"Slutwalks" in N. America

[Frank Sidney]

What if the man attacks a vulnerable woman after seeing one of the scantily dressed women, that are, apparently, self confident and strong and therefore immune from attack?

[Chris_Sleeps]

What if the man attacks a vulnerable woman after seeing one of the scantily dressed women

He needs locking up.

[Frank Sidney]

He needs locking up.

 

Go back to sleep Chris we all agree with that...

[evildrneil]

You're basically arguing that no "I told you response" exists, when I think most people would accept that it's a basic part of the human psyche.

 

If you give advice which is then ignored, blame will be attributed to the person ignoring the advice.

 

No - I'm saying it depends on the advice and the situation. If you are specifically taking risks yourself that you can fully control and you don't take advice then yes the "told you so response" comes into play. If what happens is outside your control though there may be things you can do to ameliorate some of the risks but you haven't done them then no it doesn't.

 

Women should not have to dress in order to avoid assault (if such a thing is even possible, which seems to be in dispute). So they should not be told (or given advice) to do so.

 

Or in a sane world - dressing a certain way will mean that you are perceived and reacted to in a certain way (not really in dispute). Given that this potential outcome is dire not wearing slutty clothes may help reduce some of the risk that you might be attacked so it is a reasonable thing to consider.

[quisquose]

How is giving someone advice that something may help to reduce risks plants the idea that some women are "asking for it"? Only if there is a conflation of advice to reduce vulnerability and apportioning blame which groups like slutwalk seem to do very well. As for giving advice to women only - well we are talking about a situation that occurs in about 80% of cases to women so don't you think that specific advice for women is perfectly reasonable? If not then surely we shouldn't give advice about pregnancy or breast feeding because by your argument it is misogynistic!

 

First, can you fix your quotes in #269? It makes it appear that I have said something that you actually said, something that I find quite objectionable to be honest.

 

Now for your question.

 

A. In a healthy civilised society, one in which there is no evidence that the way you dress increases your risk of becoming a victim of violence, the response is precisely as written by Cyclone. It's about apportioning blame. I'm not some idiot footballer who thinks that it is possible to give 110%, the maximum blame for a violent assault is always 100%, and in the case of the rape of a woman the man is always 100% to blame. As soon as society starts to apportion blame, as you have, then not only do we give the criminal a possible defense, but we also give him a possible excuse for rationilising it in the first case.

 

B. In an unhealthy uncivilised society, it is common to find the "she was asking for it" because of the way she was dressed excuse. Not only is it used as a reason, a defense, for violence, but actually as justification for punishing the victim.

 

It's a slippery slope between A. and B., and the more times we hear people like the police officer repeat the myth, that dressing provocitively is even possible, the more that slope is greased. In living memory, Egypt is a perfect example of this actually happening.

 

As for the breast feeding analogy ...

[Cyclone]

No - I'm saying it depends on the advice and the situation. If you are specifically taking risks yourself that you can fully control

I don't really see the distinction.

For example, climbing the Eiffel tower without the safety harness, you're taking a risk of falling, you've ignored the advice that might have mitigated the risk, you could avoid the risk altogether by staying on the ground.

Going out wearing skimpy clothes, you're (in your world) taking a risk of being attacked, you've ignored the advice to go out dressed in a sack. But you could have just stayed at home.

So in both cases whether the risk materialised or not is not under the control of the participant, if it were it wouldn't be a risk at all, it would be a choice.

and you don't take advice then yes the "told you so response" comes into play. If what happens is outside your control though there may be things you can do to ameliorate some of the risks but you haven't done them then no it doesn't.

Which means that "told you so" comes into play for both of them, except one is inappropriate, falling when free climbing is an accident, nobody gets attacked by accident, it's an action taken by someone else.

 

 

 

Or in a sane world - dressing a certain way will mean that you are perceived and reacted to in a certain way (not really in dispute).

Although what that reaction is, is in dispute.

Given that this potential outcome is dire not wearing slutty clothes may help reduce some of the risk that you might be attacked so it is a reasonable thing to consider.

The fact that you continue to characterise some clothing as slutty suggests to me that you have a problem with women being comfortable with sexuality. Are women who dress up nicely intending to solicit money for sex? Or is the pejorative term unreasonable and part of the problem in the first place?

[MC Spyda]

You mean men get called sluts in the same way women who get raped wearing fishnet stockings get called sluts?

 

Men can be called sluts regardless of whether they have been raped wearing fishnet sockings.

[Fibutton]

There is a valid argument that the more 'slutily' a woman dresses, the safer she is!

 

Most cases of rape are about power and control rather than sex, and many perpetrators are both sexually and socially inadequate who would be more likely to run from a sexily dressed and confident woman.

 

John X

 

I disagree, perpetrators of any sexuality are more likely to be exploitative and controlling to both males AND females. There is little evidence to support the fact that the more a woman or a man dresses provocatively that they are less or more likely to be sexually assaulted or raped.

[John X]

the fact that the more a woman or a man dresses provocatively that they are less or more likely to be sexually assaulted or raped.

 

Your use of the word 'provocatively', suggests you believe that they are MORE likely to be assaulted or raped.

 

John X

[evildrneil]

I don't really see the distinction.

 

You can't OK I'll try and simplify it.

 

If you climb the Eiffel Tower without the advised harness you are choosing to put yourself in a dangerous situation and anything that happens is due to your own actions or lack of skill with no outside agency. You have put yourself in this situation and ignored advice which could have saved you therefore there is no-one to blame but yourself.

 

You (as a female) go out to a bar wearing your best slutty clothes. You are not putting yourself into a necessarily dangerous situation but you may attract the attention of someone who considers that you are "sending all the signals" and is stupid enough to think that no means yes. The actor here is the outside person not yourself - you are the victim of his actions and the outcome is his fault. You may have been able to reduce the risk of attracting the attention of this social maladjust had you been wearing less overtly sexual clothing but that in no way means that you are responsible for his actions.

 

So case one you do something and any bad outcome is entirely the result of your own action or inaction. Case two someone does something to you and the outcome is the result of their actions but you may have been able to avoid them picking you as a victim by your dress.

 

Although what that reaction is, is in dispute.

 

Given that the "look at the way she was dressed, she was asking for it" pseudo-defence is cited so often then in the lack of absolute evidence it is reasonable to assume that manner of dress has some effect on "casual" (again for want of a better term) rapists picking up a victim. It's fairly elementary risk management - if the potential outcome is minor then you would discard this working assumption however as the potential outcome is dire then it is reasonable to run with this working assumption in the lack of any other evidence.

 

The fact that you continue to characterise some clothing as slutty suggests to me that you have a problem with women being comfortable with sexuality. Are women who dress up nicely intending to solicit money for sex? Or is the pejorative term unreasonable and part of the problem in the first place?

 

it suggests nothing of the sort. I'm using the terminology already in play i.e. "Slut Walk". It's also nothing to do with gender - I have, I believe, described what I have worn on at least one occasion as slutty in this thread.