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