DarshanChande.com

Interesting. I would have liked to see you at leas...

2012-05-27T11:49:24.005+05:30

Interesting. I would have liked to see you at least mention the barebone element of reason, that being that the purpose for why we are considered 'rational animals' in the first place is first and foremost because we can choose to live the lives we want to live. Without reason the very idea of having an abstract goal, for example the computer engineering goal you came up with, would be completely impossible. You treat the goal as your starting point, you fail to realize that having a goal in the first place required your reason. With reason we live outside of our baseline desires for food, mates and shelter and can focus on grander issues that require mental faculties exceeding other animals here on earth. So yes, man is rational. Saying otherwise is lunacy.

From the article: //Meaning, there's always a ...

2012-05-27T07:10:17.314+05:30

From the article: //Meaning, there's always a possibility that our knowledge and understanding can be improved. Therefore, in true sense, we can never be truly Rational. Corollary is: rationality is always subjective. Theoria, however and therefore, justifies a position reached through the best of human knowledge and understanding.//

So, at a given time rational in theoretical sense is that position which is rational according to the best of human knowledge and understanding at that time. If we think it's okay for everyone to be rational in their own subjective ways then there isn't much sense in rationality. Hence, we must always strive to be rational in theoretical sense, i.e. try to develop best understanding and then form reasons.

I thought you had very interesting thoughts. I tho...

2012-05-27T01:03:52.423+05:30

I thought you had very interesting thoughts. I thought you had a good example for how practical reason could be flawed; and you did a good job of explaining how theoretical reason is what the objective position entails. But this is what I dont get: You said towards the end, "Meaning, there's always a possibility that our knowledge and understanding can be improved. Therefore, in true sense, we can never be truly Rational." Then in your conclusion, you said "As for being rational in theoria sense, vast majority of humans are irrational". But, if our knowledge and understanding can always be improved, how is it that anyone could be rational (in a theoretical sense)?

//Why can't you think it in your head, but not...

2012-05-24T11:15:25.145+05:30

//Why can't you think it in your head, but not make it obvious to anyone else, like we do? This is why women see it as we have more self control than men.

There are reasons why women have what appears to be self-control: 1) women are physically weak, and 2) they have greater burden to carry if they get impregnated. It's only rational, then, for women to not be sexually bold, for they can't afford to be so. Men, on the other hand, can afford to be sexually bold, so we see less of self-control in them.

We have to look at and understand these biological differences which are the roots of different sexual behavior in men and women. Again, I am not saying that because men can afford to be bold, they have a right to sexually assault women. But the fact is, our biological instincts don't follow the rules of the civilized world. As a result there are psychological costs involved in 'controlling' the biological impulses.

The natural state is wherein men are sexually bold and women have the self-control. That's how men and women are wired. So, let's say that's a zero-cost state. Now, civilization demands we don't act like animals. So men have to exercise self-control. (Women already have it in natural zero-cost state.) When men do that, it appears that we brought about equality, but what happens is that men are now paying costs. Not only that, now women get an incentive to use maneuvers (wearing short clothes for attracting men and gaining power though sexual politics) because men don't act on their impulses, increasing the costs men incur psychologically, and giving women the benefit. It's no more a zero-cost state. Men incur all the cost, women enjoy the benefit. To the eye which does not see the whole big picture, it appears just.

It would be just, if men would exercise self-control (thereby incurring some cost), and women would not take the advantage of it by wearing provocative clothes. Note that women just have to keep from taking the advantage of freely applying attraction maneuvers. They don't even have to incur any cost. But they don't do that, even.

There's no perfect solution to this problem (Nature is bitch!), but we can make an effort to solve it by understanding the fundamentals of the problem and then cooperating. Unless men and women BOTH take the responsibility, it can't work. And wearing provocative clothes, and demanding the right to do whatever men can, is not responsible behavior on part of women.

Ok, I agree that men and women are different in ma...

2012-05-24T10:34:37.527+05:30

Ok, I agree that men and women are different in many ways, but you are implying here that the unwanted sexual attention women receive maybe be based on attire. We all know this is not true. And I pity all the rape victims out there who happen to come across this article. It is also not true that all or even most women dress for sexual attraction. I personally dress for men, but most of the women I have ever been friends with dress to impress other women. For many years I hsve been trying to figure out the male mind. For me, it always comes back to this: If your going to look, fine look. But why must you break your neck. Why make it obvious or not care if your obvious. Why is it that some men absolutely MUST compliment a woman. Why can't you think it in your head, but not make it obvious to anyone else, like we do? This is why women see it as we have more self control than men.

//Part of being human is having self control, and ...

2012-05-21T10:35:37.474+05:30

//Part of being human is having self control, and if you can't control yourself and you rape someone that is your fault and you need to be sent to jail. //

People are being sent to jail, and yet rapes are happening, which means your laws are utter failures in controlling rape, so stop barking law, law, law.

Yes a woman wearing provocative clothing may not always get raped,but she is unnecessarily provoking sexual desire in men and responsible for others getting raped.

Most women who go around semi naked dont get raped because they are well protected, or are in safe environments. let them do that in unsafe areas net go away and then let us see how many come home without being raped.

These women are responsible for projecting an image of women not as human beings, but mounds of flesh, sexual objects, objects of gratification, they are the first people ho should be put behind bars for sexual abuse of women.

These women always push the limits of whats acceptable in their society. And the unfortunate truth is that these zombies are desperate for male attention. yes they dont want being stared at. but no one likes being stared at, even if men are stared at by women they wont like it, that is human nature, we need our space. because they are coming buck naked in public, does not mean this nature will go away.

If as a man you are not affected by what a woman wears, that's your personal situation, even a single person doesn't get affected same way to women all the time. Young men or men with higher sexual desire, get attracted more.There is no point in moralizing here. If tomorrow your testosterone shoot up, you will be ogling like a dog again.

Or maybe you defend the right to be naked so you can enjoy watching them.

Discussion on Facebook:

Harmanjit Singh: How about that man is an animal capable of rationality: that is premeditation, abstraction, intellection, theorizing, and so on. In other words, man is identified by the neo-cortex.

Rationality, like logic, is a technique which depends on axioms to achieve hitherto unknown/unachieved ends. The technique, as applied in an individual case, may have flaws (fallacies), and the axioms may be questionable too. But man is capable of applying the technique, of subduing one's impulses through neo-cortex.

Darshan Chande: Yeah, so it depends on what we mean by rationality. In theoria (theoretical reason) sense, since most men don't act according to the best of human knowledge and understanding (fallacies and questionable axioms) we can say that most men are irrational. But many people are instrumentally rational. And if we mean by rationality premeditation, abstraction, intellection, theorizing, and so on, then man IS a rational animal.

If one has to decide whether rationality in a particular context is a positive trait, then it's necessary to first understand what is being meant by rationality. The reason behind writing this post is that many people view rationality in different ways and based on that either promote rationality or scoff at it. After getting the clear idea one can decide which type of rationality must one encourage; instead of passing judgement on the broad term 'rationality'.

Hm, man is an animal capable of rationality sounds good.

I wish to thank you for posting this online. I had...

2012-05-13T03:33:39.531+05:30

I wish to thank you for posting this online. I had always ask myself why I'm different. I learned in an early age that I have a philosophical mind. It makes me feel happy to be a young girl to have this ability, but sad in knowing I can't be a normal girl. I'm 20 years old now and still do not have friends. I try to understand why, but it makes me sad to think about it. I was fortunate to meet a girl that thinks like me, but I moved away. I understand the concepts of making a friend, but keeping that friend seems hard for me.(I hope you understand what I mean, because alot of people do not understand me.) Thank You!! :)

First of all, MOST Women wear clothes that make th...

2012-05-10T19:02:48.647+05:30

First of all, MOST Women wear clothes that make them look attractive because THEY like to look good and feel good, not to show off for men.
And even if a Woman is wearing a specific outfit wih the intention to attract a Man (and there is nothing wrong with that, it's what we do as humans) that still does not mean she's asking for rape.
If you're attracted to someone you don't rape them, the rapist is completely responsible for that.
Part of being human is having self control, and if you can't control yourself and you rape someone that is your fault and you need to be sent to jail.
Nobody is "asking for it", that's what makes it rape, it's nonconsensual.

You have an interesting approach to this, yet it&#...

2012-05-07T06:43:09.424+05:30

You have an interesting approach to this, yet it's all quite questionable. Animalistic tendencies are obviously a cause for concern, especially in males. I think the animal instinct is all subconsciously controlled.

I don't blame the women that dress provocatively, I blame the sex industry but I see reason in your statement. It's sure a probability that women baring all would entice a rapist further to commit an offense.

The drinking culture I find is sky rocketing sexual offences, the grinding or what they call 'dancing' I hear many girls that say they were touched inappropriately in clubs. Then you have the violent films, violent rape films that obviously push males that are less intellectual to act on what they've watched and commit the act.

I'm amazed by what some girls wear to be honest, seeing ass cheeks and showing more than you'd want children to see. We are after all supposed to be a sophisticated society, I just see this generation as a sexually oriented disgrace and I'm part of it! Ask a girl she just says 'don't look' when theres 200 girls around showing it all, where am I supposed to look I ask!? I look more a creep if I walk awkwardly trying not to look rather than playing cool and staring, so it's a no win either way. Every human gets sexual frustrated, yet we are essentially surrounded by sex, I don't see the logic in it at all. I believe in equality in the sexes, so it does beg the question shouldnt males be able to walk in public with skin baring clothes? Considering we're biologically different, means we would have to walk around with tight ass showing shorts with the juelles on show, but we can't because we'd be arrested for indecent exposure.

Whether we like it or not, this sexual look influenced by the sex industry plus media, is here to stay. I think rapists are opportunists praying on vulnerable girls or the more sinister is the rapists that plans over weeks, follow certain routes to find a girl that walks it alone.

What's the statistic, only 1 in 20 rapes are reported, the drinking culture has advanced the rapist industry, get a girl hammered or simply slip in the date rape drugs, all the way to social networking sites like Facebook, all building a society that rapists can thrive in. Whether you want to face it or not we as people have created an environment for these kinds of people to bask in.

The reality is, girls that dress provocatively, to what they say or how they act to the wrong people, are putting themselves at risk to catching the attention of a potential sex predator on the prowl thats a fact. It's not in the public eye, it's hidden but it should be taught to girls for theyre safety.

Everyone says 'it won't happen to me' that's ignorant and a stupid belief of people, the statistics speak for themselves plus everyone thinks like that but it could happen. When it does, people ask why yet miss the point because they choose to ignore the advice given, doesn't apply to all circumstances but most.

Prevention is better than pretending it won't happen, preparation is best rather than avoiding the reality until ones in it themselves. Some will agree most won't, that's life, we as people can't change the past but we can prepare for the future. Girls are welcome to say males should change, not them it's our fault not theirs but it's equal stakes both sexes change or none will.

How would you change this aspect? I agree harsher punishments should be given to offenders, I'm steering towards a choice between death or castration like animals that are aggressive and overly horny. I could take about this topic all year long! But it's time I hit the pillow!

Is Sex a Basic Need Like Food and Water?

Spirituality, Eliminating Suffering, and Narcissism

one question why you think that avoiding suffering...

2012-05-04T01:21:31.462+05:30

one question why you think that avoiding suffering is narcissistic ?
i may be not so experienced in field of philosophy or spirituality... but i want u to give some logical reasons..
we don't know how this random life started ,we born there is no control... we certainly die one day (if one is attempting suicide then its different thing).. there is no escape between these two..
if death is end .. then life is meaningless
there comes spirituality which claims that there is something beyond death i.e suffering stops ...
this is something which cant be explain .. free from suffering is experience not a bunch of thoughts which can be written in blog... spirituality is beyond philosophy ...
there are some hardcore spiritualist like Buddha , Mahavira, Krishna, Jesus.. are they all fake? and if not then definitely they all achieve something which is beyond thoughts and philosophy...
please explain your side.. why shouldn't person can only work on inner life ?
why shouldn't there is escape from suffering?
what is the need of having suffering?
please reply...

Also, why should romantic bond female-male have on...

2012-04-30T23:33:34.850+05:30

Also, why should romantic bond female-male have only ONE end ?

I agree with all you said, I am just requestionning all this...

Human hands are deisgned to put food in the mouth, build stuff but also play piano, violin...etc

What if "romantic love" has also the purpose to bring a relief from one own' s masculinity ( in males) and owns feminity ( females) ?

It is interesting subject, especially when we know many people ( especially males) have lost time, energy even life for a lie.....

This is all fantastic stuff, and great discussion!...

2012-04-29T02:12:22.005+05:30

This is all fantastic stuff, and great discussion!

I'm on a journey just now, but still not settled in my beliefs. Darshan and Kitty sum it up in a way that I, and I'm sure many others, can relate to.

My problem is with God. It just doesn't cut it, I need something more concrete. So, at the risk of Seung Sahn being right, I'd like to put this out:

Let's start by contemplating that every living thing on earth stemmed from a single organism, many millions of years ago. From that, through evolution, our minds have developed into what they are today. As mikeg (above) hints, the conscious mind forms only a tiny part of the whole mind. And the subconscious mind is responsible for tens of thousands of decisions each day. Who's to say that your sub-concious mind is not too dissimilar from mine? Who's to say that those tens of thousands of unique subconscious decisions that you make each day are not working in tandem with mine, and others, in the interest of evolving life as a whole? Coincidences and miracles begin to make sense. Maybe we are just all evolving together, inter-tangled on a single journey to expand life.

For me, this theory is helping me to understand that we are all one. That our sub-conscience is overwhelmingly powerful. That the dots in our lives inter-connect us in a scientifically inexplicable but balanced way - with the aim of pushing life forward.

What do you think? Does anybody have any insight or links to further literature on this theory?

Don't you think the romantic chemicals decreas...

2012-04-28T16:24:59.429+05:30

Don't you think the romantic chemicals decrease is the result of some boredom when one can not get something out of the other anymore ?
I think the chemicals are still produced as long as there is some benefits for the couple, hence the chemicals are the result/message of some psychological advantage.

I mean in transactionnal analysis they say partner chose a partner that fit in their life "mind game": for instance a woman who have some social anxiety is going to chose a guy who tend to be "dominnering" to rationalize the fact that she avoid anxiety arousing situations :" this is because of him that I can' t do this because he control me" while the guy actually just tend to protect her : "if this make you scared that is ok don't do it, stay with me because I am scared too when you are not here"

Basically, besides the genetic aspect that commands the mating drive there is a selection of partner who can play that life mind game .....apparently in order the rationalize some inadequacies, deficiencies etc as "ego protection"....which means that the other partner is used, exploited....

Also aren't everything we do based on good chemicals "craving" ?

I mean when you learn something when reading, your brain release dompamine, when you have a laught, when you have a good conversation, when you exercise, sing, write, learn.....I think everything...maybe even listening the silence and meditation....

Human are drug addict.

I never had an arranged marriage. But it might as...

2012-04-27T16:04:33.785+05:30

I never had an arranged marriage. But it might as well have been. I fell very ill many years ago, was out of work and out of desperation proposed to my friend 8 years ago. The marriage has never been consummated and for almost all these years I have been desperately unhappy but did not have the financial means to leave him. I ended up having several nervous breakdowns. I now have come to accept my fate. I have made the decision to be happy and to count my blessings.

Discussion on Facebook:

Harmanjit Singh: What about a dog getting angry and aggressive when he sees an outsider dog in its territory? Is that suffering? Because it is definitely not physical pain as we normally understand it.

Darshan Chande: Not pain. I think it's just a preprogrammed, heteronomous behavior. If the dog knows what it is doing then depending on how it feels we would classify the experiences as, or not as, suffering. Suffering as explained in the post is a function of consciousness, and is to the extent consciousness/self-awareness is.

Harmanjit Singh: Wouldn't you say that most suffering is also preprogrammed? Of course it needs stimulus, like in the case of the outsider dog venturing into the territory, but the reactivity etc. is all part of the dog's brain already. How is the human case different?

Darshan Chande: From the post: "..suffering is any experience that one does not want to have. That definition of suffering presupposes cognition and thought processes." That's how is human case different. We can despair and lament, and wish it was not happening to us. That, I think, makes suffering, suffering.

Harmanjit Singh: Hmmm... At the risk of sounding nit-picky, I would still disagree that that definition presupposes "thought processes". Cognition, sure. The dog DOES NOT want the other dog to be there. The dog obviously in some way also wants the suffering to go away, and the way it does is by trying to shoo the other dog away.

Darshan Chande: The difference lies in the degree of self-awareness humans and dogs have. If "I" is, then it suffers. If "I" isn't, who suffers?

Harmanjit Singh: ‎Darshan Chande: The dog suffers.

Darshan Chande: Yeah, so as I said in the post: we can not say definitively to what extent other animals feel suffering. It suffers if it has, as you say, cognition; and little bit of (something like?) self-awareness. Since humans have it to the most sophisticated degree (to the best of our knowledge), they suffer the most.

Are you saying self-awareness isn't needed to suffer?

Darshan Chande: And, isn't some thought process embedded in cognition?

Harmanjit Singh: I am saying suffering has degrees. The reflection about suffering "wish it wasn't true, god, why me?" "fear of the future" kind of processing obviously requires an evolved brain like that of humans, but there are many sufferings (lust, missing one's mom or beloved) which are more instinctual and which we share with our animal cousins.

Harmanjit Singh: A child has rudimentary cognition but thought generally presupposes language and abstraction.

Darshan Chande: Got it.

Great article! It's funny how I can see peopl...

2012-04-21T19:55:41.729+05:30

Great article! It's funny how I can see people's "Ego" in action right on your message board. "I don't agree with this" "I agree, BUT" lol. This article was written from a sincere place and I accept it for what it's worth. Thanks for sharing.

Hello :) I can still remember being 16 and my mom ...

2012-04-13T03:30:14.142+05:30

Hello :)
I can still remember being 16 and my mom always saying "Well when YOU have kids..." until one day I reacted with "But what if I don't WANT to have kids?!" She began to cry and hid in her bedroom for a few hours and there were a few days of awkwardness afterwards.
I felt myself transition at that point, not wanting kids but assuming that I was supposed to want them. As the years progressed, that thought stayed with me but there was never an overwhelming need or desire to do so..
After many years with my husband, we 'tried' without really trying (usually a form of protection but if there wasn't, so be it) but never ended up pregnant.
At the age of 32, I was diagnosed with endometriosis and had to have surgery to remove my right ovary and fallopian tube. Still having part of my reproductive system intact, I felt that it was a necessity to try to have children after healing from surgery (almost having the choice taken from you can really mess with the mind).
It took several months of introspection and insightful talks with my husband before truly realizing that neither he nor I wanted children.
I am now 35 and become happier everyday. I often wonder about that interaction with my mother at 16 and can't help but think that, left to my own devices, I never would have felt like I SHOULD have children.
Another interesting tidbit, when people ask if I want to have kids and I give a definite no, you can almost see the confusion on their faces (these are typically people that already have children.) If the conversation gets more in-depth and they discover my surgery woes from a few years back, they're almost RELIEVED to assume "Oh, you CAN'T have children, not that you DON'T want them.."
It's acceptable if you have an 'excuse', not simply free will :)
I strongly believe that the 'need' for children is society-induced. I know that there are always exceptions to the 'rules' (some people may have always felt the urge to procreate) but I can definitely say that I was never one of them :)
Thank you for this article, a great read!

Before giving sexual freedom, first the world shou...

2012-04-01T03:42:49.074+05:30

Before giving sexual freedom, first the world should know how to love. Then sex will never be an ultimate destination, a meaningless pursuit. It will be something sacred, like doing a pilgrimage and there will be faithfulness in this respect.

Since such a uniformity or a willing restriction cannot be attained, the restriction should be imposed. With restriction we do not change the course of happenings but just remind how everything should be.

Sex is a need and it will always be. Some will always take it as an amusement, and some will acknowledge it's sacred aspect and will respect it not only as a physical indulgence, but an emotional and a spiritual one too.

PS- I like your blog.

Long story short, what you are saying is: women ca...

2012-03-29T10:56:11.511+05:30

Long story short, what you are saying is: women can wear whatever they like. There is no connection of clothes/nudity with arousal of sexual urges in men. So, even for pragmatic reasons, don't tell women to not wear scanty clothes to expose their body. (Right?)

By all means, go ahead. Give justifications all you want. Disregard the reality (which is not as simple as many like to view it) and there are costs.

Sorry to bombard you with links, and I probably wi...

2012-03-29T08:32:36.180+05:30

Sorry to bombard you with links, and I probably will not continue this conversation further after this comment because I doubt we're going to agree. I found your post title itself absurd -- "Are men alone responsible?" Well of course a perpetrator of rape or violence or murder is "responsible" for his/her actions, otherwise we would have no reason to put them away in prison ("Her short skirt made me do it, Your Honour!"). So it's unlikely that I'll see eye to eye with you on this -- the whole way that you're framing the issues is totally antithetical to my own moral and feminist philosophy.

But just to let you know that I'm coming from a thoughtful and not emotional perspective on these issues, here is a critique of evolutionary psychology:
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2011/07/the-end-of-evolutionary-psychology/

It is based on this open access paper:
http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.1001109

This is actually not even one of the stronger critiques -- try reading systems biologists like Susan Oyama, they demolish evolutionary psychology.

Here is a hard-hitting anti-rape ad created by the Home Office in the UK targetting teenage couples. It's important to recognize that a lot of rape and sexual violence occurs in the context of intimate relationships, so giving women instructions on how to prevent rape is hardly going to work in that context:
http://vimeo.com/38768991

All in all, I'm sharply in disagreement with your biological determinism which I don't think is tenable in the light of the evidence coming from systems biology and the social sciences, and which in any event doesn't really advance the discourse or help out much as far as the moral condemnation of rape goes. I realize that you're probably well-intentioned, but I'd suggest you reconsider the manner in which you've framed the issues.

It's one thing to tell women to deal with the hostile realities of living in a world where many men do not see women as real people with subjectivity. It's another thing to claim that a woman's choice of dress is what provokes psychopathic behavior from men, rather than social structures that encourage men to develop psychopathic and anti-social personality traits (i.e. normative, hegemonic masculinity and all its associated pathologies). You should challenge hegemonic masculinity rather than trying to come up with biological justifications for it. Here are some men who are already doing exactly this:
http://www.mencanstoprape.org/

I also looked up this Swedish sex crime rate story...

2012-03-29T08:09:24.665+05:30

I also looked up this Swedish sex crime rate story a bit, it seems that immigrants were five times more likely than ethnic Swedes to be investigated for sex crimes, which would explain a lot:
http://www.thelocal.se/article.php?ID=2683&date=20051214

So we would have to break down the sex crime rates in Sweden to really get a sense of how a country which is otherwise seen as a world leader in gender equality (and whose sex industry has really shrunk, and where sex traffickers dare not go) might have a higher reported rate of sex crimes than other European countries.

But this is just a side point, my main point is that the enter culture of heterosexual sex itself has to change. Men have to stop seeing women as passive objects with no agency or boundaries, as a set of orifices to penetrate for their own pleasure. Unless you want to claim that men are natural-born-psychopaths who are incapable of empathy (which I don't believe for a second), you must surely realize the kind of social conditioning this culture of institutionalized misogyny imprints on the male psyche. And because this kind of institutionalized conditioning is so pervasive, few people realize it's very much possible to break free of this conditioning.

I'm not sure about how true your claim regardi...

2012-03-29T08:01:58.185+05:30

I'm not sure about how true your claim regarding Sweden is -- it's been suggested that one reason why the rates of rape could be higher in Sweden compared to other European countries is because the laws are more favorable toward women and women tend to report rape a lot more often. But in any event Sweden obviously has a long history of patriarchy so I don't see why it would be free of systemic violence against women.

Yes, there are still a few pre-industrial, matricentric, pre-patriarchal cultures left in the world where women have a certain kind of power and female nudity does not have the connotations you're claiming it does. You might want to check out the work of anthropologist Peggy Reeves Sanday. Male dominance is mostly a norm everywhere in the world but there are cultures where we have exceptions, which is why I'm calling your biological nativism w.r.t. male sexuality into question. In the context of the biological and social sciences, these issues are far from settled and I suggest you look into the debates on for instance evolutionary psychology, which is a field that has come under heavy criticism lately. Here is Peggy Reeves Sanday's webpage:
http://www.sas.upenn.edu/~psanday/

I'm sorry but I don't find your defense very convincing. Pragmatically speaking it makes sense to tell women to not dress in ways that signal to misogynistic men that they are sexually available. It also makes sense to tell all women to abandon heterosexuality altogether and become lesbians, since that would dramatically reduce the risk of being raped. While there are pragmatic reasons to suggest both things to women, the issue I'm raising is that the majority of the responsibility lies with men and with a culture that enables male violence and male sexual aggression. Tell men to stop raping women, period. And it's not just about rape, what's needed is the dismantling of an entire sexual culture that treats men as active agents and women as passive subjects. That attitude is very much present even in "respectable" or "dignified" heterosexual marriages. Most conventional heterosexual sex is constructed in such a way that the man is seen as an agent who is "doing something" to a passive women. Dismantle THAT culture and create a new culture of sexual egalitarianism, and I guarantee you that there won't be any need to tell women to dress one way or another because men will finally respect their agency, subjectivity and boundaries.