evildrneil Posted June 27, 2011 Share Posted June 27, 2011 I don't think she'd confused anything, the point of the text was to highlight the fact that it's the person who commits the assault that is responsible for committing assault. Which is what I said in my post... Something which seems to be partly forgotten when police officers are telling women what they should do in order to avoid being assaulted. No they aren't - they are telling them what may make them more vulnerable to assault. Would you suggest that a police officer suggesting that if someone walks down a dark back alley in a bad part of town at 3 am ****** and performing a fan dance with wads of money may make them more vulnerable to attack they would be blaming them if such an attack took place? No, of course not. It's exactly the same here - how you are dressed will change how people perceive you and if you put out overtly sexual signals then some people may take that as an open invite. It's the person doing the attack who is culpable for the attack but the person putting out the signals who is making themselves vulnerable. It's not all about who is responsible for an attack but a pragmatic approach to the real world and trying to minimize risk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted June 27, 2011 Share Posted June 27, 2011 Quotes got a bit messed up there... Were you going to answer the last bit? Edit - I don't think the big problem was with what he was saying, it was with how he said it, the words he used could have been better chosen to give the correct emphasis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
evildrneil Posted June 27, 2011 Share Posted June 27, 2011 Quotes got a bit messed up there... Were you going to answer the last bit? Nope - I just missed the last bit of the quote Edit - I don't think the big problem was with what he was saying, it was with how he said it, the words he used could have been better chosen to give the correct emphasis. That's quite possible (not being in the room I'm not sure of the exact form of words) though I do still think that the whole slut walk thing has largely arisen from a conflation of issues of vulnerability and culpability. Making yourself vulnerable to a situation doesn't make you culpable if it happens but you should be aware of what may make you vulnerable so you can take steps to mitigate it if possible. That distinction does seem to have been missed in what I've seen about the event. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted June 27, 2011 Share Posted June 27, 2011 I think the slut walks have come about because women feel that other members of society also confuse vulnerability with culpability, jury's for example who acquit people of sexual assault because the victim was dressed provocatively... It wouldn't happen in the other examples you give. Sure the guy walking down the dark alley wearing a rolex and flashing a big wad of cash has made himself vulnerable, but no one would ever acquit the thief because of that... He's vulnerable, but he's not at fault, he didn't force someone to mug him, and the same applies to sexual assault victims, how they dress and behave has no bearing on whether someone is guilty of assaulting them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quisquose Posted June 27, 2011 Share Posted June 27, 2011 As soon as officials start advising people to stay out of an area, then it's the start of the end imho. The cops don't adfvise me to keep out of an area,I do it myself,touch wood 56 and never been mugged but there are certain places in Sheffield I will not walk after dark. Lived in Sao Paulo for 3 months and I was always told not to go in 90% of the areas even in the day,don't wear nice jewellry and clothes or they'll get stolen,I heeded the advice and was ok. Yes, you are allowed to make choices for yourself about what is sensible to wear or where and when to go. Your family and friends can also advise. But as soon as officials start telling you what you should wear, then it is actually implanting the meme in society that the victim shares some blame for her assault. This meme could actually result in an increase in the levels of assault, as the evidence of Egypt over the last three decades suggests. As demands for women to dress more modestly have been made increasingly by official voices the rates of sexual assault have increased. From this article on Egypt's sexual harassment 'cancer': http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7514567.stm He blamed the increase in sexual harassment on what he said were "three decades of incitement against women" from the pulpits of some of Egypt's mosques. "This verbal incitement is based on the extremely sordid and impudent allegation that our women are not modestly dressed. This was, and still is, a flagrant lie, used to justify violence against women in the name of religion." I think the religion bit is irrelevant, but I do think that if we allow official support of the idea that women should take responsibility for their own sexual safety by wearing modest clothing, whatever the source of that official support, we will inevitably end of with a society in which it is more dangerous to be a woman. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quisquose Posted June 27, 2011 Share Posted June 27, 2011 From what I've read in the case which started off all this slut walks no-one was told what they should or shouldn't do. A bunch of college students was being given a private safety talk by a police officer and it was pointed out that dressing like a slut may make you more vulnerable to assault and to be aware of this; not that you shouldn't or mustn't dress in that manner. I fail to see how this is unreasonable safety advice. Who decides what clothing makes a woman a slut? The woman, her friends, men, a potential attacker? Care to elaborate on the type of clothing that crosses the line of safety? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MC Spyda Posted June 27, 2011 Share Posted June 27, 2011 Care to elaborate on the type of clothing that crosses the line of safety? Crotchless panties. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kthebean Posted June 27, 2011 Share Posted June 27, 2011 Which is what I said in my post... No they aren't - they are telling them what may make them more vulnerable to assault. Would you suggest that a police officer suggesting that if someone walks down a dark back alley in a bad part of town at 3 am ****** and performing a fan dance with wads of money may make them more vulnerable to attack they would be blaming them if such an attack took place? No, of course not. It's exactly the same here - how you are dressed will change how people perceive you and if you put out overtly sexual signals then some people may take that as an open invite. It's the person doing the attack who is culpable for the attack but the person putting out the signals who is making themselves vulnerable. It's not all about who is responsible for an attack but a pragmatic approach to the real world and trying to minimize risk. Wrong, wrong, wrong. There is NO EVIDENCE to suggest that if you dress provocatively you are more likely to be raped. None. It might seem like common sense, but really its not. Rape and serious sexual assault are nothing to do with sex or how 'sexually available someone is' - if anything they're the opposite. Its to do with power and control. If you dress provacatively it might make men think you are more sexually available and yes you are responsible for that. There might be the signal 'come and crack onto me, I'm up for a one night stand', but there is never the signal 'have sex with me without my consent'. If I allow a work mate to give me a lift home and they rape me, is that my fault for 'putting myself in that situation'? You are blaming the victim and it is unjustifiable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MC Spyda Posted June 27, 2011 Share Posted June 27, 2011 Rape and serious sexual assault are nothing to do with sex or how 'sexually available someone is' - if anything they're the opposite. Its to do with power and control. Sexual assault is nothing to do with sex? You are lumping all rape together, when that simply isn't the case. Rape isn't always about power and control. There are plenty of poeple who have raped simply because they wanted sex. Surely that's can't be too hard to believe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
evildrneil Posted June 27, 2011 Share Posted June 27, 2011 If you dress provacatively it might make men think you are more sexually available and yes you are responsible for that. There might be the signal 'come and crack onto me, I'm up for a one night stand', but there is never the signal 'have sex with me without my consent'. Which is what we are talking about - dressing provocatively. Which you agree might make men think you are more sexually available and which some may take as an overt I'm up for it. If I allow a work mate to give me a lift home and they rape me, is that my fault for 'putting myself in that situation'? No - as I have said repeatedly and seem to have to repeat again there is a difference between vulnerability and culpability. Making yourself vulnerable does not make you culpable but being aware of vulnerability may help you avoid the situation in the first place. You are blaming the victim and it is unjustifiable. No I'm not - at no point have I blamed the victim in any way, shape or form. All along I have stressed the difference between culpability (i.e. the attacker is culpable) and vulnerability (i.e. the victim may be able to mitigate some vulnerability and so avoid the situation). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.