What they wore

[Ken]

The WHOLE POINT of the exhibit and the pictures that started this thread is that it DOESN'T MATTER what they wore. Abuse and rape happens anyway.

I'm quite certain that if we had accurate statistics we would find that rape and sexual abuse is just as prevalent in societies like Afghanistan where women are forced to wear chadors that cover the body from head to toe.

[Neto]

Perhaps some men associate a woman's immodesty with prostitution.

It is a logical conclusion in the context of modern society. Now it was apparently very different in some contexts in Bible times, as illustrated in the case of Judah & his daughter-in-law, Tamar. She was sufficiently covered to the extent that he could not recognize her. I do not know if "common" prostitutes were also along the roads in that time, or if they would all tend to be "temple prostitutes", and if that would have been a distinguishing factor. The injunctions to young men in the book of the Proverbs do give the impression of prostitutes who actively enticed their "victims", and one would assume that clothing and comportment were a part of that.

I get the impression that rapes which occur where an intoxicated woman is victimized involve an assumption that these women are "promiscuous anyway, so one more time shouldn't matter". (I in NO WAY agree with that thinking, but that's my impression of the thought process of at least some of the rapists.)

[JimFoxvog]

It is shameful for people (men and women) to be nude.

That depends on the circumstances. Full nudity was required for baptism for centuries.

[steve-in-kville]

It is shameful for people (men and women) to be nude.

That depends on the circumstances. Full nudity was required for baptism for centuries.

I myself would struggle to take a shower with clothes on

[Soloist]

I myself would struggle to take a shower with clothes on

We do that all the time in Oregon.

[steve-in-kville]

I myself would struggle to take a shower with clothes on

We do that all the time in Oregon.

Do I want to know why?

(ETA- okay I get it )

[Ernie]

Every church that I have ever been a member of has had instances of molesting (using the typical definition). (Also assuming here that church refers to and includes youth and older children.)

Ok. Yes. I was thinking of someone more than 20 years old molesting minors when I wrote that.

[Grace]

Link to the documentary trailer, just released today

One of the first statement, "The odds of an Amish woman being raped by one in their own community, one of every six". Amish Communities vary greatly and that may be true in some Amish communities. To make that type of blanket statement about ALL Amish is a misnomer.

[Grace]

In order for dress/undress to be a factor we need to make a connection between lust and sexual assault. I believe there is some general agreement between us that a person might be more inclined to lust if a woman is in a state of undress.

But most people would never make the leap from “she is immodest, therefore I lust” to “she is immodest, therefore I lust and will also take power over her, even if she does not consent*” (*otherwise known as sexual assault) The good and decent people that I know would think “she is immodest, hmm, looks nice” and move on.

Let’s assume there are some men who will assault a woman regardless of what she is wearing. And we will assume some men only assault a woman when she is dressed in a way that is considered immodest.

Why does that person assault the immodest, but not the modest? Why does he think that consent is not important when a person is immodest? What would take a person from “I lust, therefore I will sexually assault”? I think it is because that person has already been trained to think that an immodest person is “inviting someone to their party”*** and that if a person is “flaunting what they have, they run the risk of losing it.”***

People do not tend to take things that they don’t first think they have a right to have. It doesn’t matter if they are tempted. And the only way that an immodest woman is more likely to be raped/assaulted is if someone already thinks they have a right to that person because they’ve been invited to the party. Lusting doesn’t lead to sexual assault unless one thinks that immodesty is an invitation.

The only other way that I can see that an immodest woman would be more likely to be assaulted is if lust in and of itself leads to assault. (For the record I do not think it does.) People will lust after all sorts of things but they might be more likely to lust after an immodest person. And if a tiny percentage of people are inclined to rape/assault everyone they lust after, then yes, immodesty could be more likely to lead to assault.

***these are actual teachings in a home ec lesson in a conservative Mennonite high school in Lancaster county within the past 5 years. Attended by children of members in Keystone, MidAtlantic, BMA, etc

The worst way you can hurt a woman (outside of killing her) is to rape her. Just my opinion, if a man has such hatred for women, it probably doesn't matter what they are wearing. Could a rapist target the more immodestly dressed woman? possibly. However I would be inclined to believe a rapist would target someone, whom he thinks as weak. That is why we hear of old women, the mentally handicapped, and children being raped.

[Ernie]

15 years ago I heard from a colleague that one out of three young, moderate-progressive conservative Anabaptist women were molested at some point before 18 yrs. old. But there were no details as to whether this was minor-minor or adult-to-minor.