Round - II

Read previous round here. Table of Contents here.

My point is that dressing in a so called modest way is not an effective precautionary measure against rape. This is amply demonstrated by the fact that the vast majority of rape victims in India were dressed in salwars, saris and even burkas and similar modest attire.

This is because the underlying motivation behind rape is not sex, but violence. It is a hate crime against women for possessing sexual agency.

As regards 'khuli tijori', the very phrase is lifted straight out of a Bollywood dialogue. Our entire culture is built around the objectification of women.

Finally, since you insist on talking about propriety, please remember that the so called provocative clothing is vetted by the contemporary standards of taste and fashion and thus by definition falls within the bounds of propriety. If any person were to exceed these boundaries, they would face social criticism and perhaps legal action (for indecent exposure). Rape is neither.

Reply:

I believe it may require careful research. Human behaviour has generally multiple determinants and those determinants themselves often interact in various ways. To refute any role for dress, I believe the following conditions must be shown to exist:

1. dress doesn't exercise any influence on the onlooker 
2. people are indifferent to cultural propriety of a dress 
3. people make no inference about other people on the basis of their dress 
4. category-based hate is not influenced by category-based stereotypes, especially regarding dressing, and 
5. dress cannot trigger unconscious motives in a person.

I am not sure whether researchers have carefully examined these conditions. Considering the attention people give to dressing, it appears intuitive to think that most of these conditions are unlikely to be met in real life.

Second, you still need to show that there is any culture anywhere in the world where certain category-related stereotypes do not exist. You need to also consider whether men are not objectified by the very same yard sticks. Are students not objectified when we grade them? Are people not objectified when we categorize them as BPL, APL, Middle-class or Rich? Are people not objectified when we consider them as contemporary or uncivilized? Are people not objectified when we refer to them by the positions they hold in their organizations? Are people not objectified when we categorize them as likable or disgusting? Please consider such questions and their whole ilk. If they make sense, then you are not raising a feminist question.....you are raising an existential question regarding how humans are and what they do.

Finally, I may like to draw your attention to one more fact. In the contemporary society, relationships with sexual overtones are getting privileged over other kinds of relationships. A college-going girl may feel offended if a boy calls her "Bahan ji" or a boy may feel awkward if a girl calls her "Bhaiya". Primary school children are also taking pride in having girl friends or boy friends. These ideas seem to reach rural areas as well through pervasive media. It is intuitive to think that sex-crimes may increase if much of the social discourse is revolving around it. Law cannot be a substitute to morality though morality is the last thing people want to think about these days. Indeed the problem is multi-layered and hence the solution also has to be complex.

Read the next round here.