That women should be free to wear whatever they wish (short of common law public indecency) is not debatable among civilised people. That alone does not help risk-averse women decide what to wear. We are legally free to leave our homes unlocked, our keys in our unlocked cars, our valuables on restaurant tables and our cellphones on park benches. We are free to walk alone in dangerous alleys, swim in treacherous waters, play with deadly snakes, and leap from cliffs. La joie de vivre, living on the wild side and sailing close to the wind do not legitimise crime. As Women’s Legal Centre lawyer Sanja Bornman observes: “To blame a woman’s outfit … is blaming the victim (and promotes) rape culture.”
Read Leon Louw’s latest column Zimbabwe First Lady’s rape stance defies logic which first appeared on BDlive today published by Business Day [subscription required]
Further excerpts
Rape, how to minimise it and what to do when it happens, like every perversion, is a complex matter. According to social science feminist Camille Paglia, rape is an innate male impulse. Yet it was a capital crime carrying the death penalty in SA and still does elsewhere in the pre-feminist “male dominated” world. According to Paglia, the ever-expanding definition of rape — to include what used to be lesser crimes such as indecent assault and sexual harassment — trivialises extreme and violent penetrative rape. Regardless of its definition or what victims wear, rape is unconscionably criminal.
. . . .
The reckless tempting of criminals does not make them innocent. It might, in extreme cases, allow mitigation of sentence. Regardless of real or alleged temptation, perpetrators, not victims, are blameworthy. Although that which is lawful is not always advisable, and freedom is our right to be wrong, justice and liberty entitle women, including Grace Mugabe, to wear what they wish.