Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site kontron.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!ihnp4!pesnta!pertec!kontron!cramer
From: cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: net.women
Subject: Re: "provocative" clothing
Message-ID: <195@kontron.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 3-Jun-85 12:17:41 EDT
Article-I.D.: kontron.195
Posted: Mon Jun  3 12:17:41 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 5-Jun-85 00:37:58 EDT
References: <734@oddjob.UUCP> <193@timeinc.UUCP> <766@mtgzz.UUCP> <180@kontron.UUCP> <413@calmasd.UUCP>
Organization: Kontron Electronics, Irvine, CA
Lines: 42

> In article <180@kontron.UUCP> cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
> >The only assertion
> >is that provocative dress may push *a few* rapists over the edge;
> >it would be safest to avoid trouble, just like I avoid trouble by not
> >walking through Watts at night.
> 
> The only problem with this is that women have no way of knowing
> what will be considered provocative.  Jeans and t-shirts have
> been considered provocative.  Do you mean that I should not wear
> my normal, everyday clothing on the street?  Should we, just to
> avoid trouble, wear voluminous robes and veils a la Middle
> Eastern cultures?  But someone, somewhere, may be provoked by a
> voluminous robe.  Maybe we should, just to avoid trouble, stay
> at home all the time?  
> 
I completely agree with you that there is a problem in determining
what constitutes provocative.  (You may remember the judge a couple years
ago back East who thought a 15 year old girl wearing jeans and a t-shirt
was dressed "provocatively".)  Nonetheless, there are some styles of
dress that almost everyone could agree are provocative, and might be
best to avoid in dangerous places like California.

> Sharon Badian was perfectly correct when she said (I paraphrase
> here) that discussion of provocative clothing only confuses the
> issue.  

It only confuses the issue because a number of people seem to have
interpreted my remarks as indicating that the rapist is less responsible
because of what the victim was wearing.  For the fifth or sixth time,
"A rapist is responsible for his actions; the victim's style of clothing
doesn't make her at responsible.  This discussion is pure and simple,
a discussion of *practical* ways to avoid problems."

Finally, to add additional fuel to the fire, let me throw in another
remark certain to get me flamed:  A lot of what motivates rapists is
hatred towards women.  It seems to me from the reading that I have done
on the subject, that a lot of rapists have a special hatred of any women
they consider to be a "whore".  (The rapist's definition of this tends
to be *very* broad.)  Certain clothing is associated in this culture
with prostitutes.  Wearing that clothing may provoke some rapists to
rape simply because of the association that they make between the clothing
and the rapist's concept of a "whore".