TV and Radio   permalink

Skimpy clothing debate

This discussion has been closed.

Messages: 1 - 50 of 50
  • Message 1. 

    Posted by Cheapjack (U1199036) on Sunday, 26th June 2011

    In this day and age:

    'No' means 'no'. Whatever you are wearing. and, the state will protect you.

    Report message1

  • Message 2

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by Stazbumpa (U4044370) on Sunday, 26th June 2011

    'No' means 'no'. Whatever you are wearing. and, the state will protect you. 

    Absolutely, the worst that should be expected is lots of staring.

    Report message2

  • Message 3

    , in reply to message 2.

    Posted by Cheapjack (U1199036) on Sunday, 26th June 2011

    Having seen the way some can stare, I agree. But, even that shouldn't be worrying. Women should be able to ask men out, too. And, stop the process of courtship and sex at any point. Rather than being maidens to be taken or cattle to be led, or told what to do.

    Report message3

  • Message 4

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by Oak_King (U14612120) on Sunday, 26th June 2011

    Curious..........it never seems to be much of a problem amongst naturists.

    BB )O(
    H

    Report message4

  • Message 5

    , in reply to message 3.

    Posted by Stazbumpa (U4044370) on Sunday, 26th June 2011

    Attitudes will change with time, it's been a long road thus far and will continue to be so. Messages like the one is this thread are affirmation of the direction we want to go.

    Rather than being maidens to be taken or cattle to be led, or told what to do 

    It's not just men that need to understand this smiley - ok

    Report message5

  • Message 6

    , in reply to message 5.

    Posted by Cheapjack (U1199036) on Sunday, 26th June 2011

    smiley - ok

    Report message6

  • Message 7

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by Colette (U14919316) on Sunday, 26th June 2011

    I consider myself a feminist. I believe women should have equal rights to men, to be able to work, to earn, to vote and for their opinions to be heard. However I do think that this argument about what women have the right to wear detracts from any debate about feminism and equal rights for women.
    I agree that the law should protect the woman regardless of what she was wearing, if she said "no", it meant no and the result was rape regardless of what she was wearing. However no law is going to actually protect a woman from the rape actually happening, at that very moment that it actually happens. It may serve as a deterrent, but if any woman really does not wish to be raped, she be mindful of how her appearance may draw the attention of someone that she would rather not encounter. There are a lot of predatory people out there that just have absolutely no regard for any law. If you poke the lion, you must also remember that it might just bite back. I think a lot of women in todays society are trying to push the boundary as far as they can just to see how far it can be pushed, and in a way this is good as it sparks debate. However the extreme behaviour can also have extreme consequences, and this must always be remembered.
    As a woman, I agree with the Asian female clothing designer who was interviewed that clothing and appearance have an effect on how people treat you and that women tend to behave more cattily in the workplace when they and their female colleagues dress more provocatively. I think that this is due to their insecurities surfacing because they are being judged by their bodies rather than for their views or skills. I too have also witnessed how differently they are treated in the workplace under these conditions. I feel that women are our own worst enemies in the workplace. In my experience, female bosses are always the most critical of their female employees and are more ruthless towards them than their male employees. I think this is a shame.
    Back to the subject though, I do think that women should cover up more. I don't think that this should be to take things back to Victorian styles, just not to push the boundary quite so much. I think that you are treated more for who you are rather than what you look like, when you dress more modestly.
    Keep the debate going though, it draws awareness to issues that desperately need attention.

    Report message7

  • Message 8

    , in reply to message 5.

    Posted by Colette (U14919316) on Sunday, 26th June 2011

    Attitudes will change with time, it's been a long road thus far and will continue to be so. Messages like the one is this thread are affirmation of the direction we want to go.

    Rather than being maidens to be taken or cattle to be led, or told what to do 

    It's not just men that need to understand this smiley - ok 
    I agree 100%

    Report message8

  • Message 9

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by Vysehrad (U3338964) on Sunday, 26th June 2011

    Cheapjack

    In this day and age:

    'No' means 'no'. Whatever you are wearing. and, the state will protect you. 

    I have a right to be able to leave my house for work in the morning, leave the front door wide open, return from work in the evening and not find that I've been burgled. Responsibility on my part means that I put the burglar alarm on and lock the front door on leaving the house. We need to live in the real world here.

    I was curious to watch a recent episode of 'The Apprentice' and see allegedly modern women advocating a 'lads mag'. I'm sure the woman on the front cover in a state of undress would have absolutely *no* affect on any man who happened to view the front cover.

    Personlly, I believe that some women need to be careful that they are not giving out mixed messages. When they want to attract the attention of men, they dress in a certain way. Yet they deny that by dressing in the same certain way at other times, they attract the attention of men.

    With choice comes responsibility. Choice is also the opportunity to exercise the right *not* to behave in a certain way. Certain leading feminists need to stop the emotional blackmail of those women who can see the difference, trying to make them think they are pandering to the requests of men by exercising responsibility in their dress.

    Report message9

  • Message 10

    , in reply to message 7.

    Posted by Cheapjack (U1199036) on Sunday, 26th June 2011

    Lionesses can stop sex at any point and mice have a rape squeak.

    You might not be able to stop it happening in some cases, but the force of the law would help a lot and you can prove bruises internally and externally. And, when women can ask, and stop, it will be much better. If they want to. some people aren't very sexual and some of them are feminists, too. Male and female.

    Report message10

  • Message 11

    , in reply to message 9.

    Posted by Cheapjack (U1199036) on Sunday, 26th June 2011

    Vyshrehad,

    Leaving your house unlocked is not the same as wearing a mini-skirt. An unattended house is not the same as a very attended woman. I honestly don't see the problem. All men could be brought to a halt, and can too, even now, if the woman isn't interested. Just cos she goes out in a miniskirt, doesn't mean she wants absolutely anyone. she can pick, or go home alone. She might just be dressed like that cos she's got great legs and is young. Doesn't bother me and shouldn't bother anyone else who is any use, or has any appreciation of them. This sort of world should be possible with all the cameras there are everywhere.

    Report message11

  • Message 12

    , in reply to message 7.

    Posted by Vysehrad (U3338964) on Sunday, 26th June 2011

    Colette

    I consider myself a feminist. I believe women should have equal rights to men, to be able to work, to earn, to vote and for their opinions to be heard. However I do think that this argument about what women have the right to wear detracts from any debate about feminism and equal rights for women.  
    I agree. I also believe that feminism has been hijacked, moving away from something that is pro-women to something that is anti-men.

    It may serve as a deterrent, but if any woman really does not wish to be raped, she be mindful of how her appearance may draw the attention of someone that she would rather not encounter. There are a lot of predatory people out there that just have absolutely no regard for any law. If you poke the lion, you must also remember that it might just bite back.  
    And from my experience, this is the way that most women will approach this. However, I feel that women are being 'bullied' by certain leading feminists into not being seen to advocate anything that could be seen as 'giving in to men' (whether this is the case in reality, or not). What you see as responsibility in dress is being seen by them as a kind of weakness. As I said in my previous post, I have the right to leave my front door open when I go out of the house. Responsibility dictates that I make my house secure and lock it, to make it as difficult as possible for it to be burgled.

    I feel that women are our own worst enemies in the workplace. In my experience, female bosses are always the most critical of their female employees and are more ruthless towards them than their male employees. 
    Personally, I think this is about power. To give an example: I noticed that on the X Factor, when there was just Simon, Sharon Osbourne and Louie, Sharon was in her element. You would have thought that when Dannii joined, Sharon would be grateful for another woman, it it appears to me that she felt 'threatened'. I'm also wondering if this was a factor in Cheryl Cole's removal from the US X-Factor judging panel (the older Paula Abdul seeing her as 'competition' for the attention of the male judges). But I digress...

    Keep the debate going though, it draws awareness to issues that desperately need attention. 
    I'd like to see this debated with an all-women panel, with contributions from both sides. When men are involved, it becomes all too easily a 'battle of the sexes' type verbal sparring match.

    Report message12

  • Message 13

    , in reply to message 12.

    Posted by Cheapjack (U1199036) on Sunday, 26th June 2011

    Having an all women panel is sexist in itself. I would rather have one in twenty years time, after this 'stop at any point' law, as they have in sweden, was implemented. You'd be amazed at the changes in attitude of some women, which are coloured today by some of the men they have encountered. The only men that couldn't handle it are the ones that are in prison for rape.

    Report message13

  • Message 14

    , in reply to message 11.

    Posted by Vysehrad (U3338964) on Sunday, 26th June 2011

    Cheapjack

    Leaving your house unlocked is not the same as wearing a mini-skirt. An unattended house is not the same as a very attended woman.  
    But this is to deny that a woman walking around in a min-skirt has absolutely no affect on men whatsoever.

    In an ideal world, it shouldn't make any difference how she is dressed. However this is not an ideal world. So why is is sensible on the one hand to take precautions when leaving one's house, but deemed a socially retrograde step to take precautions in dress, if /when the situation warrants it?

    Report message14

  • Message 15

    , in reply to message 13.

    Posted by Cheapjack (U1199036) on Sunday, 26th June 2011

    This panel should have some sex therapists on, it too, if it should be implemented. And some of them will be male. And... the 30 million women in this country might like a say.

    Report message15

  • Message 16

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by Jack-in-the-Green (U14769647) on Sunday, 26th June 2011


    Whatever you are wearing. and, the state will protect you. 

    Correct. What is your issue with this?

    Would you prefer it if people were allowed to attack people because they disliked what they were wearing in some way?

    If so, which types of clothing do you consider a provocation to violence and a mitigating factor in an accused person's trial? Religious dress, punk, mod, rocker, goth, skimpy, too modest, football shirt, military uniform?

    Report message16

  • Message 17

    , in reply to message 14.

    Posted by Cheapjack (U1199036) on Sunday, 26th June 2011

    Vysherad,

    Read the first post. Interest does not mean a right to sex. Mice know it, lions know it. No means no.

    Don't go anywhere where there aren't cameras and use the rights you have.

    Rape in marriage was thought impossible to prove, and now is, even when couples share a bed. And, they are both undressed and married.

    Report message17

  • Message 18

    , in reply to message 16.

    Posted by Cheapjack (U1199036) on Sunday, 26th June 2011

    Don't know where you are coming from there, Jack, and I didn't say that.

    Report message18

  • Message 19

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by Colette (U14919316) on Sunday, 26th June 2011

    In this day and age:

    'No' means 'no'. Whatever you are wearing. and, the state will protect you. 
    Cheapjack,
    I wish to point out that there is no mention of "interest" in your first posting. I agree that no means no, but I disagree that the state should protect you regardless of the circumstance. I believe that there should be a level of personal responsibility too, although there will always be the cases that certain individuals will rape no matter what the circumstance.

    Report message19

  • Message 20

    , in reply to message 5.

    Posted by SempiternalPanacea (U14919414) on Sunday, 26th June 2011

    To address this particular question I think men's attitudes towards women, and women's attitude towards themselves and other women need to change.

    We live in an incredibly superficial world, and without realising we have been brainwashed by a culture that has formed from everything around us, the most powerful being media and advertising. The true essence of a man and a woman and who they really has been lost, we behave like mindless zombies living our day to day lives. As a society we are always focused on "curing the effects, and not solving the root cause of all problems." To cut things short I will try and avoid explaining the root of all problems here and direct the concept towards the question although I apologise in advance if the answer ends up being more philosophical then direct, it's only because the world in my eyes isn't black and white like many appear to see it especially when you have these kind of debates.

    Men should try and see women as beautiful flowers. When you see a flower you are in awe of its beauty but you're thoughts are pure. This way if a man looks at a women he sees beauty in a righteous manner. People may ask well men are just born that way. The cure to that lies in, families building solid values from a young age, meditating, taking time out in your life to really reflect on yourself, (and that doesn't mean watching films, listening to music, or going on facebook when your alone, but literally switching off from the world). These things although the list goes beyond this, may appear unrelated leads to far less dependency on things like alcohol , cigarettes, excessive indulgence in food etc...which essentially keeps our minds clearer, purer and freer as we learn to break out of the bad habits of being a slave to our desires. Men need to and also more importantly want to change the way they see women.

    Purity of thought in the male mind is one of the greatest things a man can attain, whether a women is fully clothed or completely nude, a pure mind would still see the woman as the beautiful flower she is.

    Focusing on women many are unfortunately indirectly controlled by men, the need for looking beautiful, glamourous almost perfect is based on their level of beauty in comparison to other women, what they see on advertisements and magasines, and also their desire to please not just themselves but also both their female counterparts and men. (We still unfortunately live in a male dominated society- but women hold the power to slowly change that). As a man, my message to all women today is for them to realise beyond their external beauty and beyond their personality, lies their true substance which is ultimate perfection as divine mothers of this world. All women in short are therefore beautiful but women still behave that being beautiful is all about external appearances. Unless this simple message is understood and applied, nothing will change and men will continue to see women as objects of desire. Women have the right to wear what they want, but as the mother's of this world the responsibility lies with them to teach the kids (men) about the way they see women. This unfortunately starts with wearing more modest clothes (not necessarily head to toe, but just covering up the unecessary skin flashing). Less demand for all materials possessions women love to have, such as glamourous dresses will eventually reduce the supply of them and hopefully we should be able to remove the sexualisation of modern culture.

    I could go on and on, but I think I've said enough. Some of my points are still not fully explained, so I'm sure people are going to refute them, but I'm happy to continue discussions further.

    Also apologies for any dodgy spelling, grammar etc.....

    Take care all





    Report message20

  • Message 21

    , in reply to message 19.

    Posted by Cheapjack (U1199036) on Sunday, 26th June 2011

    Collete,

    Men and women sleep together, and may even both be naked, and have arranged a contract for partnership, and no still means no there, when they are married. And, is enforcable and divorcable for. Are you saying a woman should wear a locked body suit in the marriage bed, and should take it off, when she wants sex, otherwise she is asking to be raped? She is responsible?

    Don't think so.

    Report message21

  • Message 22

    , in reply to message 20.

    Posted by Cheapjack (U1199036) on Sunday, 26th June 2011

    Semp,

    Appreciate your 'rosy' post, on women,and I don't see why sex with them shouldn't be like that too, and would be, a lot more, too, if the thirty million of them in this country had a bit more say about it.

    Report message22

  • Message 23

    , in reply to message 22.

    Posted by SempiternalPanacea (U14919414) on Sunday, 26th June 2011

    Off topic here, but physical love in my opinion is a baby stage of love, it's ok to be all over each other but the aim should be to take love to a higher level. A sexless relationship based on "divine" love for each other, and to portray that love to everyone around through forms such as charity is in my opinion when a relationship has reached it's highest level.

    Excuse me when I use the word "divine", if you're a thiest you can take it as the love god has for us. Alternatively if you're an athiest I refer to divine love as simply being the highest form of love.

    Report message23

  • Message 24

    , in reply to message 23.

    Posted by Cheapjack (U1199036) on Sunday, 26th June 2011

    My guru said it was the highest form of pleasure you could get, whilst in the physical world.

    And, I think the world is better for a more curvy form, whether it wears lipstick or not. And half the brainweight of humanity would be a lot freer if they could decide more who they could have sex with and would be able to contribute a bit more. And, it would be better for the other half, too.

    Report message24

  • Message 25

    , in reply to message 19.

    Posted by Stazbumpa (U4044370) on Sunday, 26th June 2011

    Collette:

    I believe that there should be a level of personal responsibility too, although there will always be the cases that certain individuals will rape no matter what the circumstance. 

    I cannot agree with this. What you are wearing may, or may not as it goes (given the nature of rapists), increase or lessen your chances of being raped but it in no way confers any responsibility for that rape onto the victim. The perpetrator is the one responsible, and that person alone.

    What we are supposing here is that clothing is a factor in rape and I doubt that this is true given the variety of rape victims and their attire, and also given the fact that rape is usually a combination of opportunity and a desire for power and subjugation over and of another person.
    Without going into detail, I have heard "she was asking for it" several times before, but it has equally applied to old ladies and children as it has to young ladies, with or without short skirts.

    Report message25

  • Message 26

    , in reply to message 2.

    Posted by NinjaMind (U14830397) on Sunday, 26th June 2011

    Everyone has the right to wear and dress how they want HOWEVER wearing skimpy clothing can certainly give off wrong message to some men, a message you may not be intending to give. You could say well that is their problem it is , but that does not mean you should not be aware of potential consequences for what you wear.

    People in Glasgow have the right to wear Celtic or Rangers football shirts at night walking around the street, however they need to be & are aware it could entice violence towards them.

    Go in the wrong area wearing clothing that indicates support of BNP, you might get attacked.





    Report message26

  • Message 27

    , in reply to message 26.

    Posted by Stazbumpa (U4044370) on Sunday, 26th June 2011

    But it in no way diverts responsibility for that attack from the attacker to the victim. Hedging your bets is the only point to be made, the responsibility still lies solely with the attacker.

    Report message27

  • Message 28

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by BBC-account-holder (U14761700) on Sunday, 26th June 2011

    Most of the views apart from Colette's (message 7) wise words of sanity on this page are so ridiculous it's beyond belief.

    "The state will protect you"?

    What nonsense!

    Just when did the state protect us from *anything*? - all the people who *every year* get murdered, violently attacked, mugged for mobile phones, trainers, jewelery, bullied, victimized, etc, all the people who get their cars stolen, burgled, homes vandalised, etc, etc.

    When was it the stated protect us from all that?

    Rich people get private security and body guards. Thus they also do not seem quite convinced "the state" will protect them without all those extra measures.

    As to rape

    en.wikipedia.org/wik...

    apparently 85,000 women were raped in 2006 in the UK. That doesn't even include the mere *sexual assaults* which were probably numerous times that amount.

    The police and justice system *cannot* protect the public from most crimes, at best, all they can do is try to is catch the perpetrators - which quite often they don't; and try to put them away for a long time - which again they quite often don't; or threaten them with punishments as a deterrent which it seems don't seem to work very much, as these crimes keep happening without cease.

    So it is extremely naive or irresponsible to make out that the state will protect women from rape or other forms of sexual assault or harrasment.

    The Muslim women and other woman on the show who said women should dress more modestly *in their own interests* were totally right.

    The best protection women can have is that men respect them, and part of that must be dressing more modestly, so that they are viewed as equal human beings and not sex objects.

    The argument that to expect women to dress more modestly takes the responsibility off men is totally invalid, because rapes aren't committed by responsible men, they are committed by men who obviously can't control themselves or have been driven to desperate measures by desire.

    Rapes and sexual assaults may not be spontaneous acts of sudden loss of control, but the consequence of a constant teasing of men - in an office for example - that goes on day after day or year after year until one of them eventually snaps - maybe at the office party for example.

    That just wouldn't happen if these women did not deliberately dress so that they know they will be a tease and turn on to the men there.

    And the other thing that seems overlooked is that probably the vast majority of sexual assaults and rapes are never reported, because women are too ashamed to do so.

    Finally, this nonsense by the student protester that rape is about power and not sex is mostly just that.

    Women like her just don't understand that men's sex desire is at least 10 times more powerful than their own (it's probably to do with the fact men have 30 times or so more testosterone than women), and so quite honestly a great deal of rape is simply about sex, not about this vague "power" concept, except in ongoing couple relationships like marriage, where these is a war going on, of which sex is part of the currency.

    Such relationships which are not based on proper respect shouldn't exist anyway, so no women should need fear getting raped in marriage, because they simply shouldn't be in those kinds of relationships if that is what is happening.

    But in almost all other cases it's about a man carrying out his fantasy and forcing his desire upon women he knows he'd never be able to have sex with by consent. It's about the basic animal instinct expressing itself in an uncivilised way.

    90% of men will probably behave themselves however women dress, but the other 10% may not, and women who don't accept this and believe the police can and will protect them are mostly living in cloud cuckoo land.

    The presence of so many illegal immigrants, who the government doesn't even know how many are here, and many of whom may have carried out abominations or rape and murder in wherever they came from, is also a further serious threat to women.

    It would be nice if we lived in a society of really well behaved people who were never violent or sexually out of control, but we are not. And thus idealistic young women like the one in the protest march, have been doing these "women against rape" marches for decades now, and nothing changes.

    Women still get raped, and in greater numbers than ever.

    The only thing that will change it, is a change of culture, a desexualisation of our entire society. We need to ban sex from all TV, movies and the Internet, and have a more modest manner of women's dress, so that there are not any longer millions of desperate men with their tongues hanging out, roaming the streets, bars, office or other public places, trying to plan how they can get to have sex with all the women who are at present constantly teasing them, with a constant "you can look, but you can't touch."

    The real reason so many women refuse to cover up is because they are using their sexual image to get power, both over men and in general.

    That is a very irresponsible attitude, because it puts a lot of especially non-street wise women and girls in danger of assault, harrassment, stalking and rape.

    On TV now for example, it seems that women over a certain age, whose sexual attractiveness is fading can no longer get jobs. That's another reason why a lot of women demand freedom to wear what they like, because the older women tend to dress more skimpily to try to still project a sexual image, because they know that if they project a more sexual image they are still more likely to be "in demand" for TV work and get attention and power in general.

    If you look at all the women who present the various shows on TV, including the weather, there's hardly one of them who isn't a "stunner" and doesn't try to dress in a fairly sexually provocative manner.

    Perhaps the real question that should have been asked if it is legitimate for women to keep using their sexuality to get power and jobs by competing to display the most sexually provocative image they can.

    Report message28

  • Message 29

    , in reply to message 9.

    Posted by Jack-in-the-Green (U14769647) on Sunday, 26th June 2011


    I have a right to be able to leave my house for work in the morning, leave the front door wide open, return from work in the evening and not find that I've been burgled. Responsibility on my part means that I put the burglar alarm on and lock the front door on leaving the house. We need to live in the real world here.
     

    But property rights are fundamentally different to human rights, Vysehrad. Sexuality, the right to have it AND to express it, is a human right.

    Expecting women to keep theirs under wraps to avoid violence is the equivalent of asking homosexuals to keep theirs under wraps. This is not a moral line to take.

    Report message29

  • Message 30

    , in reply to message 28.

    This posting has been hidden during moderation because it broke the House Rules in some way.

  • Message 31

    , in reply to message 30.

    Posted by Jack-in-the-Green (U14769647) on Sunday, 26th June 2011


    That just wouldn't happen if these women did not deliberately dress so that they know they will be a tease and turn on to the men there. 

    The country with the highest rate of sexual violence against women is the Democratic Republic of Congo.

    In a survey of 80 rapists, only 30% cites clothing as their reason for attack. Though they didn't specify exactly what that clothing consisted of so we've no way of knowing whether it was a short skirt or showing too much ankle or hair for their liking.

    Men aren't incapable natural disasters waiting to happen, they are fully cogent human beings. If they think they're in danger of hurting somebody for whatever reason, they have a responsibility to take evasive action.

    Report message31

  • Message 32

    , in reply to message 28.

    Posted by Jack-in-the-Green (U14769647) on Sunday, 26th June 2011


    That just wouldn't happen if these women did not deliberately dress so that they know they will be a tease and turn on to the men there.
     

    Lesbians aren't dressing to tease and turn men on are they? Are they exempt from male sexual violence?

    It's a shame that some men have some difficultly differentiating between feeling turned on, and hurting people. Why would any healthy man move from liking a woman to wanting to do something sadistic to her?

    That confusion is quite revealing about the man in question's sexual inclinations and feelings about women in general.

    Report message32

  • Message 33

    , in reply to message 32.

    Posted by bluebelljag (U14151662) on Sunday, 26th June 2011

    I loved wearing mini skirts and hot pants and midi's and maxi's and our British and Western free (really free) should continue to dress as they like. However I think we should ban covering up females in our schools and burkas in public places as they are not our culture and not religious more a political ideology and are demeaning to women and cruel to little girls.

    Report message33

  • Message 34

    , in reply to message 33.

    Posted by Jack-in-the-Green (U14769647) on Sunday, 26th June 2011


    However I think we should ban covering up females in our schools and burkas in public places 

    And i think they encourage men who migrate here from more "conservative" cultures (by which I mean sexist) to have an unhelpful benchmark by which to judge western women.

    Report message34

  • Message 35

    , in reply to message 34.

    Posted by Cheapjack (U1199036) on Monday, 27th June 2011

    BBC account holder:

    The state protects people by making things illegal and and making them aware of of the consequences if they break laws. That's why we don't have anarchy. That's why rape is not more common. If men know they couldn't get away with it, and they would be punished - by stopping them from going near other women, for starters, it's amazing how respectful they would become.

    As I said, two married people share a bed, and the woman is wearing less than on the street, and they are together, and rape is illegal there. Why? Cos women are people, and you don't have a right to them.

    It's clear cut, not a grey issue at all. It's just a case of getting one man in the judiciary and the establishment and one woman, too, who can see how empowering it would be, too pass a stop at any point law, same as they have in Sweden. And, to see how correct it is. The police would enforce it and there are enough cameras everywhere to back it up. The only ones that couldn't handle it would be the ones who are now in jail for it.

    Report message35

  • Message 36

    , in reply to message 28.

    Posted by Stazbumpa (U4044370) on Monday, 27th June 2011

    I'll post a toned down response, last one got modded.

    BBC-account-holder:

    That just wouldn't happen if these women did not deliberately dress so that they know they will be a tease and turn on to the men there.
     


    Yours is exactly the backward and out of date view that needs obliterating.

    Finally, this nonsense by the student protester that rape is about power and not sex is mostly just that. 

    I bet you a fiver I know more rapists than you and that I know more about what makes them tick. Try researching the subject, though I doubt someone like yourself will allow themselves to be educated if it contradicts your dogmatic view of what women should be doing.
    Your blatant misogyny is really quite astounding, what exactly have you got against women? Tell you what, how about I give the missus a black eye if my dinner isn't on the table when I get home? Sound fair to you? After all, she will have brought it on herself by not cooking for me so she is responsible for what I do to her smiley - erm

    No, really.



    You are beneath my contempt, grow up and get out of the 1950's.

    Report message36

  • Message 37

    , in reply to message 35.

    Posted by Cheapjack (U1199036) on Monday, 27th June 2011

    I'd love to stick some of the men and women posting here, in a room together. Disappointed cynical woman and disappointing cynical man, and see what fireworks explode.

    smiley - winkeye

    It would be so much better though, with a stop it at any point law, cos at the moment, those sorts just spoil it for every body else and perpetuate retrogressive behaviour, under the pretence of concern and progressiveness.

    Even those types would be happier. Cos their cards would be on the table and they would have to face some home truths.

    Report message37

  • Message 38

    , in reply to message 37.

    Posted by Cheapjack (U1199036) on Monday, 27th June 2011

    Well Said, Staz.

    smiley - ok

    Report message38

  • Message 39

    , in reply to message 29.

    Posted by Iapetus (U551167) on Monday, 27th June 2011


    I have a right to be able to leave my house for work in the morning, leave the front door wide open, return from work in the evening and not find that I've been burgled. Responsibility on my part means that I put the burglar alarm on and lock the front door on leaving the house. We need to live in the real world here.
     

    But property rights are fundamentally different to human rights, Vysehrad. Sexuality, the right to have it AND to express it, is a human right.

    Expecting women to keep theirs under wraps to avoid violence is the equivalent of asking homosexuals to keep theirs under wraps. This is not a moral line to take.
     
    Not only that, but locking your doors etc is a way physically prevent people breaking in. But choice of clothes can't physically stop an attacker "breaking in" (unless Vysehrad is recomenting wearing a suit of armour).

    Nor is wearing skimpy clothing comparable to flashing your cash / gold watch etc around (another bad comparison that commonly gets made), because that is advertising something stealable that a potential thief would not know about otherwise. But a would-be rapist knows what bodyparts a woman has, regardless of whether she is "advertising" them or not.

    Report message39

  • Message 40

    , in reply to message 39.

    Posted by Vysehrad (U3338964) on Monday, 27th June 2011

    Not only that, but locking your doors etc is a way physically prevent people breaking in. 
    Hmmm...guess then that the only houses that get broken into are the ones where people don't lock their doors? smiley - doh

    Report message40

  • Message 41

    , in reply to message 40.

    Posted by Stazbumpa (U4044370) on Monday, 27th June 2011

    Hmmm...guess then that the only houses that get broken into are the ones where people don't lock their doors? 

    The point is that the analogy of locking a door and wearing a sweater is flawed. While we're on the subject, can we widen the scope of what women shouldn't be wearing to include swimwear?

    Report message41

  • Message 42

    , in reply to message 16.

    Posted by Madame De Pompadour (U1749776) on Monday, 27th June 2011

    But this is to deny that a woman walking around in a min-skirt has absolutely no affect on men whatsoever. 

    I walked around in a mini-dress on Saturday night and to be honest I do not think I had any effect on men at all. It was obviously not my intention anyway. I think the whole mini-skirt thing is a red herring, it is how you act. I saw a large number of women in short skirts like myself on Saturday nite, including one in a rather scary zip contraption with a cool Agnes Deyn crop. If we went by the maxims of some, then this would have been a total pawfest, which it wasn't of course. Men are actually quite civilised beings. The only girl I saw who I would have said was 'vulnerable' was one who had obviously had a lot to drink and was unsteady on her feet. She was being attended by her friends though, but of all the people she had jeans on.


    www.youtube.com/watc...


    If so, which types of clothing do you consider a provocation to violence and a mitigating factor in an accused person's trial? Religious dress, punk, mod, rocker, goth, skimpy, too modest, football shirt, military uniform?
     


    All of these clothes could provoke someone hostile. A women in a burka may feel that she is extra protected from violence, what would happen if she walked through a BNP area?
    One of monsieur's friends was badly beaten as a teenager by a group of neds, his goth clothing did not excuse the neds' actions.

    I am going to move the first post of this thread to the TV and Radio section of
    www.religionethics.c...
    where it can be discussed further from tomorrow.

    Report message42

  • Message 43

    , in reply to message 11.

    Posted by Square-eyez (U14374159) on Monday, 27th June 2011

    An unattended house is not the same as a very attended woman. 

    I like that line.

    I think there's a problem here where people see rape as men becoming over excited and getting carried away. It really isn't. You can dress as conservatively as you want it wont protect you from being raped.

    If someone's choice of rape victim is women who dress in revealing clothes it's probably because of a psychopathically arrogant sense of entitlement or because they have a contempt for women they see as acting promiscuously and want to "put them in their place".

    Most rapes are not committed by strangers in dark alleys. They are someone the victim knows and it has nothing to do with clothing.

    Report message43

  • Message 44

    , in reply to message 28.

    Posted by Madame De Pompadour (U1749776) on Monday, 27th June 2011

    The Muslim women and other woman on the show who said women should dress more modestly *in their own interests* were totally right.
     


    Yes and I'm sure a women hater like you would love to see us all swathed in cloth and why don't we just introduce modesty police who can hit and beat women dressed 'immodestly' like in Saudi where a woman can be considered 'provocative' if her bare hands are showing.

    The best protection women can have is that men respect them, and part of that must be dressing more modestly, so that they are viewed as equal human beings and not sex objects. 

    Again it is all about what men 'want' when it comes to you. To be honest I would not care if a man like you 'respected' me or not.

    but the consequence of a constant teasing of men - in an office for example 

    Since what counts as 'modest' varies from man to man and from culture to culture, why should the onus be on women to second guess what 'teases' men? After all I was told by a Muslim poster here, that dressing in jeans and a t-shirt is immodest and if we take the male-centred maxim to its logically conclusion then it is 'teasing' as well.

    That just wouldn't happen if these women did not deliberately dress so that they know they will be a tease and turn on to the men there. 

    Can you just step away from your misogynistic thinking for a while and maybe consider that the women are just getting on with their day to day lives and it is men like you who are chossing to be offended.

    Finally, this nonsense by the student protester that rape is about power and not sex is mostly just that. 

    Can you explain then why there have been cases where women in their 80s and 90s have been raped? Where they behaving provocatively? Were they 'teasing' the men?

    Women like her just don't understand that men's sex desire is at least 10 times more powerful than their own 

    Evidence? So BBC Account Holder, you are a man and with all this testosterone flowing about in your body, should women be wary of you? Would a woman be safer with a man who outright condemns rape and doesn't make excuses for it like you are?

    The real reason so many women refuse to cover up is because they are using their sexual image to get power, both over men and in general.  

    See this is the crux, in your mind you automatically believe (and to be honest I think you try and flatter yourself) that women always try to dress to impress men, this is untrue.


    Some men are so odious and put themselves in such a vulnerable position when they try and explain away and excuse rape. I sure rapists themselves use the same tactics.

    Report message44

  • Message 45

    , in reply to message 44.

    Posted by Cheapjack (U1199036) on Monday, 27th June 2011

    It is possibel to modify human behaviour, a bit, otherwise we would have anarchy and no property.

    If a woman could point to a camera, whilst saying no, it would have a very postive effect, very positive. And, if people knew how excitable and uncontrollable some men could get, where there aren't any cameras, and what happened, they wouldn't get as many girlfriends. Empowering.

    smiley - winkeye

    Report message45

  • Message 46

    , in reply to message 44.

    Posted by Stazbumpa (U4044370) on Monday, 27th June 2011

    Some men are so odious and put themselves in such a vulnerable position when they try and explain away and excuse rape. I sure rapists themselves use the same tactics. 

    With depressing regularity.

    One of the latest I heard was "She wanted me and we both knew it". The victim wasn't yet a teenager.

    Report message46

  • Message 47

    , in reply to message 45.

    Posted by Madame De Pompadour (U1749776) on Monday, 27th June 2011

    I've said it before and I'll say it again, why don't the police take note of the IP addresses of those people who attempt to excuse rape so if there is a rape in that person's area the police would have leads. Afterall I think a person who seeks to excuse rape is more likely to actually rape than someone who condemns it outright.

    Report message47

  • Message 48

    , in reply to message 47.

    Posted by Square-eyez (U14374159) on Monday, 27th June 2011

    I don't think we want to put people on government lists for having and expressing opinions.

    I do agree though that when I hear people making excuses for rapists some serious alarm bells ring in my head. I really think rape is no different to abducting someone and sadistically torturing them for your own amusement.

    This excuse that men do it because men have such strong sexual urges is the worst. Rapists are just victims of their own desires? Men who don't rape have lower libidos than men that do?

    These conversations can often be offensive to women but I'm also struck by how degrading and offensive these 'excuses' are to men.

    Report message48

  • Message 49

    , in reply to message 48.

    Posted by Cheapjack (U1199036) on Monday, 27th June 2011

    Men don't rape in marriage, cos they know of the consequences, and that's worked.

    Report message49

  • Message 50

    , in reply to message 48.

    Posted by Stazbumpa (U4044370) on Monday, 27th June 2011

    I really think rape is no different to abducting someone and sadistically torturing them for your own amusement. 

    The common denominator is power over that other person, so you aren't far off the mark at all.

    Report message50

Back to top

About this Board

The BBC Religion and ethics message boards are now closed.

They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available.

Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.

We will be introducing a new blog later in the year. Aaqil Ahmed, Commissioning Editor Religion and Head of Religion & Ethics, has a blog with more details.

or register to take part in a discussion.


The message board is currently closed for posting.

Opening times:
No longer applicable

This messageboard is post-moderated.

Find out more about this board's House Rules

Search this Board

BBC © 2014 The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.