The sluts protest too much, methinks

Emma says:

08:08am | 16/05/11

That’s a bizarre interpretation of the article Philip.  Since when did critique of an idea equal endorsement of its opposite?  Other than in the comment section of Punch articles that is.  Sometimes I think “Australia’s most pathetic conversation” would be a more appropriate byline.

Huey says:

08:52am | 16/05/11

Emma is right. Did you actually read the article Philip? I think it’s well reasoned and states Tory’s point so plainly it’s hard to miss.

Punters Pal says:

01:11pm | 16/05/11

I think Philip here creamed himself with an idea of getting the firstie in and decided to comment without bothering reading what the article was all about.

Mark says:

02:21pm | 16/05/11

Another Tory Shepherd piece, another week goes by without a single word of protest about the Australian woman who was jailed in the UAE for eight months for being raped. Girls want to protest about the way they dress? Let’s belt up 2000 words of opinion. A woman is the victim of a sexual assault and is jailed after reporting the crime for the sin of having sex outside of marriage? Zero. Nil. Nudda.

Chris L says:

04:33pm | 16/05/11

@Mark - How dare to waste time talking about the UAE when there are children starving in Africa. We should not discuss anything else at all until we have dealt with this situation.

PS. This is an opinion site. If you log into here and read an article, you’re going to read someone’s opinion, and it won’t always be about what you want to discuss.

Mark says:

09:37pm | 17/05/11

Hey Chris L, my post was an opinion. Oh, and a woman being jailed for being raped is actually important. My point is Tory seems to get up in arms about everyhting against women except something like this which was a disgraceful abuse of human rights. That the media ignored it is disgusting. Do you understand? I can break out hand puppets to help if not.

Chris L says:

11:59pm | 18/05/11

@Mark - then I suggest you submit an article to the punch (or perhaps an even more noteworthy site for your intentions) rather than complain on an unrelated article. Just a suggestion.

Alannah says:

11:48am | 19/05/11

Yes Philip, Mary Magdalene was labelled a slut once,  whether consciously or not this negative, misogynistic attitude has been around for a long, long time, embedded in public attitude and been directed towards women in all shapes, sizes, and ages whether they wear burqua’s or bikinis!. Tory, you, manhood and humanity in general need to face this sexual objectification of women, bring on the “slut walk” I say and celebrate the splendour and beauty of women in all shapes and sizes and states of dressed or undressed, if you love women you don’t rape them, there is never, ever a reason to rape, especially when a perpetrator tries to lay the blame on the victim because of the way they look! that is pathetic!.

bec says:

09:04am | 16/05/11

I’m familiar with a study that proved that women who wore jeans or non-revealing clothing were far more likely to attract street harassment or groping, regardless of the cultural situation, than women wearing tube tops or short skirts. From personal experience, the only time I’ve had unwanted street attention or flashers have been the times when I was completely covered up.

marley says:

09:19am | 16/05/11

It’s not the “eyes” that commit the sexual assault.  If you can’t control the rest of your body, maybe you shouldn’t be allowed out on the streets.

curvy lines equal eye candy says:

09:42am | 16/05/11

About those lines, curvy lines in particular. When I did life drawing, all participants men and women alike, agreed that drawing men was quite boring but to draw the curvy lines of women was a pleasure, plain and pure eye candy.

Just thinking out loud, why would you have any stranger feast on your curves? Sure don’t touch unless invited but hey we all know there’s plenty morons out there with no manners digging in without being invited to do so. Just saying.

And yes from own experience, plenty times dress has nothing to do with being harrassed/raped, but then again why lay it out there for all to feast on?

Each to their own I guess.

Thomas Anderson says:

01:05pm | 16/05/11

bec, is that because when you were not “covered up”, the increased attention was, in fact, wanted?

Paul Horn says:

01:34pm | 16/05/11

Yeah curvy lines its a bit like watching wemen play sport - completely boring.

So perhaps ladies should stay in the art class where they can’t be seen or thought of by the vast majority of decent folk and let the rest of us enjoy the spectacle of buff boys showing amazing acts of athleticism.

bec says:

01:45pm | 16/05/11

Thomas, just about everything I wear is “covered up”, being that I don’t own anything that comes above the knee or below the clavicle. Relatively speaking, it was when I was wearing jeans and a sweatshirt, rather than a knee-length skirt and long-sleeve teeshirt. Neither time was I dressing to attract attention: I was merely wearing something to feel comfortable in when out doing things that couldn’t possibly be construed as sexually inviting (completing university assignments in a library, shopping in a supermarket).

Kika says:

02:27pm | 16/05/11

It’s usually when I am walking to work I receive unwanted (and it is always unwanted) attention. I don’t get it. Just minding my own business in my work gear (office clothes - this morning it was tights, flats, black skirt, sensible cardigan and a tank) and I get wolf whistled at.

Alastair says:

02:50pm | 16/05/11

Bec, Kika, Perhaps the reason you get the attention when you are sensibly dressed is because women look more attractive like that than when they are dressed like a slut.

Vulgar is not sexy! You women don’t seem to get that.

Thomas Anderson says:

04:55pm | 16/05/11

Alastair, maybe to sensible men. But go outside a nightspot and you will see that the “vulgar” dressed girls are getting all the attention.

buckyboy says:

08:35pm | 16/05/11

In a perfect world women should be able to wear anything they desire. Unfortunately, it is not possible because we live in a far from a perfect world that sometimes gives way to the ugly side of human sexual behavior.
For women to march under the banner of ‘slut..and proud of it’ is the wrong way to highlight their demands, it totally destroys their argument and demeans women in general.

Lisa H. says:

12:51am | 17/05/11

I don’t really see why women “should be allowed to wear anything they desire’ anymore than men should be. Why don’t men have such heated, and constant, debate about what they can and can’t wear?
Men are more likely to be subject to violence than women.

Oh, that’s right, they’ve got better things to think about.
This whole discussion is kind of…. immature, the sort of talk your teenager would bring up.

fox says:

02:27am | 17/05/11

Women can wear anything they want, and none deserve rape at all, and none deserve rape more than another because of their choice of clothing.

That said, if I drive into a poor neighbour hood with loads of $100 bills on the back seat, I wouldn’t be all that surprised if I got robbed instead of if I’d put the money in the glovebox or covered it up.

But I wouldn’t deserve to get robbed either way.

PatC says:

11:16am | 17/05/11

Well done - a whole opinion on “flowing dress” and never once mentioned the burqua - buts that what you’re intimating isn’t it.

Another apoligist who would be quite happy to see sharia law introduced into Australia.

Sluts or lines? says:

09:26pm | 17/05/11

No Pat, when I say burka I mean burka and when I say flowing dress I mean flowing dress, the inferences are entirely your own. Aussie born this one and just not into the ocker mentality.

Markus says:

10:13am | 16/05/11

My thought exactly.
The women organising such an event probably spend more time dderiding ‘sluts’ than any man does, and are only organising this because their disdain for such women is outweighed only by their outrage at a patriarchal society daring to suggest that people should taking some responsibility for themselves.

Sure, in a perfect world the victim should never have to accept any blame. But this isn’t a perfect world. It never will be. Act accordingly.

The Civet says:

10:43am | 16/05/11

What’s needed is for men to be tagged as the sluts they are. For every partner a female has had a male has probably has had double the amount.

VVS says:

10:58am | 16/05/11

Seems like a good place to pick up - I’ll be there!

Adam says:

12:04pm | 16/05/11

Perhaps it’s high time these sluts realised it is the tone and inflection that makes the word offensive, not the word itself. Though I suppose even that slut Clem Bastow realised trying to reclaim negative tone and inflection to “rid it of its derogatory connotations” would never succeed and acknowledging such a thing would demonstrate how pointless attempting to reclaim the word slut on its own is.

Tom says:

01:34pm | 16/05/11

Civet, think about the mathematics of that for a second.  You’re an idiot.

Truckle the Uncivil says:

02:13pm | 16/05/11

@Civet.  If you go back to etymological origins I believe that slut was an untidy woman and sloven was an untidy man - no sexual connotations to either.  Nevertheless, the sexual opposite of slut is sloven.

BK says:

08:36pm | 16/05/11

@Civet

If I was a woman I would hate male sxluts with a passion. When you meet a man, “is he a slut” should be the first question that you ask yourself.

just saying says:

01:20am | 17/05/11

and Tom, as always, you are a bit of a nob.

andy says:

04:46pm | 19/05/11

@superd you seem to think all feminists are sexless! my experience is quite the opposite. lots of those feminists you deride are more sexually open than the men who stereotype them.

rightway rogan says:

10:05am | 16/05/11

It’s high time ‘slut’ symbolised the finer capacities of woman: like working alongside man while bringing up the kids and cookin and cleanin clad in overalls or thong. Then in some cases man might earn the privelege of being described as such. So bring on the the slutwalk’. The Sydney chap earned my vote when he drew attention to the kids of broken families who deserve better than the courts and parents are meting out to them currently. The psychs are in for a busy time. The strategy was dire but it cut thru media hype

Ando says:

10:18am | 16/05/11

The purpose of rally is to get public support. Those who know the message like yourself are not really the target audience. The rest will just see the “slutwalk” banners and may potentially switch off.

Lee says:

11:18am | 16/05/11

The term slut is not as bad as slag… I prefer to use slag.

However “slut” has more uses - like slutbag or slutfeatures that slag just cannot compete with.

bec says:

11:34am | 16/05/11

But why stoop to boring gender-based insults when there are some corkers that can apply to either gender that are so much more fun to say? Gobshite, bell-end, f***stain and cousin-toucher are far more descriptive and accurate as insults than the boring old “slut” and “slag”.

Adam says:

11:34am | 16/05/11

@ bec - “I don’t think the point is to come dressed as a slut: ultimately, the issue is a red herring”

Perhaps they should have picked a name other than “SlutWalk” then. The problem is of their own making.

Markus says:

11:42am | 16/05/11

So who are the target audience, Ando?
I’d be thinking the target audience would be that small minority that actually have/would rape someone.

Given that they are already disregarding a law that could land them multiple life sentences, I don’t think they are going to give a s**t about the message.

bec says:

12:02pm | 16/05/11

Because it’s an “I am spartacus” move, Adam? Because “slut” is so meaninglessly nebulous and vague as an insult (what are the criteria? who gets to judge?) and women who aren’t sluts get raped anyway, we might as well make the point that if all it took to not be raped was to dress conservatively there’d be little rape. Because by the criteria of those who hate women, I too would be a slut, regardless of my actual sexual conduct or dress.

And besides, it’s only a bell-end cousin-touching piece of turd who actively believes in the double standard of female sexuality being punished while male sexuality gets lauded.

Erick says:

12:29pm | 16/05/11

“It’s only a bell-end cousin-touching piece of turd who actively believes in the double standard of female sexuality being punished while male sexuality gets lauded. “

True.

In reality it’s female sexuality that gets lauded, with feminists proclaiming it as a form of empowerment, with overt displays of female sexuality on all the media.

Male sexuality, on the other hand, is vilified, put down, criminalised, and generally punished.

Adam says:

12:55pm | 16/05/11

@ Bec - Nice attempt to totally avoid the point of what I said.

The point I was making was that, if as you say, “I don’t think the point is to come dressed as a slut: ultimately, the issue is a red herring” then it seems ironic, and just plain stupid, that they picked the name “SlutWalk”. The problem (or red herring) is of their own making.

You can pontificate over how meaningless, nebulous and vague the word “slut” is all you want in an effort to soften the name “SlutWalk”, however, your statements “women who aren’t sluts get raped anyway” and “I don’t think the point is to come dressed as a slut” indicates you have a fairly clear definition of the word “slut” and can see the irony/stupidity I am speaking about.

bec says:

01:22pm | 16/05/11

Fine. I will concede you make a valid point; I point out it’s nebulous and arbitrary when I use the same code to define the characteristics of the large majority of people who are sexually assaulted. If I clarify the matter by saying people who are conservatively dressed (and let’s be explicit, by this I mean clothing where it is difficult to ascertain the form or contours of the body, where no flesh is visible between, say, middle of the leg to a considerable way up the chest, given that this is what a “reasonable” man on the street would consider conservative dress) are more likely to be raped, the point is still the same.

And even with that guideline, what if someone decides that even *that* is too revealing? What if someone decides that the sight of calves or ankle is promiscuous, or that showing anything below the elbow is inviting unwanted attention, which people are prone to do? In for a penny, in for a pound, I say. When you will have a certain minority calling you off for whatever you wear, why not wear revealing clothing if it is climatically appropriate?

Even if I do think that according to stupid community standards that there might be something considered “slutty” and I casually appropriate such a term to describe people, a) why would you believe that I think it is a bad thing to be promiscuous, and b) what makes you assume that I believe they deserve to be assaulted more than anyone else? Amongst my friends I include sex workers and people who do dress revealingly. It bothers me no end and does not change my opinion of them. What I want for my friends is for them to not be hurt; and that comes directly to laying the blame where it belongs - on the perpetrator.

Ando says:

02:00pm | 16/05/11

Markus,
I would suggest the target audience is people who think the way you dress makes you part of the problem and the rally is to raise awareness. Who do you think the taget audience is?

Bernard says:

02:04pm | 16/05/11

I can see how it shouldn’t really matter what a girl wears. Wearing skimpy clothes probably isn’t going to make a girl more likely to be raped. You could possibly infer though that girls who are dressed more provocatively are more likely to indulge in risky behaviour. The dressing in and of itself shouldn’t really put a girl at more of a risk. She will get more male attention, but the same percentage of that attention is likely to be from guys who have no intention of raping the girl.

Behaviour is different though. Drinking a lot of alcohol, or going into isolation with a stranger is probably going to lead to more rapes because the girl will be in a situation where rape is more likely to occur. The argument of walking down an alley in the Cross while blind drunk with $100 bills taped to you has been used before to exaggerate this point.

Personally I like girls walking around in revealing clothes. As a man I do however reserve the right to guess at a girl’s personality from what she wears though. It’s not like girls don’t judge men’s personalities for what we wear after all.

Adam says:

02:22pm | 16/05/11

@ Bec - Everything you said after “Fine. I will concede you make a valid point” was irrelevant to me. I neither care about rape victim’s standard of dress nor have I ever expressed an interest in it.

You also seem to be irrationally trying to ascribe opinions and views to me which I have not expressed through your use of leading questions (i.e. “why would you believe that I think it is a bad thing to be promiscuous?” and “what makes you assume that I believe they deserve to be assaulted more than anyone else?”). I’d suggest instead of jumping at shadows you go back and read my posts again. I was highlighting the irony/stupidity of the name “SlutWalk”, particularly when considered in relation to some of your statements. The author of this article, Tory Shepherd, suggested protestors sometimes do their own cause an enormous disservice. I agree and think the name “SlutWalk” is a classic example of this. Nothing more, nothing less.

BK says:

09:04pm | 16/05/11

Bec

You are from the far right-hand section of the bell curve if you think that slutty men are respected. I would bet that you have given plenty of blokes both barrels for loving and leaving you.
Furthermore, in the unlikely event that you are genuinely interested in eliminating double-standards, slutty women take advantage of a range of them. Men cannot have sex with women out of their own league. Women can. Men cannot choose to have sex with a new partner every week. Women can. Men cannot go to a party , big-note about how much sex they have and get showered with attention. Women can. Men cannot go out on the town and have 100 women approach them, hoping to have sex. Women can.

Slutty women are all about taking advantage of double-standards. I am not about to listen toconfected outrage about double-standards on behalf of a group of people who are all too willing to take advantage of double-standards that suit them.

bec says:

09:42pm | 16/05/11

BK, I’ve been lucky enough to have never needed to give anyone either barrel in the relationship; I am one of those statistically lucky schmucks who has only ever been in one relationship, which I am still in.

And even so, I’m not adequately convinced that you’ve ever been out in public, ever. (I recommend it, people are mainly fun even if horrible things like rape, Jersey Shore and the Melbourne shuffle exist.) In what world do you live where you’ve never seen a dude “punch above his own weight”? What world do you live in where you’ve never encountered a dude who hasn’t had sex with someone new every week? Good on him for it - if he’s living by the law and isn’t hurting anybody, this hypothetical man (and any real men who live like him) can do whatever the hell they want.

The existence of the word and terminology of “slut” indicates that it’s a double standard in terms of sexuality that shouldn’t exist. The answer isn’t to punish men for healthy and legal expressions of sexuality. The answer is to make it open for anyone who wants it.

BK says:

06:22pm | 17/05/11

@Bec

I am still fairly sure that you have criticised some bloke for loving and leaving some woman at some time. I wonder which planet you inhabit if you have never seen this happen.

Regarding double-standards, there are a range of them that advantage women. Everything from free drinks to the preferential treatment that women get from police, publicans, bouncers etc. Women who want a long term relationship can only take advantage of these double-standards to a limited extent, because they know that guys who are too eager to please are sleaze. Slutty women’s behaviour is all about taking advantage of these double-standards. They refuse to give them up, no matter how many times they get burned. Their behaviour is all about going to a party (for example), big-noting about how much sex thay have and getting showered with attention. Equality with men would be the last thing they would want.

Erick says:

09:20am | 16/05/11

That’s brilliant, SouthernX.

Some more fine commentary: Stupidity in a Tube Top, Dear Empowered Women, Making the Rounds.

Arnold Layne says:

04:01pm | 16/05/11

@southernX - That’s brilliant

@Erick - I found the section in the first link of yours that distinguished between dressing like one and actually being one to be quite interesting.

TChong says:

08:48am | 16/05/11

‘they were asking for it” - a hackneyed, loathesome defence, but a very sucessful one.
This defence has allowed many a female pedo rapists recieve sympathy, portray themselves as the “real victim”, and recieve sentences far less severe than any male perpetrator.

Erick says:

09:32am | 16/05/11

The real victim-blaming is that of men who are falsely accused of rape. False accusations of rape are every bit as damaging as actual rape, but in many cases the male victim of a rape lie is blamed, while the perpetrator escapes punishment.

Tim says:

10:18am | 16/05/11

Carz has obviously never heard of innocent until proven guilty.

Reg says:

11:15am | 16/05/11

Too bad that is not what the cop was saying…

He was advocating taking personal responsibility for your choices and taking common sense steps to reduce the chance of rape, which also included watching the amount you drank and sticking with friends if they were drunk and making sure they got home safely.

Rape happens and will continue to happen.

These so-called Slutwalks do nothing to address the problem at all - in fact they draw focus away from the real issue.

Faybian says:

11:39am | 16/05/11

Omg, tchong and erick, way to try to divert the focus, which is on women, not men. Rape happens to both genders, but still more often to female than male. Try looking up the ABS sometime, or are you just really trolls?

Erick says:

12:35pm | 16/05/11

Faybian, false accusations of rape happen more often to men than to women. Furthermore, the victims of false accusations are often blamed.

False rape accusations make up around half of all rape accusations, and are just as damaging as actual rapes.

TChong says:

12:50pm | 16/05/11

Whats your problem Faybian.?
You cant concede female sex offenders exist ?, or that they, like male pedos seek to blame the victim ?
As for sentences imposed, the evidence about the discrepancies is obvios , and easy enough to find.

For angry Erick says:

01:56pm | 16/05/11

Erick you’re spouting inanities when you state that ‘False rape accusations make up around half of all rape accusations, and are just as damaging as actual rapes’

You are just an angry male who says stupid things irrelevant to the topic at hand because of some ptsd or whatever.

We’re talking about Slutwalk rallies and the reason behind them Erick. We’re not talking about your warped ideas of right and wrong to do with female/male relationships and the poor males always hard done by despite all statistics to the contrary.

Carz says:

02:04pm | 16/05/11

@ Erick. You say “False rape accusations make up around half of all rape accusations, and are just as damaging as actual rapes.”

Back this up. Where are your reputable sources to substantiate this?

Slothy says:

02:13pm | 16/05/11

Reg: “He was advocating taking personal responsibility for your choices and taking common sense steps to reduce the chance of rape, which also included watching the amount you drank and sticking with friends if they were drunk and making sure they got home safely.

Rape happens and will continue to happen.”

Firstly, those suggestions ignore the reality of rape in that the mythical ‘scantily-clad drunk girl in an alleyway’ makes up only a tiny proportion of rapes. You could follow all those rules and not reduce your chance of being raped by any significant amount, because that’s simply not how most rapes happen.

Secondly, saying ‘take personal responsibility for your choices’ in this context IS victim blaming. If I spend all night dancing provocatively in a club, get wasted and pass out in an alleyway with my undies around my ankles, I need to take responsibility for plenty of things. I am responsible for the massive hangover I’ll have the next day and the equally large hole in my wallet. I am responsible for the bruises from falling over and the sore neck and hypothermia from sleeping in an alley. I am responsible for any friendships I destroyed and any embarrasing things I said.

But if I am raped, I am not responsible. The only person responsible for raping me would be the cretin who walked up to an unconsious girl in an alleyway and stuck his cock in her.  Saying ‘oh rape will always happen so adjust your actions accordingly’ takes the responsibility from the rapist to oh, not rape, and puts it on the victim.  That’s the point of SlutWalk - it doesn’t matter what you did leading up to it, the ony person who has to take ‘personal responsibility’ for rape is the rapist.

TJ says:

02:23pm | 16/05/11

sad as it may seem Erick is right, not sure about the numbers but the reason so many victims of rape get put on trial is because there are/were a lot of women who cried rape for many different reasons, the guy in question wasn’t paying attention to them or said no when they wanted to get into their pants, too many women used it as a power play especially for those high profile cases, not sure what the number is here but there were a lot in the US where they heard of someone who cried rape and the man in question he or his family paid hush money and so these women decided easy money.

rape isn’t about sex, it’s about power and all the rally’s in the world won’t stop it, a lot of the time it’s a mentally ill perpetrator or a sociopath with a compulsion, it shouldn’t matter what you wear but why risk it?

with the way the world is today why chance it? why take the risk that it could happen to you? with the amount of date rape drugs out there that can kill you you’re taking your life into your hands just going to a club, but there are ways to minimalise the threat.

Faybian says:

02:31pm | 16/05/11

My problem tchong, is with the fact that you spout this stuff without backing it up with a source. It’s offensive.  I’m sure that if you read my post properly you’d see that I admitted male rape does happen and that female child sex abusers exist.  Why does it hurt so much to admit that females tend to make up the majority of victims? Erick, I know that false accusations of rape get thrown about and it’s disgusting and destructive, but then so is actual rape, no matter who the victim or offender.

Erick says:

02:41pm | 16/05/11

@Carz - Here are a few sources for statistics on false accusations of rape.

http://www.theforensicexaminer.com/archive/spring09/15/

http://falserapesociety.blogspot.com/p/informative-sources.html

http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/crimprof_blog/2004/12/2_false_rape_st.html

That should be enough to get you started. You can find more if you look.

meh says:

02:42pm | 16/05/11

“When we have magistrates who accept defense claims that a child victim was the sexual aggressor it is victim blaming. “

well theres a HUGE difference between a sexual active 16 year old girl who is fully capable of seducing an older man, and a pre pubescent child who is clearly being preyed upon. I know of no instance where a pre pubescent child has been said to be a sexual aggressor.

lol says:

02:53pm | 16/05/11

lol @ the women in here who only want to hear about female victims.
u make fun of men who think of ‘all the poor males always hard done by’, yet ur attitude is the exact same for all the poor females always hard done by.
how about u educate yourself on the MANY areas men get the sh*t end of the stick aie? if you expect men to be sympathetic to ur views then u damn well better be sympathetic to their views.

Matt says:

03:24pm | 16/05/11

Sorry Carz, I fully disagree with you.

If I walked down the streets of Harlem at 3am with a t-shirt emblazoned “I hate n##g#rs”, I would expect to die. And it would largely be my own fault.

Of course the person(s) who would kill me should still be responsible for their actions - they should still be caught and subject to the law. But honestly, how could anyone defend a person in such a situation and say that they are completely without fault? Your black and white assessment that it is NEVER the victim’s fault would seem to defend this kind of over the top, ludicrous and obviously inappropriate behaviour.

I understand the cop’s message to be little more than “we all need to take responsibility for our own safety” - who would disagree with that?

The world has many victims who did absolutely nothing wrong, and many victims whose foolishness played some contributing factor. I’ve had more than one friend who was a victim of rape, sexual abuse, and severe beatings. I honestly feel bad for them, and it doesnt by any stretch of the imagination excuse the perpetrators misdeeds in any case. But in SOME cases, to deny ‘contributing factors’ on the victim’s behalf is at best ignorant and at worst contemptible.

Bernard says:

03:33pm | 16/05/11

@ lol

You’re right in that many men have less sympathy for women’s issues these days because women have time again shown that they don’t care about men’s issues. You see it all the time in comments such as ‘Well, yes it happens to men too, but its worse for women and its important we focus all our resources on that…’ or some variation thereof.

Carz says:

04:34pm | 16/05/11

@Erick, you said:    False rape accusations make up around half of all rape accusations, and are just as damaging as actual rapes.

You then provided several sources. Yet none of those sources, from what I saw, equated the level of false rape allegations with the level of true rape allegations. In fact, from what I saw, they said that the rate of false rape allegations runs at between 2% and 8%, with most agreeing that it is about 5% which, funnily enough, is about the same rate of false allegations for most other types of crime. And it is nowhere near equal to the number of rape allegations said to be true.

Rover of North Cooma says:

04:45pm | 16/05/11

Erick, how can the “real victim blaming” only be of men accused of rape, and not the women?
I don’t know what happened to you to make you hate women so much.

Erick says:

04:49pm | 16/05/11

Very true, lol.

After experiencing for many years the total contempt that feminists and many women have for men’s problems, I have become almost completely uninterested in women’s problems.

Alastair says:

05:14pm | 16/05/11

Faybian says:01:31pm | 16/05/11

Why does it hurt so much to admit that females tend to make up the majority of victims?
—-

Because they don’t! Men are about 60% of the sexual perpetrators under the scope of what we currently define as sexual assault (I would argue that, that scope leaves out many of the insidious ways women commit sexual assault, but that’s a different debate.)  but they also make up about 60% of the victims. You’ll find that the most vulnerable group or the preferred group if you will for predators to attack is young prepubescent boys. And what is hurtful is that such trauma in childhood is magnified by the current social stigmas that seem to infer they can never be classed as victims.

How do you suppose a male rape victim must feel to see the inept and bigoted argue down the number and seriousness of female sex offences to seem like little more than 5% or worse 0% of all sex crime? All in the name of preserving some perverse notion of the female’s steotypically assigned superior moral virtue. A moral virtue that exists solely in the heads of women and those sad case men who hope that by believing in it they will end up looking the hero and ultimately get down her pants.

When people try to discuss the merits of the argument and uncover what the facts actually tell us how can you describe such throw away lines as “Why does it hurt so much to admit that females tend to make up the majority of victims” as not hurtful? It’s time for people like you to pull your fingers out of your ears, stop yelling la la la and realise that the female is not a virtuous creature that deserves a blind defence solely because its female.

Alastair says:

05:27pm | 16/05/11

@carl

Here’s the evidence you’re after.

to quote: They recruited independent reviewers who were given 25 criteria derived from the profiles of the women who openly admitted making a false allegation. If all three reviewers agreed that the rape allegation was false, it was then listed by that description. The result: 60% of the accusations were identified as false. McDowell also took his study outside the military by examining police files from a major midwestern and a southwestern city. He found that the finding of 60% held (Farrell, 1993, pp. 321-329).

from here: http://www.ipt-forensics.com/journal/volume6/j6_2_4.htm

happy reading.

Adam says:

05:50pm | 16/05/11

“Victim blaming” simply apportions some responsibility to an individual when their actions contributed to the outcome. I think it is fair enough and we’d be a pretty naive society to assume no victims decisions/behaviour ever contributes to them becoming a victim of crime (i.e. mouthing off to a pack of bikies at the pub and getting beaten up).

In this context I believe victim blaming is like “contributory negligence” or “volenti non fit injuria”.

Contributory negligence. Failure of an effected plaintiff to act prudently, considered to be a contributory factor to the effect suffered, and sometimes reducing the compensation amount recovered from the defendant

Volenti non fit injuria (Latin: “to a willing person, no injury is done” or “no injury is done to a person who consents to undertake a risk”). This is a common law doctrine which means that if someone willingly places themselves in a position where harm might result, knowing that some degree of harm might result, they cannot then sue if harm actually results.

I am not suggesting all rape victims are responsible for what happens to them. Far from it, however, I am also uncomfortable with the opposite end of the spectrum where people believe they can do whatever they want, be blame free when they become a victim of a crime and then screech about “victim blaming” if someone dares suggests they are responsible for their own actions/behaviours that contributed to them becoming a victim.

bec says:

05:54pm | 16/05/11

Alastair, that is the poorest excuse for an academic paper I’ve seen since I suffered through reading Helene Cixous in my undergrad years. It’s openly biased and hasn’t been peer-reviewed; more to the point, it lists Penthouse in its bibliography.

Come now, man. Surely you can do better than that?

Adam says:

07:00pm | 16/05/11

@ Bec - If you were one of my students I’d give you a F for that attack on Alastair.

F (Fail) - Totally failed to refute the argument presented. Attempted to attack the source/credibility of information, rather than the evidence/arguments presented in it. Exhibited signs of groupthink and was scared to challenge the status quo by reading from a wide variety of sources due to preconceived personal bias.

Slothy says:

07:01pm | 16/05/11

Adam: IANAL but, contributory negligence and Volenti non fit injuria are both common law principles used in tort law. Not criminal law.

Furthermore, contributory negligence can’t be used as a defence against malicious intent. If you run in to the road, it might be partly your fault if you accidentally get hit by a driver. But if you run in to the road and a driver deliberately aims his car at you in an attempt to run you down, contributory negligence doesn’t apply.

For Volenti non fit injuria to apply, the victim needs to be both aware of all the risks AND needs to waive all claims for damages. Last I checked, drinking alcohol and wearing skimpy clothes didn’t involve signing away your right to bodily integrity.

The point is, you can do the stupidest things imaginable, but the only time that your actions will end in rape is if somebody comes along and consciously decides to rape you. And it is a conscious decision - rapists are not animals with no self control and it is a cop out to write them off as such.

bec says:

07:55pm | 16/05/11

No, Adam, that wasn’t an attack on Alastair: it was an attack on the paper. And I don’t know if you’ve engaged in any sort of study lately, but one of those things you’re encouraged to do to trust the veracity of information placed before you is to question its bias and where the researchers got their information. For the same reason I can’t list Sparknotes on a university assignment without deserving a thorough serve from my lecturer (as I actually deserve), it calls to mind that high quality academic papers require high quality sources. If one of my students *didn’t* critique the source of their information or demand peer review, I’d be able to dock their grades with full support of my department.

Setting aside all that, let’s have a look at some of the points raised in the article itself.

*In the statistic listed by Alastair, the paper at no time mentions *what* the twenty-five criteria were that these women who admitted to false accusal had in common. In academic papers, listing the methodology by which the data was collected is vital for means of critique. I would like to know what the criteria were. Does it include diagnosed psychological illness or impairment? Does it include involvement in lawsuits considered frivolous? Does it include prior sexual engagement? I would hazard a guess that any one - or hell, maybe even five or six - of the criteria joined together could be experienced by people who had legitimately experienced sexual assault. And as mentioned earlier on the blog, just because an investigator is considered “independent” doesn’t mean they don’t enter with their own bias as to what’s considered “deserving” behaviour or sexual promiscuity. It could be extremely likely that an investigator projects their own prejudices into a case to determine that a case is a false allegation.

*One method in the McDowall study of ascertaining whether an accusation of rape was false was polygraph. Courts have repeatedly thrown out the use of polygraph due to lack of veracity. Furthermore, with victims who may have experienced PTSD from their rape, symptoms when placed under the nature of questioning given during a polygraph would probably result in the same physiological signs that would indicate lying. I know that for the first few years after my assault that seeing a man who vaguely looked like my assailant caused extreme psychological distress which manifested itself physically. More can be found here (which, by the way, *is* a reputable source: http://www.apa.org/research/action/polygraph.aspx)

*The size of the samples in nearly all of the studies listed are incredibly small as to not accurately reflect a diverse and real representation of the community (or even a community) at large. Studies that are larger occur in populations where even consensual sexual conduct can result in firing or retribution (i.e. the defence force). I’m not naive enough to expect that when situations are dire that people are going to try to save their asses by nefarious means. But this is considerably unlike the real world, by which people are unlikely to be sacked if they have consensual sex that doesn’t violate any of the policies of a workplace. The stakes and incentives to lie in a non-military environment are far, far lower.

Here’s what I believe:

1. I believe women are entirely capable of rape and of atrocity. This is actually a feminist position: for too long under the traditional paradigm, women were judged as not having sexual agency, and it was believed that as men were the initiators of sex that they couldn’t be raped by anyone. I believe women are just as likely to be awful as men. I also believe that women sexual offenders deserve as much jailtime as men, and should be convicted on the same weight of evidence as male offenders.

2. I believe that there is a huge problem with male sexual assault, and we may never find the true statistics because of a culture that insists that men want sex all the time, aren’t picky with who they have sex with, and that they must deserve it if someone has sex with them against their will. Again, nothing they deserve. Like female victims of rape, men are only raped because they are in the vicinity of a rapist.

3. I don’t believe that women who are feminist are man-haters, or prone to lie about rape. A large and reasonably well-run study has shown that women who identify as feminist are actually less likely to hold hostile views about men than women who don’t identify as feminist. http://stavvers.wordpress.com/2011/05/03/feminism-feminist-identity-and-man-hating-a-research-study/.

Adam says:

08:10pm | 16/05/11

@ Slothy - Yep, I’m aware they are both common law principles used in tort law. However, I personally believe the same general principle should be applied to certain criminal law cases (i.e. people’s actions/behaviours can partially contribute to getting themselves into trouble, including being a victim of crime). I think you know the principle I am getting at. I’m unsure of the criminal law equivalent to tort law. Do you know it?

P.S. As I said earlier, I am far from suggesting all rape victims are responsible for what happens to them. As a matter of fact, I think the vast majority do not. However, I am loathe to buy into the opposite end of the spectrum where whatever anyone does never contributes to them becoming a victim of crime and to suggest otherwise automatically becomes some kind of abhorrent “victim blaming”. Personally, I think such a notion goes too far and I believe a happy medium should exist where people are required to exercise common sense to avoid becoming a victim of crime. Please note, I am talking about all crimes here, not any one crime exclusively.

Adam says:

08:48pm | 16/05/11

@ Bec – The point I was making was that it is the content, not the source that is important. Sadly many academics cling to “peer review” as a standard or refuse to accept information from certain sources due to preconceived ideas about its reliability because they are too lazy/stupid to do any real critical analysis of information that is presented to them. This often leads to bad ideas being accepted without any critical analysis because they have been peer reviewed and are from a *credible* source. This compounds groupthink. It also leads to good ideas from other sources being overlooked due to people being unwilling to perform their own critical analysis and judging it on its merits. I’d posit that a good idea, written on a piece of toilet paper without an author is just as valid as the same idea written in a peer reviewed academic journal. This is why I advocate critical analysis over arbitrarily discarding ideas from other sources and dislike it when someone attacks credibility/source instead of the evidence/arguments.

That being said, you seem to go on and do a fairly good critical analysis of the article (though that is neither here nor there for me, but probably of interest to other readers. My main point is what I said above).

On a side note, I agree with you on points 1 and 2. I never really thought about point 3. Perhaps because the gender or ideological differences between individuals has no real bearing on the subject for me. A rape or false accusation of rape is abhorrent regardless of if it carried out by a man or women (feminist or not).

bec says:

10:09pm | 16/05/11

Yes, point made as it were that in an ideal world we shouldn’t be looking at the source but the content, but the world being what it is and all (and really, is that not the purpose of this actual entry?) we have an elaborate system in place whereby we need to use qualification and noted experience to determine whether the opinion of one person is worth more than the opinion of another. And much as I’d like that cocktail napkin to contain all of life’s truth on it, tis pity that life evidence points me to at least question my sources and attempt to find those who have objective markers of knowledge on a topic. Hence why I only visit doctors who did medical degrees, or seek legal advice from admitted lawyers in good standing, or make reference to quality texts in my assignments. Really, those nosy academics and professionals are asking for it, with their fancy academic robes and their framed degrees and GAJSLLKDJLSKJDF DAMN IT I AM GOING TO GO MAD. MLA referencing is shite and bollocks and this damn post has distracted me from my actual book-learnings for far too many hours. Enough of this!

Adam says:

12:30am | 17/05/11

@ Bec - Yeah, I acknowledge your point that in our lives we occasionally have to use the shortcuts of “peer review”, “qualification”, “noted experience” or a “credible source” to discern if information is good or not. However, I think these shortcuts should never entirely be used as a substitute for critical analysis. Perhaps I’m just a little idealistic sometimes so I like to think if we removed the halo effect (caused by knowledge of someone’s previous achievements or qualifications) and critically analysed ideas without regard for (or knowledge of) the author or source, we’d become much better at identifying good ideas for ourselves, regardless of the source. Hence I advocate reviewing content critically, rather than source critically, as a manner for identifying the validity of information.

I’d also suggest that by solely relying on the elaborate system whereby we use qualification and noted experience to determine the value of someone’s opinion you’d probably never notice if your doctor/lawyer was a fraud with a fake degree. To identify such a fake you’d need to conduct some form of critical analysis.

Anyway, I better stop distracting you from study. And I have heaps of research to do as well. Peace out and have fun! Might chat another time

AliceC says:

09:47am | 16/05/11

Perfectly put Patrick! : )

Duff says:

10:34am | 16/05/11

A good idea, obviously.  But surely you can agree that where there are things we can do to minimise the risk of something bad happening to us (like locking our doors when we’re out of the house) we should encourage people to do these things? 

It doesn’t mean we are blaming the victim for the crime, it’s just common sense.  If it is a fact that not wearing highly provocative, skimpy clothing reduces the risk of sexual assault than I can’t see why we should not let women know this? 

Perhaps the use of the term “slut"is the real issue because it implies promiscuity on the part of the victim and the Police Officer should not have used that term.  But, then again, we all know what he meant by that term and his point might have been less clear had he used some other term like “provocative clothing”.

R says:

11:35am | 16/05/11

You wear a whore’s uniform don’t get mad if people mistake you for a whore…

Markus says:

11:45am | 16/05/11

Careful, Duff, ‘commonsense’ is a four letter word around these parts. You’d be best not brandishing it around with such wilfull regard.

St. Michael says:

12:00pm | 16/05/11

@ Duff: “But surely you can agree that where there are things we can do to minimise the risk of something bad happening to us (like locking our doors when we’re out of the house) we should encourage people to do these things?”

That’s the Al-Hilali “Uncovered Meat” argument put in a genteel way.

Using your analogy for a second: if, for some reason, you did leave your house unlocked because you were expecting your child home, the child forgot its house key, and you didn’t have any other way to get a key to him.  Someone then burgles your house through that unlocked door.  Would anyone be telling you that you deserved to be burgled, or that you were asking people to come and break into your house?

Tim says:

12:23pm | 16/05/11

St Michael,
yes if you left your door wide open and got burgled there would probably be a whole lot of people saying you contributed to the robbery and were asking for it to happen.

Markus says:

12:27pm | 16/05/11

@St Michael, congrats on being the 100th person to intentionally misread “please take more care” as “you are asking for it”. Please collect your prize.

Yes, a lot of people’s reaction to your scenario would be ‘what did you expect?’. Including the person’s insurance company.
Sure, they might have still been burgled had that door been locked. But they increased that chance through their own carelessness.

Duff says:

12:47pm | 16/05/11

@St Michael, no way.  Mine is not the same as the “uncovered meat argument” at all.  Please don’t taint my point with that horrible comparison. 

The difference is that in Hilali’s “meat” analogy he implies that the cat (man) is blameless for rape (it’s the cats nature), whereas I would say the cat is 100% to blame - of course it is, which is why Hilali is an idiot for saying what he did.  The person at fault in a rape case is by definition the perpetrator, not the victim.  That is obvious.

But blame is one thing, smart risk management is another.  I think you mix the two together.  In my view potential victims of crime should always be encouraged to take steps to reduce the risk of becoming a victim and if (that is a big “if”, I admit) one of these may be to do with the type of clothing they wear that is perfectly legitimate advice to give.  It would be neglect to not give such advice, in fact.

Your example of the house left open and burgled is a red herring.  It doesn’t matter - it is not the homeowners “fault” they were burgled.  How could it be?  But is that to mean that we shouldn’t encourage people to lock their doors?  Once you seperate out these two issues it becomes clear, in my view, that we should always do what is necessary to stay safe and not get caught up having emotionally charged debates about “sluts” etc.  Not helpful.

Rose says:

12:49pm | 16/05/11

St Michael, using your analogy we might not say you deserved to be broken into, but we might say you’re a bloody idiot for leaving that big an opportunity for the burglar to take advantage of. I personally would much prefer to be teaching my daughters about their personal responsibility to ensure that, as much as possible, they engage in protective behaviours rather than tell them after a rape that they should have had the right to do whatever the hell they please. We are all responsible for our own safety and must all take measures to protect ourselves. Things like only using the atms in places like petrol stations late at night so that there are other people there, going out at night in groups of friends-never alone, never drinking until your completely out of it, meeting a man you don’t really know in a public place rather than your own home for a date. It doesn’t hurt to be a little careful, but to harp on about your rights and ignore your responsibilities is asking for trouble.
I give the same advice to my sons, as they may not be at as great a risk of rape, but they are at risk of being victims of violent attack.
No one ever asks to be attacked in any form, but everyone is able to do whatever they can to minimize the opportunity someone has to attack them.

St. Michael says:

12:57pm | 16/05/11

@ Tim: Ah, that’s not what I said.  I didn’t say leave my door wide open.  I said I left the door unlocked.  You’re straw manning.

@ Markus: given bec’s observations that people get raped even if they’re in neck-to-knee and that the intellectually disabled rate of rape is twice higher than with women who do have all their marbles intact, “please take more precautions” seems a rather pointless exhortation.

Bilby says:

01:00pm | 16/05/11

Michael - A few days after moving into our new house, we were burgled while we slept upstairs. It turns out that one of the locks on the back door was a little loose and despite the fact that I’d noticed it, I didn’t do anything about it. Should I be blamed for the burglary? Probably not. Do I feel like an idiot who put my family at risk and payed the price for my own laxity? Sure do. Apparently by your reasoning I shouldn’t feel any guilt at all.

St. Michael says:

01:07pm | 16/05/11

@ Duff: “The difference is that in Hilali’s “meat” analogy he implies that the cat (man) is blameless for rape (it’s the cats nature), whereas I would say the cat is 100% to blame - of course it is, which is why Hilali is an idiot for saying what he did.  The person at fault in a rape case is by definition the perpetrator, not the victim.  That is obvious.”

I see little difference in practice between Al-Hilali’s observation that women should cover themselves up so as not to arouse men’s lust and the argument you’re essentially making here, which is that women should, again, cover themselves up so as to minimise the risk of rape.  Both minimise the man’s responsibility to keep his penis in his pants; both demand the burqa in effect.  Where do you say the distinction lies?

St. Michael says:

01:08pm | 16/05/11

@ Rose: if so, then, burqa?

Tim says:

01:16pm | 16/05/11

St Michael,
Ok door unlocked.
The same would apply.
In fact one of my neighbours got robbed a few weeks ago.
The thief entered through an unlocked back door and stole his (the neighbours) wallet and a few things lying around.
The policeman who attended told my neighbour that this was a lesson to keep all his windows and doors locked and to be more security conscious.

Duff says:

01:31pm | 16/05/11

@St Michael, I think what you’re really saying is that you don’t think what women wear has any link to whether they may be more or less prone to being raped.  That may be statistically true, I don’t really know.  But surely the message behind the advice: take care of yourself, how you dress, who you hang with, where you go and when etc. is valid.  Getting caught up in a debate about the rights of women to dress like “sluts” is a distraction and has nothing to do, really, with the topic of rape and how to prevent it.  I actually think the advocates of this slutwalk are doing a disservice by shifting the debate about rape to some pointless, ideological argument about how we view female promiscuity in modern society.

James1 says:

01:42pm | 16/05/11

I had no idea that so many people actually agreed with Sheik Hilali.  Interesting.

St. Michael says:

01:47pm | 16/05/11

@ Bilby: “Sure do. Apparently by your reasoning I shouldn’t feel any guilt at all.”

Why should you being feeling guilty for the fact someone entered your house without your consent? The one who’s meant to be feeling guilty is the bastard who broke in and stole your stuff.

Slothy says:

02:18pm | 16/05/11

R: “You wear a whore’s uniform don’t get mad if people mistake you for a whore… “

What are you trying to get at with this statement?

If you wear a tradies uniform I might mistake you for a tradie. That doesn’t give me the right to take you back to my place and force you to build me a deck.

Osiris Fox says:

02:23pm | 16/05/11

Let’s have a national leave your house door open day to protest burglary. Surely if everyones does this we’ll get the message out that break and enter is unacceptible in society!

Ando says:

02:26pm | 16/05/11

St Micheal,
The problem is any suggestions that precautions be taken is immediatley seen as suggesting fault. Whether skimpy dress encourages rape is debatable I agree but it will always attract attention and comment and one should be prepared to deal with that right or wrong. In the example of the more extreme religious views it seems fault is assigned and freedom is taken from women.

Faybian says:

02:41pm | 16/05/11

@slothy, I’d read through all of these comments again just to get to your tradie one.

Alastair says:

02:43pm | 16/05/11

No, it pushes the radical agenda that women have a right to be sexually offensive but not to be sexually offended. And that women feel they should never be held responsible no matter how they act.

A woman feels it is here right to expose as much flesh as she likes no matter how those around her feel and that any who react must be the criminals by default, yet in the same breath the same woman would instantly report a male flasher to the police and demand he be hunted down and charger for the “offence”. A recent news article actually described two women as “brave” for having been exposed to a flasher on a train.

A woman would think nothing of walking up to a strange man she liked and putting her hands all over him but would shriek and demand a criminal sentence of any man who did the same.

A woman who is displeased with a man for any reason regardless of fault feels free to hit him in anger and he deserved it or was “asking for it”. Any woman hit for any reason is by default the victim no matter what caused the altercation and the man should be punished as hitting is unacceptable.

When a woman claims rape the man is automatically a criminal no matter what the circumstances, including whether the sex that took place could even be classed as rape. (I refer you to the case of the 30 second rapist.) When a man claims rape he is told he should be ashamed of himself, that he should just be grateful he “got some”  and that women never do anything wrong when it comes to sex. (Can you name one woman ever convicted of raping a man?)

The reason there is all this objection to the slutwalk issue is because it’s a continuation of women refusing to here that it’s actually their views that are wrong and them that need to change their ways. It’s got nothing to do with men desiring or wanting to rape scantily clad women and everything to do with men asserting their right to say no to what they find offensive. Women’s dress is a reflection of their attitude and that’s what we are really taking issue with.

Rover of North Cooma says:

02:48pm | 16/05/11

Slothy - GOLD!

Erick says:

03:01pm | 16/05/11

Well said indeed, Alastair! Your comment deserves to be an article on its own.

Bilby says:

03:44pm | 16/05/11

Awesome!! Alastair and Erick (and possibly Mrs Sidebottom as well) on the same blog. This could get interesting.

Rose says:

03:58pm | 16/05/11

St Michael, if you are wearing a burqa same rules apply. Take precautions to ensure that you can remain as safe as possible. If you’ll note, I did not refer to dress, just behaviours. Are you implying that people don’t have personal responsibility when it comes to keeping themselves safe?
There is no 100% guarantee that you can protect yourself from harm, but why wouldn’t you try?

Alastair says:

04:46pm | 16/05/11

@Erick, That would be nice, especially if it means I get my own sub editor to save me from my atrocious spelling and grammar.

Note to self: copy rants to worddoc first.

@St.Micheal, I suspect you would have trouble claiming on your insurance if you did something like that, and that’s the point being made in this debate, when you set yourself up to fail society revokes its insurance policy of always blame the aggressor.

Victims are not always blameless by virtue of being victims, if you bring about a result by virture of your own ations and or stupidity then society is right to suggest you shoulder your fair share of the blame.

The house analogy is a dodgy one anyway, it’s more appropriate to compare these people with someone claiming we should reclaim the word jerk because it’s not ok to get punched in the face. Whilst it’s true that responding to someone with assault is not an acceptable approach, that doesn’t mean it’s ok to go around acting like a jerk, demanding people accept jerk-like behaviour or condemning those who do retaliate to jerks as criminals by default.

@Ando, no ando the problem is people assuming the risk of assault is the only argument against telling women to wear appropriate clothing. I go back to my jerk analogy, the risk of a violent repercussion is not the sole reason not to act like a jerk. The risk of rape is not the sole reason not to act like a slut. The reason the house analogy fails is that the risk of robbery is in most cases the sole reason not to leave your door open. It’s about time women were told that they to can be expected to act in a socially appropriate manor, and that it is perfectly reasonable of others to tell them to shape up.

Erick says:

05:43pm | 16/05/11

@Alastair - in a previous life I used to be a subeditor, and I still remember some of the skillz. If you ever want to submit an article, I’m available to clean it up.

malohi says:

07:35pm | 16/05/11

Looking for the magnum opus from Erick that never came…

It would seem that there are 2 questions that some find hard to differentiate, but which really are quite separate.
i. Who is at fault for the offence? (the offender )

ii. Is it foolhardy to increase the risk to yourself or not take common steps to mitigate risks? (of course; insurance contracts recognise it, common law recognises it, legislation ( civil liablity act) recognises it)

Which leads to the question, “Does dressing in a certain way increase risk?” I am not sure but in my opinion that is the pertinant duiscussion. Rather than the rediculous blurring of (i) and (ii) .

Govt@FauxCitizen says:

12:51am | 17/05/11

@ patrick,,,Sure but if you leave your car unlocked with the keys in the ignition and your wallet on the console full of cash in the middle of Darlinghurst, does that mean you don’t deserve to have it stolen,  last time I looked it aint Utopia in the real world.

marley says:

10:02am | 16/05/11

Read the article again, and explain why 90 year old grannies or women with mental or physical disabilities get raped.  It has nothing to do with attractiveness, and everything to do with power and control.

Tim says:

11:48am | 16/05/11

Marley,
perhaps you should read my comment again?
These people may well get raped…..but it won’t be because of their clothing choice.

Sad Sad Reality says:

11:58am | 16/05/11

marley. Stop watching Oprah. It is not about power and control. It is about sex. Women like to think it is about power and control because they can tell themselves the rapist never really got what he was after. If rape is merely about sex, every rapist is by definition successful. When men rape 90-year-old women, it shows one thing - sexual desperation.

Carz says:

02:07pm | 16/05/11

@ Sad Sad, no rape is about power and control. Sex is the weapon being used to try and take power and control.

Tubesteak says:

02:14pm | 16/05/11

No Carz. It’s about getting your end wet. If it was about power and control they would just beat them.

Markus says:

02:29pm | 16/05/11

Carz I’m fairly sure if rape has absolutely nothing to do with sex and is purely about power and control, an erection would be right at the bottom of the list of practical weapons to use to gain said control…

bec says:

09:27am | 16/05/11

1. Bulls don’t react to the colour of the cape, they react to the movement.

2. Even if what you were saying were true, which it isn’t, we live in a liberal democracy and we are entitled to wear what we want without violent reprisal. Just as the person wearing the teeshirt with the swastika on it should be allowed to walk down the street without being punched in the face, so too should women be able to wear whatever we want. We are law-abiding taxpayers, and all, and men as a sex are not (and should never be) considered animals who cannot control themselves.

Jolanda says:

09:49am | 16/05/11

@bec.  You will recall that I said ‘if you are running with the bulls it is wise not to wear red” “.  Just like if girls go out dressed like sluts and they get drunk and carry on in ways which attract the wrong type of attention - then they are playing with fire and they are at a high risk of getting burnt.

I am sure that those who sexually abuse and rape are really concerned about the ENTITLEMENTS of those whom they target.

This isn’t about rights or entitlements it is about teaching our girls to be smart and to consider where they are going, who they are going with, what they are going to do and who is likely to be there before they dress themselves to go out on the town and to dress appropriately. 

It is about being fashionable without looking cheap and about self protection because you might be entitled to do whatever you like but you cannot control other people’s thoughts or even their idea of what is their ENTITLEMENT is all you can do is not make yourself appear the biggest target.

bec says:

10:00am | 16/05/11

But you know what? People still dress “appropriately” and they get raped. It happened to me. I was wearing a baggy tracksuit; I was covered from neck to toe. It happens to countless people. Men surely aren’t wearing fishnets and miniskirts and they are still raped in numbers we’ll never fully know because of the cultural stigma.

The issue of telling our girls to dress appropriately is stupid because only a tiny minority of people who report rape are dressed inappropriately. You can tell people to wear clothing that you would consider “classy” until the cows come home, but it doesn’t change the fact that the only thing that actually causes people to be raped was the fact that they had a rapist in the vicinity.

We shouldn’t be telling our girls how to dress. We should be telling people not to rape others, and demanding of our governments and legislators to increase the conviction rates, improve how police handle rape claims from victims of either sex, and make the punishments harsher.

Tom says:

10:00am | 16/05/11

Sorry Bec. Wrong. If a man walks around with his penis hanging out “in a liberal democracy”, it is called indecent exposure. It is a disgusting double standard that someone like you reckons it is OK for women to flash their cleavage.

Tubesteak says:

10:09am | 16/05/11

I think Jolanda is right.

This walk won’t achieve anything. The type of guys who will rape a woman won’t be listening to this and won’t learn anything from it.

It is a much more complex problem than call yourself a slut and wearing revealing clothing can solve.

Tim says:

10:19am | 16/05/11

bec,
that would be all well and good if there wasn’t a proportion of the population who paid scant regard to our laws.

Jolanda says:

11:41am | 16/05/11

Your right Bec, only a tiny minority of girls who are dressed inappropriately and act inappropriately REPORT rape and that is because they feel ashamed to tell their story because they know that what they were doing and the situation that they put themselves in was not very smart and in many cases wrong.

Had they not been inappropriate they would have reported the rape and here lies the problem - those who rape know this so they target the girls who they think will not report.

Sure there are always going to be those who get raped even when they are dressed appropriately and are acting appropriately but certainly we really do not have the figures on the other types of rape but I would bet my bottom dollar that they are excessive and in the extreme in comparison and we owe it to our daughters to make sure that they understand this so that when they make their choices they take this into account.

AliceC says:

12:38pm | 16/05/11

@Jolanda

There are many reasons why rape isn’t reported, such as people not believing the victim, the shame around what happened to them, and not having the needed support around them (like family and friends). This is regardless of what they wear.

Paul Horn says:

02:02pm | 16/05/11

Does the same thing apply to the blokes Bec? Can I walk down the street with a raging mongrel in plain view and then complain that I have been assaulted by screaming women calling the police?

Why the double standard Bec? In fact women dressing like sluts has nothing to do with rape and everything to do with respect. Why do women feel the need to display their intimate areas.

I have worked with numbers of young women who feel the need to attend the workplace in extremely short skirts with no undergarments! It’s not the fact that I can’t control myself, far from it, it’s more the fact that they are being disrespectful by sexualising themselves to other employees who are more suitably attired.

Why is it all always about women’s stinking in your face choices and never about being respectful of others!

If you want to dress like a slag then leave it for the brothel. Don’t spew it in the face of the public who find it inappropriate!

Rover of North Cooma says:

02:12pm | 16/05/11

Yet again I am so glad Jolanda is not my mother.
If I understand your campaign rightly, Jolanda, all of your children have been unfairly discriminated against at school and no-one will listen or take action.
Yet you are happy to claim that women bring rape upon themselves.
Some people might conclude that a serial complaining parent is bringing trouble upon their children too.

bec says:

02:18pm | 16/05/11

Strawman, Paul. An erection is frequently an involuntary reaction. If it happens without you trying, or when fully clothed, why should anyone ever hurt another person for it? It certainly haven’t - I can empathise that it might be embarrassing for the person.

However, deliberately exposing your genitals to cause another person fear or discomfort is a totally different matter to exposing secondary sex traits (such as curves or breasts). The former is threatening and is often a prelude to sexual assault. The latter imposes no intent of threat or discomfort.

Thirdly, since when did dressing “revealingly” solely be about sexual attraction? I don’t know the climate where you are, but it frequently gets to 36 degrees plus in summer where I am. If dudes can get around in singlets and stubby shorts (and so they should - it’s a free country) then women should be able to get about in a similar state of undress to combat the heat, so long as it’s appropriate to the venue (i.e. a shopping centre, private residence or beach, and not necessarily a professional workplace with a code of dress)

Slothy says:

02:34pm | 16/05/11

bec, I just want to take the opportunity to say that you are doing a great job articulating your points in this post.

Jolanda, I have broken every one of those rules about avoiding rape. I have worn skimpy clothes and drank too much and passed out in dubious places. I was not raped. Because that is not how most rapes work.

Do you know how I was sexually assulted (thankfully not raped)? I was wearing jeans and a hoodie. It was the middle of the day, and I was hanging out with a friend I had known for years.  And he kissed me, and didn’t stop when I said no. He didn’t stop when I pushed him away. He held me down and kissed me and groped me when I tried to get up and then he was between me and the door and I realised that he was a shit load larger than me and he wasn’t planning on stopping.

I got out of there eventually, but it easily could have gone the other way.  So I ask you, should I follow all your rules, and then add a few more about never having male friends, and not accepting invitations to hang out at friend’s places and never trusting anybody, no matter how long I’ve known them? If I do that, will that keep me safe?

Or should I live my life and everybody else can just focus on not raping me?

Jolanda says:

02:44pm | 16/05/11

My complaint Rover is that formal complaints of systematic bullying, victimization and discrimination against innocent children by adults employed by the Department of Education have been covered up by Government Departments and not investigated as per policy and procedure requires and I have the evidence to support my claims.  My complaint is that complaints are given to those about whom you complain and they are permitted to close the complaint without independent and impartial investigation.  My concern is that the whole process the system has set up is designed to protect those who fail in their duty of care and abuse without any concern for duty of care to the children.

There is a connection here to what happens with victims of rape.  When the system sets up a process that protects those who are accused and does not give any rights or protection to those who are targets of abuse then abuse (of all kinds) will flourish.

I have never said that it is the fault of the person who was raped just that we would be wise to arm our daughters and sons with the knowledge of how things are in the real world and what they can do to protect themselves and make themselves less of a target as once the damage is done it is too late.

Rabbit_with_Fangs says:

09:42am | 16/05/11

Dear retired soldier, The whole point of getting a ‘tramp stamp’ for me was that it was a place that is so easy to cover up. Having said that, I would be appalled if someone looked at me and thought ‘wow, she has never set a foot out of line’. If women - if PEOPLE-  had never done that, we would all still be somebody’s slave.

Retired Soldier says:

10:03am | 16/05/11

Dear Rabbit, Nick names say a lot about the owner don’t they? In regard to your Tramp Stamp, I have often wondered why people like you get this permanent graffiti engraved on your sometimes lovely bodies and then cover it up or have it placed in a position where they will never see it unless they are contortionists. As for your contention regarding slaves and stepping out of line, perhaps that is the view of a Rabbit only.

R says:

11:29am | 16/05/11

I thought the “tramp stamp” was meant to be a target? That certainly what it is commonly used for…

Kika says:

05:26pm | 16/05/11

I have a tattoo on my wrist. Not in the usual tramp stamp place (i.e. just above the Salman Bhutt). I dress modestly and am a respectable married woman. I object to you judging me as a tart because I have a tattoo. I would daresay by the time our generation is in the old folks home 88% would have tattoos and the ones without would look like the weirdo ones.

Erick says:

09:28am | 16/05/11

If force or the threat of force, isn’t involved then it isn’t rape. Rape laws have expanded to cover all sorts of things that aren’t actually rape.

Also, false accusations of rape are just as bad as rape itself, and occur just as often.

Carz says:

09:31am | 16/05/11

Too true. And the closer the relationship between victim and perpetrator the more violence there needs to be.

marley says:

09:44am | 16/05/11

@Erick - sorry, don’t agree that force has to be involved.  If the girl is drunk or drugged (ever heard of “date rape drugs?) and incapable of giving consent, but you go ahead anyway, it’s rape.

Cry in my Gin says:

09:52am | 16/05/11

I do agree with Eric on this one. No is No, before or even during the act. It seems to be acceptable now to say No after the act, particularly if the male involved was/is a footballer and all involved were impaired by alchohol. False accusations of rape are demeaning to the poor souls who have endured this bastard act.

Erick says:

10:19am | 16/05/11

Fair enough, Marley. If the person is unconscious or incoherent it can be rape too. However, just being a little or somewhat drunk doesn’t count. Especially if both are intoxicated.

Direct says:

10:27am | 16/05/11

That is a massive double standard marley. If a woman is drunk and unable to give consent, it is most likely that the man is drunk as well and incapable of giving consent either. Why in this instance should a man be charged with rape?

Carz says:

10:30am | 16/05/11

Well said Marley. Erick, the definition of rape has been changed to account for ALL types of rape. If the legal system had stuck with the original definition, “the forcible sexual intercourse by a man, of a woman not his wife…” you would still be bleating because it doesn’t account for the fact that men can be victims and women rapists.

And you might like to check out the crime statistics Erick (the official ones put out by the police, not the ones put out by your favoured men’s rights groups) and you will find that false reports of rape run at about the same level as those for other crimes. A perpetrator being acquitted or a report of rape not being prosecuted does not mean that it didn’t happen, just that there is insufficient evidence.

Cloud Strife says:

10:38am | 16/05/11

@Erick - ever heard of rohypnol? No force there.

Adam says:

11:29am | 16/05/11

@ Erick - “Also, false accusations of rape are just as bad as rape itself, and occur just as often”

Yep. Reputation rape can be just as bad. An innocent person is hauled before the court, publically accused of crime they did not commit in the media and have their reputation ruined. It tears families apart, destroys the bonds of trust people have with friends and ruins careers. They can never again step outside without the stigma of being an accused criminal. While a person who is physically raped has to carry hidden emotional scars for the rest of their life, a person who is reputation raped has to carry very public scars for the rest of their life.

Meanwhile, their accuser has had their own name suppressed and never faces any negatives consequences when their accusations are found to be false. The media have also moved on by the time the accused is found innocent so those who heard the initial story still think the accused is guilty.

iansand says:

11:53am | 16/05/11

Errick - I do not know about other states, but in NSW there is no offence of rape.  There are varying degrees of sexual assault.

Cloud Strife says:

12:31pm | 16/05/11

@Erick - “Also, false accusations of rape are just as bad as rape itself, and occur just as often”

How disgusting. NOTHING is like rape. NOTHING.

Erick says:

12:49pm | 16/05/11

@Cloud Strife - “NOTHING is like rape. NOTHING. “

1. How do you know this? Have you personally experienced EVERYTHING?

2. False accusations of rape can result in the victim being raped in prison, in addition to ell the other suffering. Thus, it’s at least as bad as rape.

choice says:

01:16pm | 16/05/11

@Erick and Adam - falsely being accused of rape is as bad as rape itself?  Are you kidding?  Ask yourselves this, then: what would you rather have happen to you - to be raped or to be falsely accused of rape?  I’ll give you a hint: one cannot ever be repaired whilst the other you can prove to be false in a court of law.

Elphaba says:

01:42pm | 16/05/11

@choice, what about if it takes years to prove the man’s innocence?  Is that not traumatic?  Is it possible that they never recover from the psychological effects of imprisonment?  And how do you know that rape victims don’t ‘recover’ psychologically?  Some of them might.  Every case is unique.

Just because you prove a man’s innocence after being falsly accused doesn’t meant that hands are washed and he just gets over it.  Particularly if it takes decades to prove their innocence.

They’re both as bad as one another, and both deserve equal air time.

http://www.ipt-forensics.com/journal/volume10/j10_3_6_8.htm

Cloud Strife says:

01:43pm | 16/05/11

@Erick

No, I haven’t experienced everything, but I have experienced rape. I would say you haven’t, and I hope you never, ever do.

I used to just think you were a self absorbed person with an axe to grind.

With your response, I now know what kind of person you really are. And it’s not one anyone would want to be.

St. Michael says:

01:50pm | 16/05/11

I agree with Erick on this one.  Rape is horrible, no doubt, but being falsely accused of rape is potentially just as bad.  Mostly because it’s hard to disprove, and even if you’re found not guilty, the stigma of being charged with the rape hangs around forever—if for no other reason than the statistic that most rapes don’t result in convictions.

Search up “Kevin Ibbs” on this.

progressivesunite says:

01:51pm | 16/05/11

@ Erick - well, there’s some comfort in knowing that at least half of the rape accusations in prison must be false….

James1 says:

01:54pm | 16/05/11

“Also, false accusations of rape are just as bad as rape itself, and occur just as often.”

I disagree, and I think that this trivialises the nature of rape.  The falsely accused can move, change their names, and make new lives for themselves (should justice prevail).  I’m not saying its a picnic, but it isn’t the physical violation of a person’s body.  That is something you carry with you for life, and can never escape no matter how hard you try.

Kika says:

02:33pm | 16/05/11

So Erick if your boyfriend wants it and you say no repeatedly and he still does it regardless, is that rape?

Adam says:

02:44pm | 16/05/11

“The falsely accused can move, change their names, and make new lives for themselves (should justice prevail)”.

Ah, nice little catch all “should justice prevail”. But it failed the first time if you have been falsely accused and end up in prison, getting raped in the showers. Not to mention, all the avenues you mention above are not available to someone put on a registered sex offenders list (a very public list in places like the USA) as you wait for “justice to prevail”. Just as justice does not make things all better for a rape victim, it does not make things all better for the victim of a false accusation. This is because the court cannot remedy intangibles such as destroyed relationships, others perceptions of you, stigma associated with the accusation, reputation damage, etc. At best a court can compensate, but a court can never fully remedy such things.

Erick says:

02:53pm | 16/05/11

Since the consequences of being falsely accused of rape can include being raped in prison, it is indeed as bad as rape itself. Possibly even worse.

Also, it is possible to get over being raped. Many women, and men, have done so. I know a few. Therefore, there is no fundamentally much worse thing about being raped than being the victim of any other violent crime.

@ cloud strike says:

03:01pm | 16/05/11

“NOTHING is like rape. NOTHING”

I hope ur joking. false accusation of rape can destroy families and lives. its NOT just a simple smearing of someones reputation u man hating crackpot.

Cloud Strife says:

03:15pm | 16/05/11

@Cloud Strike

I am not saying false accusations are not horrible, awful, soul destroying experiences to go through. They are.

That does not change the fact that false accusations are nothing like rape. They are two entirely different things.

You want to know what’s like being raped? Being raped.

You might want to check your assumptions befor you call me a manhater, too. I don’t hate men. I just hate rapists, and it doesn’t what gender that rapist is.

Adam says:

03:33pm | 16/05/11

“That does not change the fact that false accusations are nothing like rape. They are two entirely different things.”

Good thing no one is saying false accusation are “like” rape. We are all saying they are “just as bad” rape. Two entirely different things.

JTC says:

05:20pm | 16/05/11

I think what Cloud Strife is failing to grasp is that the victim of rape is likely to have friends and family for support. They may feel alone, but they are quite often not.

The victim of a false accusation is likely, because of the accusation, to have friends and family driven away from them. Therefore left by and large alone.

No one wants to be friends with a rapist (I certainly don’t) and expect that if a friend of mine was accused I’d avoid him from then on. Given it could take years through the courts, that friendship is likely destroyed forever.

I’ve seen first hand the destruction of a false accusation has on someone (I used to be a defence lawyer years ago) and would not wish that on anyone, especially those wrongly accused of kiddy fiddling.

Jay says:

08:16pm | 18/05/11

Being accused of rape and being raped are two entirely different things. One is an accusation that will be proven right or wrong in a court of law. One is an act of profound violation and violence upon a person’s body, mind and soul that has devastating and often life-long consequences. To make a comparison between the two is a thoughtless, insensitive insult to rape victims.

Also, the idea that men who are accused of rape suffer trauma and stigma may be true, but not neccesarily. From what I’ve observed, many people automatically run to the defence of men who are accused of rape while going out of their way to smear, slander and denigrate the accuser and her character regardless of any evidence one way or the other, and sometimes even after the man is found guilty in a court of law.

Markus says:

11:39am | 16/05/11

You seem to have great difficulty understanding the difference between “this is not a perfect world, the law is not able to protect you 100% of the time, please try to take a bit more care” and “you totally deserved it”.

Never fear, you aren’t alone in this regard.

Tim says:

11:57am | 16/05/11

Yep,
i’ve read them but I still can’t see any comments blaming the victim.
What you may read is people saying that we live in an imperfect world, where bad people sometimes do bad stuff. In this world Individuals have to take some responsibiltiy for themselves and their safety.
Have you ever heard of contributory neligence?

Maria says:

03:14pm | 16/05/11

Tim, the problem is that when people say, this wouldn’t have happened if you hadn’t been wearing/done that, they are saying that what happened wasn’t really rape, it must have been asked for.
I got date raped once. It didn’t ruin my life, but it did make me feel horrible and slutty and I stopped trusting men, particularly family friends, for a long time. I didn’t report it because I knew people would think I asked for it.
But I still think that if you’re a very drunk 21yo guy and the 18yo very drunk sister of your best mate is crying and saying please stop while you’ve got her pinned down on a beach after a B&S ball, you probably know at some level that what you’re doing is wrong.

Ando says:

04:04pm | 16/05/11

Sarah M illustrates the knee jerk reaction. Argue it makes no difference what women wear but dont leap to the assumption that be careful means your asking for it.

bec says:

11:17am | 16/05/11

So 99% of rape victims are dressed a certain way?

What about the fact that women with physical and intellectual impairments are twice as likely to be raped than women without impairment (and probably highly unlikely to be wearing revealing clothing)? What about the elderly women who are raped, or the toddlers, or women from conservative religious backgrounds, or men? Many of my male students approach me because I’m the only person interested in my workplace in hearing and genuinely reporting problems like harassment (by males and females) or sexual abuse, and none of them are dressed in a means that “invites trouble”.

I am not a tarty girl. I have consensually had sex with one person in my life - the man I will be marrying next year. I own no clothing that is more revealing than knee-length or boat-necked. And yet it hasn’t stopped street harassment, men exposing themselves to me in public places, or my own assault.

If tarty dress was all it took to turn men into rapists, we’d have huge amounts of rape - far more than currently occurs. It would also mean that people in the groups mentioned above would experience no rape whatsoever (and they do experience it).

And even if someone was wearing very little, why would we allow that to be a defence in law? We don’t absolve burglars or thieves who are lured to carjack or break into a property because it looked shiny and expensive; we throw their stupid asses in jail. We don’t absolve wild animals who attack human beings because they couldn’t control their native impulses: they are hunted down and destroyed, for good reason. Why, then, do we accept this horseshit reasoning to keep rapists out of jail?

Elphaba says:

11:34am | 16/05/11

My point is that whilst there are always exceptions, women are doing a lot to muddy the waters about what actually constitutes a ‘no’.  Both sides could benefit from taking a step back and think about how they’re behaving, and take time to review how they can be clearer about their intentions.

Blackadder says:

01:02pm | 16/05/11

Bec, you have my sympathies given what happened to you…and I’ve read some of your posts.

However, when I have the misfortune to have 3 teenage girls sit near me on the train , dressed like “sluts”, who are asking aloud, disrupting business travellers, assumingly being silly, “would you like a blowjob” or bragging about how many times they’ve been laid of late, then if one of them was raped, I’d honestly have a hard time finding any sympathy for them. I’d be more upset if my cat didn’t like the new brand of cat food I’d bought.

There is a perception in the community that if you dress like a slut, and act like one, then you get what you deserve.

My concerns would be that a walk like this, with a name like that, arising from a silly, stupid event, is not going to change people’s perceptions - it may actually have a detrimental effect.

The cause is noble, but it’s come about the wrong way and as others have mentioned, it’s appealing to a minority group that feel themselves above the law, and have a complete disrespect for women.

bec says:

01:43pm | 16/05/11

Thankyou, Blackadder, but it is still missing the point of why the walk is happening: the advice that you should watch how you dress is stupid and pointless because it doesn’t adequately address how or why women get raped.

The large majority of women who are raped are raped by people they know; a larger number of them are raped in their own homes than those who wear “revealing” clothes in public (and if you can’t wear what you want in your own home, then that’s damn sad); a huge number aren’t dressed in a way that the reasonable man on the street would find “revealing”; the vast majority of people who are raped don’t fit the model of the “promiscuous woman” (being that they are elderly, ill, disabled, extremely young, or male). In fact, focussing on dress as a cause of rape is incredibly harmful to men in two ways:

1) it insinuates that males are unable to control their urges and that they are not competent to participate in society;
2) that men cannot be raped because the same standards of sexual dress don’t apply to them, which negates the suffering of male victims of assault.

I am proud to walk and call myself a slut, despite how I dress (very modestly) or engage in sexual conduct (in a monogamous, safe fashion with only one person in my life), because the advice would have done me no good. I am a taxpayer who contributes much to the country, and I deserve the right to be able to go into public without being assaulted.

Slothy says:

02:53pm | 16/05/11

Blackadder: “However, when I have the misfortune to have 3 teenage girls sit near me on the train , dressed like “sluts”, who are asking aloud, disrupting business travellers, assumingly being silly, “would you like a blowjob” or bragging about how many times they’ve been laid of late, then if one of them was raped, I’d honestly have a hard time finding any sympathy for them. I’d be more upset if my cat didn’t like the new brand of cat food I’d bought.”

So these teenage girls are being obnoxious yes.  You have every right to be irritated by them. But to say you have no sympathy if they get raped? They are talking loudly and annoyingly about their sex lives. Their CONSENSUAL sex lives.  Why does loudly and enthusiastically consenting to sex with one person, or even several people, erode your right to turn down another? Why does obviously enjoying sex mean you have less of a right to choose exactly who you will have sex with and when you will do it?

Sad Sad Reality says:

03:42pm | 16/05/11

“I am proud to walk and call myself a slut”

So you’ll have absolutely no problem with other people labeling you a slut then? Or is this another one of those don’t discriminate against me discriminatory things?

bec says:

04:27pm | 16/05/11

SSR, they can go to town and call me whatever they like, freedom of speech being what it is. It wouldn’t make me angry, it would probably make me laugh, and being that I too am allowed freedom of speech I can ask them why they have sex with pets and heavy machinery.

Maria says:

05:03pm | 16/05/11

Elphaba, knowing you, you are hoping for some flames, you troll.
The last time I got called a slut was by a nicely dressed man in a suit and tie who was drunk off his face and honestly thought he was going to have sex with my friend, who was also very drunk and probably in a situation where you would think it was acceptable for her to be raped. Except that she had two friends with her who were looking out for her.
None of us were dressed like sluts.
None of us were looking for it.
My friend was simply pissed and dancing like Chrissie Amphlett, and this guy thought he was in.
I had to run intervention, and he screamed in my face that I was a fat (true) old (depends on where you are in life) slut (so not true) until the bouncer asked him to leave.
To have never had this problem, you are either very lucky or very ugly.

Elphaba says:

05:23pm | 16/05/11

@Maria, you call me a troll and then call me ugly?

Whether ugly or lucky, it sounds like you’ve got a serious case of envy against me.  Your problem, not mine.

VVS says:

11:33am | 16/05/11

Gotta love Chapelle… it’s so true too… not that most will admit it.

James1 says:

01:57pm | 16/05/11

That argument robs men of any agency in the process.  It assumes that men are walking penises, who can not control themselves in the face of female sexuality.  That is rubbish.

bec says:

05:25pm | 16/05/11

Why do you hate men so much that you don’t believe that they have the intelligence and agency to control themselves?

Why do you hate men by asserting that because they can’t be slutty, they would never be raped, thereby negating and minimising the hurt they experience?

Irene Adler says:

11:59am | 16/05/11

Agreed. Victim blaming is thoroughly embedded in Australia’s culture—and it was the hardest thing I faced from my peers after surviving rape.

Kika says:

02:40pm | 16/05/11

You poor thing. Bless you. When my sister was assaulted she was lucky enough to get a female cop who did pursue the case. Apparently it wasn’t the first time this guy had done a similar thing so they were on the case.
When I was assaulted (i.e. raped) by my own boyfriend at the time I felt completely gutted and shamed. He knew he did the wrong thing but wanted to pretend as though everything was ok. By the way, he was sober so he knew what he was doing.

Anyway, when I eventually told my parents my Mum understood but my Dad didn’t. Not at first. Maybe now, but it took a while.

majority says:

11:34am | 16/05/11

lol

The walk sounds like a pointless exercise. Whatever, knock yourself out.

iansand says:

11:55am | 16/05/11

How could you tell?  Was it the tattos on their foreheads, or is there some other reliable indicator?

Matt says:

01:03pm | 16/05/11

I laughed very hard at this comment

Rover of North Cooma says:

05:08pm | 16/05/11

Was probably the closest you’ve got to a woman in decades.

Zed says:

05:37pm | 16/05/11

or will!

Sad Sad Reality says:

05:51pm | 16/05/11

Yeah, because slavishly adoring women is the path to a satisfying sex life.

Markus says:

11:49am | 16/05/11

More sense than anything else that has been written here thus far.

Good work.

St. Michael says:

12:02pm | 16/05/11

Obvious troll is obvious, Neo.

Thomas Anderson says:

12:55pm | 16/05/11

Not trolling if it is the truth.

VVS says:

05:28pm | 16/05/11

By a slut? They do this as well as the sex now?

And a big shout out to your English teacher at high school, who must feel oh so proud at your grammar.

Erick says:

12:41pm | 16/05/11

What hate? It’s simply some people stating facts which you would prefer to deny.

Tim says:

01:06pm | 16/05/11

Kristian,
can you point out the comments that are spewing hate?
Maybe I’m reading a different comment section to you?

Marc says:

01:07pm | 16/05/11

I doubt you can call it all Hate… I think some people have valid points but just don’t know how to word them correctly.

As I’ve already posted below, the advice to dress “appropriately” is sound.  We all have the freedom to dress how we want to, where we want to, when we want to, and I’m the first to support that.  But we need to be careful about our choices is all.  I think this is the sentiment that this police officer was trying to get across.

We can leave our houses unlocked when we go out, we can drive through the city streets with our windows down, we can leave our bicycles leaning against a bike rack unchained.  When we do this people say it’s an “open invitation” to have our things stolen don’t they? And no-one complains when they do, everyone tends to agree.

I agree that it is INVITING to theives, but it is NOT an invitation.  This is the same for the way we dress.  It’s not an invitation, it’s not okay to rape, grope or in anyway sexual assault a woman because of the way she dresses, but she should be aware that to dress this way in a back street of the city after dark, unaccompanied… it’s “inviting” to those with less morals than us.

Not her fault, but has she really taken EVERY precaution she can to avoid harm?  I say she hasn’t.  Sure, she shouldn’t HAVE to, but in this world, we all have to do things we wish we didn’t.  Until the a@#holes that have no respect for women are wiped from this earth, we need to make wiser decisions regarding the way we dress and wear.

Markus says:

01:16pm | 16/05/11

Seriously, are you and Tory reading completely different comments to me?

I am yet to read a single comment saying rape victims deserved to be raped. I am however, seeing a majority of comments saying that people owe it to themselves to take some precautions to make sure they don’t become victims.

This society does it all the time. Insurance companies and police give advice on how to prevent being a victim of assault or theft.
Government departments and taxpayer funded groups provide advice on how to minimise the risks associated with driving, drugs, alcohol, food, and even travel.

Why is it that any attempt to do the same with a topic such as rape - the most horrific of all of the above, and thus the one that we should surely be providing any advice we can to prevent - is immediately met with such ridiculous outrage and stupid protests?

Tchom says:

01:55pm | 16/05/11

What is ‘slut shaming’? Is that even a thing?

Angry boofheads aside, surely you can see how holding a protest against sexual assaults based on a womans appearance when we know that appearance is not a significant contributing factor to sexual assaults might be flawed. Pigs will be pigs, please don’t put all men into the same basket.

As for appropriating the word the word ‘slut’, is that something women really want to call themselves? I’ve also expressed my opinion of why I don’t think it would stick in a post below. Personally, I think the best thing women can do is invent a loaded word for promiscuous men and hold them to the same standard that ‘sluts’ are. Then, perhaps, ‘slut’ might not be thrown around quite so much

bec says:

02:12pm | 16/05/11

Tchom, I don’t see the point in demonising any sexuality that’s consensual, practiced safely and with respect for other parties involved - whether the person be male or female.

Let’s not criticise men who are sexually promiscuous if they have safe sex, or if they are concerned for the well-being of the people they have sex with, or if they are acting legally and ethically.

Let’s criticise people of any gender or sexual orientation who uses coercion, force, or substance to negate or obtain consent by duress. Let’s criticise people who act with scant regard for personal and public health.

Bernard says:

02:30pm | 16/05/11

I’m all for girls dressing in a way to attract men. I think it’s great. The way a woman dresses and her behaviour are two different things entirely though. I think a girl’s behaviour is more important. She can dress provocatively, but still limit the amount of alcohol she drinks and stay with her friends, while not going into isolation with strange men and thus reduce the risks of anything bad happening to her. I don’t blame rape victims for being raped, but I have more sympathy for girls who actively try to manage their risks in their lives and still get raped.

I also think men are allowed to make character judgments of woman based on how they dress. Men are far less likely to get involved in a serious relationship with a woman who he thinks is promiscuous. It’s our choice to do so.

I think some (note: only some) of the drive for women to reclaim the word ‘slut’ is an attempt to protest men’s natural aversion to promiscuity in women for anything more than casual sex. Imagine men having a ‘nice guy’ protest.

bec says:

12:03pm | 16/05/11

Yes, but the person who robbed you would still have no defence in law and should they be caught, they would be punished. Rapists have gotten away with using the “slut” defence for too long to escape punishment.

Tchom says:

12:19pm | 16/05/11

Really bec? Its horrific if its true, but could you source some examples of that happening in the Australian legal system?

bec says:

01:00pm | 16/05/11

Although cross-examination regarding a victim’s sexual history and “reputation” is no longer legally allowed, it sadly still arises in juries as an issue that can overturn a conviction or result in an acquittal. (Presumptions are still made in a number of cases, particularly those involving prominent public figures who are accused).

Classically, before the rewriting of sexual assault legislation, reputation of the victim and the nature of the clothing they wore was brought into court on every case. It was also a means by which they could prevent prosecuting anyone for the rape of men, as they believed that due to the fact that men very rarely dress “sluttily” that they could actually be raped. (Another way of looking at how traditional gender roles and morality hurts men, obviously). Info here: http://www.dpp.act.gov.au/pdf/DPP SARP report (11Feb05).pdf

Evidence from the Victorian legal system suggests that in 76.5% of sexual assault cases, information regarding the victim’s prior sexual conduct and “reputation” are brought up in questioning by the defence. Given the demonstrated beliefs of posters in this forum regarding rape defence, the likelihood is still extremely high that this prejudice and information entered by defence will result in acquittal of actual rapists.

Finally, there’s the terrifically depressing “tight jeans” defence, which has been used no fewer than three times internationally (and in Australia) to get rapists off the hook. Trust me - if you have a gun or knife to your neck, you will get tight jeans off quickly. http://news.change.org/stories/skinny-jeans-as-a-rape-defense

Now, I know that there are some big problems emerging here with logic and reasoning, but surely it’s obvious that a factor in the low rate of convictions lies with the irrational and misanthropic prejudices of jurist and the fact that defence counsel still attempt to make reference to the nature of the victim’s prior sexual engagements?

Matt says:

01:11pm | 16/05/11

Bec - your comment is completely unfounded. There is no complete defence that the victim was a slut.

St. Michael says:

01:44pm | 16/05/11

@ Matt: Not on the statute books.  In practice, though, it’s a perfectly effective defence to run.  Just because the law doesn’t say “If you’re a slut the rapist is not guilty” doesn’t mean juries don’t found their decisions on that idea, which comes to the same thing because the verdict is not guilty in both cases.

Tchom says:

02:00pm | 16/05/11

Thanks for the reply post, Bec. Scary stuff, though

Faybian says:

03:05pm | 16/05/11

Massive generalization (and a large amount of BS).

Erick says:

01:01pm | 16/05/11

Thanks for judging those “assumptive posters”, Bernard. I love irony.

The Other Bernard says:

02:38pm | 16/05/11

Hmm, someone else has my name. Time to change to something different

bec says:

12:27pm | 16/05/11

Sheik Al-Hilali, is that you? Or are your words only offensive when said by someone from the Islamic community?

St. Michael says:

01:12pm | 16/05/11

The problem being that rapists and their lawyers are not stupid.  And even if their line of questioning is shut down by a sympathetic judge, juries are stupid enough to bring assumptions into a room that how a woman dresses indicates a willingness to consent to sexual penetration.

Rapists use “slutty” dress to excuse their crimes.  This is an appalling shift of blame, as though a man had no control over himself if Liz Hurley comes out wearing the Safety Pin dress, or Pippa Middleton decides to walk indaclub wearing the bridesmaid’s dress (to which, one might note, most “blokes” around here bridle that they’re just admiring Pippa’s posterior, they’re not going to rape her.)

Markus says:

02:00pm | 16/05/11

“juries are stupid enough to bring assumptions into a room that how a woman dresses indicates a willingness to consent to sexual penetration.”
And prosecution should be smart enough to recognise when a jury have based their decision on things other than the evidence presented before them, and appeal on those grounds.

Criminals will say anything and do anything to excuse their crimes, if the end result is getting away with it.
They likely don’t believe it, nor do they have to believe it.

Just like White Ribbon Day (against domestic violence), this protest is pointless. It is preaching to the vast majority of society that know that the crime is a crime, and have never, nor had any intention of ever, committing said crime.
Meanwhile, the small minority that do commit, will continue to commit, regardless of the amount of public whinging organised.

St. Michael says:

03:01pm | 16/05/11

@ Markus:

“And prosecution should be smart enough to recognise when a jury have based their decision on things other than the evidence presented before them, and appeal on those grounds.”

Two problems with that:
(1) Juries don’t give their reasons for decisions.  They just say “guilty” or “not guilty”.
(2) A not guilty verdict can’t be appealed.

Kate says:

06:15pm | 16/05/11

@Markus, I agree. A protest saying ‘rape is wrong and women do not deserve it’ is not going to deter rapists. Why? Because they already know what they’re doing is illegal, and frowned upon by society, and they do it anyway. I don’t know why; I’m not a rapist.

Rape, like domestic violence, is one of those extremely difficult social problems to tackle. I am generally in favour of stronger criminal penalties for those found guilty of rape or domestic violence, but actually getting people proven guilty is where the difficulty lies. Women are too scared to report crimes against them; there is too little evidence to go to court; a good lawyer will BS to the jury successfully enough to get an acquittal; judges give wussy sentences.
I say this as someone who experienced domestic violence over four years and didn’t ever report it, because I thought I would have absolutely no chance of getting the guy charged, much less found guilty. Emotional and occasional physical abuse is virtually impossible to prove.

Bev says:

12:26am | 17/05/11

St. Michael says:12:12pm | 16/05/11

The problem being that rapists and their lawyers are not stupid.  And even if their line of questioning is shut down by a sympathetic judge, juries are stupid enough to bring assumptions into a room that how a woman dresses indicates a willingness to consent to sexual penetration.

You seem to have a problem with juries. There may be a better system but we have yet to find it.  I would rather trust them than have justice handed down from on high.  Like it or lump it juries are our best protection against bad law and always have been. Try researching William Penn and jury nullification.  Interestingly defence like women on juries while the prosecution likes men.  Women are less likely to return guilty than men in rape cases. Well know fact.

David LD says:

01:30pm | 16/05/11

This comment is a perfect indication of the kind of ignorant bullshit women have to put up with, and exactly mirrors the quote that started the slutwalk protest in Canada.

Here’s an idea you might want to get your head around; sometimes women dress provocatively and sexualise themselves because it makes THEM feel good. It has nothing to do with “looking for a bit of action”. It’s certainly not, and never will be an invitation for sexual assault.

Oh, and you, Lucius, are an ignorant moron.

Rover of North Cooma says:

02:45pm | 16/05/11

Haha Lucius, this reminds me of a night when I was a teenager way back in the 80s when boob tubes were all the go. My mates and I were tarted up and trying to attract boys outside Hungry Jacks in Toowong, and this carload of wolf-whistling boys turned up in a gold Torana, which unfortunately for both of us was my brother’s car. They drove off and neither of us ever dobbed on each other.
It’s not about having sex when you’re a teenager, it’s about meeting people and thinking you’re grown-up.
I don’t understand why any man would think that a woman looking for a bit of action doesn’t have the right to say no if it’s to someone she doesn’t find attractive.

Bernard (the other one) says:

03:03pm | 16/05/11

‘I just don’t understand why any woman would go out dressed with her boobs and arse hanging out if they arent looking for a bit of action?’

From a male point of view, your comment makes sense, but women don’t think like us:

Here’s what you don’t know. Many women go out purely to get male attention (and only attention). It boosts their self esteem and increases their ranking in the social hierarchy of their female friendship group. The girl who gets the most attention from men is the queen bee. It’s basically a subconcious continuation of high school ‘pecking order’ games. The majority of young girls who dress like ‘sluts’ have no intention of having sex with anyone when they head out dressed that way on a friday night.

Obviously women don’t state this because it would give the game away and get a lot of comments along the ‘attention whore’ line. Men would justifiably be a little miffed that they are baited into taking the emotional risks of approaching a girl where there is no potential payoff. For this type of girl as soon as a man walks up and says hi, he has given the girl the validation she wants in front of her friends and she can either dismiss him, or string him along for more compliments or free drinks.

The only known countermeasures in the male arsenal for this behaviour is wealth, social dominance, high status or game.

Slothy says:

03:27pm | 16/05/11

“I don’t understand why any man would think that a woman looking for a bit of action doesn’t have the right to say no if it’s to someone she doesn’t find attractive. “

This is a fundamental point that gets too easily lost. All these guys who go to nightclubs to hook up will put product in their hair and put on their cologne and pick out a nice shirt, and yet would have no qualms about brutally refusing the advances of any woman they deemed to be below their standards. Why can’t a girl out on the pull have the same privilege? Why is it so bad for her to say ‘I want sex, and lots of it, just not with you?’

Markus says:

01:42pm | 16/05/11

“I suffer from the unfortunate problem of being a woman, where heading out into the night is something that must be done strategically, & never alone.”
Do you seriously think that women are the only ones who have to plan ahead for a night out? That men can just wander totally alone into a big city CBD full of drunken idiots, while drunk themselves, act however they want (it is their right!) and are completely immune to anything bad happening to them, because they are men?

Amanda says:

02:03pm | 16/05/11

I knew someone would say that, Markus. I’m not really talking about on the streets, but in a bar or venue. & I’m not aware of guys getting unwanted & aggressive sexual behaviour towards them, but maybe I’m wrong about that.

Amanda says:

02:08pm | 16/05/11

& do guys also have to think: “I’m going to see a band, what should I wear to reduce the likelihood, & afford some protection from, being groped?” I’m quite interested to know if that is the case.

Markus says:

02:58pm | 16/05/11

As a guy I’ve got the best of both worlds - avoiding not just unwanted sexual attention from women, but also the ensuing violence from her boyfriend/bouncer when she goes back to him to claim I tried to take advantage of her.

Of course you aren’t aware of it, guys don’t go aimlessly whinging about an entire gender, or society as a whole, everytime something doesn’t go to plan.

Bernard says:

03:08pm | 16/05/11

‘I knew someone would say that, Markus. I’m not really talking about on the streets, but in a bar or venue. & I’m not aware of guys getting unwanted & aggressive sexual behaviour towards them, but maybe I’m wrong about that. ‘

I’ve had that behaviour directed at me (granted by both men and women). Markus is probably referring the more common likelihood of physical assault. There’s a significant probability of getting into a (unwanted and uninstigated) fight whenever a man heads out into the nightlife district.

Erick says:

03:13pm | 16/05/11

Guys don’t have to worry about being groped, but they do have to worry about getting bashed - which sometimes involves being permanently crippled or killed. Would you rather be groped or beaten?

Amanda says:

03:52pm | 16/05/11

OK, that wasn’t the point I was trying to make. I’m well aware of the high likelihood of random physical attacks on men out & about. I just struggle with having no recourse but to put up with aggressive sexual behaviour from people who perhaps would not be so aggressive generally. It just seems that such behaviour is acceptable, where I am hoping that such a protest would make the point that it is not acceptable.
& that is very interesting Bernard, I guess it is not something that is widely spoken about.
But I’m sure what I’m saying will be thoroughly misconstrued. Never mind.

Markus says:

04:31pm | 16/05/11

The behaviour is already unacceptable. That’s why we have laws against it. But just like everything else in life, not everyone obeys the law, so we can’t just sit about relying on the law to protect us at all times.

No recourse? How about, don’t put yourself in a situation where it is a high risk to happen?
And I’m not talking about staying home wrapped in cotton wool. How about something as simple as steering clear of the guys that clearly look like trouble?

You mentioned bands. I assume you’ve seen young teen girls get hurt in moshpits before? Was your first reaction “this is an outrage, we should raise an awareness protest against this despicable behaviour in society!”
Didn’t think so.

Bernard says:

04:33pm | 16/05/11

Amanda, I don’t go around telling my mates about when some old gay guy grabbed my crotch (or when cougars grabbed my arse) because it would result in piss taking. I’m assuming its pretty common for all men to keep things like this quiet when it happens to them.

On the other hand, the guy left me alone when I threatened him with copious amounts of physical violence and I guess many women don’t have that option.

Frustrated says:

01:22pm | 16/05/11

It’s not ALL about that.  It is a contributing factor, one that steps can be taken to remove.

Just like not all home invasions occur with “unlocked” houses.  But by locking your doors and windows you can reduce your risk.

Just like not all credit card fraud is done via ID theft.  But you can reduce the chances of it occuring to you by shredding your personal papers before disposal.

The policeman’s comments were about a method of “reducing risk”.  Worded poorly, but exaggerated by the masses to mean “it’s your fault ‘coz you dress like a tramp.”

bec says:

01:51pm | 16/05/11

But frustrated, it does little to actually diminish the risk because *that’s not how the majority of sexual assaults occur*. Why is that so hard to understand? There might be logic in it if the vast majority of rapes were stranger rapes, or if the vast majority of rapists dressed the same way, BUT THEY DON’T. They are the minority. And telling us to protect ourselves more is annoying and shitty when you are fully clothed, or you are in your own home, sober.

Bev says:

06:35pm | 16/05/11

Grow up ladies. says:12:12pm | 16/05/11

Standing ovation

Bilby says:

02:06pm | 16/05/11

Actually that right is one of the foundations of our society. Our laws, police force, and courts are there to assert your right to personal peace and security. The trouble is that if you think rights will protect you, it’ll be too late. That appears to be the confusion.

James1 says:

02:18pm | 16/05/11

Everyone does have that right.  Thing is, you will always have people willing to violate that right.  The existence of the latter does not negate the former in principle, only in practice.

Bernard says:

03:14pm | 16/05/11

Look, I agree that no-one ever asks to be raped and that it is not the victim’s fault. But I’m still going to tell my daughter to be careful when she goes out on a friday night, to stay with her friends and not go anywhere alone with strange men.

I’ve written several of the comments you’re referring to in this blog which you imply are written by men who think that ‘Rape is the victim’s fault’. I’m 100% anti-rape so please don’t emotionally project onto me or other men that just want to see women do everything they can to keep themselves safe.

Bernard says:

03:18pm | 16/05/11

Sorry, I re-read your comment and you’re not actually trying to paint people here as I thought. Apologies.

Yuri says:

04:13pm | 16/05/11

Exactly, that is the meaning of the word. They cannot take away the negative connotations if that is what the meaning is based on. Perhaps someone should invent a word that means “woman who sleeps around but is not a slut”

Bernard says:

03:26pm | 16/05/11

Women are allowed to be promiscuous, but men are allowed to not want to marry promiscuous women. A protest will not change male psychology or their predisposition to choose less promiscuous women as longterm partners.

Dark Darling says:

02:37pm | 16/05/11

Agreed.  The actual definition of the word slut is derogatory. 

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/slut

Why would any self-respecting person want themselves referred to in that way, in respect to either of the meanings represented in the definition above?

bec says:

02:24pm | 16/05/11

You sure are allowed to look. And think. And think about looking. Go to town, buddy.

However, you are not allowed to go further to physically assault. You cannot expect that if you say anything about it that the recipient of your comment should not be able to express their freedom of speech to respond to what you’ve said in any format they see fit.

Kika says:

02:49pm | 16/05/11

Uh, not me thanks. Gross. I don’t even like my husband perving. Hahaha. But that’s just me. Self esteem issues.

Valerie Woodruffe says:

02:30pm | 16/05/11

Osiris Fox, WOmen also “want sex”

Osiris Fox says:

02:42pm | 16/05/11

Ah yes, indeed they do. You sound a bit like a troll though,  Regardless of that, I’m also sure you can’t be thaaaaat stupid that you didn’t pick up the message I was trying to make?

Kika says:

02:46pm | 16/05/11

Good question. I don’t get it either. I dress modestly most of the time. The only time I would wear something revealing is my short short jeans. That’s it. But as for every bit hanging out. particularly cleavage. I don’t get it. Put them away. No one wants to see your gonzonkers except gross perverted men. And I think that’s the reason they do it. Because they equate their femininty to being perved at. I was only thinking that 70’s fashion was pretty revealing and was at a big time for women’s lib so they for one made it cool to express your femininity and sexuality by flashing your bits everywhere, but at the time time they hate men for perving at them. Men will perve, that’s what they do. But by putting everything on a dinner plate with them you’re just telling people you WANT to be perved at.

And besides, I think studies have shown women dress up for other women to notice how you look, not men. We’re a very strange bunch. Probably goes back to cave men days where we compete against each other for the best males, wheras the males aren’t as hard to please as we actually think. We put ourselves through torture to look nice, but I don’t think for example males care so much about fresh manicures as we think. I think it’s OTHER women perving at our nice nails we like! Haha.

Kate says:

06:07pm | 16/05/11

I don’t get it either!

I think you can look perfectly attractive, and quite sexy even, without revealing too much. Leaving a bit to the imagination is far sexier than showing the world your boobs and half your butt.
Of course, this applies to men too - I do not want to see half of your undies because your pants are so low-slung, or your beer belly poking out of your too-small T-shirt.

Like it or not, how you dress says a lot about you. Yes, people have the right to dress how they want. But I wouldn’t hire someone who dressed like a tart, nor would I assume they would have much in common with me.

Osiris Fox says:

02:49pm | 16/05/11

You don’t have to act and dress like a slut to get sex. And gentleman, this message is a fishing expedition seeking reaction from men to deliver and the I told you so’s.

marley says:

08:26pm | 16/05/11

Well, I dunno - I don’t see one whole helluva lot of respect from some of the people on this thread, and I don’t think anyone’s on videocam.  Let’s face it, some people (male and female, I’m not being specific) are just jerks - born or made - but jerks all the same.

mike j says:

07:33pm | 16/05/11

Another bimbo who thinks everyone but herself needs an education. How about we change those last couple of lines to:

You may disagree and say it’s not fair
but the guy who’s raping you isn’t going to care.

See what I did there? Care even rhymes with fair.

But well done. I’m sure all the sociopathic rapists in Australia have read your little poem and are thoroughly reformed. You are now free to wear whatever you like.

Enjoy.

Kim says:

02:00am | 17/05/11

so if a woman goes to a beach wearing a bikini she should not be surprised if she is raped because she is showing a lot of skin?  she should be covered up whilst men are able to freely wear speedos and shorts without fear of being raped? yes the old double standards are alive and well in Australia, no wonder society is such a mess.

highly unlikely? if only says:

07:27am | 17/05/11

Where have you been living ff? Highly unlikely? If only.

1 in 5 women before the age of 25 experiences sexual violence, 93% of offenders are male. If you aren’t aware that your sisters are being abused right left and centre, you’ve been living under a rock. If you think it is because of what they do or how they dress, well ff, think again. It’s because they are female and because men are allowed (if not encouraged) to behave like this in our society.
I understand your point and have been making this point myself but as women we should put the blame where it belongs and it is not the women who need re-educating.
There are clearly guys who believe that everything always is the womans fault, like seriously, that’s scary and that’s what we’re dealing
with.
I’ve experienced sexual violence both in and out the home, how do you suggest we dress when we’re at home? And yes, it makes a huge difference.

http://au.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080827003807AAQ8mns
http://www.aifs.gov.au/acssa/statistics.html
http://www.wch.sa.gov.au/services/az/other/yarrowplace/files/student_stats.htm

fairsfair says:

09:44am | 17/05/11

My comments don’t relate to every situation. That is the issue with every topic of discussion concerning gender - I am not trying to label everyone. This article was initially about slutty behaviour in a public setting - not domestic violence. There are predators in this world that I can not stop, but I can lessen the risk in a public circumstance (at a club on a Saturday night where everyone is drunk/high) by controlling MY OWN actions and bahaviour.

Like it or not, men have physical power over women. I can’t control what a man thinks and how he responds to me, but I can try and protect myself from it. I may fail, but I may reduce the risk.

Yes, there is fault on both sides with 99.9999% of it with those who commit the act and they should be condemned, but I can’t think for a second that it is never my fault if I tempt fate by rocking up to the topless barmaids of a Friday night, skulling a six pack of bundy and coke and then taking my top off and swinging around me head. What does that say to a group of drunk men? Oh that is right, I am a demure young lady who has only ever got to third base. Let me find a cab, I am keen for an early night as I have to get up and go to work early in the morning. What planet do these people live on?