Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83 based; site hou2g.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!hou2g!scott From: scott@hou2g.UUCP (N. Ersha) Newsgroups: net.women Subject: Re: Re RAPE, etc.... Message-ID: <540@hou2g.UUCP> Date: Thu, 11-Jul-85 08:35:56 EDT Article-I.D.: hou2g.540 Posted: Thu Jul 11 08:35:56 1985 Date-Received: Sat, 13-Jul-85 07:35:02 EDT References: <739@udenva.UUCP> Organization: rest, relative to the universe Lines: 30 It seems to me there is a huge misunderstanding about this whole issue of "provacative clothing". While I don't necessarily subscribe to the theory (and won't until there is hard evidence to support it), the two sides don't seem to be discussing the same thing. One person says wearing "provacative" clothing can invite rape; another says "What about all the old ladies that get raped?". This misses the point. I think what most are REALLY trying to get across is that, given a person who is GOING TO RAPE ANYWAY, a "provacatively" dressed woman may present a more attractive (sic) target than, say, a bag lady. This doesn't mean that ALL such women are targets, nor that no ugly (to use a simple but overgeneralized term) women will get raped. It's MAYBE equivalent to a mugger choosing to "roll" a Wall-St.-3-piece-suit-wing-tipped-shoes type guy over a drunken street bum. Again, I know of no evidence to support this theory, but it seems the point is that perhaps, GIVEN A CHOICE, many rapists would "prefer" to attack the more "provacatively" dressed woman. Food for thought (This should be good enough for Brunch :-)), Scott Berry