Originally posted by The RoverAn idiot with little ability to observe when something is inappropriate to say in public. But his sentiment and the gist of what he was saying is not incorrect.
I might have been looking for "utterly stupid" or "repulsive." What kind of jackass in such a public position would say a thing, and think he could get away with it?
Originally posted by inimalistYou're really not suggesting that I even hinted at the use of the word "primary". Are you?
your not really trying to argue that a woman's attire is a primary cause of sexual assault...?I thought it was sarcastic...
Most men can see a woman who is dressed "like a sl/ut" and simply acknowledge that fact alone, maybe with an accompanying catcall or "Daaamn!" But there are men out there who lack conscience or inhibition to the point that such... visual enticement is just the sort of excuse or reason they need to take that step in to sexual assault. That cop was not wrong---if you want to keep your outfit from enticing assault, don't dress the part. Extreme lengths? You betcha. Should women sacrifice their freedom of choice of dress in the name of security? Their choice. The cop could have also said that to avoid getting caught in the rain and making their shirts see-through, women should stay indoors. He still wouldn't have been factually wrong. Just stupid for saying it.
Originally posted by LiberatorDamn right. Those there women-folk shouldn't have the right to vote or be considered persons or have equal status as men. That's exactly what I was trying to say.
You sound like you have some dislike of the feminist movement, is this true?
Originally posted by Lord Lucien
You're really not suggesting that I even hinted at the use of the word "primary". Are you?Most men can see a woman who is dressed "like a sl/ut" and simply acknowledge that fact alone, maybe with an accompanying catcall or "Daaamn!" But there are men out there who lack conscience or inhibition to the point that such... visual enticement is just the sort of excuse or reason they need to take that step in to sexual assault. That cop was not wrong---if you want to keep your outfit from enticing assault, don't dress the part. Extreme lengths? You betcha. Should women sacrifice their freedom of choice of dress in the name of security? Their choice. The cop could have also said that to avoid getting caught in the rain and making their shirts see-through, women should stay indoors. He still wouldn't have been factually wrong. Just stupid for saying it.
Thing is that the "revealingly dressed women get raped more" claim behind what he said is not based on fact but on your assumption, his assumption, and our victim blaming society's assumption, while the "it tends to not rain inside a house" has years of physical data backing it up.
Originally posted by inimalistNone. If there are 100 prospective rapists nearby and dressing modestly only deters one of them, then it still deterred one of them. And don't twist my use of "deterred" to mean "repelled". I don't have the power (or know-how) to conduct such a test, but I'm willing to bet that of all the men in the country who have it in them to rape a woman, at least one of them would refrain if a prospective target is dressed modestly. I'm sure you'll disagree and provide the results of a test that does exist that'll prove me wrong.
lol, what evidence do you have to suggest that attire play any part in assault then?
The cop was an idiot for saying it, but do you honestly believe that of all the millions of men--none of them are enticed by select ensembles?
Originally posted by Lord Lucien
The cop was an idiot for saying it, but do you honestly believe that of all the millions of men--none of them are enticed by select ensembles?
I wouldn't say it is impossible, but the things that are known to motivate assault have little to do with the person being assaulted. errr, ok, thats not really correct, but even in random attacks (the vast minority of such cases), its stuff like a woman not being aware of her surroundings, being alone, etc. Random attacks are much more about the opportunity presenting itself and a woman ending up at "the wrong place at the wrong time", which can totally be her own fault, but I can't fathom what her attire would have to do with it. A girl wearing a short skirt versus bluejeans isn't really presenting a better opportunity for an attack.
I guess what we define as an assault is important. I imagine getting groped on the bus or in a club might be related to looking slutty, and that is bad and all, but serious rape/sexual assault, I'm not so sure at all.
Except for the fact that guys catcall and assault women, no matter how they're dressed. Clothing plays no part in it - hell, sexual desire plays no part in it. It's a power thing. Women who are dressed 'modestly' get harassed and assaulted just as often as women who don't. I got harassed the other day while walking into work, FFS.
http://www.rainn.org/get-information/statistics/sexual-assault-offenders
And considering the fact that more than half of assaults take place in either the victim's home or the home of a friend or neighbor, and the majority of rapists are known to the victim (relative, friend, neighbor, etc), suggests that something as petty as what the woman was wearing had no effect. The whole idea that most sexual assaults and rapes happen because a woman is grabbed off the street by a random stranger is very rare. It happens, but it's very rare.
Originally posted by inimalistI'm sure in either form of assault, there's an attacker out there who is initially prompted by the miniskirt, low-cut top, knee-highs etc. I doubt very much that it's the actual motivator in any case, but I'm sure it... eggs them on sometimes.
I wouldn't say it is impossible, but the things that are known to motivate assault have little to do with the person being assaulted. errr, ok, thats not really correct, but even in random attacks (the vast minority of such cases), its stuff like a woman not being aware of her surroundings, being alone, etc. Random attacks are much more about the opportunity presenting itself and a woman ending up at "the wrong place at the wrong time", which can totally be her own fault, but I can't fathom what her attire would have to do with it. A girl wearing a short skirt versus bluejeans isn't really presenting a better opportunity for an attack.I guess what we define as an assault is important. I imagine getting groped on the bus or in a club might be related to looking slutty, and that is bad and all, but serious rape/sexual assault, I'm not so sure at all.
And that's my point---what the cop said doesn't feel literally incorrect (and I have no way of qualifying whether it actually is or not). But he's still an asshat for saying it---he must've known how it would fly with the people who see only emotions and insinuations.
Originally posted by Lord Lucien
I'm sure in either form of assault, there's an attacker out there who is initially prompted by the miniskirt, low-cut top, knee-highs etc. I doubt very much that it's the actual motivator in any case, but I'm sure it... eggs them on sometimes.And that's my point---what the cop said doesn't feel literally incorrect (and I have no way of qualifying whether it actually is or not). But he's still an asshat for saying it---he must've known how it would fly with the people who see only emotions and insinuations.
I'm sure there are serial killers egged on by red heads. Anyone stupid enough to be to tell them to dye their hair deserves whatever he gets.