Politician highlights dangers associated with provocative clothing

A politician belonging to the Conservative Party in the UK has spoken out about the dangers associated with women who dress provocatively and the fact that such outfits make women more vulnerable to sexual assault.

The politician is right, but this cold, hard fact is something that feminists go to great lenghts to suppress.

One such feminist was on the Stephen Nolan radio show in Northern Ireland today. Her name is Kate Smurthwaite and Mrs.White had the opportunity to confront her, by telephoning the programme.

The heated exchange between Kate Smurthwaite and Mrs.White can be heard for the next seven days, by clicking on the following link,

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01qbqvx

The debate begins at 11.24 minutes,  Mrs.White can be heard at 23.54,  and callers respond to Mrs.White’s contribution at 35.26

13 thoughts on “Politician highlights dangers associated with provocative clothing

  1. Who gives anyone the right to tell women what they can or cannot wear? I don’t hear of anyone saying to men that they can only dress a certain way.

  2. Hermoine,
    I don’t think it is a matter of “can wear,” rather it is a matter of “should you wear?” Women who dress provocatively just advance the idea that they are nothing more than sex toys.

  3. Overall, I would say that Joanna Lumley was the least silly in her utterances, followed by Mrs White, followed by the Tory MP, followed Kate Smurthwaite, who was the silliest of all those listed.

    I wouldn’t expect most types of rapes would be significantly more likely. What *is* almost bound to be more likely though, is unwanted sexual touching, by somebody who hopes that this will be welcomed, or at least tolerated. That, I am quite sure, is an increased risk that women face, if they dress immodestly and get blind drunk.

    However, being drunk in public to the point of nearing unconsciousness, wearing next to nothing, might increase the risk of one particular type of rape.

    If not resisted, unwanted sexual touching could lead on to the particular type of rape that I am alluding to. In such rapes, the woman’s drunken euphoria and passivity, conveys a false impression of consent to, and appreciation of, the unwanted sexual touching. But the woman is legally incapable of consent, by reason of her intoxication.

    The jury, finding these these facts, also agrees with the prosecutor that the perpetrator should have realised that the woman was too drunk to consent to sexual intercourse. Perhaps he didn’t realise it because he was drunk himself. Or perhaps he did realise it eventually, but continued sexual touching and began intercourse, or continued sexual intercourse, after realising that the victim was too drunk to consent. Perhaps he thought mistakenly that it was legal to have sex with a woman who was not only too drunk to say “yes”, but also too drunk to say “no” either. In any of these three cases, I believe caselaw establishes that the judge would direct the jury to find the defendant guilty of rape.

    I do believe that there have been those who have raped women who were drunk, when they were drunk themselves, at the end of an evening’s dancing and drinking, and when those women were wearing what they had danced in, which was next to nothing, and had passed out from the alcohol in the “rapists'” own beds. I do not think that is incorrect that in such cases, the offender’s punishment is less severe than in other cases of rape. The same judge who sternly directs the jury to convict in a case like this, would be mean not to take into account the mitigating factors.

    Finally, the less one is going to need to undress a woman in order to rape her, the physically easier raping her is going to become. Not being somebody with a rape hobby myself, I have no way of knowing whether the increased prospects of success so reduce the anticipated enjoyment of the attempt, that the overall effect of under-dressing is, counter-intuitively, to reduce one’s chances of being raped by a hobby rapist.

    I hope that we can all agree that both today’s culture, AND the bible, are against rape, and that if Steve Chalke or anybody else dares to suggest otherwise, this time we WILL confiscate his evangelical credentials summarily, and that those here who hate evangelicals the most (you know who you are!) will applaud the conservatives for once, for doing so.

    • Allman, I think you are a weird individual. The amount of detail you go into regarding how to commit a rape ‘for enjoyment’ tells me you spend too much time thinking about such things. You give me the creeps – honestly.

      • Are we here to discuss whether and why and how and when a woman’s under-dressing and being drunk in public increases or not, her risk of being raped? We could, instead, continue to shout politically correct, or politically incorrect, remarks at one another, and call one another names, like those in the broadcast in which Mrs White participated. But the pointlessness of that argument on the radio, is that none of those who joined in it seemed willing to discuss whether and why and how and when a woman’s under-dressing and being drunk in public might increases her risk of being raped.

        I seldom give any thought at all to the question of whether under-dressing and public drunkenness affects a woman’s chances of being raped. But it seems fairly pointless participating in such a discussion, if one is prone to getting “the creeps” just because that is the subject matter to be considered.

      • What are you talking about? My post was “unnecessarily graphic”? There is nothing in my post more “graphic” than the expressions “sexual touching”, “sexual intercourse” and “undress”.

        The topic is whether a certain tory MP was completely right, or completely wrong, or somewhere in between, in suggesting that certain behaviours made it more likely that a woman would become a victim of sexual assault or rape. How on earth can we discuss that topic, without mentioning sexual touching, sexual intercourse, or undressing?

        • Mr.Allman,

          We believe the comments from you and other commenters are straying off topic and therefore, we do not think it is profitable to approve any more comments on the topic of the MP’s remarks, unless the comments specifically address the possible link between provocative dress and assaults on women. Whilst we understand the points you raised, your views have proved controversial (as evidenced by some commenters whose comments we have not approved.) We believe that the topic of provocative clothing can be discussed without mentioning sexual activity.

    • Nicole, thank you for your lofty, well-thought-out, intellectual response! By the way, perhaps you would kindly translate that foreign word “numpty” but ONLY if it is not rude.

  4. It means ‘silly person’ and that is putting it mildly, you are all about women being at fault. Don’t teach women how to dress or behave, teach men not to rape! but I guess for people like you it is far more in keeping with your attitudes to target women as the source of the problem, as you normally do.

    • @ Nicole

      “you are all about women being at fault”

      That’s as silly as saying that the public information films one sees on the television during commercial breaks, advising the public to fit door chains, and to ask unexpected visitors who claim to have come to read the gas meter for ID before letting them into our homes, are “all about” the victims of confidence tricksters and burglars being “at fault”.

      To paraphrase the rest of your “numpty” post, “Don’t teach householders how to avoid being burgled, teach burglars not to burgle premises! But I guess for people like you it is far more in keeping with your attitudes to target householders as the source of the problem, as you normally do.”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s