Ladies. Would you wear this outfit to walk through a city?

[RainWithSunnySpells]

Long, stripey socks, shoes, tail (I don't want to know how this is attached) and a bag. Yes, that is the whole outfit and it was worn in Seattle USA, not at Pride, but on a normal day.

I hadn't really intended to cause a discussion about what women should wear or if they should be able to walk down the street naked, however, that is forums and it is an interesting tangent. For what it is worth, I do think that all women should be safe to walk down a street regardless of how much or how little they wear.

I guess my point (which I apologise for not making clear) is that the outfit in question comes across as fundamentally male to me. Now this could be that I would never want to wear such an outfit in private, let alone in public and that I would personally feel exposed, self-conscious and yes, I would feel unsafe in it on a very instinctive level, even if I was completely alone. So, maybe I have some hang-ups - but even just the thought of falling over on tarmac with that few clothes gets to me (ouch!) - which maybe says a lot about me and my experinces?

I wondered if many biological women feel the same or not?

As I said, this just comes across as a very male (pornified AGP) outfit to me, especially with the wearing it in public and 'tail' elements.

As I said, it's just so male.

It's male - but i suspect that's a societal male thing not a fundamental male thing
Can't see it appealing to DH for example !

Wouldn't last 5 minutes in many places I know so not especially safe for men either.

Morally and philosophically, I agree, women should dress how they please and their state of un/dress not attract assault. How a person is dressed should never be used to diminish an offence committed against them...

That being said, in real life...

A. I recognise that I would feel uncomfortable, if the person in front of me was wearing only knee length socks and a bag. I would likely assume this was fetish wear and I was a 'bit part' in someone's fantasy. If I comment I become more than a 'bit part' I become a supporting role.Which would make me feel violated and a bit cross. So in essence my only action would be to internally disapprove, avoid,hide....

B. there are things i do to keep myself and my property safe...to protect me from unwarranted attention or car theft. BECAUSE I know my house/car insurance wouldn't pay out if i left my door unlocked or open even if the contents were stolen. Insurer would likely argue i had invalidated my insurance. And I suspect any officer investigating burglary or theft from a car in these circumstances would give me a talking to about security. I don't see why similar judgement wouldn't be applied to protecting my person from violation?

The cognitive dissonance is strong..and no, I wasn't surprised to see it was a chap in socks and bag...see above fetish and violation. Neither are traditional in women's behaviour.

Because B suggests there is a correlation between what a person wears and sexual abuse - there isn’t. There are no statistics to back this up. If there were, then your point might stand, but sexual abuse occurs regardless of clothing, so what you wear is entirely irrelevant and wearing a big coat won’t stop someone attacking you as much as wearing a bikini down the road will encourage it.

That’s not how sexual abuse works, so saying that it’s the same as locking your car - it isn’t. Because when people are raped and it isn’t done down to clothing. Unlocked cars are helpful to spontaneous car theft yes, but slight clothes don’t affects rapes. Rapes are down due to other factors.

So it’s an entirely moot point that people keep making.

Also its utterly disgusting that in your last point you say that you would expect any officer to bollock you if you were a victim of car theft and you left it unlocked - you’re insinuating that an officer should rightly not support a rape victim if she was scantily dressed, or at least portion the blame on to her, and that a rape victim who may have been scantily dressed would deserve a talking to.
That’s absolutely disgusting and you’re part of the problem.

I remember that documentary about the Leeds red light district a few years ago where they interviewed some drug addicted sex workers and I always remember one saying it didn't matter what she wore, she would go out in trackys or pyjamas and get as much business as when wearing the clothing more associated with street workers.

I wouldn't personally but I would still strongly stand up for any woman who chooses to do so.

If she is compelled to do so because of the actions of someone else or her own mental health that is another matter and clearly sensitive help is required.

In either case, what someone chooses to wear should not be seen as an invitation to criminal or even just unkind behaviour from others.

But we know that rapists choose victims based on likelihood of them being believed - so women with MH problems and alcohol/substance abuse issues are more likely to be assaulted, because rapists consciously choose them as less credible in court.

A woman (or man) walking around naked screams MH problems, because it is not remotely normal behaviour. And just as with sex workers, a woman choosing to walk around naked is going to be less likely to have a jury believe beyond reasonable doubt she didn’t consent to sex (often interpreted as “beyond any possible shadow of a doubt”). Police are less likely to take it seriously. CPS are less likely to proceed with the case.

I’m not saying that is right, but “she consented” is basically the only defence rapists have in the days of DNA evidence, so you know that is what they are going to say, regardless of how ludicrous.

None of that means the woman was asking for it or deserved it. I would say the same about any woman behaving in a visibly “odd” way - being publicly drunk, obviously mentally unwell, etc. Rapists pick on women like that much more often than they pick on eg a nurse in uniform. Because a nurse is a hugely believable jury-friendly angel.

Yeah I fully agree that in court what a woman was or wasn’t wearing is totally irrelevant and doesn’t come in to it. There is no such thing as provocation to sexual assault.

That being said, walking round naked like this could give predators the impression you are vulnerable, mentally unwell or inviting attention, and increase your chances of being a target.

They may not have the moral high ground, but certainly some predatory men would see this person as a target. And while you are right in saying it should make no difference that you’re naked except for a tail dildo sticking out of your bum, all that’s academic if you get attacked. (And in which case the naked-with-tail outfit once again is not relevant in court – it doesn’t diminish the guilt of the attacker.)

Besides all that tho, it’s kind of unfair on other people to walk round in a public place like that, particularly if you’re involving them in your own fetish. Like flashing, it would make people uncomfortable and is not acceptable.

But I wouldn’t appreciate a man walking up my street (un-)dressed like this either.

In most public places it would not be legal and would not be considered acceptable.

Then that's the point you should have made rather than this disingenuous thread. 🙄

I lived in an area of a European city with a large Turkish population a few years back, and was surprised to find myself jeered and hissed at when I wore a denim skirt and vest top (was a 40 degree summer – and I was not someone who wore particularly ‘sexy’ or revealing clothing).

What I found striking about it was that there were zero fun or flirty vibes to it – just out and out hostility, a mix of ‘ew’ and sexual aggression.

The thread is not disingenuous.

It is such an obviously male situation IMO, that I thought that the women on here would instantly recognise it as such and say that no, they would not go out in that outfit because they are not a porn-soaked man. I have learnt a lesson about being much clearer.

This does not mean that the thread did not have interesting posts with good points, even if they were not what I expected.

I suspect that's exactly how this man's pink 'tail' is secured to his arse too.

Some fair points there although not sure I understand the hostility. Did I say I expected police officer to bollock me? I think I was clear that I recognise my own cognitive dissonance here. Women should be able to move in the world freely, dressed as they please, experience however makes me more cautious.

I wouldn't blame any victim of sexual assault, and I'm sorry if my post has given impression to the contrary. The perpetrator is always to blame.

I absolutely agree, rape is not well understood or discussed, and is used to instil fear in women. However, we risk invalidating the impact of sexual assault if we measure incidents of sexual assault only as it relates to rape.

Objectively, OP description of a barely clothed person in a public place. I'd suggest there is risk of sexual assault, perpetrated by a stranger, and SA is more likely than rape (for the reasons you have indicated). However, fear of rape and death in a sexual assault is utterly reasonable... fear is extremely powerful, and can reach across a lifetime and through generations.

It is human to pass on knowledge, hopefully to empower, and sometimes to acknowledge powerlessness. So 'having a word' is not necessarily judgemental.

Would it be shockingly inappropriate that someone might wish to protect a lone partially clothed woman, in reasonable fear that left alone they may be vulnerable? Not offer a phone, or a lift home? I know i would worry in that scenario, and I'd be happier to check she's OK rather than assume she'll be fine. But...if she accepted my support i might struggle to bite my tongue, i may ask questions, and if I thought i had something useful to say, I probably would.

Spiking drinks has increased in our area... I suspect these victims are carefully selected and minimising vulnerability was worth thinking about with my children. I suggested a host of things that may promote security, buy time or will draw attention. And yes this did include wearing tights! alongside other suggestions re holding your head up, having keys to hand, make clear plan with a female peer. Crime prevention, or Police officer may have far more useful advice to offer in this sphere than me frankly.

As an aside, back in the day, if I was cornered, or noticed I was uncomfortably intoxicated I would retreat to loos give myself a minute to get my head straight, get some help and make a plan....sadly I don't feel i can share this advice any more.

@RainWithSunnySpells sorry, OP: I think your point was clear from the start, and I think you are right. This person you mention is clearly a fetishist (male in this particular case). I answered to some other comments and got derailed 😅 IMO the limits between freedom of expression and societal expectations are always interesting topic of discussion.
But yes, I also believe it's obvious that no (sane) woman would walk (un)dressed like that. And if she did I'd consider her mentally unwell. If I came across a man like the one you describe, I'd assume the same plus he's potentially dangerous.

Seattle is fucking grim. I couldnt get out of there fast enough.

lots of men parading their fetishes and using women’s spaces along with massive homeless, drug use and a general undertone of not being safe. But also very wealthy and very expensive.

I would guess a butt plug rather than a dildo

No, it wasn't a but plug

It was an actual dildo he'd managed to attach to his outfit

Dirty bugger

I don't understand your reaction to the previous post: I guess we don't interpret it the same way, it didn't come off as "disgusting" or victim blaming to me at all.
I see we all agree here with the fundamentals: A) the perpetrator is THE ONLY culpable in a sexual agression of any kind and under any circumstances, and B) there are serious problems with the administration of justice for the survivors of sexual violence.
However, this conversation happens on many different levels (moral, legal, pragmatic...): trying to paint "practical" advise, of the kind any mother would give to her daughters, as immoral and part of the problem presents as mutually exclusives perfectly compatible points (e.g: believing rapists are always to blame for rape, and also believing there's room for protection strategies).
You keep talking about statistics: I admit I was talking more intuitively and don't have the numbers. But I'm sure the statistics are schewed towards the most common kind of sexual assault: the one commited by family members/spouses/close people. In these cases, obviously it doesn't matter what you wear.
The fact that what you wear (according to your sources) has statistically no correlation with being a potential victim of sexual assault doesn't mean that in reality there are circumstances that favour attacks by strangers: I'd like to know the statistics on that. I bet the victimology is very different in the cases where the perpetrator is a stranger (which is what most posters are thinking about in this thread IMO).

People shouldn't have the right to treat clothes as optional. There's a difference between someone wearing a miniskirt versus long trousers and someone wearing nothing on their lower half at all and exposing themselves. There are and should be rules about minimum standards of decency in public spaces. We all live in a society, not on an uninhabited island.

Ah ok, I thought you meant it was ‘in’!

I cannot seem to find a photo of this outfit. But it seems like the kind of thing she often wears.

It's pretty nuts. And honestly quite tacky and not even that artistic. But is it really his choices rather than hers?

Has anyone even attempted to keep statistics on what clothes correlate to being sexually assaulted? It would be very tricky to do it I suspect. If no one has, then the fact that they don't exist tells us nothing. It could be true, or not, you can't conclude lack of information means something is not the case.

However - there es this school of thought that is very invested in the idea that sexual assaults are distributed randomly across the population and having nothing to do with sex as such. That is clearly false, they are heavily weighted towards young women under 30.

I don't quite understand the argument that we should not say that something like clothing, or I suppose location, etc, could affect the likelihood of being assaulted, because that would mean people might blame the victim.

That amounts to saying, it doesn't matter if it's true or not, we won't say it even if it is true because it might lead to conclusions we don't want people to make.

That is never a wise approach.