Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3
ouija ouija

Provocative clothing invites attacks?

402 posts in this topic

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2254269/Tight-clothes-blame-domestic-violence-Outrage-Italian-priest-Piero-Corsi-claims-women-responsible-provoking-worst-instincts-men.html

The first thing that must be said is that it's a shame we can't read the entire essay ....... perhaps the priest criticises men in it too. If there's anyone here who can read Italian and could translate the very small piece shown in the article, that would be great!

But the part that has outraged so many people is where he states that women wearing tight and provocative clothing only have themselves to blame if they get attacked or even killed by their partners. I feel very ambivalent about this. On the one hand I believe that everyone should be able to wear what they want, when they want; nobody should ever be attacked or abused in any way because of what they are wearing ....... BUT ....... at the same time it's no use pretending that what we wear has no effect on others. For women to believe they can walk down the street with hardly any flesh covered and think they will always be safe is simply naive at best, and yes, at worst provocative. Speaking very generally, it seems that men like women to look sexy, they like to have a sexy looking partner, BUT ...... when a woman in very little clothing is attacked there seems to be a collective shrug of the shoulders and a deafening silence(from men)., as if it was only to be expected.

I won't say any more for now ....... what do others think?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the Priest is criticising the Institution of marriage and how there is a breakdown in family life in his Parish. What is not acceptable IMO is that the Priest points the finger at the wives for dressing provocatively and therefore in this Priests eyes bringing on attacks from the husbands.

He obviously has a lot of Parishioners loading off family problems to him and has probably taken the decision to speak out and post this up on his Church door which 'in of itself' is quite extraordinary! He will be severely rapped over the knuckles for this in the higher echelons of the RCC... but it does give us a little peek into family life in Italy and it doesn't sound too rosy does it?

Edited by Star of the Sea
4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.dailymail...tincts-men.html

The first thing that must be said is that it's a shame we can't read the entire essay ....... perhaps the priest criticises men in it too. If there's anyone here who can read Italian and could translate the very small piece shown in the article, that would be great!

But the part that has outraged so many people is where he states that women wearing tight and provocative clothing only have themselves to blame if they get attacked or even killed by their partners. I feel very ambivalent about this. On the one hand I believe that everyone should be able to wear what they want, when they want; nobody should ever be attacked or abused in any way because of what they are wearing ....... BUT ....... at the same time it's no use pretending that what we wear has no effect on others. For women to believe they can walk down the street with hardly any flesh covered and think they will always be safe is simply naive at best, and yes, at worst provocative. Speaking very generally, it seems that men like women to look sexy, they like to have a sexy looking partner, BUT ...... when a woman in very little clothing is attacked there seems to be a collective shrug of the shoulders and a deafening silence(from men)., as if it was only to be expected.

I won't say any more for now ....... what do others think?

It's in the The Journal link in your article.

How often do we see girls and mature women going around scantily dressed and in provocative clothes?

They provoke the worst instincts, which end in violence or sexual abuse. They should search their consciences and ask: did we bring this on ourselves?

The leaflet, a copy of which was posted online sparking a wave of outrage across the country, said the 118 women killed in acts of domestic violence in Italy in 2012 had pushed men to their limits. Corsi also wrote:

Is it possible that all of a sudden men have gone mad? We don’t believe it.

The fact is that women are increasingly provocative, they become arrogant, they believe themselves to be self-sufficient and end up exacerbating the situation.

Children are abandoned to their own devices, homes are dirty, meals are cold or fast food, clothes are filthy.

What's there to say. Just another religious nutjob trying to leave his legacy on this world before he dissipates into anonymity.

Edited by BlackRedLittleDevil
4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.dailymail...tincts-men.html

The first thing that must be said is that it's a shame we can't read the entire essay ....... perhaps the priest criticises men in it too. If there's anyone here who can read Italian and could translate the very small piece shown in the article, that would be great!

But the part that has outraged so many people is where he states that women wearing tight and provocative clothing only have themselves to blame if they get attacked or even killed by their partners. I feel very ambivalent about this. On the one hand I believe that everyone should be able to wear what they want, when they want; nobody should ever be attacked or abused in any way because of what they are wearing ....... BUT ....... at the same time it's no use pretending that what we wear has no effect on others. For women to believe they can walk down the street with hardly any flesh covered and think they will always be safe is simply naive at best, and yes, at worst provocative. Speaking very generally, it seems that men like women to look sexy, they like to have a sexy looking partner, BUT ...... when a woman in very little clothing is attacked there seems to be a collective shrug of the shoulders and a deafening silence(from men)., as if it was only to be expected.

I won't say any more for now ....... what do others think?

yes good old religion does it again why are these ****wits given a voice .is it because there represent an invisible entity.so santa should have a say as well.or the tooth fairy or the odd ghost .the sooner as a people we stop listening to these idiots the better.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder if abducted and murdered schoolgirl Amanda Dowler might be alive today, had she not worn the shortest skirt, highly inappropriate for a 13-year-old.

http://www.telegraph...er.html?image=3

.

Edited by acute alan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder if abducted and murdered schoolgirl Amanda Dowler might be alive today, had she not worn the shortest skirt, highly inappropriate for a 13-year-old.

http://www.telegraph...er.html?image=3

This is really tricky. 13yr old girls want to look as 'grown-up' as possible and this means copying older teens/20yr olds when they're dressed up for a night out. She may well have left home in the morning wearing a skirt of a very respectable length, but as she stepped through the school gates at the end of the school day the first thing she would do, as schoolgirls have done since the 60's, is repeatedly roll over the waist of her skirt until she felt it was at an acceptable length to her.

13yr old girls want to look grown-up and they want to attract the attention of boys ...... boys a few years older than them ...... most of the time it doesn't occur to them that not only are some older men 'perving' at them, but they(the men), may actually be taking it as a signal from the girl that she is interested in sex with them, with any man ...... 'why else would she be dressed like that?' is their thinking. Youth in itself is attractive, and perhaps it's as much the situation a girl finds/puts herself in(walking through a deserted park on her own), that is the catalyst for something bad to occur as it is the clothes she's wearing.

I really don't know how parents can impress upon their daughters how much they are at risk from the vile mindset of some men; impress upon them how important it is not to go anywhere with strangers, how important it is to stay with their friends and not go anywhere alone, and yes, to dress attractively but not provocatively.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just because something is true doesn't mean taking away a choice like what women wear away. It also doesn't make it more right to cause somebody harm because of it. Both sides are doing the exact same thing...... attacking women. Which is a dick move no matter how you look at it.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If men who act as predators were punished so severely that only the truly mentally disturbed were undeterred then there would be a huge dent made in this problem. This is just another evidence of the social fabric coming unwound due to a creeping lack of morality from each new generation. It started in the modern era in the '60s. And yeah, that's a judgement - we all still have a right to make those for ourselves.

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I really don't know how parents can impress upon their daughters how much they are at risk from the vile mindset of some men; impress upon them how important it is not to go anywhere with strangers, how important it is to stay with their friends and not go anywhere alone, and yes, to dress attractively but not provocatively.

My dad always told me that I would be treated by how I portrayed myself. If I dressed trashy, i would be treated like trash. I understand this way of thinking coming from a guy born in the 1930's....but, times have changed. Men need to take responsibility for their actions. No woman is looking for it or wants to be raped. Self control on the men's part is definitely needed. That being said,, It still talk to my daughter about how she can be perceived-thank god she is a tomboy!

Also, she has watched The Big Band Theory....I tell her that while Wolowitz is the one saying perverted things, they are all thinking it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly, the real issues are personal responsibility and self control. It's just so much easier to blame the victim.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What does it mean 'to dress provocatively'? Sounds like a phrase a man made up. Maybe people need to be more vocal telling men not to rape, rather than telling women how to dress.

Just saw this article on CNN "End the Culture of Rape in 2013". Somebody heard you Arbenol :tu: February 14th is being earmarked as the day of demonstrations in many diverse regions.

http://edition.cnn.com/2013/01/01/opinion/wolfe-end-rape-in-2013/index.html?hpt=hp_c2

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Honestly - how can anyone "reason" the notion that someone brings it upon themselves to be assaulted, raped and even killed? In what alternate absurd Universe do we get to blame someone else for our self-gratuitous self serving lusts and desires being more important than the physical and emotional well being of another soul?

Get real people, there is no middle ground on this issue. If a woman or child for whatever reason should (and I do mean regardless of reason - no qualifiers, give it up there is no excuse) find themselves naked in the company of the opposite sex EVEN THAT IS NOT AN INVITATION TO INFRINGE ON HER RIGHTS TO HER OWN BODY AND BEING to satisfy base desires that ORIGINATE INSIDE THE PERPETRATOR.

Take RESPONSIBILITY for the way you treat others - in EVERY instance, stop finding ways to fob off your accountability in banal attempts to get what you want out of life despite the cost to others.

When someone male or female is assaulted and infringed upon, it is not just them that suffers it is their families and friends and the rest of society who suffer under fear of similar attack and the absence of their right to freedom of expression - be it via fashion and/or the wish to experience freedom from social mores regarding how they present their body aka: tattoos, piercing, makeup, hairstyle, nudist beliefs, people have the right IN EVERY SINGLE INSTANCE to the sanctity of their own body, the right not to be touched in anyway against their wishes or will.

I rarely lose it, but this notion of holding others responsible for a person's incapacity to obey the law and respect the rights of others really sends me into a boil.

For those out there who think otherwise - grow up and take responsibility for YOUR ACTIONS stop justifying them via the perceived actions of others being the "cause", your selfish, greedy grubbing wish for gratification is the true and only real cause. Nuff said. <_< <_< <_< <_<

Do I have a right to wear a t-shirt that says "F--- all black people!" ? Do I have a right to wear a shirt with a Confederate flag on it in Philadelphia or Baltimore? Do I have a right to wear the Union Jack in the Republic of Ireland? An Ataturk-is-Gay shirt in Istanbul? Yeah I do, or at least I should, and black people, Irish, and Turks all have a civic duty to be responsible and not to break the law in response to seeing my shirt. But, it's still provocative clothing. It provokes bad behavior in who is viewing my clothes. Does this different example help it make sense? I know sometimes we have a bit of difficulty imagining the problem when certain clothing is worn by a woman. And of course women don't ask for rape. It's not to say that they're responsible for a criminal's behavior either. Maybe someone will feel offended by a child dressing like a prostitute, and why shouldn't they; and some pervert, God forbid, will feel horny looking at them. There are evil and dangerous people out there.

Adults can drink what they want, vote how they like, they should be able to dress how they want too. Not 13 year-olds.

Over two-thirds (67%) of all victims of sexual assault reported to law enforcement agencies, were juveniles (under the age of 18 at the time of the crime). More than half of all juvenile victims were under age 12. That is, 33% of all victims of sexual assault reported to law enforcement were ages 12 through 17 and 34% were under age 12. Most disturbing is that one of every seven victims of sexual assault ( or 14% of all victims) reported to law enforcement agencies were under age 6.

http://www.yellodyno.com/html/rape_stats.html

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do I have a right to wear a t-shirt that says "F--- all black people!" ? Do I have a right to wear a shirt with a Confederate flag on it in Philadelphia or Baltimore? Do I have a right to wear the Union Jack in the Republic of Ireland? An Ataturk-is-Gay shirt in Istanbul? Yeah I do, or at least I should, and black people, Irish, and Turks all have a civic duty to be responsible and not to break the law in response to seeing my shirt. But, it's still provocative clothing. It provokes bad behavior in who is viewing my clothes. Does this different example help it make sense? I know sometimes we have a bit of difficulty imagining the problem when certain clothing is worn by a woman. And of course women don't ask for rape. It's not to say that they're responsible for a criminal's behavior either. Maybe someone will feel offended by a child dressing like a prostitute, and why shouldn't they; and some pervert, God forbid, will feel horny looking at them. There are evil and dangerous people out there.

There is a huge and obvious difference between DELIBERATELY flamebaiting when you know you are offending with racist and discriminatory behaviour and whether or not a person is clothed fully, partially or not at all - NOTHING is an invitation to rape, stop trying to reason a way to blame the victim.

We need to stop pandering to the notion that the water is muddy on this issue, it simply is not.

I am glad you added the last bit - yes there are dangerous and evil people out there and people are victims of these types. That is all they are, they are not the cause of the behaviour.

Adults can drink what they want, vote how they like, they should be able to dress how they want too. Not 13 year-olds.

So you are suggesting that the absence of adult supervision or parental boundaries are placing juveniles in the position of "provoking" attacks. The young should be safe and free to explore boundaries without being sexualised in the minds of adults and susceptible to being victims of sick minds.

We need to deal with the sick minds and stop focusing on the innocent victims and all the ways they seem in some people's minds to "contribute" to what happened. Boundaries need to be set against the perpetrators not against the victims. It's so easy to turn it around and I think that is why it has remained such a huge stumbling block but it is a part of what is wrong here to turn it on the victim, it is a huge piece of the elephant in the room.

Over two-thirds (67%) of all victims of sexual assault reported to law enforcement agencies, were juveniles (under the age of 18 at the time of the crime). More than half of all juvenile victims were under age 12. That is, 33% of all victims of sexual assault reported to law enforcement were ages 12 through 17 and 34% were under age 12. Most disturbing is that one of every seven victims of sexual assault ( or 14% of all victims) reported to law enforcement agencies were under age 6.

http://www.yellodyno...rape_stats.html

That speaks to the sickness inside the perpetrators, to seek to violate what is pure and innocent in their eyes, to dominate and submit what is good into a condition of desolation and horror, it is about power over those perceived as the weak. It also speaks to the weakness of the perpetrators that they seek those that are powerless to fight back, these are cowards who would never face someone capable of meeting them on equal ground.

There is NOTHING in those statistics that point to the juveniles and youths being anything but victims of monsters.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a huge and obvious difference between DELIBERATELY flamebaiting when you know you are offending with racist and discriminatory behaviour and whether or not a person is clothed fully, partially or not at all - NOTHING is an invitation to rape, stop trying to reason a way to blame the victim.

We need to stop pandering to the notion that the water is muddy on this issue, it simply is not.

I am glad you added the last bit - yes there are dangerous and evil people out there and people are victims of these types. That is all they are, they are not the cause of the behaviour.

So you are suggesting that the absence of adult supervision or parental boundaries are placing juveniles in the position of "provoking" attacks. The young should be safe and free to explore boundaries without being sexualised in the minds of adults and susceptible to being victims of sick minds.

We need to deal with the sick minds and stop focusing on the innocent victims and all the ways they seem in some people's minds to "contribute" to what happened. Boundaries need to be set against the perpetrators not against the victims. It's so easy to turn it around and I think that is why it has remained such a huge stumbling block but it is a part of what is wrong here to turn it on the victim, it is a huge piece of the elephant in the room.

That speaks to the sickness inside the perpetrators, to seek to violate what is pure and innocent in their eyes, to dominate and submit what is good into a condition of desolation and horror, it is about power over those perceived as the weak. It also speaks to the weakness of the perpetrators that they seek those that are powerless to fight back, these are cowards who would never face someone capable of meeting them on equal ground.

There is NOTHING in those statistics that point to the juveniles and youths being anything but victims of monsters.

I'm not denying they're anything but victims of monsters. I'm also not denying that crime can be prevented.

How can you understand flamebaiting when a racist element is attached, or a nationalist element, or a political element, but not a sexual element? But not bonebaiting. Why does sex become the exception? How can you determine deliberation in my clothing while professing that I can't do the same? Maybe I borrowed that shirt from a friend...excuse me, but how do you know I'm as guilty as you just made me sound? How can you understand someone physically assaulting me for wearing something I have every right to wear just because YOU don't approve of it? Double standard?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The young should be safe and free to explore boundaries without being sexualised in the minds of adults and susceptible to being victims of sick minds.

Then whose minds should the young be sexualized in when they're outwardly expressing their sexuality? Their fellow young? Is that any deterrence to the crime? That's most likely whose going to rape them. Some other underage kid who absolutely should be responsible for his own behavior and actions but UNFORTUNATELY IS NOT. It is dangerous beyond reckless to have this presumptuous idealism of what young girls should be able to do without suffering the consequences when that isn't realistic at all looking at the data. Admitting something isn't advocating it; that's where I think you misunderstand my position here.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not exactly new to UM. I've been in the background as a non-member for the last year and a half, and while there are some things that boiled my blood, I never found them reason enough to make an account and leave my two-cents until today. How the Hades do people-- men for the most part-- think its okay to point fingers at the victim?! And why do we let these pervs back out after a few years in the joint? Whatever happened to my good man Ham's justice system, an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth? If rapists got it as bad as their victims, if they were humiliated and hurt like that, maybe there would be less of it. Maybe.

Thanks for listening to my rant. Here's to hoping this doesn't become my new habit.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is like blaming cupcakes for looking delicious for making someone fat, then making all cupcakes look like muffins.

5 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I firmly believe I should have every right to walk the streets of West Jerusalem in my King-Richard-the-Lionheart finest, or maybe some golden-trimmed Knight Templar. And before the fast and loose accusations come rolling in that I was somehow asking for it, excuse me, but that is an act of civil disobedience (arguably even that) to put the law to the test to see just how free that city's dress code really is. How dare anyone even vaguely imply that I was "flamebaiting" and deserved to get assaulted by some intolerant violent criminal idiot?

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is like blaming cupcakes for looking delicious for making someone fat, then making all cupcakes look like muffins.

And that is like rationalizing the mind of a rapist to be ridiculous when it was somehow supposed to be sensible. It IS ridiculous...as cupcakes and muffins, and worse.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And that is like rationalizing the mind of a rapist to be ridiculous when it was somehow supposed to be sensible. It IS ridiculous...as cupcakes and muffins, and worse.

Exactly. No two ways around it, it's a ridiculous 'solution' because it's just not gonna work. Rape isn't about sex, it's about power and control, this is Criminology 101 pretty much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly. No two ways around it, it's a ridiculous 'solution' because it's just not gonna work. Rape isn't about sex, it's about power and control, this is Criminology 101 pretty much.

Sexual power and control.

Do we need an example that's pure sex? Okay let's take prostitution. Are we going to deny that the way prostitutes dress somehow isn't provocative and doesn't invite male attention to initiate sexual activity? These aren't even rapists, these are just Johns. But the presumption remains ludicrous that dress doesn't affect the way people think just because it's purposefully entangled in gender-based stereotype or incidentally has a sexual component attached to it. Of course the clothing will work; it works every night in every city.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sexual power and control.

Do we need an example that's pure sex? Okay let's take prostitution. Are we going to deny that the way prostitutes dress somehow isn't provocative and doesn't invite male attention to initiate sexual activity? These aren't even rapists, these are just Johns. But the presumption remains ludicrous that dress doesn't affect the way people think just because it's purposefully entangled in gender-based stereotype or incidentally has a sexual component attached to it. Of course the clothing will work; it works every night in every city.

Yes, certain clothing can lead to certain thinking. But no clothing, in my mind, leads to forcible penetration just cause, oh my, you're wearing it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What does it mean 'to dress provocatively'? Sounds like a phrase a man made up. Maybe people need to be more vocal telling men not to rape, rather than telling women how to dress.

Yes, it probably was a man that made that phrase up and that's why women should take note! Your last sentence expresses a good idea, obviously, but living our day-to-day lives we have to be more realistic if we want to stay safe.

My dad always told me that I would be treated by how I portrayed myself. If I dressed trashy, i would be treated like trash. I understand this way of thinking coming from a guy born in the 1930's....but, times have changed. Men need to take responsibility for their actions. No woman is looking for it or wants to be raped. Self control on the men's part is definitely needed. That being said,, It still talk to my daughter about how she can be perceived-thank god she is a tomboy!

Also, she has watched The Big Band Theory....I tell her that while Wolowitz is the one saying perverted things, they are all thinking it.

What your dad said was not just a product of the 30's and men haven't changed that much. This is not to insult men, I'm accepting it as the way Nature made them ...... if you put the goods on show, men are going to take it as a hint. Most men would respond by flirting and see where that got them and this, I think, is the key: most men learn to take it a step at a time and keep observing the signals the woman is giving. Let's not forget that women need to have self-control too and not lead men on and tease them excessively(I can't believe I'm writing this ...... showing my age,lol!).

Exactly, the real issues are personal responsibility and self control. It's just so much easier to blame the victim.

You're absolutely right BUT ....... girls should be taught, and women need to remember that real life very rarely adheres to ideals.

Do I have a right to wear a t-shirt that says "F--- all black people!" ? Do I have a right to wear a shirt with a Confederate flag on it in Philadelphia or Baltimore? Do I have a right to wear the Union Jack in the Republic of Ireland? An Ataturk-is-Gay shirt in Istanbul? Yeah I do, or at least I should, and black people, Irish, and Turks all have a civic duty to be responsible and not to break the law in response to seeing my shirt. But, it's still provocative clothing. It provokes bad behavior in who is viewing my clothes. Does this different example help it make sense? I know sometimes we have a bit of difficulty imagining the problem when certain clothing is worn by a woman. And of course women don't ask for rape. It's not to say that they're responsible for a criminal's behavior either. Maybe someone will feel offended by a child dressing like a prostitute, and why shouldn't they; and some pervert, God forbid, will feel horny looking at them. There are evil and dangerous people out there.

Adults can drink what they want, vote how they like, they should be able to dress how they want too. Not 13 year-olds.

Over two-thirds (67%) of all victims of sexual assault reported to law enforcement agencies, were juveniles (under the age of 18 at the time of the crime). More than half of all juvenile victims were under age 12. That is, 33% of all victims of sexual assault reported to law enforcement were ages 12 through 17 and 34% were under age 12. Most disturbing is that one of every seven victims of sexual assault ( or 14% of all victims) reported to law enforcement agencies were under age 6.

http://www.yellodyno...rape_stats.html

Thank you for all your posts .... I agree with them wholeheartedly!

This is like blaming cupcakes for looking delicious for making someone fat, then making all cupcakes look like muffins.

Umm no, it isn't!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.