Popular view today is that women can wear anything they like just like men do, however exposing the clothes; and if men can't control themselves then it's entirely men's fault. It's become fashionable to fight for this freedom for women. Now this is going to be unpopular, but I strongly disagree.
Although the definition of "unusually bold clothing" differs from culture to culture; but say if a particular culture is relatively more liberal and within it it is common to wear certain clothes that are considered unusual and indecent in other cultures, then those clothes won't be "provocative" in the first place. Because if the culture is really liberal then men as well as women are liberal, and therefore the men won't be "provoked" by those clothes. So that's alright.The hypocrite women I am referring to are those who are fully aware of the boundary of their culture and knowingly wear unusually bold clothes (within their particular culture).
The aim of modern clothing is hardly the comfort of the wearer. The aim is to look attractive. And when it comes to cleavage-showing blouse, or mini skirt or any such provocative clothing, it's about attracting attention by appealing to male sexuality.
Now let's look at some more technicality. Being attracted to female body parts comes from our animal nature, and we call it wrong (even though it is not quite so in natural world) because we are civilized creatures. But the truth is, attracting the members of opposite sex by various maneuvers is also something that we have learned when we were apes, and therefore is the most animalistic trick to find a partner for mating. Today's women wearing provocative clothes may not be looking out for a partner for mating, but their desire to look attractive is their biology doing the job already. It is therefore improper and unwise to allow one gender to pull explicit animalistic maneuvers and blame the other gender of getting affected by it. We haven't outlawed Nature yet.
People who say women can wear anything that men can are ignorant of biological make up of man and woman, or at least don't want to acknowledge it, which is a grave mistake. Agree, that even burqa-clad women are ogled and raped. So I am not saying men are clean and innocent when it comes to indecency and rape. It's just that when one says women can wear anything they like just like men do, that's not wise. And especially the women crusading for this right are not only ignorant of the biological differences in man and woman, but are also hypocrites. This latter point is seldom, if ever, brought up.
Let me ask the women obsessed with provocative clothes the question: What is the need to wear clothes that expose body parts that cause male sexual attraction. E.g. a blouse showing excessive cleavage and the like. (Everybody knows the kind of clothes I am referring to, so not describing them in more detail.) Is it because such clothes are more comfortable? That can't be, and I have got at least two points for this:
- The knowledge that a particular clothing is unusual and is going to attract excessive male attention itself won't allow the comfort in wearing it.
- Secondly, if such short clothes were really comfortable then why only women are more obsessed with wearing them? (Do men wear shirts exposing their waistline, or deep-necks, or sleeve-less as much as women do?)
Although the definition of "unusually bold clothing" differs from culture to culture; but say if a particular culture is relatively more liberal and within it it is common to wear certain clothes that are considered unusual and indecent in other cultures, then those clothes won't be "provocative" in the first place. Because if the culture is really liberal then men as well as women are liberal, and therefore the men won't be "provoked" by those clothes. So that's alright.The hypocrite women I am referring to are those who are fully aware of the boundary of their culture and knowingly wear unusually bold clothes (within their particular culture).
The aim of modern clothing is hardly the comfort of the wearer. The aim is to look attractive. And when it comes to cleavage-showing blouse, or mini skirt or any such provocative clothing, it's about attracting attention by appealing to male sexuality.
Most of the women from this camp, I am sure, would also express problems with men staring at their cleavage and other body parts that are actually made to stand out by wearing designed-for-the-purpose clothes. Simple question then should be, why wear those clothes if you are going to have a problem with people staring? Note that I am not trying to justify the indecency of men, but am just putting the other side through scrutiny. No one can deny that body-exposing clothes for women are for attracting male attention. If they wear such clothes one can fairly assume that they want to be looked at. Upon having a closer look one finds what those women actually have a problem with is the stares of the people who they don't like. When an ugly man stares at a woman, he is pervert; and when a hot man stares at a woman, he is interested! That's what it is.
So, first of all, these women-folks need to give up their hypocrisy if they want to address the problem in a meaningful way.
Women, you show cleavage not for that blouse is comfortable for you, but for you want to attract attention of hot and attractive members of male species. But by doing so you attract not-so-desirable gazes too, which makes you feel insecure and threatened. Now you don't want to take accountability for your part, therefore like a narcissist, instead of admitting your own intentions, you give entire male species the label of perverts!
Unregulated sexual behavior is wrong, but then equally wrong is provoking it in public places, now that in a civilized world we have better mechanisms available for finding a partner of the opposite sex. If we take into account differences in biology of man and woman, it should be clear that a woman wearing provocative clothes is essentially doing the same thing that a cleavage-gazing pervert does. But pervert is often the latter! What is needed to be understood is that men are caught "active" because so is their sexual biology. Since male is designed to seduce, and female is designed to be seduced, we won't find an active female. While men have to make bold advances, females just have to pull maneuvers. Indirect. That's the reason why always males are culprits. Women are passive, but in such cases equally culprits. This is nearly impossible to get people to understand because it requires more than ordinary common sense!
Now let's look at some more technicality. Being attracted to female body parts comes from our animal nature, and we call it wrong (even though it is not quite so in natural world) because we are civilized creatures. But the truth is, attracting the members of opposite sex by various maneuvers is also something that we have learned when we were apes, and therefore is the most animalistic trick to find a partner for mating. Today's women wearing provocative clothes may not be looking out for a partner for mating, but their desire to look attractive is their biology doing the job already. It is therefore improper and unwise to allow one gender to pull explicit animalistic maneuvers and blame the other gender of getting affected by it. We haven't outlawed Nature yet.
Coming back to rape. One thing is clear that women wear provocative clothes to attract male attention (mostly consciously, or otherwise at a biological level anyway) and the appeal is to sexuality. The trick is the same that many creatures in natural world employ to attract mating partners. Now take this bitter pill: Rape is likely evolved by natural selection as a secondary mating strategy. Wait, no, I will never advocate rape on this grounds. However, this theory is not unfounded, and one would understand it if one understands Nature, biology and evolution mechanism. What I intend to draw attention to is the relation between wearing provocative clothes and rape as the relation between the maneuver and the result it is fundamentally intended for – mating. Since we live in a complex civilized world sometimes the result, mating, is involuntary, but in case where provocative clothes are worn the result is nonetheless invited by the maneuver; because biologically speaking, there's no other reason to expose body parts arousing sexuality.
Rape can never be justified on natural grounds. Since we are civilized we must regulate our behavior; and the breach of it must be adequately punished. But controlling male behavior is addressing only half of the problem. In fact, controlling only male behavior and giving free rein to women to wear whatever they like is not only utterly unwise, but is cruelty to men, and would likely exacerbate the problem. One must understand the powerful laws of Nature. If we need to address the problem of rape meaningfully, we must curtail excessively animalistic behavior in both genders.
Wearing of provocative clothes by women, and bold sexual advances by men are two sides of a coin. Don't make a mistake of curtailing only one. Rapers are perverts, no doubt; but it is also irresponsible on part of women to wear provocative clothes, and therefore they also deserve part of the blame.
Follow discussion on Google+
Follow discussion on Google+
|
|
I disagree. Even if a woman dresses solely to titillate (and many women might), men have a right to LOOK. Just look. Not touch.
ReplyDeleteAnd that's where the flaw in your argument lies. Many women will openly admit that they dress for sexual titillation (or to feel good about themselves). But it doesn't matter. Even if a woman walks naked on the road, I have no right to touch her without her consent. She might be arrested for violating obscenity laws, but that's different.
This is like blaming a kitchen owner for cooking wonderfully smelling food if a hoodlum or thug comes and steals food from their private kitchen. Or like blaming the owner of a fancy car if their car is stolen!
Who cares about provocation? What others get "provoked" over is not my business. The law is not supposed to even LOOK at "who was provoked". The important question is "who touched first?".
I've written about how a "slut" should have the right to walk down the road and not be touched: http://www.bhagwad.com/blog/2012/rights-and-freedoms/from-a-slut-to-the-andhra-dgp.html/
You have a penchant for taking black and white views of complex "grey" reality in most cases, Bhagwad. And since you have "pure rationality" on with you, I can't defeat you in arguments. The discussion therefore would be pointless.
ReplyDeleteAs for your mention of law I would like to say that the reality of human condition is too complex to be fully addressed by law. If something is not illegal, that doesn't automatically mean it is morally flawless. A behavior doesn't become wrong only when it becomes illegal.
Very interesting argument. Somehow I empathize with both the views. I
ReplyDeletewould dress up provocatively in company where I felt safe, but then I would
not wear a cleavage flaunting attire while going to the subzi mandi. But
then, where does one draw a line? Ads featuring Aishwarya Rai were banned
in Saudi .... they just showed her face, but the state felt her eyes were
too provocative! Here I feel, a subtle unstated permission is being given
to men to act like animals, rape and pillage! That is where I get upset
"What others get "provoked" over is not my business"
ReplyDeleteReality doesn't care about what you think is or is not your business.
"The law is not supposed to even LOOK at "who was provoked". The important question is "who touched first?"."
So you say. Others may disagree.
Say, if a lady makes an explicit come-hither gesture by her body language (and clothing is a form of expression, whether you like it or not. almost all societies have some form of engagement ring as a means of dissuading suitors), lets the man buy her drinks, lets the man talk suggestively, takes the man to her car, and then cries rape when the man tries to kiss her, feminists would go all ape-shit for the rights of the woman to be protected against being kissed without her consent. Whether her own behavior had anything to do with the intention of the man to kiss her, is obviously unimportant, right? Wrong.
Actually, most rapes/sexual assaults happen to women who are vulnerable, not women who are attractively dressed.
ReplyDeleteMore than 90% rapes are preplanned and the perpetrator is someone known to the victim, an older relative, a teacher, a neighbour, an employee etc.
The victim is generally someone who the rapist does not expect to complain.
Amongst rapes by strangers, a cab-driver who raped a girl working in a bar in Gurgaon, a gang of village men from a village near Noida, men planning to make an MMS in a car looking for some victim on a lonely road, upper caste men raping dalit women, custodial rapes, these are criminals who knew they were unlikely to be reported, arrested or punished.
Their actions were not provoked after seeing an attractive woman.
In fact Delhi police clearly stated that most rapists are shocked that the crime was reported, they do not expect the victim to complain.
Also many rapists do not see rape as a serious crime, because they have always seen the victim being blamed for being raped (honor, wrong clothing, being with wrong people, wrong time etc).
What I am saying is, that being raped does not indicate that the woman was attractive, but that she was vulnerable - an easy victim.
The only way to change this is that those who are charged with citizen's safety make clear statements that convey the crime would not be excused or tolerated. And women be assured that they can report safely (police is feared the most), - if women start reporting and rapes start being taken seriously, if we see more convictions, there would be fewer crimes against women and children. No matter how they are dressed. All the restrictions on women's life styles and clothing has only made it difficult for them to report rapes - and thus encouraged the rapists.
Crying "rape" at the first opportunity is obviously wrong. This doesn't actually happen in reality.
ReplyDeleteWhat happens, is that the woman says "no" (not cries rape). She says "no" FIRST and cries rape ONLY after the man doesn't stop.
Forgive me, but I have no sympathy with a man who continues to force himself on a woman even after she says "no". I'm not an animal and I'm deeply offended by the suggestion that all men like dogs.
I given an open challenge to anyone here to "provoke" me into acting violently though non violent means. I can take anything - speech, writing, movies, clothing ...whatever.
ReplyDeleteI challenge any person on earth to make me act violently by an act that is non violent. And I don't consider "dress" as an act of violence since I'm not harmed in any way.
Dressing may be a form of expression just like art is. There is however NO justification for EVER moving from "expression" to "violence". Violence is the only form of expression prohibited in an aware and developed civilization because you cannot ignore violence happening to you.
You can ignore everything else. You have that power. Make use of it.
Bhagwad:
ReplyDelete//I challenge any person on earth to make me act violently by an act that is non violent. And I don't consider "dress" as an act of violence since I'm not harmed in any way.//
The reality is not an utopia where one deems everyone to be as virtuous as oneself. That's a fallacy of taking black-and-white view which you are very fond of. A suggestion to "act careful and act responsibly" does not say that crime is okay, as it is being ineptly interpreted here, but is sensible behavior for one's own benefit while crime IS.
I won't buy a house in locality where crime rates are very high. By that I am being cafeful and responsible for my own (and my family's) safety. This in no way suggests that I am favoring the criminals. I am all for punishing them, but while they ARE, it's my duty and responsibility towards myself that I do my part in avoiding them (and in no case "provoke" them!).
Darshan, I think it's presumptuous for anyone to tell a woman to be careful or she'll get raped. No one knows this better than the women themselves. They don't need you or me to tell them that. They think about rape and have to deal with the reality of it happening to them in a way that you or I as men never could.
ReplyDeleteEvery woman in India (and indeed the world) already has her own best interests at heart. To tell them to be careful is the heights of being insulting - they already know it very well. So it's entirely redundant. And for them to be told this from the DGP in front of the cameras as if women are imbeciles...is just breathtakingly arrogant.
The danger of saying "be careful" goes way beyond merely being insulting however. There's a chance (and not a small one) that potential rapists will think that the woman will be blamed if something is happening. So it's also the heights of irresponsibility in addition to being presumptuous.
Just try this sometime. Try telling a woman that she has to be careful or she's get raped and see the reaction you get. The look you'll get is - "You think I don't KNOW that?". They'll be polite and might even thank you for showing concern. But inside, they think "DUH!!"
So the suggestion to act responsibly is itself ludicrously irresponsible in and of itself.
To take an analogy, you or I don't know what it's like to drive a race car. But if you give some "common sense" advice to a professional driver and say "Don't brake too hard!", what reaction do you think you'll receive.
Women have to deal with the reality of rape much more intimately than you or I do. For people like us to even presume to lecture them about what makes this safe is infuriating.
Moreover, if you expect a person to behave like a dog, they will behave like one. Expect them to behave like humans and they will behave like humans. So when you say that I am virtuous, it's nonsense. People are as virtuous or as animal like as they have to be. If they're punished for behaving like animals, they will behave like humans.
ReplyDeleteHuman nature is infinitely malleable as has been proved over and over again. Our so-called instincts can be modified and sublimated to any extent...such is the nature of man. To excuse a person's actions and say that's it's because of evolutionary instincts is...well, just very poorly informed.
//I challenge any person on earth to make me act violently by an act that is non violent. And I don't consider "dress" as an act of violence since I'm not harmed in any way.//
ReplyDeleteBhagwad crimes don't happen because of the way women dress, men don't lose control when they see women dressed in certain ways, they 'lose control' when they know they would not be punished.
Violent rape is not about sex or a woman's attractiveness, it is about,
1. criminals knowing they can get away with the crime (like custodial rapes, rapes by employers, teachers, older relatives, a group of men, mobs, crimes in crowded places where identification is difficult etc)
2. Disrespect for victims and their rights, and
3. hence showing them their place,
4. also lack of awareness about rape being a crime (unbelievable as it sounds, a lot of rapists think a woman's 'no' is 'yes' because only sex workers would actually say yes. )
Women of all ages, and women and children who are conventionally unattractive get raped. Women who are not valued in their families or societies, like women abandoned by their husbands, or widows, or dependent on relatives for financial support are likely to get raped.
An independent woman and socially strong (no matter how attractive) might cause resentment like in the Mangalore pub, but is less likely to get raped, because she is not an easy target, and criminals don't want trouble.
Bhagwad:
ReplyDelete//To excuse a person's actions and say that's it's because of evolutionary instincts is...well, just very poorly informed.//
Now I am forced to insult you.
I have never talked about "excusing a crime" on that ground. It was made clear in the post itself. Then again I specifically made it clear in my previous comment. But still you are stuck there! You have displayed the height of your ineptness!
DON'T BOTHER COMMENTING ANYMORE.
Indian Home Maker:
ReplyDeleteYou are talking about certain kinds of rape. I don't deny those. (That's also made clear in the post.) Now, if you think that no woman ever got raped when she wore "provocative" clothes, and that "provocative" (try to see the literal meaning of the word) clothes have 0% coorelation with arousal of sexual urges in males (which causes "biological snapping"), you need to think again. I am only talking about this specific kind of instances. Therefore, while the issues and instances you are mentioning are valid, and I totally share your concern, this post is about something else if you can see that.
The title of your post alone is all the defense I need Darshan. "Are men alone responsible?". Your implication is what? That women are responsible too!
ReplyDeleteAnd this is the exact way that lawyers in courts argue to reduce the sentence of their clients. So yes...whether you like it or not, what you're saying IS a form of excuse for rapists. It's a tactic followed in courtrooms all over the world. It's an excuse because it works to sometimes reduce the sentence of criminals.
The serial killer is painted as a victim of circumstances. Of childhood. And the rapist is painted as a victim of the dress of the woman!!
I can't believe you're unintelligent so at some level, you HAVE to understand what I'm talking about. Neither have you responded to any of the other points I made, instead choosing to focus on the one sentence you can get a grip on. But that grip is false too since you're doing precisely what you claim not to - defending the rapist by saying he's not alone responsible.
I find your outrage to be out of proportion. But it's your blog, so you can do as you please with the comments section. I hope you enjoy your little nook.
Bhagwad:
ReplyDeleteWhen I chose that title, I did not have in mind what you said. If excusing men was my intention, I wouldn’t have said the contrary in the article! I clearly said in the article that “I will never advocate rape on this ground”. Okay, let’s say you missed that part, and went on with your assumption which you fairly derived from the title. But then, in the comment once again I made it clear that “I am all for punishing the rapists”. Where it was not explicit (in the title) you inferred what you wanted to using your logic; but where (and twice) the contrary is explicitly said, but you couldn’t see that?!
Now talk about the title. The title, I would maintain, is still appropriate – even if by that I never meant excusing men for the crime. This post was (if I need reminding) about specific kind of instances where women wear “provocative” clothes to look attractive by appealing to male sexuality (what else?) In the kind of instances I am talking about, the woman “provoked” and rape happened. Technically speaking, both parties are responsible. If she hadn’t knowingly run into risk, with intention to attract males by showing her body and still the rape had happened, then it was only the man’s fault. But anyway, I would still not use this as an excuse for the rapist’s action, considering the greyness of the issue and the demands of civilization. But as I implied in one of the earlier comments, law doesn’t represent morality accurately. An action is wrong even when it is not illegal. So, there’s always this “gap” between law and morality. We can’t do anything about it (human world is too complex to be accurate about everything), and we have to give the full blame to the rapist. We are doing it, because in absence of “objective measurement” of women’s intentions, we wouldn’t want to risk being unjust to a possibly innocent woman (who didn’t have intention of “provoking”, and genuinely didn’t know that those clothes were provocative.) But that doesn’t mean no woman ever “intends” to “attract” and “provoke”. In fact, almost all of them who expose their body do! But alas, we can’t objectively measure intentions, so they would get away with it. In reality, the woman who wore clothes with intention to “provoke” IS partly culprit. That’s why the title IS right.
Since we can objectively measure only men’s action we punish the man with surety that we aren’t punishing the innocent. His act of raping is visible proof of his intention to rape. Catch him.
Two points I covered:
1) It is still not a good defence, for you didn’t see the explicit sentence “twice” and inferred what you wanted to from the inexplicit. Even if your assumption from the title was logically fair, what were you waiting for after me having explicitly clarifying to the contrary? And you still actually went on to make the accusation!
2) The title is still appropriate technically.
Cont...
ReplyDeleteAs for your complaint that I didn’t address your points, here’s to your satisfaction:
//To tell them to be careful is the heights of being insulting - they already know it very well.//
If a woman who knows the boundary of her culture, and knows that showing cleavage is going to attract excessive male attention, and still chooses to show cleavage and other body parts, she is doubtless dressing to “provoke”. (BTW, according to you she has the right to walk naked on the road! Ref: Your first comment.) I doubt if any women with common sense who “knows very well to be careful” would knowingly and with intention run into risk, unless she WANTS to be “careless” for whatever reasons.
// The danger of saying "be careful" goes way beyond merely being insulting however. There's a chance (and not a small one) that potential rapists will think that the woman will be blamed if something is happening. So it's also the heights of irresponsibility in addition to being presumptuous.//
So you won’t tell women to be careful. Instead, I think you would tell women, “Women, wear what you like. You have the right to show cleavage, show it whenever you want the animalistic pleasure of attracting male attention! The law is catching the criminals, you worry not!” Fine. Let them wear what they like. Read on…
//So the suggestion to act responsibly is itself ludicrously irresponsible in and of itself.//
Hm. So, I shouldn’t suggest acting responsibly. Meaning, women can act “irresponsibly”. Can you see this: I am saying “act responsibly” because I know the reality. (You on the other hand seem to live in utopia.) I know that one of them will get raped some day because of her clothing. When she gets raped, you will say, catch the rapist and punish him. Note that I will also say the same. But punishing the rapist won’t repair the damage. I know it. I am saying to act responsibly because there ARE rapists out there! The law is dealing with them. Fine. But they still ARE. But according to you, the angel of womankind, they don’t have to take (“presumptuous”-) me seriously and keep acting irresponsibly! Very nice.
According to your view a guy can’t say to his sister or mother to “be careful”. If he does, he is “insulting” them! He should ensure that his mother and sister can show their bodies and roam around in risky settings where rapists exist. (And rapists do exist.)
Even if at all your suggestion is wise, it would apply in the world where rapists are no more. Not in this world. Not today. So, if I tell a woman to act responsibly, it’s for her benefit. If she acts irresponsibly, she might have to bear the cost. We don’t have to be lenient with rapists, but risking women is not the way to go about catching rapists!
It’s hard to believe how one can call a suggestion to act responsibly “ludicrously irresponsible in and of itself.” You proved something today.
//…if you expect a person to behave like a dog, they will behave like one. Expect them to behave like humans and they will behave like humans.//
Naïve! A rapist won’t care how a woman expects him to behave! I expect entire humankind to be virtuous. What does it change? Some psychobabble, that!
Besides, when a woman wears cloths to “titillate”, wouldn’t you want to ask her what she actually expects? Doesn’t she expect men to be attracted to her? When she knows that rapists exist, isn’t it irresponsible to still attract men in public places by exposing her body? And whatever you want to believe my friend, rapists exist. By telling women to not worrying about acting responsibly you would be encouraging them to run into the danger.
--
I had not addressed your points, because I found them too naïve to be addressed, especially after spending two days on this discussion, which btw I knew (from your first comment) would be pointless. But since this was your last comment on this blog I did not want to be unfair by not publishing your “defence”. Now I have addressed almost all of your points in your last comments.
Let's make a single change in society 'Make all women decently' dressed... and rapes would still happen. With same frequency.
ReplyDeleteBy the people who are mentally sick. They are on a look out for victims. Maybe provocatively dressed ones are more likely to become victims. But if they don't get such women, they will still make their move. On properly dressed ones.
Rape is completely an act of violence. It's nothing like 'woman provoking a man into an affair.'
If I ever psychoanalysed a rapist- the cause of his sickness/act... certainly won't include 'That woman dressed badly'
The psychopathology happened before he saw a woman dressed provocatively. Maybe that woman fell prey because she got highlighted due to her dress. But the incident would have happened anyway. Maybe even a little girl would have been raped. Maybe even an old lady in sixties (not sexually provokative).
Nah, you cannot blame the hypocrite woman at all. She is to be blamed for her hypocrisy, her thinking. But NOT for the rape.
I'd like to point out that I think this implies better to casual rape then to pathological rapes. I completely agree with the author. I really hate when people say I'm "excusing rapists" by saying that. I am not. It is highly ignorant to not try to understand the reasons why they did it, and by doing so we can attempt to prevent similar things in the future. So when a serial killer kills someone it may in fact be partially because of some childhood thing. That is in no way excusing him and would just be a fact. The problem is most people feel the need for "punishment" instead of rehabilitation. It is very vengeful and people seem to have a misconception of "self" in that they lose sight of the fact that people are nothing more than their experiences. To understand the underlying causes of an issue allows you to change it. Every situation can be bettered by both parties. We need to stop with the egoism that humans have and stop taking "blame" and "fault" as some aggressive assault. We must not forget that humans have limits, that humans are animals, humans have urges, etc. I really don't feel that the way feminists go about discussing gender issues really helps anything whatsoever, and to me it sounds very shallow in the psychology and biology department.
ReplyDeleteLove the careful analysis and thinking that went behind this post.
ReplyDeleteCompletely agree with your views.However keep in mind that this argument cannot be won with someone who doesnt understand the male biological imperative(which includes half the worlds population),without which the humankind would go extinct.If by some process,males and females switched bodies for some time,we all would have a better understanding of what the different genders go through.
Provocative women sneer that males think with their d*cks,while remaining fully willing to derive the benefits that come from it.That is hypocrisy.
I heard this sometime ago,when courtship in the workplace works,its called romance,when it doesn't,its called sexual harassment.
Also,in countries like India,sexuality is highly repressed,and not as freely available as in other countries,when most people are sexually active by 15 years of age.I think this repression might also be contributing to a lot of indecent behavior,rape as well as other forms of behavior/harassment of women.
Also,to add to the above comment,do read a copy of "The manipulated man" by Esther Vilar It is a book written by a women herself who clearly saw through deceptive games played by her own gender.It is available on flipkart.
ReplyDeleteDear Darshan Chande,
ReplyDeleteYour article has a number of references to biology-related material which makes me assume that you have looked into it before writing this article.
But maybe you should have looked into Forensics as well...?
You seem to have no doubt that provocative clothes attract rapists. Have you considered that provocative clothes---do not---attract rapists?
I feel terrible saying this, but provocative clothes attract rapists as much as pineapples and watermelons - that is - only if the rapist has strange fetish that involves those fruits (I don't even want to go there).
You see - before you started saying that rapists are attracted to provocative clothes - maybe you should have checked out rapist profiles... you know, the ones that tell you exactly what rapists are looking for? based on what rapists have said about their inner need for rape?
Here are the four profiles:
1. The Power Assertive Rapist
2. Anger Retaliation Rapist
3. The Power Reassurance or Opportunity Rapist
4. Anger Excitement Rapist, Sadistic
If you have any chance to look into those four profiles - you fill find words like "power" "domination" "reassurance". And their victims to be "vulnerable", "quiet", "the-one-that-will-not-talk-or-tell-anyone", "alone" etc.
... wait wait! Where is "sexy", "promiscuous", "dressed-in-provocative-clothes"? I can't find these descriptions of rape victims! Why???
BECAUSE RAPISTS WANT CONTROL --- NOT SEX.
They want to reassure themselves as dominant males (or females in those rare cases), they want to see fear, they want the victim squirming in pain, crying, screams for help that get quieter and quieter.... They want to see terror in their eyes... Life slowly dwindling away into a feeling of hopelessness, depression... Blankness... a robot... a controlled thing, overpowered and destroyed.
THAT AND ONLY THAT CAUSES SEXUAL SATISFACTION FOR RAPISTS --- NOT SEX.
Sex is merely a tool. You could argue that torture could cause the same thing... except you'd be wrong. Sex is meant to be happy, blissful, loving. Turning it into a horrendous experience adds mental pain to the victim and mental pleasure to her/his torturer.
THEREFORE SEX APPEAL HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH RAPE.
Babies get raped. Toddlers, children, old women, ugly women, shy women, women covered in clothes.
You know who really gets raped? Those who won't tell anyone. Those who'll be scared to death. Those who could be potentially "used" again.
NOT WOMEN IN PROVOCATIVE CLOTHES
This fact makes your article almost entirely useless. Get your facts straight.
As a side note: if you decide to write a similar article on how promiscuous girls go to parties, get drugged up, fall asleep and get raped while passed out - then I'll be able see how your argument could have any credibility because the rapist can just be a drunk horny guy finding a girl in "provocative clothes" in his bedroom. Still does not excuse him, of course, - but at least the guy wouldn't fit into a rapist category.
Sincerely, A.M.