Interviews with men convicted of rape of strangers, have shown that some of these men avoid women who make strong eye contact, because it increases the chance the woman will be able to recognise and identify the attacker if criminal proceedings take place.
So let us look at that: strong or weak eye contact, 1 or 100 years old, short skirt or niqab, dead or alive, human or not human, makes no difference to the incidence of rape......it is almost like it has nothing to do with the victim at all AND EVERYTHING TO DO WITH THE MAN RAPING.
Compare social systems: Capitalist uber-profit seeking society that pushes hyper sexualisation of the female body whilst constantly working to divest us of our agency. Versus a society that dictates that women be completely clad and be escorted everywhere by a male because again, they are not allowed agency. Women in the latter are not 'protected from' rape to a greater extent than in the former.
If men cannot help themselves due to testosterone, let us talk about how to sort men out then.
Don't talk about women making "informed choices", a hemline is not a shield.
How sad so many on this thread treat sexual violence as inevitable as the rain, and so if you get soaked, it is your responsibility because where was your umbrella, why did you go out in the rain in the first place. Isn't that bizarre to accept violence on such a level? Where is the discussion about men and their responsibilities? If they are so at the mercy of their 'nature' then let's talk about zoos for them then, as a PP said, or blinding them when they reach 18.
If you think putting men in zoos or blinding them sounds extreme, it really is! It is ridiculous, almost as ridiculous as discussing what women are wearing in the context of a discussion about rape. Almost.