Rape and Clothing

ChrisL said:

Clothing isn't giving consent though. It shouldn't matter what the rapist man's prejudgements of this woman were based upon her clothing. :shrug:

Click to expand...

again you miss the point

are you telling me that a woman doesn't sometime signal intent to a date based on how she dresses?

ChrisL said:

That's HIS problem.

Click to expand...

Right up until he makes it your problem by attempting to force himself upon you; hence why it is necessary to take precautions and not draw too much attention to yourself if you're not looking for anything serious in the first place.

You yourself told me before that the only reason that the men frequent these establishments to begin with is because of the women who go there, so maybe you guys should just avoid going to places where women are if you cannot control yourselves.

Click to expand...

Most guys can, but there are some that can't. As has already been established, women need to be wary of that fact.

I doubt that rapists are talking up the prettiest girl in the room. They are looking for the EASIEST target, and a lot of times that would be the more shy and quiet person, rather than the drunk belligerent one who's dancing around making a scene.

Click to expand...

In the case of date rape that was not premeditated, they are often looking for the easiest woman to have sex with, not rape. Revealing clothing will sometimes be taken as a sign of this.

It simply happens to be the case that some men do not handle being told "no" very well, especially not from a woman they perceive as being "easy" in the first place.

If it plays a role at all, I think it plays a very insignificant role.

Click to expand...

Again, it would be a contributing role.

ChrisL said:

I agree with that, but usually that scenario would occur because the woman was flirting excessively with the man, seducing him so to speak. I am skeptical that a man walks into a bar and just because a woman is wearing a short skirt he thinks she wants to have sex with him UNLESS she made him think so in another way.

Click to expand...

That is another dangerous behavior that women need to avoid.

When a woman is wearing flirtatious clothing and has a flirtatious demeanor, it is easy for a lot of men to get the wrong idea. Some of those men might not be willing to take "no" for an answer.

This is why women need to take precautions to ensure their safety.

TurtleDude said:

again you miss the point

are you telling me that a woman doesn't sometime signal intent to a date based on how she dresses?

Click to expand...

Maybe, maybe not. I would think that depends upon the person. Some women might dress to the nines everywhere they go because that's just who they are. That's why I don't like that they would use clothing as evidence.

ChrisL said:

Not by clothes! :roll:

Click to expand...

We all make judgments about others all the time. How someone presents themselves to the world, including how they dress, is often how people judge them. Is it always right or accurate? No. But we do it, sometimes consciously, sometimes unconsciously. We make judgments about business by their employees dress and actions. Everyone does it, whether right or wrong. That is one thing I think many young people don't understand, yes, they have the freedom to "express" themselves, but people will judge them by it.

Sometimes, like in a "he said, she said" type scenario, how someone dresses, how someone acts, and how someone talks will influence our judgment of who is telling the truth, even if it is inaccurate.

TurtleDude said:

again you miss the point

are you telling me that a woman doesn't sometime signal intent to a date based on how she dresses?

Click to expand...

You can not make the assumption that that is her intent.

ChrisL said:

Maybe, maybe not. I would think that depends upon the person. Some women might dress to the nines everywhere they go because that's just who they are. That's why I don't like that they would use clothing as evidence.

Click to expand...

well what you like is one thing and evidence is another. now if someone pulls a knife out and jumps a woman as she walks down the street and rapes her, she could be butt naked and he's gonna get 15 to life. ON the other hand, if a woman goes home with a man and then claims rape the next day, how she acted, how she dressed and how she appeared to OTHERS before she left with the man is going to be fair game to his attorney to ask about.

opendebate said:

You can not make the assumption that that is her intent.

Click to expand...

guys do it all the time. and so will a jury

since no one other than the couple was witness to what she said right before she is penetrated, the jury has to decide based on what was witnessed by others

DVSentinel said:

We all make judgments about others all the time. How someone presents themselves to the world, including how they dress, is often how people judge them. Is it always right or accurate? No. But we do it, sometimes consciously, sometimes unconsciously. We make judgments about business by their employees dress and actions. Everyone does it, whether right or wrong. That is one thing I think many young people don't understand, yes, they have the freedom to "express" themselves, but people will judge them by it.

Sometimes, like in a "he said, she said" type scenario, how someone dresses, how someone acts, and how someone talks will influence our judgment of who is telling the truth, even if it is inaccurate.

Click to expand...

I totally agree with that, and I think that is a good reason why what the woman was wearing might not be a good idea to be allowed as "evidence." Because people are going to judge her according to their own standards of clothing, and that's not fair.

MaggieD said:

I don't either, Herenow1. I just don't think it's enough. Nor do I think it's a particularly effective first line of defense.

Click to expand...

I agree. Awareness of your surroundings is always the first line.

Some places someone goes, they wouldn't think about a gun. Other places, that same person will keep their gun in close proximity to their gun hand and be aware of whether it is clear and easily accessible.

TurtleDude said:

well what you like is one thing and evidence is another. now if someone pulls a knife out and jumps a woman as she walks down the street and rapes her, she could be butt naked and he's gonna get 15 to life. ON the other hand, if a woman goes home with a man and then claims rape the next day, how she acted, how she dressed and how she appeared to OTHERS before she left with the man is going to be fair game to his attorney to ask about.

Click to expand...

I can agree with the how she acted, but not how she "looked." Sorry, don't agree with that!

TurtleDude said:

guys do it all the time. and so will a jury

since no one other than the couple was witness to what she said right before she is penetrated, the jury has to decide based on what was witnessed by others

Click to expand...

Douchy guys.

ChrisL said:

Maybe, maybe not. I would think that depends upon the person. Some women might dress to the nines everywhere they go because that's just who they are. That's why I don't like that they would use clothing as evidence.

Click to expand...

Makes me think about some teen girls I used to work with as a mentor who were sexually abused. One girl would dress like a tomboy and wore baggy clothes all the time. She was conditioned to believe that if she dressed that way, no man could ever take advantage of her again. Then you have the extreme opposite where they are super promiscuous and show all the goods in hopes of getting some attn. Both attitudes are unhealthy!

ChrisL said:

I totally agree with that, and I think that is a good reason why what the woman was wearing might not be a good idea to be allowed as "evidence." Because people are going to judge her according to their own standards of clothing, and that's not fair.

Click to expand...

I have to disagree. In a situation like a jury, where people are asked to make judgment about guild or innocence, I think it is important that the jury is given as accurate a picture as possible of how things were at the alleged time and place of the crime.

Defense attorney's are very aware of the tendency of people to make judgments on those factors and always try to make sure their clients present the cleanest, most favorable appearance while in court instead of letting the jury see the defendants as they are normally or at the time of the alleged crime. The jury should see them as they were at the time of the crime, not cleaned up and coached on what to say.

herenow1 said:

Makes me think about some teen girls I used to work with as a mentor who were sexually abused. One girl would dress like a tomboy and wore baggy clothes all the time. She was conditioned to believe that if she dressed that way, no man could ever take advantage of her again. Then you have the extreme opposite where they are super promiscuous and show all the goods in hopes of getting some attn. Both attitudes are unhealthy!

Click to expand...

lots of extremely obese women were the victims of rape or abuse. Where I first worked after graduating law school was a firm the had a 350+ pound woman who was the IT expert. One day I was at a Xmas party and someone had some photographs of the firm 12 or so years before I was hired. There was a tall knockout brunette in them and I said "who is that?". One of the long timers said it was "Kristie" the IT. I said WTF? and the woman noted that this woman had been in a very abusive relationship afterwards that led to her partner being convicted of DV and assault. after that she just started getting fatter and fatter. Later, when a girlfriend of the woman I was dating at the time was assaulted by a boyfriend, I served as her counsel and met with rape counselors. They told me the same thing-many obese women were rape or sexual abuse victims

DVSentinel said:

I have to disagree. In a situation like a jury, where people are asked to make judgment about guild or innocence, I think it is important that the jury is given as accurate a picture as possible of how things were at the alleged time and place of the crime.

Defense attorney's are very aware of the tendency of people to make judgments on those factors and always try to make sure their clients present the cleanest, most favorable appearance while in court instead of letting the jury see the defendants as they are normally or at the time of the alleged crime. The jury should see them as they were at the time of the crime, not cleaned up and coached on what to say.

Click to expand...

That is not right at all. They should not be able to use a person's appearance against them. It's not fair because it does not indicate that the woman wanted to have sex. She could just be a person who dresses provocatively and it doesn't have anything to do with sex as far as SHE is concerned.

ChrisL said:

That is not right at all. They should not be able to use a person's appearance against them. It's not fair because it does not indicate that the woman wanted to have sex. She could just be a person who dresses provocatively and it doesn't have anything to do with sex as far as SHE is concerned.

Click to expand...

Sorry, but the jury should be given as accurate a picture of the scene and events as possible.

Unless/until we do away with protection against "self incrimination" and chemical interrogation is used, accuracy of the scene and people is going to be necessary.

ChrisL said:

That is not right at all. They should not be able to use a person's appearance against them. It's not fair because it does not indicate that the woman wanted to have sex. She could just be a person who dresses provocatively and it doesn't have anything to do with sex as far as SHE is concerned.

Click to expand...

Well here's the thing: "Provocative" is such a personal "opinion" on clothing.

I do not dress "provocatively" in how *I* interpret the term . . . but I have been told I've done so by my husband and others numerous times.

It's strictly opinion.

I wear a business suit with a short skirt and style my hair: I am looking quintessentially *professional* and absolutely not *provocative* - but others might disagree. I have a dress I really like that I consider to be conservative in style (it's sleeveless but doesn't show any cleavage - the neckline is *to* the neck arch), but because of my massive bust and the form fitting nature of the dress fabric my husband sees it as provocative. I have some sweaters that he considers provocative as well - and they're massive bulky things with long fluffy sleeves, they cover my butt, and they're all cowl-necks, but he thinks I'm insanely hot in them.

Jeans and t-shirts get some guys going.

Dresses appeal to others even if they're full covering or loose fitting.

Provocative, appealing, fashionable, sexy, alluring, seductive - all of this is strict personal opinion. Some people even find 'bumming around the house in sweats' to be highly appealing.

The idea that there's a type of outfit that no one finds appealing is preposterous as is the idea that a female cannot dress *up* nice to go out on a *date*

What - gunny sacks for everyone? Wait, even THAT won't work because it would show LEG.

Aunt Spiker said:

Well here's the thing: "Provocative" is such a personal "opinion" on clothing.

I do not dress "provocatively" in how *I* interpret the term . . . but I have been told I've done so by my husband and others numerous times.

It's strictly opinion.

I wear a business suit with a short skirt and style my hair: I am looking quintessentially *professional* and absolutely not *provocative* - but others might disagree. I have a dress I really like that I consider to be conservative in style (it's sleeveless but doesn't show any cleavage - the neckline is *to* the neck arch), but because of my massive bust and the form fitting nature of the dress fabric my husband sees it as provocative. I have some sweaters that he considers provocative as well - and they're massive bulky things with long fluffy sleeves, they cover my butt, and they're all cowl-necks, but he thinks I'm insanely hot in them.

Jeans and t-shirts get some guys going.

Dresses appeal to others even if they're full covering or loose fitting.

Provocative, appealing, fashionable, sexy, alluring, seductive - all of this is strict personal opinion. Some people even find 'bumming around the house in sweats' to be highly appealing.

The idea that there's a type of outfit that no one finds appealing is preposterous as is the idea that a female cannot dress *up* nice to go out on a *date*

What - gunny sacks for everyone? Wait, even THAT won't work because it would show LEG.

Click to expand...

Exactly, and great points. What about guys who are attracted to FEET? Should we cover those when we go out too? :lol:

roguenuke said:

This isn't really true either. Opportunity plays a role in how a person might succeed in a rape, but it is not why a person rapes another. The average man or woman would not rape another person even if they were laying in a bed naked and passed out who the person knew did not want to have sex with them. Plenty of women go home or even to a hotel room with men (I do realize that men can be raped and women can be rapists as well, but it happens most often as women being raped and men being the rapist) who did not get raped after telling the man "no", even while sleeping in the same bed with them.

Click to expand...

Since rape is about power and not sex, then of the millions (billions?) of rapes that must surely leave history awash with this particular atrocity, do you happen to know of one single case where sexual contact wasn't the mode of expression? Would it be reasonable to revise the existing laws to include a new definition of rape as being a power crime, rather than a sex crime? Shall we remove rapists from the sex offenders registers, in light of this new definition, since it's somehow inaccurate? We could reasonably choose to recognise no distinction between rape and, say, a verbal threat, since power and control are the qualifiers, right? Or blackmail, for example? A politician abusing his position to have a woman removed from her job just raped her, is that correct? He'll be charged with rape? I'll wait patiently for a single example of a case where rape occurred without sex.

Now, you might say it's both. That it's power by means of sex. Interestingly, even consensual sex can occur with power as the motive, as in certain forms of fetishism. But that’s consensual, so no harm no foul. But then the only difference between rape as some cruel and ruthless pursuit of power and regular sex is the element of consent itself, correct? By extension, if I punch a woman in the face without her consent, I just raped her. No sex was necessary. Christ, I could steal a Snickers bar and be guilty of rape. Let's be clear. There's no denying the sexual component of rape, but 'power' is merely (politically) interpretative beyond physical domination. No complex, degradative, diabolical mind game is necessary. While rape is destructive, there are numerous other avenues one might pursue to that end, and without any attendant jail sentence.

Also, does knowing the victim in advance make the crime any less opportunistic? Even a jewellery store smash n' grab, though planned, would entail the element of opportunism. Or a mugging. Whatever. Does intention necessarily constitute a lengthy period of premeditation? Because if there's no established temporal baseline, then a ten year campaign of threats that culminates in rape is no more indicative of planning than the ****bag who jumps women in car parks. That a victim might know her attacker in advance is no refutation of opportunism, that representing, literally, a moment of opportunity. A 'plan' can be formulated in seconds. All that’s required is a dark alley and a passer-by. I doubt very much if serial rapists who attack complete strangers would be accused of putting much thought into who their victims are. It's opportunism, not military logistics. How much planning does it take to rape someone, requiring only physical domination? If anything, doesn’t knowing the victim in advance make for far less planning than with a stranger?

DVSentinel said:

Sorry, but the jury should be given as accurate a picture of the scene and events as possible.

Unless/until we do away with protection against "self incrimination" and chemical interrogation is used, accuracy of the scene and people is going to be necessary.

Click to expand...

That is not accurate because it's a matter of opinion, and is in no way an indicator of consent to sex. IMO, it is fine if a defense attorney wants to use her behavior as an indicator, such as she was sitting in his lap all night and kissing on him and things like that. But just because a woman is wearing a short skirt does NOT indicate anything to do with her consenting to sex or not.

On that note, we should be able to use in the case for the prosecution that "she was dressed conservatively" so obviously she did NOT want sex and he obviously must have raped her. What's good for the goose . . . .

annata said:

I am no expert on sexuality.

Click to expand...

You need to get out more.

ChrisL said:

Exactly, and great points. What about guys who are attracted to FEET? Should we cover those when we go out too? :lol:

Click to expand...

Exactly.

So the argument is bull**** and it comes from people who find *certain clothes* to be insanely attractive - and for whatever reason - they assume everyone else is the same way.

It's a way of passing the stress and blame off on the victim as if she's done something stupid like on a 'dude - watch this' video that goes viral and ends up on Tosh2.0.

When people toss around that argument and they *believe it* - it tells a lot about them.

herenow1 said:

Since posters are getting upset that the yoga thread keeps getting derailed I will ask this here. Do you think most (true cases- not made up, let's not turn this into he said she said discussion) people who get raped are wearing revealing clothing?

Click to expand...

:lamo Well...llll, You get an "A" for your efforts.

Enjoy Life

Thom Paine

TurtleDude said:

guys do it all the time. and so will a jury

since no one other than the couple was witness to what she said right before she is penetrated, the jury has to decide based on what was witnessed by others

Click to expand...

that doesn't mean that it is sound or just.

how a group of jurors decide to interpret the behaviors of any party is rooted in the conventions of the time and does not serve to justify those decisions.

Aunt Spiker said:

Well here's the thing: "Provocative" is such a personal "opinion" on clothing.

I do not dress "provocatively" in how *I* interpret the term . . . but I have been told I've done so by my husband and others numerous times.

It's strictly opinion.

I wear a business suit with a short skirt and style my hair: I am looking quintessentially *professional* and absolutely not *provocative* - but others might disagree. I have a dress I really like that I consider to be conservative in style (it's sleeveless but doesn't show any cleavage - the neckline is *to* the neck arch), but because of my massive bust and the form fitting nature of the dress fabric my husband sees it as provocative. I have some sweaters that he considers provocative as well - and they're massive bulky things with long fluffy sleeves, they cover my butt, and they're all cowl-necks, but he thinks I'm insanely hot in them.

Jeans and t-shirts get some guys going.

Dresses appeal to others even if they're full covering or loose fitting.

Provocative, appealing, fashionable, sexy, alluring, seductive - all of this is strict personal opinion. Some people even find 'bumming around the house in sweats' to be highly appealing.

The idea that there's a type of outfit that no one finds appealing is preposterous as is the idea that a female cannot dress *up* nice to go out on a *date*

What - gunny sacks for everyone? Wait, even THAT won't work because it would show LEG.

Click to expand...

Thank you! I love dressing up, and where I live ppl dress up just to go out to eat and the movies. My hubs is actually the one who encourages me to dress sexy(short skirts, hight heels) but of course only with him,lol. He doesn't want me wearing it on girls night out tho.Sometimes dressing nice is about how it makes you feel not about how it makes someone else look at you!