RE: Women's clothes?
January 17, 2016 at 4:58 pm
(This post was last modified: January 17, 2016 at 4:59 pm by popsthebuilder.)
(January 17, 2016 at 4:47 pm)Redbeard The Pink Wrote:I get that a strong woman may be less of a target.(January 17, 2016 at 4:27 pm)popsthebuilder Wrote: Never said it could be utterly prevented by such.
Curtailed? Yes, to some extent.
Faith in selfless Unity for Good.
I get what you're saying, but you're wrong. There's no evidence whatsoever to support the assertion that covering up will even slightly decrease a person's likelihood of being raped. Quite the contrary, actually.
You see, rapists don't generally pay that much attention to victims' bodies. What they notice is levels of confidence, assertion, and aggression. Women who are outgoing and confidently dressed, while not inherently safe, are actually less likely to be targeted than women who signal meekness by hiding themselves.
Furthermore, in many oppressive, religious countries where women are completely covered all the time, rape is practically endemic to their culture, even so far as being part of the "Justice" system in some cases.
Point being that dressing modestly has no significant, positive impact on whether somebody is targeted, and in fact it may have the opposite of the desired effect. People who think otherwise don't know the facts.
So lets take that out of the equation.
If all women where equally strong/proud in character but some were more provocatively dressed -( arousing sexual desire or interest, especially deliberately.
synonymsexy, sexually arousing, sexually exciting, alluring,seductive,suggestive, inviting,tantalizing, titillating- then surely, without question, they would be more likely targeted for predatory actions of a sexual nature.
The same would stand if there was a control placed in the equation in either direction(proud/modest).
Without the proper controls, ones data easily has potential for erroneous conclusions.
Peace
Faith in selfless Unity for Good.