Absolutely no one deserves rape, and there is no excuse. The question that is in my mind is: why dress in a manner that intends to draw (sexual) attention from everyone around you in shithole bars and night clubs? It's not asking for trouble, but it does send a message to everyone that sees you that you want attention and you want that attention in a sexual manner. Upper thighs, chest, ass, etc. exposed or nearly so. Idk.

Women dress to be looked at, not to be touched. When a woman is only allowed to be looked at, she has the power. As soon as touching is involved, the man's superior size/strength means he now has the power.

Correct.

... You answer your own question Bullitt--to draw sexual attention. That's easy.

But to extend that line of thought, the attention can lead to lots of things. One thing it could lead to is a conversation about sex. "Hey, you're hot. Wanna fuck?" "Yeah!" Probably not rape. That sexual attention, that sexual conversation *REQUIRES* consent. No consent, no sex. Even if there is penetration. Attention seeking and attention giving isn't a crime.

Have you ever seen a woman who drew your sexual attention? You probably didn't rape her. There's no connection. No more than the woman who's wearing slacks and a sweater (or her pajamas or anything else) has in some way, *any* way acted to contribute to being raped.

For the record, I don't think you're suggesting this line of thought, though others have said it or implied it. Whoever hold this idea, they're wrong.

If dressing to partially reveal your knockers/thighs means you're up for it, does that mean that everyone who's ever mooned someone is up for buttfucking?

Well, we would have to ask Sheldon if that's what it's suggesting to him. :p:

The cop in the OP must have missed the class about rape being a crime of violence.

Having said that, I think this is another good spot for this picture. ;)

funny pic!

However, I think it's more likely that the cop in the OP *HAS* been exposed the facts about rape being a crime of violence, but doesn't buy into it. "You better not dress that way!" What total bullshit. Does he tell people with nice cars "Fool! Drive a beater instead if you don't want your car stolen!"? Does he tell people with wood frame houses "You're asking for arson." Such... I'm at a loss here... "ignorant" is inadequate. Such wrongness baffles and infuriates me.

If rape is a crime of violence, not of sexual desire, then any conversation about what anyone should or should not wear is moot. The cop in the OP IS ignorant. Yet, we are discussing the very issue of clothing choice as if it has any relevance whatsoever, which lends it relevance. Protesting too much and all that.

A girl can be a ho-bag all she wants. Her ass can hang out of her shorts and her tits can be stuffed up into her botoxed face. I might think it shallow and stupid, but that's just my opinion.

But the subject of forcible rape is not up for discussion or interpretation. It is rape. It is a violent crime. It has nothing to do with fashion or looks or age or any of the million things society points to in an attempt to define any particular woman.

I just think this is a bad analogy. Certainly an issue when buying a car.
Insurance on these cars is also more because of that statistic, and others.
What is necessary are some, ANY statistics or correlation with a women's dress and rape.
If there is something, then we can address that.
No matter what, it shouldn't matter and men should be able to control themselves.
If not, then those people should sent to ZippyT's chipper.

Here's a statistic for ya. For every percent that a woman reduces the amount of clothing she wears, my naughty bits increase a percent. That's what cold showers and internet pron are for. Rape is not an option.

I'm sorry you don't think it's an apt analogy. I heard it over and over this weekend. The idea that the VICTIM was complicit in anyway in the crime is what I'm trying to draw your attention to here. Time and time again I heard stories of women who heard from authorities, prosecutors, police, bystanders, bloviators, whomever, that said, implied, *decided* that the woman's actions, or dress, or state of intoxication, or location or presence.... that the woman was in some way responsible for what happened.

You can't really be telling me you've never heard "She was asking for it" or "Look at how she was dressed--what was she thinking?" For fuck's sake, the woman's clothing is considered EVIDENCE. It's treated as an integral part of what happened.

Look, there IS NO CORRELATION. Except in the minds of people. When you hear a news story about a gang rape, it always goes woman was gang raped. No talk about "Fourteen men assaulted a woman". The focus is on the victim, and not on the perpetrators.

You tell me. What culpability does a woman have in the case of rape?

I'm sure (I fucking hope and pray) your answer is a simple and unequivocal "None.". But there are a lot of people who offer a lot of answers to such a question. Every other answer is wrong.

I don't want to derail this talk "defending" my analogy. My point is that the victims of such crimes bear no responsibility for the criminal actions of the rapist. Just like the owner of a nice car isn't responsible for the actions of the car thief.

ok - in that context, I agree.

The part I was getting to was that if you buy the most stolen car on the market, one shouldn't be shocked if the vehicle is stolen. It is in this context where I believe it does not apply as I don't agree that a woman is "asking for it" based upon how she dresses.

I have a lot of different thought swirling around in my head on this.

The relationship between a criminal and their victim is complicated. I'm talking about all crimes here, not just rape. We all have locks on our houses and cars. If we don't lock our stuff up, and if it gets stolen, will insurance pay if we never lock our stuff up? If I walk alone, listening to my iPod, in the nasty crime ridden drug neighborhoods of DC late at night, and get mugged, was I being stupid?

The criminal is always 100% responsible for the crime, and the victim is 0% responsible, but we all do stuff to a certain degree to protect ourselves from being victims of crime.

After a bunch of horrible crime in a big city, often citizens will stage a "take back the night" sort of an event where they march around in a big group to assert their right to walk around unmolested in their own neighborhoods.

I think this "Slut" walk is a similar thing. I think women have the right to wear anything they please and not get raped. But I also think there are bad guys out there. I don't completely know how their lizard brains work, but I think some of them will rape a woman they find desirable and are able to get alone, and they may find "sluts" more desirable than others. Those "sluts" are 0% responsible for getting raped and the rapists are 100% responsible. But there is probably a correlation between certain behavior and becoming a victim of crime.

Don't believe it? Then why do self defense programs tell people to pay attention to their surroundings? To act alert? Criminals don't tend to choose alert victims. Criminals make decisions based on a person's behavior when they decide if they are going to attack them. Dress probably plays a part in it for some rapists.

Perfect. Thank you.

Slutwalk Seattle was an awesome, awesome experience. I'd encourage anyone who has an upcoming Slutwalk event coming to their area to go. I was humbled by the stories I heard from the various speakers.