My brother said... (about dress code and rape)

a reply to: geezlouise

lol, No. I don't believe I've ever encountered becore this thread, and I haven't said a single word to her on here. It's just... I'm not the most articulate man, and she has some very strong points that she worded much better than I could. So... I keep referencing her posts and putting my two cents in where I can.

originally posted by: Anaana


No worries, I'd rather wait for a coherent reply to the specific points, namely these comments that you made in your initial post...


The way you dress and make yourself appear speaks to others. It tells of what you feel like today, what you are looking for. Why dress extremely provocatively if you are NOT in the mood for sex?

Okay now I can try again, for the what? Fourth time?

This is an exercise in considering non-verbal communication. In the psychology soaked dialogue I grew up in, this was common vocabulary, but lately I have seen it doesn't seem to be a subject many people consider. It is refering to the messages we send out into the world through our movements, our facial expressions, tone of voice, way of dressing, grooming, and even things outside of the others conscious awareness (like heart rate, breathing, persperation...).
Studies show these things all interact with others in ways we are not even aware of, but that impact peoples decisions, feelings and actions.

Some of that is relevant here in the part of the OP concerning considering oneself a victim, over a long period of time, after an event. "Victim" gets across through non-verbal communication.

It is also relevant in the common idea of ones ways of clothing and grooming as a form of self expression.
It sends off signals in more or less conscious ways, to others- about your personality, your mood, your intents for the day, etc. Apparently the concept is not very common in current American culture. It is an interesting thing to experiment with if one is interested in observing the differing effects appearences have on others.

It is relevant in my point about integrity. Integrity is a state of being "whole" or undivided. It is a conscious effort to reconcile the ambiguous and contradictory states of thought and emotion within. It is being coherent, inside and out; in appearence and in act. This gives a person much personal power as they develop it. They become less likely to have experiences they do not choose (and more likely to have experiences they do).

Was that clear enough?


This is a very simple question that men can't help asking. Why put out an image of your intents and emotions that is false?

What is confusing about this? Let's see.. The question is simple, and it is to provoke thought. The answer is for YOU the reader to give.

Do YOU have a reason to fool or mislead people around you about what you intend to do?

I dont need to know your answer to that, it is posed in order to inspire thought and introspection for young people.
It is not a complicated question.

But no, it had NOTHING to do with "punishing victims" or "justifying rape"... it is an exercise in thought about ways a human might influence their own life in positive ways, being less victim and more powerful.

a reply to: Bluesma

But all of that is your subjective judgement, based on the standards that you value. It has nothing to do with rape. Different people have different standards and modes of dress which they use to express themselves. Just because you do not approve of someone's mode of dress, or it doesn't meet the standards that you expect, the assumption that they are dressing to advertise their sexual availability is your projection upon them, and it still does not have anything to do with rape. What is and is not "sexy" is completely subjective and it is not your business to impose your morality on others.

originally posted by: Bluesma
This is a very simple question that men can't help asking. Why put out an image of your intents and emotions that is false?

Why even presume to know what the intents and emotions of another person are without having the common decency to actually verbalise and ask that question of them themselves? Why would you assume to know the thoughts and feelings of another woman? Why would you project your thoughts and feelings onto them without any understanding of who they are and what they want to represent?

Look with your eyes not your fingers. If you want to know something, ask. Lessons most children should know by the time that they leave nursery school. If someone is expressing themselves overtly, I find, they are usually quite eager to bend your ear about it. But using your body to express yourself is perfectly normal behaviour, being unable to differentiate between looking and touching, is not acceptable behaviour, which is why we teach it to our children at such a young age.

originally posted by: Bluesma
Some of that is relevant here in the part of the OP concerning considering oneself a victim, over a long period of time, after an event. "Victim" gets across through non-verbal communication.

I never mentioned anything about being a victim in the OP. The OP is about the misunderstanding that dress code can invite or prevent rape. But you've made it clear that you are un-sympathetic of people who are victims of crime. Un-sympathetic, and generally lacking a basic understanding of the underlying psychological impact that crime has.

Honestly bluesma I wasn't going to say anything to you but you really do think you have a lot to say, don't you? And I can't stop myself now that I'm on a roll so I'm going to have to give you the straight skinny. And here it is, this is what you are really saying with every novel length post you enter (and it's really not much at all):

You are jealous and angry that anyone else might gain pity or sympathy for being a victim of crime(maybe because you yourself was once a victim, but no one gave you sympathy for it). And you also come off being incredibly invalidated, and you're desperately trying to be heard and gain control and you put up this appearance of being strong and you give us all so many words but really you're small, and scared, and deep down inside you're just screaming for some acknowledgement.

And there it is, I acknowledge you.

Takes one to know one.

originally posted by: Anaana
a reply to: Bluesma

But all of that is your subjective judgement, based on the standards that you value. It has nothing to do with rape. Different people have different standards and modes of dress which they use to express themselves. Just because you do not approve of someone's mode of dress, or it doesn't meet the standards that you expect, the assumption that they are dressing to advertise their sexual availability is your projection upon them, and it still does not have anything to do with rape. What is and is not "sexy" is completely subjective and it is not your business to impose your morality on others.

For one, I am refering to putting thought into whatever is the most common reference in the culture you live in.
Not what I will think of it, and what it will bring to mind for ME.

I walk around naked in nudist camps - in that environment, it is understood by those present that there is no expression of sexual desire, arousal or intent. But I would not walk around that way in bar in Los Angeles. The message would be different because the environment is different.

I made this point already, of course.

It is up to the individual to pay attention to the environment, the local culture, and what shall be communicated to those present.

Where I am presently, for example, the OP's example of nudity would not even be comprehended by the people here as she meant it - because they feel full nudity is not sexy... it is sexy when there is intimate parts hidden, but perhaps promising potential slips or glimpses. Everyone goes topless on beaches, it is not sexy. But if you put on a push up top and jiggle it in front of a man, that speaks more of an effort to communicate. Nude is just how you are, putting on something to exagerrate certain parts shows your effort to a certain means.

I suggested putting thought into yourself, and your relationship with your environment. The language between the two is yours. I only suggested to use it with integrity.

a reply to: geezlouise

I feel like I never got to be a victim so when people talk about how they were once in the "victim" mentality but got out of it and now act like heros because they didn't want to be the "victim" anymore? I just feel pissed off about it because what's wrong with being a victim when you're actually a victim? I say that's more than ok, it's appropriate. But people just act like you're a baby when you're legit just a victim of crime. And if you're getting raped and decide you're not a victim? Then it's not rape. So I just want to say... we should be allowed to be the victim. Yes. It's ok to be a victim. It's not ok but you know what I mean. It's appropriate. It's what happens sometimes. Let's stop denying it.

This is yours.

I gave you some explanations why some people decide to stop being victims. If you don't want to, fine, that is your perogative. At least understanding WHY they make that choice could make it easier for you to live with your differing choices without that being uncomfortable for you.

You are quite simply mistaken, my dear. But that is expected - you are young. You shall have more experiences, and you might even , one day, decide to stop being a victim, stop relying upon the sympathy you can stir up in others.
But even if you don't, that's fine, because there are always people who want to uphold and keep victimization a part of this world, and the villains the heros need the victim to play those roles.

But that paradigm is not all there is.

a reply to: Bluesma

And I also noticed that you always, always talk about your life experiences at any chance you get. Which is fine and all, I think you should write a book about yourself. But here? It comes off being... idk, like you're desperately constantly trying to prove something.

And again with the walls of text as though the value and importance of what you have to say positively correlates with your word count. But it doesn't and so much of what you say... actually makes me feel bad inside. So I don't want to read any of it.

I get it though I really do. And we all do it. I do it all the time. Takes one to know one.

a reply to: Bluesma

All irrelevant and simply a reflection of your values. Which is fine, but I do not share the same values, I do not make moral judgements about people based upon their appearance, and I do not presume to know what they are thinking without asking and under European law, it would be discrimination for me to do so. What someone chooses to wear in their free time is a choice that is protected by law, nudity by contrast is a public order offense in most European territories, except in designated areas, mostly due to health and safety standards though, but if a man or even boy, has no problem controlling themselves on a nudist beach, why would they have difficulty doing so just because someone adds a little skirt and a tiny-tee? I don't see the rationale. One rule, rape is wrong. No excuses. Beyond that it is up to the courts to decide if there are mitigating factors. People can follow rules on a nudist beach, they can follow them in wider society, surely?

What a woman wears is never an invitation to be touched unless expressly invited to do so. Not at all ambiguous. This conversation is not about abuses of the system, it is about the mistaken belief that the way in which women dress is an advertisement to be touched, this is the point of view that you espouse in the your first post. It is incorrect, it is bigoted and it is judgemental. You can choose to wear what you want, that is your choice, afford others the same courtesy without the need to judge them, perhaps?

originally posted by: geezlouise
a reply to: Bluesma

And I also noticed that you always, always talk about your life experiences at any chance you get. Which is fine and all, I think you should write a book about yourself. But here? It comes off being... idk, like you're desperately constantly trying to prove something.

And again with the walls of text as though the value and importance of what you have to say positively correlates with your word count. But it doesn't and so much of what you say... actually makes me feel bad inside. So I don't want to read any of it.

I do prefer to stick to what I know and keep it partly "subjective" so that people can disregard it if they want and need to. I also use such discussions as an opportunity to analyze myself. I have the distinct impression that when we use modes of communication that do not include the physical presence of another person, it works like Freudian therapy - projection is strong and unavoidable (because your body is not getting that non-verbal feedback).

So I get as much out of it as I can. I also get shorter and more succint with time, as I have explored at length a subject, and figure out how to express it more succintly. This particular subject, I haven't taken part in discussing at length before. You'll see, it will be cut down next time and easier to read! ......it also gets a bit more powerful though; concentrated, less easy to twist.

originally posted by: Bluesma
You shall have more experiences, and you might even , one day, decide to stop being a victim, stop relying upon the sympathy you can stir up in others.

When a child is abused and cries out about it, it is not in my heart to point my finger at the child and accuse him/her of manipulating everyone around them to have sympathy.

When something bad happens, we should be concerned and have sympathy. We should be sad, and angry about it. And the day we all decide not to be sad about things that are sad... will be the saddest day. Because then we'll all resemble you.

But even if you don't, that's fine, because there are always people who want to uphold and keep victimization a part of this world, and the villains the heros need the victim to play those roles.

As long as there is crime, there will be victims. But if you wanted to change the paradigm and make rape, murder, and theft legal? Then that would greatly reduce crime rates and also it would eliminate the means for people to define themselves as victims. But even then it wouldn't change the psychological impact that such criminal behavior has on people in general.

originally posted by: Anaana
a reply to: Bluesma
but if a man or even boy, has no problem controlling themselves on a nudist beach, why would they have difficulty doing so just because someone adds a little skirt and a tiny-tee?

I don't understand your question. On a nude beach there are guards around, and anyone making any gestures sexual suggestions is physically removed. It doesn't matter what you are wearing or not.

I was talking about communication.... what different types of clothing and behavior communicate to different people in different cultures. ??

One rule, rape is wrong. No excuses. Beyond that it is up to the courts to decide if there are mitigating factors.

We are in agreement.. but what does that have to do with what I wrote?

People can follow rules on a nudist beach, they can follow them in wider society, surely?

Those that can, will. those that can't will not be on nudist beaches. If you have body guards with you while wider society, they will not be able to act on their pulsions either (not against you anyway)

What a woman wears is never an invitation to be touched unless expressly invited to do so.

Just make sure you make that very clear to the people who are mentally sick, to those that are mentally challenged, and wracked with the kinds of problems our different types of rapists here have.

Some of those tend to not get that principle.
It is not a question of prosecuting rapists, that is beyond question. It's just common sense for preventative effort.

originally posted by: geezlouise

When a child is abused and cries out about it, it is not in my heart to point my finger at the child and acuse him/her of manipulating everyone around them to have sympathy.

You are not a child.

a reply to: Bluesma

You are not cool.

Adults who are victims of crime have my sympathy. As well as adults who experienced childhood trauma.

a reply to: Bluesma

ok straight up question

If a women dresses scantily clad and is sexually assaulted at a club....what percentage of fault do you lay on the attacker and the victim?

a reply to: [post=21693138]Anaana[/post

What a woman wears is never an invitation to be touched unless expressly invited to do so. Not at all ambiguous.

That and "no means no", are two of the most common misunderstandings that many people have about rape. Oh, and that consent means being of sound mind and with the conscience ability to say "yes", that can be very ambiguous.

My job is patient centered. My total concern is focused on the needs of the patient. I do not judge guilt or innocence, truth from lies, or embellishments. I am so very grateful that that is the job of the judge and the jurors. But I can't tell you how many times I have heard other members of the response team make comments that insinuated that the victim was at least partially responsible, because they had too much to drink, trusted a stranger, were using drugs, or were dressed scantily, or provocatively.

It would be wonderful if people showed the same respect and understanding they would want others to show them. It would be wonderful if people just accepted people as people and did not judge them on standards based on societal bias. We don't live in that world. We live in a world where people are judged by how they look, on what they wear, how they speak, by the color of the skin. We are imperfect people in an imperfect world. We can do better, but we have to be aware of the problems we face if we are going to ever be successful in resolving them.

a reply to: NightSkyeB4Dawn

and the weird part of this is that we are rocking and rolling with new ways to protect and defend. Nail polish to detect drug. guns. mace. personal weaponry. anti-rape female condoms.

This is all fine...but what are we doing for prevention from the attacker's side? Because that in and of itself is a sign that we are still placing the burden on the victim. It's essentially saying that you, the victim, need to protect yourself.

So what's the deal? We blame the victim for the attack. We blame the victim for the resulting trial. We blame potential victims for not "preparing."

So there it is....and after all this...MAYBE the attacker will get DOC time

If that isn't a signal of a sick society, then I am not sure what is

originally posted by: Bluesma
Just make sure you make that very clear to the people who are mentally sick, to those that are mentally challenged, and wracked with the kinds of problems our different types of rapists here have.

If someone who is mentally ill is not properly assessed or is found to be a danger to society, it is the responsibility of that society to protect that person, and the responsibility of that persons carers to make sure that they are not able to harm another person. That is part and parcel of what 'civilisation' means, you cannot claim that someone is mentally unfit and then hold them culpable for their actions. Just as you cannot with a minor.

That still does not imply a connection between what someone wears and their likelihood of being raped. I do not stop crossing the road simply because I am more likely to be hit by a bus by doing so. Why should I wear a longer skirt simply because I may one day encounter a rapist when it is more likely that I probably won't, I like the short skirt better than the longer one, why should I change because of what someone might think?

Being a rapist is a choice. Why should I respect that choice by adapting my behaviour? I can take due care and attention definately, but that shouldn't extend to allowing the fear of getting raped to dictate how I choose to express myself when my mode of expression is perfectly within the law and is accepted behaviour in my peer group?

When people suggest that rape victims are even tangentially responsible, to any degree, for their horrific experience and assault, my brain automatically says... "Translation: The victim is at fault for the inability of the rapist to control their disordered impulses."

Which is blatantly untrue. The fault always lies with the one committing the act. People wear various clothes for all sorts of reasons, and there are several logical fallacies in assuming those choices are responsible for their assault.

1) The presumption that wearing the revealing clothes was intended solely to entice or titillate others. People wear clothes - all kinds of clothes - for myriad reasons. To assign blame to a victim predicated on assuming what was in their own mind and what their intent was is neither logical nor ethical imo.

2) The presumption that even IF the intent was to entice and titillate others, they are then somehow at fault. There is a difference between, "I'm going to wear this because I think it looks attractive," and, "... therefore I hope someone tries to get down my pants." Obviously the two are not automatically synonymous and are removed from one another by orders of magnitude. A person has the right to make themselves what they hope is attractive to others, without being raped, or threatened or mistreated in any way, shape, or form.

3) The presumption that if the clothes worn did entice or trigger some disordered impulse in the rapist, that this is then at least partly the victim's fault. The victim is not responsible for the disordered thinking and impulse control on the part of the rapist. The victim is not responsible for anticipating every possible reaction to their choice of clothing. The rapist or would-be rapist is responsible for controlling their own impulses. And in the event that they suffer some mental illness that prevents this, the victim is still not responsible for the existence of said illness.

4) The presumption that because it's "just common sense" that wearing such clothing invites potential danger, they should refrain from ever doing so. This, again, places the responsibility solely on the shoulders of the victim or potential victim, making concessions for the disordered thinking and impulses of the rapist or potential rapist. It is advocating that the victim or potential victim alter THEIR life and THEIR thinking, to accommodate the disordered thinking and impulses of the rapist or potential rapist, rather than placing responsibility where it belongs: with the rapist.

5) The presumption that in cases where said clothing was involved in a courtship or intimate engagement, consent is implied, automatic, or once given, permanent. It is erroneous to assume that enticement or even intimacy automatically confers consent. It is also erroneous to assume that once given, consent is permanent, and cannot be rescinded. For this one, I will simply leave this here:



If a guy wore short shorts or went shirtless, fell asleep, and woke up having been raped... he wouldn't be at fault either. This should be self-evidently obvious imo. But because we're talking about women... inexplicably there's some disconnect that says, "Well if they did something or wore something that aroused their rapist, then that's partly their fault." So it's not just erroneous and illogical, there's also a double standard imo, because somehow in our culture the female form is in some respect seen as "irresistible," as if people just can't control themselves, whereas the male form (even though men suffer rape too) somehow isn't.

Rape is an unimaginable injury against the psyche and body, and there is never justification for it, period. Blaming the victim is always wrong, imo.

Peace.

I'm not super familiar with that artist but it's probably safe to say that she does not act, or dress like a slut.

You admit you don't know her, but you claim to know her. How does that work?

Your opinion about her is worthless by your own admission.

a reply to: KyoZero

If that isn't a signal of a sick society, then I am not sure what is

I don't believe that our society is any sicker than it has always been, it is just with a computer in every home, hut, igloo, tent, and pocket, our global society has grown to worldly numbers. We are more aware of the disease and the number of those afflicted in our society today.

You are quite right, the emphasis is placed on prevention by the possible victim, mainly because it is the only thing is likely to work, because the responsibility falls on the person that cares. The rapist doesn't care, so rapists will never be complaint with any means to stop them, they will be too busy thinking up ways to work around any obstacles put in their way.

When birth control was first made available, it was not presented to men, because most men didn't care if a woman got pregnant or not. If a woman wanted to be sexually active, and she did not want to get pregnant, she had to take on the responsibility of making sure she was protected, few women would rely on a man saying, "I took my pill this morning".

Almost all of the rape preventives have already been circumvented by rapists. Especially the nail polish, they have new drug formulas that don't cause the color change expected when the drug is present. I don't even know where to start with a preventive tool that works from the attackers side. There is the sexual assault data base, but how would that work? I hate the way it works now, because it is too much like net fishing. You end up with things in the net that should not be there, and by the time they are removed from the net, they are either damaged or dead.