Arguments Against Stalk

“DO I LOOK PROVOCATIVE IN THIS?” Each year approximately 85,000 women in the UK are raped. 44% of victims are under the age of 18 and 80% are under the age of 30. In America each year there is an average of 293,066 victims (age 12 or older) of rape and sexual assault.
Both men and women, boys and girls are told from a young age to be careful of sexual predators. However, it is predominately only women who are told to dress “safely” in order to not attract “the wrong attention” and by wrong attention society means rapists or sexual assaulters.
Unfortunately, we live in a world where the way women dress is routinely mentioned as a provocation to rape. A woman’s outfit is often used during a rape trial to discredit her reputation and suggest she is the “sort of woman” unlikely to refuse consent to sex. The obnoxious references to tight fitted fabrics, low-cut tops, miniskirts, high heels and liberally applied makeup are disappointingly a common factor in the context of rape trials.
In April 2011 the first protest march called “SlutWalk” happened in Toronto, Ontario. The “SlutWalk” is a transitional movement of protest marchers calling an end to rape culture. Specifically, participants protest against explaining or excusing rape by referring to any aspect of a woman’s appearance. The protests started after a police officers from Toronto
suggested that “women should avoid dressing like sluts as a precaution against sexual assault.” The subsequent marches have occurred all over the world. In the walks the marchers who are predominantly young women dress up as “sluts” in revealing, sexy attire such a short skirts, stockings and lacy bed-wear outfits. Some women also carry signs saying:

What about Opposing Views?
The SlutWalk, whilst standing up for women’s rights concerning clothing created some very controversial reactions and opinions. Brother Dean Saxton is an open air preacher of the gospel at the University of Arizona, Tuscon. He strongly believes that women are to blame for their own rape. Brother Dean Saxton spends a lot of time on the University of Arizona campus “slut shaming”. Saxton is a student at UA and the resident campus preacher. His main way of preaching is standing around with signs telling people they deserve to be raped. Saxton believes any woman who dresses provocatively and gets intoxicated (with alcohol or drugs) is partially if not completely to blame for their rape.
What About Views That Aren’t As Strong As Saxton?
Other people believe that there is nothing wrong with a woman or girl wanting to look pretty and appealing to others of all genders. However, these days a young woman is likely to equate the idea of looking pretty with the idea of looking sexy. It is almost impossible anymore for “sexy” not to get immediately translated into “is available for sex.” This therefore becomes the problem, of course not of the woman dressing “pretty” or “sexily” but of how a lot of young men are going to interpret a woman’s “sexy” look — because boys and men, just like girls and women, have also been deeply affected by the radical sexualizing of our culture.
How Has Our Culture Become So Sexualised?
Sexualisation is making something sexual in character or quality, or to become aware of sexuality and especially in relation to men and women. Sexualisation is very much so linked to sexual objectification. Sexualisation has also been a subject of debate for academics who work in media and cultural studies. There has not been a term to label the social problem but there has been an increase in sex becoming more visible in media and culture.
Who Are The Big Names That Contribute?
American Apparel is known for their hyper sexualised advertisement campaigns and are possibly one of the biggest clothing contributors to our sexualised culture.
Following the most recent events of American Apparel’s latest ad campaign was officially banned by watchdogs, the controversial company founded in 1989 by Canadian businessman Dov Charney, American Apparel has been a continual source of criticism and debate. The founder himself has been sued for sexual harassment and subsequently fired by his own company. In the survey that I conducted, I asked women and men what they thought of American Apparel’s most sexualised
adverts.
It is very ironic how American Apparel’s ads usually have very little features of their clothes, in fact the photos sometimes cross the line into nudity and could be argued to be pornographic. Is it truly necessary for the woman modelling tights to be topless? 62% of people said that the items of clothing and photographs were provocative and 87% of people said they thought the advert campaigns were not acceptable and were promoting sex. American Apparel’s ads portray women as vehicles for sex rather than as human beings. They promote a rape culture in which women are not the moral agents in charge of their sexuality.
More worryingly, the sexual harassment allegations that emerged against the company’s founder, Dov Charney, in 2005, which, if are not enough to make your skin crawl, will make you feel physically sick. In 2011, a former employee accused Charney of forcing her to be his sex slave when she was 17. The allegations didn’t stop there, a journalist Claudine Cho reported in her 2004 profile of Charney – which he would openly masturbate during their interviews. Charney’s view "I think sex motivates everything," pretty much sums up what sort of company he wants to run.
However, despite all the controversy, 50% of people who answered my survey said that American Apparel’s ad campaigns were both liberating and objectifying women. Some may argue, that the ad campaigns may be pushing a feminist agenda and that the photographs are actually promoting women being liberated and are celebrating their bodies.
Earlier in 2015 I conducted a survey on what women thought of the phrase “provocative clothing” and the stigma behind it. 88.9% of women who answered the survey said that they have been told before not to wear an item of clothing because it looks “provocative” and 80% of women said that the comment offends them greatly and wish they hadn’t been told that. I know I can confidently say that I have been told not to wear an item of clothing because it looks provocative and the statement made me too feel offended and even more worryingly supressed.
A case in Florida in 1989 was a striking instance in which not only was the victim's clothing introduced into evidence in the case but, it was a crucial piece of the defence’s argument.
Along with a lot of other women, I find the concept of women having to change the way they dress in order to protect themselves from sexual predators is inexcusable. Surely the sexual predators should have full responsibility of the rape and clothing should not be a factor in court. Sexual violence is not about sex – that’s a myth! Whether the victim of assault was wearing wearing a short skirt or track-suit bottoms, it doesn’t and shouldn’t make a difference, because sexual assault is about exerting power and control over someone else. Clothes are not a risk factor. The only risk factor is the presence of a rapist. The issue is about perpetrators not being able control themselves around women dressed in revealing clothing. Not women dressed “provocatively”.