to think that 'modesty shorts' are going to lead to trouble

[RainbowsStars]

A hypothetical young woman isn't wearing any under a shortish skirt. She goes out and is sexually assaulted. The defense know this. She is then considered to have 'asked for it' just as women used to be (I hope it is used to be) because she chose to be 'provocative' by not wearing the modesty shorts that have become a standard item for females wearing dresses and skirts.

I have a son so I was quite surprised when I heard of modesty shorts. apart from in school I can't see much of a reason for girls to wear them really.

The only thing that's going to lead to "trouble" is the hypothetical man who decides he can sexually assault a hypothetical young woman against her will.

Anything else, any value judgement whatsoever on what she was or wasn't wearing is victim blaming, pure and simple.

I've never even heard of modesty shorts ...ate the majority of women really wearing them?

Is there a link to a picture of these modesty shorts...? Is it just another name for granny knickers?? I now wear these: glad nothing bad happened in all those wild thong-wearing years when I was clearly asking for it...

Do you think no-knickers and thrush could be taken in mitigation??

What the hell are modesty shorts?

It doesn't really matter what they look like, does it? It still makes no difference whatsoever whether our hypothetical young woman was wearing modesty shorts, a diamante thong or nothing but Chanel No 5 under her short skirt. The only thing to blame for the sexual assault would be the man (or woman, I suppose, if it were a hypothetical predatory lesbian) who carried it out.

Are you sure they are modesty short and not some kind of spanx type thing?

OP In spite of the flag are you in America or American? The spelling defense makes me wonder.

I ask because that line of argument would so get nowhere in an English court today - whatever might have been in the past, which is another country - that it would not even be run and would be slapped down by the judge if it were. Of course if from the evidence it became clear that she was wearing nothing under her skirt and the jury took that attitude off their own bat, and acquitted the defendant because of it, there would be no remedy for that; but counsel for the defence could not suggest it.

Never heard of them

Agree with the first reply. Assault is entirely the fault of the person carrying it out. What someone is or isn't wearing is irrelevant. This is like this thing about primary school girls being told to wear cycling shorts under their summer dresses in case boys see their pants isn't?

No, obviously, SignYourName, it doesn't matter at all what the hypothetical assaultee is wearing. But the very suggestion is so ludicrous that I'm currently choosing to keep my mighty feminist outrage in reserve and my stress levels down

Yes, totally agree that it is the fault of the person doing it.
They are cycling shorts worn under dresses/skirts.

oh fgs OP what are you on about

Rape is about power, not depending on underwear style.

If a woman were to walk through a street naked, any assailant would still be punished as such.

By your logic any woman in a swimming pool is fair game.

I used to have navy gym knickers in school. Kept your arse warmer when forced to run around a lacrosse pitch in winter in ridiculously short skirts.

Do modesty shorts come in thermal?

Apart from anything else modesty shorts are not a standard item

Of course modesty shorts wouldn't stop an oral rape - perhaps taping our mouths shut would help too?

OK, I think they (the shorts) are pointless and not at all necessary, however I do think they may cause problems if they become common with some men thinking that women who don't wear them are in some way 'immoral', not our generation but if girls are being brought up to wear them then boys will come to assume that 'nice girls' wear them?
All a load of rubbish as attitudes go and the feminist in me hates the thought that they may develop those attitudes.

Surely if the abuser was at the point where he could see her underwear, the assault is already underway? So the shorts would be irrelevant. or am I missing something? How big are these shorts?

Also, no way would it ever be a defence.

no one wears these, no one has heard of them this is a NON ISSUE

Cycling shorts, just above the knee. A few friends get their daughters to wear them whenever they wear skirts.

Are we sure they're not being paraded as an assault defence when actually it's about sucking in your thighs...??

If I'm squeezing in my legs, bum and tum, does that make me extra moral...???

The only people I've heard of wearing modesty shorts are a handful of girls at the top end of primary school who are self conscious about showing their knickers when playing on the field. Do adult women really wear them? Even if they did I can't see anyone arguing hat wearing 2 layers instead of three is 'asking for it' even if they believed in the 'asking for it' defence.

OP

NO THEY DONT

Never heard of them, they can't be that ubiquitous as I'm a woman, and have a dd. Now I've googled them and seen that you can buy them in Asda for school. I hope to never buy anything for dd called 'modesty shorts'. Not a great message to give little girls.

I think these shorts embody victim blaming.

I think a badge saying "no rape tonight thank you" would offer similar protection in that case.

We could have them with glow in the dark pink glitter!