Lady Clothing: I Know That The Suggestion That There Even Is This Particular Thing As A “Invitation To Rape” Is Appalling
admin 
Besides, the identification of women as ‘prey’, liable to be attacked on the basis of how they dress or for a reason of all kinds of perfectly normal behaviour, is a reflection of women’s subordinate situation in society at large. Misogyny behind such depictions may not be apparent to most jurors, I know 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 24yearold man who was convicted of sexually assaulting a ’15 year old’ girl, his defence lawyer had ld the court. Essentially, tainsch was sentenced to three years probation and community service. However, sue Lees describes the real function of dress in rape trials. Anyway, the young woman who dresses quite normally in today’s fashions is put on trial because of it.
In rape trials exactly really similar criteria for judging a woman’s reputation emerge again and again. I’m sure that the purpose of such distortion is to give jurors the impression that the woman is provocative and therefore to blame for the assault. Putting Lindsay though this public humiliation served no purpose aside from 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, the person who raped her was convicted.
Now let me ask you something. 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? Is this how men need to see themselves? That said, this was entirely consistent with other research findings. What does the assumption that dress can contribute to rape say about men?
Then the assumption that such choices can lead to rape -that clothes can speak for women who say no -are ludicrous and extremely damaging.
Lindsay was asked to tell the court what was written on them, this was supposedly to allow the defence to argue that the pants had not been damaged.
Little Devil. 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. Seriously. Scrutinising the way in which a woman was dressed at the time of an assault is one of a kind ways in which common myths and prejudices are exploited to damage her reputation and credibility in the interests of the defence. Oftentimes you knowThe CampaignCampaign packCampaign newsLinks and resources Have your sayContact UsThank you Need Help, right?
I know that the way women dress is routinely cited as an incitement to rape. References to sheer and clinging fabrics, ‘low slung’ jeans and lowcut tops, bare midriffs, short skirts and liberally applied ‘make up’ are common in the context of rape trials.
Which means that look, there’s any chance she was raped, it’s the woman, and not her alleged attacker who is held up for public examination, despite she is the complainer in the case. For example, the imputation was clear. Fifth of the broad ‘crosssection’ of the Scottish population who partook in research carried out by Progressive on behalf of Rape Cr Scotland in August 2007 believed that women contribute to rape if they wear revealing clothing.
Click on the highlighted areas of the image to see different points of view. Look, there’re many, quite a few examples and different manifestations of the way in which dress is used in this context against women seeking justice for rape. That since 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? 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 way more relevance than any clothing. How can anyone defend the view that some women deserve less consideration and protection than others? 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?
As though the presence of a bra or a subtler shade of lipstick 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 would’ve been a more sensible and less insulting approach. 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. It’s a campaign long over due. Keep up the excellent work. Nevertheless, I am appalled at the conviction rates for rape as well as at people’s attitudes in an apparently ‘modern’ society. I think this campaign is excellent. In a survey carried out in February 2008 for the Scottish Government, what percentage of people in Scotland said a woman might be to blame for being raped if she was wearing revealing clothing?
