I'm a Slut!! (Our rape culture: Part II)

[Miss*Bijou]

Kind of a Part II to my "Our rape culture" thread from a month or two ago.

It does mention those same incidents from the "Our rape culture" thread but still figured I`d start a new one. (I also copied the links that were in the original article so feel free to check out some of them if you like).

SlutWalks Sweep The Nation

Toronto police constable Michael Sanguinetti thought he was offering the key to rape prevention. "I`m not supposed to say this," he told a group of students at an Osgoode Hall Law School safety forum on January 24, but to prevent being sexually assaulted, “Avoid dressing like sluts.”

Despite Sanguinetti’s subsequent written apology and promises of further professional training, the victim-blaming gaffe heard round the world sparked a movement that began in Canada but is now sweeping the United States and abroad: SlutWalks.

“We had just had enough,” said Heather Jarvis, who founded SlutWalk Toronto with friend Sonya Barnett. “It isn’t about just one idea or one police officer who practices victim blaming, it’s about changing the system and doing something constructive with anger and frustration.”

While Jarvis, 25, and Barnett, 38, initially expected only 200–300 people to show their support, upwards of 3,000 massed on the streets of Toronto on April 3 -- some wearing jeans and a T-shirt; others in outfits more appropriate for a Victoria`s Secret fashion show: thigh-highs, lingerie, stilettos -- and marched to police headquarters. Their goal: to shift the paradigm of mainstream rape culture, which they believe focuses on analyzing the behavior of the victim rather than that of the perpetrator.

“The idea that there is some aesthetic that attracts sexual assault or even keeps you safe from sexual assault is inaccurate, ineffective and even dangerous,” said Jarvis. She recalled a sign at the march that read: "It was Christmas day. I was 14 and raped in a stairwell wearing snowshoes and layers. Did I deserve it too?"

Since the movement’s inception, the SlutWalk campaign has gone viral. Facebook groups have been emerging to promote satellite SlutWalks in Europe, Asia, Australia and most major US cities. Asheville, Dallas, Hartford, Boston and Rochester will host SlutWalks between now and May 7.


The ubiquity of a rape culture that attributes sexual assault to a woman’s dress or expression of sexuality (both in the court of law as well as in the court of public opinion) helps explain the movement’s widespread resonance and popularity.

In late February, a Manitoba judge condemned a rape survivor in court for wearing a tube top, no bra, high heels and makeup, which he implied had led to her sexual assault. Justice Robert Dewar called the assailant a “clumsy Don Juan” who had succumbed to “inviting circumstances.”

In 1999, Italy’s highest court ruled that a woman wearing jeans could not be raped because it is impossible to remove a pair of pants “without the collaboration of the person wearing them.”

When an 11-year-old was gang raped in Cleveland, Texas this March, a controversial New York Times article noted that the victim “dressed older than her age, wearing makeup and fashions more appropriate to a woman in her 20s,” as if this were a relevant factor in the crime perpetrated against her (the Times later responded to criticism).

“If someone breaks into a house, do you blame the owner for having a house that looks appetizing?” asked Elizabeth Webb, the 24-year-old organizer of SlutWalk Dallas. “I don’t think so!”


Given Dallas’ close proximity to Cleveland, Texas and the fact that April is Sexual Assault Awareness Month, Webb felt it appropriate to organize SlutWalk Dallas, which will take place on April 23. A survivor herself, she feels very close to the issue.

At 18, Elizabeth Webb became a statistic. Along with one in four college women, Webb joined the rank and file of rape survivors. Like 80 percent of victims, she was sexually assaulted by someone she knew -- a close friend who drugged her at a party. Like 15 out of 16 rapists, Webb’s attacker never spent a night in jail.

Although she reported the rape the next day (which her Texas hospital required before administering a free rape examination), Webb stopped pursuing the case after succumbing emotionally in the face of the onslaught of questions acquaintances asked with raised eyebrows, questions aimed at challenging the integrity of the victim: What were you wearing? Why did you go to his party? Why did you drink?

“Sexual assault is traumatic, and to add victim blaming on top of that is damaging to the psyche,” said Webb, now 24, who only recently relinquished her sense of self-blame. “I can’t remember what I was wearing, but why weren’t they asking why he slipped something in my drink?”


Those organizing the SlutWalks are personally connected to the cause in varying degrees. Monday’s SlutWalk Orlando was put together by a feminist theory class at the University of Central Florida. Other organizers are survivors themselves.

Nicole Sullivan, 21, one of three organizers of the May 7th Boston SlutWalk, is a survivor. “But you hear people whispering and asking if you’re the right kind of survivor,” said Sullivan, referring to the Whoopi Goldberg school of thought that there is rape, and then there’s “rape-rape.”

Sullivan felt scrutinized for having embraced her own sexuality. “I was told that if I hadn’t owned a vibrator I wouldn’t have gotten raped. It was crazy what people would come up with.”

SlutWalk Toronto’s website states, “Being in charge of our sexual lives should not mean that we are opening ourselves to an expectation of violence, regardless if we participate in sex for pleasure or work. No one should equate enjoying sex with attracting sexual assault.”

An aim of the SlutWalk movement is to reappropriate the word "slut." “I come from a frame of mind that language is powerful, and you can also change language,” said SlutWalk founder Jarvis, using the word “queer” as an example of a word that was once strictly pejorative but is now a common sexual identifier used by the LGBT community.


The embrace of sluttiness has attracted most of the controversy surrounding the event. Posts to SlutWalk Facebook groups question whether the fishnets and chants “We’re here. We’re sluts. Get used to it!” present at SlutWalk Toronto help SlutWalk’s goals, or set the movement back. Fox News commented that there is “nothing brave” about marching for sluttiness, and a conservative blogger accused participants of being “high off attention.”

According to SlutWalk Boston co-organizer Siobhan Conners, 20, although Boston SlutWalk is expecting approximately 1,000 participants, a counter event called “Pimp Walk” has been planned to take place on the same day at the same time. Conners also finds herself removing pornographic and hateful posts from the SlutWalk Facebook page.

“Not everyone has to chant ‘I’m a slut and I’m proud,’” said Conners. “No matter how you identify, even if you don’t consider yourself a sexual person, we’d like to have anyone who is supportive of creating a more positive environment for women and believes that rape shouldn’t be permitted.”

SlutWalk organizers, both domestically and internationally, hope that the movement creates a global dialogue in which women feel comfortable discussing sexual assault without fear of blame.

“By starting this walk and talking to my friends about whether they want to help me, I’ve learned stories from my friends where I didn’t know that they had been sexually assaulted before,” said Lena Ellis, the organizer of SlutWalk Detroit. “This serves as an outlet and lets them have a voice. Having my friends open up is a big deal, and if this happens in my little circle, it can happen for a lot of other people as well.”


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/20/slutwalk-united-states-city_n_851725.html

 

[Miss*Bijou]

I really don't know how you come to those kinds of conclusions. lol Just because I think 1 judge is a tit and one cop said a dumb thing doesn't lead to the conclusion that all judges, all cops, all this or that is bad or that I don't support it/them. Not sure how you make that leap.


Also, those specific examples brought up in the article, and that I brought up on that other thread - are used because they are incidents that were made public recently because of the men's attitudes (especially the judge - sorry, there is no excuse for a judge to say that kind of thing or to base his ruling on that kind of caveman reasoning). Contrary to what you seem to believe, this doesn't single out judges or cops as particularly guilty of these attitudes (as opposed to the rest of society being innocent) although I personally feel they should be held up to much higher standards and we should reasonably expect people who are in these professions (men and women), to be more far more sensitized and enlightened than the average person (men and women).


But right now, it's not at all unlikely that these kinds of comments could have come from any average person, so the message is meant for society in general, men and women. The average person (male or female) probably makes comments like that without thinking or realizing what it means or thinking anything of it. That's how our society is used to reacting and like the dumb cop, we might mean well when we make a comment like his. What I see as being the aim of slutwalk is to call this out, get us to realize that these assumptions are wrong, that these comments aren't as harmless as we think they are and actually cause damage instead. All of us - not just cope or just judges. The main message is our own and our society's attitude about rape and that we're looking in the wrong place for a solution, for prevention or to protect anyone.



The problem with rape is rapists. Period. Yes, more can definitely be improved in police response and in the judicial process but none of these changes, just like the idea that women dressing or acting differently will ever -prevent- rape if the real cause of rape is not ever made the main focus: rapist, men (or women) who rape. And what slutwalk calls out is that suggesting to women that they not dress/act "slutty" fails to do that. That, being addressing the real problem with rape. But not only that, it fails to even protect women, which is presumably the intention, and then seeks to blame them after they've been raped for something they might have done that might have been cause for them to be rape - which is absurd and doesn't address the actual problem: the people who rape. Conclusion: That message we all repeat without questioning only harms and doesn't actually help anyone or remotely attempts to deal with the real problem.


Why do you think all girls get bombarded with messages of what not to do or what to do to avoid attacks or rape? Yet regardless of their uselessness in a huge majority of cases (because most women who are raped know their assailant and are not raped in some dark alley by some stranger), that is the only message that gets out about rape. It's directed at women and attempts to give them ways to avoid rape. Where's the message or the actual on the real problem here? You know, those who rape? Until we actually focus at least as much of our efforts on the cause of this problem, women can dress and act like nuns, never drink and be home by 6pm - it will never make one bit of a difference on how many of them are raped.


That's what this is about. I think you might have read the article with some sort of bias because I don't see at all how you came to those conclusions about it or about my take on it. That's missing the message IMO. It's not a "cop thing", it's not a "judge thing", it's not even a "man thing".. it's a society problem and a message that we all continue to pass on.

 

[mimi]

I didn't manage to jump into the last thread on this subject, but, I want to insert my bit here.

I have met about 5 women in my life who have been raped and I was pretty shocked with each one.

These were the librarian looking, peter pan collars, and bland colours, and mousy hair, or tomboyish and dressed in guys clothing, and not one of them would have turned a head, man or woman's, on the street.

They were raped by someone they knew. they had long or medium length hair (that is a factor, actually). they did not look like they could put up much of a fight (even the tomboyish one was as slight as a fairy)

Meanwhile, I have spent my teens and twenties in high heels, short tight skirts, very low cut tops, tons of make-up, and worse, I walked like a slut. I enjoyed my sexuality and made sure everybody else did too.

I have never been raped or molested or had more than car horn honks and whistles. (ok some bum slapping, but, no hurt feelings)

Rapists are intimidated by sexual women. They rape out of anger, not attraction. They want to hurt and crush something fragile and weak looking.

So, the argument that women attract rape by dressing provocatively is just bogus!

 

[luvsdaty]

Actually they don't stop raping alin, they probably continue raping in prison.Castration is the answer my liberal friends,maybe let one of the rapists victims perform the procedure while we're at it.

 

[Miss*Bijou]

No
Really Bijou, if you devoted even a single grey cell to actually thinking about it, you'd realize that rapists don't stop because you shake your finger at them.

I wasn't aware I was shaking my finger at anyone. Are you really saying I can cure the world and eliminate crime just by shaking my finger? wow. Just think of the possibilities.


I'm really not sure why you're arguing something a completely different here but you tend to do that. I'm not sure why that is. I usually let it go but really, you're soooo pleasant and charming today that I'll share with you what it's like to have a discussion with you on those days. Not all the time but this is not the first either. It feels something like this:


Me: Lalalala The sky is blue.


You (getting a little worked up): No, the grass is green. You don't know what you're talking about when you say the grass is red and the sun is brown. But I am telling you the grass is green. And I know this because I saw a friend slip and fall on the grass one day and when he got up, his butt was green.

Me (a little puzzled): Al, I said the sky is blue. I never said anything at all about the grass, let alone that it was red... not sure where you got that...

You (more worked up): Well if you used your brain for a second you'd realize you're wrong: the grass is green. You don't know this because you don't know my friend and so never saw him fall or get up with a green butt. But I did, so I'm telling you the grass is green. You think the green just magically appeared on his butt? No.

Me (definitely confused): uuuh wtf? Why are you talking about grass? Can we talk about the sky now? That's kind of what this was about...birds...flying...in the sky... Not talking about grass. ok? So.. The sky is blue.....

You (condescending): Aaaah you're just bad tempered parrot! (Just saying) I know I'm right about this; the grass is green.

Me (throwing arms in the air and giving up):......... Ya ok, Whatever. If you say so Al.

You (satisfied): You see, I am right. You are admitting I'm right. HA. I told you the grass is green...

Me (already gone):......................



It's been lovely chatting with you. Let's do it again soon!


PS: I'd describe myself more as a funny bird, than a bad tempered parrot but I still don't mind so much. Better than an odd duck IMO. lol

 

[Oceans11]

I'm not sure I understand why the cop is such a bad guy for saying that dressing provocatively may increase the probability that a woman will be assaulted.

I'm assuming that he's basing this statement on his own observations as a trained and experienced police officer, or perhaps on studies that have been conducted. (Maybe this is an incorrect assumption, but I've not heard or read anything to suggest it isn't).

It doesn't sound like victim blaming to me. He probably also said that walking, unaccompanied, through secluded spots at night increases the likelihood of a sexual assault. That doesn't justify an assault in those circumstances, nor does it place blame on a victim.

It's like suggesting that you not wear obviously expensive jewelry etc., or flash around a big wad of cash, when walking through a bad neighbourhood. Doing so doesn't excuse or justify a mugger, or blame the victim for a mugging under those circumstances. It's just an indication of behaviours or characteristics that contribute to an increased risk.

The use by the officer of the word 'sluts', was certainly inappropriate, but is that the whole of it? If he had said that dressing in a provocative manner statistically increases the lieklihood that a woman will be a victim of a sexual assault, would he still be a villain?

 

[Tgirl Nikki]

There is NO correlation between slutty clothes and sexual assault!

I'm assuming that he's basing this statement on his own observations as a trained and experienced police officer, or perhaps on studies that have been conducted. (Maybe this is an incorrect assumption, but I've not heard or read anything to suggest it isn't). ... If he had said that dressing in a provocative manner statistically increases the lieklihood that a woman will be a victim of a sexual assault, would he still be a villain?

I'm afraid the cop was not relying on either his expertise, nor any statistical studies, to support his position. There is no statistical correlation between a woman's manner of dress and her likelihood of being assaulted - none whatsoever. The most powerful predictor of sexual assault is simply being known to the rapist - the vast majority of sexual assaults are committed by someone who the victim knows. Also, Constable Michael Sanguinetti is quite young (I've heard he's still in his 20s, though I haven't been able to confirm this) so he's not drawing on any personal experience either. The man is barely out of the academy, and from the sound of it, he needs to go back for more training. The only thing he was basing his statement on is the stereotype of the "slut" - nothing more.

Given that there is absolutely no scientific evidence to support his claim, he had no business suggesting that not "dressing like a slut" is an effective rape prevention strategy. This also suggests that, if a girl is raped while dressing in a provactive manner, she could have avoided her fate had she dressed differently. All the evidence, both qualitative and quantitative, has proven this assumption to be false, which means the suggestion itself is absolutely ludicrous.

In fact, it's worse than ludicrous, because it means that rape victims might engage in self-blaming behaviours after they've been assaulted, which sharply increases the likelihood of PTSD and long-term depression. This man was wrong in his assumptions, his statements, and his invoking of the "slut" stereotype - frankly, he doesn't deserve to be a member of TPS.

Sorry to get so upset about this, but it's a bit of a sensitive subject for me; one of my friends (also a sex worker) was raped by a client last year, and the cop actually said to her, in my presence, "You're just angry because you didn't get paid!" The culture of victim-blaming is abhorrant and unacceptable, and I'll speak out against it at every opportunity.

 

[Dark_Knight]

1135

Another example - Karla Homolka and Paul Bernardo - they were equally guilty, but Karla made the Crown pay for every breath she took. Paul sang like a canary. Karla is out of jail because she negotiated immunity for the most serious charges. Paul will never get out because he was a crumpled mass cowering in the corner of the room who answered every question put to him. I've always thought that Karla was the more dangerous of the two, she enjoyed watching another person suffer.

I have always believe that Karla Homolka was the more dangerous one. Paul Bernardo was a bad man, there is no doubt about that. As the Scarborough rapist he raped a lot of women. He was never involved in murder until Karla came along though. The fact that they let her negotiate such a sweet deal was a true travesty of justice imho.

 

[luvsdaty]

We got a weirdo here in Victoria too, some dude targeting asian women at bus stops, masturbating in front of them.Unfortunately theres just a certain % of weirdo's out there & no matter what you do or what you say, there always gonna be idiots.Makes me sick concerning aholes that target children, a few of sp's that i've talked to have said they've been victims as children & yes its usually by somebody they know....

 

[geek]

Rape is about power, it has less to do about sex and more to do about having power over someone. The two big things that motivate rapists are power over someone and anger towards women. But there have been heterosexual men who have raped other heterosexual men. It doesn't matter what a woman wears or does, those are just excuse's used to justify the rape.

 

[the virgin gary]

We got a weirdo here in Victoria too, some dude targeting asian women at bus stops, masturbating in front of them.,

jesus christ why can't he just use chatroulette like a fucking normal person

 

[threepeat]

Given that there is absolutely no scientific evidence to support his claim, he had no business suggesting that not "dressing like a slut" is an effective rape prevention strategy. This also suggests that, if a girl is raped while dressing in a provactive manner, she could have avoided her fate had she dressed differently. All the evidence, both qualitative and quantitative, has proven this assumption to be false, which means the suggestion itself is absolutely ludicrous.

In fact, it's worse than ludicrous, because it means that rape victims might engage in self-blaming behaviours after they've been assaulted, which sharply increases the likelihood of PTSD and long-term depression. This man was wrong in his assumptions, his statements, and his invoking of the "slut" stereotype - frankly, he doesn't deserve to be a member of TPS.

Sorry to get so upset about this, but it's a bit of a sensitive subject for me; one of my friends (also a sex worker) was raped by a client last year, and the cop actually said to her, in my presence, "You're just angry because you didn't get paid!" The culture of victim-blaming is abhorrant and unacceptable, and I'll speak out against it at every opportunity.

Do you consider this to be evidence?
http://business.highbeam.com/435388/article-1G1-57786728/examination-date-rape-victim-dress-and-perceiver-variables

Dress of Victim as an Attributed Cause of Date Rape
Research provides evidence that how a woman dresses may be interpreted as a cue to her character, vulnerability, willingness to have sex, and provocation of a male's behavior and, consequently, affects the likelihood of sexual assault, including date rape. For example, 449 university students were surveyed about sex, dating, and date rape; 57% agreed or strongly agreed with the statement, "You can pretty well tell a girl's character by how she dresses," implying dress is related to likelihood of occurrence of date rape (Dull & Giacopassi, 1987).

Fairstein (1993, pp. 132-133) noted, "most sexual assaults occur when there is a combination of two critical conditions: opportunity and vulnerability. The rapist needs the opportunity to commit the crime, and he succeeds when a victim is vulnerable at the moment of his opportunity." Richards, Rollerson, and Phillips (1991) hypothesized that nonverbal, as well as verbal, cues may affect perceptions of a woman's submissiveness and, subsequently, a potential assaulter's judgment of vulnerability. They found that dominant and submissive college women displayed visually different appearances (e.g., submissive women wore body-concealing clothing). College men's perceptions of dominant and submissive women were based primarily on dress as impressions were not influenced by body movements or presence/absence of sound. Richards et al. (1991) concluded that there was evidence to support the proposition that college men selected submissive women for exploitation.

Because some men are confused about women's sexual consent cues (Holcomb, Holcomb, Sondag, & Williams, 1991), how a woman dresses may be misinterpreted as a cue to her willingness to have sex (Cassidy & Hurrell, 1995). Misinterpretation of sexual consent has potential to result in date rape (Cassidy & Hurrell, 1995; Muehlenhard, 1988; Muehlenhard & Hollabaugh, 1988; Muehlenhard & Linton, 1987).

Newman and Colon (1994) identified a factor labeled, "Rape only happens to women who provoke it," accounting for 19% of the variance in a revised Rape Myth Acceptance scale. Among statements endorsed by 356 college men were items about victim dress as a cause of rape (e.g., "Women provoke rape by their appearance or behavior"). Provoking rape is synonymous with causing rape. Cassidy and Hurrell (1995) asked 173 male and 179 female high school students to read a vignette depicting date rape. The vignette was accompanied by a photograph of a victim in (a) provocative clothing, (b) conservative clothing, or (c) no photograph. Students who viewed a photograph of the victim in provocative clothing were most likely to indicate that the victim was responsible for her assailant's behavior, that his behavior was justified, and were least likely to judge the act of unwanted sexual intercourse as rape. No differences between men and women were found. Workman and Orr (1996) found that even a minimal cue, such as three inches difference in skirt length, resulted in differences in responsibility attributed to a victim of a date rape.

Information applicable to exploration of victim's dress as an attributed cause of date rape is provided by two studies that investigated stranger rape. Kanekar and Kolsawalla (1980) found that greater fault was attributed to a victim dressed provocatively than to a victim dressed unprovocatively. Feild (1978) found that convicted rapists endorsed the view that victims precipitate (i.e., cause) rape through their appearance or behavior.

It's not my personal crusade to defend rapists, but I just find absolute statements like saying there is no evidence whatsover to be a little objectionable. Human behaviour and morality are complicated subjects.

I have also read many instances on this board over the years where SPs who get ripped off (ie., have a session with a client who then doesn't pay them) saying they got "raped." I don't agree with that myself (it's theft not rape), but if SPs don't want that perception, they should not perpetuate it themselves.

You're also dismissing the cop's testimony based on his age, which is returning a discrimination/stereotype with another discrimination/stereotype.

 

[Tugela]

I think some of you are getting confused with symantics. I don't believe that the cop was saying that "dressing like a slut" was inviting rape or anything like that, people have the right to dress however they want. BUT, all things being equal, being dressed in a way to project sexuality is going to attract sexual attention (after all, that is the point). And if that attention comes from someone inclined to exercise power through assault then obviously the risk you are going to experience is going to be higher than the person standing next to you who is more conservatively dressed. It gets them thinking about it. That doesn't mean the person conservatively dressed is going to experience no risk, rather it is just one of many risk factors. If she is the only one around she may be the unlucky victim, but if the two of you are equally potential targets, chances are it will be you because you attracted attention whereas she did not. An individual should manage the level of risk they are comfortable with, and that will vary from person to person and the particular situation/context they find themselves in.

The point is, you should avoid placing yourself in a situation where you are both vulnerable and attract the attention of the wrong kind of people. You don't walk through skid row at two in the morning wearing designer clothes and dripping with cameras and other expensive items for example, because you have a pretty good idea of what is likely to happen. That is true for rape, robbery, assault or any other crime, it is common sense. Just because you have the right to be able to do something does not mean it is prudent to do it, because a criminal is not going to follow the rules. Walking on the side of the angels means squat when you are dead.

 

[Tugela]

Also, Constable Michael Sanguinetti is quite young (I've heard he's still in his 20s, though I haven't been able to confirm this) so he's not drawing on any personal experience either. The man is barely out of the academy, and from the sound of it, he needs to go back for more training.

That probably is the median age for the first line responders. From what I've heard a few years on the job results in those "young" people seeing a great deal. While you might encounter crime and its effects a few times a year (or less even), they experience it all day and every day. That is a tough thing that can make anyone hardened and cynical very quickly.

 

[Tugela]

Well, the point that Bijou was trying to make is that women shouldn't have to be worried about rape, no matter how they dress, where they go or how they act.

I agree, women shouldn't have to worry about that, however, there are rapists out there and lots of them, and they don't care about the rules or they wouldn't do what they do. Ignoring that is simply foolish.

 

[Tgirl Nikki]

Do you consider this to be evidence?
http://business.highbeam.com/435388/article-1G1-57786728/examination-date-rape-victim-dress-and-perceiver-variables


It's not my personal crusade to defend rapists, but I just find absolute statements like saying there is no evidence whatsover to be a little objectionable. Human behaviour and morality are complicated subjects.

I have also read many instances on this board over the years where SPs who get ripped off (ie., have a session with a client who then doesn't pay them) saying they got "raped." I don't agree with that myself (it's theft not rape), but if SPs don't want that perception, they should not perpetuate it themselves.

You're also dismissing the cop's testimony based on his age, which is returning a discrimination/stereotype with another discrimination/stereotype.

Not really, no - I don't consider that empirical evidence at all. That study does not reveal, in any way, the number of women who were wearing provocative clothing at the time that they were sexually assaulted. That's the only way a study that could reasonably prove a causal relation between manner of dress and likelihood of assault. This study does no such thing.

In fact, the only thing that this study proves is that these same beliefs we're trying to challenge are highly prevalent in society, and outside observers have an attribution bias, and believe that a woman's manner of dress has an impact on her likelihood of getting raped. So if anything, this study supports the notion that slut myths are far too prevalent, which also supports M.B.'s original statement! :clap2:

If you would like to refute my "no evidence whatsoever" claim, please provide us with a statistical analysis of the clothing worn by rape victims, and show us that women who were dressed like sluts have been raped at statistically-significant higher rate. If such a study exists, I have yet to find it; a study examining attributions does nothing of the sort.

As for Sanguinetti's age, I was not invoking a stereotype, I was questioning the unfounded assumption that his "expertise," was drawn from years of experience. His age places an upper limit on his time of service, leading me to suggest that his supposed expertise is not drawn from his career as a police officer. Based on the study you've posted, it's possible he picked up his expertise about "sluts" in college - seems to me that lots of college students feel the same way.

 

[Miss*Bijou]

Do you consider this to be evidence?
http://business.highbeam.com/435388/article-1G1-57786728/examination-date-rape-victim-dress-and-perceiver-variables

Evidence of what?

That the way women are dressed is responsible for them being raped?

Um no.

That people (actually only men were participants in the studies quoted in that "business" magazine article) believe the way women are dressed is responsible for them being raped?

Yah ok. No one is disputing that. Actually, that's what we're calling out. What you quoted is in no way making statements as to what the actual reasons are for women getting raped - they're making statements as to what high school and college students think are the reasons for women getting raped. I'm not even going to get into the non-sense beliefs they reported, I'm just amazed you took this for serious findings on actual rapes. You really need to pay more attention and read something before you proclaim it supports your sexist beliefs and arguments.


So what was your point exactly with that article? Can you please provide any scientific data to back up your claim? Real data.

Left to my own devices, I never would have been raped. The rapist was really the key component to the whole thing. I was sober; hardly scantily clad , I was wearing sweatpants and an oversized t-shirt; I was at home; my sexual history was, literally, nonexistent--I was a virgin; I struggled; I said no. There have been times since when I have been walking home, alone, after a few drinks, wearing something that might have shown a bit of leg or cleavage, and I wasn't raped. The difference was not in what I was doing.

The difference was the presence of a rapist.

Enough blaming the victim. Enough.



http://scienceblogs.com/mikethemadbiologist/2007/01/hemlines_dont_rape_people_rapi.php

It's not my personal crusade to defend rapists, but I just find absolute statements like saying there is no evidence whatsover to be a little objectionable. Human behaviour and morality are complicated subjects.

It's not?... could have fooled me with all the quoting of articles from obscure sources and from legal papers that don't even concern Canada (Our Rape Culture Part I). You're making some pretty objectionable statements yourself without an iota of evidence.

I have also read many instances on this board over the years where SPs who get ripped off (ie., have a session with a client who then doesn't pay them) saying they got "raped." I don't agree with that myself (it's theft not rape), but if SPs don't want that perception, they should not perpetuate it themselves.

This is neither relevant nor are you in any position to tell us what it is, to be quite honest. But even if you were, you don't even know if the example was a case of what you are telling us is not rape but theft. You are making assumptions and judgments based on no information about the situation just to tell us you disagree that it's rape. So because you believe it's just theft, that means it's not rape.... Nevermind what the person actually at the receiving end of it feels or believe it is, you know best?

But I'll still go along with that idea just long enough to ask you this:

Your wife or gf is home and in bed when she hears you open the door and enter the room. She turns to face your direction but it's dark so she only sees your silouhette approaching the bed. You get into bed, she's already naked for you. Not wasting any time, you have sex. When you're done, she gets up to use the washroom and when she turns the light on, she sees the person in your bed clearly for the first time. Bit of a shock: it's not you.

So.... according to you, this is not rape. Instead it's identity theft? Impersonating? Fraud? Which one do you think is most fitting since it's not rape? Do you think your wife would also feel that way or is she probably going to say it was rape? If your answer is that in this case, you think it is rape, then why is that? Because your wife is not a hooker?


BUT regardless of what you answer or what you decide is or is not rape --- This has absolutely nothing to do with this thread, so why exactly do you feel compelled to nauseate us with more misogynistic bullshit? You see why it's a bit hard to believe your statement and it actually does seem like you're making it your personal crusade to be a rape apologist?

You're also dismissing the cop's testimony based on his age, which is returning a discrimination/stereotype with another discrimination/stereotype.

I don't understand what point you're trying to make with this comment? How was she discriminating? She's dismissing the cop's testimony not based on his age but based on his lack of experience...oh and on the lack of ACTUAL DATA. Since there is no data, one may have presumed the cop's comments were perhaps based on his personal experience in the course of his career... but since he is pretty young, his lack of experience makes this impossible. See? Nothing to do whatsoever with any kind of discrimination/stereotype - just good common sense.

I'm also not sure why you would say that she's returning discrimination with another one...I thought you said it was a fact and not a stereotype (the way a woman is dressed being responsible for her being raped). So which is it?


Fyi - the reason I started a new thread is precisely because your posts on the previous one were upsetting and I had decided to just let it go then, so I didn't want to re-visit by getting that thread going again. But now you've added more of this crap. I realize you just don't get it - not even a little bit - but I'm very sorry to tell you that your comments are really offensive and really clueless. Please stop now. Please stop reading and quoting irrelevant and inconsequential studies or whatever, and try reading something that discusses the actual issues. Feel free to start with a few of these.

Rape myths give people a false sense of security by minimising and / or denying the occurrence of sexual violence. They accomplish this by blaming the victim and making excuses for the perpetrator. In effect these myths perpetuate sexual violence because they play a powerful part in defining responses to rape and create an excuse not to address the realities of sexual violence.

Rape culture is telling girls and women to be careful about what you wear, how you wear it, how you carry yourself, where you walk, when you walk there, with whom you walk, whom you trust, what you do, where you do it, with whom you do it, what you drink, how much you drink, whether you make eye contact, if you're alone, if you're with a stranger, if you're in a group, if you're in a group of strangers, if it's dark, if the area is unfamiliar, if you're carrying something, how you carry it, what kind of shoes you're wearing in case you have to run, what kind of purse you carry, what jewelry you wear, what time it is, what street it is, what environment it is, how many people you sleep with, what kind of people you sleep with, who your friends are, to whom you give your number, who's around when the delivery guy comes, to get an apartment where you can see who's at the door before they can see you, to check before you open the door to the delivery guy, to own a dog or a dog-sound-making machine, to get a roommate, to take self-defense, to always be alert always pay attention always watch your back always be aware of your surroundings and never let your guard down for a moment lest you be sexually assaulted and if you are and didn't follow all the rules it's your fault.

Rape culture is victim-blaming.


Rape culture is tasking victims with the burden of rape prevention. Rape culture is encouraging women to take self-defense as though that is the only solution required to preventing rape. Rape culture is admonishing women to "learn common sense" or "be more responsible" or "be aware of barroom risks" or "avoid these places" or "don't dress this way," and failing to admonish men to not rape.


Rape culture is the idea that only certain people rape—and only certain people get raped. Rape culture is ignoring that the thing about rapists is that they rape people. They rape people who are strong and people who are weak, people who are smart and people who are dumb, people who fight back and people who submit just to get it over with, people who are sluts and people who are prudes, people who rich and people who are poor, people who are tall and people who are short, people who are fat and people who are thin, people who are blind and people who are sighted, people who are deaf and people who can hear, people of every race and shape and size and ability and circumstance.

Rape culture is the narrative that sex workers can't be raped. Rape culture is the assertion that wives can't be raped. Rape culture is the contention that only nice girls can be raped.

Rape culture is refusing to acknowledge that the only thing that the victim of every rapist shares in common is bad fucking luck. Rape culture is refusing to acknowledge that the only thing a person can do to avoid being raped is never be in the same room as a rapist. Rape culture is avoiding talking about what an absurdly unreasonable expectation that is, since rapists don't announce themselves or wear signs or glow purple.

Rape culture is a ruling that says women cannot withdraw consent once sex commences.

Rape culture is pervasive narratives about rape that exist despite evidence to the contrary. Rape culture is pervasive imagery of stranger rape, even though women are three times more likely to be raped by someone they know than a stranger, and nine times more likely to be raped in their home, the home of someone they know, or anywhere else than being raped on the street, making what is commonly referred to as "date rape" by far the most prevalent type of rape.

Rape culture is the objectification of women, which is part of a dehumanizing process that renders consent irrelevant. Rape culture is treating women's bodies like public property. Rape culture is street harassment and groping on public transportation and equating raped women's bodies to a man walking around with valuables hanging out of his pockets. Rape culture is most men being so far removed from the threat of rape that invoking property theft is evidently the closest thing many of them can imagine to being forcibly subjected to a sexual assault.


Rape culture is people objecting to the detritus of the rape culture being called oversensitive, rather than people who perpetuate the rape culture being regarded as not sensitive enough.

Naturally, the immediate comments in both places were of the "compare women being raped with men getting mugged" variety. This was my favorite:

I think a lot of what is be considered "blaming the victim" in the feminist world is really just pointing out the obvious: that the behavior that leads up to it is sometimes flat out stupid and irresponsible. In an abstract moral sense, a woman certainly should be able to do whatever she wants, including getting drunk in the early morning hours and walking around inebriated in the streets of Boston and New York. And also in an abstract moral sense, I should be able to walk around those same places in the middle of the night with a $500 watch and $50 bills hanging out of every pocket. The thing is, if I do that, I'm a fucking idiot. And no one would hesitate to tell me.

To which I responded: "It's always so charming to see the wanton and unwanted abuse of my body compared to property theft. Honestly, I can't even begin to tell you how much you don't get it if you can construe a woman walking alone and inebriated with a man walking alone with valuables hanging out of his pocket. If you want an honest comparison, here's one: And also in an abstract moral sense, I should be able to walk around those same places in the middle of the night and not expect to have someone incapacitate me and cut my dick off. The reason that doesn't leap to your mind is because men's bodies aren't considered community property for the taking as soon as they get drunk, like women's bodies. Or visible $50 bills."


That defenders of the "rape aversion advice rooted in women's behavior restriction" inevitably rely on the "guy getting mugged" comparison tells us two things. One: It shows how deeply ingrained the notion of women's bodies as property is. Comparing a woman's genitals to a $50 bill visibly dangling out of a man's pocket is laughable in both practical and intrinsic ways, and yet such associations are routinely cited with not a hint of awareness at their patent absurdity. Two: It illustrates how far removed men are from the real threat of rape. Invoking a mugging is evidently the closest thing many men can imagine to being forcibly subjected to an assault on one's sex organs, which has got to be a lovely world in which to live.


Apparently it doesn't occur to the conjurers of the "guy getting mugged" comparison that women generally try to avoid being mugged, too, and thusly might also be credited with concurrently trying to avoid being raped. Why on earth would they engage in high-risk behavior like walking home alone while inebriated then? one might ask, presuming, as are we all expected to do, that walking home alone while inebriated is, in fact, a high-risk behavior. Yet, considering that lots and lots of men and women go home alone after a few drinks every single night all across America, and the vast majority of them are not the victims of any type of crime, it seems to me that it should be properly considered a low-risk behavior. That, however, is ever a most scandalous thing to suggest, undermining as it does the ability to accuse women of engaging in high-risk behavior when they have the unmitigated temerity of doing something people do all the time without getting victimized.


Worse yet, someone might actually notice that women are three times more likely to be raped by someone they know than a stranger, and nine times more likely to be raped in their home, the home of someone they know, or anywhere else than being raped on the street. We might be forced to start talking about this stuff in a place vaguely resembling reality, instead of inside the shared delusion that the biggest problems for women are their own silly behaviors and crazed strangers.

http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2007/01/take-my-cunt-please.html

The law discriminates against rape victims in a manner which would not be tolerated by victims of any other crime. In the following example, a holdup victim is asked questions similar in form to those usually asked a victim of rape.


“Mr. Smith, you were held up at gunpoint on the corner of 16th and Locust?”
“Yes.”
“Did you struggle with the robber?”
“No.”
“Why not?”
“He was armed.”
“Then you made a conscious decision to comply with his demands rather than to resist?”
“Yes.”
“Did you scream? Cry out?”
“No. I was afraid.”
“I see. Have you ever been held up before?”
“No.”
“Have you ever given money away?”
“Yes, of course–”
“And did you do so willingly?”
“What are you getting at?”
“Well, let’s put it like this, Mr. Smith. You’ve given away money in the past–in fact, you have quite a reputation for philanthropy. How can we be sure that you weren’t contriving to have your money taken from you by force?”
“Listen, if I wanted–”
“Never mind. What time did this holdup take place, Mr. Smith?”
“About 11 p.m.”
“You were out on the streets at 11 p.m.? Doing what?”
“Just walking.”
“Just walking? You know it’s dangerous being out on the street that late at night. Weren’t you aware that you could have been held up?”
“I hadn’t thought about it.”
“What were you wearing at the time, Mr. Smith?”
“Let’s see. A suit. Yes, a suit.”
“An expensive suit?”
“Well–yes.”
“In other words, Mr. Smith, you were walking around the streets late at night in a suit that practically advertised the fact that you might be a good target for some easy money, isn’t that so? I mean, if we didn’t know better, Mr. Smith, we might even think you were asking for this to happen, mightn’t we?”
“Look, can’t we talkin about the past history of the guy who did this to me?”
“I’m afraid not, Mr. Smith. I don’t think you would want to violate his rights, now, would you?”


http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2007/01/03/the-rape-of-mr-smith/

 

[Oceans11]

I found this quote interesting: "They found that dominant and submissive college women displayed visually different appearances (e.g., submissive women wore body-concealing clothing). College men's perceptions of dominant and submissive women were based primarily on dress as impressions were not influenced by body movements or presence/absence of sound. Richards et al. (1991) concluded that there was evidence to support the proposition that college men selected submissive women for exploitation. "

This would seem to indicate that dressing in a more provocative manner actually reduces the risk of being victimized - as it possibly creates an impression of a more empowered woman. I guess it depends on whether the specific manner of dress triggers that association in the mind of a potential assailant (i.e. does the manner of dress actually project high self-esteem in general and, more specifically, does it create this impression in the mind of the predatory individual, whose own brain might work far differently than our broader society).

It is inarguably true that the sole determining factor for whether a rape will take place, is whether or not a rapist is present.

I have never in my life encountered a situation where I felt that consent to sex was ambiguous. Honestly, in the absense of extreme intoxication, I can't even imagine a case where it could be.

I remember there was a case in Alberta that was quite controversial - R. v. Ewanchuck, about the defence of consent to a sexual assault charge. here's the background from wikipedia:

Steve Ewanchuk brought a 17-year-old woman into his van for a job interview. After the interview Ewanchuk invited the woman to his trailer in behind. He took her into his trailer and began to make a series of advances. Each time she would say "no" to his advance and he would stop but, after the passing of some time, would then renew his sexual advances. She testified at trial that during her time in the trailer she was very afraid and that is why she did not take further action to stop the sexual conduct such as leaving or attempting to physically resist the man.

At trial Ewanchuk successfully argued that, although the woman had initially said "no" to his sexual touching, because he had continued and she had failed to object further this constituted "implied consent". The acquittal was upheld on appeal. In the decision of the Alberta Court of Appeal, Justice John McClung commented that "it must be pointed out that the complainant did not present herself to Ewanchuk or enter his trailer in a bonnet and crinolines” and that Ewanchuk's conduct was "less criminal than hormonal". The issue before the Supreme Court was "whether the trial judge erred in his understanding of consent in sexual assault and whether his conclusion that the defence of "implied consent" exists in Canadian law was correct."

The Supreme Court of Canada overturned his acquital and sent him to jail. It was quite a topic of conversation. Many felt that the victim had consented to intercourse, and only complained later when he didn't hire her. People thought that it was a crusading feminist court that punished an otherwise inocent guy for being a little horny and exercising judgment that was a little questionable.

A few years later, he was convicted again, for sexaully assaulting an 8 year old. I guess the Supreme Court got it right.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/story/2007/02/22/ewanchuk-sentence.html

 

[mistressfreyja]

The only thing necessary for rape to occur is a rapist.

Do rapists prey on opportunity and vulnerability? Yes.

Self-esteem would most certainly seem to be relevant, as would self-awareness, but who would argue that low self-esteem deserves rape.

We have so many different kinds of sexual predators, most smart enough to choose their victims as to not get caught.

Sexual predators are sick. Just as sick is the mentality that the victim somehow earned the attack.

I found this quote interesting: "They found that dominant and submissive college women displayed visually different appearances (e.g., submissive women wore body-concealing clothing). College men's perceptions of dominant and submissive women were based primarily on dress as impressions were not influenced by body movements or presence/absence of sound. Richards et al. (1991) concluded that there was evidence to support the proposition that college men selected submissive women for exploitation. "

This would seem to indicate that dressing in a more provocative manner actually reduces the risk of being victimized - as it possibly creates an impression of a more empowered woman. I guess it depends on whether the specific manner of dress triggers that association in the mind of a potential assailant (i.e. does the manner of dress actually project high self-esteem in general and, more specifically, does it create this impression in the mind of the predatory individual, whose own brain might work far differently than our broader society).

It is inarguably true that the sole determining factor for whether a rape will take place, is whether or not a rapist is present.I have never in my life encountered a situation where I felt that consent to sex was ambiguous. Honestly, in the absense of extreme intoxication, I can't even imagine a case where it could be.

I remember there was a case in Alberta that was quite controversial - R. v. Ewanchuck, about the defence of consent to a sexual assault charge. here's the background from wikipedia:

Steve Ewanchuk brought a 17-year-old woman into his van for a job interview. After the interview Ewanchuk invited the woman to his trailer in behind. He took her into his trailer and began to make a series of advances. Each time she would say "no" to his advance and he would stop but, after the passing of some time, would then renew his sexual advances. She testified at trial that during her time in the trailer she was very afraid and that is why she did not take further action to stop the sexual conduct such as leaving or attempting to physically resist the man.

At trial Ewanchuk successfully argued that, although the woman had initially said "no" to his sexual touching, because he had continued and she had failed to object further this constituted "implied consent". The acquittal was upheld on appeal. In the decision of the Alberta Court of Appeal, Justice John McClung commented that "it must be pointed out that the complainant did not present herself to Ewanchuk or enter his trailer in a bonnet and crinolines” and that Ewanchuk's conduct was "less criminal than hormonal". The issue before the Supreme Court was "whether the trial judge erred in his understanding of consent in sexual assault and whether his conclusion that the defence of "implied consent" exists in Canadian law was correct."

The Supreme Court of Canada overturned his acquital and sent him to jail. It was quite a topic of conversation. Many felt that the victim had consented to intercourse, and only complained later when he didn't hire her. People thought that it was a crusading feminist court that punished an otherwise inocent guy for being a little horny and exercising judgment that was a little questionable.

A few years later, he was convicted again, for sexaully assaulting an 8 year old. I guess the Supreme Court got it right.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/story/2007/02/22/ewanchuk-sentence.html

 

[laurel love]

There! Mousy, quiet, tiny women who wear peter pan collars and have shoulder length brown hair.

Rapists are like the bullies on the playground and the victims always seem to be of the same ilk.

There are guys at frat parties who put things in drinks so they can get the 'hot' girl, no doubt. And that is rape as well. But, a serial rapist, one who lives for the act, is not interested in sex, as was mentioned before, but motivated by anger.

Dressing provocatively scares most men away. They tend to thing they are not good enough to approach the woman. The hottest girl in my high school did not get asked to Grad cause none of the guys thought they were good enough. Ironic.