She is asking for it

Post Reply New Topic

Whenever they come up with an outfit that gets a lot of attention, but only from handsome/intelligent/decent/sexy gentlemen, I will gladly wear one.

I'm sure he's aware & prepared to take the risk but he's famous so it's not as risky for him. His point just is that people should be prepared for assumptions because of the way they dress. It's like how you would wear nice dressy cloths or a suit & tie to a job interview instead of torn jeans & sleeveless stained tShrit so you wouldn't get associated with the phrase trailer trash.

Well that is a fair point I think. While I have been labelled a feminist and a man hater many times, I completely do not subscribe to the attitude of many women that it's ok to wear sexually appealing clothes and expect not to be sexually attacked. I mean, it sure would be nice to live in such a world, as would be nice to live in a world where people don't lie, cheat or steal, but I just don't believe in tempting fate.

So the argument that I should be free to wear whatever I please and expect to go through life unmolested is obviously flawed.

Equally, a man wearing a dress, a skirt or make up must expect to be ridiculed.

Right?

No, sexual attack is never acceptable.

I never said it was!!

I said however that given our experience of people's behaviour, it seems like most people assume not dressing in revealing clothing will make it less likely to be attacked. I would invite debate on this issue.

Agreed or not agreed?

It has been said elsewhere that rape is about power trips and how attractive a woman is has no bearing on whether she is picked as a target, so this would suggest to me that how she is dressed would also have no bearing yet conventional wisdom tells us otherwise. Which is true, I wonder.

Statistically clothing makes very little difference in a rape. I'd rather trust those figures than go for the lets-blame-the-target hype.

That's why I worded my response the way I did. The only "invitation" that a rapist generally needs is to find a victim in a vulnerable state.

The people in both photos are inviting sexual attention.....but I don't believe ANYONE is ever inviting UNWANTED sexual attention. That's why I said they both looked like (in the absence of the obvious photo shoot or a partner) they might be offering sex for sale. So it would be *wanted* attention, but on their terms.

Personally, I'm like you, leafplant. Once I was old enough to know what sex was, I was extremely picky about who I might consider doing it with. So, in public, I absolutely do NOT dress to invite sexual attention. At most, I go with a "wholesome girl-next-door" look. I only dress provocatively around the man I happen to be in a relationship with at the moment. And then, only in private.

by "it" as rape or anything similar.

I wouldn't like to blame the victim (target) at any point but I did wonder whether behaviour and clothing made any difference and I must say from personal experience, as, Eureka13 points out, UNWANTED attention seems to be more forthcoming when clothing is more revealing - or as the video Nick posted suggests - men are easily confused about which women are whores and which are not. Personally, I would have thought the fact they don't ask you for money upfront would be a glaring clue, but whatever.

I am questioning this assumption that wearing a short strappy dress and lacy stockings makes it OK for men to hit on a woman when no other invitation signs have been given. Like just the dress itself means the woman wants it - i.e, she is asking for it. And according to many guys on this thread, that seems to be a general assumption. So lets forget rape for the sake of this argument, if you saw this lady on the street, perhaps just walking around, would you assume she is available for sexual advances to any man who can be bothered to approach her? Because this is the sentiment I am getting from people at large.

I don't know about sexual advances, but I would be inclined to think they were looking for sexual attention. Possibly for the purpose of an ego boost, possibly looking for a date.

What the heck is the difference between advances and attention?


TO be fair, this question comes to you from a middle aged lady who was astonished to learn that young people do not consider 'hooking up' to mean having sex with someone. lol

Bad behaviour is bad behaviour. That's the end of that.
I like flirting. I don't mind wearing what I'd consider elegant feminine dress (not talking about TOWIE look or such, although it shouldn't change the point) when going for a night out with single female friends. It's nice to get a comment like "you're beautiful" from a charming man or turn a couple of heads. Still, I don't see any excuse someone groping my bum or breasts or making inappropriate sexual advances or comments like "those pouty lips should be around my hard ****". How do you get one with preventing the other? In my experience no outfit despite the coverage prevents sexual harassment. In my experience a douche is a douche who treats women equally badly no matter what they wear.

I would actually think she was trying to sell me a car, coca cola or any number of consumer products. In the image she is seen represented as an object of desire and thereby associating the product ( in this case a car) with the same desire. The carefully manufactured, artificial and cosmetic way in which she has been dressed I believe are meant to reflect the styling of the car.
If I saw this women, dressed in this way she would receive no sexual advances from me her appearance appears in my opinion to be more evocative of socially conditioned greed and consumer lust.

Great thread Leaf!! !! !

Simple rule: only if I know the woman and I know that she has dressed that way specifically for me, then it may be a sexual invitation aimed at me. Otherwise not. There are all the alternatives that BirdInFlight and others mentioned, and then the woman may be inviting someone, but why on Earth should I imagine she is inviting me?

I think this describes what I perceive as the difference between sexual attention and sexual advances. Probably much more succinctly and elegantly than I could have.

I am sorry but no, it isn't. And I will show you why below:



I don't. To me a strange man telling me I was beautiful and people turning their heads to look at me would feel like intrusion. Any uninvited comment by a stranger to me feels like an intrusion, whether it's positive or negative. So, as you can see, what I consider bad behaviour you not only consider acceptable but actively welcome it. So, it cannot be the end of that.



In my experience what I wear seems to have a lot to do with how much people look at me. If I wear jeans, heads don't turn. If I wear a skirt, a normal, office type pencil skirt, and sensible mid-high heels, I get looks. Like, men are LITERALLY turning their head to look at the skirt and a pair of legs. And that may give some of them ideas whereas boring jeans wouldn't.
Luckily I have discovered that being fat is a creep repellent so now I am fat AND old and don't have to worry so much, but I do spend a lot of time observing people and will oftentimes catch men leering at another women not realising I am watching them and it's always one that's dressed in clothes that accentuate the female sexual characteristics. So, that's kind of logical, because who doesn't like looking at pretty things, but I am still not clear on whether there is an unspoken world wide rule that women are signalling they are ok with getting attention just by what they wear. Like gays and hankies in the back pocket or whatever.