The second image shows a group of young protestors, with one central figure
holding a placard that reads: “MY LITTLE DRESS DOES NOT MEAN ‘YES’.” This
powerful message challenges the harmful and widely held belief of victim-
blaming—the idea that a woman’s clothing choices can be interpreted as
consent for sexual activity.
From the perspective of Speech Act Theory, the placard performs multiple
functions. First, it acts as a Representative (Assertive) because it presents a
truth: clothing does not equate to consent. Simultaneously, it serves as a
Directive, urging the “out-group” to stop using a woman’s appearance as a
justification for sexual violence. The goal of this message is to shift societal
thinking, moving away from victim-blaming narratives and towards a clearer
understanding of personal autonomy and responsibility. Its ultimate aim is to
provoke a perlocutionary effect, where the audience's mindset is altered,
rejecting harmful assumptions about consent.
Applying Van Dijk’s Ideological Square, the placard clearly distinguishes
between two groups: the “in-group” (those who respect bodily autonomy and
the right to self-expression) and the “out-group” (those who perpetuate or
excuse rape culture). The message emphasizes the “good” of the in-group by
advocating for the right to dress freely without fear of violence. On the other
hand, it criticizes the “bad” of the out-group by exposing the dangerous,
predatory logic that links a woman’s clothing—particularly a “little dress”—
with sexual consent. The red word “NOT” is especially significant; it forcefully
rejects any excuses, presenting the statement as an undeniable truth about
consent.
The tone of the placard is firm, corrective, and empowering. Unlike the first
image, which carries a more emotional and visceral tone, this placard adopts
a more logical and corrective approach. The use of the word “little” is
strategic—it acknowledges the small size of the dress, but simultaneously
reclaims it as a harmless personal choice rather than a provocative signal.
The direct, declarative sentence structure leaves no room for confusion,
reinforcing the message’s moral certainty and high modality.
In terms of persuasive strategies, the placard predominantly employs logos
(logical appeal). It challenges the flawed “if-then” reasoning often used in
justifications for sexual violence (e.g., “if she wears this, then she wants
sex”), severing the false connection between clothing and consent. This
technique, known as semantic refutation, redefines the terms and removes
the incorrect link. Visually, the use of black ink with the red “NOT” draws
attention to the core of the message, functioning like a stop sign or warning.
Furthermore, the image of smiling, youthful protestors in the background
adds a sense of collective ethos, signaling that this belief is not only
widespread but also embraced by a new generation committed to rejecting
outdated and harmful social norms.
In conclusion, the placard’s message is clear, impactful, and purposeful. It
does more than correct a dangerous societal misconception; it promotes
respect for personal autonomy, encourages a shift in understanding consent,
and advocates for a society where such harmful myths no longer hold power.