The thing is, those *aren't* completely ridiculous and illogical ways, assuming they are explained before the fact and not after the fact. After the fact its dumb, heartless, counterproductive, and wrong.
Before the fact saying stuff like "you should probably make sure you are with someone else" and "the less your clothes advertise that you want sex the less likely you are to be put in a situation where the other person expects you to give in to sex" are completely sane and logical points.
Except...
1. People DO say these things after the fact - for example, see the Steubenville incident, there were plenty of tweets along the lines of "girl shouldn't have been such a ho/skank/etc".
2. These things ARE illogical and insane, because plenty of women get raped in spite of being decently dressed. Could you show any correlation whatsoever between a woman's clothing and her chances of being raped?
1. People DO say these things after the fact - for example, see the Steubenville incident, there were plenty of tweets along the lines of "girl shouldn't have been such a ho/skank/etc".
This is wholly irrelevant when the people you are accusing of giving impractical and illogical advice aren't those people.
We get it. There are *******s and idiots out there in the world, who make comments like that after the fact. THAT IS NOT RELEVANT HERE, BECAUSE NOBODY HERE IS TALKING ABOUT THAT. It is an archetypal strawman.
You are countering the statement that giving a young girl/woman practical advice on avoiding rape is not the same as justifying rape and blaming the victim with the statement that some other people blame the victim. That's not relevant.
2. These things ARE illogical and insane, because plenty of women get raped in spite of being decently dressed. Could you show any correlation whatsoever between a woman's clothing and her chances of being raped?
And plenty of people get roped despite locking their house and not advertising that they are going on vacation. Could you show any correlation whatsoever between a person's house being locked and them advertising that they were going on vacation and the homeowners chances of being robbed?
Look, if you can't figure out how someone dressing in provocative clothes, and going out drinking by themselves is putting themselves more at risk then someone who either goes out with friends or dresses more conservatively then you, quite frankly, are are not intellectually capable of having this conversation.
No reasonable person is going to contest that the girl at the bar by herself in a 3 inch skirt, tube top, and sky high heels (Or take your pick of "club wear") is more likely to be in a situation where they are subjected to unwanted sexual advances than the same girl out with some friends in jeans and a t-shirt.
Am I "justifying" the rapist? No. Am I saying she "asked for it"? No. Am I saying she could have done things differently to minimize her risk? Yes. Am I going to tell a girl after she has been raped that she should have done things differently? No. Am I going to tell my daughter that her actions can affect the risk level? ABSOLUTELY.
Because its NOT insane. It's NOT illogical. ITS COMMON, FREAKING, SENSE.
The thing is, those *aren't* completely ridiculous and illogical ways, assuming they are explained before the fact and not after the fact. After the fact its dumb, heartless, counterproductive, and wrong.
Before the fact saying stuff like "you should probably make sure you are with someone else" and "the less your clothes advertise that you want sex the less likely you are to be put in a situation where the other person expects you to give in to sex" are completely sane and logical points.
Except...
1. People DO say these things after the fact - for example, see the Steubenville incident, there were plenty of tweets along the lines of "girl shouldn't have been such a ho/skank/etc".
2. These things ARE illogical and insane, because plenty of women get raped in spite of being decently dressed. Could you show any correlation whatsoever between a woman's clothing and her chances of being raped?
1. To be perfectly honest... if Tom Cruise left his home unlocked an unattended and then he got robbed I am sure there would be plenty of tweets calling him a dumbass for leaving it open. Yeah it isnt something you say to your friend and family... or to that complete stranger when they are right there... but the internet makes a lot of people very bold and rude.
2. The clothes thing is kinda ridiculous when it comes to violent serial rapist... but for "drunk frat guy" rape it probably does make a difference. But just because someone also happens to mention "dont dress ****ty" does not mean all other advice should be ignored... not being alone, having some kind of protection, staying in safer environments are all solid advice.
2. The clothes thing is kinda ridiculous when it comes to violent serial rapist... but for "drunk frat guy" rape it probably does make a difference. But just because someone also happens to mention "dont dress ****ty" does not mean all other advice should be ignored... not being alone, having some kind of protection, staying in safer environments are all solid advice.
This is probably a line of discussion worth going down, because I think "Don't advertise for what you don't want" is solid advice. And yes, we're talking about "sober frat guy" rape, not "random guy on the street drags you into the bushes" rape.
We get it. There are *******s and idiots out there in the world, who make comments like that after the fact. THAT IS NOT RELEVANT HERE, BECAUSE NOBODY HERE IS TALKING ABOUT THAT.
Then why is it you see way more of these people come out of the woodwork over a complete random woman getting raped vs some random person getting robbed? And why is it people assume that a woman who got raped clearly wasn't doing enough to protect herself, but they don't make that assumption for people who get robbed? My point is that our society holds a very obvious double standard with respect to rape vs other crimes, and the existence of that double standard is part of the reason why feminist elements are so trigger happy when people insinuate a rape victim should have acted differently.
As far as a clothes thing... so you really think that not dressing a certain way is "common sense"? Do you really think that women should have to choose between how they dress, and their own safety? What is this, Saudi Arabia? "Don't advertise for what you don't want"? What if I DO want to have sex with a specific guy at a party, but not some other guy that approaches me? Does the fact that I dressed in a way to entice Guy A have to mean that I am putting myself at risk of Guy B raping me? If it does, doesn't this just translate into it not being socially acceptable for women to pick and choose who they have sex with, since I'm not allowed to open myself to having sex with one man without being open to others as well? In what world is this not sexist and misogynistic? Also, another question - how would a man have to dress and behave, for you to consider giving similar advice to him?
But just because someone also happens to mention "dont dress ****ty" does not mean all other advice should be ignored...
I don't think it should be either - I was merely offering an explanation as to why feminists aren't interested in hearing about what victims need to do to not get raped. It's because there's a good chance some of those things will be complete bull****. It's also related to the fact that some varieties of rape are apparently socially acceptable to some portions of our population, unlike other crimes. Ergo it makes sense to devote more energies to convincing those segments, then to telling victims how to protect themselves.
Then why is it you see way more of these people come out of the woodwork over a complete random woman getting raped vs some random person getting robbed?
As far as a clothes thing... so you really think that not dressing a certain way is "common sense"? Do you really think that women should have to choose between how they dress, and their own safety?
\
No I don't think they *should*. I think they *do*.
Because recognizing the realities of the world we live in is not the same as supporting them.
What is this, Saudi Arabia? "Don't advertise for what you don't want"? What if I DO want to have sex with a specific guy at a party, but not some other guy that approaches me? Does the fact that I dressed in a way to entice Guy A have to mean that I am putting myself at risk of Guy B raping me?
Yes? I mean, I'm not saying it *should* be that way. I'm saying it *is* that way. Piss and moan about how its not fair, and you shouldn't have to do that all you want. That doesn't change the realities of the world.
If it does, doesn't this just translate into it not being socially acceptable for women to pick and choose who they have sex with, since I'm not allowed to open myself to having sex with one man without being open to others as well?
There are any number of ways to open yourself up to having sex with one person that don't involve presenting yourself to the entire world as wanting to have sex. The way one dresses says a lot about them to the entire world. It speaks indiscriminately to everyone who sees it, not just a target.
In what world is this not sexist and misogynistic? Also, another question - how would a man have to dress and behave, for you to consider giving similar advice to him?
Don't dress like a slob if you don't want people to think you are a slob.
Don't dress unprofessional if you don't want people to think you are unprofessional.
These are both the same level statement as
Don't dress like a **** if you don't want people to treat you like a ****.
I have no problem saying any of them to anyone as practical advice.
The reality of the world is that people will treat you the way you present yourself to them. Whether you want them to or not. Telling a girl not to present herself as a sex object if she does not want to be treated as a sex object is reasonable advice.
I felt this needed a new post to make sure it didn't get lost in the shuffle:
LadyLuck, do you or do you not recognize that there is a difference between telling a teenager who has not been raped that dressing in a certain matter can increase her chances of being raped and telling a rape victim that her choice in clothes affected her chances of being raped?
I ask, because so far you seem utterly incapable of comprehending that we are talking about the first one and NOT the second one.
I felt this needed a new post to make sure it didn't get lost in the shuffle:
LadyLuck, do you or do you not recognize that there is a difference between telling a teenager who has not been raped that dressing in a certain matter can increase her chances of being raped and telling a rape victim that her choice in clothes affected her chances of being raped?
I ask, because so far you seem utterly incapable of comprehending that we are talking about the first one and NOT the second one.
Do you have a citation for either? I had a quick browse, but didn't find anything I considered conclusive either way.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote from MD »
I am willing to bet my collection that Frozen and Solid are not on the same card. For example, Frozen Tomb and Solid Wall.
If Frozen Solid is not reprinted, you are aware that I'm quoting you in my sig for eternity?
I felt this needed a new post to make sure it didn't get lost in the shuffle:
LadyLuck, do you or do you not recognize that there is a difference between telling a teenager who has not been raped that dressing in a certain matter can increase her chances of being raped and telling a rape victim that her choice in clothes affected her chances of being raped?
I ask, because so far you seem utterly incapable of comprehending that we are talking about the first one and NOT the second one.
Do you have a citation for either? I had a quick browse, but didn't find anything I considered conclusive either way.
is a difference between telling a teenager who has not been raped that dressing in a certain matter can increase her chances of being raped and telling a rape victim that her choice in clothes affected her chances of being raped?
It depends heavily on how its delivered. If it's in a "there are some *******s in the world you should watch out for" way, then sure, that's different, and I don't have a problem with that per se. If it's in a "if you dress this way you have it coming" way - no, that's not cool.
This whole issue is very heavily dependent on presentation. You are correct that our society currently believes that how a woman dresses can be justification for sexual violence against her. Stating that is not wrong in and of itself. Talking about it in a way that leads others to believe that you don't see something wrong with this state of affairs is problematic, however. I think you can agree that the view "women who dress ****ty deserve to be raped" will generally not go over well with most women. Many who do talk about the topic about how women dress with respect to rape do come across as having this view, and naturally it is not well-received.
Now, as for some particulars...
There are any number of ways to open yourself up to having sex with one person that don't involve presenting yourself to the entire world as wanting to have sex.
Such as? What is a socially acceptable way for a woman to express interest in having sex with a particular man? Also, you may have missed the question that came on my 2nd edit pass, so I ask that again: how would a man have to dress and act in order to merit the same advice?
Next,
Don't dress like a slob if you don't want people to think you are a slob.
Don't dress unprofessional if you don't want people to think you are unprofessional.
These are both the same level statement as
Don't dress like a **** if you don't want people to treat you like a ****.
I don't agree that they are the same level, however.
First of all, we can definitely agree what dressing professionally means - dress shirt/pants, be well-groomed, and so on. We can also agree what constitutes someone "being" professional means - someone who puts great care and effort into their work. I think we can also see the link between the dress and perception, as someone who puts no effort into their appearance can't be trusted to put effort into their work. These are all very well-defined ideas, and similar logic can be applied to the slob statement.
But what does it mean to "dress like a ****?" I would assume you mean to dress in a sexually provocative manner, and I'll also ignore the negative term you unnecessarily attached to it. In which case, ok, people think she's trying to have sex tonight. So ok, a guy initiates sexual advances at her. So far, I have no problem with this line of logic. But what happens when she expresses disinterest? At that point she may be dressed like a ****, but she's also now a **** who clearly doesn't want to sleep with that guy. So he needs to back off. Period. Men can whine and cry about false advertising all you want, but at the end of the day, a woman's "advertising" isn't what decides whether a guy gets to have sex with her. She does. When a woman presents herself as a sex object, its ok to treat her that way up until she states your actions are unwanted, at which point you need to change said actions. If you think she's being unreasonable, then you're perfectly free to stop interacting with her - I mean, why would you continue to interact with someone you feel is being unreasonable?
No, most men apparently don't understand the information I just typed up, and no, the world does not end up working that way as a result - apparently guys think its ok to just rape the woman in question. But if you agree the world shouldn't work that way, why continue to focus on it? It's one thing to give a bit of advice to your teenage daughter, another thing to rail about how women need to be more careful on an online message board. It is precisely because you think it's worth talking about in the anything but the former context, alongside the use of negative, gendered, pejoratives like "****" that gives me the impression you possess the negative view I described in my first paragraph. If that's not what you believe, why are you still here? Why are we not instead talking about how we can change this horrible state of affairs that we apparently both agree shouldn't exist?
We get it. There are *******s and idiots out there in the world, who make comments like that after the fact. THAT IS NOT RELEVANT HERE, BECAUSE NOBODY HERE IS TALKING ABOUT THAT.
Then why is it you see way more of these people come out of the woodwork over a complete random woman getting raped vs some random person getting robbed?
Media and popularity. If a guy gets robbed he's just guy #178939 that got robbed this month. When a 15 year old gets raped at a party and comes forward it's big news. In general we view rape as a worse crime than robbery therefore it gets more attention, both negative and positive.
Trust me... when people get robbed or murdered there is a section of the population out there that thinks "guy had it coming to him!". Heck, on these very forums there was recently a thread about whether or not it was ok to steal a deck from someone if he was a douche during the match and forgot his deck when he left. There was a non-zero number of responses from people saying they would take something.
And why is it people assume that a woman who got raped clearly wasn't doing enough to protect herself, but they don't make that assumption for people who get robbed? My point is that our society holds a very obvious double standard with respect to rape vs other crimes, and the existence of that double standard is part of the reason why feminist elements are so trigger happy when people insinuate a rape victim should have acted differently.
I think society in general actually does assume that people don't protect themselves as much as they should. Someone gets in a fatal car crash and the first question is "was he drinking?" Someone has their house broken into and the first question is "why?", "Why that house and not the others? what did that homeowner do wrong?", someone gets shot and the question is "what was he doing?". I dont think there is a double standard at all... I just think Rape gets a lot more media attention so it's noticed more.
As far as a clothes thing... so you really think that not dressing a certain way is "common sense"? Do you really think that women should have to choose between how they dress, and their own safety? What is this, Saudi Arabia? "Don't advertise for what you don't want"? What if I DO want to have sex with a specific guy at a party, but not some other guy that approaches me? Does the fact that I dressed in a way to entice Guy A have to mean that I am putting myself at risk of Guy B raping me? If it does, doesn't this just translate into it not being socially acceptable for women to pick and choose who they have sex with, since I'm not allowed to open myself to having sex with one man without being open to others as well? In what world is this not sexist and misogynistic? Also, another question - how would a man have to dress and behave, for you to consider giving similar advice to him?
While I think bLatch is being a little blunt or extreme... I agree with his basic premise. If a girl is going to a frat party she should know that she is entering into a situation where there is a greater than normal chance that a drunk horny guy is going to want to sleep with her. She should take proper precautions. In your example while your dress choice is to entice Guy A, it will also probably entice Guys B-Z as well... you have to be prepared for that. It does not mean you have to want to sleep with them, it just means you have to accept the fact that other guys will want to sleep with you.
I cant think of a perfect example off the top of my head, but if a guy is alone and walks through downtown Detroit wearing a suit talking on his new iPhone with a wallet bulge in his pocket... dude is going to get mugged, he should expect to get mugged. That does not mean he should get mugged, it's still illegal, but dude was an idiot for thinking he could do that. Now... if Dude does the exact same thing but has a police escort or bodyguard he at least tried to protect himself.
Simple things like going with a group.... telling people in your group that if you leave with anyone other than Guy A they should intervene... not getting completely wasted in a situation that could turn dangerous... all great ways to prevent a problem.
It's also related to the fact that some varieties of rape are apparently socially acceptable to some portions of our population, unlike other crimes. Ergo it makes sense to devote more energies to convincing those segments, then to telling victims how to protect themselves.
This is something I have been pondering about for a while.... it also seems that many victims see some varieties of rape as socially acceptable. Hell somewhere on these forums I was told that I have been raped or at least sexually assaulted. I disagree, but according to the definition some use I apparently was. It seems to me that Rapist has become such a loaded label that people are unwilling to apply it in many situation. Hell I would rank rapist right up with with pedophile and in many cases I would agree... dude who snatches up women beats them and rapes them for funsies is a real sick freak, but is that really the same as a drunk frat guy that mistook a drunk girl's intentions? Or how about a drunk girl that asked a guy to do stuff, guy says "no" but after she initiates physically he doesnt say "no" anymore and in fact is quite into it until he sobers up the next day? It seems to me that simply grouping these acts together makes it a lot harder for people to stomach the fact that they were raped, or that the person they know is a "rapist".
But what does it mean to "dress like a ****?" I would assume you mean to dress in a sexually provocative manner, and I'll also ignore the negative term you unnecessarily attached to it. In which case, ok, people think she's trying to have sex tonight. So ok, a guy initiates sexual advances at her. So far, I have no problem with this line of logic. But what happens when she expresses disinterest? At that point she may be dressed like a ****, but she's also now a **** who clearly doesn't want to sleep with that guy. So he needs to back off. Period. Men can whine and cry about false advertising all you want, but at the end of the day, a woman's "advertising" isn't what decides whether a guy gets to have sex with her. She does. When a woman presents herself as a sex object, its ok to treat her that way up until she states your actions are unwanted, at which point you need to change said actions. If you think she's being unreasonable, then you're perfectly free to stop interacting with her - I mean, why would you continue to interact with someone you feel is being unreasonable?
No, most men apparently don't understand the information I just typed up, and no, the world does not end up working that way as a result - apparently guys think its ok to just rape the woman in question. But if you agree the world shouldn't work that way, why continue to focus on it? It's one thing to give a bit of advice to your teenage daughter, another thing to rail about how women need to be more careful on an online message board. It is precisely because you think it's worth talking about in the anything but the former context, alongside the use of negative, gendered, pejoratives like "****" that gives me the impression you possess the negative view I described in my first paragraph. If that's not what you believe, why are you still here? Why are we not instead talking about how we can change this horrible state of affairs that we apparently both agree shouldn't exist?
What about when that girl is so drunk that she says yes to an advance that she normally wouldnt? You even stated in the original example that she dressed that way because she was open to sex with a particular guy... She strikes out feels sad and says yes to Guy B... wakes up and feels bad about it... now it's rape because she slept with Guy B instead of Guy A even though, had he wanted it, Guy A would have had the exact same interaction with the girl leading up to non-rape sex. I think we need to make a distinction here between the regular horny guy that just wants to sleep with a girl versus the malicious guy that somehow thinks he deserves to sleep with a girl because of how she dresses. These are very different guys and very different situations.
is a difference between telling a teenager who has not been raped that dressing in a certain matter can increase her chances of being raped and telling a rape victim that her choice in clothes affected her chances of being raped?
It depends heavily on how its delivered. If it's in a "there are some *******s in the world you should watch out for" way, then sure, that's different, and I don't have a problem with that per se.
Then why, for all that is holy, do you insist on saying its unreasonable advice? Seriously, you have up until this very point come across as it is never acceptable to tell someone that the way they choose to dress/behave impacts their risk of being rape.
You have equivocated all instances of it to tell a rape victim that it was her fault.
But, lets move beyond that. Now that you have accepted that it is, in fact, ok to tell someone that their behaviour will have an impact on their risks lets see what else there is here to discuss.
This whole issue is very heavily dependent on presentation. You are correct that our society currently believes that how a woman dresses can be justification for sexual violence against her.
I have not said that, nor do I think that is true. Certain elements in our society do, yes. Our society as a whole does not.
Stating that is not wrong in and of itself. Talking about it in a way that leads others to believe that you don't see something wrong with this state of affairs is problematic, however. I think you can agree that the view "women who dress ****ty deserve to be raped" will generally not go over well with most women. Many who do talk about the topic about how women dress with respect to rape do come across as having this view, and naturally it is not well-received.
Great, rant at them then. Not at us. When you rant at me in response to what I said, I naturally infer that you are ranting in response to what I said. Not in response to what someone, who isn't me, said.
There are any number of ways to open yourself up to having sex with one person that don't involve presenting yourself to the entire world as wanting to have sex.
Such as? What is a socially acceptable way for a woman to express interest in having sex with a particular man? Also, you may have missed the question that came on my 2nd edit pass, so I ask that again: how would a man have to dress and act in order to merit the same advice?
As for the advice about how a man would have to dress -- it would be difficult to find an example. Because another practical reality is that men are not particularly subject to "drunk frat guy rape". It is not a common problem men face -- so, advice on how to avoid it is not as warranted. Nor is there a common "theme" to how guys dress that would attract unwanted attention.
Is that "fair" or "equal"? No. but it's a practical reality.
As for what is a socially acceptable way for a woman to express interest in having sex with a particular man... well you could say it. Or you could ask him on a date. Or you could come on to him. Basically there are a bunch of ways you can use actions to indicate "I am intersted in having sex with this particular man" that do not also indicate "I am interested in having sex with whatever the best guy I can find tonight".
The problem is that dressing provocatively indicates the latter, in addition to the former (rightly or wrongly.)
First of all, we can definitely agree what dressing professionally means - dress shirt/pants, be well-groomed, and so on. We can also agree what constitutes someone "being" professional means - someone who puts great care and effort into their work. I think we can also see the link between the dress and perception, as someone who puts no effort into their appearance can't be trusted to put effort into their work. These are all very well-defined ideas, and similar logic can be applied to the slob statement.
Except those connections aren't necessarily true. I routinely wear ripped kahakis, hoodies, and t-shirts, yet I put a great deal of care and effort into my work. When a client is coming in, however, I put on the full suit -- because appearances matter.
But what does it mean to "dress like a ****?" I would assume you mean to dress in a sexually provocative manner, and I'll also ignore the negative term you unnecessarily attached to it. In which case, ok, people think she's trying to have sex tonight. So ok, a guy initiates sexual advances at her. So far, I have no problem with this line of logic. But what happens when she expresses disinterest? At that point she may be dressed like a ****, but she's also now a **** who clearly doesn't want to sleep with that guy. So he needs to back off. Period. Men can whine and cry about false advertising all you want, but at the end of the day, a woman's "advertising" isn't what decides whether a guy gets to have sex with her. She does. When a woman presents herself as a sex object, its ok to treat her that way up until she states your actions are unwanted, at which point you need to change said actions. If you think she's being unreasonable, then you're perfectly free to stop interacting with her - I mean, why would you continue to interact with someone you feel is being unreasonable?
This whole rant here is off topic. I agree that the guy should back off and the "false advertising argument" is a cop out.
But, the fact of the matter is that there are guys out there who will use that as justificatoin for "she really didn't mean no". And part of minimizing your risks (if you want to do that) is recognizing that fact. There *will* be people out there who treat you like you are just out to get laid from the first guy who comes along if you dress like someone who is just out to get laid by the first guy that comes along.
Am I wrong for giving the advice that dressing that way makes you more likely to be treated that way? No. You've already said as such.
It's one thing to give a bit of advice to your teenage daughter, another thing to rail about how women need to be more careful on an online message board.
Because you gave the distinct impression that by giving that advice to my teenage daughter (well, shes three now, but in 10 years...) I would be "supporting rape culture" and would be jsut as bad as the rapists.
If that is not the impression you intended to give, perhaps you should tone down the ranting some.
It is precisely because you think it's worth talking about in the anything but the former context, alongside the use of negative, gendered, pejoratives like "****" that gives me the impression you possess the negative view I described in my first paragraph. If that's not what you believe, why are you still here? Why are we not instead talking about how we can change this horrible state of affairs that we apparently both agree shouldn't exist?
Because you continue to make statments like the bolded ones.
You think I'm just as bad as the rapists because I think its reasonable to tell someone that they should expect to be treated the way they present themselves.
As long as you continue to tell men they are just as bad as the rapists you should expect the men to continue to try and defend themselves instead of trying to fix other people.
I think the underlined sentence is really the key sentence there.
I felt this needed a new post to make sure it didn't get lost in the shuffle:
LadyLuck, do you or do you not recognize that there is a difference between telling a teenager who has not been raped that dressing in a certain matter can increase her chances of being raped and telling a rape victim that her choice in clothes affected her chances of being raped?
I ask, because so far you seem utterly incapable of comprehending that we are talking about the first one and NOT the second one.
Do you have a citation for either? I had a quick browse, but didn't find anything I considered conclusive either way.
Citation for what?
I'm confused...
Sorry, I should have been more clear. Is there any research that actually shows that women (or men, presumably) that dress in a particular way are more likely to be raped? I googled around briefly, but didn't find anything one way or the other.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote from MD »
I am willing to bet my collection that Frozen and Solid are not on the same card. For example, Frozen Tomb and Solid Wall.
If Frozen Solid is not reprinted, you are aware that I'm quoting you in my sig for eternity?
Sorry, I should have been more clear. Is there any research that actually shows that women (or men, presumably) that dress in a particular way are more likely to be raped? I googled around briefly, but didn't find anything one way or the other.
I would venture to guess that it would possibly reduce cases of "frat rape" where the drunk guy just doesnt get the hint from the drunk girl and pressures/convinces her into it and she regrets it when sober. The idea probably comes from when guys in this situation claim "I thought she wanted it" and refer to the way she was dressed as a reason for thinking she was "DTF" and playing hard to get. It is entirely possible that it would have zero real impact though as drunk guys really are not that picky and would probably still try to pressure/convince a girl to have sex no matter how she was dressed.
Certain elements in our society do, yes. Our society as a whole does not.
Then why are there so many statistics that indicate otherwise? Even if you think the "1 in 4 women experience rape" figure is an exaggeration, the revised figure that I think joande suggested (18% I think?) is still very high. Also, many people here have stated that they don't think having sex with a drunk woman is wrong, but it is still defined as rape in the eyes of the law. Clearly, our society thinks certain things legally defined as rape are ok.
Protecting yourself is in general a much more effective strategy than trying to exterminate threats.
Except that said advised protection doesn't actually work afaik - no one's presented any evidence to suggest dressing conservatively will reduce my chances of being raped. Such protection also puts unreasonable and unequal limits on the freedoms of women, in comparison to those of men. Ergo my priorities should be on changing the climate in which I have to choose between certain freedoms and having safety.
Why are you so discriminating towards people who are good at their jobs but don't care about their appearance?
Because the social expectations are a part of their job - they are essentially being paid to dress as their boss/employer expects them. A similar standard would be acceptable if the woman in question were a sex worker, since then you're essentially paying her to look that way. But most women aren't sex workers.
Basically there are a bunch of ways you can use actions to indicate "I am intersted in having sex with this particular man" that do not also indicate "I am interested in having sex with whatever the best guy I can find tonight".
Fair. Except there are women who are interested in the latter, who will still say no to a particular guy on account of her believing that he's not the best she can find. The fact of the matter is, very very few women are looking to **** the first thing that wanders into sight no matter how they're dressed. Ergo it is universally irrational to act as if that's what a woman was looking for.
if a girl is going to a frat party she should know that she is entering into a situation where there is a greater than normal chance that a drunk horny guy is going to want to sleep with her. She should take proper precautions. In your example while your dress choice is to entice Guy A, it will also probably entice Guys B-Z as well... you have to be prepared for that. It does not mean you have to want to sleep with them, it just means you have to accept the fact that other guys will want to sleep with you.
And note - I don't have a problem with this. It's ok for Guys B-Z to express interest if a woman places herself in a setting where that is to be expected. It's not ok to keep making said advances if she has said no. The scenario changes if the woman in question is obviously drunk - because a drunk person can't legally consent, you really shouldn't be asking in the first place there. That concern overrides other considerations if nothing else because the law says it does.
You think I'm just as bad as the rapists because I think its reasonable to tell someone that they should expect to be treated the way they present themselves.
Except 1. I never claimed you were "just as bad as the rapists" and 2. You're expressing a heck of a lot more then you think you are. As I said before, tossing around terms like "****" as you did, and freaking out when someone makes the (entirely reasonable) observation that how one dresses doesn't necessarily change their chances of being raped gives the impression that you have a very negative view of women who partake in certain behaviors, and that you think they somehow "deserve" to be raped.
You claim not to actually believe these things, which I think is great, because I believe these things to be kind of sexist assholish things, and I'm happy to know there's one less human who believes them. But it may be to your benefit to explicitly express this from the start, BEFORE using negative gendered pejoratives. Without that, I have nothing to go on other then you expressing that dressing differently is a viable defense against rape, a belief that tends to be held and flung around commonly by rape apologists, and that you also don't mind using emotionally charged words like "****" to describe women who don't follow your advice. The conclusions I reach about your character based on this information, yes, are quite negative, hence why you and those who present themselves in this fashion are negatively perceived.
And note - I don't have a problem with this. It's ok for Guys B-Z to express interest if a woman places herself in a setting where that is to be expected. It's not ok to keep making said advances if she has said no. The scenario changes if the woman in question is obviously drunk - because a drunk person can't legally consent, you really shouldn't be asking in the first place there. That concern overrides other considerations if nothing else because the law says it does.
This is something I have been pondering about for a while.... it also seems that many victims see some varieties of rape as socially acceptable. Hell somewhere on these forums I was told that I have been raped or at least sexually assaulted. I disagree, but according to the definition some use I apparently was. It seems to me that Rapist has become such a loaded label that people are unwilling to apply it in many situation. Hell I would rank rapist right up with with pedophile and in many cases I would agree... dude who snatches up women beats them and rapes them for funsies is a real sick freak, but is that really the same as a drunk frat guy that mistook a drunk girl's intentions? Or how about a drunk girl that asked a guy to do stuff, guy says "no" but after she initiates physically he doesnt say "no" anymore and in fact is quite into it until he sobers up the next day? It seems to me that simply grouping these acts together makes it a lot harder for people to stomach the fact that they were raped, or that the person they know is a "rapist".
I have describe something that happened to me... other people called it rape. I did not see it that way. It seems to me that the law and popular opinion do not mesh.
I think it is incredibly naive to think that drunk people that did not previously know each other do not have consensual sex. It happens every single Friday and Saturday all across the country. A lot of the time it is even regretted afterward... but in the vast majority of cases nobody involved would call it rape.
There is a big difference between being drunk sex and getting a girl so wasted that she can't say no sex.
It seems to me that the law and popular opinion do not mesh.
So it would seem. And it is a worthwhile conversation to discuss why this might be, and if one of the two should change to match the other. Personally I would prefer for popular opinion to change to match the law - I don't like the idea that me having one too many drinks at a public establishment is going to end up equivalent to me consenting to have sex with basically anyone who comes along. I will also point out that because of the societal stereotypes that bLatch and I have discussed at length, the cost of having sex with a random person you didn't intend to are much higher for women then for men - if it is known that a man and a woman both got drunk at a bar and have sex, there is going to be more commentary about the woman being irresponsible and about the incident reflecting poorly on the woman's character, then there would be about the man. This may explain why women (or at least the ones I know) generally prefer things the way the law says, whereas most of those who express distaste with the law (that I have seen) are men.
It seems to me that the law and popular opinion do not mesh.
So it would seem. And it is a worthwhile conversation to discuss why this might be, and if one of the two should change to match the other. Personally I would prefer for popular opinion to change to match the law - I don't like the idea that me having one too many drinks at a public establishment is going to end up equivalent to me consenting to have sex with basically anyone who comes along. I will also point out that because of the societal stereotypes that bLatch and I have discussed at length, the cost of having sex with a random person you didn't intend to are much higher for women then for men - if it is known that a man and a woman both got drunk at a bar and have sex, there is going to be more commentary about the woman being irresponsible and about the incident reflecting poorly on the woman's character, then there would be about the man. This may explain why women (or at least the ones I know) generally prefer things the way the law says, whereas most of those who express distaste with the law (that I have seen) are men.
Should fluffy_bunny's "rapist" be serving ten years hard time right now?
Another similar situation comes up often at parties and I was aware of this kind of thing happening to people back in my college days. Guy is sitting on a couch doing nothing. "Drunk" girl (or is she sober? or maybe she's just tipsy, who knows?) comes up to him and starts making out with him and grinding on him. She clearly iniatiates everything. They go upstairs and have sex. The next day, the girl doesn't remember anything and feels that she was raped. How do we handle this situation in your framework? Does it matter how drunk the guy was?
Should fluffy_bunny's "rapist" be serving ten years hard time right now?
Another similar situation comes up often at parties and I was aware of this kind of thing happening to people back in my college days. Guy is sitting on a couch doing nothing. "Drunk" girl (or is she sober? or maybe she's just tipsy, who knows?) comes up to him and starts making out with him and grinding on him. She clearly iniatiates everything. They go upstairs and have sex. The next day, the girl doesn't remember anything and feels that she was raped. How do we handle this situation in your framework? Does it matter how drunk the guy was?
Good questions. For the first time, it would depend on the exact circumstances of the situation. For the second scenario, because the drunk party was the initiator, the responsibility is theirs. The woman was not raped, assuming there's no other relevant information missing. If the guy was drunk, then technically, yes, HE was raped. I would hope our justice system would recognize this and act accordingly, but I also acknowledge that it is imperfect and thus there are occasions where it will not.
Should fluffy_bunny's "rapist" be serving ten years hard time right now?
Another similar situation comes up often at parties and I was aware of this kind of thing happening to people back in my college days. Guy is sitting on a couch doing nothing. "Drunk" girl (or is she sober? or maybe she's just tipsy, who knows?) comes up to him and starts making out with him and grinding on him. She clearly iniatiates everything. They go upstairs and have sex. The next day, the girl doesn't remember anything and feels that she was raped. How do we handle this situation in your framework? Does it matter how drunk the guy was?
Good questions. For the first time, it would depend on the exact circumstances of the situation. For the second scenario, because the drunk party was the initiator, the responsibility is theirs. The woman was not raped, assuming there's no other relevant information missing. If the guy was drunk, then technically, yes, HE was raped. I would hope our justice system would recognize this and act accordingly, but I also acknowledge that it is imperfect and thus there are occasions where it will not.
Not to get to much into it, but lets just say I wasn't into messing with the girl my friend was interested in until the alcohol hit me, then her advances were more accepted. Never was anyone forceful, I didnt even consume any additional drinks, but no turned into yes. Would you throw that girl in jail for it?
In that second scenario... the drunk guy would have been raped even if he wanted it? He never initiated but simply being drunk means he was raped?
Not to get to much into it, but lets just say I wasn't into messing with the girl my friend was interested in until the alcohol hit me, then her advances were more accepted. Never was anyone forceful, I didnt even consume any additional drinks, but no turned into yes. Would you throw that girl in jail for it?
In that second scenario... the drunk guy would have been raped even if he wanted it? He never initiated but simply being drunk means he was raped?
In the eyes of the law, yes, he was raped. I wish there was some way we could reasonably distinguish between "a drink or two loosened up" vs "so smashed you can't see straight", but the fact of the matter is it's impossible to objectively determine after the fact which a person was at the time the advances took place. Also to qualify, when I refer to "drunk", I usually mean the latter scenario, not the former. I would think that someone who is too drunk to drive is most likely too drunk to consent, ergo if you think you were safe to drive at the time, then I don't think the girl needs to be tossed in jail; if you weren't safe to drive, yeah, not cool. Also, did you explicitly rebuff her advances when you were sober? I'd be much more inclined to view it as rape if she was told to back off initially and didn't respect that. But again, that's not a determination that can objectively be made the morning after.
Not to get to much into it, but lets just say I wasn't into messing with the girl my friend was interested in until the alcohol hit me, then her advances were more accepted. Never was anyone forceful, I didnt even consume any additional drinks, but no turned into yes. Would you throw that girl in jail for it?
In that second scenario... the drunk guy would have been raped even if he wanted it? He never initiated but simply being drunk means he was raped?
In the eyes of the law, yes, he was raped. I wish there was some way we could reasonably distinguish between "a drink or two loosened up" vs "so smashed you can't see straight", but the fact of the matter is it's impossible to objectively determine after the fact which a person was at the time the advances took place. Also to qualify, when I refer to "drunk", I usually mean the latter scenario, not the former. I would think that someone who is too drunk to drive is most likely too drunk to consent, ergo if you think you were safe to drive at the time, then I don't think the girl needs to be tossed in jail; if you weren't safe to drive, yeah, not cool. Also, did you explicitly rebuff her advances when you were sober? I'd be much more inclined to view it as rape if she was told to back off initially and didn't respect that. But again, that's not a determination that can objectively be made the morning after.
We did 8 or 10 shots of rum in about an hour or 2 plus another drink... neither of us was sober (being that she was 100 pounds lighter she was less sober). You are really saying she should go to jail for it? I am not asking you what the law says. I am asking you what you think. I said no at first but I was not very hard to convince and honestly probably wouldnt have been hard to convince if I was sober either.
Ladyluck-What Law? Many areas laws DON'T define rape that way nor that way for women and those that do, do so because of a perception of needing to curtail/deture leacherous males.
Ladyluck-In the eyes of the law, yes, he was raped.
The reason why society will PROBABLY NEVER do that is men are not nor will be infanticized as feminism has successfully infanticized women. I've seen articles written by older women who say "date rape, no I just need to take some responsibility for what I do when I'm drinking" Do you know what my co-worker Ian said after he told me he got smashed and woke up next to a girl he had previously rebuffed spoiler alert-The same thing!
We will continue to perceive men as being responsible for their own actions when drunk. If a women drives while drunk she cannot argue that someone else coerced her to by asking her to drive drunk and obsolve her of her own responsibility and for good reason. IT IS HER BODY AND THUS IT IS HER RESPONSIBILITY WHAT SHE DOES WITH IT! I'm not talking about passed out here, unconcious is a different story, but considering we have two choices here to create actual equality...infanticize men or treat women as adults.
The reason why so many people don't see this as rape (thus the aforementioned gap between the law and popular opinion) is that the majority of people in the west VIEW WOMEN AS ADULTS!
Also, did you explicitly rebuff her advances when you were sober? I'd be much more inclined to view it as rape if she was told to back off initially and didn't respect that.
Seriously YOU CANT SEE THE COGNITIVE DISSONANCE HERE! Would you ever accept "She didnt say no so it wasn't rape" as a defense?
Your looking at this thru a lense that views women as having hypoagency and men hyperagency you will never be able to reconcile this with treating men and women truly as equals with both equal rights AND RESPONSIBILTIES. Don't fret your issue goes all the way to the core of feminism (it is not unique) and thus why you guys need all the orwhelian marxist up is down crap to function.
The evolutionary psychology you mock and deride would actually help you considerably in starting to understand why there is this gap between how you perceive this should work and how it actually does.
If feminism wished to continue down the path of equality (or get on it for that matter) while keeping any sex+any alcohol=RAPE and wanted to be fair and compassionate about it their focus would be not on "teaching men not to rape" but on teaching men to view this as rape when it happens to them including (and with extra emphasis) when the perpetrator is female, I JUST DON'T SEE THAT HAPPENING! Instead a lot of young peoples lives will be ruined and the "problem" will probably not be resolved anytime soon.
The funny thing is part of the problem here is that men are not "othering" women but feminists sure are "othering" (oh and demonizing) men.
You know, maybe it is rape, maybe it's not, but it certainly isn't "sexual assault," which would imply an attack. Still, the former carries a heavier stigma to the weight of the word.
The fact that drunken scenarios such as these is usually based in later regrets makes them seem rather fraud. How is it possible for two people to rape each other?
To Kryptnyt-It isn't possible for two people to rape each other.
The starting point for understanding how this F'd up logic came to be is realizing that gender equality will involve viewing both sides as having agency (being actors) and neither lacking agency (being defined by what's been done to them). I guess you could reverse those (agency/lacking agency) but it wouldn't be pretty.
The problem is that would mean feminists would have to give up the victim/oppressed narative and I just dont see that happening. It would be the end of their faux moral authority, status, and free stuff in other words their entire identity.
So we start with...
women=victim aka feminism,
then we have law built around that construct,
then people point out law is sexist,
women most still be victim thus flimsy rationale to make law look fair.
I will also point out that because of the societal stereotypes that bLatch and I have discussed at length, the cost of having sex with a random person you didn't intend to are much higher for women then for men - if it is known that a man and a woman both got drunk at a bar and have sex, there is going to be more commentary about the woman being irresponsible and about the incident reflecting poorly on the woman's character, then there would be about the man. This may explain why women (or at least the ones I know) generally prefer things the way the law says, whereas most of those who express distaste with the law (that I have seen) are men.
What's worse taking a dent to your reputation (being called a whore by some people) or taking a massive dent to your reputation (being assigned the status of rapist by all of society) and being imprisoned.
If we ever did start imprisoning women for date rape that would be the end of date rape laws like "blink" they would be gone.
Prohibition (a protofeminist endeaver based on the same premise-protect women) failed, so will trying to put an end to drunk nooky.
The only real question is how high will the mountain of male corpses be this time?
Except...
1. People DO say these things after the fact - for example, see the Steubenville incident, there were plenty of tweets along the lines of "girl shouldn't have been such a ho/skank/etc".
2. These things ARE illogical and insane, because plenty of women get raped in spite of being decently dressed. Could you show any correlation whatsoever between a woman's clothing and her chances of being raped?
This is wholly irrelevant when the people you are accusing of giving impractical and illogical advice aren't those people.
We get it. There are *******s and idiots out there in the world, who make comments like that after the fact. THAT IS NOT RELEVANT HERE, BECAUSE NOBODY HERE IS TALKING ABOUT THAT. It is an archetypal strawman.
You are countering the statement that giving a young girl/woman practical advice on avoiding rape is not the same as justifying rape and blaming the victim with the statement that some other people blame the victim. That's not relevant.
And plenty of people get roped despite locking their house and not advertising that they are going on vacation. Could you show any correlation whatsoever between a person's house being locked and them advertising that they were going on vacation and the homeowners chances of being robbed?
Look, if you can't figure out how someone dressing in provocative clothes, and going out drinking by themselves is putting themselves more at risk then someone who either goes out with friends or dresses more conservatively then you, quite frankly, are are not intellectually capable of having this conversation.
No reasonable person is going to contest that the girl at the bar by herself in a 3 inch skirt, tube top, and sky high heels (Or take your pick of "club wear") is more likely to be in a situation where they are subjected to unwanted sexual advances than the same girl out with some friends in jeans and a t-shirt.
Am I "justifying" the rapist? No. Am I saying she "asked for it"? No. Am I saying she could have done things differently to minimize her risk? Yes. Am I going to tell a girl after she has been raped that she should have done things differently? No. Am I going to tell my daughter that her actions can affect the risk level? ABSOLUTELY.
Because its NOT insane. It's NOT illogical. ITS COMMON, FREAKING, SENSE.
1. To be perfectly honest... if Tom Cruise left his home unlocked an unattended and then he got robbed I am sure there would be plenty of tweets calling him a dumbass for leaving it open. Yeah it isnt something you say to your friend and family... or to that complete stranger when they are right there... but the internet makes a lot of people very bold and rude.
2. The clothes thing is kinda ridiculous when it comes to violent serial rapist... but for "drunk frat guy" rape it probably does make a difference. But just because someone also happens to mention "dont dress ****ty" does not mean all other advice should be ignored... not being alone, having some kind of protection, staying in safer environments are all solid advice.
This is probably a line of discussion worth going down, because I think "Don't advertise for what you don't want" is solid advice. And yes, we're talking about "sober frat guy" rape, not "random guy on the street drags you into the bushes" rape.
Then why is it you see way more of these people come out of the woodwork over a complete random woman getting raped vs some random person getting robbed? And why is it people assume that a woman who got raped clearly wasn't doing enough to protect herself, but they don't make that assumption for people who get robbed? My point is that our society holds a very obvious double standard with respect to rape vs other crimes, and the existence of that double standard is part of the reason why feminist elements are so trigger happy when people insinuate a rape victim should have acted differently.
As far as a clothes thing... so you really think that not dressing a certain way is "common sense"? Do you really think that women should have to choose between how they dress, and their own safety? What is this, Saudi Arabia? "Don't advertise for what you don't want"? What if I DO want to have sex with a specific guy at a party, but not some other guy that approaches me? Does the fact that I dressed in a way to entice Guy A have to mean that I am putting myself at risk of Guy B raping me? If it does, doesn't this just translate into it not being socially acceptable for women to pick and choose who they have sex with, since I'm not allowed to open myself to having sex with one man without being open to others as well? In what world is this not sexist and misogynistic? Also, another question - how would a man have to dress and behave, for you to consider giving similar advice to him?
I don't think it should be either - I was merely offering an explanation as to why feminists aren't interested in hearing about what victims need to do to not get raped. It's because there's a good chance some of those things will be complete bull****. It's also related to the fact that some varieties of rape are apparently socially acceptable to some portions of our population, unlike other crimes. Ergo it makes sense to devote more energies to convincing those segments, then to telling victims how to protect themselves.
Straw. Man.
next.
\
No I don't think they *should*. I think they *do*.
Because recognizing the realities of the world we live in is not the same as supporting them.
Yes? I mean, I'm not saying it *should* be that way. I'm saying it *is* that way. Piss and moan about how its not fair, and you shouldn't have to do that all you want. That doesn't change the realities of the world.
There are any number of ways to open yourself up to having sex with one person that don't involve presenting yourself to the entire world as wanting to have sex. The way one dresses says a lot about them to the entire world. It speaks indiscriminately to everyone who sees it, not just a target.
Don't dress like a slob if you don't want people to think you are a slob.
Don't dress unprofessional if you don't want people to think you are unprofessional.
These are both the same level statement as
Don't dress like a **** if you don't want people to treat you like a ****.
I have no problem saying any of them to anyone as practical advice.
The reality of the world is that people will treat you the way you present yourself to them. Whether you want them to or not. Telling a girl not to present herself as a sex object if she does not want to be treated as a sex object is reasonable advice.
LadyLuck, do you or do you not recognize that there is a difference between telling a teenager who has not been raped that dressing in a certain matter can increase her chances of being raped and telling a rape victim that her choice in clothes affected her chances of being raped?
I ask, because so far you seem utterly incapable of comprehending that we are talking about the first one and NOT the second one.
Do you have a citation for either? I had a quick browse, but didn't find anything I considered conclusive either way.
Citation for what?
I'm confused...
It depends heavily on how its delivered. If it's in a "there are some *******s in the world you should watch out for" way, then sure, that's different, and I don't have a problem with that per se. If it's in a "if you dress this way you have it coming" way - no, that's not cool.
This whole issue is very heavily dependent on presentation. You are correct that our society currently believes that how a woman dresses can be justification for sexual violence against her. Stating that is not wrong in and of itself. Talking about it in a way that leads others to believe that you don't see something wrong with this state of affairs is problematic, however. I think you can agree that the view "women who dress ****ty deserve to be raped" will generally not go over well with most women. Many who do talk about the topic about how women dress with respect to rape do come across as having this view, and naturally it is not well-received.
Now, as for some particulars...
Such as? What is a socially acceptable way for a woman to express interest in having sex with a particular man? Also, you may have missed the question that came on my 2nd edit pass, so I ask that again: how would a man have to dress and act in order to merit the same advice?
Next,
I don't agree that they are the same level, however.
First of all, we can definitely agree what dressing professionally means - dress shirt/pants, be well-groomed, and so on. We can also agree what constitutes someone "being" professional means - someone who puts great care and effort into their work. I think we can also see the link between the dress and perception, as someone who puts no effort into their appearance can't be trusted to put effort into their work. These are all very well-defined ideas, and similar logic can be applied to the slob statement.
But what does it mean to "dress like a ****?" I would assume you mean to dress in a sexually provocative manner, and I'll also ignore the negative term you unnecessarily attached to it. In which case, ok, people think she's trying to have sex tonight. So ok, a guy initiates sexual advances at her. So far, I have no problem with this line of logic. But what happens when she expresses disinterest? At that point she may be dressed like a ****, but she's also now a **** who clearly doesn't want to sleep with that guy. So he needs to back off. Period. Men can whine and cry about false advertising all you want, but at the end of the day, a woman's "advertising" isn't what decides whether a guy gets to have sex with her. She does. When a woman presents herself as a sex object, its ok to treat her that way up until she states your actions are unwanted, at which point you need to change said actions. If you think she's being unreasonable, then you're perfectly free to stop interacting with her - I mean, why would you continue to interact with someone you feel is being unreasonable?
No, most men apparently don't understand the information I just typed up, and no, the world does not end up working that way as a result - apparently guys think its ok to just rape the woman in question. But if you agree the world shouldn't work that way, why continue to focus on it? It's one thing to give a bit of advice to your teenage daughter, another thing to rail about how women need to be more careful on an online message board. It is precisely because you think it's worth talking about in the anything but the former context, alongside the use of negative, gendered, pejoratives like "****" that gives me the impression you possess the negative view I described in my first paragraph. If that's not what you believe, why are you still here? Why are we not instead talking about how we can change this horrible state of affairs that we apparently both agree shouldn't exist?
Media and popularity. If a guy gets robbed he's just guy #178939 that got robbed this month. When a 15 year old gets raped at a party and comes forward it's big news. In general we view rape as a worse crime than robbery therefore it gets more attention, both negative and positive.
Trust me... when people get robbed or murdered there is a section of the population out there that thinks "guy had it coming to him!". Heck, on these very forums there was recently a thread about whether or not it was ok to steal a deck from someone if he was a douche during the match and forgot his deck when he left. There was a non-zero number of responses from people saying they would take something.
I think society in general actually does assume that people don't protect themselves as much as they should. Someone gets in a fatal car crash and the first question is "was he drinking?" Someone has their house broken into and the first question is "why?", "Why that house and not the others? what did that homeowner do wrong?", someone gets shot and the question is "what was he doing?". I dont think there is a double standard at all... I just think Rape gets a lot more media attention so it's noticed more.
While I think bLatch is being a little blunt or extreme... I agree with his basic premise. If a girl is going to a frat party she should know that she is entering into a situation where there is a greater than normal chance that a drunk horny guy is going to want to sleep with her. She should take proper precautions. In your example while your dress choice is to entice Guy A, it will also probably entice Guys B-Z as well... you have to be prepared for that. It does not mean you have to want to sleep with them, it just means you have to accept the fact that other guys will want to sleep with you.
I cant think of a perfect example off the top of my head, but if a guy is alone and walks through downtown Detroit wearing a suit talking on his new iPhone with a wallet bulge in his pocket... dude is going to get mugged, he should expect to get mugged. That does not mean he should get mugged, it's still illegal, but dude was an idiot for thinking he could do that. Now... if Dude does the exact same thing but has a police escort or bodyguard he at least tried to protect himself.
Simple things like going with a group.... telling people in your group that if you leave with anyone other than Guy A they should intervene... not getting completely wasted in a situation that could turn dangerous... all great ways to prevent a problem.
This is something I have been pondering about for a while.... it also seems that many victims see some varieties of rape as socially acceptable. Hell somewhere on these forums I was told that I have been raped or at least sexually assaulted. I disagree, but according to the definition some use I apparently was. It seems to me that Rapist has become such a loaded label that people are unwilling to apply it in many situation. Hell I would rank rapist right up with with pedophile and in many cases I would agree... dude who snatches up women beats them and rapes them for funsies is a real sick freak, but is that really the same as a drunk frat guy that mistook a drunk girl's intentions? Or how about a drunk girl that asked a guy to do stuff, guy says "no" but after she initiates physically he doesnt say "no" anymore and in fact is quite into it until he sobers up the next day? It seems to me that simply grouping these acts together makes it a lot harder for people to stomach the fact that they were raped, or that the person they know is a "rapist".
Edit:
What about when that girl is so drunk that she says yes to an advance that she normally wouldnt? You even stated in the original example that she dressed that way because she was open to sex with a particular guy... She strikes out feels sad and says yes to Guy B... wakes up and feels bad about it... now it's rape because she slept with Guy B instead of Guy A even though, had he wanted it, Guy A would have had the exact same interaction with the girl leading up to non-rape sex. I think we need to make a distinction here between the regular horny guy that just wants to sleep with a girl versus the malicious guy that somehow thinks he deserves to sleep with a girl because of how she dresses. These are very different guys and very different situations.
Then why, for all that is holy, do you insist on saying its unreasonable advice? Seriously, you have up until this very point come across as it is never acceptable to tell someone that the way they choose to dress/behave impacts their risk of being rape.
You have equivocated all instances of it to tell a rape victim that it was her fault.
But, lets move beyond that. Now that you have accepted that it is, in fact, ok to tell someone that their behaviour will have an impact on their risks lets see what else there is here to discuss.
I have not said that, nor do I think that is true. Certain elements in our society do, yes. Our society as a whole does not.
Great, rant at them then. Not at us. When you rant at me in response to what I said, I naturally infer that you are ranting in response to what I said. Not in response to what someone, who isn't me, said.
Now, as for some particulars...
As for the advice about how a man would have to dress -- it would be difficult to find an example. Because another practical reality is that men are not particularly subject to "drunk frat guy rape". It is not a common problem men face -- so, advice on how to avoid it is not as warranted. Nor is there a common "theme" to how guys dress that would attract unwanted attention.
Is that "fair" or "equal"? No. but it's a practical reality.
As for what is a socially acceptable way for a woman to express interest in having sex with a particular man... well you could say it. Or you could ask him on a date. Or you could come on to him. Basically there are a bunch of ways you can use actions to indicate "I am intersted in having sex with this particular man" that do not also indicate "I am interested in having sex with whatever the best guy I can find tonight".
The problem is that dressing provocatively indicates the latter, in addition to the former (rightly or wrongly.)
We'll have to agree to disagree, then because all of them are subsets of "dress how you want people to treat you".
Except those connections aren't necessarily true. I routinely wear ripped kahakis, hoodies, and t-shirts, yet I put a great deal of care and effort into my work. When a client is coming in, however, I put on the full suit -- because appearances matter.
This whole rant here is off topic. I agree that the guy should back off and the "false advertising argument" is a cop out.
But, the fact of the matter is that there are guys out there who will use that as justificatoin for "she really didn't mean no". And part of minimizing your risks (if you want to do that) is recognizing that fact. There *will* be people out there who treat you like you are just out to get laid from the first guy who comes along if you dress like someone who is just out to get laid by the first guy that comes along.
Am I wrong for giving the advice that dressing that way makes you more likely to be treated that way? No. You've already said as such.
WRONG. It is not "most" men. It is "some" men. They exist, yes, but it is *not* the majority.
Because you gave the distinct impression that by giving that advice to my teenage daughter (well, shes three now, but in 10 years...) I would be "supporting rape culture" and would be jsut as bad as the rapists.
If that is not the impression you intended to give, perhaps you should tone down the ranting some.
Because you continue to make statments like the bolded ones.
You think I'm just as bad as the rapists because I think its reasonable to tell someone that they should expect to be treated the way they present themselves.
As long as you continue to tell men they are just as bad as the rapists you should expect the men to continue to try and defend themselves instead of trying to fix other people.
I think the underlined sentence is really the key sentence there.
Sorry, I should have been more clear. Is there any research that actually shows that women (or men, presumably) that dress in a particular way are more likely to be raped? I googled around briefly, but didn't find anything one way or the other.
I would venture to guess that it would possibly reduce cases of "frat rape" where the drunk guy just doesnt get the hint from the drunk girl and pressures/convinces her into it and she regrets it when sober. The idea probably comes from when guys in this situation claim "I thought she wanted it" and refer to the way she was dressed as a reason for thinking she was "DTF" and playing hard to get. It is entirely possible that it would have zero real impact though as drunk guys really are not that picky and would probably still try to pressure/convince a girl to have sex no matter how she was dressed.
Then why are there so many statistics that indicate otherwise? Even if you think the "1 in 4 women experience rape" figure is an exaggeration, the revised figure that I think joande suggested (18% I think?) is still very high. Also, many people here have stated that they don't think having sex with a drunk woman is wrong, but it is still defined as rape in the eyes of the law. Clearly, our society thinks certain things legally defined as rape are ok.
Except that said advised protection doesn't actually work afaik - no one's presented any evidence to suggest dressing conservatively will reduce my chances of being raped. Such protection also puts unreasonable and unequal limits on the freedoms of women, in comparison to those of men. Ergo my priorities should be on changing the climate in which I have to choose between certain freedoms and having safety.
Because the social expectations are a part of their job - they are essentially being paid to dress as their boss/employer expects them. A similar standard would be acceptable if the woman in question were a sex worker, since then you're essentially paying her to look that way. But most women aren't sex workers.
Fair. Except there are women who are interested in the latter, who will still say no to a particular guy on account of her believing that he's not the best she can find. The fact of the matter is, very very few women are looking to **** the first thing that wanders into sight no matter how they're dressed. Ergo it is universally irrational to act as if that's what a woman was looking for.
And note - I don't have a problem with this. It's ok for Guys B-Z to express interest if a woman places herself in a setting where that is to be expected. It's not ok to keep making said advances if she has said no. The scenario changes if the woman in question is obviously drunk - because a drunk person can't legally consent, you really shouldn't be asking in the first place there. That concern overrides other considerations if nothing else because the law says it does.
Except 1. I never claimed you were "just as bad as the rapists" and 2. You're expressing a heck of a lot more then you think you are. As I said before, tossing around terms like "****" as you did, and freaking out when someone makes the (entirely reasonable) observation that how one dresses doesn't necessarily change their chances of being raped gives the impression that you have a very negative view of women who partake in certain behaviors, and that you think they somehow "deserve" to be raped.
You claim not to actually believe these things, which I think is great, because I believe these things to be kind of sexist assholish things, and I'm happy to know there's one less human who believes them. But it may be to your benefit to explicitly express this from the start, BEFORE using negative gendered pejoratives. Without that, I have nothing to go on other then you expressing that dressing differently is a viable defense against rape, a belief that tends to be held and flung around commonly by rape apologists, and that you also don't mind using emotionally charged words like "****" to describe women who don't follow your advice. The conclusions I reach about your character based on this information, yes, are quite negative, hence why you and those who present themselves in this fashion are negatively perceived.
Did you read this part of my response?
I have describe something that happened to me... other people called it rape. I did not see it that way. It seems to me that the law and popular opinion do not mesh.
I think it is incredibly naive to think that drunk people that did not previously know each other do not have consensual sex. It happens every single Friday and Saturday all across the country. A lot of the time it is even regretted afterward... but in the vast majority of cases nobody involved would call it rape.
There is a big difference between being drunk sex and getting a girl so wasted that she can't say no sex.
So it would seem. And it is a worthwhile conversation to discuss why this might be, and if one of the two should change to match the other. Personally I would prefer for popular opinion to change to match the law - I don't like the idea that me having one too many drinks at a public establishment is going to end up equivalent to me consenting to have sex with basically anyone who comes along. I will also point out that because of the societal stereotypes that bLatch and I have discussed at length, the cost of having sex with a random person you didn't intend to are much higher for women then for men - if it is known that a man and a woman both got drunk at a bar and have sex, there is going to be more commentary about the woman being irresponsible and about the incident reflecting poorly on the woman's character, then there would be about the man. This may explain why women (or at least the ones I know) generally prefer things the way the law says, whereas most of those who express distaste with the law (that I have seen) are men.
Should fluffy_bunny's "rapist" be serving ten years hard time right now?
Another similar situation comes up often at parties and I was aware of this kind of thing happening to people back in my college days. Guy is sitting on a couch doing nothing. "Drunk" girl (or is she sober? or maybe she's just tipsy, who knows?) comes up to him and starts making out with him and grinding on him. She clearly iniatiates everything. They go upstairs and have sex. The next day, the girl doesn't remember anything and feels that she was raped. How do we handle this situation in your framework? Does it matter how drunk the guy was?
Good questions. For the first time, it would depend on the exact circumstances of the situation. For the second scenario, because the drunk party was the initiator, the responsibility is theirs. The woman was not raped, assuming there's no other relevant information missing. If the guy was drunk, then technically, yes, HE was raped. I would hope our justice system would recognize this and act accordingly, but I also acknowledge that it is imperfect and thus there are occasions where it will not.
Not to get to much into it, but lets just say I wasn't into messing with the girl my friend was interested in until the alcohol hit me, then her advances were more accepted. Never was anyone forceful, I didnt even consume any additional drinks, but no turned into yes. Would you throw that girl in jail for it?
In that second scenario... the drunk guy would have been raped even if he wanted it? He never initiated but simply being drunk means he was raped?
In the eyes of the law, yes, he was raped. I wish there was some way we could reasonably distinguish between "a drink or two loosened up" vs "so smashed you can't see straight", but the fact of the matter is it's impossible to objectively determine after the fact which a person was at the time the advances took place. Also to qualify, when I refer to "drunk", I usually mean the latter scenario, not the former. I would think that someone who is too drunk to drive is most likely too drunk to consent, ergo if you think you were safe to drive at the time, then I don't think the girl needs to be tossed in jail; if you weren't safe to drive, yeah, not cool. Also, did you explicitly rebuff her advances when you were sober? I'd be much more inclined to view it as rape if she was told to back off initially and didn't respect that. But again, that's not a determination that can objectively be made the morning after.
We did 8 or 10 shots of rum in about an hour or 2 plus another drink... neither of us was sober (being that she was 100 pounds lighter she was less sober). You are really saying she should go to jail for it? I am not asking you what the law says. I am asking you what you think. I said no at first but I was not very hard to convince and honestly probably wouldnt have been hard to convince if I was sober either.
The reason why society will PROBABLY NEVER do that is men are not nor will be infanticized as feminism has successfully infanticized women. I've seen articles written by older women who say "date rape, no I just need to take some responsibility for what I do when I'm drinking" Do you know what my co-worker Ian said after he told me he got smashed and woke up next to a girl he had previously rebuffed spoiler alert-The same thing!
We will continue to perceive men as being responsible for their own actions when drunk. If a women drives while drunk she cannot argue that someone else coerced her to by asking her to drive drunk and obsolve her of her own responsibility and for good reason. IT IS HER BODY AND THUS IT IS HER RESPONSIBILITY WHAT SHE DOES WITH IT! I'm not talking about passed out here, unconcious is a different story, but considering we have two choices here to create actual equality...infanticize men or treat women as adults.
The reason why so many people don't see this as rape (thus the aforementioned gap between the law and popular opinion) is that the majority of people in the west VIEW WOMEN AS ADULTS!
Seriously YOU CANT SEE THE COGNITIVE DISSONANCE HERE! Would you ever accept "She didnt say no so it wasn't rape" as a defense?
Your looking at this thru a lense that views women as having hypoagency and men hyperagency you will never be able to reconcile this with treating men and women truly as equals with both equal rights AND RESPONSIBILTIES. Don't fret your issue goes all the way to the core of feminism (it is not unique) and thus why you guys need all the orwhelian marxist up is down crap to function.
The evolutionary psychology you mock and deride would actually help you considerably in starting to understand why there is this gap between how you perceive this should work and how it actually does.
If feminism wished to continue down the path of equality (or get on it for that matter) while keeping any sex+any alcohol=RAPE and wanted to be fair and compassionate about it their focus would be not on "teaching men not to rape" but on teaching men to view this as rape when it happens to them including (and with extra emphasis) when the perpetrator is female, I JUST DON'T SEE THAT HAPPENING! Instead a lot of young peoples lives will be ruined and the "problem" will probably not be resolved anytime soon.
The funny thing is part of the problem here is that men are not "othering" women but feminists sure are "othering" (oh and demonizing) men.
The fact that drunken scenarios such as these is usually based in later regrets makes them seem rather fraud. How is it possible for two people to rape each other?
The starting point for understanding how this F'd up logic came to be is realizing that gender equality will involve viewing both sides as having agency (being actors) and neither lacking agency (being defined by what's been done to them). I guess you could reverse those (agency/lacking agency) but it wouldn't be pretty.
The problem is that would mean feminists would have to give up the victim/oppressed narative and I just dont see that happening. It would be the end of their faux moral authority, status, and free stuff in other words their entire identity.
So we start with...
women=victim aka feminism,
then we have law built around that construct,
then people point out law is sexist,
women most still be victim thus flimsy rationale to make law look fair.
What's worse taking a dent to your reputation (being called a whore by some people) or taking a massive dent to your reputation (being assigned the status of rapist by all of society) and being imprisoned.
If we ever did start imprisoning women for date rape that would be the end of date rape laws like "blink" they would be gone.
Prohibition (a protofeminist endeaver based on the same premise-protect women) failed, so will trying to put an end to drunk nooky.
The only real question is how high will the mountain of male corpses be this time?