Louise O Neill on rape culture.

mzungu wrote: »

That was my reading of what was meant and I am open to correction by the poster if I misread it.

Nope, you read it perfectly.

midlandsmissus wrote: »

Why is it always discussed about women dressing too provocatively. I have never ever heard anyone say about men dressing too provocatively.

You don't hear it being said of men too often because men don't dress to titillate to the degree that women do and if a man were to do it he would most like be having the crack, like Sacha Baron Cohen for example or they would be honest about why they were doing it. I simply cannot see a man dressing in a very sexually provocative fashion and then harrumphing when they get the very reaction they elicited. Which is why I spoke about honesty earlier. I have no issues for example with women going to premieres dressed like this for example, if they are honest about their intention: to get attention.

Its such a load of controlling bullsh*t.

Well actually, in my opinion the ones attempting to control are the ones dressing sexually suggestively. From when we are young teens we first notice how much what we wear can have an effect on others. I remember wearing a sleeveless denim jacket and a Metal Up Your Ass t-shirt primarily cause of the reaction I got from others. Dressing that way got me attention and made sure I was seen just how I wanted to be seen and nothing really changes in that regard as we age. How we dress sends messages and the more effort we put into how we dress, the more we are trying to control what others think of us.. be that just that we are being respectful... or that we want to others to be sexually attracted to us (and the many points in-between of course). This is why nobody wears a three-piece suit or a fcuk-me-pumps when spending a night in alone watching TV.

Dick phelan wrote: »

Clothing is never an invitation for sexual assault but don't be complaining over a few glances from lads it's bound to happen if you wear certain clothes.

Indeed. Dave Chappele put it best with the following.

kunst nugget wrote: »

I tried dressing provocatively once by wearing skin tight jeans that accentuated the shape of my penis and ballsac while giving my buns of steel a firm lift.

You should have just bought a pair of these

One of the worst rapes in the country happened to a woman who had previously worked as a lapdancer. Her job doesn't make it any less horrible and she didn't deserve it any more than the next person. I was not one fraction less horrified when I learned of what happened to her, than I would've been if the victim had been a bank clerk or a nurse. 'Slapper' is a dehumanising, demeaning, belittling term. I know people probably don't think of it that way when they use it but it is.

Mortpourvelo wrote: »

There is a VAST difference between a lapdancer or any kind of sex worker - they are doing it for a living and good on them.

I stand by my point that you cannot be sexually aggressive with man, in public, and then claim you were raped because you regret it in the cold, sober light of day.

Absolutely. But she was a glamorous dresser and some people who I believe were jealous made that kind of remark based on her style dress. So generally speaking, to some people, it might not be the same thing if it happened to someone they thought of in those terms, if you see what I mean.

I agree with most of your posts btw and I think I get the spirit in which you said it. I'm thinking more of the times I've heard it said in person, about other people.

Widdershins wrote: »

One of the worst rapes in the country happened to a woman who had previously worked as a lapdancer. Her job doesn't make it any less horrible and she didn't deserve it any more than the next person. I was not one fraction less horrified when I learned of what happened to her, than I would've been if the victim had been a bank clerk or a nurse. 'Slapper' is a dehumanising, demeaning, belittling term. I know people probably don't think of it that way when they use it but it is.

Honestly, in my experience I haven't heard this word being used that often. When it has, it has always been by other women and mostly used when jealous of said 'slapper'.

From my point of view, sexual promiscuity is a positive thing as far I'm concerned, except if my other half is bopping other dudes behind my back

This post has been deleted.

LLMMLL wrote: »

Yeah most people don't come out with "she deserved it" it's usually more subtle.

If you go back through the thread on the woman who was assaulted by 3 men near the phoenix park earlier this year, there are a LOT of "what was she doing in that area at that time..." Comments.

That is no where near saying she deserved it. I'd imagine similar comments if a lad was walking through phoenix park at a random time after dark on his own and was 'hopped on', some people might say the same thing. Lets be realistic, you do have keep your wits about you and be smart, putting yourself in dodgy situations or places obviously puts you at greater risk of something bad happening.

Pretty sure there have been comments along the lines of what do you expect if you dress like a slapper.She expects attention from the man she's interested in, and at whatever stage of relationship with, and while yes people will take a look at an eye catching outfit, she doesn't have to accept anything more than a look. For women to complain about unwanted attention it usually needs to have been a bit more than a look from a man! Even Louise doesn't complain because a man looked at her clothing.

Maybe there's a bit of rape hysteria but there's a bit of dsmissiveness too.

I can never get my head around this so called victim blaming, like if you suggest that it would be best if a girl get's a taxi home after a night out instead of walking home your victim blaming them because "rape shouldn't happen" Well yes rape shouldn't happen but sadly it does as do muggins, burglary ect it's like someone leaving there doors and windows open and then getting robbed, ye the thief is bad but it's still stupid to not lock your doors and windows.

When i started going on nights out my parents told me the exact same thing they told my older brother and sister "whatever you do never walk home unless with a big gang" that doesn't mean if i ever did walk home alone and got robbed my parents wouldn't have felt bad for me but a bit more common sense on my part is needed. Bad things happen in the world and everyone should be responsible enough to take precautions to avoid them the criminal will always be in the wrong but it's not victim blaming to advise people to take better care of themselves.

cookiexx wrote: »

I don't think what Louise wore was completely outrageous by any means, but as others stated, wholly inappropriate for the subject matter at hand. It wasn't an episode of Off the Rails or Xpose she was presenting - it was a serious documentary about rape and sexual assault. Any "interest in fashion" that she would claim surely is secondary to the message of the documentary - just like my love for stilettos and leather skirts is secondary to my need to conduct myself as a respectable professional in the work place. When you're talking serious business, you leave that sh1t at home. You save it for the weekend and the nights out.

The point of the documentary and the point of feminism in general should be - this isn't about me, it's about women everywhere, and yet with the eye-grabbing faux fur coat and plunging off-the-shoulder top and hooker boots in the courtroom, she made herself the story. And that's great from a business perspective - sure didn't her twitter mentions go crazy and any book she publishes in the next six months will be sure to fly off the shelves.

But from a feminism perspective - it's a massive betrayal. No self-respecting feminist with legitimate concern and interest in women's rights would be happy with her as a representative. Because she's so self-serving. Have a look at her twitter timeline - try to find more than three tweets WITHOUT the word I, me, myself, my...in the last two weeks. You'll be there a while. It's not feminism. It's not the female voice that she cares about. It's the Louise Show.

Well said and if it was a one-off I might be willing to think well maybe she was on her way out and RTE at short notice asked to record the segment and so she thought 'feck it, who cares' but it's not the first time she has done so and so that's why I called 'nefarious calculation' on it, as I believe she deliberately dressed in a way that would draw some negative reactions given the topic, so she could then say 'So, ye are saying I'm asking for it?' with a wry smile. She's nobody's mug.

That other time by the way was when she was being interviewed on Ireland:AM about the book 'Asking For It' and went on wearing a see-thru top. Now I guess she could have been on the way home from a club, it's possible I suppose, and of course I'm fully aware too that we are playing directly into her hands here by even discussing this as some people (the naive) as she well knows, will say: 'Ah would ya look at this poor young female author just trying to raise awareness about the topic of consent given the numbers of sexual assaults in Ireland and they're all more concerned with the clothes she's wearing. It's a disgrace in this day and age.'.

And so on that basis, knowing how such comment can so easily be twisted, I would just like to reemphasize that no sexual assault on a woman is ever justified and in fact if a woman goes back to a guy's apartment, strips naked and spends the next few hours masturbating on his sofa (as she watches Debbie Does Dallas on his Widescreen) that still doesn't mean she has consented to being physically touched and I'm not being facetious with that, I actually mean it. What I am however saying is that it's okay to judge a person's intentions from how they have chosen to dress, be they a man or be they a woman. We may not always get that call right but we should be entitled to make it and with regards to Louise, my call is that she was deliberately being provocative given the subject of the book and she shouldn't have been. Nothing more and nothing less.

But to get back to the actual content of the show....

One of the most irritating aspects of it was that the whole premise of the show was that we live in a 'Rape Culture' but yet at one point it is said that:

"We see rapists as these monsters, almost inhuman..".

.. which to me negates the whole point of the show. I mean how can there be a rape culture in a society that sees men who rape as inhuman monsters and where rape is the "second most serious crime" in the eyes of our laws. It makes no sense.

One of the last lines in the show which was also was very annoying was when Louise said, regarding complaints she had received from young guys she that they should not be blamed for what other men do:

"Most of the perpetrators of rape and sexual and violence are men and YOU are doing this to us. So it is YOUR problem.

Which is something I find incredulous as that would be like a guy saying that all women are somehow responsible for false rape allegations and can somehow do something about it.

There was some other doozeies, like:

"Consent is the presence of a yes, not the absence of a no"

Which makes rapists of about 99% of us I'd say.

Dick phelan wrote: »

I agree the same with men who have an irrational hate for women, imo it comes from a lack of self confidence in how they look, they've not been very successful with the opposite sex and so say things like "women are more trouble then their worth" "i don't need a man" In some cases people do want to remain single but most want some companionship from the opposite sex, it's a lot easier for them to say the problem is men/ women rather then looking as to why the opposite sex finds them unattractive. If you are unable to either have a relationship or friendship with someone from the opposite sex they are not the problem you are.

True I was actually going to say that I noticed it in misogynist men too.

I feel sort of sorry for ugly people I can understand why they are so angry.

Dick phelan wrote: »

I can never get my head around this so called victim blaming, like if you suggest that it would be best if a girl get's a taxi home after a night out instead of walking home your victim blaming them because "rape shouldn't happen" Well yes rape shouldn't happen but sadly it does as do muggins, burglary ect it's like someone leaving there doors and windows open and then getting robbed, ye the thief is bad but it's still stupid to not lock your doors and windows.

When i started going on nights out my parents told me the exact same thing they told my older brother and sister "whatever you do never walk home unless with a big gang" that doesn't mean if i ever did walk home alone and got robbed my parents wouldn't have felt bad for me but a bit more common sense on my part is needed. Bad things happen in the world and everyone should be responsible enough to take precautions to avoid them the criminal will always be in the wrong but it's not victim blaming to advise people to take better care of themselves.

This level of hysteria is only for women over 18 years old. As children you're told to be careful of strangers, never get into a car with a stranger, to avoid certain areas, especially after dark, etc. Once a girl becomes a woman if you suggest any of these things to her you're victim blaming rape victims and are part of the reason so many women don't come forward.

Just in louise o'neills top - i agree with the general point that clothing should be appropriate to the occasion. But I've seen the top and honest to God I don't know how anyone would find it offemsive! It simply wasn't inappropriate for the documentary!

And actually, it would have been interesting in a way had she promoted her book in highly sexual clothes. Do an interview in nipple tassles to male the point that she's still not asking for it. She was probably wise to not go down that road though!

tomofson wrote: »

Its not actually too difficult to put yourself in someone else's shoes, alls you have to do is ask "how would I feel". Maybe go through a few scenarios like everyone else getting girls/boys and me being the only one left out, even as a child every other child getting called cute/adorable ect and nobody ever passing those sort of compliments to me. I cant relate on a personal level because it never happened to me but I can assume one would be very pissed off at the world if it did.

Some people cant form relationships with the opposite sex for other reasons and it doesn't make them a bad person because of it. I would see someone who was abused by their parents or some other adults when they were children as being more victims than anything else.

Louise is pretty good looking though, so in that case it isn't it.

I agree with what your saying on the whole with feminist/MGTOW lads or people who hate the opposite sex. They do tend to be the bottom of the ladder in terms of people finding them attractive.