Women's clothes?

[MTL]

---

Pops,

Time and again, rape treatment experts tell us that 90% of rapes are someone the victim knows.

That rape is almost always about power, and rarely about sex.

Listen,

I will readily admit that there are exceptions to this:

It usually in SITUATIONS that are ALREADY SEXUAL IN NATURE,
where it's not much of a jump, for a rapist to force sex to occur.

For example, I was date-raped when I was 15, by my then-boyfriend.
It was my first time, I was a virgin,
and we were fooling around.

But I only wanted to go so far, and told him to stop,
...and he didn't.

I believe THAT was about sex....not power.

He was just a spoiled, entitled, juvenile, horny young man,
who never liked being told 'no'
...especially he was so close to getting what he wanted.

however,

While I have no doubt whatsoever that prostitutes probably end up getting raped far more than the average woman,
I don't think it is because their situation is primarily sexual in nature,
I think it is because their situation is primarily highly-vulnerable to exploitation.

And yes, a provocatively dressed woman will undoubtedly come in for more sexual harassment,
walking down a busy street, in the middle of the day,
than a demurely-dressed one,

so it only stands to reason that if you changed the surroundings to a dark alley at night,
she might be putting herself at an even greater risk;

HOWEVER,

I have been sexually-harassed more times in my life than I can count,
and I'm not a provocative dresser AT ALL.

And MANY, MANY women will tell you the same thing.

And it was often at work, or school,
where harassment is officially against the rules,
and where I know my assailant

...not some dark alley.

I've been followed, by strangers, in public, more than once in my life,
and again, I wasn't provocatively-dressed.

And it's not like I'm a playboy centerfold, or a supermodel or anything;
I'm a very average woman.  I'm not even big-chested.
I don't wear tight clothes, heels, or makeup.

This raises the question:

If a man wants to rape, why would he put himself at risk,
by doing it in a situation where is he more likely to be caught or named?

The answer is twofold:

1.  Rapists are messed-up people

2.  Because it is about the vulnerability of the victim, and the power of the assailant.

Also:

The men who make a big show of catcalling, wolf-whistling
or otherwise harassing a provocatively-dressed woman on the street,
are usually either hoping she will notice them,
or they're just showing off for their stupid friends.

Whereas a would-be rapist of serious intent,
unless he is a completely psychotic, raving lunatic,
is less likely to make a spectacle of himself in public.

And a demurely-dressed, unsuspecting, lone teenager in a hoodie and jeans,
who just wants to mind their own business and doesn't go looking for trouble,
who gets off the bus and quickly walks home from work at night,
is a far more palatable target to a would-be rapist,
because they're more likely to freeze in fear,

than a confident, worldly woman who is deliberately putting it out there,
and is prepared for whatever reaction it may generate,
and is more likely to fight back.
She's obviously the kind of person who has no problem being the centre of attention,
so I doubt she would hesitate to put up a fight, if she had to.

Regardless of dress, whether provocative or demure,
if a woman gets herself blind-drunk,
or gets lost, alone, in a strange place, late at night,
then yes, she is taking a risk.

Let's say you have a party, and a bunch of teenagers who get wasted.

Two girls, one dressed provocatively, and the other not, both pass out in separate bedrooms.

I say there is just as much likelihood that the the demurely-dressed one will be raped,
as the provocatively-dressed one

....maybe even more, if the demure one is introspective by nature,
and the provocatively-dressed one is assertive.

The rapist will target the one least likely to fight back.

---

The issue your missing is that you're scenario lacks any real context. A girl who is modest in nature(resulting in modesty through dress) would not be drunk, passed out at a party.

Up until now, the argument I've been hearing from you is that if one woman is dressed demurely,
and the other provocatively,
that the provocative clothes increase the likelihood of sexual assault occurring.

You supported "modesty" in this thread, before now, but as far as I was able to ascertain,
you were still referring primarily to clothing.

Perhaps I missed the distinction you made, somewhere.

It sounds like you are now edging over to this side of the argument,
agreeing that it is SITUATIONAL risk (IE what you are now calling "immodest behavior")
that outweighs any AESTHETICS that might increase risk.

What If the two aren't passed out but just drunk?

Are you saying the one "putting it out there" is equally at risk as the one still not even insinuating a sexual nature?

Yes.  There is far too great an amount of data that says rape is not about the clothes.

People are focusing on the clothing as if it is separate from the nature of the people wearing them. The whole promiscuous way of life that this generation seems to idolize is very damaging.

People have been promiscuous since the dawn of time.

Nothing is new.

Society goes through swings towards and away from repressive morals.

But instead of seeing these problems, and owning them, allowing for change for better, people just want to greedily justify their own personal behavior as their own business.

We ARE trying to change it for better!!

We are telling people that using the defense of how a girl was dressed, or acted,
does not absolve men of responsibility for THEIR OWN ACTIONS.

That mentality has been pervasive in the world for thousands of years,
and it is time it changed.

We are also educating and encouraging people to not make unwise choices about situational increases in risk.