by How does what you’re wearing effect you? Bill O’Reilly believes that what a woman was wearing in New York City is to blame for her rape. In a conversation over the radio on August 2nd, O’Reilly made this comment:
O’REILLY: So anyway, these two girls come in from the suburbs and they get bombed, and their car is towed because they’re moronic girls and, you know, they don’t have a car. So they’re standing there in the middle of the night with no car. And then they separate because they’re drunk. They separate, which you never do. All right.
Now Moore, Jennifer Moore, 18, on her way to college. She was 5-foot-2, 105 pounds, wearing a miniskirt and a halter top with a bare midriff. Now, again, there you go. So every predator in the world is gonna pick that up at two in the morning. She’s walking by herself on the West Side Highway, and she gets picked up by a thug. All right. Now she’s out of her mind, drunk.
And the thug takes her over to New Jersey in the cab and kills her and rapes her and does all these terrible things to her. And the thug is so stupid, he uses her cell phone, and the cops trace it back to him and they — and they arrest him and charge him with murder. He had a prostitute girlfriend with him, and she’s charged as an accessory to murder. But Jennifer Moore is in the ground. She’s dead.
Who bears the responsibility in this case? Does the woman? The Attacker?
Ultimately, those that were punished for the crime have responsibility– Jennifer Moore did not ask to be raped and murdered. The man (and his prostitute!) should definitely be punished.
However, let’s not overlook something here. I’m not saying that she was begging to be a victim, but she did dress for a certain kind of attention– a sexual kind. She was at a club with a friend, and she dressed the part. Baring her middle, in a halter top she was conveying a message to the men in the room.
The problem with the clothing we choose to wear and the fact that it conveys messages is that we cannot control who receives those messages and what they do with them. What is perfectly fine for a husband and wife is not appropriate for unmarried teens. There is a line, and we as a culture have crossed it not realizing (or choosing to ignore) the consequences.
Many times we see– played for laughs– on TV where the female teen character who’s crushing on a hunk gets all dolled up only to find that the geek is the one that pays attention to her. I can envision this girl getting ready for clubbing, envisioning the hunk coming over to her and wisking her away– but those aren’t the only people that gave her attention– the rapist did.
As clothing becomes more and more revealing, women are less and less able to control who’s gawking at them– and maybe they want it that way. They must remember, though, that they do not have control over the minds of the men that they may be exciting, and since we live in a sin-cursed world, that is not a good thing.
I certainly agree with you that with that kind of attire you are garning attention and you know it. But I think that rapists are a whole different ballgame from simple attention-getting. She could have been wearing a wetsuit and it wouldnt have prevented this. I think her drunkeness played a much larger role in this, but neither of the two make any sort of relevant cause to be raped and murdered. I don’t even know if there is any criteria to be “asking for” such a thing but I sure know that clothing isnt one of them. I think Bill O’Reilly was way out of line to make a comment like this.
In one vein, you could say that just being a woman made her a target for rape, and I think I couldn’t argue with you. Some of it has to be where she was– NYC. Some of it what she was wearing. Some of it the fact that she was alone, and unarmed?
Again, the overarching blame belongs to the ones that did the raping, but the part of it that was in the girl’s control was an awareness of where she was and what was going on around her.
This never should have happened, but it does and there are ways to lower the risks of it happening to any particular person and this poor girl did not employ them.
Ultimately, her poor choices resulted in her death. If she’d been home, maybe some other girl would have taken her place.
Girls that age don’t think. They feel invincible, powerful. Hopefully others will sit up and take notice that bad choices (where to hang out for your entertainment, for one) have bad consequences.
I usually get a kick out of Bill O’Reilly, and though I agree with him in one sense (that she brought it on herself by choosing to be there, getting drunk, wearing that)I don’t like how he treats it like a sit-com. But he did get our attention, and hopefully that of other young girls.
I agree that certainly he brought attention to it. Was he un sympathetic to the girl’s family– possibly, but we definitely need to be training our children to make wise choices.
There is only one person at fault for this and that is the rapist and murderer. Ms.Moore certainly did NOT bring it on herself by what she was wearing, drinking etc. How dare people. Mr.O’Reilly has a young daughter. I’ll be willing to bet when she hits 18 she’ll be out partying with her friends as well as throwing some of his advice out the window.
The fault lies with the rapist. How dare he not be able to control his barbaric instincts. Shame on Bill O’Reilly saying what he did, giving the impression that it was her fault. But if I’m not mistaking wasn’t he in some kind of law suit with a young lady that he work with for making “obscene” phone call remarks to her. Wasn’t he charged and had to pay a fine for being such a creep. What came out of his mouth does not surprise me, it is obvious that he has no respect for women. I’m sorry that he has a daughter who has to acknowledge one of these days what a creep her father is!!
Certainly the man who committed the rape and murder bears responsibility and will be punished. Does that say that there are not some places that young ladies should avoid or ways they not should dress? I think that goes a little far– we should be aware of our surroundings and take precautions.
You should never have to pay for a bad choice with your life. I will disregard any comment from any poster who says, even in a round about way, that you get what you deserve. You ought to be ashamed if you think such things.
Many people pay for a bad choice with their life. The people that jump off a waterfall not knowing how deep the water is below, or where it is shallow. Those that jump out of airplanes and something malfunctions. Those that drink alcohol and then drive (though they usually end up killing someone else while they live). Those that do drugs or hang around with dangerous people. Our actions have consequences– and sometimes those consequences are life and limb.
We cannot control what other people do. This woman should not have been raped and killed. I can’t speak for if someone will come in where I work and kill me today. I can control the risks that I run. I can control how fast I drive in my car, how I react to someone with road rage, and if I drink intoxicating beverage. We need to make sure that we’re not taking unacceptable (or unBiblical) risks.
Though I believe I agree with your though, Michael, I don’t know if I’d go so far as to say that there’s no responsibility for someone who takes unncessary risks.
Jesus paid for all our bad choices with his life.
I agree that the rapist, murderer is the one who bears the full responsibility. I also believe that God is sovereign and that we all have an appointed time to die. Her death was a terrible thing, the murderer should be prosecuted and punished.
I still think people need to be aware that how they choose to live their life can strongly impact their futures. It may not be death, it may be one drag of marijuana that leads to a lifelong addiction…
Any girl who goes bar-hopping in a big city and gets drunk needs to know that they are taking their life in their hands. With sex-trafficking and perverts lurking…a “good time” can turn into your worst nightmare.
Good points – responsibility all the way. I just won’t ever go as far as saying a bad choice deserves death (unless it is the eternal bad choice). I don’t want to get into the politics of categorizing bad choices from best to worst. A bad choice is a bad choice and there should be consenquences to remind us to be responsible, to alert us that we need to repent.
Just an interesting arguement…. Michael would you say that the murderer’s bad choice deserves death?
I have to argue that it does. Scripturally speaking the family has the right to justice. And that justice is his death. In the Old Testament it was a cruel death by stoneing… I don’t know if that is a “cultural” issue, or the way we ought to mete justice today, but… still, the fact remains that SOME bad choices warrant death…
Mrs. Meg Logan
There are countless cases of women being raped even though they were wearing what you would consider modest clothing. There are also many cases of a woman being raped in an area that most would consider safe:
http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1665&dat=19921128&id=jR4aAAAAIBAJ&sjid=1CQEAAAAIBAJ&pg=6095,8167170
http://www.truecrimereport.com/…/anferney_fontenet_15_rapes_wom.php
http://blogs.tampabay.com/breakingnews/2008/04/deputies-hillsb.html
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2009/10/bay-area-girl-gang-raped-at-school-while-witnesses-watch-but-do-nothing.html
, etc., etc.
We would love to point fingers at the “bad choices” Jennifer Moore made, partly because it makes us feel more safe and secure in our “good choices”. However, doing so displays a dangerous ignorance, and is nothing more than denial of the true evil that is rape. It is no respecter of persons, nor of “choices”. Please read my comment on “Slinky Clothing Provokes Rape?”
There are things that you can do to prevent rape, just as there are things that you can do to prevent being murdered. While it’s true– things will happen in a safe school, or a safe location– there are ways to statistically limit your exposure.
It’s like driving a car. Auto accidents will happen, even to really safe drivers. That doesn’t mean that I should throw caution to the wind, drive recklessly, and figure “it’s going to happen anyway,” but I should take ways to significantly reduce my risk.
Significantly reducing your risk is something you do for your own sake and peace of mind. But when the other guy runs the red light and hits you, is it right for me to point my finger at you and say, “You could have done more to prevent this. You could have waited a second longer before you accelerated. You could have looked both ways a few more times. The wreck is partially your fault.”
In 2002 I was in a car accident where the I was at a stop sign, a lady changed lanes and left her blinker on to the point that I thought she was turning into my side-street. Seeing the traffic down the road and watching her pull out from the bank and make her way my way, I decided to go.
She hit my rear driver-side tire and spun me around, totaling my car and firing off her airbag.
Clearly, I shouldn’t have gone out, and yet when fault was assigned, I had 75% and she 25%. Why? Because she gave indications that she was going one way and I believed her.
Rape is a terrible crime. It effects the body, the mind and the soul. It turns people into a shell of what they are, and robs them of their feelings of safety. It’s hurt families, it has destroyed self confidence, and it has led to abortions. None of these things are good.
It doesn’t change that the woman, or women in general, have some ownership– the degree to which is determined by the incident. The one that did nothing and happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time may have 0 (or 1, depending on whether she contributes to the cultural objectification). However, the woman that successively opens up more and more of herself to a boyfriend then says “yes” then “no”– she shares much more responsibility.
I have a really hard time making left hand turns now without knowing exactly where a driver is going– especially if they put on the blinker.
I agree with you that women are very much responsible for their own objectification, and this varies from woman to woman. Unfortunately, the scourge of pornography has made life harder for ALL women, even the ones trying to be modest. However, again here I think you misjudge what a rapist really is. For a just a moment, try to place yourself in his shoes. Try to imagine doing something like that to a woman, especially a “date” that you supposedly care about. Try to imagine that she opens herself up to you sexually over and over, and eventually says “yes”. Then she says “no”. What do you do? A healthy, sound-minded male will back off and probably feel confused and frustrated. He’ll probably say something along the lines of, “Make up your mind already!” But now imagine not backing off. Imagine instead pinning her down and forcing yourself in, even as she begs you to stop. Even as she cries. Can you picture yourself doing that? Are you capable?
You see, men who commit rape are not sound-minded. They have objectified women and fantasized about having power over them to the point where they do not even feel pity any more. What they do does not disgust them like it used to.
Yes, women should be ashamed of dressing in a way that draws more attention to their sexuality than their personality. Yes, women should be aware of the effect their clothing has on the way men see them. But by the time a man is at the point where he is capable of rape, he is a little too far for the woman’s dress to mean that much anymore. By that point, all women are objects to him, no matter what they wear, and all women are possible targets. The one he picks can not rationally be blamed.
@Eric – I disagree that women are primarily responsible for their own objectification. The Victorian age and our society’s current sense of ‘modesty’ are also responsible.
Our society and the American Church has stated the female chest, genitalia, and buttocks must always be covered in social situations. We have deemed these body parts (objects) as dirty, unfit to be seen, or too special. Some would increase the number of body parts to thighs or shoulders. It is in this objectification that we the church agree with those who peddle pornography. The difference between us is how to treat the objectification. The church says “Cover it!” Pornographers cry “Exploit it!”
In this comment you assume that since both of the groups (the church and the pornographers) have a response to the display of genitalia and secondary sexual characteristics that they are equal. Would you argue the same about the New Testament admonitions not to dress like the prostitutes of the time? How about the comment in the Old Testament of how that Jacob was tricked into relations with his daughter in law because she wore the apparel of a prostitute.
You see, what I read about the Bible’s comments about clothing is not a result of objectification, but a reaction to the sin of lust. The Bible talks about fleeing all sources of evil, and if the world objectifies the woman’s body, it’s a reasonable thing that she shouldn’t dress like or look like the world. This includes bearing her flesh for all to see and thereby associating herself with those that trade in lust.
It’s unfortunate how people manage to justify rape in general because of the way women dress, almost as if women have the responsibility of gate-keeping men’s sexual urges. And men, therefore, can act like sex-crazed maniacs because, well, as the patriarchal defense goes, it’s how they’re wired. I’m sick of hearing that kind of analysis. Rape isn’t even about lust, it’s about establishing power over another human being.
I agree that even ‘modesty’ just sets another standard for women. It merely sends the message that, if you don’t dress or act in a manner we, and ‘we’ being a patriarchal system, deem you unacceptable and therefore resign you to sexual violence. Let’s move out of the Middle Ages, shall we?
@MinTheGap
Please reference the verses for “Would you argue the same about the New Testament admonitions not to dress like the prostitutes of the time?” Jacob went out looking for a prostitute and found his daughter-in-law. He was “tricked” not into being a john, but “tricked” into purchasing the services from his daughter-in-law (ewwww).
I fail to read in the Bible about dressing so other people don’t fall into the sin of lust. (There was no reprimand for the apparel of Joseph, Bathsheba or Tamar.) Unless you are referring to not creating stumbling blocks for weaker Christians, this idea can’t be supported Biblically at all.
Please reference where the Bible states to flee “all sources of evil.”
Please define your standard of “dressing or looking like the world.” and which flesh/skin is she supposed to hide and which flesh/skin can be freely visible. Please back up your standard Biblically.
Do I objectify men and <women? Absolutely, I treat them as less than individuals made in the image of God and more for how they can fulfill my selfish desires, a sin from which the sanctification process is ongoing.
If covering the flesh restrained men from raping any females, then Muslim countries would report no rape at all. It is not what the woman is wearing that makes her the pick of the rapist but the view of the victim by the rapist. These people do not think in terms of “is she sexually attractive?” but “Is she vulnerable?”
This is how even paedophiles think too.
” “over dressing” can have the same effect as “under dressing”, because in as much as over exposing yourself and leaving nothing to the imagination “overdressing” can cause an obsessive curiosity in the rapists mind.” “
I agree with you that it’s more than just “is she dressed like she wants it.” I also know that a majority of rapes are perpetrated by people that they know, and that in some cases it’s mental before it’s physical. If wearing modest clothing, or not traveling down a dark alley, or living in a good neighborhood lessens the chance of being raped, is it wrong to take such precautions?
The depraved mind is definitely not limited to what it sees, that is for certain. I’ve read of many men in muslim countries that justified their evil actions by saying “she had an ankle showing.” That’s ludicrous.
Part of the problem in all of these countries, I believe, is the easy access to pornography, which glorifies “willing” women and “powerful” men. If you add that to weak willed men I think you can get what we’re seeing today.