Female Clothing – I Hope That The Notification Of This Campaign Will Spread To The Rest Of The Country
admin 
I think people should wear whatever they look for.
Why were they popular?
Why or no doubt! What do you think of a bit of your parents’ old duds? How have styles changed since after that,? Ask your parents about their old clothes. Will you wear them today? Scrutinising the way in which a woman was dressed at the time of an assault is amongst many ways in which common myths and prejudices are exploited if you are going to damage her reputation and credibility in the interests of the defence. The question is. How can anyone defend the view that some women deserve less consideration and protection than others?
Lindsay Armstrong was raped in Ayrshire in September At the trial of her attacker, Lindsay was asked to hold up the pants she wore at the time of the attack.
Lindsay was asked to tell the court what was written on them, even if this was supposedly to allow the defence to argue that the pants had not been damaged.
Little Devil. Putting Lindsay though this public humiliation served no purpose except to allow the defence to try to smear her reputation -it allowed them to suggest that her pants and the motto they bore were enough to demonstrate that Lindsay was the sort of girl unlikely to refuse consent to sex and therefore unlikely to was raped. Lindsay Armstrong killed herself three weeks later, even if the person who raped her was convicted. Sue Lees describes the real function of dress in rape trials. Actually the young woman who dresses quite normally in today’s fashions is put on trial because of it.
In rape trials exactly similar criteria for judging a woman’s reputation emerge again and again. Purpose of such distortion is to give jurors the impression that the woman is provocative and therefore to blame for the assault. You knowThe CampaignCampaign packCampaign newsLinks and resources Have your sayContact UsThank you Need Help, right? With that said, this was entirely consistent with other research findings. Just think for a moment. What does the assumption that dress can contribute to rape say about men? Besides, what are the real reasons for raising problems around dress and physical appearance in the context of rape trials and putting women through the ordeal type that Lindsay Armstrong have suffered? Basically the assumption that such choices can lead to rape -that clothes can speak for women who say no -are ludicrous and extremely damaging. Actually the suggestion that there even is this thing as an invitation to rape is appalling.
I find this campaign shocking and am concerned that the research involved prior to launching the campaign was sub par posting educational billboards of the pic rather than suggestive and almost pornographic pictures of women should be a more sensible and less insulting approach.
So it’s a campaign long over due.
I think so that’s a positive step wards eradicating the entrenched attitudes wards the subject of rape in which focus is always put on the woman. Although, I think this campaign is excellent. Keep up the excellent work. I am appalled at the conviction rates for rape and in addition at people’s attitudes in an apparently ‘modern’ society.
In a 2005 survey for Amnesty, what percentage of people said a woman was partly to blame for being raped if she had previously flirted with a man?
The way women dress is routinely cited as an incitement to rape.
References to sheer and clinging fabrics, lowslung jeans and ‘lowcut’ tops, bare midriffs, short skirts and liberally applied makeup are common in the context of rape trials. Which means that So there’s every chance she was raped, And so it’s the woman, and not her alleged attacker who is held up for public examination, she is the complainer in the case. That as it is somehow so easy to exploit common prejudices by suggesting that some women lack modesty, have exercised poor taste or bad judgement, or been deliberately provocative, they can be blamed for rape and made to forfeit their right to justice and a fair trial? Generally, as though the presence of a bra or a subtler shade of lipstick identification of women as ‘prey’, liable to be attacked on the basis of how they dress or because of all kinds of perfectly normal behaviour, is a reflection of women’s subordinate situation in society at large. I know that the misogyny behind such depictions may not be apparent to most jurors, So it’s so taken for granted. Examples which demonstrate this, occur almost daily, in Scotland as everywhere else. In March 2008, at the trial in Perth of a ’24 year old’ man who was convicted of sexually assaulting a ’15 year old’ girl, his defence lawyer had ld the court. Tainsch was sentenced to three years probation and community service. You should take it into account. For the most part there’re many, loads of examples and different manifestations of the way in which dress is used in this context against women seeking justice for rape. You can find some more information about it on this site. In Scotland, he rarely takes the stand or is made to account for his choices or behaviour, the accused’s behaviour and intentions are of definitely more relevance than any clothing. That they are so completely unable to control their sexual behaviour that it’s quite possible for them to launch a sexual attack if sufficiently provoked at any time?
