I spend quite a lot of time on forums. I enjoy it immensely - I find interpersonal communication so much easier via keyboard than in person. I'm not sure what that says about me as a person, but who cares? You find some incredibly interesting discussions on there.
One of the aforementioned interesting discussions was that old chestnut - whether or not women who dress "immodestly" (as if modesty were somehow objectively quantifiable to begin with) contribute to their own misfortune if they are raped. Essentially, whether or not you blame the victim. Whenever this question arises, I am simultaneously shocked and despairing at the amount of people who say yes.
The general consensus, which seems to be fairly equally shared by men and women, is that if you dress to attract men sexually, you are increasing your risk of being preyed on sexually because the manner in which you attract men is arbitrary - basically, you don't know which kind of guys are checking you out. Nice guys, or sexual predators? Sounds like a fair point, but I think it actually displays a pretty low level of understanding of the actual nature of rape, and those who commit it.
I'm currently researching the topic of sexual violence with the view of writing a book on feminism in Ireland, and a recurring theme in my study so far is that people actually have very little understanding of the subject. The stereotypical image of a "rape victim" held by the majority appears to be the old chestnut of the drunken bimbo in a miniskirt and stilettos making her way through a bad neighbourhood alone at 3am, who gets dragged down an alleyway by a lurking stranger in a trenchcoat. I know that's a tad on the descriptive side, but you get the general gist of what I'm saying. People seem to feel that many of the "causes" for the occurrence of rape lie somewhere within the behaviour and/or character of the victim, rather than the perpetrator. That if the victim had worn a longer skirt/ hadn't "flirted" unduly/ hadn't had anything to drink/ had chosen a different route home, the incident would not have occurred - and, by extension, if this *modest* behaviour were replicated by all women, the frequency of rape would consequently decrease.
This hypothesis, however, is not congruent with reality, and I will try to explain why. With the aforementioned hypothesis comes the underlying assumption that rape is about sexual gratification on the part of the perpetrator - his sexual urges simply overcome him at the sight of a woman's skin, and he becomes aroused to the point of being unable to control himself.
Here's what I posted on the forum in question:
Even debating whether or not the dress of the victim "causes" the rapist to commit the crime is inaccurate. A combination of misogyny, narcissism and miscellaneous psychoses are usually much closer to the root cause of rape. The "causes" are on the part of the rapist, not the victim. I can't remember where *exactly* I read this, so excuse the lack of citation, but I read an article on the subject, and one of the claims that stood out was that according to many psychologists, sexual gratification was actually pretty low down on the list of contributing factors to a developing rapist. It's not about *sex*, people. It's about power, control, and sadism. You cannot accurately cater to the mindset of a sociopath unless you either are one, or you're trained in fucking behavioural analysis.
There is a very, VERY limited extent to which you can *prevent* yourself from being raped. And I don't think that arguing about what women "should" be able to do is idealism, either. Someone brought up the analogy of a black man in early 20th-century American society falling in love with a white girl, and it was countered by how you shouldn't expect to rail against social norms like that and expect ignoramuses not to react explosively. But there is a difference between railing against such norms arbitrarily, and railing in a targeted and informed manner. The people countering such racist "morality" - in modern days, sexist "morality" - are not necessarily ignorant of the hostility they are going to be met with. But the fact is, if nobody ever countered accepted social norms such as these, society would never change, and we would remain in the same "moral" position ad nauseum. They have to be gone against, if they are ever going to evolve. If women dress modestly to protect themselves - ineffectively - against rape, it only perpetuates the notion that the control of an individuals' sexuality is womens' reponsibility.
Once more, it is important to remember also that the hypothesis being put forward here, that womens' dressing modestly would decrease the incidence of rape, is not borne out by evidence. Quite the contrary. In countries of South East Asia and the Middle East - my own boyfriend is from Pakistan - particularly in Muslim countries, where women are obliged by law to dress "modestly", rape is even more common than it is here. Women get raped wearing full burqas with greater frequency than they do miniskirts, because the kind of society that dictates to women how they must dress simultaneously tells men that women are not autonomous, and as such their choices and feelings are essentially worthless.
You want to decrease the incidence of rape? Pull your focus off of what the victim is wearing and onto the rapist. Impose stricter sentences on those convicted, and look at the messages we send out as a society to young men. Sexist advertising, levels of acceptance of "lesser" crimes against women such as harassment, stalking and domestic violence. Smash the glass ceiling. Pull our collective heads out of our collective arses.
Food for thought? What thinkest ye all??
