Sexual Harassment in Cosplay

[Serephino]

What is ideal, and what is are different things.  I guess I'm just a realist when it comes to such things.  I was talking to my boyfriend about this.  He used to volunteer for a womens' self defense class.  The instructor told these women to be aware of how they dress to help protect themselves.  Not that it makes it okay, but if a horny drunk guy that doesn't care if the girl is willing or not sees two women; one in a nice pair of jeans, and another in a mini skirt and thong, he's going to go for the one in the mini skirt.  She's easier to undress, and he can justify it to himself that she wouldn't show that much skin if she didn't want it.  Is it fair?  No.  Will being more self aware help keep you safe?  Yes.

Personal responsibility is a two-way street.  Ideally, these men shouldn't do stuff like that, but they do.  Why encourage it?  I saw a batgirl costume the other day that was nothing but a corset and leather panties.  I'm not positive, but I don't think batgirl looked like that in the comic books, so if you want to your costume to be authentic there are better costumes out there.

Some of those sexy female characters, I'm pretty sure they were made to be eye candy.  If you dress up like that you are making yourself a sex object.  If you make yourself a sex object, odds are you are going to get treated like one.  Women, and men, being able to dress however they want with no consequence works great in the land of unicorns and bugbears, but doesn't work out well on earth.  Again, is it fair?  No, but it is something for you to think about before you put on that costume.

All that said, yes, there is a difference between cat calls, and stalkerish behavior.  That guy with the camera just sounds creepy to me, and I don't know why that girl even bothered talking to him.

[Pumpkin Seeds]

I agree that the ideal and reality often don’t ever match.  Ideally people would like women to have control over whether they are raped or not.  In an ideal world a woman would have the power to avoid sexual harassment and assault, but the reality is far from that truth.  The words of that self-defense instructor surprise me since the classes I have taken involved being aware of surroundings, not being aware of how I must look to everyone else.  Not going down a dark alley is a long way from don’t wear that outfit in terms of personal responsibility for my safety. Also the words are extremely ineffective as a Federal Commission on Violence discovered 4.4% of rape victims were considered to be involved in “provocative” behavior.  Keep in mind that rape occurred even in times where clothing was a lot more restrictive and conservative than today.   

[Serephino]

Obviously that wasn't all the instructor taught them.  The idea was basically to try and not make yourself a target.  Not walking down dark alleys, checking under your car, and using the buddy system are also part of it.  Skimpy clothing is meant to make you attractive to men and arouse them, and it works.  I can't speak for the rest of the world, but around here most rapes that occur involve a woman in provocative clothing leaving a bar alone.  I don't know about you, but if not showing a lot of cleavage and taking a friend with me will keep me safe, then that's what I'll do.   

[consortium11]

As far as I'm aware there's been no correlation (let alone causation) found between the manner of someone's dress and the likelihood of them being raped (and there's been many attempts to find one). Matters become more murky when "simple" physical sexual assaults (and I don't intend that word to be disparaging but simply to indicate the difference between something that is essentially rape by another name and acts more akin to groping) and verbal sexual harassment; I believe from the studies I've seen that dress can affect the likelihood to be essentially groped and to be the target of often crude sexual comments made. Moreover, as Pumpkin Seeds states very few reported rapes or sexual assaults actually involve "provocative" clothing or behaviour.

That said one of the aspects I dislike about the way that the theory of rape culture has been presented to me is that it throws all advice relating to how to minimise the chances of rape and/or sexual assault together as part of the enabling rape culture. I understand the logic; it shouldn't be up to the potential victim (male or female) to change what they do to avoid rape/sexual assault it should be up to the person doing it to simply not. I understand why it's an issue with regards to clothing; there's no evidence that covering up makes you any safer (or to put it better, dressing in a more risqué manner makes you more vulnerable). But is suggesting that people don't get so drunk they cannot control themselves, don't got off with people they don't know, don't go into strange areas of town etc etc really continuing to maintain the "rape culture" or is it sensible advice that everyone should take to avoid any manner of ills befalling them?

On-topic I've never been to a convention of that sort and so really can't comment on expected etiquette. There will always be issues where what one person considers light-hearted conversation/"banter"/flirting will either be misconstrued or simply cause offence in and of itself. However in general I think simply experiencing human interaction means that most people should have rough ideas of what's acceptable. I doubt too many people would take offence at "You look amazing"" or "I love that outfit!" and even more crude approaches "God you look sexy!" will probably be OK. However if you're talking to a stranger and an early part of the conversation goes along the lines of "Damn you have great tits! How big are they?" or even worse "God you look sexy... I want to wear your thighs for earmuffs" I think the best you could ever reasonably expect is a chilling glance and the conversation ending quickly.

Dressed as she was, should this lady have reasonably expected attention... and a fair amount of it? Yes. It would be simply bizarre for her not to. Should she have expected comments? Again yes... if nothing else because it looks to be a very good costume even without the inherent sexual nature of it. Should she have expected... and more importantly have to put up with... crude, banal comments like the one from the so called interviewer and her posse? No, clearly not... and she was right to expose it.

[Trieste]

Self defense has more to do with body language and area awareness than personal dress. Every self defense lecture and/or class I have been in on has included mention of how a stiletto heel makes a fantastic weapon if you happen to be wearing one.

The idea that sexual assault has to do with arousal is bullshit - it has long been about power, and arousal often has little-to-nothing to do with it. That pretty much belongs in the realm of rape fantasies. And possibly also unicorns and bugbears.

[Moraline]

Trieste is correct.

Rape is a control act.

The assaulter will attack anyone that looks meek and helpless because they are the easiest to control. Which is why often elderly women, children, and demure ladies are the victims of these crimes. This is the only fact on sexual assault and victim choice.

The other type of victim from the most common form of rape (date rape,) is someone that is known and the assaulter has assaulted them as a means of controlling something in the social dynamic that they cannot otherwise control.

Rape is not a sex act accept in fantasy play.

[Inari]

What I was taught in self-defense is that my body is a weapon as was my attacker's. I was never to use my own body as a weapon unless my life was in serious danger. Until then I was to use my attacker's body against them and cause pain enough that they will lose the will to fight me. But before it even got to that I was to warn them three times and yell "Fire" because "Help" no longer works, when you need to draw attention. We were told nothing about how we dressed, just that our bodies were weapons that we were not to use unless we had to.

When I did a little bit of wrestling I was taught you can turn any position into one of taking down your attacker. So if you are on the floor use your legs to take out their's. Since a normal person wouldn't know how to counter turn-about moves.

Also I never where skimpy clothing and someone tried to attack me. Luckily, for me I managed to disable them and get away. Sadly, some woman, no matter how much self-defense they are taught, aren't always quick to think on their feet. Sparing and heat of the minute improv is awkward for some to adjust to. A real attack is faster than sparing... unless you reach the higher ranks. x.x

So to be told "To help stop it dress in non skimpy stuff" is just stupid. Also checking under one's car will put you in more danger simply because your attack could take that as very dangerous opening. I was taught to NEVER have your back to your attacker and to keep yourself closed. The walking down ally ways is pretty much common sense. Unfortunately, it is amazing now much some people lack common sense. :(

But Moraline is right. Rape is about control over another and in some cases, total humiliation. (Another reason victims can't come forward is because their bodies react against their will and they feel ashamed.)

[RedEve]

Obviously that wasn't all the instructor taught them.  The idea was basically to try and not make yourself a target.  Not walking down dark alleys, checking under your car, and using the buddy system are also part of it.  Skimpy clothing is meant to make you attractive to men and arouse them, and it works.  I can't speak for the rest of the world, but around here most rapes that occur involve a woman in provocative clothing leaving a bar alone.  I don't know about you, but if not showing a lot of cleavage and taking a friend with me will keep me safe, then that's what I'll do.   

The theory that rapists target women who dress provocatively has been disproven decades ago. People need to realize that the psychological make-up of a real rapist is different from that of a sexually healthy male.

[Inari]

As far as I am concerned it more about the self control. Much like an addict; rapists have a problem with self control/restraint.

[RedEve]

As far as I am concerned it more about the self control. Much like an addict; rapists have a problem with self control/restraint.

The real rapist, who has a high percentage chance of relapse when returned to society, will actively look for his victims, there will be very little "opportunity" or "lack of restraint" about his crimes.

We're not talking about douchebags who get girls drunk to then take advantage of their inebriated state, I'm talking about the "drag into the bushes and threaten with violence" type predators.

[TaintedAndDelish]

Trieste is correct.

Rape is a control act.

...

Rape is not a sex act accept in fantasy play.

I have a hard time accepting this. For one thing, people are not that black and white, for another, I have a hard time believing that a person would be able to get a boner and rape someone if there was absolutely no sexual element to the act at all. Yes, they could jerk off to get hard, but its hard to get hard and stay hard if your mind is preoccupied, if not flooded with nonsexual things.  If the rapist is not sexually aroused by aspects of the rape, then what is occupying his mind when he gets aroused? Is he blocking the whole rape thing out so he can focus on memories of naked women so he can get off? I doubt it, but I'm not a rapist, so I really don't know.

The article below discusses some of the murkiness about control vs sexual motivation regarding various kinds of rape.

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-human-beast/201104/is-rape-about-control-or-sex

Tying this back into the topic, who's to say that sex isn't one of the rapist's motivations even if only a secondary motivation? For clarity, I'm not in any way trying to suggest that provocative dress or behavior is causation, but rather, exceptionally provocative dress/attire might put one at a slightly higher risk of being targeted for various unwanted behavior - comments, actions, whatever IF the aggressor is at least partially motivated by sex.

[Trieste]

I can probably buy arousal as a secondary effect of the power thing - someone getting off on control. Or it could be something as simple as thinking "I'm going to fuck this woman" and getting a boner. I have intimate knowledge of boners from an outside perspective but none from an inside perspective.  ::) But if the primary impetus is power, control, intimidation, whatever, it does stand to reason that body language matters a whole hell of a lot more than actual appearance - and the data supports this.

I'm not a psychologist. I honestly don't know the mind-workings of it or how sex plays into it (and I admit to not clicking that article, Tainted, although I intend to come back and read it later) but it's possible that someone else has more insight into it around here.

The real rapist, who has a high percentage chance of relapse when returned to society, will actively look for his victims, there will be very little "opportunity" or "lack of restraint" about his crimes.

We're not talking about douchebags who get girls drunk to then take advantage of their inebriated state, I'm talking about the "drag into the bushes and threaten with violence" type predators.

Not sure if you're addressing what I said about opportunistic rapes, but, erm, they are. 90% of rapes are acquaintance rapes (USDOJ) and between 60% and 70% of acquaintance rapes are opportunistic, not planned (ADFS, sourcing from the FBI I think). The majority of rapes are opportunistic assaults. Recidivism in rapists (specifically for rape; the percentage is higher for crime in general) has been repeatedly proved in several countries since the 70s to hover between 6% and 10%. So essentially the data says that roughly 9 out of 10 rapists rape when given the chance and then won't do it again... the remaining 1 guy out of 10 is a serial rapist and plans it out.

The idea that rapists have a problem with impulse control is quite possible - rapists released from incarceration are likely to be rearrested within about 3-5 years for other crimes. About 50% of those will be violent crimes (battery, domestic violence, whatever). It's just the idea that rapists have a problem with sexual impulse control that's bullshit. It's more likely that they are more generally impulsive, doing things without thinking when the opportunity presents itself.

[Pumpkin Seeds]

Well an erection is not necessarily an indicator of sexual arousal just as the lack of an erection is not an indicator for being sexually disinterested.  An erection is part of a bodily process whereby blood engorges the penis.  Men may show an erection during periods of excitement, fear, confusion and any other variety of emotions.  One situation that both male and female nurses are told to expect is of a man gaining an erection during any physical examination, not just one of the genitals.  Explicitly nursing students are told this is not an indicator of arousal but simply a bodily reaction.  Men that suffer from erectile dysfunction can certainly attest to being aroused without an erection due to a problem with the blood flow to the genitals.  At the core an erection is simply a biomechanical act in response to the body’s alterations of blood flow.

The article linked is in reference to date rape and even the article points toward the unusual nature of date rape when applied to the evolutionary theory of rape.  A date rapist does not fit what was once thought to be the standard profile of a rapist.  Someone who commits date rape has shown an ability to get a date, typically possesses enough education and monetary status to attend college and is of a higher social class as the article points out.  So these people are able to acquire dates that could potentially lead toward sexual intimacy, but instead make the choice to push for rape.  This shows a desire to remove power from the other person for self-gratification, not simply a desire to have sex.

Also, a look at modern techniques for rape prevention shows an emphasis toward engaging in power play with the rapist.  Previous methods encouraged a woman to simply accept the rape, not to fight back for fear of harm and to quietly take the assault before retreating.  Current methods encourage a woman to look her attacker in the face thereby putting forth a display of power, physically fighting back against the attacker with nails and teeth if need be and making as much noise as possible by screaming Fire (Fire being one of the few words that passersby will actually respond to hearing.  Bomb is another one).  These techniques have shown to reduce female mortality and even rape pointing toward the rapist being an attacker of opportunity and someone wanting their power accepted, not challenged.

[Cyrano Johnson]

The fact that power, dominance and submission plays a role in sex generally has complicated things for the proposal that rape is a "crime of power" rather than sex. But dominance and submission are not equally important in sexuality as a whole. It's a spectrum, and the distinction that the original proposer of the "power vs. sex" formula had in mind is easy enough to capture by thinking of rape as a set of behaviours clustered toward the end of that spectrum where dominance and control has crossed the line into assuming more importance than consent of the partner.

In part of this spectrum, rape can remain very much a "sexual" act perpetrated on an object of desire -- but is then far more likely to be perpetrated between people who know each other, which in fact is the case with most sexual assault. At the extreme end of the spectrum, dominance and control assume such exaggerated importance as to be indistinguishable from arousal; this is closer to the "pure" power-play, crime-of-violence model that feminists originally had in mind. The reason the "skimpy clothing will get you raped" meme is held (correctly) to be a myth is that where someone actually works up the nerve to take the extreme risk of raping a stranger, they are a lot likelier in most situations to be the second form of rapist (or the situation itself is a fucked-up and generally violent one: a warzone or a prison or the 1994 Woodstock concert). Moreover, even where this isn't strictly the case, there are actually few forms of clothing that are conservative enough to totally nullify a woman's body as an object of desire -- unless one is actually willing to tell women to go about in robes or burqas -- so telling women they can avoid rape by "not dressing like [whatever the speaker defines as] a slut" is both offering a completely false confidence and putting the onus on the wrong people. Not to mention reinforcing the invidious, rapist-mentality notion that somone's access to human rights should be inversely proportional to the amount of skin they're showing.

[Cyrano Johnson]

Current methods encourage a woman to look her attacker in the face thereby putting forth a display of power, physically fighting back against the attacker with nails and teeth if need be and making as much noise as possible by screaming Fire (Fire being one of the few words that passersby will actually respond to hearing.  Bomb is another one).

Wait, what.

Passersby will actually not respond to the word Rape?

Ye gods, how depressing.

[Avis habilis]

They'll actively move away from any sort of cry for help. Nobody wants to get involved. Fire, on the other hand, everybody wants to come see.

[consortium11]

The real rapist, who has a high percentage chance of relapse when returned to society, will actively look for his victims, there will be very little "opportunity" or "lack of restraint" about his crimes.

We're not talking about douchebags who get girls drunk to then take advantage of their inebriated state, I'm talking about the "drag into the bushes and threaten with violence" type predators.

I'm not sure I like this term. Put simply the vast majority of rapes don't include being dragged into the bushes by a stranger and threatened by violence; the vast majority are done by an acquaintance of the victim.

In addition if there are "real rapists" then there are must be rapists who are not "real"... which indicates they don't commit "real" rape. Intentionally on your part or not that seems quite callous towards those who are victims of date rape, a situation where a man simply doesn't respect the word "no", rapes by someone in a position of authority or any host of other situations which don't correspond with your "real rape" example as well as minimising the acts of those sorts of rapists.

[RedEve]

I think a better categorization would be the likelihood of recidivism.

The "real" rapist is the one who is psychological compelled to commit the act regardless of context or circumstance.

[Avis habilis]

I think a better categorization would be the likelihood of recidivism.

The "real" rapist is the one who is psychological compelled to commit the act regardless of context or circumstance.

So consortium's right - you don't consider a guy who refuses to take no for an answer because "I bought you dinner didn't I" a rapist?

He's not compelled. Nothing is controlling his mind. No alien parasite has taken control of his body. He just thinks he's entitled to make use of a woman's body to get off whether she likes it or not.

He's still a rapist sack of shit.

[RedEve]

So consortium's right - you don't consider a guy who refuses to take no for an answer because "I bought you dinner didn't I" a rapist?

He's not compelled. Nothing is controlling his mind. No alien parasite has taken control of his body. He just thinks he's entitled to make use of a woman's body to get off whether she likes it or not.

He's still a rapist sack of shit.

I do consider him a rapist, just not in the same category as the aforementioned serial offender. The difference is that I believe there is still a chance to rehabilitate and re-educate the so called date rapist. The pathological rapist is unlikely to be changed.

[Oniya]

They'll actively move away from any sort of cry for help. Nobody wants to get involved. Fire, on the other hand, everybody wants to come see.

A fire or a bomb is something that threatens their well-being.  A cry for help, and it's almost certain that they will assume that 'someone else will step up'.

[Inari]

The only time categorization should come into rape is when sexual intercourse with a minor is involved. Any other time it should not because that would just trivialize rape. In the UK a boy of 16 got convicted of rape when his girlfriend's parents found out they had been having sex. Now, because she was 15 he got put on the sexual offenders list (The one pedophiles get placed on.) and had to serve 5 years in prison. To me that isn't right and I think the laws should change so they go something like you see in Canada.

A fire or a bomb is something that threatens their well-being.  A cry for help, and it's almost certain that they will assume that 'someone else will step up'.

Plus you get so many children yelling and screaming help and teens yelling rape that no one really pays attention any more.

[Callie Del Noire]

The only time categorization should come into rape is when sexual intercourse with a minor is involved. Any other time it should not because that would just trivialize rape. In the UK a boy of 16 got convicted of rape when his girlfriend's parents found out they had been having sex. Now, because she was 15 he got put on the sexual offenders list (The one pedophiles get placed on.) and had to serve 5 years in prison. To me that isn't right and I think the laws should change so they go something like you see in Canada.
Plus you get so many children yelling and screaming help and teens yelling rape that no one really pays attention any more.

Yeah..there are a few cases of this sort of thing in the media here in the US. Guys who were a few months/year older than their girls. As soon as he aged above the limit the parents report him.

There was one article I read where the guy got 4 YEARS in prison because of it.. and the girl stayed loyal. After they were 21, they moved in ..then he spent YEARS in fear while his child was growing up that he'd get into trouble with his parole officer because of being on the offender list. Then having to muddle through life as a menial laborer because he couldn't work everywhere.

I think the article writer mentioned the girl hadn't talked to her parents in two decades.. and he STILL can't go to any events like soccer that his girls play in. All because he and his girl friend were doing the SAME thing kids had done forever before the list. He was lucky that the girl stood by him..becasue.. otherwise his life has been ruined. Lost a scholarship, has been crapped on for two decades.. had to live in a trailer on the other side of his yard for a while (like 2 years) while his parole period ran out during his 2nd child's early years.

The offender's list IS a useful thing..but it needs review and reassement in some cases. Giving your guy/girl sex shouldn't be a reason to put it on there.

[Trieste]

The real rapist, who has a high percentage chance of relapse when returned to society, will actively look for his victims, there will be very little "opportunity" or "lack of restraint" about his crimes.

We're not talking about douchebags who get girls drunk to then take advantage of their inebriated state, I'm talking about the "drag into the bushes and threaten with violence" type predators.

I think a better categorization would be the likelihood of recidivism.

The "real" rapist is the one who is psychological compelled to commit the act regardless of context or circumstance.

I do consider him a rapist, just not in the same category as the aforementioned serial offender. The difference is that I believe there is still a chance to rehabilitate and re-educate the so called date rapist. The pathological rapist is unlikely to be changed.

I've been trying to figure out where you're going with this series of statements. It's depressing to see 'real rapist' brought up, but I'm moving past it with the assumption that you didn't mean it that way. We all put our feet in our mouths from time to time. :)

However, I think you've put your finger on a perception that feeds into some of the misconceptions about rape and sexual assault. If there is to be considered a so-called real rapist, the numbers show that he is overwhelmingly someone the victim knows. Alcohol, not Rohypnol or GHB, is the most common date rape drug. I think that a lot of women don't want to believe that their rapist is:

Someone they know, and possibly are attracted to.
Someone they would date.
Someone who might share mutual friends, or move in the same social circles.
Someone they will have to face again.
Someone who might defend themselves, not only to the authorities but to friends and family.
Someone they might have trusted.
Someone they might have liked.
Someone they might have loved.

That guy is the common rapist. That guy, right there in that list, is the man that women need to protect themselves most against. The one who drags people into the bushes is very nearly nonexistent. The multitude of women that are raped every year will have to worry about their friend, their boyfriend, a classmate, a coworker, a boss. Not only does focusing on Mister Bushes as a 'real' rapist defy the numbers, it does a disservice to women who are seeking to educate and protect themselves. Focusing on a phantom guy who has a miniscule chance of being one's attacker is not only wrong because it is incorrect, but it is also wrong because it teaches women to look out for the wrong kind of rapist.

[gaggedLouise]

Current methods encourage a woman to look her attacker in the face thereby putting forth a display of power, physically fighting back against the attacker with nails and teeth if need be and making as much noise as possible by screaming Fire (Fire being one of the few words that passersby will actually respond to hearing.  Bomb is another one).

Yelling "Fire!" if one is actively being assaulted and rape seems around the corner sounds like a dubious idea to me. I agree the word's been so overused in pranks that people would either not get what it was about or even respond in a very cross way when it turned out that there was no such thing as a fire going on. I don't think someone who was being attacked in the street or at a party would call out "RAPE! RAPE!" either - more likely she* would be kicking, saying "get off me you scum!" and the like. "Help!" would be kind of more likely than "Rape!"

Just adding that, as Trie is implying, it would be useless if the rape occurs at home or (probably also) on the job.

If I (as a non-op transwoman) was forced down myself by a gang of guys and made to suck them off or otherwise used, I would shout "HELP!!" or "Lay off you bastards!" - definitely not "FIRE!"

*yes, men can be raped but outsiode of jails it almost never happens in an assault way, by direct overpowering.