Worst Rape Apologist Editorial Ever

[HansMustermann]

There will always be exceptions, but according to lane99's Psychology Today link, "victims, as a class, were most likely to be young physically attractive women (as opposed to older, more successful career women)." By the way, what makes you think that mentally disabled people can't be physically attractive?

That, however, is a trivial consequence of the circumstances of most rapes, and the fact that most rapists are also young. At a quick googling for some data, as of 1995, some 60% of offenders were under 29 years old, or three quarters were under 34, while still over half being under 24.

Being that over half rapes are committed by a young husband or boyfriend, and a ridiculous number of rapes happen in university at the hands (well, or other body parts) of other young students, that is going to result in a majority of young victims in the total quite naturally. Add assaults during teenage years by family members, and you have a majority of cases accounted for quite naturally.

Note that in all the above, there was no conscious selection by the attacker to rape the pretty young thing in a miniskirt or the old successful lady across the street. They just went for whoever was their current or recently ex girlfriend, or whoever self-selected by being of the age to be in their college, or whoever was in the age bracket to be a dependent family member.

You can't just take that and extrapolate it to the rape in the bushes kind, any more than you can simply apply the total probability of teens being injured in some vehicle accident to teens in a school bus.

Turns out though that there is a group which is the most at risk for stranger rape, but it's not what you'd expect: it's actually girls 12 to 15 years old. It's hardly the age where you'd call them liberated women or anything.

The same seems to apply to other countries too, e.g., in a Queensland report from 1992, although not split by strangers vs domestic rapes, you'll notice that there are about as many rapes before age 16 as for the whole 17 to 45 years old interval.

But anyway, it seems to me more like a case of getting them when they're inexperienced and vulnerable, rather than anything having to do with what they wore. I don't think many people dress their 12 year olds in low-cut minidresses when sending them to school, you know? Or really even with sex appeal. If it correlated with looking all that great and liberated and all, you'd expect it to explode around 16, not under 15.

At any rate, the question is hardly new and has been addressed before. The age selection is actually less than the people people trotting out that argument seem to think. The largest part of age distribution is actually explained by just being there and vulnerable, with actual choice for young vs old being not zero, but not anywhere near being the dominant factor either. The cases where a point can be made that age correlates strongly is typically in studies where the rapist actually had a choice who to rape, like robberies where one of the perps suddenly decides to rape someone. Otherwise, being the dumb young kid going alone through the park (or generally differences in the daily routine) or simply being in the age bracket to be the girlfriend of someone who's also in the age bracket when most such stuff is committed, is far outweighing anything else.

In effect, most of the reason you see less 60 year olds raped is that there aren't many who have a 24 year old boyfriend or are coming home at 1AM from some party or disco. (Most rapes happen between 6PM and 6AM, with the peak being midnight to 3AM.) There's a lot of simply having the potential victims pre-selected like that, rather than it being some clear age preference.

It's the same, if you will, as why there aren't many old soldiers who died in wars. E.g., I'm too lazy to look for recent figures, but over 60% of the soldiers who died in Vietnam were under 21 years old and there was nobody older than 62 years old who died there. One could look at that and conclude that the Viet Cong were only shooting the young, and you're obviously bullet-proof after 62. Or one can notice that it simply matches the demographic of available targets and experience, and no selection by the enemy was involved at all.

 

[lane99]

I'm not sure if you've read even the first link...

I did. Though, as opposed to the other article I cited (a 100 pages long behemoth), I thought the Psychology Today one (entitled "Is rape about control or sex?") was short enough that anyone interested would have been able to make it through it themselves.

However, in case you overlooked it, for the point I had originally made, and the clarification Dr. Keith enquired about, the single most pertinent quote from it is:

"...the majority of [stranger rape] sexual assaults are more about sexual gratification than control over women per se.

 

[Ron Webb]

You're asking everyone else to offer proof for their claims, so how about you offer some proof for these? Especially the last one, because it seems that, if you can't blame a woman for what she's wearing at the time she's raped, you're going to assume she must have done something wrong in the past to make it partly her fault. That, quite simply, is blaming the victim without justification, and it's exactly the same thing as is most offensive about the article that sparked this off.

I'm not "blaming" her for anything. I'm saying it's quite possible (even likely in my opinion, though I'm not interested in making a positive case for that position) that clothing is a factor; but whether or not that it true, it is the rapist and only the rapist who is to blame for the rape.

She is no more to blame for what she wears than for going to bars or walking down dimly lit streets or for flirting with men and allegedly "leading them on". These are all morally legitimate choices she is entitled to make. We may think some choices are riskier than others, but the only morally wrong choice is the one the rapist makes.

 

[Ron Webb]

So, "for the umpteenth time": you have no evidence, you're not even looking for evidence, but are preaching a positive claim just because it hasn't been disproven? You still don't get this newfangled burden of proof thing, do you?

What positive claim am I making?

 

[sgtbaker]

I did. Though, as opposed to the other article I cited (a 100 pages long behemoth), I thought the Psychology Today one (entitled "Is rape about control or sex?") was short enough that anyone interested would have been able to make it through it themselves.

However, in case you overlooked it, for the point I had originally made, and the clarification Dr. Keith enquired about, the single most pertinent quote from it is:

"...the majority of [stranger rape] sexual assaults are more about sexual gratification than control over women per se.

Did you actually read the article? The author originally started talking about stranger rape and then moved on to say the majority of rape is date rape. The rest of the article was discussing date rape, which though the psychological effects may be similar, it is a much different situation than stranger rape.

What the author actually says, that you've snipped and inserted [stranger rape], is:

Stranger rape takes different forms, including a political version and a sadistic version but the majority of sexual assaults are more about sexual gratification than control over women per se. But what can one say about date rape? Is this extremely common form of rape consistent with the feminist pattern of men controlling women, or does it fit more neatly within the evolutionary psychological perspective where rape is primarily a sexual crime?

Did you notice the author seperated "stranger rapes" from "the majority of rapes"?

 

[Darat]

Burglar alarms are an obvious deterrent to burglary. If you could show how wearing sexy clothing is a similar deterrent to rape, then your analogy would be valid.

...snip...

Are they always? May it not, to a very small number of burglars and to pull a figure from the air lets say 4% of burglars make a house more attractive to them for whatever reason/s?

 

[Darat]

There will always be exceptions, but according to lane99's Psychology Today link, "victims, as a class, were most likely to be young physically attractive women (as opposed to older, more successful career women)." By the way, what makes you think that mentally disabled people can't be physically attractive?

By the way what makes you think that older, more successful career women can't be physically attractive?

 

[Ron Webb]

Are they always? May it not, to a very small number of burglars and to pull a figure from the air lets say 4% of burglars make a house more attractive to them for whatever reason/s?

For a small number, maybe; but in general, and statistically speaking, surely they are a deterrent. Anyway, I'm not going to get into a debate over the efficacy of burglar alarms.

 

[Ron Webb]

By the way what makes you think that older, more successful career women can't be physically attractive?

You might want to ask Nigel Barber, the writer I was quoting from the Psychology Today article. My answer would be that some mature women are indeed very attractive (my wife, for example ); but in general, younger women are more likely to be considered attractive. And no, I'm not going to bother backing up that statement -- but if you would like some experimental confirmation of that hypothesis, try telling a woman she looks much older than her age, and let me know the result.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Again you are falling into the same trap, the argument isn't that most rapist's select their victims by what they wear, but rather, some women who are attacked have attracted the rapist by what they were wearing. These are different arguments and while you are countering the first, you are ignoring the second, which is actually the argument being made. In the end, this does mean that there is more chance of being selected by a rapist, since if you dress in a way that gets the 4% as well as displaying signs the other 96% are looking for, your chances are increased because the potential pool of attackers is increased, not by a lot, but by a little.

Look at it this way. If there is a 50% chance of getting wet because it rains, and a 4% chance of getting wet because a wave hits you, then overall you have a 54% chance of getting wet by walking along the beach as opposed to the 50% chance when not doing so.

As such, women need to be aware that, however small that increase is, there is a slightly higher risk they could be attacked when dressing for attraction. The way to counter this is to show that more potential rapists in fact reject a woman as a target because she dresses attractively than would pick a target because she dressed attactively.

No, in fact, it isn't. I've been thinking about this one, because it seemed to me that there's something rather important missing from this statistical argument, and I've realised what it is.

How do we define a woman as "dressing provocatively," in quantitative terms? Or, more importantly, what proportion of women are defined as dressing provocatively within the population of interest?

Let's look at two possibilities. Firstly, suppose 4% of rapes are claimed to be motivated by a woman dressing provocatively, according to a definition by which 1% of women are defined as having dressed provocatively. We can then conclude that there is a positive correlation between dressing provocatively and being selected as a rape victim, suggesting that dressing provocatively makes it more likely to be a victim. Secondly, suppose 4% of rapes are claimed to be motivated by a woman dressing provocatively, according to a definition by which 10% of women are defined as having dressed provocatively. We can then conclude that women who are provocatively dressed are under-represented as victims, suggesting that dressing provocatively makes it less likely to be a victim.

So it means nothing to say that 4% of rape victims were dressed provocatively, or indeed any other percentage, unless we also have a percentage of women in general who were dressed provocatively. Given that we have neither any objective definition of "dressed provocatively" nor as much as a vague estimate of the percentage of women who fall into that category, we can't say whether style of dress has any effect either way on the probability of being a rape victim, unless we can establish a direct causal connection. And, from the references presented at least on stranger rapes, we can't do any such thing.

So we should focus on approaches that have a clear causal connection to reducing the probability of rape - for example, situational awareness, avoidance of hazardous locations or situations, or self-defence training.

Dave

 

[Darat]

You might want to ask Nigel Barber, the writer I was quoting from the Psychology Today article. My answer would be that some mature women are indeed very attractive (my wife, for example ); but in general, younger women are more likely to be considered attractive. And no, I'm not going to bother backing up that statement -- but if you would like some experimental confirmation of that hypothesis, try telling a woman she looks much older than her age, and let me know the result.

Nope I want to ask the person making the claim here, which is you, if you want to retract your claim after realising your mistake fair enough.

 

[Ron Webb]

Nope I want to ask the person making the claim here, which is you, if you want to retract your claim after realising your mistake fair enough.

I just gave you my answer, Darat. Have you tried my experiment yet?

 

[Ron Webb]

By the way, it's amazing to me how (on a forum dedicated to skepticism!) everyone is throwing around this 4% figure without any interest in its source or its accuracy. It purports to originate from a "Federal Commission on Crimes of Violence" study. If you do a search for that specific string (in quotes) on Google you will get 102 hits. As far as I can tell all of them are references to this apocryphal 4% (or 4.4%) figure, but none of them give a precise reference for the source.

I did learn that the figure was cited in a book by Diana E. H. Russell (see the footnote here on page 249), published in 1975. So this factoid has been kicking around for at least 35 years. I have to wonder if all of the other 101 citations could be traced back to Russell (modestly proclaimed as "the recognized academic expert on the empirical study of sexual violence against women in the United States", on her Web site) and/or her book.

As for the study from which it is allegedly taken, I can find no evidence that it even exists. For that matter, I can't find evidence that the Federal Commission on Crimes of Violence itself ever existed.

 

[epepke]

You might want to ask Nigel Barber, the writer I was quoting from the Psychology Today article. My answer would be that some mature women are indeed very attractive (my wife, for example ); but in general, younger women are more likely to be considered attractive. And no, I'm not going to bother backing up that statement -- but if you would like some experimental confirmation of that hypothesis, try telling a woman she looks much older than her age, and let me know the result.

As has been pointed out, girls from about 12 to 15 seem to have a particular risk. If you tell one of them that they look older, generally, they'll be flattered.

Anyway, the idea that attractiveness may be a risk factor for rape is a hypothesis.

1) It doesn't seem to be supported by studies of actual risk factors for rape.

2) It seems contradictory to many ideas that have been supported by studies in cognitive and behavioral psychology.

3) It seems contradictory to much critical theory about patterns of rape. (I give much less credence to critical theory, but in this case, it mostly seems in accordance to the best evidence.)

4) Nevertheless, people seem to assume it.

I am inclined to believe that this has more to do with judgment systems. We know something about this from cognitive psychology, and it's similar to speculations from some philosophy (such as the Just World idea). That is, if a woman is raped, then she must have done something to deserve it, and looking attractive seems to many people an obvious choice, even though it is poorly supported. Where there's smoke, there's fire, or so many people think.

This is entirely different from the possibility that women, just like men, can do things to increase or decrease their chances of being victimized. The prevalence of the "smoke-fire" idea and justifiable reactions against it, however, makes these things difficult to talk about without being labeled a monster or rape-apologist.

 

[Darat]

I just gave you my answer, Darat. Have you tried my experiment yet?

Indeed you gave an answer it just did not answer the question I asked.

 

[lane99]

By the way what makes you think that older, more successful career women can't be physically attractive?

Indeed you gave an answer it just did not answer the question I asked.

If you're referring to your question above, it seems to me he gave you a reasonable answer. And in spite of the question being, imo, somewhat baiting.

I doubt there's anything Ron Webb has said that could have been construed in good faith as precluding the possibility that older, more successful career women are absolutely precluded from ever being physically attractive.

 

[Darat]

If you're referring to your question above, it seems to me he gave you a reasonable answer. And in spite of the question being, imo, somewhat baiting.

I doubt there's anything Ron Webb has said that could have been construed in good faith as precluding the possibility that older, more successful career women are absolutely precluded from ever being physically attractive.

He was the one making a claim and in that claim the two groups were exclusive so as I said if he wants to retract his claim fair enough as there is nothing wrong with being wrong, we are all wrong from time to time.

ETA: And regarding your view that my question was "baiting", perhaps it was but it did just follow the same phrasing Ron had used to ask another Member i.e. "...By the way, what makes you think that mentally disabled people can't be physically attractive?...".

 

[catsmate]

Are they always? May it not, to a very small number of burglars and to pull a figure from the air lets say 4% of burglars make a house more attractive to them for whatever reason/s?

Perhaps by suggesting that location has something worth stealing?

 

[truethat]

When I was raped I was fourteen years old in jeans and a tee shirt and sneakers. It was by a grown man, not a fellow teen. I'm sure it had nothing to do with the way I was dressed and I find these conversations filled with ignorance.

I doubt anyone would mess with me now since I'm nearly 6 feet tall and also because I've gained some weight and gotten "bigger." So I'm not a target. Sometimes I worry about petite girls out on the town when they get drunk because I feel like they are painting a target on their backs.

Getting drunk seems to be a lot more part of the problem than the way you dress.

Also now I have a C-D cup and I've been told on many occasions that I have "great tits" or "fantastic cleavage" in a way that suggests I'm pushing them up for attention. I'm not they just "are" and I'm so used to them it never occurs to me that it would be seen as dressing sexy. I wear v neck tee shirts and men act like I'm putting the girls on display.

I'd like to see how men would deal with a set of boobs. Just because you can see them doesn't mean we are flaunting them for attention. If you are not mature enough to stand next to a woman who is dressed in what you perceive as a "sexy" way, then you need to seek out counseling.

Our bodies are just often made this way and we can't be arsed bothered to worry about it.

Oh wait we have to because men are *********** stupid...........yeah no I'm not signing off on that one.

 

[Darat]

As others have said what one person finds "sexy" varies tremendously and often depends on the circumstances of any encounter. Which is yet another reason by trying to say that dressing "sexily" is a contributing factor to someone being raped is on very shaky grounds to begin with.