How girls and women dress in western countries *MNHQ adding content warning for SA as requested*

[Hadmysay]

It's an interesting conversation

www.tiktok.com/@danielle90sbaby/video/7501747121238936854

www.tiktok.com/@meetthealis/video/7503903907920317718. Is this unfeminist to feel like this or do they have a point?

Both sexes dress up to go on the pull.

So you've changed your tune from saying nobody can possibly know the intentions of why somebody dresses a certain way?

You seem overly focused on trying to apportion blame when that's not really what I'm discussing. To give an analogy, it's not wrong for somebody to wear a Liverpool t shirt. However, I wouldn't suggest doing it at night in certain areas of Manchester after they've just lost a game.

Nobody is responsible for what other people do to them but there are things that draw male attention which I'd probs not do if I didn't want it. Similarly, I'd not walk through Lewisham at night flashing a Rolex even if the person that nicks it is the criminal. I'd rather not lose the Rolex!

For me the critical difference is the distinction between unnecessarily hiding ourselves from men and alternatively not going out of my way to dress in a fashion that is specifically intended to titillate men. A burkha is obviously very restrictive. However, a tight top emblazoned with the logo 'Hello Boys!'....how could that ever be interpreted as anything but titillating? I wouldn't wear it if I didn't want to draw men's attention.

I mean, if it's not sexual then what's the issue with young girls wearing this type of stuff? Why are posters saying they wouldn't let their underage daughters dress that way?

@CocoChaneI You've admitted that sexual assault goes deeper than clothes and that predators are responsible for rape. I'm not sure what you're still arguing for.

You seem overly focused on trying to apportion blame when that's not really what I'm discussing.

You're accusing me of doing exactly what you've been doing all along; apportioning blame.

You're still doing it. If someone walks through a crowd of football supporters with the wrong T shirt, it's not inevitable that they're going to be attacked. Nor are they responsible for being attacked.

The court doesn't say, "Oh well, what did they expect. Innocent!" There's something called criminal responsibility and it begins at 10. A ten year old can be held responsible for their behaviour because they know right from wrong.

If a ten year old gets it, a grown man certainly does. Everyone knows that it's against the law to sexually molest people. You're responsible for your own actions.

If someone steals from you, it's them who are in the wrong.

However, a tight top emblazoned with the logo 'Hello Boys!'....how could that ever be interpreted as anything but titillating? I wouldn't wear it if I didn't want to draw men's attention.

You seem very easily 'titilated'. If a man walked down the street in a tight T shirt with "Hello ladies." apparently you'd have to be held back from humping his leg. Others seem able to control themselves and don't see a flash of skin as an invitation to act like Benny Hill.

Why are posters saying they wouldn't let their underage daughters dress that way?

Because they're not adults and children shouldn't dress like adults.

I was recently listening to a podcast about rampant paedophilia in all boy's schools. Oddly their clothes weren't mentioned once.

But you're confusing theoretical arguments and ideological situations with actual reality. That's my point.

At the point you're getting your head stomped on by a load of drunken football hooligans your last concern will be whether you should've been OK wearing that shirt whist walking past a notorious Man U pub. We have to assess risk based on what is likely to actually happen. It doesn't mean the perpetrators are any less in the wrong. It's just common sense.

Answer me a question.

Why do you lock your door when you go out? If you don't then why?

This false equivalence never works because women and girls can’t lock their bodies away. No matter how much they hide it, men know they’re female and that’s enough. You can’t lock your mouth, boobs,vagina or arse. You can’t put them in a safe. You can’t leave them behind.
This is what people like you don’t seem to get. Or maybe you don’t want to get it. Fair enough, it is a scary realisation that yes, it could happen to you.

@CocoChaneI

@CocoChaneI

But you're confusing theoretical arguments and ideological situations with actual reality. That's my point.

No, that's my point. You haven't provided any evidence whatsoever to show that women are solely attacked because of their clothes. You're just stubbornly arguing that they're responsible for other people's behaviour.

You've already admitted that predators are responsible for their own behaviour and that sexual assault goes deeper than clothes.

At the point you're getting your head stomped on by a load of drunken football hooligans your last concern will be whether you should've been OK wearing that shirt whist walking past a notorious Man U pub.

My point was that you aren't responsible for being attacked, the attacker is. The perpetrator knows it's illegal to attack people for wearing T shirts, despite their sporting affiliations.

We have to assess risk based on what is likely to actually happen. It doesn't mean the perpetrators are any less in the wrong. It's just common sense.

I don't know how many times this has been said but you're at risk because you know the perpetrator or you're in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Women are raped by men they know, rarely strangers. Predators don't care what you're wearing. We know this because in reality victims aren't all wearing revealing clothes.

Those men who were drugged and raped weren't all wearing cod pieces and leather chaps in order to titilate rapists. Women who are raped aren't all in heels and nipple tassels.

Although I'm sure you're about to introduce me to reality and present evidence to the contrary.

Women who are raped are more likely to be raped by someone they know.

Yes but why do you lock your door?

So you're going to avoid the question?

OK, would you leave your handbag or purse sitting on your car seat in full view of passers by if parking on a quiet street?

I was demonstrating the inanity of the question.

You seem to be suggesting that the only way women can be safe is if they're locked away, despite the fact they're more likely to be raped or assaulted by the person they're living with.

So you aren't going to answer the question?

Would you leave your purse sitting on your car seat in full view?

Or we could ask a different question.

Why are so many women afraid to go running at night?

I did answer the question.

a. You can't lock women away as they have lives to live.

b. Women are predominantly attacked by people they know such as friends, colleagues and spouses.

c. You seem to be suggesting that it's 'common sense' for women to take responsibility for men's behaviour and limit their lives to accommodate predators.

d. Please provide evidence that predators are solely attracted by clothes.

OK, can you direct me to the post where you specifically stated whether you'd leave your purse on the car seat, or where you stated why women don't go running at night?

And it's nothing to do with 'locking women away' btw.

Why are you talking about locking things away and putting them out of sight if it's got nothing to do with locking things away?

I specifically stated that it's an inane question.

So would you leave your purse on the car seat? It's a simple question.

It seems you've run out of arguments and I'd be very interested in that evidence. Whenever you're ready.

https://sbaproject.org/what-were-you-wearing/

My rapist was my husband. It was an act of violent ownership. Nothing to do with what I was wearing.

I'm not saying it will stop it but im certain it will decrease it in England and possibly the usa significantly. Especially if you include it with other measures.
I think a lot of people think because I think having tighter laws might be a good thing it means I think it will stop it completely which I have never claimed.

Tighter laws are of course a good thing. Sexual predators basically get away with assault because we do such a bad job of prosecuting them.

I'd like to see better street lighting, fines for sexual harassment and misogyny made into a hate crime.

And your the one happy to encourage children to dress provocatively so it seems like you need the lecture. As I said before if a man said he's happy for children to wallaround half naked and said it's a right of passage for 13 year olds to do it he would rightfully be labeled as a nonce.

Gosh. Someone who's been blaming women for assault and saying children dress like prostitutes and are sexually provocative is yet again putting their foot in their mouth.

I don't know how many times this has been said but you're at risk because you know the perpetrator or you're in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Women are raped by men they know, rarely strangers.

One might argue that you are more likely to attract the wrong type of men when you dress provocatively so you might attract them when you are walking around with everything on show but they might attack you 6 months down the line when you are wearing a Hoodie. Remember abusers very rarely show their cards straight away.
That's how you should look at things.