“Why wouldn’t the boys attack, if she herself is so inviting through her clothes and behaviour?” This was a comment in the youtube video of the Guwahati molest that occurred.
One in every third person I met during my own growth, holds this opinion. In my experience, therefore, it is one-third of India’s faith. And because I believe, I am surrounded by apparently more broad-minded people than India actually represents, may be it is more than half of India with this orthodox vision.
To me this is frightening, tormenting and sad. Rapists and molesters can still be held guilty and courts with their lousiness will still open and reopen their files, but how can you penetrate the minds of such vast numbers of people to eradicate the basic cause?
A woman’s clothes and how much she should expose and how much she should hide seems to become such a headache that in certain nations it is decided by the government and maintained by the cheap, foul-mouthed officials. In India the taunt-ers and then the molesters and then the blamers of the women later, maintain that same structure.
It is so surprising that her body is a public decision, that she is an arousing individual and we must blame her for somebody’s erection. A man’s weak nature in this equation is therefore kept ‘constant’ and the ‘variable’ is always the woman who must try every new tactics to help the ‘constant’ remain constant. And that is why a man in Afghanistan also gets aroused when he sees a woman even in hijab who herself cannot see herself walking by.
Arousal, my friend, is a reaction that originates in your ‘head’ to whatever you think is an action. I cannot help but remind you the Ivan Pavlov’s Dog and the Bell experiment you studied long back but now forgot and are blaming the women for your salivation.
As long as you do not help yourself get out of the food and the bell (sex and the women) connection, no matter how much you blame the bell, even if it rings for worshipping the God, you are still going the hear ‘sex’ as a reaction. And when each time you blame a woman, you strengthen in our society that salivating dog.
But shouldn’t she take precaution? Well, do you? Do you wear some cage around your penis and lock it before you come out, so that in case you are aroused by chance, you still cannot force anyone? If she is to lock her body inside her clothes in order to avoid your arousal, what on your part have you done to help your doggy stop salivation.
But why should she roam out at night, even though she knows it is not safe for her? To remind you that though you have almost owned her decision over her own body on how she should cover her, you still haven’t owned the moon and the sun.
Why would she drink? Of all the accusations this to me seems the most absurd. It is not the drink but the reaction that offends anyone. If she drank and then harassed you, pulled your doggy, and twisted the ear, I would blame her for her drinking and her filthy reactions. But in an incident where she walked home without offending anyone and instead the men who drank sexually assaulted her, what kind of minds would blame the girl for her drinks, I still need to go a long way to understand.
And is a connection of woman with sex wrong? It is not wrong. It is as right as the connection of sex with a man. Our patriarchal society, however, has magnified only her as almost the synonym of sexual behaviour and that is where it goes wrong. If today you are allowed to believe her clothing arouses your desire, tomorrow you may also find her breathing provocative in nature. If you think I am being sarcastic and not practical at all, let me tell you the degree by which the blame-game keeps going further and further.
In Iran, wearing heel sandals are not allowed. That tick-tock sound of a woman passing by, arouses men at work. In Arab, a woman cannot hang her wet clothes in the balcony of her house. The thought that she was inside those clothes which now came out of her, arouses the man. In Bangladesh, a woman cannot ride a cycle and peddle to her destination. That action of her thighs going up and down are said to be very inviting in nature.
Sadly, Ivan Pavlov hasn’t told us how he finally relieved the dog after the experiment of its connection. But the common sense says, just how a connection is built, in the same way can it be broken. In the remaining half of the experiment if the bell was rung everyday but food not given with that, soon that dog will learn to de-associate the food and the bell connection.
Similarly, the more ‘used to’ you make your eyes to seeing a woman roam freely at night, in shorts, after a drink, with her own birth right and simultaneously pinch yourself every time you think ‘hence she is asking for it’, the faster you will recover of that ugly connection. The lesser you blame the woman and encourage in the society rather safety and freedom, the faster you will de-associate her sole existence with only sexual connection. And the lesser you hold her throat and decide her own life for her, the louder you will hear an ‘yes’ from her. And the clearer the ‘yes’ gets in our society from her, the lesser you would ever need to 'assume' her willingness from her clothes and behaviour.