Now that there is going to be a ‘Slut’ walk being planned in Delhi , there are heated discussions everywhere on the Man – Woman relationship and its intriguing intricacies.
Came across an article in The Independent by the noted institution herself Christina Patterson . Altho if this had been written by a male , there wud have been hell to pay .
Anyways reproducing it verbatim.
Sex can be very, very, very, very nice. It can also be nasty. It can also be tedious. It can leave you screaming out for more. It can leave you longing for a nice cup of tea. But whether you’re Dominique Strauss-Kahn or Mother Teresa, one thing’s clear. Sex was here at the start of things, and it’s here to stay.
Ever since Eve bit the apple, and discovered that she wasn’t even wearing a thong, which was, like, so embarrassing, there’s been a lot of fuss about what, in the light of this, women should wear. The author of Deuteronomy said that women “should not wear that which pertains unto a man”, which may, or may not, have ruled out a bikini or a boob tube. The apostle Paul said that women should “adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety”. He also said that they should cover their heads when they worshipped and avoid displaying “broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array”.
For the past 2,000 years, this has been the main dress code in the Middle East. The prophet Muhammad made a few adjustments in the Koran – women “should draw their veils over their bosoms” and “not display their ornaments except to their husbands” – but the general trend remained. If you were a man, you could wear whatever the hell you liked. If you were a woman, you should stick to long and loose.
In Africa, and South America, and Australia, and New Guinea, the rules were different. If you were a man, you wore – well, not very much. If you were a woman, you didn’t wear much either. If you were raped, then nobody said you were asking for it, because you were only wearing a loin cloth, because everybody was only wearing a loin cloth. But if you were a woman you might still get raped, because in every culture throughout the world, and throughout history, women have been raped.
In the West, we did things differently. We didn’t bother all that much with what men wore. There was a brief fashion for periwigs. There was a brief fashion for codpieces. There was a brief fashion for doublets and hose. But mostly, what men have worn is a tunic, or a jacket, and trousers. What women have worn is dresses with hoops, and crinolines, and petticoats, and bustles, and corsets, and frills, and flowers, and, more recently, maxi dresses, and miniskirts. What women have worn, in other words, is what emphasises the fact that a woman’s not a man. What women have worn is what emphasises her value in the sexual market place.
Forty-odd years ago, there was an attempt to redress this. Women, largely Western women, said that they didn’t want to be defined by their value in the sexual market place. They didn’t want to be defined by the size of their breasts, or the shape of their bottoms, or the length of their legs. So they started wearing clothes – often rather ugly clothes – that made them look more like men. Some of them burnt their bras, which made running quite uncomfortable, but not, as the African women could tell them, once you got used to it, and some of them wore dungarees. And some of them posed naked in magazines. They did this, because they wanted to show that when you were naked in a magazine because you were in control of your body, and in control of who you had sex with, it was different to when you were naked in a magazine because a man wanted to use you to sell something. Though not everyone could tell the difference.
And then something changed. It’s not absolutely clear why it changed. It’s not clear if it’s because the women got bored with dungarees, or if they secretly missed the wolf whistles in the street, or if it’s because fashions come and go, and the dungarees were just a fashion, but suddenly the women who had worn the dungarees, or perhaps the daughters of the women who had worn the dungarees, said they were still feminists, but that they were something called “new feminists”, and this meant that they still wanted to be treated as equals by men, but that now they could wear very, very short skirts, and very, very low tops, and very, very high heels. They said that they didn’t dress this way to please men, but to please themselves, although when they were sitting at home, they didn’t dress like this. When they were sitting at home, they wore tracksuit bottoms and trainers.
It must have been quite hard for the men to tell the difference between the women who wore very, very short skirts and very, very low tops and very, very high heels who wanted to meet a footballer, or be on a reality TV show, or in the pages of a magazine, and the “new feminists” who said they just wanted to be taken seriously for their brains. It must have been quite hard for them to tell the difference between the women who were offering sex because they thought it might give them some power, and the women who said they wanted power, but not sexual advances.
It must be quite hard for them, too, to tell the difference between the women who went on a “SlutWalk” in Newcastle on Saturday morning, wearing very, very short skirts and very, very low tops and very, very high heels, and the ones who went to drink a lot of alcohol in nightclubs in Newcastle on Saturday night, and maybe have sex with a stranger. The ones during the day were, it’s true, waving signs saying things like “My Clothes Aren’t My Consent” and “It Doesn’t Matter What I Wear or Where I Go… No Means No”. The ones during the evening weren’t.
And of course the men should understand that very, very short skirts and very, very low tops and very, very high heels aren’t an alternative to consent, that nothing is ever an alternative to consent, and that very, very short skirts, and very, very low tops and very, very high heels, and even very, very large quantities of alcohol, are never an excuse for rape. And that women have as much right to control their sex lives as men. But perhaps the women who say they are “new feminists”, or “post- feminists”, could also understand that, since human beings (unless they’re women over the age of 50) aren’t yet invisible, and since we are part of a species that’s programmed to want sex, and which seems to have found the technological means to make images of sex available to anyone with a computer, every single thing you wear sends out a message.
They might think that wearing very, very short skirts and very, very low tops and very, very high heels is sending out a message saying that they are very, very keen to become a very, very successful doctor, or lawyer, or politician, and that they are only wearing them because they like to get some fresh air on their legs, or breasts, and because they happen to like the way that high heels push your breasts forward, and your bottom out, but only because they like the way this feels. They might think that men who are talking to you when you’re wearing very, very low tops, and very, very short skirts and very, very high heels, shouldn’t look at your breasts, or your legs, or at the way your heels make your bottom stick out. They should be thinking about how you’ll be a brilliant doctor, or lawyer.
They might also think that the thing to do about “the sexualisation of children” is to commission reports from Christian organisations for mothers run by men. And maybe it is. Maybe it will help. But little girls dress like their mothers, and if their mothers dress like sluts, or even like “sluts”, then they’re quite likely to be as confused on the subject of sexual equality as the mothers who briefly saw a flicker of progress, and then watched it fade.
Christina Patterson in The Independent
The many views on this makes for very interesting reading and can be a topic for heated arguments.
One reader says ” May I state as a male that I find the latest trend in how women dress is simply stunning, the shorter the skirts get and more flesh is displayed, the better I feel!!
Is anyone complaining?”
Another “Very funny article. Although I’m of the However I’m dressed, No means No school, I have to say there seems to be an element of hypocrisy about the way some women justify their clothing choices. It’ll be interesting to see the responses she gets. “
I am in agreement with this one – that a No shud always be a NO , though there is much much hypocrisy in some women’s attitudes.
There is however a point at issue here . Dress does not matter. There are places and men where rape does not differentiate the target by what dress she wears.
Another girl’s (Ursula) coments which seems level headed on most points , but over the top at some places
Quote :
“
Hold your horses and, forgive the pun, do not press the eject button yet.
A writer’s gender has nothing to do with content. And that article’s content is utter rot.
What’s feminism, old, new or post got to do with rape, dress sense, the meat market, sex, indeed anything?
The article is a monumental INSULT to MEN. Prick over brain, is it? Wow. Who’d have thought it.
The author misses the point. Sex is sex, rape is violence. If I dress in a very very very short skirt with a very very very low cleavage (what’s it with that journalist repeating everything as if her readers were brain dead!?) and sky high heels on a Saturday night – indeed on a Monday morning – I send a very strong message. And any woman who denies that is talking rot too. However, that does NOT make a woman prey and available to ANY old Dick(!), Tom and Harry. Scant clothing is not a GREEN light. At best it’s a come on. A tease. A toe testing the waters.
Don’t give me dress as an excuse for a man to stick anything where it shouldn’t be. Ever heard of nuns in their shrouds being raped? Wonder what the excuse is there, don’t you? I suppose one could say “at least the woman doesn’t have herself to blame”. If that is what is implied with that responses it’s vile, with a big V. And if I were a man I’d take issue with that. In fact, I, woman, take issue with that kind of ‘modesty’.
Odd isn’t it, don’t you think, how most men are perfectly able to keep their zipper up? (Barath hit the nail on the head – EYE Candy. Doesn’t mean you have to put your fingers in the sugar bowl UNinvited). I defy anyone to prove that dress has anything to do with when a man resorts to violence to relieve himself.
And please do advise the Marlon Brandos and Paul Newmans of this world not to strutt their wares in tight jeans and sleeveless vests. Wafting their pheromones (fresh sweat). In court I will plead that I thought they were “asking for it” on the strength of which I ravished their helpless muscular selves across the bonnet of a car or against a garage wall. Not that I do gate crash, you understand.
No one “is asking for it”. In terms of the law, ethics, morals, a woman’s dress is theeeeeeeeee most feeble and lame defence for rape. Neither do I have any time for females who tease relentlessly before, forgive the pun AGAIN, hitting the eject button and let it happen. Only to then cry ‘rape’. Oh purleesee. Go home, have a hot shower. And don’t get so drunk the next time you don’t know what you are doing.
Unquote
On another note Leila Ahmed had a fascinating article in a recent Foreign Policy Magazine. She says she was surprised that a lot of modern Muslim women are returning to the veil for the sake of feminism, so they will be regarded as serious, intelligent human beings, not just judged/regarded as sex objects . Its amusing that the French have a problem with that.
Though imagining to take the side of the French, perhaps they are upset that women feel they need to cover themselves to be taken seriously


![OgAAAEcwnoMr3hN74pogaIWlXDTpCjAl5Jm-6l9KHz961Zlu_mvYLMUrysmvEVhD-EVeacSUheI0txMbAVkG1jqVPKUAm1T1UDtw9KK1KUecQiHSBb0vIOWBa_hz[1]](http://surwil.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/ogaaaecwnomr3hn74pogaiwlxdtpcjal5jm-6l9khz961zlu_mvylmurysmvevhd-eveacsuhei0txmbavkg1jqvpkuam1t1udtw9kk1kuecqihsbb0viowba_hz1.jpg?w=510&h=680)