Harleyman Posted June 27, 2011 Share Posted June 27, 2011 A woman should be able to walk down the street wearing a Bikini, or a nun's habit/ burqa, or any variation of clothing between those two extremes. Whatever it is she is wearing, does not say "it is open-season " on her body. Quite right ! Girls dressed in tank tops, very short shorts and flip flops are a common sight in my part of the world in the summer. They dont get raped or accosted and they're not sluts either but just trying to stay cool in the hot weather. Seems like there was an issue of differences in cultural acceptance as well as male reactions involved for this thread to have been started Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank Sidney Posted June 27, 2011 Author Share Posted June 27, 2011 Finally admit what? That you think men can be provoked into violence by the clothing that a women wears is undeniable. That it actually happens is unproven. My main objection to the idea of telling women what they should wear is that it is sexist, intolerant, counter productive, and by the evidence of Egypt and other less than liberal societies, would probably make things a lot worse. Anyway, care to answer the questions I posed in #197. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ON9C_a2YSyU http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tZbB1PdajLU http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TrPf31x8rME&feature=related IMO these are girls who are dressed with the intention of attracting attention of men..There's nothing wrong with that, but if that's what they want, they will probably get some attention.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MC Spyda Posted June 27, 2011 Share Posted June 27, 2011 On the other hand, if you think, you'll want evidence before forming an opinion. Not difficult to understand really. Except in regards to this particular subject, evidence is not needed to have an opinion, whether you want it or not. Just like I can firmly believe that God doesn't exist, whether there is evidence or not. Even so, there is plenty of evidence around to suggest that the way a person dresses can affect the behaviour of the people around them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harleyman Posted June 27, 2011 Share Posted June 27, 2011 Except in regards to this particular subject, evidence is not needed to have an opinion, whether you want it or not. Just like I can firmly believe that God doesn't exist, whether there is evidence or not. Even so, there is plenty of evidence around to suggest that the way a person dresses can affect the behaviour of the people around them. Perhaps in places like Sheffield Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted June 27, 2011 Share Posted June 27, 2011 Except in regards to this particular subject, evidence is not needed to have an opinion, whether you want it or not. Just like I can firmly believe that God doesn't exist, whether there is evidence or not. The lack of something when you've looked for it is evidence in itself. But in the case in question you're asking someone to form an opinion without evidence, which would be a pretty stupid thing to do. Even so, there is plenty of evidence around to suggest that the way a person dresses can affect the behaviour of the people around them. Such as? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MC Spyda Posted June 27, 2011 Share Posted June 27, 2011 Dr Neil has already given an example. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quisquose Posted June 27, 2011 Share Posted June 27, 2011 I've made the claim that how you dress and deport yourself can affect how people react and respond to you. That much is obviously true otherwise no-one would bother wearing a suit to an interview. Face it - how you act largely determines how people will respond to you. It's not nice or fair but that's the way it is. And some people will take scanty / slutty clothing as an invite (the "she was asking for it" response") however this does not mean that the wearer has provoked a response but has become more vulnerable to a particular response. But you have used the term "dressing provocatively" which suggests apportionment of blame. I won't deny that how you dress can affect how people react and respond to you, it would be silly to, it's obvious. Frank Sidney has posted some videos of women who are quite likely to be seeking attention, it's none of my business. What is being suggested is not that some clothing will result in attention, or increase your chances of a job, or anything else obvious, but that some clothing is more likely to lead to a sexual assault. Some clothing is unsafe. This is unproven. If a man is going to ignore a woman's request to leave her alone, then I doubt what she is wearing has any influence on his obnoxious behaviour. However, as long as society even talks about women "dressing provocatively" or not being modest enough, there will be men who retrospectively use this as an excuse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
evildrneil Posted June 27, 2011 Share Posted June 27, 2011 But you have used the term "dressing provocatively" which suggests apportionment of blame. Only if you are talking in the strict legal sense of the term. In laymans terms dressing provocatively simply dressing in an overtly sexual / slutty manner and apportions no blame. I won't deny that how you dress can affect how people react and respond to you, it would be silly to, it's obvious. So are you now saying that dressing in a overtly sexual / slutty way will affect how people react and respond to you? What is being suggested is not that some clothing will result in attention, or increase your chances of a job, or anything else obvious, but that some clothing is more likely to lead to a sexual assault. Some clothing is unsafe. This is unproven. I refer you back to the kilt incident - the clothing I wore directly lead to sexual assault by a number of women. If a man is going to ignore a woman's request to leave her alone, then I doubt what she is wearing has any influence on his obnoxious behaviour. However, as long as society even talks about women "dressing provocatively" or not being modest enough, there will be men who retrospectively use this as an excuse. To coin your phrase - this is unproven and I would personally think likely to be incorrect. (My opinion also unproven.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quisquose Posted June 27, 2011 Share Posted June 27, 2011 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ON9C_a2YSyU http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tZbB1PdajLU http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TrPf31x8rME&feature=related IMO these are girls who are dressed with the intention of attracting attention of men..There's nothing wrong with that, but if that's what they want, they will probably get some attention.. Is that an answer to my question? Really? The first video is of a woman wearing an ordinary T-Shirt. The sort that my wife is wearing now. The lady in the video has a large chest, whilst my wife does not. Is that what crosses the line? The next three videos are clearly of women making some sort of statements. They are clearly quite empowered, and probably the last sort of women some cowardly male rapist is going to be chasing. The last video is of women in shorts/jeans who happen to have fantastic backsides. There are plenty of women walking around the city centre today wearing shorts or jeans, but only a fraction of them would attract the attention of the YouTube cameraman. Again, it seems that your definition of crossing the line happens to be in possession of a type of body rather than a type of clothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quisquose Posted June 27, 2011 Share Posted June 27, 2011 I refer you back to the kilt incident - the clothing I wore directly lead to sexual assault by a number of women. Then men should clearly not wear kilts. At least by your own thinking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.