Welcome to Gaia! ::

But the thing is that clothing choice or "being modest" does not prevent extremes like rape. Suggesting that they set themselves up, implies that they are part of the problem. It is a false premise because it assumes that it's all about the looks of the person in question. Modest clothing may curb some ogling since modest is a sign of respect for one's self but it doesn't stop it. People will think what they want to think, people will objectify others to satisfy their desires. Is it right? No but it is a fact. If we see someone showing a lack of self respect, we will not give them respect, that's instinctual and partial conditioned but its something we can rise above. It definately does not stop rape because rape is not about the looks of a person, it's about power and domination over a person.

Am I saying that there is no need to be modest? No absolutely not. People should have respect for themselves and reflect that self-respect to others. Am I an authority on what reflects self-respect and what doesn't? Again no by no means but I do have an intuitive sense of what I do consider self-respectful and not. But I do not have the right to deem a person unworthy of respect based on what I preceive as a lack of self-respect, though I will admit I have been and probably will be guilty of this in the future. God is found in the gutter and in the shameful.

I know you are a respectful person, I'm just trying to explain how I understand this topic.

I'm not trying to stretch anything. That is not my objective nor intention. I'm just having a hard time processing what you are saying. You say that the people acting like animals are in the wrong but then you say that the victims could be doing more to prevent it. The comments about having a lack of sympathy for the victims come off as if you feel they are in the wrong somehow. That's almost like the people that say that if black people don't want to be stereotyped, then they shouldn't eat fried chicken or watermelon. Your stance is honestly confusing and is coming off as contradictory.

Ok, here's my mindset... There are three parts of reaction to look at.

1: Looks. Nothing verbal, nothing physical, JUST looks. Both genders do this. Guys check out girls they think are cute (or otherwise attractive) and girls do the same to guys. This happens and, in certain environments, will happen more often than others (the bar as opposed to the workplace, for example). If someone dresses in a way that is visually attractive, regardless of gender, the person is more likely to be looked at.

2: Words. This probably follows the visual reaction and does NOT include physical contact of any kind. Certain things may be acceptable; a compliment on eyes, smile, apparel, etc. These compliments are a part of courting and are normally encouraged by society. However, it is not acceptable to cross the line and take it to comments on private parts or references to things that scare the person they attempt to compliment. Their excuse is irrelevant, when it crosses that line it becomes harassment and the police should become involved.

3: Physical. This is everything from a kiss to intercourse. If the girl gives consent, which must follow verbal interaction in most cases, then this is all fine to the extent she permits. Naturally, the guy has the right to say no as well. Both parties must be equally willing. If the guy says no and the girl continues, she is to blame for the crime committed. If the girl says no and the guy continues (which I must say is most often the case) then the guy is to blame for whatever crime he commits. Whether it is rape or just sexual harassment.

In any level of reaction the victim should not be blamed for the crime. The criminal is always to blame, that is why he is called a criminal. I've been in a "black and white" mood lately, so at the moment I can't determine any level of criminality based on action. The criminal is a criminal, end of story.

Assuming that is clear, I'll continue to explain my perspective on the victim's side...

Looks are natural. If I'm a supervisor in a workplace though and I see an employee checking out the opposite gender, I will provide a polite reminder of professionalism. We need to stay focused on the job in the workplace. Otherwise I won't get involved, I would be fighting an endless battle against human nature on both genders if I tried to stop this.

Words are only acceptable if the words used are appropriate and appreciated. If the one being spoken to expresses disinterest the person speaking should let it go and walk away. In any case if I witness someone verbally attempting to flirt beyond the comfort zone of the victim I will step in and inform the speaker that it looks like verbal harassment. If the victim permits it I'll let it go, if not I'll threaten to call the police.

Physical action is never acceptable to any degree against an unwilling victim. I will step in to prevent this by any means necessary, even if doing so risks my own life as the case in fact may have been at one point where I did step in. I don't care what the risks are when I see this happen. I can't allow it.

In all the cases of my reaction to witnessing the event, my feelings toward the victim are irrelevant. Now I will explain just that.

Sympathy is defined as thus.
1: Feelings of pity and sorrow for someone else's misfortune.
2: Formal expression of such feelings; condolences.

If the victim attempts to solve the problem; covering up, moving away, calling the cops, anything at all, then he/she will have my sympathy. If necessary and appropriate I will attempt to offer some form of comfort as best as I can, that is a part of who I am.

The problem comes in when nothing at all is done to prevent it. When the victim continues dressing provocatively, continues going to the places where he/she knows he/she will be victimized, etc. When the victim willingly steps into what we could refer to simply as danger without care for the risk, taking no preventative measures, no attempt to stop the problem.

A preventative measure could mean making sure a friend is near, taking along a relative or strong and trustworthy friend, even a gun, anything at all to dissuade the criminal from victimizing the would-be victim. To me, if no preventative measures are taken, it's like stepping into a fire, finding out it burns, crying about it, then stepping back into it. It is sheer stupidity, I can think of no better word for it. In that case, assuming the victim doesn't have a mental illness which causes that failure of self preservation, I can not lend sympathy.

As I believe I said before, rape can't really be predicted. If it could be it wouldn't happen. In most cases preventative measures can't be taken for this. People have the right to be comfortable and should be able to safely enjoy their days doing what they have to as well as what they enjoy. We can't predict when a psychopath is going to break out in a violent frenzy any more than we can predict rape, so generally rape victims will always have my sympathy. Walk into a bar wearing only a bikini and stickers though or repeat a routine you now know to involve interaction with those types of people, that's asking for words and so it should be expected. At that point, when the flame is walked into and then walked into again, my sympathy ends.

In regard to rape victims my sympathy would only end if, say as an example, a guy rapes the girl then the girl chooses to continue interaction with him in spite of the fact that he's likely to rape her again. Especially if she wears clothing she knows is going to arouse him. It's like poking a bear, eventually it will lash out. I can not be sympathetic in that case.

The difference is knowledge VS ignorance.

Knowing the risk and accepting it without doing anything about it = no sympathy, though I'll try to provide protection to whatever extent possible if I witness the crime.

Knowing the risk and doing something about it to any extent = sympathy and, if possible, protection to whatever extent I can manage.

Ignorantly falling into a trap laid by failed supposed humans = sympathy and, if possible, protection to whatever extent I can manage. We can't be expected to take preventive measures against an unknown and unexpected threat though. To live in fear is to not live at all.

Have I made my perspective more clear now or is there still confusion?

As a side-note, I love fried chicken and watermelon. You don't have to be black to enjoy a good combination of fruit and meat. I know you know that, I'm just saying it's a good meal.

I've always dressed modestly, partially because I get cold easily. High neckline, sleeves, low shirt-tail, normal pants that don't show my rear every time I bend over, all loose/comfortably fitting. I don't even wear makeup regularly. (Irritates my eyes.)
While most men are normal, decent fellows and some I'm sure are going to respond to a feature they find attractive the more that feature is emphasized, there are definitely some freaks out there that need to reign it in. Some would come up and say the nastiest, dirtiest things to frumpy ol' me as if I was some two-bit whore out for a quick lay. Ick...

I have no opinion on how people should dress, just to expect the consequences of their choices. 'Tis why I pick warmer clothes now. blaugh

I think his testimony and opinion are a little biased based on what I've seen of the guy, but I'll give him a check out and see if I spot anything.

Edit: Yeah his general premise is that men and women are fundamentally different. His premise is false based on current research.

I acknowledge that there are different parts (obviously) and hormones associated with the different sexes, I'm failing to see how that means that they are "designed" to have different roles. Also what do different gender roles have to do with modesty?

Now here's the question though. Is this a biological difference or a social difference? If it's a biological difference then it should be true cross culturally. He's not demonstrating that it is cross cultural since his primarily audience is Western (specifically US).