beth@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP (beth d. christy) (05/19/85)
In Message <186@timeinc.UUCP> greenber@timeinc.UUCP (Ross M. Greenberg) writes: >In article <397@calmasd.UUCP> gail@calmasd.UUCP (Gail B. Hanrahan) writes: >> >>"Provocative clothing" is no excuse for rape. Don't try to >>blame women for someone else's lack of control (or sanity). > >I know that this will probably start flames, and I wish it wouldn't: > >If I told you that I was walking in a "bad" area of town, late at night, >and had $100 bills sticking out of my pockets, and that somebody >mugged me, would you be shocked??? > >Chances are you would tell me: you should have known better. Now, this >doesn't mean the robbery was right, and it doesn't represent that the >society that allows for someone to mug me is protecting me from myself >(given that there *are* nasties out there). > >So why shouldn't the same caveats apply to a women in some provocative >clothing? If I have to be careful of not being mugged, why can't the >women in the see-thru blouse and the tight leather micro-skirt be >aware that she *is* provoking some sickie out there. It doesn't make >her the guilty party.....it just means that *maybe* she could have >avoided the problem by not dressing in a manner that is thought by >many to be provocative. The problem still resides within the rapists >mind, just as the above problem existed in the muggers mind. > >And if somebody were to say to her: "You should have known better than >to dress like that..." that person would probably be labeled sexist!! > >Ross M. Greenberg @ Time Inc, New York The difference between the two scenarios is that, whereas you can still nail the thief even if everybody agrees you were asking for it, the "fact" that "she was asking for it" is enough to stop the b*st*rd from getting jailed, 'cause "consent" makes it not rape. Rape is the fault of the rapist, not of the woman's fashion sense, and he should be *punished* regardless of what she was wearing. Also, "women in see-thru blouses and tight leather micro-skirts in the bad area of town" is not what we're talking about here. The "bad area of town" is *every* area of town, and the "provocative clothing" is often jeans and a T-shirt. That means the woman is provocative no matter what. In everyday normal circumstances, she's provoking the attack. (I'm not making this stuff up either - read an earlier posting citing the case where a 16 year old rapist was let off because the 14 year old girl he raped had "provoked" him by wearing jeans and a T-shirt. That was an actual true case in Wisconsin in the late 70's (I think).) -- --JB "The giant is awake." Disclaimer? Who wud claim dis?
greenber@timeinc.UUCP (Ross M. Greenberg) (05/20/85)
In article <522@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP> beth@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP (beth d. christy) writes: (in response about a scenario I brought up relating "provocative" feminine attire and showing excessive cash in bad areas of town): > >The difference between the two scenarios is that, whereas you can >still nail the thief even if everybody agrees you were asking for it, >the "fact" that "she was asking for it" is enough to stop the b*st*rd >from getting jailed, 'cause "consent" makes it not rape. Rape is the >fault of the rapist, not of the woman's fashion sense, and he should >be *punished* regardless of what she was wearing. The point I was making was not whether the legal system handles rape properly or not. It doesn't. The point was also not whether rape is the women's fault or not. It never is. The point I was trying to make was whether a women "dressed provocatively" increases her chances of rape. If the answer is yes, then she can reduce her chances of rape by dressing more modestly. I am not trying to defend the rapist. The rapist is a low-life that no longer deserves life (in my opinion, and I will *not* get into capital punishment arguments here!). -- ------------------------------------------------------------------ Ross M. Greenberg @ Time Inc, New York --------->{ihnp4 | vax135}!timeinc!greenber<--------- Timeinc probably wouldn't acknowledge my existence, and has opinions of its own. I highly doubt that they would make me their spokesperson. ------ "There's something wrong in the world. There's always been. Something no one has ever named or explained" --- Francisco d'Anconia
ellis@spar.UUCP (Michael Ellis) (05/20/85)
>If I told you that I was walking in a "bad" area of town, late at night, >and had $100 bills sticking out of my pockets, and that somebody >mugged me, would you be shocked??? > >Chances are you would tell me: you should have known better. Now, this >doesn't mean the robbery was right, and it doesn't represent that the >society that allows for someone to mug me is protecting me from myself > >So why shouldn't the same caveats apply to a women in some provocative >clothing? If I have to be careful of not being mugged, why can't the >women in the see-thru blouse and the tight leather micro-skirt be >aware that she *is* provoking some sickie out there. It doesn't make >her the guilty party.....it just means that *maybe* she could have >avoided the problem by not dressing in a manner that is thought by >many to be provocative. -- Ross Greenberg But this argument misses the entire point of the discussion, and in several ways: 1. Is `provocative clothing' really an issue here? Can you show figures to demonstrate that most women who are subjected to sexual intimidation or rape were wearing such clothing? No doubt, a woman who wears revealing clothes has increased the likelihood of sexual harassment, but does that mean that most rape victims were wearing such clothing? From what I've heard, all it takes to provoke a rapist is to be perceived as a woman! Furthermore, talk of `provocative clothing' is frequently used to sidetrack the real problem -- loss of freedom and what to do about it. 2. What the hell is `provocative clothing'? I contend that practically anything whatsoever that is `appealing' or `flattering' is likely to motivate a rapist, even if that clothing might be `modest' by conservative dress codes. 3. Your argument fallaciously downplays the problem that women face. Yes, a man who has $100 bills sticking out of his pockets is indeed increasing his risk of getting mugged. Same for women. But if a man dresses for a party or a night on the town, he will probably be ignored -- should a women do the same, she is likely to hear crap about `provoking rapists'. As it stands, most women cannot even walk about safely at night wearing such `provocative clothing' as blue jeans and a frumpy sweatshirt. The major exceptions I know are women whose appearance is ambiguous enough to allow them to adopt a convincing masculine pose. But most women are not tall enough, or have a clearly feminine physique, or belong to social groups that encourage stereotypical sexual distinctions in style that diminish the likelihood that such deception will be successful. Men who fail to understand the loss of freedom that such women experience have missed the entire point of this discussion. -michael
geoff@burl.UUCP (geoff) (05/21/85)
> >The difference between the two scenarios is that, whereas you can > >still nail the thief even if everybody agrees you were asking for it, > >the "fact" that "she was asking for it" is enough to stop the b*st*rd > >from getting jailed, 'cause "consent" makes it not rape. Rape is the > >fault of the rapist, not of the woman's fashion sense, and he should > >be *punished* regardless of what she was wearing. > > The point I was making was not whether the legal system handles rape > properly or not. It doesn't. The point was also not whether rape > is the women's fault or not. It never is. The point I was trying to > make was whether a women "dressed provocatively" increases her > chances of rape. If the answer is yes, then she can reduce her > chances of rape by dressing more modestly. > > I am not trying to defend the rapist. The rapist is a low-life that > no longer deserves life (in my opinion, and I will *not* get into > capital punishment arguments here!). > That's ok, I will. (I agree with you up to the last line, though). I very strongly oppose capital punishment for rape cases. I can just about (big waffle here) accept it for first-degree murder. {side note: except that it is not being done equitably. A while back a man was executed for being involved in the murder of a DEA agent. The guy who did the killing plea-bargained and received a jail term. And then there are Speck and Manson. } I cannot equate rape with murder. It is very bad, but murder is worse (it is hard to recover from being murdered). I suppose the best argument is the same one against the 'Lindbergh law' allowing capital punishment for kidnap cases. What is the point of letting the victim live? You can't be punished any worse, so why not get rid of the witness? I think it is more important to try to preserve the victim's life than to give the attacker a worse punishment. geoff sherwood
regard@ttidcc.UUCP (Adrienne Regard) (05/21/85)
Oh yes, another thing about provocative clothing (right or wrong). If a woman's clothing can be considered provocative agents, so is pornography. And to hell with freedom of speech. And if t-shirts and jeans are provocative clothing, then Calvin Klein ads are pornography. "It's not an excuse, just an explanation" "women should be aware of what they can do to lower their chances of rape" etc., are going to get your Constitutional rights in hot water.
jon@boulder.UUCP (Jonathan Corbet) (05/24/85)
> ... suggests an analogy between a person walking >around in a bad neighbourhood with $100 bills hanging out of his pockets, >and a women wearing "suggestive" clothing. Ross, you just don't get it, do >you? For the sake of argument, suppose I concede that I am partly at fault >for getting robbed. In this case, the purpose of the robbery was to get >my money. Rape is nothing like this. A woman is not raped because the man >was so horny he couldn't stand it; a woman is raped BECAUSE SHE IS A WOMAN. Ahh, but rape is a crime of anger against women. I don't know for sure, but I suspect that clothing meant to show off a person's female nature would tend to aggravate the sort of anger that must already be present in a person predisposed to rape. It seems to me that a woman really does increase her chances of being raped by dressing "provocatively." Please note that I do not think that the apparel of the victim is any sort of justification for any crime, whether (s)he be wrapped up like a mummy, or naked. Now, women (understandably) get upset when told that they effectively can not dress in a certain way without inviting trouble. Yes, I agree, it's unfair. However, "unfair" is almost a definition of "crime." I think it's unfair that I can't pin $100 bills to my shirt and walk around all night. Nobody yet has figured out how to deal effective with crime; I certainly can not claim to have any answers. Such is life, and we have to live with it. jon -- Jonathan Corbet National Center for Atmospheric Research, Field Observing Facility {seismo|hplabs}!hao!boulder!jon (Thanks to CU CS department)
mccolm@ucla-cs.UUCP (05/28/85)
> > If I told you that I was walking in a "bad" area of town, late at night, > > and had $100 bills sticking out of my pockets, and that somebody > > mugged me, would you be shocked??? > > Chances are you would tell me: you should have known better..... > > So why shouldn't the same caveats apply to a women in some provocative > > clothing?..... The following is quoted out of context: > From what I've heard, all it takes to provoke a rapist is to be > perceived as a woman.... Let's suppose we draw a different analogy. If I, a white male (boo-hiss) walked through Watts, Harlem, downtown Cleveland, or Chinatown (S.F.) late at night, am I "asking" to get robbed? Similarly, if a black male walks through Bel-Air, Cleveland Heights, or Los Altos Hills, or any one of hundreds of rich neighborhoods, in the middle of the day, is he "asking for" police harassment? Remember, the question concerns not having money showing, which we can control, but color if skin. Don't show your skin, you say? Okay, the black man who's just been stopped by a cop in Los Altos Hills is now wearing a ski mask. Now did that really help? There's more to this analogy than meets the eye. White middle-class people are most afraid of people doing them physical harm, while black people have just cause to be suspicious of the police. Now into this thoroughly unpleasant fear, inject the idea that the attack is caused by something we cannot hide or control: race. It is interesting that racism is justly regarded as one of the great evils of society. Why not draw the same conclusion regarding harassment because of sex? I hear a flame with my name on it.... --fini-- Eric McColm UCLA (oo' - kluh) Funny Farm for the Criminally Harmless UUCP: ...!{ihnp4,trwspp,cepu,ucbvax,sdcrdcf}!ucla-cs!mccolm ARPA: (still) mccolm@UCLA-CS.ARPA (someday) mccolm@LOCUS.UCLA.EDU "Scrabble is Wit; Link-Sausage is Obscenity; UNIX is Maddening."
london@oddjob.UUCP (David London) (05/29/85)
<> >> me > Jon Corbet >> ... suggests an analogy between a person walking >>around in a bad neighbourhood with $100 bills hanging out of his pockets, >>and a women wearing "suggestive" clothing. Ross, you just don't get it, do >>you? For the sake of argument, suppose I concede that I am partly at fault >>for getting robbed. In this case, the purpose of the robbery was to get >>my money. Rape is nothing like this. A woman is not raped because the man >>was so horny he couldn't stand it; a woman is raped BECAUSE SHE IS A WOMAN. > Ahh, but rape is a crime of anger against women. I don't know for >sure, but I suspect that clothing meant to show off a person's female nature >would tend to aggravate the sort of anger that must already be present in a >person predisposed to rape. It seems to me that a woman really does increase >her chances of being raped by dressing "provocatively." No, I don't buy it. First of all, let's say you are a 30-year old man. What sort of provocative clothing could a 70-year old woman or a 12-year old girl wear that would stir up such anger? (No flames about attractive older women, please). Secondly, the articles I've read in which rapists are interviewed do not support the provocative clothing argument. Usually, it's something else, like the rapist hated his mother, etc.. The provocative clothing argument seems not to be based on fact, but is rather a convenient legal technique, which works because society is not yet willing to mete out the blame where it is due. David London ..!ihnp4!oddjob!london
quint@topaz.ARPA (Amqueue) (06/06/85)
Will someone please tell the net what is provocative about a nun's habit... covers everything but the hands, and the face? /amqueue
hollombe@ttidcc.UUCP (The Polymath) (06/07/85)
In article <2220@topaz.ARPA> quint@topaz.UUCP (Amqueue) writes: >Will someone please tell the net what is provocative about a nun's >habit... covers everything but the hands, and the face? > >/amqueue It leaves everything to the imagination. It also makes it easier to view a nun as an object rather than a person. -- -_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_- The Polymath (aka: Jerry Hollombe) Citicorp TTI "How goes the rat race?" 3100 Ocean Park Blvd. "The rats are winning." Santa Monica, CA 90405 -- Paul Lynde (213) 450-9111, ext. 2483 {philabs,randvax,trwrb,vortex}!ttidca!ttidcc!hollombe