The sex myth

carolmarx

shopaholic01 wrote: »

Would the comment have been more acceptable if your friend was male?

Nope, I don't think it would have been acceptable coming from anyone. I just found it depressing because as a woman it is more likely to happen to her than a male, (and yes i acknowledge it happens men), and with a poor understanding of what does and does not constitute rape I hope she never finds herself in the situation! That's all.

Rosy Posy

Czarcasm wrote: »

This exactly. It's the same as the "slut walk" nonsense- their intention being to "take the power out of the word" "slut".

A rapist isn't going to give a shìte about what society chooses to call their behaviour, much less what society chooses to call their victims, or "survivors" is the new buzzword apparently.

As I've said before its playing the long game and trying to change the prevailing culture. I don't believe that rapists are born, they are created. While there may be a disposition towards this kind of crime, a stronger culture of condemnation, and a society that sees women as people rather than objects will diminish the prevalence of the crime.

I choose to use the term survivor as a means of empowerment. I'm sorry that you have a problem with women taking back their power. At its most basic level rape is a crime of power, not just sexuality.

wetfoot

Three Seasons wrote: »

That's not rape culture, that's one particular man with those particular morals/ beliefs or lack thereof.

I don't think from that one encounter you should generalise a rape culture. That one particular man had rapist beliefs, not the culture.

Unfortunately a significant number of men do act in this way and a worrying number of them would not think they have done anything wrong. I would also wager that there's a number of women who've read carolmarx's account who have found themselves in a similar position but who haven't seen their experience as rape. The attitude of her friend demonstrates the inability of some people to understand that there is no such thing as 'asking for it'.

somefeen

I learnt all my morals from Nick Cave.

http://youtu.be/lL3dNfxcpnw

shopaholic01

somefeen wrote: »

I learnt all my morals from Nick Cave.

<object width="420" height="315"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/lL3dNfxcpnw?hl=en_US&version=3"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/lL3dNfxcpnw?hl=en_US&version=3&quot; type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="420" height="315" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></embed></object>

Link doesn't work!

Rosy Posy

Sleepy wrote: »

Teaching your daughter that certain routes aren't safe to walk at night, that she should be aware of her surroundings, that she should keep a close eye on her drink and not accept one from someone she doesn't know isn't in any way condoning sexual violence or engendering a belief that such things are okay. It's preparing her for the real world and no different to teaching your son not to walk home from a night out or not to take a particular route

How about teaching your sons and daughters equality and respect. I would cover basic safety with all of my children but rather than over emphasising the safety aspect with my daughter, as is endemic in Irish culture (we all know families where the lads are given free reign and the daughters are given curfews and social restrictions), I choose to ensure that my sons have a deep respect for women and see them as more than just domestic workers and sexual objects.

Steve O

carolmarx wrote: »

With all due respect, I have to disagree.
I was raped last year. I ended up alone with a man I had accepted drinks off of and kissed in a night club. I expressly and uncategorically told him that I didn't want to have sex with him, and then he pressured me verbally and physically. Upon recounting the events to a person I thought was a good friend, I was informed that sure, it was my own fault and what did I expect...If you accept drinks off a man and end up alone with him, then it's reasonable for him to demand sex. THAT, is rape culture.

Christ sake, a knee in the bollocks would have been too good for that cnut.

B0jangles

shoos wrote: »

My friend woke up with a hand up her top and a tongue in her mouth when she had passed out at a party.

Except that you are presumably still in college, I'd swear you were my friend and were talking about me. This exact thing happened to me when I was in college but that was at least 10 years ago. I woke up when my friend walking in and sort of gasped/screamed, to find myself with a total stranger lying on top of me groping me and trying to stick his tongue in my mouth.

I jumped up and ran out and told the guy whose house it was and took refuge in another room. The house-owner chased the guy away (I never did know who it was). The guy whose room I hid out in to recover started coming on to me when I was trying to get warmed up by sitting under the duvet.

A fun night all around.

kiffer

Rosy Posy wrote: »

How about teaching your sons and daughters equality and respect. I would cover basic safety with all of my children but rather than over emphasising the safety aspect with my daughter, as is endemic in Irish culture (we all know families where the lads are given free reign and the daughters are given curfews and social restrictions), I choose to ensure that my sons have a deep respect for women and see them as more than just domestic workers and sexual objects.

As well...

Teaching them to be respectful human beings will protect others from them... not them from others.
Teaching them to be safe and avoid high risk situations doesn't mean that you don't also teach them to be good upstanding respectful individuals... why the false dichotomy?

Da Shins Kelly

carolmarx wrote: »

With all due respect, I have to disagree.
I was raped last year. I ended up alone with a man I had accepted drinks off of and kissed in a night club. I expressly and uncategorically told him that I didn't want to have sex with him, and then he pressured me verbally and physically. Upon recounting the events to a person I thought was a good friend, I was informed that sure, it was my own fault and what did I expect...If you accept drinks off a man and end up alone with him, then it's reasonable for him to demand sex. THAT, is rape culture.

I'm really sorry to hear that this happened to you.

With regards to the term "rape culture", it's a strange term, but I definitely think that there is a worrying attitude to victims of sexual assault, particularly those who are assaulted while under the influence of alcohol. The amount of assaults that go unreported is an indicator of the stigma attached to such crimes, and that is in part a result of victim-blaming or the whole idea that no one will believe you, because attacks may come down to a "your word against mine" situation.

Rosy Posy

Steve O wrote: »

Christ sake, a knee in the bollocks would have been too good for that cnut.

I know that you didn't mean it that way but that attitude is not helpful to many rape survivors. For many people, especially those who have been victims of previous sexual assault, when they are being raped become paralysed with fear and dissociate rather than scream and fight. This is something that can cause significant trauma after the event, and I believe to be one of the reasons that people who have been previously sexually assaulted are more likely to be victims of future assault.

I'm not trying to nitpick or get on your case, just trying to educate. I believe I am a reasonable person but being labelled a shrieking nut job for daring to challenge the status quo is a depressing indicator that the culture of sexual disrespect is here to stay.

Czarcasm

Rosy Posy wrote: »

As I've said before its playing the long game and trying to change the prevailing culture.

You won't change any attitudes in society by encouraging the use of the word "slut", because that's unfortunately what you are doing and it's the way most people will see it as a "if you can't beat them, move the goalposts" mentality. I totally get the intention behind the campaign, but you're firing at a misdirected target with an ineffective message.

I don't believe that rapists are born, they are created.

I know I'm not meant to take this literally, but I can tell you that rapists are not created, there are numerous biological, environmental, economical, social and some scientists have argued that there are even evolutionary factors in play. As I stated earlier, there is no one single pathology of a rapist.

While there may be a disposition towards this kind of crime, a stronger culture of condemnation, and a society that sees women as people rather than objects will diminish the prevalence of the crime.

Without wishing to sound condescending about it but that is unfortunately pie in the sky idealism. There is nothing that will diminish the prevalence of the crime of rape, just like condemnation, punishment nor rehabilitation has not diminished the prevalence of other behaviours in human history that weren't always crimes either.

I choose to use the term survivor as a means of empowerment.

Whatever works for you as an individual and by all means more power to you, you'll get no argument from of there. I will just say to you though that in my experience, telling someone they survived being raped can be perceived as incredibly patronising.

I'm sorry that you have a problem with women taking back their power.

The only thing I have a problem with is your regurgitation of a worn out, tired, old and quite frankly meaningless cliché.

At its most basic level rape is a crime of power, not just sexuality.

You need to read up a bit more than just picking up a few redundant soundbites from TED talks.

Rosy Posy

kiffer wrote: »

As well...

Teaching them to be respectful human beings will protect others from them... not them from others.
Teaching them to be safe and avoid high risk situations doesn't mean that you don't also teach them to be good upstanding respectful individuals... why the false dichotomy?

I believe that the emphasis should be on teaching respect rather than selectively restricting girls behaviour. If everyone carries this through to the next generation then our society should gradually shift to one of sexual equality and respect.

bbm1

I have read in some reports about rape cases and the woman was drunk and they have used cctv evidence of the woman being too drunk and couldnt possible know what their doing, but the excuse that a man was too drunk to know what he was doing doesnt bear the same weight. I know male friends who have said they have no recollection of nights out and how they ended up in bed with a woman, but they dont use the word rape? they have no memory of the night, they ended up with women they wouldnt usually be with and could have easily taking advantage of them. I find its one rule for women and another for men.

somefeen

Rosy Posy wrote: »

As I've said before its playing the long game and trying to change the prevailing culture. I don't believe that rapists are born, they are created. While there may be a disposition towards this kind of crime, a stronger culture of condemnation, and a society that sees women as people rather than objects will diminish the prevalence of the crime.

I choose to use the term survivor as a means of empowerment. I'm sorry that you have a problem with women taking back their power. At its most basic level rape is a crime of power, not just sexuality.

Rape doesn't happen because society views women as objects.
I'm sorry but that is pure nonsense. It happens because some people don't have any empathy and no ability to understand the long term implications of their actions and how they make others feel. Whether they are like that due to nature or nurture is another debate entirely.
We don't view human beings as objects yet men kill men all the time because some people are ****ing psycopaths

Rape is not accepted in our culture, I don't care what anyone says. In western europe, in 2013, rape is not acceptable to the vast vast majority of people.
Its nearly up there with child abuse.
Any hairy fairy wishy washy feminist stuff isn't going to do **** all to protect people from the type of people that will rape.

I would much rather see people put their efforts into reducing the stigmatisation of rape victims, than tell me for the 1,000,000,000,000th time that women aren't sex objects.
WE KNOW!!

tsiehta

smcgiff wrote: »

Where you're wrong is that you think certain people can change their attitude. It's a bit like psychopaths - there's no reasoning with a psychopath.

There are simply people out there that will consider rape as an option. What can we do about that?

Are you saying that the only ones who rape are psychopaths with whom there is no reasoning, and that there are no societal factors in why people rape?

Three Seasons

Rosy Posy wrote: »

I believe that the emphasis should be on teaching respect rather than selectively restricting girls behaviour. If everyone carries this through to the next generation then our society should gradually shift to one of sexual equality and respect.

No matter what, there will always be those who choose to play by the rules and those who don't. There will always be people with less empathy than others and the ability to do evil. That isn't going to change.

smash

tsiehta wrote: »

Are you saying that the only ones who rape are psychopaths with whom there is no reasoning, and that there are no societal factors in why people rape?

Maybe you should read his post again...

jaffacakesyum

smash wrote: »

Tell a rape victim that you got sexually assaulted and then qualify it with "A guy slapped my ass" and see how much sympathy you get. Actually, say it to anyone at all and see how much sympathy you get... :rolleyes:

I'm a rape victim and also have subsequently been sexually assaulted (severe sexual assault; not counting the many occasions of groping etc. in clubs) andI have sympathy for anyone who is sexually assaulted - male or female. Just because the sexual assault is 'mild' in question (eg slap on ass) doesn't make it right. NOBODY male or female has the right to touch ANYBODY male or female in that way

Three Seasons wrote: »

Why are rapists held in such low regard, even lower than murderers and torturers if we live in a "rape culture"?

Surely in a "rape culture" rape would be encouraged. I don't recall being advised to rape anyone.

Yeah rapists held in such low regard...like all those people who cued up to shake a rapists hand in court...

suicide_circus wrote: »

this is rape culture:

http://m.rte.ie/news/touch/2013/0417/381928-un-envoy-rape/

anyone claiming there is a rape culture in Ireland is seriously deluded and needs to cop themselves on pronto.

So rape culture is more severe in one country than another - doesn't make rape culture any less horrible.

Three Seasons wrote: »

That's not rape culture, that's one particular man with those particular morals/ beliefs or lack thereof.

I don't think from that one encounter you should generalise a rape culture. That one particular man had rapist beliefs, not the culture.

Yes but talk to women who have been raped and you will get many more examples which add up to rape culture.

I see it at parties - men going after and targetting the most comotose drunk woman in the room.


I don't know why (some) men (and women I'm sure) constantly look to ways to somehow make a molehill of a mountain "the stats are wrong" "sure groping someone is annoying but it's not sexual assault ffs" "i got groped on a night out by a woman and i didnt care therefore it's acceptable behaviour" etc. etc.

And the reason I don't know why is this - on the one hand I can understand why men get defensive when the term 'rape culture' is used because they feel like it's accusing them of something (it's not). I get that. But I would think the fact that men have mothers, sisters, wives and daughters, would make them a little more sensitive to the issues highlighted in this thread.

suicide_circus

carolmarx wrote: »

With all due respect, I have to disagree.
I was raped last year. I ended up alone with a man I had accepted drinks off of and kissed in a night club. I expressly and uncategorically told him that I didn't want to have sex with him, and then he pressured me verbally and physically. Upon recounting the events to a person I thought was a good friend, I was informed that sure, it was my own fault and what did I expect...If you accept drinks off a man and end up alone with him, then it's reasonable for him to demand sex. THAT, is rape culture.

no respect due at all

while i sympathise with your awful experience, it in no way indicates a rape "culture". Humans are extremely flawed entities. Rape is one of the many consequences of this flawed nature

edit: actually, would anyone be so kind as to define "rape culture" as far as it manifests itself in Ireland.

ToddyDoody

That's right, sex doesn't actually exist

Rosy Posy

Czarcasm wrote: »

You won't change any attitudes in society by encouraging the use of the word "slut", because that's unfortunately what you are doing and it's the way most people will see it as a "if you can't beat them, move the goalposts" mentality. I totally get the intention behind the campaign, but you're firing at a misdirected target with an ineffective message.

So you don't think that black people's reclaimation of the word '******' was effective? It used to be used as an insult by the oppressors but now is used as a term of respect within the culture and unacceptable outside of the culture. The slut walk campaign is about reclaiming sexual power. I think that the basic premise 'whatever we wear where ever we go yes means yes and no means no' is effective. The female body is used as a marketing tool in general society, we didn't ask for that, I think that the way that groups like the slut walkers and femen subvert this to further their agenda is pretty effective too.

Czarcasm wrote: »

I know I'm not meant to take this literally, but I can tell you that rapists are not created, there are numerous biological, environmental, economical, social and some scientists have argued that there are even evolutionary factors in play. As I stated earlier, there is no one single pathology of a rapist.

I see we're in agreement. Rapists are created by their biology, environment, economy, society and evolution. If we want to reduce rape and sexual assault there is little we can do about biology and evolution, but we can change the environment (eg remove images that objectify sexuality from public advertising), the economy (eg try to narrow the gap between rich and poor, try to educate and provide fulfilling employment that increases a sense of self worth) and society (eg try to change a mindset of victim blaming). I don't think there is a single pathology of a rapist either but I do know that if sexual respect was more highly valued in our upbringing and our society at large then perhaps there might be less sexual assault, and if there were more consequences of rape for the rapist than for the victim (in the majority of cases) then those that cannot have the urge to rape might at least think twice about doing so.

Czarcasm wrote: »

Without wishing to sound condescending about it but that is unfortunately pie in the sky idealism. There is nothing that will diminish the prevalence of the crime of rape, just like condemnation, punishment nor rehabilitation has not diminished the prevalence of other behaviours in human history that weren't always crimes either.

Well that's a depressing thought. Nothing can be done so do nothing. I'm glad I'm not so jaded yet as to hope for a better future for my children.

Czarcasm wrote: »

Whatever works for you as an individual and by all means more power to you, you'll get no argument from of there. I will just say to you though that in my experience, telling someone they survived being raped can be perceived as incredibly patronising.

I really don't see how the term rape survivor is patronising. It shifts the emphasis from the act- what was done to the victim- to what they do afterwards- survive. And from one who has dealt with it it is an act of survival to be able to move on from.

Czarcasm wrote: »

The only thing I have a problem with is your regurgitation of a worn out, tired, old and quite frankly meaningless cliché.

You need to read up a bit more than just picking up a few redundant soundbites from TED talks.

So you don't think that rape is a crime of power? So why is it routinely used as a tool of war?

If you don't think that there is a power discrepancy between the sexes you need your head checked. What you're saying is typical of the anti feminist backlash that is endemic in our society. And I read that in a book, Backlash by Susan Faludi, not from a TED talk. Most of what I say I draw from my own experiences and those of other survivors. I find your post condescending and patronising.

wetfoot

somefeen wrote: »

I would much rather see people put their efforts into reducing the stigmatisation of rape victims, than tell me for the 1,000,000,000,000th time that women aren't sex objects.
WE KNOW!!

Part of the problem though is that culturally women are now seen far more as sex objects than they used to be. By that I mean young girls are sexualised at a much earlier age and sexual activity is something that's seen to be aspired to, both by men and women. Add to that the potent ingredient of widely accessible pron on the Internet and study after study showing that young people are not only sexualised earlier but also desensitised by the sexual imagery they see and it's an explosive combination and not one that's conducive to healthy, consensual relationships.

And that very combination means that there is not only more stigma for people who disclose rape but it also makes it harder for people to disclose rape, partly because the frame of reference as to what constitutes rape is shifting all the time. The point I'm making is its the very process of a growing sexualised culture that adds to the stigma of rape because if we see particularly women as primarily sex objects then it creates a culture where women are judged and valued by their sexual experiences.

Rosy Posy

somefeen wrote: »

I would much rather see people put their efforts into reducing the stigmatisation of rape victims, than tell me for the 1,000,000,000,000th time that women aren't sex objects.
WE KNOW!!

Well someone tell advertisers, the entertainment industry, the pornography industry and its consumers, and afaics a depressing portion of youth culture.

Arawn

Henlars67 wrote: »

I find the 'stat' that 1 in 4 women have been sexually assaulted in some way to be absurdly high.

I once questioned it on twitter though and a few retweets later I had women from all over calling me a rapist, a rape apologist, a misogynist etc.

Surely that figure is untrue?

Yup has repeatidly been shot down but it's a great number for groups to throw out

wetfoot

Anecdotally and realistically, personally I think it's rather low.

somefeen

Rosy Posy wrote: »

Well someone tell advertisers, the entertainment industry, the pornography industry and its consumers, and afaics a depressing portion of youth culture.

I find it insulting that you think because I see women being sexualised I consider them all sex objects.
I only consider those PARTICULAR women as sex objects because I am detached from them and all they are displaying to me is there sexyness.
Actual women that I know will never be sex objects.

tritium

wetfoot wrote: »

Anecdotally and realistically, personally I think it's rather low.

As I noted in an earlier response, I believe the statistic is based on a paper by Koss around rates of rape or attempted rape based on surveys of US campus students. If this is the case then the statistic has already been thouroughly debunked on the basis of huge flaws in methodology

ressem

somefeen wrote: »

I would much rather see people put their efforts into reducing the stigmatisation of rape victims, than tell me for the 1,000,000,000,000th time that women aren't sex objects.
WE KNOW!!

Back in 2002 the SAVI study again found a not insubstantial minority that had some off-the-wall revolting notions. So education is definitely necessary.

Table 4.39:
8.1% of men and 5.3% of women surveyed didn't think that a women could be raped by a husband.
Or 30.2% of men and 27.4% of women choosing that "short skirts and tight tops invite rape" when surveyed, the attitude that Carolmax was confronted with.
Or 9.4% of men and 8.9% of women not thinking that a man could be raped.
and worse.

Though, like you I'm skeptical that education alone will ever eliminate sex attacks.
It's more likely that the perpetrator of sexual abuse has alcohol taken than the victim.
Rose Posy has pointed out that rape is about power, control.
Most have been through an education system where they have seen that there are some of their peers that will inflict violence on anyone that they think is vulnerable. Maybe a functioning mental health program for young people could reduce this.

Sorry though, part of empowering men and women is keeping our guard up.

Yup has repeatidly been shot down but it's a great number for groups to throw out

Repeat. It's one in 4 children. Female and male.
http://www.oneinfour.ie/content/resources/savi.pdf exec summary page xxxiii
and just because the majority of assaults are not aggravated sex assault does not mean that they are trivial.

Including adults it's 42% of women and 28% of men. 10% full penetrative abuse for women. 3% for men.

Czarcasm

jaffacakesyum wrote: »

Yeah rapists held in such low regard...like all those people who cued up to shake a rapists hand in court...

You're talking about one single case there. The majority of society does not queue up to shake a rapists hand in court.

So rape culture is more severe in one country than another - doesn't make rape culture any less horrible.

No, but as pointed out earlier, it makes the term "rape culture" less quantifiable, as it is a recently coined woefully broad term and not part of any actual culture in any country.

Yes but talk to women who have been raped and you will get many more examples which add up to rape culture.

I have talked to many people who have been raped, from young girls to middle aged men, and each example is pertinent to that individual, in no way indicative of acceptance nor tacit approval of rape in society. There are far more people you could talk to that abhor the idea of rape, so does that make for a "non rape culture"? No, because the term "non rape culture" is just as meaningless in that context as any perceived "rape culture".

I see it at parties - men going after and targetting the most comotose drunk woman in the room.

That's called sleazy, you're still quite a ways from rape.

I don't know why (some) men (and women I'm sure) constantly look to ways to somehow make a molehill of a mountain "the stats are wrong" "sure groping someone is annoying but it's not sexual assault ffs" "i got groped on a night out by a woman and i didnt care therefore it's acceptable behaviour" etc. etc.

This whole discussion started off the back of someone questioning the stats, and what was wrong with questioning how they quantified those stats? It shows that one in four people were subjected to the umbrella term "sexual assault", which included any one of the twelve characteristics referred to earlier in this thread, and some of those figures are crossover statistics, which made the figures even harder to break down without further scrutiny, which unfortunately we are not privy to.

Nobody has suggested that sexual assault is acceptable behaviour, but they have a right to question what qualifies as sexual assault, what quantifies as rape, and they are allowed make their own personal determination on whether they would consider their own personal experience sexual assault, rather than be TOLD they were sexually assaulted and they have contributed to "rape culture" by proxy.

And the reason I don't know why is this - on the one hand I can understand why men get defensive when the term 'rape culture' is used because they feel like it's accusing them of something (it's not). I get that.

But I would think the fact that men have mothers, sisters, wives and daughters, would make them a little more sensitive to the issues highlighted in this thread.

The above reads like "as a parent so and so and if you don't have children you wouldn't understand".

You don't have to have female relatives or friends to be sensitive to the experiences of people who have been raped. But those people who have had their ass groped in a nightclub and try to wedge it in under the umbrella term "rape culture" should actually show some sensitivity to those people who have actually experienced the utter humiliation of what it is to have been raped, and not just moral outrage at what it is to have your ass groped in a nightclub.

tsiehta

Czarcasm wrote: »

You're talking about one single case there. The majority of society does not queue up to shake a rapists hand in court.

Every time examples are given, excuses are given as to why they're not representative.

The case here where people queued up to shake the rapists hand? One single case, the rest of society isn't like that! The Steubenville case, where more attention was paid to the "ruined" lives of the perpetrators, and there was a huge amount of hatred and slut shaming directed at the victim via social media? That's just one small town and a bunch of internet trolls, the rest of society isn't like that!

At some point, you have to step back and consider that maybe such attitudes are actually more prevalent than just a few small isolated cases.

The argument for rape culture isn't so much that rape is extremely common and people are not morally opposed to rape, but rather that rape is more common than people believe, that rape victims are often met with an undue level of skepticism, that rape victims are told after the fact how they were silly for not being more careful and what they should have done to avoid being raped, and that society has a somewhat high bar for what it believes to be "actual" rape or sexual assault.

somefeen

ressem wrote: »

Or 30.2% of men and 27.4% of women choosing that "short skirts and tight tops invite rape" when surveyed, the attitude that Carolmax was confronted with.

Sadly, and I am going to be hung for this, I think its true.
The only (poor analogy) I can think of is keeping your brand new high def telly on show for all to see.
ITS STILL NOT THE VICTIMS FAULT THOUGH!! just thought I'd make that clear. Its never the victims fault. It is the fault of the person perpetrating the crime.
I just believe part of personal safety is not drawing attention to yourself because you are more likely to catch the eye of a scumbag. I know its terrible and women should be able to wear what they want, but as long as there are rapists out there you need to be careful.
Of course its kind of a moot point anyway since AFAIK in most rape cases the victim knew the attacker.
I really do feel for carolmax and the attitude she encountered. To go to someone for support and be told its your own fault must be horrible.
And I know that the TV thing is terrible analogy if I can think of a better one I'll use it.

somefeen

tsiehta wrote: »

Every time examples are given, excuses are given as to why they're not representative.

The case here where people queued up to shake the rapists hand? One single case, the rest of society isn't like that! The Steubenville case, where more attention was paid to the "ruined" lives of the perpetrators, and there was a huge amount of hatred and slut shaming directed at the victim via social media? That's just one small town and a bunch of internet trolls, the rest of society isn't like that!

At some point, you have to step back and consider that maybe such attitudes are actually more prevalent than just a few small isolated cases.

The argument for rape culture isn't so much that rape is extremely common and people are not morally opposed to rape, but rather that rape is more common than people believe, that rape victims are often met with an undue level of skepticism, that rape victims are told after the fact how they were silly for not being more careful and what they should have done to avoid being raped, and that society has a somewhat high bar for what it believes to be "actual" rape or sexual assault.

But it could be argued that the reason we know about those cases is because they are exceptional and extreme. Don't they make the news because we are outraged by that behaviour?
I completely agree with your final paragraph. That attitude is not constructive and doesn't help anyone. If I got mugged while walking home at night through a dark alley and was told it was my fault, I'd be pretty pissed off. Then imagine that in a case of such high emotions as a rape victim and...... well....****ing hell...

carolmarx

somefeen wrote: »

Sadly, and I am going to be hung for this, I think its true.
The only (poor analogy) I can think of is keeping your brand new high def telly on show for all to see.
ITS STILL NOT THE VICTIMS FAULT THOUGH!! just thought I'd make that clear. Its never the victims fault. It is the fault of the person perpetrating the crime.
I just believe part of personal safety is not drawing attention to yourself because you are more likely to catch the eye of a scumbag. I know its terrible and women should be able to wear what they want, but as long as there are rapists out there you need to be careful.
Of course its kind of a moot point anyway since AFAIK in most rape cases the victim knew the attacker.
I really do feel for carolmax and the attitude she encountered. To go to someone for support and be told its your own fault must be horrible.
And I know that the TV thing is terrible analogy if I can think of a better one I'll use it.

Leaving aside the fact that you blatantly do believe it is the victims fault for displaying her body, your analogy is so very flawed. A high definition telly is a material possession, that someone might steal for a myriad of reasons... They're a dick, they want to sell it for money for whatever reason, or they simply want their own telly but can't afford it. My body is not a material possession, it's not there for the taking. If I have my boobs out or a short skirt I don't think it's right or fair for a man to think 'I'll have me some of that'...And I would be shocked if any man actually thought like that.

The problem with the belief that women should be careful about what they wear in case they get raped,is wrong on so many levels, but mostly because of this; it perpetuates the dangerous notion that rape is about sex. Rape isn't about sex, it's about a twisted person asserting their dominance over a weaker opponent. Women in burkas get raped.Nuns in habits get raped. Men in jeans get raped. Children in their school uniforms get raped. Your clothing doesn't make one ****ing bit of difference.

Czarcasm

Rosy Posy wrote: »

So you don't think that black people's reclaimation of the word '******' was effective? It used to be used as an insult by the oppressors but now is used as a term of respect within the culture and unacceptable outside of the culture.

You're wrong there. That particular word is only used in popular western culture and is not considered by any black people I've ever met to be a term of respect. They call each other "homeboy" as opposed to the n word, and many object to it's common acceptance in popular culture proliferated by the likes of 50cent and Jamie Foxx (Thankfully Eddie Murphy ceased to be relevant about 20 years ago!).

The slut walk campaign is about reclaiming sexual power. I think that the basic premise 'whatever we wear where ever we go yes means yes and no means no' is effective. The female body is used as a marketing tool in general society, we didn't ask for that, I think that the way that groups like the slut walkers and femen subvert this to further their agenda is pretty effective too.

SEX is used as a marketing tool, by advertisers. Marketing is all about making your product attractive, and it's been proven time and again that sex sells, hence why you get images of David Beckham on a 20ft billboard in nothing but his CK tighty whiteys. Now go into Easons and alongside the Playboy and Hustler, etc, are magazines like GAY and Attitude, Men's Health, Muscle and Fitness, the list goes on!

The first time I actually witnessed a slut walk (shopaholic asked me for any other words that offended me earlier, that's another one, I hate any girl being referred to as a slut, and no amount of power walking is ever going to take the meaning out of that word) and I saw the banners, I did an immediate "WTF??", after that, their message was lost. I know many girls who like to be referred to as sluts and wear it almost like a badge of honor, so such marketing is completely lost on them too!

I see we're in agreement. Rapists are created by their biology, environment, economy, society and evolution. If we want to reduce rape and sexual assault there is little we can do about biology and evolution, but we can change the environment (eg remove images that objectify sexuality from public advertising), the economy (eg try to narrow the gap between rich and poor, try to educate and provide fulfilling employment that increases a sense of self worth) and society (eg try to change a mindset of victim blaming).

So that's a whole shedload of other problems you have to address before you eventually get around to addressing the actual issue of your perception of people's attitudes towards sexual assault and rape. You have invariably created for yourself there a chicken and egg situation having to solve all the rest of society's issues before you can solve the one you originally set out to solve.

I don't think there is a single pathology of a rapist either but I do know that if sexual respect was more highly valued in our upbringing and our society at large then perhaps there might be less sexual assault, and if there were more consequences of rape for the rapist than for the victim (in the majority of cases) then those that cannot have the urge to rape might at least think twice about doing so.

See here's where you create yet another chicken and egg situation. Further down this post you say that sexual assault and rape are about power, and not sex, yet in the above paragraph you claim that how society views sex is important in reducing incidence of rape and sexual assault. So, it's either about sex, or it isn't?

The consequences of rape for the perpetrator will never equate to the lifetime of suffering inflicted upon their victim (I'm sure you meant to use the word "survivor" above), so any penal measures you introduce will do nothing to deter a person from rape, they'll just try not to get caught is all, so no change there then.

Well that's a depressing thought. Nothing can be done so do nothing. I'm glad I'm not so jaded yet as to hope for a better future for my children.

I never once suggested that nothing could be done. I'm completely in agreement with you that education and encouraging in people a sense of respect for themselves and for other people is a damn good start. Nobody NEEDS to violate another human being, but they do it because even with the best upbringing and moral guidance in the world, they as human beings themselves can choose to disregard all they've been taught in favor of satisfying their sexual urges, or their need to be in control, or a whole host of other reasons that are pertinent only to that individual.

I really don't see how the term rape survivor is patronising. It shifts the emphasis from the act- what was done to the victim- to what they do afterwards- survive. And from one who has dealt with it it is an act of survival to be able to move on from.

I did say for SOME it IS indeed patronising, and for the very reason you put forward yourself above. It's akin to sweeping what happened under the carpet and being told "ah sure, it happened, but you survived, now you need to get on with your life". I mean, if that perspective works for you that's great, but for some individuals, the term "survivor" IS patronising, because it's a carry over from the American "positive attitude to failure" philosophy, and it's not a term I would use when talking to victims of sexual assault or rape as it glosses over the issue instead of actually acknowledging and helping them to understand what's happened to them and give them the individual tools to help them cope with what's happened to them, allowing them to work through the issues at their own pace and learning to live with what's happened to them, rather than kicking them into survival mode, because if they're only surviving, that means they're not living.

So you don't think that rape is a crime of power? So why is it routinely used as a tool of war?

Because war is about inflicting as much damage and humiliation on your enemy as possible, and what better way to do that than to humiliate them in every way humanly possible, including rape, and including urinating on their dead bodies. Why just stop at overpowering your enemy when you can completely and totally humiliate and denigrate them, making them actually feel what it is to be less than human?

If you don't think that there is a power discrepancy between the sexes you need your head checked.

I need my head checked so, otherwise you need to define your perspective on power and what it is to be powerful. I could name many business leaders off the top of my head who are female, I could tell you that in the sex industry more women earn more than men, I could say the same about the fashion industry, but that would be a whole other thread that would take no account of the fact that you're forgetting about the victims of female on male rape and sexual assault, and male on male rape and sexual assault. Actually where DO male victims of rape and sexual assault figure in your idea of "rape culture", or are you only concerned with women? I would be personally concerned for ALL victims of sexual assault and rape, just in case you were wondering.

What you're saying is typical of the anti feminist backlash that is endemic in our society. And I read that in a book, Backlash by Susan Faludi, not from a TED talk.

There's no anti feminist backlash going on here I can assure you, more a personality clash I would think given our vastly different perspectives and approaches to the subject of rape and sexual assault. If you were to press me on it however, I couldn't give a fiddlers about feminism; pro, anti or otherwise, as I view all human beings equally, I don't see any need for a "power struggle" approach as to me the word "power" implies not just being equal to, but being able to display that you are better than your counterpart. That's not an philosophy that will ever sit well with me.

Most of what I say I draw from my own experiences and those of other survivors. I find your post condescending and patronising.

Everything I say I draw from my own experiences and those of the people who have experienced rape and sexual assault, this isn't just stuff I picked up in a book, and for me it isn't an academic debate, it's something I'm incredibly passionate about, so please don't mistake passion and assertiveness for a condescending and patronising attitude. I just happen to disagree with your perspective and your approach is all, it's nothing against you personally.

I'm only here to discuss the issues involved in sexual assault and rape, not here to have a discussion on feminism.

B0jangles

Czarcasm wrote: »

SEX is used as a marketing tool, by advertisers. Marketing is all about making your product attractive, and it's been proven time and again that sex sells, hence why you get images of David Beckham on a 20ft billboard in nothing but his CK tighty whiteys. Now go into Easons and alongside the Playboy and Hustler, etc, are magazines like GAY and Attitude, Men's Health, Muscle and Fitness, the list goes on!
.

Do you genuinely not recognise the common denominator for every example you cite here?

Hint: every single example you cite of them is aimed at men. So if sex sells, it is 100% used to sell to men, therefore images that are sexually appealing to men are used.

How do you not see that this is a problem? Men are at most 50% of the population but their tastes are catered to as though they are 100% of the audience.

somefeen

carolmarx wrote: »

Leaving aside the fact that you blatantly do believe it is the victims fault for displaying her body, your analogy is so very flawed. A high definition telly is a material possession, that someone might steal for a myriad of reasons... They're a dick, they want to sell it for money for whatever reason, or they simply want their own telly but can't afford it. My body is not a material possession, it's not there for the taking. If I have my boobs out or a short skirt I don't think it's right or fair for a man to think 'I'll have me some of that'...And I would be shocked if any man actually thought like that.

The problem with the belief that women should be careful about what they wear in case they get raped,is wrong on so many levels, but mostly because of this; it perpetuates the dangerous notion that rape is about sex. Rape isn't about sex, it's about a twisted person asserting their dominance over a weaker opponent. Women in burkas get raped.Nuns in habits get raped. Men in jeans get raped. Children in their school uniforms get raped. Your clothing doesn't make one ****ing bit of difference.

Well you've just completely missed my point.

B0jangles

somefeen wrote: »

Well you've just completely missed my point.

Your point was really terrible and about 50 years behind the times, you should really not act surprised when you get called out on it.

You said:

"I just believe part of personal safety is not drawing attention to yourself because you are more likely to catch the eye of a scumbag. I know its terrible and women should be able to wear what they want, but as long as there are rapists out there you need to be careful.
Of course its kind of a moot point anyway since AFAIK in most rape cases the victim knew the attacker."

So on the one hand women should keep a low profile and not wear things to attract a rapist's attention, but on the other hand the rapist knows the victims so what she wears is immaterial.

Do you advocate women wearing groucho marx glasses/moustache combos? It'd hit both of your targets of being unattractive and possibly fooling rapists who know their victims?

How so Joe

Czarcasm wrote: »

That's called sleazy, you're still quite a ways from rape.

In relation to this point, it's not so very far from rape.
I'm not saying that every sleazeball who goes for the drunkest girl in the room is a rapist, but bearing in mind the general state of Irish drinkers, when someone decides to go for the drunkest girl in the room, she is almost certainly too drunk to consent to anything.

So why are they going anywhere near her? The idea that she's drunk enough that her judgement will be impaired so she might consent to something with them? That's disgusting and sleazy, yes, but the chances are she's also too drunk to actually consent to do anything at all.

So anything they do with her can probably be categorised as sexual assault, and indeed rape if it gets that far.

jethro081

on the whole issue of females inappropriately touching men at hen parties etc, and why it is viewed differently, i think it's a question of the implied threat.

for example, if a child squared up to me and threatened to hit me in the face, i'm very unlikely to be intimidated by them. There is a large chance i would find it funny. If some six foot six tank of a lad exhibited the exact same behaviour then i would likely crap myself. Not saying that this is acceptable behaviour in a child, more that my response to it would be a direct result of how threatening i found the person confronting me.

apply this logic to the idea of inappropriate advances. I think it's fairly safe to say that for the most part, men are naturally physically stronger than women, and much less at risk of being physically dominated. As such, a man being touched by a woman when he didn't invite that is a less intimidating situation than the reverse.

basically, my point here is, it's much easier for me as a man to shrug off that kind of behavior. it may make me uncomfortable, and i don't at all think it's acceptable, but at the end of the day, i'm unlikely, or at least much less likely, to feel physically threatened or to fear for my safety. the same is not true in reverse, so i do think that the double standard is understandable. when women do it, it can be discomforting, sometimes extremely so, but it is much less likely to be physically threatening. when men do it, it is almost certain to carry a physical threat, (even if it's often not an intended one), purely because of the general natural differences in physical strength and the capacity to physically dominate a smaller person that exists between men and women.

Czarcasm

B0jangles wrote: »

Do you genuinely not recognise the common denominator for every example you cite here?

Hint: every single example you cite of them is aimed at men. So if sex sells, it is 100% used to sell to men, therefore images that are sexually appealing to men are used.

I did that on purpose B0 in response to Rosy's skewered perspective that-

Rosy Posy wrote: »

The female body is used as a marketing tool in general society, we didn't ask for that

My idea was to point out that the male body are used just as much as a marketing tool in general society, and I know sure as hell we didn't ask for that! But, sex sells, because we want it, unless you're asexual, and there aren't very many of those around compared to hetro and LGBT, so companies market their products accordingly.

How do you not see that this is a problem? Men are at most 50% of the population but their tastes are catered to as though they are 100% of the audience.

Ehh, I don't know about that now, especially when women's magazines outnumber men's magazines by about ten to one, same for female cosmetics, in fact even feminine hygiene products get the sexy treatment because they're aimed at selling to women, I can't for the life of me think of the advert for a womens pad that the woman gets her skirt caught in a lift or something and the guy catches a glimpse of her underwear! I mean, there's no words for that one really it's so bad!

One of the biggest growing markets in the sex industry too is pornography specifically aimed at women, for women, so their tastes are catered for in that respect when they want to whip out one of their numerous array of sex toys to pleasure themselves while a man has to make do with a shítty vibrating cock ring or a fleshlight. We're not exactly spoiled for choice in that department either.

The point I'm getting at is that just like you say men are at most 50% of the population and 100% of the audience, that really depends on the market you're aiming your product at, and how that product is perceived by your target market, so while my wife is off picking up Cosmo, I'm picking up a copy of Playboy... and leaving it back down again because it hasn't contained any good articles since it was introduced here some time in the mid 90's.

Czarcasm

How so Joe wrote: »

In relation to this point, it's not so very far from rape.
I'm not saying that every sleazeball who goes for the drunkest girl in the room is a rapist, but bearing in mind the general state of Irish drinkers, when someone decides to go for the drunkest girl in the room, she is almost certainly too drunk to consent to anything.

So why are they going anywhere near her? The idea that she's drunk enough that her judgement will be impaired so she might consent to something with them? That's disgusting and sleazy, yes, but the chances are she's also too drunk to actually consent to do anything at all.

So anything they do with her can probably be categorised as sexual assault, and indeed rape if it gets that far.

Key point in your post bolded there, because if you hadn't included that, your post would have looked like you were trying to imply that the general state of mind of the Irish male who goes out for a drink is that they are all potential rapists on the lookout for the drunkest girl in the room to rape her.

Nobody has raped the girl until they've actually raped her, if that is indeed their intention, because up to that point, they're just being sleazy, which doesn't qualify as rape, but still some would see no problem in categorising it as "rape culture", effectively minimising the impact of the word rape, and by extension the act of rape itself.

How so Joe

Czarcasm wrote: »

Key point in your post bolded there, because if you hadn't included that, your post would have looked like you were trying to imply that the general state of mind of the Irish male who goes out for a drink is that they are all potential rapists on the lookout for the drunkest girl in the room to rape her.

Nobody has raped the girl until they've actually raped her, if that is indeed their intention, because up to that point, they're just being sleazy, which doesn't qualify as rape, but still some would see no problem in categorising it as "rape culture", effectively minimising the impact of the word rape, and by extension the act of rape itself.

You're right, I'm not saying that all men heading out on the lash are trying to rape/sexually assault the drunkest girl in the room.

What I am saying is that any male (or female) who goes out looking for the drunkest girl in the room and then attempts in any way to hook up with her and/or do anything further, especially if this is repeated behaviour, could well, but not definitely, become a rapist/sexual assaulter (that's not even a word, but you get what I'm trying to say).

Up to the point where they physically penetrate her, they're not a rapist, I agree, but I think if anything physical happens, that's beyond the boundaries of sleazy, that's sexual assault.

The idea that this is okay, if it's widespread, which I'm not saying it is, because that would be sick, that could be labelled rape culture.
But that's not what I said in my first post.

Call Me Jimmy

How so Joe wrote: »

What I am saying is that any male (or female) who goes out looking for the drunkest girl in the room and then attempts in any way to hook up with her and/or do anything further, especially if this is repeated behaviour, could well, but not definitely, become a rapist/sexual assaulter (that's not even a word, but you get what I'm trying to say).

No argument there!

Czarcasm

How so Joe wrote: »

You're right, I'm not saying that all men heading out on the lash are trying to rape/sexually assault the drunkest girl in the room.

What I am saying is that any male (or female) who goes out looking for the drunkest girl in the room and then attempts in any way to hook up with her and/or do anything further, especially if this is repeated behaviour, could well, but not definitely, become a rapist/sexual assaulter (that's not even a word, but you get what I'm trying to say).

Up to the point where they physically penetrate her, they're not a rapist, I agree, but I think if anything physical happens, that's beyond the boundaries of sleazy, that's sexual assault.

The idea that this is okay, if it's widespread, which I'm not saying it is, because that would be sick, that could be labelled rape culture.
But that's not what I said in my first post.

OK Joe I get what you're trying to say, but both the above post and your previous one are full of "if's" and "but's", but until rape actually happens, then it's not rape, it's sleaze, and no amount of if this or if that or but the other is going to make it rape, but still as you say some people would classify it as this new umbrella term "rape culture".


As I said in MY first post you picked me up on- you're still a long ways from actual rape without all the ifs and buts.

How so Joe

Czarcasm wrote: »

OK Joe I get what you're trying to say, but both the above post and your previous one are full of "if's" and "but's", but until rape actually happens, then it's not rape, it's sleaze, and no amount of if this or if that or but the other is going to make it rape, but still as you say some people would classify it as this new umbrella term "rape culture".


As I said in MY first post you picked me up on- you're still a long ways from actual rape without all the ifs and buts.

I actually fully disagree with you there.
Until rape happens can be far more than sleaze. Until rape happens could well be a serious sexual assault.
Sleaze is one end of the spectrum. Rape is the other. There is a vast space inbetween which is various categories of sexual assault.

Czarcasm

How so Joe wrote: »

I actually fully disagree with you there.
Until rape happens can be far more than sleaze. Until rape happens could well be a serious sexual assault.
Sleaze is one end of the spectrum. Rape is the other. There is a vast space inbetween which is various categories of sexual assault.

Now see I don't know if you're taking me up wrong on purpose, or if it's accidental, because I'd hate for anyone here to feel they are being misrepresented.

Jaffa's original assertion was this-

jaffacakesyum wrote: »

I see it at parties - men going after and targetting the most comotose drunk woman in the room.

my rebuttal was this-

Czarcasm wrote: »

That's called sleazy, you're still quite a ways from rape.

In other words, under the broad definition of "rape culture", sleazy behaviour comes under that umbrella term, and once you start doing that, you're not too far from someone walking into a Garda station and claiming sexual assault because somebody was eyeballing them.

Imagine how much time and resources that would take from just the Gardai alone, time and resources that could be better spent investigating actual rape cases as opposed to "he or she groped my ass" cases.

Now what you're taking from my post Joe is that I'm not taking any account of the spectrum in between a guy actually eyeballing a girl and a guy actually committing rape. It's not that I've ignored the various degrees of sexual assault in between, it's that they simply don't exist in the scenario Jaffa put forward.

Therefore it's one hell of a leap to say that a guy eyeballing a drunk girl at a party is part of any perceived "rape culture".

How so Joe

Czarcasm wrote: »

Now see I don't know if you're taking me up wrong on purpose, or if it's accidental, because I'd hate for anyone here to feel they are being misrepresented.

I'm certainly not deliberately being obtuse, but I may have misunderstood your point.

wrote:

Jaffa's original assertion was this-

my rebuttal was this-

In other words, under the broad definition of "rape culture", sleazy behaviour comes under that umbrella term, and once you start doing that, you're not too far from someone walking into a Garda station and claiming sexual assault because somebody was eyeballing them.

Imagine how much time and resources that would take from just the Gardai alone, time and resources that could be better spent investigating actual rape cases as opposed to "he or she groped my ass" cases.

Now what you're taking from my post Joe is that I'm not taking any account of the spectrum in between a guy actually eyeballing a girl and a guy actually committing rape. It's not that I've ignored the various degrees of sexual assault in between, it's that they simply don't exist in the scenario Jaffa put forward.

Therefore it's one hell of a leap to say that a guy eyeballing a drunk girl at a party is part of any perceived "rape culture".

Again, I'm gonna disagree with you, though. I don't think, in the scenario Jaffa put forward, that they're just eyeballing her.
The impression that I got from Jaffa's post was that these men were actually attempting to 'seduce' (for want of a better word) these ridiculously drunk women.
And that, I think, is part of where the rape culture assertion comes in.
Attempting anything sexual/seductive with a woman who's clearly too off her tits to consent or refuse consent could well be a byproduct of rape culture.

But then the issue is where does sexual conduct begin, where does it cross a line, etc. Those answers are different for everyone. I can see the point you're making there.

But I think what we have here are two different scenarios - as far as I can see, anyways.
There is the scenario where a woman is off her tits, and a lad starts eyeballing her. That's not rape culture. He could even be wondering is she in any fit state to drag herself to a taxi and get home.
That's not rape. That's not sexual assault. Probably if he's leering one could feel a bit violated, but it's certainly not something worth going to the gardaí over. And I don't think it's a product of rape culture.


But there is another scenario where a woman who is off her tits is approached by a guy with intent to have sex with her, or do anything of a sexual nature. The very fact that she is off her tits means that she cannot consent, thus the guy thinking that it's okay to attempt to seduce her, that is a product of rape culture, or it could be asserted that it is.
And I also think that's the scenario Jaffa was describing.
But I'm open to correction or interpretation on that.

Three Seasons

tsiehta wrote: »

Every time examples are given, excuses are given as to why they're not representative.

The case here where people queued up to shake the rapists hand? One single case, the rest of society isn't like that! The Steubenville case, where more attention was paid to the "ruined" lives of the perpetrators, and there was a huge amount of hatred and slut shaming directed at the victim via social media? That's just one small town and a bunch of internet trolls, the rest of society isn't like that!

At some point, you have to step back and consider that maybe such attitudes are actually more prevalent than just a few small isolated cases.

The argument for rape culture isn't so much that rape is extremely common and people are not morally opposed to rape, but rather that rape is more common than people believe, that rape victims are often met with an undue level of skepticism, that rape victims are told after the fact how they were silly for not being more careful and what they should have done to avoid being raped, and that society has a somewhat high bar for what it believes to be "actual" rape or sexual assault.

At some point you need to show evidence that such attitudes to rapists are so prevalent and give an indication of what percentage of people you are talking about.

You claim thes attitudes are so prevalent yet my experience says otherwise, the vast majority of people in my experience abhor rape and rapists.

Three Seasons

carolmarx wrote: »

Leaving aside the fact that you blatantly do believe it is the victims fault for displaying her body, your analogy is so very flawed. A high definition telly is a material possession, that someone might steal for a myriad of reasons... They're a dick, they want to sell it for money for whatever reason, or they simply want their own telly but can't afford it. My body is not a material possession, it's not there for the taking. If I have my boobs out or a short skirt I don't think it's right or fair for a man to think 'I'll have me some of that'...And I would be shocked if any man actually thought like that.

The problem with the belief that women should be careful about what they wear in case they get raped,is wrong on so many levels, but mostly because of this; it perpetuates the dangerous notion that rape is about sex. Rape isn't about sex, it's about a twisted person asserting their dominance over a weaker opponent. Women in burkas get raped.Nuns in habits get raped. Men in jeans get raped. Children in their school uniforms get raped. Your clothing doesn't make one ****ing bit of difference.

I think you're generalising what rape is about and believing the propaganda. You can't possibly know that all rapes are about dominance over a weaker opponent and not sex. How do you know it's never about sex?


As for whether what you wear makes rapes more likely, maybe it does, maybe it doesn't. Probability can be a tricky topic. You're assuming clothing doesn't make a difference as to how likely it is to be raped. Why te assumption? People in all clothes have been raped but there are different frequencies.

Saying that I think women for the most part should just wear what they want as the likelihood of being taped by a stranger is still low, assuming what I've heard is true that most rapes occur by those already known.