clothing has no relevance in violent rape cases
clothing does play a role in determining He said/She said consent cases
I suspect women are wearing revealing clothes in most rape cases
I suspect that a man/woman will rape regardless of the victims clothing
I think some women are inviting dangerous attention when wearing revealing attire
I don't think clothes have anything to do with rape
As I've already said, a woman's level of dress (or lack thereof) is often taken as an indicator of her willingness to have sex. Some of the guys who are drawn to that kind of girl are not especially respectful towards women in general, and might not handle rejection very well if they discover that their initial perception was wrong; trying to take advantage of the girl in question, or drunkenly force themselves upon her.
That's how girls wind up getting in trouble.
Then those aren't the rapes we're talking about here.Usually, when women are stalked and raped, it has very little if anything at all to do with their clothing because that is usually someone they know or are acquainted with.
Last edited by Gathomas88; 02-18-14 at 09:37 PM.
"Men did not love Rome because she was great. She was great because they had loved her." -- G.K. Chesterton
no but it is relevant in determining cases where the man said the woman agreed and she denies it
example (a case in Cincinnati I am familiar with)
A woman comes into a bar wearing say overalls. She sits by herself at the bar, doesn't talk to anyone, has a drink, goes out to her car, and then comes back in and approaches several patrons-all of whom are men. She leaves with one man. The next morning she claims she was raped and had asked for a ride home because her car didn't start.
Scenario #2. a woman comes into the same bar dressed in a skintight bodysuit, patterned tights, a very short skirt an stiletto heels. She spends the night flirting with a couple guys and leaves with one of them. The next morning she claims she was raped by the guy she left with.
Now, all we have in both scenarios is the conflicting testimony of the "victim" and the "perpetrator"
IN both scenarios, the men claimed the women wanted sex. the women both deny that
you are the judge of the facts.
which case are you more likely to believe that the intent of the "victim" that night was to pick up men
which case is it more likely that the woman wanted, or at least implied that she wanted to have sex?
I can agree with this, but again it has little to nothing to do with how a woman is dressed and more about the opportunity that has presented itself in his sick mind.Some of the guys who are drawn to that kind of woman are not especially respectful towards women, and might not handle rejection very well if they discover that their initial perception was wrong; trying to take advantage of the girl in question, or drunkenly force themselves upon her.
That's how girls wind up getting in trouble.
IOW, I don't think rapists CARE that much about the appearance of their victim as long as they are not grotesque. They just want to get laid, and so they rape an easy target. That is how I see it.
No specific rape scenarios are described in the OP, so I can talk about that too.Then those aren't the rapes we're talking about here.
Patricia Bowman claimed she had no intent of having sex that night. She denied-under cross-that she intended to "troll for a guy" at a well known singles bar. She claimed she only went out that night to visit a friend and the friend's new baby but after arriving at her friend's home, she decided to go bar hopping with the friend (I believe the friend's husband was going to watch the baby)
ok that was her testimony
so how did her attire figure into that
well the evidence reflected she wore a skimpy black dress, 60 dollar Givenchy pantyhose an spiked heels
now tell me Chris-is that attire consistent with
a) a woman whose intentions as she was getting dressed was to go visit with a mom with a new born baby
b) a woman who was out looking for attention at a singles bar (where she was picked up by William Kennedy Smith)
More than a few times, when the elevator door has opened and I see someone who is 'questionable' in my estimation, as I start to walk on the elevator, I've said, "DAMN it. Sorry, forgot something." It's a knee-jerk response I'm prepped with anytime I'm walking into an elevator. If I were to use a stairwell, it would only be because the building was on fire. I valet my car any time I have that opportunity. I have signage on my car (magnetic on both sides). When picking up my car, I've asked the valet to remove it more than once before driving up to the pick-up spot because someone has given me the creeps.
When I feel the hairs on the back of my neck stand up? I believe 'em.
I've taken a number of 'dirty street fighting' classes and, unless I was blitzed, I think MAYBE I could put up a somewhat reasonable defense. Certainly I'd leave the cops with some DNA. The classes included both defensive and offensive tactics. I wish I had more practice time with them, but still . . .
These are the lessons we should teach our daughters. And after that? Perhaps a CCW.
I still fail to see where the clothing matters at all. Most people are dressed up when they go out to the club and very few would show up in overalls. It's not out of the ordinary for women to be dressed up at a bar/club, whether she intends to pick up men or not.
I would think in the scenarios above, it was the woman's behavior that was an indicator and not how she was dressed, and even in those scenarios that is no defense IMO. If she said NO, then that means NO.
I can't see how that could be a valid defense against any level of rape. Just because a person might want to show off his or her body does not mean they are consenting to sex either.