CULTURAL ATTITUDES TOWARDS VICTIMS OF SEXUAL ASSAULT

The following article was written by me under a pseudonym ('Anissa') and posted on a popular Islamic website (IslamicSydney.com) some time back. It was meant to generate discussion about Islamic cultural attitudes towards sexual assault victims, but few members were willing to put forth so much as a peep. By way of background, it is perhaps worth mentioning that I have been banned from this particular website on several occasions, if for no other reason that offering a dissenting view. It purports to be 'liberal' in nature, but any person who intends to question dogma or archaic religious prescriptions is likely to be banned.

Anyway, hope this proves to be an interesting read. Prior to having a look-see, bear in mind that 'Anissa' was little more than a pseudonym alone. I wanted to put forth the persona of an intelligent, articulate and logical woman with an Islamic background, who had long given up on her faith on account of having 'reason' alone. The backlash 'she' received provided one hell of a show.

Cultural Attitudes Towards Victims of Sexual Assault

Last night I received a phone call from a friend of mine mentioning how a young man undertaking a Masters in Psychology had recently approached her. The meeting resulted in her being presented with a lengthy questionnaire seeking to address her personal attitudes towards rape victims. The bulk of questions focussed squarely on the issue of whether the woman - in particular circumstances - may be said to shoulder some of the responsibility/blame for the act of 'sexual intercourse without consent' - ie rape.

Earlier posts of mine have shed some light on the importance that Islam places upon 'modesty'. To the chagrin of many, I have went on to say that certain 'Islamic persons' often construe a covered Muslim woman as being of higher moral fabric than one who chooses to dress in say a midriff top and a miniskirt. Although my memory fails me at this point, I may have mentioned the inherent logical flaw that such a generalisation indulges in. Namely, the old adage that 'one ought not to judge a book by its cover' is completely done away with. Actually, this may not be entirely true. Physical appearance by way of dress is a much different creature from physical appearance as resultant through biology. With respect to the former, one may argue that a grown man walking down Pitt Street sporting a leopard skin g-string may well be profiled as a 'chap of dubious moral fibre'. But then again, I tend to formulate my perceptions of others based primarily on whether or not they have the capacity and/or inclination to cause unwarranted harm to others - and not necessarily whether they engage in extramarital sex, illicit drug-taking and partying etc.

Within my personal circle I hold dear a number of professional women who - in spite of dressing professionally - wear clothing which does draw attention to their female form. In exercising regularly and taking great care of their physical selves, some of these women do in fact seek to attract attention. Having said that, one must distinguish between the attraction which is sought and that which is not. They are definitely not seeking to be raped so one cannot argue that - by dressing provocatively by Islamic standards - they were 'asking for it' once the sexual assault is occasioned. Rather, it remains a well-known fact that physical attraction is often the first point of attraction as far as relationships are concerned. Although this sounds dreadfully superficial, it is simply a reality of life which most people do not perceive as being an inherent social evil leading to breakdowns in family relationships etc. Such blatant scare mongering would do little to detract any sane person from some of the more salient issues sought to be raised in my posting.

Under existing laws rape can occur when (i) a woman refuses to consent to sexual assault outright; and (ii) the man does not 'withdraw' during the act of sexual intercourse when asked to do so by the woman. Some men - irrespective of their religious affiliation - see the latter position as somehow being incredulous. It 'blows their minds' that a criminal act can be said to occur in the mere seconds following a woman's request to 'withdraw' even where the sexual act has already commenced. It must be borne in mind that, in dealing with sexual assault, we are not dealing in so-called matters of practicality. For example, how can any man be expected to withdraw at a point when he is only moments away from orgasm ? Would that not amount to some kind of 'cruel and unusual punishment' ? (Little attempt at humour there ..)

The key issue is quite simply that of consent. If a woman chooses to walk down a dark and deserted alleyway stark naked she is not inviting rape. She has NOT consented to the act of penetration and this point should never lose its clarity when clouded by futile debates over 'wrong place, wrong time, wrong choice of clothing, along, unaccompanied by big strong male for protection etc'.

The attacker's own culpability with respect to a sexual assault matter should never be removed from the wider picture. Islam seems to place a great deal of emphasis on the modesty of a woman as a means of protecting not only herself but also men from being 'tempted'. In doing so, it falls into the trap of perhaps attributing blame - through the medium of moral culpability - to a woman who is raped in a seemingly 'blameworthy' scenario. That is, provocatively dressed, inebriated, alone in dangerous place and unaccompanied by a suitable protector etc. Such views do little to advance the cause of women's' rights and almost everything to displace 100% physical, moral and emotional culpability on the attacker.

Does anyone remember the words of Yasuo Kakuda, the chief cabinet secretary of the Japanese Parliament? Some months back he appeared to comment that women who dressed provocatively were 'really asking for it'.

"If you walk around, there are many of them. Many who have a provocative appearance. Those who have that kind of appearance are at fault. Because men are black panthers."

Worse still, he alluded to men in general as being 'black panthers' - thereby insinuating that men are somehow driven by primeval or perhaps animalistic urges, with such a state being in the natural order of things. At some stage or another we all have to take responsibility for who we are - human beings with the ability to reason and rationalise. People need to take responsibility for their own actions and it shall be a sad day when a man can somehow escape and/or reduce his culpability in a sex crime by seeking to argue the alleged shortcomings of his masculinity.

Kakuda's comments appear not to be uncommon and have been complimented by the moronic comments of other leading Japanese politicians. Japan is by nature a patriarchal society although women are gradually beginning to assert dominance in both the workplace and at home. Such anomalies appear to be 'culturally' guided and not necessarily motivated by some particular faith. With Islam, however, the situation is markedly different.

Earlier this morning I perused an Islamic website (www.jannah.org) to attempt to better understand the role of 'Hijab' in the daily life of a pious Muslim woman. The arguments propounded were nothing new and indeed appeared to constitute yet another rehash with buzzwords like 'liberation', 'purity', 'chastity', 'virtue' etc. As stated by a friend of mine, Islam appears to guard the chastity of Muslimahs with greater fervour than Israel guards its nuclear arsenal. In contrasting the so-called Islamic standard with 'Western values', the following statement was provided:

"What a contrast with Western fashions which every year concentrate quite intentionally on exposing yet another erogenous zone to the public gaze! The intention of Western dress is to reveal the figure, while the intention of Muslim dress is to conceal [and cover] it, at least in public."

Comments such as the above are precisely what serve to further alienate Muslims in western countries. In a recent cultural exhibition at Darling Harbour, I was treated to the spectacle of four Muslim women - in full Islamic garb - sporting blonde wigs and mimicking what they believed to be 'western excesses'. When exposed to such a blatant exposition of the 'us and them' mentality, it is no wonder that a great many Muslims attribute a lesser moral standard to a woman who chooses to expose her 'feminine form' through tight-fitting or revealing clothing. Indeed, some would go so far as to say that such women are 'asking for it' when they get sexually assaulted through no fault of their own. It sickens me that I even have to add the qualifier of 'through no fault of their own' as a means of further clarification. The simple phrase 'sexual assault' should imbue the reader with an understanding that consent was lacking.

In addition, the allusion to 'western fashions which every year concentrate quite intentionally on exposing yet another erogenous zone to the public gaze' is laughable. The mind boggles as to just how zones a Muslim male might label as 'erogenous' with respect to a woman's body. Research conducted by a friend of mine - concentrating on male/female sexuality and arousal - noted that certain men (especially those living in Iran, Saudi Arabia et al) would be sexually aroused by the sight of an exposed wrist. Women in those parts of the world would be advised to wear a G-Shock on either wrist to prevent the possibility of inadvertently arousing a male's sexual desires. Ohhhh .. what a ravishing wrist you have sister!!

DO not for a second believe that I have little or no grasp of some of the altruistic arguments favouring the Hijab. It is true that women living in western countries face an almost comical level of pressure to be attractive. The cover of any woman's magazine as well as its contents supports this assertion. However, the fact remains that there is no moral distinction placed between a woman who goes to great lengths to appear beautiful and one who does not. Anomalies do occur, such as one woman being preferred for a position owing to her looks alone. However, these discrepancies are not brought about through the exercise of any particular religion and/or belief system. Under Islam, a woman who chooses to cover herself is describes at great length as being chaste, virtuous, pure and pious. This 'admiration' is to the exclusion of any woman who chooses not to wear the Hijab or dress with modesty.

Believe it or not there do exist women who wish to dress provocatively as a means of exerting their sexual power. Although this may be an invitation to admire - albeit with some discretion - it does not extend into an invitation of the same nature as a coupon allowing you to partake in an RSL buffet. Is there anything wrong with a person engaging in such behaviour ? Admittedly, it's rather sad that - whilst most women will be drawn to a well-dressed, groomed and heeled gentleman - the gentleman in question may be attracted primarily to a 'nice rack' and a 'butt you can bounce quarters off'. Both forms of 'attraction' have a layer of superficiality but so what? No-one is being harmed and both persons remain well in control of the decisions they make and the conduct in which they engage - whether it is flirting or a more intimate liaison.

Speaking as an intelligent and perceptive woman, I am often aware when a man is interested in me primarily because of my appearance as distinct from my personality. This much can be gauged from either body language or by the frequency of compliments which go towards looks as distinct from character. Having noted this, it is high time that society dispensed with the view of women as being 'chicks' - small, fluffy animals which are lacking in substance and have the tendency to fall prey to stealthy 'chicken hawks'. Really, such abject generalisations not only demean us but encourage even further 'predatory behaviour' among men who assume all women to be gullible creatures easily swayed by flattery.

Earlier in this piece I stated that - when seeking to judge people - I was more concerned with their capacity and/or inclination for harm. With this in mind, I was rather taken aback when I saw the lack of sympathy my mother recently expressed upon having heard the news of a prostitute's brutal rape in the Darlinghurst area. This particular lady happens to hold some 3 separate degrees and, in gauging her reaction, I saw that a decent education is not necessarily a precursor to someone developing a more sophisticated sense of compassion and/or empathy. I reminded my mother of how brutal the act of rape can be. Some people think that simply because a woman is a prostitute, she will somehow be less emotionally and/or physically distressed following a sexual assault. Strangely enough, I cannot quite remember my mother's reply. It will suffice to say that it was something less than memorable. Little more can be expected of someone who believes that all human beings should live according to the stringent codes laid down in the Quran and Hadith. Simple minded person, simple minded response ..

As with most mammals a woman needs to be ready for the act of sex to take place. In addressing the men of this forum, imagine if you have an object measuring some 6-7 inches (average) thrust into your anus. Severe bruising and trauma would result. Sensitive blood vessels in your colon would rupture instantly. Your sphincter muscles would contract thereby eliciting even greater pain. It's not that much different for a woman either. The experience is traumatic irrespective of who you may be. The fact that a woman is perceived as being lacking in chastity, purity, religion or otherwise does not serve to dampen the emotional and physical pain she feels by any margin whatsoever.

Exclusion ... this is what religion is all about. People from groups such as 'Interfaith' never tire of arguing that the world's major religions all have a 'common thread' - tolerance, peace and submission to God, charity etc. If ever we need a shining example of a concerted effort to exercise political correctness this would be it. PeeCees at their finest.

"A young woman decides to walk home alone following a late party in Darlinghurst. She lives alone in a studio apartment a few hundred metres away from the club that she has just frequented with a number of friends. She is slightly drunk, inebriated to the point that her thoughts and physical actions appear muted. Further, she is dressed in revealing clothing - a short skirt and a midriff top which exposes her stomach and cleavage. She also has a heavy layer of make-up on plus a 'glitter balm' which lends an almost shimmering quality to her face, neck and shoulders. On the way home she is accosted by a male and brutally raped."

How many of you think that - with respect to the aforementioned scenario - the woman shoulders some of the responsibility and/or blame for what has occurred? Keep in mind that it is one thing to 'assume risk' in the context of undertaking a hazardous sporting activity (eg mountain climbing) and another to 'assume risk' in choosing to walk home alone in circumstances as the one described above. With respect to the latter case, some may argue that the woman in question was 'inviting rape' on account of having - inter alia (ie amongst other things) - dressed 'provocatively'. With respect to the former scenario you're assuming responsibility for (i) your own actions; and (ii) any contingency which may arise (eg bad weather, loose rocks, frayed rope). You do NOT assume responsibility for the actions of a 'human being' who is unable to control his/her desires to the extent that a criminal act eventuates. The same SHOULD be true for the latter although some people would beg to differ. Unlike a mountain, the said human being has the ability to decide whether or not to 'attack'. With this in mind, how can it possibly be said that the woman in the aforementioned scenario is 'also to blame' ?

She took a risk and paid the price. Without doubt that is the reply some of you shall deal my way by means of an answer. In previous discussions I have been given the analogy of someone who 'stares' at another person in public - thereby provoking a heated response. Is the situation, which I've illustrated above, any different?

Yes, it is. Even is one assumes the risk of walking down a perilous alleyway dressed in sexually alluring clothing one does not seek to 'invite rape'. The central issue is one of consent and this distinction differentiates clear-headed individuals with moralistic, dogmatic nutcases. The extent to which the latter view is commonly entertained is cause for some concern. Amongst Islamic societies, this rather ham-fisted perception of rape victims is visibly apparent. The question of what triggers such archaic attitudes is a subject of further debate still. In looking towards religions values and/or morals some understanding may be fostered.

Under certain faiths a culture may be said to arise under which a woman is seen as better dead than defiled. Although I have limited knowledge of the position under Christianity, this statement is very definitely lent support by certain Islamic and Hindu societies. In both instances fathers and brothers will pursue and kill daughters or sisters for disobeying or being forced to disobey their cultural/religious rules. In measuring a woman's worth depending on whether she is a virgin, a mother, has sex inside or outside of marriage, is called a spinster, slut or a whore, has ten children or is childless, is still evident in many ways. Indeed, women are expected, if not outright encouraged, to feel guilty, sullied, dirty and worthless when they have been raped. As stated earlier, victims are often said to be 'inviting rape' if they wear 'provocative' dress. With such views in mind it is no wonder than most Muslims feel the headscarf and/or all-encompassing burkha to be some kind of 'defence mechanism' against sexual assault.

Why should I, as a woman, drastically alter my mode of dress in order to ensure that men are at ease in not being tempted in some 'un-Islamic' manner ? Why should restrictions be placed on my conduct simply because of the weak will of another ? Most importantly of all, should I be judged as a 'bad person' simply because I choose not to dress modestly from the point of view of a Muslim ? In doing something as simple as walking through Burwood Westfield I am aware of the disapproving glances cast at the numerous young women in hipster jeans, midriff tops etc. The 'daggers from the eyes' are mostly thrown by elderly Muslim women who are doing their grocery shopping or whatever.

At what point does a woman's chose of clothing throw her into the slut, whore, skank category ? These very words exist as a means of demeaning and denigrating women owing to their conduct in everyday life. Why are there so few comparative words denigrating men in a similar fashion? On more than one occasion I have been face to face with a man whose jeans are so tight that each testicle is left precariously devoid of the other's company by a very attached zipper.

Religion is obsessed with notions of purity which, for the better part, appear to place as heavy an emphasis on 'keeping up appearances' as a person's mental character and/or spiritual development etc. If this does not trigger out and out prejudice, I do not know what does. Going back to the scenario of the Lebanese gang rapes, let it not be forgotten that one of the culprits remarked to his victim that: 'We are doing this because you're Australian'. As much as I hate to bring this up, I wonder whether similar conduct would have accrued to a Muslim woman sporting a headscarf.

Under Islamic culture, the attitude to rape and raped women appears to have been covered by one of the 'great' monotheistic, male dominated religions. In worst-case scenarios, one can easily refer to a number of 'Muslim nations' where a raped woman has been arrested and sentenced to death by stoning for adultery! - Anissa