When constable Michael Sanguinetti made the infamous statement on the contemporary emanation of female sexuality, he obviously had no idea as to what doors he had opened. A general demographic these days is people hear what they want to hear and filter out the things that they don’t understand or possibly don’t want to. We have reached the point where our thought process runs almost independent of practical logic.
Well for starters, I am going to refrain from commenting on the validity of the statement made by the unfortunate fellow, solely because I believe that every person has a right to voice his opinion based upon how he perceives a particular situation and the right to challenge those opinions should be reserved for people who have had a chance to understand where the other person is coming from. The contorted and distorted forms of reality that reach our ears through the ethically and morally challenged media these days should never serve as the groundwork for assessing someone’s intentions behind anything.
What I am going to do here is put my own mind into what has since passed and try to make sense of it all. The moment that the words fell into the ears of “feminists” Sonya Barnett and Heather Jarvis, they decided that enough was enough. In a bid to do something constructive, they at once set their sights on redeeming the image of the “slut” or the word itself, I am not quite sure which. They were quite vocal in their support of women who were proud of their sexuality and more often than not inclined to express this pride in the form of clothes that are barely there or by carving out a reputation of promiscuous behavior.
Indeed, I don’t think this warrants violent behavior towards the feminist practioners of this subculture without whom there would actually be a dearth of real meaningful representation from their sex.
I mean who thinks that baring one’s body parts is a typical example of attention seeking behavior; no one right? And who has a problem with women participating in sex for work or pleasure; I for one certainly don’t. I mean the whole point of the effort is to make sluttish behavior acceptable in the society. The problem lies herein. Positive and negative virtues have been clearly defined in the social dictionary long before our generation was even born.
So, wearing provocative clothes and promiscuity was considered degenerate before and it’s been the same since. But hey,However, it’s easier to change the perception of a whole people then than to modify a few habits of our own, right?. That’s because we as a civil society hold our principles dearer than anything else. The world will hereby know and understand what being a ‘slut’ really means and then go on to accept and maybe even love it. If not anything else, I love the relentless optimism.
Now comes the other aspect of this whole debate. I think what Sanguinetti unwisely tried to convey through his statement was that it might be possible for some men (stupid as they are) to misinterpret the intentions of sluts (mind you, I can utter the word without feeling any shame as the world has now been given that privilege); that a woman dressed to impress is not actually trying to impress anybody is a truth that our primitive brains can neither fathom nor believe. But then, that’s our fault.
This being said, I do not believe that women who dress this way are targeted any more than their more conservative counterparts. It’s no secret that men are drawn towards the physical attributes of women and often their hormones get the better of them. But wWe live in a civil society where we can’t just sniff each other’s asses and give way to whatever desires we may have. We are bound by the law to keep it in our pants. So, any man who decides to break the boundaries is either crazy or just plain criminal who will do it no matter how the woman is dressed or what her reputation is. No man is a saint but not all are serial rapists either.
So, it’s more a case of being at the wrong place at the wrong time for the victims, I guess.
What is noticeable is that the participants of the so called “SlutWalk” organized in Delhi a few days back, themselves felt that wearing clothes of minimal nature was not advisable to do. People trying to advocate something that they themselves can’t practice; not quite so rare either.
In conclusion, let us just contend with the inherent symbolism in the ‘S’ word for now and for once try to behave within social boundaries. It’s not that too much to ask I think.
PS: I know it’s almost illegal to take a stand on anything these days as long your opinion really counts. I feel fortunate enough not to have that distinction as yet.