4.06.2011

wednesday wonderfulness

sorry this went up so late! I don't have tons this week, but there is plenty of reading.
And with that I'm going to leave you...I need to go running!

5 comments:

Bets said...

It seems to me like there is so much rage against the remote possibility of not placing the full blame for sexual aggression solely on the perpetrator that any slight suggestion of precaution on the side of the potential victim is immediately offensive no matter what. I think it is completely possible for something to be entirely one person's fault and yet potentially avoidable.

When someone picks kids off the street and murders them, the blame is entirely his or hers. Not all kids who are murdered are picked up off the street by strangers, but would it be a horribly offensive idea that violates personal rights to advise a child to not hop in cars with strangers, or is that just basic common sense?

In an ideal world, we wouldn't have to constantly make mental calculations of risk/reward, but I really don't see the sense in pretending that a risk (even a small one) doesn't exist. Pedestrians have the right of way, but it's still wise to look both ways before you cross the street. It might be the driver's fault that they hit you, but you're the one who ends up with the broken legs.

Anyway, just my thoughts.

fleur_delicious said...

no, I gotta draw a line here. It's never okay to violate another person, I don't care what they're wearing, saying, whatever. Rape is violation and there are no conditions that make that okay. The minute you start to enter that grey area and begin to parcel out blame for an act of violation, I think we're on very shakey ground in terms of the stability of our civilization. It's never okay. A rapist is a rapist is a rapist, and the choice to violate another human being is still a choice and it's always the wrong choice.

That said, have I always been careful about watching my drinks at parties or clubs? You betcha. Have I always had buddies and safety signals and have we always helped each other get men off of each other at clubs? You betcha. Do I arrange for rides at night, even from my campus? You betcha. Do I dress demurely? You betcha. None of the above saved a friend from being raped, murdered and robbed in our dorm by another friend we all knew and trusted. A rapist is a rapist is a rapist and it's always the rapist's fault. Always.

VDOprincess said...

I should have posted those links in their own post, I think, instead of a side thought, so I could expand on them more. But I just want to say that I agree with Porkchop and the comment that she made on another post (by accident): the idea that men are so overtaken by their sexual urges that they just can't control themselves is in itself incredibly offensive. In addition, I agree with fleur: there is never an excuse for violating someone else. Ever. Ever. Ever.
I guess the bit that made me think from the original article was this quote:
"We can all laugh when Dave Chappelle does his routine about women dressing like sluts at clubs getting offended when men make unwanted sexual advances..."
So often I've watched women dress to highlight their physical assets and then get offended by leers or catcalls. (Please tell me that a tight tshirt saying "my face is up here" across the boobs is ironic.) I'm not saying that leering and catcalling is acceptable behavior, and I hope that if I ever have sons I can raise them to be gentlemen. However, if we dress as sexual beings should we not expect a sexual response?
I guess what bothers me is the double standard of wanting a certain type of sexual attention from a certain type of guy and then being offended when one also gets sexual attention from guys who are not of the desired type.
Again: not talking about assault AT ALL. It's just that the juxtaposition of articles got me thinking about sexual attention in general and the ramifications of how we dress.
Is this making sense to anyone?

fleur_delicious said...

totally making sense. And I didn't want to come off as some violently angry woman, but I do worry about those lines becoming fuzzy, you know? I couldn't believe that story the Times ran about the gang-rape of the 14 year old girl, which all but directly pinned the blame on the victim - it's a shocking trend lately.

In fact, the only solution I've ever come up with was not to dress sexy at all. Or, in a rather demure "cute" way (aka "anthro") because I'm shy and I've never really wanted the kind of attention that baring skin attracts (I also seem to attract weirdos, though - never handsome/normal men).

Part of that is also that I am tall, so I always feel like I am bearing a lot MORE skin if I, say, put on a pair of short-shorts, than a woman who doesn't have a 36" inseam, you know? What is fine on others seems borderline indecent on me because the proportions are wrong.

fleur_delicious said...

sorry, baring not bearing - I must be tired!