"Slutwalks" in N. America

[evildrneil]

I did, and you chose to ignore it.

 

A few illogical and irrational comments does not make an argument...

 

No it doesn't. It follows that someone looking for sex would try people who appeared (in their mind) to be available. It doesn't follow that they would then attack them, nor does it follow that people who are in that environment hoping to score are more or less likely to be an attacker than anyone else.

 

So you are claiming that someone who has committed a rape and believes that wearing slutty clothing is "asking for it" hasn't been affected in his choice of victim by that clothing? How is that in any way rational?

 

I think it's both, the legal defence stems from the ingrained opinion.

 

So now it's not an "after the event rationalisation" as you claimed earlier. So you accept it is an ingrained opinion. So if it's an ingrained opinion in the culture and is offered as a "pseudo defence" in a trial are you still going to maintain that it's just from the defence council or that it may have had an influence on the offenders behaviour?

 

Did you find some evidence to suggest that dressing like that does increase risk? Because I'm not arguing that there the opinion doesn't exist, I'm arguing that it the opinion doesn't cause someone to sexually assault women, they have much more serious problems than this misguided opinion

 

And I'm not arguing that the opinion is the only cause of a rapist choosing to rape but that is may be an element of why they have chosen a particular victim. The fact that "she was asking for it" is offered as a pseudo-defence in so many cases would indicate that dress is likely to be an influencing factor in victim selection by the perpetrator.

 

In that case you're going to have to explain why you mentioned date rape and dressing in a slutty way, because you're denying that you meant what seemed to be the obvious meaning. Maybe you're just being obtuse.So make your position clear to avoid misunderstandings.

 

I used a perfectly common term (slutty) that you chose to wildly misinterpret. As to date rape - it's doesn't necessarily mean being raped by someone that you are in a relationship it can also refer to rape by a friend, acquaintance or even someone you have just picked up that evening. Perhaps rather than blaming someone else for your own leaping to wild and completely unreasonable "conclusions" you should read what is actually written and respond to that?

 

Well I can't argue with that, you must know some really special girls if they're happy with you calling them slutty.

 

I actually said that they use the term slutty (or tarty et al) to describe their dress sense not that I had called them slutty - but hey don't let facts put you off. It's a frequently used term - you must have a very narrow circle of female friends if you have never heard any of them use it.

 

Sorry, should I have added <sarcasm> </sarcasm> there so you didn't miss it.

 

You implied all women would be offended by the term slutty; i.e. all women think the same; i.e. all women are of a piece which is a rather misogynistic viewpoint.

 

Your hair splitting is on top form at the moment, if you tell someone not to dress like a slut you're making a clear implication that they have or would have dressed like a slut otherwise, and that they are thus slutty

 

Cobblers - there is no logical thread there at all. Saying do not dress in a slutty manner does not in any way imply that they are slutty. And to make a distinction between how someone dresses and what they are is a pretty blunt distinction between two very clear concepts. If you think that is splitting hairs you have some very thick hairs.

 

And the situation he was in and the people he was talking to... College students wasn't it, who were offended. So by definition he got it wrong didn't he.

 

That rather depends on the exact situation doesn't it? We have no idea how many of the college students were actually offended. If the situation was that he spoke to 100 students one was offended the other 99 were fine, took the bluntly spoken advice they would have ignored otherwise and maybe avoided being raped then he got it right. Without all the facts you can't make the right/wrong call.

[danot]

No it isn't. Never excuse the criminal. If you leave your door open it doesn't give anyone the right to enter. Stop excusing the criminal.

Unfortunately, 'rights' count for nothing when a criminal see's an opportunity to commit a criminal act. Although I'm sure there'll be plenty of people who naively believe that everyone should respect another's rights and that their own rights will protect them since they are protected by the 'rights' they have which the law clearly states criminals must not violate. Those people couldn't be more wrong and seriously need to wake up.

 

'Rights' do not protect us, or deter criminals, or prevent anything.

 

'Prevention' is our only protection.

[Cyclone]

who naively believe that everyone should respect another's rights

 

It's naïve to think that is it?

[Cyclone]

A few illogical and irrational comments does not make an argument...

I could say the same about your assertion that it's use as a defence means it's what actually happened. In fact, I will. Your argument makes no sense.

 

 

So you are claiming that someone who has committed a rape and believes that wearing slutty clothing is "asking for it" hasn't been affected in his choice of victim by that clothing? How is that in any way rational?

No, I'm claiming that just because they say that in court doesn't make it true. I don't know how you're missing this point so thoroughly.

 

 

So now it's not an "after the event rationalisation" as you claimed earlier. So you accept it is an ingrained opinion. So if it's an ingrained opinion in the culture and is offered as a "pseudo defence" in a trial are you still going to maintain that it's just from the defence council or that it may have had an influence on the offenders behaviour?

After the event rationalisation of the rapist used in court. Ingrained opinion of people like you on the jury.

 

 

And I'm not arguing that the opinion is the only cause of a rapist choosing to rape but that is may be an element

With no evidence to support you and despite several posters having said that evidence points the other way.

of why they have chosen a particular victim. The fact that "she was asking for it" is offered as a pseudo-defence in so many cases would indicate that dress is likely to be an influencing factor in victim selection by the perpetrator.

Or maybe it just indicates that it's a good defence.

 

 

I used a perfectly common term (slutty) that you chose to wildly misinterpret.

Slutty, like a slut, another word for a prostitute. Yes, I'm wildly misinterpreting it.

As to date rape - it's doesn't necessarily mean being raped by someone that you are in a relationship it can also refer to rape by a friend, acquaintance or even someone you have just picked up that evening. Perhaps rather than blaming someone else for your own leaping to wild and completely unreasonable "conclusions" you should read what is actually written and respond to that?

Maybe I've got the wrong end of the stick, but I thought it meant to be raped whilst on a date. I don't know what leaping you're objecting to, I'm struggling to follow your twists and turns to be honest as you try to justify blaming women for being attacked.

 

 

I actually said that they use the term slutty (or tarty et al) to describe their dress sense not that I had called them slutty

Ah right, so not the same as the police officer who you were defending.

- but hey don't let facts put you off. It's a frequently used term - you must have a very narrow circle of female friends if you have never heard any of them use it.

You can keep saying that, it won't make it any more true. Maybe you just have a circle of female friends who are very common.

 

 

 

You implied all women would be offended by the term slutty; i.e. all women think the same; i.e. all women are of a piece which is a rather misogynistic viewpoint.

Don't be ridiculous.

 

 

 

Cobblers - there is no logical thread there at all. Saying do not dress in a slutty manner does not in any way imply that they are slutty.

Here's the biscuit, take it.

And to make a distinction between how someone dresses and what they are is a pretty blunt distinction between two very clear concepts. If you think that is splitting hairs you have some very thick hairs.

 

 

 

That rather depends on the exact situation doesn't it? We have no idea how many of the college students were actually offended. If the situation was that he spoke to 100 students one was offended the other 99 were fine, took the bluntly spoken advice they would have ignored otherwise and maybe avoided being raped then he got it right. Without all the facts you can't make the right/wrong call.

But I suppose you can?

[ronthenekred]

Unfortunately, 'rights' count for nothing when a criminal see's an opportunity to commit a criminal act. Although I'm sure there'll be plenty of people who naively believe that everyone should respect another's rights and that their own rights will protect them since they are protected by the 'rights' they have which the law clearly states criminals must not violate. Those people couldn't be more wrong and seriously need to wake up.

 

'Rights' do not protect us, or deter criminals, or prevent anything.

 

'Prevention' is our only protection.

 

Where do "rights" play a part in "prevention"?

 

Are you suggesting that all women dress like Nora Batty so as to avoid being attacked?

[Chris_Sleeps]

Are you suggesting that all women dress like Nora Batty so as to avoid being attacked?

That's not a great example - Compo was always chasing after her.

[ronthenekred]

That's not a great example - Compo was always chasing after her.

 

Damn, I was going to use that as a rebuttal later.

[Chris_Sleeps]

To get back on topic, if you justify 'not dressing like a slut' as a prevention, it is a continually elusive factor.

 

A short skirt becomes a long skirt; but a man still has lust so the long skirt becomes a dress; but a man still has lust so a dress becomes a heavy black dress that shows no body; but a man still has lust so it becomes a heavy black dress and a veil. Dressing as a means of avoiding attention and attraction takes us to the logical conclusion of the burkha.

[ronthenekred]

To get back on topic, if you justify 'not dressing like a slut' as a prevention, it is a continually elusive factor.

 

A short skirt becomes a long skirt; but a man still has lust so the long skirt becomes a dress; but a man still has lust so a dress becomes a heavy black dress that shows no body; but a man still has lust so it becomes a heavy black dress and a veil. Dressing as a means of avoiding attention and attraction takes us to the logical conclusion of the burkha.

 

 

 

 

Rape or attack will not cease because of a change of lifestyle. Anyone regardless of preventative measures is a possible victim. Unless you lock yourself away 24/7.

 

When did women decide that women, and not men, are responsible for how men conduct themselves sexually?

[evildrneil]

I could say the same about your assertion that it's use as a defence means it's what actually happened. In fact, I will. Your argument makes no sense.

 

No, I'm claiming that just because they say that in court doesn't make it true. I don't know how you're missing this point so thoroughly.

 

After the event rationalisation of the rapist used in court. Ingrained opinion of people like you on the jury.

 

So your claim is that although it is known from many surveys that there is an ingrained opinion in a fairly substantial proportion of the population that it only has any sort of effect on the after the event actions of the defence lawyer - and now you admit rapist and have added the jury. I'm not missing the point you are making but is so wildly irrational I'm not sure why you are trying to make it.

 

As an aside I do not believe that dressing in a slutty manner excuses rapist. Your predilection for leaping to unfounded "conclusions" is coming to the fore again.

 

With no evidence to support you and despite several posters having said that evidence points the other way.

 

From Farris et al Sexual coercion and the misperception of sexual intent.

 

5.1. Clothing style

Evidence suggests that provocative clothing is associated with declining sensitivity to women’s affective cues (Farris et al., 2006). Of interest here, college men become less able to distinguish friendliness from other affective cues when a woman is dressed provocatively; however, their ability to effectively decode sexual interest improves. Thus, while they are less likely to incorrectly categorize a woman who is signaling sexual interest, they are more likely to incorrectly categorize a woman who meant to signal only friendliness (Farris et al.). Contrary to previous speculation, in this study men were generally biased to assume that women’s positive affect cues indicated friendliness rather than sexual interest, but men became more apt to categorize a woman as sexually interested when she was dressed provocatively. Errors in judging sexual interest did not increase with provocative clothing, only errors in judging friendliness (i.e., men were most at risk for misperceiving the intent of women who were attempting to signal platonic interest while dressed provocatively).

In studies that have included both men and women, provocative clothing is associated with increased estimates of women’s sexual intent (Abbey et al., 1987; Cahoon & Edmonds, 1989; Koukounas & Letch, 2001). Interestingly, this effect does not seem to vary as a function of gender. Women were just as prone as men to increasing their estimates of women’s sexual intent when clothing was provocative (Abbey et al.; Cahoon & Edmonds). When asked directly via questionnaire whether clothing style signals sexual intent, most women denied that this is the case. Men were significantly more likely than women to indicate that they believed that clothing choice is used by women to signal sexual intent (Haworth-Hoeppner, 1998). These men will be wrong about this assessment more often than not, as only a small minority of college women (4.3%) indicate that they use provocative clothing as a cue to indicate sexual interest (Perper & Weis, 1987).

As it is possible that clothing style, while less diagnostic of sexual intent than other cues, may be somewhat related to sexual intent, it is important to ensure in experimental tasks that the target set does not contain such a relationship. Treat et al. (2001) developed a stimulus set of women depicted in newsstand magazines and catalogues that were carefully selected in order to span a range along an affect dimension and a physical exposure dimension without introducing a real correlation between the two. Nonetheless, male participants provided ratings that indicated an illusory correlation between physical exposure and target sensuality and sexual arousal.

 

From Cassidy and Hurrell The influence of victim's attire on adolescents' judgments of date rape.

 

A vignette depicting a date rape was presented to 352 male and female high school students. To investigate the effect of the victim's clothing on subjects' judgments of the date rape, the vignette was accompanied by either a photograph of the victim dressed provocatively, a photograph of the victim dressed conservatively, or no photograph. Subjects who viewed the photograph of the victim in provocative clothing were more likely than subjects who viewed the victim dressed conservatively or who saw no photograph of the victim to indicate that the victim was responsible for her assailant's behavior, that his behavior was justified, and were less likely to judge the act of unwanted sexual intercourse as rape.

 

Or maybe it just indicates that it's a good defence.

 

But not a factor in a rapists choice of victim - can you not see how irrational your point of view is?

 

Slutty, like a slut, another word for a prostitute. Yes, I'm wildly misinterpreting it.

 

When you claimed that my use of the word slutty meant wearing "nice" clothing for a date then yes you were wildly misinterpreting it...

 

Maybe I've got the wrong end of the stick, but I thought it meant to be raped whilst on a date.

 

Nope - it simply means rape by an acquaintance who can be a friend, associate, dating partner or someone they have just picked up at a social event.

 

I don't know what leaping you're objecting to, I'm struggling to follow your twists and turns to be honest as you try to justify blaming women for being attacked.

 

I'm not sure where you are getting "justify blaming women for being attacked" from. Once again the argument I'm making laid out simply (again) so that you can follow it "twists and turns"

 

1. It is known that in a fair chunk of the population if you wear slutty / tarty clothing then you will be percieved as being desirous of sex.

 

2. If you wear this type of clothing then you will be more likely to attract the attention of people who are "cruising for sex"

 

3. As some of these people will also be of the "no means yes" persuasion as the two opinions ("she was asking for it" and "no means yes") are not mutually exclusive then if you wear slutty / tarty clothing you may increase your chances of attraction the attentions of such a person.

 

Quite straightforward really isn't it? And nowhere does it blame women I am talking about vulnerability not about culpability.

 

Ah right, so not the same as the police officer who you were defending.

 

Who said "women should avoid dressing like sluts in order not to be victimised" once again talking about vulnerability not culpability.

 

You can keep saying that, it won't make it any more true. Maybe you just have a circle of female friends who are very common.

 

Congratulations on your attempt to move from misogynist to arrogant snob!

 

 

Here's the biscuit, take it.

 

So how you dress necessarily reflects who you are and how you act? I hope you never find yourself in a fancy dress party it could be far too much for your tiny mind to take in.

 

But I suppose you can?

 

Of course not which is why a posited a hypothetical case and finished of the paragraph with the all important "without all the facts you can't make the right/wrong call" which you seem to have either missed or ignored.