Is the "short skirt/flirting = consent" argument actually used by people, or is it merely a strawman argument?

fogu · 2012-08-28T21:59:47+00:00

Decades ago that sort of thing was sometimes brought up in court, its illegal now.

AnonTheAnonymous · 2012-08-29T00:59:39+00:00

Firstly, it is important to note that in a rape trial Feminists assume the guilt of the accused, soley on the word of the accuser.

Now, if the court rules that the accused is not guilty of rape because of exculpatory evidence, that demonstrates that the defendant DID NOT rape the accuser, feminists will deliberately misconstrue this to mean that the exculpatory evidence was used to justify the rape.

Consider, the court says the man has not been proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt because; she has a history of making false allegations, drunk sex isn't rape, there is no physical evidence, witnesses saw her willingly go home with him, she invited him to her home, ect.

The feminists will misconstrue this as saying its OK to rape a woman who has failed to put a rapist in prison before, It is OK to rape a woman if she is drunk, its OK to rape a woman as long as you don't leave evidence, its OK to rape a woman if you can get her to go home with you, its OK to rape a woman if she invites you in to her home.

Of course, this is not what the courts actually said. This is how feminists deceive young impressionable college girls into believing there is a rape culture, and that rape is everywhere.

Saying drunk sex isn't rape gets misquoted by feminists as saying its ok to rape women as long as you get them drunk first. That is basically a short example. Its pure feminist rationalization hamster.

AnonTheAnonymous · 2012-08-29T00:47:54+00:00

The defense is used when it is he said she said. He claims it was consensual, she claims it was rape. If she has a history of going out drinking and having sex with random men, and dressing to appeal to men looking for sex, his argument of a consensual one night stand is more likely, while if she has no history of one night stands and was dressed "normally?" then it is harder for him to prove it was consensual.

In other words, what is nothing but flimsy exculpatory evidence in a he-said/she-said case is being portrayed by feminists as actually being a social norm where anyone can rape a woman because of her clothing.

This of course is a complete straw-man.

truthjusticeca · 2012-08-28T21:59:23+00:00

The only example that I have seen of this is in reference to jail rape when people say that "he should have known that when he commited the crime" or gloat over the possibility of a convicted man being raped in prison.

Mitschu · 2012-08-28T22:22:13+00:00

There have been cases where dress has been implied as a factor... such as 'her pants were so tight that she must have helped to take them off.' - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denim_Day - Admittedly, I'm not aware of cases where there was a direct "She dresses like a slut, therefore she is gagging for sex" claim made... but I've heard it voiced by people outside of court.

typhonblue · 2012-08-29T00:52:08+00:00

A lot of the time advocates for worthy victims of rape(women raped by men) mix up 'reasonable doubt' with 'victim shaming.'

Since it's a principle(or was) in our justice system that it's preferable to let ten guilty men go free then punish one innocent, the defence for alleged rapists will attempt to persuade a jury that the woman in question actually did consent. They'll try to make the case that she did so the best way they can which includes pointing out flirtatious behaviour and dress as 'indications' that she consented. They're not saying she did consent, they're saying that these things make her consent to the act more probable, thus creating reasonable doubt.

Outside of misidentification, the only defence to a charge of rape is to prove the woman consented(or there was no sex) or create reasonable doubt around the issue of consent. So that's what the defence tries to do.

This process is termed 'shaming' by the rape apartheid industry because, obviously, it's shameful for a woman to consent to sex.

samuelbt · 2012-08-29T04:36:17+00:00

Sadly I have actually heard this argument used before. You still find it in some circles.

MsManifesto · 2012-08-29T02:29:06+00:00

[permanently deleted]

blueocean43 · 2012-08-30T13:34:33+00:00

I have actually been on the receiving end of this argument (except replace short shirt with corset) from the perpetrator, but also his friends (both male and female friends).

rightsbot · 2012-08-28T21:50:19+00:00

Post text automatically copied here. (Why?) (Report a problem.)

2012-08-28T22:51:00+00:00

It's not a 'strawman' argument but a slippery slope argument. I mean, if she is dressing slutty for 'sexual appeal', she must be trying to get someone to have sex with her! (obviously, longer than that, but still)

It's a weak argument, but it has been used.

DavidByron · 2012-08-29T14:30:08+00:00

I've never heard it except from feminists. In fact the opposite happens. Even when the "victim" is a serial false accuser or a prostitute with a long criminal record (eg. the Duke lacrosse team "rape") they are assumed to be telling the truth because of being a woman.

Male victims of rape by women are of course never believed - they don't even exist even though the only survey to ask pegged such victims as about 40% of all rape victims.

2012-08-29T01:51:49+00:00

It has been a straw-man for multiple decades.

truthman2000 · 2012-08-28T22:53:50+00:00

What is this shit?

Title	Is the "short skirt/flirting = consent" argument actually used by people, or is it merely a strawman argument?
Author	minibeardeath
Upvotes	24
Comments	36
Date	August 28, 2012 9:49 PM UTC (13 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/yzgcr/is_the_short_skirtflirting_consent_argument/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/is-the-short-skirtflirting-consent-argument.1014776 https://theredarchive.com/post/1014776

Comments