Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site sphinx.UChicago.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!bellcore!allegra!ulysses!mhuxr!ihnp4!gargoyle!sphinx!beth
From: beth@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP (beth d. christy)
Newsgroups: net.women
Subject: Provocative clothing
Message-ID: <522@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 19-May-85 01:06:54 EDT
Article-I.D.: sphinx.522
Posted: Sun May 19 01:06:54 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 20-May-85 08:33:24 EDT
References: <186@timeinc.UUCP>
Organization: U. Chicago - Computation Center
Lines: 58

In Message <186@timeinc.UUCP> greenber@timeinc.UUCP (Ross M. Greenberg)
writes:

>In article <397@calmasd.UUCP> gail@calmasd.UUCP (Gail B. Hanrahan) writes:
>>
>>"Provocative clothing" is no excuse for rape.  Don't try to
>>blame women for someone else's lack of control (or sanity).
>
>I know that this will probably start flames, and I wish it wouldn't:
>
>If I told you that I was walking in a "bad" area of town, late at night,
>and had $100 bills sticking out of my pockets, and that somebody
>mugged me, would you be shocked???
>
>Chances are you would tell me: you should have known better.  Now, this
>doesn't mean the robbery was right, and it doesn't represent that the
>society that allows for someone to mug me is protecting me from myself
>(given that there *are* nasties out there).
>
>So why shouldn't the same caveats apply to a women in some provocative
>clothing?  If I have to be careful of not being mugged, why can't the
>women in the see-thru blouse and the tight leather micro-skirt be
>aware that she *is* provoking some sickie out there. It doesn't make
>her the guilty party.....it just means that *maybe* she could have
>avoided the problem by not dressing in a manner that is thought by
>many to be provocative. The problem still resides within the rapists
>mind, just as the above problem existed in the muggers mind.
>
>And if somebody were to say to her: "You should have known better than
>to dress like that..." that person would probably be labeled sexist!!
>
>Ross M. Greenberg  @ Time Inc, New York 

The difference between the two scenarios is that, whereas you can
still nail the thief even if everybody agrees you were asking for it,
the "fact" that "she was asking for it" is enough to stop the b*st*rd
from getting jailed, 'cause "consent" makes it not rape.  Rape is the
fault of the rapist, not of the woman's fashion sense, and he should
be *punished* regardless of what she was wearing.

Also, "women in see-thru blouses and tight leather micro-skirts in the
bad area of town" is not what we're talking about here.  The "bad area
of town" is *every* area of town, and the "provocative clothing" is
often jeans and a T-shirt.  That means the woman is provocative no
matter what.  In everyday normal circumstances, she's provoking the
attack.

(I'm not making this stuff up either - read an earlier posting citing
the case where a 16 year old rapist was let off because the 14 year
old girl he raped had "provoked" him by wearing jeans and a T-shirt.
That was an actual true case in Wisconsin in the late 70's (I think).)

-- 

--JB                                             "The giant is awake."

Disclaimer?  Who wud claim dis?