Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site spar.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!decwrl!spar!ellis
From: ellis@spar.UUCP (Michael Ellis)
Newsgroups: net.women
Subject: Re: ``they'' vs *US*
Message-ID: <267@spar.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 29-May-85 04:57:58 EDT
Article-I.D.: spar.267
Posted: Wed May 29 04:57:58 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 31-May-85 05:07:39 EDT
References: <186@timeinc.UUCP> <442@sftri.UUCP> <1395@watdcsu.UUCP> <2769@nsc.UUCP>
Reply-To: ellis@spar.UUCP (Michael Ellis)
Organization: Schlumberger Palo Alto Research, CA
Lines: 32

>But what if the choice of clothing *does* influence the likelihood of
>rape?  A woman who truly believes that this is not so will see no need
>to be careful about how she dresses, and she'll innocently increase her
>chances of getting raped.
>
>It is important to have good evidence for such a statement, because
>the consequences of being wrong are serious. -- David Canzi

    Do you suppose that a woman in traditional feminine clothing, such as
    high-heels, skirt, frilly blouse, and flowers in her hair, all
    thoroughly modest by conservative standards, has minimized her chances
    of rape?

    I doubt it. 

    Considering that the violation of `pristine feminine virtue' is such a
    common theme in stereotypical male porno literature, I suspect that
    dressing like Marie Osmond likely INCREASES one's chance of rape.

    Recent allusion to `exposed flesh' and `tight leather' strikes me as a
    flimsy, though probably unconscious, attempt to divert the blame away
    from APPALLINGLY UGLY MALE PEER GROUP ATTITUDES to `provocative
    clothing'. Such thinking overlooks the fact that true rape-preventative
    dress probably consists of Army boots, football shoulder pads,
    construction work clothing, and a marine haircut with optional
    fake facial hair (recommended).

    Simply being PERCEIVED as a woman is to provoke a rapist.

    I believe this is the nature of the loss of freedom women experience.

-michael