My McJudgy obnoxious observation and question

[EmseB]

There are some easy ways for young men to avoid all of that uncertainty and those kinds of dangerous situations. If you don't get drunk and/or don't go looking for casual sex, you won't have to navigate any of that terrain. Don't go to parties where everyone is drinking and getting out of control. Always stick with a friend, and you can help keep each other out of those situations. Better yet, just wait until you're married! Protect your virtue and you won't have to risk any of this mess. It's really that simple.

 

This is good advice for everyone all around.  Too bad it's seen as a joke now. Or worse, if we tell a woman these things we're uptight victim blamers.

[Guest]

There are some easy ways for young men to avoid all of that uncertainty and those kinds of dangerous situations. If you don't get drunk and/or don't go looking for casual sex, you won't have to navigate any of that terrain. Don't go to parties where everyone is drinking and getting out of control. Always stick with a friend, and you can help keep each other out of those situations. Better yet, just wait until you're married! Protect your virtue and you won't have to risk any of this mess. It's really that simple.

 

Do you even hear yourself? You pay lip service to not wanting to victim blame, but the more you say, the more you expose how you really think. You may want to dig down a bit deeper there.

Why should a young woman also not be given *exactly* this same advice to avoid problematic situations? Yet, if we (here, society in general) give this advice to young women, we are saying it is her job to prevent sexual assault.

[Barb_]

The drinking thing. When I was 15 I went to a party with a friend from school and her neighbor. The neighbor and his friend were 18 and 19 and at that time could buy alcohol legally. It was the first time I ever drank and we all got really, really drunk. Maybe it was by design that I was so trashed that the next morning I woke up thinking we probably had sex but I couldn't remember clearly, but I don't think so. I think he was just as trashed, we were having a good time and we both showed poor judgement. One could argue that he was older and should have known better but I don't know. 18yo boys still largely have kid brains.

 

I learned to stop at two if I drank at all. We stayed in touch for a few years after that. He was a nice guy and never approached me again. I think was as embarrassed as I was. I don't feel raped.

[ILiveInFlipFlops]

The woman may not be thinking she is sending a message but we need to be realistic of how it is perceived and interpreted on the other end.

We could go into complex neurological brain circuitry here but suffice it to say that not all males (some are) understanding this difference you and others outline. Yes, there is a difference but unfortunately some men don't get it. Should we teach this to our sons? Absolutely. Until every single male has understood this, some women are in danger of being misunderstood.

 

 

Yes, this is true. And again, the solution is not to police how women dress, because it has been proven time and again that how women look and dress has no correlation to assault statistics. Women are assaulted in every kind of outfit, and men who will misinterpret will misinterpret ANYTHING. 

[Guest]

This is good advice for everyone all around. Too bad it's seen as a joke now. Or worse, if we tell a woman these things we're uptight victim blamers.

Exactly. I'm outta likes now.

[Carrie12345]

Thinking young men have some things rough does not equal thinking no woman has it rough also. Not mutually exclusive.

 

Men constantly have to be on their guard lest concent is being revoked. Or maybe she is sorry tomorrow and now she thinks maybe she did revoke consent. Oh and it doesn't matter how wasted *she* gets, never can it be true that she gave consent. Sure hope *he* doesn't get equally drunk, because if he is fuzzy on consent the next morning, his whole future could be destroyed. Someone might have a cell phone video with his voice on it. (Read John Grishom's fictional work, The Associate.)

 

She can wear anything she wants, but whether or not she enjoys attention from him will rest entirely on whether or not she thinks *he* is attractive and desirable. If he pursues her because dang, she's so pretty! it can't happen unless she welcomes it and keeps on welcoming it all the way along...but not if she's getting too tipsy; then he can no longer be certain; what if she's just under the influence and tomorrow she will decide it was just "beer goggles"? And again, I hope *he* is not drinking too much because all the determination of consent rests on him, now, so he better check himself.

 

Yes, I do think that's very confusing terrain for young men now.

It upsets me that you're saying things like "noticing" and "attention", and painting pictures of false accusations in a conversation about assault. Hitting on a girl isn't assault. Not boinking a drunk girl isn't hard.

[ILiveInFlipFlops]

This is good advice for everyone all around.  Too bad it's seen as a joke now. Or worse, if we tell a woman these things we're uptight victim blamers.

 

Why should a young woman also not be given *exactly* this same advice to avoid problematic situations? Yet, if we (here, society in general) give this advice to young women, we are saying it is her job to prevent sexual assault.

 

You are both missing my point. These things and more are what women are told to do, have to do to protect themselves. If they ARE assaulted, they are told after the fact that it's because they weren't careful enough, put themselves in risky situations, didn't dress to prevent misinterpretation, left the keys in the ignition and the windows down. So if the risk young men have to bear in sexual situations is so odious, then we can just go ahead and expect them to mitigate that risk in the same damn ways. If they don't want to, then they have to endure just as many potential pitfalls and land mines as women do. Why should casual sex be straightforward and simple for men and fraught and perilous for women? Men can bear responsibility for protecting themselves too. 

Edited October 22, 2017 by ILiveInFlipFlops

[Barb_]

You are both missing my point. These things and more are what women are told to do, have to do to protect themselves. If they ARE assaulted, they are told after the fact that it's because they weren't careful enough, put themselves in risky situations, didn't dress to prevent misinterpretation, left the keys in the ignition and the windows down. So if the risk young men have to bear in sexual situations is so odious, then we can just go ahead and expect them to mitigate that risk in the same damn ways. If they don't want to, then they have to endure just as many potential pitfalls and land mines as women do. Why should casual sex be straightforward and simple for men and fraught and perilous for women? Men can bear responsibility for protecting themselves too.

Well, yeah. That's true.

[MercyA]

I wonder if anyone would find it interesting to survey a cross section of teen boys about girls dressed in various styles, with the questions being, e.g., "which of these girls seems most likely to welcome a dirty joke, an invitation to slip out behind the barn, an offer of an alcoholic drink or mind-altering drug?"  Because the girls I knew who would dress to attract sexual attention would have welcomed some or all of those things.

 

There actually have been many interesting studies done on women's dress and its effect on others' perceptions and assumptions:

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s40691-017-0101-5

Edited October 22, 2017 by MercyA

[ktgrok]

But why start wwith high school aged young women, instructing them that their clothing choices don't give any sort of message, nope, doesn't mean a thing?

 

You know who I think really has a difficult time in society now? Young men.

 

I'm not saying that clothing doesn't send a message. I think it does, and personally wouldn't want my daughter wearing such a dress because of that. 

 

But I don't think the message it sends is "rape me" or "touch me me without consent". AND I think boys know that. No boy is so dumb that they hear "no, stop" and think "but her dress is short...so I don't have to, because the length of the skirt matters more than the words she says."

 

Two different issues...do clothes send a message (and do we care) and do clothes ever say "it is okay to touch me without my consent". 

 

Consent. 

[ktgrok]

Really? You think, "Enjoy the view as much as you like, but only touch women who outright tell you they want to be touched." -- is really such a difficult rule to follow? Especially since there's also, "If you misinterpret something, you will be fully forgiven if you simply apologize and immediately back off."

 

Honestly, those don't seem like challenging rules.

 

Exactly. Again, boys are not that dumb.

[ktgrok]

No. I do not believe that and I have said so since the first post on this subject.

 

I'm saying from the perspective of a guy, if he is looking for someone that is more likely to participate in those activities, he is unlikely to look for someone modestly dressed.

 

In the book The Casual Vacancy (the one book by JKR that I hated throughout), there is one girl character from a bad part of town, bad reputation. I think her name is Crystal. So, a couple of the guys are talking about the progress they are making up the ladder towards losing their virginity and the one guy decides he's going to try to get Crystal. The other guys say something like, "oh, she's a skank, why would you go for her?" And he says, "I don't care. I wanna shag. She'll probably give it to me." And she does.

 

So no, nobody deserves to be harrased, violated or assualted. I have said that throughout. But if there are guys looking to make progress, they might just go for the Crystals of the world. They wanna shag, so they are going with the safer bet. Now - if you are (some random age older than 18) and you, in fact, are looking for a shag, too and you don't mind casual and unattatched versions of that activity, well then I guess whatever you wear is moot. But I don't think we (society we) should be telling high school (or younger) girls that their clothing makes no difference in how they will be perceived both by young men and their crotchety old parents because it is not true. Who goes out looking for casual sex in a conservative dress? Nobody I've ever known.

 

Right. They may decide that girl is more interested in casual sex. At which point, they will proposition her, and she can say no. If they continue beyond that no, that is assault, not interest in sex. Two totally different things and I don't understand why you keep equating a guy propositioning a girl with assaulting a girl. They are not the same thing. 

 

If he goes up to Crystal and grabs her then it doesn't matter if she WAS looking to hook up, it's assault. If he goes up and propositions her, then fine. No harm, no foul, she can agree or disagree. 

[ktgrok]

As far as women actually dressing to send a particular message.

 

Yes, they do.  Men do too, although I don't know if there is a "want to get laid" outfit for men.

 

But when I was in university to some extent, and certainly when I was in the army, women would absolutely go out looking for sexual partners and dress, deliberately, in such a way as to send that message in the pick-up spot.

 

You can tell young people  that clothing is not meant to send a message, but that is a pretty big risk to take with your credibility.

 

But the message is "I am possibly interested in hooking up with someone" not "anyone and everyone is free to touch me without my permission"

[ktgrok]

Thinking young men have some things rough does not equal thinking no woman has it rough also. Not mutually exclusive.

 

Men constantly have to be on their guard lest concent is being revoked. Or maybe she is sorry tomorrow and now she thinks maybe she did revoke consent. Oh and it doesn't matter how wasted *she* gets, never can it be true that she gave consent. Sure hope *he* doesn't get equally drunk, because if he is fuzzy on consent the next morning, his whole future could be destroyed. Someone might have a cell phone video with his voice on it. (Read John Grishom's fictional work, The Associate.)

 

She can wear anything she wants, but whether or not she enjoys attention from him will rest entirely on whether or not she thinks *he* is attractive and desirable. If he pursues her because dang, she's so pretty! it can't happen unless she welcomes it and keeps on welcoming it all the way along...but not if she's getting too tipsy; then he can no longer be certain; what if she's just under the influence and tomorrow she will decide it was just "beer goggles"? And again, I hope *he* is not drinking too much because all the determination of consent rests on him, now, so he better check himself.

 

Yes, I do think that's very confusing terrain for young men now.

 

That you think this is unreasonable blows me away. Um, yeah, always and forever, you have to be prepared to stop if she says stop. And you shouldn't have sex with someone other than your significant other when either of you is under the influence of alcohol. Duh. This isn't hard. It really, really, really isn't. 

[Corraleno]

The woman may not be thinking she is sending a message but we need to be realistic of how it is perceived and interpreted on the other end.

We could go into complex neurological brain circuitry here but suffice it to say that not all males (some are) understanding this difference you and others outline. Yes, there is a difference but unfortunately some men don't get it. Should we teach this to our sons? Absolutely. Until every single male has understood this, some women are in danger of being misunderstood.

Then we need to keep saying it, unequivocally, over and over, until all men (and women, sigh) do get it, instead of telling women that it's their responsibility to make sure their clothing isn't "misinterpreted" by assholes as permission to harass or assault them. Making women responsible for not getting harassed or assaulted does not make them safer. In fact, it makes women in general less safe because it makes victims less likely to report the assault, and therefore enables predators to continue.

[Guest]

It upsets me that you're saying things like "noticing" and "attention", and painting pictures of false accusations in a conversation about assault. Hitting on a girl isn't assault. Not boinking a drunk girl isn't hard.

I'm sorry to upset you; it's not my goal to upset anyone.

 

I don't know how I can word it that satisfies everybody, especially when things I am NOT saying and have never said are read into my posts. It is one reason I am not inclined to edit any post in a thread like this , lest someone think I edited out something I originally said. So my typos will have to stand now, and even my use of "on a platter," which I would retract now if I could.

 

Of course hitting on a young woman is not assault, but if the young lady decides she doesn't like this guy or he's not attractive enough for her or he said something silly that first moment he was trying to meet her, then he should (we seem to be saying as a society) just forget all about trying to get to know her because if he keeps trying to get her to respond to him, she might interpret that as "harassment."

 

My now-husband continued to flirt with me, even though I had a (total rat of a) boyfriend. He never made me feel threatened or uncomfortable, but I wonder if that would be as applicable to young people now. I told him on Day One that I had a boyfriend, yet I showed up on Day Two (even though it was raining) just to see if perhaps he would be hanging out there. So, I'm just saying that some ambiguity is not uncommon when people first meet, but it seems more land-mine-ish now because the nice guys are rightly worried that any persistence will be read as harassment.

[OrganicJen]

I don't think saying that there can be negative consequences based on how a woman dresses is the same as saying that those negative consequences have to be assault or rape.  I regret some of my clothing choices when I was much younger when I was trying to dress in a provocative way for the purpose of attracting men, because the men who I attracted by dressing that way were simply not really who I was looking for and the men who I was looking for weren't attracted to me when I was dressing that way.  For me, attracting the men who weren't compatible with me and not attracting the men I was really compatible with, was certainly a negative consequence for me personally.  I feel like a lot of people seem to think that when negative consequences of dressing in skimpy clothes are discussed that it automatically means assault or rape, but I actually feel like there are other negative consequences that have nothing to do with assualt or rape. I know there are probably women who dress in skimpy clothes because that is their personal style so it's likely that if they are dressing according to their personal taste and nothing else, that the men attracted to them may be the exact men they are looking for.  In my own circumstances, since I wasn't dressing that way because it was an expression of myself but it was for the purpose of being what I felt society taught me was universally the most physically attractive to men, it wasn't really me and so the men I attracted weren't really right for me.  I wish adults in my life and role models had had discussions with me about these issues before I had to just learn the hard way that dressing a certain way may not actually get me the right kind of attention from the type of men who I was actually hoping to get attention from.  I don't think having those kind of discussions with young women is the same as telling them that by dressing a certain way they are inviting rape and if so it is their own fault.  I think they are different issues.  

[Corraleno]

There actually have been many interesting studies done on women's dress and its effect on others' perceptions and assumptions:

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s40691-017-0101-5

 

That article totally backs up what some of us have been saying throughout this thread: despite the fact that many men, as well as some women, assume that dressing in a sexy way increases both the risk of sexual assault and the victim's complicity in it, there is NO evidence whatsoever that women who dress in a sexy way are actually more likely to be assaulted than women who dress more conservatively.

 

NONE.

 

Continuing to perpetuate the myth that the way a woman dresses increases her risk of sexual assault only increases the risk that she will blame herself, not report the crime, and not be believed if she does.

[SKL]

There are some easy ways for young men to avoid all of that uncertainty and those kinds of dangerous situations. If you don't get drunk and/or don't go looking for casual sex, you won't have to navigate any of that terrain. Don't go to parties where everyone is drinking and getting out of control. Always stick with a friend, and you can help keep each other out of those situations. Better yet, just wait until you're married! Protect your virtue and you won't have to risk any of this mess. It's really that simple.

 

 

True, but if you say those exact words to a woman/girl, you are accused of blaming the victim or being a "rape apologist" or part of the "rape culture."

 

[ILiveInFlipFlops]

True, but if you say those exact words to a woman/girl, you are accused of blaming the victim or being a "rape apologist" or part of the "rape culture."

 

 

http://forums.welltrainedmind.com/topic/661102-my-mcjudgy-obnoxious-observation-and-question/page-5?do=findComment&comment=7840548

[Guest]

Right. They may decide that girl is more interested in casual sex. At which point, they will proposition her, and she can say no. If they continue beyond that no, that is assault, not interest in sex. Two totally different things and I don't understand why you keep equating a guy propositioning a girl with assaulting a girl. They are not the same thing.

 

If he goes up to Crystal and grabs her then it doesn't matter if she WAS looking to hook up, it's assault. If he goes up and propositions her, then fine. No harm, no foul, she can agree or disagree.

You don't see the point of why he was going for Crystal to begin with. She had a rep as "easy." He didn't care if the bar was low; he was getting what he wanted. Yes, she wanted it, too. Not assault, no. (Although she is assaulted - r@ped - in that story by someone else.) The point I was making is he knew to make progress, he should try Crystal. He didn't care a thing about Crystal herself; he just figured that was the easiest way to dispense with his virginity and probably even have a reliable lay for a while.

 

I am not going to encourage my dd to "be Crystal," SWIM?

 

And BTW, these were teenagers in the book. I am not equating propositioning with assault. But I wouldn't encourage my teenager to have casual hookups; actually, I'm not a big fan of that at any age, but least of all minors. I don't hope any of my kids throw out signals that they might "be Crystal."

[Bluegoat]

But the message is "I am possibly interested in hooking up with someone" not "anyone and everyone is free to touch me without my permission"

 

No, it's not.  

 

 

However - people here are saying that clothes don't send a message.  Of course they do - people put on clothes to send a message, including a sexual one, all the time.

 

 I

Edited October 23, 2017 by Bluegoat

[Corraleno]

True, but if you say those exact words to a woman/girl, you are accused of blaming the victim or being a "rape apologist" or part of the "rape culture."

 

 

You missed the point of her post — the irony in expecting women to do all of those things as a matter of course, in order to avoid being assaulted, while feeling sorry for all the confused young men who are now expected to get consent instead of assuming than any drunk girl at a party is fair game.

[Bluegoat]

That you think this is unreasonable blows me away. Um, yeah, always and forever, you have to be prepared to stop if she says stop. And you shouldn't have sex with someone other than your significant other when either of you is under the influence of alcohol. Duh. This isn't hard. It really, really, really isn't. 

 

Um, this alcohol thing.

 

Where do you get that?

 

It's not the law, and it isn't what most people do, either.  I think it's probably wise - intoxication is correlated to crime of all kinds.

 

The vast majority of the hook up culture is fuelled by alcohol, and other drugs.

 

That isn't something men are doing to women. 

[Guest]

That you think this is unreasonable blows me away. Um, yeah, always and forever, you have to be prepared to stop if she says stop. And you shouldn't have sex with someone other than your significant other when either of you is under the influence of alcohol. Duh. This isn't hard. It really, really, really isn't.

I just wish I could make the book The Associate assigned reading for everyone. It explains what I'm saying better than this.

 

Of course nobody should be forced to do anything, they should not at any point feel they must. But this does not mean there is not a huge grey area for many people, especially such as college frat life, as envisioned in the book.

 

I would advise both my daughter and my sons that it is unwise to drink excessively or use drugs at college parties, but "we" are creating a setting where guys are expected to stay more sober than the least drunk female student or don't even be found in some setting because you could be convicted as complicit if not actually the perp.

 

I'm personally very conservative about drinking, drug use and sex, so really my advice for any of my kids follows what Flip Flops said upthread.

[8circles]

You don't see the point of why he was going for Crystal to begin with. She had a rep as "easy." He didn't care if the bar was low; he was getting what he wanted. Yes, she wanted it, too. Not assault, no. (Although she is assaulted - r@ped - in that story by someone else.) The point I was making is he knew to make progress, he should try Crystal. He didn't care a thing about Crystal herself; he just figured that was the easiest way to dispense with his virginity and probably even have a reliable lay for a while.

 

I am not going to encourage my dd to "be Crystal," SWIM?

 

And BTW, these were teenagers in the book. I am not equating propositioning with assault. But I wouldn't encourage my teenager to have casual hookups; actually, I'm not a big fan of that at any age, but least of all minors. I don't hope any of my kids throw out signals that they might "be Crystal."

 

Seems like maybe you might want to concern yourself with whether or not your child is desiring activities that you would rather they didn't, instead of being concerned about them dressing like they were interested in those behaviors.

 

Your focus is misplaced, I think.

[SKL]

That article totally backs up what some of us have been saying throughout this thread: despite the fact that many men, as well as some women, assume that dressing in a sexy way increases both the risk of sexual assault and the victim's complicity in it, there is NO evidence whatsoever that women who dress in a sexy way are actually more likely to be assaulted than women who dress more conservatively.

 

NONE.

 

Continuing to perpetuate the myth that the way a woman dresses increases her risk of sexual assault only increases the risk that she will blame herself, not report the crime, and not be believed if she does.

 

 

It also says that dress is used intentionally by women, and perceived by both women and men, to communicate sexual intent.

 

Again, to me, since my girls will be 13 in 9th grade, rape / assault is not my only or even my main concern when it comes to how they dress for a teen dance.  There are many other effects of "sexy dress" that are unwanted and that also matter.

 

Just being propositioned by a guy without expecting or wanting that.

 

Having the other girls and women as well as boys and men making comments and changing their opinion of her - "you could see her whole ass" ... "I don't want my daughters hanging out with her" ... "wow I thought she was a nice girl but" ... "let's leave a nasty note in her locker tomorrow" ... "take a photo / video on your phone" ... "I'll bet she's easy" .... 

 

I'm not a rape apologist if I tell my daughter that a certain dress can give people the wrong idea.  I would be neglectful if I didn't.

[8circles]

You missed the point of her post — the irony in expecting women to do all of those things as a matter of course, in order to avoid being assaulted, while feeling sorry for all the confused young men who are now expected to get consent instead of assuming than any drunk girl at a party is fair game.

 

Yes.

 

And the fact that telling females this advice is supposed to protect them - from people who they actually have no control over. But if males followed this advice, they would be controlling themselves - last I checked, that is a good thing.

[Guest]

True, but if you say those exact words to a woman/girl, you are accused of blaming the victim or being a "rape apologist" or part of the "rape culture."

 

Exactly.

[ktgrok]

You don't see the point of why he was going for Crystal to begin with. She had a rep as "easy." He didn't care if the bar was low; he was getting what he wanted. Yes, she wanted it, too. Not assault, no. (Although she is assaulted - r@ped - in that story by someone else.) The point I was making is he knew to make progress, he should try Crystal. He didn't care a thing about Crystal herself; he just figured that was the easiest way to dispense with his virginity and probably even have a reliable lay for a while.

 

I am not going to encourage my dd to "be Crystal," SWIM?

 

And BTW, these were teenagers in the book. I am not equating propositioning with assault. But I wouldn't encourage my teenager to have casual hookups; actually, I'm not a big fan of that at any age, but least of all minors. I don't hope any of my kids throw out signals that they might "be Crystal."

I totally did get your point. And had your original posts been about avoiding having guys hit on you or proposition you for sex, I'd possibly have agreed with you.

 

But you didn't say that, you brought up the risk of sexual assault, which is 100 percent different than flirting, or hitting on someone, or propositioning them. 

 

Saying a dress makes it more likely someone will get hit on is NOT the same as saying the dress would put her at risk of assault. Not even a little tiny bit. 

[8circles]

I think we can all agree on most, if not all, of the symptoms of living in a rape culture.

 

Clothing sends a message. I think we all agree.

 

If clothing sends messages that make us unsafe because we live in a rape culture, changing our clothes isn't even a band-aid. Frankly, I think changing our clothes just reinforces rape culture. 

 

If we aren't working to eliminate rape culture, we are part of it. Unless we can successfully eliminate rape culture, the message of the clothes will always be a problem - no matter what clothes they are.

[ktgrok]

Um, this alcohol thing.

 

Where do you get that?

 

It's not the law, and it isn't what most people do, either.  I think it's probably wise - intoxication is correlated to crime of all kinds.

 

The vast majority of the hook up culture is fuelled by alcohol, and other drugs.

 

That isn't something men are doing to women. 

 

I don't understand your question? I was referring to the idea that it was hard for guys to avoid a rape accusation. 

 

 If guys are worried a drunk girl will say they raped her, don't have sex with drunk girls. If you can't tell if she is drunk because you are drunk, don't have sex. No worries then, as far as being accused of rape. 

[SKL]

Yes.

 

And the fact that telling females this advice is supposed to protect them - from people who they actually have no control over. But if males followed this advice, they would be controlling themselves - last I checked, that is a good thing.

 

It's good advice for both genders, partly for the same reasons, partly for different reasons.

 

It's true that men commit more date rapes than women (as far as statistics indicate).

 

However, it's also true that so far, I haven't ever heard of a woman being accused of rape when both parties were drunk.  I've heard of men being so accused when there was no evidence other than that both were drunk and had sex.  I've seen women here declare that a drunk man has more responsibility than a drunk woman if they both have sex.

[Corraleno]

It also says that dress is used intentionally by women, and perceived by both women and men, to communicate sexual intent.

 

It also says that men are more likely than women to assume that a woman's clothing signals sexual intent, and that three-fourths of women who said they sometimes dressed in a body-revealing way "indicated that they did so to look attractive, not to signal their sexual intent."

 

There is clearly a disconnect here between what women are saying with their clothing choices and what men are hearing. The solution to that is not to tell women to stop wearing short skirts and midriff tops, the solution is to educate men that wearing a short skirt or a midriff top does not mean the wearer wants to have sex with you. 

 

"I don't want my daughters hanging out with her" ... "wow I thought she was a nice girl but" ... "let's leave a nasty note in her locker tomorrow" ... "take a photo / video on your phone" ... "I'll bet she's easy" ....

 

And while we're at it we should be teaching other girls and women not to be bitchy, judgmental, bullying assholes because of the way someone dresses.

 

Validating the dysfunctional beliefs of jerks is not my idea of the best way to either protect my daughter or move civilization forward in a way that empowers women and makes us all safer.

[SereneHome]

What I'm curious about is what exactly is the intent of women or girls who dress that way. When I look back to when I wore more revealing clothes in my youth, I think I was hoping to get attention from men for my looks. But when I look back now I realize that the men who I got that attention from are the ones who I later learned weren't who I actually wanted as life partners etc, and that the men who were a better match for me were the ones who were attracted to me no matter what I wore. Personally, I wish I had received better education from strong female role models about this when I was young, because I think I would have dressed differently for certain periods of my life if I had. I'm not implying that girls who dress this way are making a mistake or don't have strong female role models in their life at all, I'm just saying that I think in my own life some of my wardrobe choices were made for the purpose of hoping to be viewed in a certain way by men and I wish I had had some role models in my life who would have helped me to better understand how to develop my own fashion sense instead of dressing in a way I felt other people wanted or men would find physically attractive. So I'm curious if I'm in the minority that I regret dressing in skimpy clothes at certain times in my life and feel like I did it for the attention, or if most women who wear highly revealing clothes are actually just doing it because it reflects their personal style and nothing more. I don't think when I did it, and I'm not even talking about as revealing as the dresses we are talking about today, it was a reflection of my style, I think at that time I was hoping to be objectified and looking back I really regret ever portraying myself that way, but this may not be at all what other women feel, it's just my personal experience regarding skimpy clothes and how far they differ from my personal fashion taste, even back when I did wear them.

 

In my young, pre-children days, I had a very nice, proportional body.  I also had very nice legs.  I wore short skirts bc I thought everyone should see my very nice legs.  Girls and guys.  And yes, it was all for attention.   But not validation!  I have always liked myself, even my now-fatter-than-a-cow-who-swallowed-a-whale self.  But I certainly liked the admiring looks.

 

Thankfully, I had enough common sense and some no-so-subtle guidance from one of my managers at the bank where I worked to know how to dress appropriately for work. 

 

As I got older, my skirts got longer.

[Guest]

I'm not saying that clothing doesn't send a message. I think it does, and personally wouldn't want my daughter wearing such a dress because of that.

 

But I don't think the message it sends is "rape me" or "touch me me without consent". AND I think boys know that. No boy is so dumb that they hear "no, stop" and think "but her dress is short...so I don't have to, because the length of the skirt matters more than the words she says."

 

Two different issues...do clothes send a message (and do we care) and do clothes ever say "it is okay to touch me without my consent".

 

Consent.

I have repeatedly said I don't think short skirts say, "please assault me." But tiny, revealing clothing can suggest,"I am interested in taking things further." I don't think high school students should even mean the second message, personally, but I also think they can be not fully aware that they are sending that message, especially if "we" (society) tell them it doesn't matter one bit what they wear or how little they cover up their body parts. We should tell our daughters that a tiny skirt is inviting people (any gender) to look at our goods and see if everything is looking fine. Of course it's not saying, "yes, please assault me; I know you can't help yourself." But if you aren't trying to show how attractive your body parts are, why wear such a poorly-functioning outfit to begin with?

 

Also - this is a total aside, but I remember a few months ago, I took my kitty to the vet. I was sitting on the bench waiting to be seen when in walked a young woman with a very short dress, almost exactly like what I'm talking about here, except it wasn't dance wear; it was just summer-weather wear. She sat in the bench across from me and was doting on her little dachshund dog. The entire time she sat there, I could see directly up her dress into her crotch. I could tell you right now exactly what her underwear was like because it was perfectly in view. I debated with myself whether or not I should point out to her that I could see this without even trying. Does she want to know? Would she be like, "Oh my goodness! I had no idea that was possible in this dress! Thank you so much for telling me!" Maybe. Probably not. I said nothing. I guess she can either find out from her best friend or unwittingly flash people on the regular. Personally, I would want to know, but I probably would already have discovered it at home because the dress was small.

[MercyA]

That article totally backs up what some of us have been saying throughout this thread: despite the fact that many men, as well as some women, assume that dressing in a sexy way increases both the risk of sexual assault and the victim's complicity in it, there is NO evidence whatsoever that women who dress in a sexy way are actually more likely to be assaulted than women who dress more conservatively.

 

NONE.

 

Continuing to perpetuate the myth that the way a woman dresses increases her risk of sexual assault only increases the risk that she will blame herself, not report the crime, and not be believed if she does.

 

There were about 75 studies referenced in the article, only two of which studied the relationship between dress and sexual assault. I don't disagree with your summary, based on the details of the one study I remember seeing. However, I was also interested in the many studies on the links between clothing choices and objectification; on the effects of clothing choices on others' perceptions; and on the motivations behind the wearing of suggestive clothing. 

 

If anyone has an interest in these topics, I encourage them to peruse the whole article. 

Edited October 23, 2017 by MercyA

[ILiveInFlipFlops]

Exactly.

 

Did you intentionally ignore my follow-up post, or are you just pretending you don't see it? Because those of you who are saying this are missing my point entirely. Which is fine, I guess, but there's not much point to continuing a discussion if you're only going to focus on the people who agree with you.

[Guest]

I totally did get your point. And had your original posts been about avoiding having guys hit on you or proposition you for sex, I'd possibly have agreed with you.

 

But you didn't say that, you brought up the risk of sexual assault, which is 100 percent different than flirting, or hitting on someone, or propositioning them.

 

Saying a dress makes it more likely someone will get hit on is NOT the same as saying the dress would put her at risk of assault. Not even a little tiny bit.

I'm saying why appear to offer that if you are not offering it? It could lead to being a victim of an assault. I'm not saying, "gee, no guy could possibly stop himself." I'm saying don't display things if you don't want to send the message that these things might be offered. The guys you attract *are* those who may think you are "available" and not the decent guy who would never drop his napkin to look up your skirt. If you don't want the guy who is going to use you, don't send out a message that you might be offering these items which are being showcased.

 

I *do* think dressing in tiny, revealing clothing makes a woman a more likely target of sexual assault, no matter how many times posters here try to say it makes no difference at all. I am not saying a woman in a burqa could never be assaulted; obviously she can be and it does occur. A woman in a micro-dress is not to blame for having had an assault happen; that was what my Cadillac example was all about. But saying she is not to blame is not the same as saying she isn't a more likely target in a dress such as that one. A creep is going to be creepy on a woman who makes it easier if he can. And a creep who thinks she was sending a signal by wearing that dress is going to be the one to abuse her; that there are decent guys who would never do this is moot because that isn't the guy she attracted by wearing that dress and he's not around now.

 

I haven't seen a decent study on it and honestly, I don't care enough about it to do one now (because to me the solution is simple), but I have seen repeatedly in those articles about how to reduce the likelihood of assault as a woman, one of them is not to wear easily-accessible dresses, especially if you will be walking alone at night. Another is to carry a substantial umbrella, even if there is no chance of rain, because it can be used to fend off an attack. (Others are to walk with a friend whenever possible; walk briskly and with confidence; look around you in an alert manner. Even having keys in your hand is better than walking empty-handed.)

 

Anyway, as fun as this conversation is for me, this will probably have to be my last post on it. I am out of time and school is back in session tomorrow and I cannot afford to waste my whole day explaining what I did or did not mean. So I'm afraid some people will just have to think I'm a prudish old crotchety woman who thinks young ladies should cover their crotches by more than an inch or two of open fabric and that casual hook-ups are not really optimal for anyone.

[Cindy in FL.]

I don’t think that the way a woman is dressed EVER excuses any kind of physical assault against her will. Ever.

 

I do wonder why a girl or woman would want to have so much of her body exposed to the world at large. I really believe that private parts are for private, not public.

[OrganicJen]

I have repeatedly said I don't think short skirts say, "please assault me." But tiny, revealing clothing can suggest,"I am interested in taking things further." I don't think high school students should even mean the second message, personally, but I also think they can be not fully aware that they are sending that message, especially if "we" (society) tell them it doesn't matter one bit what they wear or how little they cover up their body parts. We should tell our daughters that a tiny skirt is inviting people (any gender) to look at our goods and see if everything is looking fine. Of course it's not saying, "yes, please assault me; I know you can't help yourself." But if you aren't trying to show how attractive your body parts are, why wear such a poorly-functioning outfit to begin with?

 

Also - this is a total aside, but I remember a few months ago, I took my kitty to the vet. I was sitting on the bench waiting to be seen when in walked a young woman with a very short dress, almost exactly like what I'm talking about here, except it wasn't dance wear; it was just summer-weather wear. She sat in the bench across from me and was doting on her little dachshund dog. The entire time she sat there, I could see directly up her dress into her crotch. I could tell you right now exactly what her underwear was like because it was perfectly in view. I debated with myself whether or not I should point out to her that I could see this without even trying. Does she want to know? Would she be like, "Oh my goodness! I had no idea that was possible in this dress! Thank you so much for telling me!" Maybe. Probably not. I said nothing. I guess she can either find out from her best friend or unwittingly flash people on the regular. Personally, I would want to know, but I probably would already have discovered it at home because the dress was small.

 

It sort of seems like for some people, that if they hear or read any words relating to how a woman dresses that are negative, they automatically go to the assault/rape issue and have a difficult time seeing any other issues related to the topic.  I think there are 2 different conversations going on here overall because of that. It's interesting.  

[Guest]

Did you intentionally ignore my follow-up post, or are you just pretending you don't see it? Because those of you who are saying this are missing my point entirely. Which is fine, I guess, but there's not much point to continuing a discussion if you're only going to focus on the people who agree with you.

How about neither? I have about 47 notifications on here and multiple PMs as well. Unfortunately, I don't have any more hours to devote to this discussion at present.

[ILiveInFlipFlops]

It sort of seems like for some people, that if they hear or read any words relating to how a woman dresses that are negative, they automatically go to the assault/rape issue and have a difficult time seeing any other issues related to the topic.  I think there are 2 different conversations going on here overall because of that. It's interesting.  

 

Not really. Some of us just don't find a peek of our underwear to be a really huge deal. I wear a swimsuit on the beach. It's essentially underwear. We're not worried about wasting time accidentally attracting the wrong kind of guy. Heck, people probably thought my husband was the wrong kind of guy! We're not terribly concerned that people will whisper about our daughters because we hope that we're raising daughters who are confident in themselves. We're not worried about their precious reputations because it's not 1955, and bullies will find things to whisper about no matter what kids wear.

 

We're worried about actual harm coming to our children, not some perception of their impurity.

[Ausmumof3]

I'm saying why appear to offer that if you are not offering it? It could lead to being a victim of an assault. I'm not saying, "gee, no guy could possibly stop himself." I'm saying don't display things if you don't want to send the message that these things might be offered. The guys you attract *are* those who may think you are "available" and not the decent guy who would never drop his napkin to look up your skirt. If you don't want the guy who is going to use you, don't send out a message that you might be offering these items which are being showcased.

 

I *do* think dressing in tiny, revealing clothing makes a woman a more likely target of sexual assault, no matter how many times posters here try to say it makes no difference at all. I am not saying a woman in a burqa could never be assaulted; obviously she can be and it does occur. A woman in a micro-dress is not to blame for having had an assault happen; that was what my Cadillac example was all about. But saying she is not to blame is not the same as saying she isn't a more likely target in a dress such as that one. A creep is going to be creepy on a woman who makes it easier if he can. And a creep who thinks she was sending a signal by wearing that dress is going to be the one to abuse her; that there are decent guys who would never do this is moot because that isn't the guy she attracted by wearing that dress and he's not around now.

 

I haven't seen a decent study on it and honestly, I don't care enough about it to do one now (because to me the solution is simple), but I have seen repeatedly in those articles about how to reduce the likelihood of assault as a woman, one of them is not to wear easily-accessible dresses, especially if you will be walking alone at night. Another is to carry a substantial umbrella, even if there is no chance of rain, because it can be used to fend off an attack. (Others are to walk with a friend whenever possible; walk briskly and with confidence; look around you in an alert manner. Even having keys in your hand is better than walking empty-handed.)

 

Anyway, as fun as this conversation is for me, this will probably have to be my last post on it. I am out of time and school is back in session tomorrow and I cannot afford to waste my whole day explaining what I did or did not mean. So I'm afraid some people will just have to think I'm a prudish old crotchety woman who thinks young ladies should cover their crotches by more than an inch or two of open fabric and that casual hook-ups are not really optimal for anyone.

I think not all creeps go for easy. Many of them seem to like what they can't or shouldn't have is more desirable iykwim?

[ktgrok]

I'm saying why appear to offer that if you are not offering it? It could lead to being a victim of an assault.

 

I *do* think dressing in tiny, revealing clothing makes a woman a more likely target of sexual assault, no matter how many times posters here try to say it makes no difference at all.

 

I haven't seen a decent study on it and honestly, I don't care enough about it to do one now (because to me the solution is simple), but I have seen repeatedly in those articles about how to reduce the likelihood of assault as a woman, one of them is not to wear easily-accessible dresses, especially if you will be walking alone at night.

 

 

 

1. Even if a girl IS offering it, as you put it, that doesn't mean she's offering to EVERYONE. Therefore a woman wanting to have sex with someone doesn't mean wanting to have sex with anyone and everyone. Guy's know that. They know that a girl might be looking to have sex, but not with them.So again, wanting to have sex, even being promiscuous, doesn't make a girl more likely to be assaulted. Guys know the difference. They really do. 

 

2. Sure, it's harder to rape a girl in jeans than a skirt, but do you honestly think a knee length dress is going to prevent rape where a mini skirt won't? I didn't see anyone suggesting overalls for the home coming dance. 

Edited October 23, 2017 by ktgrok

[Tanaqui]

I'm saying why appear to offer that if you are not offering it? It could lead to being a victim of an assault. I'm not saying, "gee, no guy could possibly stop himself." I'm saying don't display things if you don't want to send the message that these things might be offered. The guys you attract *are* those who may think you are "available" and not the decent guy who would never drop his napkin to look up your skirt. If you don't want the guy who is going to use you, don't send out a message that you might be offering these items which are being showcased.

 

So, human beings aren't products, we aren't "on offer", and the only people who see a short skirt and think "yeah, that girl won't mind if I grope her" are bad people. They'd say the same thing to justify groping somebody in jeans and a parka. People don't "ask for it".

 

How about, instead of policing young women, you stop and call out those guys who "drop their napkins" and say gross things like this? If they get enough pushback, they'll stop. But you! You're defending their disgusting attitudes!

 

As far as "oh, poor men, they might get accused of rape if she's drunk" - well, it's easy. Don't drink and drive, and don't sleep with intoxicated people either. If you can expect your child to understand the first rule - and I imagine we all do! - then you can expect them to understand and follow the second rule as well. People who are intoxicated enough to be "confused" the next day are not capable of meaningful consent - and you're not likely to be tricked into thinking they are, either. That's as likely as thinking a 13 year old is really 19. Maybe they look like it from a distance, but once you've had a five minute conversation with them, it's clear that they're not. (That's rule number three: Talk to people for five minutes before you take it somewhere more private.)

[Corraleno]

I'm saying why appear to offer that if you are not offering it? It could lead to being a victim of an assault. I'm not saying, "gee, no guy could possibly stop himself." I'm saying don't display things if you don't want to send the message that these things might be offered. The guys you attract *are* those who may think you are "available" and not the decent guy who would never drop his napkin to look up your skirt. If you don't want the guy who is going to use you, don't send out a message that you might be offering these items which are being showcased.

 

I *do* think dressing in tiny, revealing clothing makes a woman a more likely target of sexual assault, no matter how many times posters here try to say it makes no difference at all.

 

THIS. IS. NOT. TRUE.

 

Quote from an actual published research study (Moor 2010):

 

"The results demonstrate a gender-based attribution gap wherein men report perceiving the sexualized look as indicating an interest in sex and intent to seduce, whereas women cite their wish to feel and look attractive as its primary cause, while entirely rejecting the seduction claim. This gap is examined in the context of the current widespread sexual objectification of women and the social construction of female beauty in sexual terms, as well as the finding that in reality there is no connection between style of dress and sexual victimization of any sort."

 

Continuing to insist that women who wear skimpy dresses are (1) "sending a message" of sexual availability and (2) are more likely to be sexually assaulted does nothing but perpetuate rape culture. Why would any woman want to continue to perpetuate these myths???

 

Do you insist on believing these falsehoods because you take comfort in the belief that "modest" clothing will protect your daughter? That as long as she doesn't wear clothes that "advertise" her sexuality, men will know she's a "good girl" and leave her alone? This is delusional.

[ILiveInFlipFlops]

There is so much screaming in my head. I have no hope that we will ever make real progress if even women still view sexual violence from these perspectives.

[Murphy101]

Why should a young woman also not be given *exactly* this same advice to avoid problematic situations? Yet, if we (here, society in general) give this advice to young women, we are saying it is her job to prevent sexual assault.

I absolutely do give that advice to both my boys and my girls. Not because I think it means they deserve or would be "asking for" anything, but because I want them to keep their wits about them should a predator target them. I don't think it makes one bit of difference as to whether a predator would target them, I think it *might* give them more of a fighting chance. But if the one night they have a beer and their friend leaves before they do someone takes advantage of that moment? Not my kid's fault and no they did nothing to make themselves targets.

 

Predators hunt prey, not because of how the prey looks, but simply because they see prey.

[bolt.]

The idea that people should clothe their bodies a certain way in order to prevent their bodies from being the target of criminal activity and personal injury through sexual assault *is* a strong component of how rape culture is defined and identified.

 

"Rape culture" is the correct label for that sentiment.

 

In cases where the sentiment actually reflects the truth of the culture, that's rape culture. In cases where the sentiment exists, but the facts of sexual assault do not concur, it's still rape culture because the sentiment itself is identified as a cultural belief.

 

Dressing safely in a rape culture, or dressing in a way that builds the perception of safety in a rape culture is not a solution for rape culture.

 

Identifying the skirt length of teen formal wear as an idea that has any connection whatsoever with sexual harassment and assault indicates that these two ideas are indeed connected ideas within this culture. If we had a non-rape culture, that idea would have occurred to exactly zero people. It seems to have occurred to a lot of people.

 

Those people seem to think that dressing more safely would decrease assaults. That plan will never change our culture.