Women should dress modestly or expect to ‘entice a rapist’ – claims Chrissie Hynde

The Corinthian

humanji wrote: »

Isn't that only comparable if you know where you're walking? So you'd have to know you're antagonising people with you're clothing.

I did specify that. Naturally if you're ignorant of the danger, you cannot act to avoid it.

So a woman would have to make a conscious effort to were revealing clothing around a rapist.

TBH, I've already said that I am skeptical of the whole notion of revealing clothing being a factor (at least in the West). More pertinent are things such as getting blind drunk, accepting invitations somewhere you're unfamiliar with by strangers and the like.

Most of these things are pretty much common sense - I think few could claim to be ignorant of these dangers, but according to One Eyed Jack even if they are aware they have no responsibility to consider them - and suggesting that is ironically irresponsible too.

kylith

The Corinthian wrote: »

Were you to walk down the Falls road in Belfast, while wearing a Rangers T-shirt and being aware of how this is perceived in that area, and got beaten to a pulp, are you also exempt from any need to be mindful of the possibility of being beaten up?

This does not mean that those who beat you up are any less culpable for their crime, but to claim that one has no responsibility not to act in a potentially reckless manner, is pretty questionable you'll have to admit.

The implication there is that the world is as dangerous for women as an incredibly violent and dangerous sectarian area is for someone from the wrong 'side'. In 99.99999% of the world the jersey you wear is not going to attract undue attention.

If I were walking through Rapeville, populated by rapists, then the analogy might stand; but at a party? In a pub? Walking home from the bus?

eviltwin

The Corinthian wrote: »

Were you to walk down the Falls road in Belfast, while wearing a Rangers T-shirt and being aware of how this is perceived in that area, and got beaten to a pulp, are you also exempt from any need to be mindful of the possibility of being beaten up?

This does not mean that those who beat you up are any less culpable for their crime, but to claim that one has no responsibility not to act in a potentially reckless manner, is pretty questionable you'll have to admit.

If you were talking about a woman walking into the sex offenders unit in a prison wearing a bikini that might make sense. Rape can happen anywhere, anytime, with anyone, in any clothing.

The Corinthian

kylith wrote: »

If I were walking through Rapeville, populated by rapists, then the analogy might stand; but at a party? In a pub? Walking home from the bus?

I agree with you. I'm questioning One Eyed Jack's blanket position that there is never any responsibility to be mindful of these things.

One eyed Jack

The Corinthian wrote: »

Were you to walk down the Falls road in Belfast, while wearing a Rangers T-shirt and being aware of how this is perceived in that area, and got beaten to a pulp, are you also exempt from any need to be mindful of the possibility of being beaten up?

This does not mean that those who beat you up are any less culpable for their crime, but to claim that one has no responsibility not to act in a potentially reckless manner, is pretty questionable you'll have to admit.

You're using backwards rationalisation to justify the actions of the other person who chose to beat someone to a pulp.

What about the person who walks down the Falls road and is beaten to a pulp, who isn't wearing any Rangers T-shirt? What's the reason for them getting beaten to a pulp? You're going to be stumped to come up with a rationalisation for why they were beaten to a pulp.

It's the person who chooses to commit the crime should be held wholly responsible by society for their actions. This idea of "we don't live in a perfect world" is an obtuse rationalisation for suggesting that people should modify their behaviour if they don't want to be attacked. I see a problem with that, in that it is implicitly apportioning blame to the person who is assaulted through no fault of their own. They didn't invite anyone to assault them. It's the person who assaults them should be held wholly responsible for choosing to commit assault against another person. Anything else, or holding the victim responsible in any way, is simply justifying the behaviour of the perpetrator.

eviltwin

The Corinthian wrote: »

I agree with you. I'm questioning One Eyed Jack's blanket position that there is never any responsibility to be mindful of these things.

Everyone should take precautions but we're all only human and we sometimes let our guard down. There has to be balance. Don't take risks but don't view every situation as a rapists trap either.

zeffabelli

kylith wrote: »

The implication there is that the world is as dangerous for women as an incredibly violent and dangerous sectarian area is for someone from the wrong 'side'. In 99.99999% of the world the jersey you wear is not going to attract undue attention.

If I were walking through Rapeville, populated by rapists, then the analogy might stand; but at a party? In a pub? Walking home from the bus?

Well according to the rape culture pushers, it is.

Is it smart not to take precautions, get drunk and take strange men you met on tinder back to your house, or go to theirs when you have zero idea what is there, not tell a friend either?

Granted I hate the current culture of suspicion over all, but having grown up in a city in a time where there was lots of crime, had two family members mugged, one sliced with a machete, I don't carry cash and I don't engage in confrontations because I just don't know who I'm dealing with or even if they are carrying a knife.

While yeah no one "should" have to worry about this, fact is life is not ideal, there are bad people and there are good people who sometimes do bad things.

A defensive approach is not blaming the victim, but asking someone why get so drunk you can't see straight and go to strange men's apartments is as they say "asking for trouble."

Plus the definition of rape has been changing. Up until the 80s in Britain you could rape your wife. Now you have campuses in the U.S. which invalidate your consent after any consumption of alcohol, so even if you did consent, one glass of wine and bingo your consent is eradicated and you're a rape victim.

I'd say in 95% if cases we had something to do with our own victimisation.

Medusa22

There has to be a balance between ''you can walk around naked in a wing for criminals who have raped women and expect not to be raped'' and ''you wore a short skirt so you were asking for it''. People have to take some responsibility for their own safety, take precautions to minimise risks. That does not mean that they have to take responsibility for being raped or assaulted or attacked, it just means that you should have some common sense and avoid risky situations if you can.

It does not mean you will be able to avoid being raped, as it can happen anywhere, and at any time, however, like others have said, if you leave your front door unlocked (as you should be able to do in an ideal world), then there is a chance that someone will break into your house. It is completely the fault of the burglar and it is not your fault that you were burgled. However if you would like to reduce the risks of being burgled, then lock your front door, it is not 100% effective, just like being covered from head to toe and never drinking is not 100% effective against being raped.

One eyed Jack

zeffabelli wrote: »

Well according to the rape culture pushers, it is.

Is it smart not to take precautions, get drunk and take strange men you met on tinder back to your house, or go to theirs when you have zero idea what is there, not tell a friend either?

Granted I hate the current culture of suspicion over all, but having grown up in a city in a time where there was lots of crime, had two family members mugged, one sliced with a machete, I don't carry cash and I don't engage in confrontations because I just don't know who I'm dealing with or even if they are carrying a knife.

While yeah no one "should" have to worry about this, fact is life is not ideal, there are bad people and there are good people who sometimes do bad things.

A defensive approach is not blaming the victim, but asking someone why get so drunk you can't see straight and go to strange men's apartments is as they say "asking for trouble."

I'd say in 95% if cases we had something to do with our own victimisation.

Using that reasoning though, justifies the idea that everyone is a potential rapist. I don't think we should be going down that road either.

It's utterly futile to be going to the extremes of the scale on either side of the argument when most rapists are known to their victim, and the stranger danger rape myth feeds into a culture of paranoia and suspicion, which I doubt anyone here wants either. It's exactly the meme that was pushed that created the mythical suspicion about men being around children, that somehow the children are inherently being put in danger and somehow it's prudent to prevent children from being on their own around men, "because you just never know", so it's better to take precautions, right?

Wrong.

zeffabelli

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Using that reasoning though, justifies the idea that everyone is a potential rapist. I don't think we should be going down that road either.

It's utterly futile to be going to the extremes of the scale on either side of the argument when most rapists are known to their victim, and the stranger danger rape myth feeds into a culture of paranoia and suspicion, which I doubt anyone here wants either. It's exactly the meme that was pushed that created the mythical suspicion about men being around children, that somehow the children are inherently being put in danger and somehow it's prudent to prevent children from being on their own around men, "because you just never know", so it's better to take precautions, right?

Wrong.

I agree with you but we are all "potential" rapists and potential victims, just as we all are potential killers.

We know we are all potential murderers/killers but we don't really carry that around like its an active volcano in our minds.

But the rape crime has been turned into an active volcano.

meeeeh

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You're using backwards rationalisation to justify the actions of the other person who chose to beat someone to a pulp.

What about the person who walks down the Falls road and is beaten to a pulp, who isn't wearing any Rangers T-shirt? What's the reason for them getting beaten to a pulp? You're going to be stumped to come up with a rationalisation for why they were beaten to a pulp.

It's the person who chooses to commit the crime should be held wholly responsible by society for their actions. This idea of "we don't live in a perfect world" is an obtuse rationalisation for suggesting that people should modify their behaviour if they don't want to be attacked. I see a problem with that, in that it is implicitly apportioning blame to the person who is assaulted through no fault of their own. They didn't invite anyone to assault them. It's the person who assaults them should be held wholly responsible for choosing to commit assault against another person. Anything else, or holding the victim responsible in any way, is simply justifying the behaviour of the perpetrator.

I agree victim is never responsible. The problem is that victim suffers in the attack (any kind). Not being a guilty / responsible party in attack is little consolidation if you are beaten or raped or even worse.

I don't want a society of fear but there are certain precautions one should make if possible. Like locking a door. It's not your fault if you get robbed but leaving the door open makes it easier. It's a balancing act and not about attributing guilt but about avoiding being hurt through no guilt of your own.

The Corinthian

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You're using backwards rationalisation to justify the actions of the other person who chose to beat someone to a pulp.

No I'm not. I specifically said that it does not change the perpetrator's culpability, so please don't introduce thinks that don't exist and were never implied.

What about the person who walks down the Falls road and is beaten to a pulp, who isn't wearing any Rangers T-shirt? What's the reason for them getting beaten to a pulp? You're going to be stumped to come up with a rationalisation for why they were beaten to a pulp.

What about them? The perpetrator is just as guilty of their actions - wearing the T-shirt or not does not justify them in any way.

It's the person who chooses to commit the crime should be held wholly responsible by society for their actions. This idea of "we don't live in a perfect world" is an obtuse rationalisation for suggesting that people should modify their behaviour if they don't want to be attacked.

Let me know when you get to live in your perfect World where no one needs to be careful.

I see a problem with that, in that it is implicitly apportioning blame to the person who is assaulted through no fault of their own.

No. That's in your head. One might think that the guy with the Ranger's T-shirt was an ejit for having worn it down that road, but to suggest that they are as a result to blame is hypersensitive nonsense.

The implication of what you are saying is no one is ever in any way responsible for their own safety. Ever. And ironically this is the most irresponsible thing of all.

eviltwin wrote: »

Everyone should take precautions but we're all only human and we sometimes let our guard down. There has to be balance. Don't take risks but don't view every situation as a rapists trap either.

I agree. As I said, what I am arguing is that One Eyed Jack's argument implies that no one need ever bare any responsibility for their own safety, no matter how obvious it may be and to suggest otherwise is victim blaming.

One eyed Jack

The Corinthian wrote: »

No I'm not. I specifically said that it does not change the perpetrator's culpability, so please don't introduce thinks that don't exist and were never implied.

Your whole line of argument is based on a hypothetical scenario, something that doesn't exist. If you're going to ask that I not introduce something that doesn't exist, then you shouldn't be presenting a scenario that you made up in your head that doesn't exist, because it's premised on the "what if's", and that argument could go anywhere really.

One eyed Jack

zeffabelli wrote: »

I agree with you but we are all "potential" rapists and potential victims, just as we all are potential killers.

We know we are all potential murderers/killers but we don't really carry that around like its an active volcano in our minds.

But the rape crime has been turned into an active volcano.

We're absolutely not all potential rapists, or murders, or victims. I don't know I am a potential rapist. I know I'm not a potential rapist, and that's why I don't carry that around like it's an active volcano in my mind, and that's why I find the pervasive implications of that line of argument abhorrent. I don't think everyone in society carries a mentality that they are entitled to rape someone "just because", for any reason really.

meeeeh wrote: »

I agree victim is never responsible. The problem is that victim suffers in the attack (any kind). Not being a guilty / responsible party in attack is little consolidation if you are beaten or raped or even worse.

I don't want a society of fear but there are certain precautions one should make if possible. Like locking a door. It's not your fault if you get robbed but leaving the door open makes it easier. It's a balancing act and not about attributing guilt but about avoiding being hurt through no guilt of your own.

That's true, it's of little consolation, but the idea of questioning the fact that they may have been in any way responsible for the actions of another person, is expecting them to be a mind reader. Most people in society do not rape people, they don't rob houses, they don't commit murder. Aren't those people the people we should be targeting, and holding them responsible for their actions, not their victims?

The Corinthian

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Your whole line of argument is based on a hypothetical scenario, something that doesn't exist. If you're going to ask that I not introduce something that doesn't exist, then you shouldn't be presenting a scenario that you made up in your head that doesn't exist, because it's premised on the "what if's", and that argument could go anywhere really.

That is not what I meant. When I suggested what you were arguing I did not mean it was an abstract example, I was suggesting that it does not exist even in the abstract.

caustic 1

It makes me laugh the way a thread descends into chaos because of something someone says that isn't agreed with on a whole. Just because it is something we don't agree with does not make it wrong, or right for that matter. It is just difference of opinion, because it is expressed there is total outrage at how can anyone hold an opinion like this. Why? Everyone has their own views of right and wrong, just be aware it is not all black and white.

One eyed Jack

The Corinthian wrote: »

That is not what I meant. When I suggested what you were arguing I did not mean it was an abstract example, I was suggesting that it does not exist even in the abstract.

What's the point of an abstract argument though, arguing abstract scenarios? There are enough examples to draw from reality without having to make up stuff which suits only one line of argument. I can't argue against a hypothetical scenario that you present because you're entirely in control of the argument and I cannot imply anything because you can just easily say you never said that, or you never introduced that element into the scenario you presented. You effectively win the argument by default and I never stood a chance. So why would I even try to argue against a hypothetical scenario?

It just doesn't make any sense.

Arguing that people should be aware of their personal safety is fine. Arguing after the fact, that people should have been aware of their personal safety, well, that takes a special sort IMO. The kind of special sort like Chrissy Hinde.

meeeeh

One eyed Jack wrote: »

That's true, it's of little consolation, but the idea of questioning the fact that they may have been in any way responsible for the actions of another person, is expecting them to be a mind reader. Most people in society do not rape people, they don't rob houses, they don't commit murder. Aren't those people the people we should be targeting, and holding them responsible for their actions, not their victims?

Again responsibility is sometimes appointed when it shouldn't but I don't think anyone here is overly doing that. There is a valid point that risky behaviour will lead you into more trouble. You posted an analogy about not letting kids around men because everyman is a potential rapist. Would you leave your kid with any man or woman you know nothing about because they are potentially a good person? Things are not black and white.

The Corinthian

One eyed Jack wrote: »

What's the point of an abstract argument though, arguing abstract scenarios?

The discussion of things that could happen, rather than things that cannot. I suggested a scenario that could occur, you're suggesting a reaction that I do not accept can occur. You're the only person here who sees it as victim blaming, from what I can see - hence the use of the term hypersensitive.

Also please let me know that even were there 'victim blaming', is that not the lesser of two evils compared to your policy of telling everyone that they are free to act as irresponsibly and without concern for their safety as they feel fit?

caustic 1

I think comparing to other countries where women are repressed is not a valid argument.

One eyed Jack

meeeeh wrote: »

Again responsibility is sometimes appointed when it shouldn't but I don't think anyone here is overly doing that. There is a valid point that risky behaviour will lead you into more trouble. You posted an analogy about not letting kids around men because everyman is a potential rapist. Would you leave your kid with any man or woman you know nothing about because they are potentially a good person? Things are not black and white.

You're right that things aren't black and white, but like I said to The Corinthian, we don't have to go making stuff up either. To answer your question - I leave my child into school every day, I've never set eyes on his teacher, but I've never until now questioned the idea of leaving my child into school, because I don't expect him to be raped.

The Corinthian wrote: »

The discussion of things that could happen, rather than things that cannot. I suggested a scenario that could occur, you're suggesting a reaction that I do not accept can occur. You're the only person here who sees it as victim blaming, from what I can see - hence the use of the term hypersensitive.

You don't accept the possibility that a person can walk down the Falls road wearing a Rangers t-shirt and not be assaulted?

Who exactly are you blaming then if you're suggesting that it's an inevitabilty that they would be assaulted? Shouldn't we hold the person who assaults them responsible for their actions? As mature adults is that not what society expects mature adults to do? To be able to exercise self-control over their own behaviour?

There's plenty of things people do that I get pissed off about, that doesn't justify me taking them to one side and beating them to a pulp. I alone am responsible for my own actions, and so there's no reason I should be justified in assaulting someone just because I didn't like what they were wearing.

Also please let me know that even were there 'victim blaming', is that not the lesser of two evils compared to your policy of telling everyone that they are free to act as irresponsibly and without concern for their safety as they feel fit?

I would never suggest that anyone is free to act irresponsibly and without concern for their safety as they feel fit. That would be stupid. What I'm arguing is after the fact; what you're arguing is potential - something that has the potential to happen, you're arguing that people should be responsible for other people's behaviour, that their behaviour, or something about them, causes another person to behave in a certain way towards them.

That's effectively suggesting that for an infinite number of reasons, they were raped, and if they could only find that reason, that would explain why they were raped, as if that is somehow their responsibility to understand why someone else would choose to rape them.

The Corinthian

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You're right that things aren't black and white, but like I said to The Corinthian, we don't have to go making stuff up either. To answer your question - I leave my child into school every day, I've never set eyes on his teacher, but I've never until now questioned the idea of leaving my child into school, because I don't expect him to be raped.

You're equating the risk walking down the Falls road in a Rangers T-shirt with leaving a child into a (presumably vetted) school. Straw man; try again.

You don't accept the possibility that a person can walk down the Falls road wearing a Rangers t-shirt and not be assaulted?

Sure, just as I accept the possibility that a person can get blind drunk and not have an accident driving home. Or cross a busy road blindfolded and not get knocked over. Or leave their car unlocked and not find it or it's contents stolen. Who's to blame is irrelevant, only safety matters.

I would never suggest that anyone is free to act irresponsibly and without concern for their safety as they feel fit. That would be stupid.

You have and it is. You have dismissed the importance of such safety as victim blaming, and that it plays no part in whatever calamity that follows. Unless you start seriously backtracking at this stage you're pretty guilty as charged on that score.

One eyed Jack

The Corinthian wrote: »

You're equating the risk walking down the Falls road in a Rangers T-shirt with leaving a child into a (presumably vetted) school. Straw man; try again.

Is your Falls road assault scenario not just as much a strawman then when what we're discussing here is rape?

I didn't equate leaving a child into school with the Falls road scenario. I was answering the question I was asked. There was a full stop after the word 'either', in relation to making things up. I answered the question providing context for my answer. I wasn't even attempting to relate it to any other scenarios.

Sure, just as I accept the possibility that a person can get blind drunk and not have an accident driving home. Or cross a busy road blindfolded and not get knocked over. Or leave their car unlocked and not find it or it's contents stolen. Who's to blame is irrelevant, only safety matters.

As strawman arguments go, what do any of the above scenarios have to do with rape? Rape involves a victim, and a perpetrator. In the scenarios you present above, only one person is responsible for the consequences of their own actions. They are not responsible for the actions of another person.

If a person gets blind drunk and chooses to drive home, knocking someone down, you don't apportion any responsibility to the person they knocked down. You put the responsibility on the person who chose to drive home drunk. Who is to blame is of course relevant, that's why we don't punish the victims of crime!

People's responsibility for their own personal safety is an entirely unrelated argument. A person can take all precautions they can conceive imaginable, and yet still they can be the victim of a crime. Rather than examining the mindset of the victim of the crime, I would think it would be better to examine the mindset of the person who commits the crime, and hold them responsible for their actions.

Personal responsibility is solid advice in any case, but searching for ways in which a person who was raped may have been responsible for their being raped by someone else? Who does that?

You have and it is. You have dismissed the importance of such safety as victim blaming, and that it plays no part in whatever calamity that follows. Unless you start seriously backtracking at this stage you're pretty guilty as charged on that score.

No, I haven't done that. That is a position you assigned to me after you misinterpreted what I wrote, purposely or otherwise I'm not sure tbh, but that's not an argument I made at all. I'm saying that the person who is raped has no responsibility for their being raped. Someone else chose to rape them. The person who is raped didn't ask or invite anyone to rape them.

No matter how many safety measures or preventative measures a person takes, they aren't going to be able to account for every factor that goes through someone else's mind who chooses to rape them. That is why society should hold the person who rapes someone else wholly responsible, as they are the person who chose to rape someone. Questioning the victim's behaviour doesn't answer any questions as to why someone else chose to rape them.

eviltwin

Wearing a rangers shirt down the falls road is not just foolish it's goading. That's not really applicable to a woman walking down the street in heels.

The Corinthian

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Is your Falls road assault scenario not just as much a strawman then when what we're discussing here is rape?

How is it a strawman? I explained why your comparison was - equating a high risk scenario with a low risk one, so if you're going to suggest mine is, please elaborate.

I didn't equate leaving a child into school with the Falls road scenario.

You did, because what else were you going to compare it to? No one is denying there is some element of risk in everything, but to bring up something so low risk in a discussion where we are talking about high risk scenarios is a comparison and a pretty obvious and ridiculous one.

In the scenarios you present above, only one person is responsible for the consequences of their own actions. They are not responsible for the actions of another person.

Indeed, but they are responsible for their own actions. But not according to you.

If a person gets blind drunk and chooses to drive home, knocking someone down, you don't apportion any responsibility to the person they knocked down.

If they were also blind drunk and ran in front of the car without looking, you would.

Who is to blame is of course relevant, that's why we don't punish the victims of crime!

No one is blaming the person who got knocked over of anything. No one is punishing the victims of any crime. This is all in your head.

People's responsibility for their own personal safety is an entirely unrelated argument.

When are they responsible for their own safety then?

NachoBusiness

Penny Tration wrote: »

It's NEVER the fault of a victim and NO responsibility should lay at the victim's feet.

I'm not so sure. How about Bree Olson (Charlie Sheen's ex-porn-star ex)? She tweeted the following:

https://twitter.com/breeolson/status/28487764894

That's one of her tamer tweets by the way. Not saying she would be to blame if some guy raped her after reading that, but she should of course bear some responsibility if it were to happen. Just as if she boasted about how she had tons of diamonds in her safe and yet she leaves it unlocked and then got robbed. Why she has not deleted the tweet (or any of them) I don't know. It's five years old at this stage.

As for Chrissie Hynde, I wouldn't be too surprised if she has been taken out of context somewhat. The book isn't even for sale and so do we even know if she was sexually asslauted to the degree that has been implied. Many on Twitter saying she was raped in fact but maybe she just took part in a group sex situation that got out of hand and was unable to communicate her hesitancy as she was on drugs (apparently) and so now holds herself responsible for doing things she didn't want to do and the hack has worded it in a way which reads differently. Wouldn't be the first time. Either way, her book comes out at the weekend and I would suspect that her book signings will be protested. Her interviews should be interesting too.

The Corinthian

eviltwin wrote: »

Wearing a rangers shirt down the falls road is not just foolish it's goading. That's not really applicable to a woman walking down the street in heels.

Stop victim blaming. You should be ashamed of yourself.

One eyed Jack

The Corinthian wrote: »

How is it a strawman? I explained why your comparison was - equating a high risk scenario with a low risk one, so if you're going to suggest mine is, please elaborate.

You did, because what else were you going to compare it to? No one is denying there is some element of risk in everything, but to bring up something so low risk in a discussion where we are talking about high risk scenarios is a comparison and a pretty obvious and ridiculous one.

I was equating them on the basis that they were both only potential scenarios, I wasn't comparing one against the other, that's why I said we can't just go making stuff up.

What we were talking about in this thread was rape; what you introduced was a scenario that did not involve rape.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Indeed, but they are responsible for their own actions. But not according to you.

If they were also blind drunk and ran in front of the car without looking, you would.

No one is blaming the person who got knocked over of anything. No one is punishing the victims of any crime. This is all in your head.

It'd be much easier to read what I actually wrote, rather than trying to read my mind, that might help you understand my position.

When are they responsible for their own safety then?

The more pertinent question is "Why should someone who chooses to rape someone else, not be held wholly responsible for their own actions?"

Cold War Kid

TheLastMohican wrote: »

Provocative clothing? Worn to provoke - no? Why exactly do females wear revealing clothing?

To feel sexy, to make men fancy them... not to be raped.

kylith

Cold War Kid wrote: »

To feel sexy, to make men fancy them... not to be raped.

Also, to make other women envious.

Cold War Kid

kylith wrote: »

Also, to make other women envious.

Well I don't know about that. Maybe very young women?

valoren

I was at a restaurant during the week, a noodle bar, open plan seating. Near UCC.
It was a cool enough evening, enought to warrant a jacket.

During our meal, a couple of young girls came in, students obviously, they must have been 17 or 18 by the looks of them. One of them wore a denim jacket/hotpants ensemble, but the pants were short. Very short, in an "Everyone can see the cracks of your arse" short. The sort of outfit a mother or father would refuse to let her out in public in.

My point is, the outfit she wore got attention.
Even if it wasn't worn in an attenton-seeking "Look at me" way, it still got people's attention.

Unfortunately that attention can become unwarranted attention.

kylith

Cold War Kid wrote: »

Well I don't know about that. Maybe very young women?

Ah, you like to look good, and you like to know you look good, and to have other people know you look good, and to feel that other people wish they looked as good as you do (even if that bit's only in your head). It's a confidence boost.

But the important thing is as you say; not to entice rapists.

NachoBusiness

Cold War Kid wrote: »

To feel sexy, to make men fancy them... not to be raped.

kylith wrote: »

Also, to make other women envious.

I have always felt it was a bit of both.

Most women know that if a guy was held at gunpoint the next day he couldn't tell you what the colour the dress or heels was that the girl he got off with the night before was wearing and so I think women who dress sexually provocatively are going to that much trouble 1) because they know other women / girls with be envious or in awe of them looking like that 2) to elicit more of response from men than other girls do.

I mean Christ, some girls can barley walk from taxis they are wearing heels that uncomfortable. They can't be only doing so because they think men will love how much longer their legs look in 'em. There has to more to it than that. As one girl said here recently, getting ready for a night out can be somewhat of a little fashion show for them. But I do agree that tends to more a reason for girls / young women than older women.

Cold War Kid

Personally I never tart meself up to make other women envious (I know some women do though, of course) - never did, even when 14. It has always been *purely* to make myself more attractive to the opposite sex (and also for myself; as in, it makes me feel good to look good - but part of this is the reaction from others).
Although it's only ever my own "look", but lads don't care what your look is once they like how you look.

I'm not interested in what's in fashion/style - guess that's part of me not being concerned about what other women are wearing/what their view is of what I'm wearing.

I'll definitely never wear those crazily high heels!

meeeeh

Well I still like to dress nicely. I do it for myself, for my partner and I sure as hell get the kick out of being as well or better dressed than other women. Frankly I mostly do it for myself but anyone who cares about clothes and says they don't notice or care how others are dressed is disingenuous. Regardless of age.

NachoBusiness

Considering that Toronto Cop's comments which led to SlutWalk, I'm actually kinda surprised there hasn't been a bigger reaction to Hynde's comments.

The repsonse (so far at least) seems kinda reserved in comparison.

One eyed Jack

NachoBusiness wrote: »

Considering that Toronto Cop's comments which led to SlutWalk, I'm actually kinda surprised there hasn't been a bigger reaction to Hynde's comments.

The repsonse (so far at least) seems kinda reserved in comparison.

I think it's just the fact that some comments are just so stupid and transparent (as in Hynde's case, generating publicity for her new book), that they often aren't worth entertaining.

The whole motivation for the 'slutwalk' idea was equally stupid and not worth entertaining tbh -

The SlutWalk Toronto website said the aim of the movement is to "re-appropriate" the word slut.

Idiots.

NachoBusiness

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Idiots.

In fairness, the reappropriation of the word slut has been ongoing now for a decade or more. Or at least the dilution of it. I hear girls proudly calling themselves sluts all the time now, online, in TV shows etc. Have been around guys that have said 'What a slut!' when they set eyes on some girl dressed very provocatively and each time they may as well have just been saying 'What a sexy fcuker!' such was their tone. Even seen some (presumably) American girl in temple bar during the summer wearing a PizzaSlut t-shirt and so there's no way that that word holds the same connotations that it once did. A guy even could jokingly call a woman a slut now, if the situation called for it and it would taken as a joke no problem. There was a time when that would not have been the case. Not saying the word is no longer used derogatorily, in fact I'm sure that is still the primary reason for it's use, just that it's most certainly not inherently derogatory anymore. Like I say though, that's been happening long before the launch of SlutWalk and so I doubt that has had much to do with it if anything at all.

One eyed Jack

NachoBusiness wrote: »

In fairness, the reappropriation of the word slut has been ongoing now for a decade or more. Or at least the dilution of it. I hear girls proudly calling themselves sluts all the time now, online, in TV shows etc. Have been around guys that have said 'What a slut!' when they set eyes on some girl dressed very provocatively and each time they may as well have just been saying 'What a sexy fcuker!' such was their tone. Even seen some (presumably) American girl in temple bar during the summer wearing a PizzaSlut t-shirt and so there's no way that that word holds the same connotations that it once did. A guy even could jokingly call a woman a slut now, if the situation called for it and it would taken as a joke no problem. There was a time when that would not have been the case. Not saying the word is no longer used derogatorily, in fact I'm sure that is still the primary reason for it's use, just that it's most certainly not inherently derogatory anymore. Like I say though, that's been happening long before the launch of SlutWalk and so I doubt that has had much to do with it if anything at all.

Exactly. Nailed it on the head really!

I don't think the 'slutwalk' movement was anything more than a sad excuse for a few misguided SJWs and people who wanted to jump on the popular momentum whipped up by the usual social media campaigns. My local 'slutwalk' consisted of a couple of scantily clad women and men frightening the shyte out of me as I was coming out of a shop at the time. I hadn't a clue what was going on or what their message was supposed to be! Left me very confused and highly amused, which I gathered afterwards wasn't the intention, but that's why the campaign was so utterly misguided.

Words like that - slut, whore, bitch, etc, even rape, they all depend upon the context in which they're used, and it's the context which gives them meaning. I've sometimes had women tell me to call them those names and it's just not something I ever found myself comfortable doing. I've had women joke about rape, and it always raises an eyebrow, because even though I understand they mean it flippantly and even though the context is meant to be humorous, it's just not something I ever found it easy to make jokes about.

I think nowadays people are simply desensitized to the meaning of many words that would previously have raised eyebrows ('bastard' being another one, ******, retard, the list is endless), so the idea of "reappropriating" words never made any sense to me, rather I would simply just not use them, and eventually they fall out of use.

Cold War Kid

meeeeh wrote: »

Well I still like to dress nicely. I do it for myself, for my partner and I sure as hell get the kick out of being as well or better dressed than other women. Frankly I mostly do it for myself but anyone who cares about clothes and says they don't notice or care how others are dressed is disingenuous. Regardless of age.

I don't get a kick at all out of being as well dressed or better dressed than other women. I don't care about what others wear. I dislike this "I think it so therefore everyone else does" stuff.
Sure, I'll notice a really eye-catching (in the good or bad way) outfit, but it won't have any bearing on how I dress.

NachoBusiness

The segment mentioned previously (with the Poll and few comments edited out).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=elVzfmofo0g

meeeeh

Cold War Kid wrote: »

I don't get a kick at all out of being as well dressed or better dressed than other women. I don't care about what others wear. I dislike this "I think it so therefore everyone else does" stuff.
Sure, I'll notice a really eye-catching (in the good or bad way) outfit, but it won't have any bearing on how I dress.

To know what good, bad or eye catching is you actually have to do comparisons. Also wast majority of pe dress in comparison to others. That is why we dress in certain way if we are attending a wedding, going to the gym, going to work etc. Sometimes dress code is prescribed but most of the time we just roughly make sure we fit with the others. Maybe you don't get a kick out of looking good in comparison to others but I bet you make sure you are not sticking out in comparison to others.

RDM_83 again

kylith wrote: »

Granted, it's a tribal society in the middle of a jungle. They had their first recorded rape after missionaries convinced the men that homosexual sex was bad. I'll see if I can dig up the article later; I'm not too keen on searching 'tribe homosexual rape' on the work PC.

Isn't there a bit of a catch-22 there, I'm guessing it was a preliterate society and they may not even have had a concept of rape or potentially had a concept of male rape.
I'd tend to doubt anyway as unlike the popular view most "primitive"/Hunter gather/tribal societies are actually pretty damn nasty particular in relation to out groups and rape is very much part of it (along with killing the men of rival tribes in intracine warfare).

Say its true leads to an interesting hypothesis as well, it means rape is solely as a result of male sexual frustration.
That means no "rape is all about power", and that the most successful way to reduce rape would be to increase the acceptability and availability of prostitution.

humanji wrote: »

Isn't that only comparable if you know where you're walking? So you'd have to know you're antagonising people with you're clothing. So a woman would have to make a conscious effort to were revealing clothing around a rapist.

Isn't her whole example based around her experience that was a situation very like what your saying, that she was deliberately around people she knew were dangerous.

NachoBusiness

RDM_83 again wrote: »

Say its true leads to an interesting hypothesis as well, it means rape is solely as a result of male sexual frustration.

Been interested in tribes and finding out about their way of life for around two decades now and from the countless books on the subject and many very candid documentaries I've seen, sexual frustration, be it male or female, was never something which I've seen dealt with in anyway. On the contrary, some of their sexual practices would be quite shocking to most people. From the drinking of male semen, to women initiating sex with very young boys as part of traditional rituals. One tribe I recall had a wife swapping ritual every year where they would cover themselves in animal blood and dance in front of whichever wife they wanted, usually one of their brother's. Some Egyptian tribes actually believe the flow of the Nile was caused by one of their God's ejaculating and so females are brought up to worship male semen.

I did read about rape in these tribes though but it was always concerning neighboring tribes that had insulted them in some way and this was their revenge, done out of anger, to keep them away. The same tribes often eat members of those other tribes also.

That means no "rape is all about power", and that the most successful way to reduce rape would be to increase the acceptability and availability of prostitution.

I would be of the opinion that prostitution is more of a symptom of a much larger problem with western society than it possibly being a good solution for one.

One eyed Jack

RDM_83 again wrote: »

Say its true leads to an interesting hypothesis as well, it means rape is solely as a result of male sexual frustration.

Call it curiosity getting the better of me, but how do you make that out?

(while ignoring the reality of female sexual frustration)

RDM_83 again wrote: »

That means no "rape is all about power", and that the most successful way to reduce rape would be to increase the acceptability and availability of prostitution.

Again, how do you make that out?

The most successful way to reduce rape is not to rape people.

Before you suggest that's unrealistic, take a bit of time to really give some thought to what your own argument implies about men, and your proposed "solution".

RDM_83 again

The poster I quoted was linking the stigmatising of homosexual acts with the occurrence of rape.
The only link I can see between these two things is an increase in male frustration due to a sexual outlet being removed.
If you can think of another linkage I'd be curious because if the account is accurate (which I personally doubt), its the only explanation I can reach.

NachoBusiness

RDM_83 again wrote: »

The poster I quoted was linking the stigmatising of homosexual acts with the occurrence of rape.

No idea about the rape angle but there is an Evangelist that has been accredited with stigmatizing homosexual acts, and indeed homosexuals, in parts of Africa.

http://www.channel4.com/news/gay-rights-uganda-homosexuals-us-pastor-scott-lively

No idea if that is what the user was referring to though.

Tarzana2

Penny Tration wrote: »

However, I can't help but think she's painting men in a bad light too... but it also just says that men are incapable of controlling their sexual urges.

Exactly! Totally insulting to both sexes. Men are just animals, doncha know? :rolleyes:

kylith

RDM_83 again wrote: »

The poster I quoted was linking the stigmatising of homosexual acts with the occurrence of rape.
The only link I can see between these two things is an increase in male frustration due to a sexual outlet being removed.
If you can think of another linkage I'd be curious because if the account is accurate (which I personally doubt), its the only explanation I can reach.

I can't see how you managed to translate one act of rape in one instance by one person into

it means rape is solely as a result of male sexual frustration.
That means no "rape is all about power", and that the most successful way to reduce rape would be to increase the acceptability and availability of prostitution

The rape in this instance appears to have been from frustration, that does not negate the fact that rape is about power. If rape were solely about frustration and increased access to prostitution would prevent it then countries where prostitution is legal should have near-zero instances of rape, which they don't.

Rape is about power in an 'I want - I take' way. It may also be about the act of exerting your power through dominance, or debasing the other person such as male on male rape by guards in African prisons.