PZ Myers accuses Michael Shermer of rape.

[Eric]

If I walked into a dangerous neighborhood wearing an expensive watch and sunglasses and carrying £500 in cash and I was mugged it wouldn't be my *fault* because I hadn't done anything wrong but It might've been partially caused by my behaviour.

First: So not your fault, but actually your fault. You were asking for it. But I think there's a difference in the metaphor in that no mugger would rob a person and justify his actions to others by saying, "His wearing of an expensive watch communicated to me that he wanted me to rob him. His expensive watch implied consent despite the fact that I used force to get it."

Second: A statistically significant portion of rapes are perpetrated by someone the victim knows. So in this case, your metaphor works better if we are co-workers, and you wore your expensive watch around me, so I stole it and said you were asking for it by always wearing a nice watch around me knowing that I would covet it. My watch now.

Third: Neither of these defenses would fly in the courtroom, but the idea that the victim provoked the assailant into attacking by being too sexual is often asserted in the courtroom, or even that women who have a past history of having sexual partners have somehow lost the right to turn down their attacker. And studies have shown that people believe this: if you were dressed too sexy, you were asking for it. Amnesty International did a survey in the UK a few years back, and the blue bar here is the percentage of people that think the victim is partially responsible, and the red how many people think they are totally responsible for their own rape:



Sure, there are things you can do to be safer. But I think clothes have less to do with it (and actually sex has less to do with it too) than issues of power and entitlement, and I still stand by the statement that no article of clothing or lack thereof ever communicates "I am sexually available to you, regardless of whether I give consent."

[Andail]

If I walked into a dangerous neighborhood wearing an expensive watch and sunglasses and carrying £500 in cash and I was mugged it wouldn't be my *fault* because I hadn't done anything wrong but It might've been partially caused by my behaviour.

Second: A statistically significant portion of rapes are perpetrated by someone the victim knows. So in this case, your metaphor works better if we are co-workers, and you wore your expensive watch around me, so I stole it and said you were asking for it by always wearing a nice watch around me knowing that I would covet it. My watch now.

That's such a good counter argument I'll actually not comment any further - perfect point, Eric.

[bicilotti]

If I walked into a dangerous neighborhood wearing an expensive watch and sunglasses and carrying £500 in cash and I was mugged it wouldn't be my *fault* because I hadn't done anything wrong but It might've been partially caused by my behaviour.

Second: A statistically significant portion of rapes are perpetrated by someone the victim knows. So in this case, your metaphor works better if we are co-workers, and you wore your expensive watch around me, so I stole it and said you were asking for it by always wearing a nice watch around me knowing that I would covet it. My watch now.

That's such a good counter argument I'll actually not comment any further - perfect point, Eric.

How is that a counter argument, Andail? If you take out the (evocative) figurative speech, I guess that a more detached way to describe it would be by using the expressions "risk assessment" and "responsibility (of a criminal event happening, in this case)". The two concepts are orthogonal.

Amnesty International did a survey in the UK a few years back, and the blue bar here is the percentage of people that think the victim is partially responsible, and the red how many people think they are totally responsible for their own rape:

That's an interesting poll (and the results appalling). Judging by the "full report" (which unfortunately isn't a full report, just key findings), there is a statistical dependence between social groups D and E (semi and unskilled manual workers / state pensioners or widows (no other earner), casual or lowest grade workers) and "blaming the victim".
This of course implies no causation (re: rape prevention), just food for thought.

[Jared]

4) Carefully considering what your choice of attire communicates

The problem with this POV is that, no matter how much we'd like to shift responsibility to the victim, there's not a single article of clothing or lack thereof, not even full nudity, that communicates "Anybody who wants to fuck me gets to fuck me, no consent required."

I'm not saying it does and I'm not trying to shift responsibility. My point is that it's a factor because when women are clubbing and are looking to meet somebody they will often wear clothes communicating simple messages like "I want you to look at this great body of mine" and "I am interested in sex tonight". Guys who are confident, drunk, dismissive, id-centric or carrying resentments (and whatever other factors that makes somebody not be a law abiding citizen) will not read between the lines or make any effort to. They will see the woman as offering herself up and they want to take full advantage. They will ignore most verbal cues and focus on what they see - if they can be swayed it will most likely be by body language. So it's always safest to not dress that way unless you're capable of dealing with the worst kind of attention or unless you have friends to help you out.

I've seen assaults happen, too. I'm sure a lot of us have. Some idiot on a dance floor, right in front of me with the girl I was talking to - she was an 18 year old in a low cut top - he just grabbed her shirt and tried to pull it down. She was the younger sister of a girl at a hen's night, though, so she had back up and I told the guy to piss off, too. If he somehow got somewhere alone with her it's not hard to imagine what would have happened. I'll be the first to agree the single biggest factor in sexual assaults is guys being dickheads but there's no simple solution for that.

First: So not your fault, but actually your fault. You were asking for it. But I think there's a difference in the metaphor in that no mugger would rob a person and justify his actions to others by saying, "His wearing of an expensive watch communicated to me that he wanted me to rob him. His expensive watch implied consent despite the fact that I used force to get it."

Although the discussion was purely about trying to prevention factors. What happens in the courtroom is neither here nor there. Although if a case of theft makes it to a courtroom I understand a common defense is that the alleged victim actually gave the items willingly, which is a reasonable parallel.

Third: Neither of these defenses would fly in the courtroom, but the idea that the victim provoked the assailant into attacking by being too sexual is often asserted in the courtroom, or even that women who have a past history of having sexual partners have somehow lost the right to turn down their attacker.

As I said earlier in the thread I actually think this has a lot less to do with sexism than is believed...

The key piece of evidence in most trials are testimonies of independent witnesses. In most rape cases, they don't exist due to the nature of the crime and where it takes place. This means that we are reduced to the testimony of the accuser and the testimony of the defendant. The contested point is generally not that sex took place (rendering DNA evidence and most forensics moot) but that consent was given. This means in the majority of cases defence lawyers will tear apart the accusers testimony and portray them as a liar in court.

The majority of rape cases are ugly 'he said, she said' affairs, with the defendant and accuser and sometimes character witnesses of dubious worth. Whenever a defense lawyer has carte blanche to throw his resources at character assassination of a sole witness, ugliness is going to ensue no matter what case you're dealing with. And rape cases will offer the perfect opportunity to prey on whatever prejudices juror's may have about women. It's like a perfect storm of ignorance.

And studies have shown that people believe this: if you were dressed too sexy, you were asking for it. Amnesty International did a survey in the UK a few years back, and the blue bar here is the percentage of people that think the victim is partially responsible, and the red how many people think they are totally responsible for their own rape

It's probably depressing that I was not at all surprised by these figures. There are often rape scandals here in Australia and the victims are rarely given a good hearing in the media. I am not sure I can conceive of a scenario where the victim could have even partial responsibility in my mind.

Sure, there are things you can do to be safer. But I think clothes have less to do with it (and actually sex has less to do with it too) than issues of power and entitlement, and I still stand by the statement that no article of clothing or lack thereof ever communicates "I am sexually available to you, regardless of whether I give consent."

I don't think many people will contest the point, and I was never making that argument. I just think that there are preventative steps that can be taken that will lessen the odds. Not being paranoid or letting your guard down or just wanting to live your life will never constitute responsibility for somebody else's crime, though.


Tl;dr - we agreed all along. I think

[Eric]

Tl;dr - we agreed all along. I think

Perhaps so. It was the "and yes" part of your statement, and the way you set it apart that made me read your words in a tone you likely didn't intend. I grew up in the Bible Belt of the U.S. where I imagine similar surveys would reveal the same, if not worse, opinions to those above, and so I'm used to hearing sermons against "loose" women. In your "and yes," I was reading, "perhaps it's time to take a little responsibility for yourselves, women," and not, "and, unfortunately, it might help if."

Part of the reason I took issue is what you say here:

single biggest factor in sexual assaults is guys being dickheads but there's no simple solution for that.

There's not a simple solution for that. But I think in proposing simple...not solutions per se, but deterrents, like not showing any skin...it's easier to defer the larger cultural conversations that we need to have and the shifts that we need to take place to actually solve the problem. It's much more than guys being dickheads. It's men viewing women as objects that they should be able to possess and control without consequence. As I noted above, I think this has very little to do with the assailant seeking sexual pleasure.

Highlighting provocative clothing prolongs a number of problematic narratives. For instance, you say that wearing such clothing provokes "sexual attention," which in your descriptions seems to encompass stares, groping, and rape. It's easy to read into this that women who dress to attract any attention to themselves at all need to know that groping and rape are now on the table. How provocative does the clothing need to be before that 6% will start to justify assault?

I would also anticipate that many, if not most, cases of rape did not involve so-called provocative clothing at all. I can't find stats to either confirm or refute this, except references to an Ohio State study that said only 4% of assailants could remember what their victim was wearing. The rape victims I know were not in situations where they were being sexually enticing. They were in situations where their assailant was seeking to assert power over them.

These are complex issues though, and, as usual, as I'm debating on an internet forum, I feel it's not the best medium for it.

[Trapezoid]

I wonder if the clothing argument doesn't always stem from misogyny and victim-blaming (though it certainly reinforces those.) I think for some people, it's a delusional way of reassuring themselves that there are simple ways to prevent terrible things from happening. Like the person who finds out someone has cancer, and shrugs and says "Well, they should've worn magnet bracelets." It's easier to accept that there are personal choices one can make to avoid becoming a victim, than to wrap your head around the idea that culture itself needs to change.

[Calin Leafshade]

If I walked into a dangerous neighborhood wearing an expensive watch and sunglasses and carrying £500 in cash and I was mugged it wouldn't be my *fault* because I hadn't done anything wrong but It might've been partially caused by my behaviour.

First: So not your fault, but actually your fault. You were asking for it.

Bull. Shit.

Advice on risk avoidance is never apportionment of fault. It simply isn't.

Also, any stance to the contrary is tacitly implying that women can do nothing about rape which disempowers women and is misogynist at its core. Now who's fucking up the object/subject dichotomy?

Second: A statistically significant portion of rapes are perpetrated by someone the victim knows.

This is an often cited and misleading statistic.
It's true that most rapes are committed by someone the woman knows but it's also true that 90% of rapists are recidivists.

This whole "teach men not to rape" type stuff is insulting, foolish and ineffective.
It's insulting because 98% of men *don't rape*.
it's ineffective because you can't "educate" the other 2% of sociopathic nutcases.
and it's foolish because it teaches women that their rapist might have just made a mistake and they didn't fully understand because they hadn't been educated on the issue. Women might be much more likely to report their rapist if they knew he has almost certainly done this before and will do it again.

[Eric]

it wouldn't be my *fault*...partially caused by my behaviour.

"The rape of women is partially caused by the way they've chosen to dress." Is that not what you meant to say? Because it's what you said. What percentage of cause do you attribute to the provocatively dressed woman in this situation, and what to the rapist?

EDIT: I note on the previous page your distinction between "blame" and "cause." I don't think there is such a distinction in the case of rape, so likely we'll not see eye-to-eye on this ever.

Also, any stance to the contrary is tacitly implying that women can do nothing about rape which disempowers women and is misogynist at its core. Now who's fucking up the object/subject dichotomy?

I don't think it's me. Jared prescribed four risk avoidance measures. I responded to one of them. Nowhere did I say that education of men will lead to fewer instances of rape. I think massive cultural changes might. Nowhere did I say women had no course of action to take in protecting themselves. I took issue with, again, one oft-prescribed measure because I felt there was more to the suggestion than the surface would suggest.

It's true that most rapes are committed by someone the woman knows but it's also true that 90% of rapists are recidivists.

I don't know exactly how that's misleading. I'm not exactly sure how this clarification affects the metaphor at hand or the situation in general. Do you know that I've stolen watches before and still choose to wear yours in front of me, so it's more your fault that I steal yours?

[dactylopus]

This whole "teach men not to rape" type stuff is insulting, foolish and ineffective.
It's insulting because 98% of men *don't rape*.
it's ineffective because you can't "educate" the other 2% of sociopathic nutcases.
and it's foolish because it teaches women that their rapist might have just made a mistake and they didn't fully understand because they hadn't been educated on the issue. Women might be much more likely to report their rapist if they knew he has almost certainly done this before and will do it again.

It's not so much that we need to teach men not to rape as it is that we need to learn to identify the sociopathic behaviors of sexual assailants before they take action.

And now onto the topic of blame and cause.  If a rapist is present, and they are looking at potential targets, it is true that they might choose anyone regardless of their attire.  Rape occurs in countries like Egypt where many victims are covered considerably by western standards, so provocative dress itself is not going to cause someone to rape you.  However, if one potential target is dressed or is behaving considerably more provocatively, they might be more at risk than the others.  Their choice of outfit is not going to cause anyone to rape them, nor are they to blame if they are raped, but they may have been a less attractive target had they chosen to dress or behave more conservatively.  It's a sad and unfortunate truth.  I'm a supporter of a woman's choice to dress and act as she sees fit, but I also have the protective instinct to warn them of the potential consequences of their choices should a sociopathic sexual assailant be present.

[Khris]

Here's Thunderf00ts usual crap on the subject: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1T0GcHM0s4o
(which in part echoes what was said here, unfortunately).

Here are the links to a great deconstruction: http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2013/10/02/bringing-back-bad-memories/

The final part is here: http://somegreybloke.blogspot.de/2013/10/wha-can-we-learn-from-thunderf00t-about.html

A quote from a female commenter

But it's such a nice catch-22: If you take one more precaution than TF deems reasonable you're a paranoid bitch who thinks all men are rapists. If something happens to you, well, you obviously didn't take enough steps to protect yourself, stupid bitch.

And it should also be noted that the steps we take to minimise risk already greatly diminish our joy in life.

Bottom line: yes, we do need to teach men not to rape, because the majority of them are not Ted Bundys. We already do this anyway, but just not enough, it seems.

[Andail]

Also, any stance to the contrary is tacitly implying that women can do nothing about rape which disempowers women and is misogynist at its core. Now who's fucking up the object/subject dichotomy?

The discussion isn't whether women can/should protect themselves - there are tons of ways for women to defend themselves against rapists - the issue is that those tips people like to bring up "don't dress challengingly", "don't be flirty" etc keep being used in courts as circumstantial evidence against the victim. Saying that we need to change focus here has nothing whatsoever to do with misogyny.

It's true that most rapes are committed by someone the woman knows but it's also true that 90% of rapists are recidivists.

This whole "teach men not to rape" type stuff is insulting, foolish and ineffective.
It's insulting because 98% of men *don't rape*.
it's ineffective because you can't "educate" the other 2% of sociopathic nutcases.
and it's foolish because it teaches women that their rapist might have just made a mistake and they didn't fully understand because they hadn't been educated on the issue. Women might be much more likely to report their rapist if they knew he has almost certainly done this before and will do it again.

I don't think that all rapists are necesseraliy sociopaths - I think many are born in the heat of the moment; sexual frustration, peer pressure - how lonely, angry men communicate with each other, and lots of other factors that originate in a patriarchal society. I think it's excellent that we turn the table around and direct rape prevention "tips" to the potential perpetrators instead of the victims.

Take a look at certain extremely male-chauvinist developing regions, where rape is a basically a means of warfaring - are all those men sociopaths, entirely beyond education and improvement? Or is it a matter of attitude towards women? Of objectification?

[dactylopus]

The discussion isn't whether women can/should protect themselves - there are tons of ways for women to defend themselves against rapists - the issue is that those tips people like to bring up "don't dress challengingly", "don't be flirty" etc keep being used in courts as circumstantial evidence against the victim. Saying that we need to change focus here has nothing whatsoever to do with misogyny.

I think that it is vitally important to remove these prevention tips from being used as a rape defense in the courtroom.  They are not meant to be used in that setting, and doing so effectively puts unwarranted blame on the victims.  The tips are useful, but should the victims choose to ignore the tips, there is not suddenly an excuse for rapists to conduct their abuse.

I don't think that all rapists are necesseraliy sociopaths - I think many are born in the heat of the moment; sexual frustration, peer pressure - how lonely, angry men communicate with each other, and lots of other factors that originate in a patriarchal society. I think it's excellent that we turn the table around and direct rape prevention "tips" to the potential perpetrators instead of the victims.

Take a look at certain extremely male-chauvinist developing regions, where rape is a basically a means of warfaring - are all those men sociopaths, entirely beyond education and improvement? Or is it a matter of attitude towards women? Of objectification?

I agree here, and I think this further highlights the need to identify the psychology and behavior of potential rapists in order to better fight against rape culture.

[bicilotti]

I don't think that all rapists are necessarily sociopaths - I think many are born in the heat of the moment; sexual frustration, peer pressure - how lonely, angry men communicate with each other, and lots of other factors that originate in a patriarchal society. I think it's excellent that we turn the table around and direct rape prevention "tips" to the potential perpetrators instead of the victims.

Calin said in this thread that 90% of rapists are recidivists. If that is true (Calin, care to provide sources?), I see little benefit in educating the "potential perpetrator" (i.e. the general public) apart from explaining them what's written in those criminal laws book. "Turning the table" is useful and to be encouraged for a bunch of other reasons, I just think it would be utterly ineffective in this case.
If not, what kind of "tips" should we give to a classroom full of "potential perpetrators" (again, if the numbers are correct, 49 Average Joes an  1 guy prone to commit a number of odious crimes?)?

Here are the links to a great deconstruction: http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2013/10/02/bringing-back-bad-memories/

Typical blunderthud, then. So don't watch it. (...)
To think that we briefly had Dundert00t (...)

Argh, I hate it when in a discussion someone calls some other with supposedly-funny nicknames.

Somegreybloke's post was really insightful, with many good points.

[waheela]

I'll probably be echoing a lot of the other people in this thread when I say this, (since I'm entering the conversation late) but I do agree that wearing clothes that are "less provocative" isn't really a solution to prevent rape. Not only is it shifting the blame and responsibility to the wrong party, it really isn't addressing the root of the problem, which will still exist regardless of what the victim does on their end.

As dactylopus mentioned, there are places in the world where the idea of wearing less provocative clothes are taken to the extreme. In parts of the Middle East, women are expected to wear head scarves and burkas to avoid showing any parts of their body that could incite lust in a man. (Apparently a woman's hair is just too sexy for some men to handle???) And yet rape is still very present in the culture. I also agree with Andail when he says that he doesn't think rape is perpetrated solely by sociopaths, who completely lack empathy and are unable to form close bonds with anyone. In part, rape stems from subconsciously viewing another person as lower than you, and thus deciding their desires are less important than yours. For example, I wouldn't say that most racists are sociopaths for acting on prejudices and causing harm. While yes, it is harder to change society as a whole and how women are perceived in our culture, it's really the only solution that tackles the heart of the issue.

[Snarky]

I feel like the whole safety-tip thread of discussion kind of veered off by focusing on the stupidest part: telling women not to wear "provocative" clothes.

The more valuable points, I think, were about how to identify and deal with potential high-risk situations. Things like being aware that getting too drunk to take care of yourself makes you extremely vulnerable to sexual assault, that you're safer in a group than by yourself, to be wary about following men into their rooms (or letting them into yours), etc. Yes, these are basic lessons that probably everyone knows (though certainly everyone doesn't always follow them), but that's because they're repeated so much. (If you go back a few decades, reading autobiographies for example, it's shocking to see how oblivious people could be to risks like this.) And they're probably worth repeating. I'm convinced that a general attitude of informed caution does make it possible for potential victims to avoid some (though by no means all) sexual assaults. Not to say that women should live in fear, but given that there are dangers in this world, pretending as if we can ignore them is irresponsible.

I'd also agree with Andail and waheela that it's a mistake to think all rapists are sociopaths whose actions are outside of anything we can affect. There's a middle ground between "all men* are rapists waiting to happen" and "rapists are inhuman monsters who have nothing in common with 98% of guys*" (or, as I've argued elsewhere, the idea that rapists are driven by entirely abnormal impulses that have nothing to do with the sexual behavior of regular people). That most crimes are carried out by habitual criminals and chronic recidivists is not something specific to rape, and doesn't imply that rapists are just born that way, any more than we think people who commit armed robbery were all born bad. We know for other crimes that although innate personality surely plays a part, social factors are extremely important. I see no reason to think the same is not true for rape. So norms, role models/upbringing, awareness, and (dis)incentives are likely to make a difference to whether someone who's at risk of becoming a sexual aggressor will actually carry it out. (There's been some talk in the news the last couple of days about research showing that reading good literature improves empathy skills, which I think suggests one prong of an approach.)

The problem, of course, is that criminal prevention and rehabilitation is difficult, hard to evaluate, doesn't involve sexy solutions, and is vulnerable to "tough on crime" political posturing.

Some thoughts at the end:

One of the best points I've heard when it comes to prevention and education on sexual assault is that this should really be a major part of sex ed: teaching kids not just that "rape is bad, mmmkay?" but sex-positive ways to work through all the vulnerabilities and insecurities and expectations and apprehensions and taboos to establish mutual, enthusiastic consent. To set clear boundaries and to respect them. To save face in the face of rejection (and how to let someone down easy). To identify danger signs, to trust your gut warnings, and to avoid being manipulated. To look out for others, and step in if something is not OK. Etc. Etc. Sure, corny and naive, and probably about as effective as those "don't drink and drive" videos. But hey! I'm pretty sure those campaigns do have some effect. Again, this is really tough to put into effect, particularly in the US where the default is an "abstinence only" curriculum.

Finally, the question of whether rape prevention focused on the aggressor would work is fundamentally an empirical one. If it does, we would expect very different rates of rape and sexual assault in different countries (and conversely, if it's pretty much the same worldwide, that would be strong evidence that it's an in-born behavior in some individuals that isn't particularly affected by the environment). Unfortunately, the statistics between nations are not really comparable because of inconsistent legal definitions and norms for reporting.

* Of course, women can also be rapists, but the proportions appear to be so skewed that it makes sense to talk about rapists in the masculine.

[SSH]

Things like being aware that getting too drunk to take care of yourself makes you extremely vulnerable to sexual assault

Of course, no-one has ever had their moderate amount of drinks spiked...

[Snarky]

Since you're generally a nice guy, SSH, I assume I must be misinterpreting the tone of that response. Otherwise, it sounds an awful lot like you're wilfully misreading me and sarcastically putting words in my mouth.

[dactylopus]

Things like being aware that getting too drunk to take care of yourself makes you extremely vulnerable to sexual assault

Of course, no-one has ever had their moderate amount of drinks spiked...

That's a completely separate issue.  But, one way to handle this would be to not leave your drinks unattended.

[SSH]

Things like being aware that getting too drunk to take care of yourself makes you extremely vulnerable to sexual assault

Of course, no-one has ever had their moderate amount of drinks spiked...

That's a completely separate issue.  But, one way to handle this would be to not leave your drinks unattended.

So women are supposed to take their drinks with them to the toilet?

Snarky, I just think that none of the advice is particularly valuable, since all of them can be gamed or bypassed by the perp, often by gaining the trust of the victim so they think it isn't necessary.

I think the main point to get across to men is that "No means no". And if people want to play games where that rule doesn't apply, it needs to be clearly agreed beforehand. Unfortunately all kinds of movies propagate "no means yes" as a default.

[dactylopus]

I think the main point to get across to men is that "No means no". And if people want to play games where that rule doesn't apply, it needs to be clearly agreed beforehand. Unfortunately all kinds of movies propagate "no means yes" as a default.

Additionally, a drunken or otherwise inebriated yes means no, too.