"Slutwalks" in N. America

[Frank Sidney]

Before I post a detailed reply, I just want to note that in post #115 there is not one mention of "attack" or "assault", but the repeated use of the word "harassment", which is different.

 

Most of us that have been in disagreement with you have assumed you meant "assault" when you said "assault", and I have already conceded to the possibility of "harassment" in #113.

 

But then you say the following, "I am, and always have, been talking about less serious sexual harassment. ie someone touching someone's backside and not a violent rape. Unfortunately, one can lead to the other and I feel if the former is less likely to happen, then the latter becomes even more unlikely".

 

This is a claim that the way a woman dresses can lead to rape, which is what you have repeatedly denied.

 

Oh, I am a man btw.

 

There we go again. Analysing the wording to score false points.

 

This is my stance.

 

1. If a woman dresses scantily, she is more likely to be harassed / assaulted by a dodgy bloke. I don't care if you want to analyse every word I type like some hyperactive English Language professor. That's the bones of it.

 

2. The Officer, based on his experiences, advised the women how to dress in order to lessen the risk. He probably used the wrong language, but his intention was to help the women.

 

I won't comment any more on the language used, male rape, any related topics or if I used one word in one post then another in another.

 

I hope this is clear

[Frank Sidney]

Just a thought about the data provided in relation to rape.

 

When studying data it doesn't really tell the whole story. Perhaps the rape victims were in a solitary location when the crime happened. At home, walking a dog etc.

 

Someone who is dressed for a night out, which is what we're talking about, will be mostly in the company of others so a serious assault is less likely.

[Alien]

There we go again. Analysing the wording to score false points.

 

This is my stance.

 

1. If a woman dresses scantily, she is more likely to be harassed / assaulted by a dodgy bloke. I don't care if you want to analyse every word I type like some hyperactive English Language professor. That's the bones of it.

 

No it isn't..the common denominator is her gender. Women are molested, harassed, raped, attacked because they are women.

 

2. The Officer, based on his experiences, advised the women how to dress in order to lessen the risk. He probably used the wrong language, but his intention was to help the women.

 

I won't comment any more on the language used, male rape, any related topics or if I used one word in one post then another in another.

 

I hope this is clear

 

What you haven't grasped is not the intention but the result. You seem to put a lot of emphasis on his "intention" rather than the result.

[Frank Sidney]

What you haven't grasped is not the intention but the result. You seem to put a lot of emphasis on his "intention" rather than the result.

 

His intention was to lessen the risk of assault / harassment. The result is that because of the outcry over his intention this will result in more women being assaulted / harassed.

 

I feel we'll never agree-

 

I think semi naked women are more likely to suffer assault and if a bit of plain talking by an experienced cop is taken the wrong way, well more fool society in general....

 

The debate seems to have drifted into the right he has to say what he said, which is a different argument..

[Alien]

I feel we'll never agree-

 

 

 

The debate seems to have drifted into the right he has to say what he said, which is a different argument..

 

 

We all have that right. Equally others have the right to respond.

 

You're right..agreeing is going to be difficult if the victim is seen as in any way responsible for the actions of the perp...however diluted.

[quisquose]

Here are some more of my thoughts on why I don’t like the officer’s 'advice'.

 

It is clear, that for some people like this officer, gender stereotypes continue to play a function in societal judgments and the role of girls as being moral “gatekeepers”.

 

Although sex education in schools already includes information about the benefits of abstinence from sexual activity, Nadine Dorries wants schools to teach girls alone that it their responsibility to say ‘no’. In effect teaching girls that responsibility for ensuring sexual relationships are safe, and consensual, lies solely with them. This is not only demeaning but woefully misguided - a message that can lead to victimisation, victim-blaming and dangerous stereotyping.

 

When somebody claims that what women wear is important, whilst it doesn't matter for men, this is feeding into the same offensive gender stereotyping ideas that Nadine Dorries holds, that men can’t control themselves, and women are responsible.

 

Even if* it could be shown that for an individual female, dressing like a ‘slut’ may increase her risk of sexual assault, then it is still dangerous for authority figures to advise women to dress modestly because it feeds into gender stereotyping.

 

It is societies where these gender stereotypes persist that seem to have higher incidents of sexual assault. Egypt, for example, has a horrific problem with sexual assaults, which has increased in the last 25 years almost in line with the race towards more ‘modest’ clothing worn by women.

 

 

* Having searched for some evidence, most seems to indicate there is no causal link.

[Scozzie]

Just a thought about the data provided in relation to rape.

 

When studying data it doesn't really tell the whole story. Perhaps the rape victims were in a solitary location when the crime happened. At home, walking a dog etc.

 

Someone who is dressed for a night out, which is what we're talking about, will be mostly in the company of others so a serious assault is less likely.

 

Actually, girls don't ALWAYS look after their friends.

There have been cases in the news where friends have become seperated (due to drunkenness, pulling guys, not caring, whatever).

A drunk girl by herself with no way to get home is an easy target.

 

http://www.yorkpress.co.uk/news/1543749.chef_jailed_for_5_years/

 

In the case above, a drunk girl who had lost her friends, got into the car of an unknown man because she had no way of getting home.

 

deserving of what happened? no.

Pretty stupid thing to do? absolutely.

Surprising outcome? not really.

[quisquose]

Actually, girls don't ALWAYS look after their friends.

There have been cases in the news where friends have become seperated (due to drunkenness, pulling guys, not caring, whatever).

A drunk girl by herself with no way to get home is an easy target.

 

http://www.yorkpress.co.uk/news/1543749.chef_jailed_for_5_years/

 

In the case above, a drunk girl who had lost her friends, got into the car of an unknown man because she had no way of getting home.

 

deserving of what happened? no.

Pretty stupid thing to do? absolutely.

Surprising outcome? not really.

 

That story add nothing to the debate. What the girl was wearing wasn't relevant.

 

I have no problem with the police advising people not to get too drunk, look after your friends, don't go off with strangers, watch your drinks, plan your journey home. All sensible advice, to take precautions against behaviours which have a direct causal link with being assaulted, and which apply to both women and men.

[donkey]

Hello - Should women be more careful with what they wear to avoid being victimised? This link shows a new movement in N. America whereby the women are protesting at a comment by a Police Officer who advised them not to dress like "sluts" to avoid attacks.

 

Haven't the women missed the point in that the officer was trying to protect them? The women, rightly, state that the culprits of attacks should be the focus of police attention and not the victims. But if he'd said "don't walk down dark secluded streets late at night alone" wouldn't the principle be the same? To avoid the women being attacked?

 

Of course women should be able to wear what they want and the culprits are to blame but when their own personal safety is at stake are they being a little silly?

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-13320785

 

 

As far as I know, the overwhelming conclusion of research into rape and sexual assault is that the underlying motivation is mostly about sadism and domination, as opposed to sexual satisfaction, so the type of clothes worn by the victim isn't really a factor.

 

Unless the policeman in question has new research linking sexual assaults to dress, he has clearly allowed his own prejudices to compromise his professional judgement.

[plekhanov]

Research on why criminals target who they do is hard to do for obvious reasons, I read a summary of some research on this a while back & a study of 'street criminals' and by far the dominant factor was how vulnerable any potential target appeared to be. Vulnerability was judged by factors such as:

 

• location - potential for escape, being interupted...
  
• age - very young & very old obviously seen as more vulnerable
  
• size & general physical condition - punier the better
  
• signs of intoxication
  
• body language ie. those appearing scared, or nervou, hunched shoulders etc - were seen as less likely to resist

Basically it was all about how successful any given attack was likely to be.

 

A woman dressed "slutty" is no more vulnerable than a woman dressed demurely.