2

I am skeptical about a reference in an old accepted answer on whether there is a connection between the way one dresses and the chance of being raped.

Since the post this concerns is protected, could someone please confirm that the second source given in the accepted answer is irrelevant and make a comment, so that no one is being misled? Such a comment already exists for the third source. (The first reference is relevant, even though in my opinion, you could come up with many confounding factors at play there.)

The second reference is given in that answer (but emphasis mine) as:

"An Examination of Date Rape, Victim Dress, and Perceiver Variables Within the Context of Attribution Theory"

Workman JE, Freeburg EW., Sex Roles, Volume 41, Numbers 3-4, 261-277 (1995)

This study found in part that the way a woman choose to dress is sometimes taken as a statement about her character including vulnerability, desire and/or willingness to have sex and provocation of males which consequently affects the likelihood of rape, including date rape.

Looking at the paper, this study investigated only the perception of responsibility by people who 'read a date rape scenario' and saw a photo. It does not in any way study the connection between clothing and incidence of rape.


Don't be annoying, why are you asking for this, and in this way? This is important to me because then, evidence of 'suggestive clothing being causal for rape' is very small (one study, and there are lots of confounding variables that I could imagine being at play there). This seemed to be the only question on the topic here. Otherwise, one might get the impression that a rape-clothing connection is supported by multiple studies. (It might even be the other way round (proposed e.g. on p. 149/150 here)). Also, in my opinion the way in which the second source is cited is misleading - probably the answerer misunderstood as well.

closed as off-topic by tim, Jan Doggen, Oddthinking Sep 30 '18 at 13:51

  • This question does not appear to be about scientific skepticism within the scope defined in the help center.
If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

  • 1
    I definitely agree with you (and I'm sure that this isn't the only old answer that has significant problems), but this would be a case for meta, as it isn't on-topic here. I voted to move the question, and hope that people will be able to give you answers there. – tim Sep 30 '18 at 11:43
  • 1
    Thank you, I didn't think of meta (never used it before). Sure, move it there. – dasWesen Sep 30 '18 at 12:10
  • You do need 5 reputation before you can post to Meta. But, yeah, also flagged this to be moved. – Nat Sep 30 '18 at 12:17
  • 1
    I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because it attempts to circumvent site restrictions. – Oddthinking Sep 30 '18 at 13:51
  • Asked about moving it to meta in meta: skeptics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4235/… – dasWesen Oct 1 '18 at 17:48

Browse other questions tagged .