She was asking for it.(130 Posts)
Sorry to post and run (am knackered) but it looks like a good time for this one to be taken out for some fresh air.
What you wear and how much you drink has little to no effect on whether you'll get raped.
Elaborate, please ...
Like to see cites; I'm aware that most rapes are by men known to the women - as most paedophile attacks are within family.
While I'm happy to stipulate that is the case, I've always known there are places to avoid if you want to avoid violence.
Is there any evidence to suggest that location/risky behaviour has no impact on the likelihood of rape?
HereBeBolloX mentioned some stuff about this earlier - suggesting I had a look at The Gift of Fear highlighting never ignore or override your gut instinct, even when you feel stupid for not ignoring it. A man who makes you feel unsafe or uncomfortable, shoudl be treated with caution
I'd agree with that, but say that's merely part of the same continuum?
To say what you wear affects the likelihood of you being raped is complete bull. I've said it before, and I'll say it again. If there was a direct correlation between lack of clothes and likelihood of being raped, then, hell, beaches would be one of the most dangerous places on the planet.
To say men are more likely to rape if you're wearing a short skirt also takes human nature away from men. It implies that men are little more than animals with no control over their instinct. It also takes away the reason men rape. It's not because of sexual urges, it's because of a desire for power.
As for location being a factor... Well, if that's the case, the most dangerous place for any woman to be is at home, in the presence of a partner, ex partner or male friend.
I'm very cautious these days, perhaps too cautious, following my relationship with my ex, and a previous sexual assault. Every attack that took place was either by someone I considered a friend, or the man I was supposed to marry. So yeah, now I find it hard to trust anyone, that's what the "trust your instinct" motto has done for me.
What you wear has absolutely no bearing on the likelihood of you being attacked. Neither does your level on inebriation. Although conventional 'common sense' would certainly have us believe that that is the case. It helps the society and individuals to blame the victim as it give them a false sense of power to avoid such acts themselves.
If you believe that the way you act is at least partly responsible for your treatment, then you can prevent these horrible things from happening to you. IYSWIM?
As for location, I would love to see stats, but would guess that there is similar dynamic at play here. And further more serves to keep women controlled in the home environment, isolated from the world.
That said, I think it is imminently sensible to avoid any man, group or situation that makes you uncomfortable or feel unsafe. But that would go for men and women.
Herbex made some really great comments on the other thread about this. I do hope she posts here too.
If we agree that most women are likely to be raped at home and by someone they know then what are women supposed to do to 'protect' themselves from being raped? The answer is they can't which is one of the reasons it is never ever a women's fault if she is raped.
OneMoreChap, I'm interested in your question:
"Is there any evidence to suggest that location/risky behaviour has no impact on the likelihood of rape?"
Which locations, and most importantly, risky behaviours are you referring to?
I was watching 'tough love' the other day
and one contestant who was on there she did show I suppose very dodgy behaviour I was very unsavoury tbh , but he said you'll either end up raped or with an STI :O
he could have said something in a much better way, I was like wth
There is masses of evidence that "risky behaviour" as you call it OneMoreChap, has no impact at all on rape - except the risky behaviour of rapists.
Thousands of women go out every saturday night in tiny teeny skirts and get pissed out of their heads, vomiting on the pavement, crying into their drinks, declaring undying affection for their best friend/ barman/ pet rabbit and most of them don't get raped.
If risky behaviour were a factor, all of those women would get raped every week.
The ONLY factor in whether a woman will get raped or not, is if a man decides to rape her.
I used to go out with 3 men when I was young and abroad every week clubbing. We'd all get trashed. Then we'd go back to tehir place where we'd all crash out. Not once did I get raped, because NONE OF THOSE YOUNG MEN WERE RAPISTS. If one of them had been, I would have been raped. My behaviour had nothing to do with it - their's did.
I don't know-I'm keeping an open mind about this. Part of me thinks that of course the choices people make about what they do is going to affect what happens to them, so it is in fact nonsense to say that rape cannot be avoided whatever a person does; for example, locking oneself away in a safe room with a lifetime's supply of food and never letting anybody else in is going to stop anybody else meeting you and, by default, rape will be avoided- an extreme example, I know.
Similarly, if a rapist is on the street corner and the woman decides that the walk to the shop can wait she will, by default, avoid being raped.
Just as the people who decided, for whatever reason, to not go to the twin towers on 9/11 avoided getting killed.
BUT there is a difference between avoidance and fault.
If a woman does meet a man intent of raping her - and I mean they have to meet physically; things like clothing are unlikely to make a difference as it is about power and not sexual urge.
Just as anybody with sense says about the twin tower victims: 'Wrong place at wrong time' it is the same case with rape victims: 'wrong place, wrong time'.
Just bad luck and whatever a woman wears and how much she has had to drink has nothing to do with it.
The only evidentially significant link between rape and alcohol is how much the rapist has drunk - not the victim. To commit a rape, the rapist has to want to do it - the victim's location/dress/alcohol consumed has nothing to do with it.
I didn't know there was a link between alcohol consumption and rape on the rapist's part Pan.
Or are you referring to a rapist drinking so much that he would be physically incapable of getting an erection therefore rendering himself unable to rape?
no no - the rapist must wish to rape - the function of alcohol is to lower the level of 'internal inhibition' to actually commit the act.
Ah, I see. That's very interesting, thanks.
Just quickly googled this, albeit from a 1991 study in the U.S:
"Alcohol use by the victim or perpetrator is frequently
associated with acquaintance rape. In one study, 26 percent of the
men who acknowledged committing sexual assault on a date reported
being intoxicated at the time of the assault. An additional 29
percent reported being "mildly buzzed," Thus, a total of 55
Percent were under the influence of alcohol."
Rape is a matter of aggression, and the effect of alcohol on men is often to raise the level of aggression. ( it may also be the same for women, but here we aretalking of male aggression on females).
On reflection, it may seem counter-intuitive to say that it doesn't matter what she wears/does/drinks etc, because we are provided with a consistent line of media output which says 'it does', because this can then be relied upon to 'control' the actions of women ( can't go there/wear that/do that).
What we do KNOW about rapist's thinking and behaviour is that all of that stuff is irrelevant.
I do hate this comparison of 'risky behaviour' wrt rape on the part of women and gender neutral 'risky behaviour' wrt mugging/ gettig beaten up. It completely disregards the fact that rapes tend to happen in private between people who know one another whereas muggings and random drunken beatings happen outside between strangers. When people repeatedly make the comparison between taking steps to avoid one and taking steps to avoid the other, they are inadvertently reiterating the rape myth that rape happens down a dark alley.
Oh God, have you really not read up on this subject garlic? Its not a good time for this one to be taken out for some fresh air. It has been chewed over as much as the fucking parent and child parking spaces/ear-piercing/sweets at school threads.
bbh does that make this a subject not worth discussing then?
I found this really interesting and I wondered if anyone could elaborate on this issue. In the breastfeeding in prison thread last week, it was stated again and again that a breastfeeding woman who might show some breast or even a flash of nipple in a room full of sex offenders who would not have been "starved" of sex for many months if not years was in an extremely risky position. A few posters had worked in prisons and said that as female officers they were forbidden from wearing clothing which was revealing or showed cleavage, for their own protection.
Now, I can understand the reason for the dress code which seemed to be avoiding intimidating comments more than anything else, but the breastfeeding mums being more at risk I didn't really understand. Is this just a case of rape myths pervading in culture, or is there something else which I'm overlooking?
breast-feeding in prison visits being risky? Utter bollocks. Besides, a lot of the 'highly-sexed' prisoners will be fucking each other.
Prison-officers wearing 'revealing clothes'? I think it's the same as 'on the out' - doesn't really have an impact on assaults - may avoid 'staring' and a few lewd comments, and complaints of being 'prick-teasers' - but I am not a female prison officer.
It is entirely rape myth perpetuating Bertie and it pisses me off, and it is part of the whole sexualisation of breasts and breastfeeding and objectification of women.
i think the problem is that there are two separate issues:
"she was asking for it"
"she was asking for it" is rarely used when describing someone who is taking socially-accepted risks - walking home after work across an unlit, wooded space on your own at night when there have been reports of stranger rapes in the area. instead a phrase like "what was she thinking"/"acted foolishly" is more likely to be used IMO if something does happen, both of which - while judgemental - are more about the actions relating to that specific incident.
"she was asking for it" tends to be used when people disapprove of a woman's dress/attitude/choices. so a woman who has consensual, protected sex in the men's toilets of her local pub with men that she knows well isn't really participating in risk-taking behaviour but people who disapprove of her actions would use a phrase like "she was asking for it" if that woman was then raped.
I disagree that it's the wrong time, bibbity. It can't be restated too often - until everybody finally gets it!!
Rape myths keep a tight hold of us because they permit the illusion that women have some control over whether to be raped or not. It's a lie. The only people who control it are men who rape.
I was hoping HerBex would show up, too. If not, I'll copy and paste from some of her posts. I have a wealth of verified stats about rape and will fish out some of the strongest for this thread (and post some of my experiences.)
OneMoreChap - your daughters will reduce their risk of being mugged if they don't stagger down dark alleys, drunk and in heels. This has nothing to do with their risk of rape. The odds of their mugger being also a rapist are exactly the same as the odds that their local shopkeeper is a rapist. Rape is a specific crime of hate against women, not an opportunistic one like theft.
Join the discussion
Please login first.