The Instigator
FREETHINKER7
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Oromagi
Con (against)
Winning
4 Points

Do girls increase their risk of a sexual assault,if they wear explicit dresses?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Oromagi
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/22/2013 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 6,346 times Debate No: 36938
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (1)

 

FREETHINKER7

Pro

the difference between normal sex and rape and is that the latter is "against will".
for the 1st time ,say for a moment, lets see it from a man's POV (Point Of View).
i would like to clarify at the beginning that i am not justifying rape in any way. i consider it one of the worst crime ever.
but, its a fact of real life, so there must be a logic reason for it.
who is a rapist ? like all criminals, rapists are not born as rapists out of their mother's womb.

they are imbalanced, the normal psycho-social line which exists in society , is not clear in the mindset of such people.
they see as if they own the girls, as if girls are to be taken for granted.

And moreover, most of the times, rape is an impulsive action. when the person can't decide what is right or wrong ,
either under the influence of alcohol, or due to the sexual impulse arising from the wrong mindset.

Now, what do we generally do if we know that a certain person is of criminal mind or if a particular person is insane?
we call and notify the authority, like police or doctor, etc.

Rape is an impulsive insanity. no one knows when it can happen.
Now what should be done in such a scenario?
Prevention.

Its not about reducing a girl's "right to wear anything".
But some girls, do sometimes intentionally wear revealing explicit and filthy dresses. Just for fun or to get some more attention.
But when they do so, they also increases the chance of an assault. Look, you cant expect every man to be perfect, all the time.
There can be some who are , at the moment, not in a state of rightful judgement capacity.. and so they can be dangerous.

The bitter truth is, most of the rapes occur in closed places , and most of the rapist already know the victim.

what can be the reason for it?
the reason is simple, they are of imbalanced mindset about normal sexual relationship, and they impose their frustrated sexual feelings on someone ,
when they find a lonely place.

looking from a man's POV for women, this world is such a paradox, on one side u find such a revealing class of girls,
so ready to get "naughty" in Hollywood, in porn industries, in other medias.. And on the other side you find girls you know ,
with whom you have to keep a relationship, they are very different from the former ones..

So, i am just suggesting that won't it be a little better if the so called "exposure industry" could have a bit of more control ?
Oromagi

Con

I'll accept the debate. Thanks for the opportunity to refute the notion that women increase the risk of rape by wearing sexy clothes.

Can we agree to use the more formal terms "women" or "female," rather than "girl" for the purposes of this debate? In the context of a discussion about rape and the objectification of women, the use of "girl" might be misinterpreted as deprecative or insensitive.

The theory that provocative clothing contributes to rape presupposes that rape is covetous, an impulse of desire. In fact, rape is an act of dominance and control and often about asserting a lesser status for women.

Consider male victims of rape. About one in ten rape victims are men, [1] but have you ever heard anyone argue that men shouldn't wear speedos at the beach or they shouldn't take their shirt off in the park because they might attract rapists? Males generally don't assume that any guy, no matter how scantily clad, contributes to his own victimization. Nevertheless, a woman who wears a bikini to the beach (less revealing than a speedo) or no bra to the park (less revealing than topless) is often perceived as provocative.

In truth, there is no degree of "covering up" at which men no longer perceive women as dressing provocatively. When dresses were the fashion, women in pants were seen as provocative. When Levi's were the fashion, a dress was provocative. A slightly lower neckline or higher hem is provocative. Where women dress conservatively, uncovered hair is provocation. Where burkas are standard a bare ankle or a painted toenail is considered provocative.

As it happens, cultures where women are required to wear more clothing often correlate far more highly for rape than skimpier cultures. In Muslim countries, where women are subject to the most restrictive laws regarding clothing, rape is endemic

http://themuslimissue.files.wordpress.com...

http://themuslimissue.files.wordpress.com...

Because rape is an expression of the subjugation of women, rather than passion, cultures where women are prevented from revealing any sexuality have higher prevalence a if rape. Cultures where women are free to be sexy have less rape.

Con pointed to pornographic actresses as an extreme example of
women who reveal too much. In fact, the dissemination of pornography correlates strongly to decreases in rape statistics. Many studies associate the mainstreaming of pornography and in particular the availability of Internet porn with the 85% reduction in US rape reporting over the past 30 years [2]

Dress codes and rape are both forms of control. When you look at rape statistics for groups that have strict dress codes (military, boarding schools, athletic teams, prisons, religious institutions) you find higher incidence of rapes than places without. [3]

Requiring a woman to cover up does not prevent rape. Requiring a woman to cover up actually reinforces cultural inequities that contribute to rape.

[1]http://thehathorlegacy.com...

[2]http://papers.ssrn.com...

[3]http://thefbomb.org...
Debate Round No. 1
FREETHINKER7

Pro

FREETHINKER7 forfeited this round.
Oromagi

Con

Repost of FREETHINKER7's 2nd round argument:

In-spite of knowing that wearing small clothes creates a negative image and sexually excites some men, some girls do wear such short explicit clothes for exposure..
as a result, men with limited thinking, or under alcohol intoxication, do sexual assault on girls.
Don't u think that somehow girls are also responsible for this, because in-spite of knowing the potential hazards, they continue to wear revealing dresses..

well, I didn't say girls are totally responsible .. I said , in some sense..
its basic principle, u can't expect a hungry tiger to not to eat you if you go close to him , or until the tiger is under the control of the ring master..

imagine if all the laws were made null and void for a single day , what would happen?
we all know rapes do happen in closed and empty places.. would u expect a women in swimsuit to pass through a street where there is no police or security? and come out safe?

the fact is_ law is beholding everyone..
otherwise only one natural rule applies.. "survival of the fittest"

so, don't u think that this "exposing tradition" of some women has caused some poor,innocent girls to suffer..?

I apologize if I had offended anyone.. I had no offense intended..
***END OF FREETHINKER7's ARGUMENT***************

Oramagi's 2nd round response:

Thanks to Pro for posting arg in comments. I consider this conduct superior to no argument and give Pro credit for follow through.

That said, Pro's second round arguments are little more than a re-assertion of first round arguments. Pro fails to contradict any of Con's assertions. Those were:

1). Rape is a crime of violent domination, not a crime of unrestrained sexual interest.

2). There is no correlation between rape and cultures that permit a high degree of skin exposure, and

3). In fact, there a high degree of correlation between rape and cultures were women are only permitted a low degree of skin exposure.

4). Furthermore, there is a high degree of correlation between rape and environments with dress codes.

Pro states:
In-spite of knowing that wearing small clothes creates a negative image and sexually excites some men, some girls do wear such short explicit clothes for exposure..

Con replies:
There is no doubt that some men are more excited by women who show more skin. Whether this projects a negative image is entirely in the mind of the beholder. Based on the overwhelming popularity of increased exposure in Western cultures: pornography, page 3 girls, cleavage and hem lines on television, etc. we can safely assume that positive responses outnumber negative responses in Western Society. Therefore, fashion reflects the positive response of the majority rather than the minority who respond negatively.

Pro states:
as a result, men with limited thinking, or under alcohol intoxication, do sexual assault on girls.

Con replies:
There is a very high degree of correlation between rape and alcohol. The NIH estimates that roughly half of all victims and half of all perpetrators were under the influence of alcohol at the time of sexual assault [1]. I have not seen any statistics correlating intelligence to rape. Would Pro care to cite some statistics?

Pro states:
Don't u think that somehow girls are also responsible for this, because in-spite of knowing the potential hazards, they continue to wear revealing dresses.

Con replies:
Nope. To repeat, women in revealing dresses are not at an increased risk for rape. Since cultures and environments where women are permitted to wear revealing dresses have less incidence of rape than situations where women are not permitted to wear revealing dresses, women may even be fairly said to be defending against rape by showing a little skin now and then.

Pro states:
well, I didn't say girls are totally responsible.

Con replies:
Well, that's good, because that would be a lie. Please note that Con is back to referring to women as girls in the context if rape, which Con would argue suggests a revealing perspective from Pro.

Pro states:
I said , in some sense..
its basic principle, u can't expect a hungry tiger to not to eat you if you go close to him , or until the tiger is under the control of the ring master..

Con replies:
Tigers are a predatory species. Tigers by their natures view most other species as prey. To use tigers as a metaphor for human males suggests that all men are sexual predators who view all women as sexual prey and that predatory impulses are only restrained by state control (ringmaster). Rape by definition is aberrant behavior and not on the spectrum of normal human needs. Tigers hunt and eat to stay alive, normal behavior. To relate the two activities implies that rape is a normal human function. Pro's metaphor can be dismissed as offensive hyperbole.

Pro states:
imagine if all the laws were made null and void for a single day , what would happen?

Con replies:
Well, I can only say with confidence that if the laws were nullified for one day, I for one would not be raping anybody. I have raped all the people I'll ever want to rape and that number is zero. In the U.S., only 1 in 20 rapists will ever be convicted [2] and most other nations have smaller conviction rates. In the case of rape, therefore, the current effectiveness of the justice system is not as far from Pro's Mad Max scenario as we might hope.

Pro states:
we all know rapes do happen in closed and empty places.. would u expect a women in swimsuit to pass through a street where there is no police or security? and come out safe?

Con replies:
Yes. In fact, this a commonplace scenario that seldom results in rape. My repeated assertion is that clothing is no predictor of rape. Law enforcement is no prophylactic against rape. The presence of law enforcement is actually an indicator for increased rape to the extent that both law enforcement and rape are aspects of control. Ask yourself who is likelier to be raped- a woman at the beach in a bikini or a woman in jail in a jumpsuit surrounded by guards? Control is the operative factor, not sex appeal.

Pro states:
the fact is_ law is beholding everyone..
otherwise only one natural rule applies.. "survival of the fittest"

Con replies:
Another assertion that rape is natural behavior. Con again refutes this.

Pro states:
so, don't u think that this "exposing tradition" of some women has caused some poor,innocent girls to suffer..?

Con replies:
Innocent women suffer rape every day. My arguments have shown that Pro's "exposing tradition" does not increase the likelihood of rape. Where women are free to dress as they wish, women are less likely to be victims of rape than those places where women are not free to dress as they wish.

Rapists often use the defense that provocative dress incites a compulsion to rape. However, the standard for provocation escalates as female dress codes are enforced. Where women are forced to hide their skin and their shape, where women are not allowed to be alone in public, those are the places where women are most often raped and rapists least likely to be convicted.

So, no. "Exposure traditions" empower women and have the effect of making rape less prevalent.

[1] http://pubs.niaaa.nih.gov...
[2]
http://www.ncpa.org...
Debate Round No. 2
FREETHINKER7

Pro

FREETHINKER7 forfeited this round.
Oromagi

Con

Continue arguments from prior rounds. Sexy does not provoke rape. Rape is about control. When sexy is controlled, so are women.

Please vote con.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by FREETHINKER7 3 years ago
FREETHINKER7
In-spite of knowing that wearing small clothes creates a negative image and sexually excites some men, some girls do wear such short explicit clothes for exposure..
as a result, men with limited thinking, or under alcohol intoxication, do sexual assault on girls.
Don't u think that somehow girls are also responsible for this, because in-spite of knowing the potential hazards, they continue to wear revealing dresses..

well, i didn't say girls are totally responsible .. i said , in some sense..
its basic principle, u can't expect a hungry tiger to not to eat you if you go close to him , or until the tiger is under the control of the ring master..

imagine if all the laws were made null and void for a single day , what would happen?
we all know rapes do happen in closed and empty places.. would u expect a women in swimsuit to pass through a street where there is no police or security? and come out safe?

the fact is_ law is beholding everyone..
otherwise only one natural rule applies.. "survival of the fittest"

so, don't u think that this "exposing tradition" of some women has caused some poor,innocent girls to suffer..?

i apologize if i had offended anyone.. i had no offense intended..
Posted by FREETHINKER7 3 years ago
FREETHINKER7
I am really sorry that i could not upload my argument for round 2, due to non working internet connection from last 3 days..
so i am posting it in the comments..
and wish that Con may notice it and take it into consideration.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 3 years ago
Ragnar
FREETHINKER7OromagiTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Incredible conduct from con, reposting pro's comment arguments (I suggest applying formatting to enemy quotes)... However this debate was still an FF.