust my own. I don't know how anyone else's mind works or if their mind works similar to mine. How is it arrogant to claim I can only trust my own thought processes?

Not me, the general consensus that has been well established by media. Of course your hypothetical situation of prostitutes wearing dress pants would be terribly unlikely to occur since it would hinder one of their primary forms of advertising.

Still doesn't change that you admitted that you don't think it would change the incidence of rape, now does it? If pantsuits became the new go to fashion for prostitutes, do you think rape of women that wore 'sexy' clothes would change in rate?

I think those who focused on prostitutes would occasionally rape a woman who had the misfortune of dressing in the new prostitute fashion who wasn't one. As for the control group... because a woman dresses as a prostitute wouldn't be the only reason to rape someone but due to those prostitute rapists now raping women who look different and if we assume there are only so many rapists in a demographic then I would say less women who dress 'sexy' would be raped.

Because the social dynamic of prison is incredibly different to outside of prison? Rape isn't always about power, but it certainly involves power. Because rape occurs far more frequently in prison. Because there?s a stigma that rape is EXPECTED in prison. If you go to prison there is a far higher chance you will be raped than if you are not in prison. That changes the dynamic substantially.

None of this has anything to do with why you think rape is based on attraction.[/quote]I didn't say all rape was based on attraction, I said some was. I also said that not all rape is based on power.

How do prostitutes dress where you live?

Derp.

Quote me in full.

And I gotta tell you, I would not be able to identify any of the women in that area as prostitutes based on their clothing.

Is that because they do not meet the stereotypical dress of prostitutes or their dress code is so varied? If it is the former then the dress code they do have is the dress code of prostitutes in your area. If it is the latter then they are doing women who might be mistaken for prostitutes and raped a service as the rapist would need to be certain they are a prostitute via other means.

Also, what other motivation could I apply? It has been established we can not trust what a rapist says their motivation was. The only one I can trust is my own.

Why can't a rapist be trusted to be truthful on his motivation? Frankly, I'd sooner trust a rapist to tell me his motivation than someone that isn't a rapist hypothetically pretending to be a rapist to tell me the motivation of a rapist.

I'm saying if I was a rapist what my motivation would be, not what every rapist's motivation would be. It would be intellectually dishonest to say that no person would think the same way as I do and that no rapist could think the same way as I do. All it takes is one. Proving it, however, is impossible.

 

[Abomination]

You honestly believe that rapists can be trusted to give a truthful account as to their reasons for rape? 100% of the time? Because that's what it requires. All you need when you ask the question is one of them to agree that the dress someone was wearing gave them more cause to rape them.

I would take their word over yours. You know why? There's a chance that a rapist might fabricate a motivation for their actions, but I know for a fact that your explanation is completely and utterly fabricated, because you are not a rapist and the situation you're describing is completely hypothetical.

I'm amazed that you can't see how laughable your entire position is.

"We need to find out what motivates rapists."
"Why don't we, you know, ask them?"
"Don't be ridiculous, we can't trust that criminal scum! Besides, we don't need to ask them. I went into my imagination palace and acted out a rape scene using my collection of teddy bears. That's all the evidence I need."

Well, you're wrong. It isn't fabricated. It is exactly how I would conduct myself in that situation. Feel free to not believe me but I am not going to rape someone to prove you wrong.

Hence the unethical requirement for a conclusive test.

 

[Abomination]

And both are dependent upon your fun little "If I was a rapist" thought exercise, which - in case you were wondering - still holds about as much water as a sieve.

Explain how.

Because it's based on anecdotal evidence.

Which is another logical fallacy, just like the burden of proof issue that boots has already raised.

The burden of proof is on the less likely of situations. To state that no man ever has raped someone because of what they wore is far more extreme than to state it has happened.

The presence of a mind such as my own could not be said to be unique either.

The logical fallacy doesn't apply to the claim that aliens exist either, simply due to the billions of stars and the sheer possibility outweighing any potential probability.

Of course how many that would be required to cause a statistical trend is up in the air as methods of detection have not been devised.

 

[Thaluikhain]

THREAD INTERVAL

Ladies and gentlemen, the thread will recommence in approximately five minutes. Please take your seats.

Spoiler

BONUS:

Heh. Was just going to post:

Spoiler

Seemed appropriate

 

[Boris Goodenough]

THREAD INTERVAL

I kinda find it weird because men are just as likely to get assaulted as women (and in some countries even more so) yet it is only seen as women suffering because of it.
Men don't fear being assaulted as women, it then stands to reason women don't get assaulted as much as men is because they avoid dangerous areas more due to the fear, or well at least one of the contributing factors.

 

[Thaluikhain]

I kinda find it weird because men are just as likely to get assaulted as women (and in some countries even more so) yet it is only seen as women suffering because of it.

Men don't get sexually assaulted simply for being men nearly as much as women are.

Men don't fear being assaulted as women, it then stands to reason women don't get assaulted as much as men is because they avoid dangerous areas more due to the fear, or well at least one of the contributing factors.

...

If I'm understanding you correctly...no.

 

[Boris Goodenough]

Men don't get sexually assaulted simply for being men nearly as much as women are.

Was talking about the fear of going outside and being assaulted in general, not "only" rape.

Because men get assaulted more often than women, so the issue Tatsuya is raising seems to make it look like women are being singled out for violence, or is it that women fear rape more? I mean otherwise saying feminist in front of Utopia seems redundant, I mean we all wish we wouldn't have to think about ever being assaulted.

No.

Bah, "...as much as..." otherwise it makes little sense. Why wouldn't it make sense to some degree? If men walk around shady areas/times more often than women doesn't it mean statistically they are more likely to encounter wrong-doing?
So why do men get assaulted more often(legitimate question not actually a baiting one)? Is it because the assailants enjoy the battle more than the victory (assuming none-rape)? Is it because men often deal in more shady business than women? All of the above?

 

[Thaluikhain]

Was talking about the fear of going outside and being assaulted in general, not "only" rape.

Because men get assaulted more often than women, so the issue Tatsuya is raising seems to make it look like women are being singled out for violence, or is it that women fear rape more? I mean otherwise saying feminist in front of Utopia seems redundant, I mean we all wish we wouldn't have to think about ever being assaulted.

Singled out for violence simply due to their sex, yes. Men aren't generally attacked simply for being men. Notable exception of active long term warzones, where mass killings of military aged men is carried out.

If men walk around shady areas/times more often than women doesn't it mean statistically they are more likely to encounter wrong-doing?

Providing that assaults are caused by walking round the wrong place. This isn't the case with assaults on women, can't speak for men off the top of my head.

So why do men get assaulted more often(legitimate question not actually a baiting one)? Is it because the assailants enjoy the battle more than the victory (assuming none-rape)? Is it because men often deal in more shady business than women? All of the above?

IMHO, there's a lot of testosterone poisoning going on there, though I've not got figures to hand.

 

[Smeatza]

snip

snip

snip

Does anyone have any links to scientific studies that show that rape is never anything to do with sexual attraction?

 

[Boris Goodenough]

Singled out for violence simply due to their sex, yes. Men aren't generally attacked simply for being men.

So, it makes it better to be assault for just violence rather than ones gender/sex? (This is the issue I have with the term "hate crimes", it makes random senseless violence better than specified senseless violence.)
The argument would then be women would hardly be assaulted if there was no sexism but why do they get assaulted less in a sexist world then if they are being singled out for being women? And about rape, if there was no sexism there would still be a fraction left, I think it was 1 in 33 men I saw when last looking through some articles who had been sexually assaulted (I assume there is a overrepresentation of "man on man rape" over "woman on man rape" and that "man on man rape" has little ground in feminism in terms of victim targeting).

Notable exception of active long term warzones, where mass killings of military aged men is carried out.

I don't think warzones are on our minds when we talk about/record assault statistics, other than rape of course.

IMHO, there's a lot of testosterone poisoning going on there, though I've not got figures to hand.

Well, woman doing violence has been on rise as of late, so we might see equality there...

 

[Phasmal]

Spoiler

BONUS:

That's bullshit, or that comic was made by a dude.
If women actually thought like that , the book wouldn't sell 50 million copies.

Women can only have ONE opinion!
Oh my.
Palm, meet Face.

 

[Phasmal]

Spoiler

BONUS:

That's bullshit, or that comic was made by a dude.
If women actually thought like that , the book wouldn't sell 50 million copies.

Women can only have ONE opinion!
Oh my.
Palm, meet Face.

Yup they do, and that is:
"Taking everything said as literal, without interpretation".

Sorry for replying to what you actually said.
Next time, try writing what you mean, and maybe it won't sound so silly.

 

[Phasmal]

I'm sorry you don't understand subtext and need everything explained. Life must be hard

It's easier with super helpful people like yourself to tell me about women.
Anywwwwwaaaaaay, we could probably snark at each other all day but I'm gonna call it here.
It's been fun though.

 

[Froggy Slayer]

Actually, I have thought of one clothing choice that could prevent rape.

What if we got everyone to wear bomb suits? It'd be impossible to bone in one of these.

 

[Smeatza]

Guess you didn't get the memo about "proving a negative", huh?

Not relevant to my question. You seem to be maintaining the position that sexual attraction is never anything to do with a sexual act (rape).
In fact evidence of absence is much more relevant to your position here.

We've already provided links to plenty of studies that looked at rape statistics and things that rapists target (no, I'm not posting them again, go back and read through the thread).

12 pages? Not my idea of fun.

We've already given evidence to show that stranger rape is the rarest form of rape in the first place, and that the primary thing that opportunistic rapists look for in a target is opportunity and vulnerability. The only connection that's ever been found between the victim's perceived personality and the rapist's decision to target them is an air of shyness or fearfulness, which is part of the "vulnerability" aspect of targeting and actually runs completely contrary to the idea that rapists target victims who look sexually confident or outgoing.

I have already agreed to all of this, and I remember having wrote that before. I've seen nothing that indicates that sexual attraction is never anything to do with any rape anywhere.

All I disagree with are the sensational, blanket statements. "Rape is nothing to do with sexual attraction" for example.

You do realize you're shifting the goal posts with that question, don't you? It's quite dishonest. The argument was about clothing, not sexual attraction.

As far as I'm concerned our part of the discussion is over. I don't see how asking an unrelated question, like 6 pages on is moving the goal posts. I only quoted you three in as you seemed to be quite well informed.