Reply to: Reasonable comment or Misogynistic madness?

[d000hg]

Running away isn't the issue, getting yourself targeted in the first place is. The best fight is one you never get into.

[vetran]

For those buying into the MP's babble about it being irresponsible if your outfit prevents you from running away -

would you say that a guy wearing this sort of thing



bears some responsibility when he can't get away quickly enough from being mugged/beaten up/stabbed?

Yep, its darwinism in action, you dress like a prison inmate, you get shivved. They don't look hard they look silly.

If you combined that with being rolling drunk and flashing your cash then you have an almost perfect male analogy.

The 'running away' thing is a BS point anyway. In most circumstances, when you get attacked out of the blue you generally freeze long enough for all your self-defence and escape plans to become pretty useless.

Strange in many of the life threatening situations my mouth has got me into, running was sometimes the only choice, despite being a little lardy I managed to run away.

[formant]

For those buying into the MP's babble about it being irresponsible if your outfit prevents you from running away -

would you say that a guy wearing this sort of thing



bears some responsibility when he can't get away quickly enough from being mugged/beaten up/stabbed?

Or did that not cross your minds? It probably didn't because nobody applies that rationale to men.

Of course this sort of outfit



should be pretty ideal for running away on the other hand. So is that fine then?


The 'running away' thing is a BS point anyway. In most circumstances, when you get attacked out of the blue you generally freeze long enough for all your self-defence and escape plans to become pretty useless.

[d000hg]

If there is a clear "no", then it is rape.

It seems some are suggesting there should be different levels of sentence depending on whether it is a pre-meditated attack in a park, or a woman changing her mind after an otherwise normal lead up to sex.

I disagree.

So a pre-meditated murder is exactly the same as walking in on your wife sucking off another guy and bashing him over the head with something?

[darmstadt]

That wouldn't work. Gay men generally have a much better dress sense

Damn, I must be gay then

[jmo21]

If there is a clear "no", then it is rape.

It seems some are suggesting there should be different levels of sentence depending on whether it is a pre-meditated attack in a park, or a woman changing her mind after an otherwise normal lead up to sex.

I disagree.

Muddying the waters with what a woman wears, the bloke was drunk etc, is wrong.

She doesn't want it in. But, but she did, but, but I was drunk.... is not an excuse.

[TestMangler]

And gay men should dress straight to avoid being targets of hate crime.

That wouldn't work. Gay men generally have a much better dress sense

[mudskipper]

And gay men should dress straight to avoid being targets of hate crime.

[rob s]

So all women should wear trainers / hiking boots so they can escape?

What about clothing which is aerodynamically optimised for a low drag coefficient?

Go-faster stripes?

[SueEllen]

It was discussed in this thread that a few posters including me believe dressing excessively slutty might draw attention to yourself and make the risk higher. I have no proof of this other than the belief that if what you wear doesn't make you more sexually attractive then we can close the fashion industry.

What is excessively slutty? What is the measure of it?

[SueEllen]

That's right, cause all lad mags don't have any glamorous women in cause we don't care.

Not every man thinks the same way otherwise you would fully understand things varying from why men ask silly questions on this board (I know there are some women) and why some men decide rape is acceptable.

As I said this is not a coverall or excuse for any one particular area or reason and worded badly for shock factor..

BTW if it doesn't matter what a girl wears why do parents go ballistic when their daughters go out dressed in little more than a handkerchief and make up.... safety fears above all else... they don't say it as explicitly as the news article says, hence my comments that is a tad too direct and therefore open to debate but every parent acts on the same fears to some level.

Actually my parents didn't have a problem with me wearing skimpy outfits and neither do some of the parents I know who now have teenage daughters.

What my parents had an issue with and these parents have an issue with is being drunk.

In some of these parents cases (unlike my case) the girls are only allowed to drink if they are in a place with adults they know. One guy I know who is separated from his partner use to get fed up of going out and finding his daughter was out in the same place as she would then start to get drunk.

I know from being a teenager and discussing the nasty comments that these parents made, the parents who got upset with their girls wearing skimpy clothes and make up were the ones who didn't want to think of their daughters as being sexually active even though they were above the age of consent. It didn't matter if the guy was a long term boyfriend who was as sensible and boring as they came, their daughter wasn't screwing as long as she lived in their house regardless of her age.

[EternalOptimist]

I have just come back from the bog and me poor saus is red raw. nothing is more designed to get me going than threads like this
dungarees and polo necks, phwoarr. loose fitting baggies and three sizes too big polos, oooogghh

must go to touch myself again. back in a minute

[d000hg]

How about if we employ the principle of 'reductio ad absurdem' - does it become clearer then?

"Any woman that isn't wearing a chastity belt and accompanied by two armed male (eunuch) relatives is basically asking for it...."

or

"Any woman who walks around in broad daylight is asking for it"


Does it therefore become any less ridiculous to say that "any woman who wears fewer clothes than what someone else arbitrarily defines as 'normal' is therefore asking for it?"

RaA doesn't work in all cases. This is one of them.

[vetran]

But he's mixed both side of personal accountability and put the responsibility all on one party. Being sober enough to be personally responsible for your own safety is not unreasonable. Dressing in an arbitrarily prescribed manner so that other people won't want to rape you is.

No he didn't He actually said :

‘It’s not about the impact of your clothes on a potential predator – it’s about whether the clothes you’re wearing make it harder to get away from a predator.’

It was discussed in this thread that a few posters including me believe dressing excessively slutty might draw attention to yourself and make the risk higher. I have no proof of this other than the belief that if what you wear doesn't make you more sexually attractive then we can close the fashion industry.

[rob s]

But he's mixed both side of personal accountability and put the responsibility all on one party. Being sober enough to be personally responsible for your own safety is not unreasonable. Dressing in an arbitrarily prescribed manner so that other people won't want to rape you is.

Who decides what is 'sensible'? Attitudes change. I could argue that in victorian times, being fully clothed but a dress short enough to show a womans ankles was considered provocative. Does that still hold true today? Of course not.

I'd argue that a woman walking around topless was still not 'asking for it'.