Expressions – Bhagwad Jal Park

On a warm sultry afternoon in Delhi, the journalist “Vinay Rai” who has been responsible for initiating criminal action against Google and Facebook for displaying “objectionable content” suddenly noticed a little arrow pointing to the left at the top of his browser. He later told the media that he  never really looked in that area of the browser before. “It was a kind of blurry patch at the back of my mind”, he said. When he finally decided to click it, what happened changed his life.

Stunned over the miracle of the "Back" button

“It was a miracle”, he said visibly struggling to control his tears. “I just went back to the previous page – It was as if whatever I had been viewing simply… vanished! I never have to look at anything I dislike ever again.”

An emotional Vinay Rai later revealed to the media that for the past several years he had been forced to read whatever turned up on his browser screen simply because he didn’t know there was a back button. “It was horrible. You can’t imagine the pressure – the fear…I feel as if I’ve been liberated from a nightmare”, he said. “I never knew that you could simply… ignore the content on the page by pressing the back button. It’s like going back in time”, he said as a wide grin split his features. “I never have to live in perpetual fear of what’s going to show up in my browser!”

Asked about whether or not he would drop his case against Google and Facebook for objectionable, blasphemous content now that he knew he could merely navigate away, he said that naturally there was no need for concern anymore. “Of course I’ll drop my case. All this time I was angry because there was simply no way for me to know that I could shut out whatever I didn’t like. With this new ‘back button’ thing, I can finally take control of my life.”

But Vinay Rai isn’t done yet. His is a naturally generous and giving nature. He said he had several suggestions to browser makers. “The first thing to do is to make the ‘Back’ button more prominent”, he said. “I demand that browsers dedicate fully half the screen to a massive button displaying ‘Go back!’ in flashing red lights. It’s the only way to make sure that users get the concept of moving away from what they can’t bear to see.”

He also said he was starting an organization called the “Foundation for Awareness of the Back Button” (FABB) to educate those who might be in a plight similar to that of his own at the time. “I just know that there are millions out there like me – those who never understood the magic of what a ‘Back’ button can do. I want to spread the awareness.”

Asked about who he would educate, Vinay Rai said he had a long list to people, prominent among them being Kapil Sibal, the Darul Uloom Deoband, and a whole bunch of hardcore Hindutva types who objected to M F Hussain’s paintings. “I’m confident that these people have no idea that such an easy solution is available to them. I have to share in this fantastic discovery”, he said while hardly being able to sit still for excitement.

We’ve reached out to Google and Facebook for comment, but they seem to respond only in a state of stunned silence, mumbling something about “…only in India…”

In the past few days, I’ve been genuinely shocked by some people claiming that a woman “dressing provocatively” shares the responsibility for her rape. The logic seems to be, that women who dress skimpily intend to provoke. The rape is merely a consequence of that provocation. Therefore they are equally responsible.

I find this to be such a horrible travesty of the principles of justice, that I recoil in horror at the mere hint of such thinking. The implications are so grotesque, I cannot seriously believe that any intelligent person supports it after thinking it through to its very end.

Astute readers will realize of course that in reality, women are raped because they are vulnerable – not because they “dress provocatively”. But to me, that is irrelevant. In a free country, a woman should have the right to dress however she wants with whatever intention – even if it is to provoke. In other words, even a complete slut should never have to “share the responsibility” for her rape. Just like an artist should have the right to paint whatever they want no matter how offensive it seems to other people without the fear of physical retaliation.

Arguments like this showcase a fundamental misunderstanding of the principles of justifiable reaction. While arguing with a blogger over this, this was my response:

It’s a well-established principle of jurisprudence, that the reaction to something must be concomitant with the action. In other words, if I prick you with a pin, you have no business retaliating with a grenade launch. If you DO throw a bomb at me for pricking you with a pin, you will find very little sympathy by claiming to be “provoked” by me. You will be rightly punished and condemned for doing so without an ounce of leniency.

And this is why your claim that a woman holds responsibility for her rape is so utterly hollow. No woman, or indeed no person, can share the responsibility for the reaction that is so outrageously disproportionate to the action. The act of physically violating a woman is so ludicrously out of whack with the “provocation”, that I have difficulty believing whether you’re actually serious or not. But based on what you said, I have no choice but to believe that you are indeed serious.

I hope you can see now how illogical your stand is and how grotesquely it mutilates the very concept of fairness and justice.

And for the benefit of those who “just don’t get it”, here is why physically violating a woman can never be a justifiable reaction to her dressing – no matter how provocative it is.

Let’s assume that the woman by her skimpy dress, has “provoked” you (Apparently this happens to some men, though never to me, and never to any friends of mine. But it seems there are some semi-animals among us who think otherwise). If you view this provocation as an attack upon you, what responses are comparable to the provocation? Let’s see, you can (surprise) WALK AWAY! In other words, you have the power to distance yourself from the “provocation” and from the “harm” that you perceive. It is entirely within your power to remove the source of your affliction. On the other hand, you can retaliate in kind. You can wear whatever sexually provocative dress YOU want to wear and repay her in the same way! If worse comes to worst, you can simply be rude to her, ignore etc. ( though that kind of makes you a jerk). Bottom line: all of these reactions are in some way comparable to the “offense” that she has given you by her clothing.

But when you touch her without her permission, molest her physically, or try and rape her, you cross a line. You cross that line whenever you turn physical. And why is physical retaliation “crossing the line”? Because unlike mere “provocation”, one cannot just walk away from a physical assault. So while every single man on the planet has the capability to distance himself either physically or mentally from the “provocation” of a woman because of her dress, a woman – or anyone for that matter – doesn’t have the same freedom in the case of a physical transgression.

So I hope you understand this now. Why no woman can ever be accused of “sharing responsibility” for her rape. It’s because rape and molestation are physical attacks which a person cannot simply walk away from unlike any other imagined offense in your head she may have given you.

So can we please STOP with this “she asked for it” and “it’s her fault” bullshit now?

Dear Andhra DGP,

Well I had to say it, so here it is. I’m a slut. Have been one for several years. I’ve had sex with not just one man, but many! I enjoy choosing whom I want to have sex with. This means weeding out all the useless lowlifes and selecting only those with whom I can have a great time.

I also dress accordingly. I wear the skimpiest clothes possible, without breaking any obscenity laws :-). I show my cleavage, the outline of my panties, bare my shoulders, and let down my hair. None of this useless covering business for me! The purpose of my clothes, is to accentuate what I don’t show. I want you to imagine what I’m hiding. I enjoy being stripped by men’s eyes. It’s the unwritten law of the jungle after all – if I wear something sexy, men have a right to look…the keyword being look. Not the same as scarily ogling mind you!

As a self-proclaimed slut, I get a lot of attention. Quite a lot of it is from roadside romeos. But I can handle it… as long as it doesn’t turn physical. And that’s the point of this little confession. A lot of you out there seem to think that it’s okay to touch, when it’s not. Hey, if I don’t want to sleep with you, I’m not going to! There’s nothing you can do about it. I – and only I – decide whom to sleep with. Don’t feel bad now.

My body doesn’t belong to you, it belongs to me. I’m proud of it – so I show it. How would you like it, if I told you to cover up your fancy new car so that others won’t feel jealous? Or not to cook tasty food because those outside might “lose control” with the wonderful smell and can break into your kitchen? Or advise shops not to display their wares because someone might “lose control”? You get the idea don’t you?

Besides, I’ve always thought that the stupid notion of “control” was a red herring. Come on you guys, you know jolly well that you have full control over what you do. As a slut, I expose my scantily clad body to hundreds of men every day. Only a very small, tiny percentage of men have ever tried to go beyond just looking. So trust me, I know. It’s not in “men’s nature” to lose control whenever they see a woman like me. If it was, I would be assaulted by almost every single guy I ever met!

And is it a a coincidence, that no well protected woman ever gets raped? I mean, it’s basic logic right? If guys “lose control” when they see me, they should try and touch regardless of how much protection I have. That’s what “lose control” means after all doesn’t it? It means that you don’t weigh the pros and cons of your actions – the “con” in this case being the introduction to the sound of your arms being ripped off by my Salman Khan bodyguard :D

So dear, dear DGP.  I’m not going to sleep with you, cause I think you’re a loser. But guess what, my taxes pay your fucking salary and I expect results. I expect you to do your job, catch and punish those who dare touch me, and not make excuses for them, like you’ve been doing so far. The fact that sexual crimes are on the rise point to a failure on your part – not mine. I live in India. A free country. A country which guarantees me the right to do as I please as long as I don’t hurt anyone. And giving people eye candy, isn’t hurting anyone. I’ve yet to meet a man whose brain has gotten fried by seeing me sizzle! I don’t hit anyone, touch anyone, molest anyone, or abuse anyone. I’m doing my duty as a law-abiding citizen. I expect protection dammit.

So get off your ass and start protecting me!

Sincerely yours,
On behalf of sluts all over the world

As I was reading IHM’s blog the other day about how a 15-year-old girl got pregnant outside marriage, I found myself engaging in a tangential debate on the rights of men regarding accidental pregnancies. Now I have written extensively in the past about my support for equal rights of women. I never considered myself a “feminist”. For me, “human rights” are all that is needed. IMHO there’s no need to further divide it into “women’s rights”, “gay-rights” etc.

It seems a part of established custom that a man provide child support for his own offspring until they are adults. This makes sense – no mother should have to ever raise a child on her own when the man was equally responsible. But then I thought, what if the man never wanted a child in the first place? It seemed unfair to me that the woman at any time can decide to abdicate responsibility as a parent either by having an abortion, or by giving the child up for adoption. The man however, has no say in the matter at all after the woman is pregnant – a detail which can ruin his life.

I began searching around, and came across this article in “The Time” magazine regarding a man’s right to choose. Here is the case that exemplifies the problem:

Matt Dubay, a 25-year-old computer programmer in Michigan, was ordered to pay child support after his former girlfriend had a baby. He says he had made it clear when they were dating that he did not want to have children; she had said she couldn’t get pregnant anyway because of a medical condition. When she did get pregnant, he argues, she could have chosen to have an abortion. So shouldn’t he have a choice as well, about whether to support a child he never wanted to have?

Edit: I should note that the girl in this case openly admitted that the guy never wanted children and that she told him that she couldn’t get pregnant. The law is such that it’s irrelevant. The father is expected to pay child support regardless of intentions and protective measures.

Now I’m aware that a large number of cases where the father is ordered to pay child support deals with irresponsible behavior on the part of the man. Casually having sex, impregnating a woman and leaving is deplorable and I’m not saying there should be no consequences for the man whatsoever.

But laws are made for all people and for all situations. You cannot have a law that is unfair to even a small segment of the population. This is why well-written laws are replete with exceptions, and special situations which narrow down the scope and target only those whom it is meant to address. Having a blanket rule saying that all men should always pay child support for every child they have regardless of the situation is not a good law. Because it ignores situations where the child was truly “accidental” in spite of all precautions to the contrary.

As an aside, this is also why I’m against the draconian “dowry laws” in India. Many have said that the abuse of such laws is restricted to only a small segment of the population and since it benefits the overwhelmingly large percentage of women, the law should not be changed. In my opinion this is extremely myopic, unfair, and hurtful. We have the principle of equality before the law and the ideal of justice for everyone. Not merely justice for the majority. We should not tolerate a law which ignores even a small segment of people and is blatantly unjust to them.

Coming back, there’s no doubting that it is the woman who has to bear the direct consequences of pregnancy. I am in no way suggesting that the man should have veto rights over her decision to keep the child or not. It’s unthinkable that the law should force women to either abort or keep the baby under any circumstances.

I am saying however, that the man should have at least some rights over his legal parenthood. I’m not advocating a complete abdication of responsibility here. I would be in favor of the man paying the woman some form of compensation for an abortion since she is the one undergoing the mental and physical trauma. What I am not in favor of however, is equating a woman’s discomfort with an abortion to a man having to pay child support for the next 18 to 21 years of his life. The latter is more severe than the former.

We can go one step further. It’s possible that a woman doesn’t like the idea of an abortion. That it’s too mentally and physically exhausting. In this case, I think both the man and the woman should be able to decide whether or not they wish to give the child up for adoption. According to the law today, only a woman can make the decision to give the baby up for adoption. But once the child is born, doesn’t the father have equal rights to the hilt? I feel that the man should also have the capability to do the same. If the mother wants to keep the child, then she should have to pay for that luxury. Again, I’m in favor of the man providing a form of one-time compensation to the woman for all the inconvenience and trauma the mother undergoes.

As it stands right now, a man can only have sex if he is prepared to pay child support for the next 18 years if the woman decides to keep the baby. A woman on the other hand, can have sex in the full knowledge that she has a way out and that she never has to ruin her life to deal with a baby she never planned for. In legal principle therefore, a man can never have sex merely for pleasure alone. A woman can.

For example, my wife and I have decided never to have children. If however she gets accidentally pregnant one day and refuses to abort, I have no say in the matter whatsoever! I’m forced to be a father despite my wishes and am forced to pay through the nose – again despite my wishes. This ruins my life, my plans, and everything that I hoped for. Whereas my wife doesn’t have to live with the same burden.

Is this fair? Do you feel that Matt Dubay was unfairly treated in the example above?

Manageable can and never will be a “compensation” for rape. To claim otherwise, is to admit a deluge of illogical, outdated, and prejudiced assumptions. . . . → Read More: Marriage is not a “Punishment” for Rape!