uncovered meet
Though there has been a little commentary in some of our threads here, I have not made any mention of the whole “uncovered meat” statements by Sheikh Taj al-Din al-Hilali, the Grand Mufti of Australia (as an aside, how cool is that title? ‘Mufti’ just has a great ring to it.). And then today, we have this furore over a baptist minister who dared to express the opinion that the Mufti may have had a partially valid point:
leering at a woman in particularly tight or revealing clothing is wrong but so is dressing in a way that is known, even designed, to entice others to sexual desire
He goes on to ask the question whether provocative dress might be linked with sexual assault.
Whenever this issue rears its ugly head, I just can’t summon the outrage that seems to echo across the mainstream press. And I know that even daring to comment on these issues may well prompt some to outrage in turn. So I will try to speak carefully.
First, the issue here which both men are seeking to address is modesty of dress and behaviour as a moral issue. I can’t believe that anyone is surprised that a Christian minister advocates for modesty of dress and behaviour. I am certain that nobody is really surprised that a muslim leader does. I can remember as a child in primary school having wide-eyed discussions about the fact that people in far off lands think that our culture is incredibly immoral and immodest because of our revealing standards of dress.
Similarly, those feigning surprise that the issue of modesty of dress might be linked to sexuality can also drop the pretence. Of course the justification for advocating modesty (be it through non-revealing clothing or women’s headscarves) is sexuality. It is the logical justification for a religious system developing a particular attitude to dress.
Of course, the main objection to al-Hilali’s comments (and to Mr baptist minister’s) is that they go further than saying that modesty is a moral issue and sexually linked. They go on to say (or in the latter case imply) that immodesty of dress might be linked with sexual assault. Let me stop to say that the expression of this question is vastly different. The imagery used by al-Hilali is in and of itself offensive.
The reason for the outrage is clear - to suggest that appearance has a link with assault implies (so it is argued) that those committing assault don’t have responsibility for their actions, it suggests that (particularly) women are somehow at fault for being assaulted, it ignores the fact that rape is primarily an act of violence not sex etc etc etc. I don’t actually agree that these implications are necessarily inherent in the discussion, but I can see how people get there.
However, there is a problem with all of these objections. That is, if you can imagine a graph mapping a value for degree of provocativeness of dress versus degree of and incidence of sexual assault, then at some point on the scale there would be an interaction. Provocative or immodest dress would increase the risk for some types of assaults or assailants. Go and read one of the hundreds of forensic psychology books I have lining my bookshelves - certain types of dress and behaviour increase risk of assault. And deep down, we have to know that this is true.
Under the definitions used by most organisations, a construction worker’s wolf whistle is sexual assault if it is unwelcome or makes someone feel uncomfortable. I don’t think that many would seriously argue that appearance or dress has no effect on the intentions of a serial wolf-whistler.
Yes, I think that women have the right to dress however they please. Having said that, if a young woman chose to walk through the city naked, I reserve the right to call her an idiot. Indeed, after this week of watching inebriated young men and women on their way home from the races engaging in sexualised banter I wonder whether we have thrown the baby out with the bathwater in emphasising rights of sexual expression. Having the right to do something doesn’t mean it is always a good idea.
This is a view which is almost impossible to express though without being labelled sexist, reactionary or stupid. However, after writing this, I found someone who has expressed a similar opinion much much better than me in today’s issue of online opinion. So maybe you should skip everything I have written and go and read that.
November 13th, 2006 at 12:12 pm
I think this fits quite nicely here?
November 13th, 2006 at 1:10 pm
The heterosexuals don’t appear to have much perspective about this…so I think it’s time for those of us who bat for the other team to pad-up and walk out to the wicket on the issue.
When I see a skimpily-dressed woman….I experience..nothing.
When I see a rudey nude woman…I experience…nothing.
So it can’t be the woman’s fault, because if it was, homosexual men would be affected as well.
But we’re not, so it’s 100% the problem of heterosexual men, and 0% the problem of women.
And now..a completely random bible verse.
Song of Songs 8:8
“We have a little sister, and she hath no breasts: what shall we do for our sister in the day when she shall be spoken for?”
November 13th, 2006 at 1:18 pm
we are to dress modestly.
It appears that worldly concerns again outweigh Godly ones these days.
November 13th, 2006 at 1:21 pm
Lance I mostly agree with you - I would qualify that I think it is possible that gay men would sexually assault women. But it is clearly not 100% the problem of heterosexual men. It might be their responsibility, it might be their fault, but it is women for whom it is a problem.
November 13th, 2006 at 1:23 pm
Some things are worth saying.
Some things that are true aren’t worth saying.
Some things need to be said.
Its worth saying “Its a good thing to dress modestly, it doesn’t draw unwanted attention”
Its true that “People who dress slightly and provocatively draw attention to themselves, sometimes the attention of predators”, but its not worth while. Particularly if your a Muslim (yes the world is racist, live with it).
Leaders need to say “I respect you, but I don’t have to support you”
November 13th, 2006 at 1:46 pm
I respect you Gareth
November 14th, 2006 at 10:12 am
It will be interesting to see if the Australian will run the same kind of campaign against the baptist church! Came acroos the attached the other day and I guess dan you’ll be familiar with how barristers view the issue of dress.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/Skirting-the-issue/2004/12/03/1101923341682.html
November 14th, 2006 at 10:38 am
Alan, that case attracted a lot of comment at the time, for a tactical decision which most thought spectacularly unwise if nothing else. In that case, the implication was going even further - that the way that a person behaved and dressed several years after an alleged incident in a totally different situation could be impliedly relevant to her behaviour.
Technically he was looking to disprove her claims that she was a social wreck as a result of the assault. however, it wouldn’t be the first time such tactics were used - most memorably John Marsden tells a story in his biography about cross-examining a young victim of assault (on behalf of the defendant). It was in the 70s and he brought out in cross-examination that she was a lesbian, immediately tainting her in the eyes of the jury. How did he know? Well he had seen her in a gay bar.
November 14th, 2006 at 4:10 pm
” I would qualify that I think it is possible that gay men would sexually assault women.”
With great respect to the Grand Poobaah of Signposts….I think that’s about as likely as a vegetarian barging into Hungry’s and wolfing down a Whopper Double Beef with extra beef.
November 14th, 2006 at 7:50 pm
What abuoyt straight guys who rape other guys (last year on the Central Coast it happened -happens all t time in gaol - it is possible - though I’d be amazed if I ever read about it
November 14th, 2006 at 9:23 pm
Then they’re probably bi or straight.
If someone is devoid of any attraction to the opposite sex, that’s when they’re ‘gay’…(in my book.)
In talking with straight men, I’ve found most experience some form of attraction to other males at some point in their lives…It’s common..and it’s no big deal.
For that reason …I would doubt that Ted Haggard for example is ‘gay’ (’gay’ as I would define it - no attraction whatsoever to the opposite sex).
I mean…when you are ‘gay’…and BTW I am ‘gay’ (no attraction to the opposite sex whatsoever)….then I struggle to conceive of a circumstance where a ‘gay’ male would be in any way contemplating sexually assaulting a woman.
A bi man..yes..a straight man…yes…but a ‘gay’ man…..nope…I don’t buy it.
It’s about as likely as a gay man sexually assaulting an asbestos fence.
And in the unlikely event of a gay male sexually assaulting an asbestos fence, then I reckon the fence should take 0% of the blame for acting seductively towards the guy.
The maddie Baptist minister from Warrnambool would probably disagree…but…
November 14th, 2006 at 9:32 pm
Those asbestos fences can come on pretty strong…I’d find it hard to resist. I agree that given your definition (and it’s one I agree with) it is unlikely to the point of being impossible for a gay man to sexually assualt a woan…unless it’s Bromwyn Bishop, casue she does look like bloke…oh and Alexander Downer - cuase she looks a bit blokey too
November 15th, 2006 at 10:55 am
Lance, I think that the assumption you are buying into is that all sexual assault is sexual in nature. 9 out of 10 experts agree (sorry, got all ACA there) that most sexual assault is about power more than about sex.
You don’t think it is possible that a messed up gay man with a problem with some woman (or women in general) would seek to humiliate her by, say, penetrating her with a foreign object? That would be sexual assault, but has nothing to do with sexual attraction.
November 15th, 2006 at 11:30 am
This is the closest I can find…
“AN asylum seeker with HIV raped a girl of 17 and got another aged 14 pregnant — after winning permission to stay in Britain by claiming he was gay.
Sex beast Gabriel Vengesai, 45, lied that he faced persecution as a homosexual in his native Zimbabwe, a jury heard.
But all along he had a girlfriend. After duping officials, he preyed on the 14-year-old daughter of a woman he knew.
Evil Vengesai never told the youngster he had HIV. She went on to have his child, although miraculously mother and baby both escaped infection.
Cops arrested the monster only for him to be freed on BAIL. He then lured the 17-year-old to his flat in Aldershot, Hants, and savagely raped her.
Yesterday the maniac was caged indefinitely after a judge branded him a “serious risk” to the public.
Judge Tom Longbotham ordered him to serve at least 6½ years, declaring: “Your continuing presence is detrimental to this country and this court recommends your deportation at the end of your sentence.”
The 17-year-old, who suffered internal injuries as Vengesai brutally attacked her, faced the ordeal of giving evidence against him still not knowing if she had HIV.
It was only after a jury convicted him of rape that she got the all-clear.
Vengesai, who came to Britain in 1996, was also found guilty of having sex with the younger girl.
Judge Longbotham said it was only luck that Vengesai’s victims escaped infection. A report read out at Winchester Crown Court said of the brute, who shunned condoms: “Vengesai thinks he is entitled to sex as a male, and women need sex.”
The 17-year-old’s mum said after the trial: “This man came to Britain on the pretext of being a practising homosexual, who on arrival in this country was diagnosed as HIV positive.
“Upon release we would expect the immigration office to act quickly and deport this hideous man so he can do no further damage to the young girls in our communities.”
http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2006250621,00.html
If I can find a case of a real gay man raping a female, then I’ll let you know.
November 15th, 2006 at 12:04 pm
http://edu.searcheric.org/asbestos-education-2.html I’ve found a connection between homosexuality and asbestos - check out the links on the bottom of this page!!!
November 15th, 2006 at 12:57 pm
Proof that everything in the universe is inter-connected.
November 15th, 2006 at 7:39 pm
Thanks Dan for the background.One of the things which worries me about the whole issue,apart from going after Muslims by the press(talkback radio and The Australian) is that the whole focus is on women.Not a word about the role of men,either by the Mufti or the baptist minister.Perhaps there is hope with White Ribbon Day(25/11) with its focus on men in relation to violence and rape.http://www.unifem.org.au/index.cgi?tid=172
November 15th, 2006 at 10:34 pm
“If I can find a case of a real gay man raping a female, then I’ll let you know.”
Google up “Mary Stachowicz”
And then google up “Matthew Shepard”.
Then no longer ask yourself why.
November 16th, 2006 at 5:58 am
Googled - and yet no mention of a gay man raping a woman. The gay man mentioned killed and tortured Mary Stachowitz, a horrible crime - not due to the fact he was gay So Saint I’m left once again wondering what the hell it is other than your own bigotry that you’re advertising?
November 16th, 2006 at 10:39 am
Matthew Shepard will return you about 1.3 million hits. His horrific murder was portrayed by many as a gay hate crime. His trial gained notoreity when defense lawyers tried the “gay panic defense” that left gay activists and observers rightfully aghast. In death, Mathew Shepard has become a poster boy for hate crime legislation and whatever else. (However the idea this was a hate crime is increasingly being called into question).
Mary Stachowicz will return about 24600 hits. Mary was stabbed, strangled, and beaten, and then her body was stuffed in a crawl space under the floor of an apartment - by a gay man. The prosecution has indicated she was also raped. Presumably because Mary Stachowicz, a Catholic mother, told him he should stop sleeping with men and this reminded him of his mother or something so he went off into a rage. His defense, in tactics not unlike the defense used in the Shepard case, employed the politically correct: Anti-homophobe Panic Defense. I guess any outrage at that stupidity is now not allowed. Why is that?
THe same reasons why the chances of you hearing about gay men raping women: political correctness gone mad. Because gays are always the victims never responsible for anything but sweetness and light. Etc etc.
That gay men do rape women (and that most proponents of male rape are actually heterosexual men) is indicative again how much rape is more about power and rendering powerless. And it is indicative that all men and women sin.
And if me telling you that makes me a bigot, than I guess, that too, proves my point.
November 16th, 2006 at 11:03 am
Oh and before you respond, google up Gutierrez’s (Mary Stachowicz’s killer’s) conviction.
November 16th, 2006 at 11:10 am
And then wonder why if the most some newspapers could say is murder and “sexual assault“
November 16th, 2006 at 12:16 pm
Well, you learn something new everyday.
I didn’t think a gay person would have it in them to sexually assault a woman. Be a psychopathic murderer, yes, sexually assault a man, yes, but sexually assault a woman?
Well there you go.
As for the varying media coverage given to different crimes……if you try and work that out..you will go certifiably insane.
For example, why journalists are fixated on the Peter Falconio/Joanne Lees thing and the Dianne Brimble cases…just mystifies me..
I’ve also noticed that murders of housewives in Australia that result from domestics…don’t get anywhere near the coverage of the murder of a pretty young thing who was single and was presumably available….(eg..a nurse).
And Snowtown would have been a much, much bigger national story, if it had happened in Sydney or Melbourne, instead of South Australia.
I think what happens in the US..is because there are so many murders in so many states….an editor for a national news organisation plucks one out at random to highlight on a slow news day..and dumb journalists who can’t think for themselves go into ‘we haven’t got that story’ panic mode, and then competition develops to get the latest angle on the same story.
A good recent example of this here was the babies in Perth who had their feet tied together at a child care centre.
We kept offering the story to our national network and they weren’t the slightest bit interested..UNTIL…Sky News, on a slow news night, out of the blue, started leading with it.
Then the national network HAD to have it …and were pestering us to make sure we had the latest angle on it…whereas hours before they weren’t interested in it at all.
Do not underestimate the power of someone in a national news organisation to make a completely random news judgement about a story, and for that to start a media feeding frenzy….
Plus, I can remember the Matthew Shepherd thing was going around in the context of a debate in the US about hate crimes laws, so you can’t strip the story from its context at the time.
If the Mary Stachowicz story had happened today, then it would be more likely to get a run, because, of all things, the Ted Haggard saga
For the religious right though, to argue that they’re getting a raw deal in the random story stakes is just bullshit.
They got a pretty good run out of the Terry Shiavo case, which when you look at it..is just one example of a distressing and difficult decision faced by hundreds of families everywhere..every week.
Hot tip for young players, do not look to the media as representing what is important in the world.
As I’m writing this today, it’s a slow news day, so it’s a ripe setting for something that doesn’t deserve much coverage to be pounced on by bored journalists.
November 16th, 2006 at 2:23 pm
Lance - a gay man has no more or less immunity from sin than a straight man. Not even when it comes to rape- be it rape of a man, woman or child.
Something else consistently under-(or virtually non-)reported: domestic violence amongst gay and lesbian couples; lesbian on non-lesbian woman assault including rape. Yes even in little ol’ Oz.
All sin. All sorts of people commit all sorts of crimes. Sadly, sometimes even we Christians - although I would hope that we are under-represented in the crime stakes.
I agree with your assessment of media power and not looking to the media as representing what is important in the world much less what is really happening in the world - not unless you read from a variety of sources to piece together the story. The internet can be a positive tool in that sense as you yourself know.
Agreed, “hate crimes” were a hot topic around the time Matthew Sheppard was beaten and murdered in 1998 - partly fuelled by gay activists and media types who focussed on the fact Shepard was gay. Mary Stachowicz was beaten, raped, sodomised, murdered in 2002. But if you check the reaction on some of the discussion boards and forums, you will read some prize vitriole against Christians akin to saying she had it coming to her. No one seemed to start crying about hate crimes against Catholic Christians.
Personally I don’t care what people say, a rape is a rape, a murder is a murder and the killers have to be brought to justice; the danger with SOME activists stirring up the pot with regard to hate crimes is exactly what we have seen in the defenses advanced in both the Sheppard and Stachowicz cases: attempts at avoiding full responsibility for one’s actions, shifting blame on the victim, utter nonsense. Why so defense lawyers think they can get away with that sort of stupid reasoning?
That in one case that nonsense caused outrage and in another it was met with silence says something too, not just about the prevailing debates around the time (fuelled by media), political correctness gone mad, but also about “blind” justice.