Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site timeinc.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!bellcore!sabre!zeta!epsilon!gamma!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!vax135!timeinc!greenber From: greenber@timeinc.UUCP (Ross M. Greenberg) Newsgroups: net.women Subject: Re: ``they'' vs *US* Message-ID: <204@timeinc.UUCP> Date: Tue, 28-May-85 21:16:08 EDT Article-I.D.: timeinc.204 Posted: Tue May 28 21:16:08 1985 Date-Received: Fri, 31-May-85 01:07:21 EDT Reply-To: greenber@timeinc.UUCP (Ross M. Greenberg) Organization: Time, Inc. - New York Lines: 118 Summary: > >In all the responses to Ross's article about "provocative clothing", no one >seems to have challenged its basic premise. Do you have any evidence at all, >Ross, that the kind of clothing a woman wears has any effect whatsoever on >her chance of being raped? >-- >Richard Mateosian >{cbosgd,fortune,hplabs,ihnp4,seismo}!nsc!srm nsc!srm@decwrl.ARPA As a matter of fact yes, albeit a limited quantity. A friend of mine worked with rapists in prisons for quite a while, doing research on rape, and the causes of rape. Although I have only her rough draft here, I'll recite the stats as I interpret them, rounding up or down by five percent. A total of close to eight hundred rapists were interviewed, so maybe that *is* statistically significant. As one further note, my friend was raped herself and really questioned why this happened to her before she started asking the inmates. The below is only regarding male rape of female victims: 80% of all rape was committed against someone the rapist knew. So called "date-rape". ~5% of al rape was committed against the very old or the very young 50% of all rape was committed against someone +/- four years the rapists age 90% of all rape was committed against someone +/- ten years the rapists age 10% of rape involved weapons of any sort 60% of the rapists had committed rape at least once before without being caught 30% had committed rape "numerous" times before without getting caught. 20% had committed rape, been prosecuted, and not convicted. of this twenty percent, 40% got off due to the women never showing up at the trial, 30% got off due to "mitigating circumstances", and the remaining 30% got off legit: they had not raped the women, but she had pressed charges. Less than 1% claimed that they were innocent, but my friend was convinced that they were in fact innocent. Reasons for rape: about 30% said that the women was "asking for it" or that "she deserved it". This was indicative of date rape more than of out-of-the-bushes rape. Lot of rejection ("she was fucking everyone but me" type of stuff) and power trips ("I'll show the litte bitch") about 50% were reminded of someone that they knew (mother? spouse? ) and wanted to "get even" about 20% wanted to rape. This was both a power-play (violence and not sex) and sexual desire. Rape, in this case, I feel, should be considered a crime of sex: they wanted to rape, to have sex, with a women that they desired. They were able to overpower the women in some form and because they were able to overpower/get away with it, they had sex with a women who had no desire to have sex with them. The purpose of the rape was not to overpower and intimidate the women, it was to have intercourse with a women that would not otherwise have intercourse with them. It is this last category which brought me to talking about "provocative clothing". These rapists decided to rape a given women because they were desirous of having sex with her. They made this decision based on a number of factors, one of which was sexual desire for that women. What made their choice for the date-rape type of rape? The key words here are *sexual desire*. A rapist would be desirous of sex with the women he was "out" with, but was rejected. What helped him in feeling sexual desire for the women? 30% of all rapists claimed the looks of the women were of either primary of secondary importance. The other contributing factor appeared to be the ability of "getting" away with it. Remember that we are not speaking here of the stereo-typical rapist: we are speaking here of (60%) high-school graduates that already knew the women they were raping. Actual numbers that claimed that some of the women were raped because of their appeararance was an astounding 40%!! Now, it is up to the reader here to determine whether "appearance" includes dress. I have interpreted these numbers to indicate that "provocative dress", whilst never responsible for the actual rape (he rapist is responsible for the rape), may be a contributing factor in determining whether a woman gets raped or not. If I can dig up a copy of the paper in its finished form, I'll publish it here on the net. I'm sorry for the length of this, but maybe this is stuff that should be printed here before future discussion goes on. Comments??? Send them to me, and I'll compile them for the net. (I tried to do a decent job of interpreting my friends raw notes: there are over 200K of them on my KAYPRO, so please bear with me.) -- ------------------------------------------------------------------ Ross M. Greenberg @ Time Inc, New York --------->{ihnp4 | vax135}!timeinc!greenber<--------- I highly doubt that Time Inc. they would make me their spokesperson. ------ "There's something wrong in the world. There's always been. Something no one has ever named or explained" --- Francisco d'Anconia