to think there's no item of clothing or lack of that puts a woman at risk of sexual assault?

[countless]

i was just listening to 2 women and a man on r4 discussing the upcoming slut march, the name makes me cringe but i get the idea behind it...
the consensus of the 2 women was that women should be aware that what they wear has an effect upon other people that they is out of their control...

the male presenter very wisely didn't comment.

am i alone in thinking this is profoundly depressing? do people still think that it's womens clothing or lack of that encourages sexual assault??

why don't people realise that any woman or girl is at risk from a rapist and that no one is 'asking for it'. which is the message i take from discussions on womens clothing

Yes but the repercssions for rape are getting the feeling of power over someone, getting away with it and sometimes managing to exert that power even more by humiliating their victim in court (if it even gets that far), then for life the victim will be reminded they are a victim while the rapist gets to celebrate getting away with it.

Not much discouragement is it?

If there was only one book with "Why men rape" in the title, and it was searcheable, I wouldn't be asking you.

I agree there, xstitch. But then there's the risk that if a woman reports the rape, the attacker will then have his name tarred. There's the risk of prison. There's the risk of vigilante attacks.

There needs to be an improvement in the way the courts deal with rape.

Just the whole thing. How everyoone deals with rape.

See, words are important! Especially getting them right and
in the right order.

greenlime - good points and well taken. What you said is very much along lines of the kinds of debates I used to see in my classes.

Again apologies for discussing a horrible crimnal act in such a way but I really think society's perception is a massive barrier to getting to grips with this because, after all, our police, judges, juries do reflect society.

Your point about 'avoiding flying' is exactly analogous to telling women not to go out at all.

Your analogous point about MM is again pointing to absolute risk avoidance by not going out at all.

I DONT think we should be telling women not to go out.

Well...if your opinion is that women bring it on themselves with skimpy clothing, and my opinion is that there are academic works which have put that myth to bed 30 or 40 years ago, then I would invite you to consider the fact that my opinion is evidence-based.

Did I say that?

You still haven't answered my only question - do you not know the answer?

How do men select their victims for stranger rape, if one accepts that clothing is not a factor?

My point Peanut was to highlight the fact that a woman should not have to live in a world where the responsibility lies on her shoulders to prevent herself from being raped. The responsibility should lie squarely on the shoulders of the potential attacker to NOT RAPE HER.

It is dangerous to say "she could or should have done this or that" because it makes the victim implicit in her own attack. It creates a scape goat, even if only to a slight degree.

Energy should be focussed on how to stop the attacker, not highlight the possible faults of the victim that may have led to her rape. Otherwise rape will always be seen as something that could have been prevented by the victim as opposed to something wholly imposed on the victim by her attacker through no fault of her own IYSWIM.

I can honestly say I don't think that the names of those accused of rape until they are found guilty. Women who do lie about rape are disgusting and do rape vuctims a great disservice.

TBF being falsely accused of rape would only be a fear for innocent men. Not really a deterrant for an actual rapist as the power they can exert is far greater.

Hmmm, so I raise my point about potential children victims again...

Yes, they cannot be blamed, but should the mother adopt the attitude that a potential paedophile shouldn't abuse her children?

Or should she do what she can to protect her children, including acting on any suspiscions she has.

And if the latter, then why not have the woman apply that to her own safety? Society will always find a way to make adult victims implicit. I'm not saying it's acceptable. I'm just saying women could find ways to safeguard themselves.

It's only a small minority of women who lie about rape. A very small minority. And I agree, they're disgusting. But to me, if I hear a man has been even accused of rape, it does affect my perception of him. I avoid him, even

The answer is not in that book - and you know that!

What's the problem with admitting you don't know the answer - is it because you would have to countenance that clothing might be a factor?

What motivates a rapist (according to that book) is not the same as what cause them to select a particular victim.

They may always select a particular age group - for example, the south London stalker only attacked the elderly. He was sexually aroused by older people. This is a known fetish.

If you imagine that sexual arousal or attraction has no part whatsoever in rape, you're mistaken

I know that's not the point of the OP, PH, but this is in response to those who say that they shouldn't have to protect themselves from rapists, they should be able to know they won't be attacked.

You wouldn't let just anyone into your childs life, and rely on them being a decent enough person not to rape your child, would you?

but peanut as I said that is only a problem if they are innocent. If they are rapists then thet deserve to be avoided.

Greentown You do seem to be adopting a bit of a straw man argument here, focusing on one small aspect of PrinceHumperdink's post and trying to tear it to shreds, rather than address her points as a whole.

WRT the OP, simply put, no. There is no one thing, or no range of things anyone can do that can ensure they won't get raped. There is nothing anyone can do to minimise their chance of getting raped which doesn't seriously impinge on their freedom of life. That means that by saying 'if you did this, you would be less likely to be raped' you are implying that anyone who doesn't do those things is inviting rape, which detracts from the blame being squarely placed with the attacker which is where it should be.

With that, I am bowing out for a bit to play yet another endless game of Monopoly. Play nice kids and try not to let this hit 1,000 posts before tea time so I can come back and spout some more please and thank you.

Haven't had time to read whole thread but one point I would like to make is don't you think the rapist does a risk assessment before attacking a person

What is the risk I will end up in prison
What is the risk her family will come after me
Will she be able to fight back
Are we in a area where people will ring the police if they hear a woman screaming.

If the police arrest me what is the likelyhood I can flip the blame on her does she look like she would be up for it. Whatever it was.

I believe rapists to be calculating evil cowards who will work a situation or a set of circumstances (what your wearing, where you are, if your pissed, can they pretend their your 'friend') to their advantage.

Rapist know exactly what their doing why their doing it is irrelevant to the person their attacking.

But Peanut abuse of that kind and the intricacy of the situation create a different set of dynamics to a rape where an attacker or attackers rape a victim without third party involvement.

Of course a parent should do what they can to protect a child from a sexual predator, but then how can you act on something if you are unaware the danger is there.

You highlighted your own situation earlier and I sympathise. I was in an abusive relationship for a few years and know what you mean about hindsight and the signs I wish I had spotted. But at the same time, many abusers or potential attackers may not show any of these signs that you speak of. My ex did not do anything remotely abusive till we had been together a year or so so I had no way of sensing it was coming. Many situations like this can occur, it is not always as simple as looking out for signs because they are not always there.

I think date rape is a good example of this. The dynamics of a date where flirtation and being alone together as well as sexual contact possibly taking place without actual penetration can blur the lines on whether any signs were there. The woman could have been happy and relaxed with what was taking place until actual sex became involved. Then if she says no and it is ignored and the man penetrates her it is rape. But where should she have seen the signs in a scenario such as this one IYSWIM?

you are assuming all rapes are the same, they arent

Ah g'wan, one more quickly before I go.

DCMP I can honestly say that assessing whether someone is a paedophile is one o the last things on my mind when I am deciding i I should allow them to be a part of my child's life. I am far more concerned with their general behaviour and what sort of influence they may have on my child, than the minute chance that they may be a sexual predator. I do teach my children that they have possession of their own body and are allowed to dictate to others what level of contact they deem suitable, and to encourage them to speak up if they are uncomfortable with the level of contact someone is using with them. This includes the kid down the road who is a hugger, when my son is not and dislikes the feeling of being restrained that a hug gives him. I simply think that my child should be allowed the right to decide for themselves what contact is welcome and to feel confident in rebuffing advances that are not welcome, and that they should feel secure that there will be consequences for those who try and overstep the mark after being asked not to.