By Invitation Only

[_subgenius]

(CNN)At a closed-door meeting of House Democrats to discuss reforming how Congress handles sexual harassment allegations, one senior congresswoman stunned lawmakers when she suggested female lawmakers were inviting unwanted advances because of the way they dressed.

Ohio Democratic Rep. Marcy Kaptur stood up and told her colleagues Wednesday that "too many members dress inappropriately" and it's "an invitation" to be harassed, according to three Democratic sources familiar with the discussion.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/12/13/politics/ ... index.html

I recommend reading the cited article for context, but her statement is worth consideration.

There is no doubt that some people (men/women) dress for sexuality. So how does this idea translate into the social etiquette and criminal justice system?

Is the accuser always to be believed?

[_Gunnar]

There is something to that. We have discussed before on this forum that there seems to be a double standard in dress codes for men and women. At formal social occasions (and sometimes business occasions) men are usually completely covered neck to toe with tuxedos, fancy dress shirts, cummerbund, cravat, bowtie, etc., while women often come attired in backless, strapless, low-cut dresses with revealing short or slit skirts, or even translucent dresses, and usually not much is said about it. If men showed that much skin and wore such revealing clothing on such occasions, they would likely be accused of sexual harassment of some kind.

That women are allowed to dress so provocatively is, of course, not a valid excuse to make unwelcome advances on them, but can there be any reasonable doubt that a few of them are being deliberately provocative and looking forward to a bit of sexual fun? This is no excuse for automatically doubting women who claim to be victims of sexual abuse, of course, but it would be unreasonable to deny that there are any false accusers in the bunch.