[rubecube]

Originally Posted by SebC

That's not my suggestion. What I'm saying is that it's a fact that risk factors exist. Maybe the benefit of "doing things that put them in proximity to rapists" is worth the risk. It's up to the individual to decide that, and they can't do it if nobody gives them the facts.

I wouldn't recommend that black people visit KKK rallies, but maybe that's just me.

If going out on Saturday is considered as risky for a woman as a black person attending a KKK party, what does that say about us as a society?

Well, alcohol in particular is well established as a risk factor, but I'm not saying that it's a woman's responsibility to not be raped. But she does have control over some of the risk factors.

I don't think it's as statistically significant a factor as you do.

http://www.badscience.net/2009/07/asking-for-it/

We found no evidence that that women who are more outgoing are more likely to be raped, this is completely inaccurate, we found no difference whatsoever. The alcohol thing is also completely wrong: if anything, we found that men reported they were willing to go further with women who are completely sober.

It's not something that she has to do, but something that she can do. It's not her fault that she got raped if she doesn't mitigate her risk factors, but she did contribute to the likelihood of it happening.

I would guess that they would.

So baseless speculation then?

We have found at the minute that people will go slightly further with women who are provocatively dressed, but this result is not statistically significant. Basically you can’t say that’s an effect, it could easily be the play of chance. I told the journalist it isn’t one of our main findings, you can’t say that. It’s not significant, which is why we’re not reporting it in our main analysis.

Dude, this is victim-blaming plain and simple. Do Sikhs contribute to the racism against them by wearing traditional cultural attire? What exactly should women wear to keep men from raping them?

I honestly have no clue how you lept to this point.

See flameswin's picture.

Does it matter if the threat is actively hostile? As a pedestrian you look for cars to mitigate the risk of getting hit (even though if you do, it's typically the driver's fault).

For another analogy, assuming that homes with burglar alarms get robbed less. It's good advice to get an alarm. It's not your fault if don't have one and get robbed, but you increased your odds. There, now it's an actively hostile threat. Nothing changes.

Again, prove the mitigation. With regards to the original study you posted there's this:

What this correlation actually translates into is that 19% of the variability between being a victim or nonvictim of sexual violence is linearly related to the grouping of these three variables. In other terms, one could reasonably say that 81% of the variability between victims and nonvictims cannot be explained by number of lifetime sexual partners, provocativeness of dress, and greater substance use.

Actually that is better analogy because rape, like burglary is a crime of opportunity, which proves that the provocative attire thing is a load of crap.

There's lots of things we can do. What you're doing in this thread is counter-productive.

Not really. I'm saying what you're doing does more than harm the good because too many people use it as an excuse not to get involved in advocating for broader societal changes. If men are the problem then why are women the ones who have to adjust their behaviour?