Worst Rape Apologist Editorial Ever

[Ron Webb]

It's still not demonstrated that any of the factors discussed in the OP influences a rapists choice of victim though.

No, it isn't demonstrated, but neither is the contrary. Like I said, I think it's just common sense that if you dress in a way that attracts attention, you're more likely to attract attention from all sorts of people, including rapists. Maybe for some reason rapists do not find attractive women attractive, but somehow I doubt it.

The reason for my first post on this discussion was to point out that there is a logical fallacy at work in many of the responses to this article, and I wish someone could help me to categorize it. Sure, it's possible that the way a woman dresses or acts is not a significant factor in her risk of rape compared to other factors, such as the risk of being in the wrong place at the wrong time. But it is fallacious to argue that one factor is not the (or a) cause because some other factor (criminal intent, opportunity) is the (or a) cause. Most things have multiple causes.

And I'll put money down that the dress she was wearing three weeks last wednesday had no influence at all.

I think we can all agree that the article was ill-conceived, and that the example he chose to illustrate his point was ridiculous. But even if his argument is fallacious and/or distasteful, his conclusion can still be true. That's all I'm saying.

 

[sphenisc]

No, it isn't demonstrated, but neither is the contrary. Like I said, I think it's just common sense that if you dress in a way that attracts attention, you're more likely to attract attention from all sorts of people, including rapists. Maybe for some reason rapists do not find attractive women attractive, but somehow I doubt it.

The reason for my first post on this discussion was to point out that there is a logical fallacy at work in many of the responses to this article, and I wish someone could help me to categorize it. Sure, it's possible that the way a woman dresses or acts is not a significant factor in her risk of rape compared to other factors, such as the risk of being in the wrong place at the wrong time. But it is fallacious to argue that one factor is not the (or a) cause because some other factor (criminal intent, opportunity) is the (or a) cause. Most things have multiple causes.



I think we can all agree that the article was ill-conceived, and that the example he chose to illustrate his point was ridiculous. But even if his argument is fallacious and/or distasteful, his conclusion can still be true. That's all I'm saying.

I think it's a kind of false dichotomy, where option A and option B are considered but not the option (A and B). Hope that helps.

 

[Dave Rogers]

No, it isn't demonstrated, but neither is the contrary. Like I said, I think it's just common sense that if you dress in a way that attracts attention, you're more likely to attract attention from all sorts of people, including rapists. Maybe for some reason rapists do not find attractive women attractive, but somehow I doubt it.

The conclusion you're assuming, though, is that women dressing more attractively are displaying features that make them appear to be a more desirable victim for a rapist. This is far from proven; in fact, actual evidence presented in the thread suggests the exact opposite. Rapists may well find attractive women attractive, but there are many other factors - in particular, vulnerability - that determine whether rapists consider them potential victims. So your logical fallacy here is the non sequitur:

P1: Women dressing attractively will attract more attention from other people.
P2: Some other people are rapists.
C: Therefore, women dressing more attractively are more likely to be raped.

C does not follow from P1 and P2.

I think we can all agree that the article was ill-conceived, and that the example he chose to illustrate his point was ridiculous. But even if his argument is fallacious and/or distasteful, his conclusion can still be true. That's all I'm saying.

Evidence, however, strongly suggests that it is not.

Dave

 

[HansMustermann]

No, it isn't demonstrated, but neither is the contrary.

Neither is it for Santa Claus or Russel's teapot, but there's no reason to assume the positive just because the contrary is not proven.

Like I said, I think it's just common sense that if you dress in a way that attracts attention, you're more likely to attract attention from all sorts of people, including rapists.

"Common sense" most of the time is just some stereotype that doesn't actually make sense. I think you'll find that for most of human history "common sense" -- that is, in the absence of an education and/or scientific data -- included stuff like magic, astrology, or that the Earth can't be round because then the people on the other side would fall off. Or it was common sense that you can divine stuff about someone in anything from tea leaves to handwriting to the shape of their skull.

Something being common sense but unsupported by data, just means you've happened to stumble upon a stereotype or occasionally prejudice, rather than something to be taken as true until disproven.

Additionally, it's making a lot of assumptions there, and even those don't add up to the peddled conclusion. E.g., if according to Dan Rottenberg

A) the big prize and male wiring there is conquering an UNwilling sex partner ("Conquering an unwilling sex partner is about as much drama as a man can find without shooting a gun"), and

B) "When you display legs, thighs or cleavage, [...] most men will see it as a sign that you want to get laid."

then it's not obvious at al why the latter would make it more likely. I mean his own argument boils down to conquering someone who's UNwilling is more rewarding somehow than conquering someone who is willing, and skimpy dresses mark one as willing. Wouldn't it then be even more drama and all to go for someone whose dress indicates that she's not willing to get laid? Like, dunno, someone in a nun dress?

It's one of those cases where "common sense" actually makes no sense whatsoever. You don't even need to check whether it's sound, as it's self-contradicting by itself.

Maybe for some reason rapists do not find attractive women attractive, but somehow I doubt it.

That contains already an assumption of what a rapist is looking for. How do you know? I mean even Dan Rottenberg there seems to disagree with you, since he thinks it's about drama, not about attractiveness.

But he's not an expert, so let's look at what an actual one says, namely Nicholas Groth, at the time director of Forensic Mental Health Associates, and based on studying some 3000 actual sex offenders over 25 years. For a start, what he says is that most of them were not sexually deprived at the time they raped someone, so in fact it's not at all some emergency way to get some sex. His classification actually puts most rapists in 3 categories:

- anger rape: pretty much revenge rape. It has nothing to do with the victim being pretty or attractive or sexy or anything, but with inflicting some punishment for some injustice that the rapist thinks the victim did him. Or that women generally did him. But apparently even "revenge" paints a wrong picture, as it can be "revenge" for not wanting to talk to him right now, or for some other woman dumping him in high school, or whatever.

(This, incidentally, is the category that Lara Logan's rape falls under. Those guys were just trying to dish some humiliating punishment in anger upon the "Jew".)

- power rape: just like it sounds. It's about feeling power over someone.

- sadism rape: these guys are turned on by inflicting as much trauma and harm as they can.

For none of those actual goals, looking sexy is much of a factor. That's not the itch that is being scratched. For someone looking for revenge, looking like a catholic schoolgirl can actually be the worst thing you can do, if he's after revenge for an ex-girlfriend who dressed like a catholic schoolgirl too. But generally it's random, because you don't know exactly what connection or behaviour will trigger an anger attack. For someone looking for a power trip, looking like the submissive type that tries to blend in the background, can actually just say "easy target." And for a sadist, well, it depends on the kind of trauma he's looking to inflict.

The reason for my first post on this discussion was to point out that there is a logical fallacy at work in many of the responses to this article, and I wish someone could help me to categorize it. Sure, it's possible that the way a woman dresses or acts is not a significant factor in her risk of rape compared to other factors, such as the risk of being in the wrong place at the wrong time. But it is fallacious to argue that one factor is not the (or a) cause because some other factor (criminal intent, opportunity) is the (or a) cause. Most things have multiple causes.

There is no fallacy. If something is unsupported as a cause, it's unsupported and that's that. Just because something doesn't fit the preconceived conclusion you want, doesn't make it a fallacy.

 

[PhantomWolf]

The conclusion you're assuming, though, is that women dressing more attractively are displaying features that make them appear to be a more desirable victim for a rapist. This is far from proven; in fact, actual evidence presented in the thread suggests the exact opposite. Rapists may well find attractive women attractive, but there are many other factors - in particular, vulnerability - that determine whether rapists consider them potential victims. So your logical fallacy here is the non sequitur:

P1: Women dressing attractively will attract more attention from other people.
P2: Some other people are rapists.
C: Therefore, women dressing more attractively are more likely to be raped.

C does not follow from P1 and P2.



Evidence, however, strongly suggests that it is not.

Dave

Actually your attempt there is a strawman.

His actual claim goes like this...

P1: Women dressing attractively will attract more attention from other people.
P2: Some other people are rapists.
C: Therefore, some women dressing more attractively are more likely to attract the attention of a rapist.

Given that the figure of 4% has been dropped in before, with 100,000 rapes a year in the US, than means that 4,000 of those women attracted the rapist's attention through what they were wearing, a small percentage, but not an insignificant number.

Of course this has nothing to do with Lara Logan, just noting that there are some women raped because of attracting the wrong attention and then not reading the situation correctly.

 

[3point14]

No, it isn't demonstrated, but neither is the contrary. Like I said, I think it's just common sense that if you dress in a way that attracts attention, you're more likely to attract attention from all sorts of people, including rapists. Maybe for some reason rapists do not find attractive women attractive, but somehow I doubt it.

The reason for my first post on this discussion was to point out that there is a logical fallacy at work in many of the responses to this article, and I wish someone could help me to categorize it. Sure, it's possible that the way a woman dresses or acts is not a significant factor in her risk of rape compared to other factors, such as the risk of being in the wrong place at the wrong time. But it is fallacious to argue that one factor is not the (or a) cause because some other factor (criminal intent, opportunity) is the (or a) cause. Most things have multiple causes.

I have a whole slew of advice to give people to avoid attack, all of it based on solid research and demonstrated. Keep your head up, eyes open, walk on the outside of the pavement (sidewalk), all that sort of stuff, which is demonstrated to be effective, this is the advice I would give.

I think giving the advice - 'don't dress sexy' when you really can't prove that it's an influence in victim selection is very irresponsible. I give advice that works, you seem to be intent on giving advice that you 'feel' might work and that will make any rape victim who wasn't wearing a balaclava and full, loose bodysuit feel guilty as hell. If you could demonstrate that the advice is sound, then it'd be different, but if you can't, then you're just guessing.

I think we can all agree that the article was ill-conceived, and that the example he chose to illustrate his point was ridiculous. But even if his argument is fallacious and/or distasteful, his conclusion can still be true. That's all I'm saying.

Could be true. But really are probably not.

I would also submit that the authour of the piece has not actually arrived at any conclusions, merely supported some pre-conceived notions he has with a bunch of pointless, extremely offensive flannel.

I'd have more (but not a lot) faith in his conclusion if he actually demonstrted the ability to apply actual logic to an argument, but he hasn't.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Actually your attempt there is a strawman.

His actual claim goes like this...

P1: Women dressing attractively will attract more attention from other people.
P2: Some other people are rapists.
C: Therefore, some women dressing more attractively are more likely to attract the attention of a rapist.

That relies on the additional premise that rapists' attention is focused by the same features as other people's attention; that said, I'll accept that. To go any further, you have to ask whether attracting a rapist's attention by dressing attractively makes it more likely to be selected as a victim. It appears that that isn't the case, from the statistics, and there is evidence that dressing more conservatively may make selection more likely.

In any case, if my response is a strawman, then the actual claim is irrelevant to the argument of what makes a person more likely to be chosen as a rape victim.

Given that the figure of 4% has been dropped in before, with 100,000 rapes a year in the US, than means that 4,000 of those women attracted the rapist's attention through what they were wearing, a small percentage, but not an insignificant number.

It also rather suggests that it would be more productive to address the remaining 96% of cases. Then there's the already stated point that these women attracted the rapist's attention by dressing more attractively than average, a situation which it is a logical impossibility to change. And finally, of course, either this 4% comes from the statements of rapists - in which case it's automatically somewhat suspect as a post hoc attempt at self-justification - or it comes from some other source, in which case it's not particularly relevant.

Of course this has nothing to do with Lara Logan, just noting that there are some women raped because of attracting the wrong attention and then not reading the situation correctly.

No, they were raped because an extremely evil person chose to rape them and then claimed after the fact that their clothing was a factor in his choice of victim. Whether they read any situation correctly or not, we have no idea; if the situation was that the rapist could outrun them and there wasn't anybody else to help, what difference would it make to have read it correctly?

Dave

 

[Ron Webb]

I think it's a kind of false dichotomy, where option A and option B are considered but not the option (A and B). Hope that helps.

Yeah, I thought of that, but false dichotomy is usually of the form "It's either A or B, and we know it's not A so it must be B." In this case we're saying that we know it is A, therefore it can't be B. Also, "dichotomy" implies a choice between exactly two alternatives (which is why if it's not A it must be B), whereas the fallacious reasoning here applies even if you acknowledge there are multiple choices (we know it's A, therefore it can't be B or C or D).

 

[I Am The Scum]

If I may, I'd like to point out that "attracting attention" isn't quite as black as white as some are trying to make it.

Various items can attract our attention. Sometimes, it's in ways that are good, sometimes it's for bad reasons, and sometimes it's neutral. Take, for example, a rotten piece of ham on the kitchen counter. This will attract your attention. If someone else were frying up some bacon right next to this piece of ham, the bacon would also attract your attention, but for very different reasons.

The bacon is food and attracting your attention. Do these two qualities sufficiently describe an increase in your likelihood of eating it? No. The same two qualities also apply to the rotten meat. From this, we can see that the mere attractiveness of a certain type of object is not enough to say that one is more or less likely to engage in any given activity with the object.

Now, some might say that this is all irrelevant to the topic at hand. They might say that revealing clothing is about a sexual type of attraction. However, has it been shown that the qualities that a rapist seeks out in his victims are the same qualities that any of us normal people might seek out in a sexual partner? As far as I'm aware, it hasn't. And it's not like this kind of thing has never been looked into before. It has. Given that, wouldn't we expect to find some sort of commonality?

I don't deny that people who dress provocatively are likely to attract attention, from rapists and non-rapists alike. But this doesn't make them likely victims. A house with a high, barb-wire fence, guard dogs, and sniper nests is likely to attract attention from all sorts of people, including burglars. However, I'm hoping we can agree that this house would be a very unlikely target for a home-invasion robbery.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Good point. When a burglar alarm is mounted in a big blue box labelled "Burglar Alarm" on the street-facing side of a house, the aim is to attract the attention of potential burglars.

Dave

 

[Ron Webb]

The conclusion you're assuming, though, is that women dressing more attractively are displaying features that make them appear to be a more desirable victim for a rapist.

Not exactly. I'm assuming that women dressing attractively are displaying features that attract the attention of rapists, for whatever reason. I suppose a woman wearing a burkha might attract the attention of an Islamophobe, who might then proceed to rape her out of anger against her religion. I'll grant you that in our culture women usually attract attention by displaying or enhancing feminine physical attributes, so maybe I'm splitting hairs.

This is far from proven; in fact, actual evidence presented in the thread suggests the exact opposite. Rapists may well find attractive women attractive, but there are many other factors - in particular, vulnerability - that determine whether rapists consider them potential victims.

And here once again we see the logical fallacy I'm trying to find a name for. Rapists undoubtedly are attracted by the vulnerability of a potential victim, but that doesn't mean that her attractiveness in other ways might not also play a role. Things have multiple causes.

So your logical fallacy here is the non sequitur:

P1: Women dressing attractively will attract more attention from other people.
P2: Some other people are rapists.
C: Therefore, women dressing more attractively are more likely to be raped.

C does not follow from P1 and P2.

C should read "therefore women dressing attractively will attract the attention of rapists." From there, a further logical argument (which I'm not sure I can wrestle into a syllogism, but I think it's still valid) goes something like:

P1: Women dressing attractively are more likely to be noticed by rapists.
P2: Rapists need to notice a potential victim in order to commit the rape.
C: Women dressing attractively are more likely to be raped.

Evidence, however, strongly suggests that it is not.

I've been away from this discussion for a day or two so I might have missed it, but the only evidence I've seen presented here was Ocelot's bogus reference.

 

[Ron Webb]

For none of those actual goals, looking sexy is much of a factor. That's not the itch that is being scratched. For someone looking for revenge, looking like a catholic schoolgirl can actually be the worst thing you can do, if he's after revenge for an ex-girlfriend who dressed like a catholic schoolgirl too. But generally it's random, because you don't know exactly what connection or behaviour will trigger an anger attack. For someone looking for a power trip, looking like the submissive type that tries to blend in the background, can actually just say "easy target." And for a sadist, well, it depends on the kind of trauma he's looking to inflict.

It is only your assumption that "looking sexy" is not much of a factor. If looking sexy means enhancing or displaying feminine characteristics, then it seems to me that a man who has a grudge of some kind against women in general is more likely to attack a person who prominently displays those characteristics.

There is no fallacy. If something is unsupported as a cause, it's unsupported and that's that. Just because something doesn't fit the preconceived conclusion you want, doesn't make it a fallacy.

If your argument is that a statement is wrong because it is unsupported, then you're invoking a different fallacy, namely argumentum ad ignorantiam. But that isn't the argument I see being made over and over here. The argument is that "looking sexy" is not a contributing cause because other things (criminal intent, dangerous neighbourhoods, bad luck) are.

 

[3point14]

Not exactly. I'm assuming that women dressing attractively are displaying features that attract the attention of rapists, for whatever reason. I suppose a woman wearing a burkha might attract the attention of an Islamophobe, who might then proceed to rape her out of anger against her religion. I'll grant you that in our culture women usually attract attention by displaying or enhancing feminine physical attributes, so maybe I'm splitting hairs.



And here once again we see the logical fallacy I'm trying to find a name for. Rapists undoubtedly are attracted by the vulnerability of a potential victim, but that doesn't mean that her attractiveness in other ways might not also play a role. Things have multiple causes.



C should read "therefore women dressing attractively will attract the attention of rapists." From there, a further logical argument (which I'm not sure I can wrestle into a syllogism, but I think it's still valid) goes something like:

P1: Women dressing attractively are more likely to be noticed by rapists.
P2: Rapists need to notice a potential victim in order to commit the rape.
C: Women dressing attractively are more likely to be raped.



I've been away from this discussion for a day or two so I might have missed it, but the only evidence I've seen presented here was Ocelot's bogus reference.

...And the fact that rape statistics don't vary by country or era based on how much or little female flesh it is acceptable to display at that time and place.


All you're doing in reccomending that ladies wear more in order not to be raped is asking them to make sure that someone else is raped. This course of action will ultimately lead (as so ably related by Hans) to all women wearing sack-cloth and balaclavas and women still being raped

 

[I Am The Scum]

The argument is that "looking sexy" is not a contributing cause because other things (criminal intent, dangerous neighbourhoods, bad luck) are.

No, that has not been the argument. The argument is that, with the studies that have taken place, we have found common contributing factors for what makes one a likely rape victim. Of those factors we have found, clothing or appearance was not one of them. This means either that provocative clothing is not a factor, a very minor factor, or might even make one less likely to be a victim.

In other words, if clothing is a factor, then why have the studies not produced this evidence?

 

[Ron Webb]

I have a whole slew of advice to give people to avoid attack, all of it based on solid research and demonstrated. Keep your head up, eyes open, walk on the outside of the pavement (sidewalk), all that sort of stuff, which is demonstrated to be effective, this is the advice I would give.

If you have such evidence, I'd love to see it. I'm not saying it's not true, mind you, just that what passes for "evidence" in social science research is often not much better than the stuff Ocelot linked to earlier.

And by the way, it's not my intention to give anyone advice on how to dress. Personally, I wish that women (and men too) would dress more attractively than they have done in the last few decades. I think it has a "civilizing" influence on people's behaviour in general, and it's just a nicer society to live in. And if women want to look sexy -- well shucks, I'm a guy! You think I'd object to that? But it's not up to me. They can dress however they want.

 

[Ron Webb]

No, that has not been the argument. The argument is that, with the studies that have taken place, we have found common contributing factors for what makes one a likely rape victim. Of those factors we have found, clothing or appearance was not one of them. This means either that provocative clothing is not a factor, a very minor factor, or might even make one less likely to be a victim.

In other words, if clothing is a factor, then why have the studies not produced this evidence?

What studies? Really, I'd like to see them.

 

[Dave Rogers]

C should read "therefore women dressing attractively will attract the attention of rapists." From there, a further logical argument (which I'm not sure I can wrestle into a syllogism, but I think it's still valid) goes something like:

P1: Women dressing attractively are more likely to be noticed by rapists.
P2: Rapists need to notice a potential victim in order to commit the rape.
C: Women dressing attractively are more likely to be raped.

As has been shown from a couple of counter-examples, this is not a valid conclusion.

P1: Houses displaying a large and brightly-coloured burglar alarm are more likely to be noticed by would-be burglars.
P2: Would-be burglars need to notice a potential target house in order to commit the burglary.
C: Houses displaying a large and brightly-coloured burglar alarm are more likely to be burgled.

The point is that the probability of being chosen as a rape victim depends on a number of factors, and there are many different ways to attract attention - for example, I suspect that, where I live, a Victorian dress will attract a lot more attention than skimpy shorts and a halter top. Some attributes will inevitably draw the potential rapist's attention to the fact that a person does not appear to be a suitable victim. So we can't assume a correlation between being noticed for a specific reason and being a potential victim.

So we go back to the data, which appears to suggest that a woman's clothing is not an attribute that draws her to the attention of rapists as a potential victim, however much it may draw her to their attention in general.

Dave

 

[Dave Rogers]

And if women want to look sexy -- well shucks, I'm a guy! You think I'd object to that?

It has occurred to me that Rottenberg should be the target of male condemnation solely for demanding that attractive women should avoid wearing revealing clothing.

I bet he's gay.

Dave

 

[HansMustermann]

It is only your assumption that "looking sexy" is not much of a factor.

No, it's actually based on

1. there being not much of an indication in any study that it does.

2. Again, the vast majority of rapists studied were not particularly deprived of sex, and not motivated by sex. In effect sex was just a tool, and only because women tend to take it badly when getting it by force against their will. The actual goal was punishment, or domination, or inflicting harm.

In effect, there is not much different in there between those, and the deranged Taliban throwing acid into women's faces. Those too are in it just as punishment, or to satisfy their need to feel powerful over someone, or are just sadists who aren't really motivated by more than having an excuse to give someone a horrible time.

So there is really nothing in there, other than some people's insistence on propagating insulting stereotypes, that sex appeal is a factor at all an act that is not really motivated by sex.

If looking sexy means enhancing or displaying feminine characteristics, then it seems to me that a man who has a grudge of some kind against women in general is more likely to attack a person who prominently displays those characteristics.

But the question is then how much that is represented in the population of rapists.

I mean, equally there could be a burglar out there that targets only houses with dogs, but if it evens out with those who avoid them, then basically it's not a factor and not an excuse to blame a burglary on the owner's having a dog.

But at any rate, if you're claiming it's a factor, then there should be some correlation. Where is it? Support that claim.

If your argument is that a statement is wrong because it is unsupported, then you're invoking a different fallacy, namely argumentum ad ignorantiam. But that isn't the argument I see being made over and over here. The argument is that "looking sexy" is not a contributing cause because other things (criminal intent, dangerous neighbourhoods, bad luck) are.

No, it's just basic burden of proof. If you're the one claiming that a correlation exists, you're the one who gets to support it. As long as no such correlation has been shown, really, the default position is that there isn't.

Learn the basic fallacies before invoking them. It's not just a list of buzzwords for when you have to try to look smart while peddling BS, you know?

 

[Ron Webb]

As has been shown from a couple of counter-examples, this is not a valid conclusion.

P1: Houses displaying a large and brightly-coloured burglar alarm are more likely to be noticed by would-be burglars.
P2: Would-be burglars need to notice a potential target house in order to commit the burglary.
C: Houses displaying a large and brightly-coloured burglar alarm are more likely to be burgled.

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.

Allow me to fix your analogy. Suppose the burglar happens to know that burglar alarm system very well, and knows a way to defeat it so it is no longer a deterrence. Then I would argue that the presence of the burlar alarm would attract the attention of the burglar as a strong indication that the house had something worth stealing, and would make it more likely that the burglar would break in.

So we go back to the data, which appears to suggest that a woman's clothing is not an attribute that draws her to the attention of rapists as a potential victim, however much it may draw her to their attention in general.

I'd love to go (back) to the data. What data?