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?
No one has right to rape any women ,even if she is naked ,that is law of the land ,a prostitute can not be raped ,such statement made by any body is rubbish and lacks common sense or legal sense.
http://legalgensis.blogspot.com
” The woman trusts you – which is why she’s willing to engage with you in an intimate sexual act.”
If she is willing to engage with you in an intimate sexual act and you show your willingness too and begin to engage in that act
and then she cries ” rape ” !
is this being fair to you ??? of course she must share responsibility…
In reply to tp
She might not want to go all the way. And since its her body, her rights have to be respected.
In reply to tp
The woman would be a jerk that she stopped you in the middle of the act but not an offender
What about the mans rights ? after being aroused provocatively and then to be accused of sexual assault ? all this is very dicey. what does one mean by ” all the way ” ? maybe there should be a conversation before all this starts to define where one stops ? a written agreement perhaps.
i really do see so many virtues in the burqua. if a woman wants to take no risk with her body, she should cover it up. nature has provided so much subtle charm and beauty in a woman. the way she looks at you could say it all ! she could be covered from head to toe in a burqua but her eyes could be inviting. the burqua would however tell you many things. mainly, ” my body is for my husband alone; i might flirt with you, but hands off ”
a woman dresses provocatively, because it makes her feel good. she likes to feel that she is attractive. if this is her feeling, dont you think that men will find her attractive too ? they might look and hide their feelings. but if she then provocatively arouses him and he wants to have sex with her and she is willing to engage with him in an intimate sexual act ( what is she then trusting him about ? ) she is willing; he is willing – i cant see the problem.
” The woman trusts you – which is why she’s willing to engage with you in an intimate sexual act.” this sentence doesnt make sense – to me. when you say ” she is willing ” it means she wants it.
In reply to tp
A woman might be willing to make out and yet not want to actually have sex. It happens all the time. Perhaps she’s not yet comfortable with the idea of sex but doesn’t mind cuddling up.
Are you saying that a woman doesn’t have the right to want that? That whenever she kisses a man she has no choice but to have sex with him?
No man has the right to rape a woman no matter how much he “is aroused” or “is provoked”.
Instead of wearing a burqua to signify “hands off”, why can’t the woman just tell the guy instead? And why are we even discussing the burqua here?
In reply to bhagwad
On a different note. We should work towards making IPC 375 gender equal. Last I checked rape was only against women. There is no mention of men in it. So I put up the question again in a different context, “What about men’s rights?”
In reply to Piyush Mishra
a couple of years ago a bollywood actor was accused of rape. his wife, who never doubted him for a second, stood firmly beside and behind him; she accused the woman of raping him. its possible.
In reply to tp
We’re not talking about situations where a woman is telling a lie. We’re talking about circumstances where the man and the woman are telling the truth and the man says that “he was provoked”.
In reply to tp
Read IPC 375. You can accuse someone of it. but legally it is not possible
In reply to bhagwad
when you say
” no man has the the right to’ rape ‘ a woman ‘ i agree. but consensual sex is not rape. she provokes him into having an intimate sexual act ( unless you mean that the word ‘ intimate ‘ means just kissing which she doesnt bother to spell out at the start ) and then cries foul. that is why i said its better ( not better imperitive ) for the woman to make things clear to the man about exactly what shes up to.
i’m talking about the burqua because wearing one sends out the message loud and clear. hands off; my body is to be used by my husband alone. theres no question of provoking a man with an exposed body and all these problems are minimised. i like the burqua concept.
if i dress attractivly and flaunt my body and then get raped, i would blame myself. thats me. period
In reply to tp
How can a man assume that a woman wants to have sex and not just kiss? A woman might be willing to kiss and even indulge in oral sex but might not want actual genital penetration. This happens pretty often.
At every stage, the man has to ensure that the woman is giving him permission by not resisting. The burden is on him since he is (presumably) stronger.
Your logic about blaming the woman might be valid if rape was committed by a force of nature or some wild animal. For example, if you don’t look where you’re going and walk into a tree you have no one but yourself to blame.
But rape is not committed by mindless circumstance, animals, or the wind. It’s committed by human beings who have to take responsibility for their actions. So the woman can NEVER be blamed, because SHE didn’t commit the rape. Someone else CHOSE to.
In reply to bhagwad
again. we’re going round in circles. we are not, in this particular discussion, talking about a poor helpless innocent woman who is dressed decently and is not looking for sex and then gets penetrated – that IS rape and HAS to be condemned.
this discussion centers round two people who agree to consensual sex. now what does this mean ? just cuddling, kissing, fondling or going the whole way ? if a woman is really not interested in a man she wouldnt let things get to a point when he would want to go all the way. she IS interested and should make it clear to him about how far she would like to go AT THE START. that would be fair to the man. agree, he is physically stronger, but once his passions are aroused, he may not be able to control them. she should understand this and not cry ‘ rape ‘ !its a pity that women can take advantage of a situation like this and make it so very unplesant for a man. i dont think this happens often and we could let the discussion lie.
the true import of RAPE is in the first case and should result in the severest punishment.
In reply to tp
By any dictionary definition, sex means genital penetration.
You say “Once his passions are aroused, he may not be able to control them.”
I disagree very strongly with this. Men are not dogs who’re unable to “control themselves”. Human beings are expected to control themselves. If they can’t, then they go to jail without an ounce of leniency.
And why do you use the words “poor”, “helpless” etc. along with “dressed decently”? A woman can wear short, t-shirts etc and STILL be helpless when a man forces himself on her.
The final point is this. A man ALWAYS has control. It’s HIS choice to rape. Therefore it’s HIS responsibility alone.
In reply to bhagwad
when a woman wears shorts, tights, short tops etc she is doing so to express her sexuality. you are not a woman, so you might not know. this is but natural for a woman ( to want to express her sexuality ) for this is what nature has intended for her, by providing her with a smooth, shapely body, lovely hair, beautiful eyes etc, along with the female hormones that cause her to behave provocativly especially when she is ovulating. now one might argue, that she has A CHOICE about wanting to behave provocativly. well, she does. if she chooses not to, she might dress so as to not expose too much flesh and wear clothes that would not highlight her assets. she would not behave provocatively and try to attract the opposite sex and all this discussion would be irrelevant, because rape would be very unlikely. i would call her a sensible woman who knows exactly what she wants.
on the other hand if she chooses to exhibit her sexuality as nature has intened for her to do ( and natures aim is to propagate the species ) and a man is attracted to her and she encourages him to the extent of even having oral sex ( as you point out ), then i cannot understand why she should cry rape if the man goes all the way. i would think that this is a very stupid irresponsible woman, who doesnt know what she wants and has no consideration for other human beings and their feelings.
she does her best to get the man into bed – for what ??!!! probably to prove to herself that she is good enough to be able to get a man to want to sleep with her. i am a woman. ask me. God save men from this breed of women
In reply to tp
I’m not interested in the man’s feelings. It’s not a crime to hurt someone’s feelings.
A woman has every right to say STOP after oral sex and not want to go all the way. Her body belongs to her doesn’t it? It does NOT belong to the man, so what right does he have to do something to her body which she does not want?
At what point according to you, does a woman lose the right to call her body her own?
It’s a crime to use physical force to rape a woman regardless of the circumstances. And the woman shares no responsibility because the man makes the CHOICE to rape.
Blame must fall on the person who made the choice to commit the crime. In this case, the man. Why is this so difficult to understand?
In reply to bhagwad
whay is it not a crime to hurt someone’s feelings ? i think it is MORE of a crime to hurt someone’s feelings – emotional abuse can be WORSE than physical abuse. physical wounds heal faster than emotional ones :(
In reply to tp
Because what might hurt one person’s feelings might not hurt another’s feelings.
Because the amount of “hurt” cannot be measured. Anyone can claim that their feelings are hurt without any proof.
Because adults are presumed to be able to defend themselves against “hurt feelings” but not everyone can defend themselves against physical violence.
All these reasons make it impossible to criminalize “hurting someone’s feelings”. For a crime to exist in law, “harm” has to be proved in a consistent way for everyone. You can’t do that with hurt feelings.
Hurt feelings is a personal problem everyone has to live with. Physical violence is a crime punishable with jail time.
So once again, no one cares about how people “feel”. Only physical violence matters.
In reply to bhagwad
Emotional abuse cuts through to the core. For those who are more body conscious, physical abuse may be intolerable whereas for those who know that they are not the body, but are still under the delusion that they are their concepts, physical abuse does not hurt as much as emotional abuse; emotional abuse is intolerable. We read everyday about how so many comit suicide after emotional abuse, even if there has been no physical abuse.Even the new laws on divorce in India are being reframed to include emotional abuse. Many women accept physical abuse ( which would include rape ) as a one off thing, but when they are emotionally abused, they are left with no hope at all…
In reply to tp
But physical violence cannot be defended against. Anyone can just walk away from emotional violence.
The thing is anyone can claim to be “emotionally hurt” without any proof. Parents of girls who marry outside their village can claim to be “emotionally hurt” and use this excuse to even kill their daughters.
Even if someone reading what I write disagrees with me, they can find it offensive and claim to be “emotionally hurt” and file a case against me!
Laws have to be standardized for everyone. Harm has to be measurable. Do you believe I should go to jail for writing something that offends someone else? It’s very easy to be offended after all.
Adults are expected to deal with their feelings. They can’t cry to the law if their feelings are hurt. Every woman or girl who is dumped by their boyfriend/girlfriend will want to see their former partner put in jail then!
No one can expect the law to protect their feelings.
No one can just “walk away” from someone who’s hitting them. But every adult has the power to walk away from someone who’s emotionally hurting them.
Bottom line: The government cannot criminalize bad manners.
In reply to tp
Penetration = sex. If penetrated without consent, it is rape.
Definition of Rape :
1.Against her will
2.with out consent
3.with consent but obtained through fear of death or hurt
4.with her consent ,when man knows that he is not her husband,her consent given because she believes he is another man to whom she is or she believes herself to be lawfully married
5.with consent -unsoundness or intoxicated mind ,she is unable to understand the nature &consequences of that which she gives consent
6.with out consent ,she is under 16 yrs
*penetration is sufficient to constitute the sexual intercourse , for the offence of rape.
*The burden of proving of consent of victim is on accused person -S.C
*Past sexual history/ verbatim -“habituated to sexual intercourse” -“two finger vagianl test”, for determining the offence of rape is condemned as barbaric and humilation of women.
In reply to Ravi
As I said before, men can’t get raped technically by this definition… WTF
What do mean by ” men cant rape technically by this definition” handling rape cases is complicated issue,wome org. demanded only women prosecutors &women judges shld handle rape cases ,because of analogy ,that women understand rape victim better ,male judge tend to be male chaunist& instead of showing seriouness,may show casualness in dealing the case ,recently in kolkatta, women went to police station to report rape in moving car ,police asked “how she was gang raped in moving car “. Some of other tricky questions put to victim women :”what you were doing at 11 P.M” Why made you take lift in the night or how did you trust a stranger ” ” How can he remove your tight jeans with out your cooperation “…………so on What human rights activist say police &judges should be sensitised how to handle rape cases ,not to humilate them by asking senseless questions.
In reply to Ravi
First, read what I wrote before jumping to conclusions, you read what you wanted to read rather than what I wrote.
Second, what is senseless about asking questions?
I am not saying that no judge is biased in favour of men, there are all sorts of people in this world and a biased judgement can be challenged and stereotyping here is so ignorant.
If a judge doubts that the woman is merely “crying rape” and was not raped, like a consensual sex which went sour the next morning, the judge can and should ask her specific questions about it. To act otherwise is to be biased in favour of the woman. Have you come across the term “cry rape”?
I do understand that some of the questions can be daunting or demeaning and irrelevant. We have to ensure that we work towards solving them but the gross generalization of male judges is so wrong and gives way more power to the “victim” even before the allegation has been proven.
Eg: If a judge favours the victim and takes their word for it, its all ok but if a judge doubts the victim, he is being biased?
Isn’t that reverse patriarchy and a bias? A bias is a bias irrespective of whom you put it to, it does not make you more moral when you say this unlike feminist writers would have you believe…
Mr.Piyush Mishra ,the points I raised were legal definition,Supreme Court opinion,Women’s commission recommendations , amnesty international views,Ministry of Health direections ,I dealt rape cases & saw rape trials .No women will come out openly &say; I was raped, in our society ,it requires lots of courage for women to say ‘ I was ravashed or ruined ”,because victims has to think consequences like not getting partner for marriage ,even parents will ask daughter keep quite,it is matter of family prestige , cases of false rape are very rare, when compared to genuine rapes.If women is making false charge ,then there should be extraneous reasons.But it rarely happens in poor and middle class people , who constitute 95% of the population. Most men think women are commodity to be enjoyed,they carry biased opinion by their mental make up.
Mr Bhagwan has raised valid legal points,I’m trained to think legally,I’m replying blog’s subject with objectivity,I’m neither feminist or male chauvinist. I’m making points basing on experience and knowlegde.
In reply to Ravi
For a legally trained person, you are too preoccupied and biased if you can’t tell the difference between “get raped” and “rape”. I know IPC 375 and I was raising a point which is up for a change since the year 2000 I think. Men getting raped is an equally important issue. The worse thing is that society is accepting and sympathetic to women getting raped more and more while laughing off man molestation. Double standards suck and you do too if you maintain them.
Cases of “cry rape” are increasing all over the world and that is where we are headed for smart and biased people like yourself. Jumping from one problem into another is not going to solve anything, it will just shift the misery.
I call you biased not because of what you are trying to say, I agree with that completely. I call you biased because you just went over the text I wrote and assumed it to mean what you think “most men” in this country think. I call you biased because in an attempt to neutralize the world, you are acting on another extreme…
Read up IPC 498a and check the trend in cases around it then come up with the straight face that you just did with 375. Its going down that road and that if as a country we can’t learn from other cultures to protect our citizen as equals, it is our gross failure irrespective of gender and numbers.
In reply to Piyush Mishra
What exactly are you guys debating about?
In reply to bhagwad
Apparently, “men can’t get raped technically by this definition” is the same as “men can’t rape technically”
Also, having women judges in rape cases will help get a real judgement because they can understand the victim better and that male judges are casual about such cases and a woman judge won’t be biased.
This is a clear bias in my opinion. If you replace a bias with an opposite bias, it is still a bias. That is my side of the argument. Down this path, few years from today, we’ll have the same situation from the opposite direction.
IMHO, we should be working to make judges (male or female) more strict about the law and avoid getting emotionally biased to either party.
Mr Bhagwad I gave only legal definition of rape &procedure of rape cases and my friend Mr.Piyush diverted topic to some where else i.e man rape from women rape,now debating he is 498-A is being misused.There is no law for man rape or cry rape so far ,as far as my knowledge goes.I don’t understand, what he wants to prove ,may be he wants say man can be raped and harrassed,now he wants law should amended to include man rape 376 [M-male rape ] and man cruelty[489-B],he can present his case before law commission and law ministry for appropraite and suitable amendement ,so end of debate .
In reply to Ravi
huh? by that criteria, you should be respecting the law as it is and stop speaking against male judges. end of a stupid debate
So I landed from somewhere.! Maybe this post happened after the gurgaon case.! keep up the good work, was blog rolling you, so thought would hop in.!