Survivors of Rape: Functions and Implications of Dress in a Context of Coercive Power

Effects of Attire, Alcohol, and Gender on Perceptions of Date Rape

“…First, a primary function of clothing is to serve as a means of non-verbal information about the wearer, but the cultural meaning of particular clothing is constantly renegotiated and varies from person to person (Roach-Higgins and Eicher 1992). Second, even rape survivors acknowledge that although women cannot use their clothing to indicate consent to sexual intercourse, they can use it to communicate a general interest in the opposite sex (Johnson et al 1999). As a result, participants infer from a woman's clothing that she desires and consents to sex, and are thus able to rationalize claiming that a victim of sexual assault actually wants the encounter (Abbey et al 1987;Cassidy and Hurell 1995;Muehlenhard and MacNaughton 1988;Workman and Orr 1996).…”

“…For example, the interviews of Johnson et al (1999) with rape survivors indicated that survivors believed it was impossible for a woman to indicate consent to sexual intercourse with her clothing unless that clothing carried an explicit written message to that effect: "Unless it actually has a sign on the dress, or something that says: 'Give me a good lay' or something." (p. 19) and "Well you can't really [consent via clothing] unless you have a shirt on that's saying: 'I want sexual intercourse.'"…”

“…The typical explanation for the relationship between victim-blaming and victim attire invokes the use of mistaken inferences based on otherwise reasonable assumptions. There is a widespread belief that the clothes a woman wears signal her sexual availability and intent and imply advance consent to sexual intercourse (Johnson et al 1999). Clothes cannot signal intent, however, because they address a general audience whereas sexual consent is a specific communication given on an individual basis (Johnson et al 1999).…”

Young Adults’ Inferences Surrounding an Alleged Sexual Assault

“…From our results, one might still conclude that avoiding body-revealing dress in general is insurance of not experiencing victim blame should one be a woman and find herself in similar circumstances. This is not true as researchers (Johnson et al, 1999) interviewing sexual assault victims as well as reports in the popular press (Desmond-Harris, 2014) have documented that the dress of actual victims tends not to be body revealing but rather often consists of dress items routinely worn (e.g., jeans, uniforms, and hoodies).…”

Dress, body and experiences of victimization

“…In research with survivors of sexual assaults, Johnson, Hegland, and Schofield (1999) reported that even though participants stated their appearance was unrelated to their victimization, the majority changed some aspect of their appearance after their experience. Yoo and Johnson (2007) reported adolescent girls tied experiences with negative teasing to several aspects of their body and/or dress and that they frequently changed their appearance after this experience.…”