<p>Re “certain situations”: is a woman “asking for it” if she is wearing a camisole top with a visible navel and visible bra straps and shorts that don’t completely cover her behind? I’ve seen plenty of young girls so attired. In our society, the answer would be no. How about Morocco? SHE may not think she is, but by local cultural norms she might be, whether we like it or not.</p>
<p>Things are just not that black and white, kayf.</p>
<p>We are all in agreement that a lack of common sense or forethought on the part of a victim does not “excuse or minimize” the guilt of a criminal. </p>
<hr>
<p>Can we limit this discussion to the US (although even outside the US, I do not think it excuses the perpetrator)? And did you read where I said “legally clothed”?</p>
<p>poetgrl–you have lucky daughters since you see it that way.</p>
<p>In 2007, the American Psychological Association’s Task Force on the Sexualization of Girls issued a report linking early sexualization with three of the most common mental-health problems of girls and women: eating disorders, low self-esteem and depression. </p>
<p>I thought that age inappropiate (but apparently legal) attire was a possible mental/emotional health problem for young girls without even getting to the “asking for it” discussion.</p>
<p>I guess that explains why you persist in ignoring the Peru story…</p>
<p>BTW, women are not legally required to cover up in Morocco. My niece was just there. She made a point of wearing longish skirts or pants, loose clothes, and things with sleeves. She even attempted a head scarf of some sort. All this was a voluntary attempt to respect cultural norms, but it largely failed to prevent her from receiving unwanted attention.</p>
<p>As I said yet again, yes, nothing excuses the perpetrator. We all agree on that. So?</p>
<p>Ok, consolation, what was the point of the Peru story? That 07dad wouldnt rape a girl – never thought he would. That he would help someone? That bad things happen when people drink.</p>
<p>As much as you say we all agree that nothing excuses the perpetrator, 07DAD did state he think that the boys did the correct thing in not deleting the pictures.</p>
<p>“For example, women should be able to wear whatever clothing they want–but are some clothing choices “risky” in certain situations? It’s a hot potato issue.”</p>
<p>It’s 2012, right? Not 1952? This post had me wondering for a moment.</p>
kayf, I think your response proves my point, rather than refuting it. Women aren’t “asking for it” when they wear short skirts–but there might be real-life situations in which dressing in certain ways will expose them to increased danger of unwanted attention and actions from opportunistic people. What’s the point in pretending that this isn’t true? And why does declining to pretend that this isn’t true make me a throwback to 1952? I’d rather explain to my kids the way the real world is, not some idealistic fantasy world that should exist, but doesn’t.</p>
<p>So maybe I’d tell my daughter to dress however she likes, but maybe to take some self-defense classes, or carry some pepper spray. But I won’t tell her that wearing hot pants and a tube top won’t create the risk of unwanted attention, because that would be a lie.</p>
<p>Hunt, I think that you and 07Dad seem to want things back to the 50’s, blaming everything on women. I wonder if that was Frey’s dad’s approach too. Time will tell if the court accepts the ridiculous plea.</p>
If you would read my posts a little more carefully, you would see that this is not at all what I’m doing. I’m simply pointing out certain facts that you simply don’t like. Your dislike for them doesn’t make them any less factual.</p>
<p>Hunt–I agree careful reading apparantly isn’t a strong trait. From the following, kayf finds that I think that the boys did the right thing in not deleting the pictures.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I called a friend on a local police department today and asked if he could put me in touch with an officer who had recently been working undercover vice. I spoke with her and she said that when undercover they dress provocatively because it is a cue to the johns. </p>
<p>She related a story where Vice had started working undercover at an upscale hotel. Seems that the hotel had called and asked for help because some female hotel guests were getting solicited because they were being mistaken for high end call girls. She said after being in the hotel bar she was amazed to see how hard it was to be able to make the distinction.</p>
<p>The problem with this statement is that is implies the woman is somehow responsible for the possibility of some type of attack because of her clothing choice and that is untrue. </p>
<p>“For example, women should be able to wear whatever clothing they want–but are some clothing choices “risky” in certain situations? It’s a hot potato issue.”</p>
<p>OhioMom3000–no, and that’s the point. No one is saying it is a defense to a crime. It is however risky. According to my friend on the force, this female vice officer is really amazingly trained in martial arts. SHE is able to handle herself if a physical attack develops. Most women aren’t able to do that.</p>
<p>No one denies that an adult woman can pretty well dress how she wants, but it may come at a potential risk.</p>
<p>LasMa–I was responding to Ohio’s question concerning a vice policewoman while undercover. </p>
<p>Using the services of a prostitute can be for lust. So being mistaken for a prostitute seems to probably be lust related. </p>
<p>Raping a prostitute probably is about power. Are you saying that rapists don’t ever target their victims? I beg to differ. There have been several cases where the rapist targeted based on a certain look or conduct of the woman. The date rape drug cases seem to blur the line even further. </p>
<p>There are documented cases where a serial rapist raped only prostitutes because to the rapist they were provocative and that triggered the anger.</p>
<p>07DAD, I am only hoping that the court reverses itself to make certain that these boys understand the risks of what they did. You seem to come up with every conceivable excuse for their actions, but want to hold girls responsible. Unfortunately, right now it seems you are right, that only girls are held accountable.</p>
<p>If a man finds being propositioned offensive or dangerous, I would think he would ditch the suit in that area or knowingly run the risk, but not merely ignore the connection.</p>
<p>07DAD, No means No. That applies whether the woman is a hooker, a suited-up business woman, a 90-year-old granny, or a drunk coed. If the woman doesn’t give consent, it is rape. And she bears exactly ZERO responsibility for the rape, no matter how she’s dressed. Period.</p>
It makes no such implication. Why you want it to make such an implication is unclear to me.</p>
<p>Look, I should have the right to park my bike on the street safety without locking it up. I suppose I could make a statement about my right to do so by parking it without locking it up. I don’t excuse the person who steals it. That’s entirely his responsibility. But did I act prudently? Is it outrageous and unfair that I have to consider whether it’s prudent for me to lock up my bike? Would it be unfair for anybody to blame ME if my bike is stolen in such a situation? (Answer: no, but it would be fair if they told me I acted imprudently.)</p>