Can Rape Victims Ever Hold Responsibility for Rape Occurring?

[shipod]

Scenario:

A woman wearing slutty clothes, goes into the dirtiest bar and flirts with the sleaziest looking man. She gets drunk with him, goes back to his house, flirts with him a little and things go too far. He begins to try to have sex with her, she says no, but he doesn't listen and she is raped.

 

Background:

Recently my girlfriend and I have been debating this idea of the nature of responsibility in the situations leading up to a rape occurring. It began with her stating that she should be able to wear whatever she wanted when walking down the street. I told her that I didn't want her wearing sexual things without me because that may lead to "bad things" happening to her. I said that she is free to do it, but she has to understand that there are consequences for her actions (even if that can lead to rape at the most sever level).

 

I tried to compare it to a person walking into a bear infested forest with meat wrapped around them and being eaten by a bear, or a guy walking down a dark ally with $100 hanging out of his pockets and getting robbed.  At this point she told me that I am comparing apples and oranges and that a woman who is raped "never has any responsibility" for putting herself in that situation.

 

Question:

1. Does the woman have any responsibility for the rape occurring?

2. If she does have a responsibility, can her actions here, or in any other scenario ever take away responsibility from the offender?

3. Does this mean I am telling her that she/women in general cannot wear whatever they want?

 

Thoughts?

[dayna j.]

1) No.  Making a guy's dick hard doesn't entail responsibility for being violently attacked.  If I have something that someone wants, and I refuse to give it to them--even if I previously said that I might--this doesn't somehow transmute into partial responsibility if the item is taken from me.  Similarly, there should not be an implicit conclusion that sex will occur just because a woman is being flirtatious with you, or even engages in some degree of physical contact.  There might be a hope/desire for sex, or even a reasonable expectation that it might occur based on prior interactions, but this doesn't imbue someone with responsibility for being attacked.  

 

2) N/A

 

3)  I don't know--are you?  If you're telling your girlfriend, or other women, what they are "allowed" to wear, then yes, you are policing their appearence.  I don't think it is unreasonable for two people in a committed relationship to have some degree of input on one another's appearence.  However, if the situation is laden with threats and ultimatums, then there might be some foundational mismatch of values going on.  Based on your post, it seem as though you have expressed an opinion or preference and left it open for her to decide what she wants to do with it.  This seems fine to me, but only you (and her) really know the nature of your relationship..

[dsayers]

First things first, I think you're doing the question a disservice by specifying genders where genders aren't relevant. "The victim is never responsible," if true, would be far more valuable than "women are never responsible" for example.

 

There's always going to be things a victim could've done differently to reduce the risk of whatever they were victimized by. Just think of all the ways child abuse can effect the ways in which a person acts/thinks their entire lives. This isn't the same as being responsible.

 

To answer the question, all you have to do is consider whether it is ever possible for person A to be more responsible for person B's action than person B is. If person B is capable of conceptualizing self, the other, formulating ideals, comparing behaviors to those ideals, and calculating consequences, then they are moral actors and responsible for their actions. Like with any moral consideration, the only factor that matters is was there consent?

[Torero]

Question:

1. Does the woman have any responsibility for the rape occurring?

2. If she does have a responsibility, can her actions here, or in any other scenario ever take away responsibility from the offender?

3. Does this mean I am telling her that she/women in general cannot wear whatever they want?

 

Thoughts?

1 - No, the initiator of the use of force is the responsible party, male or female.

2 - No, that would mean that somehow your dressing style is responsible for the choice another person makes. And that also applies to situations where there's no particular connection. If a rapist is turned on by blue shirts then somebody wearing blue would have a partial responsibility, even though that person doesn't know blue is turning a possible rapist into a real one.

3 - Your answer is already assuming responsibility. The problem with that is that if your idea of her dressing style would gain more support the culture slowly changes towards that. Look at what happened in the muslim world, where first only a head scarf was enough and in some parts even that is considered "too slutty". It therefore acknowledges the irrational "argument" of the rapist, so you're giving credit to someone who does not deserve that. That would even make you partially responsible for those idiotic thoughts.

 

On your scenario: the choice to flirt, get drunk, wear "slutty" clothes is always with the person doing that. The responsibility that person has is only for his/her own actions, not for the actions of others responding to those choices.

 

And when it comes to violence it's definitely not the responsibility of the one making those choices. She may be not taken seriously, frowned upon, neglected, etc. Those actions are no violations of the NAP.

[Mister Mister]

In a case like this, there is an issue of proof.  You are framing the story as if we are omniscient, and know that a crime has been committed.  But in reality, all we would know is that she went home with him, then she accused him, which puts the society and the court system in a difficult position.

To me, this is the key to the issue.  Feminists want to suspend due process when a woman has accused a man of a sexual crime against her.  This is an appeal to the biological drive to protect women and dispose of men.  But it is an abandonment of liberal, rational, principles when it comes to law and crime and punishment. 

This is why, in the past, there were strict rules about how men and women should behave.  It is why some people have put the responsibility on women not to sexually provoke large groups of men, and incapacitate herself with alcohol.  It is why, in general, we think a woman ought to develop a secure, trusting relationship with a man before putting herself in a sexual situation with him.  This isn't misogynistic, it is simply realistic.  The courts should only be able to throw a human being in a cage based on proof of a crime, and that's just in a free society.  In our fucked up statist society, you certainly can't rely on the police and courts to come rescue you.  So take responsibility for what you can control - your own behavior.  This is something men inherently understand and how we have lived for most of history.

[shipod]

Thanks for the replies. They were really helpful. So to stretch this a little further I'd like to know:

 

1. Can responsibility be partial or does it have to be total?

2. Can you ever be responsible for the actions of another person (partially or totally)?

3)  I don't know--are you?  If you're telling your girlfriend, or other women, what they are "allowed" to wear, then yes, you are policing their appearence.  I don't think it is unreasonable for two people in a committed relationship to have some degree of input on one another's appearence.  However, if the situation is laden with threats and ultimatums, then there might be some foundational mismatch of values going on.  Based on your post, it seem as though you have expressed an opinion or preference and left it open for her to decide what she wants to do with it.  This seems fine to me, but only you (and her) really know the nature of your relationship..

I told her that she can wear anything she wants but she should know how that makes me feel (worried that she may be harmed/harassed or worse). Her response was that it was the same thing as telling her she can't. (on a side note: she is a little Asian girl and we are currently living in Istanbul, Turkey together which is prominently Muslim).

[dsayers]

I told her that she can wear anything she wants but she should know how that makes me feel (worried that she may be harmed/harassed or worse). Her response was that it was the same thing as telling her she can't.

How do you feel about her putting words into your mouth? Words that would inject a divide into the relationship.

 

As for your questions, a victim is responsible for the risks they take. An aggressor is responsible for their aggression. To be responsible for the actions of another person would mean they're not responsible. The two scenarios that come to mind is the parent-child relationship, and the relationship between captor and their prisoner. If somebody holds a gun to your head, they are taking away your ability to choose and therefore your responsibility.

[shipod]

How do you feel about her putting words into your mouth? Words that would inject a divide into the relationship.

-Terrible. The last thing I want to do is control her.

 

So people are responsible for the choices they make but not for the outcome of those actions?

 

I'm not using responsibility as a negative thing, and perhaps I'm using the wrong word here. I think the man at Tiananmen Square who faced down a tank would be responsible for his death if that tank were to run him over. There was a chance it wouldn't and he did a brave thing taking a stand. But does the "right" choice absolve responsibility from an immoral action?

 

I'm really trying to get at the philosophy of it here, beyond prejudice.

[dsayers]

-Terrible. The last thing I want to do is control her.

You're not. It looks to me like she's trying to control you by putting words into your mouth. Harmful words that you didn't say.

 

So people are responsible for the choices they make but not for the outcome of those actions?

I disagree that "rape" is an outcome of "wearing revealing clothing." My proof is all the times that revealing clothing is worn where rapes do not occur. If I throw a ball and break your window, that's MY destruction. That outcome is a direct result of my actions and one that I as a reasonable person understood before engaging in it. Rape is the outcome of a person choosing to ignore consent, not an outcome of an outfit worn.

[inquirius]

A reasonable person acknowledges that rape is bad/wrong, so there is no moral debate here.

 

The real question is whether a woman who dresses in a provocative manner increases her risk of being raped.  The obvious answer is, yes.

 

She chose to dress in a manner that she knows could increase her risk of rape.  A woman owns her actions/choices unless she is severely mentally handicapped.

 

Assuming that a woman is not severely mentally handicapped:

 

Is it right to rape a woman (or anyone) ever? No.

 

Is she responsible for the way she dresses? Yes.

 

Is she then responsible for the increased risk of rape?  Yes.

[Torero]

Thanks for the replies. They were really helpful. So to stretch this a little further I'd like to know:

 

1. Can responsibility be partial or does it have to be total?

 

Of course responsibility can be partial. But responsibility is rooted in choice, in consent. Nobody can be held partially responsible for the violent initiative of another. That would make the motivation for that violent action valid. And that can only be with consent. And then it wouldn't be rape anymore.

 

2. Can you ever be responsible for the actions of another person (partially or totally)?

 

Actions, yes. Violent actions, violating NAP, no, of course not. You can make somebody angry, but you are not responsible for that anger turning into violence. That choice still solely lies with the initiator of the use of force; the violator.

 

Scenario:

 

You and me are going to (choice, consent, mutual agreement, free market) bake a cake. I care for the dough (has been a while but I was a baker in a former life) and you care for the baking process. The end result we carry partial responsibility over.

 

Now I am going to tie your hands on your back and force you to do and review the baking process.

 

Do you find you have partial responsibility for the cake ending up crappy?

 

---

 

And on your scenario; the "initiator of the increased risk for rape" was the woman not by dressing "slutty", being flirtatious or being drunk.

 

It was the invitation (her choice) of the man in her home (which should be an area of safety) while drunk (not sharp, increased risk of misjudgement). That action increased the risk, not her choice of clothing or any other behavioural action she took that evening.

[shipod]

Do you find you have partial responsibility for the cake ending up crappy?

If you appeared to be a very honest person and we had a good history together and there was no way I'd ever suspect that you'd be so mischievous then, no I wouldn't feel responsible. But if my friends said they had been screwed over by you in the past, and you really seemed creepy leading up to the baking process then I'd take responsibility for putting myself in that situation and of course I'd take responsibility for the crappy cake because I put myself in that position and I was aware of the risks.

[AccuTron]

I'm reminded of a news story, don't know how old, about a young woman (I'll call Princess) in Africa someplace, in a car used for a "safari" tour.  Real lions only yards away.  Instructed NOT to open the windows, she did so anyway for a better picture, and the lion jumped thru the window and mauled Princess to death.

 

(With respect in the general case to the writer who provided this:) "1 - No, the initiator of the use of force is the responsible party, male or female"... or lion.

Yeah, talk it out with the lion beforehand.  From the OP scenario, the $%$#& idiot would be begging for it.  I think the key words here are "grow up."

 

 

On your scenario: the choice to flirt, get drunk, wear "slutty" clothes is always with the person doing that. The responsibility that person has is only for his/her own actions, not for the actions of others responding to those choices.

Irrelevant.  The lion attacks.  Deal done.  She should know better...Princess!  

 

 

 she is a little Asian girl and we are currently living in Istanbul,

The phrase here is "a tasty morsel."  Never mind where.  Sorry, but all theoretical philosophy aside, she's begging for trouble.  It's blatant.  She values her ego over her safety.  Or the RISK her boyfriend or other males might take to save her from her poor judgement.  Princess.  

 

 

And by the way, WHY does she need to dress sexy, for lack of a better word?  Who the hell is she trying to impress?  "Hey look World, what a tasty morsel I am!  Wouldn't you ALL like to drag me into the nearest alleyway?"  Yeah, I guess she's just empowered....

[Thus_Spake_the_Nightspirit]

I think there is a difference between blame and responsibility.

 

The rapist is 100% to blame for making the choice to rape someone. There is no excuse on earth that can justify the decision to rape.

 

However, the victim in some cases can bear partial responsibility. In your scenario, it's reasonable to assume that the woman in question could have figured out that being raped might be the consequence of her going to a shady pub, dressed like a prostitute, choosing to drink so much that she impairs her judgment and her ability to keep herself safe, and choosing to go home with a stranger. 

 

She is in no way responsible or to blame for the man's choice to rape her, but she IS responsible for her own safety and for making smart decisions. She chose to make poor decisions and as a result, becomes a victim of rape.

 

I think the argument of whether or not women should be able to wear what they want is irrelevant. It's generally not what she is wearing, but how she chooses to behave that leads to situations like the one described. She could have been fully covered, but if she still chose to drink too much, flirt too much, go home with a stranger, etc, the outcome likely would have been the same. If a woman wants to choose to wear provocative clothing, then she should do it in the full knowledge of the effect it has on men (and let's not pretend that isn't the reason women wear clothes like that!) and take extra precautions for her own safety.

 

OP, if your girlfriend think women have no responsibility for getting themselves into dangerous situations, that is a serious matter you should discuss. It makes me wonder what else she thinks women have no responsibility for and seems like an incredibly immature attitude to take, especially where something as important as her physical safety is concerned.

[ThomasTheIdealist]

1) No.  Making a guy's dick hard doesn't entail responsibility for being violently attacked.  If I have something that someone wants, and I refuse to give it to them--even if I previously said that I might--this doesn't somehow transmute into partial responsibility if the item is taken from me.

Getting intoxicated with someone you just met and going to their house definitely does give you partial responsibility. The only exception is ignorance. If you aren't aware of the risks, you can't be said to have responsibility for subjecting yourself to them. If for example you're aware that someone is a pedophile sex offender and you leave them to babysit your kids, it's neglectful, it's called being irresponsible. If something happens, you're definitely not completely blameless. If you knowingly subject yourself to risky behavior, you're partially responsible. To promote the idea that people cannot be responsible for risky behavior is to promote recklessness.

 

It was the invitation (her choice) of the man in her home (which should be an area of safety) while drunk (not sharp, increased risk of misjudgement). That action increased the risk, not her choice of clothing or any other behavioural action she took that evening.

I agree. Clothing can be a risk factor, especially in some foreign cultures, but not so much in the US from what I've seen. It's mostly the drug/alcohol consumption and agreeing to go in seclusion with someone.

[LancierDombre]

Recently my girlfriend and I have been debating this idea of the nature of responsibility in the situations leading up to a rape occurring. It began with her stating that she should be able to wear whatever she wanted when walking down the street. I told her that I didn't want her wearing sexual things without me because that may lead to "bad things" happening to her. I said that she is free to do it, but she has to understand that there are consequences for her actions (even if that can lead to rape at the most sever level).

 

I tried to compare it to a person walking into a bear infested forest with meat wrapped around them and being eaten by a bear, or a guy walking down a dark ally with $100 hanging out of his pockets and getting robbed.  At this point she told me that I am comparing apples and oranges and that a woman who is raped "never has any responsibility" for putting herself in that situation.

 

 

I'm not sure that there is a whole lot of evidence showing that the way a woman dresses has a direct causal relationship with her probability of being raped.  I could be wrong though.  It may well be the case that this correlates with other psychological dysfunctions and the type of crowd she hangs out with though.  And those things may increase her chance of being victimized.  I'm just speculating here so if there is actual data on this, let me know.

 

Is it really the case that you get upset when your girlfriend dresses sexy because you're worried she'll get raped, or do you just find it disrespectful to you?  I'll be frank, I think there comes a point where it's disrespectful.  Dressing sexy is a type of passive flirtation.  She's advertising to all of the males around her in case a better deal than you were to show up.  Like a lot of things women do in the dating market though, there's a certain plausible deniability about it.  Depending on the circumstances, it would almost be like her catching you with an active dating profile, complaining that you might get conned by someone online and then you responding that she can't control what you view or who you talk to online - as if that's the issue.

[fractional slacker]

Leave wallet on bench in park. Come back a couple of days later. Does a theft victim ever hold responsibility for theft occurring?

Of course. Actions have consequences.

[dsayers]

Leave wallet on bench in park. Come back a couple of days later. Does a theft victim ever hold responsibility for theft occurring?

 

Of course. Actions have consequences.

I think the analogy fails. When you see a live human being, there's no reasonable expectation that their body has been abandoned and/or separated from its owner.

[LancierDombre]

I think the analogy fails. When you see a live human being, there's no reasonable expectation that their body has been abandoned and/or separated from its owner.

 

Try this:

If you go down to the ghetto at night, get drunk and start flashing money around and then you get mugged, who's responsible?  The mugger or you?

 

Morally, the mugger is responsible.  However, I still reserve the right to use your story as a cautionary tale to others.

[pretzelogik]

I heard Karen Straughn say that rape is a crime that depends on the state of mind of the parties: The victim has to be opposed and the perpetrator has to be aware of the victim's opposition and proving these states of mind can be challenging for the courts.

 

As far as responsibility goes, if victims, (which is a misnomer if we ascribe blame to those parties) are to blame, that would mean that the perpetrators have no responsibility for using force to have their way.  This makes no sense whatsoever.

[dsayers]

Try this:

If you go down to the ghetto at night, get drunk and start flashing money around and then you get mugged, who's responsible?  The mugger or you?

 

Morally, the mugger is responsible.  However, I still reserve the right to use your story as a cautionary tale to others.

I don't think anybody has questioned the value of using hindsight for risk assessment purposes. The point of contention is the level of responsibility of the afflicted party. Unless they consent, using their property is a violation. Having revealing clothing on or getting drunk are not consent.

[ThomasTheIdealist]

Having revealing clothing on or getting drunk are not consent.

Nobody is saying it means consent. The argument wouldn't even make sense because that would mean the rape didn't happen to begin with, being consensual. The argument is that the victim intentionally put themselves in known danger and is therefore partially responsible.

 

The repercussions of not putting partial blame on irresponsible parties means encouraging recklessness. And that means encouraging behavior that leads to more rapes. So I'm baffled that people wanting to reduce rape have a difficult time putting blame on irresponsible victims.

[Lotus Flowery]

Responsibility in the eyes of whom? The law of the land, natural law, the two people involved?

 

I used to go out and get drunk like this and when I took responsibility for my actions and stopped doing it, bad things stopped happening to me.

 

A woman ending up in that vulnerable situation, nine times out of ten, is because she has issues. And if a person has issues and doesn't sort them out, bad consequences will always follow - it's natural law. 

 

The guy is in the wrong for raping the woman. The woman is in the wrong for failure to sort her head out before engaging in risky behaviour, which has potential bad consequences for other people too.

 

This is just my opinion, based on experience. Maybe it's too harsh a judgement, but if it was my daughter I would not see her as simply a victim, I would feel the need to help her so it didn't happen again, and find out what led to her behaviour.

[David Ottinger]

I find the framework presented in the OP is conflating safety and rape.  An individual is indeed responsible for his/her own safety.  Likewise, an individual is responsible for his/her actions. 

 

So, if we're going to look at this realistically, then we need to acknowledge that there is a level of risk no matter what one thinks ought to happen. Reality is not predisposed to adhering to our will or intent.  Rather, we are subject to adhering to the ebb and flow of nature.  Thus, all one can control is his/her own actions by utilizing free will.  But, again, human will is not omnipotent, nor are we capable of omniscience.  The best we can do is try to calculate odds and act accordingly.  Ultimately, one's choices (including the diversity of those choices) is one's own responsibility as that knowledge will affect how one can respond within one's environment.

 

An unfortunate fact of reality is that "victims" are in large part victims because they had no sense of self-defense.  But, there is no such thing as 100% security.  So, again, one has to play the odds.  And, really, what we're getting at here is risk management.     

 

What risks are you willing to assume?

 

So, discussing what one should and should not do is presenting moral arguments.  But, distinguishing and defining what is and is not a moral act does NOT and will NOT ever change the fact that adherence to moral theories is optional. 

 

And, worse, there is nothing stopping an individual from pretending the human capacity for violence doesn't exist, or even believing it ought not exist.  But, the reality is that this capacity for violence exists.

 

In contrast, the capacity for cooperation also exists.  All we can do is affect the scale -- which is what governance is all about.  

 

So, as far as the risk of rape for women is concerned, how she self-governs will affect her exposure to the human capacity for violence.  

 

And, in this specified situation, there is nothing stopping women from dreaming about their utopian ideal where they can live in an environment where this human capacity for violence doesn't exist, thus they can explore their sexuality without any threat of harm.  But, that's not realistic.  (And, the polar opposite of that mentality is thinking everyone is out to harm you.)

 

And, for most women, it is understood that it is the role of men to secure safety within the environment.  This is how women operate.  And, there is nothing wrong with deferring that responsibility.  But, women need to be self-aware enough to understand that's what they're doing.  They also need to understand that the environment can be manipulated to create such security, but again that security is never absolute.  Thus, women need to be mindful of which men they trust with these responsibilities because if the woman is too promiscuous, then she risks deferring that responsibility to a man who has no real concern for her well being.

 

And, these risk issues aren't limited to women.  When you look at the story of the 2 Coreys from Hollywood, the parents failed to protect their children from pedophiles.  So, dealing with these risks isn't related to how one dresses, but rather with whom one is willing to associate with and to what degree.  What sort of environment are you really in?  What is your exit strategy in a particular environment?  Is this environment safe enough to dull my senses with alcohol or drugs?

 

All these questions in the last paragraph are risk management questions.  And, everyone is responsible for managing his/her own risk regardless of what moral theories one holds as true. 

[st434u]

Question:

1. Does the woman have any responsibility for the rape occurring?

2. If she does have a responsibility, can her actions here, or in any other scenario ever take away responsibility from the offender?

3. Does this mean I am telling her that she/women in general cannot wear whatever they want?

 

1. No, at least not in a legal or moral sense. Just like the guy showing off money in a dangerous part of the city without protection, she doesn't have responsibility for being raped. She did, however (in your example), increase her chances of being raped dramatically. Just like the guy with the money increased his chances of being robbed dramatically. We can say her choice (like his) was unwise and risky.

 

2. Absolutely not.

 

3. No, it does not. If she wants to dress like a slut, she is free to do that. I personally would have no interest in dating a woman who wants to dress like a slut in public, even if she only does it when I'm with her and she's safe. It's not just about the safety, it's about the fact that if she wants to be in a romantic relationship with me, then why would she want other guys to look at her body like that?

[jjbaugher]

If I drive a car to a "Bad neighborhood" and leave it unlocked with the keys in the ignition, who is responsible for the theft?

 

Now where I live, I leave it unlocked with the keys in the ignition all the time, but I live in a high trust area.   There are hell holes where one guy will talk to you by your car to distract you while another broke in on the other side.

 

 

When it comes to rape, I think it was on Steph's call in show, where a woman said that when she was younger a woman could walk down the street naked and not be afraid.  Now it is the rape capital of the world; I've been lead to believe that no woman, or boy is safe with these migrents. 

[regevdl]

Scenario:

A woman wearing slutty clothes, goes into the dirtiest bar and flirts with the sleaziest looking man. She gets drunk with him, goes back to his house, flirts with him a little and things go too far. He begins to try to have sex with her, she says no, but he doesn't listen and she is raped.

 

Background:

Recently my girlfriend and I have been debating this idea of the nature of responsibility in the situations leading up to a rape occurring. It began with her stating that she should be able to wear whatever she wanted when walking down the street. I told her that I didn't want her wearing sexual things without me because that may lead to "bad things" happening to her. I said that she is free to do it, but she has to understand that there are consequences for her actions (even if that can lead to rape at the most sever level).

 

I tried to compare it to a person walking into a bear infested forest with meat wrapped around them and being eaten by a bear, or a guy walking down a dark ally with $100 hanging out of his pockets and getting robbed.  At this point she told me that I am comparing apples and oranges and that a woman who is raped "never has any responsibility" for putting herself in that situation.

 

Question:

1. Does the woman have any responsibility for the rape occurring?

2. If she does have a responsibility, can her actions here, or in any other scenario ever take away responsibility from the offender?

3. Does this mean I am telling her that she/women in general cannot wear whatever they want?

 

Thoughts?

 

 

It's obviously a delicate and complicated and emotional topic for many but the way I see it is this. 

 

It's about risks and calculating those risks. 

 

Wearing provocative clothing, drinking alcohol to lower inhibitions, maybe become extra flirtatious, etc...to snare a man, go off with a stranger to be in one of the most vunerable positions a woman can put herself in and engage in sex and ONLY at the last minute say NO.... holds her responsible for those acts. 

 

Becoming violent and not respecting,even the most inconvenient or difficult or disappointing retraction of consent...would be the responsibility of the man/rapist. 

 

With THAT all being said.... the woman didn't deserve to be raped, this is not 'social justice' but.... knowing there are dangerous men (and women) out there who have a problem with self control it is everyone's personal responsibility to avoid the pitfalls of dangerous and nearly irreversable dire situations. 

 

Why was the man good enough to be flirted with and be drunk with and ride home with and go inside the home and on the bed with  and get naked with, etc... but suddenly not good enough for penetration.  LIke I know that sounds over simplified but women need to remember HOW many non-verbal consents they advertise and how men interpret them. 

 

You want to dry hump and kiss.... you can do that in the parking lot I guess where at least you have a less chance of getting raped. IF the man or you offers to go behind the dumpster for 'privacy'. you are increasing the chances of rape...or....you are consenting to be sex'd behidna dumpster....might want to evaluate how you value yourself in that scenario and worry about self-love than love behind a dumpster.  

 

So it's sort of breaking the 'event' down frame by frame leading up to the rape to assess what choices could have been made that would have lowered the risk of rape.  Many people are not prepared or capable of having this discussion before they go into emotional hyperdrive panic and scream 'victim blame' at you.... but that's sort of where I am having put some thought into these situtations.  Ican't say this will always be my conclusion as I revisit it but I have a young daughter and a son and will be having these conversations with them as they get older and 'out in the world' so they know simply how to avoid dangerous risks.  For my son...being blamed for rape he didn't commit and my daughter having regrets or...making decisions that lead to rape. 

 

As for your last question....argue it this way.

 

Do you think a man who finds you attractive and INTERESTING and smart needs to see your clevage and navel and bottoms of your ass cheeks?  What kind of men will be attracted and interested in that?  Sexualized...or overly sexualized, superficial or sexually violent, non committed men. 

 

So they can wear what they want but it's a bumper sticker whether they like it or not.  Their INTENTION of what they wear may be different than the INTERPRETATION of how other men or women see you wearing it.  

 

So you don't need to tell anyone what to wear or not to wear...but argue it from the point I made above.  That intelligent, reasonably sexual men can find a woman attractive who is genuine, dressed for her body and comfortable with herself.  One night flings are attracted to instant gratification and 'teasers' of more skin/cleavage, etc and it increases risk of rape.  

 

I'm not a male and can't speak for all but that's what some males have told me... that even civilized men will be attracted to provocatively dressed women but don't see them as one they would 'take home to mama'.... so it is rarely a long term attraction.  Where as a genuine, typically modestly made-up woman draws attraction for more long term. 

 

So the woman can decide.  Do I want 'instant' connection that's superficial that carries higher risk or.... 

be more patient with more modest but form-fitting respectable dress that will increase risk of attracting a more suitable, long term mate.

 

Even as a woman..I can appreciate a good body on a woman but I LOVE women who wear more form-fitting but elegant (not formal) clothing.... a-symetrical....etc...clothign that leaves SOMETHING to the imagination...But that's a hetero-female judging other females....so not sure if that's relevant.  lol

[the wandering shaman]

you can be responsible for the level of risk you put yourself in and be aware of the reactions you may get from people who don't have a moral compass but i can't see how one person could be responsible for some else's immorality