<p>So Hunt, where does one draw the line in your world? Are woman never supposed to dress attractively, have a drink, help people in unstable areas, etc, because it makes them vulnerable to rape? Putting conditions on women’s behavior because their behavior might make them vulnerable puts the responsibility for the rape on their shoulders. That is simply not true. The rapist is responsible for the rape.</p>
<p>Hunt, you seem to know more than the NYC detective bureau, how about the University of Colorado?</p>
<p>"MYTH:</p>
<p>WOMEN ‘ASK FOR RAPE’ BY THEIR CLOTHING, BEHAVIOR OR ACTIVITY.</p>
<p>FACT:</p>
<p>Rape is often seen as a punishment for women who dare to engage in activities which men take for granted – walking alone at night, hitchhiking, or going to a bar alone. The notion that a woman’s clothing or behavior provokes assault stems from a misconception of rape as sexual, rather than as a violent crime. The notion that a woman ‘asks for rape’ implies that women want to be attacked, or somehow enjoy it.</p>
<p>Blaming the woman provides a convenient excuse for men’s violent actions. Nothing a woman does justifies a violent attack upon her. Women should not be restricted in what they wear or where they go. It is the rapists’ behavior that must be restricted."</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.unco.edu/asap/Survivor_Information/Assault.html[/url]”>http://www.unco.edu/asap/Survivor_Information/Assault.html</a></p>
<p>I know you have not stated that women “ask for” assault by their dress, but the point is this:</p>
<p>“The notion that a woman’s clothing or behavior provokes assault stems from a misconception of rape as sexual, rather than as a violent crime.”</p>
<p>IMHO some posters were looking to jump on victim blaming where it did not exist. As for me as a father I will advise my D to watch her drinking because bad things can happen if you drink until you pass out. If I had a son I would tell him the same thing.</p>
<p>Telling people to be careful of putting themselves into risky situations does not equate to blaming them if something criminal happens to them if they place themselves in that situation. We all realize that a women can be raped leaving the library and end up perfectly safe having passed out in an alley. It does not mean we would not recommend one situation over the other.</p>
<p>
I don’t know more than either of them. But both of those sites are debunking myths without actually providing any data to support what they’re saying. In fact, I’d say that the statements on both sites seem to me to be more based on principle than on data, but I don’t know. And I’m much less interested in street crime than I am in what happens in (for example) the college environment. If it’s been studied, I’d be very interested in what was found. It would be a relief (I guess) to learn that our daughters don’t put themselves at risk by how they dress. (Maybe it’s not such a relief if they’re at risk no matter how they dress.)</p>
<p>It is unquestionably true that women HAVE been blamed for assaults based on their clothing, drinking, and other behaviors. This is wrong and unfair. However, I think that unfairness has created a backlash situation in which it’s taboo to suggest that women’s behavior can put them at risk. This is why it’s helpful to try to use other situations as analogies. (There’s a discussion on the Parents’ Forum, for example, about whether a student who was hazed bears some of the responsibility for what happened to him–the discussion is similar, but less charged.)</p>
<p>I think these conversations stem partially out of our desire to be able to make sure bad things don’t happen to good people, which is impossible, and partially out of a desire to find a way this could never happen to our kid. It comes from our realization of the horror of the situation itself.</p>
<p>That said, I’m still glad Savannah spoke out and defended herself. I’m glad she pushed the issue. In terms of getting over her feelings of powerlessness and victimization, this is good and powerful stuff, and it will help.</p>
<p>In the meantime, the world is, unfortunately, full of predators, and girls and boys should be given self-defense classes and education about what is and is not wise. We tell our little ones not to talk to strangers, we tell our older ones not to get drunk out of their minds and… drive, or anything else, for that matter.</p>
<p>As for the boys, I think they need to start to hear from their parents as much as the girls are. They need to be taught, as early and as often, that any drunken sexual encounter might get them accused of rape, that no drunken girl can possibly consent to sex (under the law), and if they like the girl that way, that much, they need to wait for another day when they are both sober. I’m more and more convinced that many young men just really don’t understand the law in these situations, regardless of what kind of clothes they might be wearing when they go out at night. ;)</p>
<p>Amen, poetgri.</p>
<p>I was curious to see what kind of studies had been done on whether a woman’s behavior (including clothing) increased her risk of being a victim of sexual assault. What I observed is that there’s lots of evidence showing that her clothing is more likely to make people blame her, there’s less on whether it actually affects her risk. There’s some effort to make this distinction and to look at some studies here: [psychology</a> - Is a woman who dresses sexually suggestively more likely to get raped? - Skeptics](<a href=“psychology - Is a woman who dresses sexually suggestively more likely to get raped? - Skeptics Stack Exchange”>psychology - Is a woman who dresses sexually suggestively more likely to get raped? - Skeptics Stack Exchange)
It appears that in the vast majority of rapes, the victim’s clothing is simply irrelevant. It’s harder to extrapolate from this to clear guidance on whether it matters what a woman wears to a frat party.</p>
<p>Hunt, you continue to post about women’s clothing, yet pooh pooh anything re enforcement. To tell young men they may be violating the law, when all they get is 50 days of community service is absurd.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>A woman may well go to a frat party hoping for a consensual sexual encounter, btw. This is also common. As my oldest says, I don’t know why anyone even goes to those things. But she did go as a freshman, and she did leave early a couple of times because of unwanted attention. I can tell you she wasn’t dressed provocatively, though she is very beautiful. She left. She thought the whole scene was pretty gross, just in general.</p>
<p>Oddly, many of those same boys later called her to ask her out to dinner and whatnot. I mean, why, when she made it perfectly clear she found their scene really gross and unpleasant did they then call and ask her out to dinner and a movie, or coffee. one invited her out for ice cream. </p>
<p>My question is: what are we teaching our boys? Let’s talk about that for a while.</p>
<p>
Since when did I pooh pooh enforcement? Indeed, I think I said way upthread that the weak penalty in this case was what justified opening up the sealed proceedings. I think this was a serious felony that should have been punished like one. Read my lips: I blame the criminals for their crime. They should be severely punished. The victim’s risky behavior is in NO WAY an excuse for what they did. Does that make it clear to you?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>She made it clear she didn’t like that type of party. That type of party is apparently not the only way that those guys interact with women. Obviously they were sufficiently interested in your D to want to spend time with her away from that particular party scene.</p>
<p>What is odd about that?</p>
<p>Only if you define frat members entirely by one particular type of party that they throw would you find it surprising.</p>
<p>My S was a member of a fraternity in college. Although his house was not known for their hardcore party scene, they did give parties, and it is likely that your D would not have liked some of them (although who knows, she might have enjoyed the dance parties and formals). I can assure you that he enjoys going out to dinner with young women, having conversations, attending cultural events, and so forth. His social life was not limited to beer pong in the frat basement. :rolleyes:</p>
<p>Edited to add: I know that his house kicked out at least one guy while he was there whose behavior towards women they found unacceptable. And to my knowledge it stopped far short of rape or assault!</p>
<p>My D, currently a freshman, also went to frat house party and really didn’t like it. She said the boys there were a bunch of obnoxious “bros.”</p>
<p>She later discovered that one of these “bros” is in her poetry-writing class, so she was forced to consider that he may have multiple dimensions. But the party didn’t put him in a very positive light from her point of view.</p>
<p>Some poster observed that the attitude about defensive living/situational responsibility was generational. DW power walks with the next door neighbor woman each morning at 6:30. Dont worry, they take care of defensive living since the next door neighbor is licensed and does carry when they walk.</p>
<p>DW apparently informed her friend of my relating the give and take on this thread and especially the generational observation about defensive living. Everyone of us is in our 60s. The next door neighbor is still very active as an alum in her sorority. She told my wife that she had attended a Chapter meeting within the last three years at which the Police spoke on campus safety issues. </p>
<p>The police woman went through all the steps that the school and police had taken to reduce the risk of assaults on campus. Call boxes, inter campus scooter transport on request, additional lighting. The police woman pointed out that statistically being visibly high (drunk or stoned) was a significant factor in victim selection for assaults on campus. She said that rapists appear to be opportunists looking for victims who will provide the easiest target. The police woman ended her presentation with the statement that vigilance and common sense on all students part could help make the campus a safer place for everyone and could go a long way to avoid personal risk.</p>
<p>Then a senior girl spoke. She had been the victim of an unsuccessful rape attempt on campus. She related that because the perp had left cigarette butts in the bushes where he was hiding (they knew they were his because DNA on the butts and on her leg matched), he had probably been in waiting for something over 10 minutes before he jumped her. A campus alert notice was sent out asking for students who had been in the area that night at approximately that time to contact the police and this had resulted in two other coeds coming forward.</p>
<p>The senior said that she talked to both girls and found out that one had on jeans and flats and the other had on sweats and tennis shoes. Neither had been drinking. The senior said that the perp had called her a drunken s**t when he grabbed her and forced her to the ground in the bushes and threatened her that he had a knife if she resisted. She said that she had been out to a party, but had not been drinking at all.</p>
<p>She also related that she was bare legged, had on a skirt and felt that he might have mistaken her as drunk because she had on very high platform shoes and remembered that the sidewalk made her wobble. She also related that because her underwear did not pull/tear off easily the perp punched her hard and both he and she let out noises that apparently spooked the perp and caught the attention of some students across the quad area. The perp fled. She said that she was never so happy to have been wearing cotton granny panties with a skirt that had a built in belted waist that cinched the panty waist. Menstrual issues.</p>
<p>She said she had considered “why her?” and concluded that the perp picked her because she looked like the path of least resistance that night. Alone, seemingly drunk, bare-legged, and in a skirt. </p>
<p>There was a round table discussion afterwards in which she was asked if she, ever —even for a moment, wondered if she had “asked for it” by the way she dressed. She said no, the perp was out to rape someone and she just happened to be there when he did. But, she said she never goes out without considering parking and every extra precaution she can take to avoid being viewed as the path of least resistence. </p>
<p>Asking for it? No. Sad? Yes. Smart girl? Yes.</p>
<p>What did I teach my son? Defensive living. Get to know the girl over time. See where she is in regard to sex. Go slow. Agree to get and exchange current STD etc. tests.</p>
<p>Make absolutely sure how old she is. No means no. Yes (or acquiescence) when not completely sober needs to be taken as no. Yes when sober may mean yes, but proceed with caution.</p>
<p>Don’t drink and do use protection even if she says you don’t need to because she is handling it. Be concerned if she says that.</p>
<p>I am not really going to comment on all that(^) 07dad and I was not the poster to speculate on whether there was a “generational” issue or not, and I do not think anyone has a problem with reasonable defensive living. However, I for one, take issue with speculation that there MAY have been prior sexting in the S. D. case. Why throw that out there? As well as talk about a certain type of dress because those types of comments throw blame or responsibility on the victim for the assualt and seem to be looking for excuses for the criminal behavior. If you look back at the posts I think you find the “generational” comment stemmed from the sexting remark as well as the “dress” comments, not the concept of defensive living in general. Most assaults are crimes of opportunity and have nothing to do with what the victim was wearing.</p>
<p>Here’s the post in which I raised clothing. (In retrospect, it was probably too far afield):
I think the point was that it’s difficult to discuss whether some behaviors are risky–that’s what make them hot potato issues.
kayf picked up that ball and ran with it in (in my opinion) the wrong direction:
</p>
<p>It’s really not fair that women have to deal with these issues in ways that men don’t. But life isn’t fair.</p>
<p>I wonder, if I failed to lock up my bike, how many people would say that I was “asking” to have it stolen? If they did say that, what would they mean? Would they mean that I actually wanted my bike to be stolen? Or that I am just as much to blame as the guy who stole it? Or do they just mean that my imprudence makes it much more likely that my bike will be stolen? What’s the tactful way to express this?</p>
<p>Both men and women have to deal with crime and it is not only women who are ever raped.</p>
<p>Assault has more to do with vulnerability and opportunity than dress. The unlocked bike is not a good analogy.</p>
<p>Hunt, the issue is not whether women might be at risk, it is whether in any decent percent’s mind it is at all “tricky” whether women “should” be able to do so without being victiminized. </p>
<p>It is not tricky. Any decent person would say women should be able to so without being victimized.</p>
<p>
Can I say “D’oh!” now?</p>
<p>I just quoted my post, which said:
</p>
<p>I guess that proves I’m decent, at least.</p>
<p>Hunt – please explain what this meant. </p>
<p>“It’s particularly tricky when there are disagreements about whether the behavior is risky, and whether people “should” be able to engage in the behavior without being victimized.”</p>
<p>Also, if you had left off that it is a hot potatoe issue, you might be decent. But by putting it on, you keep leaving the impression that this is an issue to some, not that it goes without saying that women should be able to wear what they want.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Actually the “generational” comment was leveled at ME by someone who completely misunderstood a post of mine.</p>
<p>S/he was claiming that Frey and Zehnder were guilty of “child pornography,” as if that–not raping Savannah, taking pictures, then humiliating her by showing them around–were their real crime. I objected to “child pornography” as the primary characterization of their crime. Apparently this person, in their eagerness to go on the attack, thought that as an old fogey I simply didn’t understand how to text, twitter, or use facebook or email to distribute photos. :rolleyes:</p>
<p>OhioMom3000–</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If you really are seeking an answer to this question, please reread my post 285. I was responding to the posts that had said that SD should go after the boys in a civil suit. My observation related to the issues that come up in a civil suit on an emotional distress/mental anguish claim. I mentioned statistics concerning self sexting in the contect of, in response to and because there had been an assumption that there could be nothing to indicate that the postings would not have caused emotional distress, so SD would have a great case. I was addressing that unsupported assumption with statistics. </p>
<p>Depending on the judge, the state law and rules of evidence, there could be a very indepth investigation into all this. The Texas Supreme Court case I referenced showed just the kinds of things that get gone into in such a case. I never said what my personal feelings on the issue are.</p>
<p>OhioMom3000–what is your take on the Steubenville, Ohio situation? Especially the fact that the West Virginia girl at the party was then transported to different locations for the continuing assault and apparently there were ongoing texts/posts of her assault and no one (boy or girl) reported it to the police! </p>
<p>I read somewhere that they even let the boys accused of this who were on the football team play in the game the following weekend. Steubenville won the game.</p>