SlutWalks

[Bob Hinton]

Common sense?

I have read this thread with interest, and am quite frankly baffled by some of the comments made here. Someone said that they had the right to dress in a manner that showed off her body but that didn’t give anyone the right to rape her.

I think what is being confused here is what a person has a right to do and what is sensible to do. If a female dresses in such a manner as to ‘show off her body” then obviously the reason for doing so is to attract attention, moreover the attention she attracts is going to be the sort of attention that is aroused by the sight of a scantily dressed female – in other words she is hardly likely to attract the attention of someone who is only interested in her mind. This being the case then it is not a far reach to suppose that at least a proportion of this attention is going to be from the type of person who thinks he has the right to force his attention on someone who he believes is deliberately trying to attract him in a sexual manner.

Look at it another way. Let us suppose the police officer had said don’t go flashing your jewellery and other items around when you visit the Bronx or some other less salubrious part of town. I’m quite sure we would have all nodded wisely and applauded him for giving good advice.

I am also sure we wouldn’t get people jumping up and down in fury castigating the officer as they had the right to wear what they want where they want, and just because you go wandering round the backstreets dripping with bling does not mean you want to get robbed. No of course it doesn’t – but good sense dictates if you want to avoid that unfortunate occurrence don’t do anything that is perhaps less than wise.

Women have the right to wear what they want where they want – but I predict that none of these women who are so shrill in their condemnation of this police officer would dream of wandering around the North Pole in a bikini – even though they have the perfect right to do it of course!

[TomTomKent]

I have read this thread with interest, and am quite frankly baffled by some of the comments made here. Someone said that they had the right to dress in a manner that showed off her body but that didn’t give anyone the right to rape her.

I think what is being confused here is what a person has a right to do and what is sensible to do. If a female dresses in such a manner as to ‘show off her body” then obviously the reason for doing so is to attract attention, moreover the attention she attracts is going to be the sort of attention that is aroused by the sight of a scantily dressed female – in other words she is hardly likely to attract the attention of someone who is only interested in her mind. This being the case then it is not a far reach to suppose that at least a proportion of this attention is going to be from the type of person who thinks he has the right to force his attention on someone who he believes is deliberately trying to attract him in a sexual manner.

Look at it another way. Let us suppose the police officer had said don’t go flashing your jewellery and other items around when you visit the Bronx or some other less salubrious part of town. I’m quite sure we would have all nodded wisely and applauded him for giving good advice.

I am also sure we wouldn’t get people jumping up and down in fury castigating the officer as they had the right to wear what they want where they want, and just because you go wandering round the backstreets dripping with bling does not mean you want to get robbed. No of course it doesn’t – but good sense dictates if you want to avoid that unfortunate occurrence don’t do anything that is perhaps less than wise.

Women have the right to wear what they want where they want – but I predict that none of these women who are so shrill in their condemnation of this police officer would dream of wandering around the North Pole in a bikini – even though they have the perfect right to do it of course!

The women have the right to wear what they want (Right to Free Expression).
They also have the right not be raped while doing so. (The Right to Freedom from Toture and/ or degrading acts).

Having an officer of the law compare them to sluts, and pass the blame onto them is not the answer. Sure, they should be standing up and getting people to make the change. Just as the anti-knife crime protests stood up and got conditions changed in some city centrers so you CAN now walk through with a wallet and a mobile phone and not be mugged.

The effects of the Slut Walk will be further reaching than just complaining about the words of one law enforcer. Simple actions, like telling the councils in towns not to save money by turning off streetlights, will have a tangible effect.

[Bob Hinton]

Oh really...

The women have the right to wear what they want (Right to Free Expression).
They also have the right not be raped while doing so. (The Right to Freedom from Toture and/ or degrading acts).

.

I notice Little Tom Tom is always banging on about peoples rights - whilst never mentioning their responsibilities to take sensible precautions. As I clearly stated in my post LTT women have the right to wear whatever they want.

[TomTomKent]

I notice Little Tom Tom is always banging on about peoples rights - whilst never mentioning their responsibilities to take sensible precautions. As I clearly stated in my post LTT women have the right to wear whatever they want.

And at exactly what point did anybody deny you had said that?

Let's talk about responsibilities then: It is the responsibility of people not to rape somebody. Regardless of what they wear. Where ever they happen to wear it.

It is the responsibility of society as a whole to ensure it is safe for people to go where ever they like, regardless of what they wear.

When you say this Bob:
[Quote=Bob Hinton]
I think what is being confused here is what a person has a right to do and what is sensible to do. If a female dresses in such a manner as to ‘show off her body” then obviously the reason for doing so is to attract attention, moreover the attention she attracts is going to be the sort of attention that is aroused by the sight of a scantily dressed female – in other words she is hardly likely to attract the attention of someone who is only interested in her mind. This being the case then it is not a far reach to suppose that at least a proportion of this attention is going to be from the type of person who thinks he has the right to force his attention on someone who he believes is deliberately trying to attract him in a sexual manner. [/Quote=Bob Hinton]
You are absolving the rapist of responsibility for esnusring consent. You seem to be suggesting it is the girls own fault for expecting to be able to actually USE her right to wear what she wants.

It isn't your place to decree what is or is not responsible to wear Bob. People have the right to free expression, and if we live in a world where that might encourage the wrong kind of attention, we should change the world. Exactly as the Slut Walk is doing.

[babybird67]

error

I notice Little Tom Tom is always banging on about peoples rights - whilst never mentioning their responsibilities to take sensible precautions. As I clearly stated in my post LTT women have the right to wear whatever they want.

Hi Bob

is it too much to ask you to use people's correct names on the boards? I seem to remember you getting particularly annoyed when someone called you something other than your name. Tom's name is TomTomKent. I know you're including the Little to belittle him, but to be honest the only person this tactic reflects badly on is yourself.

regards

Jen

[TomTomKent]

Why should we just shrug our shoulders and say "Oh well, that is the world we live in." There is a problem: Society seems to think that certain clothes are provocative to rape. In some cases an excuse for rape or assualt. Nobody should have to live in fear, or feel forced to conform to prevent themselves being attacked. Bobs suggestions treat a symptom, and there is nothing to suggest that those who took part do not already dress to prevent unwanted attention. That is not what the walks were about.

They were saying "We should not have to." And they are right: No form of dress should be considered an excuse, or even a mitigating factor in rape. If they are, this has to change.

[Errata]

I think what is being confused here is what a person has a right to do and what is sensible to do. If a female dresses in such a manner as to ‘show off her body” then obviously the reason for doing so is to attract attention, moreover the attention she attracts is going to be the sort of attention that is aroused by the sight of a scantily dressed female – in other words she is hardly likely to attract the attention of someone who is only interested in her mind. This being the case then it is not a far reach to suppose that at least a proportion of this attention is going to be from the type of person who thinks he has the right to force his attention on someone who he believes is deliberately trying to attract him in a sexual manner.

The problem with this statement is a pretty fundamental one. Women aren't being raped because of what they wear. A vast majority of rape victims are wearing what you would consider to be normal clothes. Jeans, t-shirts, sweats, jogging attire, business clothing. Do women in mini skirts get raped? Yes they do. And in fact, there is a trend of women dressing suggestively being gang raped outside a club or a bar. Now cultural stereotypes could lead one drunk man to think he has the right to "force his attention on someone who he believes is trying to attract him in a sexual manner". But our sexual mores are not so evolved that he could possibly think that she is not only going to welcome his advances, but also that of four of his buddies. Given the games that these groups play with their victims, it is also abundantly clear that the possibility of her trying to attract sexual attention has nothing to do with her rape. They are like cats with a mouse. And they choose their hunting grounds in order to have access to a maximum amount of potential prey. So to honest, every woman leaving that club is dressed suggestively. The fact that the pick out one suggestively dressed woman out of a hundred suggestively dressed women does not suggest that it's the clothing that drives the choice.

[babybird67]

i don't think it's acceptable to argue that some types of clothing invite rape. If a woman wants to dress attractively or sexually, that's up to her. She might be doing it to please her partner or just herself, and why not? That doesn't justify her being raped, nor should she be prevented from dressing in that manner for the fear of being raped.

This is tantamount to arguing theives shouldn't be tempted by someone having an expensive car...i.e., people should use common sense and just buy unattractive cars. Same with houses...expensive houses are 'asking' to be burgled etc.

It's not logical.

[Limehouse]

i don't think it's acceptable to argue that some types of clothing invite rape. If a woman wants to dress attractively or sexually, that's up to her. She might be doing it to please her partner or just herself, and why not? That doesn't justify her being raped, nor should she be prevented from dressing in that manner for the fear of being raped.

This is tantamount to arguing theives shouldn't be tempted by someone having an expensive car...i.e., people should use common sense and just buy unattractive cars. Same with houses...expensive houses are 'asking' to be burgled etc.

It's not logical.

I totally agree Jen - an in any case - why didn't this police officer address the MEN and say something like 'if you attempt to molest a woman do not think that her manner of dress will be in any way an excuse. We will imprison any man who is found guilty of sexual assault or rape HOWEVER the victim is dressed'

And whilst we are on the subject - would WOMEN get away with plunging their hands down the trousers of any man who showed his bum crack whilst bending over? Would we use 'he was bare chested and I just couldn't resist dragging him into the bushes and giving him a good seeing to' as an excuse for sexual assault? Can't really see it working.

[babybird67]

exactly, Julie. In what other crime is the 'fault' ever directed at the victim in the way it is in rape?

To continue my analogy, if a man with a stolen Porsche went to the Police and this officer said, well really you were asking to have it stolen because it's such an attractive car, you should have had more sense and bought a Robin Reliant, would that be acceptable?

[Magpie]

exactly, Julie. In what other crime is the 'fault' ever directed at the victim in the way it is in rape?

To continue my analogy, if a man with a stolen Porsche went to the Police and this officer said, well really you were asking to have it stolen because it's such an attractive car, you should have had more sense and bought a Robin Reliant, would that be acceptable?

As a matter of fact several years ago when the store I was working at was robbed at gunpoint and the investigating sargeant's attitude was "if you choose to work in that kind of store in that area of town, what did you expect?" at which point they more or less stopped looking for the perp.

[TomTomKent]

exactly, Julie. In what other crime is the 'fault' ever directed at the victim in the way it is in rape?

To continue my analogy, if a man with a stolen Porsche went to the Police and this officer said, well really you were asking to have it stolen because it's such an attractive car, you should have had more sense and bought a Robin Reliant, would that be acceptable?

And the question goes further: If you assume the clothes worn is in any way a mitigating factor, you may not AGREE with the rapists claim "she was asking for it," but you are suggesting there was a REASON that the rapist COULD think that. The logical extention is to ask at what point this happens. At what point does it become reasonable to say "Oh yes, clearly somebody COULD mistake those clothes for an obvious invertation or sign of consent?"

A woman should feel free to wear a burkha or a bikini where they think it is suitable. If you don't think it is suitable, fine, say so, engage in a conversation with them. But as something that could or might encourage a sexual assault? Or a robbery if we are talking about jewellery?

Is it the symptom, or the disease that is better off being treated? Should women dress one way because of a minority of offenders? or should we concentrate on changing the attitude of the minority?

[Rubyretro]

I should be very interested to see comparative rape statistics for 'primitive'
societies -such as those tribes in the Amazon who have had little contact with the outside world- where the women walk around topless and half naked.

According to those that think that women shouldn't dress as so-called "sluts",
these women should be getting raped left , right and centre -since they clearly have their bodies on display.

I've no doubt that women are women everywhere, and they also try and look as attractive as possible to the opposite sex, and wear ornaments and paint their faces.

If they're not raped any more frequently than women in other societies, and the men have the same libidos as everywhere else in the world,
then the problem cannot be with the amount of flesh the women are showing or not.

The problem can only be with the message that a society sends to the men as to who is "asking " (i.e. deserves) to be raped or not.

So Tom is right -if the problem is the attitude (of a minority) in our society, we can move to change that. These 'slut walks' should help.

[Bob Hinton]

And again...

The usual silly comments in reply to my post. First if you are trying to equate nudity to sexual arousal I suggest you look at some of the old naturist films – works better than a cold shower. (Why aren’t women in the Amazon getting raped?)

Secondly the comments about if I had a Porsche you wouldn’t expect the police to tell you not to have such a car etc… No I wouldn’t expect that, unless of course I left it outside my house with the doors wide open and the keys in the ignition. In law you are deemed to have contributed to your loss in this case. Just try claiming from your insurance if that happens – they will often refuse to pay because you did not take reasonable precautions to prevent the theft. It’s no good bleating you had a ‘right’ to leave your car like that and the naughty man shouldn’t have pinched it. Which I believe is all the police officer was doing – suggest women take reasonable precautions.

I think it was babybird who said that I should address LTT by his proper name which is Tom Tom Kent. Well unless he had very mean parents I don’t for a moment think that’s his real name. He made up a silly name to identify himself – I made up a sillier one. Since you know who I’m talking about there doesn’t seem to be a problem.

And finally, that cry of the useless - My Rights!!!. There are many, many things we have a right to do. You have the right to tie a piece of raw steak to your arm and go swimming in shark infested waters, you have the right to pour a gallon of petrol over your head and light a cigarette, you have the right to step in front of an express train –it’s just that the more adult among us consider that just because we have the right to do something, doing it is not necessarily the best option.

I cannot understand why anyone would willingly place themselves in possible danger just to enforce their ‘right’ to do so, and shows an alarming degree of selfishness.

[babybird67]

Secondly the comments about if I had a Porsche you wouldn’t expect the police to tell you not to have such a car etc… No I wouldn’t expect that, unless of course I left it outside my house with the doors wide open and the keys in the ignition. In law you are deemed to have contributed to your loss in this case. Just try claiming from your insurance if that happens – they will often refuse to pay because you did not take reasonable precautions to prevent the theft. It’s no good bleating you had a ‘right’ to leave your car like that and the naughty man shouldn’t have pinched it. Which I believe is all the police officer was doing – suggest women take reasonable precautions.

As has been pointed out to you several times, Bob, what a woman wears does not equate to taking precautions against being raped. Women are raped wearing extremely boring clothes...jog pants and t shirts. IF you start making distinctions between what women wear you are starting to blame the victim for the crime they suffer on subjective criteria. What you might find 'sexually arousing' in terms of clothing someone else might not. So how is a woman to take sensible precautions in this way? Whose decision is it, what clothes she should wear?

I think it was babybird who said that I should address LTT by his proper name which is Tom Tom Kent. Well unless he had very mean parents I don’t for a moment think that’s his real name. He made up a silly name to identify himself – I made up a sillier one. Since you know who I’m talking about there doesn’t seem to be a problem.

Yes it was me, because it is about respect, Bob, and you certainly found it offensive when somebody called you Bobby, I think it was, because quite rightly you stated this wasn't your name and the person addressing you shouldn't take liberties with your name. Kind of hypocritcal to expect that respect afforded to you but not to afford it to Tom, isn't it. It doesn't matter whether Tom's real name is Tom, or Jerry, or whatever, it's the name he has chosen on this forum, and adding little bits designed to belittle another poster only reflects badly on you... or perhaps you'd prefer to be called Little Bobby?

As usual, you miss the point, anyway.